Comments

Dear Stephen - Thanks for your thoughtful comment. There’s strong evidence that supporting Indigenous and local communities is one of the most effective ways to conserve forests. PNG is particularly well placed for this approach, given the strength of customary land tenure. As you note, there are many examples of local groups conserving ecosystems and, in some cases, generating income through ecotourism and other sustainable livelihood activities. The YUS Conservation Area in the Huon Peninsular of Morobe Province (mentioned in the article) is a great example, combining conservation with community development and livelihood support. On the TFFF contribution, the 20% allocation for Indigenous communities is a minimum requirement. Ideally, countries like PNG would choose to direct a much larger share to landowning communities. The TFFF framework also allows a portion of funding to strengthen state capacity to support, monitor and enable forest protection. In PNG, as elsewhere, there is considerable scope to build this enabling environment around local communities.

A journey to greatness. Your education journey is very tough. I believe those are the refining moments for Great future. I strongly believe that you will become a leader. I'm truly inspire by your story. God bless

"The country retains around 58% primary rainforest cover, but.." which definition in the linked report are you using for this? Figure 2-1 on page 2 says 77.89%, which is close to the 77.5 on Our World in Data and but I'm presuming this is not "primary rainforest" and could not find a ~58 figure from searching. And Global Forest Watch, which I would tend to use, says: "As of 2020, 88% of land cover in Papua New Guinea was natural forests and 0.75% was non-natural tree cover" https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/PNG/?map=eyJjYW5Cb3VuZCI6dHJ1ZX0%3D

Thank you, Ronny, for your excellent and illuminating analysis. One of the best pieces on decentralisation in Indonesia I have read!

Thank you Peter for an excellent article. I cannot comment on Papua but by contrast the high percentage of customary land ownership in Papua New Guinea offers hope for which the addition of the TFFF is encouraging. When it comes to land in PNG the key words are customary and landowner. Not government or other entity and twenty percent sounds like a recipe for failure. Land owners are vanishingly unlikely to relinquish agency over decisions concerning their land to others for twenty percent of the pie, especially to entities that history tells them they have no reason to trust. In my opinion customary land owners hold the key to success. There are examples that potentially point the way. I refer to two unrelated community groups in Milne Bay province who of their own volition registered portions of their customary land as bird of paradise sanctuaries. They did so because their leaders understood the value of the pristine nature of their environment that provides ecosystem services such as clean water rather than acquiesce to the dubious benefits from palm oil or logging interests. In both cases this is paying dividends as both groups are also investing in village tourism. Cruise ships and other visitors arrive in Alotau where an opportunity to glimpse Raggiana bird of paradise in full display during the mating season is quite a draw card. In the case of one group I am familiar with, their BOP sanctuary would have been covered in oil palms now had they not made the choices they did. By comparison they retain full control over their land and bird watchers provide their youth the opportunity to earn income while showcasing the wonders their ancestral land to others. My takeaways are it is the landowners who should be driving the activities to protect PNGs unique forests. As past, present and future custodians of the land it is they who should also receive the lion's share of the financial reward for doing so. Because so much of PNG is still covered in pristine forest and because it remains under traditional ownership the TFFF may offer a uniquely nationwide opportunity to apply benefits widely at the grass roots level. Benefits that could be maximised by exploring with communities solutions to mitigate the impact of climate change on food and water security, women's and youth economic empowerment and potentially positives arising from the intersection of these activities with basic services delivery. If a wide lens approach was applied in conjunction with the TFFF it would resonate strongly with community needs. If also applied democratically the TFFF might be the right initiative to catalyse widespread empowerment across rural PNG.

Thanks for your comment and helpful suggestion Keith

Another quite significant statistic is the change in nationality/ ownership of the top firms delivering the Australian Aid Program. From 2014, where the top 7 contractors were all Australian owned - to today, where the top 4 contractors are now all U.S. owned (Palladium is owned by GISI), Cowater is Canadian, and the first Australian firm, AVI, enters the list at number 6 - delivering a mere 4.6% of the combined value of all contracts going to North American companies.

Great example of a community led governance initiative. I suspect the answer to your primary question already lies in some of the responses you have already received, namely that the prerequisite legal framework, which would enable such bylaws as subsidiary regulation in the municipal context, is either absent or very outdated. The current institutional reluctance to endorse such a set of extra-legal rules may therefore be understandable, particularly where existing constitutional protections regarding arbitrary eviction would possibly conflict with any attempts at non-court ordered expulsion from a community. Would the institutional response to such a proposal not be similar in Australia? Why would you expect it to be different in Fiji? I suggest one way forward could be a focus on identifying the existing gaps in the relevant legal frameworks, which could enable the development and adoption of appropriate bylaws for different urban contexts.

They already had a means of self survival in place but the government took that down in favor of its megaproject and left them nothing in return and with less means to make their own progress. It's like taking a walking stick from an old man and then telling him he should learn to walk after losing his leg in the fight for independence.

Thanks very much Eunice for highlighting the animal vaccine cold chain challenges in Burkina Faso. To answer your question, I would hope that a One Health cold chain would support all relevant animal vaccines, including vaccines that prevent non-zoonotic animal diseases. Endemic diseases, such as PPR in small ruminants and Newcastle disease in chickens, indirectly affect human health through their impact on food security, quality nutrition and livelihoods.

I’m interested.

Thanks very much Jinnat for your positive comments. A One Health approach to vaccine cold chains can be an important opportunity for it to demonstrate positive impacts at the community levels and on the national budget.