Effective Approaches to Nature Conservation - Bornean Biodiversity ...

Effective Approaches 

to Nature Conservation 

Proceedings of the BBEC International Conference 2003 

25th - 27th, February 2003 at Shangri-La’s Rasa Ria Resort, Tuaran, Sabah, Malaysia 

Edited by 

Maryati Mohamed 

Takahisa Kusano 

Japan International 

Cooperation Agency 

(JICA) 

Sabah State Government 

Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

(UMS)

BBEC International Conference 2003 - Effective Approaches to Nature Conservation 

BBEC Publication No. 11 

ISBN 983-41084-1-9 

‘Effective Approaches to Nature Conservation’ 

Proceedings of the BBEC Internatinal Conference 2003, 

25th - 27th February 2003 at Shangri-La’s Rasa Ria Resort, Tuaran, Sabah 

Copyright © 2003 BBEC Secretariat 

Editors: 

Maryati Mohamed 

Takahisa Kusano 

Published by: 

BBEC Secretariat 

c/o Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation (IBTP) 


Locked Bag 2073 

88999, Kota Kinabalu, 

Sabah, Malaysia 

Tel: +6-088-320104 

Fax: +6-088-320291 

Photographs courtesy of Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

Printed By: 

Mewamas Sdn. Bhd. 

No. 1003-1004, 10th Floor, Gaya Centre, P.O. Box 14205, 

88848 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.

Preface 

Preface 

Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation (BBEC) Programme is a smart partnership among 

Japan International Cooperation Agencies (JICA), Universiti Malaysia Sabah and Sabah State Government. The 

inter-link in terms of impact and approaches among four components of the Programme viz Research and 

Education Component (REC), Park Management Component (PMC), Habitat Management Component (HMC) and 

Public Awareness Component (PAC), is planned in such a way to ensure the main goal of BBEC can be achieved 

in five years time. 

The simplest concept of BBEC is conservation. Conservation requires knowledge of particular ecosystems. For 

this knowledge, exposure and promotion of conservation concept should then reach the various level of 

communities, especially Sabahan. In BBEC, the approaches planned and implemented for the process of 

gaining knowledge are actually from researches, leading to establishment of reliable database and information. 

This in turn will be useful two ways: enforcement of legislation (especially on protected and/or conservation areas) 

and public awareness. This is where the four components are integrated. 

Since its launching, one year ago (25th March 2002), BBEC has started its function. Throughout the year, three 

progress reports have been produced. BBEC is organising this International Conference as part of the 

project’s planning strategy to globalise the function and existence of the Programme in Sabah specifically, and in 

Malaysia generally. We are hoping for the involvement of wider range of government and non-government 

agencies, and the private sector and non-profit making institutions (local or foreign) to have a hear and see of 

what BBEC is doing. Thus, the aim of this conference is to gain better knowledge (for BBEC members or 

non-members) on approaches to conserving the terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity and ecosystems in 

Borneo Island. The four main objectives of the Conference were: 

a. To share knowledge on nature conservation among the managers, practitioners and researchers. 

b. To highlight approaches and achievements by BBEC Programme for participants. 

c. To gain better understanding on effective approaches and practices on biodiversity and ecosystems 

conservation for Sabah. 

d. To initiate network among managers, practitioners and researchers on nature conservation in Borneo. 

This two days conference consisted of three main activities: progress report, paper presentation and workshops. The 

first and second activities were more likely a hear and see-oriented scenario. The third part is more of two-ways 

interaction among participants. The participants of conference have vast experience in various experties (planning, 

implementing, managing, promoting and communicating) of conservation. Therefore, active participation will ensure 

sharing of experience and learning of lesson to effective approaches in conservation. 

We were honoured to have the Chief Minister of Sabah, Y.A.B. Datuk Chong Kah Kiat to officiate the conference. 

It is hope that through this conference, the participants (BBEC members and non-members) have gained more 

knowledge on effective approaches to nature conservation. The Organising Committee would like to acknowledge 

the full support of each individual in Institute for Tropical Biology & Conservation (UMS), Science & Technology 

Unit, Sabah Parks and Sabah Wildlife Department and those indirectly helped towards the success of BBEC 

International Conference 2003. 

Thank you. 

Prof. Datin Dr. Maryati Mohamed 

Mr. Takahisa Kusano 

Joint-Chairpersons for BBEC International Conference 2003 

Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. 

i


Organizing Committee 

BBEC International Conference 2003 

Patron: 

Advisor: 

Joint-Chairperson: 

Y.B. Datuk K.Y. Mustafa 

Sabah State Secretary 

Tan Sri Prof. Datuk Seri Panglima Dr. Abu Hassan Othman 

Vice Chancellor, UMS 

Prof. Datin Dr. Maryati Mohamed 

Director of ITBC, UMS 

Mr. Takahisa Kusano 

Chief Advisor for BBEC Programme 

Committee: 

Sabah Parks 

Datuk Lamri Ali, Director 

Dr. Jamili Nais , Deputy Director 

Mr. Ludi Apin 

Sabah Wildlife Department 

Mr. Mahedi Andau, Director 

Mr. Laurentius Ambu, Deputy Director 

Mr. Soffian Abu Bakar 

Mr. Augustine Tuuga 

Science and Technology Unit 

Mr. Moktar Yassin Ajam, Director 

Pn. Fatimah Jaafar 

Pn. Lina Mohd. Lin 

Ms. Ken Kartina Khamis 

JICA Experts 

Dr. Yoshiaki Hashimoto, JICA Expert for Research and Education Component 

Dr. Takuji Tachi, JICA Expert for Research and Education Component 

Dr. Mohd. Nazri Iguchi Abdullah, JICA Expert for Public Awareness Component 

Dr. Masaaki Yoneda, JICA Expert for Park Management Component 

Mr. Shigeo Sakai, JICA Expert for Park Management Component 

Dr. Toshinori Tsubouchi, JICA Expert for Habitat Management Component 

Bursar: 

Logistics: 

Conference’s Secretariat: 

Ms. Ryoko Takeda (JICA-BBEC Programme Coordinator) 

Carlota’s Borneo Sdn. Bhd. 

Ms. Mayumi Chin 

Ms. Kertijah Abd. Kadir (ITBC,UMS) 

Ms. Halimah Hassan (BBEC-JICA) 

Mr. Aziz Parman (BBEC-JICA) 

Mr. Arman Hadi Mohmad (ITBC-UMS) 

Mr. Ahmad Sudin (ITBC, UMS) 

Mr. Azimah Jaafar (ITBC, UMS) 

ii

Abbreviations 

Abbreviations 

BBEC 

Bornean Biodiversity & Ecosystems Conservation Programme in Sabah, Malaysia 

BAKAS Water Supply and Cleanliness of Surrounding Environment 

BOD 

Biological Oxygen Demand 

CMC 

Catchment Management Committee 

CRP 

Crocker Range Park 

Datuk 

Sir 

DCMC 

District Catchment Management Committee 

DID 

Department of Irrigation and Drainage 

DO 

District Officer 

DOE 

Department of Environment 

DTT 

District Technical Taskforce 

DWRM District Water Resources Manager 

EAC 

Environmental Action Committee 

EIA 

Environmental Impact Assessment 

Encik 

Mr. 

GFS 

Gravity Fed System 

GIS 

Geographical Information System 

ICP 

Integrated Catchment Plan 

ICMP 

Integrated Catchment Management Plan 

JICA 

Japan International Cooperation Agency 

JKR 

Public Works Department 

JPPS 

Federal Development Department Sabah 

LA 

Land Application 

LUC 

Land Use Committee 

MTEST Ministry of Tourism, Environment, Science and Technology 

NGO 

Non-government Organization 

NT 

Native Title 

RESP 

Rural Environmental & Sanitation Program 

SWRE Water Resources Enactment 1998 

TOL 

Temporary Occupation Permit 

UMS 


WQI 

Water Quality Indices 

WRC 

Water Resource Council 

WWF 

World Wildlife Fund 

iii


Table of Contents 

Preface 

Organizing Committee 

Abbreviations 

Table of Contents 

i 

ii 

iii 

iv 

Part 1: 

Part 2: 

Part 3: 

Opening Session 

1.1 Opening Remark 

by Prof. Datin Dr. Maryati Mohamed 

Joint-Chairperson of BBEC International Conference 2003......................................................................1 

1.2 Welcoming Remark 

by Datuk K.Y. Mustafa 

BBEC Chairman........................................................................................................................................3 

Presentation of Progress Report 

2.1 Research & Education Component............................................................................................................4 

2.2 Park Management Component...............................................................................................................12 

2.3 Habitat Management Component...........................................................................................................22 

2.4 Public Awareness Component.................................................................................................................28 

2.5 Keynote Paper by Datuk K.Y. Mustafa, BBEC Chairman 

Balance between Socio-economic Development and Biodiversity Conservation....................................33 

Guest Papers 

3.1 Paper 1 - The Awareness and Conservation Activities of Wetland Ecosystems 

and Their Wildlife by Local Community 

by Mr. Hisashi Shinsho, Kushiro International Wetlands Centre (KIWC)..............................................38 

3.2 Paper 2 - Community-Based Conservation Project in Kinabatangan, Sabah 

by Dr. Isabelle Lackman-Ancrenaz, HUTAN............................................................................................42 

3.3 Paper 3 - Public Awareness on Conservation 

by Mr. Gary Lim, Malaysian Nature Society (MNS).................................................................................45 

3.4 Paper 4 - Canopy Biodiversity Studies in Lambir Hills National Park 

by Dr. Tohru Nakashizuka, Research Institute for Human and Nature (RIHN), Japan............................49 

3.5 Questions and Answers (Papers 1-4)......................................................................................................56 

3.6 Paper 5 - Management of Tropical Rainforest in Kalimantan: 

How Can Local Community be a Key to Success 

by Prof. Ir. Dr. Mustofa Agung Sardjono, Mulawarman University, Kalimantan.......................................58 

3.7 Paper 6 - Conservation Initiatives in Gunung Halimun National Park, West Java, Indonesia 

by Dr. Jito Sugardjito, Research Centre for Biology of the Indonesia Institute for Sciences (LIPI).........74 

3.8 Paper 7 - Research & Education on Biodiversity in ASEAN 

by Dir. Gregorio I. Texon, Asean Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation (ARCBC)............................80 

3.9 Paper 8 - Wildlife Management in Japan 

by Dr. Hiroshi Ikeda, Hyogo Prefectural Homeland (HPH) for the Oriental White Stork..........................87 

3.10 Questions and Answers (Papers 5-8)..............................................................................................................91 

3.11 Paper 9 - Park Management: Brunei’s Experience 

by Mr. Awang Samhan Nyawa, Brunei Museum Department.........................................................................93 

iv

Contents of BBEC International Conference 2003 

3.12 Paper 10 - Park Management: Indonesia’s Experience 

by Dr. Dwi Setyono, Gunung Halimun’s National Parks................................................................................101 

3.13 Questions and Answers (Papers 9-10).........................................................................................................107 

Part 4: 

Opening Ceremony 

4.1 Welcoming Speech 

by Tan Sri Prof. Datuk Seri Panglima Dr. Abu Hassan Othman, Vice Chancellor, UMS................................108 

4.2 Speech by Mr. Takahisa Kusano, Chief Advisor for BBEC Programme.........................................................110 

4.3 Speech by Datuk K.Y. Mustafa, BBEC Chairman..........................................................................................111 

4.4 Opening Speech and Official Launching 

by Y.A.B. Datuk Chong Kah Kiat, Sabah Chief Minister.................................................................................113 

4.5 Keynote Lecture by Mr. Mitsuo Usuki (United Nation University)...................................................................115 

Part 5 : Component Workshops 

5.1 Research and Education Component Workshop...................................................................................125 

5.2 Park Management Component Workshop...................................................................................................129 

5.3 Habitat Management Component Workshop...........................................................................................136 

5.4 Public Awareness Component Workshop....................................................................................................141 

5.5 Presentation of Discussion from Component Workshops.....................................................................153 

5.6 Colloquium............................................................................................................................................160 

5.7 Closing Remarks 

by Datuk K.Y. Mustafa, BBEC Chairman...............................................................................................165 

Part 6: 

Part 7: 

Photo Gallery........................................................................................................................................................166 

Press Cutting 

BBEC International Conference 2003...................................................................................................................180 

v

PART 1 

Opening Session 


1.1 Opening Remarks 

by Prof. Datin Dr. Maryati Mohamed, Joint-Chairperson of BBEC International Conference 2003 

Assalamuwalaikum, good morning, selamat pagi, ohiogozaimas! 

My name is Maryati Mohamad, and together with Mr. Kusano, we are organizing this conference for the Secretariat of the 

BBEC Programme. BBEC stands for Borneon Biodiversity & Ecosystem Conservation. It is a trilateral programme, 

between JICA, who is providing the technical assistance with the Federal Government, which in this case, is the Universiti 

Malaysia Sabah, and also the State Government. 

This programme is headed by Y.A.B. Datuk K.Y. Mustafa, who is State Secretary of Sabah. He will see that everyone will 

abide to what we want to do, to see that friendly conservation is practiced in Sabah. 

Ladies and gentlemen, my job here today is to brief you on what is going to happen. As you can see BBEC has been in 

place for about a year now. The launching was February last year, by the Most Honourable, the Chief Minister of Sabah 

himself, who will also officiate the conference tomorrow. 

After one year, we have done some bits and pieces. This conference is being held to actually look back at what has been 

done for the past 12 months. 

We want to gain experience and information from all others who have been practicing conservation in their regions or 

countries. That is the reason why we have at least ten papers delivered by all kinds of people who are concerned with 

public awareness, e.g. the Malaysian Nature Society, people on the administrative level and researchers. 

These people will give us their experience and tell us what are their strengths and weaknesses in their programmes for 

us to learn. This is the first in a series of five international conferences that we will be having under the BBEC programme. 

This year, we listen and learn. Next year, we will have another conference and we will let you know what we have done 

for the past two years. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we will be hearing the four components’ reports on their progress. The four components of this 

programme are: 

1) Research & Education Component, headed by the Institute for Tropical Biology & Conservation (ITBC) 

2) Parks Management Component, headed by Sabah Parks 

3) Habitat Management Component, headed by Sabah Wildlife Department 

4) Public Awareness Component, headed by Science & Technology Unit of the Chief Minister’s Office 

Our BBEC Chairman Datuk K.Y. Mustafa will give a Keynote Paper after the Progress Reports from the four 

components. 

We also have twelve invited papers from speakers from the Philippines, Indonesia, Japan and of course Malaysia, who 

will talk on various subjects, from which we hope to learn more on the ecosystem and conservation. 

On the following day, we open up with a Recitation of Prayer from Encik Hairul Hafiz Mahsol. 

Following that is a Welcome Speech by Tan Sri Prof. Datuk Seri Panglima Dr. Abu Hassan Othman, UMS Vice 

Chancellor, and then a speech from Datuk K.Y. Mustafa, followed by Mr. Kusano, our BBEC Technical Advisor. 

We will have the Official Opening by our Most Hon. Chief Minister Datuk Chong Kah Kiat followed by a press conference 

and exhibition, where you can see all the different types of conservation and nature we have in Sabah. 

1

Welcoming Remarks by Prof. Datin Dr. Maryati Mohamed 

This is followed by a Keynote Lecture by Mr. Mitsuo Usuki of the United Nations University who will talk on the 

conservation methods in Japan. 

After his lecture, we will have the Component Workshop sessions for Park Management, Habitat Management, Public 

Awareness Component and Research and Education Component, where we will each discuss issues and topics and try 

to find solutions. 

This will be followed by the Presentation of Discussion from Component Workshops, where each component will present 

the results of their group's discussions. 

After that we will have the Colloquium, which will be chaired by our BBEC Chairman, Datuk K.Y. Mustafa. After that, the 

chairman will then officiate the closing ceremony, and that will be the end of the second day of the conference. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I hope I have prepared your minds about what to expect for the next two days. 

Thank you. 

2


1.2 Welcoming Remarks 

by Datuk K.Y. Mustafa, BBEC Chairman 

Assalammualaikum warrahmahtullahi wabarakatuh, good morning, welcome to Sabah, and welcome to Pantai Dalit, 

Tuaran. 

Mr. Mitsuo Usuki, representing the Ministry of Environment of Japan, Mr. Kusano, the Chief Technical Advisor of the 

BBEC programme, JICA, Prof. Datin Maryati Mohamad, the Chairperson of the Organising Committee for the BBEC 

Programme 2003, guest speakers, Heads of Components as mentioned by the Professor, heads of departments, 

conference participants from Malaysia and also guests from overseas, members of the press, ladies and gentlemen. 

We are indeed very glad that this conference can be held this year as part of the plans we have always had. There has 

been a lot of publication and publicity about BBEC over the past year, and I believe most of us by now, are quite familiar 

as to the key areas we are talking about. Moreover, our officers and also representatives from the Press have been given 

the opportunity to visit Japan and study what the development and biodiversity the Japanese Government and Japanese 

people share with us, and I myself was given such an opportunity in August 2001. 

Of course, we have a lot of Japanese friends, as you can see around this room. They have been all around Sabah, not 

only in our major towns and city, but very much in the forest or in the jungle, studying the animals and the forest, and the 

insects in the forest. Why do we have this sort of arrangement or co-operation This will be answered when the 

speakers share their thoughts with us today, and as Professor mentioned earlier, this year, we want to listen and learn, 

and probably by next year, we will be ready enough to share what we have learnt, to share with others what we have in 

Sabah, and how we can go about protecting and propagating biodiversity. 

The current scenario is not as beautiful as you would expect. There have been lots of discussions and publicity about 

this, and our Chief Minister has made very strong remarks. However, all is not lost and because of this, the effort among 

JICA, the Malaysian Government and the State Government, have the sole intention of protecting whatever we have left 

and hopefully recreate a future, not only for us, but for our future generations. 

With that, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Sabah. Have a good conference. This is a small conference, but because 

it is small, we will have the opportunity to discuss a lot of details. It will provide a very good opportunity for each one of 

us to know each other, or in current IT terms, network, so even human beings are being networked now, as against huge 

conferences whereby we are not that personal. So we are hoping that through this conference, we will have many 

friends, both within and outside Malaysia. 

Thank you. 

3

Presentations of Progress Report PART 2 

2.1 Progress Report 1: 

Research & Education Component 

by Prof. Datin Dr. Maryati Mohamed 

Director, Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation, Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

cum Head of Research & Education Component 

2.1.1 Abstract 

Research and Education (R&E) Component of the Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation (BBEC) programme 

has its goal “Research and education capacity for conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems of Bornean forest in 

Sabah is enhanced”. 

In BBEC Programme, R&E programme hope to achieve five outputs. They are: 

a. Linkages of implementing and related organisations are enhanced and developed. 

b. Research and training facilities at UMS and other implementing organisations are developed. 

c. Trained researcher for taxonomy and conservation biology are increased. 

d. Biodiversity and ecosystems in the target areas are studied and better understood. 

e. Inventories and reseach findings are consodilated and compiled at the UMS and the relevant agencies and to be 

made accessible to interested researchers, stakeholders and the public. 

In this report, each of the output will be considered. Although, Research and Education Component faces two major 

challenges: lack of research funding and good pool of researchers (postgraduate students especially), the Institute for 

Tropical Biology and Conservation (ITBC), the lead agency is making effort to acquire funding from all sources available 

at the local, national and international level. 

Cooperation and Integration between R&E Component and the other three working groups is satisfactory. However, as 

can be seen from the proposed research catalogues, R&E Component believed that participation of more researchers 

from other stakeholders is vital in balancing the priority areas of research. 

2.1.2 Slides Presentation 

Slide 1 Slide 2 

4





5 

Slide 9 Slide 10





6





7 

Slide 25 Slide 26

Progress Report 1: Research and Education Component 





8





9 

Slide 41 Slide 42




2.1.3 Question & Answer Session 

Chairman: Mr. Takahisa Kusano, BBEC Chief Advisor 

Q: Prof. Nakashizuka 

I am not clear. What kind of long term research are you thinking of starting 

A: Prof. Datin Maryati 

The long term research that we identified at Kinabatangan includes things like monitoring the water quality of the Crocker 

Range. We also look at the impact of tourism, as we know the Crocker Range is a watershed for Sabah. 

Another study is to look at Canopy biology and we have started this in Danum Valley, but I think studying the canopy at 

other research sites under BBEC will be very good. Canopy is one of those places where it is very clearly affected, when 

10


you log forests. So naturally, we have to do canopy biology. 

The greatest challenge is to get funding from any organizations and good students to do the research. Thank you. 

Q: Hj. Amat Ramsa 

I am interested in your conservation activities, especially in Gaya Tamu at the public venues. It is so interesting and I 

would like to know how you do it and what the response is from the public. 

A: Prof. Datin Dr. Maryati 

You can actually ask Dr. Monica, who was in charge of the project. We have all the ups and downs. There are times when 

we don’t have the booth because we cannot get our people to go there in time. Either they have to do their field work or 

they have lots of teaching to do. etc. Then we go under the basis of using students, under the Science Shop Programme, 

but again these students have exams, field work or reports to write, so we sort of failed for a while. Two weeks ago, we 

developed another scheme. We are paying a very small fee to someone who is very dedicated to public awareness and 

we hope this time it will stay. 

We show examples to people about what we are doing, for e.g. the recycling programme. We do demonstrations for the 

public. We face a lot of challenges but we try hard to get this through because we believe people have to be educated on 

a face to face interactions. 

A: Mr. Kusano (comments) 

Thank you. More outreach programmes will be introduced by the Public Awareness Component later. 

11

Progress Report 2: First Year of the Park Management Component 


First Year of the Park Management Component 

by Dr. Jamili Nais, Deputy Director, Sabah Parks 

cum Representing Head of Park Management Component 


The Crocker Range Park (CRP), at 139,919 ha, was gazetted in 1984. It is the youngest and largest park in Sabah, and 

thus far, the least developed and researched on. In the quest to understand and better manage the CRP, it was chosen 

to be the site for the Park Management Component (PMC) of the Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystem Conservation 

Programme. 

There were five main objectives of the PMC, and various activities were conducted to achieve those objectives. The first 

objective is that the relationship between the local communities in and around the CRP and the park management is 

studied and understood. 

Several social surveys have been conducted in and around the CRP to identify and ascertain the extent of the 

overlapping claims along the boundaries. Among them are the re-creation of the salt-trail and the preliminary 

assessment of the possibilities of a homestay programme at the CRP, concentrating on villages between Penampang 

and Tambunan, particularly Kg. Terian in Penampang. An Ecotourism Workshop was held on 16-17 January, 2003 

among the representatives from local communities residing along the ‘salt trail’ between Penampang and Tambunan. 

The second objective is that the management plan for CRP is prepared. Draft Table of contents of the management plan 

has been deliberated on and agreed upon. Several works have been conducted to provide background information to be 

used for the management plan. Among them are the research on mammalian fauna of CRP by Dr Yasuma; development 

of a Geographical Information System (GIS) for Sabah Parks through the help of a JICA GIS expert, Dr. Kitaura from 14 th 

September to 14 th November 2003; a Scientific Expedition co-organized with UMS in August 2002; and the workshop on 

the Water Resource Management in and around the Crocker Range Park, was conducted on 22-23 November 2002, at 

Shangri-La Rasa Ria Resort, Tuaran, attended by 68 participants. 

The third objective is that the capacity of the implementing organizing in managing CRP is increased. A Sabah Parks 

Rangers and Research Assistant Training Course was conducted in July 2002, involving 30 personnel. The participants 

was exposed to various information and skills required for protected area management. The Inobong Visitor and 

Research Station was built and was officially opened by the Member of Parliament for Penampang on 16 January 2003. 

The Station will serve as a visitor centre, as a field research centre, and as well as a ranger post for boundary control 

purposes. A watch tower to monitor the behavior of flying squirrels was also built at CRP Headquarters in Keningau. This 

tower could also be used for other ecological study such as for plant phenological observation. Construction of the 

Mahua Visitor Centre in Tambunan and the CRP Nature Centre at the CRP Headquarters in Keningau is currently in 

preparation. 

In November 5 th to December 15 th 2002, Mr. Michael Emban, the Keningau District Officer joined the Country-Focussed 

Training Course in Japan to represent the Park Management Component. He was selected to represent this component 

to this training course because the Keningau district plays a big role in the management and protection of the CRP. 

Several reports and publications have been or in the process of being published: 

a. Proceeding of the Water Resources Management Workshop, 

b. GIS maps of CRP and all project site of the BBEC, 

c. Mammals of the CRP, and 

d. Identification Key on Mammals (Insectivora, Chiroptera, Scandentia). 

Activities and progress reports for the fourth (that the CRP is better managed) and the fifth (that lessons learned from the 

implementation of the CRP Management Plan) objectives can only be done at the later stage of this five year programme. 

12


Thus far, the PMC under the BBEC has had a successful one year. No doubt there has been some minor difficulties as 

to be expected from such a big and ambitious endeavour, but the component had progressed well. It had been a 

tremendous year in term of integration as the PMC involved the eight districts and several other implementing 

organizations, plus the involvement from the other three components especially the Research and Education 

Component (REC) and Public Awareness Component (PAC). We thank JICA and the Sabah State Government for this 

opportunity to focus on the CRP. 





13





14





15 

Slide 21 Slide 22





16





17 

Slide 37 Slide 38





18





19 

Slide 53 Slide 54


Slide 57 

2.2.3 Questions and Answers Session 


Q: Dr. Chey Vun Khen 

We have been told that the proposed Kudat Marine Park has been approved by the State Government since those 

islands are part of Pulau Banggi and Balambangan and it is quite big. Would it be good if the BBEC programme conduct 

research to compare the biodiversity in those islands with the biodiversity in mainland Sabah and these islands could 

also serve as a link between Borneo and Palawan Thank you. 

A: Dr. Jamili Nais 

Yes, it is in the pipeline and in fact, there are many things that should be in the BBEC programme. I agree with you, but 

among other things that need to be done under this programme should include the Forestry Research Centre and the 

Sabah Biodiversity Centre. The main focus is the terrestial ecosystem. 

The proposed Marine Park at the northern tip of Sabah currently involves the marine water, and does not involve the 

islands. Probably not in this particular programme. 

Q: Mr. Abdul-Hamid Ahmad 

Do you have any idea about the size of the population who are actually living within the Crocker Range Park 


We have very detailed map and information database on the villagers and people living inside the park. The difference 

is that Kinabalu Park was gazetted in 1964 before the population boom, land was plentiful and people were not that 

many, so we did not have many problems in the Kinabalu Park. 

However, when the Crocker Range Park was gazetted in 1984, the population boom in settlement had set in. That’s 

where the problem started. When we started surveying, some communities, villagers and shifting cultivators were inside 

the park. This is what we are trying to resolve now. 

20


From the preparation of the Management Master Plan, we have detailed maps and database of all the people involved. 

We try to solve the problem by creation of bufferzones. If a community falls inside the park, then we will probably excise 

them, designate the area a bufferzone and restrict activities. We are going to resolve this once and for all within the next 

five years. 

In the third week of next month, we are going to have the Park Zoning Workshop, and are inviting all relevant people to 

look bit by bit, whether each section selected is to be excised, retained or bufferzoned. That’s what we will be discussing 

next month. 

A: Hj. Amat Ramsa (comments) 

I totally agree with Dr. Jamili that participation of the stakeholders are important, and to view sustainability of the park. In 

2000 I visited the Forest Training in Nepal around Lantong National Park. We had a two months course there. What they 

did was to set up an institutional arrangement with park authorities and the local community, where they set up the 

community based ecotourism activities. 

The activities actually reduced one conflict between the park and the community. Now it is going to be implemented in 

Thailand. Maybe we can learn from them and I think there are a lot of cases where local communities participate in park 

management. They can actually reduce conflict, like the case study in Pakistan, where they reduced conflict of illegal 

hunting by developing an Association of Hunters comprised of local hunters inside the park. Therefore, through the 

association, they are controlling the hunting activities and conserving the wildlife species at the same time. Thank you. 


Thank you for your comments. In fact, I was in Nepal in 1996 and studying the Napuma National Park and the Royal 

National Park. We were looking at their public participation and bufferzone management. Last month, I was in Vietnam, 

discussing the ten model sites in Asia for Protected Area Management. Kinabalu was chosen as one and the Royal 

National Park also, mostly regarding public participation and decision making. Thank you for the information anyway. 

21

Progress Report 3: Habitat Management Component 


Habitat Management Component 

by Mr. Laurentius N. Ambu, Deputy Director, Sabah Wildlife Department 

Representing Head of Habitat Management Component 

2.3.1 Presentation Text 

The project purpose of Habitat Management Component is defined as “an approach to habitat management for 

important species is established”. 

The main objectives of the component are: 

a. To provide high quality analysis of the resource in wildlife protection areas. 

b. To provide recommendations for improved management and protection of wildlife and their habitat. 

To realize the objectives above, a total of six main outputs were laid out, supported by 25 action plans and activities. This 

project component will serve as a model, which can be applied, to the other protected areas after the completion of the 

project. 

(1) Objective of the Project Component 

As mentioned earlier, the overall goal of the BBEC project is “Conserving the endangered and precious biodiversity and 

ecosystems of Sabah”. This can be achieved by embarking on the four main project components viz Research and 

Education, Parks Management, Habitat Management and Public Awareness. 

As for the Habitat Management Component, the Sabah Wildlife Department is entrusted the task of being the leading 

agency to implement the component together with eight other stakeholders. The project purpose of the Habitat 

Management Component is defined as: “an approach to habitat management for important species is established”. 

This program actually fits well with the planning of SWD in line with the federal and state government’s commitment in 

conserving biodiversity. The SWD has developed strategies for implementing this commitment. The strategy is to 

develop a protected areas network in the state. At the moment, approximately about 11% of the State’s land area is 

within the protected areas network. This includes different categories of land such as Sanctuaries, Conservation Areas, 

State Parks, Protection Forest, Wildlife Reserves and VJRs. And these areas virtually cover all different habitat types 

from marine and mangrove to mountain forest. 

This HMC is looking at how we can develop corridors between protected areas to allow for free movement or rather 

enlarging ranging areas of wildlife and maintaining genetic diversity. Perhaps this is important in the sense that most of 

the protected areas are either fragmented or not contiguous with one another. For this particular project component, the 

project area is Tabin Wildlife Reserve and Surroundings. 

(2) Project Component Outputs 

A total of six (6) major outputs have been planned as follows : 

a. Key species are selected. 

b. Methods for monitoring the key species are developed. 

c. Monitoring personnel are trained for using the methods. 

d. A habitat range of the selected key species is identified in and around Tabin Wildlife Reserve. 

e. Management plan(s) for the selected key species is (are) completed. 

f. New protected areas around Tabin Wildlife Reserve and Proposed. 

(3) Project Component Main Activities 

a. OUTPUT 1: Key species selected. 

Activities to be implemented: 

1-1 Review existing data of the whole range of species, especially the protected species in Sabah. 

1-2 Decide criteria for selecting key species. 

1-3 Selected species matching the criteria. 

22


This output 1 is to select key species to be targeted by management plan(s) prepared by the component. All the above 

activities must be implemented before the following outputs. 

b. OUTPUT 2: Methods for monitoring the key species are developed. 


2-1 Refer to the relevant information collected by the Research and Education Component. 

2-2 Refer to existing topographic and land-uses maps in and around Tabin Wildlife Reserve. 

2-3 Draft methods for monitoring the key species. 

2-4 Conduct preliminary field monitoring on the key species. 

2-5 Decide the monitoring methods. 

2-6 Prepare manuals of the monitoring methods. 

c. OUTPUT 3: Monitoring personnel are trained for using the methods. 


3-1 Identify officers, rangers, tourist guides, wildlife warden, etc. involved in the monitoring. 

3-2 Identify what kind of training is necessary for them to conduct monitoring, in relation to the ongoing 

capacity building project. 

3-3 Formulate training module to suit the requirement. 

3-4 Conduct the training of the methods of monitoring the selected key species. 

d. OUTPUT 4: A habitat range of the selected key species is identified in and around Tabin Wildlife Reserve. 


4-1 Set up an institution for implementation of the monitoring. 

4-2 Monitor the key species. 

4-3 Plot monitoring results of the key species on a map. 

e. OUTPUT 5: Management plan(s) for the selected key species is (are) completed. 


5-1 Refer to relevant information collected by the Research and Education Component. 

5-2 Prepare a vegetation map in and around Tabin Wildlife Reserve, based on data from Forestry 

Department, UMS, Land and Survey Department, etc. 

5-3 Verify the vegetation map by field Survey. 

5-4 Comprehensive analysis of habitat requirement around Tabin Wildlife Reserve. 

5-5 Survey human activities and requirement around Tabin Wildlife Reserve. 

5-6 Identify threats to the key species. 

5-7 Draft the management plan(s) for the selected. 

f. OUTPUT 6: New protected areas around Tabin Wildlife Reserve are proposed. 


6-1 Identify needs to rehabilitate degraded areas around Tabin Wildlife Reserve, especially riverine habitat. 

6-2 Identify and propose the conservation of important habitat surrounding Tabin Wildlife Reserve. 

(4) Progress Report on the Project Component 

As planned in the project document operation of plan schedule for Habitat Management Component, from April - 

December 2002, this component has managed to accomplish the output 1, to select the key Species. The process of 

selection of the key species involved the selection of criteria. In order to get inputs from other implementing agencies, a 

workshop that jointly organized with Research and Education Component was held in August 15. Two kinds of 

approaches, Species approach and Ecosystem approach were suggested and discussed in the workshop. Species 

approachs seem to be more popular and as many as 11 criteria were suggested in order to select the key species. There 

were also suggestions to select the Sumatran rhino and the combination of taxon: bird, insect and amphibian as the key 

species to be monitored in this program. Problems and constrains also identified during the workshop were as below: 

a. Need more research to determine the function of species concerned in the ecosystem. 

b. Unclear of long-term objective of the reserve in 20-40 years to come. 

c. Capacity of Sabah Wildlife Department (SWD) as a leading agency very limited in term of manpower, time and 

budget, expertise must be considered. 

d. Management issue (e.g: Human - Elephant Conflict). 

23

Progress Report 2: First Year of the Park Management Component 

Preparation for the implementation of output 4: A habitat range of the selected species is identified in and around Tabin 

Wildlife Reserve, began by gathering all the relevant digital information from the other implementing agencies such as 

Forestry Department and Land and Survey Department. This is to enable SWD to produce the digital maps using GIS 

software (Arc View), to easily visualize the distribution, movement and habitat preference or identifying potential habitat 

for the selected key species and also as a tool for a proper management of the Tabin reserve. At this moment, all the 

basic digitized information for Tabin WR and it surrounding is available and compatible with the GIS Arc view software 

used by the SWD. However a lot of works on updating and modifying data are still going on. 

Sometimes it is quite hard to really follow what have been planned or agreed earlier. This is what had happened to the 

output 6: New protected areas around Tabin Wildlife Reserve are proposed. This output should be achieved at the end 

of the project, however flexibility in the implementation of the operation plan to achieve this output was evaluated on its 

opportunity, complicity and sensitivity verses the time and situation. Therefore, a consultant was appointed by JICA for 

Habitat management Component to assist SWD in drafting a proposal to gazette the lower Segama area as Wildlife 

Conservation Area. As part of the process, the consultant together with SWD staff and JICA officers have conducted a 

field survey in December 26-30, 2002, to have general understanding of the proposed area. A final report was submitted 

to the SWD and a draft paper for gazettement of the proposed area is in the process. 

(5) Linkages of the Project Component With the Other Project Components 

As seen from the project document, this project is designed in such a way that it portrays the contemporary best practice 

of biodiversity conservation. All the four components form the basic ingredients of a protected area management. Apart 

from that the project provides opportunities for interaction among the four components, for example, training (GIS, 

research method, etc), expedition, working group meetings and so forth. 




24





25 

Slide 11 Slide 12





26





Q: (Name unknown) 

How is the situation of the paper proposing the gazzettement of lower Segama as conservation area 

A: Mr. Laurentius 

Actually, we have the procedure for establishing an area where we do a lot of justification, supported by field work, data 

justification, socio-economic. We have done this with a consultant and have written a good report which we have 

submitted to the Ministry. We have been asked to look into consultation with other agencies before we write anything. It 

has since been completed, and we are waiting for the Ministry to table it at the cabinet. We hope to be able to secure that 

area as the area is now being applied for and virtually nobody has the right to plant in the wetlands, because a lot of 

money will be needed. 

Q: Mr. Y.C. Kan 

In order to maintain genetic diversities, you need to link all those isolated protected areas. I have the impression that the 

department has very few manpower to implement such ideas, for example in the lower Kinabatangan areas. Many forest 

there are fragmented, because of the plantations, and they cut off pockets of Orang Utan’s habitat, so, even key species 

like the Orang Utans will eventually face extinction, because of genetic threats. I wonder what kind of power you have to 

implement that idea Or, are you looking for more power to bring up all the particular isolated areas in Sabah 


When we talk about pure science, there are lots of concepts with regards to maintaining the genetic diversity. It’s all with 

the concept of SLOs. I have prepared maps that depict a scenario where there is no logging, and then we will follow 

these areas for the next 30 to 40 years, and you can see that even then, most areas will be fragmented. 

We would like to study those species in terms of habit, fertilization, habitat requirements, and so forth. This project is 

designed in such a way, that we can use it as a model for sustaining or protecting the species who reign within the Tabin 

or around the Tabin, and to a large extent, outside the Tabin. If it is successful, we can use this for other areas, and this 

is what the project is for, and it will be a good indicator for project completion, and we can then use it anywhere else in the 

State. 

A: Mr. Kusano 

In any country, protecting agencies or agencies working for conservation to gain more power need support from the 

public and also understanding. Therefore the Public Awareness Component is very crucial and helpful for us. Thank you. 

27

Progress Report 4: Public Awareness Component 


Public Awareness Component 

by Moktar Yassin Ajam, Director, Science and Technology Unit, Chief Minister Department 

cum Head of Public Awareness Component 


The project purpose of the Public Awareness Component is that people of Sabah have better understanding and 

appreciation to the conservation of biodiversity. To achieve this purpose, a working group has been formed, which 

consist of nine agencies as component members and lead by the Science and Technology Unit Sabah. 

In the first year of this five years long programme, the component has accomplished some activities. Firstly, to identify 

current issues, problems and constrains of public awareness, the working group conducted a case study on current and 

past public awareness campaigns for biodiversity conservation in Sabah and baseline survey of people’s awareness on 

biodiversity conservation. 

Secondly, to plan and implement effective awareness campaigns, the working group identified several target groups of 

the campaign, such as students, teachers, politicians, etc, and also started some pilot campaigns, such as publishing 

BBEC newsletters, launching website, an exhibitions at Crocker Range Park, Radio campaign, BBEC logotype 

competition etc. 

Thirdly, to enhance the capacity of the component members, the officers in charge of the component went for training 

and study tour both locally and in Japan. 

All these activities are conducted by the good teamwork among the component members and strong support from JICA 

advisors. All components members have been fully involved in the implementation of all the activities. This full 

participation of all component members is remarkable characteristic of the Public Awareness Component. 

As a result of the above activities and interactions conducted in this first year, the component members are gaining more 

knowledge and expertise to achieve the purpose of the component. 



28





29 

Slide 9 Slide 10





30





31 

Slide 25 Slide 26

Progress Report 4: Public Awareness Component 

Slide 27 




What are the indicators you have, to measure the effectiveness of campaigns, and what the peak performance meter 

you use to measure such success 

A: Mr. Moktar Yassin Ajam 

Public awareness is an ongoing activity where we try to create an understanding of the level of awareness in people. We 

try to connect with the local people, to try to make them understand and even if have success with one person, we call 

that effective. 

A: Mr. Azman Mohamad (comments) 

It is a baseline study. 

Q: Ms. Zahra Yaacob 

How effective is the public awareness campaign There are so many campaigns. We have to bring understanding to the 

lowest level of people. How can we reach the illiterate We have campaigns in cartoon forms, something the children of 

the kampungs can associate with. As the public awareness campaign consist mainly of government people, how many 

actually go to ground level 


That is a very good point to bring up. We have to discuss more on this, perhaps have partnership programmes with 

NGOs and the government. 

32


2.5 Keynote Paper: 

Balance Between Socio-Economic Development and 

Biodiversity Conservation 

by Datuk K.Y. Mustafa, Sabah State Secretary cum BBEC Chairman 

2.5.1 Keynote Paper 

Good morning ladies and gentlemen! We talk about biodiversity and conservation in our conversation almost everyday, 

whether in the academic field, government, as well as the public themselves. Generally, we get nowhere, but create a lot 

of disagreements, and these disagreements create a lot of awareness. If everyone agreed, nothing would happen and 

the government would be complacent, and the people will not have access to critical information, and perhaps the press 

would have nothing to write about. It was said earlier that people are the force behind all these factors. 

Some of the disasters may not be physical disasters, but social disasters, etc., which have resulted from over 

zealousness or over emphasis towards one end. For example, the strong push, and/or the strong pull; whichever way we 

look at it, by the business sector, we do not talk about conservation, but only on creating wealth, and more wealth. 

Conservation issues only become important after we have seen some huge disasters. Even then, people tend to forget 

easily. Do you recall the disaster Greg we had in 1992, and in 1999, we had a big flood in the Penampang area 

Weapons are used against developing countries by developed countries, resulting in no more forests. Perhaps they are 

still learning, but at the same time, they are also trying to impose their values on us. We should be able to manage our 

own resources and our own destiny, but with the partnership of both developed countries and less developed countries. 

The challenge in Sabah is to be Unity in Diversity and in Sabah alone, we have 4 diversities: 

a. cultural diversity - we have more than 30 indigenous ethnic groups and languages. 

b. political diversity - we are the most politically active. In Malaysia we have 12 active parties. 

c. religious diversity - Sabah people have a very high level of tolerance, and for many good reasons, understand 

others better because we understand other peoples’ religions, and it is not an easy subject to digest because 

everyone is protective of his religion, and there are no particular grouping of majority. 

d. biological diversity - the subject of this conference. 

We have to think about great diversity; our current, previous and future state is all in the context of diversity. 

The Sabah economic composition is mainly dependent on agriculture and services. The manufacturing sector is lagging 

behind, although it was, and still is, a vision of the State. This has resulted partly in our conference today, in our giving so 

much priority to BBEC, and the question of conservation and our heavy reliance on forestry. 

Thirty years ago, Sabah used to enjoy a prestigious economy, although it was very much dependent on forestry 

products, i.e. timber, and Sabah used to be compared to the rest of Malaysia as one of the top developing states in 

Malaysia. However, the scenario has now changed drastically. In most cases, Sabah has fallen far behind, and on the 

development index, Sabah is now almost at the bottom. This gives us a very clear backdrop as to why Sabah is in such 

a state now. No doubt we have to talk about development. 

Apparently, there is no balance. We emphasise very much on sustainable development in every area. Therefore, without 

balance, there can never be conservation. Practically in most of the issues, examples related earlier were because of 

over-emphasis on either development of business, etc., and the results we see many years later are very disheartening. 

These are the situations we are trying to recover from. Instead of just development, we are talking about sustainable 

development, and there is also the need to be philosophical in conservation, and the principle of conservation of 

balance. Balance needed not only in the physical aspect of forestry conservation, but in relation to human kind also. 

These are the implications, the loss of biodiversity. We have a wide variety of wildlife in Sabah that are facing extinction. 

We also have a lot of pressure from international communities. Many years ago in one of the Prime Minister’s speeches, 

he agreed with the western people about imposing these values in Malaysia. The Prime Minister defended our need to 

cut our forests, in order that Malaysians can compete in development and move up, but of course, it has to be in balance. 

33

Keynote Paper by Datuk K.Y. Mustafa, BBEC Chairman 

We have international communities like ITTO that have the power. We always ask why now, and not 200 years ago 

When the United States was developing, when there were still colonies, while many western countries were not yet 

western in their development, why were these issues not discussed openly then Why now, is a question we have to 

handle. There are not many third world countries that have large forests. There always has to be a balance between 

socio-economic development and biodiversity conservation. As to the question on the final progress report on Public 

Awareness, the public are not really fully aware. How do we measure public awareness Even if we can measure it, what 

does it really mean Public awareness is still at a very low level. 

Prioritizing economic activities that bring money without destroying the environment. Two or three years ago, everybody 

was talking about gold or monkey. I will not pass any remarks or judgement on this. Our Chief Minister, in his dialogue at 

our Executive Development Programme in Keningau, said he wanted both gold and monkey! 

Getting the support of the people, including the decision makers for efforts on conservation, is crucial. However, getting 

where we are today is not an easy proposition, and this has to be a continuing effort. Touching on our younger 

generation, are they aware they are going to live in a world that will be hostile to them, and what does this hostile 

environment present to them We need to shift paradigm, not use monetary values as the only yardstick, but again, we 

are talking about balance conservation. Then, we talk about alternative measures. The State, higher institutions of 

education and the IDS, have been involved in the promotion of non-timber products, nature based tourism, etc. These 

are the issues right now! 

We need to realign everyone on the values of our natural resources. I have to chair the special committee on illegal 

logging. This has been one of the problems we have been trying to address for the last 30 or 40 years. When we had so 

much timber in the past, illegal logging was insignificant, but then we started controlling our timber industry, as a result 

of illegal felling. Illegal activities also created a lot of damages to our forests and environment. These illegal loggers have 

no care or love for the forests or the state and / or the country. They would log in places which are most vulnerable to us; 

our water catchment areas, river areas, etc., as these are the easiest areas for them to handle. The saddest fact is some 

of these loggers are legal loggers, with legal licences. Therefore, we need to realign everyone on the values of natural 

resources, other than just timber, that we need to protect. 

We have to educate people on the importance of biodiversity and the ecosystem, using solid evidence, showing loss of 

biodiversity and how the ecosystem is affecting human life. That is a message we have to drive home at all levels. 

When we started with BBEC, one of my earliest observations was Public Awareness. It is one of the most difficult to deal 

with, not only in biodiversity but especially biodiversity in other areas. It is an on-going problem. 

We need integration, co-ordination, even among government agencies, and when we see the BBEC programme, there 

are four components involving many agencies, both in the State and the Federal, and even in higher institutions. One of 

the problems which I find very testing, is getting the government to work as one government. We had to embark on our 

reinventing government initiative in 1999, basically trying to organize the government to work as one. There is a lot of 

rivalry, organization rivalry, to strongly demonstrate the misco-ordination of formal requirements among agencies, even 

just to borrow equipment, someone would demand a written memo, etc. 

Therefore, we are looking at this and trying to make everyone understand, especially in Malaysia, where we have a 

Federal Government system. It is a very difficult relationship. We have to live as one Malaysia, and under that one 

Malaysia, there are many states. All of them have their own government system, their own agencies, their local 

governments, district offices, etc. 

The more agencies we have, the more difficulty we have in co-ordinating in making all these agencies work as one. 

Because of our reinventing government agencies, we are willing to discuss this very openly. In most cases, people do 

not like to touch on these subjects. Similarly, people also avoid talking about biodiversity. Though we have many 

committees and task forces, are we still a colonial government Or are we making a point where everyone is willing to 

share These are major issues to be discussed. People suggest these systems, but are there will to share 

Conservation is an equal balance which will determine the future of mankind. 

Thank you. 

34






35 

Slide 7 Slide 8





36




37

Guest Papers PART 3 

3.1 Paper 1: 

The Awareness and Conservation Activities 

of Wetland Ecosystems and Their Wildlife by Local Community 

by Mr. Hisashi Shinsho, Kushiro International Wetland Center 

This case study is a local community based subject, which involves conservation and public awareness in eastern 

Hokkaido, Japan. There are 3 RAMSAR sites there. Kushiro is the first crucial wetland RAMSAR site in Japan. The 

second is in Kitabu, and Akashi wetland site is the third one. 

These wetlands are famous for the Red Crested Crane, one of the key species for local based conservation activities. 

The Red Crested Crane, or Japanese Crane is important to Japanese because it brings happiness and success. When 

a happy event is celebrated, for e.g. a wedding, the symbol of the Red Crested crane is used. 

About 50 years ago, most of these cranes were almost extinct. But in eastern Hokkaido, a small number still existed, and 

they thrive in the central wetlands. In every autumn, they migrate to the 3 sites mentioned above. These cranes habitat 

is in nearby farm areas. At one time, some school children started to feed them during winter. Now, these Red Crested 

Cranes, though still an endangered species to the rest of the world, the locals believe otherwise. These cranes are 

familiar with local families, especially in these 3 areas. 

A lot of scientific data was needed, and local researchers carried out the research on these cranes. Besides the cranes, 

they also researched insects, plants and wildbirds. They set up a project consisting of only local researches and 

published some scientific data after all their results were collected. They then discussed how to conserve and manage 

crucial wetlands. In 1971, when the RAMSAR Convention was launched, they obtained their information from there. 

The proposed wetlands were designated a RAMSAR site, and they then obtained a development agreement with local 

developers, administrators, the local government, naturalists and the local people, and discussed how to conserve and 

use wetland sustainably. How do the locals get economic benefits from these areas 

For the Japanese who live in the cities, e.g. Tokyo, Kyoto, etc., they have to be taught about conservation of the 

ecosystem. However, local people are part of the wetland system. Because they live in the countryside, they appreciate 

conservation more. 

Wetlands are important, but one has to get economic benefit from the ecosystem. It was discussed, and it resulted in it 

being designated as a National Park under the Japanese environmental law. The idea was to get tourists to enjoy the 

beautiful scenery in the wetlands, and also establish facilities for visitors. 

Park Management involves a variety of local governments, supported by the national and the prefectual governments. 

This is one of Japan’s systems. Some financial aid was obtained. However, the local community have to maintain the 

park themselves. Tourists from other parts of Japan now really appreciate the Park’s beautiful scenery and its wonderful 

nature. 

Why are wetlands so valuable The local government and community decided how to promote public awareness value 

to the local community and its people. An opportunity was provided to the locals to get international ideas and knowledge 

from foreign people. It was decided to hold and host the 5th RAMSAR Conference, and this is a very important keypoint. 

It gave the locals a chance to obtain knowledge and experience from the foreign people, and more than 4000 

participated in the conference in volunteer activities. 

In this kind of international conference, only delegated parties participate. Usually, the locals had no chance to take part. 

But in Kushiro, after much discussion on how to get the local community involved with other international delegates, 

some school children decided to support by hanging up the national flags of all participating countries in the conference, 

i.e. the contracted parties. 125 countries took part in the international conference, so all these countries’ flags were 

represented by these school children, giving them the opportunity to interact and communicate with the delegates. 

38


Housewives participated by serving coffee and tea, so it was another form of communication with the delegates. Local 

researchers provided major hikes as side event. Schools and university students became nature tour guides to the 

delegates. These offered the local people a good chance to be exposed to and learn international knowledge. 

After this happened, some NGOs from KIWC (Kushiro International Wetland Center), who works in co-operation with the 

local government, provided financial aid and the locals provided volunteers. There are environmental education 

programmes, like nature hikes, which are also in the school curriculum for children now. After the RAMSAR Conference, 

we introduced canoeing, and also small unique horses called Dosanko, which are like ponies, and in order to protect 

these species from going extinct, they are used for horseback riding. 

Because of the ecological changes caused by human activities, the swamp forest has been expanded. The cranes have 

disappeared. The locals planned to restore their habitual cranes by cutting down trees. For several years, they continued 

doing this. Five years later, the Red Crested cranes have been restored to their natural habitat. The swamp forest has 

now become the reed forest, and the cranes are back. 

These birds migrate between Hokkaido and Australia every autumn, so, these two places have linkage. There are 

training courses supported by JICA on how to manage ecotourism and environmental education to create public 

awareness. It was a wonderful chance for the locals to communicate with international parties. 

Slides Presentation 



39

Slide 5 

Slide 6 

Slide 7 

Slide 8 

Slide 9 

Slide 10 


40



Slide 15 

41

Paper 2: Community-Based Conservation Project in Kinabatangan, Sabah 

3.2 Paper 2: 

Community-Based Conservation Project 

in Kinabatangan, Sabah 

by Dr. Isabelle Lackman-Ancrenaz, HUTAN 

1. Introduction 

The establishment of protected areas is at the forefront of efforts to conserve biodiversity. But many existing protected 

areas are in crisis, partly because of the hardship they impose on the members of local communities. 

Communities next to protected area boundaries frequently bear substantial costs – as a result of lost access and 

sometimes of wildlife conflicts – while receiving little in return. Local residents, who tend to be poor, often perceive 

protected areas as restricting their ability to earn a living. It is not surprising that the pressures of growing human 

activities outside – and sometimes inside – their boundaries frequently lead to illegal and destructive encroachment. 

In the face of relentless human pressures, enforcement alone will not preserve these areas. Conservation thus requires 

a perspective that stretches well beyond park boundaries and demands consideration to local people, whose lives are 

affected by the creation of protected areas. 

It has been estimated that orang-utan numbers have declined by 50% over the last 10 years, due to increasing human 

activities within the species range. Recent surveys showed that much of the remaining wild orang-utan populations 

occur in forests that are still prone to exploitation. Rather than accept that orang-utans living in multiple-use areas are 

ultimately doomed, the Kinabatangan Orang-Utan Conservation Project decided to focus on finding realistic solutions to 

enhance their prospects of long-term survival, and specifically sought to involve local communities in the many aspects 

of orang-utan conservation. 

2. The Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary 

The Kinabatangan River floodplain is one of the few remaining rainforest wetlands in Southeast Asia. It is home to 10 

primate species, including one of the largest orang-utan populations in Malaysia, the Asian elephant, the estuarine 

crocodile, and a vast array of bird life. 

Starting in the mid-50s, the whole Kinabatangan region was subjected to extensive commercial timber extraction. More 

recently, much of the remaining forests were converted to large-scale oil palm monoculture. Today, only a corridor of 

secondary forests remains along the river. 

Surprisingly, remarkable concentrations and diversity of wildlife can still be found in this 27,000ha corridor. But when it 

was first proposed to create the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary to save this threatened natural heritage, the 

idea was met with much incomprehension and resistance by local communities. 

3. The Kinabatangan communities: Why give land to orang-utans, and not to people 

The local people, the Orang Sungai, have lived for hundred of years in a dozen of once flourishing villages scattered 

along the Kinabatangan River. They traditionally relied on the region’s abundant natural resources for subsistence; 

fishing in the river and collecting wild vegetable, medicinal plants and house construction materials in the forest. Since 

the people of the Lower Kinabatangan are of Muslim faith, deer is the only game hunted and eaten, and this partly 

explains the presence, until now, of abundant wildlife populations in the region. 

But today, local people are faced with the consequences of the loss of their traditional resources. Forest reduction and 

degradation have resulted in a shortage of basic supplies, and in the emergence of wildlife conflicts, like crop raiding. 

With the critical degradation of their means of subsistence, the gazetting of the Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary is 

therefore seen by the local community as a threat to lock up the last available resources. With much resentment, 

inhabitants of the Kinabatangan are asking “why give land to the animals, and not to people” 

42


The orang-utan symbolizes this conflict of interest: while the conservation of the endangered red ape is evoking great 

concerns throughout the world, local people in the Kinabatangan regard the orang-utan primarily as a pest to their crops 

and a cause of their plight. 

4. The Kinabatangan Orang-Utan Conservation Project 

The Kinabatangan Orang-Utan Conservation Project (KOCP) was established in 1998 by the NGO Hutan, and uses a 

multi-disciplinary approach to ensure the conservation of orang-utan populations living in multiple-use forests. 

A first objective of the KOCP is to conduct biological research applied to orang-utan population management. 

Concurrently, a main project component is to develop, in collaboration with the Sabah Wildlife Department, innovative 

solutions to restore more harmonious relationships between local communities and the orang-utans. This includes: 

a. local employment, training and empowerment 

b. orang-utan conflict mitigation 

c. conservation education 

d. development of alternative ways for communities to derive tangible and durable benefits from the preservation of 

local natural resources. 

5. Capacity building 

The KOCP, based in a village on the Kinabatangan, now comprises a total of 30 research assistants, all hailing from the 

local community. For the past five years, they have been following continuous and intensive training in various research 

and conservation techniques. 

This includes orang-utan eco-ethological research, wildlife population monitoring, interview surveys, English language, 

attendance at international conferences and professional training courses, project management, fund raising, etc. 

Currently, they are responsible for many aspects of fieldwork, as well as project planning, management and monitoring. 

Through this process, they have become aware of global conservation issues and are acting as ambassadors for habitat 

and wildlife preservation in other Kinabatangan villages. Most importantly, they are now eager to participate in 

aconservation-oriented management of the region’s natural resources, notably through an official Wildlife Warden 

programme under the Wildlife Department. 

The KOCP also conducts training programs for Sabahan conservation professionals, such as staff of the Sabah Wildlife 

and Forestry Departments and students of the Universiti Malaysia Sabah. 

6. Awareness Campaign among Kinabatangan Communities 

Raising awareness of wildlife and habitat preservation needs is certainly the first necessary step to encourage local 

communities to take part in a conservation-oriented management of their natural resources. With this aim, the KOCP, in 

collaboration with the Sabah Wildlife Department, is holding a series of participatory workshops in the villages of the 

Kinabatangan floodplain. The specific objectives of these workshops are: 

a. To raise awareness on the uniqueness of the orang-utan, and on its urgent preservation needs 

b. To present the role of the Wildlife Sanctuary 

c. To address the issue of orang-utan conflicts with local communities 

d. To gather information on the needs and aspirations of communities 

e. To develop incentives for community-based initiatives to derive durable benefits from the conservation of the 

orang-utan 

The workshops are organized by the KOCP research assistants. They belong to the local community themselves, use 

the local dialect, and this greatly enhances receptiveness and facilitates dialogue. In some villages, these workshops 

have resulted in joint KOCP / community projects, such as orang-utan conflict mitigation programs, the development of 

eco-tourism initiatives, or the setting-up of a new orang-utan study site (with villagers hired and trained as new research 

assistants). 

7. Nature Education Programme for Kinabatangan Schools 

Although living close to the orang-utans, the children of the Kinabatangan usually know very little about them. The KOCP 

local research assistants developed, in collaboration with the Sabah Education Department and Wildlife Department, a 

nature education programme for schools of the Kinabatangan District. This program includes classroom activities and a 

43

Paper 1: The Awareness and Conservation Activities of Wetland Ecosystems and Their Wildlife by Local Community 

one-day visit at the KOCP project site. Children and teachers can meet habituated wild orang-utans, see how to collect 

co-ethological data and thus better understand the gentle red ape. Emphasis is also given to educational activities 

highlighting the unique value of the Kinabatangan wetlands, and the importance of their conservation. 

8. Mitigation of Orang-Utan Conflicts with Communities 

The recent land-use changes in the Kinabatangan region have driven displaced wildlife – especially elephants and 

orang-utans - to increasingly rely on human food sources. A region-wide interview survey by the KOCP showed that 

everywhere orang-utans raid the villagers’ crops and devastate their annual fruit production. Oil palm plantations are 

also widely affected by orang-utan damage. Orang-utans are therefore generally regarded as pests, and sometimes 

threatened by drastic crop protection measures from crop owners. 

Consequently, local communities increasingly resent the creation of the Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary which not only 

denies them access to traditional forest resources but also acts as a reservoir for crop raiding wildlife. 

The KOCP staff is evaluating various ways of controlling orang-utan damage, including traditional deterring methods 

(noise scare, smoke) as well as more innovative ones such as placing zinc sheets on isolated fruit tree trunks to prevent 

orang-utans from climbing. 

A Wildlife Control Unit was created with 5 full time KOCP staff assisting villagers to peacefully mitigate conflicts with 

crop-raiding orang-utans and elephants. 

9. Conclusion: Towards Local Community Participation in the Management of Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary 

It is our firm conviction that community development and nature conservation are so inextricably linked that failure at one 

– conservation or development – will result in failure of both. In other words, conservation can only be achieved with the 

support of local communities, and communities will only support conservation if it can directly and durably contribute to 

local social and economic development. 

The KOCP is therefore working with local communities, the Sabah Wildlife Department and other agencies to investigate 

the potential contribution of the Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary to sustainable community development. As an example, 

the KOCP is now assisting a community-based initiative to develop orang-utan viewing and cultural tourism in the village 

of Sukau. But local people should not be seen as passive beneficiaries only, but should become active participants in the 

process of change and development of their region. Certainly, building adequate capabilities is a time-consuming and 

difficult process. With the intensive training of its thirty local research assistants, the KOCP experience remains at a very 

modest scale. But during the 5 years of project existence, these thirty persons have been acting as ambassadors for 

nature conservation among their community and, through appropriate awareness and education campaigns, we have 

seen a clearly multiplied impact over the whole region. 

It is now clear that the competent and motivated team of KOCP research assistants will play a crucial role in the future 

wise management of the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary by reconciling the needs and aspirations of their 

community with the conservation of one of the largest orang-utan populations in Malaysia. 

44


3.3 Paper 3: 

Promoting Education, Public Awareness and Training 

for Conservation 

by Mr. Gary Lim, Malaysian Nature Society (MNS) 

1. Background 

Communicating the important message of the environment in relation to its social, economic and cultural dimension is a 

critical challenge facing us today. Environmental Education (EE) and communications is widely regarded by many 

planners, administrators, scientists, teachers and learners as fundamental in spreading this message. EE is problematic 

yet a practical process. While it can be conducted as an extra curricular activity, to make EE inclusive it has to build into 

the formal curriculum. However, there is currently no coherent framework and limitations across the nation within which 

to share experience or develop forward progress in EE. 

The MNS having traditionally worked with children has realised that it is necessary to develop innovative outreach 

activities with communities at all levels in order to have a more sustainable impact. 

Given the diversity and complexity of our audience and the range of environmental issues that we have to deal with in the 

process of EE, the MNS had to carve a niche. This is done by establishing field study centres like the Nature Education 

Centre (NEC) in FRIM, school programmes through the Kelab Pencinta Alam (KPA) and community based outreach 

activities like the PAKAS (Pusat Aktiviti Kesedaran Alam Sekitar) in Kampung Endah, Banting Selangor. Essentially 

these are only models and approaches. Experiences drawn from these initiatives are analysed from the perspective of 

a) who participates, b) in what do they participate, c) how do they participate. Several lessons emerge from the analysis 

of these experiences as we aim to form stronger relationships between learners and their environment. The challenges 

facing the future direction of EE particularly in MNS and generally in Malaysia are also discussed. 

On the forefront, the Ministry of Education (MOE), Malaysia has tried to introduce EE into the formal curriculum through 

the “man and the environment module”. However this effort has been discontinued and as a matter of principle EE is 

infused across subjects. However infusing EE across the curriculum is more dependent on individual initiatives and in 

many instances challenged by the lack of proper training, resources and institutional support. 

In view of the situation, various agencies and NGOs have taken on the task of raising environmental awareness and 

promoting EE. 

The MNS was established in 1940 by a group of like-minded people, keen to record and document the rich biodiversity 

in the country. As a result the inaugural issue of the Malayan Nature Journal (MNJ) was first published in August 1940 

towards the same cause. This is reiterated in the MNS mission statement as “To promote study, appreciation, 

conservation and protection of our natural heritage”. In our foundations for EE, the aim is to help learners become 

environmentally knowledgeable, skilled and dedicated citizens who are willing to work individually or collectively towards 

achieving a balance between the quality of life and the quality of the environment. Ultimately the aim is to change 

behavior. 

As the oldest NGO in the country dedicated to the study and conservation of nature, MNS recently celebrated its 60 th 

anniversary in the year 2000. It has currently an adult membership of about 5,000 and a growing school and affiliate 

membership. 

Essentially a naturalist, apolitical and social organisation, the MNS recognises the importance of extending the realm of 

scientific knowledge and information to the public. For example the EE initiatives of MNS evolved from simple yet 

meaningful biological field trips led by dedicated members. These field trips were well received and gradually took the 

shape of the more formalised field courses offered by the MNS today. The MNS went on to establish it flagship project in 

the Kuala Selangor Nature Park (KSNP) in Kuala Selangor in 1986, BOH-MNS Field Study Centre followed by the FRIM- 

MNS SHELL Nature Education Centre (NEC) in 1992. At the same time the young school going generation provided a 

healthy ground for MNS to carry out its schools outreach programme though the Nature Club for Schools Project in 1991 

(Please refer to Table 1). 

45

Paper 3: Promoting Education, Public Awareness and Training for Conservation 

2. Environmental Education Initiatives. 

The EE activities initiated by MNS have largely focused on the non-formal sector apart from some collaboration with the 

Department of Environment and the Ministry of Education. Existing activities focused on students and communities 

conducted at various settings such as forest parks, recreational areas, schools as well as plantations using the 

environment as our classroom. (Please refer to Table 2) Two basic approaches have been outlined: 

a. In-situ approach - through the establishment of field study centres which offer various nature study experiences. 

b. Ex-situ approach- through outreach programmes such as nature clubs, slide shows, symposia, scientific and 

biological expeditions, exhibitions, conferences and public events. 

3. Environmental Education for the Local Community: 

Pusat Aktiviti Kesedaran Alam Sekitar (PAKAS) in Kampung Endah, Banting Selangor. 

The MNS was invited to be part of the Selangor Government initiated sub committee for the environment known as 

BERKESAN in 1998. Under the auspices of the BERKESAN Committee, MNS have led the establishment of a 

community based ‘model environment site” in the village of Kg Endah in Kuala Langat District. After initial surveys, 

research and recommendations by local contacts in 1997, the model site was officially launched in 1998. 

The main aim of the project is to motivate the local community to participate in the development of their local 

environment, instead of just becoming beneficiaries. We are glad that after facilitating the project for 4 years the 

community leaders are now playing a more active role in spearheading the progress of PAKAS. 

The concept of PAKAS is to develop a model EE site with community based environmental activities that can be 

emulated by other villagers in Selangor. 

Table 1 

In-situ approach -the establishment of education and field study centres by MNS 

a. Kuala Selangor Nature Park (KSNP) situated in the coastal mangroves - established in 1986 

b. Boh-MNS Field Study Centre in Cameron Highlands - established in 1989 

c. FRIM-MNS-SHELL- NEC - situated in the grounds of the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) - 

established in 1992 

d. Rimba Ilmu Environmental Education centre based at the botanical gardens of the University of Malaysia - 

developed together with University Malaya in 1998 

e. Endau Rompin Nature Education and Research Centre (NERC) established in 2000 at the Endau Rompin 

National Park 

Table 2 

The philosophy of using the environment as our classroom encourages learners to focus, explore, reflect and 

apply their experiences through various activities. This includes environmental games, role-play, environmental 

auditing and field study. The aim is to influence values and behavior, then sensitize people to the issues and 

promote good decision making and motivate people into positive action. 

4. Environmental Education programme for schools 

More commonly known as the Kelab Pencinta Alam (KPA), the programme was established as a pilot project with 12 

pioneer clubs in the Klang Valley. Today the KPA programme has grown to more than 180 clubs throughout the country. 

Various nature club guidelines and activity booklets have been published and distributed. Orientation courses are 

offered regularly to the teacher or advisors in their respective zones. The KPA project have received recognition from the 

Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MICC) in 1993 and more recently the Rotary International 

District 3300 “Environmental Achievement Award 2000”. Annually a number competitions are organised for KPA 

members for instance, at the Millennium International Conference (MICC) held in United Kingdom in May 2000, two KPA 

members were selected to attend the event based on their environmental projects. 

46


In 1997, with the assistance of the MOE, 12 MNS Education Coordinators were appointed to act as local coordinators at 

State level. The coordinators are now initiating their own orientation courses and competitions and contributing to the 

MNS Branches in the field of EE. 

As a forum of exchange KPA members contribute articles and receive the “Tapir” newsletter currently on a print run of 

7,500 copies. 

5. Environmental Education through publications 

Publications have been one of the mainstays of the MNS. A wide range of publications ranging from simple booklets to 

research publications and scientific papers has been made available by the MNS since its inception. Some of the EE 

related publications are: 

a. Tapir- a quarterly newsletter for members of the KPA. 

b. Keruing - an occasional publication by the NEC targeted to members of the Tri-Partite Agreement as well as 

alumni members. 

c. Pak Cipan - currently has 6 topics under the nature series and is popular with beginners in nature education. 

d. Pendidikan Alam ESSO-MNS resource book distributed to all KPA. 

e. Malaysian Naturalist and Malayan Nature Journal. 

f. Modules and booklets on the rainforests - these publications are varied and are published as references or 

worksheets for participants of MNS courses. 

6. Strength in a diverse membership 

As a membership society, MNS members play a pivotal role in environmental awareness activities such as organising 

field trips, slide shows, symposia and scientific expeditions. In addition, members have also established various active 

interest groups like the flora, cave, marine and astronomy groups to cater to the diverse interest of the membership. 

Members at the local level contribute articles to newsletters, conduct research and give views in addition to coordinating 

our education activities and nature clubs. In biological expeditions, MNS members have played a crucial role in helping 

to set up, participate and extending the message of conservation and bio-diversity to visitors and students who visit the 

base camps during the expedition period. As part of our decentralising programme, MNS Education Coordinators have 

also been appointed at the state level to assist in servicing schools. 

7. Challenges to Environmental Education in Malaysia 

In a recent workshop on EE organised by the Curriculum Development Centre (CDC), Ministry of Education Malaysia 

and DANCED, it was suggested that the effort put in to introduce EE as a cross cutting subject in the curriculum may not 

increase the competency of students to deal with environmental problems. This has been compounded by the fact that 

the cross curricular approach to teaching EE has not been fully understood by many teachers who presume that EE can 

best be taught through a limited number of subjects like science and geography. 

The broad nature of EE (IUCN definition) has to a certain extent contributed to the lack of understanding on the concept 

of EE, among practitioners and the public. EE, like the concept of sustainable development, has become more a catch 

phrase than a point of departure for action. 

In any case as with the experiences of other countries, environmental awareness becomes an issue when “problems” 

occur. Practitioners need to develop a more pro-active approach including training, capacity building of human 

resources and resources on EE. Our reactive approach has delegated EE into more an after thought rather than a 

meaningful process, which should be, incorporated right from the beginning. Evaluation in EE poses another challenge 

due to the lack of proper baseline studies and coherent framework for EE in Malaysia. A national policy can be in place 

only after a baseline study involving as many stakeholders as possible is commissioned. 

8. Possible Directions 

Due to the diversity of teaching methods, audience and practitioners of EE, it would be beneficial to allow for the 

establishment of an umbrella body to function as a Council for EE. The Council can then recommend and work towards 

an EE policy for the use of all Malaysians. 

The council could also streamline activities and act as a clearing-house for expertise, materials, training and funding 

initiatives. 

47

Paper 2: Community-Based Conservation Project in Kinabatangan, Sabah 

The following are some recommendations based on the MNS experience: 

a. There is a need to add value to our EE courses and a clearer career path for students of EE. The MNS is working 

towards developing accreditation for our EE courses. 

b. Develop competencies through cross-training, exchange programmes and study visits (As capacity building for 

human resources and institutions). 

c. Encourage action research in EE in collaboration with NGOs and other institutions. 

d. Creating an EE journal to spur research in EE. 

e. Curriculum reform - there is a need to depart from the current “cascade model” of implementing EE and allow for 

a more open and practical process. This will provide for EE to be more learner-centered and than outcome 

based. 

9. Conclusion 

It is imperative that we continue to create opportunities for people to come together to debate and discuss about issues 

concerning EE. This is crucial in view of Malaysia’s “young development” in the field of EE. Whether we like it or not, the 

process and results form the implementation of EE, the engagement of citizens in dialogue, participation and 

opportunities to work towards a more open way of “doing and thinking” will be the way of the future. EE properly 

understood, should constitute a comprehensive lifelong education and one that is responsive to changes in a rapidly 

changing world. 

References 

Larsen E.& Azizi bin Muda, Strengthening of EE in primary and secondary schools in Malaysia: 2000 

EE Asia and Beyond Proceedings: 1999 

Lim M.H. A study of environmental attitudes and knowledge of M’sian secondary school students, UM: 1998/1999 Ismail, 

Meriam: Case study of Adult Learning Program, IAB: 1997 

Environmental Self-Governance, The 6 th Pacific Environmental Conference: 1997 

Report: regional workshop on promotion of environmental awareness, Bangkok, ESCAP: 1997 

William J. Peters JR: Local participation in the conservation of the Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar: 1997 AB 

Academic Publishers: Journal of World Resource Management, Vol 8, pp-109-135 0261-4286 

48


3.4 Paper 4: 

Canopy Biodiversity Studies 

in Lambir Hills National Park 

by Dr. Tohru Nakashizuka, Research Institute for Human & Nature, Japan 

1. Abstract 

Canopy study in Lambir Hills National Park (LHNP) was initiated in 1991, when we established a canopy walkway of 

about 350 m long and two tree towers funded in collaboration between Forest Department Sarawak and several 

Japanese universities. In March 2000, another canopy access facility, a canopy crane, with 80 m in height and arm of 75 

m long was established by the funding support by Japan Science and Technology Corporation. 

The studies in LHNP aimed to elucidate the biodiversity and its maintaining mechanisms together with the ecological 

processes. In particular, we concentrated to clarify the mechanisms of general flowering and canopy-atmosphere 

interaction in the tropical rain forest, including baseline researches on tree phenology, seed / litter traps with rearing the 

seed-eating insects, periodical trapping of insects (Light and Malaise traps), dynamics of stored substances (starch and 

sugars) in tree body, and measurements on forest meteorology, and gas flux. The site is also used as the site for the 

validation site for remote sensing. 

Using these data, both proximate and ultimate factors of the general flowering have been tested. Carbon and water 

budget of the tropical rain forest is to be estimated in three ways, by flux measurement, tree enumeration, and 

integration of eco-physiological processes. Three dimensional canopy structure and reflection factor of the canopy have 

been investigated both from satellite and canopy crane. The longer continuation of these observations and baseline 

studies are necessary to reply the questions on general flowering and spatio-temporal variation of gas exchange. 

The data obtained are fundamental knowledge for the biodiversity conservation, and provide us the information 

indicating the function of tropical rainforests. Recently these activities are to be expanded into the surrounding 

ecosystems including other land uses. The biodiversity assessments and functional studies for the various forest 

utilization types win provide the implications for the conservation practice and sustainable uses of tropical forests. 

2. Text Presentation 

The subject relates to the Research and Education Component of the BBEC project and research about Canopy Biology 

in the Lambir Hills National Park, Sarawak. Dr. Nakashizuka hoped to be able to connect this topic to a question on how 

research can contribute to the ecosystem and conservation. 

Why are we focusing on forest canopy There are three reasons. The first is the forest canopy which comprises of 

biology tropical production. It is a primary production by leaves and foliage and also some secondary production on 

insect herbivors and animals. The canopy is one of the places of the forest ecosystem which have the highest biodiversity 

as well as soils. It is a place with atmospheric and ecospheric interaction. It is related to a very important ecosystem 

function of the tropical forest. 

Recently we have had several kinds of facilities to reach canopies. In the Lambir Hills National Park, we established 

three kinds of facilities to reach the canopies. One is the Ladang Teras System, which can be reached over the top of 

trees, and we have two towers at the Lambir Hills and a 300 meter long canopy walkway. Unfortunately, eco tours cannot 

utilize this facility because it is only for the use of researchers. The canopy at the moment does not have a safety net. 

This canopy was established in 1990. Quite recently in March 2000, we added a new facility, i.e. the canopy crane. It is 

80m tall and has an arm length of 75m, and we can access trees within a 75m radius. 

Therefore, we now have many facilities covering an area of 100 acres in the Lambir Hills. There are quarters in the park 

and a laboratory to prepare samples for analyzing, and also hostels on an 8-acre plot. Inside this, we have two towers 

connected to the canopy walkway of 300m. There are another four acres of land, and at the centre of that, we have the 

canopy crane. In order to contribute to ecosystem conservation, we plan to do long term research here. 

49

Paper 4: Canopy Biodiversity studies in Lambir Hills National Park 

Locals have been requested to bring in all kinds of insect specimens. Listed here are the main research items: 

a. inventory of insects. 

b. use of light traps. This was done monthly when the moon was full but has since been reduced to a quarterly basis. 

c. plant biology. 

We asked the locals to check whether trees have flowers or fruits every 2 weeks, which they have been doing for the 

past 10 years. We also set some seed traps to catch fruits and flowers and make periodical synthesis on mammal 

population. 

Please note the long term results of the phenological observation from 1992, which shows the flowering percentage of 

over 400 trees. The blue line shows the percentage of fruiting trees and the red line shows the flowering trees. After the 

general flowering in 1992, we did not have any large flowering until 1996, so it was very quiet in the forest during that 

time. Following that in 1997 and 1998 and in 2001 we had another flowering. Such a recurrence is very valuable 

information, and we can learn how trees regenerate and how the forests are maintained. The question is why such kind 

of general flowering occurred, and what is the metrological trigger in these areas. Extreme low temperatures used to be 

recorded here, and this was the case as recorded in 1992, 1993, 1996 and 1997. However, it was not so in 1998 and 

2001. Recently we changed our way of analysis to focus on some strategies of rainfall average, and when we saw the 

ratio of flowering trees, the results were most interesting and sharply coincided with the draught and flowering times. 

Therefore, we have to test this hypothesis. 

Nature has a kind of network which promotes pollination efficiency. For instance, if these trees which have common 

pollinators flower at the same time, we see results with bigger flowering, leading to high efficiency in fruiting. 

Another aspect of general flowering importance is the typical pollinator, the giant honey bee. From 1992 to 1998, we 

observed the giant honey bee by using light traps to catch them, and it coincided with the general flowering time. What 

did the giant honey bee bring to the trees in this area To think about this, we used micro-satellites and DNA markers to 

study how long it takes the giant honey bee to bring the pollen from one flower to another. The targetted tree was the 

dipterocarp. The bees make several subpollination here and swiftly target the trees and the fruits, and the pollen to these 

trees were brought from six or seven meters away. This is the case of some typical areas, but in some areas when the 

general flowering is not so gregarious, these species were pollinated by moths. Therefore, in general, during the 

flowering time, pollination was by the giant honey bee and also by moths. 

What is the difference here One example in 1996 shows a gregarious flowering time and in 1998, flowers were not that 

big. The large inflow between the subpollination was observed and at the largest general flowering time, they avoided 

inbreeding. The flowering time when pollination was done by giant honey bees caused genetic diversity. I concentrated 

on the regeneration phase of the tree bees, as it is important for forest regeneration and forest maintenance. 

Another aspect is seed eating insects, which are predators, and were used for testing, and the question is why the trees 

make fruits in such type of general fruiting. To test this, we had to make an inventory of seed eating insects, and we 

tested more than 20 species and detected more than 40 species of these insects which eat dipterocarp seeds. However, 

among the species described, are many other new species that feast on these seed. Not only insects, but rodents also 

eat these seeds. Some of these live in the canopy, some in tree trunks and some live on the ground. We have made 

periodical studies and when the general flowering and fruiting occurs, the population in logarithmic scale is reduced, and 

then it goes up during general fruiting time. It seems to cause saturation of the seed. 

Another aspect we are concerned about relates to an important forest function: carbon and water budget in the tropical 

rain forest. We are taking several kinds of measurements, and one is the ecophysiological process in the canopy. To 

integrate this, a forest dynamic and carbon budget and direct measurement of gas were used, incorporating the Co 

variance. Every tree had a different response to light intensity and there was also some difference between shade trees 

and shade leaves and sun leaves. The difference between these leaves and the different species need to be integrated 

into the forest as a whole. To do this, we made some measurements of the canopy, the three dimensional canopy 

structure using the canopy crane to come to this figure. We can find out the forest distribution and micro environment 

which is associated with forest structures, and we can make a simulation to cover the budget. 

Another method is traditional method which is summing up the trees in the forest as a whole. Here we developed some 

small GIS system which covers some four acres and eight acres, and every dot shows a position of trunks of trees in a 

four acre radius. You can also observe some imagery of leaves which is very useful to new researchers. Therefore, we 

50


can combine this data to estimate the carbon budget. The tropical rain forest is absorbing the carbon by ad-covariance, 

4.4 tons per acre per year per estimation from tree gross 3.8 tons per acre per year, but the estimation for the integrating 

gas exchange from the leaves to the canopy is coming soon. 

The Lambir Hills National Park has some 800 acres in area, and there are several kinds of vegetation. What we want to 

do on such kinds of landscape effects biodiversity or some carbon budget, and I will show an example of the stinging bee 

population. It is an important pollinator from the primary forest. Five to ten years after logging we used some batch traps 

to catch the stinging bee but the population of these bees depended on the flower density of the large sized trees. Such 

kind of information can be accumulated to derive the human impact the pollinator has through forest regeneration or 

forest maintenance. This is just an idea on the acceleration of biodiversity loss when we over use the forest, then the 

decrease in biodiversity causes a loss of partnership between pollinators and flowers, seed disperse and its natural 

enemies, and these cause regeneration failure and the delay in resource recovery or acceleration over use. It reduces 

biodiversity and we should stop this cycle in any way, and think about how we can manage the forest in a sustainable 

way. 

The contribution of canopy research in the ecosystem and conservation is one fundamental inventory of biodiversity. 

The key mechanism such as pollination or seed dispersal to maintain a sound ecosystem should be applied through 

researches and detect the human impact it has on the ecosystem, which we are going to do, and also provide 

information for education. I am also testing ecotourism in the Lambir Hills and my colleagues in the Western Pacific 

region and Asia are conducting the same field of biology, and these are mostly graduates. Children are invited to the site 

for four weeks in order to educate them on biological studies. 


Slide 1 

Slide 2 

Slide 3 

Slide 4 

51

Slide 5 

Slide 6 




52





53 

Slide 19 Slide 20





54




Slide 33 

55

Questions & Answers (Papers 1-4) 

3.5 Questions & Answers (Papers 1-4) 

Chairperson: Prof. Datin Dr. Maryati Mohamed 

Q: Dr. Jito Sugardjito 

For Orang Utan in secondary forest, how do they behave in comparison with those living in primary forest 

A: Dr. Isabelle 

Orang Utan do well in secondary forest, they are able to shift diet. The adult male seems able to adjust socially. However 

it is still an early stage that our observations are not enough to give any conclusion. 

Q: Dr. Sugardjito 

The Orang Utans are attracted to fruit trees. How do you repel these Orang Utans 


You can scare them away with light and noise. Even though it is very effective but you need to be there 24 hours of the 

day because they also come during the night. We also have some more effective methods, such as moats as Orang 

Utans cannot swim. 

Q: Prof. Mustafa Agung Sardjono 

The idea from shifting timber to non-timber business products. Based on your experience, how dangerous is this idea for 

the regeneration of the tropical forest For instance, people collect seeds of the dipterocarp. It will destroy the vegetation 

of the dipterocarp. 

A: Dr. Nakashizuka 

I find that the collection of seeds by locals nowadays is largely reduced. The local people are more interested in catching 

wild boars, which they do by waiting by a certain type of tree. When the boars come, they shoot them. 

Q: Mr. Ludi Apin 

Regarding satellite images and crane towers. Can we use the crane tower method to create vegetation maps in relation 

to the canopy Crane tower methods would be more accurate. 


We are now using satellites for bi-directional break analysis. We use a special technique by collecting the reflection. 

When we get a satellite image, it depends on two angles, one is the sun angle, and one is the observing angle. What we 

can do with the canopy crane tower, is that we can observe the canopy with different sun angles at the same point, which 

is quite useful to calibrate the satellite images to with different angle imageries. In the future maybe we should calibrate 

to use sensing satellite images. 

Q: Mr. Ludi Apin 

Have you ever thought about using the balloon That is easier than the crane, no heavy construction needed. Have you 

ever thought of doing so 


The problem with using balloons is that it takes skill to manoeuvre them. 

Q: Haji Amat Ramsa 

Is there any arrangement for the local people to participate Any empowerment for the local people to manage 

A: Mr. Hisashi Shinsho 

We have implementations of different kind of workshops for public awareness. 

56



We involved the local in the research. We also developed programmes with Sabah Wildlife Department, which attract 

tourists and thus created income for the local community. 

Q: Mr. Boyd Sun Fatt 

EENC - How effective is it Tour guides are the frontline people and they seem to know not much more than the general 

public. They don’t know how to explain what is conservation and biodiversity. 

A: Mr. Gary Lim 

In relation to your dilemma in explaining scientific concepts, I think that’s faced by almost everyone I know, but I think 

that’s where environmental education comes in. When we ask our students what is eco-systems, we explain it by 

breaking up the word, and by using environmental games to explain. There are many methods and communications. 

There’s too little attention to the quality of our work. Sometimes people use “nature education”, some people use 

“environmental education”, but they can be defined differently even though they sound similar. Year 2010 has been 

proposed as the decade for environmental education for sustainable development. I think there has to be more input 

from the practitioners and policy makers. 

57

Paper 5: Management of Tropical Rainforest in Kalimantan 

3.6 Paper 5: 

Management of Tropical Rainforest in Kalimantan: 

How Can Local Community be a Key to Success 

by Prof. Ir. Dr. Mustofa Agung Sardjono, Mulawarman University, Kalimantan 

1. Abstract 

It is a real ironic story that Indonesia as the owner of the third largest tropical rain forest in the twenty first century faces 

complex ecological and socio-political problems in forest management. Although the official figures from Forestry 

Department (2001) showed only approximately 24.0-43.0 million hectares of critical or unproductive forest areas, the 

World Resource Institute reported in 1998 that 72% of approximately 120-145 million hectares of Indonesian forests 

have been destroyed. With the same annual deforestation rate (+1.6 million hectares/year) the remaining tropical rain 

forest in Kalimantan, as the largest and richest resources, will vanish in the next ten years. 

This situation just coincides with the unfavourable economic condition of the country; prolonged monetary crisis needs 

optimum support from the forestry revenues and global market is entering claims on resource sustainability. 

Experiences with mismanagement of the forest during three decades of the previous New-Order government continue 

to happen along with the implementation of regional autonomy and decentralization of forest management since the 

twenty first century. Authority conflicts and local popular forest policies have been considered as the main factors that 

cause worse deforestation, including in some conservation areas. Destruction of this world’s biodiversity center will give 

negative impacts not only on the host country, but also on the global environment. 

On the other hand, the life of local communities as an integrated component of the tropical rain forest ecosystem of 

Kalimantan has been threatened parallel with the on-going deforestation. Actually, these social groups, who have never 

been taken into account in forest policies and forest management, have great capacity to conserve the valuable natural 

resources. They are potentially being involved in the forest and forestry management schemes. Therefore, it is 

considerably important to underline that ‘bottom-up’ efforts, especially concerning problem solving and community 

empowering at the grass-root levels, will be a key alternative for striving for resource sustainability. 

2. Introduction: Hearth of Indonesian Forestry 

Kalimantan is the hearth of Indonesian forestry, not because of its location in the middle of the Indonesian archipelago. 

As a matter of fact, at least 32% (formerly even reached to 41%) of statistically +120-145 millions hectares of Indonesia’s 

forests are distributed in the four provinces, namely West-, Central-, South-, and East-Kalimantan. Although Papua (or 

formerly called Irian Jaya) is almost as rich as Kalimantan (31%; see Table 1.), the presence of most valuable 

Dipterocarps species especially Dipterocarp and Shorea trees, is not as abundance as that in Kalimantan. In addition to 

that, with regards to topography, transportation facilities (especially river stream system) as well as distance from the 

decision makers (including planners and investors) in Jakarta, the accessibility of the forests in Kalimantan could be 

higher than that of Papua. 

It has been widely acknowledged that with only +200–250 tree species per hectare mixed dipterocarps forests of Kalimantan 

or largely called Borneo (including Sarawak and Sabah/Malaysia, and Brunei) reflect the most richest forest in 

Southeast Asia. Furthermore, various non-timber forest plants (e.g. 4,000 orchids, 25,000-30,000 of other flowering 

plants) as well as diverse fauna promote the island as the world’s biodiversity center. Therefore, this competitive 

advantage has offered not only prospective economic revenues to the host country, but also has created global 

expectations that conservation measures are deemed as one of the important aspects of resource utilization. 

However, it is becoming a common topic that tropical rain forests of the world are recently ‘under attacks’. In Southeast 

Asia, the annual deforestation rate has reached to 2.9 million hectares/year, of which one third has been contributed by 

Indonesia (Dauvergner, 2001). The deforestation or other more specific issues, such as biodiversity losses and climate 

change have predominated different events, from national scientific seminars to the recent world summit. 

58


The present paper, as it was requested, tries to touch some aspects of Kalimantan’s tropical forest management 

experiences, including success and failures of the efforts carried out. Some problems related to local communities 

surrounding the forest will be discussed with the support of related studies. At the end, some recommendations for 

successful the community-based tropical rain forest management, which is possible through collaboration among 

participants of the conference, will be offered. 

3. Learning from a three-decade success and failure 

The significant change of forestry in Kalimantan or outer islands of Java as a whole began in the early 70’s, when 

extensive mechanical exploitation under the forest concessionaires management system (or in Indonesian called Hak 

Pengusahaan Hutan/HPH System) had been implemented. The mission of the forest utilization was to support the 

country’s economic revenue for succeeding the national development programs. As a result, starting in mid 1980’s the 

forestry activities extended from natural forest logging in the initial period, to establishment of industrial timber estates 

(or Hutan Tanaman Industri / HTI) in order to support raw materials supply for hundreds of wood industries (e.g. 

sawmills, veneer or plywood industries, pulp and paper, etc.) of the years of 1980s. 

All activities were capital intensive and characterized by conventional forestry business, such as timber oriented, target 

oriented, macro planning, low social sensitivity (controlling local community activity), and under tight control of the 

central government c.q. Forestry Department (centralized management). 

After two decades of the forest policies implementation, some important changes (instead of success) have been 

determined, such as: 

a. The timber production increased significantly from only 1.4 million m 3 (in 1960) to 31.4 million m 3 (in 1989), of 

which 96% depended on natural forests of outer islands of Java, especially Kalimantan; 

b. Indonesia has shifted its role from log producer and timber exporter to timber industrial supplier, where 50% of 

plywood and 17% of sawn timber world-markets came from; and 

c. The forestry sector contributed approximately 1.2% of the national working place. 

Table 1: Area and Distribution of Forest Land in Indonesia (1976) 

Island Land Area Forest Land 

Forest Land as a 

Percentage of Area of 

Million Hectares Island Total 

Sumatra 47.361 28.4 60.0 14.8 

Java & Madura 13.219 2.9 21.9 1.5 

Kalimantan 53.946 41.5 76.9 21.6 

Sulawesi 18.922 9.9 52.3 5.2 

Bali & Nusa Tenggara 8.849 2.0 22.6 1.0 

Maluku 7.451 6.0 80.9 3.1 

Irian Jaya (or Papua) 42.198 31.5 74.6 16.4 

Total 191.944 122.2 - 63,6 

Source: Directorate General of Forestry; in Ross (1984) 

Note: The total forest cover of the country varied considerably based on the data sources, but ranging from 120 to 

148 million hectares. 

Another important economic impact is that the annual export value of natural forest was only US$ 200 millions in the 

1980’s, and increased ten times higher (+US $ 2.0 billions) in one decade. Before the 1997 monetary crisis, the forestry 

contribution reached US$ 20 billions or 10% of the Indonesia’s total gross domestic product (ITTO, 2001). 

However, all of the above achievements have to be compensated with greater ecological and socio-cultural 

destructions, such as: 

a. According to the national inventory there were 41 million hectares of degraded forest land in the mid 1990’s, of 

59


which 20.5 million hectares is in Kalimantan (see Table 2.). However, the World Resource Institute recorded that 

72% (+86-106 million hectares) of the Indonesian forest was destroyed in 1998 (see WALHI, 2001). The problem 

was not in the silvicultural systems used or other technical aspects. Most relevant factors identified were, among 

other (a) Ineffective as well as inconsistent forestry policies and regulations; (b) Low law enforcement, because 

of high corruption and collusion; (c) Unbalance between the area of forest (as well as some management units) 

and availability of human resource and controlling facilities. The destruction of these most valuable natural 

resources has definitely led not only to disturbances of forest function, but also the loss of biodiversity. Forest 

destruction under fire or conversion to other land uses has not been included in the above factors. 

b. There were limited positive impacts of HPH, HTI, and Timber Industries to the well being of forest local 

communities. This is partly because most profits have gone to the central government, and created minimum 

trickle down effects to the local rural development program. According to some observations, the presence of 

those activities have even destroyed local economy as well as socio-culture of the communities (e.g. Mubyarto, 

et al., 1991; Widjono, 1998; Gunawan, et al., 1998). Decreasing living-space of the local community and 

increasing competition in working-opportunity between local communities and migrants from other provinces or 

other islands were the most important reasons. Furthermore, the contravention and opposition among the local 

communities to the surrounding big-scale forest concessionaires and forest products industries grow up 

unavoidably from year to year. 

Table 2: Natural Forest, Degraded Forests, and Bare Forest Land in Kalimantan in the mid of the 90’s. 

Province 

Permanent Forest 

(Ha) 

Degraded Forest 

(Ha) 

Bare Forest-Land 

(Ha) 

West Kalimantan 8,448,175 2,644,665 545,685 

Central Kalimantan 10,735.935 599,666 266,169 

South Kalimantan 1,573,856 8,447,911 2,089,952 

East Kalimantan 14,584,672 8,845,655 1,368,415 

Total Kalimantan 35,342,638 20,537,897 4,270,221 

Total Indonesia 113,975,279 41,445,044 8,899,976 

Source: FWI/GFW (2001; modified) 

With regards to the relation between concession holders and surrounding local communities, it should be noted the rural 

development program (or in Indonesian Bina Desa Hutan or Pembinaan Masyarakat Desa Hutan / PMDH), which has 

been obligated to every concession holder since the beginning of the 1990’s, also achieved insufficient, if not at all, 

success. After a half decade of its implementation, most of the implementers felt that such activity was actually beyond 

their capacity and costly (not profitable). 

Some important notes can be generated from the three decade development of forestry in Kalimantan, namely: 

a. In reality only timber extraction has been implemented in Kalimantan, instead of forest resource management. 

The obsession to gain maximum yields has made forestry planners and policy makers wasted the opportunity to 

learn complex characters of the tropical rain forest. Consequently, they did not realize how difficult it was to create 

sustainable management of that fragile ecosystem. Issuing hundreds of forest concession licenses for ten 

thousands or even hundred thousands of hectares of forest area, and then for decades carrying out remote 

control from Jakarta without supports of adequate apparatus as well as infrastructures in the field level have 

clearly reflected a big naive. 

b. A bigger mistake came from the fact that under shortages of human resource and facilities, the local community 

has not been actively involved to support the forest management. A long period of forestry development in 

Kalimantan has not given any lessons that the existing forests are not just a sum of trees, but local community 

(and for sure their culture) also become an integrated component of the tropical rain forest ecosystem. 

60


c. From decades of its development, it should have been learned that tropical rain forests of Kalimantan need not 

only technical and biological knowledge as it has been formulated almost perfectly in the famous silvicultural 

system of Indonesian selective cutting and planting (Tebang Pilih Tanam Indonesia). The ecosystem demands 

sociological approaches, which previously just became ‘an appendix’ of the forestry policies. For example, poor 

achievements of PMDH implementation were caused by designing the program as supplementary rather than 

complimentary aspect of the forest management. 

Table 3: 

Monitoring Results of the Implementation of Rural Development Program (PMDH) of Forest Concession 

Holders (HPH) Based on Research in Kutai District of East Kalimantan 1996-1998 

Principles, Criteria 

Verification Score According to Determined Indicators 

Big-Scale HPH Medium-Scale HPH Small-Scale HPH 

(> 100.000 Ha.) (50.000-100.000) (< 50.000 Ha.) 

(1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) 

Administration 

Planning 24,00 24,00 15,99 21,99 18,00 19,99 

Actuating 50,00 50,00 44,44 23,33 44,44 33,33 

Monitoring 20,00 20,00 20,00 20,00 20,00 20,00 

Sub-Total I 94,00 94,00 80,43 65,32 82,44 73,32 

Implementation 

Local Participation 41,67 37,50 37,50 25,00 37,50 41,60 

Inter-sectoral 

Coordination 16,67 38,85 44,44 22,22 33,33 33,33 

Sub-Total II 58,43 76,39 81,94 47,22 70,83 75,00 

Achievements 

Welfare 30,95 32,46 30,95 32,35 38,09 28,20 

Self-Reliance 9,99 16,67 23,33 15,00 21,82 14,54 

Environmental 

Awareness 13,33 16,19 8,00 12,22 12,22 11,67 

Sub-Total III 54,27 65,32 62,28 59,57 72,13 54,41 

Total I + II + III 206,61 235,71 224,65 172,11 225,40 202,99 

Score 68,87 78,57 74,88 57,37 75,13 67,66 

Category Fair Good Good Fair Good Fair 

Classification C B B C B C 

Source: Sardjono, et al. (1999) 

Notes: (Score 90-100= Success/Class A; 70-


can be accurately identified in order to determine a better management. However, from the initial stage of 

decentralization, the situation of forest resources has not improved and it is even getting worse. 

Of many factors which might influence the above situation, authority conflicts among governments at the national/local 

levels and the popular local forestry policies have been considered to be the most important. These can be described in 

more details, as follows: 

First, from the beginning, central forestry bureaucrats had a perception that decentralization was not a part of proactive 

efforts for economic recovery following the 1997 monetary crisis. Forest management decentralization has been 

encouraged only by some natural resource rich regions (including Kalimantan governments), which have been exploited 

as ‘national wallets’ by the central government. 

That might remain debatable, but it is already an obvious phenomenon that strained situation in forestry emerges in 

relations not only between central and local governments, but also between province and districts/city levels. As it is 

stated by Beukeboom (2000), a different perception / interpretation on forestry regulations and policies at different levels 

contributes to the power struggle and confusion. For example, the decision to establish forestry technical 

implementation units by the provincial level in many districts of East Kalimantan has been opposed by the existing 

forestry districts services. Under such unconducive situation, improvement of forest management to combat 

deforestation has no more room and time to do. 

Second, Beukeboom (2000) also states that ‘forest for people’ euphoria (following the reformation movement in 1998), 

which was indicated by increasing land (use) and forest products (especially timber) utilization claims, has been 

recklessly exploited by various parties and vested interests. The difficulty (unwillingness or low capacity) to recognize 

claims on traditional land and land use by local community at the district level has initiated the issue of small scale (100 

hectares) and short-term (only one year) timber utilization permits e.g. IHPHH (Ijin Hak Pemungutan Hasil Hutan). From 

the view point of district governments, such forest utilization permits can be considered as the fastest approach to 

increase the local community’s welfare. Is it true 

In reality the issue of such a popular forest policy has even caused destruction of the remaining but potential long term 

forest resources. The inadequate number of staff and, indeed facilities at the forestry district offices (at least when it is 

compared to hundreds of permits issued), the scattered distribution of IHPHH locations, its uncontrollable activities 

(since the utilization permits have generally been handed over to external investors), and unreliable approaches to 

replanting the log-over areas were some weaknesses of the policy as well as its implementation. Moreover, the illegal 

logging has extended and even encroached some conservation areas (e.g. National Parks) and protection forests, the 

last reserve of the tropical rain forest. To get a real, recent picture of the local community life during the implementation 

of decentralization, it is necessary to present the results of a long term observation in one sub-district of East Kalimantan. 

For sure, the above information can not be confirmed to represent the situation of all districts/regions in Kalimantan, or 

to generate conclusions that decentralization will never bring sustainability of the tropical rain forest. However, it must be 

agreed that how the government, especially local governments, implements the decentralization will determine whether 

that political shift is meaningful or not for both forest resource conservation and well being of the local communities. 

Relating to the above statement, decentralization should have therefore two future perspectives: optimistic and 

pessimistic scenarios. 

a. Optimistic scenario: 

Local governments (both provinces and districts/cities) work together in very cooperative and coordinated ways, 

and start to prepare strategic policies and needed instruments (technical guidance) involving all forest/natural 

resources related key stakeholders including local ‘grass root’ organizations. The existing core problems in forestry 

will be immediately solved, such as: 

i. Unavailability of ‘bottom-up’ processed spatial planning, 

ii. CCN (corruptions, collusions, and nepotisms), 

iii. Illegal loggings (linked to ‘powerful’ parties) and other forest encroachments, and 

iv. Tenurial problems (leading to vertical and horizontal social conflicts) 

Solutions of those problems become valuable support for better forest resource management plans to achieve 

sustainability and people’s welfare. 

62


Table 4: 

The Dynamics of Land Use Changes and Production Activities by the Local Community of Karangan 

Dalam, Sangkulirang Sub-District (East Kalimantan). 

Land Use / 

Production Activities 

Landuse 

Changes 

Reasons / Causes 

1. Shifting Cultivation Decreased a. Limited primary forest surrounding settlements; 

b. Uncertain yields because of problems with pests 

and diseases; 

c. Decreasing interest in grouping systems; 

d. More attractive cash-money sources (bird nest and 

‘belambangan’); 

e. Limited manpower. 

2. Wetland Paddy Cultivation Decreased a. Limited investment (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, 

other costs); 

b. Problems with pests and diseases; 

c. Trauma from the previous year’s harvesting 

failures; 

d. Limited knowledge and skills for better cultivation 

systems; 

e. More attractive cash-money sources (bird nest and 

‘belambangan’); 

3. Tree-Crops Farming Increased a. Availability of seeds and guidance programs from 

surrounding enterprises; 

b. Abundant arable lands (ex shifting cultivation 

areas); 

c. Learning from success during long-drought 1997/ 

98 (better prices, compared to other agricultural 

crops); 

4. Community based Constant a. No supply of seeds and seedlings; 

Timber Estate 

b. Arable lands converted into tree-crops farming; 

c. Insecurity of the market (possible) 

Production-Activities 

5. Bird-nest Collection Decreased a. Many caves are unproductive and destroyed due to 

over-exploitation; 

b. Decreased bird population; 

c. More cases of robbery, stealing, and/or illegal 

collectors (locally called ‘ngeremes’); 

d. High risks of e.g. crimes and diseases. 

6. Rattan Collection Decreased a. No buyers and investors because of recent low 

-Stopped 

prices; 

b. Its locations are farther away and more difficult to 

reach; 

c. Small quantity and only for daily uses. 

63


Production-Activities 

7. ‘Iron-Wood’ Roof Decreased a. Buyers are decreasing; 

Production 

b. Availability of substitute roof materials (corrugated iron, 

Nypa fructicans leafs); 

c. Raw material is limited and available in a far-away 

location. 

8. Bee-Honey Collection Decreased a. Trees are located far away and more difficult to reach; 

b. Bee-honey tree population is decreasing because of 

timber estate and forest fire; 

c. Population of plants or trees of bee’s food sources is 

also decreasing; 

d. High risk of honey harvesting. 

9. ‘Belambangan’ Increased a. Economic considerations (buyers, cash money 

(illegal logging) 

sources, inactive or unpromising traditional activities); 

b. Political considerations (utilization of residual stands in 

logged over areas, opportunity for self-utilization before 

invasion by outsiders-both individual farmers and 

big-scale firms/enterprises, and last chance to 

anticipate unpredictable policy changes). 

10. Fishery Constant a. Availability of buyers surrounding the villages or 

Increased 

settlements; 

b. Alternatives for cash income sources; 

c. Rivers and swampy areas are found abundantly near 

the villages or settlements. 

11. Hunting of Wild Constant a. Availability of buyers surrounding the villages or 

Animals Decreased settlements; 

b. Although its product is unpredictable, hunting is 

easy and cheap; 

c. As an alternative for cash income; 

d. Increasing interest in hunting has resulted in decreased 

population of the animals. 

Source: Sardjono, et al. (2000;2001) 

b. Pessimistic scenario: 

Provinces and districts (especially natural resource rich regions) will compete in getting greater authorities and 

rights (rather than responsibilities and obligations) of management. Decentralization will not be followed by 

devolution until the grass-root levels. The natural resources (especially forests) will be more intensively exploited 

in order to collect locally generated incomes (called Pendapatan Asli Daerah/PAD). The possible worst situations 

would be e.g.: 

i. New ‘small empires’ in the regions (or like ‘countries in the country’) and even more powerful ‘clicks’ in the 

provincial and especially in the district/city levels, which mostly have economic as well as political interests, 

ii. Vertical and especially horizontal conflicts among the stakeholders become sharper, because of unavailability 

of definitive spatial plans, unsolved tenurial problems, and more limited (or scare) natural resources, 

iii. Illegal resource utilizations will be larger following those above problems, 

iv. Local natural resources will be assured for foreign debts (bilateral or multilateral) that may lead to worse 

environment degradations. 

64


5. Local Community as a Key Component of the Forest Conservation 

Communities in and around the tropical rain forest of Kalimantan (or Borneo as a whole island) have been widely 

observed and written in many scientific as well as popular publications. Their existence in the forest ecosystem has 

lasted from generation to generation and even longer than the independence day of Indonesia (1945). As it has been 

mentioned in the previous chapter, local communities depend on many land use and production activities, such as 

shifting cultivation, collecting or hunting non-timber forest products, and even actively practised fishery. It has to be 

noted that the activities have been oriented not only for socio-cultural or subsistence economic orientations, but also for 

cash income. The last situation emerges when many regions have higher accessibility and some of the daily needs 

should be fulfilled from outside markets (instead of local natural resources). 

The most interesting view concerning communities’ forest based income sources is that the production activities of the 

local community strive to adapt the forest functions declared by government such as production and conservation 

forests, although some people might be there earlier. 

Table 5: Average Contribution (%) of Forest-Based Production Activities to the Income of Local Community 

Activities 

Case of South Kalimantan: 

Villages Surrounding Production 

Forest 1994 / 1995 

Case of West Kalimantan: 

Villages Surrounding Recreation 

Forest 1999 / 2000 

Shifting Cultivation 36.5 6.0 

Timber Industries Labour 23.5 - 

Rubber Plantation 19.0 21.0 

Non-Timber Forest Products 10.0 58.0 

Fire Woods 7.0 1.0 

Fruit Gardens 5.0 9.0 

Ecotourism Services - 5.0 

Total 100.0 100.0 

Source: Akhdiyat, et al. (1998; modified); Fahruk, et al. (2002) 

Another clear conclusion about the local community’s dependency on the local forest is that they have to be involved in 

the management of forest resources (see also Colfer, et. al., 1999). It is understandable that IHPHH experience (see 

previous chapter) in a glance indicated failure to give opportunity to utilize forest resources sustainably. The problems do 

not come at the community’s level but definitely from the policy or government side. IHPHH has been designed and 

regulated by the government based on limited data/information of the resource objects as well as target groups 

(community). Last but not least, controlling capacity of the forestry district services has never been evaluated. The local 

forestry planners have not optimized the utilization of local traditional experiences and knowledge on resource 

management and biodiversity maintenance, which are plenty among local communities in Kalimantan, such as (adopted 

from Sardjono and Samsoedin, 2001): 

a. The naming of stages of forest regrowth in the agroforestry systems of the Kenyah Dayak communities at Long 

Segar, Muara Wahau, and Long Ampung, East Kalimantan (Colfer, 1983); 

b. The terms munaant, simpukng, and lembo, which are indicative of similar management practices in home and 

forest gardens among the Tunjung and Benuaq Dayak groups in Barongtongkok, East Kalimantan (Sardjono, 

1990); 

c. The use and cultivation of land based on vegetation types among the Simpang Dayak community at Ketapang, 

West Kalimantan (Djuweng, 1992); and 

65


d. The land management system of the Benuaka Dayak community in Kapuas Hulu, West Kalimantan (Frans, 

1992). 

In order to get a better view about the traditional capacity of the community in utilization, and at the same time, 

conservation of local resources, the results of a study on Benuaq Dayak in East Kalimantan will be presented, in 

Table 6. 

Table 6: 

Some Traditional Knowledge and Practices Concerning Daily Activities of the Benuaq Community that 

reflect a Conservation Ethic 

Activity 

Dry-field cultivation/upland rice farming 

Traditional Knowledge and Practices 

a. Giving priority to old secondary forest, to maximize harvest 

without disturbing succession process 

b. Avoiding wildfire by using firebreaks, accounting for wind 

direction and slopes, keeping an eye on the fire 

c. Working together with manual tools (without mechanization) 

and use of fertilizer and/or other chemicals 

d. Using different local rice varieties of pare and pulut 

(Oryza spp) 

e. Following fallow period and rotation principles to let the soil 

recover and maintain fertility 

Rattan harvest / collection 

a. Growing rattan with other useful plants (sown or naturally 

regenerated) 

b. Cutting rattan selectively to ensure sustainability 

Fruit tree gardening and fruit collection 

(simpukng) 

a. Conserving forest fruit trees (in situ conservation) for food 

security 

b. Gardening fruit trees (ex situ conservation) in different 

places - such as close to farmlands, settlements, and 

rivers - to result in ecological and socio-economic benefits 

and balance 

Collecting vegetables and condiments 

a. Collecting young leaves (for example rattan), ferns, and 

condiments from the forest (usually on the way to or from 

farmland) for daily consumption 

Hunting and fishing 

a. Periodic hunting and fishing individually or in small groups 

(not more than five people) 

b. Using traditional or simple tools (blowpipe, traditional 

spear, “local production” gun) that have a low impact on the 

environment 

c. Targeting hunted species, particularly those that are also 

farm pest (deer[Cervus unicolour], wild pig [Sus barbatus]) 

66


Activity 

Traditional Knowledge and Practices 

d. Hunting game mainly for daily consumption and sharing 

with neighbours before selling excess (if any) 

e. Prohibiting the use of tuaq (Derris elliptica), a small plant 

used for fish poison 

Collecting Honeybees 

a. Prohibitting the cutting of different species of tanyut 

(honeybee trees) –banggeris/puti (Koompasia sp.), kenari / 

jelmu (Canarium decumanum), and durian/ kalang (Durio 

sp.) –and different species of dipterocarps 

b. Collecting in groups, with a system of sharing 

Collecting wood for construction and 

fuel 

a. Collecting construction wood for self-consumption only (not 

commercial), usually in traditional forests and fallow areas 

b. Prioritizing fallen wood, dead wood, and unproductive trees 

for timber, usually saving them during clearing for dry-field 

cultivation 

c. Using fallow areas and bushes as firewood sources 

d. Choosing only a few selected plant species as firewood 

(based on burning and fire quality, ash residue, and toxicity) 

Damar resins, saps/malau, barks / 

gembor, aloewood/gaharu, other 

raw materials collection 

a. Making seasonal collection part of daily activities 

b. Collecting mostly from fallen resins (from damar; from many 

species of dipterocarps), selected trees (that is, they do not 

cut or tap every tree in a stand; for gaharu, from Aquilaria 

sp., and for malau, from Palaquium calophyllum), and dried 

trees (for bark of gembor / Alsiodaphne sp.) 

Medicinal plant use 

a. Not allowing forest activities to disturb medicinal plants 

b. Cultivating some medicinal plants close to settlements and 

frequently using them for traditional cures (beliatn) 

Source: Sardjono and Samsoedin (2001) 

Nowadays, in some regions the traditional potentials mentioned above are not completely conserved by local 

community, since rapid socio-economic development has changed local demands and therefore also resource 

management orientation (from subsistence to commercial). For example, the introduction of financially more attractive 

(but actually in the same time ecologically more exploitative) forest management e.g. HPHH has threatened the 

existence of traditional knowledge and practices in forest management. However, apart from the external factors, there 

are also internal problems among the communities. For example, some groups have difficulties in passing over the 

traditional potentials from older to younger generation, because of urbanization of capable young generation or a 

different perception between both generation on local norms and values (see e.g. Sardjono and Ismayadi, 2001). Under 

such situation the local capacity has been distorted, and might disappear in time they are needed. 

6. Closing Remarks: Challenges for the Optimistic Future 

From the beginning of the discussion, it is understood that the great deforestation in Kalimantan was caused by 

mismanagement that has been carried out for decades. Again, the problem faced was mainly not relating to the 

inappropriate silvicultural system, but more in socio-political aspects especially lack of political will of the government 

67


c.q. Forestry Department to involve local community in the forest management system. For Kalimantan, undoubtedly the 

life of most communities, who live in remote or rural areas, depends on forest resources. At least from their population 

number, they could be participated in the ‘warning system’ against e.g. over exploitation or illegal logging. 

In addition to that capacity, local communities have developed various practices and norms on sustainable resource 

utilization, which are more potential to be implemented for increasing community’s well-being compared with different 

rural development schemes of timber concessionaires (e.g. PMDH). Unfortunately, these potentials of the local 

communities were seen as ‘a primitive’ system and therefore have never been well documented, or even acknowledged 

or implemented appropriately. 

After the 1998 reformation movement in Indonesia, there is an opportunity to save the remaining tropical rain forests in 

Kalimantan and to carry out rehabilitation programs, since the political paradigm has shifted from ‘state-’ to 

‘community-based’ and from ‘timber-‘ to ‘ecosystem-oriented’ forest management. A better future perspective of the 

involvement of local communities has been created especially with the implementation of the regional autonomy and 

decentralization era since the beginning of 2001. The handing over of some political and administrative authorities to the 

district/city governments has to be underlined as an important point, because it enables optimum efforts for answering 

challenges at the grass-root level. The challenges refer to four main aspects namely tenure, human-resource, 

institution, and economic. 

a. Tenurial aspect is considered as an important entry point in order to solve disharmony in relations among forest 

users. There are some activities under tenurial aspect, such as: 

i. To carry out and accommodate the participatory village boundary and natural resources mapping in the frame 

of District Spatial Planning Program; 

ii. To determine and acknowledge traditional land on the participatory village map based on agreement among 

related parties (district government and traditional institution); 

iii. To ensure local community’s access to state forests, which are used for living and income sources based on 

forest functions as well as agreement among forest users (especially areas, which have been managed by 

forest concessionaires). 

b. Human-resources aspect is necessary as the basic for creating civil society at the grass-root level in order to 

support democratisation on natural resource management. This aspect includes: 

i. To give wider opportunities to local young generation to take formal education in forestry science by providing 

scholarships generated from local forest resource utilization; 

ii. To offer more opportunities to local community for participating in trainings or different networks/discussion 

forums related to forest resource management; 

iii. To conduct intensive field extension/training programs, especially for women and children about 

environmental sustainability and forest resource management. 

c. Institutional aspect plays an important role in sustaining efforts on forest conservation and rural development. It 

will not reach an optimum impact, if there is no restructuring and revitalisation of local forestry institutions. In the 

frame of regional autonomy and decentralization legal drafting advocacy for local legislatives becomes a 

necessity to produce regulations or policies, which have social sensitivity. This aspect consists of some 

promising approaches such as: 

i. To strengthen or improve the existing local formal and informal institutions (structure and function), especially 

concerning planning, organizing, actuating, and controlling in forest management; 

ii. To encourage networks among villages (inter-village institutions) in order to avoid horizontal conflicts concerning 

local natural resources; 

iii. To encourage local/traditional institutions to participate actively in environmental protection and forest utilization; 

iv. To facilitate local self-reliance groups in developing proposals related to forest management to be submitted to 

funding agencies. 

d. Economic aspect concerns local economic improvement. It should be considered as a core of vision to reach 

community’s welfare, especially those who depend on forest resources. Some important actions are: 

i. To give prioritized allocation of budget, which comes from local resources, to fulfill local physical and 

non-physical demands, especially dealing with first-floor basic needs; 

ii. To encourage participatory economic development processes in order to fit with resource potentials and local 

needs; 

iii. To identify and develop the existing potential forest based production activities, including post-harvesting 

processes, marketing, and if necessary property rights of specific local traditional technologies / products; 

iv. To analyse the possibility to extend working opportunities for local community and partnership patterns (vertical, 

horizontal, and advocacy) between local communities and big-scale forest industries; 

68


v. To develop or strengthen local economic institutions including village cooperation based on local socio-cultures 

and demands. 

In order to answer those challenges it needs cooperation among forest users or multi-stakeholders. Non-governmental 

organizations or universities, especially those which are familiar with local condition, and entrusted by the local 

communities, and have knowledge about external interests as well as external processes, that would play important 

roles in the actions. 

References: 

Akhdiyat, A., M. A. Sardjono, I. Kuncoro. 1998. Analisis Kontribusi Hutan Terhadap Pendapatan Masyarakat Desa 

Sekitarnya. Suatu Studi Kasus di Kecamatan Kelumpang Hulu Kabupaten Kotabaru Kalimantan Selatan (Analysis of 

Forest Contribution to the Local Community’s Income. Case Study of Kelumpang Hulu, Kotabaru District of South 

Kalimantan). Pascasarjana Journal Vol. 1./No.1./1998/44-68. 

Beukeboom, H. 2000. Re-Thinking the Role of Forest Concession (HPHs) in Settling Land Conflicts. Pola Kemitrraan vs 

Land Claims. Samarinda: SFMP/GTZ. 

Colfer, C. J. P. 1983. Change and Indigenous Agroforestry in East Kalimantan. Borneo Research Bulletin 15: 3-20, 

70-86. 

Colfer, C. J. P., R. Prabhu, M. Guenter, C. McDougall, N. M. Porro, R. Porro. 1999. Who Count Most Assessing Human 

Well-Being in Sustainable Forest Management. Bogor: CIFOR. 

Dauvergner, P. 2001. Loggers and Degradation in the Asia-Pacific. Cooperation and Enviromental Management. 

Cambridge: Cambridge Uiversity Press. 

Djuweng, S. 1992. Kampung Loboh Laman Banua: Konsep dan Praktek Teritorial pada Suku Dayak Simpang (The 

Banua Community of Loboh Laman: Teritorial Land Use Concepts and Practices among the Simpang Dayaks). Paper 

Presented at the Second Bienal Conference. Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia: Borneo Research Council. 

Fahruk, E., M. A. Sardjono, I. Kuncoro. 2002. Analisis Potensi dan Manfaat Kawasan Hutan Wisata Gunung Kelam 

Ditinjau dari Kontribusinya terhadap Pendapatan Masyarakat Desa Sekitarnya (Analysis of the Potential and Utilization 

of Gunung Kelam Recreation Forest with Regards to Its Contribution to the Surrounding Villager’s Income). Equator 

Vol.1 / No.1 / April 2002 / 1-34. 

Frans, S. 1992. Pola Pengusahaan Tanah dan Permasalahan pada Masyarakat “Dayak Banuaka” di Kabupaten Kapuas 

Hulu, Kalimantan Barat (Pattern of Land Use and Problems of Banuaka’ Communities in Kapuas Hulu District, West 

Kalimantan). Paper Presented at the Second Biennial Conference. Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia: Borneo Research 

Council. 

FWI / GFW. 2001. Potret Keadaan Hutan Indonesia (The Portrait of Indonesia’s forest situation). Bogor, Indonesia: 

Forest Watch Indonesia dan Washington D.C.: Global Forest Watch. 

Gunawan, R; J. Thamrin; E. Suhendar. 1999. Industrialisasi Kehutanan dan Dampaknya Terhadap Masyarakat Adat. 

Kasus Kalimantan Timur (Forestry Industry and Its Impacts on Traditional Community. Case of East Kalimantan). Bandung: 

AKATIGA. 

Mubyarto, L. Soetrisno, P. Sudira, S. A. Awang, Sulistyo, A. S. Dewanta, N. S. Rejeki, E. Pratiwi. 1991. Kajian Sosial 

Ekonomi Desa-Desa Perbatasan di Kalimantan Timur. (Socio-Economic Analysis of Villages in the Border Region of 

East Kalimantan). Yogyakarta: Penerbit Aditya Media. 

Ross, H. S. 1984. Forestry in Land Use Policy in Indonesia. Oxford, England: University of Oxford. 

Sardjono, M. A. 1990. Die Lembo-Kultur in Ostkalimantan. Ein Modell fuer die Entwicklung agroforstlicher Landnutzung 

in den Feuchttroppen (The Lembo-Culture in East Kalimantan. A Model for the Development of Agroforestry Land Use in 

the Tropical Region). Hamburg, Germany: Universitaet Hamburg. 

69


Sardjono, M. A., G. Riyadi, I. Lambrie, A. Kalimantoro, E. Erawan, Setiawati, M. Amblani, S. B. Darmi, Udin, Kamaruddin. 

1999. Pemantauan Perkembangan Sosial-Ekonomi-Budaya Desa-Desa Binaan Pemegang Hak Pengusahaan Hutan di 

Kabupaten Kutai, Kalimantan Timur (Monitoring of Social, Economic, and Cultural Aspects of Guided Villages of Timber 

Concessioneaires in Kutai District, East Kalimantan). Samarinda: PPLH Unmul. 

Sardjono, M. A. 1999. Panduan Penilaian Kegiatan Pembinaan Masyarakat Desa Hutan. (A Guidance Book for 

Evaluation of Forest Villages Development Program). Samarinda: Fahutan Unmul/PPLH Unmul/CSF Unmul/FMP-GTZ. 

Sardjono, M.A; Y. Yasuhiro; A. Wijaya; Kamaruddin; T. Handoko; A. Purbono. 2000. Study on the dynamics of local 

community’s livelihood and forestland uses in Sangkulirang Sub-district of East-Kalimantan, Indonesia. Samarinda/ 

Morioka/Jakarta: Unmul-Tohoku Research Center-Bioma Foundation-PT SLJ. 

Sardjono, M. A. and I. Samsoedin. 2001. Traditional Knowledge and Practice of Biodiversity Conservation. The Benuaq 

Dayak Community of East, Kalimantan, Indonesia. In Colfer, C. J. P. and Y. Byron (Eds.). 2001. People Managing 

Forest. The Links between Human Well-Being and Sustainability. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR, Washington D. C, USA: 

RFF. 

Sardjono, M. A; Y. Yasuhiro; A. Wijaya; Kamaruddin; Ibrahim. 2001. Social structure and production activities of the 

community surrounding forest concessionaires in Sangkulirang of East-Kutai District (Indonesia). Samarinda/Morioka: 

Unmul-Tohoku Research Center-Bioma Foundation. 

ITTO. 2001. Mewujudkan Pengeloaan Hutan Lestari di Indonesia. Laporan Misi Teknis ITTO untuk Indonesia. (Realizing 

Sustainable Forest Management in Indonesia. Report of Technical Mission for Indonesia). Jakarta. 

WALHI. 2001. FLEG: Antara Setitik Harapan dan Segudang Keraguan (FLEG: Between Hopes and Doubts). Jakarta: 

Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia. 

Widjono, AMZ. R. H. 1998 a . Masyarakat Dayak Menatap Hari Esok (Dayaks Community Looking at their Future). Jakarta: 

Grasindo. 



70





71 

Slide 9 Slide 10





72




Slide 23 

73

Paper 6: Conservation Initatives in Gunung Halimun National Park, West Java, Indonesia 

3.7 Paper 6: 

Conservation Initiatives in Gunung Halimun National Park, 

West Java, Indonesia 

by Dr. Jito Sugardjito, Research Centre for Biology of the Indonesia Institute for Sciences (LIPI) 

1. Abstract 

There are three main threats to biodiversity on the Gunung Halimun National Park (GHNP) i.e., natural resources used 

to fulfill basic needs; unclear boundary, and land encroachment / forest clearance. The Biodiversity Conservation Project 

(BCP) Initiative in GHNP area has been conducted to mitigate these threats through conservation practices which 

focused on strengthening Park management, development of research and long-term monitoring program of 

endangered wildlife, and the establishment of database and information system. Although, the initiative has been 

conducted for nearly eight years, the activities almost exclusively concentrated on the Park area only. In order to mitigate 

pressure to biodiversity in the Park and to sustain natural resources use in the area, it is suggested to develop 

community development activities around the Park. At the same time it should include natural forest surroundings as 

one ecosystem-based conservation management unit. 


Covering almost 40,000 ha of wet forest, the Gunung Halimun area supports biodiversity of national, regional, and 

international importance and is considered to be the most significant remnant of Javan montane and submontane 

tropical forest. The area has a vital hydrological function, as it is the main source of clean water for most of West Java 

and Jakarta urban areas. The wide variety of natural habitats support a number of endemic species among the fauna 

such as Javan hawk-eagle (Spizaetus bartelsi), and Javan gibbon (Hylobates moloch) and a distinctive flora including 

Dipterocarpus haseltii. Previous authors noted that 25 of Java’s 30 endemic bird species are recorded in GHNP. Six 

species of endemic mammals are found in GHNP as a component of Halimun’s ecosystem and it is also important for 

leopard (Panthera pardus) the top remaining predator in Java. 

3. Main direct threats to biodiversity 

Widespread poverty puts pressure on natural resources 

The forests are rich source of timber and non-timber forest products, used locally for a variety of purposes such as food, 

medicines, construction materials, charcoal and ranching. Plant collection is often accompanied by opportunistic 

hunting. 

Villagers hunt various species of birds for personal consumption and local trade. Food species include jungle fowls, 

quails, pigeons and doves. Trade species include song birds (e.g. thrush and bulbuls), and birds of prey. 

Unclear boundary 

In general, boundary of the protected areas is unclear, causing a lot of confusion and unnecessary conflict between the 

rangers and the local community. In addition, the absence of clearly delineated boundary has led to disputes between 

the forestry concession (perum Perhutani) and the protected area authority and, in certain places, a production activity 

can now be found inside the protected area. This demonstrates the difficulty of managing and enforcing a protected area 

where boundaries are disputes. 

Land encroachment/Forest clearance 

Encroachment/forest clearance is a serious problem in Halimun area. The encroachment are often found near 

boundaries of enclaves and even the settlement can be found very close to the protected area. This is because most of 

the settlements were established before the management unit of the protected area exists. Also, unsustainable farming 

practices and insufficient farmland drive the local people to enlarge their land for cultivation by clearing the forest. 

4. Constraints on biodiversity conservation 

The following factors place constraints on conservation and sustainable use of natural resources: 

a. Links between central and local conservation policy are not clear. 

Despite the fact that conservation policy is under Central government directives, the management of natural 

74


resources has been shifted to district level. Therefore, a linkage of conservation policy to the district level is required. 

Most policy makers and stakeholders particularly in the district level are still emphasizing short-term economic 

benefit in order to generate revenue for their districts. 

b. Unclear legal regulation on land use 

Most of the forests in Halimun are located in protected areas. Surrounding these sites, are large remaining farming 

areas and production forests managed by the private sector. However, boundaries and utilization rights are not 

clearly defined. 

c. Limited capacity and resources 

There are currently no institutions with the capacity to effectively manage boundary between protected areas and 

protection forest, to conserve biodiversity situated in these areas. The District government is mandated with this 

responsibility, but it does not have the skills, knowledge and resources to implement conservation activities 

effectively. 

d. Limited communication and no community participation 

The majority of local inhabitants have failed to benefit from the growth of timber production, but rather have suffered 

from having their traditional wild harvesting grounds enclosed. This has led them to exploit resources in less 

accessible areas, including core protection and other biological critical zones. Many activities related to forest 

resource management have not considered local communities. 

e. Poor socio-economic conditions of local people 

People who live surrounding protected areas have no alternative income other than from forest resources. A number 

of economic activities within the buffer zone are threatening the adjacent core areas. This include firewood collection 

for charcoal production and capturing of wildlife, which often involved endangered or keystone species. This is 

particularly practiced by people who live in the National Park enclave where the family planning programme has 

failed and resulted in a rapid rate of population growth which leads to forest clearance for agriculture and wildlife 

hunting. 

f. Insufficient biological data and ecological knowledge on rare and keystone species 

Many important areas, in terms of biodiversity and ecological function, such as wildlife routes between forest 

habitats, are located outside protected areas where their current status is a long-term production forest. Until now, 

field studies have focused mainly on inventory of biodiversity. There is little detailed ecological knowledge on 

endangered or rare species. 

g. Low level of awareness 

Awareness among policy makers, specifically at local government (district level) as well as local communities, some 

commercial concerns, and outsiders, on long-term value of biodiversity is considered relatively low. There are an 

increased number of wealthy people from surrounding cities are moving into the Halimun area and conducting 

commercial activities such as cattle ranching and poultry farming. Apart from traditional communities in the southern 

part of the Park, few other communities practice sustainable use of natural resources or have any sense of 

custodianship over the land. This is partly due to their low level of awareness of what the benefits of a long-term 

conservation approach to their environment would bring. Furthermore, a negative side-effects of the new policy of 

decentralization is, a need to increase local revenue which has resulted in increasing illegal trade for timber and 

other forest products. 

5. Conservation activities 

Although the Park has been designated since 1992, it lacks representative management office to operate its mandate in 

conserving biodiversity in the Park. As a consequence, the first step of activities was building up capacity of both 

physical construction and human resources. This was the first phase of activity that has been conducted for three years 

from 1995 until 1998. Working in collaboration with two government organizations partner, JICA has completed the 

infrastructure facilities including training for personnel in the first phase. Two government organizations are involved. 

The Indonesian Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHKA), is the management authority. The Indonesian 

Institute for Sciences (LIPI), is the scientific authority for biodiversity issues. During this period, a management unit 

building, visitor centre, provision of equipments for park protection and research centre, have been constructed, while 

collection of base-line data on fauna and flora for establishment of park management has also been conducted. 

Conservation activities such as conservation education and public awareness, ecotourism, and species protection were 

established in phase two from 1998 until 2003 while at the same time research were emphasized on studying fauna and 

flora that can directly support management of the park. On collaboration with community and NGOs in implementing 

conservation program, activities were established during this period. In accordance with the objectives of BCP which are 

to strengthen park management through incorporating scientific findings into management decision-making process 

and to disseminate research results, the conservation activities conducted by JICA-LIPI-PHKA consist of: 

a. Conduct baseline ecological studies and develop a long-term monitoring programme. 

75


b. Develop a database for the entire GHNP. 

c. Produce conservation plans for endangered species. 

d. Strengthen links between the GHNP management and research station activities. 

e. Coordinate research activities in the GHNP and identify research priorities. 

f. Implementation of awareness and extension programmes among stakeholders to increase their appreciation of the 

long-term value of biodiversity and understanding impact they exert on the Park. 

g. Conduct a campaign at regional and national level to promote the attractions and values of GHNP. 

h. Train and equip school teachers and religious leaders to engage in environmental education within their 

communities. 

i. Train forest and community rangers on skills necessary to operate in GHNP. 

j. Provide training for nature guides and interpretation staff. 

In addition, some NGOs have initiated activities to assist community in developing alternative income by generating 

several schemes, including propagation of commercial orchids, breeding of commercial beetle, and establishment of 

silk-worm farming. 

Field guide-books have been produced to support conservation education and awareness, particularly for urban people 

who benefited from the protection of biodiversity in the Park. These include topics on: 

a. Medicinal plants 

b. Plants around Cikaniki and loop trail 

c. Bird of GHNP. 

d. Orchids of GHNP. 

e. Mammals of GHNP. 

f. Fresh water fish of GHNP 

g. Fungi of GHNP 

In the meantime, some scientific results which can be used to support park management and have been published 

internationally, include: 

a. Distribution and density of primates in GHNP, West Java (Sugardjito, J and M.Yoneda) 

b. Altitudinal distribution of birds in GHNP (Adhikerana, A and S. Komeda) 

c. Primate responses to observer related to habitat disturbances in GHNP (Sugardjito, J. and M.H.Sinaga) 

d. Ecological research on Leopard in Cikaniki, GHNP (Sakaguchi, N. et al) 

e. Diversity and distribution of raptors at GHNP. (Prawiladilaga, D.M.) 

In order to extend and develop conservation programme at landscape level, Fauna & Flora International in collaboration 

with LIPI and PHKA is proposing to integrate GHNP and the neighbouring Protection Forests into one unit 

ecosystem-based management which is being considered by multilateral donor agency for funding. The immediate 

objective of this ecosystem-based conservation programme is to establish a basis and framework for the long-term 

conservation of the habitats, species, and functions of the Halimun-Salak Ecosystem. 

6. Conclusion 

The BCP initiative has contributed significantly towards strengthening the management of Gunung Halimun National 

Park. Development of facilities during the BCP Initiative has helped the park in managing and protecting biodiversity. 

Development included construction of management office unit, interpretation centre, research centre and database and 

information centre. Dissemination of information particularly on species diversity and natural uniqueness of the Park is 

useful to promote the Park in order to foster environmental sound nature tourism. The protection of biodiversity in the 

Park cannot be sustained unless the pressures on natural resources to satisfy the basic need of surroundings 

communities are tackled. Therefore, it is recommended to include the existence of natural forest surroundings into an 

ecosystem-based conservation management unit. 

Reference 

ANZDEC 1995 Nature Conservation Plan for Indonesia Vol. 4A Jawa Barat Province; A Review and update of the 1982 

National Conservation Plan for Indonesia. IBRD/WB Number 3243-IND. 

Fauna&Flora International-IP 2002 MSP Brief: Developing an Ecosystem-based Conservation in Halimun-Salak 

Region, West Java. UNDP-LIPI-FFI-IP. Bogor. 

76


Kahono, S; and T. Okayama 2001 The Sub project A Research and Survey. Proceedings of The Annual Meeting of the 

Project. LIPI-JICA-PHKA. Bogor. 

Mori, K. 2002 Biodiversity Conservation Project Activities in 2002 for Research and Study Component. Seminar Aktivitas 

Penelitian Program Konservasi Keanekaragaman Hayati. LIPI-JICA-PHKA. Bogor. 

Takahashi, S 1997 Review and Prospects of the Biodiversity Conservation Project. Research and Conservation of 

Biodiversity in Indonesia Vol. 1: General Review of the Project. LIPI-JICA-PHKA. Bogor. 

Uehara, H. 2001 Profile of the Biodiversity Conservation Project (Phase II). Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the 

Project. LIPI-JICA-PHKA. Bogor. 


Slide 1 

Slide 2 

Slide 3 

Slide 4 

Slide 5 

Slide 6 

77

Slide 7 

Slide 8 


Slide 11 

Slide 12 


78


Slide 15 

Slide 16 


Slide 19 

Slide 20 

79 

Slide 21

Paper 7: Research and Training on Biodiversity in ASEAN 

3.8 Paper 7: 

Research and Training 

on Biodiversity in ASEAN 

by Dir. Gregorio I. Texon, ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation (ARCBC) 

ASEAN is composed of ten independent nations in South East Asia, including Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Singapore, 

Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and the Philippines, excluding Myanmar. South East Asia is one of the most 

important regions in the world, in terms of biodiversity. It is rich in species ingenutive and ecosystem diversity. There is 

also a high level of Indonesium. The world’s most megadiverse countries are located in this region, namely Indonesia, 

Malaysia and the Philippines. The forest covers 48% of its land area but the average loss of forest is 15,000sq km in 

1970 to 1990, and from 1990-2000 it is 23,000sq km. However, the protected areas of these regions have more than 

1000 sites covering 18,000sq km and 94 sites for marine, covering 97,000sq km. These sites are distributed among the 

ten Asean Countries. These countries are also signatories to international conventions, such as Conventions of 

Biological Diversity (CBD) and World Heritage Parks. Only two countries have not joined the CBD. There are also 

international initiatives that are working in the region. One is the CITES, i.e. involving the control and trade of wildlife 

species. The IUCN has a programme on red listing of species and WWF has eco-regions and Birdlife International has 

important endemic bird areas and Conservation International has conservation areas in priority areas in these parks. 

The overall goal of the project is to intensify the Biodiversity Conservation in order to improve co-operation in a 

comprehensive regional contact by trying to set up a network of international links among ASEAN countries. ARCBC has 

four components, one of which deals with Networking and Institution Building, and conducting regular meetings among 

members, as well as organizing workshops that are important to the regions. The second component is Training and 

Extensions, which will be detailed later. The third component is Research and Development, and the fourth is 

Management and Electronic Data Information Sharing. In this fourth component, we try to harmonise data that is being 

generated by various institutions through the National Biodiversity Units, in order that they can report the biodiversity 

conditions at the ASEAN meetings. The research programme is a grant that has been provided by European Unions, 

which has provided funds to conduct research in the region. In the grant programme, their objectives are to provide 

solutions to issue on biodiversity conservation throughout ASEAN of the regional context, improve standards of research 

terms, and methodology and skills, and to promote collaboration among ASEAN institutions. ASEAN and EU provide 

benefits for gender and development as well as prepares and packages research results beneficial to scientists. 

Initially, ten subjects were identified to cover the research areas. These are: 

a. Valuable usage and values 

b. Ecological reconstruction 

c. Sustainable production and use biodiversity protected areas 

d. System design 

e. Taxonomic and systematic design 

f. Monitoring biodiversity protected areas 

g. Management studies 

h. Linkages 

i. Economical systems 

j. Conservation and Biosafety and Biosecurity 

However, considering the limited budget, the project has, through the committee, recommended only three important 

areas, which they consider valuable, i.e. Valuable Usage and Values, Ecological Reconstruction and Taxonomic and 

Systematic Design. 

Today, there are 51 projects operating all over the South East Asian region, and the funding is indicated in the table. The 

results of the research is yet to be received. Some of them have barely started, therefore, results of these research will 

come in over the next year. 

There is only one project that has results at present, and this was a project done in the Philippines, on the survey of coral 

in the north of Mindanao. They discovered four new species of coral that have never been described before in the 

80


country. This has contributed to some new discovery for the country as far as corals are concerned. 

On training, we are trying to work out a traditional system, which consists of designing, implementation and evaluation. 

The initial training was done in Bangkok, Thailand in 2001. It was discovered there are four important types of training 

that emerged. The first is Taxonomy, the second is Assessment and Management of Biodiversity, the third is Awareness 

Building and the fourth is Data Access and Exchange. However, as the training have been designed by many countries 

and institutions, a new system has to be designed, to meet the collective requirements. In this way, we looked back to 

see how we can address this. Strategically we have to design an occupational standard for staff working in the protected 

areas. Last year, we had Phase One, which was regional survey and assessment. Phase Two was the development of 

standards. In the survey, we looked into the training of these three aspects on the operational capacity of these 

Protected Management Areas. We found there were many organizations working for these protected areas in one 

country alone, producing overlaps. As far as Protected Area Management is concerned, there is no status given by 

authorities to staff working in protected areas, and there are inadequate resources for capacity building, and there is a 

need to improve transboundary co-operation over protected areas. 

On the approach to Protected Management Areas, there is a lack of strategic approach to Human Resource 

Management, lack of ownership training because most of the training is actually initiated by foreign institutions. These 

jobs are not clearly defined and not systematically evaluated. 

On the availability of training development opportunity, there is limited education for protected management. There is a 

dominance of forestry training, and most of the people we have interviewed working in the protected areas, seldom have 

degrees in other conservation courses. There is no particular person qualified for this subject. Some training centers are 

not suitable and have improper formats for training schedules, with no appropriate identification of needs. They have 

their problems, but they also have activities that are co-ordinated to the practices of the region. For example in Brunei, 

all those who are trained in forestry are required to go for intensive training. 

In Cambodia and Indonesia, all field researchers and staff are required to go for training, to improve professionalism and 

management. In Laos, PDR Nationally Development Management is available to all staff. In Malaysia establishment of 

human resources plan training centre for its staff is available. In other parts only nationally funded certified long term 

courses are done in conjunction with Lincoln University of New Zealand and in the Philippines manuals are available 

about Management Integrated Protection Areas. In Singapore there is a clear mechanism for staff to share with 

colleagues its skills and knowledge to experience training for its volunteers. In Thailand, training is strategically 

co-ordinated for its staff and training programmes offered for its volunteers. In Vietnam, training is organized and 

co-ordinated for its staff to include biodiversity conservation and natural resources management at Forestry 

Universities. 

In Phase 2, we were able to identify more than 200 jobs in the protected area and in Kota Kinabalu , we were able to find 

various activities and skill knowledge to effectively manage our protective areas. 

In Phase 3, there will be a signing of Work Programme for Protected Management and Flora and Fauna International 

and also IUCN will look at what we have done and check the professional standard for protected areas. 

It is recommended that world collaboration, research institution supported by government in international conservation 

programme and Human Resource Management be practiced. However, habitat destruction still continues. ARCBC 

recommends transforming research resources conservation policies to include practical procedures and activities with 

tangible resources with technical peoples and transform research resources of awareness materials to reach the 

ordinary man in the street and the farmers in order to reap benefits. 

On the training side those responsible for Management should be working on a co-ordinated agenda, be proficient in 

protected area management and be given a higher status. Their work should be more attractive and more accessible as 

a career, in order to become more performance focused. National ownership programme should be increased and 

supported. Regional co-operation and collaboration should be encouraged, and establish national training and 

education institution to be supported and designed to conservation. Focus on particular areas should be shifted to long 

term and to continue good practices on human resource development. 

81






82





83 

Slide 15 Slide 16






84





85 

Slide 31 Slide 32


86


3.9 Paper 8: 

Wildlife Management in Japan 

by Dr. Hiroshi Ikeda, Hyogo Prefectural Homeland for the Oriental White Stork 

1. Abstract 

The New Biodiversity Strategy of Japan summarizes "three cries" in the current biodiversity conditions. Those are threat 

of extinction of many species caused by human activities, desolation of rural area caused by changes in lifestyles in 

countryside, and negative impact of alien species introduced by human being. 

In these status of nature in Japan, the project for reintroduction the oriental white stork is on going in the Toyooka-city, 

Hyogo prefecture. The breeding population of Oriental white stork in this area became extinct in 1971 due to habitat 

deterioration, food shortage and physiological damage by chemical substances for agriculture, etc. Captive breeding 

has succeeded since 1989 when it was 24 years after the breeding project started. In 1999, Hyogo prefectural homeland 

for the Oriental white stork was established at Toyooka-city as a reintroduction center for this species with conservation 

and propagation activities. 

To establish viable and free-ranging population in this area, we promote the propagation of captive storks with genetic 

and veterinary management, habitat restoration based on the ecosystem research, and education on creating 

environments where humans and wildlife coexist. 

Integrated approach based on scientific and local knowledge, cooperation and jointworks with several social sectors 

such as universities, zoos, NGO'S, governmental agencies, and local bodies are the basic perspectives for 

implementing of above measures. And preventative and adaptive manner is fundamental concept to promote this 

re-introduction project. 

2. Text Presentation 

This paper covers the introduction of the Oriental White Stork, its extinction and the success of its reintroduction and 

rehabilitation. 

The total land area of Japan is 380,000sq km and from north to south end, it is about 3000km, consisting of unique flora 

and fauna. However, Japan is consistently developing and wildlife population is affected. Recently, the Japanese 

government compiled a biodiversity study and summarized three crises. The first crisis is the shrinking or extinction of 

main species caused by reckless human activities such as habitat destruction and plantation. Second crisis is 

degradation of satoyama, which mean countryside nature, i.e. padi fields and secondary forest. This is caused by the 

change of lifestyles of the country people. There is a negative impact of alien species introduced by human beings which 

can disturb the natural ecosystem. The third crisis is human activities, and we can recognize two types of human 

activities such as over exploitation of habitat destruction and the change of lifestyle. 

The Oriental White Stork is a huge bird with a wing span of over two meters and they breed around Russia. They 

migrates to Central China, but the breeding population still live in Toyoka, in Japan. Only about 2500 species are still in 

existence over the last thirty years and they survived on fish, insects and other small animals. These birds occupied the 

top of the ecological pyramid and Toyoka is the last place where these birds were recorded seen. In 1940’s these birds 

were increasingly becoming extinct and in 1971 they were lost in the wild. The cause for its extinction was due to hunting 

and habitat destruction. These birds make their nests in pine trees but during World War 2, these trees were cut down for 

their gum. Another cause for their extinction is pollution caused by toxic chemicals and also dramatic changes of padi 

fields resulting in food shortage for these birds. 

The White Stork is believed to bring happiness and luck to the Japanese. In 1950, several conservation efforts such as 

food supply, building of artificial nests etc by the local people and government were conducted. In 1965 captive breeding 

was started but no chicks hatched. In 1985, six young storks donated by Harbour of Territories resulted in the first chick 

being hatched in 1989. After this we have had successful breeding every year. We have 100 individuals chicks in our 

stations. Therefore, Hyogo Prefecture founded the Homeland for Oriental White Stork in 1999. Our missions are firstly, 

87

Paper 8: Wildlife Management in Japan 

breeding and genetic management of the Oriental White Stork, and secondly, scientific research for reintroduction and 

public education. Therefore, our first success in artificial breeding was in 1985 and we established registration of the 

Oriental White Stork. 

The introduction schedules are divided into three stages. The first is captive breeding which has already been 

successful. The next one is to create the release stage. In captivity breeding, we managed genetic management, 

habitation for release in the wild and environment assessment, and restoring techniques. Social economic activities and, 

public education to the relevant social sectors are targetted. We use the GIS methods to run the assessment of habitat 

for the white stork. We make a database for habitat conditions and also habitat use for the white stork, covering habitat 

conditions. In comparison, we derived some theories and techniques for habitat restoration. For example, as we no 

longer have pine trees, we use artificial nesting towers. Also, we do not have access from the padi fields to existing 

rivers, therefore we have to make our own water network. 

Collaboration with the social sectors is also very important, therefore, we work hand in hand with the locals to keep the 

genetic diversity and also we have joint projects to conserve the white stork population in Harbour of Territorities. The 

government and other administrative sectors are also important in giving financial support and organizing activities. Last 

year, we started committees to have joint activities with the local public bodies and central government and several 

sections for agriculture and construction bodies. The forestry and agriculture departments also played their parts in 

establishing a pine forest. Local companies and funding bodies are also important. The electric company is also 

important because the white storks will strike electric cables, and it is necessary for the electric company to bury their 

cables underground. The most important sector is its citizens, the local people, e.g. NGOs, volunteers, farmer groups, 

who started their own activities. Farmers organize markets to sell their products which do not contain chemical 

substances. These markets are open to visitors. Students also play their part in conserving these white storks in joining 

our projects and learning the important activities on how to conserve these birds. 

30 or 40 years ago, the ecological pyramid was complete. However, fragmentations of the destruction of several types of 

activities resulted in the incomplete portrayment of the pyramid. The Oriental White Stork was the top predator, but not 

any more. We have to re-establish some ecological network and modify the pyramid. We have to go back to the past to 

retrace our steps, it is a baseline, in order to find out what we did wrong. 

In conclusion, the scientific approach and collaboration of all the social sectors and adaptive management are very 

important in conserving these endangered species. A photograph taken in 1960 shows a white stork with students, and 

this sends us the message that it is never too late to reintroduce the white storks again. 



88





89 

Slide 9 Slide 10

Paper 8: Wildlife Management in Japan 


Slide 13 

90



Chairperson: Dr. Stephen Sutton 

Q: Dr. Stephen Sutton 

I’d like to know the difference between a crane and a stork. They are two different kinds of birds 

A: Dr. Ikeda 

The cranes lay their eggs on the ground but the storks lay their eggs on trees. 

Q: Mr. Kan Yaw Chong 

Toxins is one of the factors responsible for the extinction of the white stork. I wonder what chemicals there are, and how 

they contribute to the extinction of the white stork, for e.g. the toxic chemicals used in paddy fields. 

A: Dr. Ikeda 

Mercury and PCP chloride. This chemical concentrates in fishes and prawns, and white storks feeding fish and prawns 

are affected. PCP affects the breeding condition of the white stork. 

Q: Mr. M.H. Phua 

We have heard two fairy tales about conservation. One is from Japan, Kushiro to be precise, and the other is the 

introduction of the white stork. This leads me to conclude that culturally meaningful key species to the local people or 

society is the key to successful conservation. This is created from a driving force to protect these species and leads to 

a successful conservation. The Orang Utans are culturally meaningful to the Malaysians, and perhaps they also 

represent happiness to the people. Do you think this situation applies to Malaysia 

A: Dr. Ikeda 

Of course, the white stork invites happiness to the local people, that is what they believe. We always try to have joint 

interactive projects on scientific levels, and work together with administrative sectors on the importance of successful 

conservation. We also try to have several joint education programmes involving the locals and also have meetings at the 

villages. 

Q: Mr. Azman Mohamad 

I have two questions to Dr. Sugardjito on the Public Awareness Campaign that has been done in Kalimantan Park. First, 

who is the group you are targeting for the campaign And how did you come to choose this group Secondly, what is the 

result from that campaign, i.e. what are the indicators used to measure the effectiveness of the conservation campaign 

A: Dr. Sugardjito 

The target group identified at the beginning of the second phase of the PCP initiative is the people in the city, because 

the purpose of the management is also to promote the Park. Before this initiative, there were very few visitors to the 

Park, perhaps less than l00. Since then, there has been a significant increase in visitors after year 2000. This would be 

the indicator of the campaign’s success. We have also been successful in training and educating the locals for the 

surrounding park areas, including the community and religious leaders. We have a designated time to carry out all these 

campaigns. As you know, most of the Indonesians are Muslims, so every Friday we have our prayers in the mosque. As 

such, we supply our material to the Kiyai (prayer leader), who will inculcate or promote our campaign about 

conservation. So, these are the main target groups. 


These are just some comments, some passing thoughts. You may not want to respond. Hearing the contrast upon 

conservation approach in developed countries, it crossed my mind that it is just like kids growing up. When you are a kid, 

you long to be a grown-up, and when you have grown-up, you want to be a kid again. Thus, developing countries rush to 

be developed, and once we are developed, you long to be somehow underdeveloped again. That is the nature of the 

game. 

91

Questions & Answers (Papers 5-8) 

Seems to me that in a developing country, the main aim is habitat conservation, and once that is strictly under control, 

only then will focus on individual species. However, once we are developed, only then will we focus on species 

conservation, for e.g. the white stork and other species, which we cannot afford to do at the moment. The stork 

conservation is very costly, and in Sabah, we definitely cannot afford it. 


I would like to ask Prof. Agung Sardjono a question. You have recommended two approaches in solving the problem in 

Kalimantan. One is the bottom-up effort, and the second is the committee empowering at grassroot level. You say these 

would be the key factors to success in solving problems in the field. Can you elaborate further your approach 

A: Prof. Agung Sardjono 

Actually, the Government has many programmes for the areas under threat, but most of the programmes are decided at 

top level. According to management decisions, there are many NGOs who can be collaborators, or at least be included 

in the programmes, mostly institutions, including government institutions. 

Q: Dr. Stephen Sutton 

I would like to ask Dir. Texon on the future of the ARCBC. It has been very busy and active in the past few years, so how 

do you see their future now 

A: Dir. Gregario Texon 

The ARCBC have indicated they are interested in extending the project for another year. They have sent their 

application, and also a team to evaluate whatever shortcomings we face, and they are interested in correcting all these, 

and continue on with their project. The team has just completed a mission (we had a meeting in Jakarta), and the 

indication is that we will continue with the training programme with respect to Database, and one of the important 

elements is the setting up of a Policy Conservation Section, so that we can resolve our work, and hopefully transform it 

into our policy programme. 

92


3.11 Paper 9: 

Park Management - Brunei’s Experience 

by Mr. Awang Samhan Nyawa, Brunei Museums Department 


The biodiversity and tropical rainforest ecosystems of Brunei Darussalam have been, at this moment, spared by the 

continuous production of oil and gas from offshore territorial water since 1929. The country's population of just over 

300,000 people were drawn to settle major towns along the northern coastal areas that offered lucrative jobs for a much 

better standard of living. This has left the hinterland rainforests in the southern region remained largely isolated and 

undisturbed. 

It is estimated that Brunei Darussalam still maintained about 80 percents of its land under rainforest covering a total area 

of 469046 hectares. Roughly 50 percents of the forest is pristine, and out of this about 20 percents have been allocated 

as conservation areas such as protected national parks, heritage parks, wildlife sanctuaries and nature reserves. 

Represented by an estimated 5000 species of flora, Brunei rainforest contains some of the richest biological 

assemblages in the world. 

These conservation areas were managed by two stake holders; the Brunei Forestry Department mainly looking after the 

flora, and the Brunei Museums Department is responsible for the fauna affairs. The Forestry Department and Brunei 

Museums have 93333 hectares and 9011 hectares conservation areas, respectively. This accounts about 18 percents of 

its 576500 hectares total land area (Table 1). 

This paper presents my direct experiences as the manager at Kuala Belalong Field Studies Centre and Merimbun 

Heritage Park since 1990. 

2. Conservation Areas 

Some 20 areas have been kept aside sporadically throughout the country as national parks, heritage parks, wildlife 

sanctuaries and nature reserves. These conservation areas account for more than 20 percents of the country's total 

forest cover. 

Brunei rainforest is represented by at least nine different forest types commonly known to botanists in this region. 

Amongst of these forest types are: 

a. Beach Forest, develops along the coastal area. 

b. Mangal Forest or Mangrove thriving by the coastal margin and river estuaries that are associated with muddy 

soils. 

c. Peatswamp Forest existing in the poorly drained freshwater, just behind the coastal forest formations. 

d. Riparian Forest forms as a transition habitat between the brackish to freshwater tidal reaches along the riverbanks. 

e. Heath Forest of nutrient-poor and acidic soils occurring in patches near the coast and inland. 

f. Mixed Dipterocarp Forest dominantly presents with more than 170 species of valued giant Dipterocarpaceae. 

g. Alluvial Forest develops on flat land beside the river meanders. 

h. Lower Montane Forest existing on steep ridges above 1000 meters above sea level. 

i. Secondary Forest or also known as Belukar consisting of mainly short-live or transitional pioneer species. 

All conservation areas in Brunei are managed by two stake-holders; the Brunei Forestry Department of the Ministry 

of Industry and Primary Resources, and the Brunei Museums Department of the Ministry of Culture, Youth and 

Sports. 

The Brunei Forestry Department is responsible in managing at least 16 different sites allocated sporadically 

throughout the country (Figure 1). The following are some keys and isolated areas: 

a. Ulu Temburong National Park, a self-contained rainforest ecosystem which has an area of 46,210 hectares 

harboring Mixed-Dipterocarp Forest and Lower Montane Forest. 

b. Benutan Catchment, made up of 2,932 hectares of Mixed-Dipterocarp Forest. 

93

Paper 9: Park Management: Brunei’s Experience 

Table 1: Brunei Tropical Rain Forest Conservation Areas 

Total area % total % total 

Brunei Museum (hectare) land area forest area 

1. Merimbun Heritage Park 7800 1.3530 1.6629 

2. Pulau Siarau 488 0.0846 0.1040 

3. Pulau Pilong-Pilongan 2 0.0003 0.0004 

4. Mangrove Forest of Berambang 721 0.1251 0.1537 

Total 9011 1.5631 1.9211 

Forestry Department 

1. Ulu Temburong National Park 46210 8.0156 9.8519 

2. Bukit Teraja 6825 1.1839 1.4551 

3. Bukit Batu Patam 921 0.1598 0.1964 

4. Bukit Ulu Tutong 251 0.0435 0.0535 

5. Benutan Catchment 2932 0.5086 0.6251 

6. Bukit Bedawan 7633 1.3240 1.6273 

7. Anduki 917 0.1591 0.1955 

8. Andulau 260 0.0451 0.0554 

9. Badas 76 0.0132 0.0162 

10. Bukit Sawat 486 0.0843 0.1036 

11. Sungai Ingei 18491 3.2075 3.9423 

12. Ulu Mendaram 6170 1.0703 1.3154 

13. Belait Peat Swamp 1492 0.2588 0.3181 

14. Berakas 149 0.0258 0.0318 

15. Keluyoh 77 0.0134 0.0164 

16. Ulu Badas 443 0.0768 0.0944 

Total 93333 16.1896 19,8985 

Total forest area 

469046 ha 

Total land area 

576500 ha 

c. Bukit Bedawan, with an area of 7,633 hectares, consisting of hill Mixed-Dipterocarp Forest. 

d. Sungai Ingei has an area of 18,491 hectares harboring both Mixed-Dipterocarp Forest and Heath Forest. 

e. Bukit Teraja has an area of 6,825 hectares is dominantly of hill Mixed-Dipterocarp Forest. 

f. Ulu Mendaram which is allocated for Peatswamp Forest has an area of 6,170 hectares. 

The other stake holder is the Brunei Museums Department has managed four areas mainly associated with the 

protection of wildlife and their natural habitats. This department is entrusted by the Government of His Majesty The 

Sultan and Yang Dipertuan of Negara Brunei Darussalam as the authority on Wildlife Protection Enactment and the 

United Nation's Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (CITES). 

Its authority has consented the Brunei Museums Department to the acquiring of nature reserves required for the legal 

protection of wildlife habitats. The following are nature reserves and wildlife sanctuaries managed by the Department of 

Brunei Museums. 

94


a. Tasek Merimbun Heritage Park (7,800 ha) is made up of Mixed-Dipterocarp Forest, Freshwater Swamp Forest 

and Secondary Forest. 

b. Pulau Berambang (721 ha) consisting of mangrove forest as the main habitats for Nasalis larvatus and Vampyrus 

pteropus. 

c. Pulau Siarau (488 ha) providing a secluded mangrove forest habitats for Nasalis larvatus and Vampyrus 

pteropus. 

d. Pulau Pelong-Pelongan (2 ha) is an important islet used as a breeding ground for several migratory species of 

Terns. 

3. Management Parks 

Taking into account various isolated and remote locations of most Brunei Darussalam conservation areas, its rainforest 

is believed to keep many secrets for scientists to discover. The Government of Brunei Darussalam itself is promoting the 

significant roles of the rainforest in maintaining a healthy environment for everybody to appreciate and not just as a 

paradise for biologists. In this regard two national parks have been established since the early 1980s, whereas the rest 

of major remote conservation areas remained isolated and undeveloped as an indication of safe heaven for biodiversity 

conservation. 

3.1 Ulu Temburong National Park 

This is the largest national park in the country, which has a total area of 46,210 hectares. Most of the terrain is 

characterized by steep ridges and valleys with the highest point attaining a height up to 1850 meters above sea level. 

Formed by rugged, uplifted and faulted sedimentation layers over millions of years, this is the only national park in 

the country that is dominantly consisted of ridge or highland Mixed-Dipterocarp Forest and Lower Montane Forest. It 

represents about 10 percents of the country's total land area. 

This park is a total wilderness with no indigenous settlement within. A large area in the southern region of the park 

is landscaped with rugged and hostile terrain that is only accessible by helicopter. 

The Brunei Forestry Department, an authority of this park, has consigned a buffering 5000 hectares study area 

located at the north end. It represents just about 10 percents of the park's total area and this means that the park is 

still largely inaccessible to public. This study area has maintained its natural status quo where the proposals for the 

construction of dam and road to link this wilderness have been shelved. It is only accessible by a longboat ride over 

numerous rocky rapids of Sungai Temburong. 

3.2 Kuala Belalong Field Study Centre 

The major opening of this park was the establishment of Kuala Belalong Field Studies Centre (KBFSC) immediately 

came into force after the one year scientific expedition jointly organized by the Universiti Brunei Darussalam (UBD) 

and the Royal Geographical Society (RGS) of London from 1990 to 1991. KBFSC is managed by UBD which 

organizing regular field trips and education programmes for primary and secondary schools, university students, 

government officials and others from institutes of higher learning locally and internationally. These programmes are 

part of boosting public awareness and education towards better understanding on the rainforest ecology. 

KBFSC was built inside the park on the bank of Sungai Belalong, just about 300 meters up the confluence of Sungai 

Temburong. The center has several dormitories, a laboratory, a multi-purposes hall and a dining. This center is 

designed to cater for about 30 people at a time. 

The field programmes are associated with nature trails that educate visitors on the ecological roles of the rainforest 

fauna and flora communities. Next to the center, projecting up over 100 meters above the ground is the vertical and 

horizontal aluminium structure that explores the spatial environment of the Mixed-Dipterocarp Forest. This structure 

which stands over the canopy providing visitors with a mesmerizing imagination over an exciting close-up and 

distance aerial view of the pristine and luxuriant tropical rainforest. 

Just outside the park, on the bank of Sungai Temburong, were the Ulu Temburong National Park Information Centre 

(UTNPIC) and the Outward Bound Brunei Darussalam (OBBD). UTNPIC is responsible for monitoring visitors and 

eco-tourism activities on the north end of the park. OBBD, which is managed by the Ministry of Culture, Youth and 

Sports, is on the other hand, provides basic physical, mental and spiritual endurance training in the rainforest 

environment for all walk-of-life. 

95


3.3 Merimbun Heritage Park 

This unique wildlife rich, tranquil and mesmerizing area has been the subject of interests to the Brunei Museums as 

its managing authority since 1967. It covers an area of 7,800 hectares that dominantly harbors lowland 

Mixed-Dipterocarp species, freshwater swamp forest plant communities in association with 220 hectares of black 

water twin lakes ecosystems. 

Preliminary surveys and continuous research on the fauna, flora, ethnography and archeology of the area was 

conducted by the Brunei Museums Department, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, National University of Singapore, 

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, USA, University of Natural Science, USA, Kagoshima University of Japan, 

James Cook University and University of New South Wales, Australia, and University of Kent, Uk, since 1983 (Table 

2). The study by the Brunei Museums in particular, had revealed a few surprising discoveries. 

The area around the twin black water lakes itself is believed to have been settled by the native Dusun community since 

about 500 years ago. Archeological studies have shown that Merimbun Heritage Park (MHP) has a rich remains of the 

15 th century of the Ming Dynasty ceramic artifacts. In the natural history field, the first discovery of the White-collared 

Fruitbats (Megaerops wetmorei) was the one and only known living specimen in the world occurred here in the park. 

Several other rare mammal species were also recorded, such as Vordermann's Flying Squirrel (Petynomys vordermanni), 

Malay Weasel (Mustela nudepis), Otter Civet (Cynogale bennettii), Banded Palm Civet (Hemigalus derbyanus), Banded 

Linsang (Prionodon linsang) and Turted Ground Squirrel (Rheithrosciurus macrotis). 

The above outstanding discoveries, alongside with its unique habitats of the black water lakes, has prompted and 

honored the area being declared as one of the ASEAN National Heritage Parks in 1984. 

On the contrary to Ulu Temburong National Park, Merimbun Heritage Park is linked with all seasons sealed roads. This 

is a typical infrastructural development provided by the Government of Brunei Darussalam to link all inland villages with 

major coastal towns, and in this case is Kampong Merimbun located at the north end of the park. Archeological 

evidences suggest that Kampong Merimbun is the remains of the once big settlement around the, lake, but now 

becomes a small village consisting of about 10 houses with a total of about 80 local inhabitants. 

Local inhabitants and roads that link Merimbun Heritage Park posed a different park management strategy. The beauty 

and tranquility of the twin lakes, and as well as the friendly inhabitants attract many visitors. Basic public facilities have 

been built by the local authority to cater weekend picnickers. This has forced the Brunei Museums Department to adopt 

the local management zones in handling various needs to suit the sustainable development of the park to a minimal 

impact on its natural environment. 

The park was then divided into three management zones that provide specific roles as to ease the imminent impact 

poses by visitors and further infrastructural development. 

a. Intensive Use Area 

This is located at the end of the road around Kampong Merimbun and is designed as a "honey-pot” in absorbing 

various public activities. It represents about 10 percents of the entire park area of 7, 800 hectares. 

b. Less Intensive Use Area 

Is a buffer zone behind the Intensive Use Area where public activities are strictly monitored. Education and 

eco-tourism programmes should be always supervised with the assistance of the park management staff. This 

zone covers about 45 percents of the park total area, and 

c. Wilderness 

The rest of the park is restricted for research and management staff only. No public activities are allowed in this 

wilderness. 

4. Public Awareness and Education 

Twelve years after Tasek Merimbun had been declared as one of the ASEAN National Heritage Parks, the museums 

complex was constructed in 1997 in response to mitigate and minimizing a direct impact to the natural environment. The 

museums complex, which was located in the Intensive Use Area, consisted of a dormitory, a laboratory, an exhibition 

hall, a multi-purposes hall and the traditional Dusun house. 

As part of the public awareness and education programmes, this complex welcomes the general public and school 

groups to view its exhibition on the local natural history, archeology and ethnography. And as mentioned earlier in this 

paper continuous researches had been conducted by various local and international universities and other institutes of 

96


higher learning since 1983. The data and information derived from the on-going researches help to enhance in 

disseminating knowledge and mutual understanding of the park's rainforest ecology through public education. This effort 

further convinced the public to appreciate, respect and protect the natural and healthy environment for the welfare of all. 

5. Obstacles in the Parks Management 

All national parks around the world have their own specific problems. In a densely populated country encroachment into 

the parks is a common practice. In Brunei Darassalam such a problem does not exist because of its small population. On 

the other hand however, illegal logging and poaching activities are two major threats that attract exploitation on valued 

timbers and other forest products in our national parks. This include the felling of the "Agar wood" or "Gaharu" (Aquilaria 

malaccensis) as one of the most expensive aromatic chips to be found in Asian black markets. 

The other problem is the lacking of professional and specially trained local management staff whose biological and 

ecological knowledge is rather limited. It is quite obvious that academically dedicated and specially trained graduates 

and postgraduates in those fields mentioned above are not available for the management of the parks. This has resulted 

to poor methods of presentation of natural resources and biodiversity for everybody to appreciate and understand 

towards sustainable management of the rainforest ecosystem. 

Other minor problems that are still persisting are littering, wandering beyond the designated access that lead to 

stampede on sensitive plants and niches, and illegal collections of fauna and flora by casual visitors. 

6. Enforcement Deployment 

In Brunei Darussalam illegal loggers and poachers are dealt with the deployment of National Security Task Force that 

activates regular patrolling exercises along the international borders. Offenders are jailed or made paid on heavy 

penalty. 

On local and national levels, the campaign on appreciating our national parks has recently been introduced to a zero 

kick-start, that is promoting this issue at the primary schools. This is followed by young scientist field projects to be 

carried out annually at the actual national parks for secondary schools. Their gradual end products as Riture scientists 

should be a better solution for park management in the country that is lacking of skilled professionals. 

The other options are to limit public facilities and not to overdevelop the national parks, avoiding mass-tourism, and 

provide excellent information centres at the beginning of every visiting sites and other selected attractions such 

waterfalls, special habitats, cultural sites, etc. with special well-informed interpretation trails system. 

On top of all that problems mentioned above national parks enforcement personnel should always be present to monitor 

and attend the visitors at all time. 

7. Conclusion 

The present legislation structures and well-established conservation areas, mostly located in isolation, remote and 

inaccessible hinterland, had positioned Brunei Darussalam biodiversity well protected and preserved in- situ. This also 

indicates that there are opportunities to conduct more research in the Riture in these largely unstudied areas in revealing 

more secrets of one of the oldest rainforest ecosystems in the world. 

8. Acknowledgement 

Thanks to the sponsor and organizer of the conference, especially Prof. Datin Maryati Mohamed, Director for Tropical 

Biology and Conservation, UMS, that has enable me to participate in this invaluable conference in Sabah. I am grateful 

to Kertijah Abdul Kadir for her most kind assistance prior and throughout the conference. And also a big thank you to the 

Conference Secretariate and the people of Sabah, Malaysia, who had supported me during my stay throughout the 

conference. 

References 

Brunei Forestry Department, 1998. PRYNSA: Princess Rashidah Young Nature Scientist Award. Forestry Department, 

Ministry of Industry and Primary Resources, Brunei Darussalam. 

Coode, M.J.E., Dransfield, J., Forman, L.L., Wirkup, D.W. and Said, I.M., 1996. A Checklist of the Flowering Plants and 

Gymnosperm. Ministry of Industry and Primary Resources, Brunei Darussalam. 

97


Cranbrook, Earl of, and Edwards D.S., 1994. Belalong: A Tropical Rainforest. Sun Tree Publishing, 205 Henderson 

Road, Singapore. 

Dransfield, J., 1997. The Rattans of Brunei Darussalam. Ministry of Industry and Primary Resources, Brunei Darussalam. 

Meng, W.K., 1990. In Brunei Forests. Government Printing Department, Ministry of Law, Brunei Darussalam. 

Meng, W.K. and Abu Salim, K., 1999. Forests and Trees of Brunei Darussalam. Universiti Brunei Darussalam in 

association with Forestry Department, Ministry of Industry and Primary Resources, Brunei Shell Petroleum Company 

Sendirian Berhad. 

Museums Department, 2000. Merimbun Heritage Park: ASEAN National Heritage Park. Museums Department, Ministry 

of Culture, Youth and Sports. 

Payne, J., Francis, C.M. and Phillips K., 1985. A Field Guide to the: Mammals of Borneo. The Sabah Society, Malaysia. 

Whitmore, T.C., 1975. Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East. Butler and Tanner Ltd, Frome, Somerset, England. 

Whitmore T.C., 1990. An Introduction to Tropical Rain Forests. Oxford University Press inc., New York. 




98




Slide 9 

Slide 10 

99 

Slide 11 Slide 12



Slide 15 

100


3.12 Paper 10: 

Park Management - Indonesia’s Experience 

by Dr. Dwi Setyono, Gunung Halimun National Parks 

1. Abstract 

According to the Act No. 5 of 1990 Concerning Conservation of Living Resources and Their Ecosystems, a national park 

is defined as a natural conservation area which possesses native ecosystems, and which is managed through a zoning 

system utilized which facilities research, science, education breeding, enhancement, recreation and tourism purposes. 

As a conservation area, national park plays an important role for human life because it has functions, as follow: (1) 

Protecting the life support system; (2) Preservation of the biodiversity and its ecosystem; and (3) Sustainable utilization 

of the natural resources and its ecosystem. It is necessary to endure the national park because it provides many benefits 

which are vital importance for human life, e.g., in regulating hydrological system (prevention of flood/drought), 

prevention of landslide hazard, source of genetic resources, and etc. 

Gunung Halimun National Park is one of the national park in Indonesia that has the largest tropical rainforest remained 

in West Java. To attain the optimum function of the national park (protection, preservation and utilization) with regard to 

the potentials and problems encountered, basic strategies for park management and development are directed in three 

aspects, which are: (1) Strengthening ecological function, on how park management and development can maintain the 

sustainability of life support system and preserve the biodiversity and their ecosystems; (2) Enhancing utilization 

function on how park management and development can serve nature tourism/ecotourism activities, research and 

conservation education, as well as breeding enhancement, with regard to the sustainability of the park forest 

ecosystems; and (3) Improving local community involvement, on how park management and development can increase 

local participation and the welfare of people around the park. In addition, some management actions to the park area are 

conducted, such as: strengthening the area enforcement; natural resources management; protection and security; 

improvement of the quality and quantity of the human resources; ecotourism development; promotion and information; 

buffer zone management; development of infrastructure and facilities; environmental education program; and 

coordination strengthening. 

Slides Presentation on Gunung Halimun 


101





102





103

Slides Presentation on Gunung Halimun National Park Management 





104





105 

Slide 15 Slide 16





106



Chairperson: Dr. Mohd. Nazri Iguchi Abdullah 

Q: Dr. Masaaki Yoneda 

For Brunei’s protected area at national boundary area, do you have some agreement on trans-boundary protected area 

system 

A: Mr. Awang Samhan 

There’s one conservation area called sungai ingai area where we have a common border with Mulu national park. We do 

have some sort of understanding on that particular region. As for Ulu Tonbolong national park at the border side of 

Sarawak’s conservation area, we do not have a collective agreement with the Sarawak side at all. 

Q: Tn. Hj. Amat Ramsa 

a. Since he has managed to co-ordinate so many stakeholders which is a difficult task. What is his strategic formulation 

to ensure that all the parks consistently providing the highest quality of eco-tourism product, highest delivery of 

services & the highest experience for the visitors 

b. As the management of the rainforest, how would you give those visitor who has not been able to visit the rainforest 

the feel of it in the museum 

A: Mr. Mitsuo Usuki 

The co-ordination is the main task of environmental ministry. The environmental conservation does not have much 

resources. It would take a lot of effort & time. The result would not be visible in a short term. Nevertheless, we should 

continue to endeavour. 

A: Mr. Awang Samhan 

The Brunei Museum is located in the center of the city, which consists of eight buildings. For the rainforest, we provide 

exhibition and we have a “natural history” corner which will provide sufficient information on Brunei’s environment. 

107

Launching Ceremony PART 4 


by Tan Sri Prof. Datuk Seri Panglima Dr. Abu Hassan Othman 

Vice Chancellor, UMS 

(Vice Chairman of the BBEC Programme Steering Committee) 

Assalamualaikum and a warm welcome to all our guests especially those from oversea. It is my pleasure to be with you 

and indeed we are most grateful that the Chief Minister, Yang Amat Berhormat Datuk Chong Kah Kiat can be with us 

today. He has always been supporting us and more so for conservation activities. 

When the Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation requested for a JICA technical assistance in 2001, UMS 

supported the request. This is because, after being in Sabah, on the island of Borneo, for several years we realised just 

how rich the biodiversity of this area is. Having more than 10,000 species of plants from a world total of 259,000, we 

believe strongly that these plants will have some uses for mankind. Our scientists are slowly and steadily discovering the 

uses. In addition to the rich biodiversity, the other important aspect is the vast traditional knowledge of the many ethnic 

groups in Sabah on the uses of the plants. The same species of plant or animal is used differently by different ethnic 

groups. Our scientists are also documenting the traditional knowledge quickly before it is totally gone, together with the 

elderlies of the ethnic groups. 

In 2002 when ITBC secured the technical cooperation and decided jointly with JICA to expand the scope of the programme 

to include several state agencies, UMS is agreeable. This is because we believe that conservation of biodiversity and 

ecosystems is the responsibility of all. The various sectors of the community – government, NGO’s, private sector, 

scientists as well as the common people have to participate. The more agencies are involved, the better, as long as all 

involved agreed and appreciate the ultimate goal “to conserve the precious biodiversity and ecosystems in Sabah”. 

I am amazed to note the development of this programme. Despite having more than 10 agencies involved the programme 

has gone forward as planned. I must congratulate the State Secretary for his ability to coordinate all working groups and 

their activities. To all Head of working groups and leading agencies, well done. But of course the support given by the 

State government has been one of the most important factors in seeing that the programme was implemented with 

success. To UMS the spirit of working together between us and the many state agencies and NGO has provided us with 

tremendous experience and satisfaction. 

We believe working together is one major factor that will lead to successful and sustainable implementation of 

conservation for Sabah. 

UMS has been provided by the Malaysian government with funds to equip our laboratories and to train our researchers. 

Through BBEC programme JICA had adequately provided more equipment to complement what we have. Indeed, this 

has encouraged our scientists to work faster and harder. Without those support, ITBC in particular may have to wait 

longer to move forward. The presence of Japanese experts at UMS has also affect the status of our scientist. In our effort 

to globalize our activities, their presence has provided guidance and training needed. For that on behalf of UMS and the 

federal government we thank JICA and the Japanese government. Arigatogozaimas. 

In building up centers of excellence, such as the Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation, many different 

components have to work side-by-side and at times synergize. We see that the research carried out by ITBC, being the 

leading agency for Research and Education Component, has also to take into account the need of the programme. In 

this case I hope ITBC will consider this aspect. Secondly, the facilities can be shared. I believe that ITBC can work it out 

with all the other stakeholders of the facilities that can be commonly used. It would be the University’s honour to be of 

service to the State government. In fact that is our basis being in Sabah. 

I do not wish to elaborate further of the importance of working together, between a federal institution such as UMS, with 

state agencies and NGO. I am confident BBEC programme will be a successful model of this working together in the 

region. I am happy that this working together have a common goal to safeguard our precious biodiversity and 

ecosystem. Socio-economic development cannot be sustained without natural resources. Thus, the goal of BBEC 

108


programme is the essence to ensuring a sustainable socio-economic development for Malaysia in general and Sabah in 

particular. 

With those remarks, once again I wish a warm “Selamat Datang” to all our participants and congratulation to the 

Secretariat for successfully doing this International Conference. On behalf of UMS I thank the Chief Minister for all his 

support and his presence here today. 

Thank you. 

109

Mr. Takahisa Kusano, Chief Advisor for BBEC Programme 


by Mr. Takahisa Kusano 

Chief Advisor for BBEC Programme, JICA 

Good morning. It is my great pleasure to welcome you today to this conference. 

I recall that our BBEC Programme was officially launched by His Excellency Datuk Chong Kah Kiat, the Chief Minister of 

Sabah about 11 months ago on March 25th, 2002. Since then, within this short time, we have accomplished a lot as the 

four component heads presented yesterday. 

However, to be able to conserve the endangered and precious biodiversity and ecosystems of Sabah, we need to 

continue to exert more efforts through joint works of participating organizations. 

Many scientists in the world fear that the existing mega-biodiversity in Borneo is disappearing even before we know what 

and how many living creatures dwell there. 

We are concerned about the future of local communities, which depend on biological resources for their basic needs. 

Clean water and clean air, plants and animals that can be bred and cultivated for food consumption, medicine and 

handicrafts, functions to hold rain and stop flooding, functions to ease climate changes and natural disasters, moreover, 

the refreshing and peaceful feeling, places for recreation and tourism. These are what we loose with the loss of biodiversity 

and damage of ecosystems. 

Some economists claim that everything has a monetary value. If so, how much Ringgit should we pay for the services 

offered by nature How much do we gain by clearing the forests and scraping the soil And how much will our future 

generation ought to pay for this trade It is clear that those who profit so much RM now and who ought to pay in the future 

are not the same. 

It is obvious our efforts have not been enough and the message has not reached the majority of society. The concept of 

conservation is not well appreciated compared to "development to thrive" or "'poverty alleviation" even though they are 

all interlinked. 

Many people say Sabah still has a lot of jungle. But its forest area is now less than 50%. It is not plenty compared to 68% 

of Japan. We see land that has been cleared and later forgotten and uncultivated. Despite wasting the value of its 

original biodiversity and ecosystems, we continue to face desires of people who want to clear more forests and wetlands 

which has a richer biodiversity and which contain the resources our children will need. 

We cannot keep the word "'biodiversity" as a scientists' jargon, or a password to a club of sophisticated thinking. 

Research, administration and media have to work together to find a way to make conservation everybody's concern. 

It is a difficult task to maximize the efficiency or productivity of land use while minimizing exploitation, especially if you are 

working alone. Unity is power. Our strategy of integrating the efforts of various state agencies, the university and NGOs 

is correct. We could achieve much more in a shorter time more if we work together. Continually working towards the 

same goal will bring us closer to "establishing a comprehensive and sustainable approach for conservation," that is the 

main purpose of the BBEC Programme. 

I always feel honored and lucky to be able to serve this meaningful endeavour of BBEC. I would like to express my 

sincere appreciation to all the involved personnel in BBEC for their dedicated hard work. My congratulations also go to 

the organizing committee and secretariats who prepared this conference so successfully. 

Last but not least, I would like to thank His Excellency Datuk Chong Kah Kiat for his continued and valuable support to 

the BBEC Programme. 

Thank you very much. 

110



by Datuk K.Y. Mustafa, The State Secretary of Sabah 

(Chairman of the BBEC Programme Steering Committee) 

Yang Amat Berhormat Datuk Chong Kah Kiat, the Chief Minister of Sabah, Yang Berbahagia Tan Sri Prof. Datuk Seri 

Panglima Dr. Abu Hassan Othman, Vice Chancellor of Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS), Mr. Takahisha Kusano, JICA 

Chief Advisor for Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation (BBEC) Programme, all invited speakers, all 

participants, distinguished guests, Datuk-Datuk, ladies and gentlemen. A very Good Morning. 

Firstly, let me welcome everyone to this first International BBEC Conference especially to Yang Amat Berhormat Datuk 

Chong Kah Kiat, the Chief Minister of Sabah who has kindly agreed to officiate this conference this morning. His 

presence here with us signifies his strong support and commitment towards conservation of our biodiversity. I also like 

to welcome our foreign speakers and participants to Sabah, the Land Below the Wind. 

This 3-day BBEC International Conference is the main highlight of BBEC programme in its first year calendar. I am 

delighted by the overwhelming response especially participation by foreign speakers and participants in this 

conference. I was made to understand that this conference has attracted a total of 106 local participants, 12 speakers 

of whom 11 are foreign speakers. The conference has also attracted a total of 33 foreign participants from Japan, 

Indonesia, Brunei Darussalam and few European countries. 

The Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystem Conservation (BBEC) programme is a technical cooperation among various 

State Agencies, Universiti Malaysia Sabah and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). This 5-year programme 

was launched on 25 March 2002 by Yang Amat Berhormat Datuk Chong Kah Kiat, the Chief Minister of Sabah, with the 

noble goal of conserving the endangered and precious biodiversity and ecosystems in Sabah. To implement this 

five-year programme, a steering committee was established to steer its implementation. In addition, four components 

or working groups were formed to coordinate BBEC's many programmes and activities. These are the Research and 

Education Component, the Park Management Component, the Habitat Expansion Management and the Public 

Awareness Component. 

As chairman of BBEC programme steering committee I would like to thank JICA and all agencies involved for their 

efforts and hard work in implementing all activities under the programme. I am happy to note that after one year of its 

implementation, BBEC has achieved a very significant progress and I consider the first calendar year as a great 

success. Please allow me to highlight several of BBEC achievements thus far: 

Research & Education Component 

This component has successfully carried out two scientific expeditions to study biodiversity, ecosystems and 

socio-economy related to conservation. The first expedition was carried out at Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary while 

the second expedition was carried at Crocker Range Park. A research protocol was later established. Results from 

both expeditions are useful in conserving biodiversity & ecosystem in situ or ex situ. Besides, these expeditions could 

be used as guide to identification of long-term research. The findings will also be very useful information in Public 

Awareness campaigns. 

Park Management Component 

The Park Management Component, which is being led by the Sabah Parks, is in the process of formulating the 

Crocker Range Park (CRP) Management plan. Regarding infrastructure, the lnobong Visitor's Centre has been 

completed recently. Another facility, the Mahua Visitor's Centre is now under construction. The Crocker Range Park 

Head Quarters, Keningau Nature Centre will also be constructed in the near future. 

Habitat Management Component 

This component, which is led by the Sabah Wildlife Department, has identified an area to be recommended as a new 

conservation area. We hope that the State Government will favourably consider this recommendation. The component 

has also identified key species to be conserved. 

111

Datuk K.Y. Mustafa, BBEC Patron 

Public Awareness Component 

The Public Awareness Component is coordinated by Science and Technology Unit (UST), Sabah. Several activities 

were carried out by this component. These include a study on Environmental Education in Sabah. In addition, a 

pre-test study on the level of public understanding on biodiversity was done. The BBEC website was established for 

easier access by members of the public. 

An exhibition was put up during a scientific expedition to the Crocker Range Park. The first BBEC Newsletter was also 

published to assist awareness campaigns. In addition, BBEC was also introduced to the local and Japanese media. 

These include "BBEC On Air" through RTM, both in BM and English Channels. To make BBEC better known to the 

public, the new BBEC logo was officially launched in January 2003. This new logo was chosed through a competition 

which attracted 101 designs from 64 participants. 

A unique characteristic of this programme is the integration and collaboration of efforts by ten State agencies and the 

Institute of Tropical Biology and Conservation (ITBC) of UMS in collaboration with Japan International Cooperation 

Agency (JICA). A total of about 40 officials and researchers from Sabah State agencies and UMS have been involved 

since the planning up to the implementation stage of the BBEC programme. At the same time, JICA dispatched and 

assigned a total of 13 Japanese experts in various related fields to BBEC programme. 

Equipment wise, JICA has supplied equipments such as an electron microscope, geographic information system 

(GIS) hardware and software, a specimen storing system, field survey equipments, computers and 4 wheel drive 

vehicles, valued at about RM3.4 million. 

On training, JICA has sponsored 9 senior officials and researchers from both state agencies and the UMS to Japan for 

highly rated training courses on the conservation and management of terrestrial natural environment. Another 5 

officials are expected to attend the same training in Japan from late March this year. Various training programmes 

were also held in Sabah by respective components such as GIS training course, DNA analysis, etc. 

The achievements that I have just mentioned were achieved through good cooperation and close collaboration among 

components or working groups members and JICA. I would like to thank and congratulate all those who have been 

involved in this programme. I would also wish to put on record my appreciation to all heads of components for their 

leadership role in ensuring all activities were carried out as planned. 

I also like to congratulate the organising committee of this conference for being able to successfully organise this well 

managed seminar and exhibition. 

Finally, once again I like to thank Yang Amat Berhormat Datuk Chong Kah Kiat, the Chief Minister of Sabah for his 

strong commitment and continuous support towards biodiversity conservation, especially the BBEC programme. 

Thank you. 

112


4.4 Opening Speech and Official Launching 

of BBEC International Conference 2003 

by Y.A.B. Datuk Chong Kah Kiat, Sabah Chief Minister 

It is indeed a great pleasure to be here with you at this morning at this launch of the first Borneon Biodiversity and 

Ecosytem International Conference 2003. I understand that this conference will be an annual programme for BBEC until 

2007 as a part of the project's planning strategy to globalize the function and existence in Malaysia generally and in 

Sabah specifically. I am pleased to note that we have participants from our sister states from Peninsula Malaysia, 

Brunei, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore and Japan attending this seminar to network and to share their experience 

with us. On behalf of the state government, I wish to take this opportunity to extend a warm welcome to all of you 

especially to our distinguished guests from outside Sabah. 

The State and Federal Governments continue to accord high priority on the conservation of the physical and natural 

environment, and more specifically our forests. As you are aware, Sabah is blessed with a remarkable biodiversity within 

its rainforests which rank amongst the great biodiversity centres of the world. These natural assets are our heritage 

which I consider as our "green gold mine". The various ecosystems, both terrestrial and marine based, in Sabah and in 

the other parts of Borneo serve as storehouses of fundamental resources which not only support life but also provide for 

various economic activities for our local communities, as well as for society at large in Sabah and more generally for 

mankind as a whole. Our tropical rainforests, apart from being a traditional provider of timber, contain many non-timber 

resources which potential has yet to be tapped. These and a number of other Sabah's nature-based assets which 

include her rich biodiversity have also provided the base and principal resources on which we have developed our 

tourism industry. In fact, many of these natural assets are recognized as world class tourism products which attract both 

scientists and tourists from at home and abroad to Sabah with the view to carry out studies to seek and enhance 

scientific knowledge and information, or to uncover some new aspect of Sabah's natural heritage or simply to enjoy their 

remarkable beauty and diversity. 

I note with interest the theme for this conference: "Effective Approaches to Nature Conservation". I expect there will be 

discussion on the management of access of our biodiversity resources and the challenges they present. In this respect 

I would like to reiterate some of the issues I have mentioned in March last year during the launch of the Borneon 

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Conservation Programme. The state government will always welcome scientific research in 

order to learn more and better understand our forest ecosystems and our biodiversity, but they must be done with 

integrity and respect to local protocol and requirements. In this connection I would like to emphasize that any research 

and use of such environmental resources for whatever objectives carry certain fundamental responsibilities. The underlying 

rationale is to protect these resources so that benefits derived are long-term and accrue to the host community, the state 

and the country as a whole. Such responsibilities concern us all, irrespective whether we are in government, operating 

as an NGO, are a member of the public, whether we are Malaysian citizens in Sabah, or are foreign nationals. Carrying 

out research means gathering of information, creation of a data bank, sharing and providing access. This is in line with 

resource management responsibility and ethic and calls for adherence to existing laws and protocol governing research 

and use of our environmental resources. We need to ensure these laws are appropriately complied with and enforced. 

The results of research and study should be properly recorded and documented and the intellectual property and other 

rights and their consequent benefits must be properly acknowledged and accorded. 

In Sabah, a number of legislations have been formulated and enhanced to provide greater protection and provision for 

the management of our biodiversity and the natural environment. Among these are the Conservation of Environment 

1996, the Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997 and the Sabah Biodiversity Enactment 2000. The Sabah Biodiversity 

Council will manage the access to the State's biodiversity and integrate scientific research and as well as their conservation. 

I believe the Borneon Biodiversity and Ecosystem Conservation Programme or BBEC will help pave the way for a more 

effective management and use of Sabah biodiversity and her varied ecosystems. 

In this connection, I am glad to note that BBEC programme will continue to organize this important annual conference 

during the project implementation period as I consider it an excellent forum for exchange of information and ideas in our 

efforts to enhance the conservation of tropical ecosystems of the island of Borneo. I also understand that many interesting 

113

Y.A.B. Datuk Chong Kah Kiat, Sabah Chief Minister 

working papers on various aspects of conservation and management of the terrestrial biodiversity will be presented by 

the participants from the BBEC Programme and experts from our neighbouring countries during this 3-day conference. 

I wish you all a fruitful discussion and deliberation in the next two days. I look forward to receiving a copy of the conference 

proceedings which I understand will provide a most useful resource reference to the BBEC programme for the sustainable 

management and development of our terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems. 

To all our distinguished guests from overseas I wish you a pleasant and enjoyable stay in Sabah. I also hope that you will 

take time off after the conference to visit some of our unique and interesting places. 

It is with great pleasure that I now declare the Borneon Biodiversity and Ecosystem Conservation Programme International 

Conference 2003 officially open. 

Thank you. 

114


4.5 Keynote Paper: 

Variuos Stakeholders Coordination in National Parks of Japan 

by Mr. Mitsuo Usuki, United Nations University 

Thank you very much for the long long introduction. The keynote lecture is about various Stakeholders Co-ordination in 

the National Park in Japan. Mr. Kikuchi, Professor of the Hosei University, who was actually planning to come to this 

workshop today to give this keynote lecture was unable to come due to examinations. It is a busy season for the 

Professor at this time of year. Therefore he requested me to take his place. 

The Japan Ministry has 5 to 6 pinch hitters, and I, myself, have two titles. I am the with the Ministers’ Secretariat in charge 

of conservation matters, and I am also working with Prof. Zakri in the United Nations University, in the Institute of 

Advanced Studies. Therefore, both these titles are used by the Government. My main job is with the United Nations 

University. 

The United Nations University is not actually a university, as they have no students. There are various levels of 

researchers sent by neighbouring countries, mainly from Asian countries, to have joint research activities. They are 

receiving education from Japan and sometimes the United Nations system allocates fellowship to conduct the research 

work. The first mission of the United Nations University is co-ordinating or managing research activities. It is a very 

difficult and complicated task for me, under the leadership of Prof. Zakri, a Malaysian, who will be with the University for 

another some years. Anyone can apply for a fellowship to study or do research work in the Tokyo area in co-operation 

with the United Nations task, so please apply. The Malaysians may have a good chance of getting this fellowship. 

Yesterday, Mr. Lim of Nature Conservation Malaysia mentioned a little bit on the world summit of Sustainable 

Development in Johannesburg and also the Decade of Education for sustainable Development. Ten years back, there 

was the ceremony of the United Nation’s conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. Everyone 

knows of this important conference, in which they came to some important conclusions in CBD and climate change. Now 

ten years have gone by, and there have been no new conventions to the Johannesburg conference. The main output of 

the conference was Action of Implementation, about 100 pages of Implementation of Action, which include, as Mr. Lim 

mentioned, Capacity Building and Education Matters, are much more focused on the papers, compared to ten years 

back. Nowadays the main theme of the 21 st century is Capacity Building and sometimes education programme for all 

sectors of the world. The Decade of Education, as I should say, is at a very happy stage. 

As a Japanese NGO group initially proposed, the Decade idea in the final preparatory committee be held in Bali in June 

last year. That concept is a very good one, therefore the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Japanese Government, had 

taken it over as a government proposal. The Foreign Affairs Ministry has requested the joint support of teams, especially 

from the Asian countries, and also some from European countries, to propose the Decade of Education to be discussed 

at the World Summit on Sustainable Development and which concept was included in the paper of Implementation of 

Actions. After that, the United Nation General Assembly on September 20, 2002 formally accepted the proposal of the 

Decade in consensus with the Decade beginning from year 2005 to 2015. 

Another aspect in the 21 st century the keyword Ecosystem Approach should be taken into consideration for policy 

making. This concept was repeatedly proposed by the United Nations University, which Prof. Zakri is one of the consulars. 

If we implement some project on conservation, we should incorporate the economic development and also social 

stability of the community or social equity. In other words three; environmental, social and economic conservation. Three 

keylinks should be taken into consideration every time. In that sense if we combine the new ideas/concepts of the 21 st 

century, education and ecosystem approach should be combined into one, and combined into nature conservation 

fields, and focus much attention on environmental education and ecotourism. Therefore, we target ecotourism. 

Coordination and integration of the 3 keylinks, that is conservation, social and economic affairs. 

In this aspect, I did my personal survey on the students of the university. I have researched status from the visiting 

lecturers of the University of Toyo and the questions of the survey was made by myself in regard to environmental 

education. 120 students are learning at my university, in the faculty of Regional Development. In regard to ecotourism 

115

Mr. Mitsuo Usuki, United Nations University 

survey international students studying international tourism, there were 180 students at the Toyo University. My survey is 

not the normal one, I requested to write a report on what their preference on environment education is. It was hard work 

for the visiting lecturers, and for me too, because I had to read through 180 reports and 120 reports. It took me one week, 

but I realized my objective. Compared to the 5 minute interview, the reports were very informative to us. If I had the time, 

I would like to do a similar survey to the Malaysian university students, if possible. 

Today, I share with you the result of the survey. Based on these results, the first preference of ecotourism site in Japan 

was Oz Marshland. I should like to introduce this area to you. The second preference is Mt. Fuji, a kind of ecotourism site 

for its people. Lastly I should like to introduce Mt. Fuji’s problems, or headaches, or stomach ache of Fuji, as this 

mountain cannot be nominated as a world heritage at the World Heritage Convention. 

My questions to the students are as follows: 

Table 1: What was your most impressive experience on environmental education activity 

“Result of this questionnaire survey” 

Category of Activities Experienced / Taken 

Number of Respondents 

1. Collecting Trashes and Waste Recycling 57 53% 

2. Nature Contacting-style Education 20 19% 

3. Global Environmental Issues 9 8% 

--------Climate Change-------- (7) (7%) 

4. Pollution Caused Diseases 5 5% 

5. Air and / or Water Pollution 3 3% 

5. Farm-work like Rice-Planting and / or 

Rice-Harvesting Experiences 3 3% 

7. Participating in Volunteer Tours 2 2% 

7. Making the Most of Resources 2 2% 

9. Dioxins Issue 1 1% 

9. Kenaf Cultivation 1 1% 

9. Environmental Actions by Consumers 1 1% 

9. Dilemma of Environment & Facilities 1 1% 

9. Destruction of Nature 1 1% 

14. Endangered Wildlife Species 1 1% 

Total 107 100% 

Notes: Among the above responses, impressive expressions are; 

a) Environmental Education should give a sign of future projection by reflecting the past experience, 

b) Pupils could grow through cooperative activities for environmental conservation, 

c) Learning from the nature is high-level in quality than compulsory education, 

d) It's better to seldom visit nature rather than usually stay at nature. 

116


Table 2: Which group is in need of environmental education activity 

“Result of this questionnaire survey” 

Category of Targeted Group 


1. Preschool Children 5 4% 

2. Elementary and Secondary School 

Children 53 46% 

3. High School Students 3 3% 

4. University Students 7 6% 

5. Teachers and Professors 4 4% 

6. Re-education for General Public 32 28% 

7. Entrepreneur 4 4% 

8. Administrative Officials 3 3% 

9. Politicians 3 3% 

Total 114 100% 

117


Table 3: Which category of tour is most worthy of ecotourism Which category of tour will be popularised by 

Japanese in the 21 st Century 

"Result of this questionnaire survey" 

Category of Tour Number of Respondents to Table 2 Fluctuation Number of Respondents to Table 3 

(Question 2) (Question 3) 

1. Green Tourism 

in Farming, 

Mountain and 

Fishing Villages 29 16% 37 20% 

2. (World) Heritage 

Tour 12 7% 20 11% 

3. Nature-rich 

Tour With 

Naturalist 88 48% 32 18% 

4. Overseas 

Adventure Tour 1 1% 30 16% 

5. Volunteer Tour 11 6% 13 17% 

6. Discovery of 

Neighboring 

Local Nature 34 18% 24 13% 

7. Mountain Hiking 7 4% 3 2% 

8. Aesthetic 

Walking 

& Bicycle Tour 1 1% 24 13% 

Total 183 100% 183 100% 

118


Table 4: What was your most impressive experience on ecotour If none, please describe your virtual experience. 

"Result of this questionnaire survey" 

Ecotourism Place Experienced 


1. None, and Virtual Experience 34 18% 

2. Overseas Experience 31 17% 

a. Canada (7) 

b. Australia (6) 

c. USA (Hawaii 2, Saipan 1, Yellow S. 1) (4) 

d. New Zealand, Fjord (3) 

e. Malaysia (3) 

f. China, Mongolia, Singapore, Bali Island, Fiji, Mexico, UK 

and Netherlands: 1 each (8) 

3. Oze Marshland 21 11% 

4. Okinawa Islands 20 11% 

5. Camping (School) 19 10% 

6. Mountain Hiking (Mt. Fuji 6, Mt. Zaoh 2) 15 8% 

7. Discovery of Neighboring Local Nature 8 4% 

8. Cultural Heritage and Pilgrimage 

(Kyoto-Nara 3) 7 4% 

9. Community Beautification Activity 5 3% 

10. Yakushima Island 4 2% 

11. Hokkaido 3 2% 

12. Sadogasima Island 2 1% 

13. Kamikouchi High Land 2 1% 

14. Lake Kawaguchi 2 1% 

15. Ogasawara Islands 2 1% 

16. Oirase, Kinugawa, Irumagawa(fossil), 

Tateyama-Kurobe, Lake Biwa, 

Takashima, Ohnohara Town, Hiwasa 

Shore(Sea Turtle), Amami Island: 1 each 9 5% 

Total 184 100% 

Note 1: Among the above responses, impressive expressions are; 

a) A glance is much helpful to understand than hundreds of hearing. 

b) We can meet ourselves grown intellectually and mentally through ecotourism. 

c) Activities as leaders of school of kids-boss and survival courses are useful. 

Note 2: A large number of virtual experience is direct communication with Johmon Cedar, old growth Japanese 

Cedar in Yakushima Island. 

Note 3: Not a small number of respondents whose parents take interests in mountain hiking. 

119


Section 2 

Table 1: Classified Zones of Nikko National Park 

Classified Special Class I Class II Class III Ordinary 

Zones Protection Special Z. Special Z. Special Z. Zone Total 

Area 99 87 440 123 651 1,400km 2 

covered 7% 6% 31% 9% 47% 100% 

Source: Nature Conservation Bureau, the Ministry of the Environment 

Among these 6 classified zones, four of them are classified as "Special Zones" on land areas, the other 2 are Marine 

Park zone and Ordinary zone. Special Zones are classified into 4, i.e. Special Protection Zone, Class I Special Zone, 

Class II Special Zone and Class III Special Zone. Special Protection Zones are the areas in which the most stringent 

regulations are to be enforced such as erection of structures, change of topography, fell, damage or plant trees are 

prohibited unless otherwise a permission from the Minister of Health and Welfare till the establishment of the 

Environment Agency in 1971, and then from the Director General of the Environment Agency till the establishment of the 

Ministry of the Environment in 2001, and at present from the Environment Minister. Special Protection Zone of Oze area 

covers 87 km 2 which contributes 88% of total area of Special Protection Zone in Nikko National Park. 

Table 2: Labour Composition of Gateway Villages to Oze 

Primary Secondary Tertiary (service 

Industry Industry Industry Tertiary I.) Total 

Hinoemata 15 52 424 (326) 491 

Village 3% 11% 86% (66%) 100% 

Fukushima 117,560 392,816 575,236 (241,419) 1,085,612 

Prefecture 11% 36% 53% (22%) 100% 

Katashina 688 830 1,824 (1,143) 3,342 

Village 21% 25% 54% (34%) 100% 

Gunma 83,222 401,218 564,569 (232,687) 1,049,009 

Prefecture 8% 38% 54% (22%) 100% 

Note: Summed up the data based upon the National Census, 1995 

120


TABLE 4 - GATEWAY CONCENTRATION IN OZE & VISITORS NUMBER 

Table 3: Most crowded top 10 days in Oze & Visitors Number 

Year 1997 Year 2001 

Month, Date Visitors' Number Month, Date Visitors’ Number 

1. June 14, Saturday 20,049 1. June 9, Saturday 12,415 

2. July 20, Sunday 16,891 2. July 20, Friday 11,702 

3. June 7, Saturday 15,839 3. July 21, Saturday 11,098 

4. October 10, Friday 14,169 4. October 7, Sunday 10,024 

5. June 8, Sunday 12,753 5. July 14, Saturday 9,598 

6. October 11, Saturday 12,331 6. October 6,Saturday 9,113 

7. July 19, Saturday 10,671 7. June 3, Sunday 8,657 

8. June 15, Sunday 10,411 8. June 2, Saturday 8,465 

9. June 1, Sunday 10,235 9. June 10, Sunday 7,529 

10. July 21, Monday 9,568 10. July 22, Sunday 7,234 

132,917 (21.6%) 95,835 (1.4%) 

Notes: 1. Data based upon the Oze Conservation Foundation: Oze Data Book, February 2002 

2. % show the rate for the total annual visitors' number 

Table 4: Gateway Concentration in Oze and Visitors' Number 

Year Hatomachi-Pass Sanpei-Pass Numayama-Pass Others Total 

1989 207,861 63,253 169,725 27,151 467,990 

44% 14% 36% 6% 

1993 262,126 64,693 179,507 33,938 540,264 

49% 12% 33% 6% 

1996 348,686 49,799 193,106 55,932 647,523 

54% 8% 30% 8% 

1997 306,670 50,171 196,433 61,043 614,317 

50% 8% 32% 10% 

2001 223,058 34,366 118,596 72,021 448,041 

50% 8% 26% 16% 

Notes: 1. Data based upon the Oze Conservation Foundation: Oze Data Book, February 2002 

2. Others include Miike, Shibutsu, Ayame-daira, Fujimi-pass gateways and estimated visitors' number 

during the off-season taking sensors away. 

121


Table 5: Causes, Consequences and Three Categories of Measures Taken 

Causes Consequences a) Regulative b) Facility, c) Manner 

Methods, Provisional Educative 

Laws Measures Measures 

Non-sustainable 1. Trampling Restriction of Wooden board- Brochures, 

use on marsh- entrance & walks provision guidebooks include 

land trail for vegetation information 

recovery 

2. Waste water Water Freeze lodge Water-treatment Voluntary 

discharge pollution, and capacity, system, pipeline donation to 

enlarged compulsory preparation public toilets, no 

Mizubashou by reservation soap no shampoo, 

over nourishment policy and No-bath-days 

Attached earth 3. Alien species Volunteer guide 

to tourists shoes invasion to remove soil & 

& garbage cans 

seeds, 

4. Exhaust gas Air pollution Restriction of Parking provided Cooperation 

entering by at gateways required to use 

private cars 

buses 

5. Wastes and Deteriorate De-establishment Trash-carry-home 

litters cleanliness of or abolition of movement; the 

environment public trash cans "Oze Initiative" 

in entire Oze 

Days, season & 6. Over-uses Freeze lodge Guidance 

gateway capacity, meetings for 

concentration, compulsory promotion of 

popularization reservation weekdays trips 

policy 

Notes: a) Regulative methods bind tourists' behavior by law, sometimes accompanied by penal provisions. 

b) Facility provisional measures don't affect the ordinary behavior of the tourists, but limit the impact of 

such behavior to the environment by preparation of facilities and / or equipments. 

c) Educative measures aim at converting the tourists manner into more environment-benign one by 

making them more conscious of their impacts on the natural environment. 

122


Table 6: Land-ownership of Oze Marsh land area (km 2 ) 

Forestry Ministry of Ministry of TEPCO Total 

Agency Finance Environment (private) 

Gunma area 0 km 2 1 km 2 0 km 2 61 km 2 62 km 2 

(71%) 

Fukushima 20.4 km 2 0.8 km 2 0.1 km 2 0 km 2 21.3 km 2 

area (25%) 

Niigata area 3.7 km 2 0 km 2 0 km 2 0 km 2 3.7 km 2 

(4%) 

Total 24.1 km 2 1.8 km 2 0.1 km 2 61 km 2 87 km 2 

(28%) (2%) (0. I%) (70%) (100%) 

Source: Nature Conservation Bureau, Ministry of the Environment 

Table 7: Composition of the Organization of Oze Conservation Foundation 

a. Board of Directors, Oze Conservation Foundation (22 Directors) 

Chairperson (1) 

Vice-Chairpersons (3) 

Governor of Gunma Prefecture 

Governor of Fukushima Prefecture 

Governor of Niigata Prefecture 

President of TEPCO 

Managing Director (1) 

Director, Environment Dpt. Gunma Pref. 

Directors (15) Chairpersons of Environment Councils of 3 

Prefectures (3) 

Chiefs of local villages of 3 Pref. (3) 

Presidents of local bank associations (3) 

Essayist, Mountaineer, Professor, and the 

Representatives of 3 NGOs (6) 

Auditors (2) 

Chief Cashier of Fukushima Prefecture 

Chief Cashier of Niigata Prefecture 

Totally 

22 members of the Board of Directors 

123


b. Council of Oze Conservation Foundation (29 Council Members) 

Members representing Gunma (8) Superintendent of Pref. Education (1) 

Deputy mayor of local village (1) 

Committee member of Oze Conservation (1) 

Academic research team member of Oze (1) 

Secretary, natural environment surveys (1) 

President, tourism association (1) 

President, league of alpine clubs (1) 

Director of local newspaper (1) 

Members representing Fukushima (8) 

Members representing Niigata (8) 

Others (5) 

Composition is almost same as Gunma 

Composition is almost same as Gunma 

Academic research team member of Oze who 

based on Tokyo (1) 

Representative, lodge owners association (1) 

President, Oze Forest Management Co. (1) 

President, railroad company (1) 

Representative of NGO based on Tokyo (1) 

Totally 

29 members of the Council 

Source: Oze Conservation Foundation: Outline of the Foundation, 2000 

124

PART 5 

Component Workshop 


5.1 Research and Education Component Workshop 

Topic: Priority Setting for Research Education Component 

Chairperson: 

Prof. Datin Dr. Maryati Mohamed, Institute For Tropical Biology & Conservation, UMS 

Participants: 

1. Mr. Mustafa bin Saleh Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

2. Ms. Sabrina Salimi Environmental Conservation Department 

3. Ms. Nurhuda Mansor Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

4. Mr. Daniel Pamin Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

5. Prof. Tohru Nakashizuka RIHN 

6. Mr. Mahadimenakbar M. Dawood Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

7. Mr. Kelvin BH Kueh Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

8. Mrs. Jumrafiah Abd. Sukor Sabah Wildlife Department 

9. Mrs. Maznah Mahali Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

10. Ms. Kumiko Handa Hyogo Museum 

11. Dr. Menno Schilthuizen Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

12. Dr. Isabelle Luckman Ancreanaz HUTAN 

13. Mr. Berhaman Ahmad Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

14. Mr. Maklarin Lakim Sabah Parks 

15. Mr. Takashi Fueda Fujitsu 

16. Prof. Shukery Mohamed Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

17. Dr. Arthur Chuag FRC, Forestry Department 

18. Dr. Chey Vun Khen FRC, Forestry Department 

19. Mr. Anuar Mohd. FRC, Forestry Department 

20. Mr. Bakhtiar E. Yahya IBTC, Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

21. Mr. Hairul Hafiz Mahson Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

22. Ms. Wendy Wan State Economic Planning Unit 

23. Mr. Zukifli Mohamad Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

24. Mr. Takamitsu Toda Tokyo Electric Power Company 

25. Mr. Yusuo Yutoka Kyushu Electric Power Company 

26. Ms. Nell Baker Global Canopy Programme 

27. Ms. Lee Shan Khee WWF Malaysia 

28. Dr. Homathevi Rahman Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

29. Ms. Petherine Jimbau Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

30. Mrs. Meriam Mohd. Yusof Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

31. Mr. Ko Sasaki Urban Development Corp, Tokyo 

32. Dr. Kartini Saibeh Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

33. Mrs. Yvonne Basusie Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

34. Dr. Hashimoto, Yoshiaki JICA Expert - Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

35. Dr. Takuji, Tachi JICA Expert - Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

36. Mr. Noel bin Tamatao Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

Prof. Datin Maryati opened the session with a word of welcome and thanks to all participants present for attending the 

Research and Education Component session. She expressed her hope that there would be full participation from everyone 

present, in order to obtain solutions and feedback to the topics that would be raised. 

She went on to explain the method of the session, which would be a semi-PCM (Project Cycle-Management), whereby 

everybody will paste their ideas and suggestions on the board. These ideas and suggestions would then be grouped and 

categorized in their order of importance and priority. 

There were six topics to be discussed in the one and a half hour session: 

1. What are the parameters that can be chosen in prioritizing research (e.g. importance, short/mid/long term, 

management values, etc.) 

125

Component Workshop Sessions 

2. What kinds of research are important for conservation of (a) Biodiversity and (b) Ecosystem in Borneo (Sabah) 

3. What are the prior information/permission needed 

4. Who can do the research (institutions, staff, students) 

5. Statistics needed 

6. Funding Sources & Limitations 

1. What are the parameters that can be chosen in priortising research 

a. Availabilty 

Specialists / Experts 

Relevance of Project (field) 

Funding 

Subject of Research / Topic 

Management & Financial Team 

Management of Finance 

Technical Support 

Time / Money / People 

Availability of Funds & Expertise 

Importance / Sustainable Usage 

Inventory / based studies should be done first (ie higher priority) 

b. Long-term 

Importance 

Sustainable / Practical 

Long-term fluctuations 

c. Integration 

(ie Team, Project, etc) 

Integrity of Research Site 

Networking 

Management / Collaboration 

d. Research Needed by International Requirements 

Research in line with international requirements and should comply with national (Malaysia & Sabah) rules,etc. 

e. Commercial Value 

Importance – economical 

New Innovations (in popularization of biodiversity) 

Product-oriented may not yield money 

f. Less Studied Areas 

Canopy Biology 

g. Management Values 

Threatened SPP 

Important for conservation of protected species in Sabah 

Importance & Relevance 

Contributing to conservation values & socio-economic development 

Risks to society from environmental degradation 

Socio-economic development 

Education Component Outcome 

Importance of Educating 

2. What kind of research are needed for conservation of (a) Biodiversity, (b) Ecosystem in Borneo, Sabah 

a. Biodiversity 

i. Ethnic / Traditional Uses of Biodiversity 

Natural Resources 

Local understanding of what is Biodiversity and why it is important 

Economic Values 

Manipulation of the usage of the biodiversity 

Bioprospecting 

ii. Systematic & Taxonomy as Basic Studies 

Inventories 

Surveys 

126


Ecology 

Biodiversity–organism-based tourism, e.g. entotourism/anurans tourism 

iii. Impact Assessment 

Key Species 

Endemic Species 

Endangered Species 

Ecological Study on Large & Threatened animals 

iv. Relationship of Biodiversity & Ecosystem Function 

Research on groups that are easily sampled & monitored, ie invertebrates 

Environmental studies 

Ecological Research – value & benefits to local community 

b. Ecosystem of Borneo, Sabah 

i. Effects of Habitat Alteration / Disturbance 

Assessment of Threats 

Quality Evaluation – water, air, etc. 

Linkages / Connectivity of Ecosystem 

Biodiversity & Human Factors 

b. Roles of Canopies in Ecosystem Function 

Ecosystem – Kenangas, wetland & Island Forests 

Environmental Education / Non-formal Education 

Value of Ecosystem / Biodiversity 

Ecosystem – Researches on Conservation Prioritization, Nature Tourism 

c. Collaboration 

Local Collaborators 

Local Counterparts 

Local Protocol 

Review of existing literature & collection (some date may already be available) 

Systematic Knowledge 

International Information (e.g. Plants – Kew Gardens) 

Existing Management Plan 

Land Use Pattern 

Information – Topography 

Literature – previous, related, relevant 

Condition of the area, e.g. disturbed, logged 

Information on Land Use, e.g. agriculture, forest reserve, industrial 

d. Commercial Agreement 

3. What information / Research is needed 

a. Permission from Sabah State Government 

b. Priorities of International Agreement, e.g. CBD 

Research Permits & Acknowledgement of International Rules & Laws 

c. Research Proposal 

Thru EPU 

Research Permit 

Malaysian Government 

Respect of Local Community 

Permission from Maliau Basin Management Committee 

Permission from Agency of study site 

d. State Education 

EPRD – Educational Planning & Research Division – KPM 

MOU 

Research Agreement 

Rules & Regulations 

Facilities Availability 

127


4. Who can do the Research (Institutions, Staff, Students) 

a. Collaborators 

Hyogo Museum 

Kyushu University 

Collaboration between UMS & Local Government Departments 

First class international collaborators 

b. Local Communities 

Trained local / public 

c. Volunteers (Local & International) 

NGOs – WWF, HUTAN, etc. 

Volunteers from NGOs can assist in earthwatch 

d. Approvals 

Anyone with approval 

e. Anyone Interested with Funds 

f. Who Can be Involved 

Faculty members, teachers 

School children (guided) 

Students 

Academic / Research Institutions / Staff 

International Research Bodies 

Registered & Recognised Education/Research Institutions 

Researchers 

Post Doc Researchers 

Bona Fide Researchers 

Question 5 regarding What Statistics are needed: 

a. Research Design 

b. How to obtain statistics 

c. Production of Local Goods 

Question 6 regarding Funding Sources & Other Limitations: 

On Funding Sources: 

a. Local Sources 

b. International Sources 

c. Private Sources 

d. NGOs 

On Limitations: 

a. Funding 

b. Research Proposal 

c. Field Centre 

d. Limitations by rules and regulations 

128


5.2 Park Management Component Workshop 

Topic: The possibility of Creating Buffer Zones for the Crocker Range Park 

Chairman 

Dr. Jamili Nais 

Deputy Director / Sabah Parks 

Participants 

1. Dr. Dwi Setyono Forestry Department Indonesia 

2. Dr. Geoffry Davison WWF Malaysia (Sabah) 

3. Mr. Azmi Salimi Ranau District Office 

4. Mr. Justinus Guntabid Sabah Parks 

5. Mr. Kenneth Sion Sabah Parks 

6. Dr. Maasaki Yoneda Sabah Parks 

7. Mr. Pilis Malim Sabah Forestry Department 

8. Mdm. Rimi Repin Sabah Parks 

9. Mr. Shigeo Sakai Sabah Parks 

10. Mr. Mitsuo Usuki Kushiro International Wetland Centre 

11. Mr. Eric Wong Sabah Park 

12. Mr. Ludi Apin Sabah parks 

13. Ms. Agnes Agama WWF Malaysia (Sabah) 

14. Mr. Amano Tomoyuki Chubu Electric Power Co 

15. Prof. Agung Sardjono Universiti Mularwarman 

16. Encik Iman Ali Kinbatangan Distric Office 

17. Che Fatimah Simin Sabah Park 

18. Mr. Boni Antiu Asian Tourism Institute 

19. Mr. Boyd Sun Fatt Asian Tourism Institute 

20. Tomoshi Ichikawa JICA / Junior Course Advisor 

Dr. Jamili introduced himself to all participants and invited everyone to introduce themselves. He informed the subject of 

discussion of the workshop is “The Possibilty of Creating a Buffer Zone for the Crocker Range Park”, and several 

questions will be explored. He hoped everyone will contribute their thoughts and ideas in this workshop. At the end of this 

meeting everything will be summarized and the input from this will be used for a bigger workshop on the 25 th and 26 th 

March 2003 called Zonation of CRP, that is dividing the CR into several smaller zone probably including Buffer Zone 

depending on the feelings of the workshop. 

The following questions are as follows: 

a. What is the criteria for a Buffer Zone 

b. To learn the model round this region where there are working models of Buffer Zone. 

Dr. Jamili: For these two questions, I like to invite Dr. Yoneda to address what is Buffer Zone and to show several models 

of Buffer Zone in some of the protected areas and after that we will throw questions around i.e do we really need the 

Buffer Zone for CRP and what are the sort of Buffer Zone we can create for CRP and the existing legislation for establishing 

Buffer Zone 

Dr. Yoneda: Thank you. First of all I like to show the situation of the CRP potential Buffer Zone areas and the issues and 

challenges to establish Buffer Zones around the CRP. And I was invited to address these two questions let us take a look 

at the map here. (Please see Power Point presentation and notes attached). 

Dr Jamili Nais: Thank you Dr Yoneda, Can we go back to the map shown earlier by Dr Yoneda. I believe everyone has 

a copy of the GIS map of the Crocker Range Park. Let me start the discussion of today by saying a few things. Crocker 

Range as it is now has several boundary disputes with the local community and even without the Buffer Zone we already 

have enough problems just maintaining and supervising our own boundary. Even safeguarding the present boundary is 

129


already a problem but if we maintain only the present one which was summary by Dr. Yoneda earlier to avoid direct 

contact and direct conclusion. There are some area here which probably needed some Buffer Zone and this will be the 

issue we will be discussing in this meeting. We have many experts here in this conference and also people from the 

district like Tenom here today and we need their advice and also to voice out their opinions. Lets us take a look at the 

map like the disputed area such as the shifting cultivation. 

There are three options here eg. what are we going to do with the disputed overlapping claim 

a. Do we keep quite about the whole thing Just retain them as park area 

b. Or do we just excise them from the park / cut out from the area and solve the problem 

c. Or to designate those area as Buffer Zone. 

These are some of the questions I like to hear from the floor. Is there anybody from the floor would like to say something 

about this issue We would like to invite Mr. Usuki to share his view with us in this workshop. 

Mr Usuki: Thank you very much. First of all on regards to the Buffer Zone, this can be a very complicated issue. Japan 

has five classified zones from special protection to ordinary zone. In an ordinary zone in Japan National Park system, 

the legislative system measures is not effective. Anybody can do anything, just designation was made and big 

project will be reported to the Government. Whereby in the ordinary zone in National Park in Japan name is given 

to the community for attracting the people for tourism potential and that is the system in Japan and no regulative 

measures. Many of the ordinary zone of National Park in Japan is consider as different but sometimes reforming 

and re-changing the boundary of the park, many of the ordinary zone are from the park areas to the free zone. In cases 

like Africa, Tanzania and Kenya 3.5 year rated by the U.K National Park Establishment and the Buffer Zone has a 

much regulative measures. In case of Sabah, the suggestion made by Dr. Yoneda earlier, a committee must be created 

to consists of various communities groups, such as the Government bodies, researchers and NGO’s groups. I think it will 

be a very good idea to find out the best way of Buffer Zone of Sabah. It is the originality of Sabah. 

If it is suitable for Sabah, there must be a new elaboration sometime including regulative measures, educative measure 

also. In case of the involvement of National Park Buffer Zone area some professional safety measure 

must be provided by the international community and also from the National Park authorities. In Japan the 

Buffer Zone is not transferable to the neighbouring countries. Thank you. 

Dr. Dwi Setyono: I would like to make some comments and suggestion here. To make a Buffer Zone, we must cooperate 

with the local people because we do not know the attitude of the local people which I think is very important and this 

is happenings in Indonesia. We need to make a proposal together with them in order to meet the smooth running of the 

implementation of the Buffer Zone. 

For Buffer Zone it is not the construction of the road side. The most important thing is that it is almost the same as the 

ecosystem of the protected area. Because if the clear Buffer Zone have an impact from the protected area e.g if this is 

a protected area, the Buffer Zone is a very different ecosystem it will make impact for the protected area for the ecosystem. 

Take for example a road side of the Buffer Zone, there are a lot of human activities going on and they could be the 

cause of fire incident and also the cause of damages to the park area. In my opinion it would be better if we can make a 

natural Buffer Zone. Thank you. 

Dr. Jamili: Thank you. Dr Dwi, we think that Buffer Zone can also be a form of one category of zone within the 

Management area. If the Crocker Range is going to be divided into several management zone, some are restricted 

some are for eco-tourism development and this is the topic which we will be talking about today. The road side is not 

related because it is the same ecosystem probably restricted activities inside the Buffer Zone. Take a look at the Keningau 

and Kimanis road, this part of the road is going to be seal. The tender has been awarded and this area is going to be very 

valuable and yet this place is already overlapping, people from Keningau, Papar and elsewhere is applying for land and 

that is not designated for whatever category and sad to say in no time there will be uncontrolled development and other 

activities and etc. We are here today to discuss this and I thank everyone here for the input. 

Mr Azmi Salimi: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have gone through the Kimanis and Keningau road many times and I must 

say there is not much development. The Sabah Park can do a proper application to the proper authority to make the area 

part of Sabah Park and to go through all the relevant department, like the land and survey , the Hasil Bumi and others. 

I am also in agreeable to the proposal of this Buffer Zone and I think the local people must be inform and be involved in 

this discussion through their respective head like their JKK or Head Village so that they are aware of 

what’s going on and the benefits for them in the long run. What we are trying to say here is that the mountain and the hills 

are like their water tanks, and the rivers along the villages are their livelihood so I think they must be involved in the 

discussion. I also strongly suggested that the relevant government department must also be involved when 

130


discussing promoting this Buffer Zone and the same goes to the State Level. 

Dr. Jamili: Mr Eric Wong, would you like to say something on this 

Mr Eric Wong: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I would like to ask a few question here, In the briefing just now we understand 

that there is a proposed Buffer Zone around the CRP since 1992. I would like to know what happen to this proposed 

buffer zone before we discussed another new proposed Buffer Zone Maybe from that experience we can learn something 

from that Buffer Zone 10 years ago and what has been done so that the next proposal will be materialized. That’s 

the question I like to raise here. 

Dr. Jamili: Maybe Dr Davison can brief us on this issue. 

Dr. Davison: I am not very sure whether it was in the year 1992. I am not familiar with that document but the one that I 

know is the report produced by the Sabah Biodiversity Council which was the project running from 1996 –1998, the map 

showing this two Buffer Zone was being shown to the Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Development in 

December that year. So I don’t think it is exactly ten years but maybe five years. That report went to the Ministry together 

familiar with the procedure that Encik Azmi mentioned but that was not our responsibility to carry on as an NGO and we 

have no authority to apply for area like that through the land office on behalf of the government and that was 

why the report was given to the Ministry. 

Dr. Jamili: Let me clarify a little bit on this. It was the Ministry project and WWF was contracted to do the job. Like I say 

earlier, it was the responsibility of Sabah Park but during the early years we were new to this area and things were 

not being followed up in those days. But we are here now today and that is why we are trying to follow up and 

maybe based on this recommendation and the present situation, we might be able to do it. It would be a useful reference 

for us to learn from the past years. 

Encik Azmi: Meaning to say there is no follow up 

Dr. Jamili: Yes, there is no follow up, not yet follow up because Buffer Zone is a new concept in Sabah. In Sabah Park, 

our jurisdiction is only within the Boundary of the gazette park once outside, we have no jurisdiction and our law is very 

clear on that and we are based on the other protected area in the world. There is such category as Buffer Zone and 

we are now contemplating putting up Buffer Zone as recommended, so we can’t exactly say that there is no follow 

up because Buffer Zone do not exist in our law and we are now contemplating in setting up one. 

Mr. Boni Antiu: The Buffer Zone that we are now discussing, are we going to implement the area outside or inside 

the park 

Dr. Jamili: That is exactly what we are going to discuss. Like I explain, it can be outside the park maybe the natural 

resources office un-informally require that no logging within 1 km from the park boundary but that is informal and 

that could be one of the possibility. The other possibility is those inside the park and we like to hear from your opinion. 

Mr. Sakai: Yes, I was thinking about the Buffer Zone and for the Sabah Park, the purpose is to protect the park. People 

should realize why we need the Buffer Zone. Maybe we should combine the Sabah Park with the Water maybe 

that would be a powerful tools that is why two months ago we had the workshop called the Water Shed Protection 

Management Workshop. The Department Irrigation Drainage are also planning some protective area around the watershed 

that is exactly around the CRP. We had some plan and project too. I wonder whether we can work together with the 

other agencies to make some other type of protective areas that is for the Sabah Park and a Buffer Zone. I think that will 

be a really realistic way for us to go. 

Ms. Agnes Agama: I can see two very important issue here in establishing a Buffer Zone. One is the land used pattern 

and the other is the legal status of the land. It is hard to say which one comes first and which one should be analyzed first 

because as I understand different type of land status around the CRP which will be a target area where we will look into 

establish Buffer Zone and some kind of land status means negotiation with different groups of peoples. The other related 

issue is the land used pattern. When this report was finished in 1997, WWF has actually earmarked Gunung Membakut 

area as the critical area for conservation because of the low land and then it was burned and is not there anymore and 

now we have oil palm instead in that area. This means land used pattern are changing overtime. In establishing a Buffer 

Zone we would have to take into consideration on how to address the legal status of land or converting legal status of 

131


land that would enable management and enactment by Sabah Park or any relevant 

agencies. To take into account the existing potentially future land used pattern in that area, what is being proposed so 

far 

Dr. Jamili: Sabah Park are totally open, we are trying to feel our way and we are happy without having a Buffer Zone but 

just the Park Boundary. We are trying to feel our way on where to go and which direction to go and that’s why we 

are seeking your opinion. 

Mr. Ludi Apin: We are actually going to have a meeting on this issue soon. One of the things we are going to discuss in 

our meeting is actually about the roadside and we have to proposed it to the Development Committee for their 

conscientious. I believe that this is the most urgent part of the CR that need to be tackle. We need to take measure steps 

to an agreement on what kind of Buffer Zone we need to implement. We have to include the local people 

in this issue. So, what I think here is that even though we need the Buffer Zone as soon as possible, the time 

frame of construction of the enactment plan is very short and in order to materialized this plan we need a longer 

period e.g. 3–5 years. As for the management plan we can still propose something that can benefits the future. 

Azmi Salimi: I also like to suggest to the committee which involved Keningau and Papar. Whenever there is an issue 

they will have a Land Utilization Committee meeting. If some land applications are too near to the park we have the right 

to bring this up to the LUC meeting, whereby you can expressed your opinions, suggestions, and objection. I hope you 

can include the opinions of the two areas but also the LUC. Please check with these two district officers 

when their LUC meetings are and get a list of the land application. 

Dr. Jamili: Anybody from the Forestry Department, what about Mr Pilis Malim 

Mr. Pilis Malim: Mr Chairman, I would still like to go back to the question on the need for a Buffer Zone. I think we still 

have to know what is the problem. What I can see here is the problem from the illegal encroachment to the park area and 

what are the root causes to the encroachment to the park area. By establishing a Buffer Zone is that the answer to this 

problem Probably the encroachment is due to the boundary of the park not properly established and maintain. 

The other thing is that patrolling the boundary to check any encroachment from time to time and so on. 

Dr. Jamili: Any body wants to response to this question 

Mr. Eric Wong: Mr Chairman, I think I can say something to this response. I think the idea of establishing the Buffer 

Zone and the park is only to put additional effort in protecting the park. Even now the CRP boundary has also been 

marked and patrolling are also very frequent. As a head of the enforcement section for the last two years there is no 

major encroachment into the park. The park area is very big and it double the size of Singapore and the root cause or 

problem we faced are from cultivation and hunting from the local community and extraction of jungle products. 

It is very difficult to check because all this activities is very mobile. That is why the idea of a Buffer Zone is mainly 

to put an additional protection to the park. 

Prof. Agung: I like to give my opinion here. If you decide to establish the Buffer Zone, you cannot only think of protecting 

the area but also to manage the outside threat. It means you have to have a good management of the Buffer Zone not 

only by the present threat but also for the future. Buffer Zone should be an integrated park. You cannot establish a 

Buffer Zone just because of threat because the threat is dynamite. Do you think it will solve the problem by 

establishing a Buffer Zone just to protect the park You have to think of how to manage the threat and then 

how to protect the area inside and outside, that’s the point I like to raise here. 

Dr. Jamili: That’s a very valid point that leads us to the last section of our discussion. If we are to established a Buffer 

Zone what sort of legislation to apply, the land enactment or the land ordinance or others We must summarize on 

the issue of what we have discussed today. 

Mr. Ludi Apin: At the district level if we create a Buffer Zone do you think there will be some sort of control and 

monitoring or management of guide using the local authority power 

Mr. Iman Ali: Mr. Chairman, in fact the Buffer Zone in Kinabatangan are one under the Agriculture Department and one is 

our own. In fact our committee is looking after this Buffer Zone. We create our own buffer zone near to the forest 

reserve and also near to the Wildlife Sanctuary. Just for e.g last month we call on one Company and this company has 

132


been approved to 28,000 acres of land to developed the area and then the committee suggest that they can only 

allow to plant up to 1000acres only and the rest is just limit under buffer zone like Mr Ludi says. This zone is loose. 

There is no Department or Committee like the Ministry to look after the zone. We create our own because it is easier for us 

to monitor. The enforcement we will suggest to the committee like the DID or the Forest Department. For example in 

Kinabatangan there has been a suggestion for the Bird Sanctuary back in 1990 but the Chief Minister and Ministry brought 

this to the legislative meeting last year in October 2002. The area has been approved under Wildlife Sanctuary of 26,000 

acres. With that announcement we refer back to the committee and ask the land office from the headquarters and also 

from the districts to give us the pictures to all the committee where the Wildlife Sanctuary is and from that we create a 5 acre 

Wildlife Sanctuary in and around the Forest Reserve. However, the committee still lose regarding Buffer Zone. We can 

refer to the Kinabatangan districts office about this committee and then from that our committee will take the steps that 

every land approval must refer to this committee whatever they want to do or develop their land that has been approved to 

them. I think this is one way of educating them on how to manage the Buffer Zone. 

Dr. Jamili: May I enquire what is the legal status of the committee 

Mr. Iman Ali: As I say just now it is still loose, but we call up the relevant department to attend the meeting as well as all 

those estate that wanted to open up line in Kinabantangan. All this while in Kinabatangan, the Forest Reserve and 

the Wildlife Sanctuary has been reported to have open up all the reserve already, so from this year we take a step 

on that one and the latest status is still loose, whatever report we get from the estate we must refer back to the relevant 

department and also to call them up for meeting. We have actually call up 25 relevant departments for this meeting and 

so far there are three departments turning up for the meeting. 

Dr. Jamili: Thank you for the contribution. It may be a good way to start but eventually when it grows up it need to be 

institutionalize and not ad-hoc. You need the secretariat and funding and maybe channelled someway and also some 

legal instrument to enforce that in contrast to ad-hoc committee maybe in future. I throw it to the floor again. 

Encik Azmi: I think since the proposed area of the Buffer Zone is a big area and the Sabah Park should sent the 

proposal to the Hasil Bumi and then Hasil Bumi can call up for a meeting to consider the proposal. This will involved the 

Land Office Director, the Forestry Department the JKS and other relevant department and also Jabatan Pertanian and 

others. A good start will be to put up the proposal and get the approval and the parameters of how many 

acres / hectars more or less parameter of the approval from the higher level. For the possible threats from the 

proposed Buffer Zone as mentioned by Prof. Agung, the local community and heads must be inform and meeting must 

be held with them to brief them and to make them understand. We can also learn from them and get them involved. Take 

for Example the Gunung Halimun , the locals are being trained as ordinary guides. I believe Sabah Parks also have their 

own activities like jungle tracking and they can train the local people to be guides to 

help with Tourism. So here we must emphasis that local people must be involved to minimize the outside threats 

not only now but also the future. 

Dr. Jamili: Thank you. Points taken. 

Ms. Agnes Agama: I think in every of the disputed areas, there are three possibility. The strategy for resolving this 

disputed area maybe different for each area and that could depend on the followings: 

a. On the size of the land that is being disputed 

b. The size of the population who may claim to that land 

c. And the decision whether this land would be given to the local people as native title or whether the land can 

be converted to new land category as a kind of buffer zone 

For either case there would have to be some kind of management plan where the local people will be involved in 

the management of the buffer zone. What I am concern here are, areas where shifting cultivation are going on and if 

there is a dispute with CRP and if Sabah Parks gives it to the local community and we will have some form of 

co-management. It doesn’t necessary protect CRP from encroachment because there will still be a chance 

that community will still plant padi all the way right to the boundary of the CRP. There will still be potential for people to 

hunt as soon as animals step out of the park boundary. So it isn’t necessary address the threat of a fridge 

effect of CRP and therefore I think it will be very problematic to deal case by case especially when each dispute 

with local community considering that there are so many districts officers involved. 

133


Dr. Jamili: Actually that is exactly what they are currently doing at the boundary of the park and they have a database of 

all the pockets of area and the dispute. Those areas are inside the gazetted areas of Sabah Park and are dully marketed 

on the ground. This has been there quite sometime and because of humanitarian feeling towards them that is why we 

are feeling our way on how to solve these problems. And so the option here is weather we should just give it to them and 

solve the whole solutions. Correct me if I am wrong, but most of the encroachment are not from 

the local community but from people outside. If Buffer Zone is established and the local community are there then 

they can act as a front line guard against outside encroachment, illegal loggings and other things, so basically that’s the 

whole idea. 

Mr. Boni Antiu: Adding to that, the local people are also involved in jungle products, hunting and shifting cultivation. 

Before we come out with any proposal, I strongly believe that we must get these local resident and their head village to 

be involved in the discussion and planning so that they can deliver their opinion to the management of the park. 

Dr. Jamili: For every section, after everything has been identified, we are going on the ground to discuss with these 

people. We are going to have a workshop on the 3 rd week of March and will be calling each district representatives to 

look into their own district and try to address each and everyone of those pockets. 

Mr. Boyd Sun Fatt: I am not very sure about Buffer Zone but what I can understand here, Buffer Zone is important to 

protect the area. Is there any tropical country that have succeed in the establishment of the Buffer Zone and maybe we 

can learn from their examples and apply it to our CRP. 

Dr. Jamili: Yes, there are so many examples but Buffer Zone is a very loose term. Once you have established the Buffer 

Zone it will be your responsibility to set out the rules and the activities that are allow and not allowed in the Buffer 

Zone. Take for example in Nepal,the Royal Citwa National Park has established a Buffer Zone among the pocket of 

community. They are very successful because Tourism is the main income in Nepal. It is also mandatory by law that 50% 

of the park revenue will be given to the community that is why it is very successful. As in the Philippines, there is the Mt. 

Kitangklat National Park, a protected area in Mindanao where the Buffer Zone is a protected area. They have a board 

consisting of the Local Government, the Park Board, the Natural Resources Office and also the representatives of the 

local community bodies. All decision on regards to the Buffer Zone and the protected area must be refer back 

to the community that is the successful ones. However, there are plenty of cases once established nothing is done and 

it is almost free for all. Of course there are some successful cases but there are more neglected cases. 

Mr. Sakai: Let me share my opinion about the local people. In some places, we have the management or 

conservation side of the commonwealth to the local community. In the other part we are completely different. I would like 

to share my presentation story of a place in Sungai Apin Apin. Illegal logging activities were going on in that area and the 

local people were very much against it because of the water quality. When the logging is finished, the local people 

wanted that area. In that sense, the BIB or Sabah Park committee group also agreed with the local people, 

but the Department Irrigation Drainage wants to gazette that area to establish the watershed management area. 

However, the local community does not allow that area to be gazette for they wanted that area for their future generation 

to develop. In that sense, we are still in the same ground and it is a very difficult issue and these are some of the cases 

happening in the CRP. 

Mr. Ludi Apin: Mr. Chairman, I have one question here about the establishment of a Buffer Zone. Let’s go down to 

individual feeling, eg. I have a 10 acres of land and some are on the slope and some on the flat land. Let’s say the Buffer 

Zone only allows you to plant your crops on the hilly park and the wet padi on the level park as one of the regulation and 

guideline. So, in that 10 acres I can only plant 3 crops i.e rubber, durian and another crop on the hilly park and wet padi 

and other crops will be allowed on the flat park and do you think that is possible In a bigger Zone like the Buffer Zone 

we apply that kind of concept which means all the slopes will be on the 3 crops and the flat 

land will be for wet padi and everyone will join in and work together on the flat area and all the hilly area will be divided 

evenly in order for everyone to gain benefits from this. Is that possible 

Mr. Azmi: I like to give my general opinion here eg. If the local people apply for the land in Sabah Park and the slope is 

more than 27degrees, of course it is not suitable for agriculture and if you happen to bring this up to the Land Organisation 

Committee, the Agriculture Department will not approved it and you will be rejected and there is no way they can apply 

the land for any agriculture purpose because of the slope. However, the higher the slope is and if 

they put up the land, erosion will happen and the environment will be destroyed. Sabah Park is still consider a good place 

for obtaining land because of the physical nature of the hills. 

134


Dr. Jamili: Thank You. Any other questions 

Ms. Agnes Agama: I don’t think it is possible. It is not sustainable for the long term because it is base on the image of 

the local community being stagnant (unchanging) and because local community change so quickly overtime. We do not 

know what is going to happen but we can project it. Let us imagine what would happen to the local community 20 years 

from now. 

Do you think whey still want to plant rubber, cocoa, wet padi and other kind of crops I think it would be a grave injustice 

if the Buffer Zone of Crocker Range were conceptualized only with the image of local community and agriculturalists 

because there is every potential for them to change their mode of production in a different way. 

Dr. Jamili: Thank you Agnes, Thank you everyone. Even though, we did not come to any conclusion in this workshop, 

but all the contribution from everyone here today are very helpful and we will bring this to the next workshop in March. 

Number One, we will concentrate on the pockets of these disputed areas and Number Two on the 2 roads depending on 

how was the status. We will also try to look into the proposed Water Catchments Area (Water Resources Enactment) 

and probably at the corridor of the CRP, to Kinabalu with the possibility of a Buffer Zone. 

135


5.3 Habitat Management Component Workshop 

Topic: Challenges & Opportunities of a Protected Area Having Multiple Status 

Chairman 

Mr. Augustine Tuuga 

representing Mr. Laurentius Ambu 

Lists of participants 

1. Mr. Ahmad Shamsuri Lahad Datu District Office 

2. Datuk Daniel Khiong Sabah Forestry Department 

3. Mr. Danny Chew Borneo Tourism Institute 

4. Mdm. Elizabeth Malangking Department of Agriculture 

5. Datuk Eric Juin Environmental Conservation Department 

6. Mr. Faizal Ahmad Environmental Conservation Department 

7. Dr. Junaidi Payne WWF Malaysia 

8. Ms. Lee Shan Khee WWF Malaysia 

9. Dr. Marc Ancrenaz HUTAN 

10. Mr. Melvin T Gumal Wildlife Conservation Society - Malaysia Programme 

11. Dr. Stephen Sutton Borneo Books 

12. Mr. Vincent Fung Sabah Forestry Department 

13. Dr. Waidi Sinun Innoprise Sdn. Bhd. 

14. Mr. Watanabe Takeshi JIPRC 

15. Ms. Wendy Wan State Economic Planning Unit 

16. Datuk Wilfred Lingham Pabin Wildlife Department 

17. Mr. William Wong Agriculture Department 

18. Mr. Laurentius Ambu Sabah Wildlife Department 

19. Mr. Augustine Tuuga Sabah Wildlife Department 

20. Mr. Soffian Abu Bakar Sabah Wildlife Department 

21. Mr. Roland O Nium Sabah Wildlife Department 

22. Mr. Abd Karim Hj Dakog Sabah Wildlife Department 

23. Mr. Sailun Aris Sabah Wildlife Department 

24. Dr. Toshinori Tsubouchi JICA Expert - Sabah Wildlife Department 

25. Mr. Joseph Lim Land and Survey Department 

26. Mr. Mahadimenakbar Dawood Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

27. Mr. Kenji Fukushima Institute Consulting Division Water Environment 

28. Mr. Rikako Kimura Urban Development Corporation, Tokyo Branch 

29. Mr. Drew Boshell Raleigh International 

30. Mr. Roger Cox DANIDA-SWD 

31. Dr. Tsuzuki Kazuko Natural Environment Education Advisor 

32. Mr. Awang Samhan Nyawa Brunei Museums Department 

33. Dr. Sugradjito LIPI 

34. Mr. Jaffit Majuakim Sabah Museum 

35. Dr. Hamid Ahmad Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

36. Dr. Hiroshi Ikeda Hyogo Prefectural Homeland for Oriental White Stork, Japan 

37. Peter Malim Sabah Wildlife Department 

38. Tn. Haji Amat Ramsa Rainforest Academy, UPM 

Chairman: Mr. Laurentius is unable to be here but he has given this topic for discussion, i.e. Challenges and 

Opportunities of a Protected Area having Multiple Status. To give you the background of this topic, for example, Tabin 

Wildlife Reserve, we are there to manage the wildlife (without legal authority to manage the habitat). At the moment, we 

are thinking of gazetting Tabin Wildlife Reserve (TWR) as a wildlife center under Wildlife Enactment. We felt 

that there are challenges in the area of multiple status. There are times when we have to gazette state lands as conservation 

areas e.g. between Kulamba and Tabin area. Under section 21 of the Wildlife Conservation 

Enactment, we can gazette the area between 2 wildlife areas for certain reasons e.g. migration route of the animals. 

Even if it is a private land, you can still gazette it for certain activities. 

136


Peter Malim: Can you enlighten us on how this topic can fit in the theme – Habitat Management Component 

Chairman: Mr. Laurentius is unable to be here but he has given this topic for discussion, i.e. Challenges and 

Opportunities of a Protected Area having Multiple Status. To give you the background of this topic, for example, Tabin 

Wildlife Reserve, we are there to manage the wildlife (without legal authority to manage the habitat). At the moment, we 

are thinking of gazetting Tabin Wildlife Reserve (TWR) as a wildlife center under Wildlife Enactment. We felt 

that there are challenges in the area of multiple status. There are times when we have to gazette state lands as conservation 

areas e.g. between Kulamba and Tabin area. Under section 21 of the Wildlife Conservation 

Enactment, we can gazette the area between 2 wildlife areas for certain reasons e.g. migration route of the animals. 

Even if it is a private land, you can still gazette it for certain activities. 

Peter Malim: Can you enlighten us on how this topic can fit in the theme – Habitat Management Component 

Chairman: Initially the idea of having the Habitat management component was to connect Tabin and Kulamba 

wildlife reserve but we don’t know the status of this area now. 

Mr. Peter Malim: Are we focusing on Tabin 

Chairman: This is an example. We may have other areas that are important as wildlife corridor and migration routes. 

Dr. Hamid Ahmad: What do we understand by multiple status 

Chairman: It means legal protection status. In actual fact only the forestry department can manage the area 

whereas the wildlife enactment has no power under the present status. In order to enforce the law, the area has to 

be gazetted under the wildlife enactment act. 

Dr. Hamid Ahmad: Are we talking about the present protected area 

Chairman: This is applicable to many areas but we are using Tabin as an example. 

Peter Malim: I am confused with the scope of this project. How many of us are familiar with the law of the protected 

area 

Dr. Toshinori Tsubouchi: There are many lands between the protected areas that are owned by the private and the 

government. How can a protected area have multiple status 

In Japan, after the World War II, we have traditional protected areas that have many sacred lands / trees / species. They 

were communally run. After the War, we dismissed the law of protected areas. This meant the whole area has multiple 

status, namely private, public, government and sacred areas. We have 3 status under the National Park 

Law , national park, semi-national park and local government designated parks. Only the national parks are under 

the national government while the semi-national parks are under the local government and national government. 

We had multiple status on the particular land so it was difficult for the habitat management. 

Mr. Melvin T Gumal: 

Which has more protection for the habitat; is it under the Wildlife Conservation Enactment or the Forestry Enactment 

Chairman: Both. 

Mr. Melvin T Gumal: If tomorrow the forestry department decides to log , can they do it 

Chairman: Yes, but under certain policies. 

Mr. Vincent Fung: For Tabin, it is classified under Class 6 which means it is a protected forest. It is not subject to timber 

exploitation and solely for scientific research. Thus, it is very restricted. To me, I think the Forest Enactment holds 

strongly for the area. There is absolutely no compromise for any timber extraction. 

Mr. Melvin T Gumal: Under the Sarawak Forestry Law, for areas under Class 4 and above, the terrain is too steep and 

difficult for logging which means they are protected areas but there are still logging done by helicopters. Thus, this type 

137


of protection is not strong enough as opposed to the Wildlife Enactment. I’m not sure about Sabah. Now the Forestry 

Department of Sarawak has been corporatised and naturally the main objective is to make money. So the 

first to go is the multiple status of these areas. Which law gives Tabin more protection in the long run 

Mr. Vincent Fung: The Forestry Enactment gives the fullest protection for this area. There is absolutely no logging in 

this area. 

Dr. Junaidi Payne: There has been presidence where the Sabah Government and not the Forestry Department 

that has reclassified the forest reserves easily. 

Chairman: Tabin Wildlife Reserve was gazetted in 1984. Logging was carried out until 1989. 

Dr. Marc Ancrenaz: If there is a problem in Tabin, who is in charge of enforcing the law 

Chairman: At the moment, it is the Forestry Department. 

Mr. Drew Boshell: On the topic of tourism, I strongly agree that Tabin is well conserved and there are nice pockets of 

biodiversity. However, there are problems with the genetic bottlenecks which restrict of movement of the animals. In 

Tabin, there are still 7-9 rhinoceros left. 

Chairman: What are the opportunities and the challenges of the protected areas 

Dr. Hamid Ahmad: I would like to suggest that we discuss the pros and cons of the multiple status. 

Mr. Drew Boshell: The challenges would be the conflicts with the landowners and the opportunities will be to open 

up the genetic bottlenecks for migration. Who has the veto power to control the status of the land If someone 

decides to change the status of the land, do they need mutual agreement 

Chairman: They are both government agencies so there will be no problem. 

Dr. Hamid Ahmad: How can we change the status of the land 

Dr. Junaidi Payne: We need to go to the State Assembly. 

Chairman: The best thing to do is to leave the management to an agency entrusted to look after that place e.g. Forestry 

Department has the full power to manage the forest while the Wildlife Department will protect the wildlife. 

Mr. Drew Boshell: It is a good idea if there is co-operation between the agencies. This is the problem we faced 

under the multiple status. 

Dr. Hamid Ahmad: With this current management i.e. with a management committee as in the TWR, do we have any 

problems 

Chairman: With the present situation, if there is illegal logging, the rangers will report immediately to the Forestry 

Department. There were instances where they have to make reports to the Forestry Department and thus the time 

lag has provided an opportunity for the loggers to flee. 

Mr. Melvin T Gumal: This is also the problem within the national parks in the Wildlife Department. The enforcement has 

been removed from the wildlife rangers because there is ownership of the land. 

Dr. Marc Ancrenaz: Is there a way to change this 

Chairman: As in the case of Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary, it was gazetted under the Land Enactment a few years 

ago. They do not have the power to take action. If it is under the Wildlife Enactment, we have the full power. 

Dr. Hamid Ahmad: Can you take action on people who possessed wildlife outside the Wildlife Park 

Chairman: Yes, anywhere except in the Park. 

138


Dr. Toshinori Tsubouchi: If this area is a private land and the wildlife are moving freely, what will happen 

Chairman: If the wildlife corridor is in the plantation area, we can gazette it as a conservation/wildlife area. 

Dr. Junaidi Payne: This is only a theory, it is not tested in Sabah yet. 

Chairman: Maybe it is a good idea to test it in Tabin & Kulamba. 

Dr. Toshinori Tsubouchi: Is it true that only wildlife sanctuary will be compensated and not conservation areas 

Chairman: Yes, conservation areas are still owned by the landowners. 

Tn. Haji Amat Ramsa: There are some challenges - different enforcements due to different agencies and conflicts 

between users. 

Chairman: There are no conflicts at the moment. The Forestry Department will not allow logging. The problem is 

the enforcement. 

Dr. Hamid Ahmad: Let’s agree that we want a corridor between Tabin and Kulamba. We can discuss how to repossess 

the land. 

Chairman: These options have different obstacles. It is not easy to repossess the land unless the government has a lot 

of money to pay compensation. 

Mr. Drew Boshell: One of the challenges - if there are more than 1 agencies responsible, sometimes the areas of 

responsibilities are not clear. 

Chairman: If for example, Tabin is to be regazetted under the Wildlife Enactment, we felt that the Forestry is more 

powerful then we may ask the Forestry Department to take action rather that the Wildlife Department. 

Mr. Drew Boshell: One of the opportunities maybe to set up a task force so that they can work together and thus more 

funds to manage the area. 

Mr. Vincent Fung: We can have a committee to manage the Forest Reserve including the private sector. The first 

task is to ensure that there are no intruders in the forest. If the wildlife thinks that they have no power, they can refer 

to the Forestry Department to take action against the illegal loggers. As far as I can see, this is not a crucial issue 

between the Forestry and Wildlife Department. Furthermore, the enforcement is in good shape. 

Dr. Hamid Ahmad: If there are no officers/rangers from the forestry department when there is illegal logging, your report 

would be inter-department whereas if there are officers from the forestry department, the report would be from within the 

unit, so it should be faster. 

Mr. Vincent Fung: If the area is changed to wildlife reserve and being under Class 6, what is the guarantee that 

this status will not change in the event of a change in government 

Mr. Ahmad Shamsuri: What is Class 6 

Mr. Vincent Fung: No logging strictly for scientific research. 

Dr. Hamid Ahmad: There is a management committee for Danum Valley as well as the Maliau Basin. Having the 

forest in Class 6, that is the best protection. The problem would be to ensure that it will not be regazetted if there is a 

change in government. The only way is to make it more difficult to change the status of the land e.g. maybe through 

education. 

Mr. Vincent Fung: We also mentioned linking Kulamba and Tabin and we should focus on that. 

Mr. Peter Malim: With regards to the corridor, it is a big challenge especially in determining the boundaries. 

139


Mr. Ahmad Shamsuri: The corridor involves a lot of private lands. If we could guarantee the landowners a job e.g. 

ecotourism, we can solve a lot of problems. 

Chairman: Ecotourism is a positive solution. 

Mr. Drew Boshell: Another opportunity is that if 2 or more agencies are involved, each agency could make it more 

difficult to change the status of the land. Furthermore, they can act as a watchdog for each other to ensure that responsibilities 

are carried out. 

Tn. Haji Amat Ramsa: Another opportunity could be less bureaucracy and more transparency. 

140


5.4 Public Awareness Component Workshop 

Topic: Smart Partnership Between NGOs and Governmental Agencies for the Public Awareness 

Participants: 

1. Ms. Ainon Salam Environmental Conservation Dept. 

2. Mr. Azman Mohamed Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

3. Mr. Azri Sawang KOCP 

4. Mr. Datu Ahbam Abulani KOCP 

5. Mdm. Fatimah Jaafar Science & Technology Unit 

6. Mr. Gary Lim Malaysian Nature Society 

7. Dr. Hiroshi Ikeda Hyogo Prefectural 

8. Ms. Josephine Michael VVWF Malaysia 

9. Ms. Ken Kartina Khamis Science & Technology Unit 

10. Mrs. Lina Mohd. Lin Science & Technology Unit 

11. Ms. Masniah Othman Sabah Forestry Department 

12. Dr. Mohd. Nazri lguchi Science & Technology Unit 

13. Mr. Moktar Yassin Ajam Science & Technology Unit 

14. Dr. Monica Suleiman Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

15. Mr. Hisashi Shinsho KIWC 

16. Ms. Susan Pudin Environmental Conservation Dept. 

17. Mr. Takeshi Watanabe JIPRC 

18. Ms. Sumie Yamamoto JOCV-SWD 

19. Mr. Yasuo Yutoku Kyushu Electric Power Co. 

20. Mrs. Bernadette Joeman Sabah Forestry Department 

21. Ms. Janet Likunjang Sabah Forestry Department 

22. Mr. Jimmy Omar Sabah Nature Club 

23. Ms. Doris Lasimbang PACOS 

24. Mr. Sumbin Gadas Sabah Wildlife Dept. 

25. Mrs. Anna Wong Sabah Wildlife Dept. 

29. Mr. Albert Aseh My-Gap Sdn Bhd 

30. Dr. Ambi Kavathi Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

31. Mr. Ag. Rahim Ag. Ali lnnoprise 

32. Ms. Alice Wong Asian Tourism Institute 

33. Mr. Yukio Hasegawa Longstay Travel & Tours 

34. Mr. Mohd. Fauzi Yaacub Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

35. Mrs. Zahra Yaacob Sabah Society 

36. Tn. Hj. Amat Ramsa Universiti Putra Malaysia 

141


Participants: 

37. Ms. Keiko Ando Japan Wildlife Reseach Centre 

38. Ms. Kazuko Ikeda Japan Wildlife Reseach Centre 

39. Mr. Minoru Tanaka Japan Environment Corporation 

40. Mr. Yasuhiro Ichikawa 2nd year, Faculty of Policy Management, Keio University 

41. Ms. Michi Goto Coordinator / Translator, Japan for Sustainability Volunteer Team 

42. Ms. Yuko Kishikami Volunteer Staff, Association for Ecosystem Conservation - Kochi Prefecture 

43. Mr. Mikio Matsuda Staff, Burkina Faso Office, Action for Greening Sahel 

44. Ms. Akiko Noda Faculty of Engineering, Tokushima University 

45. Ms. Akiko Tajima 4th year, Nohon University, College of Bioresource Sciences 

46. Mr. Yasunori Yamazaki Staff, Ecology Club Hiroshima 

Presentation Slides by Ms. Keiko Ando, Japan Wildlife Research Centre 

Slide 2 

Slide 1 

Slide 4 

Slide 3 

Slide 6 

Slide 5 

142


Slide 8 

Slide 7 

Slide 10 

Slide 9 

Slide 12 

Slide 11 

Slide 14 

Slide 13 

Slide 15 

143

Presentation Slides by Ms. Ainon Salam, EAC Executive Secretary 

Slide 2 

Slide 1 

Slide 4 

Slide 3 

Slide 6 

Slide 5 

Slide 8 

Slide 7 

Slide 10 

Slide 9 

144


Slide 12 

Slide 11 

Slide 14 

Slide 13 

Slide 16 

Slide 15 

Slide 18 

Slide 17 

145

Presentation Slides by Ms. Michi Goto, Japan for Sustainability Volunteer Team 


Slide 2 

Slide 1 

Slide 4 

Slide 3 

Slide 6 

Slide 5 

Slide 8 

Slide 7 

Slide 10 

Slide 9 

146


Slide 12 

Slide 11 

Slide 14 

Slide 13 

Slide 16 

Slide 15 

Slide 17 

147

Presentation Slides by Mr. Jimmy Omar, Sabah Nature Club 

Slide 2 

Slide 1 

Slide 4 

Slide 3 

Slide 6 

Slide 5 

Slide 8 

Slide 7 

Slide 10 

Slide 9 

148


Slide 12 

Slide 11 

Slide 14 

Slide 13 

Slide 16 

Slide 15 

Slide 18 

Slide 17 

Slide 20 

Slide 19 

149

Slide 22 

Slide 21 

Slide 24 

Slide 23 

Presentation Slides by Mr. Mikio Matsuda, Action for Greening Sahel 

Slide 2 

Slide 1 

Slide 4 

Slide 3 

150


Slide 6 

Slide 5 

Slide 8 

Slide 7 

Slide 10 

Slide 9 

Slide 12 

Slide 11 

Malay Lady: How do you evaluate your performance 

Ms. Ainon Hj. Salam: For evaluation for eg, our financier Shell Malaysia has requested us to evaluate our programme 

in Danum Valley before and after the participants attend the activity. Our government also want to know whether the 

activity was a successful one. 

Mdm. Masniah Othman: Do you have any body to monitor the activities 

Ms. Ainon Hj. Salam: We will monitor partially. If they request funding from us, we would require them to submit 

their proposal. We are requesting them to monitor the activities. We actually empowered them to monitor the activities. 

151


Mr. Matsuda Mikio: The vital goal of the project is to make the village people independent. The government and local 

villagers evaluate their own activities. They can improve on their activities then it would be quite sustainable. 

152


5.5 Presentation of Discussion from Component Workshop 

Chairman: Mr. Takahisa Kusano 

5.5.1 Research and Education Component 

presented by Prof. Datin Dr. Maryati Mohamed, Universiti Malaysia Sabah 

The objective of the workshop was how to prioritize research, and concentrate on six topics. 

The problem is that in the Research & Education Component (REC), there is a large catalogue of research requested 

by people, to do over a five programme, but because there are limitations of funding and resources, etc. REC needs 

to prioritize. 

Six topics were touched on at the Session Workshop: 

1 .What are the parameters chosen 

2. What kind of research are important for conservation of (a) Biodiversity (b) Ecosystem in Borneo 

3. What prior information/research is needed 

4. Who ran do the research 

5. Statistics needed 

6. Funding Sources & Limitations 

Question 1 regarding Parameters 

a. Availability (of specialists/experts) 

b. Long-term research 

c. Integration 

d. Research needed by International Requirements 

e. Commercial Value 

f. Less Studied Areas 

g. Management Values 

Question 2 regarding Research Necessary for Biodiversity and Ecosystem in Sabah 

Biodiversity: 

a. Ethnic/Traditional Uses of Biodiversity 

b. Systematic & Taxonomy as Basic Studies 

c. Impact Assissment 

d. Relationship of Biodiversity & Ecosystem Function 

Ecosystem of Borneo (Sabah): 

a. Effects of Habitat Alteration I Disturbance 

b. Roles of Canopies in Ecosystem Function 

c. Collaboration 

d. Commercial Agreement 

Question 3 regarding What lnformation/research is Needed 

a. Permission from Sabah State Government 

b. Priorities of International Agreement, e.c. CBD 

c. Research Proposal 

d. State Education 

MOU: 

a. Research Agreement 

b. Rules & Regulations 

153

Presentation of Discussion from Component Workshop 

c. Facilities Availability 

Question 4 regarding Who Can do the Research 

a. Collaborators 

b. Local Communities 

c. Volunteers (local & international) 

d. Approvals 

e. Any interested with funds 

f. Who can be involved 

Question 5 regarding What Statistics are needed 

a. Research Design 

b. How to obtain statistics 

c. Production of Local Goods 

Question 6 regarding Funding Sources Other Limitations 

On Funding Sources: 

a. Local Sources 

b. International Sources 

c. Private Sources 

d. NGOs 

On Limitations 

a. Funding 

b. Research Proposal 

c. Necessitiy 

d. Field Centre 

e. Limitations 

Questions and Answers After Presentation 

Q: Prof. Nakashizuka 

I am not clear. What kind of long-term research are you thinking of starting 

A: Prof. Datin Maryati 

The long-term research that we identified at Kinabatangan includes things like monitoring the water quality of the Crocker 

Range. We look at the impact of tourism, as we know the Crocker Range is a watershed for Sabah. 

There are many researches we have identified. We also look at Canopy biology and we are starting this in Danum Valley, 

but I think studying the canopy at other research sites under BBEC will be very good. Canopy biology is one of those 

places where it is very clearly affected, when you log forests. So naturally, we have to do canopy biology. 

The greatest challenge is to get funding from any organizations and good students to do the research. Thank you. 


I am interested in your conservation activities, especially in Pasar Minggu at the public venues. It is so interesting and I 

would like to know how you do it and what the response is from the public. 

A: Prof. Datin Dr. Maryati 

You can actually ask Dr. Monica, who was in charge of the project. We have all the ups and downs. There are times when 

we don't have the boost because we cannot get our people to go there at that particular time. Either they 

have to do their fieldwork or they have lots of teaching to do. Then we go under the basis of using students, under 

the Science Short Programme, but again these students have exams, fieldwork or reports to write, so we sort of 

failed for a while. 

154


2 weeks ago, we developed another scheme. We are paying a very small fee to someone who is very dedicated 

to public awareness and we hope this time it will stay. We show examples to people about what we are doing, for 

e.g. the recycling programme. We do demonstrations for the public. We face a lot of challenges but we try hard to 

get this through because we believe people have to be educated on face-to-face interactions. 


Thank you. More outbridge programmes being introduced by the Public Awareness Component later. 

5.5.2 Park Management Component 

presented by Mr. Shigeo Sakai, Sabah Parks 

The session discussed the possibility of creating buffer zones for the Crocker Range Park (CRP). The session was 

divided into two parts, with the first part comprising of a presentation by Dr. Yoneda, and the second part was the 

discussion. 

In Dr. Yoneda’s presentation, he touched on topics concerning environmental threats in Sabah, especially to the CRP 

and the forest reserve. The key problems concern forest fires and shifting cultivation, including illegal logging in the 

CRP, degradation of the adjacent areas of the eco-system, by oil palm plantations, illegal logging and illegal hunting. 

Some examples of these are in the Ulu Membakut area where it used to be a secondary forest, but now there is an oil 

palm plantation just by the boundary. Another example of degradation is traditional shifting cultivation in some areas of 

the park, and also the illegal logging activities in the CRP. 

The second part of the discussion summarized what had been discussed, where four issues were brought up regarding 

buffer zones, namely what is the buffer zone, what is the criteria of a buffer zone, what are the models of buffer zones 

and the registration of buffer zones. 

It was felt that the Park Management should consult and discuss with the local community on its past, present and future 

land use, and these should be studied in depth in order to formulate an Integrated Management Plan for long term 

perspective. It would also be necessary to examine problems and protocol necessary for these plans. Some felt it was 

necessary to take immediate action and to speed up any proposals and apply implementation in order to gain progress, 

rather than lose all that has been done up to date. 

There were also opinions that long term plans should be made immediately and these plans should be integrated now, 

like other countries, for e.g. Japan, where they have five categories of protected areas. These may not be applicable to 

Sabah, but Sabah should have its own system. There have also been successful cases from Nepal and the Philippines, 

where the local community took active parts. The Ministry, in collaboration with the WWF had studied the potential 

protective areas as early as the 90s, and six areas were proposed, but todate, not much has been realized, unfortunately. 

At that time, Membakut, which now has an oil palm plantation as was mentioned earlier, was still a secondary 

forest. There has been no significant push since 1998. 

In the present, the Kinabatangan case was presented, and potential areas were established for buffer zones and watershed 

protection areas. The watershed protections are planned by the Department of Irrigation & Drainage, and it was 

suggested that this watershed protection area be used as a buffer zone. 

In summary, there have been no solid conclusions. It was quite a heavy brain-storming session, but it is a very complex 

issue with many stakeholders and a lot of different interests. Local communities are the key for sustainability for the 

management, but this is also a complex issue. The Keningau and Kimanis road is going to be sealed soon, so the land 

along this road is also an urgent issue. Some participants suggested that Sabah Park should apply for the land there so 

that it can be included as Parkland or at least, a protected area. 

Hopefully, a final conclusion can be drawn from the March workshop. Sabah Parks is planning to have a bigger workshop 

then, so this subject can be continuously discussed. 

155



Q: Dr. Chey Vun Khen 

We have been told that the proposed Kudat Marine Park has been approved by the State Government Since those 

islands are part of Pulau Bangi and Balambangan and it is quite big, would it be good if the BBEC programme conduct 

research to compare the biodiversity in those islands with the biodiversity in mainland Sabah and these islands could 

also serve as a link between Borneo and Pahlawan. Thank you. 


Yes, it is in the pipeline and in fact, there are many things that should be in the BBEC programme. I agree with you, but 

among other things that need to be done under this programme should include the Forestry Research Centre and the 

Sabah Biodiversity Centre. The main focus is the terrestial ecosystem. 

The proposed Marine Park at the northern tip of Sabah currently involves the marine water, and does not involve the 

islands. Probably not in this particular programme. 


Are we talking about Banggi Island, yes Unfortunately this area, Japanese are prohibited to go. This side of Kudat is 

blacklisted for Japanese. 

Q: Mr. Abdul-Hamid Ahmad 

Do you have any idea about the size of the population who are actually living within the Crocker Range Park 


We have a very detailed map and information database on the villagers and people living inside the park. The difference 

is that Kinabalu Park was gazetted in 1964 before the population boom, land was plentiful and people not that many, so 

we did not have many problems in the Kinabalu Park. 

However, when the Crocker Range Park was gazetted in 1984, the population boom in settlement had set in. That's 

where the problem started. When we started surveying, some communities, villagers and shifting cultivators were inside 

the park. This is what we are trying to resolve now. 

From the preparation of the Management Master Plan, we have detailed maps and database of all the people involved. 

We try to squash the surface, the creation of a buffer zone. If a community falls inside the park, then we will probably 

excise them, designate the area a buffer zone and restrict activities. We are going to resolve this once and for all within 

the next 5 years. 

In the third week of next month, we are going to have the Park Zoning Workshop, and are inviting all relevant people to 

look bit by bit, whether each section selected is to be excised, retained or bufferzoned. That's what we will be discussing 

next month. 

A: Hj. Amat Ramsa (comments) 

I totally agree with Dr. Jamili that participation of the stakeholders are important, and to view sustainability of the park. In 

2000 1 visited the Forest Training in Nepal around Lantong National Park. We had a 2 month course there. What they 

did was set up an institutional arrangement with park authorities and the local community, where they set up the community 

based ecotourism activities. 

The activities actually reduced one conflict between the park and the community. Now it is going to be implemented in 

Thailand. Maybe we can learn from them and I think there are a lot of cases where local communities participate in park 

management. They can actually reduce conflict like the case study in Pakistan, where they reduced conflict of illegal 

hunting by developing an Association of Hunters comprised of local hunters inside the park. Therefore, through the 

association, they are controlling the hunting activities and conserving the wildlife species at the same time. Thank you. 


Thank you for your comments. In fact, I was in Nepal in 1996 and studying the Napuma National Park and the Royal 

National Park. We were looking at their public participation and bufferzone management. Last month, I was in Vietnam, 

discussing the 10 model sitv in Asia for Protected Area Management. Kinabalu was chosen as one and the 

156


Royal National Park also, mostly regarding public participation and decision making. Thank you for the information 

anyway. 

5.5.3 Habitat Management Component 

Presented by Mr. Laurentius Ambu, Sabah Wildlife Department 

We discussed about the challenges and opportunities on protected areas having a multiple status. 

The participants have a view that this is a challenging topic and an issue we have yet to face with such scenario. Unlike 

other countries such as Japan, Europe and others, an area of multiple status to us meant either a protected area with 

different organisations or a bioregion having different protected areas with different organisations in both of that 

bioregions. 

We have discussed about the area of Kinabatangan. Even though it would not be a good case study for this topic, we will 

however present some of the opportunities and challenges of having a bioregion area and protected area with different 

organisation and different status. Just like in Europe, they have the landscape concept. In Japan they have different 

organisation managing one area and in Africa, Kenya with protected area managed by government agency and run by 

local council. These are the scenario we are aiming for Sabah. We anticipate a lot of habitats and eco system and 

bioregion would be affected in ten to twenty years from now. So we would prepare for this scenario today. 

An area with different stakeholders and organisation with different jurisdictions, the challenges we foresee would be the 

funding needed in terms of payment and compensation to land owners. For example, for a protected area that need a 

support from a big land owner adjacent to the protected area, we would need to work with the land owners to plant trees 

along the corridor. We may need a lot of incentives in form of funding to the land owners and everybody agree it would 

be a constrain in terms of funding. 

The other challenge is the conflict of jurisdiction between agencies. For example the bioregion of Kinabatangan’s river 

basin and protected areas around that bioregion, and the buffer zone and wildlife sanctuary. We anticipate the conflict of 

jurisdiction in these areas. 

We cannot deny the fact that what you do in one area affects the other. 

The other challenge we face would be conflict between agencies since each has different priorities, different mandate. 

Therefore, we could foresee conflict of interest in terms of land use. 

Another challenge would be also different agencies would have different problems incorporated into their management 

plan. 

However, we are positive, as we see few challenges but more of opportunities. 

The opportunities we first discuss is synthesizing the coordination of managing the area by an appointed institution. 

Again, the transparency of management would be needed with less double standard. Our vision would be zoning, to be 

more effective with multiple input and coorperation between agencies. There would be zoning procedure to be followed 

according to the constitution of different institutions on the area. 

A shared funding between agencies would be implemented by means of one agency getting the fund while the other 

sharing the fund in terms of capacity building. 

We also want to have active participation from stakeholder as the key element to sustainability of an area by mean of 

involving local community with local authority. 

Lastly, we suggest increase of protection on the value and use of the area with enforcement to enhance our protection. 

As people see the coordination of multiple agencies, the value of area would become apparent and attracting tourists. 

157



Q: (Name unknown) 

How is the situation of the paper proposed 


Actually, we have the procedure for establishing an area where we do a lot of justification, supported by field 

work, data justification, socio-economic. We have done this with a consultant and have written a good report which 

we have submitted to the Ministry. We have been asked to look into consultation with other agencies before we 

write anything. It has since been completed, and we are waiting for the Ministry to table it at the cabinet. We hope 

to be able to secure that area as the area is now being applied for and virtually nobody has the right to plant in the 

wetlands, because a lot of money will be needed. 

Q: Mr. Y.C. Kan 

In order to maintain genetic diversities, you need to link all those isolated proected areas. I have the impression 

that the department has varied the power to implement such ideas, for example in the lower Kinabatangan areas. Many 

problems there are fragmented, because of the plantations, and they cut off pockets of Orang utans, so eventually, even 

key species like the Orang Utans will eventually face extinction, because of genetic threats. I wonder what kind of power 

you have to implement that idea, or are you looking for more power to bring up all the particular isolated areas in Sabah. 


When we talk about pure science, there are lots of concepts with regards maintaining the genetic diversity. It’s all 

with the concept of SLOs. I have prepared maps that depict a scenario where there is no logging, and then we will follow 

these areas for the next 30 to 40 years, and you can see that even then, most areas will be fragmented. 

We would like to study those species in terms of habit fertilization, habitat requirements, and so forth. This project 

is designed in such a way, that we can use it as a model for sustaining or protecting the species who reign within the 

Tabin or around the Tabin, and to a large extent, outside the Tabin. If it is successful, we can use this for other 

areas, and this is what the project is for, and it will be a good indicator for project completion, and we can then use it 

anywhere else in the State. 

A: Mr. Kusano 

I think in any country, protecting agencies or agencies working for conservation to gain power needs support from the 

public and also understanding. Therefore the Public Awareness Component is very important to us, and it will help a few 

million people who understand environmental issues. It is very crucial and helpful for us. Thank you. 

5.5.4 Public Awareness Component 

Presented by Moktar Yassin Ajam, Director of Science & Technology Unit 

We have 5 presentations with 3 speakers from Japan and 2 from Sabah. Our focus was to discuss about Smart 

partnership between NGOs for environmental public awareness. 

We have about 38 participants including 10 persons from the Citizen’s college for global environment, overseas training 

course from Japan. Another 5 speakers present on their experience on partnership between government 

& NGOs. 

The first speaker Ms. Ando, she speaks about the Japan fund for global environment to different countries including 

Malaysia. The second speaker was Ms. Ainon from Environmental Action Committee of Sabah. She speaks about 

the activities of partnership between the government and NGOs. The same goes for Jimmy Omar from Sabah 

Nature Club. The fourth speaker Mr. Michi Goto speaks about the Japan experience on conservation for birds. She has 

given three-focus area in this experience by providing material for environmental education with support from 

companies like Olympus. She speaks about providing training in teaching volunteers & providing a guide to 

implement successful education. The last speaker Mr. Matsuda speaks about his experience from ‘Bukit Basung’ in title 

action greening science. Again he mentioned about the partnership between government and support from Japan as 

well as the participation of local community. At the end of the component meeting we talk about how to evaluate & 

monitor our activities. The indicators we should look into for evaluation. 

158


In fact, evaluation can be from government or NGOs or the community. In conclusion, we look into two aspects. Firstly, 

we emphasize more on partnership between government & NGOs, as we believe that government provides the services 

and the NGOs & the community give care to it. Secondly would be the community participation in environment education 

as the community is the end beneficiary of any activities. We like the idea that the community will become independent 

later on as we do something about the environment. Our goal in environmental education is we want our children to learn 

& think about environmental education with a sustainable society. 


Q: Tuan Hj. Amat Ramsa 

What are the indicators you have, to measure the effectiveness of campaigns, and what the peak performance meter 

you use to measure such success 


Public awareness is an ongoing activity where we try to create an understanding of the level of awareness in people. We 

try to connect with the local people to try to make them understand and even if have success with one person, we call 

that effective. 

A: Mr. Azman Mohamad (comments) 

It is a baseline study. 

Q: Ms. Zahra Yaacob 

How effective is the public awareness campaign. There are so many campaigns. We have to bring understanding to the 

lowest level of people. How m we reach the illiterate. We have campaigns in cartoon forms, something the children of the 

karnpungs can associate with. As the public awareness campaign consist mainly of government people, how many 

actually go to ground level 


That is a very good point to bring up. We have to discuss more on this, perhaps have partnership programmes with 

NGOs and the government. 

159

Colloquium 

5.6 Colloquium 

Chairman 

Panelists 

Datuk K.Y. Mustafa/BBEC Chairman 

Mr. Takahisa Kusano/Chief Advisor-BBEC 

Prof. Datin Dr. Maryati Mohamad/Director, ITBC-UMS 

Dr. Jamili Nais/Deputy Director-Sabah Parks 

Mr. Moktar Yassin Ajam/Director-Unit Science & Technology 

Mr. Laurentius Ambu/Deputy Director-Sabah Wildlife Department 

In his brief introduction, Datuk K.Y. Mustafa recorded his appreciation for the four workshop presentations, which were 

most informative. He mentioned that on the third day of the BBEC Conference, there would be a Project 

Cycle Management (PCM) Workshop, which would be the last workshop of the three-days conference. 

At the colloquium, he wanted to take the opportunity to see and assess how things have progressed. Over the last two 

days, many reports and opinions had been presented and given, especially by the four components: Research & Education, 

Park Management, Habitat Management and last but not least, the Public Awareness Component. There were also 

ten paper presentations by various speakers, both local and overseas, from as far as Japan and Indonesia. 

The colloquium was an open session, and Datuk wanted to get feedback from all the participants, in order to get a 

perspective on how to improve BBEC’s approach to effectively handle biodiversity and eco-system conservation, 

especially in Sabah. 

The main approach is the integration of action of all four components in five sites within five years, to conserve 

endangered and precious biodiversity and eco-system in Sabah. That is what the BBEC Programme is all about. 

With that brief address, he opened the colloquium to the floor. 

Question and Answer Session 

Q: Mr. Ludi Apin (Sabah Parks) 

I would like to go directly about what is on my mind. If we talk about forestry, logging, etc., even after logging we have 

regenerations. Once an area is logged and nothing is done after that, there will definitely be regenerations in five to ten 

years to come. I have no idea on the Department of Agriculture’s stand from the socio-economic point versus the 

conservation of biodiversity. I think it will be a problem in future if we don’t look into agro forestry as a sustainable 

development tool for developing countries. For example if I am a farmer and I have ten acres of land. I am told not to 

cut any land above 25 degrees. This would not be practical for me and if there are thousands of people who have been 

told the same thing, then it would not be fair to them because they all need their subsistence. Perhaps there is some 

way where we can integrate agricultural activities as one of the consideration on biodiversity conservation. Thank you. 

A: Datuk K.Y. Mustafa (Sabah State Government) 

I will try to make some clarification. We have commissioned a study on land use in Sabah, under the Land Use Policy 

in Sabah. We have some funds from the State Government and these funds would be used to study the terms of 

reference, the scope and everything else. The secretariat of this study will be the Secretary of Natural Resources, 

Jabatan Hasil Bumi. Basically, it tries to answer the issues you raised on an individual basis and also State basis. 

160


In Sabah, we are not utilizing our land as we should, including agriculture land. Secondly, we know some land allocated 

for other uses would be better used for agricultural purpose for food products for instance. Another area to look into is the 

cleared forest area and forest reserve areas. Agreements have been signed under the Forest Management Unit but 

even after several years, not much progress has been made. Therefore, we would like to explore alternative uses. Of 

course, as much as possible, we would like to retain our forest. 

A: Mr. Laurentius Ambu (Sabah Wildlife Department) 

I would like to add some comments. Actually in the late 70s, the State Government embarked on an LEC study, i.e. Land 

Equitability Classification study. Basically everything is there, and I think what Datuk said just now refers to that. 

All categories of land use has been laid out, including conservation, soil, etc. The agricultural sites have also been laid 

out as such, according to the LEC. On the conservation side, we are trying to follow international requirements and we 

are one of the agencies that comply with international conventions. I think this year they will be holding another world 

conference i.e. the CNPPA (Commission of National Parks and Protected Areas). 

In some countries, the minimum protected/reserve area is 10% of the land representative of the eco-system habitat. In 

Sabah, we are trying to negotiate on the minimum requirement of protection. 

When we talk about logging classifications, we know that most of the fertile land is in the lowlands, and most of biodiversity 

is in the lowlands. This has been discussed again and again, and we have to compromise. When we are talking about 

agricultural land, we talk about clear cutting, and when we talk logging, we have selective logging in Malaysia, and now 

we are gearing towards certification through the FSC, the Forest Stewardship Council. Thank you. 

A: Dr. Chey Vun Khen (Forest Research Centre) 

I think our State Government has to facilitate research at all levels. However, when it comes to commercial 

exploitations of our biodiversity, I think we have to look closer. For example, in Sarawak, anyone who wants to do 

commercial exploitation of biodiversity, whether local or from overseas, separate samples, commercial tissue culture of 

orchids or other plants, they have to enter into a commercial agreement with the Sarawak State Government. This 

ensures the government gets their fair share of the benefits. Thank you. 

A: Prof. Datin Dr. Maryati (Universiti Malaysia Sabah) 

I think during the press conference just now, and also during his speech, the Chief Minister mentioned about the 

protection of biodiversity of Sabah. We all fully agree that there must be some guidelines on how people use biodiversity 

in Sabah, because at the end of the day, profits benefitted from using genetic resources must be shared. Having said 

that, I would like to clarify that in BBEC’s programme we, Malaysians are to do the research. JICA experts are here on 

long term and short term programmes, are just to help train and guide us in our research. 

Therefore in no way, they are taking out resources for their own use. I am sure Mr. Kusano would like to reinforce this. 

I think there is no real worry about us abusing the faith or goodwill of the State Government in the BBEC programme. As 

you can see in our research protocol, which is now outlined in our book, it is clearly stated that when the Sabah 

Biodiversity Enactment comes into full force, whatever agreement we had earlier will be automatically null and void. 


I am sure everyone is aware our Enactment has been approved and the Biodiversity Council has also been approved. 

The Chief Minister also mentioned earlier on during the press conference that he will hold the first meeting as soon as 

possible, and in fact, the Chief Minister has acknowledged that Sarawak is ahead of us in this. 

Q: Ms. Bernadette Joeman (Forest Research Centre) 

I was in the Public Awareness Component group just now during the discussion. I noticed that any programme on public 

awareness or environmental education in Sabah is sadly lacking evaluation. I would like to suggest to the BBEC 

programme that this be given emphasis because so far what we have done is to look at or observe indicators for 

success, and I personally don’t think this is enough to know how far we have progressed. A lot of people have been 

doing their part on environment education and public awareness in Sabah. 

As far as I can recall, in 1996 when I first started going into environmental education, lots of people, NGOs as well as 

government departments, have been doing their part, but up till now, no one can say for sure what kind of evaluation 

161

Colloquium 

method they have carried out, to show how far we have progressed. I do hope BBEC will put a lot of emphasis on this 

matter. 

A: Mr. Moktar Yassin Ajam (Science & Technology Centre) 

Thank you. If JICA supports this, we will certainly look deeper in this matter. 

I am not the practitioner here for public awareness, I am only a general administrator, but I believe that any kind of 

activity that can lead to evaluation and monitoring, in other words, indicators will be very much welcome. I would like to 

differentiate between output and outcome. Normally, when we conduct a certain number of activities per year, we say 

that is the output However, we seldom look at the outcome, or how effective the implementation is. 

On the participation of school children, I think many of the activities have target them already. I believe we should also 

look into the co-curriculum designed, which should include the participation of the teachers. 

A: Mr. Drew Boshell (Raleigh International) 

It’s quite ironic because that was exactly the statement that I was going to make, going back on my research days of 

developing performance evaluation indicators for public awareness and also the government. I might be a little bit hazy, 

but I am not sure what BBEC is doing in this scope. It is important if you can align the evaluation indicators together with 

goals for management, not only in research and education, but also park management. You may have great management 

plans and unless you have indicators to determine how well you have progressed, you don’t really how well you are 

doing. 

A: Mr. Azmi Salim (Ranau District Office) 

I’d like to suggest that the target group you give priority to should not only be the Kota Kinabalu area, but also areas 

affected by the Crocker Range Park. I’d also like to suggest that the Federal Government together with the Education 

Department be involved in this campaign, so that students of primary and secondary schools can assist in this public 

awareness programme. Thank you. 

A: Mr. T. Kusano (JICA) 

I am sure all of you have read the guide book for the BBEC programme. It is the compilation of our planning and our first 

seminar last year. In the book, we listed the project design matrix for four components and programme design for all. 

There are columns for indicators where we mark the success, achievements of the outcome and activities we want to do. 

The design of BBEC was made by about 300 people attending 16 workshops, which did preliminary studies before 

embarking on. This design itself indicates what we have thought. After one year, we will look at this plan and we will 

notice what activities and/or outcome are not successful or correct. 

Before beginning the BBEC programme, everybody agreed on the achieved results of a particular design, and we put up 

the indicators. Public Awareness would make Sabahans understand the meaning of biodiversity, etc. After a year, we 

will check to see how much we have progressed. We will see whether we have achieved the goals, and if not, we will 

modify this design and put in more practical indicators. 


This is very interesting. I remember during the planning of this BBEC programme, this was one of the suggestions 

mentioned, that some form of education method be established for the Public Awareness Component, because unless 

we have one method of assessing, it is not fair to say whether we have succeeded or failed. However, this is something 

we have to learn from Japan; I am unsure whether they have such a thing or not. So if anyone in this room knows about 

any evaluation method, please let us have your ideas, and perhaps we can put it to good use. 

A: Mr. Kan Yaw Chong (Daily Express) 

My comments are about the fundamental objectives of BBEC. I am a little puzzled by the definition of the BBEC. It seems 

to separate the eco-system from biodiversity. I have just come back from a six week course in Japan, and what I learned 

there is that eco-system and biodiversity are one and the same thing. 

Biodiversity is defined on three main levels – genetic, species eco-system and biodiversity. That is what diversity is all 

about. Actually it is not a Japanese definition, but it was taken from the Earth Summit in 1992. Therefore, I think the 

most important thing that this conference must do is try to adopt a definition, because I have talked to so many people 

in my job, and one important thing I learnt was that when we have a problem we must first define very clearly and 

162


precisely what the problem is, before it can be resolved. Hence, we should define biodiversity. 


You are definitely right. I agree there are three levels of biodiversity, however, our stakeholders are Sabahans. There 

are people who do not know what biodiversity is in the first place. Firstly, we want to know what we have at the species 

level. It is not possible to go to the genetic level within five years; we know our constraint. We didn’t ask to look at the 

conservation of genes, because nobody can do that within five years on a limited budget. Therefore, we go for species 

level, which is common in the world of biodiversity. We feel we can manage this level, and complete it within the five year 

limit satisfactorily. This includes how many species of ants we have, how many species of plants we have, etc. Secondly, 

we’d also like to look into functional aspects, and this is where the ecosystem comes in. The Crocker Range is in 

the ecosystem, and this is why we have to balance between the scientific conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem to 

make it understandable. 

A: Mr. T. Kusano (JICA) 

About biodiversity and ecosystem. However, the word “biodiversity” is not yet popular among the public, and we are 

afraid it mislead to mean only species level. This is why, we put the word “ecosystems” in our programme title. The 

scientific definition of biodiversity includes ecosystem level. I sincerely hope one day everybody will understand the word 

biodiversity, its three different levels, and that equals nature. 

Q: Mr. Jimmy Omar (Sabah Nature Club) 

One of the obvious constraints faced by people dealing with public awareness and/or environmental education practitioners, 

is funding. Would it be possible to get a commitment from the government or from agencies dealing with environment 

or biodiversity, to at least provide funding for this As indicated yesterday in a keynote address by Datuk K.Y. 

Mustafa, it is very important to educate people so they can understand the importance of conservation. 


Generally, I think Malaysia does not provide enough funding for research and development. This is a common discussion, 

and has been raised on many levels. Basically, it is because the State itself is facing a severe constraint. There is 

the intention and capability, and these are the two issues which are not working together at this point. 

A: Mr. Azman Muhammad (Universiti Malaysia Sabah) 

In the Keynote Address this morning by Mr. Mitsuo Usuki, he mentioned the problem/issue of conservation is also 

related to economy, society and environment. These are all inter-related. The approach to the conservation effort must 

be a multi-holistic approach rather than one approach only. That is why we have a problem measuring the success or 

failure of an awareness campaign. It is because we are looking at the campaign on its own, and not as a whole. One of 

the issues of consideration in Sabah is people living within the park boundaries. Probably by giving them land titles to 

other places will solve the whole problem of conservation. My idea or suggestion is that we must look at the issue of 

Public Awareness inter-related with other things. 

A: Mr. Augustine Tuuga (Sabah Wildlife Department) 

Most of the environmental problems we are now facing is partly because of poor decision making by administrators, or 

government department officers. However, we cannot totally blame them as they may have been ignorant of the nature 

conservation concept. I would like to suggest future leaders, officers, etc. the university should make nature conservation 

a compulsory subject. Thank you. 


This has been discussed by the University Board the other day, and there are several subjects that the public must learn 

about. This has become critical in nation building. 


We realize this fact very much, and in fact, efforts have already begun at lower levels, even at primary schools, kindergartens, 

etc. Some years ago, we had already discussed and wondered why our children are not aware of the environment. 

It is because the Minister of Education has not made environmental education a core subject. The mentality of 

people or even parents is that since you don’t have to pass the exam on that subject, you don’t have to study it. 

Learning is one method of really getting things into children. Mr. Gary Lim mentioned earlier our problem lies at our 

education level. For your information, ITBC-UMS offers 6 courses, ranging from topics such as Environment and 

163

Colloquium 

Conservation, Evolution Distribution and Conservation, Animal and Plants, etc., to non-science students. We believe 

that these non-science students, who may be bankers, managers, district officers, etc. in the future, need to know about 

the environment. In this way, we hope this will become a more active subject and that we will see many changes in 

future. Thank you. 

A: Mr. Shigeo Sakai (JICA Expert - Sabah Parks) 

I wish to make two comments. The first comment is that everybody attending this workshop are working towards the 

same goal. I would like to express my thanks to Datuk K.Y. Mustafa for his support. 

My second comment is that I used to work in the central American countries, in Costa Rica, the Honduras. When I went 

to the coastal areas, I could see banana plantations then, but now there are no more banana plantation expansions. In 

the early 90s, the forest areas were converted to banana plantations. 

When I first saw the oil palm plantations (in Sabah), it was similar to the situation in the South American countries. It’s 

kind of sad, frankly speaking. This happens not only in Sabah, Costa Rica, Honduras, but in Japan too. We say 68% of 

the land is forest, but in reality, we have cedar and cypress tree plantations, and there are many programmes these days 

with appalling averages. These trees are called “sugiwashinoshi”, and they are in every plantation. 

Now I work for the Sabah Parks, and I sincerely hope the work will be a kind of foundation towards conservation, but our 

overall goal for this project is ecosystem and biodiversity, and I wonder if we can achieve these goals. Of course we will 

try hard, and if everyone attending this conference thinks the same way, it would be good, but I wonder how much we can 

actually achieve. 


Probably at the bottom of our hearts, we always have that worry. Talking about it and exchanging ideas is definitely one 

way of creating awareness rather than not doing anything at all, and we have to be patient. Efforts like this should 

continue, even with the minimal results. 

With those comments, Datuk K.Y. Mustafa declared the Colloquium Session closed, and thanked everyone for their 

questions, comments and contributions. 

164


5.7 Closing Remarks 

by Datuk K.Y. Mustafa, BBEC Chairman 

Assalamualaikum warrahmahtullahi wabarakatu, good afternoon Ybhg. Prof Mohd. Noh Dalimin, Deputy 

Vice-Chancellor of Student Affairs, Prof Datin Dr. Maryati, Mr. Kusano, JICA Advisor, speakers, both from neighbouring 

countries and Malaysia, participants, heads of components. 

This morning, we had the Rt. Hon. The Chief Minister, who expressed very strong support for our programme, and 

despite his leaving the State leadership, he still makes time and ensures a commitment still visible. For that, I am 

personally very grateful to him, but the very reason I believe he made his presence here today is because he saw the real 

importance of what we are doing. Of course, towards the end of the day, we ourselves will express whether we are 

contributing meaningfully, or whether we are just doing a lot of things, and deriving little results. However, as the Chief 

Minister comments, doing nothing is not an option we have nowadays. We have to do something, eventhough we do not 

derive great results. As there are so many people who choose to do nothing, this option will create a lot of problems later 

on, and certainly create a lot of regrets. 

What we are trying to do at this conference through the wider efforts of BBEC, again at State and National level, it is our 

co-operation among countries to make this world a better place, to try to save whatever we have left, so we can perpetuate. 

And of course, I think by protecting our environment, we are protecting ourselves. We are also one of the participants 

of the whole ecosystem. Therefore, it is very important we have one intention in mind, that we have to continue with 

these efforts and we are today comprised of many different fields and of course, the few, like me, who are definitely really 

out (I'm quite an alien). I remember when I had to present a paper several years ago in the presence of Prof Maryati, 

which I had to speak to scientists, that’s the sort of feeling I had. I had been involved with Science and Technology Unit 

for several years. STU is now headed by Mr. Moktar. Being in BBEC Programme for more than a year, now I'm more 

comfortable and I do understand a little bit more, that it's not only the responsibility of people who do research, people 

who have direct intentions, but it's the responsibility of everybody. 

We talk not only about the policy makers, we talk about the stakeholders, the ordinary man in the street. The discussion 

centres a lot on public awareness. I remember when we started discussing about the BBEC programme, I also though 

public awareness is not only most difficult, but most important, because this is where we have to get the support of the 

public, the support of the masses. If I were to compare to some of the jobs we have done, for e.g. preventing illegal 

logging, of course we have managed to obtain public confidence that we are caring and protecting the forestry a little 

better. In the past, people did not even speak or report (illegal logging), until perhaps it was highlighted in the paper, and 

by then it was already too late. 

So we are hoping, we will get to, at least that stage where people are very aware and people are very conscious of what 

before was very wrong. I quoted two examples in my welcome speech yesterday. Hopefully, we do not get such a nasty 

notice before we start acting, or reacting. 

So ladies and gentlemen, we have had a long day, and everybody had contributed so much. I’d like to repeat what our 

Chief Minister has said. Please stay longer in Sabah, because despite the problems that we have, Sabah is still very 

much a beautiful place. We are grateful to our friends from Brunei Darussalaam. We share borders and it’s good that 

Brunei is not just an oil country, but also has biodiversity. Of course the environment is so similar, but so is with other 

states, Kalimantan for instance. So we will want to conduct this dialogue very openly and being in Sabah, you can be 

assured you are very much welcome. We'd like to pride ourselves that Sabah has a population who are very tolerant, 

where people have unity and blodiversity, and that will be good if that too represents other countries in the world. 

Sekian, Assalamualaikum warrahmahtullahi wabarakatu. Thank you. 

165

Photo Gallery PART 6 

On the first day at the Registration Counter 

Mr. Laurentius Ambu (Sabah Wildlife Department), presenting the progress of Habitat Management Component 

166


Dr. Jamili Nais (Sabah Parks) presenting the progress of Park Management Component 

Dr. Moktar Yassin Ajam (Science and Technology Unit) 

presenting the progress of Public Awareness Component 

167

Photo Gallery 

Prof. Datin Dr. Maryati Mohamed (ITBC) presenting the progress of Research & Education Component 

Keynote Speech by the BBEC Programme Chairman, Y.B. Datuk K.Y. Mustafa 

168


UMS Vice Chancelor, Tan Sri Prof. Datuk Seri Panglima Dr. Abu Hassan 

welcoming the arrival of Y.A.B. Datuk Chong Kah Kiat 

The conference officially launched by Sabah Chief Minister, Y.A.B. Datuk Chong Kah Kiat 

169


After officiating, Y.A.B. Datuk Chong received a momento of the conference, which consisted of four recent 

publications of BBEC from the Chairman of BBEC Programme. 

The Guest of Honours for the launching of BBEC International Conference 2003. 

170


Y.A.B. Datuk Chong greeted by three guest speakers from Philippines and Indonesia 

(Dir. Texon of ARCBC, Dr. Sugardjito of LIPI and Dr. Dwi Setyono of Gunung Halimun National Park). 

Some participants of BBEC International Conference 2003 (Photo 1 of 4) 

171




172



Prof. Ir. Agung Sardjono from Mulawarman University, presenting 

his paper on Tropical Forest Management: Kalimantan’s Experience 

173


Mr. Mitsuo Usuki, a Senior Research Fellow of United Nation University, 

presenting his keynote paper 

Dr. Mohd. Nazri Iguchi Abdullah (centre) chairing the presentation of Mr. Awang Samhan (Brunei Museum 

Department) and Dr. Dwi Setyono (Gunung Halimun National Park, Indonesia) 

174


Guest Speakers (from right to left), Mr. Gary Lim of MNS, Mr. Hiroshi Shinsho of KIWC, 

Dr. Tohru Nakasizuka of Research Centre for Humanity and Nature and Dr. Isabelle of HUTAN. 

Their presentation was chaired by Prof. Datin Maryati. 

Mr. Drew Boshell of Raleigh International, participating in the Q & A Session. 

175


Mr. Jimmy Omar of Yayasan Sabah, participating in Q & A Session. 

Component Workshop Session: Habitat Management Component (Photo 1 of 4) 

176


Component Workshop Session: Public Awareness Component (Photo 2 of 4) 

Component Workshop Session: Park Management Component (Photo 3 of 4) 

177


Component Workshop Session: Research and Education Component (Photo 4 of 4) 

Tn. Hj. Amat Ramsa from Rainforest Academy of UPM asking one of the guest speakers. 

178


Pn. Zahra Yaacob from Sabah Society, delivering her question to Y.B. Datuk K.Y. Mustafa. 

The commitee of BBEC Programme from left to right: Mr. Kusano (Chief Advisor of BBEC), 

Prof. Datin Maryati (Head of REC), Datuk K.Y. Mustafa (Chairman of BBEC), Dr. Jamili Nais (representing 

Head of PMC)Mr. Moktar Yassin (Head of PAC) and Mr. Laurentius Ambu (representing Head of HMC) 

179

Part 7 

Press Cuttings 

BBEC International Conference 2003 

180


183

184


185

186


187

188

Effective Approaches to Nature Conservation - Bornean Biodiversity ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?