92 Chapter 6 | FINDINGS - SABAH heads, the District Office and the MRD. The Inquiry found that in the FELCRA EIA report, it was stated that they would plant rubber, however, oil palm was grown instead. As such, the reliability of EIAs can be brought to question here as the downstream effects of oil palm as compared to rubber are different. 6.63 The development programmes under the Sabah Development Corridor have the element of urgency as funds from the Federal Government have to be returned if unused by end of the fiscal year. 6.64 Mr Iwan Hermawan bin Masrul (W8) of SEDIA admitted that opposition to the proposed projects did occur but their role was to ensure the project follow the schedule. “... for Agropolitan in Lalampas-Tongod, consultation process was conducted at the community level. IDS (Institute for Development Studies) as a consultant was appointed to conduct preliminary study before the project started. We cannot deny that there were several opposition but there were also those who agreed. I believe during the consultations, the majority won... that’s why the Lalampas-Tongod project started. Other places which have been identified are still in the process of consultation. We recognise the need to push for projects that were suggested and the initiative of the State Government so the area is developed for the community. SEDIA is only a caretaker to ensure that the project be implemented as scheduled”. 6.65 In view of the many issues that the Inquiry heard, many of which are common to land schemes in other parts of the country, it became obvious that policy-makers like the State Economic Planning Unit and MRD did not draw lessons from past programmes from within or outside the State. There are also no built-in mechanisms for assessments and complaints. According to SEDIA, alternative land had never been offered to affected communities who wanted to opt out of the project. 6.66 The Inquiry finds that plantation projects by Government agencies or GLC appointed by the Government are often bureaucratic and do not address the root problems of NCR claims. Often contrary to the objectives of the Government to develop an area, communities found that not only have they lost control and ownership over their land, but also found themselves losing traditional livelihoods, which have sustained their simple ways of life all these years. 6.67 In the Banggi Island case (KM78), the Government alienated the land for a “public purpose” to Ladang Sejaterah Tohok in 1979. Initially, SLDB started a project to plant coconuts but the project failed and in 2005, MRD invited FELCRA to develop 4,500 ha under the Agropolitan project. In responding to W37’s complaints of destruction of crops by contractors, FELCRA’s Director General (W38) said communities must go through the proper channel for their claims i.e. through the LSD office which would then assess such claims before any payments could be made by FELCRA. This information was contrary to that given by the Kudat ACLR (W39) who said claims should be made to FELCRA. 6.68 From the information provided by the community representative (W37) and the responses by both W38 and W39, the Inquiry found that the Agropolitan project in the Banggi Island had not benefited the communities, and had resulted in the loss of their NCR land. The Inquiry found that that the use of section 28 to gazette a large area of land for a public purpose in Banggi Island has not only failed to recognise NCR lands but also further deprived the native peoples of their traditional livelihoods. This case is particularly serious as it involves small native communities like the Bonggi people. chapter 6_a4.indd 92 7/5/13 6:47 PM