Comments

I have not read Gordon Peake’s book, Confessions of an adviser, but I find his observations reported by Professor Howes very instructive. Peake’s comments about Bougainville resonate loud and clear. In my view, they could just as validly be applied to any province in Papua New Guinea or the Solomon Islands. If that is a fair call, and I would argue it is, then what does that tell us about the stated aim of Australia’s new aid program? I think Peake is correct when he ascribes the disconnect between PNG nation building activities and those responsible for implementation to the influence of clans. Papua New Guinea has been described as a country comprising more than 6,000 clan groups, 836 languages and 22 provinces. The missing emphasis is the fact that more than ninety percent of PNG land and much of its productive waters is under the traditional ownership of clan groups that have maintained their independent way of life for centuries. Traditional land ownership is power. While land is often described as communal, in reality decisions affecting the allocation and use of land is in the hands of a relatively few traditionally powerful families and sub clan groups who might be described as head custodians. At least eighty-five percent of the population of nine or more million people lives on land that is governed by tradition practices and for the foreseeable future the majority of the population will remain dependent upon their clan’s land to build a house, grow food, raise their children and make a little money. The use of customary land is not free. Everyone who receives permission to build and grow their food on a portion is bound to acknowledge the head custodian or custodial line by way of feast giving and other actions of reciprocity on a regular basis. For most rural and many urban dwellers, meeting traditional obligations to maintain access to garden land, fresh water, fishing areas with ongoing tenure for your family and descendants is the central theme driving their lives. Public servants who work in urban settings are more likely to be preoccupied with these matters than official business that lands on their desk. In practice, this places them under unrelenting pressure to do whatever is needed to meet traditional obligations and demands. Within this environment the business of government, which usually relates to people and clans the public servant is not related to, often takes a back seat. Peake also reports that the Bougainville government was broke. The same could be said for the provincial administrations of the other twenty-one provinces. Administrations that are responsible for delivering education, health, law and order and infrastructure services. Given this reality the machinery of government at all levels has little or no bearing on the lives of rural people. They remain largely self-sufficient on their land under the traditional practices of their forebears. So where does this leave our understanding of government, governance and services delivered for all in the best interests of the common good? In truth, our vision of a high performing public service staffed by people who deliver value for money outcomes and services to the majority of the people without prejudice, fear or favour for the benefit of all, is laughable. This is a creation of our making and like the cane toad may be considered an inappropriate introduction into the environment. It is not surprising that Peake reports it “was difficult to find someone (of like mind) to work with” and “there wasn’t any interest in facilitating effective government.” I would ask the question, “effective” within who’s world view? That some programs such as water and sanitation projects, seemed to fare better in terms of impact and effectiveness should come as no surprise. The benefits are delivered at community level. And, as Peake concludes, if independence is unlikely to make a material difference to the lives of Bougainvilleans, why 98% voted for it is also unsurprising. When protecting the land and resources of your ancestors for yourself and your descendants guides one’s life, the tragic consequences that ensued courtesy of a foreign owned mine in association with a government across the Solomon Sea whose authority you do not recognise, cutting ties with the latter is a sine qua non. So where does this leave Australia’s stated aim to focus aid policy on building effective accountable states that can sustain their own development? I do not pretend to know the answer but riding roughshod over traditional societies is not one of them. There needs to be a proper channel for truth to speak to power and for traditional systems of governance to be recognised. There is an urgent need for the “people” to be made true partners in nation building: a two-way street that incorporates the contribution of each of the more than 6,000 clans towards solutions on their land rather than the Waigani centric, top down, one size fits all model that has demonstrably failed the majority of the population for the past fifty years. I trust the powers that be in Canberra will listen a great deal more earnestly to what the end users, the stakeholders, customers and beneficiaries of their plans before launching into another generational round of activities that can so easily result in more harm than good.

Upending country power dynamics has the whiff of regime change about it which, as Dercon says, is unlikely to achieve country ownership at the government level.

I’ve spoken to Bougainville politicians and bureaucrats, who often blame PNG government of failing to transfer the powers agreed in the Peace Agreement (and PNG Constitution). Gordon Peake suggests the Bougainville government wasn’t interested in the drawdown either. Is it a case where neither government is not interested in transferring powers? Transfer of power is a very important matter to some Bougainville elites. In fact they will argue that the 97.7% (not 98.4%) vote for independence is a result of PNG government’s failure to transfer powers and/or rebuild the infrastructures destroyed during the crisis during the 15 years following the peace agreement. However, when you speak to the grassroots, they’ll say their government is corrupt, and mismanages grants given by the national government. Why Bougainville voted for independence varies depending on who you ask. Whilst ‘some’ politicians blame it on national government’s failure to transfer of powers, veterans of the conflict would say the they’d vote for independence regardless. The support for independence is still strong. But may be too early though. From internal revenue to infrastructure and bureaucracy, it’s just not sufficient to sustain an independent Bougainville.

Do we have an up date on how much progress, or lack of has been made since Ms Wainetti posted this article? It would be instructive to learn about what has happened in the decade since.

Thankyou very much for the hard working of increasing awareness

I've sent a response to your email, suggesting some folk who have much more expertise than myself on property rights in the New Guinea Islands. Get back to me by email (mike.bourke[at]anu.edu.au) if you do not receive this mail. Mike

Hi Mike, This is a great read and a great resource. I appreciate the effort that went into collecting the kind of data you have in your spreadsheet. I would like to ask though: what are land ownership and property rights like in Bougainville? I have an interest in how economic incentives from owning productive agricultural land influences early development. I am new to this site so happy to directed to an existing resource/blog. Cheers.

I should correct my earlier statement that the Konoagil Integrated Agriculture Project is the only large-scale logging project currently harvesting logs in the Konoagil LLG area. Two old concessions in the area have recently been 'reactivated' in apparent violation of the Forestry Act. Both are operated by a company called Joinland Management, which is closely related to Millennium Corporation. Between them, these two logging projects have exported about 265,000 cubic metres of logs since 2020, and the latest SGS report tells us that three quarters of this volume was exported in 2022. Which is even worse news for anyone attempting to claim carbon credits for avoided deforestation and forest degradation in that area.

He is the one of the unique person to carry on a leadership of prime minister

My friend, FPIC is a lengthy process. It is not a one day process. It involves all landowners, not a few on behalf of everybody else. It is a right, a stand alone one. Your company's work on a carbon project in the Bainings has a whole lot of rights transgressed on. A whole lot of processes are not being followed. Whether your operatives and the fake ILG personnel in involved know about these is a big question. The huge area of tribal lands illegally registered by the fake ILG is the biggest land fraud that easily, without contest, attracts the a formidable legal challenge that covers community entry by your company operatives and that of the fake ILG. Your points just do not hold water and they are out of context as to the content of the report.

Your reference to our involvement in Cambodia post Khmer Rouge, reminded me that the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia was led by a senior Australian military officer. Australia provided the Force Commander for UNTAC, Lieutenant General John Sanderson AM from the Australian Army. He was also acting as an adviser to the Secretary-General of the UN in the lead up to the mission. UNTAC assumed control of key sectors of the country's administrative structures--foreign affairs, defence, security, finance and communications--in order to build a stable environment conducive to national elections. At the same, UNHCR oversaw the successful repatriation and resettlement of some 360,000 refugees and displaced persons. At its peak, UNTAC numbered over 21,000 military and civilian personnel from more than 100 countries. https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/past/untacbackgr1.html So--was part of the success due to being led by a serving army General, able to issue orders? Though I met General Sanderson after his return from Cambodia in 1993 and he was certainly a loss to our diplomatic service. He listened to my proposal and invited me to present it at an ADFA seminar in May 1994. The seminar was published as International Peacekeeping: Building on the Cambodian Experience edited by Hugh Smith, Australian Defence Studies Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy. Canberra, 1994. John Sanderson's was one very diplomatic invitation.

It's a good post that all PNG politicians are working together, but it seems that no change in our country. How will our country change, that's the question.