Is Malaysia Becoming A Mass Tourism Destination?

Overcrowded islands are going to downgrade the tourist experience.

First it was Tioman and the proposal for a new airport. Then there were rumblings about extending the airport at Redang…then we heard about two new resorts at Perhentian Island…and the latest – a proposal for a seaplane facility on Perhentian.

What on earth is going on?

In case I really need to say it again: RCM has never been against development.

We understand that tourism is an important part of the economy. We understand that tourism is important for jobs, particularly local communities in remote areas.

But this upsurge in development proposals post-covid is becoming a concern. I have written separately about my recent experience on Tioman, seeing so many tourists arriving in a small village. If nothing else, the islands are becoming overcrowded; that’s going to downgrade the tourist’s experience. And maybe they won’t come back – and worse, there’s a risk they will tell others of their poor experience.

Picture of overcrowded jetty taken by our team on Tioman island.

And what about that promise of jobs for islanders?

One resort I visited has restaurants, shops, bars, and water sports…tourists don’t need to leave the resort to find these services - which the villagers used to provide. Now, they are being provided in-house. Often by staff brought in from outside.

The locals are now either jobless or having to work for those big resorts…no longer their own bosses, no longer running a family enterprise, no longer in control.

Someone else has come to their island and displaced them.

If Malaysia wants to be a mass-market destination, so be it.

If that is the decision, we respect that. But a decision like that should be very deliberate, it should be carefully thought out – not an accident caused by a lack of controls over resort development and growing tourist numbers.

Are over-crowded beaches and tourism sites what we want?

MOTAC and Tourism Malaysia might be pleased to see increasing visitor numbers. But are the islanders? Are the local communities? And what about the impact of all those visitors on ecosystems? 

Covid provided an opportunity to take another look at tourism, and to ask ourselves: “Who is tourism for?”

It is looking increasingly like it isn’t for local communities who find themselves besieged by huge numbers of tourists. As the islanders on Tioman told us during our consultations on the proposed airport – “enough is enough”.

Is this the direction in which Malaysia wants its tourism to go?

Over-crowded beaches and tourism sites, more and more resort development (“container resorts”, I kid you not – resorts built out of old shipping containers), local islanders left behind by full-service resorts?

Or should we re-visit that post-covid conversation and explore other opportunities – lower volume, higher value tourism that looks for pristine, quiet, peaceful, authentic experiences – which, I have said before, we have plenty of...for now.

Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Target 22

Local communities should be involved in decisions on the management of natural resources that may affect their livelihoods

After a busy few months focusing on a proposed airport development on Tioman Island, it’s appropriate to return to the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) to look at some of the Targets that inform our work.

Target 22 is particularly relevant.

IPLCs role is increasingly recognised

One of the most important developments coming out of the Kunming-Montreal treaty negotiations – and one which was demonstrably important in the Tioman campaign – was the growing acknowledgement of the important role played by Indigenous People and Local Communities (IPLCs) in biodiversity conservation.

Target 22 of the GBF reads:

“Ensure the full, equitable, inclusive, effective and gender-responsive representation and participation in decision-making, and access to justice and information related to biodiversity by indigenous peoples and local communities, respecting their cultures and their rights over lands, territories, resources, and traditional knowledge, as well as by women and girls, children and youth, and persons with disabilities and ensure the full protection of environmental human rights defenders.”

In simpler language, local communities should be involved in decisions on the management of natural resources that may affect their livelihoods. In practice, what this means is that they should have a voice in the management of protected areas.

Real-life example

We were recently involved in a collaborative effort to lobby against a proposed airport development at Tioman Island. That effort demonstrates just how important it is to have systems in place that ensure local communities are involved in decision-making, particularly on issues that affect their futures.

Once we started working on the airport campaign, it quickly became clear that many people in the local communities affected had little or no knowledge about the proposed project. This is a project that would have essentially closed down two communities that rely on tourism; over 20 resorts and 400 people would have been affected.

In the context of Target 22, we have to ask: Were local communities consulted about the proposed development?

Apparently, yes.

But was this the sort of “full, equitable, inclusive effective and gender-responsive representation and participation in decision-making” that Target 22 envisages?

It seems not.

Their vocal opposition to the development, once they were fully informed as Target 22 stipulated, was critical in persuading the planning authorities, and eventually the government, to abandon the plan.

Our team held a community engagement session to explain the EIA of the proposal for the new Tioman Airport.

Link to policy

The idea of involving local communities in decision-making on natural resources management is incorporated into several relevant policies and agreements in Malaysia.

On a national level, the National Policy on Biological Diversity speaks about strengthening the role of indigenous peoples and local communities in biodiversity conservation. The 12th Malaysia Plan refers to “imperatives for reform and transformation”.

In addition, Malaysia has adopted the Sustainable Development Goals, which specifically mention inclusivity in Target 16.6 (develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels) and Target 16.7 (ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels).

Despite this, progress still needs to be made to ensure the full and informed participation of IPLCs in decision-making on marine resource management. Two challenges in particular need to be addressed: structures and functions.

Structures and functions

One of the key challenges is simply the lack of appropriate bodies for IPLCs to join. Management of marine resources in Malaysia is centralised, and there is no institution that provides a “place at the table” for IPLCs.

The Marine Parks Advisory Council includes members from various government agencies, from State governments and from selected NGOs. But no membership for local communities.

On the ground, the Marine Park centres on the islands are managed and operated by Marine Park staff; there is no local consultative body. Previously, a Community Consultative Committee was proposed but never operationalised.

At the other end of the spectrum is the tendency of bureaucratic institutions to gather functions to themselves rather than to delegate those activities to others.

This is not restricted to Malaysia, but it does represent a considerable barrier to greater participation of IPLCs in decision-making. This is why it is our practice to conduct consultations when developing new projects, to learn what communities need and to understand what outcomes we are seeking. This has implications for project plans and budgets.

Community consultation was done to improve our conservation initiatives in Mersing

Reef Care – a way forward

And this is why we are so excited to be a strategic partner of the Department of Fisheries in the Reef Care programme. Because Reef Care overcomes both the above challenges at the same time:

• In establishing the Reef Care programme, the DoF has addressed the lack of an appropriate institution for local community representation. The community groups that we support on several islands are the communities participating in management and decision-making.

• At the same time, Reef Care gives the community partner some responsibility for coral reef conservation, taking on some of the duties and responsibilities of the managing agency. So, the DoF has, in fact, divested itself of some responsibilities.

The Tioman Marine Conservation Group (TMCG) is pointing the way. Over 80 members of the local community are participating in coral conservation programmes, from removing ghost nets to coral rehabilitation and annual monitoring surveys. You can read the TMCG 2022 report here.

We have recently established a similar group on Redang Island, the RMCG, and we are working in two other locations in Peninsular Malaysia and in the south of Sabah on similar programmes. You can read the Q1/Q2 Cintai Redang Newsletter here.

In each location, we build capacity among the local community in marine resource management; funding from donors and corporate partners allows us to pay operating costs as well as allowances to local community members when they participate in programmes so that we can incentivise their participation.

RMCG members consist of Redang islanders who we train to do conservation work with us

Thus, Reef Care is providing an opportunity to actually implement policy in real life, contributing not only to national policy but also to the SDGs and the GBF. We look forward to rolling out the programme in other areas and to ensuring IPLCs are increasingly engaged in marine resource conservation.

Tioman Airport Decision: A Watershed in Biodiversity Conservation?

The decision last week by the Malaysian government to shelve the proposed airport development on Tioman island is both welcome, and timely, for many reasons.

Conserving Tioman’s natural resources

The most immediate and important reason, of course, is that it paves the way for conserving Tioman Island in its current, largely pristine state. This in itself is a good thing considering the island’s abundant biodiversity resources which, as the world is now (belatedly?) realising, need to be protected.

Tioman Island's beautiful coral reef.

This endeavour would be challenging with a new airport bringing more visitors, and all the consequent impacts that would result from more resort development, more roads and infrastructure, more waste…you get the picture.

So, it is a great start.

But perhaps this opens up so many other opportunities to review old decisions, made with old information and out-of-date thinking, that are just not appropriate in the world as it is today.

If that sounds like hyperbole, then consider the following.

Tourism trends in the post-COVID world

Whither tourism? I’ve talked about this before, particularly focusing on the impacts of large numbers of visitors on people and places.

We saw this in Mantanani Island, where visitor numbers increased, over a 10-year period, from around 50 per day to as many as three thousand per day: clearly not sustainable, with huge impacts on ecosystems and the local community.

Numerous industry surveys tell us that “tourists” are now looking for more “authentic” experiences, less crowded, with intact nature, the whole thing. Quiet, private, pristine.

But which “tourists” are those?

Last week I saw a video of an “island” crawling with tourists. All there for the ultimate Instagram Moment – white sand, perfect blue sea, islands in the distance…and with careful camera angles, the 200 other people sharing the sandbank can be kept out of the shot!!

Apparently, when asked about such crowded destinations, many respondents said, “it’s ok, we don’t mind – we are used to it”. So clearly, not all tourists are seeking a “private commune” with nature.

I am probably over-simplifying, but can we really segment the tourism industry in this way?

Can we separate out tourists looking for the quiet, nature-focused getaway and tourists who don’t mind more crowded destinations?

And if we can, what are the characteristics of each group in terms of expectations, duration of stay, and spending, for example? Are people looking for the authentic experience willing to pay more – and if so, how much more?

Such an experience suggests more intensive management efforts and limits on visitor numbers – it’s going to be expensive.

So, the tourist will have to pay for it. Thailand is certainly moving in this direction, away from beach/sea holidays to more nature-based tourism. There must be a value proposition for them.

Tourism in Malaysia

Which leads us to the question: which of the above groups is Malaysia targeting?

Because it seems to me that if the division is real, then targeting one group or the other should be a deliberate choice.

You either cater for small-scale, niche market tourists, with appropriate facilities and infrastructure – and charge accordingly. Or you go large-scale, mass tourism, again with appropriate facilities and infrastructure – and charge accordingly for that, too.

Clearly, there are huge implications in this choice for destinations, and the East Coast islands are among the most popular destinations in Malaysia.

Is the plan to drastically increase tourism numbers? Or is it to target the group looking for an authentic experience? Because islands like Tioman have that – in spades. If the former case, yes, we will probably need new infrastructure, including resorts and transportation. If the latter – maybe less development. 

Who makes the decision? On what basis? What research has been done?

I guess what I’m saying is that now might be a good time for Malaysia to rethink its tourism strategy and decide which of these markets to target. Because I don’t think you can cater to both in the same destination; it has to be a deliberate decision.

After all – from a revenue perspective, a hundred tourists paying RM 1,000 per trip brings in the same revenue as one thousand tourists paying RM 100 per visit…but with different challenges.

Managing Marine Parks

While we are reviewing our approach to tourism, maybe it is an appropriate moment to review the approach to Marine Park management. This is because the islands that are surrounded by Marine Parks are popular tourism destinations, and they have what both groups are looking for.

Under the current regime, the Federal government looks after the Marine Park – the doughnut of water surrounding the island; the State governments are responsible for managing the islands themselves.

Which introduces a conflict situation.

State governments don’t have much incentive to protect the sea because they aren’t responsible for it, so perhaps they want to develop tourism. But the Federal government doesn’t have control of development on the islands that might damage the marine resources in the sea…you can see where that ends up.

Perhaps the time has come to review this system.

How about integrating the management of the Marine Park and the islands? How about inviting State governments to participate in managing the Marine Parks so they also get some benefit from that?

In this way, development on the islands can be coordinated with protecting the marine resources – not to mention the terrestrial resources, too.

And while we are at it – let’s give a seat at the table to the local communities living on the islands, too! There is plenty of evidence that local communities make an important contribution to marine resource management where they have a chance to do so – and our own experience on Tioman reflects this.

The Tioman Marine Conservation Group (TMCG) is made up of local islanders.

Biodiversity financing

The final piece of the jigsaw: financing.

The recently signed Kunming-Montreal Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (the GBF) calls for urgent action to protect biodiversity. Importantly it speaks at length about funding for biodiversity conservation, acknowledging the estimated funding gap of US$ 700 billion per year that has been highlighted as one of the key challenges facing us.

There are emerging biodiversity-based financing mechanisms that could release significant funds for biodiversity conservation from the private sector – funds that government just don’t have themselves.

These so-called “biodiversity credits” could be a game-changer in funding biodiversity conservation. Yes, there are risks, and yes, much work needs to be done to introduce appropriate regulations and standards, but on balance, I would say there are some interesting things happening that we are following very closely.

A catalyst for change

All the above ideas and suggestions are strongly supported by policies in Malaysia.

On a national level, the National Policy on Biological Diversity 2016 – 2025 speaks about Malaysia’s commitment to conserving its biodiversity; the 12th Malaysia Plan includes commitments to safeguard natural capital.

In addition, Malaysia has adopted two international agreements: the Sustainable Development Goals, which call for sustainable management of ecosystems, and the recently-signed Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which includes commitments to increase protected areas and reduce biodiversity loss.

The above agreements and policies talk extensively about funding for conservation and the role of local communities.

And here’s what that made me think.

Looking at through this lens of change I am outlining; the bigger context of the brave decision announced last week by the Environment Minister, YB Nik Nazri, starts to look even more important.

Imagine it leading to this scenario – a new paradigm in which:

• Fewer tourists visit protected areas but bring the same economic value as mass tourism;

• Protected areas are sustainably managed by all stakeholders, including local communities, for long-term conservation goals;

• Private sector funds are invested alongside government funds.

Joined up, collaborative management.

What’s not to like?

Cintai Tioman: April - June 2023

In May, PEDI Kg Tekek donated several computers to our team, five of which were handed over to Sekolah Kebangsaan Mukut. Meanwhile, Rimba had donated reading materials on bats to SK Mukut to help increase the students’ knowledge about this species. During this last quarter, our school education programmes have also been running as usual, with the students of SK Tekek and SK Juara, covering topics such as Biodiversity and Climate Change.

Donation of computers to the school

Students during one of the educational programmes

From May 19 to 21, Yayasan Sime Darby ran a volunteer program with RCM Tioman, carrying out activities such as construction of recycling bins and coral pots as well as the cleaning of beaches. A total of 18 recycling bins were built and the 21 coral pots produced were to be used in coral replanting. The volunteers who conducted the beach clean-up collected an estimated 440kg of rubbish from Monkey Bay.

YSD team volunteering with Cintai Tioman team.

Our colleagues have been working on monitoring and culling the Crown-of-Thorns (COTs) population. In April, with the help of the TMCG and local islanders, 977 COTs were captured and removed from Teluk Tedau, Teluk Kador and Malang Rock.

The TMCG members were also involved in adding 13 coral pots to the existing reef nursery site. This is in addition to the scheduled monitoring and cleaning work on all our reef rehabilitation sites, to ensure the corals grow well. As mentioned in our previous newsletter, ghost nets have been, and still is a problem in Tioman. This quarter alone, an estimated total of 26 nets weighing 4405kg were successfully removed with Department of Fisheries, TMCG and local islanders. These nets had already done some damage to the reefs in Kg Nipah, Kg Genting, and Japamala.

A member of TMCG monitoring the reef rehabilitation site

Removal of ghost nets in progress

Cintai Mersing: April - June 2023

In April, our Mersing colleagues successfully documented coral spawning events in the Mersing islands. Coral spawning is a rare occurrence of only once or twice a year. whereby corals reproduce by releasing their eggs and sperm simultaneously into the water. Once fertilised, the larvae travel to different locations, attach to suitable substrates and then establish new coral colonies.

We used the “bottle trap” method to trap some coral eggs from selected coral colonies at Pulau Sibu and Pulau Tinggi. This unique observation of coral spawning provides us with an understanding of how coral reefs grow and expand.

A bottle tied to a coral reef area (bottle trap method)

Bottle trap after one week

Similar to Tioman, the waters around Mersing also have seen their fair share of ghost nets. Just this quarter alone, our team removed a whopping 301kg of ghost nets from multiple reef locations around Pulau Sibu Kukus, Pulau Pemanggil and Pulau Aur. These underwater clean-ups were made successful with strong collaboration with local stakeholders and partners. Watch how we conduct our underwater clean-ups here.

A diver removing one of the ghost nets found

Our colleagues also organised a ‘Food Handling Training Course’, as part of our efforts to upskill the island communities and promote sustainable economic development in the Mersing Islands. 36 members of the island community from Pulau Pemanggil and Pulau Aur joined this course, which helped equip them with proper knowledge and various skills in the area of food handling.

Participants listening intently during the Food Handling Course

East Malaysia Happenings: April - June 2023

Cintai Mantanani

The waste management programme introduced a couple of years ago has developed very well, with amazing reception from the local community. In mid-May, all wastes weighing around 455.8 kg (except for food waste) were transported out to the mainland. We’ve also made 15 new wire mesh bins for trash collection, to replace the old bins that were damaged by storms. These new bins have been placed in safe spots around the village.

Meanwhile, in mid-June, 36 bundles of compressed plastics weighing 407 kg, as well as metal cans weighing 110 kg, were sent to the mainland and collected by a recycling company (GNC). The company paid RM 120.50 for the plastic bottles and cans, and this money was used to cover the cost of truck transportation from Kota Kinabalu, which is RM120.

One main issue with the waste management programme is the total cost of transporting all the wastes and recyclables to the mainland. One boat trip will cost us RM800 to RM1000. Once at mainland, the truck transportation to the landfill in Kayu Madang could amount to approximately RM120. While this initiative helps us deal with the issue of waste on Mantanani Island, the total costs has proven to be quite taxing for our team. We’re seeking for better solutions in the long run, with regards to the transportation of trash. This includes working with local authorities and the state government. We’d love to hear from you, on any suggestions you may have to offer to help us solve this issue.

New wire mesh bins

One of the boats (lansa) used to send out trash and recyclables

In 2022, our colleagues on the island completed a two-year project, ‘Establishing Community-Based Eco-Tourism in Mantanani’, funded by GEF SGP UNDP Malaysia. One of the program components was the Homestays Improvement Program, where we work closely with homestay operators to improve their homestays’ services and quality. A series of capacity-building trainings, mentoring, and repair grants was distributed to the homestays involved, most of which are run by the local women. These homestays have been doing very well, and their annual income has significantly increased since 2021.

Meal served at the homestay

First meeting of the ladies of the homestay programme in 2023

Adzmin from RCM conducting the classroom training

Semporna

In the first quarter of 2023, our colleagues conducted 2 introductory workshops and open water/ advanced open water trainings. The training was part of the year-long Conservation Diving Training program funded by CIMB Foundation, a program designed to train and develop the capacity building and leadership skills among youths from Larapan Island and Mabul Island in marine conservation works particularly on coral reefs. In this last quarter, we followed up an Ecodiver training, involving 15 youths and 5 trainers. This three-day training enables participants to be involved in Reef Check surveys.

Underwater training session to identify indicators

Building frames during the Reef Rehabilitation training programme in Larapan

On the 25th of May 2023, RCM held a Waste Management Awareness Programme at Larapan Island, joined by WWF-Malaysia and Green Semporna. The half-day programme covered topics such as introduction to waste management, the process and current achievements, as well as knowledge on plastic materials. Activities such as quizzes and lucky draws were conducted, as well as a session to hear suggestions and feedback from the representatives of the community.

Workshop in progress in Kg. Baru-Baru

In June, our colleagues organised a training programme on Reef Rehabilitation in Larapan Island, which aimed to provide knowledge and skills as well as instil a sense of responsibility to protect the reefs around the island. A total of 25 participants and 3 staff from RCM were involved. We hope this training will allow encourage the local islanders to take initiatives and manage their own reefs in the future.

Local community giving feedback during the Waste Management Awareness Programme

Materials to be distributed to the villagers

Kota Kinabalu

In the first quarter of 2023, we kick-started a waste management and recycling programme in Kg. Baru-Baru, Tuaran by organising a clean-up, a workshop and consultation sessions with the local residents. In May, we conducted a second waste management workshop to teach participants how to identify and segregate the types of waste to be collected, and also launch the 3-month trial period of the waste management and recycling program in the village. A total of 100 eager households participated in the first phase of this program. The Kg. Baru Baru Pilot Waste Management is moving towards building a proper waste collection center to allow facilities to be placed in the village, making waste collection more efficient and manageable.

Workshop in progress in Kg. Baru-Baru

Materials to be distributed to the villagers

Cintai Redang: April - June 2023

The 6 local youths who are members of the Redang Marine Conservation Group (RMCG) were recently trained as Open-Water (OA) divers. This dive course was sponsored by RCM, as the team will be busy with many dive-related day-to-day tasks. We will slowly be equipping the team with necessary skills that will be beneficial for them and the work that they will be undertaking around their own island.

 The team also conducted ghost nets removal around the island, collecting approximately 230kg of nets in a span of just over a month. This was done in collaboration with the Department of Fisheries (DoF).  

Few of the RMCG members after completing their AOW dive course

RMCG members during a net removal activity

Nuance or Sledgehammer: What’s the Best Communication Technique?

It’s not often that epistemology, empiricism and the use and descriptions of words, and how they are used, creeps into my pieces. But today it did. A little.

I was reading this piece in the Guardian while sipping my morning tea:

The headline for the article reads:

As heat records break, the climate movement has the right answers – but the words are all wrong

Do read it, it’s worth the time. The piece goes on to talk about how the fossil fuel industry has spent lots of money countering scientific arguments about climate change, so it could continue “business as usual”…even though it knew about the dangers posed by greenhouse gasses many years ago. And that the climate movement, while being “in the right”, has failed to convince many people of its cause because it was using the wrong words. Ooops.

Result? We are heading towards a real, genuine crisis, but the general public are still not mobilised due to…well, read the article – it says it better than I can.

Tioman Island is under threat.

It made me think (heavy stuff over a morning cup of tea, but hey, it’s a Saturday): do we at Reef Check Malaysia really – I mean, really – communicate with people? Do our messages truly reach people, and – much more important – cause them to act?

So here’s the problem. The plan to build an airport on Tioman Island has surfaced again. This thing has been going on since I moved to Malaysia in 1998 (yup, last century!!), so it is a long-running saga. It has been on again, off again for over 25 years. At one point, it was cancelled; then it reappeared again…we honestly thought it had gone away for good last year, but…like that old bad penny, it just keeps coming back.

And, of course, we are against the idea, as we were several times in the past when it raised its ugly head.

Pause for background – Tioman is the largest island off the East coast of Peninsular Malaysia. It’s about 50km from the coast, measures 20km north to south and anything from 5-12km east to west. It has a local population of 4,700 living in 7 villages, and attracts over 250,000 tourists per year. It has intact rainforest, endemic and endangered species, and some of the healthiest coral reefs in Malaysia.

It’s a biodiversity gem.

It’s mountainous – the highest point is 1,000m, and what little flat land there is has already been mainly occupied by the villages.

So why are we against the airport?

Are we one of those anti-development NGOs, always crying foul when development proposals come along?

No.

I think our track record shows that we don’t complain willy-nilly about new resorts, for example. Have we lobbied for careful development?? Of course, we have. No point trashing the very nature that you are trying to attract people to when you are building the darn thing.

But anti-development? No.

So, we must be anti-tourism, then?

Again, no.

We haven’t complained too much about tourism growth in some areas. Have we lobbied for sustainable tourism development? Of course, we have.

We train local guides to be Eco-Friendly Snorkelling Guides (EFSG)

In my view, “sustainable tourism” is just another way of saying “sensible tourism” – I’ve long advocated for a tourism industry that is more sensitive to the needs of both local communities and ecosystems.

Who is tourism for – tourists or the local communities that could benefit from their presence?

Take Mantanani Island as an example. A small remote island off the West coast of Sabah, it is home to a conservative, traditional fishing community of about 1,000 people. Tourism is relatively new on the island.

When we started working there in about 2012, there were only 50-day trippers visiting. By the end of 2019, pre-covid, that had increased to as many as 3,000 per day. Does anyone really think that increasing the number of day trippers to Mananani to 3,000 per day is sustainable?

Ok, so what about communities? Obviously, we don’t think much about them either, if we keep speaking up against new tourism infrastructure that brings more people. More people = good for business, right?

Let me tell you one of the dark secrets of tourism development – the fallacy that “more tourism means more jobs for local communities”. Supporters of tourism – government Ministries, developers, resort operators, etc., like to talk about the economic benefits that tourism brings – the number of jobs it will create is a common claim.

But…really?

On Mantanani Island, tour operators used to bring most of their staff with them on their day trips. Jobs for the locals were just sweeping up the leaves. Better than nothing, you say?

I suppose…but how about helping them to develop their own tourism market – community-based tourism, for example (which we helped develop on Mantanani)? Brings in money direct to the community – and a better experience for the tourist, too, who isn’t surrounded by huge groups of people.

Or Tioman Island. One of my colleagues, who is based on the island assures me that everyone on the island that wants a job has one. And during busy periods, all the resorts are full; all the restaurants are full, all the boats are full...so how is bringing more tourists going to make things better? In fact, all it is going to do is put even more stress on a system that is already stressed – infrastructure, people, ecosystems, etc.

Any jobs created will be for people from outside the island.

So yes, jobs will be created. But let’s stop pretending that tourism is creating jobs just for locals. Not in a relatively mature market like Tioman.

Is anyone convinced yet? That the airport should not go ahead? To save biodiversity? Because tourism doesn’t help local communities? Because the islands are full already?

Or are these arguments too complex?

Back to the article.

It talks about the success of simple slogans – mainly three or four words: “Get Brexit Done”; “Make America Great Again”. There are others. And they work – just look at what happened in those two countries…although one might question whether what was promised was really delivered.

The article talks about the “enlightenment fallacy”: the belief that the facts will persuade all by themselves. They don’t need to be repeated or simplified; their sheer truth will prevail.

Maybe that’s where we are going wrong. Maybe we should forget the nuances, stop writing articles trying to explain ourselves, and just run campaigns with simple messages that garner support – never mind the facts.

So here goes – pick your favourite, and let us know which speaks to you the most:

Stop Tioman Airport

Don’t Destroy Tioman

Save Nature – No Airport

People Not Profit

The proposed new Tioman Airport will cause a huge loss of biodiversity. (Picture from the EIA)

I could go on. You get the point.

Yes, I’m angry.

At a time when the international community is (finally!!) starting to realise how important biodiversity is, we are considering a project that will trash a significant biodiversity resource – an asset, if you will.

Regardless of which slogan would move you to action, one of them should. Because the simple fact is that this new airport will significantly harm Tioman and its communities and its biodiversity, over time.

So, help us out.

Sign the petition to stop the airport. Or, make a comment on the EIA.

Nature needs your support.

Is It Warm Enough For Ya?

Some people believe that “bad news” messages turn an audience off. No one wants to hear depressing stuff. But sometimes, I think, we need to do just that – put the facts out there because things are so serious that we can’t bury our heads in the sand anymore.

That was my reaction when I read about a new biodiversity funding body called ORRAA – the Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance (yes, I’m banging the resilience drum again!!).

In their “Guidelines for Applicants” for a new round of funding, they set out the challenges facing the ocean. I’m not sure whether it was deliberate, but when I read through it, I could almost feel a hammer blow with each data point:

• The impacts of changes happening to the ocean will include more intense storms, sea-level rise, acidification, deoxygenation, and ocean warming.

• By 2050, 800 million people will be at risk of coastal flooding and storm surges, and over 570 low-lying coastal cities will face a sea level rise of at least 0.5 metres.

• Coastal floods and storm surges currently cost the world between US$10 billion and US$40 billion a year. Floods will cost coastal cities US$1 trillion a year by 2050, with billions of dollars worth of infrastructure at risk.

That’s the bad news.

Healthy reefs reduce incoming wave energy by up to 97%, reducing the annual expected damage from storms by more than US$4 billion.

Now for the good news:

• Healthy reefs reduce incoming wave energy by up to 97%, reducing the annual expected damage from storms by more than US$4 billion.

• Mangrove forests sequester five to ten times more carbon than terrestrial forests, and provide more than US$80 billion per year in avoided losses from coastal flooding.

• The UN estimates that investing just $US6 billion a year in nature-based disaster risk management measures like restoring coastal ecosystems would save the world US$360 billion over the next 15 years.

• The IPCC’s 2022 AR6 Report on Impact, Adaptation, and Vulnerability is unequivocal. It states that climate change is happening now with cascading and compounding effects.

It seems clear that protecting natural capital is an important part of climate adaptation and risk management.

How can we not do this?

The funding gap

Because…right now, the money is not available.

At the end of 2022, representatives from parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The Framework commits Parties to a number of biodiversity conservation targets to be achieved by 2030.

In order to meet these commitments, estimates suggest that the difference between what we currently spend on biodiversity conservation (see figure 1) and what we should be spending (see figure 2) is US$ 700 billion per year between now and 2030 (you can find plenty more detail on line, for example here, here and here).

This is known as the biodiversity financing gap: $700 billion a year between now and 2030.

Figure 1: Global biodiversity conservation financing in 20

Figure 2: Global biodiversity financing compared to global biodiversity conservation needs (US$ bn)

Addressing climate change is going to need a huge increase in action across all sectors: governments, the private sector, and civil society. It also requires a significant increase in investment to mitigate the exposures and vulnerabilities of those on the front lines.

Some people might want to bury their heads in the sand, carry on making money, “business as usual,”…but research from the World Economic Forum shows that US$ 44 trillion of global GDP—around half—is highly or moderately dependent on nature.

Here’s just one small example: the worldwide loss of all pollinators (including bees, butterflies, moths and other insects) would lead to a drop in annual agricultural output of about US$ 217 billion.

Can we afford the “business as usual” approach?

How is this relevant to the work we do?

I often say that threats to coral reefs (and other marine ecosystems) fall into two categories: global and local.

The global threats are related to ocean warming and climate change. Local threats are much more immediate – pollution from sewage and other sources, physical impacts from tourists, land-use change, etc.

As a locally-based NGO there is nothing we can do about the global impacts; that’s a government to government thing. What we can do is minimise the local threats so that reefs are more resilient and have a greater chance of surviving the growing global threats.

Yes, we need global action, particularly on financing mechanisms; but we also need local action, to ensure reefs are as healthy as possible.

We ALL have a role to play in that.

And the recent extreme weather we have been experiencing should tell us all – we are running out of time.

Reflections On Ocean Month

World Reef Day is celebrated on the 1st of June every year

The ocean covers over 70% of the planet. It supports humanity’s sustenance and that of every other organism on Earth. The ocean produces at least 50% of the planet’s oxygen; it is home to most of Earth’s biodiversity and is the main source of protein for more than a billion people around the world.

Not to mention, the ocean is key to our economy, with an estimated 40 million people being employed by ocean-based industries by 2030.

Despite providing all these benefits, the ocean is in need of support.

With 90% of big fish populations depleted, and 50% of coral reefs destroyed, we are taking more from the ocean than can be replenished. We need to work together to create a new balance with the ocean that no longer depletes its bounty but instead restores its vibrancy and brings it new life.

June is a busy month for ocean conservation as it sees several “days” related to marine conservation.

World Oceans Day

The best known is, of course, World Oceans Day, which falls on 8 June.

The concept was originally proposed at the Earth Summit in 1992. The Ocean Project started global coordination of World Ocean Day in 2002, and "World Oceans Day" was officially recognised by the United Nations in 2008.

This international “day” aims to foster public interest in the protection of the ocean and the sustainable management of its resources. The WOD website provides information and resources on the importance of the oceans and ocean conservation.

Coral Triangle Day

WOD is followed immediately on 9th June by the less well known “Coral Triangle Day” which celebrates the Coral Triangle (CT). Malaysia is one of six CT countries, alongside Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands and Timor Leste (https://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/).  

The coral triangle is home to some 400 million people and is recognized as the global centre of marine biological diversity. It has the highest coral diversity in the world, with 76% (605) of the world’s coral species (798). By comparison, approximately 8% of coral species (61) occur in the Caribbean.

In addition, the region serves as the spawning and juvenile growth area for five species of tuna, comprising the largest tuna fisheries in the world. The biological resources of the Coral Triangle directly sustain the lives of more than 120 million people living within this area, and benefit millions more worldwide.

World Reef Day

More recently, World Reef Day was launched in the US three years ago. Falling on 1st June, WRD helps to create awareness among various communities and the general public about ocean ecosystems.

It is a call to action for consumers, business and organisations to reflect on the fragility of coral reef ecosystems. The day brings together the general public and opinion leaders to encourage active change through education and engagement.

What does all this mean?

There are many signs that the health of the ocean – essential for all life on earth – is declining. Fisheries in decline; the ocean gyres polluted with plastics; hypoxic zones.

Just within our own sphere of activity, the problems facing coral reefs are immense – and they not going away on their own. Pollution from sewage and other land-based activities; physical impacts from growing numbers of tourists; coastal development. Just some of the impacts to coral reefs.

And now climate change.

The coral bleaching we are seeing now is at least partly caused by warming oceans – temperatures are 2-3 degrees centigrade above usual, and this is stressing corals and causing them to lose their colour.

Corals are starting to bleach due to the warm weather we are experiencing

We need policy makers to understand how fragile these ecosystems are – coral reefs and their associated coastal ecosystems, mangroves and seagrass, are critical for livelihoods, food security and coastal protection, among others.

The more people who are aware and talking about these issues, the louder the conversation becomes…maybe to the point where policy makers can’t ignore it any more.

Things have to change. Or nature will change them for us.

Building Up Resilience in our Coral Reefs

In my last post, I talked about “building resilience” – in fact, that was one of the recommendations in our 2022 Annual Coral Survey Report for Malaysia.

But how do we actually go about doing that?

Resilience factors

According to colleagues who know more about coral reef resilience than I do, resilience comprises three key elements:

• Water quality

• Physical impacts

• Herbivores

If each of these is optimal, reefs will be resilient – they will be as “healthy” as possible. This increases the chances of them surviving a major external threat such as warming oceans or bleaching – of which we are seeing the first signs in Malaysia right now.

Water quality

Coral reefs thrive in clear, nutrient-poor water. Why?

Because the coral animal (or polyp, as it is termed) has microscopic algae living inside its tissue. These algae use sunlight and the photosynthetic process (because they are, after all, plants) to produce what becomes food for the coral. The algae get a home, the coral gets food – a perfect symbiotic relationship. Hence, corals survive in nutrient-poor water, which is clear.

So why is nutrient-rich water a problem?

Partly because the nutrients reduce clarity - reducing the amount of sunlight the corals can get. But the main problem is that the nutrients can encourage the growth of fleshy algae (that’s seaweed to you and I).

When fleshy algae start to proliferate, they compete with corals for space. If they grow big enough, they can smother the coral, cutting off the sunlight completely and eventually killing the coral.

Several sources of pollution contribute to this. Poorly treated sewage effluent that is released into rivers or directly into the sea can reduce water quality. Water quality tests around the islands off the East Coast – which is where most of our coral reefs are in peninsular Malaysia – suggest that there are problems with sewage pollution.

Fertilisers from agricultural activities inland are a further contributor. Land clearing and coastal development also release pollution, as well as silt – which can also smother corals.

And finally, shipping creates some pollution, too.

So one of the key steps we can take in “building resilience” would be to improve sewage treatment, particularly on the islands with their numerous resorts and local populations, but also in coastal areas.

Physical impacts

Every time I see a boatman throw an anchor over the side of a boat when mooring near a coral reef…I cringe. I can almost hear and feel the crunch as the heavy metal anchor comes to rest on a coral formation.

Such physical impacts not only degrade the reef, but the breaks can allow disease to enter the coral colony. And it weakens the whole colony.

Similar physical impacts arise from snorkelers and divers “interacting” with the reef too closely – fins, dangling gear, cameras…Maybe each physical impact is small in and of its own, but imagine a busy tourist island with thousands of visitors during the year, each possibly creating its own little physical impact.

And that’s not the only physical impact. Trash, discarded fishing nets, and other debris cause damage to reefs that are cumulative over time. Not to mention the marine life (sharks, turtles) that get caught in discarded fishing nets.

Marine debris found floating in the ocean

Programmes to educate divers and snorkelers to make them more aware of the fragility of reefs can make a significant difference (our own Green Fins project is one example). Some countries have introduced successful net recycling programmes that reduce the incidence of discarded nets.

Herbivores

What, there’s grass in the sea? Well, back to those fleshy algae.

One of nature’s controls on too much fleshy algae growing on reefs is herbivorous (or grass-eating to the non-technical) fishes. Parrot fishes are the best known algae grazer, but there are others.

The problem is, where fishing pressure on reefs is high, these fish are targeted for food. This reduces natural herbivore populations, creating conditions in which algae can start to grow and smother corals.

Herbivore populations can be protected by establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) or no-fishing areas, as discussed below.

The role of MPAs

Put all this together, and in busy tourism destinations, there is the potential for numerous impacts to become cumulative – sewage pollution, physical impacts, trash, over-fishing – it’s almost a perfect storm for coral reefs.

In coastal areas, these impacts can be managed by establishing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and in many countries MPAs form the cornerstone of marine conservation efforts.

The post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework calls for MPAs to be “effectively conserved and managed”. But the problem with MPAs is that many are actually not that well managed – they are what are termed “paper parks”.

Research (1) has shown that there are five key common factors that determine the success and failure of MPAs across the world, as shown in the diagram below.

Interestingly, the researchers found that most factors indicating success were found to also point to failure, i.e. when the presence of a factor was considered to lead to success, its absence led to failure. Double whammy.

This research guides us in the direction of understanding how we can better manage our MPAs (or Marine Parks, as they are called here in Malaysia).

So now the challenge: are we up to undertake an honest assessment of marine resource management against these findings? The IUCN Green List standard provides one such framework for improving management, and that’s what we are working on in Tioman Island, one of our field sites.

More on this soon.

(1) Giakoumi et al. (2018) Revisiting “Success” and “Failure” of Marine Protected Areas: A Conservation Scientist Perspective. Front. Mar. Sci. 5:223. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00223

Time to Focus on Resilience

Resilience based management is about adapting management actions to sustain ecosystems and social well-being.

Resilience is a topic that we have covered before, but it’s worth revisiting because it is increasingly being used in coral reef conservation circles in the context of climate change, how reefs are affected by it, and what we can do about it – particularly local managers.

There’s much more information on this topic as it relates to coral reefs at the Reef Resilience Network.

Resilience Defined

There are many ways to define resilience. More important for our purposes is to acknowledge that resilience can be applied to both ecosystems and societies.

Ecological resilience refers to the ability of an ecosystem, such as a coral reef, to maintain key functions and processes in the face of external stresses or pressures, by resisting or adapting to change.

Say what?

Let me use an analogy – a person. Imagine someone who has a good diet, plenty of rest and exercise, no bad habits like smoking and drinking – their “ecosystem” (or their immune system) is likely to be healthy and strong, and able to respond robustly to an external threat – like covid.

Then there’s the person who isn’t so healthy (the author is one such!) and who is, therefore, likely to succumb to an external threat (that’s why I got covid!). Furthermore, the “healthier” the individual, the more likely they will recover quickly from an external threat if they do succumb – so no long covid, for example!

In ecological terms, we divide stressors into “local” (such as sewage pollution or physical damage by tourists) and “global” (such as warming oceans and ocean acidification) stressors. The distinction is important.

As a small local organisation, we can’t do much about the global trends (that takes international action). But we can help to identify the local impacts, and find ways to minimise or eliminate them, thereby “building the resilience” of marine ecosystems so they are healthier and more likely to survive external threats.

This in turn contributes to ensuring that reefs are as healthy (resilient) as possible so that when the big external stressors arrive (such as warming oceans, which causes mass coral bleaching) the reef is better able to shrug it off or recover from it.

Touching briefly on communities, social resilience is defined as the ability of a human community to cope with and adapt to threats such as social, political, environmental, or economic change. Such communities can respond to change and uncertainty and are able to take steps to protect their future.

So, for example, a community that relies on reef-related tourism could develop terrestrial tourism products to provide some economic redundancy in the event that reef tourism declines. Reef managers need to recognise this vulnerability and support adaptation.

Resilience Based Management (RBM)

Which brings us to RBM. As a consequence of mass coral bleaching events in recent years, and expectations that climate impacts will increase, coral reef managers are increasingly focusing on management approaches that support the resilience of coral reefs. RBM is about adapting management actions to sustain ecosystems and social well-being.

Ecological examples of RBM include:

• Reducing local threats, such as sewage pollution and physical impacts

• Supporting reef recovery processes like recruitment by managing fishing and protecting populations of herbivorous fish

Social examples include:

• Developing alternative livelihoods (e.g. establishing recycling businesses, terrestrial tourism)

• Supporting adaptive capacity so that local communities are able to adopt new skills easily.

Why now?

A number of factors are pushing RBM. Principle among them is the growing concern about the impact of ocean warming (and increased ocean acidification) on coral reefs. This has been recognised in the recently signed Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, specifically Target 8 which requires signatories to:

Minimize the impact of climate change and ocean acidification on biodiversity and increase its resilience through mitigation, adaptation, and disaster risk reduction actions, including through nature-based solution and/or ecosystem-based approaches, while minimizing negative and fostering positive impacts of climate action on biodiversity.

As part of our own efforts on this topic, we have recently concluded a two-year study, working with the Department of Fisheries, to develop resilience-based management plans for the Marine Parks off the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia.

As part of the programme, we trained local stakeholders in resilience principles and developed training modules for future use. We also prepared a longer-term strategy designed to protect connectivity between marine resources off the East Coast.

Data from NOAA are already indicating that this year could see a repeat of the El Nino/La Nina weather phenomenon that causes elevated sea temperatures, possibly leading to mass coral bleaching, something we haven’t seen for several years.

The time for action is now, before too much damage is done.

2022 Annual Survey Report

These ideas are captured in our recently published 2022 annual coral reef survey report. Our recommendations include:

• Building resilience of coral reefs by reducing local impacts that are affecting reef health

• Prioritise relevant actions from the post-2020 GBF including strengthening the role of local populations and holistic management

• Taking a broader view of marine resource management, to make it integrated and holistic, by adopting a “seascape approach” to management.

As I noted previously, one of the great things about resilience is that it is very democratic – everyone has a role to play. Resort operators, tour guides, local islanders – even tourists; so it’s not just left up to the government to do everything.

More on this in the next post!

East Malaysia Happenings: January - March 2023

Cintai Mantanani

The waste management programme on the island has been making great progress. By mid-March, we had sent out two batches of waste, weighing a total of approximately 1,450kg, to mainland Kota Belud. The waste, consisting of all types of waste except food waste, was a result of the collection since December 2022.

Meanwhile, our Mantanani Plastic Recycling Centre (MPRC) sent out 33 bundles of compressed plastic and cans, weighing 336kg and 506kg respectively. These bundles were collected by a recycling company (GNC), which paid RM264.90 for the recyclables. The total cost of transportation of these recyclables alone came up to RM1120: RM120 for truck transportation from Kota Kinabalu; RM1,000 for boat rental to transport the materials to the mainland.

In the long run, such arrangements will prove to be ineffective, especially in terms of costs alone. We hope to find a better, sustainable solution to address this issue in the near future.

Compressed bottles from MPRC ready to be sent out.

Trash sent out to mainland.

Our colleague, Diana, delivering the progress update to the villagers.

In mid-March, our team on the island held a community engagement session to update the local Mantanani islanders on the progress the waste management programme.

This session also served partially as an education session to enhance the awareness and understanding of the community towards the need of a proper waste management system on the island.

We had a good turnout of 56 families during the session, who were happy with the progress of this effort and thanked RCM for initiating it, while also stating their continued participation and support.  

The local villagers attended the community session.

Semporna

Learning diving skills underwater.

Our Sabah team also conducted two introductory workshops in Larapan and Mabul Island, to introduce a marine conservation training programme supported by the CIMB Foundation.

The main aim of this programme was to get 15 islanders each from both islands, trained with skills related to reef conservation: diving, reef health assessments (as EcoDivers), reef restoration, coral bleaching monitoring and mooring buoy installations.

The first session of this programme was an Open Water and Advanced Open Water diving course. 15 youths from Larapan Island and 10 youths from Mabul Island completed the Open Water dive course, while 5 Mabul youths completed the Advanced Open Water dive course.

Introductory workshop at Mabul Island.

Kota Kinabalu

Our colleagues are in the midst of introducing a waste management and recycling programme in Kg. Baru-Baru, Tuaran. To kickstart this programme, we organised a clean-up in Kg. Baru-Baru - collecting over 1,500kg of trash.

We then organised a waste management workshop and had a consultation session with the residents, gathering over 100 households who agreed to participate in this initiative. We then organised a site visit to Mantanani Island to brief the residents of Kg. Baru-Baru and demonstrate the waste management and recycling practices on Mantanani Island.

Waste management workshop in Kg. Baru-Baru.

Site visit to Mantanani Plastics Recycling Centre (MPRC).

Cintai Kepulauan Mersing: January - March 2023

Eight mooring buoys were installed at multiple sites around Pulau Hujung, Pulau Besar and Pulau Sibu in collaboration with the Johor’s Department of Fisheries (DoF), Mersing Tourism Association, Mersing boat operators and Mersing islands communities. The mooring buoys will help reduce the impact of anchoring on coral reefs as it provides facilities for boat operators to carry out snorkelling activities safely.

Since its launch in August 2022, Pulau Sibu’s Rumah Kitar Semula (RKS) has collected a total of 466kg of recyclable materials consisting of glass bottles, plastic bottles, and aluminum tins.

Currently, there are seven recycling bins placed throughout the village and three more bins are under construction to meet the needs of the island community. We are looking forward to collaborating with the island’s resort operators in the future for this initiative.

Pulau Sibu’s Rumah Kitar Semula (RKS)

Cintai Tioman: January - March 2023

Ghost nets are a huge and long-standing problem on Tioman Island. In just the first quarter of the year, RCM and the Tioman Marine Conservation Group (TMCG) received many reports of ghost nets found in a few locations around Tioman.

Together, they removed an estimated 900kg of these nets, during which 5 sharks were saved. However, there were also a few turtles and sharks that died as a result of being caught in these nets. The TMCG also removed a 1,300kg drift net from the beach in Tekek Village, in collaboration with Tekek Flora.

Aside from dealing with ghost nets, the TMCG has also been busy with the installation of new mooring buoys.

In collaboration with local snorkel guides who identified the necessary locations, the TMCG has installed 20 new buoys at several SCUBA diving and snorkeling spots around Tioman.

Installing mooring buoys

In a continuous effort to encourage resort operators on the island to conduct their business in an environmentally friendly manner, RCM introduced the ASEAN Green Hotel programme in 2016.

This assessment is a recognition of resorts that are evaluated and achieve the ASEAN tourism standards, which has been adopted by the Malaysian Ministry of Tourism and Culture. At the beginning of this year, our colleagues on the island evaluated 60 resorts, and we now have an additional 16 new resort that are a part of this programme.

We’ve also begun our school educational programme for the year, with both SMK Tekek and SK Tekek. Activities conducted during the programme include short sharing sessions, field trips, and plenty of hands-on sessions, to complement the classroom learning. Our team has also resumed swimming activities with the students of the “Program Pendidikan Khas Integrasi”, which was initiated last year.

Target 3 – What Does ‘Effectiveness and Equitable Management and Governance’ Mean?

I recently talked about Target 3 of the new Global Biodiversity Framework – the so-called 30x30 target – and how much of the focus is on achieving the 30% protection target while forgetting the other important part of the target – how well-protected areas are managed.

I think there is perhaps a more nuanced discussion to be had around this whole target. Yes, the “30% of what?” question still has to be answered; but we also need to look at how we are managing protected areas – in the language of the framework, are they “effectively and equitably managed and governed”?

Focus limited resources on key biodiversity areas – and manage 30% of those

30% of what?

It feels like I have written that down so many times. So let’s finally look at the maths. Just how big is Malaysia’s marine estate?

The concept of an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) was introduced at the Third United Nations (UN) Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973–82) in order to settle potential disputes between countries by awarding sovereign jurisdiction within boundary waters to coastal states.

Exclusive economic zone (EEZ), as defined under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), describes an area of the ocean extending up to 200 nautical miles (370 km) immediately offshore from a country’s coast in which that country retains exclusive rights to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources.

According to Wikipedia, Malaysia claims an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 334,671 km2, though confusingly different sources quote different figures. For example, the protected planet database indicates that Malaysia has a total marine and coastal area of 451,742 km2 (source: protectedplanet.com).

Sticking with the protected planet figure for now and looking at Target 3 literally, Malaysia would need to protect some 135,000 km2 of its marine area to meet the 30% target. However, protected planet states that Malaysia has 25,099 km2 of marine and coastal areas covered by MPAs, which is only 5.6% of marine and coastal areas. So…well short of the 30%.

EEZ is an area of the ocean extending up to 200 nautical miles (370 km) immediately offshore from a country’s coast in which that country retains exclusive rights to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources.

Key Biodiversity Areas

But the point I have raised before is that this numerical analysis ignores the reality on the ground.

An analysis of nautical charts of the East coast of Peninsular Malaysia suggests that much of the EEZ, beyond the immediate coastal area and the islands offshore, is actually a plain lying at around 50-60m or so deep. Neither charts nor Google Earth indicates any significant features such as seamounts within the EEZ area. For East Malaysia, the waters beyond the coastal area go much deeper – too deep for most marine ecosystems to thrive.

In both cases, it seems that marine ecosystems are limited throughout much of the EEZ area, when compared to the richness of coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrass meadows and coral reefs. So the question has to be asked: why protect those areas?

Manage the fisheries, yes, but if there isn’t much habitat (or ecosystem) there to protect, then surely resources can be used more effectively in more important and productive high biodiversity areas?

So that’s the argument I am making: focus limited resources on key biodiversity areas – and manage 30% of those, which is a scientifically valid target.

Effectiveness and Equitable Management and Governance

But…what about effectiveness and equitable management and governance?

Let’s look at effectiveness first – because, if we aren’t managing our protected areas effectively, what’s the point in setting up new ones?

When people ask me what we do with the data from all the surveys we conduct, I try to explain how the data are useful for managers, who can see what is going on with marine ecosystems and, if there are signs of problems, take action to correct it.

"..focus limited resources on key biodiversity areas – and manage 30% of those, which is a scientifically valid target.”

However, the reality is that we know some things are going wrong, but we just aren’t taking the necessary steps to address the problems.

Between 2014 and 2019, our Annual Survey data showed a slow decline in reef health, as measured by what we call live coral cover. 1-2 percentage points per year…nothing much, right? But over 5 years, there was a reduction in live coral cover of 10 percentage points, which is significant. However, from 2019-2022 there was an improvement in reef health. This strongly indicates to us that the lack of tourists during the covid pandemic was a good thing for reefs!

So, we have data to show that tourism is bad for reefs – who’d have thought! But what have we done about the negative impacts tourism brings?

Improved sewage treatment on the islands? No.

Introduced limits on numbers of tourists? No.

Trained all tour guides to reduce physical damage to the ecosystems? No.

Filling in the gaps - we conduct eco-friendly snorkeling guide training with local guides

Don’t get me wrong: this is not about kicking the management agencies – they do a good job with limited resources. And, let’s face it, limited support; after all, protected areas can be unpopular with some stakeholders when they perceive that they lose access to traditional resources.

So, they are in a difficult position. Add to that the complicated jurisdictions involved, with numerous ministries, agencies and state governments involved, and you start to see how difficult it is to address management effectiveness.

No single person is responsible. Perhaps we need to address that weakness in the management system.

How does equity fit in? 

And this is where we finally get round to equity. Equitable management and governance of protected areas means that all stakeholders are involved in management and decision making, particularly indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs).

Target 22 of the new biodiversity framework talks about ensuring the “full, equitable, inclusive, effective and gender-responsive representation and participation in decision making…by indigenous peoples and local communities”.

A friend of mine who works in the protected area field in Australia responded to an earlier post of mine on this issue, saying that:

“It’s critical that these protected areas are “effectively and equitably managed and governed” and that means managing them collaboratively with indigenous peoples and local communities. Australia is establishing more Indigenous Protected Areas over the sea. The Indigenous ranger teams that manage them combine cultural practices and contemporary conservation management techniques and where they’re well supported, he parks are well managed and are achieving conservation, social, cultural and economic goals.”

Australia is demonstrating that including local people leads to better conservation outcomes. And the great thing is, we know it works in Malaysia, too. Because we are already doing it.

On Tioman island, we have established the Tioman Marine Conservation Group (TMCG). We have trained 80 local islanders to conduct a variety of conservation programmes, including ghost net removal, coral predator management, restoration and monitoring surveys. They’re doing it for themselves, with funding from corporate partners.

TMCG member in action

Based on the success of the programme in Tioman, we are now replicating the programme on other islands, in the hope that we can achieve similar results there.

You can read all about what TMCG has been working on in 2022 here.

Reef Care – A Community-based Solution

And it gets better.

Community groups like the TMCG are now empowered by the Department of Fisheries’ Reef Care programme to get more involved. Reef Care was introduced in 2020 to give local communities living on the Marine Park islands some responsibility for managing “their” coral reefs. On Tioman island, TMCG is the local Reef Care partner (together with RCM) and the local community is playing an increasingly important role in helping to protect the marine resources around the island. We have found that islanders are becoming more engaged; attitudes to the Marine Park are more positive; reef health is improving – and the community benefits economically because they are paid to participate in TMCG programmes.

What’s not to like?

We hope to continue working with DoF over the next couple of years to expand the Reef Care programme to other islands and get more communities engaged. Hopefully, we will see improvements in reef health in these other areas, as we have seen in Tioman. Not to mention the benefits that come from greater participation and improved governance.

The 30x30 Target - The Forgotten Bit

In my previous post, I talked about the recent signing of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, and tried to describe the treaty in its entirety. Now it’s time to look at some of the details – and how we implement the treaty.

That’s where the devil lies.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

In December 2022, Montreal, Canada, was the setting for the 15th Conference of Parties (COP 15) of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Presided over by China but held in Montreal (hence the name), the nations of the world finally agreed a package of measures to address what many scientists consider to be the dangerous loss of biodiversity that we are living through, not to mention the associated ecosystem services that biodiversity bestows upon society that we could not live without. Some even call it the “sixth great extinction” – the last one being 65.5 million years ago that saw the end of the dinosaurs…and nothing was ever the same again.

The vision of the framework is a world of living in harmony with nature where:

“By 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.”

The mission of the framework for the period up to 2030, towards the 2050 vision is: To take urgent action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss to put nature on a path to recovery for the benefit of people and planet by conserving and sustainably using biodiversity, and ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources while providing the necessary means of implementation.

Profound words. But what do they mean in practice? The treaty has four goals and 23 targets, each of which will have indicators, means of verification, etc. But how do we go about implementing such a complex treaty – with topics ranging from protected area expansion through to financing mechanisms.

Let’s start with one target – perhaps the most divisive of them all – target 3, the so-called 30 by 30 target.

Target 3: 30x30

The first thing to note is…it’s long! In the original text, it runs to 8 lines…and it’s all one sentence! To simplify (and any errors in “interpretation” are mine alone), target 3 commits nations to:

• Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 percent of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed.

This target has attracted international attention, with NGOs, civil society, academics and other institutions fiercely lobbying for the need to protect more of our natural areas, so as to conserve them in their native state and ensure we continue to benefit from those important ecosystem services. Such as food, clean water, climate regulation…

Just on the marine side, two global coalitions have formed to advocate for adopting this target:

• The High Ambition Coalition (HAC) for Nature and People is an intergovernmental group of more than 100 countries co-chaired by Costa Rica and France and by the United Kingdom as Ocean co-chair. Its central goal is to protect at least 30 percent of the world’s land and ocean by 2030 with the aim of halting the accelerating loss of species and protecting vital ecosystems that are the source of our economic security.

• The Global Ocean Alliance (GOA) is a 73-country strong alliance, led by the UK. It champions ambitious ocean action within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In particular, the GOA supports the target to protect at least 30% of the global ocean in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) by 2030. This is known as the ’30 by 30 target’.

Remind me…30% of what?

If you have read my earlier posts you will already know that for a time during negotiations of the GBF there was a lack of clarity on just what the target meant. The timescale is clear – by 2030.

But… 30% of what?

Which ecosystems? Did it mean 30% of a participating country’s EEZ? Or 30% of the global oceans?

The 30% is scientifically justifiable: there are plenty of studies out there that suggest that protecting 30% of a particular ecosystem (or set of ecosystems) in a certain geographical area is a good idea (I’m not going to reference them all here…that’s what Google is for). One might call it prudent – like farmers used to put aside one-third of their land; let’s set aside a third of our ecosystems to protect them from harm, so they continue to supply those ecosystem services.

Imagine a cluster of islands off the East coast of Peninsular Malaysia. There are coastal mangroves, intertidal and tidal seagrass meadows, and coral reefs; all in a defined geographical area. Collectively they support community food security and livelihoods, as well as jobs in tourism, coastal protection, and so on. What the science says is that it is prudent to protect one-third of each of those three ecosystems. Hence, 30%. 

What about the scope? 30% of what area, precisely?

In the end, it became clear that the intention of the target was to protect 30% of the global oceans, and that it is a “global ambition”, not a national target. Which is a good thing for Malaysia because as I have argued previously much of our EEZ doesn’t have much in the way of ecosystems, so how much protection should we afford those areas? Surely for a highly biodiverse country like Malaysia, with limited resources, the focus should be on the “areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services”.

And that’s how we arrived at our strategy to map the important coastal ecosystems and then identify which 30% we might want to protect, and then implement management systems to look after them.

30x30…the forgotten bit

And this is where – for me – we come to the crux of target 3. Because most people focus on the bit that talks about the area to protect – the 30%…and miss out on the incredibly important part of the target where it says “effectively conserved and managed...equitably governed…protected areas”. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s the gist of it.

Ah. There’s a thing in the conservation world called a “Paper Park” – the legislation is in place, the Park is accordingly recognised by the government, there’s a management agency…but somehow the protected area, or Park, isn’t managed well.

It exists purely on paper. And it is a problem throughout the world. Review the literature and one comes across all sorts of studies on this topic. I’m not saying all Parks are “Paper Parks”, I’m questioning whether we are achieving that important bit of the target: effectively and equitably managed and governed.

Establishing protected areas tends to be the preserve of national governments, or regional collaborations – or even international agreements. And, in most cases, governments are in charge of setting up their protected area estate.

So, it’s difficult for a small NGO like Reef Check Malaysia to talk about establishing Protected Areas ourselves – it’s just not realistic. But where organisations like us can make a difference is in helping to optimise how a Protected Area is managed.

Why?

Because we work with the communities living in these places and, I would be bold enough to suggest, perhaps understand their challenges and needs better than a bureaucratic organisation like a Protected Area management body – particularly if that body is geographically distant with limited local resources.

Full disclosure: we work closely with the managers of Malaysia’s Marine Parks (as they call MPAs here). In Peninsular Malaysia, that’s the Marine Parks Section of the Department of Fisheries; in the State of Sabah it’s Sabah Parks, and the Sarawak Forestry Corporation in the State of Sarawak.

We work with the communities living in the Protected Areas

We are also starting to work with management agencies at state level in Peninsular Malaysia (I know, it’s complicated!) including Terengganu, Johor and Perak. We have teams working on several islands – both inside and outside Marine Parks. This is not intended to be a criticism of those agencies – quite the opposite: given the size of the challenges they face; they’re doing a good job.

But…things could be better.

Every year we survey over 200 coral reef sites around Malaysia (reports are available on-line at www.reefcheck.org.my). Our data over the last few years show a gradual decline in reef health across Malaysia. Local impacts such as marine tourism, coastal development, pollution from sewage and other run-off are all damaging these critical ecosystems

So: this is a plea to strengthen the management of these important ecosystems. And more importantly – to recognise and involve an important stakeholder that has largely been side lined to date – the local communities on the islands. These so called “IPLCs” (Indigenous People and Local Communities) have been strongly recognised by the new treaty, and they are taking a more central role in management.

Next: how to make this actually happen!

Overview of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

So that just happened, back before the holidays. After all the waiting, months – in fact, years – of delays, numerous rounds of meetings, political wrangling (and probably a bit of Machiavellian intrigue and plotting, thrown in for good measure too!!)…at the 11th hour, on the 19th December 2022, the world’s nations finally signed a new treaty to protect and conserve biodiversity for the period 2021-2030.

Now that the dust has settled, and setting aside some suggestions that some nations were unhappy with certain aspects of how the conference was managed and targets were pushed through, I think it appropriate to look at the treaty in its entirety – and in context, to assess what it means for biodiversity in general and Malaysia in particular.

Biodiversity is important to our survival

Say what?

I sometimes get the feeling that many people have the view that “biodiversity” is the preserve of brainiac scientists in white lab coats. Admittedly, for some people it’s a difficult concept to get your head around – I mean, look at the definition of biodiversity:

…the variety of plant and animal life in the world or in a particular habitat, a high level of which is usually considered to be important and desirable.

Wow. Exciting, not. Doesn’t exactly spark a strong emotional reaction – not in the way that, say,  “Save The Tigers” might.

Let’s try again:

Biodiversity is essential for the processes that support all life on Earth, including humans. Without a wide range of animals, plants and microorganisms, we cannot have the healthy ecosystems that we rely on to provide us with the air we breathe and the food we eat. And people also value nature of itself.

Better?

Let’s put it this way: whether we really understand it or not, biodiversity – the very diversity of life on earth – is important to our survival, and we need to get better at protecting it.

So…what’s going wrong?

I’ve used the analogy before, but…Conservation researchers Paul R. and Anne Ehrlich posited in the 1980s that species are to ecosystems what rivets are to a plane’s wing. Losing one might not be a disaster, but each loss adds to the likelihood of a serious problem.

The Living Planet Index looks at over 38,000 populations of more than 5,200 animal species across the globe. In the most comprehensive index to date, tracking the health of nature over 50 years, the data show an average of 69% decline in wildlife populations around the world between 1970 and 2018.

Source: Living Planet Index (https://www.livingplanetindex.org/latest_results)

Quite a lot of rivets going missing…

How important is this treaty?

Conservation International lists 5 reasons why biodiversity is important:

1.       Wildlife support the healthy ecosystems that we rely on.

2.       Keeping biodiverse ecosystems intact helps humans stay healthy.

3.       Biodiversity is an essential part of the solution to climate change.

4.       Biodiversity is good for the economy.

5.       Biodiversity is an integral part of culture and identity.

Could it be any clearer?

Given current rates of biodiversity loss – this treaty is critical. Setting aside delays caused by the Covid pandemic, the post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is intended to pick up from where the previous treaty left off.

The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 was adopted in October 2010 by the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). The Aichi Biodiversity Targets (named after the Japanese prefecture hosting the meeting) were part of that treaty and represented an earlier effort to set meaningful targets for biodiversity conservation, ranging from protected areas, through local impacts to biodiversity and on to funding mechanisms.

While most of the targets were not achieved, progress was made in all areas. The Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework aims to build on the earlier targets.

The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework – key points

The framework has four over-arching global goals

1. Maintaining the integrity and connectivity of ecosystems while reducing extinctions and safeguarding genetic diversity

2. Sustainably using, managing and restoring biodiversity and nature’s contribution to people, to support sustainable development by 2050

3. Ensuring the equitable sharing of the benefits of genetic resources, including protecting traditional knowledge

4. Making available adequate resources to implement the goals including finance, capacity building, technical and scientific cooperation and technology.

The specific targets cover a wide range of topics, including:

-          Area-based targets for protecting and restoring ecosystems

-          Reducing biodiversity loss

-          Addressing human impacts such as food waste, pollution and alien invasive species

-          Phasing out harmful subsidies

-          Mobilising capital and increasing financial flows.

Two themes emerged from the negotiations and the eventual treaty that I find particularly encouraging:

-          A greatly increased role in conservation for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs).

We have long advocated for local communities to be more engaged in marine conservation here in Malaysia; the treaty and its various clauses puts IPLCs front and centre in the fight to conserve biodiversity, which is where they should be.

To IPLCs front and centre in the fight to conserve biodiversity

-          Also where they should be – the private sector.

For the first time, companies (specifically large and transnational companies) are required to identify their impacts on biodiversity. Hopefully this will generate momentum similar to that we have seen with companies taking action to reduce their climate exposure. Biodiversity’s next!!

But…

We have a treaty. But…it needs to be implemented.

There is a lack of clarity with some of the targets (30% of what?) that needs to be determined at national level by national agencies. We don’t have all the data we need. There are challenges ahead.

But for sure, we now have something of a roadmap. We look forward to working with local stakeholders to put detail onto that roadmap and making progress.

Malaysia is recognised as one of the 12 “mega-biodiverse countries” in the world. We need to protect our natural capital. Maybe this sounds like hyperbole…but it’s our future we are protecting.

How? I will look at what RCM considers some of the more important targets for marine conservation over the coming weeks and months.

Cintai Tioman: October - December 2022

Removing a ghost net

From January to December 2022, Reef Check Malaysia received many reports about ghost nets getting stuck in coral reefs. A total of 3,170kg of ghost nets were removed from Tioman waters with the help of the Tioman Marine Conservation Group (TMCG), scuba shops, and the Tioman community.

This same group also removed a total of 1,542 COTs throughout the year 2022.

Injecting COTs

Every month, members of the Tioman Marine Conservation Group (TMCG) conduct monitoring and cleaning work at the coral rehabilitation sites, to ensure proper growth of the corals. A total of 1,700 coral fragments have been rescued and monitored throughout the year 2022.

Monitoring and cleaning of a reef rehabilitation site

An environmental education session with some students

Throughout 2022, Reef Check Malaysia conducted a total of 13 environmental awareness programs in schools on Tioman Island. Some activities carried out during these programmes include discussions, power point presentations, question and answer sessions, games, as well as visits to the various habitats and ecosystems on the island. 

In December 2022, SMK Tekek appointed RCM as a program trainer to complete the Environment Based Assessment Instruments (EBAI) program in the secondary school alternative assessment for students with special needs. Among the activities carried out were swimming activities and water confidence skills.

Water confidence skills session with the students

Cintai Kepulauan Mersing: October - December 2022

Divers removing ghost nets tangled on reefs

Underwater clean-ups were conducted at Pulau Besar and Pulau Pemanggil with a team of divers from the Johor's Department of Fisheries, Tengah Island Conservation and the Pulau Besar community. The team collected a total of 70kg of ghost nets and trash during the reef clean-ups at Pulau Besar and removed a total of 60 Crown-of-Thorns Starfish (COTs) at Pulau Pemanggil.

Removal of COTs from the reef area

As we work towards sustainable management of marine resources, necessary capacity building and skills training efforts need to be carried out with the relevant stakeholders. We conducted five training sessions at Pulau Sibu, Pulau Tinggi, Pulau Besar, Pulau Aur, and Pulau Pemanggil, focusing on building island stakeholders’ capacity in marine resource management and conservation.

Supported by the Department of Fisheries Malaysia, the trainings were aimed at increasing the island stakeholders’ understanding of the significance of marine ecosystems in the Mersing islands and how they could actively participate in the island’s conservation and marine resource management efforts. 57 local islanders and representatives from the Mersing District Council and Taman Laut Sultan Iskandar attended these sessions.

A local islander engaging in a discussion with RCM staff

We also conducted an Eco-Friendly Snorkel Guide (EFSG) training at the Marine Park Centre, Pulau Tinggi, participated by 40 boats and island hopping operators from Mersing. This training was organised in collaboration with Tourism Johor, the Johor's Department of Fisheries, and Mersing Tourism Association. Besides first aid and rescue training, participants were also trained to minimise impact on coral reef ecosystems when conducting snorkelling activities.

Rescue training and demonstration

As part of our efforts to also promote sustainable economic development, we conducted the first round of a Food Handling Training Course. 38 island community members from Pulau Sibu and Pulau Tinggi attended this course to learn proper skills in food handling. Similar training sessions are planned for the island communities of Pulau Pemanggil, Pulau Aur and Pulau Besar this year.

RCM staff explaining details to a participant of the Food Handling Course

Participants of the course with the certificate of completion