KUCHING, May 6, 2014:
Ba'Kelalan State Assemblyman Baru Bian is asking why does the Sarawak
Biodiversity Centre (Amendments) Bill not seeking to penalise the timber
industries, plantation companies and dam builders for the destruction they have
caused to the state's biodiversity resources.
"What I find most
ironic about this piece of legislation is that while it seeks to protect our
biological resources from exploitation by outsiders, there is virtually no
provision in it or in any other of our laws to protect our biodiversity from
destruction by the timber industries, plantation companies and dam builders.
"I propose that Timber
Licences, Provisional Leases and other Licences should be made subject to this
Ordinance," he said when taking part in the debate on the Bill in the
State Legislative Assembly today.
The Bill sought to
substituted Section 22 ‘Penalty
for collection of protected resources’ to penalise those who collect
protected resources for research and development or take such resources out of
the state.
The preceding Section 21, ‘Protection of biological resources’
provides for notification by gazette of the declaration of any biological resources
as protected resources.
"I hope the Minister
can enlighten us as to how effective this Act has been since it was enacted, in
terms the number of biological resources declared to be protected, and of the
number of cases where offenders have been penalised or prosecuted," he
said.
He said Malaysia is home to
15,000 flowering plants, and that the Kew Bulletin states that Sarawak has
12,000 species of plants.
"However, the nation's
flora and fauna are under severe threat and have experienced a 70 per cent
depletion of original growth.
"The 2000
IUCN-World Conservation Union biodiversity report indicated that Malaysia has
more endangered plant species than any other country in the world, numbered at
681.
"In 2007, the number
had increased to 686 endangered plant species. In the 50 years up to the year
2000, about two per cent or about 170 of the estimated 8,500 species of
flowering plants in Peninsular Malaysia became extinct," he said.
Baru quoted former University Malaya ecology department head Professor
Dr E. Soepadmo as saying that only 40 per cent of Peninsula Malaysia’s natural
forest-cover still exists and the proportion is even lower in Sabah and
Sarawak.
"Sadly, the Malaysian
rainforest, especially lowland rainforest, which is incredibly rich in
biodiversity, is where the greatest amount of deforestation has taken place.
"Soepadmo warns that
plant species with potential medical applications could also be lost forever if
we do not take serious steps to protect our natural heritage.
"Similarly,
Universiti Malaya Rimba Ilmu Co-ordinator Associate Professor Dr Wong Khoon
Meng notes that regular disturbance to any forest system, such as logging or
forest fires caused by people, will affect its biodiversity.
"But habitat loss,
which occurs when a forested area is converted to other uses, such as
plantation agriculture, is the main cause of extinction because there is no
chance for rare and endangered species to survive once the natural habitat is
destroyed.
"It is
known that the crowns of jungle trees are where the biggest source of
biological resources is found, that is, in the epiphytes, which grow there.
"Are logging companies
made responsible for preserving these plants while they cut down our forests
for timber?
"Are timber licences
subject to these restrictions? Are plantation companies required to comply with
such conservation practices?" he asked, adding that from reading the amendments
and the Principal Ordinance they are not.
"Once the trees are
felled, these epiphytes are left to die."
"Similarly,
the dams that have flooded huge areas of our jungles have been responsible for
the destruction of a huge number of our trees and plants, destroying whole
ecosystems and exterminating rich biodiversity.
"Therefore
on the one hand, we have this legislation to show that we are keen to protect
our biological resources, while on the other hand, we allow massive destruction
of the same resources by the logging companies, plantation companies and dam
builders.
"Are we going to show
our commitment to the preservation of our biological resources by subjecting
these companies who have been responsible for the extinction of many of our
plants and the destruction of our biodiversity to compliance with our
conservation policies?
"If we do not do so,
the work of this Biodiversity Centre will be an exercise in futility as we
continue to lose more and more of our native plants.
"Traditional knowledge
will be lost as the plants become more and more difficult to find. What rights
will there be to protect then?" he asked.
The proposed subsection (bb)
of section 6 also attracts Baru's attention which empowers the Sarawak
Biodiversity Council "to ensure
that prior informed consent is obtained from the natives where traditional
knowledge associated with a biological resource is accessed and an agreement that
includes benefit sharing based upon mutually agreed terms is entered into."
According to
him, the traditional knowledge of each native community is passed down from
many generations ago and would be known to many families within that particular
ethnic group, some of whom may have moved on to other divisions within the
state.
"Which family or clan
would be entitled to hold the rights to the traditional knowledge, and hence
the rights to share in the benefit?
"How would they prove
their rights? As in NCR land matters, these rights and knowledge are similarly
undocumented.
"Assuming that we can
identify the group that holds the rights to the traditional knowledge, who
would be the other signatory to the agreement?
"Would it be the
Council? Who is going to be the arbiter if there are many overlapping claims,
as is bound to happen? Would it be the Council?
"What if a biological
resource is identified in Ba'Kelalan and given some protection and the same
resource is found in Lundu will the person/s in Ba'Kelalan has the sole right
over that biological resource or would they share the rights over that
biological resource?
"How can this provision
be practically enforced and executed?
"In my
opinion, this section is too vague and I can foresee that implementation would
be highly problematic, if not impossible.Thus the intention behind this section
would be defeated.
"Probably workshops
should be carried out after this to discuss these practical issues," he
suggested.
No comments:
Post a Comment