Comments

Having worked in 15 road construction, 1 major port construction, 30 bridge construction and 3 power generation/electricity distribution projects in PNG, my view on the subject is different from authors of this blogpost. My team has been responsible for the relocation and impacts management of over 3,000 households resulting from above projects over 10 years. The primary question is how does the government alone identify land owners when the impact zone is known only to the developer? Similarly, the nature of impacts are also known to the developer and not the government. The analysis of nature of impacts is important to identify mitigation measures to reduce if not unable to avoid. Our experience provides adequate evidence that land owner identification is the joint responsibility of the developer and the government (includes land owner entity). The best approach is to form a team comprising of representatives of land owner tribes/groups, other community members, district land officials and the social/land acquisition specialist of the developer, headed by the latter. This approach has worked satisfactorily over several years across different types of projects. Our recommendations for the team include: - work from the ground level -inform all land owners about the process by conducting meetings, discussions -identify all impacted land parcel by team's physical inspection -noting down details including tribal contacts -full documentation of process as well as the outcome -transparency of information We have found that government does has capacity issues and does not have incentives to start and work through the process. Decisions are delayed and land owner identification becomes excessively delayed that has a significant impact on the development work itself. A project that takes 4-5 years to complete might take as much as 10-15 years (some projects have never been implemented due to the same issue) if the government is left with the responsibility to identify land owner and thereby to propose mitigation measures for the impacted people.

Thank you. That was well articulated. An idea thrown around earlier was that the multinational companies and PNG government may have to include program quota for trade apprenticeships and internships schemes. So not to poach and leave the trade workforce after the development phase of the project lapse, but to actually trained new graduates from the vocational schools, technical colleges and universities.

Great piece, hope it is widely read and the points adopted in CDD planning. One question: The figures cited for WB involvement in CDD projects in 2018 would appear off by at least an order of magnitude - 187 projects for $19 billion equates to an average project cost of $100 million each. And each of the 77 countries would be implementing on average 2.4 CDD projects. What gives?

Thank you Wilson, Great questions. Sorry for a short reply, I have to get home to pack to go to Solomon Islands. I think the CDF grew out of a pre-existing need/propensity on behalf of voters to ask MPs for local spending rather than government policy. When it was first introduced in 1993 the CDF seemed to help MPs a lot (many were re-elected in that election). However, after that MPs started losing elections at a similar rate to prior to the CDF. It seemed as if voters' expectations had adjusted. However, in 2014 when the CDF (and other grants to MPs) became particularly large most MPs were re-elected. It will be very interesting to see the impacts of the CDF on this election. It is likely, I think, that the CDF will help sitting members, but not guaranteed. Some great research is being done on the CDF by people who know more about it than me. Tony Hiriasia is excellent. He has a good paper here: http://dpa.bellschool.anu.edu.au/experts-publications/publications/4381/kin-and-gifts-understanding-kin-based-politics-solomon Similarly James Batley and Colin Wiltshire are doing excellent work on the CDF. http://dpa.bellschool.anu.edu.au/experts-publications/publications/4073/constituency-development-funds-solomon-islands-state-play is one example.

Thanks PNG Insight for your comment. The lesson is that the PNG government missed the opportunity to impose stronger local employment and training targets in the PNG LNG project National Content Plan. The recommendations are that 1) with negotiations on the Papua LNG project ongoing, it is not too late to impose stronger targets for the country’s next mega project; and 2) the PNG government should undertake a detailed survey of the project workforce to assess the skills that Papua New Guineans acquire while employed on the project, and their employability in future projects.

Thanks for the blog Terence. Just out of curiosity and of interest - what are your observations on the impacts of CDF generally in the Solomon Islands - what will be its future impacts in the country? And do you think CDF will have a major impact(s) on the outcome of this upcoming National General Election?

I would rather see discussion papers like this make clear recommendation/s on studies... what was learnt and how can future project developments be national skill development orientated. What are the recommendations?

Its very sad scenario but this is what is happening in PNG. No one denies this. Well, some do get their NID cards and birth registration or even passports for that matter within hours or few days. This is not a surprise, "under the table transaction" does strive and flourish well in PNG public service. So sad but reality.

Australian double standards at work once again. How arrogant of Australia to lecture PNG on corruption! And of course, Australia's Minister for Home Affairs was blissfully unaware the contract was being let. How convenient! It's no wonder the Chinese have secured a firm footing in PNG and having an enormous impact in Australia.

Papua New Guinea is rich in both renewable and non renewable resources, so why we are facing this decrease in the value of the kina?

I thank Peter Dwyer and Monica Minnegal for their blog-post. There appears to be some confusion as to the role of social mapping and landowner identification studies in the context of the Oil & Gas Act (1998). Michael Trebilcock writing on customary land ownership in 1983 summarised the views of anthropologists Roy Wagner, Andrew Strathern and Paula Brown in the following terms - 'The main principles on which land-owning groups are formed are descent, locality (or residence), and participation in such common activities as gardening or defence. ... [W]ithin groups land loans or gifts are common as part of the mutual aid between fellow clansmen, kin and affines. ... [L]ineage claims to land may peter out if not actively and continuously asserted. ... Locational presence or participation or clan activities may generate rights, at least to usage, in addition to rights possessed to other land by descent. On this view, groups rarely own property rights to land as a collectivity, but rather group membership characteristics will determine individual property rights within these group bounds.' Communal Property Rights: The Papua New Guinean Experience (pp 9-10) https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/economicsceapr_el_wp/33/ So social mapping and landowner identification studies simply map people to ground and ground to people, people identified as persons, habitations, villages and groups. Groups are formalised for beneficiary payment purposes as ILGs. The 2003/4 draft Social Mapping and Landowner Identification Studies (SMLIS) regulation was designed to compel the Australian-based consultant anthropologists to, at the very least, supply this most basic information in their reports to the project developers. The project developers in turn were required to supply these reports to the Department of Petroleum as a condition precedent to the issue of a project development license. Why the Australian-based consultant anthropologists vehemently opposed the making of the SMLIS regulation is a mystery known only to them. But I don’t think anybody in PNG has any interest today in inquiring into the seemingly confused and baffled mind-set of the implicated anthropologists. The project development companies and the Minister of Petroleum do NOT determine land ownership. Only the Local Land Court, the District Land Court and the Land Titles Commission have the power to determine land ownership. The Minister of Petroleum is empowered to make a determination as to the identities of the project landowner beneficiaries. In exercising this power the Minister is obliged to take into account the advice of his public servants including their views on the developer-submitted social mapping and landowner identification studies. If you wish to know more about the extent of the Minister’s discretion in these matters I strongly recommend that you engage the services of a competent lawyer who specialises in PNG administrative law. I suggest also that you further examine Justice Amet’s (as he then was) Hides Gas Project Case LTC decision and pay attention to the ‘control of access to land’ criteria (http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGLTC/1993/1.html). For more background on this and related issues please see Uriva v Maika (re Veakabu) [1969] PGSC 44 an old case, but still good law (http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGSC/1969/44.html). In regard to your concern as to the upcoming projects, Papua LNG and P’nyang, I can assure you that both GoPNG and developers have no intention of allowing the mandatory project Social Mapping and Landowner Identification Studies to drift into the absurdities that occurred in the PNG LNG project. The draft Social Mapping and Landowner Identification Studies regulation can be read into the background of Justice Kandakasi’s (as he then was) 2016 P’nyang case decision (Bernard v Duban [2016] PGNC 121 http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/2016/121.html) (subsequently approved and affirmed by the Supreme Court (Rimbunan Hijau (PNG) Ltd v Enei [2017] http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGSC/2017/36.html). The draft SMLIS regulation has been used in the context of the Papua LNG project land investigations and both GoPNG and developers Total/OSL and ExxonMobil have no intention of repeating past mistakes and being led up the creek and into a swamp of anthropological consultant confusion again. The developers have every intention of being compliant with all relevant and applicable PNG law. Consideration is currently being given to formally bringing the draft SMLIS regulation into force. Vailala

Hi Michael, a very insightful piece of information any Papua New Guineans should note, especially those who dont know yet. Reading through this excellent work, I wonder if the WestMinister system is preventing better service service delivery or is it just the way the institutions are used, and in some cases abused, which is the issue? It is a very sorry state now to see citizens already loosing trust in the Government of day because they are not receiving what they are supposed to be recieving at the rural and remote communities. Thank you again for sharing your work.