Comments

Thanks for this analysis, Madeleine. However, one political issue that always seems missing in the aid debate(s) is explicit support by the Foreign Minister for the results of our aid program. And regularly highlighting the positive outcomes. Not the "in principle" statements of the obvious, so beloved of politicians. Not trumpeting the annual dollar amounts in the aid budget. Especially – not going along to a recipient country and announcing the commencement of an Australian aid project. With many coloured pictures. The public debate about the merits of aid has moved on (slightly) from the "all aid is wasted" nonsense. But Foreign Ministers and not the "Minister for International Development" need – regularly – to publicise why aid is necessary, useful and achieves the reduction poverty in a recipient country. In my 36 years of lobbying on the benefits of Australia's aid, I have never heard a Minister say that.

Hi Ryan and Hiroshi, curious your research focuses on how seasonal workers supports "everyday expenses", a line of conclusions can generally be applied to many other countries in the Pacific. However, have you find out what they, the seasonal workers, net incomes fortnightly are? Are you able to obtain payslips and ascertain average net income amount your research participants? The conclusion about not venturing into investments can be also be explained by the above inquiries. They might not make enough to go beyond funding "everyday needs". So I think the conclusion is incomplete without these data.

Thanks Lde. We are also puzzled by the fact that the April Salumei project remained on the Verra registry for such a long time, and we do not know why the registration has only been suspended this year.

But again in most homes parents are not properly educated to teach their children on the benefits of having a clean environment. I reckon that the best approach would be educating (through awareness) the general public, this includes all age groups.

Hi all, Iam Kenn Mondiai, Iam a Forestry Officer been in the sector for 35+ years. In my honest opinion all Projects (REDD+, Green Carbon and Blue Carbon) are like a CARGO CULT ..... Carbon Promoters and Marketers are cheating our People in PNG, with their Sweet Talks of BIG MONEY....and in actual fact they are not delivering on their sweet talks. They and their people in the middle are the ones benefiting most due to the ignorance of our people.. and off course the Public Servants in Government and the Politicians. The next thing that we must all know, it that, the forest and trees were on the peoples land for generations and because of this so called Carbon Trade and Offsets ....we have Foreigners flooding our shores and going into rural remote areas trying to setup carbon Projects. Carbon Trading and Offsets does not do anything good for the Land and Resource Owners (People), the Promoters of Carbon Trade are actually not doing anything .....they are fooling our people in collusion with the Government Agencies and Politicians. The PNG Government MUST STOP CARBON TRADING and look at setting up more Community Conservation Area Projects where the people will be incharge and promoting sustainable agriculture, ecotourism and Government putting into the rural communities infrastructure. Our people must not be misled , fooled and exploited by Foreigners on some Cargo Cult idea that does no good for Planet Earth. Carbon Offset is a TOTAL LIE ..... The Big Polluters keep pumping GHG into the Atmosphere and Local Communities in PNG are promised BIG MONEY, but the Middle People Cheat them and give them Peanuts ....at the end of the day, POLLUTION KEEP GOING INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.

Hi Sarah- I really do, however, the needs are much greater than just the capital. The intent of ours and other REDD + projects is to help the ILGs utilize the capital they receive to create other livelihoods that will provide a monthly income also. Our plan is that 20% of the 56% of net revenue due to each ILG is used for projects that impact the entire clan positively. We had 4 clans purchase boats with the funds they received from the first distribution and others have built community centers. The remaining 80% goes to each individual. Our project is directed towards the individuals as it is their land, their trees. We looked at it as if we made a deal like this in the states, what would we expect. We adjusted it a little for the costs of doing business in PNG, however, even with the reduced price of our credits this year, we still think the distribution will be over k400 per person - twice the annual family income from the New Ireland Provincial Government numbers. It would have been closer to k800 before the 4 Corners Article. The strange thing is that the carbon stock and the credits are still the same, however, the market perception of what they are has been altered. The question on the bamboo is the carbon stock (total value of the planting) and how much that is. If you think about replanting a qwilla tree, it grows over 100 ft tall and can be over 100 cm dbh. If you have 20 to 25 of these per ha plus other trees, how many bamboo trees are needed to get to the same carbon stock?

Hi, I am from Papua New Guinea within the Salumei REDD project area. I have never seen any benefits for resources owners and God as a land owner. VERRA must come over to Papua New Guinea and verify April salumei REDD project. Why Steven Hooper and his Papua New Guinea college stole from the poor land owner when his county is well developed and they earn so much money from this poor people.

What are the significant achievement he created for Papua New Guinea.

Whether they are termed `little Americans' (Paul Keating) or Australyanks matters little. Canberra in general and the ANU in particular is full of them. Calling out those who have never experienced war but are enthusiasts for it is always welcome. Thanks Greg and Terence.

We do not know why the Four Corners team made no mention of the ForCert forest carbon project in East New Britain. We did not discuss it in our blog post because of space constraints. We have concentrated on activities in the Konoagil local-level government (LLG) area in New Ireland Province because that is where NIHT has its first ‘project activity instance’. The only large-scale logging concession in that area that we are aware of is the Konoagil (or Lak-Kandas) Integrated Agro-Forestry Project, which is based on a Forest Clearing Authority that was granted to a company called Millionplus Corporation in 2015. We know from SGS records that this company has exported about 580,000 cubic metres of timber from this concession since 2016. Unfortunately, we do not know the geographical boundaries of this concession because the PNG Forest Authority has not seen fit to divulge this information. Therefore, we do not know how it might intersect with the area covered by NIHT’s first ‘project activity instance’ in the Kandas area. We only know that the FCA covers about 44,000 hectares of land, and that the developer has promised to plant about 25,000 hectares with oil palm once the forest has been cleared. I have discussed the formation of incorporated land groups (ILGs) in the Konoagil LLG area in a previous discussion paper (‘Two Steps Forward, Two Steps Back: The Mobilisation of Customary Land in Papua New Guinea'). According to the National Gazette, 17 land groups from that area applied for incorporation between 2015 and 2017, when the forest conversion concession and the forest carbon project were being canvassed to local landowners, and ten of them had actually been registered by the end of 2018. The gazettal notices do not tell us the reason for their incorporation or the nature of any agreements that they might have entered into. None of the notices relate to a group by the name of Nanio. We do not believe that it is possible to assert that 80 percent of the population of New Ireland support any specific form of development. Indeed, from my own experience of conducting fieldwork in that part of New Ireland, I doubt whether one could say that 80 percent of the residents of a single council ward would agree to a particular development option. If Mr Strauss would care to supply us with the names of all the ILGs in the Konoagil LLG area with which he has signed some agreement, then we can check the National Gazette to see whether they have been registered by the Lands Department. We are aware that NIHT has engaged a consultant to find out which land groups own which areas of land in the vicinity of its first ‘project activity instance’, but we understand that this work has yet to be completed. We should be delighted to receive copies of any court judgments relating to these matters. Our general approach to finding the truth about what is going on in PNG is to triangulate all available sources of information.

Hi Stephen, Thanks for clarifying the income NIHT received from the sale of carbon credits. Given this information wasn't publicly available we had to make an educated guess based on incomplete information. Can you confirm how much of the gross revenue has been passed on to the customary landowners, when and in what form (eg direct cash payments, investment in community infrastructure)? We have been trying to understand the NIHT Topaiyo project but there are a number of gaps and/or contradictory information in publicly available documents. I had some email discussions with George Gates in September 2022 and requested the following documents from NIHT: 1. Documentation on the logging permit or concession type held by NIHT (to understand the legal basis of the avoided planned deforestation project type) 2. Copy of the ‘Konoagil Logging Plan’  (to understand how the baseline ‘with logging’ scenario was established and therefore how emission reductions from not logging were calculated) 3. Copy of the Benefit Distribution Mechanism and clarification of the percentage of revenue from the sale of carbon credits going to landowners and what payments have been made to date. We are planning on writing a longer Discussion Paper containing more detail on all the various carbon projects in PNG and would welcome copies of these three documents, as well as copies of documents you mention. Many thanks Andrea

Hi Stephen, I understand the government and community context makes the project very challenging. As I understand, the initial concept of the REDD+ was that communities could receive an income stream that improves their livelihoods for protecting the forest, paid for with carbon credits. Given you understand all of the complexities, particularly the number of people receiving payments and all the operational funds required for auditing, certification etc., do you think that REDD+ can achieve this initial goal of real livelihoods improvements? This is a genuine question, we have looked at the potential for working with communities in Indonesia to plant bamboo for carbon credits and income and your opinion and experience is important as a forerunner in the industry.