141 Creating the Ulu Papar biocultural community protocol 12 by THERESIA JOHN, PATRICIA JOHN, LOUIS BUGIAD and AGNES LEE AGAMA Background Ulu Papar is a remote place in Borneo, located at the uppermost reaches of the Papar River in the District of Penampang, Sabah, Malaysia. The landscape is inhab- Photo: Yassin Miki Yassin Photo: ited by about 1000 indigenous Dusun people, in nine small settlements. The natural environment is the source of their food, crafts, medicine, construction mate- rials, recreation, cultural heritage, history and identity. Having managed their forests communally according to customary prac- tices for generations, the community has a Panorama of Buayan village in the Ulu Papar valley. rich and deep cultural and ecological knowledge. of tenure security, conflicts with State- In 2010, the people of Ulu Papar came driven conservation and destructive together to create a biocultural community development.1 protocol (BCP) – a document articulating the interests, rights and responsibilities of Background on land, resource and the Ulu Papar community in the preserva- conservation in Ulu Papar tion, management and utilisation of their Indigenous Dusun people have inhabited territories and culture. The idea for the Ulu the Ulu Papar landscape for generations. Papar protocol developed out of commu- Oral histories affirm their presence since nity concerns over three main issues: lack colonial times. Almost all villages have no 1 The BCP process was initiated as part of activities under the Darwin Initiative projects in Ulu Papar, with the assistance of Natural Justice. 142 65 Theresia John, Patricia John, Louis Bugiad and Agnes Lee Agama Map of Ulu Papar showing location of villages in relation to the Crocker Range Park (CRP) boundary. road access, and the rugged and hilly swidden farming, hunting, freshwater fish- terrain makes Ulu Papar a remote and ing and gathering forest products, which difficult area to reach. Community have always been carried out within the members consider this area to be their park’s boundaries, were considered ‘unlaw- ancestral lands and depend almost entirely ful’, generating a bitter, 20-year conflict. on the surrounding natural resources and Excision of customary lands from within landscapes for survival. the park was once considered but given the Loss of customary lands in Ulu Papar substantial area involved, it was felt that began after Malaysia was formed in 1963 such an exercise would significantly impact with the gazettement of the Crocker Range on the conservation of biodiversity and Forest Reserve in 1969, followed by its ecosystems of the Crocker Range Park conversion to the Crocker Range Park (Sabah Parks, 2006). As an interim meas- (CRP) in 1984. The remaining customary ure, in 2006 the CRP Management Plan lands – a narrow strip along the Ulu Papar introduced the concept of community use valley – were classified as alienable State zones (CUZs), designated areas inside the Land. The Ulu Papar community has not park where communities will be permitted been granted legal title over their custom- to access and use resources and lands (with ary lands, for reasons not explained by the certain limitations) as a compromise to authorities. soften the conflict between the community Conflicts surfaced when a large portion and the park, with a view to exploring a of Ulu Papar’s customary lands were incor- mutually agreeable resolution in the longer porated into the Crocker Range Park in term (Sabah Parks, 2006). Although this 1984 without the community’s participa- granted certain rights (on paper) to the tion or consent. Many people’s daily people of Ulu Papar, many were not satis- livelihood activities, such as subsistence fied. CUZs would not confer the l Creating the Ulu Papar biocultural community protocol 143 tially impacting over 400 villages on the park periphery, the CRBR is still at a conceptual phase and community consul- tations are still preliminary. Then in 2009, the Sabah State Govern- Photo: Noah Jackson Photo: ment announced plans to build the Kaiduan Dam, to supply water to the capi- tal. The project would impound 320ha of Ulu Papar as a catchment area and submerge the villages of Timpayasa, Tiku, Buayan and Babagon Laut (adjacent to Ulu Papar). The project met with public Agriculture, a key livelihood for the UP community, is outrage when it claimed the Ulu Papar limited due to access restrictions to traditional valley was uninhabited. Although the plans agriculture sites. pose immediate and obvious contradic- community with legal tenure of customary tions to the government’s plans to lands inside the park, and it was unclear nominate the CRBR, the status of the dam whether the CUZ areas could support their project remains unknown. The Ulu Papar livelihood needs (Pacos, 2004). community vehemently oppose the dam. In 2009, the Sabah Government began However, their complete lack of tenure the process to nominate the Crocker Range security means they have no legal founda- Biosphere Reserve (CRBR), which is a tion for rejecting the proposed dam. designation under UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme.2 The CRBR would Collaborative research in Ulu Papar adopt the entire Crocker Range Park In 2004, spurred by interest in Sabah Parks (1,400 km2) as the core zone for strict to find innovative solutions to the Ulu conservation. Areas adjacent to the bound- Papar conflict, a consortium of partners ary would form the buffer zone, where initiated a joint research project to investi- limited activities would be permitted.3 A gate and document resource use patterns transition zone would encircle the buffer in Ulu Papar.4 A participatory action zone, where conservation activities and research approach was designed to build mixed development, such as housing and the capacity of indigenous community commercial estates, roads and infrastruc- researchers to document the key ethnobio- ture, would be permitted. Ulu Papar falls logical resources important for community under both buffer and transition zones, livelihoods and jointly monitor how they while the CUZ would be implemented as are used, managed and protected by the an exemption within the core zone. Poten- community (GDF, 2009).5 The term 2 The UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme aims to set a scientific basis for the improvement of the relationships between people and their environment globally. See: http://tinyurl.com/unesco-mab 3 Existing legislation in force on State lands may place limitations on communities in buffer zones, for example prohibitions on hunting and restrictions in watershed areas. 4 Led by the Global Diversity Foundation (GDF), Sabah Parks and the Ulu Papar community, and funded by the Darwin Initiative UK, this eight-year initiative has, over the years, included partners such as Pacos Trust, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Universiti Malaysia Sabah and the University of Kent UK. 5 Research to collect baseline data (e.g. locations of important areas, key resources important for livelihoods) was a necessary first step for communities to voice their concerns and expectations. The data amassed from this research is vital to building a convincing and realistic proposal to resolve access, use and tenure issues, understanding the resource use and cultural significance of the Ulu Papar landscape so that discussions could focus on practicable solutions and realistic expectations. 144 65 Theresia John, Patricia John, Louis Bugiad and Agnes Lee Agama Photo: Ephraem Lompoduk Ephraem Photo: Community researchers update the location of gravesites on the Ulu Papar participatory 3D map. ‘resource catchment area’ was coined: the record oral histories, collect botanical spec- total area required to sustain community imens of useful plants, and produce a series livelihoods in Ulu Papar, both inside and of participatory videos that share the outside the park. Research results continue concerns of their community in their own to inform the ongoing discussions within words and using their own images. the community, and between the commu- Conducted through fieldwork, workshops, nity and park managers on land-use community exchanges, training courses, planning and resource management, expeditions and travelling roadshows, these whether in the proposed CUZ, buffer and activities yielded a significant amount of transition zones to the CRBR, community data on resource use patterns and cultural conserved areas or community-managed landscapes. The process has also facilitated multiple resource use areas (Wong et al., discussions and information-sharing 2009). amongst community members and with An important outcome was the enriched outside agencies. capacity within the community to engage in This collaborative initiative has been conservation dialogue and action (Agama critical in promoting the role of the et al., 2011). Over 300 young and elderly community in the conservation and men and women from Ulu Papar villages management of Ulu Papar (Majid-Cooke have participated in research activities, as and Vaz, 2011). However, many threats community researchers, collaborators, remain to their livelihoods, well-being and informants, workshop participants, field future. These include the lack of legal guides and hosts. Over eight years, more tenure of their customary lands, prolonged than 25 community researchers have been delays in CUZ implementation and lack of trained to work with their villages to map clarity on CRBR zoning, continued stand- key resource areas and mark them on 3D off with the park and plans to construct