KUCHING: The Sarawak Forestry Corporation (SFC) is taking steps to strengthen its wildlife protection measures by reviewing the Wild Life Protection Ordinance (WLPO) 1998, which has not been reviewed since 2008.
The review aims to identify and address any loopholes and make the ordinance more relevant to the current situation, including increasing penalties for wildlife trafficking and raising awareness on the issue.
Since his appointment as chief executive officer (CEO), Zolkipli Mohamad Aton has always been determined to take the SFC to ‘a new frontier in biodiversity conservation.’
“The preservation of wildlife species is of utmost importance to us all, and we will stop at nothing to prevent illegal wildlife trafficking,” Zolkipli emphasised.
“We are steadfast in our efforts and will take all necessary actions to protect these species.”
Zolkipli highlighted the challenges faced by the SFC in combating wildlife trafficking, specifically mentioning the limited manpower and assets.
“Most areas are all lacking. From Tanjung Datu to Limbang. Not many of us. There are 692 officers all over Sarawak,” he told New Sarawak Tribune.
The growing demand and market for wildlife meat is also a huge challenge for SFC, as it is attributed to hunting.
“According to Section 29 until 38 in the Ordinance, hunting for personal consumption by villagers won’t cause any trouble, but if it’s done for selling or showing off on social media, it becomes a problem,” stated Zolkipli, who is also the Controller of Wild Life, National Parks and Nature Reserves.
When hunters post pictures or videos of their catch on social media, it can attract potential buyers who are interested in purchasing the wildlife.
This creates a demand for the wildlife and drives up black market prices, providing an opportunity for illicit suppliers to profit.
Even so, Zolkipli said: “The value of wildlife trade from the black market was also affected by the pandemic, with most prices of wildlife declining, except for certain species.”
He specifically pointed to pangolin as one of the most frequently traded wildlife species in Sarawak, with 19 investigation papers opened.
Zolkipli stated that “pangolin has seen its prices decreasing from RM1,000-RM800 (pre Covid-19) to around RM300 during the lockdown.”
The current price is estimated to be around RM500-RM600, which shows that the price for pangolin is ‘recovering’ post Covid-19. Despite these fluctuations, Zolkipli emphasised that the demand for pangolin is always there, particularly in wildlife trade hotspots such as in Kapit and Belaga.
“Sarawak plays a major role in the wildlife trade network as a supplier due to our abundant biodiversity,” added Zolkipli, who has been part of the SFC for more than 20 years and is one of its few pioneer staff.
“SFC has uncovered several instances where wildlife from Sarawak has been transported as far as Hong Kong, China and even to neighbouring countries such as Brunei Darussalam and Kalimantan, Indonesia.”
He added that traffickers in Sarawak also act as middlemen for local markets, particularly for wildlife sourced from Kalimantan, Indonesia, like the hornbill casque.
According to the director of Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation (IBEC) at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas) Professor Mohd Azlan Jayasilan Abdul Gulam Azad, the issue of illegal wildlife trafficking and poaching in Sarawak was not unexpected.
“It is understood that the boundaries of protected areas are often porous due to a combination of factors such as the locations being very remote.
“We can make things better by allocating sufficient government resources, improving management capacities and strengthening the legal systems.” said Mohd Azlan in an interview with New Sarawak Tribune on Sunday.
Furthermore, he said many protected areas are located adjacent to lands or in waters that are owned and managed by local communities, making it difficult or even impossible to declare them as protected areas.
“But protected areas are good for ecotourism,” he said, adding, “they provide spillover effects to their surrounding areas through improved ecological and economic benefits.”
Because of that, SFC initiated a review of the WLPO 1998 to improve the management of protected areas and enhance the protection of Sarawak’s diverse wildlife population.
“It is a timely review and we need to enhance the ordinance to better protect our wildlife,” said Mohd Azlan.
The review, which was originally due two years ago, is underway and Mohd Azlan expressed his hope that the updated ordinance will bring Sarawak’s wildlife law in line with those in Sabah and West Malaysia.
“Our punishment measures currently sit below the other two regions and it’s important that we bring it up to an effective level,” he added.
Mohd Azlan noted that the current ordinance in Sarawak for wildlife protection was acceptable, but still required improvement to be more practical.
“The ordinance may be okay, but needs improvement to be more practical and sensible.
“It is difficult to imagine that individuals who consume common plants, especially those from longhouses, would be summoned for doing so when these plants are protected.
“From what I gathered I am pleased to report that currently there is a significant drop in wildlife trade in the tamus,” he said.
Both Zolkipli and Mohd Azlan concurred that simply adopting the WCA 2010 wholesale would not be an appropriate approach.
According to them, it was important to consider the unique circumstances and challenges in Sarawak before implementing any legislation.
“Punishment for offences related to wildlife and plant species must be practical and match the type of offense committed,” said Mohd Azlan, who is also a member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Species Survival Commission.
The current ordinance, as it stands, does not accurately reflect the level of endangerment of certain species and plants, he said.
“If you read the ordinance 1998, on the last page there is a list of species of plants and animals that are protected and endangered.
“For example, all [species of Nepenthes & Orchids] are protected in the Second Schedule Part II (Protected Plants). If you are found to possess them, you can be caught and jailed. However, not all of these species are endangered, only some are considered to be at risk.
He added that the requirement for a hunting permit in West Malaysia does not seem to be suitable to be enforced in Sarawak.
“Do you think it is practical to apply for hunting permits in Sarawak with a dispersed community? Highly unlikely.”
He also raised the issue of accessibility.
“If you live in Baram, which is over 22,000 sq km large, and you have to journey all the way to Marudi town just to apply for a hunting permit. This is hard on people. This is not the logical step to make.”
“Revising the ordinance is necessary, but the real test of its success lies in its enforcement and implementation as a means of combating environmental crimes,” he said.
“A shared vision is critical in bringing all stakeholders together for the effective management of biodiversity,” said Mohd Azlan, highlighting the need for cooperation among federal and state agencies, SFC, the Forest Department of Sarawak, non-governmental organisations (NGO) and local communities to harmonise and coordinate existing laws and policies.
“Sarawak must have the freedom to manage and enforce their own natural resources, including wildlife.”
“That’s why a council at the federal level must be created to oversee the ratification of international conventions related to wildlife habitat and species protection thus formulate a National Wildlife Conservation Policy, and ensure its implementation,” he said.
Mohd Azlan also called for additional funding support from the federal government to the states to effectively manage wildlife and their habitat.
Meanwhile Zolkipli said the implementation of the WCA 2010 in West Malaysia and the WLPO 1998 in Sarawak were distinct, as they both faced varying scenarios and objectives.
“There is a difference,” he said.
He explained that the objective of the WCA 2010 was to regulate, protect, conserve and manage wildlife, whereas the WLPO was primarily focused on preserving wildlife and wildlife sanctuaries.
“We are currently exploring the best solution within the framework of the WLPO 1998 for our own scenario,”
“While our Conservation Education and Training Division (CET) is constantly communicating and organising awareness and educational programmes involving students and rural folk in order to educate and create awareness on biodiversity conservation.
“For example, we have the 3M Buaya (Mengenali, Memahami, Memulihara) Programme to address the human-crocodile conflict as well as other programmes such as World Migratory Bird Day and Rewilding programme to educate as well as to get the involvement of corporate bodies, other agencies as well as the public to be greatly involved in biodiversity conservation related matters. We only impose higher penalties and imprisonment as the last resort,” he added.
Currently, there are three major wildlife conservation legislation in use in Malaysia, namely, the WCA 2010 (for West Malaysia), the WLPO 1998 (for Sarawak), and the WCE 1997 (for Sabah).
