Identifying Site for Potential Aquaculture Activities

10 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in identifying a site for potential aquaculture activities (a) what are the considerations by the Government; and (b) what are the procedures in place for expert and public consultation.

The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) works closely with the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and other agencies to identify suitable sea space for aquaculture production. SFA conducts studies and surveys to assess the suitability of each site, such as the water quality, the carrying capacity, which is the amount of biological mass that the body of water can sustain and the presence of ecological receptors in the proximity of the area to balance between production requirements and environmental sustainability.

An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is done if the intended activity is expected to have an impact on the environment. The EIA process involves robust engagement with agencies, stakeholders and nature groups to review the proposed mitigating and monitoring measures.

But beyond the EIA process, SFA also regularly engages with the nature groups and the academics as well, to keep them apprised of aquaculture development plans and works closely with them to understand the impacts of sea-based farming on our local marine environment.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Firstly, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply and also the recent SFA announcement that it will defer putting out a tender on sea spaces for fish farms around Pulau Satumu and Pulau Jong until further environmental studies are conducted in consultation. It is a great science-based approach.

Two follow-up supplementary questions. In terms of the types of aquaculture activities being planned, does the Ministry have a view as to whether (a) close-looped recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) farms which may have less impact on the surrounding ecosystems are preferred versus (b) an open-cage sea farming, which, on the other hand, may be more energy-intensive, is a better way forward for Singapore?

Second, while it is time-consuming, I do think that consultation is ultimately a trust-building exercise. But beyond experts, it is also really important to get the public involved and the buy-in from Singaporeans towards the Singapore Food Story and where Singapore food comes from. So, how can the Ministry better educate and consult with the public so that more are aware about Singapore local produce?

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Madam, I thank the Member for her two clarification questions. The first one is a technical one on what type of sea farming systems, whether it is RAS, which is a closed containment type, or whether the Ministry would also support open-cage farming. As far as the position of SFA and the Ministry is concerned, we are quite agnostic to the different types of technology that can be used to perform aquaculture activities because different types of sea water and sea space could be conducive for different types of farming methodology. We leave it to the expertise of the various farm operators to decide which platform they are more comfortable with.

But, of course, we do take into consideration the nature of the sensitive receptacles in the region where farming has to take place, as well as the type of water quality, in advising the operators to choose an appropriate platform that can be used to sustain their operations in a way that is sustainable for the business but, importantly, also sustainable for the marine environment.

Clearly, there are advantages and disadvantages to each type of farming methodology and the Member has also pointed out that RAS, while it may have less impact on the environment, it is a lot more energy-intensive. Yet, at the same time, the advantage it affords is that it has a closed containment system that allows better oxygenation of water and a purer water quality, a more controlled environment that also has the advantage of allowing a more dense stocking of the biomass.

So, there are the pros and cons. I think the operator would need to make a business case to decide whether the pros and cons will pan out for them from a business consideration as well.

The open-cage sea farming method will allow for quite dense stocking if it can have a certain depth of water to support that. But the hydrology and the nature of the water in which the cage is to be situated will impact the ability of that method of farming to be viable because there will be a larger impact on the environment. On the other hand, I think it does mean that there are possibly less energy requirements using an open-cage method.

So, there are different considerations at play here. What we try to do is to encourage operators to practise good husbandry so that the fish can be kept safe and in a bio-secure manner. And at the same time, to ensure that their practice of growing the fish does not foul the water conditions, by using proper sustainable feeding methodology in their farming practices.

The second question is whether we can engage more with the public to encourage public support for local produce. The answer is yes. In fact, we have started a series of Alliance for Action discussions with stakeholders in the ecosystem, meaning the producers of local produce, together with the off-takers, such as hotels, restaurants, caterers, supermarkets, to come on board this Alliance for Action and talk about how we can integrate the entire value chain from producers to off-takers to help the industry to grow in a more sustainable, business-centric manner.

At the same time, the Alliance for Action also looks at how we can educate the public to raise consumer awareness of how they can support our local produce. And, not least, to make sure that there is less carbon footprint incurred in our food supplies by sourcing more locally but, importantly, also to build up the appetite for local produce to grow their market here and, in the process, build a more resilient supply chain for ourselves and food security for Singapore.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Madam. I think the Senior Minister of State mentioned that EIAs would be requested to be done if there is going to be impact on the environment. So, can I confirm, one, whether it is an environmental impact assessment or an environmental impact study that would be requested?

Second, to follow up on Member Ms Nadia Samdin's point, for open-cage farming, can I confirm as well that SFA will always require an EIA to be done?

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Madam, as I explained in my main reply, if there is an anticipated impact on the ecology of the environment, an environmental impact assessment will be conducted. In the National Parks Board (NParks)'s methodology, they will also advise on some findings regarding marine ecological profiling exercise when assessing whether a site is suitable to be used for aquaculture activities.

So, it is a series of tools that we use to size up the potential impact before we decide whether a site is suitable for aquaculture activity.

But even as a site is selected for aquaculture activity, there will be environmental monitoring and impact mitigation requirements on the operator to make sure that even when the farm is established, there will be ongoing measures to make sure that the impact on the environment is mitigated as much as possible.

Sorry, can the Member repeat the last question again, on open-cage farming?

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Whether we will always require an EIA done when it is open-cage farming.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: As I said, I think it is in relation to the main reply. As long as we think there will be a significant impact on the environment, whether it is open or closed containment, an environmental impact assessment can be carried out.

Having said that, we must also make sure that the requirement for environmental impact assessment is not made overly onerous for operators. I think in more advanced aquaculture countries – for example, on a recent study trip that we had undertaken with our stakeholders to Australia, we did come across this framework which the Australians used to manage aquaculture sector growth in Australia, to also help manage environmental impact. One of the measures they have adopted is that in a region where aquaculture is deemed to be suitable, a broader environmental impact assessment is done on the overall site, but the individual operators within the site are not required to do a very onerous large-scale environmental impact study. Instead, they can have a scoped-down version to make sure that there is still some assessment of the extent of the impact and they complement that with a series of more intensive environmental monitoring measures.

So, it is an approach to make sure that while we want to ensure the process is not overly onerous, a suitable and comprehensive one is done for the overall site; yet, at the same time, post-implementation, there is a series of monitoring to make sure that the ongoing activities are also sustainable for the environment.