• New Zealand/Aotearoa: Changing Ownership and Management of State Owned Plantations
• Papua New Guinea: Environmental groups urge Primer Minister to take action against logging project

Aotearoa / New Zealand: Changing Ownership and Management of State Owned Plantations

Last year I attended a conference in Capetown on the above subject, where the push appeared to be for the involvement of the Private Sector in the ownership and management of Plantations. As an Indigenous person from a country with huge areas of monocultural exotic plantations, I had never thought much about the ownership of these plantations. In my country they had a history of state ownership, although recent times had seen the sale of some of these plantations. Ethically, I am opposed to the privatization of state assets by any government and regard it as a false economic measure. However, I am also opposed to the proliferation of large scale, monocultural tree farms and had been encouraged by a recent shift in government attitudes in this country where more emphasis (in terms of new plantings) had appeared to be focused on Indigenous species and erosion control in particular. True, I had not thought it went far enough and was frustrated by the relatively small areas of Indigenous plantings, but I believed that it was a significant shift in attitude that was appearing to place much greater emphasis on Conservation. So, would it be so bad if the private sector took over ownership and management of these large plantations?

It would provide the Government with a cash injection for social reforms and would rid it of the necessity of running unpopular forestry programmes. At least this appeared to be a major thread of the argument running through the Capetown conference and there is a lot of truth in that philosophy, but years of experience in the political arena had taught me that there must be a downside to the argument. I remembered the words of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development at their forum on the Clean Development Mechanism during the World Summit on Sustainable Development. "If there isn't a business case to be put forward, then it is charity". The clear message of this statement (and these were concerned, caring businesses regarded as the good guys) was that businesses were not in the habit of handing out charity. So what does this mean for the issue of Governments selling plantations? Well, if they are only going to be cut down and not used as an ongoing source of supply, I am not sure that I really give a damn. They are after all invasive species and a relic of colonization. However, from a business and investment point of view, it would appear to be not economic to cut them and walk away. At least not if they got them at a fair price; and if they did not, then that says a lot about the business sense of the selling government.

Therefore, we need to consider the long term implications of ownership of these plantations by people with a demonstrated history of cutting labour, toxic chemical use, clear cutting with heavy machinery and investment in Genetic Modification research. Why do we need to consider this? Because "If there isn't a business case to be put forward, then it's charity". The above measures increase the profit margin, and that is the business case, the profit margin. When governments run these plantation areas, they are obliged to consider the social cost of the measures they use because if they prove too unpopular, the government may find itself on the unemployment line after the next election. In most of our countries, we have the option of ridding ourselves of governments that have made too many unpopular decisions. We don't however, elect the Boards of the companies that would manage plantations under privatization and that are the worry. They do not have the same restrictions on their profit margins as governments may have. In the meantime of course, if they were sold, the government could wring its hands and say how terrible they thought the company was, but how free enterprise must be allowed to flourish, regardless of a few flaws. That's my problem with the sale of these monolithic tree farms. Someone else makes the profit, we still pay the price, except it has grown somewhat and no-one gets to be held accountable for the social impacts.

If the privatization of plantations in your country is an issue, then think about the whys and the what ifs before you just pass it off as not something you care about because it is only plantations and you don't like them anyway.

By: Sandy Gauntlett, e-mail: sandygauntlett@hotmail.com

top

---

Papua New Guinea: Environmental groups urge Primer Minister to take action against logging project

Several PNG and Pacific Groups, Australian Groups and International Groups have published a sign-on letter addressed to the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Sir Michael Somare, raising their "deep concern and increasing frustration over the current state of governance in Papua New Guinea's forests sector and its debilitating impact on the economy and security of the Nation", presenting evidence that uphold their concern, and calling on the government to act.

One of the conflictive issues is the handling of the Kiunga-Aiambak affair (see WRM Bulletins 55 and 53). A Timber Authority was issued to a local company that had been contracted to build a road between the provincial centres of Kiunga and Aiambak in Western Province. That company then sub-contracted the work to Concord Pacific, a logging company owned and operated by Malaysian interests. It was soon apparent that the road project was simply an excuse to obtain a large logging concession through the back door. Later in 1994, Concord Pacific obtained a five-year extension and permission to harvest up to 210,000 cubic metres annually, making it one of the largest logging operations in PNG.

The landowners of Kiunga Aiambak have lost their land and forest resource to a profit-greed Malaysian company in return for ... what? Arnold Kombo, Community leader of Nangumarum, East Sepik Province, tells: "They were doing logging where so much destruction was done with trucks making feeder roads. There was destruction like trees cut down unnecessarily, small trees and vegetation cleaned up, eventually leaving the land barren and then having grasses growing instead of trees. In places the water sources became dry and people had to go so far away to look for water." Also Sister Yatamara, Sister in charge of Baboa Health Centre says: "Nobody cares about this place, we are forgotten people here and government has not given us any services. Before people said they could see fish in the water, they comb their hair by seeing themselves in the water. Now you can see the water is really muddy and when people go to the sago place there is no clean water, so they drink water there and get sick, they get gastric pain, blood, these people are very, very sick".

In 1999 the PNG Government made a half-serious attempt to halt illegal logging along the Kiunga-Aiambak road. Court action ensued, with many delays. Meanwhile, logging along the road --and far into the forest-- continued unimpeded.

In December 2002, a Deed of Settlement was filed in the National Court. The Deed purports to legitimise continuing unlawful exploitation of resources and would impact on the Sovereignty of Papua New Guinea and the rights of its people. In the last few days the Forest Minister has declared that the Kiunga- Aiambak road is "definitely illegal" and stated that the government's position is clear, "we will not execute the Deed of Settlement" and they would "immediately terminate the Kiunga-Aiambak timber authority".

The signing organisations urge the Primer Minister to fulfil the government's statements and take effective action. They suggest some measures that are well within the government's scope:

* Overturn the Deed of Settlement either through the courts, by legislation, or any other means at your disposal.
* Ensure that there is a independent investigation of all those who have been involved in this corrupt deal and prosecution of those who are implicated in any criminal acts.
* Halt all operations of Concord Pacific and have them removed from Papua New Guinea.
* Ensure that the Timber Authority is not allocated to any other company.
* Ensure that no extension of the road project is approved, legally or otherwise.

"AusAID has recently recognised the concept of a lost decade in the development of PNG due to corruption and mismanagement. The matters above clearly show the pivotal role of the logging industry in causing this loss. Unless the Government shows resolve and gets tough then we will see another lost decade", warns the letter. (see full letter at: www.wrm.org.uy/countries/PapuaNG/PNGletter.rft )

Article based on: "Open letter to The Right Honourable Sir Michael Somare. Subject: Forest sector and Kunga Aiambak Road Deed of Settlement", sent by Stephen Campbell, Greenpeace, e-mail: stephen.campbell@au.greenpeace.org ; "Logged out, paradise lost", http://www.paradiseforest.org/paradise_lost/kiunga_aiambak_road.php

top