FINAL VERSION FOR APPROVAL - Sdn Bhd - WWF Malaysia

FINAL VERSION 

Gunung Stong State Park (GSSP), 

Kelantan Darul Naim 

Preliminary Management Plan 

June 2009

Gunung Stong State Park 

(GSSP), Kelantan Darul Naim 

Preliminary Management Plan 

by 

N. M. Maseri, A. H. Mohd-Ros & S. Suksuwan 

WWF-Malaysia 

December 2006 

This document was prepared by WWF-Malaysia (Project MY02040-G) 

for the State Government of Kelantan 

and the Kelantan State Forestry Department 

Photo credits: N.M. Maseri/WWF-Malaysia, S.Suksuwan/WWF-Malaysia, 

S. Kamarudin/WWF-Malaysia 

This preliminary management plan was produced under WWF- 

Malaysia’s project MY0240G-GEN-000 which was funded by the 

generous contribution of the Malaysian public. 

ii

Gunung Stong State Park Preliminary Management Plan 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This Preliminary Management Plan for the Gunung Stong State Park was produced for the 

Kelantan State Government by WWF-Malaysia under Project MY0240-G which was funded 

through donations from the Malaysian public. 

We would like to record out appreciation to En. Wan Yusof b. Wan Ahmad, Tn. Hj. Dahlan 

Taha, En. Abdullah Sani, Tn. Hj. Khalim and other staff of the Kelantan State Forestry 

Department for their close cooperation and commitment to the Gunung Stong State Park. 

This document has benefited from the inputs and comments provided by the members of the 

Technical Working Committee of the Gunung Stong State Park: 

• Y. Bg. Timbalan Setiausaha Kerajaan (Pembangunan), Pengarah UPEN, Unit 

Perancang Ekonomi Negeri Kelantan. 

• YABrs. Pengarah, Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran Negeri Kelantan. 

• YABrs. Pengarah, Jabatan Mineral dan Geosains Kelantan 

• YABrs. Pengarah, Jabatan Perlindungan Hidupan Liar dan Taman Negara, 

• YABrs. Pengarah, KESEDAR (Perbadanan Kemajuan Kelantan Selatan) 

• Ybrs. Yang Dipertua, Majlis Daerah Kuala Krai Selatan 

• Ybrs. Pegawai Hutan Jajahan Kelantan Barat 

• the Malaysian Nature Society, Kelantan branch. 

Special thanks to Y. Bg. Prof. Dr. Abdul Latiff Mohamad of UKM, En. Mohamed bin 

Abdullah (KESEDAR Jelawang), and Dr Dionysius S.K. Sharma (WWF-Malaysia) for their 

support. Thanks also to Elizabeth Liew Yen Tzu of WWF-Malaysia for helping to format the 

report. 

i


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In 2004, the state government announced the intention for the formation of the Gunung Stong 

State Park (GSSP), within the 21,950 ha area of forest reserve known as the Gunung Stong 

Tengah Forest Reserve managed by the Forestry Department, Kelantan. The gazettement of 

the State Park will follow the Perlis State Park model, with management responsibilities, 

retained by the Kelantan State Forestry Department and reporting to a State Parks 

Management Committee, with a State Parks Steering Committee formed, under the 

chairmanship of the Mentri Besar. 

A protected area like the GSSP needs a management plan, especially if it is also promoted as 

an eco-tourism destination. A detailed management plan may take a few years to complete; it 

is the intention of the preliminary management plan to provide a rapid, stopgap measure in 

the interim, especially in addressing some of the pertinent issues that should be resolved. 

Thus, the objectives of the preliminary management plan are as follows: 

• To provide a framework for an efficient management system for the park; 

• To enable the effective protection of GSSP and its resources; 

• To promote the recognition of the biological and economic resources of GSSP, by 

scientific means; and 

• To provide recommendations for improving the standard of living of the local 

community, and their level of conservation awareness. 

GSSP is currently still under the management of the Kelantan Barat District of the State 

Forestry Department, based at Tanah Merah, though it is located within the Kuala Krai 

District, or more precisely, the South Kuala Krai Sub-District, with an office at Dabong. 

Apart from adjacent forest reserves, the land use surrounding GSSP is predominantly rural 

agriculture, mostly of rubber, oilpalm, and fruit orchards. Most of rubber and oilpalm is 

planted under areas developed by KESEDAR, FELCRA, and RISDA, while most fruit 

orchards are by smallholders. 

The value of GSSP lies in its position as part of the large forested landscape that also includes 

the Main Range, the Belum-Temengor area (c. 300,000 ha) in Perak, the Ulu Muda forests (c. 

120,000 ha) in Kedah, and their extension, the Hala Bala Wildlife Sanctuary and the Bang 

Lang National Park in Thailand. 

The purpose of GSSP is the conservation of the biological, physical and hydrological 

resources of Gunung Stong and their related ecological systems, while allowing for limited 

eco-tourism activities. 

The indicator for the purpose is that vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, other biological, physical, 

and hydrological resources, show no significant decline within the 5 years of the 

implementation of the Preliminary Management Plan and beyond, while limited eco-tourism 

activities are allowed. 

ii


Summary of Key Issues and Actions Required 

No. ISSUE DESCRIPTION ACTION 

1. Formal 

demarcation of 

boundaries. 

2. Fragmentation of 

GSSP by the 

Jelawang-Gua 

Musang Road. 

3. Management of 

the Dabong group 

of caves. 

4. Land 

encroachment 

along the fringes 

of GSSP. 

The boundaries of GSSP must be 

formally surveyed and demarcated 

before a gazettement can be done. 

Without formal surveys law 

enforcement at GSSP is contestable. 

The road has effectively separated 

GSSP into 2 parts: a large western 

portion, and the smaller eastern 

portion. The road provides greater 

access for encroachment, and is a 

security risk. 

The Dabong group of caves 

(including Gua Ikan, Gua Keris, 

Gua Pagar and Gua Setol) are 

important bat roosting sites and sites 

for endemic plants. Though not part 

of the GSSP, the Dabong group of 

caves is also an important tourism 

attraction and usually form part of 

visitor packages to GSSP. 

Fringes of GSSP are encroached for 

farming actitivities, some as far as 

40 years ago, some with uncertain 

legal status, if not yet converted to 

stateland. The formation of GSSP 

may lead to two options: the 

excision of the encroached areas out 

of the total protected area, or the 

absorption of these encroached 

areas as part of GSSP. However, the 

latter option may lead to issues of 

land acquisition and compensation. 

Proper boundary demarcation is 

a priority so that the park can be 

legally constituted and law 

enforcement can be carried out 

effectively. 

It is recommended that the 

eastern portion be excised out 

of GSSP and replaced by the G. 

Stong Utara Forest Reserve as 

part of GSSP. The road then 

becomes an effective eastern 

boundary of GSSP. 

The management of the Dabong 

group of caves should be 

integrated into that of GSSP. 

This could be achieved by 

gazetting the caves as part of 

the Serasa Forest Reserve 

(currently covering an area of 

10,338 ha). 

A special sub-committee should 

be formed to deliberate on this 

issue and recommend which 

areas should be alienated and 

which should be retained as part 

of the GSSP. 

iii


Summary of Management Recommendations 

Protected Area Legislation 

The establishment, purpose and management of the park will be determined by the National 

Forestry Act (Amendment) Enactment 2004, which closely follows the Perlis State Park 

model of protected area establishment. Under this state legislation, GSSP will be managed by 

the Kelantan State Forestry Department through the introduction of an additional category, 

“State Park”, to the existing classification of forest reserves. 

Law Enforcement 

Law enforcement by park staff against illegal activities is based on two main legislative 

sources, namely the Wild Life Protection Act 1972 (Amended 1976 & 1988) and the National 

Forestry Act (Amendment) Enactment 2004. One of the most serious issues where law 

enforcement is concerned is the encroachment by illegal sandalwood (gaharu) collectors, 

whether foreign or otherwise. It is possible that they are also opportunistic poachers and 

collectors of other forest produce including shoots of the endemic palm, Licuala stongensis, 

for food. Actions that can be taken to improve law enforcement include more frequent 

monitoring and patrols by park staff, the introduction of a reward system for informers and 

tightening the registration process at entry-points, to prevent unauthorised entry. 

Surveillance Patrols 

There should be frequent and random patrols by park staff within GSSP and along its borders. 

Persons committing illegal activities should be apprehended and the laws enforced where 

necessary. The mere presence of park officers in itself can act as an effective deterrence 

against illegal activities. Joint operations can also be conducted with relevant agencies such as 

the Department Wildlife and National Park (DWNP), the army and the Police General 

Operations Force, to apprehend the offenders. 

Organisational Structure 

It is recommended that the Park Officer is a Forestry Officer of Grade G42, reporting directly 

to the Deputy Director, State Forestry Department. Reporting to him will be 2 Assistant Park 

Officers (G27), under each of which will be 2 Park Rangers (G17), with 3 Assistant Park 

Rangers (Forest Guard, Grade G11). A driver (R3) reports directly to each Asst. Park Officer. 

Terms Of Reference for the State Parks Committee 

This will be chaired by the Menteri Besar and consist of senior state officers. The committee 

to meet a minimum of twice a year, to decide on policy issues relating to protected areas in 

Kelantan. 

Terms of Reference for the State Parks Management Committee 

This committee is to be chaired by the State Secretary, and has the mandate to decide on key 

management issues pertaining to protected area in the State, including presenting proposals 

for new state parks to the State Parks Committee. This committee will meet twice a year. 

The Terms of Reference for the Gunung Stong State Park Technical Working 

Committee 

This committee is formed primarily to guide the formation and management of the GSSP, and 

will meet regularly to discuss management issues related to it, and is chaired by the Director, 

Kelantan Forestry Department. Any form of development within GSSP must be approved by 

the Technical Committee. This is because different agencies may have different visions for 

development and tourist promotion of GSSP and surrounding areas. Lack of communication 

iv


and coordination among these agencies may result in inappropriate development within GSSP 

and surrounding areas. 

Zonation of GSSP 

We suggest four zones: Intensive Development Zone (Stong Resort, entrance to Semuliang 

Trail and Lata Kertas), Moderate Use Zone (Baha Camp and Benta Plateau), Limited Use 

Zone (trails, campsites, and summits), and the Strict Conservation Zone (areas outside of the 

other three zones). 

Presence of Adequate Buffers 

In general, buffer zones can be divided into three categories: those in stateland, lands under 

forest reserves adjoining GSSP and alienated land. It is suggested that for alienated land, a nodevelopment 

buffer zone of 100m from the boundary be created. For surrounding lands 

within forest reserves, compartments immediately adjoining GSSP should be designated as 

buffer areas where logging should not be carried out. This could be achieved by gazetting 

these compartments as protection forest under the National Forestry (Amendment) Enactment 

2004. For stateland forests, it is recommended that as far as possible, these should be 

incorporated into existing forest reserves and designated as buffer areas. 

Physical Development in GSSP 

Development must be within the conceptual framework of a protected area setting, and 

limited to three zones: Development Zone, Moderate Use Zone, and Limited Use Zone. No 

development should be carried out within the Strict Conservation Zone. Development should 

be concentrated at the existing resort grounds, where extensive development is allowed. At 

the Moderate Use Zone, development is limited to basic infrastructure such as campsites, 

shelters, toilets and observation towers, while at the Limited Use Zone, development is 

limited to shelters and signage. 

Carrying Capacity 

Detailed formulas and questionnaires to obtain carrying capacities are beyond the scope of 

this study. Nevertheless, some preliminary recommendations on carrying capacity for selected 

sites are as follows as follows: Stong Resort grounds (500 people at any one time), Baha 

Camp (150), Lata Kertas (50), Bogo Rock Shelter (30), G. Ayam (20), Li Rock Shelter (15), 

Lembah Camp (15), Batu Hampar (20), Kobra Camp (20), Tera Camp (10), Gua Ikan (50), 

Gua Keris (30), Gua Puteri (20), Gua Pagar (20). 

Entry Permits and User Fees 

Currently visitors are charged RM2.00 per person for entering the premises of the Stong 

Resort, and RM3.00 for park entry fees. The charge of RM2.00 was originally to cover the 

expenses for rubbish collection but there is still an unacceptable amount of litter still 

accumulating at the resort area. The resort must be reminded of the original purpose of the 

RM2.00 fee. 

It is suggested that entry fee be maintained at RM3.00 per person, while the concession rate 

(schoolchildren below 18, disabled people and pensioners) should be RM1.00. Camping fee 

is recommended to be RM3.00 per person per night, while for schoolchildren it should be 

RM2.00. Camera permits should be fixed at RM5.00 each and for video cameras, RM10.00. 

Commercial filming permit is recommended at RM200.00 per day, while a research permit 

should be RM50.00 per researcher. 

v


Location of Park Headquarters 

The headquarters for GSSP could be located for the time being at the present Kuala Balah 

Forestry Office, though preferably, it should be at Dabong or Jelawang. 

Siting of Control Posts 

Certain campsites could be utilised as control posts, where park staff can do patrols and 

monitoring work. 

Field Office 

There should be an office within the grounds of the Stong Resort for purposes of visitor 

registration, cash collection of permits, emergency response, and as a base for patrols. 

Biological Monitoring 

This is basically a rapid assessment of impacts on wildlife and the general ecology by visitors 

and physical development at GSSP. Such an assessment, carried out periodically, may be 

based on the presence or absence of indicator species that can be detected through direct 

observations or indirectly through droppings, tracks and sounds. A general assessment can 

also be made of the overall environmental condition along trails and other sites frequented by 

visitors. 

Capacity-Building 

Capacity-building of park staff is needed to fill gaps in their existing set of skills and the areas 

or topics relevant to the management of protected areas and include communications, guiding, 

rescue and emergency response, map reading, basic ecology, and computer skills. 

Collaboration and Networking with other PAs 

GSSP should actively network with other protected area managers, to share experience, 

information, and solutions on certain problems common to all. Opportunities for crossmarketing 

should also be looked into, as different protected areas have their own niches and 

positioning strategies. 

Planning and Reporting 

Different types of reports need to be prepared on a regular basis and submitted to State 

Forestry headquarters by GSSP staff, for analysis and planning purposes. These include 

reports on visitor profile and numbers, park finances, patrols and complaints. 

Integrated Research Program 

It is crucial that research is continuously carried in GSSP as the results of research activities 

can be used to enhance the management of effectiveness of the park. Furthermore, new 

discoveries will benefit the park in terms of marketing and promotional opportunities. Priority 

research areas should be identified and these may include studies on wildlife conservation 

(e.g. using camera-trapping or satellite tracking particularly to understand migration patterns), 

carrying capacity, cost-benefit analyses, forest regeneration, etc. 

Procedures on Specimen Collections 

Procedures on specimen collections must be tightened, to safeguard against bio-piracy and 

loss of patent rights, and to promote the sharing of benefits from the biodiversity capital of 

GSSP. As GSSP does not have its own herbarium, it is recommended that duplicates of plant 

specimens be deposited at the Forest Research Insitute of Malaysia (FRIM) in Kepong. 

vi


Duplicates of animal specimens could be deposited at the Institute of Biological Conservation 

at Bukit Rengit, Krau, or other relevant local academic institutions. 

Promotion of GSSP to Scientists 

GSSP should be aggressively promoted as a destination for research among local and 

international researchers. GSSP must link with certain local universities especially those 

conducting research and development related to horticulture and plant propagation, crop 

improvement and pharmaceuticals, in order to obtain the greatest returns on investments in 

conservation. 

Tourism Promotion and Marketing 

One or more icons should be selected to represent GSSP, and used for product branding. 

These icons could be incorporated into an official logo for the park and subsequently used on 

letterheads, park signage and publications. It is suggested that the endemic fanpalm Licuala 

stongensis be used as an icon that represents GSSP. Promotional efforts should be targeted at 

ecotourists, and partnerships should be formed with the relevant media that support this target 

market. 

Management and Maintenance of the Stong Resort 

If the Stong Resort is not under the management of the Kelantan State Forestry Department, 

arrangements must be made with the resort operator to accommodate space for the park’s 

field office. Capital funding is required for repairing the existing infrastructure at the Stong 

Resort, upgrading of campsites and the huts at Baha Camp, and the placement of different 

kinds of signposts at appropriate locations. 

Signposting 

Signposting serves a number of purposes – as a navigational tool, as a method for informing 

visitors of pertinent information concerning the park (including codes of conduct), as well as 

to educate visitors (e.g. through the use of interpretive signage). To reduce confusion, 

warning notices, navigational signs and interpretive signs, should be separately color-coded. 

Co-option of BAT Guides 

The BAT Guides are synonymous with GSSP, being responsible for promoting eco-tourism in 

the area, with little institutional support. BAT guides also carry out trail maintenance, rubbish 

clearance, and emergency rescue. Their strong network of local and international visitors 

could be capitalised for promotion purposes. Strategic partnerships could be formed between 

the park management and the BAT Guides. This could be through privatising the operations 

of Baha Camp (which could be upgraded using development allocations), and the guiding 

services, to them. This would allow GSSP staff to focus on enforcement and issuing of 

permits. There have been incidences where unguided groups enter GSSP, and unsupervised, 

they are the biggest culprits in the indiscriminate dumping of garbage. BAT Guides could be 

trained to advise offenders and apprehend them if necessary while waiting for law 

enforcement officers to arrive. 

Formation of School Nature Clubs 

The love for conservation must be inculcated with the young, as conservation is a life-long 

passion, and the surrounding schools must be the primary target in the nature education 

courses, which will be expanded to other areas upon success with the initial areas. 

vii


Small Hospitality Business by Local Communities 

Local communities in the surrounding areas of GSSP should be encouraged to operate microbusinesses 

that are within their capacity and expertise, and small hospitality businesses should 

be one of them, as the potential is there. 

Integration of Agro-Tourism in the Promotion of GSSP 

Fruit farming is one of the agricultural activities in the areas surrounding GSSP, and 

integrating this industry with tourism will provide a wider range of products for visitors and 

help mitigate the economic impacts of the glut in fruit supplies. 

Small Souvenir and Camping Equipment Shops 

There are few locals involved in the souvenir and camping equipment business, as there is as 

yet poor demand, but the potential is there. More locals should be trained in running such 

shops and those with existing businesses should be encouraged to expand their range of 

products in line with increasing demands. 

Local Outdoor Recreation Club 

The young adults need to have a sense of purpose in their life in order for them to avoid 

indulging in unhealthy activities, such as illegal motorcycle racing and drug-abuse. Training 

in outdoor recreation will allow the youths to engage in meaningful activities while providing 

GSSP with an enlarged pool of part-time guides and amateur naturalists. 

Local Site Support Group (SSG) 

Locals benefiting from tourism to GSSP should be grouped together (with government 

stakeholders), to form a group that is passionate about the protected area, and a club or 

society created, that is willing to not only promote GSSP, but also safeguard her resources. 

The SSG could also become informers against poachers, and illegal plant collectors. 

viii


RINGKASAN EKSEKUTIF 

Pada tahun 2004, Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan telah mengumumkan hasratnya untuk 

menubuhkan Taman Negeri Gunung Stong (TNGS) merangkumi kawasan Hutan Simpan 

Gunung Stong Tengah seluas 21,950 ha yang diuruskan oleh Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri 

Kelantan. Pengwartaan Taman Negeri tersebut adalah berlandaskan model Taman Negeri 

Perlis dengan tanggungjawab pengurusannya kekal di bawah Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri 

Kelantan yang melapor kepada Jawatankuasa Pengurusan Taman Negeri serta Jawatankuasa 

Pandu Taman Negeri yang dipengerusikan oleh YAB Mentri Besar. 

Kawasan perlindungan seperti TNGS memerlukan sebuah pelan pengurusan, terutamanya 

sekiranya ia juga dipromosikan sebagai destinasi ekopelancongan. Pelan pengurusan 

terperinci mungkin mengambil masa beberapa tahun untuk disiapkan; tujuan Pelan 

Pengurusan Awal ini adalah sebagai langkah sementara yang boleh dilaksanakan dengan 

kadar segera dalam masa perantaraan, terutamanya dalam menangani beberapa isu penting. 

Dalam pada itu, objektif-objektif Pelan Pengurusan Awal ini adalah untuk: 

• Merangka suatu sistem pengurusan yang efisyen untuk TNGS; 

• Membolehkan pengurusan yang berkesan untuk TNGS dan sumber semulajadinya. 

• Mempertingkatkan kesedaran mengenai kepentingan sumber-sumber biologi dan 

ekonomi TNGS, melalui kaedah saintifik; dan 

• Menyediakan cadangan-cadangan untuk meningkatkan kualiti hidup masyarakat 

setempat, dan tahap kesedaran mereka mengenai pemuliharaan alam. 

TNGS pada masa ini berada di bawah pengurusan Daerah Perhutanan Kelantan Barat yang 

berpusat di Tanah Merah, walaupun ia berkedudukan di Jajahan Kuala Krai ataupun secara 

lebih terperinci, Mukim Kuala Krai Selatan, yang pejabatnya terletak di Dabong. 

Penggunaan tanah di sekeliling TNGS termasuk Hutan Simpan Kekal dan kawasan pertanian, 

terutamanya pokok getah, kelapa sawit dan dusun buah. Kebanyakan ladang getah dan kelapa 

sawit adalah termasuk dalam kawasan yang dibangunkan oleh KESEDAR, FELCRA, dan 

RISDA, manakala kebanyakan dusun buah-buahan dibangunkan oleh pengusaha tanah 

persendirian. 

Kepentingan TNGS adalah dari segi kedudukannya sebagai sebahagian daripada suatu 

landskap hutan yang luas, merangkumi Banjaran Titiwangsa, kawasan Belum-Temengor 

(sekitar 300,000 ha) di Perak, hutan Ulu Muda (sekitar 120,000 ha) di Kedah, dan juga Rizab 

Hidupan Liar Hala Bala dan Taman Negara Bang Lang di Thailand. 

Tujuan penubuhan TNGS ialah pemuliharaan sumber biologi, fizikal dan hidrologi Gunung 

Stong serta ekosistem-ekosistem yang berkaitan, di samping membenarkan aktiviti 

ekopelancongan yang terkawal. 

Indikator untuk tujuan tersebut ialah tumbuhan, hidupan liar, perikanan, dan lain-lain sumber 

biologi, fizikal dan hidrologi tidak menunjukkan kemerosotan ketara dalam masa lima tahun 

perlaksanaan Pelan Pengurusan Awal. 

ix


Ringkasan Isu-Isu Utama dan Tindakan-Tindakan Yang Perlu Diambil 

Bil. ISU PENERANGAN TINDAKAN 

1. Penandaan 

sempadan rasmi. 

2. Pembahagian 

TNGS oleh jalan 

Jelawang-Gua 

Musang. 

3. Pengurusan 

Gugusan Gua 

Dabong. 

4. Penerokaan tanah 

di kawasan 

sekeliling TNGS. 

Sempadan TNGS harus ditinjau dan 

ditanda dengan rasmi sebelum ia 

diwarta. Tanpa sempadan yang 

rasmi, penguatkuasaan undangundang 

di TNGS boleh dipersoalkan 

Jalan tersebut telah membahagikan 

TNGS kepada 2 bahagian: bahagian 

sebelah barat yang lebih luas dan 

bahagian sebelah timur yang lebih 

kecil. Jalan ini meningkatkan 

kemudahsampaian dan ini boleh 

mengakibatkan kenaikan dalam kes 

pencerobohan dan juga 

menimbulkan isu keselamatan. 

Gugusan Gua Dabong (yang 

termasuk Gua Ikan, Gua Keris, Gua 

Pagar dan Gua Setol) merupakan 

tempat kelawar berteduh dan habitat 

tumbuhan-tumbuhan endemik. 

Walaupun bukan sebahagian 

daripada TNGS, gua-gua ini adalah 

penting sebagai tarikan pelancong 

dan biasanya dimasukkan dalam 

pakej pelawat ke TNGS. 

Di beberapa kawasan di sekeliling 

TNGS penerokaan tanah untuk 

kegiatan pertanian boleh 

diperhatikan, ada yang berlaku 40 

tahun dahulu. Kedudukan dari segi 

undang-undang tidak dapat 

dipastikan. Penubuhan TNGS 

menimbulkan dua pilihan: 

pengeluaran kawasan tersebut 

daripada kawasan perlindungan, 

ataupun penyerapan kawasan yang 

telah diteroka ini ke dalam TNGS. 

Bagaimanapun, pilihan yang kedua 

akan melibatkan isu pengambilan 

tanah dan pampasan. 

Penandaan sempadan secara 

rasmi perlu diberi keutamaan 

supaya TNGS boleh diwarta 

dan undang-undang boleh 

dikuatkuasa dengan berkesan. 

Adalah disyorkan supaya 

serpihan timur ini dikeluarkan 

daripada TNGS dan digantikan 

dengan serpihan kecil Hutan 

Simpan G. Stong Utara. Dengan 

itu, Jalan Jelawang-Gua 

Musang akan menjadi 

sempadan sebelah timur TNGS. 

Pengurusan gua-gua di Dabong 

harus diintegrasikan dengan 

pengurusan TNGS. Ini boleh 

dilaksanakan dengan mewarta 

gua-gua ini sebagai sebahagian 

daripada Hutan Simpan Serasa 

(yang kini merangkumi 

kawasan seluas 10,338 ha). 

Sebuah jawatankuasa kecil khas 

harus diadakan untuk 

mempertimbangkan isu ini dan 

mencadang kawasan-kawasan 

yang patut dinyahwarta dan 

yang mana perlu dikekalkan 

sebagai sebahagian daripada 

TNGS. 

x


Ringkasan Syor-Syor Pengurusan 

Perundangan Kawasan Perlindungan 

Penubuhan, tujuan dan pengurusan Taman Negeri akan ditentukan oleh Enakmen Perhutanan 

Negara (Pemindaan) 2004, yang berasaskan model Taman Negeri Perlis untuk penubuhan 

kawasan perlindungan. Di bawah perundangan negeri ini, TNGS akan diuruskan oleh Jabatan 

Perhutanan Negeri Kelantan melalui penambahan satu lagi kategori dalam pengelasan hutan 

simpan, iaitu “Taman Negeri”. 

Penguatkuasaan Undang-undang 

Penguatkuasaan undang-undang oleh kakitangan Taman Negeri untuk membanteras kegiatan 

haram adalah berdasarkan dua sumber utama, iaitu Akta Perlindungan Hidupan Liar 1972 

(dipinda 1976 & 1988) dan Enakmen Perhutanan Negara (Pindaan) 2004. Salah satu isu 

paling serius berkaitan dengan penguatkuasaan undang-undang ialah pencerobohan oleh 

pencuri gaharu, samada warga asing atau sebaliknya. Ada kemungkinan mereka juga 

mengambil kesempatan untuk menjalankan pemburuan haram dan mencari hasil hutan yang 

lain seperti pucuk daun pokok palas yang endemik, Licuala stongensis, sebagai sumber 

makanan. Tindakan-tindakan yang boleh diambil untuk memperbaiki penguatkuasaan 

undang-undang termasuklah pengawasan dan rondaan yang lebih kerap oleh kakitangan 

Taman Negeri, pengenalan suatu sistem ganjaran untuk pemberi maklumat dan pengetatan 

proses pendaftaran di pintu-pintu masuk, untuk mengelakkan pencerobohan. 

Rondaan Kawalan 

Rondaan yang kerap dan secara rawak harus dijalankan di dalam kawasan TNGS dan 

sepanjang sempadannya. Mereka yang menjalankan aktiviti haram harus ditahan dan undangundang 

dikuatkuasakan di mana perlu. Kehadiran pegawai-pegawai Taman Negeri dengan 

sendirinya merupakan suatu langkah pencegahan yang berkesan untuk membanteras kegiatan 

haram. Operasi bersama boleh juga diadakan dengan agensi-agensi berkaitan seperti Jabatan 

PERHILITAN, pihak tentera dan Pasukan Gerak Am Polis, untuk menangkap penjenayah. 

Struktur Organisasi 

Adalah disyorkan supaya jawatan Pegawai Taman Negeri disandang oleh seorang Pegawai 

Hutan Gred G42, yang melapor kepada Timbalan Pengarah Perhutanan Negeri. Di bawahnya 

pula adalah 2 orang Penolong Pegawai Taman Negeri (G27), dan di bawah setiap Penolong 

Pegawai adalah 2 orang Renjer Taman Negeri (G17) dan juga 3 orang Penolong Renjer 

Taman Negeri (Pengawas Hutan, Gred G11). Seorang pemandu (R3) melapor kepada setiap 

Penolong Pegawai Taman Negeri. 

Terma Rujukan untuk Jawatankuasa Taman Negeri 

Jawatankuasa ini dipengerusikan oleh YAB Menteri Besar dan dianggotai pegawai-pegawai 

kanan kerajaan negeri. Jawatankuasa ini bermesyuarat dua kali setahun untuk membuat 

keputusan mengenai isu-isu berkaitan dasar kawasan perlindungan di Negeri Kelantan. 

Terma Rujukan untuk Jawatankuasa Pengurusan Taman Negeri 

Jawatankuasa ini dipengerusikan oleh Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri, dan mempunyai mandat 

untuk membuat keputusan berkenaan isu-isu pengurusan utama berkaitan dengan kawasan 

perlindungan di Negeri Kelatan, termasuk pembentangan cadangan-cadangan untuk Tamantaman 

Negeri baru untuk dibawa kepada perhatian Jawatankuasa Taman Negeri. 

Jawatankuasa ini akan bermesyuarat dua kali setahun. 

xi


Terma Rujukan untuk Jawatankuasa Taman Negeri Gunung Stong 

Jawatankuasa ini dibentuk terutamanya untuk memberi arah tuju dalam pembentukan dan 

pengurusan TNGS, dan akan bermesyuarat dari masa ke semasa untuk membincangkan isuisu 

pengurusan berkaitan dengan TNGS, dan dipengerusikan oleh Pengarah Perhutanan 

Negeri Kelantan. Apa-apa bentuk pembangunan di dalam TNGS harus mendapat persetujuan 

daripada Jawatankuasa Teknikal ini. Ini adalah kerana agensi-agensi berlainan mungkin 

mempunyai wawasan masing-masing untuk pembangunan dan promosi pelancongan di 

TNGS. Sekiranya perhubungan dan kordinasi antara agensi-agensi tidak berkesan, ia boleh 

mengakibatkan pembangunan yang tidak sesuai di dalam TNGS dan kawasan sekitarnya. 

Pengezonan TNGS 

Adalah dicadangkan supaya empat zon pengurusan diwujudkan, iaitu: Zon Pembangunan 

(Stong Resort, Lata Kertas dan jalan masuk Denai Semuliang), Zon Pembangunan Sederhana 

(Kem Baha and Dataran Benta), Zon Penggunaan Terhad (denai-denai, tapak-tapak 

perkhemahan dan puncak-puncak gunung), dan Zon Pemuliharaan (kawasan-kawasan yang 

terletak di luar ketiga-tiga zon di atas). 

Pengwujudan Zon Penampan Yang Mencukupi 

Secara amnya, zon penampan boleh dibahagikan kepada tiga kategori: tanah kerajaan negeri, 

kawasan hutan simpan yang bersebelahan dengan TNGS, dan tanah hakmilik. Adalah 

dicadangkan bahawa untuk tanah hakmilik, suatu zon larangan pembangunan selebar 100m 

diwujudkan sepanjang sempadan Taman Negeri. Untuk kawasan yang telah diwartakan 

sebagai Hutan Simpan Kekal, kompatmen-kompatment yang terletak bersebelahan dengan 

TNGS dicadang supaya ditetapkan sebagai zon penampan. Ini boleh dilaksanakan dengan 

mewartakan kompatmen-kompatmen tersebut sebagai hutan perlindungan di bawah Enakmen 

Perhutanan Negara (Pindaan) 2004. Untuk tanah kerajaan negeri pula, adalah disyorkan 

supaya ianya dimasukkan ke dalam Hutan-hutan Simpan Kekal yang sedia ada dan ditetapkan 

sebagai kawasan penampan. 

Pembangunan di TNGS 

Pembangunan haruslah berasaskan rangka konsep kawasan perlindungan, dan dihadkan 

kepada tiga zon iaitu: Zon Pembanguna, Zon Penggunaan Sederhana dan Zon Penggunaan 

Terhad. Pembangunan tidak dibenarkan di Zon Pemuliharaan. Tumpuan utama pembangunan 

adalah di kawasan Stong Resort. Di dalam Zon Penggunaan Sederhana, pembangunan 

dihadkan kepada infrastruktur asas seperti tapak perkhemahan, wakaf, tandas dan menara 

pandang, manakala di dalam Zon Pengunaan Terhad pula, cuma wakaf dan papan tanda 

dibenarkan. 

Daya Tampung 

Formula terperinci dan soal selidik untuk mendapatkan daya tampung adalah di luar bidang 

kajian ini. Bagaimanapun, cadangan awal untuk daya tampung bagi beberapa kawasan di 

TNGS adalah seperti berikut: kawasan Stong Resort (500 orang dalam suatu masa tertentu), 

Kem Baha (150), Lata Kertas (50), Gua Bogo (30), G. Ayam (20), Gua Li (15), Kem Lembah 

(15), Batu Hampar (20), Kem Kobra (20), Kem Tera (10), Gua Ikan (50), Gua Keris (30), 

Gua Puteri (20), Gua Pagar (20). 

Permit Masuk dan Bayaran Penggunaan 

Buat masa ini, pelawat dikenakan bayaran RM2.00 setiap orang untuk memasuki kawasan 

Stong Resort dan RM3.00 untuk permit masuk ke kawasan Taman Negeri. Bayaran RM2.00 

itu pada asalnya adalah untuk membiayai kos pengutipan sampah tetapi keadaan sampahsarap 

di kawasan resort itu masih tidak memuaskan. Pihak pengurus resort harus 

diperingatkan mengenai tujuan asal yuran RM2.00 tersebut. 

xii


Dicadangkan supaya bayaran masuk dikekalkan pada RM3.00 seorang, manakala bayaran 

konsesi (untuk budak sekolah di bawah 18 tahun, orang kurang upaya dan pesara) ditetapkan 

pada kadar RM1.00 seorang. Yuran perkhemahan disyorkan supaya ditetapkan pada kadar 

RM3.00 setiap orang untuk setiap malam, manakala untuk budak sekolah pula bayarannya 

ialah RM2.00. Bayaran permit untuk kamera yang dicadangkan ialah RM5.00 dan untuk 

kamera video pula, RM10.00. Bayaran permit untuk penggambaran komersil disyorkan pada 

kadar RM200.00 setiap hari, manakala permit untuk penyelidikan pula RM50.00 setiap 

penyelidik. 

Lokasi Ibupejabat Taman Negeri 

Ibupejabat TNGS boleh ditempatkan untuk masa ini di Pejabat Perhutanan Kuala Balah, 

tetapi lebih sesuai sekiranya ia ditempatkan di Dabong atau Jelawang. 

Kedudukan Pos Kawalan 

Tapak-tapak perkhemahan yang tertentu boleh digunakan sebagai pos kawalan, di mana 

kakitangan Taman Negeri boleh mengadakan rondaan dan pengawasan. 

Pejabat Lapangan 

Dicadangkan supaya sebuah pejabat diadakan di kawasan Stong Resort untuk tujuan 

pendaftaran pelawat, pengutipan wang tunai untuk permit, tindakan kecemasan dan sebagai 

markas untuk rondaan. 

Pengawasan Sumber Biologi 

Pada dasarnya, ini merupakan penilaian impak oleh pelawat dan pembangunan fizikal 

terhadap hidupan liar dan ekologi am. Penilaian sebegini yang dijalankan secara berkala, 

boleh berasaskan kehadiran atau ketidakhadiran spesis indikator yang boleh dikesan melalui 

pemerhatian secara langsung ataupun tidak langsung iaitu melalui kesan najis, tapak kaki atau 

bunyi. Suatu penilaian am boleh dibuat berkenaan keadaan alam sekitar di sepanjang denaidenai 

dan lain-lain kawasan yang dikunjungi pelawat. 

Pembangunan Keupayaan 

Pembangunan keupayaan kakitangan Taman Negeri adalah perlu untuk mengisi jurang yang 

ada dari segi kemahiran mereka dan merangkumi bidang atau topik yang berkaitan dengan 

pembangunan kawasan perlindungan dan ini termasuklah perhubungan, pemanduan 

pelancong, bantuan kecemasan, pembacaan peta, pemahaman ekologi asas dan kemahiran 

komputer. 

Kerjasama dan Perhubungan dengan Kawasan-kawasan Perlindungan Yang 

Lain 

TNGS harus menjalinkan perhubungan dengan lain-lain agensi pengurusan kawasan 

perlindungan, untuk berkongsi pengalaman, maklumat, dan mencari jalan penyelesaian untuk 

masalah-masalah yang dihadapi bersama. Peluang untuk pemasaran bersama juga harus diberi 

perhatian, memandangkan setiap kawasan perlindungan mempunyai nic dan strategi 

pemasaran masing-masing. 

Perancangan dan Kaedah Laporan 

Beberapa jenis laporan harus disediakan dari masa ke semasa oleh kakitangan TNGS dan 

diserahkan kepada Ibupejabat Perhutanan Negeri, untuk tujuan analisa dan perancangan. Ini 

termasuklah laporan berkenaan profil dan bilangan pelawat, kewangan Taman Negeri, 

rondaan dan aduan. 

xiii


Program Penyelidikan Bersepadu 

Adalah amat penting supaya penyelidikan terus dijalankan di TNGS kerana hasil kajian 

tersebut boleh digunakan untuk meningkatkan lagi keberkesanan pengurusan Taman Negeri. 

Tambahan lagi, penemuan baru akan memanfaatkan Taman Negeri dari segi promosi dan 

peluang pemasaran. Bidang kajian utama harus dikenalpasti dan ini boleh merangkumi kajian 

dalam pemuliharaan hidupan liar (misalnya dengan menggunakan kamera perangkap atau 

pengesan satelit, terutamanya untuk memahami corak penghijrahan), daya tampung, analisa 

kos-faedah, pemulihan hutan dll. 

Kaedah Pengutipan Spesimen 

Kaedah untuk pengutipan specimen harus diperketatkan, untuk mengelakkan daripada 

pencurian sumber biologi (“bio-piracy”) dan kehilangan hak paten, dan menggalakkan 

perkongsian faedah daripada modal kepelbagaian biologi yang wujud di TNGS. Oleh kerana 

TNGS tidak mempunyai herbarium, dicadangkan supaya salinan spesimen tumbuhan 

disimpan di Institut Penyelidikan Perhutanan Malaysia (FRIM) di Kepong. Salinan spesimen 

haiwan pula boleh disimpan di Institut Kepelbagaian Biologi di Bukit Rengit, Krau, ataupun 

institusi lain yang sesuai. 

Promosi TNGS di Kalangan Penyelidik 

TNGS harus dipromosi secara agresif sebagai destinasi penyelidikan di kalangan penyelidik 

tempatan dan luar negara. TNGS juga harus menjalinkan perhubungan dengan universitiuniversiti 

tempatan tertentu, terutamanya yang menjalankan penyelidikan dan pembangunan 

berkaitan dengan hortikultur dan pembiakan tumbuhan, penambahbaikan tanaman kontan dan 

farmaseutikal, untuk meraih hasil yang sebanyak mungkin daripada pelaburan dalam 

pemuliharaan. 

Promosi Pelancongan dan Pemasaran 

Satu atau lebih ikon harus dipilih untuk mewakili Jabatan Perhutanana Negeri, dan untuk 

digunakan dalam penjenamaan produk. Ikon-ikon tersebut boleh digunakan dalam logo rasmi 

Taman Negeri dan seterusnya digunakan dalam kepala surat, papan tanda dan penerbitan 

Taman Negeri. Dicadangkan supaya spesis pokok palas endemik iaitu Licuala stongensis 

digunakan sebagai ikon untuk melambangkan TNGS. Usaha untuk mempromosi Taman 

Negeri harus diarahkan kepada pelancong eko, dan Taman Negeri perlu mengadakan 

perkongsian dengan pihak media yang menyokong kumpulan sasaran ini. 

Pengurusan dan Penyelenggaraan Stong Resort 

Sekiranya Stong Resort tidak diletakkan di bawah pengurusan Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri, 

suatu persetujuan perlu diadakan dengan pengurusan resort tersebut untuk menempatkan 

pejabat lapangan Taman Negeri di situ. Modal pembangunan perlu untuk memperbaiki 

infrastruktur yang sedia ada di Stong Resort dan penaiktarafan tapak perkhemahan dan 

pondok-pondok di Kem Baha, di samping pemasangan beberapa jenis papan tanda di lokasilokasi 

sesuai. 

Papan Tanda 

Terdapat beberapa tujuan papan tanda diperlukan di TNGS – sebagai suatu alat pandu arah, 

sebagai suatu keadah untuk menyampaikan maklumat berkenaan Taman Negeri (termasuk 

garispanduan tatatertib) kepada para pelawat, dan juga untuk mendidik para pelawat 

(contohnya, melalui papan tanda interpretasi). Untuk mengelakkan kekeliruan, papan tanda 

amaran, papan tanda navigasi dan papan tanda interpretasi, harus diberikan kod warna 

berasingan. 

xiv


Notis Amaran di Lokasi-lokasi Strategik 

Notis-notis tersebut haruslah didirikan di kawasan-kawasan tumpuan pelawat seperti Stong 

Resort, tapak perkhemahan, dan lokasi-lokasi strategik di sepanjang sempadan antara TNGS 

dan tanah-tanah bersebelahan. Secara ringkas, notis-notis amaran ini memaparkan senarai 

aktiviti yang dibenarkan dan yang dilarangkan, serta hukuman dan denda yang dikenakan 

sabit kesalahan seperti pemburuan haram, penangkapan ikan dan membuang sampah. 

Penglibatan Pemandu-pemandu Pelancong BAT (Baha Adventure Team) 

Pemandu-pemandu pelancong dari BAT adalah sinonim dengan TNGS, oleh kerana mereka 

berusaha untuk mempromosi ekopelancongan di kawasan tersebut, walaupun tanpa sokongan 

institusi. Pemandu-pemandu BAT juga menjalankan penyelenggaraan denai, pengutipan 

sampah, dan bantuan kecemasan. Mereka mempunyai jaringan yang rapat dengan pelawat dan 

antarabangsa dan ini boleh membuka peluang untuk promosi Taman Negeri. Perkongsian 

strategik boleh diadakan antara pihak pengurusan Taman Negeri dan pemandu-pemandu 

pelancong BAT. Ini boleh dilaksanakan dengan menswastakan operasi Kem Baha (yang 

boleh dinaiktaraf menggunakan peruntukan pembangunan) dan perkhidmatan pandu arah 

kepada mereka. Dengan cara ini, kakitangan TNGS boleh menumpukan perhatian kepada 

tugas mereka seperti meluluskan permit masuk. Pernah terjadi kes-kes di mana kumpulan 

pelawat tanpa pemandu pelancong telah memasuki TNGS, dan sekiranya mereka tidak 

diawasi, besar kemungkinan mereka terlibat dalam pembuangan sampah sarap di merata 

tempat. Pemandu-pemandu pelancong BAT boleh dilatih untuk menasihat pelawat yang 

melanggar undang-undang dan menahan mereka, sekiranya perlu, sementara menunggu 

kedatangan pegawai penguatkuasa undang-undang. 

Penubuhan Kelab Pencinta Alam di Sekolah-sekolah 

Cinta terhadap pemuliharaan alam sekitar harus dipupuk di kalangan generasi muda, dan 

sekolah-sekolah di sekitar Taman Negeri perlu dijadikan sasaran utama untuk pengendalian 

kursus-kursus pendidikan alam sekitar, yang kemudiannya diperkembangkan untuk 

merangkumi kawasan-kawasan lain sekiranya berjaya. 

Perniagaan Hospitaliti Kecilan oleh Komuniti Tempatan 

Komuniti tempatan di sekililing TNGS harus digalakkan supaya menjalankan perniagaan 

mikro yang sesuai dengan keupayaan dan kemahiran mereka, dan bidang hospitaliti 

merupakan salah satu bidang yang sesuai dari segi potensinya. 

Integrasi Pelancongan Agro dalam Promosi TNGS 

Penanaman buah-buahan merupakan salah satu kegiatan pertanian kawasan pedalaman di 

sekitar TNGS, dan integrasi industri ini dengan pelancongan akan menawarkan pilihan 

produk yang lebih luas kepada para pelancong dan dapat menolong mengurangkan kesan 

ekonomi akibat pengeluaran buah-buahan yang melebihi permintaan. 

Kedai Kraftangan dan Peralatan Perkhemahan 

Walaupun terdapat hanya beberapa orang tempatan yang berkecimpung dalam perniagaan 

kraftangan dan peralatan perkhemahan oleh kerana kurang permintaan, terdapat potensi unuk 

membangunkan lagi industri ini. Lebih ramai lagi penduduk tempaan perlu dilatih unuk 

mengendalikan kedai-kedai sebegini dan mereka yang kini sedang menjalankan perniagaan 

harus digalakkan supaya meluaskan rangkaian produk selaras dengan peningkatan dalam 

permintaan. 

xv


Kelab Rekreasi Luar Tempatan 

Golongan remaja perlu mempunyai arah tuju dalam kehidupan mereka untuk mengelakkan 

mereka daripada terlibat dalam aktiviti tidak sihat seperi lumba haram dan penyalahgunaan 

dadah. Latihan dalam kegiatan rekreasi luar memberi peluang para remaja untuk melibatkan 

diri dalam aktiviti yang berguna di samping membekalkan TNGS dengan sumber manusia 

dalam bentuk juru pandu arah sambilan dan penghayat alam semulajadi. 

Kumpulan Sokongan Tempatan 

Penduduk tempatan yang mendapat faedah daripada TNGS harus digabungkan untuk 

membentuk suatu kumpulan sokongan yang mempunyai minat tinggi mengenai kawasan 

perlindungan, dan seterusnya sebuah kelab ataupun persatuan diwujudkan untuk mempromosi 

TNGS dan melindungi sumber asli yang terkandung di dalamnya. Kumpulan Sokongan 

Tempatan ini boleh juga bertindak sebagai pemberi maklumat unuk membanteras pemburu 

dan pengutip tumbuhan haram. 

xvi


Table of Contents 

Acknowledgements .......................................................................i 

Executive Summary......................................................................ii 

Ringkasan Eksekutif....................................................................ix 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms .......................................xxi 

1. Introduction ..............................................................................1 

1.1 Aims and Objectives of the Preliminary Management Plan...........................1 

1.2 Study Method..................................................................................................1 

1.3 Protected Areas in the Global Context............................................................1 

1.4 The Peninsular Malaysia Context ...................................................................3 

1.5 Kelantan Context ............................................................................................6 

2. Physical and Socio-economic setting of GSSP ...................20 

2.1 Historical Background ..................................................................................20 

2.2 Location ........................................................................................................21 

2.3 Access ...........................................................................................................21 

2.4 Legal Status...................................................................................................23 

2.5 Geology.........................................................................................................23 

2.6 Water Quality................................................................................................25 

2.7 Land Use .......................................................................................................26 

2.8 Socio-Economy.............................................................................................29 

3. Biodiversity of GSSP..............................................................31 

3.1 General Characteristics of the Forests in GSSP............................................31 

3.2 Logging History of GSSP and Surrounding Areas.......................................31 

3.4 Gunung Stong Scientific Expedition 2003 ...................................................35 

3.5 Fauna.............................................................................................................37 

3.6 Plants.............................................................................................................40 

4. Tourism at GSSP.....................................................................42 

4.1 Baha Adventure Team (BAT).......................................................................42 

4.2 Trails .............................................................................................................44 

4.3 Visitors..........................................................................................................45 

4.4 Tourism Infrastructure ..................................................................................57 

4.5 Tour Operators..............................................................................................58 

5. Main Findings and Implications In Management Planning 

of GSSP .......................................................................................60 

5.1 Steep Terrain of GSSP..................................................................................60 

5.2 Critical Ecosystem ........................................................................................60 

5.3 Realignment of GSSP Boundary ..................................................................60 

5.4 Inclusion of the Dabong Limestone Hills in Management Planning for GSSP 

……………………………………………………………………………. 61 

5.5 Greater Involvement of Local Communities ................................................61 

5.6 Inappropriate Tourism Development............................................................62 

xvii


6. The Preliminary Management Plan ......................................63 

6.1 Purpose and Objectives of Gunung Stong State Park...................................63 

6.2 Main Approaches and Principles ..................................................................63 

6.3 Legislation and Law Enforcement................................................................64 

6.4 Administration ..............................................................................................67 

6.5 Budget...........................................................................................................75 

6.6 Sources of Funding .......................................................................................77 

6.7 Demarcation of Boundaries ..........................................................................79 

6.8 Zoning...........................................................................................................80 

6.9 Buffer Zones .................................................................................................83 

6.10 Physical Development ..................................................................................84 

6.11 Visitor-Specific Carrying Capacity...............................................................87 

6.12 Biological Monitoring...................................................................................89 

6.13 Signposting ...................................................................................................90 

6.14 Capacity Building .........................................................................................93 

6.15 Research........................................................................................................94 

6.17 Environmental Education..............................................................................98 

6.18 Networking and Collaboration with Other PAs............................................98 

6.19 Local Communities.....................................................................................100 

6.21 Promotion and Marketing ...........................................................................102 

7. 5-Year Implementation Plan.................................................105 

8. Conclusion ...........................................................................107 

References ...............................................................................108 

List of Tables 

Table 1.1 IUCN Protected Areas Categories ..……………………………………………… 2 

Table 1.2 Selected Milestones of Protected Area (PA) Management in Peninsular Malaysia 

………………………………………….………………………………………… 4 

Table 1.3 Area and Population of Districts in Kelantan ……………………………………. 7 

Table 1.4 Gross Domestic Product by Sector ……………………………………………… 8 

Table 1.5 Tourist Arrivals in Kelantan ..…………………………………………………… 9 

Table 1.6 Average Annual 24-Hour Mean Temperature (ºC) ..…………………………….. 11 

Table 1.7 Annual rainfall (mm) ..………………………………………………………........ 11 

Table 1.8 Permanent Reserved Forests in Kelantan ……………………………………….. 13 

Table 1.9 Virgin Jungle Reserves in Kelantan ……………………………………………… 14 

Table 1.10 Production of Major Timber Products in Kelantan (in cubic meters) .………….. 15 

Table 1.11 Hyper-Endemic Trees of Kelantan and their Localities ………………………….. 16 

Table 1.12 Distribution of Plants found on Limestone Hills in Kelantan .…………………… 17 

Table 2.1 Existing Means of Access to GSSP ..……………………………………………... 22 

Table 2.2 Description of Sampling Stations …………………………………........................ 24 

Table 2.3 Water Sampling Data ……………………………………………………….......... 24 

Table 2.4 Land Use of the District of Kuala Krai ……………………………....................... 25 

Table 2.5 Facilities Available at Settlement Centres near GSSP …………………………… 26 

xviii


Table 2.6 Areas under the KESEDAR in the MDKKS ……………………………….......... 27 

Table 3.1 Description of Areas in Ground-Truthing A ………………………...................... 31 

Table 3.2 Description of Areas in Ground-Truthing B .………………………..................... 33 

Table 3.3 Summary of Key Findings of Gunung Stong Expedition 2003 .……………........ 34 

Table 4.1 List of Guides in BAT .…………………………………………………………… 38 

Table 4.2 BAT Guiding Rates ..…………………………………………………………….. 39 

Table 4.3 List of Trails and Tourist Destinations at GSSP …………………………………. 39 

Table 6.2 Proposed Staffing Requirements at Gunung Stong State Park ……....................... 65 

Table 6.3 Proposed Fee Structure of GSSP …………………………………………………. 68 

Table 6.4 Types of Reports and Their Purposes ……………………………………………. 69 

Table 6.5 Estimated Capital and Development Budget for GSSP (Years 1-3) .…………….. 71 

Table 6.6 Estimated Annual Operating Costs for GSSP …………………………………….. 71 

Table 6.7 Suggested Management Zones and Their Current Issues ..………………….......... 76 

Table 6.8 Sites of Physical Development in GSSP .…………………………………………. 80 

Table 6.9 Carrying Capacities at Some Selected Sites .………………………........................ 82 

Table 6.10 Placement of Summit Sign Posts …………………………………………………. 84 

Table 6.11 Designated Campsites …………………………………………………………….. 85 

Table 6.12 Suggested Capacity-Building Areas ………………………………........................ 86 

Table 6.13 Some Areas of Study Relevant to GSSP .…………………………………………. 88 

Table 6.14 Contact Details of National and State Park Authorities in Malaysia .……………... 92 

Table 6.15 Promotion and Marketing Strategies .…………………………………………….. 96 

List of Figures 

Figure 3.1 Location of Ground-truthing 1&2 ………………………………………………. 33 

Figure 4.1 Age Group of Visitors Surveyed ………………………………………………... 41 

Figure 4.2 Income Level (RM) of Visitors Surveyed ………………………………………. 42 

Figure 4.3 Source of Information on GSSP ………………………………………………… 42 

Figure 4.4 Mode of Transportation of Visitors surveyed …………………………………... 43 

Figure 4.5 Purpose of Visiting GSSP ………………………………………………………. 43 

Figure 4.6 Mode of Travel of Visitors Surveyed……………………………………………. 44 

Figure 4.7 Type of Visit to GSSP…………………………………………………………… 44 

Figure 4.8 Visitor Perception of Facilities at Stong Resort…………………………………. 45 

Figure 4.9 Visitor Perception of Facilities at Baha Camp…………………………………... 46 

Figure 4.10 Visitor Perception of Pricing at Baha Camp…………………………………….. 46 

Figure 4.11 Visitor Perception of Quality of Service Offered by Mountain Guides…………. 47 

Figure 4.12 Visitor Perception of Guiding Fees……………………………………………… 48 

Figure 4.13 Length of Stay of Visitors………………………………………………………. 48 

Figure 4.14 Visitor Perception of Most Attractive Feature at GSSP…………………………. 49 

Figure 4.15 Visitor Perception of Ideal Development at GSSP……………………………… 50 

Figure 4.16 Visitor Perception of Additional Activities……………………………………… 51 

Figure 4.17 Level of Satisfaction with GSSP………………………………………………… 51 

xix


Figure 4.18 Intention for Further Visits………………………………………………………. 52 

Figure 6.1 Organisation Chart of The Kelantan State Forestry Department with Inclusion 

of the GSSP……………………………………………………………………… 65 

Figure 6.2 Organisation Chart of GSSP Unit……………………………………………….. 67 

List of Appendix 

Appendix 1: Map Showing Location of the Study Area ………………………………………… 115 

Appendix 2: Geological Map of the Stong Area ………………………………………………… 119 

Appendix 3: Map Showing Slope Classes in the Stong Area……………………………………. 123 

Appendix 4: Land Use Map of the Stong Area…………………………………………………... 127 

Appendix 5: Preliminary Vegetation Map of the Stong Area……………………………………. 131 

Appendix 6: Map of the Zoning Plan for GSSP………………………………………………….. 135 

Appendix 7: A Preliminary Checklist of Mammals Recorded in the GSSP Area………………… 139 

Appendix 8: A Preliminary Checklist of Birds Recorded at GSSP ………………………............ 147 

Appendix 9: A Preliminary Checklist of Plants of GSSP ………………………………………... 157 

Photo 2.1: Dabong Railway Station ....................................................................................................... 23 

Photo 2.2: Jelawang Waterfalls .............................................................................................................. 24 

Photo 2.3: Upper ridges of the Sg. Semuliang ....................................................................................... 24 

Photo 3.1: Upper Sg. Semuliang ............................................................................................................ 35 

Photo 3.2: An Elephant Being Taken Away after a Human-Elephant Conflict ..................................... 37 

Photo 3.3: A Camera-trapped Black Panther.......................................................................................... 38 

Photo 3.4: Entrance to Gua Setol ........................................................................................................... 38 

Photo 3.5: Mountain Fulvetta................................................................................................................. 39 

Photo 3.6: Streaked Spiderhunter........................................................................................................... 40 

Photo 3.7: Licuala stongensis, a Palm Endemic to GSSP ...................................................................... 41 

Photo 4.1: Baha Adventure Team (BAT) Guides................................................................................... 43 

Photo 4.2: Singaporean hikers................................................................................................................ 57 

Photo 4.3: Stong Resort Office............................................................................................................... 58 

Photo 6.1: Basic Canteen at Baha Camp ................................................................................................ 83 

Photo 6.2: A Hanging Bridge Across the Sungai Jasin .......................................................................... 87 

Photo 6.3: Example of a Directional Signboard ..................................................................................... 91 

Photo 6.4: Example of a Park Layout Map ............................................................................................ 92 

Photo 6.5: Example of a Warning Signboard ......................................................................................... 92 

xx


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

asl 

Above sea level 

BAT 

Baha Adventure Team 

BOD 

Biological oxygen demand 

Bt. 

Bukit 

COD 

Carbon oxygen demand 

DANCED Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development 

DANIDA Danish International Development Assistance 

dbh 

Diameter at breast height 

DO 

Dissolved oxygen 

DOA 

Department of Agriculture 

DWNP Department of Wildlife and National Parks 

EIA 

Environmental Impact Assessment 

FELCRA Federal Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority 

FELDA Federal Land Development Authority 

G. Gunung (Mountain) 

g 

Gramme 

GDP 

Gross Domestic Product 

GEF 

Global Environment Fund 

INWQS Interim National Water Quality Standards (for Malaysia) 

IUCN 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 

JICA 

Japan International Cooperation Agency 

JKKK 

Jawatankuasa Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung (Village 

Development and Security Committee) 

JPBD 

Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa (Town and Country Planning 

Department) 

KESEDAR Kelantan Selatan Development Authority 

KPK 

Kompleks Perkayuan Kelantan (Kelantan Timber Complex) 

LKTN 

Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Negeri (State Land Development Board) 

m 

Metre 

MARDI Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute 

MDKKS Majlis Daerah Kuala Krai Selatan (South Kuala Krai District Council) 

MNS 

Malaysian Nature Society 

MOSTE Ministry of Science, Technology & the Environment (now Ministry of 

Science, Technology & Innovations) 

MOT 

Ministry of Tourism 

MPOB 

Malaysian Palm Oil Board 

xxi


MV 

NGO 

PA 

PKENK 

PRF 

RISDA 

RKT 

RPT 

RRIM 

Sg. 

SM 

Sq km 

TAKDIR 

TNB 

TSS 

UNDP 

UKM 

WQI 

WWF-Malaysia 

Mega volts 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

Protected Area 

Perbadanan Kemajuan Ekonomi Negeri Kelantan (Kelantan State 

Economic Development Corporation) 

Permanent Reserved Forest 

Rubber Industry Development Authority 

Rancangan Kemajuan Tanah (Land Development Programme) 

Rancangan Pemulihan Tanah (Land Rehabilitation Programme) 

Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia 

Sungai (River) 

Sekolah Menengah 

Square kilometre 

Perbadanan Kemajuan Tanah Negeri Kelantan Darulnaim (Kelantan State 

Land Development Corporation) 

Tenaga Nasional Berhad 

Total suspended solids 

United Nations Development Programme. 

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 

Water Quality Index 

World Wide Fund for Nature-Malaysia 

xxii


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Aims and Objectives of the Preliminary Management Plan 

In 2004, the state government announced the intention to establish Gunung Stong State Park 

(GSSP), corresponding to the 21,950 ha area of forest reserve known as the Gunung Stong 

Tengah Forest Reserve managed by the State Forestry Department, Kelantan. Not yet 

formally gazetted as a State Park, it will follow the Perlis State Park model, with management 

responsibilities retained by the State Forestry Department and reporting to a State Parks 

Management Committee which ultimately reports to the State Parks Steering Committee 

under the chairmanship of the Mentri Besar of Kelantan. 

A protected area like the GSSP needs a management plan, especially if it is also promoted as 

an eco-tourism destination. Thus the needs, responsibilities, and functions must be clearly 

defined, to provide direction to the agency responsible for its management and planning. 

Nonetheless, a detailed management plan may take a few years to complete, and the State 

Parks Committee cannot wait that long; it is the intention of the preliminary management plan 

to provide a rapid, stopgap measure in the interim period, especially in addressing some of the 

pertinent issues that should be resolved. 

Thus, the objectives of the preliminary management plan are as follows: 

• To provide a framework for an efficient management system for the park; 

• To enable the effective protection of GSSP and its resources; 

• To promote the recognition of the biological and economic resources of GSSP, by 

scientific means; and 

• To provide recommendations for improving the standard of living of the local 

community, and their level of conservation awareness. 

1.2 Study Method 

Literature review was conducted following the compilation of secondary data obtained from 

universities, NGOs, consultants and government agencies. The information obtained relates to 

the history, socio-economy, land-use, biological, physical and geological resources, and 

tourism of the Stong area. Interviews and discussions were conducted with government 

officers, academics, researchers, consultants and NGOs, for other pertinent information. 

Where necessary, rapid biodiversity studies were conducted to fill existing gaps in 

information, specifically on plants, bats, birds and the Dabong caves. 

Ground-truthing exercises were also conducted in March and August 2005, respectively, in 

order to verify information obtained through secondary sources, particularly those pertaining 

to land-use, vegetation types and environmental impacts by human activities. 

Based on the analysis of the secondary data and primary data from field studies, this 

preliminary management plan was produced to guide GSSP managers. Perhaps GSSP could 

be a precursor for other protected areas in Kelantan, and this management plan provides a 

conceptual framework for other management plans for other protected areas that may be 

formed in the future. 

The scope of this preliminary plan is limited to GSSP and the adjacent forest reserves, the 

limestone hills of Dabong, and the areas within the Jeli-Dabong road corridor (principally the 

communities and settlements of Dabong, Kemubu, Jelawang, and Kuala Balah). 

1.3 Protected Areas in the Global Context 

Historically, protected areas are areas that have been set aside against human intervention, 

serve various purposes, and have been known under different names in different cultures. 

1


Traditionally, they function as sacred groves to be revered, wildlife sanctuaries for breeding, 

and game reserves for royalty. Perhaps the earliest example is in 1122 B.C., and in 252 B.C, 

when edicts were issued in China and India respectively, for the conservation of forests and of 

fishes, animals and forests (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996). 

However, the first protected area in the concept that we are familiar with, is the Yellowstone 

National Park, formed in 1872 by President Ulysses G. Grant, followed by the creation of the 

US National Park Service in 1916 (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996; MacKinnon et al., 1986). This 

was followed by Australia (1879), Mexico (1898), Argentina (1903) and Sweden (1909) 

(Honey, 1999). 

Since then, fuelled by increasing public concern over the deteriorating global environment 

and the extinction crisis, creation of protected areas assumed global urgency, and spurred by 

international conservation agencies (such as UNEP and IUCN), NGOs, and the 1992 Rio 

Conference on Biological Diversity, states actively formed protected areas. An encouraging 

sign is that, as at 2003, there were 102,102 protected areas, with a total global area of 

18,763,407 sq. km; though there are weaknesses: 58.25% are less than 10 sq km, too small for 

species viability (Chape et al, 2003). 

Protected areas are classified by IUCN into several categories as described in Table 1.1. 

Table 1.1: IUCN Protected Area Categories 

Category 

1a: Strict Nature 

Reserve 

Ib: Wilderness 

Area 

II: National Park 

III: Natural 

Monument 

IV: 

Habitat/Species 

Management Area 

V: Protected 

Landscape/ 

Seascape 

VI: Managed 

Resource 

Protection Area 

Source: IUCN (1994) 

Description 

Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative 

ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, available 

primarily for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring. 

Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land and/or sea, retaining its 

natural character and influence, without permanent or significant habitation, 

which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition. 

Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to a) protect the ecological integrity of 

one or more ecosystems for present and future generations, b) exclude 

exploitation or occupation inimical (harmful) to the purposes of designation of 

the area, and c) provide a foundation for spiritual, educational, recreational and 

visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally 

compatible. 

Area containing one, or more, specific natural or/cultural feature which is of 

outstanding or unique value because of its inherent rarity, representative or 

aesthetic qualities or cultural significance. 

Area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so 

as to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of 

specific species. 

Area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of people 

and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant 

aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value, and often with high biological 

diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the 

protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area. 

Area containing predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure 

long-term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at 

the same time a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet 

community needs. 

2


1.4 The Peninsular Malaysia Context 

1.4.1 Brief History of Protected Areas in Peninsular Malaysia 

Conservation in Peninsular Malaysia is not new, as evidenced by the promulgation in 1902 of 

the Wild Animals and Birds Protection Enactment, that was used by the Federated Malay 

States of Perak, Selangor, Negri Sembilan, and Pahang to form wildlife and game reserves, 

with the first wildlife reserve at Chior, Perak, in 1903. The Unfederated Malay States of 

Kelantan, Terengganu, and Johor, had their own legislation, but only Johor was active, 

gazetting 360,000ha as wildlife reserves between the 1933 and 1937. Kelantan and 

Trengganu, together with the Federated Malay State of Pahang through their own separate 

state enactments, formed the 434,700 ha Taman Negara (formerly known as the King George 

V National Park) that straddles the 3 states. Pending independence, it was realised that there 

was a need for standardisation, and the different state wildlife enactments were then replaced 

with a uniform legislation, the Wild Animals and Birds Protection Ordinance 1955 that was 

applicable to all states. 

In terms of conservation, the period between 1940 and 1960 was generally quiet, as the 

Second World War, followed by the Malayan Emergency of 1948-1960, necessitated the 

declaration of forested areas as security areas that were off-limits to the public, much less, for 

development. Only after this period, was there a concerted effort in conservation, with the 

Stevens’ report on wildlife conservation (Stevens, 1968), where some areas were suggested to 

become protected areas. After 1960, there was greater relaxation towards access into forests, 

with only a few remaining security areas. 

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, with development assistance from the World Bank, largescale 

land conversion of natural forests into monoculture plantations of rubber and oilpalm 

were conducted by private plantation interests and also by FELDA, the Federal Land 

Development Authority. 

Increasing concerns over the deteriorating status of the environment led to the formation of 

the then Division of the Environment through the Environmental Quality Act (1974) and in 

1972, the Protection of Wild Life Act was passed by the Federal government and 

consequently the Department of Wildlife and National Parks was formed. All existing State 

Ordinances and Enactments pertaining to wildlife protection were repealed and wildlife came 

under Federal jurisdiction. It was also during this period that a comprehensive protected area 

plan was included into the Third Malaysia Plan (1976-1980), which recognised the role of 

Taman Negara, while also proposing the formation of two new national parks and 22 other 

wildlife reserves (Government of Malaysia, 1976). 

By the early 1980s, Malaysia’s improved education and standards of living meant that greater 

numbers of Malaysians had the means to indulge in leisure activities (which includes 

communing with nature through camping, fishing and trekking) and attained greater 

awareness of the profound ecological damage caused by Man. This, coupled with the 

realisation that most of the peninsula’s lowland rainforests have been converted to plantation 

agriculture, led to greater pressures for the formation of protected areas. 

In forestry management, the Matang Forest Reserve, established in 1903, was one of the first 

in the system of forest reserves initially managed by the MUS (Malayan Uniform System), 

and later, by the SMS (Selective Management System), forms of sustainable harvesting of 

timber products. The National Forestry Act, 1984 (amended in 1993) recognised the many 

functions of forests and categorised forest reserves into 10 categories, but within two broad 

categories of either production or protected forests. The classification is as follows: 

i. Production Forests under Sustained Yield 

ii. Soil Protection Forests 

iii. 

Soil Reclamation Forests 

3


iv. 

Catchment Forests 

v. Forests under Wildlife Reserves 

vi. 

vii. 

viii. 

ix. 

Virgin Jungle Reserves 

Recreational Forests 

Educational Forests 

Forest for Research or Scientific purposes 

x. Forest for Federal purposes 

Of the 10 forest reserve categories, only the first category (forest for sustained yield 

production) is a production forest while all the other nine categories are protection forests. In 

2001, the state of Perlis made an amendment to the National Forestry Act 1984, adding an 

extra category (xi) for the creation of the state park. This allowed the state forestry 

department to establish and manage the Perlis State Park. The state of Kelantan, following 

the precedent, made a similar amendment to the state forestry enactment to allow for the 

establishment of state parks managed by the state government. This legislation, known as the 

National Forestry Act (Amendment) Enactment 2004 will be used to establish the Gunung 

Stong State Park (GSSP). 

Greater interest generated through extensive press coverage on the series of NGO-led 

scientific expeditions to Endau-Rompin (1985) and Belum (1992, 1998), had a snowball 

effect: more Malaysians wanted to experience the forests, and while doing so, were exposed 

to degraded forests, thus the rising expectation that more forests should be placed within the 

protected area system. Thus the formation of Endau-Rompin National Park (1989), Perlis 

State Park (2000), Penang National Park (2001), the Royal Belum State Park (2003), and 

recently, the intention to set aside 107,000 ha of forests in Selangor for conservation through 

the Selangor Heritage Park. 

The formation of new protected areas was also due to Malaysia’s commitment to 

conservation, as a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the greater 

interest towards the latent economic potential of biodiversity (in the form of biotechnology). 

Some of the important events related to protected area management in Peninsular Malaysia 

are as summarised in Table 1.2. 

Table 1.2: Selected Milestones of Protected Area (PA) Management in Peninsular Malaysia 

Date 

Event 

1902 Wild Animals and Birds Protection Enactment passed, allowing establishment of 

Game Reserves. 

1903 Establishment of Chior Game Reserve as first Game Reserve. 

1932 Wildlife Commission Report of Malaya by T.R. Hubback, early guide for PA. 

1939 Taman Negara established as the first National Park. 

1940 Malaysian Nature Society formed as first local conservation NGO. 

1948-1989 Large forested areas declared security areas, due to the first (1948-1960) and 

second Emergency (1960-1989). 

1954 Aboriginal Peoples Act passed, covering the rights of aboriginal peoples, even in 

PAs. 

1955 Wild Animals and Wild Birds Ordinance by Federal Government to clarify state 

PA laws. 

1965 National Land Code passed, section 62 of which allows states to establish PAs. 

4


1968 Stevens’ report on The Conservation on Wild Life in West Malaysia guided PA 

establishment. 

1972 Federal government gained jurisdiction from states over wildlife (but not land 

management) through Protection of Wild Life Act. 

1972 WWF opened an office in Malaysia. 

1980 National Parks Act passed covering establishment of national parks. 

1984 National Forestry Act, defining categories of forest reserves for production and 

protection. 

1993 Amendments to National Forestry Act allowing for increased penalties. 

1993 Natural Resources and Environment Section of EPU of the Prime Ministers 

Department established to place more emphasis on environmental issues. 

1993 National Conservation Strategy prepared by WWF-Malaysia for the EPU. 

1995 National Ecotourism Plan drafted. 

1996 PA Masterplan for Peninsular Malaysia designed and funded by DANCED 

containing comprehensive assessment, inventory and recommended actions on 39 

PAs. 

1996 Johor National Parks Corporation formed. Endau-Rompin National Park gazetted. 

1998 MOSTE briefs Federal Cabinet on findings of PA Masterplan. 

1998 MOSTE launched National Policy on Biological Diversity, giving DWNP large 

mandate for PA management. 

2000 Perlis State Park established. 

2001 Legal instrument for establishment of Perlis State Park passed by the Perlis State 

Assembly, the first legislation allowing Forestry Department to manage parks. 

2001 Penang National Park gazetted, the first using the National Parks Act 1980. 

2003 Royal Belum declared a state park. 

2004 Kelantan state government amends state forestry enactment to allow for 

establishment of state parks following the Perlis model. 

2005 Establishment of the 107,000ha Selangor Heritage Park. 

1.4.2 Protected Area Legislation 

The choice of protected area legislation will determine the framework of its organisational 

structure, funding sources, and available technical expertise. In Peninsular Malaysia, there are 

several models of protected area legislation to adapt from: the National Parks Act 1980 

(Amended 1993), the National Parks (Johor) Corporation Enactment 1989 and the National 

Forestry Enactment (Amendment) 2001 of Perlis. In addition, Section 62 of the National Land 

Code 1965 provides for the acquisition of land for public purposes. 

The tri-state Taman Negara was formed initially by the respective Pahang, Terengganu and 

Kelantan enactments of 1938/39 for the creation of the then King George V National Park. 

Apart from the establishment of the Penang National Park in 2003, no protected area had been 

formed by using the National Parks Act 1980. 

The National Parks (Johor) Corporation Enactment 1989 led to the gazettement of the Endau- 

Rompin Johor National Park, Gunung Ledang Johor National Park, Pulau Kukup Johor 

National Park and Tanjong Piai Johor National Park; all of which are managed by the Johor 

National Parks Corporation. In 2001, the Perlis State Legislative Assembly passed an 

amendment to its National Forestry Enactment, putting in place an additional category, i.e. 

5


“State Park”, to the existing categories of protection forest reserves. In Perak, the state 

legislation for the establishment of state parks, the Perak State Parks Corporation Enactment 

2001, was based on the Johor model. 

The selection of protected legislation is up to the respective state governments. The National 

Parks Act 1980 was not popular with the states as it was perceived that establishing a 

protected area under this legislation would mean losing control of the gazetted area to the 

Federal Government. There was also the perception that to degazette a protected area under 

Federal control needs Cabinet approval, whereas, if the state manages the protected area, 

there is more flexibility if there happens to be a need for degazettement. 

Thus, the states of Johor, Perak, and Selangor opted to form their own State Parks 

Corporation. Nevertheless, there are disadvantages: state-managed protected areas in the 

peninsula are less well-managed than their counterparts in Sabah and Sarawak, due to lack of 

resources – in funding opportunities, in experience in protected area management – and lack 

of long-term career prospects and other benefits that attract prospective employees. 

Also, managing protected areas is beyond the skills of most state civil service officers who 

are mostly public administrators. As a temporary measure, state-managed protected areas 

frequently employ Federal officers from DWNP and the Forestry Department on a temporary 

basis, though in some cases there are officers with the right technical background that join on 

a contractual basis; perhaps a reflection of passion for conservation work, job scarcity, or 

both, rather than career incentives or benefits. 

Nevertheless, as an incentive to the states, the National Parks Act 1980 was amended in 1993, 

giving power to the State Authority in certain activities (and limiting the power of the Federal 

Minister): in revoking all or part of the protected area [Section 3(3)], in leasing or occupation 

[Section 9(1)], construction of public and tourism facilities, and mining [Section 10(2)]. The 

power of the Federal Minister is further reduced in Section 11 (1): The Federal Minister needs 

to consult the State Authority, if there are regulations to be made which are not consistent 

with the Act. 

Previously, the State Authority needs the concurrence of the Federal Minister for all the 

activities mentioned in Sections 3(3), 9(1), and 10(2), but after the amendment, the state only 

needs to consult the Federal Minister; there is no need for his concurrence. Nevertheless, 

even with the amendments to parts of Sections 3(3), 9(1), and 10(2), states are still not keen to 

establish protected areas under the National Park Act 1980. 

1.5 Kelantan Context 

1.5.1 Historical Background 

Hemmed in by the sea in the north, and jungle-clad mountains in the east, south, and west, 

Kelantan was until recently isolated from the west coast states of the peninsula. In the past, 

her affinities have been to the ancient states then predominant in Indochina (Langkasuka, 

Champa and Funan) and until recent times, her history has been interlinked with the royal 

house of Greater Pattani in South Thailand. Kelantan was under Siamese suzerainty until the 

early 1900s, when it was transferred to Great Britain as part of the Unfederated Malay States. 

Subsequently, Kelantan, together with the other states in the Malay peninsula, formed the 

Federation of Malaya during independence in 1957. 

Since independence until the late 1970’s, development had largely by-passed the state, as 

growth was more concentrated in the west coast states due to greater communications and 

mineral resources there. The mountainous barriers to the south, east, and west of the state and 

the sea limit access, and hence, investments to the state, until the completion of the East-West 

Highway and the Kuala Lumpur-Gua Musang federal road. 

6


The mountains on the east (the Eastern Range), west (Main Range or Titiwangsa Range), and 

south (Tahan Range), forming a U-shaped trough, channels drainage northwards into the 

South China Sea. Pareto’s Law prevails in Kelantan: some 20% of her landmass (the Sg. 

Kelantan delta) is peopled by 80% of her population, while 80% of her landmass (the forested 

highlands in the south, east, and west) is only settled by 20% of the population. 

This has prevailed until today, though the completion of the Kuala Lumpur-Gua Musang 

road opened up vast swathes of land in the interior for (mostly) plantation agriculture 

managed by KESEDAR (South Kelantan Land Development Authority), FELDA, and 

FELCRA, and encouraging pioneers to settle in the interior. Apart from pioneers encouraged 

by the various organised settlement schemes, there are the illegal pioneers that encroached 

into forest reserves in the hope of them being de-gazetted and alienated into agriculture. 

The clearing of forestland for agriculture is giving rise to the following impacts: 

• Habitat for wildlife and natural plants shrink considerably, and as their food sources 

are depleted, wildlife raids agricultural crop and attack livestock. This has happened 

with increasing frequency in Jeli and Gua Musang, with reports of human-wildlife 

conflicts including elephant and tiger attacks. This is more pertinent when it is 

realised that salt-licks, sources of mineral and salts for wildlife, have been disturbed 

for highway construction, and development for oilpalm plantations in South 

Kelantan. 

• Greater networks of logging tracks and expansion of plantations means improved 

access to remaining forested areas for hunters and forest product collectors, and the 

threat to conservation has increased significantly. There is a thriving underground 

market for animal products and parts, especially for use in traditional preparations for 

virility and health. Additionally, our forests have also been infiltrated by foreigners 

seeking gaharu or sandalwood (and poaching as a sideline). This is indicated by 

frequent cases of wildlife traffickers and sandalwood collectors caught by the 

authorities, and as reported in the newspapers. 

• Kelantan has a long tradition of pioneers opening up forestland for agriculture and 

farming, and this is supported by the state in issuing legal title after some period of 

time. The clearing of forestlands for agriculture has a multiplier effect: pioneers open 

up new land, fragmenting once extensive forests into “islands” surrounded by a sea of 

plantation and small-scale agriculture, and the process is self-repeating, with the more 

accessible forest reserves nibbled by these pioneers, following logging trails. 

1.5.2 District and Population 

Kelantan, with a total land area of 14,922 sq km (1,492,200ha), is 4.4% of the total land size 

of Malaysia (336,700 sq km or 3,367,000ha). Administration is by 10 districts as listed in 

Table 1.3. 

District 

Table 1.3: Area and Population of Districts in Kelantan 

Area (Ha) 

Population 

1980 1991 2000 

Kota Bharu 40,900 275,986 366,770 406,662 

Pasir Mas 57,800 118,153 150,036 165,126 

Tumpat 16,800 85,952 116,044 134,812 

Pasir Puteh 43,300 80,959 96,348 106,138 

Bachok 26,400 73,953 98,557 111,040 

Kuala Krai 222,500 62,301 90,830 93,550 

7


Machang 54,400 58,040 71,584 79,032 

Tanah Merah 86,800 61,996 94,611 103,487 

Jeli 132,900 23,352 32,720 36,512 

Gua Musang 810,400 18,578 63,816 76,655 

Total 1,492,200 859,270 1,181,316 1,313,014 

Source: UPEN Kelantan (2001). 

The population densities (per sq. km) as in 2000, in descending order are: Kota Bharu (994); 

Tumpat (802); Bacok (421); Pasir Mas (286); Pasir Puteh (245); Macang (145); Tanah Merah 

(119); Kuala Krai (42); Jeli (28); and Gua Musang (10). 

It is interesting to note that the districts with the higher populations are those in the north, that 

lie within the Sg. Kelantan delta, while those districts in the south (Gua Musang, Jeli, Kuala 

Krai), accounting for 78% of the total land area, accounts for only 17% of her population. 

The reason is historical: the coastal plains are more accessible by sea and, through links with 

neighboring kingdoms, gave rise of entrepot centers that attract settlers; whereas the interior, 

being forested, were less accessible for trade and settlement. 

However, improvements in rail and road communications are reducing this lopsidedness: the 

population in Gua Musang increased by 240% between 1980 and 1991 and by 20% between 

1991 and 2000, compared to just 33% for Kota Bharu between 1980 and 1991, and 11% 

between 1991 and 2000. It is fair to come to the logical conclusion that population growth in 

Gua Musang is also due to in-migration from other parts of Kelantan, and not due to birth 

rates alone. 

1.5.3 Local Economy 

Services (government, banking, transportation, etc.) account for a major contributor to the 

GDP, followed by agriculture, manufacturing, construction, and mining (see Table 1.4). The 

per capita GDP increased from RM 3,695.09 in 1999 to RM 4,028.14 in 2000. The Mid-Term 

Review of the Eighth Malaysia Plan estimated that 12.4% of the Kelantan population were 

below the poverty line of RM529 (for the peninsula in 2002), the second highest poverty rate 

in the peninsula (EPU, 2003). 

Table 1.4: Gross Domestic Product by Sectors 

Sector 

Agriculture, Forestry, Livestock 

and Fishing 

GDP (RM million) 

1999 % 2000 % 

835.50 22.7 828.00 15.66 

Mining 47.40 0.98 47.00 0.89 

Manufacturing 672.60 13.86 746.00 14.10 

Construction 136.60 2.82 105.00 1.99 

Services 3,159.60 65.00 3,563.00 67.37 

GDP 4,851.70 5,289.00 

Per Capita GDP (RM) 3,695.09 4,028.14 

Source: UPEN Kelantan (2001). 

8


1.5.4 Tourism 

Tourism increased by 20-fold from 1984 to 2004 (see Table 1.5) with the number of foreign 

visitors increasing by 24 times between 1984 and 2000. However, Thai nationals make the 

majority of foreign visitors, accounting for some 94% (497,187) of the total. The next biggest 

groups of visitors are (in descending order) from the UK, making up 0.94% (4,996), 

Singaporeans, 0.89% (4,698), other non-Commonwealth countries, 0.86% (4,556), Indonesia, 

0.55% (2,922), Scandinavia, 0.45% (2,382), and Japan, 0.38% (1994) (TIC, 2001). Excluding 

the Thais from the total (as most of them are transients, coming to work in Kelantan and other 

parts of Malaysia), the bona fide foreign tourists are some 30,000, of which, it is assumed that 

some 6,000 (20%) are eco- or nature-tourists. 

Table 1.5: Tourist Arrivals in Kelantan 

Tourist Arrivals 

Year Domestic % International % Total 

1984 201,135 90 22,182 10 223,317 

1985 220,012 89 27,000 11 247,012 

1986 224,816 88 29,240 12 254,056 

1987 286,213 90 32,633 10 318,846 

1988 344,106 89 44,509 11 388,615 

1989 412,782 84 78,843 16 491,625 

1990 557,255 82 126,148 18 683,403 

1991 816,479 84 155,250 16 971,729 

1992 837,315 77 253,367 23 1,090,682 

1993 915,437 76 282,929 24 1,198,366 

1994 1,025,799 78 284,525 22 1,310,324 

1995 1,209,170 76 391,873 24 1,601,043 

1996 1,668,155 82 357,797 18 2,025,952 

1997 1,886,508 83 384,005 17 2,270,513 

1998 2,203,840 84 426,598 16 2,630,438 

1999 2,124,150 84 407,767 16 2,630,438 

2000 2,235,024 81 527,969 19 2,762,993 

2001 2,830,625 81 610,531 19 3,480,901 

2002 3,514,674 85 610,531 15 4,125,205 

2003 3,960,000 88 561,572 12 4,521,000 

2004 4,266,286 88 590,964 12 4,857,260 

Source: TIC (2004). 

Tourism is a major contributor to the state government, jumping from RM38,819,500 in 1987, 

to RM864,126,240 in 2000 (TIC, 2001). Even during the economic crisis in 1997-1998, 

estimated contribution from tourism is significant, accounting for RM684,676,604 in 1997 

and RM767,225,140 in 1998 (TIC, 2001). 

9


Tourism in Kelantan could be due to the following: 

• Rustic appeal 

As other parts of the peninsula become more developed, there is greater yearning among 

domestic tourists for the rustic village lifestyle with its closely-knit community values and 

the association of Kelantan as a heartland of Malay culture. Foreign tourists in Peninsular 

Malaysia also visit Kelantan for its rustic charm. 

• Proximity to Thailand 

Those domestic tourists who visit Kelantan also make it a point to shop at the border 

towns of Rantau Panjang and Pengkalan Kubur, and sometimes, side incursions into 

Thailand. Foreign visitors with longer stays in Thailand enter Penang or Kota Bharu, for 

their visa renewals, before re-entering Thailand. Also, ethnic-Malay Thais, enter 

Kelantan to work (or on their way to work in other states), and before expiry of the travel 

visas, return to Thailand. (These migrant workers are erroneously reported as tourists). 

• Pulau Perhentian 

The allure of Pulau Perhentian attracts backpackers to enter Kelantan, stay in Kota Bharu 

before continuing to Kuala Besut and the islands. It is no coincidence that occupancy 

rates in guest-houses and cheap hotels rise during the summer periods of April to August, 

corresponding to the peak season for foreign tourists at Pulau Perhentian. For domestic 

tourists, they travel direct to Kuala Besut (and not to Kota Bharu), before proceeding to 

Pulau Perhentian. 

Tourism is an increasingly important contributor to the state economy, and there are 

indications that it may achieve RM1 billion (3 million visitors) by the end of the decade. It 

depends on the state government on how best to capitalise on this, and develop a mix of 

strategies and policies to keep Kelantan attractive to tourists. 

1.5.5 Weather 

The climate in Malaysia is Tropical Equatorial, characterised by high humidity, high 

temperatures, and constant rain, with some variations depending on the location. States in the 

extreme north-west (Perlis, parts of Kedah and Langkawi) experience a markedly tropical 

monsoonal influence. 

There are basically four weather periods in Kelantan: Inter-monsoon (September-October), 

north-east monsoon (November-February), inter-monsoon (March-May), and the south-west 

monsoon (June-August). 

The inter-monsoon period between the south-west monsoon and the north-east monsoon is 

characterised by localised, late afternoon thunderstorms and lightning, followed by occasional 

high winds, and high sea waves. The north-east monsoon brings rain that can sometimes last 

several days, interspersed with a few days of calm weather. This is the flood season, where 

heavy rains in the highlands coupled with the strong seas (3-5 m) inundate the lowlands. 

There is another period between the north-east and the south-west monsoon, where it is hot 

and dry, and drought is common during this time. The onset of the south-west monsoon 

brings respite from the heat, with rain in the afternoons and evenings. 

Table 1.6 provides the mean annual temperatures from 1994 to 2004. 

10


Table 1.6: Average Annual 24-Hour 

Mean Temperature (ºC) 

Year Kota Bharu Kuala Krai 

1994 26.9 25.8 

1995 27.1 26.3 

1996 27.0 26.2 

1997 27.2 26.5 

1998 27.9 27.3 

1999 26.9 26.2 

2000 27.4 26.5 

2001 27.4 26.6 

2002 27.6 26.8 

2003 27.4 26.6 

2004 27.5 26.7 

Source: Meteorological Department (2005). 

From 1994-2004, compared to Kota Bharu (27.3ºC), the average annual 24-hour mean 

temperature in Kuala Krai (26.5ºC) is lower. For the years 1994 to 2004, highest annual 

maximum temperature in Kota Bharu ranges from 34.5ºC (1999) to 36.4ºC (1994) for the 

years 1994 to 2004, while for Kuala Krai, it ranges from 35.6ºC (1999) to 38.8ºC (1998). 

For the same time period, records of lowest minimum temperatures for Kota Bharu range 

from 19.2ºC (1996) to 22.4ºC (1998) while for Kuala Krai, it ranges from 17.5ºC (1994) to 

20.6ºC (2004). This could be due to Kuala Krai’s position in the interior, where forest cover 

is greater, while Kota Bharu is more exposed to the sea. 

For the 11 years from 1994 to 2004, the average annual rainfall for Kota Bharu, at 2,764.6 

mm., is higher than for Kuala Krai, at 2419.1 mm (see Table 1.7). The higher amount of 

rainfall in Kota Bharu could be attributed to its greater exposure to the north-east monsoon. 

Table 1.7: Annual Rainfall (mm) 

Year Kota Bharu Kuala Krai 

1994 3,586.6 3,012.5 

1995 2,879.5 2,007.6 

1996 2,975.7 2,259.3 

1997 2,170.3 2,275.0 

1998 2,346.8 2,256.5 

1999 3,734.5 2,847.2 

2000 3,659.5 2,364.9 

2001 2,556.7 2,563.0 

2002 2,230.9 1,542.8 

2003 2,341.1 2,728.6 

2004 1,928.6 2,752.1 

Average 2,764.6 2,419.1 

Source: Meteorological Department (2005). 

11


1.5.6 Geology 

Generally, the highlands west, south, and east in Kelantan are granitic in origin, characterised 

as the Main Range granite, Stong Igneous Complex, Ulu Lalat (Senting) granite, Boundary 

Range granite, and Kemahang granite. The northern plain or the Sg. Kelantan delta, is 

covered by alluvial sediment, while the coast is sediment overlaid by sand derived from 

marine sources. 

Central and south Kelantan is composed of Triassic rocks interspersed with Permian rocks. 

The Triassic rocks consist of interbedded sandstone and siltstone, shale, with some volcanic 

intercalations, while the Permian rocks are of phyllite, slate, shale and limestone (Rishworth, 

1974, in Chu et al., 1982). 

In the extreme south-east, overlying the Boundary Range granite, are Cretaceous-Jurassic 

rocks mainly of continental deposits. These continental rocks are the youngest in the State, 

and overlay the Boundary Range granite, and Triassic sediments in the tri-state border region 

of Kelantan, Terengganu, and Pahang, within Taman Negara. 

The oldest rocks in the State are in the foothills of the Main Range (with a northwards 

trending belt), which are Lower Palaeozoic in age, consisting of metapelites, with lesser 

amounts of volcanic fragmentals, and arenaceous intercalations (MacDonald, 1967, in Chu et 

al., 1982). 

1.5.7 Minerals 

Gold in Kelantan are of two types, alluvial gold, and lode gold, with the former being more 

widespread, particularly in the Sg. Galas, Sg. Pergau, and Taku Schist region, at Sg. Sokor, 

Sg. Wias, and at Kg. Pulai, while lode gold is mostly in Gua Musang and Sokor. Gold in Pulai 

was mined as early as the 18 th century, from alluvial gold obtained from hydrothermal quartz 

veins (MacDonald, 1967, in Chu et al., 1982), but production has stopped due to subeconomic 

quantities of gold. Through an agreement with the Sultan, Duff Development had 

played an important role in mineral prospecting in Kelantan since 1903. 

In terms of gold production, Tanah Merah is the most productive district, with 88,288 g of 

gold produced in 2001, followed by Jeli (12,485 g), Kuala Krai (8,353 g), and Gua Musang 

(2,770 g), with much of the gold from the Sokor-Taku region (Dept. of Minerals and 

Geoscience, Kelantan, 2001, in UPEN Kelantan, 2002). 

Iron is located at several locations in the State, but the most economically viable was at 

Temangan, made of secondary limonite, hematite, and goethite over primary siderite 

occurring along faulted contact between the Taku Schist and adjacent shales (MacDonald, 

1967, and Bean, 1969, in Chu et al., 1982). However, the mine, operational in 1819, has 

since closed. 

Barite, as hydrothermal veins capped by hematite, occurs at Sg. Perdah and Bt. Pencuri, in the 

Gua Musang area. These two barite outcrops are located within arenaceous and argillaceous 

sediments of the Permian age. Production was at 716.25 tonnes in 1999, 1816.40 tonnes in 

2000, and 649.10 tonnes in 2001 (Kelantan Dept. of Minerals and Geosciences, 2001, from 

UPEN Kelantan, 2002). 

1.5.8 Forest Resources 

Some 60% (894,271 ha) of the land area of Kelantan is under forest, of which, 629,687 ha 

(70%) is under Permanent Reserved Forests (PRFs), 108,783 ha (12%) is under Taman 

Negara, and 155,801 ha (18%) is under state land (Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri Kelantan, 

undated). PRFs are managed by the Kelantan State Forestry Department, Taman Negara is by 

DWNP, while state land is under the respective land offices. In terms of conservation, only 

the forest under Taman Negara is fully protected. 

12


Logging is conducted within PRFs and state land, and is a major revenue for the state, 

accounting for RM41.37 m in 1999 (47% of the state revenue). As at 2003, there are 35 PRFs 

managed by three district forestry offices based respectively at Kuala Krai (East Kelantan), 

Tanah Merah (West Kelantan) and Gua Musang (South Kelantan). The PRFs and their 

management office are listed in Table 1.8 below. 

Table 1.8: Permanent Reserved Forests in Kelantan 

No. Forest Reserve Area (ha) Date Gazetted 

West Kelantan 

1 Balah 56,010 01.09.1990 

2. Berangkat 21,409 09.09.1941 

3. Bukit Akar 1,072 11.05.1989 

4. G. Basor 40,613 11.05.1989 

5. G. Stong Selatan 28,134 11.05.1989 

6. G. Stong Tengah 21,950 11.05.1989 

7. G. Stong Utara 11,044 11.05.1989 

8. Jedok 4,382 01.01.1957 

9. Jeli 3,649 06.06.1991 

10. Jentiang 13,673 11.05.1989 

11. Sg. Sator 2,777 01.04.1962 

12. Sokotaku 21,825 10.10.1960 

Sub-Total 226,538 

South Kelantan 

13. Batu Papan 17,580 11.05.1989 

14. Bukit Hantu 3,134 11.05.1989 

15. Chiku 759 11.05.1989 

16. G. Rabong 16,355 11.05.1989 

17. Limau Kasturi 2,107 11.05.1989 

18. Lojing 13,063 11.05.1989 

19. Nenggiri 21,160 11.05.1989 

20. Perias 60,355 01.03.1990 

21. Sg. Betis 55,953 11.05.1989 

22. Sg. Brok 25,824 11.05.1989 

23. Sg. Terah 4,442 11.05.1989 

24. Ulu Galas 13,215 11.05.1989 


East Kelantan 

25. Chabang Tongkat 4,863 07.11.1946 

26. Lebir 47,549 01.01.1957 

27. Relai 39,432 01.01.1957 

13


28. Semerak 4 05.12.1939 

29. Serasa 10,338 11.05.1989 

30. Sg. Durian 16,481 27.05.1948 

31. Sg. Rek 15,360 11.05.1989 

32. Sg. Sam 3,756 11.05.1989 

33. Temangan 1,590 06.07.1937 

34. Ulu Sat 14,432 24.08.1958 

34. Ulu Temiang 15,397 18.04.1955 


Total 629,687 

Source: Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri Kelantan (undated) 

Compared to the other states in the peninsula, forest reserve gazettement in Kelantan is a 

relatively recent phenomenon, with 20 out of 35 forest reserves gazetted in 1989, three in 

1957, two in 1990, and one each in 1991, 1962, 1960, 1958, 1955, 1948, 1946, 1941, 1939, 

1937. The earliest to be gazetted was the Temangan Forest Reserve in 1937 (where iron was 

actively mined) followed by the Semerak Forest Reserve in 1939 and the Berangkat Forest 

Reserve in 1941. 

In contrast to the production forests, Virgin Jungle Reserves (VJRs) in the state total only 

1,611 ha (see Table 1.9 below). 

No. 

PRF in which VJR is 

Located 

Table 1.9: Virgin Jungle Reserves in Kelantan 

Year 

Gazetted 

Area of VJR 

(ha) 

Location of VJR 

1. Jeli Forest Reserve 1967 159 Compartment 18 

2. Temangan 1959 113 Compartment 7 

3. Chabang Tongkat 1967 130 Compartment 76 

4. Sg. Durian 1967 147 Compartment 101 

5. Ulu Temiang 1967 142 Compartment 43 

6. Ulu Sat 1967 189 Compartment 28 

7. Lebir N/a. 208 Compartment 19 

8. Relai 1960 523 Compartment 15 

Total 1,611 

Source: Jabatan Alam Sekitar (1993). 

Forested areas that are popular with local visitors are the 306ha Jeram Linang Recreational 

Forest (compartments 66 and 67 of the Ulu Sat Forest Reserve) and the 314 ha Bt. Baka 

Recreational Forest (compartment 6 of the Ulu Sat Forest Reserve). The Gunung Stong 

Tengah Forest Reserve (now Gunung Stong State Park) and Gunung Rabong Forest Reserve 

are popular with both local and non-local trekkers while the Ulu Nenggiri and Sg. Betis 

Forest Reserves, through which the Nenggiri River flows, are popular as white-water rafting 

sites for locals and non-locals alike. The kelah (Malayan mahseer) Conservation Area, along 

parts of the Sg. Nenggiri, is within the Nenggiri Forest Reserve. 

Forest resources are a major revenue earner for the State, accounting for 47% of her revenue 

base. Logs are obtained from production forests, stateland forests, and private land. Logs 

14


from production forests are based on annual production targets (coupes) decided at the 

Forestry Department headquarters, and there are cutting limits on diameter size at breastheight 

(dbh), while stateland and private land are not coupe-based, and nor are they limited by 

cutting sizes. Table 1.10 below provides some insight on log and timber production in 

Kelantan. 

Table 1.10: Production Of Major Timber Products in Kelantan (in cubic metres) 

Year Logs Sawn 

Timber 

Plywood Veneer Moulding 

1995 2,090,461 2,403,000 50,298 43,058 6,004 

1996 1,886,545 935,332 40,402 33,340 15,600 

1997 1,757,492 750,380 42,351 35,776 17,979 

1998 1,146,382 425,955 27,242 15,458 8,962 

1999 1,081,987 451,742 33,510 10,554 3,523 

2000 1,339,501 543,246 24,970 3,088 3,327 

Source: FDPM (2001). 

1.5.9 Environmental Quality 

1.5.9.1 Water Quality 

There are six river basins in Kelantan (in order of decreasing length and catchment area) 

consisting of the Sg. Kelantan (13,000 sq km), Sg. Golok (1,000 sq km), Sg. Semerak (200 sq 

km.), Sg. Kemasin (48 sq km), Sg. Pengkalan Chepa, and the Sg. Pengkalan Datu basins, with 

45 water-sampling stations. 

Out of 45 sampling stations, 34 are located in the Sg. Kelantan basin, Sg. Golok, 4; Sg. 

Semerak, 2; Sg. Kemasin, 1; Sg. Pengkalan Chepa, 1; and Sg. Pengkalan Datu, 3. In general, 

the surface water quality status of the rivers in Kelantan are in the Class II in the WQI 

category, excepting three sampling stations, one each in the Sg. Semerak, Sg. Pengkalan 

Chepa, and Sg. Pengkalan Datu basins, that register consistent Class III readings in 2000, 

2001, 2002, and 2003 (DOE Kelantan, 2004). 

Sg. Semerak, Sg. Pengkalan Chepa, and Sg. Pengkalan Datu recorded moderately polluted 

status due to their smaller basins, less pristine sources, and discharges from industries, and the 

presence of solid wastes, domestic and sewage pollution in their basins which are in the more 

populated and developed areas of the State. The Sg. Kelantan basin is cleaner, due to its 

higher volume of water (and greater dilution effect), and with its sources in the less developed 

uplands. 

1.5.9.2 Air Quality 

There are two air quality sampling stations, both in the district of Kota Bharu – one located at 

the S.M. Dato’ Hashim in Pengkalan Chepa (A1), and the other in the Sultan Ismail College 

(A2). The site in Pengkalan Chepa is within an industrial area, while the other is in the 

suburbs. 

Generally, between 1998 and 2002, the air quality ranged between Good (less than 50) and 

Moderate (between 51 to 100), rarely exceeding 50 on the Air Pollution Index (API), though 

in 1998, a spike of 104 and 103 were recorded in the months of April and May for A1, while 

for A2, the highest level was recorded in the month of May, 1998 (DOE Kelantan, 2004). 

Incidentally, the months of March to May are in the inter-monsoonal period, corresponding to 

15


the dry season, while 1998 is an El Nino year and the event of trans-boundary haze from open 

burnings in a neighboring country. 

According to the DOE, major air pollution sources are from stationary sources like woodbased 

industries, rubber and palm-oil mills, quarries, cement plants, tobacco kilns, solid waste 

sites and rice-milling factories, though open burnings by villagers and emissions from 

transportation are also responsible. 

1.5.10 Biodiversity 

1.5.10.1 Fauna 

With some 60% of her land still under forest cover and, more or less, contiguous with the 

remaining forested areas in the Titiwangsa, Tahan, and Eastern Ranges, it is expected that 

Kelantan is still relatively rich in wildlife (though apart from the flagship species of tigers, 

elephants, there is a paucity of information on population, distribution, and range of other 

fauna). A checklist of mammals occurring in the State of Kelantan, totalling 57 species, was 

compiled by Pue & Latiff (2005) but this checklist is in need of an update in the light of new 

information from more recent surveys (Shaharuddin et al., 2005). Out of the 57 species 

reported, seven are in the threatened list, namely the Sumatran rhinoceros (Critically 

Endangered), Malayan tapir (Endangered), Asian elephant (Endangered), Malayan tiger 

(Endangered), serow (Vulnerable), golden cat (Vulnerable), gaur (Vulnerable) and Asian wild 

dog (Vulnerable). 

1.5.10.2 Flora 

Out of 746 tree species endemic to Peninsular Malaysia compiled by Ng et al. (1990), about 

200 species are found in Kelantan and seven species are “hyper-endemics”, i.e. found only in 

specific locations in Kelantan and nowhere else. Most of these hyper-endemic species are 

located in the south of the State. Kelantan hyper-endemic trees and their locations are as 

provided in Table 1.11. 

Table 1.11: Hyper-Endemic Trees of Kelantan and Their Localities 

No Scientific Name Local Name Location 

1. Aleisanthia sylvatica (Rubiaceae) N/A Ulu Kelantan 

2. Aporusa isabellina (Euphorbiaceae) Pelangas Sg. Lebir 

3. Croton kelantanicus 

(Euphorbiaceae) 

Cenkian 

Sg. Ketil 

4. Derris yappii (Leguminosae) Batai Kuala Aring 

5. Goniothalamus rotundisepalus 

(Annonaceae) 

Kenerak Sg. Renong, Chaning, G. 

Stong 

6. Hederopsis major (Araliaceae) Balai Kuala Aring, Gua Musang 

7. Scolopia steenisiana 

(Flacourtiaceae) 

Rukam 

Gua Musang, Bertam 

Source: Ng et al. (1990) 

There are two species (out of three in Peninsular Malaysia) of the endangered parasitic plant, 

the rafflesia, found in the State. Rafflesia cantleyi is located at Kuala Koh (Kelantan portion 

of Taman Negara), while the more common R. kerrii can be found in GSSP, Pos Brooke, and 

Bt. Jeli Forest Reserve. The distribution of R. kerrii extends into South Thailand. 

Of much concern are the limestone hill habitats that harbour calcium-loving species (with 

some endemic to limestone only), of which, 57 species have been recorded for Kelantan 

(WWF-Malaysia, 1991). They are under threat from land development at the base, quarrying, 

16


and extraction of guano. The list of plants found on (but not necessarily limited to) limestone 

hills is as provided in Table 1.12 below. 

Table 1.12: Distribution of Plants found on Limestone Hills in Kelantan 

No. Species Location 

Family Acanthaceae 

1. Justicia arossa Gua Jaya & Sg, Bering, Gua Tampah, Gua Nenek, Gua Setir. 

2. Justicia sp. A Gua Renayang, Gua Papan, Pulau Raba, Gua Nenek, Gua 

Musang, Batu Boh. 

3. Justicia sp. B Pulau Raba. 

Family Agavaceae 

4. Dracaena porterii Gua Renayang, Gua Nenek, Batu Boh, Gua Gagak, Ciku 5, 

Ciku 8. 

Family Araceae 

5. Alocasia lowii Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Pulau Raba, Gua Ikan, Gua Musang, 

Gua Setir and Ciku 5. 

6. Amorphophallus 

carnosus 

Gua Papan, Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Pulau Raba, Gua Tampah, 

Kg. Star, and Ciku 5. 

7. Amorphophallus prainii Gua Renayang, Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Pulau Raba, Gua Ikan, 

Kg. Star, Gua Panjang, Gua Setir and Ciku 5. 

8. Arisaema roxburghii Gua Papan, Gua Ikan, Gua Setir and Gua Gagak. 

9. Colocasia gigantea Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Gua Tampan, Kg. Star, Gua Nenek, 

Batu Boh, Gunong Reng and Gua Setir. 

10. Cryptocoryne affinis Kg. Star, Gua Setir, Gua Gagak, Ciku 8, Gua Ikan 1 . 

11. Hapaline brownie Gua Renayang, Gua Papan, Gua Jaya & Sg, Bering, Pulau Raba, 

Gua Ikan, Gua Musang, Ciku 5, Ciku 8. 

12. Homalomena humilis Gua Renayang, Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Pulau Raba, Gua Ikan, 

Gua Nenek, Gua Setir, Gua Gagak, Ciku 5, Ciku 8. 

13. Pothos macrocephalus Gua Renayang, Gua Papan, Pulau Raba, Kg. Star, Gua Setir, 

Gua Gagak, Ciku 8. 

14. Pothos scandens Gua Renayang, Pulau Raba, Gunong Reng. 

Family Asclepiadaceae 

15. Hoya coronaria Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Gua Ikan, Gua Musang, Bukit 5. 

16. Hoya citrina 2 Gua Renayang, Gua Musang, Gunong Reng. 

Family Balsaminaceae 

17. Impatiens opinata Gua Renayang, Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Pulau Raba, Gua 

Nenek, Gua Musang, Gua Gagak, Bukit 5, Ciku 5, Ciku 8. 

Family Begoniaceae 

18. Begonia foxworthyi Gua Renayang, Pulau Raba, Kg. Star, Gua Nenek, Gua Panjang, 

Gua Musang, Gua Gagak, Bukit 5, Ciku 5, Ciku 8, Gua Ikan 1 . 

19. Begonia kingiana Gua Renayang, Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Pulau Raba, Gua 

Musang, Gunong Reng, Gua Gagak, Ciku 5. 

20. Begonia nurii Gua Papan, Gua Ikan, Batu Boh 

17


Family Commelinaceae 

21. Amischotolype 

(Forrestia) monosperma 

Family Cycadaceae 

Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Pulau Raba, Gua Panjang, Gua Setir, 

Gua Ikan 1 . 

22. Cycas siamensis 3 Gua Renayang, Pulau Raba, Gua Ikan. 

Family Euphorbiaceae 

23. Sauropus suberosus Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Gua Nenek, Gua Musang. 

Family Gesneriaceae 

24. Chirita involucrata Gua Ikan, Gua Tampah, Gua Gagak. 

25. Chirita sericea Batu Boh, Gua Setir, Gua Gagak. 

26. Chirita viola Pulau Raba 

27. Epithema sp. Nov. Gua Renayang, Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Pulau Raba, Gua Ikan, 

Gua Nenek, Gua Musang, Batu Boh, Gunong Reng, Gua Setir, 

Gua Gagak, Bukit 5, Ciku 5, Ciku 8. 

28. Monophyllaea hirticalyx Gua Renayang, Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Pulau Raba, Gua Ikan, 

Gua Musang, Gua Setir, Gua Gagak, Bukit 5, Ciku 5, Ciku 8. 

29. Monophyllaea horsfieldii Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Pulau Raba, Gua Ikan, Gua Tampah, 

Gua Nenek, Batu Boh, Gua Setir, Gua Gagak, Ciku 5, Ciku 8. 

30. Paraboea brachycarpa Kg. Star, Gua Musang. 

31. Paraboea spesiosissima Gua Papan, Kg. Star. 

32. Stauranthera grandiflora Pulau Raba, Batu Boh. 

Family Liliaceae 

33. Peliosanthes teta Pulau Raba, Tampah, Kg. Star, Gunong Reng, Gua Gagak, 

Bukit 5, Ciku 5, Ciku 8. 

Family Moraceae 

34. Streblus ilicifolius Gua Renayang, Gua Nenek, Gua Musang, Gua Gagak, Ciku 5. 

Family Oleaceae 

35. Jasminum curtisii Gua Panjang, Gua Gagak. 

Family Orchidaceae 

36. Calanthe triplicata Gua Renayang, Kg. Star. 

Family Palmae 

37. Arenga hookeriana Gua Renayang, Gua Ikan, Kg. Star, Gua Setir, Gua Gagak, 

Ciku 5. 

38. Arenga obtusifolia Gua Renayang, Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Gua Musang, Ciku 5. 

39. Arenga westerhoutii Gua Renayang, Batu Boh, Gua Ikan 1 . 

40. Caryota mitis Gua Renayang, Gua Ikan, Batu Boh, Gua Setir. 

41. Iguanura polymorpha Gua Renayang, Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Gua Ikan, Kg. Star, 

Gua Nenek, Batu Boh, Gua Setir, Bukit 5. 

42. Iguanura wallichiana Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Gua Ikan, Batu Boh, Gua Gagak, 

Bukit 5, Ciku 5. 

Family Pandanaceae 

43. Pandanus irregularis Gua Renayang, Gua Ikan, Kg. Star, Gua Nenek, Gua Gagak. 

18


Family Piperaceae 

44. Peperomia dindigulensis Gua Renayang, Pulau Raba, Batu Boh, Gua Setir. 

45. Piper kurzii Gua Renayang, Ciku 5. 

Family Rubiaceae 

46. Ixora nigricans Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Ciku 5. 

47. Morinda elliptica Gua Musang, Gunung Reng. 

48. Ophiorrhiza sp. A Gua Jaya, & Sg. Bering, Batu Boh, Gunong Reng, Gua Gagak, 

Ciku 5. 

49. Ophiorhiza sp. B Bukit 5, Ciku 5. 

Family Scrophulariaceae 

50. Curanga amara Gua Musang, Bukit 5, Ciku 8. 

51. Solanus biflorum Bukit 5, Ciku 8. 

Family Urticaceae 

52. Elatostema latifolium Gua Papan, Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Gua Setir, Gua Gagak. 

53. Elatostema subscabrum Gua Renayang, Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Pulau Raba, Gua Ikan, 

Gua Tampah, Kg. Star, Batu Boh, Gunong Reng, Ciku 5. 

54. Pilea fruticosa Gua Renayang, Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Pulau Raba, Gua Ikan, 

Kg. Star, Gua Panjang, Gua Musang, Gunung Reng, Gua Setir, 

Gua Gagak, Bukit 5, Ciku 5. 

55. Poikilospermum 

suaveolens 

Gua Renayang, Gua Panjang, Gunong Reng. 

56. Procris pedunculata Gua Renayang, Gua Papan, Gua Jaya & Sg. Bering, Pulau Raba, 

Gua Ikan, Gua Nenek, Gua Musang, Batu Boh, Gunung Reng, 

Gua Setir. 

Family Zingiberaceae 

57. Phaeomeria maingayi Gua Renayang, Pulau Raba. 

Source: After Davison & Kiew (1990) 

1 

Notes: Maseri et al. (2006) 

2 Now Hoya verticillata (Vahl) G. Don var. citrina (Ridl.) Veldkamp 

3 Now confirmed to be Cycas macrocarpa Griff according to Maseri et al. (2006). 

19


CHAPTER 2: PHYSICAL AND 

SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING OF GSSP 

2.1 Historical Background 

GSSP, prior to 1985, is not that well known to tourists or conservationists, due to the security 

status then, when large areas of forests were off-limits to the public. Sometime in the mid- 

1980s, a retired military special force officer, a Major Yusoff, offered jungle survival courses 

at GSSP, to outdoor recreationists and adventurers. These outdoor recreationists, on later 

trips, invited their friends along, and through word-of-mouth, more publicity was generated 

over this area, especially about the high waterfall known as the Lata Jeri or Lata Jelawang. 

A local, Baha, took a special interest over this area, and on his initiative, made explorations 

and created fresh trails, often modified from logging tracks, as there was active logging in the 

late 1980s. The number of hikers visiting GSSP gradually increased, and being the only 

guide, Baha was always hired, and his popularity spread, initially only in Kelantan, but later, 

throughout Malaysia and overseas. 

In 1992, anticipating the need for accommodation by visitors, Baha constructed 10 basic huts 

and a canteen, made out of readily available materials, at a logging site above the waterfall. It 

was also during this time that larger numbers of foreigners started to visit GSSP, promoted 

and marketed by a network of guesthouse operators in Kota Bharu and Pulau Perhentian. 

Baha passed away in 2002, but by this time he had already created a team, known as BAT 

(Baha Adventure Team) Guides, to handle the guiding and operational duties of the huts 

constructed at the top of the waterfall, now known as Baha Camp. Upon his demise, his 

eldest son, Odie, became the leader of the BAT Guides. By then, GSSP was already popular 

with local and foreign hikers, mostly visiting GSSP from Fridays to Sundays, the state and 

national weekends. 

In terms of conservation, the Malaysian Nature Society (MNS) suggested that the forests in 

this area be conserved as a protected area, i.e. as a national or state park, sometime in 1990. 

Several preliminary meetings were made with senior state level officers, but fizzled out as 

some stakeholders felt that the area requested was too large. A MNS counter-offer to operate 

a nature education centre sometime in 1995 were also not well-received. 

However, by 1996, appreciation of the importance of conservation had increased 

significantly, partly due to the impacts of the 1992 Rio Conference, the global warming 

phenomenon, increased exposure of Malaysians to unsustainable development, the 

DANCED-MNS-Johor National Parks Corporation partnership in the establishment of a 

nature education and research centre at the Endau-Rompin National Park, and the preparation 

of a management plan and the creation of the Perlis State Park through the collaboration 

among DANCED (later DANIDA), WWF-Malaysia, and the Perlis State Forestry 

Department. The role of DANCED is generally as a funder of conservation projects, an 

obligation underscored by Denmark, as a developed nation signatory to the Conference on 

Biological Diversity. 

It was at the turn of the millennium that the role of the Forestry Department began to expand, 

from that of forestry management to biodiversity conservation, in areas specifically created 

for these purposes, and managed by the respective State Forestry Departments. The spate of 

scientific expeditions in forest reserves in recent years is part of the directional change in the 

role of the Forestry Department, perhaps spurred by the increasing emphasis on the 

applications of the nation’s biodiversity in the biotechnology industry. 

In Kelantan, the 2003 Forestry Department-UKM Scientific Expedition to the Gunung Stong 

Tengah Forest Reserve revived the earlier proposal for a state park and, coupled with the shift 

in attitudes towards conservation, the suggestion in 2004 by the Forestry Department that the 

20


Gunung Stong Tengah Forest Reserve be gazetted as a protected area was unanimously 

accepted by the State Government. Subsequently, the Kelantan State Government amended 

the National Forestry Act 1984 (which had previously been adopted by the State), creating an 

additional category of forest reserves, i.e. as a state park, and the relevant state park 

committees were formed to guide the creation of the protected area. 

It was realised that there is a big gap between intentions and operational reality, and that a 

crucial step was the preparation of a management plan. However, unlike other new (or soonto-be) 

protected areas, GSSP is already popular with hikers, and pending a more detailed, 

management plan, it was decided that a preliminary management plan was necessary as a 

guide to the policy, planning and management of GSSP. To delay may result in negative 

impacts on GSSP in view of increasing numbers of visitors and the lack of control and 

monitoring over their behaviours, and also the lack for coordination between stakeholders. It 

is to be understood that this preliminary management plan is meant as a stopgap instrument 

pending a more detailed, management plan for GSSP. 

2.2 Location 

GSSP is currently the Gunung Stong Tengah Forest Reserve located in the west of the State 

(refer to Appendix 1 for location map). GSSP is surrounded by the Basor Forest Reserve 

(40,790ha), Gunung Stong Utara Forest Reserve (11,044ha), Gunung Stong Selatan Forest 

Reserve (28,134ha), Balah Forest Reserve (56,010ha) and Berangkat Forest Reserve 

(21,409ha). GSSP and this group of forest reserves together make up a total of 157,087ha of 

forestland. 

These blocks of forests are the extensions of the Titiwangsa Range that, at this point, straddles 

the borders of Kelantan and Perak. These forest reserves surrounding GSSP make good 

buffers and provide connectivity to the larger forest block of the Main Range and should 

remain forested. The Basor Forest Reserve, Gunung Stong Utara Forest Reserve, Gunung 

Stong Tengah Forest Reserve, Gunung Stong Selatan Forest Reserve and Basor Forest 

Reserve are under the management of the West Kelantan District of the Forestry Department. 

2.3 Access 

Before the advent of motor vehicles, the population traveled significantly by river, and jungle 

trails for short distances. Through these trails, forest produce was carried by locals to the 

nearest trading outpost and was then transported by traditional boats and bamboo rafts 

downstream to the more populous district or directly to the state capital. 

In time, these trading outposts expanded into river settlements which, for the more 

strategically sited, gradually turned into trading centres. Thus, historically, most towns in 

Malaysia were either on river junctions or along rivers. 

These communities attract other settlers, who then opened up forestland for subsistence and 

small-scale agriculture, with aggressive large-scale conversions only occurring after the 

introduction of rubber (and later oil palm). Introduction of plantation agriculture resulted in 

more forestlands were intensely converted to rubber, and the introduction of motor-vehicles 

resulted in a network of roads and railway lines crossing the country, not only improving 

access to these communities, but bringing in new ideas, people, and goods, further 

accelerating and amplifying the process of development. Towns then developed along these 

road and rail arteries, relegating river transportation and river towns to minor roles in 

logistics. 

Up till the last 20 years, Kelantan had been spared the rapid development that occurred in the 

west coast, and the GSSP area (which could be termed the last frontier) is finally experiencing 

what had been experienced earlier by the west coast states. Formerly accessible only by river 

and rail, it is now accessible by motor-vehicles, and as part of the north-south development 

21


corridor will be further developed. Dabong itself has been ear-marked as a gateway to GSSP 

(MDKKS & JPBD, 2000). 

Existing means of access to GSSP are summarised in Table 2.1. 

Table 2.1: Existing Means of Access to GSSP 

No Type Fee (RM unless stated 

otherwise) 

1 Train 

From Wakaf Baharu to Dabong by 

local or express train 

From Kuala Lumpur to Dabong 

From Singapore to Dabong 

2 Motor-vehicle 

East-West Highway (via Grik, then 

turning to Jeli, then to Dabong) 

Kuala Lumpur-Gua Musang Road 

(from Gua Musang proceed to Meranto 

or Jerek before turning to Jelawang) 

4.80 (Local train) 

7.00 (Express) 

28.00 (Economy Class) 

48.00 (2 nd Class Sleeper 

Coach) 

S$29.00 (Economy Coach) 

S$50.00 (2 nd Class Sleeper 

Berth) 

N/A 

Distance 

(km) 

100 

700 

600 

N/A 332 

(from Kuala 

Lumpur) 

Kota Bharu-Jeli Road (from Jeli 

proceed to Jelawang) 

3 Boat 

From Kuala Krai to Dabong/Jelawang 

via riverboat 

N/A 147 

(from Kota 

Bharu) 

10.00 

(Foreign tourists, 12.00) 

50 

The train is a popular mode of transport for visitors to GSSP, especially those from Kuala 

Lumpur and Singapore. Taking the night train from Kuala Lumpur or Singapore, they usually 

stop at Dabong, have breakfast, and either visit the caves first before climbing to Baha Camp 

and the mountains, or visit the caves during the return trip, before taking their night train 

back. 

Originally, those going to GSSP had to stop at Gua Musang, and take the local train to 

Dabong, as Dabong was not a scheduled stop for the nightly express train from Kuala Lumpur 

or Singapore. However, upon requests from GSSP visitors, it was decided to include Dabong 

as a scheduled stop. 

The East-West Highway is popular for those who drive from Kuala Lumpur, Penang, or 

Kedah. Reaching Jeli, they drive another 40 km to Kg. Jelawang at the base of GSSP, and 

park their vehicles at the resort parking lot. 

Foreign backpackers, on packages organised by guesthouses, visit GSSP by bus to Kuala 

Krai, and from there, by riverboat to Dabong, followed by a short 4-km trip by taxi-van, to 

Kg. Jelawang. After staying a few days at Baha Camp, they then return to Kota Bharu by the 

2.00 or 5.00 pm local train. 

22


Photo 2.1: Dabong Railway Station 

WWF-Malaysia/N.M. Maseri 

2.4 Legal Status 

GSSP is currently under the management of the Kuala Balah Forestry Sub-District of the 

West Kelantan District of the State Forestry Department, based at Tanah Merah, though it is 

located within the Kuala Krai District (or more precisely, the South Kuala Krai Sub-District, 

with an office at Dabong). 

GSSP is not yet formally gazetted as a protected area, and it is still a forest reserve. Gunung 

Stong Tengah Forest Reserve was previously logged in the 1980s, and there have been no 

logging activities since 1989. However, a logging concession for two compartments was 

awarded in 2004. The State Forestry Department is in the process of demarcating the 

boundary of GSSP (pers. comm. Abdullah Sani, Kelantan State Deputy Director of Forestry, 

2005). 

In Peninsular Malaysia, there are several models and precedents available for the 

establishment of national and state parks using various legal instruments, including the 

National Parks Act 1980, the National Parks (Johor) Corporation Enactment 1989 and the 

Perak State Parks Enactment 2001, and through amending the National Forestry Act 1984 as 

adopted by the State (as in the case of Perlis State Park). There is also a provision under the 

National Land Code 1965 (Section 62), for the creation of reserved areas for public use. 

Nevertheless, it has been decided that GSSP will be gazetted using the National Forestry Act 

(Amendment) Enactment 2004 and, for all intents and purposes, management will closely 

follow the Perlis State Park model. 

2.5 Geology 

The geology of GSSP is granite, part of the Migmatic Stong Complex, an injection complex 

from the mixing of Palaeozoic Rocks with an intrusion from the Main Range Granite 

(MacDonald, 1967, in Chu et al., 1982). The Stong Complex is composed of igneous rocks 

that have undergone metamorphosis, forming 3 suits: the Berangkat Tonalite, the Kenerong 

Leucogranite, and the Noring Granite. The Migmatic Stong Complex only has similarities 

with the Benta Complex, Pahang (Komoo et al., 2001). The Stong Migmatic Complex is part 

of the Central Zone granite that also occurs in Gua Musang, Jeli, Batang Merbau, formed 

from the Late Triassic or later (Liew, 1983, in Komoo et al., 2001). In Dabong, some 10 km 

away, are limestone hills that are part of the Gua Musang Limestone Aggregates. A 

geological map of the GSSP area is included as Appendix 2. 

In some parts, the Migmatic Stong Complex forms steep, razor-backed ridges that rise steeply 

from the lowlands, with waterfalls along their flanks. The steep flanks are prone to landslides 

23


during the monsoon season. The Migmatic Stong Complex, together with Gua Ikan, and the 

Sg. Galas, is three of the 22 geological heritage sites suggested by Komoo et al. (2001). 

Many of the prominent mountain peaks of the area are located in GSSP. These include 

Gunung Stong (1,422m), Gunung Ayam (1,504m), Gunung Saji (1,284m) and Gunung Tera 

(1,556m). Some parts of the northern flanks of the Migmatic Stong Complex are actually 

located within the Gunung Stong Utara Forest Reserve, outside of the GSSP area. This is not 

an ideal situation as the GSSP area, as it is currently defined, does not fully capture the whole 

ecosystem of the Migmatic Stong Complex. The northern flanks are composed of very steep 

slopes and therefore much of the area is not suitable for logging or any kind of land 

development (see Appendix 3). It is highly recommended, therefore, that the northern flanks 

within the Gunung Stong Utara Forest Reserve be gazetted as part of GSSP. 

Photo 2.2: Jelawang Waterfalls 

Photo 2.3: Upper ridges of the Sg. Semuliang 



24


2.6 Water Quality 

Water quality sampling was conducted by Mohd. Kamil et al. (2005) at 12 points along the 

Sg. Jeri (a tributary of the Sg. Stong, between the Stong resort and Baha Camp), Sg. 

Semuliang and Sg. Kenarong. Description of the sampling stations is provided in Table 2.2 

while results of the water quality sampling are presented in Table 2.3. 

Table 2.2: Description of Sampling Stations 

Station 

S1 

S2 

S3 

S4 

S5 

S6 

S7 

S8 

S9 

S10 

S11 

S12 

Coordinates 

(RSO) 

N442750 

E590667 

N442503 

E590728 

N442380 

E590790 

N442041 

E590668 

N442965 

E590666 

N443519 

E590665 

N441981 

E591098 

N442044 

E591589 

N439847 

E591589 

N436457 

E584967 

N437292 

E584962 

N442617 

E586090 

Location 

Small iron plate that serves as a bridge across a branch of the Sg. 

Jeri on the way to the resort, but outside the boundary of GSSP. 

Sg. Jeri that is within the resort area. 

Sg. Jeri that is within the resort area. 

Sg. Jeri, within the resort area. 

Sg. Jeri, outside the resort, and passing several dwellings. 

Sg. Jeri, at the bridge near the Jelawang Secondary School. 

Sg. Jeri, within the resort grounds, at the canopy bridge. 

Sg. Jeri, at the foot of the high waterfall. 

Sg. Semuliang, near the junction with the Sg. Kenerong, on the 

way to the mini-hydro dam. 

Sg. Kenerong, at the mini-hydro-station. 

A tributary of the Semuliang 

Sg. Stong, near rubber smallholdings. 

Source: Mohd Kamil et al. (2003) 

Table 2.3: Water Sampling Data 

Parameter Unit S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 

pH 6.56 6.38 6.78 6.17 7.27 6.57 6.58 6.41 6.07 6.01 6.16 6.17 

Temp °C 26.8 26.8 26.4 24.5 23.8 25.7 26.1 26.2 24.5 21.4 21.9 25.3 

EC mS/cm 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 

DO mg/l 6.40 6.96 7.11 7.20 7.05 7.18 6.88 6.08 7.70 7.78 7.90 7.71 

Turbidity NTU 1.83 1.55 1.63 1.72 1.63 7.03 5.30 3.77 1.14 0.90 1.08 1.58 

25


BOD mg/l 0.66 0.54 0.68 0.69 0.50 1.42 0.90 0.66 0.84 0.88 0.40 0.92 

COD mg/l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 6 1 1 

NH3N mg/l 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 

NO 3N mg/l 3.6 5.4 3.1 4.2 1.7 5.0 3.2 2.5 1.4 1.4 4.0 5.0 

NO 2N mg/l 0.00 

2 

0.00 

3 

0.00 

6 

0.01 

1 

0.01 

1 

PO 4 mg/l 0.46 0.07 0.67 0.44 0.20 0.23 0.58 1.19 0.42 0.60 0.23 0.29 

SO 4 mg/l 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 5 2 1 1 

Cu mg/l 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.54 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.05 

E. coli MPN/ 

100ml 

0.00 

1 

0.00 

4 

0.00 

4 

0.00 

5 

0.00 

7 

0.00 

6 

365 148 365 866 488 980 1,733 2,419 260 980 64 411 

TSS Mg/l 1.4 1.6 6.2 1.6 1.6 2.7 7.0 4.3 1.5 0.5 11 0.5 

WQI 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Class I I I I I I I I I I I I 

Source: Mohd Kamil et al. (2005) 

All the waters sampled at the points S1 to S12 exhibited INWQS Class I characteristics, 

indicative of excellent water quality, especially in relation to its neutral pH, high dissolved 

oxygen (DO), low turbidity, low total suspended solids (TSS), low carbon oxygen demand 

(COD) and biological oxygen demand (BOD), and low levels of nitrates, phosphates, 

sulphates, and copper. Nevertheless, an area of concern is the level of E. coli at certain 

sampling stations, indicative of fecal contamination, especially at S8 (2,419/100ml), S7 

(1,733/100ml), S10 (980/100ml), S6 (980/100ml), and S4 (866/100ml). Except for S10, all 

the sites are at or near human habitations, especially in the resort area, dwelling units, and the 

Baha Camp. 

Regular monitoring is a must, in order to determine the water (sewage) quality patterns and 

trends, in view of the fact that the Sg. Jeri is a source of potable water for the Jelawang 

community. Discharge of raw sewage may be the limiting factor in additional infrastructural 

construction for accommodation at the resort or at Baha Camp, unless a proper sewage 

treatment facility is made available for mitigating the additional sewage load into the Sg. Jeri. 

2.7 Land Use 

The study area is heavily forested, with some 80% under Permanent Forest Reserves, 

followed by agricultural land under rubber, fruits and oil palm, and settlements (refer to 

Appendix 4 for the land use map). Federal and state agricultural agencies (FELCRA, 

KESEDAR, RISDA, PKENK) play a major role in conversion of forest to agricultural 

smallholdings, as a land-reform programme for the poor and landless. 

Land use for the Kuala Krai district (as described in Table 2.4 below) could be representative 

of the area surrounding GSSP. 

Table 2.4: Land Use of the District of Kuala Krai 

No Land Use Area (ha) Percentage 

(%) 

1. Forest Reserves 112,779.6 47.8 

2. Reserves/Roads/Others 71,670.0 30.4 

3. Rubber 25,959.0 11.0 

4. Orchards and others 18,169.2 7.5 

0.00 

7 

26


5. Oilpalm 5,927.0 2.5 

6. Settlements 597.2 0.2 

7. Towns 587.1 0.2 

Total 235, 689.1 100 

Source: JPBD (1996). 

Settlement centres like Dabong, Jelawang, and Kuala Balah are focal points that provide the 

basic food and recreational needs of settlers, and the good road linking these communities to 

Gua Musang, Tanah Merah, and Kota Bharu means that they are increasingly becoming less 

isolated. Dabong also has a train station that provides services to Gua Musang and Wakaf 

Baharu. These settlement centres have facilities for basic commercial activities, schools, 

police station, and hospitals and clinics, while traditional villages are linearly aligned along 

roads, railway tracks, and rivers, especially along the roads linking Dabong-Jeli and 

Jelawang-Gua Musang. Dabong has been identified as a growth area and a gateway to GSSP 

(MDKKS & JPBD, 2000). Facilities and conveniences available at Dabong, Jelawang and 

Kuala Balah are described in Table 2.5. 

No. 

Table 2.5: Facilities Available at Settlement Centres Near GSSP 

Settlement 

Center 

Population 

Distance from 

GSSP (km) 

Facilities 

1. Dabong N/A 10 Medical centre, mosque, 

market, train station, 

secondary school, police 

station, boat jetty, post office. 

2. Jelawang N/A 7 Primary school, mosque, 

government clinic, technical 

institute (Giatmara), 

multipurpose hall, motor 

workshop. 

3. Kuala Balah 3,738 15 Market, post office, mosque, 

police station, primary school, 

medical centre. 

There is an Orang Asli post at Sg. Tako, for the Mendriq sub-tribe, with a population of about 

20 families, with basic facilities, and at Sg. Kenerong there is a mini hydropower dam 

(Musteq Hydro Sdn. Bhd.) which produces 11 kV of power that is connected to the national 

electricity grid system. 

KESEDAR plays a major role in agriculture and rural development surrounding GSSP. 

Formed in 1978, the role of KESEDAR is to develop remote areas of Kelantan through largescale 

agricultural development and settlements. Under KESEDAR, there are two schemes: 

Rancangan Pemulihan Tanah (RPT) and the Rancangan Kemajuan Tanah (RKT). In the RPT 

scheme, development schemes originally under the state is transferred to KESEDAR, while 

under the RKT, primary forestland is cleared and replanted with rubber or oilpalm. In the 

RPT, each settler is allocated 10 acres of oilpalm or rubber, with 0.25 acre for a dwelling, 

while under the RKT, six acres are allotted for oilpalm or rubber, two acres for an orchard, 

and 0.25 acre for a housing lot. Soft loans of RM45,000 are offered for seedlings, fertiliser, 

and pesticides, with RM10,000-12,000 for house construction (pers. comm.. Mohamad bin 

Husin, KESEDAR, 2005). 

In relation to the area around GSSP, in 1983, KESEDAR acquired state-owned agricultural 

schemes under the LKTN (Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Negeri) and TAKDIR (Perbadanan 

27


Kemajuan Tanah Negeri Kelantan Darulnaim). The area around GSSP is managed by the 

operations centre in Jelawang, manned by a staff of 11. In the district of Kuala Krai Selatan 

(MDKKS), there are eight schemes, of which, six (RPT Jelawang, Mempelam, Biak, 

Meranto, Sg. Long, Pasir Dusun) are under the KESEDAR Jelawang operations office. 

The KESEDAR settlements in the MDKKS area are listed in Table 2.6. 

Table 2.6: Areas under the KESEDAR in the MDKKS 

No. Name of Scheme Families No. Settlers Main Crop Area (ha) 

1 RPT Jelawang 187 455 Rubber 527.92 

2 RPT Mempelam 145 455 Rubber 736.14 

3 RPT Biak 320 713 Rubber 958.20 

4 RPT Meranto 88 N/A Rubber N/A 

5 RPT Pasir Dusun 135 750 Rubber 2828 

6 RPT Sg. Long 250 1,155 Rubber 4050 

7 RPT Sg. Sam 264 705 Rubber 565.37 

8 RPT Sg. Rek 515 515 Rubber 545.11 

9 RPT Sg. Sok 130 800 Rubber 1,011.12 

10 Cucuh Puteri 216 1,986 Rubber 1,186 

11 Cahaya Putera 216 1,375 Rubber 781.29 

Total 4,266 

Source: KESEDAR (1995), from JPBD (1996). 

Similar to the FELDA schemes, KESEDAR land settlement schemes have been hugely 

successful in alleviating the poverty rate, but the offsprings, after obtaining better education, 

and good employment opportunities, rarely return to work on the farms, that usually end in 

neglect as the settlers become too old to maintain, much less work the farms. Some of the 

rubber smallholdings are due for the second replanting, and arrangements are being made to 

collaborate with RISDA (pers. comm. Mohamed bin Abdullah, KESEDAR, 2005). 

According to En. Mohamed Husin, KESEDAR is not clearing any new land, and its role has 

changed to providing infrastructure, and improving the quality of life of the settlers (and their 

children) through capacity building, and this includes technical training, small business 

training and operations such as small rural industries (poultry farms, grouped vegetable farms, 

black pepper farms, food processing), and soft loans for budding entrepreneurs. 

Projects planned and implemented by KESEDAR within their areas of operation are: 

• Infrastructure and public amenities – road development, supply of treated water, 

electricity and public amenities, such as bus terminal and rest and recreation areas, in 

South Kelantan. As at 2002, some 1,658 km of roads in South Kelantan has been 

built, and 81% and 92% of the population in South Kelantan has 24-hour electrical 

supply and piped water supply, respectively (www.kesedar.com). 

• Urban and Growth Area Development – planning and development of growth 

areas through the provision of infrastructure, housing, and social services. Jeli and 

Ciku have been identified as primary growth areas, while traditional villages like 

Manik Urai, Bt. Bunga, and Sg. Asap, are identified as village growth areas. 

• Economics and Investments – the major activities are entrepreneur development, 

industrial lot development, corporate development, trade and commerce, commercial 

agriculture and asset management, and hospitality. Some 161 industrial lots (110 ha) 

28


have been offered in Gua Musang for investors in the wood-based industry, and as at 

2002, nine of these industries were operational. To spearhead the economics sector, 

three subsidiaries were formed: KESEDAR Perkilangan Sdn. Bhd., KESEDAR 

Dagang Sdn. Bhd., and KESEDAR Inn Sdn. Bhd. 

• Human Development Programme – this includes social and institutional 

development, poverty alleviation and village development schemes, with the 

objective of changing the attitudes of the population, turning them into disciplined, 

far-sighted, resourceful individuals, by training and educating them. Under the 

poverty alleviation scheme, aid in the form of agriculture input, cattle rearing, and 

house repair, is provided. 

• Traditional Villages – restructing and resettling of high flood-risk villages, and 

providing basic infrastructure and social services to raise their standard of living. 

Special projects such as lemon orchards, nuclear village, and herb gardens, have been 

introduced. 

• Land Development Schemes (RPT) – the major socio-economic thrust for the 

creation of KESEDAR, this is the conversion of large areas of forestland into 

monoculture of oilpalm or rubber. Under this scheme, 9,655ha of rubber, and 9,655ha 

of oilpalm have been planted, benefiting 2228 families. Expert technical advice is 

available from KESEDAR staff and the relevant agencies (MPOB, RRIM, MARDI, 

DOA, and Veterinary Department). 

• Land Rehabilitation Schemes (RKT) – this is the absorption of the 24 state-owned 

land development schemes totaling 29,661ha (24,249ha rubber, 3,484ha oilpalm, and 

1,928ha fruit orchards) and 7451 families, into KESEDAR. Like the RPT, basic 

facilities, technical advice and agriculture inputs are provided. 

• Tourism – tourism products are identified, promoted, and yearly events organised at 

the tourism sites identified including tournaments at the 9-hole golf course, the 

Nenggiri Challenge, rock-climbing, homestay programmes and visits to the Ethnobotany 

Park. The subsidiary responsible for these activities is the KESEDAR Travel 

Sdn. Bhd. 

There is a major wood processing industry at Meranto, operated by a subsidiary of the state 

government: the Kompleks Perkayuan Kelantan (KPK), within a 63.9ha area, some 5km 

south of GSSP. With major concessions totaling 92,000ha (JPBD, 1996), from the Balah and 

Gunung Berangkat Forest Reserves, KPK produces planks for the export and the domestic 

markets. 

The Dabong-Gua Musang road cuts through the southeastern part of GSSP, dividing the park 

into two portions, a larger western portion containing most of the Gunung Stong massif and 

its southern flank and a much smaller eastern portion that contains a hilly area. This smaller 

portion contains a significant area of scrubland and there appears to be some encroachment of 

fruit orchards and rubber smallholdings into the GSSP area to the east of the Dabong-Gua 

Musang road. This presents some potential problems in the management of GSSP as having 

two separate portions means that there are more access points into GSSP for illegal activities 

and therefore greater management inputs are required. Furthermore, land encroachment will 

need to be resolved, either through eviction of illegal settlers (which may require some form 

of compensation) or excision of these small areas from the GSSP area. 

2.8 Socio-Economy 

Agriculture, animal husbandry, logging and fisheries are the leading contributor to the GDP 

of the Kuala Krai district, though declining from RM61.3 million (1980) to RM53.4 million 

(1995). There are three major crops – rubber, fruits and oilpalm – with the area under rubber 

comprising 59.9% (25,959ha out of the total 93,515ha under agriculture in the district) 

followed by fruit orchards, 21.9% (9,487ha) and oilpalm, 13.7 % (5,927ha) (JPBD, 1996). 

29


For the Kuala Krai district (of which GSSP is within the sub-district of Kuala Krai Selatan), 

the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sector is the major contributor to the economy, 

contributing 33.8% in 1995 to the local economy (compared to 13.9% for Kelantan and 7% to 

the national economy) (JPBD, 1998). The contribution of this sector as a proportion to the 

GDP declined from 63.1% in 1980 to 33.8% in 1995 (JPBD, 1998). The second highest 

contributor is government services, accounting for 28.4% of the State’s economy in 1995, 

compared to 11.2% in 1980, with a 400% growth in monetary values, from RM10.9 million in 

1980 to RM44.9 million in 1990. The third major contributor is manufacturing, responsible 

for 12 % of the GDP in 1995, as against 10% in 1980 (JPBD, 1996). 

The sectoral shift is reflected in the employment statistics, with a decline in agricultural sector 

employment, from 72.9% (1980) to 54% (1995), while there was a corresponding increase in 

manufacturing sector employment, from 5.7 % (1980) to 12.5% (1995) (JPBD, 1996). 

However, though there is lack of data specific to the GSSP study area (Dabong-Jelawang- 

Kuala Balah), we estimate that the contribution of agriculture, animal husbandry, logging and 

fisheries sector is about 50-60%, (which is higher than for the district, at 33.8%). The second 

highest contributor is likely to be from the government services sector, comprising education, 

health and social services (30-40%), and tourism (20-30%). A study on the contribution of 

tourism on the socio-economy of the study area will provide fresh insights on the consumer 

behavior of the visitors, and their expectations, and will greatly help in tourism planning. 

Average monthly household incomes in the Kuala Krai district is RM729, with additional per 

household income of RM212 per month. Nevertheless, KESEDAR scheme settlers are better 

off, with average monthly incomes of RM1,000-RM1,400, while those from traditional 

villages earn much less, i.e. RM350-RM750 per month (JPBD, 1996). However, it must be 

cautioned that rural households typically understate their earnings in the hope of obtaining 

subsidies and aid from KESEDAR and other agencies (pers. comm., En. Mohamad bin Husin, 

KESEDAR, 2005). 

30


CHAPTER 3: BIODIVERSITY OF GSSP 

3.1 General Characteristics of the Forests in GSSP 

The vegetation type of the GSSP area is mainly hill dipterocarp forest at elevations between 

300m a.s.l. and 750 m a.s.l. At higher elevations and mountain peaks of between 1,200 m and 

1500m, the predominant vegetation type is upper dipterocarp forest and oak-laurel forests. 

The forests at the lower elevation at GSSP are logged-over but, due to restrictions against 

logging above the 1000m-level, most of the highland forest above that altitude is still intact. 

Very little, if any, remains of the primary lowland dipterocarp forest at elevations below 

300m a.s.l. In the lowland areas, there are extensive areas of scrubland dominated by pioneer 

plants such as mahang (Macaranga spp.), perah (Elateriospermum tapos), bamboos and 

gingers. Of particular interest is the sub-montane swamp forest located to the south of GSSP 

(see 3.3.2). A preliminary vegetation map of the GSSP area, produced based on the altitudinal 

zonation scheme as described by Symington (2001) and on land use map from the 

Department of Agriculture, is included as Appendix 5. 

3.2 Logging History of GSSP and Surrounding Areas 

All of the forest reserves in the GSSP area have been logged, mostly in the late 1970s to the 

1980s, and some forest compartments are undergoing the second logging cycle. Areas that 

have been exempted from new logging activities are the steep border areas with Perak in the 

Basor Forest Reserve and GSSP, with two concessions (Compartments 24, 25) revoked by the 

Forestry Department since its declaration as a protected area. 

The Kompleks Perkayuan Kelantan (KPK) holds substantial concessions in the Berangkat, 

Balah, Gunung Stong Selatan, and Gunung Stong Utara Forest Reserves, with almost 100% 

of concessions in Berangkat (non-KPK concessions are in Compartments 57 and 59), and 

70% of the concessions in Balah Forest Reserve (the other 30% of the concession is held by 

the Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli). 

In Gunung Stong Selatan Forest Reserve, compartments 100 (100ha), 104 (50ha), 97 (40ha) 

and 74 (100ha) are being logged, while some 600ha (compartments 94, 95, 96, 97, 98) are 

under teak plantations. In Gunung Stong Utara Forest Reserve, compartments 13 (80ha), 18 

(80ha) and 19 are undergoing logging, with compartments 44 (210ha), 62 (52ha) was 

converted into stateland in 2004. 

For Gunung Basor Forest Reserve, logging is conducted in compartments 39 (283ha), 136 

(150ha), 126 (148ha), 97 (100ha), 129 (50ha), 24 (50ha), 24 (50ha), 93 (41ha). 

Compartments with the potential for opening up for logging are: 61 (50 ha), 40 (60ha), 44 

(162ha), 45 (60ha), 62 (50ha), 94 (45ha), 60 (50ha), 164 (50ha), 24 (30ha), 124 (292ha), 25 

(289 ha) (pers. comm., En. Mohamed bin Nor, ADFO, Tanah Merah, 2005). 

3.3 Ground-Truthing 

Two ground-truthing exercises were conducted, the first in March 2005, and the second, in 

August 2005 (See Figure 3.1). The first ground-truthing was through the eastern approach, 

through the main route for hikers: following the cemented rural road to the waterfall, and 

from the trailhead, a climb to Baha Camp. From Baha Camp, a trek was made to G. Kob, Li 

Rock Shelter, G. Ayam, G. Che Kob, G. Saji, G.Tera, the saddle between G. Ayam and G. 

Stong, and G. Menyelit, and the return trek to Baha Camp. 

The second ground-truthing was through the southern approach, by way of the Sg. Semuliang 

trail, the entry of which being the confluence of Sg. Kenerong and Sg. Semuliang. With the 

exception of a few crossings, the ground-truthing follows the Semuliang Trail, which more or 

less follows the upriver course of the Sg. Semuliang. Several stops were made at the 

designated campsites (at the Sg. Kenerong-Sg. Semuliang confluence, Batu Hampar Camp, 

and Cobra Camp), with the addition of a side expedition to a sub-montane swamp forest. The 

31


return trip is through the saddle between, G. Stong and G. Ayam, to G. Stong, and straight 

down to Baha Camp. 

In general, there are still visible signs that GSSP have been extensively logged some time in 

the mid to late 1980s, as evidenced by the abandoned logging trails that extend up to the 

1000m limits. At lower elevations and on the more undulating ground, these logging trails 

have provided access for settlers to encroach into areas surrounding GSSP, establishing 

dwellings, smallholdings, and fruit farms, in the hope of obtaining legal title in the future. 

However, since most of GSSP is steeply sloped, encroachment seemed to be limited to three 

areas: the Jelawang approach to the waterfall, and to the Sg. Stong river plain that is off the 

Jelawang-Gua Musang federal road, and along the edges of the Jelawang-Gua Musang Road 

(see Appendix 4). Possibly, the steep, rocky slopes beyond these areas have deterred further 

encroachments. 

The logged-over patches and logging trails have encouraged the growth of pioneer and 

sunlight-loving species, with a profusion of bamboo thickets, gingers, ferns and wild bananas, 

and pioneer woody species (typically Macaranga spp., Melastoma spp., Alstonia spp., 

Elateriospermum tapos) are dominant. 

There are numerous signs (droppings, prints, and calls) of the presence of wildlife, such as 

elephants, gibbons, tigers, deer and wild boar. There are also signs pointing to the presence of 

agarwood (Aquilaria spp.) collectors, with their campsites and markings on tree trunks, off 

the usual trails. 

The upper levels of GSSP are frequently shrouded in mists, due to the upwelling of humid air 

from the lowlands that develops into late afternoon thunderstorms and showers. Due to its 

granite base, the topsoil is shallow, and this leads to low water retention that easily leads to 

mini-cascades and waterfalls along seasonal streambeds, and over-flooding of the riverbanks 

within GSSP. This is especially felt at Baha Camp, the base of the waterfall, and the loop 

near the Sekolah kebangsaan Mempelam, Jelawang. 

Figure 3.1: Location of Ground Truthing 1 & 2 

3.3.1 Ground-Truthing A 

This ground-truthing investigation was conducted from the Stong Resort to Baha Camp, Bogo 

Rock Shelter, G. Kob, Li Rock Shelter, G. Ayam, G. Che Tahir, G. Tera, G. Menyelit, and 

back. The descriptions of the areas visited are as in Table 3.1. 

32


No. 

Name of 

Area 

Table 3.1: Description of Areas in Ground-Truthing A 

Coordinates 

& Elevation 

GTA1 Baha Camp N441757 

E590819 

461m asl 

GTA2 Sg. Rantai N441155 

E590721 

621m asl 

GTA3 Benta plateau N440137 

E590623 

760m asl 

GTA4 Gua Bogo 

(Bogo Rock 

Shelter) 

GTA5 Turning to 

Gua Li 

N439798 

E590347 

816m asl 

N439791 

E590348 

944m asl 

GTA6 G. Kob N439202 

E590515 

1,266m asl 

GTA7 Gua Li (Li 

Rock Shelter) 

N439203 

E590515 

1,062m asl 

GTA8 G. Ayam N437652 

E591049 

1,500m asl 

Description 

Logged-over forest, at the top of the big waterfall. 

The camp consists of two parts: in one part are the 

huts, while across the river is a campsite and a prayer 

hut. The area has a diversity of tree species 

especially meranti (Shorea spp.), seraya (Shorea 

curtisii), simpoh gajah (Dillenia reticulata), and 

terentang (Campnosperma auriculata). Near the 

campsite is a population of the endemic Licuala 

stongensis. On the way to the last waterfall are 

gesneriads growing on rock faces, Dracaena spp. in 

the shade, and a population of the slipper orchid, 

Paphiopedilum barbatum. 

Sg. Rantai can be approached from either the resam 

(Dicranopteris linearis)-lined trail, or, alternatively, 

through a trail next to the last waterfall. The river is 

named after a piece of chain tied to a tree to assist 

hikers climbing up the steep riverbank. 

Formerly a log collection point, this area is 

occasionally used by campers as an alternative to 

Baha Camp. There is also a population of the 

endemic L. stongensis found at this site. 

Situated in an upper hill dipterocarp forest, this rock 

shelter is regularly used by hikers as a rest-point, and 

even a campsite, on their way to the summit of 

Stong. There is a large meranti bukit (Shorea 

platyclados) next to the rock-shelter, and here also 

marks the emerging presence of the montane giant 

tree fern, Cyathea spp. 

This is the upper limit of the logging trail that starts 

from Jelawang. Habitat type is a mix of the upper hill 

dipterocarp forest and the oak-laurel forest, with the 

latter predominating on the more moist parts, while 

the former on steeper, drier parts. Pinanga 

malayanum, and dipterocarps like meranti sarang 

punai (Shorea parvifolia), meranti bukit (S. 

platyclados), are noted. Also noted are signs of 

harvested Aquilaria spp. 

Lower montane forest on the summit, a steep ascent 

from the ridge to Gua Li, with eroded slopes exposed 

by landslides. 

A small rock shelter, through which a small stream 

flows, used by agarwood collectors as a camp. 

Habitat-type is more of an oak-laurel forest, with 

increasing tendency for a mossy forest type, 

influenced by the high level of moisture, as one 

enters the saddle between G. Ayam and G. Stong, 

with increasing presence of Phyllagathis sp. and 

sphagnum moss. 

Vegetation at summit is montane ericaceous forest, 

dominated by the Dacrydium spp., gnarled 

Leptospermum spp., and the montane fern, Dipteris 

conjugata, though at exposed flanks, the weedy 

Dicranopteris linearis dominate. On exposed 

33


GTA9 G. Che Tahir N437829 

E592589 

1,415m asl 

GTA10 G. Tera N434747 

E591542 

1,565m asl. 

GTA11 G. Menyelit N437867 

E590176 

1,480m asl 

summits and flanks, the ericaceus forests dominate, 

but on shaded ridges and flanks, the oak and laurel 

forests are more prominent. 

G. Che Tahir is the granite outcrop somewhat to the 

northeast of (and clearly visible from) G. Ayam. The 

hike to G. Che Tahir entails a descent down the oaklaurel 

slopes of Ayam and the ascent again up the 

slope of Che Tahir, while encountering clear 

mountain streams on the way. 

One needs to descend G. Ayam and ascend the G. 

Saji plateau before the final climb to G. Tera. The G. 

Saji plateau is a montane swamp, with patches of 

ponds and pools, especially during wet periods, and 

seems to be a favourite site for elephants. At G. Tera, 

there is a profusion of the endemic bamboo, 

Holtummochloa pubescens, in the summit area. 

G. Menyelit possibly shares the same ridge as G. 

Stong. The shallow soil substrate cannot retain water, 

and during rain events, small cascades are formed, 

along the seasonal streambeds. Vegetation is oaklaurel 

forest that turns into upper montane forests at 

the summit. 

3.3.2 Ground-Truthing B 

The ground-truthing began at the confluence of the Sg. Semuliang and Sg. Kenerong (near 

mini-hydro dam), from which we generally followed the Sg. Semuliang course upstream to its 

confluence with the smaller streams flowing down the G. Tera, G. Ayam, and G. Saji. A 

side-trip was made to a patch of sub-montane swamp on a ridge south of this spot (Cobra 

Camp). A return journey was made to Baha Camp by way of the saddle between G. Ayam 

and G. Stong, up to G. Stong, and down the main hiking trail. The description of the areas 

covered is as in Table 3.2. 

Table 3.2: Description of Areas in Ground-Truthing B 

No. Name of Area Coordinates Description 

GTB1 Sg. Stong N586121 

E439683 

67m asl 

GTB2 Kuala Kenerong N586757 

E439685 

196m asl 

GTB3 

Small stream 

crossing, tributary 

of the Sg. 

Semuliang. 

N587177 

E439748 

271m asl 

GTB4 Rafflesia Site N588093 

E439786 

281m asl 

GTB5 

Branch of the Sg. 

Semuliang 

N588467 

E438671 

550m asl 

Near the Forestry Department signboard. 

Land next to the gravel road is under rubber, 

probably an encroachment into the forest 

reserve. The rocky Sg. Stong at this point is 

about 10-15 m wide. 

On the way to the Mustaq mini-hydro dam. 

The river is rocky, with heavily logged-over 

forests. Camped at Sg. Semuliang, next to 

the road. 

Heavily logged-over area, covered with 

bamboo, wild bananas, gingers, and bemban 

(Donax grandis). 

Next to small waterfall, logged-over forest. 

Except for a rotting bud, no fresh signs of 

rafflesia. 

A small saraca-type rocky stream flowing 

southeast. Area has been logged-over. 

34


GTB6 

Abandoned 

logging track on a 

ridge between 2 

rivers. 

N588991 

E438382 

725m asl 

GTB7 Sg. Semuliang N589393 

E437627 

680m asl 

GTB8 Batu Hampar N590421 

E436730 

774m asl 

GTB9 Cobra Camp N590130 

E436707 

950m asl 

GTB10 Trailhead to 

Padang Ragut 

GTB11 

Ridge to Padang 

Ragut 

GTB12 Padang Ragut 

(Sub-montane 

swamp) 

N589922 

E436707 

995m asl 

N588948 

E436171 

995m asl 

N590288 

E438710 

1,320m asl 

Trail heavily covered with the fern 

Dicranopteris linearis (resam). Off the trail 

fast-growing secondary forest vegetation can 

be observed, typically mahang (Macaranga 

spp.), pulai (Alstonia spp.) and perah 

(Elateriospermum tapos). 

Cascading falls and rocky beds and banks on 

the upper Semuliang. 

Flat stretch of rocky banks of the upper 

Semuliang. Approach is through an 

abandoned logging trail parallel to the river. 

Campsite on the upper Semuliang, where 

several small streams from G. Tera, G. 

Ayam, and G. Saji meet. Being a former log 

collection point, the campsite is overgrown 

with resam. 

Trail overgrown with resam. View of G. 

Ayam and G. Menyelit clearly visible from 

this point. 

Primary oak-laurel forest habitat, no sign of 

logging, but signs of agarwood collectors. 

The mountain fern, Dipteris conjugata, is 

abundant here. 

An extensive patch of sub-montane swamp 

forest, with heavily inundated knee-deep 

peaty soil, forming deep pools whenever it 

rains. 

Photo 3.1: Upper Sg. Semuliang 


3.4 Gunung Stong Scientific Expedition 2003 

Prior to the scientific expedition organised by the Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia, 

the Kelantan State Forestry Department and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia in 2003, 

information on the biodiversity of GSSP was limited to records of plant collections by 

Symington, Foxworthy, Kiew, and others, while some basic data on wildife was available 

from DWNP. 

35


The Gunong Stong Scientific Expedition 2003, the first concerted effort to record the 

biodiversity of the area, brought a team of some 100 researchers, including specialists on 

mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, ectoparasites, higher plants, mosses and fungi. 

A summary of the key findings from the expedition is provided in Table 3.3 below. 

Mosses 

Table 3.3: Summary of Key Findings of the Gunung Stong Expedition 2003 

Item Notes Source 

Plants 

30.6% out of 519 taxa of mosses reported so far in Peninsular 

Malaysia, consisting of 150 species from 60 genera and 28 

families. 111 taxa are new to Kelantan. 

Damanhuri et al. 

(2005). 

Pteridophytes 80 taxa belonging to 48 genera and 24 families were recorded. Maideen et al. 

(2005). 

Angiosperms 

and 

Gymnosperms 

Annonaceae 

Composition 

and Biomass 

Animals 

406 species from 254 genera and 84 families were recorded, 

including 28 species are endemic to Peninsular Malaysia. 

Notable endemic or rare plants include Rafflesia kerrii, 

Licuala stongensis, Holtummochloa pubescens, 

Johannesteijsmannia altifrons. 

10 genera and 16 species were collected and observed, notably 

the rare and endemic montane species: Enicosanthellum 

pulchrum, Friesoldielsia alpina, Polyalthia cauliflora var. 

desmantha, Goniothalamus rotundisepalus, and 

Goniothalamus montanus. 

Density of trees above 5dbh is high, with 1140-1940 trees/ha, 

while the above-ground tree biomass ranged from 507.2 t/ha to 

676.6 t/ha. 

Chee et al. 

(2005) and 

Shamsul et al 

(2005). 

Mat-Salleh & 

Imam Mahadi 

(2005). 

Nizam et al. 

(2005). 

Fishes 15 species of freshwater fish from 6 families were recorded. Abdullah Samat 

et al. (2005). 

Amphibians 

Insects 

Birds 

Reptiles 

13 species of frogs and toads from 7 genera and 5 families 

were recorded. 

24 cicada species from 12 genera under 2 families were 

recorded, with the possibility of 3 being new species. 

A total of 146 butterfly species from 88 genera, 13 subfamilies 

under 5 families were recorded. 

A total of 251 species of moths from 19 families were 

recorded. 

44 genera belonging to 12 subfamilies of Ichneumonidae were 

identified with several new records for Kelantan. 

57 species from 22 families were recorded, the most dominant 

being the Timallidae. 

18 species were recorded, comprising 7 species of snakes, 9 of 

lizards, and 2 of freshwater turtles. 

Mammals 31 species from 19 families were recorded from GSSP, G. 

Stong Utara Forest Reserve and G. Basor Forest Reserve. 

Norhayati et al. 

(2005). 

Azman & Zaidi 

(2005). 

Zaidi et al. 

(2005). 

Zaidi et al. 

(2005). 

Idris et al. 

(2005). 

Shahrul Anuar et 

al. (2005). 

Sharma et al. 

(2005). 

Ahmad Zafir et 

al. (2005). 

Bats 21 species out of 3 families were recorded. Shukor et al. 

(2005). 

Source: After Shahahrudin et al. (2005). 

36


3.5 Fauna 

3.5.1 Mammals 

In Malaysia, except for flagship species like tigers and elephants, not much is known about 

other wildlife, as few specific studies have been conducted. At GSSP, personal, though 

harmless encounters by BAT Guides with bears, tigers, and elephants, are not infrequent, and 

there is even a resident juvenile siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus) that has made Baha 

Camp home. A security guard at the KPK Resort has personal encounters with a tiger on the 

access road leading to the resort, and several guards have observed a bear rummaging through 

the resort garbage bins. 

In the nearby Jeli area, elephants and tigers are becoming a nuisance, due to habitat loss and 

land development, as indicated by human-wildlife conflicts in Jeli and Gua Musang, two 

districts that are adjacent to GSSP. For example, in 1999, there were reportedly 100 elephanthuman 

conflicts, 52 tiger-human conflicts, 46 bear-human conflicts, six tapir-human conflicts, 

three wild boar-human conflicts, one pangolin-human conflict, and one leopard-human 

conflict (DWNP, 1999, from Pue, 2003). Luckily, fatalities were low; apart from man-eating 

tigers that have killed several humans, most of the conflicts have resulted only in fruit crop 

damage. 

Photo 3.2: An Elephant Being Taken Away after a Human-Elephant Conflict 


From 1990 to 2003, there were 407 tiger-human conflicts in Kelantan, of which, 133 (33%) 

occurred in Jeli (PE Research, 2005) with the highest incidence occurring in 2002 (45% of the 

total for the state. 

A preliminary checklist of the mammals of GSSP was compiled from studies conducted 

during the 2003 scientific expedition to GSSP, as well as camera-trapping studies and 

observations made under WWF-Malaysia’s Tigers Alive Project between 2003 and 2005 

within the Gunung Basor Forest Reserve and Gunung Stong Utara Forest Reserve (see 

Appendix 7). As these two forests reserves adjoin GSSP and share much of its physical and 

biological features, mammals occurring in the two forest reserves are also assumed to be 

present in GSSP. 

In summary, a total of 60 species of mammals are known to occur in the GSSP area. Three 

species are listed under the IUCN Red List as “Endangered”, six as “Vulnerable” and four as 

“Lower Risk/Near-Threatened Species” (www.iucnredlist.org). Eighteen species are Totally 

Protected under the Protection of Widlife Act 1972 while 11 other species are Protected. 

37


Photo 3.3: A Camera-trapped Black Panther 

A preliminary survey of bats was also conducted at two caves in the Gua Ikan group of caves 

at Dabong. Mist-netting and roosting surveys were carried out at two caves, Gua Ikan and 

Gua Setol and it was observed that Gua Ikan is a roosting site of the cave nectar bat 

(Eonycteris spelaea) and while at Gua Setol, a population of several thousands of the leafnosed 

insect bat (Hipposideros spp.) were roosting (Wong, 2005). 

WWF-Malaysia/Mark Rayan 

Photo 3.4: Entrance to Gua Setol 


3.5.2 Avifauna 

A preliminary bird survey was commissioned by WWF-Malaysia under this project and 

conducted in June 2005 (Chong, 2005), covering the extant habitats of GSSP that consists of 

lowland dipterocarp forest, hill dipterocarp forest, oak-laurel forest, sub-montane, and 

38


montane forests. The results of this survey were combined with that from a bird survey 

conducted by during the 2003 scientific expedition to GSSP (Shahrul Anuar et al., 2005) and 

the camera-trapping survey by Ahmad Zafir et al. (2005) to produce a preliminary checklist 

of birds for GSSP (Appendix 8). 

In summary, a total of 130 bird species have so far been recorded at GSSP. This is not 

particularly high but there is no doubt that many more birds can be added to the preliminary 

checklist as more surveys are conducted. Eighty-three species of birds are Totally Protected 

under the Protection of Wild Life Act 1972 while three others are accorded Protected status. 

Of the 130 species of birds, twenty are considered to be “Lower Risk/Near-Threatened 

Species” and two “Vulnerable” by the IUCN. Montane species recorded at GSSP include the 

mountain fulvetta (Alcipe peracensis) and streaked spiderhunter (Arachnothera magna). 

The highest concentration of birds recorded was at the Benta Plateau, a relatively flat, 

plateau-like area (500-700m asl), just after the turning from the Sg. Rantai, along the main 

trail to G. Stong. 

A phenomenon observed at GSSP is that five species of lowland birds were found at altitudes 

higher than their normal range, perhaps suggesting the effects of compression due to habitat 

change: as their natural habitats shrink due to land conversion, they had to range at higher 

altitudes for their food needs (Chong, 2005). 

Photo 3.5: Mountain Fulvetta 

WWF-Malaysia/ Chew Yen Fook 

39


Photo 3.6: Streaked Spiderhunter 

WWF-Malaysia/ Chew Yen Fook 

3.5.3 Fishes 

The only known study on fish diversity of GSSP is that by Abdullah Samat et al. (2005) 

which was conducted during the 2003 scientific expedition. This preliminary study recorded 

15 species belonging to 8 families, with cyprinids constituting 40% of the total number of 

species. The number of species recorded is considered to be low due to limited sampling 

effort and natural constraints such as lack of habitat and food supply in the headwaters or 

streams at higher altitudes, compared with large rivers or streams of the lowland areas. 

However, the authors predicted that more species could be added to the list if more tributaries 

are surveyed. GSSP is believed to be a genebank of fishes in the Galas river system. 

Depletion of fish downriver can be replenished by those of GSSP, but if those from GSSP is 

depleted, there is no replenishment, as many species of fish cannot swim up against the 

waterfalls and cascades flowing down the steep granite massif. 

3.5.4 Insects and Other Invertebrates 

Studies on insects and other invertebrates for GSSP were mainly conducted during the 2003 

scientific expedition. Only certain groups of invertebrates were covered in these surveys and 

these include ectoparasites (Mariana et al., 2005), aquatic insects (Che Salmah et al., 2005), 

parasitic wasps (Idris et al., 2005), cicadas (Azman & Zaidi, 2005), ants, termites and beetles 

(Ahmed Said Sajap et al., 2005), moths (Zaidi et al., 2005) and butterflies (Zaidi et al., 2005). 

3.6 Plants 

A preliminary checklist of plants was compiled based on the results of surveys conducted 

during the 2003 scientific expedition, herbarium records from FRIM and results of a plant 

survey commissioned by WWF-Malaysia under this project and conducted on 22-29 

December 2006. This survey was conducted along the main trails within GSSP, from the 

lowland areas up to the peak, as well as the limestone hills at Dabong. Although these 

limestone hills, containing the Gua Ikan group of caves, are not part of GSSP proper, they 

harbour an interesting assemblage of plants including those restricted to limestone (see 

1.2.10.2) and rare and threatened plants. 

A total of 618 taxa of seed plants and 80 of ferns and fern-allies are known from GSSP. At 

least two plant species are endemic to GSSP, a bamboo Hultommochloa pubescens (Wong, 

1995) and a fan palm Licuala stongensis (Saw, 1997). 

40


The endemic bamboo, Holtummochloa pubescens, deserves special mention, as it seems to be 

common along the ridges leading to G. Stong and G. Ayam, while the endemic palm, Licuala 

stongensis, though common along the lower ridges and saddles, is threatened by illegal 

agarwood collectors who favour its cabbage as a local salad, dipped in ‘budu,’ the local fish 

sauce condiment. If this threat persists, then this endemic palm may soon be extinct. 

In the lowland areas, there are extensive tracts of secondary forest and scrub dominated by 

bamboos, the fern, Dicranopteris linearis, and other pioneer species, together with fewer 

harvestable commercial timber species. However, there are signs of regeneration into primary 

forests. 

The plants most threatened are those growing on the Dabong limestone hills, which are 

partially located within the Serasa Forest Reserve with the remainder under stateland, and not 

part of GSSP. Gua Ikan, in particular is important as it harbours the only population of the 

balsam, Impatiens vaughanii, in Kelantan (the only other locality is in Perlis) and the 

variegated population of Begonia nurii. Possible further alienation into agriculture may turn 

these limestone hills into isolated islands surrounded by a sea of orchards, oilpalm, or rubber 

planting schemes. 

Photo 3.7: Licuala stongensis, a Palm 

Endemic to GSSP 

WWF-Malaysia/ N.M. Maseri 

41


CHAPTER 4: TOURISM AT GSSP 

4.1 Baha Adventure Team (BAT) 

Prior to 1986, GSSP was only accessible by rail and a logging track, and locals were more 

interested in clearing land for agriculture, or working as road construction crews or in logging 

gangs. It was also sometime in 1986, that a retired special forces officer, a Major Yusoff, 

operated an outdoor recreation outfit (ROKA), and brought some of his charges here as part 

of a training course jointly collaborated with the then Ministry of Youth, Culture, and Sports. 

By word of mouth, the fame of GSSP spread throughout the outdoor recreation community in 

Kelantan (who welcomed the inconveniences as part of the challenge of the wilderness 

experience that would have deterred less intrepid travelers), who camped, and made forays to 

the mountain summits there. 

In time, a local from Kg. Jelawang, Borhanuddin (Baha), joined these groups and, deciding to 

become a guide, spent his spare time exploring the mountains, trailblazing, and guiding 

visitors to the summits. As a pioneer in eco-tourism, he became synonymous with GSSP. 

By 1987, the Jeli-Dabong state road was completed, and as GSSP became more accessible, 

and as visitor numbers increased, he decided to construct some huts above the waterfall (Baha 

Camp), a popular site for campers watching the rising sun. Ten huts and a kitchen were 

constructed in 1992, and this attracted foreign visitors who stayed at the Baha Camp for a few 

days a time, although the peaks were more popular with local hikers and Singaporeans. The 

decision for the guides to stay at Baha Camp is partly for safety concerns: campers like to 

linger at the edge of the waterfall, and if un-monitored and unsupervised, may plunge down 

the steep fall. The guides also play a role in monitoring rubbish dumping along trails, and 

prevent illegal plant collecting by climbers. 

The huts are rented out at RM10 per head, plus free use of kitchen facilities, while the fee for 

the camp site is for RM2-3 per night per person. After 1994, a few locals decided to become 

guides and joined Baha, taking visitors to the peaks at the rate of RM70 per guide per day, for 

a group of 12 per guide. To further improve professionalism, in 1997, the guides, on their 

own initiative, undertook the nature guiding courses certified by the then Ministry of Culture 

Arts and Tourism. To-date, there are already three batches that have undergone such courses 

with the most recent from 28.5.05 to 12.6.05 at Gua Musang, organised by KESEDAR. 

Termed BAT (Baha Adventure Team), the guides are responsible for taking visitors to the 

various summits within GSSP, ensuring the trails and summits remain rubbish free, and are 

responsible for rescue work. 

Baha died in 2002; nevertheless, his legacy is carried on: BAT is now managed by three of 

his sons assisted by several others who were part of the original team. As further recognition 

of their work, two of the guides have been invited to become trainers for the three month-long 

National Service Program for secondary school-leavers. The current members of BAT are 

listed in Table 4.1. 

Table 4.1: List of Guides in BAT 

No Name I.C. Guiding Permit No. 

1 Mohd. Odie b. Borhanuddin 821127-03-5859 TG 6088 

2 Zulkifli Ibrahim 770702-03-5955 

3 Shaharunshah b. Ibrahim 820208-03-5899 

4 Nik Rosli b. Nik Hassan 750601-03-6475 TG 6090 

5 Mohd Zaki b. Ab. Kadir 750414-03-5637 

6 Mohd Adzhar b. Mat Razali 791111-03-5307 TG 6085 

42


7 Shafie b. Sidek 770531-06-5657 

8 Mohd Nazkol b. Mat Nazir 821016-03-6189 

9 Rashdan b. Abdul Rashid 700526-03-5197 TG 5003 

Mohd. Odie is the son of the late Baha, and together with his two brothers (not in the list) and 

some of the guides in the original band (formed in 1994), continues the tradition of guiding 

visitors in GSSP. 

The guiding rates offered by the BAT guides are as listed in Table 4.2. 

Table 4.2: BAT Guiding Rates 

No. Activity Rate (RM) 

1. Guiding from Railway Station to Baha Camp (less than 4 hours) 30 

2. Guiding from Baha Camp to Last Waterfall (less than 4 hours) 30 

3. Guiding from Baha Camp to the G. Stong (more than 4 hours but not 

overnight), 1 guide to 12 visitors. 

4. Guiding from Base-Camp to G. Ayam and other destinations (more 

than 4 hours, overnights) 

80 

80/day 

5. Guiding at the Gua Ikan group of caves (less than 4 hours) 50 

These rates have been arbitrarily fixed by the BAT Guides, but it seems consistent with the 

benchmark guiding fees established at Taman Negara, although slightly higher than those 

charged at Endau-Rompin National Park (at RM55 per day). 

Photo 4.1: Baha Adventure Team (BAT) Guides 

WWF-Malaysia/ N.M. Maseri 

43


4.2 Trails 

There are several destinations guided by BAT, ranging from short, 1-day trips to 7-day treks, 

with varying degrees of difficulty. Foreign backpackers opt to stay at Baha Camp, and trek to 

the last waterfall, on organised packages offered by guesthouses in Kota Bharu, while locals 

and Singaporeans trek to G. Ayam and Stong, while staying at Baha Camp between treks. 

The trails were created by BAT. 

The list of trails and destinations are as in Table 4.3. 

Table 4.3: List of Trails and Tourist Destinations at GSSP 

No. Name of Trail Duration 

Trail Description 

(Days) 

1 G. Ayam 2 The trail takes one through a logged-over, dipterocarp 

forest, then across two streams, then through an undisturbed 

oak-laurel forest, before reaching the summit ridge, and the 

summit. The summit is flat, and can easily fit some 50 

campers. The summit can be reached within one day from 

Baha Camp, and the return journey is another day. From 

the summit are excellent views of the neighboring peaks of 

Tera (1,545 m asl) and Che Tahir (1,415 m asl). After the 

second river crossing, is a ridge with the rare endemic palm, 

Licuala stongensis. 

2 G. Stong 1 G. Stong (1,400 m asl) is some 4-5 hours from Baha Camp, 

and the return trip is some 2-3 hours. Like G. Ayam, the 

trail takes the hikers through an abandoned logging trail, 

before entering undisturbed oak-laurel forests. On the 

summit ridge are found the rare endemic bamboo, 

Holtummochloa pubescens. Midway between the basecamp 

and the summit is a rock-shelter next to a stream, 

known as Bogo Rock Shelter. 

3 G. Tera 4 This trail is the extension of the G. Ayam trail, where the 

hiker descends G. Ayam, and ascends G. Tera, a day away. 

Midway between the two summits is a plateau where there 

are many signs of the elephant. The rare endemic bamboo, 

H. pubescens, is also found. The journey to G. Tera and 

return to Baha Camp takes four days. 

4 G. Che Tahir 3 This is also an extension of the G. Ayam trail, where the 

hiker descends G. Ayam, and goes up again to the granite 

outcrop of G. Che Tahir. The summit is not as spectacular 

as Ayam, but the trail is, with pristine rocky streams and 

cascades. 

5 Semuliang 

Trail 

5 This trail starts from where the Sg. Kenerong meets the Sg. 

Semuliang, (the Mustaq mini-hydro dam) along an 

abandoned logging trail, and then upriver, before turning 

into the saddle separating G. Ayam and G. Stong. From the 

saddle, one could make an ascent to G. Stong, and back 

down again to Baha Camp. Highlights of this trail include a 

rafflesia site, and a rock-shelter with petrified wood. 

6 Seven Summits 7 This trail is a combination of the other trails, where the 

seven summits are attempted (Ayam, Tera, Stong, Che Kob, 

Che Tahir, Menyelit, Birut). Apart from Ayam, Stong, and 

Tera, the other peaks are names introduced by Baha, and 

are not named in maps. 

7 Last Waterfall 0.5 From the Baha Camp to the last waterfall (30 m high), one 

goes upriver of the Sg. Jeri, along rock-pools, and several 

44


8 Caving at the 

Gua Ikan group 

of caves 

smaller falls. Near Base Camp, a few individuals of the 

rare endemic, L. stongensis, are also found. 

0.5 Not within GSSP, but is in Dabong, where there are several 

caves that the guides take visitors to. Visitors go to the 

caves either after disembarking at Dabong, or on the return 

from GSSP prior to taking the next train back to 

KL/Singapore. 

4.3 Visitors 

Since 1992, some 50,000 visitors may have been to GSSP, at the average rate of 500 per 

month (pers. comm., Odie, 2005). Available, limited records from the BAT register (2002, 

2003 and January-March 2005) indicate that 2,301 visited in 2002, 5,371 in 2003, and 1,379 

in 2005 (as at March), with 68% males and 32% females in 2002, and 73% males and 27% 

females in 2003. Fifty percent of the visitors in 2002 were from Kelantan, 36% were 

Malaysians from outside the State, while 14% were foreigners. For 2003, 62% were from 

Kelantan, 30% are outside the State, while 8% were foreigners. 

In terms of occupation, 71% of the visitors in 2002 were secondary school and university 

students, 9% were lecturers, 6% were engineers, 5% were in private enterprises, while 9% 

were categorised as in other occupations. For 2003, 73% were secondary school and 

university students, 10% were teachers and lecturers, 5% were engineers, 5% were in private 

enterprises, while 7% were in other occupations not listed. 

In terms of age, for 2002, 45% are in the 21-30 year group, 43% were in the 11-20 year 

group, 8% were in the 31-40 year group, while 4% were above 41 years. A similar profile 

was obtained for 2003: 47% were in the 11-20 year group, 43% were between 21-30 years, 

6% were between 31-40 years, while 4% were beyond 41 years of age. 

From the limited information obtained, we can safely draw the conclusion that GSSP is 

popular with locals (Kelantan and non-Kelantanese Malaysians). Foreigners formed only 14% 

of visitors in 2002, and 8% in 2003. A sizable chunk of those between the 11-20 year group 

were secondary school students from Kelantan, while the rest were from institutions of higher 

learning. Young adults (11-30 years) comprised the majority of visitors (88% in 2002, 87% in 

2003), while those above 31 were in the minority (12% in 2002, 10% in 2003). 

The popularity of outdoor recreation in Malaysia probably accounts for the relatively large 

number of visitors to GSSP, and this is a favourite activity for young adults. The explosion in 

outdoor recreation activities could be attributed to the general improvements in Malaysian 

standards of living, with increased leisure time, and the active promotion of outdoor 

recreation by the Ministry of Youth and Sports, to the youths in the villages, schools, and 

university campuses. 

Historically, between 1992-1994 there were more foreigners in GSSP, but the number has 

declined considerably after the 1997-1998 economic downturn, the Asian Flu Virus and 

terrorist scares in 2001 and 2002 (pers. comm., Odie, 2005). 

4.3.1 Visitor Preferences 

For the time-period between May and October 2005, 102 questionnaires were distributed to 

visitors visiting GSSP, to obtain their opinions, and preferences, on types of development, and 

facilities. Eighty-nine percent were first-time visitors, 11%, were repeat visitors. Sixty-four 

percent (64%) were Malaysians, while 36% were foreigners. 

Some of the findings are as follows. 

45


a. Age-Group 

Figure 4.1. Age Group of Visitors Surveyed 

>40 

13% 

11-20 

18% 

31-40 

10% 

21-30 

59% 

Eighty-three percent (83%) of respondents were above 20 years, with the major block, 59%, 

comprising young adults aged 21 to 30, while those above 31 years of age accounted for 23% 

of the respondents. 

b. Income Level (RM) 

Age-Group (Years) 11-20 21-30 31-40 >40 

Percentage 18 59 10 13 

Figure 4.2. Income Level (RM) of Visitors Surveyed 

>3000 

23% 


c. Information on GSSP 

Figure 4.3. Source of Information on GSSP 

Information 

Centers 

3% 

Internet 

13% 

Magazines 

4% 

Friends 

80% 

Information 

Source 

Word-of-mouth played a very important part in the dissemination of information about GSSP, 

with 80% of respondents knowing about it through their friends. The other important mode of 

communication was through the internet, with 13% of respondents obtaining information 

from it. Magazines, and to a lesser extent, tourist information centres, played very minor 

roles in the dissemination of information about GSSP. 

d. Mode of Transportation 

Information 

centres 

Internet Magazines Friends 


Figure 4.4. Mode of Transportation of Visitors Surveyed 

Car 

15% 

Bus 

16% 

Boat 

12% 

Train 

57% 

Travel Mode Bus Train Boat Car 


The train was a popular mode of transportation to GSSP, mostly with Malaysians from Kuala 

Lumpur, and Singaporeans, with 56% of respondents arriving and leaving by train, compared 

47


to 16% by bus, which were popular with students on school trips. Backpackers on packages 

arranged by guesthouses arrived by boat from Kuala Krai, and left by local train. 

e. Purpose of Visiting GSSP 

Figure 4.5. Purpose of Visiting GSSP 

Others 

13% 

Casual Trip 

6% 

Camping 

32% 

Climbing 

49% 

Purpose 

Climbing and camping were the two major objectives for visiting GSSP, comprising 81% of 

the respondents. This validates GSSP as a popular destination for camping and climbing in 

Malaysia. Those on casual trips were foreign backpackers on package tours organised by 

guesthouse operators. 

f. Mode of Travel 

Casual 

Trip 

Camping Climbing Others 


Figure 4.6. Mode of Travel of Visitors Surveyed 

Individually 

2% 

Family 

2% 

(>10) 

Big Group 

43% 

Small Group (5- 

10) 

53% 

Mode of 

Travel 

Individually 

Family 

Small 

Group 

(5-10) 

Big 

Group 

(>10) 


48


Ninety-six percent (96%) of the respondents travelled in groups of more than five, with the 

group of 5-10 comprising 53% of respondents, followed by groups of more than 10, 

consistent with hiking and climbing groups on expeditions. 

g. Type of Visit 

Figure 4.7. Type of Visit to GSSP 

Others 

11% 

Individual 

17% 

Tour Package 

12% 

Expedition 

60% 

Type of Trip Individual Tour Package Expedition Others 


Sixty percent (60%) of the respondents visited GSSP on expeditions organised by friends and 

clubs, and arrived by convoys, while 17% arrived on visits individually organised, while 

another 12% were on tour packages organised by guesthouse operators in Kota Bharu. 

49


h. Facilities at Stong Resort 

Figure 4.8. Visitor Perception of Facilities at Stong Resort 

Upgrade to Cable- 

Car and Golf 

Course 

22% 

Dow ngrade 

2% 

Adequate 

41% 

Low Upgrade 

35% 

Facilities at 

Stong Resort 

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of those surveyed felt that a general upgrading was necessary at the 

Stong Resort, while 41% felt that the facilities were adequate. Only 22% wanted major 

upgrades such as a cable car or a golf course. Low upgrading refers to maintenance and 

repair of existing facilities, and not their expansion. 

i. Facilities at Baha Camp 

Adequate 

Low 

Upgrade 

Upgrade 

Downgrade 


Figure 4.9. Visitor Perception of Facilities at Baha Camp 

Dow ngrade 

25% 

Others 

2% 

Adequate 

54% 

Upgrade 

19% 

50


Facilities at 

Baha Camp 

Adequate Upgrade Downgrade Others 


Fifty-six percent (56%) of those surveyed felt that the basic facilities at Baha camp should be 

maintained, 46% were of the opinion that some basic maintenance and upgrading was 

necessary, and 25% felt that they should be downgraded. Others commented on the need to 

improve toilet and rubbish disposal facilities. 

j. Pricing of Accommodation at Baha-Camp 

Figure 4.10. Visitor Perception of Pricing at Baha Camp 

Decrease 

8% 

Increase 

1% 

Expensive 

17% 

Adequate 

74% 

Accommodation 

Price 

Expensive Adequate Increase Decrease 


Seventy-four percent (74%) of respondents were of the opinion that the cost of facilities 

(RM10 per person per night for huts and RM3 per person per night for camping) was 

adequate. Nevertheless, 17% felt that they were expensive in relation to the condition of the 

structures, and 8% suggested that the prices be reduced. 

51


k. Quality of Services Offered by Mountain Guides 

Figure 4.11. Visitor Perception of Quality of Service Offered by Mountain Guides 

Need 

Upgrading 

9% 

Not Adequate 

1% 

Others 

15% 

Adequate 

75% 

Quality of 

Services Offered 

Adequate 

Not 

Adequate 

Need 

Upgrading 

Others 


Seventy-five percent (75%) of respondents were generally happy with the services of the 

guides, though 9% felt that they needed to upgrade their skills (Note: Most guides possess 

guiding certificates from the Ministry of Tourism). 

l. Guiding Fees 

Figure 4.12. Visitor Perception of Guiding Fees 

Need to 

Low er/Raise 

Fees 

2% 

Expensive 

6% 

Cheap 

12% 

Adequate 

80% 

52


Guiding Fees Cheap Adequate Expensive Need to 

Lower/Raise 

Fees 


Eighty percent (80%) of visitors surveyed were satisfied with the guiding fees, indicating that 

they were comparable to the market rates offered by guides in other protected areas elsewhere 

in Malaysia. The quantum, per head, was considerably lessened, as visitors travel in groups, 

and the guide cost was spread out evenly, depending on the group numbers. Twelve percent 

(12%) considered the guiding fees as cheap; possibly this group represented foreigners, 

typically Singaporeans that visit GSSP. 

m. Length of Stay 

Figure 4.13. Length of Stay of Visitors 

4 or More Days 

12% 

1 Day 

4% 2 day 

8% 

3 day 

76% 

Length 

Stay 

of 

1 Day 2 day 3 day 4 or More 

Days 


The majority of respondents (76%) stayed for three days. Typically, for the first day, after 

alighting from the train, they do a spot of caving at the Gua Ikan group of caves. They then go 

to Baha Camp where they stay overnight. The next day, they make ascents to G. Stong or G. 

Ayam, from which they descend to Baha Camp on the same day (or the following day), and 

return to Dabong to catch the return train back to Kuala Lumpur or Singapore. 

Twelve percent (12%) of those surveyed stayed for four days or more, to rest or to explore 

other areas, after climbing G. Ayam or G. Stong. 

53


n. Most Attractive Feature of GSSP 

Figure 4.14. Visitor Perception of Most Attractive Feature of GSSP 

Mountain 

Summits 

14% 

Forest 

9% 

Others 

4% 

Waterfalls 

73% 

Most attractive 

feature 

The waterfalls scored the highest rating, with 73% of respondents opined them as the most 

attractive feature of GSSP, followed by the summits (14%), and the forest (9%). The high 

waterfall is the most prominent feature of GSSP, visible for quite a distance away. 

o. Ideal Development for GSSP 

Waterfalls 

Mountain 

Summits 

Forest 

Others 


Figure 4.15. Visitor Perception of Ideal Development for GSSP 

Summit 

Facilities 

19% 

Others 

7% 

Large-Scale 

Resort 

11% 

Maintain 

Existing Level 

63% 

54


Ideal 

Development 

Large- 

Scale 

Resort 

Maintain 

Existing 

Level 

Summit 

Facilities 


Others 

The majority of respondents (63%) felt that the existing level of development should be 

maintained, with no expansion; only 11% were of the opinion that large-scale resort 

development be initiated, while 19% felt that adequate shelters need to be constructed on 

summits (this response is from the mountain-climbing groups). This finding is consistent 

with the general profile of protected area visitors, who are more interested in nature rather 

than development. 

p. Additional Activities to be Included 

Figure 4.16. Visitor Perception of Additional Activities 

Others 

13% 

Orienteering 

16% 

Treasure-Hunt 

22% 

Rock-Climbing 

49% 

Activities 

Orienteering 

Treasure- 

Hunt 

Rock- 

Climbing 

Others 


Recognising the rugged rocky terrain of GSSP, 49% of respondents suggested that rockclimbing 

activities be included, to diversify the activity base for visitors to GSSP. Twenty-two 

percent (22%) suggested treasure hunt, followed by oreinteering, in view of the thick forests 

within GSSP, also suitable for these two activities. 

55


q. Level of Satisfaction with GSSP 

Figure 4.17. Level of Satisfaction with GSSP 

Unsatisf actory 

2% 

Exceed 

Satisfaction 

39% 

Satisfactory 

59% 

Level of 

Satisfaction 

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of the visitors surveyed were satisfied with their experiences at GSSP, 

with another 39% highly satisfied, while only 2% of respondents were not satisfied. 

r. Intention for Further Visits 

Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Exceed 

Satisfaction 

Percentage 2 59 39 

Figure 4.18. Intention for Further Visits 

Will Not Visit 

Again 

6% 

Will Visit 

Again 

94% 

Intention Will Visit Again Will Not Visit Again 

Percentage 94 6 

Ninety-four percent (94%) of those surveyed expressed their intention to visit GSSP again, 

while 6% did not wish to make additional visits. 

56


4.3.2 General Conclusions of the Visitor Profile Survey 

The majority of visitors were locals (65%) while foreigners (35%) were mostly Singaporeans. 

Most of the visitors were from their teens to working adults below 40 years of age. The 

favorite mode of transport was the train (56%), and the visitors travel in groups of five and 

above, usually in camping and mountaineering expeditions organised by their leaders. 

Most are quite happy with facilities at Baha Camp or the KPK Resort, though quite a 

significant block feels that some minor upgrading and maintenance is overdue, but not major 

expansion of facilities into a golf resort or a cable-car system. 

Typical with most ecotourism visitors to national parks and other protected areas, visitors 

were in for the outdoor experience, and they were less concerned with luxury 

accommodation. As far as they were concerned, existing facilities at Baha Camp or the Stong 

Resort are adequate for their needs. 

The respondents were happy with the price and the quality of the guiding services offered by 

the guides, and most of them (88%) stayed for 3 days or more. There was a high level of 

satisfaction in their experiences at GSSP, with 59% satisfied, and 39% claiming that it had 

exceeded their expectations. Almost all (94%) intended to visit GSSP again. 

Photo 4.2: Singaporean hikers 

WWF-Malaysia/ N. M. Maseri 

4.4 Tourism Infrastructure 

In 1994, anticipating the potential of tourism at GSSP, the Perdana Stong Resort was 

established, but lacking business, its management was transferred to Singgahsana Stong Hill 

Resort (2000), which was then transferred again to KPK Resort (2003). As at to-date, 

KESEDAR is in the process of acquiring the resort, and is in the process of due diligence: the 

verification and valuation of assets before a fair price is obtained and negotiated with the 

previous owner. Within the space of 10 years, the resort has changed ownership four times. 

The lack of success of the resorts is due to the mismatching of perceptions with market 

realities – the tendency to associate tourism with leisure and mass tourism, and the 

construction of resorts targeting this market segment, when the majority of visitors to 

protected areas are ecotourists whose main objectives are to experience nature (including the 

hardships). Leisure resorts may have a place at Kinabalu Park and Taman Negara, with 

annual visitors of 220,000 and 65,000 respectively (NRE, 2005), but not for GSSP, with only 

some 5,000 annual visitors. 

57


Likewise, resorts are not viable in areas with low visitor volumes, and lessons in resort 

development from Tg. Mentong and Kuala Koh at Taman Negara, Kenong Rimba Park, Pedu 

Lake and Pulau Payar Marine Park should be learnt, and not replicated. As a cautionary note, 

the bigger (and more expensive the resort), the higher will be the upkeep, maintenance and 

operating costs, and the higher will be the break-even point. Visitors to GSSP lack the critical 

mass needed to make resorts a viable business option. 

The current majority of visitors to GSSP are the hardy hikers and campers (eco- and nature 

tourists) who accept the miseries and discomfort of the outdoors as part of the nature 

experience, and they are fitter than the average leisure/mass tourist. Almost all visitors to 

GSSP stay at the Baha Camp, either camping or spending their nights at the very basic huts. 

They look with disdain at upscale resort accommodation. 

There is a rest house at Dabong, operated by the Majlis Daerah Kuala Krai Selatan 

(MDKKS), with 3 rooms equipped with ceiling fans (RM30 per night), and one airconditioned 

room (RM40 per night). There is also a bungalow available at a rate of RM80 

per night. As in the case of the resort, guests staying at the rest house are very rare, and even 

then most are not visitors to GSSP. A recent homestay operated by the local JKKK at Bt. 

Jering, some 5 km away, is expected to share the same fate, due to its unenvious location, 

away from the tourist zone. 

Photo 4.3: Stong Resort Office 


4.5 Tour Operators 

Five tour and guesthouse operators organised tours to GSSP: KESEDAR Travels Sdn. Bhd., 

KB Backpacker Holidays Sdn. Bhd., KB2 Guesthouse, Lonesome Traveller, and Cerana 

Guesthouse, with the most active being KESEDAR Travels Sdn. Bhd., and KB Backpacker 

Holidays Sdn. Bhd. 

These operators organise 3-day/2-night packages to GSSP, priced at RM220-250 per person, 

with the BAT as ground operators. The tours consist of a morning bus trip to Kuala Krai, 

followed by a riverboat trip to Dabong, then to GSSP, where visitors stay at Baha Camp with 

food prepared by their guides. 

The second day consists of a trip to the last waterfall, and after lunch, visitors return to their 

huts at Baha Camp. On the third day, visitors go to Dabong for a spot of caving before 

returning on the 2.00 pm local train back to Kota Bharu. 

58


KESEDAR Travel Sdn. Bhd. and KB Backpacker Holidays Sdn. Bhd. operate websites 

promoting their destinations, with KESEDAR Travel specialising in white-water rafting down 

the Nenggiri River, visits to Orang Asli communities, and rock-climbing courses at their 

Taman Etnobotani. A significant revenue source for KESEDAR Travel is currently the use of 

their Taman Etnobotani for the National Service programme, with tourism becoming less 

significant (pers. comm., Haji Zawawi, KESEDAR Travel, 2005). 

KB Backpacker Holidays are relying more on Perhentian Island-Taman Negara-Cameron 

Highlands transfers and island trips (P. Perhentian, P. Redang) rather than packages to GSSP, 

due to declining numbers of foreign tourists staying in Kota Bharu (pers. comm. Mayee, KB 

Backpaker Holidays Sdn. Bhd.) 

Cerana Guesthouse, like KB2 Guesthouse, offers the packages to their guests, who are mostly 

returning from P. Perhentian. Compared to 1992, the numbers of foreigners to GSSP has 

dwindled, and the frequency of guiding is now reduced to twice a month (pers.comm. Pak 

Chu, 2005). Tour packages to GSSP, however, only provide side incomes for these 

guesthouse operators. 

59


CHAPTER 5: MAIN FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS IN 

MANAGEMENT PLANNING OF GSSP 

5.1 Steep Terrain of GSSP 

GSSP is a granite migmatic complex, with steep slopes that are sensitive to erosion, 

especially during persistent rain events (see Appendix 3). The shallow topsoil, underlain with 

a granite base also mean that rainwater retention is poor, which is flushed down the mountain, 

creating frequent flashfloods at the base whenever there is rain above. 

Lack of flat space limits sites for development, and for areas that are already developed, there 

is not much space left for expansion. The steepland, if disturbed, will increase sedimentation 

of streams and rivers, and will negatively affect the water supply to communities of Jelawang 

and Dabong. Disturbances on the southern slopes of the Stong massif will also impact on the 

water supply to Mustaq mini-hydro dam, which provides 11 MV of power to the national 

power grid. 

This situation is particularly acute at Baha Camp, especially as the soil there is too shallow for 

septic tanks, compounded with the risk of contamination of river water for downstream use by 

overflows and leachates. 

5.2 Critical Ecosystem 

From the information compiled from previous surveys, we can infer that GSSP and the 

surrounding forests are rich in biodiversity. 

GSSP is part of a forested landscape that includes the Main Range and Belum-Temengor and 

is potentially linked to the Taman Negara landscape. As part of a broad ecosystem approach, 

it has been visualised that a network of protected areas be created within the country, 

surrounded by production forest reserves. GSSP is part of this vision, together with Taman 

Negara National Park, Endau-Rompin National Park, the proposed Royal Belum State Park, 

the proposed Ulu Muda State Park, and the Perlis State Park. 

As the production forest surrounding these protected areas are selectively logged, wildlife 

retreats to protected areas that function as refugias, and returns when the situation normalises. 

Protected areas such as GSSP also play a major role as genebanks for plants that are crucial 

for repopulating logged areas and that could potentially be developed for horticulture, 

pharmaceuticals, crop improvement and biotechnology. 

There is relatively high level of plant endemicity at GSSP. To reduce threats to these plants, it 

is suggested that only small areas within GSSP be allowed for development, and only at 

certain zones created for such a purpose. 

5.3 Realignment of GSSP Boundary 

As described in section 2.5 above, the northern flanks of the Stong Migmatic Complex have 

very steep slopes and not all are protected within the GSSP area. Since much of this area is 

not suitable for logging or any kind of land development, it should ideally be included within 

the GSSP area. The area concerned is currently within the Gunung Stong Utara Forest 

Reserve and it is highly recommended that that GSSP boundary be realigned to include this 

area. Since the Gunung Stong Utara Forest Reserve is already under the management of the 

Kelantan State Forestry Department, there are no major management issues if the area 

concerned is gazetted as part of GSSP. 

If it is not feasible to increase the size of the GSSP area, perhaps the southeastern portion of 

GSSP to the east of the Dabong-Gua Musang road (which bisects the park) could be excluded 

60


from the GSSP area. This smaller portion of GSSP is roughly the same size as the area within 

the Gunung Stong Utara Forest Reserve described above. 

5.4 Inclusion of the Dabong Limestone Hills in Management Planning 

for GSSP 

Though not part of the GSSP, the Dabong limestone hills containing the Gua Ikan group of 

caves merit attention for the following reasons: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

The caves harbour bat populations that are important for pest control and 

pollination. Any reduction in their numbers may negatively affect the fruitfarming 

industry, and other wild plants that rely on bats for pollination. Bats are 

important for seed dispersal and pollination of economically important plants 

such as Parkia speciosa (petai), Durio zibethinus (durian), Tamarindus indicus 

(tamarind), Anarcadium occidentale (cashewnut), Musa spp. (bananas) and 

Sonneratia caseolaris (berembang) (Fujita, 1988). 

The limestone hills harbor several rare and endemic species of plants such as the 

Vaughn’s balsam (Impatiens vaughinii) and the aquatic aroid, Cryptocoryne 

affinis. 

They are part of the itinerary for visitors to GSSP. Unmitigated increase in visitor 

numbers will disturb bats, and they will roost elsewhere. 

Some of the cave animals may be new to science, or are new records for 

Malaysia. This is especially likely for some snail and trapdoor spider species. 

The unique flora and fauna of the Dabong limestone hills are under threat from unregulated 

recreational activities, fires set by smallholders and illegal land-clearing (see the cave survey 

report in the Annex to this preliminary management plan). These hills and caves need to be 

better protected and further studies should be conducted to fully appreciate the biodiversity 

value of the area. Ideally, the land immediately surrounding these limestone hills should not 

be converted to other land-uses and should be maintained as a buffer area. 

It is therefore recommended that the management of the Dabong limestone hills to be 

integrated with that of GSSP, in order to provide some form of control over land management 

surrounding these hills and better regulation of recreational activities. The hills are too 

isolated from GSSP for them to be included in the state park area but they should be gazetted 

as part of the Serasa Forest Reserve and therefore placed under the management of the 

Kelantan State Forestry Department, the same management authority as GSSP. 

5.5 Greater Involvement of Local Communities 

The local communities of the GSSP area are mostly involved in agriculture activities, 

typically the cultivation of rubber, oil palm, and fruits, in schemes developed by KESEDAR 

and RISDA, although some have been working on farmlands encroached into forest reserves. 

Salaried workers are schoolteachers, police, government healthcare-workers, and employees 

of the KPK Sawmill at Meranto. Being rural-based, small-scale agriculturalists, their incomes 

are lower compared to urban dwellers; nevertheles, there are no signs of abject poverty. 

Being of simple needs and tastes, there seems to be a high sense of contentment, and 

satisfaction in doing simple work. 

Demographically, there seems to be relatively few adults of age between 20 to 30, probably 

because they are either completing their higher level of studies elsewhere, or working 

elsewhere. Those working may be contributing part of their income to the parents, and this 

possibly accounts for their contentment. However, the adolescents and late teens are at risk of 

indulging in unproductive activities, such as illegal motorbike or car racing, which had led to 

some fatal accidents. Being close to the border of Thailand, where cheap drugs are more 

readily available, drug abuse through meth-ampethamines may become a major problem. This 

61


has happened to FELDA communities in other parts of the country, and it cannot be denied 

that it is happening in the communities surrounding GSSP. 

The senior locals may be too set in their ways to change their views, but some of them may 

want to be involved in some small hospitality or agro-tourism business, that is within their 

capabilities, while the young adults need to be educated on conservation. There is a need to 

prepare them for a greater purpose, to capitalise on opportunities that could be created upon 

the development and promotion of GSSP. This could be in the form of nature education, and 

training in outdoor recreation and small businesses, to wean them away from the trap of drug 

abuse and other negative activities. 

5.6 Inappropriate Tourism Development 

Compared to most other newly-created protected areas, there is already a steady stream of 

visitors to GSSP since 1992, and most of them are hikers, who do not mind the discomforts of 

the outdoors. They visit GSSP on expeditions organised by their schools, workplaces, or 

clubs, or on packages organised by guesthouse operators in Kota Bharu. Unlike affluent 

leisure tourists, they are less concerned with standards of accommodation, but look forward to 

challenges of hiking to the summits. 

However, tourism planning in Malaysia is targeted to the affluent leisure and mass tourism 

market; and there is greater emphasis on infrastructural development, that, without adequate 

demand, degenerates into white elephants. This happened to the Pulau Jerejak Resort, Pedu 

Lake Resort, and closer to home, the KPK Resort (previously Singgahsana Stong Resort, and 

previous to that, Perdana Stong Hill Resort). 

Due to the differing perceptions and needs of the actual tourists to GSSP compared to the 

targeted affluent tourism market, upscale resorts within GSSP may turn into a failure, when 

the demand is for simple, basic structures, with minimal upgrading, and affordable 

accommodation and meals. Any design and pricing mechanism should take into 

consideration existing market needs, rather than on an uncertain market segment that have not 

been properly researched. Extensive upgrades and expansion will lead to greater capital and 

operating costs, and higher bottom lines, and the operator will be hard-pressed to achieve 

break-even point, much less profits. 

62


CHAPTER 6: THE PRELIMINARY MANAGEMENT PLAN 

6.1 Purpose and Objectives of Gunung Stong State Park 

6.1.1 Purpose of the Gunung Stong State Park 

The purpose of GSSP is the conservation of the biological, physical and hydrological 

resources of Gunung Stong, and their related ecological systems, while allowing for limited 

ecotourism activities. 

The indicator for this purpose is the that vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, other biological, 

physical, and hydrological resources, show no significant decline within the five years of the 

implementation of the Preliminary Management Plan. 

6.1.2 Management Objectives of GSSP 

To achieve the purpose, there must be a series of management objectives that must be 

realised. There are three management objectives for GSSP: 

Objective 1: To effectively protect the biodiversity of Gunung Stong and its 

associated resources while allowing for limited recreational activities 

that do not compromise its ecological integrity. 

Objective 2: To promote the scientific study of the physical, biological and economic 

resources of Gunung Stong. 

Objective 3: To contribute to the improvement of the standard of living of the local 

communities and also their level of conservation awareness. 

The best form of management and administrative systems must be established if the 

objectives are to be achieved. This means clear policy guidelines, clear organisational 

structure with clear terms of reference, clear job descriptions on operational and line 

management activities, clear chain of command and communications, and smooth integration 

of activities with the local communities as stakeholders, as GSSP is not an entity isolated 

from these communities. 

6.2 Main Approaches and Principles 

6.2.1 Ecosystem Approach 

The definition of "ecosystem" is provided in Article 2 of the Convention on Biological 

Diversity: "'Ecosystem' means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism 

communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit." This 

definition can refer to any functioning unit at any scale ranging from a grain of sand, a forest 

or an ecoregion. Therefore, using this principle, the scale of analysis and action should be 

determined by the problem being addressed. 

The Convention on Biological Diversity defines the ecosystem approach as “…a strategy for 

the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and 

sustainable use in an equitable way. Application of the ecosystem approach will help to reach 

a balance of the three objectives of the Convention: conservation; sustainable use; and the fair 

and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. An 

ecosystem approach is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies 

focused on levels of biological organisation, which encompass the essential structure, 

processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognises 

that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of many ecosystems.” 

(Decision V/6, Convention of Biological Diversity). 

For more information on the ecosystem approach, see 

http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/ecosystem/default.shtml 

63


In terms of the practical application of the ecosystem approach with regard to GSSP, the 

GSSP is considered to be part of a larger ecosystem comprising the Gunung Stong Utara 

Forest Reserve and the Gunung Stong Selatan Forest Reserve as well as state land forests 

occurring on the Stong Migmatic Complex. The management of GSSP therefore has to be 

seen from a broader perspective, incorporating the surrounding forest reserves as well as the 

agricultural land along its borders. 

6.2.2 Precautionary Principle 

There is no single definition for the precautionary principle but generally it means that if the 

risks to the environment are serious, and understanding of those risks is inadequate, then steps 

should be immediately taken to prevent harm. The precautionary principle was included in the 

1992 Rio Declaration of Environment and Development as Principle 15 which reads: 

“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty 

should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent 

environmental degradation”. 

This uncertainty is due to many reasons, including our lack of understanding regarding the 

biology of species and of the complex interactions between different species in a given 

ecosystem. The precautionary principle could also be interpreted to mean that a management 

action should not be implemented unless there is good reason to believe that it would not 

cause irreversible harm to the environment. 

6.2.3 Adaptive Management 

As there is a lack of specialised programmes for protected area managers, as well as a 

shortage of skilled personnel, the staff of GSSP will have to be trained on-the-job. This will 

require an adaptive management approach which is a cyclical approach to management that 

learns from success and failures, seeking to make continuous improvement. Each cycle is 

composed of the following key steps: 

• Formulation of management framework and actions based on available knowledge. 

• Implementation of management actions as formulated. 

• Monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness of management actions. 

• Modification of management approaches and actions as required. 

Adaptive management is a management tool that was developed to deal with uncertainty. It 

emphasises provisional, reversible decision-making, with careful monitoring of impacts in 

order to refine decision-making. A more thorough description of adaptive management is 

provided by Bormann et al. (1999) and, in a more localised context, by DWNP/DANCED 

(2001b). 

6.3 Legislation and Law Enforcement 

6.3.1 Gazettement of GSSP 

The GSSP is to be established following the Perlis State Park model, and for all means and 

purposes, management will be under the Forestry Department, albeit under a new unit (State 

Park or Protected Area Unit) within the Kelantan State Forestry Department. 

The enabling legislation for the gazettement of GSSP is the National Forestry Act 

(Amendment) Enactment 2004 of Kelantan. The Enactment was passed by the State 

Legislative Assembly on 29 June 2004 and published in the Kelantan Government Gazette on 

29 July 2004. 

64


As at the time of writing of this preliminary management plan, the park has yet to be gazetted 

but this is expected to be achieved soon once the State Government is confident that the 

necessary administrative and management framework is in place. 

6.3.2 Legislation Pertaining to Protection of Resources in GSSP 

Even in the transition period before gazettement of GSSP, there is already existing legislation 

that provides protection to the natural resources contained within GSSP, in particular the 

National Forestry Act 1984 (Act 313) which has been adopted by the Kelantan State 

government and recently amended to be the National Forestry Act (Amendment) Enactment 

2004, and the Protection of Wild Life Act 1972 (Act 76) which is enforceable in any part of 

Peninsular Malaysia, including forest reserves. 

6.3.2.1 Illegal Collection of Forest Produce and Illegal Logging 

There are provisions under the National Forestry Act 1984, Part IV: Forest Management and 

Development, Chapter 1, Section 15, against unlawful collection of forest produce from 

permanent reserved forest or stateland unless licensed, or upon written approval obtained. 

Under Section 15(1): “No person shall take any forest produce from a permanent reserved 

forest or a State land except-(a) under the authority of a licence, minor licence, or use permit; 

or (b) in accordance with any other written law”. 

The penalty is an amount not exceeding RM500,000, and imprisonment of between one year 

to 20 years [Section 15(2)]. In addition, under Section 15(3), there are also additional 

penalties payable to the State Authority: “(a) a sum, not exceeding 10 times the royalty, 

premium, or cess; (b) a sum not exceeding 10 times the value of such forest produce; and (c) 

any other charges payable”. 

6.3.2.2 Illegal Collection of Plants, Encroachment, Illegal Fishing, 

Poaching 

These are covered Under Part VII: Miscellaneous Offences and Penalties of the National 

Forestry Act 1984, of which Section 81(1) is concerned with acts prohibited in permanent 

reserved forests: 

“Unless authorised under this Act, no person shall, in a permanent reserved forest:- 

(a) graze cattle or permit cattle to graze [penalty under Section 81 (2)(a) is a fine not 

exceeding RM10,000]; 

(b) fell, cut, ring, mark, lop or tap any tree; or injure by fire, or otherwise, or remove any 

tree or timber [penalty under Section 81(2)(b) is a fine not exceeding RM50,000 or a 

imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, or both]; 

(c) cause any damage in felling any tree or cutting or dragging any timber (penalty 

under Section 81(2) (b) the fine is a sum not exceeding RM50,000, or a imprisonment 

not exceeding 5 years, or both; 

(d) search for, collect, subject to any manufacturing process or remove any forest 

produce or minerals [penalty under Section 81 (2)(c) is a fine not exceeding 

RM10,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years, or both]; 

(e) clear or break up any land for cultivation or any other purpose [penalty under 

Section 81(2)(c) is a fine not exceeding RM10,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 3 

years, or both]; 

(f) use poisonous substance, or dynamite or other explosives on rivers or lakes for the 

purpose of fishing; or hunt, shoot, fish or set traps or snares [a penalty of a fine not 

exceeding RM10,000, or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years, or both, in Section 81 

(2)(b)]; or 

65


(g) trespass in any manner not in this section hereinbefore prohibited [a penalty of a fine 

not exceeding RM10,000, or imprisonment, or both, in Section 81 (2)(b)].” 

Prohibited activities relating to poaching of wildlife are also covered under the Protection of 

Wild Life Act 1972, especially in Part VI, which relates to the offences and penalties of 

Totally Protected animals, Totally Protected wild birds and Protected wild animals and 

Protected wild birds. These are defined in the Sections described below. 

Section 64(1): unlawful shooting, killing, and taking a Totally Protected wild animal or 

Totally Protected wild bird is liable to a fine not exceeding RM5,000 or imprisonment not 

exceeding 3 years, or both. 

Section 64A: Those who unlawfully shoots, kills, or take, in whole or in part, a Sumatran 

rhinoceros, tiger and clouded leopard is liable for a penalty not exceeding RM15,000 or 

imprisonment not exceeding 5 years. 

Section 65: Unlawful shooting, killing, or taking an immature Totally Protected wild animal 

or Totally Protected wild bird is liable to a fine not exceeding RM6,000 or imprisonment of 

not exceeding 6 years or both. 

Section 66: Unlawful shooting, killing, or taking of female of Totally Protected wildlife is 

liable to a fine not exceeding RM10,000 or an imprisonment of not exceeding 10 years, or 

both. 

Section 67: Unlawful damage or destruction of the nest or egg of a Totally Protected wildlife 

or Totally Protected wild bird if convicted, is liable to a fine not exceeding RM5,000 or 

imprisonment not more than 5 years, or both. 

Sections 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72, relate to unlawful shooting, killing, taking of, either female, 

immatures, and damaging of the nests of Totally Protected wild animals and Totally Protected 

Birds and Protected animals and birds, with their fines and impriosonments. 

Setting of snares and traps are covered in Section 76; use of poisons, Section 77; and the use 

of unsuitable weapons is covered in Section 78. 

6.3.2.3 Fire Prohibition 

In Section 82 of the National Forestry Act 1984, making a fire, carrying a kindling, or leaving 

any fire burning in a permanent forest reserve that can endanger the reserved forest is liable to 

a fine not exceeding RM50,000 or an imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. 

6.3.2.4 Littering 

This is covered in Section 83 of the National Forestry Act 1984, where offensive littering is 

liable to a fine not exceeding RM10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or 

both. Offensive littering is defined as follows: 

“Creation of an objectionable stench or degradation of the beauty or appearance of property 

that or detracts from the natural cleanliness or safety of property by intentionally: 

(a) discarding or depositing any rubbish, trash, garbage, debris or other refuse; 

(b) draining, or causing or permitting to be drained, mining sludge, industrial effluent 

sewage, or the drainage of from a cesspool, septic tank, recreational or camping 

vehicle waste holding tank or other contaminated source; or 

(c) permitting any rubbish, trash, garbage, debris or other refuse to be thrown from a 

vehicle which he is operating or which is under his control.” 

66


6.3.2.5 Illegal Entry 

There are adequate provisions under the National Forestry Act, 1984 against illegal entry but 

the Protection of Wild Life Act 1972, has no such provision against illegal entry unless the 

area of concern is a Wildlife Reserve (hunting with permission allowed) or Wildlife 

Sanctuary (no hunting, no disturbance or removal of plants), as covered in Sections 47, 48, 

49, 50 of the Act. 

6.3.3 Law Enforcement 

Park rangers must be visible, not only be at the registration area, but also regularly be at the 

designated campsites. Occasional patrols off the beaten trails are a must, to provide deterrent 

to potential encroachers, illegal hunters and collectors of the park’s natural resources. 

Regular presence at potential illegal entry-points through the Sg. Semuliang will also provide 

a strong message to potential offenders. Patrols are also part of physical monitoring of sites. 

Random checks must be made occasionally on visitors at exit-points in order to detect 

possible illegal collection of the park’s natural resources such as rocks and plants (typically 

the more popular orchids, herbs, and gingers). Surveillance patrols could be a regular 

collaboration with the Jeli-based Department of Wildlife and National Parks, since they are 

also active in monitoring and surveillance of poachers in the forests surrounding GSSP. To 

mitigate damage by illegal agarwood collectors, occasional joint-operations should be 

conducted with the military, as there are reports that illegal collectors carry firearms. 

6.4 Administration 

6.4.1 Governance Structure 

First and foremost, there must be formed a council or high-level committee that oversees the 

policies and guides the development of GSSP. We envisage the formation of three levels of 

committees, with different roles and responsibilities: 

• The State Parks Committee 

• The State Parks Management Committee 

• The Gunung Stong State Park Technical Working Committee 

Their Terms of Reference are as follows. 

6.4.2 Terms Of Reference for the State Parks Committee 

The objectives of the State Parks Committee are to: 

• provide directions and recommendations for existing state parks, and establishment of 

new state parks in the State of Kelantan; 

• decide on key matters pertaining to the policy, conservation, utilisation, care, control, 

management, and development of State Parks, after considering the advice from the 

State Parks Management Committee; 

• consider and endorse Park Management Plans which have been reviewed and 

approved by the State Parks Management Committee or any ad hoc Technical 

Working Committee that may be established from time to time; and 

• act as Trustees for the Trust Fund(s) that may be set up for State Parks within 

Kelantan State. 

The State Parks Committee shall be chaired by the Menteri Besar of Kelantan and consists of 

the following members: 

• the State Secretary; 

67


• representatives of the Federal and State Governments that the Mentri Besar may 

consider to be represented; and 

• such other persons, not exceeding three, from NGOs or the private sector, or not 

directly employed by the Federal or State Governments. 

The State Parks Committee shall meet at least once a year. 

6.4.3 Terms of Reference for the State Parks Management Committee 

The objectives of the State Parks Management Committee are to: 

• be responsible for the conservation, utilisation, care, control, management and 

development of State Parks, acting on the directives from the State Parks Committee; 

• provide technical advice to the State Parks Committee on aspects relating to the 

policy, conservation, utilisation, care, control, management, and development of State 

Parks; 

• regularly report to the State Parks Committee on the progress, development, and 

activities of State Parks; 

• provide guidance to the Kelantan State Forestry Department on the vision, mission, 

objectives, and management of State Parks; and 

• prepare an annual budget for State Parks, and to be responsible for the preparation of 

funding proposals to seek funds from the government or other sources, as directed by 

the State Parks Committee. 

The State Parks Management Committee shall be chaired by the State Secretary of Kelantan 

and comprise the following members: 

• the Director of the State Economic Planning Unit; 

• the Director of the State Forestry Department; 

• the Director of the State Drainage and Irrigation Department; 

• the District Officer from the Kuala Krai Selatan District; 

• the Director of the State Mineral and Geosciences Department; 

• the Director of the State Town and Country Planning Department; 

• the Director of the State Land and Mines Department; 

• the Director of the South Kelantan Development Authority (KESEDAR); 

• a representative from WWF-Malaysia; 

• a representative from the Malaysian Nature Society; and 

• representatives from other agencies that may be co-opted as and when necessary. 

The State Parks Committee shall meet at least twice a year. 

6.4.4 The Terms of Reference for the Gunung Stong State Park Technical 

Working Committee. 

The objectives of the Gunung Stong State Park Technical Working Committee are to: 

• to provide technical inputs and guidance to the preparation of the Gunung Stong State 

Park Management Plan; 

68


• to consider and approve the Gunung Stong State Park Management Plan for 

endorsement by the State Parks Management Committee and the State Parks 

Committee; and 

• to regularly report to the State Parks Management Committee on the progress, 

development, and other activities related to the Gunung Stong State Park. 

The Committee will be chaired by the Director of Kelantan Forestry Department and 

comprise the following members: 

• a representative of the State Economic Planning Unit; 

• a representative of the State Drainage and Irrigation Department; 

• a representative of the State Mineral and Geosciences Department; 

• a representative of the State Department of Wildlife and National Parks; 

• the District Forest Officer of the West Kelantan Forest District; 

• a representative of WWF-Malaysia; and 

• a representative of the Malaysian Nature Society. 

The Gunung Stong State Park Technical Working Committee shall meet at least four times 

annually, usually to consider the submission and presentation of project reports, and at any 

time, when there is a need. The Gunung Stong State Parks Technical Working Committee 

will cease to exist upon approval of the Management Plan, as the implementation of the Plan 

will come under the purview of the State Parks Management Committee. 

6.4.5 Organisational Structure 

The Kelantan State Forestry Department is divided into three divisions: Operations, 

Administration and Finance, and Forest Development. Each division is headed by a Deputy 

Director, except for Administration and Finance, which is headed by an Assistant Director. 

The Operations Division is responsible for operations and management, while the Forest 

Development Division oversees forest silviculture and protection, forest planning and 

management. The respective District Forestry Offices and the Administration and Finance 

Division are under the direct management of the State Forestry Director. It is suggested that 

GSSP be directly under the Forest Development Division, reporting to the Deputy Director 

(see Figure 6.1). 

69


Figure 6.1: Proposed Organisation Chart of the Kelantan State Forestry Department 

with Inclusion of the GSSP 

State 

Forestry 

Director 

Deputy 

Director 

Operations 

Assistant 

Director 

Admin. & 

Finance 

Deputy 

Director 

Forest 

Development 

District 

Forest 

Officer 

Kelantan 

Timur 

(Machang) 

District 

Forest 

Officer 

Kelantan 

Barat 

(Tanah 

Merah) 

District 

Forest 

Officer 

Kelantan 

Selatan 

(Gua 

Musang) 

Asst. 

Director 

Operations & 

Enforcement 

Asst. 

Director 

(Industry & 

Innovation) 

Asst. 

Director 

Silviculture 

& Forest 

Protection 

Asst. 

Director 

Forest 

Planning & 

Management 

Senior 

Asst. 

Director 

Gunung 

Stong 

State Park 

With some modifications, staffing could follow the proposed structure of the State Park Unit 

within the Perlis State Forestry Department (PSFD/DANIDA, 2002). In order of decreasing 

hierarchy, the proposed organisational structure consists of the following positions detailed in 

Table 6.1 and illustrated in Figure 6.2. 

Table 6.2: Proposed Staffing Requirements of Gunung Stong State Park 

No. Position No. of 

Positions 

1. Park Officer. 

(Senior 

Assistant 

Director, Job 

Grade G44) 

Reporting to 

1 State Deputy 

Forestry 

Director (Forest 

Development). 

(G48) 

Job Description and Chain of 

Command 

Initially should be at least on par with the 

District Forest Officers (DFO) with G41 

grade, but as the responsibilities increase in 

line with improved operations and facilities, 

should be upgraded to a higher grade (Senior 

Asst Forestry Director, G44). Usually, 

seniority in the forestry department is based 

on the size of forest areas managed, but the 

role of a protected area is in conservation, 

research, tourism, promotion, and public 

relations, and greater recognition should be 

placed on this mix of responsibilities placed 

70


2. Asst. Park 

Officer . 

(Job Grade 

G27) 

3. Park Ranger 

(Forest 

Ranger, Job 

Grade G17) 

4. General 

Workers 

(Grade G11) 

5. Drivers 

(Grade R3) 

2 Park Officer 

(G44) 

2 Asst. Park 

Officer (G27) 

6 Park Ranger 

(G17) 

2 Asst. Parks 

Officers (G27) 

on him. His role extends beyond the 

boundaries of GSSP, especially in relation to 

local community engagement and the sitesupport 

groups, and promoting collaborative 

research projects, and public relations and 

promotion work. A well-managed protected 

area provides good, positive public relations 

to the Forestry Department. 

There should be two Asst. Park Officers, one 

for administration, and one for operations. 

The administration officer is responsible for 

bookings, general upkeep and maintenance 

of the visitor center, while the other officer 

is responsible for interpretation (education), 

enforcement and monitoring of GSSP. 

The administration officer works closely 

with contractors in the physical development 

of GSSP and the repair and maintenance of 

facilities. The operations officer conducts 

monitoring, as well as interpretive and 

educational programmes for visitors. 

The Park Ranger assists in the duties of the 

Asst. Park Officer, one to each Ranger. 

There should three general workers to each 

section, reporting to the Park Ranger. The 

general workers in the enforcement section 

can combine monitoring with trail 

maintenance. They could also double-up as 

guides especially during occasions when 

there are insufficient local guides. 

Assists in the logistics and communications 

of GSSP staff with the Tanah Merah Office, 

Kota Bharu Office, and Federal Forestry 

Department in Kuala Lumpur. Also 

provides logistics support to official guests 

and researchers. 

Well-managed, GSSP can become a showcase of the capabilities of the Forestry Department, 

in countering the negative publicity prevailing within the country, towards logging and 

unsustainable development. Recognising this, then it is to the best interests of the Forestry 

Department not only to provide sufficient staff to man GSSP, but upgrade the unit to the same 

level as the District Forestry Offices. Though the area managed within GSSP is much less 

than the area managed by the Tanah Merah Forestry District, the responsibilities and roles 

differ, and are more challenging due to the direct interface with domestic and foreign visitors. 

Likewise, there must be an expansion of the Silviculture and Forest Protection Unit within the 

Federal Forestry Department, to anticipate the possible formation of other State Parks within 

Malaysia, in response to its greater role in protected area management. Staff in the Unit 

should comprise a diversity of disciplines (tourism, protected area management, wildlife 

conservation, etc.), not limited to those directly related to forestry. 

71


Figure 6.2: Proposed Organisation Chart of GSSP Unit 

Deputy 

Director 

(G48) 

Forestry 

Development 

Senior 

Assistant 

Director 

Gunung 

Stong State 

Park 

(G44) 

Asst. Park 

Officer 

Admin. & 

Maintenance 

(G27) 

Asst. Park 

Officer 

Operations, 

Enforcement & 

Monitoring 

(G27) 

Park Ranger 

(G17) 

Park Ranger 

(G17) 

Asst. 

Park 

Ranger 

(G11) 

Asst. 

Park 

Ranger 

(G11) 

Asst. 

Park 

Ranger 

(G11) 

Driver 

(R3) 

Driver 

(R3) 

Asst. 

Park 

Ranger 

(G11) 

Asst. 

Park 

Ranger 

(G11) 

Asst. 

Park 

Ranger 

(G11) 

To anticipate the greater need for protected area managers, the Forestry Staff Training School 

should incorporate modules in protected area management as part of the curriculum for new 

officers. This is to reduce the need to continually train new protected area staff at the State 

level, and for all staff to at least know of what is to be expected of them if they were to be 

transferred to duties in state parks. This is also to alleviate the sense of alienation and 

isolation if staff were to be transferred to state parks, where their roles differ from the normal 

roles of forestry department: inventorying commercial timber trees, supervision of timber 

harvesting, and silviculture treatment. 

72


Meanwhile, State Forestry Departments should not place problematic staff at state parks, 

while retaining the better staff for the normal forestry duties. Otherwise, there may be a 

stigma attached to working in a protected area, and the sense of isolation from other normal 

units may further demotivate the staff. 

6.4.6 Entry Permits and User Fees 

Currently, visitors are charged RM2.00 per head for entering the Stong Resort, RM3.00 for 

entry into GSSP, and RM3.00 per head per day for camping at Baha Camp. The entry fee for 

GSSP should be maintained for the time being as a reduction may result in a drop in revenue 

for the State Government while an increase may not be justified until the park is wellestablished. 

Since the Forestry Department already has some experience in managing an 

IUCN Class II protected area in the form of the Perlis State Park, it is suggested that for the 

sake of uniformity and standardisation within the organisation, other charges should, as 

closely as possible, follow those of Perlis State Park. The suggested charges are as in Table 

6.3 below. 

Table 6.3: Proposed Fee Structure of GSSP 

A. USER FEES RM 

No. 

Type of fees 

1. Entry fees (per person per day) 

• Adult 3.00 

• Schoolchildren (less than 18 years old) 1.00 

2. Camping Fees (Per person per day) 

• Adult 3.00 

• Schoolchildren 2.00 

3. Camera (per unit) 5.00 

4. Video-recorder (per unit) 10.00 

5. Commercial/documentary filming (per session) 200.00 

6. Research permits 50.00 

B. SERVICES AND FACILITIES 

No. 

Type of services 

1. Accommodation (per night) 

• Huts at Baha Camp (per person per night) 15.00 

• Two-man tent rental (per night) 5.00 

3. Park Guides (12 visitors per guide) 

• Last Waterfall (less than 4 hours) 30.00 

• G. Stong (more than 4 hours, but no overnight) 80.00 

• G. Ayam (2 days) 80.00 per day 

• Semuliang Trail (5 days) 80.00 per day 

• Seven Summits (7 days) 80.00 per day 

4. Porters 80.00 per day 

5. Certificate 3.00 per piece 

73


C. DEPOSITS 

1. Research permit – refundable upon submission of report or thesis. 300.00 

2. Rubbish deposit – refundable upon proof of no-littering. 50.00 per group 

Nevertheless, it is suggested that visitors should not be fully charged for entering GSSP until 

the facilities, areas of responsibility, and operating systems are fully in place. The charge of 

RM2.00 for entering through the resort was originally to defray rubbish collection costs by 

resort staff, but this should be reviewed pending the take-over of management of the resort by 

KESEDAR. The Baha Camp charges meanwhile, are for maintenance and rubbish collection 

at the campsite, use of site and for monitoring the activity of campers and their safety. 

6.4.7 Location of Park Headquarters and Field Office 

It is suggested that the park headquarters be located at the existing Kuala Balah Ranger Office 

while a field office should be sited at the Stong Resort which is the gateway to GSSP, and 

where there are sleeping quarters. The park headquarters is where park administration is 

conducted, records are kept, and where staffs are based between fieldwork. Bookings for 

entry could be addressed at both the park headquarters and the field office. The GSSP unit 

based at the park headquarters reports directly to the Deputy Director, Kelantan Forestry 

Department, Kota Bharu. 

It is suggested that space be allocated at the field office for visitor registration, briefing, 

collection of fees and permits, assignment of guides, and issuance of certificates. At the field 

office, there should be a noticeboard that is prominently displayed, highlighting the rules for 

visitors, and penalties for activities that are not allowed, together with an area map of GSSP, 

highlighting the trails and summit destinations. 

6.4.8 Siting of Ranger Posts 

The shelters at designated campsites and summits can double up as ranger posts, where the 

Park Rangers can use as temporary bases to make forays into the surrounding forests for 

poachers. Presence, rather than enforcement per se, is more important in deterring would-be 

offenders. 

Permanent bases could be established at Park Headquarters, the entrance to the Sg. Semuliang 

trail and at Lata Kertas. 

6.4.9 Planning and Reporting 

Short-term to medium-term planning (1 to 5 years) will likely be prepared by the Park 

Officer, who will forecast expenditures (expansion of facilities, maintenance) and revenues on 

the basis of past trends, and request a budget from the State Parks Management Committee 

based on the forecasts. The information required for park planning and budgeting can be 

obtained from a number of different reports as described in Table 6.4. 

Table 6.4: Types of Reports and their Purposes 

No. Type of Report Purpose 

1. Visitor Volume Report To determine the number of visitors to GSSP in a year. 

Visitor volumes will help in planning for expansion and 

regulating their numbers (by pricing mechanisms), if the 

carrying capacity and limits of acceptable change have been 

breached. The visitor volume report can be expanded to 

include demographic details on age, nationality, occupation, 

and range of incomes, to help in designing activities, 

facilities, and needs for the majority group (the target market) 

of visitors, and make promotion more effective. 

74


2. Financial Report This report is where revenue (cash obtained from entry 

collections, sales of souvenirs, handicraft items), is compared 

against capital and operating expenditure. Financial reporting 

can help in the budgeting process, as the expected shortfall 

between revenue and costs will have to be from state 

government funding, since GSSP is under the Foretsry 

Department. 

It must be understood, however, that profit generation is not 

the primary objective of GSSP; revenue is to defray some of 

the operating costs, as the value of GSSP is more than 

revenue generation alone: it is in the conservation of 

biological resources, protection of environmental services, 

creation of additional income opportunities to the local 

community, and nature and environmental awareness to 

locals and visitors, of which, the values are priceless. 

3. Field Report This report is for the field officers who goes on patrol, and 

documents the general observations in the field. This relates 

to condition of campsites, trails, signage, wildlife sightings, 

rubbish generation (and other observations), for further 

action. Damage to signage indicates either vandalism by 

campers or marauding large mammals, and excessive littering 

indicates lack of control by assigned guides. 

4. Maintenance and 

Damage Report 

5. Suggestion/Complaints 

Report 

This is for the park (administrative) officer on their rounds, 

where damage is reported for maintenance and remedial 

work. Frequent damage and repair could be symptoms of 

over-use or inferior quality work and/or materials, for which, 

in the long-term, it is more economical to hire better 

contractors or purchase better quality materials. Response 

time is directly related to efficiency, cashflow, and 

communications. 

Provides essential feedback (whether negative or positive), of 

the visitors’ perceptions, level of satisfaction, and 

expectations of the facilities and service level of GSSP. 

6.4.10 Monitoring and Evaluation 

From the monitoring process, it is possible to evaluate and analyse, and then trends 

determined for a proactive approach in the planning process. Impacts on habitats can be 

ascertained from the degree of erosion along trails, quantity of litter dumped at campsites, and 

vegetation quality along trails and campsites, that are impacted by unsustainably high visitor 

volumes. The hardening of popular sites may make it necessary to create fresh trails in other 

areas of GSSP. In this respect, reports in simple, standardised formats should be designed to 

not only incorporate signs of wildlife, but also signs of habitat change, as an aid in planning. 

Monitoring for changes need not necessarily be quantitative; qualitative aspects are also 

important; for example, impressions of visitors, maintainance of socio-cultural pride among 

the locals, and improved awareness of conservation and nature among the local community. 

The placement of suggestion-boxes and complaint forms at accessible places will provide 

some direct feedback on the visitors’ perceptions, opinions, and grievances. Complaints 

should be taken positively, as it is a measure of visitor level of satisfaction with the services 

and facilities of GSSP, and remedial measures to be taken. 

6.5 Budget 

In managing GSSP, there are two types of budgets: the capital and development budget, and 

the operating budgets. The capital budget is for infrastructure, and the acquisition of fixed and 

movable assets. Operating budgets are for the normal expenses to operate GSSP, and consist 

75


of salaries (and overtimes, and claims), utilities, rentals, maintenance, and fuel expenses. 

Table 6.5 below contains the estimated capital and development budget for GSSP for the first 

three years of operations. The figures provided are only indicative but should help the park 

management in drawing up their development and operating budgets. 

Table 6.5: Estimated Capital and Development Budget for GSSP (Years 1-3) 

No. Item Description RM 

1 Office equipment Furniture, desktops, cabinets, stationery, for GSSP 

office. 

2. Two 4WD vehicles For use in logistics, boundary patrol and transport to 

HQ. 

3. Directional signposts To be placed at trail junctions, and river crossings, to 

avoid getting lost. 50 units @ RM1,000 each (includes 

cost of porters and labour for erecting them). 

4. Destination 

signposts 

To be placed at every 500m intervals, along trails, 

indicating distance to next campsite or summit. 100 

units @ RM1,500 each (includes porterage and labour). 

5. Summit signposts To be placed on seven summits: G. Ayam, G. Stong, G. 

Tera, G. Che Tahir, G. Birut, G. Menyelit, and montane 

wetland. 7 units @ RM2,000 each (include porterage 

and labour for installation). 

6. Warning signposts To be placed at Stong Resort, Baha Camp, entrance to 

Semuliang Trail, Lata Kertas, campsites, and selected 

boundary areas. 20 units @ RM1,000 each (inclusive of 

porterage and labour for installation) 

7. Huts at Baha Camp The 10 existing huts at Baha Camp should be improved 

with better material, and basic huts should be 

constructed at campsites and summits for shelter. 30 

units (12 at Baha Camp, 7 at summits, and 11 at 

campsites, at RM10,000 each (include porterage and 

labour). 

20,000 

180,000 

50,000 

150,000 

14,000 

20,000 

300,000 

TOTAL 684,000 

The estimated annual operating costs for GSSP are presented in Table 6.6. 

Table 6.6: Estimated Annual Operating Costs for GSSP 

No. Item Description RM 

1. Salary and emolument for Park 

Officer (G44) 

2. Salary and emoluments for 2 Asst. 

Park Officers (G27). 

3. Salary and emoluments for 2 Park 

Rangers (G17). 

4. Salary and emoluments for 6 Asst. 

Park Rangers (G11). 

5. Salary and emoluments for 2 

drivers (R3) 

6. Fuel and motor vehicle 

maintenance for 2 4WD. 

At RM4,000 per month. 48,000 

At RM2,500 each per month. 60,000 




At RM1,000 per month each 

for 12 months 

24,000 

76


7. Training, seminars, workshops for 

staff 

At RM2,000 per month for 1 

year. 

8. Stationery At RM500 per month for 1 

year 

9. Maintenance and repair of huts, 

signage. 

24,000 

12,000 

RM500 per month for 1 year. 30,000 

10. Utilities and rental RM1,000 per month for 1 

year. 

12,000 

TOTAL 354,000 

6.6 Sources of Funding 

Since GSSP will be managed by the Kelantan Forestry Department, it is envisaged that 

funding for operations will be from the state in the form of yearly government grants, and 

development funding from the federal government channelled through the Peninsular 

Malaysia Forestry Department or the Ministry of Tourism. Funding should not be from 

traditional sources alone, non-traditional sources must also be capitalised to help reduce the 

gap between revenue and operating costs. 

Nevertheless, it must be understood that the primary purpose of GSSP is conservation, and 

not profits per se, and the funding avenues are meant to reduce the gap between revenue and 

costs, and not meant to make GSSP self-sustaining, at least not in the short-term. In addition, 

the park also contributes to the economic well-being of local communities, especially in terms 

of the multiplier effect: visitors by their stay, interaction, and purchasing behaviour, 

contribute to the local economy by the use of local transport, patronage of local eating-places, 

and the purchase of vegetables, canned food, and camping items from the local sundry shops 

for their hiking needs. Assuming each visitor spends RM50 for food, transport, and guiding 

services, and with an estimated number of 5,000 annual visitors, some RM250,000 annually 

may have been directly contributed into the local economy. This contributes to an increase in 

entrepreneurial activities and the weaning away of the locals from the subsidy mentality 

prevalent in rural areas. 

The values of GSSP are not in monetary terms alone; there are also intangible values in terms 

of ecological services, biotechnology potential, positive public relations (for the Forestry 

Department). 

Some of the sources of funding for GSSP are as described below. 

6.6.1 Government Budget Allocations 

Traditionally, yearly budgets are allocated by the state or federal governments for operations, 

management, repair, and purchase of fixed and capital assets. This is the most common form 

of funding for protected areas in Malaysia, and is responsible for the major bulk of funding. 

Since GSSP is under the management of the Forestry Department, it is expected that 

operating and maintenance will be defrayed by the state government, while costs of 

infrastructure and building will be sourced from the Ministry of Tourism (MOT) and the 

Peninsular Malaysia Forestry Department. 

The grants from the MOT are usually for the construction and improvement of infrastructure 

at tourist sites (which includes protected areas like GSSP). Some protected area agencies like 

the Marine Parks Section of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Johor 

National Parks Corporation, and the Royal Belum State Park, have taken advantage of this 

opportunity to construct chalets for visitors and interpretive centers. However, these grants 

are only for construction of facilities; maintenance and operational staffing have to be 

provided by the implementing agencies themselves. Without adequate operational staff and 

77


maintenance budgets, these facilities will quickly degenerate into a general state of disrepair, 

providing negative perceptions to protected area management. 

6.6.2 Entry Fees 

This is a significant revenue base for protected areas in Malaysia, and includes park entrance 

fees, permits for cameras and for fishing. In Sabah and Sarawak, and other countries, such as 

Indonesia and Thailand, differentiated fee structures are practised, but not in Peninsular 

Malaysia. In this system, foreign visitors are charged more than locals, the reasoning being 

that locals pay taxes, some of which are allocated for protected area management. In 

Peninsular Malaysia, there is some resistance to the practice of this system, due to perceived 

sensitivities from international visitors. In view of the current costs of living, entry fees of 

RM1.00-3.00 per person, as imposed by our protected areas are long overdue for review, as 

some have not been raised for the last 50 years. 

6.6.3 Activity Fees 

The application of zoning within the park can give rise to several tiers of fees. Apart from the 

entry permit of RM2.00, it is suggested that the visitors who wish to go deeper into GSSP be 

charged an additional RM3.00 to enter the limited use areas such as summits and campsites. 

The lack of recreational space in the cities will mean that there is more value in visiting 

protected areas, and the additional charges is a useful screening tool that limits the numbers 

and at the same time, reduces the impact on these limited use areas. Fees could also be 

imposed on the use of cameras and professional filming within the park (see Section 6.5.6). 

Perhaps additional fees could be imposed once visitors exceed a certain volume of, say, 

25,000 per annum. 

6.6.4 Privatisation of Services 

GSSP management should only focus on planning, operations, and enforcement. Services 

and operations of accommodation, restaurants and merchandising should be parceled out to 

concessionaires, with certain conditions spelled out so as not to compromise conservation 

objectives and quality of their operations. In this respect, perhaps guiding duties and the 

operations of the Baha Camp above the waterfall could be privatised to the BAT Guides, as a 

recognition of their efforts in pioneering the trails, and promoting ecotourism in the region (in 

the absence of any institutional support) for the past 20 years (see also Section 4.1). This is 

especially critical during the first five years, when staffing, funding, and operational 

constraints may not create ideal management conditions for GSSP. 

However, apart from Taman Negara National Park, Mulu National Park, Kinabalu Park, and 

Gunung Ledang State Park, visitor numbers to other protected areas are too low to attract 

bigger private operators. Initially, GSSP should start small: inexpensive accommodation, 

small souvenir stalls that are low-cost, low capital, and that provide additional income 

generating opportunities for locals. Large-scale expansion should be justified by the demand, 

and not otherwise; in this respect, GSSP management should not fall in the trap of large-scale, 

capital intensive infrastructural expansions when demand indicates otherwise. Nevertheless, 

expansion should only be limited to the development zone and outside GSSP. 

6.6.3 International Development Aid 

There are several sources of grants from international aid agencies but the amount available 

has been on a decreasing trend. The fact that the country has over-qualified itself out of the 

potential recipient list due to improved economic standards, is partly a contributing factor. 

Usually, the grants are tied to specific research and development projects conducted in 

collaboration with local and foreign agencies and NGOs. Examples of donor agencies are 

GEF, DANIDA, JICA and UNDP. 

78


However, the grants are usually for relatively short periods of time (5 years and below), and 

the focus may shift after the end of the programme. For Malaysia, a good example of a grant 

is the RM6.5 million grant from DANCED (now DANIDA) to develop the nature education 

center at Endau-Rompin National Park in collaboration with MNS, and the RM3 million 

DANCED-Perlis State Forestry Department-WWF Malaysia collaboration to produce the 

management plan for the Perlis State Park. 

Smaller amounts of funding are available from some foreign embassies and high commissions 

including the British High Commission, the German Embassy and the Netherlands Embassy. 

6.6.4 Conservation Trust Fund 

A conservation trust fund can be formed to collect funds from non-traditional sources such as 

donations from corporations and the general public, and conservation fees levied on 

earmarked hotel, airline tickets, and other businesses associated with the tourism industry. 

For example, a surcharge of a few ringgit could be added to hotel room rates, based on a 

voluntary arrangement with participating hotels and restaurants. The surcharge is then 

collected, and at the end of the fiscal year, transferred to the conservation trust fund of a 

particular protected area or management authority. The surcharge is a voluntary contribution 

by hotel guests, and they have the option of not contributing. This arrangement, though 

common in the developed (and some developing) countries, has not been explored in 

Malaysia. 

These revenues are then parked in the trust fund, which are then used for purposes decided by 

a committee or a board of trustees established to manage the funds. These funds (in the form 

of an endowment fund, sinking fund, or revolving funds), must be kept separate from the 

traditional sources of funding, and there must be strict accountability and transparency in their 

uses. 

In Malaysia, perhaps the best example of a conservation trust fund is the one managed by the 

Marine Parks Unit. A charge of RM5.00 per person is levied for international visitors for 

each visit, and the accumulated funds are used for maintenance and upkeep of jetties. 

Nevertheless, there must be transparency, as donors have the right to know how and where 

the funds are utilised. 

6.6.5 Payment for Ecological Services 

Protected areas are more than conservation areas for wild animals and plants, but also provide 

ecological services like water conservation, as most protected areas are also watersheds that 

are tapped by water producers for water production, and by hydropower dams for electrical 

generation. It is thus fair that, a certain amount be levied for the water users and operators, to 

help cover the cost of maintaining the quality of the habitats (and hence, the quality of water 

sources) for water producers and users. In relation to GSSP, perhaps some form of monetary 

contribution or in kind support, could be solicited from the TNB or Musteq Hydro Sdn. Bhd 

(an independent power producer), that have been using water from the Kenerong and 

Semuliang catchments for electricity generation. 

6.7 Demarcation of Boundaries 

Clear demarcation of boundaries need proper surveys, followed by markers at certain 

intervals to delineate GSSP from non-GSSP areas. 

At certain intervals along the boundary, warning notices should be placed to establish the 

management and jurisdiction rights of the Forestry Department, and prevent ignorance against 

illegal land encroachments by offenders. The warning notices should caution against not only 

killing of animals and illegal collections of plant materials, but also against encroachments 

and fishing, and their penalties. 

Some parts of GSSP may have already been encroached upon, but placement of warning 

notices serve as a cautionary purpose to offenders, informing them that they do not have legal 

79


right over the land, and that it is illegal to hunt, fish, and collect plants (unless for scientific 

purposes, and even then with permission from GSSP authorities). 

6.8 Zoning 

Zoning is a well-established planning tool for protected areas and can be considered to be a 

“strategy to control the conflicting uses or demands for use of a protected area” 

(DWNP/DANCED, 2001a). 

Zoning is for purposes of conserving areas of physical and ecological sensitivity, against 

excessive development and human presence that may disturb the ecology and destroy the 

attractions that attract visitors in the first place. Zoning must be complemented by physical 

and biological monitoring to assess if excessive numbers of visitors had negatively impacted 

the ecological base of the area, and remedial actions introduced, which include regulation of 

visitor numbers. 

Ideally, each management zone should have a carrying capacity (or limits of acceptable 

change) study, to have an estimate of the permissible number of visitors at any one time. 

However, such a study is not within the scope of this preliminary management plan, and the 

number of visitors and their impacts at both the resort and Baha Camp, are still manageable. 

Nevertheless, we suggest the following management zoning concept for GSSP (see below) 

based on intensities of use as recommended by IUCN guidelines. A map of the zoning plan is 

presented in Appendix 6 while Table 6.7 summarises the issues and recommendations for 

each zone. 

The zoning plan is based on the precautionary principle and therefore most areas remain 

within the Strict Conservation Zone until more information is available to indicate that 

additional areas can be allocated for the other zones without compromising the ecological 

integrity of GSSP. Should such information be available, the zoning plan can be modified in 

future, in line with the adaptive management approach. 

6.8.1 Intensive Development Zone 

This zone includes areas where physical development is concentrated, usually where tourists, 

park management, and research facilities are located. Areas included in this zone are the 

Stong Resort and the entry point to the Semuliang trail in the southern sector of the park. 

Within the Intensive Development Zone, physical development should be concentrated at the 

existing resort grounds. 

6.8.2 Moderate Use Zone 

Areas within the Moderate Use Zone are those where visitors are allowed certain activities 

that are compatible with the protected area setting, with low impact tourist services. The 

Moderate Use Zone includes Baha Camp and the Benta Plateau. Within this zone, 

development is limited to basic infrastructure such as campsites, shelters, toilets and 

observation towers. 

6.8.3 Limited Use/Wilderness Zone 

The Limited Use Zone encompasses areas where limited numbers of visitors are allowed to 

enter, but only on foot. Areas included in the zones are the hiking trails, campsites and 

mountain peaks. Within the Limited Use Zone, development is limited to the construction of 

shelters and signage. 

6.8.4 Strict Conservation Zone 

No development should be carried out within the Strict Conservation Zone. These are areas 

where visitors are not allowed, but scientists doing work are welcome, subject to strict 

controls and conditions. 

80


Table 6.7: Suggested Management Zones and Their Current Issues 

No. 

Type of 

Zones 

1. Intensive 

Development 

Zone 

2. Moderate 

Tourism Use 

Zone 

Areas Issues Suggestions for 

Improvement 

Stong 

Resort Area 

Entry to 

Semuliang 

Trail 

Lata Kertas 

Baha Camp 

Some 14ha in area, this zone is 

highly visited by day-trippers, 

trekkers on the way to Baha 

Camp, and guests of the resort. 

Rubbish disposal is a problem, 

the worst offenders are the day 

trippers. 

Fishing activities by visitors may 

threaten fish populations. 

Currently a picnic area with no 

indication that it is part of GSSP. 

Huts at Baha Camp need 

continuous maintenance due to 

termites, wear, and tear. Broken 

down huts may not be a good 

impression for a protected area, 

but on the other extreme, 

luxurious accommodation sends 

a negative message of wastage, 

and unsustainable development. 

It will also be an embarrassment 

if, after upscale upgrading, there 

were few guests. 

Currently only two shallow pit 

toilets are available at Baha 

Camp. The 2 toilets need 

replacement, as the shallow pits 

may fill up (the granite base 

underneath prevents deeper pits). 

Rubbish disposal is a problem, 

as trash is collected and burnt in 

pits. Excessive garbage may 

lead to leaching of substances 

into the river system. 

System of registering 

and carrying out of 

rubbish be introduced, 

and enforced. 

Fishing rules need to 

be formulated and 

strictly enforced by 

park staff. Warning 

signs should be 

erected. 

A potential area for 

development, as the 

southern entry-point 

for GSSP. 

A slight upgrade of the 

huts could be made by 

funds from GSSP 

(labour by BAT 

guides), in exchange 

for a small privatised 

arrangement made to 

manage Baha Camp by 

BAT guides. 

Toilets need to be 

monitored and 

installation of a septic 

tank to replace the old 

pits. 

A system of carrying 

out non-biodegradable 

rubbish need to be 

introduced, as practised 

at Taman Negara and 

Endau-Rompin. 

Benta 

Plateau 

This former log-landing area has 

been identified as a good birdwatching 

site. 

Looped trails should be 

established to promote 

birdwatching. A 

watchtower could also 

be built here. 

3. Limited Use 

Zone 

These are 

the existing 

hiking 

trails, 

campsites, 

and rivers 

The trails originated from 

abandoned logging and wildlife 

trails. Certain sections of the 

trails are rapidly overgrown with 

ferns, and for some parts, 

covered with fallen bamboo and 

Periodic trail 

maintenance, at least 

once a year (after the 

monsoon), need to be 

carried out. This could 

be carried out by 

81


accessible 

to hikers. 

tree trunks. 

volunteers and NGOs, 

or contracted out to 

BAT Guides. 

The trails provide access for 

illegal hunters and collectors of 

forest products, including 

agarwood collectors. Fish in the 

rivers adjacent to these trails are 

under threat from fishing by 

poachers.. 

Warning signs 

containing information 

on prohibited activities 

and their penalties 

should be placed along 

trails and at campsites. 

Briefing on do’s and 

don’ts should be 

conducted by guides 

and park staff for 

visitors. 

Regular monitoring 

and enforcement along 

trails should be 

conducted to deter 

offenders. 

4. Strict 

Conservation 

Zone 

All other 

areas that 

are not in 

zones 1, 2 

and 3. 

Primary lower montane and 

montane forests are found above 

1000 m, but most areas below 

that have been logged. Except 

for some areas still under 

bamboo and ferns, the loggedover 

forest is in the process of 

regeneration. 

Allow for natural selfregeneration, 

with 

some silviculture 

treatment in some areas 

persistent with bamboo 

and ferns. 

Numerous signs of illegal 

agarwood collectors, and the 

secondary threat of opportunistic 

poaching and fishing. 

Regular monitoring 

and enforcement 

should be carried out 

by park staff. 

Informer networks 

should be introduced to 

curb illegal activities. 

BAT guides should be 

co-opted into 

monitoring team with 

limited enforcement 

powers. 

82


Photo 6.1: Basic Canteen at Baha Camp 


6.9 Buffer Zones 

Buffer zones have yet to be legally defined for Malaysia but the definition adopted by DWNP 

is “areas adjacent to protected areas, on which land use is partially restricted to give an added 

layer of protection to the protected area itself while providing valued benefits to neighbouring 

rural communities.” (DWNP/DANCED, 2001b, pg. 76). 

The buffer zones for GSSP can be categorised into three broad categories: areas under forest 

reserves, forests under stateland and alienated land. In general, most of GSSP is in a 

favourable position, as the adjacent forest reserves under the management of the Forestry 

Department make excellent buffers. 

The combination of natural forest buffers in adjacent stateland and production forest reserves, 

perhaps with a credible, certified sustainable logging in these forest reserves, will help in 

reducing the incidence of human-wildlife conflicts within the surrounding area, reduce 

encroachment and improve landscape connectivity. 

6.9.1 Buffer Areas Under Forest Reserves 

This category of buffer can be found along the western, southern and parts of the northern 

boundaries of GSSP. For buffer areas under forest reserves, the compartments immediately 

adjacent should not be logged, namely compartments 52, 53, and 55 in Gunung Stong Utara 

Forest Reserve and compartments 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 31, 34, 39, 40, 42, 70, 71, 73, 74, 

75 of Gunung Stong Selatan Forest Reserve. Of special interest are the compartments 

adjoining the peaks of G. Tera, G. Noreng Timur, and G. Che Tahir, which are peaks popular 

with climbers, and as such the scenery from these peaks should be as pristine as possible. 

6.9.2 Buffer Areas Under Stateland Forests 

Stateland forests adjacent to GSSP are located along parts of the northern boundary of the 

proposed state park area. Ideally, all the stateland forests adjacent to GSSP should be 

considered to be buffer areas where no land clearing or logging should be carried out. 

However, at the very minimum, at least a distance of 100 m from the boundary should not be 

disturbed, to form a buffer. 

83


6.9.3 Buffer Areas Within Alienated Land 

This category of buffer is found mainly along the eastern boundary of GSSP. This is to 

minimise human-wildlife conflicts and encroachment. The inclusion of alienated land within 

the buffer zone of the park does not require a change in land-ownership from private landowners 

to the state government. The land ownership status may remain unchanged but 

activities on alienated land within the buffer zone will have to be regulated so as to minimise 

negative impacts on GSSP. For example, if the alienated land is under tree cover, such as 

rubber or oilpalm plantation, then it should remain as such. The use of chemicals such as 

pesticides and artificial fertilisers should also be minimised. Activities that have major and 

long-lasting impacts on the environment such as mining, large-scale land development and 

quarrying, should be strictly prohibited within buffer areas. 

6.10 Physical Development 

If the Perlis State Park model is to be adapted, there are ample provisions for development in 

GSSP, as articulated in the legislation for Perlis State Park. For instance, in the Forest (State 

Park) Rules 2002 of Perlis, under section 8(2): 

“The Director, subject to directions that may be issued by the State Executive Committee, 

with the approval of the Chief Minister, by order published in the Gazette may appoint any 

person or company: 

(a) to build, manage, or maintain any building, facilities; or infrastructure; or 

(b) to undertake the provision of services within the state park.” 

Section 8(4) also states: 

“…the Director may within the state park: 

(a) construct such trails, interpretive displays, signage, buildings, and fences, and 

provide water supplies and refuse disposal facilities as he considers necessary; 

(b) provide such accommodation, amenities, facilities and service within designated 

zones as are likely to attract visitors to the state park and are not prejudicial to the 

proper care, control, and management thereof.” 

However, Section 8(5) states that: 

“Before any approval is given under subsection (4), the Director shall be satisfied that: 

(a) the construction of such infrastructures, facilities or buildings is essential and in the 

interest of the public; and 

(b) an environmental impact assessment of such infrastructures, facilities, or buildings 

has been undertaken and that all conditions and measures to mitigate against any 

adverse environmental impact have been complied with, or implemented to the 

satisfaction of the director.” 

However, to prevent any undesirable effects to wildlife, their interests, as provided in the 

Protection of Wild Life Act 1972, are safeguarded in Section 9 of the Forest Rules. 

Development in GSSP must be compatible with its primary purpose and objectives of 

conservation, which must not be compromised by unsustainable tourism, and as such, must be 

consistent with the protected area setting. Construction of physical facilities for tourism 

within protected areas is one of the prescribed activities under the Environmental Quality 

(Prescribed Activities) (Environmental Impact Assessment) Order 1987 of the Environmental 

Quality Act 1974. 

Under the Order, the activities listed below (relevant to GSSP) that would require an EIA are: 

84


• Airstrip development in state and national parks. 

• Development of tourist or recreational facilities in national parks. 

• Hill station resort or hotel development covering an area of 50 hectares or more. 

• Logging or conversion of forest land to other land use within the catchment area of 

reservoirs used for municipal water supply, irrigation or hydro-power or in areas 

adjacent to state and national parks and national marine parks. 

In addition projects involving land clearing where 50% of the area or more have slopes 

exceeding 25˚ (except quarrying) would require a Detailed EIA. 

As a protected area established based on IUCN principles, development in GSSP must follow 

basic guidelines that include the following (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996): 

• Physical planning must be consistent with the setting, and must not be incongruous. 

Thus, loud entertainment outlets must not be allowed within protected areas, nor are 

large, luxurious resorts, that cater for the leisure market segments. Accommodation 

must be modest, comfortable, clean and unpretentious, and therefore, much cheaper 

than conventional resorts. 

• The design must be sustainable, and incorporates and improvises on the available 

local materials and designs. As a showcase, there must be an emphasis on energy 

conservation, with greater usage of solar panels (or hybrid systems) for light and 

heating, and elimination of motor vehicles within the area. There is also emphasis on 

recycling, re-use, and reduction of waste products, and this includes an efficient 

wastewater treatment facility. 

• There must be reduction of on-site and off-site development impacts (adequately 

covered by the EIA), and there must be an inherent purpose within the design and 

planning, which is to educate visitors on conservation, sustainability, and cost and 

energy savings. 

• Designs for facilities within protected areas must be disabled friendly, to provide 

opportunities for the disabled to experience nature, to allow for their greater 

participation in activities previously denied to them. 

Physical development within GSSP is limited to the specific areas as described in Table 6.8 

below. 

Table 6.8: Sites of Physical Development in GSSP 

No. Location Description of Development 

1. Stong Resort area The room capacities of existing facilities are sufficient for the 

current volume of visitors to GSSP. What is needed is the 

maintenance and general upkeep, cleanliness, upgrading of existing 

facilities, an operational restaurant, introduction of interpretive trails, 

signposts, and information on nature education and interpretive 

center, warning signs, and a trail map of GSSP. The information 

centre should have displays of specimens and publications on 

Malaysia’s natural history, history and culture, especially of GSSP 

and the state. 

Instead of increasing the facilities, what is needed is creative 

promotion of the resort, coupled with the right packaging and pricing 

mix that targets the right market segment. Only when demand 

increases beyond room capacity should there be ideas for expansion, 

provided development impacts are mitigated. Expansion of resort 

facilities when there are no signs that demand has increased, may 

turn it into a white elephant instead. 

Under no circumstances should there be development at the base of 

85


3. Entrance to the 

Semuliang Trail 

(Confluence of 

the Sg. Semuliang 

and Sg. 

Kenerong) 

the main waterfall, not only due to the risk of sedimentation and 

despoiling of the water supply of Jelawang, but also the risk of being 

exposed to flash floods, cascades, and falling logs down the 

waterfall during rain-events. 

A potential area for tourism infrastructure, as an entry-point to the 

Semuliang Trail. The current graveled road could be upgraded, some 

form of facilities and quarters provided for visitor accommodation 

and park staff. This entry-point will relieve some of the pressures 

from the Stong Resort. Park staff can use facilities as a base to do 

monitoring and patrolling up the Semuliang. 

4. Lata Kertas Next to the Jelawang-Gua Musang Road, the facilities here could be 

upgraded and maintained for weekend day-trippers. Possibility of 

creating short trails that lead deeper into the forests. However, some 

parts have possibly been encroached for cultivation. Regular 

presence of park staff here and in the forests may deter 

encroachment and illegal agarwood collection. 

5. Baha Camp The campsite is more popular than the resort, as it is cheaper and 

makes a good staging point for hikers, in combination with attractive 

waterfalls, campsite, ambience, and company of the BAT Guides. 

There are 10 simple huts, two toilets, a campsite, a prayer hut, and a 

dining hut made out of fallen logs, bamboo, and tarpaper. Huts and 

toilets need a simple upgrade and regular maintainance. Under no 

circumstances should there be increase in facilities and greater 

development in Baha Camp, due to increased risk of sedimentation 

and sewage load that will affect potable water supply to the 

Jelawang community below. 

There is a need for a hanging bridge linking the campsite across the 

river from the main Baha Camp as the river cannot be crossed during 

heavy rains. (See Photo 6.2 for example of hanging bridge). Other 

forms of development proposed include the Another is the 

construction of a bird hide (a tower 10m in height, to observe birds 

and the scenery), and installation of a gravity feed piping system to 

transfer water from the small waterfall behind Baha Camp to the 

small kitchen in the dining hut. 

The presence of a population of the endemic palm, Licuala 

stongensis, near the campsite, is a limiting factor for the expansion 

of facilities at Baha Camp. 

6. Benta Plateau This former log-landing site has been identified as as prime area of 

birdwatching within GSSP. Limited physical development, such as 

the construction of a birdwatching hide and a looped trail, will 

enhance its appeal to birders. 

7. Summits Each hiking summit should have a signpost or plaque indicating the 

elevation, coordinates, and a register for visitors to fill in, describing 

their comments. The register should be stored in a waterproof 

container. Summits of G. Ayam, G. Tera, G. Stong, G. Birut, G. Kob 

and G. Che Kob, should have a waterproof container containing the 

register. 

8. Campsites Campsites should have basic facilities to shelter the hikers against 

the vagaries of nature, especially the usual wet and cold conditions 

that beset them. In this respect, shelters could be constructed, out of 

easily available raw materials like bamboo and fallen logs, for hikers 

to hang their hammocks or sleep on the platform. The structure 

could fit 10 persons, and regularly inspected and maintained against 

damage by elephants or the elements. This is for hikers who loathe 

to carry or stay in tents. Designated campsites that should have 

these shelters are: Bogo Rock Shelter, Lembah Camp, G. Ayam, 

Tera Camp, Sg. Semuliang, Batu Hampar Camp, and Cobra Camp. 

86


9. Trails Physical development along the trails should be limited to 

directional signposts informing the hiker of the distance to the next 

destination. The longer trails like the G. Ayam Trail, the G. Stong 

Trail, and the Seven Summits Trail, should have these signposts. 

Since these trails follow former logging roads, they are, if not 

maintained, quickly overgrown with the resam, Dicranopteris 

linearis. 

Photo 6.24: A Hanging Bridge Across the Sungai Jasin 


6.11 Visitor-Specific Carrying Capacity 

Carrying capacity is defined as the level of visitor use an area can accommodate with high 

levels of satisfaction for visitors and few impacts on resources (WTO/UNEP, 1992). 

Basically, this relates to the capacity of an area to absorb visitor impacts. Below a certain 

threshold, there is a capacity for the physical and biological resources of the land to 

regenerate. However, in the case of protected areas that are also promoted to tourism, the 

increase of visitors beyond a certain level, and their prolonged activities at a site, may not 

only have negative, profound impacts on the physical and biological resources of the area, but 

also on the visitors themselves, especially from the effects of overcrowding. This is usually 

when, in an attempt to attract mass tourism, there is inappropriate development that reduces 

the natural values inherent within a protected area such as GSSP. 

Nevertheless, as a general rule, it is better to tolerate a few sites in a protected area to be 

hardened by repeated use while keeping other areas relatively undisturbed, as the proportion 

of these hardened sites in relation to the whole area is usually not very significant. Wildlife 

may initially be stressed by the presence of visitors, but it is assumed that, with time, most 

wildlife will get used to them, provided that visitors observe a code of conduct. The impact 

of visitors on frequently-used trails can be minimised by hardening trails with concrete or 

gravel and the construction of metal or wooden boardwalks and ladders to reduce erosion. 

Alternatively, over-used trails can be closed and allowed to regenerate, and visitors diverted 

to new trails. 

There is a formula available (WTO/UNEP, 1992) for determining carrying capacity estimates 

of a given area focused on three capacity variables, i.e. material, psychological, and 

ecological, that are based on environmental (size of area and usable space, fragility, wildlife 

resources, topography and plants, sensitivity of wildlife to human visitations) and social 

factors (visitors viewing patterns, choice of sites, availability of facilities, visitors opinions). 

87


With respect to GSSP, it is beyond the scope of the this preliminary management plan to 

determine a detailed carrying capacity study, but nevertheless, based on interviews with the 

BAT guides, the estimated carrying capacities at the main visitor sites are provided in Table 

6.9. 

No. 

Site 

Location 

1. Stong 

Resort 

Table 6.9: Carrying Capacities at Some Selected Sites 

Carrying 

Capacity (No. 

Allowed Daily) 

88 

Description 

500 This site is frequented by picnickers and day-trippers who 

are less concerned with overcrowding. They are more 

concerned with bathing in the river, eating their packed 

food, and returning home. Nevertheless, their rubbish 

load, if left uncollected, do not leave a good impression 

on the resort and GSSP management as the fee of RM 

2.00 per person was originally to defray the cost of 

rubbish collection, and not for entrance. Too many local 

day-trippers will diminish the ambience and devalue the 

sense of exclusivity of the resort and the guests’ 

experience. 

2. Baha Camp 150 The number of visitors peak during long public and 

school vacations. There have been instances where about 

500 visitors have camped here (pers. comm, Wesema, 

2006), with obvious impacts: overflowing toilets, noise, 

overcrowded campsites, rubbish generation and 

overcrowded swimming spots. A limit of 150 will not 

compromise on privacy while allowing for some limited 

interaction with other visitors. 

3. Lata Kertas 50 The picnic space here is too small to support higher 

numbers of visitors, but creation of trails to the forests 

and possible identification of new camping spots can 

increase the capacity further. 

4. Rock Shelter 30 The rock shelter can comfortably accommodate 15, while 

the campsite at the base of the giant Shorea platyclados, 

another 15. Groups on 2-day ascents to G. Stong camp 

here for the night. Currently, groups of more than 20 

staying here are rare. 

5. G. Ayam 20 The camping site can accommodate slightly more than 

20, but there is a risk of the small waterhole here being 

depleted of water when there are too many campers. 

6. Rock Shelter 15 A small rock-shelter with a small stream passing through 

and habitat for a small, eel-like fish. This is a lessfrequented 

site, known only to the BAT guides and a few 

others, along the trail to the saddle between G. Ayam and 

G. Stong. 

7. Lembah 

Camp 

8. Batu 

Hampar 

Camp 

10. Cobra 

Camp 

15 On the saddle between G. Ayam and G. Stong, next to a 

small stream leading to the Sg. Semuliang. Cold and wet 

conditions in this sub-montane forest make this site 

unsuitable for larger groups due to the lack of a dry patch. 

20 Next to the Sg. Semuliang, this campsite is well-stocked 

with fishes. Being a protected area, the no-fishing rule 

should be strictly enforced here. 

20 On the upper reaches of the Semuliang, this site is at the 

confluence of the streams from G. Ayam, G. Tera, and G. 

Saji. From here, one can proceed to the saddle to G.


Ayam or G. Stong, to G. Tera, or the montane wetland on 

one of the un-named peaks. 

11. Tera Camp 10 At the base of G. Tera, water is available from a small 

stream. The steep slope limits the number of campers. 

12. Gua Ikan 50 A much over-used cave visited by locals for weekend 

picnics, this could be promoted as a public cave. There is 

a patch of Cryptocoryne affinis, just some 10m 

downstream of the favorite dipping spot, which could be 

applied as a biological monitoring tool on the impact 

from tourism. 

13. Gua Keris 30 The large chamber can accommodate more than this 

number, but larger volumes may result in disturbance to 

the bats. Some smaller chambers with interesting 

formations should only be shown to smaller groups. 

12 Gua Puteri 

and Gua 

Pagar 

20 Gua Puteri can be approached through a small passage 

(Gua Pagar) passable to one person at a time, and larger 

numbers will take a longer time to traverse the passage. 

As the passage is low, overcrowding may disturb the 

roosting bats. Gua Puteri is a smaller chamber than Gua 

Keris, with several deep gour pools that are filled with 

water in the rain season. The limitation of 20 is to reduce 

the impact on a population of trap-door spiders that could 

be a new record, or new to science. 

Carrying capacity is part of the planning process, a means to regulate visitor numbers with the 

objective of sustainable ecotourism in relation to the size of the protected area, environmental 

(and behavioural) sensitivity, biological resources, ecological services, topography, and the 

presence or lack of buffers. 

When carrying capacity is breached, there are two management responses: one is to increase 

the pricing, thus reducing the number of visitors. This is a pricing mechanism that limits the 

nature and recreational experience to those who value them more, and thus, willing to pay 

more for them, while screening out those who are less appreciative. 

The second response is to increase the total carrying capacity, to create new trails, to redistribute 

visitors to other less visited areas, or (for over-used areas), to harden trails by using 

more durable materials (eg. concrete surfaces on trails) to reduce erosion, especially in the 

development zones. Zoning is one option (see section 6.9), where the development zone, 

with the largest carrying capacity, has the largest concentration of infrastructure, with 

adequate information and activities, together with interpretive trails. Another option is to 

promote greater use during off-season. 

Nevertheless, there is a caveat in exercising the second response: increasing carrying capacity 

will lead to greater sewage loads, greater rubbish generation, and greater production of noise. 

Increasing carrying capacity will compromise the self-regenerating properties of nature. There 

must be procedures to be followed in construction and use of facilities, followed by adequate 

monitoring to ensure that they are sustainable. Otherwise, the first response (pricing 

mechanism) is the better alternative. 

With respect to GSSP, except during the occasional peak periods, current visitor numbers 

within GSSP have always been within the suggested carrying capacity limits. 

6.12 Biological Monitoring 

The health of a forest can, to a certain extent, be determined through general observations of 

the habitat and its wildife and plants. In areas where the habitat has been disturbed, a general 

sign of forest regeneration is the gradual replacement of pioneering or colonising species by 

the primary forest species. Likewise, with regard to wildlife, increased observations of prints 

89


and droppings, calls and/or direct sightings are good indicators of improving general forest 

health, and may be related to the absence of human disturbances and reduction of hunting 

pressures. 

GSSP staff must be trained to recognise these biological indicators and to formulate remedial 

measures, whether by direct intervention (e.g. increased enforcement, re-stocking of absent or 

declining wildlife species, silvicultural treatments, etc.) or benign intervention (e.g. closing an 

area off, and letting natural regeneration to happen). 

General observations on wildlife (direct sightings, calls, prints, droppings), plants (presence 

and relative abundance of primary, pioneer or invasive alien species) and habitats (incidence 

of erosion, human disturbance, etc.) during patrols must be reported and filed, and the trends 

(if any) analysed for remedial measures. Park workers must be well-versed in rapid 

biological assessment methods. 

6.13 Signposting 

Signposting serves a number of purposes – as a navigational tool, as a method for informing 

visitors of pertinent information concerning the park (including codes of conduct), as well as 

to educate visitors (e.g. through the use of interpretive signage). To reduce confusion, 

warning notices, navigational signs and interpretive signs, should be separately color-coded. 

6.13.1 Navigational Signposting 

Without navigational signposts, visitors will have difficulty determining their position within 

GSSP, and will not know if they had inadvertently strayed into areas off-limits to visitors, and 

by doing so, may be disturbing an environmentally sensitive area. If visitor areas in GSSP are 

well sign-posted, the absence of signposts would indicate to visitors that they are in a place 

where they should not be. Navigational signposts include summit signposts, campsite 

signposts, and directional signposts. 

Summit signposts are signposts that are placed on the popular summits, detailing the altitude, 

and name of the summit. These signs should be placed at the summit of G. Ayam, G. Stong, 

G. Tera, G. Che Tahir, G. Che Kob, G. Menyelit, and G. Birut, as detailed in Table 6.10. 

Table 6.10: Placement of Summit Sign Posts 

No. Name of Summits Map Coordinates Elevation (m) 

1. G. Ayam N 437652 

1,500 

E 591049 

2. G. Stong N438710 

1,415 

E590288 

3. G. Tera N 434747 

1,545 

E 591542 

4. G. Che Tahir N 437829 

1,415 

E 592589 

5. G. Kob N 439202 

1,266 

E 590515 

6. G. Menyelit N 437867 

1,480 

E 590176 

7. G. Birut N 439556 

E 589475 

1,390 

90


Directional signposts are signs informing the hiker of the direction and distance to the next 

camping site or summit, and should be located at high visitor areas or at regular intervals 

along trails (e.g. every 500 m). 

Photo 6.3: Example of a Directional Signboard 


Signposts at designated campsites indicate the name of campsites, their altitude, the estimated 

maximum capacity of campers there and the do’s and don’ts. This is to prevent camping at 

undesignated campsites, and their subsequent degradation. The designated campsites are 

Baha Camp, Bogo Rock Shelter, G. Ayam, Li Rock Shelter, Lembah Camp, Batu Hampar 

Camp, Cobra Camp, Tera Camp as detailed in Table 6.11. 

Table 6.11: Designated Campsites 

No. Campsite Name Map Coordinates Elevation (m) 

1. Baha Camp N 441757 

E 590819 

2. Bogo Rock Shelter N 439798 

E 590347 

3. Li Rock Shelter N 439203 

E 590515 

461 

816 

1,062 

4. Lembah Camp N/A 1,160 

5. Tera Camp N 434747 

E 591542 

1,445 

Navigational signposts reduce the risk of visitors getting lost, indicate the orientation and 

distance to the intended destination, and allow visitors to plan their pacing and rest-times 

accordingly. Signposts also prevent camping at non-designated sites. 

At the entry-points and the Stong resort area, signposts are needed to direct visitors to the 

registration area, interpretive centres, toilets, and accommodation facilities available. At 

entry-points, there should be a map showing the general layout of the park, showing details 

such as major trails, areas of interest, distances between points, and estimated travelling time 

between these points, while also indicating the relative position of the visitor within the park 

area. 

91


Photo 5.4: Example of a Park Layout Map 

Interpretive signage can provide interesting snippets of information on park flora, fauna and 

ecology at particular stops along specially-designated nature interpretation along interpretive 

trails. 

6.13.2 Warning Notices 

These warning notices should be differentiated from navigational signage, as the intention is 

to warn the potential and actual offender the penalties if the offences are committed (See 

Photo 6.5). The warning should include the penalties (jail-term, fines, or both) if certain acts 

are done within GSSP. It is suggested that these warning notices be prominently displayed at 

park entry-points, Baha Camp, and designated campsites. 

Notices displaying the required Code of Conduct, similar to the Malaysian Nature Society 

(MNS) Country Code should be prominently displayed in strategic places, as a gentle 

reminder to visitors. These strategic places could be at the entry-points and campsites. 

Photo 6.5: Example of a Warning Signboard 



92


6.14 Capacity Building 

To have an efficient management system, managers must know how and what to manage. 

Managing protected areas is a new field to the Forestry Department, which traditionally has 

expertise and skills related more to forest management rather than conservation or 

ecotourism. As such, there should be a diversity and complementary of skills within staff of 

GSSP, but with core skills in conservation and protected area management. 

The formation of the Perlis State Park signalled a change in the roles of the Forestry 

Department. Whereas the earlier emphasis was on sustainable management of forests and 

timber harvesting, there is now a shift in responsibilities to also include protected area 

management, which demands different academic disciplines and skill-sets. To satisfy this 

requirement, additional staff with non-forestry disciplines in wildlife management, 

conservation, or resource management must be employed. 

At the institutional level, there must be a protected area unit within the Forestry Department 

Peninsular Malaysia to coordinate, and formulate policies for new protected areas that are 

managed by the forestry department. The protected area unit could be an expansion of the 

existing Silviculture and Forest Protection Unit within the Forestry Department Peninsular 

Malaysia. Properly managed, protected areas managed by the forestry department are good 

public relations instruments to counter the bad press on logging and forestry activities. Apart 

from changes in institutional set-up, protected area management must also be part of the 

curriculum for forestry department trainees; as, in the future, there is likely to be more 

protected areas managed by the forestry department. 

Since there are no formal courses in protected area management in Malaysia, staff should be 

sent for short training courses that are offered by institutions within the region. Pending 

formal training, a short-cut approach is to make study visits to national and state parks in 

Malaysia (e.g. Perlis State Park, Taman Negara National Park, Mulu National Park, Bako 

National Park and Kinabalu Park) and within the region (Australia). The staff must also be 

proficient in laws relating to protected areas, wildlife protection, illegal trade of flora and 

fauna, use of forest resources, and abuse of facilities. 

The ultimate outcome in capacity building is an attitudinal shift, to turn GSSP staff and 

guides into naturalists, instead of mere protected area managers and guides. This is an internal 

conversion that demands a change in entrenched mindsets, not only at state level, but also at 

the federal level. 

Those involved in GSSP must have a mix of core competency and knowledge in sciences, law 

enforcement, management, and communications – areas of relevance that are outlined in 

Table 6.12 below. 

Table 6.12: Suggested Capacity-Building Areas 

No. Areas of Training Description Target Audience 

1. Biological sciences Plant and wildlife ecology, conservation, natural 

history. 

2. Geology and 

physical sciences 

Unique physical features of GSSP, origins of the 

Stong granite formation, and the limestone hills 

of Dabong. 

3. Social sciences Understanding the history and culture of the 

state and the locals, for improvements in local 

community relationships. 

4. Legislation 

pertaining to 

conservation and 

environmental 

A good understanding of the types of legislation 

relating to conservation and environmental 

protection in Malaysia, their rules, regulations, 

enforcement, and penalties. Relevant statutes 

include the the National Forestry Act 

93 

Forest Rangers, 

Asst. Park Officers, 

Park Guides. 



Park Guides. 



Park Guides. 

Park Officer, 



Local


protection 

5. Resource 

management 

6. Protected area policy 

and planning 

(Amendment) Enactment 2004, the Protection of 

Wild Life Act 1972, the Environmetal Quality 

Act 1974, the National Forestry Act 1984, the 

National Parks Act 1984, and the other relevant 

legislation. 

Sustainable management of the biological and 

physical resources of GSSP, biological 

monitoring, indicators, carrying capacity, limits 

of acceptable change. 

Policy and planning that balances conservation 

with the needs and requirements of ecotourism, 

recreation and local communities. 

7. Communications Presentation techniques, public relations, basic 

English, guiding techniques, awareness, reportwriting, 

interpretive displays. 

8. Protected area 

operations 

Operational competency that includes project 

management, scheduling of duties and 

responsibilities, assignment of staff, field 

monitoring. 

9. Nature guiding This is in collaboration with the Ministry of 

Tourism and the Department of Wildlife and 

National Parks. Successful participants will be 

certified with a Green Badge, without which it is 

illegal to do guiding. 

10. Emergency rescue, 

rapid response, firstaid, 

and CPR 

11. Navigation and map 

reading 

12. Information 

technology 

The ability to deal with emergencies in the 

wilderness is of primary importance, due to 

distance from the nearest aid station, the 

challenging terrain and the different levels of 

fitness of visitors. Park staff and guides are the 

first line of emergency aid during these 

situations. 

In the wilderness, the risk of getting lost is great, 

especially if one is separated from the group. 

Knowledge of navigation and map-reading (use 

of compass, GPS, and recognition of physical 

features) is important for park staff and guides 

that will be leading groups to the peaks, and also 

involved in search and rescue activities. 

There must be a basic competency level in usage 

of information communications technology 

(ICT), especially in word-processing and 

internet communications. 

Communities. 


Park Officers, Asst. 

Park Officer, 

Forest Guides. 

Asst. Park Officer, 

Forest Officers. 

Forest Ranger, 

Park Officer, Asst. 

Park Officer, Park 

Guides. 


Park Officers. 



Park Officers, Park 

Guides. 


Parks Officer, Asst. 

Park Officers, 

General Workers, 

Park Guides. 



Park Officers, Park 

Guides. 



Park Guides. 

Source: Adapted from PSFD/DANIDA (2002). 

6.15 Research 

6.15.1 Areas of Study 

As a newly protected area, there is a need to increase the body of knowledge on the 

biodiversity, tourism, and economic resources within GSSP. Some areas of study relevant to 

GSSP are suggested in Table 6.13. 

94


No. 

Suggested 

Areas of Study 

1. Wildlife migration 

and ecology 

2. Forest 

regeneration 

3. Human-wildlife 

conflicts 

Table 6.13: Some Areas of Study Relevant to GSSP 

Reasons 

GSSP is mostly surrounded by forested areas, and is contiguous with 

Belum-Temengor and other areas within the Titiwangsa Range and 

not much is not known about the movements of wildlife within and 

between these areas. For example, elephants have been observed 

crossing the East-West Highway at Banding, and this migration 

pattern should be studied by satellite tracking or other means, as 

GSSP could also be part of their range. However, wildlife research 

should not be limited to big mammals alone, bats could also be 

radio-collared to ascertain their range. 

Most of forests below 1,000m in GSSP have been logged before, 

and therefore should be promoted as a site for studies on postharvesting 

forest regeneration, as logging will not be carried out 

again once the park is gazetted. For those areas that are heavily 

logged, silviculture treatment should be introduced, to induce better 

regeneration into primary forests. Research plots could be 

established and promoted to universities and research institutions. 

Large- and small-scale conversions of surrounding forestland into 

agriculture have increased the incidence of human-wildlife conflicts. 

Studies could be conducted to determine the best methods to 

minimise these incidences. The study of wildlife ecology through 

camera-trapping is but a beginning for understanding the dynamics 

of the on-going problem. 

4. Herbaceous plants The perennially moist conditions of GSSP have encouraged the 

growth of herbaceous plants, typically orchids, gesneriads, and 

gingers. The study of these plants should be promoted, particularly 

in terms of their horticultural potential and sustainable harvesting for 

establishment of ex situ collections. 

5. Medicinal plants There are many plants with medicinal properties within GSSP that 

could be promoted for study, and these include the Goniothalamus 

spp. (kenerak), some species of Melastoma, and the Tongkat Ali, 

Eurycoma longifolia. 

6. Limestone ecology The limestone caves at Dabong should be conserved and managed 

together with GSSP due to their significance. The limestone hills 

have been known to harbour rare and endemic species of gesneriads, 

balsams, begonias, and Monophyllaea spp., and the caves are batroosting 

sites important for the fruit-farming industry. These caves 

are easily accessible, and could be promoted for study on limestone 

habitats. There is also a need to confirm the existence of plants 

earlier reported to be present here, before any proposed development 

threatens their existence. The series of caves within Dabong should 

be explored and mapped, and their fauna documented. 

7. Market research 

and tourism needs 

survey 

8. Cost-benefit 

studies 

Infrastructural development in our protected areas quite often does 

not include visitor consultation in the planning process. Illconceived 

resorts become white elephants when they are targeted at 

the wrong market segments, even when there is (as yet), low demand 

for such development. Development in protected areas should be 

guided by what the visitors wants, and not upon what decisionmakers 

think the visitors want. Market research and tourism surveys 

are, therefore, crucial. 

Cost-benefit studies are much neglected in Malaysia, possibly due to 

the almost subjective nature of agreeing to the discount rate, value of 

benefits (biodiversity, potential for biotechnology, ecological 

95


9. Carrying capacity 

and limits of 

acceptable change 

10. Socio-economics 

of local 

communities 

services, etc.), costs, and the time-frame of these streams of costs 

and benefits. GSSP would make a good test-bed for developing a 

better valuation method for protected areas in Malaysia. 

This is important in determining the maximum visitor loads in the 

various zones within GSSP, especially when the increase in visitor 

impacts goes beyond a certain level that, in turn, decreases the value 

of their experience. However, this is not an exact science, due to 

differing views on the limits and capacities of GSSP to absorb 

impacts. 

This study should also include the willingness-to-pay concept, i.e. 

how much visitors are willing to pay for maintaining their privacy 

within a wilderness area. 

Except for the occasional surveys on income levels and population 

of local communities conducted by the JPBD and the Departmemt of 

Agriculture, there have been few, if any, studies done on the local 

communities’ perception and expectations, and the value of GSSP to 

them. Only by a consultative approach, and after such baseline 

information has been obtained, will it be possible to design 

appropriate programmes for community development, provided they 

are willing to be part of such programmes. 

6.15.2 Procedures on Specimen Collections 

Procedures on specimen collection could closely follow those of Perlis State Park, as 

provided in Section 7 of its Forest (State Park) Rules 2002, consisting of the following subsections: 

“7.(1) No research or study may be conducted within the state park without a permit 

issued by the Director, subject to subsection (2). 

7.(2) A permit for the purpose of research or scientific study in the park and relating to 

any living organism obtained from or found in the park may be granted to a person 

or organisation after a proper application in Form A has been duly submitted to the 

Committee. 

7.(3) No such permit may entitle the holder thereof to take, collect, possess, or keep or 

convert into another form any specimen beyond the boundaries of the area or areas 

designated in the permit for such research study, unless prior written permission 

has been granted thereof authorising him to do so. 

7.(4) The Committee may impose additional terms and conditions to the permit in so far 

as they are not incompatible with the terms and conditions imposed by the 

Enactment. 

7.(5) No researcher or person assisting the researcher or his agent or worker may 

conclude his fieldwork in the designated area of research or study unless a 

discharge certificate has been issued by the Director or his authorised agent. 

7.(6) A discharge certificate shall be issued if the Committee is satisfied that all 

reasonable care has been taken by the researcher to safeguard the ecological 

condition of the designated research area and no harm to the environmental or 

aesthetic integrity of the designated area has been occasioned either deliberately or 

through unprofessional lack of care or through malicious recklessness by the 

researcher, his assistant, agent or worker. 

7.(7) The Director shall maintain a record of errant researcher and each holder of a 

research permit shall be deemed to have authorised the Committee to communicate 

the identity and other personal details of the researcher and his record of noncompliance 

to other organisations or bodies upon request for the same.” 

96


6.15.3 Promotion of GSSP to Scientists 

Linkages could be made with local universities and foreign institutions to promote GSSP for 

research activities, especially with universities that are near to GSSP, by formal and informal 

means. Formal collaboration could be through the establishment of a permanent research 

station, or in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlines the sharing 

of research benefits including profit-sharing from sales of products developed from resources 

of GSSP. Informal means include ad hoc applications to conduct research activities at GSSP 

from institutions that do not have formal arrangements with GSSP. Promotion should not be 

a one-off effort, but should instead be an on-going process, in order to expand the pool of 

researchers at GSSP and therefore widen the information base on GSSP. 

6.16 Co-option of BAT Guides 

The BAT guides has been instrumental in providing basic accommodation and guiding 

services since 1992, and is primarily responsible for promoting GSSP to visitors. With an 

average annual visitor number of 5,000 over the last 10 years, some 50,000 people may have 

visited GSSP to-date, including locals and foreigners, with diverse skills and backgrounds. 

The BAT Guides maintain the Baha Camp and campsites along the trails, disposing of 

rubbish, preventing illegal collections, helping in rescue work, and monitoring visitors from 

straying. 

Since they have been involved in promoting GSSP for the last 20 years, their effort should not 

go unrecognised. It is therefore suggested that they be co-opted into the GSSP structure, 

though not as permanent staff; maintaining the existing status quo, provided certain 

conditions are met: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

(vii) 

(viii) 

(ix) 

(x) 

The privatisation of guiding services is reviewed annually; 

The guiding fees are determined by GSSP, and are reviewed regularly; 

The guides are responsible for maintaining the cleanliness of Baha Camp, 

designated campsites and trails; 

The guides must be registered with the State Park unit of the Kelantan State 

Forestry Department and their status reviewed annually; 

The registered guides be given the authority to caution visitors and apprehend 

offenders, where appropriate; 

A roster of guides be maintained at the GSSP headquarters or park entry-points, 

and a queuing system be maintained for the guiding services to ensure an 

equitable distribution of guiding services; 

Visitors must report to GSSP staff at entry-points, and guides assigned 

accordingly, based on the guide queue, unless the guide is specifically requested 

for by visitors; 

The 10 huts and dining hut at Baha Camp should be up-graded and maintained by 

the GSSP, and the services outsourced to BAT Guides, at nominal fees, as BAT 

guides not only provide guiding services, but also provide rescue, safety and 

security services to the campers (there are insufficient numbers of forestry 

department staff to handle guiding duties); 

The BAT guides must abide by certain codes of conduct as specified by GSSP, or 

risk being de-registered; 

Baha Camp, campsites, and trails must be regularly monitored by GSSP staff, to 

ensure the above conditions are met by BAT guides. 

The BAT guides, being locals, help in monitoring GSSP against illegal activities, and they 

could be the core site support group for GSSP (that fits into the grand objective of protecting 

97


GSSP and its resources). Nevertheless, the guiding services should not be the monopoly of 

BAT guides alone; others can also operate within the park, provided they are MOT- certified. 

Privatisation or outsourcing of services are provided for, in Section 8 (2)(b) of the Forest 

State Park Rules 2002 of the National Forestry (Amendment) (Adoption) Enactment 1994 for 

the privatisation of services within the state park. Guiding and facility operations are services 

that could be privatised. 

6.17 Environmental Education 

Within the area surrounding GSSP, there are numerous schools where nature clubs (Kelab 

Pencinta Alam) could be formed, in collaboration with the Education Department, 

Department of the Environment (which already runs a programme called Nature Warrior), the 

WWF-Malaysia, and the Malaysian Nature Society (MNS), upon which, nature appreciation 

programmes and courses could be conducted within GSSP. It is recommended that a nature 

interpretation centre, similar to the one in Endau-Rompin National Park, be established within 

the Intensive Use Zone of the park. 

Initially, the schools along the road between Dabong and Jeli could be targeted, and later on 

the programme could be expanded to include schools in other areas. The objective of the 

nature club programme would be to turn GSSP into a premier nature education centre in the 

region, and at the same time to increase conservation awareness and encourage the formation 

of a site support group among the young locals. 

The following schools located between Dabong and Jeli should be the initial targets for such a 

programme: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

(vii) 

(viii) 

(ix) 

(x) 

(xi) 

(xii) 

Sekolah Menengah Jeli 

Maktab Rendah Sains Mara, Jeli 

Sekolah Kebangsaan Jeli 

Sekolah Kebangsaan Lubok Bungor 

Sekolah Kebangsaan Kubur Datuk 

Sekolah Kebangsaan Bukit Jering 

Sekolah Kebangsaan Kuala Balah 

Sekolah Menengah Kuala Balah 

Sekolah Kebangsaan Mempelam, Jelawang 

Sekolah Kebangsaan Sri Mahligai 

Sekolah Kebangsaan Kemubu 

Sekolah Kebangsaan Biak 

In later phases, the programme could be expanded to include other schools within the state, 

and later on, perhaps even regionally, to include the state of Trengganu as well. A heightened 

level of conservation consciousness among the young will reap benefits in the form of 

sustainable lifestyles, and the corresponding reduction in waste production, and other forms 

of environmental abuse. 

6.18 Networking and Collaboration with Other PAs 

There are some 40 protected areas in Malaysia, ranging from the tiny, 4ha Sg. Bukit Puteh 

Wildlife Reserve (KL), to the 434,000 ha Taman Negara National Park, managed under 

different agencies. However, there is as yet, no formal association nor a network of protected 

area managers. This situation is far from ideal as, at the very least, a loose network is 

necessary for the sharing of ideas and innovations in park management, given the 

98


commonalities of problems and issues across the many protected areas. Increased networking 

among PA authorities and managers could lead to collaborations in certain areas of park 

management, training and research. Park managers should not perceive other protected areas 

as competitors, but instead collaborate in cross-selling and cross promotions, as each 

protected area have their own niche that differentiates them from others. 

The contact details of the major protected areas management authorities in Malaysia are as 

provided in Table 6.14 below. 

Table 6.14: Contact Details of National and State Park Authorities in Malaysia. 

No. Authorities Contact Person Contact numbers/ 

email/website 

1. Department of Wildlife 

and National Parks, 

[Jabatan Perlindungan 

Hidupan Liar dan 

Taman Negara 

(PERHILITAN)], 

Km 10 Jalan Cheras, 

56100 Kuala Lumpur. 

2. Johor National Parks 

Corporation, 

(Perbadanan Taman 

Negeri Johor) 

JKR 475, Bukit 

Timbalan, 

80000 Johor Bahru, 

Johor. 

3. Perlis State Forestry 

Department, 

(Jabatan Perhutanan 

Negeri Perlis), 

Km 2 Jalan Kaki Bukit, 

01000 Kangar, 

Perlis. 

4. Sabah Parks, 

P.O. Box 10626, 

88806 Kota Kinabalu, 

Sabah. 

5. Sarawak Forestry 

Corporation, 

Level 12, Office 

Tower, Hock Lee 

Centre, 

Jalan Datuk Abang 

Abdul Rahim, 

93450 Kuching 

Sarawak. 

Tn. Hj. Zainuddin, Director, 

Protected Areas Division. 

Hasnizam Hamzah, 

Assistant Director. 

Email: hasnizam@yahoo.com 

Aldrich Richard, Assistant 

Director. 

Email: almiric@hotmail.com 

Paul Basintal 

Assistant Director 

(Administration, Finance and 

Development) 

Desmond Dick Cotter, 

Deputy General Manager 

(Protected Areas & 

Biodiversity Conservation). 

Email: 

cotterdd@sarawakforestry.com 

Website: 

www.wildlife.gov.my 

Tel: 03-90752872 

Fax: 03-90752873 

Website: 

www.johorparks.com 

Tel. 07-2237471 

Fax: 07-2237472 

Tel: 04-9765966 

Fax: 04-9778772 

Tel: 088-211881 

Fax: 088-221001 

Website: 

www.sarawakforestry.com 

Tel: 082-348001 

Fax: 082-341550 

99


6.19 Local Communities 

6.19.1 Participation in the Hospitality Industry 

The presence of visitors has added, in no small way, to the income of the local communities, 

whether through the provision of guiding services, eating establishments, or sundry shops, in 

Dabong and Jelawang. However, the visitors are mainly there for the mountains and the 

waterfall, and do not linger for longer periods in Dabong or Jelawang, not because of lack of 

facilities, but because there is no reason for them to stay, as evidenced by the very low 

occupancies at the Dabong Resthouse or the much higher-priced Stong Resort. 

The potential for the hospitality business is there, but will become a reality only when visitor 

numbers exceed a certain volume. There will then be demands for guesthouses or homestays, 

when some of the visitors opt to stay in Dabong or Jelawang, to rest after a bout of the rough 

outdoors. Perhaps, as a rule of thumb, only when the Dabong Resthouse is constantly full, 

will there be a market for guesthouses or homestays in Dabong or Jelawang, with the excess 

demand absorbed by the local operators. 

Nevertheless, there should not be a rush for the formal homestay concept, as practised in 

Malaysia, where groups of visitors are herded from one activity to another, organised by tour 

agencies, with no opportunity for informal interactions or even rest. At this moment, the best 

form of a homestay or guesthouse programme is where the villager, to supplement his 

income, voluntarily offers one or two rooms in his house, at cheap rates, for accommodation, 

together with meals, and provides opportunities for boarders to be involved with their host 

family, if they choose to. In this way, there is less business risk compared to operating a fulltime 

guesthouse. The villager adjusts his business according to demand: offering additional 

rooms, when there is additional demand, or scaling down the number of rooms offered, if 

demand slackens. 

If we rush to provide facilities and soft loans for villagers to be involved in the hospitality 

industry (without really studying the market), we will again be repeating the failures of most 

of the coastal chalet industry in the peninsula: rundown, empty, over-priced rooms, with high 

borrowings, that stretches from Tumpat to Kota Tinggi. 

It should be noted here that the locals are naturally capable of exploiting opportunities in the 

hospitality industry, without much prompting from the authorities. What is needed is a short 

training course in the hospitality industry. The necessary steps are as follows: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

Invite locals who are interested in operating homestays for a meeting, explain the 

concept and conditions (registration of guests, basic room-sizes, basic facilities 

and furniture, fencing, cleanliness, acceptable toilet facilities etc.). 

Obtain a list of potential operators. 

Train them in short courses in the hospitality industry. 

Provide small soft-loans for furniture, fencing, simple upgrading of toilets or 

rooms, or extension of rooms. 

Post standardised signboards in front of the houses where homestays are offerred. 

Establish and maintain a register of homestay operators, for visitors who may 

want to place bookings through the park headquarters and booking offices, and 

also for purposes of regulating their numbers and monitoring that conditions are 

abided with. The register also functions as a database for planners. 

After determining the number of villagers interested in operating homestays or guest-houses, 

training in the hospitality business should be introduced to them. A register of the operators 

and the number of rooms offered should be maintained and promoted to interested guests by 

the park authority, in addition to their own self-promotion. As an aid in planning, occupancy 

100


rates could be an indicator of the popularity of the accommodation, and help determine the 

potential of additional rooms. 

Training should be conducted in collaboration with KESEDAR, as much of the area 

surrounding GSSP is within the auspices of the agency, and the agency is also involved in the 

human development of the settlers through the provision of training and aid to small 

businesses (see section 2.7). 

6.19.2 Integration of Agro-Tourism in the Promotion of GSSP 

The villages surrounding GSSP are replete with local fruit trees such as durians and 

rambutans. During fruiting season from June to August, there is a glut of fruits, resulting in 

low prices, and one strategy to alleviate this is to integrate agro-tourism in the promotion of 

GSSP. 

The “all-you-can-eat” concept (where visitors pay a certain sum per person to eat fruits at the 

orchards) can be introduced in the surrounding area, even as an extension of the homestay 

programme, during the fruit season. Active promotion of agro-tourism packaged as part of 

the tourism package for GSSP will improve the standard of living among villages through 

improved sales of their fruits. 

As in the homestay concept, steps to introduce villagers to the concept could be as follows: 

(i) Invite interested villagers for a meeting, outlining the concept and the conditions 

for participation (eg. orchards well-maintained, provision of huts for rest and 

shade). 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

Obtain a list of potential operators. 

Provide short-courses in hospitality training, and especially on cross-cultural 

sensitivities, as visitors may not necessarily be Malays. 

Provide small, soft-loans for fencing, huts, and fertiliser. 

Establish and maintain a registry of participants, which is reviewed annually. 

Promote the concept to city-dwellers and tourists through the hotel and 

guesthouse network. 

The attractiveness of agro-tourism to the villagers will depend on their expectations of 

success, and initially, there may be few participants. However, success may encourage other 

orchard owners to join the programme. As with the homestay concept, training should be 

carried out in collaboration with KESEDAR. 

6.19.3 Operation of Small Souvenir and Camping Equipment Shops 

As in the case of the hospitality industry, the local communities are capable of capitalising on 

opportunities, with little or no prompting from authorities. Currently, BAT Guides offer T- 

shirts for sale, but the demand is not encouraging, perhaps due to the unattractive design or 

the high price (RM20 per piece). There is also a part-time entrepreneur in Dabong that sells 

small, hand-carved, wood pieces and some paintings to tourists, but the demand is too small 

as yet to turn it into a full-time business. 

There are, occasionally, requests for camping gear (camping gas, solid fuel, hammock), but 

the demand is too low to support full time entrepreneurs. It is foreseen that when the demand 

gets more frequent, some sundry shopkeepers will respond to the demand and initially stock 

souvenirs and limited amounts of camping equipment for sale or rental, and eventually 

increase these stocks in response to increased demand. The time may come when someone 

finds it profitable enough to operate shops specialising in souvenirs and camping supplies, but 

this is unlikely to happen within the 5-year implementation period of this plan. 

101


Unlike mass tourism sites, visitors to protected areas are generally not in the habit of buying 

souvenirs (except for the occasional T-shirt or key-chain); this could also be the reason why 

sales of souvenirs have not been encouraging. Nevertheless, basic training in operating small 

businesses is necessary, and must be an ongoing process among the local communities in 

areas surrounding GSSP. With basic training, the local communities will be encouraged to 

venture into any business that they feel is viable within the setting of the GSSP. 

6.19.4 Local Outdoor Recreation Club 

The boom in outdoor recreation is symptomatic of Malaysia’s greatly improved standard of 

living, with greater disposable incomes and more leisure time. This can be attested by the 

greater number of Malaysians visiting recreational forests, national parks and marine parks, 

the proliferation of outdoor clubs (public and in universities), the large number of outwardbound-type 

camps, publication of outdoor recreation magazines, and the proliferation of 

camping and fishing equipment shops. 

The recent introduction of the National Service programme will add to the number, as more 

Malaysians will be exposed to the outdoors. This will lead to greater pressure for the 

government to improve on environmental sustainability, and the establishment of more 

protected areas. 

The formation of a local outdoor recreation club should be encouraged as many outdoor 

recreation clubs have already visited GSSP. The local outdoor recreation club would be part 

of the local site support group (see section 6.20), especially if nature appreciation is 

incorporated into the activities of the club. Members of the club could be trained to become 

part-time guides, and hopefully be drawn away from negative activities such as drug abuse, 

vandalism and motorcycle racing. 

6.20 Local Site Support Group (SSG) 

A local Site Support Group (SSG) should be formed, comprising representatives of the 

following: 

(i) BAT and non-BAT guides. 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

(vii) 

(viii) 

Operators of homestays and souvenir stands. 

Operators of restaurants and coffee shops that directly benefit from tourism. 

Agro-tourism operators. 

School nature clubs. 

Outdoor recreation club. 

GSSP. 

KESEDAR. 

This well-represented and diversified group of local stakeholders, banding together under an 

umbrella group, will complement the programmes and operations of GSSP. The SSG should 

meet regularly, to discuss issues that are raised and participate in events and activities 

organised, such as trail clean-ups and climbathons, which will not only promote GSSP, but 

also provide positive identification of the group with GSSP. However, as a cautionary 

principle, the activities and events that are promoted should not be at the expense of 

conservation, which the primary purpose for the formation of GSSP. 

6.21 Promotion and Marketing 

As elaborated in Section 4.3, Malaysians make up about 80% of the visitors to GSSP, with 

those aged between 20 and 40 years, and males accounting for some 70% of the visitors. 

With most of them enjoying the outdoors, and participating in hiking and camping activities, 

102


it is pertinent that promotion be focused on this market segment, based on the following 

factors: 

• The activities are low impact, and consistent with the setting of GSSP, a protected 

area, whose objective is the conservation of biological and other natural resources. 

• Resorts or resort-like settings at GSSP are not consistent with the existing profile of 

visitors to GSSP. 

• Targeting for the outdoor market segment will mean that there will be less physical 

development of GSSP, which translates into less environmental impact and also 

reduced capital and operations costs, and therefore lower break-even points. 

• There will be even less need for promotion, as this group of target market are often 

repeat visitors, and would also invite their friends who have never visited GSSP 

before. 

• Shifting to a different market segment such as the leisure or mass-market may mean a 

longer promotion period to be successful, even with the right infrastructure in place. 

Very popular eco-tourism destinations such Kinabalu Park and Taman Negara 

already have a market for mass tourists, but not for GSSP, at least for another 10 

years. However, it must be cautioned that infrastructure development for the mass 

tourism market is limited to the development zone (resort area) only, as overdevelopment 

of other areas of GSSP will not be consistent with its primary purpose. 

Only after the target market has been decided can the marketing strategy be devised. To be 

successful, a professional marketing approach is needed but sadly, this is lacking within the 

protected area system in Peninsular Malaysia. Some of the main steps in formulating the 

promotion and marketing strategy for GSSP are contained in Table 6.15. 

Table 6.15: Promotion and Marketing Strategies 

No. Steps Strategic Logic 

1. Select a logo that 

represents GSSP 

2. Positioning of 

GSSP as an 

ecotourism centre 

3. Identification of 

the target market 

An iconic logo or trademark can help differentiate GSSP from 

other protected areas. GSSP is known for its waterfalls, wildlife, 

and endemic plants. We suggest a logo derived from the leaves of 

the Licuala stongensis as it is endemic to GSSP. The logo will be 

copyrighted, used in letterheads, websites, and other forms of 

communication. 

Even if there is a formal name for GSSP, there must be an brand 

name that is easily pronouncable, marketable, and in this respect, 

must be imaginative, and conjures a sense of the exotic, 

adventure, exploration, or mystery. For example, Sabah, 

positioning herself as Malaysian Borneo, has managed to attract 

foreign visitors to her protected areas. An uncomplicated, brand 

name could be Mt. Stong State Park. 

Different protected areas have different qualities that differentiate 

them from the others: for example, Kinabalu National Park has 

the highest mountain in South East Asia. GSSP can offer its 

numerous waterfalls, peaks and the endemic plants as a 

positioning strategy. Better accessibility compared to other 

protected areas, is also a strong selling point. 

GSSP is already popular with adults within the age range of 20-40 

years, whose primary motive is hiking and camping, with a dash 

of caving and agro-tourism (during the fruit season). This should 

be the target market, and facilities and infrastructure should be 

designed with this market in mind, which, incidentally, is 

consistent with the protected area setting. 

Targeting other market segments like the leisure and mass market 

103


4. Focused 

promotional 

strategies 

will mean a longer gestation and promotion period, larger 

investments in infrastructure, and large promotion, operating and 

maintenance budgets, leading to a higher bottom-line. 

Due to the current lack of critical visitor volumes, targeting the 

leisure and mass tourism market is a long-term investment 

commitment, not a feasible option in the medium or short-term 

time period. There are too many examples of failed resorts in 

protected areas that target this market segment. 

The ecotourism (and nature and adventure market) is a special 

niche within the tourism industry. This niche is serviced by 

several specialist tour operators, nature and conservation 

magazines (Outside, National Geographic, Discovery, Asian 

Geographic, High). Not to be overlooked are clubs, organisations, 

and associations that promote conservation, nature, adventure, 

and ecotourism travel. Promotion and advertising strategies 

should be focused with these media, the nature or eco-travel 

operators, and associations (or clubs), within or outside the 

region. 

5. Mode of promotion Promotional materials include billboards, advertising, 

guidebooks, trail-guides, website and brochures (and the CD 

format), and their placements must provide the maximum 

exposure with the least cost, to the target market. A good mode 

of promotion is to invite eco or nature tour operators and reporters 

for a familiarisation trip to GSSP. 

Promotional materials must have contents that appeal to 

naturalists, like a bird or a plant checklist, or a guide book on 

GSSP. 

6. Placement of 

promotional 

materials 

7. Regular promotion 

of events at GSSP 

and inclusion of 

innovative outdoor 

recreational 

activities 

8. Word-of-mouth 

promotion 

To provide maximum exposure, the suggested placement of 

promotional materials are as follows. 

• Other protected areas and eco-tourism sites in Malaysia 

• Kelantan TIC (Tourist Information Center) 

• Billboards placed at entry-points such as the airport, bus 

station, and the Wakaf Baru train station. Other primary 

locations are at border towns like Rantau Panjang, and at the 

interstate borders with Pahang and Terengganu 

• Advertising must be in magazines and websites that promote 

conservation, nature, and travel. 

Kinabalu Park has the annual climbathon, while Taman Negara 

organises yearly festivals. Taking a leaf out of these two 

protected areas, GSSP can organise similar activities like the 

climbathon, as a promotional tool. Events should ideally coincide 

with the fruit season, and there must also be included elements of 

cultural heritage, turning it into a celebration. 

To diversify the activity base, the possibility of running down (by 

kayak or raft) the Sg. Galas, from Gua Musang to Dabong and 

Kuala Krai, and introduction of rock-climbing on one of the 

limestone hills in Dabong, could be explored. 

Visiting GSSP must be made to be very satisfying for visitors to 

recommend to their friends or make repeat trips. This is the 

cheapest from of promotion, and the trick is to make them feel 

special, or turn them into friends. 

104


CHAPTER 7: 5-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

YEAR 1 NO. MILESTONES TO BE ACHIEVED 

1. Establishment of the State Parks Committee and the State Parks 

Management Committee. 

2. Preparation of the organisational structure of the GSSP, and scope of 

work defined. 

3. Hiring of staff dedicated specifically for GSSP. 

4. Standard operating procedures, systems of reporting, monitoring, 

controls, budgets, and realistic yearly visitor targets established. 

5. Promotion and marketing plan formulated. 

6. Scientific research plan formulated. 

7. Establishment of the State Park Unit. 


1. Completion of survey and demarcation of GSSP boundaries. 

2. Placement of navigational signs, warning notices, and shelters in areas 

suggested in the management plan. 

3. Active promotion of GSSP, through websites, travel guides, brochures, 

and other media linkages and through MOT. 

4. Active promotion of GSSP for scientific research, through networks, 

collaboration, and linkages with local universities and conservation 

NGOs. 

5. Completion of GSSP guidebook and trail map. 

6. Establishment of a nature interpretation centre, GSSP Field Office, 

interpretive trails. 

7. Simple upgrading of facilities at Baha Camp and Stong Resort 

completed. 

8. Acquisition of fixed and movable assets for the park, e.g. motorvehicles, 

audio-visual equipment, field equipment, scientific and 

research equipment, reference materials, etc. 

9. Establishment of ranger posts at entrance to Semuliang Trail and Lata 

Kertas. 


1. Gazettement of GSSP. 

2. Key posts within State Park Unit filled. 

3. Presence of GSSP staff stepped up, frequency of patrols increased. 

4. Capacity-building of GSSP staff and guides in skills areas as suggested 

in management plan. 

5. Formation of local informer system. 

5. Formation of homestay and agro-tourism operations. 

6. Formation of outdoor recreation clubs. 

7. Formation of school nature education clubs. 

8. Formation of local Site Support Group (SSG). 

105


9. Networking with other protected areas established. 

10. Commencement of programmes and courses on nature education at the 

nature interpretation centre. 


1. Regular joint-patrols with paramilitary and sharing of information with 

DWNP established. 

2. Diversification of activities (kayaking, rock-climbing, orienteering, 

caving, homestays, agro-tourism), other than hiking, at GSSP and 

surrounding areas. 

3. Networking and research collaboration with research institutions 

established. 

4. Networking and sharing of information with non-local protected areas 

established, by membership with international protected area agencies. 


1. Recognition of GSSP as one of the premier conservation, eco-tourism, 

and nature education center in Malaysia. 

2. Review of existing management plan and formulation of new 

management plan. 

3. Upgrading of ranger posts at entrance of Semuliang trail and Lata 

Kertas. 

106


CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION 

This Preliminary Management Plan is a stopgap, but proactive, measure to guide GSSP 

managers, pending a more detailed plan. The sense of urgency is driven by the increased 

numbers of visitors, the lack of coordination between agencies and stakeholders, and their 

differing visions on how GSSP is to be developed. To the credit of the state government and 

the Kelantan State Forestry Department, the formation of the relevant steering, technical, and 

working technical committees, is the right initial step to guiding the formation, planning, and 

management of GSSP. 

GSSP is a suitable candidate for a protected area. Firstly, it is rich in biological diversity, 

high in hyper-endemics, especially for certain plants found only in the area, and nowhere else 

in the world. Secondly, its significant location between the forests of Taman Negara and the 

Titiwangsa Range, and further westwards to Belum and Ulu Muda, makes it a crucial 

component in ensuring contiguity within the main forest blocks of the peninsula. Thirdly, it is 

relatively well-known among hikers as a destination that offers mountains, cascading 

waterfalls, caves, and opportunities for interaction with local communities. Fourthly, the 

locals are aware of the benefits of GSSP to them, especially those directly involved in the 

ecotourism business, and some form of training must be introduced to them, to get them 

involved in a more systematic manner, in micro-businesses and conservation, without losing 

their cultural heritage, especially where there is much interaction between foreigners and 

locals. This is true in some communities where the locals imitate the more negative cultural 

elements of foreign visitors. 

The Preliminary Management Plan is but a start towards an end, which is a viable, protected 

area that is also promoted for ecotourism, without compromising conservation. This vision 

can be achieved through the establishment of efficient management systems, effective 

protection of GSSP and its resources, recognition of the biological and economic resources of 

GSSP and the improvement of the standard of living of the local communities as well as their 

level of conservation awareness. 

The Preliminary Management Plan will lead to a more detailed management plan, if funding 

is available. A more detailed management plan will further elaborate on the socio-economic 

aspects of and the detailed capacity-building requirements of the GSSP staff and the local 

communities. 

It is expected that conditions during the first 5 years will be less than ideal, due to teething 

problems that are common to all new organisations. These include formation of the right 

organisational structure, the setting up of administrative and standard operating systems, the 

acquisition of assets, selection of the right staff, and their training. Training alone will take 

several years due to the mix of skills that is necessary to operate a protected area promoted for 

eco-tourism. It is hoped that within the first five years, GSSP will be effectively managed as 

a protected area, and eventually achieve the target of being a premier conservation and ecotourism 

destination in Malaysia. 

107


REFERENCES 

Abdullah Samat, M.N. Shukor, Mohd. Yusoff Ahmad & A.G. Mazlan. 2005. Fishes of 

Torrential Unnamed Tributaries of Sungai Galas in Gunung Stong Area. In: Shaharuddin 

Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, Abdullah Sani Shafie, Jalil Md. Som, I. Faridah-Hanum 

& A. Latiff (eds.). 2005. Taman Negeri Gunung Stong, Kelantan: Pengurusan, Persekitaran 

Fizikal, Biologi dan Sosio-Ekonomi. Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, Kuala 

Lumpur. 

Ahmad Zafir Abdul Wahab, A.K. Johanssen, M.R. Darmaraj, O. Ansel, D.S.K. Sharma & 

Surin Suksuwan. 2005. Camera-trapping and Observations of the Larger Animals in West 

Kelantan Forest Complex. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, Abdullah 

Sani Shafie, Jalil Md. Som, I. Faridah-Hanum & A. Latiff (eds.). 2005. Taman Negeri 

Gunung Stong, Kelantan: Pengurusan, Persekitaran Fizikal, Biologi dan Sosio-Ekonomi. 

Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

Ahmed Said Sajap, Noor Farikhah Hareda, Yaacob Abdul Wahab & Pazrina Azuriah 

Abdullah. 2005. Diversity of Ants, Termites and Beetles in Gunung Stong Forest Reserve. 

2005. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, Abdullah Sani Shafie, Jalil Md. 

Som, I. Faridah-Hanum & A. Latiff (eds.). 2005. Taman Negeri Gunung Stong, Kelantan: 

Pengurusan, Persekitaran Fizikal, Biologi dan Sosio-Ekonomi. Jabatan Perhutanan 

Semenanjung Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

Azman, S. & M. I. Zaidi. 2005. Cicada (Homonoptera: Cicadoidea) Fauna of Gunung Stong 

Forest Reserve. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, Abdullah Sani Shafie, 

Jalil Md. Som, I. Faridah-Hanum & A. Latiff (eds.). 2005. Taman Negeri Gunung Stong, 

Kelantan: Pengurusan, Persekitaran Fizikal, Biologi dan Sosio-Ekonomi. Jabatan Perhutanan 


Badrul Munir Md-Zain & D.J. Melnick. 2005. Genetic variation of Gunung Stong Banded 

Leaf-Monkey (Presbytis melalophos) Based on DNA Sequences. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad 

Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, Abdullah Sani Shafie, Jalil Md. Som, I. Faridah-Hanum & A. Latiff 

(eds.). 2005. 

Bormann, B.T., J.R. Martin, F.H. Wagner, G. Wood, J. Alegria, P.G. Cunningham, M.H. 

Brookes, P. Friesema, J. Berg, and J. Henshaw. 1999. Adaptive management. Pp. 505-533 In: 

Johnson, N.C., A.J. Malk, W. Sexton, and R. Szaro (eds.). Ecological Stewardship: A 

Common Reference for Ecosystem Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1996. Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, 

Switzerland and Cambridge, UK 

Chape, S., S. Blyth, L. Fish, P. Fox & M. Spalding (compilers). 2003. 2003 United Nations 

List of Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. 

Che Salmah, M.R., A. Abu Hassan & A. Mohd.Hadzri. 2005. Aquatic Insects of Gunung 

Stong Forest Reserve. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, Abdullah Sani 

Shafie, Jalil Md. Som, I. Faridah-Hanum & A. Latiff (eds.). 2005. Taman Negeri Gunung 

Stong, Kelantan: Pengurusan, Persekitaran Fizikal, Biologi dan Sosio-Ekonomi. Jabatan 

Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

Chee, B.J., C.K. Lim, S. Kamarudin, M. Markandan, K. Shamsul, T.A. Manap, K.H. Lim, 

K.H. Ku Yahaya, A. Abdul Razak & A. Latiff. 2005. A Preliminary Checklist of Plant 

108


Species of the Gunung Stong Forest Reserve. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. 

Taha, Abdullah Sani Shafie, Jalil Md. Som, I. Faridah-Hanum & A. Latiff (eds.). 2005. 

Taman Negeri Gunung Stong, Kelantan: Pengurusan, Persekitaran Fizikal, Biologi dan 

Sosio-Ekonomi. Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

Chu, Ling Heng. 1976. A Geological Investigation on the Limestone Hills Near Dabong, Ulu 

Kelantan, Kelantan. Geological Survey of Malaysia Project No. MX (N) 5/1976. Ministry of 

Primary Industries. 

Chu, Ling Heng, H. Muntanion & Aziz Sidik. 1982. Regional Chemistry of South Kelantan. 

Geological Survey Geochemical Report 1. Geological Survey HQ, Kuala Lumpur. 

Chong, M.H.N. 2005. A Brief Survey of Birds as Part of the Biodiversity Component in the 

Preliminary Management Plan of the Gunung Stong State Park, Kelantan. A report produced 

under WWF-Malaysia Project MY 02040 G. WWF-Malaysia, Petaling Jaya. 

Damanhuri, A., K.T. Yong, Nor Hidayah, H. Maideen, Jaafar Tahrim & Solehan Saorani. 

2005. Flora Lumut Jati di Gunung Stong. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. 

Taha, Abdullah Sani Shafie, Jalil Md. Som, I. Faridah-Hanum & A. Latiff (eds.). 2005. 



Davison, G.W.H. and R. Kiew. 1990. Survey of Flora and Fauna of Limestone Hills in 

Kelantan with Recommendations for Conservation. A technical report produced by the 

Malayan Nature Society under WWF-Malaysia project nos. 3829 and MYS 161/89. Malayan 

Nature Society and WWF-Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

DOE Kelantan. 2004. Environmental Quality Report for Kelantan, 2003. Department of the 

Environment (DOE), Kelantan. 

DWNP/DANCED. 2001a. Krau Wildlife Reserve Management Plan. A document prepared by 

the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) and the Danish Cooperation for 

Environment and Development (DANCED) under the Management of Krau Wildlife Reserve, 

Human Resource Development and Capacity Building Project. 

DWNP/DANCED. 2001b. Managing Protected Areas in Peninsular Malaysia: Guidelines 1. 

A document prepared by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) and the 

Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development (DANCED) under the Management 

of Krau Wildlife Reserve, Human Resource Development and Capacity Building Project. 

EPU. 2003. Mid-Term Review of the Eighth Malaysia Plan 2001-2005. Economic Planning 

Unit, Prime Minister’s Department (EPU). Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad, Kuala 

Lumpur. 

FDPM. 2001. Forestry Statistics, Peninsular Malaysia. Forestry Department Peninsular 

Malaysia (FDPM), Kuala Lumpur. 

Government of Malaysia. 1976. Third Malaysia Plan 1976-1980. Government Press, Kuala 

Lumpur. 

Honey, Martha. 1999. Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? 

Island Press, Washington DC, USA. 

Idris, A.B., Y.F. Ng, A. Nur Azura & A.D. Gonzaga. 2005. Diversity and Abundance of 

Ichneumonidae and Braconidae (Hymenoptera) in Different Forest Types at Gunung Stong. 

109


In: Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, Abdullah Sani Shafie, Jalil Md. Som, I. 

Faridah-Hanum & A. Latiff (eds.). 2005. Taman Negeri Gunung Stong, Kelantan: 



IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Areas Management Categories. IUCN, Cambridge, 

UK and Gland, Switzerland. 

Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri Kelantan. Undated. Laporan Tahunan 2003. Jabatan Perhutanan 

Negeri Kelantan. 

Jabatan Alam Sekitar. 1993. Buku Panduan Kawasan Alam Sekitar Malaysia. Jabatan Alam 

Sekitar, Kementerian Sains, Teknology & Alam Sekitar, Kuala Lumpur. 

JPBD. 1996. Laporan Pemeriksaan Rancangan Tempatan Majlis Daerah Kuala Krai Utara 

dan Majlis Daerah Kuala Krai Selatan 1995-2020. Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa 

Semenanjung Malaysia (JPBD), Kuala Lumpur. 

Keng, H. 1969. Size and Affinities of the Flora of the Malay Peninsula. Journal of Tropical 

Geography 31: 43-56. 

Kiew, R. 2005. Begonias of Peninsular Malaysia. Natural History Publications (Borneo) and 

Singapore Botanic Gardens, Kota Kinabalu and Singapore. 

Komoo, I., H.D.Tjia & M.S. Herman (eds.) 2001. Geological Heritage of Malaysia. 

LESTARI UKM, Bangi, Malaysia. 

MacKinnon, J., K. MacKinnon, G. Child, & J. Thorsell. 1986. Managing Protected Areas in 

the Tropics. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

Maideen, H., A. Faisal, R. Jaman, A. Damanhuri & A. Latiff. 2005. Kepelbagaian Pteridofit 

Hutan Simpan Gunung Stong. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, Abdullah 




Mariana, A., Z. Zuraidawati, T.M. Ho, R. Mohd Kulaimi, I. Saleh, M.N. Shukor & M.S 

Shahrul Anuar. 2005. Fauna Ektoparasit di Hutan Simpan Gunung Stong. In: Shaharuddin 




Lumpur. 

Maseri, N.M., S. Kamarudin, M. Markandan & A.H. Mohd-Ros. 2006. A Preliminary 

Checklist of Vascular Plants from the Proposed Gunung Stong State Park (Gunung Stong 

Tengah Forest Reserve), and Gua Ikan and Gua Pagar, Dabong, Kelantan, Peninsular 

Malaysia. An unpublished WWF-Malaysia report published under Project MY 02040. 

Mat-Salleh, K. & Imam Mahadi. 2005. Noteworthy Annonaceae of Gunung Stong. In: 

Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, Abdullah Sani Shafie, Jalil Md. Som, I. 




110


MDKKS & JPBD. 2000. Draf Rancangan Tempatan Kuala Krai Selatan 1999-2010. Majlis 

Daerah Kuala Krai Selatan (MDKKS) & Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa Semenanjung 

Malaysia (JPBD) Kuala Lumpur. 

Meteorological Department. 2005. Meteorological Data, 1995-2005, for Kuala Krai and Kota 

Bharu. (Unpublished). 

Mohd. Kamil Yusoff, Rosta Harun, Azizi Muda, Abdul Rasid Haron, Jasrul Nizam Jahaya, 

Mohd. Zamani Ismail, Nur Salwanie Mohd. Resali, Nur Aina Khairuddin & Marshela 

Mohammad. 2005. Status Kualiti Air di Hutan Simpan Kekal Gunung Stong. In: Shaharuddin 




Lumpur. 

National Forestry Act 1984 (Act 313). 

Ng, F.S.P., C.M. Low & Mat Asri Ngah Sanah. 1990. Endemic Trees of the Malay 

Peninsular. FRIM Research Pamphlet No. 106. Forest Research Institute of Malaysia (FRIM), 

Kuala Lumpur. 

Nizam, M.S., A. Rahim, A. Zainuddin Ibrahim & A. Latiff. 2005. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad 

Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, Abdullah Sani Shafie, Jalil Md. Som, I. Faridah-Hanum & A. Latiff 

(eds.). 2005. Taman Negeri Gunung Stong, Kelantan: Pengurusan, Persekitaran Fizikal, 

Biologi dan Sosio-Ekonomi. Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

Norhayati, A., S. Zaiton, S. Juliana & M.N. Shukor. 2005. Kepelbagaian dan Kelimpahan 

Amfibia di Gunung Stong. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, Abdullah 




NRE. 2005. Management Effectiveness Assessment of National and State Parks in Malaysia. 

Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment (NRE), Putrajaya. 

PE Research Sdn Bhd. 2005. Background Study on Economic Analysis of Human: Tiger 

Conflict and Possible Mitigating Measures in Peninsular Malaysia. Report prepared by PE 

Research Sdn Bhd for WWF-Malaysia. 

Protection of Wild Life Act 1972 (Act 76). 

PSFD/DANIDA. 2002. Human Resources Development Plan (Final Report), Perlis State 

Park. Perlis State Forestry Department (PSFD) and the Danish International Development 

Assistance (DANIDA), Kangar. 

Pue, G.H. & A. Latiff. 2005. Kepelbagaian dan Pengurusan Hidupan Liar di Kelantan. In: 









111


Shahrul Anuar, M.S., M.N. Shukor, M. Nor Zalipah, E. Nurul ‘Ain, Yusof Ahmad, A. Rahim, 

C.L. Puan, O. Yusof, A. Nazri & S. Kalimuthu. 2005. Bird Survey of Gunung Stong 

Permanent Forest Reserve. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, Abdullah 




Saw, L.G. 1997. A Revision of Licuala (Palmae) in the Malay Peninsula. Sandakania 10: 1- 

95. 

Shamsul, K. & T.A. Manap. 2005. Notes on the Medicinal Plants of Gunung Stong Forest 

Reserve. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, Abdullah Sani Shafie, Jalil 

Md. Som, I. Faridah-Hanum & A. Latiff (eds.). 2005. Taman Negeri Gunung Stong, 

Kelantan: Pengurusan, Persekitaran Fizikal, Biologi dan Sosio-Ekonomi. Jabatan Perhutanan 


Sharma, D.S.K., Ahmad Zafir Abdul Wahab, Surin Suksuwan, A. Norhayati, M.R. Darmaraj 

& O. Ansel. 2005. A Note of the Reptiles Observed at Gunung Stong Forest Reserve, Gunung 

Basor Forest Reserve and around Jeli, Kelantan. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan 

Hj. Taha, Abdullah Sani Shafie, Jalil Md. Som, I. Faridah-Hanum & A. Latiff (eds.). 2005. 



Shukor, M.N., M.S. Shahrul Anuar, E. Nurul `Ain, M. Norzalipah, A. Norhayati, A. Nadzri, 

Yusof Ahmed, O. Mohd. Yusof, M. Ganesan & S. Kalimuthu. 2005. Tinjauan Mamalia Kecil 

di Hutan Simpan Gunung Stong. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, 

Abdullah Sani Shafie, Jalil Md. Som, I. Faridah-Hanum & A. Latiff (eds.). 2005. Taman 

Negeri Gunung Stong, Kelantan: Pengurusan, Persekitaran Fizikal, Biologi dan Sosio- 

Ekonomi. Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

Stevens, W.E. 1968. The Conservation of Wildlife in West Malaysia. Office of the Chief 

Game Department, Ministry of Lands and Mines, Seremban. 

TIC. 2001. Record of Tourism Visitors to Kelantan. Tourism Information Center (TIC), 

Kelantan (Unpublished). 

TIC. 2004. Record of Tourism Visitors to Kelantan. Tourism Information Center (TIC), 

Kelantan (Unpublished). 

UPEN Kelantan. 2001. Profil Sosio Ekonomi Negeri Kelantan 2000. Unit Perancang 

Ekonomi Negeri (UPEN) Kelantan, Kota Bharu. 

UPEN Kelantan. 2002. Profil Sosio Ekonomi Negeri Kelantan 2001. Unit Perancang 

Ekonomi Negeri (UPEN) Kelantan, Kota Bharu. 

Wong, C.H. 2005. A Brief Survey of Bats at Gua Ikan and Gua Setol, Dabong, as Part of the 

Biodiversity Component in the Preliminary Management Plan of the Gunung Stong State 

Park, Kelantan. A report produced under WWF-Malaysia Project MY 02040 G. WWF- 

Malaysia 2003, Petaling Jaya. 

Wong, K.M. 1995. The Bamboos of Peninsular Malaysia. Forest Research Institute of 

Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

112


WTO/UNEP. 1992. Guidelines: Development of National Parks and Protected Areas for 

Tourism. WTO/UNEP joint publication, Madrid/Paris. 

WWF-Malaysia. 1991. A Conservation Strategy for Kelantan Darul Naim. A report in 3 

volumes prepared by M. Kavanagh, K. Kumari, G.W.H Davison, and B. Perumal submitted to 

the Government of Kelantan Darul Naim under Project MYS 161/89 & 3289. WWF- 

Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

Zaidi, M.I., S. Azman, S. Norela & L.S. Poh. 2005. Butterfly (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) 

Funa of Gunung Stong Forest Reserve. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, 



Ekonomi. Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

Zaidi, M.S., S. Azman, S. Norela, B.C. Tan. 2005. Moth (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) Fauna of 

Gunung Stong Forest Reserve. In: Shaharuddin Mohamad Ismail, Dahalan Hj. Taha, 



Ekonomi. Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, Petaling Jaya. 

113

APPENDIX 1: 

MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA


Location of Study Area 

Kedah 

Perak 

Sg. Jenera 

420000 430000 440000 450000 

Study Area 

To Jeli 

Kelantan 

Sg. Pergau 

Terengganu 

Pahang 

HR G.Stong Utara 

! 


Proposed Gunung Stong State Park 

HR G.Stong Selatan 

! 

Sg. Galas 

Dabong 

± 

Dabong Limestone Hills 

Bertam Baharu 

570000 580000 590000 600000 610000 

! 

Kuala Jenera 

Sg. Nenggiri 

To Gua Musang 

0 3 6 KM 

Sg.Semerak 

LEGEND 

! Towns 

Rivers 

Railway 

Major Roads 

Study Area 

A Preliminary Management Plan 

of the Gunung Stong State Park 

Kelantan 

Prepared by WWF-Malaysia 2006

APPENDIX 2: 

GEOLOGICAL MAP OF THE STONG AREA


Geology 

420000 430000 440000 450000 

To Jeli 

Sg. Pergau 

± 

Sg. Jenera 



G. Che Tahir 

#* 

G. Tera 

G. Menyelit 

#* #* #* 

#* 

G. Kob 

#* #* 

G. Saji 

G. Beirut 

G. Ayam #* 

G. Stong 



! 

Sg. Galas 

Dabong 

Sg. Galas 

Bertam Baharu 

! 

570000 580000 590000 600000 

! 

Kuala Jenera 

Sg. Nenggiri 

To Gua Musang 

0 3 6 KM 

LEGEND 

#* Mountain Peaks 

! Towns 

Rivers 

Railway 

Major Roads 

Forest Reserves 

Geology 

Phyllite / slate / shale / schist 

Acid intrusives (undifferentiated) 

Limestone/marble 

Sandstone/metasandstone 



Kelantan 


APPENDIX 3: 

MAP SHOWING SLOPE CLASSES IN THE STONG AREA

Gunung Stong State Park Preliminary Management Plan

APPENDIX 4: 

LAND USE MAP OF THE STONG AREA

Gunung Stong State Park Preliminary Management Plan

APPENDIX 5: 

PRELIMINARY VEGETATION MAP OF THE STONG AREA


Preliminary Vegetation Map 

Sg. Jenera 

420000 430000 440000 450000 

To Jeli 

Sg. Pergau 


! 


G. Che Tahir 

#* 

G. Tera 

G. Menyelit 

#* #* #* 

#* 

G. Kob 

#* #* 

G. Saji 

G. Ayam 

G. Beirut 

#* 

G. Stong 



Sg. Galas 

Dabong 

Bertam Baharu 

! 

± 

570000 580000 590000 600000 610000 

! 

Sg. Nenggiri 

Kuala Jenera 

To Gua Musang 

0 3 6KM 

LEGEND 

! Towns 


Rivers 

Vegetation 

Lowland dipterocarp 

Hill dipterocarp 

Montane ericaceous 

Montane swamp forest 

Scrub & Forest/Scrub 



Kelantan 

Railway 

Upper Hill dipterocarp 

Major Roads 

Montane oak 

Elevation at 1000m 

Forest Reserves 


APPENDIX 6: 

MAP OF THE ZONING PLAN FOR GSSP


Zoning Plan & Areas of Interest 

420000 430000 440000 450000 



52 

Sg. Pe rgau 

53 

55 

#* 

6 

#* 

#* 

#* 

8 

#* 

^ 

#* 

#* ^ ^ 

9 

^ #* 

11 

12 

13 


19 

34 

20 

35 

36 39 40 

41 

42 

70 

Lata Kertas 


71 

INSET MAP OF MAIN TOURIST AREA 

73 74 

75 

G. Tera 

Sg. Jenera 

G. Saji 

#* #* 

#* G. Ayam 

#* 

Cobra Camp 

G. Che Tahir 

^ 

#* 

G. Menyelit 

^ 

G. Stong #* 

^ #* 

Batu Hampar Camp 

Jelawang Waterfall Stong Resort 

Baha Camp 

G. Kob 

^ 

Bogor Rock Shelter 

G. Beirut 

#* 

Benta Plateau 

To Jeli 

REFER INSET MAP 

! 

Sg. Galas 

Dabong 

± 

Sg. G alas 

Bertam Baharu 

! 

570000 580000 590000 600000 610000 

Montane Swamp Forest 

Rafflesia Site 

To Gua Musang 

Entrance to Semuliang Trail 

! 

Kuala Jenera 

Sg. Nenggiri 

0 3 6 KM 

LEGEND 

^ Campsites 


Other Sites of Interest 

! Towns 

Elevation at 1000m 

Rivers 

Railway 

Major Roads 

Zoning 

Buffer Zone 

Development Zone 

Moderate Use Zone 

Limited Use Zone 

Strict Conservation Zone 



Kelantan 


APPENDIX 7: 

A PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST OF MAMMALS 

RECORDED IN THE GSSP AREA


A PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST OF MAMMALS RECORDED IN THE GSSP AREA 

No 

Common 

Name 

Latin Name 

Dermoptera: Cynocephalidae 

1. Flying Lemur Cynocephalus 

variegatus 

Chiroptera: Pteropodidae 

2. Spottedwinged 

fruit 

bat 

3. Lesser dogfaced 

fruit bat 

4. Hill longtongued 

fruit 

bat 

5. Common longtongued 

fruit 

bat 

Chiroptera: Nycteridae 

6. Hollow-faced 

bat 

Balionycteris 

maculata 

Cynopterus 

brachyotis 

Macroglossus 

sobrinus 

Macroglossus 

minimus 

Nycteris 

javanica 

Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae 

7. Intermediate 

horseshoe bat 

8. Glossy 

horseshoe bat 

9. Lesser brown 

horseshoe bat 

10. Trefoil 

horseshoe bat 

Rhinolophus 

affinis 

Rhinolophus 

refulgens 

Rhinolophus 

stheno 

Rhinolophus 

trifoliatus 

Chiroptera: Hipposideridae 

11. Bicolour 

roundleaf 

horseshoe bat 

12. Large 

roundleaf 

horseshoe bat 

Hipposideros 

bicolor 

Hipposideros 

larvatus 

Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae: 

13. Hardwicke’s 

forest bat 

14. Least forest 

bat 

Kerivoula 

hardwickii 

Kerivoula 

minuta 

15. Papillose bat Kerivoula 

papillosa 

Conservation 

Status* 

Protection 

Status+ 

Method of 

Detection 

LR/lc TP Direct 

observation 

Source 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

LR/lc - Caught Syukor et al. 

(2005) 


(2005) 


(2005) 


(2005) 

VU - Caught Syukor et al. 

(2005) 


(2005) 

- - Caught Syukor et al. 

(2005) 


(2005) 


(2005) 


(2005) 


(2005) 


(2005) 

LR/nt - Caught Syukor et al. 

(2005) 


(2005)


No 

Common 

Name 

16. Clear-winged 

bat 

17. Bronze tubenosed 

bat 

18. Orange tubenosed 

bat 

19. Brown tubenosed 

bat 

Latin Name 

Kerivoula 

pellucida 

Conservation 

Status* 

Protection 

Status+ 

Method of 

Detection 

Source 


(2005) 

Murina aenea LR/nt - Caught Syukor et al. 

(2005) 

Murina 

cyclotis 


(2005) 

Murina suilla LR/lc - Caught Syukor et al. 

(2005) 

20. Black myotis Myotis ater - - Caught Syukor et al. 

(2005) 

21. Lesser flatheaded 

bat 

22. Large flatheaded 

bat 

Primates: Lorisidae 

Tylonycteris 

pachypus 

Tylonycteris 

robustula 

22. Slow loris Nycticebus 

coucang 

Primates: Cercopithecidae 

23. Pig-tailed 

macaque 

24. Long-tailed 

macaque 

25. Banded leafmonkey 

26. Dusky leafmonkey 

Primates: Hylobatidae 

Macaca 

nemestrina 

Macaca 

fascicularis 

Presbytis 

melalophos 

Trachypithecus 

obscurus 

27. Siamang Symphalangus 

syndactylus 

Pholidota: Manidae 

29. Malayan 

pangolin 

Rodentia: Scuiridae 

30. Grey-bellied 

squirrel 

31. Black-banded 

squirrel 

Manis 

javanica 

Callosciurus 

caniceps 

Callosciurus 

nigrovittatus 


(2005) 


(2005) 


observation 

VU P Cameratrapping, 

Direct 

observation 

LR/nt P Cameratrapping, 

Direct 

observation 

LR/nt P Direct 

observation 

LR/lc P Direct 

observation 

LR/nt P Indirect 

observation 

LR/lc TP Cameratrapping, 

Direct 

observation 

LR/lc - Cameratrapping 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Badrul & 

Melnick 

(2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

LR/lc - Caught Shukor et al. 

(2005)


No 

Common 

Name 

Rodentia: Muridae 


giant rat 

33. Brown spiny 

rat 

Latin Name 

Leopoldamys 

sabanus 

Maxomys 

rajah 

Conservation 

Status* 

Protection 

Status+ 

Method of 

Detection 

LR/lc - Cameratrapping, 

Caught 

Source 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005), 

Shukor et al. 

(2005) 

LR/lc - Caught Shukor et 

al.(2005) 

34. Red spiny rat Maxomys 

surifer 

35. Whitehead’s 

rat 

36. Dark-tailed 

tree rat 

Rodentia: Hystricidae 

37. Brush-tailed 

porcupine 

38. Malayan 

porcupine 

Rodentia: Petauristinae 


squirrel 

40. Black-banded 

squirrel 

Carnivora: Canidae 

41. Asiatic wild 

dog 

Carnivora: Ursidae 

42. Malayan sun 

bear 

Carnivora: Mustelidae 

43. Yellowthroated 

marten 

Carnivora: Viverridae 

Maxomys 

whiteheadi 

Niviventer 

cremoriventer 

Atherurus 

macrourus 

Hystrix 

brachyura 

Callosciurus 

caniceps 

Callosciurus 

niggrovitatus 


al.(2005) 


al.(2005) 


al.(2005) 

LR/lc P Cameratrapping 

- P Cameratrapping 


Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

- - Caught Shukor et 

al.(2005) 

Cuon alpinus EN TP Cameratrapping, 

Indirect 

observation 

Helarctos 

malayanus 

Martes 

flavigula 

44. Binturong Artictis 

binturong 

45. Small-toothed 

palm civet 

Arctogalidia 

trivirgata 

DD TP Cameratrapping, 

Indirect 

observation 


LR/nt TP Cameratrapping, 

Direct 

observation 


observation 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005). 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005).


No 

Common 

Name 

46. Masked palm 

civet 

47. Common palm 

civet 

48. Banded 

linsang 

49. Large Indian 

civet 

Carnivora: Felidae 

Latin Name 

Paguma 

larvata 

Paradoxurus 

hermaphroditu 

s 

Prionodon 

linsang 

Viverra 

zibetha 

50. Golden cat Catopuma 

temminckii 

51. Leopard cat Felis 

bengalensis 

52. Clouded 

leopard 

53. Black panther/ 

Leopard 

Neofelis 

nebulosa 

Panthera 

pardus 

54. Malayan tiger Panthera tigris 

jacksoni 

Proboscidea: Elephantidae 

55. Asian elephant Elephas 

maximus 

Perissodactyla: Tapiridae 

56. Malayan tapir Tapirus 

indicus 

Conservation 

Status* 

Protection 

Status+ 

Method of 

Detection 

LR/lc TP Cameratrapping 

LR/lc P Cameratrapping, 

Direct 

observation 

LR/lc TP Cameratrapping 

LR/lc TP Cameratrapping, 

Indirect 

observation 

VU TP Cameratrapping, 

Indirect 

observation 

- TP Cameratrapping, 

Direct 

observation, 

Indirect 

observation 


Indirect 

observation 

LC TP Cameratrapping, 

Direct 

observation, 

Indirect 

observation 

EN TP Cameratrapping, 

prints 

EN P Cameratrapping, 

Direct 

observation, 

Indirect 

observation 


Indirect 

observation 

Source 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005)


No 

Common 

Name 

Artiodactyla: Suidae 

Latin Name 

Conservation 

Status* 

Protection 

Status+ 

Method of 

Detection 

57. Wild pig Sus scrofa LR/lc TP Cameratrapping, 

direct 

observation, 

indirect 

observation? 

Artiodactyla: Tragulidae 

58. Lesser 

mousedeer 

Tragulus 

javanicus 

LR/lc P Cameratrapping 

Source 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Artiodactyla: Cervidae 

59. Barking deer Muntiacus 

muntjak 

Artiodactyla: Bovidae 

60. Serow Capricornis 

sumatraensis 

LR/lc P Cameratrapping, 

Direct 

observation, 

Indirect 

observation 

VU TP Cameratrapping 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Notes: 

* Following www.iucnredlist.org: 

CR: Critically Endangered 

EN: Endangered 

VU: Vulnerable 

DD: Data Deficient 

LR/nt: Lower Risk/near threatened 

LR/lc: Lower Risk/least concern 

+ According to the Protection of Wild Life Act 1972: 

TP = Totally Protected 

P = Protected

APPENDIX 8: 

A PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST OF BIRDS 

RECORDED AT GSSP

Formatted


No. 

Common 

name 

Phasianidae 

1. Ferruginous 

partridge 

2. Unidentified 

partridge 

A PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST OF BIRDS RECORDED AT GSSP 

Latin name 

Caloperdix 

oculea 

3. Great argus Argusianus 

argus 

4. Red 

junglefowl 

Picidae 

Conservation 

Status* 

Protection 

Status+ 

Method of 

Detection 

Source 

- TP Observed Chong (2005) 

Arborophila sp. - - Observed Chong (2005) 

LR/nt TP Observed, 

Cameratrapping 

Gallus gallus LR/lc Cameratrapping, 

Observed 

5. Rufous piculet Sasia abnormis - TP Observed, 

Caught 

6. Rufous 

woodpecker 

7. Maroon 

woodpecker 

8. Buff-necked 

woodpecker 

Megalaimidae 

9. Goldwhiskered 

barbet 

10. Red-throated 

barbet 

11. Black-browed 

barbet 

12. Yellowcrowned 

barbet 

13. Blue-eared 

barbet 

Celeus 

brachyurus 

Blythipicus 

rubiginosus 

Chong (2005), 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Ahmad Zafir 

et al. (2005) 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 


- TP Observed Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

Meiglyptes tukki LR/nt TP Caught Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

Megalaima 

chrysopogon 

Megalaima 

mystacophanos 


LR/nt - Observed Chong (2005) 

Megalaima oorti - TP Observed Chong (2005) 

Megalaima 

henricii 

Megalaima 

australis 

14. Brown barbet Calorhamphus 

fuliginosus 

Bucerotidae 

LR/nt TP Observed Chong (2005) 



15. Rhinoceros 

hornbill 

16. Helmeted 

hornbill 

17. Bushy-crested 

hornbill 

Buceros 

rhinoceros 

- TP Observed Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

Buceros vigil LR/nt TP Observed Chong (2005) 

Annorhinus 

galeritus 

- TP Observed Chong (2005)


No. 

Common 

name 

18. Whitecrowned 

hornbill 

19. Wreathed 

hornbill 

Trogonidae 

20. Red-naped 

trogon 

Alcedinidae 

21. Blue-banded 

kingfisher 

22. Blue-eared 

kingfisher 

Halcyonidae 

23. Banded 

kingfisher 

Meropidae 

24. Red-bearded 

bee-eater 

25. Chesnutheaded 

beeeater 

Cuculidae 

Latin name 

Conservation 

Status* 

Protection 

Status+ 

Method of 

Detection 

Source 

Aceros comatus LR/nt TP Observed Chong (2005) 

Aceros undulatus - TP Observed Chong (2005) 

Harpactes 

kasumba 

LR/nt - Observed Chong (2005) 

Alcedo euryzonia VU TP Caught Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

Alcedo 

meninting 

- TP Caught Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

Lacedo pulchella - TP Observed Chong (2005) 

Nyctyornis 

amictus 

Merops 

leschenaulti 

26. Greater coucal Centropus 

sinensis 

27. Rusty-breasted 

cuckoo 

28. Drongo 

cuckoo 

29. Green-billed 

malkoha 

30. Raffle’s 

malkoha 

31. Red-billed 

malkoha 

Psittacidae 

Cacomantis 

sepulchralis 

Surniculus 

lugubris 

Phaenicophaeus 

tristis 


chlorophaeus 


javanicus 



et al. (2005) 

- - Observed Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

- - Observed Chong (2005) 





32. Blue-crowned 

hanging parrot 

Apodidae 

33. [Edible/Blacknest 

swiftlet] 

34. Brown-backed 

needletail 

Loriculus 

galgulus 

Collocalia 

fuciphaga / 

maxima 

Hirundapus 

giganteus 

- P Observed Chong (2005) 


- - Observed Chong (2005)


No. 

Common 

name 

Hemiprocnidae 

35. Grey-rumped 

treeswift 

36. Whiskered 

treeswift 

Columbidae 

37. Little cuckoodove 

Latin name 

Hemiprocne 

longipennis 

Hemiprocne 

comata 

Macropygia 

ruficeps 

38. Emerald dove Chalcophaps 

indica 

39. Jambu fruit 

dove 

40. Mountain 

imperial 

pigeon 

Accipitridae 

Conservation 

Status* 

Protection 

Status+ 

Method of 

Detection 

Source 



Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 


LR/nt P Observed Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

Ptilinopus jambu - P Observed Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

Ducula badia - TP Observed Chong (2005) 

41. Oriental 

honey-buzzard 

42. Crested 

serpent eagle 

43. Blyth’s hawk 

eagle 

Eurylaimidae 

Pernis 

ptilorhyncus 


Spilornis cheela VU TP Observed Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

Spizaetus 

alboniger 


44. Green 

broadbill 


broadbill 

46. Dusky 

broadbill 

Pardalotidae 

47. Golden-bellied 

gerygone 

Irenidae 

Calyptomena 

viridis 

Psarisomus 

dalhousiae 

Corydon 

sumatranus 

Gerygone 

sulphurea 


Caught 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 




48. Asian fairy 

bluebird 

49. Lesser green 

leafbird 

50. Blue-winged 

leafbird 

Irena puella - TP Observed Chong (2005) 

Chloropsis 

cyanopogon 

Chloropsis 

cochinchinensis 

LR/nt TP Observed Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 



No. 

Common 

name 

Latin name 

Conservation 

Status* 

Protection 

Status+ 

Method of 

Detection 

Source 

Corvidae 

51. Crested jay Platylophus 

galericulatus 

52. Large-billed 

crow 

53. Lesser 

cuckooshrike 

Corvus 

macrorynchos 

Coracina 

fimbriata 

54. Scarlet minivet Pericrocotus 

flammeus 

55. Bar-winged 

flycatchershrike 

56. Black-winged 

flycatchershrike 

57. Whitethroated 

fantail 

58. Bronzed 

drongo 

59. Greater 

racquet-tailed 

drongo 

60. Black-naped 

monarch 

61. Asian paradise 

flycatcher 


Caught 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 


et al. (2005) 



Hemipus picatus - TP Observed Chong (2005) 

Hemipus 

hirundinaceus 

Rhipidura 

albicollis 



Dicrurus aeneus - TP Observed Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

Dicrurus 

paradiseus 

Hypothymis 

azurea 

Terpsiphone 

paradisi 

62. Green iora Aegithina 

viridissima 

63. Rufouswinged 

philentoma 

64. Large 

woodshrike 

Muscicapidae 

65. Blue rock 

thrush 

66. Blue whistling 

thrush 

67. Lesser 

shortwing 

68. Rufous-browed 

flycatcher 

Philentoma 

pyrhopterum 

Tephrodornis 

virgatus 

Monticola 

solitarius 

Myophoneus 

caeruleus 

Brachypteryx 

leucophrys 

Ficedula 

solitaris 

LR/nt TP Observed Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 


- TP Observed, 

Caught 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 


- - Caught Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 



et al. (2005) 





No. 

Common 

name 

69. Little pied 

flycatcher 

70. Verditer 

flycatcher 

Latin name 

Ficedula 

westermanni 

Eumyias 

thalassina 

Conservation 

Status* 

Protection 

Status+ 

Method of 

Detection 

Source 


et al. (2005) 


71. Blue-throated 

flycatcher 

72. Hill blue 

flycatcher 

73. Grey-headed 

canary 

flycatcher 

74. Oriental 

magpie robin 

75. White-rumped 

shama 

76. Chestnutnaped 

forktail 

77. Slaty-backed 

forktail 

Paridae 

Cyornis 

rubeculoides 

Cyornis 

banyumas 

Culicicapa 

ceylonensis 

Copsychus 

saularis 

Copsychus 

malabaricus 

Enicurus 

ruficapillus 

Enicurus 

schistaceus 

78. Sultan tit Melanochlora 

sultanea 

Hirundinidae 

79. Red-rumped 

swallow 

Pycnonotidae 

80. Black-crested 

bulbul 

81. Scaly-breasted 

bulbul 


bulbul 

83. Yellow-vented 

bulbul 

84. Cream-vented 

bulbul 

85. Red-eyed 

bulbul 

86. Spectacled 

bulbul 


et al. (2005) 

- - Observed, 

Caught 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 



et al. (2005) 

- - Observed, 

Caught 


Caught 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 



Hirundo daurica - - Observed Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

Pycnonotus 

melanicterus 

Pycnonotus 

squamatus 

Pycnonotus 

cyaniventris 

Pycnonotus 

goaivier 

Pycnonotus 

simplex 

Pycnonotus 

brunneus 

Pycnonotus 

erythropthalmus 


Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 



LR/nt - Observed Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 


- - Observed, 

Caught 

- - Observed, 

Caught 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar


No. 

Common 

name 

87. Ochraceous 

bulbul 

Latin name 

Alophoixus 

ochraceus 

Conservation 

Status* 

Protection 

Status+ 

Method of 

Detection 

Source 

et al. (2005) 


88. Grey-cheeked 

bulbul 

89. Yellow-bellied 

bulbul 

90. Hairy-backed 

bulbul 

91. Buff-vented 

bulbul 

92. Streaked 

bulbul 

Alophoixus bres - - Observed, 

Caught 

Alophioxus 

phaeocephalus 

Tricholestes 

criniger 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 


et al. (2005) 

- - Observed, 

Caught 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

Iole olivacea - - Observed Chong (2005) 

Ixos malaccensis LR/nt - Observed Chong (2005) 

93. Ashy bulbul Hemixos flavala - - Observed Chong (2005) 

Zosteropidae 

94. Everett’s 

white-eye 

Cisticolidae 


prinia 

Sylviidae 

96. Mountain 

tailorbird 

97. Common 

tailorbird 

98. Dark-necked 

tailorbird 


warbler 

100. Horsfield’s 

babbler 

101. Short-tailed 

babbler 

102. Black-capped 

babbler 

103. Mustached 

babbler 

104. Chestnutbacked 

scimitarbabbler 

Zosterops 

everetti 

Prinia 

flaviventris 

Orthotomus 

cucullatus 

Orthotomus 

sutorius 

Orthotomus 

atrogularis 

Abroscopus 

superciliaris 

Malacocincla 

sepiarium 

Malacocincla 

malaccensis 

Pellorneum 

capistratum 

Malacopteron 

magnirostre 

Pomatorhinus 

montanus 



et al. (2005) 



Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 




et al. (2005) 


et al. (2005) 


et al. (2005) 


et al. (2005) 



No. 

Common 

name 

105. Pygmy wren 

babbler 

Latin name 

Conservation 

Status* 

Protection 

Status+ 

Method of 

Detection 

Source 

Pnoepyga pusilla - TP Observed Chong (2005) 

106. Rufous-fronted 

babbler 

107. Grey-throated 

babbler 

108. Grey-headed 

babbler 

109. Striped titbabbler 

110. Fluffy-backed 

tit-babbler 

Stachyris 

rufifrons 

Stachyris 

nigriceps 

Stachyris 

poliocephala 

Macronous 

gularis 

Macronous 

ptilosus 

111. Brown fulvetta Alcippe 

bunneicauda 

112. Mountain 

fulvetta 

113. White-bellied 

yuhina 

Nectariniidae 

Alcippe 

peracensis 

Yuhina 

xantholeuca 



Caught 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 


et al. (2005) 

TP Observed Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 


Caught 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 




114. Crimsonbreasted 

flowerpecker 

Prionochilus 

percussus 


et al. (2005) 

115. Yellowbreasted 

flowerpecker 

116. Yellow-vented 

flowerpecker 

117. Orange-bellied 

flowerpecker 

118. Scarlet-backed 

flowerpecker 

Prionochilus 

maculatus 

Dicaeum 

chrysorrheum 

Dicaeum 

trigonostigma 

Dicaeum 

cruentatum 

119. Plain sunbird Anthreptes 

simplex 

120. Ruby-cheeked 

sunbird 

121. Purple-naped 

sunbird 

122. Blackthroated 

sunbird 

Anthreptes 

singalensis 

Hypogrammica 

hypogrammicum 

Aethopyga 

saturata 


Caught 


Caught 


Caught 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 


et al. (2005) 


et al. (2005) 



Caught 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 



No. 

Common 

name 

Latin name 

123. Scarlet sunbird Aethopyga 

mystacalis 

124. Little 

spiderhunter 

125. Thick-billed 

spiderhunter 

126. Long-billed 

spiderhunter 

127. Grey-breasted 

spiderhunter 

128. Streaked 

spiderhunter 

Passeridae 

Arachnothera 

longirostra 

Arachnothera 

crassirostris 

Arachnothera 

robusta 

Arachnothera 

affinis 

Arachnothera 

magna 

Conservation 

Status* 

Protection 

Status+ 

Method of 

Detection 

Source 



Caught 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 


et al. (2005) 


et al. (2005) 


Caught 

Chong (2005), 

Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 


129. Richard’s pipit Anthus richardi - - Observed Shahrul Anuar 

et al. (2005) 

130. White-rumped 

munia 

Lonchura striata - - Observed Chong (2005) 

Notes: 

Taxonomy and nomenclature of birds follow: Robson, C. 2000. A Field Guide to the Birds of South-East 

Asia. New Holland, U.K. 

Key: 

Birds in parentheses [ ] indicate birds which were provisionally identified to species level. 

Birds in bold indicate montane species 

* Following www.iucnredlist.org: 

VU: Vulnerable 

LR/nt Lower Risk/near threatened 

+ According to the Protection of Wild Life Act 1972: 

TP = Totally Protected 

P = Protected

APPENDIX 9: 

A PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST OF 

PLANTS OF GSSP 

Formatted


A PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST OF PLANTS OF GSSP 

No. Family Scientific Name Local 

names 

SEED PLANTS 

1. ACANTHACEAE Chroesthes longifolia (Wight) B. 

Hansen 

2. ACANTHACEAE Lepidagathis incurve Buch.-Ham. 

ex D. Don 

1 2 3 

3. ACTINIDIACEAE Saurauia roxburghii Wall. x 

4. ALANGIACEAE Alangium griffithii (C.B. Clarke) 

Harms 

5. ANACARDIACEAE Bouea macrophylla Griff. Kundang daun 

besar 

6. ANACARDIACEAE Bouea oppositifolia (Roxb.) Meisn. Kundang daun 

kecil 

7. ANACARDIACEAE Buchanania sessifolia Blume Otak udang 

daun tajam 

8. ANACARDIACEAE Campnosperma auriculatum 

(Blume) Hook. f. 

Terentang daun 

besar 

9. ANACARDIACEAE Gluta aptera (King) Ding Hou Rengas kerbau 

jalang 

10. ANACARDIACEAE Gluta capituliflora Ding Hou Rengas kerbau 

jalang 

11. ANACARDIACEAE Gluta wallichii (Hook. f.) Ding Hou Rengas kerbau 

jalang 

12. ANACARDIACEAE Mangifera magnifica Kochummen Macang daun 

tebal 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x x x 

13. ANACARDIACEAE Pentaspadon motleyi Hook. f. Pelong licin x 

14. ANACARDIACEAE Pentaspadon velutinus Hook. f. x 

15. ANACARDIACEAE Swintonia floribunda Griff. Merpaun dun 

runching 

16. ANISOPHYLLEACEAE Anisophyllea corneri Ding Hou Delek x x 

17. ANNONACEAE Alphonsea boniana Pierre x 

18. ANNONACEAE Alphonsea elliptica Hook. f. & 

Thomson 

19. ANNONACEAE Artabotrys suaveolans (Blume) 

Blume 

20. ANNONACEAE Artabotrys crassifolius Hook. f. & 

Thompson 

21. ANNONACEAE Cyathocalyx pruniferus (Maingayi 

ex Hook. f. & Thomson) J. Sinclair 

22. ANNONACEAE Desmos cochinchinensis Lour. Akar 

mempisang 

23. ANNONACEAE Desmos chinensis Lour. Akar 

mempisang 

Mempisang x x 

Antoi x x x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x



names 

24. ANNONACEAE Enichosanthellum pulchrum 

(King) Van Heusden 

1 2 3 

25. ANNONACEAE Enicosanthum sp. x 

26. ANNONACEAE Enicosanthum macranthum (King) 

J. Sinclair 

27. ANNONACEAE Friesodielsia alpina (J. Sinclair) 

Van Steenis 

28. ANNONACEAE Friesodielsia affinis (Hook. f. & 

Thomson) 

29. ANNONACEAE Goniothalamus macrophyllus 

(Blume) Hook. f. & Thomson 

30. ANNONACEAE Goniothalamus giganteus (Hook. f. 

& Thomson) 

Gajah Beranak x x 

31. ANNONACEAE Goniothalamus montanus J. Sinclair x x 

32. ANNONACEAE Goniothalamus rotundisepalus 

Henderson 

33. ANNONACEAE Goniothalamus scortechinii King Melada putih x 

34. ANNONACEAE Goniothalamus tenuifolius King x 

35. ANNONACEAE Goniothalamus tortilipetatus 

M.R. Hend 

36. ANNONACEAE Mezzettia parviflora Becc. Mempisang x 

37. ANNONACEAE Mitrephora maingayi Hook. f. & 

Thomson 

38. ANNONACEAE Monocarpia marginalis (Scheff.) J. 

Sinclair 

39. ANNONACEAE Phaeanthus ophthalmicus (Roxb. 

ex G. Don) J. Sinclair 

40. ANNONACEAE Phaeanthus nutans Hook. f. & 

Thomson 

Mempisang x x 

Mempisang x x 

Mempisang 

41. ANNONACEAE Polyalthia bullata King Tongkat Ali 

hitam 

42. ANNONACEAE Polyalthia cauliflora Hook. f. & 

Thomson 

43. ANNONACEAE Polyalthia jenkensii (Hook. f. & 

Thomson) Hook. f. & Thomson 

Mempsiang x x 

Mempisang x x 

44. ANNONACEAE Polyalthia lateriflora (Blume) King Mempisang x x 

45. ANNONACEAE Polyalthia obliqua Hook. f. & 

Thomson 

Mempisang x x 

47. ANNONACEAE Polyalthia rumphii (Blume) Merr. Mempisang x x 

48. ANNONACEAE Polyalthia stenopetala (Hook. f. & 

Thomson) Ridl. 

Mempisang x x 

49. ANNONACEAE Polyalthia sumatrana (Miq.) Kurz Mempisang x x 

x 

x 

X 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x



names 

1 2 3 

50. ANNONACEAE Popowia pisocarpa (Blume) Endl. x 

51. ANNONACEAE Pseuduvaria macrophylla (Oliv.) 

Merr. var. macrophylla 

52. ANNONACEAE Uvaria grandiflora Roxb. ex 

Hornem. var. grandiflora 

53. ANNONACEAE Xylopia magna Maing. ex Hook. f. 

54. ANNONACEAE Xylopia malayana Hook. f. & 

Thomson var. malayana 

Mempisang x x 

Jangkang x x 

55. APOCYNACEAE Alstonia angustiloba Miq. Pulai x 

55. APOCYNACEAE Alstonia angustifolia Miq. Pulai x 

56. APOCYNACEAE Alstonia macrophylla Wall. ex 

G.Don. 

57. APOCYNACEAE Alyxia oleifolia King & Gamble 

var. oleifolia 

Pulai penipu 

bukit 

58. APOCYNACEAE Dyera costulata (Miq.) Hook. Jelutong x x 

59. APOCYNACEAE Kibatalia maingayi (Hook. f.) 

Woodson 

60. APOCYNACEAE Tabernaemontana dichotoma 

Roxb. ex Wall. 

Jelutong pipit x x 

61. AQUIFOLIACEAE Ilex kelsallii Ridl. x 

62. AQUIFOLIACEAE Ilex myrtillis Ridl. x x 

63. AQUIFOLIACEAE Ilex triflora Blume Mensirah x x 

64. ARACEAE (M) Aglaonema nitidum (Jack) Kunth X X 

65. ARACEAE (M) Alocasia perakensis Hemsl x 

66. ARACEAE (M) Arisaema wrayi Hemsl. x 

67. ARACEAE (M) Homalomena humilis (Jack) Hook. 

f. var. humilis 

68. ARACEAE (M) Homalomena sagittifolia Jungh. ex 

Schott var. sagittifolia 

Kemoyang 

69. ARACEAE (M) Scindapsus scortechinii Hook. f. x x 

70. ARALIACEAE Arthrophyllum stonei A.L. Lim x x 

71. ARALIACEAE Schefflera elliptica (Blume) Harms x 

72. ARALIACEAE Trevesia burckii Boerl. Tapak Itik x 

73. ARISTOLOCHIACEAE Thottea grandiflora Rottb. Hempedu 

beruang 

74. ASCLEPIADACEAE Hoya sp. x 

75. BALSAMINACEAE Impatiens sp. Keembong x 

76. BEGONIACEAE Begonia herveyana var. herveyana x 

77. BURSERACEAE Canarium littorale Blume Kedondong 

gergaji 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x



names 

1 2 3 

78. BURSERACEAE Canarium pilosum Benn. Kedondong x x 

79. BURSERACEAE Canarium patentinervium Miq. Kedondong x 

80. BURSERACEAE Dacryodes costata (Benn.) H.J. 

Lam 

Kedondong x x 

81. BURSERACEAE Dacryodes kingii (Engl.) Kalkman Kedondong x x 

82. BURSERACEAE Dacryodes rostrata (Blume) H.J. 

Lam 

Kedondong x x 

83. BURSERACEAE Dacryodes rugosa (Blume) H.J. Lam Kedondong x 

84. BURSERACEAE Santiria griffithii (Hook. f.) Engl. Kedondong x x 

85. BURSERACEAE Santiria laevigata Blume Kedondong 

kerantai licin 

86. BURSERACEAE Santiria tomentosa Blume Kedondong 

kerantai bulu 

87. BURMANNIACEAE Burmannia longifolia Becc. x 

88. CECROPIACEAE Poikilospermum suaveolens 

(Blume) Merr. 

89. CELASTRACEAE Kokoona reflexa (Laws.) Ding Hou Mata ulat x x 

90. CELASTRACEAE Salacia grandiflora Kurz x x 

91. CHRYSOBALANACEAE Licania splendens (Korth.) Prance Merbatu x x 

92. CHRYSOBALANACEAE Maranthes corymbosa Blume Merbatu x x 

93. CHRYSOBALANACEAE Parinari elmeri Merr. x 

94. CHRYSOBALANACEAE Parinari oblongifolia Hook. f. Merbatu x x 

95. COMMELINACEAE (M) Amischotolype mollissima (Blume) 

Hassk. 

96. COMPOSITAE Chromolaena odorata (L.) R.M. 

King & H. Rob. 

Pokok kapal 

terbang 

97. COMPOSITAE Vernonia arborea Buch. Ham. Merambong x x 

98. CONVALLARIACEAE (M) Peliosanthes teta Andrews ssp. teta x x 

99. CONVOLVULACEAE Erycibe albida Prain x 

100. CORNACEAE Mastixia pentandra Blume ssp. 

scortechinii (King) K.M. Matthew 

101. COSTACEAE (M) Costus globosus Blume var. kingii 

(Baker) Holttum 

102. COSTACEAE (M) Costus globosus Blume var. ridleyi 

(K. Schum.) Holttum 

103. COSTACEAE (M) Costus speciosus (J. König) Sm. Setawar 

pendek 

Tetebu x x x 

104. CUNONIACEAE Weinmannia fraxinea Planch. x x 

105. CYCADACEAE (G) Cycas macrocarpa Miq. Bogak x x 

106. CYPERACEAE (M) Gahnia baniensis Benl. x x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x



names 

107. CYPERACEAE (M) Mapania cuspidata (Miq.) Uittien 

var. cuspidata 

108. CYPERACEAE (M) Machaerina maingayi (C.B. Clarke) 

Koyama 

109. DAPHNIPHYLLACEAE Daphniphyllum glaucescens Blume 

var. glaucescens 

1 2 3 

110. DILLENIACEAE Acrotrema costatum Jack Mempelas bukit x x 

111. DILLENIACEAE Dillenia reticulata King var. 

psilocarpella Hoogl. 

Simpoh gajah x x 

112. DILLENIACEAE Tetracera scandens (L.) Merr. Akar mempelas x x 

113. DIOSCOREACEAE (M) Dioscorea pyrifolia Kunth var. 

pyrifolia 

114. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Anisoptera curtisii Dyer ex King Mersawa 

kuning 

115. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Anisoptera laevis Ridl. Mersawa durian x x 

116. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Dipterocarpus crinitus Dyer Keruing 

mempelas 

117. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Dipterocarpus grandiflorus (Blanco) 

Blanco 

118. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Dipterocarpus verrucosus Foxw. ex 

Slooten 

Keruing 

belimbing 

Keruing kerut x x 

119. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Dipterocarpus cornutus Dyer x 

120. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Dipterocarpus fagineus Vesque x 

121. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Parashorea stellata Kurz Gerutu-gerutu x x 

122. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Shorea curtisii Dyer ex King ssp. 

curtisii 

Meranti seraya x x x 

123. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Shorea guiso Blume x 

124. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Shorea leprosula Miq. Meranti tembaga x x 

125. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Shorea maxima (King) Symington x 

126. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Shorea multiflora (Burck) 

Symington 

127. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Shorea ovalis (Korth.) Blume ssp. 

ovalis 

Damar hitam 

pipit 

Meranti kepong x x 

128. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Shorea ovata Dyer ex Brandis Meranti sarang 

punai bukit 

129. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Shorea parvifolia Dyer ssp. 

parvifolia 

Meranti sarang 

punai 

130. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Shorea pauciflora King Meranti nemesu x x 

131. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Shorea platyclados Slooten ex 

Foxw. 

Meranti built x x 

132. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Shorea singkawang Burck x 

133. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Shorea sumatrana (Slooten ex Balau x x x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x



names 

Thorenaar) Symington ex Desch. 

sengkawang air 

1 2 3 

134. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Vatica bella Slooten Resak x x x 

135. DIPERTOCARPACEAE Vatica heteroptera Symington Resak x 

136. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Vatica pauciflora (Korth.) Blume Resak x 

137. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Vatica cf. sarawakensis Resak x 

138. DIPTEROCARPACEAE Vatica umbonata (Hook. f.) Buck. Resak x x 

139. DRACAENACEAE (M) Dracaena conferta Ridl. x 

140. EBENACEAE Diospyros adenophora Bakh. Kayu arang x x 

141. EBENACEAE Diospyros argentea Griff. Kayu arang x x 

142. EBENACEAE Diospyros cauliflora Blume Kayu arang x x 

143. EBENACEAE Diospyros nutans King & Gamble Kayu arang x 

144. EBENACEAE Diospyros penangiana King & 

Gamble 

145. EBENACEAE Diospyros pendula Hasselt & 

Hassk. 

Kayu arang x x 

Kayu arang x x 

146. EBENACEAE Diospyros rigida Hiern. Kayu arang x x 

147. EBENACEAE Diospyros sumatrana Miq. Kayu arang x x 

148. EBENACEAE Diospyros wallichii King & Gamble 

ex F.N. Williams 

150. ELAEOCARPACEAE Elaeocarpus ferrugineus (Jack) 

Steud. ssp. ferrugineus 

151. ELAEOCARPACEAE Elaeocarpus ferrugineus (Jack) 

Steud. ssp. glabrescens (Mast.) 

Coode 

Tuba buah x x 

Mendong x x 

Mendong x x 

152. ELAEOCARPACEAE Elaeocarpus mastersii King Mendong x x 

153. ELAEOCARPACEAE Elaeocarpus nitidus Jack var. 

nitidus 

154. ELAEOCARPACEAE Elaeocarpus nitidus Jack var. 

velutinus 

Mendong x x 

x 

155. EPACRIDACEAE Styphelia malayana (Jack) Spr. Choreng atap x x x 

156. ERICACEAE Rhododendron malayanum Jack x x x 

157. ERICACEAE Vaccinium bancanum Miq. x 

158. ERICACEAE Vaccinium glabrescens King & 

Gamble 

x 

159. ERICACEAE Vaccinium viscifolium King & 

Gamble var. viscifolium 

x 

x 

160. ERYTHROXYLACEAE Erythroxylum cuneatum (Miq.) 

Kurz 

Cinta mula x x 

161. ESCALLONIACEAE Polyosma laetevirens Griff. ex King x x 

162. ESCALLONIACEAE Polyosma robusta (Ridl.) L.G. Saw x x 

163. EUPHORBIACEAE Agrostistachys longifolia (Wight) x x



names 

Benth. var. longifolia 

1 2 3 

164. EUPHORBIACEAE Antidesma cuspidatum Müll. Arg. Berunai x x 

165. EUPHORBIACEAE Antidesma tomentosum Blume x 

166. EUPHORBIACEAE Aporusa aurea Hook. f. Sebasah x x 

167. EUPHORBIACEAE Aporusa falcifera Hook. f. Sebasah x x 

168. EUPHORBIACEAE Aporusa globifera Hook. f. Sebasah x x 

169. EUPHORBIACEAE Aporusa lunata (Miq.) Kurz Sebasah x x 

170. EUPHORBIACEAE Aporusa microstachya (Tul.) Mull. 

Arg. 

Sebasah x x 

171. EUPHORBIACEAE Aporusa nervosa Hook. f. Sebasah x x 

172. EUPHORBIACEAE Aporusa prainiana King ex Gage Sebasah x x 

173. EUPHORBIACEAE Baccaurea kunstleri King ex Gage Jentik jentik x x 

174. EUPHORBIACEAE Baccaurea minor Hook. f. Tampoi x x 

175. EUPHORBIACEAE Baccaurea parviflora (Müll. Arg.) 

Müll. Arg. 

Asam tambun x x 

176. EUPHORBIACEAE Botryophora geniculata (Miq.) 

Beumee ex Airy Shaw 

x 

x 

177. EUPHORBIACEAE Drypetes pendula Ridl. x 

178. EUPHORBIACEAE Endospermum diadenum (Miq.) 

Airy Shaw 

Sesendok x x 

179. EUPHORBIACEAE Epiprinus malayanus Griff. x x 

180. EUPHORBIACEAE Glochidion glomerulatum (Miq.) 

Boerl 

Ubah-ubah x x 

181. EUPHORBIACEAE Glochidion superbum Baill. x 

182. EUPHORBIACEAE Glochidion wallichianum Müll.-Arg Ubah-ubah x x 

183. EUPHORBIACEAE Koilodepas longifolium Hook. f. x x 

184. EUPHORBIACEAE Macaranga gigantea (Rehb. f. & 

Zoll.) Müll. Arg. 

185. EUPHORBIACEAE Macaranga hullettii King ex Hook. 

f. 

186. EUPHORBIACEAE Macaranga hypoleuca (Rehb. f. & 

Zoll.) Müll. Arg. 

Mahang merah x x 

Mahang putih x x 

x 

187. EUPHORBIACEAE Macaranga lowii King ex Hook. f. Mahang x x 

188. EUPHORBIACEAE Macaranga triloba (Blume) Müll. 

Arg. 

Mahang 

x 

189. EUPHORBIACEAE Mallotus macrostachyus (Miq.) 

Müll. Arg. 

190. EUPHORBIACEAE Mallotus oblongifolius (Miq.) 

Müll. Arg. 

Balik angin x x 

Balik angin x x 

191. EUPHORBIACEAE Mallotus penangensis Müll.Arg. Balik angin x x 

192. EUPHORBIACEAE Neoscortechinia kingii (Hook. f.) x



names 

Pax & K. Hoffm. 

1 2 3 

193. EUPHORBIACEAE Pimelodendron griffithianum 

(Müll.Arg.) Benth. 

Perah x x 

194. EUPHORBIACEAE Sapium baccatum Roxb. Ludai x 

196. EUPHORBIACEAE Sauropus rhamnoides Blume x 

195. EUPHORBIACEAE Suregada multiflora (Juss.) Baill. 

var. multiflora 

x 

x 

197. FAGACEAE Castanopsis javanica A. DC. x 

198. FAGACEAE Castanopsis megacarpa Gamble Berangan x x 

199. FAGACEAE Castanopsis schefferiana Hance Berangan x x 

200. FAGACEAE Lithocarpus lucidus (Roxb.) Rehder Mempening x x 

201. FAGACEAE Lithocarpus rassa (Miq.) Rehder Mempening x x x 

202. FAGACEAE Lithocarpus scortechinii (King) A. 

Camus 

x 

203. FAGACEAE Quercus oidocarpa Korth. x 

204. FAGACEAE Quercus subsericea A.Camus x 

205. FLACOURTIACEAE Casearia velutina Blume x x 

206. FLACOURTIACEAE Flacourtia rukam Zoll. & Moritzi Rukam x x 

207. FLACOURTIACEAE Hydnocarpus cucurbitina King Setumpul x x 

208. FLACOURTIACEAE Hydnocarpus filipes Symington ex 

Sleumer 

209. FLACOURTIACEAE Hydnocarpus kunstleri King 

(Warb.) var. kunstleri 

Setumpul x x 

Setumpul x x 

210. FLACOURTIACEAE Ryparosa fasciculata King x x 

211. GESNERIACEAE Aeschynanthus sp. x 

212. GESNERIACEAE Cyrtandra cf. anisophyllea x 

213. GESNERIACEAE Cyrtandromoea grandis Ridl. x 

214. GESNERIACEAE Henckelia tunkuii (Kiew) A. Weber x 

215. GNETACEAE (G) Gnetum cuspidatum Blume x 

216. GNETACEAE (G) Gnetum gnemon L. var. gnemon Meninjau x 

217. GRAMINEAE (M) Dendrocalamus pendulus Ridl. Buluh akar x x 

218. GRAMINEAE (M) Gigantochloa ligulata Gamble Buluh x x 

219. GRAMINEAE (M) Gigantochloa scortechinii Gamble Buluh galah x x 

220. GRAMINEAE (M) Holttumochloa pubescens 

K.M.Wong 

Buluh x x 

221. GRAMINEAE (M) Scrotochloa urceolata (Roxb.) Judz. x 

222. GUTTIFERAE Calophyllum ferrugineum Ridl. 

var. oblongifolium (T. Anderson) 

P.F. Stevens 

Bintangor x x 

223. GUTTIFERAE Calophyllum rotundifolium Ridl. Bintangor x



names 

1 2 3 

224. GUTTIFERAE Calophyllum tetrapterum Miq. var. 

tetrapterum 

Bintangor x X 

225. GUTTIFERAE Calophyllum sp. Bintangor x x 

226. GUTTIFERAE Cratoxylon cochinchinense (Lour.) 

Blume 

x 

227. GUTTIFERAE Cratoxylum formosum (Jack) Dyer Geronggang x x 

228. GUTTIFERAE Cratoxylon maingayi Derum x 

229. GUTTIFERAE Garcinia eugeniifolia Wall. ex 

T.Anderson 

Kandis x x 

230. GUTTIFERAE Garcinia griffithii T. Anderson Kandis x 

231. GUTTIFERAE Garcinia malaccensis Hook. f. Kandis x x 

232. GUTTIFERAE Garcinia nervosa Miq. var. nervosa Kandis x x 

233. GUTTIFERAE Garcinia nigrolineata Planch. ex T. 

Anderson 

Kandis x x 

234. GUTTIFERAE Garcinia rostrata (Hassk.) Miq. Kandis x x 

235. GUTTIFERAE Garcinia urophylla Scort. ex King x 

236. GUTTIFERAE Mesua ferrea L. Penaga lilin x 

237. GUTTIFERAE Mesua grandis (King) Kosterm. Penaga x x 

238. GUTTIFERAE Mesua lepidota T. Anderson var. 

lepidota 

239. HAMAMELIDACEAE Exbucklandia populnea (R. Br. ex 

Griff.) R. W. Br. 

Penaga x x 

Gerok x x x 

240. HAMAMELIDACEAE Rhodoleia championii Hook. f. Kerlik x x 

241. HANGUANACEAE (M) Hanguana malayana (Jack) Merr. Susum x x 

242. HYPOXIDACEAE (M) Molineria latifolia (Dryand.) Herb. 

ex Kurz var. latifolia 

Lembah x x 

243. ICACINACEAE Gomphandra quadrifida (Blume) 

Sleumer var. quadrifida 

x 

x 

244. ICACINACEAE Gonocaryum gracile Miq. x x 

245. ICACINACEAE Stemonurus malaccensis (Mast.) 

Sleumer 

Sampul keris x x 

246. JUGLANDACEAE Engelhardtia serrata Blume Dungun bukit x 

247. LAURACEAE Actinodaphne macrophylla Nees x 

248. LAURACEAE Actinodaphne maingayi Hook. f. x x 

249. LAURACEAE Actinodaphne pruinosa Nees Medang paying x x 

250. LAURACEAE Actinodaphne sesquipedalis Hook. 

f. var. sesquipedalis 

251. LAURACEAE Alseodaphne foxiana (Gamble) 

Kosterm. 

252. LAURACEAE Beilschmiedia glauca S.K. Lee & 

L.F. Lau 

Medang paying x x 

Medang x x 

x



names 

1 2 3 

253. LAURACEAE Beilschmiedia palembanica (Miq.) 

Kosterm. 

Medang x x 

254. LAURACEAE Cinnamomum cordatum Kosterm. Medang x 

255. LAURACEAE Cinnamomum iners Reinw. Medang teja x x 

256. LAURACEAE Cinnamomum javanicum Blume Rempah gunung x 

257. LAURACEAE Cinnamomum mollissimum Hook 

f. 

Lawang 

x 

258. LAURACEAE Cryptocarya ferrea Blume Medang x 

259. LAURACEAE Cryptocarya griffithiana Wight x 

260. LAURACEAE Cryptocarya rugulosa Hook. f. Medang x 

261. LAURACEAE Dehaasia cuneata (Blume) Blume Medang x x 

262. LAURACEAE Lindera caesia Blume Medang x x 

263. LAURACEAE Lindera montana Ridl. Medang x x 

264. LAURACEAE Lindera wrayi Gamble Medang x x 

265. LAURACEAE Litsea acrantha Ridl. x x 

266. LAURACEAE Litsea castanea Hook. f. Medang x x 

267. LAURACEAE Litsea grandis (Wall. ex Nees) 

Hook. f. 

Medang x x 

268. LAURACEAE Litsea machilifolia Gamble Medang x x 

269. LAURACEAE Litsea magnifica (Miq.) Vill. Medang x x x 

270. LAURACEAE Litsea resinosa Blume Medang x 

271. LAURACEAE Litsea umbellata (Lour.) Merr. var. 

fuscotomentosa (Meisn.) 

Kochummen ex I.M. Turner 

272. LECYTHIDACEAE Barringtonia macrostachya (Jack) 

Kurz 

Medang x x 

Putat x x 

273. LEEACEAE Leea indica (Burm. f.) Merr Mali-mali x 

274. LEGUMINOSAE Archidendron bubalinum (Jack) 

I.C. Nielsen 

275. LEGUMINOSAE Archidendron clypearia (Jack) I.C. 

Nielsen ssp. clypearia var. clypearia 

276. LEGUMINOSAE Bauhinia ferruginea Roxb. var 

ferruginea 

277. LEGUMINOSAE Callerya atropurpurea (Wall.) 

Schot 

Kerdas x x 

Tapak kuda 

Tulang daing x x 

278. LEGUMINOSAE Crudia curtisii Prain x 

279. LEGUMINOSAE Cynometra malaccensis Meeuwen. Kekatong x x 

280. LEGUMINOSAE Dialium platysepalum Baker Keranji kuning 

besar 

281. LEGUMINOSAE Intsia palembanica Miq. Merbau x x 

282. LEGUMINOSAE Koompassia malaccensis Maing. ex Kempas x x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x



names 

Benth. 

1 2 3 

283. LEGUMINOSAE Parkia speciosa Hassk. Petai x x x 

284. LEGUMINOSAE Saraca cauliflora Baker Gapis x x 

285. LEGUMINOSAE Sindora coriacea (Baker) Maing. ex 

Prain 

Sepetir licin x x 

286. LOGANIACEAE Fagraea racemosa Jack ex Wall. Kopi hutan x x 

287. LOGANIACEAE Strychnos ignatii Berg. Gajah tarik x 

288. LOWIACEAE (M) Orchidantha fimbriata Holttum x x 

289. MARANTACEAE (M) Donax grandis (Miq.) K. Schum. Bemban x x 

290. MARANTACEAE (M) Phrynium pubinerve Blume x x 

291. MELASTOMATACEAE Astronia smilacifolia Triana ex C.B. 

Clarke 

x 

x 

292. MELASTOMATACEAE Clidemia hirta (L.) D. Don Senduduk rimba x x 

293. MELASTOMATACEAE Medinilla clarkei King var. clarkei x x 

294. MELASTOMATACEAE Melastoma malabathricum L. Senduduk x 

295. MELASTOMATACEAE Memecylon cantleyi Ridl. Nipis kulit x x 

296. MELASTOMATACEAE Memecylon acuminatum var. 

acuminatum 

Nipis kulit 

x 

297. MELASTOMATACEAE Memecylon dichotomum (C.B. 

Clarke) King var. dichotomum 

Nipis kulit x x 

298. MELASTOMATACEAE Memecylon megacarpum Furtado Nipis kulit x x 

299. MELASTOMATACEAE Oxyspora bullata (Griff.) J.F. 

Maxwell 

x 

x 

300. MELASTOMATACEAE Phyllagathis hispida King x x 

301. MELASTOMATACEAE Phyllagathis rotundifolia (Jack) 

Blume 

Meroyan 

x 

302. MELASTOMATACEAE Phyllagathis sp. x 

303. MELASTOMATACEAE Pternandra coerulescens Jack Sial menahun x x 

304. MELASTOMATACEAE Pternandra echinata Jack Sial menahun x x 

305. MELASTOMATACEAE Sonerila rudis Stapf & King x 

306. MELASTOMATACEAE Sonerila tenuifolia Blume x 

306. MELIACEAE Aglaia forbesii King Bekak x x 

307. MELIACEAE Aglaia oligophylla Miq. Bekak x x 

308. MELIACEAE Aglaia simplicifolia (Bedd.) Harms Bekak x 

309. MELIACEAE Dysoxylum arborescens (Blume) 

Miq. 

x 

310. MELIACEAE Dysoxylum acutangulum Miq. Bekak x x 

311. MELIACEAE Dysoxylum alliaceum Blume Bekak x 

312. MELIACEAE Walsura pinnata Hassk. Bekak x x



names 

1 2 3 

313. MELIOSMACEAE Meliosma lanceolata Blume x 

314. MENISPERMACEAE Coscinium fenestratum Colebr. Akar 

mengkunyit 

315. MORACEAE Artocarpus dadah Miq. Tampang bulu x x 

316. MORACEAE Artocarpus elasticus Reinw. ex 

Blume 

317. MORACEAE Artocarpus gomezianus Wall. ex 

Trécul 

318. MORACEAE Artocarpus integer (Thunb.) Merr. 

var. silvestris Corner 

Terap nasi 

Tampang hitam 

Bangkong x x x 

319. MORACEAE Artocarpus lanceifolius Roxb. Keledang x x 

320. MORACEAE Artocarpus lowii King Miku x x 

321. MORACEAE Artocarpus scortechinii King Terap hitam x 

322. MORACEAE Ficus deltoidea Jack var. intermedia 

Corner 

323. MORACEAE Ficus deltoidea Jack var. 

angustifolia 

Ara x x x 

324. MORACEAE Ficus deltoidea Jack var. kunstleri Ara x 

325. MORACEAE Ficus hispida L. f. x 

326. MORACEAE Ficus obscura Blume x 

327. MORACEAE Ficus pellucidopunctata Griff. x 

328. MORACEAE Hullettia dumosa King x x 

329. MORACEAE Streblus elongatus (Miq.) Corner Tempinis x x 

330. MORACEAE Streblus taxoides (K. Heyne) Kurz Temin x x 

331. MUSACEAE (M) Musa acuminata Colla ssp. 

malaccensis (Ridl.) N.W. Simmonds 

332. MYRICACEAE Myrica esculenta Buch.-Ham. x 

333. MYRISTICACEAE Horsfieldia fulva (King) Warb. Penarahan x 

334. MYRISTICACEAE Horsfieldia sucosa (King) Warb. Penarahan x x 

335. MYRISTICACEAE Knema furfuracea (Hook. f. & 

Thomson) Warb. 

336. MYRISTICACEAE Knema hookeriana (Wall. ex Hook. 

f. & Thomson) Warb. 

337. MYRISTICACEAE Knema laurina (Blume) Warb. var. 

laurina 

Ara 

Penarahan x x 

Penarahan x x 

Penarahan x x 

338. MYRSINACEAE Ardisia crassa C.B. Clarke Mata pegar x x 

339. MYRSINACEAE Ardisia fulva King & Gamble x 

340. MYRSINACEAE Ardisia retinervia Ridl. x 

341. MYRSINACEAE Ardisia ridleyi King & Gamble x 

342. MYRSINACEAE Ardisia rosea King & Gamble Mata pegar x x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x



names 

1 2 3 

343. MYRSINACEAE Ardisia sp. x 

344. MYRSINACEAE Embelia myrtillus Kurz x 

345. MYRSINACEAE Labisia pumila (Blume) Fern.Vill. 

var. pumila 

Kacip fatimah x x x 

346. MYRSINACEAE Maesa ramentacea Wall. ex Roxb. Gambir x x 

347. MYRSINACEAE Rapanea perakensis (King & 

Gamble) B.C. Stone 

348. MYRSINACEAE Rapanea porteriana Wall. ex A. DC x 

349. MYRTACEAE Baeckea frutescens L. Cucur atap x x 

350. MYRTACEAE Decaspermum parviflorum (Lam.) 

A.J. Scott var. parviflorum 

351. MYRTACEAE Decaspermum parviflorum (Lam.) 

A.J. Scott ssp. quadripartitum J. 

Parn. & Nic Lughadha 

352. MYRTACEAE Leptospermum javanicum Blume China maki x x 

353. MYRTACEAE Rhodamnia cinerea Jack x 

354. MYRTACEAE Syzygium glaucum (King) P. 

Chantaranothai & J. Parn. 

355. MYRTACEAE Syzygium griffithii (Duthie) Merr. 

& L.M. Perry 

356. MYRTACEAE Syzygium leptostemon (Korth.) 

Merr. & L.M. Perry 

357. MYRTACEAE Syzygium politum (King) I.M. 

Turner 

358. MYRTACEAE Syzygium pycnanthum Merr. & 

L.M. Perry 

359. MYRTACEAE Syzygium syzygioides (Miq.) Merr. 

& L.M. Perry 

360. MYRTACEAE Tristaniopsis merguensis (Griff.) 

Peter G. Wilson & J.T. Waterh. 

Kelat x x 

Kelat x x 

Kelat x x 

Kelat x x 

Kelat x x 

Kelat x x 

Pelawan x x 

361. NEPENTHACEAE Nepenthes gracillima Ridl. Periok kera x 

362. OCHNACEAE Brackenridgea hookeri (Planch.) A. 

Gray 

363. OCHNACEAE Campylospermum serratum 

(Gaertn.) Bittrich & M.C.E. Amaral 

Mata ketam x x 

364. OCHNACEAE Euthemis leucocarpa Jack x 

365. OLACACEAE Ochanostachys amentacea Mast. Petaling x x 

366. OLACACEAE Strombosia javanica Blume Dedali x x 

367. OPILIACEAE Champereia manillana (Blume) 

Merr. 

368. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Acriopsis liliiflora (Koenig) 

Ormerod 

Chemperai x x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x



names 

369. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Acriopsis sp. Orkid x 

1 2 3 

370. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Agrostophyllum majus Hook. f. Orkid x x 

371. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Appendicula anceps Blume Orkid x x 

372. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Appendicula rupestris Ridl. Orkid x 

373. ORHIDACEAE (M) Arundina graminifolia (D. Don) 

Hochr. 

374. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Arundina sp. Orkid x 

375. ORCHIDACEAE Bromheadia alticola Ridl. Orkid x 

376. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Bromheadia sp. Orkid x 

377. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Bulbophyllum sp. Orkid x 

378. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Bulbophyllum sp. Orkid x 

379. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Calanthe pulchra (Blume) Lindl. Orkid x x 

380. ORHIDACEAE (M) Claderia viridiflora Hook. f. Orkid x 

381. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Claderia sp. Orkid x 

382. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Coelogyne sp. Orkid x 

383. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Coelogyne sp. Orkid x 

384. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Cymbidium aloifolium (L.) Sw. Orkid x 

385. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Cymbidium sp. Orkid x 

386. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Dendrobium crumenatum Sw. Orkid x 

387. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Dendrobium farmeri Paxton Orkid x 

388. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Dendrobium geminatum Orkid x 

389. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Dendrobium lamellatum Blume Orkid x 

390. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Dendrobium leonis (Lindl.) Rchb. f. Orkid x 

391. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Dendrobium villosulum Lindl. Orkid x 

392. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Dendrobium sp. Orkid x 

393. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Dendrobium sp. Orkid x 

394. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Dendrochilum sp. Orkid x 

395. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Dipodium sp. Orkid x 

396. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Dipodium sp. Orkid x 

397. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Eria floribunda Lindl. Orkid x 

398. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Eria iridifolia Hook. f. Orkid x 

399. ORCHIDACEAE (M) E ria pannea Lindl. Orkid x 

400. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Eria pulchella Lindl. Orkid x 

401. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Eria sp. Orkid x 



404. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Flickingeria sp. Orkid x 

x



names 

405. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Goodyera sp. Orkid x 

406. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Grammatophyllum speciosum 

Blume 

Orkid 

407. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Grammatophyllum sp. Orkid x 

1 2 3 

408. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Hylophila cheangii Holttum Orkid x 

409. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Lecanorchis multiflora J.J. Sm. Orkid x 

410. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Lecanorchis sp. Orkid x x 

411. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Liparis elegans Lindl. Orkid x 

412. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Liparis purpureoviridus Burkill ex 

Ridl. 

413. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Paphiopedilum barbatum (Lindl.) 

Pfitzer 

Orkid 

Orkid x x 

414. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Pholidota articulata Lindl. Orkid x 

415. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Plocoglottis javanica Blume Orkid x x 

416. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Spathoglottis gracilis Rolfe ex 

Hook. f. 

Orkid 

417. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Spathoglottis sp. Orkid x x 

418. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Thecostele alata (Roxb.) C.S.P. 

Parish & Rchb. f. 

Orkid 

419. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Thrixspermum sp. Orkid x 

420. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Tropidia sp. Orkid x 

421. ORCHIDACEAE (M) Vanilla sp. Orkid x x 

422. OXALIDACEAE Sarcotheca griffithii (Planch. ex 

Hook. f.) Hallier f. 

423. OXALIDACEAE Sarcotheca monophylla (Planch. ex 

Hook. f.) Hallier f. 

424. PALMAE (M) Arenga hookeriana (Becc.) 

Whitmore 

Asam pupoi x x 

Asam pupoi 

daun tunggal 

425. PALMAE (M) Arenga westerhoutii Griff. Langkap x x 

426. PALMAE (M) Calamus castaneus Griff. Rotan cucur x x 

427. PALMAE (M) Calamus exilis Griff. Rotan x x x 

428. PALMAE (M) Calamus peregrinus Furtado Rotan x 

429. PALMAE (M) Caryota mitis Lour. Tukas x x 

430. PALMAE (M) Daemonorops verticilaris (Griff.) 

Mart. 

431. PALMAE (M) Eugeissona tristis Griff. Bertam x x 

432. PALMAE (M) Iguanura polymorpha Becc. Teronoh x 

433. PALMAE (M) Iguanura wallichiana (Wall. ex 

Mart.) Hook. f. ssp. wallichiana var. 

wallichiana 

Teronoh x x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x



names 

1 2 3 

434. PALMAE (M) Licuala stongensis L.G. Saw Palas x x 

435. PALMAE (M) Livistona speciosa Kurz x x 

436. PALMAE (M) Nenga pumila (Mart.) H. Wendl. var. 

pachystachya (Blume) Fernando 

437. PALMAE (M) Oncosperma horridum (Griff.) 

Scheff. 

x x x 

Bayas x x 

438. PALMAE (M) Pinanga beccariana Furtado Pinang x 

439. PALMAE (M) Pinanga disticha (Roxb.) Blume ex 

H. Wendl. 

Pinang x x x 

440. PALMAE (M) Pinanga malaiana (Mart.) Scheff. Pinang x x 

441. PALMAE (M) Pinanga scortechinii Becc. Pinang x 

442. PALMAE (M) Pinanga simplicifrons (Miq.) Becc. Pinang x x 

443. PALMAE (M) Pinanga sp. Pinang x 

444. PALMAE (M) Salacca sp. Salak x 

445. PANDANACEAE (M) Galeria maingayi Hook. f. x 

446. PANDANACEAE (M) Microdesmis caseariifolia Planch. x x 

447. PANDANACEAE (M) Pandanus klossii Ridl. Pandan x 

448. PANDANACEAE (M) Pandanus recurvatus St. John Pandan x 

449. PANDANACEAE (M) Pandanus sp. Pandan x 

450. PENTAPHRAGMATACEA 

E 

Pentaphragma horsfieldii (Miq.) 

Airy Shaw 

451. PENTAPHYLACACEAE Pentaphylax euryoides Gardner & 

Champ. 

452. PHORMIACEAE (M) Dianella javanica (Blume) Kunth x x 

453. PIPERACEAE Piper porphyrophyllum N.E. Br Sireh rimau x 

454. PODOCARPACEAE (G) Dacrydium comosum Corner Ekor tupai lebat x x 

455. PODOCARPACEAE (G) Podocarpus neriifolius D. Don Podo bukit x x 

456. POLYGALACEAE Polygala oreotrephes B.L. Burtt x 

457. POLYGALACEAE Xanthophyllum affine Korth. ex 

Miq. 

458. POLYGALACEAE Xanthophyllum eurhynchum Miq. 

ssp. eurhynchum 

459. POLYGALACEAE Xanthophyllum griffithii Hook. f. ex 

A.W. Benn. ssp. angustifolium (Ng) 

Meijden 

Minyak berok x x x 

Minyak berok x x 

Minyak berok x x 

460. POLYGALACEAE Xanthophyllum rufum Benn. Minyak berok x x 

461. POLYGALACEAE Xanthophyllum wrayi King Minyak berok x x 

462. PROTEACEAE Helicia attenuata (Jack) Blume Sawa lukah x x 

463. RAFFLESIACEAE Rafflesia kerrii Meijer x 

464. RHAMNACEAE Rhamnus serrulata H.B. & K. x 

x 

x 

x



names 

1 2 3 

465. RHAMNACEAE Ziziphus angustifolia (Miq.) Hatus. 

ex Steenis 

x 

x 

466. RHIZOPHORACEAE Carallia brachiata (Lour.) Merr. Meransi x x 

467. RHIZOPHORACEAE Carallia eugenioidea King x 

468. RHIZOPHORACEAE Gynotroches axillaris Blume Mata keli x x 

469. ROSACEAE Eriobotrya bengalensis (Roxb.) 

Hook. f. 

470. ROSACEAE Prunus arborea (Blume) Kalkman 

var. arborea 

471. ROSACEAE Prunus grisea (Blume) Kalkman var. 

tomentosa (Koord. & Valeton) 

Kalkman 

Pepijat x x 

Pepijat x x 

x 

473. RUBIACEAE Aidia densiflora (Wall.) Masam. Menterbang x x 

474. RUBIACEAE Aleisanthia sylvatica (Korth.) 

Valeton 

x 

RUBIACEAE Argostemma elatostemma Hook. f. x 

475. RUBIACEAE Argostemma ophirense Maingay ex 

Hook. f. 

x 

476. RUBIACEAE Argostemma pictum Wall. x 

477. RUBIACEAE Borreria hispida K. Schum x 

478. RUBIACEAE Canthium strychnoides Craib x 

479. RUBIACEAE Coptophyllum sylvestre (Ridl.) I.M. 

Turner 

480. RUBIACEAE Coptosapelta tomentosa Valeton ex 

K. Heyne 

Sebetot 

481. RUBIACEAE Diplospora malaccensis Hook. f. Gading-gading x x 

482. RUBIACEAE Gaertnera vaginans (D.C.) Merr. 

ssp. junghuhniana (Miq.) 

Beusekom 

483. RUBIACEAE Gardeniopsis longifolia Miq. x x x 

484. RUBIACEAE Greenia corymbosa (Jack) K. 

Schum. 

485. RUBIACEAE Hedyotis capitellata Wall. & G. 

Don 

Arah songsang 

486. RUBIACEAE Hedyotis congesta Wall & G. Don x 

487. RUBIACEAE Hypobathrium sp. x 

488. RUBIACEAE Ixora grandiflora Schlecht. ex 

Hook. f. 

489. RUBIACEAE Ixora javanica DC. x 

490. RUBIACEAE Ixora sp. x 

491. RUBIACEAE Lasianthus lowianus King & 

Gamble 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x



names 

1 2 3 

492. RUBIACRAE Lasianthus malaccensis King & 

Gamble 

493. RUBIACEAE Lasianthus oblongus King & 

Gamble 

Sekentot 

494. RUBIACEAE Lasianthus salicifolius Ridl. x x 

495. RUBIACEAE Mussaenda glabra Vahl x 

496. RUBIACEAE Mycetia malayana Craib x 

497. RUBIACEAE Nauclea subdita Merr. x 

498. RUBIACEAE Neonauclea pallida (Reinw. ex 

Havil.) Bakh. f. ssp. malaccensis 

(Gand.) Rissdale 

499. RUBIACEAE Ophiorrhiza discolor R. Br. x 

500. RUBIACEAE Pavetta graciliflora Wall. ex Ridl. x 

501. RUBIACEAE Pavetta napieri Ridl. Bremek. x 

502. RUBIACEAE Pavetta siamica Bremek. x 

503. RUBIACEAE Pertusadina eurhyncha (Miq.) 

Ridsdale 

504. RUBIACEAE Porterandia anisophyllea (Jack ex 

Roxb.) Ridl. 

505. RUBIACEAE Porterandia scortechinii (King & 

Gamble) Ridl. 

Meraga x x 

Tinjau belukar x x 

506. RUBIACEAE Psychotria malayana Jack x 

507. RUBIACEAE Psychotria sarmentosa Blume Kaum kopi x x 

508. RUBIACEAE Psydrax maingayi (Hook. f.) 

Bridson 

509. RUBIACEAE Psydrax nitidum (Craib) K.M. 

Wong 

510. RUBIACEAE Rothmannia macrophylla (R.Br. ex 

Hook. f.) Bremek. 

511. RUBIACEAE Saprosma glomerulata King & 

Gamble 

Kaum kopi x x 

Kaum kopi x x 

Sekentut putih x x 

512. RUBUIACEAE Tarenna maingayi (Hook. f.) Merr. x 

513. RUBIACEAE Timonius flavescens (Jack) Baker Kaum kopi x x 

514. RUBIACEAE Timonius oreophilus Ridl. Kaum kopi x x 

515. RUBIACEAE Timonius wallichianus (Korth.) 

Valeton 

Kaum kopi x x 

516. RUBIACEAE Urophyllum blumeanum Hook. f. Kaum kopi x 

517. RUBIACEAE Urophyllum glabrum Wall. Kaum kopi x x x 

518. RUTACEAE Glycosmis chlorosperma Spreng. 

var. chlorosperma 

519. RUTACEAE Maclurodendron porteri (Hook. f.) 

T.G. Hartley 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x



names 

1 2 3 

520. RUTACEAE Melicope glabra (Blume) T.G. 

Hartley 

521. RUTACEAE Melicope lunu-ankenda (Gaertn.) 

T.G. Hartley 

522. RUTACEAE Melicope pachyphylla (Blume) T.G. 

Hartley 

523. RUTACEAE Tetractomia tetrondum (Roxb.) 

Merr. 

524. SAPINDACEAE Lepisanthes tetraphylla (Vahl) 

Radlk. 

Pepauh daun 

besar 

Pepauh 

Pepauh x x 

525. SAPINDACEAE Nephelium maingayi Hiern Redan x x 

526. SAPINDACEAE Pometia pinnata J.R. Forst. & G. 

Forst. 

Kasai 

527. SAPINDACEAE Xerospermum laevigatum Radk. Rambutan pacat 

daun kecil 

528. SAPINDACEAE Xerospermum noronhianum 

(Blume) Blume 

529. SAPOTACEAE Palaquium clarkeanum King & 

Gamble 

530. SAPOTACEAE Palaquium gutta (Hook. f.) Baill. Nyatoh taban 

merah 

531. SAPOTACEAE Palaquium hexandrum (Griff.) 

Baill. 

532. SAPOTACEAE Palaquium maingayi (C.B. Clarke) 

King & Gamble 

Rambutan pacat x x 

Nyatoh x x 

Nyatoh jambak x x x 

Nyatoh 

tembaga 

533. SAPOTACEAE Palaquium ridleyi King & Gamble x 

534. SAPOTACEAE Palaquium rostratum (Miq.) Burck Nyatoh siding x x x 

535. SAPOTACEAE Palaquium semaram H.J. Lam Nyatoh 

semaram 

536. SAPOTACEAE Payena dasyphylla (Miq.) Pierre Nyatoh x x 

537. SAPOTACEAE Payena lucida A. DC. Nyatoh x x x 

538. SAPOTACEAE Pouteria firma (Miq.) Baehni Nyatoh x x x 

539. SAPOTACEAE Pouteria maingayi (C.B. Clarke) 

Baehni 

540. SAPOTACEAE Pouteria malaccensis (C.B. Clarke) 

Baehni 

Nyatoh nangka 

merah 

Nyatoh nangka 

kuning 

541. SIMAROUBACEAE Eurycoma longifolia Jack Tongkat ali 

daun tajam 

542. SMILACACEAE Smilax megacarpa A. DC. & C. 

DC. 

543. STERCULIACEAE Heritiera javanica (Blume) 

Kosterm. 

Mengkulang 

jari 

544. STERCULIACEAE Heritiera simplicifolia (Mast.) Mengkulang x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x



names 

Kosterm. 

siku keluang 

1 2 3 

545. STERCULIACEAE Scaphium macropodum (Miq.) 

Beumée ex Heyne 

Kembang 

semangkok 

jantung 

x 

x 

546. STERCULIACEAE Sterculia coccinea Jack x x 

547. STERCULIACEAE Sterculia parviflora Roxb. ex G. 

Don 

Kelumpang x x 

548. STERCULIACEAE Sterculia rubiginosa Vent. var. 

rubiginosa 

Kelumpang 

bulu 

x 

x 

549. TACCACEAE (M) Tacca integrifolia Ker Gawl. Keladi murai x x 

550. TACCACEAE (M) Tacca sp. x 

551. THEACEAE Adinandra maculosa T. Anderson 

ex Dyer 

Tetiup x x x 

552. THEACEAE Adinandra sarosanthera Miq. Tetiup x x 

553. THEACEAE Eurya nitida Korth. x 

554. THEACEAE Gordonia concentricicatrix Burkill Samak pulut x x 

555. THEACEAE Schima wallichii (DC.) Korth. Gegatal x x 

556. THEACEAE Ternstroemia evenia (King) A.C. 

Sm. 

x 

x 

557. THEACEAE Ternstroemia penangiana Choisy x x 

558. THYMELEACEAE Aquilaria malaccensis Lam. Karas x x 

559. THYMELEACEAE Gonystylus confusus Airy Shaw Ramin pinang 

muda 

x 

x 

560. TILIACEAE Microcos antidesmifolia (King) 

Burret. 

561. TILIACEAE Microcos blattifolia (Corner) R.S. 

Rao 

562. TILIACEAE Microcos laurifolia (Hook. ex Mast.) 

Burret 

Damak-damak 

Damak-damak 

x 

x 

x 

563. TILIACEAE Microcos tomentosa Sm. Damak-damak x 

564. TILIACEAE Pentace strychnoidea King Melunak x x 

565. TILIACEAE Pentace triptera Mast. Melunak x x 

566. TILIACEAE Schoutenia accrescens (Mast.) C.H. 

Curtis ssp. accrescens 

Bayur bukit 

x 

567. TRIGONIACEAE Trigoniastrum hypoleucum Miq. x x 

568. ULMACEAE Gironniera nervosa Planch. Hampas tebu 

bulu 

569. ULMACEAE Gironniera parviflora Planch. Hampas tebu 

daun kechik 

570. ULMACEAE Gironniera subaequalis Planch. Hampas tebu 

daun kesat 

x 

x 

x 

x



names 

571. ULMACEAE Trema cannabina Lour. Menarong daun 

kecil 

1 2 3 

572. ULMACEAE Trema orientalis (L.) Blume. Menarong x x 

573. VERBENACEAE Callicarpa maingayi King & 

Gamble 

Tampang besi x x 

574. VERBENACEAE Clerodendrum deflexum Wall. x 

575. VERBENACEAE Clerodendrum laevifolium Blume x 

576. VERBENACEAE Clerodendrum villosum Blume x x 

577. VERBENACEAE Premna kunstleri King & Gamble x 

578. VERBENACEAE Teijsmanniodendron coriaceum 

(C.B. Clarke) Kosterm. 

579. VERBENACEAE Vitex gamosepala Griff. Leban x x 

580. VIOLACEAE Rinorea sclerocarpa (Burgersd.) M. 

Jacobs 

581. VITACEAE Ampelocissus polythyrsa (Miq.) 

Planch. 

Sentil tembakau 

582. VITACEAE Cayratia mollissima (Wall.) Gagnep. x 

583. VITACEAE Cissus repens Lam. x 

584. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Alpinia javanica (Blume) var. 

javanica 

585. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Alpinia cf. mutica Roxb. x 

586. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Alpinia scabra (Blume) Baker x 

587. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Alpinia sp. x 

588. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Amomum lappaceum Ridl. x 

589. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Amomum spiceum Ridl. x 

590 ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Amomum uliginosum J. Konig x 

591. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Boesenbergia plicata (Ridl.) Holttum x 

592. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Boesenbergia prainiana (Baker) 

Schltr. 

593. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Boesenbergia sp. x 

594. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Elettariopsis curtisii Baker x 

595. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Elettariopsis triloba (Gagnep) Loes. x 

596. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Etlingera coccinea (Blume) S. Sakai 

& Nagam 

597. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Etlingera apus-hang C.K. Lim x 

598. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Etlingera maingayi (Baker) R.M. 

Smith 

599. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Etlingera metriocheilos (Griff.) R.M. 

Smith 

600. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Etlingera rubrolutea (Baker) C.K. x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x



names 

Lim 

601. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Etlingera sphaerocephala (Bak.) 

C.K. Lim 

602. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Etlingera triorgyalis (Bak.) R.M. 

Smith 

1 2 3 

x 

x 

603. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Etlingera venusta (Ridl.) R.M. Smith x 

604. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Globba leucantha Miq. x 

605. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Globba pendula Roxb. x 

606. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Globba unifolia (Ridley) R. M. 

Smith 

x 

607. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Globba variabilis Ridl. x 

608. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Globba violacea Ridl. x 

609. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Hedychium longicornutum Griff. ex 

Baker 

610. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Hornstedtia scyphifera (J. Köenig) 

Steud. var. fusiformis 

611. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Scaphochlamys biloba (Ridl.) 

Holttum 

612. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Scaphochlamys concinna (Baker) 

Holttum 

x 

x 

x 

x 

613. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Scaphochlamys kunstleri (Baker) 

Holttum var. kunstleri 

x 

614. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Scaphochlamys cf. longifolia x 

615. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Zingiber gracile Jack x 

616. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Zingiber kelantanense C.K. Lim x 

617. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Zingiber puberulum Ridl. x 

618. ZINGIBERACEAE (M) Zingiber spectabile Griff. x 

Ferns and Fern-Allies 

1. ADIANTACEAE Adiantum latifolium Lam. x 

2. ADANTIACEAE Taenitis blechnoides (Willd.) Sw. x 

3. ADANTIACEAE Taenitis dimorpha Holttum x 

4. ADANTIACEAE Taenitis interrupta Hook. & Grev. x 

5. ASPLENIACEAE Asplenium affine Sw. var. affine x 

6. ASPLENIACEAE Asplenium excicum C. Presl. x 

7. ASPLENIACEAE Asplenium nidus L. var. nidus Paku sakat x x 

8. ASPLENIACEAE Asplenium nitidum Sw. x 

9. ASPLENIACEAE Asplenium normale D. Don var. 

normale 

10. ASPLENIACEAE Asplenium tenerum G. Forst var. 

tenerum 

x 

x



names 

1 2 3 

11. ASPLENIACEAE Asplenium thunbergii Kunze x 

12. BLECHNIACEAE Blechnium finlaysonium Hook. & 

Grev. 

13. BLECHNACEAE Blechnum indicum Burm. x 

14. BLECHNIACEAE Blechnium orientale L. x 

15. CYATHEACEAE Cyathea alternans (Wall. ex Hook.) 

C. Presl. 

16. CYATHEACEAE Cyathea contaminans (Wall. ex 

Hook.) Copel. 

17. CYATHEACEAE Cyathea incisoserrata Copel. x 

18. CYATHEACEAE Cyathea latebrosa (Wall. ex Hook.) 

Copel. 

19. CYATHEACEAE Cyathea moluccana R. Br. x 

20. DAVALLIACEAE Davallia denticulata (Burma. f.) 

Mett. 

21. DAVALLIACEAE Davallia solida (G. Forst.) Sw. x 

22. DAVALLIACEAE Davallia repens (L.f.) Diels x 

23. DENNSTAEDTIACEAE Lindsaea heterophylla Dryand. x 

24. DENNSTAEDTIACEAE Lindsaea napaea Alderw. x 

25. DENNSTAEDTIACEAE Lindsaea parallelogramma 

Alderw. 

26. DENNSTAEDTIACEAE Lindsaea parasitica (Roxb. ex 

Griffith) Hieron. 

27. DENNSTAEDTIACEAE Microlepia speluncae (L.) T. 

Moore var. villosissima C. Chr. 

28. DENNSTAEDTIACEAE Odontosoria chinensis (L.) J. Sm. 

var. divaricata H. Christ 

29. DENNSTAEDTIACEAE Tapeinidium luzonicum (Hook.) 

K.U. Kramer var. luzonicum 

30. DICKSONIACEAE Cibotium barometz (L.) J. Sm. x 

31. DIPTERIDACEAE Dipteris conjugata Reinw. x x 

32. DIPTERIDACEAE Dipteris lobbiana (Hook.) T. Moore 

var. lobbiana 

33. DRYOPTERIDACEAE Didymochlaena trunculata (Sw.) Sw. x 

34. DRYOPTERIDACEAE Tectaria fissa (Kunze) Holttum x 

35. DRYOPTERIDACEAE Tectaria vasta (Blume) Copel. x 

36. GLEICHENIACEAE Dicranopteris linearis (Burm f.) 

Underw. var. alternans (Mett.) 

Holttum 

37. GLEICHENIACEAE Dicranopteris linearis (Burm f.) 

Underw. var. linearis 

Resam 

Resam 

38. GLEICHENIACEAE Dicranopteris longissisum (Blume) x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x



names 

Nakai 

1 2 3 

39. GLEICHENIACEAE Diploterygium norrisii (Mett.) Nakai x 

40. GLEICHENIACEAE Gleichenia microphylla R. Br. var. 

semivestita (Labill.) Alderw. 

x 

x 

41. GLEICHENIACEAE Gleichenia oppossita Alderw. x 

42. GLEICHENIACEAE Sticherus hirtus (Blume) Ching x 

43. GLEICHENIACEAE Sticherus truncatus (Willd.) Nakai 

var. truncatus 

x 

44. GRAMMITIDACEAE Prosaptia alata (Blume) H. Christ x 

45. HYMENOPHYLLACEAE Gonocormus saxifragoides (C. 

Presl.) Bosch 

x 

46. HYMENOPHYLLACEAE Mecodium polyanthus (Sw.) Copel. x 

47. HYMENOPHYLLACEAE Meringium denticulatum (Sw.) 

Copel. 

48. HYMENOPHYLLACEAE Microtrichomanes digitatum (Sw.) 

Copel. 

49. LOMARIOSIDACEAE Bolbitis appendiculata (Willd.) K. 

Iwatsuki subsp. appendiculata 

x 

x 

x 

50. LYCOPODIACEAE (FA) Lycopodiella cernua (L.) Pic.Serm. x x 

51. LYCOPODIACEAE (FA) Lycopodium casuarinoides Spring. x 

52. MARATTIACEAE Angiopteris evecta (G. Forst.) 

Hoffm. 

Paku gajah x x 

53. MATONIACEAE Matonia pectinata R.Br. x x 

54. OLEANDRACEAE Oleandra pistillaris (Sw.) Cav. x 

55. OPHIOGLOSSACEAE Ophioglossum pendulum L. forma 

pendulum 

x 

56. POLYPODIACEAE Belvisia callifolia (H. Christ) C. Chr. x 

57. POLYPODIACEAE Drynaria quercifolia (L.) J. Sm. x 

58. POLYPODIACEAE Drynaria rigidula (Sw.) Bedd. x 

59. POLYPODIACEAE Goniophlebium percussum (Cav.) 

W.H. Wagner & Grether 

60. POLYPODIACEAE Goniophlebium subauriculatum 

(Blume) C. Presl. 

61. POLYPODIACEAE Loxogramme avenia (Blume) C. 

Presl. 

62. POLYPODIACEAE Loxogramme subecostata (Hook.) C. 

Chr. 

x 

x 

x 

x 

63. POLYPODIACEAE Microsorum punctatum (L.) Copel. x 

64. POLYPODIACEAE Neocheiropteris sarawakensis 

(Baker) Parris 

65. POLYPODIACEAE Paragramma longifolia (Blume) T. 

Moore 

x 

x



names 

66. POLYPODIACEAE Phymatosorus nigrescens (Blume) 

Pic. Serm. 

67. POLYPODIACEAE Pyrrosia longifolia (Burm. f.) C. V. 

Morton 

68. POLYPODIACEAE Selliguea heterocarpa (Blume) 

Blume 

1 2 3 

69. POLYPODIACEAE Selliguea stenopteris (Baker) Parris x 

70. POLYPODIACEAE Selliguea triloba (Houtt.) M.G. Price x 

71. SELAGINELLACEAE (FA) Selaginella intermedia var. 

intermedia (Blume) Spring. 

72. SELAGINELLACEAE (FA) Selaginella willdenowii (Desv.) 

Baker 

73. THELYPTERIDACEAE Parathelypteris beddomei (Baker) 

Ching var. beddomei 

74. THELYPTERIDACEAE Pronephrium glandulosum 

(Blume) Holttum 

75. THELYPTERIDACEAE Pronephrium rubicundum 

(Alderw.) Holttum 

Paku lipan x x 

76. VITTARIACEAE Anthrophyum callifolium Blume x 

77. VITTARIACEAE Antrophyum semicostatum Blume 

var. semicostatum 

78. VITTARIACEAE Vittaria elongata Sw. var. elongata x 

79. WOODSIACEAE Diplazium malaccense C. Presl. x 

80. WOODSIACEAE Diplazium sorzogonense (C. Presl.) 

C. Presl. 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Notes: 

1. Collections made by Maseri et al. (2006) during the preparation of the management plan. 

2. Earlier collections made by FRIM (based on herbarium records). 

3. Collections made during the Gunong Stong Scientific Expedition, 2003 (Shaharuddin 

Mohamad Ismail et al., 2005) 

FA = Fern ally G = Gymnosperm M = Monocot

FINAL VERSION FOR APPROVAL - Sdn Bhd - WWF Malaysia

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?