Integrating Indigenous Resource Management with ... - Springer Link

Hum an Ecology, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1998

Integratin g Indigen ous Resource Man agem ent with Wildlife Con servation : A Case Study of Batan g Ai Nation al Park, Sarawak, Malaysia Leah Sop hie Horowitz 1

This paper exam ines the indigenous land and forest m anagement systems of the com m un ity of seven Iban longhou ses whose territories com prise the area of Batan g Ai National Park in Sarawak, Malaysia. It also discu sses the in tegrated con servation and developm ent program (ICDP) at the park. This project is attem ptin g to work within the existin g system of custom ary law to bu ild on tradition al legislative in frastru cture an d m an agement practices, in order to enlist the cooperation of local people and their leaders in im plem entin g a new con servation strategy. In addition to reinforcin g local au thority, park planners recogn ize the need for local people to be given stron g in centives to participate in co-m an agement of the protected area. This paper argues that, despite a history of con flict with in digenou s peoples, State officials have in this instan ce dem on strated a willingness to work with local people an d com m un ity leaders. At the sam e tim e, they are encouraging com m unity developm ent, helpin g people to fin d alternatives to activities that threaten the park ’s wildlife. KEY WORDS: conservation; common property re source managemen t; parks, Sarawak; Malaysia.

INTRODUCTION In policie s aimed at e conomic de ve lopme nt and natural re source manage ment, central authoritie s around the world have historically alie nate d land from indige nous populations (Clay, 1993) . Blaming local pe ople for environme ntal degradation, the y have re place d communal forms of land 1

Departme nt of Ge ography, The Australian National University, Canberra 0200, ACT, Australia. 371 0300-7839/98/0900-0371$15.00/0

Ó

1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation

372

Hor owitz

te nure with private or state owne rship (Poffe nbe rge r, 1990) . The result has ofte n bee n bureaucratic inefficiency, resentment by local people , and the subse quent deterioration of the ve ry re sources slate d for prote ction. For many ye ars, Weste rn scholars promulgate d the romantic myth of the “ e cologically noble savage ” (Redford, 1990) . In the past 5 years or so, howe ve r, this view has bee n re peate dly challe nge d. Revisionism in the fie ld of ecological anthropology now favors the idea that indige nous people inevitably alte r the e cosystems in which the y live and have done so ove r thousands of ye ars (Headland, 1997) . Se veral recent fie ld studie s indicate that indige nous groups act so as to maximize short-te rm gains at the expe nse of long-te rm sustainability. Such an inte rpretation has be en posite d, for instance, for se veral Amazonian groups (Hame s, 1991; Alvard, 1993) as well as hunte r¯gathe re rs on Pe ninsular Malaysia (Rambo, 1985) . A re view of historical e vide nce indicate s that the downfall of many pre-Colombian civilizations was like ly due to their ecologically unsustainable practice s (Dore , 1997) . Low population de nsitie s and limite d technologie s, rathe r than a spe cific conse rvation ethic, have playe d a large role in the preservation of many forests. Neve rthele ss, some pe ople s have , by ne cessity, de velope d elaborate manage ment strate gie s for particularly scarce natural resource s. Although the se arrange ments addre ss socially re le vant issue s of resource distribution, they may have implications for conservation as well. Many example s e xist of longstanding syste ms of community-base d land te nure , which ofte n involve comple x and sophisticate d social and legal arrange ments that respond appropriate ly to resource abundance or scarcity (NRC, 1986; Berkes, 1989; Berke s and Farvar, 1989; Berke s et al., 1989; Bromley and Cernea, 1989; Ostrom, 1990) . These common prope rty resource (CPR) manage ment syste ms involve a minimum of de lays and bureaucratic inefficiency. Moreover, in contrast to abstract models gene rated far from the locality, small-scale community manage ment of re sources is expe rience -base d and able to adapt quickly to subtle change s. Finally, as all co-owne rs directly expe rience the costs and be ne fits of re source manage ment, it is in the ir interest to monitor e ach othe r’s be havior. CPR manage ment syste ms are thus often more effe ctive than inte rve ntion by a costly, exte rnal regulatory age nt. Far from being fixe d or static, the se structures are constantly adapting. Howe ve r, many can no longe r cope with le gal constraints and unpre cedente d, rapid socioe conomic change s. They nee d re cognition and support from e xternal authoritie s, just as exte rnally sponsore d conse rvation proje cts require the coope ration of these local institutions. Through a proce ss known as co-manage ment, central authority syste ms can provide an essential source of support to indige nous institutions. This tactic is just be ginning to gain recognition in conservation theory and practice around the world (We lls and Brandon, 1992; Weste rn and Wright, 1994).

Resource Man agem en t an d Wildlife Con servation

373

In the inte rest of wildlife survival, rural pe ople ’s welfare, and manage ment of natural resource s, then, two important que stions arise :

· ·

To what e xte nt do longstanding, community-base d methods of resource manage ment still provide for the conse rvation of wildlife and natural re sources unde r today’s circumstance s? How can compone nts of the se syste ms be re inforce d by state policy as part of an integrate d conservation plan?

This pape r is an attempt to addre ss these que stions in the specific context of the Inte grate d Conse rvation and De ve lopm e nt Program (ICDP) at Batang Ai National Park in the Sri Aman Division of the State of Sarawak, East Malaysia. It is an e xamination of the indige nous common prope rty resource manage ment within the park, the e ffects of the current socioe conomic and le gal situation on the traditional syste ms, and the newly introduced ICDP at the park.

METHODOLOGY This pape r is base d on rese arch carrie d out during May and June 1996. The methodology consiste d almost entirely of se mistructure d inte rvie ws and participant obse rvation ove r this 2-month period. I chose se nior, knowledge able members of the community as ke y informants, including e ach of the tuai rum ah (community leade rs) of the se ven longhouse s with rights inside Batang Ai National Park. I use d a checklist of topics to guide each discussion, which focuse d on local be lie fs and re gulations concerning prote cted areas of forest as well as prote cted plant and animal species, rules of access to forest re sources, the duration of use rights, enforce ment of acce ss and usage re gulations, individual vs. community ownership of land and forest, and the de gree to which local pe ople fe lt a se nse of collaboration with the park officials. In addition, I inte rviewed gove rnme nt officials in the Forestry Departme nt, the Land and Surve y Department, and the Lubok Antu District Office were interviewed about the ir roles in the creation and manage ment of Batang Ai National Park, and re ad official documents pertaining to Batang Ai whene ve r possible .

BATANG AI NATIONAL PARK AND THE IBAN COMMUNITY Locate d in southwe ste rn Sarawak along the borde r with Indone sia (Fig. 1), Batang Ai National Park was gazette d in 1991. It has one of the large st populations of orangutans (Pongo pygm aeus) in the state , provide s

Fig. 1. The location of Batang Ai National Park in Sarawak (altered from Gumal, 1995).

374 Hor owitz


375

an exte nsion of the adjace nt Lanjak-E ntimau Wildlife Sanctuary in Sarawak and the Bentuang-Karimun Nature Reserve in Indone sia, and is the wate rshe d for the Sarawak Ele ctricity Supply Company (SESCO ) hydroe le ctric dam , which be gan ope rations in 1985 (Gumal, 1995) . It is mostly cove red by re gene rating, old secondary forest (WWF and IUCN, 1995). The Batang Ai National Park, which covers 24,040 ha, also e ncompasse s the te rritorie s of nine Iban longhouse s (Fig. 2). During an armed confrontation with Indone sia from 1963 to 1967, the state gove rnme nt resettle d most of these longhouse s downrive r, closer to the nearby town of Be tong, where the y would alle gedly be less vulne rable to attack by hostile force s. In the 1980s, howe ve r, some members of se ve n of the longhouse s returne d to their forme r lands whe re they have rebuilt longhouse s along the rive rs, and whe re they practice shifting cultivation of hill rice , cultivate vege table s, fruits, and the cash crops of rubbe r and pe ppe r, and hunt, fish, and gathe r forest products. The Iban re ly on forest products for a varie ty of uses such as food, raw materials, and medicine s. In fact, one of the primary re asons cited by Batang Ai are a reside nts for re turning to their forme r longhouse sites from the resettlement are a is the ease of acce ss to land, materials, and foods from the forest uprive r as oppose d to the difficulty in obtaining subsiste nce goods in a cash e conomy.

IBAN METHODS OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Historically, the Iban have adapte d their land and fore st manage ment strate gies according to the availability of these resource s. Today, few Iban groups have access to enough primary fore st to practice the type of pione er shifting cultivation describe d by Freeman (1955, 1970) . Instead, as the land available to them has be en re duce d due to local population growth, loss of legal rights, and logging conce ssions, nearly all Iban have re place d their pre vious expansive e xploitation of the fore st with an approach appropriate to long-te rm use of a restricte d area (Padoch, 1982, 1984; Cramb and Wills, 1990) . Both secular and sacre d codes of be havior, including rule s gove rning re source manage ment, are e ncompasse d by a syste m of customary law known as adat. Aimed at the mainte nance of pe ace ful relationships both within and be tween communitie s, this legal syste m minimize s the dange rs of viole nce (Heppe ll, 1988) . Knowle dge and e nforce ment of adat is the re sponsibility of the tuai rum ah, or longhouse le ade r. This position of authority usually passe s from a leade r to his son or close re lative , who has bee n spe cially traine d in the study of adat and le ade rship skills. Howe ve r,

376

Hor owitz

Fig. 2. Batang Ai National Park showing the longhouse territories (alteration of map supplied by Sarawak Forest Department).

this appointm e nt is ope n to acce ptance or re je ction by the community through a longhouse confe re nce known as au m . This type of group mee ting, which involve s the participation of both men and women from all house holds, is also the forum for decision-making about rules of land te nure and spe cific allocation of rights to land. The se regulations can be re negotiate d as changing conditions produce a shift in the pre vailing consensus (Cramb, 1987) . Iban adat has be en codifie d, standardize d, and conde nse d into a publishe d and widely distribute d docume nt (Lembat, 1994) . Howe ve r, punishments for bre aches of adat are still at the discre tion of the tuai rum ah and


377

are meted out according to the spe cific case. Moreover, these rules are rarely broke n. Fe ar of divine retribution plays a significant role in e nforcement; people be lie ve that transgre ssion of a taboo may result in unde sirable eve nts such as illne ss, death, or the birth of a handicappe d child. Also, due to the fre quency of inte ractions with othe r longhouse members, it is in each individual ’s intere st to maintain good re lations with his or he r neighbors. Membe rs voluntarily curtail fre e-rider tende ncies due to a share d morality and a conce rn for the survival of the group (Cramb and Wills, 1990) . This community se lf-monitoring re duce s the ne e d for e nforce me nt by authority figure s. Among the Iban, such communal common prope rty resource manage ment has provide d a ve ry effe ctive means for re ducing conflict over land use . Cramb (1987) docume nte d a relative abse nce of dispute s within Iban communitie s de spite a lack of formal registration of titles to land. Among the se ve n longhouse s around Batang Ai National Park, only one longhouse le ade r could re call having fined anyone for illicit land use . He had fined this pe rson eight m un gkul (a unit of fine s) for farming without permission in an incide nt that occurre d be fore “ Jipu n,’’ the Japane se occupation of 1942 ¯ 1945 ( Kasi anak Sanggon, pe rsonal communication, 1996) . In the Batang Ai area, there is evide nce of re source conservation but also of appropriate response s to re source abundance . Whe n the uprive r longhouse s were re built in the 1980s, many people chose to remain at the resettlement sche me close to town. Thus, population de nsitie s are low in relation to the exte nt of fore st available , and this situation has led to the lifting of certain re strictions.

Far m lan d Ownersh ip an d Rules of Access As Iban groups be come se ttled in an are a, the y define longhouse territorie s (m enoa rum ah) that are marked by natural landmarks such as hills, ridge s, mountains, streams, rivers, large clumps of bamboo, or tree s. Information about the location of these boundarie s (garis m enoa) is passe d informally from generation to ge ne ration through storie s told by longhouse e lde rs. The longhouse te rritory include s farms (um ai), garde ns (kebun ), fruit tree s (bu ah), a cemetery (pendam ), forest (utan ), and the stretch of river running through it (tegeran ai). After a longhouse splits, both communitie s may retain rights to the original are a, which then become s tan ah kun si, share d land. Rumah Endan and Rumah Radin currently share a common m enoa for this re ason. 2 Similarly, Rumahs Kasi, Changging, and 2

Howeve r, for administrative purpose s, the area has been officially divided into two sections

378

Hor owitz

Ngumbang all once were part of a single community. All thre e have rights to a share d territory at the site of the forme r longhouse ; howe ve r, each now also has its own area of land at its curre nt location. Among the Iban, the right to clear fore st for the cultivation of hill rice is exclusive to community membe rs (Cramb and Wills, 1990) .3 Within the longhouse te rritory, all membe rs of the community jointly own the area of pote ntial farmland, and any reside nt may claim an area of uncut fore st for cultivation. However, once a piece of land has be en cleare d, the rights to farm it belong e xclusive ly to the house hold that first cle are d the area and to the dire ct descendants (turun ) of that original family. Male s and fe males share equally in these inhe rite d rights. The se rights do not constitute owne rship in the sense of e xclusive , permane nt rights, or the ability to se ll the land. Community membe rs may borrow secondary forest from othe r house holds to farm. Moreove r, when a plot is not being cultivate d, all longhouse membe rs have acce ss to it for hunting and colle ction of fore st products. Also, farming rights apply to the house hold and not to the individual. Whe n a membe r of the community le aves to marry someone from outside the longhouse or to see k wage employme nt else where, the tuai rum ah may re allocate the plot that he or she use d by granting it to anothe r community member. However, in the Batang Ai are a, in contrast to Iban custom as recorded by Freeman ( 1955, 1970) , Sandin (1980) , McKe own (1983), Cramb ( 1987, 1989) , and Lembat ( 1994) , individuals who move out of the longhouse normally retain farming privile ge s. Unde r some circumstances, the se rights become uncle ar, such as if an individual marries a non-Iban or if he or she move s ve ry far away. Howe ver, the community will normally welcome back pe ople with inhe rited rights to land within the longhouse territory, if they wish to re turn pe rmanently to farm. As one longhouse leade r stated, “ If he or she [a hypothe tical forme r longhouse resident] wants to return he re again, why couldn ’t he or she ? . . . If he or she returns pe rmanently, he or she can do so” (Rimong anak Aliak, personal communicatio n, 1996) . This may be a re sponse to resource abundance , as the longhouse te rritorie s curre ntly have far more available land than can be use d by all re sident membe rs. Afte r an are a has bee n farme d for an extensive period of time, the land be comes e xhauste d and the longhouse community must move to a ne w location. Howe ve r, house holds re tain rights to the longhouse site , known as a tembawai. The re , the former re side nts maintain the fruit tre es by the National Parks and Wildlife Office upon discussion with the District Officer. 3 Howeve r, in the Batang Ai area, outsiders may temporarily borrow land to farm, free of charge . They may also enter fallow land to hunt, fish, or gather forest products. In both cases, however, they must ask permission; if they do not, they will be fined by the tuai rum ah of the wronged longhouse.


379

plante d during the time the longhouse was inhabite d, which become important forest orchards that also attract frugivorous wildlife . Until the fruit tre es in this area have be en overtake n by the regrowth of mature se condary forest, house holds with rights to this land are not allowe d to cultivate it (Sathe r, 1990) . The pre se nce of the se fruit tree s also informs outside rs that the are a is already claime d by a longhouse . If newcome rs wish to farm that land, they must re quest permission from all partie s with rights to it, and may cultivate it only on a te mporary basis. If the y farm without pe rmission, the y will be subje ct to a large fine . In the past, ritualize d contests playe d an important role in the re solution of inte rgroup conflicts (Cramb and Wills, 1990). More re cently arbitration has bee n the responsibility of both traditional le ade rs and gove rnme nt officials. A study of similar fore st garde ns in ne ighboring West Kalimantan, where the y are known in Indone sian as tembawan g, found that these are as are e xtre mely rich in tree species (Padoch and Peters, 1993) . Although they contain less biodive rsity than primary fore st, particularly for large r animal fauna, the se manage d fore sts se rve as reservoirs of ge netic dive rsity for important cultivars and their wild re lative s.

For est Areas Con served Not all of the fore st within the longhouse territory is available for farming; certain areas are specifically re served. The se include communally owne d as well as private ly owne d areas of forest. Pulau ( “ islands ” ) are communally owned. The se areas may not be farmed and care must be take n to ensure that the y are not burne d during annual farmland clearance . Pulau serve as re se rvoirs for wild animals, tre es, and plants for exclusive use by the longhouse community. Outside rs with kinship tie s are often allowe d to take forest products from the longhouse pu lau , but must re quest pe rmission to hunt or gathe r and are not allowe d to cut large tre es from the pu lau . While these regulations were created to restrict and de lay re source exploitation for the pre se nt and future be ne fit of the longhouse community, they also indire ctly serve to conse rve areas of fore st and provide habitat for wildlife . Within a pu lau , individuals may re serve (kelai) wild tre es for timber, fruit, or othe r fore st products. The y use a sign known as a pesin dang: the trunk of the tree is slightly cut and one or two small pieces of wood are inse rted cross-wise. If othe rs cut the tre e or take its fruit without asking permission, they will be fine d. Howe ver, while this practice is re cognize d as valid in the Batang Ai area, people do not currently mark tre es in this manne r. Appare ntly, the abandonme nt of this practice is a re sponse to re-

380

Hor owitz

source abundance ; pesin dang were used in the past when more pe ople live d in the area. Anothe r type of pu lau is private ly owned by house holds within the community. Imbued with spiritual significance , these are as be come pesaka, or heirlooms. Each pu lau pesaka has be en de signate d as a sacred place by an individual who has had a spiritual encounte r in that fore sted are a. It is the n owne d by that pe rson ’s house hold and passe d on to de scendants who co-own the are a. As in the communally owne d pu lau , it is ille gal to farm or burn pu lau pesaka, although outside rs may hunt and gathe r within the se are as if the y ask pe rmission from the owne rs. Howe ver, no tree s may be cut in a pulau pesaka. Ritual fines are impose d on house holds that cause damage to these are as, either by fe lling or the escape of burning fires from newly-cle ared fie lds. For instance , one longhouse le ade r cite d the fine for allowing fire to spre ad into a pulau pesaka, or for cutting one tree within it, as M$60 (Changging anak Resa, personal communication , 1996). This sum is then split among all co-owne rs. Also, the are as may not be sold; because of their sacre dne ss, the y are “ not for busine ss” (Abong anak Bansa, personal communication , 1996). These forest re serves have even gre ater conse rvation value than the communally owned pulau , as the flora and fauna within them cannot e ver be take n. O ther sacred areas include the burial sites of le ade rs or he roes (tan ah ulit), which must be le ft uncut until a spe cial cere mony has take n place . Communal cemeterie s, or pendam , also are made in primary forest if it is available . The surrounding are a is le ft uncut, except for a few tree s used for making tombs.

Fis hin g Regu lation s The Iban of the Batang Ai are a have adapte d their fishing regulations to changing circumstance s. In the past, pe ople would ofte n kill or stupe fy fish with poison de rive d from certain species of plants calle d tubai.4 Howeve r, as fish populations have decrease d, many tuai rum ah have made this poison ille gal be cause it kills both large and small fish. Commercially bought poisons and e lectric ge nerators are also ille gal for the same reason. O ne le ade r cite d the fine for using tubai as M$30 and that for using a ge ne rator, known as “ bom ,” as M$20 (Griffin anak Andin, personal communication, 1996) . In contrast to gove rnment-sponsore d re gulations, the se rules and fine s are fle xible and conditional; for instance , e xce ptions may 4

The se include Derris spp., Diospyros spp., Croton spp., Dioscorea spp., Calophyllum muscigerum , Barringtonia spp., Linostom a pauciflora, Blum ea balsam ifera, and Sapium indicum (Richards, 1981) .


381

be made in the case of ve ry poor familie s. Neverthele ss, the rules indicate an aware ne ss of the importance of maintaining a viable fish population by sparing young re cruits.

Protected Sp ecies Certain spe cie s of plants and animals are also prote cted. These prohibitions large ly refle ct religious beliefs, yet some have practical implications as well. For instance , the Iban prohibit the cutting of parasite figs (Ficu s spp.) . The se tre es, known as ara or kara, are the habitation of spirits and de mons (antu). Ce rtain tre es along the side of the rive r, known as ensu rai or gensurai (Dipterocarpu s oblongifoliu s) also cannot be cut; their fruit fee ds fish and the ir roots he lp to preve nt riverbank e rosion. Other spe cie s are rese rve d for medicinal purpose s and cannot be fe lle d; the se are selukai (G onioth alam us dolichoph yllu s, G . m alayanu s) and tungkat ali (unidentifie d). Some familie s also have certain taboo (m ali) tre es which members of that family may not cut. The re are se ve n spe cie s of ome n bird which people must not kill. These birds are ofte n re fe rre d to as the sons-in-law of Sin galan g Burong, the most important god of the Iban panthe on (Free man, 1960) . They he lp pe ople by providing warnings in the form of songs and flight patte rns. Farming is ritually prohibite d in areas known to be the bree ding grounds of these birds, as well as of certain othe r spe cie s. If someone planning to cut an are a discove rs that it is a bre eding ground for one of these birds or animals, her or she should the oretically le ave the whole farm plot of approxim ate ly 3 ¯ 5 acre s uncut; howeve r, some individuals le ave only a smalle r area of only about 100 ft2 around the ne st site. Individual familie s also respect prohibitions on killing certain type s of animals known as tua. They be lie ve that after death, an ance stor be came a membe r of this species and, in this animal form, can help his or her living descendants. Among the se ven house s with rights inside Batang Ai National Park, the orangutan (Pon go pygm aeus) was a tua species for all house holds. The gibbon (Hylobates spp.) was the second most common tua; next was the barking de er (Muntiacu s m untjak), followe d by the crocodile (Crocodilus porosus), the Brahminy kite (Haliastu r in dus), the python (Python spp.), and an unide ntifie d snake known as ular belalang. The gre at Argus phe asant (Argusian us argus) was a tua for the majority of house holds at one longhouse , and the grackle or talking myna (G racu la religiosa) at anothe r.

382

Hor owitz

SOCIOECONOMIC CHANGES Iban institutions have bee n large ly succe ssful in providing orde rly access to re sources for community members with minimal e xpe nditure on defining and e nfor cing suc h righ ts ( C ram b an d W ills, 1990 ) . T he se manage ment syste ms also involve the conse rvation of fore sts, with measure s take n to e nsure long-te rm availability of wood, fore st products, and wild anim als. Furthe rmore , the se syste ms are e fficie nt, fle xible , and highly adaptable , re sponding to situations of resource scarcity or abundance with the appropriate imple mentation or loose ning of restrictions. Finally, notions of the sacre d play an important role in prote cting certain are as of fore st as well as some species that make no dire ct e conomic contribution to the residents of the Batang Ai area. The se syste ms functione d ade quate ly in a particular social, economic, and technological conte xt. Howe ve r, Iban socie ty is curre ntly in a state of unpre cedented transition due to the rapid socioe conomic change s occurring throughout Sarawak, and the old re gulatory system is no longe r ade quate to addre ss the current situation. Traditional authority structure s are breaking down in the face of a loss of community cohesion as well as te chnological change and increasing participation in a cash e conomy. Meanwhile , state legislation has re stricted the area of land available to forest farmers through privatization and increasing state control. O vere xploitation of land and fore st re sources has bee n the re sult.

Econ om ic Develop m en t In 1963, Sarawak achie ved inde pende nce from Britain and became a state of Malaysia, whose goal is to become a fully de ve lope d nation by the ye ar 2020. As Sarawak spe eds along the path to “ modernization, ” economic growth is accompanie d by social disruption, te chnological advance s, commercialization, and re ductions in the land are a available to small-scale farmers. A full e valuation of the degree to which these factors are affe cting resource use in the Batang Ai area is beyond the scope of this study. Howeve r, it is like ly that e vents in this region will follow the tre nds pre se ntly evide nt in Sarawak as a whole .

Loss of Social Cohesion Communally base d resource manage ment systems rely on the respect give n to local authority figure s as well as on close personal inte raction over


383

a long period among community members who communicate information about rights and obligations and who monitor e ach othe r. An important ince ntive to avoid conflict is each individual ’s continual depende nce on the coope ration of othe r group membe rs. Thus, as Iban communitie s bre ak apart, knowle dge about resource manage ment is be ing lost and social pressure s are losing influe nce . First, many young people are leaving their familie s’ longhouse s to se ek wage e mployme nt with timbe r companie s, the petrole um industry, and the military (Austin, 1977) . Trave l for te mporary employme nt, known as bejalai, has long bee n an important stage in a young Iban man ’s life; howe ve r, more young pe ople are remaining for longe r pe riods, or pe rmanently, in distant cities and towns (Kedit, 1984) . Also, many familie s choose to remain in urban are as whe re the y have acce ss to health care and e ducation for the ir childre n. This outmigration re sults in a loss of knowle dge of adat as well as of information about boundarie s and rights of acce ss, all of which young people le arn informally through storie s told by longhouse elde rs. For instance , young people the se days often do not learn the location of tembawai site s, especially if they are away from the longhouse for a long pe riod of time . Also, be cause they have the option of supporting the mselves with an inde pe nde ntly-e arne d income , individuals do not rely as much as they once did on the coope ration of fe llow community membe rs. The y may the re fore be le ss inhibite d about exploiting communal resource s for personal profit, for instance , selling inhe rite d but unfarme d land to timber companie s.5 As young people are influe nced by ne w ideas, the y also lose respect for customary law and re ligious be lie fs. Because of the influe nce of Christianity, many people are no longe r afraid of punishme nt from the spirit world and so disre gard ritual prohibitions. Recent ye ars in Batang Ai have witnessed a gradual increase in the numbe rs of house holds that have conve rted to Christianity.

Technology Due to technological innovation, old technique s are be ing replace d by more de structive methods. For instance , among the Kayan, anothe r indige nous e thnic group in Sarawak, blowpipe use is disappe aring (Chin, 1985) . About 64% of hunte d animals now die by gunfire from the approximate ly 60,000 shotguns re giste red in the state , and a recent increase in the maximum single purchase allowance for cartridge s is thought like ly to furthe r 5

This activity is appare ntly already beginning to occur in the larger Batang Ai area, as a few longhouse residents complained bitterly about it.

384

Hor owitz

increase future hunting (Calde cott, 1988) . It was formerly e asy to detect hunte rs be cause of the barking of their dogs; howe ve r, using guns, pe ople can trespass with impunity (Enggoh anak Glak, pe rsonal communicatio n, 1996) . The use of guns also allows a much large r numbe r of pe ople to hunt as this instrume nt doe s not re quire as much skill as traditional weapons (Be nne tt et al., in pre ss). Meanwhile , a study in neighboring We st Kalimantan found that chainsaws have accele rated the amount of timbe r cut in old growth fore st (Pe luso, 1991), while in Sarawak itse lf, e vide nce shows that chemical poisons and e lectricity ge nerators are de vastating fish populations (Taylor et al., 1994) . Also, it is now easy for hunte rs to bring in cartridge s, or batte rie s for night hunting. By helping to integrate pe ople into the cash e conomy and providing influxe s of immigrants, the logging industry has made tools such as firearms, chainsaws, and forms of transportation acce ssible throughout Borneo (Cleary and Eaton, 1992) . Until about 1960, large parts of Sarawak were inacce ssible to all but occasional hunte rs tre kking for many days on foot. Now, however, due to the spre ad of logging and othe r roads, improve d river transport provide d by motorize d rive r boats, and rural air se rvices, town dwellers can reach most are as to hunt for sport or trade . Be cause rural communitie s are unable to pre ve nt the e ntry of outside rs, wildlife is becoming an ope n acce ss resource . A recent study confirme d the importance of this improve d acce ss in determining densitie s of large animals in Sarawak: wildlife numbe rs per unit of fore st were ne gative ly corre late d with ease of acce ss to that fore st (Benne tt et al., 1995) .

Com m ercialization Improve d transportation has also allowe d rural populations gre ater access to markets for the sale of fore st products. Wild meat is sold widely in markets and re staurants in all village s and towns throughout the whole of northe rn Borne o (Benne tt et al., 1995) . The timbe r industry also provide s ready markets for trade items as its employe es re quire foodstuffs and othe r goods provide d by river trade rs (Peluso, 1983). Village rs are quick to take advantage of the e conomic opportunitie s provide d by the new commercial environme nt and the technological innovations that allow a more rapid e xploitation of fore st products, as re search from nearby East Kalimantan has shown (V ayda, 1981; Colfer, 1983a,b) . Howe ve r, this adaptability has not always bee n be ne ficial to the ir natural environme nt as indige nous conservation regulations in Sarawak have not be en able to accommodate to the spe ed of the change s caused by economic ince ntive s.


385

State Legislation In Sarawak, shifting cultivation has long be en conde mned as highly destructive of natural resource s (Cramb, 1989) . In colonial times, authorities were primarily concerned with the Iban, the most nume rous and widely dispe rse d hill farmers in the state (Cramb, 1989) . Iban practice s have be en cast as especially damaging due to this group ’s suppose dly insatiable appetite for primary fore st (Free man, 1955, 1970) . According to the gove rnment ’s stated diagnosis, the fact that community-base d land manage ment syste ms have prove d unable to adapt to the growing population pressure on land or the re quire ments of a market economy is an indication that the y should be re place d (Cramb, 1987) . The official line labe ls local pe ople as primitive , de structive , and wasteful (Lian, 1987; King, 1993) . In re ality, officials oppose shifting cultivation because (and to the de gree that) it compe te s with comme rcial logging ope rations, agricultur al plantations, and othe r de ve lopme nt proje cts (Cramb, 1989) . Throughout Sarawak ’s history, politically dominant groups have made efforts to restrict the are a available to small-scale farme rs by increasing state and private ownership of land. Howe ve r, in practice , this le gislation has be en difficult to enforce and much fore st has be en ille gally cut for farming (Humen, 1981; Padoch, 1984) . In addition to causing forest destruction in its own right, this le gislation has had ne gative repercussions on the live lihoods of indige nous pe ople s.

Privatization The Malaysian gove rnment ’s Economic Planning Unit plans to e xpand Malaysian agriculture and make it more competitive . The central authority is convince d that this growth can only be achie ved by re placing “ une conomic ” smallholdings with large -scale comme rcialize d agricultural production. This strategy has already bee n e mbrace d by Sarawak; an article in the Born eo Post (March 26, 1985, p. 11) explaine d the state gove rnme nt’s policie s and programs in re lation to the Fifth Malaysia Plan (1986 ¯1990): If the rural se ctor is to compete properly with the urban sector to ke ep its population within its own sector then the conce pt and strategy of rural developme nt must necessarily be one of promoting the growth and deve lopment of large scale plantations.

Thus, state gove rnme nts have be en and will be e ncourage d to provide more land to the private , comme rcial sector (Pe rspe ctive s, 1996) . In addition, the gove rnment is making e fforts to title small-holdings. This procedure, initiate d in the colonial period, is continue d in much the same

386

Hor owitz

manne r by the Adjudication Branch of the Land and Surve y Department of Sarawak. When a piece of land is titled, only the current occupie r receives the title. Currently, approximate ly 5 ¯10% of the large r Batang Ai area has been titled (Philip Assan, personal communication, 1996). This concept of formal, rigid individual ownership is foreign to the Iban. In pre-Europe an Sarawak, land could not be bought or sold but was held in trust (Weinstock, 1979, in King, 1995). Abandone d land would be reapportione d for use by other longhouse members by the tuai rumah (Sandin, 1980) . Also, although each house hold has rights to a particular plot of land, house holds are able to share their land in an informal manne r. As one longhouse resident in Batang Ai stated (Abong anak Bansa, personal communication, 1996): In this house, we still share farmland, e xchanging, like that. We don’t want to get titles. If we had titles, we wouldn’t be able to farm each other ’s land. If pe ople wanted to farm, they would have to pay money. We don ’t want that, not ye t. Because we still have plenty of available land.

This land e xchange may le ad to greate r e quity as house holds are able to borrow land in time s of nee d. Such sharing may in turn promote more efficie nt re source use . Individuals cannot accumulate and isolate large are as of fe rtile ground, and thus poor house holds are not forced to farm marginal, environme ntally fragile lands. This arrange ment has positive implications for sustainable land use . Individual title to land can lead to inequalitie s in landholding and the emergence of an impove rished, landle ss class. Once titled, land can be sold to outside rs. Sarawak ’s Land Code purports to prote ct indige nous people by prohibiting nonindige nous citizens from owning land in certain areas; howe ver, this legislation has not preve nte d wealthy, urban-base d Iban from accumulating land for speculative purpose s (Cramb and Wills, 1990) . Buye rs may also choose to develop or exploit this land. Some local people voice d obje ctions to the loss of available land and fore st that re sulted from such titling. One tuai rum ah complaine d of former community members who would return only brie fly, merely to sell their land to logging companie s or other enterprises, and the n move away again. In othe r areas where people had sold their land in this way, the wood resources were unavailable to the local re sidents: “ The y have sold already, alre ady, there . . . . I say, I don ’t want that. It is prohibite d to cut the trees there , as they have already been licensed [ for logging], ” (Rimong anak Aliak, personal communication, 1996) .

State Control In 1954, colonial officials formulate d a Fore st O rdinance that mandate d the re servation of a Pe rmanent Fore st Estate (PFE) for timbe r e x-


387

traction (Bugo, 1995) . Four ye ars later, the Sarawak Land Code was created. This docume nt create d native customary rights (NCRs) over certain are as of land that had be en use d by indige nous pe ople before January 1, 1958 (Sarawak Gove rnme nt, 1958). NCRs allowe d local people to farm in only the se de signate d areas, known as native customary land (NCL). Any furthe r cle aring would require a permit as uncle are d land was now claime d by the state . Indige nous farme rs have thus officially be come “ licensee s” of the state . While it was ostensibly created to provide a measure of se curity to forest farmers, in practice , the pre se nt definition of NCL is e xce edingly vague and controve rsial and the de gre e of local people ’s le gal rights and control over this land is not cle arly de fine d (Lian, 1987) . Lands have be en reclaime d by the state for such purpose s as land se ttle ment schemes, roads, dams, or logging conce ssions (Cle ary and Eaton, 1992) . This fact has ne gative implications for conse rvation. Such insecurity of land te nure preclude s any long-te rm inte re st in the resource , a criterion for any succe ssful conse rvation strategy. The local pe ople pe rceive that if they do not fe ll the tre es or harve st the re sources in the areas of forest to which the y have traditional rights, outside rs will soon do so (Lian, 1988) . Thus, the fact that NCL officially belongs to the state and can be re claime d at any time has playe d a large role in contributing to the de mise of traditional land and fore st manage ment practice s. Also, logging conce ssions may ove rlap with are as that are still designate d as NCL, and companie s fre que ntly ignore communitie s’ rights eve n when legally valid, as the administrative mechanisms for securing and e nforcing NCRs are extremely weak (Colche ste r, 1989) . This has re sulted in many dispute s betwee n indige nous groups and timber companie s (see Hong, 1987) . In the Batang Ai are a, two othe r re asons have bee n used to move people out of the fore st. First, during a borde r skirmish with Indone sia from 1963 to 1967, the state gove rnme nt resettled eight longhouse s, relocating the m close to the town of Betong where they would alle ge dly be safe from attack. The second motive for land alie nation was the construction of the Batang Ai Hydroe le ctric Dam in 1985. This proje ct involve d the flooding of about 8500 ha and the resettlement of 26 longhouse s (Ayob and Yaakub, 1991). These familie s were rese ttled at the Batang Ai Rese ttlement Sche me whe re e ach was promise d 11 acres of land: five for rubbe r and three for cocoa, to be develope d as sche me crops, two for hill rice cultivation and one for a garde n. A surve y of 245 re sidents found that, while the y appre ciate d the gove rnme nt service s such as e lectricity supply, roads, education for their childre n, he alth facilitie s, acce ssibility to markets, agricultural course s, agroche mical inputs, and water supply, the y reporte d le ss time for rice planting, hunting, and relaxation, and suffere d from loss of income , part-time work, and food supply (Ayob and Yaakub, 1991) . In

388

Hor owitz

1996, several re side nts complaine d that the gove rnment had not provide d the m with the 2 acre s for rice cultivation, and that it had not live d up to its promise to grant the m fre e ele ctricity and running wate r. Instead, familie s found it very difficult to make e nds meet in a cash economy, e spe cially when they were accustome d to using free resource s from the fore st for food and raw materials. Be cause it de stroyed a large area of forest, this proje ct has obvious environme ntally de structive impacts. At the same time, it has contribute d to the loss of traditional land and fore st manage ment knowle dge by effe ctive ly removing pe ople from the fore st environme nt. Howe ve r, some communitie s in the hydroe le ctric proje ct’s “ partial dange r zone ” chose to remain at their original site s, and members of se ve n of the e ight communitie s re se ttle d during the conflict with Indone sia chose to re turn to their te rritorie s and re build their longhouse s. This fact attests to the pe ople ’s dissatisfaction with the gove rnme nt’s de ve lopme nt proje cts and their resistance to attempts to change the ir way of life .

THE THREAT TO WILDLIFE Socioe conomic and le gislative change s in Sarawak have le d to radical alte rations in resource use, which in turn have had ne gative e ffects on the state ’s wildlife populations. The range s of the bante ng (Bos javan icus) and orangutan (Pon go pygm aeu s) have contracte d dramatically in the past 100 ye ars, due in large part to hunting and habitat loss (Benne tt et al., 1995) . Local populations of othe r wildlife spe cie s are also becoming de pleted or extinct. The Sumatran rhinoce ros (Dicerorh inu s sum atrensis harrisson i), described as a distinct subspe cies on Borneo, was still conside red relative ly common into the early twentieth century. Howe ve r, by the 1960s, it was e stimate d that hunting and habitat loss had reduce d the population in Sarawak to no more than two rhinos (Harrisson, 1965, in Rabinowitz, 1995) . Such large ve rte brate s, which require extensive are as of habitat, are an inte gral part of a tropical fore st; they stimulate biological dive rsity by acting as pollinators, dispe rsers, and graze rs (Payne , 1995). Batang Ai National Park is a ke ystone in Sarawak ’s national park system. In part, be cause of local hunting taboos, the group of orangutans within the park forms part of the only re maining viable population in Sarawak. This is also the population with the be st chance s of long-te rm survival in Borneo as a whole . Howe ver, many othe r species of wildlife within Batang Ai National Park are highly threate ned (Meredith, 1993). In particular, sambar dee r are regularly shot at salt-licks in the park and in the adjace nt Lanjak-E ntimau Wildlife Sanctuary, and ve ry few de er remain


389

in the park. Similarly, fish stocks in the rive rs are be ing deple te d as a re sult of intensive fishing and the use of poison and explosive s. As social, cultural, economic, and technological change s procee d, such thre ats are like ly to inte nsify. Clearly, traditional forest manage ment systems in the Batang Ai area are no longe r able single -hande dly to provide ade quate prote ction for the park’s wildlife . It is now ne cessary to forbid the hunting of endange red spe cie s, to re strict the sale of fore st products, and strictly to limit acce ss to the resource s within the national park. Howe ve r, the imposition of a totally ne w manage ment system by an e xternal authority has prove n an ineffe ctive conservation strategy.

A NEW CONSERVATION STRATEGY Conservation is often defined by a society’s dominant groups to furthe r the ir inte rests in re lation to othe r competing groups; the elite proje cts certain type s of human activitie s as rational while branding othe rs as unscie ntific or e nvir onm e ntally harm ful ( Chun dam an nil, 19 88 ) . Thu s, in Sarawak, officials censure shifting cultivation while promoting logging, despite the fact that some re searche rs now be lie ve that logging of hill fore sts is a much more important cause of land and fore st degradation and water pollution than shifting cultivation (Cramb, 1989) . In Sarawak, the creation of conservation areas has historically served to consolidate state powe r over land and forest, alie nating these re sources from local people while allowing the state to maintain an outwardly conservationist image . As in many are as of the world, traditional approache s to park manage ment have generally be en unsympathe tic to the constraints facing local pe ople , relying on guard patrols and pe naltie s to prevent local people from practicing subsiste nce activitie s such as shifting cultivation and hunting. Such manage ment approache s have usually bee n e xpe nsive and ineffe ctive (Gumal, 1995) . A recent study of hunting in Sarawak found that, due to a shortage of wildlife staff and a lack of respect by rural communitie s for gove rnme nt regulations, the legal status of particular species has had very little effe ct on the degre e to which the y are hunte d (Be nne tt et al., in press). In the case of Batang Ai, park planne rs have inste ad decided to work close ly with the existing authority structure and to e nlist the cooperation of local people and the ir le ade rs in imple menting a new conservation strate gy. When the state gove rnme nt propose d the Batang Ai water catchme nt are a as a national park in 1984, it met with conside rable resistance from local re sidents who de mande d large pecuniary compe nsation in re turn for

390

Hor owitz

the pre dicted loss of the ir rights within the area. To gain the coope ration of the se ven communitie s with rights inside the propose d park, officials gave their le ade rs a tour of e xisting national parks around the state as well as in Pe ninsular Malaysia. With expe ctations of e conomic benefits through tourism, the communitie s agre e d to the creation of the national park (Gumal, 1995). Six of the longhouse s are ne ar to the park while one is actually inside its boundarie s. Rathe r than declaring the park off-limits to all human activity, the planne rs de cided to allow the se ve n communitie s to retain their traditional and le gal rights to hunt, fish, gathe r, and farm in the area. Howeve r, certain rule s were supe rimpose d upon the traditional manage ment syste m.

Allowin g Peop le to Retain Righ ts Be fore the boundarie s were drawn, e xtensive ne gotiations were conducte d with the heads of the se ven longhouse s with rights inside the proposed area about what areas of land were to be include d. Tuai Rumahs Kasi, Along, 6 and Changging, who jointly owne d a te rritory (m enoa kun si) within the propose d boundarie s, reque ste d that part of their lands be le ft outside the park and this stipulation was respected. O ver 40% of the are a encompasse d by Batang Ai National Park is land that has pre viously be en cut for farming and is cate gorize d as Native Custom ary Land. It was decide d that, rathe r than reclaiming the NCL within the park and compe nsating the local pe ople , park officials would allow the communitie s to retain the ir rights to farm in are as re cognize d as NCL. Howe ve r, the prohibition on cutting primary forest would be strictly enforce d within the national park. By contrast, in othe r are as, law e nforcement officers ofte n disregard this provision of the Land Code because of administrative difficulty and the like lihood of arousing re se ntme nt among local people (Hume n, 1981; Melvin Gumal, personal communicatio n, 1996) . A list was compile d of all individuals with inhe rited rights to the land that would be inside the national park. This list include s people at the uprive r longhouse s, ne ar to the national park, as well as their re lative s who remaine d at the re se ttle ment site s. Park officials decide d that both groups would retain the ir NCRs to hunt, gathe r and farm within the national park. By allowing the communitie s to retain usufruct rights to land and re sources within the park, conservationists hope to encourage a se nse of stewardship. A similar strategy has bee n successful in a village in the middle hills of 6

Tuai Rumah Along died in April 1996 and was replaced by Tuai Rumah Ngumbang in June 1996.


391

Nepal, whe re as a re sult of the transfe r of fore sts from the state to local authoritie s, the community created forest-prote ction committee s to control the use of fore st products (Fox, 1993) . Because local people derive material bene fits from Batang Ai National Park, the y have an ince ntive to imple ment traditional Iban regulations in order to prevent outside rs from e xploiting the area ’s resource s. The park planne rs are thus taking advantage of a common prope rty re source manage ment system which constitute s a type of institutional capital. Howe ve r, the y are also altering this pre -existing structure to accommodate a stronge r e mphasis on wildlife conse rvation. Me anwhile , the state is re inforcing local authority in recognition of the greate r challe nge s which community le ade rs face in a rapidly changing socioeconomic context.

Differen t Rules However, the gove rnme nt has adde d ne w re gulations to the traditional manage ment of the land within the park. As eve rywhere in Sarawak, the re are certain spe cie s of “ totally prote cted animals ” that cannot be kille d or capture d, “ prote cted animals ” that may not be kille d or capture d e xce pt in accordance with a license issued by the Sarawak Forestry Department, and “ totally prote cted plants ” that may not be damage d in any way. Pe ople are informe d of these species through a serie s of thre e poste rs with picture s of the prote cted spe cie s as well as their name s written in English, Malay, and Iban. In addition, people with rights inside the national park are allowed to gathe r forest products for their use only and are not pe rmitted to se ll the se products. Howe ve r, this re gulation would be extremely difficult to enforce and in practice , officials often ignore it. In fact, se veral re side nts appe ared to be unaware of this rule, saying that the y nee de d to se ll the se products and that they would ne ve r have agre ed to the creation of the park if there had be en such a re gulation. Furthe rmore , the rights to hunt, gathe r, or farm within the national park are exclusive to the re side nts of the se ve n local longhouse s and their downrive r counte rparts. This re striction is diffe rent from local adat, which would allow outside rs to farm te mporarily (in areas othe r than pu lau pesaka) and to hunt wild animals or gathe r fore st produce if they first aske d permission. Howe ver, the local residents appe ar to have re sponde d positive ly to the idea of limiting access to the park’s resource s (Gumal and Tan, 1992; Gumal, 1995) . All of these rule s are actually identical to the state ’s regulations for prote cted spe cie s and Native Customary Land; in fact, the classification of the are a as a national park has entaile d no official, le gal change s in the

392

Hor owitz

rules of acce ss. However, the special status that has be en imparte d to the are a means that incre ase d efforts will be made to imple ment the se regulations. To enforce the restricte d acce ss, the National Parks and Wildlife O ffice has constructe d a he adquarte rs at the park e ntrance , and all visitors are re quire d to re gister before e ntry. A new range r station, furthe r downriver, is be ing built to monitor traffic uprive r to the national park. Also, range rs conduct periodic patrols within the park to de te rmine hunting activity. Howe ve r, due to the park’s large size and small numbe r of employee s, knowle dge of most instance s of illicit hunting in the park would be impossible without the assistance of local people .

Reinforcin g Local Auth ority In Decembe r 1994, and with official encourage ment, local people began tracking outside rs who were hunting within the park. Nume rous instances of ille gal hunting were reporte d each month. In response to the se reports, officials from the National Parks and Wildlife O ffice toge ther with the Police Department conducte d an “ e xplanatory ” tour to all longhouse s in the are a in January and Fe bruary 1996 in which the y e xplaine d the ille gality of hunting by outside rs within the park ’s boundarie s. Since this time, membe rs of the se ve n longhouse s have not re porte d any more hunting by outside rs and the National Parks and Wildlife O ffice is satisfie d that such ille gal hunting has ceased. Through a program introduce d in 1996 by the National Parks and Wildlife O ffice of the Fore st Departme nt, local longhouse leade rs were give n a 2-day course in e nvironme ntal education at the ne arby city of Sri Aman and were awarde d the title of “ wildlife range r.” This position give s the m the authority to arre st tre spasse rs and e ncourage s them to pass the information about any ille gal actions to the officials at the National Park headquarte rs who will the n refer the case to court. Park officials have also sought to e ncourage the establishme nt of strong community-le ve l organizations in the inte rest of environme ntally sustainable socioe conomic developme nt. In 1992, the seven longhouse s formed a cooperative , Koperativa Serbaguna Ulu Batang Ai (KSUBA). This coope rative has been re cognize d by the Batang Ai Longhouse Resort, a tourism operation run by the Hilton Hotel, which has also provide d funds for the Batang Ai ICDP and has se nt four membe rs of KSUBA to the neighboring state of Sabah for training. KSUBA is also re cognize d as a legitimate coope rative by the Sarawak Coope rative Department, which has provide d technical and financial help since 1993, and the coope rative has won se veral contracts from the Forestry Department for the construction of facilitie s within the park


393

(Gumal, 1995) . Me mbers have shown inte rest in the creation of range r stations and a registration system for park entry (Gumal and Tan, 1992) .

THE NEED FOR INCENTIVES Park planne rs recognize that continue d coope ration betwee n the Forestry Department and the holde rs of rights and privile ge s within the park depends on the pe rception of a long-te rm inte re st in the park (Gumal and Tan, 1992) . This include s a sense of owne rship of the land within the park, a belief in the importance of prote cting its e ndange red species, and direct economic be nefits from the e xiste nce of the park.

A Sense of Ownersh ip A sense that the y have e xclusive rights to an are a is e sse ntial in encouraging communitie s to take an active role in pre ve nting outside rs from exploiting its resource s, and in re gulating their own use . At Wong Garai, Indone sia, the Iban community forbade logging companie s from cutting the old growth fore st within their territory in orde r to prote ct the watershed and hunting area (Colfer et al., 1996) . When the se rights are supporte d or strengthe ned by the gove rnme nt, this sense of owne rship can promote conservation. In the Maya Biosphe re of Guate mala, for instance , communitie s sign contracts with the gove rnme nt where by the y are guarante ed acce ss and usufruct rights to an area of fore st. In return, e ach community must create a manage ment plan for sustainable harve sting and monitor the conce ssion to pre vent e ntrance of outside rs. The conce ssionaire s have be en highly successful in kee ping outside rs from e xtracting re sources from their areas, by putting up signs, maintaining vigilance , and re porting any infractions to the appropriate authoritie s (Conrad Reining, personal communicatio n, 1997) . A full assessment of the degre e to which the local people fe el that the y have permane nt rights to the lands within Batang Ai National Park is be yond the scope of this study. Howe ve r, conve rsations with local pe ople reveale d a range of attitude s. Most felt that, since the gove rnme nt has not paid the m compensation, the lands still be long to them. O ne leade r e xpre sse d the opinion that the local communitie s co-own the area with the gove rnme nt, which he lps the m to guard the re sources against outside rs: But the government, it saw that we have many animals, many things that outsiders shouldn’t take. The governmen t he lps us. We both own [the land]. The government owns, and we own. It he lps us, like that. So, the reason is, the gove rnment co-owns

394

Hor owitz it so that people can ’t disturb [the area]. (Kasi anak Sanggon, pe rsonal communication, 1996)

The authority that had bee n inve ste d in local le ade rs to e nforce the park ’s rules was an essential factor in their sense of coope ration with the gove rnment. O the rs, howe ve r, we re uncle ar about the rule s within the national park. O ne leade r e xpre sse d the mistake n belief that local pe ople are not allowe d to hunt or gathe r within the park boundarie s: Here [within the national park] we can ’t gathe r, gather things, can ’t . . . wi [rotan], can ’t take them. Because it’s a national park. [question: People in your longhouse, they aren ’t allowed to hunt in your lands here? ] Outside, it’s allowed. Inside the park, it’s not allowed . . . . The government owns the land. (Changging anak Resa, personal communication, 1996)

Anothe r longhouse resident expre ssed dismay at the fact that the government had not compe nsate d people for the land inside the national park, and re ve aled a general mistrust of the gove rnme nt: We are perplexed in this situation; the gove rnment won’t buy any [land]. So, it was said in the past, we can take wood here, we can take timber . . . . Recently, pe ople said we can. In the future, where won ’t it be allowed? Whe re will be the national park, what will we be pe rmitted to disturb? Laws from the state, the whole state of Sarawak. But the gove rnment, it’s a way for the governme nt to trick us, dece ive us Iban, be cause we Iban don ’t know, they say. (Abong anak Bansa, personal communication, 1996)

This attitude probably refle cts the uppe r Batang Ai’s history of repe ated conflicts with central authoritie s (Pringle , 1970; Uchibori, 1988) .

Belief in th e Im portan ce of Con servation Be tween Decembe r 1990 and August 1991, the Forestry Departme nt conducte d seve ral conservation e ducation programs at Batang Ai. The programs sought to incre ase aware ne ss that orangutans are totally prote cted animals, to promote positive attitude s toward the prote ction of the park and its wildlife , and to e ncourage sustainable re source use . The se programs were de emed succe ssful in foste ring a sense of coope ration among the longhouse s that was sufficie nt to override previous longstanding animosity (Gumal, 1995) . Conve rsations with local pe ople indicate d an awarene ss of the conse rvation goals of the national park. Some were pleased that their lands were being prote cted from outside rs such as logging companie s. One tuai rum ah explaine d that certain specie s of animals were protected from hunting because they would all be kille d othe rwise and no-one in the future would be able to see them. Anothe r leade r mentione d that the prote cted species are


395

now more nume rous. Some people expre ssed the belief that this prote ction was good because visitors like to se e the animals, and they do as well.

Econ om ic In cen tives Soon afte r the creation of the park, members of the seven longhouse communitie s began to que stion the be nefits of coope ration with the Batang Ai National Park ’s conservation goals because the y realize d little economic gain from the proje ct. The refore , at the behest of the Forestry Department, the education/training institution Institut Teknologi Mara (ITM) prepare d a 1-ye ar busine ss de velopme nt program for the local people , which began in January 1992. The Forestry De partment also sponsore d a First Aid course and an English communications course (Gumal, 1995) . Curre ntly, e ach longhouse sends one of its members for employme nt as a mainte nance worker at the range r station, on a 2-month rotational basis. The proje ct also plans to incre ase tourism at the national park, with local people acting as guide s, and to begin cultivation of loofah plants to be sold to the Body Shop. However, if officials fully e nforce the ban on sales of wild meat and forest products, it re mains to be se en whethe r the e mployme nt opportunities create d by the park proje ct can offse t the loss of income from such sale s. Some local people have bee n unimpre sse d with the temporary employme nt sche me at the national park he adquarte rs, e xpre ssing the opinion that hiring one person from e ach longhouse for 2 months at a time is not a significant be nefit. A participatory rural appraisal in 1995 also indicate d dissatisfaction with the e conomic bene fits from the park. According to some of the 22 longhouse reside nts surve ye d: The park has re duce d our opportunity to hunt and sell wildlife to other pe ople in the towns. As a result, the standard of living for some of us has declined . . . . The ICDP has not provided enough jobs for all of us. (Gumal, 1995, p. 7)

Anothe r pote ntial concern is the distribution of benefits and costs. The proje ct has not yet inve stigate d just who profits from the sale of fore st products, who is able to receive income from park-re lated activitie s, and whethe r and how this income is share d. Such a study would nee d to e xamine the economic relationships among individuals within each house hold, among house holds within the longhouse , and among longhouse s within the community, to evaluate the conservation impact of introducing a new economic activity. O fte n, house holds have surplus labor, so the ne w activitie s are adopte d to comple ment rathe r than re place existing practice s (Southgate and Clark, 1993) . In trying to redirect the labor de dicate d to environmentally damaging activitie s, it is important to targe t the subsection of the

396

Hor owitz

population which pe rforms this labor. Thus, it is crucial to know de tails about a community ’s labor allocation, such as which ge nde r and age groups perform the unde sirable activitie s, as well as the seasons in which pe ople perform the m (Ferraro and Kramer, 1997) . This will enable the proje ct designe rs to de cide what activitie s will provide true alte rnative s to environmentally threate ning practice s. For e xample , around Batang Ai National Park, the Agriculture Department has created fish farming proje cts. Proje ct planne rs hope d that the fish would provide a source of prote in and income as a substitute for wild meat. In some longhouse s, however, women tend the fish ponds and se ll almost all of the fish for cash, while men continue to hunt. Conve rsely, tourism in the area is more e ffective at re ducing hunting because it occupie s the men’s time (Adrian J. Nyaoi, unpublishe d data, in Benne tt et al., in pre ss). It is certain that the se ve n longhouse s will bene fit une venly from the economic opportunitie s to be brought by the park, due to diffe re nce s in location and residents’ skills. Be nefits from tourism will be especially depende nt on the se two factors. For instance , Rumah Ngumbang is locate d at a conve nient distance from the Hilton Hotel’s Batang Ai Longhouse Resort (Fig. 3). Groups of visitors stay at a lodge that has bee n built next to the longhouse by a tour company, providing a re ady marke t for handicrafts made by the longhouse reside nts. Se ve ral young pe ople who live the re have le arne d English and work as tour guide s. The large numbe r of people living at this longhouse (183, as oppose d to 47 and 59 at the two adjace nt longhouse s), may be due in large part to the se e mployme nt opportunitie s. Tourists also occasionally make day trips to longhouse s ne ar the national park, such as Rumah Endan and Rumah Radin. By contrast, Rumah Rimong is about 4 hours of rough trave l, including rapids, from the re sort. Visitors do not venture this far, and some re sidents have complaine d about a lack of promise d be ne fits from tourism. A final conside ration is cultural pre fe re nce s. In some cases, taste s, habits, and ritual significance may be more important determinants of behavior than cash be ne fits. For instance , while fish farms may provide a source of prote in, the Iban do not value and enjoy fish to the same e xte nt as meat from wild pigs, which forms an integral part of their diet. More ove r, learning to hunt is se en by the Iban as an important compone nt of the transition from boyhood to manhood (Colfe r et al., 1996) .

CONCLUSIONS: LESSONS FROM BATANG AI The re are no e asy resolutions to the conflicts among wildlife , local people , and state gove rnme nts for land and natural resource s, at Batang


397

Fig. 3. Batang Ai National Park and the Longhouse Resort (alteration of map supplied by Sarawak Forest Department).

Ai or e lsewhe re in the world. More ove r, eve n whe n dee med succe ssful, ICDPs are not readily transfe rable ; each proje ct must be tailore d to the spe cific cultural, socioe conomic, and historical conte xts of the individual community. Howe ve r, some ge ne ral principle s can be infe rre d from the case study of Batang Ai National Park. Park planne rs in Sarawak, as around the world, must recognize and take into account current trends of change . It is use less to imagine that the socioe conomic change s that are rapidly taking place will have no effect on pe ople ’s conservation practice s. On the other hand, traditional institutions and re gulations can be an e xtre mely important resource, providing an institutional foundation for conservation re gulations. As Shepherd states:

398

Hor owitz . . . it would be wrong to try to revive communal tenure where it has already died and where no other community-wide cooperation is to be found. Equally, though, where tenurial traditions exist that prioritize acce ss to a resource . . . it is foolish to ignore them: Conflict will recur until some accommodation with local views has be en made. (1992, p. 18)

A respected local authority structure and a cultural framework that include s beliefs, morality, and a sense of community are often more important factors in de te rmining patte rns of be havior than are laws created and enforce d by a distant central authority. Working within the e xisting syste m, by supporting and strengthe ning it, is a way to make use of this valuable institutional re source while creating a se nse of coope ration between local and central authoritie s. Planne rs at Batang Ai have made e fforts to reinforce local institutions and to enlist their support in e nforcing conse rvation measure s. Also, pe ople will only be motivate d to conse rve a resource if the y are assure d of long-te rm use of it. In Sarawak as e lse whe re , the state gove rnment must re cognize indige nous land rights and give the rural poor a stronge r political voice . This would involve the de velopme nt of e ffe ctive, cohe sive , and unifying political organizations and the se curing of committed and ge nuine ly caring political le ade rs (King, 1995) , as well as the form al in stitutiona liza tion of in formal local re gula tion s. For e xam ple , re gistration of community, rathe r than individual, title to land would provide long-te rm legislative support for local land and fore st manage ment practice s (Cramb and Wills, 1990) . The proje ct at Batang Ai has formally re cognize d the se ve n communitie s’ rights to the ir te rritorie s, and be cause the are a has be e n gazette d as a national park, the local pe ople can be assure d that the gove rnme nt will not re claim it for use in agricultural sche mes or logging conce ssions. Many pe ople appre ciate this fact; howe ver, othe rs are not aware of the exact le gal status of the ir lands. Also, be cause of a long history of antagonism be twe e n the Iban and the central authoritie s ( Pringle , 1970; Uchibori, 1988) , some pe ople are not sure whe ther or not the y can trust the new park proje ct. More efforts must be made to assure pe ople that they have long-te rm rights to their land and to de velop a se nse of coope ration betwe e n park officials and local communitie s. Howe ve r, good re lations be twee n the state and local pe ople are a ne cessary but not a sufficie nt criterion to e nsure the succe ss of conservation measure s. Traditional practice s cannot always survive in the face of growing de mands. As forme r notions of sacre dne ss are lost, and as pe ople incre ase their depe nde nce on a cash e conomy, the tre atme nt of fore st re source s be come s more motivate d by mone tary ince ntive s. At Batang Ai,


399

as in many othe r place s in Sarawak and around the world, the use of these re source s may once have be e n sustainable but is so no longe r. Now, in orde r to conserve e ndange re d specie s, it is necessary to lesse n the human pre ssure on prote cted fore st are as. Howe ve r, pe ople will only re duce their exploitation of the fore st and its re source s if the y can find alte rnative source s of income . The se options must re place — and not merely comple ment— environmentally damaging activitie s. In the ide al situation, local people de rive direct e conomic bene fit, in a nonde structive way, from the prote cted area. This provide s them with an incentive to use the natural resource s in a sustainable manne r and to conse rve the fore st on which they depe nd. At Batang Ai, tourism may provide such an option for some longhouse s as this activity provide s substantial economic benefits and re lie s on intact forests and the pre se nce of wild fauna. It will be important to e nsure that local people are the one s who benefit, rathe r than urban- or foreign-base d tour companie s. Howe ve r, this activity is possible only for those longhouse s that are acce ssible to tourists. For othe rs, such as Rumah Rimong, othe r options must be sought. O ne possibility would be for the park proje ct to help people to se t up a scheme for the sustainable harve st and marketing of forest products, forming coope rative s and creating a rural credit syste m for inve stments. This would involve changing the current le gal prohibition on se lling any products colle cted from the prote cted are a. It would also necessitate care ful monitoring of harve sts to ensure that people were not ove re xploiting the natural resource s. The ICDP at Batang Ai National Park is a ne w proje ct, in the first stage s of imple me ntation. Small in scale , it doe s not involve swe e ping change s to Sarawak ’s outdate d Land Code , the State ’s ine quitable political structure , or the national gove rnme nt ’s drive for “ de ve lopm e nt ” and “ mode rnization ” at the cost of indige nous authority and re source manage ment. Howe ve r, officials involve d with this proje ct have de monstrate d a willingne ss to work with local pe ople and community le ade rs in orde r to build on traditional le gislative infrastructure and manage me nt practice s. At the same time , the y are e ncouragin g community de ve lopm e nt, he lping pe ople to find alte rnative s to activitie s that thre ate n the park ’s wildlife . Whe n aske d the ir opinions about the national park, many local pe ople de cline d to re spond, saying that the y would have to wait and se e what e ffe cts it might e ve ntually have on the ir live s. Similarly, the e ffe cts of the ICDP on wildlife conse rvation at Batang Ai, as we ll as its pote ntial for providing a paradigm for othe r parks in Sarawak and around the world, are matte rs that only time and e xpe rie nce will ultim ate ly de te rmine .

400

Hor owitz

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the re side nts of the se ven longhouse s at Batang Ai for the ir kind hospitality and patie nce, the Sarawak State Planning Unit and the Sarawak Fore stry Department for pe rmission to conduct research, and the Sarawak Muse um Library for access to its colle ctions. Many thanks also to my supervisor at the Unive rsity of Cambridge , Dr. Tim BaylissSmith, and to Drs. Terry King and Michae l Parnwe ll and the anonymous revie wers of Hum an Ecology for their advice and comme nts.

REFERENCES Alvard, M. S. (1993) . Testing the “ecologically noble savage ” hypothe sis: Interspecific prey choice by Piro hunters of Amazonian Peru. Hum an Ecology 21( 4) : 355-387. Austin, R. F. (1977). Iban Migration: Patte rns of Mobility and Employment in the 20th Ce ntury. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan. Ayob, A. M., and Yaakub, N. F. (1991) . De velopment and change in Batang Ai, Sarawak: Perception of a resettle d Iban community. Sarawak Museum Journal XLII( 63): 267-282. Benne tt, E. L., Nyaoi, A. J., and Sompud, J. (1995) . A Conservation Management Study of Wildlife Hunting in Sabah and Sarawak. Unpublished report on the completion of fieldwork for Wildlife Conservation Socie ty. Benne tt, E. L., Nyaoi, A. J., and Sompud, J. (in press) . Saving Borne o’s bacon: The sustainability of hunting in Sarawak and Sabah. In Robinson, J. G., and Bennett, E. L. (eds.), Blood on the leaves: Evaluating the Sustainability of Hunting in Tropical Forests. Columbia University Press, Ne w York. Berkes, F. (e d.) (1989) . Com mon Property Resources: Ecology and Com m unity-Based Sustainable Managem ent. Belhaven Pre ss, London. Berkes, F., and Farvar, M. T. (1989). Introduction and overview. In Berke s, F. (ed.), Com m on Property Resou rces: Ecology an d Com m unity-Based Su stain able Man agem ent. Be lhave n Pre ss, London, pp. 1-17. Berkes, F., Fe eny, D., McCay, B. J., and Acheson, J. M. (1989) . The be nefits of the commons. Nature 340: 91-93. Bromley, D. W., and Cerne a, M. M. (1989) . The Managem ent of Com mon Property Natural Resources: Som e Conceptual and Operational Fallacies. World Bank Discussion Paper No. 57, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Bugo, H. (1995) . The significance of the timber industry in the e conomic and social de velopment of Sarawak. In Primack, R. B., and Lovejoy, T. E. (eds.), Ecology, Conservation, and Managem ent of Southeast Asian Rainforests. Yale University Press, New Have n and London, pp. 221-240. Caldecott, J. O. (1988). Hunting and Wildlife Managem ent in Sarawak. IUCN, Gland. Chin, S. C. ( 1985) . Agriculture and resource utilization in a lowland rainfore st Kenyah community. Sarawak Museum Journal XXXV (56) : special monograph No. 4. Chundamannil, M. ( 1988) . Forest land use policy and the conservation intent in Kerala, India. In Dargavel, J., Dixon, K., and Semple, N. (eds.), Changing Tropical Forests: Historical Perspectives on Today’s Challenges in Asia, Australasia and Oceania. Centre for Re source and Environmental Studies, Canbe rra, pp. 231-244. Clay, J. W. (1993) . Looking back to go forward: predicting and pre venting human rights violations. In Miller, M. S. (e d.), State of the Peoples: A G lobal Hum an Rights Report on Societies in Danger. Beacon Press, Boston, pp. 64-71.


401

Cleary, M., and Eaton, P. (1992). Borneo: Change and Developm ent. Oxford Unive rsity Pre ss, New York. Colchester, M. (1989) . Pirates, Squatters and Poachers: The Political Ecology of Dispossession of the Native Peoples of Sarawak. Survival International and Institute of Social Analysis, London. Colfer, C. J. P. (1983a) . Change and indigenous agroforestry in East Kalimantan. Borneo Research Bulletin 15( 1) : 3-20. Colfer, C. J. P. (1983b) . Change and indigenous agroforestry in East Kalimantan (continued). Borneo Research Bulletin 15( 2) : 70-86. Colfer, C. J. P., Wadle y, R. L., and Widjanarti, E. (1996). Using indigenous organizations from West Kalimantan. In Blunt, P., and Warre n, D. M. (eds.), Indigenous Organizations and Developm ent. Indige nous Knowledge and De velopment Series, Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp. 228-238. Cramb, R. A. (1987) . The Evolution of Iban Land Tenure: A Study in Institutional Economics. Ph.D. dissertation, Monash Unive rsity. Cramb, R. A. ( 1989) . Explaining variations in Borne an land tenure: The Iban case . Ethnology 28(3) : 277-300. Cramb, R. A. (1989). Shifting cultivation and resource degradation in Sarawak: Perceptions and policies. Borneo Research Bulletin 21(1) : 22-49. Cramb, R. A., and Wills, I. R. (1990). The role of traditional institutions in rural developme nt: Community-based land tenure and governme nt land policy in Sarawak, Malaysia. World Developm ent 18( 3) : 347-360. Dore , E. (1997) . How sustainable were pre-Columbian civilizations? In Collinson, H. (e d.), G reen G uerrillas: Environm ental Conflicts and Initiatives in Latin America and the Caribbean . Latin Ame rica Bureau, London, pp. 47-51. Fe rraro, P. J., and Krame r, R. A. (1997) . Compensation and e conomic incentives: Re ducing pre ssure on protected areas. In Kramer, R., van Schaik, C., and Johnson, J. (eds.), Last Stand: Protected Areas and the Defense of Tropical Biodiversity. Oxford University Pre ss, New York, pp. 187-211. Fox, J. ( 1993) . The tragedy of the open access. In Brookfield, H., and Byron, Y. (eds.), SouthEast Asia’s Environm ental Future: The Search for Sustainability. Oxford Unive rsity Pre ss, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 302-315. Free man, D. (1955) . Iban Agriculture: A Report on the Shifting Cultivation of Hill Rice by the Iban of Sarawak. Her Maje sty’s Stationery Office, London. Free man, D. (1960) . Iban augury: An introductory comparison. In Smythie s, B. (ed.), The Birds of Borneo . Olive r and Boyd, Edinburg and London, pp. 74-98. Free man, D. (1970) . Report on the Iban. The Athlone Press, London. Gumal, M. (1995) . Batang Ai National Park: Integrated Conservation and Developme nt Project. Paper prese nted at the 1st Asia-Pacific Educator ’s Mee ting, Fraser ’s Hill, Pahang, Malaysia, July 22-29, 1995. Gumal, M., and Tan, S. S. ( 1992) . Some Aspects of Social Fore stry in Sarawak. Paper presente d in the 11th Malaysian Fore stry Conference, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, July 20-26, 1992. Hames, R. (1991). Wildlife conservation in tribal societies. In Oldfield, M. L., and Alcorn, J. B. (eds.), Biodiversity: Culture, Conservation, and Ecodevelopm ent. Westvie w Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 172-199. Headland, T. N. (1997) . Re visionism in e cological anthropology. Current Anthropology 38( 4) : 605-630. Heppe ll, M. (1988) . Cultural evolution and deve lopment: A case study of the Iban legal system. In Cramb, R. A., and Re ece , R. H. W. (eds.), Developm ent in Sarawak: Historical and Contem porary Perspectives. Monash Paper on Southeast Asia No. 17, Centre of South Asian Studies, Clayton, Monash, pp. 157-178. H on g, E . ( 1 98 7) . Natives o f Sarawak : Su rvival in Born eo ’s Van ishin g Forests. Institut Masyarakat, Kuching. Humen, G. G. (1981) . Native Land Tenure Protection in Sarawak. LLB (Honors) thesis, Faculty of Law, University of Malaya.

402

Hor owitz

Ke dit, P. M. ( 1984) . Bejalai is changing Iban society. The Sarawak G azette CX(1487) : 24-26. King, V . T. ( 1993) . Politik pem bangunan : The political economy of rainforest e xploitation and developme nt in Sarawak, East Malaysia. G lobal Ecology and Biogeography Letters 3: 235244. King, V . T. (1995) . Indigenous peoples and land rights in Sarawak, Malaysia: To be or not to be a bum iputra. In Barnes, R. H., Gray, A., and Kingsbury, B. (eds.), Indigenous Peoples of Asia. The Association for Asian Studies, Monograph and Occasional Pape r Series, Number 48, Ann Arbor, pp. 289-306. Lembat, T. S. D. G. (1994) . Native Customary Land and the Adat. Paper pre sente d at the Seminar on NCR Land Developme nt, Septembe r 29 to Octobe r 3, 1994, Kuching. Lian, F. J. (1987) . Farme rs ’ Perce ptions and Economic Change: The Case of Kenyah Farme rs of the Fourth Division, Sarawak. Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University. Lian, F. J. (1988) . The economics and ecology of the production of the tropical rainfore st re sources by tribal groups of Sarawak, Borneo. In Dargavel, J., Dixon, K., and Semple , N. (eds.), Changing Tropical Forests: Historical Perspectives on Today’s Challenges in Asia, Australasia and Oceania. Centre for Resource and Environme ntal Studies, Canbe rra, pp. 113-126. McKe own, F. A. (1983). The Me rakai Iban: An Ethnographic Account with Espe cial Reference to Dispute Settlement. Ph.D. thesis, Monash University. Me re dith, M. (1993) . A Faunal Survey of Batang Ai National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia. Unpublished re port for The Wildlife Conservation Society. National Re search Council (NRC) (1986) . Proceedings of the Conference on Com mon Property Resource Managem ent. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C Ostrom, E. (1990) . G overn ing the Com mons: The Evolu tion of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge . Padoch, C. (1982). Migration and Its Alternatives Among the Iban of Sarawak. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague. Padoch, C. (1984). The Iban of the Engkari: A history of migration and settlement. Sarawak Museum Journal XXXIII( 54) : 1-13. Padoch, C., and Peters, C. (1993) . Managed forest gardens in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. In Potter, C. S., Cohen, J. I., and Janczewski, D. (eds.), Perspectives on Biodiversity: Case Studies of G en etic Resource Conservation and Developm ent. AAAS Pre ss, Washington, D. C., pp. 167-176. Payne, J. (1995) . Links between vertebrates and the conse rvation of Southeast Asian Rainforests. In Primack, R. B., and Lovejoy, T. E. (eds.), Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Southeast Asian Rainforests. Yale University Press, Ne w Haven and London, pp. 54-65. Peluso, N. L. (1983) . Networking in the commons: A tragedy for rattan? Indonesia 35: 95-108. Peluso, N. L. (1991) . The Impact of Social and Environme ntal Change on Forest Management: A Case Study from West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Community Forestry Case Study Series No. 8. FAO , Rome. Perspe ctives (1996). Second Special Report on Malaysia. The Observer, July 21, 1996. Poffenbe rger, M. (ed.) (1990). Keepers of the Forest: Land Managem ent Alternatives in Southeast Asia. Kumarian Pre ss, West Hartford. Pringle, R. (1970). Rajahs and Rebels: The Ibans of Sarawak Under Brooke Rule, 1841 ¯ 1941. Macmillian, London. Rabinowitz, A. (1995) . Helping a species go extinct: The Sumatran rhino in Borneo. Conservation Biology 9: 482-488. Rambo, A. T. (1985) . Primitive Pollu ters: Sem ang Im pact on the Malaysian Tropical Rainforest Ecosystem . Muse um of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Re dford, K. (1990) . The ecologically noble savage . Orion Nature Quarterly 9: 24-29. Richards, A. J. N. (1981) . An Iban-English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Petaling Jaya. Sandin, B. (1980). Iban Adat and Augury. Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia for School for Comparative Social Scie nce s, Penang. Sarawak Gove rnment ( 1958) . Land Code (Cap. 81) . In The Laws of Sarawak (V ol. 1). Government Printing Office, Kuching.


403

Sather, C. (1990) . Trees and tree tenure in Paku Iban society: The managemen t of secondary forest resources in a long-established Iban community. Borneo Review 1(1) : 16-40. Shepherd, G. (1992) . Forest policies, forest politics. In Shepherd, G. (ed.), Forest Policies — Forest Politics. Overse as De velopment Institute, London, pp. 5-28. Southgate , D., and Clark, H. L. (1993) . Can conservation projects save biodiversity in South Ame rica? Ambio 22( 2-3): 163-166. Taylor, D. M., Hortin, D., Parnwell, M. J. G., and Marsde n, T. K. (1994) . The degradation of rainfore sts in Sarawak, East Malaysia, and its implications for future management policies. G eoforum 25( 3) : 351-369. Uchibori, M. (1988) . Transformations of Iban social consciousne ss. In Taylor, J. G., and Turton, A. (eds.), Sociology of Developing Societies: Southeast Asia. Monthly Revie w Pre ss, New York, pp. 250-258. Vayda, A. P. (1981) . Research in East Kalimantan on interactions between pe ople and forests: A preliminary report. Borneo Research Bulletin 13( 1): 3-15. Wells, M., and Brandon, K. ( 1992) . People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Managem ent with Local Com munities. World Bank, World Wildlife Fund, and U.S. Agency for International De velopment, Washington, D.C. Western, D., and Wright, R. M. (eds.) ( 1994) . Natural Connections : Perspectives in Com munity-Based Conservation . Island Press, Washington, D.C. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and IUCN-The World Conservation Union (1995) . Centres of Plant Diversity: A G uide and Strategy for Their Conservation. Vol. 2: Asia, Australasia and the Pacific. IUCN, Cambridge.