PNG logging Photo: Papua New Guinea Forest Industry Association
Transparency International Papua New Guinea says a planned forestry development in Western Province appears to have got the go-ahead with no due diligence being done by the government.
The large-scale scheme would involve 600 kilometres of roads being built, while taking a small amount of forestry along the routes. It is estimated to cost 4.8 billion kina yet the tax payer would pay nothing.
The Australian principals behind the project are also linked with an earlier discredited scheme planned for the same area in Western Province. However, the agreement still got the endorsement of Prime Minister James Marape, who called it an "integrated agro-forestry project".
RNZ Pacific asked TI PNG spokesperson Peter Aitsi for his group's opinion on the agreement.
Peter Aitsi: When we had a look at this particular venture, it raised some red flags with us, primarily around the viability of this project, but also the lack of transparency, in terms of how the governor of Western Province.
Our political leaders have, in a way, given their support to this project in what appears to be without any real due diligence or proper consideration around the environmental impact, the societal impact, but also just the monetary and income value to PNG.
Don Wiseman: You might say that that's par for the course for the actions of a PNG Government, going back.
PA: Unfortunately so. And that again speaks to the broader concern that TI [Transparency International] has where we've got this deteriorating governance environment within our country and the conduct and behaviour of some of our leaders is eroding the trust, the public trust in its government and then the public service and public systems.
DW: We've got this Australian company, that did get called an Italian company, that's behind this, and has links to a somewhat discredited company from sometime earlier that seemed to have a very similar idea. What do you think should have happened from a governance point of view, with this scheme? What should the government have done first?
PA: Well, you would think, given that these types of I would call them ventures. Some may say they're just schemes, generally come about when parties come to the government and sort of pitch these ideas to them. In most cases, saying they're going to deliver significant benefits. But as we've seen over the years, seldom do they really deliver the promised benefits that they make.
I think it's a case here that our elected leaders, our political leaders, should have done proper due diligence on this group, and they would have been able to perhaps establish the link back to the group that initially made this proposal back in 2013 I think the group is called the independent timbers and Steven during limited so if it's had some concerns raised earlier in terms of their concept, then they should have been flagged earlier.
My concern is now that we've got our prime minister endorsing this project, and all in sundry marched up to government house and had our governor general sign the agreement. And it just doesn't bode well for the country when we've got what appears to be very ill informed decisions that are being made at the very highest levels.
DW: The PNG Forest Authority is a substantial government agency, but it doesn't seem to have very much control over what's happening in forestry in the country.
PA: I think that's a perhaps an indication of the deterioration within our governance, again. Most of these government agencies and entities now, I've been saying this for many, many years now, have been politicised to the point that they have become essentially just a mechanism for our elected leaders to work through.
There is no, I would say, independence within these organisations, and as a result, we open ourselves up to these types of, what I call, fairly sort of vague and loosely sort of constructed proposals that come through, and we, without proper consideration we seem to give these parties free access to our resources.
DW: Yes the problem is changing that whole mindset, isn't it? It's going to take years and years and years to re-educate people about ethics and morals and so on and so on, isn't it?
PA: Absolutely. As you'll find the world over, our human nature tends to sort of lead us where there's no sort of proper checks and balances to serve our own interest in most cases. So from a Transparency International's point of view, our work is really to try and support and rebuild these government and state institutions that are there to serve the purposes of our communities, and in particular, the likes of our Electoral Commission, the likes of our ICAC, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Ombudsman Commission, and other such state agencies that are responsible for the enforcement and adherence of law.
So that's really where the focus is, and underlying all that is the work we're doing through our schools in introducing civic education or supporting civic education so that we are trying to get an understanding of the role of citizens within our within our younger generation, as they take on their place in our society.
DW: Do you think you're making progress on that road?
PA: It's frustrating and it's hard, and some days you feel you don't. But, you know, when you go to the schools and you're part of our outreach, and we see our primary school, secondary school, and our university students, and the way that they engage with our message, it seems to suggest that they have a desire for change, and they have a belief in our country. I think that's what keeps us going.