completion report on the bornean biodiversity and ... - sabah · this completion report has...

Completion Report on the Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation (BBEC) Programme in Sabah, Malaysia

Edited by BBEC II Secretariat

BBEC Publication ISBN: 978-983-41084-8-9 Completion Report on the Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation (BBEC) Programme in Sabah, Malaysia Copyright© 2012 BBEC II Secretariat Editor: BBEC II Secretariat Published by: BBEC II Secretariat c/o Natural Resources Office Chief Minister’s Department 14th Floor, Menara Tun Mustapha 88502 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia Tel: +60-88-422120 Fax: +60-88-422129 URL: http://www.bbec.sabah.gov.my

Completion Report on the Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems

Conservation (BBEC) Programme in Sabah, Malaysia

Edited by

BBEC II Secretariat

-i-

Foreword This Completion Report has documented the Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation (BBEC) Programme which detailed out ten (10) years of experience in technical cooperation between the State Government of Sabah, Universiti Malaysia Sabah and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). The Report outlined the overall concept of BBEC programme together with the nature and the processes as well as challenges involved in the implementation of the activities in Ramsar and Man and Biosphere (MAB) sites. Therefore, the Report would be a useful handbook for similar activities in the future. The BBEC programme has also made us all aware about the importance of biodiversity and ecosystems conservation. At the same time it gave us the opportunity to work together with our Japanese counterparts on how to plan and to achieve a specific vision. Under this programme, more Malaysians of Sabah origin have also been trained either in Japan or other third countries. I do believe that this programme would surely have a very significant impact on Sabah as a whole in the future. I would like to congratulate Mr Motohiro Hasegawa, the Chief Advisor of BBEC Phase II (2007-2012) who has made this Report a reality. On behalf of the State Government of Sabah I would like to convey our gratitude to Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). Thank You.

TAN SRI SUKARTI WAKIMAN Sabah State Secretary

-ii-

Preface International community is facing an unprecedented challenge of deteriorating ecosystems such as tropical rainforest and wetlands, with more tangible and locally-based actions required particularly in developing countries. The breadth of the issues requires joint actions by a variety of stakeholders for solution, a task difficult to put into practice. International aid agents, with its commitment to global benefit, have a mandate to work on such difficult issues. The main task for international cooperation is to bring desirable changes in a society to secure its sustainability. The Bornean Biodiversity & Ecosystems Conservation (BBEC) Programme (2002-2012), a project among the Malaysian Federal Government, Sabah State Government, and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) under the technical cooperation scheme of Japan’s Official Development Assistance (ODA), is an example of a joint effort to carry out such task in Sabah. The BBEC Programme adopted a unique approach and strategies - a combination of technology transfer under BBEC Phase I (2002-2007) and policy support of BBEC II (2007-2012) to strengthen the conservation governance of Sabah. Also unique to the programme was for the bilateral aid to use multilateral initiatives such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Ramsar Convention, and UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, as tools to enhance common interests of a variety of stakeholders. While a conceptual framing is vital in conservation practice in order to achieve international resolutions such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets of the CBD, it is even more important to transform it into actual activities at the local level for its practical implementation. The conceptual background and approaches of the BBEC Programme are described in Chapter 2, the practice of the concept in Chapters 3 & 4. The main findings, implications, and knowledge gained from the Programme are outlined in Chapter 5. I sincerely hope that this report, documenting the 10 years of effort, will help guide a number of practitioners to design as many useful international cooperation projects as possible. Finally, I wish to acknowledge all Malaysian counterparts, Japanese professionals, and JOCVs who have devoted their time and effort on the BBEC Programme. Thank you very much and terima kasih banyak to everyone. Motohiro Hasegawa Chief Advisor, BBEC Phase II (2007-2012) Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia August, 2012

-iii-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD ……………..…………………………………………………………...... i PREFACE ………………….……...………………………………...….…………......... ii

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction to the BBEC Completion Report ……………………...…………… 1 1.2 Changes in the Land Use and Socio-economic Status of Sabah

1.2.1 Changes in the forest cover …...……………….…………………...…... 1 1.2.2 Socio-economic status and state income ……….......……………...…… 3

1.3 Conservation Policies 1.3.1 International trends in conservation .……...…......…...…………...…..... 8 1.3.2 Malaysian national policy on biodiversity .…………..………................ 9 1.3.3 State policy on biodiversity ……………….….………….…………….. 9 1.3.4 JICA’s policy on biodiversity ……………...……………...…….......…. 11

1.4 Issues and Challenges in Conservation 1.4.1 Common issues in conservation practice .…....…...…………...……...... 11 1.4.2 Conservation needs in Sabah .……………....………..………................ 12

CHAPTER 2 THE BBEC PROGRAMME: OVERALL CONCEPT AND APPROACH

2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 Building a sustainable society …………………………….....…….…… 13 2.1.2 Conservation governance …………………………...…….....…….…… 13 2.1.3 Roles of government: Creating public value ……………….………...... 14 2.1.4 Role of international aid ……………..………...………..…………...…. 15 2.1.5 Introduction to the BBEC Programme …………………………...…..… 16

2.2 Main Concept of the BBEC Programme 2.2.1 Basic framework of the Programme …………………...…..………...… 17 2.2.2 Adaptive management ……………………..……………….………….. 18

2.3 BBEC Approach 2.3.1 Capacity development …………..……………..……………………..… 19 2.3.2 Programme approach …………...…………………..….…………...….. 21 2.3.3 Participatory action-oriented assistance .………………………...…...… 23

2.4 Programme Evaluation 2.4.1 Objectives ……………….……...…………………..….…………...….. 24 2.4.2 Methodology .……………………………………………….…...…...… 24

-iv-

CHAPTER 3 BBEC PHASE I

3.1 Programme Strategy and Design 3.1.1 Formulation of BBEC I …………………………...…….....…...….....… 26 3.1.2 Programme design matrix (PgDM) …………..…………...….…...……. 26

3.2 Technology Transfer 3.2.1 Component-based approach ……………………………...…………….. 28 3.2.2 Management structure …….……………………………………...…….. 32

3.3 Major Outcome 3.3.1 BBEC Phase I as a programme ……………………..………..………… 33 3.3.2 Research and education component: REC ……….…...……...………… 34 3.3.3 Park management component: PMC ……………………..……….…… 34 3.3.4 Habitat management component: HMC ……………………..………… 35 3.3.5 Public awareness component: PAC ……………………..………...…… 36

CHAPTER 4 BBEC PHASE II

4.1 Programme Strategy and Design 4.1.1 Formulation of BBEC II ………………………….....………....….....… 37 4.1.2 Shift from Phase I to Phase II ………………..……….…...………….... 38 4.1.3 Programme design matrix (PgDM) …………..……….…...…………… 39

4.2 Policy Implementation 4.2.1 Task-based approach ……………………..…………...……...………… 42 4.2.2 Management structure …….……………………………………………. 46

4.3 Major Outcome 4.3.1 Programme purpose: Overall outcome …………………….…….…….. 47 4.3.2 Output 1: Development of a conservation system ………………….….. 51 4.3.3 Output 2: Pilot actions to strengthen the system ……………………….. 56 4.3.4 Output 3: Training capacity ……………………………………………. 72 4.3.5 High-level decisions as overall outcome ………………………………. 74

CHAPTER 5 EVALUATION & MAJOR FINDINGS

5.1 Summary of the BBEC Programme 5.1.1 Programme structure……………………….….…………...…………… 76 5.1.2 Development of conservation governance……………………………… 76

5.2 BBEC Phase I 5.2.1 Outline ………………………......…………….…………...…………… 78 5.2.2 Final evaluation in 2006 ………...…………….…………...…………… 78 5.2.3 Lessons learnt ……………………………………………..............……. 79

-v-

5.3 BBEC Phase II 5.3.1 Mid-term evaluation in 2009 …..………………………………...…….. 81 5.3.2 Final evaluation in 2012 ...…………………….…………...………...…. 82 5.3.3 Lessons learnt ……………………………………………...…………… 83

5.4 Major Findings from the BBEC Prpgramme: 10 Years of Experience 5.4.1 Effective approaches in strengthening conservation governance ...…..... 85 5.4.2 Tools and strategies in conservation practice for international

cooperation ..………….……...................................................................

90

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Practical implications of the BBEC Programme

6.1.1 General implications …………...………………………………...…….. 93 6.1.2 Biodiversity and ecosystem conservation sector of ODA ...………...…. 94 6.1.3 JICA’s approach in biodiversity and ecosystem conservation sector .…. 94

6.2 Future work in international cooperation on conservation 6.2.1 Sabah’s perspectives …………...………………………………...…….. 96 6.2.2 JICA’s perspectives ...…………………………………………….....…. 97

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………….. 99

APPENDICES

Appendix 1.1 Sabah Biodiversity Enactment 2000 …………………………..……… 103

Appendix 2.1 Principles and rationale of the ecosystem approach of the CBD ……... 123

Appendix 3.1 Final PDMs (Ver. 5) of the four components of BBEC I …………….. 126

Appendix 3.2 Final PgDM (Ver. 4) of BBEC I ……………………………………… 130 Appendix 4.1 Agreement between Malaysia and Japan for the implementation of

BBEC II ………..................................................................................... 131

Appendix 4.2 Original PgDM of BBEC II dated April 2008 ………………………... 134

Appendix 4.3 Revised PgDM of BBEC II dated December 2009 …………………... 136

Appendix 4.4 Sabah Call for Action as outcome of the AWS Sabah 2011 ………….. 139

Appendix 4.5 The first Sabah Biodiversity Council meeting in December 2007 …… 141

Appendix 4.6 River Environmental Education Programme (REEP) ………………… 142

Appendix 4.7 A sample schedule of the TCTP ……………………………………… 144 Appendix 4.8 Memorandum of Cooperation between the Ramsar Convention

Secretariat and JICA ………………………………………………….. 145

Appendix 6.1 The DAC List of ODA recipients………………...…………………… 152

-vi-

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1.1: Size of the main crop land (1,449,506 ha) in Sabah (Department of Statistics Sabah, 2008) ………………………..…..……

2

Table 1.2: Size of the forest land (4,300,000 ha) in each forest Classification in Sabah (Department of Statistics Sabah, 2008) …….……………………………………………...…………….....

3

Table 1.3: Summary of the permanent forest estate (3,604,867 ha) under the Sabah Forestry Department in Sabah (Sabah Forestry Department, 2008) …………...…………...…………...

3

Table 1.4: Sabah Population Growth 1980 – 2025 (State Government of Sabah, 2012) ………………………………….....………………………

4

Table 1.5: Sectoral contribution to Sabah's GDP (Department of Statistics Sabah, 1993 and 2010) …………………………………...……………..

4

Table 2.1: Description of the five evaluation criteria for JICA projects …………...

25

Table 3.1: Four components and responsible agencies of BBEC I ……..………….

27

Table 4.1: Summary of the two PgDMs of BBEC II ……………….………………

40

Table 4.2: List of workshops for the formulation of the SBS …….………………..

48

Table 4.3: Side event at the CBD COP 10 in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010, organised by BBEC II …………………………………………………..

49

Table 4.4: Symposium programme of the AWS Sabah 2011 (18-20 July 2011) …..

50

Table 4.5: The registration process of a wetland under the Ramsar Convention in Sabah …………………………………………………………….…...

57

Table 4.6: Summary of the planning process of a management plan for the Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands in Sabah …………………..

59

Table 4.7: Three groups for the development of a Ramasar management plan ……………………………………………………………………...

59

Table 4.8: Summary of the MAB nomination process for the Crocker Range Park in Sabah ………………………………………………………..…..

63

Table 4.9: Three zones of the Crocker Range Biosphere Reserve (CRBR) ………..

65

Table 4.10: Brief history of the CUZ at Ulu Senagang-Mongool Baru in Crocker Range Park, the core zone management of the proposed CRBR …………………………………………………………………...

69

Table 4.11: Signatories of the MAB application for CRBR …………………………

70

Table 4.12: Summary of the River Environmental Education Programme (REEP) activities ………………………………………………….…….

72

-vii-

Table 4.13: Outline of the Third Country Training Programme (TCTP) ……………

73

Table 4.14: Summary of the major actions of the Third Country Training Programme (TCTP) ……………………………….………… …………

74

Table 4.15: List of official approval and institutional agreement under the BBEC Programme …………………………………………………..

75

Table 5.1: Summary of the two phases in the BBEC Programme ………….………

77

Table 5.2: Results of the final evaluation on the four components of BBEC I in September 2006 .……………………………………………………...

78

Table 5.3: Results of the final evaluation on BBEC Programme Phase I in September 2006 …………………………………………………………

79

Table 5.4: Results of the mid-term review on BBEC Programme Phase II in December 2009 ………………………………………………………….

81

Table 5.5: Results of the final evaluation on BBEC Programme Phase II in May 2012 ……………………………………………………………………..

83

-viii-

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1.1: Changes in the size of oil palm plantation in Sabah (Department of Statistics Sabah, 2008)…………………….……………

2

Figure 1.2: Sabah's tourist arrival, 1998-2011 (State Government of Sabah, 2012) ………………………………………………………….…

5

Figure 1.3: Sabah's major exports in 2010 (Department of Statistics Sabah, 2010) …………………………………………………………….

5

Figure 1.4: Changes in Employment Structure, 1980-2010 (State Government of Sabah, 2012) …………………………………….………………………

6

Figure 1.5: Main sources of the state revenue, 1993-2010 (State Government of Sabah, 2012) ……………………………………………….………...….

7

Figure 1.6: Core components of the Sabah Development Corridor (IDS, 2007) ………………………………….…………………………...…….

10

Figure 2.1: Strategic triangle for creating public value (Moore, 1995) ……………..

15

Figure 2.2: Conceptual flow of adaptive management and the needs of assistance ………………………………………………………………..

19

Figure 2.3: Three levels in the capacity development (CD) of JICA (JICA, 2004) …………………………………………………………….

20

Figure 2.4: Three approaches of the capacity development (CD) from the aspect of entry point and the programme approach under the BBEC Programme (modified from JICA, 2006a) ………………………

22

Figure 2.5: Combination of power and interest, indicating the influential level of action (modified from Manktelow, 2009) ……………………………

23

Figure 3.1: Technology transfer for the key agencies as the entry point (component) approach (organisational development) in the CD process (Figure 2.4) ……………………………………………………..

28

Figure 3.2: Component leading agencies of BBEC Phase I ………………………...

31

Figure 3.3: Structure of the programme steering committee of BBEC I ……………

33

Figure 4.1: Comparison of the approaches between BBEC Phase I and Phase II (modified from BBEC II Secretariat, 2008) …………………………….

39

Figure 4.2: Location of the proposed sites for Ramar registration and UNESCO’s MAB Programme in Sabah …………………...……………

41

Figure 4.3: Policy assistance in the implementation of the SBE 2000 as the entry point approach (Institutional & Social Development) of the CD process (Figure 2.4) ………………………………………...………

42

Figure 4.4: BBEC I leading agencies of the four components and JICA office under BBEC Phase II ……………………………………………………

44

-ix-

Figure 4.5: JOCVs assistance on community empowerment with BBEC II advisors as an approach of the CD process (Figure 2.4) ………………..

46

Figure 4.6: Overall framework of BBEC II (modified from BBEC II Secretariat, 2008) …………………………………………………………………….

47

Figure 4.7: Interagency coordination through the Sabah Biodiversity Council and the Sabah Biodiversity Centre ……………………………………...

53

Figure 4.8: Zoning plan for the management of the whole river basin of the Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands (The river basin is categorised as the biodiversity conservation zone under the SDC, Figure 1.6) ………………………………………………………………

60

Figure 4.9: Schematic zoning pattern of a generalised biosphere reserve …………..

62

Figure 4.10: Zoning plan with the villages of the Crocker Range Biosphere Reserve (CRBR) ………………………………………………………...

66

Figure 5.1: A combination of the three approaches of the entry point model (Figure 2.4) as the programme approach practiced in the BBEC Programme ……………………………………………………………...

87

Figure 5.2: The BBEC Programme to assist in the establishment of a coordinated decision-making mechanism for the operation of adaptive management in Sabah ………………………...……………….

88

Figure 5.3: Target impacts of the combination of BBEC I & II as JICA’s programme approach, which goes beyond the social level of JICA’s CD model shown in Figure 2.3 …………………………………

89

Figure 5.4: BBEC Programme in the basic cyclical process of action research (Modified from Wadsworth, 1998 and McNiff, 2002) ………………….

89

Figure 6.1: The 25 hotspots for conservation priority (Myers et al., 2000) …………

95

-x-

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABS : Access and benefit-sharing ASEAN : Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BBEC : Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation Programme

CBD : Convention of Biological Diversity

CD : Capacity development

CEPA : Communication, Education, Participation, and Awareness

CITES : Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CRBR : Crocker Range Biosphere Reserve

CRP : Crocker Range Park

CTI : Coral Triangle Initiative

DAC : Development Assistance Committee

DID : Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Sabah

IDS : Institute for Development Studies (Sabah)

IPBES : Intergovernmental Science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

ITBC : Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation

JBIC : Japan Bank for International Cooperation

JICA : Japan International Cooperation Agency

LKSW : Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands

LSD : Lands and Surveys Department (Sabah)

MA : Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

MAB : Man and the Biosphere Programme (UNESCO)

MDGs : Millennium Development Goals

MEAs : Multilateral Environmental Agreements

NRE : Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (Malaysia)

NRO : Natural Resources Office, Sabah (Malaysia)

ODA : Official Development Assistance

OECD : Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

PAR : Participatory action research

PCM : Project Cycle Management

-xi-

PDM : Project Design Matrix

PgDM : Programme Design Matrix

PO : Plan of Operation

RIS : Ramsar Information Sheet

SaBC : Sabah Biodiversity Centre (Malaysia)

SBE 2000 : Sabah Biodiversity Enactment 2000

SCS : Sabah Conservation Strategy

SDC : Sabah Development Corridor

SEEN : Sabah Environmental Education Network

SEEP : Sabah Environmental Education Policy

SFD : Sabah Forestry Department

SPs : Sabah Parks

SWD : Sabah Wildlife Department

TRPD : Town and Regional Planning Department

UMS : Universiti Malaysia Sabah

UNDP : United Nations Development Programme

UST : Unit of Science and Technology

UNCED : United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit)

UNESCO : United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization

WWF : World Wide Fund for Nature

-xii-

LIST OF DOCUMENTS IN THE DVD

1. Manual for Permanent Research Plot in Crocker Range Park: Plot Establishment, Tree Census, Monitoring and Data Analysis. 2006. Edited by Hiroaki Ishida, Hibiki Takahira-Ishida, Idris Mohd, Sai, and Rimi Repin

2. An Introduction to the Crocker Range Park Permanent Research Plot Project. 2007. Edited by Monica Suleiman, Hiroaki Ishida, Maipol Sapait, Idris Mohd. Said, Aya Sugawara, and Rimi Repin

3. Sabah Biodiversity Strategy (2012-2022): Pamphlet

4. Learning platform for biocultural diversity and conservation Vol. 1: Traditional Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation in Sabah Vol. 2: Access & Benefit Sharing and Traditional Knowledge in Sabah Vol. 3: Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) & Traditional Knowledge in Sabah Vol. 4: Biodiversity Information Management & TK in Sabah Vol. 5: Formulating the Sabah Criteria for ICCAs Vol. 6: Supporting Biocultural Diversity and Conservation in Sabah Vol. 7: Towards Traditional Knowledge Protection within the proposed IR on ABS & the

CBD

5. The Sabah ICCA Review: A review of Indigenous Peoples’ and Community Conserved Areas in Sabah. 2011. Fadzilah Majid Cooke & Justine Vaz

6. Manual for monitoring of Sabah Environmental Education Policy (SEEP) with Results of the 1st Monitoring, 1st Edition. 2011. BBEC II Secretariat

7. Lower Kinabatangan Segama Wetlands Ramsar Site Management Plan Vol.1. 2011. Sabah State Government

8. Handbook for wildlife monitoring using camera-traps. 2012. BBEC II Secretariat

9. Lower Kinabatangan Segama Wetlands Ramsar Site Management Plan Vol.2. (Ramsar CEPA Kit). 2011. Sabah State Government

10. Cintai Sungai-Sngai di Taman Banjaran Crocker (English: Love and Care the Rivers in the Crocker Range Park). 2006. Edited by Shuko Iwata and Maipol Spait

11. A guidebook for planning and preparation of River Environmental Education Programme (REEP)

12. A guidebook for conducting Third Country Training Programme (TCTP)

13. Aichi Biodiversity Targets of the CBD COP 10, in Nagoya, Japan. 2010: Pamphlet

14. Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2011. Secretariat on the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada.

-1-

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction to the BBEC Completion Report

This completion report is the final product of the 10 years of the Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation (BBEC) Programme (2002-2012). The main purpose of this report is to consolidate the experience and knowledge gained in the programme in a concise manner to share with the counterparts, practitioners and researchers for the future actions in biodiversity conservation, whether or not related to Japan’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) projects. This report focuses on Phase II (2007-2012) of the BBEC Programme while briefly referring to Phase I (2002-2007) which was summarised and documented separately in the Programme Completion Report (BBEC Phase I) published in 2008. It is compiled to provide sufficient evidence and information for any readers to understand the whole process of the BBEC Programme including its outcome and significance.

1.2 Changes in the Land Use and Socio-economic Status of Sabah 1.2.1 Changes in the forest cover The loss of tropical rainforests in Sabah has been accounted for commercial logging and land conversion for agriculture, promoted on the basis of interest of the local producers and consumers overseas. Interest of international market in the dipterocarp species sharply increased since the second half of the 20th century, stimulating waves of commercial investments in the forests of Asia including Sabah (de Jong et al., 2003). It was estimated that 86% (6.4 million ha) of the land in Sabah was covered with forests in 1972, which was reduced to 57.1% (4.2 million ha) in 1995 (Tsuzuki, 1999a). The mature and undisturbed forests of Sabah were reduced down to 22.3% by 1992 (Ross, 2001). Land conversion for agricultural use is another major factor affecting the loss of forests in Sabah. After the time of sugar cane plantation, tobacco plantation boomed, which was fostered and protected as it created a significant source of the state revenue in the 1880s, followed by rubber plantation as a major cash crop in early 1900s (Tsuzuki, 1998). Recent estate crop production has shifted from tobacco and rubber to oil palm, resulting in conversion of larger areas of forest into plantation. There was a rapid and sharp increase in the size of oil palm plantation in the 1990s, and it reached more than 1.3 million ha in 2007 (Figure 1.1). The size of oil palm plantation holds the single highest land coverage among the major crops in Sabah today (Table 1.1).

-2-

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1984 1994 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Are

a of

Oil

Palm

Pla

ntat

ion

(ha)

Figure 1.1 Changes in the size of oil palm plantation in Sabah (Department of Statistics Sabah, 2008)

Table 1.1 Size of the main crop land (1,449,506 ha) in Sabah (Department of Statistics Sabah, 2008)

Crop Land Size (ha) % 1. Rubber 73,293 5.1

2. Oil Palm 1,311,515 90.5

3. Coconut 18,673 1.3

4. Cocoa 9,691 0.7

5. Paddy 36,334 2.5 Total 1,449,506 100

Today, 58.4% (4,300,000 ha) of the total land of Sabah (7,362,000 ha) is forest land (Table 1.2), of which 83.8% (3,604,867 ha) is under the management of Sabah Forestry Department (Table 1.3). Of the forest land of 4,300,000 ha, 65.8% (2,829,000 ha) is classified as disturbed forest (Table 1.2). Of the forest land managed by Sabah Forestry Department (SFD), 74% (2,665,886 ha) is classified as commercial forest (Table 1.3). The statistics show that the majority of the remaining forest in Sabah today is disturbed due to either logging or agriculture.

-3-

Table 1.2 Size of the forest land (4,300,000 ha) in each forest classification in Sabah (Department of Statistics Sabah, 2008)

Forest Classification Size (ha) % 1. Mangrove 341,000 7.9

2. Swamp forest 120,000 2.8

3. Undisturbed forest 100,000 2.3

4. Disturbed forest 2,829,000 65.8

5. Hill forest 716,000 16.7

6. Plantation forest 194,000 4.5 Total 4,300,000 100

Table 1.3 Summary of the permanent forest estate (3,604,867 ha) under the Sabah Forestry Department in Sabah (Department of Statistics Sabah, 2008)

Class Type of Forest Size (ha) % I Protection Forest 364,766 10.1

II Commercial Forest 2,665,886 74.0

III Domestic Forest 7,355 0.2

IV Amenity Forest 21,284 0.6

V Mangrove Forest 320,522 8.9

VI Virgin Jungle Reserve 92,401 2.6

VII Wildlife Reserve 132,653 3.7

Total 3,604,867 100

1.2.2 Socio-economic status and state income 1.2.2.1 Population growth Sabah is the 3rd most populous state in Malaysia, after Selangor and Johor. The state’s population has grown rapidly from 0.93 million in 1980 to 3.12 million in 2010 (Table 1.4). The population growth rate was 5.6% from 1980 to 1991, 3.9% from 1991 to 2000, and 2.3% from 2000 to 2010. The growth rate has slowed down in recent years but still in an increasing trend. The population of Sabah is projected to reach 4.2 million by 2025 even with a modest annual growth rate of 2%, representing an additional 1 million people compared to the current population size today (Table 1.4) and pushing the population density up to 57 persons/km2 with an increase of

-4-

almost 30% from the current density. The additional population will need to be fed, sheltered, clothed, and educated, bringing considerable pressure on land and natural resources of the state.

Table 1.4 Sabah Population Growth 1980 – 2025 (Sabah State Government, 2012)

Year 1980 1991 2000 2010 2025

Population Size (million) 0.9 1.7 2.5 3.1 4.2

1.2.2.2 Changes in the economic structure

Sabah’s economic structure has been changing with a reduction in the agriculture sector and an increase in the service sector (Table 1.5). The service sector is now an important source of growth for the state with an example being the tourism industry, having achieved a strong growth over the past 10 years. The number of visitors visiting the state increased rapidly from less than 0.5 million in 1998 to 2.5 million in 2010 (Figure 1.2). Tourist arrivals in Sabah reached the highest on record, 2.84 million visitors, in 2011, bringing the state an estimated RM 4.98 billion cash inflow. However, Sabah’s economy still relies on a resource-based economy with close to 40% of its GDP originating from the agriculture, mining and quarrying sectors. Sabah’s exports in 2010 were dominated by palm oil (36% share of the total export value), crude petroleum (35%) and palm kernel oil (5%) (Figure 1.3), reflecting the dominance of resource-based economic activities.

Table 1.5 Sectoral contribution to Sabah's GDP (Department of Statistics Sabah, 1993 and 2010)

Sector 1993 2010

1. Agriculture 37.6 22.9

2. Mining & Quarrying 14.5 16.9

3. Manufacturing 13.8 7.9

4. Construction 3.2 1.4

5. Services 33.9 50.4

-5-

Source: Sabah Tourism Board, various years

Figure 1.2 Sabah's tourist arrival, 1998-2011 (Sabah State Government, 2012)

Palm oil36%

Methanol2%

Hot briquetted iron2%Others

17%

Plywood3%

Palm kernel oil5%

Crude petroleum35%

Figure 1.3 Sabah's major exports in 2010 (Department of Statistics Sabah, 2010) In terms of employment, while agriculture and forestry accounted for more than half of the employment in the state in 1980 (Figure 1.4), the figure dropped to less than 30% in 2010. In contrast, wholesale and retail trade, hotels and restaurants increased from 7.8% in 1980 to 22% in 2010 in their percentage of employment. The changes to the employment structure also suggest the shift of workplaces to urban areas.

-6-

Source: Yearbook of Statistics, Sabah, 2006

Figure 1.4 Changes in Employment Structure, 1980-2010 (Sabah State Government, 2012)

1.2.2.3 State revenue and natural resources The forestry sector, once the largest contributor to the state revenue of about 75% in 1979, has declined to about 10% in 2011, reflecting the depletion of the forest resources as well as the state’s policy to better manage logging operations. The state revenue, however, still relies heavily on extraction of natural resources and land-based activities, such as sales tax on crude palm oil, royalty and fees on forest produce and petroleum royalty (Figure 1.5). Customs duties in the form of import and excise duties on petroleum used to be the second highest contributor to the State’s revenue, with an average annual contribution of more than 17% during the period 1995-1999. However, customs revenue has dropped to a negligible level following the state’s decision to support the national government’s commitment under the ASEAN Free Trade Area to abolish import and excise duties on petroleum products effective from 1 January 2000. Petroleum royalty from the Federal Government has since become one of the main sources of the state revenue, which constituted about 20% of the state revenue in 2010. Sabah introduced the State Sales Tax Enactment in 1998, focusing heavily on the collection of sales tax on crude palm oil. It has increased significantly since the early 2000s on the basis of higher crude palm oil prices. To date, this form of sales tax represents the most important source of revenue, accounting for over 35% of the total state revenue. This has more or less offset the loss of revenue from the forestry sector.

5.1 2.0 1.8 8.0 15.0

19.0 21.2 21.3

19.6 15

0.9 2.2 3.2 3.5 4.9 2.8 4.2 4.6 4.7 4.6 7.8

12.6 17.5

21.5 22.0

3.2 6.2

5.9 7.7 7.8

4.8

9.1 11.4

11.4 8.1 56.1

41.9 34.0 30.5 32.1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1980 1991 2000 2006 2010

Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishery Mining and quarrying

Manufacturing

Construction

Wholesale and retail trade, hotels and restaurants Transport, storage and communications

Finance, insurance, real estate, renting and business activities Public admin, defence, community, education, health, social and personal services Others

-7-

The shift from the reliance on primary sector towards the secondary and tertiary sectors should theoretically, in the long-run, reduce the pressures on the land and natural resources. However, the structural changes to the economy towards the services sector may not yield much additional revenue to the state government, because most of the taxes on the services sector (such as the sales and service taxes, custom duties, etc.) are accrued to the Federal government. For example, although Sabah receives a large number of tourists (2.5 million as of 2011), there is no direct income to the state government from this industry. Therefore, the main income base for the Sabah state government will still be revenue from land and natural resources in the years to come unless changes are made to the current system.

Source: Sabah Treasury Department, State Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure, various years

Figure 1.5 Main sources of the state revenue, 1993–2010 (Sabah State Government, 2012)

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Millions RM

Forests

Lands

Royalties

Sales Tax

Contributions/Federal Grant

-8-

1.3 Conservation Policies 1.3.1 International trends in conservation With the industrial revolution reaching an advanced stage today, its way of life has created unprecedented risks and issues to the human society. Patterns of material consumption, often associated with land alteration, are no longer sustainable on a global scale. Transition to a sustainable society is imperative while it is a long-term and complicated process and the tasks, difficulties, and opportunities vary among societies in different circumstances (Pirages, 1996). In this situation, biodiversity and ecosystem conservation has been the centre of unprecedented attention in recent years. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) holds as many as 193 signatory countries as of May 2012 (http://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/list/), indicating world-wide acceptance of its mission and framework. It functions in collaboration with other international biodiversity-related conventions1 to promote policy coherence, setting out common agenda among them. However, the implementation of the CBD has been reportedly lagging while world’s environmental problems are getting more serious according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), conducted from 2001 to 2005 (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Pisupati & Rubian, 2008). The conclusion was presented at the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the CBD in Nagoya, Japan in 2010 that the CBD’s “2010 Biodiversity Targets2

” had not been achieved despite international efforts since 2002 (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010).

The MA predicted that “the pressures on ecosystem will increase globally in coming decades unless human attitudes and actions change” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). It is suggested that a radical approach be taken to attain sustainability of societies while coordinated efforts on protection of natural assets be enlisted across relevant sections of governments, businesses, and international institutions, since the productivity of ecosystems depends on policy choice on investment, trade, subsidy, taxation, and regulation, among others. Close coordination and cooperation is required among sectors responsible for protection and management of land and natural resources, which indicates that cross-sectoral approach with proactive interagency coordination in policy development and implementation is crucial for making societies sustainable (Roux et al., 2008). 1 (1) The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), (2)

The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention), (3) The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), and (4) The World Heritage Convention (WHC).

2 To achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth.

http://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/list/�

-9-

1.3.2 Malaysian national policy on biodiversity Malaysia ratified the CBD as the 65th contracting party in 1994. Malaysia advocates a development path that emphasises conservation while maintaining economic growth. Malaysia’s national policy on biological diversity was officially declared in April 1998 with a vision “to transform Malaysia into a world centre of excellence in conservation, research and utilisation of tropical biological diversity by the year 2020.” Its policy statement is “to conserve Malaysia’s biological diversity and to ensure that its components are utilised in a sustainable manner for the continued progress and socio-economic development of the nation.” The main objective of the national policy is to achieve conservation and sustainable utilisation of the nation’s biological diversity. The policy is primarily based on the recognition of cultural diversity, national heritage, natural capital, roles of local communities, public awareness and use of biological diversity, which ensure optimum economic benefit, food security, environmental stability, biosafety, and preservation of unique biological heritage and traditional knowledge.

1.3.3 State policy on biodiversity Sabah State Government follows Malaysian national environmental management framework. Mainstreaming the integration of environmental consideration in the sectoral and socio-economic development to achieve a sound and sustainable development has been a national focus as well as in Sabah. State Government of Sabah passed the Sabah Biodiversity Enactment 2000 (SBE 2000), a legal instrument to establish an institutional platform as a legitimate mechanism with the Sabah Biodiversity Council (Council) and Sabah Biodiversity Centre (SaBC) to coordinate multiple agencies to implement integrated conservation activities (Appendix 1.1). The key function of the SBE 2000 is to operate access and benefit-sharing (ABS), one of the targets of the CBD. For a proper operation of ABS, it is inevitable that various state agencies be coordinated in an appropriate manner by the Council and SaBC for its implementation. Practical implementation of the SBE 2000 began in 2008 when SaBC was officially launched under the Council in May (Section 4.3.2.3). Primary conservation policies in Sabah also include the Sabah Conservation Strategy (SCS) developed in 1992 as well as Sabah Development Corridor (SDC) of 2007. Both employed multi-sectoral and holistic approaches on conservation and sustainable development. The SCS was prepared for the Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Development of Sabah by World Wide Fund for Nature Malaysia in 1992. The conservation strategy claims that “there is an urgent need for planning a firm control of land allocation on the regional basis…without this, all present and future attempts to conserve natural resources and protect environmental quality through statutory powers will be permanently undermined” (WWF, 1992).

-10-

The SDC is a long-term blueprint (2008-2025) to enhance the quality of life for the people of Sabah by accelerating the growth of state economy, promoting a regional balance and bridging the rural-urban divide while ensuring sustainable management of the state’s resources (IDS, 2007). Three key principles of the SDC are:

(1) Capture higher value economic activities, (2) Promote balanced economic growth with distribution, and (3) Ensure sustainable growth via environmental conservation.

The sub-regions and growth centres are systematically planned to ensure optimum resource allocation, and development efforts are aptly coordinated (Figure 1.6). It is notable that the Kinabatangan river basin with the Ramsar site (Section 4.1.3.2) is categorised as the biodiversity conservation zone in the SDC.

Figure 1.6 Core components of the Sabah Development Corridor (IDS, 2007)

-11-

1.3.4 JICA’s policy on biodiversity Basic policies of Japan’s official development assistance (ODA) are (1) supporting self-help efforts of developing countries, (2) human security, (3) assurance of fairness (i.e. environmental considerations, gender equality, etc.), (4) utilization of Japan’s experience and expertise, and (5) partnership and collaboration with the international community. In response to the discussion originated at the “Earth Summit” of 1992, Japanese Government launched the Environmental Conservation Initiative for Sustainable Development (EcoISD) in 2002 to support developing countries in environmental conservation using Japan’s ODA. The basic principles of the EcoISD are: (1) capacity development in environment, (2) active integration of environmental considerations, (3) environmental awareness, (4) cooperation under broad and comprehensive frameworks, and (5) application of Japanese experience and scientific knowledge. Japan joined the CBD in 1993 as the 18th member state, committed to make contributions to global biodiversity conservation. To this end, Japan’s ODA provides various programmes to strengthen multiple functions, from research to conservation and the management of parks and nature reserves, in order to conserve natural ecosystems with rich biodiversity. In its role of practicing ODA, JICA employs issue-based approach wherever possible instead of scheme-based approach such as technical cooperation, grant aid, and loan schemes. Each sector has its own unique features and strategies for which JICA develops specific sector policies. Nature or ecosystem conservation sector of JICA consists of three main areas: (1) biodiversity conservation, (2) sustainable use of natural resources by local residents, and (3) sustainable forest management. In the area of biodiversity conservation, the establishment of data-base on biodiversity, effective management of wetlands, and protected areas such as national parks are emphasised.

1.4 Issues and Challenges in Conservation

1.4.1 Common issues in conservation practice Issues related to the use of natural resources involve a variety of stakeholders and actors and are often closely associated with unequal positions among stakeholders (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). Ecosystem is divided into different constituents such as mineral, soil, forest, water (lake, river and ocean), wildlife, and others, with each element usually categorised under the management of different government agencies. Conservation is an interdisciplinary complex practice, involving a wide range of natural and social sciences and that interagency coordination is crucial when integrated approach is practiced. However, implementation of such approach is often a challenge, because agencies are independent and have their own duties and mandates. Usually, interagency actions and cooperation are not a mandate of any agencies or institutions (Thomas, 2003).

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/environment/wssd/2002/kinitiative3-2.html#04�

-12-

1.4.2 Conservation needs in Sabah It was reported in the SCS 1992 that there was no effective integrated system for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation based on scientifically sound data in Sabah (WWF, 1992). To make a conservation plan, it is necessary to begin with understanding the current status of biodiversity and ecosystem, then essential research skills and knowledge need to be strengthened. It was expected that the Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation (ITBC) of Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) could serve as one of the core agencies contributing to the conservation of biodiversity in Sabah, but it was a new institution being established in 1996 with a limited institutional capacity (e.g. staff). Therefore, scientific capacity (e.g. facility and skills such as taxonomy) of the state was insufficient, and data collection was an imminent requirement for the implementation of conservation actions. Another major challenge was lack of system/platform for integrated conservation in the state. The SBE 2000 was passed in 2000, which aims to enable Sabah to practice conservation in an integrated manner with the Council and SaBC. Actual operation of the system began in 2008 so it was essential to be strengthened.

-13-

CHAPTER 2 THE BBEC PROGRAMME: OVERALL CONCEPT AND APPROACH

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 Building a sustainable society Achieving a sustainable society is an ultimate goal of the international community, and governance is one of the key factors to make it happen. Achieving a sustainable society does not only involve changing the use and allocation of natural resources, but also reshaping values and institutions within a society. There are two major requirements to be focused: first is to maintain a viable natural environment, and second is to assess sociopolitical system (Pirages, 1996). Action with desirable changes to attain a sustainable society is thus a cluster of environmental-sociopolitical paradoxes and problems including political, social, economic, and scientific issues. It has been noted that much of the world’s rich biodiversity exists within developing countries that require assistance from donors to develop environmental policy and strengthen implementation capacity for conservation (Smith et al., 2003). Natural resources are often important as sources of income so that their management is a complex process. Smith et al. (2003) observed that governance is a key factor to overcome environmental conflict, and that international cooperation is expected to support developing and implementing well-balanced conservation policies. The Secretariat of the CBD recognises the importance of international cooperation to address the strategic plan for the implementation to support developing countries in the area of conservation (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2006).

2.1.2 Conservation governance To achieve a sustainable society, the development of conservation governance is one of the essential factors. The World Bank defines governance as “the exercise of political authority and the use of institutional resources to manage society's problems and affairs (World Bank, 1991).” In this report, conservation governance is defined as “a system or a process, which allows a government to make coordinated and collective decisions with multiple agencies in order to address complicated cross-cutting conservation issues.” Environmental problems are often unpredictable, so countermeasures have to be adaptive based on scientifically sound data, and conservation governance provides a basis for the operation of adaptive management (Section 2.2.2). This is part of the requirements in the CBD’s ecosystem approach that is a strategy to practice integrated conservation (Appendix 2.1). The key factor for developing such governance is to establish an official system or process to make collective

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank�

-14-

decisions with a legitimate body to achieve a practical interagency coordination and cooperation within a government. It can be considered that “conservation governance is strengthened” when a system or process of making coordinated-decisions on cross-cutting conservation issues is officially established and functions in a practical manner, and its sustainability is secured. However, developing an interagency coordination with a coordinated decision-making mechanism is a complex and time-consuming process since each agency is naturally territorial and focused on enhancing its own autonomy (Thomas, 2003). For an effective promotion of interagency coordination, key elements such as interests of the main actors, interpreted as incentives for actions, need to be understood clearly and shared well.

2.1.3 Roles of government: Creating public value Moore (1995) observed that the government is not a simple provider of administrative public services. Their services can be interpreted as actions or intervention to “create public (social) value.” To determine components of public value and methods to produce it, Moore (1995) developed a concept of strategy in the public sector called “strategic triangle” (Figure 2.1). This process involves a variety of stakeholders in which the government plays a key role. The main idea of this strategy is to focus the attention of government managers on the following three complex issues that need to be considered before committing themselves or their subordinates to a particular course of actions:

(1) First, what is the important “public value” the organisation seeks to produce? (2) Second, what sources of “legitimacy and support” would be relied upon to authorise the

organisation to take action and provide the resources necessary to sustain the effort to create that value?

(3) Third, what “operational capabilities” would the organisation rely on to deliver the desired results?

First issue, “public value” is similar to what is explained as “common interest” of stakeholders. It must be clarified before any actions are taken. It is important to establish a sense of purposefulness in management even in a world in which values are contested. Second issue, “legitimacy and support,” is critical when the concept of public value is to be pursued. Legitimacy and an official support can be powerful tools to create enabling environment for the implementation of specific actions. The third and final issue, “operational capabilities,” is essential for an agency to hold experts with professional skills and knowledge to be able to implement actions or to provide guidance for other agencies or people to act accordingly. This competence should include technical skills or knowledge as well as financial strength and power to mobilise a variety of resources.

-15-

Figure 2.1 Strategic triangle for creating public value (Moore, 1995) The challenge in the public sector is to identify a vision of public value that can command a legal assistance and official support, and is operationally feasible in the domain for which the government is responsible. Moore (1995) also suggested a constant political fight for resources and authorisation. Furthermore, the necessary capabilities may be sourced from outside the organisation when required, implying the importance of third party intervention (e.g. foreign aid). This aspect is discussed as part of the BBEC approach in Section 2.3, focusing on the crucial role of international cooperation in the capacity development (CD) in Sabah.

2.1.4 Role of international aid 2.1.4.1 Promoting global public goods Environmental sustainability (e.g. biodiversity and ecosystems such as rainforests and wetlands), peace, greater economic well-being, health, and social justice have been identified as global public goods whose benefits reach across borders, generations, and population groups (Kaul et al., 1999). Global public goods bring a variety of benefits that cannot easily be confined to a single “buyer” (or set of “buyers”); yet, once provided, many stakeholders can enjoy them without payment. Human security and sustainable development will be elusive without those goods and services. As globalisation proceeds, domestic policy objectives such as environmental conservation are increasingly subject to international influence. To attain national goals, governments ought to increasingly depend on international cooperation to achieve some control over transboundary forces that affect their citizens (Martin, 1999). Such trend poses a dual challenge in international

Public Value Operational Capabilities

Legitimacy & Support

-16-

cooperation: the need to transform the matter from “external affairs” into policy-making applicable to domestic issues and into development of concepts and instruments for practicing collective action (requires interagency coordination). Under such circumstances, it is expected that international cooperation functions in the catalytic position of translating international concepts and resolutions into practice within developing countries and achieving national policies to support global public goods.

2.1.4.2 Assisting policy process Policy is worthless if it is not actually implemented, while implementation involves a complex mixture of activities with various actors (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984). Lipsky (1980) claimed that policy implementation in the end comes down to the agencies and people who actually implement policies on the ground. They are often police officers and social workers who “work on the streets,” and Lipsky (1980) called the implementation part of the policy process “street-level bureaucracy.” Issues and problems involved in policy implementation are often related to limited resources and capacity of implementers; negotiation and interpretation are needed for making compromise in reality (Fraser, 1989). Policy is a struggle and its implementation is a complex process so government’s capacity for its implementers is critical. In the implementation process, policies need to be monitored and evaluated and results need to be fed back for further decision-making as part of the adaptive management (Section 2.2.2). When policies are created based on important social needs, the capacity of implementers should be assessed adequately, and necessary actions and countermeasures (e.g. capacity building of policy implementers) should be taken. In this process, a third party intervention, possibly taking a form of international cooperation, may be desirable particularly in developing countries.

2.1.5 Introduction to the BBEC Programme The Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation (BBEC) Programme is a joint technical cooperation between the State Government of Sabah, Malaysian Federal Government (Universiti Malaysia Sabah) and the Government of Japan, conducted under Japan’s ODA. The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) is the implementing agency of the programme under the grant technical cooperation scheme of Japan’s ODA. The primary objective of the programme is to support the State Government of Sabah to strengthen their conservation governance through development of an integrated and durable system for the implementation of biodiversity and ecosystem conservation (BBEC II Secretariat, 2008). To develop a state-wide conservation system integrating various management activities on different

-17-

ecological elements such as land, water, and living organisms, several responsible agencies need to be appropriately coordinated for synergy in a decision-making process. The adaptive management (Section 2.2.2) based on the concept of the ecosystem approach of the CBD (Appendix 2.1) seems as a practical example for this decision-making mechanism, where interagency coordination is crucial for its smooth operation. The BBEC Programme consists of two phases: Phase I (BBEC I) from February 2002 to January 2007 focused on technical support, and Phase II (BBEC II) from October 2007 to September 2012 emphasises policy support. During BBEC I, four agencies such as (1) Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation (ITBC) of Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS), (2) Sabah Parks (SPs), (3) Sabah Wildlife Department (SWD), and (4) Unit of Science and Technology (UST) were selected as the main counterpart agencies for capacity building with an extensive transfer of research skills and knowledge to strengthen their technical aspect of conservation (JICA, 2002; JICA, 2008; BBEC II Secretariat, 2008). For BBEC II, additional agencies such as Natural Resources Office (NRO), Sabah Forestry Department (SFD), and Sabah Biodiversity Centre (SaBC) are included as key counterparts to integrate conservation efforts. The official establishment of SaBC was priority at the initial stage of BBEC II since it is one of the key agencies for the implementation of the SBE 2000. A legitimate agency to practice interagency coordination is required in order to link up multiple agencies and strengthen the state-wide conservation governance despite differences in institutional size, duties and mandate among various agencies (BBEC II Secretariat, 2008).

2.2 Main Concept of the BBEC Programme

2.2.1 Basic framework of the Programme The BBEC Programme adopted the ecosystem approach of the CBD as its main concept (Appendix 2.1). It was approved as one of the most important principles of the Convention, indicating primary directions in social change based on ecological concepts, at the 5th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the CBD in 2000 (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004). The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water, and. living organisms that promotes conservation and sustainable use of those resources, which is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies. Human activities, particularly traditional/cultural activities, are regarded as part of the natural ecosystems in this concept. It is focused on the level of biological formation that encompasses the essential processes, functions, and interactions among all living organisms and their environment.

-18-

One of the principles of the ecosystem approach of the CBD is that “integrated conservation requires adaptive management to deal with the complex and dynamic nature of ecosystems and the absence of complete knowledge or understanding of their functioning” (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004).

2.2.2 Adaptive management Adaptive management facilitates responding to uncertainties with the elements through “learning-by-doing” or research feedback (Walters, 1986; Walters & Holling, 1990). For the implementation of a management system of this kind, there has to be an integrated conservation framework, which ensures monitoring and/or research data to be fully utilised in the decision-making process (feedback system). Adaptive management has been acknowledged as an important management principle in the 1990s and 2000s, particularly in the area of conservation, which involves the integration of project design, management, and monitoring of natural resources (Johnson, 1999). The key features of this management method/process consist of the following elements (Williams et al., 2009):

(1) Iterative decision-making process (evaluating results and adjusting actions on the basis of what has been learned),

(2) Feedback between monitoring and decisions (learning process), (3) Explicit characterisation of system uncertainty through multi-model inference, (4) Bayesian inference: As evidence accumulates, the degree of belief in a hypothesis ought

to change. Hypotheses with higher support should be accepted as true and those with lower support should be rejected as false, and

(5) Embracing risk and uncertainty as a way of building understanding.

For developing a mechanism of adaptive management, two requirements were envisaged as necessary: (1) basic technical skills and knowledge to collect and analyse data and (2) institutional framework to operate a feedback mechanism to make coordinated decisions (Figure 2.2). The management system will not function unless both technical skills and an institutional framework are developed and strengthened in a sustainable manner.

-19-

Figure 2.2 Conceptual flow of adaptive management and the needs of assistance

2.3 BBEC Approach 2.3.1 Capacity development United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) defines capacity development (CD) as “transformations that empower individuals, leaders, organisations and societies” (UNDP, 2009). JICA defines CD as “the process in which individuals, organisations, institutions and societies develop abilities either individually or collectively (to respond to issues) to perform functions, solve problems and set and achieve objectives by partners themselves” (JICA, 2004; JICA, 2006a). JICA views the CD as an endogenous process in which partner countries take the lead. It is intended to harmonise with other approaches such as technology transfer (transfer of specific technology) and technical cooperation (transfer of a unit or form of technologies) to make ODA

2nd Requirement (Institutional Setup)

1st Requirement (Technical Skills)

2. Design Management

Actions

1. Assess Problems

(Baseline data)

6. Adjust Management

Actions

5. Evaluate Monitoring

Data

4. Monitor Management

Actions

3. Implement Management

Actions

7. Feedback

Interagency coordination for

making coordinated decisions

-20-

assistance more effective and efficient, while it usually requires a longer period of implementation than that of technology transfer and the technical cooperation (JICA, 2004). In the process-oriented CD approach of JICA, “capacity” is defined as “ability (problem-solving ability) of individuals, organisations, institutions, and societies to individually or collectively perform functions, set and achieve objectives, and solve problems” (JICA, 2004; JICA, 2006a). The ability is an assembly of a variety of factors including laws, policies, and social systems. The main concept of JICA’s CD is focused on actions by means of stimulating motivation of various stakeholders to facilitate spontaneous self-help effort as a catalyst in developing countries. Core activities under the CD are closely related to assistance in the development of social systems, strengthening organisations, and supporting human resources development (UNDP, 2009). As illustrated in Figure 2.3, capacity embraces (1) individual level, (2) organisational level, and (3) social level (including socio-political level), between which CD is aimed at facilitating a process to link and strengthen interaction among them (JICA, 2006a). Empowerment process should be institutionalised in a society to make it a long-term and dynamic process and avoid its weakening and fading (Chambers, 1997). In this context, capacity building at (1) individual level and (2) organisational level are focused under BBEC I as technology transfer (institutional capacity building), and (3) social level (developing conservation governance) is emphasised under BBEC II. This is a practical application of the programme approach (Section 2.3.2) to cover all the levels to promote collective changes (paradigm shift) in a society. However, policy-related assistance on conservation has been limited in Japan’s ODA projects (Mori, 2000).

Figure 2.3 Three levels in the capacity development (CD) of JICA (JICA, 2004)

Individual level

Organisational level

Social level

-21-

JICA’s CD process calls for the following three main approaches to be considered in the formulation of an ODA project, depending on the target counterpart i.e. the main actor for entry point (Figure 2.4): (1) community empowerment (community-based actions: grassroots level), (2) organisational development (technology transfer: organisational level), and (3) institutional and social development (policy support to develop social systems at national or state level). All levels must be reinforced to sustain the effect of input from aid agencies is to be sustained for a certain period of time. One of the fundamental problems in developing a social and institutional system to promote social changes is imbalance in the capacity among levels and stakeholders (JICA, 2004). This is why it is essential to identify the most effective aid approach shown as the “entry point model” (Figure 2.4). JICA’s approach is to facilitate actions to minimise such capacity imbalance and promote a dynamic development process in the partner country (JICA, 2006a). One of the main concepts of the BBEC approach is to combine primarily the entry points of (2) and (3) with the application of the programme approach. In addition, (1) community empowerment was also carried out as part of the programme, particularly in collaboration with JOCVs under BBEC II.

2.3.2 Programme approach JICA’s programme is defined as “a strategic framework for providing assistance for the achievement of specific long-term and mid-term development goals of developing countries,” while a multi-project is a set of projects that falls into the same category (JICA 2006c). Multi-project approach is to aim at efficient management of each project, but the programme approach pursues to achieve the programme goals by focusing on functional integration of projects, generating synergetic effects, and thereby maximising the result to be achieved as a whole. With the introduction of the programme approach in 2006, formulation, implementation, and management of aid schemes of JICA have shifted to encourage mid-term and long-term goals with strategic scenarios to focus on the policy of different sectors. Because of its complexity by nature, a programme at its formulation stage requires a clear definition of its (1) cooperation goals, (2) cooperation scenarios to achieve the goals, and (3) functional integration of multi-projects and coordination with other agencies. The programme approach still calls for more case studies and analysis to deepen its understanding and resolve confusion that has been observed (JICA, 2006a).

-22-

Figure 2.4 Three approaches of the capacity development (CD) from the aspect of entry point and the programme approach under the BBEC Programme (modified from JICA, 2006a)

Entry Point

Overall Goal Laws & Policies

3. Institutional and social development (BBEC II)

Responsible Government Agencies

- Various government agencies - Private companies / institutions - Civil society & communities

Main Actor

Entry Point

Overall Goal

Government Agencies

2. Organisational development (BBEC I)

User 1

Main organisations with target functions to be strengthened

User 2 User 3

Main Actor

1. Community empowerment

Entry Point

Overall Goal

Main Actor

Government Agencies Other

Areas

Other Areas

Local Gov. Agencies

NGOs

Communities

-23-

2.3.3 Participatory action-oriented assistance Quality of actions to be shared with key participants is crucial for introducing desirable changes in a society. Integration of conservation activities is highly dependent on the level of agreement and sharing of primary objectives and interests by relevant actors and stakeholders. A level of influential impact from an action can be considered the reflection of a combination of actor’s power and stakeholder’s interest (Figure 2.5). Under the BBEC Programme, almost all state agencies of Sabah that are associated with biodiversity and ecosystem conservation are the participants of the programme. Interest and incentive are shared in both BBEC I and BBEC II such as provision of necessary equipment and facilities, organising joint seminars and field expeditions to transfer skills and knowledge in the collection and analysis of data for publication in the initial stage of the programme were important part of the Phase I. In Phase II, achieving international recognition to establish self-confidence and promote voluntary actions are emphasised. International initiatives such as the Ramsar Convention and UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme are considered as pilot actions to consolidate a variety of stakeholders.

Figure 2.5 Combination of power and interest, indicating the influential level of action (modified from Manktelow, 2009)

Low

High

Actor’s Power

High Low

Most Influential Action

Least Influential Action

Stakeholder’s Interest

-24-

2.4 Programme Evaluation 2.4.1 Objectives JICA projects/programmes are usually reviewed twice (mid-term and final) during the course of implementation. Objectives of the review are:

(1) To verify the accomplishments of the Programme compared to the plan, (2) To examine the process of the Programme compared to the plan, (3) To identify obstacles and/or facilitating factors that have affected the implementation

process, (4) To analyze the Programme in terms of the five evaluation criteria such as Relevance,

Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability, and (5) To make recommendations for necessary actions and measures in order to attain the

Programme Purpose for the remaining period.

2.4.2 Methodology Evaluation on the BBEC Programme is carried out by a mission composed of representatives from Japan and Malaysia. The mission uses the programme design matrix (PgDM) and plan of operation (PO) as key references to review the implementation process, outcome and so on. The evaluation/assessment/analysis is conducted based on the secondary data (e.g. report analysis/review) and primary data (e.g. interview and field observation). The JICA Guidelines, applying the five evaluation criteria of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), are used in the evaluation (Table 2.1). Results of the evaluation on the BBEC Programme are provided in Chapter 5.

-25-

Table 2.1 Description of the five evaluation criteria for JICA projects

Criteria Description

1. Relevance Degree of compatibility between the development assistance and priority of policy of the target group, the recipient, and the donor.

2. Effectiveness A measure of the extent to which an aid activity attains its objectives.

3. Efficiency Efficiency measures the outputs – qualitative and quantitative – in relation to the inputs. It is an economic term which is used to assess the extent to which aid uses the least costly resources possible in order to achieve the desired results. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving the same outputs, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted.

4. Impact The positive and negative changes produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. This involves the main impacts and effects resulting from the activity on the local social, economic, environmental and other development indicators.

5. Sustainability Sustainability is concerned with measuring whether the benefits of an activity are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn. Projects need to be environmentally as well as financially sustainable.

-26-

CHAPTER 3 BBEC PHASE I

3.1 Programme Strategy and Design

3.1.1 Formulation of BBEC I

BBEC I was formulated in a participatory manner, using JICA’s Project Cycle Management (PCM). PCM is a participatory development method based on a so-called logical framework (log-frame), a concept widely used in the formulation and evaluation of Japan’s ODA projects (FACID, 2008). It requires holding a series of workshops with a variety of stakeholders in the project formulation process. A project design matrix (PDM) is prepared using the outcome of the stakeholder analysis, problem analysis, objective analysis, and project selection (combination of activities). Upon receiving the initial request from ITBC (UMS) for international cooperation, JICA sent a BBEC I project formulation mission four times and organised 16 PCM workshops in different locations inviting a variety of stakeholders from the government sector, private sector, and NGOs from 2000 to 2001 in Sabah (JICA, 2000; JICA, 2008). A total of more than 300 individuals participated in the PCM workshops in which a variety of activities were proposed and later compiled into BBEC I.

3.1.2 Programme design matrix (PgDM) BBEC I Programme was formulated among many potential activities suggested in the workshops to achieve desired effects in conservation. The activities were grouped into four components as the component-based approach (Table 3.1): (1) Research and Education Component (REC), (2) Park Management Component (PMC), (3) Habitat Management Component (HMC), and (4) Public Awareness Component (PAC). However, the BBEC members were not limited to the leading agencies of those four components, and NGOs and other state agencies such as the Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID), Sabah Forestry Department (SFD), Environment Protection Department (EPD), Lands and Surveys Department (LSD) and others were also involved in various activities (JICA, 2008). A PDM was prepared for each component (project) with specific objectives and targets, and technology transfer was specifically designed to strengthen the technical capacity of the four leading agencies of the components under BBEC I (Table 3.1). Although it appeared as if the programme was composed of four separate projects with each agency in charge coordinating its own activities within their jurisdiction for the respective component, all components were combined under one programme using JICA’s programme approach with a programme design

-27-

matrix (PgDM) of integrating the four components (Table 3.1). The purpose of BBEC I as a programme in the PgDM was defined as a “comprehensive and sustainable approach for conservation to be established” as the component-based approach.

Table 3.1 Four components and responsible agencies of BBEC I

Component (Project/PDM)* Responsible Agency Project Purpose

1. Research and Education Component (REC)

Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation (ITBC) of UMS

An appropriate research and education model for conservation is established.

2. Park Management Component (PMC)

Sabah Parks (SPs) Effective management options for protected areas are developed.

3. Habitat Management Component (HMC)

Sabah Wildlife Department (SWD)

An integrated approach to habitat management for important wildlife species is established.

4. Public Awareness Component (PAC)

Unit of Science and Technology (UST)

Models to change behaviours of the target groups towards biodiversity conservation are established.

5. Programme Design Matrix (PgDM)**

(1) Overall Goal (2) Programme Purpose

Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems in Sabah are enhanced.

Comprehensive and sustainable approach for conservation is established.

(3) Seven outputs of the BBEC Programme Phase I

Output 1: A monitoring system and integration among components for comprehensive conservation is enhanced.

Output 2: An appropriate research and education model for conservation is established.

Output 3: Effective management options for protected areas are developed.

Output 4: An integrated approach to habitat management for important species is established.

Output 5: Models to change behaviours of the target groups towards biodiversity conservation are established.

Output 6: A more permanent framework as a basis for comprehensive conservation which is modelled from BBEC is developed.

Output 7: The plan, progress and results of the Programme are made known to the public.

*) PDM (Ver. 5, Final): Project design matrix (Appendix 3.1) **) PgDM (Ver. 4, Final): Programme design matrix (Appendix 3.2)

-28-

3.2 Technology Transfer

3.2.1 Component-based approach 3.2.1.1 Aim and key functions of the approach As presented in Section 2.2.2 (Figure 2.2), BBEC Programme is aimed at developing a coordinated decision system as part of the adaptive management, with BBEC I focusing on strengthening of basic technical skills of the key agencies. This approach fits in with one of the entry point models of the CD of JICA, the “organisational development” as shown in Figure 3.1. During the BBEC I formulation process described in Section 3.1.1, it was identified that the main entry points would be ITBC-UMS, Sabah Parks, SWD and UST as part of the conservation system to be developed (Figure 3.1). There were a number of stakeholders outside the four agencies who were not specified in the project plan – it is notable that a need for multi-sectoral platform to be established was already observed, which was focused in the following phase (BBEC II).

Organisational Development: Technical Cooperation (BBEC I)

Figure 3.1 Technology transfer for the key agencies as the entry point (component) approach (organisational development) in the CD process (Figure 2.4)

Component-based Actions Agency oriented (component-based) activities (i.e. research expedition, wildlife habitat management and park management)

1. ITBC-UMS 2. Sabah Parks 3. SWD 4. UST

Entry Point (Component)

Overall Goal

User 1


User 2 User 3

Main Actor

Government Agencies

-29-

3.2.1.2 Main actors in the component-based approach: Organisational development process Responsible agencies (counterparts) of the four components under BBEC I are shown in the institutional chart (Figure 3.2). Other agencies including DID, SFD, EPD and others including NGOs also participated in the implementation of the activities by collaborating/assisting the four leader counterpart agencies of the components. To facilitate the interagency coordination among the four leading agencies of the components, the Unit of Science and Technology (UST) of the Chief Minister’s Department was selected as the main office of the JICA-BBEC I (i.e. office space for Chief Advisor, Figure 3.2). However, UST had no legal instrument on practising institutional coordination in contrast to an agency like SaBC under BBEC II.

(1) Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation: Universiti Malaysia Sabah (ITBC-UMS)

The Tropical Biology and Conservation Unit was established in 1996 within Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) under the Ministry of Higher Education of the Federal Government of Malaysia, after two years of the foundation of UMS as the 9th public university in Malaysia. The unit was accommodated in a new building in 2001 when it was upgraded to be the Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation (ITBC). In its first 10 years, the number of staff at ITBC increased from 19 (including 1 professor, 3 associate professors and 1 tutor) to 63 (including 1 professor, 7 associate professors, 15 lecturers, 6 tutors). It is expanding both in size and content, with the construction of a new building with extra laboratories for students to be completed in 2012.

(2) Sabah Parks (SPs) Sabah Parks (state agency) was established in 1962 with the establishment of the Sabah National Parks Ordinance, which was later replaced by the National Parks Enactment 1977 and the Parks Enactment 1984. It is managed by the Sabah Parks Board of Trustees, which consists of a Chairman, Deputy Chairman, three ex-officio members, four other members, and the Director of Sabah Parks. Kinabalu Park of Sabah was established in 1964 as one of the first national parks of Malaysia. Sabah Parks is responsible for preserving areas that contain significant geographical, geological, biological, historical or natural features of high aesthetic values as a national heritage for education and enjoyment and other benefits for the people of Sabah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_parks_of_Malaysia�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_parks_of_Malaysia�

-30-

Some of the existing parks were under the management of Sabah Forestry Department as forest reserves before the Parks Enactment was gazetted in 1984. For instance, Crocker Range Park (139,919 ha), the largest terrestrial park in Sabah, was designated as a forest reserve in 1968 under the Forest Enactment 1968. It was re-gazetted as a park in 1984 based on the Parks Enactment. Today, the total area of the state parks in Sabah is about 256,749 ha accounting for approximately 3.5% of the state (7,362,000 ha). The number of staff at Sabah Parks was about 215 (170 park rangers) in 1985 when the Parks Enactment was approved, which showed a threefold increase to 658 officers (494 park rangers) by 2011.

(3) Sabah Wildlife Department (SWD) Sabah Wildlife Department (SWD) was the Wildlife Unit within Sabah Forestry Department until 1987. Legal instrument for wildlife conservation was the Fauna Conservation Ordinance of 1963 until the Wildlife Conservation Enactment was passed in 1997, which is a legal basis for SWD today. Under the Enactment, SWD manages wildlife sanctuaries and regulates wildlife utilisation in Sabah. A major wildlife sanctuary is the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary of 26,106 ha (0.4% of the total land of Sabah). The total number of staff at SWD was approximately 175 in 1997, which increased to 198 officers (65 wildlife rangers) by 2011.

(4) Unit of Science and Technology (UST) The establishment of the Unit of Science and Technology (UST) was approved by the Sate Cabinet in November 1996 and the operation initiated under the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Environment in January 1997. The jurisdiction was then shifted in April 2003 to the Chief Minister’s Department. The total number of staff of UST was 6 (3 technical staff) before BBEC I, which increased to 15 (7 technical officers and 8 supporting members) as of 2011. The core functions of UST are (1) promotion of science and technology in Sabah, (2) developing partnership in research and strengthening science and technology, and (3) developing information skills. The main objectives of the UST are: to create a new generation of internationally competitive industrial and service clusters; to establish and develop linkages with national and foreign counterparts to gain access to new science and technology development; and to promote science and technology as the central component of the government environmental conservation and development efforts.

-30-

Figure 3.2 Component leading agencies of BBEC Phase I

-31-

BBEC I Head of State (Governor of Sabah)

State Secretary

State Cabinet

Ministers

Chief Minister

Chief Minister’s Department

State Attorney-General’s Chambers

Economic Planning Unit

Lands and Surveys Department

Forestry Department

Natural Resources Office

Unit of Science and Technology JICA-BBEC I Office

Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Environment

Sabah Agriculture Department

Fisheries Department

Department of Irrigation and Drainage

Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry

Federal Government

Ministry of Higher Education

Universiti Malaysia Sabah Institute for Tropical Biology

and Conservation (ITBC)

Sabah Museum

Environment Protection Department

Wildlife Department

Sabah Parks

Sabah Tourism Board

-32-

3.2.1.3 JICA professional

(1) JICA advisors JICA has dispatched a variety of short-term (< 1 year) and long-term (> 1 year) Japanese advisors to Sabah for BBEC I during 2002-2007 in order to provide technical support to the counterpart agencies, not limited to the four leading agencies. In total, 52 advisors (approximately 400 man-month) including 19 long-term advisers were dispatched to Sabah (JICA, 2006b). The short-term advisors were provided with particular terms of reference to meet specific technical needs as requested; on the other hand, the long-term advisors worked within relevant counterpart agencies on a full-time basis to provide day-to-day support technically in substantial and influential manners. It has been reported that the efficiency of technology transfer largely depended on the amount of interaction and the quality of working relationship between the long-term advisors and counterpart personnel. The expenses for the Japanese professionals in BBEC, as in all other grant aid programmes, were financed by the Japanese Government through JICA. The total expenditure of BBEC I was approximately 12 million US dollars, which covered cost for professionals, necessary equipment, overseas training, seminars, workshops, field work, publication, and construction of facilities (JICA, 2006b).

(2) Japan Overseas Cooperation Volunteers (JOCVs) As part of the programme approach, Japan Overseas Cooperation Volunteers (JOCVs) cooperated under BBEC I wherever possible although they had their own mission, mandate, and responsibility. This collaboration indicated that JOCV Programme has a significant potential particularly when coordinated with technical support such as the BBEC Programme for the implementation of activities especially in remote areas. The total of eight positions3

with 174 man-month of JOCVs was deployed and supported BBEC I technically as part of the programme.

3.2.2 Management structure The overall management structure of BBEC I is shown in Figure 3.3 (JICA, 2008). The programme was managed by an interim committee such as the steering committee headed by the State Secretary of Sabah as the Programme Director and the Vice-Chancellor of UMS (part of the Federal Government) as the Deputy Programme Director. Other committee members, representatives from relevant organisations, are shown in Figure 3.3. It should be noted that there

3 UST (1), Sabah Parks (2), Keningau District (1), RDC/SFD (1), ITBC (3)

-33-

was no legitimate (powerful) permanent counterpart agency that was legally assigned or specifically responsible for implementing the crucial tasks such as interagency coordination and integration of all the components/agencies and their activities under BBEC I. Leading agencies of the components also regularly met for systematic coordination and information exchange.

Figure 3.3 Structure of the programme steering committee of BBEC I (JICA, 2008)

3.3 Major Outcome 3.3.1 BBEC Phase I as a programme Of the detailed outcomes of the four components compiled in the BBEC I Completion Report (JICA, 2008), some major highlights are summarised in this section. The agencies which participated in the programme activities of BBEC I improved their technical skills and developed a basic institutional network among them through the implementation of joint activities among multiple agencies. However, further effort was called for to develop a state-wide framework for comprehensive conservation in Sabah.

Vice Chancellor of UMS

JICA’s Chief Advisor for the Programme

(1) ITBC-UMS (Leading Organisation)

Other Implementing

Organisations, Working Group for the Research

and Education Component

(3) Wildlife Department (Leading Organisation)

Other Implementing

Organisations, Working Group for the Habitat

Management Component

(4) Science and Technology Unit (Leading Organisation)

Other Implementing

Organisations, Working Group for the Public Awareness

Component

Director, Regional Economics and

Environment, EPU

Permanent Secretary,

MTCE

Secretary, Natural

Resources Office

Director, State

Economic Planning

Unit

Director, Lands and Surveys

Department

Director, Forestry

Department

Programme Coordinator and other delegates

(2) Sabah Parks (Leading Organisation)

Other Implementing

Organisations, Working Group for the Park

Management Component

State Secretary

Programme Steering Committee

-34-

3.3.2 Research and education component: REC For Research and Education Component (REC), improvement was observed in technical skills such as the methodology of field data collection (e.g. specimen of fauna and flora) and taxonomy and establishment of permanent ecological monitoring plots through the joint field work (e.g. scientific expeditions). The total of five major scientific expeditions was conducted under the leadership of ITBC (UMS) and with cooperation of four other implementing agencies: SFD, SPs, SWD, and Sabah Foundation. Major achievements include (JICA, 2008):

(1) Joint expeditions to the Kinabatangan floodplain, Crocker Range Park, Lower Segama, Maliau Basin and Kulamba Wildlife Reserve (strengthened interagency network),

(2) Approximately 19,000 biological specimens collected in the scientific expeditions, developed into a database,

(3) Capacity development on conservation-related techniques including taxonomy, DNA analysis (laboratory equipment and skills) for population genetics, etc.

(4) The six permanent plots (0.25 ha each) established for ecological monitoring in the Crocker Range Park (strengthened interagency network) (DVD Data 1 & 2), and

(5) Approximately 70 books and monographs and a large number of papers and articles published.

Small tree measurement

Large tree measurement using a growth band

(dendro-meter)

3.3.3 Park management component: PMC For Park Management Component (PMC), SPs carried out extensive activities in Crocker Range Park (CRP) with other agencies, e.g. SWD, SFD, UMS, EPD, LSD and eight District Offices around CRP (JICA, 2008). One of the key outcomes was the acquisition of basic skills in social survey and understanding of community-based approach in protected area (park) management. Although the Parks Enactment 1984 does not allow any people to live inside the parks, SPs

-35-

recognised the importance of the customary right of indigenous people for living inside the parks based on social survey and discourse. With JICA’s technical support, Sabah Parks prepared a CRP management plan, which included the concept of community use zone (CUZ) to permit indigenous people to live inside the park under a certain condition and mutual understanding (collaborative management). Major achievements in this component include:

(1) Developed a Crocker Range Park Management Plan, (2) Introduced the concept of Community Use Zone (CUZ) in Crocker Range Park, which

allows communities to stay and use natural resources inside the park, and (3) A village profile survey, covering about 600 households (3,500 people) within and

around the Park.

Resource mapping by the villagers

A 3-D model for resource management

3.3.4 Habitat management component: HMC For Habitat Management Component (HMC), SWD has selected key wildlife species (i.e. orang utan, pigmy elephant, Tembadau and proboscis monkey) for conservation and identified some critical habitats for protection. Implementing partners of this component included SFD, SPs, LSD, EPD, two District Offices, Sabah Foundation, etc. (JICA, 2008). SWD strengthened their survey and analytical skills on population dynamics, behaviour and habitats. They promoted participation by local communities in conservation by linking ecotourism and an honorary wildlife warden system that is to certify local villagers as temporary wildlife rangers (game wardens) to manage around the villages. Major achievements in this component include:

(1) High-priority wildlife corridor of about 2,500 ha identified in the Lower Segama, linking Tabin and Kulamba Wildlife Reserves,

(2) Community-based ecotourism introduced in Dagat village in the Lower Segama, and

-36-

(3) Implementation of an honorary wildlife warden system in which local villagers were assigned to watch for illegal activities in remote areas (Dagat village).

Dagat village homestay programme Casting a fishing net – the homestay programme 3.3.5 Public awareness component: PAC In Public Awareness Component (PAC) headed by UST included Environmental Action Committee, Sabah Foundation, SPs, EPD, SWD, NGOs and so on (JICA, 2008). They closely worked with school teachers and journalists and developed a practitioners’ network called Sabah Environmental Education Network (SEEN). A key outcome of this component was drafting of the Sabah Environmental Education Policy, enlightened by seminars and workshops with the participation of a variety of stakeholders. Major achievements in this component include:

(1) Approximately 70 public awareness campaigns conducted for about 1,500 people, (2) Focused group training organised for approximately 100 school teachers and 30

journalists, and (3) Drafting of the Sabah Environmental Education Policy.

School exchange programme Journalists Task Force

-37-

CHAPTER 4 BBEC PHASE II

4.1 Programme Strategy and Design

4.1.1 Formulation of BBEC II Based on the recommendations of the BBEC I evaluation, JICA sent an official mission to Sabah from February to March 2007 to formulate Phase II of the BBEC Programme. The cross-sectoral approach with third party intervention (international cooperation) for conservation was further strengthened due consideration of the final evaluation, especially on Output 6 of BBEC I (Table 3.1, Section 3.1.2), during the preparatory process for BBEC II (BBEC II Secretariat, 2008). Significance and needs for the establishment of a sustainable mechanism for institutional coordination to consolidate multiple agencies for integrated conservation were discussed in the meetings and workshops during the BBEC II formulation. Mission members and counterpart officers unanimously suggested that the implementation of the Sabah Biodiversity Enactment 2000 (SBE 2000) was a challenging task considering the fact that SaBC had not been officially established under the Council for seven years. Nevertheless, the mission concluded that the implementation would be a unique opportunity for Sabah to develop a permanent framework for integrated conservation, and JICA could take part in the process as an outside aid agent. One of the most crucial paths for the implementation of the Enactment was to activate the Council and officially establish SaBC in an early stage of BBEC II. The JICA mission’s approach was to make recommendations in the official document of agreement (Minutes of Meeting) between Malaysia and Japan a clause to the effect that “The activation of the Sabah Biodiversity Council and the Sabah Biodiversity Centre is essential for the success of the programme, which is expected to be achieved at the early stage of the programme” (JICA, 2007). Also suggested was the inclusion of clauses in the Minutes “The midterm evaluation to be conducted jointly by both Japanese and Malaysian side, which will focus on examining the above aspect.” and “Based on the result of the evaluation, representatives of the two parties may deliberate continuation or significant modification of the programme” (Appendix 4.1). In development of an integrated conservation system in Sabah, it was essential to invite the Secretary of Natural Resources Office (NRO) as the Programme Manager of BBEC II, so that the balance would be maintained between various state agencies on natural resources management.

-38-

4.1.2 Shift from Phase I to Phase II Interagency coordination can be achieved through cooperation when stakeholders have clear incentives to work together towards common goals. In this sense, the BBEC II planning process was important particularly for sharing the common goals and incentives among the actors and stakeholders. Upon the official agreement between Malaysia and Japan on the basic framework of BBEC II, eight PCM workshops were conducted from January to March 2008 with the attendance of approximately 240 people (30 participants in each workshop) to prepare a plan of operation (PO) for specific activities under BBEC II. Cooperative relationships are typically observed in agencies working together to produce an outcome unachievable by a single agency (Thomas, 2003). As delivering institutional benefit to the collaborating agencies is a key factor to maximise synergy effects, actions towards international recognition using international initiatives were proposed during the PCM workshops, with the examples of the Ramsar Convention and UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme. Specific roles and recommended activities of the state agencies were explained with expected benefit and functions of each agency in the context of the river basin management (Ramsar designation) and integrated protected area management (MAB nomination), which are pilot actions of Output 2 of BBEC II (Section 4.1.3.2). SaBC with the role of coordinating agencies did not exist during the PCM workshop in March 2008, but all collaborating agencies agreed to proceed with the proposal on integrated conservation with the coordinating role assumed by NRO until the official launch of SaBC. As integrating various conservation efforts for synergy through an appropriate interagency coordination was a key issue in the formulation and implementation of BBEC II, the component-based approach of BBEC I for technology transfer had to be converted to the task-based approach of BBEC II for policy implementation to integrate various agencies (Figure 4.1). The four components of Phase I and other conservation-related state agencies were integrated primarily into the two tasks of Output 2, i.e. the river basin management (Ramsar designation) and integrated protected area management (MAB nomination). These two tasks were regarded as pilot actions to strengthen the capacity of interagency cooperation of the Sabah State Government (NRO/SaBC). The significant feature of the task-based approach in BBEC II is the role of SaBC and NRO, coordinating all activities under the single framework, which strengthened the conservation governance of Sabah. Institutional coordination in BBEC I was led primarily by the component leader within each component, and coordination among the four components was rather limited compared with BBEC II.

-39-

Phase I: Component-based Approach Phase II: Task-based Approach

Component Leading Agency* Task Relevant Agency

1. Research & Education (REC)

UMS (ITBC) Integration

Output 1 (1) Establishment of

SaBC and its capacity development through pilot actions under Output 2

(2) Implementation and monitoring of Environmental Policy

SaBC, NRO, SFD, SWD, UST, ITBC-UMS, DID, Lands & Surveys, and others

2. Park Management (PMC)

Sabah Parks Integration

Output 2 (1) River Basin

Management (Ramsar Convention)

SaBC, NRO, SFD, SWD, UST, ITBC-UMS, DID, Lands & Surveys, Fisheries, Sabah Foundation and others

3. Habitat Management (HMC)

Sabah Wildlife Department (SWD)

Integration

(2) Integrated Protected Area Management (MAB Programme, UNESCO)

SaBC, NRO, SPs, SWD, UST, ITBC-UMS, SFD, DID, Lands & Surveys and others

4. Public Awareness (PAC)

Unit of Science & Technology (UST)

Output 3 Third country training programme (TCTP)

SaBC, NRO, SFD, SWD, UST, ITBC-UMS, EPD, DID, NGOs, and others

* Members of the working groups are listed in Section 3.3

Figure 4.1 Comparison of the approaches between BBEC Phase I and Phase II (modified from BBEC II Secretariat, 2008)

4.1.3 Programme design matrix (PgDM) 4.1.3.1 Development of PgDM BBEC II has one programme design matrix (PgDM) to oversee all activities, in contrast to BBEC I. The original PgDM was developed and endorsed by the Programme Steering Committee during the formulation process in March 2007, and modified in December 2009 in the mid-term review (Table 4.1). Details of the PgDMs such as sub-outputs, indicators, activities etc., are shown in Appendices 4.2 and 4.3. Despite the modification of the original PgDM in the mid-term review, the most important goal of “strengthening a conservation system” was maintained throughout the duration of the programme. This conservation system needs to be developed and strengthened based on the

-40-

conceptual model of adaptive management shown in Figure 2.2, requiring active interagency coordination by a legitimate agency. Table 4.1 Summary of the two PgDMs of BBEC II

Programme Design

Matrix (PgDM)*

Original PgDM*

(April 2008)

Revised PgDM**

(December 2009)

1. Overall Goal Biodiversity and ecosystems conservation in Sabah is strengthened and internationally recognised as a conservation model.

Biodiversity and ecosystem conservation in Sabah is strengthened and internationally recognised.

2. Programme Purpose A system for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation in Sabah is strengthened and Sabah State becomes a centre for extension of knowledge and information to other areas of Malaysia and foreign countries.

A system for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation in Sabah is strengthened and Sabah state becomes capable of extending knowledge and skills on biodiversity conservation to other states of Malaysia and foreign countries.

3. Output 1 Functions and implementation capacity of Sabah Biodiversity Council/Centre are enhanced.

The capacity of the Sabah State to plan, coordinate, and promote biodiversity and ecosystem conservation activities is strengthened.

4. Output 2 Biodiversity and ecosystem conservation activities are implemented.

The capacity of Sabah state agencies and UMS to implement biodiversity and ecosystem conservation activities for protected areas such as state parks, wildlife conservation areas, and forest reserves is enhanced.

5. Output 3 Extension services and training capability related to the biodiversity and ecosystems conservation are enhanced.

The capacity of Sabah State agencies and UMS to provide training on biodiversity and ecosystem conservation is enhanced.

*) Appendix 4.2 **) Appendix 4.3

4.1.3.2 Selection of pilot activities under the framework of the SBE 2000 It is almost a prerequisite for different agencies to share common interest as a basic goal when working together. From this aspect, an incentive to motivate the target stakeholders is indispensable as described in the CD process (Section 2.3.1). However, it is often difficult to identify whether an action is effective as an incentive - it varies depending on time, place, and individual (Bennett & Franco, 2000). This section describes how pilot and priority activities were

-41-

determined in light of the effect of international recognition as an incentive to consolidate stakeholders in Sabah. A strategy to use international recognition as a common incentive was explained in the PCM workshop, which appeared effective and productive in that the participants agreed to work towards certification of a wetland ecosystem under the Ramsar Convention and registration of terrestrial/mountain ecosystem under UNESCO’s MAB Programme. The processes of the Ramsar designation and MAB nomination have been considered pilot actions to strengthen Sabah’s conservation capacity (governance) with the interagency coordination led by NRO/SaBC (BBEC II Secretariat, 2008). Figure 4.2 shows the locations of the potential first Ramsar site and the first biosphere reserve under the MAB Programme in Sabah as of March 2008 when the PO was prepared for BBEC II. The third country training programme (TCTP) was also an important avenue to achieve international recognition under BBEC II. The programme was part of Output 3 (Table 4.1). The experience and knowledge gained through the BBEC Programme were shared with other countries particularly within the ASEAN region. The national focal point of the TCTP was the Federal Economic Planning Unit (EPU) and later shifted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia.

Figure 4.2 Location of the proposed sites for Ramar registration and UNESCO’s MAB Programme in Sabah

Crocker Range Park for MAB nomination

Forest reserves for Ramsar registration

-42-

4.2 Policy Implementation

4.2.1 Task-based approach 4.2.1.1 Aim and key functions of the approach The component-based approach with the four leading agencies of BBEC I was converted into the task-based approach under BBEC II to strengthen the capacity of interagency coordination of the state agencies, consolidating the efforts of different stakeholders. This interagency coordination by SaBC is to develop the conservation framework based on the SBE 2000. JICA’s assistance through the implementation of the task-based activities with SaBC’s interagency coordination fits into JICA’s policy assistance model shown in Figure 4.3. Coordination capacity of SaBC is to be strengthened though the priority tasks, i.e. Output 2 of the river basin management (Ramsar registration and planning) and integrated protected area management (MAB nomination).

Institutional & Social Development: Policy Assistance (Phase II)

Figure 4.3 Policy assistance in the implementation of the SBE 2000 as the entry point approach (Institutional & Social Development) of the CD process (Figure 2.4)

Task-based Actions Activities require active interagency coordination (i.e. Ramsar registration & planning and MAB nomination)




Main Actor

1. ITBC-UMS 2. Sabah Parks 3. Sabah Wildlife Dept. 4. UST 5. Sabah Forestry Dept. 6. Other agencies

1. NRO 2. SaBC Entry Point

Sabah Biodiversity Enactment 2000

-43-

The river basin approach is a joint initiative of the CBD and Ramsar Convention integrating the management of inland water, water resources, wetlands and associated biodiversity. The approach was applied to the management of Kinabatangan and Segama river basins covering approximately 2.2 million ha, roughly 30% of Sabah. For integrated protected area management, UNESCO’s MAB Programme was applied to Crocker Range Park (CRP) and adjacent forest reserves4

. Much of the negative impact on CRP comes from outside the park and forest reserves with many communities in its vicinity. Sustainability of the ecological integrity of protected areas such as CRP is known to be largely dependent on the management of pressure from human activities in the surrounding areas. As the jurisdiction of Sabah Parks is limited to the park itself, the authorities to oversee areas outside the park were sought to be included in a collaborative framework to secure the future stability of the park.

4.2.1.2 Main actors in the task-based approach: Institutional and social development Key actors to be focused for implementation of the task-based approach include NRO, SFD, and SaBC (after the establishment in May 2008) in addition to the BBEC I members. The key counterpart agencies are described briefly in the following sections (SaBC is described in Section 4.3.2.3).

(1) Natural Resources Office (NRO) Natural Resources Office (NRO) of Sabah was established in 1964 as an independent ministry and was integrated into the Chief Minister’s Department in 1967. The office oversees land matters and natural resources including forest and minerals. NRO’s secretary is appointed under the direct supervision of Chief Minister, and Lands and Surveys Department and Sabah Forestry Department are placed under NRO (Figure 4.4). NRO has a total of 34 officers as of March 2012, its main duty being coordination between state agencies (Ministries) and Federal Government on issues concerning land, forestry, and mining to ensure that the activities in the state are in line with the Government Policy. Specific duties of NRO include:

(1) Prepare and formulate policies related to natural resources, especially lands, forestry, minerals/mining, water resources, and biodiversity, and

(2) Supervise state agencies related to natural resources management, especially Sabah Forestry Department and Lands and Surveys Department.

4 Total of 4,573 ha: Crocker Forest Reserve (3,279 ha), Rafflesia Forest Reserve (356 ha) and Kawang

Forest Reserve (938 ha)

-37-

Figure 4.4 BBEC I leading agencies of the four components and JICA office under BBEC Phase II

-44-

BBEC II Head of State (Governor of Sabah)

State Secretary

State Cabinet

Ministers

Chief Minister





Forestry Department

Natural Resources Office JICA-BBEC II Office

Unit of Science and Technology






Federal Government




Sabah Museum


Wildlife Department

Sabah Parks

JICA- BBEC II Office in Natural Resources Office of Sabah

Component leaders of BBEC I

-45-

(2) Sabah Forestry Department (SFD)

Sabah Forestry Department (SFD) is one of the largest land holders in Sabah and is under the direct

control of Chief Minister’s Department. It was established in 1914 followed by the endorsement of

the Jungle Produce Ordinance of 1916. The first Forest Ordinance was established in 1936, and the

Forest Enactment of 1968 (and Forest Rules of 1969) came into force to replace the Forest

Ordinance and Forest Rules of 1954.

Today, SFD manages about 160 forest reserves across Sabah, which is approximately 49%

(3,604,867 ha) of the total land mass of the state. The Department has more than 26 District Offices

and more than 20 divisions managing research, planning, forest engineering, economics, policy,

regional cooperation, human resources and so on. While it maintains traditional functions of

resource protection, forest licensing, and collection of resources, the social inclination towards

sustainable forest management (SFM) in recent years has shifted the emphasis to components such

as law enforcement, industry development, trade and marketing, international cooperation,

community forestry, research, and education. The total number of staff at SFD is 1,888 as of

December 2009.

4.2.1.3 JICA professional

(1) JICA advisors

BBEC II saw a reduced amount of input by JICA as it focused more on assisting interagency

coordination, rather than capacity building of individual agencies as in BBEC I which used to be

more resource demanding. The total of about six long-term advisors (190 man-month) and nine

short-term advisors (66 man-month) has been sent to Sabah under BBEC II.

(2) Japan Overseas Cooperation Volunteers (JOCVs)

Similarly with BBEC I, JOCVs played important roles under BBEC II, particularly in the

community-based approach in relation to the activities to assist the Community Use Zone (CUZ) of

the Crocker Range Park (Section 4.3.3.2). This approach would be highly effective especially when

the community-based activities such as community empowerment (Figure 2.4) were focused.

Under BBEC II, a total of four JOCVs (50 man-month) closely collaborated with JICA advisors for

synergies in terms of the assistance from the Government of Japan. Assistance and collaboration of

the JOCVs in BBEC II are illustrated in the following figure using the entry point model of the CD

(Figure 4.5).

-46-

Community Empowerment: JOCVs Assistance (Phase II)

Figure 4.5 JOCVs assistance on community empowerment with BBEC II advisors as an approach

of the CD process (Figure 2.4)

4.2.2 Management structure

Figure 4.6 shows the overall framework of BBEC II, with its management structure primarily

identical to that of BBEC I (Figure 3.3), except that NRO plays a key role as the programme

manager while it had no particular role to play in BBEC I. The primary target of BBEC II is to

strengthen the state capacity to conduct integrated conservation based on the SBE 2000. To achieve

it, SFD was expected to play important roles in the integration of the conservation activities under

BBEC II. This is why JICA moved its project office from UST to NRO, who oversees natural

resources in its ministerial function such as shown in Figure 4.4.

NRO was expected to coordinate agencies at the launch of BBEC II in October 2007 until the

Sabah Biodiversity Centre (SaBC) would be established to take charge, although the timing of

establishment or effectiveness of SaBC was unforeseeable at the time.

Overall Goal

Community-based Actions With the assistance of JOCVs, livelihood supporting activities were introduced to Ulu Senagang-Mongool Baru community, located in CRP (core zone of the MAB nominated site)

Entry Point

Government Agencies

Other Areas

Other Areas

Local Gov. Agencies

NGOs

Communities

Main Actor

1. Sabah Parks 2. District Offices 3. Community 4. NGOs

Entry Point

-47-

Figure 4.6 Overall framework of BBEC II (modified from BBEC II Secretariat, 2008)

4.3 Major Outcome

Major outcomes of BBEC II are described based on the revised PgDM shown in Table 4.1.

4.3.1 Programme purpose: Overall outcome

4.3.1.1 Sabah Biodiversity Strategy

Sabah Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) is an update of the Sabah Conservation Strategy 1992 with a

focus on biodiversity-related issues (DVD Data 3). It is a Sabah’s version of the Malaysian

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) that is the principal instrument for

implementing the CBD. The Convention requests the contracting parties to prepare a national

biodiversity strategy to ensure that biodiversity conservation is mainstreamed into the planning and

activities of all sectors whose activities likely have impact on biodiversity. BBEC II supported

Sabah to prepare it at the state level.

Pilot Activities

Research Public Awareness

Steering Committee

BBEC II Secretariat (NRO & JICA)

Implementation of the Sabah Biodiversity Enactment 2000 Sabah Biodiversity Council &

Sabah Biodiversity Centre (SaBC)

BBEC II Main Tasks (Outputs 2 & 3) 1. River Basin Management: Ramsar site

registration and management 2. Integrated Protected Area Management:

MAB nomination and management 3. Third Country Training Programme (TCTP)

State-wide Biodiversity &Ecosystem Conservation

Output 1 Interagency coordination Biodiversity-related policy Information dissemination

-48-

The SBS was formulated in a highly-consultative manner with a considerable number of

workshops and focus group discussions organised to obtain sufficient feedback from relevant

stakeholders (Table 4.2). The stakeholder engagement process consisted of a series of

multi-stakeholder workshops and focus group discussions as well as numerous meetings with

various state agencies, institutions, and individuals. The participants were representatives from

state and federal government agencies, statutory bodies, civil society (NGOs), academia, and

private sector.

Table 4.2 List of workshops for the formulation of the SBS

Workshop Date No of Participants 1. Advisory Panel meeting Nov 2011 22 2. 1st multi-stakeholder workshop Dec 2011 46 3. Advisory Panel meeting Dec 2011 19 4. Focused Group Discussion: Agriculture sector Jan 2012 16 5. Focused Group Discussion Indigenous

Communities Jan 2012 14

6. Focused Group Discussion : Protected areas, forestry & wildlife

Jan 2012 24

7. Focused Group Discussion : CEPA Jan 2012 16 8. Focused Group Discussion: Freshwater,

marine & fisheries Jan 2012 16

9. Focused Group Discussion: Agriculture sector Feb 2012 20 10. 2nd multi-stakeholder workshop Mar 2012 54 11. Focused Group Discussion: Forestry sector Apr 2012 11 12. Minister of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture

and Environment June 2012 6

The basic premise behind the Strategy is that safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem is an issue

of shared concern to all the people in Sabah, for which innovative methods should be identified

because biodiversity occurs across the landscape. It lays out a set of beliefs and a framework for

achieving conservation priorities with greater public participation and collaboration with local

communities, civil society, and the private sector. It is expected to be approved by the Sabah State

Cabinet by December 2012. It calls for actions to a wide range of biodiversity-related parties to

work together to protect the biological diversity of Sabah. It also provides a supporting framework

for actions across Sabah at all levels. It intends to help a variety of stakeholders guide, inform,

empower, and support actions for biodiversity conservation, setting out specific goals and targets to

be achieved and identifying how partners can best contribute to the nation, the CBD and the people

of Sabah.

-49-

4.3.1.2 Capacity of information dissemination

International recognition is considered to contribute to establishing a firm basis for biodiversity

conservation as well as Sabah’s future economic growth. Based on this understanding, BBEC II

employed an approach to use international initiatives as tools with the expectation that an

international recognition achieved by implementing them would function as incentives for the state.

Opportunities for the counterparts to showcase their efforts, activities, and outcomes that deserve

international recognition were arranged under BBEC II. The following events were also organised

as incentives to increase their commitment as well as develop state government’s capacity on

information dissemination.

(1) Side event at the CBD COP 10

The 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) to the CBD was held in Nagoya, Japan

in October 2010. It was one of the largest meetings of its kind with the attendance of approximately

8,000 people. It was an excellent opportunity for Sabah to showcase conservation activities with its

side event organised under BBEC II. The concept paper entitled “Integrated biodiversity and

ecosystem conservation in Sabah” focused on the Kinabatangan-Segama river basin and described

forest management in the upper river basin and off-shore management of the Coral Triangle

Initiative (CTI). It was presented and approved at the 4th Council meeting in March 2010. The

presentations in the side event were well-received with the attendance of approximately 60 people

at the CBD COP 10 (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 Side event at the CBD COP 10 in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010, organised by

BBEC II

Activity Speaker 1. Opening Federal Government, Ministry of Natural Resources

and Environment (Undersecretary)

2. Presentation by relevant Sabah State Government agencies

(1) Sabah Parks (Deputy Director) (2) NRO (Senior Programme Officer) (3) JICA (Chief Advisor) (4) Sabah Biodiversity Centre (Director) (5) Sabah Forestry Department (Deputy Director) (6) Sabah Wildlife Department (Deputy Director) (7) Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation

(ITBC), UMS (Director)

3. Panel discussion and Q & A Panel members: (1) SaBC, (2) SPs, (3) SFD, (4) SWD, (5) ITBC, (6) NRO and (7) JICA

-50-

(2) Asian Wetland Symposium Sabah 2011 (AWS Sabah 2011)

The Asian Wetland Symposium (AWS) is a series of international symposia aimed at providing a

platform for active discussions wetland conservation and the wise-use of wetland resources in Asia.

Considering its history and repeated attendance of many participants, it was reasonable to assume

that hosting the symposium would benefit the state by achieving substantial international attention.

The contribution of the AWS was internationally recognised through Resolution IX.19 adopted at

the 9th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties (COP) of the Ramsar Convention

(Kampala, Uganda, 2005). The symposia were held in Japan (Otsu & Kushiro) in 1992, Malaysia

(Penang) in 2001, India (Bhubaneswar) in 2005, and Vietnam (Hanoi) in 2008.

A proposal for Sabah State Government to host the 5th AWS in Kota Kinabalu under BBEC II was

presented at the 4th Council meeting in March 2010. It was subsequently endorsed by the State

Cabinet in April 2010, with the state budget allocated for half of the total cost of hosting the

symposium (US $150,000). The remaining half was to be covered by JICA. Similarly with the side

event at the CBD COP 10, the symposium was organised as a collective state effort in which each

of the sessions organised by the seven agencies played a part in an overall story of the “Integrated

biodiversity conservation: Linking forests and wetlands,” the theme of the symposium (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4 Symposium programme of the AWS Sabah 2011 (18-20 July 2011)

Session Leader Technical Working Group 1. Ramsar and CBD SaBC MONRE, ITBC, NRO, SFD, SWD, SPs 2. Regional approach to advance

the implementation of the Ramsar and CBD

ITBC (UMS) ACB, NRO, SaBC, WWF, MONRE

3. Forests and wetlands SFD ITBC, SDF, SWD, WWF (HoB), Yayasan Sabah, LSD, DID, NRO

4. Business and biodiversity for wetland conservation

SWD EPU, SDF (Fish), SFD, SDA (Agri.), WWF, ACB, Palm Oil Sector (EMPA, MPOA, etc.)

5. CEPA for wetlands and biodiversity

EPD SaBC, SFD (RDC), UST, SWCS, Dept of Education, ITBC

6. Cultural heritage in forests and wetlands

SPs SaBC, SFD, SWD, UMS (School Social Sciences), SDF (Fishery), Sabah Museum, LSD

7. Sabah Session DID All state agencies for Sabah Session “Many Players One Vision”

-51-

As the year 2011 was celebrated for a number of international occasions, representatives from

some of the UN bodies were invited to participate in the symposium.

(1) Commencement of the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity (CBD’s initiative from

2011 to 2020),

(2) The 40th anniversary of the Ramsar Convention,

(3) The 40th anniversary of UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, and

(4) United Nations International Year of Forests (United Nations Forum on Forest: UNFF).

The symposium was attended by 324 participants from 24 countries and produced the “Sabah call

for Action,” as the specific outcome of the AWS Sabah 2011 (Appendix 4.4). Note that the Sabah

Session on “Many Players One Vision” was entirely organised by DID-led state agencies and

presented their way of sharing a common vision and practicing conservation activities.

4.3.2 Output 1: Development of a conservation system

4.3.2.1 Sabah Biodiversity Enactment 2000

An example of single law or policy that governs a whole natural resources management is difficult

to find. In Sabah, the SBE 2000 was established primarily for the purpose of ABS (Section 4.1.1)

and as part of the implementation of the CBD. The institutional framework and coordination shown

in Figure 4.7 requires state agencies managing state land, i.e. SFD, SWD, SPs and Lands and

Surveys Department (LSD) to be coordinated by an impartial body such as the Council and SaBC.

It is particularly important in terms of access license on biological resources granted to outside

researchers and benefit-sharing of stakeholders in Sabah. It was part of the governance process of

BBEC II to strengthen Sabah’s conservation governance based on the SBE 2000 with the

implementation of the pilot actions through active interagency coordination.

BBEC II, however, did not aim exclusively to support developing Sabah’s ABS system (e.g.

preparation of rules and regulation for its implementation); it rather used the basic framework of

ABS (i.e. Figure 4.7) as a platform to coordinate multiple agencies in strengthening Sabah’s overall

governance for integrated conservation, as stipulated in the Minutes of Meeting agreed between

Malaysia and Japan (Appendix 4.1). The actions of BBEC II were expected to also integrate all the

three objectives of the CBD5

5 The three objectives of the CBD are (1) conservation of biological diversity, (2) sustainable use of the

components of biological diversity, and (3) fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources (ABS).

because the ABS system was to be applied as a basic platform to

strengthen the state capacity to implement conservation and sustainable use of biological resources.

The Ramsar Convention and UNESCO’s MAB Programme were used as tools and incentives to

-52-

coordinate multiple stakeholders in developing and strengthening Sabah’s conservation

governance.

4.3.2.2 The first meeting of the Council

The first meeting of the Council took place on 6 December 2008 (Appendix 4.5) to decide that

SaBC should be established promptly and officially under the purview of NRO. The Sabah

Biodiversity Council is to advise the State Government of Sabah on matters relating to

conservation and sustainable use of biological resources. This coordinated decision-making

mechanism with the Council and SaBC based on the SBE 2000 as the institutional conservation

structure of Sabah is a practical application of the conceptual framework of adaptive management

of the CBD’s ecosystem approach (adaptive management) shown in Figure 2.2.

4.3.2.3 Establishment of SaBC

“Sabah Biodiversity Centre” was first established within the Forest Research Centre at Sabah

Forestry Department in 2001. It was only a tentative and provisional set up, and the Sabah

Biodiversity Council did not call for a meeting until December 2007, in which NRO was vested

with the establishment of Sabah Biodiversity Centre (SaBC) officially. During the preparatory

stage, BBEC II facilitated a visit of Sabah officials to the Sarawak Biodiversity Centre in March

2008 to learn about its process of establishment as a former example. A total of ten participants,

composed of five officers from NRO, two officers from the Public Service Department of Sabah

and three experts from JICA visited the Sarawak Centre to observe and study its operation and

functions. The Sarawak Centre turned out to be a genuine biotechnology research centre with no

activities on biodiversity or ecosystem conservation, ABS licence or benefit-sharing systems. To

this end, the case of Sarawak was not an appropriate model for Sabah as it was aiming to create an

integrated conservation system.

Based on the observation and discussion with the Director of the Sarawak Centre, the general

directions was indicated for SaBC to ensure its own power and mechanism to perform interagency

coordination for integrated conservation activities, not just focusing on biotechnology research like

the Sarawak Centre. It was emphasised that biotechnology including ABS should only be part of

the integrated conservation system, and all required actions should be implemented in a

well-balanced manner since a biotechnology centre like Sarawak Centre requires a large amount of

investment in terms of time, money, and human resources while the benefit is uncertain.

-54-

Figure 4.7 Interagency coordination through the Sabah Biodiversity Council and the Sabah Biodiversity Centre

-53-

BBEC II






Federal Government




Sabah Museum


Wildlife Department

Sabah Parks




Unit of Science and Technology

Under the SBE 2000

Head of State (Governor of Sabah)

State Secretary

State Cabinet

Ministers

Chief Minister Sabah

Biodiversity Council

Sabah Biodiversity Centre

Natural Resources Office / JICA-BBEC II


Forestry Department

Agencies coordinated by SaBC under BBEC II

Components of BBEC I

-54-

Sabah Biodiversity Centre (SaBC) was officially launched under NRO in May 2008 with six officers, five months after the first council meeting. SaBC is the “Secretariat” for the Council, and its vital function is to facilitate interagency communication and network in order to handle cross-cutting issues such as biodiversity conservation including ABS. The vision of SaBC was set as “becoming a role model for biodiversity management systems in Malaysia” by 2012 (Sabah Biodiversity Centre, 2009). SaBC is aimed at managing and sustaining the utilisation of biodiversity of the state, as well as planning and initiating programmes for the utilisation, conservation, protection, and sustainable development of the biological resources. The mission of SaBC is to ensure that biodiversity of the state is sustainably managed by:

(1) Mobilising, facilitating, and coordinating biodiversity conservation activities, (2) Regulating the access to biological resources of the state, (3) Providing reliable information on the status, distribution, magnitude, usage and value

of biodiversity, (4) Educating the public about the importance of biodiversity, and (5) Promoting the utilisation of biological resources through biotechnology activities.

SaBC implements the decisions made by the Council and also provides advice on decisions regarding conservation and sustainable use of biological resources in Sabah. Effective implementation of biodiversity policies would largely depend on appropriation of the use of natural resources through coordination of policy-related projects and activities. In view of the importance of coordinating conservation activities and to link biotechnology-related mandate and ecosystem conservation, SaBC was appointed the state focal point for the Ramsar Convention and UNESCO’s MAB Programme in the third Council meeting on 13 July 2009. Their official roles and mandate in Sabah included correspondence with the Federal Government of Malaysia, organising and coordinating interagency meetings, workshops, and management of specific activities related to the Ramsar Convention and MAB Programme (Sabah Biodiversity Centre, 2011). SaBC is the legitimate state office to operate interagency coordination for integrated conservation. The Biodiversity Council is the decision-making body to meet a few times annually but not a permanent entity or agency. Capacity building of SaBC was, therefore, regarded as one of the most important mandates of BBEC II or JICA, which could partially be achieved through joint implementation of the pilot activities such as the Ramsar designation (river basin management) and MAB nomination (integrated protected area management) (Figure 4.6).

-55-

4.3.2.4 Enhancement of understanding on traditional ecological knowledge The use of natural resources is closely related to biocultural heritage that has been accumulated over generations of interactions with the rich biodiversity particularly among indigenous communities in Sabah. The significance of the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) that indigenous communities hold is highly acknowledged by the CBD since it offers a variety of applications to pursue the Convention’s three objectives (Section 4.3.2.1). Despite the importance of TEK, it is largely unknown and more studies are desired in Sabah. BBEC II, therefore, organised an 18-month of study on consolidating issues and experiences in relation to biocultural heritage, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable resource use. The study was divided into the following two components:

(1) Component 1: A consolidation of conceptual and practical approaches for access to traditional ecological knowledge and equitable benefit-sharing (ABS) in Sabah To create a learning platform for the development of detailed access and

benefit-sharing (ABS) mechanisms in relation to TEK in Sabah. (2) Component 2: A consolidation of traditional ecological knowledge, practices and

experiences in Sabah To compile a state-wide review of Indigenous Peoples’ and Community Conserved

Areas (ICCAs) in Sabah. The study was conducted from January 2009 to July 2010. Components 1 included workshops, series of seminars, and field exercises, which covered important topics such as TEK, ABS, Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC), Clearing House Mechanism (CHM), ICCAs, biocultural diversity, and International Regime (IR) on ABS (DVD Data 4). Component 2 was based on literature review and the field work on existing ICCAs and potential ICCAs in Sabah, and actions to identify and record TEK for their better management (DVD Data 5).

4.3.2.5 Sabah environmental education policy Sabah environmental education policy (SEEP) was first drafted under BBEC I and refined and finalised through joint workshops under BBEC II. It was approved by the State Cabinet on 8 April 2009, Sabah the only state in Malaysia to have its own policy on environmental education. Guidelines for monitoring the implementation of SEEP were developed, and the first monitoring was carried out from August to November 2010 in April 2011 by Sabah Environmental Education Network (SEEN)6

6 SEEN is an interagency network on environmental education that is composed of about 35 organisations

including primarily state agencies and NGOs with EPD as the Secretariat. It was established in 2005 under BBEC I to strengthen the capacity of relevant stakeholders, through collaboration to promote environmental education in Sabah.

members with JICA’s assistance (BBEC II Secretariat, 2011; DVD Data 6).

-56-

4.3.3 Output 2: Pilot actions to strengthen the system 4.3.3.1 River basin management/Wetland management: Ramsar Convention (1) Registration process Designation for international conventions is usually based on the domestic legal status of the area concerned. The candidate site for the first Ramsar designation in Sabah under BBEC II was comprised of three forest reserves (Figure 4.2), all gazetted in 1984 under the Forest Enactment of 1968. It was expected that the existing legal status of the site as protected area under the Forest Enactment would be considered quite relevant to the Ramsar designation. Consisting part of the biodiversity conservation zone (Kinabatangan-Segama River Basin) of the Sabah Development Corridor (SDC), the candidate site was in line with the state initiative and policy (Section 1.3.3). The overall theme of the SDC is to increase existing economic values, focusing on relevant sectors and zones in various regions. Ramsar registration could be considered to contribute to the implementation of the SDC since the registration was likely to bring additional economic values such as tourism as well as enhance conservation values of the region. Overview of the registration process is given in Table 4.5. As it was the first attempt of its kind for the state, introduction was made to the stakeholders with a careful consideration. The size of the candidate site (78,803 ha) far exceeded the total size of all existing Ramsar sites in Malaysia (55,355 ha), and it was not expected to be an easy task to manage such a large area for a single agency, even with authority and history as SFD had (Section 4.2.1.2). There was indeed a suggestion made in the workshops to reduce the size of the candidate site and management workload, but all members eventually agreed with the original plan that fits SDC’s environmental and economic concepts (Section 1.3.3). The Ramsar designation of a large wetland was expected to attract many tourists. It would also create an opportunity for institutional cooperation towards the common interest as management of such an area would require additional active joint activities to be coordinated by SaBC, contributing to the development of the state conservation governance.

-57-

Table 4.5 The registration process of a wetland under the Ramsar Convention in Sabah

Year 2008 Major Action

January Preliminary PO workshop to illustrate the main concept of BBEC II, e.g. use of international initiatives as common goals for all stakeholders

Briefing on Ramsar registration for individual agencies: SFD, WWF, UST, EPD, Agriculture, Public Services, DID, Fisheries, NRO, Sabah Foundation, Lands and Surveys and SWD for interest and better understanding in the Ramsar Convention

February - March

Preliminary PO workshop for SFD in Sandakan to explain about BBEC II overview and the Ramsar Convention. Sabah’s potential Ramsar wetland was discussed

PO workshops (eight times; 230 participants) to discuss and determine BBEC II activities including the registration of the first Ramsar site in Sabah

April PO of BBEC II endorsed by the Programme Steering Committee Data collection for Ramsar Information Sheet (RIS) started

May Sabah Biodiversity Centre (SaBC) established Ramsar workshop organised to explain about the Convention in Kota Kinabalu Ramsar workshop organised at SFD in Sandakan to explain about the Convention &

determine the boundary of the prospective Ramsar site Excursion to the potential Ramsar site (Approximately 30 participants)

June Ramsar workshop in Kota Kinabalu to prepare an RIS, led by SaBC and State Secretary Six participants sent to the 4th Asian Wetland Symposium in Vietnam to study Ramsar

Convention

July Application of the Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands endorsed by Sabah State Cabinet

BBEC II activities including the Ramsar registration presented to Sabah Biodiversity Council

Representatives of NRO, SaBC and JICA visited Malaysian Federal Government (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment) to submit RIS

August- September

RIS submitted to the Ramsar Convention Secretariat RIS refined on the basis of the communication between the Ramsar Secretariat and

SaBC

October Sabah’s first Ramsar site (No. 1849) approved by the Convention at COP 10 in Korea; the director of SaBC received a Ramsar certificate (http://ramsar.wetlands.org/Database/Searchforsites/tabid/765/Default.aspx)

November The Ramsar certificate officially handed over from SaBC Director to SFD Director

(2) Management planning The first Ramsar workshop on 12 May 2008 was organised by NRO rather than SaBC which was inaugurated shortly before the workshop. It was considered particularly important to share the objectives, target, and registration process among all the stakeholders including a representative from the Federal Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE), the Malaysian National Focal Point for the Ramsar Convention. The Ramsar registration would become the first outcome of interagency coordination led by the Council and SaBC/NRO. A candidate site of the three forest reserves within the SDC was strategically selected for the registration due consideration of the

-58-

feasibility of speedy and successful registration at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (Ramsar COP 10) to the Ramsar Convention in Korea in October 2008. The Ramsar designation was completed within six months in Sabah, which indicates that the core agency’s interest and commitment worked effectively in interagency coordination.

It was expected that the management planning process would require more complex coordination and various discussions than the Ramsar designation process and therefore need a longer planning period of up to two years compared to six months required for the designation. Deliberation of actual activities carries more importance than the designation, calling for a considerable focus and assistance. A management plan for the Ramsar site needs to deliver practical activities as a reflection of the Convention’s principles. The Ramsar Convention highlights the river basin approach to safeguard a wetland itself as well as maintaining an entire stream that flows into the wetland, hence the river basin as a unit for ecosystem management is focused in planning. In case of the Ramsar site in Sabah, the whole water catchment area (2.2 million ha) of the site had been already categorised as the Biodiversity Conservation Zone under the SDC (Section 1.3.3). Preparation of a Ramsar management plan covering the entire river basin (DVD Data 7) was, therefore, considered an excellent opportunity for Sabah State Government to further the implementation of the SDC with a variety of stakeholders coordinated by SaBC. The overall management planning process is summarised in Table 4.6. The main component of the process was for SFD, NRO and SaBC to organise a regular interagency meeting for information sharing and decision-making, to strengthen conservation governance. The first workshop was carefully designed to determine and officially launch general planning procedures; it was held at SFD in Sandakan for three days and included field observations using a helicopter and boats. Approximately 45 participants from 20 agencies including representatives from NRE and other Ramsar sites of Malaysia joined the workshop.

Workshop for the Ramsar management planning

Aerial view of the Ramsar site

-59-

SaBC took the lead in the first workshop with JICA’s assistance under BBEC II and determined the general direction of the planning process based on the outcome of the workshop. Main topics discussed were: (1) inventory, (2) CEPA (Communication, Education, Participation and Awareness), (3) management, and (4) monitoring and evaluation. It was agreed to establish two groups in charge of core zone (Ramsar site) planning and buffer zone planning respectively (Figure 4.8), to be coordinated by SaBC for information sharing and overall decision-making (Table 4.7).

Table 4.6 Summary of the planning process of a management plan for the Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands in Sabah

Year Major Action

2009 1st management planning workshop (three days including excursion) at Sabah Forestry Department in February; Group 1 on core zone (Ramsar site) management led by SFD and Group 2 on buffer zone management led by NRO established, with overall coordination to be led by SaBC

Group 1 (Table 4.7) meeting (SFD): Twice Group 2 (Table 4.7) meeting (NRO): Twice Group 3 (Table 4.7) meeting (SaBC): Once

2010 Group 1 meeting (SFD): Four times Group 2 meeting (NRO): Four times Group 3 meeting (SaBC): Six times

2011 January: The management plan approved by the Biodiversity Council May: The management plan approved by the Sabah State Cabinet

Table 4.7 Three groups for the development of a Ramasar management plan

Group Duty Member

Group 1: On-site (11 members)

Develop a management plan for the Ramsar site (on-site) composed of the three forest reserves

Leader: SFD (1) SaBC, (2) DID, (3) SWD, (4) Lands & Surveys Department, (5) ITBC-UMS, (6) SSS-UMS, (7) BORA (NGO), (8) WWF, (9) HUTAN (NGO), (10) JICA

Group 2: Off-site (16 members)

Develop a management plan for the whole river basin (off-site) of the Ramsar site with participation of communities, NGOs, private sector (e.g. palm oil companies), etc.

Leader: NRO (1) DOE (Federal agency), (2) EPD, (3) UST, (4) DID, (5) SaBC, (6) Lands & Surveys Department, (7) ITBC-UMS, (8) SSS-UMS, (9) Agriculture Department, (10) Fisheries Department, (11) Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), (12) WWF, (13) Sabah Wetlands Conservation Society (NGO), (14) District office, Kinabatangan, (15) JICA

Group 3: Coordination (4 members)

Coordinate Group 1 and Group 2 to develop a coherent and integrated management plan for the site (river basin)

Leader: SaBC (1) SFD, (2) NRO and (3) JICA

-60-

Figure 4.8 Zoning plan for the management of the whole river basin of the Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands (The river basin is categorised as the biodiversity conservation zone under the SDC, Figure 1.6)

Ramsar Site

Kinabatangan-Segama River Basin

-61-

(3) Management implications To maintain the ecological status of the Ramsar site, negative impacts coming from outside the wetland also need to be dealt with. In case of Kinabatangan, many of them including pollution from oil palm mills come from the upper part of the Kinabatangan river basin, the area outside the Ramsar site (forest reserves), which is beyond the jurisdiction of SFD, the custodian of the site. This is where SaBC/NRO comes in to coordinate various stakeholders (state agencies) and multiple-party actions to protect the Ramsar site. A number of SFD professionals and field staff recognised the merit of such coordination, while other agencies shared the understanding that joint actions with a systematic interagency coordination are essential for conservation.

4.3.3.2 Integrated protected area management: MAB nomination for the CRP area (1) Background: UNESCO’s MAB Programme UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme was established in 1971 to promote interdisciplinary approaches in management, research, and education of ecosystem conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. Unlike international treaties such as the CBD and Ramsar Convention, the MAB Programme is an international partnership and not a legally bound intergovernmental agreement. Because of its focus on improving mankind's relationship with nature, it has been UNESCO’s, and one of the United Nations’s most important responses to international dialogues such as the 1992 Earth Summit and the CBD. One of the MAB Programme’s primary objectives is the establishment of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The network is more than just a listing; knowledge and experience should be exchanged among the biosphere reserves on sustainable development strategies across the continents and borders of countries. The network consists of 580 biosphere reserves in 114 countries as of December 2011. An appropriate zonation is important for the nomination of a biosphere reserve, as it is closely associated with the idea of developing the protected area, which forms an integral part of the programme. The management of protected areas should include the concept of a buffer zone in consideration for indigenous people often inhabiting around them. It is essential to integrate conservation and community livelihood into a single policy framework and action. Schematic zoning pattern with the three functions of the programme is shown in Figure 4.9 (UNESCO, 2002): (1) Conservation function with a core area to protect genetic resources, species, ecosystems, and landscape, (2) Development function with a buffer zone to foster sustainable economic and human development compatible with the core area for protection, and (3) Logistic function with a transition area to facilitate demonstration projects, environmental education and training, research and monitoring in support of the two other functions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_resources�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Network_of_Biosphere_Reserves�

-62-

Figure 4.9 Schematic zoning pattern of a generalised biosphere reserve

(2) Nomination process The Crocker Range Biosphere Reserve (CRBR), nominated for the first MAB site of Sabah is located at CRP as its core area/zone (Figure 4.2, Section 4.1.3.2). The buffer and transition zones of the CRBR are categorised as development zones for industry, agriculture, and tourism under the SDC (Section 1.3.3). The core zone of this proposed MAB site is a protected area under the Parks Enactment so that the CRBR offers remarkable potentials and significance to pursue/examine the principles of the MAB Programme, harmonising people and nature. Therefore, the CRBR can be regarded as an interface between development and conservation to understand or “living laboratory” to examine how sustainable development could be achieved. The MAB nomination process for the proposed CRBR is summarised in Table 4.8. Before listing any areas in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves under the MAB Programme, work on the ground, appropriate information gathering, and the agreement of the villages and communities has to be achieved. An application needs to be prepared and submitted to UNESCO by the national government, in most cases through the MAB national committee of each country. Similarly with the Ramsar designation and management planning, the whole nomination process was aimed at strengthening conservation governance of Sabah, with the primary concept of the MAB nomination under BBEC II being the promotion of cross-sectoral discussions and exchange of opinions in as many interagency meetings as possible with the coordination of SaBC. Listing of CRP in the biosphere network was one of the incentives and milestones for various stakeholders. The difference with the Ramsar site was that CRP was surrounded by many indigenous communities; substantial efforts were made on village consultation as connecting people and nature is one of the most important principles of the programme.

-63-

As part of the first action to acquire and confirm interest of the key actors, a visit was organised in 2008 to UNESCO Jakarta office and existing biosphere reserves in Indonesia. The key participants selected for the first field visit were Directors of SaBC and Sabah Parks and Deputy Chairman of the Sabah Parks Board. They received a series of briefings from a senior programme officer at the UNESCO Jakarta office, Indonesian MAB national committee members and biosphere reserve managers. The briefings, a series of question-and-answer sessions and field observations provided all the participants from Sabah a good understanding on the MAB Programme (Table 4.8).

Table 4.8 Summary of the MAB nomination process for the Crocker Range Park in Sabah

Year Major Action

2008 November: Four officers visited MAB sites in Indonesia including Directors of Sabah Park and Sabah Biodiversity Centre

December: Director of Sabah Parks expressed his interest in nominating the Crocker Range Park (CRP) as a biosphere reserve of UNESCO; the proposal accepted in the Sabah Parks Board

2009 July: First draft zoning plan for the MAB nomination September: Sabah Parks organised a workshop on developing a detailed MAB nomination

plan for the CRP October: Sabah Parks organised a preparatory meeting to formulate the State Technical

Working Group (STWG) for the Crocker Range Park MAB nomination November: 1st STWG meeting: STWG for the Crocker Range Park MAB nomination

formulated led by SaBC December: 2nd STWG meeting: Concept on zoning confirmed

2010 February: 3rd STWG meeting: A draft application for the nomination presented and consultation process confirmed

March-October: Briefing on MAB with key officials including State Secretary and Ministers was made

March: The MAB plan presented by Sabah Parks Director to the Sabah Biodiversity Council

March-April: Briefing on MAB with District Officers July: Visit to MAB sites in Indonesia by representatives from the Ministry of Tourism,

Culture & Environment, 7 District Offices, and SaBC June-October: District and village level consultation held three times, led by SaBC and

Sabah Parks October: MAB nomination with a zoning plan for the CRP presented at the Sabah

Biodiversity Council

2011 March: 4th STWG meeting: Revised MAB application presented; roadmap for the nomination confirmed

June: 5th STWG meeting: Nomination process and final zonation plan (Figure 4.13) confirmed

May: MAB nomination confirmed by SFD Director January-July: District and village level consultation held twelve times, led by SaBC and

Sabah Parks October: MAB application approved by the Sabah State Cabinet November: The MAB application submitted to Federal Government (NRE)

2012 January: Received some comments from NRE March: Meeting to discuss comments from NRE July: Resubmitted the application to NRE

-64-

After the Parks Board approved MAB nomination, a draft zonation was developed using existing data. One of the most important milestone actions was establishing the State Technical Working Group (STWG) for the nomination. STWG to be chaired by SaBC to work on the nomination of CRP with surrounding areas as the Crocker Range Biosphere Reserve (CRBR) under the MAB Programme was established with 24 members (state agencies and district offices) and observers from Federal agencies in November 2008. The first meeting of the STWG was designed by SaBC with particular care, its agenda and presentations deliberately prepared. The main objective of the meeting was to promote understanding on the MAB Programme and to officially select STWG members for subsequent discussions on the nomination.

Similarly with the Ramsar designation, the ABS platform based on the SBE 2000 was used in the MAB nomination (Figure 4.7). The main coordinator was SaBC, and Sabah Parks was the leading agency for the nomination. SaBC was involved in all actions and coordination in the nomination process. STWG meetings were held five times by December 2011. In recognition of significance of public participation and understanding, 15 sessions of village consultation were organised through 2010 to 2011. The nomination process was reported to the Council and an application form was submitted to the Sabah State Cabinet in September 2011 to be approved the following month.

(3) Zoning and public consultation outside the CRP The zoning of CRBR was prepared as an outcome of numerous small group meetings and field visits mainly of SaBC, Sabah Parks, DID, ITBC-UMS (particularly for GIS), and JICA, and was tabled in the STWG meetings for a peer review. The final plan as illustrated in Figure 4.10 was approved in the 5th STWG meeting (Table 4.8). Proposed CRBR of a total size of 350,584 ha consists of the core zone of 144,492 ha, buffer zone of 60,313 ha, and transition zone of 145,779 ha (Table 4.9). The core zone (144,492 ha) consists of the Crocker Range Park of 139,919 ha (97%) and three forest reserves (Rafflesia Forest Reserve, Crocker Range Forest Reserve and Kawang Forest Reserve) of 4,573 ha (3%), indicating that Sabah Parks would be the main legitimate custodian of CRBR.

-65-

Table 4.9 Three zones of the Crocker Range Biosphere Reserve (CRBR)

CRBR Zonation Size (ha) %

1. Core zone* 144,492 41.2

2. Buffer zone 60,313 17.2

3. Transition zone 145,779 41.6

Total 350,584 100

* Consists of the Crocker Range Park of 139,919 ha and three forest reserves of 4,573 ha (Rafflesia Forest Reserve, Crocker Range Forest Reserve and Kawang Forest Reserve)

In the zoning plan shown in Figure 4.10, approximately 398 villages were recognised within CRBR with the composition of two villages (0.5%) in the core, 52 villages (13.1%) in the buffer, 264 villages (66.3%) in the transition, and 80 villages (20.1%) in the “unknown” category. The total population estimated within CRBR was approximately 99,000 people, which accounted for 7.9% of the total population of the eight districts and Kota Kinabalu city overlapping with the biosphere reserve. Because of the importance of harmonising nature and livelihood activities of the people living in the MAB area, it was important to conduct public consultation for the villages as part of the nomination process especially those located within the core and buffer zones before submitting the MAB nomination to UNESCO. Village consultation was jointly organised by SaBC and SPs with assistance of JICA via eight relevant district offices that had jurisdiction over most of the villages inside CRBR. Invitation to the consultation was issued to the village leaders by district officers, and each session gathered representatives from about 20 to 30 villages. The main issue was to present the general overview of the MAB Programme and explain about the importance of nomination for the area. It was specified that the programme was not a legally-bound scheme, and it would not bring in any additional rules or regulations to be imposed by the State Government or UNESCO. In addition, a questionnaire survey was conducted to confirm village information such as the precise location, population size, and brief history during the consultation. The survey was an important part of the nomination process to identify the villages located within the reserve, which produced the master list of CRBR villages as an outcome.

-66-

Figure 4.10 Zoning plan with the villages of the Crocker Range Biosphere Reserve (CRBR)

-67-

Community consultation for the MAB

nomination

Buffer zone of the proposed Crocker Range

Biosphere Reserve (CRBR) The consultations briefly introduced potential benefit including a variety of government subsidies and programmes in association with poverty alleviation, e.g. alternative income sources for those who heavily rely on resources of protected areas for living. Approximately 500 individual settlers were identified around CRP as of December 2011, residing outside the park but using resources inside the park for various reasons, such as rubber plantation, agroforestry (e.g. fruits), short-term crops and others. Sabah Parks seeks SaBC’s assistance in coordinating with other agencies (e.g. District Office and Agriculture Department) to introduce alternative livelihood activities for the settlers to reduce negative impacts on the park. As most of the settlers were located in the buffer zone of the proposed CRBR, the MAB Programme would work as a tool to harmonise their livelihood activities (sustainable resource use) and protected area management (conservation) by introducing alternative and environmentally sustainable income sources. Sabah Parks also stressed in the village consultation that the raising awareness on the ground was crucial for a better understanding of the concept of the MAB Programme and successful CRBR management. Of the total number of 398 villages of CRBR, 257 villages (65%) joined in consultation as of October 2011, which include 45 villages (87%) of the 52 buffer zone villages. Most of the villages that have not attended the consultation are located within the transition zone of CRBR.

(4) Core zone management of the proposed CRBR: Community Use Zone (CUZ) Two communities are known to be located within CRP (core zone of the proposed CRBR): Buayan-Kionop and Ulu Senagang-Mongool Baru. While Buayan-Kionop community has less than 10 households, Ulu Senagang-Mongool Baru community has approximately 30 families of 200 residents who live within the park.

-68-

In 1969, the forest including the present Ulu Senagang-Mongool Baru community was gazetted as the Crocker Range Forest Reserve, which was later re-gazetted as Crocker Range Park based on the Parks Enactment in 1984. Settlement in Ulu Senagang began in 1975 and Mongool Baru in 1992 due to immigration from Kg Mongool, Kg. Salalir and Kg. Tahol from Pensiangan District. The two communities have been treated as a single group of local residence, and land application and land use permit have been a contentious issue between the community and the Government since the 1990s due to their location within the protected area (Crocker Range Forest Reserve or Crocker Range Park). Under BBEC I, park management was discussed with some options: (1) Enforce the park law to resettle the whole community, (2) Excise the area from CRP, and (3) Develop collaborative management based on a mutual agreement between Sabah Parks and the community. Sabah Parks, with technical assistance of JICA under BBEC I, developed the Crocker Range Park Management Plan that included the community-based collaborative management as a park management option (Sabah Parks, 2006). The core of this management strategy was to design a community use zone (CUZ) where the areas for the community to reside and other areas for livelihood activities (e.g. agriculture) were clearly demarcated, and activities within the park were limited to those with minimum impact on the ecosystem. The brief history/process of the establishment of the CUZ is illustrated in Table 4.10. It was initiated in BBEC I and continued throughout BBEC II. It was a difficult process since the community was composed of recently settled residents, not familiar with cultural or traditional forms of self-regulatory and sustainable resource use as the commons.7

The main interest of the community was to convert natural forests into rubber plantation to raise their income, which is against the law in the protected area.

There are similar issues in other protected areas so the BBEC Programme supported the CUZ in Ulu Senagang-Mongool Baru case to develop a model of practical solution by introducing alternative income sources to reduce dependency on the land. A CUZ management plan was drafted on the basis of scientific and socio-economic data of essential surveys and a number of participatory community consultations. Part of the management plan was implemented with the support of JOCVs as a practical trial model as shown in Figure 4.5 (Section 4.2.1.3). It was a time consuming process, but the level of understanding of Sabah Parks and the community has been uplifted. The Park Management Board has decided to set up an official CUZ Management

7 The commons are traditionally defined as the elements of the environment - forests, atmosphere, rivers,

fisheries or grazing land - that are shared, used and enjoyed by all. They are a set of assets that are understood within a cultural sphere and are all gifted and shared equally such as air, water, ecosystems (natural resources), language, music and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystems�

-69-

Committee to finalise the management plan and enter into collaborative management activities as of May 2012. Table 4.10 Brief history of the CUZ at Ulu Senagang-Mongool Baru in Crocker Range Park, the core zone management of the proposed CRBR

Year Activity Outcome

BBEC I 2003 Village survey Village profile compiled 2004-2005 Seminars and workshops

Development of a Crocker Range Park Management Plan

Draft management plan

2006 Community consultation on MOU Editing and finalising management plan

Draft MOU prepared between Sabah Parks and the community Crocker Range Park Management Plan

(2006) published

BBEC II 2008 Preparatory work, e.g. planning Establishment of the CUZ Taskforce 2009 CUZ Taskforce meetings

Detailed socio-economic survey Introduction of alternative livelihood, in

collaboration with JOCVs (2009-2012)

Eligibility criteria for CUZ drafted Survey results on livelihood activities Home-stay, handicraft, honey bee culture,

Gaharu plantation programmes experimented 2010 Soil survey for sustainability of swidden

agriculture Camera trap survey for sustainability of

hunting

Survey result on soil quality and agricultural potential of the area Indication of distribution and potential

population dynamics of game and non-game wildlife species (Camera trap manual published in 2012, DVD Data 8)

2011 Community dialogues on the size and land use within the CUZ Pilot activities of CUZ livelihood supporting

programmes started

CUZ size (403 ha) agreed, but criteria for land use within 216 ha of the multiple-use zone within the CUZ remains as an issue Preliminary USMB working groups for CUZ

were established (Natural Resources Group, Ecotourism Group, and Administration Group)

2012 Management decision by the Sabah Parks Board of Trustee Livelihood supporting activities continued

CUZ management committee chaired by Sabah Parks is to be officially established with 5 representatives from the community and 5 representatives from relevant state agencies A nursery established and 300 Gaharu

seedlings delivered

-70-

(5) Interagency agreement for the MAB nomination The MAB nomination form needed to be submitted to UNESCO via Malaysian MAB National Committee. To obtain guidance and advice from the Committee, NRE was invited to STWG meetings with the coordination of SaBC. SaBC’s function as the MAB state focal point included confirming the nomination process with the Federal Government of Malaysia (i.e. NRE) and UNESCO. SaBC coordinated all the signatories listed in Table 4.11 before the State Cabinet approved the application in October 2011. The nomination form was sent to NRE in early November 2011, and comments were received in early 2012. SaBC and Sabah Parks took leadership in revising the application, and updated application was sent to NRE in July 2012.

Table 4.11 Signatories of the MAB application for CRBR

Category Institution Signer/Designation 1. The authority/authorities in

charge of the management of the core zone(s)

Sabah Parks (1) Director Sabah Forestry Department (2) Director

2. The authority/authorities in charge of the management of the buffer zone(s)

Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Sabah

(3) Director

3. Appropriate by the National (or State or Provincial) administration responsible for the management of the core zone(s) and the buffer zone

Natural Resources Office, Sabah (4) Secretary Ministry of Rural Development, Sabah

(5) Permanent Secretary

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Environment, Sabah

(6) Permanent Secretary

4. The authority/authorities, elected local government recognised authority or spokesperson representative of the communities located in the transition area

Penampang, Sabah (7) District Officer Tenom, Sabah (8) District Officer Ranau, Sabah (9) District Officer Tambunan, Sabah (10) District Officer Keningau, Sabah (11) District Officer

Tuaran, Sabah (12) District Officer

Beaufort, Sabah (13) District Officer

Papar, Sabah (14) District Officer

Kota Kinabalu City Hall (15) City Mayor

5. Signed on behalf of the MAB National Committee or focal point

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE), Federal Government of Malaysia

(16) Secretary General

Sabah Biodiversity Centre (17) Director

-71-

4.3.3.3 Public awareness in relation to the Ramsar and MAB (1) Ramsar CEPA activities The Ramsar CEPA Kit including Ramsar CEPA video was developed as Volume 2 of the Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands Ramsar Site Management Plan in March 2011 (Sabah Biodiversity Centre, 2011: DVD Data 9). SaBC was in charge of arranging coordination meetings on the Ramsar CEPA video production. The first training on the effective use of the Ramsar CEPA Kit, targeting primary school teachers, was coordinated by SaBC to be held in March 2012. Approximately 25 participants gathered from three districts around the Ramsar Site. More training sessions are expected to be organised for teachers and other stakeholders in and around the Kinabatangan river basin.

(2) MAB CEPA activities As a trial CEPA activity for CRBR, Sabah Parks and SaBC started River Environmental Education Programme (REEP) targeting Primary Year 5 and 6 students, teaching them about the function of the water catchment around the Crocker Range Park (Table 4.12, DVD Data 10). For the preparation of the REEP, SPs with the assistance of JICA provided a series of individual briefing to the related government agencies such as DID, SFD, UMS, Education Department, EPD, Water Department, Public Works Department, Health Department, Department of Environment Malaysia, and NGOs (WWF, Environmental Action Centre, Sabah Nature Club, and Sabah Wetland Conservation Society). The programme normally took 3 to 4 days with a variety of classroom and field activities (Appendix 4.6). Students were expected to learn about the water cycles in environment and how to maintain them as an important ecological function. At the end of the programme, they would be urged to develop an action plan to contribute to conservation and present it. Based on these experiences in BBEC II, a guidebook for REEP was developed (DVD Data 11)

Learning how to collect aquatic insects Learning how to identify aquatic insects

-72-

Group presentation on a river quality Drama presentation on people and river

Table 4.12 Summary of the River Environmental Education Programme (REEP) activities

Year Major Action

2010 November: REEP trial activity in SK Ulu Senagang (20 students)

2011 July: REEP trainers training in Keningau (22 staff from SPs and JICA) September: REEP trial activity in SK Ulu Senagang (26 students) October: REEP Keningau (20 students and 5 teachers from Keningau and Beaufort

Districts) November: REEP Ranau (28 students, 8 teachers and 7 community representatives

from Ranau District)

2012 March: REEP Tambunan (19 students, 6 teachers and 7 community representatives from Tambunan District)

May: REEP Penampang (20 students, 5 teachers and 4 community representatives from Penampang District)

4.3.4 Output 3: Training capacity 4.3.4.1 Third country training programme (TCTP) Third country training programme (TCTP) is one of JICA’s technical cooperation schemes on a cost-sharing basis, distinct from a grant scheme like the BBEC Programme. It was coordinated along with BBEC II as part of the programme approach of linking and coordinating the two different projects/schemes. In TCTP, the BBEC counterparts in Sabah provide training to non-Malaysian participants from third party countries (including non-Sabahan states of Malaysia) to share their experience and knowledge, similarly with south-south cooperation. The cost for the TCTP under BBEC II was shared equally between Japan (JICA) and Malaysia (Federal EPU in 2009 and Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2011 and 2012). BBEC II initially started TCTP with an aim of enhancing training capacity of Sabah state agencies and ITBC-UMS as part of

-73-

Output 3 (Table 4.1). ITBC-UMS has been in charge of coordinating the programme with support of other BBEC II member agencies. The outline of the programme is described in Table 4.13.

TCTP in October 2011

(participants from 11 countries)

Lecture in a classroom

Table 4.13 Outline of the Third Country Training Programme (TCTP)

1. Title Integrated Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management

2. Objectives • To provide participants with relevant knowledge and skills on conservation management through the planning to implementation, monitoring, and evaluation

• To familiarise participants with integration of implementing agencies and the locals for better understanding of alternative livelihood in conservation efforts

• To facilitate interaction and sharing of experiences, learning process and evaluation on conservation projects

• To be able to formulate management plan on the integrated biodiversity and ecosystem management of their own country

3. Training duration

Approximately 3 weeks each year

4. Target participants

Mid-level management officers of government departments and agencies, who are in charge of biodiversity and ecosystem conservation

5. Target countries (1) Brunei Darussalam, (2) Cambodia, (3) Indonesia, (4) Laos, (5) Myanmar, (6) Philippines, (7) Thailand, (8) Vietnam, (9) Papua New Guinea, (10) India, (11) Sri Lanka, (12) Kenya, (13) Mali, (14) Uganda, (15) Tanzania, and (16) Zambia

Approximately half of the target countries were selected from ASEAN countries, considering the importance and impact of regional outreach from BBEC II (Table 4.13). The training programme was composed of five modules based on a combination of the experience from both BBEC I and BBEC II; (1) Research & Education, (2) Park Management, (3) Habitat Management, (4) Public Awareness, and (5) Integration (Appendix 4.7). TCTP required approximately seven months for preparation each year in which a total of more than ten management meetings were held to plan the curriculum, logistics arrangements and so on. As part of the preparatory work, a fact finding mission was sent to some selected countries in 2009 and

-74-

2011 (Kenya, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos, etc.). Although sending such a mission is resource demanding, it was found effective in enhancing motivation of the implementing agencies and recruiting training participants. On the other hand, the technical feedback from the missions to be reflected in the TCTP curriculum was a challenge, because TCTP was designed on a supply-driven basis and therefore difficult to meet the participants’ expectations on what they want to learn in Sabah. The major actions of TCTP under BBEC II are summarised in Table 4.14. A total of 55 trainees from 16 countries participated in the programme in three years (Table 4.13). To strengthen the linkage with the existing framework in the region, a representative from ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) was invited as a lecturer. In the 3rd year (2011), three ex-training participants of the 1st year (2009) and 2nd year (2010) from Tanzania, Kenya and Papua New Guinea were also invited as trainers and shared what they actually implemented after joining TCTP in Sabah. It should also be noted that other states of Malaysia (i.e. Sarawak, Johor and Selangor) were invited as training participants as part of BBEC II in 2010. Based on these experiences in BBEC II, a guidebook for conducting TCTP was developed (DVD Data 12).

Table 4.14 Summary of the major actions of the Third Country Training Programme (TCTP)

Year Major Action

2008 July: Proposal on TCTP submitted to the Japanese Government

2009 March-September: preparation meetings for the 1st round of the TCTP June: Fact finding missions dispatched to Laos, Cambodia, Kenya, and Sri

Lanka 19 October- 6 November: the 1st round programme.

2010 January: Evaluation meeting on the 1st round programme March-October: preparation meeting for the 2nd round programme 2-20 November: the 2nd round programme

2011 March: Evaluation meeting on the 2nd round programme March-September: preparation meeting for the 3rd round programme May: Fact finding missions dispatched to India, Tanzania and Uganda 4-27 October: the 3rd round programme November: Conclusive W/S on TCTP

2012 March: Evaluation meeting on the 3rd round programme

4.3.5 High-level decisions as overall outcome Cooperation at the agency/institutional level can be evaluated by the number of agreements and approval. Legitimacy and power of the agreements are also important e.g. the approval by the Cabinet and Council are the highest state decision excepting those made by the parliament. BBEC

-75-

II was aimed at policy assistance, and the number of official decisions and approvals can be regarded as an outcome of BBEC II (Table 4.15). It has also enhanced international relations between the Ramsar Secretariat and JICA, as shown in the signing of a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) between the Ramsar Convention Secretariat and JICA at the Ramsar COP 11 in Romania on 7 July 2012 (Appendix 4.8). Table 4.15 List of official approval and institutional agreement under the BBEC Programme

Decisions Date Note

Approval of the State Cabinet

1. Lower Segama Wildlife Conservation Area

18 May 2005 (BBEC I)

Gazetted as a conservation area (2,163 ha) on 19 January 2012 under BBEC II.

2. Application for a Ramsar registration

16 July 2008 SFD and SaBC presented a proposal to the State Cabinet. Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands (78,803 ha) was registered as the Sabah’s first Ramsar site at the Ramsar COP 10 on 28 October 2008.

3. Sabah Environmental Education Policy

8 April 2009 Drafted in BBEC I and refined in BBEC II.

4. Hosting of the Asian Wetland Symposium

7 April 2010 The Cabinet approved a budget for the symposium.

5. Ramsar Management Plan (reported) 4 May 2011 The management plan reported to the State Cabinet.

6. Application for an MAB nomination 7 April 2011 Under nomination process as of August 2012.

7. Sabah Biodiversity Strategy (SBS), DVD Data 3

By December 2012 (Expected)

SBS approved as a state policy on biodiversity conservation.

Approval of the Biodiversity Council

1. CBD COP 10 side event 17 March 2010 Details of the proposal for a side event at the CBD COP 10 was presented.

2. SaBC to be the focal point for the Ramsar and MAB

13 July 2009 SaBC became a state focal point for the Ramsar and MAB Programme.

3. Application for an MAB nomination 20 September 2010 Procedures for an MAB nomination for CRP presented.

4. Ramsar Management Plan 3 January 2011 The management plan presented and approved.

International Agreement

1. Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) between the Ramsar Convention Secretariat and JICA

7 July 2012 Official agreement for institutional collaboration between JICA and the Ramsar Secretariat, which is aimed at enhancing the management of Ramsar sites including the Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands.

-76-

CHAPTER 5 EVALUATION & MAJOR FINDINGS

5.1 Summary of the BBEC Programme

5.1.1 Programme structure The primary target of the BBEC Programme (2002-2012) was to strengthen the conservation governance of Sabah through the development of a durable system for the implementation of integrated biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. To reach the objective effectively, two approaches, i.e. the component-based approach for technology transfer (BBEC I) and the task-based approach for policy implementation (BBEC II), were combined under the framework of JICA’s programme to practice a holistic capacity development (CD) in Sabah (Table 5.1). While the purpose and participants differ in the two phases with different strategies being employed, the core principle that consolidated all actions as a framework throughout the programme was “Conservation requires an interagency joint effort so that an institutional system to coordinate agencies/stakeholders must be strengthened for synergies despite their respective interests.” Therefore, an effective means of interagency coordination was the centre of the issues. Shifting JCA-BBEC Office from UST (BBEC I) to NRO (BBEC II) was one of the strategies to strengthen the capacity of foreign aid for operation of the interagency coordination towards integrated conservation.

5.1.2 Development of conservation governance International initiatives were strategically used as tools and common incentives to coordinate a variety of stakeholders. Effect of the pilot actions under the initiatives may present a unique or model approach for the development of conservation governance. Although the initiatives are internationally agreed upon, it is essential to clearly link them to domestic policies and laws for practical implementation. It should be recognised that the initiatives adopted outside Sabah would not have functioned if they stood alone as independent proposals. In other words, international concepts would come into an effective use only when they are functionally connected to local needs and translated into practical actions at the locally acceptable level. This is why catalytic function plays a key role in conservation practice. The whole BBEC approach indicates that a combination of technical assistance for research and implementing agencies (e.g. ITBC-UMS, SWD, SFD, and SPs) and policy support for administrative agencies (e.g. NRO and SaBC) is essential for developing conservation governance. A framework for interagency cooperation is also required in such governance process, and JICA’s

-77-

programme approach to practice capacity development (CD) proved effective in the BBEC Programme. A combination of the legitimate power of a law (i.e. the SBE 2000) and third party assistance based on a bilateral agreement with an application of international recognition as a common interest of a variety of stakeholders under the BBEC Programme may present a model approach of implementing effective actions to introduce desirable changes in a state bureaucracy or society towards integrated conservation.

Table 5.1 Summary of the two phases in the BBEC Programme

Phase I (2002-2007) Phase II (2007-2012) 1. Purpose Comprehensive and sustainable

approach of conservation is established

A system for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation in Sabah is strengthened and Sabah state becomes capable of extending knowledge and skills on biodiversity conservation to other states of Malaysia and foreign countries (Final Version).

2. Approach Component-oriented technology transfer with incentive as technical assistance for the selected four agencies

Task-oriented policy support with Council and SaBC to coordinate multiple agencies to implement pilot actions promoting international recognition as incentives and common targets, and Ramsar registration and MAB nomination used as tools.

3. Programme steering committee

- Director: State Secretary - Deputy Director: Vice-Chancellor,

UMS

- Director: State Secretary

- Deputy Director: Vice-Chancellor, UMS

- Manager: Secretary, Natural Resources Office (NRO)

4. JICA-BBEC Office Unit of Science & Technology (UST) Natural Resources Office (NRO)

5. Main counterparts (actors)

(1) ITBC-UMS (2) Sabah Parks (3) Sabah Wildlife Department (4) Unit of Science & Technology (5) Working groups of the

component agencies

(1) The four agencies of Phase I

(2) Natural Resources Office

(3) Sabah Biodiversity Centre

(4) Sabah Forestry Department

(5) Dept. of Irrigation & Drainage

(6) Environment Protection Department, etc.

(7) Others

-78-

5.2 BBEC Phase I

5.2.1 Outline This part of the report focuses on the final evaluation of BBEC I8

. A joint mission for the final evaluation on BBEC I conducted a survey from 14 August to 7 September 2006. The overall programme with its four components were reviewed using the method described in Section 2.4 (DAC-OECD five evaluation criteria: 1. Relevance, 2. Effectiveness, 3. Efficiency, 4. Impact and 5. Sustainability).

5.2.2 Final evaluation in 2006 5.2.2.1 Four components (PDMs) The component-based approach of BBEC I which focused on technology transfer for five years enhanced institutional capacity, particularly of the four leading-agencies of the components in terms of the technical skills and knowledge (JICA, 2006b). All component agencies have strengthened their technical knowledge and skills necessary for implementing integrated conservation activities during the course of BBEC I. Results of the evaluation on the four components based on the project design matrix (PDM) are summarised in the following table.

Table 5.2 Results of the final evaluation on the four components of BBEC I in September 2006

Component Relevance Effectiveness Efficiency Impact Sustainability

1. REC Satisfactory Satisfactory Moderate Satisfactory Satisfactory

2. PMC Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

3. HMC Satisfactory Satisfactory Moderate Satisfactory Moderate

4. PAC Satisfactory Satisfactory Moderate Satisfactory Satisfactory

REC: Research and Education Component, PMC: Park Management Component, HMC: Habitat Management Component, PAC: Public Awareness Component Skills and knowledge required for each counterpart agency were different, but they were all related to basic research required for conservation to some degree. For instance, taxonomy on fauna and flora is a basic skill required to understand the ecosystems, and analytical skills on population dynamics of wildlife species are essential for monitoring purposes. Under BBEC I, officers from a variety of agencies participated in numerous joint field expeditions with Japanese long-term advisors to familiarise themselves with various techniques in the field (e.g. collection of specimen) and analytical methods of the field data. A number of publications came out as a result of capacity building under BBEC I (JICA, 2008).

8 http://www2.jica.go.jp/ja/evaluation/pdf/2010_0600561_4_f.pdf

-79-

5.2.2.2 Overall programme Evaluation of the overall performance of the programme based on the programme design matrix (PgDM) is summarised in the following table. Most of the seven output targets under BBEC I were reached except for Output 6: “A more permanent framework as a basis for comprehensive conservation which is modelled from BBEC is developed (Table 3.1).”

Table 5.3 Results of the final evaluation on BBEC Programme Phase I in September 2006

Criteria Evaluation Brief Description

1. Relevance Satisfactory Relevant with Malaysian national policy, state policy and Japan’s ODA policy on conservation of biological diversity.

2. Effectiveness Satisfactory The Programme was appropriately monitored and managed, which facilitated interagency information sharing and networking under a single framework.

3. Efficiency Satisfactory All Outputs except Output 6 (Table 3.1) have been or mostly achieved.

4. Impact Satisfactory Positive impacts observed such as better interagency linkage, participation of non-BBEC members, etc.

5. Sustainability Moderate to Satisfactory

The four component agencies strengthened conservation skills and knowledge, but a durable and overall institutional framework still required to maintain them for the integration of conservation activities.

It was noted that working in the field under BBEC I created unique opportunities of interagency interactions by communicating and exchanging information in various manner among institutions and professionals. It was noted, however, that coordination and interaction was rather limited in scale because they were based primarily between limited individuals and/or institutions. It was concluded that a permanent common platform or framework (Output 6) is desirable in sustaining joint activities (Criteria 5) with a number of other agencies and stakeholders to practice integrated conservation activities (JICA, 2006b). The final evaluation indicated that the actions and intervention under BBEC I were not sufficient for developing the expected conservation framework, and innovative approaches are needed to achieve the target.

5.2.3 Lessons learnt 5.2.3.1 Strength The component-based approach of BBEC I (Figure 3.1) was effective in transferring necessary skills and knowledge to target agencies and stakeholders. It was observed that identification of target agencies based on the participant and problem analysis plays a key role in the project design stage. Because the target counterparts with key technologies to be strengthened are focused in this

-80-

approach, input becomes effective and likely to produce tangible outcome (e.g. research publication). BBEC I approach can lead synergy effects as long as interagency interaction and coordination are sustained under an overall framework. It appears to be an appropriate strategy to initiate such a framework because the component agencies are connected and coordinated under the programme (Figure 3.3).

5.2.3.2 Challenges Implementation of integrated conservation requires an interagency framework to consolidate a variety of actions of different agencies. Sustainability of such actions becomes more difficult if a large number of agencies and stakeholders are involved. The effect of the component-based approach of BBEC I proved to be rather limited in developing such a framework for integrated conservation because it lacked capacity or mechanism to produce a leading agency with a sufficient power and legal background. The management framework of BBEC I such as the programme steering committee (Figure 3.3) was only an ad hoc committee without legitimacy or legal power in terms of enforcement and sustainability particularly after the programme. The findings on the challenges in the approach of BBEC I are summarised as: Integration of various conservation-related activities is the key factor to attain synergies but

such integration requires a strong leadership, commitment, a variety of support from higher level officials and authority.

The process of developing a system to implement integrated conservation is a complex and resource demanding action in view of time, money, and external support.

An issue still remains on achieving Output 6 (Table 3.1), a permanent framework for comprehensive conservation. BBEC I focused on the technical side of conservation, not addressing policy issues such as implementation of the SBE 2000. The technical assistance was not sufficient for achieving a permanent framework for comprehensive conservation.

As a result of the final evaluation of BBEC I, the mission suggested that Phase II of the BBEC Programme should focus on policy implementation (i.e. SBE 2000) to support the development of a durable conservation system capable of coordinating multiple agencies, not limited to the four leading agencies of BBEC I. Nevertheless, BBEC I brought a significant improvement to Sabah by strengthening the key agencies and initiating interagency coordination for joint activities. It can be interpreted that BBEC I made significant contributions to prepare an enabling environment to start implementing the SBE 2000 for developing a desirable framework to operate integrated conservation. It was, therefore, reasonably recommended that BBEC II should challenge in implementation of the SBE 2000 to establish an official system to consolidate conservation efforts of various agencies, strengthen conservation governance, and pursue integrated biodiversity conservation.

-81-

5.3 BBEC Phase II

5.3.1 Mid-term evaluation in 2009 Mid-term evaluation on BBEC II was conducted by a joint evaluation team composed of government representatives from Malaysia and Japan from 16 November to 11 December 2009. For the purpose of developing a conservation system in Sabah by implementing the SBE 2000 (policy implementation), JICA provided the total input of approximately 123 man-month of professionals from Japan with a total expenditure of about 2 million US dollars as of December 2009. The evaluation team concluded that the BBEC II approaches were appropriate for strengthening the function and capacity of the Council and SaBC for developing a conservation system (conservation governance) as described in Table 5.4. It was noted in the report that “the approaches are both theoretically sound and well-accepted by the counterparts and working effectively” (JICA, 2010).

Table 5.4 Results of the mid-term review on BBEC Programme Phase II in December 2009


1. Relevance Very high It is recognised that there is a strong need to establish a system to coordinate and integrate efforts to conserve and properly manage biodiversity.

2. Effectiveness High The approaches employed by the programme are not only theoretically sound but are also well accepted by the counterparts and working effectively. They have proven to be effective means of enhancing the state-wide institutional capacity to manage biodiversity and ecosystem conservation initiatives in an integrated manner.

3. Efficiency High Achievements of BBEC I have provided the basis for many activities in BBEC II, with its efficiency enhanced to attain the desired goals.

4. Impact High The programme is playing the role of a catalyst to promote activities and solve problems related to biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. It has enabled various agencies to work together on many occasions with sectionalism overcome in many cases. During the survey, many counterparts (interviewees) commented that different agencies had rarely worked together in BBEC I.

5. Sustainability High All organisations share the objectives of the programme. The institutional setup established under BBEC II is being strengthened and recognition on the roles of SaBC is rising.

Many of the interviewees in the evaluation recognised significant changes in the level of interagency coordination through SaBC with support from JICA under BBEC II (JICA, 2010). Reasons for the strengthened coordination were recognised as: (1) International recognition on

-82-

biodiversity conservation attracting attention from the stakeholders to work together towards the common goals, (2) Effective consensus building process with the participatory planning with the Plan of Operation (PO) workshop and others as to construct a common platform among actors based on the shared objectives, concepts, and targets under the framework of BBEC II, and (3) Effective tools for information sharing e.g. numerous monitoring and management meetings described in the programme guidebook (BBEC II Secretariat, 2008; JICA, 2010). The conservation framework of Sabah has been strengthened with SaBC gaining recognition on its role (JICA, 2010a). However, it requires more resources and experience for a full implementation of the SBE 2000. The evaluation team noted that the smooth operation of the activities such as Ramsar designation had largely depended on the leadership and interest of strong organisations such as SFD, efforts of the BBEC II Secretariat, and the guidance of JICA advisors. The mission went on to recommend that SaBC’s capacity on institutional coordination should be further strengthened through actions such as the Ramsar management planning and MAB nomination process.

5.3.2 Final evaluation in 2012 The outcome and implementation process of BBEC II were evaluated throughout a survey conducted from 7 to 24 May 2012. Similar to the mid-term review, the result of the evaluation was satisfactory in terms of the five assessment criteria (Table 5.5). The mission recognised that significant time and efforts were spent on conceptualisation and planning of the programme at the initial stage of BBEC II (Section 4.1). Annually review of the PO in a participatory manner throughout the implementation of the programme has contributed to achieving part of the programme purposes. The participatory approach of the programme seems to have strengthened the sense of ownership and commitment of the implementing agencies and other stakeholders as well. It is important to promote the ownership among the counterparts in order to ensure the sustainability of the outcomes. Part of the programme purposes of BBEC II was to strengthen “a system” for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, and BBEC II took unique strategies including attainment of international recognition using initiatives such as the CBD, Ramsar Convention, and UNESCO’s MAB Programme, which was recognised to be effective and appropriate.

-83-

Table 5.5 Results of the final evaluation on BBEC Programme Phase II in May 2012


1. Relevance Very high Relevance was evaluated from the aspects of the “2010 Biodiversity Target” and “National Capacity Needs Self-assessment for Global Environmental Management and National Capacity Action Plan (NCSA)”. BBEC II addressed the international and national needs adequately and effectively.

2. Effectiveness High An institutional mechanism for integrated conservation, led by SaBC’s coordination capacity, was developed and strengthened effectively through various interagency committees and meetings.

3. Efficiency Moderately high BBEC II efficiently utilised resources including those outside the programme (e.g. funding from NGOs) but some activities required a large amount of input on some activities such as CUZ and gazette of Lower Segama Wildlife Conservation Area (LSWCA).

4. Impact High Despite complicated and difficult issues related to biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, a number of positive impacts are observed such as an attempt to register new Ramsar site (e.g. Kota Kinabalu Wetland Centre) and to nominate another site for MAB Programme (Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary).

5. Sustainability High A number of interagency committees have been established under BBEC II, both interim and permanent. The main coordination platform the SBE 2000 is highly likely to be sustained as an official interagency coordination mechanism.

Source) JICA, 2012

5.3.3 Lessons learnt 5.3.3.1 Strength The participatory and consultative processes and mechanism in numerous committees, sharing information and making collective decisions, were found effective to strengthen conservation governance. It was innovative to use international initiatives, which was proved useful in stimulating interests and enthusiasm among the stakeholders to come together to work towards the common targets. It was on account of BBEC II that all these activities were carried out under a legitimate framework of the SBE 2000. In other words, BBEC II developed and strengthened the operational capacity or system (conservation governance) through the implementation of the programme activities. With different groups of experts being involved in policy process, i.e. formulators and implementers equipped with different expertise and interest, participatory policy process proved to be useful in reflecting their intentions at different levels and stages in order to strengthen governance. The formulation of the Sabah Biodiversity Strategy (SBS: DVD Data 3) was

-84-

technically supported by BBEC II with the involvement in the process by federal and state government agencies, NGOs, and private sector (e.g. oil palm related associations), but participation of the civil society was somewhat limited. Development of a new conservation policy such as the SBS with substantial participation of the government agencies is a significant outcome of BBEC II but public involvement including the private sector is crucial for the implementation.

5.3.3.2 Challenges Policies such as the SBS and SEEP have been developed based on the social needs, which indicate that two of the three requirements of the “strategic triangle” i.e. “public value” and “legitimacy & support” had been fulfilled at a significant level (Figure 2.1, Section 2.1.3). However, the third requirement “operational capabilities” on practical actions in conservation involve not only the government sector but also public sector, civil society and others (e.g. business sector) which requires empowerment as a whole. While the implementation mechanism for the SBE 2000 was initiated with the formulation of the Council and the establishment of SaBC, its operational capacity including technical skills and financial strength is still limited and remains an issue and challenge. Sabah is still in its early stage to operate integrated conservation in a sustainable manner with the Council and SaBC, and that development of sufficient operational capability would be a long-term process. One of the most important roles of SaBC is to make interagency coordination for the public benefit of the state. Thomas (2003) observed that line managers of an institution are usually bureaucratic and seek autonomy to provide stability and certainty for their organisational recognition and secure the institutional benefit, and such common behaviour and attitude will hamper the mandate of a coordinating body. It makes it challenging to develop and strengthen interagency coordination mechanism for the operation of integrated conservation. To conclude the evaluation, the mission suggested that the financial as well as technical capacity of the state government should be further strengthened. A feasible fund raising mechanism is essential for ensuring the implementation of existing management plan such as the Ramsar Site Management Plan and CRBR Management Plan (Draft). Conservation through zoning and land-use planning outside protected areas without gazette is a new approach in Sabah, requiring technical knowledge to be strengthened as well. The conservation mechanism with the Council and SaBC of Sabah offers an innovative process in coordinated decision-making, but with their limited experience, it is a challenge to bring it up to a conservation model at a sustainable level.

-85-

5.4 Major Findings from the BBEC Programme: 10 Years of Experience 5.4.1 Effective approaches in strengthening conservation governance 5.4.1.1 Programme approach to practice capacity development (CD) The CD process requires a certain length of time for implementation as the process usually involves holistic and systematic perspectives of international cooperation for introducing some social changes. The three approaches in the entry point model of the CD were strategically combined over the 10 years of the BBEC Programme (Figure 5.1). Technical assistance to strengthen research and monitoring skills of the key agencies under BBEC I and policy assistance of BBEC II to strengthen coordinated decision-making process with the Council and SaBC were effectively complemented and developed into a conservation system to operate adaptive management (Figure 5.2). BBEC I and II were not a mere combination of two projects but they aimed at synergies of the functional integration as a programme. Social and political issues are the most challenging issues when adaptive management is applied (Johnson, 1999). This is partially because the management system requires the core body to carry out interagency coordination and make collective decisions, which indicates the importance of its legitimate status granted to the Council and SaBC. It should be noted that the outcomes of BBEC II would not have been possible if its prerequisite such as the SBE 2000 had not existed, or a basic interagency network and cooperation had not been developed with practical actions under technology transfer (BBEC I). Ten years were spent in Sabah on CD, but the process would take longer in a country without a relevant law (e.g. SBE 2000) or effective approaches. Another unique aspect of the programme approach in the BBEC Programme was collaboration with JOCVs, particularly for CUZ in Crocker Range Park under BBEC II (Figure 5.1). Livelihood supporting activities were introduced effectively into the community under collaboration and cooperation between JOCVs and JICA advisors. A combination of the experience and technical skills of JICA advisors and local communication skills and networking of JOCVs proved to be effective in advancing community empowerment. The main concept of JICA’s CD is based on promoting an endogenous process by enhancing motivation of a variety of stakeholders for spontaneous self-help effort in developing countries. Positive effects of the pilot actions of BBEC II were recognised in the willingness to register new areas under the Ramsar Convention and UNESCO’s MAB Programme (Table 5.5). This evidence indicates that the BBEC approach of the CD process has reached at least the level of the bureaucratic institution (pre-social level) of Sabah (Figure 5.3). The knowledge and experience were also shared with foreign training participants in TCTP, with the influence of BBEC II having

-86-

been extended outside Sabah (Figure 5.3). In addition, a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) signed between the Ramsar Secretariat and JICA at the Ramsar COP 11 in July 2012 paved the way for an effective sharing of experience and knowledge of the BBEC Programme with the international community, taking the form of post-BBEC activities through the Ramsar Secretariat (Section 4.3.5). The CD under BBEC II might have reached the social level as it had originally been expected in the model shown in Figure 2.3.

5.4.1.2 Participatory approach to introduce changes in a society: Action research Participatory approach of the BBEC Programme was found effective and productive, which was similar to the principles of action research in that it aims to improve the ability of the involved community or organisation to control their own destinies effectively (Greenwood & Levin, 1998). The programme has been practiced based on the principles of this participatory approach in which the observer, facilitator as well as the counterparts acquire new knowledge from their particular actions and experience. One of the main principles of JICA’s CD process is to facilitate experience and knowledge sharing with various stakeholders and encourage them to initiate new actions (endogenous positive changes). This process is consistent with the fundamental approach of action research, and its key elements including observation, facilitation of actions, and proactive participation have been properly designed, organised, and implemented as a cyclic process in this programme (Figure 5.4). The BBEC I management committee coordinated a number of joint scientific expeditions to strengthen the conservation skills of the counterpart agencies. Various agencies participated in them, which functioned as a participatory learning process while creating opportunities for scientific publication which also worked as incentives. BBEC I played an essential role in constructing a basis for the interagency coordination of BBEC II, which focused on developing a permanent platform (i.e. the Council) for interagency cooperation in conservation by implementing the SBE 2000. Process-based approach was taken and numerous interagency meetings, seminars, and workshops were organised in a participatory manner as part of the implementation of the pilot activities (i.e. Ramsar registration and MAB nomination). Conservation governance was strengthened with the regular institutional ties under the SBE 2000 which worked as an overall framework in Sabah.

-87-

Figure 5.1 A combination of the three approaches of the entry point model (Figure 2.4) as the programme approach practiced in the BBEC Programme

Entry Point


3. Institutional and social development (BBEC II)



Main Actor

Entry Point

Overall Goal

Government Agencies

2. Organisational development (BBEC I)

User 1


User 2 User 3

Main Actor

Policy Assistance (BBEC II)

Technology Transfer (BBEC I)

1. Community empowerment

Community-based Approach with JOCVs (BBEC II)

Other Areas

Entry Point

Local Gov. Agencies

NGOs

Communities

Main Actor

Government Agencies

Other Areas

Overall Goal

BBEC Programme

-88-

Figure 5.2 The BBEC Programme to assist in the establishment of a coordinated decision-making mechanism for the operation of adaptive management in Sabah

BBEC I (Technology Transfer)

BBEC II (Policy Assistance)

7. Feedback to the Council

1. SaBC presents

cross-cutting issues to the

Council

2. Coordinated decision-making on management actions by the

Council

3. Management actions

implemented by relevant

agencies

4. Management actions monitored

by relevant agencies

5. Monitoring results

evaluated by SaBC & others

6. Management actions

adjusted by SaBC & others

Whole Process is Managed by: 1. Sabah Biodiversity Council 2. Sabah Biodiversity Centre

-89-

TCTP: Third Country Training Programme, MOC: Memorandum of Cooperation between the Ramsar Convention Secretariat and JICA

Figure 5.3 Target impacts of the combination of BBEC I & II as JICA’s programme approach, which goes beyond the social level of JICA’s CD model shown in Figure 2.3

Figure 5.4 BBEC Programme in the basic cyclical process of action research (Modified from Wadsworth, 1998 and McNiff, 2002)

Action

Planning

Fieldwork / Observation

Analysis / Evaluation

BBEC Phase I BBEC Phase II Future Actions

Individual Level

Organisational Level

Social level (Sabah State)

BBEC I: 5 years (Technical Assistance)

BBEC II: 5 years (Policy Assistance)

National & Regional Level TCTP & MOC*

-90-

5.4.2 Tools and strategies in conservation practice for international cooperation 5.4.2.1 Creating an institutional platform as a basis of a conservation system Conservation practice is a collective effort, which requires an official and legitimate system to coordinate and consolidate efforts of multiple agencies. While only an interim committee was established to coordinate multiple agencies during BBEC I, BBEC II achieved institutionalisation of such coordination based on the SBE 2000. This conversion or shift to establish an official and legitimate management platform under policy support of BBEC II was an effective approach and strategy of the programme. Independent agencies have their own institutional mandate and responsibility so that interagency collaboration is difficult to attain unless such collaborative actions are legally enforced. BBEC II used existing laws and policies effectively and strategically applied the platform of ABS for other purposes, i.e. biodiversity and ecosystem conservation (Figure 4.7). Once the Council with the relevant agencies such as SaBC and other member agencies was established as an official platform of a conservation system, pilot actions in association with the international initiatives were implemented in order to strengthen the platform and system (Figure 5.2). It should be noted, however, if JICA seeks to establish a conservation system in a similar manner in other areas or countries/regions, it might have to start developing a relevant law or policy since coordination agency such as SaBC does not exist in many cases. Such actions would make significant contributions to international targets such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets9 (DVD Data 13) and Nagoya Protocol10

) but require a considerable length of time.

5.4.2.2 Use of international initiatives as common goals and incentives to strengthen interagency coordination as part of the conservation governance In addition to the legal enforcement described in the above, promoting interests of stakeholders is one of the key elements in the effectiveness of conservation actions (Section 2.3.3). As demonstrated by Thomas (2003), top-down methods (enforcement) of operating institutional collaboration are not as effective in a long run as voluntary actions with specific and/or tangible incentives for cooperation. He defined interagency coordination as “an unmandated effort by public officials” and emphasised the importance of consensus building with a variety of stakeholders in recognising a common goal. Actions become effective when stakeholder’s interest and actor’s power are combined, and SaBC has a legitimate power (SBE 2000) as described in the previous section; therefore, tools and strategies to promote stakeholder’s interest is described in this section.

9 http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ 10 http://www.cbd.int/abs/

http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/�

http://www.cbd.int/abs/�

-91-

Under BBEC I, “tailor-made” international conferences were organised in Kota Kinabalu to share the experience of the project with international participants. Under BBEC II, international initiatives such as the CBD, Ramsar Convention, and UNESCO’s MAB Programme were strategically applied, and well-established conferences including the CBD COP 10 and AWS 2011 in Sabah were used as incentives to receive international attention and strengthen interagency cooperation and information dissemination skills as part of the capacity development process (Section 4.3.1.2). The side event at the CBD COP 10 and the AWS Sabah 2011 were organised in a participatory manner with multiple agencies (Section 4.3.1.2). In the series of workshops held during the BBEC II formulation, many participants expressed their interest in having their conservation efforts internationally recognised, with the attempt for recognition specified in the overall goal of the PgDM of BBEC II (Table 4.1). International initiatives relevant to Sabah’s context were selected and used as common targets and incentives for the stakeholders in the programme. Of activities led by SaBC, those related to the Ramsar Convention and MAB Programme were identified as pilot actions in the PO to strengthen the conservation governance. As the Ramsar registration and MAB nomination processes involved many state agencies, the Council functioned as a common platform, with SaBC taking the role of the legitimate interagency coordination body. These processes strengthened SaBC’s capacity in coordination as well as state conservation governance. Although many stakeholders showed little understanding during the evaluation of BBEC I in 2006 on integrated conservation or how it could be achieved, most of those interviewed in 2009 during the mid-term review of BBEC II showed clear idea on these points, having experienced the pilot actions of BBEC II.

5.4.2.3 Roles of international assistance It has been argued that policy implementation has more significance than policy formulation (Grindle & Thomas, 1991), while Moore (1995) suggested that the implementation may be supported by a third party. International cooperation that enhances actor’s motivation and introduces interest and incentives originating outside Sabah can be considered as aid donor’s catalytic function which would help link multiple stakeholders. In this light, JICA’s CD process with the consistent application of its programme approach of combining multiple agencies has strengthened the conservation governance in Sabah. Malaysia and Japan made an international agreement in 2006 to ensure an official assistance to the Council and SaBC (Appendix 4.1). It was a “prerequisite” to activate the Council and establish SaBC based on the SBE 2000 because development of a conservation system with the Council and SaBC through the pilot actions (i.e. international initiatives) was one of the focuses of BBEC II.

-92-

BBEC approach of using JICA’s donor/advisory position (i.e. bilateral agreement) to translate international concepts into specific local activities worked out effectively in which international initiatives and the local law were linked. That the SBE 2000 had been established to meet social needs did not mean that the government had capacity to implement it, as it has become evident in the difficulty in policy implementation (Section 2.1.3). This indicates the importance of supporting to develop the capacity of the government particularly when implementing a new policy. In case of Sabah, the newly established SaBC required substantial capacity development and support in the implementation of the SBE 2000, and assistance from JICA as an outside aid agent with sufficient power proved effective in capacity development using the pilot actions under BBEC II. It is expected that the conservation governance of Sabah will continue to grow, and it should be noted that the development process should be monitored in a appropriate manner within the system for adaptive management (Figure 5.2, Section 5.4.1.1).

-93-

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Practical Implications of the BBEC Programme

The BBEC Programme of 10 years was a learning process for the stakeholders in Sabah as well as for JICA. This section is focused on the implications drawn out mainly from the donor’s perspectives.

6.1.1 General implications Achieving a sustainable society is an ultimate goal of the international community, and governance is one of the key factors for its fulfilment (Section 2.1.1). The BBEC Programme addressed how conservation governance can be effectively developed for the operation of integrated conservation activities. The programme demonstrated that strengthening both scientific knowledge and capacity of policy implementation is essential for developing the governance. BBEC II specifically suggested that strengthening coordination among actors and promoting common interests of a variety of stakeholders is critical for developing conservation governance. It also demonstrated the effect in developing interagency coordination network lead by an impartial and legitimate agency such as SaBC supported by an outside aid agent (i.e. JICA). Action research to facilitate the process of capacity development proved effective when international initiatives were used. Knowledge is developed through discourses and practices (actions), and the type of knowledge generated from the BBEC Programme was a practically-driven outcome, rather than theoretically-driven. The international initiatives as common incentives of stakeholders used in combination with donor’s leverage can effectively promote a paradigm shift in a society, which is a demonstrated outcome of the BBEC Programme. The outcome also indicated a high potentiality of bilateral international cooperation on capacity building for developing countries, particularly those undergoing an economic transition such as Malaysia, an upper middle-income country (UMIC) in the DAC List (Appendix 6.1)11

.

11 Upper middle-income countries (UMICs): Countries with gross national income (GNI) per capita between

US$ 3,976 and US$ 12,275 in 2010 based on the criteria set in the DAC List (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/58/49483614.pdf) by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

-94-

6.1.2 Biodiversity and ecosystem conservation sector of ODA With the BBEC approach found useful, JICA has a clearer recognition of the importance of providing a third party assistance and effective interventions, which now needs to be replicated in other countries for further understanding and dissemination. Considering that the status and conditions of Sabah contributed to producing tangible outcome, it is important to observe whether the basic capacity and potential of an ODA recipient country is appropriate for the BBEC approach. Economic contribution in the biodiversity and ecosystem conservation sector is often indirect and elusive, requiring a long-term process to produce a tangible benefit compared with other types of development assistance such as infrastructure development and agricultural development. The sustainability of natural resources is often marginalised in a country’s developing era, even though it can be considered a requirement for achieving a sustainable society (Section 2.1.1). The status of Malaysia being an upper middle-income country in the DAC List may imply potentiality to emphasise conservation sector. This aspect is quite important particularly when an ODA recipient country is to be selected as a candidate for the BBEC approach, because it requires certain resources (human resources and local budget) and serious commitment in biodiversity and ecosystem conservation including political will. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, on the other hand, has a policy to start reducing the level of input to the upper middle-income countries (UMICs) and cease ODA assistance when their status becomes the high income countries (HICs)12 to encourage them to recognise themselves as partners in international cooperation rather than ODA recipient countries13

. This approach is obviously incompatible with the needs and potentiality of recipient UMICs in biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. The BBEC experience suggests that the countries that have just gained a UMIC status may indicate that they have recently acquired a sufficient capacity and potential of developing conservation governance. The ODA in this sector needs to establish strategies to focus on those highly potential countries and make appropriate assistance regardless of the DAC status. Such an approach would pave the way for South-South cooperation, to disseminate experience and knowledge to other countries particularly within a region, even after ODA assistance is completed.

6.1.3 JICA’s approach in biodiversity and ecosystem conservation sector One of the unique strategies of the BBEC Programme was the regional approach to share experience and knowledge with other countries through the Third Country Training Programme (TCTP), especially those within the region (Figure 5.3). As countries within a region often share similarities in environment/ecosystems as well as culture, training for them would be more

12 High income countries (HICs): Countries with GNI per capita more than US$ 12,276 in 2010. 13 http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/oda/

-95-

effective and applicable than for the countries of other parts of the world. As for ecological perspectives, the 25 hotspots identified as priority conservation areas based on ecological constituents of the ecosystems (Figure 6.1) can be used as a cross-reference to the DAC List of the ODA recipient countries to focus on the potential leader countries in conservation within regions (Appendix 6.1). It would be an effective strategy to focus on the potential countries with sufficient input of assistance to help them lead the regional conservation.

Figure 6.1 The 25 hotspots for conservation priority (Myers et al., 2000) The BBEC Programme was implemented in Sabah which belongs to the Sundaland Hotspot in the map of Myers et al. (2000), and shared experience with all countries within the region through the TCTP (Section 4.3.4.1), showing a cost-effective example in conservation effort over the hotspot. TCTP as a mechanism of South-South cooperation, sharing knowledge with others in a region can extend positive impacts beyond the ODA recipient country (Figure 5.3). It should be noted that intervention would not be considered interference in domestic affairs as long as it has a cause of supporting implementation of the international initiatives and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). To this end, similarly with the MOC between the Ramsar Convention Secretariat and JICA, having an institutional agreement for cooperation with other international conventions is expected to strengthen the background and needs for ODA assistance also to help international community achieve international targets in conservation sector (Figure 5.3, Section 5.4.1.1).

-96-

One of the JICA’s four missions is to address “the global agenda, including climate change, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.” As issues related to biodiversity and ecosystem conservation are often complex and multi-disciplinary, formulation and implementation of projects in this sector require a multi-sectoral approach. In view of this, it is desirable to strengthen internal network within JICA, (e.g. between the Department of Global Environment and Department of Rural Development) to address cross-cutting issues.

6.2 Future Work in International Cooperation on Conservation

6.2.1 Sabah’s perspectives The Tenth Malaysia Plan from 2011 to 2015 provides the policy framework and strategies for Malaysia to reach the national target of achieving a high-income status by 2020 (Government of Malaysia, 2010). During the Ninth Malaysian Period (2006-2010), five growth corridors were identified for regional development to support the national target. Sabah Development Corridor (SDC) is one of the five corridors, established to support sustainable economic growth. One the principles of the SCD is to “Ensure sustainable growth via environmental conservation” (Section 1.3.3), the concept leading to ensuring sustainability of the society (Section 6.1.1). The BBEC Programme contributed to strengthen technical capacity and governance process to keep a balance between development and conservation in Sabah. For the Ramsar site in Kinabatangan, implementation of the management plan can catalyse biodiversity conservation for the Ramsar site and economic activities in its surrounding areas such as oil palm industries, tourism operation, and small-scale fishing activities (wise-use of natural resources). For the MAB site, nomination of the CRBR is expected to help balance between conservation activities including the CRP management for water resources and biodiversity conservation and economic activities in its surrounding areas including subsistence activities of communities, agriculture (e.g. rubber plantation and oil palm plantation), tourism and so on. It should be noted that maintaining biocultural heritage throughout the biosphere reserve is also a crucial objective of the MAB Programme. Sabah is uniquely equipped with necessary elements for balancing development and conservation under the SDC, such as technical skills and knowledge, laws and policies, and institutional mechanism with an interagency platform. It is desirable that the activities related to the Ramsar Convention and MAB Programme be continued with proper records, and experiences be shared with other states and countries. Sabah has a good access to the international community through the Ramsar Convention and UNESCO, which gives it the power to enlighten other stakeholders to with its experience.

-97-

6.2.2 JICA’s perspectives Translating international resolutions into practical actions at local level can contribute to achieving international targets and obligations (e.g. Aichi Biodiversity Targets, DVD Data 13; Nagoya Protocol, DVD Date 14) and benefiting all nations regardless of their status (industrialised or developing). International cooperation should not be a mere technology transfer or funding mechanism whether it is implemented through bilateral or multilateral agencies, but should aim at introducing desirable changes/impacts at a social level. Ten years of the BBEC Programme demonstrated that the combination of the programme approach with a participatory approach such as action research can be a useful tool to achieve/practice capacity development (CD) at a desirable scale. To reflect an increasing demand for the practicalities of political engagement for human security and well-being in near future, it is essential to combine conservation principles and international cooperation using a participatory approach like action research so as to focus on producing feasible solutions based on theoretical and practical evidence. International cooperation using donor’s power presents a potential for overcoming existing institutional conflict and power imbalance in the recipient country by facilitating tangible actions to reach the common target such as achieving the sustainability of the society. The main concept of JICA’s CD, motivating various stakeholders to facilitate spontaneous self-help effort (endogenous process) as a catalyst in developing countries, should be recognised as quite a practical approach. Such approach should be applied in more number of projects in other countries to share the experience and knowledge with stakeholders at a wider-scale. One of the most unique challenges of BBEC II was to consolidate the three objectives of the CBD (Section 4.3.2.4) through the practical application of the interagency coordination mechanism of an ABS system. BBEC II’s interpretation is that ABS is a tool or mechanism to support conservation and sustainable use of biological resources (integrated conservation) because it has a potential to add value to genetic resources (biodiversity and ecosystems) of developing countries, thus encouraging contracting parties to pursue CBD’s objectives of (1) and (2)14

14 Nagoya Protocol acknowledges that “the potential role of access and benefit-sharing to contribute to the

conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, poverty eradiation and environmental sustainability and thereby contributing to achieving the Millennium Development Goals” (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011).

. One of the remarkable effects of ABS is that it has a potential on making a functional consolidation of all agencies involved in the management of genetic resources – interagency coordination that is required as part of an ABS system to issue access license and make arrangements for equitable benefit-sharing among stakeholders can be used as a platform to integrate a variety of conservation efforts of different agencies.

-98-

BBEC II used the interagency platform (of ABS) based on the SBE 2000 to strengthen itself by implementing activities related to the Ramsar Convention and UNESCO’s MAB to consolidate the three objectives the CBD. The indirect application of the role of ABS is quite an innovative approach – its replication in other parts of the world would support in achieving international targets such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 202015

. It is, however, actual practice will face sensitive issues such as those related to access to traditional knowledge held by indigenous and local communities. It is recognised that “traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources is held or owned by indigenous and local communities” (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011). It is important to strengthen the ability of the communities how their traditional knowledge could be used for their benefit (monetary and non-monetary), but innovative practices are required for actual implementation. It will be a serious challenge for governments and both multilateral and bilateral aid agencies to address such local issues.

15 The United Nations General Assembly at its 65th session declared the period 2011-2020 to be “the United

Nations Decade on Biodiversity, with a view to contributing to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets for the period 2011-2020” (Resolution 65/161).

http://www.cbd.int/undb/goals/undb-unresolution.pdf�

-99-

REFERENCES

BBEC II Secretariat. 2008. Guidebook of Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation Programme II (BBEC II) in the State of Sabah: The Basic Concept, Strategies and Plan. Kota Kinabalu: BBEC II Secretariat. 28 pp.

BBEC II Secretariat. 2011. Manual for Monitoring of Sabah Environmetnal Education Policy (SEEP) with Results of the 1st Monitoring, 1st Edition,. Kota Kinabalu: BBEC II Secretariat. 64 pp.

Bennett, S. & Franco, L. 2000. Health Worker Motivation and Health Sector Reform. PHR primer for policy makers, PHR Project, Washington, D.C.

Bryant, R.L. & Bailey, S. 1997. Third World Political Ecology. London: Routledge. Chambers, R. 1997. Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London: Intermediate

Technology Publications. de Jong, W., Lye, T.P., & Abe, K. 2003. The Political Ecology of Tropical Forests in Southeast

Asia: Historical Roots of Modern Problems. In Lye, T.P., de Jong, W. & Abe, K. (eds). The Political Ecology of Tropical Forests in Southeast Asia, Kyoto University Press, pp. 1-28.

Department of Statistics Sabah. 1993. Yearbook of Statistics, Sabah 2008. Department of Statistics Malaysia, Sabah, January 1994.



FACID (Foundation for Advanced Studies for International Development). 2008. PCM-Management Tool for Development Assistance (Participatory Planning). 7th edition. FACID, Tokyo.

Fraser, N. 1989. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Government of Malaysia. 2010. The Tenth Malaysia Plan: 2011-2015. The Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Putrajaya.

Greenwood, D.J. & Levin, M. 1998. Introduction to Action Research: social research for social change. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications.

Grindle, M.S. & Thomas, J.W. 1991. Public Choices and Policy Change: The Political Economy of Reform in Developing Countries. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

IDS (Institute for Development Studies, Sabah). 2007. Sabah Development Corridor, Socio-Economic Blueprint, 2008-2025: Harnessing Unity in Diversity for Wealth Creating and Social Well-Being. 215 pp.

JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2000. Preparatory study for cooperation in Ecosystem Conservation in Malaysia. JICA. (in Japanese).

JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2002. Bornean and Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation Programme, Main Report on a Short-term Study on Implementation: JICA. (in Japanese).

JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2004. Capacity Development Handbook for JICA staff, Task Force on Aid Approaches: JICA.

JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2006a. Capacity Development (CD), Institute for International Cooperation Tokyo: JICA. (in Japanese).

http://www.phrproject.com/publicat/phrprimer/hwme.pdf�

http://www.phrproject.com/publicat/phrprimer/hwme.pdf�

-100-

JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2006b. Final evaluation on the Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation Programme, Department of Global Environment, Tokyo: JICA. (in Japanese).

JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2006c. Program Management: Guide for the Application of P2M to JICA activities, Social Development Department, Tokyo: JICA.

JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2007. Preliminary study on the Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation Programme (Phase II), Department of Global Environment, Tokyo: JICA. (in Japanese).

JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2008. Programme Completion Report on Phase 1, Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystem Conservation Programme in Sabah, Malaysia February 2002 – January 2007. Secretariat of BBEC: JICA.

JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2010. Joint Mid-term Evaluation Report on the Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation Programme Phase II. Tokyo, JICA (in Japanese).

JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2012. Joint Terminal Evaluation Report on Programme for Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation Phase II (Draft). 24 May 2012, JICA.

Johnson, B.L. 1999. Introduction to the special feature: adaptive management – scientifically sound, socially challenged? Conservation Ecology, 3(1): 10.

Kaul, I., Grunberg, I. & Stern, M. 1999. Defining Global Public Goods In Kaul, I., Grunberg, I. & Stern, M. (eds) Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the Twenty First Century, New York, Oxford University Press.

Lipsky, M. 1980. Street-level Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Manktelow, J. 2009. Mind tools. http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_07.htm. McNiff, J. 2002. Action research for professional development: Concise advice for new action

researchers (Third edition). (http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html) Martin, L. 1999. The Political Economy of International Cooperation. In Kaul, I., Grunberg, I. &

Stern, M. (eds) Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the Twenty First Century, New York, Oxford University Press.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Island Press. Washington D.C.

Moore, M.H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Myers, N.R., Mittermeier, A., Mittermeier, C.G., Fonseca, G.A.B., & Kent, J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403: 853-858.

Pirages, D. 1996. Introduction. In Pirages, D. (ed). Building Sustainable Societies: A Blueprint for a Post-Industrial World, M.E. Sharpe, Inc. New York, pp. 3-13.

Pisupati, B. & Rubian, R. 2008. MDG on reducing biodiversity loss and the CBC’s 2010 target. UNU-IAS Report.

Pressman, J.L. & Wildavsky, A. 1984. Implementation. 3rd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ross, M.L. 2001. Timber booms and institutional breakdown in southeast Asia. University of Cambridge.

Roux, D.J., Ashton, P.J., Nel, J.L., & Heather, M.M. 2008. Improving cross-sector policy integration and cooperation in support of freshwater conservation. Conservation Biology, 22: 1382-1387.

Sabah Biodiversity Centre. 2009. Annual Report 2008. Sabah Biodiversity Centre. Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_07.htm�

http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html�

-101-

Sabah Biodiversity Centre. 2011. Annual Report 2009 Sabah Biodiversity Centre. Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.

Sabah State Government. 2012. Sabah Biodiversity Strategy: Biodiversity is our shared heritage; it must also be our shared responsibility. Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2004. The Ecosystem Approach (CBD Guidelines). Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 50 pp.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2006. Global Biodiversity Outlook 2. Montreal, 81 pp + vii pages.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3: Montreal, 94 pp.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2011. Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity: text and annex. Montreal, 25 pp.

Smith, R.J., Muir, R.D.J., Walpole, M.J., Balmford, A. & Leader-Williams, N. 2003. Governance and the loss of biodiversity. Nature, 426: 67-70.

Thomas, C.W. 2003. Bureaucratic landscapes: Interagency cooperation and the preservation of biodiversity. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Tsuzuki, K. 1999a. The Land System in Sabah, Malaysia during the Colonial Period -The Relationship between the Land Law Promulgated under Chartered Company Rule and the Existing Land Law-. Journal of International Studies. 15: 61-69. (in Japanese)

Tsuzuki, K. 1998. Origin and the Process of Destruction of Tropical Rain Forests and Economic Development in Sabah, Malaysia: The Relationship between Economic Globalization and Shifting Cultivation. Journal of Modern Society and Culture. 13: 137-169. (in Japanese)

Tsuzuki, K. 1999b. The Relationship between Development Policies and Decreasing Tropical Rainforests in Sabah, Mechanism of Deforestatin in view of Commercial Logging and Agri-conversion since the Second World War. Journal of Modern Society and Culture. 14: 239-279. (in Japanese)

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2009. Capacity Development: A UNDP Primer, New York, UNDP. (http://www.undp.org/capacity/)

UNESCO. 2002. Biosphere reserves: Special places for people and nature. UNESCO, Paris. Wadsworth, Y. 1998. What is Participatory Action Research? Paper 2. Action Research

Institutional. Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. McMillan, New York, New

York, USA. Walters, C J. & Holling, C.S. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing.

Ecology, 71: 2060-2068 Williams, B.K., Szaro, R.C. Shapiro, C.D. 2009. Adaptive management. The U.S. Department of

the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 72 pp.

World Bank. 1991. Malaysia: Forestry Subsector Study. Report No. 9775-MA, Draft, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature Malaysia). 1992. Sabah Conservation Strategy. Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Development, Sabah, Malaysia.

http://www.undp.org/capacity/�

- 103 -

APPENDICES

-104-

Appendix 1.1 Sabah Biodiveristy Enactment 2000

-102-

Appendix 2.1 Principles and rationale of the ecosystem approach of the CBD

12 Principles Rationale 1. The objectives of management of land, water

and living resources are a matter of societal choice.

Different sectors of society view ecosystems in terms of their own economic, cultural and societal needs. Indigenous peoples and other local communities living on the land are important stakeholders and their rights and interests should be recognized. Both cultural and biological diversity are central components of the ecosystem approach, and management should take this into account. Societal choices should be expressed as clearly as possible. Ecosystems should be managed for their intrinsic values and for the tangible or intangible benefits for humans, in a fair and equitable way.

2. Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level.

Decentralized systems may lead to greater efficiency, effectiveness and equity. Management should involve all stakeholders and balance local interests with the wider public interest. The closer management is to the ecosystem, the greater the responsibility, ownership, accountability, participation, and use of local knowledge.

3. Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems.

Management interventions in ecosystems often have unknown or unpredictable effects on other ecosystems; therefore, possible impacts need careful consideration and analysis. This may require new arrangements or ways of organization for institutions involved in decision-making to make, if necessary, appropriate compromises.

4. Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programme should:

(a) Reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity;

(b) Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use;

(c) Internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible.

The greatest threat to biological diversity lies in its replacement by alternative systems of land use. This often arises through market distortions, which undervalue natural systems and populations and provide perverse incentives and subsidies to favour the conversion of land to less diverse systems. Often those who benefit from conservation do not pay the costs associated with conservation and, similarly, those who generate environmental costs (e.g. pollution) escape responsibility. Alignment of incentives allows those who control the resource to benefit and ensures that those who generate environmental costs will pay.

-124-

-103-

12 Principles Rationale 5. Conservation of ecosystem structure and

functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach.

Ecosystem functioning and resilience depends on a dynamic relationship within species, among species and between species and their abiotic environment, as well as the physical and chemical interactions within the environment. The conservation and, where appropriate, restoration of these interactions and processes is of greater significance for the long-term maintenance of biological diversity than simply protection of species.

6. Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning.

In considering the likelihood or ease of attaining the management objectives, attention should be given to the environmental conditions that limit natural productivity, ecosystem structure, functioning and diversity. The limits to ecosystem functioning may be affected to different degrees by temporary, unpredictable or artificially maintained conditions and, accordingly, management should be appropriately cautious.

7. The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.

The approach should be bounded by spatial and temporal scales that are appropriate to the objectives. Boundaries for management will be defined operationally by users, managers, scientists and indigenous and local peoples. Connectivity between areas should be promoted where necessary. The ecosystem approach is based upon the hierarchical nature of biological diversity characterized by the interaction and integration of genes, species and ecosystems.

8. Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term.

Ecosystem processes are characterized by varying temporal scales and lag-effects. This inherently conflicts with the tendency of humans to favour short-term gains and immediate benefits over future ones.

9. Management must recognize that change is inevitable.

Ecosystems change, including species composition and population abundance. Hence, management should adapt to the changes. Apart from their inherent dynamics of change, ecosystems are beset by a complex of uncertainties and potential "surprises" in the human, biological and environmental realms. Traditional disturbance regimes may be important for ecosystem structure and functioning, and may need to be maintained or restored. The ecosystem approach must utilize adaptive management in order to anticipate and cater for such changes and events and should be cautious in making any decision that may foreclose options, but, at the same time, consider mitigating actions to cope with long-term changes such as climate change.

-125-

-104-

12 Principles Rationale 10. The ecosystem approach should seek the

appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity.

Biological diversity is critical both for its intrinsic value and because of the key role it plays in providing the ecosystem and other services upon which we all ultimately depend. There has been a tendency in the past to manage components of biological diversity either as protected or non-protected. There is a need for a shift to more flexible situations, where conservation and use are seen in context and the full range of measures is applied in a continuum from strictly protected to human-made ecosystems.

11. The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.

Information from all sources is critical to arriving at effective ecosystem management strategies. A much better knowledge of ecosystem functions and the impact of human use is desirable. All relevant information from any concerned area should be shared with all stakeholders and actors, taking into account, inter alia, any decision to be taken underArticle 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Assumptions behind proposed management decisions should be made explicit and checked against available knowledge and views of stakeholders.

12. The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

Most problems of biological-diversity management are complex, with many interactions, side-effects and implications, and therefore should involve the necessary expertise and stakeholders at the local, national, regional and international level, as appropriate.

-126-

Appendix 3.1 (1) Final PDM (Ver.5) for REC

Programme Name: Technical Cooperation Programme for Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation in Sabah Programme Area: Sabah State Duration: February 2002 – January 2007 Target Group: People of Sabah Date: 16 December 2004 Version: 5

Narrative Summary Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Important

Assumptions Overall goal

Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems in Sabah is enhanced.

- (Refer to the PgDM). - (Refer to the PgDM) -(Refer to the PgDM)

Programme purpose Comprehensive and sustainable approach for conservation is established.

- (Refer to the PgDM) - (Refer to the PgDM) -(Refer to the PgDM)

Project Purpose Appropriate research and education model for conservation is established.

1) Usefulness of model to solve conservation problem brought in. 1. Office record in ITBC

Outputs 1. Linkages of implementing and related organisations are enhanced and developed. 2. Research and training facilities at UMS are developed and made accessible to other

implementing agencies. 3. Trained researchers, relevant staffs, rangers and community leaders for taxonomy

and conservation biology are increased. 4. Biodiversity and ecosystems in the target areas are studied and better understood. 5. Reference centres in IA’s are upgraded and networked.

1 No. of jointly conducted expedition, research, publication and data sharing during the five years. 2 2.1) No. of times equipment used. 2.2) No. of people in IA’s using facilities 2.3) No. of facilities made operational 3 No. of officer, researcher, ranger and community leader trained. They will be trained in taxonomy and conservation biology by experts (Malaysian and Japanese) based on international standard, modified to suit local condition until end of 2006 in appropriate sites. 4 No. of papers, posters, journals etc published or presented on biodiversity and ecosystems by REC staff members in the international/ local journals, conferences, seminars, symposiums by Feb 2007. 5 5.1) No. of specimen and data at ITBC research centre is increased.

5.2) Frequency of use of ITBC reference centre by other IA’s.

1. BBEC Homepage, newsletter, papers in Resource Room 2. Log book for each facility 3. Record of no. of people trained. 4. Record of no. of conference/publishing

5.1 Database 5.2 Log book

Activities 1-1. Discuss on the detailed research plan for taxonomy and conservation biology

among implementing organisations. 1-2. Establish protocol for collection and distribution of specimens. 1-3. Create and upgrade communication system to provide two ways communication

among implementing organisations by means of Webpages and others. 1-4. Exchange research results among implementing agencies. 1-5. Create opportunities for periodic fora/ academic associations. (SITE) 1-6. Hold research seminars biweekly. 2-1. Acquire necessary equipment relevant literature/publication on taxonomy and

nature conservation and necessary equipments 2-2. Make literature on taxonomy and conservation biology available and accessible to BBEC members . 2-3. Establish/ introduce database in Research and Education component 2-4. To establish and introduce GIS system in Research and Education component 2-5. Maintain the research facilities and equipment. 2-6. Making accessible for research facilities at ITBC to REC and BBEC members. 3-1. Provide training opportunities for researcher, relevant staff, ranger and

community leader. 3-2. Plan and run short term and medium term courses in Japan / UMS / other

institutions, including biodiversity assessment, research methodology, curatorial and data/ IT management, taxonomic and conservation biology courses.

3-3. Make and produce effective “kits” for effective teachings at various level (game warden, rangers).

3-4. ITBC gets many active students and scholarship (from Malaysia and Japan).

3-5. To train REC researcher on socio economic issues. 4-1. Plan for field survey (flora survey, fauna survey, ethnobotany,

ethnozoology, ethnoentomology, social aspects, geological survey, nature tourism, natural products, microbs/fungi, environmental parameters.

4-2. Establish permanent research plots. 4-3. Collect, prepare and identify specimens from the target

areas. 4-4. Make medium and long term plan on collection, storing

and application of specimen for conservation. 4-5. Conduct studies in the target areas as identified during field

survey. 4-6. Present research findings at the international symposium,

conference etc. 4-7. Publish books on research findings, papers and research

journals annually. 5-1. Standardise specimen management. 5-2. Establish systematic system of data management. 5-3. Establish multimedia databank (video, sound, photo) of nature

in the target areas. 5-4. Establish and open database of taxonomic and

conservation biology information on the internet. 5-5. Make exhibition for conservation of biodiversity in ITBC and

other places. 5-6. Invite IA’s to use reference centre of ITBC.

Inputs

Malaysian Side

Animal Taxonomy: 10p Staff

Plant Taxonomy: 10p Conservation Biology: 8p Technicians for preparing specimens (parataxonomist): 7p Librarian: 1p Research Officer: 1p Working group for the Component Administrative personnel

- Facilities/equipment

- Facilities/equipment for taxonomy and conservation biology (including those to preserve the specimen collection)

- Building for the research - Facilities for Japanese experts (rooms

and telephone etc.) - Operation cost for the

facilities/equipment. - Cost for research and publication

-Japanese Side

- Long-term experts Expert

Systematic Biology: 1p Inventory / Museum Management: 1p Conservation Biology: 1p

- Short-term experts 2)

Taxonomy (Entomology, Plant, Aquatic) Field Research

Forest Ecology GISDatabase System

3)

Green Auditing 4)

Audio Visual- JOCV (when available)

5)

Specimen Management Database Management

- Facilities/equipment for taxonomy and conservation biology (including those to preserve the specimen collection) and education.

Equipment

- Vehicles - Partial cost for workshops

and training courses.

Taxonomy Training

Conservation Biology/ Field Research Curation

Database Management

Preconditions

1) The “Target Areas” are Crocker Range Park, Tabin Wildlife Reserve, Kulamba Wildlife Reserve, Lower Kinabatangan and Maliau Basin. 2) The long-term expert for Protected Area Management under the Park Management Component can hold this post concurrently. 2)-5) The short-term experts dispatched for the other component can hold these posts concurrently.

-127-

Appendix 3.1 (2) Final PDM (Ver.5) for PMC Programme Name: Technical Cooperation Programme for Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation in Sabah Project Name; Park Management Component (PMC) Project Area: Crocker Range Park Duration: February 2002 – January 2007 Target Group: Implementing Organizations and Local People living in and around Crocker Range Park Date: 16 December 2004 Version: 5

Narrative Summary Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Important Assumptions Overall Goal Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems in Sabah are enhanced.

(Refer to PgDM) (Refer to PgDM) (Refer to PgDM)

Programme Purpose Comprehensive and sustainable approach for conservation is established.

(Refer to PgDM) (Refer to PgDM) (Refer to PgDM)

Project Purpose Effective management options for protected areas are developed.

1. Natural environment is conserved. 2. Participatory park management system is established. 3. Human resource capacity has been enhanced. 4. A new protected area management concept and approach (such as coexistence of local communities and park) is understood by stakeholders and referred by other protected area management.

1. Surveys. 2. Publications. 3. Progress Reports. 4. Compilation of lessons learned.

Continuous political support by the Sabah state Government on this project.

Outputs 1. The situation of the local communities in and around the

Crocker Range Park is studied and understood. 2. The Crocker Range Park Management Plan is prepared and

published 3. Human resource capacity development of the organisations

and communities involved in the conservation of CRP is enhanced.

4. The Crocker Range Park Management Plan is implemented. 5. The lessons learned through the implementation of the CRP

Management Plan are analysed and compiled.

1. One report (village profile) is produced by December 2003. 2. One park management plan (final draft) for the CRP is produced and

accepted through public participation by March 2004, and the final version is approved by the Board of Trustees of Sabah Parks and endorsed by the State Government by March 2005.

3. Training programme related to the management of CRP for the implementing organization and communities are established.

4. - Basic infrastructures for the CRP management are developed. - Pilot public awareness activities in and around CRP are conducted. - Participation and cooperation from stakeholders are gained. - A monitoring system of the natural environment is established. - CRP Management Advisory Committee is established. - Action plans are prepared.

5. One report on evaluation and lessons learned on effective protected

area management options is produced.

1. Report 2. Park Management Plan 3. Set of manuals, records of trainings 4. 1) One satisfactory evaluation report is produced by the working group. 4. 2) Meeting records of PMC Working Group and Management Advisory Board. 4. 3) Annual Report of CRP 5. Report on effective protected area management

- Key players remain in the

Park Management Component during the duration of the project.

- Severe drought or extreme climate.

Activities 1-1 Identify communities that have impact on the park management. 1-2 Conduct socio-economic surveys and analysis for formulation of the CRP Management Plan. 1-3 Conduct workshops/dialogues/discussions with the communities for consensus building for the CRP Management Plan. 2-1 Compile and analyse existing natural and social scientific data related to CRP required for formulation of the CRP Management Plan. 2-2 Formulate the CRP Management Plan. 2-3 Institutionalise the CRP Management Plan. 3-1 Prepare, conduct and evaluate training programme for stakeholders in relation with park management. 4-1 Develop basic infrastructures for the CRP. 4-2 Conduct pilot public awareness activities in and around CRP. 4-3 Encourage participation and cooperation from stakeholders. 4-4 Establish a monitoring system of the natural environment. 4-5 Establish CRP Management Advisory Committee. 4-6. Prepare action plans at district level to resolve land issues. 5-1 Conduct interim review of the implementation of the Management Plan. 5-2 Evaluate the progress and compile lessons learned, publish and distribute them to related agencies.

Inputs Malaysian Side

- Counterparts including District officers for JICA experts

- Staff for Crocker Range Park; 40 p - Social scientist/counterpart for Output 1 - GIS specialist/technician (UMS/Forestry Dept/SP)

- Trainers - GIS data informers

(UMS/Land & Survey Dept.) - Working group for the component - Administrative personnel - Facilities for Japanese experts （rooms, telephone, etc.)

- Travel Allowance of Malaysian staff - Secretarial service - project area/site

Japanese Side

- Long-term experts Protected Area Management; 1 p Community Participation; 1 p - Short-term experts Community Participation

GIS Management/Exhibition at the Visitor Centre Monitoring of Threatened species - JOCV(when available) Plant Ecology Entomology

Community Development - Local consultants for preparation of the management

plan of CRP(Local Small-Scale Development Study) Equipment - Facilities of the information center in CRP - Facilities for research stations in CRP - Vehicles - Equipment for monitoring endangered species - GIS(hardware/software) Training - Protected Area Management - Monitoring of threatened species - Management and exhibition of the visitor centre - GIS

【Preconditions】

-128-

Appendix 3.1 (3) Final PDM (Ver.5) for HMC Programme Name: Technical Cooperation Programme for Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystem Conservation in Sabah Project Name: Habitat Management Component Project Area: Lower Segama (including Kulamba and Tabin ) Duration: February 2002 – January 2007 Date: 16 December 2004 Version: 5

Narrative Summary Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Important Assumptions

Overall Goal Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems of Sabah is enhanced.

( Refer to the PgDM ) ( Refer to the PgDM ) ( Refer to the PgDM )

Programme Purpose Comprehensive and sustainable approach for conservation is established.

( Refer to the PgDM ) ( Refer to the PgDM ) ( Refer to the PgDM )

Project Purpose An integrated approach to habitat management for important species is established

The management plan is functioning. Number of stakeholders including local people in Lower Segama participating in the “Approach” by the end of January 2007.

Minutes of meetings.

Outputs 1. Key species are selected 2. New protected area around Tabin Wildlife Reserve is proposed. 3. Integrated management plan for Lower Segama is developed

through participatory approach. 4. Management plan is implemented and revised. 5. Recommendation for application of Lower Segama experience

to other potential areas.

1. At least one key species is determined by 2002 2. New protected area is identified and proposed for

gazattement. 3. The integrated management plan that consist no. of

programs in cooperating stakeholder(s) compiled and published by January 2007

4. Management plan is revised from the results of implementation by January 2007. Monitoring program of key species become operational in 2005 (provisionally)

5. No. of identified potential areas applicable with Lower Segama experience.

1. Minutes of the meeting. 2. Proposal submitted. 3. Document. 4. Manuals and reports of monitoring are produced. 5. Documented recommendation.

The official procedure will be formalized without delay

Activities 1-1 Review existing data at whole species especially the

protected species in Sabah. 1-2 Decide criteria for selecting key species. 1-3 Select species matching the criteria. 1-4 To identify important key species to local community. 1-5 Draft methods for monitoring the key species. 2-1 Identify needs to rehabilitate degraded areas around TWR

especially riverine habitat. 2-2 Identify and propose the conservation of important habitat

surrounding TWR 3-1 Facilitate the gazettement of the proposed area. 3-2 To identify economic incentives for local communities to be

involved in conservation. 3-3 Acquire relevant biological information. 3-4 Develop plan to realise the needs of local community

through conservation. 3-5 Develop monitoring program for key species.

3-6 Develop training program for implementing the plan. 3-7 Develop regulations for conservation area. 3-8 Draft and develop Lower Segama Management Plan. 3-9 Facilitate the land use zone planning around the

proposed area for the purpose of securing the continuity of the habitats.

4-1 Set up an institution for implementation of the plan. 4-2 Provide training to all stakeholders involved in the

implementation of the plan. 4-3 Conduct field monitoring on the key species. 4-4 Assist communities in realizing their socio-

economic needs through conservation. 4-5 Evaluate and refine the management plan. 5-1 Identify potential areas for conservation

development. 5-2 Prepare suggestions.

Inputs Malaysian side Japanese side

Preconditions

- Permanent counterparts form wildlife department

- Counterparts from all other implementing

organizations - Workgroup for the

Component - Administrative personnel - GIS Data information - Facilities for JICA experts - Operating cost - Local staff working for

HMC

Expert - Long-term expert

Wildlife Management:1 - Short-term expert

Protected Area Planning GIS, Wildlife Biology, Animal Behavior

- JOCV (when available) Equipment - GIS - Radio/GIS tracking - Vehicles - Boats - Field Equipment Training - (Depend on the results of

activities)

-129-

Appendix 3.1 (4) Final PDM (Ver.5) for PAC Programme Name : Technical Cooperation for Bornean Biodiversity & Ecosystem Conservation in Sabah Project Name: Public Awareness Component Project Area: Sabah State Duration: February 2002 – January 2007 Target Group: Implementing Agencies/5 target groups Date : 16 December 2004 Version: 5

Narrative Summary Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Important Assumption Overall Goal

Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystems in Sabah is enhanced.

(Refer to the PgDM) (Refer to the PgDM) (Refer to the PgDM)

Program Purpose Comprehensive and sustainable approach for conservation is established.

(Refer to the PgDM) (Refer to the PgDM) (Refer to the PgDM)

Project purpose Models to change behaviours of the people in Sabah towards biodiversity conservation are established.

The models including guideline and delivering mechanism are produced, with evidence of successful application to the five target groups (teachers, journalists, policy-makers, developers and Non-environmental NGOs).

Accomplishment report

Outputs 1. Effective general public campaigns are planned. 2. Effective general public campaigns are carried out. 3. Capacity of the implementing organizations is

enhanced. 4. Refined guidelines and materials are produced. 5. Positive behaviour of the five target groups towards

nature conservation is increased.

1.1 Reports on current issues produced by the end of 2003. 1.2 A comprehensive strategic plan produced by the end of 2003. 2.1 Frequency of appearance of biodiversity programmes in the media

(electronic media). 2.2 The Public Awareness campaign materials are distributed from Jan 2004. 2.3 Numbers of the Public Awareness campaign are done annually 3.1 Numbers of staff members are trained in the field of public awareness. 3.2 Numbers of staff members are capable of planning, implementing &

evaluating the Public Awareness activities. 3.3 A training course is established in the field of public awareness in Sabah 4-1 Guidelines are produced for the Public Awareness implementing agencies. 4-2. Contents of guidelines are utilized by the implementing agencies. 5. Number of the participants who have attended the public awareness

activities with positive change in behaviour towards nature conservation.

1-1 Report 1-2 Report 2.1 Number of appearance on the paper 2.2 Materials are distributed 2.3 Reports 3.1 Record of training 3.2 Self evaluation - self assessment by respective

employers 3.3 Record & report of training 4. Guideline 5. Report

Activities 1-1 Establish a coordination office to coordinate all activities. 1-2 Pre-test of the study (sampling number, area and field survey method). 1-3 Study current public awareness activities in the pre-studied areas. 1-4 Identify target people (e.g. school children) of the general campaign. 1-5 Identify necessary themes for the campaign. 1-6 Formulate a strategic plan of campaign (selection of media, method and schedule). 1-7 Conduct awareness survey to reach target group as the baseline before the campaign. 2-1 Involve the policy maker / decision makers in the campaign. 2-2 Produce and distribute materials for the public awareness.. 2-3 Conduct PA campaign activities (conference, talk, competition). 2-4 Expand communication channels (webpage, TV, radio, newspapers). 2-5 Monitor, evaluate the implementation and effect of each campaign, and feedback to the plan 3-1 Plan and implement training for the PAC implementing organizations 3-2 Establish coordination mechanisms among the implementing organizations 3-3 Conduct staff exchange programme among the implementing organizations. 3-4 Study tour for members of the implementing organizations. 4-1 Identify best medium and method for effective public awareness activities. 4-2 Conduct meeting / workshop to evaluate / standardise public awareness guidelines. 4-3 Produce and distribute a guideline for the public awareness. 4-4 Revise guidelines and materials after the testing. 5-1 Monitor change of behaviour of the five target groups.

Inputs

• Baseline data important for formulation of guidleines and materials of the public awareness obtained sufficiently from the protected areas

Malaysian Side Counterpart & Human Resources - Coordinator at STU - C/P(s) from STU for JICA expert & JOCV

volunteer on ICT - C/P from UMS - C/P from Public Awareness Sub-committee

of EAC - C/P from Forestry Dept. - C/P from SWD - C/P from SP - C/P from Sabah Foundation - C/P from ECD - Campaigners from Public Awareness

Sub-committee of EAC & other NGOs (i.e. PACOS, WWF, Malaysian Nature Society, Sabah Nature Club etc.)

- Rangers from Sabah Parks & SWD Facility & Equipment - Facilities for JICA experts (e.g. working

rooms, direct telephones etc.) - Operating Cost. Recurrent cost for the NGOs’activities.

Japanese Side Expert - Long term experts Environmental

Education - Short-term experts on ICT/Multimedia - JOCV (when available) on ICT &

Environmental Education Training - Environmental Education (for the

general public campaign) - Environmental Education (for the

school children) Equipment - Vehicle - ICT equipment - Desktop Publishing equipment - Audio visual equipment Partial cost when contracting out some of the activities for local consultants and NGOs is necessary.

Preconditions

-130-

Appendix 3.2 Final PgDM (Ver. 4) of BBEC I Programme Name: Technical Cooperation Programme for Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystem Conservation in Sabah Programme Area: Sabah State Duration: February 2002 – January 2007 Target Group: People of Sabah Date: 16 December 2004 Version: 4

Narrative Summary Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Important Assumptions Overall goal Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems in Sabah is enhanced.

1. Number of institutions and individuals cooperated for biodiversity conservation through the formalized framework is increased.

2. Protected areas are increased. 3. Number of collaborated activities for biodiversity conservation

through the documented framework is increased.

1. Institutional framework for cooperation 2. Protected Area List in Sabah 3. Records / Reports

Programme purpose

Comprehensive and sustainable approach for conservation is established.

1. Implementating agencies are networked to share information, human resources and facilities, and joint conservation activities are increased.

2. Non-BBEC implementing agencies, local communities, NGOs and private sectors are involved in planning, implementation and monitoring of conservation activities of the State Government and UMS.

3.A more permanent framework as a basis for comprehensive conservation, is proposed.

1. Progress Reports and Final Reports. 2. Progress Reports and Final Reports. 3. A document containing the framework

endorsed by PgSC.

- The acceptance and adoption of the framework modelled from BBEC programme.

Outputs for the Programme (the Project Purposes and other Outputs necessary to achieve the Programme Purpose)a

1 A monitoring system and integration among components for comprehensive

conservation is enhanced. 2 An appropriate research and education model for conservation is established. 3 Effective management options for protected areas are developed. 4 An integrated approach to habitat management for important species is

established 5 Models to change behaviours of the target groups towards biodiversity

conservation are established 6 A more permanent framework as a basis for comprehensive conservation

which is modeled from BBEC is developed. 7 The plan, progress and results of the Programme are made known to the

public.

1.1 A mechanism to coordinate and monitor the activities of 4 components is established.

1.2 Activities and results of 4 components are coordinated and integrated for comprehensive conservation.

2 Usefulness of model to solve conservation problems brought in.

3 The majority of protected areas in Sabah and all state in Malaysia have and refer to the hand book of lessons-learned by the end of January 2007

4 Number of stakeholders in Lower Segama participating in the (approach) which are sustainable and supported by local people, by the end of January 2007

5 Models including guideline and delivering mechanism for PA of the target groups are produced with evidence of successful application by the end of January 2007

6.1 No. of joint activities. 6.2 The document containing the framework is produced. 7. Media coverage.on BBEC is increased and maintained.

1.1 Progress Reports. Minutes of meetings. 1.2 Progress Reports. Minutes of meetings. 2. Office record in ITBC 3. Survey. 4. Reports. 5. Accomplishment report. 6.1 Attendance lists of activities. 6.2 A document containing the

recommendations. 7. A record of media coverage.

- Continuous political support by the Sabah State Government on this programme

Activities 1-1 Design a monitoring plan of the Programme. 1-2 Working groups monitor and coordinate the implementation and progress of each component by; 1.

Quarterly meetings 2. half yearly reports 3. Others where necessary. 1-3 Secretariat meets whenever necessary to prepare PgSC meeting and coordinate report writing etc. 1-4 Hold Heads of Component Meeting where necessary to coordinate and integrate activities. 1-5 PgSC monitor, coordinate and endorse the plan and implementation by; 1.half yearly meeting 2. half

yearly reports 3. others if necessary. Activities for Outputs 2~5: (Refer to PDM of each Component) 6-1 Organize International Conference to report, publicize and create forum for discussion, to share

information and experience and compile feedback from participants. 6-2 Conduct workshops to draft recommendations to the state government to integrate Government

agencies, University, local communities, NGOs and private sector. 6-3 Compile and finalize the draft of recommendations and endorsement by the PgSC. 7. Publicize plans, progress and results of the programme through newspapers, TV, radio and internet

websites.

Input - Most members of the Steering

Committee and Working Groups continue working for the implementing organisations.

- New policy or enforcement of laws and regulations related to the conservation emerging after the commencement of the Programme will not contradict the programme.

- Baseline data important formulation of guidelines and materials of the public awareness obtained sufficiently from the protected areas.

- (Input for each Component) Malaysian Side

- Programme Steering Committee - Programme Chairman - Deputy Programme Chairman - Office space and administrative services by ITBC and

UST - Members of the Joint Evaluation Missions - Secretary for PgSC. - Secretary for coordinating Sabah State agencies - Secretary for coordinating BBEC Programme

- (Input for each Component) Japanese Side

- Long-term expert Chief Advisor Programme Coordinator

- Members of the Joint Evaluation Missions.

- Short term experts

a: Output 2, 3, 4, and 5 is the project purpose of REC, PMC, HMC and PAC, respectively.

-131-

-132-

Appendix 4.1 Agreement between Malaysia and Japan for the implementation of BBEC II

Appendix 4.2 Original PgDM of BBEC II

Programme Design Matrix (PgDM) Programme Title: Programme for Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation II Programme Duration: 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2012 (five years) Version Number: Version 1 Target Area: Whole Sabah state with emphasis on Crocker Range Park, river basin of Kinabatangan and Segama rivers Date: 17 April 2008 Target Group: Sabah Biodiversity Council/Centre and other agencies, including Sabah state agencies, Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) and other related organizations, and the people of Sabah

Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Important Assumptions Overall Goal: Biodiversity and ecosystems conservation in Sabah is strengthened and internationally recognised as a conservation model.

The Sabah conservation model developed through BBEC is introduced to other states of Malaysia and/or other countries.

• Report of the Centre

Programme Purpose: A system for biodiversity and ecosystems conservation in Sabah is strengthened and Sabah state becomes a centre for extension of knowledge and information to other areas of Malaysia and foreign countries.

1 Biodiversity conservation strategy in Sabah is approved by the Council. 2 xx number(s) of activities are implemented according to the strategy. 3 Programme related personnel are invited as trainers by other states in Malaysia/other countries.

• Minutes of meetings of the Council • Report of the Centre • Invitation letters for trainers

Malaysian and Sabah state policy on biodiversity and ecosystems conservation does not change significantly.

Outputs: Output 1: Functions and implementation capacity of Sabah Biodiversity Council/Centre are enhanced. 1-1 Sabah Biodiversity Council (the Council) is activated. 1-2 Sabah Biodiversity Centre (the Centre) is established and activated. 1-3 Basic activities for biodiversity and ecosystems conservation in Sabah state are coordinated, promoted and implemented by the Centre.

1-1 Council meeting is held as scheduled (three times per year). 1-2(1) Office of the Centre is established, and adequate number of staff with clear duties is allocated. 1-2(2) A strategic plan of the Centre is drawn out. 1-3 Selected activities are implemented/organised by the Centre.

• Minutes of meetings of the Council • Report of the Centre including the

organizational chart • Strategic plan of the Centre • Report of the Centre

There is no major change in institutional structure of the C/P organizations.

Output 2: Biodiversity and ecosystems conservation activities are implemented. 2-1 Protected areas such as state parks, wildlife reserves, and forest reserves are managed under relevant policies of Sabah. 2-2 Research and education activities for protected area management are strengthened. 2-3 Sabah environmental education policy (EE policy), which was formulated under BBEC Phase I, is implemented and monitored.

2-1(1) Additional xx CUZ sites become functional. 2-1(2) The whole or selected areas in the river basin of Kinabatangan and Segama rivers is proposed officially as Ramsar site(s). 2-2(1) Additional xx research reports/articles are published. 2-2(2) Seminars and workshop are held xx times. 2-3(1) EE policy is endorsed by the Council. 2-3(2) Additional xx environmental education materials are developed. 2-3(3) The target groups of environmental education implement xx activities.

• Programme report • Proposed document for Ramsar

registration • List of publications • Programme report • Programme report • List of environmental education

materials • Evaluation and monitoring report

Output 3: Extension services and training capability related to the biodiversity and ecosystems conservation are enhanced. 3-1 Sabah state agencies, UMS and related organizations are able to conduct trainings on biodiversity and ecosystems conservation to both foreign and local trainees, based on the experience of BBEC. 3-2 Knowledge and information concerning biodiversity and ecosystems conservation activities are made available in Malaysia and foreign countries

3-1 Sabah state agencies, UMS and other related agencies conduct xx training activities. 3-2 Various mass media report xx news related to Sabah biodiversity and ecosystems conservation.

• Programme report • Programme report

-135-

Activities: Activities corresponding to Output 1 (Output 1-1 Sabah Biodiversity Council (the Council) is activated.) 1-1-1 Deliberate and endorse resolutions of BBEC Phase I. 1-1-2 Conduct capacity building activities for the Council members. 1-1-3 Improve operation of the Council. 1-1-4 Coordinate activities for biodiversity and ecosystems conservation implemented by Sabah Biodiversity Centre (the Centre) and other agencies. (Output 1-2 Sabah Biodiversity Centre (the Centre) is established and activated.) 1-2-1 Propose structural position of the Centre in Sabah state government including staff allocation, location, financial allocation etc. 1-2-2 Complete institutional set-up of the Centre including internal rules and regulations. 1-2-3 Prepare a strategic plan for activities of the Centre. 1-2-4 Conduct capacity building activities for the Centre members. (Output 1-3 Basic activities for biodiversity and ecosystems conservation in Sabah state are coordinated, promoted and implemented by the Centre.) 1-3-1 Prioritize the functions of the Centre as per section 9 of the Sabah Biodiversity Enactment 2000. 1-3-2 Prepare an action plan(s) for the Centre based on the priority purposes chosen in the above. 1-3-3 Implement the action plan(s). 1-3-4 Prepare biodiversity conservation strategy in Sabah. 1-3-5 Prepare and publish annual report of the Centre.

Input (Malaysian side): Personnel -Programme director -Vice programme

director -Programme

manager -Counterpart

personnel for Japanese experts -Administrative

personnel -Supporting staff

Land, Building and Facilities -Necessary facilities

for the Programme (building, room, equipment, telephone line etc.)

Operation costs -Cost for the Programme activities -Cost of maintenance of equipment -Partial cost for conducting training in Sabah, etc.

Input (Japanese Side): Personnel <Long-term experts>

-Chief advisor (five years) -Programme coordinator (five years) -Integrated protected area management

(two to three years) -Institutional capacity building (two to three

years) <Short-term experts> -Experts in specific fields upon mutual

agreement Machinery and Equipment -Equipment necessary upon mutual

agreement Training -Two to four personnel per year in specific

fields in Japan and/or third countries -Partial cost for conducting training in Sabah

Budget allocation to the C/P organizations does not decrease largely. Transfer of core staff of C/P organization is kept at a minimum. The government of Sabah state approves the organizational set-up of the Council/Centre officially.

Activities corresponding to Output 2 (Output 2-1 Protected areas such as state parks, wildlife reserves, and forest reserves are managed under relevant policies of Sabah.) 2-1-1 Manage the Crocker Range Park (CRP) focusing on Community Use Zone (CUZ) and introduce the concept of CUZ to other protected areas. 2-1-2 Implement Lower Segama management plan with focus on participatory conservation activities and community-based ecotourism. 2-1-3 Prepare management strategy to conserve the river basin of Kinabatangan and Segama rivers. 2-1-4 Identify and propose potential areas in/around the river basin for conservation area. 2-1-5 Propose the whole or selected areas within the river basin as Ramsar site(s) on the basis of the management strategy. (Output 2-2 Research and education activities for protected area management are strengthened.) 2-2-1 Conduct research directly applicable to biodiversity and ecosystems conservation and use the result in education. 2-2-2 Expand the collaboration with other research institutes including foreign research institutes and universities. 2-2-3 Share information with the Centre. (Output 2-3 Sabah environmental education policy (EE policy), which was formulated under BBEC Phase I, is implemented and monitored.) 2-3-1 Prepare an implementation plan for the EE policy. 2-3-2 Implement environmental education activities based on the plan. 2-3-3 Monitor and evaluate the environmental education activities.

Activities corresponding to Output 3 (Output 3-1 Sabah state agencies, UMS and related organizations are able to conduct trainings on biodiversity and ecosystems conservation to both foreign and local trainees, based on the experience of BBEC.) 3-1-1 Collect information on local training needs, formulate training programmes and conduct trainings to related-parties of Sabah. 3-1-2 Collect information of training needs in neighbouring areas/countries. 3-1-3 Review knowledge and experience of Sabah, which is applicable for neighbouring areas/countries. 3-1-4 Formulate training programmes and conduct trainings to personnel and institutions in neighbouring areas/countries. 3-1-5 Evaluate the trainings and feedback the result to the training programmes. (Output 3-2 Knowledge and information concerning biodiversity and ecosystems conservation activities of Sabah are made available in other areas of Malaysia and foreign countries.) 3-2-1 Review biodiversity and ecosystems conservation activities conducted by private sectors, NGOs in Malaysia. 3-2-2 Prepare a strategy for dissemination of information. 3-2-3 Publish and release information on biodiversity and ecosystems conservation in Sabah as well as BBEC activities through various media such as newspapers, TV, radio and web-site.

Preconditions: The government of Sabah state prepares the legal and institutional basis for the commencement of the operation of the Sabah Biodiversity Council/Centre.

-136-

Appendix 4.3 Revised PgDM of BBEC II

Programme Design Matrix (PgDM) Programme Title: Programme for Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation II Programme Duration: 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2012 (five years) Version Number: Version 2 Target Area: Whole Sabah state with emphasis on Crocker Range Park, river basin of Kinabatangan and Segama rivers Date: 10 December 2009 Target Group: Sabah Biodiversity Council/Centre and other agencies, including Sabah state agencies, Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) and other related organizations, and the people of Sabah

Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Important Assumptions

Overall Goal: Biodiversity and ecosystem conservation in Sabah is strengthened and internationally recognised.

1 Parts of updated Sabah Conservation Strategy related to biodiversity are implemented. 2 At least 1 additional site is registered under international initiatives on biodiversity conservation and/or existing site(s) is expanded.

• Reports of concerned agencies • Registration certificate(s)

Programme Purpose: A system for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation in Sabah is strengthened and Sabah state becomes capable of extending knowledge and skills on biodiversity conservation to other states of Malaysia and foreign countries.

1 Biodiversity related issues in Sabah Conservation Strategy are updated. 2 At least 2 sites are registered under international initiatives on biodiversity conservation. 3 BBEC II related personnel are invited as trainers/ resource persons by other states in Malaysia and/or foreign countries at least 15 times.

• Updated strategy • Registration certificates • Invitation letters and programme

report

Malaysian and Sabah state policy on biodiversity and ecosystems conservation does not change significantly. Federal government and other organisations continuously support organisation of training on biodiversity conservation.

Outputs: Output 1: The capacity of the Sabah State to plan, coordinate, and promote biodiversity and ecosystem conservation activities is strengthened.

1-1 Office of SaBC is established, and its organisational structure is proposed. 1-2 A strategic plan of SaBC is drawn out. 1-3 Members of SaBC who are responsible for activities related to BBEC II are trained. 1-4 SaBC is appointed as state focal point for international initiatives. 1-5 SaBC chairs at least 2 inter-agency working groups. 1-6 Biodiversity information and management system is established. 1-7 EE policy and its monitoring mechanism are established.

• Annual report of SaBC including

organizational chart • Annual report of SaBC • Annual report of SaBC • Annual report of SaBC • Minutes of meetings • Annual report of SaBC • EE policy, document outlining

monitoring procedures and monitoring report

There is no major change in institutional structure of the C/P organisations.

-137-

Output 2: The capacity of Sabah state agencies and UMS to implement biodiversity and ecosystem conservation activities for protected areas such as state parks, wildlife conservation areas, and forest reserves is enhanced. Sub-output 2-1: The capacity of the Sabah Parks and relevant parties to implement biodiversity and ecosystem conservation activities for state parks is enhanced through managing the Crocker Range Park. Sub-output 2-2: The capacity of the Sabah Wildlife Department and relevant parties to implement biodiversity and ecosystem conservation activities for wildlife conservation areas is further enhanced through managing the Lower Segama Wildlife Conservation Area. Sub-output 2-3: The capacity of the Sabah Forestry Department and relevant parties to implement biodiversity and ecosystem conservation activities for forest reserves is further enhanced through managing the River basin of Kinabatangan and Segama Rivers.

2-1-1 CUZ Eligibility Criteria is developed. 2-1-2 At least 1 MOU on CUZ is signed between local community and SPs. 2-1-3 Crocker Range Park is proposed officially as Man and Biosphere site 2-1-4 At least 3 studies relevant to management of Crocker Range Park is conducted. 2-1-5 Seminars and workshops on studies in Crocker Range Park are held at least 3 times. 2-1-6 At least 3 environmental education materials on Man and Biosphere are developed. 2-2-1 Lower Segama Wildlife Conservation Area is gazetted. 2-2-2 Management plan of Lower Segama Wildlife Conservation Area is developed. 2-2-3 Rules and regulations to manage riparian reserve within wildlife conservation area in an integrated manner are developed. 2-3-1 Whole or selected areas in river basin of Kinabatangan and Segama Rivers is proposed officially as Ramsar site(s). 2-3-2 Management plan for Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands is developed. 2-3-3 At least 5 studies relevant to the management of Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands are conducted. 2-3-4 At least 5 environmental education materials are developed. 2-3-5 At least 2 permanent exhibitions on Ramsar are established. 2-3-6 At least 3 events on Ramsar are conducted.

• CUZ Eligibility Criteria • MOU on Community Use Zone • Official document for Man and

Biosphere registration • Study reports • Programme report • Materials developed • Official gazette • Management plan of Lower Segama

Wildlife Conservation • Rules and regulation • Official document for Ramsar

registration • Management plan for Lower

Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands • Study reports • Environmental education materials

developed • Exhibitions established • Programme report

Output 3: The capacity of Sabah state agencies and UMS to provide training on biodiversity and ecosystem conservation is enhanced.

3-1 At least 3 training courses are successfully completed. 3-2 At least 48 trainees complete training course. 3-3 Percentage of trainees who are satisfied with overall content of training course is at least 75 %. 3-4 Percentage of trainers who feel that they had properly conveyed the desired knowledge and skills for their training session is at least 90 %.

• Report on the training course • Report on the training course • Questionnaire conducted at the end

of each training course to trainees. • Questionnaire conducted at the end

of each training course to trainers.

-138-

Activities: 1-1 Enhance understanding of the Sabah Biodiversity Council members on biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. 1-2 Recommend the institutional arrangement of the Sabah Biodiversity Centre (SaBC) including proposals for staffing, location of the office, finance, internal rules and regulations, and etc. 1-3 Conduct capacity building activities for SaBC. 1-4 Prepare a strategic plan for activities of SaBC. 1-5 Select the purposes of SaBC to be assisted by BBEC II. 1-6 Prepare an action plan for the Centre based on the priority purposes chosen in the above. 1-7 Implement the action plan. 1-8 Prepare and publish annual report of SaBC. 1-9 Facilitate the approval of the Sabah Environmental Education Policy (EE policy). 1-10 Prepare an implementation plan for the EE policy on biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. 1-11 Establish a monitoring and evaluation mechanism of the environmental education activities. 1-12 Publish and release information on biodiversity and ecosystem conservation in Sabah including BBEC activities through various media such as newspapers, TV, radio and web-site. 1-13 Document the achievements of Output 1 to be used in the updating of the Sabah Conservation Strategy. 1-14 Coordinate updating of the Sabah Conservation Strategy.

Input (Malaysian side): Personnel -Programme director -Vice programme director -Programme manager -Counterpart personnel for

Japanese experts -Administrative personnel -Supporting staff

Land, Building and Facilities -Necessary facilities for the

Programme (building, room, equipment, telephone line etc.)

Operation costs -Cost for the Programme activities -Cost of maintenance of equipment -Partial cost for conducting training in Sabah, etc.

Input (Japanese Side): Personnel <Long-term experts>

-Chief advisor (five years) -Programme coordinator (five years) -Integrated protected area management

(two to three years) -Institutional capacity building (two to three

years) <Short-term experts> -Experts in specific fields upon mutual

agreement Machinery and Equipment -Equipment necessary upon mutual

agreement Training -Two to four personnel per year in specific

fields in Japan and/or third countries -Partial cost for conducting training in Sabah

Budget allocation to the C/P organisations does not decrease largely. Transfer of core staff of C/P organisation is kept to a minimum. The government of Sabah approves the organisational set-up of the Sabah Biodiversity Council and SaBC officially. The Sabah Biodiversity Council regularly holds its council meeting and provides sufficient directions to SaBC. Federal government and other organisations provide sufficient funding for UMS and concerned agencies to conduct training. Preconditions: The government of Sabah prepares the legal and institutional basis for the commencement of the operation of the Sabah

2-1-1 Manage the Crocker Range Park focusing on Community Use Zone (CUZ). 2-1-2 Promote introduction of CUZ to other protected areas. 2-1-3 Conduct research directly applicable to biodiversity and ecosystems conservation. 2-1-4 Implement environmental education activities based on the EE policy. 2-1-5 Document the achievements of Sub-output 2-1 to be used in the updating of the Sabah Conservation Strategy. 2-2-1 Manage the Lower Segama Wildlife Conservation Area (focusing on participatory conservation activities and community-based ecotourism). 2-2-2 Implement environmental education activities based on the EE policy. 2-2-3 Document the achievements of Sub-output 2-2 to be used in the updating of the Sabah Conservation Strategy. 2-3-1 Manage the river basin of Kinabatangan and Segama rivers. 2-3-2 Conduct research directly applicable to biodiversity and ecosystems conservation. 2-3-3 Implement environmental education activities based on the EE policy. 2-3-4 Document the achievements of Sub-output 2-3 to be used in the updating of the Sabah Conservation Strategy. 3-1Compile and analyse biodiversity and ecosystem conservation activities conducted by the private sector, and NGOs in Malaysia. 3-2 Collect information on local training needs, formulate training programmes and conduct trainings to relevant parties of Sabah. 3-3 Collect information on training needs in Sarawak, Peninsular Malaysia and foreign countries. 3-4 Identify knowledge and experience of Sabah, which may be applicable to Sarawak, Peninsular Malaysia and foreign countries. 3-5 Formulate training programmes and conduct trainings to personnel and institutions in Sarawak, Peninsular Malaysia and foreign countries. 3-6 Evaluate the trainings and improve the training programmes.

-139-

-140-

Appendix 4.4 Sabah Call for Action as outcome of the AWS Sabah 2011

Sabah Call for Action Integrated Biodiversity Conservation: Linking Forests and Wetlands

Asian Wetland Symposium (AWS Sabah 2011)

Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia 18-20 July 2011

The world entered into a new era of biodiversity conservation with the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the “Aichi Biodiversity Targets” at the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan in October 2010. These targets are expected to be achieved during the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity (2011-2020). The United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) recognises the significant role that sustainable forest management has in development, poverty reduction and the achievement of international aspirations, such as the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The basic tenet of the Ramsar Convention, the wise use of wetlands and their resources, identifies their importance in supporting human well-being. Enhancing synergy in the implementation of the CBD, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and other initiatives such as UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme and the UNFF’s Non-legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests is critical to achieving the “Aichi Biodiversity Targets” and the MDGs. Exploring ways to facilitate such synergies was thus a key aim of the AWS Sabah 2011, which coincided with the 40th anniversary of both the Ramsar Convention and UNESCO’s MAB Programme, and the United Nations International Year of Forests. Water, through the natural infrastructure provided by wetlands, is one of the main unifying factors for these international conventions and initiatives. In the face of increasing pressures on water quality and quantity caused by the continued degradation and loss of wetlands and existing and emerging challenges such as climate change, there is a need for better integration of such initiatives at the local, national and regional levels, and to identify innovative approaches for sustainable development, financing, human well-being and biodiversity conservation. The 324 participants of the AWS Sabah 2011 identified a number of strategies and mechanisms that should be taken into consideration in order to address these challenges, and propose that policy-makers and decision-makers and wetland user groups give priority attention to the following:

1. Promote integrated management systems that incorporate socio-economic priorities, the rights and responsibilities of local communities, and innovative technologies and approaches in the restoration and conservation of forests and wetlands. Encourage the application of land and seascape planning tools such as UNESCO’s MAB Programme to integrate human dimensions in the conservation of biodiversity in forests and wetlands.

2. Undertake or update national wetland inventories and conduct research on issues related to

forests, and use these to guide landscape planning and decision-making processes related to the utilization of wetland and forest resources.

3. Develop more synergy and coordination in the management of forests and wetlands through

greater cooperation at the national level, e.g. between the National Focal Points for the Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and UNFF.

-141-

4. Mainstream forests and wetlands conservation into national and local planning processes, such

as poverty reduction strategies, economic development plans, climate change strategies, and disaster management plans. Give priority to ensuring that revisions of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) incorporate the conservation and wise use of wetlands.

5. Promote investments in forest and wetland conservation through funding mechanisms and

initiatives such as the regional development banks and the proposed Green Climate Change Fund (GCF) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and encourage investments in applied research programmes to provide sound scientific information and tools.

6. Enhance partnerships with and investments by the private sector in forest and wetland

conservation efforts, including the development of sustainable business strategies.

7. Incorporate the values of forest and wetland ecosystem services and the economic costs associated with forest and wetland degradation and loss in financial, economic and investment planning and policies. Use economic and financial tools, e.g. payments for ecosystem services (PES), biodiversity offsets and environmental-fiscal reforms to provide incentives for the conservation of forests and wetlands.

8. Recognise the natural and cultural capital provided by forests and wetlands to support

livelihoods in order to meet the daily needs of local people and rural communities.

9. Strengthen existing Communication, Education, Participation and Awareness (CEPA) programmes to empower specific target groups such as communities, youths, educators, business people, decision-makers and the media to take effective actions for forest and wetland conservation. Recognise the importance and effectiveness of involving the young generation in wetland CEPA activities.

10. Ensure that planning and research processes integrate cultural and heritage values, traditional

ecological knowledge (TEK), traditional landscape approaches such as the Satoyama Initiative, and local initiatives such as the Tagal system in Sabah in the conservation and wise use of forests and wetlands.

The AWS Sabah 2011 was hosted by the State Government of Sabah, in cooperation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Malaysia, the JICA-Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation (BBEC) Phase II Programme, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, and Ramsar Center Japan. The participants of this meeting seek the assistance of the Government of Malaysia and the Ramsar Secretariat to convey the "Sabah Call for Action" to the Asia Regional Ramsar Meeting to be held in Jakarta in November 2011, the 11th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands to be held in Romania in June 2012, and the 11th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to be held in India in October 2012.

END

-142-

Appendix 4.5 The first Sabah Biodiversity Council meeting in December 2007 (New Sabah Times, 7 December 2007)

-143-

Appendix 4.6 River Environmental Education Programme (REEP)

Target participants: Primary school 5-6 year, 20 students (4 students and 1 teacher each from 5

schools along the upper stream to the lower, students are formed into 4 groups of mixed schools)

Concept: To teach the concepts of ecological functions of a water catchment and river basin

management, and to instil environmental stewardship and sustainable lifestyle to the participants

Objectives: To provide opportunities for the participants

- To learn the role of the forest (Crocker Range Park) as a source of water

- To learn about the river, especially its dynamic system from the forest to the sea

- To learn the relationship between people’s life and river, and the importance of the water

- To make an action plan that can be achieved by students in order to conserve the nearby river

Average duration of the programme: 3 to 4 days

Activities:

- Lecture

- River health check (physical check, chemical check, and biological check)

- Water-related sites visit (includes activities such as observation and interview)

- Group discussion and presentation

- School action plan discussion and presentation

Place requirements: * It is necessary to secure the safety, shade and toilet at each site.

- Venue for discussion and presentation

- Accommodation

- Sites for river health check at upper, middle and lower streams along a river basin

- Water-related sites (nature trail, irrigation system, mangrove forest, etc.)

Materials and tools requirements:

- For programme: PA system, LCD, screen, PC, presentation, participants list, emergency rope,

bucket, megaphone, camera, walky talky, transportation (air conditioned 4 wheel van)

- For each group: mahjong paper, coloured marker, clip board, physical check sheet, chemical check

kit (water quality testing kit, check sheet), biological check kit (net, plastic tray, aquatic insects

sheet, check sheet), river basin map, first aid kit

- For participant kit: name tag, file, worksheet, pencil, small book on river function, certificate

- Other materials: meals, water, snacks, programme

-144-

Staff:

- Facilitator and sub-facilitator in each group: Facilitators are very important factors of the

programme since they go through all the activities with their group members. They should not

simply teach, but facilitate (try to inspire and pull ideas out from) the group members through

activities, especially in group works. Sometimes it is required to interpret or translate into the

expression that students can understand. Facilitators need to construct good atmosphere for

learning and discussion.

- Resource person: Resource persons provide lectures or activities on the specific topics. In fields,

they are required to guide the transportation. Local resource persons’ involvement is highly

encouraged.

- Secretariat: Secretariat provides supports such as time keeping, recording, and helping preparation

for each activity.

A sample programme of REEP

Day: Theme Contents In charge Day 1: Role of the forest and the upper stream

Opening ceremony/ Programme orientation Secretariat Lecture on the role of the forest as a water reservoir SPs Interpreter Lecture on how to check the river health SPs Interpreter Nature trail walk experience on the role of the forest Park ranger River health check on the upper stream Facilitator Group discussion and presentation Facilitator

Day 2: River and people’s life

Visit to sites that can show the relationship between water and human (water purifying plant, irrigation system, drainage, flood control gate, sewage treatment plant, Tagal system, NGO, water-related cultural site, etc.)

* River quality check on the middle stream can be conducted at one of the sites.

Resource person (Water Dept, DID, JKR, local leader, etc.)

Lecture on river pollution and people’s health Resource person (Health Dept)

Group discussion and presentation Facilitator Day 3:

Lower stream and benefit for living creatures

River health check on the lower stream Facilitator Visit or lecture on the ecosystem and biodiversity of

mangrove forest (KKWC, Sg. Garama, etc.) Resource person (KKWC, SFD, etc.)

Group discussion and presentation Facilitator REEP cultural night Facilitator

Day 4: Conclusion and action plan

Discussion and presentation on the experience in REEP Facilitator Talk on possible actions in schools for river

conservation Resource person (EPD, SNC, SPs, SFD, EAC, etc.)

Discussion on school action plan Teacher Evaluation Secretariat Closing ceremony (includes action plan presentations,

best presentation of REEP cultural night) Secretariat

-145-

Appendix 4.7 A sample schedule of the TCTP

Day Contents In charge Module 1 Opening ceremony/ Programme orientation Secretariat

Briefing on MTCP-TCTP by MoFA MoFA 2 General Orientation on Malaysia & Sabah State NRO

Introduction to ITBC/ Research & Education Component in BBEC I ITBC RE Introduction to JICA & BBEC JICA Integration Introduction to SaBC (Sabah Biodiversity Enactment) SaBC Integration

3 Country Report/ PCM workshop (Problem Analysis) Secretariat Group work 4 Introduction to Sabah Park Governance/ Crocker Range Park SPs PM

Briefing on Crocker Range Biosphere Program/ Community Use Zone

SPs PM

5 Visit to a CUZ pilot village: Dialogue – Participant & Community SPs PM 6 Permanent Plot Visit SPs PM 7 Research & Education Cluster of ITBC ITBC RE

Lab and facility visit ITBC RE 8 Visit to an environmental education activity in school Education Dept. PA

Briefing on Tagal (traditional fishing resources management) System & fish body/foot massage

Fishery Dept. Integration

9 Visit to KK Wetland Centre (KKWC) KKWC PA Lecture on “Implementation of Sabah Environmental Education

Policy through Sabah Environmental Education Network (SEEN)” EPD PA

10 Role of Science & Technology Unit (UST) in BBEC I & II UST PA Introduction to Public Awareness Component in BBEC I UST PA

11 Visit to Sabah Museum Sabah museum PA Lecture on “Sabah Indigenous Traditional Knowledge” Sabah museum PA

12 Visit to Lower Kinabatangan- Segama Ramsar site SFD Integration Community Based Eco-tourism along Kinabatangan River SFD Integration

13 Collaboration with NGO & Private Sectors for wildlife conservation SWD Integration 14 Visit to Forest Research Centre/ Rainforest Discovery Centre of SFD SFD PA

Visit to Sepilok Orang Utan Rehabilitation Centre SWD HM 15 Home stay in Dagat (Community Based Eco-tourism) SWD HM 16 Briefing on Lower Segama Wildlife Conservation Area SWD HM 17& 18 PCM workshop/ Group Discussion on Action Plan Secretariat Group work 19 Experience sharing with ex-participants Ex-participants Integration

Lecture on “Integrating Role of the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) as the Regional Effort on Biodiversity in South East Asia”

ACB Integration

Lecture on “SaBC’s coordination role in BBEC II” SaBC Integration Lecture on “International Cooperation in Practice - Integrated

Conservation System” JICA Integration

20 Visit to Lok Kawi Wildlife Park SWD HM 21 Action Plan Presentations Secretariat Group work 22 Evaluation Meeting Secretariat

Closing Ceremony Secretariat

* RE: Research & Education, PM: Park Management, PA: Public Awareness, HM: Habitat Management

-146-

Appendix 4.8 Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) between the Ramsar Convention

Secretariat and JICA

-153-

Appendix 6.1 The DAC List of ODA recipients (Factsheet – January 2012)

Completion Report on the Bornean Biodiversity and

Ecosystems Conservation (BBEC) Programme in Sabah, Malaysia

This publication is one of the products of the “Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation (BBEC) Programme in Sabah, Malaysia.” The BBEC Programme is a joint endeavor of Sabah State Government, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and others including NGOs to integrate their various efforts and to strengthen a comprehensive and sustainable system in nature conservation. The activities under the BBEC Programme are technically and financially supported by JICA from 2002 to 2012. The BBEC consists of two phases, of which Phase I (2002-2007) focused on the transfer of skills and knowledge to strengthen technologies required for conservation practice. Phase II (2007-2012) focused on policy support in promoting implementation of the Sabah Biodiversity Enactment 2000. In the whole BBEC Progamme of 10 years, Sabah State has strengthened conservation governance.

URL: http://www.bbec.sabah.gov.my The BBEC Programme is a joint initiative and cooperation of:

http://www.bbec.sabah.gov.my/�

completion report on the bornean biodiversity and ... - sabah · this completion report has...

Documents