Papua New Guinea’s mining industry has expressed grave concerns over plans by the PNG government to revert ownership of minerals and resources to traditional landowners.

The mining industry warns that such a move will scare off investors and will be disastrous for the country’s economy.

PNG’s Mining Minister Byron Chan, says the government is reviewing existing laws to give ownership of minerals on, as well as under the land and seabed to the traditional owners.

Presenter: Firmin Nanol
Speaker: Byron Chan, PNG’s Mining Minister; Simon Ekanda, spokesperson for PNG landowners; Greg Anderson, Executive Director of PNG’s Chamber of Mines and Petroleum

• Listen:
• Windows Media

NANOL: Mr Chan says PNG is an island of gold floating on a sea of oil.

But the minister says it’s sad to see that resource owners are living in very poor conditions despite the relatively small population and the world class mining projects in the country.

He says by restoring ownership of minerals to the landowners, the government hopes to allow them to participate in the exploitation of their resources and improve their livelihoods.

Minister Byron Chan says this will be a win-win situation for the landowners and potential investors in PNG’s mining and petroleum sectors.

He says currently provincial governments, landowners and people from resource project areas are either left out of the negotiation and participation processes or lose out on long term benefits.

Minister Chan says under the proposed legislative changes the government will be a regulator, and not investor and regulator as is the case now.

CHAN: The law which states that the state owns everything six foot under, both on land and sea. We’d like to replace that possibly almost immediately to revert the ownership back to the landowners and relinquish the state from owning anything from six foot below land and sea, that’s what we’re looking into right now.

NANOL: That is a big legislative, that will throw things into chaos, isn’t it?

CHAN: No, what we are proposing would not affect existing licences. We’re proposing amendments that will look into future licences etc. The current agreement won’t be affected. All of these things are currently being undertaken now by the department, so that there won’t be chaos and the landowners will have more relationship with mining companies themselves, government stands as the regulator.

NANOL: Some groups of landowners are supportive of the proposed changes to give ownership of minerals and resources back to them.

Simon Ekanda is a spokesperson for landowners from villages surrounding PNG’s multi-billion dollar PNG LNG gas project in the PNG highlands.

He says it’s about time ownership of mineral resources is given back to landowners.

EKANDA: We own what was underneath and on top and above and Constitution recognises the customary law and the customary law, the landowners get rights to own what was underneath and on top and above. So we already own it and you see how this country can move the next five years when this law has been changed and people will have money in their pocket. Now the government has taken away that right. That is a beggars in this country.

NANOL: But PNG’s Mining industry has expressed grave concerns about the proposed change of the mining laws and the ownership of minerals on and under the land.

The Chamber of Mines and Petroleum says it’s a mistake for the government to give back ownership to the landowners, who have no capital and investment skills.

Executive Director, Greg Anderson says it will scare off investors and will not want to work in PNG.

ANDERSON: That is of great concern to us because you have to have central government control on issuing leases and an organised system. If we tried to deal with landowners on exploration titles, I think it’s just going to be a nightmare. But there’s many questions that arise with that. If the landowners own the resource and they’re going to be shareholders in the project, whose going to pay for it? Where’s the money going to come from? What’s going to happen to royalty? How can you run a dual system and implementation will mean you’ve got to revise the whole mining act, which is a major task and will be of great disruption to industry in the meantime. So it is a serious issue.

NANOL: That changes of the ownership and the legal framework would only look at the new or ones that could be explored and mined later in the future, not existing ones?

ANDERSON: That means you’re going to have a dual system in the country and I think it’s extremely naive, because the government made a statement that they wanted to remove all the landowner problems and do you think the Engans and the Hulis and everybody else is going to be satisfied with one system for them and one system for all the new projects. I don’t think it’s going to work. And if you’ve got a policy that’s completely ill defined, uncertain, nobody’s going to invest on something that’s uncertain and you’ll scare off the explorers like you wouldn’t believe. So I’ve got to talk it through with the government exactly what they mean, but we do not like the principle this issue of private ownership, because I don’t think it’s workable in Papua New Guinea.

NANOL: That was Greg Anderson, Executive Director of PNG’s Chamber of Mines and Petroleum.

But the PNG Mining Minister Byron Chan, says the government plans to have the changes to the mineral ownership and mining laws ready and put to parliament to pass into law before the 2012 general elections.

Download the full pdf of this email here

Download the full news article PC (PC) Thu-14-10-2010 1 (01) 017

full pdf of the letter

Contrary to a report released to the Australian Stock Exchange and the shareholders of m2m corporation limited on the 2nd. September, 2010, m2m will not have any access to any project producing carbon credit offsets from projects controlled by Nupan Trading Corporation Limited in PNG, Fiji, Vietnam, Laos, or any other Asia Pacific region.

This decision was made by the project proponents at the time m2m cut of project funding to Nupan without warning last April, 2010, causing grievous commercial stress to the projects.

If any shareholder of m2m requires any further information with respect to the current standing of the relationship between Nupan and m2m, please email Kirk William Roberts at consultant88@gmail.com

Yet again, Nupan has come under fire from bloggers and anonymous critics, claiming that Nupan is still doing something “wrong”.

If this is so, we welcome anyone to post a reply to this article, answering any of the following questions specifically.

Why is it wrong to fight for the rights of traditional landowners to decide not to log their beautiful tropical rain forests in favor of commercialized carbon trading?

Why is it wrong to attempt to get a commercialized carbon trading project up in PNG?

What is wrong in trying to get CCBA verification for a PDD for a Project?

What is wrong with trying to get a dual verified VCS PDD for a Project?

What is wrong with taking a huge commercial risk for some 6 years in an attempt to get the first dual verified VCS / CCBA carbon trading project up in PNG?

What is wrong with continually trying to find the right combination of Project supporters and marketers to enable the Project Proponents – the indigenous people who own the land, and own the projects – to sell their dual verified Voluntary Emission Reductions (or Voluntary Carbon Units) for the best commercial price available at the time?

REDD does not exists today.  REDD may not exists for years.  The rain forests are being attacked every day by rapacious loggers, who not only turn the rain forests into moonscapes, but threaten the traditional livelihood of the people who rely on the rain forests for their survival.

Right now, today, people are being killed in project areas because the process is taking too long, and the loggers are gaining confidence that it may never happen.

What is wrong with trying to save the rain forests of PNG?

When Nupan is successful, and manages to get a dual verified VCS / CCBA carbon trading project thorough the excruciating process that at times seems to be aimed at preventing this from ever happening, the people will get a revenue from carbon trading for the next 40 years – it will literally change their life!

What is so wrong about this outcome?

Can you look the people of PNG in the eye, and tell them that they don’t deserve this opportunity to change their prospects, save their rain forests, and give their children the best possible future that they can?

Can you?

Nupan can’t, and that’s why we will continue to fight.