Hello everyone! We are concluding land pollution after three posts as there has been rather sparse legal information relating to land pollution, even within the Environmental Protection and Management Act (“EPMA”). However, we will continue to relate back to land pollution for different types of pollutants whenever applicable, so fret not!
Comparison
Here is a summary of the definitions of land pollution:
Our definition: “The introduction of physical, chemical or biological contaminant(s) that can directly or indirectly cause harm and/or decrease the benefits of the usage of land, water, air or any other mediums”.
EPMA definition: “… the condition of the land is so changed as to make or be likely to make the land or the produce of the land obnoxious, noxious or poisonous.” (SSO, 2002)
As alluded in our last post’s title, there is one glaring difference between the two definitions that we would like to bring to your attention.
Differences
The biggest difference between the two definitions is the consideration of the other “spheres” interacting with the lithosphere (or land). While our definition notes the importance of these interactions and the resultant effects that land pollution can cause, EPMA’s definition is sorely lacking in breadth and depth. EPMA seems to only briefly cover land pollution without even mentioning how land pollution can adversely affect the total environment.
Additionally, our definition acknowledges the potential harm that pollution can cause to our lands that goes far beyond just the “land or its produce” being “poisonous”. Compared to air and water pollution, it seems that the EPMA definition of land pollution is way too brief.
Our Opinions on EPMA
As mentioned, the land pollution in EPMA focuses on the effects of pollution, while air and water pollution laws focus on the process. We think that this makes the law too lenient and reactionary to tackle pollution well. Firstly, an act of pollution is only liable under section 20 if it affects “the land or the produce of the land” (SSO, 2002). As we discussed in our first land post, pollution occurs across a continuum and the land can also be the source of pollution. Hence, this law ignores pollutants that may be harmless initially that are being mobilised and transformed by wind or water, which can result in harm to these environments.
One example is fertiliser used in agriculture. The effects of fertilisers on land is beneficial, providing the nutrients plants need to grow. However, it is problematic when the fertiliser enters the atmosphere or hydrosphere. When leached into water bodies, these fertilisers cause eutrophication (EPA, 2020). When oxidised, nitrogen fertilisers can transform into harmful secondary pollutants such as Nitrous Oxide, a greenhouse gas 310 times more potent than carbon dioxide (Hill, 2010). Hence, to only deem an act of pollution based on its effect on the land seems too lenient to us.
In addition, the section is very reactionary. What if the impact caused by the pollutant takes a long time to take effect? Would it be a case of land pollution under EPMA only after its effects take place? We believe that pollution laws should adopt the precautionary principle – when the effects of pollution may be serious or irreversible, we should err on the side of caution and not allow the lack of evidence to dissuade action (CBD, 2006). We believe that each and every life is important and should thus be protected. To have the law turn a portion of the population into a canary is not just. Based on these two reasons, we believe that section 20 of the EPMA should be improved to better protect the lives of Singaporeans and to better punish polluters.
Conclusion
Section 20 of the EPMA is the first law we have critiqued, and we do not believe it will be the last. What has ended, however, is our discussion on pollution based on mediums – land, water and air. Henceforth, we will be looking at specific pollutants and the laws that govern them. If you have any opinions on section 20 of the EPMA, or have any pollutants you want us to look at, do tell us in the comment section down below! We look forward to seeing you in our next post!
Signing out,
Ryan and Lee Yang
References
CBD. (2006). Precautionary Approach. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/marine/precautionary.shtml
EPA. (2020). Nutrient Pollution. EPA. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-agriculture
Hill, M. K. (2010). Understanding Environmental Pollution: Cambridge University Press.
SSO. (2002). Environmental Protection and Management Act. Singapore Retrieved from https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/EPMA1999.