Fishing laws favour our own people

 IT is interesting to read the opinions from one John and John M Samar in the two dailies recently. 

The views expressed are similar. 

A related concern was raised by the governor of New Ireland, who according to my officers, was represented by his lawyers in the recent governor’s conference on fisheries.

The issue raised by the writers is over the “Amendment of fisheries laws” to enable native Papua New Guineans to participate in this multi-million kina fishing industry and that the law appears discriminatory and favourable to foreign interests rather than native Papua New Guineans. 

We take no issue with the need to change or amend the fisheries laws. 

In fact, we have already completed work on the review and amendment on the Fisheries Management Act 1998, including our comments on the review of the maritime zones bill to cater not only for changes on issues raised by the writers, but also other issues and concerns we have identified.

The fisheries legislations, regulations and policies are more conducive and supportive to Papua New Guineans than foreigners. 

It is, in fact, more costly for fo­reigners to invest in PNG than it is for PNG nationals to be engaged in fisheries investments. 

For instance, the fees and criteria for licensing for local involvement are minimal compared to foreign companies. 

Foreigners are banned from fishing within three miles from the shore as it is reserved for “native Papua New Guineans”. 

Further, the majority of fisheries activities ranging from coastal to inland fisheries are restricted to local or native Papua New Guineans such as the multi-million kina longline fishing industry targeting tuna, prawn and lobster fisheries and reef fin inshore fisheries. 

These fisheries are “reserved” for Papua New Guineans only.

Most foreign fishing activities involving purse seine fishery are under treaty arrangements which are permitted under international laws and conducted outside of the 12-nautical mile of the archipelagic and territorial waters. 

However, these fishing activities are being scaled down due to the government’s domestication policy and subsequent push by NFA to encourage onshore processing and development so as to enable greater returns to PNG through creation of employment opportunities and other spin-off economic activities. 

The only exceptions are vessels being chartered by PNG companies or those operating to feed the canning and processing facilities such as RD in Madang, Frabelle and IFC in Lae and SSTC in Wewak.

The writers are advised not to confuse themselves with limitations of laws and policies to those of limitations of capital and finance to invest in fishing operations and market accessibility. 

They are different things and what we find from our local citizen-owned companies is that financial capital and costs of operations are so enormous that it becomes very difficult to operate a successful fishing operation.

We have tried and are still trying out programmes and assistance to have our nationals take effective involvement in this industry.

How can one then say the law is discriminatory against native Papua New Guineans? 

Yes, it is discriminatory in terms of foreign involvement but it is favourable for all native Papua New Guineans. 

It is up to Papua New Guineans to build an interest in fisheries to venture into the industry rather than sit around complaining.

The same goes for aquaculture fishery.

NFA has noted this will enable food security as well as alleviate poverty and we have gone ahead in establishing an aquaculture and inland fisheries business unit within NFA’s structure to service the country. 

So far, there has been immense interest from locals, especially in the inland and highlands.

Sylvester B Pokajam

NFA managing director