List of abbreviations *

Chapter 1: Introduction *

1.1 Problem definition *

1.2 The focus *

1.3 Working questions *

Chapter 2: Methodology *

2.1 Methodological and theoretical considerations *

2.2 The use of case material and maps *

2.3 Field methods *

2.3.1 Experiences with field methods *

2.3.2 Validity and credibility of the data *

2.4 The structure of the project *

Chapter 3: Theoretical approach *

3.1 Third World political ecology *

3.2 Property rights theory *

3.2.1 Institutions *

3.3 cultural theory *

3.4 Narratives and struggles *

Chapter 4: Introduction to the study area *

4.1 Introduction to Sabah *

4.2 Introduction to the case areas *

4.2.1 Kuyongon *

4.2.2 Tikolod *

4.2.3 Tempulong *

Chapter 5: Politics in Sabah and the role of the local people *

5.1 The Twenty Points agreement *

5.2 Undermining of the Twenty Points and Federal dominance *

5.2.1 Political dominance of Sabah *

5.2.2 Kadazan identity *

5.2.3 The introduction of the New Economic Policy (NEP) *

5.3 Response by the indigenous population *

5.4 Summary and analytical points *

Chapter 6: The evolution of legal pluralism in Sabah *

6.1 Codification of native customary law *

6.1.1 The colonial period 1880 – 1939 *

6.1.2 The post-colonial period *

6.2 Local institutions dealing with land tenure issues *

6.2.1 The Adat, a system of local knowledge and customary practices *

6.2.2 The role of the Native Court *

6.2.3 Community level institutions *

6.3 A situation of legal pluralism *

6.4 Summary and analytical points *

Chapter 7: Forest protection in Sabah *

7.1 The importance of forests *

7.2 Forest policies in Sabah *

7.3 National parks in Sabah *

7.3.1 Kinabalu Park and Crocker Range National Park *

7.4 Summary and analytical points *

Chapter 8: Land use practices in rural areas in Sabah *

8.1 Livelihood strategies of small-scale farmers *

8.2 Land use practices in Kuyongon and Tempulong *

8.3 Land use in Tikolod *

8.4 Maps as narratives *

8.4.1 The maps of Tikolod and Kuyongon *

8.5 Summary and analytical points *

Chapter 9: Struggles related to the establishment of national parks *

9.1 The effects of the establishment of national parks in Kuyongon and Tempulong *

9.1.1 Kuyongon *

9.1.2 Tempulong *

9.2 Tikolod and the CRNP *

9.3 Summary and analytical points *

Chapter 10: Conclusion *

REFERENCES *

BN: Barisan Nasional

CRNP: Crocker Range National Park

DANCED: Danish Coorperation for Environment and Development

ENGO: Environmental Non-Governmental Organisation

GDP: Gross Domestic Product

GNP: Gross National Product

IUCN: International Union for the Conservation of Nature

JKKK: The Committee for Development and Security

NCR: Native Customary Rights

NEP: New Economic Policy

NGO: Non-Governmental Organisation

PACOS: Partners of Community Organisations

PBS: United Sabah Party

PRA: Participatory Rural Appraisal

RRA: Rapid Rural Appraisal

SLUSE: Sustainable Land Use and Natural Resource Management

UMNO: United Malays National Organisation

UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme

UNKO: United National Kadazan Organisation

USNO: United Sabah National Organisation

WWF: World Wide Fund for Nature

In recent decades the establishment of national parks has become widespread in many developing countries. Ghai (1994: 8) characterises the creation of national parks and protected areas as one of the principal manifestations of the conservation drive in developing countries. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), supported by many environmentalists and conservation agencies, recommended in 1989 that approximately 10 % of the world’s total land cover should be designated protected areas. Thus, in many developing countries it is not uncommon to have allocated between 15 and 25 % for this purpose as a response to factors such as rising international concern with deforestation and loss of biodiversity and availability of foreign funding for nature conservation (Ghimire 1994: 197).

However, the creation of national parks has frequently meant that local people have been resettled or been denied access to resources within these state-protected areas. Therefore it is not uncommon for struggles over access to forest land and resources to arise between the state and local communities settled in and around national parks. As a consequence, the struggle for the control and possession of natural resources has become a major cause of social struggle in many developing countries (Neumann 1998; Colchester 1994; Ghai 1994; Ghimire 1994). It is these struggles over access to forest land and resources, which arise in connection with the creation of national parks that we want to investigate further.

Sabah, which is situated in the Malaysian part of Borneo, is for us an interesting site for studying such struggles. In October 1999 two of us went on a 10 days field trip to two small villages, Kuyongon and Tikolod, situated on the border of Crocker Range National Park in Sabah to study the use and importance of forest products and the characteristics of the local land tenure system (one of us went to Thailand, but studied similar issues). It became apparent that the establishment of the national park has had effects on access to and use of land in these villages since the local communities are denied access to a forest area, which most of them have used for decades in terms of farm land and hunting and gathering sites. By the villagers, the denied access was considered a very important issue for their livelihood because the National Park puts great constrains on the future development possibilities for the communities. Several studies have been conducted on the struggles over access to resources which arise in communities bordering national parks in Sabah and they show that similar situations can be found many places in Sabah (Doolittle 1999; Tuboh et al. 1999; Nais 1996).

What further makes Sabah interesting is the many events and aspects that have influenced and shaped control over and access to land, which are central issues in connection with the establishment of national parks. As a former English colony, the introduction of Western laws and perceptions of property have profoundly influenced the traditional land tenure and land use systems in Sabah. The British started in the late 19^th century codification of the traditional systems of ownership in Sabah in order to identify land, which could be sold to foreign investors. This codification and introduction of private property, leading to a situation of legal pluralism, has not only influenced the access to land in local communities, it has also influenced the way national parks are established in Sabah, thus making the study of land tenure issues rather complex.

Land tenure systems influence the land use through a set of requirements, or definitions, of types of cultivation to which entitlement can be obtained. The land tenure systems are defined through centralised legislation and the management of national parks is likewise anchored in a centralised environmental management based on state legislation. Thus, state legislation and management defines the criteria for property access, hence it influences the livelihood of people living in local communities. The top-down oriented approach often leaves the local communities feeling deprived of control over natural resources on which they depend.

The above considerations have led us to the following problem definition:

This problem focus is interesting and relevant because Sabah Parks, who is responsible for managing the national parks in Sabah, has realised that excluding communities who have traditionally made use of forest areas now enacted as national parks is not a sustainable solution for protection of the environment. The Park authorities have stated that they in a few years time will start considering possible solutions, which take both local communities’ needs and wants as well as environmental concerns into consideration. As a way of getting knowledge about both interests before new management plans are considered, it is important to understand why struggles arise where national parks are established and how different aspects of access to land and forest resources affect these struggles. A better understanding of the nature of the struggles increases the possibility of avoiding, or at least lessening, future struggles.

The aim of this project is an analysis of different aspects, which affect the struggles over access to natural resources where national parks are established. We are aware that the task of trying to uncover and understand these struggles is a very difficult one. Many aspects, and especially underlying aspects not immediately obvious to outsiders, influence the struggles and intermingle, creating complex explanatory patterns. We have chosen to focus on three aspects, which we believe have a major and multiple influence on the struggles over access to resources: the land tenure systems, land use practices in rural communities bordering national parks, and the laws and regulations regarding national parks. We have chosen these aspects because we believe they all, in different ways, influence access to natural resources. Furthermore, these aspects deal with rules, policies and action, which makes them mutually dependent. However, in realising that struggles over natural resources not only pertain to the politics and politicised perspectives of natural resource management but also to a much broader development agenda, we have chosen also to include a politicised development perspective. This aspect underlies much policy development in Sabah and relates to the political processes that have shaped the relations between the state and the rural population, a relation greatly influenced by Federal politics. It is a prerequisite for understanding some of the indirect causes of the struggles over resources in relation to national parks, thereby making it clear that these struggles are a result of a combination of directly related policies, such as forest management policies as well as broader rural development policies. Thus, all these aspects are influenced by the different actors’ guiding agendas and perceptions, creating an interplay and interrelation, which is illustrated in figure 1. By examining both the aspects in themselves and the interplay between them we believe to be able to get a better understanding of the struggles over access to natural resources that arise where national parks are established.

Figure 1: The relationship between the aspects affecting struggles over access to natural resources.

We will focus on two national parks, Kinabalu Park and Crocker Range National Park (CRNP), in the interior of Sabah. The village of Tempulong on the border of Kinabalu Park and the villages of Kuyongon and Tikolod bordering CRNP will be the focus for the examination of struggles related to access to land and forest resources (for location of the two parks, see map 1). The use of the villages as empirical data will be further discussed in chapter 2.

Copied from the SLUSE homepage at KVL

When examining struggles over access to natural resources we will be looking at three main actors; the Federal government, the state in Sabah and the farmers in the three communities. We are aware that it is by far three homogenous and singled-voiced actors we are dealing with. Although these actors can be seen as operating on different levels, there are connections and ties between the different actors, which penetrate these levels. Furthermore, there are internal conflicts and differing interests within each group of actors, often leading them to pursue different strategies. As far as our empirical data allows us, we will try to uncover some of these internal differences and their effects on the struggles over access to natural resources. However, our main focus will be on the interests and agendas of the state on one hand and the farmers in rural communities bordering national parks on the other hand in relation to the struggles over access to natural resources.

With the interplay and interrelation between the aspects relating to struggles over natural resources in mind, we have made following research questions, which will also function as our structure throughout the project:

• How has the Federal government influenced the political agenda in Sabah?
• What political events have led to the gradual undermining of Sabah’s autonomy?
• How has the struggle for identity and political control between the indigenous people on one hand and the Malay-Muslim minority in Sabah on the other manifested itself?

• Which historical events, aspects, negotiations and perceptions have created and influenced the present land tenure systems?
• How is access to land controlled?
• How does a situation of legal pluralism affect struggles over access to natural resources?

• What characterise the different interests connected to the use of forest resources?
• How is Sabah Parks empowered to exclude rural communities through national park policies and management guidelines?
• In what way are customary rights and traditional access to forest areas considered when national parks are established?
• Why are national parks established?

• What characterises the land use practices in rural communities bordering national parks?
• How do the land tenure system and land use practices interact in the rural communities?

• How are local land use practices perceived by state officials?
• How does the establishment of national parks affect local livelihood?

This project is not only an integrated module II project at International Development Studies (IU) and Geography at Roskilde University Centre, it is also a part of the DANCED financed Sustainable Land Use and Natural Resource Management (SLUSE) programme, which all three of us have attended since September 1999. As part of the SLUSE programme two of us went on a three-week field trip to Sabah and it is partly the data collected on this field trip, which we use in this project.

Examining struggles that arise where national parks are established involves looking at a range of aspects of which we have chosen to examine the land tenure systems, rural land use practices, and legislation and management of national parks. These aspects cover several academic disciplines and levels of analysis, thus the examination of the struggles over access to natural resources cannot be limited to the prerogative of one discipline. In order to examine the aspects and their influence on the struggles over natural resources, we have chosen Third World political ecology, property rights theory and cultural theory as used within ecological anthropology as analytical and theoretical tools. Third World political ecology functions as our structuring framework since this field of research covers many of the themes and aspects, which we are also concerned with. Struggles over natural resources involve the relationship between individuals or groups of individuals in relation to resources. This involves looking at the way struggles over resources between different actors are manifested, but also how these different actors perceive the environment. Because of this, we have chosen to look at different narratives that shape much of the struggles over resources. We use cultural theory and property rights theory that helps us to question and understand the motives behind such narratives.

The theories are used to analyse the empirical data by casting light on different aspects of conflicts over access to natural resources. The knowledge and concepts, which the framework and theories provide us with, will then assist us to understand and explain the struggles present in the different communities. The advantage of such an approach is that it allows us to assess the complexity of the struggles over natural resources. Furthermore it allows us to paint a nuanced image of what such struggles entail and how they are manifested and articulated. However, we are aware that such an approach can be very difficult. By applying such an array of aspects to examine the struggles, one might end up with a distorted emphasis, weighing one theoretical aspect as opposed to another where the opposite might in fact bring about a different understanding. In this way the project has been subject to personal choice. Furthermore, by applying an array of aspects, presented through the theoretical framework, we may lose sight of the complexity of the individual theoretical statements. However, we have tried to overcome this by using the chapter on theory to define the limits in our approach in relation to the empirical data.

To help us understand and analyse the struggles in Sabah, we have selected and used three villages as concrete cases. We are not doing a comparative study of the different struggles found in the different communities. However, in an effort to analyse the complexity of the different scenarios found, we will be looking at similarities as well as differences between the three communities, hence an element of comparison. Mitchell (1983) argues for the advantages of a case study:

To get an idea of the causes of the struggles over natural resources in a Sabahan context, the individual cases and the struggles by which they are exemplified are projected into the overall struggles in Sabah. Thus, the selection of cases should be seen as complementing one another, where the overall case draws the general picture in Sabah, while the three villages show the variety of the struggles on a community level.

The fieldwork was conducted in the villages of Kuyongon and Tikolod, both bordering Crocker Range National Park (CRNP). We realise that the reliability of our data is subject to the short amount of time we spent doing fieldwork in Sabah (a total of 10 days in the villages). Therefore we will supplement our case material with the work done by Amity Doolittle who did research for her PhD in the village of Tempulong on the border of Kinabalu Park about the transformation of the land tenure system in Sabah (Doolittle 1999). We will furthermore draw upon studies made by Jamili Nais (1996) and Tuboh et al. (1999) on the relations between local communities and Kinabalu Park and CRNP respectively. Although our own data is not nearly as extensive and thorough as the data presented by Doolittle and Nais, we find that our perceptions of the struggles and land use systems in our study areas are much in line with these authors. Thus, we see these empirical studies as complementary, revealing different aspects of the struggles over access to resources, which arise where national parks limit the local communities’ access to resources previously used by these communities.

The integration of the case studies from Tikolod, Kuyongon and Tempulong will be done by combining them with our theoretical discussions and analysis throughout the project. Introducing the different scenarios and cases involves looking at the arguments, or stories, presented by the different actors as ways of negotiating a claim to natural resources. We are well aware that such stories, or arguments, not necessarily result in action. Because of this, these stories are seen in relation to the overall actions that are being promoted by different narratives. For the purpose of examining land use as perceived by different stakeholders we will draw on maps developed in co-operation with the communities of Kuyongon and Tikolod and compare these maps with an official land use map. The maps developed in co-operation with the villagers can be seen as counter- maps, or counter-narrative, to the official land use map. Hence, maps are a way of presenting reality as seen by an individual actor. Furthermore, through their role as a form of counter-narrative these maps can be used to influence decisions about access to and control over natural resources.

During our fieldwork in Sabah we applied a range of methods including various RRA (Rapid Rural Appraisal) and PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal) techniques. Most of our methods used can rightly be termed participatory in the sense that our data collection was done together with local people. In Tikolod the focus of the study was to examine the changes in the institutions, rules and knowledge systems in relation to land tenure security. Open-ended semistructured interviews were the main interview technique, supplemented with different kinds of PRA sessions. The PRA methods included observational walks, Physical Mapping and Venn Diagram. Physical Mapping is a map showing different locations in the area, which is a fine supplement to observational walks. The map provided information on ownership to land in the village; what was owned and how much. Furthermore, it identified both privately owned land and communal land. The purpose of the Venn Diagram was to identify village institutions and their interrelation. Thus, the outcome of the Venn Diagram was a visualisation of the power structures and institutional setup in the village, which was relevant when working with land tenure issues. The study also looked at changes in the Adat over time, i.e. how it has been influenced by the introduction of the Land Ordinance.

The focus of the study in Kuyongon was to examine the use and importance of forest products as well as the importance of different gathering sites, including CRNP. The participatory methods used were mapping of the village, household survey, forest walks and semistructured interviews, including matrix scoring and ranking. The participatory mapping provided information on basic geographical features of the village and the location of the different households in relation to the National Park. The household survey was used to select households with different characteristics for in-depth interviews and forest walks. A forest walk and semistructured interview were done with each informant. The forest walks provided information on forest products used by the villagers as well as their gathering sites. The forest walk was followed up by an interview, which included ranking and matrix scoring, to assess the importance of the forest products and the different gathering sites.

Our experience with using PRA methods was both positive and negative. There were some difficulties in making it clear to the participants what we actually wanted from them. It was especially difficult to get them to understand the importance of just using their own knowledge and not to focus on our expectations. But because the villagers insisted on precision, during one of the mapping sessions, they used an official map as reference in order to get the roads and rivers geographically precise. They tended to use the pre-made map too much as they tried to respond to our request for as detailed a description of the area as was possible. So we tried to find a balance; between interrupting the session and letting the informants themselves take charge.

In relation to the Venn Diagram we experienced some of the same problems. However, as opposed to mapping, which the villagers had a well developed notion of, the term ‘institution’ was hard to explain to them. One could argue that in a PRA session the villagers would themselves define the terms used, which is why this particular session was more of a RRA session. Because it turned out to be difficult to define ‘institutions’ for them, the selection of good informants was especially important. We chose four informants for the session of both sexes who represented some of the more important and powerful people in Tikolod. If the session was to be a success and the discussion as good a representation of the facts as possible, we needed people who had knowledge of the institutional set-up within the village as well as institutional ties to the outside. The negative side of choosing informants that were prominent figures of the community lay in the fact that they would perhaps weigh the importance of certain institutions in relation to their own affiliations with them. Also, having chosen two men and two women we had subjected ourselves to the problem of gender relations. Throughout the session the two men dominated the discussion, and occasionally answered on behalf of the women.

As mentioned above, RRA and PRA differ basically in the way the information is gained and also the type of information acquired. In RRA, information is more elicited and extracted by outsiders as a part of data gathering and in PRA it is more generated, analysed, owned and shared by local people as part of a process of their empowerment (Chambers 1994). This in mind combined with our experience it is more correct to say that we did RRA sessions instead of PRA sessions even though it was our aim to do PRA. Our experience shows that it is difficult to hand over the ‘stick’ to the locals and let them define the problem; we had more or less defined the issue in advance.

When conducting semistructured interviews some of the same points of criticism as above apply. Lack of experience with conducting semistructured interviews can lead to situations where interesting points are not pursued due to lack of local perspective, points which could have improved the data in the processing phase. Another critical point was the use of interpreters. When having to translate meaning, the use of interpreter can make this type of field method difficult, mainly because it has a bearing on the reliability of the data. However we realise that part of the problem concerning interpretation is due to our lack of experience working with interpreters. We would have benefited more from the interview if we had, in all instances, explained the aim of the individual interview to the interpreter and also made sure that the interpreter did not stray from this aim, which we tried to avoid by demanding that every sentence be translated.

An essential point to make is that statements and actions are not necessarily closely connected. When working with informants as a source of information, one has to be aware that the information one obtains through this type of work has to be compared to the actions of the informants. Information obtained through the work with informants is based on a range of factors, e.g. the relation between the interviewer and the informant and the interests and personal agendas of the informants. Also one has to keep in mind that information obtained through interview sessions, and other types of fieldwork methods, often tend to become interpreted in relation to the agenda of the researcher.

Because of the fact that only ten days was spent doing fieldwork in Kuyongon and Tikolod, and because different themes were examined in the two villages, we will refrain from putting too much emphasis on the individual statements. Instead we focus on different defined narratives linking the statements to these narratives (see chapter 3.4).

In chapter 3 we present our analytical framework and the theoretical approaches as discussed in section 2.1. Thus, chapter 3 is setting the scope of the project by casting light on and discussing different aspects relating to the struggles over access to natural resources. Chapter 4-9 deals with the various aspects of land tenure and land use issues as well as the political relations between the various actors, which all in different ways influence the struggles. In the conclusion we will combine the discussions of the different aspects relating to the struggles by analysing the way the different aspects interplay and influence the struggles.

Chapter 4 is an introduction to Sabah and the case areas. In the introduction to Sabah we give an insight into recent (from the late 1870s) historical events, which have been contributory factors in shaping the current political landscape in Sabah. Furthermore, we briefly describe the geographical and socio-economic features of Sabah State, including a presentation of the indigenous groups in Sabah. Following this, we give a short presentation of the three communities Tikolod, Kuyongon and Tempulong, which constitute our case material. We describe the topography, land use and socio-economic features of the communities as well as their relation to the national parks they border.

The principal purpose of chapter 5 is to provide a description of the relationship between the State of Sabah and the Federation as well as the relationship between the Sabah state and the indigenous groups in Sabah. We show how the Federal government has gradually increased its control over affairs previously considered affairs of Sabah State by forming alliances with mainly Muslim-dominated political parties in Sabah and by referring to economic development and prosperity as well as the establishment of a common nationhood. This increased centralisation, which involve both political, cultural and economic issues, has affected the ability of the non-Muslim indigenous population to access and control natural resources, hence take control over their own lives. This has resulted in a desire to develop a new indigenous identity with a set of new demands.

In chapter 6 we continue to discuss the issue of outside influence on Sabahan affairs by examining the evolution of legal pluralism in Sabah. We start by examining the reasons behind the codification of tenure rights and introduction of private property, which was initiated under British rule, and the problems this codification faced and created. In the post-colonial period the effort to codify the traditional systems of ownership continued and resulted in the Land Ordinance of 1967. We argue that there are many similarities between the colonial and post-colonial attitudes toward customary tenure and land use. These attitudes and narratives, which have been used to govern the people of Sabah, have affected both the way the codification was handled and the result of the codification in the Land Ordinance. We then move on to discuss the role of the different regional and community based institutions dealing with land tenure and land use issues and how these institutions have been affected by the introduction of the Land Ordinance.

Chapter 7 deals with issues relating to forest protection in Sabah. This chapter draws on issues dealt with in the previous chapters; how the state has gained increasing control over access to resources and land use by defining what is proper and improper land use and how this influence is spreading to the rural communities through the local institutions. But where the previous chapters primarily have been concerned with agricultural land use practices, this chapter is concerned with the use of forest resources. We start with a discussion of why forests are a major potential conflict area by investigating the different interests connected to the use of forest resources. The following part concerning forest policies in Sabah links the different interests in forest policy with national parks, thereby highlighting the power relationship between the departments within Sabah state concerned with respectively nature conservation and development, especially timber extraction and agricultural development. Furthermore, the regulations, institutional set-up and problems relating to the management of the national parks are examined and in order to concretise the issues relating to national parks we draw in Kinabalu Park and CRNP, which constitute the framework for studying the struggles over access to natural resources that arise where national parks are established. The chapter ends with a discussion of the rationales behind the establishment of national parks.

In all national parks in Sabah any use of resources within the park boundaries is prohibited, thus following a fundamental assumption in the conservationist discourse that nature needs to be protected from human use. Thus, human activity is often identified as the source of environmental damage and this can be seen as the reason behind the exclusion of local communities from the national parks. In chapter 8 we therefore examine the characteristics of and rationales behind the land use practices in rural communities. Initially we examine the livelihood strategies of small-scale farmers in Sabah in general followed by a more detailed analysis of land use practices observed in Kuyongon, Tempulong and Tikolod. Furthermore we discuss maps from Kuyongon and Tikolod made in co-operation with the villagers in relation to an official land use map.

Chapter 9 is an analysis of the struggles arising where national parks are established. We argue that the disputes not only relate to struggles over access to arable land and resources, but also the power to decide the use to which resources should be put. But before we examine the actual nature of the struggles, we look at how the villages of Kuyongon, Tempulong and Tikolod have been affected in different ways by the establishment of national parks.

The way the governing of natural resources and struggles over such resources has been analysed and discussed since the 1960s can be characterised according to different approaches: the transformation approach; the preservation approach; and the negotiated development approach. The transformation approach has its fundament in Garrett Hardin’s ‘The tragedy of the commons’ (discussed below) and argues that exclusive titles, privatisation and thorough change in institutions managing natural resources are necessary to avoid the depletion of commonly managed natural resources. As a reaction against this, the preservation approach argues in favour of common property regimes and joint use solutions; as Ostrom (1990: 88) argues, many common property resource institutions are in fact capable of managing resources sustainably because extensive norms have evolved in these settings that narrowly define ‘proper’ behaviour. As opposed to the previous approaches, the negotiated development approach is more focused on the different interests, views and goals of the resource users, and as such authors like Nancy Peluso (1996: 512), Tania Li (1996: 501-503) and Sally Falk Moore (1999: 1-2) argue that struggles over resources are not really about the resource itself, but about issues like access to power and social relations.

We find the way struggles over natural resources are analysed within the negotiated development approach interesting because it compliments Third World political ecology, which we have chosen as our structuring analytical framework. Third World political ecology makes a relevant framework because it, broadly speaking, is about the struggles between actors for control over natural resources. In this way, this field of study is in compliance with the definition of land tenure as the relationship between individuals or groups of individuals in relation to resources. This approach is found within property rights theory, which we will use throughout the analysis. As a mediator in the relations between individuals and groups of individuals in relation to resources, as well as between people and the environment, we find institutions. Property rights theory deals with the former aspect of institutions, while it does not deal so much with the relationship between people and the environment. For this we have chosen to draw on cultural theory as it is used within ecological anthropology. We see these different theoretical approaches as manifested through different forms of narratives, hence we have chosen to work with the following three categories of narratives: development narratives; environmental narratives; and counter-narratives.

Throughout the project we are concerned with many of the themes and aspects, which are dealt with within Third World political ecology. When a broader and more generalised understanding of these aspects is relevant we draw in different aspects from property rights theory and ecological anthropology, which can help explain and discuss the issues, hence the structuring framework of Third World political ecology. The issues, which are dealt with by researchers, such as Nancy Peluso and Marcus Colchester, using an actor-oriented approach, include:

• The motivations, interests and actions of different types of actors and the relation between these actors; An understanding of struggles as an outcome of the interaction of different actors pursuing often quite distinctive aims and interests.
• The importance of perceptions and narratives; An understanding of the way different perceptions and narratives are used to promote a certain perspective in the struggle between actors for control over natural resources and the implications of such perceptions and narratives.
• Power relations; A concern with the complex understanding of how power relations shape human-environmental interaction and how power relations between different actors influence the control of land and natural resources.
• The historical perspective; the need for a historical understanding of the struggles and environmental changes.
• Local context; A focus on the wider political and economic structures that influence the activity in any given locality, thereby exploring the politics of the locality.

All these aspects are centred on the idea of a politicised environment. Using the term politicised environment implies an exploration of the political dimensions of human-environment interactions, an appreciation that politics is about the interaction between actors in relation to environmental resources and a recognition that even weak actors possess some power to act in the pursuit of their interests, thus assessing the implications of a politicised environment (Bryant et al. 1993: 102-103; Bryant & Bailey 1997: 10-26).

A fundamental aspect of the struggles over access to resources that arise where national parks are established is the definition of land tenure. According to Birgegård (1993: 3) natural resource tenure refers to the terms and conditions on which natural resources are held and used, making tenure a matter of relationships between individuals and groups of individuals in which rights and obligations with respect to control and use of land, for instance, are defined. Also MacPherson (1978: 3-4) and Peluso (1996: 512) emphasise the social nature of land tenure and property rights by arguing that property is a political relation between persons, involving power, wealth and meaning to those who control or have access to it. This makes land tenure and property an issue about access to and control over resources, which is constantly negotiated. Access to resources will then refer to the use right, and control involves the right or power to define these use rights (Lund 1995: 10-11). As we see it, this perspective is interesting because it is in the interface between the two that conflicts over access to resources are likely to occur. Furthermore, it implies an actor-oriented approach to studying the conflicts.

MacPherson defines property in the following way:

This leads to the question of how a person can claim to have a right to a piece of land. Rose’s examination of how property, or possession, can be claimed follows the definition of property being a relationship between people because as she argues, property claims are a matter of communication (Rose 1984: 14). To secure the possession, in our case land and access to forest resources, the surrounding society must accept the "proper" owner, especially if more than one owner claim rights to the same possession. Hence, the importance of a claim lies in the sort of action, which enables the owner to receive rights to use the land and even get a title to it. According to Rose (1984: 13), a claim will be judged according to the following: reward to useful labour and notice to the world through a clear act. In addition to this, one can also mention inheritance through belonging to a community/clan/family and entitlement through grants.

Locke argues that:

However, reward to useful labour not only involves the argument made by Locke. It also indicates that different uses of land are not valued equally; the use has to be suitable. This way of establishing a claim to a piece of land can be observed in Sabah, an example being where the state has established national parks on vast tracts of land, prohibiting local use of forest resources by referring to the destructive nature of some community land uses. Another example is the way land has been codified in both the colonial and pre-colonial period in Sabah. Shifting cultivation with frequent rotation of fields and large tracts of fallow land practised in many rural communities were not recognised as proper land use, indicating, as Rose (1984: 19) argues, the domination of the classical economic perspective. This perspective has an economically based ideology, which promotes getting a surplus out of the land, preferably the largest one possible, and sporadic use of land is not highly valued.

These examples are related to another of the indicators, which Rose argues is the most important indicator; notice through a clear act. This act must be a declaration of one’s intend to appropriate, and suitable use can also be a form of notice because:

The notice is a powerful tool to communicate right to land or resources, but the notice has to be clear, and a written text acts better than verbal communication. In Sabah the local farmers are getting increasingly aware of the importance of titles and they are applying for them at the District Office. However, problems arise for those farmers, who have made use of land within national parks before they were enacted and who do not hold title to this land. Those farmers had either not made a clear notice stating their claim to the land or their notice had not been accepted, thus their claim to this land after the enactment of the national parks is not considered e.g. in terms of compensation. This shows that working the land is not enough; it has to be communicated and accepted. But it is complicated by the fact that the state is both claiming the right to control land within the national parks as well as being the institution granting land titles to the farmers, thus having the power to decide good land use and the legitimacy of claims.

One way of understanding not only the legislation and management of national parks and the exclusive claim made by the state to these areas but also the codification of land is by drawing in Garrett Hardin’s thesis about "the tragedy of the commons" (Hardin 1968) mentioned above. Although Hardin’s article has been much contested and criticised for describing open-access resources rather than common property resources, it is relevant in the sense that it justifies governmental control over natural resources. Hardin argues that in cases with common property resources, these resources will be over-exploited, or perhaps even depleted, because as a rational being, each resource user will seek to maximise his, or hers, gain, thus freedom in a commons brings ruin to all (Hardin 1968: 1244). To avoid this tragedy of the commons, their use has to be controlled either by privatising it, hence the importance of private property and titled land, or to vest the management role in the state. This view has guided many governments in their design of land laws and forest management and the latter method of government stewardship is a widely used method in relation to forest resources in Sabah. The rationale dominating legislation and management of national parks in Sabah can be termed the fences-and-fines approach (for further discussion of this approach see Songorwa 1999); red paint on trees is marking the boundaries of the national parks acting as a fence and people violating the laws are fined.

The discussions above indicate the importance of the codification and introduction of private property in relation to access to land and land use systems. Often, as it is also the case in Sabah, the history of land codification will create a plural legal setting. According to M. B. Hooker the term legal pluralism refers to a situation where two or more legal rules exist (Hooker in Dalberg-Larsen 1994: 20). A situation of legal pluralism is not only referring to the laws but also the institutions dealing with these laws, and at times these settings fix conflict solving, but at other times these same settings may form a stage for re-negotiation of rights to property. We therefore find it important to examine the concept of institutions, with special attention to the institutions in Sabah dealing with land tenure issues.

Throughout our analysis we work with various institutions dealing with land tenure issues and it is important that we examine, not only institutions as a concept, but also the origin of these institutions, their setting, the legitimacy they inherit and how it is inherited or formed. Institutional arrangements shape and mediate the process of what can be termed as endowment and entitlement, where endowment can be defined as what a person initially possesses, while entitlement can be defined as what people can have (Leach et al. 1997: 15-17). Entitlement is not static and endowment can become entitlement over time. When considering our focus on the struggles for resource areas within national parks, it becomes apparent that there are some endowments in the form of informal customary rights to areas within the gazetted Parks, which are legitimised by social norms and codes of behaviour. Even though law prohibits access to these areas, people defy these laws because they see these areas as traditionally belonging to them. This shapes the relationship between the local communities and the state, hence the relationship between different actors and institutions.

Leach et al. go on to say that:

Thus, we find that the relationship between different institutional scales is of central importance. This is because institutions and the institutional setup, both on a community level and all the way up to state level, influence which actors gain access to and control over local natural resources. Furthermore these institutions influence the use and management of these resources. Thus, Berry sees institutions as maintained by (and only existing because of) people’s active investment in them (Berry in Leach et al. 1997: 26).

A distinction between informal and formal institutions is in place for one important reason; the two kinds of institutions are differently enforced, the first internally and the last externally. The informal institutions are upheld by agreement among the actors involved and through relations of power and authority between them. One such informal institution is the local Adat. Formal institutions are enforced by a third party, e.g. the rule of law upheld by the state (Leach et al. 1997: 24). Institutions, however, are not a fixed entity in themselves and as it is with the relations and power struggles between institutions, there are often invariance and conflicts within institutions. Although institutions are understood as regularised patterns of behaviour between individuals and groups in society, such patterns of behaviour are not necessarily constantly reproduced (Jepperson 1994: 147). One could perhaps use the Adat as an example here. The Adat, as a localised knowledge system, changes over time, not only as a result of changes within the environment in which it has been conceptualised and enforced, but also as a result of outside influences in the form of e.g. the state or colonial rule. Thus, institutional change influences the ability to control resources.

Cultural theory is an analytical framework, which questions common known dichotomised statements and as such cultural theory is a systematic doubt-approach made to judge all views, including our own (Milton 1996: 3). What cultural theory can provide, in relation to our study, is an insight into how people understand the environment, which has consequence for the way they interact with it. Many of the different views on the relationship between nature and culture can be said to be technocentric or ecocentric, preservationist or conservationist. These positions overlap in the form of different environmental discourses and narratives (Milton 1996: 74; Hirsh 1996: 2). By using the term overlapping we refrain from portraying any one viewpoint as belonging to a stereotypical position. The different dichotomised viewpoints, whether it is conservationist or preservationist, are never single sided nor are they constant. We assume that these standpoints, expressed through environmental narratives, constantly are being redefined and changed to further the goals of individuals and groups. Hence the examination of narratives, in this case environmental narratives, is also a central issue in cultural theory as ecological anthropologists use it (Milton 1996: 3). But before we elaborate on our use of narratives, which will be done in the next section, it is important first to examine some of the mentioned positions dealt with by ecological anthropology.

A most pervasive point of argument in the environmentalist debate has been the identification of two kinds of environmentalism: conservationism and preservationism. While conservationists wish to protect nature as a resource for human use, preservationists recognise a moral obligation towards nature itself, wanting to protect it from human use (Milton 1996: 74). Another dichotomy, resembling the first, is the dichotomy between technocentrism and ecocentrism. Technocentrism places humans in control of nature, where nature is perceived as separate from humans and their social, economic, technological and political system. Ecocentrism, on the other hand, builds on the perception that humans, and the societies they create, are part of nature. Humans are seen as subject to, and not in control of, nature and must therefore adapt to the conditions of the environment (Hirsh 1996: 2-3; for further discussion of these different perceptions of nature see also Einarsson 1993). However, neither view exists in a pure form. In fact environmentalist debate is represented by a greater degree of variability. However, there seem to be two dominating viewpoints throughout much of the debate, one that sees people as a part of the environment and one that sees people set aside from the environment. The two kinds of environmentalism (conservationism and preservationism) are manifestations of environmentalism as social movements and as political ideologies (Milton 1996: 78-84). What is important to notice concerning the different positions is that these are political ideologies, used to promote one type of development, or environmental management, over another. In this way ecological anthropology supports the politicised environment approach used within this project.

Throughout much literature on ecological anthropology it is argued that different institutions involved in the debate over sustainable resource management derive their legitimacy from different environmental ideologies. Forest protection policies in Sabah bear much resemblance with environmental preservationist ideology, arguing that nature is best left undisturbed by human impacts so to maintain the great biodiversity of fragile pristine rainforest, otherwise endangered by mans practices. On the other hand, local people, or indigenous people (a word which in itself contains a politicised narrative), will argue that they are the stewards of good resource management since they are the keepers of knowledge developed through using the natural resources in a ’sustainable’ way over time. This refers to the view that indigenous people live in harmony with their environment, which in itself is a contested belief. Thus, ecological anthropologists such as Kay Milton and Marcus Colchester, offer a good tool for analysing the complex understanding of different views on the environment held by the different actors involved in the struggles over access to natural resources. These views are often portrayed in a stereotypical fashion by public media, various grassroot organisations and political agendas.

An important aspect in the analysis of the state control over forest resources that leads to conflicts and struggles over access to resources is an understanding of how such control has been accomplished and also what underlies statements that promote one view as opposed to another. Li (1996: 505) argues that struggles over resources are also struggles over meaning, thus both Li and Fortmann (1995: 1054) point to the importance of narratives, or stories. Such narratives, which also include the use of maps, are used in the negotiation process to gain access to resources as well as the right to define ‘proper’ resource use. Hence, the term narrative is used in an effort to analyse the different statements promoted by Federal and State politicians and local communities alike, through which claims to property are manifested. According to Fortmann:

Fortmann goes on by referring to Peters:

Thus, narratives become a medium through which events are produced and validated, and also a narrative has the ability to empower, encourage and relieve the storyteller (Fortmann 1995: 1054). In this way claims to property can be made through different narratives, i.e. telling a story of ancestors through which land has been inherited, or stories of farmers’ destructive agricultural practices. Only through the telling of stories or reinventing realities can claims to natural resources be made and these stories have to be upkept and outspoken clearly and constantly, what Rose (1984: 16) refers to as giving "notice" to ones claims.

Narratives, as we perceive them, promote certain perceptions through telling a tale of the past that promotes present claims to the future use and development of e.g. natural resources and property. Often, as is the case in the communities we have examined, tales of ancestry is told to promote native customary rights to property and forest areas. Through these tales claims are made to e.g. areas within a national park to which access has been denied. Furthermore such a narrative is used to justify defying state rule prohibiting access to national parks. However, customary rights, although these rights are bestowed on the individual, would not make sense if the community did not accept these rights, hence a narrative would lose its meaning and legitimacy without a broader acceptance. Another way which acceptance of narratives is articulated is through legislation and economic policies designed by the state.

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, throughout the project we will be examining three categories of narratives (development narratives, environmental narratives and counter-narratives). The three categories of narratives are classified in relation to one another but they also overlap. What is important to emphasise here is that we work with two overall types of narratives, the environmental and the developmental. The third category of narratives, counter-narratives, are used to criticise and counter the environmental and development narratives and as such counter-narratives work as a counter measure to one type of development, or environmental management, by arguing for another type of development or environmental management. Thus, a narrative can be used to justify a specific kind of development and environmental management in some instances while in opposition to development and environmental management in other instances.

Roe (1991: 288) talks of development narratives, which have the objective of getting their hearers to believe or do something. Hence he stresses their ability to generate actions. One such narrative, also widely discussed within property rights theory, states that land privatisation increases land security through individual title to land, which will increase the incentive to invest in ones own land (for further discussion see Birgegård 1993). This narrative is criticised for being too simplistic. A range of factors have to be present to facilitate investment; private ownership alone does not suffice (Roe 1991: 290-291). Another narrative used to justify a certain development is the ‘tragedy of the commons’ mentioned above. A counter-narrative to Hardin’s ‘tragedy of the commons’ is Ostrom’s favouring of joint use solutions to common property management as mentioned in the beginning of this chapter. Although Hardin’s ‘tragedy of the commons’ is criticised for its impact on various development policies, the advocates of an environmental narrative that counters the widely legitimised position of Hardin’s theory, found within a community-based sustainable development consensus, likewise hold a much contested view. Their main assumption is that a distinct and homogenous community exists. Equally fundamental is the assumption of a distinct and relatively stable local environment, which in turn may fall prey to degradation, but could be restored and managed sustainably through the reinstallment of indigenous community practices. It is assumed that indigenous people live in harmony with the environment and that their religious myths and rituals work as conservation practices (Hames 1987: 92). In relation to such counter-narratives it is often argued that when these indigenous communities start to mismanage the environment it is as a result of outside influence, creating dis-equilibrium within the community. In this case there is a strong sense of changes as a result of outside influence as opposed to changes from within (Leach et al. 1997: 5). This view, however, is highly contested within much modern ecological anthropology (see Milton 1996 and Bloch 1995).

It is important, in relation to the fact that the above narrative sets aside the behaviour of indigenous communities from ‘modern’ society, to talk a little about what the term ‘indigenous’ covers. According to Colchester indigenous can be defined as:

The above definition is a negative definition in the sense that the term ‘indigenous’ is used to express a sense of marginalisation, hence marginal people are adopting the term to describe themselves because of the rights they believe are associated with the term, i.e. to land and resources. So the term is not only a theoretical construct but also used as a political instrument in the struggle over resources.

To further the understanding of the effect these developmental and environmental narratives have on actual change, we will introduce Doolittle’s concept of "technology of rule". According to Doolittle:

Hence, narratives function as a technology of rule whereby actions and policies that govern peoples’ lives are justified. It is through these technologies of rule that the state establishes its authority over the indigenous populations, i.e. by arguing that the indigenous populations are engaged in destructive and underdeveloped/undeveloped agricultural practices and do not appreciate nature protection (Cleary & Eaton 1992: 193; Mustapha 1989: 63-64). It is on the grounds of such arguments that the state justifies its actions, including those taken when establishing national parks.

In this chapter we will start by giving a short presentation of some geographical, historical and socio-economic aspects of Sabah, which are relevant for our further analysis. This is followed by an introduction to the three communities, Tikolod, Kuyongon and Tempulong, which will be the main focus of our empirical analysis.

Sabah State occupies the northern most part of Borneo and borders Indonesia in the south and Sarawak in the West (see map 2). Together with the Peninsular and Sarawak, Sabah makes up the Federation of Malaysia. Of the thirteen states in the Federation, Sabah is the second largest and covers an area of 73,619 km² with an estimated population of 2,593,400. The State is administratively divided into four main regions; the West Coast, Interior, Sandakan and Tawau.

Foreign interests in Sabah’s rich natural resource endowment and commercial potentials have shaped its history. Until 1877 Sabah was part of the Brunei Empire, but that year the sultans of Brunei sold the northern part of Borneo (Sabah) to the heads of a British trading company. The British government granted the trading company a Royal Charter and the North Borneo Chartered Company was established. From 1888 North Borneo became a British Protectorate. As part of the aim to develop the agricultural production and to gain access to resources, a system of land titling started under British rule. After the Japanese Occupation during World War II, Sabah became a British Crown Colony in 1956 and exploitation and control of Sabah’s natural resources, particularly timber and farmland, continued. In 1963 Sabah became independent but joined the Federation Malaysia later that year. An Inter-Governmental Committee was established to draw up the conditions to safeguard the rights of the people of Sabah (Lasimbang 1996a: 187-188; Doolittle 1999: 73-75). The list, which came to be known as The Twenty Points, will be further examined in chapter 5.

Roughly speaking, the institutional setup in Sabah is divided into three levels; state, district and village. At the state level there is the Sabah government and different ministries as well as departments e.g. agriculture and forestry. The District Office is the main institution at the district level. The connection between the village level and district level is through the Headman or Headwoman of each village and the Committee for Development and Security (JKKK).

Sabah is sometimes called "the land of biodiversity" referring to the fact that the region has one of the highest species diversity in the world. The natural vegetation of the area is tropical rain forest and mixed dipterocarp forest covers the largest area of Sabah. Sabah, like other parts of Borneo, has a rich and diverse wildlife. Increased hunting and disturbance of natural habitats in the recent decades are now serious threats to wildlife. Many species are becoming scarcer and in Sabah some 29 species of mammals and 106 species of birds have been listed as threatened species and are now protected (Cleary & Eaton 1992: 194).

Contrary to the highly industrialised states on the Peninsular, the people of Sabah are mainly living in rural areas. Hence, the economy of Sabah is mainly based on forestry and agriculture. The industry is, for a large part, related to the processing of local raw materials like timber and the main exports include timber, saw logs, petroleum, palm oil and cocoa beans. However, offshore oil and gas sources have attracted manufacturing industries using oil and gas in their production. Even though Sabah is generally considered to be the richest State in the Federation in terms of natural resources, Sabah also has one of the highest percentages of poor households. The majority of these households live in rural areas where they live as farmers (Lasimbang 1996a: 177).

The population in Sabah is characterised by ethnic pluralism and the most dominant groups include Dayaks (an umbrella term used to describe the various indigenous groups), Malays, Chinese, Indians, Philippines and Indonesians. It is estimated that 39 different ethnic groups make up approximately 84% of Sabah’s population and most of these indigenous peoples live in rural areas. The major ethnic groups include Dusun, Murut, Bajau and Paitan. The Dusuns consist of subgroups, including Kadazan, Rungus and Labuk and make up about 33% of Sabah’s population (Lasimbang 1996a: 178-179). The Dusunic speaking people, who belong to the Kadazandusun subgroup, mainly inhabit the interior and eastern part of the State, where Crocker Range National Park (CRNP) and Kinabalu Park are located. The majority of the Kadazandusuns were animist in belief until the early 1930s but today the majority is Christians, which is related to the increasing number of Catholic schools in Sabah. The Kadazandusuns formed their first cultural and social organisations in the early 1950s and these organisations began to gain political importance after forming a political party – United National Kadazan Organisation (UNKO) - after Sabah joined the Federation (Reid 1997: 125).

In the following we will give a very short presentation of the different villages which constitute our case material. Tikolod and Kuyongon is situated on the border of CRNP whereas Tempulong adjoins the border of Kinabalu Park.

The village of Kuyongon was established in 1964 when people mainly from Longkogungan, a village in the Penampang district, settled down in this area. Their reason for moving to Kuyongon was to create better livelihoods by settling down in an area closer to a market and with access to more land and better infrastructure. The village is a small, far-stretched village situated in the bottom of a valley surrounded by rather large areas of primary and secondary forests and scattered cultivated fields. The village consists of approximately 35 households with the number of inhabitants reaching about 230 people belonging to the ethnic group Kadazandusun. The main occupation is subsistence farming combined with some cash crop production. Since the village lies within a water catchment area, which was officially designated in 1999, few of the households have been able to obtain title to their land even though most of them have applied for it. The very northern part of the village borders CRNP, which means that only four households have fields adjoining the National Park. Most of the households are situated ½ to 1 hour walking distance from CRNP. The villagers are generally unsatisfied with their situation in relation to the establishment of CRNP and the water catchment area and this discontent is mainly manifested in a conflict over access to arable land. A few families lost land due to the enactment of the Park, and the farmers cannot expand their areas for cultivation. Because cultivation of areas within the Park is so easily traceable, the villagers respect the Park rules in this concern. In terms of hunting and collection of forest products, the villagers still proceed to use areas within the Park, but the restriction on access to new arable land was stressed as the most important adverse effect of the establishment of CRNP.

Tikolod consists of four hamlets situated in a river valley stretching from the main road between Tambunan and Keningau to the South and borders CRNP to the North. The ridges on each side of the valley mark the East-West boundaries of Tikolod. So in fact the village area is defined by the physical boundaries of the landscape (topography and infrastructure). The largest hamlet has around 40 households and the three other hamlets have around 10 households each. These approximately 70 households contain about 470 people. In the late 1970s, there were only around 100 people in the village. This dramatic increase is caused by migration from Kionop village located within the boundaries of what is today CRNP. However, it is hard to make precise estimates, since the village underwent a transformation 18-20 years ago, from consisting of scattered households, to being centred around the four hamlets of today. The people in Tikolod speak Dusun and the majority, approximately 80%, is Catholics. The main income in the area is derived from small-scale farming supplemented with some handicraft production. I relation to hunting and collecting forest products within the Park boundaries the villagers defy Park legislation. However, in relation to the access to arable land, the villagers in Tikolod do not face the same degree of conflicting interests in relation to the National Park compared to Kuyongon. The villagers have enough land outside the Park for the time being to stop them from encroaching through cultivation.

The village of Tempulong lies on the border of Kinabalu Park close to one of the Park’s substations. The village has existed long before the Park was established in 1964 and consists of approximately 40 households. Like both Tikolod and Kuyongon, Tempulong is inhabited by Kadazandusuns. The majority of the villagers belong to the Borneo Evangelical Mission, but a few villagers still follow the traditional animist religion. 33% of the household heads are employed in the Park and ¼ of the villagers has temporary jobs in connection with the Park. The remaining villagers are farmers who follow a land use system with an equal emphasis on food and cash crop. As was the case in Kuyongon, the villagers of Tempulong have a rather contentious relationship with the Park. Before the Park was established, the villagers used and managed the resources within the Park on a daily basis. Although the villagers were able to find alternative hunting and gathering sites and despite opportunities for wage labour in the Park, the villagers felt that they lost access to valuable resources with the formation of the Park (Doolittle 1999: 13, 19, 228, 259). An elaboration of the effects of the national parks on the communities’ livelihood and the struggles that arise from these effects will be subject for further analysis and discussion later in the project.

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the struggle for political influence and the power to control Sabah’s resources and also the right to retain an independent identity for the various groups in Sabah. Thus, we will be focusing on the political processes that have shaped the relation between the various ethnic groups and Sabah state, a relation greatly influenced by Federal politics. As mentioned in chapter 4, the relationship between Sabah State and the Federal government was formalised through the engineering of the Twenty Points agreement (see appendix 1). These points were engineered to secure that Sabah State and its people remained in control over decisions concerning central political, economic, social and cultural issues. However, the Twenty Points have gradually lost its place in Sabahan politics as a consequence of the building of one common nationhood, inspired by the Federal government, but taking place at State level and anchored in social and economic policies.

Since Sabah’s entry into the Federation, the Federal political elite has had a decisive influence. Through extensive funding of various political parties loyal to the Federation, the Federal political elite has gained ground and thereby influenced the political agenda of the State. Thus, for several decades politics in Sabah has to a large extent been affected by the Malay-Muslim attitudes towards the indigenous population of Sabah. Jannie Lasimbang writes as follows:

It is the causes to as well as the manifestations of these tensions, which involve both political, cultural and economic issues, that we want to examine in this chapter. Such an examination is important for our understanding of the struggles over access to natural resources because it reveals aspects of the different political agendas and interests of the actors involved in these struggles. Furthermore, it is important because it links the struggle for political influence with the struggle for identity and indigenous rights, including rights to natural resources. We start by examining the relevant points in the Twenty Points agreement, which is followed by an analysis of how a slow process of undermining these points has taken place. This undermining has both a political, cultural and economic dimension and has prompted attempts by indigenous groups to revive local culture and identity, the focus of the last part of the chapter.

When Sabah joined the Federation in 1963 it was stated in the Twenty Points agreement that the Federal government could not overrule the twenty points unless the State accepted such rulings. Point 16 of the Twenty Points agreement states the following:

These safeguards were installed to make sure that the control of Sabah would remain in the hands of the Sabahans. This required that people indigenous to Sabah would enjoy the same rights as Malays on the peninsular. Thus, special rights were given to the ‘native’ population of Sabah, which were analogue to those held by Malays on the peninsular (Wah 1992: 70). Among other things it was written into the agreement that the Sabahans would have free choice of religion and that they would remain in control of the educational system of Sabah, which included the right to use English as the official language. While Islam was made the official religion in Malaysia, Sabah would not be subordinated to this, which was especially important since most Sabahans were in fact Christians. Other demands included the "Borneonisation" of the public services as soon as possible and State control over immigration, resources such as land and forests, finance, development funds and tariffs (Lasimbang 1996a: 188; Ongkili 1992: 529-531).

However, it is important to point out, that the idea behind the Twenty Points was not only to establish a degree of autonomy and self-determination for Sabah. The agreement also functioned as a protective device to secure the identity of the different indigenous groups of Sabah from the dominance of other (more economically) strong groups in the Malaysian Federation. One has to bear in mind that identity is closely linked to people’s livelihood, so by being able to retain control over issues directly related to people’s livelihood, a sense of identity could be sustained. Access and control with property and the ability to define the use to which Sabah’s resources should be put is essential prerequisites for controlling the land use patterns and cultural practices, which is the fundament of cultural identity among the Kadazandusun. Kadazan identity (in opposition to Malay-Muslim identity) has been one of the focal points of the political struggles in Sabah and its political embodiment at the beginning of the Malaysian Federation was United National Kadazan Organisation (UNKO). The struggle for Kadazan identity in recent times is manifested through the support to United Sabah Party (PBS) (Wah 1995: 64).

This section will deal with the undermining of the Twenty Points agreement. In essence the undermining has been manifested in a struggle for political, cultural and economic dominance of Sabahan interests, which have had a grave effect on the cultural and social status of the indigenous population of Sabah. After the British left Borneo, the local people in Sabah came under the jurisdiction of the Federation Malaysia. Through its financial support to certain Federal-friendly political parties, the Federation could dominate the population of Sabah socially, economically and politically and control the privileges of the local people, for whom representation now continued to be almost non-existing in the neo-colonial climate (Doolittle 1999: 281-282). By strengthening certain political parties economically, the Federation made sure that these parties had a stronger bargaining position that enabled them to gain support in the rural areas through various agricultural development schemes supplying villages with government funds (Doolittle 1999: 222). The following three sections examine the gradual undermining of the Twenty Points in relation to political, cultural and economic spheres.

From the very beginning of Sabah’s entry into the Federation, the Federal political elite tried to establish an increased control over Sabah State government policies through extending financial assistance to Sabah State through financial support of the Muslim-dominated United Sabah National Organisation (USNO), which favoured bringing Sabah more in line with the peninsular states (Balasubramaniam 1998: 1912). Furthermore departing expatriates were replaced by peninsula Malaysians on secondment to the state with reference to the lack of local candidates to take over. This led to a large number of civil servants that originated, ethnically, from the peninsula and who were mainly Muslims, compared to people indigenous to Sabah. The Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition had dominated the political arena on the peninsula for several decades and since the creation of the Federation of Malaysia, the control of the BN coalition was increasingly felt in Sabah through USNO. The use of Federal development funds was used to gain local support for the BN coalition, hence for USNO. This meant that the Kadazan-dominated UNKO, which held power the first two years of Sabahan membership of the Federation, lost much of its political support and thus its control with Sabahan affairs. By applying funds strategically prior to State elections, in an effort to promote the idea of one common nationhood, USNO gained an increased local support, thus centralising power in the hands of the Federal-dominated Malay-Muslim political party. However, Doolittle (1999: 190) points to the fact that the economic development initiated during USNO rule was accompanied by political patronage and nepotism. The leader of USNO, Tun Mustapha, was known to use timber licences and concessions as political leverage, thus loyalty to him and his political agenda was rewarded with grants of valuable timber land. This clearly shows that the struggle for political power is related to the control over the natural resources of Sabah.

Tun Mustapha increasingly began to demand that Sabah should hold control of a larger share of its own natural resources, which created conflict between USNO and the BN coalition. As a counterweight the Federation sponsored a new party in Sabah, Berjaya, which won the election in 1976. The political elite in the Berjaya government shared the modernisation ideal of the Federal political elite, thus the Berjaya rule were marked by an even greater centralisation. From 1976 to 1985 Federal funding eased socio-economic development by making development funds available to local communities and investing in local social and physical infrastructure. In this way the federation made sure that the public remained loyal to Berjaya (Balasubramaniam 1998: 1912; Ongkili 1992: 533). However, the increasing centralisation and gradual undermining of the Twenty Points were considered by many to compromise Sabah’s autonomy and this became a popular issue for the opposition up to the election in 1985. At the same time several Sabahan opposition leaders expressed their wishes to separate Sabah from the Malaysian Federation on several occasions, because the fulfilment of the Twenty Points agreement had failed. The safeguards mentioned in section 5.1 had been greatly undermined and Sabah had been left vulnerable to the amendments of the Twenty Points agreement. This continued undermining of Sabah State autonomy led to an increased discontent among the different indigenous groups of Sabah. The leader of Berjaya was especially criticised for his autocratic style of leadership and his cultural programmes; many Kadazandusuns were told that the only way to get government help with development projects was to convert to Islam (Chin 1997: 104; Osman 1992: 386).

In 1985 the Kadazan-dominated opposition party PBS won the election and remained in control of Sabah until 1994. Wah (1995: 64) sees this as a re-emergence of Kadazan political consciousness in Sabah, which started out as a response to the suppression of the local cultures by the peninsula-supported politicians. Despite disagreement on issues such as State rights and political and fiscal autonomy, including an increased share in oil royalty from 5% to at least 30%, PBS joined the BN coalition in 1986 in order to try to influence the use of Federal development funds from within (Luping 1994: 431; Ongkili 1992: 535). The slogan of the PBS government was ‘Sabah for Sabahans’ and its main objective was to provide the State political elite a greater and more prominent role in the administration of Sabah. In 1990 PBS withdrew its support for the BN coalition just before a parliamentary election on the peninsular and placed its support behind the political rival to the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir, after the former had promised to review the Twenty Points if he should win the election. However, Mahathir’s BN coalition won the election and the relationship between Sabah and the peninsular deteriorated. Although development funds were not cut off by the Federal government, the way funds were given changed. Previously, funds were channelled through the State government, but now funds were only released through Federal offices based in Sabah. Furthermore, the federal government froze several large infrastructure projects and imposed a ban on the export of timber logs, which caused a downturn in Sabah’s economy since the State derived almost 50% of state revenue from forestry earnings (Chin 1997: 106; Wah 1994: 77-78).

In 1994 the opposition, including peninsula-based United Malays National Organisation (UNMO) took advantage of the weak economic position of Sabah and won the election by promising indigenous groups increased influence backed up with funding for development purposes (Chin 1994: 909, 911; Wah: 79-80). In the latest State election in 1999 the parties supporting the BN coalition managed to gain enough votes to stay in power. However, the opposition parties, including PBS, gathered slightly more than half of the total voters, which can be interpreted as questioning the popularity of the present government (Makitaak 1999: 10).

In relation to Kadazan identity the Federal-supported ruling political parties in Sabah gradually undermined the Twenty Points by imposing upon the Sabahans the idea of one language (Malay), one culture and one religion (Islam), in order to create a common nationhood for all the different ethnic groups. In the beginning of the 1970s the leader of USNO embarked on a program to Islamize Sabah in order to bring the ideologies of the Sabahans more in line with those present in the peninsula. This Islamization entailed a ban on Christian missionaries practising in Sabah coupled with the introduction of Islamic missionary activities, hence Islam was introduced as the official religion (Doolittle 1999: 191; Wah 1994: 74). Furthermore, the Federal control manifested itself through discriminatory hiring of civil servants on all levels with reference to the lack of qualified local candidates. This ultimately resulted in a situation where those indigenous to Sabah were represented to a lesser extent in the political sphere compared to the Malay-Muslim minority (Wah 1992: 75; Chin 1994: 908).

Up till now we have uncritically referred to Kadazan unity and identity, but it should be stated that this unity is a creation founded in the face of increased Federal control of Sabahans affairs. In an effort to revive local culture and identity, myths have been re-enacted. Although there is variation between the different ethnic groups dominating Sabah, myths are being retold, making them into one. One such re-enactment of myth and ritual is carried out through the Harvest Festival, a traditional Kadazan festival in celebration of the rice harvest, which is of great cultural significance for the non-Muslim indigenous people practising shifting cultivation (this is further discussed in chapter 8). In the early 1980s the Berjaya government tried to undermine the idea behind the Festival by declaring it a festival for all Sabahans. However, because many prominent political people now participated the security had been tightened, which resulted in the fact that many ordinary Kadazans were prohibited from participating. Furthermore, a religious conversion had been staged, converting some Kadazans to Islam. In short, by appropriating the Harvest Festival the State government had tried to empty the Festival of its original meaning to Kadazans and instead ordained it with Islamic symbolism. In defiance of the state Harvest Festival held in Keningau, Kadazan Cultural Association together with United Sabah Dusun Association held a counter festival outside Tambunan without any funding from the State. The Festival was a great success and brought many different indigenous groups together. Furthermore the counter Festival was important because it led to a re-emergence of Kadazan identity and ultimately to the formation of the Kadazan dominated PBS (Doolittle 1999:197; Wah 1992: 66).

Many authors have pointed to the fact that the cultural dominance, both in terms of religion and language, coupled with an economic dominance, has created a neo-colonial climate between the Malaysian peninsula and Sabah (for further discussions on this see Doolittle 1999: 179). According to Wah (1992: 234) statistics suggest that the rapid industrialisation of Malaysia has occurred in the peninsula and not in Sabah, thereby creating a division of labour between the two regions. Whereas the peninsula is involved in an industrial production of commodities, Sabah is still mainly involved in the extraction of agricultural products and other raw materials. This is best illustrated by the fact, that although the tertiary sector’s amount of the total GNP has fallen over the last 20 years in the Federation as a whole, for Sabah it has increased (Wah 1992: 238).

Although the Federation has invested much effort in installing a common nationhood and exporting this idea to Sabah, the purpose of this cultural neo-colonialism has not been to oppress indigenous groups but rather conform them to the development ideas and agendas of the peninsula, including the NEP. This has ultimately resulted in the economic oppression of small-scale farmers. On the peninsula the aim of NEP, launched in 1971, was an increased industrialisation and development of manufacturing industries, while in Sabah it revolved around three rural development programmes. These were large-scale land settlement schemes, in-situ development and the provision of agricultural support services (Yapp et al. 1988: 15-18).

The rural development programmes have brought about changes to the rural sector. Large-scale land development, especially oil palm and cocoa plantations, has been one of the major approaches adopted in Sabah to achieve the objectives of improving and modernising the agricultural sector. According to Yapp et al. (1988: 23) this kind of land development schemes have strengthened the agricultural base in terms of an increase in the share of GDP and export earning from the agricultural sector as well as crop diversification. In-situ development has contributed to the modernisation of a considerable part of peasant-type agriculture. These agricultural activities have created an expansion and a diversified range of crops produced in the traditional agricultural sector (Mustapha 1989: 52-53). However, Cleary and Shaw (1994: 86-87) argue that the promotion of these agricultural development policies in Sabah has been built, at least initially, on a Federal strategy to secure income to support the industrialisation on the peninsular. Large-scale resource extraction in Sabah, as well as Sarawak, and income from export of primary commodities was necessary to support this industrialisation.

Wah (1992: 239) argues that the indigenous groups felt discriminated by the NEP and the various development policies launched by the Muslim-dominated political parties. This has to be understood in the light of the fact that the indigenous groups have had limited influence on and control over the kind of development policies, which affect their livelihood. Throughout the Malaysian Federation many indigenous groups have been subjected to this kind of top-down development approach focusing on the desires of the economic and political elite. This has resulted in the Sibu Declaration, in which the aspirations of the indigenous peoples of Sabah, as of other indigenous communities in Malaysia, are detailed. The 7 points in the Sibu Declaration demands to rights are as follows:

1. to change the land laws which is working against Native Customary Rights;
2. to control the use of their land (and all its resources);
3. to stop all logging activities and the implementation of land schemes and development projects on their lands that do not benefit them;
4. indigenous languages to be taught in schools;
5. to be free to determine and control the system of justice in their communities in accordance with their traditions;
6. equal rights to enjoy the benefits of just developments in areas such as education opportunities, scholarships, basic amenities and health services;
7. the freedom to be members of, and establish their own associations, as well as affiliate themselves to other organisations.

It must be pointed out, that these demands are clearly part of an effort to re-establish local cultural rights and practices. This struggle by indigenous groups for the right to define their own interests and livelihood on one hand and State/Federal ideologies on the other hand are important aspects throughout our project. An understanding of post-colonial ideologies focusing on nationalism, rural development and economic growth is not only important because they are used to justify a centralised control over local communities and natural resources. It is also important because they influence property regimes by defining what types of agriculture and uses of forest resources are appropriate.

After examining the influence of Federal political agendas in Sabah, which has shaped the relation between the various ethnic groups and the state, it has become clear that we can talk of two political processes taking place at State level; a nationalisation (Malaysian Federation) process on one hand and a regionalisation (Sabah) process on the other. These two processes have resulted in the emergence of struggles that relate to identity and the right to influence policies concerning both cultural and economic issues. The nationalisation process refers to the Muslim-dominated political parties in Sabah who, despite being a minority, have been able to direct much of the development in Sabah due to their close ties to the Federal government. Thus the Federal ideology of one common nationhood and the process of modernisation can be seen as the fundament of the process of nationalisation. In opposition to this nationalisation process, the non-Muslim indigenous groups have promoted a regionalisation process. In this process terms like cultural identity and indigenous rights to control the development that affects their livelihood have been revived including the struggle for a higher degree of self-determination, expressed in the Twenty Points, covers both cultural, political and economical aspects.

However, it is important to note that this categorisation of interest of the different actors overlap and different coalitions are made and dissolved when interests and desires of the actors change, this also relates to political desires to control and access natural resources, thus it makes sense to talk a politicised environment as used within Third World political ecology. An example of coalition-making is when the Kadazan-dominated PBS joined the BN coalition because it meant the ability to gain influence on the use of Federal funding. The examination of the different political alliances and the terms used in the struggle to gain political influence showed that capital and struggle for identity have been some of the prime movers of votes in Sabah. So although there has been continuous efforts to regain control of State affairs by Kadazan-dominated political parties and Kadazan leaders, the Sabah scenario seems to remain a neo-colonial one, dominated by peninsula interests.

Finally this chapter has made it clear that the different actors in the struggle for political influence promote different ideologies by arguing for what they see as the best development for the Sabahans, which ultimately is a struggle for the control over Sabah’s resources. By examining the policies, especially the economic policies, promoted by the different actors we can identify the use of two narratives. One is a development narrative used by the Muslim-dominated political parties promoting the ideology of the Federal government. By using the development narrative these parties promote modernisation of the agricultural sector and rural communities that involve large-scale plantations, intensification and permanent cash crop production, all policies promoting a shift away from the traditional production method of shifting cultivation. The other narrative is more complex and it has ties to the counter-narrative we presented in the theoretical chapter. This narrative originates from the idea of cultural based self-determination of livelihood and development. In this case the rural communities should be able to take part in those decisions that influence their livelihood, i.e. local development initiatives. Keeping this in mind it becomes clear what kind of motives are behind the development of the Sibu Declaration – the desire to control the livelihood and future development for the indigenous groups in Sabah.

The codification of tenure rights in Sabah was initiated in Sabah under British rule and has lead to a situation of legal pluralism. This chapter examines how a situation of legal pluralism has been established in Sabah. The term legal pluralism refers to a situation where two or more legal rules co-exist. But a situation of legal pluralism is not only referring to the laws but also the institutions dealing with these laws, thus this chapter will include both the development of land laws and legal institutions in Sabah. An analysis of such issues are important for our understanding of why struggles arise where national parks are established because the evolution of legal pluralism has affected access to land in several ways. It has created a situation where there are several ways to establish claims to arable land and forest resources with different institutions functioning as mediators, but it has also increased state control over access to land and land use.

To initiate the analysis of the development of legal pluralism in Sabah we start by examining the reasons behind the codification of tenure rights and the introduction of private property, which was initiated under British rule, as well as the problems this codification faced and created. In the post-colonial period the effort to codify the traditional systems of ownership continued and resulted in the Land Ordinance of 1967 (see appendix 2). We then move on to discuss the role of the different regional and community level institutions dealing with land tenure issues and how different systems of land tenure interact. This leads us to an examination of the situation of legal pluralism in Sabah and the way it has manifested itself on community level. Finally we discuss the many similarities between the colonial and post-colonial attitudes toward customary tenure and land use. Thus, we examine the attitudes and narratives which have been used to govern the people of Sabah and how they have affected both the way the codification was handled, the result of the codification in the Land Ordinance and the development of community level institutions dealing with land tenure issues.

The next two paragraphs examine the codification of native customary law, which was initiated under the rule of the Chartered Company and continued in the post-colonial period, resulting in the Land Ordinance. By examining the reasons behind such codification in both the pre- and post-colonial period we get an understanding of how both native customary rights and rural land use are considered and perceived by official authorities in Sabah. This understanding will further prove important when we, in the next chapter, start discussing why and how national parks are established and how native customary rights and land uses are considered in the process of establishing and managing these national parks.

Before one can understand the reasons behind the initial efforts to codify native customary law, one has to understand the need for such a codification. In the case of Sabah the need for revenue and acreage for cash crop production was a prime mover of such efforts. In other words, it was a need for commodification of agricultural production and access to resources that set off the process of codification. Early codification of tenure rights, which classified land into various categories, such as native title, state land and land leased to investors, was a result of the emergence of cash crop cultivation of tobacco and rubber in Sabah. Especially the expanding market for tobacco and later rubber stimulated European interest in setting up plantations in the State (Doolittle 1999: 105; Cleary & Eaton 1996: 60-61).

The North Borneo Chartered Company initiated this codification and although its activities were subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the UK, its central aim was that of any other company which was to secure a profit. The Chartered Company realised that to obtain revenue, in the form of land sales for plantation production, there was a need to clarify legally what was its to sell, and what belonged to the native population. Doolittle (1999: 83) has also touched upon both points; besides taxation, there was a need to determine what she calls ’waste land’, that could be sold to investors. In order to do this, it was deemed necessary to demarcate land that was considered native customary land, set aside from the ’waste land’, but here appeared a range of difficulties. European ideas of land ownership were based on the concept of private property, but most land in Sabah was held communally, making concepts of private property almost absent. Another difficulty arose from the fact that the land use practice of shifting cultivation made it hard to demarcate land that was held under customary tenure, since this land use system made it impossible to know what land actually belonged to a given community because it would not be cultivated at all times. And finally there were added complications stemming from the fact that the native system of ownership also included ownership of certain valuable trees and plants (Cleary 1992: 173). In order to overcome this, the Chartered Company set out not only to demarcate, but also to define what customary tenure implied.

The registration of land was setup to be on an individual basis, and in return for a title to the land, the farmers would pay an annual quit-rent. After a three-year period, land that was not applied for would befall the state (Cleary 1992: 173). This practice, however, revealed the complexity of the relationship between the ethnic groups and the land and also the considerable variation between the different ethnic groups regarding customary rights to land. Efforts were made to codify the different local knowledge and rule systems, referred to as the Adat. The Adat (described in chapter 6.2.1) is a holistic system of rules and customs and varies from region to region, thus also between the different ethnic groups. The codification of the customary rules was in reality a snapshot of a complex cultural system, which had undergone influence from various outside sources from time to time, although in much literature it is referred to as a native system (Andersen et al. 1999a: 20).

In addition to the demarcation of land, which could be sold to foreign investors, the land codes also served as protection for the indigenous population against European settlers, protecting native customary land against those seeking land concessions for plantation agriculture (Doolittle 1999: 81). However, different governmental departments, including the Forestry Department (at that time interested in timber extraction and not conservation), were hostile to the practice of shifting cultivation, because this practice was believed to destroy the forests. Therefore, Forest and Survey officers began a policy encouraging the indigenous population to move from shifting cultivation to permanent wet-rice cultivation. This was coupled with a decision to impose an annual rent on shifting cultivation, at the same per unit rate as that of permanent cultivation (Cleary 1992: 174). As well as eliminating the burden of the destruction of timber, a change away from shifting cultivation and towards permanent wet rice cultivation could ensure a steady supply of rice, hence lower the need for import of rice. This clearly shows, that the codification of customary tenure, was not only to protect customary rights to land, but just as much, if not more, to meet the priority aim of the Chartered Company; that of generating an income.

While colonial law made native shifting cultivation unwanted, the expansion of tobacco plantations was fostered. What is perhaps ironic here, is the fact that plantation production of tobacco was remarkably similar to native swidden agriculture, both in terms of the impact on the soil and in the fact that land for tobacco cultivation were only cultivated for one year before new land was opened up (Doolittle 1999: 116). It is clear that although tobacco farming would cause as much damage to the forest it was still mitigated because it remained a source of income for the Chartered Company. In this way, the negative approach towards native shifting cultivation, arguing that it had adverse impacts on the environment, was only an excuse to neglect it in the land codification process, in order to change peoples practices towards practices for which revenues could be obtained more easily. This effort to change the patterns of native production was embodied in the Ladang Ordinance of 1913, a proclamation through which permanent wet rice cultivation was sought to replace shifting cultivation (Doolittle 1999: 112).

What all this shows, is how law was used as the primary mechanism to justify British rule. Throughout this chapter we touch on the construction of law and truths as a way to meet the political and economic goals. As a technology of rule, law relies on the construction of knowledge and subsequently developing stories about the rural population, their culture and patterns of land use (Doolittle 1999: 36; Li 1996: 515; Fortmann 1995: 1057-1059). As examples of such knowledge constructions we can refer to the idea that traditional agricultural practices are synonymous with subsistence farming without any ties to any form of outside market and that the native population thus is poor. However, Michael Dove (1983: 86) has shown that indigenous groups in remote regions of Kalimantan, using traditional production methods, contribute significantly to the rubber exports of Indonesia through their affiliation with local markets. In Sabah, information on e.g. customary practices was gathered in an effort to classify aspects of native laws that were most compatible to western law and legal principles, and then transforming this information into usable forms, through land laws, reports on land settlement and the production of legal titles to land (Doolittle 1999: 80-83). In this way knowledge was constructed about the native population, knowledge then used to rule them accordingly, hence one can argue that the power of the state rests on this ability to construct knowledge and use this knowledge to rule.

According to Mustapha (1989: 46), the legacy of British Rule and rule under the Chartered Company was a dualistic structure. The dualism here refers to the differential growth and development within the rural economy and also between the rural and urban sectors. Development during the colonial period was centred around cash crop production, which meant that sectors deemed uneconomic received little or no attention during this period. Or rather as the previous section showed, what was deemed uneconomic was sought changed into economic in the form of revenue. The result of this was a development of ’modern’ economic enclaves in an otherwise ’backward’ subsistence economic and social setting. The result of this has been that the post-colonial government has tried to develop the rural sector, or what Mustapha (1989: 49) calls the subsistence rural economy, through the NEP discussed in chapter 5. The reason we draw in Mustapha is that he in many ways represents the official Sabah/Malaysian attitudes towards development. In fact, the rural sector is often seen as undeveloped or underdeveloped and the activities uneconomic, hence purely subsistence. This has had a great impact on the continuation of land codification after independence the state developed a Land Ordinance. In table 1 we have compared the early efforts to codify native customary law with the land codes as they are recorded in the Land Ordinance of 1967. What is remarkable is how similar the land codes developed by the British are to those developed by Sabah state in the Land Ordinance.

As illustrated in the table above, the current Land Ordinance bears a remarkable resemblance to the land codes of the pre-independence era. In this way the present law about access to land, the Land Ordinance, can be seen as a leftover from British Rule. In the Land Ordinance access to and ownership of land is partly based on British law, and partly on the local customs. The latter was included in what was termed Native Customary Law (Section 15 in the Land Ordinance). Of course the Land Ordinance is a much more thorough specification of land codes, but the core elements dealing with Native Customary Rights (NCR) have changed only little. What sets them apart is the fact that land in the pre-independence era that did not fall into one of the above categories could be alienated and sold to European investors, and that was the main purpose of the codification itself. Although customary rights are recognised in the Land Ordinance, the efforts to codify traditional systems of ownership, whether communal or private, have been a vague effort. Trying to capture the Adat on paper has made it rigid, but more importantly, because there is now only one interpretation of customary law, the different localised variations have been left out in an effort to build one law.

Similarities between the colonial and post-colonial land codes can be found, not only in the objectives, but in the way the different objectives can be reached based on similar assumptions. Mustapha’s criticism of the colonial strategies for development, i.e. their lack of focus on the ’subsistence’ rural sector, hence the need to develop this sector, is based on an assumption that the rural sector is purely subsistence, undeveloped (or even primitive) and uneconomic. In addition to this, shifting cultivation is seen as a damaging practice. What is remarkable here is the similarity between colonial and post-colonial attitudes. Whereas it was argued that shifting cultivation was damaging to the environment during the Chartered Company as an excuse to change patterns of production towards ones for which revenue could be obtained more easily, it is now furthermore argued that shifting cultivation is unsustainable as well as uneconomic and that people need to change away from this type of production to increase their income, thus to alleviate rural poverty. (Mustapha 1989: 53). In addition to this, the NEP which have been promoted all over Malaysia have tried to provide ’economic-size’ farms, hence the before mentioned need to commodify and make the uneconomic into the economic. As pointed out in the end of section 6.1.1, it is clear also here that truths are created about the character of indigenous practices that influence the way the local communities are governed from above.

In the next paragraphs we will examine the various local institutions dealing with land tenure issues. Such an examination is important because the institutions function as mediators between individuals and groups of individuals in relation to the definition of rights and obligations with respect to control and use of natural resources. Furthermore, the way the role of traditional community based institutions has gradually changed with the introduction of new laws (e.g. the Land Ordinance) and institutions (e.g. the Village Development and Security Committee (JKKK) and Native Court) is important because it reflects the increasing influence of central state policies discussed above. We start the analysis of the complexity and plurality of the institutional setup in Sabah with an analysis of different aspects of the Adat as an informal institution in terms of a system of local knowledge and customary practices. We primarily draw in the village of Tikolod to discuss how the Adat and the concept of private property, or legal pluralism, affect access to land, property regimes and land acquisition. Further, we examine the role of district and local level institutions in relation to land tenure issues; the role of the Native Court, the JKKK and the village Headman.

We start the analysis of the local institutions by examining some of the central features of the Adat, arguing that the Adat can be seen as an informal institution in terms of a system of local knowledge and customary practices enforced from within. We will concentrate on a description of the Dusun Adat, since this is the indigenous group that lives in the areas of the different cases we are examining. We will give a short introduction to the holistic character of the Adat before we give a more in-dept description of traditional ways in which to access land. Finally we will examine how the Land Ordinance has affected land acquisition locally.

The Adat is a holistic system dealing with a wide range of issues such as land use practices, conflict solving, inheritance and access to land. The Dusun communities have throughout history developed a range of practices, which have created an understanding of the use and potential of the natural environment. This development, however, is not only based on living off the land, many practices have also been introduced over time, thus to avoid claiming that absolute harmony and independent development existed before colonisation. The Dusun Adat contains a number of conservation practices, both social and environmental. An example of this is Ohusian, which ensures respect for the environment, particularly plants and animals:

Another example is the concept of Tuwa di Pogowian, which prescribes that the last fruit must not be taken because it will halt the process of continuity and propagation, which is needed for the continued survival of the community (Tuboh et al. 1999: 2). There are in fact many more such examples, but common for them all is that they are there to ensure a proper management of the local resources in a system of communal access to land. However, it is important to note that such systems of conduct are not static; in times of e.g. low crop yields or increase in community population such rules might be broken or renegotiated.

The next step in our descriptions, that of access to land and the nature of property acquisition among the Dusuns, is illustrated by primarily using examples from the village of Tikolod. Arable land has traditionally been the communal property of Tikolod. According to the Adat, all the members of the Tikolod community have the right to use the land for cultivation, but access to this land is forbidden to outsiders. The term communal as used here does not mean that everybody can just cultivate any land within the community, but rather that people from other communities are excluded (see Birgegård 1993). Hence, the Adat gives the villagers the use right to the land, meaning that they can freely open up land and start cultivating it. However, opening up land does not mean that the farmer can keep this land forever or sell it, rather that he has the sovereign right to cultivate the land. This right he keeps for as long as he continues to cultivate the land. Once the farmer stops cultivating the land, anybody can use it (Andersen et al. 1999a: 16-17). In both Kuyongon and Tikolod it was observed how the use of fallow land still follows the Adat. Although the fallow land belongs to the farmer who cultivated it, all villagers can collect most kinds of forest products in these areas as long as it is for own consumption and not for commercial use. This practice ensures that all villagers have sufficient access to collection of forest products, which is important for farmers who do not own much land themselves (Andersen et al. 1999b: 30).

The procedure for acquiring land under the Adat entails that the Headman is conferred with before opening the land and cultivating it. By doing this, the individual farmer ensures that nobody else has a claim to the land in question. However, the consent of the Headman is only to ensure that one claim does not coincide with other claims. The claims to land itself, or rather to the right to cultivate the land, is obtained through the investment of labour, i.e. by clearing a piece of land for cultivation. So by working the land, one obtains customary tenure to the land. This support Rose’s contention on access to land through the application of labour (Rose 1984: 11).

Another way of establishing access is through heritage and ancestral ties. The system of inheritance is patrilinear and according to customs only sons will inherit. However, the patrilinear character of the system is not an absolute condition. In certain cases, property can be left to a child or person who has given special care to the deceased or looked after the property of the deceased through an oral testimony, thereby bypassing customary law. This can, however, be brought before the Headman and the village council of elders and be contested this way by the customary heir (Woolley 1953: 5). Especially this point concerning inheritance not being exclusively patrilinear has been a more apparent feature of the Adat, as it sometimes is practised where private ownership appears to have rooted itself. One can question whether this is then the Adat or an entirely new system, but we will argue that customary rules of inheritance and conduct are being constantly negotiated, not only during colonial and post-colonial time, with the introduction of private property, but also before that. The introduction of private property could perhaps be interpreted as just another way of influencing the Adat, thus including women into the system of inheritance whenever there is enough land available (males still being the primary heir).

As also noted above, the concept of land as a communal resource that cannot be bought or sold has been established for generations. Based on this concept, individuals could only claim rights to land they had inherited or opened and were cultivating or occupying (Tuboh et al. 1999: 1). But the essential point in the Land Ordinance is that claims are made through grants based on good use of the land i.e. cultivation for three consecutive years or more (see appendix 2). What is interesting from this development in relation to Rose (1984) is that working the land and conferring verbally with the Headman is no longer sufficient, it is now necessary to mix labour with a written notice. These grants or titles to property allow people to sell or mortgage their property. However, it has to be noted that selling of titled property is not something which local villagers seem to consider. To get the title that proves this type of ownership, the farmers must make a claim to the property. However, the land application procedure is very long. In Tikolod and Kuyongon this was highlighted by the fact that many farmers were cultivating land that they had applied for years ago, but still had not got the title for. To get an understanding of the effect this has had on the rights and strategies of the farmers, we will describe the land application procedures and briefly discuss the kind of ownership and rights associated with the different stages in the land application procedure.

The application for obtaining title to land is handed in at the District Office with a drawn map showing where the land is situated. The farmers can do this by themselves but the vast majority chooses to consult the village Headman at this stage. The Headman usually also co-signs the application form. By consulting the Headman, the farmers make use of the land acquiring procedure under the Adat and at the same time they make sure that no one else has applied for the same piece of land. Thus, already at this first stage the farmers get some kind of security that they will be the future owners of the land (Andersen et al. 1999a: 19). This application procedure has changed the role of the Headman somewhat. Traditionally the Headman was the only institution the farmers conferred with in the question of land acquisition. With the introduction of the Land Ordinance the role of the Headman has changed form. Now one can argue that the Adat functions as a voucher in relation to land access, before an actual title is obtained, and that the Headman is the person through which this voucher is obtained.

Once the application is given to the District Office, a number of different departments will have to approve the application. Only when all the departments approve the application can it be brought before the Land Utilisation Committee. Often the application process is stalled at this stage, simply because one or more of the departments does not deal with the application. In Tikolod, it seemed that most of the farmers, who applied for land after the early 1980’s, were still waiting for a title to this land. This of course is not an optimal situation for the farmers, since they cannot make use of the privileges that follow the title (such as access to credit, subsidies and extension services).

Since most farmers in Tikolod and Kuyongon have applied for titles one can argue that the concept of private property has been established on community level. In a case from Tikolod where a title had not yet been granted to a plot of land applied for by a farmer, the farmer continuously cultivated the same piece of land because he feared that if he stopped cultivating the land, he would not get the title for the land. In Tempulong Doolittle observed that the farmers primarily plant long-term cash crops like fruit trees on land to which they hold a private title because few farmers want to invest in long-term crops on land to which they do not have secure access (Doolittle 1999: 233). This is a further indication of the acceptance of private property. On the other hand, land left fallow and land belonging to absentee landowners are considered open for all village members to collect forest products on, which indicates that a community makes use of a mix of traditional and "modern" access to land.

We continue with our examination of the institutional setup in relation to land tenure by looking at the role of the Native Court before we move on to the institutions which have their base in the communities. The Native Court was created under Chartered Company rule and was mainly created due to a concern for maintaining public order in Sabah, thus to bring indigenous populations under Company control. The Native Court is comprised of the Judge of the Supreme Court, Resident of the district and a Native Chief. There is a Native Court attached to every district and the administration is placed under the supervision of the District Officer and it is ranking as the lowest in the judicial hierarchy (Hassan 1993: 85).

Most disputes brought before the Native Court is referred there by the village Headman who for some reason has failed to settle a dispute. The disputes are tried according to the Adat laws. Hence one can argue that Native Court is both a formal and informal institution; it is under scrutiny of the state but it rules according to the Adat, which is an informal institution. If this also fails, the dispute is finally brought before the District Officer, who will make the final decision according to the NCR prescribed by the Land Ordinance (Andersen et al. 1999a: 24). The most common cases brought before Native Court are destruction of fruit trees, petty theft, adultery, breach of promise to marry and minor physical injury to mention but a few (Hassan 1993: 86). In the case that there has been an established breach of the Adat, a fine must be paid, defined as a ’sogit’. Traditionally a sogit was paid in the form of e.g. a sacrificial slaughtered pig, which was then consumed together with the whole community. In this way the shame of the person who had violated the Adat would be ‘eaten away’ and the community would be restituted. In the cases described by Hassan (1993: 87) the ’sogit’ has been replaced by a cash payment, or fine, paid by the violator to the violated, thus individualising conflict solving and making it the business of two parties, alienated from the previous role of conflict solving i.e. community restitution. One can argue that where the land codes were mainly a product of western laws, or concepts, of land ownership, albeit private property, the Native Court is not so much a product of western laws as it is a product of the function of western procedural systems. The point is that introducing new procedures onto customary law can have almost as much effect as changing the law itself.

Several institutions have their base at a local level, both traditional ones and also more recent ones. We have already mentioned the Headman in the previous texts, so we will not go into further detail about his function here. However, the Headman is not the only traditional institution on village level, there is also the village council of elders. Of more recent date there is the Committee for Security and Development (JKKK).

Traditionally, each community had their own system of government and administration comprising institutions such as the village head, a priestess and a council of elders chosen for their knowledge on the Adat (Lasimbang 1996a: 180). However, the introduction of the Land Ordinance has changed the formal power structures, though it would be wrong to argue that this has led to the undermining of the more traditional power structures. The fact that there is a Native Court ruling on the basis of the Adat and also the fact that there is still a Headman, and that these institutions still play a role, can be seen as a direct attempt to maintain a legal system that the local villagers can relate to. The importance of the different institutions in the eyes of the villagers might, however, be very different from the importance these institutions formally hold. During our fieldwork in Tikolod we conducted a PRA session trying to develop a Venn Diagram (see figure 2). The Diagram clearly shows that the Headman is still considered one of the most important institutions when dealing with conflicts over access to land. However, the Headman’s signature is not formally needed when applying for land, therefore it could be argued, that the status of the Headman rests on traditional law, and in this case on views held locally, and not on the law as prescribed by the Land Ordinance.

Although the power of the Headman is recognised at the village level, decisions are increasingly taken outside the community as a result of direct insisting changes in indigenous self-governance (Makitaak 1999: 4). This is best illustrated using the following quote:

The JKKK is represented in each village and the chairman is appointed by the District Office, thus basing the legitimacy of the JKKK on its outside ties to the larger political and institutional setting making it more of a formal institution. In some instances the JKKK represents a minority within the different villages. The case of Tikolod shows that the political affiliation of the JKKK members were with the BN Coalition whereas the majority of the villagers supported PBS. The legitimacy of the JKKK, however, was not directly contested, because the JKKK is in a position to assist farmers with various extension services as opposed to the traditional village authorities. It is clear, when looking at figure 2, that the JKKK and the Headman in this village seem to hold the same degree of legitimacy and importance with the villagers in relation to land tenure issues, although some prefer one over the other.

With the introduction of the Land Ordinance, land tenure became subject to a written set of rules. As was often the case with colonial legal systems introduced in the colonies, native laws were introduced into the Land Ordinance. However, the Land Ordinance was still mainly a product of western laws, or concepts, of land ownership, albeit private property. Section 15 of the Land Ordinance law (1996) holds a definition of NCR in which there are seven criteria (Section 15: 14-15). One of these criteria states that "NCR shall be held to be:

However, it is important to emphasise, that these NCR by no means is a codification of the Adat as it is now, or perhaps has ever been, but is an interpretation with inherited fallacies. Sally Falk Moore in Dalberg-Larsen (1994: 31) points to the fact that the stability and static view held on legality in "primitive" societies is a myth, and that the laws held here are a product of change. Also these changes are a product of a continued outside influence.

The scenario found in Sabah, with regards to laws on land tenure and land ownership, can be characterised as legal pluralism. Hooker in Dalberg-Larsen (1994: 20) points to four basic characteristics of legal pluralism, three of which apply to Malaysia and to the Sabah Land Ordinance. Firstly, the colonial power imported its own law systems, partly incorporating local law - "indigenous law". Secondly, after independence, and based on a wish for modernisation, the new national government introduced a new legal system. Often this was done through a continuation of the system introduced by the colonial power. Thirdly, in the cases where the local people have retained a traditional system of legality, this system often gains some formal recognition (Hooker in Dalberg-Larsen 1994: 21). We feel that the above definition and characterisation of legal pluralism is a good tool to conceptualise what the Land Ordinance is all about, and also how it has developed. Furthermore, it is a good representation of the actual situation found in Sabah. Based on an analysis of the local institutional setup where the embodiment of traditional as well as introduced institutions coexist and the fact that conflicts can be solved by referring to more than one set of rules, supports this argument.

What is important to our study is that there are many similarities between the colonial and post-colonial attitudes towards customary tenure as well as shifting cultivation. During the colonial period, the legislation concerning land tenure was influenced by the prevailing ideology that land was first and foremost an economic asset. This attitude towards land has remained powerful through to the present day. During the colonial period it was argued that the slash and burn practices were damaging to the environment, whereas it is now, in addition to the former, claimed that native practices are uneconomic and therefore need to be developed in order to alleviate poverty. These are different arguments, but they have the same effect more or less. One could say that we are dealing here with two variants of a development narrative, which share the same ultimate goal, to control the natural resources of Sabah for the benefit of state policies. Also, during both periods certain ideals of commodification and commercialisation of resources have privileged the elitarian over local concerns. This has been exemplified in chapter 5 as well as in this chapter, where we have shown that Federal dominated State policies have tended to favour certain types of land use disassociated from local practices.

The effect of land codification has resulted in a set of official rules that define ‘good’ land use practices. An example of good land use practice, as defined by the state, can be found in the Land Ordinance where Customary Tenure is recognised as land continuously occupied or cultivated for three or more consecutive years. This means that land, which is lying fallow, cannot be claimed under NCR although many farmers still practise shifting cultivation, which involve rotational agriculture (Lasimbang 1996a: 191). Thus, even though customary rights are recognised in the Land Ordinance one can argue that the state promotes the desire to own title to land by extending the possibilities of receiving subsidies for this type of land. It is clear that the concept of private property is widely recognised in the various communities because it allows access to certain benefits not otherwise accessible.

Another important effect of the land codification is that the state has increased its control over access to land and land use. Much land is now owned by the state and claims to ownership have to be registered and approved by the state. This control by the state is in contrast to the traditional system of control from within the community (Lasimbang 1996a: 190). A further strengthening of the state’s control over land was provided for in 1997 when the government amended the NCR of the Land Ordinance. The amendment provides the state with the power to extinguish land rights held under NCR by paying monetary compensation. There is no provision requiring the state to hold a public inquiry to determine the rights of the parties affected and there is also no requirement that the taking-over of land shall be for public purpose as in the case of land with title (IWGIA 1997-98: 223).

A land tenure system affected by a situation of legal pluralism has created a situation in which there exists a multitude of ways to establish a claim to arable land and forest resources. In cases where title to land can be obtained, the Land Ordinance dominate the land tenure system in relation to arable land. However, the villagers still rely to a certain extend on the guiding rules and value systems as dictated through the Adat by conferring with the Headman before applying for the grant. Furthermore, in cases where title is denied as a result of conservation and forest protection, the Adat continue to apply. In relation to forest resources and fallow land, which are not included in the Land Ordinance, the villagers continue to rely on customary principles and practices.

Legal pluralism also refers to the authority and legitimacy of different local institutions in relation to land tenure issues. As mentioned earlier, the traditional institutions such as the Headman and the council of elders have increasingly lost way, relatively, to the appointed JKKK in relation to a range of issues, including land tenure matters. All depending on the village setting and the issues at hand, the different local institutions will hold various degrees of legitimacy. In some instances the villagers will seek advice from the JKKK chairman in relation to accessing customary land, or solving tenure conflicts between villagers, and in some instances the village Headman. A case from Tikolod in relation to some communal grazing lands illustrates this well. The villagers were allowed to borrow land in this area for cultivation, since the land had not yet been converted to grazing land. Two rules applied here, firstly they could only cultivate short-term crops there and secondly they had to acquire permission from the local village authorities. However, when asking the villagers about where to acquire this permission, some answered the village Headman and some the JKKK. In some instances we found that the different responsibilities of the JKKK in relation to the Headman were ill defined, and this can often become a stage for internal conflict and struggles for legitimacy on a local level.

In the preceding chapters we have seen how the Sabah state both during and after colonial rule has acquired increasing control over access to resources. This increasing state control will also be an underlying theme in this chapter where we start with a discussion of why forests are a major potential conflict area by looking at the different interests connected to the use of forest resources. We continue by discussing the forest policies in Sabah by linking the different interests in forest use with the establishment of national parks, thereby highlighting the power relationship between the departments within Sabah state concerned with respectively nature conservation and development, especially timber extraction. This is followed by an analysis of the regulations, institutional set-up and problems relating to the management of the national parks in Sabah. In order to concretise the issues relating to national parks we draw in Kinabalu Park and Crocker Range National Park (CRNP), which constitute the framework for studying why struggles arise where national parks are established. We end the chapter with a discussion of the rationales behind the establishment of national parks and the view on rural land use practices held by many state officials.

Establishment of national parks is only one dimension of the whole issue of access to and control over forest resources, which is so important in Sabah. Various interests connected to the use of forest resources make forests a potential conflict area where the right or power to define the use becomes critical. In this way the conversion of forest areas to the status of national park is likely to face pressure from conflicting land use demands.

The peoples of Borneo have a long tradition of using and relying on forest resources, both in terms of arable land for cultivation and collection of forest products. Tuboh et al. (1999: 1) estimate that approximately 70% of Sabah’s population live in rural areas where the majority are farmers practising a form of diversified agriculture, embracing a combination of permanent and shifting cultivation supplemented with hunting and collection of forest products. Also the state has a great interest in forest resources. From the late 19^th century, forest resources have contributed significantly to the socio-economic development of Sabah in terms of timber extraction. After the World War II, timber had become the major export commodity and timber export as well as logging royalties remain one of the biggest contributor to Sabah’s economy. In 1990, more than 50% of Sabah’s governmental revenue came from forestry activities. The log export has fallen since the late 1980s due to imposed quotas on unmanufactured timber and higher export royalties on logs, but timber is still a very important source of income for the state (Brookfield et al. 1995; Thompson 1993: 510). In addition to timber extraction, forest land has been used by the state in connection with the national development schemes, which involved opening up of land on a large scale for development of e.g. large oil palm and cocoa plantations (Mustapha 1989: 56). In resent years yet another use of forests in the form of eco-tourism have come into focus, which relate to the creation of national parks. The tourist industry, and especially nature related tourism, is a fast growing industry and with the prospect of considerable foreign exchange earnings, use of nature in form of protected reserves can be very profitable.

These different and sometimes contradictory interests in the use of forest resources have not only resulted in struggles over access to these resources, but also the power to decide the use of the resource in a particular area. It has furthermore raised the question of who are to blame for the transformation of the forest. Nature conservation in Sabah can be seen as a reaction to the rapid transformation of the State’s forests and is therefore directly related to deforestation and thereby the destruction of the island’s unique rainforest with its high diversity of plant and animal species. Estimates of the actual forest area to have been converted to other uses are extremely difficult, but Brookfield et al. notes that:

Improper logging activities, the extension of permanent cultivation, including large-scale plantations, and shifting cultivation are often being pointed out as the major causes of deforestation (Thompson 1993: 504). In line with the Federal government, state officials in Sabah continue to criticise shifting cultivation for being particularly destructive. It has been suggested that this kind of agricultural practice has been responsible for more than half of the deforestation between 1976 and 1985. However, shifting cultivation is not the only cause of deforestation and it has been reported that the area of commercial forests, reserved for logging activities, was reduced by two-thirds between 1972 and 1985 (Cleary & Eaton 1992: 137).

As can be derived from the above, there are strong interests connected to the use of forest resources. In the following we will therefore continue this discussion by focusing on the policies connected to commercial use of forests versus forest conservation as well as the intra-governmental relations shaping the forest policies in Sabah.

Under the Malaysian Constitution, land and forest are defined as a State responsibility and therefore comes under the jurisdiction of the respective States. Each State is empowered to enact laws on forestry and to formulate forest policies independently. The forests in Sabah are administrated under the Forest Enactment, which was passed in 1963 with a subsequent amendment in 1984. Under this Enactment seven types of national forest reserves have been established, totalling 3,348,641 hectares or 45% of the total area of Sabah. Over two-thirds of the area set aside as forest reserves is classified as Commercial Forest where logging, based on licenses and permits allocated by the Forestry Minister, is allowed and except in two of the seven types of forest reserves, communities are, by law, not allowed to use resources from the forest reserves.

The official forest policies recognise the importance of ensuring sustainable yields and protecting the environment. At the same time, the politicians are concerned with maximising the benefits from utilisation of forest resource. Thus, Cleary & Eaton (1992: 190) argue that there is a considerable implementation gap between stated national environmental policies regarding sustainable extraction of resources and what actually happens because local political and business interests tend to favour rapid resource exploitation. This is connected to the fact that it is the state authorities that issue the timber concessions, and issuing of licences and permits to friends, relatives or political supporters are not uncommon (Thompson 1993: 511). These licences are often given for periods ranging from 1 to 25 years, encouraging short-term exploitation and in addition, these royalties are profitable to the state; since 1979 timber royalties have made up approximately 85% of the total forest revenues, thus forming a high proportion of all state revenues (Cleary & Eaton 1992: 145). The need to exploit the natural resources of Sabah in order to obtain revenues is much in line with the NEP, as described in chapter 5 and 6.

These points in mind, it is not surprising that the balance between development and conservation has long been a central, and even critical, issue in Sabah. Already in the colonial period there were disputes between those who favoured forest conservation and those who wished to promote its exploitation. However, Victor King (1993: 237) notes that during the first half of the 20^th century forests were generally regarded as obstacles to the expansion of rubber plantations. Considering the fact that approximately 3 million ha of forest has been set aside for logging compared to 700 thousand ha for protected areas, one could argue that this view is still prevalent within Sabah state. On the other hand, Sabah has designated 9.7% of the State’s total area as protected areas, which is in line with the neighbouring countries and more than many developed countries. What might be more interesting to look at instead is the power relation between the governmental departments responsible for conservation and exploitation. Bryant & Bailey (1997: 62) argue that the most powerful departments within the state are often those, which have derived their institutional power from control over such activities as large-scale logging and intensive cash crop production. Furthermore, environmental departments are typically of fairly recent origin, possess little substantive power and must confront the policies of various powerful departments if they are to implement conservation measures. Sabah Parks under the Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Development is of fairly recent origin compared to the department dealing with logging issues, and by the State’s Legislative Assembly areas already gazetted as national parks can be and has been degazetted. This intra-governmental power relationship will also be touched upon in the following.

The increasing pressure on Sabah’s forest resources in addition to factors such as rising international concern with deforestation and loss of biodiversity and availability of foreign funding for nature conservation has led to a growing national concern for protection of valuable forest resources, biodiversity and water catchment areas. As a consequence, conservation issues now feature much more on the political agenda in Malaysia. National parks are within the competence of the Malaysian Constitution, which means that both State and Federal governments have powers to pass legislation, provided there is consultation (Cleary & Eaton 1992: 193). The Parks are controlled and funded by the State government and managed by the Sabah Park System, a statutory body under Sabah Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Development. The responsibility for the development and management of the Parks lies with the Board of Trustees of Sabah Parks, which consists of ten members appointed by the state. Sabah Parks is vested with a very wide range of responsibilities ranging from development, control and management to maintenance of park areas.

The composition of the national parks in Sabah is as follows:

Kinabalu (1964) 75,370

Tunku Abdul Rahman (1974) 4,929

Turtle Islands (1977) 1,740

Pualu Tiga (1978) 15,864

Tawau Hills (1979) 27,972

Crocker Range (1984) 139,919

(Nais 1996: 6; State of Sabah 1996: 97-98)

The first of the six national parks to be gazetted in Sabah was Kinabalu Park, which was established to protect the unique mountain environment. Three of the other national parks are on groups of offshore islands and the two other Parks, including the Crocker Range, are extensive highland areas. Sabah Parks is continuously engaged in identifying new potential parks and plans are underway to gazette a seventh Park, Semporna Island Park and other areas are currently being assessed for inclusion as well (Anonymous 1992: 2). Specifically the national parks are established according to the following objectives:

• The conservation of flora and fauna
• The protection of water catchment and landscape
• Educational and scientific researches

• The protection of endangered species

The national parks are gazetted and managed according to the National Parks Ordinance, which was legislated in 1962. In 1977 this Ordinance was replaced by the National Parks Enactment, which in turn was replaced by the present Parks Enactment of 1984 (Tuboh et al. 1999: 3). The act gives the State government powers to establish parks on state land and also acquire alienated land for inclusion in a park. It further empowers park managers to prevent the public from encroaching on the Parks and to stop them from taking, using and applying for park concessions for their own use (Tuboh et al. 1999: 3; Nais 1996: 18). Despite the empowerment of Sabah Parks, intra-governmental disputes over land use exist, creating competition between development and conservation as noted above. Degazettement has always been a potential threat to the very existence of the Parks. Although such a threat is rare, it happened in 1984 when a national park was revoked and the whole area degazetted. Similar episodes happened to Kinabalu Park when part of the area was degazetted in 1969 for mining purposes and in 1984 for various development projects such as a vegetable plantation and a gulf course. A further threat to the conservation objectives of the Parks is privatisation, which involves many politicians’ eagerness to privatise the commercial functions of the Parks such as guided tours and accommodation (Nais 1996: 26-27).

Ghimire (1994: 198) argues that in many developing countries the local people living in and around national parks are seen as the principal threat to forests and wildlife. The primary responsibility of Sabah Parks is to ensure that the national parks are maintained unimpaired and that the natural processes take place without human intervention. Thus, the major concern of park authorities has been to prevent human interference as much as possible. This has been done by adopting what Songorwa refers to as the fences-and-fines approach (Songorwa 1999: 2061) and enforcement of the Parks’ boundaries is seen as one of the main pillars of conservation management (Nais 1996: 18). In the Parks Enactment 1984 it is stated that any person who hunts, or has the intention to hunt, any animal or bird, collects or destroys any vegetation or minerals in the Park shall be guilty of an offence and will be fined or imprisoned (State of Sabah 1996: 113). There is no written parks policy relating to local communities and their rights, or use-rights, to areas within national parks are not considered in the Parks Enactment. The main problem concerns cultivated land because there is no clear demarcation of those areas that local communities in many cases have used for generations, and which have now been annexed in the national parks. The existence of traditional hunting, fishing and collecting rights is an issue, which often poses particular problems for park management (Tuboh et al. 1999: 3-5).

The park authorities are aware that the national parks to some extend are being used illegally by the local communities but they turn a blind eye to this encroachment (Andersen et al. 1999b: 31; Nais 1996: 27). This can be interpreted as an unofficial recognition of local communities customary use-rights to forested areas or it can be due to the fact that Sabah Parks has a shortage of field staff and therefore do not have the adequate resources to enforce the ban on collection of forest products. In 1992, a consultancy report on the effectiveness of the organisation structure of Sabah Parks was made. It was estimated that in order to function more effectively Sabah Parks needs to increase the staff with approximately 500 persons. It further recommended that Sabah Parks should actively involve the public in the planning and management of the Parks (Anonymous 1992: ii, vii). Cleary & Eaton (1992: 193) argue that another factor contributing to the difficulty of enforcing the prohibition of any use of resources from the national parks is that the general public, especially those in remote areas, are often unaware of the legislation or unsympathetic towards it, which is related to a lack of public awareness of conservation measures and their relevance. Despite the general growing recognition of the need to protect natural resources, also in developing countries, the lack of awareness or appreciation among many local communities must be seen in the light of the fact that they, in many cases, do not benefit from this way of nature conservation, but instead see their livelihood possibilities being affected and often greatly restricted. This is an issue, which we will discuss more thoroughly later.

Kinabalu Park was gazetted in 1964 and it was the first national park to be established in Sabah. It is situated at the northern tip of the Crocker Range, which forms the backbone of mainland Sabah. It covers an area of 75,370 ha and encompasses Mount Kinabalu, the highest point in Southeast Asia between the Himalayas and New Guinea. The extensive research in the area has mapped out the Park’s high biodiversity, which due to a great altitudinal range contains both tropical lowland and montane tropical rainforest. Tourism is encouraged and many recreation facilities have been developed. In this way Kinabalu Park fully complies with the stated purpose of national parks in Sabah; to conserve and protect the biodiversity for the benefit of education and enjoyment of people. 45 villages inhabited by approximately 15.000 Kadazandusuns who rely considerably on forest resources surround Kinabalu Park (Nais 1996: 28-30).

CRNP was gazetted in 1984 and is the most recently appointed national park in Sabah. It covers an area of 139,919 ha and is by far the largest national park in Sabah. The Park is situated on a long range of hills, the Crocker Range and covers a unique area in Sabah since it contains both true lowland dipterocarp forest and montane forest. No official research on the Park’s biodiversity has been attempted until the end of 1999, but some tree species of the area are believed to be endemic to lowland and hill dipterocarp forests of north-western Borneo. The Park was enacted as a conservation area for two main reasons; to preserve and protect the watersheds of the four main rivers in the West Coast and the eight rivers from the interior plains as well as to protect the wildlife and flora of the area, especially Rafflesia spp. the world’s largest flower (Gaussett et al. 1999: 7; Tuboh et al. 1999: 3-4).

Since any kind of utilisation within the borders of the national parks is prohibited, both Parks have park rangers employed to police the borders. However, there are big differences in the two Parks’ personnel resources. Kinabalu Park has a staff of 132, temporary and daily paid workers excluded, and 21 people are working as rangers. According to the park warden of CRNP, around 30 people are employed in CRNP but only seven are employed as park rangers to an area almost twice as big as Kinabalu Park. Furthermore, contrary to CRNP, Kinabalu Park offers local employment opportunities for the surrounding communities as field personnel (there are daily guided tours in the Park) or workers in restaurants and hostels. The last difference we want to draw attention to is the awareness of the national parks among the local communities. Sabah Parks has a mobile unit, which visits the villages showing slides and films and explaining about the national parks, the benefits and nature conservation in general. The mobile unit has been in the surroundings of Kinabalu Park extensively but only 40% of the villages around CRNP have been visited so far. This means that the knowledge of the National Park and the reasons for its establishment is rather limited in many communities bordering CRNP (Andersen et al. 1999b: 29; Nais 1996: 43).

In order to understand why struggles over access to forest resources arise where national parks are established it is useful to operate with the term politicised environment used within Third World political ecology, because it involves an examination of the different interests relating to the use of forest resources. Furthermore, it involves examining how power relations manifest themselves between the various actors with an interest in forest resource use. In this chapter we showed that although the judicial right to define the use to which natural resources can or should be put is with the state, various other actors have the ability to influence the state definitions on land use. On one hand we find actors promoting land use in the form of national parks. These include various donor agencies who can influence decision making through the availability of foreign funding for conservation purposes and the tourist industry promoting eco-tourism, thereby generating income for the state. On the other hand we find actors whose interests relate to resource extraction. These include timber concessionists and large-scale plantation farmers or cash crop producers. The land use practised by such actors often correlate with the economic policies of the state, and examples of the bargaining power include the extensive area set aside for logging and the areas of Kinabalu Park that were degazetted for mining and plantation purposes. In contrast to these actors we find the local communities around the national parks. Their cultivation practices and practices relating to hunting and collection of forest products are not considered in the Parks Enactment. These communities’ bargaining power toward state policies is relatively week, but through their every day practices, they can define the actual land use and patterns of cultivation in their communities, hence defy park regulation.

Besides looking at the different interests that relate to and influence the establishment of national parks, it is also relevant to examine why national parks are established in the first place and why they are managed the way they are. Following a preservationist ideology, the state divides forests into a number of categories. Some of which are set aside for resource extraction and some for the preservation of biodiversity, water catchments and pristine rainforest. By making this division one can argue that the state abide by an technocentric view, placing man in control of the environment. Designating a piece of nature as a national park where no human interference is allowed, is a way of seeking to control both the human use of nature and nature itself. In this way local people are separated from the environment because their use of it is seen as environmentally disturbing or harmful. The discussion here focuses on whether or not a dichotomy between nature and culture exists. The dichotomy is useful when looking at different perceptions of nature and natural resources, but land tenure struggles are more about the relationships between individuals and groups of individuals in relation to resources. When analysing the rationale behind the establishment and management of national parks, other explanations besides what cultural theory offers therefore need to be explored.

As suggested by Li (1996: 515-517) and Fortmann (1995: 1055-1056), an important aspect in the analysis of the state control over forest resources that leads to struggles over access to resources is an understanding of how such control has been accomplished and also what underlies the statements that promote one view as opposed to another. As mentioned in chapter 3, the way national parks are established in Sabah can be traced to Hardin’s (1968) thesis about "the tragedy of the commons", which justifies governmental control over natural resources in order to avoid degradation or even depletion of such resources. Such control is sought enforced by vesting the management role in the state. According to MacPherson:

Thus, the establishment of national parks is not only about good stewardship, but also about the possibility of controlling local communities’ practices by the state defining its own right to exclude rural farmers. One can argue that the way the national parks are managed is based on a set of assumptions concerning rural farmers and their land use practices. An example is when park boundaries are decided, which is done using aerial photographs. This type of surveying only captures what is cultivated at one point in time, but in a system of shifting cultivation, the land use varies from year to year. Thus, local land use practices are not adequately considered in the process of establishing or managing national parks. The current management of national parks is justified by referring to the destructive nature of many rural agricultural practices as well as the lack of awareness and appreciation of nature protection in the rural communities. The Park manager of CRNP mentioned in an interview that the villagers need to be taught how to take care of the forest before they could be considered as partakers in the management. Doolittle has a very illustrative exemplification of the relationship that Park Officers have to the local people and their land use practices:

As Doolittle goes on to explain, it seemed important to the Forest Officers that they appeared non-native in their attitude towards the forest (Doolittle 1999: 281). For a native person the forest would be a resource of forest products and animals for hunting in order to sustain their livelihood, for the Forest Officers it was a place to go for relaxation. This dichotomy between native and non-native is contrasted in many ways, but what is important is the fact that people themselves will try to stand out as either one or the other signalling that I am ‘indigenous’ or I am ‘modern’. In the case above, those who see themselves as ‘modern’ see nature as a place to retreat for recreation and sport hunting, whereas local subsistence hunting is regarded as harmful. The narrative of the ‘modern’ is that the ‘indigenous’ population uses the forest in unsustainable and uneconomical ways, burning the trees down thereby destroying the forest and its biodiversity, which ultimately limits the recreational potential.

In the preceding chapters it became apparent that a fundamental assumption in the preservationist discourse, which is also guiding nature conservation in Sabah, is the destructive nature of much rural land use. If the source of environmental damage is human activity and the reason behind the exclusion of local communities from the national parks, it is very relevant to investigate the nature of and rationale behind the land use practices in rural areas bordering national parks. We start by looking at the characteristics of small-scale farmers’ livelihood strategies in general and the way the different authorities perceive these strategies. Due to the often complex and flexible nature of land use systems we will analyse the local land use systems in Kuyongon, Tempulong and Tikolod. By examining the land use systems in a local context we can link the type of land use practised to the needs and strategies pursued by the local villagers. Besides this we will link different types of land use to the availability of titled land as well as to localised goals in relation to establishing a claim to property. Finally we will use two maps from Kuyongon and Tikolod made in co-operation with the villagers and an official land use map to discuss the way knowledge on land use is perceived differently by state authorities and rural communities, hence what such maps can be used for.

Close to 70% of Sabah’s population live in rural areas and the majority are farmers practising diversified agriculture which include wet rice cultivation, hill rice, fruit trees and vegetable cultivation grown within both shifting and more permanent cultivation systems, and hunting and collection of forest products (Tuboh et al. 1999: 1). The practice of shifting cultivation, which is most often associated with the agricultural practices of indigenous groups like Kadazan, Murut and Rungus, has been widely discussed. The characteristics of shifting cultivation include clearing of fields by means of slash and burn, the rotation of fields rather than crops and short periods of cropping (1-3 years) followed by generally longer periods of fallow (5-20 years) (Cleary & Eaton 1996: 18; Mertz et al. 1999: 134). However, as Mertz et al. (1999: 134) notes, the term shifting cultivation is used for many different types of systems and applying just one definition can be problematic because the diversity of the systems and sub-systems is then not duly appreciated.

Farmers often pursue a multiplicity of livelihood strategies where parts of the production system serve as subsistence and others as income generation. Shifting cultivation in its pure form as the major source of subsistence is becoming increasingly rare and permanent farming of annual and perennial crops and tree crops as well as off-farm activities is often economically more important. The mix of shifting cultivation and permanent cropping is a way of diversifying production and makes the farmers’ livelihood strategies both complex and flexible. The size, location, and cycling of the production system can be adjusted to meet changing economic and social circumstances, factors which are all part of the farmers’ risk assessments (Mertz et al. 1999: 134). Robert Chambers has used the term Complex, Diverse and Risk-prone to describe the rationality guiding the choice of activity pattern of small scale farmers. The activity pattern of rural households can be seen as an umbrella of activities, which are decided on according to variations in available resources. The purpose of a diverse activity pattern is to minimise risks of poverty or sudden loss by sustaining the household through many small income and food supply sources, instead of one or two intensive cash crop productions (Chambers in Lassen et al. 1999: 5).

Although some of the major aims of the various rural and agricultural development schemes in relation to the NEP have been to eradicate shifting cultivation, improve productivity and intensify the agricultural production, the rural farmers are facing different resource constrains that are important for their choice of production system. Golingi & Ismail (1988: 48-51) have identified some of the major issues that have a bearing on the farmers’ possibilities for an intensified and/or more permanent production. These include limited amount of labour available, lack of capital and/or credit opportunities, inaccessibility to market centres and lack of access to extension services. Furthermore, many property rights theorists have pointed to the fact that tenure security is a major issue, determining the farmers’ choice of production system (see chapter 3). In addition, Mertz et al. (1999: 133) argue that it is important also to understand the social and/or religious importance of especially swidden cultivation of upland rice to many rural communities. Thus this production system is not likely to disappear in any foreseeable future.

Since the specific combination of the different production and livelihood strategies not only varies from farmer to farmer but also over time, Mertz et al. (1999: 134) argue that shifting cultivation must be understood in a livelihood context. Therefore we continue the analysis of the land use practices in rural areas with a characteristic of the specific practices in our study areas.

In both Kuyongon and Tempulong the farming systems were found to be composed of many livelihood activities. Many of these activities are not strictly part of traditional shifting agriculture and include permanent cropping of wet rice, tree crops and various other cash crops and also hunting and gathering of forest products, handicrafts, agroforestry and off-farm employment.

In Kuyongon the majority of the households have a livelihood strategy based on a great variety of subsistence and income-generating activities. The kind of crops grown for own consumption include rainfed wet rice grown in the valley bottom and dry rice, vegetables, fruits, ginger, coffee and tobacco cultivated on the steeper valley slopes. Almost all households grow wet rice and upland rice, which are the most important staple food but as one of the only crops, rice is almost entirely for subsistence. The composition of other crops varies between farmers, depending on available land and labour resources. The main cash crops are ginger, vegetables, fruits and tobacco. The activity pattern in Kuyongon can be seen in relation to the Complex, Diverse and Risk-prone rationale, as described earlier, because even though most households to some extend have cash crop productions, nobody rely solely on cash income. In fact, the households’ means of cash income are generally very flexible since they have other means with which to support their livelihood. All households collect a large number of different food products from home gardens and the surrounding forests and some households have fishponds and work as hired labour in periods.

The main cultivation practice in Kuyongon is shifting cultivation where fields on the slopes surrounding the village are cleared by slash and burn. We do not have detailed information on the rotational production cycle or an estimation of the average fallow period in the village. The shifting cultivation system varies between farmers and a field might be cultivated between one to three years and then left fallow for three to seven years or longer, depending on the quality of the soil, availability of labour and the need of the farmer. Since a steady income is attractive, the farmers plant many crops in small plots several times a year in order to spread the harvest and thereby the income. The reasons for this can be found in the unofficial use of land and the villagers’ livelihood strategies, which are characterised by having several alternative and supplementing sources of cash and subsistence income as mentioned above (Gausset et al. 1999: 8-9; Lassen et al. 1999: 36, 39).

The farmers in Kuyongon are facing a rather unstable situation with respect to land rights. Most arable land available for cash crops is inside a protected water catchment area, thus restricting legal access and use of land because the villagers cannot obtain grants on their land and are not allowed to use chemical farm inputs. As it is now, the farmers in Kuyongon are mainly growing short-term crops, but they are planning to change their agricultural productions towards perennial crops such as fruit trees. The farmers believe that they can use their change in production as a means of strengthening their claim to official use rights to the area. In this way the planned change can be seen as an attempt to use the state’s own discourse of the use value of continuously cultivated land (see chapter 6).

Besides agricultural production, hunting and collection of forest products are important activities for both subsistence and income generation, and a wide range of forest products is used. The most widely used product categories include food plants, plants for handicrafts and construction, firewood, medicinal plants and game. The villagers generally consider forest products important for their livelihood, but not as important as rice and other cultivated products. The forest products are used extensively for own consumption, and to a lesser extent sold at the market. Many products, like food plants, firewood and handicrafts, are used on a daily basis. Hunting and collection of medicinal plants are done more irregularly. Furthermore, the village is close to self-sufficient in the supply of forest products, since the villagers rarely buy forest products at the market. Another indicator of the importance of forest products for the villagers’ livelihood is that collection of forest products can function as a buffer in case of poor harvest. This also means that, in many cases, the households belonging to the lower income group are more dependent on forest products in the sense that these products account for a relatively much higher part of their income (Andersen et al. 1999b: 34-35).

The collection of forest products is done in both primary and secondary forest where the primary forest mainly refers to Crocker Range National Park. The forested areas surrounding the village consist of a range of different types of habitats covering semi-cultivated areas, secondary forest in different stages of succession and seemingly primary forest. The heterogeneity is to a wide extent explained by the shifting cultivation practice used on the steeper slopes around the village and this practice ensures that forest in many different stages of succession is present. There is a difference in how much and for what purposes the different households use the National Park. The forest products are mainly collected near the villagers’ own fields and as close to the household as possible, which means that households bordering the Park have areas inside the park as important gathering sites. However, most of the households situated further away from the Park, primarily use CRNP for hunting and to a lesser extend collection of other products like long rattans and medicinal plants, which cannot be found in the secondary forest in the near surroundings (Andersen et al. 1999b: 35). Game hunting took place at an increasing distance from the village and the villagers told us that this was a result of the introduction of modern weapons, hence a depletion in the amount of game available. This meant that they would have to spend more time in search of game animals in an effort to kill the same number of animals. The increased hunting has lead to the implementation of regulations that criminalise such practices and punishes the people involved in these practices with large fines and/or imprisonment. However, one could speculate that the introduction of modern weapons is an inadequate explanation in itself and that one also has to account for the increase in the local population and the destruction of habitats as well.

In Tempulong the farmers operate with four types of agricultural-based land use systems. These are home gardens, swidden fields, vegetable gardens and fruit orchards. The home gardens usually consist of useful trees (such as betel nut) as well as medicinal and ornamental plants. Most households have fields cultivated in a shifting cultivation system, which are planted with dry rice, cassava, corn and other vegetables for household use. Some villagers also have vegetable gardens where they specialise in commercial vegetables including beans, cauliflower and tomatoes. Both swidden fields and vegetable gardens are considered as short-term, temporary crops and are therefore often planted on land that the villagers do not have secure title to. The rationale is if access to the land is lost, access to long-term cash crops is not also lost. The last type of land use system that the farmers engage in is the fruit orchards. Since it is expected that fruit orchards will provide a significantly larger income than the crops from swidden fields and vegetable garden, this kind of land use has become increasingly popular. The villagers usually plant such long-term cash crops on land to which they hold a private title because few people in Tempulong want to invest in long-term crops on land they do not own and therefore do not have secure access to. In addition to these agricultural-based activities, many villagers have livestock and most people hunt and gather forest resources, often on a daily basis (Doolittle 1999: 229-233).

In compliance with Chamber’s Complex, Diverse and Risk-prone rationale, households in Tempulong usually try to diversify their planting and therefore combine the land use systems of swidden fields, fruit gardens and vegetable gardens, creating a safety net based on an equal emphasis on subsistence and cash crops. In this way they can lower the risk of investment in the popular long-term, high-yielding cash crop, fruit trees, with short-term subsistence crops and cash crops such as those cultivated in the swidden field and vegetable gardens.

By examining some aspects of the land use in Tikolod we are able to further examine the effects that titles to land have on the type of land use strategies chosen by the farmers. As mentioned earlier, land to which a title has not yet been established is often cultivated continuously in order to maintain that claim. But although titles to land have not yet been obtained for all the land applied for, it seemed clear that it was due to various bottlenecks in the application procedure more than a question of whether titles could be obtained at all. According to data collected by Aalbaek et al. (1999) the majority of the plots to which title to land had been established had been planted with crops eligible for subsidies (mainly fruit trees and other perennial crops). However, we were not under the impression that receiving subsidies or credit for agricultural development was especially widespread. Instead we interpret the fact that specific crops were grown on titled land as an indication of the desire to invest in long-term crops, because tenure security had been established for these plots.

However, tenure security alone cannot explain the gradual increase in cash crop production and the increase in the production of long-term crops. One has to take into account the community’s access to markets and the various market demands. A good example of this is the ginger production of the community (although this is not a long-term crop). The farmers of Tikolod have discovered that ginger is especially well grown on tracts of land opened up for the first time, i.e. the opening up of primary forest, because of the richness of soil nutrients in the ashes from this type of forest. However, there has been no more primary forest to clear within the community area since the establishment of CRNP, so instead plant indicators are used to detect the more fertile soil, which is then used for ginger production. This has clearly been a result of a demand for ginger as a cash crop, combined with good local conditions for producing ginger as well as the ingenuity of the strategies applied by the farmers (in this case ginger production requires less of a workload compared to other cash crops). In recent years though, ginger prices have fallen, which has proned the farmers to experiment with new types of cash crops. This would e.g. explain the more recent introduction of coffee and various tree crops.

In the previous chapters we have examined the way the rural land use practices involving shifting cultivation and hunting and collection of forest products have been perceived by state officials. We have done this by analysing the arguments in relation to the different narratives. Another way of analysing the way claims to access to natural resources and the right to define proper land use can be and are made is by examining and using maps. During our fieldwork in Sabah we made two maps in co-operation with the villagers: one land use map from Tikolod and one map from Kuyongon showing where the villagers hunt and collect forest products.

Doreen Massey (1995: 20) argues that maps can be seen as presenting different understandings of a certain area. Thus, maps serve a specific purpose, showing a partial picture of reality. In a society where contesting views on nature exist, the representation will therefore be difficult to agree upon, which can make maps a powerful tool because they seem to be used indiscriminately in state land use planning and policy making. However, one can speculate, as we have done in relation to the use of narratives, that maps, as a technology of rule, are used with a clear intention, the intention being to show the unproductive character of the local land use or to demarcate boundaries. When the borders of CRNP were made, it was made using aerial photographs, presenting a timeless image of the land use. However, the shifting cultivation practised in the communities around the Park is difficult to capture in a photograph because it involves rotation of fields. Furthermore, it is impossible to register the hunting and gathering sites used by the communities. This has created boundary disputes in some areas where the communities are claiming that land traditionally owned and used by these communities has been disregarded in the process of demarcating the boundaries between local communities and national parks (Tuboh et al. 1999: 5). Thus, Peluso (1995: 385) argues that the problem of territorialisation is that it freezes the property rights. By denying the local communities the right to expand their property holdings when there is a population increase, it limits their traditional practise of claiming additional land to the community by opening up new primary forest. The freezing of property rights in this way is a disadvantage for the local ethnic groups because it undermines the ability to redefine customary rights, resource management strategies and access to property, as the case of codification of property rights discussed in chapter 6 shows. Peluso (1995) has another example from Indonesia in relation to official forest mapping where no account was taken of local people’s previous claims to these lands and where no boundaries of customary land use or tribal areas were shown, although these could be essential for detailed planning (in this case their land claim were not frozen in time, but neglected all together). However, she argues that it is important to note that maps are claims to power by the state rather than a state’s capacity to enforce its claims because people can defy or disregard these claims through their every day practices (Peluso 1995: 388).

One way for the local communities to stake claim to their customary land and natural resources is through counter-maps. Harvey argues that:

The means of counter-mapping is to use maps as a territorialised strategy and new political opening for the resource users because they reflect the local people’s ways of talking about resources and their claims to them. The resource users can thereby redefine and reinvent claims to land and natural resources and moreover increase their power to control the representation of themselves and their claims to resources (Peluso 1995: 400-403). In the following we will discuss the maps made in co-operation with the villagers in Tikolod and Kuyongon. Although they are not drawn for the purpose of being used as counter-maps, they could very well be because they represent the way the villagers perceive and understand the resource use of the environment. Furthermore, the maps will be discussed in relation to an official land use map.

In relation to the discussion above, we examine various land use maps in relation to their role as a governing tool. What is important here is the extent of the knowledge about ownership and land use, which the different actors possess. The land use map developed for areas within the Tikolod community illustrates an extensive knowledge of the type of crops grown, where they are grown and to whom these fields belong (see appendix 3). It also gives an insight into the reciprocity that characterises many local communities. The extensive knowledge the informants had on the land use in the community stems from the fact that the farmers often help each other when clearing land or harvesting. The map itself can be used as an interpretation of the informants’ response to our request for a map of the community as they perceived it in relation to land use and ownership. What is important in relation to the sketch map of Tikolod is that it is a reflection of local knowledge and viewpoints, although somewhat guided by our requests.

When comparing the sketch map to an official land use map of the area (see appendix 5), based on aerial photographs, it becomes apparent that the knowledge that can be derived from these two maps is quite different. When examining the official land use map it is apparent that large areas within the upper catchment areas (around Ulu Tikolod and Bolotikon) are void of any type of land use and purely registered as forest (7F). Only a few patterns of shifting cultivation (4X) are marked. When observing the sketch map it is clear that this is not so and that there is an extensive agricultural activity in the two areas.

Looking at the sketch map from Kuyongon (see appendix 4) it becomes apparent that it holds features not likely to appear on any official land use map, namely paths used for hunting and collection of forest products. Also here the official land use map (see appendix 5) bears no resemblance to the sketch map. Much of the land use observed in Kuyongon during extensive village walks is not represented on the official land use map. This has also been noted by Lassen et al. (1999: 29-30). In addition to this, the sketch map shows important information in relation to the villagers’ perception of areas within CRNP. As shown on the map, areas within CRNP are considered part of the villagers’ traditional hunting and gathering sites and as such the sketch map could be used by the villagers as a counter-map to the maps on which basis the border of the Park was made.

It is clear that the function of land use maps is to give the surveyor, or any other facilitator/user of such maps, an understanding of the type and extent of local land use. This way, as is the case with aerial photographs, the maps become a tool for the target groups, in this case decision makers both on state and district level. However, counter-maps can be made to empower the claims of local communities, by showing what the official maps neglect to show. When comparing the sketch maps with the official land use map it is clear that knowledge concerning the extent and type of land use is very different. On the sketched map from Tikolod extensive wet rice cultivation (4P) can be observed around Kg. Tikolod (the main hamlet), while no wet rice cultivation can be observed on the official land use map. It would be a futile effort to start listing the extension and types of land uses, which can be found on the sketched maps and not on the land use maps, but the examples above is a good illustration. One can argue that the maps represent a way of looking at reality, or in fact they are a representation of reality that serves as a technology of rule. Thus they represent the reality in relation to a political, economical or cultural agenda that is sought promoted.

One can highlight two types of relations where struggles over resources are concerned: the relationship between different laws and the legitimacy they hold; and the relationship between the laws and the type of land use practised. In much property rights theory the idea that tenure security leads to investment in production is vigorously discussed. As the example from Tikolod showed, where titles had been granted the villagers were more willing to invest in long-term crops and new types of cash crops. It seems as though this was a result of the fact that tenure security had been obtained by acquiring title to land. One can speculate, however, whether the long-term crops, such as the fruit trees, were actually the reason for the granting of these titles. Under the Land Ordinance it is stated that title to land can be acquired through continuos cultivation or by cultivating 50 or more fruit trees on a 15 acre plot and this might induce the farmers to invest in long-term crops or fruit trees on their land in order to obtain the title in the first place. This brings us to the case in Kuyongon, where the farmers plan to cultivate long-term crops on land that they have not obtained title to. According to the villagers their plan to invest in fruit trees on untitled land were part of a plan to emphasise their claims by referring to aspects in the Land Ordinance, which were recognised as proper use of the land in the eyes of the state. It is important to add here, that planting fruit trees is also a part of customary law (not only in the Land Ordinance) traditionally used to demarcate field boundaries.

In Tempulong the villagers were reluctant to invest in state owned land to which title were difficult to obtain (if not impossible) because of the lack of tenure security. It is hard to say precisely why such a reluctance to invest in long-term crops on untitled land exist in Tempulong when this is exactly the reason why such investment is considered in another area, in this case Kuyongon. A range of factors could be at work here. The presence of the authorities in the form of Park rangers, the community’s relationship to Kinabalu Park, where a portion of the villagers are employed or the conflict of authority and legitimacy between the JKKK and the Headman (which will be discussed in chapter 9), or perhaps a combination of all of the above.

Another interesting discussion in relation to this chapter is the practice of shifting cultivation, which is still widespread in the three villages although more permanent and intensive production practices are also being employed. As shown in the previous chapters, state officials see shifting cultivation as unproductive and environmentally damaging. As discussed in much literature it is not possible to generalise in this way because the sustainability of shifting cultivation depends on a lot of factors such as the length of fallow period, soil quality and slope gradient. From our short stay in Sabah we are not able to estimate the sustainability of this production practice. What we did observe, though, is that the fallow period in some places has shortened. This could pose a problem in relation to the national parks. Reduced fallow period and/or inclusion of more land to permanent production of e.g. fruit trees reduce the amount of secondary forest where a large amount of forest products is currently gathered, thus these forest products are then likely to be gathered increasingly in the national parks. The hunting of game to the extend it is being done in some communities can only be interpreted as damaging to the national park wildlife. Despite the obvious damaging effect local practises have on the park wildlife, they continue to see this practise as a customary right. Furthermore, the fact that their activities within the parks are not linked to their access to farmland can be seen as a great default in National Park planning.

Many factors influence the farmers’ decisions concerning the specific combination of production systems. Despite official intentions to abolish shifting cultivation, decisions to maintain this practice as a part of the production system seem to be based on a range of factors such as labour constrains, lack of capital and relatively poor market access. The topography of the villages also plays a crucial role in relation to the production possibilities. Both Kuyongon and Tikolod is situated in valley bottoms surrounded by steep slopes. Cultivating on slopes with a steep gradient causes an increase in soil erosion and loss of soil nutrients. In order to compensate for the loss of soil and soil nutrients the farmer has to rotate the production in a system of shifting cultivation. By laying the land fallow the soil is allowed to regain its nutrients. Furthermore, the system of shifting cultivation practised among the Kadazandusun is also founded on tradition. An example that states the traditional practice of shifting cultivation is the harvest festival (mentioned in chapter 5), which is an important cultural event among the Kadazandusuns celebrating the harvesting of the paddy bukit (dry hill rice). One thing that could force the villagers to gradually move away from shifting cultivation is the need for more land where none is available (one could perhaps argue that this is already happening) and the need for an increased income to pay school fees, health care etc. (the introduction of coffee and various tree crops can be seen as a way of complying with the need for an increase in cash crop production).

The discussion of maps in section 8.4 clearly showed that that maps can be a way of interpreting the views on land use held by state officials on one hand and rural communities on the other. Thus, land use maps can be a very important tool in the planning and policy making process. When comparing the official land use map with the sketch maps of Kuyongon and Tikolod it was clear that the official map lacks detailed information on the land use in the two communities. The official land use maps serve many purposes, both for research, planning of agricultural development and policy making. The object of the official land use map, combined with the fact that it lacks information, we see as an area for potential struggle. If and where the knowledge and needs of local communities, in relation to land use, is not considered the stage for struggle is set.

By far, struggles over natural resources, including resources within national parks, are violent in character and only rarely are they as colourful as one might expect. More often these struggles manifest themselves through a subtle disapproval by the communities that base parts of their livelihood on these resources. As we have seen in the previous chapters, where no formal rules apply or where these rules contradict local needs, access is negotiated by referring to traditional rights and rules. This is not so much a negotiation between two parties as it is an internal negotiation whereby defiance of official rules is justified.

As can be derived from the previous chapter, both access to arable land and forest resources are important for the livelihood of the farmers living in communities adjoining national parks. In many of these communities the establishment of national parks has had obvious effects, especially on issues concerning land use and access to as well as ownership of land and forest resources. These are issues that the villagers show great interest in because they are important for their daily livelihood as well as for the future of the communities. Hence, in this chapter we examine how the enactment of national parks has affected access to land and forest resources, land tenure as well as land use issues in these communities, with special attention to the villages of Kuyongon, Tempulong and Tikolod. In the end of the chapter we discuss the nature of the struggles observed in these communities.

It is far from uncommon that disputes, and especially disputes over boundaries, arise where national parks are established because local communities see their livelihood possibilities restricted in terms of loss of traditional hunting and gathering sites as well as access to arable land. The people who have been living inside or on the border of what is now the national parks have often made use of the area in terms of its natural resources before it was enacted a national park (Tuboh et al. 1999: 4; Cleary & Eaton 1996: 110).

The establishment of CRNP as well as the official proclamation of the area wherein Kuyongon is settled as a water catchment area has affected the village in several ways. The establishment of the National Park has had the effect that access to new arable land, and thereby the expansion possibilities of the village, has been greatly restricted, access to forest resources in terms of hunting and gathering sites has been legally restricted and finally, cultivated land has been lost. To add to this, the enactment of the water catchment area has greatly limited the possibilities for the villagers to obtain legal user right to their farmland (Lassen et al. 1999: 25). The household living right on the border of CRNP has lost approximately 2/3 of their land due to the establishment of the Park. They did not hold title to the land and therefore had no legal right to the land, thus no right to compensation, but the land had been in use by the family for two generations. Although the family considers this area within the Park to be their land, they refrain from using it because the park rangers easily detect cultivated plots. However, the establishment of the Park has not changed their behaviour towards hunting and gathering and they still proceed to go to the National Park to collect forest products.

For the rest of the villagers, the establishment of CRNP has not had such direct effects in terms of lost land. Since many of them live quite far from the actual border, they have mainly used the area for hunting, which is considered part of the Dusun culture, and collection of forest products not found in secondary forest. The villagers are generally unsympathetic towards the strict ban on hunting and gathering of forest products within the Park because they do not consider themselves a threat to the Park’s biodiversity. The one effect of the establishment of the Park that most of the villagers stressed the importance of was the restricted access to new arable land and land ownership in terms of written grants to the land currently cultivated. Faced with increasing population since the average size of the households is 8-10 people, the main problem concerns the great limitations on agricultural expansion possibilities and intensified cash crop production. Thus, the villagers in Kuyongon perceived the National Park as a constraint for the future development of the village. A few years back the Headwoman wrote a letter to the District Officer explaining the constraints the villagers experienced on their livelihood, but in late 1999 she still had not received a reply. The whole process of making the National Park was also criticised since the villagers were not involved in the decision making. Although the Park was established in 1984, most of the villagers had only recently, within the last year or two, heard about the Park. They had only a vague idea about the reasons for establishing the Park, but most of the villagers were aware of the restrictions concerning the use of the area. All these aspects have led to an outspoken lack of understanding and a limited appreciation of the status of the area now enacted as CRNP. Furthermore, distrust, suspicion and rumours about the state’s intentions are apparent in the village. One villager suspected that the reason for establishing the National Park was to prevent the local people from using this land in order to secure future logging activities for the government.

The effects of the establishment of Kinabalu Park in Tempulong are primarily connected to access to land and the right to define the use of forest areas. In the village there are two forest areas, referred to as Tarasan and Nababak, which are important in the villagers’ daily life (see map 3). Nababak is privately owned by absentee landowners and the villagers use this area communally for collecting forest products. Tarasan is owned by the state and covers an area of 1260 acres. In 1986 a new survey of the Park boundaries were made and it was determined that 1000 acres of the land in Tarasan officially fell within the Park (Doolittle 1999: 229, 255-256). This reduced the amount of land left available for potential use by the villagers to 260 acres and the forest area of Tarasan has consequently become the source of a dispute not only between the state and the village but also between the village chairman of the JKKK and the Headman. According to Nais (1996: 42-43) such border disputes are numerous and still ongoing in many communities adjoining Kinabalu Park after the new demarcation of the boundaries. Massive discrepancies with the old boundary surfaced because much land, which was cultivated, developed or even inhabited by the villagers, turned out to be inside the legal park boundary. This, Nais argues, is the main source of dispute between the Park and the surrounding communities.

Taken from Doolittle (1999: 230)

Already in 1982 the Headman from Tempulong tried to negotiate with the state for the village ownership of the whole area of Tarasan based on the village’s need of an extended area for agricultural production. This land application was never followed up on by the state. After the area of Tarasan was reduced, intra-village disputes over land use in the remaining area of Tarasan broke out after the chairman of the JKKK in 1995 started negotiations with the state over the land in Tarasan by emphasising the need for a grazing reserve for the village’s livestock. A grazing reserve was not reflecting the needs or wants of the majority of the villagers, but since Tarasan officially is considered to be a buffer zone between agricultural activities and the National Park, the District Officer designated Tarasan as a grazing reserve. Some villagers contested this decision by planting gardens in Tarasan, hence staking their claim to the land. This invoked comments from Park officials, expressing their dismay that the villagers had starting clearing land for agricultural production (Doolittle 1999: 255-261). The above shows how the chairman of JKKK is succeeding in gaining access to Tarasan where the Headman failed by applying for it as a grazing reserve, an extensive land use, which is seen as acceptable in areas bordering national parks.

What the above also indicates is the rather contentious relationship between the Park and the villagers. While the Park offers opportunities for wage labour for the villagers, people also feel that they have lost access to valuable resources with the establishment of the Park. Although the forest resources within the Park were used and managed by the villagers prior to the establishment of the Park, they do not dare breaking the laws regarding hunting and gathering within the Park. This is because the village is located so close to a Park substation and the fine for violating the laws is very high. The villagers have been able to find alternative areas to the Park for hunting and gathering of forest products, and together with the employment aspect this is the reason why the direct conflicts are minimised. However, like in Kuyongon there is always an undercurrent distrust of Park officials in the village and many villagers do not feel that the state’s concerns with conservation and proper land use in communities bordering national parks correspond with their needs for access to land (Doolittle 1999: 19, 228-229).

A slightly different scenario applies to Tikolod. Unlike in Kuyongon, the people in Tikolod are able to acquire title for their land. Despite the fact that there is no more land left to apply for, there seem to be no real shortage of land at the moment, at least not according to the villagers themselves. In order to secure the future for the coming generations, the different households have applied for the maximum of land, in fact more than they are able to cultivate at the moment. Because of the amble amount of arable land, they seem to depend on forest products to a lesser extent than in Kuyongon. However, certain products are still collected in the primary forest, hence in CRNP, and hunting is still very much a part of their culture. So as a form of "everyday resistance", local people continue to hunt and collect plants for all purposes within the National Park. Thus, villagers will knowingly violate statutory laws that do not facilitate their everyday needs for survival, or the ways of their culture.

The amble amount of arable land has meant that private property, as a concept and as a form of tenure security, has been accepted by the majority of the people in Tikolod. With regard to the CRNP, this acceptance of the notion of private property in Tikolod means that the probability of encroachment in relation to cultivation by the villagers is not very big. However, even if people internalise private ownership of land, it can only apply for a defined range of land uses. When taking other uses into consideration (such as hunting and gathering), customary rights and traditional practices still seem to apply. In other words, people can still hunt and collect forest products on each other's titled land as well as in the CRNP. This is not seen as an encroachment by the villagers in Tikolod, hence they themselves, and not the Park management, define the morals of their behaviour in relation to CRNP.

Given the birth rate of Tikolod, approximately 4 children per family, the amount of accessible farmland will eventually decrease. None of the informants, when asked about the future, seem to think that their children would migrate permanently out of the community, hence leave the community as a result of land scarcity. As mentioned in the beginning of this section, people have applied for all available land in order to secure the future of their heirs. Yet they claim that there is no shortage of land in relation to the establishment of CRNP. When examining the actions of the villagers, in this case the high amount of applications, and compare it to what the villagers told us, there seem to be a discrepancy. There was a reoccurring answer when we asked about their desire to own land: the need for more land so that their heirs would be secured. Almost all the informants expressed a desire to apply for and own more land. Therefore we can only conclude that the establishment of CRNP has had certain behavioural impacts on the community. The behavioural impact here referred to the desire to own more land resulting in applications only limited by the amount of land available. This is a result of the first come first serve ideology of the Land Ordinance in relation to individual grants. Although the villagers seem to think that there is enough land, as the situation is now, there is no doubt that the limit to land acquisition is beginning to show certain signs in the form of an increased inclusion of marginal land into the land use system and shortening of the fallow period.

In this chapter we have shown how the three communities have been affected in different ways by the establishment of national parks, leading to different reactions. Common for them all, though, is that the state has redefined legal versus illegal land use and access rights by establishing the national parks, since the laws and regulations concerning national parks formally prohibit the local villagers from making any use of the forest resources. In this way the establishment of national parks criminalises many rural communities’ land and forest resource uses. Consequently, many national parks have become scenes for struggles over resources between farmers and state authorities. The explanations often given in much conservationist literature on the issue of the emergence of disputes over access to natural resources are increasing populations, hence increased need for natural resources, and a lack of local understanding of the importance of nature conservation (Neumann 1998: 8; Cleary & Eaton 1992: 193). One could argue that such views are reflected within Sabah Parks. The statement made by the director of Sabah Parks, arguing that the local communities needs to be taught how to take care of the forest, illustrates this. Although such explanations might partly explain some struggles, they also pose a problem because they exclude the socio-political motivations as suggested by Neumann (1998: 8). He argues that many of the violations of park laws can be understood as efforts to defend or reclaim perceived customary land and/or resource rights. Following Leach et al. (1997: 24) this can be defined as an endowment based on informal rules directing the behaviour of the farmers, where official rules conflict with the needs of the local communities.

Thus, an important aspect to draw from this chapter is the nature of the struggles observed in the communities adjoining national parks. Scott has used the term ‘everyday forms’ of resistance to define actions widely resorted to by e.g. poor farmers and shifting cultivators, when open confrontation with more powerful actors carries the prospect of retaliatory actions by the latter (Scott in Bryant & Bailey 1997: 170). Everyday resistance is characterised as being covert, often individual and indirectly challenging the prevailing political and economic norms. This kind of resistance includes what is officially considered various criminal acts, especially illegal extraction of resources, and unwillingness to co-operate with state officials. Basically the struggles to be found in communities around CRNP and Kinabalu Park revolve around reduced access to local livelihood resources, disputes over boundaries and the enforcement of park and conservation laws, which involves power to decide the use to which the resources should be put. The struggles are often not directly visible or violent, more often they are manifested by the local communities defying state legislation by encroaching on the national parks. This is a form of negotiation where the villagers’ distrust of the government leads to lack of co-operation and appreciation of nature conservation through the establishment of national parks. Thus, rules are compromised and replaced by traditional moral codes for the use of forest resources, making this process a form of negotiation.

Throughout much of Southeast Asia, and also elsewhere in the Third World, rural populations are marginalised as a consequence of agricultural development programmes, various forms of resource extraction, forest conservation schemes and other forms of state intervention. What is common for these interventions is that they are part of a state effort to control a country’s wealth and resources in order to e.g. extract export earnings (timber and other cash crops), to attract foreign capital (eco-tourism and nature conservation) and/or increase food production. In Sabah 45% of the total State area has been designated as forest reserves. The bulk of this area is set aside for logging and protection of biodiversity as well as the protection of water catchments and through legislation rural communities are forbidden access to resources within these areas. Occasionally there will be a direct confrontation between outside interests and the interests of local communities in relation to the access of forest resource. However, this scenario only rarely appears in the communities we have been studying. More often the struggles are manifested through a silent defiance of state rule. It is important also to remember that struggles over the access to natural resources are not just a question of acquiring the resource itself. It is just as much about the right to define and control the path of development the communities are subjected to, i.e. the right to participate in decisions that affect the livelihood of the local communities. Furthermore, much of the struggles revolve around the criminalisation of hunting and collection of forest products in areas now established as national parks, a livelihood strategy that is an important supplement to the agricultural production for many rural farmers. All this has led to a situation where the villagers feel that the state’s concern with conservation and proper land use in communities bordering national parks does not correspond with their needs.

Throughout this project we have been concerned with different aspects, which are affecting the struggles that arise where national parks are established. One such aspect is the land tenure systems in Sabah, which have been greatly affected by the introduction of private property and the codification of native customary law initiated under British rule. One can argue that the introduction of private property was in opposition to the customary land tenure systems in Sabah. Originally land and forest resources were owned communally and access to land was acquired through opening up the land and cultivating it. With the introduction of private property the farmers have to acquire the right to cultivate the land formally through applying for a title to land on an individual basis. Where villagers neglect to do so or simply refuse to conform to colonial and post-colonial rule, they might lose the right to their customary land. As argued by many property rights theorists, the codification of native customary rights has made these rights rather rigid. One example, which has serious effects in areas where national parks are established, is that access to forest resources and their gathering sites have not been considered in the Land Ordinance. A perhaps even greater effect of the land codification for the rural farmers has been the increased state control over resources, which is also manifested in the gazettement of national parks. By introducing state property, the state has acquired both the right to define land use on a large part of the land in Sabah and the right to exclude others from using resources on state property.

However, there is no doubt that communities in Sabah have accepted private property as one way of obtaining tenure security, although no clear conclusion can be made on the way land tenure security relates to e.g. the farmers’ willingness to invest in long-term crops. The acceptance of private property does not mean, though, that traditional land tenure systems have lost its place in rural society. Rather there are now two types of tenure systems that co-exist, the Land Ordinance and the Adat, creating a setting where there are several ways to establish claims to natural resources. It is in this setting that struggles over access to natural resources and the right to define the use to which these resources should be put evolve, thus relating to the relationship between statutory law and customary law. It is a relationship that is negotiated through everyday practice, where customary law legitimises the land use strategies of rural communities where statutory law does not apply, or where statutory law contradicts the needs of these communities. This, we argue, is a situation of legal pluralism, where two or more rules co-exist and are applied through everyday practices.

Using Doolittle’s approach we can argue that these everyday practices are consciously sought governed through the use of narratives as a technology of rule. By arguing that the practices of the rural population are ‘backward’, environmental damaging and uneconomic in relation to their land use and that the rural communities do not appreciate nature conservation, the state can justify its actions in regard to agricultural development schemes and forest protection policies. These narratives manifest themselves in various ways: by promoting NEP policies that focus on the development of plantation agriculture and local in-situ development focusing on a transformation of local production systems, especially shifting cultivation, towards more permanent cash-crop production; and by excluding the local villagers from protected areas such as national parks. It has not been our intention to show whether or not the land use practices deployed by the rural farmers are environmentally damaging, rather how the rhetoric regarding such practices has been used in claims in relation to struggles over access to natural resources. The way narratives are used to govern environmental management in many developing countries has had a great impact on the livelihood of especially small-scale farmers and thereby setting the stage for potential struggles. When examining these narratives it becomes clear that they are founded in a technocentric point of view where the ruling ideology is that there is an inherit dis-equilibrium between man and the environment. This requires the state to make a division between exploiting the environment and protecting the environment from exploitation. This relates to the view that nature have to remain unimpaired and undisturbed to keep its value and that rural communities are often involved in damaging agricultural practices, whereby the state can justify their exclusion from protected areas.

What is interesting in relation to the communities we have been studying is to observe how these narratives are moulded after the situation and objective. Although intensive agricultural production is promoted all over Sabah, the chairman of the JKKK in Tempulong succeeded in getting the state to designate the area of Tarasan as a grazing reserve instead of farmland because a more extensive land use were seen appropriate in an area officially perceived of as a buffer zone between Kinabalu Park and the community. Because the state has such a strong division between agricultural production and forest protection with the exclusion of people and their agricultural practices, use of forest resources, including potential farmland, and the conservation of forests is seen as separate. We will argue that the communities bordering national parks in this way are caught between the two types of policies promoted by the environmental narrative on one hand and the development narrative on the other; the farmers express wishes to engage in more permanent and intensive cash crop production but both their access to natural resources and their ability to decide their own land use has been restricted with the establishment of the national parks.

State officials are not the only actors involved in the struggles that use narratives. Rural communities who see their livelihood possibilities restricted by the establishment of national parks likewise make use of narratives and mould them according to the specific claims made to gain access to and control over natural resources. We have termed the narratives referred to by these communities as counter-narratives because they have a different connotation than the narratives referred to by state officials. Counter-narratives are not used as a technology of rule, rather they are used to reclaim access to and control over natural resources. By codifying customary law in the Land Ordinance and by applying western procedural practices, the customary law has been made rigid and lost parts of its original function. So when discussing issues concerning customary law in an official setting, it is always referred to as a part of statutory law and not customary law in its original sense. This makes it difficult for the rural communities to refer their arguments to traditional law as they see it. So when arguing against their exclusion from national parks they have to invoke their indigenous selves and refer to their reciprocity with the natural environment and the holistic character of the Adat, arguing that they are the good stewards in regards to the management of the natural environment. On a community level this is seen when people defy state legislation by referring to their customary rights and this, we argue, is where the character of the narratives manifests itself through their ability to guide actions.

So far we have shown how different aspects relating to struggles over access to and control over natural resources interplay and affect struggles arising where national parks affect the livelihood of rural communities. What is further important for the understanding of these struggles is the way they manifest themselves. The state uses narratives through which legislation and policy making is justified, albeit as a technology of rule. In response to state rule and policy the rural communities negotiate the affect these rules and policies have on their lives through the use of counter-narratives. This manifests itself by a lack of co-operation with, and appreciation of, state conservation policies and is expressed through every day practice in the communities. In Tikolod and Kuyongon the villagers proceed to use CRNP for hunting and collection of forest products, thereby defying state legislation and in Tempulong villagers have made swidden gardens in Tarasan as a protest against the official designation of the grazing reserve where farmland was needed.

As we see it, the struggles taking place between rural farmers in communities bordering national parks and state officials are a reflection of the struggles taking place in the political arena in Sabah. Since Sabah joined the Federation, the political scene has been characterised by a struggle between promotion of a Federal agenda relating to cultural and religious uniformity and development policies on one hand and the non-Muslim indigenous population’s right to influence policies affecting their own livelihood on the other. The struggle to gain influence on political decisions has involved the making of various political alliances. On community level the political alliance making has had its counterpart. Political parties have used rural development funds to gain support in the local communities. This funding has been channelled through the JKKK. Thus, the local communities have had to support local institutions, as well as politicians, friendly to the Federation to access development funds. The fact that the Federal government has had such a control over state liquidities, which it has used to gain local support in Sabah, has resulted in an increased centralisation of the political power in Malaysia. This same degree of centralisation can also be observed in relation to Sabah State policies in regard to forest management, nature conservation and agricultural development schemes.

The struggles that result from a plural legal setting, in our case represented through the co-existence of statutory law and customary law, seem to play a central role in relation to conflicting land claims and land use strategies. While conservation of forest resources and biodiversity is based on statutory law, the actual daily use of these resources by local communities is more often based on customary law. Customary law in this way is not recognised by the state, hence it is not included in any management plan for protected areas. But by not recognising customary use of forest resources when designating protected areas the everyday practices of local communities are criminalised, leaving these communities no choice but to defy state rule and invoke their customary rights. Thus, we will argue that in order for conservation schemes to be accepted and the struggles avoided, or at least lessened, social factors influencing the way people interact with the environment have to be addressed. These factors include access to essential resources such as land and food, knowledge, the question of empowerment or the level of control people exert over resources and decision-making processes, which affect the management of natural resources. Finally, when returning to our analytical framework, in which we called for a politicised environment perspective, and comparing this with what we have learned throughout this project, there is no doubt that politics and the access to natural resources are two inseparable elements of any land tenure struggle.

Aalbaek, J., Lauritsen, P., Kaas, M., Lopdrup, U. and Gregersen, B (1999): Water management & soil erosion in Tikolod. SLUSE Print. Copenhagen.

Andersen, H., Henriques, J. and Long, B. (1999a): Land Tenure in Tikolod, Sabah. SLUSE print. Copenhagen.

Andersen, J., Fridriksdottir, H., Nilsson, C. and de Richelieu, T. (1999b): Local use of forest products in Kuyongon, Sabah, Malaysia. SLUSE print. Copenhagen.

Anonymous (1992): Management and Development Masterplan for the Board of Trustees of Sabah Parks. Unpublished Confidential Report to the Sabah Parks Board of Trustees by Coopers & Lybrand management Consultants Sdn. Bhd and Sun Chong & Wong.

Balasubramaniam, V. (1998): Federal-State Relations in Malaysia: Expedient and the necessary. Economic and Political Weekly, July 18. pp. 1912-1913.

Birgegård, L. (1993): Natural Resource Tenure - A review of issues and experiences with emphasis on Sub-Saharan Africa. Rural Development Studies No. 31, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, International Rural Development Centre. Uppsala, Sweden.

Bloch, M. (1995): ‘People into Places: Zafimaniry Conceptions of Clarity.’ In E. Hirsh & M. O’Hanlon (eds.): The Anthropology of Landscape. Perspectives on Place and Space. Clarendon Press. Oxford. pp. 63-77.

Brookfield, H., Potter, L. and Byron, Y. (1995): In Place of the Forest. Environmental and Socio-economic Transformation in Borneo and the Eastern Malay Peninsular. United Nations University Press. Tokyo.

Bryant, R. L. and Bailey, S. (1997): Third World Political Ecology. Routledge. London.

Bryant, R. L., Rigg, J. and Stott, P. (1993): Forest transformations and political ecology in Southeast Asia. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters. Vol. 3, Numbers 4-6, November 1993. pp. 101-111.

Chambers, R (1994): Participatory rural Appraisal (PRA): Challenges, Potentials and Paragim. World Development 22(9). pp. 1253-1268.

Chin, J. (1994): The Sabah State Election of 1994: End of Kadazan Unity. The Regents of the University of California. pp. 904-915.

Chin, J. (1997): Politics of Federal Intervention in Malaysia, With Reference to Sarawak, Sabah and Kelantan. Journal of Commenwealth & Comparative Politics. Vol. 35, No. 2. pp. 96-120.

Cleary, M. C. (1992): Plantation agriculture and the formulation of native land rights in British North Borneo c. 1880-1930. The Geographical Journal, Vol. 158, No. 2, July 1992, pp.170-181.

Cleary, M. and Eaton, P. (1992): Borneo Change and Development. Oxford University Press. Singapore.

Cleary, M. and Eaton, P. (1996): Tradition and Reform. Land Tenure and Rural Development in South-East Asia. Oxford University Press. New York.

Cleary, M. and Shaw, B. (1994): Ethnicity, Development and the New Economic Policy: The Experience of Malaysia, 1971-1990. Pacific Viewpoint, 35 (1). pp. 83-106.

Colchester, M. (1994): Salvaging Nature: Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development Discussion Papers.

Dalberg-Larsen, J. (1994): Rettens enhed – en illusion? Om retlig pluralisme i teorien og praksis. Akademisk Forlag.

Doolittle, A. (1999): Controlling the land: property rights and power struggles in Sabah, 1881-1996. UMI Dissertation, Degree year 1999.

Dove, M. R. (1983): Theories of swidden agriculture, and the political economy of ignorance. Agroforestry Systems 1. pp. 85-99. Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague. The Netherlands.

Einarsson, P. (1993): "All animals re equal but some are cetaceans. Conservation and culture conflict". In K. Milton (ed.): Environmentalism: The view from anthropology. ASA monograph, 32. Routledge. London. pp. 73-84.

Fortmann, L. (1995): Talking claims: Discursive strategies in contesting property. World Development. Vol. 23, No 6. pp. 1053-63.

Gausset, Q., Mertz, O., van der Keur, P. and Mohamed, M. (1999): The Crocker Range Parks. www.cyberct.com.my/arbec/intro.1htm (Date: 5.12’99).

Ghai, D. (1994): Environment, Livelihood and Empowerment. Development and Change. Volume 25, Number 1, January 1994. pp. 1–11.

Ghimire, K. B. (1994): Parks and People: Livelihood Issues in National Parks management in Thailand and Madagascar. Development and Change. Volume 25, Number 1, January 1994. pp. 195-229.

Golingi, F. and Ismail, M. D. (1988): ‘Opportunities for smallholders to participate in the modern agricultural sector.’ In Chuan, T. T. and Yee, w. (eds.): Towards Modernising Smallholding Agriculture in Sabah. Institute for Development Studies (Sabah), Kota Kinabalu. pp. 39-62.

Hames, R. (1987): ‘Game Conservation or Efficient Hunting.’ In B. J. McCay & J. M. Acheson (eds.): The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources. University of Arizona Press. Tucson. pp. 92-107.

Hardin, G. (1968): The tragedy of the commons. The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. Science. Vol. 162. pp. 1243-1248.

Hassan, Sharifah Zaleha bt Syed (1993): Native Courts and the Construction of Modern Legal Thinking in Sabah: A case study. Borneo Review 4 (1), June 1993. Sabah, Malaysia. pp.83-98.

Hirsh, P. (ed.) (1996): Seeing Forests for Trees - Environment and Environmentalism in Thailand. Silkworm Books. Thailand. pp. 1-14.

IWGIA (1997-98): Malaysia: The Indigenous Peoples of Sabah. Indigenous Affairs, No. 3 – July/August/September 1996. pp. 48-51.

Jepperson, R. L. (1994): ‘Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism.’ In W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (eds.): The New Institutionalism in Organisational Analysis. The University of Chicago Press. pp. 143-163.

King, V. T. (1993): Politic pembangunan: the political economy of rainforest exploitation and development in Sarawak, East Malaysia. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters. Vol. 3, Numbers 4-6, November 1993. pp. 235-244.

Land Ordinance (1996): Reprint of Laws Enactment, 1967 (No. 6/1967). State of Sabah.

Lasimbang, J. (1996a): ‘The Indigenous People of Sabah.’ In Nicholas, C. & Singh. R. (eds.): Indigenous Peoples of Asia. Many Peoples, One Struggle. Asian Indigenous Peoples Pact. Bangkok.

Lasimbang, J. (1996b): ‘The Juridical Rights of Indigenous Peoples and their Relation to the State and the Non-Indigenous Peoples: The Case of Sabah.’ In: C. Erni (ed.): "…Vines That Won’t Bind…" Indigenous People in Asia. IWGIA Document No. 80. pp. 109-114.

Lassen, K. M., Hansen, J. L. and Hjarne, D. (1999): Income-Generating Activities in Kg. Kuyongon, Sabah, Malaysia – Production of Ginger as a Cash Crop. SLUSE print. Copenhagen.

Leach, M., Mearns, R. and Scoones, I. (1997): Environmental Entitlements – A Framework for Understanding the Institutional Dynamics of Environmental Change. IDS Discussion Paper 359. pp. 1-39.

Li, T. M. (1996): Images of community: Discourse and strategy in property relations. Development and Change. Vol. 27. pp. 501-527.

Lund, C. (1995): Law, Power and Politics in Niger - Land Struggles and the Rural Code. Ph.D dissertation. Roskilde University.

Luping, H. J. (1994): Sabah’s Dilemma (The Political History of Sabah 1960-1994). Magnus Books, Kuala Lumpur.

MacPherson, C. B. M. (1978): Property – Mainstream and Critical Positions. University of Toronto Press. Cananda. pp. 1-13

Makitaak Newsletter (1999): Indigenous Systems, Wisdom Accumulated through generations. March, 1999 -18, PACOS. Sabah, Malaysia. pp. 2-4.

Massey, D. (1995): Imagining the world. In J. Allen and D. Massey (eds.): Geographical Worlds. Oxford University Press.

Mertz, O., Christensen, A. E., Højskov, P. and Birch-Thomsen, T. (1999): Subsistence or cash: strategies for change in shifting cultivation. Danish Journal of Geography, Special Issue: 1. pp. 133-142.

Milton, K. (1996): Environmentalism and Cultural Theory - Exploring the role of anthropology in environmental discourse. Routledge. London

Mitchell, J. C. (1983): Case and situation analysis. The Sociological Review, Vol. 31, No. 2. pp. 187-213.

Moore, S. F. (1999): Changing African Land Tenure: Reflections on the Incapacities of the State. European Journal of Development Research. Vol. 11, No. 2.

Mustapha, H. M. (1989): Agricultural Transformation and Rural Development in Sabah: Aspects of Structural Change and Poverty among Rural Communities. Sumber 5. pp. 43-67.

Nais, J. (1996): Kinabalu park and the surrounding indigenous communities, Malaysia. UNESCO (South-South Cooperation Programme). Working Paper no. 17.

Neumann, R. P. (1998): Imposing Wilderness – Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. University of California Press. London.

Ongkili, J. F. (1992): Federalism and Parochialism: Relations Between Kuala Lumpur and Sabah. Journal of Contemporary Asia. Vol. 22 No. 4. pp. 529-545.

Osman, S. (1992): Sabah State Elections: Implications for Malaysian Unity. The Regents of the University of California.

Ostrom, E. (1990): Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. pp. 88-102.

Peluso, N. L. (1995): Whose Woods Are These? Counter-Mapping Forest Territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Antipode 27: 4. pp. 383-406.

Peluso, N. L. (1996): Fruit Trees and Family Trees in an Anthropogenic Forest: Ethics of Access, Property Zones, and Environmental Change in Indonesia. Comparative Studies in Society and History. Vol. 38, No 3, pp. 510-548.

Reid, A. (1997): Endangered Identity: Kadazan or Dusun in Sabah (East Malaysia). Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 28, 1, March 1997. pp. 120-136.

Roe, E. (1991): Development Narratives, Or Making the Best of Blueprint Development. World Development, Vol. 19, No. 4. pp. 287-299.

Rose, C. M. (1984): Property and Persuasion – Essays on the History, Theory and Rhetoric of Ownership. Westview Press. Oxford. pp. 11-23.

Songorwa, A. N. (1999): Community-Based Wildlife Management (CWM) in Tanzania: Are the Communities Interested? World Development Vol. 27 No 12. pp. 2061-2079.

State of Sabah (1996): An Enactment to amend the Parks Enactment 1984. No 7 of 1996. State of Sabah.

Thompson, H. (1993): Malaysian Forestry Policy in Borneo. Journal of Contemporary Asia. Vol. 23 No. 4 (1993).

Tuboh, L., Sipail, E. and Goungkit. Z. (1999): A Case Study of the Kadazandusun Communities in the Crocker Range National Park, Sabah, Malaysia. Unpublished.

Wah, F. L. K. (1992): ‘Modernisation, Cultural Revival and Counter-Hegemony: The Kadazans of Sabah in the 1980s.’ In Joel S. Kahn, J. S. and Wah, F. L. K. (eds.): Fragmented Vision: culture and politics in contemporary Malaysia. Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd., Sydney.

Wah, F. L. K. (1995): A ‘New Sabah’ and the spell of development: resolving federal-state relations in Malaysia. South East Asia Research, 4, 1, pp. 63-83.

Woolley, G.C (1953): Dusun adat, Some Customs of the Dusuns of Tambunan and Ranau, West Coast Residency, North Borneo. Native Affairs Bulletin No.5, Sabah, Malaysia.

Yapp, W., Ooi, S. T. and Gill. S. S. (1988): ‘Approach to Rural Development in Sabah’. In T. T Chuan and W. Yee: Towards Modernising Smallholding Agriculture in Sabah. Institute for Development Studies (Sabah). Kota Kinabalu. pp. 15-38.