The news magazine of the South Pacific · since 1930

Pacific Islands Monthly, 1 May 1999Vol. 69 No. 5

Call for new thinking on

p. 35 · Read in the full issue

forest management

AN analysis of the National Forest Management Plan, pre pared by a group of inde pendent experts, calls for a moratorium

on advertising of new Forest Management Agreements and exten sions.

The critique, entitled Sustaining Papua New Guinea’s Natural Heritage examines the social, economic and environmental implications of the Plan, and suggests alter natives.

Kilyali Kalit of the World Wide Fund for Nature said PNG’s National Forest Plan, which has been in operation since 1996, had one vision for the country’s forests - for for eign loggers to cut them down.

“We have an alternative vision in which industrial logging is phased out and landowners control small and medium scale use of their forests,” he said.

The critique’s launch comes as the Government has drastically lowered taxes on log exports.

As a result, log exports have doubled, but the Government’s revenue from tax is unchanged. At the same time, the Government is pushing for the opening up of new concessions and the end of log monitor ing is threatened.

“The government is looking for a quick fix,” says Greenpeace’s Brian Brunton.

“More logging activity gives the illusion of economic recovery, but it is based on the myth that industrial logging promotes eco nomic return for Papua New Guineans. The reality is only the foreign loggers are bene

fiting.”

The key recommendations of the Greenpeace/WWF critique are; the overhaul of the National Forest Plan; changes to the planning process so that existing forest val ues and constraints are taken into account; and landholders and communities have a real say in how their forests are used.

“Greenpeace and WWF want to see changes in the way decisions relating to for est management are made,” Kalit said.

“Landowners should have an increased role. For example, a land use options mech anism could be set up to help communities map existing forest uses and consider the most bfeneficial uses of their natural resources.”

The critique was distributed to members of the National Forest Board last year. It is understood the Board is examining its rec ommendations. ■