3.

0 National Policy on Biological Diversity 2016 - 2025

The first National Policy on Biological Diversity was drafted in 1998, four years

after Malaysia ratified the CBD, and was a modest policy with 15 strategies (Taalat,

2020). These strategies included the implementation of knowledge management and

sharing at the national and international levels, capacity building through personnel

and institutional frameworks, policies and laws, private sector involvement, funding

mechanisms, and the establishment of a center of excellence in developing products

derived from species richness in Malaysia. Due to inadequacies discovered during

the implementation of the first National Policy on Biological Diversity in 1998, such

as a lack of concept generality, including an action plan for attracting highly

competent scientists to develop high technology in the field of biological diversity,

Malaysia began the process of reviewing the policy in 2014 (Taalat, 2020). There

were 29 multistakeholder consultations including representatives from government

agencies, civil society, universities, and certification organizations such as the

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), in addition to hundreds of informal

meetings with key stakeholders (Taalat, 2020).

The consequence was the more ambitious National Policy on Biological

Diversity 2016–2025, which included 17 targets (Taalat, 2020). In contrast to the

previous policy, the revised policy contains a definite 10-year time frame for

implementation and explicit deliverables, as well as specified essential parties such

as government agencies, NGOs, and the private sector for the listed action plans.

More importantly, the policy aims to involve people from all walks of life, from

children to adults from various backgrounds, in biodiversity conservation, for

example, through communication, education, and public awareness (CEPA)

activities, and citizen science. Empowerment of local and indigenous communities,

ecotourism, protected area networks, vulnerable ecosystems, invasive alien species,

agrobiodiversity, illegal wildlife trade, and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic

Resources are among the 17 targets (Taalat, 2020). However, the NRE did not

check the status of the first policy's implementation in 1998, and the progress and

development of the action plans in the first policy were not monitored or measured

quantitatively. As a result, the policy was later replaced with the updated policy, as

was the same with other policies for which results were not available.

3.1 The Current Status

Since Malaysia signed and ratified the CBD, much progress has been made. While

the First NPBD was renovated and given a new look nearly two decades after its

inception due to global growth, there has also been progressive development on the

corresponding laws under the scope of biological resources.

3.1.1 Biodiversity-related Policies and Laws

Biodiversity Policies

Attempting to meet Aichi Target 17, which states that a policy instrument must

be developed and enacted by each State Party by 2015, the government has

stepped up efforts to protect and conserve our biodiversity by launching the Second

National Policy on Biodiversity 2016-2025 (Second NPBD) through numerous

stakeholder consultations and inputs. In its Policy Statement, Malaysia reaffirmed its

commitment to continuously conserve its biodiversity, promote its sustainable use,

and ensure fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of

biological resources (Taalat, 2020). The Second NPBD focuses on five key
principles, and one of those is heritage. Recognize biodiversity as a national treasure

that must be managed responsibly, properly utilized, and conserved for future

generations. Secondly, precautionary. According to the recognized environmental

law Precautionary Principle, a lack of complete scientific certainty should not impede

steps to reduce biodiversity loss. Thirdly, shared Responsibility. Recognizing

society's involvement in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, all sectors of

society must share responsibility for ensuring commitments are met. Fourthly,

participatory. Biodiversity Planning and management must be carried out in a

participatory manner through consultation processes and local community

engagement. Lastly, good governance. To ensure effective biodiversity conservation,

good governance, including accountability and openness, must be practiced (Taalat,

2020).

These five principles are intended to guide the Second NPBD's goals, aims,

and actions to support the national vision for sustainable development. The

seventeen targets established by the Policy correspond to all of the Aichi Targets. As

emphasized by the Aichi Targets, Principle 4 strategically emphasizes participation

from local actors. Correspondingly, to achieve sustainable use and conservation of

biodiversity, the CBD's strategic plan requires states to do the following: Aichi Target

1 is to raise biodiversity awareness, Aichi Target 2 is to integrate biodiversity values

into national and local development strategies, and Aichi Target 3 is to involve

various stakeholder groups in developing approaches to sustainable production

(Taalat, 2020).

The Aichi targets will require understanding local actor groups and their value

systems, as well as allowing for local approaches to sustainable development, for

instance, traditional ecological knowledge to be incorporated into biodiversity

governance. Lying in the same vein, recognition of community-based management

approach in biodiversity conservation, such as the Tagal practice in Sabah cited

under Target 2 of Goal 1, is a notable move because biodiversity conservation

requires cooperation from all sectors, most particularly the direct beneficiaries of the

resources. Guided by the five salient principles, the Second NPBD set five national

goals to achieve, which can be narrated as an increased commitment of all

stakeholders in biodiversity conservation, reduced direct or indirect pressures on

biodiversity, protected key ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity, accrued

equitable benefits from the utilization of biodiversity to all and improved knowledge,

skill, and capacity to conserve biodiversity (Taalat, 2020).

Another significant step forward in biodiversity conservation is when the Policy

includes a section on implementation that emphasizes shared responsibility for

biodiversity conservation. Section 3 of the Implementation Framework outlines the

roles and responsibilities of each of society's seven segments: the federal

government, state governments, civil society, indigenous and local communities

(ILCs), private sectors, research, and education communities, and, last but not least,

the general public. Malaysians are being urged to play their roles in biodiversity

protection, recognizing the value of community participation and local actors (Taalat,

2020).

Malaysia faces a daunting undertaking with five national goals, seventeen

targets, and fifty-seven actions to achieve by 2025. Unfortunately, the Second NPBD

is a welcome move given Malaysia's enormous population growth and socio-

economic developments over the eighteen years since the First NPBD was

inaugurated in 1998 (Taalat, 2020). The time-bound and quantifiable targets, which

correspond to the Aichi Targets, could help the Second NPBD outperform its
predecessor. With clearer targets, actions, and implementation timelines, as well as

calls for active participation by all stakeholders through its five salient Principles, this

Policy may be able to assist Malaysia in meeting its obligations under the CBD and

the Aichi Targets, as well as the Sustainable Development Goals, set out in the 2030

Agenda for Sustainable Development (Taalat, 2020).

Biosafety Laws

As stated earlier, biosafety rules in Malaysia developed at a far faster rate

than those at the international level. Biosafety, one of the CBD's primary concerns,

relates to the necessity to protect human health and the environment from any

negative effects of biotechnology and its products. The Convention specifies the

biosafety measures that States Parties must adopt, including the need to regulate,

manage, or control the risk associated with the use and release of living modified

organisms (LMOs) emerging from modern biotechnology at the national level. The

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was ratified in 2000, following several and

protracted negotiations, to enhance the CBD on biosafety measures (Taalat, 2020).

Taking into consideration the potential risks posed by these LMOs, which are

likely to have adverse environmental impacts that could affect the conservation and

sustainable use of biodiversity, as well as the risk to human health, the

Precautionary Principle became one of the primary motives of the Protocol. Article 1

of the Cartagena Protocol states the Protocol's goal by reinforcing and reiterating the

CBD's Precautionary Principle, which states that the Protocol's goal is to contribute

to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of safety and security, by

Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Malaysia

adopted the Cartagena Protocol in 2007, four years after it was first signed in 2000.
Gazetted on 30 August 2007, as reflected from its preamble, the BSA 2007 was

enacted, among other things, to implement the CBD and the Cartagena Protocol; to

uphold the Precautionary Principle approach as contained in Article 1 of the

Cartagena Protocol by providing that when there are threats of irreversible damage,

a lack of full scientific evidence may not be used as a reason not to take action to

prevent such damage and to provide for matters connected therewith including

matters related to Liability and Redress on Transboundary Movement of the LMOs

(Taalat, 2020).

In 2019, the BSA 2007 was amended on the First and Third Schedules of the

Act, relating to Board Members and Enforcement Officers, respectively (Taalat,

2020). However, despite some evident gaps that may have rendered the Act

ineffective and less acceptable to the public, no major amendments have been made

since its enactment thirteen years ago. For example, there is no avenue for private

individuals to claim for damages resulting from transboundary movements of LMOs;

the Act only covers the fault of the "offender," implying that only criminal liability is

attached to the wrongs committed by the offender; and there is no avenue provided

under the Act for a private individual who has been affected by the LMOs if they

escape. It was proposed that civil liability measures for private individuals affected by

the LMOs brought in by the importers be established and integrated into the BSA

2007 (Taalat, 2020).

Many advancements in biosafety have occurred at the international level

since the Act's inception, which should be represented and updated in the BSA

2007. The Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress,

which was adopted on 15 October 2010 at the 5th meeting of the Conference of the

Parties and entered into force on 5 March 2018, requires that response measures be
taken in the event of damage caused by LMOs or where there is a reasonable

probability of damage if timely response measures are not taken (Taalat, 2020).

Furthermore, the Supplementary Protocol includes civil liability provisions that

require State Parties to continue to use current civil liability legislation, which refers

to BSA 2007 or to adopt new legislation governing liability and remedies for material

or personal damage caused by LMOs (Taalat, 2020). These developments

necessitate an immediate modification of the Act. Revision of the current BSA would

be less expensive, less time-consuming, and more practical than developing new

legislation that specifically provides for civil liability, as well as liability and redress

resulting from LMOs, for material or personal damage associated with damage to

biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

3.2 Goals, Targets, and Actions

The Policy has five overarching goals: stakeholder empowerment, minimizing

pressures on biodiversity, protecting ecosystems, species, and genetic variation,

guaranteeing fair and equitable sharing of benefits from biodiversity use, and

improving the capacity of all stakeholders. The five goals are backed up by 17

national biodiversity targets that we intend to accomplish by 2025. The targets

address all critical aspects of biodiversity conservation, such as raising awareness,

mainstreaming biodiversity, implementing good management practices in various

economic sectors, strengthening our protected areas, preventing species extinction,

combating invasive alien species (IAS), and ensuring biosafety.

The targets also include capacity building, expanding our understanding, and

boosting financing. Each target is followed by a set of actions that outline the

procedures that must be taken to meet the targets and, ultimately, the goals. This
Policy contains 57 actions in total. All of the actions have quantifiable key indicators

that will allow us to track progress. Each of the actions' lead agencies and important

collaborators has also been highlighted. This Policy will be in effect from 2016 until

2025. The Policy's execution is split into four phases, which correspond to the

Malaysia Plans and their mid-term reviews.

The policy will aim to improve agricultural planning and practices. The policy

will seek to develop and implement appropriate agriculture landscape planning to

ensure that agricultural activities are compatible with long-term biodiversity

conservation and minimize human-wildlife conflicts and provide extension services

and technical support to smallholders and farmers to help them improve productivity

and conserve biodiversity. Furthermore, the policy will strengthen the management

and restoration of vulnerable ecosystems to contribute to the improvement of carbon

stocks as an adaptation and mitigation approach to climate change. Aside from that,

the policy would strive to increase understanding of the relationship between climate

change and biodiversity.

3.3 Implementation Framework

The Federal Government, through the Ministry of Natural Resources and

Environment, will take the lead in implementing the Policy into action. This includes

giving overall guidance, coordinating stakeholder actions, building suitable

institutional platforms, enabling resource mobilization, and initiating Policy reviews as

needed. State governments have power over land, water, and forest management

and will play critical roles in implementing the initiatives. There will be several

possibilities for civil society, indigenous peoples and local communities, and the

private sector to participate actively in the Policy's implementation.

 There will be a variety of coordinating platforms in place to maximize

synergies and reduce conflicts in the implementation and monitoring of the Policy.

This Policy offers numerous other coordinating platforms, including the National

Steering Committee for the NPBD (NSC-NPBD), which will be the principal

coordinating platform of the Policy, in addition to the existing National Biodiversity

Council, which is the highest decision-making body. Second, the Meeting of

Ministers of the Environment (MEXCOE) will serve as a coordinating and

information-sharing platform for state ministers and state executive committee

members accountable for the environment and biodiversity. Third, the State Steering

Committee for the NPBD, which will serve as the primary coordinating platform at the

state level for the Policy's implementation. Lastly, the National Biodiversity

Roundtable, coordinated by civil society and the commercial sector, will provide

technical advice and support to the NRE and the NSC-NPBD in the implementation

and monitoring of this Policy.

Taalat, W.I.A.W. (2020). REVIEW ARTICLE REVISITING THE STATUS OF THE

MALAYSIAN LAWS AND POLICIES ON BIODIVERSITY. Journal of Sustainability

Science and Management Volume 15 Number 6, August 2020: 198-206.

https://jssm.umt.edu.my/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2020/10/15_15.6.pdf