part 1 cover, acknowledgements and executive summary …€¦ · - symbiosis consulting: johdi bin...

Assessment of High Conservation Values 5 & 6

Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve, Beluran Forest District, Sabah

FINAL REPORT

March 2015

Fishing nets on the jetty at Terusan Sugut with Sg Sugut, Sg Paitan & Jembngan FR in background - 30th Nov 2014 Photo credit: Rosalie Corpuz

Acknowledgements

With deepest thanks and appreciation to various organisations, communities and individuals for your

support, insights and kind hospitality:

- Sabah Forestry Department: Mr Fidelis Bajau, Deputy Director; Dr Robert Ong, Senior

Research Officer; Mr Petin Kilou, District Forest Officer Beluran; Markus Salutan, Forest

Manager, Sugut Forest Reserve Beluran.

- Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve - Field Staff: Sharif Omarali bin Sharif Musai, Ridzan bin

Ondang, Juan bin Todok, Rikson bin John and George bin Budin.

- Keliaga: Mr Pudah bin Angguy (Ketua Kampung); Ramlee bin Kalabi (PJKKK); Ms Rusni binti

Jaing; Ms Paridah binti Jaing; Ms Narti binti Norsalleh and the community of Keliaga.

- Pantai Boring: Mr Hamirshah (Ketua Kampung); Mr Sabturani bin Laukong (PJKKK), Mr

Misbak Gandam bin Harun; Ms Norminah binti Lipaeh; Mr Budon bin Talinani; Mr Midjan bin

Haji Bukag and the community of Pantai Boring.

- Terusan Sugut: Sharif Mohammad bin Sharif Kassim (PJKKK); Mr Otoh bin Tammang (Ketua

Kampung); Mr Hairul bin Otoh (local guide); Ms Sharifah Rosetah binti Sharif Othman and the

community of Terusan Sugut.

- Keniogan: Datuk Madlis bin Aziz (Ketua Kampung & PJKKK); Haji Mohammad Safri

(Timbabalan PJKKK); Haji Kamarzaman bin Marof (Wakil Ketua Anak Negeri); Mr Banggaya

bin Buteh; Ms Suhana binti Banggaya and the community of Keniogan.

- IJM: Lonis bin Tail.

- Symbiosis Consulting: Johdi bin Haji Bakri, Assistant Field Researcher.

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

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

Executive Summary

Tell me I forget. Show me I remember. Involve me, I understand.

(Ancient Chinese Proverb)

Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve (TSFR) in the Lower Sugut was formerly administered by the Beluran

Forest District (FD) as the southern segment (8,680 hectares) of the larger Sugut Forest Reserve

(SFR). After being designated for conservation following the cessation of logging activities in 2013,

TSFR was elevated from Class II or Commercial FR, to Class I or Protection FR and was

subsequently renamed in November 2014. For this purpose, a Forest Management Plan (FMP) is

being drafted by the Sabah Forestry Department (SFD) in support for the application for certification

by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

In fulfilment of the social component of the FMP, a social baseline study (SBS) and an assessment of

High Conservation Values five and six (HCV 5 & 6) was commissioned by the SFD in September

2014. The Global Toolkit defined HCV five and six as forest areas which are: a) Fundamental to

meeting the: basic needs of communities (HCV 5) and; b) Critical to local communities’ traditional

cultural identity (HCV 6). For this purpose, the studies were conducted in 4 communities buffering

TSFR and would include the settlements of Keliaga, Pantai Boring, Terusan Sugut and Keniogan.

Established through discussions with the SFD, only Pantai Boring is considered to be wholly within

Sugut Forest Reserve (SFR) in the Forest District of Pitas. The water-bound villages of Terusan

Sugut and Keniogan are located adjacent to the mangrove forest reserves of Sungei Sugut, Sungei

Paitan and Jembongan (SS, SP & J FR) and, Kuala Bonggaya and Kuala Labuk (KB & KL FR).

Buffered by oil palm plantations, Keliaga is furthest away from all of the aforementioned FRs.

Dependency on the forest directly correlates with proximity and is particularly pronounced in differing

degrees for the villages in question. Data was collected with a combination of social research

methods, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The former incorporated a

combination of applications such as focus group discussions (FGDs), informal interviews, spatial

analysis and observational techniques. A total 37 participants were involved in the FGDs, with an

average of 9.25 per group comprising of 14 females and 23 males with ages ranging from 20 to 74.

For the purposes of the latter, 143 individual household interviews were held with heads of

households in the study sites.

The Sugut and the Paitan Districts can boast a rich historical background in the trade of forest

products, in particular, camphor, a resin from the Kapur tree which was regarded the finest in the

world. Under the stronghold of the Sultanate of Sulu in the late 18th and early 19th century, Terusan

Sugut became a ‘considerable’ town, formed and flourished by internal and external migration and the

trade in forest and marine products. Consequently, Keniogan was founded about half a century later

in the wake of this success. The lush forests would have been so intertwined with the lives of these

communities providing them an abundant supply of jungle produce, plentiful amounts of wood for

homes and boats, vast hunting grounds for protein and sacred sites for burial and worship. Hence,

these relationships with the forests would have no doubt, shaped livelihoods and skills, traditions and

spiritual beliefs, social structures and identity. The dense mangroves created safe havens for human

settlements and fish thus, forging the inextricable link between the forest ecosystem and the Sulu

Sea, dynamic with trade, piracy, culture and familial links, bountiful with marine produce and

treasures.

In recent history, Pantai Boring and Keliaga formed market links with Terusan Sugut in the exchange

and trade of fresh produce such as staples, fruit, vegetables and forest products. Motivated by the

availability of schools, the pursuit of livelihoods, marriages and to a lesser extent, employment,

settlers amongst these communities from as far afield as Sandakan and the Kinabatangan, have

contributed to current migratory patterns and to the social and cultural dynamics of the area. Land-

bound Orang-Sungei communities such as Keliaga have resorted to oil palm cultivation as a main

income earner whereas households in Pantai Boring would derive their main incomes from a

combination of fishing, oil palm cultivation and on a lesser scale, salaried jobs in the village. Being

water-bound, the Suluk and Bajau, of Terusan Sugut and Keniogan respectively, would engage in

fishing as their main livelihoods.

Under the assessment of HCV 5, all the communities in the study have maintained a reliance on the

forests albeit, with varying degrees and circumstances with Pantai Boring being the most dependent

followed by Terusan Sugut, Keniogan and Keliaga. Study outcomes have unravelled that clandestine

forest use is active with the collection of wood for the building of boats and homes, rattan for prawn

traps and handicraft, forest remedies and firewood. Similarly for the assessment of HCV 6, although

several cultural sites have been uncovered during the course of the research, only three sites, the

sacred burial grounds Bujang Timah and the legendary sites of Marawaring and Kumbawan have

been identified to be within the TSFR area in the vicinity of Terusan Sugut and Pantai Boring.

The rich yesteryears stretching over and beyond 200 years could help nurture a deeper

understanding of socio-cultural linkages between the natural environment and local communities.

This holistic approach could therefore be instrumental in the formation of sustainable and mutually-

beneficial solutions based on common thresholds between the major stakeholders of forest

management of SFR-Beluran.

Contents

PART I MAIN REPORT

Chapter 1 Introduction and Demographic Profile 1

1.1 Summary of research outcomes 1

1.2 Introduction 1

1.3 Study sites and methodology 3

1.4 Demographic profiles 4

1.4.1 Qualitative study: Profile of focus group participants 4

1.4.2.1 Quantitative study: Profile of population sample 4

1.4.2.2 Head of household profile

6

Chapter 2 Assessment of High Conservation Value 5 9

2.1 Basic need 1 – Food sources 9

2.2 Basic need 2 – Building materials 11

2.2.1 Basic need 2: Wood as building materials 11

2.2.1.1 Wood for boat-building 12

2.2.1.2 Wood for house-building 12

2.2.1.3 Rattan as building material 13

2.2.1.4 Bamboo and Nipah as building material 13

2.3 Basic need 3 – Fuel for cooking 13

2.4 Basic need 4 – Traditional medicines 13

2.5 Basic need 5 – Water sources 14

2.6 Basic need 6 – Cash incomes

14

Chapter 3 Other Matters Relating to HCV 5 15

3.1 Conservation and forest use 15

3.1.1 Attitudes to conservation 15

3.1.2 Attitudes to forest use 16

3.1.3 Hunting by local communties 16

3.2 Access to land use 17

3.2.1 Land status 17

3.2.2 Encroached forest reserves areas 17

3.3 Environmental changes and conflicts 18

3.3.1 Oil palm development 18

3.3.2 Marine protected area management 18

3.3.3 Forest use by ousiders

19

Chapter 4 Assessment of High Conservation Value 6 21

4.1 Establishment of settlements 21

4.1.1 Keliaga 21

II

4.1.2 Pantai Boring 21

4.1.3 Terusan Sugut 22

4.1.4 Keniogan 23

4.2 Cultural sites – Trusan FR & Sugut FR

23

Chapter 5 Management Recommendations 25

5.1 Management recommendations 25

5.1.1 Community outreach and consultation 25

5.1.2 Community-based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) 25

5.1.3 Low-impact forest use 26

5.1.4 Environmental awareness 26

5.1.5 Development of supplementary livelihoods 26

5.1.6 Stakeholder engagement 27

5.2 Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms 27

5.3 Areas of further research 27

PART II MAPS & TABLES

Map 1 Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve – Beluran Forest District 2

Table 1 Summary of research outcomes 1

Table 2 Study sites – Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve – Beluran Forest District 3

Table 3 Brief study sample profile 4

Table 4 Summary of population sample profile 5

Table 5 Summary of head of household profile 7

Table 6 Forest products for the fulfilment of basic needs 10

Table 7 Traditional forest remedies 14

Table 8A Attitudes to conservation 15

Table 8B Attitudes to forest use 16

Table 8C Attitudes to access to land use 18

Table 9 Forest use by external users 20

Table 10 Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve cultural sites

23

PART III APPENDICES

1 Map of Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve – Beluran Forest District A-1

2 Focus group participant profile A-2

3 Population sample profile A-3

4A Head of household profile A-6

4B Head of household income analysis A-9

5 Background data for High Conservation Value 5 A-10

6 Supplementary data of High Conservation Value 5 A-12

7 References and bibliography A-18

III

PART IV DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS & TRANSLATIONS

Akar Root in Malay

Aki An address for a respected male elder in the local language

Bidai A name for handmade rattan mat in the local language

Cpt Compartment

Daging hutan Bush meat or meat obtained from the forest

DANCED Danish Co-operation for Environment and Development

ESSCom East Sabah Security Command

FD Forest District

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FMU Forest Management Unit

FR Forest Reserve

FP Forest Products

FSC Forestry Stewardship Council

HCVA High Conservation Value Assessment

HCV 5 Global Toolkit Definition: Forest area is fundamental to meeting basic needs of

local communities

HCV 6 Global Toolkit Definition: Forest area is critical to local communities’ traditional

cultural identity

HCVF High Conservation Value Forests

Hh Household

Hhs Households

HH Head of Household

HsH Heads of Household

IPPA Identification of Potential Protected Areas

KB & KL FR Kuala Bonggaya and Kuala Labuk Forest Reserve – Beluran FD

Kel Keliaga

Ken Keniogan

KK Ketua Kampung or Village Head

MOCET Ministry of Culture, Environment and Development

Nenek An address for a respected female elder in the local language

NTFPs Non-timber Forest Products

Orang Sungei Generic term for folk who live in settlements by the river (Sungei) most of whom

are of mixed ethnicity

OT Other Tree. A generic term used for wood that has not been identified.

PB Pantai Boring

PJKKK Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Keselamatan dan Kemajuan Kampung or Chairman of

Security and Village Development Committee

Pulau Island in Malay

SBCP Sabah Biodiversity Conservation Project

SBS Social Baseline Study/Survey

SFD Sabah Forest Department

SFR Sugut Forest Reserve – FD

SIMCA Sugut Islands Marine Conservation Area

IV

SS, SP & J FR Sungei Sugut, Sungei Paitan and Jembongan Forest Reserve – Paitan FD

SWD Sabah Wildlife Department

Timbalan PJKKK Timbalan Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Keselamatan dan Kemajuan Kampung or

Deputy Chairman of Security and Village Development Committee

Tagal Environmental protection system based on traditional practices

TS Terusan Sugut

TSFR Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve – Beluran FD

Wakil Ketua Anak Negeri Native Chief Representative

MAIN REPORT

1 | Assessment of HCV 5 & 6 – Sugut FR Beluran

CHAPTER 1 – Introduction & Demographic Profile

1.1 Summary of Research Outcomes

The study villages that were included in the assessment of High Conservation Values (HCV) 5 and 6

for Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve (TSFR) in the Forest District of Beluran would include Keliaga,

Pantai Boring, Terusan Sugut and Keniogan. Established through discussions with the Sabah

Forestry Department (SFD), only Pantai Boring is considered to be wholly within Sugut Forest

Reserve (SFR), north of TSFR in the Forest District of Pitas. The water-bound villages of Terusan

Sugut and Keniogan are located adjacent to the mangrove forest reserves of Sungei Sugut, Sungei

Paitan and Jembongan (SS, SP & J FR) and, Kuala Bonggaya and Kuala Labuk (KB & KL FR)

respectively. Buffered by oil palm plantations, Keliaga is situated the furthest away from all of the

aforementioned forest reserves (FRs). Dependency on the forest directly correlates with proximity

and is particularly pronounced in differing degrees for the villages in question. (Table 1 & Map 1).

Table 1: Summary of Research Outcomes

A) Communities in or adjacent to the surrounding forest reserves:

Forest District

Class Keliaga Pantai Boring

Terusan Sugut

Keniogan

a) Sugut FR Pitas II

Commercial

1.2km 0km

(Within)

5km n/a

b) Trusan Sugut FR Beluran I

Protection

2.2km 1km

1km 9km

c) Sungei Sugut, Sungei Paitan &

Jembongan FR

Pitas V

Mangrove

n/a n/a 0km

(Adjacent)

n/a

d) Kuala Bonggaya & Kuala Labuk FR Beluran V

Mangrove

n/a n/a na 0km

(Adjacent)

B) Degree of dependency on the forest for the fulfilment of basic needs:

- - � ��

1.2 Introduction

In 2014, Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve (TSFR) in the Lower Sugut was targeted for conservation

following the cessation of logging activities in 2013 and to this end, a Forest Management Plan is

being compiled in support of the application for certification by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

Formerly administered by the Beluran Forest District (FD) as the southern segment (8,680 hectares)

of the larger Sugut Forest Reserve (SFR), TSFR was elevated from Class II or Commercial FR to

Class I or Protection FR and was subsequently, renamed in November 2014. In 1994 and 2000,

TSFR became the scenes of two devastating forest fires in the vicinity of the village of Pantai Boring.

2 Assessment of HCVF 5 & 6 - Trusan Sugut FR Beluran March 2015

In 1998, an investigative expedition for the Identification of Potential Protected Areas (IPPA)

component of the Sabah Biodiversity Conservation Project (SBCP) undertaken by the Ministry of

Culture, Environment and Tourism (MOCET) and the Danish Co-operation for Environment and

Development (DANCED) has highlighted the rich biodiversity of the reserve. Although SFR is

considered to be relatively small at 32,007 hectares, it currently accommodates six adjoining natural

forest types consisting of mixed dipterocarp forest, kapur forest, heath forests, floodplain forest,

swamp forest and riparian vegetation

Map 1

Map of Sugut Forest Reserve – Beluran Forest Distri ct

Recent land use changes in Paitan and Beluran Districts have included extensive development of oil

palm with Beluran being the first district in Sabah to be earmarked for oil palm development in the

Sulu Sea

Labuk Bay Sea

Study Sites/Villages

Labuk Bay

(Pitas Forest District)

(Beluran Forest District)


1960s. As a consequence, the southern and southwestern boundaries of TSFR are buffered by oil

palm plantations owned by corporations such as IJM Corporation Berhad (Sabang Estate (1997);

PPB Oil Palm Berhad (Hibumas Estate (1997)) and; Penumilek Sdn Bhd (1997). Similarly, the

western boundaries of SFR north of the river are in the immediate vicinity of the plantations of

Hibumas (PPB) and Excellent Challenger (IJM). Further upstream development in the Sungei-sungei

area includes the estates of Rakanan Jaya (IJM 1997) and Sungei-Sungei (Sawit Kinabalu). There is

one oil palm mill (Sabang IJM) in southern Sugut which is within reach by road from Keliaga and

Pantai Boring. The advent of oil palm development and access roads have brought about indelible

changes which would directly affect the social, environmental and economic dynamics of the area

which in turn would have a marked impact on the way TSFR is managed.

1.3 Study Sites and Methodology

Table 2: Study Sites - TrusanSugut Forest Reserve - Beluran Forest District

Study Sites

Year Est Households (≈ population)

Cluster ≈ Distance (km) to Forest

Reserves

≈ Distance (km) & Access (nearest

towns)

Households interviewed

(N=143)

1) Keliaga

1983 (1)

8 (67) (Keliaga only)

(2)

Note: (Cluster = 60 (317)

Keliaga Udon

Karudon Buah

Binongkalan Jambatan Besi

1.2 (SFR)

2.2 (TSFR)

≈300km Road access (Beluran)

≈110km Road access (Pitas)

7 (Keliaga only)

(88%)

2) Pantai Boring

Pre-1940 (3)

≈72 (≈500) (4)

- 0 (SFR)

1 km (TSFR)

≈362km Road access (Beluran)

≈172km Road access (Pitas)

110km Boat access (Beluran)

50 (69%)

3) Terusan Sugut

Pre-colonial Late 18th Century

(5)

119 (624) (6)

Terusan Tengah

Gas Sisip

Geriting (4)

0 (SS, SP & J FR)

1km (TSFR)

5km (SFR)

≈85km Boat access (Beluran)

38 (34%)

4) Keniogan Pre-colonial 1854 (7)

≈160 (≈1000) (7) & (8)

- 0 (KB & KL FR)

9km (TSFR)

≈60km Boat access (Beluran)

48 (30%)

(1) Findings of Social Baseline Study November 2014. (2) Information provided by Pudah Angguy (KK) & Ramlee Kalabi (PJKKK) during main fieldtrip November 2014. (3) Estimated – Based on age of the oldest head of household born in the village. (4) Estimated - Sabturani bin Laukong (PJKKK) 13th October 2014. (5) Estimated – Letters between John Hunt and Stamford Raffles 1812. (6) Information booklet (Profail Gerakan Daya Wawasan) Kampung Terusan Sugut. (7) www.sabah.gov.my/pd.blrn/Kampung%20Keniogan.html. Exact source unknown. Accessed 28th September 2014. (8) Haji Mohammad Safri (Timbalan PJKK) 14th October 2014. Note (SFR) = Sugut Forest Reserve; (TSFR) = Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve; (SS, SP & J FR) = Sungei Sugut, Sungei Paitan & Jembongan Forest Reserve; (KB & KL FR) = Kuala Bonggaya & Kuala Labuk Forest Reserve.


Table 3: Brief Study Sample Profile

Brief Study Sample Profile Keliaga Pantai Boring

Terusan Sugut

Keniogan TOTAL

MAIN FIELDWORK DATES 24/11- 25/11 & 26/11 2014

27/11, 2/12 2014 &

6/1-7/1 2015

28/11 – 30/11 2014

30/11 & 3/12 2014

1) Heads of households interviewed n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

2) Population sample size n=55 n=302 n=252 n=283 N=892

3) Average household size 7.9 6 6.6 5.9 6.2

4) Focus group participant profile 11 8 10 8 37

Data was collected with a combination of social research methods, incorporating both qualitative and

quantitative methodologies. The former incorporated a mix of applications such as focus group

discussions (FGDs), informal interviews, spatial analysis and observational techniques. A total 37

participants were involved in the FGDs, at an average of 9.25 per group comprising of 14 females and

23 males with ages ranging from 20 to 74 (Appendix 2). For the purposes of the latter, 143 individual

household interviews were conducted with heads of households in which case a household would be

defined as families, relatives and individuals living under one domain, sharing the same kitchen

facilities (Appendix 3 & 4).

1.4 Demographic Profiles

1.4.1 Qualitative Study - Profile of focus group pa rticipants

Twenty-three (62% of N=37) males and 14 (38% of N=37) females participated in the focus group

discussions, the most populous age group being 31-40 with 14 (38% of N=37) respondents, followed

by the 41-50 (n=11, 30%), 51-60 (n=5, 14%) age groups (Appendix 2). With the exception of Keliaga

where 10 out of 11 participants originated from elsewhere, all the others were born in their respective

villages. The majority (n=18, 49%) of participants belong to the Orang Sungei ethnic group, followed

by the Suluk (n=10, 27%), Bajau (n=8, 21%) and Dusun (n=1, 3%). A total of 13 (35%) participants

had achieved primary education, followed by 12 (32%) who completed their secondary schooling, 11

(30%) who have had no education and, 1 (3%) who studied up to university standard. The majority

(n=13, 35%) of female participants are housewives with others listing their main occupations as

fishermen (n=9, 24%), village heads (n=6, 16%), farmers (n=5, 13%), teachers (n=2, 5%), village

imam (n=1, 3%) and, woman leader (n=1, 3%). (Appendix 2)

1.4.2.1 Quantitative Study – Profile of population sample

A total 143 heads of households (Hhs) were interviewed representing 892 (41%) of the total estimated

population (≈2191) with an overall average of 6.2 individuals per household. (Table 5) Eighty per cent


(n=715 of N=892) of the population sample live in the village throughout the year. While a significant

proportion (n=153, 17% of N=892) consisting of primary, secondary and college/university-level

students have a residential status of 3-5 months per year. The rest of the population, (n=24, 3%) live

and work elsewhere are considered to have a residential status of less than 2 months per year. Only

Terusan Sugut has both primary and secondary education facilities while Pantai Boring and Keniogan

have access to primary schools with Keliaga having only pre-school education. This phenomenon,

has to a certain extent, influenced settlement and migration patterns in the Lower Sugut. Majority of

the population (n=379, 42% of N=892) is aged 18 and below, followed by the 19-35 (n=255, 29%) and

36-55 age groups (n=181, 20%) and those aged 56 and above (n=77, 9%).

Islam is the predominant religion at 99% (n=886 of N=892). The main ethnic group is represented by

the Orang Sungei (n=381, 43% of N=892), superseded by Bajau (n=304, 34%) and Suluk (n=159,

18%). The main occupation of adults who are eligible to work (N=471*, 53% of N=892) are fishermen

(n=158, 34% of N=471*), housewives (n=131, 28%), the unemployed (n=83, 18%) farmers (n=34,

7%), employed within the village (n=29, 6%), self-employed (excluding fishermen) (n=12, 2%).

Majority of the non-working population (N=421**, 47% of N=892) are made up of students (n=304,

72% of N=421**) at primary (n=129, 15%), secondary (n=143, 15%) and college/university (n=42, 5%)

levels followed by children who are aged 6 years and below (n=106, 12%) and a proportion of the

elderly (n=11, 3%). Out of all the households (Hhs) (N=143) that were interviewed, a majority (n=82,

57% of N=143) are being managed by a single bread winner with the remainder (n=61, 43%) having

multiple bread winners with an overall average of 1.7 breadwinners per Hh. (Appendix 3)

Table 4: Summary of Population Sample Profile

Populat ion Sample Profile Keliaga Pantai Boring

Terusan Sugut

Keniogan TOTAL

5) Households Interviewed: n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

6) Household Occupants/ Population Sample Size:

55 302 252 283 892

7) Average Household Size: 7.9 6 6.6 5.9 6.2

8) Residential Status: - All year round 23 (42%) 221 (73%) 224 (89%) 247 (87%) 715 (80%)

- 3-5 months 27 (49%) 70 (23%) 22 (9%) 34 (12%) 153 (17%)

- < 2 months –working elsewhere 5 (9%) 11 (4%) 6 (2%) 2 (1%) 24 (3%)

9) Religion: n=55 n=302 n=252 n=283 N=892 - Islam 55 (100%) 296 (98%) 252 (100%) 482 (100%) 886 (99%)

- Christian - 6 (2%) - - 6 (1%)

10) Ethnic Group: n=55 n=302 n=252 n=283 N=892 - Orang Sungai 55 (100%) 274 (91%) 52 (21%) - 381 (43%)

- Bajau - 6 (2%) 30 (12%) 268 (95%) 304 (34%)

- Suluk - 5 (2%) 146 (58%) 8 (3%) 159 (18%)

- Other - 17 (5%) 24 (9%) 7 (2%) 48 (5%)

(Refer to Appendix 3 for more details)


1.4.2.2 Head of Household Profile

Religious and race profiles as highlighted in the population sample are similarly reflected in the profile

for the heads of household (HsH) of whom the majority are Muslims (n=142, 99% of N=143). A

greater proportion of households (Hhs) considered themselves Orang Sungei (n=63, 44% of N=143),

a generic term for riverine folk of mixed ancestry. The Orang Sungei are a dominant ethnic group in

the villages of Keliaga (n=7, 100% of N=7) and Pantai Boring (n=48, 96% of N=50). The second most

dominant ethnic group is the Bajau (n=51, 36% of N=143) who are mainly found in Keniogan (n=45,

94% of N=48) followed by the Suluk (n=25, 17% of N=143) in Terusan Sugut (n=24, 63% of N=38).

The majority of HsH fall in the 36-45 age group (n=43, 30% of N=143), superseded by the 46-55

(n=35, 25%), 56-54 (n=34, 24%), 26-35 (n=19, 13%) and the over 66 (n=10, 7%) age groupings.

Only 2 (1%) HsH fall under the 19-25 age group. Generally, the levels of education could be

considered sub-standard with a majority of 43 per cent (n=62 of N=143) having received no schooling

at all. Forty-nine (34% of N=143) HsH have only achieved a primary school education, followed by 29

(20% of N=143) who have had secondary education while 3 HsH completed college/university.

Only 78% (n=112 of N=143) of all the HsH were born in the village with the remainder (n=31*, 22% of

N=143) originating from as far afield as Sandakan, Kinabatangan, Beluran and Paitan areas. There

was indication of inter-migration between the study villages due the availability of schools. For

example, 6 HsH settled in Pantai Boring from Keliaga for the main purpose of being closer to the local

primary school. Similarly, 3 HsH migrated to Terusan Sugut to improve access to primary and

secondary education. Overall, this is the most cited reason for inter-migration (n=10, 32% of N=31*),

followed by the pursuit of livelihoods or land for agrarian undertakings (n=9, 29% of N=31*) as in the

case of Keliaga where a total of 6 HsH originated from elsewhere including, 5 who cited the upriver

settlement of Sungei-Sungei as the village of their birth. Marriage to local spouses (n=8, 26% of

N=31*) was the next most mentioned reason, followed on a lesser scale, by employment (n=2, 6%)

and family (n=2, 6%).

Main occupations for HsH included fishing (n=98, 69% of N=143), followed by oil palm cultivation

(n=18, 13%), salaried employment (n=10, 7%) as imams, teachers, security guards and farm hands,

self-employment as entrepreneurs, labourers and shop keepers (n=7, 5%), while the remainder

included pensioners (n=4, 3%), farmers of other crops (n=3, 2%) and an insignificant proportion of

elderly who are not income-earners (n=3, 2%) and who are being supported by children and other

breadwinners within the household. The majority of monthly incomes fall within the RM301-500

income range (n=60, 42% of N=143), superseded by the RM101-300 (n=44, 31%), RM501-700

(n=22, 15%), RM701-1000 (n=11, 8%) and RM1001-1500 (n=4, 3%) income brackets. Only 2 HsH

laid claim to incomes of less than RM100 per month.


Notwithstanding, 56** HsH (39% of N=143) have two or more sources of revenue while the majority

are single-income households (n=87***, 61%). Side incomes would include fishing (n=22 39% of

N=56**), farming of other crops (n=11, 20% of N=56**), shop-keeping (n=5, 9%), oil palm cultivation

(n=4, 7%), boat-making and carpentry (n=4, 7%), allowance as village heads (n=3, 5%) and others.

Single-incomes (n=87***, 61% of N=143) are mainly derived from fishing (n=70, 80% of N=87***), oil

palm cultivation (n=6, 7% of N=87***), monthly salary (n=5, 6%), self-employment (n=2, 2%) and a

much lesser scale farming of other crops (n=1, 1%), contribution by children (n=1, 1%), government

pension (n=1, 1%) and 1 elderly HH who is being wholly supported by other income-earning members

of household. (Appendix 4A & 4B)

Table 5: Summary of Head of Household Profile

Head of Household Profile Keliaga

Pantai Boring

Terusan Sugut

Keniogan Total

1a) Origins of Hd of Household: n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

- Village 1 (14%) 40 (80%) 30 (79%) 41 (85%) 112 (78%)

- Elsewhere 6 (86%)* 10 (20%)* 8 (21%)* 7 (15%)* 31 (22%)*

i) Reasons for settling: n=6* n=10* n=8* n=7 n=31

- To be closer to schools - 6 4 - 10 (32%)

- Pursuit of livelihoods 5 3 1 - 9 (29%)

- Married a local resident - 1 1 6 8 (26%)

- Employment - - 1 1 2 (7%)

- Came with parents 1 - - - 1 (3%)

- To be closer to family - - 1 - 1 (3%)

2) Main occupation: Kel n=7

PB n=50

TS n=38

Ken n=48

N=143

- Fisherman 1 (14%) 21 (42%) 32 (84%) 44 (92%) 98 (69%)

- Farmer – Oil palm holding 6 (86%) 12 (24%) - - 18 (13%)

- Self-employed - Labourer - 4 (8%) - - 4 (3%)

- Elderly - Pensioner - - 3 (8%) 1 (2%) 4 (3%)

- Farmer – Other crops - 3 (6%) - - 3 (2%)

- Employed - Teacher - 2 (4%) - 1 (2%) 3 (2%)

- Employed - Imam - 2 (4%) - 1 (2%) 3 (2%)

- Elderly – Not earning - 1 (2%) 1 (3%) 1 (2%) 3 (2%)

- Entrepreneur - 1 (2%) 1 (3%) - 2 (1%)

- Employed – Security guard - 2 (4%) - - 2 (1%)

- Employed – Farm hand - 2 (4%) - - 2 (1%)

- Self-employed – Shop keeper - - - - 1 (1%)

3a) Main income:

(M=Main income; S=Side income)

Kel (n=6) PB (n=50) TS (n=38) Ken (n=48) Total

M S M S M S M S M S

- Fisherman 1 2 21 14 32 3 44 3 98 22

- Farmer – Oil palm holding 6 - 12 4 - - - - 18 4

- Self-employed - Labourer - - 4 2 - - - - 4 2

- Elderly - Pensioner - - - - 3 - 1 - 4 -

- Farmer – Other crops - 4 3 4 - 2 - 1 3 11


- Employed - Teacher - - 2 - - - 1 - 3 -

- Employed - Imam - - 2 - - - 1 - 3 -

- Elderly – Not earning - - 1 - 1 - - - 2 -

- Entrepreneur - - 1 - 1 - - - 2 -

- Employed – Security guard - - 2 - - - - - 2 -

- Employed – Farm hand - - 2 - - - - - 2 -

- Shopkeeper - - - 1 1 2 - 2 1 5

- Contribution by children - - - - - 1 1 - 1 1

- Allowance as Village Head - 2 - 1 - - - - - 3

- Aquaculture - Fish - - - - - - - 2 - 2

- Boat maker/ Carpenter - - - - - 4 - - - 4

- Local tourist guide - - - - - 1 - - - 1

4a) Income range Kel n=7

PB n=50

TS n=38

Ken n=48

N=143

- None - - 1 (2%) - 1 (<1%)

- < 100 - 1 (2%) - - 1 (<1%)

- 101-300 - 16 (32%) 9 (24%) 19 (40%) 44 (31%)

- 301-500 2 (29%) 14 (28%) 20 (53%) 24 (50%) 60 (42%)

- 501-700 4 (57%) 10 (20%) 7 (18%) 1 (2%) 22 (15%)

- 701-1000 1 (14%) 6 (12%) 1 (3%) 3 (6%) 11 (8%)

- 1001-1500 - 3 (6%) - 1 (2%) 4 (3%)

- >15001 - - - - -

b) Number of income sources: Keliaga

n=7

Pantai Boring n=50

Terusan Sugut n=38

Keniogan

n=48

Total

N=143 - 1 income source* 2 (29%)* 19 (38%)* 26 (69%)* 40 (83%)* 87 (61%)*

- 2 income sources 3 (43%) 26 (52%) 10 (26%) 6 (13%) 45 (31%)

- 3 income sources 1 (14%) 5 (10%) 2 (5%) 2 (4%) 10 (7%)

- 4 income sources 1 (14%) - - - 1 (<1%)

(Refer to Appendix 4A & 4B for more details)


CHAPTER 2 Assessment of High Conservation Value 5

Global Toolkit Definition: Forest area is fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities.

A forest area may be considered HCV 5 if it contains or is adjacent to settlements which

depend on produce from that forest for basic subsistence or health needs. Examples include

hunting grounds or areas from which minor forest products such as bamboo, rattan and

medicinal plants are collected, and are regularly visited by community members for this

purpose. The community maybe living either in or adjacent to the forest. However,

identification and management of this HCV must always involve participation of the

communities themselves. (WWF-Malaysia, 2009).

Appendix nine of the High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) Toolkit consider ‘Basic Needs’ to

include food sources, building materials, fuel, medicines, water sources and cash incomes. Research

outcomes revealed that all the study villages depend on forest products to fulfil basic needs albeit, in

varying degrees. In terms of basic needs, the community of Pantai Boring remains to be the most

dependent on the forest, followed by Terusan Sugut, Keniogan and Keliaga. (Tables 1 & 6)

2.1 Basic Need 1 – Food Sources

Sources of food would include how and where households (Hhs) obtain their protein, carbohydrate

and, fruit and vegetables. None of the aforementioned communities rely significantly on forest

products (FPs) for their protein sources as they have access to freely-available animal protein in the

form of both freshwater and saltwater produce such as fish (n=131, 96% of N=143), prawns (n=104,

73% of N=143), crabs (n=31, 22% of N=143) supplemented by the small-scale rearing of livestock

such as chicken (n=15, 11%). (Table 6, Appendices 5 & 6) The occasional procurement of other

animal protein such as chicken, eggs and beef serves to augment existing diets. Only 3 (2% of

N=143) Hhs claimed to supplement their protein source through the sporadic hunting of bush meat.

None of the communities rely on FPs for their carbohydrate source as all Hhs purchased rice as their

main staple. Although a proportion of Hhs, particularly in Pantai Boring (n=38, 76% of N=50), Keliaga

(n=7, 100% of N=7) and Terusan Sugut (n=5, 13% of N=38), also supplemented their carbohydrate

source through the cultivation of tapioca (n=50, 35% of N=143) and sweet potatoes (n=17, 12% of

N=143). On the other hand, all Hhs in Keniogan (n=48, 100% of N=48) rely entirely on purchased

sources for their carbohydrates.


Table 6: Forest Products for the Fulfilment of Ba sic Needs

Basic Needs KELIAGA

PANTAI BORING

TERUSAN SUGUT

KENIOGAN Overall HCV5A Value

Approximate distance to forest reserves (km)

1.2km (SFR)

2.2km (TSFR)

0km (SFR)

1km (TSFR)

0km (SS, SP & J FR)

1km (TSFR)

5km (SFR)

0 (KB & KL FR)

9km (TSFR)

Food: 0 2 1 1 1

i. Protein 0 1 1 0 1

ii. Carbohydrate 0 0 0 0 0

iii. Fruits & Vegetables 0 2 1 1 1

iv. Other (1) 0 1 1 1 1

Building Materials:

iii. Wood: 2 3 3 2 2

- All boat-building 2 2 2 2 2

- All furniture-building 0 0 1 0 1

- All house-building 1 3 3 2 2

iv. Rattan: 0 2 1 1 2

- Furniture-building 0 0 1 0 1

- Handicraft 0 1 1 1 1

- Prawn trap-making 0 2 1 0 2

v. Bamboo: 1 2 1 0 1

- Handicraft 0 0 1 0 1

- House-building 0 1 1 0 1

- Prawn trap-making 0 1 1 0 1

- Raft-making 1 0 0 0 1

vi. Other: Nipah 0 0 1 0 1

- Thatched roof-making 0 - 1 1 1

Fuel: Firewood fr forest 1 2 2 0 2

viii. Medicines: Jungle remedies:

1 2 2 1 2

Water source: 0 3 3 3 3

Cash Income: 0 1 0 0 1

• 4 – Essential = 100% of a given need is fulfilled b y one source • 3 – Critical = > 50% of a given need is fulfilled by one source • 2 – Important = 15-50% of a given need • 1 – Not Important = < 15% • 0 – Non-existent = 0%

Note: SFR = Sugut Forest Reserve TSFR = Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve SS, SP & J FR = Sungei Sugut, Sungei Paitan & Jembongan Forest Reserve KB & KL FR = Kuala Bonggaya & Kuala Labuk Forest Reserve

(1) Other food: Honey and birds’ nest)

(Refer to Appendices 5 & 6 for more details)


All the communities in the study have varying degrees of access to land use. Particularly with Keliaga

and Pantai Boring where there is ample access to land albeit, in differing circumstances. The

community of Terusan Sugut has limited access to land use due to its location as the village is located

on a headland on the Sugut River surrounded by mangrove forest reserve (FR) of Sungei Sugut,

Sungei Paitan and Jembongan (SS, SP & J FR) while Keniogan is confined to a small segment of an

island, hemmed in by the mangroves of Kuala Bonggaya and Kuala Labuk FR (KB & KL FR).

Additionally, the access to land use has afforded the communities of Keliaga and Pantai Boring and to

a lesser extent, Terusan Sugut to cultivate their own fruit and vegetables. Keliaga (n=7, 100% of N=7)

is wholly dependent on home-grown produce, followed by Pantai Boring (n=46, 96% of N=50) and

Terusan Sugut (n=28, 74% of N=38) while the community of Keniogan (n=48, 100% of N=48) is

completely reliant on purchased sources in Beluran due to the aforementioned reasons.

Paddy cultivation was practiced in the past in Keliaga, Pantai Boring and to small extent in Terusan

Sugut. Rice including other staples such as tapioca and sweet potatoes and, fruit and vegetables

from Pantai Boring and Keliaga were bartered for salted fish in Terusan Sugut. Currently, home-

grown fruit such as mango, rambutan, tarap, coconut, langsat and cempadak and vegetables such as

kangkung, long beans, pumpkin, tapioca shoots and aubergine are produced by these communities

mainly for own use with a small proportion for sale. Research outcomes indicated that the community

of Pantai Boring (n=12, 24% of N=50) depended the most on FPs to supplement sources of fruit and

vegetables and on a less significant scale, Terusan Sugut (n=3, 8% of N=38) and Keniogan (n=2, 4%

of N=48). Forest products would include ferns, kangkung and wild fruit such as salak, rambutan,

nipah fruit and mango collected from the jungle.

2.2 Basic Need 2 - Building Materials

2.2.1 Basic Need 2 - Wood as a Building Material

Wood, as building material from both purchased and forested sources, particularly for boat-making

and house-building would be deemed vital in sustaining these communities with a total of 103* (72%

of N=143) households (Hhs) directly using this resource for this purpose. (Table 5) Fifty-eight (56% of

N=103*) Hhs attributed their source of wood from the forest with 39 (38% of N=103*) Hhs used

purchased wood only while 11 (11% of N=103*) Hhs use both purchased and forested sources. The

remaining Hhs (n=6, 6% of N=103*) obtained wood from land clearing activities, collecting driftwood

and taking wood by the riverbanks. Crucially, 69 (48% of N=143) Hhs used wood for boat and house

building from a forested source.


2.2.1.2 Wood for Boat-building

Boats are needed to for transportation, trading activities, fishing for food and income generation and,

are particularly important for the water-bound villages of Terusan Sugut and Keniogan. Boat

ownership remains high (n=120*, 84% of N=143) with 16 households (Hhs) (13% of N=120*) claiming

possession of two or more boats. Only one Hh (in Keniogan) in the sample owns a fishing trawler.

Forty-four** (37% of N=120*) boat-owning Hhs cited that they use wood from forested sources to build

boats with Seraya (n=18, 41% of N=44**) being the most-prized wood followed by other unidentified

wood (Other Tree (OT)) (n=14, 32% of N=44**), Kapur (n=3, 7%), Rasak Batu (n=2, 5%) and on a

lesser scale, Acacia (n=1), Adat (n=1), Geriting (n=1), Obar (n=1) and Bayu (n=1).

2.2.1.3 Wood for House-building

Wood is equally fundamental as a basic material for house-building. The majority of households

(Hhs) live in houses made of wood (N=121, 85% of N=143) with another 12 houses (8% of N=143)

constructed from both wood and cement. Although the overall availability of government social

housing can be deemed significant (n=41, 29% of N=143), the picture is different for the individual

villages. Pantai Boring has the highest proportion of social housing (n=22, 44% of N=50), followed by

Keniogan (n=18, 38% of N=48) and Keliaga (n=1, 14% of N=7). There are no social housing facilities

in Terusan Sugut. Even with the presence of government-aided housing, there is still a demand for

wood as a basic building material. Apart from the initial construction of boats and houses, wood is

used to extend homes in order to accommodate burgeoning household numbers, to construct out-

houses for storage, jetties, bridges and in time, to repair and improve homes and boats. Wood from a

purchased source is considered pricey and is generally well beyond the reach of most households.

For water-bound villages such as Terusan Sugut and Keniogan, access to purchased sources is

further hampered due to boat transportation costs. Costs and the availability of wood could be the

main reasons why a house could take years to be completed as most homes are built in stages or

whenever families could afford to purchase or acquire building material. This phenomenon could also

be attributed to the fact that some households have difficulty estimating the total cost or value of their

home. The necessity of homes and boats, proximity to the forest reserves, low income levels and,

costs for obtaining wood could be considered strong motivators for these communities to acquire

wood from a forested source.

To this end, a total of 64* (45% of N=143) households claimed to have obtained wood from the forests

for house-building. Nineteen (30% of N=64*) Hhs cited unidentified wood (Other Tree (OT)); followed

by Kapur (n=10, 16% N=64*); Seraya (n=7, 11% of N=64*), Geriting (n=7, 11%), and Rasak Batu

(n=6, 9%) and on a lesser scale, Nibung (n=6, 9%), Tangar (n=6, 9%), Keruing (n=2), Santing (n=2),

Merbau (n=1), Nyatoh (n=1), Selangan Batu (n=1), Belian (n=1) and others. A total of 32 (64%, of

N=50) Hhs in Pantai Boring cited that they have taken wood from the forest for the purposes of both

boat and house building, followed by Terusan Sugut (n=20, 53% of N=38), Keniogan (n=15, 31% of


N=48) and Keliaga (n=2, 29% of N=7). (Table 5) With access to land use, only one household in the

study (from Keliaga) grows fast-growing trees such as Bayu, Binuang and Laran for own use.

2.2.1.4 Rattan as Building Material

The use of rattan from a forested source is more pronounced in Pantai Boring where 24 (48% of

N=48) households obtain rattan from the forest for the production of prawns traps or Bubu including 1

household who obtain rattan both for prawn-traps and for handicraft (Table 5). On a lesser scale,

rattan was also harvested from the jungle by 2 households in Terusan Sugut and 1 from Keniogan for

the production of furniture, prawn traps and handicraft. In the past, rattan was used as leverage for

barter trading in Terusan Sugut by the community of Pantai Boring as well as the for the production

of rattan mats or Bidai. In Keniogan, rattan is used for crafting food covers or Tudung Saji

2.2.1.5 Bamboo & Nipah as Building Material

Other forest products (FP) such as bamboo are used to construct rafts, houses, prawn traps and

handicraft. Eight households (Hhs) (16% of N=48) from Pantai Boring obtained bamboo for prawn

traps (n=7) and handicraft (n=1) (Table 5). Only 2 Hhs from Terusan Sugut use bamboo for furniture,

handicraft and prawn traps. One Hh from Keliaga use bamboo to make rafts. Nipah is the least-

collected FP with only 1 Hh in Terusan Sugut using the material as roofing.

2.3 Basic Need 3 – Fuel for Cooking

Although all households (Hhs) (N=143) in the study cited gas as the main fuel for cooking, a

proportion of Hhs from Keliaga (n=7, 100% of N=7), Pantai Boring (n=13, 26% of N=50) and Terusan

Sugut (n=13, 34% of N=48) still use firewood as supplementary fuel particularly when gas supplies

run short (Table 4). Gas supply can be purchased at inflated prices at RM38-40 per canister mainly

due to transportation costs. Another reason cited for the use of firewood as supplementary is fuel is

for the large preparation of food for festivities in the village. However, for the Hhs that use firewood

as supplementary fuel, only 23 (16% of N=143) of them stated that they obtained firewood from a

forested source.

2.4 Basic Need 4 – Traditional Medicines

A total of 33* (23% of N=143) households (Hhs) mentioned that they use traditional remedies, out of

which, 26** (79% of N=33*) of them cited that they obtained these remedies from the forest (Table 5).

The use of traditional treatments is more pronounced in Pantai Boring where 36% (n=18 of N=48) of

all Hhs acknowledged that they use such remedies, followed by Hhs in Terusan Sugut ( 29%, n=11 of

N=38), Keliaga (n=2, 29% of N=7) and Keniogan (n=2, 4% of N=48). The lack of rural clinics in


Keliaga and Pantai Boring, combined with the significant distance to the nearest health facility, Hhs

would use traditional treatments as a first resort and upon failing, would opt for modern medicine.

Table 7 : Traditional Forest Remedies

Traditional Forest Remedies Treatment

Mentions N=26

1) Tongkat Ali Malaria, dengue, back pain, injuries and high blood pressure 10 2) Pegaga Fever, minor injuries and high blood pressure 7 C) Unspecified roots Fever, diabetes & pregnancy 4 3) Misai Kucing High blood pressure and diabetes 3 D) Akar Tebilang Coughs 1 E) Tagimali Fever 1 4) Senduduk Cholesterol 1 F) Sap of Kapur tree Mild injuries 1 G) Pau Injuries 1 H) Akar Kuning Jaundice 1 I) Akar Kawali Malaria 1 J) Elephant foot leave Wounds 1 K) Bark of fig tree Broken bones 1 L) Bark of Bongkol tee Diarrhea 1

2.5 Basic Need 5 – Water Sources

The availability of fresh water is one of the major determinants for the formation of early settlements in

North Borneo. With the exception of Keliaga; Pantai Boring, Terusan Sugut and Keniogan could

partially depend on underground sources as a supplementary source to rain water particularly during

the drier seasons (Table 5). Pantai Boring has a gravity-feed facility as well as the use of wells to

access underground water whereas; Terusan Sugut and Keniogan only have well access. A total of

96 (67% of N=143) households utilise underground water through one form or another or both and

being located adjacent and/or within the forest reserve (as in the case of Pantai Boring), it could be

considered that the forests have a vital role as watersheds for sustaining the supply of fresh water to

these communities.

2.6 Basic Need 6- – Cash Incomes

Although insignificant, it has to be mentioned that 1 (<1%, N=143) household from Pantai Boring

collected bamboo for the forest to be sold as cash income. (Table 5)


CHAPTER 3 Other Matters Relating to HCV 5

3.1 Conservation and Forest Use

3.1.1 Attitudes to Conservation

Attitudes and comments towards the importance on conservation of the forests and ecosystems

emerged unprompted during the course of the household (Hh) interviews albeit with differing degrees

for each community. (Table 8A) The community of Keliaga emerged to be the most aware with a

total of 4 Hhs (57% N=7) followed by Terusan Sugut (n=10 26% N=38), Keniogan (n=4, 8% N=48).

One household in Terusan Sugut mentioned that forest conservation is vital for the development of

ecotourism with an equal number citing the need to increase environmental awareness regarding

forest conservation. Overall 13% (n=18 over N=143) of Hhs displayed an awareness for the

importance of forest and ecosystem conservation.

Mangrove forests in particular are crucial for creating an ideal environment for fish such as mullet

(Belanak) to spawn as well providing a sanctuary for fingerlings or juvenile fish to grow and develop

into adulthood. Conservation of the mangroves would consequently ascertain the sustainability of

livelihoods for fishermen in Terusan Sugut, Keniogan and Pantai Boring. The mangrove forest

reserves of Sungei Sugut, Sungei Paitan & Jembongan (SS, SP & J) and, Kuala Bonggaya & Kuala

Labuk (KB & KL) have a vital role in nurturing such an environment. To this end, as initiated by the

community of Terusan Sugut in collaboration with the Sabah Forestry Department (SFD), a traditional

protection system or Tagal was established on the Sugut Prai River whose headwaters originate from

Sugut Forest Reserve Beluran.

Table 8A: Attitudes to Conservation

Attitudes to Conservation Keliga

n=7

Pantai Boring n=50

Terusan Sugut n=38

Keniogan

n=48

TOTAL

N=143 1) There is a need to protect and conserve the forests and

the ecosystem.

4 - 8 4 16

2) Conservation of the forest is important in order to

increase tourism potential.

- - 1 - 1

3) There is a need to increase awareness regarding the

importance of forest conservation

- - 1 - 1

Total: 4 - 10 4 18


3.1.2 Attitudes to Forest Use

Similar to attitudes to conservation, all comments on forest use emerged unprompted. The access to

wood from a forested source for boat-making and house-building is further reflected in the these

comments with a total of 24 households (17% of N=143 (Table 8B) specifically citing wood for own

use with two respondents from Pantai Boring and Terusan Sugut stating the need for the

development of the cottage craft industry using materials from the forest. One household mentioned

that communities should be allowed the extraction of rattan, wood bark and bamboo. Overall 19%

(n=27 of N=143) of all Hhs cited the need for forest use. Research outcomes in Section 2.2 on Basic

Needs (Building Materials) directly correlate with the attitudes towards forest use with total of 69 Hhs

(48% of N=143) extract and use wood from a forested source for boat and/or house building.

Table 8B: Attitudes to Forest Use

Attitudes to Forest Use Keliga

n=7

Pantai Boring n=50

Terusan Sugut n=38

Keniogan

n=48

TOTAL

N=143 1) Local communities need access to wood from the forest

for own use such as boat-making and house-building

- 6 9 9 24

2) Craft industry could be developed using materials from

the forest.

- 1 1 - 2

3) Large corporations are allowed to extract wood but local

communities get penalized for taking wood for own use.

- - - 1 1

4) Extraction of minor forest produce such as rattan, wood

bark and bamboo should be allowed

- 1 - - 1

Total: - 8 10 9 28

3.1.3 Hunting by Local Communties

The outcomes of the household interviews attributed only 3 households who obtained their protein

source from bush meat or daging hutan. Research into hunting activities by local communities can be

particularly sensitive and would therefore, profit from a qualitative approach thus, highlighting the

limitation of quantitative methodologies. Proper insights into hunting by both local communities and

external parties could therefore benefit from a separate study specifically formulated for this purpose.

However, during informal interviews during the course of the fieldwork, it was revealed that wildlife

was hunted on a seasonal basis, mainly for own use, most specifically for festivities such as weddings

where in some cases the supply of daging hutan was supplemented by purchasing bush meat from

outside sources. In Pantai Boring, the focus group imparted that most hunting was conducted during

the floods when animals get stranded on pockets of high ground. Alternative sources of protein are

freely available in the form of marine and river produce and it be deduced that hunting is conducted

on an informal and occasional basis. Awareness regarding laws and procedures on hunting could be


considered generally poor among the focus groups. Keliaga and Pantai Boring acknowledged that

that they are only aware of the restrictions but not much else with focus groups in Terusan Sugut and

Keniogan claiming to be unaware of the restrictions.

3.2 Access to Land Use

3.2.1 Land Status

Thirty-four* (24% of N=143) households (Hhs) acknowledged access to land use, out of which, 24

Hhs (71% of N=34*) have back-dated land applications form as far back as the 1960s. Only 2 (6% of

N=34*) Hhs in Keliaga and Terusan Sugut can lay claim to land grants including 1 Hh in Keliaga

holding both a land application and a land grant. The majority of land applications originate from

Pantai Boring (n=13, 38% of N=34*), superseded by Keliaga (n=7, 21%), Terusan Sugut (n=3, 9%)

and Keniogan (n=1, 3%). Nine (26% of N=34*) Hhs have engaged in agrarian pursuits on land of

‘unspecified’ status. There is also a strong probability that these pending land applications,

particularly in Pantai Boring could lie within forest reserve areas as 10 out of a total 13 land

applications from the village lies within a 4-kilometre radius of the village.

3.2.2 Encroached Forest Reserve Areas

The main contention regarding access land use lies mainly with the village of Pantai Boring which is

located entirely within forest reserve boundaries of Sugut FR in the Forest District of Pitas. Due to

administrative inconsistencies, the majority of homes including private and social housing and, public

buildings such as the mosque, playing fields, volley ball court and public meeting house have been

constructed on forest reserve land. Furthermore, it was observed during the fieldtrips that there has

been considerable agricultural encroachment in the former fire-devastated parts of SFR

approximately 1.5 kilometres along the main road to Pantai Boring in forest compartments 248, 249,

251 and 253.

The encroachment is characterised by the haphazard plantings of oil palm trees varying from young

plants to young trees of a few years old, as well as, oil palm seedling nurseries and containers of

herbicides along the roadside. Although the real extent of the encroached area cannot be confirmed,

it became apparent that the certain households in the community of Pantai Boring are directly

responsible for this activity as evident in the upkeep of informal oil palm nurseries in the village. A

total of 14 (28% of N=50) households in Pantai Boring mentioned about ‘informal’ land use within the

forest area, stating categorically that the Forest Department should consider giving land use rights to

the community for the segments that has already been cultivated with oil palm. (Table 8C)


Table 8C: Attitudes to Access to Land Use

Attitudes to Access to Land Use Keliga

n=7

Pantai Boring n=50

Terusan Sugut n=38

Keniogan

n=48

TOTAL

N=143 1) Communities need access to land use as well as

ownership of areas within the FR as an aid to alleviate

poverty.

- 13 2 - 15

2) Sabah Forestry Department should give consideration

or excise land use rights for areas within the FR that

has already been planted with oil palm.

- 14 - - 14

3) Sabah Forestry Department should excise land within

FR areas for oil development for the local community

- - - 1 1

4) It is not fair that the community of Pantai Boring has

been ‘given’ land to cultivate oil palm.

1 - - - 1

Total 1 27 2 1 31

3.3 Environmental Changes and Conflicts

3.3.1 Oil Palm Development

Although largely unfounded, large-scale upstream development of oil palm plantations by

corporations such as IJM, PPB and Borneo Samudera in the 1980s and 1990s was thought to have

contributed to the depletion of marine and river produce. One Hh from Keniogan observed that fish of

a variety of species was plentiful during the 1970s and he believed that effluents from these activities

have simply ‘made the fish run away’. In Pantai Boring, it was also observed that extraction of

freshwater prawns was year-long activity but it recent times this has been reduced to a seasonal

basis. The depletion of saltwater and freshwater produce has had a negative impact on fishing

livelihoods in general and the impacts would be felt more for communities such as Keniogan and

Terusan Sugut and to a lesser extent, Pantai Boring, who rely these resources for food and income

generation.

3.3.2 Marine Protected Area Management

The Sugut Islands Marine Conservation Area (SIMCA) occupies 46,317 hectares of marine coastal

waters encompassing three islands, Lankayan, Tegaipil and Billean. Established in 2001 and

managed as a no-take zone, SIMCA is overseen by a partnership comprising of the Sabah Wildlife

Department (SWD) and Reef Guardian with headquarters on Lankayan island. This initiative is

financed by a conservation fee charged to tourists at the dive resort and is located in the Sulu Sea

approximately 10 kilometres from the mouth of the Sugut River.


Although the initiative has been successful in protecting the marine environment from abhorrent

fishing, its establishment has significantly diminished prime fishing grounds for the community which

resulted in a bottle-neck effect within the 10-kilometre strip between the protected area and the mouth

of the Sugut River. As a direct result of the lack of community consulting during its initiation phase,

the formation of the protected area has created a conflict zone as fishers from Terusan Sugut and

Pulau Botak and, trawlers from Sandakan and Kudat compete for the same resource. These set of

events have culminated into a predicament between the major stakeholders of marine conservation.

To this end, a stakeholder workshop was held in November 2014 to seek resolution to these issues.

Over the course of a series of interviews with the local community, it was revealed that fishermen from

Terusan Sugut have been forcibly restrained and caught for fishing within the protected area which

they consider their ancestral fishing grounds. Nonetheless, the community of Terusan Sugut

perceives that their involvement and participation in protected area management could be mutually-

beneficial. For instance, as honorary wardens to thwart the illegal entry of external Tangar hunters

into the forest reserve as well as other activities such as wildlife hunters and abhorrent fishers. They

also mentioned regarding their direct involvement in tourism activities such as employment at the

Lankayan island resort and other indirect benefits such as supplying the resort with marine produce

which is currently being purchased in Sandakan. It was further suggested that the extension of the

existing marine protected area could include the mangroves so as to establish the inextricable link

between the marine environment and the mangrove forests as it is generally accepted that the

conservation of these resources would sustain livelihoods and would benefit the community on the

whole.

3.3.3 Forest Use by Outsiders

Apart from boat access, the advent of roads through logging activities and the subsequent

development of oil palm plantations has increased the vulnerability of forest reserves to (Table 9) The

harvesting of Gaharu was reported by all focus groups with poachers coming from as afield as

Kalimantan and Sarawak although the focus group at Keniogan mentioned that there were Gaharu

hunters in the past. The group in Terusan Sugut reported that that local informants and middlemen

are partially implicit in this activity.

Due proximity to the forest reserve, only the communities of Pantai Boring, Terusan Sugut and

Keniogan mentioned about the hunting of wildlife. In Pantai Boring it was cited that armed and

licensed hunters enter the reserve through plantation roads in the late afternoon and wait until

nightfall to hunt. They claimed that is a monthly occurrence particularly during the new moon. Deer is

mainly hunted for use and for sale. The focus group in Terusan Sugut similarly claimed that external

hunters would enter the area with licensed guns and permits to engage in the activity solely as a sport

and in some cases venturing close to the village. However, the frequency of their activities displayed


no set pattern. In Keniogan the focus group mentioned that Gusung island seems to be a prime

hunting site. In all cases, nightfall is the favoured time to engage in these activities.

Table 9: Forest Use by Outsiders

Reports on Forest Use by Outsiders Keliga

Pantai Boring

Terusan Sugut

Keniogan

1) Gaharu harvesting � � � �

2) Wildlife hunting - � � �

3) Crocodile hunting - � - �

4) Tangar mangrove harvesting - - � �

5) Unauthorised logging - - � -

6) Nipah palm harvesting - - � -

The mangrove reserves are located approximately 25 kilometres from the International boundary

between Sabah and the Philippines. This proximity has attracted Tangar harvesters who are usually

armed, from far afield as the islands of Boan and Cagayan in Philippine waters. The focus group at

Keniogan cited that Tangar harvesters are easily identified because they use Pacong or long boats,

entering the tributaries to set up camps in the mangroves, favouring conditions such as the full moon

and high tides at year end. Both communities of Terusan Sugut and Keniogan believe that it is

important to protect the mangroves for this reason alone. There have also been reports of crocodile

hunting from the focus groups in Pantai Boring and Keniogan. On a lesser scale, Tersuan Sugut

reported that there have been incidences of illegal logging on the Tagahang River in the Forest

District of Pitas and the collection of nipah palms by the Bajau Laut.


CHAPTER 4 Assessment of High Conservation Value 6

Global Toolkit Definition: Forest area is critical to local communities’ traditional cultural idendity.

A forest area may be considered HCV 6 if it is important for a local (particularly indigenous)

community’s cultural, ecological or religious activities. The community may be living either in

or adjacent to the forest. Example of such sites within a forest would include burial grounds

or sacred areas which cannot be replaced with alternatives and/or would cause drastic

cultural change within the community. Identification and management of this HCV must

always involve participation of the communities themselves. (WWF-Malaysia,2009).

4.1 Establishment of Settlements

4.1.1 Keliaga

The cluster settlement of Keliaga falls under one leadership and consists of six 6 villages:

Keliaga, Binongkalan, Buah Udon, Karudon and Jambatan Besi. The first inhabitants of the core

village of Keliaga originated from the upriver villages such as Sungei-sungei and Linakuyan. Six

families of Dusunic origin settled in the area in 1983 in search of available land and to be closer

to the markets for the selling of produce. In the 1980s they engaged in the collection and trade of

non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as damar and rattan as a main livelihood but due to

logging activities and the gradual depletion of NTFPs incomes were supplemented by the

cultivation of staples such as rice, tapioca and sweet potatoes as well fruit and vegetables which

were bartered at Terusan Sugut and sold at the timber camps. Wet paddy and hill paddy was

cultivated, up to 10 years ago, but this tradition has subsided and given way to the cultivation of

oil palm brought about by the advent of roads and access to oil palm processing facilities.

Currently, the majority of households (n=6, 86% of N=7) earn their main incomes from oil palm

cultivation.

4.1.2 Pantai Boring

The first inhabitants, Nenek Boring, Aki Bomboring and Aki Dukang were thought to have

originated from the upriver settlement of Lingkabau, arrived in Pantai Boring in search of

livelihoods. As legend dictates, they settled on two sandbanks or Pantai that was occupied by a

crocodile that was killed as a result of Nenek Boring’s fearlessness and bravery. And hence, the

name, ‘Pantai Boring’ came into being. While it is still uncertain when the settlement was


formed, the focus group unanimously agreed that the village was established during the colonial

era, a fact that can be confirmed by the existence of a respondent who was born in the village in

1940. The focus group ascertained that here has been 7 generations of village heads (Ketua

Kampung) for Pantai Boring. However, a realistic and conservative estimate could be reached at

1940. Subsequent settlers were attracted to the site because of the abundance of freshwater

produce. Past livelihoods also included the agrarian production of staples such as rice and

tapioca and, fruit and vegetables and along with NTFPs such as rattan, were brought

downstream to Terusan Sugut to be bartered for salted fish and other produce. Barter trading is

still being conducted but on a much lesser scale. Although, fishing could still be considered a

main livelihood (n=21, 42% of N=50) in Pantai Boring, a significant proportion (n=12, 24% of

N=50) of households have turned to the cultivation of oil palm and a main source of income.

4.1.3 Terusan Sugut

Tersusan Sugut has a rich history stretching back beyond 200 hundred years. The settlement in

the district of Paitan (part of Pitas Forest District) was one of the major trade centres for forest

products such as camphor, rattan and wax during the stronghold of the Sultanate of Sulu. In the

latter half of the 18th century, Paitan achieved fame, in China in particular, for the finest camphor

found anywhere in the world. Camphor, a resin from the tree species, Dryobalanops beccarii,

locally known as kapur minyak, generated much prosperity for the Sultan, the Sulu Datus, Sharifs

and other traders. Facilitated by the meandering Sugut River and forest collectors in the deep

interior, the trade for forest produce flourished through the ‘famous town of Sugut’ which was

described as ‘considerable’ in a letter between J Hunt and Sir Stamford Raffles, the erstwhile

Lieutenant Governor of Java in 1812.

Hunt wrote:

The interior abounds in camphor which can be had in any quantity; so vastly abundant is

it, and so little does the Orang Idan know of the extreme value of this commodity………

The province of Paitan is the principal district for camphor of any in the world. Whole

forests for miles everywhere meet the eye, and the produce from them is finest that can

be conceived, large and transparent as Chin Chew sugar candy. The principal towns are

Paitan, Kinarubatan, Kulepan and the famous town of Sugut.

(Adapted from Ibbotson 2014)

Currently, the only vestiges of an illustrious and prosperous past can be found at the burial

grounds at Sisip, Pansungmurai and Bujang Timah (Table 8) The ‘town of Sugut’ attracted

traders from all over including a Chinese community who settled in Terusan where they ran

sundry shops and traded fresh fish catch, salted fish, rattan, honey and damar. Apart from

fishing, livelihoods in the past involved the trade of forest products and the production of charcoal

from the mangroves. However, changes in the demand for this produce combined with the


management of forest reserves have also meant that the majority of households (n=32, 84% of

N=38) in Terusan Sugut would depend on fishing as a main source of income.

4.1.4 Keniogan

Paduka Gom of Johore was thought to be among the first settlers of the Bajau who arrived about

8 generations ago. The focus group believe that the name ‘’Keniogan’ was derived from

‘Kaniyugan’ to mean ‘the place of coconuts’, ‘niyug’ being ‘coconut’ in the Suluk language.

Keniogan is thought to have originated as a collecting point for forest products by traders en route

to the ‘town of Sugut’ which could date the village to mid/late 19th century. The older participants

of the focus group could still recount the collection of forest products as a livelihood in the past.

However, the engagement in the collection of NTFPs has now ceased and in a similar case to

Terusan Sugut, a significant proportion of the households (n=44, 92% of N=48) would now count

fishing as their main livelihood.

3.2 Cultural Sites in SFR-Beluran & SFR Pitas

The cultural sites that have been identified through community consultations would include just

two historical burial grounds: Bujang Timah and Pansungmurai which are firmly located within the

Trusan Sugut FR and SFR areas respectively. These sites are considered to be culturally

important because assuming that these burial grounds have been in use since the formation of

Terusan Sugut, Bujang Timah and Pansungmurai, at a conservative estimate, would be at least

200 years old. Through local tales and legends, another two sites have been identified as the

Marawaring and Kumbawan hill in the TSFR area. (Table 10)

Table 10: Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve Cultural Site s

Sugut Forest Reserve Cultural Sites Forest Reserve

HCV 6 Assessment

value A) KELIAGA:

1) Batu Tomangong: Batu Tomangong is a revered fertility site consisting of a large

and a small stone which are thought to represent a mother and a baby elephant

who were placed under a curse. It is generally believed that this is the reason why

there are no elephants in the area. As claimed by the village head that after

offerings of money were laid out and permission was asked that he and his wife

were able to have children.

� 0

2) Pintas Balantos: An undisturbed burial site located at the boundary with IJM

plantation

� 0

B) PANTAI BORING:

3) Si Ipil: The legend of ‘Si Ipil’, a Merbau tree lives on in the heart of the local

community. Si Ipil is referred to as a malevolent being that inhabits the tree which

is known to regenerate after dying. Locals barely venture within striking distance of

� 0


Si Ipil for the fear of being possessed. No logging company has managed to cut it

down.

4) Kumbawan: Known to be the haunted site of a mythical village that disappeared

into the ground. A lake is now in place of the village.

��

(TSFR)

2

5) Aki Dukang: After his first ‘death’ as a child, Aki Dukang ‘returned’ to retrieve a top

that he had hidden in a previous life. The final resting place of Aki Dukang is

considered to be a place suffused with supernatural powers where offerings,

accompanied by personal requests are placed. Still actively in use as a burial site.

�

(Riparian reserve

boundary with

Cpt 12, TSFR)

0

C) TERUSAN SUGUT:

6) Bujang Timah: The original landing site for Japanese troops during the Second

World War was also the site of a scared burial ground and home to the legend of

Bujang Timah. The site was named after a local maiden from Terusan Sugut who

was believed to have been held captive by spirits who inhabit the area. Currently,

the sea adjacent to the area is an important fishing ground for the community of

Terusan Sugut.

��

(TSFR)

3

7) Marawaring: According to local legend, this cluster of Marawaring trees is thought

to represent human beings who were cursed.

��

(TSFR)

3

8) Sisip: The original burial site of the village probably dating back to the late 18th

century when the village was founded. Latter grave markers are characterised by

hardwood totems carved into traditional forms with earlier graves being marked by

smooth river stones which are thought to continuously disappear and emerge in

another location within the graveyard.

�

(Adjacent to

SS, SP & J FR)

0

9) Pansungmurai: Another active burial site, two headlands upriver, thought to be

endowed with supernatural powers. It is believed that this burial ground has never

flooded.

��

(SFR)

3

D) KENIOGAN:

10) Suan Alamang Island: Sacred burial site with a Belian tree growing from a

headstone, guarded by a python. Offerings of food are still being brought to the

site known to have healing properties.

- -

11) Nenek Rawai: Nenek Rawai is also the local name for the Timbang River which is

considered to be ancestral fishing grounds for the community of Keniogan.

� 0

12) Batu Bisu: Stone located underwater. It is thought that one has to keep silent

when fishing in the vicinity otherwise no fish will be caught.

� 0


CHAPTER 5 Management Recommendations

The following management recommendations aim to develop and nurture existing stakeholder

relationships, reconcile past grievances, identify and manage potential conflict areas, enhance

environmental awareness and improve engagement with local communities as well as to explore

areas for further research. These recommendations also aim to support and enhance existing

structures and initiatives that have already been implemented.

5.1 Management Recommendations

5.1.1 Community Outreach and Consultation

Improved communication through community outreach and consultation could nurture a

mutually-beneficial relationship between the Sabah Forestry Department and local

communities as well as create a better understanding of pertinent issues:

- Improve communication with the Sabah Forestry Department and local communities through

informal and formal contact;

- Where relevant and feasible, to engage educated young people from the community to

join forest management operations;

- Engagement of the local community in research programmes in order to harness local

knowledge of the environment;

- A series of community consultations to be held over issues of contention such as

encroached forest reserve areas in Pantai Boring as well as the issue of the availability

wood for building homes and boats;

5.1.2 Community-based Natural Resource Management ( CBNRM)

- Extend the existing Tagal system to tributaries with headwaters in Tursan Sugut FR and

SFR that are being used by local communities such as Wansayon, Timbusul, Sisip, Obar,

Timbang and other small rivers that have been identified by the community;

- Involvement and capacity-building for honorary forestry warden programmes;

- Setting up forest conservation zones or Tagal Hutan to be managed by the community

which could include reforestation for devastated areas and the replanting of materials

such as rattan and bamboo for the use of the community;

- Establish a local system for reporting on entry and forest use by outsiders;


5.1.3 Forest Use

Research outcomes have revealed that there is a certain amount of minor forest use that

could be considered important for the sustainability of these communities:

- Proper demarcation and signage of forest reserve boundaries;

- Established through consultation and planning with the local community, low-impact

forest use such as the extraction of traditional remedies, rattan and bamboo should be

allowed for private use.

5.1.4 Environmental awareness

It is crucial to develop awareness programmes on a community level so as to create a better

understanding regarding forest management activities and the wider environment:

- Environmental awareness programmes covering areas such as forest and marine

conservation;

- Environmental awareness programmes to be introduced into the local school system;

- Improve awareness of forest management operations in forest reserves;

- Increasing the awareness of forest regulations.

5.1.5 Development of supplementary livelihoods

The development of supplementary livelihoods through stakeholder consultation and the

formative of community cooperatives could relieve stress on natural resources by improving

household incomes, alleviating poverty, creating job opportunities, boost the local economy

and subsequently could encourage the engagement and empowerment of women and youth

in community development and the management of natural resources:

- Development of the sustainable cottage craft industry in Pantai Boring, Terusan Sugut

and Keniogan through the engagement of skilled craftspeople using traditional methods,

products and design with materials for the forest such as rattan and bamboo;

- Capacity-building through the development of the local craft industry to include the

training of the younger generation in craft-making skills and the marketing of products;

- Capacity-building for the development of community tourism;

- Further consultation is required to gain better knowledge of the existing skills and

resources available to the community.;

- Development of community cooperatives for local products that are developed in

consultation with the community.


5.1.6 Stakeholder engagement

Protected area management could benefit largely through multi-stakeholder engagement and

cooperation as this would promote the exchange of vital information as well as to keep

abreast of current events and issues affecting the immediate environment:

- Nurture the stakeholder cooperation and collaboration between the Sabah Forestry

Department, Sabah Wildlife Department, Department of Land and Survey, Department of

Fisheries, Protected Area Management (Sugut Islands Marine Conservation Area-

SIMCA)), ESSCom (East Sabah Security Command) and local communities;

- Improve information exchange and knowledge-sharing between stakeholders.

5.2 Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms

The Sabah Forestry Department should utilise stakeholder consultations whether on a formal or

an informal basis, as a monitoring and evaluation tool in order to gauge the efficacy of the various

management initiatives. To this end, proper reporting channels and regular chronicling of events

should be established and, consulted as and when required in order to ensure that management

objectives are met. Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms could also be used as a tool to

develop areas for further research.

5.3 Areas for Further Research

Further research into development plans and other pertinent areas could improve funding

potential as well as to provide a foundation for the sustainable development of the natural

and cultural environment:

- Tourism Development Plan:

A Community Tourism Development Plan could be drafted using a participatory and holistic

approach incorporating wildlife, marine, cultural and historical resources of the area in order

to differentiate and improve the competitive of the tourism products;

- Wildlife Conservation Development Plan and Agreement:

Modelled on a comprehensive study conducted for Malua Forest Reserve in 2011, a wildlife

conservation development plan and agreement can be devised to include all stakeholders of

wildlife conservation

- Community Development Plan:

The drafting of a Community Development Plan through community consultation could ensure

the sustainability of these communities as well as provide empower communities to determine

their future;


- Historical and Cultural Research:

Rich historical and cultural background (including cultural sites) of the area warrants

further research which subsequently, could be used to bolster historical and cultural

interpretation in support of tourism development and product differentiation of the area.

APPENDICES

A-1 | A P P E N D I C E S - Trusan Sugut FR Beluran - H C V 5 & 6

APPENDIX 1

Map of Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve – Beluran Forest District

Lab

uk

Ba

y

Su

lu S

ea

Stu

dy

Sit

es/

Vil

lag

es

(Be

lura

n F

ore

st D

istr

ict)

(Pit

as

Fo

rest

Dis

tric

t)


APPENDIX 2

Focus Group Participant Profile

VILLAGE KELIAGA

PANTAI BORING

TERUSAN SUGUT

KENIOGAN Total Paticipated

FGD Dates:

26/11/2014

27/11/2014

29/11/2014

3/12/2014

Total No: 11 8

10 8 37

1) Gender:

- Male 7 4 8 4 23 - Female 4 4 2 4 14

2) Age Groups:

- 20-30 1 - 1 1 3 - 31-40 4 3 3 4 14 - 41-50 3 4 4 - 11 - 51-60 2 1 1 1 5 - 61-70 - - - 2 2 - >70 1 - 1 - 2

3) Origin/Born:

- Village 1 8 10 8 27 - Elsewhere 10 - - - 10

4) Ethnic Group:

- Bajau - - - 8 8 - Dusun 1 - - - 1 - Orang Sungei 10 8 - - 18 - Suluk - - 10 - 10

5) Education:

- None 7 4 - - 11 - Primary 1 1 5 6 13 - Secondary 2 3 5 2 12 - College/

University 1 - - - 1

6) Occupation:

- Fisherman - 2 6 1 9 - Farmer 5 - - - 5 - Housewife 4 4 2 3 13 - Teacher - 1 - 1 (Retired) 2 - Village Head 2 1 2 1 6 - Village Imam - - - 1 1 - Woman Leader

- - - 1 1


APPENDIX 3

Population Sample Profile

POPULATION PROFILE Keliaga Pantai Boring

Terusan Sugut

Keniogan TOTAL

1) Households Interviewed: n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

2) Household Occupants / Population Sample Size:

55 302 252 283 892

3) Average Household Size: 7.9 6 6.6 5.9 6.2

4) Gender: Kel (n=55)

PB (n=302)

TS (n=252)

Ken (n=283)

N=892

- Male 31 (56%) 150 (50%) 131 (52%) 143 (50%) 455 (51%)

- Female 24 (44%) 152 (50%) 121 (48%) 140 (50%) 437 (49%)

5) Residential Status: Kel (n=55)

PB (n=302)

TS (n=252)

Ken (n=283)

N=892

- All year round 23 (42%) 221 (73%) 224 (89%) 247 (87%) 715 (80%)

- 3-5 months 27 (49%) 70 (23%) 22 (9%) 34 (12%) 153 (17%)

- < 2 months -working elsewhere 5 (9%) 11 (4%) 6 (2%) 2 (1%) 24 (3%)

6) Marital Status: Kel (n=55)

PB (n=302)

TS (n=252)

Ken (n=283)

N=892

- Married 16 (29%) 97 (32%) 76 (30%) 92 (31%) 281 (31%)

- Single 14 (25%) 67 (22%) 64 (25%) 67 (24%) 212 (24%)

- Widowed - 2 (1%) 8 (3%) 4 (2%) 14 (2%)

- Divorced - - 4 (2%) 2 (1%) 6 (1%)

- Below age 18 25 (46%) 136 (45%) 100 (40%) 118 (42%) 379 (42%)

7) Age Group: Kel (n=55)

PB (n=302)

TS (n=252)

Ken (n=283)

N=892

- < 6 years 5 (9%) 43 (14%) 25 (10%) 33 (12%) 106 (12%)

- 7-12 11 (20%) 39 (13%) 27 (11%) 49 (17%) 126 (14%)

- 13-18 9 (16%) 54 (18%) 48 (19%) 36 (13%) 147 (16%)

- 19-25 10 (18%) 54 (18%) 47 (19%) 38 (13%) 149 (17%)

- 26-35 9 (16%) 33 (11%) 25 (10%) 39 (14%) 106 (12%)

- 36-45 2 (<4%) 30 (10%) 40 (16%) 39 (14%) 111 (12%)

- 46-55 4 (7%) 22 (7%) 23 (9%) 21 (7%) 70 (8%)

- 56-65 2 (<4%) 18 (6%) 11 (4%) 22 (8%) 53 (6%)

- ≥ 66 3 (5%) 9 (3%) 6 (2%) 6 (2%) 24 (3%)

8) Religion: Kel (n=55)

PB (n=302)

TS (n=252)

Ken (n=283)

N=892

- Islam 55 (100%) 296 (98%) 252 (100%) 482 (100%) 886 (99%)

- Christian - 6 (2%) - - 6 (1%)

9) Ethnic Group: Kel (n=55)

PB (n=302)

TS (n=252)

Ken (n=283)

N=892

- Orang Sungai 55 (100%) 274 (91%) 52 (21%) - 381 (43%)

- Bajau - 6 (2%) 30 (12%) 268 (95%) 304 (34%)

- Suluk - 5 (2%) 146 (58%) 8 (3%) 159 (18%)

- Other (1) - 17 (5%) 24 (9%) 7 (2%) 48 (5%)


10) Education: Kel (n=55)

PB (n=302)

TS (n=252)

Ken (n=283)

N=892

- Pre-primary school (6 yrs below) 5 (9%) 43 (14%) 25 (10%) 33 (12%) 106 (12%)

- Student - Primary 11 (20%) 40 (13%) 27 (11%) 51 (18%) 129 (15%)

- Student - Secondary 10 (18%) 53 (18%) 44 (17%) 27 (10%) 134 (15%)

- Student – College/University 1 (2%) 17 (6%) 15 (6%) 8 (3%) 41 (5%)

- NONE 14 (25%) 68 (23%) 26 (10%) 46 (16%) 154 (17%)

- Other - Primary 2 (4%) 28 (9%) 46 ((18%) 69 (24%) 145 (16%)

- Other - Secondary 6 (11%) 43 (14%) 65 (26%) 42 (15%) 156 (17%)

- Other – College/University 6 (11%) 10 (10%) 4 (2%) 7 (2%) 27 (35)

11) Main Occupation: Kel (n=55)

PB (n=302)

TS (n=252)

Ken (n=283)

N=892

ai) Total: Other Adults: (22) (120) (116) (148) n=406 (45%)

- Fisherman 1 36 50 72 159

- Housewife 6 42 36 47 131

- Unemployed 3 22 29 29 83

- Farmer 12 20 1 - 33

aii) Total E mployed: (6) (21) (17) (9) n=53 (6%)

- Employed - Imam - 2 - 1 3

- Employed – Maid/ Farmhand - 2 1 - 3

- Employed - Other - Volunteers

public srvcs

- - - 3 3

- Employed – School - - 5 - 5

- Employed - Security - 2 5 - 7

- Employed - Teacher 1 4 - 3 8

- Working & living outside village 5 11 6 2 24

aiii) Total Self -employed : (0) (5) (4) (3) n=12 (1%)

- Self-employed - Craft/Tailor - - - 2 2

- Self-employed - Entrepreneur - 1 1 - 2

- Self-employed - Labourer - 4 1 - 5

- Self-employed - Mechanic - - 1 - 1

- Self-employed - Shopkeeper - - 1 1 2

aiv) Total Non-working : (27) (156) (115) (123) n=421 (47%)

- Student 22 110 86 86 304

- Age 6 and below 5 43 25 33 106

- Elderly – Not earning - 3 1 3 4

- Elderly - Pensioner - - 3 1 7

11bi) Working -age Adults : n=471 (53%)

- Fishermen - - - - 158 (34%)

- Housewife - - - - 131 (28%)

- Unemployed - - - - 83 (18%)

- Farmer - - - - 34 (7%)

- Employed in village - - - - 29 (6%)

- Employed outside village - - - - 24 (5%)


- Self-employed - - - - 12 (2%)

bii) Non -working population: n=421 (47%) - Student - - - - 304 (72%)

- Age 6 and under - - - - 106 (25%)

- Elderly - - - - 11 (3%)

12) Bread Winner: Kel (n=55)

PB (n=302)

TS (n=252)

Ken (n=283)

N=143

- Sole bread winner 2 (29%) 35 (70%) 15 (39%) 30 (63%) 82 (57%)

- Multiple bread winner 5 (91%) 15 (30%) 23 (61%) 18 (37%) 61 (43%)

- Total number of bread winners 15 78 74 79 246

- Average bread winner per Hh 2 1.6 2 1.6 1.7

Note:

(1) Chinese, Dusun, Iban, Tidung, Bugis, Malay, Cagayan, Jawa etc.


APPENDIX 4A

Head of Household Profile

Head of Household Profile Keliaga

Pantai Boring

Terusan Sugut

Keniogan Total

1a) Origins of Hd of Household: n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

- Village 1 (14%) 40 (80%) 30 (79%) 41 (85%) 112 (78%)

- Elsewhere 6 (86%)* 10 (20%)* 8 (21%)* 7 (15%)* 31 (22%)*

i) Origin: n=6* n=10* n=8* n=7* n=31*

- Keliaga - 6 - - 6 (19%)

- Sungei-sungei 5 - - - 5 (16%)

- Sandakan - 1 2 1 4 (13%)

- Keniogan - - 2 - 2 (6%)

- Tetabuan - - - 2 2 (7%)

- Batu Putih - 1 - - 1 (3%)

- Kaulipan - - 1 - 1 (3%)

- Kolapis - - - 1 1 (3%)

- Linakuyan 1 - - - 1 (3%)

- Merungin - 1 - - 1 (3%)

- Pantai Boring - - 1 - 1 (3%)

- Pitas - - 1 - 1 (3%)

- Sungei Tiram - - - 1 1 (3%)

- Tanjung Pisau - - 1 - 1 (3%)

- Tanjung Semangat - - - 1 1 (3%)

- Terusan Sugut - 1 - - 1 (3%)

- Not Specified - - - 1* 1 (3%)

ii) Reasons for settling: n=6* n=10* n=8* n=7 n=31

- To be closer to schools - 6 4 - 10 (32%)

- Pursuit of livelihoods 5 3 1 - 9 (29%)

- Married a local resident - 1 1 6 8 (26%)

- Employment - - 1 1 2 (7%)

- Came with parents 1 - - - 1 (3%)

- To be closer to family - - 1 - 1 (3%)

iii) Year settled: n=6* n=10* n=8* n=7* n=31*

- 1961-1970 - - 1 - 1 (3%)

- 1971-1980 - - - 1 1 (3%)

- 1981-1990 5 - 2 1 8 (26%)

- 1991-2000 1 4 3 1 9 (29%)

- 2001-2010 - 6 - 3 9 (29%)

- 2011-2014 - - 2 1 3 (10%)


2) Main occupation: Kel (n=7)

PB (n=50)

TS (n=38)

Ken (n=48)

N=143

- Fisherman 1 (14%) 21 (42%) 32 (84%) 44 (92%) 98 (69%)

- Farmer – Oil palm holding 6 (86%) 12 (24%) - - 18 (13%)

- Self-employed - Labourer - 4 (8%) - - 4 (3%)

- Elderly - Pensioner - - 3 (8%) 1 (2%) 4 (3%)

- Farmer – Other crops - 3 (6%) - - 3 (2%)

- Employed - Teacher - 2 (4%) - 1 (2%) 3 (2%)

- Employed - Imam - 2 (4%) - 1 (2%) 3 (2%)

- Elderly – Not earning - 1 (2%) 1 (3%) 1 (2%) 3 (2%)

- Entrepreneur - 1 (2%) 1 (3%) - 2 (1%)

- Employed – Security guard - 2 (4%) - - 2 (1%)

- Employed – Farm hand - 2 (4%) - - 2 (1%)

- Self-employed – Shop keeper - - - - 1 (1%)

3a) Main income:

(M=Main income; S=Side income)

Kel (n=6) PB (n=50) TS (n=38) Ken (n=48) Total

M S M S M S M S M S

- Fisherman 1 2 21 14 32 3 44 3 98 22

- Farmer – Oil palm holding 6 - 12 4 - - - - 18 4

- Self-employed - Labourer - - 4 2 - - - - 4 2

- Elderly - Pensioner - - - - 3 - 1 - 4 -

- Farmer – Other crops - 4 3 4 - 2 - 1 3 11

- Employed - Teacher - - 2 - - - 1 - 3 -

- Employed - Imam - - 2 - - - 1 - 3 -

- Elderly – Not earning - - 1 - 1 - - - 2 -

- Entrepreneur - - 1 - 1 - - - 2 -

- Employed – Security guard - - 2 - - - - - 2 -

- Employed – Farm hand - - 2 - - - - - 2 -

- Shopkeeper - - - 1 1 2 - 2 1 5

- Contribution by children - - - - - 1 1 - 1 1

- Allowance as Village Head - 2 - 1 - - - - - 3

- Aquaculture - Fish - - - - - - - 2 - 2

- Boat maker/ Carpenter - - - - - 4 - - - 4

- Local tourist guide - - - - - 1 - - - 1

4) Income range Kel (n=7)

PB (n=50)

TS (n=38)

Ken (n=48)

N=143

- None - - 1 (2%) - 1 (<1%)

- < 100 - 1 (2%) - - 1 (<1%)

- 101-300 - 16 (32%) 9 (24%) 19 (40%) 44 (31%)

- 301-500 2 (29%) 14 (28%) 20 (53%) 24 (50%) 60 (42%)

- 501-700 4 (57%) 10 (20%) 7 (18%) 1 (2%) 22 (15%)

- 701-1000 1 (14%) 6 (12%) 1 (3%) 3 (6%) 11 (8%)

- 1001-1500 - 3 (6%) - 1 (2%) 4 (3%)

- >15001 - - - - -


5) Age Profile: Kel (n=7)

PB (n=50)

TS (n=38)

Ken (n=48)

N=143

- < 18 - - - - -

- 19-25 - 1 (2%) - 1 (2%) 2 (1%)

- 26-35 3 (43%) 7 (14%) 4 (11%) 5 (10%) 19 (13%)

- 36-45 - 13 (26%) 13 (34%) 17 (35%) 43 (30%)

- 46-55 1 (14%) 14 (28%) 11 (29%) 9 (19%) 35 (25%)

- 56-65 2 (29%) 10 (20%) 8 (21%) 14 (29%) 34 (24%)

- >66 1 (14%) 5 (10%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%) 10 (7%)

6) Education Profile: Kel (n=7)

PB (n=50)

TS (n=38)

Ken (n=48)

N=143

- None 4 (57%) 29 (58%) 10 (26%) 19 (40%) 62 (43%)

- Primary 1 (14%) 9 (18%) 19 (50%) 20 (41%) 49 (34%)

- Secondary 2 (29%) 11 (22%) 9 (24%) 7 (15%) 29 (20%)

- College/University - 1 (2%) - 2 (4%) 3 (2%)

7) Gender Profile: Kel (n=7)

PB (n=50)

TS (n=38)

Ken (n=48)

N=143

- Male 7 (100%) 46 (92%) 37 (97%) 46 (96%) 136 (95%)

- Female - 4 (8%) 1 (3%) 2 (4%) 7 (5%)

8) Ethnic Profile: Kel (n=7)

PB (n=50)

TS (n=38)

Ken (n=48)

N=143

- Orang Sungei 7 (100%) 48 (96%) 8 (21%) - 63 (44%)

- Bajau - 1 (2%) 5 (13%) 45 (94%) 51 (36%)

- Suluk - - 24 (63%) 1 (2%) 25 (17%)

- Other - 1 (2%) 1 (3%) 2 (4%) 4 (3%)

9) Religious Profile: Kel (n=7)

PB (n=50)

TS (n=38)

Ken (n=48)

N=143

- Muslim 7 (100%) 49 (98%) 38 (100%) 48 (100%) 142 (99%)

- Christian - 1 (2%) - - 1 (1%)


APPENDIX 4B

Head of Household Income Analysis

A) Number of income sources: Keliaga

(n=7)

Pantai Boring (n=50

Terusan Sugut (n=38)

Keniogan

(n=48)

Total

N=143 - 1 income source* 2 (29%)* 19 (38%)* 26 (69%)* 40 (83%)* 87 (61%)*

- 2 income sources 3 (43%) 26 (52%) 10 (26%) 6 (13%) 45 (31%)

- 3 income sources 1 (14%) 5 (10%) 2 (5%) 2 (4%) 10 (7%)

- 4 income sources 1 (14%) - - - 1 (<1%)

B) Sources of single incomes: Kel (n=2)*

PB (n=19)*

TS (n=26)*

Ken (n=40)*

Total n=87*

- Fishing - 8 (42%) 24 (92%) 38 (95%) 70 (81%)

- Farming - Oil palm 2 (100%) 4 (21%) - - 6 (7%)

- Salary - 4 (21%) - 1 (2%) 5 (6%)

- Self-employed – Labourer - 1 (5%) - 1 (3%) 2 (2%)

- Farming – Other crops - 1 (5%) - - 1 (1%)

- Contribution by children - 1 (6%) - - 1 (1%)

- Elderly - Pension - - 1 (4%) - 1 (1%)

- Elderly – Not earning - - 1 (4%) - 1 (1%)


APPENDIX 5

Background Data for HCV 5 (Table 5)

A) Food Sources Keliaga n=7

Pantai Boring n=50

Terusan Sugut n=38

Keniogan n=48

i) Protein Source s:

a) Animal protein from forest n=0 n=2 (4%) n=1 (3%) n=0

b) HCVF Assessment Value: 0 1 1 0

ii) Carbohydrate Source s:

a) Carbohydrate from forest n=0 n=0 n=0 n=0


iii) Fruit & Vegetable Source s:

a) Fruit and vegetables from forest n=0 n=12 (24%) n=3 (8%) n=2 (4%)


iv) Other Food Sources :

a) Other Food: Honey and birds’ nest n=0 n=1 (2%) n=1 (3%) n=0


B) Building Materials Keliaga n=7

Pantai Boring n=50

Terusan Sugut n=38

Keniogan n=48

i a) Uses of WOOD taken from forest :

- Taken wood from forest n=2 (29%) n=32 (64%) n=20 (52%) n=15 (31%)

- All boat-building n=2 (29%) n=21 (42%) n=8 (21%) n=13 (27%)

- All furniture-making n=0 n=0 n=1 (3%) n=0

- All house-building n=1 (14%) n=28 (56%) n=20 (53%) n=15 (31%)

b) HCVF Assessment Value:

- Overall HCVFA Value 2 3 3 2

- Boat-building 2 2 2 2

- Furniture-making 0 0 1 0

- House-building 1 3 3 2

ii a) Uses RATTAN taken from forest

- Taken rattan from forest n=0 n=24 (48%) n=2 (5%) n=1(2%)

- Furniture-making n=0 n=0 n=1 (3%) n=0

- Handicraft n=0 n=1 (2%) n=1 (3%) n=1 (2%)

- Prawn trap-making n=0 24 (48%) n=1 (3%) n=0 (2%)




- Handicraft 0 1 1 1

- Prawn trap-making 0 2 1 0


iii a) Uses of BAMBOO taken from forest :

- Taken bamboo from forest n=1 (14%) n=8 (16%) n=2 (5%) n=0

- Furniture-making n=0 n=0 n=0 n=0

- Handicraft n=0 n=0 n=1 (3%) n=0

- House-building n=0 n=1 (2%) n=1 (3%) n=0

- Prawn traps n=0 n=7 (14%) n=1 (3%) n=0

- Raft-making n=1 (14%) n=0 n=0 n=0




- Handicraft 0 0 1 0

- House-building 0 1 1 0

- Prawn traps 0 1 1 0

- Raft-making 1 0 0 0

v) Uses of NIPAH taken from forest :

a) Nipah for thatched roof-making n=0 n=0 n=1 (3%) n=0

b) HCVF Assessment Value 0 0 1 0

C) Fuel - Firewood Keliaga

n=7 Pantai Boring

n=50 Terusan Sugut

n=38 Keniogan

n=48 a) Taken firewood from forest n=1 (14%) n=10 (20%) n=12 (32%) n=0

b) Overall HCVF Assessment Value: 1 2 2 0

D) Medicines – Forest Remedies Keliaga

n=7 Pantai Boring

n=50 Terusan Sugut

n=38 Keniogan

n=48 a) Taken traditional remedies from forest n=1 (14%) n=14 (28%) n=10 (26%) n=1 (2%)


E) Water Source Keliaga

n=7 Pantai Boring

n=50 Terusan Sugut

n=38 Keniogan

n=48 a) Water source: Well and/or gravity feed n=0 n=27 (45%) n=28 (74%) n=41 (85%)

b) Overall HCVF Assessment Value; 0 3 3 3

F) Direct Cash Income Source Keliaga

n=7 Pantai Boring

n=50 Terusan Sugut

n=38 Keniogan

n=48 a) Bamboo for sale n=0 n=1 (2%) n=0 n=0



APPENDIX 6

Supplementary Data for the Assessment of HCV 5

Data Profile Keliaga

Pantai Boring

Terusan Sugut

Keniogan

TOTAL

A (I) Food Sources - Protein : n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

i) Protein Sources:

- Purchased only - 3 (6%)* 2 (5%)* 1 (2%)* 6 (4%)*

- Home-reared/ caught only 4 (57%)** 5 (10%)** 3 (8%)** - 12 (8%)

- Both purchased & home-reared

3 (43%)* ** 42 (84%)* ** 33 (87%)* ** 47 (98%)* ** 125 (88%)*

ii) No of protein types consumed– all purchased:

n=3 (43%) *

n=45 (90%) *

n=35 (92%) *

n=48 (100%) *

n=131 (92%) *

- 1 type - 9 (20%) 4 (11%) 2 (4%) 15 (12%)

- 2 types - 18 (40%) 21 (60%) 27 (56%) 66 (50%)

- 3 types 3 (100%) 15 (33%) 7 (20%) 15 (31%) 40 (31%)

- 4 types - 3 (7%) 3 (9%) 1 (2%) 7 (5%)

- 5 types - - - 3 (7%) 3 (2%)

iii) Types of protein purchased: n=3* n=45* n=35* n=48* n=131 (92%) *

- Beef 1 (33%) 12 (27%) 14 (40%) 14 (29%) 41 (31%)

- Bush meat - - 1 (3%) - 1 (<1%)

- Chicken 3 (100%) 35 (78%) 34 (97%) 40 (83%) 112 (85%)

- Crabs - - 1 (3%) 2 (4%) 3 (2%)

- Eggs 3 (100%) 25 (56%) 26 (74%) 34 (71%) 88 (67%)

- Fish 3 (100%) 14 (31%) 1 (3%) 18 (38%) 36 (27%)

- Prawns - 1 (2%) 1 (3%) 2 (4%) 4 (3%)

iv) No of protein types consumed – all home-reared/ caught:

n=7 (100%) **

n=47 (94%) **

n=36 (95%) **

n=47 (98%) **

n=137 (96%) **

- 1 type 1 (14%) 7 (15%) 14 (39%) 9 (19%) 31 (23%)

- 2 types 3 (43%) 30 (64%) 15 (41%) 18 (38%) 66 (50%)

- 3 types 3 (43%) 10 (21%) 6 (17%) 20 (43%) 39 (28%)

- 4 types - - 1 (3%) - 1 (<1%)

v) Types of home-reared/caught protein:

n=7** n=47** n=36** n=47** n=137**

- Beef - - - - -

- Bush meat - 2 (4%) 1 (3%) - 3 (2%)

- Chicken 6 (85%) 8 (17%) 1 (3%) - 15 (11%)

- Crabs - - 6 (17%) 25 (53%) 31 (23%)

- Eggs - 1 (2%) - - 1 (<1%)

- Fish 7 (100%) 45 (96%) 35 (97%) 44 (94%) 131 (96%)

- Prawns 3 (43%) 42 (89%) 23 (64%) 36 (77%) 104 (76%)

��HCV5



Pantai Boring

Terusan Sugut

Keniogan

TOTAL

A (II) Food Sources – Carbohydrate: n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

i) Carbohydrate sources:

- Purchased only - 12 (24%)* 33 (87%)* 48 (100%)* 93 (65%)*

- Homegrown only - - - - -

- Both purchased & home-reared

7 (100%)* ** 38 (76%)* ** 5 (13%)* ** ** 50 (35%)* **

ii) No of carbohydrate types consumed – all purchased:

n=7 (100%) *

n=50 (100%) *

n=38 (100%) *

n=48 (100%) *

N=143 (100%) *

- 1 type 7 (100%) 41 (82%) 21 (55%) 23 (48%) 92 (64%)

- 2 types - 5 (10%) 10 (26%) 9 (19%) 24 (17%)

- 3 types - 4 (8%) 7 (19%) 13 (27%) 24 (17%)

- 4 types - - - 3 (6%) 3 (2%)

iii) Types of purchased carbohydrates:

n=7* n=50* n=38* n=48* N=143 *

- Flour - - - 10 (21%) 10 (7%)

- Rice 7 (100%) 50 (100%) 38 (100%) 48 (100%) 143 (100%)

- Sweet potatoes - 6 (12%) 8 (100%) 13 (27%) 27 (19%)

- Tapioca - 6 (12%) 16 (42%) 20 (42%) 42 (29%)

iv) No of carbohydrate types consumed – all home-grown:

n=7 (100%) **

n=38 (76%) **

n=5 (13%) **

n=0 (0%) **

n=50 (35%) **

- 1 type 5 (71%) 23 (61%) 3 (60%) - 31 (62%)

- 2 types 2 (29%) 15 ((39%) 2 (40%) - 19 (38%)

v) Types of homegrown carbohydrates:

n=7 ** n=38** n=5** n=0** n=50**

- Rice - 1 (3%) - - 1 (20%)

- Sweet potatoes 2 (29%) 13 (34%) 2 (40%) - 17 (34%)

- Tapioca 7 (100%) 38 (100%) 5 (100%) - 50 (100%)


Pantai Boring

Terusan Sugut

Keniogan

TOTAL

A (III) Food Sources – Fruit & Vegetables:

n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

i) Fruit & vegetable sources:

- Purchased only 0* 3 (6%)* 7 (19%)* 45 (94%)* 55 (39%)*

- Homegrown only 7 (100%)** 25 (50%)** 16 (43%)** 0** 48 (34%)**

- Collected from forest only 0*** 1 (2%)*** 1 (3%)*** 0*** 2 (1%)***

- Both purchased & home-grown 0* ** 10 (20%)* ** 10 (27%)* ** 1 (2%) 21 (15%* **

- Both homegrown & collected from forest

0 ** ***

8 (16%) ** ***

0 ** ***

0 ** ***

8 (6%) ** ***

- Both purchased & collected from forest

0 * ***

0 * ***

1 (3%) * ***

2(4%) * ***

3 (2%) * ***

- Purchased, homegrown & collected from forest

0 * ** ***

3 (6%) * ** ***

1 (3%) * ** ***

0 * ** ***

4 (3%) * ** ***

- Purchased, homegrown & collected from village source

0 * ** ****

0 * ** ****

1 (2%) * ** ****

0 * ** ****

1 (<1%) * ** ****

ii) Fruit & vegetables consumed – All purchased:

n=0 *

n=16 (32%) *

n=20 (54%) *

n=48 (100%) *

n=84 (59%) *

- Fruit only - 1 (6%) - - 1 (1%)

- Vegetables only - 13 (81%) 12 (60%) 10 (21%) 35 (42%)

- Both - 2 (13%) 8 ((40%) 38 ((79%) 48 (57%)


iii) Fruit & vegetables consumed - All home-grown:

n=7 (100%) **

n=46 (92%) **

n=28 (76%) **

n=1 (2%) **

n=82 (58%) **

- Fruit only - 4 (9%) 12 (43%) 1 (100%) 17 (20%)

- Vegetables only - 12 (26%) 4 (14%) - 16 (20%)

- Both 7 (100%)** 30 (65%) 12 (43%) - 49 (60%)

iv) Fruit & vegetables consumed - All collected from forest:

n=0 ***

n=12 (24%) ***

n=3 (8%) ***

n=2 (4%) ***

17 (12%) ***

- Fruit only - 2 (17%) 2 (67%) - 4 (25%)

- Vegetables only - 9 (75%) 1 (33%) - 10 (59%)

- Both - 1 (8%) - 2 (100%) 3 (18%)

v) Fruit & vegetables consumed - All collected from other source:

n=0 ****

n=0 ****

n=1 ****

n=0 ****

n=1 ****

- Fruit only - - 1 - 1(<1%)

- Vegetables only - - - - -

- Both - - - - -

vi) Other food - All collected from other forest:

n=0 n=1 (2%) n=1 (3%) n=0 n=2 (1%)

- Honey - - 1 - 1(<1%)

- Birds’ nest - 1 - - 1(<1%)


Pantai Boring

Terusan Sugut

Keniogan

TOTAL

B (I) Building Materials - Wood : n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

i) Status of dwelling:

- Private 6 (86%) 28 (64%) 38 (100%) 30 (62%) 102 (71%)

- Govt social housing 1 (14%) 22 (44%) - 18 (38%) 41 (29%)

ii) Materials of dwelling: n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

- Wood 6 (86%) 42 (84%) 38 (100%) 35 (73%) 121 (85%)

- Cement - 7 (14%) - 3 (6%) 10 (7%)

- Both 1 (14%) 1 (2%) - 10 (21%) 12 (8%)

iii) Used wood as building materials - All sources:

n=6 (86%) n=43 (86%) n=30 (79%) n=24 (50%) n=103 (72%)

iv) Uses of wood - All sources:

- Boat-building only 1 (17%) 4 (9%) 2 (7%) - 7 (7%)

- Furniture-making only - - - - -

- House-building only 1 (17%) 14 (33%) 11 (37%) 9 (38%) 35 (34%)

- Boat & house-building 4 (66%) 25 (58%) 16 (53%) 15 (62%) 60 (58%)

- Boat, house & furniture - - 1 (3%) - 1 (1%)

v) Sources of wood - All sources: n=6 n=43 n=30 n=24 n=103

- Purchased wood only - 10 (23%) 9 (30%) 9 (38%) 28 (27%)

- From FOREST only 2 (33%)* 25 (58%)* 17 (57%)* 14 (58%)* 58 (56%)

- From clearing of own land only 4 (67%) - - - 4 (4%)

- Driftwood only - - 1 (3%) - 1 (1%)

- Collected from riverbank only - 1 (2%) - - 1 (1%)

- Both purchased & fr forest - 7 (17%)* 3 (10%)* 1 (4%)* 11 (11%)

��HCV5

��HCV5


vi) Uses of wood from forested source only:

n=2 (33%)*

(Kel 29%)

n=32 (74%)*

(PB 64%)

n=20 (67%)*

(TS 53%)

n=15 (63%)*

(Ken 31%)

n=69

(All 49%)

- Boat-building only 1 (50%)

(Kel 14%)

4 (13%)

(PB 8%)

- - 5 (7%)

(All 3%)

- House-building only - 11 (34%)

(PB 22%)

12 (60%)

(TS 32%)

2 (13%)

(Ken 4%)

25 (36%)

(All 17%)

- Both house & boat building 1 (50%)

(Kel 14%)

17 (53%)

(PB 34%)

7 (35%)

(TS 18%)

13 (87%)

(Ken 27%)

38 (55%)

(All 27%)

- Boat, house & furniture - - 1 (3%)

(TS 3%)

- 1 (2%)

(All 1%)

vii) All uses of wood from forested source only:

n=2 (33%)*

(Kel 29%)

n=32 (74%)*

(PB 64%)

n=20 (67%)*

(TS 53%)

n=15 (63%)*

(Ken 31%)

n=69

(All 49%)

- All boat-building 2 (100%)

(Kel 29%)

21 (66%)

(PB 42%)

8 (40%)

(TS 21%)

12 (87%)

(Ken 25%)

44 (64%)

(All 31%)

- All furniture-making - - 1 (5%)

(TS 3%)

- 1 (2%)

(All 1%)

- All house-building 1 (50%)

(Kel 14%)

28 (88%)

(PB 56%)

20 (100%)

(TS 53%)

15 (100%)

(Ken 31%)

64 (93%)

(All 45%)


Pantai Boring

Terusan Sugut

Keniogan

TOTAL

B (II) Building Materials – Rattan : n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

i) Use of Rattan from forest: 0 (0%) 24 (48%) 2 (5%) 1 (2%) 27 (19%)

- Furniture-making - - 1 (3%) - 1 (<1%)

- Handicraft - 1 (2%) 1 (3%) 1 (2%) 3 (2%)

- Prawn trap-making - 24 (48%) 1 (3%) - 25 (17%)

B (III) Building Materials - Bamboo n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

i) Use of b amboo from forest : 1 (14%) 8 (16%) 2 (5%) 0 (0%) 11 (8%)

- House-building - 1 (2%) 1 (3%) - 2 (1%)

- Handicraft - - 1 (3%) - 1 (<1%)

- Prawn trap-making - 7 (14%) 1 (3%) - 8 (6%)

- Raft-making 1 (14%) - - - 1 (<1%)

B(VI) Building Materials – Nipah: n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

ii) Use of nipah palms from forest: 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 1 (<1%)

- Thatched roof-making - - 1 - 1 (<1%)

C) Fuel – Cooking: n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

i) Fuel sources for cooking:

- Firewood 7 (100%)* 13 (26%)* 13 (34%)* 0 (0%)* 33 (23%)*

- Gas 7 (100%) 50 (100%) 38 (100%) 48% (100%) 143 (100%)

ii) Sources of Firewood:* n=7* n=13* n=13* n=0* n=33*

- From around the house 3 (43%) 3 (6%) - - 6 (4%)

- From small-holding area 3 (43%) - - - 3 (2%)

- From forest 1 (14%) 10 (20%) 12 (32%) 0 (0%) 23 (16%)

- Driftwood - - 1 (2%) - -

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5


iii) Number of fuel sources: n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

- 1 source - 37 (74%) 25 (66%) 48 (100%) 110 (77%)

- 2 sources 7 (100%) 13 (26%) 13 (34%) - 33 (23%)

D) Traditional M edicines : n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

i) Use of traditional remedies: 2 (29%) 18 (36%) 11 (29%) 2 (4%) 33 (23%)

ii) Sources of traditional remedies n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

- Homegrown 1 (14%) 4 (8%) 1 (3%) 1 (2%) 7 (5%)

- From forest 1 (14%) 14 (28%) 10 (26%) 1 (2%) 26 (18%)

iii) Modern medicine: n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

- Use of modern medicine 7 (100%) 49 (98%) 34 (89%) 44 (92%) 134 (94%)

iv) Type of remedies used: n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

- None - - 3 (8%) 4 (8%) 7 (5%)

- Traditional source only - 1 (2%) 1 (3%) - 2 (1%)

- Modern source only 5 (71%) 32 (64%) 24 (63%) 42 (88%) 103 (72%)

- Both sources 2 (29%) 17 (34%) 10 (26%) 2 (4%) 31 (22%)


Pantai Boring

Terusan Sugut

Keniogan

TOTAL

E) Water Source s: n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

i) Sources of water:

- Underground water – Gravity-feed - 20 (40%) - - 20 (14%)

- Underground water - Well - 3 (6%) 28 (74%) 41 (85%) 72 (50%)

- Underground water - Both - 4 (8%) - - 4 (3%)

- Rain 7 (100%) 47 (94%) 38 (100%) 48 (100%) 140 (98%)

- River 7 (100%) 29 (58%) 10 (26%) - 46 32%)

Note: Only Pantai Boring has a gravity-feed and well facilities. Terusan Sugut and Keniogan only have wells.

ii) Number of water sources: n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

- 1 source - 9 (18%) 9 (24%) 7 (15%) 25 (18%)

- 2 sources 7 (100%) 27 (54%) 21 (55%) 41 (85%) 96 (67%)

- 3 sources - 14 (28%) 8 (21%) - 22 (15%)

F) Cash income: n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

- Bamboo from forest for sale - 1 (2%) - - 1 (1%)


Pantai Boring

Terusan Sugut

Keniogan

TOTAL

G) Access to Land Use: n=7 n=50 n=38 n=48 N=143

- Yes 7 (100%)* 20 (40%)* 6 (16%)* 1 (2%)* 34 (24%)*

- No - 30 32 47 109 (76%)

i) Households with access to land use:

n=7* n=20* n=6* n=1* n=34*

- Land application 7 (100%) 13 (26%) 3 (8%) 1 (2%) 24 (18%)

- Land grant 1 (14%) - 1 (3%) - 2 (1%)

- No status - 7 (14%) 2 (5%) - 9 (6%)

ii) Average size: (Acres) n=7* n=20* n=6* n=1* n=34*

- Land application & grant: (* includes 1 land grant)

15 acres* (7 Hhlds)

10 (12 Hhlds)

6 acres* (4 Hhlds)

5 acres (1 Hhld)

9 acres

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5

��HCV5


- No status - 5.2 (5 Hhs)

1 acre (1 Hhld) (DK=1)

- 6.2 acres

iii) Distance from home: n=7* n=20* n=6* n=1* n=34*

- Distance from home (land application & grants)

0km or same plot as house

= 1 ≈0.5km = 2 1-2km = 4

0km or same plot as house

= 2 100m-1km = 3

3-4km = 5 53 km = 1

30mins car = 1 1 hr boat = 1

0 km or same plot as house

= 4

30 mins by boat = 1

- No status - 5-10mins = 2 600m-1km = 2

3km = 1 DK/NS = 2

0km or same plots as house

= 1 1hr boat = 1

-

iv) Year of cultivation: n=7* n=20* n=6* n=1* n=34*

- Land application 1981-1990 = 2 1991-2000 = 1 2001-2010 = 4

1991-1995 = 1 1996-2000 = 1 2001-2005 = 5 2006-2010 = 4

Not yet = 2

1960s=1 1980s = 2

2003

- Land grant 2003 - 1990 -

- Yes 7 (100%)* 20 (40%)* 6 (16%)* 1 (2%)* 34 (24%)*

- No - 30 32 47 109 (76%)

v) Households with access to land use:

n=7* n=20* n=6* n=1* n=34*

- Land application 7 (100%) 13 (26%) 3 (8%) 1 (2%) 24 (18%)

- Land grant 1 (14%) - 1 (3%) - 2 (1%)

- No status - 7 (14%) 2 (5%) - 9 (6%)

vi) Average size: (Acres) n=7* n=20* n=6* n=1* n=34*

- Land application & grant: (* includes 1 land grant)

15 acres* (7 Hhlds)

10 (12 Hhlds)

6 acres* (4 Hhlds)

5 acres (1 Hhld)

9 acres

- No Status - 2006 = 1 2009 = 1 2010 = 1 NS = 4

1970s = 1 2006 = 1

-

A) CROP PROFILE n=7* n=20* n=6* n=1* n=34*

i) No of types of crops grown:

- 1 Type 2 (29%) 11 (55%) 6 (100%) 1 (100%) 20 (59%)

- 2 Types 4 (57%) 7 (35%) - - 11 (32%)

- 3 Types 1 (14%) 2 (105) - - 3 (9%)

a) Main crop (Overall): n=7* n=20* n=6* n=1* n=34*

- Fruit trees 1 (14%)** 2 (10%)** (no status)

6 (100%)** 1 (10%)** 10 (29%)

- Oil palm 6 (86%) 15 (No status = 5)

(75%)

- - 21 (62%)

- Paddy (Own use only) - 1 (5%) - - 1 (3%)

- Not yet cultivated - 2 (10%) - - 2 (6%)

b) Other crops: n=7* n=20* n=6* n=1* n=34*

- Fruit trees 4** 6** - - 10

- Oil palm - 1 - - 1

- Rubber - 1 - - 1

- Other trees (Bayu, Binuang, Laran) (Own use only)

1 - - - 1


APPENDIX 7

References and Bibliography

Corpuz R (2008). Assessment of Current Livelihood Options – Semporna Islands. Unpublished report compiled for WWF-Malaysia, Semporna Peninsular Priority Conservation Area (SPPCA). Corpuz R (2008). Communities and Forest Use – Ulu Tungud Forest Reserve. Unpublished report prepared for TSH Resources Berhad. Corpuz R (2011). Oil Palm Plantations, Communities and Forest Use – Final Report, Malua Forest Reserve. Unpublished report compiled for the Malaysian Palm Oil Council, New Forests Asia Sdn Bhd and the Sabah Forestry Department. Corpuz R (2011). Malua Partnership Wildlife Conservation Agreement. Sabah Forestry Deparment, Sabah Wildlife Department, IOI Corporation, TH Group, Kwantas Corporation and Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Selangor. Ibbotson, R (2014). The History of Logging in North Borneo. Opus Publications, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. MOCET & DANCED (1998). Lower Sugut Background Paper – The Opportunity Cost of Conservation: An Economic Study of Natural Resource Use by Household in the Lower Sugut, Sabah. Sabah Biodiversity Conservation Project Identification of Potential Protected Areas Component. MOCET & DANCED (1998). Lower Sugut Final Report. Sabah Biodiversity Conservation Project Identification of Potential Protected Areas Component. MOCET and DANCED (1998). Lower Sugut Background Paper – Conservation and Community Aspirations in the Lower Sugut. Sabah Biodiversity Conservation Project Identification of Potential Protected Areas Component. Sabah State Governement Website. www.sabah.gov.my/pd.blrn/Kampung%20Keniogan.html Accessed 28th September 2014. Sabah State Government Website. List of community leaders in Beluran. http://www.sabah.gov.my/upkr/pemimpinanda/P183%20BELURAN/n39.htm. Accessed 18th September 2014 Terusan Sugut. Information Booklet. Profail Gerakan Daya Wawasan Kampung Tersuan Sugut. WWF-Malaysia (2009). High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) Toolkit for Malaysia: A national guide for identifying, managing and monitoring High Conservation Value Forests. WWF-Malaysia. WWF-Malaysia (2011). High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) Assessment of Sabah Forest Industries (SFI), Spitang, Sabah. Report written by Anna Wong.

part 1 cover, acknowledgements and executive summary …€¦ · - symbiosis consulting: johdi bin...

Documents