Across the globe, the spaces reserved for biodiversity conservation are decreasing dramatically (Cox and Elmquist 1991: 317), and as Stevens (1997) points out, very few wilderness areas can be considered uninhabited. Thus it is inevitable that there is a convergence of interest in community-claimed lands for conservation. In Sabah, local communities that occupy the last spaces where Borneo’s biologically rich rainforests persist can be important agents in the quest to ensure its continued existence. Native communities have customary claim to some of the state’s fragmented natural areas, and many are deeply concerned about the environmental impact of logging and land clearing. Politically, those whose next meal or glass of water will come directly from threatened environments are naturally perceived as having a greater moral right to defend their livelihoods and living environments. Indirectly they stand to be a voice for forest conservation.

In the case of Ulu Padas, the attention garnered by the community’s campaign to defend communal forest areas also cast a spotlight on logging operations in the surrounding Forest Reserves. With mounting criticism of logging in highland areas from the public, there was increased pressure on government agencies to control environmental damage and conserve important areas. The Forestry Department was able to extract a greater commitment to Sustainable Forest Management principles from the concessionaire — including setting aside areas with steep slopes, important biodiversity areas, wildlife corridors and areas important to the community, including identified tourism development sites. In addition, a large area designated for Industrial Tree Plantations has now been reassigned to Natural Forest Management. The Department of Environmental Conservation was empowered to play a stronger role in enforcing environmental regulations. The interest in the area for tourism also generated discussions of collaboration to develop alternative economic activities in the Upper Padas. In addition, there has also been gradual progress in discussions to establish a transboundary conservation area with Indonesia and Sarawak. Arguably, many of these developments would not have taken place had the community not played a role in calling attention to the threats to the environment in this remote corner of the state.

Although resolving tenure in community-claimed lands can be an exceedingly complicated undertaking, there is immediate value in arresting the divisive competition for land and forests in which conservation, communities and resource management are all losers. Concluding the period of ambiguous transitional tenure has the potential to provide an improved foundation for the future, and an impetus for the community to heal and come to terms with a new set of circumstances. Restoring stewardship of forested land to local communities may yet be a promising means of achieving conservation goals. As Sabah’s forest heritage continues to be whittled away by a combination of both human and natural agents, in years to come such preserves could become exceedingly important as refuges for what remains of wild Borneo.

The Ulu Padas case study was an experimental partnership between a conservation NGO and a rural indigenous community with a focus on strengthening local tenure arrangements. A generally symbiotic relationship was struck between the two parties — each motivated by a specific payoff. Local communities marginalised by the complicated legal procedures for land ownership leaned on the influence and expertise of an established organisation to assist in securing property rights and stimulating tourism initiatives. By providing the Ulu Padas community with information, legal advice and access to government channels, strategies for obtaining tenure security were expedited, the alienation of land and resources from local people was challenged, and the loss of biodiversity was mitigated.

However, in such partnerships, conservation NGOs are potentially at the mercy of communities. Non-government organisations do not have the authority to impose their will since it is local people that have claim to the land. The conventional methods are to inform, persuade, and sometimes develop livelihood alternatives or provide monetary incentives. Inevitably, it is the community that has to make the final decision and this implies a fairly high risk of failure. The experience in Ulu Padas has illustrated that, the close similarity of goals notwithstanding, collaborations between communities and conservation NGOs, however cordial, would be better treated as business partnerships built on compromise, not assumptions of mutual goodwill and shared objectives. In reality, each party gives up an ideal in order to achieve a reduced benefit. Not quite a win–win scenario, but perhaps the next best option.

In the case of the community, people must be reconciled with the sacrifice of short-term gains in order to achieve long-term resource security and some development assistance. In the case of the conservation organisation, domestic use of forest is supported (or tolerated) in order to achieve specific biodiversity-conservation objectives. The two parties are thrown together by mutual need because external threats would be impossible to repel independently. However, should the terms of this agreement be contravened in any way, the partnership becomes meaningless.

Although I believe that it is still important to be open to the possible contribution of local communities and communal areas to biodiversity conservation, it is necessary to concede that this should not be equated with ‘absolute, unmediated and entirely unregulated control over biodiversity resources’ (Singh et al. 2000: 72). The strategy of safeguarding customary tenure does not automatically beget conservation outcomes. For this reason, conservation practitioners have advocated that conservation objectives be explicitly spelled out through the use of Negotiated Contractual Agreements. ‘Essentially this involves the state or the official conservation agency negotiating with the local communities and coming to an agreement on their rights and obligations regarding the conservation of bio-diversity or natural resources in their area’ (ibid.: 74). Such a process requires the clear articulation of each other’s commitments and responsibilities.

Conservation NGOs need to be upfront about their own agenda, and recognise the fact that they cannot operate out of altruism alone. They have to answer to donors and justify how project activities will contribute to a specific ‘global mission’. They also have limitations: most notably in terms of funds, staff, economic expertise, and of course decision-making power. These aspects should be made clear to local people at the earliest possible stage, lest incorrect assumptions lead to disillusionment and misunderstanding.

In seeking to conserve biodiversity on communal lands, it is important to acknowledge that local people are being asked to bear the bulk of the burden of conservation in terms of social and economic impact (Wilshusen et al. 2002; Wells 1995). This may be understood in terms of restricted access to land and resources, or the opportunity costs of forgoing their exploitation. Local people are compelled to conserve and manage resources by an obvious hierarchy of motivations. Although religious or ethical imperatives, the availability of natural resources, the provision of ecological services, and fulfilment of aesthetic and recreational needs are important factors, direct and immediate financial returns are the most prominent motivation for most people (Singh et al. 2000).

Although there is a clear relationship between sustaining communal forest and the quality of the living environment, local people’s aspirations usually extend beyond mere settlement and subsistence. It is imperative that program developers and policy makers accept from an early stage that ‘[u]pland populations have different degrees of attachment to their current locales and different degrees of commitment to an agrarian future’ (Li 1999: 34). It remains an important question to ask whether conservation is a choice local people can afford to make.

In Ulu Padas, without sufficient financial backing for development alternatives, most local people saw WWF-Malaysia’s assistance as well-intentioned but not pragmatic enough to address immediate economic concerns. At this stage there is still an opportunity to create a framework by which community development and biodiversity-conservation efforts might be mutually supportive. Economic incentives and support for income diversification strategies will need to be considered as part of any effort to conserve biodiversity. Fundamentally, unless conserving forest resources is immediately and directly relevant to supporting the livelihoods of local people, and is included in plans for development, the impetus for biodiversity-conservation outcomes may not be sustained.