Final Environmental Impact Assessment before Decision on Alignment Option for Cross Island MRT Line

Mr Speaker, in 2013, LTA engaged a global specialist consultant to embark on a comprehensive and extensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for a segment of the Cross Island Line (CRL) near the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR). The study was divided into two phases with the first phase focusing on the environmental impact of undertaking site investigation works on the CCNR. The second phase of the study focused on the potential environmental impact of the construction and operational phases of the CRL. Together, they would provide a complete assessment of the environmental impact of the project.

Findings from Phase 1 of the EIA concluded that the site investigations works, with the implementation of mitigating measures and controlled access, could be carried out with moderate impact on the few parts of the nature reserve where these works were to take place. They were gazetted in February 2016 and were widely reported in the media. The Nature Groups were also invited to observe the actual conduct of the site investigation works in the CCNR.

Phase 2 of the EIA took a further three years and the findings were gazetted in September 2019. Phase 2 of the study was conducted based on a robust set of engineering schemes, which were independently reviewed by an International Panel of Advisors. The report concluded that both underground alignment options are feasible with appropriate mitigating measures. LTA has posted a copy of the report on its website for public viewing and feedback.

In undertaking the EIA, LTA engaged with stakeholders for both alignments. These included discussions and site visits with the Nature Groups as well as local grassroots leaders and residents who may be affected. Their feedback has helped LTA develop a comprehensive set of measures to mitigate the potential impact during the construction and operation of the CRL. There are no plans for a further EIA.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have two supplementary questions.

My first supplementary question is this: in assessing the impact of the Cross Island Line, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Government has evaluated, one, the animal population projections and two, the future impact of climate change for the critically endangered and endangered species in the CCNR and its adjacent forest, and whether this information will be made available to the public. The basis of my supplementary question is as follows.

It has been reported in the EIA report, I believe, that various critically endangered species as well as endangered species of animals tend to be affected as a result. However, it is unclear whether the Government, whether by EIA or other studies, has tracked the population sizes of these species and, more crucially, whether there have been quantitative projections made to gauge how these population sizes may shift due to the construction. It is also unclear whether fairly established matrix used in conservation such as species richness or species evenness have been considered.

For the long-term impact of climate change, factoring in this aspect will allow for better understanding of the true resilience of the eco-system in this area, which is important given that the effects of habitat fragmentation and loss will have long-term impacts on the eco-system in the area.

My second supplementary question is this: even with mitigation, habitat loss and fragmentation at the worksite may result in the loss of eco-system services, such as carbon sequestration and natural heritage, currently provided by these areas.

Will the Ministry conduct a study to holistically evaluate, if it has not, the economic, cultural and environmental value of these eco-system services provided at these sites before making a decision on the Cross Island Line?

The rationale for me asking this supplementary question is simply this: the idea is that when environmental degradation involving habitat loss and habitat fragmentation occurs, even if trees are replanted, the eco-system services provided by the original forest may either be lost or will take decades or more to be re-established to its prior magnitude and scale.

The important principle here is that degraded eco-system cannot be regenerated wholesale, they can only be rehabilitated.

Mr Speaker, the Member Mr Dennis Tan's Parliamentary Question was about the EIA but his supplementary question, if I understand correctly, is about the larger question about how a decision is arrived for the CRL alignment, and whether the EIA done thus far is sufficient.

He has not provided a criticism of either the methodology or the process, or the experts, or the people that have been involved in the EIA. So, as far as the EIA is concerned, it is limited to the projected plans and designs of the CRL and its interaction with the Central Catchment Area. It is not designed to take a whole-of-economy or whole-of-biome approach. Those are things that having had the EIA, the stakeholders, the Ministry, the various agencies involved have to take into consideration including, for example, the economic impact.

I just want to have some clarity. Is he suggesting that we redo the EIA because he fundamentally disagrees with the methodology and the findings? Secondly, is he advocating for a specific choice in the alignment of the CRL? Thirdly, I would just make the point that if the question is how might climate change or change in biodiversity interact with any given technical study limited to one specific part of our biome, that is a moving target. That would be something that you can never be satisfied you have done enough because the next study, say, two or three years henceforth, the climate will have changed. Factors affecting our biodiversity will have changed. These are things that academics have to continue to study even as we make our decisions about how to build our public transport system. So, perhaps, the Member might clarify what exactly he is criticising on the EIA and is he advocating for a specific choice for the CRL.

Mr Speaker, I am glad the Member has made it clear that he is not criticising the EIA that has already been done because it was indeed holistic and comprehensive, involving a robust panel of advisors as well as a wide variety of stakeholders. It is a useful set of information for us to then consider how best to align the CRL. It is not the only factor that is taken into account. Indeed, in making the decision, economic and many other factors will have to be taken into account.

Sir, may I just ask, specifically, when will we be making this decision on which alignment we will be using?

Mr Speaker, I do not have a date to announce at this point in time.