Comments

Many mining development operating around the country have their own perspective of political, social and economic activities surrounding them. In any situation in life there are good and bad in it. Porgera mining development and case is an interesting one. When Panguna Mine in early 1987, 1988 and 1989 going into civil unrest and eventual closure had challenged the political, social and economy of Papua New Guinea. When Porgera and Ok Tedi Mine were operating in their inception stage, the government had to approve all their mining contract and environmental requirement to assist the kina flotation and devaluation. The government needed money to assist the population growth rate of 3 million at that time as our economy was very fragile. However, all mining issue from affected relevant stakeholders were planned, drafted and integrated into benefit sharing agreement emnated from specific development forum. If agreement was implemented diligently we can't find such result to speak now. Secondly, our attitude, manipulation and personal interest had to cease. Thirdly, all stakeholder had to work together honestly and prudently. Fourthly, the closure aspect is in the Mine Closure Policy and Guideline and integrated into the Mining Act. Fifthly, lesson to be drawn from OK Tedi Detail Mine Closure Plan and current sustainable program and activities carried out. Lastly, beneficiaries from the Porgera mine should stand tall to provide professional advice and assistance.

Very good article, been there for some time. Yes it's going to change but we need to change our mindsets too. There are no permanent residents, there are mining employees. FIFO only township built by the mine was empty, only suyan camp mostly are kandeps and Taris settlement all over from kairik to Paiam all the way Suyan, Pogera station, Alipis and everywhere causing lots of problems. We need to change our attitude and better change will happen.

Thanks Ashlee. Points noted! The Report does largely focus attention on "what works" in terms of country level preparedness to respond to the rise of obesity and associated NCDs. For each country it first provides quite detailed and useful projections for the rise of obesity among male and female adults, and children, through to 2035 and, for those countries with sufficient data, estimates of the economic impact if existing trends continue. As mentioned in the blog, the report then draws on four separate sources of (mainly WHO) data and a total of 48 separate indicators capturing aspects of "what works" in terms of access to health care, availability of services; and policies. The specific indicators are set out on pages 230 and 231 of the report. Any country can therefore use all this to assess for itself how well it is providing known policies, services, and programs that "work". The country rankings can also shed light on how well a particular country is implementing "what works" in relation to neighbouring and comparable countries. Identifying in even more detail the positive lessons from countries that do rate well in terms of their readiness and preparedness to respond to increases in obesity and NCD is recommended in the last paragraph of the blog for the future. Thanks for your continued interest in these important development issues and contributing to the debate. Ian

This was a time of poor economic performance in PNG. Since so much travel is business related, total travel to PNG fell.

Very interesting article. While it is great news that the mine is reopening, it is also sad to see that the Government will not be able to get any dividends for the first ten years which is half the estimated life of the mine. A good lesson learnt to inform on future decision making on closing down investments by Government.

Porgera has a lot to learn from OK Tedi, especially on setting up a long-term fund like SDP.

A great article. Wondering if there’s any comparison with OK Tedi and the Sustainable Development Program? Or lessons to be learnt from SDP? https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/billion-reasons-future-png-s-sustainable-development-fund

Hi Ian. A few points on this, as someone with lived experience. This report in general is pretty light on, and doesn't acknowledge the complexity of this issue, nor any insight into what works. And to me it is a huge, huge issue that the report is funded by pharma. The World Obesity Foundation that publishes the Atlas is funded by a number of drug companies that are currently making very large profits from pushing the new generation weight loss medications such as semaglutide etc. Novo Nordisk for example, the manufacturer of Ozempic, which has had a worldwide shortage last year due to off-label usage as a weight loss drug, is listed as a key funder of the report! It is worth noting that there is a huge financial incentive for these companies to continue to frame obesity as a curable condition stemming from individual choices or behaviours, rather than advocating for better health access for people with bodies of all sizes or examining the structural drivers, for example. There is also a financial incentive for these companies to see health systems frame obesity in this way instead of looking at more holistic or 'health at any size' approaches in their health systems. Access to appropriate, quality, accessible, non-stigmatised medical care continues to be a huge issue for people with fat bodies in developed countries -- is the same framing we have used in the West around this issue actually going to help in developing countries or just replicate the same issues? Thinking and language around this issue is evolving in Western medicine practice (albeit incredibly slowly) -- this report makes a nod to some of this language to seem like they 'get it' in the priority section for example, but doesn't really engage with it, particularly on what it might mean in a developing country health care setting. Obesity as measured in the report is based on BMI solely, which is a measure with many known problems, particularly around race and ethnicity. The American Medical Association just last week adopted a new policy on the use of BMI, acknowledging its deep flaws. This report makes no acknowledgement of the limitations of the measure. That's just a few very quick things that concern me about the report that I just had to attach here. I think looking at NCDs themselves is much more useful -- not all fat people have an NCD, not all people with NCDs are fat, etc. NCDs can be managed or prevented even if people remain in an overweight or obese weight category, etc. Obviously we want to reduce incidence of NCDs and support people's health (in a holistic sense, which I don't think the BMI captures with accuracy or nuance). But Novo Nordisk has some strong perspectives on the best way to do that and it involves a once a week injection into your upper thigh that currently retails for about $300 AUD a pen if you can even buy it. (For those who want to learn more on some of these issues I highly recommend the Maintenance Phase podcast episodes, particularly the ones on BMI.)

Why were there a decline between 1996 and 2007?

Thank you so much young man. It shows how hard work and commitment pays off regardless of our background and up bringing.

The book reflects the changing trends of development and what development can do in the midst of a growing nation like PNG. The best description or outcome of the Bougainville crisis is the fight for freedom which was spearheaded by Francis Ona to liberate his people from the slavery of the mine by Rio Tinto Mining Giant who would have dug up the gold and copper and leave behind a huge crater with nothing for the people. PNG Govt under Sir Julius Chan in bringing in the mercenaries was the secret plot that was uncovered by Major General Singirok. In this book, Major Singirok should be honoured as a hero who gave Independence to Bougainville.

There are multiple other very similar examples across the region but zero accountability - especially involving the ADB. The worst is probably not even this one, a look at the similar investment in Vanuatu tells a potentially even more frightening story in terms of poor practices of the development partners. The ADB head of infrastructure at the time has now left the ADB - but what is more worrying is that the they deliberately turned a blind eye even when warned repeatedly about many of their investments during this period.