Application of IUCN Categories for

Protected Areas in Sabah, Malaysia

By: Dr Junaidi Payne* Senior Adviser WWF-Malaysia,

Dr Jamili Nais

Assistant Director (Research & Education) Sabah Parks,

& Laurentius Ambu

Deputy Director Sabah Wildlife Department

April 2007

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation (BBEC) programme’s Park

Management and Habitat Management Components organized a workshop (October

2005), where a key recommendation was that a master list of Sabah protected areas (PAs)

be prepared.

The objective of this document (consisting of a consultant report with appropriate

revisions made following stakeholder consultation) is to present the recommended master

list of Sabah protected areas, arranged under IUCN categories, with the principles and

criteria of the categorization.

The overall definition of a protected area adopted by IUCN, and used in this document,

is: “An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of

biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed

through legal or other effective means.”

Seven categories of protected areas are listed and defined by IUCN, with four

representing essentially undisturbed natural habitats, and three representing areas with

some form of human modification.

In Sabah, terrestrial protected areas in general need to be forest, or sites where forest can

be restored and maintained, in order to achieve the biological diversity function.

The majority of protected areas in Sabah are owned by government, managed by a

specified government authority, and are a kind of “reserve” legislated or gazetted under

either the Land Ordinance 1930 (as reserve for conservation purposes), or Parks

Enactment 1984 (as a Park), or Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997 (as Wildlife

Sanctuary), or Forest Enactment 1968 and its subsequent amendments (as Forest

Reserve). Wildlife Conservation Areas established under the Wildlife Conservation

Enactment are unique in that they can exist on State land and alienated land. There are at

least three ways, with existing examples, in which sea areas can be regarded as protected

area in Sabah.

It is concluded that river “reserves” referred to under the Land Ordinance are not

automatically protected areas, although some specific areas (between Wildlife Sanctuary

and river) in the Lower Kinabatangan are regarded as a special case of protected area,

while a separate review using the provisions of the Water Resources Enactment may

possibly identify additional riverine sites as protected areas.

Forest Reserves (legislated under seven “classes”, and covering about 3,350,000 ha or

45% of Sabah’s land area) present the greatest challenge in deciding which should be

designated as protected areas, and to which category each belongs. There were two major

issues of debate. One was that many of Sabah’s Protection Forest Reserves & Virgin

Jungle Reserves (VJRs), allocated for strict protection, are rather small and / or damaged,

whereby their biodiversity conservation function has been compromised. It was decided

that all except one should be regarded for the time being as protected areas, subject to

further review by Sabah Forestry Department. The second issue was whether any

Commercial Forest Reserves could be regarded as protected area, given that some have

significant biodiversity conservation functions; the conclusion was that none are currently

suitable for designation as protected area.

2

A summary of the recommended master list of Sabah protected areas is presented below.

The 93 named protected areas cover about 1,174,398 hectares of land, estimated to

represent about 15.95% of Sabah’s land area.

IUCN Protected Area category No.

of

PAs

Land

area (ha)

Brief Description

Ia Strict Nature Reserve 10 5,016 All small VJRs

Ib Wilderness Area 0

II National Park

409,003

5 State Parks (including 2

marine & islands),

4 Protection Forest Reserves /

Conservation Areas

III Natural Monument 22

101,694

1 Wildlife Reserve, 1 Bird

Sanctuary, 20 other Forest

Reserves in three types

IV Habitat/Species Management

Area

60

658,685

All Mangrove Forest Reserves

(counted as one PA), 54 other

Forest Reserves in four types,

1 Wetland Centre, Lower

Kinabatangan (Wildlife

Sanctuary + 3 other types of

land status), 1 Wildlife

Conservation Area, 1 Wildlife

Reserve, 1 State Park

V Protected Landscape/Seascape 1 Tun Sakaran Marine Park

VI Managed Resource Protected

Area

0

T O T A L 93 1,174,398

The report suggests that there may be a case for reviewing the current system of

classification of Forest Reserves.

Periodic review and amendment of the list is recommended.

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Objectives of this document

1.3 Study methods

1.4 Geographical scope

2 Analysis of the IUCN guidelines, definitions and other criteria for selection of

PAs

2.1 What constitutes an IUCN PA?

2.2 Management purposes

2.3 Categories of protected area

2.4 Categories and management objectives

2.5 Explanatory notes

3 Review of some fundamental issues

3.1 Where is the biological diversity?

3.2 Land ownership in the Sabah context

3.3 Land, wetlands, rivers and sea

3.4 Derivation of the Sabah Master List

4 The potential categories of Sabah PAs

4.1 Areas to be excluded

4.2 Other potential mechanisms for PAs which are excluded

4.3 Reserves for public purpose

4.4 Parks

4.5 Areas for Wildlife

4.6 Forest Reserves – background

4.7 Forest Reserves – designation of PAs

4.8 Summary

5 Recommendations

5.1 The Recommended Master List of Sabah Protected Areas

5.2 Classification of Forest Reserves

5.3. Future revision of the list

5.3.1 Forest Reserves

5.3.2 River and shore reserves

5.3.3 Water catchment areas

5.3.4 Alienated land

5.3.5 Newly-legislated protected areas

4

1 Background

The original natural habitats throughout the land area of Malaysia were forests (and still

are, wherever they have not been converted to other forms of land use). Thus, natural

forests represent the bulk of Malaysia’s terrestrial biological diversity.

Malaysia is a federation of thirteen States and two federal territories. Under the

Malaysian national constitution, land, freshwater and forests fall under the authority of

the State governments, while terms such as protected areas and biodiversity are not

mentioned. There are elements of both federal and State authority in the protection and

management of marine ecosystems. Overall, responsibility for selecting, legislating,

protecting and managing protected areas lies largely with State governments.

Sabah (about 73,619 square kilometers) is the second largest State in Malaysia, situated

at the northern 10% of the equatorial island of Borneo.

Protected areas (PAs) in Sabah are established under four laws (dealing with forests,

land, wildlife and Parks), with at least four different management authorities.

Over many years, statistics on Sabah’s protected areas have varied between authors and

papers. The different figures mainly reflect different concepts of what constitutes a

“protected area”. Often at international forums on protected areas, representation from

Sabah would be from Sabah Parks or Sabah Wildlife Department, even though Forest

Reserves under the authority of Sabah Forestry Department represent a much larger area

of forested land.

In 2005, a process was initiated to prepare and propose an official list of “protected

areas” for Sabah, based on and arranged under IUCN categories. The initiative started in

October 2005 under the Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation (BBEC)

programme’s Park Management Component (lead by Sabah Parks) and Habitat

Management Component (lead by Sabah Wildlife Department). BBEC was a five-year

programme (2002-2006) to establish sustainable approaches for the conservation of the

endangered and precious biodiversity and ecosystems of Sabah, implemented by the

Sabah State Government and Universiti Malaysia Sabah, assisted by JICA (Japan

International Cooperation Agency).

The approach taken to prepare a Sabah protected area “master list” was to contract an

independent consultant, a senior adviser to WWF-Malaysia who, between February –

June 2006, conducted the following work :

Analysis of the IUCN guidelines, definitions and other criteria for identification

of PAs

A review of land tenure issues, legislation and potential options for PA status in

Sabah

Listing and analysis of all areas in Sabah that might possibly be eligible to be

considered as PAs

An assessment of all potential areas and categories of land and sea in Sabah,

matched against the IUCN definitions and descriptions

Discussions with officers in relevant government agencies

A draft report was prepared and presented in June 2006. At a formal discussion meeting

for feedback from relevant government agencies (July), several amendments were

5

requested, and the report was modified accordingly and re-submitted. A workshop to

obtain stakeholder opinion (mainly State government agencies and Malaysian

conservation NGOs) was held in November 2006, and a final report with

recommendations subsequently presented to BBEC.

2 Some key issues

Basic criterion All available relevant IUCN documentation was reviewed, starting with

the overall definition of a protected area adopted by IUCN (An area of land and/or sea

especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of

natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective

means). To fall within the IUCN definition, therefore, the paramount factor is an

intention to protect and maintain biological diversity (not “diversity” per se, but any array

of native wild plants and animals).

Categories and management objectives IUCN uses seven categories of protected areas

(Appendix 1) and nine main purposes of management of a protected area. For the Sabah

study, the first main step was to compile a list of all areas that can be argued to be

“protected area”, and the second step was to designate each area under one of the seven

IUCN categories, according to its main management objective. Although the primary

management objective of any particular protected area is not stated in any formal

governmental document for all areas in Sabah, a decision can be made based on available

information (e.g. the Conservation Area Information Management System (CAIMS) of

Sabah Forestry Department).

Damaged areas Some Sabah sites which are clearly protected areas in terms of legal

status and management objective do suffer from encroachment by farmers and

plantations. IUCN documentation indicates that designation and categorisation of a

protected area are concerned with what an area is intended to be, not how it is run. Thus,

areas that are partly encroached or damaged are included in the Sabah list, as long as

there is a good chance that they can be restored to achieve a biological diversity function.

Land tenure Sabah has a strong tradition that divides land very clearly between State

land, privately-owned land and “reserve.

State land (owned by the State but with no particular formal function or management

authority) is generally not suitable for protection or maintenance of biological diversity,

and therefore could not be considered a PA, because of the absence of any designated

function or management authority. There is one clear exception, however, in the form of

“wildlife conservation area” under the Wildlife Conservation Enactment (4.5), a status

which has to date been applied only to a group of three islands and surrounding sea

(Sugut Islands Marine Conservation Area), but which can be applied to any category of

land.

Private land or “alienated land” means land issued with title either on the basis of

customary rights (in perpetuity) or for planned conversion of natural vegetation to other

use (60 years or more) by the Government, to individuals, companies or other bodies for

purposes such as commercial development, plantations, farming or human residence.

Thus, alienated land normally would not be suitable for protection or maintenance of

biological diversity. One possible exception is that, with the implementation of the Sabah

6

Water Resources Enactment 1998, river and shore reserves automatically exist

commencing in mid 2000 “within twenty metres of the top of the bank of every river,

including its estuary, where the top of the river channel is not less than three metres in

width; and … within twenty metres of the bed of all coastal waters.” The difference

between these “reserves” and those under land, Parks, wildlife and forest legislation is

that the water resources reserves may overlap with alienated land. While some

participants in the Sabah PA study supported the idea that river and shore reserves should

be classed as PA, others disagreed, and the decision was that they will not be included

automatically in the proposed listing, but further studies could be done on a site-by-site

basis.

Reserves (where specific land areas are reserved by law for a specific purpose, and where

that land cannot be alienated to private ownership). The original “reserve” concept is

found in the Land Ordinance 1930 (section 4.3) but the concept can be extended

rationally to include Parks (4.4), Wildlife Sanctuaries (4.5) and Forest Reserves (4.6,

4.7), all consisting of specific areas set aside for conservation or other forest-related

purposes.

Communal land The idea that specific land areas can be owned and managed by a

“community” does not exist formally in Sabah, although there is no reason why

“community forests” cannot exist either as parts of Forest Reserve or Native Reserve.

From the above, it is clear that the great majority of PAs in Sabah will be owned by

government, managed by a specified government authority, and most will be a kind of

“reserve” legislated or gazetted under either the Land Ordinance 1930, or Parks

Enactment 1984, or Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997, or Forest Enactment 1968

and its subsequent amendments.

Sea In Sabah, there appear to be four ways in which open sea might be regarded as PA.

Firstly, there is the example of Sipadan Island, where the area gazetted as reserve under

the Land Ordinance includes sea (4.3). Secondly, a combination of islands and

surrounding sea can be legislated as (State) Park under the Parks Enactment 1984. There

are at least four well-established examples, of which the earliest is Tunku Abdul Rahman

Park, established in 1972 (4.4). Thirdly, there is the example of the Sugut Islands Marine

Conservation Area gazetted under the Wildlife Conservation Enactment, which includes

sea (4.5). Fourthly, marine parks could be established under the (Federal) Fisheries Act

1985. However, there are no examples in Sabah (excluding Labuan and adjacent sea).

3.4 Derivation of the Sabah Master List

The first issue in compiling the Sabah PA master list is to decide whether a particular

area is a PA or not, before addressing the question of which PA category each area

matches best. This first step is addressed by asking four questions :

- Is the basis for the protection of the area in any way aimed at protecting or

maintaining biological diversity?

- Does the area have a clear legal basis to qualify as a PA?

7

- Does the area have a management objective of any sort, which in any way can

be regarded as formal or official? (even if actual management of the area is

passive, or not entirely effective)?

- Does the area have a clear legally-recognised management authority (even if

actual management of the area is passive, or not entirely effective)?

If the answer is clearly “No” to any one or more of the above question, for any particular

area, that area is not included in the list in this document.

4 The potential categories of Sabah PAs

4.1 Areas to be excluded

The approach outlined above (3.4) immediately leads to the exclusion of several types of

area:

- Reserves for a public purpose and native reserves (unless established

specifically for a purpose related to biological diversity conservation; 4.3)

- Areas named “park” set aside either for recreational purposes which, although

they may have some native trees, lack specific natural features of interest

(examples : Prince Philip Park & Taman Tun Fuad in Kota Kinabalu) or for

cultural or historical reasons, which lack significant biological diversity

(example : Sandakan Memorial Park)

- Bird Sanctuaries gazetted before 1963, for which no gazette notification could

be traced (4.5)

River and shore “reserves” established under the Land Ordinance are not protected areas

(except for those specific land areas situated between Wildlife Sanctuary or Forest

Reserve and the Kinabatangan River, in the special case of lower Kinabatangan;

Appendix 1).

Under the Sabah Water Resources Enactment “river reserves” (established under section

40(1)) could possibly be regarded as protected area because their purpose (section 40(3)

of the Enactment) is “protecting the volume or flow of water in water bodies and

preventing the degradation of the quality of water resources and damage to the aquatic

environment”, a purpose which could be interpreted to include the protection and

maintenance of biological diversity. However, the general view at the 14 November 2006

workshop was that such “river reserves” cannot all automatically be regarded as PAs.

4.2 Other potential mechanisms for PAs which are excluded

Land and forest matters fall under State control according the national Constitution of

Malaysia. There are no National Parks in Sabah legislated under the National Parks

Enactment 1980. The national Fisheries Enactment 1985 allows for establishment of

marine parks. However, none have been established under this legislation in Sabah.

8

Under the Water Resources Enactment 1998 water protection areas and water

conservation areas may be established. The former can be applied only to State land and

Forest Reserves, and the Director of Forestry retains in control in the case of Forest

Reserves. The latter can be applied to any land. None have been gazetted to date.

Under the Conservation of Environment Enactment 1996, the Yang di-Pertua Negeri may

designate any land area to be a conservation area to be managed by the Director of

Environmental Protection, for “the protection and conservation of natural resources”.

None have been gazetted to date.

The Sabah Biodiversity Enactment 2000 is intended as the legal basis for establishment

of the Sabah Biodiversity Council and Sabah Biodiversity Centre. The Enactment has no

provisions for establishment of PAs, and is instead aimed at advising government and

coordinating on biodiversity-related issues.

On District Plans, conservation areas (e.g. ridge conservation) may be zoned on any

category of land including Native Title. However, such zoning is targeted primarily for

landscape purposes and for physical protection (e.g. prevention of landslides), rather than

at conservation of biological diversity. The system is still in a relatively early phase of

implementation, and so the long-term impact on conservation of biological diversity of

zonation in District Plans remains unclear.

4.3 Reserves for public purpose

Under section 28 of the Land Ordinance 1930 “the Yang di-Pertua Negeri may reserve

any State lands .. for any public purpose.” At least two examples exist of areas reserved

under this section for nature conservation purposes. Thus, land areas reserved under this

section for a public purpose, which support natural vegetation, can be regarded as a PA

under the IUCN definition, with each site evaluated on a case by case basis.

The most notable example is Sipadan Island, which was reserved via gazette notification

69 of year 1933 under section 28 for the purpose of bird sanctuary. According to The

Land (Control and Management of Sipadan Island) Rules 1996, the term Island “includes,

where the context so admits” .. “the sea around the Island within a distance of 300 metres

from the low-water mark of the Island.”

The second example is Kota Kinabalu City Bird Sanctuary (KKCBS), a part of the Likas

Sports complex, which is reserved under the Land Ordinance. KKCBS is a PA because

its purpose is to preserve, maintain and restore degraded mangrove habitat as a feeding,

roosting and nesting site for waterbirds.

“Likas Lagoon”, situated about 1 km from KKCBS, also supports water birds. However,

it is an artificial lagoon, reserved for flood mitigation under the Department of Irrigation

and Drainage, but not actively managed to sustain biological diversity. Therefore, it is not

listed as a PA in this document.

4.4 Parks

9

A Park means an area declared as such under the Parks Enactment 1984. All Sabah Parks

are clearly PAs, but not all clearly belong to IUCN category II (National Park). During

discussion preceding preparation of this document, even experts did not agree. For each

Park, a practical recommendation was made for the purpose of this document, following

consideration of the location, size, condition, human use, and main management

objectives and issues associated with each.

4.5 Areas for Wildlife

A Wildlife Sanctuary means an area declared under the Wildlife Conservation Enactment

1997. A Wildlife Sanctuary, once legislated, is clearly a “reserve” because according to

section 12 of the Enactment, Wildlife Sanctuary is land for a public purpose which has to

be acquired by law, and section 9(8) states that of “no land may be alienated and no other

grants may be made to any person in that Wildlife Sanctuary”. Wildlife Sanctuaries are

clearly PA. Since the only gazetted Wildlife Sanctuary (Kinabatangan) requires active

intervention to manage both habitat and wildlife, it is an IUCN category IV PA.

There exist two other types of “wildlife area” in Sabah which might be regarded as PAs,

but which are not “reserves” in the sense used in this document. One type is based on

repealed wildlife legislation, the other refers to “conservation areas” under the Wildlife

Conservation Enactment 1997.

Prior to the implementation of the Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997, the now

repealed Fauna Conservation Ordinance 1963 was the wildlife legislation used for

declaration of “game or bird sanctuaries”. Sanctuaries under that Ordinance were not

“reserves” in the sense outlined above, because the law was silent on the status of land

within a sanctuary. Apparently, land within a sanctuary declared under this Ordinance

could be alienated. No record appears to exist demonstrating that that any area was

declared a sanctuary under the Fauna Conservation Ordinance. However, the Fauna

Conservation Ordinance contained a clause that any “sanctuaries” already existing under

previous legislation remain as sanctuaries. Prior to 1963, the Wild Animals and Birds

Preservation Ordinance 1936 was used for wildlife protection. Since no copy of this

Ordinance could be found, it is unclear what protection, if any, might be accorded to land

and habitat.

It appears that the Kota Belud Bird Sanctuary (about 12,000 hectares of coastal non-

forested swamps and rice fields) and the Mantanani Islands (off the west coast of Kudat

Peninsula) were gazetted as Bird Sanctuary before Sabah’s independence, in 1960 and

1962 respectively. The gazette notifications cannot be traced. Since the legal basis for

these areas is unknown, they cannot be regarded as PAs. In addition, Kota Belud Bird

Sanctuary cannot be regarded as a PA using IUCN definitions because : (a) while the

seasonal wetland habitats within the Sanctuary area do indeed support migratory birds,

the habitat has never been purposely managed for birds, (b) most of the Sanctuary is

privately owned, (c) no single government agency has control over land use or

hydrology, and (d) there is no approved Sanctuary management plan to regulate land use

or hydrology. In other words, the habitat is suitable for migratory birds by default, not

because it is managed for biological diversity.

10

Sugut Islands Marine Conservation Area (SIMCA) is established under section 21 of the

Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997, consisting of islands and sea.

4.6 Forest Reserves – background

A Forest Reserve means an area declared as such under section 12 of the Forest

Enactment 1968. As a group, Forest Reserves present the greatest challenge in deciding

which should be designated as PA, and to which PA category each belongs. There are

several reasons for this challenge.

Firstly, Forest Reserves occupy about 3,350,000 ha or 45% of Sabah’s land area, by far

the single biggest category of land (compared to Parks, with 245,172 ha or 3.3% of

Sabah’s land area).

Secondly, there are seven “classes” of Forest Reserve, varying in management objectives

in ways that do not neatly fit with the IUCN PA categories. In addition, use of the term

“class” is potentially misleading, as if Class I (for example) is better in some overall way

than the other classes. To prevent any implication of differing quality between different

Forest Reserve, as far as possible the “class” terminology is not used in this document.

Instead, the formal descriptive names of the seven categories are used (Protection,

Commercial, Domestic, Amenity, Mangrove, Virgin Jungle or VJR, and Wildlife), where

relevant to the discussion together with the specific name of each individual Forest

Reserve (FR). The relationships of the seven FR categories and IUCN PA categories are

outlined in Appendix 2.

Table 3: Forest Reserve (FR) categories & functions

FR Category Function according to SFD guidelines (*)

Protection “Maintenance of forest essential on climatic or physical

grounds”

Commercial “For supply of timber and other produce to meet the general

demands of trade”

Domestic “For supply of timber and other produce for local consumption”

Amenity “For local amenity and arboretum work”

Mangrove “For supply of mangrove timber and other produce to meet the

general demands of trade”

Virgin Jungle “For forest research purpose”

Wildlife “For protection of wildlife”

(*) different documents provide differing wording for the functions of these seven types

of Forest Reserve, but the general intention for each FR category has been consistent over

the past 25 years; the wording used here is that found in the Forest Enactment 1968,

printed by the Government Printer and containing the amended law as in force on 1st June

1995.

11

Thirdly, some confusion has been generated following the practice since 1997 of

referring to Forest Reserves as “forest management units” (FMUs), using numbers rather

than names, and sometimes even the use of names of companies granted long-term forest

licences instead of the actual Forest Reserve name. In fact, the “FMU” system is

primarily a means to divide Sabah into Forestry Department administrative districts, and

the use of the term FMU, and of numbers to refer to Forest Reserves, is avoided where

possible in this document. The nomenclature for Forest Reserves used in this document is

the same as that used in the Government Gazette and in relevant amendments to the

Forest Enactment (that is, this document uses the legislative names, not the administrative

terms).

Fourthly, it can be debated whether Forest Reserves of any class which are relatively

small and damaged by logging, fire or encroachment can be regarded as PAs under IUCN

definitions. The underlying problem is that there is a whole spectrum such FRs, ranging

from relatively large and good condition to very small and with no remaining old growth

forest. In other words, there is no sharp cut-off point between PA and not-PA. Coupled

with that is the fact that different experts have different views. An extreme view might be

that any FR with no remaining old growth forest cannot be a PA. However, it may also be

argued that the legal and administrative status of the FR is strong, and that as long as

there is some natural, native vegetation present, the passage of time plus rehabilitation

work where possible will restore the biodiversity significance of that FR.

4.7 Forest Reserves – designation of PAs

Bearing in mind the various issues associated with Forest Reserves (4.6), there remain the

issues of how to decide which Forest Reserves (FRs) are PA and, if PA, to which

category each FR most appropriately belongs. Both issues are addressed together.

Although there are questions as to whether the current classification system for Forest

Reserves in Sabah is ideal, and to whether all Forest Reserves have been assigned to the

most appropriate class, it was decided to use the current FR classes as a basis for

decision-making for the purpose of this document.

It was also decided that all Protection FRs and VJRs (where natural resource protection is

a stated or implied management objective) will be regarded as PA, irrespective of the

condition of the forest, with the sole exception of the 3 hectare Teak Plantation VJR

(which is excluded as a PA). However, for Domestic and Amenity FRs VJRs (where

natural resource protection is a not a stated management objective), the existing habitat

condition is taken into account : where there is no remaining natural vegetation, these

FRS are not regarded as PAs.

In order to provide an objective basis for allocation of FRs, a “key” was constructed

(Appendix 3), based on the general points made above and in Appendix 2. Then,

available details of every Forest Reserve (with names based on the 1984 gazettement of

Forest Reserves and any relevant amendments) were reviewed, as the basis to make a

decision on the most appropriate IUCN PA status for the Sabah Master List.

12

FRs present an additional issue for consideration : in several parts of Sabah, single

contiguous blocks of forest land are assigned to different FR classes. The basis for these

assignations appears to be essentially arbitrary. Some small VJRs located within

Commercial FRs and Wildlife Reserves have been logged and may be ecologically

difficult to distinguish from the surrounding forest. For this document, FRs of different

classes which are located within a single contiguous block, and which are all defined as

PAs, are regarded as a single PA, where the management objective of the largest PA is

regarded as main management objective of the entire forest block. Thus, a VJR situated

within Tabin Wildlife Reserve is regarded for the purpose of this document as a part of

Tabin WR. However, where a VJR lies within a Commercial FR and the latter is not

regarded as a PA, the appropriate PA status of the VJR is assessed on its own merits. In

order to check whether the preceding approach produces a credible listing of PAs, the

seven IUCN categories were also reviewed against the various categories available under

circumstances prevailing in Sabah (Appendix 4).

4.8 Summary

The above analysis (4.1 – 4.7) is summarised in Table 4. Four main general conclusions

come out of the analysis. Firstly, most PAs in Sabah are “reserves”, meaning land which

cannot be privately owned, and which is managed by a specific government authority.

Secondly, not all “reserves” are PAs. Thirdly, any one type of “reserve” under Sabah law

does not necessarily fall within any one particular IUCN PA category. Fourthly,

Conservation Areas established under the Wildlife Conservation Enactment (and

potentially some river and shore reserves established under the Sabah Water Resources

Enactment) are different in that they can be applied to any type of land. Wildlife

Conservation Areas are clearly a form of PA because their purpose is conservation of

biological diversity. Some river and shore reserves may also be regarded as PAs if they

are in good condition, but a separate study would be needed to investigate and identify

such areas.

13

Table 4 : Summary of “reserves” & other potential options for PA status in Sabah

Legislation Term used

for potential

PA

Management

authority /

enforcement

agency

Reserve

or not

Explanatory comments

Land

Ordinance

Reserve for

public purpose

(section 28)

Lands &

Surveys

Department

Yes (see 4.3) Management may

come under the District

Land Office or be delegated

to another agency.

Generally not intended for

biodiversity or natural

resource conservation but

applies to at least 2 Sabah

PAs

Riverine,

seashore and

ridge reserves

(section 26(2))

Lands &

Surveys

Department

Usually

not

(see Appendix 1)

Management may come

under the District Land

Office or be delegated to

another agency. Normally,

these are not PAs, but

“Lower Kinabatangan

Protected Area” is unique

Native

Reserve

(section 78)

Lands &

Surveys

Department or

trustees

appointed by the

Yang di-Pertua

Negeri

Yes (see Appendix 1) “to protect

the present and future

interests and well-being of

the natives of Sabah .. ”, but

each Native Reserve is

supposed to have a specific

purpose. Currently, none are

PA.

Parks

Enactment

1984

Park Sabah Parks Yes (see 4.4)

Wildlife

Conservation

Enactment

1997

Wildlife

Sanctuary

Sabah Wildlife

Department

Yes (see 4.5)

Wildlife

Conservation

Area

Sabah Wildlife

Department

No (see 4.5) Management may

be delegated to a company

or community

Forest

Enactment

1968

Forest Reserve

(in seven

categories

with different

Sabah Forestry

Department

Yes (see 4.6 & 4.7, &

Appendices 2, 3 & 4)

Management has been

delegated to formal

14

names) management committees for

some Forest Reserves

Sabah Water

Resources

Enactment

1998

river and

shores

reserves

Water

Resources

Council /

Director of

Water

Resources

? (see 4.1 & Appendix 1)

river & shore reserves

represent a conservation

opportunity for the future

15

5 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 The Recommended Master List of Sabah Protected Areas

The proposed master list of Sabah Protected Areas is summarised in Table 5. The total land area is estimated at 1,174,398 hectares, about

15.95% of Sabah’s land area. The areas of sea (in hectares) included within the PAs are mentioned in the “Brief Description” column. This does

not imply that sea is to be excluded from the PA list, but that care must be taken not to include “sea area” under “land area” when expressing the

information as a percentage of Sabah’s land area.

Table 5 : Recommended Master List of Sabah Protected Areas arranged by IUCN Categories

IUCN categories consist of a number in Roman numerals and name, in bold typeface.

Some land areas in hectares are estimates, where either no official figure could be found (e.g. some islands), or where the size may have changed

after the gazette notification (e.g. Lower Kinabatangan), or where several areas are merged as a single PA for the purpose of this listing (e.g.

some VJRs).

Summary by IUCN category of Protected Area Land area

(ha)

Ia Strict Nature Reserve 5,016

Ib Wilderness Area 0

II National Park 409,003

III Natural Monument 101,694

IV Habitat/Species Management Area 658,685

V Protected Landscape/Seascape 0

VI Managed Resource Protected Area 0

T O T A L 1,174,398

16

Category Ia Strict Nature Reserve: protected area managed mainly for science

(Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, available

primarily for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring.)

Name

Land

Area

(ha)

Date of

Gazetteme

nt

Approx. Map

Coordinates Brief Description

Strict Nature Reserve

Agathis VJR 200 1984 4°38'N/115°51'E Agathis forest example in Ulu Padas CFR

Batumapun Mangrove VJR 164 1984 4°24'N/117°39'E Mangrove example in Cowie Bay, Tawau

Imbok VJR 127 1984 4°53'N/117°22'E Lowland dipterocarp examplein Gunung Rara CFR

Malubuk VJR 212 1984 5°09'N/117°33'E Lowland dipterocarp example in Kuamut CFR

Mamahat VJR 77 1984 6°23'N/117°30'E Site in the predominantly burned Sugut CFR

Sepilok Mangrove VJR 1,235 1984 5°48'N/117°57'E Mangrove example in Sandakan Bay

Sungai Basio VJR 213 1984 Lower montane site in Ulu Padas CFR

Sungai Paitan VJR 129 1984 6°26'N/117°21'E Example of northern forest in Paitan CFR

Sungai Siliawan VJR 2,136 1992 4°45'N/116°33'E Dipterocarp forest example in Sapulut CFR

Ulu Sungai Napagon VJR 523 1984 4°47'N/117°14'E Dipterocarp example in Gunung Rara CFR

TOTAL 5,016

Category Ib Wilderness area : protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection

(Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land, and/or sea, retaining its natural character and influence, without permanent or significant

habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition)

17

(None in Sabah)

Category II National Park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation

(Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations,

(b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific,

educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible)

Name

Land

Area

(ha)

Date of

Gazetteme

nt

Approx. Map

Coordinates Brief Description

Crocker Range National Park 143,554 1984

4°48'N/118°23'E

(Gn.Alab),

5°47'N/116°20'E

(Rafflesia)

To protect the main watershed of western Sabah and its natural

vegetation, & provide recreational facilities (including Crocker

Range National Park (139, 919 ha), Crocker Range (Gunung

Alab) VJR (3,279 ha) & Rafflesia VJR (356 ha)

Danum Valley Conservation

Area 43,800 1995 4˚58’N/117˚40’E

Contiguous examples of undisturbed valley, dipterocarp and

ultrabasic forests

Imbak Conservation Area 34,863 1984 5°05'N/117°00'E

Imbak Canyon Conservation Area (16,750) & Sungai Imbak

VJRs (18,113) - remote lowland dipterocarp valley forest

surrounded by steep forested ridges

Kinabalu Park 75,381 1984 5˚59’N/116˚35’E Sabah’s major mainland icon (including Kinabalu Park, (75,370

ha) & Sosopodon PFR ( 11 ha)

Maliau Basin Conservation

Area 58,840 1997 4˚56’N/116˚52’E

Dipterocarp, heath, conifer, lower montane and montane heath

forests

Pulau Tiga Park 607 1984 The Park consists of islands plus a sea area of 15,257 ha

Tunku Abdul Rahman Park 1,289 1984 The Park consists of islands plus a sea area of 3,640 ha

18

Tawai Protection FR 22,697 1984 5˚34’N/117˚09’E Largest accessible forest ultrabasic hill range, near Telupid, with

very high plant species diversity

Tawau Hills Park 27,972 1984 Main forest hill range near Tawau, with visitor facilities

TOTAL 409,003

Category III Natural Monument: protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features (Area containing one, or

more, specific natural or natural/cultural feature which is of outstanding or unique value because of its inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic

qualities or cultural significance)

Name of Protected Area Land

Area

(ha)

Date of

Gazetteme

nt

Approx. Map

Coordinates

Brief Description

Balembangan Protection FR 371 1984 7˚12’N/116˚53’E Island limestone massif with rare and endemic plants

Batu Timbang VJR 261 1984 4°58'N/117°05'E Edible birds' nest caves in remote dipterocarp forest

Bidu-Bidu Protection FR 16,094 1984 5˚’50N/117˚15’E Forested ultrabasic hill range near Sandakan-Kudat road

Kampung Hindian Amenity

FR 580 1984 5°14'N/115°37'E

Unique remnant of contiguous peat swamp, Gymnostoma,

mangrove & riverine forests, lost elsewhere in Sabah

Kebun Cina Amentiy FR 149 2006 Remnant dipterocarp forest near Sandakan town

Klias Protection FR 3,630 1992 5˚18’N/115˚37’E Sole remaining example of peat swamp forest in good condition

in western Sabah

Kulamba Wildlife Reserve 20,682 1984 5°32'N/118°41'E Unique array of coastal swamp and a few dryland forests in

eastern Sabah

Leila Protection FR 302 1984 5˚50’N/118˚05’E Remnant heath forest near Sandakan town

Madai-Baturong VJR 5,867 1984 4°44'N/118°09'E Two separate forested limestone outcrops, with caves used by

prehistoric man

19

Maligan VJR 9,240 1984 4°34'N/115°38'E Unique montane swamp forest near Sarawak border

Milian-Labau VJR 2,812 1984 5°05'N/116°32'E Kerapah and heath forest (Labau), inland riverine forest

(Milian), degraded or lost elsewhere

Mt. Walker Protection FR 149 1984 5˚49’N/118˚03’E Remnant heath forest near Sandakan town

Mount Pock Protection FR 11,585 1984 4˚25’N/118˚24’E Remant dipterocarp forest near Semporna, in good condition,

accessible as source of dipterocarp seeds

Nurod-urod VJR 1,705 2003 Pristine tall dipterocarp forest near highway, south of Maliau

Basin

Pulau Berhala Amenity FR 173 1984 Rare island heath forest with amenity value near Sandakan

Segarong Protection FR 2,029 1984 4˚34’N/118˚26’E Limestone with unusual vegetation & caves

Sepilok (Kabili-Sepilok) VJR 4,294 1984 5°49'N/117°57'E World-famous icon for orang-utans, with best remaining

dipterocarp forest in Sandakan

Sipadan Island Bird 16 1933 Unique oceanic island with "wall" corals. The Sanctuary consists

of one island plus about 60 ha of surrounding sea

Sungai Sansiang VJR 344 1984 4°38'N/116°36'E Batu Punggul limestone with recreational value

Sungai Serudong Protection

FR 7,930 1992 5˚16’N/117˚21’E Dipterocarp forest along border with Kalimantan

Tenompok Protection FR 1,984 1984 5˚59’N/116˚30’E Remnant montane forest south of Mount Kinabalu, with

traditional significance to native Dusun communities

Timbun Mata Protection FR 11,497 1984 5˚39’N/118˚29’E Largest island off eastern Sabah with good forest

TOTAL 101,694

Category IV Habitat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention (Area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so as to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the

requirements of specific species.)

20

Name

Land

Area

(ha)

Date of

Gazetteme

nt

Approx. Map

Coordinates Brief Description

All Mangrove Forest Reserves 316,460 1984 All Mangrove Forest Reserves throughout Sabah are regarded as

a single PA (excludes two mangrove VJRs)

Bald Hill Protection FR 52 1984 4˚25’N/118˚02’E

Bengkoka Protection FR 6,270 1992 6˚50’N/117˚09’E

Binsuluk Protection FR 12,106 1992 5˚29’N/115˚41’E

Botitian Protection FR 2,145 1992 6˚02’N/117˚19’E

Brantian Tantulit VJR 4,140 1984 4°40'N/117°33'E

Bukit Kuamas Protection FR 7,324 1992 5˚42’N/117˚09’E

Bukit Taviu Protection FR 8,630 1992 5˚38’N/116˚55’E

Garinono VJR 451 1984 5°47'N/117°47'E

Gemok Hill Protection FR 445 1984 4˚19’N/117˚52’E

Gomantong FR 3,918 1984 Limestone hills & caves; Protection FR (3,297 ha) & VJR (621

ha)

Gunung Lumaku Protection

FR 5,180 1984 5˚07’N/115˚52’E

Kalumpang VJR 3,768 1984 4°34'N/118°15'E

Karakit VJR 24 1984 7°06'N/117°05'E

Kawang Domestic FR 1,551 1984 5°47'N/116°03'E

Kelawat Protection FR 201 1984 6˚19’N/116˚22’E Remnant west coast hill forest with recreational potential

Kitabu VJR 200 1984 6°58'N/116°44'E

Kretam VJR 423 1984 5°24'N/118°35'E

Kota Kinabalu Wetland Centre 24 A remnant mangrove site, formerly known as Kota Kinabalu

City Bird Sanctuary, part of the Likas Sports Complex used as a

21

wetland education centre

Labuk Road FR 120 1984 5°54'N/117°56'E

Lajong VJR 300 1984 6°58'N/116°44'E

Lamag Protection FR 2,133 1992 5˚29’N/117˚44’E

Limau-limauan Protection FR 223 1984 6˚50’N/116˚50’E

Lipaso Protection FR 3,866 1984 5˚43’N/117˚02’E

Loro VJR 471 1984 6°58'N/116°44'E

Lower Kinabatangan

Conservation Area 34,567

1984

(VJRs),

1998-2002

(Wildlife

Sanctuary)

To retain examples of the natural forest types occurring on

Malaysia' largest alluvial floodplain, with restoration treatments

where necessary; examples of oxbow lakes and natural swamp

wetlands with their native fauna; to ensure maintenance of

habitat of an extent and quality adequate to meet the

conservation requirements of Sabah's wetland vertebrate

"flagship" species, including proboscis monkey, oriental darter

and freshwater elasmobranch fishes, as well as orang-utan and

Borneo elephant (including Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary

(26,103ha),all VJRs in lower Kinabatangan (about 8,364ha) &

riverine reserves immediately next to the Sanctuary & VJRs

(about 100ha))

The Wildlife Sanctuary was gazetted originally under the Land

Ordinance & subsequently under Wildlife Conservation

Enactment

Lungmanis VJR 6,735 1984 5°45'N/117°40'E

Malawaring VJR 121 1984 5°35'N/115°52'E

Mamahat VJR 77 1984 6°23'N/117°30'E

Mandamai Protection FR 5,330 1984 6˚33’N/117˚07’E

Mengalong VJR 1,008 1984 6°23'N/117°30'E

Mt. Andrassy Protection FR 3,640 1992 4˚21’N/117˚59’E

22

Mt. Cochrane Protection FR 2,924 1984 6˚37’N/116˚39’E

Mt. Conner Protection FR 787 1984 4˚24’N/118˚34’E

Mt. Wullersdorf Protection FR 8,857 1992 4˚28’N/118˚07’E

Nabahan Amenity FR 356 1984 5°14'N/115°36'E

Pababag Protection FR 911 1984 4˚32’N/118˚29’E

Padas Damit Amenity FR 9,027 1984 5°23'N/115°31'E

Pulau Batik VJR 353 1984 4°43'N/118°27'E

Pulau Sakar VJR 760 1984 4°58'N/118°20'E

Quoin Hill Protection FR 56 1984 4˚25’N/118˚01’E

Selangan Island Protection FR 120 1984 4˚34’N/118˚30’E

Sem Kerangas VJR 233 1984 4°28'N/118°11'E

Siaungau & Mesapol VJR 840 1984 5°10'N/115°36'E

Silabukan FRs 11,417 1992, 1984

4˚01’N/118˚45’E

(PFR),

4°59'N/118°28'E

(VJR)

Protection FR (10,601ha) & adjacent Silabukan VJRs (about

816ha)

Sugut Islands Marine

Conservation Area 5

Known as SIMCA, there is a large sea area the extent of which

has not been calculated

Sungai Sapi VJR 625 1984 5°44'N/117°24'E

Sungai Siliawan VJR 2,136 1992 4°45'N/116°33'E

Sungai Simpang VJR 1,149 1984 5°22'N/118°25'E

Tabawan, Bohayan, Maganting

& Silumpat Islands VJRs 1,009 1984 4°48'N/118°23'E

23

Tabin Wildlife Reserve

(111,971ha) 122,334

1984 (Tabin

Wildlife

Reserve,

Dagat,

Tabin & Sg.

Kapur),

1992

(Mt.Hatton)

5°14'N/118°43'E

(Tabin Wildlife

Reserve),

99194687 &

5˚14’N/118˚45’E

(Mt. Hatton),

5°20'N/118°44'E

(Dagat),

5°12'N/118°40'E

(Tabin),

5°20'N/118°56'E

(Sg. Kapur)

To ensure habitat for Sabah's "flagship" dipterocarp forest

mammal species : Sumatran rhinoceros, Borneo elephant,

banteng, orang-utan, sun bear and clouded leopard, as well as

many other Borneo lowland plant & animal species.

Management committee chaired by Sabah Forestry Department.

Active management includes protection against illegal logging

and poaching (including patrolling and "outreach" for rhinoceros

protection by SOS-Rhino); the area has received orang-utans

displaced by forest loss elsewhere in eastern Sabah (including

Mount Hatton Protection FR (8,550ha) & Dagat, Tabin & Sg.

Kapur VJRs (1,813ha)

Tanjong Domestic FR 436 1984 4°19'N/117°54'E

Tambalugu Protection FR 197 1984 4˚54’N/117˚13’E

Tanjung Nagas Protection FR 1,084 1984 4˚20’N/118˚24’E

Tinagat Protection FR 1,011 1984 4˚14’N/117˚59’E

Turtle Islands Park 15 1984 3 islands (adjacent sea area = 1,725 ha)

Ulu Kalumpang Protection FR 51,118 1992 4˚35’N/118˚57’E

Ulu Sapa Payau VJR 720 1984 5°39'N/117°16'E

Ulu Telupid Protection FR 7,508 1984 5˚35’N/117˚01’E

Umas Umas VJR 794 1984 4°25'N/117°43'E

TOTAL 658,685

Category V Protected Landscape/Seascape: protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation (Area of

land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with

24

significant aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional

interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area

Name

Land

Area

(ha)

Date of

Gazettement Brief Description

Tun Sakaran Marine Park Semporna Islands (including sea area of about 35,000 ha)

TOTAL

Category VI Managed Resource Protected Area: protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems (Area

containing predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while

providing at the same time a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet community needs)

(None in Sabah; Tun Mustapha Marine Park (Kudat), may be listed under this Category once formally established)

GRAND TOTAL: 1,174,398 hectares of land, about 15.95 % of Sabah’s land area

26

5.2 Classification of Forest Reserves

Sabah has VJRs where minimal research or monitoring has been conducted, Protection

FRs where conservation of flora is as important as protection of water and soil, and

Commercial Forest Reserves which are as least as important as Wildlife Reserves for

conservation of wildlife.

The system of classification of FRs in Sabah merits assessment and review, with a view

to proposing a revised system more in line with modern and future trends in forestry and

forest management.

5.3 Future revision of the list

The master list recommended in this document is applicable at the time of writing, based

on the results of the 14 November 2006 workshop. Apart from the possibility of

amendments to the classification of Forest Reserves (5.2), there are at least five ways in

which the listing might be changed.

5.3.1 Forest Reserves

It was concluded at the 14 November workshop that the inclusion of all Protection Forest

Reserves and VJRs within the Sabah Protected Area list should be reviewed by Sabah

Forestry Department. Forest Reserves which are significantly damaged by fire,

encroachment or other causes may be excluded from the list. It is also possible that

certain Commercial Forest Reserves may be added into the list if sustainable

management, judged from all aspects, can be demonstrated.

5.3.2 River and shore reserves

Certain stretches of river and shore reserves might be eligible for inclusion in the Sabah

PA list if they retain natural vegetation and are actively protected or managed. A special

study would be required to investigate and make recommendations.

5.3.3 Water catchment areas

Historically, “water catchment management” has been a concept with limited legal and

institutional basis in Sabah. With the future use and implementation of the provisions of

the Sabah Water Resources Enactment 1998, specific land areas will come under

protective measures to secure water protection. The Enactment allows for catchment

management plans, water protection areas, water conservation areas and floodplain

management areas, within which land use may be controlled by government, including on

alienated land. In many of these areas, it may be envisaged that the appropriate land use

will be natural forest. Wherever there is natural forest, biological diversity is conserved.

Developments in use of the Enactment need to be monitored, as new areas may qualify as

category IV or VI PAs.

27

5.3.4 Alienated land

This document has argued that “alienated land normally would not be suitable for

protection or maintenance of biological diversity. Only in exceptional and specific

circumstances could alienated land be designated as a PA in Sabah” (3.2). This is

because, historically, government promoted the alienation of land for development

which, normally, involves replacement of forest with alternative land use. Indeed, typical

conditions of land title require the land owner to convert forest to a specified alternative

use within a time frame from issuance of the title. However, there are already signs of a

new trend.

Firstly, river and shore reserves as defined under the Sabah Water Resources Enactment

include some alienated land. Implementation of this law has yet to reveal how the State

will address the imperative to restore natural vegetation along rivers, for the public good,

where land-owners have already developed plantations or buildings.

Secondly, non-governmental parties have discussed the possibility of acquisition of

alienated land for conservation purposes, if necessary by purchase of the land and holding

the land under a trust arrangement. This idea has arisen as a possible means to maintain

or re-create forest corridors in lower Kinabatangan, but there is no reason why the

concept could not be applied elsewhere. The concept requires several key elements

including identification of a body to manage the land after acquisition and agreement by

government to amend the conditions of land title, as well as the issue of sourcing

necessary funds for purchase. If this concept materialises, consideration will need to be

given to designating specific alienated land as PA. This would be new for Sabah, but

there are many precedents in other countries.

5.3.5 Newly-legislated protected areas

Newly-legislated areas may be added to the master list from time to time. An example

would be the Tun Mustapha Marine Park.

28

APPENDIX 1 : AN ANALYSIS OF POSSIBLE “PROTECTED AREA” OPTIONS

OTHER THAN “LAND FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE” UNDER THE LAND

ORDINANCE 1930 & SABAH WATER RESOURCES ENACTMENT 1998

Native Reserve

Section 78 of the Land Ordinance 1930 allows for the declaration of Native Reserves,

within which land alienation is restricted. The general purpose of this provision is “to

protect the present and future interests and well-being of the natives of Sabah or any

community thereof”, but each Native Reserve is supposed to have a specific purpose. At

least one existing Native Reserve (Pulau Sepangar) and one proposed in 1999 (at Long

Pasia) are or were predominantly forested. The purpose of the Pulau Sepangar Native

Reserve was to supply forest products for natives of the Likas-Inanam area, at a time

when the residents of those areas were mainly subsistence farmers. Since the original

intention of this Reserve was not biodiversity-related, and is now of doubtful relevance, it

is concluded that the Reserve is not a PA.

Rivers and seashores

Section 26(1) of the Land Ordinance 1930 states that “Unless expressly provided in any

title, the entire property in and control of the waters of all rivers, creeks, streams and

watercourses, and of the seashore below high water mark is and shall be vested solely in

the Government.” Can any of these sites be regarded as PAs?

Regarding watercourses, of any sort, three points may be made. Firstly, the IUCN

definitions mention land and sea, but not rivers or streams. While a watercourse within a

land area which is a PA can justifiably be regarded as a part of that PA, the IUCN

implies, by default, that watercourses alone cannot be PAs. Secondly, watercourses alone,

in the absence of protective measures for adjacent land or upstream areas, cannot be

viewed as adequate to conserve the biological diversity or natural resources within the

watercourse. Thirdly, there is no evidence that natural resource management was the

original intention that watercourses will be vested in the Government. Rather, the aim

was presumably to stop private interests from monopolising such waters or the public

rights of way that rivers might provide. This document takes the position that

watercourses alone cannot be regarded as PAs under the IUCN intention.

Regarding the seashore, similar arguments apply. While the seashore is periodically

covered in sea water, a reading of the IUCN categories and their definitions reveals that

seashores cannot fall neatly into any of them. Category V is probably closest, but the

intention of this category is clearly the overall landscape, not just a single element of it.

Secondly, seashores alone, in the absence of protective measures for adjacent land or sea

areas, cannot be viewed as adequate to conserve the biological diversity or natural

resources of the littoral zone. Thirdly, there is no evidence that natural resource

management was the original intention that seashores will be vested in the Government.

Rather, the aim was presumably to stop private interests from monopolising beaches or

the public rights of way that this zone might provide.

Riverine, strand and ridge reserves

29

From time to time, most often during events and processes concerned with environmental

and ecological conservation, the notion of “riverine reserve” is debated. Some of the

arguments made are equally applicable to strand (the inland part of the seashore) and

ridges, while others are unique to riversides. In any case, incorrect assumptions and

statements remain a feature of the debate. This section outlines the riverine reserve issue

in some detail, in order to clear some misunderstandings and to determine for the purpose

of this document whether riverine reserves can be regarded as PAs.

The first point to note is that the idea of “riverine reserves” for environmental and

ecological conservation purposes is relatively recent. In 1930, most roads existed in and

around the few small towns that existed, or as access to commercial plantations. Most

villages existed along riverbanks or on the coast, accessible by boat and foot. People

would make rice farms and gardens up to river edges if soil conditions were suitable, and

thereby make claims of land ownership up to river edges. It can be imagined that a major

concern of governmental administrators was to ensure an element of government control

and public access over river banks, so that anyone would be free to tie up boats and walk

along riverbanks unhindered, and government would be able to establish small

infrastructure such as jetties.

Accordingly, section 26(2) of the Land Ordinance 1930 states that “The Government also

has power to reserve such portion of land as may be deemed advisable along the banks of

rivers, streams or creeks, or along the seashore above high water mark, or along the

ridges of hills. Such reservation shall be shown on all documents of title.”

This provision of the Land Ordinance seems clearly intended to be linked with section

26(1). But whereas 26(1) is unambiguous and obligatory, 26(2) was apparently intended

to allow a margin of site-specific judgement by the government authority, to decide if

such “reservation” is needed at any particular site and, if so, how wide the “reserve”

should be, based on the local circumstances. Relevant local circumstances could include,

but might not be limited to, such factors as : the width of the river and whether it lies in a

floodplain or hill range; and/or the prevailing local human circumstances (for example, if

the site is a village or in a remote area). There is a clear implication also that this sub-

section is intended for use in areas where land is to be alienated, and that the prime

intention is to protect the right of public use. Given this, it does not seem as if the intent

of section 26(2) could refer to PAs in the current sense of the term.

It is possible to take the view, however, that the intention for river banks and seashores

might also be for protection of water quality, even if that was not a major concern in

1930. This implication could be linked to the IUCN PA definition “ .. dedicated to the

protection and maintenance .. of natural and associated cultural resources ..”.

A review of the actual implementation of “riverine” and “seashore” reserves in Sabah

from the 1930s to recent times, however, still does not lend support for the idea that these

areas can be regarded as PAs. “Riverine reserve” shown on documents of title and on

Lands and Surveys Department maps do not reveal any correlation between the location

or width of these reserves, and local environmental features. For example, in lower

30

Kinabatangan floodplain, some titles have no riverine reserve at all, some have a

relatively broad reserve averaging 20 metres or more, while most have a reserve where

the width is too narrow to serve an ecological or environmental purpose. Rather, the

impression is that the width of the reserve varies more closely with the practical concerns

of the team that surveyed the land for issuance of title (notably, such that the straight line

between two boundary stones does not cross a curve in the river, and so that the chances

of the riverbank eroding into the alienated land are reasonably small within the title

period). Regarding ridge tops, ridges that occur within land titles are generally not shown

at all on the document of title. Where there are numerous Native Title small-holdings on

hilly land, it is often the case that “road reserves” are allocated between individual titles,

approximately along ridge tops, but the impression given is that the intention is primarily

for right of way and for the alignment of possible future roads.

After a State Cabinet decision was made in 1994 for the establishment of Kinabatangan

Wildlife Sanctuary, a number of key follow-up decisions had to be made by government

departments regarding implementation of the Cabinet decision. Two decisions that were

made are particularly relevant to this discussion. Firstly, the decision was made to

legislate the Sanctuary as a reserve for a public purpose under section 28 of the Land

Ordinance, rather than as a Game and Bird Sanctuary under the Fauna Conservation

Ordinance. Presumably the reason was that the former is a “reserve” while the latter was

not. Secondly, it was decided that the Sanctuary would not extend up to river banks and

instead “riverine reserves” would be created during the Sanctuary boundary survey. The

precise reason for this decision is not on public record. However, a significant

contributory reason can be inferred. It was surely clear to all relevant governmental

agencies that the main purpose of the Sanctuary was for biological conservation, and also

for ecotourism using boats, and that the intention therefore was to retain contiguous

natural habitat in wetlands and along riverbanks. Therefore, the decision to exclude

riverbanks from the Sanctuary must at heart have been for administrative convenience.

One possible and rational line of thinking is that gazettement of a “reserve” requires that

an approved survey plan to be available, and that the plan requires a complete boundary

demarcated by numbered stones that are implanted in the ground. Extension of a piece of

land right up to the riverbank means that the boundary is “open” along the river, and

cannot be joined up for the purpose of preparation of a survey plan. In fact, there are two

sorts of precedents which show that this line of reasoning does not necessarily have to be

followed. One is that some old land titles along the Kinabatangan river show no riverine

reserve at all, yet the titles are valid. A second precedent is shown by that of certain State

Parks whereby the boundary is an imaginary boundary in the sea; there are no numbered

stones implanted in the sea bed.

To summarise the story so far, (a) the name and concept of riverine reserve had its origins

in the Land Ordinance 1930, (b) the concept is optional, not obligatory under the Land

Ordinance, and (c) application of the provision under the Land Ordinance has relied

mainly on practical concerns of field surveyors, rather than on governmental

environmental policy. As a result, the riverine reserve concept under the Land Ordinance

has never been used intentionally as a means conserve biodiversity or natural resources.

Any positive biological conservation impact has been fortuitous.

31

A new milestone in the riverine reserve story was established, however, via the Sabah

Water Resources Enactment 1998, which was passed “to provide for the sustainable

management of the water resources of the State of Sabah ..”. Section 40 of this Enactment

concerns “River and shore reserves”, stating as follows:

(1) from the date of the commencement of this Enactment, river reserves and shore

reserves are established on land which is .. within twenty metres of the top of the

bank of every river .. where the river channel is not less than three metres in width

..”

(2) does not apply to an artificial watercourses ..

(3) river and shore reserves are established for the purpose of protecting the volume

or flow of water .. and preventing the degradation of the quality of water

resources and damage to the aquatic environment ..”

The above provisions came into force in June 2000. Several points need to be noted.

Firstly, one of the intentions of this provision is to make obligatory the reservation of

land along rivers outside Forest Reserves, Parks and Sanctuaries, in contrast to the Land

Ordinance, which allows “Government” (without specifying which part of government)

to decide if such a reserve is necessary, on a site-by-site basis, and how wide the reserve

should be. Secondly, by the time this Enactment came into force, the great majority of

land outside Forest Reserves, Parks and Sanctuaries had already been alienated or

approved for alienation. Thus, the Enactment came rather late if the intention was to

retain river reserves not only under government control but also under natural vegetation.

Thirdly, the Enactment does not in fact state that the intention is to keep river reserves

under natural vegetation; the implication is that the purpose is to ensure that government

has the right to determine land use within the zone 20 metres from river banks. Fourthly,

while the intention of this provision is undoubtedly sound, and there is a facility whereby

government (via the Yang di-Pertua Negeri) may increase or decrease the width of river

reserve at any site, the general application of a 20 metre width is arguably not ideal. For

small rivers, it may be viewed as unnecessarily wide, whereas for large floodplain rivers

(notably Kinabatangan) such a width is too narrow for a constantly-changing river

course. The width is certainly too narrow as a “wildlife corridor”, but it must be

understood that the Sabah Water Resources Enactment intention is related primarily to

water quality and flow, and not for terrestrial wildlife management. However, protection

of water quality and flow will certainly act to help protect and maintain aquatic biological

diversity. The intent of section 40 of the Sabah Water Resources Enactment appears to be

to work towards a regaining of governmental control over land use along rivers and sea

shores.

Following the preceding arguments, land reserved under section 26(2) of the Land

Ordinance, cannot be viewed as PA, even if in certain cases a relatively broad “riverine

reserve” may happen to exist still with natural vegetation. Such sites are the exception –

due to past chance events - rather than the norm. Furthermore, “riverine reserves”

established under the Land Ordinance were not intended to be managed primarily for

biodiversity or natural resource protection. This is not to say that such management is

32

unwelcome. The point made here is that “riverine reserves”, along with seashore and

ridge top reserves under the Land Ordinance, were not originally intended as any

category of PA under the IUCN definitions and since 1930 have not been managed as

such.

Despite the reasoning and deduction involved in the above argumentation, a special case

exists for riverside land along the lower Kinabatangan River. This is because on the one

hand the arguments against regarding “riverine reserve” as PA are clear, on the other

hand it is irrational that there remain strips of forested land between the gazetted Wildlife

Sanctuary and the Kinabatangan River which are not PA, when it is plain that those strips

are ecologically a part of the Sanctuary, as well as a natural and critical ecological

interface between the gazetted Sanctuary and the river. To visualise the argument clearly:

many of the proboscis monkeys living in Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary (clearly a PA)

during the day-time move out of the Sanctuary late every afternoon to sleep on riverine

reserve because of an administrative decision made years ago by the land authorities. In

addition, one can refer to the 1994 Cabinet paper, where the intention was to reserve land

up to the banks of the Kinabatangan and other main rivers in the region.

33

APPENDIX 2 : A DISCUSSION OF THE SEVEN FOREST RESERVE (FR)

CATEGORIES & IUCN PA CATEGORIES

1 Protection Forest Reserves (Protection FRs)

The main formal management objective of Protection FRs is maintenance of

environmental services other than biological diversity. At first glance, it may be thought

that Protection FRs should belong to one of the first three IUCN PA categories. They

cannot be assigned to IUCN Category Ia because they are not designated or managed

mainly for scientific reasons, while they are too small (or in some cases damaged) to be

categorised as Ib, and most are too small to fit with Category II.

2 Commercial Forest Reserves (Commercial FRs)

The major issue concerning Commercial FRs is whether all, some or none are PAs under

any of the IUCN categories and definitions. Categories IV or VI represent the only

possible options.

Deramakot Commercial FR has been regarded as a model Commercial FR since at least

1997, when it was independently assessed and verified as conforming with international

(Forest Stewardship Council) principles and criteria of sustainable forest management.

According the to Deramakot Commercial FR website (www.deramakot.sabah.gov.my)

“the objective is to begin the application of ecologically and scientifically acceptable

forest management to the logged-over Commercial Forest Reserves of Sabah. The intent

is to manage the commercial forest reserves in a way that mimics natural processes for

production of low volume, high quality, high priced timber products. Sustainability is

defined in terms of balance nutrient cycles, forest structure, biodiversity, forest function

and socio-economic needs.” If it is intended that all Commercial FRs are to be managed

to the same standards as Deramakot, it appears that Commercial FRs could possibly

accord with the general characteristics of IUCN Categories IV and VI PAs. For category

VI, however, there are issues of whether a Commercial FR consists of “predominantly

unmodified natural systems” and as to the correct understanding of the term

“community” in this context.

According to the Sabah Forestry Department website (www.forest.sabah.gov.my),

Commercial FRs are “forest allocated for logging to supply timber and other products,

contributing to the State’s economy”. According to that definition, Commercial FRs

could potentially be considered as IUCN Category VI PAs since Commercial FRs are

natural forests “managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems”, the

sustainable use element in this case being predominantly in the form of periodic removal

of large trees for wood. However, there are several issues associated with the actual

status, condition and management of Commercial FRs which require a more thorough

evaluation.

The IUCN definition states that a Category VI PA should contain “predominantly

unmodified natural systems”. Does this apply to Commercial FRs in Sabah? The bulk of

Sabah’s Commercial FRs have undergone two rounds of commercial logging, processes

which appear to have lead to at least half the original vegetation being removed through a

34

combination of road construction, skidder tractor paths, knocking down of vegetation and

removal of logs. Many scattered parts of Commercial FRs have escaped such treatment,

due to factors such as steep slopes or poor original timber volumes. But overall, when

averaged out, it seems fairer to describe Commercial FRs as “predominantly modified”

(as opposed to “predominantly unmodified”).

The IUCN definition also states that a Category VI PA should be “managed to ensure

long term protection and maintenance of biological diversity”. Does this apply to

Commercial FRs in Sabah? In general, this does not appear to be the case, because

clearly the main (and even sole) management objective in Commercial FRs until recent

times has been wood production, with any biodiversity protection element being

incidental. However, there have been clear changes in recent years. For example,

amongst the management objectives stated in the approved year 2006-2015 management

plan for Tangkulap and part of Pinangah Commercial Forest Reserves (FMU 17A) are

the following : “to restore production of high value timber and maintaining a high degree

of species and structural diversity .. to integrate all forest operational activities within the

concept of conservation and protection .. to maintain ecosystem diversity at all levels .. to

maintain and enhance High Conservation Value Forest sites.” These objectives are in line

with IUCN Categories IV and VI PAs. It is expected that future management plans for

other Commercial FRs will include similar objectives.

The IUCN definition states that Category VI PAs should provide “a sustainable flow of

natural products and services to meet community needs”. Does this apply to Commercial

FRs in Sabah? There are two issues here. Is the flow “sustainable” and what is the

meaning of “community” in this context? Both points are debatable and more a matter of

opinion than of definition. Logging in Commercial FRs is “sustainable” if one takes a

long-term view along with the robust definition that “nothing should be done which

irreversibly prevents the forest from regenerating as forest”. “Community” can be defined

as people living in one place under the same government (for example, the State of

Sabah), but others might interpret the term to mean specific rural villages near the

Commercial FR.

Recalling that IUCN documentation states that “assignment to a Category is not a

commentary on management effectiveness”, it can be argued that past damage to

Commercial FRs due to logging without regard to biodiversity is a phase in history which

is drawing to a close, and that Sabah’s Commercial FRs will in the future be managed

according to the spirit of the IUCN Category VI PA purpose and definition.

Where the majority of the vegetation in a particular Commercial FR is logged forest, now

regenerating as forest, that Commercial RF could be regarded as a “predominantly

unmodified natural system” and eligible to be a category VI PA. But where the majority

of the vegetation is degraded through past subsistence farming or commercial logging or

fire or a combination of those factors, or where extensive industrial tree plantations are

planned according to the approved Forest Management Plan, that Commercial FR cannot

be regarded as eligible to be category VI PA but it could be category IV.

35

The IUCN guidelines state that the organizational responsibility for managing a category

VI PA lies with a “public body with an unambiguous remit for conservation, in

partnership with the local community”. This implies that a Commercial FR can be a

category VI PA only if it is managed by Sabah Forestry Department and there exists, at

minimum, some official documentation (e.g. a formal forest management plan) showing

some clear element of local community involvement in management. If, however,

management of the Commercial FR has been licensed to a company and/or there is no

formal documentation of clear local community involvement in management, that

Commercial FR cannot be a category VI PA, even if there is extensive regenerating forest

under a sustainable forest management plan. In contrast, according to IUCN guidelines,

category IV PAs may be managed by government or the private sector, with adequate

safeguards and controls (e.g. licence agreements and forest management plans), but

without the need for local community involvement. Thus, depending on the particular

case, Commercial FRs could potentially be assigned as either category IV or VI PAs.

3 Domestic Forest Reserves (Domestic FRs)

The purpose of Domestic FRs clearly accords with (and only with) category VI PA. A

review of the ten DFRs, however, reveals that eight are devoid of original forest, and

support only secondary growth or invasive plant species. These DFRs do not accord with

the overall IUCN requirement that a PA be “dedicated to the protection and maintenance

of biological diversity”.

4 Amenity Forest Reserves (Amenity FRs)

Amenity FRs are primarily for recreation, and only IUCN categories II, III and V PAs

can be primarily for this purpose. A review of the twelve Amenity FRs reveals that eight

are devoid of original forest, and are either managed as tree plantations, or support only

secondary growth or invasive plant species. These Amenity FRs do not accord with the

overall IUCN requirement that a PA be “dedicated to the protection and maintenance of

biological diversity”.

5 Mangrove Forest Reserves (Mangrove FRs)

Mangrove FRs are primarily for productive purposes. Overall, they have been exploited

over long periods, yet almost all are regenerating well. In principle, they could conform

with IUCN categories IV or VI.

6 Virgin Jungle (Forest) Reserves (VJRs)

According to Sabah Forestry Department statements, VJRs are primarily for research

purposes, but in practice their size, biological value and condition vary greatly from site

to site, and few are managed actively for research. By law, there are currently 51 VJRs.

Each named VJR consists of between one and five separate forest areas. Given the wide

variation in characteristics of each VJR, IUCN PA classification of VJRs has to be

evaluated individually.

7 Wildlife Reserves (WRs)

The concept and legal status of Wildlife Reserve was first adopted in 1984, when a

Wildlife Section existed within the Sabah Forestry Department, and before the

establishment of a separate Sabah Wildlife Department. Wildlife Reserves remain under

36

the legal authority of the Sabah Forestry Department. IUCN PA classification of WRs has

to be evaluated individually.

37

APPENDIX 3 : KEY TO ESTABLISH ELIGIBILITY AND APPROPRIATE PA

CATEGORY FOR PARTICULAR FOREST RESERVES

Question Y

N

Go

to

Explanatory notes / appropriate IUCN PA category

1 Is the FR a

Commercial FR?

Y 2 Commercial FRs are for commercial wood production.

Recent commercial forest management plans, however,

stress the need to manage the forests for biodiversity and

other functions. Some Commercial FRs contain breeding

populations of endangered wildlife species. N 3

2 Does the

Commercial FR

contain a

globally-

significant

breeding

population of at

least one

endangered

species, and the

management plan

for the FR

includes

objectives to

support

conservation of

those endangered

species?

N Not eligible as a PA under IUCN definition

Y 2 These FRs are subject to joint production and

conservation objectives, and undergo active habitat or

species management interventions. Potentially

appropriate IUCN PA category : IV

3 Is the FR a

Wildlife Reserve

(WR)?

Y 4 WRs are “forests conserved primarily for the protection

of wild animal species” N 5

4 Does the WR

contain an

outstanding

natural feature

which is

conserved in the

absence of active

management

intervention?

Y Applies to Kulamba WR. Appropriate IUCN PA

category : III

N Applies to Tabin WR (and associated VJRs and

Protection FR; see below). Appropriate IUCN PA

category : IV

38

5 * Is the FR a

VJR?

Y 6 Official VJR purpose is “forests conserved intact for

research”. Thus, the intent of all VJRs accords with the

overall IUCN definition of PA, seemingly with category

1a. But category 1a must contain “outstanding or

representative ecosystem or features”, and many VJRs

are small, damaged and/or not outstanding or

representative. N 9

6 Is the VJR

entirely or partly

contiguous with a

larger FR which

is also a PA?

Y The VJR is considered a part of the larger PA for

purposes of IUCN categorisation.

N 7

7 Is the VJR more

than about 1,000

hectares in extent

in a single block

of forest or, if

smaller, within or

contiguous with a

Commercial FR?

N Review of available information indicates that all VJRs

of less than 1,000 ha which are isolated from other forest

are damaged by logging, fire or encroachment, and some

lack any original vegetation. All of these VJRs require

active intervention to restore forest their biological

values. Appropriate IUCN PA category : IV

Y 8

8 Does the VJR

contain an

outstanding

specific natural

feature?

Y These VJRs have significant biodiversity and habitat

conservation functions, but research is not their major

function. Appropriate IUCN PA category : III

N The official function of these VJRs remains research.

Appropriate IUCN PA category : Ia

9 Is the FR a

Protection FR?

Y 10 Officially, Protection FRs are for physical (not

biological) protection but in practice most are as at least

as significant as VJRs for conservation of biological

diversity.

N 12

10 Is the Protection

FR officially

designated as a

Conservation

Area with a

formal

management

committee?

Y Applies to Danum Valley and Maliau Basin Protection

FRs, and anticipated to apply to Imbak Canyon.

Appropriate IUCN PA category : II

N 11

11 Does the

Protection FR

contain an

outstanding

specific natural

feature?

N Review of available information indicates that all

Protection FRs which lack outstanding natural features

are damaged by logging, fire or encroachment. All

require active intervention to restore their native

biological values. Appropriate IUCN PA category : IV

Y All these Protection FRs have outstanding biodiversity

and habitat conservation features. Appropriate IUCN

PA category : III

39

12 Is the FR a

Domestic FR?

Y 13 Domestic FRs are “for supplying timber and other forest

products for local consumption only”. Biodiversity

conservation is not an objective. Eight of the 10 are

devoid of original forest.

N 15

13 Does the

Domestic FR

contain mainly

natural forest,

with products

used sustainably

by local people?

Y Appropriate IUCN PA category : VI

N 14

14 Does the

Domestic FR

contain at least

some original

forest?

Y All are damaged by logging, fire or encroachment, and

require active intervention to restore their native

biological values. Appropriate IUCN PA category : IV

N Not eligible as a PA under IUCN definition.

15 Is the FR an

Amenity FR?

Y 16 Amenity FRs are recreational sites. Exotic species may

be planted. Biodiversity conservation is not an objective. N 18

16 Does the Amenity

FR contain some

natural forest?

N Not eligible as a PA under IUCN definition

Y 17 Review of available information indicates that 4 of the 12

contain some original forest.

17 Does the Amenity

FR contain an

outstanding

natural feature?

Y Appropriate IUCN PA category : III

N Review of available information indicates that Amenity

FRs which lack outstanding natural features are damaged

by logging, fire or encroachment and require active

intervention to restore their native biological values.

Appropriate IUCN PA category : IV

18 Is the FR a

Mangrove FR?

Y Mangrove FRs are “for the supply of mangrove timber

and other produce”. They consist of natural forests.

Most have been exploited but are regenerating well.

“Other produce” includes fisheries and marine life.

Appropriate IUCN PA category : IV

* A fully consistent and objective designation of VJRs into IUCN PA categories is not

possible. Cases where, by law, more than one block of forest are counted as a single VJR

are particularly difficult to resolve for the purpose of this document (e.g. where on block

is isolated and another is part of a category IV PA or part of a Commercial Forest

Reserve which is not a PA). This key is kept as simple as possible, and several VJRs are

allocated on a “common sense” basis, bearing in mind the basic philosophy of this

document and the key.

40

APPENDIX 4 : THE IUCN PA CATEGORIES REVIEWED AGAINST

POTENTIAL PA CATEGORIES IN SABAH

Ia. Strict Nature Reserve: protected area managed mainly for science

The only potential Sabah PAs eligible for this category are Virgin Jungle Forest Reserves

(VJRs). Although VJRs are officially designated for research purposes, it is debatable if

there are any PAs in Sabah which are in practice primarily used for scientific research or

monitoring. However, a few Sabah VJRs are designated to this category, according to the

interpretation applied in Appendix 3, because they are “areas of land .. possessing some

.. representative .. species, available .. for .. research or monitoring” and they are “large

enough to ensure the integrity of its ecosystem” in those cases where the VJR is

surrounded by extensive Commercial Forest Reserve and, being in remote locations, they

are “significantly free of direct human intervention”.

Ib. Wilderness Area: protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection

Although there are extensive tracts of natural forest in Sabah, in general they have either

been extensively logged or, if in primary condition, they have significant educational,

recreation or tourism functions, making them better suited to category II. So, there are no

PAs in Sabah which conform with this category.

II National Park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation

Key features of this category are a combination of ecosystem protection and recreation.

Since PAs in this category “should be large enough to contain one or more entire

ecosystems not materially altered by current human occupation or exploitation” all

relatively small areas, and extensive commercially logged forest areas, have to be

excluded. In legal terms, there are no National Parks in Sabah. This is because in

Malaysia “the highest competent authority of the nation having jurisdiction over it” (the

PA) is automatically a State level authority under the Malaysian National Constitution if

the area consists of forests and/or land. Five of the seven gazetted Sabah Parks are placed

in this category along with some Forest Reserves.

III Natural Monument: protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific

natural features

This category can be thought of as a smaller-sized version of category II. The differences

are that: there must be present a particular feature of outstanding or unique value, that the

area must be “large enough to protect the integrity of the feature” (but not necessarily an

entire ecosystem) and recreational values are optional. A wide variety of Forest Reserves

(including one Wildlife Reserve) fall comfortably under this category, along with

Sipadan Island Bird Sanctuary.

IV Habitat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly for conservation

through management intervention

Key features of this category are maintenance of species and/or habitats (without size

limit, and not necessarily pristine or natural) with the aid of active management

intervention (which could be aimed at species or habitat). In the Sabah context, this

means that logged, burned and encroached forests and other damaged habitats can be

41

included under this category, as long as (a) breeding populations of significant wild

species are present, and (b) there is some formal intention, ongoing or planned, to

conserve or restore the species or habitat. Many Forest Reserves, of various classes, that

are not eligible for other IUCN PA categories, can be allocated to category IV.

42

V Protected Landscape/Seascape: protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape

conservation and recreation

Three areas were initially proposed under this category but subsequently moved to other

categories :

Darvel Bay and islands Most of the islands and some parts of the adjacent mainland are

VJRs and Protection FRs, most of which were the subject of early forestry, agriculture

and plantation research up to the 1950s. There are a variety of geological formations and

forest types. The area has outstanding landscape characteristics. The land, sea and forests

provide livelihood for indigenous residents. However, it was pointed out that the sea of

Darvel Bay enjoys no special legal protection, and that it is more appropriate to list the

FRs on a case-by-case basis.

Sandakan Leila & Mount Walker VJRs and Pulau Berhala Amenity Forest Reserve

protect the heath and escarpment forests of the hills near to town. These hills give

Sandakan its distinctive profile when seen from afar in an approaching boat or plane.

Pulau Berhala has historical interest (leper isolation settlement, World War II prisoner

camp) while Leila has early forest research plots. However, it was pointed out that none

of the land or sea outside these three small FRs enjoys any PA status, and that it is more

appropriate to list the FRs on a case-by-case basis.

Tinagat Protection Forest Reserve The only lighthouse on the south-east coast of Sabah,

and one of the oldest in the area (1916) is situated at Tinagat. However, there is no other

special landscape value or feature in the FR.

VI Managed Resource Protected Area: protected area managed mainly for the sustainable

use of natural ecosystems

The main debate is whether Commercial FR falls in this category. The arguments

presented in Appendix 2 show that no Commercial FR currently falls under this category

because most have been extensively logged commercially while none are managed

primarily with and for the benefit of local communities. Of all the possible PAs in Sabah,

only the proposed Tun Mustapha Marine Park falls more clearly under this category than

under any other.

Appendix 1 : IUCN Categories of Protected Areas (PAs)

Category Number & Type Definition

Ia Strict Nature Reserve:

protected area managed

mainly for science

Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding

or representative ecosystems, geological or

physiological features and/or species, available

primarily for scientific research and/or environmental

monitoring

43

Ib Wilderness Area:

protected area managed

mainly for wilderness

protection

Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land,

and/or sea, retaining its natural character and

influence, without permanent or significant habitation,

which is protected and managed so as to preserve its

natural condition

II National Park:

protected area managed

mainly for ecosystem

protection and

recreation

Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (a)

protect the ecological integrity of one or more

ecosystems for present and future generations, (b)

exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the

purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a

foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational,

recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which

must be environmentally and culturally compatible

III Natural Monument:

protected area managed

mainly for conservation

of specific natural

features

Area containing one, or more, specific natural or

natural/cultural feature which is of outstanding or

unique value because of its inherent rarity,

representative or aesthetic qualities or cultural

significance

IV Habitat/Species

Management Area:

protected area managed

mainly for conservation

through management

intervention

Area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention

for management purposes so as to ensure the

maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the

requirements of specific species

V Protected

Landscape/Seascape:

protected area managed

mainly for

landscape/seascape

conservation and

recreation

Area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where

the interaction of people and nature over time has

produced an area of distinct character with significant

aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value, and often

with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the

integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the

protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area

VI Managed Resource

Protected Area:

protected area managed

mainly for the

sustainable use of

natural ecosystems

Area containing predominantly unmodified natural

systems, managed to ensure long term protection and

maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at

the same time a sustainable flow of natural products

and services to meet community needs