Comments

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.

I read with interest your blog as it mentions our project. Somewhat like tilting at windmills. The 4 Corners program had a pre-conceived agenda that did not really incorporate what is actually happening on the ground in PNG. We have 18 major discrepancies with their program (all sent to them before they aired their show). It is interesting that the show on carbon credits didn't mention the Forcert REDD + Project verra.org project number 2483. They only interviewed people that Ivy from Forcert presented to them - not one person in favor of the project, not one positive comment. Now let's debunk what you have stated. 1. Wish we would have made $8m USD from the initial sales, we sold worldwide and our gross revenue was closer to $5m and net revenue closer to $3.5m. 2.There were no upfront payments as it is against FREE PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT 3.All of our contracts are with Incorporated Landowner Groups as required by PNG law. 4.The process for a carbon credit project is that the initial area of 11,000 ha stands in for the entire area of 330,000 ha of which 110,000 ha are utilized to create the carbon credits. Based on the 11,000 ha if the entire area has the same carbon stock, then the credits are what we were issued. The 2020 vintage added the Sor ILG which has higher carbon stock which increased the number of credits, because of logging in the Nanio PAI instead of getting an additional 600,000 credits for 2020, we were issued 119,000 for the Nanio area. 5. The PAI for Nanio has 972 people living their and the entire area was over 15,000. We also paid 20% of the funds to the project accounts of the ILGs. We also paid some clan members from ENBP. 6.The 47,000 clan members comes from the original plan that was determined by the people who live in ENBP. Forcert determined to stop the project and assisted the people from Kait to sue in Namatanai district court to take control of the ILG. The management of the ILG lived in Kait, which is in Ward 14, however not within the boundary of the Nanio ILG. The Nanio people had lived on the land for over 65 years. The court ruled in June of 2021 that the ILG management if they didn't live in the project area could not dictate to the customary landowners as to what to do with their land. That court case changed the entire process as most of the people (almost 30,000 of them lived in ENBP and didn't live in New Ireland). 7.The large scale concession that you refer to was Forcert (remember the stars of the 4 Corners program - Ivy who accused us of using false information which was untrue - is the manager of Forcert) and that was in Kait and is about 3,000 ha. 8.None of our ILGs have thrown in with Forcert - again if they are a carbon credit project, why didn't 4 Corners speak about their project? 9. We have close to 80% support in New Ireland, have signed a contract with the New Ireland Provincial Government, the Climate Change Development Authority and the East New Britain provincial Government. Forcert isn't even registered with the New Ireland Provincial Government. 10.We have the signatures of the ILG Chairmen as listed with the lands department. 11. The CCDA visited the Nanio PAI twice, once after a letter from Forcert that went to Verra, the Prime Minister and anyone else that they could think of. Verra hired Baker McKenzie out of Australia to do their investigation and it was determined that NIHT had done FPIC correctly and Peter Dam and Forcert were competitors and not credible in this case. Letter from the CCDA to Peter Dam and Forcert from the Managing Director. Had sent a copy of that letter to 4 Corners also. 12. However at the Austrailian Institutes meeting in February titled Carbon Integrity - funny the name Integrity - in a panel discussion with the 4 Corners reporter sitting their - Forcert made the proven false accusation one more time that NIHT did not do FPIC correctly, which both Forcert and the 4 Corners Reporter knew was untrue.

Thanks Greg and Terence. A very balanced comment on China's engagement with the Pacific.

Article discusses electoral laws re: bribery, etc, by candidates. LPV, the conduct of the Electoral Commission is the biggest fraud since the inception of LPV. Very rarely is the biggest fraudster discussed

Thank you for sharing your views.

Thanks Greg and Terence. Apart from the piece Dame Meg Taylor co-authored, this is one of the best in my view.

No response that I'm aware of (I don't run the blog). But, to be fair to them, these sorts of debates may be the sort of thing they don't want to get entangled in. Most of their work is aid practice, after all.

A positive insight there. The underlying issues of violence in the country needs to be solved by the government. Violence is broad, the cause has to be addressed by the authorities, by then the epidemic be minised. Thanks for the information Mr Kingtau.

When the government provides (tax payer sources) funding support for any program it is guranteed that the government has the greater ability influence the program. Given the experience of the last three years President Ronald Reagan's words on the 9 most terrifying words in the English language ring loudly - https://youtu.be/nCedOQJ0ZEA