90 Chapter 6 | FINDINGS - SABAH 6.50 In case no KM33 involving the Asian Forestry Company Sabah (AFC), which was formerly known as Begaraya, Mr Drew Boshel (W45) said the 1997 agreement between Begaraya and the Sabah Government provided for the exclusion of NCR land from the area under the agreement. AFC has been working with the LSD using 1997 satellite imagery as well as the latest remote sensing technology to identify NCR land and its villages for excision. The Inquiry deduced from the information provided that the delay in excising NCR land rested with the LSD. 6.51 In other cases, NCR land claims appear to be a lost cause as companies have been granted title over the land and the authorities are not willing to take further action. 6.52 In case no SD43, the Beluran ACLR (W70) was not open to investigating the allegation of fraud as the proper process had been followed in approving the land applications, and that the community had received two buffaloes as a sogit from the company for the destruction of gravesites. 6.53 In case no T9 involving three Murut Tagol villages in Ulu Tomani, Tenom (Kg Kaang, Kg Alutok and Kg Malutut), the Senior Manager for Forest Operations of Ballarpur Industries Ltd (BILT), Mr Guy Thornton (W56) denied that the community NCR land was within its concession. BILT is managing the forest concession awarded to the Sabah Forest Industries (SFI). W56 said BILT is however working with the communities in the area through their CSR efforts, including socio-economic projects. Mr Marusin Peliten (W55) was extremely dejected to hear this denial, and also from the statement of the Tenom District Office saying it has no power over NCR lands that were included within the Sabah Forest Industries (SFI) concession area as these are under the purview of the SFI and the Forestry Department. Nevertheless, Mr Puin Pindurn@Clarence Quint (W107) said the district office could look into areas outside the SFI area and areas where a Registered Survey Plan (RSP) has been issued. In such a case where both the Government and company are unwilling to deal with NCR land issues, communities can find themselves pushed from one party to another. 6.54 Generally, communities affected by private plantations or Government projects informed the Inquiry that no discussions took place prior to the opening of the plantations, or if there were discussions, these were only held with the village leaders -- the village head or Ketua Kampong (KK) or the Chairman of the Village Development and Security Committee (PJKKK). There were also allegations of KK or PJKKK being “bought over” or threatened with sacking if they opposed the projects. 6.55 With respect to concerns about pollution of the environment, particularly river pollution due to oil palm effluents, the companies claimed to be EIA- and SIA-compliant. Many communities who rely solely on rivers for their everyday use and water supply are therefore not able to get any relief. EIAs and SIAs are not done comprehensively, and rarely are cumulative impacts looked into. In addition, communities living outside the project area are not taken into account. As such, the effectiveness of an EIA or SIA that was conducted may be questionable. iii. Community Land Development Schemes 6.56 Land that have been recognised or earmarked for natives have often been handed over to Government agencies or GLCs as land development schemes. These schemes are often linked to poverty eradication programmes. The complaints received under this category concern issues surrounding the payment of dividends, particularly insufficient and/or non-receipt of dividends from developers. chapter 6_a4.indd 90 7/5/13 6:47 PM