|
Sports |
Raise standards in resource
management
I WELCOME the response from James
Lau, the managing director of Rimbunan Hijau (PNG) Group (April
24) to my article on resource management.
Public discussion on the issue of resource management in Papua New
Guinea, including forestry management, is needed.
When the new forest policy was prepared in 1990 and legislation
introduced thereafter, there was a commitment for PNG to be at the
forefront of sound tropical forestry, setting international
standards for sustainable resource management, and making a clear
break from the widespread malpractice prevailing when the Forest
Inquiry occurred in the late 1980s.
Unfortunately, despite some positive achievements in the 1990s,
the spate of last-minute approvals (largely LFAs), forestry
conversion TAs (designed in many cases to circumvent the new Act)
and a few questionable approvals undermined the initial optimism.
Standards in many of the projects are well below the level
envisaged, with some major projects capable of sustainable
harvesting failing to comply with that requirement.
Many projects failed to meet field standards which would enable
early resource.
However, one should not unduly blame the industry.
In countries where high standards are required, forestry companies
comply with those requirements, while in less-demanding countries,
operators apply lower standards.
In my article, I basically stated that PNG must apply higher
standards in natural resource management and not sell itself
short.
Reforms worldwide in many industries, including health and safety
standards, have occurred as a result of public pressure although
there are many instances where innovators take a lead in this
process partly because they see market potential.
I visited some forestry operations in the US some years ago and
saw how one company was still harvesting the same forest resource
which it had managed for more than a hundred years.
Its neighbours logged out their concessions within relatively
short periods and either went bust – after some boom years – or
shifted to other industries.
It is heartening that in PNG and Solomons Islands, there are a few
operators showing a commitment to high standards of forestry
management and sound plantation management, and some were
commended by recent reviews.
The current forest tracking initiative of the industry in PNG may
be a positive response to growing worldwide requirements to verify
the legality and source of logs.
A further positive step has been the recent substantive
appointment of a highly-respected managing director to the Forest
Authority.
I will not go into the various specific points in Mr Lau’s letter,
which can be discussed more constructively in some future
workshop.
I will, however, reiterate the high calibre of members of the
independent review teams.
The reports by RH’s consultants harp on about one member of one of
the several review teams, notably the revenue review, who had done
work for Greenpeace in the past.
This was a government-commissioned team and not the World Bank, as
suggested.
The person was a natural resource economist in a six-man team,
intended to balance other team members – another economist, a
former International Tropical Timber Organisation marketing
specialist (from South America), a former Forest Industries
Association executive officer, a forestry processing specialist
and a forester as team leader.
It would be disappointing if a team, dominated by industry people,
cannot incorporate a member with a resource management perspective
and it would have been entirely inappropriate to have excluded
that skill and perspective.
Looking forward; of course forestry, including plantation
management (where viable – in some cases with carbon trading
support) should have a significant role in PNG.
As with the agricultural tree crops (including “new” crops, such
as galip nut production) maintaining tree cover is ecologically
more suitable for PNG’s conditions than most annual cropping, but
only so long as standards are high, with harvesting impact
minimised (notably ground compaction, residuals left standing,
etc, appropriate harvest cycles applied, etc).
Likewise, ensuring adequate planning and implementation of
community benefits and minimising negative impacts, requires
considerable planning, consultation and monitoring, and the
industry needs considerable assistance with this.
Unfortunately, despite negative views by some industry players
towards the planned Forest and Conservation Project (FCP), which
included a grant of over K50 million for conservation, this
project was the means to reinforce the capacity of the Forest
Authority, Environment Department and resource owners, including
planning, overdue inventories and monitoring.
It would not have funded plantation forestry, but it would have
facilitated it.
The Government, industry and the wider community need to work
together to advance improved forestry management, and enable
lasting benefits at the community level.
It particularly requires encouraging committed industry players to
invest for the longer term.
We must not repeat the debacle of the teak industry, where
international investors had established sound processing
facilities and were committed to investing in the resource
(replanting, etc), but found it all shipped overseas, unprocessed
and without any export tax, despite an absolute prohibition under
the Customs Act.
Paul Barker
Director
INA
 
|
