Title: A critical evaluation of the sustainability of Malaysia and Singapore’s management of water resources Due date: 11 Dec 2013 Student number: 1355795 Word count: 2465
Introduction This essay aims to assess the sustainability of the management of water resources in Malaysia and Singapore. The two nations were once one country. In 1963, the Federation of Malaya, Singapore and two other British colonies in Borneo Sabah and Sarawak merged to form Malaysia. However, Singapore left in 1965 to become a sovereign state on its own (Brown, 2013). After almost five decades, Singapore would emerge as a developed nation with an impressive gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of US$51,709 in 2012 (The World Bank, 2013). Meanwhile, Malaysia has also grown to become the third largest economy in Southeast Asia after Indonesia and Thailand (The World Bank, 2013). In terms of human development, it is ranked second in the region after Singapore (UNDP, 2013). Nonetheless, it is still struggling to achieve the status of a developed country with its GDP per capita at US$10,381, which is five times lower than Singapore’s. We will examine the natural endowments available to both economies and their vastly different responses to their endowments post-independence. I will use data available from Malaysia’s latest Review of the National Water Resources Study (2000-2050), Singapore’s government agencies and the most recent national water footprint statistics compiled by Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2011) to support my analysis. Drawing on concepts including virtual water, allocative efficiency, water security and sustainability, I will compare and contrast the two countries’ dissimilar approaches to their water resources. I hope to demonstrate in the end that regardless of the amount of natural resources available to a state, political will is the most important factor to achieving water security and sustainability.
1 Student number: 1355795
Analytical framework Virtual water Allan (2011) coined the term in 1992 to raise public attention to the amount of water embedded in the production of consumer goods, especially food. He noted that economists have been oblivious to the amount of water needed to grow, extract, manufacture, package and transport agricultural and industrial commodities. Consequently, its environmental costs are not internalised in most goods’ prices. International “virtual water trade” has allowed water-scarce countries to remain food- secure. Water wars did not happen as water-stressed countries such as those in the Middle East and North Africa regions could import food from water-rich countries. In this way, the problem of water scarcity was solved by economic processes beyond the local water sector. However, poorer countries such as those in sub-Saharan Africa are usually excluded from the virtual water “trade”. Allan (2011) rightly observed that water flows upward to money and power. Later on, Dutch scientist A. Hoekstra and colleagues introduced the concept of water footprint to calculate the virtual water content in commodities. They published the first global study on countries’ water footprint in 2002 (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011). Initially they only analysed blue and green water footprints. Grey water footprint was included in 2007 (Vauham, 2011). What is blue, green and grey water footprint? Blue water footprint is defined as the consumption of surface and ground water. Green water footprint refers to the consumption of green or soil water for agricultural production. Grey water footprint is the volume of freshwater needed to assimilate pollutants to current water quality standards (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011).
Allocative efficiency The allocation of limited resources for maximum social and economic benefits in society is a matter of allocative efficiency (Griffin, 2006). Water resources should be utilised and developed efficiently to boost agricultural and industrial productivity, fuel economic growth and alleviate poverty (Rijsberman and Manning, 2006). Farmers should seek to derive more crops per drop while policymakers should strive to create more jobs per drop. Allan (2011) noted that successful industrialised economies are marked by a diversification of industries. Citing Singapore as an example, he highlighted that the city-state could only meet five per cent of its water
2 Student number: 1355795
needs through local resources. However, the island nation was able to generate wealth by strategically investing in industries with low water needs to fund 95 per cent of its imports.
Water security Malek et al (2013) mentioned that the concept of water security has gained traction particularly over the past five years. The World Economic Forum in 2009 defined water security as the “gossamer” that links together the web of food, energy, climate, economic growth and human development challenges that the world economy currently face. History has shown that water security is needed for any human civilisation to survive and thrive (Allan, 2011). It is inevitably linked to allocative efficiency as only effective distribution and utilisation of limited water resources worldwide can ensure global water security.
Sustainability Water security and sustainability should go hand in hand. Vauham (2011) defined sustainable water consumption as the use of water that supports the ability of human society to endure and flourish into the indefinite future without undermining the integrity of the hydrological cycle or the ecological systems that depend on it. Chan (2009) added that all stakeholders must be engaged with each other to ensure existing water resources are used in the most efficient economic manner without endangering access to future generations.
Analysis and evidence
First, we will look at the water resources available to each country before comparing their water footprints and policy responses.
Malaysia: An Overview Spanning 330,803km2, Malaysia is just slightly smaller than Germany. It is home to 29.3 million people (Department of Statistics Malaysia). It has abundant water resources that are unevenly distributed across 13 states, according to the Natural Water Resources Study (NWRS) commissioned by its federal government in 2011. Located in the tropics, the country receives heavy rainfall (see Table 1 in the following page) especially during monsoon seasons.
There are more than 100 river basins in Peninsular Malaysia and over 50 river basins in its two Borneo states across the South China Sea. Out of the 578 rivers in Malaysia, some 21 of them are heavily polluted but the majority remain pristine and are of drinkable quality. Therefore, Malaysia is currently self-sufficient in small water. Taking into account population growth, per capita consumption and water demand from various sectors, the national study estimates that the country would still have more than enough freshwater to meet its needs for the next 50 years (see Table 2).
However, the national study highlighted that industrialised states such as
Selangor and Penang as well as Kedah, which has the most irrigated paddy schemes, have almost exploited their surface water resources. It recommended these states to look into other options such as groundwater, interstate water transfer, rainwater harvesting and costlier alternatives including recycling wastewater and desalination.
4 Student number: 1355795
Singapore: An Overview Prior to its independence, the Singapore City Council inked its first agreement in 1927 with the Sultan of Johor in Malaysia to receive 18 million gallons of water per day (Mgal/day) (Tortajada et al., 2013), equivalent to about 83 million litres per day (MLD). It signed another deal with the Johor state in 1962 to secure access to water from the Gunong Pulai and Pontian catchments as well as the Tebrau and Scudai rivers until 2011. In 1963, it reached the third agreement with Johor to receive up to 250 Mgal/day (1136 MLD) from the Johor River until 2061. Historically, the island has been reliant on water supply from Malaysia (Tortajada et al., 2013).
Table 3: Key statistics on Singapore, 1965 and 2011
1965 2011 Land area (km2) 580 714 Population 1,887,000 5,184,000 Blue water consumption 75 153 per capita (litre/person/day) Total blue water 318 1,728 consumption (MLD) Catchment coverage (%) 11 67 Water availability 24hours/day 24hours/day Service coverage (%) ~80 100 Source: Tortajada et al., 2013
Post-independence, Singapore’s water supply planning had to undergo a
radical shift as it strives to become self-sufficient (Tortajada et al., 2013). With only 580km2 of land and a population of almost 1.9 million in 1965, Singapore only had three reservoirs and catchment areas covering 11 per cent of its land. By 2011, it has expanded its water catchment areas to include two-third of its land with a total of 17 reservoirs. Currently, about 20 per cent of its water supply comes from the local catchments (Vanham, 2011). Another 10 per cent is derived from desalinated water, 30 per cent from recycled sewerage (better known as NEWater to Singaporeans) and the remaining 40 per cent from Malaysia. The island aims to become entirely
5 Student number: 1355795
self-sufficient by increasing its NEWater and desalination capacity respectively to
meet 50 per cent and 30 per cent of its future demand by 2060. The remaining 20 per cent will continue to be sourced from local catchments. However, Vauham (2011) pointed out that Singapore only uses one per cent of its land for agriculture. It is reliant on food import to feed its population. Now we will move on to compare the water footprints of both countries before proceeding to evaluate their water policies.
Water footprints Malaysia’s national water footprint was 2,103m3 per year per capita for the period between 1996 and 2005 (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011). It is almost 52 per cent higher than the global average of 1,385m 3 per year per capita. About 32.2 per cent of its water footprint is virtual water “imported” through trade in food and commercial goods. The data for Singapore’s national water footprint per capita per year is not available from the report. However, its net virtual water import is estimated at 2,548.5 million m3 per year, which is almost five times higher than its direct blue water supply of 550 million m3 per year (Vauham, 2011). Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2011) further calculated that Singapore saved almost 2,327 million m3 of water per year on average between 1996 and 2005 via virtual water “trade”. However, Vauham (2011) noted that Singapore import some of its food produced from water-stressed river basins such as from Australia.
Table 4: Malaysia and Singapore’s water footprints, net virtual water import and national water savings Malaysia Singapore (million m3/year) (million m3/year) National water footprint - Green water 81,531 2 - Blue water 1,662 17 - Grey water 6,174 1 TOTAL 89,367 20 Net virtual water import
6 Student number: 1355795
- Green water (13,353) 1,727.3
- Blue water 851.5 (930.5) - Grey water (256.2) 1,752.0 TOTAL (12,757.7) 2,548.5 National water saving - Green water (10,919.4) 1,637.7 - Blue water 2,430.5 (508.5) - Grey water (584.2) 1,197.4 TOTAL (9,073.1) 2,326.6 Source: Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2011)
Comparing policy responses
In Malaysia, matters related to water have been largely left in the hands of individual state governments in accordance with the constitution (Saimy and Mohamed Yusof, 2012). Due to the abundance of water resources, water prices remain low while wastage is high (National Water Services Commission, 2011). Water management is fragmented, with water supply, sewerage and drainage being handled by separate government agencies (NWRS 2000-2050). In addition, overlapping functions within different levels of government, ministries and departments create grey areas of responsibilities. In the 1980s, the national push for privatisation saw most states outsourcing their water supply services and treatment of sewerage to the private sector (Chan, 2009). Unfortunately, concession agreements were negotiated behind closed doors between politicians and the companies, with the terms and conditions kept secret from the public (Tan, 2012). The privatisation exercise had failed to attract significant private sector investments to develop the country’s water infrastructure. Moreover, the federal and state governments have had to constantly dish out subsidies and soft loans to keep some of the debt-ridden private concessionaires afloat (Tan, 2012). Meanwhile, improvements to the quality and delivery of water services nationwide have been minimal. Rural areas remain underserved with only one state Malacca providing 100 per cent coverage to its populace. The percentage of rural population with connected water supply is the lowest in Kelantan (60.8 per cent),
7 Student number: 1355795
followed by Sarawak (63.5 per cent) and Sabah (64.2 per cent) in 2012 (National Water Services Commission, 2011). In comparison, Singapore has displayed exemplary political leadership and long-term vision in its water management (Tortajada et al., 2013). Under Singapore’s first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, the federal government set up the Water Planning Unit way back in 1971. It carried out a comprehensive study to explore unprotected catchments and unconventional water sources such as desalination and recycled wastewater. Singapore’s first Water Master Plan was subsequently produced in 1972, outlining strategies to diversify local water supplies. Singapore built its first pilot water reclamation plant to explore the feasibility of recycling sewerage into drinkable water in 1974. It was shut down as the process was considered too costly. Groundwater was not an option due to the lack of it. However, once the island has fully exploited its surface water resources, it began to reconsider the alternatives of recycling wastewater and desalination in the mid- 1990s. This time, the government invited private sector participation in the construction and operation of its desalination plant and water reclamation plant (Tortajada et al., 2013). In 2003, PUB constructed the first three NEWater plants but the fourth and fifth plants were built by the private sector. In 2005, Singapore’s first desalination plant, also constructed by a private company, began operations. It implemented water conservation tax to bear the increased cost of treating waste and salt water. At the same time, it also provided tax benefits to industries that successfully reduce their water usage. The city has always carefully factored in water in its urban planning and economic development plans. It was mentioned in the 1972 Water Master Plan that “ a single large water-consuming industrial complex could upset demand forecast by a wide margin at short notice” (Tortajada et al., 2013, p.16). Therefore, Singapore did not adopt South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong’s “industrialise first, consequences later” development model. The government put in place strict regulations to control pollution from industries. Furthermore its Drainage and Sewerage Departments were combined with PUB’s Water Department in 2001. The government also ran public relations campaign and educational programmes in schools to drive the message across to the public that water is precious in the island.
8 Student number: 1355795
Conclusion As Chan (2009) noted, good water governance is key to achieving sustainability and water security. Singapore’s political leadership was committed to achieving its long-term vision in being self-sufficient. From urban planning, economic development to education, the city-state took water into account. In comparison, the Malaysian government has been complacent due to an abundance of water resources in the country. Malaysia’s policymakers have much to learn from Singapore.
References:
Allan, T. (2011) Virtual water: Tackling the threat to our planet’s most precious resources. London: I.B.Tauris
Brown, V. (2013) When Singapore and Malaysia were one. The Star, 16 September. Available at http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/09/16/When-Spore-and- Msia-were-one.aspx [Accessed 10 December 2013]
Chan, N. W. (2009) Issues and challenges in water governance in Malaysia. Iranian
Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering, 6(3), 143-152.
Department of Statistics Malaysia (n.d.) Malaysia @ a Glance. [Online] Available at
http://www.statistics.gov.my [Accessed 10 December 2013]
Griffin, R. C. (2006) Water resources economics: the analysis of scarcity, policies
and projects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Malek, M. A., Nor, M. A. M. and Leong, Y. P. (2013) Water security and its challenges for Malaysia. In: 4th International Conference on Energy and Environment, Putrajaya 5-6 March 2013. Bristol: IOP.
Mekonnen, M. M. and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2011) National water footprint accounts: the
green, blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption, Value of Water
9 Student number: 1355795
Research Report Series No. 50, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.
National Water Services Commission (2011) [Online] Available at
http://www.span.gov.my [Accessed 10 December 2013]
Review of the National Water Resources Study (2000-2050) and Formulation of
National Water Resources Policy [Online] Available at http://www.water.gov.my [Accessed 10 December 2013]
Rijsberman, F. R. and Manning, N. (2006) Beyond More Crop per Drop: Water Management for Food and the Environment. In: 4th World Water Forum, Mexico City, 16-22 March 2006. Colombo: International Water Management Institute.
Saimy, I. S. and Mohamed Yusof, N. A. (2013) The Need for Better Water Policy and Governance in Malaysia. In: 1st World Congree of Administration and Political Sciences, Antalya, 29 November-2 December 2012. Online: Procedia.
The World Bank (2013) [Online] Available at http://data.worldbank.org [Accessed 10
December 2013]
Tan, J. (2012) The Pitfalls of Water Privatization: Failure and Reform in Malaysia. World Development, 40(12), 2252-2563.
Tortajada, C., Joshi, Y. and Biswas, A. K. (2013) The Singapore Water Story: Sustainable Development in an Urban City-State. Oxon: Routledge.
UNDP (2013) Human Development Index. [Online] Available at
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ [Accessed 10 December 2013]
Vauham, D. (2011) How much water do we really use? A case study for Singapore. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 11(2), 219-228.
