Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

ISSN: 1461-5517 (Print) 1471-5465 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20

Environmental assessment in Malaysia: a means

to an end or a new beginning?

Clive Briffett , Jeff Obbard & Jamie Mackee

To cite this article: Clive Briffett , Jeff Obbard & Jamie Mackee (2004) Environmental assessment
in Malaysia: a means to an end or a new beginning?, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,
22:3, 221-233, DOI: 10.3152/147154604781765923

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154604781765923

Published online: 20 Feb 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9767

View related articles

Citing articles: 12 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tiap20
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 22, number 3, September 2004, pages 221–233, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, UK
Malaysia
Environmental assessment in Malaysia: a
means to an end or a new beginning?
Clive Briffett, Jeff Obbard and Jamie Mackee
This paper reviews the current framework for,
and practical application of, environmental im-
pact assessment (EIA) in Malaysia and assesses
the progress made towards adoption of strategic
environmental assessment (SEA). EIA legisla-
tion was first introduced in 1987 and much pro-
gress has been made in enforcing compliance
with the requirements. More recent moves to-
wards devolution of EIA control to the states are
an indicator of the influence that EIA is making,
although there are still many practical con-
straints to be overcome. Even more recently,
Malaysia has used SEA for area-wide schemes:
the potential for this take up is evaluated. Despite
many problems, the EIA process continues to
function and evidence of an emerging commit-
ment to SEA bodes well for the future.
Keywords: environmental assessment; strategic environmental
assessment; Malaysia
Clive Briffett is currently at the Impact Assessment Unit, Plan-
ning Department, Oxford Brookes University, Gypsy Lane,
Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK; Tel: +44 1865 558996; Fax:
+44 1865 310436; E-mail: c.briffett@btopenworld.com and
cbriffett@brookes.ac.uk. Jeff Obbard is at the Department of
Environmental and Chemical Engineering, National University
of Singapore, Singapore. Jamie Mackee is at the Department of
Building, University of Newcastle, Australia.
The authors are grateful to the National University of Singa-
pore and in particular the Department of Real Estate for funding
made available for this research. They are also indebted to the
many people who assisted in collecting data from Government,
non-government and private consultancy sources in Singapore.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004
E
NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT of de-
velopment projects has been practiced in Ma-
laysia for over 30 years despite the
introduction of environmental impact assessment
(EIA) legislation not coming into force until 1988.
This paper evaluates what progress has been made in
relation to effectiveness and efficiency perspectives;
it considers whether EIA has been used merely as a
means to an end or whether it also encapsulates the
desire and outcome to reduce or minimise adverse
environmental impacts, and to achieve high quality
environmentally sustainable developments. The
move towards strategic environmental assessment
(SEA) and improvements in the EIA system was
also investigated.
Research methodology included a wide range of
data collection comprising over 25 personal inter-
views with Government officers, environmental
consultants, non-government environmental groups,
international non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) with Malaysian offices, and academics.
Four conferences and seminars were attended and
approximately ten case studies were investigated
with 15 visits made to particular highland and island
locations. Reference to existing published papers
and other written research data was also made.
Malaysia is located at the heart of Southeast Asia
bordering with Thailand to the north and Singapore
to the south. It comprises a federation of 13 states,
two of which, Sabah and Sarawak, occupy the
northern third of the island of Borneo some 600
kilometres away to the east of the Malaysia penin-
sula. The peninsula and the offshore states are part
of the Sunda shelf, a small tectonic plate abutting
mainland Asia on the one side and the Australasian
(Sahul) shelf on the other (WWFM, 1998). The total
1461-5517/04/030221-13 US$08.00  IAIA 2004 221
Environmental assessment in Malaysia
land area of Peninsular Malaysia is 131,612 square
kilometres and it has a coastline of 2016 kilometres
including the offshore islands. Sabah is 73,711
square kilometres and Sarawak 124,658 square
kilometres. The total population of Malaysia is 22.18
million people (WWFM, 1998).
In Peninsular Malaysia, almost half the land is
covered with natural tropical evergreen rain forest.
In Sarawak, two thirds of the land is forested and
in Sabah about half remains forest, much of which
is within forest-designated reserves. Whilst forest
products are still heavily logged, there has also been
increased industrialisation and subsequent urban-
isation since the latter half of the 1960s. In more
recent years, development in many states has been
rapid and many adverse effects have occurred to the
landscape.
Traditionally Malaysia was an agricultural coun-
try with rubber, oil palm, rice, cocoa and pineapple
grown as the main crops. The main subsistence crop
is rice, which is the staple food. The country was the
world’s chief exporter of rubber, tin, palm oil and
pineapple (Ismail and Ahmad, 1996) but is now one
of the world’s major manufacturers of consumer
electronics and industrial goods mostly for export
(JEC, 1999, page 76).
Environmental problems arising out of the rapid
industrial development are common in many states.
Increased air pollution emissions in some cases have
exceeded the assimilative capacity of the environ-
ment, exposing more urban dwellers to health risks.
Modern industrialisation, which includes the manu-
facturing of metals, chemicals and paper, are likely
to cause more adverse environmental impacts in the
future and will need more careful planning and
monitoring (Mohamed, 1993).
Malaysia has an equatorial climate modified by
two monsoon seasons. The annual average tempera-
tures range from 21°C to 30° C and the annual aver-
age rainfall is 2000–3000mm. The east coast of
Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak has the
heaviest rainfall while the west coast receives the
least. In the highlands, the climate is substantially
cooler and rainfall is more frequent with associated
mountain mists and, because of exposure, there is
generally more wind movement.
The peninsula is crudely split in two by the main
range of mountains that extend southwards from the
northern Thailand border like a curved dagger
(Briggs, 1988). The northern half is wide with many
peaks exceeding 2000 metres in height. The south-
ern half of the range is narrow and the peaks are of
lesser height. To the west of the main range, there is
a relatively narrow coastal plain extending to the
Straits of Malacca and, to the east, there is a much
broader area of lowlands. The forests range through
a succession starting with the mangroves at sea level
to the freshwater swamps, the lowland and hill rain
forests up to 915 metres and the lower and upper
montane forests.
Sarawak occupies the northern quarter of the
222
island of Borneo and has several national parks with
spectacular rock formations of both limestone and
sandstone. Sabah is the second biggest state of Ma-
laysia and the predominately hilly north and west of
the state is dominated by the 4094 metres high
Gunong Kinabalu (the highest mountain in South-
east Asia) and the Crocker range. This state’s isola-
tion and wide array of habitats make it one of the
nations richest in terms of biodiversity.
Malaysia is defined as one of the 12 most biologi-
cally diverse countries in the world and the degree of
endemism that still survives is particularly high.
Habitats include terrestrial dry land forests (12 sub-
sections defined) and wetland forest separated into
two sections — freshwater/riverine and estua-
rine/coastal including mangroves. Whilst 46% of
Malaysia was still recorded as forested in 1994, the
protected areas only represent 4.88% (1,611,310.9
hectares).
EIA legislation, administration and practice
EIA was introduced in Malaysia as a mandatory
legislative requirement in April 1988 through
the Environmental Impact Assessment Order
(DOE, 1987) (prescribed activities). It is modelled
on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
1969 of the United States. The local legislation
amended the existing Environmental Quality Act
(EQA) 1974, which introduced extensive powers to
the Director General of the Environment to protect
and enhance the quality of the environment through
licensing, setting of standards, co-ordination of
research, and dissemination of information to the
public.
Provisions for making regulations pertaining to
the emission, discharge and deposit of wastes, pro-
duction of noise, dealing with oil spills and covering
such matters as rubber and oil palm estate waste dis-
charges, motor vehicle exhausts and trade effluents
were also included (Gilpin, 1995, page 140). During
the first ten years of the EIA Order administration,
emphasis was therefore placed on curbing pollution
by means of these regulations gazetted under the Act
(Memon, 2000, page 284).
The Department of the Environment (DOE) was
formed in 1976 to administer environmental man-
agement functions including the EIA processes. Cur-
rent legislation therefore mandates all 19 prescribed
activities listed in the Handbook of EIA Guidelines
(DOE, 1995b) to prepare environmental impact
statements (EISs) before a project can be approved
by the DOE (Nor, 1991).
Before this time, EIAs for major projects had
been conducted in Malaysia on a voluntary basis
since the 1970s (Ho, 1986). Goh (1986) also noted
that a total of 34 voluntary EIA reports for various
activities ranging from water resources to the devel-
opment of sewage treatment had been submitted to
the DOE between 1981 and 1985. Another 32 EIA
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004

reports were submitted for review for the 1986–1988
period (Rahmah, 1988).
During the initial period of EIA introduction
from April 1988 to December 1992, it was recorded
that a total of 532 environmental reports were
submitted with 499 being preliminary and detailed
EIA reports and 33 risk assessments. Infrastructure
reports (17%) and resort and recreational develop-
ment (15%) accounted for many of these (Harun,
1993). By 1994, 1097 EIA reports had been re-
ceived, of which 1035 (95%) were preliminary and
only seven were detailed. The remainder were risk
analysis and studies carried out in exclusive eco-
nomic zones (DOE, 1995a, page 45). In the period
1998 to 1999, similar percentages were encountered
with 199 preliminary reports, 16 risk analysis reports
and only five detailed EIA submissions (Memon,
2000).
Although the need for an EIA statement is dic-
tated by the prescribed activities for which submis-
sions must be made, the nature and extent of the
proposed development and the characteristics of the
subject site define its scope. Such factors will dictate
the type of report, the scope and depth of content,
the coverage and the number of specialist contribu-
tions required. In the case of Malaysia, a two-tier
system was adopted, comprising preliminary and
detailed assessments.
Initially all applications for development deemed
to require EIA are subject to a preliminary assess-
ment, although a project proponent could go straight
for the detailed option if desired (DOE, 1991).
Depending on the intricacy and impact of the devel-
opment and the sensitivity and vulnerability of the
site, a preliminary assessment may be selected for a
detailed submission if deemed necessary by the
DOE.
A preliminary assessment has the following
objectives (DOE, 1995b, page 10):
• to examine and select the best from the project
options available;
• to identify and incorporate into the project plan
appropriate abatement and mitigating measures;
• to identify significant residual environmental
impacts.
Although the need for an EIA
statement is dictated by the prescribed
activities for which submissions must
be made, the nature and extent of the
proposed development and the
characteristics of the subject site
define its scope
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004
Environmental assessment in Malaysia
The additional objective required in the detailed as-
sessment is:
• to identify the environmental costs and benefits of
the project to the community.
The practical purpose of the preliminary report is to
produce: a matrix that assists in the identification of
the significant impacts; consultation with environ-
mental agencies and the public; a statement of need
for the project; and a listing of proposed mitigation
measures (Coles, 1992).
The detailed assessment must contain a sec
tion entitled project evaluation. This includes a
financial summary of the environmental and devel-
opment costs/benefits of the project. One of the
principal problems encountered by decision makers
is that of receiving information in non-comparable
terms. Thus an EIS may identify that a particular
project will result in the loss, say, of one hectare
of important wildlife habitat but will benefit the
local community by say US$10,000 per year
(Coles, 1992). The use of environmental economic
techniques may be employed to value the environ-
ment using alternative well established methods,
although all of these are highly subjective and
may give rise to substantial inaccuracies in certain
circumstances.
In practice, the preliminary statement submissions
have become fairly detailed and are not just limited
to a scoping exercise, which may have been origi-
nally envisaged by the legislators. It was noted by
one researcher that very few detailed EIAs were
submitted and, in the two-year period studied (1988–
1990), only one project submitted was categorised as
a detailed EIA (Leong, 1991, page 229). An exami-
nation of preliminary EIAs revealed that many are
not just brief documents based on secondary data
that evaluate alternatives. They often exceed 100
pages and include a collection of primary data,
which is not mandatory for a preliminary report
(Leong, 1991, page 230).
To assist the project proponent, a series of com-
prehensive EIA document guidelines have been
published by the DOE (1995a). They comprise a
wide range of more technical detailed EIA guide-
lines prepared for various locations (hill stations,
golf courses and coastal resort developments), sec-
tors (petrochemical industries and industrial estates),
infrastructure (dams and reservoirs), and habitats
(forestry, coastal and land reclamation).
These are all advisory documents and non-
statutory and are prepared for voluntary compliance.
For example, in hillside sites, it is not advisable to
build on slopes greater than 25 degrees. If the devel-
oper wishes to do so, a geo-technical report is re-
quired. There are currently 18 such guidelines but
they are by no means exhaustive. They are also not
intended to stifle the creative and investigative work
of any good assessor in introducing innovative
approaches and ideas (Lee, 2000a).
223
Environmental assessment in Malaysia
EIA processes
A major requirement for ensuring that a country has
the capacity to implement EIA successfully is the
creation of an administrative structure that has suffi-
cient personnel with the necessary skills and exper-
tise to evaluate the reports submitted. In the early
days following the introduction of mandatory legis-
lation, the DOE manpower had limited capability to
cope, both from a skills and quantitative dimension.
Submissions were therefore exported out for review
to various independent groups, such as academics,
consultants and NGOs. Since then, sufficient ex-
pertise has been acquired at the federal level by
in-house staff to cope with the preliminary review
processes required.
For detailed submissions, however (of which
there are generally very few), an external review is
still conducted. This is because such documents can
be exceedingly complex, including considerable
technical input analysis, as much of the data and re-
sults are submitted from many specialisations.
Another problem is getting conformance by the
developers to submit EIAs. Where an EIA is an in-
tegral requirement for obtaining planning and build-
ing control permissions, there is sufficient incentive
to prepare the necessary EIA statement. One prob-
lem that still lingers on, even today, is the timing of
the submission. Approval should be obtained before
building commences, as retrospective EIA is not
provided for in the Act. It is reported that there are
still cases in which works have already commenced
or the EIA is submitted too late to change important
alternative options, such as site selection, technol-
ogy, design or a change in the size and extent of the
project (Briffett et al, 2001; Halldane, 2000b).
From an organisational perspective, the absence
of a formal institutional structure to co-ordinate the
different sectoral policies, strategies and plans is
considered to be a major drawback. Within Gov-
ernment, each separate agency is mainly concerned
with optimising economic use under their own juris-
diction (Ismail and Ahmad, 1996, page 272). This
results in resources that are naturally integrated,
such as forests, land areas and water, being subject
to different development options that may conflict.
In consequence, the natural environment is adversely
affected and the development proposal may even be-
come unsustainable.
An example occurred in a study of the Johor coast
using geographical information systems (GIS),
where it was noted that the clearance of coastal for-
ests for agricultural use was in conflict with the need
to retain forests as a water catchment and as natural
assets to boost ecotourism. The soil conditions in
these areas and problems of seasonal flooding do not
actually favour agricultural use (Kam, 1991).The
DOE has managed over the years to improve the un-
derstanding and acceptance of the EIA requirements
by state and federal agencies and private-sector
developers.
224
The DOE has gradually established offices in
state capitals to promote more effective co-
ordination with state government bureaucracy and
developers, and the processing of EIA reports has
been progressively decentralised to these regional
DOE offices since 1993 (Memon, 2000, page 285).
The Malaysian system has been portrayed as a work-
ing example of decentralisation of EIA activities
among participants and tiers of government and an
effective mechanism for inter-governmental and in-
ter-agency co-operation (Ebisemiju, 1993; Sani,
1993).
The federal Government handles the detailed
EIAs while all the states cover preliminary EIAs.
There has been approximately a 20% rejection of
EIAs (Lee, 2000b); these include cement plants,
coal-fired plants and reclamation projects. The DOE
only prepares an approval or a reject report. The
state, through the Economic Planning Unit (EPU),
can also approve or reject an EIA and, in the latter
case, a project may not go ahead.
Review of environmental assessment
Project definition
An important requirement in EIA report writing is to
define clearly the size, extent and nature of the de-
velopment project. This information has to be ob-
tained from the design team of architects and
engineers involved and with the approval of the cli-
ent. Experience has shown in Malaysia that many
environmental consultants are only supplied with
outline information on these matters, either because
full details are not yet available, or because of the
confidentiality requirements of the client. A review
of 532 EIAs submitted to the DOE between April
1988 and December 1992 revealed that one of the
common weaknesses was a poor description of the
project concept and an inadequate statement of need
(Harun, 1994).
Screening
The types of project that require EIA under the legis-
lation are those included in the 19 prescribed activi-
ties listed in the Handbook of Environmental Impact
Assessment Guidelines (DOE, 1995b). The purpose
of screening is essentially to decide whether a pro-
ject requires an EIA or not. Reference to the list of
prescribed activities, which are fairly detailed, gen-
erally enables the proponent to decide but certain
anomalies do exist. For some activities, quantitative
guidelines may be provided. For example, proposed
developments on hillside or hilltop sites exceeding
50 hectares, or hotels exceeding 80 rooms, irrigation
schemes of more than 5000 ha and coastal reclama-
tion or clearance of mangrove swamps and housing
developments of over 50 ha, should all be subjected
to EIA.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004

Such requirements are vulnerable to abuse
through multiple submissions of mini projects,
which, in combination, exceed the limits stated. The
need to assess the cumulative impact of new devel-
opments in close proximity to, and in combination
with, existing developed sites has been identified to
prevent these abuses. One major flaw concerning the
EIA process is that the cumulative impact of a series
of projects in a particular locality is often not ade-
quately addressed and this has led to severe abuses
of the spirit of EIA (Ismail and Ahmad, 1996, page
271).
Another problem associated with screening is that
the development activities themselves do not always
account for the sensitivity of the site. For example, it
may be acceptable to develop a golf course on re-
claimed or waste land without an EIA, but not in a
hillside forest. Golf courses are not defined as pre-
scribed activities but may cause excessive irrepara-
ble damage as experienced at Frasers Hill (The
Sunday Times, 1993). In this case, extensive destruc-
tion of hillside forest created many potentially dan-
gerous landslide areas and resulted in extensive
siltation of the forest streams, causing adverse rec-
reational effects at the waterfall and severe ecologi-
cal impacts on forest flora and fauna. In the event,
an EIA was submitted for this development and the
‘no-build option’ was rejected by the consultant and
developer on the basis that it would:
• restrict an external avenue for the state to expand
its economic base;
• forestall a project that could help to reduce the
countries debt; and
• inhibit increased employment potential.
On this basis, it could therefore be argued that all
developments should proceed for the sake of the
economy. Herein lies a dilemma for developing
nations, since the generation of economic growth is
essential to perceived progress and the natural envi-
ronment must inevitably have to suffer or be lost in
the process. The effectiveness of the EIA system in
Malaysia does come under much pressure when de-
cisions are made on what is environmentally accept-
able and what is economically desirable.
Alternative options
Many EIAs in Malaysia in the past were prepared
rather late on in the project planning and design
feasibility stages; in consequence the findings were
not always able to bring about the consideration of
alternative site layouts and location, technology or
effective mitigation measures. It was noted that, al-
though efforts have been made by the DOE to inte-
grate the EIA process into the planning stages so that
it is carried out during pre-feasibility and feasibility
phases, this does not always happen (Harun, 1994).
EIA reports are too often submitted after the project
has been defined and the site acquired and this
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004
Environmental assessment in Malaysia
The timing of submission of the report
is an area of concern; also, it being
submitted without an adequate study,
towards the end of the project cycle
when no options are presented for
siting, technology and mitigation,
reduces the EIA to a mere formality
makes EIA a mere damage-limitation or public-
relations exercise (WWFM, 1996a).
EIAs in Malaysia are predominately project
driven in the sense that a project is conceived,
planned and designed and then an EIA is under-
taken. This means that certain alternative options,
such as choice of site, location and orientation of the
facility on site, and type of technology and design to
be used, are a fait accompli by the time a consultant
is appointed to undertake the EIA.
In the case of large and extensive infrastructure
projects, such as roads, railways, pipelines, airports
and seaports, a preliminary study is needed to evalu-
ate these alternative options from an environmental,
as well as social and cultural perspectives. However
the usual technique in engineering feasibility studies
is to look at economic and technical factors only.
As noted by Lee (2000a), the timing of submis-
sion of the report is an area of concern. It was also
observed that the submission of reports without an
adequate study towards the end of the project cycle
when no options are presented for siting, technology
and mitigation reduces the EIA to a mere formality
(Harun, 1994). Whilst the DOE has managed to im-
prove the submission of EIAs to well before the de-
velopment implementation, in most cases there are
still problems experienced in various states. As
noted by Halldane (2000b), in Johor it is often the
case that the EIS is not submitted before the project
starts, while monitoring is almost non-existent.
Scoping
This important requirement enables the most signifi-
cant of the predicted impacts to be identified for fur-
ther detailed investigation and analysis. Where
certain impacts are considered to be minor, they will
be scoped out of the report. A noticeable feature of
the EISs submitted in Malaysia is the large quantity
of technical data provided, particularly by the spe-
cialists. Much of this is determined to be superfluous
to the main objectives of conducting EIAs and is no
doubt submitted in extensive appendices in an effort
to impress the authorities with a view to obtaining
approval.
Whilst the DOE has actively encouraged scoping
to be undertaken (Harun, 1994), to date, there is no
225
Environmental assessment in Malaysia
mandatory requirement to scope projects for the
purpose of identifying only those significant impacts
that need to be investigated in detail. Although the
preliminary assessment process is essentially a scop-
ing exercise, opportunities to limit the investigations
through a proper scoping evaluation are not often
taken.
Baseline studies
The need to obtain baseline data especially relating
to the site is paramount in enabling a fair assessment
of the likely impacts that may occur. Such data can
either be obtained from previously prepared sources
or must be undertaken through using survey meth-
odologies. In the former case, the reliability and up-
to-date nature of the data may be questionable. In
the latter case, the cost, time and degree of expertise
available may prove to be inhibiting factors.
In Malaysia, there are still many areas that have
not been sufficiently well surveyed to provide flora
and fauna data, although surveys are undertaken
continuously, either through the EIA process or,
more commonly and extensively, through nature
conservation proposal assessments. The World Wide
Fund for Nature, Malaysia (WWFM) and the
Malayan Nature Society (MNS) have been active in
these areas for many years and numerous conserva-
tion reports have been published. The following are
just a sample: Kiew (1991) for Frasers Hill, WWFM
(1983a) for Melaka, WWFM (1983b) for Treng-
ganu, WWFM (1988a) for Selangor, WWFM (1989)
for Kuala Lumpur, WWFM (1992) for Negeri Sem-
bilan. Detailed assessments of biodiversity have also
been prepared for Sepilok (WWFM 1988b), Endau
Rompin (MNS, 1988) and Belum (WWFM, 1991;
Ernst, 1994) for the purpose of recommending them
for National Park status. In many other states con-
servation management recommendations have been
made.
Where specific project site data is required, it is
often necessary to conduct separate surveys in the
EIA process. In Malaysia, these are often undertaken
by academics or, more precisely, biology students,
resulting in some criticism regarding lack of knowl-
edge about rare and threatened species (Kiew, 1996).
For example, in the case of Frasers Hill, it was stated
that many such species were not identified in the
surveys conducted for the new golf course EIA
(Kiew, 1999). In a another case of the EIA for
Penang Hill, the baseline survey of bird and plant
species was found to be incorrect because of the use
of lowland species, indicating that such lists had
been directly copied from other previously submit-
ted EIAs elsewhere (Friends of Penang Hill, 1991).
Impact prediction
This is generally considered to be the core activity of
the EIA process since it identifies the nature of the
impacts that lead to decisions being made on
226
whether the project can proceed, whether it needs to
be mitigated or whether it is acceptable in its present
form. In Malaysia, the poor prediction of impacts
particularly in quantitative terms has been recog-
nised as a weakness (Harun, 1993; Lee, 2000a). Ex-
perience has shown that very few projects are
prevented from proceeding, provided they conform
to the planning land-use allocations and meet other
legal requirements.
An important issue is potential impacts on the wa-
ter catchment, and concern is normally expressed by
the Drainage and Irrigation Department about any
developments likely to affect the water quality and
quantity in any given catchment. They are more
aware than anyone of environmental impacts, as the
water catchment areas are of high concern in regard
to environmental issues.
The emphasis in Malaysia is similar to most other
developing nations — to encourage development so
as to generate economic growth and thus improve
the livelihood and employment opportunities of the
human population. In the pursuit of this objective,
the EIA is most often used to identify mitigation
measures only. Impact prediction can only be effec-
tive if the baseline studies of the site and the details
of the development are clearly defined and available.
Use of monitoring on other similar completed pro-
jects will also assist in ensuring the predictions are
more accurate. In recent years, the need for monitor-
ing has been recognised as noted below.
Mitigation measures
Most EIAs in Malaysia include mitigation measures
that are suggested to modify the development pro-
posals with a view to meeting a higher standard of
environmental friendliness. It has been claimed that
this is the sole reason for producing EIAs, since the
option to develop is not to be contested (Briffett,
1999). Experience shows that most mitigation meas-
ures are rarely completed in a satisfactory manner in
practice because there is no environmental project
management facility to encourage provision and
monitor completion.
Vun and Latiff (1999, page 138)that part of the
problem is that the majority of reports actually fail to
specify a plan to implement mitigating measures.
The DOE does not have the staff to exercise the
necessary site control; this is left to the contractor,
developers and the project management team.
Since there is no compulsion or fines involved in
non-compliance, the conformance rate is extremely
low.
This is unfortunate since much of the entire pro-
cess of conducting EIAs is designed to identify such
measures and get them implemented. The introduc-
tion of an environmental management plan, which
became a mandatory requirement in 1999, was one
effort introduced to encourage better compliance
(Lee, 2000a). This is to ensure that such measures
are carried out either during construction or after
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004

completion to reduce any adverse environmental
impacts of the development (see below).
Monitoring
The importance of monitoring in the Malaysian EIA
process was identified early on (Harun, 1989), when
it was either used to test predictions advanced or to
facilitate impact assessment management, but ap-
peared to be the exception rather than the rule. Con-
straints were defined as limitations imposed by
biological sampling procedures and statistical tech-
niques. Harun suggested that impact monitoring
programmes should be adequately designed to ad-
dress the areas of uncertainty and be conducted as
early as possible in the planning process.
By 1993, it was stated that the DOE had received
20 monitoring programmes from project proponents
(Abu Bakar, 1993). Despite these suggestions, and
the perceived need for monitoring, the Government
of Malaysia has still not introduced any mandatory
monitoring standards to date within the EIA pro-
cesses. Reliance is generally placed on the integrity
of the project engineers, clients and environmental
consultants to do the job.
It was suggested by Lee (2000a) of the DOE
that the professional architecture and engineering
bodies in Malaysia should spell out the responsibil-
ity for monitoring through the publication of codes
of practice on environmental protection. For moni-
toring schemes to be effective they may have to be
implemented for a period of years after completion
of the project and the additional costs incurred in
employing consultants to undertake them is obvi-
ously regarded as prohibitive. Such costs need to be
built into the original total project costs to be
accepted.
Self monitoring by operators, especially multi-
national companies, may well be undertaken as
part of the continuous improvement commitment to
ISO 14000 (Environmental Management Systems) .
In the area of environmental auditing, a legal re-
quirement was instituted in Malaysia with the pass-
ing of the Environmental Quality (Amendment) Act
1996. This activity is, however, more related to the
systematic evaluation of the compliance status to
environmental regulations and legislation and the as-
sessment of environmental risk than to the determi-
nation of accuracy in EIA impact prediction.
Public participation
According to the Handbook of Environmental Im-
pact Assessment Guidelines (DOE, 1995b), public
participation should be included in all detailed as-
sessments and sufficient copies of the report be
made available for the public to view and comment
on within a reasonable period of time. It is noted,
however, that the proponent may, if they believe it is
in the public interest, apply for not making the report
available for public viewing (DOE, 1995b, page 34).
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004
Environmental assessment in Malaysia
In addition, another researcher noted that most of the
EIAs submitted tend to be dealt with as preliminary
assessments when there is not always a public par-
ticipation facility provided (Leong, 1991). When
conducted, it is usually done in two stages: first, dur-
ing the conduct of the EIA study through surveys,
meetings and other methods and, secondly; by
means of written comment procedures after the EIA
is made available for view (Lee, 2000a).
The principle of allowing for public comment on
EIAs is, however, well established in Malaysia and,
in comparison with many other countries in the re-
gion, the public seem to be fairly vocal in the press
and through other publications if they feel their envi-
ronmental rights are not being adequately regarded
(Utusan Konsumer, 1997; The Straits Times, 1999a).
The Penang Hill case demonstrated the power and
influence that such resistance can have (Briffett et
al, 2001; Friends of Penang Hill, 1991).
In many cases it is interesting to note that, al-
though the DOE is a Government body, it is highly
sympathetic to the environmental protection needs
of the public and ensures that the system of EIA
submission is made as transparent as possible. De-
spite this, the DOE claims that public comment on
many of the detailed EIA reports has not been en-
couraging in terms of numbers or quality (Lee,
2000a). For example, from the eight detailed EIA
reports submitted in 1999, 57 written comments
were received on three reports but four had no com-
ments at all and the other had only one comment.
This poor response was attributed to public apathy,
low awareness and a general lack of expertise.
In a recent case relating to the Bakun Dam in Sa-
rawak, the judge noted that, in the federal guidelines,
public participation is explicitly provided for, and a
valid assessment of an EIA prepared by the project
proponent cannot be made without some form of
public participation. In this case, the project propo-
nent, who was the Federal Government of Malaysia
itself, was requested to comply with EQA 1974 in
regard to public participation, since the interaction
between the people and their environment is funda-
mental to the concept of environmental impact.
The case is somewhat complex because of the
In a recent case relating to the Bakun
Dam in Sarawak, the judge requested
the project proponent (the
Government) to comply with the
federal guidelines, which state that a
valid assessment of an EIA cannot be
made without some form of public
participation
227
Environmental assessment in Malaysia
differing EIA legislation in Sarawak compared to
Peninsular Malaysia and the timing of its introduc-
tion in relation to the project proposal date. Since
certain segments of the scheme included preparatory
work that involved the clearance of 69,000 hectares
of forest, which was approved without any public
consultation, representations were made by three lo-
cal native longhouse residents with assistance from
international environmental groups. The project en-
tailed the destruction of their longhouses and ances-
tral burial sites along with land and forest, which
provided shelter, livelihood, food, and medicine to
which they claimed to have a strong cultural attach-
ment (Memon, 2000, page 288).
Environmental management plan (EMP)
The environmental management plan, which was in-
troduced in Malaysia as a mandatory requirement in
1999 (Lee, 2000a) is required to include:
• the final design that incorporates all mitigation
measures and EIA approval conditions;
• a detailed environmental monitoring programme;
• budget and personnel to implement the EMP.
The EMP is basically designed to enable the propo-
nent to plan, implement, check and review and
should provide the following structure:
• introduction and policy;
• organisational chart, responsibilities and
implementation;
• environmental requirements and monitoring
programmes;
• significant impacts and pollution control meas-
ures; and
• environmental contingency plan.
The EMP must be submitted at least three months
before implementation of the project . Since this is a
fairly recent requirement, evidence of conformance
and the attainment of an acceptable quality of sub-
missions is still awaited. Indonesia introduced a
similar requirement for many years but, because of a
lack of enforcement and control, compliance by con-
sultants and developers has been minimal. It is sug-
gested that such a requirement fits well with a
possible incorporation of EIA into the environmental
management system that may be undertaken once
the operational stage of a development commences.
This is similar to the principle established in the
building maintenance sector for maintenance manu-
als to be drawn up during the project management
stage for use later by the facility managers in the op-
eration stages.
EIA review
This process is now carried out internally by the
DOE for preliminary assessments, whilst detailed
228
assessments reports are reviewed by the ad hoc
review panel (Lee, 2000a). The panel is required un-
der the guidelines:
• to review the detailed assessment report in the
context of a brief;
• to recommend to the project approving authority
on the implementation of the project;
• to specify environmental monitoring and post-
audit requirements.
The review panel may comprise a number of inde-
pendent members from relevant disciplines and org-
anisations. These include universities, government
agencies, NGOs, environmental consultants and
members of the public. The review process for pre-
liminary assessments was decentralised as long ago
as 1993 for Penang, Johor, Sarawak, Perak and
Selangor. In 1994, this was done for most of the
other Malaysian states (Ibrahim and Rahman, 1994).
Detailed EIAs are dealt with by a review process
undertaken by the DOE. The objectives of this de-
tailed review process are:
• to critically review the detailed assessment re-
ports;
• to evaluate development and environmental costs
and benefits of the final project plan; and
• to formulate recommendations and guidelines to
the project approving authority relevant to the im-
plementation of the project.
All written submissions made by interested persons
are required to be submitted to the review panel for
its perusal and comment. Using a wide range of
expertise, it should be possible for the panel to iden-
tify all deficiencies in the EIS and to require the
necessary amendments and additions to be made.
Problems experienced with the review process in-
clude (Ibrahim and Rahman, 1994):
• lack of understanding of the function and strength
of the EIA;
• change of officers assigned to review or attend
one-stop EIA review meetings;
• comments and views are too specific and not
holistic;
• inactive participation;
• late response.
In recent years, further concern was expressed about
the review process especially in regard to the Bakun
Dam case. In July 1994, an ad hoc panel was ap-
pointed for reviewing the detailed assessment of this
hydroelectric project in Sarawak. Because of
changes in legislation in Sarawak, the Natural Re-
sources Board of Sarawak (NREB) decided to take
over the review, and the approval of Part 1 of the
EIA was quickly approved in April 1995 with Part 2
approved in December. This led to severe criticism
of the due process of EIA and the legality of the
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004

above approach was questioned (WWFM, 1996b).
There is, perhaps, a need for more detailed guide-
lines to be produced for reviewers to work with,
since no standard process has been produced to date
for evaluating the quality of ecological assessment in
a review (Vun and Latiff, 1999, page 134).
Decision making
Whilst the DOE has the final say on whether an EIA
is approved, the decision to proceed with a devel-
opment usually rests with the approving authority.
This may be a national development plan committee
for federal Government sponsored projects or the
state. In the latter case, some disagreement with
DOE has emerged as the states feel they should have
ultimate jurisdiction over land use. The construction
of golf courses, hill slopes, former mining land,
landfills and sensitive areas were originally all ex-
cluded from the prescribed list in the EIA legislation
for this reason. A plea for better integration of EIA
into the overall land-use planning process was made
to prevent EIA being seen only as a parallel process
in land-use planning (WWFM, 1996a).
SEA potential in Malaysia
This evaluation of the current EIA process in Malay-
sia identifies a number of common and continuing
problems that are required to be solved. Several of
these arise from previous decisions taken before a
project brief is developed and implemented. Such
matters as land-use allocations in the planning
process, policy decisions on technological and
socio-economic issues relating to various sectors,
and the setting of programmes for progressive
developments in large areas, may all be decided be-
fore a project-based environmental assessment is
undertaken.
It is therefore advisable that the role of environ-
mental assessment is utilised earlier in the planning
and policy decision-making processes so that techni-
cal and economic feasibility issues can be weighed
against the environmental effects. In the USA and
Europe, and also in Japan and Australia, the concept
of SEA is actively being pursued to meet these
objectives.
In assessing the potential there is for the take-up
of SEA in Malaysia in the future the following ob-
servations are made on policy setting, project and
sector based assessments and regional plans.
Policy setting
An Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia
was published in 1997 (MOSTE, 1997) and gave
rise to the National Policy on Biological Diversity,
published in 1998 (MOSTE, 1998) with the vision to
transform Malaysia into a world centre of excellence
in conservation, research and utilisation of tropical
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004
Environmental assessment in Malaysia
biological diversity by the year 2020. The policy
statement was to conserve biological diversity and to
ensure that its components are utilised in a sustain-
able manner for the continued progress and socio-
economic development of the nation (MOSTE,
1998, page 2). Since the topic of biodiversity con-
cerns the direct natural environment, this document
provides an excellent base from which further initia-
tives of SEA could emerge. For example, the strat-
egy referring to sectoral planning strategies will
obviously represent SEA, since this will be directed
at the procedures adopted in the preparation of both
structure and local plans.
Since this is a very recent policy statement on
biodiversity, implementation so far has been limited.
The major strategies included in this document are
listed below to indicate the level to which strategic
environmental objectives are intended to be pursued.
• improve the scientific knowledge base;
• enhance sustainable utilisation of the components
of biological diversity;
• develop a centre of excellence in industrial re-
search in tropical biodiversity;
• strengthen the institutional framework for biodi-
versity management;
• strengthen and integrate conservation
programmes;
• integrate biodiversity considerations into sectoral
planning strategies;
• enhance skill capabilities and competence;
• encourage private-sector participation;
• review legislation to reflect biodiversity needs;
• minimise impacts of human activities on
biodiversity;
• develop policies, regulations, laws and capability
building on biosafety;
• enhance institutional and public awareness;
• promote international co-operation and
collaboration;
• exchange of information;
• establish funding mechanisms.
These proposals are extensive and far reaching and
reflect a desire to influence many activities and de-
partments involved in strategic decision making. The
National Policy on Biological Diversity also makes
several specific references for the further use of EIA
as follows (MOSTE 1998)
• ensure sectors performing EIA accord due priority
to biological diversity (page 28);
• review EIA and other legislation to strengthen
requirements for assessing direct and indirect bio-
logical diversity loss or degradation (page 34);
• adopt an EIA procedure for biotechnology re-
search and activities, including assessment on
safety and social impacts (page 35).
These proposals create the basis for a much im-
proved environmental consideration at the strategic
229
Environmental assessment in Malaysia
levels of decision making and, with the added
advantage of an already well established and under-
stood EIA system, SEA is likely to be practiced in
the foreseeable future along similar lines to that ap-
plied in Europe. The question, which is most likely
to arise at state level, is whether the implementation
will be effective. As noted in a recent review of
economic policies, strengthened co-ordination be-
tween the central federal Government and the states
is a key objective of environmental policy (ADB,
1999, page 5).
Project based area-wide plans
The future trend in Malaysia for SEA is currently
being explored in a wetlands area-wide study near
Kuala Lumpur international airport in the prepara-
tion of large developments, such as: reclamation
where macro EIAs are being considered; the prep-
aration of local plans; and the consideration of
environmental issues affecting various sectors and
area-wide policies.
At present, the Paya Indah Wetlands Sanctuary
(see Figure 1) is mainly virgin wetlands and a low-
impact approach for visitors is planned, although
suggestions for theme parks have also been made.
The Town and Country Planning Department is cur-
rently evaluating this area between Cyberjaya and
Putrajaya and the new airport in conjunction with
consultants who have prepared an SEA report on the
area, with a manual and technical reports. The site
contains a peat wetland area that has significant en-
vironmental importance. This is the first attempt in
Malaysia to adopt a formal SEA approach to a par-
ticular site (Briffett et al, 2001).
Figure 1. Paya Indah wetlands Kuala Lumpur
230
SEA implementation is in its infancy
in Malaysia and, although a degree of
environmental assessment is being
applied within the policy- and plan-
making processes and particular
programmes, implementation is weak
Regional and sector-based plans
Prior to this, the nearest to a formal completed
SEA activity were macro EIAs prepared for strategic
and structural plans on certain reclamation projects.
Some major projects developed by the states have to
be referred back to the federal Government, if they
comprise detailed EIAs covering large infrastructure
type projects, which could in the future be subject
to SEA. Efforts have been made with these to intro-
duce more public participation upstream in the EIA
process.
Sector-based SEA includes the forestry industry,
where criteria for assessing indicators of sustainable
development are being prepared, and in waste,
where hazardous waste effects are being looked into
in relation to transborder issues. Policymaking As-
sociation of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
senior officers involved in discussions on environ-
mental issues may also decide to adopt SEA analysis
in the future.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004

Implementation
SEA implementation is still in its infancy in Malay-
sia and it was recognised early on in this research
that, although a degree of environmental assessment
is being applied within the policy- and plan-making
processes and particular programmes relating to sec-
toral areas such as waste management, pollution
control and raw material resource removal, imple-
mentation is weak. The development of coastal areas
for resort development and the conversion of agri-
cultural land to plantations or golf courses is also
being looked at from more strategic environmental
viewpoints.
Such assessments, however, do not add up to the
rigorous investigations and comprehensive coverage
of European SEA equivalents (Sadler and Verheem,
1996) or to the programmatic analysis conducted in
California in the United States (Canter, 1996;
Therivel et al, 1992). Despite this, it is relevant to
identify those activities that have strategic dimen-
sions and are subjected to some environmental
analysis as they represent a potential for future in-
creased activity in this area.
Conclusions
The development of national policy making has been
an ongoing activity in Malaysia for some years with
a five-year plan formulation; increasingly it contains
more comprehensive and wide-ranging environ-
mental components. This analysis indicates that, in
the next eighth plan, environmental and more spe-
cific sustainability objectives are being applied to all
areas of activity and the environmental section as a
separate entity will disappear (EPU, 1999).
Government objectives in environmental protec-
tion and management are well established, although
the regulatory framework to achieve these is not yet
fully developed (ADB, 1999). Future Government
initiatives recorded in the latest eighth Malaysia Plan
and in the strategies proposed in the National Policy
on Biological Diversity provide much hope for Ma-
laysia to achieve an improved environmentally sus-
tainable status in the next five to ten years.
The recognition of the value and longer-term
returns from a rich and diverse natural heritage
has improved immensely in recent years, particu
larly as more accurate information has been ob
tained through increased baseline data collection.
The introduction and improved operation and con-
formance to the EIA system have made a major
contribution and the influence of international
treaties must also be recognised as a contributing
factor. Whilst the status of SEA as a planning
tool is still in its rudimentary stages, this review
does show that various environmental influences on
policies, plans and programmes are currently being
considered and this could be construed as being
influential on the improved awareness, education
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004
Environmental assessment in Malaysia
and interest in the protection of the natural
environment.
Progress on the increased use of environmental
management systems (EMS) was enacted through
the implementation of ISO 14000, although this ac-
tivity is undertaken within the operational aspects of
companies, particularly the manufacturing sector. It
is therefore somewhat divorced from the planning
and development activities associated with EIA and
SEA at the current time. Whilst it could be argued
that EMS could have strategic environmental dimen-
sions for establishing a company mission and setting
policy objectives of individual companies, a consid-
eration of factors that may influence the outside en-
vironment is not strong. In time, as perceived
elsewhere, there may be stronger cohesion and inte-
gration between EIA, SEA and EMS but, for the
present, these are still rather separate entities.
EIA is well established in Malaysia and, despite
many teething problems and administrative and en-
forcement drawbacks, it does continue to function as
a mandatory requirement directly associated with the
planning-permission process. The concept of EIA
being used merely as a means to an end of getting
the necessary approvals to develop have been super-
seded by an increased recognition of economic ad-
vantages and public friendly environmental benefits.
There are now many local environmental consultan-
cies engaged in this activity and developer aware-
ness and commitment to conformance is reasonably
good.
The delegation of EIA powers to the state level by
the DOE has created some problems similar to those
arising when it was first introduced at federal level.
These include a lack of staff with sufficient analyti-
cal skills, poor institutional capacity and an absence
of effective monitoring of mitigation measures. The
DOE confirms that there has to be a balance, since
you cannot force developers to minimise impacts.
Cumulative impacts that are assessed in well re-
searched baseline studies and introduced during the
presentation of reports help to inform proponents of
the wider downstream issues. Generally, though,
risks and problems are only confined to one industry
with no information on neighbours, although devel-
opers are encouraged to approach local authorities
about off-site and cumulative impacts. Despite this,
the EIA process continues to function and there is
now evidence of an emerging commitment to SEA;
this bodes well for the future.
References
Abu Bakar, J (1993), “Leadership seminar on environment and
urban management in Southeast Asia”, Malaysian Country
Report, Director General of Environment Ministry of Science,
Technology and the Environment. Government of Malaysia
(Institute Sultan Iskander, Johor Bahru).
ADB, Asian Development Bank (1999), Country Assistance Plan
(2000–2002) Malaysia (Asian Development Bank, Kuala
Lumpur).
231
Environmental assessment in Malaysia
Briggs, J (1988), Mountains of Malaysia: a practical guide and
manual (Longman, Malaysia).
Briffett, C (1999), “Environmental impact assessment in East
Asia”, in J Petts (editor), Handbook of Environmental Impact
Assessment Volume 2 EIA in Practice Impact and Limitations
(Blackwell Science, Oxford) pages 143–167.
Briffett, C, J Obbard and J Mackee (2001), The Potential for
Strategic Environmental Assessment in Asia Malaysia
Country Report for the E.A.R.T.H. project (Centre for Real
Estate Studies Department of Real Estate, National University
of Singapore, funded research project no RP 297 000 023
112).
Canter, L (1996), Environmental Impact Assessment (McGraw Hill
International Editions, Civil Engineering Series, New York).
Coles, T (1992) Environmental Impact Assessment in Asia and
Europe with Special Reference to Malaysia, Indonesia and the
UK (Institute of Environmental Assessment, Cambridge, UK).
DOE, Department of Environment (1987), Environmental Impact
Assessment Order (1987) (prescribed activities) amending the
Environmental Quality Act 1974 (DOE, Malaysia).
DOE, Department of Environment (1991), “EIA procedure and re-
quirements in Malaysia”, Department of Environment MOSTE,
Malaysia.
DOE, Department of Environment (1995a), Environmental Quality
Report 1994 (DOE, Malaysia).
DOE, Department of Environment (1995b), A Handbook of
Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines (Department of
the Environment, Ministry of Science, Technology and Envi-
ronment, Government of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, originally
published 1987, revised 1995).
Ebisemiju, F S (1993), “Environmental impact assessment
:making it work in developing countries”, Journal of Environ-
mental Management, 38, pages 257–273.
EPU, Economic Planning Unit (1999), personal communication,
Freddie Choo, Director of Regional Economics, Economic
Planning Unit, Government of Malaysia.
Ernst, A (1994), “Staking claim to a new National Park — Belum
Forest”, Nature Watch, 2(3), July/September, Nature Society
Singapore, pages 19–24.
Friends of Penang Hill (1991), Penang Hill. The need to save our
natural heritage. Critique of the proposed development and an
alternative plan, Khor, Kam, Leong et al (editors) (Consumers
Association of Penang, Malaysia).
Gilpin, A (1995), Environmental Impact Assessment: Cutting edge
for the twenty first century (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge).
Goh, K S (1986), “Malaysian requirement in EIA”, paper pre-
sented at DOE/CETDEM EIA Workshop, 9–11 December,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Halldane, J (2000a), personal communication, Research Fellow,
Sultan Iskander, University of Technology, Johor, Malaysia.
Halldane, J (2000b), “Natureways: nature protected, overlapped,
blended with urban ways: plan, design and live with nature-
ways”, paper presented at Entrepreneur Cities: Crossing envi-
ronmental boundaries, Leadership Seminar, SEACEUM 7
Penang, Institute Sultan Iskander, University of Technology,
Johor, Malaysia.
Harun, H (1989), EIA in Malaysia. The role of monitoring and
auditing, MSc dissertation in Environmental Resources, Uni-
versity of Salford.
Harun, H (1993), “Environmental impact assessment —
Malaysia’s viewpoint”, paper presented at International Sym-
posium on Resource Management: the key to sustainable
development, Institution of Surveyors, Malaysia.
Harun, H (1994), “EIA in Malaysia, the first five years”, paper pre-
sented at Environmental Impact Assessment in Malaysia — an
update, conference held in Kuching, Sarawak, 3–5 February,
Malaysia.
Ho, Y C (1986), “Determining projects requiring environmental
assessments — some thoughts and approaches”, paper pre-
sented at DOE/CETDEM EIA Workshop, 9–11 December,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Ibrahim, A K C, and M A Rahman (1994), “Environmental impact
assessment in Malaysia — a reviewer’s perspective”, paper
presented at Environmental Impact Assessment in Malaysia —
an update, conference held in Kuching, Sarawak 3–5 Febru-
ary, Malaysia.
Ismail, M R, and A S Ahmad (1996) Malaysia Environmental As-
sessment for Agriculture Development in Asia and the Pacific,
Report of the Asian Productivity Organisation Study Meeting,
Tokyo, Japan.
232
JEC, Japan Environment Council (1999), The State of the
Environment in Asia (Springer/ISEAS, Singapore).
Kam, S P (1991), “The use of GIS for conservation — a case
study of the coastal forests in Johor”, in Malaysian Nature So-
ciety, The State of Nature Conservation in Malaysia (Malayan
Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur) chapter 31, pages 233–238.
Kiew, R (1991), “A preliminary proposal for the conservation of
plants at Frasers Hill”, WWFM Project no MYS 213/91 (World
Wide Fund for Nature Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur).
Kiew, R (1996), “Is montane plant biodiversity at a crossroads?”,
Heights of Sustainable Development Seminar on the man-
agement and conservation of highland areas in Malaysia, held
at the Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Malay-
sia, 16 January (WWFM, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) pages 33–
38.
Kiew, R (1999), personal communication, Botanist, Herbarium,
Singapore Botanic Gardens.
Lee, H K (2000a), “Impact of assessment :beyond a planning
tool”, paper presented at Entrepreneur Cities Crossing Envi-
ronmental Boundaries, Leadership Seminar, Malaysia.
Lee, H K (2000b), personal communication, Director Assessment
Division, Department of Environment.
Lee, D W, B C Stone, M Ratnasabapathy and T O Khoo (1977),
The Natural History of Palau Tioman (Merlin Samudra Sdn
Bhd, Kuala Lumpur).
Leong, Y K (1991(, “Environmental impact assessment and
conservation”, in R Kiew (editor), The State of Nature
Conservation in Malaysia (Malayan Nature Society, Kuala
Lumpur) chapter 30.
Memon, P A (2000), “Devolution of environmental regulation
:environmental impact assessment in Malaysia”, Impact As-
sessment and Project Appraisal, 18(4), December, pages
283–293.
MNS, Malayan Nature Society (1988), Endau Rompin A Malay-
sian Heritage (Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur).
Mohamed, J (1993), “Managing industrial growth and the
environment”, paper presented on Johor State Economic De-
velopment Corporation experience at Leadership Seminar on
Environmental and Urban Management Institute of Sultan
Iskander, Johor, Malaysia.
MOSTE, Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment
(1997), Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia
(MOSTE, Kuala Lumpur).
MOSTE, Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment
(1998), National Policy on Biological Diversity (MOSTE, Kuala
Lumpur).
Nor, Y M (1991), “Problems and perspectives in Malaysia envi-
ronmental policy making”, Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 11, pages 129–142.
Rahmah, M H (1988), “EIA requirements in Malaysia”, paper pre-
sented at CETDEM EIA Course 27 June–1 July, Penang,
Malaysia.
Sadler, B, and R Verheem (1996), “Strategic environmental as-
sessment status, challenges and future directions”, Ministry of
Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, international
study of effectiveness of environmental assessment, The EIA
Commission of the Netherlands.
Sani, S (1993), “Economic developments and environmental
management in Malaysia”, New Zealand Geographer, 49(2),
pages 64–68
The Straits Times (1999), “Cable car for Penang Hill? No way,
says Green Group”, The Straits Times, Singapore, 7 August.
The Sunday Times (1993), “Frasers Hill golf course project to be
reassessed”, The Sunday Times, Singapore 18 July, extract
from New Straits Times.
Therivel, R, E Wilson, S Thompson, D Heaney and D Pritchard
(1992), Strategic Environmental Assessment (Earthscan Pub-
lications Ltd, London).
Utusan Konsumer (1997), “Flawed and flimsy EIA approved by
Penang DOE”, Utusan Konsumer, February, page 1 (Con-
sumers Association of Penang).
Vun, L W, and A Latiff (1999), “Preliminary ecological input
assessment and environmental impact assessment for coastal
resort development in Malaysia”, Impact Assessment and Pro-
ject Appraisal, 17(2), pages 133–140.
WWFM, World Wildlife Fund Malaysia (1983a), Proposals for a
Conservation Strategy for Melaka (WWFM, Kuala Lumpur).
WWFM, World Wildlife Fund Malaysia (1983b), Proposals for a
Conservation Strategy for Trengganu (WWFM, Kuala Lumpur).
WWFM, World Wildlife Fund Malaysia (1988a) Proposals for a
Conservation Strategy for Selangor Darul Ehsan (WWFM and
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004

the Selangor State Planning and Development Unit, Shah
Alam, Malaysia).
WWFM, World Wildlife Fund Malaysia (1988b), “Sepilok Forest
Reserve: its history resources and functions”, MYS 111/87,
WWFM.
WWFM, World Wildlife Fund Malaysia (1989), Proposals for a
Conservation Strategy for the Federal Territory of Kuala Lum-
pur (WWFM and Dewan Bandaraya, Kuala Lumpur).
WWFM, World Wildlife Fund Malaysia (1991), Proposal for National
or State Park. Belum Perak (WWFM No 4508, Kuala Lumpur).
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004
Environmental assessment in Malaysia
WWFM, World Wildlife Fund Malaysia (1992), Proposals for a
Conservation Strategy for Negeri Sembilan (WWFM, Kuala
Lumpur).
WWFM, World Wildlife Fund Malaysia (1996a), “EIA: a tool mis-
used”, EIA Fact Sheet (WWFM, Kuala Lumpur).
WWFM, World Wildlife Fund Malaysia (1996b), “Public account-
ability — information sheet”.
WWFM, World Wildlife Fund Malaysia (1998), The National Parks
and Other Wild Places of Malaysia” (World Wide Fund for Na-
ture Malaysia and New Holland Publishers UK Ltd, London).
233