SSRN Id2847499

Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 19, 2016, pp.
105–138
Biological diversity conservation laws in

South East Asia and Singapore: a regional
approach in pursuit of the United Nations’
Sustainable Development Goals?
Associate Professor Burton Ong

Deputy Director, Asia Pacific Centre for Environmental Law, National University of Singapore
Associate Professor Lye Lin-Heng

Director, Asia Pacific Centre for Environmental Law, National University of Singapore
Dr Joseph Chun*
Senior Research Fellow, Asia Pacific Centre for Environmental Law, National University of Singapore
Biodiversity and wildlife protection laws are integral to the pursuit of sustainable develop-
ment, which the member states of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
have had on their regional co-operation agenda for decades. This article provides an over-
view of the key legal and policy developments in ASEAN on this front, examining the central
role of the ‘soft law’ approaches embraced by member states towards protecting and mana-
ging their mega-diverse genetic resources. The developments will be analysed through the
lenses of the international law agreements which all ASEAN member states are party to:
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species (CITES). While it may be sensible to adopt an integrated region-
wide approach towards tackling the illicit activities (poaching, smuggling, biopiracy, etc)
which threaten the region’s biodiversity, the political landscape of ASEAN makes it unlikely
for such a supra-national legal framework to emerge anytime soon. Harmonizing the national
laws of the ASEAN member states will also be a challenge because of the vast differences
between their respective socio-economic circumstances. To illustrate how the domestic
concerns and priorities of each ASEAN member state shape the contours of their respective
CBD- and CITES-implementing legislation, this article analyses the biodiversity and wildlife
protection laws of Singapore – an extreme example within the ASEAN region because it is a
land-scarce, densely populated, highly urbanized and economically advanced island state,
quite unlike its enormous, populous and resource-rich neighbours. Despite Singapore’s
unique circumstances, the analysis reveals that there are elements of its legal and policy fra-
mework that are potentially transplantable to other legal systems within the region, though
this will necessitate a more comprehensive comparative analysis of the relevant laws of the
other ASEAN member states, which is beyond the scope of this article.
Keywords: law, biological diversity, wildlife protection, ASEAN, regional, Singapore,

CBD, CITES
* The authors would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their comments
on an earlier draft of this article.
© 2016 The Author Journal compilation © 2016 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd
The Lypiatts, 15 Lansdown Road, Cheltenham, Glos GL50 2JA, UK
and The William Pratt House, 9 Dewey Court, Northampton MA 01060-3815, USA
Electronic copy
Electronic available
copy availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499
106 Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 19
1 INTRODUCTION
Mankind’s contributions to declining levels of biological diversity (‘biodiversity’) and

accelerated rates of species extinction around the world have indubitably produced
adverse effects on the health of the many ecological systems that sustain human
life on planet Earth. Environmental laws that focus on nature conservation and regu-
late human exploitation of endangered species thus play a pivotal role in facilitating
sustainable outcomes for the benefit of present and future generations. It was thus
unsurprising that the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – articulated in
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development1 – made
clear references to the important nexus between nature conservation efforts and sus-
tainable development.2 Re-emphasis on the critical importance of biodiversity and
species protection to the well-being of mankind returns the international environmen-
tal law spotlight to the two principal global legal frameworks primarily concerned
with promoting the sustainable use of wildlife: the 1992 Convention on Biological
Diversity (‘CBD’)3 and the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (‘CITES’).4 Both Conventions have been widely ratified by many states
around the world,5 including a group of ten countries in South East Asia – Brunei
Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Sin-
gapore, Thailand and Vietnam – that comprise the Association of South East Asian
Nations (‘ASEAN’).
This article seeks to do two main things. Firstly, it will provide an overview of the
key developments that have taken place within the ASEAN region over the last few
decades that demonstrate a growing interest in developing a collective approach
towards promoting environmental sustainability and, in particular, biodiversity conser-
vation and wildlife protection. While they have not always been successful in bearing
fruit, these collective efforts from the ASEAN Community cast light on a potentially
important facet of the national legal frameworks developed or applied by its member
states towards implementation of the CBD and CITES: that regional perspectives
and the common interests of the regional grouping should have an influence on the
design of national biodiversity and wildlife protection laws of individual member
states.
There are at least three reasons for adopting such a regional perspective in this area
of environmental law. Firstly, the effective management of biodiversity and wildlife
requires policymakers to devise legal and regulatory frameworks that extend over nat-
ural ecosystems – and such habitats clearly do not respect national boundaries.6 Sec-
ondly, given their broadly similar geomorphic and climatic conditions, several
ASEAN member states could house the same species of flora and fauna, creating
1. UN Doc A/Res/70/1 (2015).

2. See paragraph 33 and goals 14 and 15 of Transforming Our World, discussed in greater
detail below, in section 2.2.
3. (Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992) 1760 UNTS 79, entered into force 29 December 1993
<https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf> accessed 29 March 2016.
4. (Lausanne, Switzerland, 3 March 1973) 993 UNTS 243, entered into force 1 July 1975
<https://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/disc/CITES-Convention-EN.pdf> accessed 29
March 2016.
5. See CBD Secretariat, ‘List of Parties’ <https://www.cbd.int/information/parties.shtml>
accessed 23 May 2016; and CITES Secretariat, ‘List of Contracting Parties’ <https://cites.
org/eng/disc/parties/chronolo.php> accessed 23 May 2016.
6. See the discussion in the introduction to section 3 below.
Electronic copy
Electronic available
copy availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499
Biological diversity conservation laws in South East Asia and Singapore 107
opportunities for legal arbitrage by those who would engage in unlawful conduct –
whether poachers, smugglers or bio-plunderers. Thirdly, adopting a regional approach
towards biodiversity and wildlife protection laws might strengthen socio-cultural ties
between ASEAN member states (‘AMS’) seeking to develop a common identity via
notions of a shared natural heritage.7
However, the reality on the ground is that, despite the growing interest in coordina-
tion and cooperation between the relevant authorities responsible for implementing the
CBD and CITES in each member state, we are still a long way off from any substantive
degree of convergence occurring between the legal frameworks of these neighbouring
countries. Given their extremely diverse socio-economic conditions and constraints,8
AMS have diverse legal frameworks that reflect, in part, their individual interpreta-
tions of what their implementation obligations are under these treaties, while accom-
modating their respective competing national priorities and socio-political structures.
A comparative analysis of the differences between the laws of these ten jurisdictions
would clearly be beyond the scope of this article and will be left to another occasion.
However, the other major goal of this article is to provide an example from the jurisdic-
tion where the authors are from – Singapore – to illustrate how country-specific factors
have shaped the national CBD and CITES implementation legislative framework.
The upshot of this discussion will reveal how the highly amorphous concept of
‘sustainable development’ that is being pursued by all ASEAN member states in
the field of biodiversity conservation law, including Singapore, as embodied by the
SDGs, will invariably mean different things to different countries. This will make
the development of a pan-ASEAN regional approach towards aspects of biodiversity
conservation and wildlife protection laws more difficult to achieve, though it certainly
remains a longer-term goal worthy of aspiration.
2 PROTECTING BIODIVERSITY, REGULATING TRADE IN ENDANGERED

SPECIES AND THE SDGS
The World Commission on Environment and Development defined the concept of sus-
tainable development in its 1987 report, Our Common Future.9 It was endorsed by the
world community in 1992 in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
(‘Rio Declaration’).10 The international community renewed its commitment to sustain-
able development in the 2002 Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development11
and, more recently, in the outcome document of the 2012 UN Conference on Sustain-
able Development, The Future We Want.12 A number of implementation documents
have emerged alongside the Declarations over the years to translate ‘sustainable devel-
opment’ into more specific goals, including, most recently, Transforming Our World –
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (‘2030 Agenda’),13 the outcome docu-
ment of the UN Sustainable Development Summit 2015 (‘2015 Summit’). In particular,
7. See discussion in section 3.3.1 below.

8. See Table 2 below.
9. Oxford University Press, 1987.
10. UN Doc A/Conf 151/26 (1992) vol 1.
11. UN Doc A/Conf 199/20 (2002).
12. UN Doc A/Res/66/288 (2012) Annex.
13. UN Doc A/Res/70/1 (2015).
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

the 2030 Agenda includes a list of agreed goals, known as the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), and targets.14
2.1 Global biodiversity-related legal instruments

At the 2015 Summit, the Biodiversity Liaison Group (comprising the secretariat
heads of seven international biodiversity-related Conventions) noted that biodiver-
sity featured prominently in the goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda, and the comple-
mentary biodiversity-mandates of each of the Conventions.15
While all these Conventions play complementary roles as part of the international
biodiversity law framework,16 this article will focus only on the CBD and CITES
since they are the only two Conventions that all the AMS are parties to.
2.2 The alignment between the CBD and CITES, and the SDGs
Biodiversity is necessary to support all life on the planet, including human life. This
makes it imperative to protect vulnerable eco-systems and their living components.
Declining levels of global biodiversity pose serious threats to the achievement of
sustainable development, if not our very survival.17 Many threats to biodiversity are
anthropogenic – the five main threats are said to be invasive alien species, climate
change, nutrient loading and pollution, habitat change and over-exploitation.18
Through its endorsement of The Future We Want, the United Nations General
Assembly (‘UNGA’) recognized the severity of global loss of biodiversity and degra-
dation of ecosystems to food security and nutrition, the provision of and access to
water, and the health of the rural poor.19 More specifically, Goals 14 and 15 of the
SDGs declare the need for humanity to ‘[c]onserve and sustainably use the oceans,
seas and marine resources for sustainable development’ and to ‘[p]rotect, restore
and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests,
combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity
loss’ respectively.
While biodiversity is referred to explicitly only in these two goals, the CBD Secre-
tariat has also noted that it is relevant to all the other SDGs,20 and heads of state have
14. UN Doc A/Res/70/1 (2015) para 54.

15. ‘Joint Statement by the Liaison Group of the Biodiversity-Related Conventions on the
Occasion of the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 25–27 September 2015’
<https://www.cbd.int/doc/speech/2015/sp-2015-09-25-blg-en.pdf> accessed 29 March 2016.
16. See Secretariat of the CBD, ‘Cooperative Activities’ <https://www.cbd.int/cooperation/
related-conventions/activities.shtml> accessed 29 March 2016, for examples of areas in
which cooperative activities between the Conventions are taking or have taken place.
17. Rodrigo U Fuentes, Rolando Inciong and Leslie Ann Jose-Castillo, ‘Biodiversity Outlook in
the Southeast Asia’, in S Nakaano, T Yahara and T Nakashizuka, (eds), The Biodiversity Observa-
tion Network in the Asia-Pacific Region: Toward Further Development of Monitoring (Springer,
2012) 21, 22 <http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-4-431-54032-8_2#page-1> accessed
29 March 2016.
18. Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 (CBD Secretariat, 2006) 33 <https://www.cbd.int/doc/gbo/
gbo2/cbd-gbo2-en.pdf> accessed 24 May 2016.
19. UN Doc A/RES/66/288 (2012) Annex para 197. See also Secretariat of the CBD, ‘Biodi-
versity for Food Security and Nutrition’ <https://www.cbd.int/doc/newsletters/development/
news-dev-2015-2013-07-en.pdf> accessed 29 March 2016.
20. Secretariat of the CBD, ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ <https://www.cbd.int/idb/2015/
goals/> accessed 29 March 2016. See also Stefan Juncurt, ‘Living in Harmony with Nature to

affirmed (in The Future We Want) the importance of implementing the Strategic Plan
for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.21
The nexus between CITES and sustainable development was also reiterated in The
Future We Want:
We recognize the important role of [CITES], an international agreement that stands at the
intersection between trade, the environment and development; promotes the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity; should contribute to tangible benefits for local people;
and ensures that no species entering into international trade is threatened with extinction.22
This is reiterated in Goal 15.7 of the SDGs.23
3 ASEAN-LEVEL EFFORTS DIRECTED AT BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION:

WORKS IN PROGRESS
Scientists consider Southeast Asia a biodiversity hotspot because of its high number
of endemic species.24 Occupying only 3 per cent of the world’s surface, it is home to
18 per cent of all plant, animal and marine species assessed by the International Union
for the Conservation of Nature.25 Within Southeast Asia, Indonesia, Malaysia and the
Philippines are said to be mega diverse countries, where four of the world’s 25 iden-
tified biodiversity hotspots are located.26
At the same time, the region is also a biodiversity loss hotspot, an area of ‘conserva-
tion concern’27 that is facing ‘impending disaster’.28 The region has the highest relative
rate of deforestation of a major tropical region,29 which looks set to accelerate.30 This is
alarming given that 30 per cent of the world’s tropical rainforests are found here.31 The
Transform Our World: The CBD’s Contribution to SDG Implementation’, Part 2 <http://sd.iisd.org/
policy-updates/living-in-harmony-with-nature-to-transform-our-world-the-cbds-contribution-to-
sdg-implementation-2/> accessed 29 March 2016.
21. CBD CoP 10 Decision X/2, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2 (2010) Annex <https://www.cbd.
int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-02-en.pdf> accessed 29 March 2016.
22. UN Doc A/RES/66/288 (2012) Annex para 203.
23. Goal 15.7 is to ‘[t]ake urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species
of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products’.
24. Navjot S Sodhi et al., ‘The State and Conservation of Southeast Asian Biodiversity’
(2010) 19 Biodivers Conserv 317 <www.dbs.nus.edu.sg/lab/evol-ecol/documents/Sodhi_etal_
Biod_Cons_2010.pdf> accessed 29 March 2016.
25. ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity, ASEAN Biodiversity Outlook (ASEAN Centre for Bio-
diversity, 2010) 9 <www.aseanbiodiversity.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&
view=category&download=2:asean-biodiversity-outlook&id=3:acb-books> accessed 29
March 2016.
26. Norman Myers et al., ‘Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities’ (2000) 403 Nature
853 <www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6772/pdf/403853a0.pdf> accessed 29 March 2016.
27. Navjot S Sodhi et al. (2010) (n 24) 318.
28. Navjot S Sodhi et al, ‘Southeast Asian Biodiversity: an Impending Disaster’ (2004) 19(12)
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 654, 654 <http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/emorhardt/159/pdfs/
2006/Sodhi.pdf> accessed 29 March 2016.
29. Ibid 654.
31. ASEAN Sub-Regional Environment Programme, Phase I, 1978–1982, in Kheng-Lian Koh
(ed), ASEAN Environmental Law, Policy and Governance: Selected Documents, Volume I
(World Scientific Publishing, 2009) 311, 322.

ASEAN Biodiversity Outlook reported in 2010 that the ASEAN region was losing bio-
diversity at an alarming rate within various ecosystems and that the drivers of biodiver-
sity loss were continuing to intensify.32
The direct drivers of biodiversity loss in the region include the conversion of nat-
ural habitats to other land uses; forest fires; over-harvesting for food and timber; the
trade in wildlife as pets and as medicine;33 climate change; invasive alien species;
over-exploitation; and pollution.34 The root challenges, however, are said to be
socio-economic in character, and include ‘population growth and poverty, a chronic
shortage of conservation resources (e.g. expertise and funding), anaemic national
institutes and rampant corruption’.35 In the face of the rapid economic growth of
the region, particularly the increased trade in manufactured and agricultural products,
the pressure to deplete these natural resources is also expected to increase, making the
need for their conservation all the more urgent. By one estimate, at the present rate of
deforestation, the region will lose ‘nearly three quarters of its original forests by 2100
and up to 42% of its biodiversity’.36
3.1 ASEAN and its early efforts towards environmental sustainability (1967–1997)
ASEAN was not established with regional cooperation in environmental protection in
mind. In the 1967 ASEAN Declaration, 37 the declared aims of ASEAN did not
include environmental issues. This is unsurprising given that the global community
only began to take notice of the human environment in the UN Conference on the
Human Environment in 1972 (‘the Stockholm Conference’).
It was only in 1977, having been inspired by the Stockholm Conference to take a
global perspective of environmental management as an integrated aspect of human
development requiring collective action, that the AMS first sought to cooperate in
action-oriented projects on environmental issues, including nature conservation, to
ensure sustainable development.38 The AMS adopted the ASEAN Sub-regional
Environment Programme, Phase I, 1978–1982 (‘ASEP I’) which inter alia included
developing and promoting a regional network of selected protected areas of signifi-
cance for conservation of nature and a regional instrument in regulating international
trade in endangered species of flora and fauna. An inventory of endangered species in
ASEAN countries was also completed to facilitate their protection.39
ASEP I was succeeded by ASEP II, for the period from 1983 to 1987. While
ASEP I emphasized action plans, ASEP II was action-oriented and emphasized pro-
jects that demonstrate the benefits of environmentally sound development to meet
immediate regional needs.40 The 1984 ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parks and
32. ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (2010) (n 25) xv.

33. Navjot S Sodhi et al. (2004) (n 28) 656–7.
34. ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (2010) (n 25) 10.
36. Ibid 654.
37. 1967 ASEAN Declaration signed on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok, Thailand by the Foreign
Ministers, 6 ILM 1233 (1967) <www.asean.org/the-asean-declaration-bangkok-declaration-
bangkok-8-august-1967/> accessed 29 March 2016.
38. ASEP I (n 31) 313.
39. Ibid 330.
40. Unfortunately, the authors were not able to find any information relating to the extent of
implementation of these projects.

Reserves41 was adopted during this period. Work towards the adoption of the 1985
ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(‘ACNNR’)42 also commenced.43
The ACNNR was remarkably comprehensive and adopted a holistic approach to
nature conservation, encompassing the conservation of genetic diversity and all eco-
logical processes, and the sustainable use of harvested species. It also employed con-
cepts such as ‘sustainable development’ even before the CBD had been adopted or
Our Common Future had been published.44
The Agreement was signed by the then six parties that comprised ASEAN in 1985,45
and required ratification by all six parties in order to enter into force.46 However, it has
been ratified by only three parties47 to date and is thus still not in force. In the mean-
time, three of the four AMS that subsequently joined ASEAN have acceded to it.48
In ASEP III, for the period from 1988 to 1992, the AMS planned to implement a
regional programme for the conservation of wild flora and fauna in the ASEAN
region, to develop programmes on the management of wetland ecosystems’ wildlife
species of economic importance, as well as to protect migratory species that cross
ASEAN borders, and set up and implement a programme to develop, protect and
rationally exploit forest resources. 49 Twelve ‘very high priority projects’ were
selected under ASEP III, including a project on ASEAN waterbirds and wetlands.50
The ASEPs were followed in 199451 by the ASEAN Strategic Plan of Action on
the Environment (‘ASPEN’), for the period from 1994 to 1998. This came after the
41. 1984 ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parks and Reserves adopted on 29 November 1984
in Bangkok, Thailand by Ministers for the Environment <http://environment.asean.org/asean-
declaration-on-heritage-parks-and-reserves/> accessed 31 March 2016.
42. This Agreement was signed on 9 July 1985 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia by the Foreign
Ministers <http://cil.nus.edu.sg/rp/pdf/1985%20Agreement%20on%20the%20Conservation%
20of%20Nature%20and%20Natural%20Resources-pdf.pdf> accessed 29 March 2016.
43. ASEAN Sub-Regional Environment Programme Phase II, 1983–1987, in Kheng-Lian
Koh (2000) (n 31) 337, 366–7.
44. Kheng-Lian Koh, ‘ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,
1985: A Study in Environmental Governance’, Paper Presented at the World Parks Conference 2003
<https://law.nus.edu.sg/apcel/publications/pub/kohkhenglian/aseanagreement.doc> accessed 29
March 2016.
45. These were Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.
46. Art 33 of the ACNNR states, ‘This Agreement shall enter into force on the thirtieth day
after the deposit of the sixth Instrument of Ratification’.
47. These are Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand.
48. These are Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia. See National University of Singapore, Centre
for International Law, ‘1985 Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
signed on 9 July 1985 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia by the Foreign Ministers’ <http://environment.
asean.org/agreement-on-the-conservation-of-nature-and-natural-resources/> accessed 31 March
2016.
49. ASEAN Sub-Regional Environment Programme, Phase III, 1988–1992, in Kheng-Lian
Koh (2009) (n 31) 387, 402.
50. ASEAN Strategic Plan of Action on the Environment, 1994–1998, in Kheng-Lian Koh
(2009) (n 31) 413, 431.
51. The adoption took place under the 1994 Resolution on Environment and Development,
adopted on 26 April 1994 in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam by the Environment
Ministers <http://environment.asean.org/resolution-on-environment-and-development/>
accessed 31 March 2016.

adoption of the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, and the CBD in 1992. ASPEN took into
account these instruments, and in particular, the areas in Agenda 21 requiring priority
action in ASEAN. These included the development of a framework for the protection
and conservation of heritage areas and endangered species; and the strengthening of
research and development capacities to enhance biodiversity conservation.52
3.2 Towards an environmentally sustainable ASEAN community (1998–2015)

Efforts by the members of ASEAN towards regional integration were bolstered by the
adoption of the ASEAN Vision 2020 in 1997, when the following aspiration for
ASEAN was articulated – ‘a concert of Southeast Asian nations, outward looking, liv-
ing in peace, stability and prosperity, bonded together in partnership in dynamic
development and in a community of caring societies’.53 Since then, various declara-
tive instruments and plans of action have been made by the AMS to realize this vision
by promoting sustainable development and, inter alia, through enhancing environ-
mental law and governance frameworks in the region.
During this period, the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Access to, and Fair and
Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from the Utilization of Biological and Genetic
Resources (‘ASEAN ABS Framework Agreement’) was prepared and intended for adop-
tion in 2004.54 The ASEAN ABS Framework Agreement was initiated in early 1997,
‘to ensure consistency of access to regulations among the Parties by setting minimum
standards for national implementation and to maximise opportunities for the conserva-
tion and sustainable use of biological and genetic resources’.55 In 2004, the AMS
endorsed the VAP, which, as noted above, included the effective implementation of
the ASEAN ABS Framework Agreement.56 The AMS also agreed in 2006 to ‘expedite
the respective national process for signing the ASEAN Framework …’,57 and it was
slated to enter into force on the 60th day after the deposit of the 6th instrument of rati-
fication, acceptance or approval.58 However, the Framework Agreement was never con-
cluded, and its relevance to the AMS collectively may have been overtaken by the entry
52. Strategic Plan of Action on the Environment 1994–1998 (n 50), 442–3.

53. 1997 ASEAN Vision 2020, adopted on 15 December 1997 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia by
the Heads of State/Government <www.asean.org/?static_post=asean-vision-2020> accessed 29
March 2016.
54. HPA, para 6.1.1 (Table 1, note a); 2003 Yangon Resolution in Sustainable Development
(Table 1, note b); and ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity, ‘Access and Benefit Sharing’ <https://
aseanbiodiversity.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66:access-and-benefits-
sharing&catid=29:access-and-benefit-sharing&Itemid=93> accessed 23 May 2016. The authors
have not been able to locate this final pre-adoption version of the ASEAN ABS Framework
Agreement.
55. ASEAN Secretariat, ‘ASEAN Cooperation on Environment: Nature Conservation and
Biodiversity’ <http://environment.asean.org/nature-conservation-and-biodiversity/> accessed 9
March 2016.
56. VAP, Annex 1, Ref. No. 3.3.8.3.
57. 2006 Cebu Resolution on Sustainable Development adopted on 10 November 2006 in Cebu,
Philippines by the Environment Ministers <http://environment.asean.org/cebu-resolution-on-
sustainable-development/> accessed 31 March 2016.
58. ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity, ‘Access and Benefit Sharing’ <https://aseanbiodiversity.
org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66:access-and-benefits-sharing&
catid=29:access-and-benefit-sharing&Itemid=93> accessed 29 March 2016.

Table 1 Major regional declarative instruments and action plans issued by the ASEAN member states
Instrument Goals
© 2016 The Author

Hanoi Plan of Action(1999–2004) (‘HPA’) To strengthen the ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation; promote regional
coordination for the protection of the ASEAN Heritage Parks and Reserves; strengthen institutional
and legal capacities to implement Agenda 21 and other international environmental agreements;
formulate and adopt an ASEAN Protocol on access to genetic resources.a
2003 Yangon Resolution on Sustainable Environment Ministers of AMS agreed to ‘conclude by 2004, the ASEAN framework agreement on
Development access to, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of, biological
and genetic resources …’ and to ‘work towards a plan of action with a definite timeframe to
harmonise environmental policies, legislation, regulations, standards and databases, taking into
account national circumstances of member countries’.b
2003 Declaration of ASEAN Concord II Established an ASEAN Community based on three pillars – political and security cooperation,
economic cooperation, and socio-cultural cooperation.c
Paved the way for the 2007 ASEAN Charterd that introduced a constitution with codified norms and
rules (including the ‘ASEAN Way’) for the ASEAN Community.e
2004 Vientiane Action Programme (2004–2010) ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) programme areas included:
(‘VAP’)
• Significant reduction in biodiversity loss rates by 2010;
• Promotion and coordinated management of ASEAN Heritage Parks;
• Effective Implementation of the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Access to, and Fair and
Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from the Utilization of Genetic and Biological
Resources;
• National and regional cooperation to address measures related to the biodiversity-related
multilateral environmental agreements;
• Establishment of regional database of the biological resources in the ASEAN region;

• Enhancement of the role and capacity of the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity.f
Biological diversity conservation laws in South East Asia and Singapore
(continued )
Journal compilation © 2016 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd

113
114
Table 1 Major regional declarative instruments and action plans issued by the ASEAN member states (Continued)
Instrument Goals
© 2016 The Author

ASEAN Socio-cultural Community Blueprint • Protection and management of the environment and natural resources to sustain
(2009–2015) (‘ASCC Blueprint’) development;
• Collaboration and cooperation in access and equitable sharing of genetic and biological
resources;
• Management of transboundary protected areas between neighbouring ASEAN member
states;
• Minimization of impacts of transboundary movement of living modified organisms;
• Reduction of the impact of invasive alien species at the regional level;
• Control of transboundary trade in wild fauna and flora.g
Notes: a 1998 Ha Noi Plan of Action signed on 15 December 1998 in Ha Noi, Vietnam by the Heads of State/Government, pt VI <www.asean.org/?static_post=hanoi-plan-
of-action>. It was reported that four of the 15 objectives of the HAP were fully accomplished. This included the initiative on strengthening the ASEAN Regional Biodiversity
Centre. The remaining objectives were part of long-term efforts and were partially achieved. See Cielito F Habito, Fernando T Aldaba and Ofelia M Templo, An Assessment
Study on the Progress of ASEAN Regional Integration: The Ha Noi Plan of Action toward ASEAN Vision 2020, REPSF Project No. 03/006b (2004), at 104 <https://www.
Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 19
researchgate.net/publication/265032056_An_Assessment_Study_on_the_Progress_of_ASEAN_Regional_Integration_The_Ha_Noi_Plan_of_Action_toward_ASEAN_
Vision_2020> accessed 27 May 2016. b 2003 Yangon Resolution on Sustainable Development signed on 18 December 2003 in Yangon, Myanmar by the Environment
Ministers (‘2003 Yangon Resolution’) <http://environment.asean.org/yangon-resolution-on-sustainable-development/> accessed 31 March 2016. c 2003 Declaration of
ASEAN Concord II signed on 7 October 2003 in Bali, Indonesia by the Heads of State/Government <www.asean.org/?static_post=declaration-of-asean-concord-ii-bali-
concord-ii> accessed 29 March 2016. d 2007 Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations signed in Singapore on 20 November 2007 (‘ASEAN Charter’), entered
into force 15 December 2008 <www.asean.org/storage/images/ASEAN_RTK_2014/ASEAN_Charter.pdf> accessed 29 March 2016. e ASEAN Charter, Art 20. f 2004–2010
Vientiane Action Programme adopted in Vientiane, Laos on 29 November 2004, Annex III, para 3.3 <www.asean.org/storage/images/archive/VAP-10th%20ASEAN%
20Summit.pdf> accessed 29 March 2016. g 2009 Blueprint on the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community, para 38 <www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/archive/5187-19.
pdf> accessed 29 March 2016. The 2015 ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) Scoreboard (ASEAN Secretariat, 2016), at paras 93 and 94 <http://www.asean.
org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/9.-March-2016-2015-ASCC-Scorecard-1.pdf> accessed 27 May 2016, reported inter alia, the increase in the extent of protected area
coverage in AMS and the increase in the total number of ASEAN Heritage Parks as achievements of the Blueprint.

Journal compilation © 2016 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd
into force of the 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair
and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the 1992 Convention
on Biological Diversity (‘Nagoya Protocol’)59 in 2014. Within ASEAN, several mem-
ber states are parties to the Nagoya Protocol via ratification or accession,60 while others
are not parties to it despite being parties to the CBD.61
The other noteworthy development during this period was that the AMS identified
the harmonization of their respective environmental laws as one of their shared objec-
tives, an aspiration described in the VAP as a ‘medium term strategy and milestone’
[to s]trive for harmonisation of environmental policies, legislation, regulations, standards,
and databases, taking into account the national circumstances of Member Countries, to support
the integration of the environmental, social, and economic goals of the region.62
The current plan to develop the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community can be found in
the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Blueprint 2025 (‘ASCC Blueprint 2025’),63 where the
global agenda to realize the SDGs in the next 15 years is noted.64 Its strategic mea-
sures for the conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity include the
strengthening of global and regional partnerships and supporting the implementation
of relevant international agreements and frameworks;65 strengthening regional coop-
eration in protecting, restoring and promoting the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosys-
tems resources; halting and reversing biodiversity loss and land degradation; and
supporting the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020
and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.66
3.3 ASEAN achievements resulting from regional cooperation in biodiversity

conservation
ASEAN has come a long way towards the adoption of a regional perspective on biodi-
versity conservation, but much work remains to be done before it becomes the integrated
political, economic, social and cultural community it aspires to be. While there are no sys-
temic public records of the progress or outcomes of many of the measures adopted in suc-
cessive plans of action,67 it is at least clear that the AMS have benefitted from the
regional cooperation in biodiversity conservation efforts, the management of the rich
59. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/1 (2010) Annex 1, entry into force 12 October 2014 <https://
www.cbd.int/abs/doc/protocol/nagoya-protocol-en.pdf> accessed 29 March 2016.
60. Cambodia ratified on 19 January 2015; Indonesia ratified on 24 September 2013; Lao PDR
acceded on 26 September 2012; Philippines acceded on 29 September 2015; and Vietnam acceded
on 23 April 2014. Thailand signed the Protocol on 31 January 2012, but has not ratified it.
61. Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore are not parties to the Nagoya Protocol.
62. VAP Annex III, 3.3 (Table 1, note f ).
63. ASEAN 2025: Forging Ahead Together (ASEAN Secretariat, 2015), 103 <www.asean.
org/storage/2016/01/ASEAN-2025-Forging-Ahead-Together-2nd-Reprint-Dec-2015.pdf>
64. Ibid para 4.
65. Ibid para 16.C.1.
66. (n 21).
67. The ASEAN regularly publishes annual reports and scorecards (see <http://asean.org/
resources_cat/asean-publications-3/> accessed 27 May 2016), but generally not much detail
on the implementation of plans and projects, and their outcomes can be gleaned from such
publications.

biodiversity in common transboundary areas, and the regulation of wildlife trade within
the region. Some of the more tangible achievements from these cooperative endeavours
include the following.
3.3.1 ASEAN Heritage Parks

In 1984, the then six AMS signed the ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parks, declar-
ing a number of national protected areas – ASEAN Heritage Parks (‘AHP’). This was
replaced by the ten-party 2003 ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parks, 68 which
encouraged the establishment of protected nature areas pursuant to the CBD’s
goals of promoting in-situ conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats.69 The
AHP programme for regional cooperation in the conservation and management of
these parks complemented the national efforts of individual AMS, underscoring the
significance of these nature areas as part of the ‘common natural heritage’ that is
the ‘rich biodiversity that supports the lives of millions of people in Southeast
Asia’,70 while strengthening the region’s cultural identity and spiritual values.71 Cur-
rently, a total of 37 AHPs have been established.72
3.3.2 ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity

The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (‘ACB’), is another key initiative that has emerged
from regional cooperation in biodiversity conservation. It is a continuation of the
ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation (ARCBC), which was estab-
lished in 1999 as a time-bound collaboration project between ASEAN and the
European Union (EU), funded by the EU and hosted by the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources of the Philippines.73 Its success led to its formal establishment
in 2005 as a permanent institution, renamed the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity.74 It
functions as ASEAN’s ‘regional centre of excellence in promoting biodiversity con-
servation and management’ to facilitate ‘cooperation and coordination among AMS
68. 2003 ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parks signed on 18 December 2003 in Yangon,
Myanmar by the Environment Ministers (‘2003 ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parks’)
<http://environment.asean.org/asean-declaration-on-heritage-parks/> accessed 31 March 2016.
69. Ibid preamble. For a more detailed discussion of the sub-regional cooperative efforts to man-
age such parks, particularly in transboundary protected areas, see Koh Kheng-Lian and Nicholas A
Robinson, ‘Strengthening Sustainable Development in Regional Inter-Governmental Governance:
Lessons from the “ASEAN Way”’ (2002) 6 Sing JICL 640 at 649.
70. ‘More ASEAN Heritage Parks Eyed’ (26 April 2014) Manila Bulletin <www.mb.com.ph/
more-asean-heritage-parks-eyed/> accessed 29 March 2016.
71. ‘European Union Assistance Helps Launch ASEAN Heritage Parks Programme’ (10 January
2005) Thai News Service.
72. ‘ACB Pitches Call for Budget Increase for Heritage Parks’ (7 December 2015) Business
Mirror <www.businessmirror.com.ph/acb-pitches-call-for-budget-increase-for-heritage-parks/>
73. ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity, ‘Our Legal Foundation’ <http://www.aseanbiodiversity.
org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=79&current=1> accessed
24 May 2016.
74. 2005 Agreement on the Establishment of the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity signed in
2005 by the Environment Ministers (‘Establishment Agreement for the ACB’), entry into
force 23 July 2009 <http://agreement.asean.org/media/download/20140423133605.pdf>

and with relevant national governments, regional and international organizations on

the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity’ and ‘the fair and equitable shar-
ing of benefits arising from the use of such biodiversity’.75
3.3.3 ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN)

In 2004, the ASEAN Ministers responsible for implementing CITES declared the
need for ‘concerted and coordinated joint actions … to address the illegal exploitation
and trade in CITES-listed species within the ASEAN region’. They acknowledged the
‘importance and benefits of regional cooperation and coordination in developing,
coordinating, implementing and enforcing laws and regulations on conservation of
wild fauna and flora’.76 This led to a review of AMS’ respective national legislation
to facilitate the implementation of CITES.77
In the following year, the 2005 ASEAN Regional Action Plan on Trade in Wild
Fauna and Flora, 2005–201078 was adopted, and subsequently updated for 2011–
2015.79 This led to the establishment of a regional centre to encourage networking
among law enforcement authorities in ASEAN countries to counter the illegal trade
in wild fauna and flora and to assist the AMS in adopting effective and enforceable
legislation for CITES implementation, promoting – in particular – the adoption of
Category I CITES-enabling legislation80 throughout ASEAN by 2010.
75. Establishment Agreement for the ACB, Art 2.

76. ASEAN Statement on CITES on the Occasion of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Conference of
the Parties to CITES, preamble, in Kheng-Lian Koh (ed), ASEAN Environmental Law, Policy and
Governance: Selected Documents, Volume II (World Scientific Publishing, 2013) 85.
77. Ibid 86.
78. 2005 ASEAN Regional Action Plan on Trade in Wild Flora and Fauna 2005–2010
adopted on 3 May 2005 in Jakarta, Indonesia by the ASEAN Experts Working Group on the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora <www.
asean.org/storage/images/archive/17753.pdf> accessed 29 March 2016.
79. ‘ASEAN Body Discusses Renewing Endangered Species Plan’ (9 February 2011) The
Brunei Times <www.bt.com.bn/news-national/2011/02/09/asean-body-discusses-renewing-
endangered-species-plan> accessed 29 March 2016.
80. In 1992, the CITES Conference of the Parties directed the Secretariat to
identify those Parties whose domestic measures do not provide them with the authority to:
i) designate at least one Management Authority and one Scientific Authority;
ii) prohibit trade in specimens in violation of the Convention;
iii) penalize such trade; or
iv) confiscate specimens illegally traded or possessed.
The Secretariat periodically reviews the legislation of CITES Parties on these four criteria and
classifies them into three categories:
1: legislation that is believed generally to meet all four requirements for effective imple-
mentation of CITES;
2: legislation that is believed generally to meet one to three of the four requirements for
effective implementation of CITES; and
3: legislation that is believed generally not to meet any of the four requirements for
effective implementation of CITES.
See CITES Secretariat, ‘National Laws for Implementing the Convention’ <https://cites.org/
eng/legislation> accessed 24 May 2016.

Pursuant to the regional action plan, the ASEAN-Wildlife Enforcement Network

(‘ASEAN-WEN’) was launched on 1 December 2005.81 It was the first of its kind
at the time, and is the world’s largest wildlife law enforcement network, involving
the enforcement agencies of all ten AMS. National efforts to implement CITES are
facilitated through the support offered by ASEAN-WEN, the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID), the FREELAND Foundation, TRAFFIC
International, and the ACB. These organizations assist national CITES enforcement
authorities through the provision of capacity-building opportunities for local institu-
tions (police, customs and environmental agencies) and individual enforcement offi-
cers at the frontlines of the battle against the illegal wildlife trade. Recent programmes
led by ASEAN-WEN are said to have helped increase law enforcement actions
against wildlife trafficking by as much as tenfold.82
More recently, as AMS have declared wildlife and timber trafficking as transnational
crimes on a par with drug trafficking, human trafficking, terrorism and arms smuggling,
which threaten the security of the region and require urgent action in response,83 more
resources and cooperation may now be forthcoming to combat this illegal trade.
3.4 ASEAN’s regional approach towards developing biodiversity law

frameworks
Four themes can be identified from analysing the regional approach that ASEAN has
adopted in attempting to develop legal and policy frameworks to address biodiversity
issues facing AMS. Firstly, biodiversity conservation and management issues are
regarded as a significant part of the regional grouping’s broader aspirations of promot-
ing sustainable development. Secondly, the use of ‘soft law’ instruments (declara-
tions, action plans and other non-binding policy statements) is overwhelmingly
preferred by the AMS over ‘hard law’ binding instruments as vehicles for regional
cooperation. Thirdly, the most significant developments at the regional level are
closely tied to the international environmental law conventions that all AMS are
party to – the CBD and CITES. Fourthly, despite the ongoing cooperative efforts at
the regional level, the prospect of the harmonization of the ten national biodiversity
laws is unlikely to materialize anytime soon because of the disparate socio-economic
conditions and geo-physical characteristics of each AMS.
3.4.1 The nexus between biodiversity issues and sustainable development

Regional cooperation in the area of biodiversity conservation and management is clo-
sely tied to ASEAN’s sustainable development agenda. ASEP I recognized that
81. ASEAN Statement on Launching of the ASEAN Wildlife Law Enforcement Network
(ASEAN-WEN) <www.asean.org/?static_post=asean-statement-on-launching-of-the-asean-
wildlife-law-enforcement-network-asean-wen-2> accessed 29 March 2016.
82. Steven Galster, ‘SE Asia: No Safe Haven for Endangered Species’ (12 October 2013) The
Nation <www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/SE-Asia-no-safe-haven-for-endangered-species-
30216871.html> accessed 29 March 2016.
83. See ASEAN Ministers’ Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Combating Transnational Crime, para 4
(September 30 2015) <http://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/2015/October/ammtc/KL
%20DECLARATION%20IN%20COMBATING%20TNC.PDF> accessed 30 May 2016.

ensuring sustainable development required the ASEAN member states to take cogni-
zance of environmental issues.84 The stated objective of ASEP III was to protect the
ASEAN environment and promote sustainable use of its natural resources, such that
economic development within ASEAN eradicates poverty while attaining the highest
quality of life for the people of ASEAN.85 One of ASPEN’s objectives was to respond
to the specific recommendations of Agenda 21 requiring priority action in ASEAN.86
In the VAP, the AMS took the position that ‘[t]he ASCC promoted a clean and
green ASEAN with fully established mechanisms for sustainable development to
ensure the protection of the region’s environment, the sustainability of its natural
resources and the high quality of life of its people’.87 Similarly, in the ASCC Blue-
print, it was declared that the ASCC would ‘address the region’s aspiration to lift the
quality of life of its people, through cooperative activities that are people-oriented
and environmentally friendly [and are] geared towards the promotion of sustainable
development’.88
3.4.2 A clear preference for ‘soft law’ instruments as a mode for regional
cooperation
Regional cooperation in matters relating to biodiversity conservation and management
issues in ASEAN has been driven overwhelmingly by a series of aspirational and non-
binding plans, declarations and resolutions. Rather than adopting formal treaties or
agreements that impose clear legal obligations on AMS, the developments outlined
above demonstrate how the cooperative efforts of this regional grouping have been
dominated by successive, overlapping and informal statements of regional policy.
This mode of cooperation has been dubbed the ‘ASEAN Way’ – in which ‘deci-
sion-making by consensus, non-confrontational resolution of disputes, respect for
the principles of sovereignty, and non-intervention’ results in a mode of cooperation
that ‘fosters informality, quiet diplomacy, face-saving, and an aversion to enforceable
new legal instruments (i.e. hard law)’.89 This could account for the abandonment of
two regional ‘hard law’ instruments – the ACNNR and the ASEAN ABS Framework
Agreement – by the AMS despite their initial interest in developing these treaties.
On the one hand, as one commentator has argued, the preference for relying on soft
law rather hard law is not necessarily a problem as hard law often entails a more arduous
process to bring it into effect, and the soft law approach has been an effective, reasonable
and practical way for AMS to cooperate with each other, ‘given the looseness of ASEAN,
the gaps between the national strengths of the member states, the political diversity, and
the differences in the environmental situation in the different countries’.90
On the other hand, the reluctance or inability of AMS to move beyond soft laws may
have negative implications for the grouping’s attempt to slow the rate of biodiversity
84. ASEP I, para II.3 (n 31) 313.

85. ASEP III (n 49) 388.
86. ASPEN (n 50) 414.
87. VAP (Table 1, note f ) para 3.3.
88. ASCC Blueprint, para II.5 (Table 1, note g). See also ASCC Community Blueprint 2025
(n 63) para 1.
89. Koh Kheng Lian, Nicholas A Robinson and Lye Lin Heng, ASEAN Environmental Legal
Integration: Sustainable Goals? (Cambridge University Press, 2016).
90. Naoyuki Sakumoto, ‘The ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources and the ASEAN Strategic Plan of Action’, in Yoshihiro Nomura and Naoyuki

loss within the region. Commentators have observed that, as much as environmental
issues are important to the people of ASEAN, the penchant of AMS for soft law
over hard law in matters of environmental management belies their reluctance to tackle
tough environmental challenges.91 While there is pessimism that ‘at the current scale of
its measures, ASEAN is not likely to meet its goals of attaining environmental sus-
tainability’, it must still be recognized that ASEAN has made good progress in
developing its cooperative framework to address biodiversity conservation and
management issues.92
The lack of funding for cooperative measures in biodiversity conservation may
also explain the inadequate rate at which the region is progressing towards its aspira-
tional objectives towards environmental sustainability. In their assessment of the pro-
gress of implementation of the HPA towards regional integration, researchers noted
that funding was a limiting factor in most project initiatives, and impeded their effec-
tive implementation. Many of the planned projects and programmes could not be
implemented for lack of funds. The researchers suggested that since many of the
environmental issues facing the region are subject to multilateral environmental agree-
ments, through which most funding and technical assistance support are provided and
most of these funds are accessed through international and other organisations, AMS
should strive to tap into these resources for regional projects.93
3.4.3 Alignments between regional cooperation efforts and national implementation

of international convention obligations
One way in which ASEAN has been able to maintain a momentum of cooperation
towards biodiversity conservation has been to align its regional cooperation efforts
with the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements in individual
AMS.94 Indeed, supporting the regional implementation of relevant international
agreements and frameworks is one of the goals of the ASCC Blueprint 2025.95
Two multilateral biodiversity-related Conventions – CBD and CITES – can be
regarded as the focal points of development for biodiversity law in ASEAN at both
the regional and national levels. Many of ASEAN’s notable achievements in biodiversity
cooperation are, unsurprisingly, tied to the implementation of these conventions. These
are the only two such Conventions that all AMS are parties to,96 thereby obliging them
to implement the provisions of these Conventions within their respective national legal
frameworks.
Sakumoto (eds), Environmental Law and Policy in Asia: Issues of Enforcement (Institute of
Developing Economies, 1997) 185, 195 <http://d-arch.ide.go.jp/idedp/DES/DES000400_016.
pdf> accessed 29 March 2016.
91. Koh Kheng-Lian, Nicholas A Robinson and Lye Lin-Heng (n 89).
92. Ibid.
93. Cielito F Habito, Fernando T Aldaba and Ofelia M. Templo (Table 1, note a) 111 and 112.
94. Ibid.
95. ASCC Blueprint 2025, para 16.C.1.iii (n 63).
96. CBD Secretariat, List of Member Countries’ <https://www.cbd.int/information/parties.
shtml> accessed 29 March 2016; and CITES Secretariat, ‘List of Contracting Parties’
<https://cites.org/eng/disc/parties/chronolo.php> accessed 29 March 2016.

Table 2 Treaty membership (CBD and CITES) of the ASEAN member states
Country Convention on Biological Convention on International Trade in
Diversity (CBD) Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES)
Brunei Darussalam 27/07/2008 (accession) 04/05/1990 (accession)
Cambodia 10/05/1995 (accession) 04/07/1997 (ratification)
Indonesia 21/11/1994 (ratification) 28/12/1978 (accession)
Lao PDR 19/12/1996 (accession) 01/03/2004 (accession)
Malaysia 22/09/1994 (ratification) 20/10/1977 (accession)
Myanmar 23/02/1995 (ratification) 13/06/1997 (accession)
Philippines 06/01/1994 (ratification) 18/08/1981 (ratification)
Singapore 20/03/1996 (ratification) 30/11/1986 (accession)
Thailand 29/01/2004 (ratification) 21/01/1983 (ratification)
Vietnam 14/02/1995 (ratification) 20/01/1994 (accession)
Table 3 Key economic indicators and geographic profile of the ASEAN member states
Country Population Gross National Population density Surface Area (sq. km)
size (2014) Income (GNI) (people per sq. (% terrestrial and
per capita km of land) marine protected
(US$) (2014) areas in 2012)
Brunei 417 394 37 320 (2012) 79.2 5770 (≈29.6%)
Darussalam
Cambodia 15 328 136 1020 85.4 181 040 (≈23.8%)
Indonesia 254 454 778 3630 140.5 1 910 930 (≈13.9%)
Lao PDR 6 689 300 1660 29.0 236 800 (≈16.7%)
Malaysia 29 901 997 11 120 91 330 800 (≈9.1%)
Myanmar 53 437 159 1270 81.8 676 590 (≈6.0%)
Philippines 99 138 690 3500 332.5 300 000 (≈5.1%)
Singapore 5 469 700 55 150 7736.5 717 (≈3.4%)
Thailand 67 725 979 5780 132.6 513 120 (≈16.4%)
Vietnam 90 730 000 1890 292.6 330 972 (≈4.7%)
Source: World Bank, ‘Data’ <http://data.worldbank.org> accessed 29 March 2016.
3.4.4 Disparities between individual states as an obstacle to legislative

harmonization
The most significant impediment to the AMS harmonizing their respective national
biodiversity laws arises from the sheer disparity between the socio-economic and geo-
graphic profiles of these countries, as is readily apparent from the statistics in Table 3.
The vastly different socio-economic and geo-physical landscapes found in each
member state translate into distinct national interests that have to be balanced against
the policy goals underlying the implementation of the CBD and CITES treaties. Differ-
ent policy trade-offs for each jurisdiction mean that national biodiversity conservation
laws are going to be calibrated differently in light of these country-specific considera-
tions. As a result, a significant degree of diversity between these laws would be
expected. In the next section of this paper, we attempt to illustrate how country-specific
socio-economic conditions in Singapore have contributed to the shape of its national

biodiversity protection laws, resulting in a legal framework with distinctive features

that might be contrasted against equivalent laws implemented in the other AMS.
4 THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT OF NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY-

RELATED LAWS IMPLEMENTING CBD AND CITES: A VIEW FROM
SINGAPORE
The founding of modern Singapore by the British in 1819 led to rapid colonization
and population growth, with extensive agricultural activities and much land clearing.
The primeval rainforest had at that time covered virtually the whole island. Today, the
city-state of Singapore is highly urbanized; indeed, by the 1880s, only 7 per cent of
the original forests remained.97 Its economy is highly industrialized, and, unlike many
of the other AMS, no longer relies on industries that involve the exploitation of its
natural resources, such as forestry, agriculture and fisheries.98 Neither is there an indi-
genous population relying on exploiting natural resources for subsistence.99 There is
thus no economic or social pressure to exploit what little natural resources remain.
With a population of 5.5 million, a land area of 719 square km,100 and a projected
population of up to 6.9 million by 2030, it is also one of the most densely populated
cities, and is likely to continue to be so in the foreseeable future.
The main threats to Singapore’s biodiversity are habitat loss and degradation from land
development for residential, recreational, commercial and industrial needs, as well as land
reclamation and coastal works to increase Singapore’s land area and expand its ports.101
The combination of limited land, high population and significant industrial activ-
ities have led to an acute pressure on land use to serve the myriad needs of Singapore.
This was particularly so in the 1960s, when Singapore was looking to rapidly develop
its urban and industrial infrastructure to meet the needs of a growing population and
economy. Environmental measures at the time were more focused on the ‘brown’
issues of pollution control and public health, rather than the ‘green’ issues of nature
conservation.102 Even then, its leaders assiduously sought ‘to transform Singapore
into a tropical garden city’ to woo investors, conceptualising Singapore as a Garden
City.103 In the early years, these efforts were premised on efficiency and aesthetics,
rather than ecology, and hardy alien species were brought in to rapidly green the
streets of Singapore. The country continues to face a constant tension of having to
put its land to use to serve economic and material needs and wants, and conserving
the biodiversity on such land for present and future generations.
97. See Chung Chin, ‘Biodiversity Conservation in Singapore’ (2008) 5(2) BGjournal, citing
N Cantley, Report on the Forests of the Straits Settlement (Singapore Printing Office, 1884)
<https://www.bgci.org/resources/article/0585/> accessed 29 March 2016.
98. NParks, Singapore: 4th National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity
(National Parks Board, 2010) 9 <https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/sg/sg-nr-04-en.pdf> accessed
29 March 2016.
99. Ibid.
100. Department of Statistics, Singapore, ‘Latest Data’ <www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/latest-
data#16> accessed 29 March 2016.
101. Singapore has the second busiest port in the world.
102. Kheng Lian Koh, Legislation for Implementation of the ASEAN Agreement on the Con-
servation of Nature and Natural Resources: Country Reports – Singapore (IUCN Environmen-
tal Law Programme, 1994) 133, 136.
103. Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story 1965–2000 (HarperCollins,
2000) 173–5.

Like much of Singapore’s governance in other areas, Singapore’s governance on

biodiversity conservation is generally characterized by comprehensive legislation
backed up with effective enforcement powers,104 and a supportive judiciary that con-
sistently takes a purposive approach in interpreting the provisions in such legisla-
tion.105 The legislation is often designed to confer wide discretionary powers on
the planning authority and regulatory authorities, accompanied with minimal provi-
sions for transparency of information and minimal openness towards public participa-
tion in respect of how these powers are exercised. 106 The government views
administrative efficiency and flexibility as important attributes to its approach towards
biodiversity governance, especially in view of Singapore’s small land size, but this
has sometimes come at the expense of greater transparency and legal accountability.
4.1 In-situ conservation

4.1.1 Land use planning
Biodiversity conservation in Singapore is informally integrated into Singapore’s compre-
hensive and micro-level land use planning.107 The ‘Master Plan’ was introduced by the
British in 1957 under the Planning Act (‘PA’),108 to prescribe zoning and building
intensity for each plot of land in Singapore. It must be reviewed by the Chief Planner
at least once every five years.109 While there is no legal prescription that biodiversity
considerations must be incorporated into the planning process, in practice, the review
is led by a Master Plan Review Committee chaired by the Chief Planner, and comprises
representatives from various government agencies, including the National Environment
Agency and National Parks Board (‘NParks’). This ensures that biodiversity-related
considerations are given a ‘voice’ during the review.110 Nature reserves, nature areas
and other green areas are meticulously marked out in the Master Plan, to ensure that
land near these sites is put to compatible use where possible.
The Master Plan is supplemented by ten-yearly non-statutory ‘concept plans’,
which are strategic land use plans that project the country’s long-term land use and
transportation needs.111
104. Lin-Heng Lye, ‘A Fine City in a Garden – Environmental Law and Governance in
Singapore’ [2008] Sing JLS 68.
105. Lin-Heng Lye, ‘The Judiciary and Environmental Governance in Singapore’ (2010) 3(1)
Journal of Court Innovation 133.
106. Although case law in other jurisdictions suggests that the Constitution and common law
imposes constraints on environmental decision-making by the state, this has yet to be tested in
Singapore courts. See Joseph Chun, ‘Reclaiming the Public Trust in Singapore’ (2005) 17
SAcLJ 717; Lin-Heng Lye, ‘Land Law and the Environment’ (2010) 189 SAcLJ 219; and
Joseph Chun, ‘Protecting Wildlife Law in the “Garden City”’, in Raj Panjwani (ed), Wildlife
Law: A Global Perspective (American Bar Association, 2008) 201, 204.
107. See CBD Art 6(b).
108. Cap 232, 1998 Rev Ed, s 5.
109. Cap 232 R1, 2000 Rev Ed.
110. See Lin-Heng Lye, ‘Land Use Law, Environmental Management, and the Garden City as
an Urban Development Approach in Singapore’, in Nathalie J Chalfour et al. (eds), Land Use
Law for Sustainable Development (Cambridge University Press, 2006) 374, 378.
111. Urban Redevelopment Authority, ‘Concept Plan’ <https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/concept-
plan.aspx?p1=View-Concept-Plan> accessed 29 March 2016; and Lin-Heng Lye, ‘Landscape
Protection Laws in the Evolution of Modern Singapore’, in Antonio Herman (ed), Landscape,
Nature and Law (Laws for a Green Planet Institute, 2005) 119.

4.1.2 Singapore Green Plan

In line with Art 6(a) of the CBD, Singapore presented its first Singapore Green Plan
at the UN Conference on Environment and Development at Rio in 1992, wherein the
government announced that 5 per cent of Singapore’s land area would be set aside for
nature conservation.112 This was followed by the publication of the Singapore Green
Plan 2012 in 2002,113 which was subsequently updated in 2006.114 The government
acknowledged the pressure applied by the demands of economic development and
recreational activities on nature conservation, but maintained its ‘targets’, including
conserving its nature areas ‘for as long as possible’, and verifying and updating informa-
tion on indigenous fauna and flora.
4.1.3 The National Biodiversity Centre and the National Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan
The National Biodiversity Centre (‘NBC’) was set up in 2006 by the National Parks
Board (‘NParks’)115 to ‘[f]ormulate, implement and coordinate strategies, policies and
guidelines on biodiversity conservation’.116 It serves as Singapore’s one-stop centre
for biodiversity-related information and activities, and seeks to manage all available
information and data on biodiversity in Singapore. It also represents NParks as the
government’s Scientific Authority on nature conservation, representing Singapore
in various biodiversity-related international/regional conventions and fora, including
the CBD and ACB.117
In 2009, the NBC published Singapore’s current national biodiversity strategy and
action plan,118 ‘keeping in mind that as a densely populated country with no hinterland,
we have to adopt a pragmatic approach to conservation and develop unique solutions to
our challenges’. Like the Singapore Green Plan and Singapore Green Plan 2012, Con-
serving Our Biodiversity is non-statutory. Five strategies are adopted in the Plan. These
strategies are accompanied by the identification of 17 areas for action, but do not con-
tain specific details. The Plan states that the achievements of specific actions and pro-
jects will be tracked; and the progress of the initiatives implemented will be assessed.119
112. The Singapore Green Plan: Towards a Model Green City (Ministry of the Environment,
1992) 29.
113. Chua Lee Hoong, The Singapore Green Plan 2012: Beyond Clean and Green, Towards
Environmental Sustainability (Singapore, Ministry of the Environment, 2002) <https://www.
mewr.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/grab-our-research/sgp2012.pdf>
114. Foo Siang Luen (ed), The Singapore Green Plan 2012 (2006 edition): A Clean Environ-
ment. Water for All. Together, a Sustainable Singapore <http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/
documents/The%20Singapore%20Green%20Plan%202012.pdf> accessed 29 March 2016.
115. NParks, ‘National Biodiversity Centre’ <https://www.nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/national-
biodiversity-centre> accessed 29 March 2016.
116. NParks, ‘National Biodiversity Centre – Function’ <https://www.nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/
national-biodiversity-centre/function> accessed 29 March 2016.
117. NParks is also Singapore’s national focal point for implementing the CBD.
118. Conserving our Biodiversity: Singapore’s National Biodiversity and Action Plan
(National Parks Board, 2009) <https://www.nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/our-national-plan-for-
conservation//~/media/nparks-real-content/biodiversity/national-plan/nbsap_2009.pdf>
119. Ibid 2, 21.

No mention is made of any targets or deadlines against which the initiatives will be
assessed.
4.1.4 National parks and nature reserves

Singapore’s legislation for protected areas120 is the Parks and Trees Act (‘PTA’),121
The Act establishes two forms of legally protected areas, namely national parks122 and
nature reserves,123 and sets out their boundaries in its schedule. Nature reserves
include some of Singapore’s most biodiversity-rich areas – forests, wetlands and
rocky coastal shore areas.124 National parks125 may not be as rich in biodiversity
as nature reserves but are still valuable sites for in-situ nature conservation.
The Act prohibits activities which may cause alteration, damage or destruction to
any property, tree or plant;126 or may cause injury to, or the death of, any animal or
any other organism within the national park or nature reserve.127 Other activities, such
as cutting any tree or plant, clearing, digging or cultivating any land, capturing or
feeding any animal, disturbing or taking the nest of any animal, removing any
other organism, and releasing any animal require the approval of the Commissioner
of Parks and Recreation.128
Given the immense pressure on land use, the legal protection of national parks and nat-
ure reserves is, understandably, not absolute. Initially, Parliament could by resolution, add,
vary or revoke the designation of areas as national parks or nature reserves, but this power
was subsequently delegated to the Minister to make it easier to amend the area of the nat-
ure reserves and regularize these changes quickly,129 subject to prior consultation with
NParks, and presenting the order to Parliament as soon as possible.130 However, the
Act is silent on the criteria to be taken into account in the selection, addition, variation
or revocation of areas as national parks and nature reserves131 Arguably, the Minister
120. See CBD Art 8(a).

121. Cap 216, 2006 Rev Ed.
122. PTA s 7(1).
123. PTA s 7(2).
124. The nature reserves are: Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, Central Catchment Nature Reserve,
Labrador Nature Reserve and Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve. Sungei Buloh and the Bukit
Timah Nature Reserve are also ASEAN Heritage Parks – declared as such on 18 December
2003 and 19 October 2011 respectively.
125. The national parks are the Singapore Botanic Gardens and Fort Canning Park. The Botanic
Gardens were established in 1859, and declared a World Heritage site in 2015.
126. PTA s 8(2).
127. PTA s 9(2).
128. PTA ss 8(1), 9(1) and 9(3).
129. Parliamentary Debates, Official Reports (20 March 1988) vol 50 col 1760 (S Dhanabalan,
Minister for National Development) <https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report.jsp?current
PubID=00069563-ZZ> accessed 29 March 2016.
130. PTA s 62.
131. Nevertheless, the Government has explained that nature areas, including nature reserves,
are ‘areas where natural flora and fauna remain relatively undisturbed by human activity, and
which provide food, shelter and breeding sites for diverse biological species’; and the selection
of these areas for protection is guided by three principles: ‘They must be rich in biodiversity;
they must be mature, not transient, sites, and they must be sustainable’. See Chua Lee Hoong
(n 113) 9.

would at least have to consider the statutory purposes for which national parks and nat-
ure reserves are established, before invoking such power.132
National parks and nature reserves are managed by NParks.133 There is no legal
requirement for NParks to develop site-specific guidelines for the management of
these areas. NParks has not publicly released any such guidelines.
4.1.5 Nature areas

‘Nature areas’ are established in the Master Plan, though not precisely demarcated.
They are ‘areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diver-
sity’,134 but are not protected areas. The legend of the Parks and Waterbodies Plan,
which forms part of the Master Plan, explains that these areas have
been identified for their biodiversity. They will be kept as long as possible until required for
development. If development falls within or in the vicinity of the demarcated areas ecolo-
gical studies may be required as advised by the relevant authority before any development
proceeds.135
Many nature areas double up as buffer zones for nature reserves,136 although they
receive no formal legal protection except when they are incorporated into public
parks137 and receive legal protection as such.138 The establishment, modification or
removal of nature areas is at the administrative discretion of the Urban Redevelopment
Authority (URA),139 which they have exercised in the past. In view of their tentative
132. PTA s7(3) provides that national parks and nature reserves are established for the pur-
poses of:
(a) the propagation, protection and conservation of the trees, plants, animals and other
organisms of Singapore, whether indigenous or otherwise;
(b) the study, research and preservation of objects and places of aesthetic, historical or
scientific interest;
(c) the study, research and dissemination of knowledge in botany, horticulture, biotech-
nology, or natural and local history; and
(d) recreational and educational use by the public.
133. One of its statutory functions under the National Parks Board Act (Cap 198A, 2012 Rev
Ed), s 6, is to ‘control, administer and manage the national parks and nature reserves’.
134. See CBD Art 8(a).
135. URA, ‘Legend: Parks and Waterbodies Plan’ <https://www.ura.gov.sg/maps/index.html?
service=PWB> accessed 29 March 2016.
136. See CBD Art 8(e).
137. A public park is defined in the PTA as any state land, any land belonging to the National
Parks Board or any other land, which is ‘utilized as a public park, recreation ground, play-
ground, garden, public open space, walk, park connector or green verge; and managed or main-
tained by the Board’. The Parks and Trees Regulations prohibit and regulate certain activities in
a public park; these are similar to the activities prohibited and regulated in national parks and
nature reserves.
138. ‘New Nature Area Designated at the Singapore Botanic Garden’ (30 May 2015) AsiaOne
<http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/new-nature-area-designated-singapore-botanic-gardens>
139. Urban Redevelopment Authority Act (Cap 340, 1990 Rev Ed).

nature, by definition and in practice, it has been said that nature areas ‘cannot be
regarded as any form of a serious commitment to biodiversity conservation’.140
Today, Singapore’ four nature reserves, two national parks, and 20 nature areas,141
make up just under 5 per cent of Singapore’s total land area. This is in line with the
government’s declared intention in its first Singapore Green Plan in 1992. The gov-
ernment emphasized at the time that this represented a significant portion of land to be
set aside considering Singapore’s small size, but it had to be pragmatic and strike a
balance between nature conservation and the socio-economic needs of Singapor-
eans.142 In response to a local NGO’s criticism143 that Singapore was falling short
of the target in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets to protect 17 per cent of terrestrial
and inland water,144 the government has defended its need to ‘ensure that the funda-
mental and basic needs of our citizens are met first.145
There is generally less biodiversity outside of these legally and administratively pro-
tected areas, but this is not always the case. A case in point is Chek Jawa, an undeve-
loped coastal area described by NParks as ‘[o]ne of Singapore’s richest ecosystems … a
unique natural area where six major habitats meet and mix’.146 Yet, since it was given a
reprieve from being buried under land reclamation in 2001, it has not even been made
a nature area, and remains a ‘reserve site’ under the Master Plan, which means it is a
site whose specific use has yet to be determined.
4.1.6 Species protection

Laws to protect some of Singapore’s wildlife, inside and outside protected areas,147
were first passed over a hundred years ago, with the enactment of the Wild Birds Pro-
tection Ordinance in 1884.148 Today, as an urban economy whose people no longer
practise any customary use of biological resources, Singapore is not particularly con-
cerned with the unsustainable utilization of its biological resources.149 Nevertheless, it has
140. Nature Society (Singapore) Conservation Committee, Feedback on the Updated URA
Master Plan (November 2013) (19 December 2013) <http://www.nss.org.sg/report/d265090c-
7Nature%20Society%C2%B9s%20Feedback%20on%20the%20Updated%20URA%20Master
%20Plan%20(final).pdf> accessed 29 March 2016.
141. NParks, ‘Nature Areas and Nature Reserves’ <https://www.nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/
our-ecosystems/nature-areas-and-nature-reserves> accessed 29 March 2016.
142. Parliamentary Debates, Official Reports (18 March 1994) vol 62 col 1325 (Lim Hng
Kiang, Acting Minister for National Development) <https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report.jsp?
currentPubID=00069717-ZZ> accessed 29 March 2016.
143. Zengkun Feng, ‘Nature Society Slams Land-use Plan’ (8 January 2014) The Straits Times
<www.straitstimes.com/singapore/nature-society-slams-land-use-plan> accessed 29 March
2016.
144. (n 21), para 13.
145. ‘Parks, Nature Reserves Important: URA’ (11 January 2014) The Straits Times, Letter to
Forum <https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/media-room/forum-replies/2014/jan/forum14-01.aspx>
146. NParks, ‘About Chek Jawa’ <https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardens-parks-and-nature/parks-
and-nature-reserves/pulau-ubin-and-chek-jawa/what-to-see/about-chek-jawa> accessed 29
March 2016.
147. See CBD Art 8(c).
148. Lin-Heng Lye, ‘Wildlife Protection Laws in Singapore’ [1991] Sing LR 287; and Lin-
Heng Lye, ‘Legal Protection of the Natural Environment’, in Clive Briffett and Hua Chew
Ho (eds), State of the Natural Environment in Singapore (Nature Society, 1999) 83.
149. See CBD Art 10.

retained its current Wild Animals and Birds Act (‘WABA’),150 which was enacted in
1965, and has not been updated since. WABA prohibits the ‘killing, taking or keeping’
of any wild animal or bird,151 with the exception of six species of birds,152 without a
licence from the Director of Agri-food and Veterinary Services (‘AVA’) or the Commis-
sioner of Police.153 Breach of the prohibition however, carries a fine of only S$1000, as it
has since 1965, plus forfeiture of the animal or bird.154 This probably reflects the low
incidence of such offences in an affluent urban society, rather than an unwillingness
or inability to increase the deterrence for such offences. There are no subsidiary laws
relating to licences to kill or take wild animals or birds. In contrast, subsidiary legislation
has been promulgated for the licensing of the keeping of specified wild animals,155
though it does not appear that AVA has issued personal licences for the keeping of
any wild animal in recent years.156 The scope of the Act is also not clear but appears
to be quite limited.157
4.2 Ex-situ conservation

Compared to in-situ conservation, there is a greater scope for flexibility in choosing
suitable sites for ex-situ conservation that do not get in the way of development plans.
Key ex-situ conservation sites include the Herbarium at The Botanic Gardens;158 the
Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum at the National University of Singapore
(‘NUS’), which houses the Zoological Reference Collection, known internationally
as the Raffles Collection; the NUS Herbarium;159 and public parks,160 such as the
Yishun Arboretum, which is used for the ex-situ conservation of rare dipterocarp
trees.161 Other than public parks, the establishment and maintenance of these ex-
situ sites’ facilities and their collections are not legally regulated or protected.
150. Cap 351, 2000 Rev Ed.

151. ‘Wild animals and birds’ are defined in s 2 of WABA as including ‘all species of animals
and birds of a wild nature’, but excluding domestic dogs and cats, horses, cattle, sheep, goats,
domestic pigs, poultry and ducks’.
152. They are the species listed in the Schedule of the Act, namely the house crow, feral
pigeon, purple-backed starling, Philippine glossy starling, common mynah and the white vented
mynah. These species are not protected because they are considered pest species.
153. Cap 351, 2000 Rev Ed s 5(1).
154. WABA s 5.
155. See the Wild Animals (Licensing) Order (Cap 351 O2, 1990 Rev Ed).
156. The Order had been made in 1975, and since then it has been amended only to revise the
licence fee payable for a licence to keep wild animals. The revisions took place in 1998, 2000,
2004 and 2006.
157. It is unclear whether the protection under WABA applies to fish, insects and other inver-
tebrates, whether it applies only to terrestrial species or can also extend to marine and fresh
water species. It is also unclear whether the protection extends to the eggs of animals and
birds, before they have hatched.
158. Singapore Botanic Gardens, ‘Herbarium’ <https://www.sbg.org.sg/index.php?option=
com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=47&Itemid=64> accessed 29 March 2016.
159. National University of Singapore, ‘Lee Kong Chian Museum’ <http://lkcnhm.nus.edu.sg/
nus/index.php/lkcnhm/aboutlkcnhm> accessed 29 March 2016.
160. (n 44).
161. NParks, ‘Our National Plan for Conservation: Strategies and Actions’ <https://www.
nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/our-national-plan-for-conservation/strategies-and-actions> accessed
29 March 2016.

4.3 International trade in wildlife

Singapore occupies an unusual position in Southeast Asia, a region rich in biodiver-
sity. Given Singapore’s small size and affluence, it is not a source country for the ille-
gal wildlife trade, though it is a consumer country for wildlife imports as pets (such as
star tortoises and birds) and traditional medicines. Its location at the crossroads of
international trade between east and west, also makes it an import transit point for
transnational trade in endangered species,162 particularly in terms of ivory, rhino
horn, rosewood, pangolins and wild birds.163
Singapore’s Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (‘ESA’)164 implements
CITES. It was first passed in 1989,165 then repealed and re-enacted on 1 March
2006.166 Aside from prohibiting the import of any CITES appendix specimens, repro-
duced as ‘scheduled species’ under the Act, without import permits from AVA, the
export, re-export or introduction from the sea of such specimens without an AVA-
issued export permit is also an offence.167 It is also an offence for any person to pos-
sess, sell or offer to sell a specimen of any scheduled species which has been imported
or introduced from the sea unlawfully, or any scheduled species which has been
gazetted by the Minister.168 The transit of such specimens is also regulated. Every
scheduled species in transit in Singapore must be accompanied by a valid CITES
export or re-export permit or certificate issued by the country of export or re-export,
as the case may be, of the scheduled species, and, where required by the country of
import of the scheduled species, a valid CITES import permit issued by that
country.169
The maximum fine is S$50 000 for each specimen, but subject to a maximum fine
of S$500 000 in aggregate, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or
both fine and imprisonment.170 The penalties in the 2006 ESA have been consider-
ably enhanced from the 1989 ESA, where offences entailed a fine of only $5000
for a first offence, doubling to $10 000 for a second or subsequent offence, and the
162. Audrey Tan, ‘Stop Wildlife Trafficking in its Tracks’ (17 December 2015) The Straits
Times <www.straitstimes.com/opinion/stop-wildlife-trafficking-in-its-tracks> accessed 29
March 2016.
163. Traffic, ‘Singapore’s Wild Bird Trade Raises Troubling Questions About African Grey Par-
rots’ (2016) <http://www.traffic.org/home/2016/4/18/singapores-wild-bird-trade-raises-troubling-
questions-about.html> accessed 4 June 2016; Traffic, ‘Illegal Ivory Trade Rising’ (2009)
<http://www.traffic.org/home/2009/11/9/illegal-ivory-trade-rising.html>; Traffic, ‘Asia Fuels Ille-
gal Wildlife Trade and Singaporeans have a Role in It’ (2012) <http://www.traffic.org/home/
2012/10/25/asia-fuels-illegal-wildlife-trade-and-singaporeans-have-a-ro.html> accessed 4 June
2016; Traffic, ‘Zambia Asks for Return of Seized Ivory’ (2009) <http://www.traffic.org/
seizures-journal-legacy/2009/9/14/zambia-asks-for-return-of-seized-ivory.html> accessed 4
June 2016.
164. Cap 92A 2008 Rev Ed.
165. Act 4 of 1989, 17 March 1989.
166. Act 5 of 2006.
167. ESA s 4(1).
168. ESA s 4(2). The Minister has gazetted in the Endangered Species (Import and Export)
(Prohibition of Sale) Notification (Cap 92A, N1, 2008 Rev Ed), the horn and substantially com-
plete or parts of dead specimens of all species of the rhinoceros; and substantially complete or
parts of dead specimens of the tiger.
169. ESA s 5(1).
170. ESA s 4(2).

maximum term of imprisonment was just one year.171 It is surmised that the revision
of the ESA was prompted by the ASEAN Regional Action Plan on Trade in Wild
Fauna and Flora (2005–2010) which, inter alia, aimed to ‘strengthen national legisla-
tion’ and led to the establishment of ASEAN-WEN in 2005.172 The Act is adminis-
tered by the AVA, whose officers are given wide powers of enforcement, including
powers to investigate and powers of entry, search and seizure.173
However, the maximum fine of S$500 000 under the new 2006 ESA is still relatively
low considering that the commercial value of illegal shipments of ivory or timber often
exceeds this sum. The maximum imprisonment term of two years for the ESA offences
is also relatively low, compared to the penalties imposed for similar offences in the rest
of the AMS, which have maximum prison terms of between five years and 20 years for
wildlife trafficking offences under their respective CITES implementation legisla-
tion.174 These penalties are also incongruent with the current international and regio-
nal (ASEAN) move towards treating wildlife trafficking, valued globally at S$32
billion a year,175 as a serious transnational crime to be viewed with the same severity
as the illegal trade in drugs, arms and human trafficking.176 The Executive Director of
the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), and the Secretary-General
of the CITES have called on countries to recognize wildlife and forest crimes as a
serious form of organized crime and to strengthen penalties against organized
crime syndicates profiting from such crimes.177 The 2000 United Nations Convention
against Transnational Organized Crime178 refers to serious crime of a transnational
nature, defined in Article 2(b) as ‘conduct constituting an offence punishable by a
maximum deprivation of liberty of at least four years or a more serious penalty’.
It may be that one of the reasons for the relatively low maximum fine and prison
term is that such penalties are already regarded as sufficient deterrent and there is no
perceived urgency to legislate an increase in the maximum punishment, given that
Singapore, as an affluent urban society, is not a source country for the illegal
trade; and indeed, consumer demand within Singapore for ivory appears to have
171. Lye Lin Heng, ‘The Implementation of CITES in Singapore’ (1999) 2(1) Journal of Inter-
national Wildlife Law & Policy 46–63.
172. (n 78).
173. ESA ss 9 to 12.
174. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Freeland, Legal Framework to Address
Wildlife and Timber Trafficking: A Rapid Assessment (Working Paper, April 2015), 11
<https://www.unodc.org/documents/southeastasiaandpacific//Publications/wildlife/Legal_
Study_WTT_12_13June2015.pdf> accessed 30 May 2016.
175. Audrey Tan (n 162).
176. See ASEAN Ministers’ Kuala Lumpur Declaration in Combatting Transnational Crime
(n 83); and International Fund for Animal Welfare, ‘Criminal Nature: The Global Security
Implications of Illegal Wildlife Trade’ </www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/Criminal%20
Nature%20Global%20security%20and%20wildlife%20trade%202008.pdf> accessed 29
March 2016; John E Scanlon, ‘The International Dimension of Wildlife’ <https://cites.org/
eng/international_dimension_of_illegal_wildlife_trade> accessed 29 March 2016; UN Office
of Drugs and Crime (‘UNODC’), ‘Environmental Crime: Trafficking in Wildlife and Timber’
<https://www.unodc.org/toc/en/crimes/environmental-crime.html> accessed 29 March 2016;
and UNODC, ‘Wildlife and Forest Crime’ <https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/wildlife-and-
forest-crime/> accessed 29 March 2016.
177. CITES Secretariat, ‘Heads of UNODC and CITES Urge Wildlife and Forest Offences to
be Treated as Serious Transnational Organized Crimes’ <https://cites.org/eng/news/pr/2013/
20130423_CCPCJ.php> accessed 31 May 2016.
178. 40 ILM 335 (2001).

declined.179 On the other hand, the illegal trade in wildlife transiting through Singapore,
as elsewhere, continues unabated. In the last three years, there have been 16 detected
cases of illegal import and ten detected cases of illegal transshipment of wildlife
parts.180 These cases are probably only a fraction of the actual illegal wildlife trade
that goes on undetected. Considering that Singapore has the second busiest port in
the world by cargo tonnage and volume of container shipment, and the seventh busiest
airport in the world by international passenger traffic, it is not surprising that wildlife
smugglers use Singapore as a hub for their illegal trade.
4.4 Access and benefit sharing

While not currently a party to the Nagoya Protocol,181 Singapore has declared that its
‘[a]dministrative and policy measures take the Bonn Guidelines182 into account’,
without elaborating.183
As both a user and provider of genetic resources, Singapore has a stake in both the
access to and benefits from the utilization of genetic resources, and needs to carefully
balance the needs of the user and provider in its approach. It is an administrative (not
legal)184 requirement that:
Anyone intending to carry out taxonomic or ecological field studies or collect research mate-
rial, whether for project-based, ad hoc or ‘prospective’ studies, in a national park, nature
reserve or parkland under the management and maintenance of the National Parks Board
must apply for a research permit.185
Where the proposed research is for a commercial purpose, NParks will, in consultation
with other agencies, require a benefit-sharing agreement to be negotiated.186 Singapore
179. Traffic, ‘Falling Demand for Ivory in Cambodia and Singapore?’ (2013) <http://www.
traffic.org/home/2013/11/8/falling-demand-for-ivory-in-cambodia-and-singapore.html>
accessed 4 June 2016.
180. See Audrey Tan (n 162) for the figures on the illegal transhipment of wildlife trade parts at
6 December 2015. On 15 December 2015, the AVA announced the seizure of a shipment of
illegal ivory and pangolin scales transiting Singapore to Laos. See AVA, ‘AVA and Singapore
Customs Seize Shipment of Illegal Ivory and Pangolin Scales’ <http://www.ava.gov.sg/docs/
default-source/default-document-library/joint-media-release-by-ava-and-singapore-customs_17-
dec-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=0> accessed 25 May 2016.
181. (n 59).
182. Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Ben-
efits Arising out of their Utilization (‘Bonn Guidelines’) <https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/
cbd-bonn-gdls-en.pdf> accessed 30 May 2016.
183. NParks, CBD Third National Report - Singapore (2006) 27–28 <https://www.cbd.int/doc/
world/sg/sg-nr-03-en.pdf> accessed 29 March 2016.
184. In contrast, the Philippines, with its mega-biodiversity and significant indigenous commu-
nities, has taken the lead since 1995 in promulgating and refining detailed regulations on access
to and benefit sharing of genetic resources, starting with its Executive Order No. 247 Prescrib-
ing Guidelines and establishing a Regulatory Framework for the Prospecting of Biological and
Genetic Resources, their By-Products and Derivatives, for Scientific and Commercial Purposes;
and for other Purposes.
185. NParks, ‘Resources and Research Permits’ <https://www.nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/
resources-and-research-permits> accessed 29 March 2016.
186. NParks, ‘Resources and Research Permits’ <https://www.nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/
resources-and-research-permits#Who needs to apply for a research permit?> accessed 29
March 2016.

is currently developing a framework for commercial research and bioprospecting in

local habitats to facilitate greater investments in this area.187
There are no legal requirements for scientific research involving foreign genetic
resources to be carried out with the participation of the source countries,188 or that
such resources are obtained with the requisite prior informed consent and on mutually
agreed terms.189
4.5 Environmental impact assessments (‘EIAs’)

While Singapore appears to have done well in its management of the urban environ-
ment and water resources, and holds itself up as a model for sustainable cities, there is
currently no legislation to mandate environmental impact assessments (EIAs) or to
provide for public feedback on EIA reports. EIAs have been conducted at the admin-
istrative discretion of the authorities where warranted by the public agency, and
released to the public on an ad hoc basis. In contrast, all AMS, with the exception
of Brunei, have enacted EIA legislation.190
EIAs are an important part of sound environmental management, based on the sim-
ple principle of ‘look before you leap’. It is particularly relevant for Singapore, where
every square inch of land counts, that considerations of the loss of biodiversity must
be carefully integrated into and weighed along with the usual economic and social
considerations. The requirement for EIAs is also well articulated in many international
instruments including the Rio Declaration191 and the CBD.192 It has also been
acknowledged in various ASEAN programmes193 and instruments,194 including the
ACCNR.195
As incomes rise and local knowledge about Singapore’s biodiversity deepens
through more research, however, there has been greater public awareness of, and
advocacy for, biodiversity conservation issues. This has led, over the years, to
many calls for EIA legislation, as well as for the concept of the public trust to be
applied, where the government is viewed as holding all lands in trust for its citizens.
It has been argued by these advocates that as beneficiaries of this ‘trust’, the citizens
should be consulted on any project that may adversely affect their interests.196 A more
transparent and open approach to environmental decision-making is the essence of the
requirements for EIAs, which enhances access to information, opportunities for public
participation and access to justice as reflected in principle 10 of the Rio Declaration.
187. Singapore 5th National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010–2014)
(National Parks Board, 2015) 32 <https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/sg/sg-nr-05-en.pdf>.
188. See CBD Art 15(6).
189. See Bonn Guidelines (n 182) Art 16(d).
190. Brunei has declared that it intends to enact its own EIA laws. See Rabiatul Kamit, ‘EIA
Mandatory for Future Dev’t Projects’ (6 June 2012) Brunei Times <http://www.bt.com.bn/
news-national/2012/06/06/eia-mandatory-future-devt-projects>.
191. (n 2) Principle 17.
192. (n 3) Art 14.
193. See for example, ASEP I (n 31) 321; ASEP III (n 49) 348 and 390, 400; ASPEN (n 50) 415.
194. See for example, the 1984 Bangkok Declaration on the ASEAN Environment signed on
29 November 1984 in Bangkok, Thailand by the Environment Ministers <http://environment.
asean.org/bangkok-declaration-on-the-asean-environment/> accessed 31 March 2016.
195. (n 42) Art 14.
196. Chun (2005) (n 106); and Lye (2010) (n 105).

However, the Singapore government has consistently declined to legislate manda-

tory environmental impact assessments,197 preferring instead to require or commis-
sion such assessments at its discretion on an ad hoc basis, and to allow the public
access to the assessment report at its discretion and in such manner as it considers
fit. At the same time, the government has also conceded ground in its declared policy
and actual practice in respect of EIAs.
When asked in Parliament why EIAs could not be made mandatory, the then
Second Minister for National Development explained that Singapore’s small size
and lack of natural resources, as well as the government’s track record in doing a
good job balancing land use, are reasons to leave the decision-making to the govern-
ment. Establishing formal public consultation procedures and formalizing EIAs
would lead to more dialogues and disagreements but not make Singapore more
sustainable.198
The administrative efficiency and flexibility of this decision-making process prob-
ably served Singapore well in its early years of independence, when its economic,
social and political survival was at stake. It was also fortunate that at the time Singapore
was led by politicians who were sufficiently enlightened to envision Singapore as a
‘Garden City’,199 and understood the importance of maintaining a garden landscape
throughout the island while at the same time pursuing rapid urbanization and indus-
trialization, without the need to be constrained to do so by law.
However, without robust legal safeguards in place to constrain the discretion of
decision-makers, it cannot be guaranteed that biodiversity conservation will always
be integrated into decisions about development such that it gets the protection, or con-
sideration, it deserves. It is difficult to be sure that EIAs and public participation will
not be withheld on grounds of expediency in a situation where development and con-
servation priorities conflict. Moreover, in the absence of an EIA or the opportunity for
public scrutiny of the EIA report, it may not be possible to demonstrate that a decision
to proceed with a development at the expense of biodiversity conservation was sound.
A number of examples from the past illustrate these concerns.
The first is a proposal in 1992 by the Public Utilities Board (PUB), a statutory
board charged with the management of Singapore’s ‘catchment area parks’,200 to
build a golf course at Lower Peirce Reservoir, a catchment area park within a nature
reserve. This was soon after Singapore presented its first Green Plan at the United
197. Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (21 March 1995) vol 64 col 888
(Abdullah Tarmugi, Minister of the State for the Environment) <https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/
search/report.jsp?currentPubID=00069737-ZZ>; Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official
Report (11 February 2009) vol 69 col 2080 (Yeo Cheow Tong, Minister for the Environment)
<https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report.jsp?currentPubID=00069819-ZZ>; Singapore Parliamen-
tary Debates, Official Report (25 January 2005) vol 79 col 525 (Lim Swee Say, Second Minister
for the Environment) <https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report.jsp?currentPubID=00004684-WA>;
Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (20 July 2005) vol 80 col 999 (Heng Chee
How, for the Minister for Trade and Industry) <https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report.jsp?
currentPubID=00004684-WA>.
198. Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (25 January 2006) vol 79 col 525 (Lim
Swee Say, Second Minister for National Development) <https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report.
jsp?currentPubID=00004684-WA> accessed 29 March 2016.
199. See Lin Heng Lye (2006) (n 110) 388. But see also Joseph Chun, ‘Enhancing the Garden City:
Towards a Deeper Shade of Green’ (2006) 18 SAcLJ 248, 250, for a critique of Singapore’s garden-
in-a-city approach.
200. Public Utilities (Reservoirs, Catchment Areas and Waterway) Regulations S401/2006.

Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). According to the

government, an EIA was being done, but would not be made public, despite calls by
the Nature Society (Singapore) (‘NSS’). The NSS then conducted and published its
own EIA,201 detailing the immense damage to the environment if the proposed golf
course went ahead. The PUB has to date not proceeded with its proposal.
In 1996, an EIA was not considered necessary before approval was given for two
medium-rise condominiums on a site formerly occupied by factories, 100 metres from
the edge of a nature reserve, because the projects were considered to be an improve-
ment to the physical environment in the locality.202
A proposal to reclaim the eastern shore of the island of Pulau Ubin, at Chek Jawa,
was shelved in 2001 after considerable persuasion by nature groups and scientific per-
sonnel. The site is now managed by NParks for eco-tourism.203 The URA shared the
information that the Housing and Development Board (‘HDB’), the lead government
authority overseeing the proposed land reclamation, had commissioned a study to
determine the impact of the reclamation on dugongs. This found that the area did
not appear to have a resident population of dugongs, nor did the area have any estab-
lished coral reefs or reef communities.204 The report apparently made no reference to
the six biodiversity-rich intertidal habitats present. It was not made available to the
public, nor was it clear who had prepared the scope of the study.205
The government’s position on retaining full control over EIAs and avenues for
public participation has begun to shift. It recently declared that its current practice
is to require major development projects to undergo an EIA, especially when they
are near to sensitive areas such as nature reserves, nature areas and maritime and
coastal areas. These EIAs will be gazetted and will be available for public viewing,
and the government will involve various stakeholders in the decision on whether to
allow the project to proceed and the mitigation measures to be implemented, in
order to tap into their expertise and concerns.206
More recently, in 2013, the Land Transport Authority (‘LTA’) proposed, as a pos-
sible alignment of a new mass rapid transit (‘MRT’) line, the construction of an MRT
track under a nature reserve. This necessitated a site investigation of the soil underneath
the part of the nature reserve that the track would pass through. Notwithstanding the
absence of a legal duty to commission an EIA, or to make the EIA report public, the
201. Wee Yeow Chin (ed), Proposed Golf Course at Lower Peirce Reservoir: An Environmen-
tal Impact Assessment (The Nature Society, Singapore 1992).
202. Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (2 May 1996) vol 66, written answer to
question 9 (Lim Hng Kiang, Minister for National Development) <https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/
search/report.jsp?currentPubID=00069762-ZZ>.
203. NParks, ‘About Chek Jawa’ <https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardens-parks-and-nature/parks-
and-nature-reserves/pulau-ubin-and-chek-jawa/what-to-see/about-chek-jawa> accessed 29
March 2016.
204. URA, ‘Chek Jawa Reclamation Decided after Careful Study’ (27 July 2001) The Straits
Times.
205. N Sivasothi, ‘Chek Jawa, Lost Forever?’ (2001) 10 Asian Geographic 12 <http://chekjawa.
nus.edu.sg/articles/AG/AGart5.htm> accessed 29 March 2016.
206. Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (11 March 2013) vol 90 (Tan Chuan-
Jin, Senior Minister of State for National Development) <https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report.
jsp?currentPubID=00079104-WA>. See also Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official
Report (11 March 2015) vol 93 (Desmond Lee, Minister of State for National Development)
<https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report.jsp?currentPubID=00007479-WA> accessed 29 March
2016.

LTA commissioned one, and even invited nature groups to work with it to scope the
EIA. When the report was completed, it initially made only physical copies of the report
available for public reading by prior appointment, but subsequently, in response to
requests from the public, made the report accessible online.207 Concurrently, the Min-
istry of National Development announced that while its current practice had been to
make physical copies of the EIAs available for public inspection by appointment, it
would now consider making these reports more readily available online, especially
where there is significant public interest.208 The LTA has sought the Minister’s
approval to proceed with site investigation works, and is waiting for his decision.
While these recent measures are certainly steps in the right direction and are welcome,
the lack of laws for mandatory EIAs and public participation mean that the government is
under no legal duty to conduct or commission an EIA, permit public access to the EIA
report, or consider public feedback on the report. Nevertheless, having now declared a pol-
icy and established a practice to commission an EIA for major developments and to make
the reports available online for public scrutiny, a good precedent has been set for future
cases when biodiversity conservation and developmental priorities come into conflict.
4.6 Singapore’s autochthonous approach towards developing its national

nature protection law framework
Singapore’s legislative and policy approach to biodiversity conservation and sustain-
able development has clearly been shaped by policy constraints linked to its geo-physical
and its socio-economic characteristics.
Firstly, while the quality of Singapore’s indigenous biodiversity is high, as is expected
of a country in the tropics, very little is left of its original forests after years of economic
exploitation by the British, and decades of rapid economic growth thereafter.209 Indeed,
less than 5 per cent of its land area is legally protected. Its biodiversity conservation
measures therefore need to extend beyond these protected areas.210 In contrast, the
other AMS have traditionally focused almost exclusively on the conservation of biodi-
versity in non-urban areas rather than on urban biodiversity.211 Singapore’s highly urba-
nized residents enjoy a high level of material well-being in a largely urban environment,
and need not resort to logging, or killing or taking wildlife for subsistence or livelihood.
In contrast, the livelihoods of many constituents in the other AMS are tied to biological
resources found in these countries, making it necessary to consciously maintain a bal-
ance between biodiversity conservation and the subsistence or commercial exploitation
207. LTA, ‘Cross Island Line’ <http://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/public-transport/pro-

jects/cross-island-line.html> accessed 29 March 2016.
208. Neo Chai Chin, ‘Govt Agencies May Post Environmental Impact Studies Online in
Future’ (26 February 2016) Today <http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/govt-agencies-
will-consider-posting-future-environmental-impact-studies-online> accessed 29 March 2016.
209. More than 95 per cent of natural forest cover (578 sq. km) has been cleared; and less than
10 per cent of the remaining 28.6 km is primary forest. See Hugh TW Tan et al., The Natural
Heritage of Singapore (3rd edn, Prentice, 2010) 1.
210. See Grace Chua, ‘How Singapore Makes Biodiversity an Important Part of Urban Life’ (23
January 2015) <http://citiscope.org/story/2015/how-singapore-makes-biodiversity-important-part-
urban-life> accessed 5 June 2016.
211. See for example, The Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity:
Republic of the Philippines (2014) 21 <https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/ph/ph-nr-05-en.pdf>
accessed 2 June 2016.

of their natural resources. Unlike Singapore, AMS with significant commercial logging
industries have had to legislate and implement more complex legal frameworks to reg-
ulate the sustainable utilization of their biological resources.212 Where there are large
rural populations living in poverty who customarily rely on hunting and harvesting
wildlife and wild products for subsistence, or as beasts of burden,213 such practices
may have to be reconciled within the national CBD and CITES implementation laws
of these other AMS.214 That said, Singapore’s experience is not irrelevant to other
AMS. As a party to the CBD, Singapore developed the Cities Biodiversity Index, a
tool for monitoring biodiversity levels in urban environments. The Index was adopted
at the CoP in 2010 in Nagoya and is being tested by many cities worldwide.215
Secondly, as an island city state216 with very limited land and a high population
density,217 Singapore has argued that land use has to be meticulously planned and
tightly controlled.218 Where possible, land use must flexibly accommodate multiple
compatible uses, even within its protected areas. However, when difficult choices
are invariably encountered, trade-offs must be made rationally and not sentimentally.
The government’s aversion to adopting more rigorous public participation mechan-
isms as part of Singapore’s land use policy framework may stem from the premium
it places on administrative efficiency and pragmatism in land use decision-making,
where it wants to be able to swiftly and freely alter its policy trajectories to suit changing
circumstances and needs. Yet, this is set to change because of calls from an increasingly
knowledgeable public for a greater voice in the decision-making process.219 To this
end, Singapore needs laws that facilitate greater transparency and accountability,
212. See for example, Art 23 of the Indonesian Law No. 41 of 1999 Regarding Forestry, as
translated into English at <http://theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/uu41_99_en.pdf> accessed
1 June 2016.
213. For example, the Thais’ historical reliance on the use and trade of Asian elephants as beasts of
burden is one reason the domestic trade in Asian elephants and their ivory remains legal.
214. See for example, Art 30 of the Lao Forestry Law 1996, as translated into English at
<http://tnmckc.org/upload/document/bdp/2/2.7/Legal/Lao/L-forestry.pdf> accessed 1 June
2016, and Art 67(1)(a) of the Indonesian Law No. 41 of 1999 Regarding Forestry, as translated
into English (n 212).
215. See CBD Secretariat, User’s Manual For The City Biodiversity Index <https://www.cbd.
int/authorities/doc/User's%20Manual-for-the-City-Biodiversity-Index18April2012.pdf>
accessed 29 March 2016; and User’s Manual on the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity
(also known as the City Biodiversity Index) <https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/city/subws-
2014-01/other/subws-2014-01-singapore-index-manual-en.pdf> accessed 29 March 2016. The
authors understand from Singapore’s NParks that a number of cities and towns from
ASEAN, including Bandung in Indonesia, and Bangkok, Chiangmai, Krabi and Phuket in Thailand,
have also participated in testing the application of the index.
216. Singapore is 100 per cent urbanized. For the respective levels of urbanization in other AMS,
see Gavin W Jones, ‘The Population of Southeast Asia’ Asia Research Institute Working Paper
Series No. 196 (2013) 7 <www.ari.nus.edu.sg/wps/wps13_196.pdf> accessed 2 June 2016.
217. For comparison, see the respective population density of the other AMS in Gavin W
Jones, ibid 4.
218. In contrast, in the past there has generally been a lack of spatial planning capacity and
planning law or system in other AMS, although this is changing – sometimes too late to
stem the population growth and haphazard urbanization. See Koh Kheng-Lian, Nicholas A
Robinson and Lye Lin-Heng (n 91) 70–71.
219. Land use planning decisions that are more responsive to societal value judgements about
the proposed trade-offs in land use may encourage the development of a ‘land ethic’ in the

including EIA laws that facilitate formal public participation in biodiversity-related

decision-making.
Thirdly, like other countries, national economic interests have played a significant
role in shaping Singapore’s legal and policy frameworks for implementing laws
which regulate trade in endangered species or the commercial use of genetic
resources. Singapore’s strategic interest in promoting itself as a trade hub means
that it has a strong interest in facilitating rather than impeding efficient trade. Thus,
the regulation of the transshipments of wild fauna and flora, endangered or otherwise,
cannot be so strict as to undermine the efficient management of Singapore’s ports and
airports. Vastly different economic considerations might apply to Singapore’s neigh-
bours. An impoverished member state that relies economically on the export of its nat-
ural resources will have a financial incentive to tighten its regulation over the
shipments of genetic resources, since the poaching, illegal harvesting or sale of bio-
logical resources sourced from within its national borders would result in direct harm
to the state’s economic interests and tax revenue.220 Singapore’s interest in develop-
ing biotechnology as a pillar of the economy, coupled with its status as a host country
for genetic resources, may also explain its current ambivalent attitude to taking a hard-
law approach to regulating access to its own genetic resources, or undertaking inter-
national commitments to bind itself to undertake obligations in respect of the export
of living modified organisms, or on issues relating to the sharing of the benefit of
genetic resources obtained from other countries.
5 CONCLUSION
The discussion above has sketched out how nature conservation law and policy frame-
works have, in pursuit of sustainable development goals, been developed in two
closely connected geographical contexts – at a regional level (between members of
the ASEAN Community) and a national level (within Singapore, one of the constitu-
ent members of ASEAN). While it makes sense, at the regional level, for member
states to work towards developing legal instruments that facilitate the harmonization
and integration of their respective national biodiversity protection frameworks, the
practical reality is that each member state faces, at the national level, very different
country-specific interests, priorities and policy constraints that are inextricably tied
to their respective geo-physical and socio-economic characteristics. While this
makes the prospect of substantial convergence between the biodiversity laws of
ASEAN member states quite unlikely to occur anytime soon, each country’s experi-
ences in this field may still yield valuable lessons for its neighbours within the same
regional grouping. Even as Singapore’s geographical and socio-economic landscape
diverge significantly from the other AMS, the city-state’s urban biodiversity policy
framework is still potentially transplantable and applicable to other major capital
cities in the region seeking to enhance biodiversity within these built-up environ-
ments. Conversely, one would expect there to be correspondingly significant insights
minds of the public and the authorities. See Joseph Chun, ‘Beyond Real Estate: Sowing the
Legal Seeds for an Ethical Public Land Stewardship in Singapore’ (2006) 3 Macquarie J Intl
and Comp Envtl L 1.
220. Kala Mulqueeny, ‘Myanmar’s Leadership Needed on ASEAN Illegal Wildlife Trade’
(26 June 2013) The World Post <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kala-mulqueeny/myanmars-
leadership-needed_b_3503111.html> accessed 31 May 2016.

which Singapore might glean from studying the biodiversity management frame-
works of its more heavily forested neighbours.
A more detailed comparative analysis of the national CBD and CITES implemen-
tation frameworks of Singapore’s neighbours in the ASEAN region needs to be car-
ried out to better evaluate the prospects of AMS realizing their collective aspirations
of developing a regional framework for managing ASEAN’s biodiversity and genetic
resources. Before a regional approach towards the regulation of biodiversity and
genetic resources can emerge from ASEAN, it is necessary to identify common
ground between the national legal frameworks of the AMS from which a common
platform might emerge, while simultaneously trying to close the gaps in those areas
where local conditions have produced divergent country-specific approaches. If one
perceives the ASEAN Community as ‘one ecosystem’ comprising a tropical biome
with bountiful levels of natural genetic diversity spread out across ten states, then per-
haps a similar perspective needs to be taken towards analysing their respective national
biodiversity law and policy frameworks – by connecting them to each other, on an eco-
system-wide basis, through ASEAN’s collaborative systems of regional environmental
governance.221 As with any regional grouping, the divergent national interests of indi-
vidual member states will have to be reconciled with wider, common interests of the
region – in this case, to prevent the irreversible loss of the region’s indigenous natural
heritage, to foster a regional cultural identity connected to the tropical biodiversity
unique to this part of the world, and, ultimately, to ensure sustainable development
for the benefit of future generations.
221. Koh Kheng-Lian and Nicholas A Robinson (2002) (n 69) 679.

SSRN Id2847499

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSRN Id2847499

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 19, 2016, pp.

Biological diversity conservation laws in

Associate Professor Burton Ong

Associate Professor Lye Lin-Heng

Keywords: law, biological diversity, wildlife protection, ASEAN, regional, Singapore,

Mankind’s contributions to declining levels of biological diversity (‘biodiversity’) and

1. UN Doc A/Res/70/1 (2015).

2 PROTECTING BIODIVERSITY, REGULATING TRADE IN ENDANGERED

7. See discussion in section 3.3.1 below.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

2.1 Global biodiversity-related legal instruments

14. UN Doc A/Res/70/1 (2015) para 54.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

3 ASEAN-LEVEL EFFORTS DIRECTED AT BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION:

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

32. ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (2010) (n 25) xv.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

3.2 Towards an environmentally sustainable ASEAN community (1998–2015)

52. Strategic Plan of Action on the Environment 1994–1998 (n 50), 442–3.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

© 2016 The Author

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

Journal compilation © 2016 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd

© 2016 The Author

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

3.3 ASEAN achievements resulting from regional cooperation in biodiversity

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

3.3.1 ASEAN Heritage Parks

3.3.2 ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

and with relevant national governments, regional and international organizations on

3.3.3 ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN)

75. Establishment Agreement for the ACB, Art 2.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

Pursuant to the regional action plan, the ASEAN-Wildlife Enforcement Network

3.4 ASEAN’s regional approach towards developing biodiversity law

3.4.1 The nexus between biodiversity issues and sustainable development

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

84. ASEP I, para II.3 (n 31) 313.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

3.4.3 Alignments between regional cooperation efforts and national implementation

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

3.4.4 Disparities between individual states as an obstacle to legislative

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

biodiversity protection laws, resulting in a legal framework with distinctive features

4 THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT OF NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY-

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

Like much of Singapore’s governance in other areas, Singapore’s governance on

4.1 In-situ conservation

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

4.1.2 Singapore Green Plan

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

4.1.4 National parks and nature reserves

120. See CBD Art 8(a).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

4.1.5 Nature areas

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

4.1.6 Species protection

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499

4.2 Ex-situ conservation

150. Cap 351, 2000 Rev Ed.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2847499