oil palm plantations, communities & forest use final report

MAIN REPORT

OIL PALM PLANTATIONS, COMMUNITIES & FOREST USE

Final Report

Malua Forest Reserve July 2011

Prepared for the Malaysian Palm Oil Council, New Forests Asia, Sabah Forestry Department & Yayasan Sabah by Symbiosis Consulting

Weed control in Pintasan 8 at the estate boundary with Malua Forest Reserve

Acknowledgements

It gives me immense pleasure to thank a fathomless list of individuals involved the Malua II Study for

their support, advice, ideas and hospitality including:

- MPOC: Dr Kalyana Sundram, Deputy CEO;

- Sabah Forestry Department: Indra Sunjoto, DFO; Rayner Bili ADFO and the FCS leaders -

Ismail and Zainal and their staff;

- Kwantas Corporation Berhad (Pintasan): Madam Jeannette Kwan, Director of Land

Development, Postino Apoc Domingo, Acting Deputy Senior Manager; Encik Ansari Farisil,

Estate-in-Charge Pintasan 5; Bahar Palatuwi, Estate-in-Charge Pintasan 8; Francis Ngati,

Field Supervisor P5A; Hasamuddin Dahlan, Field Manager P5B & 5F; Nicolas Dulang, Field

Supervisor P5F;

- IOI Corporation Berhad (Syarimo): Tee Ke Hoi, General Manager; Poo Liong Chai, Syarimo

Estate Controller; Samsuari Hj Saleng, Estate Manager Syarimo 7 & 8; Encik Asbik, Estate

Manager Syarimo 9; Tomas Karulos, Assistant Manager Syarimo 9; Marylisa Perez,

Administrator Syarimo 7;

- TH Group Berhad (Ladang Pin): Mr Wang Jun Nji, CEO Plantation Division; Walter Mahidol,

Inspection Manager; Marina Alberto, Assistant to Mr Wang; Idris Rabbi, Assistant Estate-in-

Charge Ladang Pin 7;

- Agricultural Board of Selangor (Ladang PKPS Irat): Mohmammad Nasir bin Din, Estate

Director Ladang PKPS Irat;

- Focus Group Members: Pintasan 5A, Pintasan 5B, Pintasan 4F, Pintasan 8, Syarrimo 9,

Syarimo 8, Syarimo 7, Ladang PKPS Irat and Ladang Pin 7;

- Johdi Hj Bakri – Field Assistant;

- Rudolf Hahn – Technical Adviser for Malua Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement.

Rosalie Corpuz UK - BA MBA MSc PPM 202 Elopura 90000 Sandakan Sabah Tel: +60-12-826-8545 Email: [email protected]; [email protected] www.symbiosis-consulting.com

S y m b i o s i s C o n s u l t i n g Sustainable tourism research Social research in conservation

Executive Summary

“Tell me, I forget. Show me, I remember. Involve me, I understand.” (Ancient Chinese Proverb)

This Study (Malua II) was commissioned by New Forest Asia Sdn Bhd through financial

assistance from the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC) to explore the extent of forest use

among oil palm communities (OPC’s) based in the settlements of oil palm plantations

(OPP’s) to the east and north of Malua Forest Reserve (MFR). Malua II’s main objectives

were to identify issues and potential conflicts pertaining to wildlife management and

conservation and sought to formulate mutually-beneficial solutions. The ultimate aim of the

Study is to establish a common platform for collaborative management between the Sabah

Forestry Department (SFD), Sabah Wildlife Department (SWD), Yayasan Sabah (YS) and

OPP management in the form of the Malua Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement

(MPWCA).

The preliminary fieldtrip conducted in January 2011 identified a total of 8 OPP’s buffering the

eastern and northern boundaries of the Reserve namely: Ladang PKPS Irat, Pintasan 5A,

Pintasan 5B, Pintasan 5F, Pintasan 8, Syarimo 9, Syarimo 7, Ladanh Pin 7 and Ladang

PKPS Irat. These estates were established within the past two decades by 4 different

holding companies with settlements varying from 0.5 to 4 kilometers to the MFR border. For

the purposes of this Study, a qualitative research technique referred to as Rapid

Assessment Procedure (RAP) was employed and developed around 3 main themes:

community development and livelihoods; Malua FR and forest use and; solutions and

collaborative management. The core of RAP consisted of 8 focus group interviews (FGI’s)

and involved a total of 69 estate workers, mainly Indonesian, including 28 women and 41

men with an overall average age of 33.2 years. In order to achieve depth and to ensure data

integrity, the process also employed other applied research methods such as, spatial

analysis, walking surveys, informal one-to-one interviews and, direct and indirect observation

techniques.

These OPP communities derive their main incomes from estate work as harvesters,

supervisors, weed controllers, drivers, mechanics and security staff. The focus group

members (FGM’s) gave the impression that there is strong sense of community harmony in

the settlements. Being immigrant workers, the majority of them are focused on building up a

substantial source of funds through estate activities to enable them to re-establish better

lives back in their country of origin. The overall knowledge of conservation activities in

Malua FR is limited although FGM’s are aware of the forest use and entry restrictions.

Although the majority of FGM’s have not encountered or observed the incidence of illegal

hunting activities, boundary surveys and anecdotal accounts revealed otherwise.

Plantation management generally views hunting activities as detrimental to the overall

security in the estates. Furthermore, unrestricted hunting activities in the plantation area

could prove to be a bad example for the estate workers and eventually, could project a

negative image for the company. To this end, they have formally banned the activity in the

plantation area. Another issue that was highlighted during the research process was the

occurrence of human-wildlife conflicts (HWC’s) on the OPP’s. The FGM’s perceived a

working collaboration with the SFD as favourable in that, they would be presented with the

opportunity to learn and engage in new skills as Honorary Wildlife Wardens (HWW’s) and in

HWC mitigation measures. Overall, the FGM’s believe that this involvement would be

largely beneficial and could contribute to improvements in personal safety thus, enhancing

the peace and security of community life in the estates

Historically, the main entry point into Malua FR is through the mouth of the Malua on the

juncture with the Kinabatangan River. However, logging activity, compounded with the

establishment of OPP’s in the area surrounding the Reserve in the past 20 years has

brought about improved road access hence, contributing to the increase of illegal hunting

activities notably, in the forest reserve and the plantation area. Additionally, the loss of

habitat particularly for far-ranging species such as the Asian elephant has contributed to the

increase of human-wildlife conflicts (HWC’s) on the OPP’s. These landmark events have

created conflicting demands for wildlife conservation and plantation operations

consequently, bringing about the need for collaborative management between the major

stakeholders such as the Sabah Forestry Department, Sabah Wildlife Department, Yayasan

Sabah, OPP management and communities. The Malua II research project sought to

uncover common thresholds between the parties and thus, the Study not only aims to

identify and nurture symbiotic relationships but could also serve as a paradigm for

collaborative management for wildlife conservation.

Table of Contents

MAIN REPORT Chapter 1 Study introduction and research scenario 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Study scenarios 2

1.2.1 Research objectives 3

1.2.2 Rapid Assessment Procedure (RAP) 5

1.2.3 Research teams 6

1.3 Focus group outcomes 6

1.4 Humana learning centres 10

1.5

Study estates and RSPO 10

Chapter 2 East Malua 112.1 East Malua – Forest Checking Station 37 11

2.2 East Malua study estates 12

2.2.1 Ladang PKPS Irat 12

2.2.1.1 Focus group interview outcomes 12

2.2.1.1.1 Theme I – Community development & livelihoods 12

2.2.1.1.2 Theme II – Malua FR & forest use 13

2.2.1.1.3 Theme III – Solutions & collaborative management 13

2.2.2 Pintasan 5 estates 13





2.3 East Malua – Observation and border appraisals 16

2.3.1 Ladang PKPS Irat 16

2.3.2 Pintasan 5 estates 16

2.4 Summary for east Malua 17

Chapter 3

North Malua 19

3.1 North Malua – Forest Checking Station 15 19

3.2 North Malua study estates 20

3.2.1 Syarimo estates 20

I

3.2.1.1 Focus group member summary 20

3.2.1.1.1 Syarimo 9 20

3.2.1.1.2 Syarimo 7 21

3.2.1.2 Focus group interview outcomes – S9 and S7 21




3.2.2 Ladang Pin 7 23





3.2.3 Pintasan 8 25





3.3 North Malua – Observation and border appraisals 27

3.3.1 Syarimo Estates 27

3.3.2 Ladang Pin 7 and Pintasan 8 28

3.4

Summary for north Malua 28

Chapter 4 Setting the Scene for Collaborative Management 314.1 The common vision 31

4.1.1 Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) 31

4.1.2 Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) 32

4.1.3 Plantation conservation initiatives 32

4.2 Stakeholders for wildlife conservation 33

4.2.1 Estate management and oil palm communities 33

4.2.2 Governmental departments 33

4.2.3 Non-governmental organisations 33

4.2.4 Experts and independent consultants 33

4.3 Malua Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement (MPWCA) 34

Chapter 5

Discussion Themes and Further Research 35

5.1 Human Wildlife Conflicts (HWC’s) 35

5.1.1 HWC’s on plantations 35

5.1.2 Human Wildlife Conflict Management Plan (HWCMP) 36

5.1.3 Wildlife Wardenship Programmes (WWP’s) 37

5.1.3.1 Wildlife wardenship programmes– Kulim & Hutan/KOCP 37

II

5.1.3.2 Honorary Wildlife Wardens (HWW’s) for Malua FR 38

5.2 Access and hunting 38

5.2.1 General access points 38

5.2.1.1 Access gates to study estates 39

5.2.1.2 Other access points 40

5.2.2 Illegal hunting at MFR/plantation borders 40

5.2.2.1 Focus group and field results 40

5.2.2.2 Hunting motivation 41

5.2.2.3 Preventative measures 42

5.2.2.4 General hunting profile 42

5.3 Ground operations and adaptive management 44

5.3.1 Surveillance measures 44

5.3.2 Boundary surveys and access points 45

5.3.3 Reinforcements at estate gates 45

5.3.4 Communication systems and community outreach 46

5.3.6 Training programmes 46

5.3.7 Monitoring and evaluation 46

5.4 Further research 47

5.4.1 Priority study site 47

5.4.2 Potential study sites 47

5.4.3 Other estate settlements 48

Chapter 6 Recommendations for Integrated Conservation Development 496.1 Draft Outline - Malua Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement (MPWCA) 49

6.2 Ground operations and adaptive management 52

6.3

Recommendations for further research 55

Chapter 7 Conclusion

56

MAPS Map 1 Malua FR Study Estates & Access Gates from Lahad Datu Rd 1

Map 2 Sites of Interest – North & East Malua FR 18

Map 3 Sites of Interest – North & East Malua FR 30

III

TABLES Table 1a Study Estates – East to North Malua FR 3

Table 1b Malua II Research Objectives 4

Table 1c Rapid Assessment Procedure (RAP) 5

Table 1d Malua FR - Forest Checking Stations 6

Table 1e Focus Group Summary 8

Table 2a East Malua – Access Gates from Lahad Datu Rd (LP5A Gate) 11

Table 2b Pintasan 5 Estates 14

Table 3a North Malua – Access Gates from Lahad Datu Rd (LP5A Gate) 19

Table 5a Time Estimates of Elephant Incursions 36

APPENDICES 1a Map – Study Estates & Access Gates from Lahad Datu Road A-1

1b Map – Study Estates & Other Plantations A-2

1c Map – Study Estates and Sites of Interest A-3

2a High Value Conservation Forest (HCVF) Principle – HCV 1.1 A-4

2b High Value Conservation Forest (HCVF) Principle – HCV 1.2 A-5

2c High Value Conservation Forest (HCVF) Principle – HCV 1.3 A-7

3 Focus Group Data A-9

4 World’s Top 15 Oil Palm Growers A-13

5 RSPO Principle 5: Criterion 5.2 A-14

6a Photographs – Forest Checking Station 37 A-15

6b Photographs – Ladang PKPS Irat A-16

6c Photographs – Pintasan 5A, 5B & 5F A-17

7a Photographs – Forest Checking Station 15 A-21

7b Photographs – Syarimo 9 & 7 A-22

7c Photographs – Ladang Pin 7 A-25

7d Photographs – Pintasan 8 A-27

8a Photographs – Main entry gates to study estates A-29

8b Photographs – Hunting in estates A-31

8c Photographs – Malua FR entry A-33

9a Photographs – Elephant-damaged sites A-34

9b Comparison of Selected Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation Measures A-36

10a Semi-Structured Interview Plan - English A-37

10b Semi-Structured Interview Plan – Indonesian Malay A-39

10c Focus Group Interview Data A-42

11a Wildlife on Oil Palm Plantations A-57

11b Wildlife at Malua FR & Estate Borders A-58

12 References and Bibliography A-59

IV

Definitions, Abbreviations, Acronyms & Translations

BCAS Borneo Child Aid Society

BCS Balat Checking Station

BMP Best Management Practices

Cpt Forest Compartment

DFR Deramakot Forest Reseve

ECU Elephant Conservation Unit (Hutan)

FCS Forest Checking Station

FG Focus Group

FGI Focus Group Interview

FGM Focus Group Member

FR Forest Reserve

FSC Forest Stewardship Council

HCVF High Conservation Value Forest

HHBK Hasil-hasil Hutan yang Bukan Kayu (NTFPs)

HLC Humana Learning Centre

HWW Honorary Wildlife Warden

Kampung Village

Kg Short term for Kampung or Kg in Malay

Kongsi Estate workers’ quarters

LBS Ladang Bukit Segamaha

LDR Lahad Datu Road

LP5 Ladang Pin 5

LP7 Ladang Pin 7

LPKPSI Ladang PKPS Irat

LSS Ladang Sungei Segamaha

Malua I Assignment I – Nov /Dec 09 – ‘Social issues on local communities’

Malua II Assignment II – Jan/June 2011 – ‘Oil palm plantations, communities &

forest use’

MFR Malua Forest Reserve

MPOC Malaysian Palm Oil Council

MPOWCF Malaysian Palm Oil Wildlife Conservation Fund

MPWCA Malua Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement

Nenek Term of respect used by Indonesian focus group members for

elephants also meaning grandmother

NTFPs Non-Timber Forest Products

OPC’s Oil Palm Communities

OPP’s Oil Palm Plantations

P4 Pintasan 4

P5A Pintasan 5A

P5B Pintasan 5B

P5F Pintasan 5F

P8 Pintasan 8

Perbandanan Kemajuan

Pertanian Selangor

Agricultural Development Board of Selangor

PKPS Perbandanan Kemajuan Pertanian Selangor

PPHL Pegawal Pemuliharaan Haiwan Liar (Warden Kehormat Hidupan Liar)

(Honorary Wildlife Warden)

RM Ringgit Malaysia

RSPO Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil

S7 Syarimo 7

S9 Syarimo 9

SFD Sabah Forestry Department

Sg Short term for Sungei or river in Malay

Sungei River

US-M SFMP Ulu Segama-Malua Sustainable Forest Management Project

WWP Wildlife Wardenship Programme

YS Yayasan Sabah

YSCS Yayasan Sabah Checking Station

V

VI

1 | OPP’s, Communities & Forest Use Main Report July 2011

Chapter 1 Study Introduction and Research Scenario

1.1 Introduction ABBREVIATIONS BCS: Balat Checking Station (Deramakot FR) FCS15: Forest Checking Station Cpt 15 (Malua FR) FCS37: Forest Checking Station Cpt 15 (Malua FR) LP7: Ladang Pin 7 (TH Group) LPKPSI: Ladang PKPS Irat (PKPS) P5A: Pintasan 5A (Kwantas)

P5B: Pintasan 5B (Kwantas) P5F: Pintasan 5F (Kwantas) P8: Pintasan 8 (Kwantas) S7: Syarimo 7 (IOI Corp) S9: Syarimo 9 (IOI Corp) YSCS: Yayasan Sabah Checking Station (Malua FR)

Note: Study Estates in bold (For larger map refer to App 1, Pg A1 )

Map 1 Malua FR Study Estates and Access Gates from Lahad Datu Road

Malua Forest Reserve (MFR) forms part of the greater Ulu Segama-Malua Forest District.

The Forest District, formally known as the Ulu Segama-Malua Sustainable Forest

Management Project Area (US-MSFMPA) covers a tract of 214,095 hectares incorporating 6

Danum Valley Conservation Area

Kuamut FR

Ulu-Segama FR

Ulu Segama FR


forest reserves namely; Sapagaya, Sepagaya, Malua, Ulu Segama, Merisuli and Kawag

Gibong. Under the directorate of the Sabah Forestry Department (SFD), US-MSFMPA,

which is managed in collaboration with the current concession holders, Yayasan Sabah

(YS), achieved certification for sustainable forest management under the auspices of the

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in June 2011. The Project is also being supported by a

host of partners and stakeholders in sustainable forest management.

Gazetted in 1962 as a Class II or commercial forest reserve, Malua FR covers an area of

33,969 hectares. The Reserve, situated south of the Kinabatangan River and to the north of

Danum Valley Conservation Area (DVCA), is buffered in between a cluster of oil palm

plantations (OPP’s) to the east and Kuamut FR to the west (Map 1, Pg 1). Malua FR provides

important habitat to a variety of endangered mammalian species such as Tembadau (Bos

javanicus), Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus) and Orang-Utan (Pongo pgymaeus) (IUCN

Redlist). In accordance to High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) Principles, Malua FR is

considered to be a Protected Area (HCV1.1) that also serves as habitat for several

Threatened and Endangered Species (HCV1.2). Additionally, the Reserve consists largely

of lowland dipterocarp forest and is regarded to be a threatened and endangered

Ecosystem(s) (HCV3) (SFD, 2008) (App 2, HCVF Principles 1.1, 1.2 & 3, Pg A4). In August

2008, an Agreement was signed between the SFD, YS and Malua Wildlife Habitat

Conservation Bank (Malua BioBank) signalling the inception of a ground-breaking financial

initiative to support the conservation of MFR through private investment and the marketing

and sale of Biodiversity Conservation Certificates (BCC’s).

1.2 Study Scenarios

In November 2008, Symbiosis Consulting was commissioned to explore the existing

relationship between local communities, forests and forest use. The Study (Malua I) focused

on the communities of Balat and Tangkong located outside the northern boundaries of MFR.

Main research outcomes revealed that these communities, due to resource depletion and

forest use restrictions, currently derive their main incomes from the small-scale cultivation of

oil palm and involvement in community forestry programmes in Deramakot FR. One of the

main recommendations which resulted from Malua I is to broaden the scope of the research

to include the settlements of oil palm communities (OPC’s) located along the eastern and the

northern sectors of MFR.


The rationale behind the recommendation is that, although these communities are not

considered to be ‘traditional’, they were established in the past 20 years to provide offices

and dwellings for estate staff and workers to support Sabah’s burgeoning oil palm industry.

These OPC’s, through time, have established strong social linkages such as family units,

intergenerational employment opportunities and community leadership. The above

recommendation has culminated in the conception of this Study (Malua II) through financial

support from the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC), under the auspices of the Malaysian

Palm Oil Wildlife Conservation Fund (MPOWCF). A preliminary fieldtrip, conducted in

January 2011, confirmed that there are 8 oil palm plantations located along the eastern and

northern boundaries of Malua FR (Table Ia). These estate settlements were specifically

targeted for this Study due to their direct proximity to MFR. For the purposes of this report,

this Study will be referred to as Malua II.

Table Ia Study Estates – East to North of Malua FR

Estates directly adjacent to MFR

Holding company Yr Est

Total Area (ha)

No of workers (N=1071)

Location to MFR

≈Km to MFR fr settle-ments

≈Km fr LDR via

estate rds

1) Ladang PKPS Irat (LPKPSI)

Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Selangor

1999 1003 76 E 0.5 41

2) Pintasan 5A (P5A) Kwantas Corporation 1997 200.17 ≈111 E 2 32-25

3) Pintasan 5B (P5B)

Kwantas Corporation 1998 539.27 84 E 1 37-40

4) Pintasan 5F (P5F) Kwantas Corporation

2004 413.34 51 NE 1 47-52

5) Syarimo 9 (S9) IOI Corporation

1991/1992

1515 ≈100 E 4 45-50 (via S7)

6) Syarimo 7 (S7) IOI Corporation

1997 1978 ≈300 NE 4 41

7) Ladang Pin 7 (LP7) TH Group

2000 1380 184 N 2 41

8) Pintasan 8 (P8)

Kwantas Corporation 2000 1503.05 165 N 1 49

LDR: Lahad Datu Road

1.2.1 Research Objectives

Core research objectives of the Malua II Study focused on the formulation of mutually-

beneficial solutions among the major stakeholders namely, Sabah Forestry Department


(SFD), Sabah Wildlife Department (SWD), Yayasan Sabah (YS), estate management and oil

palm communities (OPC’s) (Table 1b, Pg 4). Apart from the purposes of information-

extraction and problem-identification, the research process also served as an environmental

awareness platform to highlight conservation activities for Malua FR as well as to assist in

the establishment of future collaborative stakeholder relationships. As the subject of illegal

forest use can be sensitive, throughout the research process, these OPC’s were considered

as prospective informers, advisories and allies. Research findings were used as the basis

for the Malua Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement (MPWCA).

Table 1b Malua II Research Objectives

Theme I – Community Development i. To assess the current state of community development and livelihoods;

ii. To examine plans for alternative and/or supplementary livelihoods;

iii. To explore future aspirations of OPC’s.

Theme II – Malua FR and Forest Use i. To assess current forest use by OPC’s and outsiders;

ii. To examine the awareness regarding forest use legislation;

iii. To explore the awareness of hunting legislation and the ownership of hunting licences;

iv. To highlight the incidences of illegal hunting;

v. To verify frequencies and whether hunting is performed on a seasonal basis;

vi. To confirm the species hunted and where they are hunted;

vii. To list hunting methods employed;

viii. To establish the main areas for hunting;

ix. To investigate the main access points into the reserve and other hotspots where hunting

is conducted;

x. To identify the groups responsible for illegal hunting;

xi. To evaluate the underlying motivation for hunting;

xii. To find out if there are incidences of Gaharu hunters accessing the Reserve through the

oil palm plantations;

xiii. To list existing conservation strategies employed by oil palm estate managers (OPEM’s);

Theme III – Solutions and Collaborative Management i. To extract suggestions from OPEM’s and OPC’s regarding solutions to the problem;

ii. To identify OPEM and OPC perceptions regarding a working relationship with the SFD;

iii. To validate the willingness of OPP’s & OPC’s regarding future working relationships for

an Integrated Conservation Development Plan (ICDP) culminating in the Malua

Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement (MPWCA);

iv. To ascertain any benefits for OPP’s and OPC’s in view of this working relationship.


1.2.2 Rapid Assessment Procedure (RAP)

In fulfillment of the research objectives, a qualitative research technique referred to as Rapid

Assessment Procedure (RAP) was employed for the Malua II Study (Table 1c). Rapid

Assessment Procedure is an applied anthropology approach based on the paradigm that the

environment is made up of highly interactive and rapidly-changing systems. It is a problem-

focused approach using local knowledge to identify issues and potential solutions taking into

consideration the constraints of time spent in the field. The process also takes into account

the geographical, economic, social and natural attributes of the study sites and priority is

given to local knowledge of beneficiary groups.

Table 1c Rapid Appraisal Procedure (RAP)

Secondary research

Primary/field research

1) Brief literature review;

2) Briefings with local ‘experts’;

3) Spatial analysis;

4) Preliminary site visit.

1) Exploration of road and river access routes;

2) Appraisals of the FR/Estate borders;

3) General direct and indirect observation;

4) Visits to estate settlements;

5) Photographs as visual evidence;

6) Recording of GPS coordinates and mapping;

7) Informal interviews and conversations with OPEM’s

and OPC’s;

8) Informal interviews with former hunters;

9) Site visits, consultation and in-depth interviews with

a technical adviser;

10) Semi-structured focus group interviews;

11) Consultation with technical adviser on the MPWCA.

Although the core of RAP is based on 1 semi-structured focus group interview (FGI) per

study estate (N=8), other techniques were employed to achieve a degree of depth and to

ensure data integrity. To this end, apart from informal interviews and conversations with

estate management and other members of the community, appraisals of the boundaries

between Malua FR and the oil palm plantations (OPP’s) were also undertaken to boost and

to triangulate information gathered during the FGI’s. In some cases the research team was

accompanied by the estate managers and estate workers for boundary sites that have


experienced elephant damage. Estate settlements were also visited to visually gauge their

proximity to the Reserve and to get a feel for community life on the plantations. For added

dimension, informal interviews were held with former hunters prior to the field work.

Additionally, a technical adviser was engaged during the last 2 days of the fieldtrip to share

insights on certain findings in the field. He was also interviewed thoroughly regarding his

knowledge on hunting activities.

1.2.3 Research Teams

The core research team for main fieldtrip comprised of 2 individuals, the research consultant

and a field assistant. This main team formed a research collaboration with SFD staff at the

Forest Checking Stations (FCSs) based on the eastern and northern boundaries of Malua

FR (Table 1d). The leaders of these FCS’s played a key role in the Malua II fieldwork in that,

they were presented with the added opportunity to strengthen existing connections and to

form new links with estate management and OPC’s in view of a future working collaboration.

To this end, FCS leaders are included and encouraged in all communication and contact

with estate personnel as well as being actively involved in the focus group interviews by

giving informal presentations regarding the conservation of Malua FR at the end of each

session.

Table 1d Malua FR - Forest Checking Stations

Forest Checking Station

Study Estates

I) EAST MALUA – FCS37 Ladang PKPS Irat Pintasan 5A Pintasan 5B Pintasan 5F

II) NORTH MALUA – FCS15 Syarimo 9 Syarimo 7 Ladang Pin 7 Pintasan 8

1.3 Focus Group Outcomes

In order to achieve part of the study objectives, 8 focus group interviews were held from 12th

to 20th May 2011, engaging 69 estate workers including 28 females (41%) and 41 males


(59%) with an average age of 33.2 years. The majority of focus group members (FGM’s) are

immigrant workers from Indonesia (85%, N=59) and the Philippines (9%, N=6) while the

remaining (5%, N=4) are Malaysian. About 90% (N=62) of FGM’s are married with 94%

(N=58) of members have spouses who also work and live on the estate. The vast majority

FGM’s (98.5%) derive their main incomes from estate work in a variety of roles such as

supervisors, harvesters and loaders, weeding and weed control, security staff, drivers and

mechanics. Females earn a lower average monthly income (RM467) as compared to their

male counterparts (RM780) due to the fact men are physically, more able to be engaged in

lucrative work as harvesters. The average number of years per FGM spent working in the

estate is 6.7 years with workers from Pintasan 5A (P5A), Pintasan 5B (P5B) and Ladang Pin

7 (LP7) averaging more than 9 years between them. The average number of children living

on the estate is the highest for Ladang PKPS Irat (LPKPSI)(Av=4) with the lowest in

Pintasan 5A (Av=0.9). The highest average age of children living on the estate is 12.7 in

LPKPSI with the lowest being P5A at 4.7 (Table 1d, Pg 8).

The focus group data offers a glimpse of the social structure and systems of these

communities. Many estate workers form life-long family ties with other community members

forming the next generation of estate workers. In some cases relatives and immediate

family follow suit to work on these estates. There is an informally-appointed leader from the

community for each OPC with the exception of Pintasan 5F where the field supervisor has a

dual role as community leader. Problems from within the community among FGM’s are

usually solved on a local level and thus, there is a consensus that life on the OPP’s is

generally harmonious and peaceful. Although focus group data summary provides some

insight regarding the demographics of the OPC’s on the boundary of Malua FR, the analysis

of the total sample of 69 (6.4% of N≈1071) estate workers should not be considered

representative of the total estate population. However, it must be taken into account that the

Malua II Study is not meant to be a quantitative process but rather, a qualitative one which

focuses on achieving depth and dimension in order to achieve research objectives.

It must also be noted that, the sensitive subject of the fieldwork combined with the number of

study estates, does not allow sufficient time for the research team to develop full trust

amongst estate workers. Although all interaction with estate workers have been friendly and

cordial, being immigrant workers in a foreign country, FGM’s seemed to be suspicious

towards outsiders and in some cases were less forthcoming in terms of voicing personal

opinion during the interviews. In order to offset these shortcomings, information gathered

during the FGI’s is boosted with other research methods (Table 1c, Pg 5).


Table 1e

Focus Group Summary

Gender (%) STUDY ESTATES N=8

Total No Focus Group Members Female Male

1) Ladang PKPS Irat 8

4 4

2) Pintasan 5A 9

4 5

3) Pintasan 5B 6

3 3

4) Pintasan 5F 8

3 5

5) Syarimo 9 8

4 4

6) Syarimo 7 14*

7 7

7) Ladang Pin 7 9

1 8

8) Pintasan 8 7

2 5

Total:

N=69

28 (41%) 41 (59%)

*Includes 4 FGM’s from Syarimo 8 (F=2;M=2)

A) GENDER

Average Age Average Monthly Income (RM)

Female 30.6 467 Male 34.8 780 Overall average

33.2 687.3

B) NATIONALITY No

(%)

Indonesian 59 85 Filipino 6 9 Malaysian

4 5

C) MARITAL STATUS No

(%)

Single 7 10 Married 62 90 (With spouse working on estate)

(58) (94% of married FGM’s, N=58)

D) RELIGION No

(%)

Muslim 61 88 Christian

8 12

E) EDUCATION No

(%)

None 4 6 Primary 39 56 Secondary 24 35 University/College

2 3


F) OCCUPATION No

(%)

Supervisors 23 33 Harvesting & loading 14 20 General workers & other 9 13 Weeding & weed control 8 12 Carpenters/Drivers/Mechanics 6 9 Security 5 7 Fertiliser dispensers

4 6

G) YEARS WORKING IN THE ESTATE (Average No of years for all FG’s = 6.7)

Year range

Study Estates No of Estates

≥ 9.1 years P5A; P5B; LP7 3 6.1 ≤ 9 years S9; S7 2 3.1 ≤ 6 years P8 1 ≤ 3 years LPKPSI; P5F

2

H) CHILDREN LIVING ON THE STUDY ESTATES

i) Total number of children living on the estates and overseas: Children

No (%)

Total no of children: 181 100 - Living on estates 118 65.2 - Living overseas 63 34.8

ii) Average no of children per married respondent( = 2.9):

Average no of Children (Range)


3.1 ≥ 4 LPKPSI; S7/8; 2 2.1 ≤ 3

P5A; P5B; P5F; S9; LP7; P8 6

iii) Average no of children living on the estates (Per married couple for all estates = 1.9) Average no of Children (Range)


3.1 ≥ 4 LPKPSI 1 2.1 ≥ 3 P5F, S7/8 2 1.1 ≥ 2 P5B, S9, LP7, P8 4 ≤ 1 P5A

1

iv) Average age of children living on the estate: Year Range


≥ 12.1 years LPKPSI 1 10.1 ≥ 12 years S9, S7, LP7 3 8.1 ≥ 10 years P5F,P8 2 6.1 ≥ 8 years P5B 1 4.1 ≥ 6Years P5A

1

ABBREVIATIONS: LP7: Ladang Pin 7; LPKPSI: Ladang PKPS Irat; P5A: Pintasan 5A; P5B: Pintasan 5B; P5F: Pintasan 5F; P8: Pintasan 8; S7/8: Syarimo 7 & 8; S9: Syarimo 9.

(App 3, Focus Group Data, Pg A9)


1.4 Humana Learning Centres

The Borneo Child Aid Society (BCAS) established their first three Humana Learning Centres

(HLC’s) in the OPP’s Sabah in 1991 with initial funding from a European-based non-profit

organisation based on the ethos of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child to

education. Financial support for BCAS continued from 1998 to 2003 by Hap Seng

Consolidated under the patronage of the Lau Gek Poh Foundation. By 2009, through

partnership with OPP’s and sponsorship from a host of private and governmental

organsations, BCAS have established more than 100 HLC’s across 7 administrative wards

incorporating the districts of Sandakan, Beluran, Kinabatangan, Lahad Datu, Tawau,

Semporna and Kunak. As a member of the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)

scheme, BCAS continues to advocate the importance of primary education for children of

foreign workers based in the OPP’s in Sabah. Currently, there are 3 HLC’s based in the

study estates of Pintasan 4 (Pintasan 5a, 5b and 5F), Syarimo 7 (S7) and Pintasan 8 (P8)

facilitating primary education for a total of 201 children (P4 = 48, S7 = 70, P8 = 80).

1.5 Study Estates and RSPO

The initiation of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) membership and

certification scheme in 2004 has encouraged several major oil palm growers to adopt and

implement Best Management Practices (BMP’s). These BMP’s fulfill 8 core Principles

incorporating areas such as transparency, legal compliance, economic sustainability,

environmental responsibility, employee protection, new-planting development and,

monitoring and evaluation. By 2009, 8 out of the world’s top 15 oil palm-growing companies

have obtained RSPO membership including the top 3; Wilmar International, Sime Darby and

IOI Corporation. At the time of the main fieldtrip in May 2011, the study estates of Syarimo 9

(IOI) and Syarimo 7(IOI) were in the application process for RSPO certification which is

expected to be completed August 2011. Kwantas Corporation (Pintasan 5A, 5B, 5F and 8)

has started preparatory work in view of membership and certification. The TH Group (LP7)

and the Agricultural Board of Selangor (LPKPSI) have no set plans. The Malua II Study has

important parallels with RSPO principles particularly relating to Criterion 5.2.

(App 4, Top 15 Oil Palm Growers, Pg A13) & (App 5, RSPO Criterion 5.2, Pg A14)

Chapters 2 and 3 focus on study estate research findings. Chapter 4 covers key discussion

points. Chapter 5 includes an Integrated Conservation Development Plan (ICDP) and the

draft outline for the Malua Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement (MPWCA).


Chapter 2 East Malua

2.1 East Malua – Forest Checking Station 37

The east Malua study estate boundaries are currently under the observation of the Sabah

Forestry Department (SFD) staff based at Forest Checking Station 37 (FCS37). East Malua

constitutes four estates, Ladang PKPS Irat (LPKPSI), Pintasan 5A (P5A), Pintasan 5B (P5B)

and Pintasan 5F (P5F). The FCS, 41 km from the Lahad Datu road (LDR), was built in 2009

and is located at the juncture of the boundaries of Forest Compartment 37, LPKSI and P5A.

Direct access to FCS37 is facilitated through the main estate gate of LPKPSI. As road

access from FCS37 into the Pintasan estates is currently hampered at the border with P5A,

boundary patrols are currently being conducted via the main estate gates at Pintasan 1

(Table 2a). The logistics for a gateway link between FCS37 and P5A is currently being

discussed between the SFD and Kwantas Corporation. This issue when rectified will

facilitate access for the SFD staff to conduct their patrolling activities and estate visits in a

more efficient manner. (App 6a, Photos FCS37, Pg A15)

Table 2a East Malua – Access Gates from Lahad Datu Rd (LP5A Gate)

FCS & East Malua Estates

1st Gate 2nd Gate 3rd Gate 4th Gate 5th Gate 6th Gate

≈ Km to MFR

border

≈ Km LP5A gate via

estate rds 1) FCS37

LP5A LP2C P1 (Pt A) LSS LBS LPKPSI n/a 41

2) LPKPSI

LP5A LP2C P1 (Pt A) LSS LBS LPKPSI 0.5 41

3) Pintasan 5A LP5A LP2C P1 (Pt B) - - -

1 38

4) Pintasan 5B

LP5A LP2C P1 (Pt B) - - - 1 42

5a) Pintasan 5F (Route 1)

LP5A LP2C P1 (Pt B) GS/GA - - 1 52

5b) Pintasan 5F (Route 2)

LP5A LP2C S1 S7 GS/GA - 1 47

ABBREVIATIONS: FCS37: Forest Checking Station Cpt 37 GA: Golden Apex LBS: Ladang Bukit Segamaha LP: Ladang Pin

LPKPSI: Ladang PKPS Irat LSS: Ladang Sungei Segamaha P: Pintasan 1 S: Syarimo

(Map 1, Malua FR Study Estates & Access Gates from LDR, Pg 1) or (App 1a, Pg A1) (App 8a, Photos – Main Access Gates, Pg A29)


2.2 East Malua Study Estates

2.2.1 Ladang PKPS Irat

Ladang PKPS Irat (LPKPSI), established in 1999 by the Agricultural Board of Selangor

(Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertaninan Selangor), covers a total area of 1003 hectares. The

main gate to the plantation is located approximately 40 km from the Lahad Datu road. In

order to reach the LPKPSI estate gate, all vehicles will have to pass through 5 other

plantation gates via relatively favourable roads through other plantations owned by the TH

Group, Kwantas and Boustead (Table 2a, Pg 11). The workforce at LPKPSI is made up of 76

workers comprising of foreign labour from Indonesia and the Philippines in equal

proportions. Both women and men live and work on the estate. Educational facilities are not

provided under estate management although pre-school education can be obtained at a

learning centre in the adjacent estate of Ladang Bukit Segamaha (Boustead Plantations).

The 8 members of the focus group (FG), spent an average of 2.5 years working on the

estate with the longest term being 10 years. Women in the group earn a lower average

monthly income (RM370) than the men (RM713) with the majority of focus group members

(FGM’s) having only achieved primary school education (N=5). Among the FGM’s who are

married (N=6), 5 have spouses living and working on the estate with an average of 4

children (per married FGM) living on the estate with an average age of 12.7 years. By far

LPKPSI has the highest number of children (per married FGM) living on the estate. (App 3, Focus Group Data, Pg A9) & (App 6b, Photos – LPKPSI, Pg A16)

2.2.1.1 Focus Group Interview Outcomes

2.2.1.1.1 Theme I – Community Development and Livelihoods

Main incomes are derived from estate activities such as; harvesting, fertilising, nursery-

tending, house-keeping and picking loose fruit with no engagement in alternative livelihoods.

The focus group (FG) gave the impression that community life on the settlement is generally

peaceful and harmonious as the different races lead an untroubled coexistence and

problems are resolved through discussions ‘just like a family’. Earning a living through

estate work or ‘cari makan’ is the biggest concern of the focus group as they are keen to

build up a substantial source of funds as they aspire to build a better life back in their

respective countries.


2.2.1.1.2 Theme II – Malua FR and Forest Use

Environmental and conservation awareness of Malua FR is generally poor as although focus

group members (FGM’s) are aware of a ‘jungle close by’, they have not heard of the name,

‘Malua’. The group is equally not familiar with forest and hunting legislation although one

FGM acknowledged that forests have a vital role serving as a watershed during drier

seasons. Focus group members also alleged to have not observed any hunting activities

and illegal entry into MFR although they admitted that they have seen outsiders entering the

area but are not aware of the activities of these individuals. They also reported that the

estate is subjected to yearly elephant intrusions with the last incident occurring in January

2011 when a herd of 20 or more animals entered and remained in the estate area for up to a

month raiding crops undeterred. Human-wildlife conflicts (HWC’s) seemed to be a great

concern for FGM’s as they believe that raids causes disruptions to work and compromises

on personal safety.

2.2.1.1.3 Theme III – Solutions and Collaborative Management

When questioned about suggestions regarding the conservation of MFR, FGM’s mentioned

that it is important to support the conservation of the Reserve and to take measures to curb

illegal hunting by ensuring that the estate gate remains locked at certain periods. It was also

mentioned that it is important to establish a system of reporting between estate

management, estate workers and SFD staff. The presence of SFD staff and proximity of

FCS37 to the settlement is viewed favourably in that it offers a degree of reassurance for the

community. The prospect of a working relationship and the appointment of Honorary Wildlife

Wardens (HWW’s) with the SFD is supported by the FGMs. Overall, they believe that the

community could benefit from this collaboration in terms of improved personal safety and

security.

2.2.2 Pintasan 5 Estates

The Pintasan 5 study estates (P5A, P5B and P5F), established between 1997 and 2004, are

located between 38-52 km from the Lahad Datu road (LDR). Access to these plantations is

facilitated through 3 main estate gates (Ladang Pin 5, Ladang Pin 2C and Pintasan 1).

Pintasan 5F is the furthest estate from the LDR and can be reached through 2 routes, via

Pintasan 1 (Route 1) and Syarimo 1 (Route 2)(Table 2a, Pg 11). Owned and managed by

Kwantas Corporation, these study estates covers a total area of 1152.78 hectares and forms


part of the greater Pintasan 5 plantation (1955.91 ha) with a total workforce of 246

employees consisting mainly of immigrant labour from Indonesia. Estate settlements

marginally vary in distance (0.5-1 km) from the east Malua FR boundary, with the most

populous settlement being Kampung Sri Ayu in Pintasan 5A (Table 2b). The management of

Pintasan 5 currently shares an office at Pintasan 4 where estate workers and children have

access to shops, clinic and a Humana Learning Centre (HLC) established by the non-profit

organisation, Borneo Child Aid Society (BCAS). The Learning Centre is currently providing

primary instruction for 48 students managed by 1 full-time teacher and a teaching assistant.

All Pintasan 5 study estates benefit from crèche facilities.

Table 2b

Pintasan Study Estates Pintasan 5A Pintasan 5B Pintasan 5F

Year established 1997 1998 2004 Total area 200.17 539.27 413.34 Total No of workers 111 84 51

The focus groups interviews (FGI’s) for these study estates involved a total of 23 members

of the oil palm community (OPC) engaging 3 focus groups consisting of 10 females and 13

males with the average ages of 30.6 and 30 years for women and men respectively.

Females earn a lower average monthly wage than their male counterparts at RM390 and

RM779 respectively. Education levels vary from no education (N=1) to university levels

(N=1) with 13 having attained a primary education with 8 at secondary levels. Focus group

members (FGM’s) from Pintasan 5A have spent the highest average number of years

(Av=9.7) working and living on the estate, followed by Pintasan 5B (Av=9.3) and Pintasan 5F

(Av=1.75). The majority of FGM’s are married (N=20) with spouses living and working on

the plantation. Pintasan 5A has the lowest average number of children (Av=0.9) living on the

estate, followed by Pintasan 5B (Av=1.5) and Pintasan 5F (Av=2.1). Average ages for

children living on the estates are 4.7 years for P5A, 7.7 for P5B and 8.2 for P5F. (App 3, Focus Group Data, Pg A9) & (App 6c, Photos – P5A, P5B & P5F, Pg A17)



All FGM’s derive the main bulk of their incomes from estate activities such as harvesting,

supervising and weed control. They also claim not to engage in any supplementary income


activities. In a situation similar to Ladang PKPS Irat, FGM’s are focused on saving up

money in order to finance the education of their children back in Indonesia. They aspire to

eventually return to their country to buy homes, vehicles and to establish small businesses

and, for a better life in general. Both Pintasan 5A and 5B benefit from the school and the

clinic in Pintasan 4 due to their proximity to these facilities. Pintasan 5F is located further

away (13 km) and is visited by the estate nurse on a weekly basis. Children from P5F are

said not to attend the school in Pintasan 4 because of the distance and absence of transport.


All FGM’s are aware of a ‘forest’ adjacent to the estate. However, only FGM’s from Pintasan

5A are aware of the name ‘Malua’. Focus group members agree that the conservation of

Malua FR is important but they were generally hard-pressed into thinking about reasons with

the exception of P5F who mentioned that the jungle could serve as a watershed during drier

seasons. The groups were informed by estate management regarding the penalties

pertaining to entry restrictions, encroachment, cutting of trees and illegal hunting. The FG

from P5A recounted the case of an estate worker who was arrested and deported for

encroaching on forest reserve territory. None of the groups are aware of hunting legislations

or the need for hunting licences although the group from P5F queried if they are permitted to

hunt animals that stray from the Reserve into estate territory.

When questioned regarding illegal hunting activities, FGM’s mentioned that they have not

seen anyone engaged in this activity although one group (P5A) recounted that they heard

gunshots in 2010 but were unsure if these came from the estate or the forest reserve. They

were also aware about outsiders entering the area but were uncertain of their activities in the

estate. The Pintasan estates also experienced intrusions by elephants. The last raid in P5A

was in 2008 in an area planted in 1997. An assistant estate manager mentioned during a

brief visit to the MFR/P5A boundary that incursions by elephants have considerably

decreased in recent years as the palm trees mature. The more recent human-wildlife

conflicts (HWC’s) occurred in June and November 2010 in P5B and P5F respectively when a

herd of about 30 elephants accessed and remained in the plantation area for up to a month.

Deterrent measures were employed in the form tyre-burning, tractor horns, fireworks and, by

physically gesturing and shouting. There were also reports that the estate operations at P5F

have experienced intrusions from herds of wild pigs with numbers ranging from 20 to 39.

The FGM’s are divided regarding HWC’s as some members do not view elephant incursions

as a serious issue while others are fearful for their personal safety in the field.



When questioned regarding suggestions about the conservation of MFR, FGM’s from P5A

and P5F mentioned that a working collaboration with the SFD could help control illegal

hunting and forest entry. They also suggested that a system of reporting should be

established in order to deter these activities. The focus group from P5B did not have any

advice or suggestions but this group voiced concerns regarding HWC’s. Overall, all the

groups gave verbal support pertaining to a working collaboration with the SFD. The groups

also foresee a range of benefits with respect to the working relationship as having a positive

impact on personal safety issues. Training opportunities as Honorary Wildlife Wardens

(HWW’s) and HWC mitigation measures are being viewed in favourable terms as well as

being presented with the opportunity to contribute to the protection of wildlife in Malua FR.

2.3 East Malua - Observation and Border Appraisals

2.3.1 Ladang PKPS Irat

Ladang PKPS Irat is the closest estate settlement (0.5 km) to the east boundary of Malua

FR. Although the focus group mentioned that they have not observed any incidences of

illegal hunting on the estate or the Reserve, border appraisals uncovered proof of forest

entry and hunting within the estate. A former hunters’ campsite (estimated to be 2-3 years

old) located by a large pond in MFR can be accessed through short paths via entry points

from LPKPSI and Pintasan 5A. The research team also came across other evidence in the

form of an empty shotgun cartridge at an assess point at an elephant-damaged site. Ladang

Irat estate management is said to be operating a strict no-hunting policy which is being

implemented with a strict gate schedule and the issue of penalties in the form of pay cuts if

any firearms are found in the possession of an estate worker (Map 2, Pg 18). (App 8b, Photos – Hunting in Estates, Pg A32) & (App 8c, Photos – Malua FR Entry, Pg A33)

2.3.2 Pintasan 5 Estates

Boundary appraisals for Pintasan 5A similarly highlighted the incidence of forest entry and

hunting in the plantation area. On 21st May the research team came across a newly-built

lookout tower attached to a mature oil palm tree on the boundary road with Malua FR. The

frame was specifically meant as a vantage point over a pond in MFR and was thought to

have been built 3-4 days previously. It is also suspected that it was probably constructed


from young trees taken from the Reserve. Additionally, on 22nd May, the research team

came across freshly-constructed traps underneath a fallen tree meant to ensnare mouse

deer and porcupine in MFR close to the boundary with P5A. Earlier in the fieldtrip, gunshots

were heard by a watchman at Pintasan 5B and the research team on two separate

occasions on the night of 14th May at approximately 11:30 pm -12:00 pm and 3:30 am - 4:00

am respectively. The watchman was interviewed the following day (Map 2, Pg 18). (App 8b, Photos – Hunting in Estates, Pg A31) & (App 8c, Photos - Malua FR Entry, Pg A33)

2.4 Summary for East Malua

The oil palm communities (OPC’s) in east Malua are generally contented with community life

on the plantations. Being immigrant workers, the majority of focus group members (FGM’s)

have demonstrated that their main purpose for earning a living on the estates in Sabah is to

build up a substantial source of funds as they aspire to eventually secure a brighter future

back in their respective countries. This factor has most probably influenced their working

conduct in the estates in that, they consider potential problems as disruptive and

troublesome. Furthermore, they are well aware of the repercussions in respect to the

breaking of laws regarding forest use and hunting. Nonetheless, evidence gathered during

boundary appraisals have indicated that illegal hunting activities and forest entry is still

prevalent in east Malua. With the exception of FGM’s from Pintasan 5F, the other focus

groups have implied that they are aware of outsiders entering the estate area but are not

certain regarding the activities of these individuals.

All focus groups expressed overwhelming support for a future working relationship with the

SFD. Moreover, a working collaboration was actually suggested by FGM’s from Pintasan 5F

in order to curb illegal hunting activities as well as to manage human-wildlife conflicts

(HWC’s). The groups also gave a range of helpful suggestions regarding the control of

illegal hunting and forest entry such as having a system of reporting with estate

management, direct contact with SFD staff and extra vigilance at the plantation gates. The

groups also perceive the collaboration with the SFD to be beneficial to the community in

terms of acquiring new skills training as Honorary Wildlife Wardens (HWW’s) and in HWC

mitigation measures. They perceive that these factors, combined with an effective working

relationship would greatly improve personal safety and security and in the long run would

enhance community life in general.


Map 2 Sites of Interest – North and East Malua FR

ABBREVIATIONS: BCS: Balat Checking Station (Deramakot FR) FCS15: Forest Checking Station Cpt 15 (Malua FR) FCS37: Forest Checking Station Cpt 15 (Malua FR) GA: Golden Apex LBS: Ladang Bukit Segamaha LP7: Ladang Pin 7 (TH Group) LPKPSI: Ladang PKPS Irat (PKPS)

P5A: Pintasan 5A (Kwantas) P5B: Pintasan 5B (Kwantas) P5F: Pintasan 5F (Kwantas) P8: Pintasan 8 (Kwantas) S7: Syarimo 7 (IOI Corp) S9: Syarimo 9 (IOI Corp) YSCS: Yayasan Sabah Checking Station (Malua FR)

Note: Study Estates in bold (For larger map refer to App 1c, Pg A3 )


Chapter 3 North Malua

3.1 North Malua - Forest Checking Station 15

Forest Checking Station 15 (FCS15), located approximately 45 km from the Lahad Datu

Road, at the boundary of Forest Compartment 15 and Ladang Pin 7 estate, can be accessed

via 5 estate gates from the Lahad Datu road (Table 3a). The FCS, built in 2009, serves as a

central point for the observation of the Malua FR boundary with the oil palm plantations

(OPP’s) of, Syarimo 7, Syarimo 9, Ladang Pin 7 and Pintasan 8. North Malua can also be

reached through the mouth of the Malua from the Kinabatangan River. The Yayasan Sabah

Checking Station (YSCS) for Kuamut FR is located about 800m from the mouth of the River. (App 7a, Photos – FCS15, Pg A21)

Table 3a North Malua - Access Gates from Lahad Datu Rd (LP5A Gate)

FCS & East Malua Estates

1st Gate 2nd Gate 3rd Gate 4th Gate 5th Gate

≈ Km to MFR

border

≈ Km from LP5A Gate via estate roads

1) FCS15

LP5A S1 S7 LP7 - n/a 45

2) YSCS

LP5A S1 S7 LP7 - n/a 46

3a) Syarimo 9 (Route 1)

LP5A P1 (Point B)

P5/ S9 (Double Gates)

- - 3 45

3b) Syarimo 9 (Route 2)

LP5A S1 S7 - -

3 50

4)Syarimo 7

LP5A S1 S7 - - 4 41

5) Ladang Pin 7

LP5A S1 S7 LP7 - 2 41

6) Pintasan 8

LP5A S1 S7 LP7 P8 1 49

ABBREVIATIONS: FCS15: Forest Checking Station Cpt 15 GA: Golden Apex LBS: Ladang Bukit Segamaha LP: Ladang Pin

LPKPSI: Ladang PKPS Irat LSS: Ladang Sungei Segamaha P: Pintasan S: Syarimo

(Map 1, Malua FR Study Estates & Access Gates from LDR, Pg 1) or (App 1a, Pg A1) (App 8a, Photos – Main Access Gates, Pg A29)


3.2 North Malua - Study Estates

3.2.1 Syarimo Estates

The estates of Syarimo 9 (S9) and Syarimo 7 (S7) share the north-eastern boundary of

Malua FR. These plantations have been managed by IOI Corporation Berhad since their

establishment in 1992 (S9) and 1997 (S7). Adjacent to one another, these estates cover a

total tract of 3,493 hectares (S9=1515 ha; S7=1978 ha) with S7 being the largest plantation

in the study. Access to these OPP’s is facilitated via 4 access gates (Table 3a. Pg 19)

through relatively favourable roads. The workforce for the Syarimo estates is largely made

up of Indonesian workers (90-95%). Primary education for Syarimo 7, 8 and 9 is being

facilitated by a Humana Learning Centre (HLC) based at S7 which provides primary school

education for 70 children. There are also crèche facilities at both estates with the main clinic

and dispensary in S7. The Syarimo plantations are expected to complete the application for

RSPO certification in August or September 2011.

Syarimo 9 shares common boundaries with Malua FR and the estates of Golden Apex and

Pintasan 5E and can be accessed through the gates at P5/S9 and S7, about 45 - 50km from

the Lahad Datu road (Table 3a, Pg 19). According to a rough estimate provided by estate

management, there is approximately 100 estate workers with a total population of

approximately 150 including children. In a situation similar to the other study estates, the

vast majority of the workforce is made up of Muslim Indonesian labour with both men and

women being employed by the plantation. The demographic composition for S7 is

comparable to that of S9. However, S7 is relatively larger plantation size-wise, and also in

terms of the number of estate workers as this OPP also serves as the administrative hub for

S7, S8 and S9. The communities in both OPP’s have community leaders.

3.2.1.1 Focus Group Member Summary

3.2.1.1.1 Syarimo 9

The focus group (FG) for Syarimo 9 was made up a total of 8 estate workers (female=4;

male=4), mainly Indonesian (Indonesian=7; Malaysian=1), with an overall average age of

30.5 years. Women have a slightly higher average age (31 years) to men (30 years) and

earn on average a lower monthly income (RM704) than the men (RM845). Total incomes for

this FG ranged from RM450–RM1800. Most focus group members (FGM’s)(N=5) have

attained a primary education and have spent an average of 7 years living and working on the


estate. Among the FGM’s who are married (N=6), 5 have spouses living and working on the

OPP. Each married FGM have on average of 1.7 children living on the estate with an overall

average age of 10.4 years. (App 3, Focus Group Data, Pg A11) & (App 7b, Photos – S9, Pg A22)

3.2.1.1.2 Syarimo 7

The focus group interview (FGI) at the Syarimo 7 office had the highest turnout when a total

of 14 individuals from Syarimo 7 and Syarimo 8 attended the group discussion (S7=10;

S8=4). There were equal numbers of women and men present at the FGI with the majority

(N=11) originating from Indonesia with the rest from Malaysia (N=2) and the Philippines

(N=1), with an overall average age of 37.4 years. Women earn a lower average monthly

wage (RM400) than men (RM1586) with overall incomes ranging from RM300 – RM2800 per

month. The average income for men is higher in comparative terms with the other FG’s

because of the presence of estate employees holding more lucrative positions such as

security heads and leading supervisory roles. While most FGM’s fall into the primary-

education category (N=8), only 4 members have attained secondary education with 1

individual having completed a college diploma. The FGM’s have spent on average total of

8.1 years living and working on the estate. All (N=14) interviewees are married with 13

individuals having spouses working and living on the OPP. In all, there is an average total of

2.3 children living on the estate per married FGM with an average age of 11 years. (App 3, Focus Group Data, Pg A11) & (App 7b, Photos - S7, Pg A23)

3.2.1.2 Focus Group Interview Outcomes - Syarimo 9 and Syarimo 7


The main source of income for focus group members is derived from general estate work as

security staff, harvesters, weed controllers and supervisors. Apart from 1 FGM from

Syarimo 9 who has a small business selling rice to estate workers, none of the other FGM’s

are engaged in any alternative income activities. The clinic and dispensary at Syarimo 7

oversees minor medical issues with more serious cases being treated at the nearest public

hospital in the town of Bukit Garam with costs being shared by employer and employee.

Focus group members are also satisfied with the primary education facilities provided at the

Humana Learning Centre (HLC) in S7. Life on the OPP is considered to be peaceful, secure

and harmonious with no pressing issues although there have been incidences of theft of

tools left in the field. Comparable to other FG’s in the study, particularly for the Indonesian


FGM’s, future plans, hopes and aspirations rests on the desire to provide continued financial

support for family members in their respective countries and someday to return to establish

small businesses and new lives in their country of origin.


Comparable to the responses from other FGI’s, FGM’s from Syarimo 7 and 8 have not heard

about ‘Malua’ but are aware of ‘a jungle close by’. None are informed of any conservation

activities that are currently being conducted in Malua FR although most are aware there are

‘animals in the forest’. Apart from being informed by estate management regarding entry

and hunting restrictions in MFR, most FGM’s are also familiar with the ‘yellow sign board’ at

the Reserve boundary. The greater part of the FG is not aware of any other laws regarding

forest use. Additionally, the vast number of FGM’s are uninformed about current hunting

legislation as only a minority mentioned that they have heard about the requirement for

hunting licences. Although FGM’s are aware that poaching is banned in MFR, they are

uncertain about legislation or estate restrictions regarding the hunting of animals such as

sambar deer, barking deer, pangolins and pythons that stray into the plantation area.

Overall, the greater part of FGM’s have not observed any outsiders hunting in the estate

area or Malua FR with the exception of 2 security staff who have had direct encounters with

external hunters. They mentioned that external hunters have entered the plantation through

the S7 gate (via the main entrance at Syarimo 1) using excuses that they were en route to

Kampung Balat (Table 3a, Pg 19). Furthermore, it is thought that these hunters use the same

excuse when accessing the estate gate at Ladang Pin 7. It is also suspected that

occasionally, these hunters would avoid the gates altogether by parking their vehicles and

using small roads or jalan tikus. On one occasion, the security guard mentioned that these

hunters entered the estate in a double-cabin pickup truck and that he had encountered a

second group at the quarry looking for deer. It is believed that these outsiders, when turned

away at the main gates would attempt return through alternative routes.

Both Syarimo 9 and Syarimo 7 estates have experience elephant intrusions in September

and October 2010 respectively. Elephant raids are seen to be the biggest problem

encountered by estate workers because of personal safety issues and disruption to work.

During the October raid, the elephants came up to a settlement located the closest to the

Malua FR border. The elephants usually turn up in groups of about 20 and would remain in

the plantation area for up to a month. Both OPP’s employ deterrent methods such a tyre-

burning and pipe canons. Wild pigs are also considered as pests as they appear in large


groups to feed on loose fruit during harvesting periods in areas adjacent to the MFR

boundary. (App 9a, Photos – Elephant-Damaged Sites, Pg A34)

3.2.1.2.3 Theme III - Solutions and Collaborative Management

Focus group members (FGM’s) offered a range of advice and suggestions regarding illegal

hunting and forest use. The FG at Syarimo 9 mentioned that they would restrict hunters and

trespassers during chance encounters and would also inform friends and colleagues about

entry restrictions into Malua FR. Whereas the FG from Syarimo 7 and 8 stressed the need

for more sign boards prohibiting hunting particularly, at the entrance of small roads or jalan

tikus. They also requested the need for reinforcement at estate gates and the need for a

reporting procedure involving direct contact with key Department staff. There was

unanimous support from all the FGM’s for a future working relationship with the SFD as they

welcomed the opportunity to be trained as Honorary Wildlife Wardens (HWW’s) and in

human-wildlife conflict (HWC) mitigation measures. Furthermore, apart from being

presented with the chance to learn more about forest use and hunting legislations, a future

collaboration is viewed in positive terms in that it could contribute towards improvements in

personal safety and could help maintain the overall harmony in the estate community.

3.2.2 Ladang Pin 7

Ladang Pin 7 (LP7) was established in 2000 by the TH Group Berhad and spans an area of

1,380 hectares south of the Kinabatangan River. Comparable to Pintasan 8 estate, this

plantation is flood-prone especially in areas along the banks of the Latangan River. The

plantation is situated approximately 41 km from the Lahad Datu road and can be reached

through four estate gates (Table 3a, Pg 19). The main gate into LP7 is also used to access

Pintasan 8 plantation west of the Malua River and, by the villagers of Kampung Balat on the

north bank of the Kinabatangan. The size of the workforce at LP7 is estimated to be about

184 workers with the vast majority from Indonesia. Unlike the other study estates, the

majority (70%) of the workforce in LP7 are Christian. Although there are no education

facilities on LP7, estate management provides transportation for 10 children to the state-

owned school in Balat village. There is clinic on the estate attending to minor health issues

while more serious cases are handled at the nearest hospital in Bukit Garam. Medical bills

for such cases are being shared equally by the estate management and worker.


The focus group at Ladang Pin 7 was made up of 9 estate workers comprising 8 men and 1

woman, mainly Indonesian, with the overall average age of 34.9 who have spent an average

of 9.6 years living and working on the plantation. The majority (N=5) of focus group

members (FGM’s) attained a primary education with 3 interviewees having attended

secondary school and 1 respondent having no education. The overall average monthly

income is RM617 per FGM. All FGM’s are married with 8 having spouses who work and live

on the estate. There is average of 1.3 children per married FGM with an average age of 11

years living on the estate. (App 3, Focus Group Data, Pg A11) & (App 7c, Photos - LP7, Pg A25)



Main incomes are derived from general estate work as supervisors, harvesters, drivers and

mechanics with no engagement in alternative income activities. However, an informal

conversation with one of the FGM’s revealed that income earned on the estate over several

years has enabled him to purchase arable land in Indonesia which is currently producing

supplementary revenue. Unanimously, FGM’s mentioned that they are in Sabah mainly to

earn a living and to build up a source of funds for a better life back in their country of origin

where they would use savings to invest in small businesses, vehicles, homes and land for

engagement in small-scale agriculture. Currently, most FGM’s provide financial support for

family members in Indonesia. Community life on the plantation has been described as

generally safe and peaceful.


The focus group (FG) mentioned that they have never heard of ‘Malua’ but are conscious of

a jungle estimated to be 1 km from the settlement. Most members have no idea about the

conservation activities that are being conducted in Malua FR but are aware of entry

restrictions into MFR through being informed by estate management and by the ‘yellow sign

board’ at the boundary of the Reserve. Estate management have also informed FGM’s that

hunting is prohibited as with encroachment and the felling of trees in MFR. The FGM’s also

mentioned that they are not aware of hunting legislations in Sabah. There was a consensus

among FGM’s that the forest can offer protection from strong winds and could serve as a

watershed during drier seasons. Additionally it was agreed that there is a need to protect

wildlife in MFR.


Although FGM’s have observed unfamiliar vehicles entering the plantation, they have not

seen or experienced outsiders entering the forest or hunting in the estate area. They also

mentioned that they have not heard any gunshots, only canons to deter elephants from

entering the plantation. Sporadic human-wildlife conflicts (HWC’s) seem to be a common

issue for the FGM’s in the study. They experienced the last elephant incursion in April 2010

when a group of thirty raided young oil palm trees which were planted in 2005. Deterrent

measures such as tyre-burning and pipe canons are considered to be ineffective. The

FGM’s also mentioned that the elephants eased access into the plantation by felling trees

over the electric fencing. However, the FGM’s do not consider elephant intrusions as a

serious safety threat.


The focus group mentioned there should be more signage in the estates regarding the

prohibition of hunting. They also agreed that there is a need for direct communication with

key SFD staff to report any suspicious activity as well as to request support during such

encounters. The collaboration with the SFD is viewed in a favourable light in that, this

relationship could offer the community the opportunity to learn and engage new skills as

Honorary Wildlife Wardens (HWW’s) and in HWC mitigation procedures which ultimately,

could enhance security and personal safety on the estate.

3.2.3 Pintasan 8

Pintasan 8 (P8), established by Kwantas Corporation Berhad in 2000, covers a total area of

1,503 hectares and is situated at the juncture of the Kinabatangan and the Malua Rivers.

The estate is extremely vulnerable to seasonal flooding due to its location particularly during

periods of heavy rainfall. Access to P8 is facilitated through five estate gates and a river

crossing over the Malua River (Table 3a, Pg 19). Pintasan 8 employs approximately 165

workers with the vast majority (≈90%) being Muslim Indonesian. Primary education on the

plantation is facilitated through a Humana Learning Centre (HLC) which provides instruction

for 83 pupils. There is a medical clinic on the estate providing services for minor health

issues while emergencies are handled at the nearest public hospital in the town of Bukit

Garam. There are also plans to build a new HLC as well as a mosque. Estate management

operates a no-hunting policy as this activity could jeopardise security and safety on the

plantation as well as could set a bad example for the estate workers.


The focus group (FG) consisted of 7 Indonesian members of the estate community,

comprising of 2 females and 5 males with an overall average age of 39.6. Education levels

are represented with 3 individuals having attained a secondary education with the same

number having attended primary school with only 1 having no education at all. Overall

average incomes amounted to RM743 per month. The focus group members (FGM’s) spent

an average of 5.6 years living and working on the estate. All FGM’s (N=7) have spouses

working and living on the plantation. There is an overall average of 1.4 children (per married

FGM) with a mean age of 9.5 years who are also living on the estate. (App 3, Focus Group Data, Pg A11) (App 7d, Photos - Pintasan 8, Pg A27)



There is a prevailing pattern regarding responses from focus group members (FGM’s)

throughout the interviewing process. Comparable to Ladang Pin 7, FGM’s derive their main

incomes from estate work as harvesters, watchmen, supervisors and drivers with no other

sources of revenue. Community life on the estate is considered to be peaceful and secure

and that salaries are sufficient for their needs. The hopes and aspirations for this group

corresponds with the other FG’s with the need to save up enough funds in order to return to

Indonesia to purchase homes, vehicles and arable land.


The focus group (FG) is aware of a jungle adjacent to the plantation but have not heard of

‘Malua’ with the exception of the fencing watchman who is familiar with the Malua River. All

FGM’s are conscious of entry restrictions into Malua FR through the ‘yellow sign board’ at

the boundary. Estate management have also informed them regarding the penalties

involved pertaining to the prohibition of forest entry and hunting. Focus group members also

mentioned that they are not aware the laws controlling hunting activities for the reason that

they do not engage in hunting themselves although they admitted that these activities on the

estate can endanger lives. The FGM’s also divulged that that they are not aware of any

outsiders entering the estate area to hunt. There also seem to be no issues surrounding

elephant intrusions as it was mentioned that the electric fencing was sufficient enough to

deter a group 20-23 elephants during the last incident in March 2011.



There was a consensus among focus group members that a working relationship with the

Sabah Forestry Department (SFD) is an important step for the management of illegal hunting

activities in the plantation. The FGM’s also mentioned that there should be a system of

reporting during such emergencies for example, having key contact persons at the SFD.

Additionally, the installation of a ‘camera trap’ at the gate could help to deter these hunters.

The collaboration with the SFD is perceived in favourable terms as it is understood that this

relationship could offer the community the opportunity to acquire new knowledge and skills

as Honorary Wildlife Wardens (HWW’s) and in human-wildlife conflict (HWC) mitigation

practices. Ultimately, the FGM’s believe that the community will in turn benefit through

improved safety on the estate.

3.3 North Malua – Observation and Border Appraisals

3.3.1 Syarimo Estates

Malua FR and estate boundary appraisals were also undertaken by the research team

accompanied with staff members and estate workers to assess former elephant intrusion

sites and MFR access routes. During the survey on 17th May at the border of MFR with

Syarimo 9, it was observed that the estate shares a common boundary with Pintasan 5E and

Golden Apex (GA) plantations. Due to an oversight during the preliminary fieldtrip in

January 2011, it was noted that GA also shares a common boundary with MFR.

Unfortunately this was discovered in the last week of the fieldtrip and attempts to meet with

the estate manager failed because the entire estate management team was not available.

However, it was observed during the survey that there has been extensive damage of young

palm trees on the plantation. There were also remains of a burnt tyre used as a deterrent

measure less than 4 meters from the MFR border in the GA estate area. Elephant intrusions

are also common occurrences for Syarimo 9 (September 2010) and Syarimo 7 (October

2010). Access routes from the Reserve that were originally paved by the elephants are

currently being used by wild pigs to enter the estate area to feed on loose fruit during

harvesting periods. There was also evidence of elephant deterrent methods employed by

the estate workers which include remains of burnt tyres (S9 and S7) and a pipe canon (S7). (App 9a, Photos – Elephant-Damaged Sites, Pg A34)


Personal and anecdotal accounts by key security staff for the Syarimo estates implied that

hunting activities are still prevalent in the estate area bordering with Malua FR. Rapid border

appraisals conducted at Syarimo 7 also indicated that this activity is still being conducted as

a putrefied wild pig’s head was found at an access route from MFR*. It is evident that

hunting is strictly prohibited in the Syarimo plantation area due to signage recently erected

by estate management at the main gates (S1, S7 and P5A/S9)** and the MFR/estate

boundaries in part fulfilment of RSPO Criterion 5.2.*** However, it is obvious that signs

prohibiting this activity have been largely ignored and it is in the interest of management to

eradicate illegal hunting in the plantation area. * (App 8b, Photos – Hunting in Estates, Pg A32)

** (App 8a, Photo – Main Access Gates, Pg A29)

*** (App 5, RSPO Principle 5, Criterion 5.2, Pg A14)

3.3.2 Ladang Pin 7 and Pintasan 8

Boundary appraisals for Ladang Pin7 and Pintasan 8 did not uncover any evidence of

hunting activities. However, a personal account by the estate manager at Pintasan 8

suggests that some external hunters managed to access the estate through the main gate.

The manager recounted that during a face-to-face confrontation, these hunters mentioned

that they are government servants who were given the authority to hunt in the area.

However, the manager believes that the security staff based at the gate, do not have

adequate training and therefore lacked the confidence to manage these intruders

particularly, when they are being threatening and intimidating. Furthermore, being foreign

employees, they feel that they do not have the right to restrict locals. It is also evident that

these hunters employ a barrage of manipulation techniques to bypass the security at the

estate gates for example, by using the excuse that they are on their way to Kuamut village (Map 3, Pg 30).

3.4 Summary for North Malua

Comparable to the oil palm plantations (OPC) in east Malua, the estate communities of north

Malua claim to be generally contented with life on the estate. Being largely Indonesian, they

share the same life’s purpose that is, to build up a substantial source of funds to set up a

more comfortable life back in their home country. Although most focus group members

(FGM’s) have not heard of the name, ‘Malua’ they are aware of a ‘thick jungle’ in proximity to

their settlements. Overall conservation awareness regarding MFR is limited to restrictions


regarding forest entry, hunting and felling of trees. Additional knowledge pertaining to

legislations controlling forest use and hunting is relatively poor. Nonetheless, the

conservation of Malua FR is perceived to be important because the existence of forest will

save various tree and animal species from extinction and furthermore, it could serve as a

watershed during the drier seasons.

The OPP’s in north Malua are similarly affected by sporadic elephant intrusions which are

perceived to be a disruption to work and to an extent, could compromise on personal safety

of estate workers. Most FGM’s have little knowledge or information about illegal hunting

activities with the exception of 2 individuals from Syarimo 7 who recounted their encounters

with illegal hunters. However, personal and anecdotal accounts combined with evidence

found at the border of FR and S7 are sufficient enough to indicate that this activity is still

being conducted in north Malua.

All FG’s were forthcoming and cooperative with the prospect of a working collaboration with

the Sabah Forestry Department as Honorary Wildlife Wardens (HWW’s) and being engaged

in human-wildlife conflict (HWC) mitigation measures. To this end, one FG specifically

proposed that a working relationship between the estates and the SFD could be greatly

beneficial for the community in general. In terms of the prevention of illegal hunting, the

FG’s also mentioned that more sign boards should be erected on the estates as well as

reinforcement and ‘camera traps’ installed at the plantation gates. They also suggested that

an effective reporting procedure should be introduced in order to ease the flow of

communication between estate operations and the SFD. Furthermore, they mentioned that

there should be direct contact with key personnel from the Department in the event of

emergencies and to report any other suspicious activities. The opportunity of a working

collaboration is understood to be beneficial in that, apart from being able to acquire new

skills and knowledge, there is a possibility that threats to personal safety would be greatly

reduced and thus, could maintain the peace and stability of community life on the

plantations.


Map 3 Study Estates and Sites of Interest

ABBREVIATIONS: BCS: Balat Checking Station (Deramakot FR) FCS15: Forest Checking Station Cpt 15 (Malua FR) FCS37: Forest Checking Station Cpt 15 (Malua FR) GA: Golden Apex LBS: Ladang Bukit Segamaha LP7: Ladang Pin 7 (TH Group) LPKPSI: Ladang PKPS Irat (PKPS)

P5A: Pintasan 5A (Kwantas) P5B: Pintasan 5B (Kwantas) P5F: Pintasan 5F (Kwantas) P8: Pintasan 8 (Kwantas) S7: Syarimo 7 (IOI Corp) S9: Syarimo 9 (IOI Corp) YSCS: Yayasan Sabah Checking Station (Malua FR)

Note: Study Estates in bold (For larger map refer to App 1c, Pg A3 )


Chapter 4 Setting the Scene for Collaborative Management

The study estates are currently engaged, albeit, with varying success rates in the

management of human-wildlife conflicts (HWC’s) and in an on-going campaign to curb

poaching. However, research outcomes from the Malua II Study support a collaborative

approach as both oil palm plantation (OPP) management and the Sabah Forestry

Department (SFD) share a common ground to prevent illegal hunting in the estates and

Malua Forest Reserve (MFR). As most hunting is being conducted near MFR and plantation

boundaries, it is within the interest of these stakeholders to be engaged in the collaborative

process in order to implement preventative measures to manage these illegal activities.

Study outcomes also support this approach as indicated by the willingness of estate

management and workers to form future working relationships with the SFD. To this end,

the Malua Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement (MPWCA) is being developed

through a series of stakeholder consultations so as to formalise the commitment to wildlife

conservation in the OPP’s and MFR.

4.1 The Common Ground

4.1.1 Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

In June 2011, Malua FR achieved certification for sustainable forest management under the

auspices of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). The FSC’s Principles and Criteria apply

to all tropical, temperate and boreal forests considered as High Conservation Value Forest

(HCVF). Malua FR has been classified as HCVF in the Ulu Segama-Malua Forest

Management Plan (2008-2017) and under the provisions of Principle 9 (Maintenance of high

conservation value forests), Management activities in high conservation value forests shall

maintain or enhance the attributes which define such forests. Furthermore, according to

FSC Criterion 6.2, Safeguards shall exist which protect rare, threatened and endangered

species and their habitats……. Conservation zones and protection areas shall be

established, appropriate to the scale and intensity of forest management and the uniqueness

of the affected resources. Inappropriate hunting, fishing, trapping and collecting shall be controlled’.


4.1.2 Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)

The direct proximity of Malua FR to the study estates has important parallels with RSPO

Principle 5 (Environmental responsibility and conservation of natural resources and

biodiversity). Most pertinently, Criterion 5.2 states that “the status of rare, threatened or

endangered species and high conservation value habitats, if any, that exists in the plantation

or that could be affected by plantation or mill management, shall be identified and their

conservation taken into account in management plans and operations”. Similarly, estate

strategies could incorporate appropriate measures for management planning and operations

which includes the control of any “illegal or inappropriate hunting, fishing and collecting activities; and developing responsible measures to resolve human-wildlife conflicts”.

Application for RSPO membership and certification by the study estates is currently at

different stages from inception to completion. The application for RSPO certification is

currently being processed for the Syarimo estates in the area incorporating the study estates

of Syarimo 9 and Syarimo 7. These estates have officially banned hunting in the plantation

area and are currently employing mitigation measures to curb this activity. The holding

company for the Pintasan estates, Kwantas Corporation Berhad, has started preparatory

work to become an RSPO member and have prohibited hunting in the estate area. The

management of the two remaining study estates TH Group (Ladang Pin 7) and the

Agricultural Board of Selangor (Ladang PKPS Irat), have no set plans to apply for RSPO in

the near future. Collaborative management could be mutually beneficial for all parties

concerned particularly, in support of the application for accreditation as well as compliance.

4.1.3 Plantation Conservation Initiatives

Collaborative management could also be beneficial for the support of conservation initiatives

on estate level. The main fieldtrip highlighted that the Pintasan estates are currently

planning the replanting of native species in flood-prone areas of the plantation particularly on

Pintasan 8 (P8) estate which is affected by severe flooding on a seasonal basis. An informal

conversation with the plantation controller and manager revealed that estate management

has plans to replant a total of 300 hectares including 88.4 ha in P8.


4.2 Stakeholders for Wildlife Conservation

4.2.1 Estate Management and Oil Palm Communities

The willingness of estate management and oil palm communities (OPC’s) to form a

collaborative relationship with the Sabah Forestry Department is an important step towards

the conservation of wildlife in Malua FR. More significantly, the involvement and the

participation of OPC’s as ground informants combined with the right training and experience

could become important players in the process.

4.2.2 Governmental Departments

The Sabah Forestry Department (SFD), Sabah Wildlife Department (SWD) and Yayasan

Sabah (YS) are among the government bodies who are the major stakeholders in wildlife

conservation management for Malua FR. These organisations, particularly the SFD, are

crucial players in the programme because of their direct involvement in the ground

operations in MFR.

4.2.3 Non-governmental Organisations

Non-governmental organisations (NGO’s) are also important protagonists for wildlife

conservation for Malua FR. The involvement of organisations such as Hutan/KOCP can

bring a positive contribution to the programme with their background in engaging local

communities in resolving human-wildlife conflicts (HWC’s) in oil palm smallholdings in the

Kinabatangan area. Additionally, the participation of WWF-Malaysia with their long-standing

presence in wildlife conservation in Sabah could be beneficial to the process. These NGO’s

have a valuable role to play in the process in that they can bring net benefits to the

development of the Human-Wildlife Conflict Management Plan (HWCMP). (Chapter 5, § 5.1.2, Pg 36)

4.2.4 Experts and Independent Consultants

A wildlife conservation programme could also benefit from the input and expertise from

experts, technical advisers and consultants. These stakeholders could provide different

perspective to issues surrounding the process.


4.3 Malua Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement (MPWCA)

Although the prime focus of the Malua II Study is to gather information, identify issues and

mutually-beneficial solutions, its underlying purpose is to set the foundation for the

collaborative management process by establishing support for the Malua Partnership Wildlife

Conservation Agreement (MPWCA) and strengthening existing communication linkages

between the Sabah Forestry Department (SFD), estate management and the oil palm

communities. Through a series of stakeholder consultations as well as drawing upon Study

outcomes and provisions of FSC and RSPO Principles, the development of the MPWCA

formalises the alliance and the commitment between the SFD, SWD, YS and OPP

management to support wildlife conservation for Malua FR through the implementation of

preventative measures for illegal hunting and the management of human-wildlife conflicts.

The MPWCA charts the main objectives and benefits of the conservation programme and

includes several conservation agreement commitments covering the areas of illegal hunting,

wildlife wardenship, human-wildlife conflicts, communication channels, outreach

programmes, monitoring and evaluation and, cost-sharing initiatives. Ultimately, the

Agreement would encompass a long-term vision to the wildlife conservation programme and

the flexibility to incorporate management, environmental and social dynamics. Beyond the

initial term of 2 years, the MPWCA is to be reviewed and renewed on a yearly basis to take

into account any changes in order to ensure a degree of continuity to the collaborative

management process. (Chapter 5, §5.1, Draft Outline - MPWCA, Pg 49)


Chapter 5 Discussion Themes and Further Research

The main discussion points in this chapter are by no means limited to the topics listed and

are open to consultation and deliberation. However, in light of the issues highlighted during

the Malua II Study, these themes of discussion are used as a basis for the the Malua

Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement (MPWCA) and other recommendations for

integrated conservation development in Chapter 6, Page 49. The concluding section (§5.4)

in Chapter 5 discusses other pertinent study sites that could be considered for further

research.

5.1 Human - Wildlife Conflicts (HWC’s)

The underlying cause for human-wildlife conflicts (HWC’s) is the reduction of forested habitat

and feeding grounds resulting from deforestation followed by the conversion of land into oil

palm plantations. Elephants or ‘nenek’ in particular, require vast home ranges incorporating

traditional migration routes. These factors, combined with the fact that the Asian elephant is

a protected species in Malaysia and Indonesia has largely contributed to HWC’s. The Asian

elephant is currently categorised as ‘Endangered’ in the IUCN Redlist and is protected under

Schedule 2 (Part 1) under the Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997 (WCE 1997) which

states that the hunting of mammals listed under this section is prohibited without licence.

5.1.1 HWC’s on Plantations

Human-wildlife conflict is a resounding occurrence experienced by all the estates in the

study (Table 5b, Pg 36). In terms of personal safety, elephant raids on the estates are

perceived to be the most problematic by the focus groups (FG’s). Apart from electric

fencing and trenches, deterrents such as tyre-burning close to the MFR border are also

employed by the estate management to varying degrees of success. In some cases, light

canons, tractor horns (Kobota) and firecrackers were also used. Estate workers are

sometimes required to chase the elephants away by gesturing and shouting. The FGM’s

also mentioned that they have encountered large groups of wild pigs which number between


30-40 individuals that enter the plantations to feed on loose fruit particularly during harvests.

There have been no attempts to chase them away because of their sheer numbers.

The loss of natural habitat, conservation status of the Asian elephant, the formal ban on

hunting in the oil palm plantations (OPP’s) combined with the increasing population of

wildlife are factors governing environmental and social dynamics in the OPP’s. As stated in

the ‘Guidelines on the Better Management Practices for the Mitigation and Management of

Human-Elephant Conflict in and around Oil Palm Plantations’ (WWF 2005), that “as long as

human and elephants share the same landscape human-elephant conflict can never be

eliminated, only reduced”.

Table 5a Time Estimates of Elephant Incursions

Estate

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007

1) LPKPSI

Jan/Feb Jan/Feb - - -

2) Pintasan 5A

- - - -

3) Pintasan 5B

- March - - -

4) Pintasan 5F

- Nov - - -

5) Syarimo 9

- Sept - - -

6) Syarimo 7

- Oct - - -

7) Ladang Pin 7

- April/May - - -

8) Pintasan 8

March - - -

Source: Estate managers and focus group interviews

5.1.2 Human Wildlife Conflict Management Plan (HWCMP)

A Human-Wildlife Conflict Management Plan (HWCMP) should be drafted to manage and

minimise HWC’s to acceptable levels so as to maintain a tolerance threshold for all

stakeholders. Similarly, there is also a need for assessment and guidelines pertaining to the

use of the various deterrent measures. For example, it was observed on a few occasions

during the fieldwork that tyre-burning was conducted in close proximity to the forest reserve

boundaries. However, this method is not recommended as apart from being a fire hazard

particularly during the drier seasons, it also causes air pollution. Apart from a host of

preventative and non-preventative mitigation measures, the HWCMP should also include


conservation awareness and capacity building for estate staff (including field workers and

sentries) in order to give them the confidence and the knowledge to cope with any HWC

which in the longer term could reduce threats to personal safety and increase tolerance

thresholds.

The formulation of a comprehensive HWCMP is beyond the scope of this study and should

therefore be result of a series of consultations with the major stakeholders incorporating

governmental departments such as the Sabah Forestry Department (SFD), Sabah Wildlife

Department (SWD) and non-governmental organisations such as Hutan/KOCP and WWF-

Malaysia. In 1998, in collaboration with the SWD, Hutan established the Kinabatangan

Orang-utan Conservation Project (KOCP) whose main focus is to develop innovative

solutions to for orang-utan conservation in Sabah. In 2002, an Elephant Control Unit (ECU)

was set up by Hutan/KOCP engaging members of the local community to help mitigate

human-elephant conflicts occurring in oil palm smallholdings in the Sukau area in the

Kinabatangan. (App 9a, Photos - Elephant-Damaged Sites, Pg A34)

5.1.3 Wildlife Wardenship Programmes (WWP’s)

Research outcomes for the Malua II Study have indicated unanimous support for Wildlife

Wardenship Programmes (WWP’s) by focus group members (FGM’s) who are willing to be

presented with the opportunity to be trained in new skills. Furthermore, FGM’s perceived

wildlife wardenship to be beneficial to personal safety particularly in relation to the

management of human-wildlife conflicts (HWC’s).

5.1.3.1 Wildlife Wardenship Programmes – Kulim and Hutan/KOCP

Wildlife Wardenship Programmes (WWP’s) have been endorsed and adopted by Kulim

(Malaysia) Berhad in oil palm plantations sharing common boundaries with the Endau-

Rompin National Park in Johor, Peninsular Malaysia. The Kulim Wildlife Defenders (KWD)

programme established in 2008, incorporates training for the monitoring and protection of

wildlife as well as train-the-trainer (TTT) coaching for key security staff. Through the TTT

programme, the syllabus has been extended to include other estate employees involving

managers, security guards and workers. In 2009, estate management introduced the Kulim

Wildlife Defenders Junior programme whose main focus is to enhance environmental and

conservation awareness and outreach amongst young people and children from the villages

in the area.


On more local level, in collaboration with the Sabah Wildlife Department (SWD),

Hutan/KOCP introduced a WWP under a provision (Part II, Section 7) in the Wildlife

Conservation Enactment 1997. The majority of staff at Hutan/KOCP have achieved

accreditation as Honorary Wildlife Wardens (HWW’s) since the initial wardenship training

with the SWD in 2001. These HWW’s also work closely with the Elephant Conservation

Unit. The breadth of experience of Hutan/KOCP in relation to wildlife conservation and

human-wildlife conflicts (HWC’s) in the Kinabatangan area could bring relevance and wide-

ranging benefits for Malua FR. Their knowledge and familiarity with pertinent issues as well

as being located in the vicinity could be harnessed though collaboration, consultation and

training.

5.1.3.2 Honorary Wildlife Wardens HWW’s) for Malua FR

Drawing lessons from other WWP’s, key members of the estate communities could be

appointed and trained as Honorary Wildlife Wardens (HWW’s) and could be ‘Champions’ for

wildlife conservation. The role of HWW’s could be implemented on a rotational basis and

could incorporate multiple responsibilities such as working closely with SFD staff in ground

operations and the management of HWC’s as well as being the central point of information

and contact between the Department and estate workers. These individuals could be also

responsible for the maintenance of record books for wildlife intrusions and the reporting of

any suspicious activities on the estate. The wardenship programme could incorporate field

supervisors, security staff as well as other estate workers including both men and women

and could be financed through cost-sharing initiatives.

5.2 Access and Hunting

Research findings have highlighted several pertinent points regarding access and hunting

issues. Illegal hunting activities are still being conducted in the estates and Malua FR by

‘Outsiders’ and ‘Insiders’ for which different preventative measures are to be adopted.

5.2.1 General Access Points

Main road and river access routes to Malua FR are used by plantation staff and workers,

villagers from Kampung Balat and other outsiders alike and would therefore, have strategic


implications for formulation of preventative ground measures for illegal hunting and

poaching.

5.2.1.1 Access Gates to Study Estates

Main access to the study estates, forest checking stations (FCS’s) and Malua FR is

facilitated through a network of plantation roads. This type of access is the most frequently

used particularly by commercial plantation vehicles as it the most convenient in terms of time

and costs. In order to reach the study plantations, all vehicles are required to pass through

the first gate at Ladang Pin 5 (LP5) at the Lahad Datu road. Subsequently, they would

disperse either at the junction for Syarimo 1 or head towards the Ladang Pin 2c gate for

north and east Malua respectively.

Table 4a

Access Gates from Lahad Datu Rd (LP5A Gate) Forest Checking Stations & Study Estates

1st Gate

2nd Gate

3rd Gate

4th Gate

5th Gate

6th Gate

Total no of gates

≈Km fr LP5A by

estate rds A) FCS37 (E Malua)

LP5A LP2C P1 (Pt A) LSS LBS LPKPSI 6 41

1) LPKPSI

LP5A LP2C P1 (Pt A) LSS LBS LPKPSI 6 41

2) Pintasan 5A LP5A LP2C P1 (Pt B) - - -

3 38

3) Pintasan 5B

LP5A LP2C P1 (Pt B) - - - 3 42

4) Pintasan 5F (Route 1)

LP5A LP2C P1 (Pt B) GS/GA - - 4 52

5) Pintasan 5F (Route 2)

LP5A LP2C S1 S7 GS/GA - 5 47

B) FCS15 (N Malua)

LP5A S1 S7 LP7 - - 4 45

6) YSCS

LP5A S1 S7 LP7 - - 4 46

7) Syarimo 9 (Route 1)

LP5A P1 (Pt B) P5/ S9 (Double Gates)

- - - 3 45

8) Syarimo 9 (Route 2)

LP5A S1 S7 - -

- 3 50

9) Syarimo 7

LP5A S1 S7 - - - 3 41

10) Ladang Pin 7

LP5A S1 S7 LP7 - - 4 41

11) Pintasan 8

LP5A S1 S7 LP7 P8 - 5 49

ABBREVIATIONS:

FCS37: Forest Checking Station Cpt 37 (E Malua) FCS15: Forest Checking Station Cpt 15 (N Malua) GA: Golden Apex LBS: Ladang Bukit Segamaha (Boustead) LP: Ladang Pin

LPKPSI: Ladang PKPS Irat LSS: Ladang Sungei Segamaha P: Pintasan S: Syarimo YSCS: Yayasan Sabah Checking Station


The number of gates leading into the study estates varies from a minimum of 3 for (Pintasan

5A and P5B) to a maximum of 6 (Forest Checking Station 37 and Ladang PKPS Irat). These

entry gates are manned 24 hours a day and are used by estate personnel and outsiders

alike and would therefore have strategic considerations for the study (Table 4a, Pg 39). (App 1a, Map - Malua FR Study Estates & Access Gates, Pg A1) (App 8a, Photos – Main Access Gates, Pg A29)

5.2.1.2 Other Access Points

Hunting in the estates occurs in close proximity to the boundary of Malua FR particularly at

exit/access points to the Reserve. From personal accounts the estate gates are also being

used as main entry points for external hunters or ‘Outsiders’. There is also a possibility that

individuals from surrounding plantations could be entering the study estates as depicted in

an informal interview with one of the estate supervisors in Pintasan 5A. He mentioned that

individuals have been entering P5A from the neighbouring estate of Ladang Bukit Segamaha

(LBS) as indicated by the motorbike tracks at an entry/exit point. Apart from road access,

informal interviews with former hunters also highlighted another access point via the

Kinabatangan River through the mouth of Malua River. However, this route was used in the

past by individuals via the town of Bukit Garam on the Kinabatangan River and the only

current evidence of entry via the Malua River are the broken fishing lines found during a river

patrol. Nonetheless, this route should still be considered as a potential entry point. Another

route that could allow vehicle access is the road through Ladang Pin 7, habitually used by

the villagers of Balat. The start of this access road, located on the south bank of the

Kinabatangan River opposite Balat village, does not have a manned gate. (App 7c, Photos – Ladang Pin 7, (photos LP7 & LP8), Pg A25)

5.2.2 Illegal Hunting at MFR/Plantation Boundaries

5.2.2.1 Focus Groups and Field Surveys

All study plantations have imposed hunting bans in the estate area because this activity is

perceived to be highly detrimental to the safety of estate personnel. Furthermore, hunting is

considered to have negative implications for the image of the company and could set a bad

example to estate workers. With the exception of two personal accounts resulting from the

focus groups interviews (FGI’s), most focus group members (FGM’s) mentioned that they

have not observed any individuals entering the Reserve or hunting in the estates. However,


FGM’s have acknowledged that they have seen unfamiliar vehicles entering the estate area

and admitted that they uncertain of the purpose of these outsiders. They also indicated a

willingness to work with the Sabah Forestry Department as informants and Honorary Wildlife

Wardens (HWW’s). Although most FGM’s claim not to be aware of these activities,

anecdotal accounts of the estate manager at Pintasan 8 and 2 security staff who attended

the FGI at Syarimo 7, revealed that these clandestine activities are still being conducted

(Chapter 3, §3.3.1 & §3.3.2, Pg 27-28).

However, evidence uncovered during the main fieldtrip has to a certain extent, supported the

fact that illegal hunting and poaching activities are still being carried out. For example,

gunshots were heard by a watchman at Pintasan 5B and the research team on two separate

occasions on the night of 14th May. Border checks also suggest that this activity is still being

conducted as a putrefied wild pig’s head was found at a Malua FR access route in the estate

area of Syarimo 7. On 21st May the research team came across a newly-built stalking tower

attached to a mature oil palm tree in Pintasan 5A estate on the boundary road with MFR.

The construct was meant as a vantage point overlooking a watering hole in the Reserve. On

another occasion, when exploring a elephant-damaged site in Ladang PKPS Irat, the

research team came across an empty shotgun cartridge at the entrance of an access route

into MFR. Rapid appraisals close to the MFR/estate boundaries within the Reserve also

highlighted illegal entry into MFR from Pintasan 5A estate. On 22nd May, the research team

came across fresh traps underneath a fallen tree meant to ensnare mouse deer and

porcupine. An old hunters’ campsite, thought to be 2-3 years old was visited in MFR at the

juncture with Forest Checking Station 37, Ladang PKPS Irat and P5A estates.

(App 8b, Photos – Hunting in Estates, Pg A31)

(App 8c, Photos – Malua FR Entry, Pg A33)

5.2.2.2 Hunting Motivation

The existence of traps indicates that this activity is being conducted by estate workers or

‘Insiders’ for the reason that traps require regular monitoring and they would need regular

access. Another indication that hunting is being conducted by ‘Insiders’, is the construction

of the stalking tower in Pintasan 5A. These constructs (tower and traps) were built during

daylight hours from material taken from the Reserve. One could tentatively deduce that the

main motivation behind hunting by ‘Insiders’ is to supplement a daily diet because of the lack

of affordable sources of protein on the estate. Face-to-face encounters with external hunters

recounted through personal accounts by estate staff and former poaches suggest that


hunting is being conducted purely as a leisure activity and to satisfy the taste for bush meat

by ‘Outsiders’ who access the plantation areas via estate roads.

5.2.2.3 Preventative Measures

The fact remains that hunting activities are conducted by both ‘Outsiders’ and ‘Insiders’ alike.

This knowledge can be harnessed to support certain deterrent measures by concentrating

on different access points for example, strategic patrolling at the MFR/estate boundary could

deter prospective poachers from the estate. Border patrolling could focus on sections where

there is easy access to MFR and to include other potential access points. ‘Outsiders’ can be

deterred by improved surveillance measures at plantation gates for example, the installation

and management of close-circuit television (CCTV) cameras reinforced by patrolling and

information reporting. In addition to the application of deterrent measures, it has to be

acknowledged that channels for intelligence gathering have to be established involving

estate manager and workers as informants. However, illegal hunting activities whether in

Malua FR or in the plantation area cannot be deterred or prevented in its entirety and

preventative measures can largely benefit from collaborative management between the

major stakeholders. Key recommendations pertaining to access and routes and illegal

hunting activities are covered in further detail in Chapter 6. (Chapter 6, §6.2 Ground Operations & Adaptive Management, Pg 52)

(App 8b, Photos – Hunting in estates Pg A31)

(App 8c, Photos – Malua FR Entry Pg A33)

5.2.2.4 General Hunting Profile

The services of a technical adviser was engaged during the last two days of the fieldwork

and throughout a series of unstructured interviews, he uncovered a general profile of hunters

who conduct their activities from the estates. He also accompanied the research team on

random walking surveys of the boundary of Pintasan 5A and Ladang PKPS Irat and provided

valuable insights on the evidence of hunting activities found in the estate area and in Malua

FR. His in-depth knowledge of hunting can be used to bolster planning and evaluate the

efficacy of preventative measures for wildlife conservation in MFR. The following script is a

condensed version of all the interviews.

“Hunting seasons usually coincides with the rains and the lunar cycle. Rainy periods are

considered to be more productive as animals are more likely to frequent open spaces to feed


from the midafternoon onwards. During drier seasons, animals usually frequent watering

holes in the late afternoon. They also emerge at dawn to feed on the dew-covered grass. An

optimum time to hunt is around the period of the new moon as animals are less alert or

aware of the hunters’ presence because of the darker conditions.

Hunters and/or poachers could be divided into two rough categories. The first category

includes ‘Outsiders’ which would include sport hunters and, local hunters from the area.

‘Sport’ hunters are usually thought to be from the main towns. They are generally well-off,

well-equipped (in terms of fire arms and vehicles) and would frequently hunt in the estates.

Usually indiscriminate in what they shoot, they tend to view hunting as a form of leisure.

‘Local’ hunters are usually from the neighbouring areas who hunt specifically for deer. They

tend to be less well-equipped in terms of arms and transport and are very skilled as trackers

and stalkers. As they usually travel by small vehicles, motorbikes, boat and/or by on foot,

they tend to hunt limited numbers of animals. This group is also most likely to enter forested

areas.

The second category of hunters and poachers are people or ‘Insiders’ who live in the estates

or are from neighbouring estates as demonstrated by the climbing frame in Pintasan 5A and

the traps in MFR near the border with P5A. Trappers are most likely to be from the estate or

neighbouring estates as they need to return to the scene to frequently to check on traps. It

seems that what we found in the estates is a good indication that the activity was conducted

by people in the estates. The climbing frame found in P5A was constructed in daylight

about 3-4 days ago at the most and the traps were probably built no more than 2 days ago

because the wood cuttings are still fresh. One important clue to spot estate workers who

trap is that they wear slippers because ‘real’ estate workers wear shoes to work. However,

the estate workers have an important role to play in mitigation measures in that they could

become valuable informants.

Hunters are most likely to be highly manipulative, using lies and bribes and can sometimes

be aggressive and threatening in their approach. Furthermore, they are not threatened by

staff at the gates who lack the ability or the experience and/or who are foreign workers on

the estate. They also do not give up easily and if turned away, would return using other

ways and routes at different times on another day to ensure optimum results. They also

revel in being able to outsmart security guards and should be approached with caution”.


5.3 Ground Operations and Adaptive Management

The central driving force behind the management of Malua FR remains to be the Sabah

Forestry Department (SFD) as they play a valuable but challenging and difficult role in the

groundwork for wildlife conservation. Significant progress has been achieved since the

signing of a conservation Agreement between the Department, Yayasan Sabah (YS) and

New Forest Asia in 2008. For example, the establishment of the Forest Checking Stations in

2009 in forest compartments 37 and 15 has had some positive impacts on illegal hunting

and poaching in Malua FR. However, wildlife conservation is a continuous process that

would require strategic planning and support from various stakeholders as most illegal

hunting activities occurs at the common boundaries between Malua FR and the OPP’s.

Ground operations management would need to adopt an adaptive and collaborative

approach in order to convert information gained in the field into applicable knowledge.

Adaptive management is appropriate in the sense that it incorporates a degree of flexibility

as well as the fact that it takes into account field or situational dynamics. However, in order

for this approach to work, it is imperative that measures are taken to ensure a continuous

input of information through establishing a recording and reporting system combined with

regular direct contact with estate management, security staff and oil palm communities

(OPC’s). It has to be noted that the following discussion points are open to review and,

some measures have already been incorporated as part of ground operations. Based on

these points, recommendations are listed and summarised in Chapter 6, §6.2, Page 52.

5.3.1 Surveillance Measures

Surveillance measures could benefit largely from the development of a surveillance plan

based on the concept of adaptive management. To this end, the Malua II Study outcomes

pertaining to the knowledge that illegal hunting is being conducted by both ‘Outsiders’ and

‘Insiders’, could present implications to the preventative measures that are to be employed.

For example, patrolling duties should ideally be conducted during estate days off, weekends

and public holidays as these are periods when most illegal hunting activities are most likely

to occur. Another example would be during the drier seasons when the focus should be

diverted to watering holes in the Reserve situated close to the MFR/estate boundaries.

Observation duties could also include appraising access paths into Malua FR on foot. The

surveillance plan could benefit from the mapping and recording of GPS coordinates

pertaining to former and potential access points into MFR and, certain ‘Sites of interest’. To


this end, visual and written records need to be maintained in order to keep abreast of all

development as well as could be used as knowledge for adaptive management.

There should also be no set patrolling schedules and surveillance suties should incorporate

a degree of unpredictability in order to sideline potential hunters and poachers. To this end,

head staff at the FCS’s should adopt a code of confidentiality for example, only revealing

daily patrolling schedules before setting off on these patrols. Patrolling routes could include

border appraisals as well as main entry gates and could involve members of the estate

workforce as well as prospective Honorary Wildlife Wardens (HWW’s). The involvement of

estate staff and workers in patrolling duties could also help solve the issue of insufficient

manpower at certain periods. Optimal times could include early mornings and late

afternoons. There should also be sign boards depicting the presence of patrols at the MFR

boundary as well as estate gates.

Existing security measures and patrols can also be supported with the installation of closed-

circuit television (CCTV) cameras and pertinent signage at main estate gates particularly at

Syarimo 1, Pintasan 1, Syarimo 7, Pintasan 5/Syarimo 9 (double gates) and Pintasan 8 as

these gates are located at strategic points and are manned 24 hours a day. The use of

CCTV cameras could relieve some pressure and reliance on sentries at the gates and could

be regularly monitored by SFD staff.

5.3.2 Boundary Surveys and Access Points

The boundary between Malua FR, and the OPP’s and alienated land (stateland) spans a

distance of approximately 38 km. Border surveys could be performed at different sections

on a random basis and could involve, in part, walking surveys as well as road patrols. All

access points and paths (including former routes) should be of particular interest during

border patrols and which should also be part of walking surveys into MFR.

5.3.3 Reinforcements at Estate Gates

Research findings highlighted the need for reinforcements at access gates. Department

staff from the Forest Checking Stations (FCS’s) could provide valuable support for security

personnel at the estate gates, particularly during the late afternoon and early evenings.

Random visits to the estate gates combined with informal interaction with estate security

staff would help in the information gathering process.


5.3.4 Communication Systems and Community Outreach

Information and communication systems could be also set up with OPP management and

could include reporting and recording procedures involving direct communication with SFD

staff from the Forest Checking Stations (FCS’s). A reporting system could involve the

maintenance of record books at the estate offices and settlements as well as direct

telephone contact with SFD personnel.

Apart from the engagement of Honorary Wildlife Wardens (HWW’s), the inclusion of estate

communities is vital as they can be engaged as general informants for which a reward

scheme could be introduced. Outreach programmes for the local community in the form of

presentations, workshops, posters and pamphlets could help to introduce the

implementation of the Malua Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement (MPWCA).

These programmes could also serve as a publicity platform for other pertinent matters

covering areas such as, forest and hunting legislations and environmental awareness

regarding MFR. Additionally, the regular and informal presence of SFD staff within the

estate community could enhance the flow of direct communication between estate

management, OPC’s and the Department. Outreach programmes could also be extended to

the development of environmental education at primary school levels at the Human Learning

Centres (HLC’s) in the Pintasan 4, Syarimo 7 and Pintasan 8.

5.3.5 Training Programmes

Research findings have indicated that there is an imminent need for training for Honorary

Wildlife Wardens (HWW’s) and in human-wildlife conflicts (HWC’s) for both SFD and estate

personnel. This training could benefit from the experience of employees from the

Kinabatangan Orang-utan Conservation Project (KOCP). Further training programmes could

be developed based on training needs assessments with SFD staff so as to improve the

efficacy of ground operations.

5.3.6 Monitoring and Evaluation

Sustainability and the long-term success of ground practices rely on consistent and regular

monitoring and evaluation. To this end, ground operations procedures should be reviewed

on a regular basis involving SFD personnel and estate staff in order to keep abreast of field

dynamics as well as to gauge the efficacy of current strategies. Effectiveness could also be

measured through analysis of record books and pertinent information gained from regular


contact and consultation with estate staff. Furthermore, the introduction of bi-yearly

boundary surveys with external experts could serve as an efficiency barometer for the

strategies employed. Monitoring and evaluation is a far-reaching process which in turn,

could bolster future planning and strategies based on current data so as to ensure the

sustainability of wildlife conservation programmes for Malua FR.

5.4 Further Research

5.4.1 Priority Study Site

Balat village on the north bank of the Kinabatangan River was identified during the main

fieldtrip as a priority study site. The village is in close proximity with the Balat Checking

Station in Deramakot FR and was an important part of the Malua I study conducted in

November 2008. The settlement is also strategically located about 6 km from the mouth of

the Malua River and can be accessed through a 3-hour boat trip from the town of Bukit

Garam. Road access to Balat can be facilitated through Ladang Pin 7 (LP7) estate from the

south bank of the Kinabatangan River opposite the village. The distance to the north MFR

boundary from Balat by road is approximately 3 km. Balat can also be reached via the main

road through Deramakot FR base camp to the north of the village although, this access is

rarely used by the villagers. (App 1c, Map – Study Estates & Sites of Interest, Pg A3)

(App 7c, Photos – Ladang Pin 7 (photos LP5-LP8), Pg A25)

5.4.2 Potential Study Sites

The Golden Apex (GA) plantation that was overlooked during the preliminary fieldtrip also

shares common boundaries with Syarimo 9 (S9) and Malua FR. Similar to other OPP’s, GA

suffers from periodic elephant incursions particularly in areas with young palms close to the

MFR/estate boundaries. Access to the estate is shared with Pintasan 5F (P5F) in the form

of an entry gate and road from the junction with S9. The GA estate settlement is

approximately 2km from the MFR. An additional estate settlement that could be of interest is

Ladang Bukit Segamaha (LBS), owned and managed by Boustead Plantations Berhad. The

settlement is located about 5 km from the MFR border and shares common boundaries with

Ladang PKPS Irat and Pintasan 5A. (App 1b, Map – Study Estates & Other Plantations, Pg A2)


(App 1c, Map – Study Estates & Sites of Interest, Pg A3)

(App 7b, Photos - S9 & S7 (photos Sya3, 4 & 5), Pg A22)

(App 9a, Photos - Elephant-Damaged Sites (photos Ele6 & Ele8), Pg A34)

5.5.3 Other Estate Settlements

Additional OPP’s that could be considered for a future study could include the settlements of

KTS, Kebun Jaya B and Kebun Jaya A (Tobe Property), Sun Tat Lee and Danumpalm. This

group of five settlements is located in close proximity with Ulu Segama FR and the

southeastern sector of Malua MF. Access to these OPP’s is being facilitated though 5 entry

points from the Ladang Pin 5A gate from the Lahad Datu road. Although these sites are not

directly adjacent to MFR, their strategic location could be interest to the SFD in terms of

illegal tree-felling and hunting issues. (App 1b, Map – Study Estates & Other Plantations, Pg A2)


Chapter 6 Recommendations for Integrated Conservation Development

The Malua Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement (MPWCA) in Section 6.1 formalises

the voluntary agreement between ‘Governmental Organisations’ and the ‘Oil Palm

Companies’ and forms the foundation for collaborative management for wildlife conservation

for Malua FR. Section 6.2 documents some recommendations for ground operations and

adaptive management based on the discussion themes in Chapter 5 and Section 6.3 lists

some potential study sites.

6.1 Draft Outline - Malua Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement

The development of the Malua Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement (MPWCA) is

being attributed to a series of consultations with major stakeholders for wildlife conservation

in Malua FR and is to be signed by Sabah Forestry Department (SFD), Sabah Wildlife

Department (SWD), Yayasan Sabah (YS) (‘Governmental Organisations’) and the oil palm

companies.

Draft Outline of the MPWCA

I. Main objectives and benefits of the MPWCA.

II. Background of the MPWCA: A. Malua Forest Reserve;

B. Background Study of the MPWCA;

C. The MPWCA and Good Governance.

III. Conservation Agreement Commitments: A. Management of Anti-Poaching Activities

• The Parties will jointly agree to form a collaborative management initiative for the

prevention of poaching activities:

i. OPP management will review and implement surveillance and security

measures at estate gates;


ii. Involvement of OPP security staff at estate gates in surveillance measures

and the report and sharing of any pertinent information;

iii. Joint patrolling by SFD, SWD and estate staff;

iv. Information reporting by estate staff and workers;

v. Reinforcement by SFD and SWD staff at estate gates;

vi. Joint investigation of hunting incidences;

vii. OPP management to employ preventative measures for the setting of traps

inside MFR and will take action against the guilty parties.

B. Human-wildlife conflicts (HWC’s) and licensed hunting i. Joint drafting of the Human–Wildlife Conflict Management Plan (HWCMP);

ii. Adoption of responsible hunting methods by OPP management through

consultation with SFD and SWD for the control of pests such as wild pigs;

iii. Adoption of legal hunting procedures by OPP management;

iv. Reporting of icensed hunting to SFD & SWD

C. Honorary Wildlife Wardenship

• The Parties will partake in wildlife wardenship programmes and HWC initiatives:

i. Appointment by OPP management of Honorary Wildlife Wardens (HWW’s);

ii. Training and capacity building of HWW’s;

iii. Joint ground operations pertaining to the management of wildlife

conservation and HWC’s;

D. Communication Channels

• The Parties will jointly establish channels of communication:

i. SFD and SWD to be proactively involved in information exchange and

gathering with plantation management and security staff;

ii. SFD and SWD to be proactively involved in information exchange and

gathering through informal contact with plantation supervisors and workers;

iii. OPP management will establish a reporting and recording of information and

appoint key record keepers;

iv. All Parties to jointly agree for the exchange of key contact details and shall be

responsible for the updating of this information.

E. Education and Outreach Programmes

• Parties will agree to jointly support and implement outreach programmes:

i. Organise talks and workshops for plantation staff and workers;

ii. Development and implementation of an outreach programme:

a. Production of multi-lingual education material;

b. Introduction to forest and hunting legislations at estate level;

c. Environmental Appreciation and Awareness Programme (EAAP);

d. EAAP in schools and learning centres on OPP’s.

F. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and Conservation Activities

• SFD and SWD will provide support for RSPO and conservation activities:


i. SFD and SWD will provide support where applicable, the application process

of RSPO certification by OPP management;

ii. SFD and SWD will provide support where applicable, pertaining to the

compliance of RSPO Criterion 5.2 by OPP management;

iii. SFD and SWD will provide support and information for biodiversity

conservation initiatives on OPP’s;

G. Monitoring and Evaluation

• Parties will recognise the importance of regular monitoring and evaluation:

i. OPP management will support bi-yearly field activities pertaining to the

monitoring and evaluation of anti-poaching activities;

ii. Information obtained from F(i) will be used to review the effectiveness of the

conservation programme.

H. Cost-sharing programmes:

• All Parties will agree to discuss, review and jointly implement cost-sharing

initiatives pertaining to activities and equipment.

IV. Implementation of the MPWCA: • All Parties will commit to the implementation of the MPWCA:

A. Implementation Plan for individual OPP’s; B. Administrative team for the MPWCA; C. Implementation and review team; D. Annual review of MPWCA.

V. MPWCA Date, Terms and Tenure A. Effective date; B. Terms and tenure; C. Breach of the MPWCA.

VI. Signatories

VII. Appendices - Supporting information and documentation A. Background on oil palm companies adjacent to Malua FR; B. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Criterion 6.2 and Principle 9; C. High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) HCV Principles 1.1, 1.2 & 3; D. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) Principle 5, Criterion 5.2; E. Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997 – Part II, §7; Part IV; Part VIII & Part IX; F. Forest Enactment 1968; G. IUCN Redlist – Orang-utan and Asian Elephant; H. Key contact details.


6.2 Ground Operations and Adaptive Management

Strategies for ground operations management should be considered a funding priority and

where possible, could be reviewed through discussion among the parties concerned. Note

that some of these recommendations below may overlap with certain terms in the MPWCA

and may have already applied on the ground.

Ground Operations Management & Adaptive Management

1) Human-Wildlife Conflict Management Plan (HWCMP)

i. Assessment of individual needs of estates;

ii. Assessment of deterrent measures employed by estates;

iii. Guidelines for the use of deterrent measures;

iv. Planning and identification of vulnerable areas;

v. Reporting and record keeping of all wildlife incursions;

vi. Mapping;

vii. Maintenance of electric fencing;

viii. Training for SFD and estate staff and workers;

ix. Accreditation of successful trainees;

x. Continuous consultation with experts (SWD and KOCP);

xi. Monitoring and evaluation of (HWCMP).

2) Training needs assessment and capacity building

i. Training needs assessment for SFD staff relating to field activities

ii. Training needs assessment for estate management and workers relating to field activities;

iii. Capacity-building programmes designed in relation to training needs assessment results;

iv. Train the trainer in human-wildlife conflict (HWC) management for SFD staff;

v. Honorary Wildlife Wardenship (HWW) training with SWD and Hutan/KOCP for estate

management and workers.

3) Estate and community outreach programme

i. Presentations, workshops and talks with estate management and workers regarding

ground operations, environmental appreciation and awareness and, the MPWCA;

ii. Distribution of learning material such as posters, pamphlets and brochures in English,


Malay and Bahasa Indonesia;

iii. Introduction of environmental education at schools in the plantations;

iv. Wildlife interpretation interpretative trips to Malua FR boundary for both estate

management and workers.

4) Surveillance Strategies

a. Strategic surveillance planning:

i. Identification and mapping of access points for planning purposes;

ii. Assessment of the vulnerability of the MFR boundary for planning purposes;

iii. Concentrate patrolling on sections of the boundary where there are access paths;

iv. Patrolling duties can be conducted at different boundary sections on a random basis;

v. Patrolling schedules to be coincide with the seasons – observation of waterholes during

drier seasons;

vi. Patrolling schedules to be executed randomly and to be kept confidential;

vii. To be conducted over weekends and public holidays incorporating estate off days;

viii. Patrolling to include outreach with security staff at estate gates

ix. Joint patrols with estate security staff and HWW’s;

x. Joint river patrols with staff of Balat Checking Station;

xi. Patrolling to be conducted alongside information gathering exercise;

xii. Regular reviews of surveillance plan in consultation with estate security staff and HWW’s.

b. Spatial information analysis and mapping:

i. Mapping and rating of vulnerable points at the MFR boundary;

ii. Recording of GPS coordinates of sites of interest;

iii. Mapping of sites of interest where applicable;

iv. Updating of base maps (eg road access) where applicable;

v. Mapping information to be used for surveillance planning purposes.

c. Installation of closed-circuit television (CCTV:

i. Main estate gates at Pintasan 1 (point A and B), Pintasan 5/Sayrimo 9, Syarimo 1,

Syarimo 7 and Pintasan 8;

ii. Monitoring and maintenance of CCTV’s by SFD staff;

d. Access and entry points:

i. Urgent construction of access link between Forest Checking Station 37 (FCS37) and

Pintasan 5A (P5A);

ii. Installation of locked gate and signs between FC 37 and P5A;

iii. Review of additional access point on the Kinabatangan River (via Ladang Pin 7) used by

Balat villagers.


5) Information and Communication Channels

a. Communication and reporting systems;

i. Field information to be visually recorded in the form of photographs;

ii. Written and visual records and journals to be kept by SFD staff;

iii. Record books to be kept by estate management and settlements;

iv. Regular visits by SFD staff for the exchange and gathering of information with OPP

management, security and workers;

v. Regular face-to-face contact by SFD staff with OPP management, security and workers;

vi. Updates and reports from HWW’s;

vii. Information gathered in the field to be kept confidential;

viii. Contact details for key SFD and estate to be maintained and updated.

e. Additional Signage:

i. Patrol signs and anti-poaching signs at boundaries and estate gates, where apllicable;

ii. Closed-circuit television signage at estate gates;

iii. Information signage on conservation activities in MFR at strategic locations such as

MFR/estate boundaries and estate gates.

6) Monitoring, Evaluation and Review of Strategies

ii. Bi-yearly boundary surveys by external parties;

iii. Analysis and assessment of ground reports;

iv. Periodic review of ground operations;

v. Monitoring and evaluation outcomes to be used as a basis for future planning;

vi. Further consultation with community members;

vii. Yearly reviews of current strategies based on information gathered in the field.

7) Implementation of Malua Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement (MPWCA)

a) Implementation:

i. Implementation and workplan for the MPWCA to be drafted in consultation with

stakeholders;

ii. Appointment of MPWCA technical team;

iii. MPWCA outreach to estate management and operations;

iv. MPWCA outreach to HWW’s and estate communities;

v. Continuous review of ground activities based on MPWCA;

vi. Monitoring and evaluation on the overall effectiveness of the MPWCA;


vii. Supporting research where applicable.

b) Publicity campaign for MPWCA:

i. Formulation of publicity campaign strategies with estates;

ii. Appointment of a public champion from estate level;

iii. Joint publicity campaigns with estates and other bodies;

6.3 Recommendations for Further Research

6.3.1 Important Study Sites

1) Priority study site - Kampung Balat in Deramakot FR;

2) Potential study settlements to be considered:

a. Golden Apex settlement;

b. Ladang Bukit Segamaha settlement (Boustead Plantations).

6.3.2 Other Study Sites

3) Other estate settlements of lower priority:

a. KTS;

b. Kebun Jaya A (Tobe Property);

c. Kebun Jaya B (Tobe Property);

d. Sun Tat Lee;

e. Danumpalm.

(App 1b, Study estates and other plantations, Pg A2)


Chapter 7 Conclusion

Land use changes following the cessation of logging activities in the lead up to the

establishment of protected areas and oil palm plantations (OPP’s) within the past two

decades have created conflicting demands for wildlife conservation and OPP operations.

The formation of plantations in east and north Malua have brought about environmental,

economic and social changes which culminated in the founding of several estate

settlements. Although these largely foreign ‘communities’ bear little relation to the forests,

their proximity to Malua FR has made them unwitting but major stakeholders in the

conservation process. Therefore, it must be recognised that their continuous involvement is

vital to the success and sustainability of any conservation programme. To this end, the

Malua II Study seeks to identify common issues and mutually-beneficial solutions hence,

bringing about the imminent need for collaborative management in the form of the Malua

Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement (MPWCA) involving the major stakeholders of

wildlife conservation; the Sabah Forestry Department, Sabah Wildlife Department, Yayasan

Sabah and, OPP management and communities.

oil palm plantations, communities & forest use final report

Documents