Monitoreo de calidad de aire para seguimiento de nuevos proyectos en

This study is based on the voices from the field to identify perceptions, understand issues as well as recommendations in enhancing biodiversity governance in a federalised system. The data from the interviews were analysed as highlighted in Chapter Three and the three main themes that emerged were grouped under the following headings: ‘Laws and Policies’, ‘Incentives for States’ and ‘Institutional Reforms’ as in Table 6.2.

72 6.3.1. Perception of the stakeholders

The general perception from majority of the participants was that the current level of biodiversity governance is rather weak. The participants attributed this weakness mainly due to the dichotomy in the federal constitution. The issue of not having uniform laws and streamlined institutions on matters related to biodiversity across the states in Peninsular Malaysia came up very often in the interviews.

Table 6.2: Summary of key issue and recommendations highlighted by interviewees and experts

Laws and Policies ISSUES

• Polices by the Federal Government does not get translated into implementation at State level

• International environmental agreements are hardly known or implemented at State level

• National Biodiversity Council decisions not fully implemented

• Different laws on biodiversity related matters at each State is the problem • States will not want to give up their

right of land and natural resources. • Absence of constitutional provision on

biodiversity and environment. • De-centralised governance of

biodiversity and related policies is the main problem, particularly in Peninsular Malaysia

• Absence of a nation-wide PA System/Framework brings about different standards in PA management quality and overall biodiversity management.

RECOMMENDATIONS / VIEWS

• Compliance and monitoring of policies/laws

• Monitoring and reporting of National Biodiversity Council (NBC) decisions • Harmonisation of laws /polices • Amend the Constitution to have a new

subject matter (i.e. Biodiversity and or Environmental management) in the concurrent list of the Ninth Schedule • Amend the Constitution by moving

subject matters like ‘Forestry’ from State to Concurrent list

• Amending the constitution given the political scenario now, is very unlikely to happen

• The need for PAs to have management plans to enhance biodiversity

management and conservation. • Explore using Schedule 9 of the

Constitution to harmonise PA management by reviewing the National Parks Act 1980

Incentives for States to manage Biodiversity ISSUES

• States have other priorities and do not see the long-term benefit of keeping forest.

• States may want to manage biodiversity differently.

• Benefit sharing of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use (returns from activities shared by Federal and state).

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Need to demonstrate benefit to the states to conserve biodiversity

• Explore new and alternative sources of funding such as Payment for

Ecosystem Services (PES) and Reducing emissions from

deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) (both federal and state)

73

• No incentive for the states- so they develop

• The pressure over resource extraction for socioeconomic development is high • States would never give up their land

rights as worry they will lose control and revenue

• Amending the Constitution is a big task and would require huge political will to include or transfer ‘revenue streams’ from federal to state

• The provisions of the constitution may limit funds from federal to state • ILCs have limited resources and

opportunity to derive income from conservation initiatives

• Empower States to manage and be given the adequate resources and empower them with proper check and balance, including performance-based incentives to carry out conservation and management on some of the state lands.

• The current structure can be explored to incentivise the State by providing funds and secondment of personnel. • The National Conservation Trust Fund

for Natural Resources (NCTF) to explore ways to channel funds to states for conservation.

• Include ILCs in management and provide alternative livelihood options

Institutional Reforms ISSUES

• State have weak institutions for biodiversity management

• State lack capacity on biodiversity issues

• Weak mechanism for federal state coordination on biodiversity issues • ILCs currently do not participate

adequately in biodiversity management • Private sector and other stakeholders

participation inadequate

• Weak science policy interface in biodiversity management • Optimise the use of manpower in

Department of Wildlife and National parks (DWNP) and Forestry

Department Peninsular Malaysia (FDPM)

• Lack of coordination and cooperation between FDPM and DWNP

• Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) not fully equipped to implement biodiversity related activities

RECOMMENDATION

• Secondment of Federal officers to State agencies

• Co-management with State as an option (Cooperative Federalism)

• Establish a state level biodiversity committee

• NBOS* _{approach for better management}

and enforcement

• Other stakeholders especially ILCs can assist in management of biodiversity especially in PAs as they have traditional knowledge (TK) and know the area the best.

• Create a science advisory platform on biodiversity (national IPBES)

• Manpower redeployed and streamlined in DWNP and FDPM

• Restructure DWNP and FDPM to be a single biodiversity technical and enforcement agency

• Pursue the establishment of National Biodiversity Centre

This has made the translation of international commitments under the CBD as well as national polices related to biodiversity such as the National Policy on Biological Diversity (1998, revised 2016) difficult to be implemented at state level. One of the federal officers explained that due to the provisions in the constitution:

74

“Malaysia has signed nearly all the international treaties with regard to environment and biodiversity. It’s we the Federal officers that mainly attend these meetings. We try to translate these

international commitments to national policies where relevant, but

the uptake by the state governments is not forth coming as they lack

resources and the institution at state level for implementation. They

(the State) do not have to follow our national policies as forestry

and land is State matter.” (Interview, senior federal officer #G2,

September 23, 2015)

A participant from the indigenous community picturised the degradation of biodiversity over the years by describing of his ‘home’ (forest) has changed so much over the years:

“Our way of life is threatened as the rivers are murky due to logging upstream. We can’t get enough fish supply and the deer we used to hunt for food is a rare sight. When I was a kid, this forest was our

Tesco – we get everything from food to medicine but now we have to go to ‘pekan’ (town) to get things.” (Interview, indigenous

community elder and medicine man #L1, October 08, 2015)

This perception of the poor management and conservation of PAs and wildlife in Peninsular Malaysia is also reflected in the literature (Clements et al., 2010; Nagulendran et al., 2016).

75