The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has opened public consultations on plans to clear forested areas in Sembawang and Woodlands to make way for housing developments.
While Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) of the sites reveal the presence of endangered plant and animal species, significant habitat loss, and ecological disruptions, the process has also sparked intense public debate.
Both sites, spanning over 60 hectares, are integral to the nation’s natural heritage. Yet, their planned development poses significant risks to biodiversity, ecological connectivity, and the long-term sustainability of Singapore’s environment.
The 53-hectare Sembawang site features a mix of exotic-dominated secondary forests, scrublands, grasslands, and semi-naturalised drains.
It supports a rich array of biodiversity, including 128 plant species, among which several large specimens were recorded. Notable flora include the small Malayan banyan (Ficus microcarpa) and other species significant for their ecological contributions.
The site is also home to a variety of fauna, including the critically endangered Sunda pangolin (Manis javanica), which is highly vulnerable to habitat loss.
Other species of conservation importance include the smooth-coated otter (Lutrogale perspicillata), long-tailed parakeet (Psittacula longicauda), and the native Javan myna (Acridotheres javanicus). These species underscore the ecological significance of the area and its role as a habitat for both terrestrial and arboreal wildlife.
Adjacent to the Sembawang site is the N5 forest, a 72-hectare area serving as a vital ecological corridor connecting green spaces across Singapore.
This corridor plays a critical role in enabling species movement and gene flow between fragmented habitats. Although the N5 forest is not part of the immediate development, its edges near Canberra Road could be affected, potentially disrupting its function as a biodiversity link.
53-hectare Sembawang site
The 7.27-hectare Woodlands site consists of abandoned-land forest (38.1%), urban vegetation (24.2%), and native-dominated secondary forests (15%). This diverse habitat is home to 195 plant species, including ten of conservation significance, such as the critically endangered tree Aporosa falcifera and Gymnacranthera farquhariana var. farquhariana.
The site also supports 95 fauna species, including notable species such as the cave nectar bat and the Swinhoe’s white-eye bird. Among the insects, the common birdwing butterfly (Troides helena cerberus), a species of conservation significance, further highlights the ecological importance of the area.
No aquatic habitats were observed within the Woodlands site, but it features significant biodiversity and acts as an important habitat for migratory and local species.
7.27-hectare Woodlands site
Environmental impacts and mitigation measures
The EIAs for the Sembawang and Woodlands sites reveal significant ecological challenges arising from the planned developments.
In Sembawang, the clearing of the N4 forest is expected to lead to major habitat loss and plant mortality. However, the adjacent N5 forest, recognised for its ecological importance, is largely excluded from the development, reducing its impact to negligible levels.
In contrast, the Woodlands site faces biodiversity impacts ranging from negligible to major, depending on the proximity of species to construction activities. The diverse habitats in Woodlands, including native-dominated secondary forests, support a range of species whose survival may be affected by habitat disturbance. Shared concerns across both sites include the disruption caused by airborne noise, light pollution, and habitat fragmentation during and after construction.
Proposed mitigation strategies
To address these challenges, the EIAs propose a suite of mitigation measures designed to minimise harm to biodiversity. Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) will be established around preserved trees to prevent any disturbance within their boundaries. Before construction begins, fauna inspections will be conducted to identify and shepherd wildlife to safe areas, ensuring minimal disruption to their habitats.
Additionally, road calming measures, such as speed limits and speed bumps, will be introduced to reduce roadkill risks. To maintain ecological connectivity, native vegetation will be retained, and infill planting with indigenous species will be carried out. Noise barriers and carefully managed construction schedules will help limit disturbances from noise and light pollution.
At the Sembawang site, plans include the creation of a park incorporating Active, Beautiful, Clean (ABC) water systems. These features aim to harmonise urban infrastructure with green spaces, providing a balanced environment for both residents and wildlife.
In Woodlands, approximately 90% of the native-dominated secondary forest will be preserved, with a 15-metre buffer zone designed to protect critical species. Efforts will also focus on salvaging and transplanting rare flora to minimise plant mortality.
The gravity of the EIAs
The reports make clear that the ecological value of Sembawang and Woodlands extends beyond local biodiversity. These areas form part of a larger network of green spaces that sustain ecological resilience in Singapore, mitigating the effects of urbanisation and climate change. The loss of these habitats could have cascading effects on species populations, connectivity, and the overall health of Singapore’s urban ecosystem.
HDB’s proposals to retain parts of these forests and implement mitigation measures represent steps toward balancing development and conservation. However, whether these measures are sufficient to preserve the sites’ ecological integrity remains a contentious issue.
Expert perspectives
Speaking to the Straits Times, Dr Shawn Lum, former president of Nature Society Singapore, emphasised that protecting critical habitats is key to forming interconnected ecological networks. He highlighted the long-term value of biodiversity conservation in ensuring sustainable urban development.
Mr Muhammad Nasry Abdul Nasir, executive director of Singapore Youth Voices for Biodiversity, cautioned against the risks of species translocation if improperly managed. He noted that poorly executed efforts could stress wildlife and jeopardise survival rates, underscoring the need for careful planning and execution of mitigation measures.
Public concerns
However, the proposals for mitigation have done little to appease public concern. Members of the public have expressed frustration over the perceived inevitability of the forest clearances, as documented on the comments found on the Straits Times’ Facebook post.
Some questioned the point of soliciting feedback when decisions appear predetermined.
Comments like, “What’s the point of conducting the study if the results don’t matter at all?” and “The decision to demolish forests seems to have been made already,” reflect widespread scepticism.
Others criticised the consultation process as performative, suggesting it serves more as a token gesture than a genuine attempt to incorporate public input. “It sounds like a channel to drop feedback, where they’ll always say, ‘Your feedback is greatly appreciated,’ but it ends up in cold storage,” one commenter remarked.
Concerns over sustainability also dominated the discourse. Many questioned the necessity of new housing developments, citing Singapore’s low fertility rate and stagnating population growth.
“Why do we need to clear forests to build houses when our total fertility rate is so low? Who are we building these houses for?” asked one critic. Another noted, “How about just stop? Our tiny island cannot sustain this way for long. Let’s focus on quality instead of quantity.”
The broader implications for climate change and environmental conservation were also highlighted.
Several comments drew parallels to past controversies, such as the clearance of Dover Forest, to illustrate a disconnect between Singapore’s green rhetoric and development practices. “We talk about climate change on one hand and clear forests on the other,” one commenter pointed out.
Underlying many of the comments were deeper questions about Singapore’s population policy.
Critics argued that the push for new housing seems to prioritise accommodating new citizens over addressing the needs of existing residents.
“We’re building more HDB for who? Stats show our own citizens’ population is decreasing,” a commenter said, hinting at concerns about overpopulation and its impact on Singapore’s limited land resources.
Others lamented what they saw as a lack of long-term planning. “Our birth rate is already projecting a declining population. Why are we planning for more than seven million people? Let’s focus on sustainability instead of unchecked expansion,” urged one participant.
Balancing growth and conservation
HDB’s EIAs highlight efforts to balance development with ecological preservation.
They propose safeguarding portions of the affected forests and implementing targeted measures to minimise harm to flora and fauna.
However, the overwhelmingly critical public response underscores a growing demand for transparency and more conscientious planning.
Whether the feedback period can meaningfully influence decisions remains to be seen, but it is clear that the issue has struck a chord with a public increasingly aware of the trade-offs between urban expansion and environmental conservation.
Feedback forms for Sembawang and Woodlands
