Motor vehicle growth policy is a key factor to rein in Asian megacities congestion and air pollution

Figure 1 : Congestion may change the direction of auto industry of China (from Want China Times). 

A more balance mobility’s footprint is a condition of a sustainable Asia Pacific increase

Mobility is composed of the various services and means available for moving persons and goods. Rail, Road, Air and Maritime are the four main mobility modes.

The dominant export-oriented development model in the Asia-Pacific region over the past 15 years allowed considerable growth while the movement of raw materials, sub-assemblies and finished products were important issues of global competition.

This is also true with the development now planned for the Asia Pacific region, where growth could become more qualitative, less polluting, internally oriented with the aim of reducing traffic congestion, improving short and medium distances transports.

As explained in our previous post dated 31 Jan 2013, Asian Pacific countries were the fastest growing worldwide areas during the past 15 years. Urbanization was both the condition and the main result of this development. But Asian mega cities development is unprecedented in history and presents a double-headed challenge: global change -global risk.

Megacity's system could easily spin out of control with major environmental problems such as power blackout, traffic congestion and air pollution. Jakarta car congestion costs 5.4 bil $ annually while increasing poor air quality. With business as usual conditions, pollution would increase 2-3 folds on 1990-2020 due to population growth, industrialization and increased vehicle use. 

Traffic congestion and transport pollution have a huge cost in terms of health hazards, lost of hours spent in transport congestion.

As we have explained in our last post outdoor particulate matter air pollution in 2010 contributed to 1,270,000 premature deaths in Asia East (China & North Korea), which is about 40% of the global worldwide total amounting to 3,220,000 deaths. The burden of mobility is huge with the pollution of motorcars and motorcycles in congested Chinese megacities

Cluster description of Asian Pacific countries

To study the 24 Asia-Pacific countries, we used-as in our last post- a grouping in 5 clusters geographically, politically and economically homogeneous (see Figure 2):

1. Asia East (China, Korea Dem. Rep.);
2. Asian Pacific high income (Brunei, Japan, Korea Rep., Singapore);
3. Asia South (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan);
4. Asia Southeast (8 other ASEAN countries + Maldives, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste);
5. Australasia (Australia, New Zealand). 

Figure 2 : The 5 clusters from the 24 Asian Pacific countries

In each cluster various countries have similar GDP per capita figures. The 5 cluster have altogether a 3,793 mil population - about 55% of the world population (6,896)- but with dissimilar land areas and population outcomes by cluster (see Figures 3 to 6 below).

In the three most populous areas – Asia East, South and Southeast- sustainability at stake is to continue rising income, while reducing ecological footprint (CO2 emissions, water and air pollution), and improved quality of life in large urban centers.

Figure 3 : Distribution of population (from World Bank Data)

Figure 4 : Distribution of population density

Each cluster has a major hub country such as China (98% of Asia East population), Japan (69% of Asia Pacific High income), India (78% of Asia South) or Australia (85% of Australasia).

But within the South East Asia, the situation is more open: Indonesia is the largest country (39%), but Malaysia and Thailand have the highest GDP per capita.

Figure 5 : Distribution of GDP per capita, high income and high middle income countries (from World Bank Data)

Figure 6 : Distribution of GDP per capita, low midle income and low income countries (from World Bank Data)

Passenger car ownership is a key factor

In many urban areas car private ownership is an important status symbol. The relationship between household and car ownership is mostly based on the income level.

We know that the relation between passenger car ownership against per capita GDP is a S-shape growth curve (see “Vehicle ChinaPollution by 2050 Huo, Hong & alia”).

Initially car ownership growth are slow while costs are high as compared to income, followed by a period of rapid uptake growth, then later by a slowing of uptake as saturation levels are reached.

The S-curve or Gompertz function is a type of mathematical model used to describe the population in a confined space, as birth rates first increase and then slow as resource limits are reached.

In the following Figures 7 & 8: the passenger car ownership per 1,000 people is plotted against per capita GDP in Asian Pacific countries (all data are from the World Bank on 2000-2011).

Figure 7 : “S” shape growth curve relation of passenger car’s ownership against per Capita GDP growth (all figures from World Bank Data)

In Asia Pacific- if we except Singapore which is a megacity country- growth patterns can be grouped into three categories:

1. The North American type pattern – scarce population and huge distance- where  saturation level is around 550 vehicles per 1,000 people when per capita GDP is higher than $20,000, is followed here by Australia and New Zealand.
2. The European type pattern- denser population and compact urban development – where saturation level is around 450 vehicles per 1,000 people, is followed here by Japan, Brunei, Malaysia, Thailand and even China.
3. The third pattern represented by Korea Rep, and some European countries, such as Denmark, and Ireland, show an even smaller rate of motor vehicle ownership, with a saturation level relatively lower—about 350 vehicles per 1,000 people. In these countries this low saturation level is caused partly by the high population density and the extensive public transportation system.

Figure 8 :Same  “S” shape growth curve relation with a zooming on low and middle development countries (all figures from WorldBank Data)

 What might be the evolution of car ownership in the coming years?

The passenger cars’ ownership saturation level is a key factor in estimating the total motor vehicle population growth. In particular, (see Figure 9) based on a continuation of the GDP per capita growth such as during 1900-2011:

Figure 9 : China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand Prevision of Fleet passenger car fleet in 2030

• China’s passenger car stock might increase seven-fold, to 380 mil

• Thailand might increase three-fold, Indonesia one 1/2- fold .

• Malaysia might increase one 1/2-fold and  might be approaching the saturated level of 450 passenger car per 1,000 people .

Dargay and Gately assumed a saturation level of 850 (all vehicles) per 1,000 people and 620 cars per 1,000 people for the 26 countries (including China) that they studied .

However, Kobos et al. believe that it was impossible for China—a highly populated country—to reach such a high saturation level. Instead they propose a saturation level of 292 passenger vehicles per 1,000 people.

Button et al. set a range of 300 to 450 cars per 1,000 people for developing countries such as China.

We think as expressed by Kobos that the saturation level of the third pattern (curve min) in the range of 290-300 passenger vehicles should be more adapted. As done by Kobos & al. we need to examine the car ownership at the provincial level (see Figure 10). 

Demand for vehicle trend to mirror the megacities pattern concentration of wealth (see Figure 10), contrary to developed countries.

Increase in passenger vehicle will place serious strain on land use, urban air pollution, and oil requirements. 

Figure 10 : Passenger vehicle per 1,000 people by Chinese province, 2015 (from Kobos & al. 2003) 

China and others Asian countries rapidly evolving taste for automobile, all point towards a more integrated transport policy where other factors such as  access to public transport, traffic limitations at peak hours, tax on fuel or vehicle to compensate traffic congestion externalities might be discussed.

Innovative mobility- new type of car and rapid transit system -new investments, more stringent transport regulations and better law enforcement conditions are the conditions of a sustainable development. Poor policies in these areas may entail growing ecological footprint with health and environmental issues. 

China & North Korea: ambient particulate matter air pollution contributed to 1,270, 000 premature deaths in 2010 or about 40% of global worldwide risk

Figure 1:  A very smoggy day in Beijing, Sunday, Jan. 13, 2013 (from Yahoo News)

Industries, cars and trucks fuel or biomass combustion emit complex mixtures of air pollutants, many of which are harmful to health. Of all of these pollutants, fine particulate matter (PM) pollution has the greatest effect on human health.

Most sources of emissions are mobiles motorcars, motorcycles and sta­tionary sources such as power plants. Moreover some PM pollution is issued from fire of forest biomass exacerbated by global warming (see my 14 Sep 2012 post on Sumatra open fires).

Fine particulate matter is associated with a broad spectrum of acute and chronic illness, such as lung cancer and cardiopulmonary disease.

Worldwide, it is estimated to cause about 8% of lung cancer deaths, 5% of cardiopulmonary deaths and about 3% of res­piratory infection deaths (see WHO 2009 Global health risk report).

Particulate matter pollu­tion is an environmental health problem that affects people worldwide, but middle-income countries are disproportionately more concerned by this burden.

The Global Burden of Diseases 2010 report methodology

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors 2010 Study (GBD 2010) published in Dec 2012 by The Lancet, is the single largest and most detailed scientific effort ever conducted to quantify levels and trends in health. 

It is a global effort with 488 authors from 50 countries, including 26 low- and middle-income countries, led by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington. GBD 2010 constitutes a unique platform to compare the magnitude of diseases, injuries, and risk factors across age groups, sexes, countries, regions, and time.

PM pollution of fine particulate matter smaller than 2.5µm concentration in the ambient air (PM2.5 expressed in µg/m3) is a useful indicator to the risk associated to an exposure of mixture of pollutant from diverse sources:  transportation emissions, windblown dust, ashes from burning of biomass or coal from power plants.

The TM5 simulation model has been used to measure the pollutants level from satellite observations and ground observations. TM5 is a complex 3-dimensional global atmospheric model which simulates the concentrations of the various atmospheric trace gases, such as greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20)), chemically active species (e.g. ozone (O3)), and aerosols.

Existing studies cover mostly small concentration (up to 30 µg/m3) while much higher concentration have been recorded in Asian cities and elsewhere. The relation between health hazards and concentration is probably nonlinear.

Relative risk estimation of associated mortalities are mainly for the following outcome: ischemic heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute lower respiratory tract infection etc.

Each risk factor is associated with a cluster of disease outcome that may cause death. Inversely each disease could proceed from a cluster of risks. Smoking and PM pollution are 2 different risks but which  outcome diseases are very similar.

Asia Pacific: ambient PM air pollution impacts on health

Outdoor PM air pollution in 2010 (see Figure 2) contributed to 1,270, 000 premature deaths in low and middle income East Asia countries (China & North Korea), which is about 40% of the global worldwide total amounting to 3,220,000 deaths. This is equivalent to the loss of 25 mil healthy years of life in China and North Korea while it is the 4^th most important health risk in this area.

Figure 2 : Asia Pacific death counts from PM air pollution over 1990- 2010 (with Australasia too small to be seen)

In others low and middle income countries, PM pollution contributed to 767,000 and 164,000 premature deaths respectively in South and Southeast Asia (see Figure 2 above).

These death counts increased a lot over the last 20 years period for low and middle income countries: in East (+35% mostly China), South (+43% mostly India, Bangladesh, Pakistan ) and Southeast Asia (+50% mostly ASEAN countries).

In other high income countries, these death counts are only 88,000 while increasing only moderately over 1990-2010: in Asia Pacific (+12% Brunei, Japon, South Korea and Singapore) and Australasia  (1779 +31% Australlia, New Zealand) and as a result the death count is too small to be seen in Figure 2.

Asia Pacific: ambient PM air pollution impacts compared between various Asian countries

From the above figures we can derive the death counts per million people after averaging by each cluster of countries’ populations over 1990-2010. The following Figure 3 presents the death counts from PM air pollution per million people over 1990-2010.

Figure 3 : Asia Pacific death counts from PM air pollution as part of the overall population over 1990-2010

For low and middle income countries:

East and Southeast Asia increased by 13-15% while South Asia keeps a fixe level. 

It means that the 2 first clusters of countries have been hugely impacted by PM air pollution, while South Asia cluster of country is mostly the result of its population's size.

For high income countries:

The death counts per mil people increased very moderately +1% in Australasia and +4% in Asia Pacific high income countries.

Asia Pacific: ambient PM air pollution impact as part of the overall health risks

The 4 following Figures 4, 5, 6 & 7 present the 10 biggest health risks in 2010 as established by GBD 2010, with the 1990 values given as a comparison. The horizontal scale is also the same.

In all countries the first risk is the high blood pressure which is a physiological disorder deriving from a disturbance of normal functioning at the level of organs and systems within the human body. This risk level is about the same 1,300 to 1,400 death counts per mil people for most countries, South Asia excepted.

East Asia:

In East Asian low and middle income countries, it should be highlighted that the PM air pollution death count (918 ranked 4) is about the same as the smoking habit’s outcome (1058 ranked 3): so the PM air pollution kills as much people each year as the tobacco. 

The main risk in 1990 was the household pollution from solid fuel which in 2010 is now ranked 5 after PM air pollution.

Figure 4:  The 10 highest health risks in East Asia low and middle income countries China and North Korea from GBD 2010

South Asia:

In South Asian countries the PM air pollution death counts (486 ranked 5) is much smaller than smoking risk (ranked 3), the household air pollution is high (ranked 2) and the general profile is at a much lower level: the blood pressure death counts (ranked 1) is nevertheless half the value of East Asian countries.

Figure 5 : The 10 highest health risks in South Asia low and middle income countries from GBD 2010

Southeast Asia:

In Southeast Asian countries: apart from the PM air pollution, the 10 first risks’ profile are about the same as in East Asia for blood pressure, smoking and diet problem but at a lower levels. The PM air pollution death count is much smaller (270 ranked 9) or 3 times smaller than in East Asia. This is in relation with a more diverse grouping of countries.

Figure 6 : The 10 highest health risks in Southeast Asia low and middle income countries from GBD 2010

High income Asia Pacific countries:

In high income Asia Pacific, apart from the first 2 risks: high blood pressure and smoking, the remaining profile is different. New risks are more prevalent associated with wealthy life style: physical inactivity and high sodium at a highest level, high body mass index. The PM air pollution death count is smaller (486 ranked 9) or 2 times smaller than in East Asia.

Figure 7: The 10 highest health risks in high income Asia Pacific countries from GBD 2010

Rampant agribusiness malpractices- Part 4-2: Rape of Lojing Highlands (end)

Figure 1 : A massive logging and land clearing project in Lojing (see Flickr )

A massive logging and land clearing project in Lojing, Kelantan State

Figure 1 is a picture of the Lojing Highlands. A lot of change are taking place in this atrea which have significant impacts on agribusiness and economic growth. Ten years ago these vegetable and flower farms were not all there (see “Syeds out of the box”).

Find here a video of the aerial view of Lojing settlement in Gua Musang with forest clearing going on “You Tube”.

The question that is being asked by Malaysian environment activists is why Kelantan is still clearing hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest with almost total disregard to the grave impacts on the human beings and wildlife that depend on these forests? Replacing forest with LCTs is destroying biodiversity (see “Rubber Forests”).

As explained before: land, forestry, agriculture and rivers are State matters. Therefore the Federal Government cannot do much but provide advice. 

But clearly, all this “advice” is useless and Kelantan has flouted almost every single well-intentioned key policy made at the Federal level as explained before. 

This clearing is taking place possibly without EIA as alleged by BN/UMNO. 

The allegation, however, is made where this same political party may still have endorsed this project when it was in power in Kelantan and has not been exemplary while regulating Cameron Highlands.  

This might be highlighted by BN / UMNO as an electoral argument in the run-up for the 13th general elections, now scheduled for next month. 

Certainly the political context leaves environmentalists in a dilemma. But what really happens in Lojing is really destructive to the environment and a much larger scale than what has been done at Cameron. 

This happens 1,000 m above sea level, where the clearance is supposed to be illegal in the first place.

The death of Sungai Betatop and Sungai Legid

Sungai Betatop
(see The Star)

Orang Asli Seng Sang village is the nearest to Lojing Highlands. The river, the Sungai Belatop, flowing from the mountain is the main source of water for residents here.

The villagers in Seng Sang village lived peacefully while using the resources provided by nature that surrounds them.

Figure 2 : Sungai Belatop next to the orang asli Seng Sang village

The river suddenly took a muddy color while the jungle, where they used to hunt and collect forest products, had become barren. All the valuable timber in the area was logged. The developers were going to set up a vegetable farm that would not even belong to them.

Villagers said the state government did not appear to be concerned about their welfare and did not look into their problems. 

Making matters worse, they faced a new dilemma when it refused to grant them their land titles. 

The state government, sometime ago, had promised to bestow to the villagers  the grants to their land and houses, but reneged on this without any apparent reason.

Without the grants, it means that houses built in this village can be seized by the state government at anytime.

Sungai Legid

(see “Rubber Forests”)

Sungai Legid died during the Christmas of 2011, the villagers have had to make daily treks further into the Perias Forest Reserve to collect clean water for drinking. 

Bathing and washing has had to be done in the Sungai Betis, a river originating from Lojing highlands. The water in Sungai Betis is looking like teh tarik, due to the vast, uncontrolled land clearing that is ongoing in the mountains. 

But (see Figure 3) have you ever seen a stream so completely damaged that it holds nothing other than logs and debris; that its once picturesque waterfalls, pools and eddies now resemble a quarry site; that its water sees no option other than to hide underground, only to be tainted blood red by iron oxides in the soil when it reappears to meet the sky again?

Figure 3:  This place in Sungai Legid used to be a water fall (see "Rubber Forest")

Anyway, after laying low for a few months, the logging contractors are back at it again.

Even though the village headman had told them on no uncertain terms that he would not allow them to resume clear-felling the hill (which, by the way contains the only patch of rainforest left in the area), the chainsaws, logging trucks and bulldozers have returned to Bukit Sanyer in full force.


Make no mistake: there is nothing “illegal” about this logging. It’s actually “clear-felling” – every single tree is to be taken out and replaced with oil palm.

This is a state-sanctioned activity by government-appointed contractors facilitated by the Kelantan Forestry Department.

Rampant agribusiness malpractices- Part 4-1: Rape of Lojing Highlands

Figure 1 : Vegetable farms at Lojing Highlands (see The Star)

Where is Lojing?

In the Southeastern part of Kelantan, at the foot of the Central Titiwangsa Range, Lojing Highllands are the continuation of Cameron Highlands laying 12km up north.  Located over 1,000 m above sea level, Lojing’s climate is very similar to Cameron’s one.

Lojing  is more than twice bigger than Cameron with an area of 1,817 km2 and a very scarce population: 5,613 in 2010 on which mostly 4,113 Orang Asli .  So the Lojing’s human density is around 3/Km2, much smaller than Cameron Highlands’ density 52/km2.

While Pahang is purely a BN/UMNO stronghold, Kelantan has been PKR/PAS ruled during two long periods: 1959-1977 (18 years) and more recently 1990-2013 (23 years) until the coming up to the 13^th General Election, with a gap period 1978-1990 (12 years) of BN/UMNO’s ruling.

Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat PAS President won a seat in the Kelantan State Assembly in the 1986 general elections. In 1990, PAS managed to wrest control of Kelantan back from BN/UMNO, Nik Aziz became Menteri Besar (MB) of Kelantan. After 23 years in the office, Nik Aziz, 82 years old, is certainly one of the longest serving MB in the country.

Lojing Highlands was opened up under the South Kelantan Development Authority (KESEDAR) in 1978. The area was first logged out with its usual amount of controversy involving the ruling BN/UMNO government (see "Syeds outside the box").

After 1990, big swathes of land were given away to PAS state government linked companies as well as friendly parties (see Figure 1 above).Vast tracts of pristine highlands forests at elevations ranging from 500m – 1500m were being cleared to make way for agriculture.

Forest & Land regulations: many loopholes to flout the rules and no enforcement

Financial provisions in Malaysia are heavily in favor of the Federal Government. State Governments are afforded a very limited revenue base, but Forestry under National Forest Policy Act is a state matter: State Governments have complete jurisdiction over their respective forest, land and water resources.

As a result revenue from land and forests is the main solutions at hand for State Government badly needing money such as Kelantan, and there will be a significant potential loss of revenue for the State when any area of the Permanent Forest Estate (PRE) is gazetted as Protective Forest as explained hereafter.

The PFE following the National Forestry Act should be demarcated and managed under four major functions: (a) Permanent Reserved Forest (PRF) for climatic or water resources  ; (b) State land forest for production of timber; (c) National Parks  and (d) Wildlife and bird sanctuary.

But forests in the Highlands are almost invariably not demarcated on the ground, not afforded legal protection through gazettement other than Permanent Reserve Forest (PRF).

Permanent Forest Reserves might be classified as Rank 2 Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) where only sustainable logging (no conversion to agriculture or plantations) is allowed, but this could be easily flouted by the state.

Kelantan has untill now failed to gazette as “Protection Forest” (and continues to cut down) many areas within its PRF that have conservation importance such as water catchments, as spelt out in the National Forest Policy.

National Forestry Council is issuing “key policies” that should be implemented nationally. As an example of such advices: no logging should be carried out in forests at an elevation of 1,000m above sea level and above. But will no obligation for the state to obey as we can see later.

Enforcement is difficult due to poor resources. In the Department of Wildlife and National Park (PERHILITAN), one officer only was assigned by 2002 to Cameron’s Montane areas on a permanent basis (see WWF report onPeninsular Malaysia Highlands 2002).

Furthermore Cameron- Lojing- Kinta Highlands Special Management Area (484 km2) had been proposed (see ibid.) encompassing most of the settlement within Cameron Highlands, Lojing in Kelantan, and Kinta Highlands in Perak.

Existing forest in the SMA in 2002 were constituting 40.3% of the area; steep lands with slope > 25° constitute 25.2% of the area. No land important either due to biodiversity or due to landslide or erosion hazard should be alienated for development purposes.

The Developer doing application for State land should be required to submit all the necessary Environment Impact Assessments (EIA) as deemed necessary before an approval is given.

But as explained in my post dated 5 April: EIAs approved in Lojing and Gua Musang over the years, being of dubious quality should not have been approved in the first place. Developers had carried out projects without submitting Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports while most are just failed to follow its mitigation plans.

Is PAS Kelantan alienating or granting lands rights in Lojing to gain political leverage?

Until today only Kelantan born people are allowed to own land in Kelantan. This difference from  all other states in Malaysia is certainely one of the reasons for Kelantan poor economic results.

Some party have asked Nik Aziz to disclose land deals that his PAS-led Kelantan government had done with a company that has been alleged to have shares owned by some PKR/DAP members in Perak  closely associated with PAS in PKR Coalition (see "Lim Kit Siang blog") . 

The land deals were alleged to involve around 4,000ha of a Malay reserved land located in the Lojing Highlands.

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) is investigating the Kelantan government's joint-venture rubber and oil palm estate project with the company in which these PKR/DAP members in Perak  - including the DAP Chairman-  were accused to have stakes.

A source said investigations are looking into ascertaining on whether there were elements of irregularities or inducement in the deal.

Perak DAP chairman had insisted that his stake in a massive Kelantan land project was not a “reward” for accepting to turn down the MB’s post after the 2008 general election for a PKR/PAS Muslim member.

Kelantan is trying to duplicate but unsuccessfully Cameron Highlands

As seen in our post dated 5^th of April, the vegetable farmers from nearby Cameron Highlands due to the end of new TOL allowances and farmed area restrained to 3,300 ha might have helped trigger the quest for land in the Lojing Highlands and through ‘joint ventures’ (see SustainableAgriculture in the Cameron Highlands BARROW, C.J.1 and al. 2009).

Due to weaker enforcement of clearance restrictions in Lojing Highlands, over 25,000 ha have been cleared since 1990, much by those who hold land in the Cameron Highlands (see ibid.).

The Kelantan government thought that they could easily replicate Cameron Highlands’ agribusiness success.

Cameron had a total 3,300 ha in farming land and they believed that if the government could set in production 10 times more area, so there would be proportionally 10 times more economic benefits.

They forgot something very important. The farmers in Cameron Highlands – mostly Chinese and Indian families- have had 50 years of farming experience in the highlands. They are individual farmers practicing intensive farming and in small farm, averaging 1- 3 hectares. 

No sane person being compulsory Kelantan born citizen could open up thousands of hectares in the highlands to do intensive farming as the one practiced in Cameron (see "Planet of the Monyets").

Sadly in the Lojing Highlands, because there are clear uncontaminated land and clean water supplies, Organic produces could have proved to be a good business model with an expanding domestic and export market. Unfortunately, clearances in the Lojing Highlands and through Orang Asli ‘joint-ventures’ jeopardize such hopes.

The sheer scale of the forest destruction in Kelantan is awesome

There are many reasons why ecological activists are picking on Kelantan as a bad example (Rubber Forest). 

The sheer scale of the destruction is the first reason. No other state in Peninsular Malaysia can match Kelantan for scale of deforestation, especially in recent years.

The rate of deforestation in Kelantan is likely to be around 4% per year, four times higher than the average deforestation rate for Malaysia (around 1%per year for the period between 2000 and 2010). Here’s what we know for sure:

Based on the Kelantan Forestry Department’s (see Figure 2), as of 2011, 199,000ha of the total 623,000ha (32%) of Permanent Reserved Forests (PRF) in Kelantan were zoned for Latex Timber Clone (LTC) plantations. 

This is 1,990 km2 which almost three times the size of Singapore!

While already quite substantial, the 199,000ha doesn’t include forests that are being converted to oil palm plantations. Based on EIA reports, another 26,581ha of the state’s PRFs were approved for conversion to oil palm plantations by 2008-2010 .

And that still doesn’t include the enormous area that is being cleared for farms in the Lojing highlands, where 25,436ha (almost 80 percent of the Lojing highlands) has been earmarked for development.

Figure 2: Plantation zones in Kelantan (see Rubber Forest).