Advertisement

Certifying Borneo’s Forest Landscape: Implementation Processes of Forest Certification in Sarawak

  • Daisuke NaitoEmail author
  • Noboru Ishikawa
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research book series (AAHER)

Abstract

Sarawak has a history of imposing political constraints on natural resource governance. Forest certification is expected to bring important changes to forestry in Sarawak, heralding a new era of forest management. However, the effects of a new environmental regulatory system have yet to be adequately examined, particularly the social consequences of certification which vary depending on the standards employed, audit procedures and the levels of stakeholder participation. This chapter examines experiences to date with forest certification in Malaysia, specifically certification by the Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC) in Sarawak, to investigate the effects of certification on both forest management and rural communities. It is therefore important to focus attention on issues related to both indigenous peoples’ land and natural resources use. The example of Malaysia and the divergent experiences in different states illustrates that the situation on the ground can vary greatly, even with the same forest certification scheme and within the same country.

Keywords

Sarawak Forest certification Environmental management Deforestation Land-use change Indigenous people 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all the stakeholders who participated in this research. We would like to thank Dr Christine Padoch and Dr Masahiro Ichikawa for comments on earlier versions of this chapter. The research was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Center for Southeast Asian Studies at Kyoto University, the ASEAN Research Platform and the government of Japan’s contribution to the Centre for International Forestry Research. We are grateful to editors for their feedback.

References

  1. Accreditation Services International [ASI]. 2018. Conformity assessment bodies database. http://www.accreditation-services.com/s/find-a-cab. Accessed 10 Aug 2018.
  2. Anap Muput. 2006. Forest Management Plan for Anap Muput (Year 2006–2025).Google Scholar
  3. Bass, Stephen, Kirsti Thornber, Matthew Markopoulos, Sarah Roberts, and Maryanne Groge-Gran. 2001. Certification’s impacts on forests, stakeholders, and supply chains, Instruments for Sustainable Private Sector Forestry Series. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
  4. Brosius, J. Peter. 1997. Endangered forest, endangered people: Environmentalist representations of indigenous knowledge. Human Ecology 2 (1): 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ———. 1999. Green dots, pink hearts: Displacing politics from the Malaysian rainforest. American Anthropologist 101 (1): 36–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooke, Fadzilah Majid. 1999. The challenge of sustainable forests: Forest resource policy in Malaysia, 1970–1995, ASAA Southeast Asia Publications Series. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dentan, Robert Knox, Kirk Endicott, Alberto Gomes, and M.B. Hooker. 1997. Malaysia and the original people: Case study of the impact of development on indigenous peoples. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  8. Forest Stewardship Council [FSC]. 2006. FSC principles 2 and 3: Guidance on interpretation. Bonn: Forest Stewardship Council.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2015. The 10 FSC principles. https://ic.fsc.org/en/what-is-fsc-certification/principles-criteria/fscs-10-principles. Accessed 10 Aug 2018.
  10. ———. 2018a. What is FSC? https://ic.fsc.org/en/what-is-fsc. Accessed 7 Sept 2018.
  11. ———. 2018b. Public certificate search. https://info.fsc.org/details.php?id=a0240000005sSxGAAU&type=certificate&return=certificate.php. Accessed 13 Sept 2018.
  12. Hong, Evelyne. 1987. Natives of Sarawak: Survival in Borneo’s vanishing forests. Penang: Institut Masyarakat.Google Scholar
  13. Indufor. 2009. PEFC council and MTCC conformity assessment of Malaysian timber certification scheme to PEFC requirements—Final report. Helsinki: Indufor.Google Scholar
  14. ITTO. 2007. Model Forest Management Area (MFMA) -Phase III Project completion report. http://www.itto.int/files/user/pdf/publications/PD%2012%2099/pd12-99-2%20rev4(F)%20e.pdf
  15. JOANGOHutan. 2002. Malaysian timber certification scheme ignores concerns of forest peoples. Press statement. Kuching, 30 January.Google Scholar
  16. Klooster, Dan. 2006. Environmental certification of forests in Mexico: The political ecology of a nongovernmental market intervention. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (3): 541–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Malaysiakini. 2001. Timber certification process ignores natives. 18 November.Google Scholar
  18. Malaysian Timber Certification Council [MTCC]. 2000. Annual report 2000. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Timber Certification Council.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2002a. Annual report 2002. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Timber Certification Council.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2002b. Summary of FMU audit. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Timber Certification Council.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2004. Annual report 2004. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Timber Certification Council.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2006. Annual report 2006. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Timber Certification Council.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2010. Annual report 2010. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Timber Certification Council.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2012a. Use of MC&I (Natural forest) for certification of natural forest in Malaysia. https://mtcc.com.my/use-of-mci-natural-forest-for-certification-of-natural-forest-in-malaysia/. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
  25. ———. 2012b. Malaysian criteria and indicators for forest management certification (Natural forest). Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Timber Certification Council.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2018. Certified forests. http://mtcc.com.my/certified-forests. Accessed 16 Aug 2018.
  27. Malaysian Timber Industry Board [MTIB]. 1998. Proceedings of the seminar on pilot study on timber certification. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Timber Industry Board.Google Scholar
  28. Mannan, Sam, Yahya Awang, Albert Radin, Andurus Abi, and Peter Lagan. 2002. The Sabah Forestry Department experience from Deramakot Forest Reserve: Five years of practical experience in certified forest management. Paper presented at the Seminar on Practising Sustainable Forest Management: Lessons Learned and Future Challenges, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, 20–22 August.Google Scholar
  29. Mannan, Sam, Yahya Awang, Albert Radin, Andurus Abi, Subari Hj Suparlan, and Peter Lagan. 2003. Conservation of the orangutan and forest management units: The Deramakot model. Paper presented at the Workshop on Orangutan Conservation in Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, 25–27 August.Google Scholar
  30. National Timber Certification Council, Malaysia [NTCC]. 1999. Malaysian criteria, indicators, activities and standards of performance (MC&I) for forest management certification (Forest Management Unit level). Kuala Lumpur: NTCC.Google Scholar
  31. Ng, Ginny. 2000. The certification process in Malaysia: A case study. Pilot project submitted in partial fulfilment for the certificate for the International Training Programme on Forest Certification, Sweden, 14 May–2 June, and South Africa, 14 May–24 November.Google Scholar
  32. Ng, Ginny, Tong Pei Sin, and Lim Hin Fui. 2002. Environment impact and social components in forest certification: ‘Thorny issues in Malaysia?’ Paper presented at the Seminar on Practising Sustainable Forest Management: Lessons Learned and Future Challenges, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, 20–22 August.Google Scholar
  33. Nicholas, Colin. 2000. The Orang Asli and the contest for resources: Indigenous politics, development and identity in Peninsular Malaysia. Subang Jaya: Center for Orang Asli Concerns.Google Scholar
  34. Nussbaum, Ruth, and Markku Simula. 2005. The forest certification handbook. 2nd ed. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  35. Romero, Claudia, Francis E. Putz, Manuel R. Guariguata, Erin O. Sills, Paolo O. Cerutti, and Guillaume Lescuyer. 2013. An overview of current knowledge about the impacts of forest management, CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 91. Bogor: Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).Google Scholar
  36. Sabah Forestry Department. 2016. Deramakot forest operations. In Annual report 2016, 259–276. Sandakan: Sabah Forestry Department.Google Scholar
  37. ———. 2017a. Northern Gunung Rara Forest Reserve. http://www.forest.sabah.gov.my/GunungRara/. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
  38. ———. 2017b. Ulu Segama-Malua Sustainable Forest Management Project. http://www.forest.sabah.gov.my/usm/. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
  39. ———. 2018a. Deramakot Forest Reserve. http://www.deramakot.sabah.gov.my. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
  40. ———. 2018b. Pin-Supu Forest Reserve. http://www.forest.sabah.gov.my/PinSupu/. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
  41. ———. 2018c. Tangkulap Forest Reserve and Sungai Talibu Forest Reserve. http://www.forest.sabah.gov.my/tangkulap/. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
  42. ———. 2018d. Timimbang-Botitian FMU. http://www.forest.sabah.gov.my/Timimbangbotitian/. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
  43. ———. 2018e. Trusan Sugut Forest Reserve. http://www.forest.sabah.gov.my/sugut/. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
  44. ———. 2018f. Ulu Kalumpang-Wullersdorf Sustainable Forest Management Project. http://www.forest.sabah.gov.my/ulukalumpang. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
  45. ———. 2018g. Nuluhon Trusmadi (Extension) Forest Reserve. http://www.forest.sabah.gov.my/fmu10/component/content/article/39-profile/114-public-statement. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
  46. Sandom, James, and Markku Simula. 2001. Assessment of compatibility of Malaysian criteria and indicators for forest certification with FSC requirements. Kuala Lumpur: National Timber Certification Council, Malaysia.Google Scholar
  47. Scientific Certification Systems. 2010. Forest management and stump-to-forest gate chain-of-custody certification re evaluation report for the Perak Integrated Timber Complex (Perak ITC). Certificate Number: SCS-FM/COC-00046N, February.Google Scholar
  48. SIRIM QAS International [SIRIM]. 2013. Public summary of stage 2 audit of Anap Muput Forest Management Unit for forest management certification. http://www.sirim-qas.com.my/sirim/core-files/uploads/2017/05/Public-Summary-FMC-of-Anap-Muput-Forest-Management-Unit-Main-Assessment.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
  49. ———. 2015. Public summary surveillance 1 on Anap Muput FMU for forest management certification. http://www.sirim-qas.com.my/core-files/uploads/2016/08/Public-Summary-Zedtee-Sdn-Bhd_Anap-Muput-FMU_SA1_2014_Final1.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
  50. Société générale de surveillance [SGS]. 1997. Forest management certification report 1997. Société générale de surveillance.Google Scholar
  51. ———. 2002. Forest management certification report 2002. Société générale de surveillance.Google Scholar
  52. Soda, Ryoji, Yumi Kato, and Jason Hon. 2015. The diversity of small-scale oil palm cultivation in Sarawak, Malaysia. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe/Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations [UNECE/FAO]. 2016. Forest products annual market review, 2015–2016. New York/Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  54. Vogt, Kristiina A., Bruce C. Larson, John C. Gordon, Daniel J. Vogt, and Anna Fanzeres. 1999. Forest certification: Roots, issues, challenges, and benefits. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of AgricultureKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Center for International Forestry ResearchBogorIndonesia
  3. 3.Center for Southeast Asian StudiesKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations