In Ulu Padas, it was clear that in a leave-alone scenario, the villagers would be unlikely to automatically assert forms of management that would necessarily uphold environmental conservation and equitable access to land and communal resources. If land in Ulu Padas were to be awarded on the basis of ancestral claims alone, certain individuals or families would lay claim to vast tracts of land, more than they could feasibly use for agriculture, while others would have no such claims despite their having lived in this area for 20 years or more. With the prevailing trend towards privatisation, there was no guarantee that the former customary system of loaning land to fellow community members would be honoured. And with so many large claims focused on the forested area in the southern half of the State Land, applicants hoping to make their fortune through timber deals could deprive the larger community of vital shared resources while precipitating serious environmental degradation.
From a conservation perspective, any large claim to land awarded to individuals or select groups without provisos for accountability to the total community would expose it to unsustainable exploitation and negative environmental impact. This is true regardless of whether the applicants are bona fide community members residing in the village, Lundayeh people who have moved away from the area, or well-connected Sabahans seeking to obtain land for development. If anyone were to be given ownership of a large forested area, the individual would be able act independently of community interests. The lure of selling rights of access to timber taukeh (tycoons) would be too difficult to resist.
As far as WWF-Malaysia’s objectives were concerned, in identifying a common standpoint from which to evaluate resource tenure solutions, it was necessary to outline a clear set of principles with which to uphold requests to protect local livelihoods, cultural heritage and the living environment that had been voiced by the community in earlier discussions. Bearing in mind the organisation’s core business, the tenure solution would also have to support biodiversity and environmental conservation. In addition, ways would have to be found to support local access to communal resources and to restrict external interests. Ultimately, any intervention would have to promote the equitable division of land to all Ulu Padas residents and ensure that the activities of a few do not have the propensity to disadvantage the larger community.
Playing the initial role of a go-between, the WWF-Malaysia project officers consulted with the district officers of the Lands and Surveys Department and other government agencies to better understand the official process by which native land claims could be resolved, the specific provisions for native tenure (both individual and collective) within the Land Ordinance, and the legislative procedures by which local communities might formalise claims for land. The community’s confusion over the complicated and confusing process was communicated, while the government officer clarified some of the obstacles and limitations hindering the smooth and speedy resolution of tenure from the Department’s perspective. These difficulties were a common concern of both parties; after all, it is technically in the Department’s interest to find expedient means to complete the statewide land-registration process.
Relevant legislation was translated or explained in Bahasa Malaysia in order to familiarise community leaders and organisers with the land application process and supporting legislation. Local people became quite proficient at interpreting laws and policies governing environmental protection, sustainable forest management and native land tenure. With an ongoing dialogue established with the District Surveyor, in a matter of weeks what first appeared to be an intimidating and impenetrable bureaucracy evolved into a joint strategy. The District Surveyor was exemplary in upholding the spirit of the Land Ordinance and the government’s original intention that the Ulu Padas State Land should be entrusted to the Lundayeh people, suggesting the most effective routes towards this objective.
Many members of the community still believed that it was possible to lay claim to the entire Ulu Padas region, including the Forest Reserves. Hearing directly from a government officer that this was highly improbable helped local people to abandon unrealistic expectations and reorient them towards more achievable aims sufficient for their needs that could be endorsed by government agencies in accordance with current laws.
In order to assure that local residents were given top priority in receiving individual land titles, the Department of Lands and Surveys first began a process of filtering the volumes of applications on file to prioritise families with a recognised claim and need. Village leaders and committees provided a vetted list of names to facilitate this. Second, in order to avoid the obstacles of overlapping claims, plans were made for all Native Titles in the Ulu Padas State Land to be processed in one block. At a future date, Lands and Surveys officers would base themselves in the village for a time to consult with the community to demarcate the location of household plots to be awarded Native Titles close to the main village centre and most active agricultural areas. Similar approaches have already been used with considerable success in the adjacent Beaufort district. In this way, the processing time and survey costs would be greatly reduced.
The Sabah Biodiversity Conservation Project soil and slope studies were consulted in determining the distribution of fertile land suitable for permanent crops and less fertile land for mixed cultivation. The Lands and Survey Department had already earmarked slopes and catchments that would automatically be reserved as amenity forests for domestic use. With invalid or less valid claims removed or reduced in size, the potential threat of alienating large areas of forest to external parties was mitigated.
Care was taken to ensure that the move to proprietary rights would not undermine the importance of shared forest resources (Li 1996; Stevens 1997). Without access to the Forest Reserves that had served as a wider resource hinterland, it was imperative that a reserve be established within the State Land to safeguard resources for domestic access. Since the Native Title provision applies only to smaller parcels of land intended for productive use, a Native Reserve was the best means by which a large contiguous area of forest could be protected while still enabling local use by the village as a whole.[10] Use rights would only be extended to villagers and guidelines for harvesting resources would be determined so that each community member would have an equal role in ensuring the appropriate use and management of the area. Here then was the possibility to re-establish a secure resource from which common property regulations could be negotiated anew.
An application for a Native Reserve of 4500 hectares in the forested southern section of the State Land was submitted by Long Pasia in October 1999. This area incorporates the former settlements, burial sites, rock and earth monuments and historical routes, including numerous sites of value for biodiversity and tourism development. As the face of Ulu Padas begins to change, the proposed reserve is intended to protect at least some of the most cherished elements of the Lundayeh lifestyle and identity before they are lost.
However, the process of obtaining the endorsement of all members of the community for the Native Reserve was often frustrating for the community members striving to put the proposal together. Certain segments of the community were antagonistic as this form of shared tenure would upset private timber deals. At times it seemed that the signed endorsement required for the Native Reserve proposal would never be secured. The application languished uncompleted for two months until, in September 1999, information had filtered in from several sources that a logging company with an influential former politician as its director was close to being awarded this area for logging. This confirmed earlier warnings of the imminent threats from external interests. A collective application for a Native Reserve was swiftly formalised and submitted to the government by villagers of Long Pasia. Local people were certainly not going to let an outsider’s claim usurp theirs. Long Mio followed suit, proposing another area of several hundred hectares as Native Reserve.
The Native Reserve applications have now been prioritised on the merits of the communal claim, causing other land applications for the same area to be rejected. The Native Reserve application has already been approved at several levels and is now in the final stages of processing. If it makes it through the final stages, the Ulu Padas Native Reserve could be one of the largest areas of communal forest to be established in Sabah in recent history.[11] However, the hesitant steps taken towards its establishment suggest that aside from its ability to neutralise outside threats, gazetting a Native Reserve will not in itself guarantee conservation outcomes.
With the initial obstacle of tenure insecurity overcome, the Ulu Padas community still faces the important challenge of re-establishing its communal resource management systems and institutions. The task has barely begun and will need a commitment of resources and external support if it is to be successful in the long term. Government agencies and NGOs have a role to play in guiding catchment protection, biodiversity conservation, and the management of tourism and recreational areas. Discussions need to be held to elaborate management and use guidelines for the Native Reserves as well as provisions to ensure the necessary levels of accountability and transparency in the management of this important area. Bearing in mind the stratified nature of most communities, care must be taken to ensure that decision making in the name of the community is not usurped by more powerful elements within it. If such intra-community equity in decision making is not assured, even participatory modes of resource management would fail to deliver equitability (Singh et al. 2000).