CMCC mobilized Tigabu and his supporters to try to intimidate lawyer

The Chinese state owned Chinese Metallurgical Construction Company (CMCC) the developer of the Ramu Nickel and Cobalt mining project in the Madang Province of PNG, mobilized David Tigabu (the KBK Landowner Association Chairman) and his supporters to try to intimidate the Lawyer representing the landowners of Raicoast who took the injunction against the Deep Sea Tailings Placement (DSTP) for another hearing yesterday (7th of May 2010).

The mob that gathered outside the Madang court house were drunken males who look more like people who live in settlements in the Bundi settlement in Madang. They had their fleshy looking banner up (obviously sponsored by CMCC) and were rowdy and abusive.

The funny thing was there was no landowner from Raicoast present in that gathering.   The DSTP is a Raicoast thing, because it has the high potential to affect the marine ecosystem that support the livelihoods of the coastal communities. The point is DSTP will not affect Krumbukari.It seems that CMCC has also missed the point here by mobilizing a wrong group of people and even worse getting them drunk because they don't have the guts to confront in soberness.

Nevertheless, George Ireng and his Raicoast leaders have made new grounds in their campaign against DSTP because, the governor of Madang, the deputy prime minister, the minister for environment and conservation and the managing director of MRA and MRDC will go to Bongu village to receive the petition from the Raicoast people on the 10th of May 2010. Its the people's power in action!

PACER-Plus to remove food Sovereignty of the Pacific

Food for Thought and Action: PANG

By Online Editor
5:08 pm GMT+12, 28/04/2010, Fiji

The Pacific Food Summit, 21-23 April, Port Vila, Vanuatu, has brought together leaders from across the Pacific: from governments, industry, NGOs, development agencies, the media and community groups, in recognition that a radical rethink is necessary in order to improve food security for the Pacific.  In this article Maureen Penjueli argues that part of the radical rethink requires the region to critically look at the likely implications of a free trade agreement dubbed Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus (PACER-Plus) between the island countries and Australia and New Zealand on food sovereignty. 
 

The assault on traditional farming

For many Pacific Islanders, local food production is not simply essential to good nutrition and health but is essential to our way of life.  With Australia and New Zealand pushing for a Pacific trade agreement (PACER-Plus) that will lock in for future generations a system of import reliant food (in)security, to radically rethink food you have to address the issue of PACER-Plus.

The pursuit of trade and investment liberalisation under PACER-Plus will most likely increase the social and economic problems for traditional farmers engaged in agriculture activities across the Pacific and has the potential to exacerbate food-security issues in the Pacific Island Countries.  Many Pacific countries have a large and ongoing trade deficit (Vanuatu’s trade deficit for example has consistently stood at around 25% of GDP).  Countries that cannot earn the foreign currency they need to pay for imports are especially vulnerable to food security issues in a globalised food marketplace.

Proponents of free trade agreements argue that it is a better use of the world’s resources for Pacific countries to import foods that are produced more efficiently and cheaper than farmers in the Pacific can produce themselves.  However, this argument ignores the fact that most Pacific Islanders rely on local food systems and sell local produce as their main source of income.  If PACER-Plus is designed as a reciprocal free trade deal, it is likely to promote a greater reliance on food imports and increased competition for local producers from foods produced in Australia and New Zealand.  Both bigger neighbours are major agricultural producers and would most likely out-compete Islander producers forcing many to lose their vital income from local markets. This could lead to a situation of the abandonment of lands, acceleration of migration from rural to urban areas, with subsequent pressures on local governments to provide basic services and, in most Least Developed Countries, without real employment opportunities that could provide them with a life with dignity. 

Importing greater amounts of food also has implications for the environment, by promoting carbon-intensive, industrial agriculture (including the use of international shipping and air-freight) over localised food production and harvesting systems (which provide sustainable livelihoods and promote local communities).

According to the proponents of free trade, consumers will benefit from lower prices once tariffs (import taxes) are removed. Experience suggests that in many cases exporters and distributors (‘middle men’) tend to increase their prices almost back to the same level after tariffs are removed, and fail to pass on the benefits to consumers .  Increases in consumption taxes (to replace lost government revenue) also undermine any benefits since consumers are left to pay the additional tax whilst still paying similar prices for their food.

However, even if the promises of lower prices through free trade did occur, cheaper imports also pose threats.  An increase in imports of cheaper foods could undermine local agricultural systems and have negative health outcomes when poor quality foods, like mutton flaps and turkey tails. become cheaper than local foods such as fish.  

Pacific countries have among the highest rates of non-communicable diseases (like type 2 diabetes) found anywhere on earth.  There is a clear link between the increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in the Pacific and the radical change in diet that has occurred, with fatty waste meat products becoming readily available at prices that make them cheaper than traditional foods such as fish – and are especially attractive to the urban poor.   Fiji, a member of the WTO, has imposed a ban on the import of mutton flaps, claiming there are proven links to obesity.  New Zealand threatened retaliation at the WTO, but has backed off doing so - perhaps fearing exposure to accusations that it knowingly dumps unhealthy waste products on the Pacific Islands. 

Following Fiji’s example, and in an attempt to improve public health outcomes, Samoa imposed a ban on imports of turkey tail meat (a fatty off-cut imported from the US) in 2007.  Samoa had already tried raising tariffs on the import, but this was not seen as enough of a deterrent .  Both the raising of import tariffs, and the outright ban on imports, are policy options that are already constrained by WTO rules, but there constraints may apply to all Pacific countries if PACER-Plus is designed as a reciprocal FTA that meets the requirements of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture.

Radical rethink:  Food Sovereignty

“Food Sovereignty” is the new progressive version of “food security.” Food sovereignty rejects the proposition that food is just another commodity for international agribusiness. Instead, it puts providers and consumers at the centre of decision-making.  This people-centred approach is deeply rooted in local production, based on the principal rights of farmers to produce the quantity and quality of food that they need to secure their livelihoods and those of future generations.  Here in the Pacific the notion of food sovereignty is tied to our traditional economy.  

There is an emerging school of thought in the Pacific that argues that the traditional economy is the source of resilience for countries such as Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands to the multiple crises that the region is faced with (food, energy and financial crises).  Ralph Regenvanu a member of Vanuatu Parliament and Director of the Vanuatu National Cultural Council argues that there are many important benefits that Vanuatu gains from the strength of its traditional economy.  A key factor is that everyone has access to land on which to make gardens for food, as well as to meet other basic needs such as shelter and medicine.  Mr Rengenvanu argues  that the traditional right to use land to make food gardens and access resources means that individuals or families who do not have access to their own customary land (or enough of it) to meet their needs can be given the right to use other families’ land, with “rent” or “use rights” being paid for using the products of the land.  

The key point is that policy makers at all levels including those attending the Pacific Food Summit must begin to do more to recognise the reality and the promise of the traditional economy as part of the solution to ensuring food sovereignty for our own people.  This would be a radical rethink to the issue and departure from the ongoing unquestioned pursuit of liberalisation under free trade agreements such as PACER-Plus as a solution to addressing this issue. 

Maureen Penjueli is the Coordinator for the Pacific Network on Globalisation

SOURCE: PANG/PACNEWS http://www.pina.com.fj/?p=pacnews&m=read&o=9704506114bd7c2b5b8c4d5ec88ba3

Raicoast communities signed petition against Deep Sea Tailings Disposal

 The Raicoast communities (both inland and coastal) met on the 14th of April 2010 and signed a petition to the Governor of the Madang province of Papua New Guinea opposing the governments approval of the deep sea tailings disposal (placement) by the Chinese Ramu Nickel and Cobalt  mine. The community forum which was held at the Bongu village convened on same golden day  when their lawyer Tiffany Nonggorr was in court receiving the judgment for the injunction that was ruled in the landowners favour.  Here is the link to a video posted on youtube.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq8-apBMy28

The deep sea tailings disposal plan if allowed to go ahead will have both the Chinese Ramu Nickel and Cobalt mine and the Marengo's Yandra mine disposing massive amounts of mine waste into the sea of the coast of Raicoast. There is a high probability of negative impacts these waste will have on the marine ecosystem and the livelihoods of the coastal communities.

To support the Raicoast communities, you can also sign a petition online:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/basamukbay/

Seabed Mining Opposed

Bismarck seabed mining to meet fierce opposition

Source: 

By YEHIURA HRIEHWAZI

PROPOSED seabed mining at PNG’s Solwara 1 project and elsewhere in the Pacific is headed on a collision course with some leading scientists and oceanographers studying the ocean floor.
Nautilus Minerals is pioneering the technology to extract precious minerals from ocean floors in what has been described as the “world’s first” approach and the PNG Government gave the green-light to its environmental impact study (EIS) last September.

“The recent approval of the Solwara 1 project environmental permit is an exciting and significant milestone for the company and represents the culmination of over three years of effort on the part of our Environmental team,” the company announced on its website. The environmental team is led by the environment manager for Nautilus, Dr Samantha Smith.

However, a conservation biologist Prof Rick Steiner, formerly of the University of Alaska, who was called in to examine the company’s original environmental impact assessment study has expressed concern about the impact of the project.

Interviewed by BBC news yesterday, Prof Steiner is concerned about the dumping of thousands of tonnes of rock on the seabed and the danger of spillages of toxic residue and destruction to vent chimneys and unknown species of marine life.

Volcanic vents spew out hot water and precious metals like copper, gold, silver and zinc.
“(At) The site that they mine, they’re going to destroy all these vent chimneys where the sulphide fluids come out.”

He added that it could cause the extinction of species that were not even known to science yet.
“I think that, from an ethical stand point, is unacceptable,” he said.
Nautilus CEO Steven Rogers said he accepted that the mined area would be damaged, but said he was convinced it could recover.

He believes deep-sea mining will be less damaging to the environment than mining on land.
He said: “I think there’s a much greater moral question…. here we have an opportunity to provide those metals with a much, much lower impact on the environment.”
 = = = = = = = = = = =

Landowners win case against the Chinese Mine in Madang

The landowners’ case against the Chinese State owners Mining Company (CMCC) plans for deep sea tailings placements (disposal) was ruled in their favour at the Madnag National Court on Wednesday (15.04.2010).

CMCC got the approval from the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) to discharge 100million tons of tailings annually into the Basamuk Bay, despite the fact that they had a weak scientific backing.

The landowners from Basamuk and neighboring villages challenged the tailings disposal plan in the court of law through their lawyer, Tiffany Nonggorr. The victory on Wednesday means the injunction on the CMCC to pursue that disposal stands, till sometimes in May where it gets to the courts again if the defendants want another go at the courts.

This is a significant win for the landowners because it’s not easy to challenge the foreign state owned company, and the government. It has been said that PNG is the land of the unexpected, however, we do expect two possible turn out in the whole case. The Chinese mining company and the PNG government may push for a change of judge if they decide to get back to court or short cut the process by getting the parliament to change the law to make it legal for them to dump into the sea. Both options are corrupt and will tamper with the spirit of true justice.

Meanwhile, Greg Anderson, Executive Director of the PNG Chamber of Mines and Petroleum (PNGCMP) expressed concern over the Ramu project legal battle (The National, Monday April 12 2010). Mr. Anderson said that, “the whole mining and petroleum industry is monitoring this case closely and the outcome of the hearing is critical to the future investment environment of the country”. This is a very cheap shot at the country. The simple fact is CMCC and the government of PNG have to prove to the satisfaction of the court of justice that the disposal will not have a significant impact on the Basamuk marine eco-system.

How much money was spent by CMCC is not the issue here, because the Basamuk and Raicoast, coastal areas communities depend on the sea for their livelihoods. And if Mr. Anderson claims that Ramu nickel mining company is to be a world class mine, than it has to be proven by its high degree of compliance, and that means, no political satisfaction, but the hard scientific evidence. In fact the landowners are challenging the CMCC and the government with hard scientific evidence.

Deep Seabed Mining is Madness

Nautilus Minerals was granted the approval for its environmental plan to mine the ocean floor in the New Guinea Islands of Papua New Guinea. Even though, all the stakeholder consultations by Nautilus and Mineral Resources Authority of PNG was severely opposed by the people of Madang, East New Britain, New Ireland and Manus, the government went on to grant the approval.

The people from Madang, East New Britain, New Ireland and Manus objected deep seabed mining because of the following reasons;

• The potentials for undersea mining was realized around mid 1960. Countries like Franch, Germany and the United States sent out research vessels in search of nodule deposits. Initial estimates of deep sea mining viability turned out to be much exaggerated. This overestimate, coupled with depressed metal prices, led to the near abandonment of nodule mining by 1982. From the 1960s to the 1984 an estimated US $650 million had been spent on the venture, with little to no return, however, it was not pursued. Nautilus is now prospecting in the Pacific and especially in PNG to develop the first deep seabed mining in the world. No doubt, this is will be a large-scale industrial experiment. In an experiment, anything can go wrong. Who is going to be responsible for unlikely consequences of this industrial experiment? How do the department of environment and conservation and the government of PNG know that nothing will go wrong and thus approved the Nautilus’ environmental plan? Did they bother to find out, why France, Germany and the US decided not to pursue deep seabed mining ?

• The area Nautilus is prospecting is a geological hotspot, including the Pacific Ring of fire with active volcanic vents. Is this not a concern for the country for mining activities happening in this sensitive geological zone?

• The government and Nautilus claim, that, coastal communities in PNG do not own the sea as it is with the land and therefore have no right to oppose the deep seabed mining project. However, how about the right coastal communities have over the marine territorial boundaries, for fishing and customary practices (e.g. the shark callers of New Ireland)? We also know that the sea is unstable and is in continuous motion due to oceanic currents and tides, thus, how does it justifies to say that communities have no right to object the project if they are potentially going to be affected by the deep seabed mining activities, such as pollution and geological activities due to the mining activities tampering with the active geological areas on the ocean floor?

• PNG already has the highest number of inland mines in the region and the government continues to issue more exploration licenses, so why do we need to reap the ocean floor? Now with the LNG project and the country is set to experience an economic boom, why allowing deep seabed mining? The way the PNG government is handling mineral resource development is total madness with no concerns whatsoever for the people, the ecosystem and the future generation. Is this a wise trend?

• The government does not the capacity to carryout surveillance and monitoring so what is the guarantee that it will monitor Nautilus’ activities? How will Nautilus account honestly for the amount of mineral it mines? How will environmental and geological monitoring be undertaken when Nautilus will basically operate a mobile mining on a floating infrastructure and can relocate if things go wrong in a certain location of the ocean?

The government of PNG is out there to make money, whether scientific data permits or not, or whether the people concerns are valid of not.

Read the story below:

The National, 15 April 2010

Check this website for additional information:
http://www.news.pushpi.com/tag/professor-rick-steiner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_mining

World Bank Intruding Households in Usino Bundi District in Madang-PNG

The World Bank is conducting a survey for the Usino Bundi area in Madang Province. Usino Bundi is one of the districts in PNG chosen for this household survey. 160 households will be sampled in this survey. The details of the purpose of the survey is not known, however based on the feedback from someone who was interviewed said they asked him questions like; Do you have mattresses for sleeping, do you have a Coleman Lamp (not small hurricane lamps), do you have a gun etc. That sounds like a socio-economic survey for some poverty eradication programs.

What is the point by intruding people’s privacy about the sleeping gears and household utensils?

First of all it is culturally unacceptable in a Melanesian setting to discuss the details of one’s household features to others and strangers.
Secondly, World Bank did not include in their questionnaires questions like, do you have a cocoa fementary, or how many standing cocoa tree do you have, or do you raise pigs and fouls etc. The point is that, people many not have mattress or Coleman lamps, but have cocoa fementaries, have cocoa trees, and raise pigs and fouls. These are important economic features that cannot be overlooked or left out in any surveys by any institutions doing such surveys.

The World Bank is again not sensitive in dealing with questions that maybe offending to a Melanesian (even if it straight forward to a westerner). And the fact the survey does not reflect some of the key economic features highlighted above would again provide a false data which will result in a faulty analysis and misleading recommendation and therefore whatever programs they dispatched will be misleading.

Lest we forget, what does World Bank got to show in its interactions in countries in Africa and other parts of the world? Its seems some of these places were better of before the interventions of the World Bank. In fact, World Bank is owned and controlled by the Worlds Leading Capitalists, where social services is not found in their equation, however, they have an "Unquenchable lust" for Profits.