Table of Contents
With the steady degradation of the world’s tropical forests and reduced confidence in the protected-area model, some attention has turned to the potential role that community-claimed forests could play in biodiversity conservation. In Sabah and elsewhere in Asia, the customary lands of upland communities — often comprising tapestries of homesteads and farms, fallowed fields, mature secondary forest and the hinterland of riverine and primary forests — could potentially serve as refuges for threatened biodiversity. With long histories of residence, active use of the forest landscape, and an apparent affinity to the forest, many local or indigenous community lifestyles have been seen to represent a more gentle and peaceable future for tropical forests. Indeed, in recent years various groups have captured international attention by their efforts to defend forest areas that have increasingly come under threat from logging and forest conversion (Hong 1987; Poffenberger and McGean 1993; Baviskar 1995; Colchester 1997) and impressive feats of collective action to restore degraded forest (Poffenberger and McGean 1996; Stevens 1997).
Often the lack of de jure rights of ownership to forest areas has proven to be the major stumbling block to these movements. Customary claims are frequently not adequately recognised by modern government administrations, or the same forest resources are classified under the eminent domain of the state (Brookfield et al. 1995: 128). In such instances, strengthening local tenure in collaboration with local residents has been viewed by conservation organisations as a valid endeavour to stem imminent threats to important natural areas. The move to lend resources and expertise to such initiatives is also underscored by the belief that this could contribute to the restoration of communal management systems and, in the process, establish spaces where biodiversity and community interests might coexist.
In March 1999, I led a project for WWF-Malaysia to advocate for the conservation of montane forest in the biologically significant Ulu Padas headwaters in Sabah’s southwest. The project involved working closely with the Lundayeh community of this area. For years the uncertain status of land ownership had proven to be a significant factor in forest degradation. The intervention in the Upper Padas was intended to tap the potential for securing spaces for biodiversity by seeking greater security of tenure for local residents.
By drawing upon this experiment in building community–conservation partnerships, this case study acknowledges the potential for synergy between strengthening communal tenure and conserving biodiversity. However, field experience shows that it is necessary to modify expectations of the local community’s commitment to conservation. Though local people profess a strong affection for and appreciation of the surrounding environment, this alone does not provide sufficient assurance of actions that prioritise conservation. This has probably never been more apparent than in this period of rapid social change where greater access to urban society, systems and mores has had a tremendous influence on highly mutable local aspirations. Greater care is needed in negotiating community–conservation partnerships if outcomes are to have any relevance to both environmental conservation and local people’s aspiration for economic development. This chapter discusses some of the ways in which community–conservation partnerships might be based on more explicit arrangements that satisfy the specific interests of the parties involved. It also highlights the value of policy reform and collaborative efforts involving NGOs, communities and government agencies in promoting a land-tenure resolution process that safeguards the long-term wellbeing of both local communities and the environment.