Conservative Conservation: Are We Doing Enough?
By Olivia Koh, mentored by Yap Pei Yin
The emergent: An aerial view of Singapore’s conservation
The developed world’s focus on finding sustainable solutions is not misplaced. After all, sustainable solutions such as carbon credits, carbon capture technology and developments in renewable energy help a developed nation like Singapore to maintain or improve its economic standing while emitting less carbon. However, I argue that while such developments are important, the sustainability debate also needs to place adequate focus on conservation. Developed nations have been more than willing to
champion new sustainable technologies while turning a blind eye to the sustained habitat destruction within their borders. For instance, while Australia has ambitions of transitioning to renewable energy sources and reducing emissions across its economy,[1] it has lost more than 7.7 million hectares of habitats for threatened species.[2] Herein lies the issue with the world’s conservation efforts: we have embraced the idea of what I would term conservative conservation.
Singapore has worked hard to carefully balance competing uses of its limited land—including residential, commerce, recreation and nature[3]—to support sustainable economic growth while preserving precious habitats and maintaining a liveable environment. By the 2000s, Singapore had lost over 90% of its primary forest[4] but in recent years, it has managed to green 47% of its spaces with 18-20% of Singapore’s area consisting of secondary forests.[5] With a relatively large percentage of the land consisting of forests and parks, endangered animals have the necessary habitats, so what could possibly be wrong with Singapore’s conservation model?
Loss of primary forest
By the 2000s, Singapore had lost over 90% of its primary forest
Green spaces
In recent years, Singapore has greened 47% of its spaces.
Secondary forests
18-20% of Singapore's land area consists of secondary forests.
I argue that there are two main reasons: The system and land law. The former creates an ideological barrier that prevents us from even dreaming of taking steps to conserve Singapore’s wildlife. The latter creates a logistical barrier that prevents us from making such a dream a reality.
The canopy: What lies beneath the surface
Unfortunately for Singapore, conservation is far more complex than simply having an area with trees and grass on it. Conservation of species requires an in-depth study of what the species requires and depends on to survive and flourish. For plants, this takes into account factors such as the availability of sunlight in an existing habitat, the pH and amount of nutrients in the soil, whether there are animals, plants or diseases that would help or harm the plant, whether pollination would be successful given the wind conditions or prevalence of the pollinator, among others. For animals, factors such as the availability of prey or food or the presence of predators, the presence of diseases, the availability of suitable places to nest or burrow, sufficient density of its own species to facilitate mating and the presence of human or man-made interferences would be relevant to consider. Similarly for fungi and bacteria, there are many considerations to take into account if one is to protect them.
To Singapore’s credit, it understands this, and the National Parks Board (“NParks”) conducts research on and monitors existing habitats and species. It conducted various surveys over the years, such as the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve survey, regular monitoring of coral spawning and bird ringing.[6] NParks has no doubt done an excellent job at conservation. But the problem is this: what are we doing?
This is not to say that there are no ground-up initiatives regarding conservation efforts. There are many passionate independent nature groups who actively take part in conservation, such as the Nature Society of Singapore (NSS) and the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES). For instance, it was NSS who proposed for the Rail Corridor to be retained as a continuous nature corridor.[7] NSS also collaborated with NParks, the Singapore Tourism Board and Orchard Road Business Association to create the Butterfly Trail at Orchard[8] and helped to relocate hard corals from reclamation works back in the 1990s.[9] However, for many of us, our only brush with conservation is through school-led programmes to plant trees or for a learning journey one of Singapore’s parks. Hence, while opportunities to volunteer with NSS, ACRES and NParks exist, many of us do not take them up.
The understory: The underpinnings of why we fail to conserve
I believe that the reason for our passivity towards conservation is that we have been conditioned to view conservation as the Government’s problem, not ours. In fact, this phenomenon of a “crowding out of responsibility” has been documented by academics at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.[10] They argued that because the Government often directs and provides solutions to its people’s problems, “opportunities and perceived responsibility for contributing to meet wider societal challenges” are reduced. Thus, when it comes to the nation’s conservation efforts, we often assume that the job of “solving” this problem has been delegated to NParks. Fortunately or unfortunately, for the most part, this is true, and this creates a negative feedback loop: When NParks works to save an endangered population, the newspapers report it, reinforcing the impression that NParks’ job is to help conserve Singapore’s wildlife. Further, with ground-up conservation efforts often not being publicised enough to contradict such a view, the general public forms the impression that NParks are probably already working to conserve Singapore’s wildlife.
"Thus, when it comes to the nation’s conservation efforts, we often assume that the job of “solving” this problem has been delegated to NParks."
It would be dangerous if we fail to keep our nation accountable in conserving crucial habitats due to such a mindset. The most recent and pressing example of this is the Ministry of National Development’s (“MND”) proposed clearing of Maju and Gillman forests to build more Housing Development Board (“HDB”) flats. We had trusted NParks, as a statutory board under the jurisdiction of MND,[11] to act for us in conserving major habitats for species such as the Sunda pangolin (the most heavily trafficked mammal in the illegal wildlife trade)[12], strawheaded bulbul (critically-endangered), buffy fish-owl, changeable hawk eagle,[13] violet cuckoo, bamboo bat and local plant species such as Ficus sinuata and Antiaris toxicaria.[14] Yet, in the face of MND’s greater need to provide housing, conservation became a necessary trade-off.[15]
However, the situation is not as dire as it seems. Research shows that Singaporeans do care about conservation, we simply do not believe we are able to make an impact. 61% of respondents in a survey stated that “they are motivated to contribute to conservation efforts by taking steps in daily life that will help the environment and wildlife.”[16] When given various options on how to encourage Singaporeans to get involved in wildlife conservation, 38% of respondents believed that Singaporeans needed to “[know] their actions would have an impact.”[17] These statistics point to a people that is willing to help in conservation but are unsure of whether anything they do will truly have an impact. The first step to conquering this is to break out of our mindset that only NParks can effectively conserve the environment.
Percentage of respondents who stated "they are motivated to contribute to conservation efforts by taking steps in daily life that will help the environment and wildlife."
Percentage of respondents who believed that Singaporeans needed to "[know] their actions would have an impact."
The forest floor: Whose forest is it?
The second step would be to understand the obstacles that stand in our way. For those eager to help, a quick research session would reveal that a conservation project is logistically very challenging to carry out in Singapore. The nature of conservation projects is that they require interaction with the land. In land-scarce Singapore, this means that to use any empty plot of land for conservation, one must first ask: whose land is this? While one could argue that conservation can be done from one’s own backyard, this is nearly always practically impossible. For instance, to be able to help an endangered local butterfly species recover its population, one would need to plant more host plants in a location where there is an existing population of such butterflies. If you happen to live near these butterflies, also happen to have space in your home to grow such plants and also happen to have the time and green thumbs required to grow a plant likely ill-suited for your balcony, conservation would be easy. But for anyone who has big plans of engaging in rewilding[18]projects, creating a protected habitat for vulnerable species, or making tweaks to existing habitats so that a species can better thrive, conservation using your own land is just not possible.
How about the empty patches of grass that flank our pavements? After all, no one uses them, so wouldn’t they be suitable areas to embark on conservation projects? Unfortunately for our little red dot, there is no such thing as “no man’s land”—it all belongs to the State. Thus, according to Dr. Joseph Chun in an interview on conservation in Singapore,[19]citing the Parks and Trees Regulations, the growing of any plant, or the removal of any part of the soil on state land requires permission from the State.[20] Any conservation project would therefore face the preliminary barriers of convincing the State that conservation is a better use than housing or building public amenities, for instance.
The microbiome: Woodlands Botanical Garden
Yet, there is hope. Mr. Ganesh Kumar felt that as a nation, we had not been “looking after nature enough” and our community gardens were largely focused on growing edible plants. Thus, he wanted to develop a biodiversity garden instead. This required him to obtain approval from NParks and his Town Council to use a large empty grass patch. He specifically chose plants and flowers that would attract certain endangered species, such as the Common Birdwing, so that they would have more habitats to thrive and lay eggs in. Today, Woodlands Botanical Garden is thriving and the Common Birdwing has become a relatively common sight there. However, Mr. Ganesh’s journey to start this garden was not all simple.
When applying to NParks and his Town Council for permission to use the grass patch, he was thrown many questions regarding the purpose of his garden, whether he had sufficient experience in managing such a garden, the types of plants he intended to cultivate and what biodiversity he was aiming to attract.[21] Yet, fuelled by his passion for biodiversity, Mr. Ganesh did his research and eventually managed to establish his biodiversity garden. His story provides a glimmer of hope that it is possible for anyone to do their part towards conservation. Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Ganesh was a finalist for the Singaporean of the Year award[22] suggests that people are beginning to take notice of the need to conserve local wildlife and
and create new habitats for endangered species. It is my hope that this trend will continue as we move away from conservative conservation toward a brighter future.
References
[1] Australian Government, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, “Australia’s climate change action” <https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/action> (27 November 2025).
[2] Invasive Species Council, “Habitat Destruction, Degradation and Fragmentation” <https://invasives.org.au/our-work/threats-to-nature-home/the-threats/habitat-destruction-degradation-fragmentation/> (accessed 7 August 2025).
[3] Urban Redevelopment Authority, “Master Plan 2025” <https://eservice.ura.gov.sg/maps/?service=MP> (accessed 21 July 2026).
[4] Chia Jie Lin, “Deforestation in 19th-century Singapore” <https://biblioasia.nlb.gov.sg/all-sections/vol-17-issue-1-apr-jun-2021-deforestation/> (accessed 21 July 2026).
[5] Mongabay.com, “How urban greening is helping Singapore bounce back from widespread forest loss” <https://news.mongabay.com/short-article/2025/08/how-urban-greening-is-helping-singapore-bounce-back-from-widespread-forest-loss/> (7 August 2025).
[6] National Parks Board, “Nature Conservation Master Plan” <https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/20171024007/Media%20factsheet%20-%20Nature%20Conservation%20Masterplan.pdf> (27 May 2017).
[7] CNA Insider, “Rewilding Singapore With Wilder, More Diverse Habitats | Wild Urban Designs | CNA Documentary <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8GUJFaFWp0> at 11:28 (16 March 2022).
[8] Nature Society of Singapore, “Butterfly Trail at Orchard” <https://www.nss.org.sg/butterfly-insect-group/> (accessed 20 August).
[9] Nature Society of Singapore, “Marine Conservation Group” <https://www.nss.org.sg/marine-conservation-group/> (accessed 20 August).
[10] Lam Teng Si and Syahirah Sasman, “Towards a ‘We-First’ Society in Singapore, RSIS Commentary (Singapore) (26 December 2025) at p 3.
[11] National Parks Board, “Mission and history” <https://www.nparks.gov.sg/who-we-are/mission-history#:~:text=The%20National%20Parks%20Board%20(NParks,Park%2C%20and%20the%20nature%20reserves.> (accessed 2 August 2026).
[12] National Parks Board, “Sunda Pangolin” <https://biodiversitysg.nparks.gov.sg/our-biodiversity/mammals/other-mammals/sunda-pangolin/> (accessed 2 August 2026).
[13] Isabelle Liew, “Parts of Maju Forest to make way for new public housing estate in Clementi” <https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/housing/parts-of-maju-forest-to-make-way-for-new-public-housing-estate-in-clementi> (10 July 2026).
[14] Ng Keng Gene, “Upcoming Gillman Barracks housing estate set to retain 25 heritage buildings, green spaces” <https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/housing/upcoming-gillman-barracks-housing-estate-will-retain-25-heritage-buildings-green-spaces> (10 July 2026).
[15] Ang Qing, “MSE does not have mandate on land use planning of Maju Forest, Gillman Barracks: Grace Fu” <https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/mse-does-not-have-mandate-on-land-use-planning-of-maju-forest-gillman-barracks-grace-fu> (7 August 2026).
[16] Low Youjin, “Younger Singaporeans far more likely to support wildlife conservation than older ones: Survey” <https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/younger-singaporeans-far-more-likely-support-wildlife-conservation-older-ones-survey-5665691> (1 October 2020).
[17] Low Youjin, “Younger Singaporeans far more likely to support wildlife conservation than older ones: Survey” <https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/younger-singaporeans-far-more-likely-support-wildlife-conservation-older-ones-survey-5665691> (1 October 2020).
[18] Rewilding is the “effort to increase biodiversity and restore the natural processes of an ecosystem that typically involves reducing or ceasing human activity and often the planned reintroduction of a plant or animal species and especially a keystone species.” Merriam Webster, <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rewilding> (accessed 2 August 2026).
[19] Pro Bono SG, “LAW@CDC 2024: Your Backyard Sanctuary: Legal Protection for Singapore's Biodiversity” <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWYETGVkCwk> at 22:33 (accessed 3 August 2026).
[20] Section 5 of the Parks and Trees Regulations.
[21] Pro Bono SG, “LAW@CDC 2024: Your Backyard Sanctuary: Legal Protection for Singapore's Biodiversity” <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWYETGVkCwk> at 22:33 (accessed 3 August 2026).
[22] Chin Hui Shan, “Singaporean of the Year finalist: He built Woodlands Botanical Garden to help others seek comfort” <https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singaporean-of-the-year-finalist-he-builds-woodlands-botanical-garden-to-help-others-seek-comfort> (12 January 2026).
Comments