The Prime Minister is Lying

The Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare expressed disappointment that the amendment to the Environment Act has been confused and misinterpreted.

Sir Michael said, “No landowner rights have been curtailed by the introduction of this recent amendment to the Environment Act of 2000.

“Project developers must still comply with PNG’s strict environment regulations before permits can be issued by the Department of Environment.

“This rigorous process of compliance safeguards in the first instance the interest of landowners, their land and the environment.

“Having said this, it would be irresponsible of government not to also protect the interest of project developers that have complied with our environment regulations and therefore been issued permits.

“There is a section in the Environment Act of 2000 that allows companies that have already been issued permits to proceed with their developments even though some Acts were repealed as a result of the amendment of 2000.

“The Bill recently introduced by Parliament merely gives clarity and erases doubts on the application and the saving and transition provisions in the Environment Act of 2000.

“The amendment does not mean we have lowered our standards of environmental protection.

“I urge the media and the public to find out the facts and importantly to read and understand legislation in general before issuing misleading statements that cause unnecessary anxiety,” said Sir Michael.

The Prime Minister is NOT telling the Truth!

1 The Prime Minister is LYING when he says that no landowner rights have been removed.

2 The permitting process is still there BUT the changes have been put in there to protect the companies and the government if they make mistakes - either if the government is negligent in permitting something that causes great harm, they can escape liability - and also the companies - if they initially said they wouldn"t cause harm and then do cause harm - they can get out of liability to the landowners.

3 The Act gives sole and absolute power to the Director of the Environment to approve past, present or future environmental harm - no matter how great or small - and get the developers out of liability.

4 That power and his decision is NOT reviewable or challengeable in a Court of Law and the landowners cannot sue for compensation for the past harm or to to prevent any future harm.

5 The landowners have been stripped of their common law and customary rights to go to Court to seek protection from or compensation from such harm AND THAT IS THE PLAIN FACT.

6 A constitutional reference has been filed by the Rai Coast landowners to challenge the new Act for breaches of human rights and for breaching the national goals and directive principles.

7 It is clear either the Prime Minister has received bad advice and should sack whoever is advising him or is deliberately lying to the people on this issue and we suggest he reads the Act for himself.

Removing the buffer on the eve of the World Environment Day

 The core strength to environmental protection in PNG is the customary land tenure system and the fact that the environmental act before the amendments considered landowners traditional rights and protected it under the law. That has been my view every since I watched a film (forgot the title) in my environmental science class at the university of PNG as a final year student.

That video was about a medical scientist doing research on traditional medicine somewhere in the Amazon forest. The medical scientist spent 10 years of research with an indigenous tribe that lives in that forest area. The research involved traditional and indigenous knowledge of various plants, barks, roots and leaves.

One day the government decided to sell the land to a company who decide to clear fell the forest and build a cattle ranch. Without warning or negotiation with the indigenous tribe who lives in that forest area, the company dispatched heavy machinery clear fell the forest and burn it at the same time. It was the fire that destroyed the indigenous village and the research centre. The forest people lost their homes and everything while the medical research work for 10 years was completely destroyed.

Two things came to my mind as I was watching the film in my class.

1.       Firstly, that indigenous forest community did not have their traditional rights protected under the law of their country and therefore their government did whatever it pleased and it was non-negotiable. There was no consultation and there was no free prior informed consent. Therefore, that forest community was forced to evacuate their traditional village without any form of compensation or relocation plans from their government.

2.       Secondly, the 10 years of medical research based on traditional and indigenous knowledge of forest people which would have resulted in the cure for various diseases we have today was destroyed in the furnace.

That film inspired me to be a strong advocate of customary land protection in PNG and I have always referred to many times especially in discussions on environmental protection and customary lands.

The fact that the government and the companies in PNG had to go through a lot of hassles to deliberate on landowners’ issues which is in fact an impediment to their progress, but from the landowners’ perspective, it is a ‘buffer’. That buffer provides for the avenue for all negotiations with consent landowners with regard to any project development and that includes issues relating to environment. By removing the traditional land rights of landowners from taking legal action on environmental damage will escalate environmental impacts by project developers.  

I feel it is not wise to remove this important buffer by changing the Environmental Act. The government should be representing the interest of its people and not foreign investors. Given the fact that the number one crisis affecting and threatening both the rich and poor nation in the world is directly related to environmental issues now resulting in global warming and climate change. Therefore it is the last thing; we want to see our government going down the track of environmental irresponsibility especially on the eve of June 5 –the World Environment Day.  

Land is Precious

Land is the most important asset today. Land is worth more than any other mineral resources in the world, because, everything is centered on it. Melanesians got it right from the beginning! Papua New Guineans from the highlands to the coasts understood the value of Land long before western civilization, they fought battles to protect and gain control of land for hunting, making gardens, and spiritual cultivation. They had low population compared to today, however, despite their smaller population; they managed to maintain control over vast landmasses and forests.

When the white-men set foot on the island of New Guinea, they initially thought, that the huge masses of land areas and forests belonged to no one. But that was not the case; they had to encounter fierce warriors apart from the rugged terrains and tropical diseases. The whites were able to succeed on 3 factors;

•   Skin Color and Race - When the natives saw the whites, they thought, they (White-men) were ghosts or spirits. Because of a culture deeply rooted in spiritual believes, the resistance subsided because of the white-men's color.
• Use of Christian Religion - Western civilization's success can never be possible without the use of Christianity. Missionaries were agents of colonization in PNG, as they influenced  and converted the natives.
• Use of modern weapons - Guns, bullets, swords, daggers etc put the white-men ahead of the natives' spears, bows and arrows.  

 The first traits of land grab in PNG were initiated by missionaries through the exchange of salt, tobacco and axes. That was how the Catholic and the Lutheran Churches took over native lands and started plantations. There were also signed agreements between the primitives and the whites for leases in the early colonial and missionary era that displaced the natives today. A Classic example is the lands belonging to the natives Kananam's taken over by the Catholic Church for the establishment of their Mission's headquarters (Alexishaffen) and plantations (Vidar). When the 99 year lease lapsed, the land went to the government and to the RD Tuna Ltd (a Filipino fishing company). Further transactions took place which  put  the land in  the hands of the project developers of the Pacific Marine Industrial Zone (PMIZ). The Kananams and Rempi's are displaced and thrown out of the best lands. There are many situations like this in the other parts of PNG.

The land grab is intensifying because of shortage arable land for food plantations and agric-industries thirsts for new lands for expansion.

In October 2008, GRAIN released a report on the new trend in landgrabbing spurred on by the food and financial crises. A large number of governments and corporations are out scouring the globe right now in search of productive farmland to buy or to lease for offshore food production. For governments, like those of the Gulf States or China, such "farming abroad" schemes are meant to provide for their own country's food security, over a longterm period. Corporations, on the other hand, are looking for shorter term payoffs after the recent meltdown of financial markets. In all cases, control over land is being handed over to foreign investors who will produce food for export. Most of this new landgrabbing is taking place in Africa and Asia, but also in fertile regions of Eastern Europe and Latin America. (http://www.grain.org/landgrab/)

This is a dangerous trend – the ruthless capitalists are ruling the world in the name of economic development and profits. Capitalists see measure everything against the dollar, to them, money is their primary focus. The Melanesians view land as the centre of life – like a mother to her baby.

Melanesian saw the value of land even before formal land valuation was introduced in Papua New Guinea. In fact, the valuation of land in the Melanesian perspective is holistic – it touches into the essence of one’s life and existence, believes, traditions, wealth, security, identity and spiritual.  

It would have been a biggest liability for PNG, if the control and ownership of all the land in PNG was in the hands of the government because, we have almost 75% illiteracy and 85% survive on subsistence living. The Customary Land Tenure System in PNG is directly or indirectly minimizing problems such as starvation, food riots, coups, assassinations, terrorism, civil wars and extreme levels of poverty.  

VANUATU LANDOWNERS PROTEST DEVELOPMENT

Efate projects offer little benefit to residentsBy Royson Willie

PORT VILA, Vanuatu (Vanuatu Daily Post, Feb. 18, 2010) - The English saying "don’t judge a book by its cover" summarises the frustration of a man from Havannah Harbour in North Efate who told Daily Post yesterday that the colorful development in the area does not reflect the real living condition of the indigenous people there.
From Havannah Harbour in North Efate.
Timothy Kalangis who is one of the grandsons of Chief Tivate Kalangis of Utaune, or what is commonly known as Samoa Point, said news about more developments taking place in the area is of concern because currently, as custom owners they are not benefiting from the development in the area. He made this comment in the wake of reports that the government is planning on developing a mini-township in the area as well as a port-of-entry. Mr. Kalangis said his family, through chief Kalangis, was recently successful in its Land Tribunal Case that was declared about two years ago and is concerned about the rate of development taking place in the area. He said initially it was another family that allowed development to take place at Havannah mainland.

Kalangis said at first the people were included in the early stage of development but as time progressed, he said now it is only people who come in from Port Vila to work at North Efate while they have been left out. "One of the social problems that have arisen as a result of this is young women getting pregnant with the child of those who come in to work in the construction sector then leaving them behind. "Development is a good thing but it must not make us poor. "Currently it seems this is already the case for us in Havannah because there is too much development taking up more space on the land and coastal areas which restrict movements of the people, with the resources becoming scarce. "We depend on agriculture and marine resources to sustain our living but we do not benefit at all from the current leases in the area.

The English saying "don’t judge a book by its cover" summarizes the frustration of Kalangis. "If the government is making so much noise about these developments it must consult us because I believe what is currently happening at Havannah directly contradicts the Land Summit Resolutions of 2006. "Because there is a danger that we ni-Vanuatu may become strangers on our own land.
"The government and Shefa Province must play their part in safeguarding the interest of landowners and all ni-Vanuatu. "By this I mean there must be a win-win situation where the developer is happy and the landowners or people in the area are happy because if only one group is happy then it is a win-lose situation which is not healthy for development. "I am one of those who is very concerned about the future of our children and I don’t want to put the future of our children at risk. "This is my first time to come to the media to raise my concern because I could no longer bear the frustration about the development that are taking place at Havannah," Kalangis said. The man who is a former member of the Vanuatu police force said he had to raise his concern because he felt he has an obligation traditionally to safeguard the future of the Havannah ni-Vanuatu children.

"The development at Havannah does not reflect the living of the indigenous people there as the reality is we are poor with difficulties to pay for school fees and other necessities in life such as a proper water supply system." Meanwhile, Kalangis said he agrees with a recent writer in the Daily Post letters column, Mr. Trevor Hannam, that there is no space for any resort at the proposed site because currently it is a residential subdivision, not commercial. "I have seen the plans for the this proposed development and I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Hannam, which is why I said the 2006 National Land Summit resolutions must be revisited." The father of three departed yesterday for New Zealand under the RSE scheme to work for the school fees of his three children of which two are in secondary school and one in kindergarten.
Vanuatu Daily Post. http://www.dailypost.vu/ <http://www.dailypost.vu/>

Landowners closed down Jant logging operations in Transgogol

The famous Gogol Naru Logging project in the Madang province of Papua New Guinea has been closed down by landowners from Transgogol. Jant was formerly owned by a Japanese company and was later sold to a Vietnamese company.

The Jant operations was clouded with many issues relating to environmental and labor concerns.The landowners from Transgogol staged several protests, blockades and petitioned the company and the PNG Forest Authority to look into issues relating to agreements and labor over the years.

The labor issues raised by locals include, physical labor involved in loading and unloading timber and moving timber (logs) to pick-up spots. No machinery were used. There are reports of medical complications such as enlarged testicles, blood cloth, chronic back problems etc. Even the wage is very low and does not compensate for such brutal labor.

About week ago, the Transgogol landowners literally walked into the Jant camp and shut down the operations by forcing the loggers out. The many years of brutal forest raping has suddenly come to a standstill and the land is now in the hands of the landowners after being spectators for many decades.