Blog

PNG Commission Told of Land Thefts

by Jemima Garrett

Millions of hectares of customary land in Papua New Guinea has been stolen as a result of agricultural and business leases approved by the government, a report by Greenpeace has found.

The report, titled Up For Grabs, is a detailed analysis of evidence presented to the PNG government's commission of inquiry into how more than five million hectares of land was lost to Special Agricultural and Business Leases, often without the permission of landowners.

The commission has finished its report but it won't be made public until it is tabled in parliament by the newly-elected government.

Pomio, ENB

The report's author, Paul Winn, says the commission was told of a "litany" of problems.

"The land investigation process, which was supposed to be undertaken by the department of Lands and Physical Planning, was botched at every step of the way," he said.

"In some instances, the so-called developer company, who gained access to these sub-leases, actually paid the public servants to do their job and in some cases actually overtook the process altogether."

Australian interests

About 11 per cent of PNG's landmass is subject to the leases, and 75 per cent of the leases are foreign owned.

Australian and Malaysian logging companies are some of the biggest beneficiaries.

"In one case... an Australian company, Independent Timber and Stevedoring, has control of two million hectares - the largest single area [leased] in Western Province," Mr Winn said.

"They actually undertook the [leasing] process themselves, at every step of the way they manipulated the whole process.

"They now have most of the government approvals necessary to log 600,000 hectares of forest, which would be the largest logging operation in PNG's history."

Rich environment

Special Agricultural and Business Leases allow clear felling of forests, whereas logging concessions require less damaging selective harvesting.

Greenpeace says leases have been granted for some of PNG's most pristine environments and take in 130,000 hectares of protected areas.

James Cook University Professor William Laurance says the logging is threatening tropical protected areas.

He says Papua New Guinea has some of the richest and most varied biological real estate on the globe.

"What it means if you effectively nuke an area, which is what can happen with some of these Special Agricultural and Business Leases, you can have very serious impacts," said Professor Laurance.

"In some cases you can completely wipe out an entire species.

"The Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation ... has already had a major international resolution on this issue, so that is really an indicator of the kind of level of international concern that is being focused on this already."

No permission

Special Agricultural and Business Leases are not supposed to be granted without the permission of landowners.

However, Norbett Pames says his land in the East New Britain Province was cleared two years ago, without his permission.

"When they start clearing the forest... the effect on our environment and the effect on our water, now it is hard for people to get water," Mr Pames said.

"Also, there are other social problems happening in the affected area, people are drinking and fighting, ladies are having unexpected pregnancies.

"They used to make gardens and survive on the land, now it is very hard because all the land is taken up by the logging operations."

Take action

Paul Winn has called on PNG's new government to legislate to nullify leases that don't have the consent of landowners.

"What we would also like to see ... is legislation introduced that overturns and nullifies any leases that are found to have significant objections by land owners or are found to have been granted fraudulently."

"There is a great opportunity for Australia to improve its relationship with Papua New Guinea.

"[Australia can help] develop a proper land use plan, where landowners have agreed to areas of their land being used for agricultural development.

"Also, [a plan] where there are opportunities given for those landowners to not only pursue logging and agriculture but to have options apart from those developments, such as tourism."

He says the companies involved should also be blacklisted, and stopped from claiming compensation.

Comments

Why is Green Peace So Loud on SABL and So Silent on Issues of Similar Nature in PNG? Suppose Green Peace is concern about emission, depletion of natural store house of carbon (CO2) and loss of customary land in the SABL project in Papua New guinea, why are they are so silent on issues that have similar impact. For instance, the impact of the proposed project under SABL in Western Province has less damaging effect compared to the Impact of OK Tedi Mining’s Die-Back Effect along the mighty Fly River in reduction of natural carbon store house, its emission into the atmosphere and loss of land from sustainable use. The un-sustainable die back along the mighty Fly River has destroyed thousands of hectares of natural forest which is more damaging than the sustainable logging that will take place under the proposed SABL project in Western Province. The die-back effect has killed vast virgin forest on both sides of the river stretching some 500m-1000m wide on each side of the river along 400-500 kilometers downstream of Alice and Fly River which is still continuing today. These has reduced earth’s natural carbon store house as well as emitted a lot of it into the atmosphere. The die-back has also completely changed the life-style of the riverine communities; especially loss of food sources, the continuous over-flooding has turned thousands of hectares of land into Lakes, Swamps and Flood plains. The loss of food sources, hectares of land for hunting and gardening for the riverine communities are similar to loosing hectares forested land to multi-million dollar cooperation’s under SABL project because of the change of land use in these areas for the current and the future generations to come. However in the case of the proposed SABL projects in the province, it will have less impact in terms of reduction of CO2 store house and its emission because the land use plans under SABL intends to selectively log the forest as well as reforest it. Furthermore the Landowners will still own their customary land and have access to it through the landowner umbrella companies, unlike the scenario along the Fly River where the land has being covered by human induced Lakes, Swamps and Flood Plains. For the record and the credibility of the proposed SABL projects in Western Province, its environmental plans have been approved by the Department of Environment & Conservation of PNG and the International Forestry Standard Authority. This makes one to question the interest and integrity of Green Peace when it questions the development model put forward by the initiators of the SABL in the Province. It makes one to assume that Green Peace or people representing it may have their own or the country of their origin’s business interest in many of the multi-million dollar cooperation operating in PNG hence they have conflict of interest. PNG as a sovereign state has fulfilled its sovereignty obligation to make /amend the Land Act to suit the needs of its people in relation to the SABL. What interest has Green Peace have to ask PNG’s new government to stop all SABL projects and repeal the amendments to Land Act made in relation to SABL, when it cannot advocate on issues of similar nature that’s happening and having much bigger impact on the loss of virgin forests and customary land around PNG?