New Law Requires Public Consultation Before Forest Clearing, But Pahang and Three Other States Opt Out
Four Peninsular states have removed public accountability clauses from their forestry laws, giving them power to degazette permanent reserves without public hearings or land replacement requirements.
Source: The Rakyat Post · August 30, 2026 at 6:25 PM · AI-assisted report
Single-source
PAHANG, KELANTAN, NEGERI SEMBILAN, PERAK, PENINSULAR MALAYSIA, PUTRAJAYA, CAMERON HIGHLANDS, 31 AUGUST 2026 —
Four Peninsular states have removed public accountability clauses from their forestry laws, giving them power to degazette permanent reserves without public hearings or land replacement requirements.
Market Impact
Pahang, Kelantan, Negeri Sembilan and Perak have excluded Section 11, which mandates a public inquiry before excising land from a Permanent Forest Reserve, and Section 12, which requires replacement land of equal or greater size when forest reserve land is removed. Together, the four states control nearly 70% of Peninsular Malaysia’s 4.8 million hectares of gazetted Permanent Forest Reserves.
In practical terms, the majority of the peninsula’s remaining forest reserves can now be degazetted without a public hearing and without any obligation to replace the land removed.
Pahang’s Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail defended the decision during the state assembly’s second reading speech. He argued that states with strong forest cover should not face rigid federal restrictions.
“Pahang holds over 44% of its land mass as permanent forest reserves, so federal guidelines sometimes feel like an attempt to grip states that have already proven their conservation record,” he said.
Award-winning environmental journalist Law Yao Hua criticised the systemic lack of transparency. He noted that two-thirds of all permanent forest reserves in Peninsular Malaysia are now legally shielded from public scrutiny and expressed disappointment over mainstream media’s failure to report on these amendments.
Regional Environmental Awareness Cameron Highlands (REACH) called the exclusion a missed opportunity and urged the state government to reconsider. Public participation should not be viewed as an obstacle to development, the group said in a statement.
“It provides an opportunity for the state government, agencies, local communities and environmental groups to understand potential environmental and social impacts before decisions on forest reserves are made,” REACH said.
The requirement for replacement land would ensure any reduction in Pahang’s forest reserve area is properly compensated and maintain the overall integrity of the state’s forest estate, the group added. Cameron Highlands, where REACH is based, lies within that estate and has faced decades of pressure from agricultural encroachment and development activity.
REACH argued that incorporating the two provisions would not undermine state authority but would strengthen public confidence in Pahang’s forest management and position the state as a leader in sustainable governance.
Strong forest management is not only about protecting forests, the group said, but ensuring transparency, accountability and public confidence in every decision affecting them.
REACH is not the only group to raise the alarm. The Association for the Protection of the Natural Heritage of Malaysia (Peka) previously condemned the broader pattern as an “outrageous step backwards” that prioritises secrecy over transparent governance.
Across Peninsular Malaysia, the approach is uneven. Perlis, Melaka and the Federal Territories have fully adopted both provisions, while Selangor requires public inquiries before excision but does not mandate replacement land. Johor, Kedah and Terengganu have introduced higher criminal penalties for illegal logging under the 2022 Act but have not finalised their position on public inquiries or replacement land clauses.
Forestry falls under state jurisdiction, meaning each legislature must pass its own enactment for federal provisions to apply. The result is a patchwork of protections where the strength of a forest’s legal safeguards depends on location.
Pahang protects 1.589 million hectares — 44.13% of its landmass — with over half classified as water catchments or wildlife sanctuaries where logging is strictly prohibited.
Wan Rosdy cited this record in defence of the exclusions and noted that the state enforces an internal policy requiring replacement land be secured before any degazettement is approved. He has separately requested that federal Ecological Fiscal Transfer allocations be disbursed as direct cash rather than project grants to better compensate Pahang for maintaining its forests.
Environmental groups argue the issue is not whether these states conserve, but whether decisions affecting the majority of Peninsular Malaysia’s forest reserves should rest on internal state policy alone or carry the legal weight of public accountability.
For Malaysian business readers, the patchwork approach risks inconsistent environmental standards that could affect long-term investment in land-dependent sectors such as palm oil and eco-tourism.
Related: Putrajaya · Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail