Landowners upset over "fast-tracking" of PNG timber projects

By Sam Vulum

The former Papua New Guinea government’s decision to “fast-track” several timber projects in 1998 has deprived thousands of landowners the right to be included in the selection of the developer for their forests.

Landowners of a huge timber concession in West New Britain province have claimed that the West New Britain provincial forest Management Committee breached several sections of the amended 1991 Forestry Act when selecting the developer of the project.

Landowners of the Rottock Bay consolidated timber area claimed that they were left out in the selection of the foreign developer for the project under Section 46 and 63(1) of the Act.

They told PIM that the developer selected would not serve their interest because of past experiences and selection was done on “closed tender” and not on “open tender” as required by the act.

They raised these and other concerns in several letters to the PFMC, the National Forest Authority and its board and minister for forest, Michael Oglo, either directly by themselves or others on their behalf, between July 21 and September 22 last year.

PIM was unable to verily the claims with the PFMC, the PNG Forest Board and the minister for forest despite several attempts.

However, it is understood that the Forest Board did not deliberate on the project in its October meeting because of several defects in the proposal.

The Rottock Bay Consolidated timber area comprises five small timber conversion in the Kandrian and Cape Gloucester districts - they include the Rottock Bay FMA, Aria Vanue Block II FMA, Inland Rauto FMA and Miu FMA.

In a letter to the PNG Forest Authority board chair, Gabriel Samol, on September 6, Latu Lawyers, representing the landowners, cited the following breaches: * The draft project guidelines were prepared by the PFMC without consulting the landowners of the five

areas that come under the Rottock Bay Consolidated timber area as required under section 63 (1) of the Forestry Act; * The National Forest board has not advertised the Rottock Bay

Consolidated as mandatorily required

by Section 64 (1) of the Forestry Act; * A proposal from the company has been considered without complying with the requirements under Section 64 (1) of the Forestry Act; and * The PFMC has failed to properly evaluate the project proposal by the company or if it has evaluated the said project proposal, then such evaluation is alleged to have been made hastily and with influence from outside forces who are not in any way whatever, considered as the said landowners of the project area.

Latu Lawyers said: “We note that despite the concerns by our clients, the PFMC has submitted to your board a report of its evaluation and a recommendation that further negotiations on this project proceed with the company.”

“We advise that if our clients’ requests are not considered by your board, then our clients will go to court to seek certain reliefs and remedies against the PFMC and the board.”

Spokesman for the 150 Incorporate Landowners Group (ILG) in the timber area, Luke Muta said that they were hoping to meet with Forest minister Michael Oglo, and possibly prime minister Sir Mekere Morauta, to discuss their concerns.

He said if all else failed, then they would pursue the court action.

Muta questioned the motives of PFMC and PNGNFA in selecting the company concerned. “For what reason, I don’t know.

I don’t understand their motives.

I am appealing to the prime minister for the project to go on open tender,” Muta said.

He is an executive of Bakarami Holdings, the umbrella company for the ILGS. The ILGS are represented through their chair in the board of Bakarami Holdings, which is given the legal

authority to represent them in their fight for justice.

In a brief to Oglo on august 24, Bakarami Holdings said there were a lot of questions and suspicions as to why a very large “stand alone” project could not attract more developers in the bidding process.

The company said in the brief that the developer’s past record in other projects in the province had not been anywhere near satisfaction.

They provided copies of letters by two landowner companies from projects once operated by the developer concerned to support their claims.

In one of the letters, landowner company. Central Arowe Resources, claimed that the developer failed to build and maintain roads, bridges, school and health centre buildings.

The company said the developer failed to pay them agriculture levies and by premiums in the last five years.

“We are pleading for your understanding and intervention. We are asking the developer to meet us soon to explain why it had not complied with the requirements of the timber permit,” the company said in the letter to the PFMC on July 21.

Another company, Milupoi Development corporation also expressed similar sentiments in a letter to the PFMC regarding the West Arowe timber permit number 14-53.

The landowners have been supported by non-govemment organisation, the Melanesian Environment Foundation.

In a letter to PNG Forest Board chair Gabriel Samol, national coordinator George Euling said: “Your board must be sure beyond any reasonable doubt that any decision that it makes contrary to the will of the resource owners both in the immediate future and in the long term will bring about positive and permanent social and economic benefits to them.”

“In this case, we are asking that the next phase of the process towards awarding the company the right to establish negotiation be suspended.” ■