Forest Law Enforcement and Mitigation of Forest Offences in Sabah: Lessons Learnt

Abstract

Law enforcement as a means to mitigate against forest offences is one of the tasks that pose a big challenge in realizing Sustainable Forest Management [SFM] implementation in Sabah. Various approaches have been initiated and implemented by the state to deal with the problem. This paper presents an overview of the trends of forest offences in the state from 2001 to 2013, and also discusses the experiences and strategies introduced and implemented by the state government to address them. Forest offences are categorized based on the type of offences stipulated in various sections of the Forest Enactment 1968 and Forest Rules 1969. There were 3,054 cases with an average of 235 cases per year during the period and the number of cases per year generally decreased. Offences under other categories' (breach of logging license conditions etc.) were recorded to be the highest fraction that occurred (36% of the total cases) with the increase of an average of 3 cases per year. This is followed by illegal possession of timber (18%) with a decline on average of 5 cases per year. Entering forest reserves without permission was recorded at 16% with the average having declined at 7 cases per year. The trend of illegal logging in forest reserves and state lands was recorded at 12% respectively with an average decline of 17 cases per year on illegal logging in forest reserves and 11 cases per year on illegal logging in state land areas. The occurrence of illegal cultivation in forest reserves was recorded at 3.6% with an average decline of 9 cases per year and the evasion of royalty was recorded to be the lowest with 1.6% and the average decline of 4 cases per year. During the period 2001-2013, a total of 1,758 people were arrested with a total of 1,054 (60%) of them convicted with various offences committed, by the Magistrate's Court. The ‗Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats' analysis [SWOT] that was carried out to analyse the experiences and strategies introduced and implemented by the state government had identified the ‗weaknesses' such as: those associated with the size of the area under the control at the district level, and problems related to staffing and human factor of personnel that are involved with the enforcement activities. The overall ‗strengths' were related to the implementation of Sustainable Forest Management [SFM] policies that is supported by strong emphasis of the Sabah Forestry Department [SFD] on the enforcement, i.e. the Division of Enforcement Investigation and Prosecution; Monitoring, Controlling, Enforcement and Evaluation [MCEE] and District Forestry Officer [DFO], which are directly under the purview of the Director of Sabah Forestry Department. The strengths are also closely related to the continuous amendments of forest laws and other supportive documents for SFM implementation, and as well as the ability of the trained SFD personnel to execute and conduct the investigation, prosecution and monitoring tasks. The Opportunities were related to the development of information and communication technology facilities, support and collaboration with stakeholders including the Forest Management Unit [FMU] holders and parties from local and international communities. The challenges were related to the availability of resources, the demand and supply of logs that also affected the market price of timber. Other challenges were connected with collaboration, cooperation and partnerships with other stakeholders including communities.

Full text

17th MALAYSIAN FORESTRY CONFERENCE
166
PAPER 2: 1
FOREST LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MITIGATION OF FOREST OFFENCES IN SABAH:
LESSONS LEARNT
Walter Lintangah1 | Peter Maurice Lidadun2 | Peter Jack Empah2 | Werfred Jilimin2
1Universiti Malaysia Sabah, 2Sabah Forestry Department
ABSTRACT
Law enforcement as a means to mitigate against forest offences is one of the tasks that poses a big
challenge in realizing Sustainable Forest Management [SFM] implementation in Sabah. Various
approaches have been initiated and im0.plemented by the state to deal with the problem. This paper
presents an overview of the trends of forest offences in the state from 2001 to 2013, and also discusses
the experiences and strategies introduced and implemented by the state government to address them.
Forest offences are categorized based on the type of offences stipulated in various sections of the
Forest Enactment 1968 and Forest Rules 1969. There were 3,054 cases with an average of 235 cases
per year during the period and the number of cases per year generally decreased. Offences under
‗other categories‘ (breach of logging license conditions etc.) was recorded to be the highest fraction
that occurred (36% of the total cases) with the increase of an average of 3 cases per year. This is
followed by illegal possession of timber (18%) with a decline on average of 5 cases per year. Entering
forest reserves without permission was recorded at 16% with the average having declined at 7 cases
per year. The trend of illegal logging in forest reserves and state lands was recorded at 12%
respectively with an average decline of 17 cases per year on illegal logging in forest reserves and 11
cases per year on illegal logging in state land areas. The occurrence of illegal cultivation in forest
reserves was recorded at 3.6% with an average decline of 9 cases per year and the evasion of royalty
was recorded to be the lowest with 1.6% and the average decline of 4 cases per year. During the
period 2001-2013, a total of 1,758 people were arrested with a total of 1,054 (60%) of them convicted
with various offences committed, by the Magistrate‘s Court. The ‗Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats‘ analysis [SWOT] that was carried out to analyse the experiences and
strategies introduced and implemented by the state government had identified the ‗weaknesses‘ such
as: those associated with the size of the area under the control at the district level, and problems
related to staffing and human factor of personnel that are involved with the enforcement activities.
The overall ‗strengths‘ were related to the implementation of Sustainable Forest Management [SFM]
policies that is supported by strong emphasis of the Sabah Forestry Department [SFD] on the
enforcement, i.e. the Division of Enforcement Investigation and Prosecution; Monitoring, Controlling,
Enforcement and Evaluation [MCEE] and District Forestry Officer [DFO], which are directly under
the purview of the Director of Sabah Forestry Department. The strengths are also closely related to the
continuous amendments of forest laws and other supportive documents for SFM implementation, and
as well as the ability of the trained SFD personnel to execute and conduct the investigation,
prosecution and monitoring tasks. The ‗Opportunities‘ were related to the development of information
and communication technology facilities, support and collaboration with stakeholders including the
Forest Management Unit [FMU] holders and parties from local and international communities. The
challenges were related to the availability of resources, the demand and supply of logs that also
affected the market price of timber. Other challenges were connected with collaboration, cooperation
and partnerships with other stakeholders including communities.

17th MALAYSIAN FORESTRY CONFERENCE
167
1.0 Background
Forest and Forestry Development in Sabah
The paradigm of forest development in Sabah can be traced through the era of exploration, towards
minimal exploitation; revenue oriented industrial-scale timber exploitation, followed by the
development stage of resources oriented sustainable forest management (Pereira, 1981; Kugan &
Kollert, 1996; Lintangah, 2014). A minimum extraction of forest resources by the local communities
occurred during the early phase, mostly for livelihood purposes. This was followed by extraction of
timber with traditional logging techniques during the era of the British North Borneo Chartered
Company from 1881 until 1946. The Forest Ordinance was introduced to regulate the revenue
collection of forest produce during this period (Pereira, 1981). From 1946 to 1963, when Sabah was
ruled directly under the British Crown, the Sustained Yield forest management system was introduced
to control timber harvesting. Forest reservation was intensified, and the practice of mechanized timber
harvesting was started with the introduction of tractors in 1951 and chainsaws in the 1960s (SFD,
2007). Many new concession areas were granted to logging companies, which marked the beginning
of extensive timber extraction, with timber also beginning to be processed locally by local
manufacturers (Pereira, 1981; Ross, 2001). After independence in 1963, timber harvesting became the
main source of state income, playing a crucial role in the initial development of the state. In the 1970s
and 1980s, forestry as the mainstay of the state‘s economy contributed to about 60-70% of the state
total income (Ross, 2001). Since then, the forest resources in Sabah have been severely depleted
through uncontrolled timber exploitation and through large-scale conversion of forest areas to other
uses, especially oil-palm plantations (Jilimin et al., 2011). Sabah‘s Forest Policy was restructured in
1997 to address the problems by introducing the SFM policy and licencing system that focused on a
total forest management approach (ibid).
Forest Offences
Forest offence is a complex phenomenon with many definitions given. Tacconi (2007), gives the
description of illegal forest activities as follows;
―[They] include the acts related to the establishment of rights to land, corrupt activities to
acquire forest concessions, unlawful activities at all stages of forest management and the
forest good production chain, from the planning stage, to harvesting and transport of raw
materials and finished products, to financial management‖.
The offences are associated with the act against forest legislation or violation of forest management
regulations, contractual agreements, industry and trade regulations; and transport, financial,
accounting and tax regulations (ibid). These offences are being manifested under various activities
that include illegal logging, illegal forest trade, illegal timber processing and illegal financial
activities. Among the negative implications of forest crimes are causing deforestation and global
warming, which will lead to loss of biodiversity; and also weakening forest management, encourages
corruption and tax evasion, and the incomes of the producer countries are reduced (Jilimin et al.,
2011). Forest crime could take place due to three main factors namely: resources availability, human
factors, and driving forces (Lintangah et al., 2008). Taconni (2007) suggested the causes of illegal
forest activities that include institutional problems, lack of government capacity, corruption, the roles
of business, the role of timber trade, and economic incentives and disincentives of forest management.
Forest offences have been recorded since the forest administration systems were introduced to
regulate the forest and forest resources in the state. The Forest Enactment (1968) and Forest Rules
1969 legislated by the State Assembly are the main regulatory instruments for the conservation,
management and administration of the various forest reserves (SFD, 2009). The enactment stipulates
forest offences in various sections of the law, points out the acts of deviance toward the administration

17th MALAYSIAN FORESTRY CONFERENCE
168
and sound management of the forest. SFD (1993) classified the forest offences under various
categories namely illegal logging, timber smuggling, transfer of log pricing, undervaluing and under
grading of timber, mis-declaration of shipment details and misclassification of timber species.
Lintangah (1997) categorized forest offenses stipulated in the Forest Enactment 1968 based on the
severity of penalties. These include illegal felling; evasion of royalty, general offences, illegal
removal of timber (timber smuggling), and illegal vehicles used in timber extraction, endangering
forest by fire, encroachment in forest reserve / state land and other miscellaneous cases. Currently,
SFD is monitoring and organising the record and reporting of forest offences based on the main
categorization of forest offences under Section 20 (illegal felling in forest reserve), Section 23 (Illegal
felling in state land), Section 30(1)(g) (Illegal possession of forest product, Section 30(A)(b)(evasion
of royalty), Section 20(1)(c)(i) (illegal entry of forest reserve; Section 20(1)(b)(iii)(illegal cultivation
in forest reserves; and Other categories of forest offences (Breach of logging licence conditions, etc.).
2.0 Objectives
This paper was initiated to achieve the following objectives. 1) To explore and highlight the trend of
forest offences in Sabah, and 2) To identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats related
to the efforts to curb forest offences in the state.
3.0 Method
This study was conducted based on the primary and secondary data that were kept by the Sabah
Forestry Department. The information included records on the number of cases that occurred during
the 13-year period from 2001 to 2013. These also comprised of the number of occurrences based on
the type of forest offences, the number of seized machinery and timber; and the number of people
who were arrested and charged, sentenced and fined by the Magistrate. The figures of fines and
penalty were also examined to see the patterns and their relationships with the occurrences of forest
offences. Literature reviews and analysis were conducted to classify the experience to curb forest
offences based on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT).
4.0 Results
4.1 Trend of Forest Offences
4.1.1 Number of reported cases (2001 - 2013)
There was a total of 3054 cases of forest offences recorded from 2001 until 2013, with a decreasing
trend on the overall pattern of occurrence. The highest number of cases was recorded in 2002 (372
cases), followed by 2005 (331 cases) and 2003 (299 cases), while the lowest occurrence was recorded
in 2013 (95 cases) (Figure 1). In terms of the number of cases by categories of offences, 36% of the
total cases were offences under the 'other categories' including the breach of license conditions. This
category increased in the number of incidents with an average of 3 cases per year. The offences under
Section 30(1)(g) of the Forest Enactment, 1968 marked 18% out of the total number of cases with a
declining trend of occurrences with an average of 5 cases per year. The offences of ‗entering forest
reserve without permission‘ under Section 20(1) (c)(i) make up 16% of the total number of cases with
an average reduction of 7 cases per year. Section 20 on ‗illegal logging in forest reserves‘ and Section
23 on ‗illegal logging in state land area' respectively recorded 12% with a reduction of an average of
17 cases per year for ‗illegal logging in the forest reserves‘ and the average decrease of 11 cases per
year for ‗illegal logging in state land areas‘. The ‗Illegal cultivation inside forest reserves‘ of Section
20(1)(b)(3) recorded 4% of the total cases with an increasing trend of average 9 cases per year. The
offences of ‗Evasion of royalty‘ under the Section 30(A)(b) recorded 2% of the total cases with an
average decline of 4 cases per year (Figure 2).

17th MALAYSIAN FORESTRY CONFERENCE
169
4.1.2 Value of Goods Auctioned Off (2001 - 2012)
During the period from 2001 to 2013, a total of 228,194.05 m3 of logs were confiscated with an
estimated value of RM 22,239,712.62 or an average of RM 97.46 / m3 (Figure 3). The total amount of
fines collected during the period was RM 26,497,859.90 or with an average of RM 2,038,296.92 per
annum. The estimated average value of 'fines and penalties' based on the volume of confiscated logs is
RM 116.12 / m3. The calculated ratio of the ‗value of logs ' to the total 'fines and penalties' is 1: 1.16.
The lowest ratio, however, was recorded at 1: -0.50 in 2008 while the highest ratio of 1: 10.35 was
recorded in 2013. During the same period, a total of 2,290 seizures of logging equipment were
documented. A high number of seizures were recorded in 2008 (263), 2005 (284) and in 2009 (244).
The value of the seized machinery was at RM 1,861,403.55. A total of 935 or 41% out of the total
seized goods were auctioned or forfeited (Figure 4).
4.1.3 People arrested and convicted in court
The cases of forest offences that occurred between 2001 and 2013 involved the arrest of 1,758 people.
A total of 1,203 (68.43%) out of the persons arrested have been brought to court, with 1054 persons
(87.61%) convicted and sentenced by the court (Figure 5).
4.1.4 Number of cases by area
Most of the forest offences recorded during 2001 to 2013 occurred in the Tawau region (46%),
followed by Keningau (20%), Sandakan (16%), Kota Kinabalu (10%) and Kudat (8%). The forest
district areas that recorded a high occurrence of forest offences were Lahad Datu (13%), Semporna
(10%), Kunak (9%), Keningau and Tawau (each 8%) and Sandakan 6% (Figure 6). The other forestry
districts recorded less than 5% of the total number of cases that occurred.
4.2 SWOT Analysis on Forest Law Enforcement and Mitigation of Forest Offences in Sabah
The results of SWOT analysis that was based on literature and discussions on the experience
encountered by SFD to curb forest offences in the state are depicted in the table below.
Table 1: SWOT Analysis on Experience to Mitigating Forest Offences in Sabah.
Strengths
Weaknesses
 Up to date law: Forest Enactment 1968
amendment - Dynamic to current requirement
 Presumption of Proof Sec. 38
 Enhanced fines
 Strict Liability
 Continuous Training on Enforcement and
persecution
 Team work in law enforcement is excellent -
internal and external
 Sufficient infrastructure & logistic
 Sound and efficient management and
administration system (IP, MS ISO, Forest
Stewardship Certificate, etc..)
 Aerial surveillance by all District Forestry
Officer.
 Ground patrolling during the weekend and
public holidays by all field staff.
 Area of Forest vs Man Power
 Human factors (staff)
 Pattern of ages-shifting among staff -
succession plan
 Discipline
 Limited Capabilities
 Lack of confidence in raiding operations.
 Legal constrains – Suspect (Towkey) not
recognized by witnesses (workers). Workers –
Mistaken Believe of Fact.
 Incentive – wages far below cost of living.
Section 41A of the Forest Enactment is yet to
be enforced.
 Limited access to online Legal Network. Eg:
CLJ, LexisNexis, etc…

17th MALAYSIAN FORESTRY CONFERENCE
170
Continued…SWOT Analysis on Experience to Mitigating Forest Offences in Sabah
Opportunities
Threats
 SFM Policies – SFMLA Holders
 Sound and efficient management and
administration system (Investigation Paper
(IP), MS ISO, Forest Stewardship Certificate,
etc.)
 International Support
 Political will & Political stability
 Technology and communications
 Team work in law enforcement is excellent -
internal and external
 Good coordination among State agencies
(Secretary of Natural Resources – SFD – Lands
& Surveys – etc.)
 Independent Audit (GFS).
 Log Price
 Supply and Demand of Logs
 Human threat
 Political instability
 Politician interference
 NCR (Native Customary Right) claims in
Forest Reserves
 Negative attitude of some members of the
public – deliberately refuse to accept the
knowledge of the importance of forests to
livelihoods.
5.0 Discussion and Conclusions
Forest Offences still pose a problem in the management of forests in the state. The general trend of the forest
cases recorded, however, was declining. Lintangah et al., (2008) suggested that the higher number of forest
offences occurrence after year 2001was a result of serious efforts and strategies adopted by the Sabah Forestry
Department to address the matter, in terms of upgrading of legislation, organization, and enhancement of the
enforcement and investigation personnel. Furthermore, the data recording on cases of forest offences has
immensely improved with the centralization under the Investigation, Enforcement and Prosecution Division that
was established in 2001. The offences under ‗other categories' that included the breach of licence conditions
continued to be the main challenge encountered by the Forestry Department. The number of cases under this
category increased from 2001 to 2013. It became the foremost offence recorded as compared to other categories
under Section 30(1)(g), Section 20(1)(c)(i), Section 20, Section 23, Section 20(1)(b)(3) and Section 30(A)(b).
The amount of fines and penalties collected from the cases that occurred is relatively lower as compared with
the value of confiscated logs with the average ratio of 1:1:16. There was a total of 1758 people arrested during
the period with 1203 (68.43%) prosecuted in court. The conviction rate is very high with an average of 87.61%
(1054 persons) prosecuted successfully or fined. Most of the cases recorded during the period occurred in
Tawau region (46%) followed by Keningau (20%), Sandakan (16%), Kota Kinabalu (10%) and Kudat (8%).
The forestry districts with high occurrence of cases during the period were Lahad Datu (13%), Semporna (10%),
Kunak (9%), Keningau and Tawau (each 8%) and Sandakan (6%).
The strength of the SFD in curbing forest crimes is very much impacted by the SFM policy that was introduced
to manage the state‘s forests with the cooperation and involvement by the SFMLA holders. It is also associated
with the prescribed forest laws under the Forest Enactment 1968, which is reviewed regularly and amended
accordingly with respect to requirements. The quality of the personnel involved in the operations is of great
advantage, and is made possible through a continuous training programme on enforcement and prosecution
activities. During the period of 2001-2010, the Sabah Forestry Department made enormous improvements on
addressing forest crimes. SFD has organized numerous investigation and prosecution courses involving staff
ranking from Forest Rangers to Forestry Officers, and also introduced the recruitment of Honorary Forest
Rangers to address forest crimes in the state (Jilimin et al., 2011). The high conviction rate of people arrested
and brought to court indicates an enhancement in terms of investigation and prosecution ability among the
workforce involved in the process (Lintangah et al., 2008). The optimum level of team spirit to enforce forest
law has facilitated good coordination among staff and other State agencies (i.e. Secretary of Natural Resources,
Sabah Forestry Department, Lands and Surveys Department, District Office, Police, etc.). Another strength that
supported the enforcement programs and activities are related to the sufficiency of infrastructure and logistics
provided by the state and federal governments. These comprised the periodic aerial surveillance carried out by
all District Forestry Officer and persistent ground patrolling by field staff, including weekends and public
holidays. The latest development initiated by the Sabah Forestry Department was to equip chosen Forestry
Officers with firearms for self-protection and prevention against perpetrators (Jilimin et al., 2011).

17th MALAYSIAN FORESTRY CONFERENCE
171
The sound management and administration system introduced in the department (i.e. IP (Investigation Paper),
MS ISO, Forest Stewardship Certificate, etc.), also contributed to the efficiency of enforcement and prosecution
to curb forest offences in the state.
The significant area of forests with the limited number of manpower to look after the forest area is perceived to
be weaknesses faced by the SFD in eradicating forest crimes. Human factor is another area of challenge
encountered by the department. These include matters related to the pattern of age, transfer of staff, and the
future succession plan of experienced and well-trained staff. The lack of discipline and confidence in raiding
operations and limited capabilities among some field staff is another human factor that is susceptible to failure
during the enforcement or prosecution work. The wages of the staff engaged in the enforcement and prosecution
work could be considerably below the cost of living and this will not encourage performance. The incentives
introduced under Section 41A of the Forest Enactment has yet to be enforced by the Forestry Department, which
could motivate the workers engaged in the tasks. Some experiences on the legal aspect that have been identified
as a hindrance to effective enforcement and prosecution is the identification of the primary suspect (‗towkey‘).
There were cases where the prime suspects were not recognized by witnesses (workers), which disposed of the
phenomenon of ‗Mistaken Believe of Fact‘ of the workers involved in forest crimes. There is limited access to
online Legal Network (e.g.: CLJ, LexisNexis, etc.) among personnel involved as prosecutors of the department,
which may also impede the acquirement of relevant case laws.
There are many areas of opportunities to keep up or to enhance the current initiatives to curb forest crimes in the
state. These include cooperation and initiatives involving communities at the international and local levels.
These stakeholders provide support towards the efficient implementation of Sustainable Forest Management by
contributing assistance in terms of ideas, finance and technical expertise. The compulsion of independent
auditing on the ground forest operations for instances, has enormously been encouraging towards the progress of
the SFM implementation. Political will and political stability are the most important preconditions for the
realization of SFM that embraces the support from politicians and leaders of the state. This is entrenched in
Sabah. The enhancements of technology and communications systems expedite the enforcement and transfer of
information processes during operations at the ground level.
Some studies have identified influences that are associated with the number of occurrences of forest crimes.
These include log production, number of active mills, direct employment in the forestry sector (Lintangah,
2007), size of forest area (Aishyah, 2010) and log pricing (Shanti, 1995; Rusli, 1999). These factors are related
to the supply and demand of timber that determine the price of logs in the market place. The state of evidence
that pose a threat to the alleviation of forest crimes includes political instability and political interference in the
management of the forest that may influence and dictate sound management of the forest. The NCR claims by
local communities in forest reserves are also articulated as a challenge in the fight against forest offences in
some areas. The cynical attitude among some members of society of deliberately refusing to accept the
importance of forests to livelihoods also poses a threat to the SFM concept and the mitigation of forest crimes.
Finally, the lack of awareness may also hinder greater cooperation among the stakeholders to come up with
mutual agreement to safeguard the forests for the benefit of current and future generations.

17th MALAYSIAN FORESTRY CONFERENCE
172
References
Aishyah N. M., (2010). Kajian tentang kes kesalahan hutan di Sabah sebelum dan selepas tahun 2000. Disertasi.
Program Perhutanan Tropika Antarabangsa. Sekolah Perhutanan Tropika Antarabangsa. Universiti Malaysia
Sabah. Unpublished.
Jilimin W., Mohd. Noor Ahmad M. N, Suara, Z., Balingi, D., Primus P., Vun J., and Loisang D. (2011). Forest
laws and enforcement in Sabah: the way forward. Proceedings of the 16th Malaysian Forestry Conference, 5-9
December 2011, Renaissance Hotel, Melaka.
Kugan F. & Kollert W., (1997). Result and recommendations. In Kugan F. & Kollert W. (Eds). Forest sector
coordination. Towards sustainable development. Proceedings of The Seminar, 4 September 1996. (pp. 3-8).
Kota Kinabalu. Sabah Forestry Department.
Lintangah, W. (1997). A study on forest offence in Sabah - a project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Forestry Science in the Faculty of Forestry, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Lintangah. W, Mojiol. A. R, Lidadun P. M., Mohamad R. & Sudin M., (2008). Some mitigation measures to
combat forest offences. The Sabah experiences. Addressing Global Demands & Expectations in Forestry. 15th
Malaysian Forestry Conference. Kuching, Sarawak.
Lintangah W., (2014). Stakeholder analysis in Sustainable Forest Management in Sabah, Malaysia. Technische
Universitat Dresden, Germany.
Pereira, W. (1981). Brief notes on the history of the Forest Department and forest industry in Sabah.
Unpublished.
Rusli Mohd. (1999). Factors influencing the occurrence of forest offences in a Peninsular Malaysia state.
Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. (7)(2) Pp. 91-95.
Ross, M. L. (2001). Sabah, Malaysia. A new state of affairs. (In) Ross. M.L. (ed.). Timber booms and
institutional breakdown in Southeast Asia. United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 87 - 126.
Sabah Forestry Department. Annual Report 2001 - 2012.
Sabah Forest Enactment 1968 & Forest Rules 1969.
Tacconi, L. (Ed.) (2007). Illegal logging: law enforcement, livelihoods and the timber trade. Earthscan.

17th MALAYSIAN FORESTRY CONFERENCE
173
-200.00
-100.00
.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Figure 1. Total Number of Cases Recorded (2001-2013)
Total of Cases (All categories) +/-
Figure 1: Total Number of Cases Recorded (2001-2003).
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Others 15.00 98.00 76.00 55.00 88.00 95.00 80.00 79.00 143.00 121.00 140.00 80.00 55.00
Sec201b3 .00 3.00 7.00 9.00 21.00 5.00 8.00 19.00 13.00 4.00 5.00 9.00 9.00
Sec 201c1 9.00 17.00 15.00 54.00 134.00 50.00 40.00 67.00 57.00 34.00 22.00 2.00 2.00
Sec 30Ab 4.00 18.00 7.00 11.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 .00 1.00 .00 1.00 .00 .00
Sec 30ig 29.00 75.00 46.00 35.00 44.00 20.00 60.00 82.00 65.00 32.00 26.00 35.00 24.00
Sec 23 25.00 69.00 68.00 26.00 33.00 37.00 18.00 17.00 11.00 19.00 15.00 18.00 14.00
Sec 20 25.00 92.00 80.00 43.00 27.00 32.00 11.00 17.00 10.00 4.00 11.00 16.00 8.00
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
No of Cases by Category of Forest Offences (2001-2013)
Figure 2: No of cases by category of forest offences (2001-2003).

17th MALAYSIAN FORESTRY CONFERENCE
174
Figure 4: Number of seizure and forfeiture (2001-2003).
2,001 2,002 2,003 2,004 2,005 2,006 2,007 2,008 2,009 2,010 2,011 2,012 2,013
Total of Fines & Penalties Collected (RM) 1,262,1 3,562,9 4,515,3 1,015,5 1,375,1 1,655,3 2,347,9 981,986 1,205,1 1,376,7 4,516,4 1,126,7 1,556,2
Value (RM) 2,029,0 2,545,2 1,229,2 1,832,1 2,663,5 2,525,4 2,836,6 1,963,4 493,575 1,875,8 1,378,7 729,514 137,118
+/- (Total fines & Penalties - Value) (76 6,86 1,017,6 3,286,0 (81 6,57 (1,288, (870,10 (48 8,70 (981,51 711,572 (499,08 3,137,6 397,221 1,419,1
% (Penalties & Fines : Values) (0.38) 0.40 2.67 (0.45) (0.48) (0.34) (0. 17) (0.50) 1.44 (0.27) 2.28 0.54 10.35
(2,000,000.00)
(1,000,000.00)
-
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
4,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
Value (RM)
Figure 3. Total Fines & Penalties vs Value of Confiscated Logs
Figure 3: Total fines & penalties vs value of confiscated logs.

17th MALAYSIAN FORESTRY CONFERENCE
175
.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Figure 5. Total Number of People Arrested, Charged and Convicted by the
Court (2001-2013)
Charge in Court Convicted_Court People_Arrested
Figure 5: Number of people arrested, charge and convicted by the court (2001-2003).
Sandakan
6% Tongod
3%
Beluran
5%
Kota Kinabatangan
4%
Telupid
1%
Deramakot
1%
Tawau
8% Serudong
0%
Tibow
1%
Kelabakan
2%
Kunak
9%
Semporna
10%
Lahad Datu
13%
Ulu Segama
1%
Ranau
3%
Kota Kinabalu
2%
Beaufort
1%
Kota Belud
0%
Kota Marudu
3%
Sepitang
0%
Pitas
4%
Kudat
2%
Keningau
8%
Sook
4%
Tambunan
1%
Nabawan
5%
Tenom
2%
Figure 6. Cases of Forest Offences by Forestry District (2001-2013)
Figure 6: Cases of forest offences by forestry district (2001-2003).
kalabakan
Sipitang