Abstract: This letter calls on the authorities to reconsider the opening up of 3 reservoirs in the central catchment area / nature reserve for fishing, and proposes alternatives which pose less of a threat to nature and the environment.

Dear Sirs/Mdms,

Firstly i appologise that this letter is so long-winded. Given the urgency of the situation, I did not want to delay and spend more time editing it.

With regards to the Straits Times article "Okay to fish at 3 more reservoirs" (ST Dec 17, 2000) I would like to suggest that the authorities seriously reconsider this.

I am an avid angler and go fishing at least twice a week, and as such, I welcome the willingness on the part of the authorities to further the sport of fishing in Singapore. Some anglers are happy that MacRitchie, Lower Peirce, and Upper Seletar reservoirs are being opened for fishing, but others, including myself, feel that this is not a good idea.

This is because the central catchment area cum nature reserve is the very last stronghold of most of our native aquatic plant and animal species, many of which are rare or endangered. Already over 40% of the native fish fauna of Singapore has become extinct¹, and we need to make more effort to preserve whatever is left of our formerly much richer, but still very rich, biodiversity.

Singapore has an ever-increasing human population and an ever-shrinking area of natural habitat. Because of this the native flora and fauna are under a lot of pressure and the uncontrolled exploitation of fish stocks in the reservoirs is unlikely to be sustainable.

In Kranji and Seletar, I and other long time anglers have noticed a very drastic decline in the population of snakeheads, walking catfish, and other once abundant species including even such fast-breeding introduced species as tilapia (Note to ST Forum editor: search your database of ST news articles from the 1980's, there are some which mention the big catches in those days at Kranji and Seletar. Try also including "toman" and "tilapia" in the search). This trend cannot be totally blamed on anglers as other environmental factors are involved, but overfishing is certainly an important factor, particular for species like snakeheads, which in addition to being much sought-after by anglers, do not reproduce at a very high rate.

Furthermore, as I understand it, the central catchment area reservoirs are our main source of drinking water (most other reservoirs are used for industrial water), and if the ecology of the reservoirs is disturbed, this can have detrimental effects on water quality which may increase the cost of water treatment, and also pose a threat to public health.

POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF FISHING IN THE CENTRAL RESERVOIRS

Allowing fishing in the reservoirs can potentially have the following negative effects:

1. INTRODUCTION OF NON-INDIGINOUS AQUATIC ORGANISMS.
This is my single greatest concern. Although the use of live bait is prohibited, in practice it will be very hard to ensure 100% compliance with this and some anglers will still use live bait. Anglers may catch small fishes from other places or may purchase them from aquarium shops and bring them to the reservoirs to use as bait. Many of these fish may be species that are non-native to Singapore, and they may escape and establish breeding populations in those reservoirs. They may also carry diseases, parasites, and other organisms that may also become introduced to our reservoirs ².

An even more likely scenario is that, if fishing is allowed there, anglers will be motivated to introduce foreign fish species that they wish to catch into those reservoirs (it is illegal to do so but they will still do it). This has been done in many countries with disastrous ecological consequences. It has already happened in Singapore with the introduction of South American peacock bass, and it is rumoured, North American largemouth bass into some of our reservoirs. The ecological impact of these and other recent non-native fish introductions has yet to be ascertained ³.

The introduction of non-indigenous species can very seriously impact native organisms, pushing some species to extinction. It can also dramatically alter food web interactions and nutrient cycles, thus causing imbalances in the ecosystem, which can badly affect water quality in the reservoirs. Here are two examples:

Lake Victoria, Africa: Nile Perch, a fish not native to the lake, was introduced in the 1960's in an attempt to improve sport and commercial fisheries. Its population in the lake remained dormant until the 1980's when it exploded. The result was an ecological disaster.

"Lake Victoria is in danger of becoming the world's largest pool of dead water. Already half its native fish are extinct, and the 30 million people who eke out a living from its troubled waters are facing calamity" ⁴.

Because of the ecological damage, the lake water, which was formerly very clear, has become very murky with algae and much of it has become so devoid of oxygen due to rotting algae that no fish can live in it.

Apple snails in Southeast Asia ⁵: In the 1980's, apple snails (Pomacea) from South America were introduced to Taiwan to start a snail farming industry. However, the foreign snails were not popular as food, and also proved capable of carrying a local parasitic worm that infects humans. Instead of becoming a profitable aquaculture product, the snails infested paddy fields, where they posed a real threat to rice production and the environment in general. The snails rapidly spread to Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Hong Kong, South Korea, southern China, Japan, the Philippines, Hawaii (where they are a major pest in the cultivation of taro, the staple food there), Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and Australia. They have thus become a threat to food production in Southeast Asia.

These foreign apple snails are also found in parts of Singapore where they eat up all the water plants. Water plants take up dissolved nutrients (nitrate, phosphate, etc) and give out oxygen, and with the water plants gone, the nutrients cause algal blooms which makes the water turbid, low in oxygen, and bad smelling. In addition the plants are vital as habitats, breeding places, and food for a whole host of aquatic animals including many species of fish, and their removal seriously damages the entire aquatic ecosystem.

2. DIRECT IMPACT ON NATIVE FISH POPULATIONS:
The native fish populations in our reservoirs are fragile and should be safeguarded. They are already under pressure from introduced aquatic species (via competition, direct predation, and drastic food web changes) as well as environmental factors such as excessive water plant clearance. Having anglers fishing them out will add yet another source of pressure on their dwindling populations. This problem can be lessened if anglers release native fish that they catch instead of taking them home to eat. Anglers should be educated and encouraged to release native fish and keep only the introduced non-native ones.

3. HEAVY METAL POLLUTION:
Fishing weights commonly sold in tackle shops are mostly made of lead. Some artificial lures, notably jigs and certain spinners, also have lead components. Lead is not very soluble in water, but the water in the central catchment reservoirs is probably slightly acidic (given the geology and soils of the area and the acid water streams that feed into the reservoirs) and may dissolve small amounts of lead off sinkers and other tackle. Over time very many pieces of lead-containing tackle will be lost to snags in the reservoir (I have personally collected many lost lead sinkers from the fishing area at Lower Seletar reservoir) and the amount of lead in drinking water may increase to levels which may pose a threat to public health (especially that of children, who suffer brain damage and decreased IQ from long term exposure to even low levels of lead). In other countries, alternative tackle is available, such as split shots which do not contain lead, but to my knowledge such un-leaded tackle is not yet available in local tackle shops.
As an aside, the three SAF rifle ranges in the Nee Soon area, which is in the water catchment area of Lower Seletar reservoir, are another possible source of heavy metal contamination. In other countries, the soil from rifle ranges is treated as toxic waste because of its high lead content⁶, and it is advisable for the authorities (ENV / PUB) to test the water in streams and drains near weapons ranges for lead, antimony, mercury, cadmium, zinc, and other heavy metals used in the manufacture of ammunition.

4. LITTER:
Another danger is lost or discarded nylon fishing line. It takes many years to break down, and it poses a risk to wildlife, especially when it is tangled. Animals become entangled in it and die. It is especially dangerous to wading birds, tortoises, and monitor lizards, which may get their legs or necks stuck in the loops of tangled line. This is a problem anywhere that fishing takes place, not just in the reservoirs. It can be minimised if anglers take more care to properly dispose of tangled line instead of littering. The existing anti-litter laws should be strictly enforced to deter littering by errant anglers.

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS

Instead of allowing fishing in the central catchment area reservoirs I suggest that the authorities take the following steps to further the sport of fishing in Singapore, whilst protecting our environment and biodiversity for the sake of all Singaporeans, anglers or otherwise:

1. OPEN UP LESS ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE WATER BODIES AS FISHING SPOTS, instead of allowing fishing in the nature reserves. Such places include:

• Bedok reservoir, Pandan reservoir, Yishun stormwater collection pond, more parts of Jurong lake, and Tengeh reservoir. These reservoirs do not have any rare or endangered native fish as far as I am aware, and most are dominated by fast-breeding non-native fish. Furthermore, if I am not mistaken most of these reservoirs are not used for drinking water so anglers should be allowed to use natural bait there as it doesn't pose a public health risk. See the appendix to this article for a discussion of natural versus artificial bait.

   

• The former fishing ponds in Punggol Park and Bishan Park. These were formerly leased to commercial fishing pond operators who charged very high fees and have now gone out of business. Nparks has now banned fishing in these ponds for no apparent reason. There is a shortage of fishing ponds where children can learn the basics of fishing with inexpensive tackle (handlines, bamboo poles, bent pins baited with earthworms, not expensive rods and reels and artificial lures which kids can hardly afford) in Singapore and these ponds are ideal places for families to go fishing with their kids. They are overpopulated with fast-breeding introduced tilapia and mayan cichlids, which readily take any bait, and which will not go extinct from overfishing. Fishing with natural bait should be permitted here.

2. DEVELOP EXISTING WATERCOURSES FOR MULTIPLE USES.

In 1977 Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said:

"It should be a way of life to keep the water clean, to keep every stream, every culvert, every rivulet, free from unnecessary pollution. The Ministry of Environment should make a target: in ten years let us have fishing in the Singapore River and fishing in the Kallang River. It can be done"⁷.

In spite of this, it appears that streams, canals, rivers and drains, are at present viewed and treated only as means of draining away precious freshwater as fast as possible. Their roles as potential habitats for aquatic life, as aesthetic landscape features, and as places for recreational fishing, do not appear to have been taken into account. As a result, many streams, rivers, and drains that once supported a thriving community of aquatic life have been transformed into lifeless concrete drains by "drainage improvement works."

Reducing unnecessary pollution is indeed a good and necessary thing, but fish and other aquatic organisms need more than clean water. All organisms, including humans -- though we seem to have forgotten it, need to live in a balance with the rest of nature. In addition to not-too-dirty water, fish need a functioning aquatic ecosystem. They need to be part of a working food web, they need suitable hiding, spawning and nursery habitats, and they cannot survive in drains that are usually dry, or those with very fast flowing water and no shelter from the strong current, or covered drains with no sunlight.

Some suggestions to make water courses more multi-functional in land-scarce Singapore⁸:

1.  
2. Where possible, earth-banked streams and rivers should be left earth-banked and not concretised. Excessive clearing of water plants should be avoided.

    

3. If bank support is necessary to prevent erosion, then use breathable concrete slabs with holes in them, on sloping banks, like the banks of the Kallang river upstream of Kallang MRT station. The holes provide places where aquatic organisms can burrow and live.

    

4. Mud and sand deposits should not be dredged away unnecessarily, as these are very important habitats for invertebrates, which are an important part of the aquatic food web. Mud banks are an indispensable physical component of the estuary ecosystem, and estuaries are vital for the marine ecosystem as well as being highly productive ecosystems in their own right.

    

5. Mangrove and attap trees could be planted along suitable river and canal banks to improve the aesthetics of the river and to provide shelter and food for birds, fish, and other animals⁹.

    

6. Vertical concrete walls should be avoided as far as possible. Vertical sided canals and drains are death traps for terrestrial animals that fall in and cannot climb out. Dogs, cats, small mammals, toads, and even people have fallen in and died because they could not climb out of vertical-sided canals.

    

7. Many small concrete drains used to exist which had conditions capable of supporting at least some fish and wildlife. These conditions included permanent water flowing at a slow rate, cracked sections or holes in the concrete, accumulated sand, dead leaves, or other natural substrate. Such drains typically had populations of guppies, toad and frog tadpoles, walking catfish, swamp eels, snakeheads, dragonfly nymphs, and sometimes soft-shelled turtles. They were excellent places for children to scoop "drain fish" and thus interact and learn about nature. Unfortunately most such drains have now been renovated and covered over by "drainage improvement schemes" which often seem unnecessary to me. However, suitable small drains can be purposely designed and modified to support fish and other wildlife and to allow easy access to children.

As Mr Lee said in 1977, "it can be done".

APPENDIX: THE BAIT DEBATE

back

There have recently been a few articles in the Straits Times (most recently "Hook the fish, but watch your baits," Dec 18, 2000) about people using live or dead bait -- natural bait -- in reservoirs, which is currently illegal. I shall now discuss the pros and cons of allowing natural versus artificial bait in reservoirs.

FROM AN ANGLER'S POINT OF VIEW:
In most freshwater fishing locations, and for most species of fish, natural bait, whether live or dead, produces much higher bite and hook-up rates as fish are attracted by the smell and texture of the real thing, and will bite it and hold on instead of spitting it out immediately. Artificial bait is usually much less effective, and also much more expensive to buy. Some anglers enjoy the challenge and skill of fishing with artificial bait, but others prefer a more relaxed style of fishing and also enjoy catching more fish rather than spending the whole day casting lures, sometimes without getting even a single bite. The skill, patience, physical exertion, low catch rate, and the expensive tackle needed for lure fishing are all factors that may discourage children and novice anglers and put them off the sport of fishing. Thus, from an angler's point of view, both artificial and natural baits should be allowed as much as possible in order to cater to a wider range of fishing techniques and angler preferences.

FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL / CONSERVATION POINT OF VIEW:
Different types of natural bait pose different degrees of risk to the environment of a reservoir:

• Warm-blooded animals carry more bacterial and viral diseases that can be passed on to humans than cold-blooded ones, so things like pig and chicken liver pose the greatest risk to public health (see for example the recent food scares involving Malaysian pigs, Hong Kong chickens, and EU beef). The water treatment process will filter out or kill most of the disease organisms but its better to be safe and have less of them in the water to begin with. Thus, birds and mammals, live or dead, in whole or in part, should not be allowed as bait in drinking water reservoirs.
• Anglers often use live fish, live frogs, live insects, live prawns, and earthworms as bait. Some of these creatures will escape and survive and possible breed in the reservoir. Some of these will be species that are already found naturally in the nature reserve so this will cause no harm to the ecosystem. However some of them may be non-native species which can wreak havoc on the local ecosystem if they become established here. This is especially true of fish and frogs because many foreign species are imported live for the aquarium or food trade. Some of these have become established in Singapore, but not yet in the central nature reserve, and they may become established there via bait bucket releases. Foreign animals may also carry foreign diseases that may infect local ones. As such, with the possible exception of earthworms, insects, and small freshwater shrimps (all of which occur naturally in or around the reservoirs), no live bait should be allowed in the nature reserve area. In the case of live fish and frogs, another possible argument against their use is that they are vertebrates with well-developed brains, and may thus experience more unnecessary emotional distress from being used as bait.
• Anglers also use dead bait, mainly bread, dough, and pieces of fish or prawn. Leaving aside pig and chicken organs already discussed above; dead baits pose the least risk to public health and the environment among natural baits. As such, they could conceivably be allowed in reservoirs without any adverse environmental impact.
• Artificial bait is not without its problems. Unlike natural baits, lures made of plastic and metal are non-biodegradable. When they are lost to snags, they will persist for a very long time without breaking down. In addition, some types contain lead or other toxic chemicals, which may pose a public health risk if they end up in drinking water. Then again, lead weights are also used by natural bait anglers. If it is found that lead does dissolve in reservoir water, all lead-containing terminal tackle should be banned. Fishing tackle shops should be encouraged to sell "un-leaded" tackle.
• The best thing is not to allow fishing at all in the central catchment / nature reserve area.

SOME FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE STRAITS TIMES ARTICLES:

• The articles tended to focus on the potential for natural bait to "dirty the water". However, I doubt that this will be a problem as the amount of natural bait put in by anglers is very small compared to the size of the reservoir. It will be quickly eaten up by fish (bait is, after all, meant to be eaten by fish), prawns, and other scavengers and detritivores, and the amount of nutrients and biomass entering the reservoir in the form of bait will be more than balanced by the amount removed from it in the form of fish taken home by anglers. There will be a net removal of nutrients and biomass from the reservoirs, because the fish removed are bigger than the bait used to catch them.

   

• The Straits Times articles about fishing in reservoirs also use the term "sport fishing" as though it refers to fishing using artificial bait as opposed to natural bait. This is not so. "Sport fishing" refers to angling carried out for the purpose of sport, as opposed to subsistence fishing (fishing for food), or commercial fishing (fishing for profit). It has got nothing to do with the type of bait used. "Sport fishing" is almost synonymous with "recreational fishing" (for example see: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fishing/econ.sptfsh.html) but perhaps carries a slight nuance of being more competitive and requiring more effort and skill, whereas "recreational fishing" sounds more laid-back and relaxed. I can think of no easy-to-use term which fully and perfectly encapsulates the meaning of fishing using artificial bait as opposed to natural bait, but perhaps "lure fishing" or "fishing using artificials" comes closest. For legal definitions of "sport fishing" see:
  http://gcc.ca/Political-Issues/jbnqa/section_24_hunting1.htm
  http://www.nwn.noaa.gov/sites/nwnmfs/1sustfsh/fhalhq.htm
  http://www.akcache.com/akcache/akfreg.html
  and search for the phrase "sport fishing means" on the above pages.

FOOTNOTES:

1. I. M. Turner gives a figure of 44% extinction of freshwater fish in Singapore, in "A first look at biodiversity in Singapore," National Council on the Environment (1994) p.50 . It is more than likely that this figure has since increased as very drastic environmental changes have taken place over the last few years. See also:
http://fish.la.asu.edu/acn/as/1/vol1no4.txt
http://www.amnh.org/science/biodiversity/extinction/Day1/bytes/StiassnyPres.html
(search for "singapore" on these pages).

2. At least two new species of freshwater clam (identified by Chan Sow-Yan as Anodonta woodiana, and Pilsbryoconcha exilis) have established themselves in several of our reservoirs via parasitic larvae attached to introduced fish, probably imported from Taiwan, Thailand, or Indonesia. Freshwater clams have caused problems in a neighbouring country where their shells have clogged up pipes in water treatment plants.

3. Over the last 7 years many new species of non-indigenous fish have established themselves in Singapore waters, including:

• Peacock Bass (Cichla spp.) from South America, now present in most reservoirs.
• Mayan Cichlid (Cichlasoma urophthalmus) from Central America, probably arrived via Taiwan, present in Upper and Lower Seletar reservoirs and some ponds.
• Eartheater (Geophagus sp.) from Central America, in McRitchie reservoir and associated streams.
• Jaguar Guapote (Parapetina/Parachromis/Nandopsis/Cichlasoma managuensis) from Central America, probably arrived via Taiwan, currently found in the Pandan canal and possibly Pandan reservoir.
• Red-Headed Cichlid (Vieja synspila) from Central America, established in Jurong Lake and possibly Pandan canal.
• Dwarf Cichlid (Apistogramma sp.) from Central America. Streams in the Nee Soon area.
• Zebra Tilapia (Tilapia buttikoferi) from West Africa. Lower Seletar and Jurong Lake.
• Green Chromide (Etroplus suratensis) from India/Sri Lanka. Lower Seletar, northern rivers and ponds, and Kallang-Rochor drainage basin.
• Pacu (possibly also a fin-eating Piranha species) from South America, in some reservoirs.
• Giant Walking Catfish (Clarias gariepinus, C. macrocephalus, or hybrids of between them) from Africa and/or Thailand. Certain ponds and rivers in the western area.
• Knife fish (Chitala sp.) probably from Malaysia or Thailand. Found in Lower Seletar, Jurong Lake.

From personal anecdotal observations, the rise in the variety, quantity, and geographical spread of many of these new introduced species has coincided with a corresponding decrease in the abundance of native or long established fish species, and in some cases a very dramatic reduction in total fish abundance (all species) and also other ecological changes like loss of water weed beds and growth of algal mats. Whether there is a causal relationship, and if so what it is, between the spread of exotics and the observed changes in our water bodies, has yet to be established by scientific studies. However I am not aware of any recent scientific studies on the impact of exotics in Singapore, and it is also a problem that most Singaporeans, including the relevant authorities, seem unaware of. Many of these species are imported for the aquarium or food trade and then released into the wild when owners get tired of them, or for religious merit-gaining purposes. I just got a pack of leaflets called a "Pet Starter Kit," published by the Primary Production Department, which has some basic advice for pet owners, but makes no mention of the problem of introduced non-indigenous animals.

4. TED Case Studies: Lake Victoria
http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/victoria.htm
On the effects of Nile perch introduction on Lake Victoria, see also:

TED Case Studies: Nile Perch, Trade and Environment
http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/perch.htm

The Effects of Nile Perch Introduction into Lake Victoria
http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/mcmurry/spring98/21/janburgers.html

5. On introduced apple snails as pests in Southeast Asia, see:
Apple Snails
http://huizen.dds.nl/~snc/main.htm
(search for "pest" on the page)

Keeping predator snails at bay
http://www.wda.co.uk/business/publns/advances/issues/issue17/agri01.htm

Socio-Economic Aspects of Biological Invasion, A Case Study: the Golden Apple Snail
http://www.gcrio.org/ASPEN/science/eoc94/EOC3/EOC3-18.html

Apple Snails in Wetland Taro Production
http://agrss.sherman.hawaii.edu/onfarm/pest/pest0008.html

Some Hawaii pests arrived by invitation
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/botany/news/applesnail.htm

6. On rifle ranges as sources of heavy metal pollution, see for example:
Heavy Metal Contaminates on Ranges
http://www.cpeo.org/lists/military/1998/msg00026.html

Army aims for eco-friendly ammunition
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/national/lead23.shtml
Mentions the threat that lead bullets on training ranges pose to drinking water. Gets much public relations milage out of a new lead-free tungsten bullet. I suspect that the real reason for the new bullet is its improved armour penetration capabilities and not the army's concern for the environment.

7. The then Prime Minister said that at the opening of Upper Pierce Reservoir, see:
http://campus.fortunecity.com/media/330/lessonslearnt.htm

8. Designing waterways to have more functions than just draining away water is not a new idea in Singapore, it has been mooted in various publications including a government publication, The Singapore Green Plan (published by the Ministry of the Environment, 1992). The Green Plan states on page 11: "We have developed a comprehensive drainage system to stamp out ubiquitous flooding. A ten-year Clean River Campaign, completed at a cost of $200 million has brought back aquatic life to the Singapore River and Kallang Basin. The open drains and canals will however, no longer just be functional infrastructure. They will be modified and upgraded to aesthetic waterways to allow for recreational activities in some of the larger streams." However, the things I see going on make me wonder if the government has since changed its mind and decided not to fully implement the Green Plan. See also:

Singapore: Singapore Green Plan: towards a model green city, 1992
http://igc-vif-215.igc.org/wdces/si92_670.html
The abstract mentions that part of the plan is to "convert open drains and canals into recreational waterways." However I see little evidence of this having been done.

Natural Resource Aspects of Sustainable Development in Singapore
http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/singapor/natur.htm
This Local Agenda 21 report mentions a "Waterbodies Design Panel: Members from various agencies work to enhance the aesthetic and recreational potential of waterways to turn canals running through urbanised areas into richly landscaped rivers, enhancing the residential developments along them." If such a panel really exists, I can see little evidence of their work so far. Natural water courses continue to be turned into unsightly vertical-sided concrete drains or even completely covered over, and existing old concrete drains which have been sufficiently weathered and worn so that they can support diverse fish life continue to be "upgraded" which in practice means that they are degraded ecologically.

Green Plan aims to make Singapore model environment city by 2000
http://www.recyclingpoint.com.sg/Articles/1991Nov15GreenPlan.htm
This 1991 article mentions that one aspect of the Green Plan is "Upgrading canals and rivers and improving the quality of water in them to encourage aquatic life and recreational activities... ... Modify and upgrade larger streams into 'aesthetic' water bodies with high quality water". However, it is now the year 2000, and there are very much fewer rivers and canals capable of supporting aquatic life and recreational activities like fishing, than in 1991, and this is due in no small part to the so-called "upgrading" in "drainage improvement works".

9. The Green Plan calls for waterways to be made aesthetic, and tropical coastal rivers (all the rivers in Singapore are coastal) without mangroves look about as beautiful as parks without trees. Mangroves are of tremendous ecological importance as up to 75% of commercially caught sea fish depend on mangroves directly or indirectly at some stage in their life cycle. Planting back just a few mangroves along our riverbanks may not drastically increase our supply of seafood, but it will make rivers look nicer and attract more fish, crabs, birds, and other wildlife to those places.

Many tidal canals used to be mangrove-lined rivers before they were concretised. Some of these could support a few mangrove trees and nypah (attap) palms planted along their banks, if the vertical concrete banks were made into breathable sloping banks; or alternatively, mangroves could grow in accumulated mud banks inside the canals.

As for the species to plant, Rhizophora and Bruguiera propagules do best as they are bigger and hardier to begin with. Avicennia propagules and seedlings tend to get broken and washed away by strong currents during storms and should only be planted in more sheltered situations. However even the stick-like Rhizophora seedlings are easily bent and damaged by snagging jetsam in the current, of which the worst offenders are plastic bags. For this reason, it is best to use PVC planting tubes as detailed in http://www.mangrove.org/

FURTHER READING:

PRINTED MATERIALS:

•  
• The Singapore Green Plan: towards a tropical city of excellence. by Ministry of the Environment, SNP, 1992.

   

• Towards an Ecologically Centred Landscape Ethos, Singapore Institute of Landscape Architects, in Planews: Journal of the Singapore Instiotute of Planners, April 1993, Vol. 14, pp.33-40.

   

• Environment and the City: sharing Singapore's experience and future challenges. Edited by Ooi Giok Ling, Institute of Policy Studies, Times Academic Press, 1995.

   

• A First Look at Biodiversity in Singapore, National Council on the Environment, 1994.

   

• Animal Life and Nature in Singapore, edited by S. H. Chuang, Singapore University Press, 1973. See especially the chapter on Freshwater Life by D. S. Johnson.

WEB PAGES:

•  
• Singapore Fishing Forum
  http://forum.coolconnect.com/forum/13/start.cgi
  The reservoir fishing issue has been hotly debated here for the past few months.

   

• DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for an Accessible Fishing Facility
  http://www.nps.gov/noca/fishfacility.htm
  An example of an environmental impact study on a proposed fishing facility at an American lake. It shows the kinds of factors that should be taken into account when considering such a proposal.

   

• Evaluating the Benefits of Recreational Fishing
  http://fisheries.com/syllabi/abslist.htm
  Some interesting abstracts

   

• Biodiversity and its value
  http://kaos.erin.gov.au/life/general_info/op1.html

   

• American Fisheries Society Position on Introductions of Aquatic Species
  http://www.afsifs.vt.edu/afspos.html
  The pros and cons of introducing non-native species.

   

• Molluscan Pictures
  http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~chansy/
  The largest collection of pictures on the web pertaining to nature and wildlife in Singapore.

   

• Exploration Trials
  http://www.bigai.ne.jp/~chansy/trip/html/explore_listing.htm
  Loads of pictures of all the interesting nature spots in Singapore, plants, animals, and so on. Gives you an idea of what you can find where.

   

• Freshwater Fishes (Singapore, W.Malaysia & WW)
  http://www.bigai.ne.jp/~chansy/trip/html/fishpix.htm
  Probably the biggest collection of pictures on the web, of the freshwater fishes of Singapore and West Malaysia.

   

• Formulation Of Objectives, Strategies And Mobilisation Of Resources
  http://campus.fortunecity.com/media/330/formulation.htm

   

• Lessons Learned
  http://campus.fortunecity.com/media/330/lessonslearnt.htm
  About environment and conservation issues in Singapore

   

• UN Environment Programme: A Singapore Success Story
  http://www.unepapac.org/sing_moe_river.html
  About the clean rivers campaign of the 1970's and 80's.

   

• Singapore's Green Plan: A World Leader in Managing Environmental Recovery
  http://www.rri.org/newssp95/sing.html
  A glowing account of Singapore's environmental record.

   

• United States-Asia Environmental Partnership , FY2000 Work Plan -- Singapore
  http://www.usaep.org/fy2000/singapore.htm
  Another good-looking account of Singapore as the "environmental hub" of Southeast Asia.

   

• Singapore's Green Plan: A World Leader in Managing Environmental Recovery
  http://www.rri.org/newssp95/sing.html   or
  http://www.greenplans.com/envatlas/asia/singapore/sg-index.html
  "Singapore presented one of the most progressive statements from the 180 nations attending the UN Earth Summit at Rio in June of 1992."

   

• Singapore's national report for the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development Preparatory Committee
  http://igc-vif-215.igc.org/wdces/si91_433.html
  "According to this report, Singapore has a model of clean development to offer the developing world." However, the report abstract notes that there was "insufficient protection of nature reserves and biodiversity." This highlights a serious deficiency in Singapore's otherwise highly-praised environmental record.

   

• Urban Forestry in Singapore
  http://www.urban-forestry.com/citytrees/v36n1a07.html

   

• A Viable Framework for Stewardship
  http://www.greenplans.com/gparchive/wbus-ac.html
  "The failure to reconcile environmental stewardship and economic development in the industrialised world has its roots in a longstanding intellectual and ideological gulf between business and industry and the environmental movement. The former has tended to view environmental issues through the lens of profits, productivity, and economic growth, while the latter has based its concerns on intrinsic values, aesthetic sensibility, and the rights of future generations." -- This dichotomy of views is very obvious in Singapore. The dominance of the one over the other is equally obvious.

   

• Pragmatic Approach Or Easy Way Out: Can land-scare S'pore afford nature conservation?
  http://cyberfair.gsn.org/sngs99/textversion/t13-9-98.html
  Interesting newspaper article

   

• Nature reserve appeal rejected: Nominated MP Simon Tay had called for enlarged reserve to compensate for lass of forest to water tank project
  http://cyberfair.gsn.org/sngs99/textversion/t11-9-98.html
  Another interesting news article.

   

• So Much Land for Golf Courses?
  http://forum.coolconnect.com/forum/13/display.pl?id=0968253814.25280.1000.1000.1000.1000&CPAGE=1
  The text of an article from the Business Times about the URA's concept plan, which suggests that a choice has to be made between having more land for industry and more for parks and green areas. This issue has recently been given prominent coverage in the press.

   

• Ubin Uncovered
  http://community.s-one.net.sg/articles/23092000-1/story3.htm
  "Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong who visited the island in 1990, succumbed to its charms and recommended that the island be kept as it was. The PM had also supported the National Youth Council's proposal that Ubin be designated as 'The Adventure Island'. Then, in the Singapore Green Plan of 1993, Ubin was also designated as a 'Nature Area'." An interesting article on Ubin.

   

• Whither Ubin?
  http://mars.post1.com/home/naturesingapore/pubinwhi.htm
  This is a 1995 article about the changes on Ubin, it agrees with my own observations when I went there this year. Looks like Ubin will be yet another Sentosa.

   

• Master Plan Proposals For Kallang And Simpang Planning Areas
  http://www.ura.gov.sg/pr/text/pr93-01.html
  The URA's plans for the Simpang area included "preservation of mangrove swamps and bird sanctuary."

   

• URA's Simpang Planning report, 1993
  http://www.ura.gov.sg/dgp_reports/simpang/text/main.html
  http://www.ura.gov.sg/dgp_reports/simpang/text/dv-brief.html
  Includes include the exciting news that the URA's plans included "Conservation of mangrove swamp and heronry along Sungei Khatib Bongsu." When i read these pages I got excited about the prospect of at least a small token patch of riverine mangroves being retained in that part of Singapore, until i found the following page:

   

• The Singapore Green Plan Endangered
  http://www.post1.com/home/naturesingapore/greenplan.htm
  It says that the plan is now to sacrifice the patch of mangrove to straighten a semi-expressway. I was disappointed when I read this, but somehow not surprised.

The End