astudy of nature tourism development in ulu muda, kedah darul ...

A STUDY OF NATURE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN ULU MUDA, KEDAH DARUL AMAN 

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... i 

List of Tables .................................................................................................................iv 

List of Figures ...............................................................................................................vi 

List of Maps..................................................................................................................vii 

List of Appendix.......................................................................................................... viii 

Acronyms.......................................................................................................................ix 

Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................x 

Executive Summary .................................................................................................... xiii 

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................1 

1.1 Scope of Study ..................................................................................................1 

1.2 Objectives of Study...........................................................................................1 

1.3 Study Methodology...........................................................................................2 

1.4 Outputs of Study ...............................................................................................3 

1.5 Defining the Area under Review ......................................................................3 

2 Natural Resources of Ulu Muda ..............................................................................4 

2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................4 

2.1.1 Climate ...................................................................................................... 4 

2.2 Biodiversity.......................................................................................................4 

2.2.1 The Forests of the Greater Ulu Muda Area............................................... 4 

2.2.2 Special Habitats......................................................................................... 5 

2.2.3 Wildlife...................................................................................................... 5 

2.3 Importance and Economic Values ....................................................................9 

2.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 9 

2.3.2 Direct Use Values...................................................................................... 9 

2.3.3 Indirect Use Values ................................................................................... 9 

2.3.4 Non-use Values ......................................................................................... 9 

3 Tourism and the Economic Values of Greater Ulu Muda.....................................12 

3.1 Role of Tourism in Kedah’s Economy ...........................................................12 

3.1.1 Summary of the Kedah economy............................................................ 12 

3.1.2 The Tourism Sector................................................................................. 12 

3.1.3 Why Nature Tourism?............................................................................. 15 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia i


3.1.4 Summary: Ulu Muda as an International Nature Tourism Destination .. 17 

3.2 Present Ulu Muda Tourism Facilities .............................................................18 

3.3 Present Ulu Muda Tourism Activities ............................................................20 

3.3.1 Tourism Potential in Ulu Muda............................................................... 20 

3.4 Proposed Development Plans and Implications for Nature Tourism 

Developments ...........................................................................................................29 

3.4.1 Trans-Eastern Hinterland Highway......................................................... 29 

3.4.2 Helicopter-logging of the Ulu Muda forests ........................................... 29 

3.4.3 Proposed State Park................................................................................. 33 

3.5 Wider Values of Ulu Muda.............................................................................35 

3.5.1 Water Supply........................................................................................... 35 

3.5.2 Irrigation.................................................................................................. 36 

3.5.3 Summary of Economic Values................................................................ 39 

4 Fundamental Aspects of Nature Tourism Development in Ulu Muda..................41 

4.1 Definition of “Nature” and “Ecotourism”.......................................................41 

4.2 Defining the Nature Tourism Destination.......................................................41 

4.2.1 Justification ............................................................................................. 41 

4.2.2 Criteria for Area Selection ...................................................................... 42 

4.3 Carrying Capacity Concept.............................................................................43 

4.3.1 Definition of Carrying Capacity.............................................................. 43 

4.3.2 Determining Carrying Capacity .............................................................. 44 

4.4 Spatial Analysis of Ulu Muda.........................................................................47 

4.4.1 Specific Criteria Considered ................................................................... 47 

4.4.2 Results of Analysis.................................................................................. 47 

4.5 Recommendations for a State Park.................................................................48 

4.5.1 Proposed Conceptual Management Zones .............................................. 48 

4.6 Institutional Framework for Managing Nature Tourism ................................51 

4.6.1 The Nature Tourism Area ....................................................................... 51 

4.7 Developing Local Capacity for Nature Tourism ............................................56 

4.7.1 Local Community Involvement .............................................................. 56 

4.8 Marketing and Promoting Nature Tourism.....................................................56 

5 Conceptual Framework for the Development for Ulu Muda ................................59 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia ii


5.1 Development Concept for “ Inside areas” .......................................................61 

5.2 Development Concept for Outside Areas .......................................................63 

5.3 Action Plan Framework for Conservation and Development.........................64 

5.3.1 Institutional and Legal Requirements ..................................................... 67 

5.3.2 Training and Capacity Building .............................................................. 84 

5.3.3 Financial Resources and Schedule .......................................................... 86 

6 Conclusion and Recommendations .......................................................................93 

Appendix.......................................................................................................................95 

References…………………………………………………………………………………… 113 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia iii


List of Tables 

TABLE 1. SELECTED TOURISM INDICATORS (MALAYSIA)..............................................13 

TABLE 2. ALLOCATIONS AND REVENUE FOR TOURISM..................................................14 

TABLE 3. ESTIMATES OF NATURE TOURISM AND WILDLIFE-RELATED TOURISM ..........16 

TABLE 4. ESTIMATES OF THE WORLD ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NATURE TOURISM AND 

WILDLIFE-RELATED TOURISM ................................................................................16 

TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF TOURISM ESTABLISHMENTS AND RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS 

...............................................................................................................................19 

TABLE 6. VISITOR NUMBERS TO PEDU AND MUDA LAKE AREAS (2001) ......................21 

TABLE 7. ROOM CAPACITY AND OCCUPANCY RATES BY RESORTS...............................22 

TABLE 8. TOURIST PROJECTIONS FOR PEDU LAKE AREA, MUDA RESORT AND HAT ....24 

TABLE 9. BREAKDOWN OF VISITOR EXPENDITURE (RM) AT PEDU AND MUDA AREAS.26 

TABLE 10. ESTIMATED TOURIST EXPENDITURE AT PEDU AND MUDA AREAS IN 2001 ..26 

TABLE 11. FEATURES WHICH FOREIGN NATURE TOURISTS PARTICULARLY LIKED IN 

SABAH AND SARAWAK ...........................................................................................27 

TABLE 12. FEATURES WHICH FOREIGN ECOTOURISTS PARTICULARLY DISLIKED IN 

SABAH AND SARAWAK ...........................................................................................28 

TABLE 13. TOP THREE RECOMMENDATIONS BY FOREIGN NATURE TOURISTS FOR 

IMPROVEMENTS IN SABAH AND SARAWAK.............................................................28 

TABLE 14. COLLECTION OF ROYALTY, CESS AND PREMIUM .........................................31 

TABLE 15. GROSS TIMBER REVENUES...........................................................................31 

TABLE 16. BREAKDOWN OF REVENUE/COLLECTION DISTRIBUTION FROM TIMBER 

CONCESSION...........................................................................................................32 

TABLE 17. SELECTED PARK AREAS AND ESTABLISHMENT YEARS ................................34 

TABLE 18. EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE OF WATER TREATMENT - 1999 .....................36 

TABLE 19. ESTIMATION OF OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST OF IRRIGATION WATER 

(RM/M 3 ) ………………………………………………………………………..38 

TABLE 20. MADA PADDY PRODUCTION ......................................................................38 

TABLE 21. FACTORS AFFECTING CARRYING CAPACITY................................................46 

TABLE 22. SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT ZONES...........................................................50 

TABLE 23. COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE TWO CONTRASTING MALAYSIAN PROTECTED 

AREA MODELS .......................................................................................................54 

TABLE 24. TRENDS IN VISITOR NUMBERS TO PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS IN 

MALAYSIA..............................................................................................................57 

TABLE 25. SECTORAL MARKETING MATRIX .................................................................57 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia iv


TABLE 26. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE OF TOURISTS AT PEDU AND MUDA 

AREAS ....................................................................................................................58 

TABLE 27. INSIDE PARK AREA BY PROPOSED CAPACITY, ATTRACTIONS AND PROPOSED 

INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS .........................................................................70 

TABLE 28. OUTSIDE AND PERIPHERY OF PARK AREA....................................................74 

TABLE 29. ESTIMATED VISITOR NUMBERS INSIDE PARK AREA ....................................76 

TABLE 30. ESTIMATED VISITOR NUMBERS OUTSIDE PARK AREA.................................76 

TABLE 31. MARKETING STRATEGIES.............................................................................82 

TABLE 32. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE, PROPOSED ULU MUDA STATE PARK 

...............................................................................................................................87 

TABLE 33. CAPITAL COST SCHEDULE, PROPOSED ULU MUDA STATE PARK.................88 

TABLE 34. OPERATING COST SCHEDULE, PROPOSED ULU MUDA STATE PARK ............89 

TABLE 35. ANTICIPATED REVENUE STREAMS, PROPOSED ULU MUDA STATE PARK.....90 

TABLE 36. FINANCIAL RESULTS (RM), PROPOSED ULU MUDA STATE PARK................91 

TABLE 37. CASH FLOW STATUS (RM), PROPOSED ULU MUDA STATE PARK ................92 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia v


List of Figures 

FIGURE 1. TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE OF ULU MUDA FORESTS .....................................11 

FIGURE 2. VISITOR NUMBERS AND TREND TO KEDAH, 1990–2000 (MAINLAND AND 

LANGKAWI)............................................................................................................14 

FIGURE 3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ECOTOURISM ..............................................15 

FIGURE 4. ROOM OCCUPANCY IN DESA UTARA, 1996–2000 ........................................22 

FIGURE 5. COMPOSITION OF VISITORS BY GROUPS (HAT, FEB – MAY 2002) ...............23 

FIGURE 6. FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF TOURISM ..............25 

FIGURE 7. ESTIMATION OF COMPONENTS OF ECONOMIC VALUES OF ULU MUDA FOREST 

AREAS (REFLECTED AS ANNUAL SECONDARY VALUES) ........................................40 

FIGURE 8. A POSSIBLE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF A STATE 

PARK ......................................................................................................................55 

FIGURE 9. VISUALISATION OF THE “ INSIDE-OUTSIDE PARK” CONCEPT.........................60 

FIGURE 10. CONCEPTUAL TOURISM ACTION PLAN FRAMEWORK..................................66 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia vi


List of Maps 

(Maps are provided at the end of the report) 

MAP 1. CURRENT EXTENT OF FORESTS IN KEDAH 

MAP 2. ISOYET MAP FOR EASTERN KEDAH 

MAP 3. PRESENT TOURISM SITES IN THE ULU MUDA REGION 

MAP 4. MAJOR TOURISM SITES IN NORTHERN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA 

MAP 5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN THE GREATER ULU MUDA AREA 

MAP 6. EXTENT OF FOREST COVER IN THE ULU MUDA REGION 

MAP 7. TOPOGRAPHY AND OTHER IMPORTANT LANDMARKS 

MAP 8. PROPOSED KEDAH STATE PARK 

MAP 9. PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT ZONES 

MAP 10. PROPOSED NATURE TOURISM CONCEPT FOR ULU MUDA 

MAP 11. CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR “ INSIDE PARK” NATURE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT 

MAP 12. CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR “ OUTSIDE PARK” NATURE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT 

MAP 13. PROPOSED ULU MUDA STATE PARK 

MAP 14. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ZONES OF THE ULU MUDA STATE PARK 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia vii


List of Appendix 

APPENDIX 1. MAMMALS DOCUMENTED IN THE GREATER ULU MUDA… … … … … … ....95 

APPENDIX 2. VOLUME AND ROYALTY FEES BY TYPE OF WOOD … … … … … … … … .....99 

APPENDIX3. EXCERPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF 

LOGGING OPERATIONS IN THE VANIMO TIMBER AREA, SANDAUN PROVINCE, PAPUA 

NEW GUINEA… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..100 

APPENDIX4. PROPORTION OF WATER EXTRACTED FROM MUDA AND RELEVANT RIVERS 

OF THE TOTAL KEDAH WATER PRODUCTION … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..… 102 

APPENDIX 5. WATER REVENUE BY DOMESTIC AND COMMERCIAL VOLUMES, 1999 … .103 

APPENDIX 6. ECONOMIC VALUES OF ULU MUDA FOREST AREAS … … … … … … … … .103 

APPENDIX 7. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED STATE PARK AND EXISTING 

FOREST COMPARTMENTS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED … … … … … … … … … … … ....104 

APPENDIX 8. BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS … … … … … … … … … … .109 

APPENDIX 9. BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS … … … … … … … … ....111 

APPENDIX 10. RATIO OF LOCAL AND FOREIGN VISITORS, 2001… … … … … … … … ....112 

APPENDIX 11. BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED REVENUE STREAMS … … … … … … … .....112 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia viii


Acronyms 

DID Department of Drainage and Irrigation 

DOF Department of Fisheries 

EEPSEA Economy and Environment Programme for South East Asia 

FSC Forest Stewardship Council 

HAT High Adventure Tour 

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency 

JKR Jabatan Kerja Raya 

JPBD Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa 

JNPC Johor National Parks Corporation 

IMTGT Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle 

KHTP Kulim High Tech Park 

KLSE Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange 

KOPAM Koperasi Pembangunan Ampang Muda 

LADA Langkawi Development Authority 

MADA Muda Agricultural Development Authority 

MOCAT Ministry of Culture, Arts and Tourism 

PBA Perbadanan Bekalan Air 

PTKM Pelan Tindakan Kedah Maju 

SERI Socio Economic Research Institute 

UPEN Unit Perancang Ekonomi Negeri 

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme 

WTO World Tourism Organisation 

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia ix


Acknowledgements 

The study team received invaluable cooperation and information from many 

government agencies and individuals in the process of conducting this study. They 

are, however, not responsible for any errors and omissions that may still remain in the 

final report. We acknowledge and thank the following individuals for their assistance 

and contribution to the study: 

Kedah State Agencies 

Dato’ Ku Nahar bin Ku Ibrahim, UPEN Kedah 

Tuan Haji Puat bin Mohd Ali, UPEN Kedah 

En. Musthafa Mohamad, UPEN Kedah 

En. Rosli Abu Bakar, UPEN Kedah 

Tuan Haji Wahab b. Bakar, District Office of Sik 

Tuan Haji Abdul Rahman Ahmad, District Office of Sik 

En. Rosli bin Mansor, Sik Municipal Council 

En. Abdul Mukhti bin Abdullah, District Office of Baling 

En. Abdul Aziz bin Hassan, District Office of Baling 

En. Tuan Haji Halim bin Hassan, District Office of Padang Terap 

En. Che Hashim Hassan, Department of Forestry, Kedah 

En. Norhaidi bin Yunus, Department of Forestry, Kedah 

Ir. Foong Kam Chong, Muda Agriculture Development Authority (MADA) 

Ir. Loh Kim Mon, Muda Agriculture Development Authority (MADA) 

Ir. Geh Yean Lian, Muda Agriculture Development Authority (MADA) 

Tn. Hj. Azmi Johor, Department of Wildlife and National Parks (PERHILITAN) 

En. Shamsuri Ahmad, Department of Wildlife and National Parks (PERHILITAN) 

Ir. Tan Lai Seng, Public Works Department (JKR), Kedah 

Ir. Tajuddin Harun, Public Works Department (JKR), Kedah 

Tn. Hj. Mohd. Azam bin Mohd. Abid, Department of Town and Country Planning 

(JPBD), Kedah 

Pn. Harizah bt. Hassan, Department of Town and Country Planning (JPBD), Kedah 

Pn. Yip Siew Kuan, Department of Town and Country Planning (JPBD), Alor Setar 

Project Office 

Tn. Hj. Gulamsarwar b. Jan Mohamad, Department of Fisheries (DOF), Kedah 

Ir. Phuah Kim Heng, Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia x


Ir. Mohd. Nasir Merican, Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) 

Lt. Kol. Mehat bin Che Man, 6 th Brigade, Infantry Malaysia, Sungai Petani 

En. Khairul Nizam, Langkawi Development Authority (LADA) 

Tn. Hj. Abdul Rahman Ibrahim, Kedah State Development Corporation 

Federal Agencies 

En. Md. Salleh Bin Osman, Ministry of Culture, Arts and Tourism (MOCAT) 

En. Shaharuddin bin Mohamad Ismail, Department of Forestry, Peninsular Malaysia 

Pn. Siow Suan Neo, Department of Town and Country Planning (JPBD) 

Ir. Low Koon Sing, Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) 

Others 

Datuk Lamri Ali, Sabah Parks 

En. Paul Basintal, Sabah Parks 

En. Hasnizam Hamzah, Johor National Park Corportation (JNPC) 

En. Abdul Jalil bin Abdul Majid, Public Works Department, Perlis (JKR) 

En. Razak bin Che Teh, Koperasi Pembangunan Ampang Muda (KOPAM) 

Capt. (rtd) Shamsur Annuar B. Hj. Saad, High Adventure Travel (HAT) 

En. Roslan Abd. Karim, Desa Utara Pedu Lake Resort 

En. Nor Alam Shah Mohd. Yussof Shah, Mutiara Pedu Lake Resort 

En. Jaafar Ali, Muda Resort 

En. Salahudin Yaacob, Society General Surveillance (SGS) Malaysia 

Dr. Geoffrey Davison, WWF Malaysia 

Mr. David Tan, WWF Malaysia/Likas Wetlands 

Ms. Tan Hui Shim, WWF Malaysia/Likas Wetlands 

En. Sanath Kumaran, WWF Malaysia 

En. Surin Suksuwan, Perlis State Park Project 

Ms. Lim Pao Li, PE Research Sdn. Bhd. 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia xi


THE STUDY TEAM 

Dr. Reza Azmi, Project Leader, WWF Malaysia 

Mr. Hymeir Kamarudin, WWF Malaysia 

Mr. Jeet Sukumaran, WWF Malaysia 

Mr. Chang Yii Tan, PE Research Sdn. Bhd. 

Ms. Yeo Bee Hong, PE Research Sdn. Bhd. 

Mr. Lee Kian Foh, PE Research Sdn. Bhd. 

Mr. Nyon Yong Chik, GIS Consultant 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia xii


Executive Summary 

1.0 Background 

1.1 Kedah State Development Policies 

The ‘Pelan Tindakan Kedah Maju 2010’ contains guiding principals and 

concepts for the development of the State of Kedah Darul Aman from 2001 to 

2010. 

The state government has adopted a broad meaning of ‘development’, defined 

by the need to balance GDP per capita growth with considerations of equity, 

promotion of core values and quality of life. The Environmental Index stands 

as one of five indicators measuring the success of development goals. 

1.2 Location of the Ulu Muda Forests and the Study Area 

The Ulu Muda forests are located in the eastern part of Kedah and are part of a 

forest area that stretches well into Thai territory. The forest stretches south and 

connects with the forest areas in Weng, within the administrative districts of 

Baling, and joins the Belum-Temenggor forests. 

The study area includes the Ulu Muda forests as well as the following forest 

reserves: Bukit Saiong, Chebar Besar, Padang Terap, Pedu, Ulu Muda and 

Bukit Keramat. These areas are reflected as the ‘Greater Ulu Muda’ Forests as 

these contiguous areas form a fundamental self-contained physiographic, 

hydrological and ecological units required to facilitate management of the 

area. 

1.3 Uniqueness of Ulu Muda Forests 

The Ulu Muda area is one of the most interesting natural areas in Malaysia for 

several reasons: 

x The flora is characterized by rich Northern Thai-Burmese elements. 

x High potential for extending the trans-boundary protected area 

network. 

x Old-growth primary tropical rainforest within the context of tourism is 

a major attraction point—as an example, Taman Negara is often 

promoted as being the oldest rainforest in the world with trees around 

130 million years old. 

x A high concentration of saltlicks and hot springs that are important for 

many large mammals. 

x Abundant and diverse wildlife species of Ulu Muda as percentage of 

the total in Malaysia: 55% mammals, six out of 10 primates, 78% 

squirrel species, 53% bat species, 175 bird species, seven out of 10 

hornbill species, 42 out of 54 reptile species, rich species diversity of 

river and lake fishes, and wild roaming elephants. 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia xiii


x Exists as a critical water-catchment forest in an area prone to seasonal 

droughts and water stress. This water catchment protects the main 

sources of water that supplies agricultural, domestic and industrial 

water use in the northern region of Peninsular Malaysia (Kedah, Perlis 

and Penang). 

1.4 Potential for Tourism Development 

Some of the key facets that will support the development of tourism in Ulu 

Muda include: 

x Transboundary park and attraction: the Northern Triangle regional 

cooperation. 

x Penang-Kedah-Perlis: the northern Peninsular states sub-regional 

cooperation. 

x Langkawi as a tourist destination: within the context of Kedah tourism 

development. 

1.5 Existing Facilities 

Existing tourism facilities and activities in the region include: 

x Two resorts operating on the banks of Pedu Lake (Mutiara Pedu and 

Desa Utara Pedu Lake Resort). Anjung Pedu Resort has been 

completed but is not operational at the time of writing. 

x Muda resort in Gubir. 

x Koperasi Pembangunan Ampang Muda (KOPAM) jetty in Gubir. 

x High Adventure Travel (HAT) nature tour packages. 

2.0 Spatial and Conceptual Guideline as a Nature Tourism Destination Study 

2.1 Objectives of Study 

The objectives of the study are to: 

x Develop a framework for a management plan for the Ulu Muda 

Greater Forests; 

x To explore the potential of the Ulu Muda Forests as a nature tourism 

destination; 

x To develop a zoning concept plan for the Ulu Muda forest area through 

consultation with the relevant Government agencies 1 . 

1 A multi stakeholder workshop was initially planned as part of the study. Due to the change of course 

of the project, the report built upon the dialogues initiated with State Government agencies and relevant 

stakeholders directly. 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia xiv


2.2 Study Methodology 

The study adopted a consultative approach to capture the views and interests 

of various government agencies and stakeholders in relation to the Ulu Muda 

Forests. Dialogues were initiated with relevant government agencies at the 

State and Federal levels, community group (e.g. KOPAM) and private sectors. 

Part of the study also involved an extensive literature review related to the 

study area. Data and information from the dialogues and literature review are 

translated and assessed through a multidisciplinary approach of economic and 

landscape-level GIS analysis. 

2.3 Outputs of Study 

The outputs of the study are to: 

x Highlight spatial projection of proposed development plans for the 

region; 

x Develop conceptual zones for sustainable development; 

x Identify core preservation areas that will boost the State’ s tourism 

potential; 

x Explore the use of formal legislation for strengthening the conceptual 

plans; and 

x Develop an action plan. 

2.4 Defining Nature Tourism 

Within the context of this study, nature tourism is defined as: 

“ All tourism directly dependent on the use of natural resources in a 

relatively undeveloped state, including scenery, topography, water 

features, vegetation and wildlife” 2 

Hence, a nature tourism destination is represented as: 

“ A specific area that is legally gazetted as a natural nature tourism area 

with the full range of institutional arrangements implemented as 

necessary to support and manage it.” 

3.0 Significance of Ulu Muda Forests 

3.1 In addition to the rich biodiversity of the Ulu Muda forests, the forests play an 

important ecological and economic role in the northern region: 

2 MOCAT, 1996. 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia xv


1) The study found that existing tourism receipts is estimated at RM13 

million per annum. 

2) Water catchment area for irrigation: 

x The Muda scheme supports paddy production in an area that is 

regarded as the rice bowl of Malaysia. 

x The area under this scheme is responsible for 40% of total paddy 

production in the country and directly involves 63,000 families in 

terms of agriculture livelihoods. 

x The contribution of Ulu Muda forests in terms of tertiary irrigation 

values is estimated at approximately RM600 million annually. 

3) Water catchment for water supply: 

x The Ulu Muda forests provide upstream protection of major rivers that 

supply 80% of drinking water for Kedah and Penang and 60% for 

Perlis 3 . 

x Critical industrial areas such as the Kulim High-Tech Park and other 

similar industrial parks in Penang (e.g. Bayan Lepas and Seberang 

Perai) are located downstream of the Ulu Muda forests. 

x The study estimated that gross water revenue relevant to the Ulu Muda 

Forests is RM80 million for Kedah, RM100 million for Penang and 

RM6.2 million for Perlis annually based on 1999 figures. Increasing 

water demand projections are likely to increase revenue from water. 

The Perbadanan Bekalan Air Pulau Pinang (PBA Holdings Berhad) 

gained a net profit of RM41 million in 2001 4 . 

4.0 Proposed Development Plans and Implications for Nature Tourism 

Developments 

4.1 Major Developments within the Greater Ulu Muda Area 

One of the major impacts on this region would be from the establishment of a 

new border crossing at Durian Burong and the extension of a highway from 

here southwards (Trans-Eastern Hinterland Highway). The highway links 

Durian Burong and Kupang in the Baling District. The highway will 

undoubtedly change the patterns of economy in this region, and may play an 

important role in catalyzing tourism initiatives for Ulu Muda. However, the 

potential impacts as a physical barrier for wildlife migration needs to be 

assessed and the study proposes mitigation measures to be developed where 

there are significant forests on either side of the road (e.g. Kuala Nerang- 

3 Perlis figure reflects proportion prior to May, 2002 (JKR Perlis, pers. comm.). 

4 Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange, http://www.klse.com.my 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia xvi


Gulau). The study also proposes that it would be advantageous to maintain 

forest stretches along the old road between Kuala Nerang to Gubir as “ forests 

roads” as this adds to the charm of the area for visiting tourists. 

4.2 Helicopter-logging of the Ulu Muda forests 

The proposed heli-logging project is estimated to cover a total area of 122, 798 

ha which is to be logged over a period of 10 years through a joint venture 

company between WTK Holdings Berhad and Yayasan Islam Negeri Kedah 5 . 

Whilst this report does not address fully the potential impacts of this proposal, 

it is clear that the proposals put forward in this study and the logging plans are 

not compatible. Firstly, the area to be logged includes the core conservation 

area identified by this study. Secondly, any logging plans will have a negative 

impact on tourism developments that aim to attract the international nature 

tourism markets. 

The study proposes that the following heli-logging implications on existing 

use need to be considered: 

x Potential impacts on water catchment areas. 

x Potential impacts on nature tourism development and wildlife roaming 

areas. 

x The annual allowable cut for Kedah was 2,312 ha in 2000 and 2,163 ha 

in 1999 as set by the National Forestry Council. Within the helilogging 

project, an approximate 12,000 ha will be logged annually. 

The large area of the annual allowable cut needs to be re-considered. 

5.0 Recommendations for a State Park 

5.1 Over the years, various initiatives have highlighted the significance of the Ulu 

Muda forests and recommended for its adoption as a State Park or National 

Park. The most recent was a paper by UPEN Kedah outlining a concept for a 

State “ Eco” Park 6 . Other highlights include: 

x National Ecotourism Plan 7 

x National Conservation Strategy 8 

x Kedah Conservation Strategy 9 

5 WTK Holdings Berhad, 2002. 

6 Based on the NEP (MOCAT, 1996). 

7 MOCAT, 1996. 

8 EPU, 1993. 

9 WWF Malaysia, 1984. 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia xvii


x National Spatial Plan (identified as an environmentally sensitive area) 10 

5.2 From the detailed analysis of this study, core conservation areas have been 

identified which will greatly benefit the protection status of the water 

catchment and also boost potential nature tourism developments in the region. 

The area proposed for this State Park is approximately 53,903 ha. 

6.0 Proposed Nature Tourism Concept for Ulu Muda 

The inside-outside park concept is proposed to incorporate the sensitivity of 

the environment and balancing the needs for development of the area. The 

concept incorporates the following considerations: 

x Low impact activities within the park area; 

x Higher impact, mass tourism outside the park area (existing resorts); 

x Need for the development of appropriate facilities, infrastructure and 

attractions to meet tourism demand based on the carrying capacity of 

the area. 

The inside park areas include the following: Kuala Tera, Sira Hangat, Kuala 

Labua, Kaji Cuaca Station, Kuala Lasor, Kuala Kalir and Bukit Saiong while 

the outside park areas encompass: Pedu, Gubir, KOPAM jetty area and Kg. 

Gulau. 

A carrying capacity estimation was carried out based upon the infrastructure 

capacity to maintain the number of visitors. However, there is a need for 

future studies to verify and assess these capacities on the ground. 

7.0 Action Plan Framework for Conservation and Development 

10 JPBD, 2002. 

The action plan framework reflects the ultimate goal towards: 

a) Achieving a managed state park; 

b) Promoting socio-economic improvements and spill-overs around 

population centers; 

c) Ensuring the integration of environmental considerations and capacity 

for sustained nature tourism benefits. 

Key components of the action plan framework to achieve the goals are: 

x Planning and Institutional Needs 

x Investment and Infrastructure 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia xviii


x Product Development 

x Marketing and Promotions 

x Training and Capacity Building 

x Management and Regulation 

8.0 Proposed Management Zones 

Due to the sensitivity of development in the area, three key management zones 

have been identified: 

x Restricted areas: Immediate areas close to the dams of Ahning, Pedu, 

Muda and surrounding Saiong inlet and outlet tunnel. 

x Nature Reserves: Encompass areas that are environmentally sensitive 

and important for wildlife conservation. Areas identified include 

immediate areas surrounding the river courses and lake parameter of 

Sg. Muda and Sg. Teliang. The Sg. Teliang area has been identified 

under the Kedah Fisheries Act as a no-fishing zone for fish 

conservation. At present, the Department of Fisheries issues licenses 

for fishing in the Muda Lake among the local communities. It is 

recommended that enforcement and monitoring measures to be stepped 

up in order to reduce the threat of over-fishing. 

x Tourism Centres: Points of access for accommodating larger number 

of tourists such as at Kuala Nerang, Pedu resort-area, Gubir and Gulau. 

9.0 Financial Implications 

11 PTKM 2010 

To realise the benefits of the proposed Ulu Muda State Park, the key 

development strategy include: 

x Infrastructure investment of RM7.4 million to build up 

accommodation, roads, trails and support facilities; 

x Ensuring sufficient operating and maintenance costs of RM0.5-0.6 

million annually; 

x Tourist demand, if it rises as expected (12% per annum) 11 , will ensure 

financial surplus by the third year of implementation. 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia xix


10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 

10.1 Enhancing the Values of Ulu Muda: Nature tourism development will 

enhance the use values of Ulu Muda without upsetting other values; existing 

benefit is estimated at RM13 million and could potentially increase 10 times 

within a period of 10 years. 

Infrastructure investments are required to increase its carrying capacity; 

estimated at 300 persons per day inside the park and 1,230 persons per day 

outside the park. 

10.2 Consultation Process: It is important to consult and involve local 

communities, NGOs, local guides and staff, and Government agencies for 

their support and to develop a sense of ownership. 

It is also vital to involve the private sector in the development of Ulu Muda 

nature tourism plans. 

10.3 Logging Activities: Logging of the catchment conflicts with the concept of 

nature tourism development proposed here and it is not logical to pursue both 

options. 

However, if logging were to take place anyway, it will be critical to limit 

logging to the southern part of Ulu Muda forests, i.e., only half the proposed 

area (for Phase 1) for logging (Coupes 1-3 only). Strict guidelines and 

monitoring efforts need to be implemented to minimise soil erosion, 

sedimentation to rivers and disturbance to wildlife. 

The study proposes that the best option would be to ensure that the consent for 

logging activities would only be given if the venture company is able to secure 

internationally recognized forest certification (e.g., Forest Stewardship 

Council’ s certification). This will ensure that the logging activities adhere to 

strict management guidelines. Furthermore, for the venture company, access to 

high-premium markets for the logs are almost guaranteed upon being awarded 

FSC certification. This has been the case with PITC in Perak whose operations 

had recently been awarded FSC certification by independent assessors. 

Coupes 4, 5 and 6 (as delineated in the detailed EIA) should definitely not be 

allowed because of conflicts with nature tourism and biodiversity 

conservation. Logging could also induce major costs and losses from existing 

water values. 

10.4 Zoning: Core conservation zone identified include Sg. Teliang, Kalir and 

northern side of Ulu Muda as well as areas on Sg. Muda up to Kuala Lasor as 

these are most suitable for nature tourism and animal watching as major 

activities including other lakeside activities. 

Proposed tourism development areas are: around Charok Tera and lakeside 

areas around KOPAM. Proposed gateways include: KOPAM area, Gubir 

‘dump-site’ and the outside areas of Lasor. 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia xx


10.5 Proposed Strategies: The study recommends that the State Forestry 

Department model be adopted, as it is the least cost option. Also this option 

does not require the setting up of new institutions, and hence, implementation 

can be made faster. 

It is proposed that the Government needs to allocate RM10 million for set-up 

costs for five years (75% in capital expenditure) before returns are expected. 

Explore co-financing model with the Economic Planning Unit, Governmentto-Government 

funding (e.g. JICA/DANCED) and multi-lateral aid agencies 

(e.g. GEF) to obtain required funding. 

Explore inter-state water-based charges or other financing options to increase 

State revenue. 

11. The Next Steps 

The proposed next steps are to: 

x Gazette Ulu Muda as a State Park: The study have outlined the 

significance of Ulu Muda in terms of its natural resources and 

contribution to the local, national and regional economy. In order to 

enhance these values and ensure sustainability of these resources, it is 

crucial that the first step would be to gazette Ulu Muda as a State Park. 

x Determine the management structure of the proposed park: While 

the study has recommended the adoption of a management structure 

under the State Forestry Department model, the Kedah Government 

needs to determine the management structure for the establishment of 

the park. 

x Allocate sufficient financial resources: Sufficient funds are required 

to develop the infrastructure within and outside the park. International 

agencies are a potential source for funds, especially for those projects 

that can demonstrate support for international environmental activities. 

The study also proposes that privatisation options be explored as 

support for partial financing. Within this option, investors will sink 

their capital in exchange for shares or options to develop tourism 

infrastructure that is compatible to the sensitivity of the park. Lobbying 

stakeholder support will also be another key element within this 

project. Involving the local NGOs to assist in preparing educational 

and marketing channels will be very important as well. Based on the 

estimation of the study, it is proposed that Government would need to 

allocate a small sum of RM10 million for this proposed project. 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia xxi


1 Introduction 

This study was commissioned by UPEN Kedah (Unit Perancang Ekonomi Negeri 

Kedah ) with funds channeled by Ministry Of Culture Arts and Tourism Malaysia as 

part of an effort to develop hinterland tourism tourism in Kedah, specifically in the 

Ulu Muda and Pedu areas. 

The “ Greater Ulu Muda area of Kedah” (which includes, among others, Tasik Muda 

and Tasik Pedu) has many types of economic-environmental values, e.g., its rich 

biodiversity and the water that is supplied to and is critical to the economy of Kedah, 

the northern region and livelihood of its people. In addition to these values, two other 

resources are as yet not tapped: the standing timber and the tourism assets of the 

catchment areas of the Muda, Pedu and Ahning dams. Not all development activities 

can be sustainable nor would they support one another in a consistent manner. Some 

activities will conflict with others and it is important to make the decisions that yield 

optimal benefit for the state and its people. 

The consultants would advocate that nature tourism is the way for the Kedah State 

Government to derive additional revenue from the forests of the Greater Ulu Muda 

area while ensuring the continuity of other sustainable uses. 

However, careful and extensive planning is required to establish and maintain nature 

tourism operations in the Ulu Muda area, and furthermore ensure that tourism does 

not conflict or undermine other activities in the area (current or future) or vice versa. 

To achieve this, an integrated framework for the management and development of the 

Ulu Muda area is required. This framework needs to be grounded in a common vision 

for the management of the Ulu Muda area, and hence needs to be developed 

consultatively with the various government agencies as well as private bodies 

involved or having an interest in the area. Associated with such a framework are 

several important issues that are fundamental to the management of an area that 

supports nature tourism, such as the establishment of a nature tourism destination, a 

zoning concept plan for the whole area, etc. 

1.1 Scope of Study 

This study presents an integrated framework for the management and development of 

the Greater Ulu Muda area. It is essential to emphasize that the term “ Greater Ulu 

Muda” encompasses an area much larger than the Ulu Muda Forest Reserve per se. 

For the successful management of a critical landscape such as Ulu Muda, the basic 

spatial unit to be defined needs to specifically include self-contained and complete 

physiographical, hydrological and ecological features. 

1.2 Objectives of Study 

The objectives of the study are to: 

x Develop a framework for a management plan for the Greater Ulu Muda 

forests; 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia 1


x Explore the potential of the Ulu Muda forests as a nature tourism destination; 

x Develop a zoning concept plan for the Ulu Muda forest area through 

consultation with the relevant Government agencies 12 . 

1.3 Study Methodology 

Three basic approaches were used to ensure a comprehensive and integrated study: 

(1) Literature and Published Works 

Much documentation exists regarding the Greater Ulu Muda area. These were to 

provide the essential background information required to understand the landscape. In 

particular, the rich biodiversity of the forests of the area have been documented in 

earlier studies. Though generally uncoordinated (i.e. carried out as independent 

“ snapshots” , with different places rapidly assessed at different times for different taxa 

and different purposes), these studies nonetheless provided valuable insights into the 

potential of Ulu Muda for nature tourism. 

(2) Interviews 

A participatory and consultative approach was used to ensure that all views and 

interests were represented in this study. Various government agencies and personnel 

with either direct or indirect relevance to the management of the Greater Ulu Muda 

area, from the District to State to Federal levels were contacted and interviewed. In 

addition, the views of communities and private entrepreneurs working in the area 

were also sought. 

(3) Landscape-level GIS Analysis 

State-of-the-art Geographical Information Systems (GIS) technology was used to 

analyse the landscape use and patterns in detail. Using GIS operations, it is possible to 

analyse the most efficient means to conserve the natural and environmental assets that 

are important for conservation and tourism development, taking into account 

geographical, environmental and other constraints. Based on this, proposed zoning 

concepts and the boundaries of nature tourism destinations were identified. 

(4) Economic Analysis 

Economic valuation of the natural and environmental assets will provide an 

appreciation of the values of the study area. Existing assets were subjected to 

established methods of economic valuation. The analysis also relied on existing 

studies and cost estimates. Assumptions used in the analysis are also highlighted and 

discussed in the relevant section. The study also conducted interviews to collect data 

of actual prices from tour operators, resorts and transportation companies. 

12 A multi stakeholder workshop was initially planned as part of the study. Due to the change of course 

of the project, the report built upon the dialogues initiated with State Government agencies and relevant 

stakeholders directly. 



1.4 Outputs of Study 

The outputs of the study are to: 

x Highlight spatial projection of proposed development plans for the region; 

x Develop conceptual zones for sustainable development; 

x Identify core preservation areas that will boost the State’ s tourism potential; 

x Explore the use of formal legislation for strengthening the conceptual plans; 

x Develop an action plan to provide guidance for nature tourism development. 

1.5 Defining the Area under Review 

As mentioned above, the area under review was taken to be the Greater Ulu Muda 

area. This was based on the fact that the boundaries of the area so defined were the 

minimum needed to encompass the fundamental self-contained physiographic, 

hydrological and ecological units required to facilitate the management of the area. 

(See Map 1, Current Extent of Forests in Kedah provided at the end of the report). 



2 Natural Resources of Ulu Muda 

2.1 Introduction 

2.1.1 Climate 

Kedah experiences two seasonal peaks of rainfall: a larger one around October, and 

the other around April-May. The intervening periods are generally drier, with a more 

extreme dry season recorded from December to March. The ecology of Kedah is 

strongly influenced by this distinct seasonality in rainfall. Average rainfall for the 

state (1950-1965) was 2,420 mm (see also Map 2, Isoyet Map for Eastern Kedah). 

There is a large variation in rainfall within the state, with a low of 1,958 mm (Kuala 

Nerang) and a high of 4,989 mm (Gunung Jerai). 

2.2 Biodiversity 

2.2.1 The Forests of the Greater Ulu Muda Area 

The Ulu Muda area represents a very unique area in the Malaysian context. Due to its 

northern locality, its flora and fauna incorporate a large degree of the so-called 

“ northern element” , i.e., biological components of Continental or Mainland Asia, as 

well as the Sundaland elements found further to the south. This means that the overall 

biota of the Ulu Muda forests is distinct from that of other parts of Malaysia, such as 

Belum, Taman Negara or Endau-Rompin. 

This “ northern element” is particularly evident in the floristics of the Ulu Muda 

forests. Unlike many of the other forests in Malaysia, the Ulu Muda forests include a 

large Thai-Burmese component. 

While some of the forests in the Greater Ulu Muda area have been logged, enough 

primary forest remains to be able to consider Ulu Muda a “ High Conservation Value 

Forest” (HCVF) area (see Map 6, Extent of Forest Cover in the Ulu Muda Region 13 .). 

The global importance of such old-growth primary tropical rainforest cannot be 

underestimated; this importance, moreover, is rapidly due to such areas becoming 

scarce. 

Apart from providing essential habitat for some of the region’ s more spectacular, 

significant or endangered wildlife, the forest itself is important in other ways: 

x Water catchment—supplying over 30% of the water to the agricultural sector 

of Kedah; 

x Climate regulation—forests play a critical role in the hydrological cycle; 

13 Note: In this map, the forests of Ulu Muda are shown in remote sensing image (1999). Some of the 

best forest cover left in this region are in dark green. Most of the forests on the Thai-side of the border 

are disturbed forests, with the exception of the area to the north of the map 



x Pest control— many potential agricultural pests are regulated or kept in check 

by natural predators in the primary rainforest. 

2.2.2 Special Habitats 

2.2.2.1 Saltlicks 

Along Sg. Muda and some of its tributaries lie a number of hot springs and saltlicks. 

These represent critical resources for many species of animals, such as the elephant, 

tapir, deer, etc. 

The presence of these saltlicks, and the continuity of Ulu Muda Forest Reserve with 

other forests (in Thailand as well as Malaysia) are partially the reason for the apparent 

abundance of wildlife observable in Ulu Muda. 

For the saltlicks to continue to function, strong measures must be taken to protect 

them and suitably large buffer zones around them, as well as corridors for animals to 

approach them. 

2.2.2.2 The Altitudinal Ecotones 

Altitudinal ecotones are the transition zones between a major habitat type and another 

along an elevational cline. These altitudinal ecotones are prime biodiversity hotspots. 

The most critical and rich altitudinal ecotones in Kedah appear to at the 150 m and the 

1,000 m mark, as identified by the Kedah Conservation Strategy 14 . The former 

represents the hill-foot boundary, i.e., the basal junction of hill slopes with level land. 

The latter represents the transition from hill to montane forest. Any continuous natural 

habitat extending across these altitudes should be considered as hotspots, and special 

consideration should be given to the areas’ maintenance and management. 

2.2.3 Wildlife 

2.2.3.1 Mammals 

A total of 109 species of mammals (including 17 big mammals) in 31 families and 11 

orders have been recorded from Ulu Muda (Appendix 1). This represents over 54.8% 

of the mammals of Peninsular Malaysia, including many of the more significant 

species (endangered, endemic, or charismatic). 

Primates 

The Ulu Muda area is known to have six of the 10 species of non-human primates in 

Peninsular Malaysia: the White-handed Gibbon (Hylobates lar), the Agile Gibbon 

(Hylobates agilis), the Long-tailed Macaque (Macaca fascicularis), the Pig-tailed 

14 WWF Malaysia, 1984. 



Macaque (Macaca nemestrina), the Banded Leaf-monkey (Presbytis femoralis), the 

Dusky Leaf-monkey (Presbytis obscura) and the Slow Loris (Nycticebus coucang). 

The presence of both gibbon species in the Greater Ulu Muda area is particularly 

notable. Sg. Muda marks the border between the ranges of the White-handed Gibbon 

and the Agile Gibbon. This area therefore represents a superlative “ natural living 

laboratory” , where these important primate species can be studied and conserved 

more effectively than many other places. Moreover, the daily morning choruses of 

these gibbons, rising over the forest canopy and projecting over two miles, means that 

it is relatively easy and safe for visitors to encounter these animals from a distance. 

Thus, from their very first day in Ulu Muda, tourists will experience some of the more 

exotic of Malaysian wildlife through the gibbon calls. 

The other primate species also serve to enhance the tourist experience. Night-spotting 

along the main roads provide for very rich and rewarding wildlife tourism. 

Large Mammals 

Various factors make Ulu Muda a very suitable habitat for large mammals— the large 

stands of intact forest, the proximity to other forest areas, etc. Moreover, the presence 

of saltlicks along Sg. Muda draws large mammals in from the surrounding area. 

Thus, it is hardly surprising that most of the large mammals of Peninsular Malaysia 

can be found in the Ulu Muda area. 

Elephants, for example, are common enough to be encountered in virtually every 

survey of the area. Similarly with a number of other large mammals— tigers, sun bear, 

sambar deer, tapir, etc. Past studies have estimated that there are not more than 150 

elephants in the northern forest areas. 

The potential of these large mammals in ecotourism cannot be underestimated. In fact, 

it would be not be an understatement to say that in the future, large mammals, such as 

the elephant, will form the primary attraction for nature tourists from around the 

world. However, it is important to note that there is a direct relationship between land 

area under natural (forested) cover and the number of large mammals that are 

supported. For this reason, management of the Greater Ulu Muda area is fundamental 

and essential to the success of nature tourism in Kedah. A basic decision needs to be 

made— how many elephants need to be supported by the Kedah State Park? This will 

translate directly to the minimum land area needed for the State Park. It must be 

further understood that disturbances and disruptions in the Greater Ulu Muda area 

may have significant impact upon wildlife and the nature tourism experience based on 

wildlife watching within the Ulu Muda park area. For example, if forested corridors 

facilitating movement of big animals in and out of the area (from places such as 

Belum or Thailand) are disrupted, the abundance and consequent frequency of 

encountering such animals in Ulu Muda will be severely diminished. 



Other Mammals 

Ulu Muda represents one of the richer sites in the Peninsula in terms of small 

mammal diversity. For example, 78.6% of the diurnal squirrel species of Peninsular 

Malaysia have been documented here; in fact, more species of squirrels have been 

recorded here than in the Krau Wildlife Reserve. 

Ulu Muda is also known to have 53% of all the bat species of Peninsular Malaysia. 

The numerous other mammals encountered at Ulu Muda not only play an important 

role in maintaining ecosystem health and diversity, but also serve to enrich the 

tourism experience. For example, night-spotting along the main roads allows one to 

encounter a wide variety of secretive mammals, such as civets, martens, etc. 

2.2.3.2 Birds 

Over 174 species of birds have been recorded from the Ulu Muda area thus far. This 

includes seven out of the 10 species of Hornbills found in the Peninsula, as well as 

other significant birds, such as the Great Argus Pheasant, ospreys, fish-eagles, etc. 

This high diversity is also coupled with high abundance and frequency-of-encounter: 

A single five-day survey recorded 26% of the resident and regularly migrant birds of 

mainland Peninsular Malaysia. All these point toward Ulu Muda as having the 

potential to become a prime attraction as a destination for birding tourism. Currently, 

it is quickly poised to become a favorite among local birders (e.g. the Malayan Nature 

Society Birding Group). With careful and proper tourism promotion of the area, it can 

become an international birding tourism destination. As exemplified by the only 

known observation of breeding Hooded Pitta (Pitta sordida Muelleri) in the 

Peninsula, Ulu Muda offers not only a rich diversity and abundance in birds, but also 

the opportunity for seeing unique birds not found elsewhere. 

2.2.3.3 Reptiles and Amphibians 

The herpetofaunal diversity of Ulu Muda is only starting to be explored. Nonetheless, 

preliminary results have been nothing short of superlative. Over 54 species of reptiles 

have been identified in surveys so far; in comparison, Endau-Rompin has 26 species 

recorded. Over 42 species of amphibians have been identified, and at least two new 

(yet to be described) species have been found; in comparison, Belum and Temengor 

combined have 33 species; and Endau-Rompin, 27. Moreover, many of the species 

found here are unique to Malaysia, as this represents the southern limit for many 

continental species. 

All indications are that future herpetological investigations of Ulu Muda will yield 

many new discoveries. 

The importance of this cannot be underestimated. In this day and age of modern 

biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, we are increasingly looking toward our natural 

heritage to provide the raw sources for medical and pharmaceutical innovations. 

Herpetofaunal sources are a particularly promising option. Amphibians secrete a wide 

variety of chemicals in their skin, and they are just beginning to be investigated. 



Recently, a painkiller 200 times stronger than morphine, but without its negative sideeffects 

(such as addiction) was derived from the skin of a South American frog. 

The venom of the Malayan Pit Viper (Caloselasma rhodostoma), found only in 

northern Peninsular Malaysia, has proved incredibly beneficial in a variety of 

contexts. Some of the components in the venom have an anti-clotting effect, allowing 

better blood flow and preventing clots in stroke victims. At the 13th Annual 

Conference on Clinical Hematology and Oncology, Canadian researchers reported 

that an anticoagulant compound derived from the Malayan Pit Viper appears to offer a 

useful therapeutic alternative to heparin in certain high-risk patients. In addition, a 

substance called ANCROD, also derived from the venom of the Malayan Pit Viper, 

allows stroke victims to recover their mental and physical abilities. 

These discoveries are only the tip of the iceberg. As we come to understand our 

herpetofauna better, the many unique species found in the hinterlands of Kedah will 

undoubtedly yield a range of useful and beneficial innovations. 

2.2.3.4 Fishes 

The fact that there is a large lake as well as many primary rainforest streams and 

rivers in the area means that there is great freshwater habitat diversity. Ulu Muda has 

two distinct assemblages of freshwater fish, with 20 species having been identified at 

the lake and 13 species recorded in a single survey of the rivers, as listed below: 

River fish: keli gunung, keli batu, ikan putih, keli bukit, tengas, ikan laga, haruan 

bukit, susuh batu, baung pucuk pisang, ikan pasir, ikan gobi and belut paya. 

Lake fish: tengas, haruan, keli, chemperas, sebarau, kawan, sia, baung, belida/selat, 

kalui, terboi, rong, kepor, kerai, lampam jawa, susur batang, tilapia, kelah, sepat siam 

and tapah. 

A huge, lucrative and ever-growing market of recreational fishing tourism is poised to 

be exploited at Ulu Muda. The diversity of fishes and fishing habitats cater to a wide 

variety of tastes and inclinations. 



2.3 Importance and Economic Values 

2.3.1 Introduction 

The unique natural characteristics of Ulu Muda have the potential of attracting tourists 

from all over the world. Tourism benefits in Ulu Muda belong to a wider system of 

intricately linked processes and evolution. Long term sustainability and success of 

nature tourism in the area critically depends on the health of its forest ecosystems. If 

carefully managed and utilised wisely, the Ulu Muda forests would not only yield 

significant benefits to the local and State economy, but also contribute valuable inputs 

to the economy of the northern region and nationally. To reflect its importance, Ulu 

Muda has been identified as one of the “ Ten Very Special Places for Malaysian 

Ecotourism” in the National Ecotourism Plan (NEP) 15 . 

The economic benefits of the Ulu Muda forests can be categorised into three broad 

categories. These include: (1) Direct Use Values, (2) Indirect Use Values and (3) 

Non-Use Values (see below, Figure 1). 

2.3.2 Direct Use Values 

Direct use values include extractive uses such as irrigation, water supply, timber 

harvesting and collection of non-timber forest products for local communities. The 

river systems within Ulu Muda forests also provide important fish sources for local 

communities. The non-extractive components of direct use values in Ulu Muda 

include nature-based tourism (e.g. birding and trekking), recreational fishing, and 

scientific and educational purposes. 

2.3.3 Indirect Use Values 

Indirect use values provide important ecological services such as watershed 

protection, flood mitigation, and climatic and temperature regulation. These are 

closely linked to people as these services provide important support for the continuous 

supply of water to paddy fields downstream, reduce the impact of flooding, and 

contribute to climatic regulation due to the large contiguous forests. Indirect use 

values also provide important biological support such as habitats and food sources for 

wildlife. Wildlife, especially wild elephants in the Ulu Muda forests are unique 

attractions that make this destination stand out from other similar parks in Malaysia. 

2.3.4 Non-use Values 

Non-use values involve a wider group of people. Due to the uniqueness of the Ulu 

Muda forests in terms of a northern contiguous forest element, the Ulu Muda forests 

represent an important national and global biodiversity heritage. It also forms an 

important link to the traditional and cultural livelihoods of the local communities. 

With the discovery of new vaccines and medicinal properties from forest-based 

15 MOCAT, 1996. 



resources, the Ulu Muda forests could also contain important medicinal and 

pharmaceutical values that are yet to be known. 

These values highlight the multifunctional uses of the Ulu Muda forests. Whilst these 

benefits illustrate the important link to the local communities, residents of Kedah, 

Malaysians and global communities, the challenge of this framework is to 

demonstrate a whole range of values in monetary terms. Direct values, particularly 

tourism, timber and hydrological values (agriculture and water supply) are highlighted 

in this study as partial values of the Ulu Muda forests in this study. 

This section illustrates the range of economic benefits of the Ulu Muda forests. In 

order to ensure wise use of its resources, it is important to assess the benefits and 

costs of various development and management options. Furthermore, it is also 

important to identify who benefits and who pays for the services of the forest 

ecosystems. Parts of these components are analysed and discussed further in this 

report. 



Figure 1. Total Economic Value of Ulu Muda Forests 

DIRECT USE VALUES 

Extractive 

- Irrigation 

- Water supply 

- Sustainable timber harvesting 

- Non-timber forest products 

Non-extractive 

-Nature based tourism 

(e.g. trekking, birdwatching) 

- Scientific & educational 

purposes 

UPEN Kedah and WWF Malaysia 11 

ECONOMIC 

BENEFITS OF ULU 

MUDA FORESTS 

INDIRECT USE 

VALUES 

Ecological services 

- Watershed protection 

- Flood mitigation 

- Climatic and temperature 

Biological support 

- Habitat for flora and 

wildlife. 

- Food sources for wildlife 

NON USE VALUES 

Existence Values 

- Globally and nationally 

unique biodiversity heritage 

(distinct Northern Forest 

element, unique species 

such as wild elephants, 

Rafflesia) 

- Traditional/cultural 

appreciation 

Option Values 

- Pharmaceutical & 

Medicinal values


3 Tourism and the Economic Values of Greater Ulu Muda 

3.1 Role of Tourism in Kedah’s Economy 

3.1.1 Summary of the Kedah economy 

Kedah is situated northwest of Peninsular Malaysia, bordering Thailand, Penang and 

Perlis. It has an area of 9,425 km 2 , comprising about 2.8% of the size of Malaysia. 

The Pelan Tindakan Kedah Maju (PTKM) 2010 covers the period of 2001–2010 and 

provides strategies for the development of Kedah. The strategies in the Plan target 

Kedah to become a developed state by the year 2010. Between 1980 and 1991, the 

State has recorded an average annual population growth rate of 1.72%. The annual 

growth rate has increased to 2.09% between 1991 and 2000. 

The average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate for Kedah between 1991 and 

2000 was recorded at 9.6% per annum. This rate surpassed the national average GDP 

growth rate of 8.7% per annum. In terms of the average per capita GDP growth rate, 

Kedah recorded 6.9% per annum compared to the national per capita GDP growth rate 

of 6.3%. 

Over the last two decades, the economic structure of Kedah has evolved and changed 

considerably from being predominantly agriculture-based. In 1995, Kedah contributed 

56% of Malaysia’ s rice production 16 . The State’ s GDP contribution from the 

agricultural sector in Kedah decreased from 35% in 1990 to 21% in 1998. Whilst 

maintaining a strong agricultural base, Kedah has experienced rapid growth especially 

in the manufacturing and construction sectors. The sector has grown from 

contributing 24% of the State’ s total GDP in 1990 to 37% in 1998. The tourism sector 

has also more recently emerged as a major economic sector with Langkawi being the 

prime tourist attraction in Kedah. 

3.1.2 The Tourism Sector 

At the national level, the tourism industry has emerged as a major economic sector, 

ranking second after manufacturing in terms of foreign exchange earnings 17 . Tourism 

receipts represent 6% of the national GDP in 1995, 9% in 2000 and expected to 

account for 10% in 2005 (see Table 1). 

International tourist arrivals increased at an average of 6.5% per annum during the 7 th 

Malaysia Plan, while tourism receipts increased two-fold from 1995 to 2000 

registering a 13.6% annual growth. This trend is expected to continue with increased 

tourist arrivals at an average rate of 6.9% per annum to reach 14.3 million by 2005. 

Tourism receipts are targeted to grow at an average annual rate of 9.5% to reach 

RM29.5 billion in 2005 (see Table 1). Kedah received approximately 1.15 million 

16 Ministry of Agriculture, 2000. 

17 NST, 9 April, 2001. 



visitors in 2001 of which around 52% are foreign visitors (0.6 million). Based on the 

international tourist arrivals in Kedah for year 2001, the percentage of international 

tourist arrivals to Kedah in proportion to the national figure is approximately 6%. 

Table 1. Selected Tourism Indicators (Malaysia) 

Indicator 1995 2000 2005 

Number of Tourist Arrivals 7,469,000 10,221,000 14,273,000 

Arrivals: Annual Growth Rate (%) 6.5 6.9 - 

Total Tourism Receipts (RM) 9,927,800 18,756,700 29,499,500 

Receipts: Annual Growth Rate (%) 13.5 9.5 - 

Gross Domestic Product (RM) 166,625,000 209,396,000 299,785,000 

Ratio of Tourism Receipts to GDP 

(%) 


6 9 10 

Employment 67,214 78,671 79,603 

Tourist Arrivals, Kedah NA 1,750,000 NA 

International Tourist Arrivals, Kedah 

(Year 2001) 

Proportion of International Tourists 

Visiting Kedah (%) 

NA 600,000 NA 

NA 6 NA 

Source: 8 th Malaysia Plan, Economic Report 2001/2002 and Pelan Tindakan Kedah Maju 2010. 

Recent world incidences such as the Bali event in 2002 may impact upon tourist 

sentiments and affect visitation rates especially amongst international travellers. 

While efforts to ensure a safe and secure destination are important, the alternative 

market of domestic tourism is seen to be growing since 1997. 

Under the aggressive promotional activities of Cuti-Cuti Malaysia, domestic tourism 

increased by 89.9% to 15.8 million trips in 1999 compared to 8.32 million trips 

between August 1997 and July 1998 18 . The number of domestic hotel guests also 

increased by 46% to 1.02 million in March 2002 compared to 698,000 in March 1998, 

i.e. at 9.9% per annum compounded growth 19 . This increase has also been attributed to 

the fact that alternative Saturdays have been declared as non-working days for 

Government agencies and banks. 

To support the planned rapid growth, financial allocation for the tourism sector have 

increased significantly from RM605 million during the 7 th Malaysia Plan to RM1 

billion during the 8 th Malaysia Plan. The receipts from tourism have also recorded an 

increasing trend in terms of average annual revenue (Table 2). 

18 8 th Malaysia Plan. 

19 Ibid


Plan Allocation 

(RM ) 

Table 2. Allocations and Revenue for Tourism 


Mean annual 

allocation 

(RM ) 

Mean annual 

revenue during Plan 

period (RM ) 

Eighth 1,009,000,000 202,000,000 -- 

Seventh 605,000,000 121,000,000 11,657,000,000 

Sixth 533,000,000 107,000,000 5,506,000,000 

Fifth 140,000,000 28,000,000 2,555,000,000 

Compiled from: NEP, 8 th Malaysia Plan and Economic Report 2001/2002. 

Parallel with tourism development in the country, the number of tourists in Kedah 

have increased four-fold from 380,000 visitors in 1990 to 1.57 million visitors in 

2000, or an increase of 15.2% per annum, i.e., higher than the national average of 

9.9% per annum 20 . Domestic tourists account for 65% of all visitors while the 

remainder are foreign tourists. However, a major proportion of tourists visit Langkawi 

(68%) compared to mainland Kedah. As presented in Figure 2, the number of visitors 

to mainland Kedah in 1990 was approximately 148,650. Visitor numbers peaked at 

approximately 677,800 in 1996 before declining to 479,100 the following year. 

Subsequently the number stabilised at 499,600 in 2000. 

Figure 2. Visitor numbers and trend to Kedah, 1990–2000 (Mainland and Langkawi) 

Visitor Number 

1,400,000 

1,200,000 

1,000,000 

Source: Pelan Tindakan Kedah Maju 2010. 

20 PTKM 2010. 

800,000 

600,000 

400,000 

200,000 

- 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

Year 

1996 

1997 

Main Land Langkawi 

1998 

1999 

2000


The PTKM 2010 forecasted a 12% annual growth from 1.75 million visitors in 2001 

to 4.9 million visitors by 2010 for the whole of Kedah. Visitors to mainland Kedah 

are projected to increase from 0.56 million in 2001 to 2.2 million in 2010, which is at 

an even higher rate of 16.2% per annum. During the PTKM 2010 period, the State 

Government will emphasise tourist development at two sites, i.e., island tourism at 

Langkawi, and nature tourism at the Ulu Muda forest area. 

3.1.3 Why Nature Tourism? 

The NEP (1996) estimated that up to 10% of all future tourism would be from the 

ecotourism sector. In addition to direct economic returns, nature tourism also provides 

an important avenue for diversifying the economic base of the Kedah State and in turn 

enhances development in rural areas. These benefits can be sustained continuously 

with careful zoning and sound management of the area. 

The NEP (1996) also highlighted the socio-economic benefits of ecotourism discussed 

in Boo (1990) and Lindberg (1991) (see below, Figure 3). 

Figure 3. Socio-economic Benefits of Ecotourism 

x Ecotourism generates local employment, both directly in the tourism sector and in 

various support and resource management sectors such as land management and 

wildlife management; 

x Ecotourism stimulates profitable domestic industries including hotels, restaurants, 

transport systems, souvenir and handicraft sales, and guide services; 

x Ecotourism generates foreign exchange; 

x Ecotourism stimulates rural economies by creating a demand for agricultural 

produce, and by injecting capital; 

x Ecotourism stimulates improvements to local transport and communications 

infrastructure, which benefit local people; 

x Ecotourism promotes the maintenance of parks and reserves, which can become 

showcases for the country and which can therefore enhance investment; 

x Ecotourism encourages the economically productive use of land, which may be 

marginal for agriculture, enabling larger tracts of land to remain covered in natural 

vegetation, safeguarding water supplies and other environmental services. 

Source: The National Ecotourism Plan (1996). 



It is often difficult to provide an estimation of ecotourist composition due to the 

different definitions of ecotourism. The NEP estimated that foreign tourists visiting 

nature-related sites approximate at 6.7% of Malaysia’ s tourist arrivals in 1994. 

This estimate is based on a survey carried out by Tourism Malaysia in 1994. These 

figures would likely be an underestimation today, with the success of the Malaysia, 

Truly Asia promotions. The NEP had also projected that in 2000 and 2010, 10% of 

Malaysia’ s tourist arrivals would comprise of nature-based tourists or ecotourists. 

A more recent estimate 21 indicated that ecotourism and all nature-related forms of 

tourism account for approximately 20% of total international travel. 

In terms of general tourism projections, the NEP compiled tourism arrival figures 

from various sources and these are shown in Table 3and Table 4. According to the 

World Tourism Organisation, there were approximately 528 million international 

tourist arrivals worldwide in 1994 (Table 3). The direct tourism expenditure was 

US$416 billion, which makes up 6% of the world’ s GDP 22 (Table 4). Based on Fillion 

(1994), the NEP estimated the numbers and impacts of nature tourists and wildliferelated 

tourists by applying the following proportions: 40% to 60% of all international 

tourists are nature tourists, and 20% to 40% are wildlife-related tourists (Table 3). 

Table 3. Estimates of Nature Tourism and Wildlife-related Tourism 

Year Total International 

Tourism Arrivals 


Nature Tourists Wildlife-related 

Tourists 

1988 393 million 157–236 million 79–157 million 

1994 528.4 million 211–317 million 106–211 million 


Table 4. Estimates of the World Economic Impact of Nature Tourism and 

Wildlife-related Tourism 

Year Total International 

Direct Economic 

Impact 

Nature Tourism 

Impact 

Wildlife-related 

Tourism Impact 

1988 US$388 billion US$93–223 billion US$47–155 billion 

1994 US$416 billion US$166–250 billion US$83–166 billion 


21 World Tourism Organisation (WTO), 1998. 

22 World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC)


3.1.4 Summary: Ulu Muda as an International Nature Tourism 

Destination 

The potential for Ulu Muda to rank as one of the world’ s premier nature tourism 

destination is very strong. The following are some unique attributes of the area. 

x The large stands of beautiful intact old-growth forest, coupled with a network 

of trails that are well mapped, provide for excellent jungle-trekking 

opportunities. 

x The wide range of charismatic wildlife (e.g. elephants, tapir, sambar, etc.), in 

conjunction with a number of easily accessible and heavily used saltlicks 

facilitate wildlife watching on a scale equal to any other tropical rainforest site 

in the world. 

x The diverse and bio-geographically special avifauna is an attraction that will 

draw avid birders from across the country as well as globally. 

x The variety of fishing opportunities (lakes and rivers) will be an attraction for 

an equally wide variety of recreational fishing tourists, from those who like to 

fish off the comfort of jetties near their chalets, to those who prefer remote 

jungle streams. 

x Ulu Muda also offers much for the less adventurous nature tourist. Boasting 

luxury accommodations of the highest international standards, yet nestled in 

the heart of some of the most spectacular examples of pristine wilderness 

remaining in Malaysia, tourists can relax by a lake while appreciating the 

choruses of gibbons greeting the dawn. 



3.2 Present Ulu Muda Tourism Facilities 

The present tourism facilities in the Ulu Muda region can only be characterised as 

emerging (Map 3, Present Tourism Sites in the Ulu Muda Region). It is almost 

entirely geared towards tourists in resorts and is supported by a network of tour agents 

and operators. The range of accommodation provided includes campsites, dormitories, 

individual chalets and luxurious private suites. The market is entirely made up of 

domestic group tourists (e.g. company trips, family group holidays or special events). 

Table 5 provides a summary of the tourism establishments in Ulu Muda (including 

Pedu) by selected characteristics such as capacity, type of tourist market, price range 

and type of set-up. 

Currently, the two major resorts located along the banks of Pedu Lake are Desa Utara 

Pedu Lake Resort and Mutiara Pedu. The maximum capacity of these resorts is 186 

rooms. These three-star resorts provide accommodation with price ranges from 

RM150 to RM200 at promotional rates and RM200 to RM300 at walk-in rates. A 

third resort that had recently been completed and yet to open is Anjung Pedu Resort. 

Away from Pedu, the Muda resort over in Gubir provides accommodation in scenic 

settings. Built along the same concept as a government resthouse, the MADA resort 

provides a maximum capacity of 106 persons. 

Apart from resort-centred staff leading tours, there is so far only one tour operator, 

High Adventure Travel (HAT) (Kedah) that specialises in nature and adventure tours. 

HAT was established in December 2001 and started bringing groups to Ulu Muda in 

February 2002. The operations have stopped since June 2002 due to low water levels. 

HAT offers a variety of packages that range from one to four days, costing 

approximately from RM180 to RM400. 

Currently, there is limited infrastructure available for the independent traveller. The 

main village centres where provisions and eateries can be found are at Kuala Nerang 

and Gubir. Gubir is presently the least developed with only a handful of roadside 

shops and a provision store. The nearest petrol station lies just outside Gubir and also 

at Kuala Nerang. Public transport is available from Alor Setar, Sik and Kuala Nerang 

into the Ulu Muda region, but services are not well advertised. It is also possible to 

arrange for charter taxis from main centres such as Sik and Alor Setar. 

At the Koperasi Pembangunan Ampang Muda (KOPAM) jetty in Gubir, village boats 

may be rented with or without a boatman-cum-guide. These are broad wooden boats 

usually powered by a modified water-pump. There are a total of 52 such boats that are 

especially popular during weekends and holidays. Boats are rented out at RM40 per 

day and RM45 for overnight rentals. The fee for the time of a boatman per day is 

RM60. Other relevant charges include car and motorbike parking fees at RM3 and 

RM1 respectively. Boats are most commonly rented for fishing trips along the lake or 

tributaries and fishermen are most often from within the state or nearby from 

neighbouring districts. 



Table 5. Summary of Tourism Establishments and Relevant Characteristics 

Area (Year 

Established) 

Desa Utara Pedu 

Lake (1995) 

Mutiara Pedu Lake 

(1995) 

Anjung Pedu 

(completed, not in 

operation at time 

of writing) 

Type of setup 

Capacity & 

Features 

Resort (3-star) x 106 rooms 

x 1 main house 

(40-60 pax) 

x Kampung 

ambience 

Resort (3-star) 80 rooms 

Resort x 20 chalets 

x 1 Type A main 

houses (16 pax) 

x 4 Type B main 

houses (30 pax) 

Muda Resort Resort x 28 rooms 

High Adventure 

Travel (HAT) 

Koperasi 

Pembangunan 

Ampangan Muda 

(KOPAM) 

x 20-bed 

dormitory 

Tour operator Campsites, 

observatory tours 

Community 

jetty area 

52 broad wooden 

boats 


Price Range 

(Standard rooms) 

RM150–RM200 (off 

peak), 

RM200–RM250 

(peak) 

RM160–RM200 (off 

peak), 

RM 200–RM300 

Not available at time 

of writing 

RM 60–RM100 

RM10 (Dormitory) 

RM180–RM400 

(1 to 4 day tours) 

RM 40 per day 

RM 45 overnight 

RM 3 car park fee 

RM1 motorbike fee 

Visitor 

Market Type 

High-end, 

leisure, 

business, team 

building 

High end, 

leisure, 

business, team 

building 

Medium to low 

end 

Medium to low 

end, training, 

team building, 

meetings 

High to low 

end, nature, 

education 

Fishing 

enthusiasts


3.3 Present Ulu Muda Tourism Activities 

As outlined above, the present tourism activities in the Ulu Muda region is essentially 

catered towards domestic group tourists. The resorts are venues for seminars, 

meetings and small conferences. Special group events are also popular. Resort 

activities on offer range from team building activities (e.g. obstacle courses, etc.), 

golf, and water sports (e.g. jet skis, sailing and boat cruises). Jungle walks are also 

provided, and this includes longer, more demanding treks (e.g. Gunung Fakir Terbang 

and Gunung Batu Tajam). To a large extent, nature tourism plays a small role in the 

activities provided. 

More recently, activities deep within the Ulu Muda forests are also being offered 

through HAT. This includes treks, wildlife observations and adventure activities (e.g. 

jungle survival, trekking and rafting). The Kedah State Government has also 

constructed a wildlife observation hide at Sira Hangat. So far, HAT which works 

through the village co-operative (KOPAM) has exclusive rights to the hide. 

Fishing is an important sector of nature tourism. Apart from activities organised by 

HAT and resorts, the KOPAM co-operative has been the main platform for fishermen 

into the Muda lake and river systems. Boats can be rented from the co-operative and 

fishing weekends are essentially self-catered and organised. Currently, no monitoring 

system is in place to control access, fish catches or other illegal activities. 

Bird watching is a major nature activity with a well-established network of bird 

watchers and enthusiasts. Active members of the Malaysian Nature Society (MNS) 

have been promoting the region as an important bird-watching destination. Since 

2001, there have been at least two major MNS birding trips to the region and a 

number of private trips made by its members. 

3.3.1 Tourism Potential in Ulu Muda 

Nature tourism in Ulu Muda provides a complimentary activity to water catchment 

protection in the area due to its geographical setting. In addition it also provides longterm 

benefits to the local communities in terms of employment generation. Equally 

important, tourism activities also contribute in conserving national and global heritage 

in terms of biodiversity within the last remaining forests of Northern Peninsular 

Malaysia. Opportunities arise in terms of Federal-State initiatives. In particular, 

protection of Ulu Muda would contribute towards Malaysia’ s efforts in implementing 

the National Biodiversity Policy and also support the implementation of the National 

Spatial Plan. 

The study assessed the tourism potential of Pedu and Muda areas. The following 

section presents data compiled from the three resorts (Desa Utara, Mutiara Pedu Lake, 

Muda) and the sole adventure tour operator (HAT) at Ulu Muda. 

3.3.1.1 Tourist Numbers 

The total number of visitors to the Pedu and Muda Lake areas was approximately 

44,000 in 2001. The bulk of the tourists reside at Mutiara Pedu Lake Resort and Desa 



Utara Resort whilst Muda Resort caters mainly for arranged group trips such as 

school trips, training trips, and Government department trips (MADA Resort, 

personal communication). Comparing these figures to the total visitors to mainland 

Kedah, the percentage of tourist numbers to the Pedu and Muda areas is 

approximately 7.6% (Table 6). This figure is expected to increase based on the 

emphasis placed by the PTKM 2010 on the Ulu Muda area and higher resource 

allocation for tourism development during the 8 th Malaysia Plan. 

Table 6. Visitor Numbers to Pedu and Muda Lake Areas (2001) 

Mutiara Desa 

Utara 


Muda 

Resort 

Kopam HAT Anjung 

Pedu 

Visitors 19,382 19,987 3,300 1,333 NA NA 

Local (%) 90 80 100 100 NA NA 

Foreign (%) 10 20 0 0 NA NA 

Visitors to Pedu + Muda Lake 44,000 

Visitors to Mainland Kedah 560,000 

Visitors to Pedu + Muda of 

visitors to Mainland Kedah (%) 

Notes: 

1. Visitors to Mainland Kedah figures from PTKM 2010. 

2. Figures for Mutiara Lake Resort based on interview. 

3. Figures for visitor numbers for Desa Utara is estimated by multiplying room 

occupancy with 2.5 (Resident Manager of Desa Utara, personal communication). 

4. Figures of 2001 data for Desa Utara are not available. Year 2000 figures are used as 

a proxy for year 2001 figures. 

5. Not applicable (NA) as HAT only started operating in 2002 and Anjung Pedu is 

presently not in operation. 

Room Capacity and Occupation Rates 

By the end of 2000, room occupancy in Desa Utara was recorded at 7,995 room 

nights whilst room occupancy in Mutiara in 2001 was 7,527 (Table 7). The occupancy 

rate for Mutiara was estimated at 26% compared to Desa Utara at 21% for the entire 

year (Table 7). Analysing the occupancy rates over school holidays based on 130 days 

yielded an occupancy rate of 72% at Mutiara and 58% at Desa Utara (Table 7). The 

data reflects that existing capacities of the resorts are not fully utilised especially 

during off-peak seasons and demonstrates the opportunity to further extend the use of 

present capacities. 

7.9


Table 7. Room Capacity and Occupancy Rates by Resorts 


Mutiara 

(2001) 

Desa Utara 

(2000) 

Room Occupancy (room nights/year) 7,527 7,995 

Number of rooms 80 106 

Maximum capacity/year (room nights) 29,200 38,690 

Occupancy rate (%/year) 26 21 

Number of Public and School holidays 

(days) 

Maximum capacity over holiday season 

(room nights) 

130 130 

10,400 13,780 

Occupancy rate over holiday season (%) 72 58 

In addition to the above scenario, Figure 4 indicates that visitor numbers are 

increasing from year to year based on room occupancy in Desa Utara between 1996 

and 2000. Overall, tourist numbers increased by approximately 1.4 times and at 8% 

per annum from 1996 to 2000. What is important to note is that since 1998, there has 

been a rising trend in room occupancy, which indicates rising demand. 

Number 

8 5 0 0 

8 0 0 0 

7 5 0 0 

7 0 0 0 

6 5 0 0 

6 0 0 0 

5 5 0 0 

5 0 0 0 

Figure 4. Room Occupancy in Desa Utara, 1996–2000 

1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 

Y e a r 

R o o m O c c u p a n c y


3.3.1.2 Adventure Tours and Local Capacity 

High Adventure Travel (HAT) (Kedah) was established in 2001 and started bringing 

groups to Ulu Muda in February 2002. These trips depend solely on visitor transfers 

by catamaran or outboard engine boats to the sites. Due to low water levels, tours had 

been stopped since June 2002. HAT is presently focusing rigorously on their efforts in 

marketing and promotional activities and has recommended various alternative routes 

in order to ensure continuation of the packages independent of reservoir water levels. 

Approximately 150 visitors visited Ulu Muda through HAT packages within the four 

months that they were operating between February and May 2002. In terms of future 

projections, HAT is optimistic of achieving 5,000 visitors for the year 2003, 15,000 

for 2005 and 30,000 for 2010 based on additional tie-ups, confirmed packages and 

strategic marketing efforts (HAT, personal communication). 

Figure 5 provides a preliminary breakdown of the visitor groups that experienced 

HAT’ s services. School groups make up the majority at 62% followed by media 

groups at 29%, and foreign groups at 9%. This trend is expected to be similar in the 

next few years (HAT, personal communication). 

Figure 5. Composition of Visitors by Groups (HAT, Feb – May 2002) 

29% 

9% 

Sc hool c hildren Foreign v is itors Media groups 

At the KOPAM jetty, approximately 400 boats were rented from January to 

September 2002. Based on this figure, the estimated number of boats rented out in a 

year is approximately 530. These boats can take four to five persons per boat. Over 

the past three years (2000 to 2002), KOPAM received approximately 4,000 visitors, 

which makes up an average figure of approximately 1,330 visitors per year (En. 

Razak bin Che Teh, KOPAM Head, personal communication). 

Presently, KOPAM has 280 members, of which 30 are active. The committee 

members of KOPAM meet once every one or two months. The activities of KOPAM 


62%


are still at initial stages having been set up only three years ago in 1999 (En. Razak 

bin Che Teh, KOPAM Head, personal communication) Amongst the activities 

planned include providing assistance to members in marketing traditional products. 

The types of fish that have been caught by fishermen in the area include talapia, 

baung, subarau, tengas, kelah and haruan. 

3.3.1.3 Tourism Projections (Short, Medium and Long Term) 

Short, medium and long-term projections are estimated based on the PTKM 2010 

projection of 12% annual growth in tourist numbers and interviews with HAT (Table 

8). It is important to note that these projections do not include visitors to Anjung 

Pedu. 

It is also important to note that the projections need careful assessments based on 

local conditions and status of tourism development in Ulu Muda. As the PTKM 2010 

estimate of 12% growth is applied to the whole of Kedah, the projected figures for the 

Pedu and Muda area may be different. It is also important to consider the carrying 

capacity of supporting the projected figures in Ulu Muda. These issues are discussed 

further in this report. 

Table 8. Tourist Projections for Pedu Lake Area, Muda Resort and HAT 

Year Pedu Lake 

Resorts 


HAT Muda Resort KOPAM Total 

Present, 2001 19,382 19,987 3,300 1,300 43,969 

Short term, 2003 49,000 5,000 3,600 1,400 59,000 

Medium term, 2005 61,000 15,000 4,000 1,600 81,600 

Long term, 2010 109,000 30,000 5,000 2000 146,000 

Notes: 

1. Pedu Lake Resorts based on PTKM 2010 estimate of 12% annual growth. 

2. HAT projections are based on personal communication, HAT. 

3. Muda and KOPAM projections are based on a conservative estimate of 5% annual 

growth. 

3.3.1.4 Economic Benefits of Tourism in Ulu Muda 

In order to understand the exact nature and magnitude of tourism benefits on the 

Kedah economy, the relevant data portrayed in Figure 6 need to be analysed. In view 

of the scope and resources of this study, tourism expenditure and receipts are 

estimated based on secondary data. This is to provide an indication of the magnitude 

of economic benefits of tourism in the Ulu Muda area. In addition it is also important 

to highlight the potential costs of tourism such as social and environmental impacts. 

The issue of social impacts is beyond the scope of this study and would benefit from 

further studies.


Figure 6. Framework for Measuring Economic Benefits of Tourism 

Expenditure 

and Receipts 

Linkages with other 

sectors and extent to 

which tourism 

stimulates growth and 

production in the 

economy 

Contribution to 

GDP 

Economic Benefits 

Of Tourism 

Employment 

generated 

Tourism receipts are estimated based on a breakdown of relevant expenditure of 

visitors at the Pedu and Muda Lake areas. The starting point of the analysis is Alor 

Setar. This means that travelling expenditure to Alor Setar (by air or land transport) 

have not been taken into account. Therefore, the actual tourism receipts may be higher 

if items such as airport tax and fuel costs are incorporated. Table 9 shows an estimate 

of the expenditure incurred by visitors to the resorts in Pedu and Muda Lake. The 

major cost items include accommodation, travel, food and beverage and facilities. 

This information is based on published prices and interviews with tour and resort 

operators. 

The total expenditure by a tourist at the Pedu Lake resorts is estimated at RM340 (see 

Table 9). Accommodation cost per person is obtained by averaging the room charges 

(ranging from RM150 to RM300) and dividing by two to reflect cost per person. 

Travel expenditure is obtained from a survey of taxi fares from Alor Setar to Pedu 

Lake. RM80 reflects a return journey per person. Based on interviews with the resort 

operators, the average number of days spent by visitors is 1.5 days. Food and 

beverage as well as expenditure on relevant facilities at the resorts are estimated at 

RM50 and RM15 respectively. 

The same applies to visitor expenditure in Muda Resort. As most of the visitors to 

Muda Resort attend training courses, the common mode of transport is by bus. Based 

on interviews with two bus companies in Alor Setar, the average price for a return 

journey per person is estimated at RM30. HAT expenditures are based on packages 

and cost of travelling. The average cost of HAT packages is RM305. Discounts of 


Leakages of 

foreign exchange 

from imports of 

goods and 

services. 

Contribution to 

foreign exchange 

earnings


between 35% and 45% are provided for school trips. Based on a discount of 35%, the 

average package price for school children is approximately RM200. The cost of 

travelling by bus per person is RM30. For HAT, this yields an estimated expenditure 

of RM335 for adults and RM230 for school children. Most of the visitors at KOPAM 

are local communities from nearby towns. The estimated expenditure at KOPAM per 

person is RM25 (see Table 9). 

Table 9. Breakdown of Visitor Expenditure (RM) at Pedu and Muda Areas 

Accommodation/ 

Package 

Pedu 

Lake 

Muda 

Resort 


HAT 

Adult 

HAT 

School 

KOPAM Anjung 

Pedu 

113 60 305 200 - NA 

Travel 80 30 30 30 10 NA 

Nights 1.5 1.5 Inclusive Inclusive NA NA 

Food and Beverage 50 30 Inclusive Inclusive 5 NA 

Facilities, Boat 15 Inclusive Inclusive 10 NA 

Expenditure/Tourist 

(RM) 

340 165 335 230 25 NA 

Based on the expenditure per tourist, the total tourism receipts at Pedu and Muda 

Lake areas is estimated at RM14 million (see Table 10). This only includes tourism 

receipts at the resorts at Pedu and Muda Lake. HAT only started operating in 2002 

and Anjung Pedu has yet to start operations at time of writing. 

Table 10. Estimated Tourist Expenditure at Pedu and Muda Areas in 2001 

Pedu Lake Muda 

Resort 

KOPAM HAT Anjung 

Pedu 

Tourist numbers 39,400 3,300 1,333 NA NA 

Expenditure/Tourist 

(RM) 

340 165 25 NA NA 

Total (RM) 13,396,000 544,500 33,300 NA NA 

Grand total (RM) 13,973,800


3.3.1.5 Economic Benefits of Water Recreation 

A major attraction of the Pedu and Muda areas is due to the lake area, in terms of its 

tranquility and potential for relaxation. Visitors derive enjoyment from the lake 

through activities such as water sports, sightseeing and angling. The enjoyment 

derived due to the lake area may be represented through two types of values. The first 

is reflected in the expenditure spent by tourists to travel to the site. The second is the 

quality of the enjoyment, i.e., tourists derive more benefits over its costs. This is 

known as the consumer surplus. Due to the scope of this study, primary data 

collection of the benefits of water recreation has not been estimated. Nevertheless, 

examples of studies have shown that the consumer surplus from water recreation can 

be significant. For example, a study on the East Lake in Wuhan, China found that the 

economic benefits of recreational pursuits amounted to RMB 41.62 million per annum 

(US$5 million) 23 . 

3.3.1.6 Nature Tourists’ Perception 

The above discussion has demonstrated the potential and benefits of tourism. While 

that deals with benefit flows, it is important to have an idea of the attributes that 

attracts and promotes the sustainability of tourism benefits. Results from the survey 

carried out by the NEP (1996) of foreign ecotourists may provide some initial 

indication. As the profiles of tourists to Sabah, Sarawak and Kedah are different, these 

results can only contribute as learning experiences. Based on 358 questionnaires 

collected from Sabah, the top three features that ecotourists liked were nature, 

friendliness of people and food. The top three features in Sarawak were almost similar 

in Sabah (Table 11). Fifty-three questionnaires were analysed from Sarawak. 

Table 11. Features Which Foreign Nature Tourists Particularly Liked in Sabah 

and Sarawak 

Praise Sabah Sarawak 

Top Nature Nature 

Second Friendliness of people Friendliness of People 

Third Food Caves 

Fourth Climate Food 

Source: The National Ecotourism Plan, 1996 

The highest complaint of ecotourists in Sabah was litter, followed by costs of 

transport and logging effects. In Sarawak however, tourists were sensitive to logging 

effects followed by litter and costs of transport (see Table 12). The study did not 

analyse further the reasons for their dislike in terms of costs of transport. 

23 Du, Yaping. 1998. 



Table 12. Features Which Foreign Ecotourists Particularly Disliked in Sabah 

and Sarawak 

Complaint Sabah Sarawak 

Top Litter Logging and its effects 

Second Costs of Transport Litter 

Third Logging and its effects Costs of Transport 


Interestingly, the top three recommendations for improvements in Sabah and Sarawak 

were similar (Table 12). The top priority was guidebooks followed by maps. 

Table 13. Top Three Recommendations by Foreign Nature Tourists for 

Improvements in Sabah and Sarawak 

Suggestion Sabah Sarawak 

Top Guidebooks Guidebooks 

Second Maps Maps 

Third General Information General Information 




3.4 Proposed Development Plans and Implications for Nature 

Tourism Developments 

In analysing the tourism potential of the Ulu Muda forests, an attempt was made to 

understand the patterns of development within the surrounding landscape. Thus, we 

begin with a regional overview followed by an examination of the three primary 

districts of concern, namely: Padang Terap, Sik and Baling. Firstly, at a regional level, 

the northwestern region of Peninsular Malaysia has a number of important nature 

tourism sites (see Map 4, Major Tourism Sites in Northern Peninsular Malaysia). 

These include the limestone caves and formations protected within the Perlis State 

Park, the islands and reefs of Langkawi, the beach and lowland forests of Pantai 

Acheh in Penang and the montane forests high up on Gunung Jerai. Apart from 

natural areas, this region is also the seat of one of the oldest civilisations in the history 

of the Peninsula and has a rich cultural history that dates back to those early days in 

folk traditions, myths and archaeological artefacts. 

At the district level, the most current data available as to the proposed developments 

in the area can be summarised from the District Structure Plans, which were approved 

by the Kedah State Government in 1997. Of importance are the areas of continuous 

forest cover to the Ulu Muda forests, which will be one of the key ecological criteria 

in assessing the potential of nature tourism in this region. 

In addition to the District Structural Plans, we will also consider three additional 

developments which we consider to be directly relevant to this present study: the 

proposed Trans-Eastern Hinterland Highway, the proposed helicopter logging of the 

wider Ulu Muda forests and also existing proposals for an Ulu Muda State Park. 

Some of the key development considerations are highlighted in Map 5 (Proposed 

Developments in the Greater Ulu Muda Area). 

3.4.1 Trans-Eastern Hinterland Highway 

This proposed road will eventually link Durian Burong (a new international border 

crossing) and Kupang in the Baling district. This will be a highway that will follow, to 

a large extent, the existing national road system. 

The highway will essentially divide the forests of Ulu Muda (in its broad sense) into 

eastern and western flanks of the highway (Map 5). From an ecological perspective, 

the highway will be a major barrier to wildlife movement and may pose a threat to 

animals that attempt to cross this road (e.g. civets, primates, snakes and other 

reptiles). Mitigation measures should be developed where there are significant forests 

on either side of the road (e.g. Kuala Nerang-Gulau). It will also be advantageous to 

maintain forest stretches along the old road between Kuala Nerang to Gubir as 

“ forests roads” as this adds to the charm of the area for visiting tourists. 

3.4.2 Helicopter-logging of the Ulu Muda forests 

Details of this proposal have not been forthcoming, but the project is undergoing a 

full EIA study at the time of writing and further information will be made public soon. 



From the early proposal, it is likely that an area of 121,406 ha will be logged over a 

10-year period within the following forest reserves: Ulu Muda, Bukit Saiong, Bukit 

Keramat, Chebar Besar, Padang Terap and Pedu. 

The benefit of logging is assessed based on available preliminary information. The 

estimated timber volume to be harvested per hectare is 35 m 3 . This is obtained by 

applying the average volume per tree from an existing experimental plot of the Sg. 

Weng study and multiplying by seven trees per ha 24, 25 (Table 14). The Sg. Weng 

study, which started in 1994, is located within the Ulu Muda Forest Reserve and is cocoordinated 

by Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran (JPS). 

The premium, cess and royalty rates are obtained from Forestry Statistics, Peninsular 

Malaysia, 2000, while the composition of wood type is based on Kedah Forestry 

Department’ s past timber production (Appendix ). It should be noted that royalty rates 

might vary based on the tendering exercise practised in Kedah. However, in this case, 

the concession has been appointed and the uniform royalty rate for Kedah is applied. 

The cutting cycle is assessed based on the Selective Management System of 30 years 

adopted by the Kedah Forestry Department. This reflects a sustainable forest 

management as an approach adopted at the national level. It should be noted that the 

heli-logging concession is proposed on a 10-year cycle. Based on the 30-year cutting 

cycle, the study estimated that the collection of premium and royalty to the State is 

approximately RM1.8 million while the collection including cess is about RM2.6 

million. 

24 A guideline of three trees per acre is suggested (pers. comms., Forestry Dept). This translates to 

approximately seven trees per hectare. 

25 NST, 18 May, 2002. 



Table 14. Collection of Royalty, Cess and Premium 

Volume/tree 4.7 

Volume/ha (cu.m/ha) 35 

Total Area for Logging (ha) 26 72,840 

Annual Coupe (ha/year) 2,428 


Unit RM/ha 

Premium (RM/ha) 375 375 

Cess (RM/cu.m) 10 353 

Average Royalty (RM/cu.m) 364 

Collection from Premium, Cess and Royalty (RM/ha) 1,098 

Collection without Cess (RM/ha) 744 

Total from Premium, Cess and Royalty (RM/year) 2,665,216 

Total without Cess (RM/Year) (to the State) 1,805,704 

Multiplying the average volume of timber harvested by log prices in 2000 would yield 

a gross revenue of approximately RM20 million per hectare which brings to a total of 

RM50 million per year (Table 15). Incorporating the annual collection from royalty, 

cess and premium, the total value of the proposed helicopter logging is approximately 

RM52 million per year. A further breakdown of the revenue and collection shows that 

the benefit ratio from the concession is approximately: State (3% from premium and 

royalty), Federal (2% from cess), Islamic Foundation (19%) and WTK (76%) (Table 

16). 

Table 15. Gross Timber Revenues 

Gross 

Revenue 

(RM/ha) 

Annual Gross 

Revenue 

(RM/year) 

Annual collection 

(RM) (royalty, cess, 

premium) 

Total Value 

(RM) 

Revenue/Collection 20,651 50,143,106 2,650,293 52,793,399 

26 Based on 60% loggable areas according to slope and terrain limitations.


Table 16. Breakdown of Revenue/Collection Distribution from Timber 

Concession 

Revenue/Collection 

(RM) 

WTK Islamic 

Foundation 


State 

Forestry 

Department 

Federal 

Forestry 

Department 

(Cess) 

Total 

40,112,502 10,028,126 1,805,704 859,512 52,805,844 

Ratio 76% 19% 3% 2% 100% 

Note: Estimation based on ratio of proposed logging concession. 

While it is recognised that these estimates are based on preliminary data and averages 

of past timber production patterns in Kedah, the results provide an indication of the 

magnitude of timber benefits from the proposed helicopter logging. 

3.4.2.1 Impacts of logging 

The Sg. Weng study was developed to provide lessons learnt in terms of the impacts 

of logging in a water catchment area. Based on preliminary results of the experimental 

logging study in the Waduk and Wakil catchment areas in Ulu Muda, the sediment 

yield was found to be 18 times over pre-logging conditions during a low rainfall year 

in 1998. This observation has been attributed to the construction of roads, skid trails 

and landings 27 . Whilst the results are preliminary in nature, it shows the linkages of 

how an activity could impact upon another, therefore would warrant careful 

consideration to minimise irreversible damages. Hence, it is critical to examine the 

impacts of logging on the other functions of the Ulu Muda forests especially as a 

water catchment for water supply and irrigation. The economic analysis of these 

benefits and potential impacts are discussed further below. 

The following heli-logging implications on existing use need to be considered: 

x Potential impacts on water catchment areas; 

x Potential impacts on nature tourism development and wildlife roaming areas; 

x Implications of the Malaysian effort towards timber certification; 

x The annual allowable cut for Kedah was 2,312 ha in 2000 and 2,163 ha in 

1999 as set by the National Forestry Council. Within the heli-logging project, 

an approximate 12,000 ha will be logged annually. The large area of the 

annual allowable cut compared to annual allowable cut needs to be reconsidered. 

27 Lai, 2000.


It is also relevant to bear in mind that the credibility of WTK as a responsible logging 

company has been questioned repeatedly by the international NGO community (see 

Appendix , http://www.forestmonitor.org/reports/vanimo/vanimo.rtf. It will be 

difficult to begin a campaign to market the Ulu Muda region as a premier nature 

tourism destination, whilst at the same time there may be similar international 

campaigns against WTK and the proposal to log a nationally important watershed. 

3.4.3 Proposed State Park 

There have been several attempts at proposing parts of the Ulu Muda forests as a 

potential National or State Park and Wildlife Sanctuaries. More recently, Kedah 

UPEN has been developing ideas for a State “ Eco” Park. The proposed boundary of 

the State “ Eco” Park is given in Map 5 (see above) and the area proposed by the 

Kedah Forestry Department covers approximately 34,902 ha. The recommendation 

for the proposed State Park in ths study is 53,904 ha. Section 4.4 discusses the criteria 

for selection and justification in detail. Table 17 highlights major parks in Malaysia in 

terms of their areas and establishment years. Taman Negara has the largest area 

(443,300 ha), followed by Endau-Rompin (Johor and Pahang) and Kinabalu Park. The 

establishment of the proposed Kedah State Park would strengthen the network of park 

areas in the northern region. 

The State “ Eco” Park had been designed to buffer the Ulu Muda lake area and some 

of the major tributaries. The Sira Hangat area was one focus for nature tourism 

activities and an information centre has also been proposed at the existing KOPAM 

village jetty area. Access into the area may be by boat (via the KOPAM jetty) or by 

opening up of several proposed 4WD tracks (i.e. old logging routes). 

Apart from management issues that we will raise in the following sections, it is 

probably important here to highlight the unsuitability of expanding the existing 

KOPAM jetty to accommodate tourist and other facilities. Firstly, this contradicts 

existing planning guidelines for development of lakeshore activities around a dam 28 . 

Secondly, the area is a security- and environmentally-sensitive zone of the lake 

(proximity to the dam structure and possessing steep banks). As a site for future 

expansion, this will not be a suitable zone for development. We will take this issue up 

in the preceding sections below. 

28 JPBD, 2000. 



Taman Negara, total 

Pahang 

Kelantan 

Trengganu 

Endau Rompin 

Johor 

Table 17. Selected Park Areas and Establishment Years 

Park Area (ha) Year Established 

Pahang (reserve) 


443,300 

247,700 

110,300 

85,300 

89,214 

48,905 

40,309 

1939 

1939 

1938 

1939 

1993 

1986 

Perlis State Park 5,000 1997 

Sabah, total 

(Terrestrial) 

Kinabalu 

Tawau Hills 

Crocker Range 

Sarawak, total 

Bako 

Gunung Mulu 

Niah 

Lambir Hills 

Similajau 

Gunung Gading 

Kubah 

Batang Ai 

Loagan Bunut 

Tanjung Duta 

Talang Salang 

243,261 

75,370 

27,972 

139,919 

134,648 

2,727 

52,865 

3,138 

6,949 

7,064 

4,106 

2,230 

24,040 

10,736 

1,379 

19,414 

1964 

1979 

1984 

1957 

1974 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1983 

1988 

1990 

1990 

1994 

1999 

Various sources: Kasim, O. et. al (eds)., 2000, http://www.wwfmalaysia.org/projects/forests.htm#perlis, 

http://www.perlis.gov.my/national_park.htm, MNS, 1995.


3.5 Wider Values of Ulu Muda 

In order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the functions of the Ulu Muda forests, 

wider economic values such as water supply and irrigation components need to be 

taken into consideration. This is due to the significance of the area not only at the 

state level but also to the northern region and national level. A breakdown of tourism, 

water supply, irrigation and timber were calculated. These values are integrated 

within a framework in Figure 7 as primary, secondary and tertiary values. Primary 

values are direct and extractive costs while secondary values are obtained from 

receipts from environmental services of the forest. Finally, tertiary values reflect the 

value of activities in which water is a primary input. 

3.5.1 Water Supply 

The Muda and Kedah rivers play a significant role in providing water supplies (both 

irrigation and potable water) to the States of Kedah, Perlis and Penang. This section 

discusses water supply in terms of potable water for domestic and commercial uses. 

The Muda and related rivers of the water catchment provide 80% of the water supply 

for Kedah 29 (see Appendix 4), 80% for Penang 30 and 60% for Perlis 31 . The Ulu Muda 

forests are closely linked as it provides protection for the water catchment areas of the 

Muda and Pedu rivers. For a wider perspective of the Ulu Muda forests, this study 

incorporates water production from rivers that are located downstream of the Muda, 

Pedu and Ahning dams. These include the following rivers and areas: Sg. Muda, Sg. 

Padang Terap, Sg. Ahning, Sg. Chepir, Terusan Mada Utara and Kuala Nerang. 

Whilst the supply of water provides a comfortable day-to-day lifestyle for domestic 

households, the continuous and reliable supplies to industrial areas are particularly 

critical. For example, the industries at Kulim High-Tech Park (KHTP) depend on the 

KHTP Treatment Plant that obtains raw water from Sg. Muda. This demonstrates the 

significance of protecting Sg. Muda from upstream disturbances, as disruption to the 

water supply to the KHTP could lead to disruptions to industrial operations and result 

in considerable economic losses. The magnitude of the economic activities of KHTP 

is significant— RM13 billion was invested in developing the area of which 

approximately RM10 billion are from foreign investors 32 . In addition, critical 

industrial areas in Penang such as Bayan Lepas and Seberang Perai are also located 

downstream of Sg. Muda. Based on domestic and commercial consumption of water 

in 1999 from the Malaysia Water Industry Report, 2001, the proportion of water 

derived from the Muda and Kedah rivers for domestic and industrial consumption is 

estimated (Appendix 5) and the gross revenue of water supply is calculated. The 

29 JKR Kedah data, 2001 pers. comm.s. 

30 SERI, 2000. 

31 This figure reflects the proportion prior to May 2002, JKR Perlis, pers. comms. 

32 British High Commission, Kuala Lumpur, www.britain.org.my/trade/state_summaries/kedah.htm. 



values demonstrate a link to Ulu Muda forests in terms of water catchment protection 

and minimising the risk of water disruption. 

From the calculations, the gross water revenue for the Kedah is RM80 million, 

Penang at RM100 million, and Perlis at RM6.2 million; while the total production 

cost is approximately RM142 million 33 (Table 18). These reflect Ulu Muda forests’ 

significant contribution in terms of hydrological values. The institutional capacity in 

Kedah and Perlis are maintained with the State JKR while the Penang water supply 

body has been corporatised as Perbadanan Bekalan Air Pulau Pinang (PBA Holdings 

Berhad). 

PBA was incorporated on 25 May, 2000, and its turnover in 2001 was 

RM100,993,000, yielding a net profit of RM41,424,000 34 . This figure is expected to 

increase with increasing projections of water demand. 

Table 18. Expenditure and Revenue of Water Treatment - 1999 

Total 

Expenditure 

(RM) 

Total Revenue 

(RM) 


Proportion 

from Muda 

and related 

rivers 

Expenditure 

(from Muda 

and related 

rivers) 

Revenue (RM) 

(from Muda and 

related rivers) 

Kedah 93,486,319 99,774,150 0.8 74,789,055 79,819,320 

Penang 75,308,141 125,821,660 0.8 60,246,513 100,657,328 

Perlis 11,332,879 10,467,582 0.6 6,799,727 6,280,549 

Total 180,127,339 236,063,392 141,835,295 186,757,197 

Notes: 

1. Total Expenditure and Total Revenue Figures from the Malaysian Water Industry Report, 

2001. 

2. Proportion from Muda and relevant rivers based on JKR Kedah data, SERI paper and 

interview with JKR Perlis. 

3. Relevant rivers and areas include Sg. Muda. 

3.5.2 Irrigation 

The Malaysian rice industry has always been accorded special treatment based on the 

strategic importance of rice as a staple food commodity 35 . The Muda scheme is the 

most significant in terms of paddy production in Malaysia. It contributes about 40% 

33 Malaysia Water Industry Guide, 2001 

34 Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange, http://klse.com.my 

35 MOA, 1999.


of the total paddy production in the country in 1995 36 . In addition, the Muda scheme 

also provides a crucial source of income for 63,000 families in the northern region 37 . 

Overall, irrigation from the Muda and Kedah rivers are supplied to 60 schemes. The 

Muda irrigation scheme occupies the largest area at 97,000 ha over the State of Kedah 

to the State of Perlis. The Seberang Perai irrigation scheme of 8,000 ha in Penang 38 is 

the second largest. In addition to the above two major granary areas, there are 58 

secondary and minor irrigation schemes of 18,800 ha (8,400 ha) in the Muda river 

basin and 24 schemes (10,400 ha) in the Kedah river basin 39 . This section estimates 

agricultural values for the Muda scheme. 

Irrigation water is an intermediate good as it is an input used to produce a final 

product. The primary values of irrigation are estimated based on the total operating 

and maintenance cost of the water infrastructure for irrigation. The secondary values 

are reflected in terms of the gross expenditure from the State (from farmers and the 

State Government) for maintenance and operating costs. Finally, the tertiary values 

encompass the value of the product (paddy production). 

The operating and maintenance cost of MADA was approximately RM49 million 

annually. The Kedah State Government contributes RM1 million while Perlis 

contributes RM0.5 million annually 40 . The remaining costs are met by the Federal 

Government (around RM447.5 million annually). Farmers pay RM15 per acre per 

year yielding approximately RM3.5 million towards the state tax system. The 

operations and maintenance costs for irrigation and drainage facilities are estimated at 

approximately RM80 per acre (MADA, personal communication). This yields an 

estimated primary value of RM19 million for the total scheme (Table 19). 

Incorporating the contribution by the state and water fee collected from farmers, the 

existing secondary value of water is reflected atRM4.5 million. The secondary value 

may not reflect its true values as irrigation are highly subsidised. 

As mentioned, the tertiary values of Ulu Muda forests in terms of irrigation are based 

on the value of paddy production. The total area under paddy production under the 

MADA scheme in 1999 was estimated to be 96,233 ha 41 . The gross average yield was 

4.5 tonnes per hectare for the main season and 5.0 tonnes per hectare for the offseason 

crop. Off-season commences during the dry season around February/March 

and ends in July/August (first season of the year) whilst the main season is the second 

season that begins in August/September and ends in January/February the following 

year 42 . 

36 MOA, 1999 

37 MADA, 2001. 

38 JICA, 1995. 

39 Ibid 

40 MADA, 2001. 

41 Ibid 

42 Ho, 1996. 



Table 19. Estimation of Operating and Maintenance Cost of Irrigation Water 

(RM/m 3 ) 


Pedu Discharge (Average of 1992 to 2001) 

Discharge (acre feet/year) 576,370 

Discharge (m 3 /year) 709,603,689 

Operating and maintenance cost 

(RM/acre/year) 

Total area (acre) 238,000 

Total operating and maintenance cost 

(RM/year) 

80 

19,040,000 

Based on MADA statistics (2001), the net rice production in 1999 was 403,815 tonnes 

during off-season and 376,559 tonnes during the main season. This brings a total 

value of RM622 million per year based on the price of RM798 per tonne comprising 

guaranteed minimum price and subsidy from the Government (Table 20). This is 

reflected as tertiary values in this study. There is a significant difference between 

secondary and tertiary values as the secondary values reflect subsidised prices. 

Table 20. MADA Paddy Production 

1999 

1999 1999 (Total) 

(Off-season) (Main Season) 

Cropped area 96,307 96,159 192,466 

Unit yield (t/ha) 5 5 10 

NET Production (t) 403,815 376,559 780,374 

Price (RM/t) 798 798 798 

Total Agricultural value (RM) 322,284,752 300,531,738 622,816,489 

Agro-hydrological value 145,028,138 135,239,282 280,267,420 

In addition to the direct water values highlighted above, there are also other 

‘downstream’ values or costs in terms of water utilisation. For example, irrigation 

water supports double cropping in the Muda paddy schemes. It has been estimated 

that the cancellation of a cropping season could lead to a loss of RM200 million 

(MADA, personal communication) in a year.


3.5.3 Summary of Economic Values 

The benefits presented as primary, secondary and tertiary values are reiterated as: 

x Primary values are direct and extractive costs. 

x Secondary values are obtained from receipts from environmental services of 

the forest. 

x Tertiary values reflect the value of activities in which water is a primary 

input. 

While these values are indicative in nature, it provides an important overview in terms 

of the magnitude of values to guide policy options for the area. The values highlight 

the significance and also stress the need for careful protection of present sources in 

order to minimise the impacts of potential costs in light of the risks involved. 

Based on calculations of the various benefits of the Ulu Muda forests, the primary 

value (tourism, water supply and irrigation) is RM161 million while the secondary 

value is estimated at RM205 million. The tertiary value of the Ulu Muda forests is 

estimated at approximately RM2.5 billion (see detailed breakdown, Appendix 6). The 

tertiary figure reflects the significance to the Kedah economy as it contributes 

approximately one-third to the State GDP. 

The benefit estimates are integrated in Figure 7 based on the framework of the Total 

Economic Value highlighted earlier. As discussed, the Ulu Muda forests provide a 

variety of resources. For the purpose of this study only four components of direct 

values are analysed (timber, water supply, irrigation and tourism). The figures 

highlighted are secondary values for comparison at the same level. Benefit of water 

supply is RM187 million, irrigation RM5 million (tertiary values of irrigation is 

RM622 million), and tourism RM13 million. Whilst these benefits are 

complementary, extractive activities such as logging may pose a conflict depending 

on the method of logging and considerable changes may occur. Logging benefits are 

estimated at RM53 million. In total, the benefits from water supply, irrigation and 

tourism are approximately RM205 million compared to timber benefits of RM53 

million. It is also important to consider the other values that have not been accounted 

in this study, such as the pharmaceutical potentials of the Ulu Muda forests. As the 

present benefits of utilisation depend upon the management of the Ulu Muda forests, 

the potential impacts and changes to the forest processes needs to be critically 

assessed. 

In addition, to ensure the sustainability of the economic benefits of the Ulu Muda 

forests, it is important that a cost-effectiveness calculation be undertaken to establish 

which development option is most beneficial. Therefore it is important to identify 

who benefits and who pays for the services of the forest ecosystems of Ulu Muda. 

Appendix 6 illustrates a possible way of highlighting the distribution of the benefit 

flows. As an example, the State of Penang gains approximately RM100 million 

(1999) in gross water revenue every year. This figure is expected to increase as water 

demand increases. Since the incorporation of PBA Holdings Berhad as a public-listed 

firm, the turnover for year 2001 was RM100,993,000. 



In addition to the water supply from Muda and Kedah rivers, the Muda Reservoir also 

plays an important role in providing a source of water during extreme drought. This 

scenario occurred in 1998 when extreme drought required water to be released from 

the Muda Reservoir to supplement water needs in Penang. This illustrates the 

importance of the inter-relationships between the management of Ulu Muda forests 

upstream and implications on users downstream. The analysis of benefit distribution 

shows that there are significant opportunities for win-win strategies in terms of cost 

sharing for ensuring the long-term sustainability of the benefit flows from the Ulu 

Muda forests. 

Figure 7. Estimation of Components of Economic Values of Ulu Muda Forest 

Areas (Reflected as Annual Secondary Values) 43 

DIRECT USE VALUES 

Extractive 

- Irrigation, RM 5 mil. 

- Water supply, RM 187 mil. 

- Timber harvesting, RM53 mil. 

- Non-timber forest products 

Non-extractive 

- Tourism, RM13 mil 

(e.g. trekking, birdwatching) 

- Scientific & educational 

purposes 

43 Secondary values reflect direct receipts from environmental services of the forest. 


ECONOMIC 

BENEFITS OF ULU 

MUDA FORESTS 

INDIRECT USE 

VALUES 

Ecological services 

- Watershed protection 

- Flood mitigation 

- Climatic and temperature 

Biological support 

- Habitat for flora and 

wildlife. 

- Food sources for wildlife 

NON USE VALUES 

Existence Values 

- Globally and nationally 

unique biodiversity heritage 

(distinct Northern Forest 

element, unique species 

such as wild elephants, 

Rafflesia) 

- Traditional/cultural 

appreciation 

Option Values 

- Pharmaceutical & 

Medicinal values


4 Fundamental Aspects of Nature Tourism Development in 

Ulu Muda 

4.1 Definition of “Nature” and “Ecotourism” 

The two definitions that have been accepted by the Malaysian Government for Nature 

Tourism and Ecotourism are: 

Nature Tourism is essentially all tourism directly dependent on the use of natural 

resources in a relatively undeveloped state, including scenery, topography, water 

features, vegetation and wildlife 44 . 

Ecotourism is environmentally responsible travel and visitation in relatively 

undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any 

accompanying cultural features, both past and present) that promotes conservation, 

has low visitor impacts, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic 

involvement of local populations 45 . 

What distinguishes Ulu Muda from many other places is its natural attractions. The 

opportunity to experience adventures in a primary rainforest and view wildlife such as 

elephants and gibbons in their natural settings is increasingly rare in today’ s world, 

and a growing number of people are willing to pay larger amounts of money for the 

experience. With proper management and planning, there is no reason why Ulu Muda 

cannot generate the same amount of revenue as Masai Mara (Africa) or Yellowstone 

(USA). The key is to develop a niche market in which Ulu Muda stands out. That 

niche market is tropical wilderness. 

4.2 Defining the Nature Tourism Destination 

4.2.1 Justification 

The essential condition for Ulu Muda to be established as an international nature 

tourism destination, thereby developing tourism as a significant part of the State 

economy, is defining its nature tourism destination. This is a fundamental and 

essential condition. 

A “ nature tourism destination” , in this context, is a specific area that is legally 

gazetted as a natural nature tourism area, and with the full range of institutional 

arrangements implemented as necessary to support and manage it. The presence of 

such an area will not only provide the critical component needed to attract tourists and 

maintain tourism both nationally and internationally, but will also ensure that 

investments in nature tourism infrastructure, facilities, promotions and etc., are 

safeguarded. 

44 NEP, 1996. 

45 Ceballos-Lascurain, 1993, cited in the NEP, 1996. 



There are many secondary benefits to the presence of such an area in Ulu Muda. The 

fact that Ulu Muda represents a relatively special opportunity to create a 

transboundary-protected area (with adjacent parks in Thailand) means that a protected 

nature tourism site will instantly gain international recognition. As pointed out the 

Ulu Muda forests also provide important benefits such as water catchment protection, 

increased economic activity for the local community and micro-climatic regulation. 

4.2.2 Criteria for Area Selection 

The nature tourism destination must be selected under rigorous ecological criteria. 

This is the most practical approach when considering long-term sustainability and 

management. If the nature tourism destination area is essentially convergent with a 

basic ecological unit, ecosystem processes and dynamics should be sufficiently selfsustaining 

to require minimal management intervention. Any other situation will 

inevitably result in severe problems in the long run, as management authorities 

eventually find themselves facing problems that arise from outside their management 

area but that have major impacts within. Ideally, the Greater Ulu Muda area should be 

analysed in detail at the landscape level, taking into account the criteria specified 

below to develop a proposed nature tourism area. 

4.2.2.1 Water Conservation 

Hydrology is an essential high-conservation value aspect of forests, and many forest 

ecosystem components critically depend on the quality and quantity of water. Thus, at 

the very least, the nature tourism destination should encompass a full watershed or 

river basin. Similarly, river valleys falling in the protected area must be protected up 

to the ridges. 

4.2.2.2 Wildlife Habitats 

In addition, specific components of the ecosystem may need to be separately 

considered, to take into account special requirements. For example, elephants may 

need a larger land area to support their population. Suitable corridors must be 

maintained to allow movements of larger animals to and from critical areas. Special 

habitat types, such as saltlicks, need to be protected, with suitable-sized buffer zones 

established. Past studies have indicated that there are no more than 150 elephants 

roaming the northern forest areas. 

4.2.2.3 Ecotones 

Continuous natural habitat that extends from lowlands to uplands (e.g. hillslopes up to 

crests and ridges)— i.e. a continuum of altitudinal clines— should be maintained 

where possible. Many studies point toward altitudinal ecotones as being biodiversity 

hotspots. Moreover, a recent study of mountain amphibian fauna found that it is not 

only the presence of such ecotones, but the continuous natural cover extending across 

the ecotones that is essential in promoting a wide diversity. 



4.2.2.4 Buffer zones 

Just as important as the designation of a nature tourism area, is the formulation and 

implementation of management prescriptions for the surrounding areas, i.e. the 

management of a buffer zone around the nature tourism area. These should support 

the management of the actual nature tourism area itself. 

In addition to the ecological criteria for selection, the carrying capacity framework is 

discussed to incorporate potential visitor impacts in the planning of tourism 

development in Ulu Muda. 

4.3 Carrying Capacity Concept 

4.3.1 Definition of Carrying Capacity 

Tourism development in Ulu Muda poses specific challenges because the quality and 

biological diversity of the natural life and ecosystem needs to be strictly maintained to 

ensure tourism is sustainable in the long run. The concept of carrying capacity used in 

recreational and tourism planning arose out of ecological studies based on the 

maximum numbers of animals that the environment can support on a long-term 

basis 46 . 

There are various definitions of carrying capacity. For the purposes of this study, 

carrying capacity can be defined as: 

“The maximum number of people who can use a site without an unacceptable 

alteration in the physical environment, without an unacceptable decline in the quality 

of experience gained by visitors, and without an unacceptable impact on the society, 

economy, and culture of the tourism area”. 47 

The concept of carrying capacity is important because it helps to determine the range 

where the “ level of development and use that will not result in serious environmental 

deterioration, social and cultural or economic problems” 48 . Tourist arrivals that 

exceed the carrying capacity of a place will ultimately translate into a reduction in the 

number of tourists. 

The natural environment should be managed to ensure that tourism destinations are 

able to compete in the long run to attract tourists for many generations to come. This 

approach to tourism development ensures long-term benefits to the economy and local 

development. Competition among ecotourism destinations is intense— environmental 

considerations and sustainability practices are fast becoming important promotional 

and marketing requirements, as these are driven by customer demands and 

expectations. 

46 Miller, 1998. 

47 Inskeep, 1991. 

48 WTO, 1994. 



4.3.2 Determining Carrying Capacity 

In practice, it is difficult to determine the actual carrying capacity of a destination, 

even though there is general agreement on the definition of carrying capacity for 

ecotourism. 

It is difficult to establish with certainty the carrying capacity of Ulu Muda because of 

natural variations. The pressure on some locations within the area compared to the 

rest; the degree of environmental, biological and social impacts; maintenance of 

tourist facilities and services; tourist safety; and other specific situations 49 for Ulu 

Muda needs to be taken into account. A long-term carrying capacity study based on 

research and monitoring of the carrying capacity indicators will ascertain with greater 

accuracy the carrying capacity of Ulu Muda. If such monitoring data is not available, 

planners should make decisions based on preliminary carrying capacity studies, rather 

than on no information at all. As a short-term solution, a preliminary carrying 

capacity study would indicate the approximate carrying capacity based on information 

available. In the long-term, carrying capacity would need to be revised based on 

monitoring data. 

The “ limits of acceptable change” approach is commonly used to assess if carrying 

capacity has been exceeded. It determines carrying capacity based on changes in 

environmental or resource conditions. When certain limits are reached or exceeded, it 

would result in, and be reflected by, unacceptable changes in social, biological, 

environmental, physical or economic conditions. The first step to determining the 

limits of acceptable change is to decide whether the level of damage or change is 

acceptable or unacceptable. The second step is to rectify the unacceptable change 

according to the type of damage being caused, and to use the most cost-effective and 

environmentally friendly way of halting it 50 . Actions should then be taken to address 

the issues and the causes of the change (e.g. limit or reduce number of tourists to the 

degraded area of the park, upgrade tourist facilities such as trails, changing rooms, 

introduce environmental management practices, etc.). 

4.3.2.1 Factors Affecting Carrying Capacity 

Human activities impact the forest physically, ecologically, and the surrounding 

towns socially and economically. These impacts influence the overall carrying 

capacity, hence are referred to as factors affecting the carrying capacities of the 

environment. These factors, described below, are dependent on each other. The 

overall carrying capacity of Ulu Muda would be determined by the lowest number of 

tourists that each factor can support. 

x Physical: There are physical limitations on the facilities available at Ulu 

Muda, such as number of rooms for tourists staying overnight, or boats 

available to ferry tourists into the park. 

49 Chamberlain, 1997. 

50 MOCAT, 1997. 



x Ecological: These are the results of direct and indirect impacts of tourism 

activities on natural systems. Suitable biological indicators need to be 

identified to reflect degradation of ecological quality. 

x Social: This is based on the perception of visitors in terms of comfort with 

various levels of crowds, and associated levels of satisfaction with regards to 

their experience at Ulu Muda. 

x Economic: Economic limitations are based on tourism receipts to cover the 

costs to manage and maintain the park, as well as to cover the operating costs 

of resorts, and also other services. 

Table 21 below describes the factors affecting the carrying capacity of Ulu Muda. 



Table 21. Factors Affecting Carrying Capacity 

Factors Description / Examples Response when carrying 

capacity is exceeded 

Physical Man-made infrastructures: Deterioration such as: 

environment x Roads 

x Badly maintained trails, visitor 

x Jetty 

x Boats 

x Viewing hides 

x Trails 

x Resting / Picnic Huts 

x Water supply 

x Wastewater treatment 

x Other infrastructure/tourist 

facilities such as solid waste 

management system, toilets, 

etc. 

centres & tourist facilities (e.g. 

toilets). 

x Pollution: Litter, solid waste 

and poor water quality 

Ecological Ecosystem: 

Deterioration such as: 

environment x Fish life in lake 

x Reduced sightings of mammals 

x Birds 

/ birds / fishes. 

x Mammals 

x Forests 

x Biodiversity 

x Increase in indicator species 

that reflect deterioration. 

Psychological Perception by tourists of the x Reduction in tourists. 

level of crowdedness and 

satisfaction of experience. 

x Reduction in repeated tourists. 

x Tourists start to seek other 

destinations. 

Social Tolerance of local communities Outward response–hostility 

and fishermen towards tourists 

and tourism activities. 

among town / kampung folks. 

Economic Cost effectiveness in terms of x Unable to recover operational 

operating tourist resort. 

costs in the long run. 

x Poor maintenance of park / 

resort facilities. 

Source: Adapted from Lee (1999) 

Carrying capacity can be increased or decreased, to a certain extent, by increasing 

investment and improving environment management practices. In addition to 

managing people’ s conduct, infrastructure and facilities will address the deterioration 

of environmental quality (e.g. proper waste management and disposal, and sewage 



system). Hence if the factors above could be effectively managed, carrying capacity 

could be managed. 

4.4 Spatial Analysis of Ulu Muda 

4.4.1 Specific Criteria Considered 

The following criteria have been used to analyse the Ulu Muda forest landscape. 

These criteria were used to identify specific zones or areas that needs to be conserved 

or where strict management guidelines will need to be enforced. The criteria used are: 

x Buffers around saltlick areas (1 km radius); 

x Buffers around water-channels and lakes (10 km on either side of Sg. Teliang 

and Muda and around lake perimeter; 100 m around other water channels); 

x Macro-forest landscapes (maintaining connectivity to large stands of forests); 

x Maintenance of altitudinal range from key lowland ecotone (150 m contour up 

to peaks); 

x Maintenance of natural topography between river-valleys and ridges (an 

important animal corridor); 

x Security zones (e.g. security camps, dam area, tunnel, and water intake 

points); 

x Special unique habitat areas (e.g. presence of swampy areas, unique floristic 

zones, etc). 

4.4.2 Results of Analysis 

The criteria and considerations briefly outlined in the previous sections had been 

analysed over the larger Ulu Muda forest landscape. Three broad regions have been 

identified that appear to be the most important natural areas for conservation. They 

are areas identified as: Thailand, Trans-border and Muda (see Map 7, Topography and 

Other Important Landmarks). 

4.4.2.1 Thailand 

This forested area appears to be important as it appears to be relatively undisturbed 

(LANDSAT remote sensing image, 1999) and captures the important ecological zone 

between the 150 m contour level and the higher peaks towards the common Thai- 

Malaysian border. 

4.4.2.2 Trans-border 

The trans-border area is basically an extension of the Thai forests identified above, 

and continues from the ridges along the common Thai-Malaysian border all the way 



to the eastern perimeter of Pedu Lake, the northwestern perimeter of Muda Lake and 

the river valley of Sg. Teliang. This forested area appears to be predominantly 

undisturbed forests and forms a natural continuum from the Thai forests. The 

effective size of the protected area is significantly larger considering the potential for 

the creation of a trans-boundary protected area. 

4.4.2.3 Muda 

The Muda segment continues along the eastern and southern perimeter of the lake and 

extends to provide a significant buffer around Sg. Muda up to its upper stretches 

(Kuala Lasor) and also the major concentration of saltlicks. 

4.5 Recommendations for a State Park 

It is recommended that the boundary of a State Park for the Ulu Muda area should at 

least incorporate the conservation zones proposed above. These areas should be 

considered strict conservation areas. It is further recommended that the boundary of 

the State Park be extended as much as possible to encompass the entire catchment 

forest of Ahning and Pedu Lake. Map 8 (Proposed Kedah State Park) highlights the 

concept of a State Park that the project recommends. Based on the available digital 

data (Forest Reserve compartment numbers and area and proposed crude boundary of 

the State Park), the total area proposed as a State Park is approximately 53,903 ha. 

The recommended compartments are provided in Appendix 7. 

4.5.1 Proposed Conceptual Management Zones 

Due to the sensitivities of developments in the area (e.g. dam security, environmental 

protection and reducing wildlife disturbances in critical areas), three key management 

zones have been identified (these zones are illustrated in Map 9, Proposed Conceptual 

Management Zones) and described in Table 22): 

a) Restricted Areas, 

b) Nature Reserves, and 

c) Tourism Centres. 

The Restricted Areas identified include the immediate areas close to the dams of 

Ahning, Pedu and Muda, areas surrounding the Saiong tunnel and its inlet and outlet. 

It is recommended that any developments should be prohibited where they may pose a 

threat to the integrity of the dam structures, impact on dam hydrology or pose a 

security risk. 

Nature Reserves generally encompass areas that are either environmentally sensitive 

or may be important areas for wildlife conservation. Areas that have been identified 

include the Sg. Muda and Sg. Teliang area, and areas around river courses and the 

lake perimeter. These areas should not be developed with any permanent physical 

structure. An exception might be around the Sira Hangat area, where it may be 

developed as a key focal tourist area. Here, hides and canopy walkways might pose 

short-term environmental impacts but may in the long run, reduce human impacts on 



the areas surrounding the saltlicks. It must be stressed that with these structures in 

place, there should be no need for anyone to enter the saltlick areas. A further note, 

the Sg. Teliang area has already been identified under the Kedah Fisheries Act as a 

no-fishing zone for fish conservation. 

Given that the immediate future of tourism in this region will be largely group-based, 

the Tourism Centres identified are strategically located as points of access or are 

areas that may be suitable for accommodating large-scale tourism. The four centres 

identified include: Kuala Nerang, Pedu resort area, Gubir and Gulau. At present, Pedu 

is the main centre for tourism activities with at least two major resorts in operation. 

Gubir is the main centre for settlements in the immediate Ulu Muda area; and with the 

development of the Trans-Hinterland Highway, it will play an integral role as a main 

point of access. This will be an ideal location for any proposals for establishing an 

information centre or village-centred services (e.g. secure car parks, transport shuttle 

between village and KOPAM jetty area, and other amenities). 



Management 

Zone 

RESTRICTE 

D AREAS 

NATURE 

RESERVES 

Table 22. Summary of Management Zones 

Location Feature Management 

Considerations/Guidelines 

Ahning dam area Dam structure x No developments due to 

security risks 

Pedu dam area Dam structure x No developments due to 

security risks 

Muda dam area Dam structure x No further developments due 

to security risks 

Saiong tunnelarea 


Water tunnel 

and inlet/outlets 

x Expansion of existing jetty 

needs to be controlled 

x Jetty facility could be 

upgraded 

x Site cannot accommodate 

large-scale tourism (if need 

be, shuttle-buses from Gubir 

could be provided) 

x No physical developments 

due to security risks 

x Area could be developed as 

an access point into the 

forest (4WD trails or forest 

trails) 

Sg. Muda Saltlicks x Sensitive wildlife area for 

nature tourism 

Sg. Teliang Restricted 

fishing zone 

River and lake 

channels 

Low-impact 

zones 

x No physical structures to be 

considered 

x Exceptions are wildlife 

observation hides or 

walkways that could reduce 

human impacts at saltlicks 

x Sensitive wildlife area for 

nature tourism 

x Conservation area for 

freshwater game fish 

x Environmentally sensitive 

areas 

x No physical developmental 

structures 

x Important wildlife corridor


Management 

Zone 

TOURISM 

CENTRES 

Table 22 (continued). Summary of Management Zones 

Location Feature Management 

Considerations/Guidelines 

Kuala Nerang Major town x Possible site for tourist 

information centre 

Pedu Resort centre x Main centre for resort 

facilities 

Gubir Village centre x Key tourist information 

centre 


x Possible site for managing 

mass-tourist activities 

Gulau Village centre x Possible access route into 

Muda forest 

x Possible site for tourist 

information centre 

4.6 Institutional Framework for Managing Nature Tourism 

Currently, the institutional framework for the management of the Ulu Muda area and 

activities within the area are fragmented and dispersed. 

The Forest Department has jurisdiction over the forests around the greater Ulu Muda 

area. The Department of Fisheries has jurisdiction over fishing activities in the lakes 

and streams of the area. Other departments, agencies, authorities and bodies also play 

a role (e.g. PERHILITAN, MADA, Security Forces, etc). 

These numerous agencies with their overlapping areas of jurisdiction and interest 

make it very challenging to manage nature tourism in the area, as well as to manage 

the area for nature tourism. Just as important, it creates an institutional context 

unconducive to the expansion of the nature tourism market sector through a number 

of ways; e.g., by creating many layers of bureaucracy that has to be negotiated just to 

attain permission for a jungle fishing trip. 

4.6.1 The Nature Tourism Area 

Ideally, a single central authority should have full jurisdiction over the area, 

responsible for both the management of the area as well as the activities within the 

area. Within the Malaysian context, there are two very successful models for this: the 

Forest Department State Park Model and the Park Corporation Model (see Table 

23). 

4.6.1.1 The Forest Department State Park Model 

The first Forest Department State Park Model has been implemented in Perlis (i.e. the 

Perlis State Park). In this system, the Forest Department continues to be the primary


managing authority for the forests in the area, but with the management responsibility 

transformed from timber resource management to biodiversity management. Under 

Section 10 of the National Forestry Act 1984, forest areas may be classified into 11 

categories 51 . A new classification can be added to these categories to enable the 

establishment of a State Park and accorded protection under existing forestry laws and 

management. 

Three essential steps are required to implement this system: 

(1) The State Forestry laws must be amended to include a new classification of 

forest. 

(2) The relevant forest reserves or other land area to be designated as a State Park 

must be gazetted under the legal instrument above. 

(3) The Park Rules must be legally gazetted and published. 

4.6.1.2 The Park Corporation Model 

This is the system used in Johor, with the Endau-Rompin National Park. An 

independent corporation is established and tasked with the management of the park 

area and activities within the park area. Table 23 discusses the various differences of 

the two models. 

4.6.1.3 Recommendations of a State Park Institution 

Table 23 discusses the pros and cons of the two models. The funding sources between 

the two models may be similar. However, the State forestry funding provides a 

consistent source of funding for the Forestry State Park model. The Parks Corporation 

model is more flexible in terms of human resource capacity. It is easier to gain and 

retain human resources and required expertise (direct contract recruitment to specific 

posts that are in turn easily created as needed). Nevertheless, with existing legislation 

and staff under the forestry department, this would facilitate a less costly and faster 

adoption of a State Park. 

Approximately 37% of the Kedah total land areas are maintained as Permanent Forest 

Reserves 52 . The National Forestry Council recommends that the total Permanent 

Forest Reserves should not be reduced. However, should there be a critical need to 

degazette an area, a replacement area of similar size and quality needs to be provided. 

In view of the limited forest areas, finding a suitable area of similar size and quality 

may prove to be difficult 53 . 

Based on the assessment of the two models in relation to the existing scenario in 

Kedah and consultation with relevant agencies, this study proposes the Forestry 

Department State Park model. 

51 Department of Forestry, Kedah, pers. comms. 

52 Ibid 

53 Ibid 



A single authority taking responsibility for supervising nature tourism activities 

within the Ulu Muda area provides for the best approach in ensuring that nature 

tourism of the area is safe and sustainable. This body will serve to coordinate nature 

tourism activities, keep tourist loads within the designated carrying capacity of the 

various zones, train nature guides, etc. Based on the Perlis State Park and Johor Parks 

staff structure, Figure 8 outlines a conceptual institutional framework for Ulu Muda. 

This conceptual framework will be used to analyse the staff costs in the Action Plan 

(see below). The State Park Unit would comprise of representatives from relevant 

agencies of the Ulu Muda forests. Again, it should be stressed that a collective 

discussion and consultation process of all agencies involved is required for the actual 

institutional structure. 



Table 23. Comparisons Between the Two Contrasting Malaysian Protected Area 

Models 

Management 

Authority 

Funding Sources and 

Financing 

Mechanisms 

Forest Department State 

Park Model 


Park Corporation Model 

State Forest Department Independent State-established 

Corporation 

State FD budget, Federal 

(MOSTE, MOCAT), special 

State allocation, 

independent donors, 

individual collection, etc. 

Examples Perlis Johor, Sabah 

Pros x Many funding sources: 

Federal (MOSTE, 

MOCAT), State (FD) as 

well as third-party (aid 

agencies such as 

DANIDA etc.) 

x However, existing staff 

could be involved in 

enforcement and 

management roles. 

x Less costly and less 

time-consuming 

Cons x Human resources: Staff 

can easily be transferred 

into entirely different 

departments, or even 

States, as they remain 

under the institutional 

arrangements of the 

Forest Department. This 

makes it difficult to 

build up capacity and 

retain core, experienced 

staff. 

Federal (MOSTE, MOCAT), 

special State allocation, 

independent donors, 

individual collection, etc. 

x Easier to gain and retain 

human resources and 

required expertise (direct 

contract recruitment to 

specific posts, that are in 

turn easily created as 

needed) 

x Fewer funding sources 

(e.g. no allocation from 

State FD budget) 

x State FD does not have 

direct control over the 

land any more


Figure 8. A Possible Institutional Structure for the Management of a State Park 

V isito r 

S erv ices (3 ) 

A ssista n t D irecto r 

(D evelo p m en t) 

S T A T E P A R K U N IT 

U n it H ead 

R esearch O fficer 

4.6.1.4 Institutional Arrangements for Control of Access 

Access to the nature tourism destination needs to be controlled, for the safety of 

visitors, residents as well as wildlife. Due to the current institutional arrangements for 

the management of the Ulu Muda area, the controlling of access to the area falls under 

several different agencies, primarily the Forest Department, the Wildlife Department, 

the Department of Fisheries and the military. If nature tourism levels are to increase in 

the Ulu Muda area, not only will these multiple jurisdictions be cumbersome, it may 

also be difficult to effectively enforce. The ideal situation is a single authority 

responsible for granting permission to the area, i.e., the nature tourism authority, with 

enforcement support provided for by various other bodies. 

4.6.1.5 Control of Access and Illegal Harvesting 

Illegal harvesting of forest products— animals, plants, minerals (including 

“ medicinal” rocks)— can have a serious impact on the integrity of the area if 

unchecked. Furthermore, poachers or illegal harvesters themselves may pose a threat 

to visitors who stumble upon them and their activities. Illegal harvesting can be 

controlled by strict enforcement of access, and access itself can be controlled through 

ensuring that access to the forest is channelled through a few supervised entry 

checkpoints. 


M a in ten a n ce (2 ) P a tro ls (3 )


4.6.1.6 Wildlife Disturbances 

Apart from poaching, wildlife may be disturbed through a number of activities that 

may increase as tourist levels increase. The simple presence of too many people in an 

area for too long periods of time, or too often, may be enough to discourage animals 

from visiting the area. The key to minimising the impact of visitors on animals is to 

balance visitor loads with carrying capacity, together with a zonation plan that limits 

and distributes visitor loads to sites. 

4.7 Developing Local Capacity for Nature Tourism 

For successful nature tourism development, local capacity needs to be involved, not 

only with the tourism sector (as guides, etc.), but also in managing nature tourism in 

the long term. Human resource development must thus address the following sectors: 

x Nature tour guides; 

x Nature tour operators (local and regional); 

x District/State administrators (managers of the larger administrative landscape); 

x State enforcement officers (e.g. fisheries, wildlife, forestry); 

x Village community (multiple-levels). 

4.7.1 Local Community Involvement 

Nature tourism development in this region must be sensitive to the needs and 

aspirations of the wider local community. Tourism centres identified at Kuala Nerang, 

Gubir and Gulau are major concentrations of settlements in this region. Furthermore, 

the KOPAM village jetty is currently managed by the local village co-operative. 

Some of the areas where we can see strong local village participation include: 

x Nature tour guides; 

x Voluntary or paid local enforcement (wildlife, fisheries, etc.); 

x Entrepreneur developments (amenities, shuttle-services, car park facilities and 

other services). 

Skills and levels of awareness will probably be the immediate limiting factor for local 

community development, although other factors such as access to capital might also 

be important. However, three avenues are open for creating opportunities for local 

communities: enhancing skill levels through apprenticeship; participation in official 

training centres and courses; and internships with established companies. 

4.8 Marketing and Promoting Nature Tourism 

The number of visitors to Malaysia that are interested in Malaysian nature has been on 

the rise since the 1980s (Table 24). It appears however that more and more people are 

beginning to see Peninsular Malaysia as a “ developed” country and prefer instead to 

visit Borneo, which has more to offer in terms of pristine wilderness. For example, the 



NEP estimated that 10% of tourists to the Peninsula are ecotourists whilst the 

percentages in Sabah and Sarawak may be in the vicinity of 50%. Nonetheless, it is 

this very market that tourist operators in Kedah would like to tap into. The question is 

how? 

One way is to develop different strategies for targeting local, national and 

international tourists. However, it should be cautioned that the strategies developed 

should be compatible with one another. Table 25, for example, outlines at least one 

way of sectoring the marketing and promotional activities. 

Table 24. Trends in Visitor Numbers to Parks and Protected Areas in Malaysia 

Taman Negara 

Site Period Mean rate of change, 

% per annum 

1989–1994 (5 years) 

1984–1994 (10 years) 


+23% 

+14% 

Cameron Highlands 1985–1989 (4 years) +4% 

Gunung Mulu NP 1987–1994 (8 years) +18% 

Sepilok WS (Foreigners) 1988–1994 (7 years) +40% 

Gomantong/Sukau 1989–1994 (5years) +134% 

Adapted from: National Ecotourism Plan 1996. 

Types of Tourist Tourism 

Category 

Table 25. Sectoral Marketing Matrix 

Corporate groups Mass X 

Domestic package 

holidays 

Foreign package 

holidays 

Independent domestic 

tourist 

Independent foreign 

tourist 

Local clubs and 

societies 

Level of Marketing 

Local National International 

Mass X 

Eco, Mass X 

Eco, Local X X 

Eco X X 

Eco, Mass X X


School/university 

groups 


Mass X X 

Note: Locals are essentially domestic tourists but reside within the State and do not usually 

book package holidays. Recreational fishermen from nearby villages or from Alor Star could 

be categorised as a “local” tourist. 

The feedback from ground operators is that national and local domestic tourists 

dominate much of the present level of tourism (Table 26). It is the international nature 

tourists that the operators are having difficulty marketing to. Further discussions 

especially on marketing strategies are incorporated in the Action Plan in Chapter 5. 

Table 26. Percentage Distribution of Type of Tourists at Pedu and Muda Areas 

Domestic 

Tourists (%) 

International 

Tourist (%) 

Total (%) 

Desa Utara 80 20 100 

Mutiara Pedu Lake 90 10 100 

Muda Resort 100 0 100 

Anjung Pedu N.A. N.A. N.A. 

Source: Desa Utara Pedu Lake Resort and Mutiara Pedu Lake Resort.


5 Conceptual Framework for the Development for Ulu Muda 

The initial sections of the report discussed the tourism potential of Ulu Muda 

encompassing Langkawi-Penang-Alor Setar and Thailand while Chapter 4 presented 

proposed spatial recommendations of the Ulu Muda forests. This chapter will present 

the conceptual framework and guidelines of the Ulu Muda forests as a nature tourism 

destination (and potential ecotourism destination). 

These proposals are aimed at facilitating further discussions and the detailing of more 

specific implementation plans. However, it is important to note that more specific 

studies and detailed site-assessments will help fine-tune the management 

considerations involved in tourism planning at Ulu Muda. 

The conceptual framework has been developed based on the central attraction of Ulu 

Muda, which is its natural environment. Planning and careful management of this 

fragile natural environment will be the key to a sustainable tourism industry for 

Kedah. Based on our understanding of the region, we have developed a concept for 

sustainable tourism that is based on its carrying capacity. This carrying capacity will 

depend greatly on the quality and scale of existing facilities that balances itself with 

the natural environment. Our contention is that all activities in the forest areas, 

including visitations by larger groups of tourists should be managed so that it does not 

bring about unacceptable change to the natural environment. In so doing, these 

developments will also provide a catalyst for growth to the surrounding village 

economies. This vision is presented in Figure 9. This vision is based on an 

understanding that the natural environment will need to be managed to ensure that 

multiple-use of its resources can occur without negatively impacting on any one 

particular resource. The central components of this vision are addressed in the 

previous chapters and include the following: 

x Park Establishment 

x Management Interventions 

x Development Opportunities 

As discussed above, the central attraction of the Ulu Muda forests are its natural 

attributes. The inside-outside park concept is proposed to incorporate the sensitivity 

of the environment and balancing the needs for development of the area (this concept 

is illustrated in Figure 9). 

The concept essentially incorporates the following considerations: 

x Low impact activities within the park area, and closer contact with the 

environment and wildlife is targeted at specific tourism markets that would be 

willing to pay higher fees and spend more money on-site; 

x Higher impact, mass tourism, focused outside the park area; 

x Development of infrastructure, facilities and attractions planned to meet 

tourism demand and based on the carrying capacity of the area. 



Figure 9. Visualisation of the “Inside-Outside Park” Concept 

Outside Park Area Inside Park Area 

Potential Protected Area in Thailand 

Potential Protected Area in Thailand 

Kuala 

Nerang 

Dumpsite 

Safari 

entrance 

Gubir 

Pedu 

KOPAM 

Gulau 


Carok 

Tera 

Bukit 

Saiong 

Sira 

Hangat 

Kalir 

Kuala 

Labua 

Kuala 

Lasor


5.1 Development Concept for “Inside areas” 

The areas identified within the park offer a variety of attractions to visitors to the area 

(see Map 11, Conceptual Plan for “Inside Park” Nature Tourism Development). 

Based on the uniqueness of the areas, proposed capacity and infrastructure 

development are presented to encompass nature tourism planning up to year 2010. 

The main concept is to integrate environmental considerations within development 

planning to ensure that the very attractions that draw visitors are not compromised. 

1. Kuala Tera: The waterfall area and surroundings offer an attractive area for 

developing as a recreational centre. Other potential activities include fishing, 

other river-based activities, bird watching and elephant tracking. Kuala Tera is 

a potential site identified for supporting a relatively higher number of tourist 

numbers with overnight facilities and amenities sufficient for not more than 80 

people a day. It can be reached by catamaran or by upgrading the existing 

logging track. The riverbank needs to be assessed to determine if sufficient 

docking space is available for boats and catamaran. 

2. Sira Hangat: This is a saltlick area representing the focal wildlife arena. 

Hence it is a valuable resource for attracting visitors for wildlife viewing. Due 

to the sensitivity of this area, visitors need to be managed to ensure that visitor 

activities would not affect the number of animal visits. There is an existing 

hide that accommodates 15 people. The number of visitors to the hide needs to 

be controlled and areas of the saltlick should be identified as being out-ofbounds 

to minimise disturbances to the saltlick. 

3. Kuala Labua: Presently PERHILITAN maintains a campsite at this site that 

is being used by HAT as a base camp. Due to the proximity of this area to the 

saltlicks, it is proposed that an alternative site be identified, such as the Kaji 

Cuaca Station to accommodate a higher number of people (maximum 30). 

HAT has proposed a canopy walkway over the river/lake to Sira Hangat to 

provide the unique experience of a bird’ s eye view of the river. It is 

recommended that a detailed assessment be carried out on the potential visitor 

numbers who would use the canopy walkway and the potential to reduce 

impact of tourism on the saltlick areas. Kuala Labua can be reached via the 

reservoir when the water level is sufficiently high and on land via a jungle 

trail. The reservoir banks need to be assessed to determine if sufficient 

docking space is available for boats and catamaran. 

4. Kaji Cuaca Station: This ‘island’ is presently maintained by MADA. The 

area can be developed to accommodate higher visitor groups of up to 30 

people per day in order to reduce disturbances to the saltlick areas in Kuala 

Labua. 

5. Kuala Lasor: An existing old logging track connects Kg. Gulau and Kuala 

Lasor. Presently, this is the route some locals are using to access the upper 

reaches of Sg. Muda. This track can be upgraded to transport visitors to Kuala 

Lasor via 4WD vehicles from licensed tour operators. A permanent camping 

ground has been proposed to support a maximum of 10 people a day. The 



attractions of this area include river-based activities such as fishing. This is an 

area that will be best developed for tented-camps by small groups. 

6. Kuala Kalir: It is proposed that this area be packaged as an adventure-type 

package to attract visitors who would prefer the option of trekking and 

camping. Potentially, this could include niche nature tourists who are willing 

to pay higher rates for such experiences. 

7. Bukit Saiong: Bukit Saiong can be seen from the KOPAM jetty and is 

accessible from the abandoned Safari Park entrance. A jungle trail needs to be 

developed and maintained. The steep terrain and unique shape at the peak 

beckons adventure seekers. Besides scaling the hill, the potential of other 

adventure-type activities such as rock climbing and abseiling needs to be 

explored. Due to its accessibility, self-guided treks for nature enthusiasts are 

another strong possibility. 



5.2 Development Concept for Outside Areas 

The idyllic and serene environment surrounded by rich tropical forests outside the 

park areas also has high potential for attracting larger groups of visitors. These areas 

may cater largely for leisure visitors and corporate training packages and would 

demand less contact with the natural environment. Nevertheless, the environment at 

the periphery of the park area could be packaged and enhanced to attract these visitors 

as part of their activity on the trip. The next sections highlight various locations linked 

to nature tourism development (see Map 12, Conceptual Plan for “Outside Park” 

Nature Tourism Development). 

1. Gubir. To develop Gubir as a key gateway into Ulu Muda entails expansion 

of an office administration building with telecommunications access. This is 

also an ideal centre for developing an information booth or education centre 

to provide information about the facilities in the region (both Pedu and Muda), 

about possible tours available and whom to contact for more information, 

access to local guides and fishermen, and also to direct them to the KOPAM 

jetty prior to entering the forest area. Secondly, secure car park facilities 

could be provided for long-term parking or for large coaches, this will reduce 

the need for expanding the present car park at the KOPAM jetty area. A 

shuttle-service for ferry passengers between Gubir and KOPAM jetty is a 

possible spin-off for entrepreneurs. The recognition of Gubir as a focal point 

for tourism will also ensure that further entrepreneurial initiatives could result 

(e.g. providing facilities such as eateries). The position will be further 

enhanced with the development of the Trans-Hinterland Highway from Durian 

Burong. 

2. KOPAM jetty area. The KOPAM jetty area will not be a suitable place for 

further development expansion in the long-term. This is due to its proximity to 

the dam structure and the security risk posed if large numbers of visitors are 

to use this area. However, the jetty would be a suitable area to upgrade to 

accommodate small numbers of tourists. Furthermore, the present office could 

be upgraded to act as a 24-hour control and monitoring station. A 

communication system could also be established to allow for efficient 

communication between Pedu, Gubir and the jetty area. 

3. Kg. Gulau. Kg. Gulau could be developed as second gateway into Kuala 

Lasor. This could potentially involve developing community homestay 

programmes or other small-scale facilities such as food stalls and handicraft 

centres. The location of this gateway is, however, a control gateway for 

overland access to Kuala Lasor. 

4. Pedu area. Presently the two resorts at the Pedu Lake area organises events 

such as cultural shows and activities such as fishing, canoeing and other water 

sports within the vicinity of the resort. These resorts also promote jungle 

trekking packages to Bukit Batu Tinggi and Bukit Batu Fakir especially on 

school holidays. A golf course situated in Mutiara resort caters to golf 

enthusiasts. The Pedu area is also a haven for bird watchers. The attractions in 



the area could be enhanced by marketing the wider Ulu Muda area as a nature 

tourism destination. 

5.3 Action Plan Framework for Conservation and Development 

The tourism action plan framework (Figure 10) incorporates a timeline for planning 

(in this case to 2010), potential and projections of nature tourism and wider economic 

importance of the Ulu Muda forests. The framework reflects the ultimate goal of a 

tourism action plan towards: 

a) Achieving a managed State Park; 

b) Socio-economic improvements and spill-overs around population centres; and 

c) Ensuring integration of environmental considerations and capacity for 

sustained long-term nature tourism benefits. 

Realising the significance of the Ulu Muda forests for its natural resources and 

economic benefits, careful planning and commitment of relevant 

institutional/legal requirements would be the first step to ensure that the enabling 

environment for a successful State Park is secured. Management and regulation 

considerations need to be incorporated at the onset of tourism development to 

ensure that the impacts of nature tourism activities are carefully monitored and steered 

to sustain continuous ecosystem health and tourism benefits. The discussion above 

has highlighted various components of the proposed tourism plan framework. These 

will be elaborated further in the following sections. 

In order to become a managed State Park, concerted effort in implementing various 

components of the action plans is needed (Figure 10). Based on the plans and 

recommendations, investment and appropriate infrastructure, as in the necessary 

facilities and services for a nature tourism destination will be required. These facilities 

also play an important role in reducing tourism impacts to the natural environment. 

A key feature of a successful tourism attraction involves tourism product 

development. The knowledge and the uniqueness of Ulu Muda’ s natural attributes 

can only be shared with the local communities and visitors if these resources are 

innovatively packaged according to various market niches to draw the interest of 

potential visitors. In addition, these nature tourism products also need to be marketed 

and promoted in order to reach targeted market groups. 

In order to meet the expectations of various visitor groups to the area, sufficient 

skilled human resource is critical. This involves appropriate training and capacity 

building programmes in meeting the desired requirements. In essence, experiences 

of tourism destinations elsewhere have shown that the role and participation of local 

communities is of utmost importance if a nature tourism destination were to achieve 

meaningful local relevance and to meet the goals of sustainable tourism. 

The action plan framework also highlights some assessments of tourism potential and 

benefits of the Ulu Muda forests. Based on the analysis of present tourism figures, 

visitors to the Pedu and Muda areas are estimated to be in the region of 44,000 in 

2001 while the capacity to receive tourist numbers is approximately 262,800. A 



preliminary assessment showed that tourism receipts received in 2001 was around 

RM13 million and hence on average a visitor spends approximately RM300 on a visit. 

Incorporating the projection estimate from the Pelan Tindakan Kedah Maju 2010 of 

12% per annum and interviews with various tour operators, the estimated visitor 

numbers to Pedu and Muda area will reach around 90,000 in 2005 and 150,000 in 

2010 with the implementation of the tourism plan. Assuming that expenditure per 

tourist increases to around RM500, tourism receipts in 2005 is estimated at RM54 

million and RM150 million if expenditure per tourist increases to RM1,000 in 2010 

(Figure 10). 

While these are preliminary assessments of projected figures, the discussion provides 

an insight into the potential benefits from nature tourism of the Ulu Muda forests. 

Another critical feature is the potential of socio-economic spill-overs at nearby towns 

and centres such as Gulau, Gubir and Kuala Nerang. Besides benefiting the local 

communities, the process also contributes to the policies of the Kedah State 

Government in terms of providing more opportunities and raising the living standards 

of rural communities. Beyond the tourism potential, it is also important to highlight 

the wider values of the Ulu Muda forests. A rapid assessment of the tertiary values of 

Ulu Muda in terms of tourism, water supply and irrigation yielded an annual benefit 

of RM2.5 billion which is approximately one-third of the Kedah GDP (1978 prices). 



Figure 10. Conceptual Tourism Action Plan Framework 


Investment Cost Environment and 

Ecology 

Year 2001 2005 2010 

Planning & Institutional Needs 

Investment & Infrastructure 

O+M 

Product Development 

Marketing & Promotions 

Training and Capacity Building 

Management and Regulation 

Items/Year 2001 2005 2010 

Socio-economic spillovers at nearby town centres 

Managed 

State 

Park 

Tourist numbers 44,000 90,000 150,000 

Capacity (Pax/Year) 262,800 262,800 300,000 

Tourism Receipts 

(RM) 

Average Tourist 

Spending (RM/Pax) 

Annual Growth Rate 

(%), Kedah Maju 2010 

13,400,000 54,000,000 150,000,000 

312 500 1,000 

12 12 12


5.3.1 Institutional and Legal Requirements 

It will be imperative that the Kedah State Government endorses the gazettement and 

development of a Kedah State Park. This Kedah State Park should encompass the 

minimum area as proposed in Map 13 (Proposed Ulu Muda State Park). It is also 

recommended that in addition to this, the entire catchment of Pedu and Ahning be 

included within this proposed park. 

It is also recommended that the Kedah State Government raise the possibility of 

developing a transfrontier boundary park with Thailand in any upcoming 

Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle (IMTGT) discussions or at any other 

regional forum. The area that should be highlighted is identified in Map 13. It should 

also be stressed that the Kedah State Government is committed to this process and is 

hoping to initiate the formulation of a Kedah State Park. 

An institutional entity needs to be identified to carry out management and 

development objectives of the proposed State Park. The organisational body and 

structure needs to be adapted to the characteristics and circumstances of the Kedah 

State Government. In order to decide on a suitable organisational structure, it is 

important to determine the respective roles of the Government and private sector in 

the development and management of tourism of the area. A multi-stakeholder 

dialogue would facilitate discussions amongst various Government bodies on the most 

suitable institution for governing the proposed State Park. For the purpose of 

developing a conceptual management plan framework, the institution would generally 

be identified as the “ park authorities” . Within the proposed park authority structure, 

mechanisms for inter-agency cooperation, local community involvement and private 

sector participation also needs to be identified. The institutional structure 

recommended in this study is the Forestry Park Model as discussed in Section 4.6. 

With the establishment of a State Park, visions and objectives of the park need to be 

put in place to drive the management needs and considerations for the area. As an 

example, the Endau Rompin Park in Johor was established with the objective towards 

“ the preservation and protection of wildlife, plant life and objects of geological, 

archaeological, historical and ethnological and other scientific and scenic interest and 

through their conservation and utilization to promote the education, health, aesthetic 

values and recreation of the people” 54 . 

Ideally the objectives of a park can be developed collectively together with relevant 

stakeholders such as the local communities and Government agencies in order to 

enhance ownership and sustainability of the park. This is proposed as a future step for 

the development of a more comprehensive management plan of the proposed State 

Park. 

54 http://www.johorpark.com/Endau/about.htm. 



5.3.1.1 Proposed Infrastructure Requirements 

In considering the development opportunities, it is recognised that: 

x We need to maximise the use of existing facilities; 

x We need to focus on a key natural attraction and ensure that adequate control 

and management can be set in place; 

x We need to consider that large-group tourism as well as small-group nature 

tourists need to be accommodated. 

This section discusses a conceptual plan of proposed infrastructure and tourism 

development needs in the Ulu Muda forests based on the “ inside and outside” park 

concept. Zoning guidelines have also been identified that will assist in developing this 

plan (see Map 14, Proposed Management Zones of the Ulu Muda State Park). It 

should be emphasised that these conceptual plans provide an indication of a potential 

scenario based on the certain assumptions (see below). The study recommends an indepth 

analysis and field surveys in order to create a more comprehensive plan. 

5.3.1.2 Assumptions of the concept plan 

1) Proposed development plan is compatible with the surrounding environment and 

do not adversely impact upon the natural heritage of the Ulu Muda forests. 

2) Attractions inside and outside park areas are sufficient to disperse visitor numbers. 

3) Proposed development is compatible with the activities of various Government 

agencies managing the area. Careful consultations with relevant Government 

agencies is critical to ensure that proposals of the park do not conflict with 

existing management schemes in the area and that partnerships with existing 

Government agencies can be enhanced. 

Table 27 and Table 28 propose maximum visitor capacity and infrastructure 

requirements for accommodating projected visitor numbers. Based on a conceptual 

assessment, the study estimates a maximum capacity of 24,000 visitors per annum 

within the park area up towards year 2010. This leaves the remaining 126,000 visitors 

outside park areas from the total estimated of 150,000 visitors. The overall estimation 

is based upon projections from HAT and 12% annual growth from the PTKM 2010. It 

is important to note that visitors who are reflected as visiting the outside park areas 

may also include visitors who will visit the inside park areas. This is because some 

visitors may be staying at the resorts in Pedu and Muda but also visit the inside park 

areas on a one-day trip or stay overnight for a proportion of their visit to Ulu Muda. 

Hence, the overall projected visitor numbers to Pedu and Muda areas may be less than 

150,000. 

The capacity based on infrastructure provisions within the park shows that 24,000 

visitors would be the maximum that the park would accommodate. This is less than 

the projections from HAT to attract 30,000 visitors by year 2010. Hence, it is 

important to consider that the implications of high visitor numbers to a sensitive area 



need to be assessed carefully so as to ensure that the resources attracting visitors are 

not destroyed. 

A 12% projected growth is adopted based on the PTKM 2010 for Pedu areas. While 

12% may be an estimate to reflect projected increase for Kedah as a whole, the 

projection rate may need to be scaled down to adapt to the sensitive environments of 

Ulu Muda. 

Accommodation: The areas identified for development of overnight facilities within 

the park areas include Charok Tera, Kaji Cuaca Station, Kuala Lasor and Kuala Kalir. 

Facilities such as basic campsites at highly sensitive centres are proposed whereas 

small scale youth hostels and chalets are proposed for higher capacity areas such as 

Charok Tera and Kaji Cuaca Station. Outside park areas, it is proposed that the 

present resort areas be extended to accommodate projected visitor numbers. 

Tourism Centres and Gateway: The Gubir area is proposed as the main tourism 

centre to provide information and directions for tourist flow into Pedu and Muda 

areas. Other facilities such as car parks, stalls, handicraft centres are proposed to 

promote local community participation. It is also proposed that a park administration 

building and staff quarters be located at Gubir. Other tourism gateways include the 

KOPAM Jetty, Kuala Gulau and Gubir “ Dump-Site” area. Support facilities such as 

car parks and sufficient amenities have also been proposed at these areas. 

Access routes: The plan proposes upgrading two existing old logging tracks to 

accommodate 4WD vehicles at: 

x The rubbish dump (Gubir)-Charok Terau- Sira Hangat, and 

x Kg. Gulau-Lasor. 

Other points to consider include controlling access and road maintenance. 

Canopy and hides: One hide has been established at Sira Hangat. It is proposed that 

the hide be maintained for low impacts and minimal disturbances to the area. A 

suggestion was made by HAT to build a canopy walkway over the sira. If the effect 

will be to minimise human impact on the ground around the sira, then this is a 

workable idea. Visitors could arrive by boat and take the canopy walkway to the hide. 

Visiting the sira by foot could then be entirely forbidden. 

Jungle trail: The Pedu and Muda areas offers interesting jungle treks such as scaling 

Bukit Saiong, Bukit Fakir Terbang and Bukit Batu Tajam. Various jungle trials have 

been proposed including: 

x Sira Hangat-Kuala Lasor, 

x Charok Tera route–Sira Hangat, 

x Trail up Bukit Saiong, 

x Trail up Bukit Batu Tajam, and 

x Trail up Bukit Fakir Terbang. 



Muda Charok 

Tera 

Table 27. Inside Park Area by Proposed Capacity, Attractions and Proposed Infrastructure Requirements 

Site Attractions Proposed 

Max 

(visitors/day) 

Kaji Cuaca 

Station 

- Water falls 

- Trekking 

- Elephant 

Tracking 

- River 

activities 

- Fishing 

- Bird watching 

- Bird 

Watching 

Proposed 

Max 

(Visitors/year) 


Infrastructure requirements Notes 

80 8,000 - Overnight facilities near waterfall area 

- 15 simple (e.g. A-frame) chalets (2 

pax/chalet) 

- 2 Youth hostel type dormitories 

(25pax/domitory) 

- Waste treatment facilities (septic tanks) 

- Water pipes 

- Upgrade existing logging track to 

accommodate 4WD vehicles to an area 

close to Sira Hangat 

30 3,000 - Overnight facilities 

- Basic amenity facilities 

- Assess possibility of developing 

night safari concept with a 

connecting 4WD track towards 

Sira Hangat, leaving at least the 

last 1 km as a jungle trail. 

- Explore potential of using this 

site as an overnight facility (max. 

30 per night) to replace Kuala 

Labua as an overnight facility.


Table 27 (continued). Inside Park Area by Proposed Capacity, Attractions and Proposed Infrastructure Requirements 

Muda Kuala 

Labua 


Max 


- Trekking 

- Canopy 

Walkway 

- River 

activities 

- Wildlife 

viewing 


- Bird 

Watching 

Sira Hangat - Wildlife 

viewing 

- Canopy 

Walkway 

Lasor - River 

activities 


Proposed 

Max 




- Existing campsite (PERHILITAN site) 

- Canopy walkway to Sira Hangat 

- Overnight activities to be 

supervised. 

- Assess need for establishing 

canopy walkway based on 

tourism numbers and impacts on 

saltlick area. 

- No accommodation to be 

allowed due to the potential 

impacts on the high-animal use 

area (visitors to stay at Pulau 

Kaji Cuaca). 

15 1,500 - Animal hide to accommodate 15 people - Sensitive saltlick area, overnight 

in existence. 

activities needs to be supervised. 

- 1km jungle trail south to connect to route - Need to reduce movement within 

from Charok Tera. 

the saltlick by visitors as human 

scent might reduce animal 

movement to the saltlick. 

10 1,000 - Upgrade and maintain present logging 

track from Kg. Gulau (20 km) 

Overnight campsite to accommodate 10 

pax/day 

- Attract international tourists with 

option of trekking and camping.




Max 


Muda Kalir - Bird watching 

- Elephant 

tracking 


Proposed 

Max 




10 1,000 - Overnight campsites to accommodate 10 

pax/day 

- Jungle trail 

Bkt. Saiong - Trekking 15 1,500 - Jungle trail 

KOPAM 

Area 

Control 

Gateway 

100 5,000 - Upgrade existing jetty 

- Upgrade pathway to boats 

- Upgrade stalls (simple kampung style) 

- Upgrade existing ‘office’ into a 24-hour 

monitoring station 

- Basic amenities (2 rest rooms) 

- Attract international tourists with 

option of trekking and camping. 

- Adventure and educational 

tourism. 

- Space for campsite to be 

identified for visitors to set up 

tents. 

- A plan had been submitted to 

develop a resort in the area. 

Since it is a sensitive dam area 

and due to the lack of space, it is 

recommended that the proposal 

should be abandoned.



Muda Muda Lake 

and Sg. 

Muda 

Pedu Bkt. Fakir 

Terbang 


Max 


Bkt. Batu 

Tajam 

- Recreational 

freshwater 

fishing 

Proposed 

Max 




30 3,000 - Subsistence fishing by local fishermen - Fish stocks are one of the most 

pressured resources within the 

Muda region. The development 

of recreational fishing activities 

will depend upon careful and 

controlled management of 

fishermen and their catch. 

- Trekking 15 1,500 - Jungle trail 

- Trekking 15 1,500 - Jungle trail 

TOTAL 305 27,000 





tents. 





tents.


Muda Gubir 

“ Dump 

Site” 

(Control 

Gateway) 

Site Potential 

Activities/Centre 

Gubir 

(Tourism 

Centre) 

- Control 

Gateway 

- Tourism Centre 

- Muda Resort 

Table 28. Outside and Periphery of Park Area 

Proposed 

Max 


Proposed 

Max 



Infrastructure Requirements Notes 

- Control gatepost 

- 4WD Road Track to Charok Tera (10 

km) 

200 20,000 - Office administration building with 

telecommunications access (e.g. shortwave 

radio) 

- Park rangers staff quarters 

- 1 Information and education booth 

- Car park facilities (including coaches) 

- Food stalls & handicraft centre 

- 1 Rest and recreation centre 

- Basic amenities 

- Expand present Muda resort to reach 

max 200 persons/day 

- The gatepost is to control and 

monitor access. 

- Possible entry fee collection area. 

- Focus facilities as a tourism 

centre. 

- Organise a shuttle-service to ferry 

passengers between Gubir- 

Dumpsite entrance-KOPAM jetty. 

- Possible entry fee collection area.


Site Potential 

Activities/Centre 

Kg. Gulau 

(Control 

Gateway) 

Kg. 

Belantik 

Pedu Mutiara, 

Desa 

Utara, 

Anjung 

Pedu 

- Potential of 

homestay 

programmes 

- Potential of 

homestay 

programmes 

Kg. Batu - Potential of 

homestay 

programmes 

- Resort, 

corporate 

training 

Table 28 (continued). Outside and Periphery of Park Area 

Proposed 

Max 


Proposed 

Max 


TOTAL 1,230 123,000 

10 1,000 - 1 control gatepost 


Infrastructure Requirements Notes 

- Car park area 

- Need to control and monitor 

access. 

- Potential area for fee collection. 

- Assess homestay programmes 

after 2005 for implementation 

10 1,000 - Assess homestay programmes 


10 1,000 - Assess homestay programmes 


1,000 100,000 - Expand existing capacity (1000/day) 

- Develop nature education centre that 

contains boardwalks, tree climbs, and 

flying fox facilities to raise interest of 

visitors at the outside park areas. 

- Marketing both Pedu and Muda as 

a destination would help diversify 

the attraction of Pedu resorts.


Based on the above assessment, the conceptual estimation of visitor numbers based on 

the concept of carrying capacity are summarised below (Table 29 and Table 30). The 

conceptual estimates show that in order to manage the potential impacts to the park, it 

is proposed that approximately 300 visitors are allowed into the park each day. On the 

other hand, the outside park areas would be able to maintain a higher number at 

approximately 1,230 visitors per day. This is to ensure that the potential of tourism at 

Ulu Muda is tapped but at the same time measures are set in to mitigate potential 

damages especially to sensitive areas. 

Table 29. Estimated Visitor Numbers Inside Park Area 

Overnight Accommodation 

Sira Hangat 

Carok Tera 

Kalir 

Kaji Cuaca Station 


Inside Park, Pax/day 

145 

Fishing 100 

Tracking 45 

Local fishermen 30 

Total 320 

Table 30. Estimated Visitor Numbers Outside Park Area 

Pedu Resorts (Mutiara, Anjung 

Pedu, Desa Utara) 

15 

80 

10 

30 

Outside Park, Pax/day 

1,000 

Gubir (Muda Resort) 200 

Nearby villages (Kg. Batu, 

Gulau and Belantik) 

Total 1,230 

30


5.3.1.3 Product Development 

Potential Tourism Product Development 

Tourism in Ulu Muda should be packaged around the attractions available. Tourism 

products could be developed around the following themes: 

x Nature tourism, 

x Recreation and outdoor tourism, 

x Education tourism, 

x Rural tourism. 

It is possible for tourism products in Ulu Muda to have components from different 

themes. The following sections provide some tours and activities that could be 

developed to attract tourists to the area. In addition to the packaging of the various 

tourism products, relating the products to local knowledge, stories and historical 

perspectives would add value to the tourism products. 

1) Nature Tours 

Nature tours would focus on activities in nature or which interacts with nature. 

Such products rely on the natural endowment of Ulu Muda. Although nature 

tourism is based on natural resources, it is necessary that physical facilities are 

developed for safe and easy access; and management systems be established and 

implemented to ensure proper management of natural resources. 

For instance hides need to be built and maintained, boats to be serviced regularly, 

and guidelines developed for waste management, maximum passenger on boats, 

etc. 

Examples of potential tourism activities include the following: 

x Bird watching, 

x Elephant watching, 

x River and lake cruises, and 

x Rafting. 

It is desirable that such tours be led by experience guides, or conducted by tour 

operators. This is to ensure that such activities are regulated in terms of safety and 

impacts on the environment. 

2) Recreational Activities 

Tourists also require a venue for recreation and outdoor activities. Lakes, 

waterfalls, and rivers provide opportunities for recreational activities all year 

round. Some locations in Ulu Muda could be developed as venues for such 

activities to attract locals in Kedah, as well as weekend tourists. For instance, 

Malaysians enjoys picnics during weekends. The availability of picnic areas may 



also be sufficient for other travellers to make a detour from their journey. In 

addition, other tourists could also enjoy such facilities. 

Examples of recreational facilities that could be promoted in Ulu Muda include: 

x Canopy walk for tourists in the park to appreciate the vastness of the park, 

and also the heights of the trees and forests. 

x Fishing and angling to tap the rich freshwater resources or simply a quiet 

way to enjoy Ulu Muda. 

x Trails and treks within the park to experience flora and fauna on the 

ground. 

x Trails for orienteering and hash runs. 

x Waterfalls for a fun time in the water. 

x Mountain biking trails. 

x Picnic areas to share food. 

Tourism development in this area requires facilities such roads, jetty, changing 

rooms, paths, etc., to be built and maintained. 

3) Educational Tours 

Educational tours combine education and nature. Ulu Muda should be developed 

as a convenient destination for schools to organise trips (either day trips or 

overnight trips) for students to learn about nature, biology, ecology, the role of 

Ulu Muda as a water catchment and nature reserve, as well as the need for its 

conservation. Other technical educational topics that could be developed in the 

near future are sustainable tourism, ecotourism, dam management, etc. These will 

depend on how successfully Ulu Muda creates a reputation for itself in such areas. 

Developing educational tours would create a flow of tourists during school terms 

and weekdays. However, it necessary for the park to have facilities such as a hall, 

exhibition corner, displays and interpretation which schools could easily use as 

teaching aid or tools to facilitate learning. 

As a complement to educational tours, tourists can enjoy and experience nature 

and activities that are available in Ulu Muda. 

4) Rural Tourism and Other Tourism 

Rural tourism is a theme that needs to be further explored and developed. It is 

defined as activities of a person travelling and staying in rural areas (without mass 

tourism) other than those of their usual environment for leisure, business and other 

purposes 55 . Towns in Ulu Muda have the potential to develop this form of tourism. 

This would cater to the demands of tourists wishing to experience living a simple 

55 Modified from the definition of European Environmental Agency 

http://glossary.eea.eu.int/EEAGlossary/R/rural_tourism 



kampung life in Kedah, with the opportunity to visit Ulu Muda for recreation and 

nature tourism. Tours and accommodation could be developed as homestay 

programmes. 

It is possible to package nature tours and educational tours with homestay 

programmes. At this point activities for rural tourism need to be identified. These 

could be based on agricultural activities, processes or products (if agricultural 

activities are focused upon, then it is likely to be termed as agricultural tourism 56 , 

e.g., paddy and sugar cane plantations), arts and crafts (including products from 

orang asli communities), local cultures and the way of life in such kampung areas. 

In addition to identifying such activities, it is necessary to develop a programme 

for locals to carry out rural tourism. The development of rural tourism requires 

accommodation and basic tourist facilities to be constructed, interpretation tools 

for participating tourists and tourism management training for the locals. 

Setting Goals and Objectives 

Although Ulu Muda offers various tourism potentials, it is crucial that ecotourism in 

Ulu Muda develop competitively. Nature tourism in Ulu Muda needs to have a very 

clear direction on where it wants to head, with clear objectives. 

Based on the objectives, the type of preferred tourism activities could be specified, 

and targeted tourist arrivals could be set. The targets then become performance 

indicators against which success can be assessed, e.g., targets of 3 million visitors a 

year, each staying an average of 10 days, spending on average RM1,000, and with 

more than half being under 30 years of age 57 . 

Marketing and Promotions 

The marketing of Ulu Muda needs to be targeted at market segments that would 

appreciate the attractions available. Marketers of travel and tourism products need to 

have a good understanding of their customers and must be able to develop strategies 

that recognise and take into account the likely response of different consumer 

groups 58 . Rather than trying to compete within an entire market in a broad, unfocused 

way, organisations have to recognise and identify those market segments that they can 

best serve. 

For each attraction or tourism product, the marketing of tourism should target the 

market segments identified. The positioning of Ulu Muda should also be made to 

attract the market segments. 

56 Defined as visiting a working farm or any agricultural, horticultural or agribusiness operation for the 

purpose of enjoyment, education, or active involvement in the activities of the farm or operation – 

http://www.sfc.ucdavis.edu/agritourism/definition.html 

57 Example taken from the Australian Tourism Commission 

http://www.thetimes100.co.uk/document.asp?HeaderID=24&SectionID=422 

58 Australian Tourism Commission 



Tourist Market Segments 

The following are the market segments for tourism in Ulu Muda: 

x Nature tourists 

x Leisure tourists and tour package tourists 

x Day-trip tourists 

x School children and students 

x Corporate and institutional tourists 

1) Nature tourists 

This market segment is rather specialized. They are likely to more educated, 

expecting to see in greater detail the flora and fauna that is in the park. They are 

also very critical of how sustainably the park is managed. It is foreseen that this 

market segment would contribute significantly to the tourism economy of Ulu 

Muda. This market segment is likely to be willing to pay for guides and services 

to get into the park. 

The activities of this segment of tourists will likely to be inside the park. 

Attractions to be promoted are highly specialised— such as elephant viewing from 

a hide, bird watching and jungle trekking. 

2) Leisure Tourists and Tour Package Tourists 

This segment consists of tourists who are travelling from other states in Malaysia. 

These could either be an independent family holiday on a package tour or simply 

making a weekend trip. This segment includes international as well as Malaysian 

tourists. It includes backpackers and other independent travellers. 

Although these groups may consider Ulu Muda as a destination, it is also possible 

that these tourists have made plans to visit Penang, Alor Setar, or Langkawi. In 

this case, Ulu Muda could be marketed as one of the destinations where tourists 

can also enjoy within the region. 

Attractions that could be promoted to this group of tourists include short treks, 

fishing, waterfalls, canopy walks, rural tourism, rustic Malaysia, etc. This also 

includes promoting Ulu Muda as a Cuti-Cuti Malaysia destination. They are less 

demanding in terms of expectations to see wildlife. The activities of this segment 

of tourists will likely be within the fringe (periphery) of the park. 

3) Day-trip Tourists 

Tourists from this segment are likely to live around Ulu Muda, within a two-hour 

drive from Ulu Muda. These are likely to be families, workers or young adults 

looking forward to get away from the routine of daily life. 



Ulu Muda should be promoted as a destination as a weekend getaway for 

recreational activities. Ulu Muda should be positioned as an ideal place for 

weekend picnics for tired workers wanting some time away from work and the 

city to be occupied with recreational activities for a change. This group is likely to 

be frequent or repeat visitors. The activities of this segment of tourists will likely 

be within the fringe (periphery) of the park. 

4) School Children and Students 

This segment consists of students from primary and secondary schools as well as 

other institutions of higher learning. They will be attracted by the opportunities 

that Ulu Muda can provide as an outdoor classroom, with supporting learning 

facilities. 

Tours to Ulu Muda should be promoted as part of school trips to learn about 

nature, biology, geography, and even engineering. This would ensure continual 

flow of tourists outside the peak periods during school holidays or weekends. In 

addition, the need for wildlife and nature conservation can also be highlighted. 

This is where the importance of the role of the park and park management could 

better be appreciated. The activities of this segment of tourists will likely be 

within the fringe (periphery) of the park, with limited access to the inside of the 

park, depending on the nature of the tours that are conducted. 

5) Corporate and Institutional Tourists 

This segment is mainly from corporations or governmental institutions. It is rather 

common to organise meetings and conferences in venues that are “ out of the 

corporate environment” . Some of the tourist facilities in Ulu Muda would be able 

to cater for such needs such as company retreats, annual trips, training seminars or 

workshops, etc. 

Ulu Muda should be promoted as a location for meetings and company trips, etc. 

These are likely to be for corporate functions, corporate training, and teambuilding 

activities or for activities of governmental agencies. Depending on the 

objectives of this market segment, activities could be conducted outside (such as 

an annual trip) or inside the park area (such as survival training). 

Marketing Strategies 

Marketing strategies need to be formulated to meet the objectives of tourism 

development, although proper market research needs to be conducted to better 

determine the strategic approach to marketing Ulu Muda. The following are examples 

of common marketing strategies that could be considered at this stage (Table 31). 



Regional 

marketing 

Penetrating 

niche markets 

Info-base of 

the local 

natural history 

Table 31. Marketing Strategies 


Private-sector Government-sector 

ƒ Promote Ulu Muda as a 

destination for nature tourism. 

ƒ Encourage tour operators to 

develop packages that either 

includes Ulu Muda as a 

destination or part of a tour 

package (especially for tour 

operators that serve Kedah, 

Penang and Perlis State). 

ƒ Partner with specialised tour 

operators (bird watchers, etc.). 

ƒ Partner with conservation 

organisations such as WWF 

and MNS to promote (inner) 

Ulu Muda as destinations for 

nature-based activities such as 

birdwatching and elephant 

viewing. These are in line 

with activities that 

conservation groups organise 

and appreciate. Partnering 

with these organisations will 

create demand for such 

activities in the area. It will 

also help establish Ulu Muda 

as a base for their ecotourism 

activities (e.g. WWF has 

education centres in Cameron 

Highlands, and Fraser’ s Hill). 

ƒ Tie-up with local and 

international websites 

promoting nature and nature 

travel (e.g. wildmalaysia.net, 

frogweb.org). 

ƒ Developing local guides of the flora and fauna. 

ƒ Market Ulu Muda through 

Tourism Malaysia as the next 

upcoming tourism destination 

in the northwestern region. 

ƒ Tie-up with local and 

international websites that 

promotes nature and nature 

travel (e.g. wildmalaysia.net). 

ƒ Developing more feature 

stories written by naturalists on 

various niche activities (e.g. 

birdwatching, mountain bike 

groups, etc). 

ƒ Encouraging more natural 

history producers to consider 

using Ulu Muda as a location 

for movies or documentaries. 

ƒ Encouraging natural history writers to contribute to the local 

information base. 

ƒ Encouraging local nature groups to write about the local natural 

history.


Marketing Tools 

The following are examples of typical marketing tools that Ulu Muda can explore to 

implement its marketing strategy. 

x Create official websites (e.g. www.ulumuda.com) to promote the attractions, 

products and facilities that are available. It should also provide information on 

how to get there, etc. This website needs to be maintained regularly and could 

be used as a communication portal between the park, tour operators, and 

groups or tourists interested in the Ulu Muda area. Links should be made to 

partner organisations, as well as other ecotourism and travel websites— such 

as wildmalaysia.net or www.cuti.com.my. 

x Produce brochures and guides. It is necessary to produce a tourist map 

indicating interesting places to visit in the Ulu Muda area. This should be left 

at all tourist attractions in Ulu Muda to encourage tourists to visit other 

attractions nearby. At the same time Ulu Muda should be included as a 

destination in brochures of tourist places in Kedah. 

x Include in guidebooks and travel publications. In order to establish the area 

as a destination for travellers, it is crucial to have media coverage of Ulu 

Muda to highlight its attractions, uniqueness and facilities. Media coverage 

should include newspapers, travel magazines and guides, travel programmes 

(local and international), (photo) books, and other publications. Hence it is 

necessary to work closely with the media as well as travel writers. 

Promoting Ulu Muda as a Nature Destination 

In terms of marketing and positioning Ulu Muda as a prime ecotourism destination, it 

is very important for Ulu Muda to host a series of events at the state, national, 

regional and international levels. These events will provide a platform to convey to 

the audiences the tourism attractions of Ulu Muda. 

Ulu Muda has to be very selective in terms of which events to host, to position itself 

strategically to identified market segments. The following events could be organised: 

x Bird watching competitions, 

x Orienteering and cross-country races, 

x Academic conferences, e.g., on nature tourism, biodiversity, dam 

management, etc., 

x Fishing and angling competitions, and 

x Other festivals: 

Some of the festivals or events that Ulu Muda could host include the 

following: 

o World Day for Water, 22 March, 

o Malaysia Water Festival, 13 April–12 May, 



o World Environment Day, 5 June, 

o International Youth Day, 12 August, 

o World Habitat Day, 7 October, 

o Malaysian Environment Week, 21-27 October, and 

o International Day for Biological Diversity, 29 December. 

5.3.2 Training and Capacity Building 

Human resources is the key element in ensuring the success of the conceptual tourism 

action plans. Hence, involving a pool of people with matching skills and equipping 

them with sufficient capacity would be required for the implementation of these plans. 

Manpower planning could be elaborated in four steps 59 : 

1) Surveying and evaluating the present utilisation of manpower in tourism and 

identifying any existing problems and needs. 

2) Projecting the future manpower needed. Projections are made for the number 

of personnel required in each category of employment. Then the qualifications 

for each category of job are determined. 

3) Evaluating the total human resources that will be available in the future. 

4) Determining training needs and formulating the education and training 

programmes required to provide the qualified manpower. 

Based on the conceptual plans of the Ulu Muda forests, the following categories have 

been identified as key focus areas for training and capacity building initiatives: 

x Resort operators: involves standard manpower needs such as general 

management, specialist management, food preparation and kitchen, food and 

beverage services, reception and administrative services and housekeeping. 

x Nature guides: This is an important skill to be developed, as guides with 

sufficient knowledge of the natural characteristics of Ulu Muda would enrich 

the visitors’ experience and hence enhance the nature tourism packages. 

x Homestay support and programmes: These programmes require wellplanned 

packages and suitable families that are equipped for having visitors 

stay with them. The suitability of homestay programmes need to be assessed 

and possibly developed during the second phase of the action plan. 

Management and regulation: In addition to the conceptual planning based on carrying 

capacity, it is also crucial to ensure that management and regulations are incorporated 

to monitor and enforce the proposed plans for tourism development. This section 

highlights four recommendations as management and regulation measures: 

59 World Tourism Organisation, 1994 



1. The first consideration will be on an understanding of the key elements of the 

natural biodiversity of Ulu Muda, which will help the future managers of the 

Park and also contribute to the development of nature tourism. These include: 

x Long-term monitoring of wildlife movement using camera-traps at the 

saltlick areas (e.g. Sira Hangat); 

x Population assessment of the elephant herds in the region and monitoring 

of the homeranges of selected herds; and 

x Periodic bird surveys by professional ornithologists to understand the 

patterns of bird diversity of the Ulu Muda region. 

2. The second consideration focuses on enforcement. In particular, it will be 

important to begin to enforce the “ off-limits” zones proposed (see Map 14). 

This could be undertaken by enforcing the Fisheries Act, which prohibits 

fishing in certain zones, e.g., Sungai Teliang. Regular presence of the 

different authorities (or organising joint enforcement activities) on top of 

regular monitoring of people in and out of the area (as proposed below, see 

No. 5) will help to reduce any illegal activities and begin to assert a 

management presence in the area. 

3. The third consideration is on the development and maintenance of nature 

trails. Nature trails are a key feature of any park, and it will be important at 

this early phase to maintain at least a selection of nature trails on a regular 

basis. The key trails to focus on include: 

x Bukit Fakir Terbang, 

x Bukit Batu Tajam, and 

x Kuala Kalir. 

4. Lastly, the movement of people into the Ulu Muda area need to be controlled 

and monitored and any possible illegal activity needs to be restricted. It is 

recommended that a management presence be established at the KOPAM 

jetty area (Map 13) immediately. This presence should ensure that: 

x Movement of people into and out of the Ulu Muda area are recorded, 

x Movement of fishermen (local and outsiders) are recorded, and 

x The fish catch for each boat at the end of their trip is weighed and 

documented. 

It is possible that this activity could be assigned to local cooperative members, 

provided a suitable allowance scheme is proposed. Where 4WD road access is 

being considered 60 (e.g. Gulau and Gubir, see Map 13), a control gate will 

need to be established at the onset to prevent any illegal harvesting of the 

forest and to restrict entry into the forest area. 

60 Note: It is also recommended that a 4WD track should not be considered from the old Safari Park 

area (see Map 13). This is largely due to security considerations and in the long term, as it is not an 

area suitable for development. 



5.3.3 Financial Resources and Schedule 

This section provides a snapshot of possible financial flows from the proposals made 

in this study. The financial analysis has been developed based on cost estimates of the 

Johor Parks Corporation. The analysis rely on a number of assumptions discussed 

below and provide only indicative figures as the exact costs can only be determined 

with a more detailed costing study. 

5.3.3.1 Scope of analysis and definitions 

The conceptual analysis is conducted from the point of view of the proposed park 

management authority. The proposed scope for this analysis encompasses tourism 

plans within the park areas (including proposed accommodation such as youth hostels, 

campsites and chalets), tourism centres and gateways at the park peripheries and 

outside areas. Various attractions outside the park area such as the proposed education 

and interpretative centre and other facilities such as tree house and flying fox 

equipment are incorporated within the management of the park authority. 

It is important to make a clear distinction that the components involving the private 

sector such as resorts in Pedu area, Muda resort, packages run by HAT and KOPAM 

are not included in the cost and benefit estimates of the exercise. 

5.3.3.2 Development Schedule 

The development schedule for Ulu Muda State Park outlines infrastructure 

requirements and proposed construction timelines. The main components of 

infrastructure development are accommodation and support facilities such as tourism 

centres, gateways, recreational facilities, interpretation centre and park administration 

office. Other infrastructure needs include utilities such as electricity, water supply and 

sewerage facilities and roads and trails. Table 32 shows a proposed development 

schedule. By the end of the second year all of the proposed accommodation facilities 

would be ready. Utilities such as electricity, water supply and permanent structures 

outside the park areas such as the tourism centre would be installed by the end of the 

first year. The proposed roads and jungle trails are to be completed by the second 

year. Due to the magnitude of the development requirements and existing facilities, 

the proposed infrastructure would be completed by 2006. 



Table 32. Proposed Development Schedule, Proposed Ulu Muda State Park 

Accommodation (buildings) 


Year 2004 Year 2005 Year 2006 

1) Campsites (Kuala Lasor and Kuala Kalir) 1 1 

2) Youth hostel type (Charok Tera and Kaji 

Cuaca Island) 

3) Chalets: A-frames (Charok Tera) 15 

4) Staff quarters at Gubir 2 

Support facilities (Items) 

1) Tourism centre & administration office 1 

2) Car park facilities (Gubir and Gulau) 2 

3) Interpretation and education centre at Pedu 1 

4) Recreation centres (Pedu and Muda) 2 

Roads and Trails (km) 

Service Roads (Upgrade existing logging trail) 

1) Gubir ‘Dump-site’ to Charok Tera 10km 

2) Charok Tera to 1km away from Sira Hangat 10km 

3) Kg. Gulau to Kuala Lasor 20km 

Jungle Trails 

1) From end of Charok Tera route to Sira 

Hangat 

3 

1km 

1) Safari entrance to Bukit Saiong 8km 

2) Safari entrance to Kuala Kalir 10km 

3) Pedu to Bkt. Fakir Terbang 5km 

4) Pedu to Bkt. Batu Tajam 5km


5.3.3.3 Financial Cost Estimates 

The financial cost estimates include fixed (capital) and variable (operating costs) 

costs. Fixed costs are concerned with capital investments in infrastructure that make 

up the park such as visitor and education centres, visitor accommodation, 

administrative office, staff quarters, roads and trails, transport vehicles and utilities. 

Operating and maintenance costs are the second category of costs such as staff 

salaries, benefits, utilities, transport, maintenance, visitor services, administration, 

education and conservation programmes and promotions and marketing. 

Where possible, the costs have been estimated based on actual expenditures of the 

Johor Parks Corporation. The total expenditure for capital cost is estimated at 

approximately RM7.3 million (Table 33). The bulk of the capital investments will be 

made in the first two years. Visitor accommodation makes up 50% of the total capital 

costs. The total capital cost estimated is RM7.3 million. The detailed breakdown of 

the capital costs is presented in Appendix 8. 

Table 33. Capital Cost Schedule, Proposed Ulu Muda State Park 


Year 2004, (RM) Year 2005, (RM) 

Support Facilities 1,110,000 400,000 

Visitor Accommodation 3,610,000 

Vehicles & Boats 165,000 

Roads & Jungle trails 1,810,000 180,000 

Survey Boundary 50,000 50,000 

Total 6,745,000 630,000 

TOTAL OVERALL 7,375,000 

Table 34 shows the operating cost schedule for the park. The major cost items are 

salaries and wages, visitor services, and road maintenance. A rough estimation of the 

operations and maintenance costs is calculated based on 10% of the capital costs 

excluding accommodation costs. These include other costs such as administrative, 

marketing and promotions and education and conservation programmes. When other 

major costs such as salaries and petrol are included, the total operating costs is 

estimated at around RM493 million in 2004. The operational costs are projected to 

rise over time to reflect the popularity of the park through an increasing number of 

tourists. Hence, this is reflected in the higher costs. The details of the estimates are 

presented in Appendix 9. 

Depreciation has not been taken into account. The argument is that all investments are 

assumed to be provided by the Government, as is their usual responsibility. Hence, the 

park does not have to carry out the burdens of infrastructure replacement, but will rely 

on the Government. Additional assistance can be sought in terms of partnerships with


NGOs in carrying out items incurred in operational costs such as conservation and 

education programmes. 

Table 34. Operating Cost Schedule, Proposed Ulu Muda State Park 

Operations & Maintenance 

costs (10% of capital costs) 

Year 2004, 

(RM) 


Year 2005, 

(RM) 

Year 2007, 

(RM) 

Year 2010, 

(RM) 

337,500 369,000 369,000 369,000 

Petrol 10,000 12,000 13,200 14,520 

Salaries 145,728 174,873 192,361 211,597 

Total 493,228 555,874 574,561 595,117 

5.3.3.4 Anticipated Revenues 

Due to the substantial amount required to establish the park, various mechanisms need 

to be identified in order to meet some of the costs. Entrance fees and user charges are 

increasingly becoming a norm at National Parks. A study on entrance fees around the 

world especially on Marine Reserves show that there are parks that charge as high as 

US$100 per entry (e.g. Cocos Island, Costa Rica charges US$105, Galapagos in 

Ecuador charges US$100 and Tubbataha in the Philippines charges US$50). The most 

common fee level charges are US$1 to US$5 per day or US$10 to US$30 per year. 

Lessons learnt on implementation of entry fees are widely documented. 

At some places, the high charges do not impact upon visitor numbers. For example, 

even though the charges for Galapagos are high, tourists are not deterred to visit the 

island due to its unique biodiversity. Some charges implemented without sufficient 

notice and consultations were met with resistance, which resulted in decreased visitor 

numbers to the island, as substitute sites were also available. For the case of Ulu 

Muda, the main attraction is the unique and rich wildlife that the forest maintains for 

wildlife viewing. This product niche is not available at other parks in Malaysia. A 

conservative rate of RM5 is proposed for local visitors and RM30 for foreign visitors. 

Ideally, in-depth studies to ascertain visitor opinions and demand is required to set 

entry fee rates. This includes the use of facilities such as the canopy walkway and bird 

watching tower within the park. 

Table 35 shows the anticipated revenue streams for the Park. The revenue is 

anticipated to rise from RM0.3 million in 2004 to RM1.8 million by 2010. Visitor 

numbers are estimated for the four years from 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2010. The 

composition of locals to foreigners for 2004 and 2005 are 80% to 20%. It is 

anticipated that foreign visitors will increase to 30% in 2007 and 40% in 2010. These 

estimates are based on present ratios of the Ulu Muda area and also figures from 

Sabah Parks, Taman Negara and Endau-Rompin National Park, Johor (Appendix 10). 

The estimation of visitor numbers in 2004 to 2010 is based on present levels of


visitors and also the carrying capacity of the park. The breakdown of the analysis is 

presented in Appendix 11. 

Table 35. Anticipated Revenue Streams, Proposed Ulu Muda State Park 

Year 2004, 

(RM) 


Year 2005, 

(RM) 

Year 2007, 

(RM) 

Year 2010, 

(RM) 

Fees (Entrance, Camera, Video) 48,000 60,000 145,000 340,000 

Visitor Accommodation 228,000 285,000 570,000 1,140,000 

Licenses & Permits 31,000 41,000 62,000 102,000 

Others (Car Parking, Facilities) 4,000 105,000 210,000 320,000 

Total 311,000 491,000 987,000 1,902,000 

5.3.3.5 Financial Results 

Table 36 shows the financial results or profit-loss account of the park, based on the 

revenue and costs schedule estimated and discussed above. The estimation shows that 

the revenue is expected to cover the operating costs only after year 2005 onwards. It 

should be noted that the revenue stream increases significantly from 2004 to 2005. 

This is to reflect the availability of recreation centres that would cater to leisure 

tourists as an additional activity in the vicinity of the Pedu resort. 

The financial results show that expenditure is greater than revenue in 2004 and 2005. 

This means that ways need to be identified to cover the operations of the Park for the 

first few years. This figure reflects a conceptual cost estimate to provide an idea of the 

process of financial planning of a proposed park. More concrete strategies and 

revenue schemes need to be designed in order to gain positive earnings. In addition, it 

needs to be noted that the present conceptual plan is dominated by infrastructure 

development. A further study needs to assess how capital expenditures could be 

reduced while maintaining the same level of enjoyment to visitors managed within the 

capacity of the park.


Table 36. Financial Results (RM), Proposed Ulu Muda State Park 

Year 2004, 

(RM) 


Year 2005, 

(RM) 

Year 2007, 

(RM) 

Year 2010, 

(RM) 

Revenue 311,000 491,000 987,000 1,902,000 

Expenditure 493,228 555,874 574,561 595,117 

Gross Profit/Surplus (182,228) (64,874) 412,439 1,306,883 

5.3.3.6 Cash Flow Status 

The cash flow status is shown in Table 37. The establishment of the Park requires 

initial capital investments. It is envisaged that the Government will have to provide 

the initial grants to launch the Park’ s establishment. Based on the proposed estimates 

of the capital costs, substantial financial resources are required. Besides the direct 

benefits of establishing the Park as discussed in earlier sections, contributing to the 

establishment of parks would also be consistent with various Government policies. 

For example, at the national level, the Ulu Muda Forest areas have been identified 

under the National Spatial Plan as a sensitive area to be protected. In addition, the 

National Ecotourism Plan also identifies Ulu Muda as one of the “ Ten Very Special 

Places for Malaysian Ecotourism” . Based on these motivations, proposed 

contributions from the Federal Government are highlighted towards contributing to 

the establishment of the Park. Besides safeguarding the unique heritage of Kedah and 

benefits of tourism to be generated, the nature-based tourism concept for Ulu Muda 

Forest areas provides an important spin-off for rural development. Hence, it is also 

envisaged that the State Government would contribute to the establishment of the 

Park. 

These present the basis for the details in Table 37. Assistance from foreign funding 

for the establishment of parks in Malaysia is not a new concept. Recent examples 

include the establishment of the Endau-Rompin Park through DANCED funding. 

The cash inflow includes revenue from the running of the park and also financial 

contributions from the Government and foreign conservation grants. From the 

conceptual cash flow status table, it is estimated that the Park would incur losses for 

the first year in 2004 at approximately RM1.9 million and would cover its costs from 

Year 2005 onwards at RM0.8 million in 2005.


Table 37. Cash Flow Status (RM), Proposed Ulu Muda State Park 


2004 2005 2007 2010 

Cash Inflow 311,000 491,000 987,000 1,902,000 

Proposed State Grants 1,000,000 500,000 

Proposed Federal Grants 2,000,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 

Proposed Overseas Funding 2,000,000 500,000 

Total CASH INFLOW 5,311,000 1,991,000 1,487,000 2,402,000 

Cash Outflow 

Support Facilities 1,110,000 400,000 

Visitor Accommodation 3,610,000 

Vehicles & Boats 170,000 

Roads 1,810,000 180,000 

Survey Boundary 50,000 50,000 

Expenditure 155,728 186,874 205,561 226,117 

Maintenance Costs 337,500 369,000 369,000 369,000 

Total CASH OUTFLOW 7,243,228 1,185,874 574,561 595,117 

Net Cash Flow (1,932,228) 805,126 912,439 1,806,883 

5.3.3.7 Financing Options 

Various financial options need to be explored to ensure that there will be sufficient 

funds for the capital infrastructure of the Park. For example, Federal Government 

funding could cover the construction of roads and trails while the State Government 

could contribute towards the costs of accommodation and support facilities. Outside 

sources of aid such as DANCED and GEF, or NGOs such as WWF Malaysia and 

MNS would also provide the enabling support for the establishment of the Park. Areas 

for potential contribution include specific education and conservation programmes 

that would add value to the enjoyment of the Park.


6 Conclusion and Recommendations 

While the study focused on a nature tourism development, the wider issues that 

underlines the importance of Ulu Muda lies in its economic valuation. The study has 

demonstrated that the water values that Ulu Muda contributes are critical. In addition 

to maintaining the most important paddy scheme in the country, the Ulu Muda forests 

also harbour sources of water for critical industrial areas such as the Kulim High-Tech 

Park and industrial parks in Penang such as Bayan Lepas and Seberang Perai. Hence, 

this is an aspect that needs further attention to assess who benefits from the Ulu Muda 

forests and who bears the costs, and potential mechanisms to be developed for 

ensuring that both parties would benefit from a joint vision and cooperation. 

The potential spin-off of economic improvements for rural development through 

increased visitor flows to the area is also another potential contribution of Ulu Muda 

forests that need to be considered. An example is the case of Jerantut in relation to the 

Taman Negara model. However, the potential social impacts of tourism development 

also need to be assessed. 

Besides socio-economic development, the importance of wildlife conservation of the 

Ulu Muda area is invaluable in terms of its wildlife. At the same time the significance 

of contiguous forest systems joining the Thai-border areas create an opportunity for 

developing a trans-border park that would be of international significance. 

In view of the economic importance of Ulu Muda Forests, it is critical to consider the 

potential impacts and risks from proposed projects such as logging in the 

environmentally sensitive areas. 

Based on the assessments and consultations undertaken in this study, specific 

recommendations and conclusions of the study are: 

x Nature tourism development will enhance the use values of Ulu Muda without 

upsetting other values; existing benefit is estimated at RM13 million and could 

increase up to 10 times in 10 years. 

x Infrastructure investments are required to increase its carrying capacity. 

Preliminary estimations are 300 persons per day inside the park and 1,230 

persons per day outside the park. These estimations require further 

assessments. 

x Consulting and involving government agencies, local communities, NGOs and 

local guides are important to establish a sense of ownership and support from 

these stakeholders. 

x It is also vital to involve the private sector in the development of Ulu Muda 

nature tourism plans. 

x Logging of the catchment conflicts with nature tourism development and it is 

not logical to pursue both options. 

- However, if logging were to take place anyway, it will be critical to limit 

logging to the southern part of the Ulu Muda forests, i.e., only half the 



proposed area (for Phase 1) for logging (Coupes 1-3 only). Strict 

guidelines and monitoring efforts need to be implemented to minimise soil 

erosion, sedimentation to rivers and disturbance to wildlife. 

- The use of the FSC Guidelines will enable the logging firm to gain market 

share in markets that would otherwise not accept timber from nonsustainable 

forests. Access to these high-premium buyers is being 

facilitated by buyers’ groups such as the 95+ group in the United Kingdom 

(http://www.wwf-uk.org/95+group/). Coupes 4, 5 and 6 (as delineated in 

the detailed EIA) should definitely not be allowed because of conflicts 

with nature tourism and biodiversity conservation. Logging could also 

induce major costs and losses from existing water values. 

x Core conservation zones identified include Sg. Teliang, Kalir and the northern 

side of Ulu Muda as well as areas on Sg. Muda up to Kuala Lasor as these are 

most suitable for nature tourism and animal watching as major activities 

including other lakeside activities. 

x The study recommends the State Forestry Department model to be adopted as 

it is the least cost option. This option does not require the setting up of new 

institutions, and hence, implementation can be done faster. 

x The Government needs to allocate RM10 million for set-up costs for five years 

(75% in capital expenditure) before returns are expected. 

x Explore co-financing model with the Economic Planning Unit, Governmentto-Government 

funding (JICA/DANCED), and multi-lateral aid agencies 

(GEF) to obtain required funding. 

x Explore inter-state water-based charges or other financing options to increase 

state revenue. 

The commitment of a State Park by the Government can be demonstrated by the 

proposed steps: 

- Gazetting Ulu Muda as a State Park based on the benefits and 

significance of the area as a natural asset and for its contribution to the 

local, national and regional economy. 

- Determine and adopt the management structure of the Proposed Park and 

mobilise required institutional requirements for the establishment of the 

State Park. 

- Allocating sufficient financial resources for the development and 

operations of the State Park. 



Appendix 

Appendix 1. Mammals Documented in the Greater Ulu Muda 

Order Family Species 

Artiodactlya Bovidae Bos gaurus hubbacki 

Artiodactlya Bovidae Capricornis sumatrensis 

Artiodactlya Bovidae Naemorhedus sumatrensis 

Artiodactlya Cervidae Cervus unicolor 

Artiodactlya Cervidae Muntiacus muntjak 

Artiodactlya Suidae Sus scrofa 

Artiodactlya Tapiridae Tapirus indicus 

Artiodactlya Tragulidae Tragulus javanicus 

Artiodactlya Tragulidae Tragulus napu 

Carnivora Felidae Neofelis nebulosa 

Carnivora Felidae Panthera pardus 

Carnivora Felidae Panthera tigris 

Carnivora Felidae Prionailurus bengalensis 

Carnivora Mustelidae Amblonyx cinereus 

Carnivora Mustelidae Lutra perspicillata 

Carnivora Mustelidae Martes flavigula 

Carnivora Ursidae Helarctos malayanus 

Carnivora Viverridae Arctictis binturong 

Carnivora Viverridae Arctogalidia trivirgata 

Carnivora Viverridae Paguma lavarta 

Carnivora Viverridae Prionodon linsang 

Dermoptera Cynocephalidae Cynocephalus variegatus 

Insectivora Erinacidae Echinosorex gymnurus 

Insectivora Erinacidae Hylomys suillus 

Insectivora Soricidae Crocidura monticola 

Megachiroptera Pteropodidae Balionycteris maculata 

Megachiroptera Pteropodidae Chironax melanocephalus 

Megachiroptera Pteropodidae Cynopterus brachyotis 

Megachiroptera Pteropodidae Cynopterus horsefieldi 

Megachiroptera Pteropodidae Dyacopterus spadiceus 

Megachiroptera Pteropodidae Eonycteris spelaea 

Megachiroptera Pteropodidae Macroglossus sobrinus 



Appendix 1 (continued). Mammals Documented in the Greater Ulu Muda 


Megachiroptera Pteropodidae Megaerops ecaudatus 

Megachiroptera Pteropodidae Penthetor lucasi 

Microchiroptera Emballonuridae Emballonura monticola 

Microchiroptera Emballonuridae Taphozous longimanus 

Microchiroptera Emballonuridae Taphozous melanopogon 

Microchiroptera Emballonuridae Taphozous saccolaimus 

Microchiroptera Hippsoideridae Coelops frithi 

Microchiroptera Hippsoideridae Hipposideros armiger 

Microchiroptera Hippsoideridae Hipposideros bicolor 

Microchiroptera Hippsoideridae Hipposideros cervinus 

Microchiroptera Hippsoideridae Hipposideros cineraceus 

Microchiroptera Hippsoideridae Hipposideros diadema 

Microchiroptera Hippsoideridae Hipposideros larvatus 

Microchiroptera Hippsoideridae Hipposideros ridleyi 

Microchiroptera Hippsoideridae Hipposideros sabanus 

Microchiroptera Megadermatidae Megaderma spasma 

Microchiroptera Mollosidae Tadarida mops 

Microchiroptera Mollosidae Tadarida plicata 

Microchiroptera Nycteridae Nycterus javanica 

Microchiroptera Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus accuminatus 

Microchiroptera Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus affinis 

Microchiroptera Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus lepidus 

Microchiroptera Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus luctus 

Microchiroptera Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus pusillus 

Microchiroptera Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus sedulus 

Microchiroptera Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus stheno 

Microchiroptera Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus trifoliatus 

Microchiroptera Vespertilionidae Glischropus tylopus 

Microchiroptera Vespertilionidae Kerivoula minuta 

Microchiroptera Vespertilionidae Kerivoula papillosa 

Microchiroptera Vespertilionidae Miniopterus schreibasii 

Microchiroptera Vespertilionidae Murnia suilla 

Microchiroptera Vespertilionidae Myotis muricolor 

Microchiroptera Vespertilionidae Myotis ridleyi 





Microchiroptera Vespertilionidae Myotis siligorensis 

Microchiroptera Vespertilionidae Pipistrellus imbricatus 

Microchiroptera Vespertilionidae Pipsitrellus javanicus 

Microchiroptera Vespertilionidae Pipsitrellus stenopterus 

Microchiroptera Vespertilionidae Pipsitrellus tenus 

Microchiroptera Vespertilionidae Tylonycteris robustula 

Pholidota Manidae Manis javanicus 

Primates Cercopithecidae Macaca fascicularis 

Primates Cercopithecidae Macaca nemestrina 

Primates Cercopithecidae Presbytis femoralis 

Primates Cercopithecidae Presbytis obscura 

Primates Hylobatidae Hylobates agilis 

Primates Hylobatidae Hylobates lar 

Primates Lorisidae Nycticebus coucang 

Proboscidea Elephantidae Elephas maximus 

Rodentia Hystericidae Atherurus macrourus 

Rodentia Hystericidae Hystrix bachyura 

Rodentia Muridae Chiropodomys gliroides 

Rodentia Muridae Leopoldomys sabanus 

Rodentia Muridae Maxomys rajah 

Rodentia Muridae Maxomys surifer 

Rodentia Muridae Maxomys whiteheadii 

Rodentia Muridae Niviventer crimoriventer 

Rodentia Muridae Rattus tiomanicus 

Rodentia Muridae Sundamys muelleri 

Rodentia Pteromyidae Petaurista petaurista 

Rodentia Rhizomyidae Rhyzomys sumatrensis 

Rodentia Sciuridae Callosciurus caniceps 

Rodentia Sciuridae Callosciurus nigrovittatus 

Rodentia Sciuridae Callosciurus notatus 

Rodentia Sciuridae Callosciurus prevostii 

Rodentia Sciuridae Lariscus insignis 

Rodentia Sciuridae Ratufa affinis 

Rodentia Sciuridae Ratufa bicolor 





Rodentia Sciuridae Rhinosciurus laticaudatus 

Rodentia Sciuridae Sundasciurus hippurus 

Rodentia Sciuridae Sundasciurus lowii 

Rodentia Sciuridae Sundasciurus tenuis 

Scandentia Tupaiidae Tupaia glis 

Sources: 

Nor Azman, H. 1997. Small Mammal Diversity and Relative Densities in the Sungai weng Sub-catchment, 

Ulu Muda Forest Reserve. Kertas kerja Bengkel ke-3 Kajian Kesan Pembalakan terhadap Tadahan Wakil 

dan Waduk MUDA/PEDU. Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 21-22 April 1997. 

Norsham, S. Y., Saiful, A.A, Fuad Shariff, Norhayati, A., M. Zakaria Hussin, Lim, B.L. & M. Nordin. 1998. 

Observation of Mammalian Fauna in the Sungai Weng Sub-catchment, Ulu Muda Forest Reserve. Kertas 

kerja Bengkel ke-3 Kajian Kesan Pembalakan terhadap Tadahan Wakil dan Waduk MUDA/PEDU. Universiti 

Putra Malaysia, Serdang 21-22 April 1997. 

Saiful A.A. & M. Nordin. 1997. Primate and Squirrels in the Sg. Weng Sub-catchment, Ulu Muda Forest 

Reserve. Kertas kerja Bengkel ke-3 Kajian Kesan Pembalakan terhadap Tadahan Wakil dan Waduk 

MUDA/PEDU. Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 21-22 April 1997. 



Appendix 2. Volume and Royalty Fees by Type of Wood 

Proportion 

(Average of 1999 

and 2000) 

Volume 

(cu.m/ha) 


Average 

royalty fee 

RM) 

Total Royalty Fee 

(RM/ha) 

Heavy Hardwood 0.13 4.7 9.4 44 

Medium 

Hardwood 

Light Heavy 

Hardwood 

0.28 9.7 13.2 128 

0.59 20.6 9.4 192 

Total 1.00 35.0 31.9 364 

Note: Estimations based on Forest Department Annual Report


Appendix 3. Excerpt from Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of 

Logging Operations in the Vanimo Timber Area, Sandaun Province, Papua New 

Guinea 61 

SUMMARY 

by Forests Monitor Limited and Individual 

and Community Rights Advocacy Forum Inc. (ICRAF) 

An environmental and social impact assessment of the Vanimo Timber Area was 

conducted in early May 1999. This assessment found that: 

x The WTK Reality Group of Malaysia through their operation of Vanimo Forest 

Products (VFP) has violated at least 13 of the key standards from the PNG Logging 

Code of Practice. 

x VFP has failed to fully comply with the Project Agreement concerning the Vanimo 

Timber Area. 

x The East-West Highway has never been completed by VFP. 

x Poor quality road and bridge construction has severely limited development and 

transport options for people in the Vanimo region. 

x Culturally significant areas, including gravesites, have been negligently damaged by 

VFP. 

x A fledgling palm seed export business has been threatened by VFP. 

x Sediment and nutrient runoff from negligent logging operations have damaged stream 

ecosystems. 

x Clean water sources near villages for drinking and processing sago have been 

damaged by VFP. 

x Undersized logs are regularly cut from the forests. 

x Extensive damage from logging operations has retarded the regeneration capacity of 

the forest. 

x Sago palms have been damaged by logging operations. 

x The time taken for villagers to find food sources in the forests have increased. 

x Malnutrition, low birth weight babies, malaria and sexually transmitted diseases have 

become more common in the region. 

x Limited numbers of local men and no local women are employed by VFP. 

x Birds of Paradise and New Guinea Pigeons are reportedly smuggled out on the 

logging boats. 

61 http://www.forestmonitor.org/reports/vanimo/vanimo.rtf 



x Police have been used to protect the interests of VFP. 

x The Forestry Authority has not enforced the PNG Logging Code of Practice. 

Conclusions 

The logging practices of WTK are causing irreversible damage to the forest resources, 

including residual trees, flora and fauna, and impairing vital forest functions (such as the 

maintenance of watershed integrity and soil quality). Few benefits are reaching the 

customary landowners who depend on the forests not only to provide small cash incomes, 

but also as their only means of subsistence and livelihood. Although it has been 10 years 

since the release of Judge Thomas Barnett Commission of Enquiry into the Papua New 

Guinean Forestry Sector (1987-1989) few things seem to have changed in the ways that 

companies such as WTK operate. “ In many cases, the timber industry has made life 

harder for the landowners at all levels. Not only do they have to face destruction of their 

environment, but they face the destruction of their society.” 



Appendix 4: Proportion of water extracted from Muda and relevant rivers of the 

Total Kedah Water Production 

Treatment Plant River Total Production 

(cum/day), 2001 

Loji Air Kuala Ketil Sg. Muda 10,088 

Loji Air Teloi Kanan Sg. Muda 1,204 

Loji Air Pinang Tunggal Sg. Muda 36,960 

Loji Air Sungai Petani Sg. Muda 162,530 

Loji Air Jeniang Sg. Muda 13,052 

Loji Air Batu 5 Sik Sg. Chepir 8,639 

Loji Air Kulim Hi-Tech Sg. Muda 54,985 

Loji Air Bukit Pinang Terusan Mada Utara 87,756 

Loji Air Pelubang Sg. Padang Terap 242,300 

Loji Air Kuala Nerang Kuala Nerang, Sg. Pedu 25,194 

Loji Air Padang Sanai Sg. Ahning 1,164 

Loji Pembersih Nami Sg. Muda 3,443 

Loji Air Lubuk Merbau Sg. Muda 1,278 

Loji Air Jeneri Sg. Muda 6,416 

Total from Muda and relevant rivers 655,009 

Total Kedah 841,316 

Proportion of Muda and relevant 

rivers compared to Kedah total 

Source: JKR Kedah, personal communication 


78%


Appendix 5. Water Revenue by Domestic and Commercial Volumes, 1999 

Domestic 

(cu.m) 

Commercial 

(cu.m) 

Total (cu.m) Ratio: 

Domestic 


Ratio: 

Commercial 

Revenue: 

Domestic 

(RM) 

Revenue: 

Commercial 

(RM) 

Kedah 104,860,480 29,921,628 134,782,108 0.78 0.22 62,099,431 17,719,889 

Penang 115,934,059 79,867,425 195,801,484 0.59 0.41 59,599,204 41,058,124 

Perlis 13,209,145 2,186,129 15,395,274 0.86 0.14 5,388,711 891,838 

Total 234,003,684 111,975,182 345,978,866 127,087,346 59,669,851 

Note: Estimation based on data from Malaysia Water Industry Guide, 2001. 

Appendix 6. Economic Values of Ulu Muda Forest Areas 

Primary Values (RM, 

million) 

TOTAL (Tourism, Water Supply, Irrigation) 161 

Secondary 

values (RM, 

million) 

205 

Tertiary (RM, 

million) 

Tourism Tourism Receipts 

13 

Consumption 

(Market Value) 

Domestic Kedah 62 

Penang 60 

Perlis 5 

Total Production 127 

142 

NRW: 45% Industrial Kedah 18 

Water Supply Penang 41 

UM Forests Perlis 0.9 

60 1937 

Production Cost (O&M 

for dams & canals) 

0 

Irrigation 19 MADA 5 622 

JPS JPS ? 

Seberang Perai Seberang Perai ? 

TIMBER Revenue & 

Collection 

Scenario (60% 

53 

loggable) 

2,559


Appendix 7. Preliminary Analysis of the Proposed State Park and Existing Forest 

Compartments Likely to be Affected 

Compartment 

ID 

Original 

Compartment (m 2 ) 


Proposed State 

Park (m 2 ) 

% Original Compartment 

Affected 

001b 3716463 1118219 30 

001c 1642794 1193 0 

002 1880779 1626764 86 

002c 2863514 30820 1 

003 6367282 367674 6 

003b 2679694 2505553 94 

004 1906426 60560 3 

004b 1986422 1986422 100 

005 2107210 2091803 99 

005b 1526147 751379 49 

006 2207055 1846156 84 

006b 2754338 1602718 58 

007 1545029 1010170 65 

007b 2287878 184177 8 

007c 2183084 135991 6 

007c 2183084 1659714 76 

008 1838240 786975 43 

008b 3010077 944803 31 

008b 3010077 2986926 99 

008c 2136591 3957 0 

009 2604634 630188 24 

009 2604634 122905 5 

009b 3261771 2917043 89 

009b 3261771 3087426 95 

009c 1639141 1301278 79 

010 2047732 2010489 98 

010b 1498422 536676 36 

010c 4771400 4664118 98 

010c 4771400 4664118 98 

011 1977077 1775969 90 

011b 2370337 839653 35 

011c 4143223 4143223 100 

011c 4143223 4095378 99 

012 2135643 788199 37 

012b 1656661 1555115 94 

012c 2497868 2480516 99 

012c 2497868 2413088 97 

013b 3616582 1665300 46 

013c 3400615 3400615 100 

013c 3400615 3382470 99 

014 2334903 1150191 49 

014c 2729599 2675739 98 

014c 2729599 2315614 85 

015 3291997 3281954 100 

015 3291997 3095023 94 

015c 2547520 1760262 69


Appendix 7 (continued). Preliminary Analysis of the Proposed State Park and 

Existing Forest Compartments Likely to be Affected 

Compartment 

ID 





Park (m 2 ) 


Affected 

016 1247762 1150501 92 

016b 2631482 2599252 99 

016b 2631482 2599252 99 

017 3624214 2211196 61 

017b 2839342 2839342 100 

017b 2839342 2839342 100 

018 4506233 2038261 45 

018b 2175278 895750 41 

018b 2175278 1722802 79 

019 4172324 23335 1 

019 4172324 3220636 77 

019b 1864866 1362625 73 

019b 1864866 1362625 73 

020 3322776 2843527 86 

020 3322776 2843527 86 

020b 2567495 77794 3 

020b 2567495 2567495 100 

021 4619212 4522770 98 

021 4619212 4226048 91 

021b 2763480 2763480 100 

022 2629633 2629633 100 

022 2629633 2404563 91 

022b 2499130 2416463 97 

023 4273126 4258178 100 

023 4273126 3820155 89 

023b 3766767 3766767 100 

024 1996777 1670908 84 

024b 2546754 2459772 97 

024b 2546754 2410774 95 

025 2453408 1380981 56 

025 2453408 1503560 61 

026 2900654 2878259 99 

026b 1493240 403224 27 

026c 2463636 2398649 97 

027 1998875 1702162 85 

027 1998875 1576646 79 

027b 3581822 276088 8 

028 2950390 1433911 49 

028b 1245181 989449 79 

028b 1245181 653072 52 

029 1582061 852399 54 

029 1582061 561721 36 

029b 3794916 789006 21 

030 1324259 795393 60 

030 1324259 600436 45 

030b 3145914 981667 31




Compartment 

ID 





Park (m 2 ) 


Affected 

031 2665201 11381 0 

031b 1318433 682157 52 

031b 1318433 567798 43 

032 1091655 820297 75 

032 1091655 379443 35 

033 3741961 2618849 70 

033 3741961 1715550 46 

035 2422883 1564739 65 

035 2422883 722931 30 

036 4908796 3624655 74 

036 4908796 2042665 42 

038 4940804 3796693 77 

038 4940804 3438994 70 

039 5763010 5577099 97 

039 5763010 4747088 82 

040b 3247307 125196 4 

040b 3247307 3081653 95 

041 2766593 2436259 88 

041b 3510781 70997 2 

042 3228667 349924 11 

042b 3473818 3378966 97 

043b 1735345 1735345 100 

044 6116594 1285271 21 

045 3413651 2255243 66 

046 3112972 295392 9 

046b 2237265 1581593 71 

047 1895166 1706938 90 

048 1829735 29555 2 

050 1733155 608365 35 

066 6916126 158642 2 

067 10221931 8314 0 

072 5944161 6273 0 

073 5609393 46681 1 

090 3956835 9223 0 

091 4527229 113718 3 

091b 10937408 106007 1 

092 6441752 86038 1 

093 5550125 185703 3 

095 5910514 102107 2 

096 6136366 5794318 94 

097 9514863 9317021 98 

098 6442461 185234 3 

107 6571839 193329 3 

108 5245341 5224041 100 

109 9386568 9386568 100 

110 6120335 5987556 98




Compartment 

ID 





Park (m 2 ) 


Affected 

111 5979369 5905863 99 

112 6484016 6379449 98 

113 6363432 6214822 98 

114 8039969 7795848 97 

115 5693900 5552696 98 

116 3204842 3135721 98 

117 5040005 70432 1 

118 6285118 6285118 100 

119 9494451 9444696 99 

120 5322665 58737 1 

126 5199136 30750 1 

127 8090398 8067489 100 

128 5246635 5210205 99 

129 4064961 4064961 100 

130 6032750 5890525 98 

131 5116848 243001 5 

132 3791857 3640999 96 

133 5049001 28434 1 

134 5947301 157252 3 

136 8072623 60634 1 

137 9837592 9791290 100 

138 9114064 36100 0 

139 13539039 13453253 99 

140 5657271 3475 0 

141 4555996 258867 6 

142 5104715 4932168 97 

143 4139385 3878021 94 

144 5070793 4058988 80 

144b 4943349 3075119 62 

146 3909807 3909807 100 

147 3627353 3534191 97 

148 4667497 3291653 71 

149 6395799 5390036 84 

149 6395799 368151 6 

150 4957285 183815 4 

150 4957285 4779230 96 

151 4682699 14693 0 

151 4682699 293788 6 

152 6950595 6916521 100 

153 7816547 7715093 99 

154 6319995 6212055 98 

155 7437584 7200996 97 

156 3796145 3796145 100 

158 6521179 6349648 97 

159 3131463 3111085 99 

160 7361589 7286026 99




Compartment 

ID 





Park (m 2 ) 


Affected 

161 8378669 8314605 99 

162 6099809 6084171 100 

163 7642266 7642266 100 

164 4429895 4358519 98 

165 7396265 7264052 98 

166 3226091 3222658 100 

167 6960369 6859905 99 

168 5545519 5544482 100 

169 5781861 5604802 97 

170 4111677 51823 1 

170 4111677 4081487 99 

171 5372383 171165 3 

171 5372383 4987459 93 

172 3523583 3523583 100 

173 6245925 6225415 100 

174 3934877 3795936 96 

175 7641099 7501463 98 

176 3807033 2039603 54 

177 3860460 3860460 100 

Total Area (m 2 ) 832125948 539033590 

Total Area 

(ha) 

83, 213 53, 903 65 

Note: Original digital data (MADA, personal communication). Analysis has been made using 

Arcview GIS software ver 3. Some compartment ID numbers are duplicated, and in order to run 

the analysis, a unique suffix has been added to the original ID number. Figures in bold indicate 

compartments that are affected, but only minimally (less than 30% of the compartment affected).


Accommodation 

(buildings) 

1) Campsites (Kuala 

Lasor and Kuala Kalir) 

2) Youth hostel type– 

Charok Tera 

Appendix 8. Breakdown of Estimated Capital Costs 

Pax/day Buildings Total Size RM/unit Cost/item 2004 2005 

pax/day (sqm/p) 

67 130 3,610,000 3,610,000 

10 2 20 10 700 140,000 140,000 

25 2 50 30 1,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 

Kaji Cuaca Station 30 1 30 30 1,000 900,000 900,000 

3) Chalets: A-frames 

(Charok Tera) 

4) Staff quarters at Gubir 

(Normal House) 

2 15 30 30 1,000 900,000 900,000 

1 2 2 20,000 20,000 

5) Long House 9 1 9 150,000 150,000 

Support facilities 

(Items) 

1) Tourism centre & 

administration office 

2) Car park facilities 

(Gubir and Gulau) 

3) Interpretation and 

education centre at Pedu 

4) Recreation centres (Pedu and Muda) (food 

stalls, handicraft centres, rest rooms) 


1,510,000 1,110,000 400,000 

1 500,000 500,000 

2 20,000 40,000 40,000 

1 300,000 300,000 

2 50,000 100,000 100,000 

5) Bird Watching Tower 1 50,000 50,000 50,000 

6) Canopy Walkway 1 500,000 500,000 500,000 

7) Kopam Jetty Upgrade 1 20,000 20,000 20,000 

Roads (km) 

Service Roads (Upgrade 

existing logging trail) 

1) Gubir “ Dump-site” to 

Charok Tera 

2) Charok Tera to 1km 

away from Sira Hangat 

1,990,000 1,810,000 

10 50,000 500,000 500,000 

10 50,000 500,000 500,000


3) Kg. Gulau to Kuala 

Lasor 

Appendix 8 (continued). Breakdown of Estimated Capital Costs 

Pax/day Buildings Total Size RM/unit Cost/item 2004 2005 

pax/day (sqm/p) 


15 50,000 750,000 750,000 

Jungle Trails 60,000 180,000 

1) Safari entrance to 

Bukit Saiong 

2) Safari entrance to 

Kuala Kalir 

3) Pedu to Bkt. Fakir 

Terbang 

4) Pedu to Bkt. Batu 

Tajam 

8 10,000 80,000 80,000 

10 10,000 100,000 100,000 

3 10,000 30,000 30,000 

3 10,000 30,000 30,000 

Vehicles 170,000 170,000 

4WD 2 80000 160,000 160,000 

Boat 1 10000 10,000 10,000 

Boundary surveys 100,000 50,000 50,000 

Total 7,380,000 6,750,000 630,000


Estimation of 

Annual 

Operating Costs 

Maintenance costs 

(10% of Capital Costs- 

Accom) 

Appendix 9. Breakdown of Estimated Operating Costs 

Staff RM/person Total 

RM 


Total, 

RM 

2004, 

RM 

2005, RM 2007, 

RM 

2010, 

RM 

377,000 337,500 369,000 369,000 369,000 

Petrol 10,000 10,000 12,000 13,200 14,520 

Salaries 10 121,440 

Park Officer 2 2000 4,000 55,200 

Ranger 8 600 4,800 66,240 

Allowances 24,288 

Total Salaries 145,728 145,728 174,873.60 192,361 211,597 

TOTAL 

EXPENDITURE 

532,728 493,228 555,874 574,561 595,117


Appendix 10. Ratio of Local and Foreign Visitors, 2001. 

Local Foreign Total 

Visitors 


Ratio Local Foreign 

Taman Negara 34,091 31,383 65,474 52% 48% 

Kinabalu Park 121,151 75,865 197,016 61% 39% 

Endau Rompin 3,557 1,423 4,980 71% 29% 

Source: Tourism Malaysia, personal communication 

Revenue 

Streams 

Appendix 11. Breakdown of Estimated Revenue Streams 

Visitor Numbers Total RM 

Pax2004 Pax 

2005 

Pax, 

2007 

Pax, 

2010 

Total Visitors 4,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 

Entrance Fees: 

Local 

RM/ 

pax 

2004, RM 2005, 

RM 

2007, 

RM 

2010, RM 

3,200 4,000 7,000 12,000 5 16,000 20,000 35,000 60,000 

Foreign 800 1,000 3,000 8,000 30 24,000 30,000 90,000 240,000 

Accomodation: 

Campsites 

400 500 1,000 2,000 30 12,000 15,000 30,000 60,000 

Youth Hostel 2,400 3,000 6,000 12,000 50 120,000 150,000 300,000 600,000 

Chalets 1,200 1,500 3,000 6,000 80 96,000 120,000 240,000 480,000 

Camera 1,200 1,500 3,000 6,000 5 6,000 7,500 15,000 30,000 

Video 400 500 1,000 2,000 5 2,000 2,500 5,000 10,000 

Car Parking 800 1,000 2,000 4,000 3 2,400 3,000 6,000 12,000 

Coaches 80 100 200 400 10 800 1,000 2,000 4,000 

Licences 1 1 2 2 1000 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 

Permits 1,500 2,000 3,000 5,000 10 15,000 20,000 30,000 50,000 

Fees from other 

facilities 

10,000 20,000 30,000 10 100,000 200,000 300,000 

Total 295,200 470,000 955,000 1,848,000 

Profit (198,028) (85,874) 380,439 1,252,883 

Note: Fees from other facilities include education centre, recreation centres


References 

British High Commission Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia State Summary: Kedah 

http://www.britain.org.my/trade/state_summaries/kedah.htm 

Chamberlain, K. 1997. Carrying Capacity. In Tourism Focus Issue No. 8. UNEP Industry 

and Environment. 

Du, Yaping. 1998. The Value Improved Water Quality for Recreation in East Lake, 

Wuhan, China: Application of Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Methods. 

Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA). 

Economic Planning Unit (EPU) 1993, Malaysian National Conservation Strategy. 

Malaysian Ministry of Science, Technology and Enviroment. 

Stevens W.E. – Canadian Colombo Plan Ecologist (1968). The Conservation of Wild Life 

in West Malaysia, Federal Game Department. 

WWF Malaysia 1984. A Conservation Strategy for Kedah. WWF Malaysia, Petaling 

Jaya. 

Inskeep, E. 1991. Tourism Planning: An Inegrated and Sustainable Development 

Approach, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 

Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa (JPBD). 2002. National Spatial Plan. 

Japan International Cooperation Agency, JICA. 1995. Comprehensive Management Plan 

of Muda River Basin. CTI Engineering Co., Ltd in Association INA Coroporation. 

Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia. 2000. Forestry Statistics, Peninsular Malaysia. 

Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia. 2000. Annual Report. 

Forestry Department Kedah. 1999. Annual Report 

Forests Monitor Limited and Individual and Community Rights Advocacy Forum Inc. 

(ICRAF). 1999. Forest Monitor, 

http://www.forestmonitor.org/reports/vanimo/vanimo.rtf 

Government of Malaysia. 2001. Eighth Malaysia Plan. 



Ho, N.K. 1996. Double Cropping in the Muda Plain. An Overview of agricultural 

development from transplanting to direct seeding culture in Recent Advances in 

Malaysian Rice Production, Direct Seeding Culture in the Muda Area, Edited by 

Morooka, Y., Jegatheesan, S. & Yasunobu, K. 

Johor National Park Corporation (JNPC), Endau Rompin. 

http://www.johorpark.com/Endau/aboutEndau.htm 

Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa (JPBD). 2000. Garis Panduan Piawaian 

Perancangan “ Kawasan Tasik” . JPBD, Kuala Lumpur. 

Kasim, O. and Rahimatsah, A. (Eds.). 2002. The Concept of Park Development in 

Malaysia: Institutional Framework, Management and Operation. Kangar: Jabatan 

Perhutanan Perlis. 

Lai, F.S., Akkharath, I., Lee, C.K. and Choo, C.S. 2000. Sediment yield of the Sg. Weng 

Experimental Watersheds. Interim Workshop Report of the Research on the 

Impacts of Logging on Wakil and Waduk Muda/Pedu Catchments. Department of 

Irrigation and Drainage, Hydrology and Water Resources Division. 

Lee, K.F. 1999. Sustainable Tourism Destinations: Approaches and Methodology - 

Masters Thesis. International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics: 

Lund University. 

Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchage, KLSE. Company Database. PBA Holdings Bhd. 

http://www.klse-ris.com.my/CDB/owa/cp_summary?cmp_code_in=5041 

Malaysian Nature Society (MNS). 1995. Endau-Rompin National Park, Pahang. A 

Development and Management Plan. Final Report, April, 1995. 

The Malaysian Water Association. 2001. Malaysia Water Industry Guide. 

Mathew, D. & Sharma, D. 1994. Biodiversity in Peninsular Malaysia Transfrontier 

Forests: A Case Study at Mata Ayer Forest Reserve and Proposed Bukit Wang Mu 

Forest Reserve, Perlis. WWF Malaysia, Petaling Jaya. 

Miller, G.T. 1998. Living in the Environment, 10 th edition, Wadsworth Publishing, 206. 

Ministry of Culture, Arts and Tourism. 1996. National Ecotourism Plan. World Wide 

Fund for Nature Malaysia. 

Ministry of Culture, Arts and Tourism. 1997. National Ecotourism Plan. Guidelines for 

Carrying Capacity and the Limits of Acceptable Change. World Wide Fund for 

Nature Malaysia. 



Ministry of Finance, Malaysia. 2001. Economic Report 2001/2002. 

Ministry of Science Technology and Environment. 1997. Assessment of Biological 

Diversity in Malaysia : Country Study on Biological Diversity. Malaysian 

Ministry of Science, Technology and Enviroment. 

Muda Agricultural Development Authority, MADA, 2001. Statistical Bulletin, 2001. 

Prepared by the Department of Planning and Evaluation. 

New Straits Times, 9 April, 2001. Government Will Ensure Sustainable Development 

Tourism: Dr. M. 

New Straits Times, 18 May, 2002. Kedah Must Think Twice About Reopening Primary 

Forest To Loggers. 

Nor Azman, H. 1997. Small Mammal Diversity and Relative Densities in the Sungai 

Weng Sub-catchment, Ulu Muda Forest Reserve. Kertas Kerja Bengkel ke-3 

Kajian Kesan Pembalakan Terhadap Tadahan Wakil dan Waduk MUDA/PEDU. 

Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 21-22 April 1997. 

Norsham, S. Y., Saiful, A.A, Fuad Shariff, Norhayati, A., M. Zakaria Hussin, Lim, B.L. 

& M. Nordin. 1998. Observation of Mammalian Fauna in the Sungai Weng Subcatchment, 

Ulu Muda Forest Reserve. Kertas Kerja Bengkel ke-3 Kajian Kesan 

Pembalakan Terhadap Tadahan Wakil dan Waduk MUDA/PEDU. Universiti 

Putra Malaysia, Serdang 21-22 April 1997. 

Saiful A.A. & M. Nordin. 1997. Primate and Squirrels in the Sg. Weng Sub-catchment, 

Ulu Muda Forest Reserve. Kertas kerja Bengkel ke-3 Kajian Kesan Pembalakan 

terhadap Tadahan Wakil dan Waduk MUDA/PEDU. Universiti Putra Malaysia, 

Serdang 21-22 April 1997. 

Socio Economic and Research Institute, SERI. 2000. Economic Briefing to the Penang 

State Government. March 2000, Volume 3, Issue 3. 

Perlis State Park. Perlis State Park. http://www.perlis.gov.my/national_park.htm 

World Tourism Organisation (WTO) Newsletter (1998). Ecotourism, Now One-Fifth of 

Market January/February. 

http://www.worldtourism.org/omt/newslett/janfeb98/ecotour.htm 

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Malaysia. Perlis State Park. 

http://www.wwfmalaysia.org/projects/forests.htm#perlis 

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Malaysia. 1984. Proposals for a Conservation 

Strategy for Kedah. 



World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) United Kingdom. WWF 95+ Group. 

http://www.wwf-uk.org/95+group/ 

WTK Holdings Bhd. 2002. Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment. Report for the 

Helicopter Harvesting Project in Kedah Darul Aman. 

Unit Perancang Ekonomi Negeri Kedah Darul Aman. 2001. Pelan Tindakan Maju 2010. 


THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KEDAH DARUL AMAN 

A STUDY OF NATURE TOURISM 

DEVELOPMENT IN ULU MUDA, 

KEDAH DARUL AMAN 

FORMULATION OF A SPATIAL AND CONCEPTUAL 

GUIDELINE FOR THE SUSTAINABLE NATURE TOURISM 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORESTS OF ULU MUDA 

FINAL REPORT 

DECEMBER 2002 

THE WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE (WWF) MALAYSIA

PERLIS STATE 

Alor Setar 

%U 

P. PINANG STATE 

KEDAH STATE 

Spatial and Conceptual Guideline 

for the Sustainable Development of the Forests of 

Ulu Muda as a Nature Tourism Destination 

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Malaysia 

MAP 1 

Ahning 

Pedu 

Beris 

Muda 

Current Extent of Forests in Kedah 

N 

Pedu Catchment Outline 

Muda Catchment Outline 

Beris Catchment Outline 

Ahning Catchment Outline 

State Boundaries 

Dams 

Forest Extent (1992) 

Logged Inland Forest 

Mangrove Forest 

Unlogged Inland Forest 

4 0 4 8 Kilometers

%U 

%U 

%U 

3200 

2700 

2300 

2100 

2000 

3000 

%U 

2900 

2800 

2400 

2200 

2500 

2600 

2500 

2900 

2000 

2700 2800 

3100 





1800 

1900 

2400 

3200 

2200 

3300 

%U 

3000 

MAP 2 

Pedu 

2600 

2300 

%U 

Ulu Muda 

2100 

%U Northern Natural Areas 

Isosyet 

Kedah State Boundary 


4 0 4 8 Kilometers 

Isoyet Map for Eastern Kedah 

N

# %U 

Naka 

%U 

%U 

%U 

%U 

KOPAM Jetty 

Gubir 

MADA Resort 

$T 

# %U 

# %U 

# %U 

# %U 

# %U 

%U 

# 

%U %U 

# 





Bukit Fakir Terbang 

Mutiara Pedu Golf Resort and Lake Resort 

Anjung Pedu Resort 

Desa Utara Resort 

$T %U 

# %U Bukit Batu Tajam 

# %U 

Kuala Kalir 

Bukit Saiong 

# %U 

$T 

# %U 

%U 

Potential /existing Access Points $T 

%U Tourism Localities 

Major Roads 

Major Rivers 

Dams 


District Boundaries 

Baling 

Padang Terap 

Sik 

3 0 3 Kilometers 

# %U 

# %U 

# %U 

Kuala Labua 

Sira Hangat 

Air Terjun Charok Terau 

%U 

Kuala Lasor 

Sungai Teliang 

# %U 

MAP 3 

Present Tourism Sites in the 

Ulu Muda Region 

N

Machinchang 

%U 

%U 

%U 

%U 

%U 

Perlis State Park Timah Tasoh Lake 

Gunung Raya 

Pulau Dayang Bunting 

Pulau Singa Besar 

%U Northern Natural Areas 

Major Roads 



%U 

%U 

Pantai Aceh 





Gunung Jerai 

%U 

Pedu 

%U 

MAP 4 

Major Tourism Sites in 

Northern Peninsular Malaysia 

Ulu Muda 

%U 

N

% 

Gubir 

Proposed International border-crossing 

% 

% 

% 

Proposed recreational area 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% % # 





% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

# 

% Tourism Localities 

Major Rivers 

Proposed Trans-hinterland Highway 




% 

% # 


Dams 

Proposed State "Eco" Park 

Northern Forest Reserves 


4 0 4 Kilometers 

Sungai Teliang 

Proposed State "Eco" Park 

% # 

% 

Sira Hangat 

MAP 5 

Proposed Developments in the 

Greater Ulu Muda area 

N 

Sungai Muda




Ahning Beris Catchment Line 


Khao Nam Kang 

2 0 2 4 6 Kilometers 

Khao Nam Kang National Park 

Proposed Highway 





Thai-Malay border 

MAP 6 

Extent of Forest Cover in the 

Ulu Muda Region 

N

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚÊÚ 





MAP 7 

r r 

rr 

r 

r rr r 

r 

ÊÚ 

Salt Lick Locations 

Core Conservation Areas (Thailand) 






Topography and other Important Landmarks 

N 

Security Dam Features 


Major Rivers 

Tunnel 

Ecotone (150m) 

Proposed State Eco Park 

Dams 

Core Conservation Areas (Malaysia) 

4 0 4 Kilometers

%U 

ÊÚ 

$ Salt Lick Locations 

ÊÚ 

%U 


%U Tourism Localities 

Access Points 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ %U 


Major Rivers 





ÊÚÊÚ 

%U 


Proposed State Eco Park 

Dams 

Khao Nam Kang 

Proposed Protected Core Area (Ulu Muda) 

Potential Protected Area (Thailand) 

Compartments Boundaries 


%U 

ÊÚ 

%U 

%U 

%U 

%U 

ÊÚ 

%U 

%U 




ÊÚ 


%U 

%U 

%U 

ÊÚ 

%U 

ÊÚÊÚ %U 

%U 

# 

%U %U %U 

%U $ $ 

$ %U 

$ %U 

MADA Resort 

$ 

$$$ %U 

MAP 8 

%U 

Proposed Kedah State Park 

%U 

N

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

Zone for Tourism Centre 

ÊÚ %U 

Restricted Security Zone 

ÊÚÊÚ %U 

Gulau 

%U 

ÊÚ 

Gubir 

$ 

%U 

%U 

%U 

%U 

ÊÚ 

%U 

$ %U 

ÊÚ 

%U 

ÊÚ 

%U 

ÊÚÊÚ %U $ 

%U %U 

Pedu Resorts 





%U 

%U 

MAP 9 

%U 

%U #Y #Y 

#Y 

%U %U #Y 

#Y 

#Y 

#Y#Y %U #Y 

%U 

ÊÚ 

$ 


Access Points 


#Y 

%U 

Tourism Localities 

Tunnel 

Major Roads 


Major Rivers 



Tourism Zones 

Restricted 

Tourism Center 

Dams 




Proposed Conceptual Management Zones 

N 



Forest Reserve Compartments 

2 0 2 4 Kilometers

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ $ 

Visitor Zone 

ÊÚÊÚ $ 

$ 

ÊÚ 

KOPAM Jetty 

Core Protection Zone 

# 

$ 

# $ 

$ 

$ 

ÊÚ 

$ 

$ # 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

# $ 

ÊÚÊÚ $ 

$ $ 

Mutiara Pedu Golf Resort and Lake Resort 

# 

$ 

# $ 

Air Terjun Charok Terau 





$ 

$ 

Conservation & Management Zone 

$ xz xz 

xz 

xz $ 

# $ xz 

MAP 10 

xz 

xzxz $ xz 

Sira Hangat 

$ 

# Access 

ÊÚ 

xz 

Points 


Khao Nam Kang 

Protected Areas (Thailand) 

Compartments Boundaries 

Proposed Nature Tourism Concept for Ulu Muda 

N 


$ Tourism Localities 

Major Rivers 


Management Zone (Visitors) 

Dams 

Management Zone 

Conservation 

Active Management 

2 0 2 4 Kilometers

# 

Proposed 

Highway 

ÊÚ 

# c 

ÊÚ 

Tourism Centre (Gubir) 

ÊÚ c 

Durian Burung (proposed border crossing) 

ÊÚÊÚ c 

c 

ÊÚ 

Jetty Launch 

ÊÚ 

c 

c 

# $ 

c 

# 

ÊÚ 

c 

ÊÚ c 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ c 

# 

ÊÚÊÚ c 

&V c 

ÊÚ c&V 

c # 

Tourism Centre (Pedu) 

Tented Camp 





# #Y c 

Potential Thai Protected Area 

# %a c 

Permanent Lodge 

# 

c 

c 

Alternative Permanent Camp 

r 

rr 

r 

'W 

#S rc 

r 

rrr c 

# 

# 

c 

r 

ÊÚ 

#S 

&V 

'W 

#Y 

%a 

&V 

Tourism Concept 

Tourism Centre (Gubir) 

$ 

Trails Concept 

4WD 

Tourism Centre (Pedu) 

# %a c 


Focal Wildlife Arena 

Jetty Launch 

Temporary Camp 

Permanent Lodge 

Tented Camp 

Trail 


Temporary Camp 

Focal Wildlife Arena 

Tented Camp 

MAP 11 

Conceptual Plan for "Inside Park" 

Nature Tourism Development 

c 

Tourism Localities 

Access Point 

ÊÚ Primary 

ÊÚ Secondary 


N 

Tunnel 

Major Roads 


Major Rivers 

Dams 


States Boundaries 


Forest Reserve Compartments

Kuala Nerang 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚÊÚ 


Gulau 

Beris 

Gubir 

ÊÚ 

% 

Pedu 

ÊÚ 





% 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚÊÚ 

Pedu Resorts 

% 

Ulu Muda Forests 

Key conservation areas 

r 

r 

r 

r 

r 

rrr Kopam Jetty Area 

% Access 

r 

ÊÚ 

# 

Sira Hangat 

Point 




Protected Areas (Muda) 

Dams 




MAP 12 

Conceptual Plan for "Outside Park" 

Tourism Development 

N 

Tunnel 

Major Roads 



Major Rivers 


Tourism Zones 

Restricted 



3 0 3 Kilometers

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

Proposed Durian Burong Crossing 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚÊÚ 

Ahning 

ÊÚ 


% 

Pedu 

ÊÚ 

% 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚÊÚ 

% 

Kopam Jetty Area 

Ulu Muda forests 

Muda 

r 

rr 

r 

r 

r 

rrr 

Sira Hangat 


for the Sustainable Development of the Forests of MAP 13 

Ulu Muda as a Nature Tourism Destination Proposed Ulu Muda State Park 


% Access 

ÊÚ 

r 



N 


Interland High Areas 

Major Rivers 






Dams 

Khao Nam Kang 

Protected Areas (Muda) 

Potential Protected Areas (Thailand) 

Compartments 

3 0 3 Kilometers

Kuala Nerang 

ÊÚ 

Proposed Durian Burong Border Crossing 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚÊÚ 


Gulau 

ÊÚ 

Gubir 

% 

Pedu 

ÊÚ 

Beris 





% 

Pedu Resorts 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚ 

ÊÚÊÚ 

% 

Ulu Muda Forests 

KOPAM Jetty Area 

Salt Lick Locations r 


ÊÚ 

% Access 

# 





r 

r 

r 

r 

r 

rrr Key conservation areas 

Sira Hangat 

MAP 14 

Proposed Management Zones of the 

Ulu Muda State Park 

N 

Tunnel 

Major Roads 




Major Rivers 

Tourism Zones 

Restricted 



Dams 



2 0 2 4 Kilometers

astudy of nature tourism development in ulu muda, kedah darul ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?