Minister’s response to UN on Frieda mine ‘undignified and evasive’

Poject Sepik Awareness on the Frieda Copper and Gold Mine, Upper Sepik River Village, 2018

First published on ACT NOW! Blog

By Duncan Gabi/ Project Sepik

Response to the Minister for Environment, Conservation and Climate Change MP, Mr. Wera Mori’s Statement regarding Ten United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteurs Letter to the Government of Papua New Guinea on the Frieda River Copper and Gold Mine in the Sepik Region of Papua New Guinea.

On behalf of the plants and animals of Sepik River, The Sepik River, the people of Sepik River and Environment and Climate Justice advocates of PNG and the world, the Project Sepik, a local NGO in Wewak request that Mr. Mori in his Ministerial role reflect more and respond constructively, seeking solutions and providing answers rather than standing by his statement on Radio Australia on the 30 September, 2020 in response to the United Nations Special Rapporteurs Letter to the Government of PNG on the proposed Frieda River Copper and Gold Mine in the Sepik Region of Papua New Guinea.

Mr. Wera Mori warned the ten Special Rapporteurs, “do not forget that Papua New Guinea is a sovereign state and we cannot be dictated to by opinions of people from other countries. As an independent state, the government has the prerogative to make decisions in the best interest of the country”.

While it is important for the country’s international standing and reputation, that Mr. Mori has responded to the United Nations, it is embarrassing to observe his shallow arguments and the evasive nature of his comments.  Politicians must understand how the larger world works.  The Minister’s response is harmful to PNGs international relationships and the respect we enjoy from international donors and financiers. Minister Mori’s concern about maintaining Papua New Guinea’s integrity and sovereignty as an independent state fails to address the content of the letters; instead he directly told the UN experts to keep their noses out of the Human Rights issues in the country. His counterpart from Australia who received the same letter responded with a detailed response in a professional manner addressing the content of letters.

The response by Mr. Mori can be seen as ignorant of the issues that were raised. Mori must not forget that these letters came from the United Nations of which PNG is a member and the United Nations Human Rights Council to which Papua New Guinea is a signatory, meaning his government has an obligations to uphold human rights. 

Wewak 2018, Middle Sepik Soccer Tournament. Competitors on their way to Korogu from Wewak Town. Photo: Project Sepik

The letter from the UN is not designed to undermine our country’s sovereignty or to dictate to the PNG Government on how it should handle its affairs as the Minister claimed, but to raise the concerns on issues regarding human rights violations in the country that the government needs to look into and address.

PNG as a member of UN has ratified six of the core human rights treaties. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), upon which the ten UN Special Rapporteurs based their observation. These same human rights are also enshrined in Papua New Guinea’s Constitution and in the National Goals and Directive Principles.

Papua New Guinea has also made voluntary pledges and commitments which include the pledge to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights. PNG has also ratified International Environmental Treaties, including the Ramsar Convention, Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris Agreement and the Vienna Convention.

Mori also stated that, “as an independent state, the government has the prerogative to make decisions in the best interest of the country.”

Project Sepik is however concerned and are questioning in whose best interest exactly will the government make decisions regarding the proposed Frieda mine, the Government and the investors or the people of Sepik, Papua New Guinea and the environment?

This statement is also concerning coming from the Minister for Environment who has largely ignored the 2019 Ramu Nico Basamuk Bay Spillage. The PNG Government has no proven track record of putting the interest of the people first nor does it have the people’s best interest at heart.

The people of Sepik have made their stance known that they are all against the mine, their call was heeded by the United Nations who sent out the ten Special Rapporteurs. They did not send out the letter all on their own , they were supporting the call made by the people of Sepik to ban the proposed Frieda Gold and Copper mine which will destroy the Sepik River and their livelihood.

Special Rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council with the mandate to monitor, advise and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries  and on human rights violations worldwide. The functions of Special Rapporteurs include responding to individual complaints, conducting studies, providing advice on technical cooperation and undertaking country visits to assess specific human rights situations.

Ten UN Special Rapporteurs, along with the UN Working Group on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations, wrote to the PNG Government to raise the concerns about the proposed Frieda River mine and the risk of failure of its proposed tailings dam.

The letter raised ‘serious concerns’ about the human rights impacts of the project, including the rights to life, health, bodily integrity, water and food, and the right to free, prior and informed consent. The letter also raised concerns that the people of the Sepik River ‘will be forced to bear the costs of the Project in perpetuity.’

Sumgilbar people in PNG triumph over foreign sand mining company

A sandy beach on the North coast of Madang

First Published in Independent Australia

A mining company’s withdrawal from mining sands in Papua New Guinea is a testament to local activism and solidarity, writes Duncan Gabi.

NIUGINI SANDS LIMITED, a Singaporean mining company withdrew its application for an exploration license (EL) to explore and mine 38 kilometres of unique beautiful black sands on the shoreline of Sumgilbar in the Madang province of Papua New Guinea (PNG). 

On 26 February 2021, the Acting Mining Tenement Registrar at the Mineral Resources Authority (MRA), Patrick Monouluk, accepted the withdrawal letter from Niugini Sands Limited for an EL.

Mr Monouluk stated in his letter to Mr Wenceslaus Magun, an environmentalist leading the campaign:

‘Pursuant to their request I have today officially withdrew the application from our Register of Mine Tenements dated 26th February at 12.10 noon, the matter now remains closed for all purposes.’ 

 Sand mining entered the spotlight in PNG in the middle of 2020 when the company applied to explore and mine sand. The people lacked an understanding of the uses, income, and negative environmental and social impacts of sand mining. 

Luckily, an environmental group in the area called MAKATA carried out educational awareness to the people of Sumglibar on the environment and social impacts of the project. The proposed exploration and sand mining posed an imminent threat to the coastal shoreline, the nesting grounds of endangered turtle species called leatherback and the livelihood of the people.  

 MRA and Niugini Sands did not carry out education and awareness programs with the people on the impacts or benefits of the project. Their consultations were carried out with a few ward councillors and only two per cent of the Sumgilbar population who were to be directly affected.

Therefore, an interim injunction was filed at the Madang National Court by former Chief Justice of PNG, Sir Arnold Amet, who was part of the campaign. The injunction was to order MRA to listen to the peoples’ request and conduct more hearings. MRA had earlier rejected the request by the people and had proceeded to submit their reports to the mining advisory council. MRA claimed that they have met all necessary requirements.

This was a violation of human rights of the communities who were denied their right to information and fair hearing under Sections 57, 51 and 59 of PNG’s Constitution. 

 At the time of the withdrawal of their application for the EL, the company director, Marcus Ong, said: 

“Bad publicity was pivotal in their decision.”

He added that information showed the Madang sands were of poor quality, according to Radio New Zealand. Mr Magun responded that the people will not accept the company’s justification for exiting.

Mr Magun added that the company did not consider the views of the people and the negative impacts of the project. Foreign corporations push this narrative when Indigenous peoples reject their activities. 

The unsubstantiated claim of poor sand quality was considered misleading because the company was yet to have carried out exploration to determine the quality. It was interesting in that prior to the resistance, the company was adamant to explore and mine.

 Niugini Sands stated on its Facebook page that:

‘It is easy for one to put down and criticise a project simply because it brings about a change which is undesirable in their personal view. We should not always look to oppose the change but rather embrace it.’  

The people used scientific facts and their lived experiences to hold to account their own Government and the company. Not all changes should be embraced, not the kind of change proposed by Niugini Sands.  

 Niugini Sands also stated:

While we recognise that nature, which is something God gave to his people, is to be conserved, it may not be fair for the people of Sumgilbar to be deprived of a better life just because of some comments made by environmentalists, activists or NGOs who do not even reside in that area. Such actions are deemed to be very selfish towards their own fellow countrymen.

Papua New Guineans must not believe that what foreigners think is necessarily the best for them. While the company recognised that God gave nature to be conserved, conservation is not at the top of the company’s priorities. 

Companies also should not define what Indigenous people see, feel and value. On many occasions, Papua New Guineans have seen and heard of these lies by such foreign interests. 

The exit by Niugini Sands from PNG is a remarkable and heartfelt win. This should encourage other groups to join the fight against many such destructive and exploitative, so-called economic development activities in PNG. Mr Magun has been very vocal on this issue since the “get go”.

He stood firm to allow the people of Madang, Sir Amet and others to stand alongside him to ensure the fight was taken to the national level. This shows that such a collective concern and sustained activism against foreign corporations who were there to plunder their homes cannot be underestimated.

The battle is far from over. In an interview with Radio New Zealand, Mr Magun said there was an insatiable demand for sand around the world. It is a concern that PNG has no relevant laws to govern the sustainable development of sand. Wenceslaus continued that the Government must develop and have stricter monitoring and enforcement in place should it welcome this industry.

Papua New Guineans must harness the strength of their culture and their Melanesian roots which acknowledges all life forms that dwell with them in their time and spaces. Papua New Guineans are best at sustainable development and conservation. 

The victory of the people of Sumgilbar will inspire those in Sepik, Morobe and across PNG to carry on their challenges to protect their rivers, seas, mountains, rainforests and cultures. The lessons are great, the stories of bravery and solidarity only cements more battles across PNG.

Duncan Gabi is an environmental activist and campaigner for “Save the Sepik” campaign in PNG.

---

KEEPING OUR POLITICIANS HONEST

By Dr Joseph Ketan

It is hard to keep track of politicians. We cannot hold them accountable for their actions if we do not know what they are doing – or not doing – with respect to their duties.

We have got to keep our politicians honest by keeping an eye on them at all times!

The PNG daily newspapers, generally, do a good job in keeping our parliamentarians honest, although in recent years there has been growing concerns over biassed reporting on several occasions.

Radio still does a terrific job in terms of coverage and the quality of reporting. The NBC easily leads in keeping our people informed on what is happening in our country. The commercial FM radios are doing a good job, but their focus is on the national capital, leaving room for improvement.

EMTV could become a powerful medium of communication, but they employ lazy reporters, with terrible English, while the good ones (John Eggins and Scott Waide  have moved on).

Social media, with all its faults and awful grammar, has the potential to hold MPs accountable, though we get a lot of misinformation at the moment. The level of literacy will improve the standard of reporting and debate on key issues affecting our country.

Sir Anthony Siaguru  used to provide some great commentaries on the state of affairs in PNG. I enjoyed reading Dr Tony Deklin’s commentaries, but he has stopped writing for the general public. I love reading Dr Andrew Moutu’s elegant articles on a wide range of topics, but his writing is not for public consumption. He writes for a cultured audience.

John Endomonga and Samson Komati provide useful political commentaries on everything political. Their commentaries, although biased, are necessary. David Lepi’s commentaries are biased toward Peter O’Neill – but he writes beautifully.

Michael Kabuni and Duncan Gabi do better than most. They will, no doubt, take the mantle of responsible reporting in years to come. I hope politicians do not buy them off. Patrick Kaiku and Teddy Winn will provide leadership in political analysis at UPNG soon. Francis Wagiriai and Mike Kabuni will join them there. That will provide the basis for PNG political scholarship and commentaries on national affairs. 

I would love to read more from some great thinkers, including Roland Katak , Joseph Sukwianomb , Professor John Nonggorr, Dr Thomas Webster, Gabriel Pepson, Peter Pena, Peter Komon, Paul Mawa, Paraka Maua Pena , Thomas Laka, Dr Lawrence Sause , Dr Steven Winduo , Dr Elizabeth Kopel, Dr Fiona Hukula, Dr Orovu Sepoe , Dr Hengene Payani, Dr Linus Digim’Rina, and Professor Frank Griffin , and my countrymen Frank Senge Kolma  and Nikints Tiptip.

We live in a country with high levels of illiteracy at all levels. It is up to people with knowledge of government to comment on public affairs.

When good men – and great women – stand by and do nothing, evil triumphs. So, it is absolutely necessary that learned men and women must stand up for the rights of the downtrodden.

We live in a country with high levels of illiteracy at all levels. It is up to people with knowledge of government to comment on public affairs.

THE WORST OF GOVERNMENTS – IS PNG A KLEPTOCRACY OR A KAKISTOCRACY?

By Dr Joseph Ketan

Papua New Guinea, a country with so much wealth in resources, has been consistently mismanaged by successive governments, robbed, dismantled and left in disarray. This country has been blessed with natural resource wealth in minerals, oil, gas, forestry and fisheries; yet, it seems to have been cursed with the worst of governments.

Is Papua New Guinea the most mismanaged country in the world?
Successive PNG governments have been mismanaging the country, bankrupting it on numerous occasions, thereby subjecting its citizens to a wretched life. Nearly all PNG prime ministers (barring two perhaps) and over 90 percent of parliamentarians were “never groomed” for parliamentary office. Astoundingly, we have had the misfortunate of being ruled by the least qualified, incompetent, inexperienced, and sometimes dishonest or corrupt leaders.        

The Marape-Rosso Government has been accused of running the economy down, overtaxing low income-earners, not going after the big tax evaders, turning a blind eye to corruption, allocating DSIP/PSIP funds to MPs along partisan lines, and especially for awarding lucrative government contracts to cronies under the Connect PNG Road Construction Program. The Opposition has filed a motion of Vote of No Confidence, putting forward East Sepik Governor Allan Bird as Alternate Prime Minister, citing some of these allegations, and much more. These are critical issues that require urgent attention. I do not have time to examine these issues now.

What is the “worst of governments” and the “worst of leadership”?
What I do intend to explore here is the essence of what political scientists call the “worst of governments” and a particular type of leadership – made up of the “worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens” – and its mode of governance characterized by “mismanaging the country to the point of extinction”.

What kind of government would allow its citizens to die from curable diseases, while sending leaders to the best hospitals in developed countries? Indeed, what kind of government would allow transport infrastructure to collapse, plantations and factories to close, education and health systems to fail, and supermarkets to be looted and shops burnt down in the country’s capital city?

What is the worst kind of government?
It would have to be a kleptocracy, and, at times, PNG has been subjected to “rule by thieves”, corrupt leaders using political power to embezzle government funds, but, I think the best term to describe PNG would be “kakistocracy”, a “government run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens”, who make no bones of running the economy down or mismanaging a country and its resources to the point of extinction.

What kind of people would run the country down?
School drop-outs, bus drivers, gang leaders, warlords, thugs, crooks, criminals, and other undesirable creatures have been running our country. The corrupted electoral system regularly churns out swindlers in silky suits. In the Highlands of Papua New Guinea, tribal groups contest elections with the same passion that warriors take to the battlefield – to win at all cost. This kind of ‘leaders’ take their tribal mentality, with wicked habits, to parliament to loot the country’s resources. This is outrageous!       

What kind of public service do we have?
The public service, including teachers and the disciplinary forces, is there to implement government policies. Under all post-Independence governments, the small Australian-trained professional public service of the pre-Independence era has grown fat and lazy over the years, with extension services withdrawn soon after Independence, while basic health and educational services delivered unevenly across the country. The public service has not been replenished with new talent. Our dysfunctional education system keeps producing large numbers of illiterate graduates, many of which have entered the public service through nepotism, and some of them are now in senior management positions. This is frightening!       

Questions for the Prime Minister James Marape and the Opposition.
Why do we have schools with no libraries, hospitals with no drugs, roads with no bridges, districts with no electricity?
Why do we have so many poor people in a resource-rich country? Why do we have only a few people who are filthy rich?

Prime Minister James Marape and the Opposition’s alternate PM Allan Bird are well aware of the goals of the PNG Vision 2050 Roadmap. James Marape’s mentor Professor David Kavanamur, currently CEO of Kumul Consolidated Holdings, was the Leader of the Vision 2050 Team, while Allan Bird was a Technical Advisor. Do we expect to achieve any of the goals of the PNG Vision 2050? Is Professor David Kavanamur currently in a position to do something about achieving the PNG collective dream? Yes, he is, but I suspect that he is far too busy raising money for the government, just as the former anticorruption campaigner Sam Koim is busy finding money for the government in raising taxes.    

Is James Marape serious about taking back PNG and making PNG become the richest black Christian nation? I hope he is serious. At the moment, I suspect that he is far too busy keeping government MPs happy so that he can stay in power.

Is Allan Bird serious about changing the way we conduct government business? Sometimes, I am fed up with him complaining all the time, but I still think he would make a good prime minister. He has been groomed for leadership. He is the most qualified among the current crop of leaders. He seems to be scrupulous, although we do know what political power does to good men. Will he go after the big crooks when he becomes prime minister? Only Allan Bird can answer that question – at an appropriate time. 

Back to the question of the Vote of No Confidence, we should note that the provision under Section 145 of the Constitution of our country empowers parliament to remove the Executive. In the absence of such provisions, a mad man, or a sick person, or an unpopular government would remain in office for a full term, with terrible consequences for the people.

In closing, PNG cannot afford to continue one bad government after another, or one worst prime minister after another. We risk losing our country to criminals by electing the worst leaders to represent us in parliament. We need to restore integrity to the electoral process by terminating corrupt electoral officials, prosecuting corrupt politicians, Returning Officers, security officers, and anyone found breaking electoral regulations. Next, we need to prosecute and jail parliamentarians found guilty of misappropriating public funds.   

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

WILL JAMES MARAPE REMAIN PRIME MINISTER?

By Dr Joseph Ketan

There might be a change of government in Papua New Guinea soon. A number of parliamentarians, including East Sepik Governor Allan Bird and Energy Minister Kerenga Kua, have walked out of government to join the Opposition. Gary Juffa and Peter Ipatas may walk too.

The Opposition now has 23 MPs. We have a single-chamber parliament of 118, so the Opposition will need at least 60 members to change the government. The leaders of the Opposition are counting on at least 37 MPs to move from Government to Opposition. That will not be easy.

PNG MPs worry more about the politics of the belly than anything else. Staying alive and milking state resources drive politics in this country. Getting as much money out of the state as possible within a short period of time is the purpose of being in parliament. Parliament, after all, is the most direct route to fame and fortune in this sad little rich country.

So, what can we expect from this current crop of leaders? Do we have some credible leaders? Will there be a change of government or will we get more of the same? I hate to have more of the same, either with James Marape or with another MP as PM. We are sitting out far too many crises, this time, which threatens the viability of the PNG State.

We do have some credible leaders on either side of the house. Allan Bird, Allan Marat, Richard Maru, Kerenga Kua, Puka Temu, among others, have stood on principle. I am not an expert on personal character, but these men have a reputation for hard work and, more importantly, they care about the future of this country.

Peter O’Neill is probably the standout among the current lot in parliament as a competent leader that other leaders in the region respect, albeit grudgingly, for pure leadership skills. This man has a reputation for taking short cuts, often by-passing state institutions, to get things done. Civil servants often feel uncomfortable dealing with him, as PM, for his overbearing approach, and possibly because of his knowledge on links between key state agencies.

James Marape gave a great speech in the Australian parliament. This speech marks the coming of age for this man from the Tari basin. His best is ahead, I suspect, though his past is nothing to be proud of. Too many broken promises will come back to haunt him. For now, Prime Minister James Marape has overwhelming numbers, despite losing a few MPs to the Opposition, to remain in power. The boys with the money bags (MPs and businessmen from Enga and Hela and SHP) will ensure that Marape remains in office. They will give the PM to Mr O’Neill, only if there they are unable to strike a deal with Marape.

Kerenga Kua and William Duma have money, but lack the required numbers to form government. The boys from the West don’t trust these boys from the East. Sad case, but true. Mr Duma could be a power broker. He has more MPs than Mr Kua.

In the unlikely event that both Marape and O’Neill fail to gain the support of the wealthy politicians from the Highlands, the coastal politicians do have some credible leaders in Allan Bird and Allan Marat, the hardworking Ruchard Maru, and the gentleman from Kapari-Viriola, Sir Puka Temu. All four do not have the numbers, but one of them would make a good prime minister of this country.

That leaves Hon John Rosso of Lae and Belden Namah of Vanimo Green. John Rosso comes across as a competent leader. I was impressed by his speech at the UN. He came out better than PM Marape. Rosso has tried hard to change the face of Lae, a melting pot of migrants from the Highlands and Madang. He has done better than those in charge of the national capital, a small isolated place, with lots of money and police power, which can be managed better than any other place. The fiery Belden Namah is probably a better Opposition leader than a PM, but I hope he proves me wrong.

Who ever offers MPs the best deal, in terms of ministerial positions and money for themselves and for their electorates, stands a good chance of becoming prime minister. The fear of missing out on PSIP and DSIP funds will prevent MPs from leaving the government. James Marape has a real chance of keeping his government intact, which will see him serving out the remainder of this parliamentary term. Mr O’Neill and Mr Duma have the power to change the government – if they were to offer the prime ministership to someone like Allan Bird, or Allan Marat, or Richard Maru.

Save PNG!

https://amzn.to/3JKL9WA

Troubling Borrowing Trends in the HELP Loan Program

My final year research paper was on the HELP Loan Program. During the course of collecting data, I uncovered several disturbing findings from interviewing student borrowers.

One of the findings of my study shed light on the rise of an opportunistic culture among student borrowers.

IRC Commissioner General Sam Koim highlighted this concerning trend in a Facebook post, characterizing it as an “opportunistic culture.” Former Vice Chancellor of UPNG, Professor Ross Hynes, labeled it the “kisim chance” culture.

Participants in the study revealed that some view the loan as an exploitable opportunity, citing ineffective systems for loan requisition that allow borrowers to evade repayment due to weak tracking mechanisms.

Participants expressed skepticism about the ability of the government and DHERST to collect loan repayments, pointing out loopholes in the system. Concerns were raised about the inadequacy of the IT System in tracking down borrowers, leading to the belief that many students may be obtaining “free money.”

Some participants strategically applied for the loan, viewing it as an opportunity to acquire funds without intending to repay. Others emphasized the necessity for a robust monitoring system to ensure students fulfill their repayment obligations.

As the researcher, who encountered such behaviour, I believe that while many student borrowers understand their obligation to repay the state-owned loan, some exploit the deficiencies in the government and implementing agencies of the HELP Loan Program.

Notably, the HELP is not the first government loan policy. A predecessor, the Tertiary Education Students Assistance Scheme (TESAS), introduced in 2000 and administered by the Office of Higher Education (OHE), now DHERST, faced challenges. Out of over 7,000 students who obtained the loan, only one fully repaid it, raising concerns about coordination and action from the Internal Revenue Commission.

Another troubling finding relates to students’ perceptions of changes in government and government policies. The HELP Loan, introduced by the Marape government, is viewed by some participants as a politically motivated policy susceptible to reversal with changes in government.

The study revealed that participants cited a change in government as one of their reasons for taking the loan, anticipating potential scrapping or modification of the policy with political shifts. Some believed a new government would likely cancel the loans, providing an escape route for borrowers.

These findings highlight the urgent need for a critical review of the HELP Loan Program to address loopholes, strengthen monitoring systems, and ensure that government initiatives are not exploited for personal gain.

APPOINT A NEW FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER

After Justin Tkatchenko’s resignation as Foreign Affairs Minister after the backlash from the citizens of our country, Prime Minister Marape assumed the responsibilities of the Foreign Minister, temporarily filling the void. Surprisingly, instead of appointing a new Foreign Affairs Minister, Marape designated Tkatchenko as the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, effectively keeping him closely tied to the Foreign Affairs portfolio.

This arrangement raises concerns about the actual shift in leadership within the Foreign Affairs Ministry. Despite the apparent reshuffling, Tkatchenko still wields influence over foreign affairs matters. Given the importance of this ministry at the present moment, there is a pressing need for Prime Minister James Marape to promptly appoint a dedicated and patriotic Papua New Guinean as the new Foreign Affairs Minister. This would ensure effective and independent leadership in handling crucial international matters for the nation.