Mohd-Azlan JDEPARTMENT OF ZOOLGY

FACULTY OF RESOURCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYUNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARAWAK

94300 KOTA SAMARAHAN, SARAWAK

Wildlife Conservation Legislations in Malaysia: Evolution and Future

Needs

Background• Malaysia is among the first ASEAN country to develop

national conservation legislation, sign CITES, and develop a national conservation strategy.

• Malaysia has a protected area system covering over 12% of its land area

• The federal government has shown interest in formulating various policies and mechanisms to protect biodiversity resources. E.g. International Treaties

• In the Constitution of Malaysia, matters pertaining to land, wildlife and forest are the matters of the state.

Background

• The Federal constitution allows Sabah and Sarawak to have jurisdiction and limiting federal intervention, including over biodiversity matters.

• This has resulted in over 40 legislations which include….. Acts, Ordinances, Enactments, Policies, Rules pertaining environment, flora & fauna management and conservation.

PENINSULAR MALAYSIAFirst legislation to protect wildlife in the Federation of Malaya

Wildlife Commission of Malaya in 1932

Wild Animals and Birds Protection Ordinance 1955

Protection of Wildlife Act (PWA) 1972

Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 (Act 716)

23

17

38

CURRENT WILDLIFE PROTECTION LEGISLATIONS IN MALAYSIA

• Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 (Applies to Peninsular Malaysia only),

• Wild Life Protection Ordinance 1998 (Applies to Sarawak only)

• Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997(Applies to Sabah only).

Some older legislations may need to be re-evaluated

Why there is a need to re-evaluate?

• Increasing treats – habitat degradation, habitat loss through land conversion

• Hunting and sale of illegal sale of wildlife• Collection for Scientific purpose?- lack of

evidence

Why there is a need to re-evaluate?

Seven mammalian species were categorized as endangered in 1986 and in 2010 this figure has tripled to 24 species

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1986 1994 1996 2000 2002 2003 2004 2008 2010

No

of sp

ecie

s

Year

Why there is a need to re-evaluate?

Number of illegal wildlife cases (Endangered Species ONLY) reported in the press and TRAFFIC for the last six years (2005-2010) in Peninsular Malaysia showing an increasing trend (source: Bernama, local press & TRAFFIC)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2005 2007 2009 2011

No.

of

Enda

nger

ed sp

ecie

s

Year

Why there is a need to re-evaluate?Illegal trade report for Peninsular Malaysia (1996-2010) – Last 15 years – 52,188 cases was reported (includes technical cases)

• 80,124 individual of wildlife (mostly monitor lizards and pangolins),

• 15,121.3 kg of meat (mostly wild boar, deer, bear and pangolin),

• 802 376 kg of skins (mostly from civets, monitor lizards, pangolins & pythons)

Why there is a need to re-evaluate?• 5 kg of feathers (mostly Argus pheasant), • 152.2 edible birds’ nest, • over 10 000 turtle eggs • 1012.8 kg of pangolins’ scales.

This estimate is merely conservative because it excludes unreported cases, wildlife consumed by aborigine and species hunted with license.

Similar information is not available for Sabah and Sarawak but it is expected the figures can be much more compared to Peninsular Malaysia.

General ComparisonPWA 1972 WCA 2010 WCE 1997 WLPO 1998

Application Peninsular Malaysia

Peninsular Malaysia &

Federal Territories

Sabah Sarawak

Number of parts 7 9 12 6Number of sections 106 136 119 56Number of schedules

9 7 5 2 (6 Parts)

Implementing & administration Agency

Department of Wildlife & National Parks (DWNP)

Sabah Wildlife Department Sarawak Forestry Corporation (2003)

Forestry Department

Sarawak (1919)

Relevant Ministry Ministry of NaturalResources and Environment

Ministry for Tourism Development,

Environment, Science and Technology.

Ministry of Planning and Resource Management

General comparison of wildlife protection legislations in Malaysia including the previous Protection of Wildlife Act 1972 which only applies to Peninsular Malaysia.

Totally Protected StatusClass WPA 1972

PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

WCA 2010PENINSULAR

MALAYSIA

WCE 1997SABAH

WLPO 1998SARAWAK

Mammalia >254 >272 6 19 (28)

Aves >647 >947 0 37

Reptilia >33 >66 3 11

Amphibia - >9 0 0

Insecta - 4 0 0

Gastropoda - >1 0 0

Total 934 1299 9 67

Comparison of wildlife protection status (Totally Protected) for wildlife legislation in Malaysia including the previous WPA 1972 Offences involving Totally Protected wildlife will result in higher fines The criterion used to categorize the species is not clear. E.g. Intermediate egret

(Mesophoyx intermedia) a common species distributed from Africa to Australia and found in most areas in Malaysia is given totally Protection status (WCA 2010).

() marine mammals

Protected StatusClass WPA 1972

PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

WCA 2010PENINSULAR

MALAYSIA

WCE 1997SABAH

WLPO 1998SARAWAK

Mammalia >375 >183 52 (13) 142Aves >1103 >309 131Reptilia >132 >252 8 13Amphibia - >38 0 0Arachnida - >11 0 0Insecta >40 >46 5 1Hirudinoidea - 1 0 0Gastropoda - 1 0 0Fish 0 0 5*Total 1650 841 196 161

*only one species endemic to Borneo; > more than the number denoted, as some of the species are listed at genus level; () marine mammals.

• Some taxa receive more protection than others within Malaysia. • E.g. Bats receive more protection in Sarawak compared to other parts of Malaysia. • 91 Bat species are Protected in Sarawak; 5 in Sabah; 2 in Peninsular Malaysia

Comparison on PenaltiesWPA 1972 WCA 2010 WCE 1997 WLPO 1998

Number of penalties (fines)

20 63 49 29

Minimum fine ≤ RM1000 ≤ RM10,000 <RM1000 ≤RM1000Maximum fine RM15,000 RM500,000 RM50,000

RM100,000*RM50,000

Minimumimprisonment

≤ 12 months ≤ 6 months 6 months 3 months

Maximumimprisonment

10 years 10 years 5 years 5 years

Hunting Allowed with license - listed animals

Allowed with license- listed animals

Allowed with license- listed animals

Not allowedon listed animals(including CITIES I & II)

Fine for killinga Totally Protected Species

$5000 or imprisonment not > 3 years or both.

not > $100 000 or imprisonment not > 3 years or both

Imprisonment not < than 6 months not > 5 years (In possession – to a fine of 50K or to imprisonment for 5 years or both)

$25 000 and aImprisonment for 2 years

Killing charismatic animals

(Rhino, tiger& clouded leopard) fine not >$15 000 or to a term of imprisonment not > 5 years.

(Serow,Gaur,Rhino, tiger, leopard,clouded leopard, false gharial)fine not < than$100 000 and not > than $500 000and with imprisonment for a term not > 5years.

N/A (Rhino)fine of $50 000 and imprisonmentfor 5 years orang-utan or proboscis monkey, imprisonment for2 years and a fine Of $30 000

Discussion

• SWLPO 1998 appears undemanding• It appears outdated and inferior even when

compared to the old PWA 1972• Managing the existing protected areas with

increase efficiency • Additional protection to the wildlife through

upgrading the legislation

What Now?• There is an urgent need to synergize these existing

legislation. • However the freedom of the respective States to

manage and enforce their natural resources including wildlife need to be respected.

• Therefore a council at the Federal Level need to be established to oversee; 1. Regulate ratification of international convention

regarding wildlife which relates to habitat and species protection,

2. formulation of National Wildlife Conservation Policy3. implementation of this policy.

What Next?

• Review Sarawak Wildlife Protection Ordinance • Increase resources; State – Federal Funds for

Wildlife Management and Implementation of Policies

• Strong Political Support to enforce Wildlife Laws

IMPORTANT !

However the effectiveness of any legislation is dependent entirely on the level of implementation especially on how well the legislation is used as a weapon to deter or to prosecute wildlife criminals.