Letter to the Editor: End Deforestation Before Embarking On Tree-Planting Campaigns

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

END DEFORESTATION BEFORE EMBARKING ON TREE-PLANTING CAMPAIGNS

It is difficult for environmentalists not to respond with scepticism to the Prime Minister’s 100 Million Tree Planting Campaign. While it is heartening to see that the government acknowledges climate change to be a real and imminent threat, the actions of those in power thus far are not consistent with environmental protection, climate mitigation, or biodiversity preservation. 

The PM claims that Malaysia has forest cover of 55.3%, which is wildly inaccurate as it includes plantations, which consist of monoculture crops that rely on large quantities of synthetic herbicides, insecticides, bactericides, and fertilisers in order to thrive. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation reported Malaysia’s primary forest cover to be at 18.7% in 2010, and it has decreased since then. Tree cover is not the same as forest cover, and not everything that puts out roots and leaves is automatically beneficial to the environment. Old-growth forests store carbon for centuries, whereas plantations constitute net emitters of carbon due to the disturbance of the soil and degradation of the previous ecosystem. Plantations cannot be classified as forests, and they are in fact a direct threat to forests due to the fact that forests are cleared for agricultural expansion. For the sake of scientific accuracy and for this massive tree-planting campaign to be an actual climate mitigation strategy, this inventory of 100 million trees must necessarily exclude plantation trees. 

While a tree-planting campaign of this magnitude sounds good in theory, the Perikatan Nasional government does not have a credible environmental track record. Just days before the announcement of the 100 Million Tree Planting Campaign, the Kedah government proposed to log 25,000 hectares of the Ulu Muda forest, which is a vital water catchment area and biodiversity hotbed. Further, there are recent reports of logging in the vicinity of the Jerantut Tambahan Forest Reserve and Lesung Permanent Forest Reserve, among other forest reserves. Things in Pakatan Nasional controlled states are not much better, as the Selangor State Government is adamant about proceeding with its plans to degazette and destroy the Kuala Langat North Forest Reserve. Based on these precedents, it is difficult to believe that the government is in any way committed to protecting the environment. 

Planting trees make up only a partial solution to the effects of deforestation. A better, less expensive, and less quixotic option would be to end or at least reduce deforestation. Let us remember that mature trees offset far greater amounts of carbon dioxide than young trees. A tree will only begin to be effective in absorbing carbon in its tenth year, so planting trees as a climate mitigation strategy is not going to produce the results we want to see within our lifetimes. Intact forests provide many ecosystem services that newly-planted trees can’t. Researchers from 15 countries published their findings in Nature in 2014 that old trees not only store carbon and prevent it from escaping into the atmosphere, but actively convert carbon dioxide from the air into their trunks, branches, and leaves, a feat that is not replicated by young trees. Currently, the Earth’s forests and soil absorb about 30% of atmospheric carbon emissions. Mature and biodiverse forests store carbon, recycle water, prevent erosion, harbour biodiversity, and improve air and water quality. When trees are cut down, years of a forests’ stored carbon are released back into the atmosphere. When we plant forests, we gain some of the benefits that forests provide, but it takes decades to grow a healthy forest, and humanity is running out of time. 

I can see the appeal of a massive tree-planting campaign to those in power. It creates the appearance that the government is doing something proactive to protect the environment, and also creates public relations opportunities for corporations, particularly those in polluting and destructive sectors such as construction, property development, and oil and gas, to perform a corporate social responsibility exercise to improve their image. Before we embark on this ambitious and expensive campaign, however, it would be good to know what plans the government and its corporate partners have beyond planting trees. Planting millions of trees is the easy part. Tracking these trees and ensuring the young trees’ survival is the challenging part. Mega tree-planting efforts in India, Turkey, and Ethiopia record the number of saplings planted, but are unable to provide accurate and adequate information about the survival rate of these saplings. What makes us think that Malaysia is going to be the exception, given our society’s poor maintenance culture? Tree-planting campaigns are also a cop-out for governments and corporations because it is a way of avoiding having to address more serious environmental issues such as deforestation, pollution, mining, and other destructive activities. 

By all means, we should plant as many new trees as possible, especially native trees that provide food and shelter for native fauna. However, we need to stop pretending that it will solve the environmental problems caused by weak governance, greed, and the prioritising of short-term benefits over environmental integrity. If the PM truly cares about “greening Malaysia” and our trees, as he had claimed, he would start by putting a halt to deforestation and the degazettement of forest reserves. 

WONG EE LYNN

PETALING JAYA

Letter to the Editor: Mosquito Fogging Is Ineffective, Even Harmful

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: MOSQUITO FOGGING IS INEFFECTIVE, EVEN HARMFUL 

Following close on the heels of the rainy season are the mosquito fogging operations carried out by contractors engaged by the Ministry of Health and State Health Departments. We put up with these malodorous operations even though we can already see for ourselves that fogging is ineffective and provides only a false sense of security. 

Fogging continues to be a popular way of mosquito control because it is visible and creates the impression that the relevant authorities are doing something to combat mosquito-borne diseases, but studies have shown that fogging is effective only when the chemicals come in direct contact with the mosquitoes. I have witnessed for myself how the mosquitoes fly up to my apartment window screens when fogging is carried out at ground level, and cunningly fly back down when the coast is clear. There are concerns that frequent fogging may even increase mosquitoes’ resistance to insecticides, giving rise to strains of super mosquitoes that are hard to destroy. 

 Fogging does not reduce mosquito populations because it does not kill mosquito larvae or pupae. If fogging were an effective mosquito control method, we would see a decrease and not increase in dengue cases in Malaysia. 

Fogging is not only ineffective in controlling mosquito populations, but potentially harmful to human health. The chemical pesticides used in fogging and spraying are neurotoxins that can adversely affect the nervous systems of humans, companion animals, and birds, among others. Fogging also kills beneficial insects such as ladybirds, and pollinators such as butterflies and bees, and frequent fogging operations can harm biodiversity and cause ecological imbalance. 

There are inexpensive and pesticide-free methods of mosquito control advocated by biologists and researchers, and these often involve getting premise owners and cleaning contractors to identify and eliminate mosquito breeding sites, including less-expected breeding sites such as the bracts of flowers and plants, septic tanks, gutters, and damp bathroom floors. Increasing biodiversity in parks and gardens by bringing in native fish, frogs, dragonflies, and bats that feed on mosquitoes and their larvae can help to reduce mosquito populations and restore degraded ecosystems. 

The release of genetically-modified mosquitoes to either suppress pathogen infection or mosquito reproduction also seems to bear promising results, although it may be a few years before we can conclusively attest to their safety and effectiveness, and assess their impact on ecosystems. In the meantime, the best and safest method of mosquito control is still the elimination of breeding opportunities. 

I conduct community clean-ups and often find municipal rubbish bins, recycling bins, and construction waste bins filled with stagnant water and mosquito larvae. There should be a requirement for all such bins to have drainage holes at the bottom to allow water to flow out. Local councils should ensure that abandoned vehicles are removed, and construction sites and illegal dumpsites are cleared regularly as these spaces often trap water and create places for mosquitoes to breed. 

The elephant in the room that few want to address is the role of single-use plastics and other disposable packaging in creating breeding grounds for mosquitoes, besides being a blight on the environment. While our government continues to hem and haw over whether or not to ban single-use plastics, mosquitoes continue to breed in discarded cups, bottles, plastic bags and food takeout containers. A ban on single-use plastics combined with a bottle and can deposit system would go a long way towards reducing litter, encouraging recycling, and keeping these mosquito nurseries out of the environment and landfills, but there seems to be no political will to implement it in Malaysia. 

The other elephant in the room is the link between deforestation and the rise in mosquito-borne diseases. The Journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases has documented the steep increase in malaria cases in areas in East Malaysia where forested land has been cleared for agriculture. Larvae-sustaining puddles are formed where there are no longer tree roots to control soil erosion and water runoff, and mosquitoes and other pathogens proliferate in forest edges where the boundaries between human habitation and forested areas become blurred and primates and other disease carriers wander into human habitation. To protect citizens from mosquito-borne diseases, the government needs to look at all the different factors contributing to the rise in mosquito-borne diseases, and implement agricultural policies that may include banning the clear-cutting of forests, practicing shade and mixed cultivation, and increasing biological pest control measures such as bringing back native fishes, frogs, bats, and birds to degraded areas. 

We need a responsive and responsible government that focuses on disease prevention and implements measures to identify and eliminate mosquito breeding sites and opportunities. Fogging is, at best, a piecemeal attempt at appeasing local communities after a dengue outbreak. These disruptive fogging sessions cannot be allowed to continue at the expense of our comfort, health, and safety. Citizens already know that mosquito fogging operations harm nothing but taxpayers’ wallets. It’s time we stopped pretending they are effective and redirect our resources to actual solutions. 

WONG EE LYNN 

PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR 

(Photo Credits: Sze Huei Yek)

Letter to the Editor: Plantations Are Not Forests

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: PLANTATIONS ARE NOT FORESTS 

It was with bewilderment that I read the letter, “Oil palm plantations are jungles too” (26 August 2019) and my bewilderment grew when I realised that the writer, a purportedly educated man, was not being sarcastic but in earnest. 

Plantations cannot fall into the category of ‘jungles’, or more accurately, forests, because they consist of monoculture crops, that is, only one type of crop in a given area at the same time. A diverse forest ecosystem provides natural checks-and-balances to keep soil and plants healthy. In contrast, a monoculture plantation has to use large quantities of synthetic herbicides, insecticides, bactericides and fertilisers to replicate some of the ways nature uses to protect crops. Over time, pests, weeds and fungus evolve to be resistant to chemicals, and farmers end up applying more and more chemicals to monoculture crops, and this in turn adversely affects natural ecosystems and human health. 

In a monoculture plantation, there are no varieties of plant that naturally provide nutrients to the soil, such as nitrogen-fixing legumes, or ground cover crops that improve the nutrient content of the topsoil, or a variety of plants with different root depths to reduce erosion. There are fewer species of microorganisms and beneficial bacteria in the soil, and no range of insect species to ensure that a single population does not get too large and damage too many plants. 

Plantations are a direct threat to forests. In monoculture plantations, ground cover crops are eliminated, so there is no longer any natural protection against soil erosion. Degraded soil becomes unusable for agriculture after a few years, so it is a fallacy that plantations are sustainable because you can grow crops on the same piece of land over and over again. Forests are then cleared to provide new agricultural land, starting the damaging cycle all over again. Published scientific studies show that up to 300 football fields’ worth of actual forest are cleared every hour to make room for oil palm plantations. 

Without topsoil to improve moisture retention in the soil, monoculture plantations require huge amounts of water to irrigate the crops. This means that water is pumped from rivers, lakes and other water sources to irrigate plantations, depleting natural water sources. This is on top of the pollution of water sources by agricultural chemicals. A forest, in contrast, serves as a watershed area and improves water quality by minimising erosion and filtering pollution. 

The writer claimed in his letter that ‘critics say that plantations contribute to climate change’. This is not merely a claim by ‘critics’ but backed up by science. Plantations don’t just appear out of wastelands, forests are cleared to make way for plantations. Between 2001 and 2017 alone, Malaysia has lost 7.29 million hectares of tree cover to oil palm cultivation. Not even comparing our ‘superior’ plantations to the grasslands and wheat fields of Europe can change the fact that plantations are a main driver of deforestation. 

The writer also claims that 54% of Malaysia is ‘virgin jungle’. Not even our Prime Minister would dare to corroborate such an outrageous claim. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation reported Malaysia’s primary forest to be at 18.7% in 2010. The writer’s claim that oil palm and rubber trees are ‘jungle trees’ is also grossly inaccurate as these are introduced species that would not support local wildlife, birds, and plant diversity. Further, a monoculture plantation, even of local species such as durian and merbau, can never qualify as a forest because of all the factors explained above. 

The writer praised plantations as being “sustainable sources of food, rubber, timber and employment” without understanding the meaning of the word “sustainable”. Because plantations deplete and pollute water supply and degrade the soil, more and more land and water are required for the next round of planting, and abandoned plantations never fully recover. The average life of an oil palm plantation is 25 years, after which the abandoned plantation is practically a desert. There is also no ‘sustainable employment’ in plantations when there is widespread abuse and exploitation of workers, many of whom do not have formal employment contracts and are unaware of their rights as workers. 

Plantations are net emitters of carbon, and not absorbers of carbon as alleged by the writer. Old-growth forests store carbon for centuries, whereas plantations are actually net emitters of carbon due to disturbance of the soil and the degradation of the previous ecosystem. Scientific studies show that oil palm plantations store about 50-90% less carbon over 20 years compared to the original forest cover. The impact is even worse if the plantation is established on peat lands, which store vast amounts of carbon that are released when the peat is drained. If the use of fertiliser and emissions from processing crops are factored in, the climate impact of converting natural forests to plantations is even more devastating. 

We have to admit that monoculture crops, especially oil palm, have a problem, and the problem isn’t just one of image. Oil palm can be cultivated without deforestation, peat development, or worker exploitation, but it will cost more, and the international community can help palm oil producing nations protect their forests and human rights by paying a fair price for certified sustainable products. The Malaysian government, plantation owners, and consumers will need to work together to protect our remaining peat lands and natural forests, and develop a credible supply-chain tracking mechanism and certification process for palm oil and other agricultural products. Agriculture is inevitable, but there are many ways of making it more sustainable. And it starts with recognising that plantations should not be passed off as forests. 

WONG EE LYNN 

PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR

Letter to the Editor: Consider Alternatives To Groundwater Extraction

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES TO GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION 

Minister of Water, Land and Natural Resources Dr. Xavier Jayakumar’s proposal to tap into Malaysia’s groundwater supply to meet growing water demand is baffling, considering that there are many other less costly and destructive means of meeting our country’s water needs. 

That the Minister reported of forests in Kedah catching fire due to drought is precisely what environmentalists and concerned citizens have been warning the authorities about for years – protect water catchment areas, gazette the Ulu Muda Forest Complex, and end deforestation, or we will face a water crisis. 

A fully-grown tree releases 1,000 litres of water vapour a day into the atmosphere. Thus logging leads to higher temperatures and a decline in rainfall due to the reduced ability of a cleared or decimated forest to absorb solar energy and release water vapour. The 2016 drought affecting the northern states of Peninsular Malaysia is directly linked to logging activities in the Ulu Muda forest complex, which affected climate and water cycle patterns, resulting in a massive decline in dam water levels and a postponement of the paddy planting season. 

Now that a water crisis is imminent, the Minister has made the alarming proposal to drain other sources of water, rather than manage the resource that best ensures a sustainable and consistent supply of water – our tropical rainforests, which act as vital water catchment zones. It is essential that we protect our remaining forests and maintain the health of our rivers, wetlands and water catchment areas to ensure that water resources are safe for us and can be sustained for future generations. 

Tapping into our groundwater supply while failing to protect water catchment areas, manage water demand, and end non-revenue water loss, is like withdrawing funds from an already overdrawn bank account. The sustained pumping of groundwater can lead to groundwater depletion and deterioration of water quality. As water levels in lakes and rivers are also linked to groundwater seepage, the excessive drawing of groundwater can result in a decline in the water levels of lakes and rivers and the loss of riparian vegetation and wildlife habitats. 

When groundwater is continually pumped out of the earth, it can result in land subsidence, namely, the collapse and sinking of soil. This can result in disasters such as the opening up of sinkholes and surface cavities such as in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, the tilting and cracking of buildings such as in Mexico City, and severe flooding such as in Bangkok. Studies have shown that land subsidence can continue for decades even after groundwater pumping has been stopped, as was observed in Arizona. 

The Minister should instead seriously consider water conservation measures while options are still available to us, before our water supply has dropped to crisis levels. 

We can learn from the example of the State of California, which faced a drought and water crisis in 2015. In April 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown ordered a 25% reduction in urban water use. Amazingly, within one month of the water reduction law being implemented, California's water usage went down by not merely 25% but 29%. Their water conservation measures included emergency adoption of building codes to conserve water, rebates for water-saving devices and landscape conversion and irrigation, water-efficient landscaping, imposing a fine for water wastage, local outdoor watering restrictions, statewide regulations requiring businesses to serve water to customers and launder linens and towels only when specifically requested, and hefty penalties for farmers who pump water from drought-stricken rivers. In a world where clean water is becoming increasingly scarce, it is important that we adopt the best and most cost-effective water conservation practices from around the world such as those implemented by the State of California. 

The solution to our country's water problems lies not in tapping into underground water reserves, the construction of an infinite number of dams, or in water rationing for domestic users, but in protecting vital watershed areas, repairing and maintaining the existing water supply infrastructure to minimise non-revenue water loss, and to promote and enforce more efficient water use. 

By the Minister’s own admission, non-revenue water loss in Malaysia is calculated to be at the rate of 5,929 million litres per day of treated water, which is sufficient to meet the water demand in both Selangor (3,316 million litres a day) and Johor (1,320 million litres a day). Surely the priority of the Minister should be replace leaky and damaged water infrastructure and end water theft, rather than to extract water from an ever-increasing number of natural sources? 

As for the argument that watershed conservation, water-saving measures, and the replacement of old pipes and water supply systems to plug non-revenue water loss will burden the rakyat, it is submitted that constructing yet more dams and groundwater extraction infrastructure will cost taxpayers even more. Given the choice between paying for a temporary solution to water shortage issues (i.e. dams and groundwater wells that will result in environmental destruction or will eventually dry up) and a more durable solution to protect water security (i.e. protection of watersheds, replacement of unsafe and leaking water supply pipes with safer and sturdier pipes, tiered pricing system to penalise only water wastage and heavy water use), I believe most taxpayers and consumers would make the rational decision to spend their money on the latter. 

A responsible government is one that makes decisions that will protect the safety, health, and food and water security of its citizens, and environmental and ecological integrity for generations to come, regardless of who will hold political power then. 

WONG EE LYNN 

PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR

Letter to the Editor: It's Time To Get Serious About Single-Use Plastics

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: IT’S TIME TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT SINGLE-USE PLASTICS 

The purported plastic straw ban has been in effect in KL, Putrajaya, and Labuan since Jan 1, and in Selangor since July 1. Yet, apart from signs in eateries stating that straws are only available upon request, there has been no marked decline in the number of straws used and disposed of. In many eateries, straws are given by default, and when I asked the eatery staff why plastic straws continue to be inserted into beverages by default, the response is that customers often scold the eatery staff and demand straws, so inserting straws by default will save them the additional trip back to the drinks counter. 

This clearly shows that the purported straw ‘ban’ is not a ban but merely an advisory. It will have no actual impact on reducing plastic production, consumption or waste in Malaysia, and is merely a publicity exercise by governmental agencies to create the impression that they are doing something about the issue of plastic waste. There is no binding force to this advisory, no enforcement of the restriction against plastic straws, and no penalties or charges for those who wish to continue using plastic straws. It neither reduces the demand for plastic straws nor increases the demand for reusable alternatives such as steel or bamboo straws or compostable alternatives such as plant-based or paper straws, since no alternatives to plastic straws are offered at eateries, and no fee is charged for those who insist on being given straws. 

The risible advisory is also ineffective because plastic straws, as well as other single-use disposable plastic and styrofoam products, are still available for sale in retail outlets and supermarkets. Further, the purported ‘ban’ does not extend to cover hawker stalls, catering services, or even beverage shops such as the mushrooming bubble tea shops. A March 2019 survey by YouGov Omnibus reports that although 91% of Malaysians expressed the opinion that environmental conservation is important, 22% admitted to using plastic straws daily and 24% use plastic bags daily. From the survey, it is also clear that although the survey participants were aware of the need to reduce the use of single-use items such as plastic bags and straws, 44% believe that the onus is not on them but on the government to protect the environment. This survey, as well as the findings from outreach work done by various environmental NGOs in Malaysia, reveals that there is no lack of environmental awareness in Malaysia, only a lack of a sense of responsibility. Knowing this to be the predominant mindset amongst Malaysians, the government’s half-hearted attempt to limit the use of plastic straws is doomed to fail. 

However, recalcitrant and apathetic consumers are not even the main reason the ‘no plastic straw’ campaign is doomed to fail. This campaign, like the one against the free distribution of plastic bags, is and will remain ineffective because the focus is almost entirely on consumers and end users. The onus is on consumers to give up straws and single-use plastics and find their own alternatives. Compliance is higher among urban and educated populations, but for lower income individuals, any charge or ban on plastic bags and straws is seen only as another burden. 

In the battle against plastic waste, the government’s focus needs to shift from the end users to producers and businesses. There is currently insufficient pressure on plastics manufacturers to declare their plastic use, set plastic reduction targets, and redesign products and packaging to use less plastic. The existing governmental campaigns have no effect on plastics manufacturers’ production levels or profit margins. 

Plastics manufacturers love these types of ‘awareness’ and ‘voluntary reduction’ campaigns, because there is no obligation on them to reduce production. If a campaign or initiative fails, they can blame consumers for failure to comply with advisories, for littering, for being ignorant or recalcitrant, and for not recycling enough. Plastics manufacturers also love initiatives such as beach cleanups and recycling drives, because it creates the impression that they are doing something to address the issue of plastic waste without actually reducing production or changing the way they do business. More and more resources will then be poured into awareness and education campaigns and recycling drives in schools, when the crux of the problem is that our planet cannot cope with the amount of plastics already in the biosphere and the amount of plastics that will continue to be produced. 

The World Economic Forum reports that we use 20 times as much plastic as we did 50 years ago, and this will continue to rise with incomes and industrialisation. Worldwide, plastic production and use is growing at a 10% rate, but in the developing world and most Asian countries, it is growing much faster than that, and this is more than the existing waste management infrastructure can handle, leading to over 9 million tons of plastics dumped into the oceans each year. What the plastics industry does not want us to know is that recycling is not the solution, because most single-use plastics are never designed to be recycled. They are designed for low cost, light weight and convenience. As a result, even the best global efforts can only achieve a 10-20% recycling rate. Even when collected and separated for recycling, the low grade and low recyclability of these single-use plastic items means that they will be landfilled and burned. Existing recycling technology isn’t good enough, largely because of limitations in how plastics can be sorted by chemical composition and cleaned of additives. Most plastics that are recycled are shredded and reprocessed into lower-value plastics, such as polyester carpet fibre. Only 2% are recycled into products of the same quality. As long as decision-makers keep the focus on consumer behaviour, plastic manufacturers can continue carrying on business as usual and flooding the market with more and more low-grade, non-recyclable plastic packaging and products. 

The Pakatan Harapan government started off their term saying the right things and showing determination to end the scourge of plastic waste in Malaysia. Despite many promising-sounding announcements, there has been no concrete and measurable action taken to reduce plastic production and waste in Malaysia apart from yet more ‘awareness’ campaigns. For awareness and educational campaigns to work, there must be a corresponding ban on the production, import, sale and use of single-use plastic packaging, a higher focus on and incentive for switching to reusable and compostable alternatives, and a setting of reduction targets for manufacturers and businesses. 

Science journal reported in 2015 that Malaysia is among the top 8 highest offending ocean plastic polluters globally. Malaysia then signed the December 2017 UN Resolution on microplastics and marine litter, but has not really treated the issue with urgency or done anything with measurable outcomes to date. Consumer awareness campaigns and “request a straw only if you really need one” advisories are not measurable because no targets can be set or measured for such campaigns. Holding X number of roadshows and issuing X number of public service announcements cannot be translated into X tonnes of plastic waste reduced. 

One of the most effective ways to bring about an actual, measurable reduction in plastic waste within a definite timeline is to get manufacturers and businesses to set and meet reduction targets. Due to consumer and investor demands, many companies including Nestle and Pepsico are under pressure to disclose their annual plastic packaging use, set reduction goals, and transition to recyclable, reusable or compostable packaging and products. Nestle and Unilever have already pledged to make its plastic packaging fully reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025, Adidas and Dell are manufacturing products and packaging using recycled ocean plastics, and new start-ups are introducing everything from edible cutlery to sauce and seasoning sachets made of seaweed that will dissolve in water. Companies should not just be focusing on facilitating and encouraging recycling, but on reducing the amount of plastics used and designing their products and packaging out of recycled plastics or compostable materials in the first place. This is the kind of measurable reduction target we want to see in Malaysia. We should incentivise these kinds of innovation, by increased consumer support, or through governmental tax rebates and Research and Development funds. 

We have only a small window of time left to deal with plastic pollution and its harmful impact on biodiversity, climate, human health, and the economy. Malaysia cannot achieve pollution and waste reduction targets by waiting for consumers to do the right thing and by protecting manufacturers and the plastics industry. Karnataka State in India has banned several types of single-use plastic items and banned manufacturers from producing these products. Kenya has implemented a nationwide ban on plastics bags, which also covers distributors and producers. Vanuatu has outlawed plastic bags and many single-use plastic items, and is moving towards banning disposable diapers. Malaysia must move beyond advising customers to ask the waiter or go to the counter if they need a straw, and calling this measure a ‘ban’. 

WONG EE LYNN 

PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR

Letter to the Editor: Walking The Talk on Sustainability the Only Way

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

WALKING THE TALK ON SUSTAINABILITY THE ONLY WAY 

 Primary Industries Minister Teresa Kok’s call to manufacturers to add a “Love MY Palm Oil” label to local palm oil products and for Malaysians to consume more palm oil (13 March 2019) is no solution to the European Union’s proposed ban on palm oil biodiesel linked to deforestation. 

The Minister’s argument that 40% of Malaysians in the palm oil industry are smallholders is also unlikely to move European parliamentarians. 

The issue is not that the European countries are unaware that the ban would disrupt the economy of the country and livelihood of smallholders. The European Union and its member states are proposing the ban precisely because they know economic pressure is the only way they can get palm oil producer nations to stop deforestation and prioritise environmental protection. Diplomatic persuasion has not worked, and voluntary consumer action takes too long to bear results. The proposed ban is their last resort in trying to influence environmental policies in palm oil producing countries. 

It is not disputed that palm oil is cheaper and more resource-efficient than other vegetable oils. Alternative vegetable oil crops such as rapeseed and soy may use up to 10 times more land than oil palm. However, merely pointing out that other vegetable oil crops are just as damaging and destructive as oil palm, and alleging victimisation and protectionism on the part of European nations is hardly going to influence European nations’ and consumers’ perception of Malaysian palm oil. We can only remove the stigma of deforestation by actually ending deforestation, not by pointing out that deforestation also occurs elsewhere. 

The appropriate response to the proposed ban is to take transparent, credible, and measurable steps to reduce deforestation and other environmental and human rights impacts of palm oil. The problem with both the Roundtable For Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) certification systems is that the international scientific and environmental communities do not endorse either certification as being trustworthy. 

The main criticism against the MSPO is that the organisation playing a vital role in its formulation and moderation is the Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), which clearly is invested in oil palm cultivation and expansion, thus giving rise to allegations of conflict of interest and lack of independence and impartiality. 

As for the RSPO, only in late 2018 did it adopt new standards prohibiting the clearing of any type of forest for oil palm cultivation. Previous standards did not protect peatlands or landscapes with High Carbon Stock. Reports exist to support the claim of malpractice and corruption by RSPO auditors. Considering that the RSPO, which is the world’s only global palm oil certification system, is unable to achieve what it is set up to do – namely, ensure sustainability, human rights, labour standards, environmental protection and respect for the law – it is highly doubtful that the international community would perceive the MSPO as having higher standards of transparency and effectiveness in protecting the environment, indigenous communities, and wildlife than the RSPO. In fact, the findings of environmental organisations confirm that MSPO scores even lower than RSPO on safeguards pertaining to the fair treatment of smallholders, protection of indigenous communities and access to remedies. How is the MSPO labelling expected to inspire consumer confidence when its standards are even lower than that of the RSPO? 

Malaysia should instead adopt the independently verified standards that are being trialled by producers in the Palm Oil Innovation Group (POIG), a collection of NGOs including Greenpeace and progressive producers that aim to provide independently verified, responsibly produced palm oil. These standards use the RSPO as a basis, but establish additional requirements on palm oil producers including to assess and protect peatland and forested areas in their concessions. 

The call to clean up the Malaysian palm oil industry is not a form of bullying or green protectionism or an attempt to undermine and destroy the Malaysian economy. Environmental organisations and indigenous communities should not be harassed and ignored in our attempts to highlight the environmental harms linked to oil palm cultivation. Environmental organisations are not calling for a halt on economic growth or the loss of employment opportunities, but the proper management of natural resources and protection of forests, wildlife, labour rights and indigenous rights. Malaysia has to recognise that there is a problem, not merely that of image or marketing, and rise up to be part of the solution. 

Satellite data does not lie, and reveals that logging and deforestation continue to take place wherever there is oil palm cultivation and expansion. Between 2001 and 2017 alone, Malaysia has lost 7.29 million hectares of tree cover to oil palm cultivation. Even local media does not shy away from reporting on wildlife deaths, including those of charismatic species such as tigers and elephants, linked to oil palm cultivation. And as recently as today (20 March 2019), news reports have surfaced of conflicts between indigenous communities in Sarawak and an oil palm company that was issued a permit to carry out logging next to the Mulu National Park. 

Until there is clear, solid and reliable evidence to support our claims of environmental sustainability and protection of human rights, no amount of labelling and marketing can alter how the international community perceives the Malaysian palm oil industry. Instead of issuing ultimatums and threats to European nations and trying to increase the domestic consumption of palm oil, Malaysia needs to prove to the world that oil palm can be grown and produced responsibly and make a genuine contribution to the Malaysian population and environment. A willingness to acknowledge the need to improve and to make sincere and genuine efforts to protect the environment, wildlife and human rights is a better indication of patriotism than merely a willingness to consume more locally-produced palm oil. 

WONG EE LYNN 

MALAYSIAN NATURE SOCIETY, SELANGOR BRANCH 

Letter to the Editor: Bauxite Mining Still Poses Clear and Present Danger

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

BAUXITE-MINING STILL POSES CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER 

(Photo credits: Fuziah Salleh)

Malaysian Nature Society (MNS) Selangor is disappointed that the Ministry of Water, Land, and Natural Resources has made the decision to lift the moratorium on the extraction and export of bauxite in Pahang (18 Feb). 

The primary motivation for the decision appears to be the high market demand for bauxite and the economic gains to be made from it. The environment and public health and safety are merely secondary considerations. 

Although the Minister has indicated that there will be new standard operating procedures (SOPs) and tighter regulations in place, the public has yet to be informed of what these SOPs are and how they compare with previous and existing safeguards, and how transparent and effective the monitoring and enforcement measures will be. 

Even as far back as 2016, SOPs such as requiring bauxite to be transferred via safer pakamatic lorries, rerouting lorries to avoid heavily populated areas and setting up a designated bauxite stockpiling centre failed to stop industry players and enforcement agencies from flouting the regulations with impunity. What assurance is there that this time the same industry players and monitoring and enforcement agencies will not put personal interest and profits before the environment and people? 

Further, the proposed fine of RM500,000 and three months’ imprisonment under the Pahang State Mineral Enactment 2001 appears to be too lenient for such a lucrative industry. There appears to be no prerogative afforded to the enforcement bodies to shut down and ban industry players found to be flouting the SOPs. 

We must not lose sight of the reasons why the moratorium was imposed in the first place. Intensive bauxite mining and processing activities caused major contamination of water sources, air and soil pollution, and an increase in health complaints, particularly respiratory-related, from the local residents. The environmental and scientific community had also reported that bauxite mining and processing had resulted in the leaching of toxic heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium, lead and chromium into river systems, poisoning fish and aquatic life and posing a danger to the fishing and coastal communities. 

The public has so far not been informed of how wastewater and other waste materials from the bauxite mining and processing activities will be treated and disposed of, and from where the water for bauxite washing will be sourced. This raises concerns that there will be a growth in illegal dumping grounds for the waste generated from the resumption of bauxite mining and export activities. 

News reports indicate that the Pahang Mineral Operators Association would be regulating its own members and activities. This again will raise the question of how objective, neutral and effective they will be, considering that they have not demonstrated exemplary commitment to environmental protection and public health and safety in 2015 and 2016 prior to the moratorium. There must be greater opportunity and space for neutral civil society groups and environmental organisations to participate in the monitoring and reporting process, and independent environmental auditors must be engaged to inspect and report on the bauxite mining and exporting activities without fear or favour. 

MNS Selangor is not against development or state governments managing their natural resources to maintain economic growth. We are, however, in favour of the responsible management of natural resources and greater transparency and accountability. Economic growth cannot be sustainable or legitimate if it comes at the expense of the environment and public health and safety. 

WONG EE LYNN 

MALAYSIAN NATURE SOCIETY (MNS) SELANGOR

Letter to the Editor: Much Still Needs To be Done To Protect Environment

LETTER TO THE EDITOR 

MUCH STILL NEEDS TO BE DONE TO PROTECT ENVIRONMENT 

The Malaysian Nature Society (MNS) Selangor Branch would like to congratulate the Minister of Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change YB Yeo Bee Yin on being recognised as one of Nature Journal’s top ten people who made a difference to the environment in 2018 (The Star, 20 Dec 2018). 

MNS Selangor along with other local environmental organisations have long lobbied the Malaysian government for better energy, water, land and waste management policies, and stronger laws against single-use plastics. While we are heartened by YB Yeo’s pledge to phase out single-use plastics in Malaysia, we are concerned that the 12-year timeline is simply too long to be effective in dealing with an issue as urgent as marine plastic pollution. Kenya took drastic action to ban plastic bags over a year ago, while Bali is set to ban plastic bags and other single-use plastics by next year. 

Malaysia should not be lagging behind our neighbours in taking decisive action to cut down on the manufacturing, consumption, use, distribution and disposal of single-use plastics. This is especially so after we have witnessed how inadequate our recycling and waste management systems are in dealing with the world’s plastic waste that was foisted on Banting, Klang and other Malaysian towns following China’s refusal to accept any more plastic waste from developed nations for recycling. 

A 5-year roadmap would be a better testimony of the government’s seriousness and sincerity in dealing with the issue of single-use plastics and plastic pollution. 

Much more needs to be done to conserve Malaysia’s environment, biodiversity, wildlife and natural resources, and unfortunately we have not seen very much concrete action or moral courage on the part of the relevant authorities, enforcement agencies and government ministries. 

The Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Ministry of Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change (MESTECC), Ministry of Works and Ministry of Water, Land and Natural Resources have been conspicuously and alarmingly silent, for instance, on the issue of hill slope development in Penang, the encroachment into native customary lands by plantation companies, and the clearing of green lungs for development projects in Taman Bukit Kiara and Bukit Lagong, among others. 

The issues of the degazettement of forest reserves, deforestation and development and infrastructure projects in previously forested areas should not fall within the purview of State governments or the Ministry of Federal Territories alone. It is not enough to say that a particular piece of land is under state ownership and management, and the public or other government ministries and agencies are therefore not authorised to discuss, question or challenge any development plans in green lungs and forest reserves. It is not enough to claim that the cost of cancellation or need for housing are too high, and therefore environmental protection must be relegated to the back burner. It is not enough to argue that the issue of deforestation and degazettement of forest reserves fall within the purview of the Forestry Department and the Ministry of Water, Land and Natural Resources, as deforestation has an impact on climate change and should therefore be inconsistent with MESTECC’s climate change mitigation policies. 

Deforestation and development projects in forested areas, especially ecologically sensitive areas with high biodiversity and high conservation value, affect more than just the value of neighbouring properties. Increased disasters such as landslides, flash floods, and drought, and increased air, water, noise and light pollution, will have an adverse impact on climate and environmental quality, and will affect human and animal quality of life and a particular community and ecosystem’s ability to sustain itself. Wildlife populations may end up unable to breed, find food, or avoid conflict with humans. Highway and development projects may end up bisecting or fragmenting wildlife habitats and lead to an increase in wildlife roadkills. New roads and highways may create access for illegal loggers and poachers where there was none before. 

The degazettement of forest reserves and destruction of the natural environment are taking place on the watch of those entrusted to protect the environment. Those of us in environmental organisations are fully aware of the need to balance environmental protection with economic needs. However, in many instances, there is no actual pressing social or economic need resulting in a genuine conflict, and there should be no compromise on environmental protection. 

For far too long, the Malaysian authorities have been defending environmentally destructive projects that benefit only a selected few with economic and political leverage. Environmental organisations and citizens’ action groups with no ulterior motives or hidden agendas other than to speak up for the natural environment are treated as adversaries, instead of as valuable and impartial allies. 

Hill slope development is clearly dangerous, unsustainable and indefensible especially after so many disasters and loss of lives, yet hill slope development projects continue to be approved. The continued destruction and acquisition of native customary lands and the oppression of indigenous communities by corporations, developers and plantation owners cannot be allowed to proceed unchecked. The gazettement of forest reserves becomes meaningless if degazettement and forest-clearing can take place at any time with impunity. 

All of us have only a small window of time to help protect natural spaces and vanishing species. Politicians’ windows of time are even smaller. While praise and credit must be given where it is due, we must remember that environmental conservation in Malaysia is an uphill battle and many issues are not afforded the urgency and importance they deserve. We need to prioritise the environmental challenges with the highest stakes and greatest potential for lasting and irreversible damage. 

Environmental organisations are always ready to meet with the government to discuss solutions. Environmental organisations are not trying to win a popularity contest against governmental agencies, we are racing against time to prevent the annihilation of the natural world. 

It is wonderful that Malaysia has a Minister acknowledged by a prestigious science journal to be a champion for the environment. It would be more wonderful still if we could have all the relevant government ministries work together with each other and with environmental organisations and citizens’ action groups to expeditiously and courageously take action to protect Malaysia’s natural environment and deliver environmental justice. 

WONG EE LYNN 

MALAYSIAN NATURE SOCIETY 

SELANGOR BRANCH

Letter to the Editor: No Development Should Take Place In Bukit Lagong Forest Reserve

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: NO DEVELOPMENT SHOULD TAKE PLACE IN BUKIT LAGONG FOREST RESERVE 

It is with alarm that environmentalists and concerned citizens learned today of the proposed degazettement and development of parts of the Bukit Lagong Forest Reserve in Gombak. 

Bukit Lagong provides more than just recreational and ecotourism value to the Selangor State Government, residents and visitors. Forests such as the Bukit Lagong Forest Reserve provide multiple ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, flood protection, air quality improvement and water purification. Healthy trees absorb solar energy and release water vapour, thus regulating climate and temperature. Intact forests safeguard biodiversity, protect human health, and mitigate climate change. There is irrefutable data, including from various studies conducted by the World Bank, Wildlife Conservation Society, and Wetlands International, to support the assertion that forests are worth much more intact than when depleted, logged or converted into plantations. The economic returns of forest clearing for logging or development are short lived and can sustain only 1-2 generations at most. 

While the Selangor State Government’s action of calling for feedback and opening the proposed development for public inspection is an encouraging indication of greater transparency and participatory democracy, it must be emphasised that the opinion of the citizens, engineering professionals and the scientific and conservation community must also be taken into account, whether or not they have locus standi to object to the proposed development. Further, the feedback and objections from the public must be thoroughly considered, addressed and acted upon, not merely collected and then filed away to create the impression of civic participation. 

Any proposed development in an ecologically sensitive area with high conservation and high biodiversity value will adversely affect more than just people living in the immediate vicinity of the site. The clearing of forests for roads and construction will increase air and water pollution and the risk of soil erosion and landslides. The destruction of watershed areas will affect the entire state’s water supply and water quality. The opening up of access roads will create access not only for the construction vehicles, but also illegal loggers, poachers and wildlife traffickers. The construction of roads will fragment and bisect wildlife habitats, and the increase in traffic will result in wildlife deaths and wildlife-human conflict. The increase in motor vehicles and fossil fuel use in the area will contaminate the soil and groundwater with fuel runoffs. The clearing of trees will raise carbon dioxide emissions and reduce air quality. All these actions will affect more than just local residents. The damage to the environment will be irreversible, and yet those most severely affected by the destruction – namely, the trees and wildlife – have no suffrage and are unable to put in their written objections. 

The state government and developers have a duty of care not only to the local residents, but to all the living beings present and future who will foreseeably be harmed by the proposed development project. The well-being of the local human residents is interconnected with that of the local flora and fauna and even entities such as rivers and forests. 

The most preposterous thing about this proposed housing development project in Bukit Lagong is the fact that it is so patently wasteful and unnecessary. There is no shortage of viable housing development sites in Selangor. A study in June 2018 found that there are over 34,532 unsold completed residential units in Malaysia. Abandoned projects and lacklustre existing housing projects can be revived, improved and put back on the market. The advantage to reviving abandoned housing projects in urban and suburban areas is that there will often already be existing transportation, waste management and drainage infrastructure and systems, thus reducing the environmental and economic cost of providing housing. 

The proposed housing development project in Bukit Lagong is clearly not designed to meet the housing needs of the poorest and neediest, but to create an exclusive enclave for homebuyers who can afford the luxury of having a home in the heart of nature. The unfortunate cost of the privilege of living next to a forest reserve is that roads, sewage systems and waste management systems will have to be put in where there were none before, thus creating an additional burden on an already strained natural space. If the goals of proposed housing projects were to improve human quality of life, then such projects would be focused in urban areas close to amenities and infrastructures. The question of balancing environmental conservation and meeting human needs for adequate housing does not arise in this situation at all. 

The proposed Bukit Lagong development project must be immediately and irrevocably scrapped. It can benefit only an elite few but will harm a great many in the long run. I urge all concerned members of the public, whether or not you are residing in the vicinity of Bukit Lagong, to write in to the Director of the Selangor Forestry Department at Level 3, Bangunan Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah, 40660 Shah Alam, Selangor, to politely and firmly state your objections to this irresponsible and indefensible proposal to degazette and develop the Bukit Lagong Forest Reserve.

WONG EE LYNN 

MALAYSIAN NATURE SOCIETY

Letter to the Editor: Hill Slope Development Comes With Many Environmental Risks

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: 

HILL SLOPE DEVELOPMENT COMES WITH MANY ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS 

 The Bukit Kukus landslide tragedy is a grim reminder that hill slope development comes with many environmental and safety risks. Hill slope development causes erosion, habitat loss and air, water and noise pollution. It threatens wildlife, forests, water security, and soil integrity and stability. 

The Malaysian Cabinet had already drawn up a set of guidelines in 2009 prohibiting development on, inter alia, slopes exceeding 35 degrees, and slopes between 15-35 degrees showing signs of soil instability, erosion or other vulnerabilities. The Bukit Kukus tragedy involved an elevated road on a hill slope with a gradient reported to be 60-90 degrees. 

 The authorities are not unaware of the risks arising from, or the laws and guidelines in place in relation to, hill slope development. The guidelines include the National Slope Master Plan 2009 – 2023 issued by the Public Works Department, while the laws include the Land Conservation Act 1960, Environmental Quality Act 1974, Town and Country Planning Act 1976, and Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974. This clearly shows that there is no shortage of studies, guidelines, regulations and laws in Malaysia pertaining to hill slope development. What is lacking is the political will to enforce these laws and guidelines and to ensure the safety of people and the environment or the sustainability of the project. 

Blaming a massive landslide on rainy weather is irresponsible. Clearly the tragedy is not caused by merely rain and gravity, but corruption, apathy, irresponsibility and a willingness to cut corners and create wiggle room where there should be none. Intact land does not just spontaneously break off and descend on homes and roads when saturated with rainwater. If that were the case, then entire mountain ranges would be flattened annually during the monsoon season. 

Fatal landslides in Malaysia keep recurring because local and state authorities are willing to approve development projects on hill slopes, especially when given the assurance that mitigation measures, no matter how minimal and negligible, would be taken. However, no retaining wall or terrace can mitigate the adverse effects of deforestation, destruction of watershed areas, overdevelopment and mining, quarrying and construction activities near slopes. 

The Highland Towers collapse in 1993, Bukit Antarabangsa landslide in 2008, Hulu Langat landslide in 2011 and Tanjung Bungah landslide in 2017 all precede this latest incident, but decision-makers responded with words of regret and sympathy when strong policies and strict enforcement would have been more effective and would have prevented further tragedies. A prohibition on hill slope development on slopes exceeding a certain gradient should be treated as such, and not merely as a temporary freeze on hill slope development until public outrage simmers down. 

No development or construction activity should ever take place at a site in which the state and local authorities are unable to guarantee full compliance with safety guidelines or criteria. The profits to be gained from authorizing hill slope development work are paid for by construction workers and local residents with their safety and lives. Wildlife, rivers, forests and other natural entities pay the price with their existence. 

There must be a nationwide moratorium on all hill slope development. Existing projects must be reviewed, mitigation measures carried out and laws strictly and transparently enforced. The parties responsible for this fatal landslide must be held to account. Previously forested areas that had been cleared for hill slope development must be rehabilitated. The cost of hill slope development on the environment and communities is simply too high to be justified any longer. 

WONG EE LYNN 

COORDINATOR, 

GREEN LIVING SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP, 

MALAYSIAN NATURE SOCIETY

Letter to the Editor: Illegal Plastic Recycling Factories Highlight Need for Real Solutions

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: ILLEGAL PLASTIC RECYCLING FACTORIES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR REAL SOLUTIONS 

New Zealand news portal RadioNZ’s recent exposé of the illegal plastic recycling industry in Jenjarom and other plantation hinterlands in Malaysia to deal with plastic waste imported from New Zealand and the UK highlights the fact that most of the world, including developed nations with ostensibly clear waste management and recycling legislation, are ill-equipped to deal with plastic waste. 

 The irony of this fact (i.e. the import and processing of plastic waste in Malaysia) is not lost on environmentally-aware Malaysians who applauded Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change Minister Yeo Bee Yin’s latest announcement on Sept 14 that Malaysia would be phasing out and eventually banning single-use plastics. All our efforts to reduce plastic waste and microplastic pollution would translate into very low environmental and health returns if plastic recyclers – mostly unlicensed and unregulated – are allowed to carry out operations and continue processing plastic waste that had entered Malaysia prior to the Minister’s Sept 1 announcement of a restriction on plastic waste imports. 

The plastics manufacturing industry tries to convince the public that littering, ignorance about recycling and lack of recycling facilities – and not the production of plastics per se – are the problem.  

But the real problem is that we are using a lot more plastics and generating a lot more waste as the world is becoming more industrialised. The World Economic Forum reports that we use 20 times as much plastics as we did 50 years ago. Businesses create more and more single-use plastics to meet consumers’ expectations for convenience, and most of these plastics can never be recycled. 

Plastic recycling is a labour-intensive process. Plastic waste has to be broken down, cleaned, separated by grade and made into pellets. This means that manufacturing plastic from scratch is always more economically rewarding than recycling plastics, even with subsidies and recycling-related legislation in place. Developed nations often believe that legislating and incentivizing recycling and collecting plastics for recycling is the same thing as ensuring that plastics are being properly recycled. What the general public often is not aware of is that developed nations take the easy option of exporting plastic waste to developing nations --- the very same developing nations whose rivers are identified as the source of 90% of marine plastics, the very same developing nations lacking sufficient infrastructure to manage their own plastic waste. 

It could take years for Britain, USA and European nations to increase their domestic recycling capacities. Even so, existing recycling technology isn’t good enough, largely because of limitations in how plastics can be sorted by chemical composition and cleaned of additives. Most plastics that are recycled are shredded and reprocessed into lower-value plastics, such as polyester carpet fibre. Only 2% are recycled into products of the same quality. 

In the meantime, more and more plastic products will continue to be produced, used and discarded, and many countries will resort to burning plastics for energy recovery or landfilling plastic waste. However, burning plastic creates harmful dioxins, and if incinerators are inefficient, these dioxins leak into the environment. Burning plastic for energy generation is also very carbon-intensive and contribute to increased carbon emissions. Burying plastic waste in landfills may appear to be safer but this is a really inefficient use of land, and studies have found that the degradation of plastic waste in oceans and landfills actually produce methane and ethylene, both potent greenhouse gases. 

The solution to the problem of plastic waste doesn’t lie in recycling more, or replacing plastics with other types of disposable packaging. Biodegradable packaging is linked to other environmental problems, which include increased carbon and methane emissions in landfills, deforestation, higher water and land use, and higher fuel use due to the fact that paper and plant fibre products weigh more than plastics. 

The solution to the problem of plastic waste lies not in setting up yet more licensed and legal plastic recycling plants in Malaysia and other developing nations, as there will always be unrecyclable and contaminated plastic waste and toxic byproducts to deal with. The solution does not lie in individual countries banning the import of plastic waste in order to protect their own population from reduced air quality and other environmental hazards, as there will be other developing nations and impoverished societies desperate enough to accept imports of plastic waste. 

The solution lies in creating a circular economy that does not rely on shipping materials across oceans to be reused, but keeps resources in use for as long as possible in the economic cycle. The solution to the problems of plastic waste lie in reducing dependency on all single-use and disposable items, creating more closed loop and low-waste systems, creating and sustaining a bigger market for reusables, and making zero waste stores and products available, accessible and affordable to all, not just to higher income, urban, educated and expatriate communities. 

The Malaysian Government is taking a step in the right direction by raising awareness, phasing out single-use plastics, enforcing laws against open burning, banning the import of plastic waste and regulating the plastics recycling industry. What we need now is for the Malaysian public to stop treating environmental issues as political or economic issues, and to instead understand that environmental and human health are interconnected. What we need now is to stop seeing the problem of plastic waste management as the fault of high-consuming, affluent developed nations, or the fault of developing nations with high corruption levels and flawed waste management systems – and to start seeing it as a shared responsibility. 

WONG EE LYNN 

COORDINATOR, 

GREEN LIVING SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP, 

MALAYSIAN NATURE SOCIETY 

Letter to the Editor: ECRL Cancellation Financially and Environmentally the Right Move

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: 

ECRL CANCELLATION FINANCIALLY AND ENVIRONMENTALLY THE RIGHT MOVE 

 The Prime Minister’s decision to cancel the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) and gas pipeline projects makes economic and environmental sense. For the sake of Malaysia’s natural environment, it is hoped that none of these projects would be revived even when it becomes financially viable to proceed with them at a later stage. 

 The ECRL, had the construction works proceeded, would have bisected the Rantau Panjang Forest Reserve (RPFR) into two separate forest areas. This would have effectively fragmented over 230 hectares of the RPFR, cut off any possible safe wildlife corridors and increased the risk of human-wildlife conflicts and wildlife deaths. 

 The plans for the proposed ECRL rail alignment also showed that it was to cut through a section of mangrove forest as it approached Port Klang. This would have grave consequences on the health of the mangrove ecosystem in the area, which as we all know, plays an important role in erosion prevention, flood mitigation, water quality regulation, and as nurseries for fish and other marine life. Not only that, the project would have also been detrimental to the livelihood, agricultural and fishing activities and water supply of the local coastal communities. The project is said to be capable of creating business and employment opportunities, but it is foreseeable that it would also affect the livelihood and quality of life of rural communities. It is hoped that all future infrastructure projects will take these factors into consideration before proposing activities that will alter the landscape of mangrove forests. 

 The ECRL project, had it proceeded, would affect up to 12 forest reserves, including the Central Forest Spine (CFS), 5 major rivers in Kelantan, 16 rivers in Terengganu, 5 rivers in Pahang and 1 river in Selangor. The environmental cost of the project is simply too high for a rail link that most Malaysians perceive to be an expensive convenience that may be nice to have but is inessential and unnecessary. 

 Although the ECRL project team and the previous Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment had in 2017 attempted to reassure environmental organisations that the project would reduce forest loss and wildlife deaths through the use of an estimated 45 tunnels and 29 wildlife viaducts, it cannot be denied that wildlife populations, air and water quality and forested areas would still be adversely affected by the project, both during the construction process and after the completion of the project. Tunnels, fences and wildlife viaducts and crossings may not always provide a solution and may indeed create fresh problems for wildlife populations. Fences erected to prevent wildlife from encroaching onto railway tracks could further fragment habitats and limit a species’ natural range and breeding opportunities. A study conducted by wildlife researchers with the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (Perhilitan) from 2011-2013 on the effectiveness and usefulness of wildlife viaducts found that the viaducts studied were only effective crossing structures for only a few species, and that some species took a longer time to adapt to new crossing structures (Source: The Star, 22 Sept 2014). In the meantime, more wildlife lives would be lost to traffic and human-wildlife conflict, including hunting and illegal poaching. The same study also recorded the presence of hunters and campers at the viaducts, thus highlighting the fact that one cannot just construct a wildlife viaduct and expect it to mitigate wildlife deaths by the mere fact of its existence. Wildlife viaducts and crossings need constant maintenance and monitoring, and in spite of this may still not register the desired level of effectiveness. The best option is always to divert and realign any proposed infrastructures away from environmentally-sensitive areas. Opening up forested areas for road, highway and railway construction has almost invariably led to an increase in illegal logging, poaching, and hunting and the conversion of forests into land for human activity. 

 Now that the project has been cancelled and construction sites and cleared forests will be left behind, I support and commend Ketari assemblywoman Young Shefura Othman’s recommendation that the abandoned project sites be restored and replanted with trees without delay to prevent greater environmental damage, landslides, flash floods and the encroachment of poachers, loggers and illegal settlers. 

 The viability of all existing and future infrastructure projects should not merely be based on the availability of funds and the projected return on investment. It should always prioritise the environment and consider factors such as how it would affect ecologically sensitive areas, watersheds, hill slopes. wildlife and bird habitats, water and air quality, and rural and indigenous communities. Financial debts can be paid off over time, but environmental damage and biodiversity loss can be almost impossible to rectify. 

 WONG EE LYNN 

COORDINATOR, 

GREEN LIVING SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP, 

MALAYSIAN NATURE SOCIETY

Letter to the Editor: Reconsider Construction of PIL1 Highway

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: 

 RECONSIDER CONSTRUCTION OF PIL1 HIGHWAY 

The Penang State Government should consider all points of view before being defensive over the proposed Pan-Island Link 1 (PIL1) highway plans. Before the 14th General Elections, Pakatan Harapan had promised to review mega projects and re-evaluate the necessity, economic feasibility and benefits of highway and infrastructure projects. Concerned citizens have now highlighted the risks of increased air, water and soil pollution and increased traffic from the proposed PIL1 highway plans. To dismiss their concerns would be to dismiss the concepts of transparency, democracy and public participation that the Pakatan Harapan government claims to be committed to. 

Whether or not PIL1 will result in the decrease of property values or cut through Penang’s Youth Park is secondary to the undeniable fact that PIL1, and indeed, any highway construction project, will result in poorer water and air quality for residents, and possibly more dry spells due to reduced watershed areas, and more wildlife roadkills due to greater fragmentation of areas able to support animal and bird populations. 

The construction process itself will result in an increase in air and water pollution, waste generated and traffic congestion due to construction vehicles and traffic diversions. Road and highway projects do not benefit the lower-income and marginalized groups who cannot afford to own vehicles and use highways, and yet these are the groups most likely to be adversely affected by heavier traffic, noise pollution and poorer air quality. 

The argument that highways are necessary for the alleviation of traffic congestion is fallacious, and anyone involved in public planning and transport policies can attest to the fact that the construction of more roads and highways will only lead to the well-known and long-established effect known as “induced traffic”. 

Whenever a new road is built, more traffic will divert onto it, as more motorists would make the decision to make trips they would otherwise not make, and travel longer distances because of the presence of a new road. Commuters who would otherwise plan their trips and manage their time in order to carpool or take public transport would be persuaded to drive instead, as the existence of a new highway would persuade them that it would be more comfortable, convenient and time-saving to drive. Instead of planning their routes to avoid peak hour traffic, motorists would opt to drive on highways in the belief that it could accommodate more traffic and shorten their routes. 

The solutions to the problem of traffic congestion are to make better use of the state’s existing road and transport systems, improve public transport, reduce incentives for private vehicle usage, and improve road safety for public transport users, cyclists and pedestrians. Penang and indeed most of Peninsular Malaysia has the infrastructure for an efficient public transport system, but unfortunately not the political will or societal commitment to make public transport systems reliable, punctual, convenient, affordable and safe. Improving road safety and the public transport system will use less public funds, benefit a greater strata of society, have a lower environmental and carbon footprint and take less time to implement than constructing more highways and roads. 

Just as adding new roads and highways would not reduce traffic congestion, removing existing roads will not exacerbate the problem either. When Paris downsized and reduced roadways, motorists simply readjusted to the new system and up to 20% of commuters switched to public transport. When San Francisco removed the Central Freeway in 1989, motorists eased into using a smaller boulevard without difficulty. When Seoul shut down a highway and replaced it with a river, parkland and smaller roads, traffic situations did not change but air quality and city living conditions improved. The Penang State Government is not required to make a decision as radical as closing down existing roads. It would, however, be courageous and responsible for it to review and reconsider the necessity of PIL1. 

WONG EE LYNN 

COORDINATOR, 

GREEN LIVING SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP, 

MALAYSIAN NATURE SOCIETY

Letter to the Editor: Making A Ban On Single-Use Plastics Work

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:  

MAKING A BAN ON SINGLE-USE PLASTICS WORK 

 Our Minister of Housing and Local Government YB Datuk Zuraida Kamaruddin and Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow’s proposal to ban single-use plastic packaging for environmental reasons is a welcome move. 

We have seen both within Malaysia and abroad that voluntary plastic bag reduction campaigns have not worked. Trying to engender voluntary change often means investing a lot of money into public education and outreach efforts for very low success rates. Statistics have shown that awareness does not always translate into a shift in consumer behaviour, even in developed nations such as the USA and Australia. For plastic waste reduction strategies to work, public education campaigns must be held together with plastic packaging bans. Behavioural change will take place only when a binding policy with a system of penalties and enforcement is in place. 

It must be pointed out, however, that a nationwide ban on single-use plastic packaging can only begin to register positive results if the ban is extended to the retail sale of packaging and to fast food outlets, food courts, markets, hawkers, petty traders and businesses other than supermarkets and major retailers. Currently, plastic bags, disposable plastic tableware and styrofoam and plastic food packaging can still be purchased from supermarkets and retail stores. This defeats the purpose of banning free plastic bags and the sale of food in styrofoam packaging if consumers can still purchase these items cheaply off supermarket or shop shelves. 

In fact, one of the major complaints by consumers following the Selangor State Government’s ban on polystyrene food packaging and free plastic bags in 2017 is that the ban is a financial burden on consumers since they now have to pay for the plastic bags and packaging by buying them from shops rather than obtaining them for free with every purchase. 

From this complaint, it is clear that the move has not resulted in sufficient behavioural and attitude change and has only resulted in consumers purchasing more packaging instead of giving up or using less plastic packaging for environmental reasons. 

To wean the nation off single-use plastics, we need to remove the option of being able to purchase single-use plastics cheaply and conveniently. If the protection of wildlife and the natural environment is our objective in reducing plastic waste, then this policy must necessarily extend beyond plastic bags and also cover other single-use plastics including all styrofoam products, plastic drinking straws, plastic cup lids, plastic meat and produce trays, clingfilm, plastic cotton buds, disposable cutlery, food takeaway packaging and other environmentally harmful products such as plastic glitter and toiletries containing microbeads. 

Oxo-degradable plastic bags that are not truly compostable and biodegradable and non-woven shopping bags should also be banned, as they disintegrate into toxic petro-polymers and should not therefore be marketed or used as alternatives to conventional plastic bags. As long as these items are not included in the ban, it will be very difficult to mitigate the environmental damage caused by plastic bags. 

To resolve the issue of consumers claiming that they now need to purchase rubbish bags since retailers are no longer giving out free plastic bags, we can introduce a policy allowing only the distribution of plastic bags above 20 micron (0.02 mm) in thickness and with a minimum capacity of 10 litres, the cost of which will be borne by consumers to increase the chances that these plastic bags are reused for storage and waste disposal, and are only purchased if necessary. Over time, conventional plastic bags and rubbish bags, including pet waste bags, should be phased out and banned and replaced with compostable bags that conform to compostability standards ASTM D6400 or EN 13432. 

Retailers and manufacturers need to be given some time, for example, one year, to phase out the production, sale and distribution of single-use plastics. This will give both businesses and consumers time to make changes and source for alternatives. This will require regulations that will not only regulate the sale and distribution of plastic bags and other single-use plastics by retailers, but also regulations to stop fast food outlets and eateries from giving out plastic lids, straws and plastic cutlery for free, clinics and service providers to stop distributing medicine and other items in lightweight plastic bags, and food and beverage manufacturers to phase out excessive plastic packaging such as individually-wrapped biscuits and snack foods and 3-in-1 beverage sachets, which are convenience products and were not even common until the last decade or two.

Incentives must be created to not only allow but encourage consumers to buy items such as vegetables loose or using their own produce bags, and to phase out the practice of wrapping individual fruits, vegetables and other products in clingfilm and selling such products in trays covered in clingfilm. Styrofoam and soft plastic supermarket produce and food trays are generally not recyclable, and even those that are made of recyclable plastics are not recovered for recycling due to its low grade and the fact that once contaminated by food and grease, it is no longer accepted for recycling. As paper bags have a high carbon and water footprint despite being less harmful to wildlife and human health, they should be used only sparingly as an alternative to plastic bags, for example, its use should be restricted to the sale and serving of food, and not as grocery and shopping bags. Alternatives to single-use plastics can include either biodegradable and compostable trays and packaging, or higher-grade recyclable plastic containers with lids (to eliminate the need for clingfilm and shrink wrap) that are recovered for recycling through a container deposit and recycling buyback system. 

Volunteers who participate in beach and jungle clean-ups in Malaysia will find that a lot of the litter consists of items with a purportedly high recycling value, such as aluminium cans and PET bottles. This would indicate that there are not enough financial incentives for recycling in Malaysia. To increase solid waste recycling rates and reduce littering, I would recommend introducing a container deposit legislation such as those in place in Norway, Germany and Sweden. To make the financial incentive for recycling higher, the deposit needs to be of significant value, for example, 20 to 50 sen per item. The consumers bear the cost of this deposit, which they can then recover by collecting and returning the items for recycling. This container deposit system should include aluminium, steel and unbroken glass containers, plastic bottles including shampoo and detergent bottles and plastic containers such as the ones recommended above to replace plastic supermarket and food trays. It is not necessary to have expensive automated reverse vending machines or door-to-door collection systems to implement this container deposit system. We can use existing recycling collection centres and buyback centres and existing infrastructure such as local council offices, schools, residents’ association centres and community centres as recycling buyback centres. 

To reduce littering in national parks and areas of ecological significance, entrance fees and hiking and camping permits should include an entry inspection system to charge hikers, campers and picnickers a deposit for each item in disposable packaging brought into the park, and refund the same only when these items are brought back for disposal upon exit. 

Bans on lightweight plastic bags and single-use plastics are neither new nor revolutionary, and countries and cities that have implemented it report of positive consumer behavioural change and a reduction in littering. Since Denmark introduced a charge on plastic bags in 1993, the usage of plastic bags has been halved from 800 million bags to 400 million bags annually. The People’s Republic of China reported a 66% drop in plastic bag usage since its ban on lightweight plastic bags. Ireland’s plastic bag tax resulted in a 95% reduction in plastic bag litter. Kenya’s ban on plastic bags, described as the World’s Toughest Plastic Bag Ban, has shown such positive results within a year that neighbouring countries – Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda and South Sudan – are considering following suit. The European Union has also in May 2018 proposed a ban on plastic cotton buds, drink stirrers, drinking straws and balloon sticks to cut down on marine litter. 

Considering that bans and taxes on single-use plastics have been successfully implemented and upheld in both developed and developing nations and jurisdictions, there is no reason why it cannot be effective and similarly successful in Malaysia. A reduction in plastic waste and litter is not only beneficial to wildlife and the natural environment. Governments and local authorities stand to gain economically from the reduced costs of cleaning up public spaces and processing waste in landfills. Less plastic litter would result in fewer clogged drains and streams and fewer flash floods. There would be fewer breeding grounds for mosquitoes, rats and other disease vectors if there were less litter and fewer landfills. Governments and local businesses would benefit from increased tourism opportunities when recreational areas and tourist destinations are cleaner and free from litter. Clearly a ban on single-use plastics will require minor adjustments and behavioural change on the part of Malaysians, but the long-term benefits to the environment, society and the economy will outweigh any initial inconvenience. 

WONG EE LYNN 

COORDINATOR, 

GREEN LIVING SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP, 

 MALAYSIAN NATURE SOCIETY