The current resource exploitation
trend, coupled with changes in natural resources and environmental laws of Papua New Guinea
clearly undermines the true spirit of the Fourth Goal of the National Constitution.
In effect, it has compromised
this and PNG’s future generations by lawmakers.
Vision
2050 uses the analogy of a driver knowing where to go before getting into a
vehicle, assuming the road map PNG.
Theoretically,
this might be so, but practicality it may not be easy, if not impossible.
Normally,
before a driver gets into a car he/she knowing there is road connecting the
destiny.
PNG is
geographically a difficult country with rugged terrains, high mountains,
gullies, large rivers and wet conditions.
Therefore,
road to the destiny of this Vision can be described the same.
Given
the PNG road conditions, type of vehicle and the necessary accessories like
spare tyres, additional fuels, wheel-jack and other accessories are important.
Will
ever the driver of this vehicle reach its destiny is the question to be answered
in 2050.
Will
the PNG LNG Project build an all-weather type road with a vehicle fitted with
all the necessary accessories take this nation to its destiny in 2050?
The
generation of 2050 will reflect on the journey and provide the answer to this question.
The
Fourth Goal of PNG’s Constitution declares
that “Our natural resources and environment to be conserved and used for the
collective benefit of us all and are replenished for the benefit of future
generations”.
PNG’s
social-economic development strength is at present based on natural resources.
How
these resources are managed jointly with their surrounding environments on
sustainable basis is the key to meeting future generations’ inspirations and
needs.
It also
requires fair and equitable distribution of wealth derived from these resources
and reinvesting the returns into management these resources and environments.
In
early 2004, PM Sir Michael Somare challenged the Australian Government and the
World Bank by announcing that he had 10 impacts forestry projects, which if all
came into operation, would generate more than K300 million annually.
Sir
Michael said then that he would no longer need the Australian aid money.
Consequently,
the World Bank Forest Conservation Programme was kicked out of PNG.
Recently,
on Kundu 2 Talk-Back Show, Mr Kevin Condrad confirmed that he was behind that
advice which saw the withdrawal of the World Bank Forest Conservation
Programme, and the beginning of negotiation for forest carbon.
Main
reason behind this decision was the comparative monetary values.
The
forest carbon is now seen as a second major source of development fund to the PNG
LNG Project revenue generation for PNG.
Sir
Michael championed the formation of Coalition for Rainforest Nations (CfRN) and
has been heavily engaged in the international negotiations for the forest
carbon projects.
Quick
assessment on technical inputs by individual member countries of CfRN) showed
that PNG contributed very little in this regard, though PNG is boasting of the
Chairmanship of the group.
What
happened to the 10 impact forestry projects since then?
Are
these 10 impact forestry project areas still intact to fully realise the
forgone value of forest conservation with forest carbon projects?
The 2009
Copenhagen
meeting on Climate Change and reducing emissions from deforestation and
degradation (REDD) failed to come up with any agreed way forward.
It
was a total failure to PNG costing the nation’s taxpayers K8 million to send
the delegation across.
PNG’s
position paper for the Copenhagen
meeting was prepared by two sets of international consultant teams at very
extravagant fees.
The
first group involved individual consultants from Australia claiming to be the
experts on PNG, compiling different sector reports on the drivers of
deforestation.
Following
the compilation of these individual reports, another consultant firm put together
the reports for PNG’s positional paper for Copenhagen meeting.
This
consultant firm is also responsible for PNG’s Climate-Compatible Development
policy framework document and the ultimate changes to the Office of Climate
Change and the office name.
This
firm is now the main contender to undertake PNG REDD demonstration projects in PNG.
Concurrently,
the Office of Climate Change has turned into a battle ground for political
cronies to muscle their ways into office.
Initial
establishment cost of the office including fleet of vehicles was phenomenal and
controversial.
In 2009
there were four regional conferences conducted throughout PNG.
A
report is yet to be compiled together with the accounts of funds spent on the
conferences.
After
the conferences a major controversy surfaced involving the EO of OCCES of his
involvement in voluntary forest carbon markets deals which led to his
suspension and thereafter his fate was not known up to the abolition of the
office in June 2000.
In November
2009, another NEC Decision abolished OCCES and was replaced with Office of
Climate Change and Development (OCCD).
The
frequent NEC Decisions affecting Office of Climate Changes to facilitate
individual cronies’ interests and agendas are cause for concern.
The recent
changes in to the Forestry and Environment Acts raise more concern among
resource owners.
Why
is the Government manipulating tactics and intimidating its own citizens to
control their birthright and God-given resources?
Exploitation
of natural resources using such tactics sends wrong messages to the
international communities.
Over
97% of land in PNG is traditionally-owned.
The
effective participation of the resource owners in any meaningful dialogue and
decision is now in jeopardy and thus democratic principles adopted by PNG is
now being tested.
Collapse
of effective natural resource laws through such changes to give full government
control in PNG is a dangerous trend heading towards dictatorial rule.
The
changes in the Forestry Act diminished the forest resource owners’ freedom of
choice of developer for their forest resources.
The
changes gave ultimate power to the PNG Forestry Board to make final decision on
the developer.
Were
the changes made to merely to cover up for the Forestry Board’s blunders in
1999 for allocating the Kamula Doso Forest Management Area (FMA) in the Western
Province to Wawoi Guavi.
The
decision was against the Provincial Forest Management Committee (PFMC) choice
in which resource owners were party to the decision.
Also,
the Forestry Board allocated the Middle Ramu FMA to another company against the
Madang PFMC decision and recommendations.
In
both cases, Forestry Board was found to have violation of Section 69 of the
Act.
Changes
to the Act are simply to make the Board and ultimately the Minister have more
control over the forest resource allocation in PNG, thus going back to the dark
days of the Barnett Inquiry into the forestry sector in PNG in 1987.
Similarly,
the changes to the Environment Act 2000 were simply to cover up for the
incompetency of the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) in dealing
with such environmental issues and also to protect Government’s dealing with
Ramu Nickel.
Ramu
Nickel deal is similar to the Bougainville one
where the deal was signed overseas without much input from the relevant
stakeholders including the landowners.
Though
the proposed Deep Sea Tailing Placement (DSTP) may have met all the necessary
requirements, the system has been worldwide considered to be of high risk
because a small leakage in the ocean will cause more damage than if the same
leakage was occurred on land.
There
were already such instances with Misima Mine and Lihir Gold Mine.
Why
repeating the same mistake?
Is
it because DSTP is the cheapest means and that PNG is the cheapest place to
practice environmental protection and management?
Adding
new laws (Sub-sections 69, A & B) to outlaw any third party involvement in
land and resources issues in PNG is a crime of humanity.
About
97% of land and resources are owned by the people and 80% of these people live
on these land and resources in the most remote parts of PNG.
These
people are the most-vulnerable ones to the environmental risks, which also give
rise to poverty and deprivation of human rights to healthy living.
The
changes to the Environment Act 2000 ultimately will give more powers to the Secretary
of DEC both as the Director of Environment and the Chairman of Environment
Council (Sections 15-17).
The
Secretary has the ultimate power to make the final decision on the issue of
environmental harm and landowners will only dispute his decision through Court
without any third party involvement.
This
is an act of violation against human rights.
The
80% of the population do not have access to legal means and to subject them to
such requirements is a crime against humanity.
NGOs
are the organisations that can quickly come to landowners’ aid when it comes to
immediate services.
In
effect, the changes make it difficult for any NGO to assist the disadvantaged
landowners and communities PNG-wide to pursue their concerns with land and
environment.
Is
this fair and fits the principle of democracy?
And
in whose interest are these changes of the Act trying to protect?
Legislators
ought to know that they will be the most-frustrated ones when they find
themselves back home and want to seek re-election in 2012.
At
the dawn of this new Millennium the world leaders came to realisation that
human miseries were brought about as a result of the so-called social-economic
development.
The
world leaders then came up 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with set
targets, and recommended that MDG 7 which deals with ensuring environmental sustainability is the key to achieving the
other development goals.
Apparently,
PNG through the current Government had little regard on the environmental
issues in this country.
The
National Planning & Monitoring Department’s Performance Framework Report on
the MTDS in 2007 clearly showed that Environment Sector has the rating of zero
(0) out of 5 for its trend of development
and 1 out of 5 for its current
performance.
Generally,
the overall ratings of each sector on the MTDS were very poor and we now are
moving into the new MTDS under the new National Strategic Plan for PNG’s Vision
2050.
PNG
to date has failed miserably in meeting many important regional and
international Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), including the
Millennium Development Goals.
The
responsible sectors have lost touch of their mandates to ensure sustainable
development principles in the country.
DEC
is merely there to facilitate the process of environment permit issuance.
The
important sectors are no longer headed by technically qualified citizens, but
rather by political cronies to protect and pursue certain political interest.
The
power of money is more frightening than the barrel of gun - even the gun barrel
gun works through the power of money.
The
revelations in the video recording by prisoner William Kapris should not be
taken lightly and that the development of natural resources in PNG will is the
key factor to the downfall of this resource-rich nation.
This
calls for urgent action from lawmakers.
In
early 2008, Environment Minister Benny Allen during the swearing-in of the
Environment Council members challenged the member of the Council with an
allegation that a multi-million company tried to bribe him to approve their
Environment Permit Application.
Has
the Minister forgotten that challenge or can the Minister reveal the name of
the company?
Manipulation
of resource and environmental laws in the country to suit minority groups and foreign
multinational in PNG is a very bad and dangerous which can cause the collapse
of this nation.
Do
we have to wait until the whole system collapses on us?
No comments:
Post a Comment