By Chung Choeng Hoy.

AS A returning Penangite, I am proud that central George Town was recently proclaimed a "World Heritage City" and that measures are being taken to enhance its cultural and heritage resources. I am, however, far from proud of the progress of preservation and revitalisation of Penang’s natural resources. The close proximity and accessibility of its hills, sea and beaches have always been among Penang’s strongest drawing points.

There has been talk about the deteriorating conditions of Penang’s natural resources, but there has been little concrete action to address priority issues. A start has, at least, been made towards mitigating the pollution of Sungai Pinang, one of the six most polluted rivers in Malaysia, with the clear identification of the important pollution sources (especially culpable effluent disposers); a month long public awareness campaign for April; and the establishment of a River Rangers Programme in schools.

The issue of safeguarding watersheds (our source of fresh water) have hardly been discussed (the furore on hillside condominium building has little to do with this issue). In the case of beach and coastal degradation, many newspaper letters and columns over the past year have highlighted the plights – from beach littering to the negative role of beach vendors.

Publicity has also been given to the sea pollution issue, especially the requirements to enable Penang to qualify for the Sea Initiative and for its more pristine beaches to be accorded "blue flag" status.

Despite these initiatives, there has been little concrete follow up action. In fact, recent actions have either been setbacks to the cause (the reversal of the plan to move illegal vendors out of Batu Ferringhi beaches) or one time publicity stunts that are not sustainable (the recent Gurney Drive beach cleanup or the throwing of "effective microorganism" mud balls).

The biggest gap in coverage, however, is the identification of key polluters of the beach and sea, the factors limiting public access to them and what can be done to mitigate these detrimental effects. For example, the relatively pristine coast at Gertak Sanngul has been polluted by commercial piggery for years. Inadequate and possibly illegal and poorly managed pig affluent ponds overflow into the local river that empties into the sea, serving not only to pollute the sea but to also increase the jellyfish threat to users. Similarly, illegal food vendors catering to passing customers have hijacked parking spaces, reduced beach access to genuine beach users and aggravated road hazards.

Indiscriminate throwing of rubbish or plastic is not only unsightly but they foster breeding places for mosquitoes. Furthermore, the burning of damp wood and garbage for cooking by beach users continue unabated. Even contractors for the local government department, when they "clean" up the beach, burn the plastic bags, sheets and wet debris that they collect as they have no contractual arrangements to pick them up for proper disposal.

One part of local government is responsible for cleaning the sides of the road and another is responsible for only "sea borne" debris on the tidal part of the beach. This means that no local government agency has official responsibility to clean the beach slopes. In any case, one can argue that it is unrealistic for the government to be fully responsible for cleaning the beaches and their environs as the users (the polluters) have to be the ones to shoulder the primary responsibility. But what has been done to remedy such irresponsibility among the beach users?

Instead of just talk, it is time for the following stakeholders to undertake joint action to prevent further degradation of our beaches and sea:

» Local authorities and state government – should ensure that the cleaning of roadsides and beaches are better coordinated to include the slopes; cleaners are instructed and monitored to not burn plastic and recyclables, especially in a manner that increases air pollution; commercial vendors’ activity in pristine beaches be prohibited; programmes in schools assign priority to educating both students (and through them, the parents) on how to use the beaches responsibly, including setting up beach rangers’ programmes that are focused on field observation (ecology of beaches and the link to river pollution) and mitigation.

» Federal and state government – should ensure that beach and sea pollution legislation and implementation guidelines are appropriate for ecological promotion and enable polluters to be punished accordingly; and relevant pollution laws are enforced. As a start, the issue of the piggeries in Gertak Sanngul should be tackled given the fact that these piggeries have been earmarked to be phased out since the SARS epidemic in 2003.

NGOs in conjunction with the government – should ensure that training and assistance be provided to teachers and government or government-contracted staff to promote, implement and/or monitor some of the above programmes.

Private firms or individuals (in conjunction with local government) – should provide financial, organisational and manpower support by sponsoring designated beaches for pollution monitoring and mitigation or ecological rehabilitation along the lines outlined above.

In the final analysis, however, it is the civic mindedness of the public that is the ultimate obstacle. It is changing the who cares attitude that will finally bring about success.

**Republished with permission. This opinion first appeared in the July 29, 2009 issue of theSun.

Related articles

• Environment (iGT Netbuzz, July 20 to 26, 2009)

Comments (0)

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form