Review land registration

Letters

THE current incorporated land group (ILG) registration process needs to be reviewed, especially the election of the management committees, the maximum allowable hectares of land an ILG should register against and the mode of mapping or demarcating customary land boundary.
Based on my observations, addressing these areas will solve many issues relating to customary land now being faced by ILGs.
The review should include which geographical area should ILG registration be allowed for.
This should be based on proximity to provincial or district headquarters, the land areas potential for agriculture and other economic activities.
At the end of the day, the whole idea of ILG registration is to unlock customary land and empower landowners to use their land to generate wealth.
The first challenge is the question of which type of land area or region should customary land be registered for landowners to realistically participate in economic development.
Why allow land in deep forests beyond reach by locals for registration?
It should be borne that any land cannot be bankable or even accessible, so the issue of proximity is one factor to be considered.
Security of tenure is another factor including law and order.
Financial institutions are mindful of all that.
Currently, there appears to be three types of landowners going for ILG registration.
One group is from the inaccessible and remote areas where large projects are been developed.
The other group are from land areas where agriculture is best suited for while the third group are from areas within close proximity to urban, semi urban and or commercial/agribusiness areas readily accessible by road transportation.
Customary land registration under ILGs should appropriately address the types of land, location, fertility, topography and accessibility in those different geographical locations if we are to make customary land bankable.
Since the ILG Act came into force in 2009, many ILGs were registered irrespective of where it is located.
The success or challenges the current ILG registration process can only be judged by the number of conflicts arising from ILGs.
Only time will tell.
After observing the ILG registration process, it is fair to say that we are heading for chaos.
Under the customary land tenure system, the rights to ownership of various interests in land are either patrilineal or matrilineal based.
This has been one of the main customary features of land tenure.
Tradition recognises such individuals and they do not need to be voted by ILG members to attain recognition or play a leadership role.
Traditional leaders know and recognise such original members within their society and exercise local knowledge and judgment to protect and uphold their land rights even if one or two members of a clan own large areas of land.
There is no way you can vote such people out from their ownership rights to take control of the benefits accruing to or from their land under the customary land tenure system.
Even though traditional customs are clear, this has now been threatened in part to some extent by the current process of ILG registration, especially the election of management committees.
The election process of management committees, to some extent, limits the recognition of genuine traditional landowners to perform leadership roles.
The current ILG registration process has the potential to shut off or limit the prospect of genuine landowners to be accorded the recognition they deserve in an ILG organisation.
This view is confirmed by a number of landowner groups disputing among themselves for leadership roles and recognition.
In addition to election of management committees and in light of the current ILG election process, there should be an avenue to allow for an appointment of a member of a minority clan or family unit who is a legitimate and original landowner to be on the ILG committee without any popular vote.
The end effect is that genuine minority landowners are recognised well, consistent with the customary land tenure practice.
Thus, the issue of appointment of genuine and minority landowners on management committees should be allowed for as part of the new policy guideline.
On the same note, the job of appointing candidates should be facilitated by and endorsed by a legitimate local council of chiefs, land mediators or provincial land courts.
Another important feature is the boundary demarcation.
Traditional landowners generally know well their boundaries by natural physical features, be it hunting ground or fishing zones.
The local communities within the same localities also know their limitations in so far as land rights or boundaries are concerned.
Since Papua New Guinea is made up of many tribes, different tribes have their own enemies.
This fact limits their territorial domain in terms of land use.
Allowing very large hectares of land to be registered under an ILG is very unrealistic and superficial.
If this trend continues, in less than 50 years, all the customary land and shorelines in this country will be swallowed up in the hands of registered ILG organisations who may not be a well-represented group.
The ripple effects of this is another boom or doom story in itself, given the high population growth and improved technology.
Again, only time will tell.
There has to be a limit placed guided by a policy.
It is time a general customary land map is produced and classified as to which area of land should and should not be registered under an ILG and to what extent.
Another issue worth rethinking is the use of mapping based on global positioning system – GPS.
This technology, when used for boundary demarcation, can easily bypass local scrutiny and verification.
The use of GPS can create overriding interests leading to conflicts.
GPS-based mapping is not precise and can give an error anywhere between plus or minus 100 to 200 meters.
To allow GPS based mapping, a standard guide as to certain geographic location of customary land should be identified where the use of GPS can or cannot be allowed for boundary demarcation.
As such, it is important to review the current ILG registration process and incorporate what has been raised here as part of the policy guideline.
Going forward, a separate department should be created to administer all customary land and all approvals for ILG registrations can be done at the provincial level.

Manevi Gene,
Landmark Valuers &
Consultants,
Goroka