|
|||||||
 |
 Samling, MTCC and Wildlife Conservation Society - Respecting law?By Rengah Rengah 2005-09-23 | Samling has finally spoken, on the controversy surrounding its MTCC certified logging concession at Sela'an-Linau. Its full text is attached. It is not the intention here to engage Samling in any tit for tat -- that is, there is no intention to reply to Samling's various claims and or allegation. If there is a genuine will to resolve the matter fairly and justly, independent verification would be required. But that is another matter. While this article is related to Samling's latest claims, its purpose is broader and not meant to be reactionary, as we raise two fundamental questions relating to the certification of disputed lands. While this may be seen as a reaction to Samling's "respond" to NGOs, it is the affected indigenous people who needs action, not superficial nor outsider-driven conservation or other projects, to correct the injustice forced upon them for far too long already. Furthermore, this respond is not only intended for Samling, but more so to MTCC and those supposed independent assessors and the secretive peer-reviewer. Facts indeed speak louder, as compared to claims. Yes indeed, Samling claims to be law abiding, respecting laws in Malaysia. Let's just take Samling up on this point. The questions to ask is as such: 1.Which law is Samling respecting? 2.Is Native Customary Rights law counted as a law to be respected by Samling? 3.Since the case was filed with the Miri High Court, is Samling respecting the law when it proceeded to have MTCC certified the disputed lands in its favour? Attached is another document, the court papers in which details of the Penan suit against Samling is spelled out, including the license numbers of the two concessions issued by the Sarawak Government to Samling. The Penan had filed the case against the Sarawak Government and Samling in 1998, to challenge, among others, the legality of the two concessions as they were awarded to Samling. However, the prime concern is still the native customary rights land of the Penan. The case is still pending in the Miri High Court. It is clearly stated that License Numbers T0411 and T0412 are the two disputed areas and is pending judgement in court. This raises two issues for Samling, MTCC and the government-linked assessor company, Sirim, who was hired to assess Samling concession for recognition by MTCC. Both issues center on the court case. The first concerns the two concessions in the disputed lands and the certified pieces as is assumed to have been demarcated by MTCC and Samling. It is assumed here that timber licenses disputed certainly do not have Sector A, B or C etc. So how did the demarcation come about? Is it a coincidence that the certified plot, that is, Sector A, has conveniently just excluded the very Penan settlements which are suing the Sarawak Government and Samling? If not, then who did the demarcation or who produced the boundary that divided License T0412 into Sector A and B as indicated by the MTCC released map in its certified concession? Did MTCC know that the area to be certified is being disputed in court? If yes, why is MTCC a party to a disputed land? If not, did Samling withhold information from MTCC? Secondly, if the case is still pending a decision from the court, is Samling respecting the law as it is claiming by continuing with activities, including having MTCC to assess and then certify inside the disputed lands? Furthermore, why is MTCC involved in certifying a logging concession that is still under dispute and is still being decided by a High Court in Malaysia? Yes, while Samling has the rights to label the Penan suing the Sarawak Government and itself as being "self-proclaimed", it is definitely within their rights as Malaysians to assert that and they are doing it through a court of the land. While the case is pending, we have since known how Samling has had the MTCC to certify, arbitrarily it seems from the way the licenced area was partitioned in Sector A and B, and as if there was any doubt, in favour of the logging. Then we now know also from Samling's supposed reply to NGOs that the Wildlife Conservation Society has also been working on the disputed lands. So, what kind of respect is it to continue to ignore the rights of local communities to their claim and to be consulted? As for the New York based Wildlife Conservation Society, it is actually participating in a disputed lands and its cooperation is indicating its bias in siding with a disputed party. Conservation without justice is conservation for the sake of it and thus lacks any legitimacy whatsoever. Externally driven conservation, however much by supposed experts, without the people's consent and participation is unacceptable. Perhaps Samling and the MTCC would care to respond to the above two issues raised. Of course any claim by the MTCC and the Wildlife Conservation Society to ignorant of the dispute which is awaiting a decision by a court in Malaysia can never be accepted. Then you will need to seek explanation from Samling, who had engaged and is engaging your respective organisations in the dispute. Nothing short of transparency and accountability in this matter will contribute to the continuous doubt of organisations and processes. NGOs are responsible in and do want to contribute positively to Sustainable Forest Management practice in not only Sarawak and Malaysia, but globally too. But such responsibility and contribution are in ensuring rights of indigenous communities are not only respected, but also carried through in proactive ways. In addition, NGOs are carrying their responsibilities and contribution in ensuring accountability and transparency are part and parcel of any SFM practice. Over to you, MTCC, Wildlife Conservation Society and Samling! (Please note that court documents were scanned and correction carried out as much as possible. Thus, the scanned documents may still contain error.) Image LinksAttached files
|
