SOMEONE once remarked that the terms of reference for an Environmental Impact Assessment are like a recipe. You have to get the ingredients exactly right if you want the dish to turn out well-cooked.

The "dish" being prepared is the EIA for a RM4.56bil plantation project that will cover 241,400ha in south-east Sabah. The project – with a mouthful of a name: the Sino-Malaysia Joint-Venture Forest Plantation at Kalabakan and Gunung Rara Forest Reserves, Tawau District! – will supply a proposed pulp and paper mill nearby, which has a projected capacity of 500,000 to 750,000 tonnes a year.

News of this proposed project has elicited a barrage of protests from environmentalists, conservationists and the general public at the degradation and loss of habitat for many threatened and endangered species – elephants, tembadau and rhinoceros among others, as well as numerous types of vegetation. The area is also a major water catchment area so there is much concern about pollution.

The furore was further compounded by the exposé in August last year of the fact that some areas were already being clear-felled without an EIA being done and approved, and without even observing regular guidelines for logging operations. For instance, logging was carried out right up to river edges and on slopes over 25 degrees, all of which can cause destructive siltation of waterways.

S.M. Mohd Idris, president of environmental organisation Sahabat Alam Malaysia, says he is appalled that logging activities had started before even Terms of Reference had been set, much less an EIA done. "This implies that the project proponents assume that all the EIAs will be approved eventually. Such actions clearly undermine the EIA process itself."

The Sabah Environmental Conservation Department recently gave the public a two-week opportunity to review and comment on the Terms of Reference for the project’s EIA. Since then, parties involved in the project have replied to the public’s comments – though not very satisfyingly as they generally stuck to saying that yes, they will look into that, or that’s beyond the scope of the EIA and hence, will not be examined by it.

The first obvious question that leaps out of the comments – posed by conservation non-governmental agency World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Malaysia – is whether the state really needs this project. Indeed, so obvious is this query that several people and other bodies posed it even before the Terms of Reference were put up for comment. Some officials in the Sabah Forestry Department have said that the existing pulp and paper mill in Sabah is enough, and that there is no need for another.

The consultants who will undertake the EIA, Chemsain Konsultant Sdn Bhd, say this issue is outside the scope of the EIA – and that’s puzzling, because isn’t it normal for an EIA to examine a no-project option?

It is especially important that the no-project option be examined in this project’s EIA because, when you think about it, the project doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Basically, the Sino-Malaysia joint venture aims to clear-fell forested areas and then establish a plantation to feed the pulp mill. (What happens to all that timber it logs has yet to be discussed; they certainly will not feed the mill.) So why not establish the plantation in areas that have already been logged?

The consultants claim that logged land (acquisition, presumably – they don’t elaborate) could be a problem around, for instance, Kudat, an area that has already been logged and is currently growing again. Also, transportation would be costly and the water supply for a mill in that area would be unreliable, they say.

Another reason the no-project option should be a part of the Terms of Reference for this EIA: similar projects have run into trouble. Sabah’s Tourism, Environment, Science and Technology Ministry admits that the Sabah Forest Industry mill in Sipitang (owned by the state body, the Sabah Foundation, and Lion Management Sdn Bhd) is running at a loss because replanting cannot keep up with the mill’s demands; the government and Sabah Forest Industry face huge losses. And, as everyone involved admits, the mill’s water pollution problems are a nightmare, affecting Sungai Padas and the tributaries that form the largest of 10 priority catchment areas in the state.

Imagine these problems multiplied to the scale of the massive Sino-Malaysia joint venture, which will be almost four times the size of Singapore!

The Terms of Reference report says that the replanting target for this massive plantation is between 20,000ha and 30,000ha a year. The report goes on to note that 1,400ha have been replanted since logging commenced a year ago. (Yes, logging has been going on despite the lack of an EIA because some logging permits were given out before the regulation requiring an EIA was in place.) According to Sabah Forestry Department figures last year, 12,000ha have been logged. So that’s 10,600ha left bare; more, by now.

Not more than 3,000ha at a time should be left unplanted, says S.M. Muthu, secretary-general of the Sabah Environmental Protection Association. "This is to minimise climatic effects and ensure that development plans are on target.’’ Or, as the Forestry Department puts it: "Clearing should not exceed or should be equal to the planting rate."

The consultants agree that clearing should not move too far ahead of planting. So what gives with the 10,600ha of bare land?

Critics have also repeatedly pointed out that, so far, the best replanting effort by a Malaysian concern has been a paltry 6,000ha per year. Furthermore, a nursery set up for this project can only supply 50% of the required seedlings, according to Datuk Safari Manan, corporate secretary of the Sabah Foundation. So how is this project going to meet the hefty 20,000ha to 30,000ha replanting target? In other words, is this project viable? Shouldn’t the EIA examine this question? But, as the consultants indicated above, this issue is not part of the Terms of Reference of the EIA so it will not be assessed.

Comparisons with the failed Sabah Forest Industry project are not part of the Terms of Reference because they are outside the scope of this EIA, insist the consultants. Yet, they want to use data on environmental problems from existing plantations as indicators of problems the Sino-Malaysia joint venture might cause. Not only does that seem like a contradiction, it is not good practice. For one thing, the biggest existing plantation is only 35,000ha, or a paltry 14% of the proposed project. So, as Sahabat Alam Malaysia points out, the consultants might seriously underestimate the magnitude and complexity of the environmental impacts of the huge project.

"Considerations of its feasibility, proper mitigating measures and monitoring plans may severely be compromised," fears Mohd Idris.

The really scary thing about the Terms of Reference is that they include the option of abandoning the project; this is followed by a bare line about a rehabilitation and enrichment programme. Opponents of the project have raised the suspicion that the plantation is just eyewash to get at the timber and convert the area to more profitable – but more polluting – oil palm plantations.

A question from a concerned individual, Andrew Lee, about who will pay for rehabilitation if the project is abandoned after the logging has been carried out is greeted with deafening silence.

While the Terms of Reference do not address this issue, Sabah Environmental Protection Association’s Muthu has a suggestion: Why not set up an escrow account co-managed by state agencies and NGOs to make sure that the project is not abused?

"All revenue from the sale of logs should be placed in this account and reserved for the purpose of replanting and mitigation works. Project proponents should only be allowed to withdraw the profits due to them after the project, particularly the replanting aspect, has been seen to run smoothly without any dire environmental consequences," he suggests.

He further suggests that if the project fails, those involved in the project should not receive compensation, for it is, after all, a business venture, so they should bear the losses. Perhaps it is being too optimistic but Muthu hopes that the EIA will contain such a clause, as well as one that says the project will be discontinued if its effects on the environment are serious.

The Terms of Reference report does note the problem of soil erosion and the fact that waterways in the area are highly turbid, indicating that siltation is already a problem there – caused no doubt by logging that is being carried out now without recourse to environmentally-friendly guidelines. Though Sabah Foundation’s Safari has been quoted as saying that silt traps are in place, the report observes that the areas already logged are not being rehabilitated and there are no control measures for erosion.

While it is reassuring that the Terms of Reference include this issue, they do not go into it with any depth. For instance, they do not call for a close examination of methods used for monitoring the project.

Both WWF and the Sabah Environmental Protection Association say that a team of independent specialists and environmental auditors should do the monitoring.

"Past experiences have shown that government agencies are incapable of enforcing terms and by-laws (of EIAs), mainly because of a lack of manpower, logistics, social pressure and political interference," Muthu states.

Indeed, state officers who have pointed out that the current operation ignores guidelines by clear-felling right up to the river’s edge have been admonished or, worse, penalised for doing their jobs.

(By the way, this illegal logging and non-adherence to guidelines were blamed by Safari on villagers nearby. The Terms of Reference report, however, says there are no known communities nearby other than an illegal settlement within Luasong Forestry Centre some distance from the logging site. We’ve heard of phantom voters, now it appears there are phantom loggers!)

There are other concerns conservationists and concerned citizens raise that are not given enough weight in the Terms of Reference – which means they may not be addressed in detail in the EIA.

Sahabat Alam Malaysia, for instance, worries about nutrient uptake. There could be a problem caused by the planting of various species of the exotic acacia.

In the majority of commercial plantations using fast-growing species, an imbalance arises between the nutrients taken up by the roots and those given back to the system by dead organic matter. "Because certain species of softwood trees tend to reduce the action of decomposing agents such as fungi and bacteria, nutrients contained in the leaf litter may not be readily freed up in the form which would allow them to be taken up easily by roots," explains Mohd Idris.

So soil fertility is affected. That in turn means that large amounts of fertiliser will be needed to keep the trees growing. Furthermore, since mono-crop plantations like acacia are particularly susceptible to diseases and insect attacks, loads of pesticides will have to be used, too. And where do the chemicals end up? In groundwater and the rivers, of course. From there, they are taken up by the aquatic life – which people catch and eat.

There is another problem with mono-species plantations: they produce much more leaf litter than natural forests so they are more prone to fire. In 1998, 11,000ha of timber plantations in Sabah and 100,000ha in East Kalimantan went up in flames.

What do the Terms of Reference have to say about this problem? They actually admit that the islands of secondary forest provided for would not make efficient fire breaks and they confess that the scenario of fire destroying the plantation is possible. Yet, the terms do not examine the viability of the project.

The introduction of exotic tree species raises another concern that, again, is not dealt with seriously enough in the Terms of Reference. Sahabat Alam Malaysia feels that new diseases and pests could be introduced that would affect native vegetation and wildlife. Mohd Idris explains that the plantation may alter the ecological balance of the area.

"Particularly affected would be prey and predator populations, as species benefiting from the plantation may increase in number and those harmed by it will drastically decrease. Imbalances generated by plantations affect a very wide group of species, from soil fauna to large mammals,’’ he says.

The Terms of Reference actually do posit this issue and recommend that there should be a corridor allowing animal movement between the two conservation areas, the Maliau Basin Conservation Area in the west and the Danum Valley Conservation Area in the east. The theory is that animals affected by the logging can flee to these still untouched areas on either side of the project. The problem is, the report doesn’t indicate how big the corridor should be. Worse still, the report fails to note that the corridor it proposes is in the area that is being logged right now. And there is no mention of how it can be rehabilitated.

And the question, put forward by Lee, about whether the corridor might already be at full capacity – that is, it cannot carry any more animal traffic – is dismissed with the standard response that it is outside the scope of the EIA.

Also, while the Terms of Reference do mention that animals that cannot migrate and are trapped by the logging will be rescued, they do not mention who bears the cost. This implies that the EIA might not address this issue seriously either.

The Terms of Reference note that the project will cause social problems, mainly due to the large foreign workforce that will, apparently, receive higher wages than locals. The report seems rather blasé about this for it says that, with or without the project, Sabah is already facing the impact of large numbers of foreigners in the economy.

Then there’s also the problem of encroachment and poaching of wildlife, which, the report says, is already evident as caused by workers at the current logging site. While the consultants say that illegal poachers will be dealt with by the law, no mention is made of prosecuting VIP hunters, merely restricting their access via four-wheel drive.

And then there’s the worry that water catchment areas will be affected, thus affecting water supplies to major towns. Sabah’s Drainage and Irrigation Department as well as its Forestry Department believe a study has to be carried out to define the water catchment area so it can be protected. This the Terms of Reference acknowledge. But with the speed everything is being pushed through, one wonders if there will be anything left to study.

When even the Terms of Reference for the EIA seem so inadequate, how can the EIA itself examine the impact of this project properly? The recipe seems mighty inadequate and more suited to please business interests rather than protect Malaysia’s fast-shrinking natural heritage.

It certainly is food for thought.