Wildlife Conservation in Oil Palm Landscapes

This document summarises the key findings and recommendations from the Borneo Rhino Alliance (BORA) publication on managing wildlife in oil palm plantation areas.

The core problem

Oil palm landscapes in Malaysia contain scattered forest patches, riparian zones, wetlands, steep slopes and High Conservation Value areas known as set-asides. Current approaches treat these set-asides as passive conservation areas. This is insufficient. Without active management targeting specific species, most wildlife will gradually disappear, leaving only common, adaptable species.

Standard biodiversity assessments compile species lists without clear management objectives. Most recorded species require no special protection. Small habitat patches cannot sustain breeding populations long term. Rare species will go locally extinct without intervention.

Current landscape reality

Malaysia's oil palm sector covers 5.65 million hectares. Smallholders manage 26.4% of this area (approximately 1.48 million hectares), supporting nearly 450,000 families. As of December 2024, 86.5% of Malaysian palm oil cultivation area is certified under the mandatory Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) scheme. Only 0.3% of smallholders hold the voluntary, internationally recognised Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certification.

Most habitat loss and fragmentation has already occurred. The challenge now is managing wildlife recovery within the existing mixed landscape of plantations, settlements and remaining forests.

Categories of set-aside land

High Conservation Value areas are residual forest patches or uncultivated land within plantations. They are designated for biological, ecological or cultural significance.

Riparian zones are lands along streams and rivers. Protection is established in Malaysian and international certification standards, though guidelines vary from minimal engineering requirements to detailed ecological recommendations.

Wetlands are areas where water covers soil permanently or seasonally. Some floodplain wetlands cannot be drained for cultivation and represent opportunities for wildlife management.

Steep slopes are lands exceeding 25 degrees gradient. Both MSPO and RSPO standards restrict cultivation on steep terrain.

Forest edge buffer zones provide transition areas between plantations and protected forests.

The flagship species approach

The document proposes focusing conservation efforts on specific flagship species with broad habitat requirements. Managing habitat for these species benefits entire ecosystems.

The Borneo elephant (Elephas maximus borneensis) serves as the primary example. A 2007–2008 Sabah-wide survey estimated 2,040 elephants across five managed ranges (Alfred et al. 2010). However, this study has since been considered methodologically flawed. A 2022 WWF study using improved methods estimated only 387 elephants in the Central Sabah range, one of the five ranges, suggesting earlier figures were substantial overestimates rather than evidence of population decline. Current expert consensus places the total Sabah population at 1,000–1,500 individuals. The Tabin Wildlife Reserve population was estimated at 120–300 animals in 1993.

Elephants require large-scale habitat connectivity, mineral sources and seasonal food availability. Managing landscapes for elephant movement benefits numerous other species.

Practical interventions tested

Ficus enrichment planting: Strategic planting of fig trees (Ficus spp.) in set-asides provides year-round food for frugivores including hornbills, primates and civets. Figs fruit asynchronously, ensuring continuous food availability.

Elephant pastures: Converting portions of set-asides to managed grassland reduces elephant incursions into oil palm stands. Elephants preferentially graze these areas, reducing crop damage and human-wildlife conflict.

These interventions require modest investment relative to overall sustainability, environmental, social and governance (ESG) and marketing expenditures.

Implementation barriers

Economic: No premium price mechanism rewards growers for active conservation. Certification costs fall on producers without corresponding market returns.

Governance: Both MSPO (mandatory, national) and RSPO (voluntary, international) focus on preventing harm rather than mandating habitat restoration. Neither scheme requires active wildlife management in set-asides.

Smallholder inclusion: Independent smallholders face particular challenges meeting certification requirements due to land tenure documentation, resource constraints and limited technical support.

Community engagement: The framework does not address communities living adjacent to plantations who bear costs from wildlife incursions and may possess relevant traditional knowledge.

Pathways forward

Three mechanisms could advance implementation:

1. A grower company takes initiative, with others following the competitive advantage.
2. A national government body introduces supporting policy.
3. A globally trusted conservation organisation endorses the approach.

In the absence of industry leadership, government policy at national or sub-national level will be needed to drive progress.

Requirements for success

Effective implementation depends on:

• clear objectives and measurable targets
• sustained funding mechanisms beyond voluntary commitment
• inclusion of smallholders and local communities
• adaptive management responding to monitoring data and climate projections
• coordination across multiple landowners and government agencies

The practical experience documented with Ficus planting and elephant pastures represents valuable applied learning. Scaling these interventions requires addressing economic, governance and social complexities beyond technical recommendations.

References

Payne, J., Zainuddin, Z.Z. & Jenuit, M. (2025). Wildlife Conservation in the Oil Palm Landscape. Borneo Rhino Alliance. ISBN 978-629-94462-0

Alfred, R., Ahmad, A.H., Payne, J., Williams, C. & Ambu, L. (2010). Density and population estimation of the Bornean elephants (Elephas maximus borneensis) in Sabah. Online Journal of Biological Sciences, 10(2), 92–102.

Cheah, C. & Yoganand, K. (2022). Recent estimate of Asian elephants in Borneo reveals a smaller population. Wildlife Biology, 2022(4), e01024.

Datametrics Research & Information Centre (DARE). (2025). Advancing Sustainability in Malaysia's Palm Oil Industry. Kuala Lumpur.

Dawson, S. (1993). Estimating elephant numbers in Tabin Wildlife Reserve, Sabah, Malaysia. Gajah: Journal of the Asian Elephant Specialist Group, 11, 16–28.

Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB). (2024). Overview of the Malaysian Oil Palm Industry 2024. Bangi: MPOB.

Sabah Wildlife Department. (2020). Bornean Elephant Action Plan for Sabah 2020–2029. Kota Kinabalu.

Disclaimer: This summary is provided for informational purposes. Refer to the original publication for complete details and primary sources.