Some countries have well-established customary rights, ownership from long and continual use. One might think that this would be a strong basis for action to protect forests but apparently not. Over in Papua New Guinea, the government seems to have decided to give itself the power to remove any rights to consultation with landowners over activities on their land, or to allow citizens to challenge such decisions in the courts. These actions seem extraordinary. I would guess they are a response to the fact that many landowners have decided to sign up to carbon deals with private companies, some of which have involved dubious activities. But even so, Stern had it bang on: respect informal rights. Don't undermine them.
The real question is whether any international agency or government is going to endorse such extraordinary behaviour by funding deforestation projects in PNG?
If you want, you can sign the petition to reverse the Environment Act amendments.
Update:
Radio NewZealand's coverage of this new law.
Reader Lucas Winston sends link with further background to new law.
Re: "I would guess they are a response to the fact that many landowners have decided to sign up to carbon deals with private companies, some of which have involved dubious activities."
ReplyDeleteThe "reasoning" behind the absurd and terrible amendment to the Environmental Act stems initially not from sketchy carbon deals, but rather the PNG gov'ts desire to keep the Ramu Nickel Mine from leaving the country. The mine, owned by Chinese investors, has strongly criticized by area landowners for dumping tailings in to Mandang Bay, to the detriment of the local communities and ecology.
In an attempt to undermine the ability of PNG citizens to put a stop to damaging activities by the mine, the amendment was passed. However, rather than passing legislation that is restricted to the situation of the Ramu Nickel Mine, the law applies to all natural resource development projects, vesting ultimate decision power solely in the Minister of the Environment. In addition, removes the rights of landowners to call for environmental or social impact reviews.
There is a letter by the NCD MP Powes Parkop at this posting at the blog Ramu Nickel Mine Watch that provides a very good background to the flawed and hurtful legislation:
http://ramumine.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/governor-parkop-joins-opposition-to-environment-act-changes/
Re: "I would guess they are a response to the fact that many landowners have decided to sign up to carbon deals with private companies, some of which have involved dubious activities."
ReplyDeleteThe "reasoning" behind the absurd and terrible amendment to the Environmental Act stems initially not from sketchy carbon deals, but rather the PNG gov'ts desire to keep the Ramu Nickel Mine from leaving the country. The mine, owned by Chinese investors, has strongly criticized by area landowners for dumping tailings in to Mandang Bay, to the detriment of the local communities and ecology.
In an attempt to undermine the ability of PNG citizens to put a stop to damaging activities by the mine, the amendment was passed. However, rather than passing legislation that is restricted to the situation of the Ramu Nickel Mine, the law applies to all natural resource development projects, vesting ultimate decision power solely in the Minister of the Environment. In addition, removes the rights of landowners to call for environmental or social impact reviews.
There is a letter by the NCD MP Powes Parkop at this posting at the blog Ramu Nickel Mine Watch that provides a very good background to the flawed and hurtful legislation:
http://ramumine.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/governor-parkop-joins-opposition-to-environment-act-changes/
Very illuminating Lucas. Thanks.
ReplyDelete