If all the world’s a stage in a show on the plight of our planet, then the show-stoppers must be the extreme weather events pummelling the globe. The supercharged typhoons, severe heat waves and destructive floods that took place over the past year or so have made countries sit up and pay attention to the impacts that humans and their appetites for fossil fuels are wreaking. At the COP27 climate change conference in Egypt last year, countries agreed to establish a contentious fund that would compensate developing countries for the “losses and damages” incurred due to climate change. Details still need to be worked out, but given that developed countries were previously opposed to the set-up of such a fund, the outcome signals a global recognition of the worsening impacts of the climate crisis.

But brewing backstage at the “climate show” is another crisis – biodiversity loss. While the impacts of nature in peril are, for now, not as keenly felt as the disasters that have destroyed communities and infrastructure, people are starting to recognise how intimately intertwined the health of nature is with human well-being. A United Nations report published in 2021 noted that half of the world’s gross domestic product is dependent on nature. Other scientific studies, including ones by researchers at the NUS Centre for Nature-based Climate Solutions (CNCS), have also demonstrated the links between protecting nature and the benefits of cleaner water and higher agricultural productivity, among other things. Yet, wildlife species are disappearing at an alarming rate. The planet is undergoing its sixth mass extinction event, and scientists have estimated that one million plant and animal species are on the verge of extinction. Many of them could be gone within a matter of decades. The alarm bells are tolling for biodiversity, and the world responded in December 2022, when nations agreed on a new global biodiversity framework to stem the loss of species.

The biodiversity framework joins the Paris Agreement on climate change as another global pact; and the two will help nations act to tackle the two crises confronting our planet today. Against this backdrop, we highlight a number of developments that could emerge in the year ahead at the biodiversity-climate nexus, and opportunities for research institutions like NUS to make a difference in the effort to tackle climate change and stem the loss of wildlife.

Boosting confidence in carbon markets

Discussions on how to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss would likely converge most strongly in international carbon markets. By protecting a forest instead of cutting it down for conversion into an oil palm plantation, for example, the developer of the land can raise revenue through the sale of carbon credits. In principle, the climate benefit of emissions avoidance projects, such as a forest protection effort, is primarily a function of the amount of carbon a forest contains and the threat of losing that carbon. But problems arise when project developers do not have accurate estimates about the carbon stock in a forest, or misrepresent the threat of deforestation. In January 2023, British news outlet the Guardian published an article that raised questions about the effectiveness of forest protection carbon projects at reducing deforestation. The basis of the article included scientific papers that questioned the methodologies used by Verra, the firm that certifies carbon credits sold by many nature-based carbon projects, in overestimating deforestation risk, resulting in “extra” credits being sold.

The voluntary carbon market has long been mired in controversies over carbon credit quality, and the scrutiny is likely to intensify as the sector grows. Yet, the market for carbon credits provides a unique way of protecting forests in the near-term, since it channels private sector funds to a cause that is usually a drain on national coffers. Put simply, carbon markets offer a solution to ensuring that bastions of wildlife remain standing, an outcome that will also help to limit global warming to well under 2 deg C above pre-industrial levels, a target set out in the Paris Agreement. Scientific institutions such as CNCS can help to strengthen confidence in the carbon market. For example, CNCS last year launched a new research programme, called Carbon Integrity SG, that will help improve estimates of carbon stock in Southeast Asia’s mosaic of natural habitats, from tropical rainforests to peatlands. Researchers at the centre are also looking into different ways that deforestation risk can be assessed in an ongoing study. Robust, peer-reviewed science plays a crucial role in bolstering trust in carbon markets, ensuring that funds flow to the protection of the world’s remaining wild spaces.

A time for tropical oceans

The marine environment would also come into greater focus at international discussions on tackling climate change and biodiversity loss. At last year’s COP27 climate change conference in Egypt, for example, an Ocean Pavilion was erected for the first time to draw attention to how climate change was affecting the oceans. It follows a Special Report on the Ocean and the Cryosphere in a Changing Climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published in 2019, which warned that the ocean is getting warmer, more acidic and less productive. Melting glaciers and ice sheets are causing sea level rise, and coastal extreme events are becoming more severe, the report also said.

For archipelagic Southeast Asia, which has more than 24,000 islands with a population of over 640 million, changes in the marine environment warrant close watching. There are multiple dimensions to how oceanic changes affect the maritime continent. First, marine biodiversity. The Coral Triangle is a hotspot for marine life, and spans Southeast Asian nations such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. But multiple bleaching incidents caused by rising sea surface temperatures could cause coral reefs – important fisheries and ecotourism drivers for many coastal communities – to decline. The spread of invasive species carried through ship ballast water could further threaten the rich marine biodiversity of the region. Second, climate impacts manifesting in the oceans, such as sea-level rise and typhoons, pose a threat for low-lying countries in the region. Third, Southeast Asia’s location between the Pacific and Indian Oceans mean it is susceptible to oceanic-atmospheric phenomena developing in either basin, such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), which could cause changes in rainfall patterns and sea surface temperatures in the region. 

The NUS Tropical Marine Science Institute (TMSI), which has over the past few decades been studying the region’s marine biodiversity and developing engineering solutions for coastal protection, can play a crucial role in helping the world understand these challenges, so policymakers can better respond to them.

A diversity of actors

Conservation and climate narratives are often dominated by countries in the Global North, but we can expect a greater diversity of actors from the Global South to be involved in these conversations going forward. This is crucial for two key reasons. First, developing countries face the brunt of climate impacts, and they may not always have the capacity to take action to adapt to them. It is important that those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss have a seat at international discussions on these issues, since action – or inaction – would affect them the most. Moreover, the growth of carbon markets and the increasing attention paid to tropical habitats as suppliers of carbon credits may also negatively affect communities such as indigenous peoples, who fear the commodification of nature would lead to land grabbing and the loss of their culture. The global biodiversity framework urges countries to “foster the full and effective contributions of women, youth, indigenous peoples and local communities, civil society organisations, the private and financial sectors, and stakeholders from all other sectors” — a signal to all that various viewpoints should be factored in decisions on the fate of the global environment.

Secondly, developing nations can offer solutions too. A United Nations report in 2021 found that between 2006 and 2011, the indigenous territories in the Peruvian Amazon reduced deforestation twice as much as protected areas with similar ecological conditions and accessibility. The social element of forest conservation is an area that researchers at CNCS are starting to look into as well. When it comes to tackling the challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss, context is key. Research institutions from the Southeast Asian region play an important role in interrogating global narratives and contextualising projections for the region. TMSI scientists are, for example, looking into downscaling global climate models so they yield more accurate results for Singapore and the region. Likewise, CNCS’ Carbon Integrity SG study will help finetune pantropical forest models on carbon estimation to the region’s diverse and unique habitats.

Climate change and biodiversity loss are global problems that require all hands on deck, and research institutions such as NUS can contribute to the search for solutions that will benefit climate, nature, and people.

About the authors

Professor Koh Lian Pin is the Director of the Centre for Nature-based Climate Solutions (CNCS) and the Tropical Marine Science Institute (TMSI). He is also the Kwan Im Thong Hood Cho Temple Chair Professor of Conservation at NUS, Vice Dean of Research at the Faculty of Science and currently serves as a Nominated Member of Parliament. Prof Koh has 20 years of international research experience in sustainability and environmental science, having worked in institutions across Switzerland, Australia, and the United States. One of the most highly cited conservation scientists in Asia, he is a TED-Global speaker, Founding Director of ConservationDrones.org and a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader.
 

Ms Audrey Tan is the Science Communications and Outreach Lead at CNCS and TMSI. She has a decade of experience in environmental journalism through her work at Singapore's national newspaper, The Straits Times, and sits on the Pulitzer Centre’s Advisory Committee for the Southeast Asia Rainforest Journalism Fund.

Looking to 2023 is a series of commentaries on what readers can expect in the new year. This is the fifth and final instalment of the series.

Click here to read Professor Prakash Kumar's commentary on the search for science-based solutions to ensure food security. 

Click here to read Associate Professor Jeremy Lim, Dr Bryan Chow and Dr Anne Goei's commentary on the lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Click here to read Associate Professor Benjamin Tee's commentary on rethinking growth through the crucible of crises and how institutes of higher learning are in a critical position to lead the charge. 

Click here to read Associate Professor Simon Poh's commentary on what Singaporeans and businesses can expect from the Budget statement and the potential implications for the tax landscape.

We are continuously living in a “VUCA” world that is fraught with volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. The events that unfolded in the last three years, including the COVID-19 outbreak, the Ukraine war and the recent hyper-inflation trends observed worldwide, provided a testimony and added a new dimension to this phenomenon.

On the local front, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lawrence Wong has announced that Budget 2023 will be his “Valentine’s Day present to all”, having chosen 14 February to deliver his annual Budget Statement this year. He has also promised additional measures to help Singaporeans, particularly the more vulnerable and lower-income group, cope with inflation and the rising cost of living. Hence, I expect him to go for the low-hanging fruits and further enhance popular pay-outs such as the household utilities credit, Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Community Development Council, or CDC, vouchers, which have proven to be effective schemes that dish out direct help to those in need.

From the international standpoint, uncertainty continues to clout the tax landscape. The OECD’s Base Erosion Profit Shifting (BEPS) project – which aims to address corporate tax planning strategies used by multinational enterprises (MNEs) that take advantage of loopholes and inconsistencies in tax laws – has since progressed to BEPS 2.0, with the initial ambitious target of implementing both Pillars 1 and 2 by 2023 now delayed.

Pillar 1 seeks to re-allocate taxing rights to market jurisdictions and this involves a fundamental change to conventional international tax rules. Pillar 2 aims to introduce a global minimum effective tax rate of 15 per cent for multinational enterprises with a global turnover in excess of €750 million (S$1.15 billion). However, there are complex implementation rules that need to be ironed out, so the implementation of the second pillar is now likely to be delayed until 2024 or 2025. Hong Kong, which originally announced a 2023 implementation, has since delayed the timeline to 2024 at the earliest, in line with the delay in other jurisdictions, including the EU which had strongly committed to swiftly implement these new tax rules.

Singapore has been actively involved in the ongoing international negotiations on both pillars. It is inevitable that the Singapore government, just like other small hub economies such as Hong Kong and Switzerland, will lose tax revenue, particularly when Pillar 1 is implemented. However, as a small and open economy which trades with the world’s major economies, and as a good international citizen, Singapore has openly supported these tax reforms which strive to achieve a fairer and more certain tax environment. In response to Pillar 2, the Singapore government announced in last year’s Budget in February 2022 that it will explore the feasibility of introducing a Minimum Effective Tax Rate (METR) in order to safeguard its taxing rights and abide by international tax standards. In that scenario, MNEs that are within the scope of Pillar 2 and hence subject to paying higher taxes (up to an effective tax rate of 15 per cent in every jurisdiction that they operate), may then decide to remain in Singapore if they are indifferent on which authorities their top-up tax should be paid to. This is particularly so if they consider Singapore an attractive location based on non-tax considerations. There is therefore merit in arguing that corporate tax revenue may actually increase for the Singapore government as a result of implementing Pillar 2.

On BEPS 2.0, it is hoped that on Budget Day, Mr Wong can provide more certainty to MNEs within the scope of Pillar 1 and/or Pillar 2 by announcing firstly, the implementation dates for both pillars, the government’s decision on the METR and its implementation date. While these implementation dates may not be imminent, an advance announcement helps businesses to allocate enough time and personnel resources to amply prepare for them. In terms of possible timelines, 1 January 2024 may be a good date to implement Pillar 2, whereas Pillar 1 would need more time, and could likely take effect on 1 January 2025. Since the METR is meant to be aligned with the Pillar 2 rules, it follows logically that the implementation dates for both should be the same. After all, I believe the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore would have had enough time over the past year to study the METR proposal thoroughly and actively consult the industry stakeholders to be ready to roll out the details together with those of Pillar 2.   

Like it or not, Pillar 2 does diminish the attractiveness and effectiveness of tax incentives that have been used by countries and jurisdictions worldwide to attract foreign investments, in so far as it applies to MNEs within scope. For smaller MNEs as well as local small and medium enterprises that are not impacted by Pillar 2, life goes on as normal. They will continue to benefit from eligible concessionary tax rates as well as the low effective corporate rate which can still be substantially lower than the current headline tax rate of 17 per cent, after considering the partial tax exemption. Hence, I envisage that tax incentives will continue to be relevant and have a role to play in Singapore, even with the implementation of BEPS 2.0. However, under the international radar, I expect the Singapore government to continue to vigilantly review our tax incentive regimes to ensure that they remain relevant and competitive while complying with international standards.

Moving forward, tax factors are expected to play a less important role in attracting foreign investments into a country. To this end, Singapore should continue to leverage the many favourable non-tax factors that it already commands and try to double down on these areas to ensure that we continue to maintain our competitive edge. Here, I am referring to Singapore’s strategic location, political and tax regime stability, quality workforce, pro-business environment, global (including digital) connectivity, reliable legal system and strong infrastructure. To continue to grow our economy with the ultimate aim of raising living standards for Singaporeans, it is imperative that foreign investments continue to stream into Singapore, contributing to substantive economic activities and creating good jobs for them.   

Our overall tax regime, meanwhile, must continue to be simple, fair, progressive and yet sustainable. We have taken the bold step to increase the GST rate to 8 per cent this year. This rate will be further increased to 9 per cent, barring any unforeseen external shocks such as a global recession. We have also, in last year’s Budget 2022, hiked personal tax rates, property taxes as well as taxes on luxury cars. These should bode well for the nation’s tax coffers, particularly if we can avert a global recession this year.  

Apart from support measures to help businesses and individuals, particularly the vulnerable ones, cope with inflation, I do not expect any drastic changes to our overall tax system, except for some minor tweaks to certain tax policies.

About the author

Associate Professor (Practice) Simon Poh is from the Department of Accounting at NUS Business School. He specialises in all areas of tax and conducts taxation courses for both undergraduates and external adult learners. Besides teaching, Assoc Prof Poh continues to be active in the tax profession. Among other appointments, he serves as a Member of the Income Tax Board of Review, an administrative tribunal established for the purpose of hearing appeals against income tax assessments made by the Comptroller of Income Tax.  

Looking to 2023 is a series of commentaries on what readers can expect in the new year. This is the fourth instalment of the series.

Click here to read Professor Prakash Kumar's commentary on the search for science-based solutions to ensure food security. 

Click here to read Associate Professor Jeremy Lim, Dr Bryan Chow and Dr Anne Goei's commentary on the lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Click here to read Associate Professor Benjamin Tee's commentary on rethinking growth through the crucible of crises and how institutes of higher learning are in a critical position to lead the charge. 

Last year, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in a speech on global geopolitics popularised the German word 'zeitenwende', which refers to a 'turning point' and time for change.

The COVID-19 pandemic has likewise brought about seismic change in how the world looks at global health security and brought to the forefront the critical need for public health capabilities nationally and globally. ‘Never Again’ has been the rallying cry of communities, businesses and public officials the world over and this momentum offers opportunities to fundamentally redefine pandemic preparedness and response.

What have we learnt in the last three years?

There are numerous lessons cutting across all sectors of life. We summarise them in five key insights: pre-emptive investment in health security, nimbleness, trust, global cooperation and commitment to equity.

1. Pre-emptive investment

COVID-19 has shown that proactive preparedness remains key to managing future pandemics. Many countries challenged with lesser outbreaks in recent years, preserved the responding infrastructure which positioned them well for the initial containment of COVID-19. South Korea and Senegal, with prior lessons from the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Ebola respectively, were able to manage well whilst geographies in Asia affected by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) such as Hong Kong and Singapore all had regularly rehearsed response plans in place which could be adapted quickly for COVID-19.

2. Nimbleness

No country can afford to maintain standing resources to deal with Disease X (a term popularised by Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to describe the next pandemic) but creativity and nimbleness in adapting and re-purposing existing infrastructure can go a long way. Project Warp Speed harnessed decades of research into mRNA vaccines intended for cancer care and adapted these for SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19. Contact tracing systems deployed globally leveraged geospatial technologies used in ride-hailing and other consumer applications. Locally, physical infrastructure such as hotels, holiday chalets, military camps and convention halls were quickly configured to house thousands of COVID-19 patients to mitigate transmission and prevent overwhelming the healthcare system. The setting up of a community wastewater surveillance programme by the NUS Environmental Research Institute is another example, harnessing existing resources to set up a quick system of detection and enabling rapid ringfencing of infections.

3. Trust

Mahatma Gandhi, India's independence leader, exhorted the world: “The moment there is suspicion about a person’s motives, everything he does becomes tainted”. The pandemic has richly illustrated how corrosive mistrust can be, manifesting in multiple forms such as misinformation campaigns, conspiracy theories and the like. Open communication and collaborative partnerships built on trust between government agencies, public health entities, religious and community groups, and the public are necessary conditions for successfully combating a pandemic. Sadly, many countries did poorly on this front with delays in vaccinations and inappropriate public health interventions all too common. Even more perniciously, some actors ‘politically weaponised’ public health for their own nefarious purposes, worsening the trust deficit.

The reality of fast-spreading disease is that coordinated responses across all fronts are critical, and “trust is the glue”. Trust and the community that trust builds cannot be achieved overnight or only in crises. As Stephen Covey, author of the best-selling ‘The Speed of Trust’ drily notes, “The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second-best time is today.” Trust barometers show we are, as a world, moving in the wrong direction and this has to be reversed.

4. Global cooperation 

Pandemics can no longer be left to individual nations to handle. Widespread migration and travel mean diseases now spread much more quickly across borders, demanding a collective response internationally. Supranational public health agencies such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) need to have larger roles and responsibilities as well as resources in pandemic surveillance and response. The International Health Regulations, the only legally binding health-related legislation was shown to be woefully inadequate and a new order is needed. That said, international organisations are only as strong as their members want them to be, and member states have to determine they are better together under the central collective leadership and direction of a strong WHO than isolated and apart with an enfeebled WHO whose pronouncements are routinely disregarded.

Beyond strengthening the global peak public health body, public health networks should be developed regionally. Resource sharing among existing regional associations is a good start and it is encouraging that within our region, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has agreed to establish the ASEAN Centre for Public Health Emergencies and Emerging Diseases (ACPHEED). At the people-to-people level, the Building Alliances for Pandemic Response (Public Health) Asia [ALPHA] programme hosted by NUS will facilitate greater cooperation amongst leaders in the region, allowing an intersection of public health leadership, strong partnerships, and cross-country collaboration.

5. Commitment to equity

Moving forward, to truly achieve global health security, we must ensure equitable health development. Poignantly in Singapore, despite early laudations of stellar pandemic control, we saw an unprecedented outbreak within the migrant worker dormitories. This reinforced a sobering truth – we are only as secure as the most vulnerable groups among us. United Nations Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed reminded us, “Remember, we are in this together. No one will ever be truly safe until everyone is safe.” And this truism holds at the local, national, regional and global levels.

Operationally, Universal Health Coverage or UHC for short is the right overarching framework to steer towards equitable health for all and all countries should be supported to realise this for their citizens. Globally for health security, the Microsoft co-founder turned philanthropist Bill Gates has proposed a global governance framework. This framework would include establishing a permanent organisation of experts to mount a coordinated response to a dangerous outbreak at any time in any country, conducting resilience and preparedness drills in between, a Global Epidemic Response and Mobilisation (GERM) team, as well as mechanisms to accelerate vaccine and diagnostics developments and availability particularly in low and middle income countries.

The great American epidemiologist Larry Brilliant has said “outbreaks are inevitable, but pandemics are optional”. Early in 2020, a group of public health academics gathered in NUS to discuss whether a two-week global lockdown would avoid the worsts of COVID-19. We decided that it would be highly effective from a public health perspective but that narrow national interests and partisan politics would not permit this reality. We have as a human species learnt so many painful lessons these last three years. Will we do better with the next outbreak?

About the authors

Associate Professor Jeremy Lim is the Director of the Leadership Institute for Global Health Transformation (LIGHT) at the NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, where he works to enhance cooperation, capacity building, and knowledge sharing across the region. Trained in surgery and public health, Assoc Prof Jeremy attained various postgraduate qualifications including membership in the Royal College of Surgeons (Edinburgh), Master of Medicine (NUS), and Master of Public Health (Johns Hopkins, as a Fulbright scholarship awardee). In addition, he was an inaugural fellow of the Asia Society A21 Young Leaders programme in 2006.

 

Dr Bryan Chow is a Preventive Medicine resident at the National University Health System’s (NUHS) Regional Health System Office. He has worked on population health strategies, healthcare transformation, and healthcare systems planning within the regional health cluster. A graduate of the NUS Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, he is currently a Master of Public Health (MPH) candidate at the NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health.

Dr Anne Goei is a second-year Preventive Medicine resident at the National University Health System (NUHS) with an interest in Occupational Medicine. She graduated from the NUS Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine in 2018 and completed her Master of Public Health (MPH) in Harvard. She was heavily involved in Singapore’s COVID-19 pandemic response through her work providing clinical care to patients housed at the Expo Community Care Facility and framing the Ministry of Health’s policies related to Singapore's safe re-opening. She was recently awarded the National Award (COVID-19) Commendation Medal for her efforts in fighting the pandemic.

Looking to 2023 is a series of commentaries on what readers can expect in the new year. This is the second instalment of the series.

Click here to read Professor Prakash Kumar's commentary on the search for science-based solutions to ensure food security. 

More than 60 per cent of the world population will live in urban areas by 2050 and many of the large cities are in Asia. Rapid urbanisation is an inevitable part of societal evolution and this is accompanied by an unprecedented pressure on cities to feed their residents. There is also a need to cater to the increasing expectation by customers of the availability of higher quality fresh produce with added health and nutritional benefits. These factors, and the recent lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic, tell us that our future food supply will face periodic challenges if we stick to the old ways of securing food, namely, growing crops in big countries with large land areas and importing the products. Our policies will thus need to be modified.

Developing an urban farming research thrust

Therefore, in the face of impending climate change and a predicted population increase, coupled with the potential disruptions caused by future pandemics and natural calamities, we will need to find innovative ways to grow crop plants and ensure adequate food supply in the coming decades. Human societies have exhibited remarkable adaptations by continually developing newer farming technologies over the past several centuries.

The idea of producing some food plants under controlled environments in vertical indoor farms is one such novel concept. There are clear advantages to this approach, including avoiding the uncertainties associated with outdoor farming and minimising the water used for agriculture. Furthermore, by growing plants at high density and in multiple tiers, this farming technology will have a low environmental footprint. However, the technology is currently expensive and requires strategies to enhance its productivity and profitability.

We recognise the urgent need to develop science-based solutions and technological innovations to shape the future of indoor farming. The specific requirements of indoor farming mean that we cannot merely adopt the traditional farming methods. Novel solutions that integrate multiple disciplines need to be developed, requiring multidisciplinary specialist teams to work together, as we plan to do at NUS.

We expect that any novel solutions will be adopted by the stakeholders (such as growers, food processors, distributors, retailers, consumers, and waste managers) as soon as they are developed. Such solutions will be relevant to Singapore and the regional urban centres where several start-up companies have emerged in recent years.

Strengthening our food security

For land-scarce cities and nations, the production of some food in local vertical indoor farms is clearly one of the mitigating strategies to overcome challenges to food security.

The NUS Research Centre on Sustainable Urban Farming (SUrF), which was officially launched in August 2022, aims to facilitate multidisciplinary research in the field of indoor urban farming. We will leverage on the wide spectrum of expertise at NUS to formulate sustainable and transformational science-based solutions for urban farming.

Besides the various aspects associated with the cultivation of food plants in indoor farms, we will also explore the production of novel biotech products (such as nutraceuticals and high-value proteins) via such ‘plant factories’. Integrating good environmental and farming practices to limit potential pollutants from the farms and indirectly promote public health is important for the long-term sustainability of indoor farming.

Principal Investigators (PIs) from the Faculties of Science, Engineering and School of Computing have initiated multidisciplinary research covering expertise in genomics and biochemistry of plants, microbiomes, food science and technology, materials and polymer science, data science and artificial intelligence (AI). More of such multidisciplinary teams that focus on improving plant performance in indoor farm conditions are expected to be established under the cross-boundary platform of SUrF.

This may involve selecting genetic materials and pinpointing optimal growth conditions through genome-editing, the control of microbiome and light wavelengths, phenomics and AI. The research teams will formulate technical plans for launching such flagship projects that will help in securing external research funding.

Efforts will also be made to coordinate the information flow regarding the various PI-driven research projects NUS is currently undertaking in this discipline so that the thematic effort will be better coordinated and projected to our industry partners.

Some examples of multidisciplinary research for urban farming at SUrF

The major scientific and technological gaps and challenges of indoor farming will help to shape our research plans.

This will include developing:

• novel plant varieties using genome editing or genomic selection/molecular breeding techniques
• integrated pre-harvest production system followed by post-harvest processing including wavelength-controlled LED systems
• a detailed knowledge base of nutrients and nutraceuticals specific for indoor crops
• beneficial microbial consortia to improve crops
• optimal management solutions using novel, non-destructive sensors for plant metabolites & the environment, together with data science and AI
• robotics for indoor farms
• novel materials from farm waste streams
• mitigation strategies for future/emerging microbial threats associated with innovative agricultural practices

These fundamental and multidisciplinary research areas cannot fit within the R&D scope of small or medium companies. Hence, the currently available solutions are generally unsatisfactory because they tend to merely assemble various off-the-shelf solutions. With integrated approaches that can be undertaken in a full-spectrum university such as NUS, we have the potential to develop disruptive solutions for the emerging urban farming industry and make impactful contributions for societal benefits.

Partnering with the various stakeholders

NUS PIs will continue to hold periodic discussions with Singapore-based agribusinesses that include both upstream producers of multiple large-scale agricultural products (such as RGE/APRIL, Indofood Agri, Olam, New Agri Seed) and downstream partners (such as Archisen, SinGrow, Kalera).

In addition to the various participating NUS labs, a new indoor farming facility will be ready for research use at the start of 2023 within the NUS Faculty of Science. This core research facility, managed by SUrF, will house equipment for plant phenotyping and facilitate various projects undertaken by our PIs and their industrial collaborators.

Through these strategies and the participation of NUS PIs with their diverse research expertise, SUrF is designed to address multidisciplinary challenges. Overall, we hope that our research efforts in urban farming will contribute towards maintaining a low environmental footprint while enhancing our food security and health in 2023 and beyond.
 

About the author

Professor Prakash Kumar is the Director of the NUS Research Centre on Sustainable Urban Farming. He is a plant biologist, and his research spans the areas of improving crop plant biomass, enhancing phytonutrients in leafy vegetables, and salinity tolerance mechanisms in plants. One of the projects he leads aims to develop novel biomimetic membranes incorporating water channels for desalination and water purification applications. Since starting his research career at NUS in 1989 he has published about 120 papers, many of them in prestigious international journals. He has served for several years as the Deputy Head and Acting Head of the Department of Biological Sciences, and as the Faculty Associate (Provost’s Office, NUS). He serves on various national and international committees and is the current Chairman of the Genetic Modification Advisory Committee, Singapore.


Looking to 2023 is a series of commentaries on what readers can expect in the new year. This is the first instalment of the series.