1The conclusions and recommendations derived from fieldwork research are subject to a number of constraints due to limits related to resources, time, language, and even the scope of interview questions. While they do not invalidate results, it is crucial to acknowledge them. The first set of restrictions relates to the selection of participants. Only nine of the 31 localities included within the boundaries of the projected UBFA were represented among respondents. Kenyah and Penan residents were the only ones to be interviewed out of the four ethnic groups that reside in that region: despite having one and three villages respectively, no data was collected among Saban and Kelabit communities. While they are a numeric minority relative to the 18 Penan villages and six Kenyah villages, these communities ought to be accounted for when crafting the UBFA project.

2Furthermore, within the Penan and Kenyah communities, the selection of villages and participants coincided with the affiliations and acquaintances of the NGOs and may not necessarily represent the views of every settlement that was not visited. This reasoning also holds true within villages, for while most of our hosts and respondents supported NGO interaction with communities, other government-supportive residents of the same villages we visited may have had radically different views. Villagers who were not connected whatsoever to the NGOs frequently skipped interviews and, in some cases, intentionally declined to take part. Last but not least, the presence or absence of certain people during interviews, such as certain headmen, inevitably affected answers, as did the presence of respondents to interviews preceding their own.

3The difficulty of adequately translating questions and responses, not only linguistically, where different meanings may already get lost in translation, but also culturally; is another setback that is typical of intercultural ethnographic work. In terms of the language, it is important to note that a number of the participants in the research, including myself, used languages different from their mother tongues to communicate. Notably, both of the guides displayed a fluent degree of English competence, albeit occasionally they might have missed some of the subtleties and specifics that an experienced English speaker could have recognised and articulated. Also, Kenyah respondents were conversing in Bahasa Malaysia, which, despite being spoken effectively by the majority of Kenyah people, is not their mother tongue. Despite the fact that Penan respondents were providing their responses in their mother tongue, questions occasionally seemed to cause confusion and call for clarifications which had previously been accepted without issue by respondents speaking Bahasa Malaysia.

4Some of the ideas examined, such as governance or FPIC, were expectedly not translatable within either community and had to be simplified with the aid of examples. Sometimes, large chunks of conversations were omitted by guide-translators, who summarised the response instead. Inevitably, and despite this technique being the most efficient, a lot of our understanding and experience of these situations and conversations got lost in translation. The inevitable bias that NGO representatives inject into their discussions with participants was felt at times, as though we were rather advertising the UBFA project than objectively assessing people’s opinions about it.1 Both of our guides are deeply involved in political activism, and their discourse and introductory pitches to the interviews inevitably reflected their own positions in support of UBFA. Although we were not able to assess the level of bias which was being voiced out, it remains clear from our mere association with the NGOs that our presence could not possibly be decoupled from theirs and their interests. Ultimately, the ‘myth of the impartial interpreter’ is an inevitable part of intercultural ethnographic work (Delgado Luchner & Droz, 2021).

5Finally, it is important to highlight that from an anthropological point of view, pitfalls can easily be identified from one angle or the other, and that the critical insights formulated in this paper do not invite the dismissal of such projects altogether. Assessing and condemning a project is fairly easy from an exterior, foreign and distant perspective, particularly with regards to issues tied to historical domination and dispossession, as is the case with most topics linked to indigenous peoples. It should not be understated that a lot of effort has been undertaken by various actors, and that albeit diluted and not retributive of these historical and current trends of colonialism and extractivism, this project does indeed denote growing acknowledgement of indigenous rights and the need to preserve biodiversity. Regardless of its authenticity, it has to be recognised that the UBFA symbolises a step towards these aims. Whether it will be a big step forward or yet another disdainful stomp, remains to be seen.