REDD+ program in PNG – Forest, Carbon Ownership and Benefit Sharing

By NALAU BINGEDING | NATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE (edited)

Papua New Guinea’s (PNG) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are mostly from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF). PNG’s CO2 emissions from LULUCF in 2007 were 146.5 – 268.6 million tCO2.

PNG is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore, it is a requirement under this international treaty to reduce our GHG emissions. This is to ensure we assist in the international effort to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.

Many people in the developed world speculate that reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation of forests in developing countries will be cheap and easy.

In the case of PNG, it will not be cheap and easy to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation of forests.

The implementation of REDD+ on customary land will be a daunting task for the government because natural forests and land belongs to the customary landowners (CLOs), and not the Government.

As such the PNG Government will have to find better ways to implement the REDD+ concept so that REDD+ is efficiently implemented in PNG.

In so doing, the CLOs will be happy, the Government will be happy, carbon brokers will be happy, and REDD+ projects will not be jeopardized in future due to legal, social and environmental implications.

Moreover, PNG will fulfill its international obligation to reduce its GHG emissions from LULUCF. And this will portray a good image of PNG on the international arena.

More than 97% of the land in PNG is customarily owned. Therefore, control of deforestation and degradation of forests will not be an easy task.

Some control of deforestation and degradation of forests can be attained within timber concessions (TRPs and FMAs) with SFM practices, but that is temporary (only for 35 or 50 years). After a concession has expired and land has been returned to CLOs, control of deforestation and degradation of forests cannot be guaranteed.

Currently some 14 million hectares is considered as production forests and may be some 4 – 5 million hectares is currently under PNGFA, out of the 29 million hectares of forest we have in PNG.

Nevertheless, our Climate Change Ambassador Kevin Conrad and his sidekicks have now committed the country to a national REDD+ program on the international level. Therefore we will have to deal with 29 million hectares of forest now (6 -7 times the current forest area under PNGFA), which will involve more work and problems.

If some of the 29 million hectares of forested land is to be used for REDD+ program, there is likely to be conflict of interest among CLOs and competition between developmental sectors for forested land for development.

Conflict of Interest between city resident CLOs who may want a logging or agroforestry project, while village based CLOs may want a conservation or carbon trade project. A good example is the issuance of the SPABL over a large area of forest in the Collingwood Bay Area (Oro Province).

Competition between development sectors – One sector may want a piece of a forested land for its development, but another sector may also be interested in the same piece of land for its development. For example, a company may want to develop a forested land for oil palm, but the Department of Environment and Conversation may want that land for conservation. So there will definitely be competition for forested lands for development.

So how do we eliminate conflict of interest among CLOs and competition between developmental sectors for forested lands for development?

A National Land Use Plan (NLUP) is an option that has to be looked at. With a NLUP, areas around the country have to be designated for different economic activities based on some opportunity cost or cost-benefit-analysis and sound scientific knowledge (both forested and non-forested land).

In this way the most appropriate activity or activities are designated for an area, thus it should minimize the chances of conflict of interest among CLOs and competition between developmental sectors for development of forested lands.

Although there are pros and cons for the 3 scales of REDD+ implementation, the National and Nested approaches are generally accepted as adequate for addressing carbon leakage.

Although we do not have a national policy for REDD+ as yet, Kevin Conrad and his sidekicks have already committed the country to a national REDD program at the international level. But this is ironical because the Government has no legal control over customary land and forests.

Since Kevin Conrad and his sidekicks have already committed the country to a national REDD program, we have no choice but to mobilize much of the 29 million hectares of forested land (customarily owned) for REDD+ program. But how do we do that?

In order for customary land to be unlocked for social and economic development, the NLDT report (2007) recommended for a voluntary registration system of customary land to be established under the Land Groups Incorporation Act 1974 (recommendation 49). Since 2009 two Acts have been passed by parliament in response to this recommendation: (i) Land Group Incorporation (Amendment) Act 2009 and (ii) Land Registration (Customary Land) Act 2009.

Nevertheless, the Department of Lands and Physical Planning is yet to establish a Directorate to handle issues pertaining to customary land.

Since the mechanisms for unlocking customary land for social and economic development are not yet in place, how do we mobilize the 29 million hectares of forested land (which is customary land) for REDD+ actions?

We have in recent years seen an increase in the number of Special Agricultural and Business Lease (SPABL) granted over customary land in the name of economic development.

However, if SPABLs are granted over customary land (under the Lease Lease-Back (LLB) system) for REDD+ program and carbon trade, we may attract the ire of the international community. This is because indigenous rights are protected under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Rights is now part of the negotiating text on REDD at the UNFCCC COPs.

Under the LLB system customary land use is suspended for the duration of the lease period (99 years). Under this system we violate indigenous rights under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and contradict the negotiating text on indigenous rights under REDD at the UNFCCC COPs.

On the Department of Lands and Physical Planning website it states that SPABLs will be for a period of 10 – 20 years and the land rights will be reverted to customary landowners thereafter. However, the SPABLs that have been granted over customary land are for periods ranging from 40 – 99 years (77% of the SPABLs are for 99 years). So if some of those SPABLs are for REDD and carbon trade, then I am afraid something is not right and SPABLs will be condemned by NGOs and Human Rights Groups.

To date, SPABLs in the country have been channeled through a court order sought by Oro Governor Gary Juffa at the PNG National Courts. All leases under SPABL were forfeited and the land is back to the customary landowners.

Carbon dioxide is a gas, therefore it can be considered an international commodity because it goes anywhere in this world.

Carbon is a chemical element that remains where it is found until it is given off as carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4). Therefore it is a local commodity.

In PNG land and forests are customarily owned by the people. Therefore the carbon in the forest (in the living tree, dead wood, forest litter, and organic carbon in the soil) is technically and legally owned by customary land owners.

At many forums and workshops, customary land owners have made it clear that they want a bigger slice of the cake. Some have even suggested that the government keeps its fingers away from their forest and money.

However, one must remember that in a sovereign nation one has to pay tax to the government for conducting commercial activities. Therefore, it would be better for the government to collect its 10% tax and the rest of the benefit be given to customary landowners.

Alternatively, REDD+ funds could be put in trust accounts set up by parliament and then monies disbursed to customary landowners via a board of trustees.

The same idea is currently implemented by the Government with Mama Graun Conservation Fund. Other fund types that have been proposed for PNG REDD+ funds include the PNG National Forest Fund (GreenPeace 2010) and the PES Fund (EcoForestry Forum 2010).

Therefore, PNG need to look at these options and come up with the best option for the country.

REDD+ program will not be easy and cheap to implement in PNG as speculated. 

However, it will only succeed in PNG if the following is observed: the rights of the indigenous people to the use of their land and forests are protected, the ownership to forest carbon is vested in customary landowners and a bigger share of the pie (benefits) is given to CLOs. - Via Garamut News.

Global carbon offsetting programs avoid PNG, although it has the largest virgin rainforest nation in the world

By MICHAEL KUMAKA | VIEWPOINT

Flights will usually represent the largest portion of a traveler’s carbon footprint; consider using airlines that have invested in advanced technology and equipment to already lessen the impact of flights.

Alternatively, travelers may use any free online calculator to calculate their carbon footprint. It’s easy to use and includes a range of options to calculate the carbon footprint of flights, buses, accommodations, trains, and others.

Once a figure representing the carbon footprint of a trip is obtained, the next step is to select an organization with funding in carbon reduction programmes.

There have been companies and projects collecting donations from trip carbon footprints. One of them is Gold standard, established in 2003 by WWF and other international NGOs as a best practice benchmark for energy projects developed under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). It was set up to ensure that projects delivered genuine emission reductions and long-term sustainable development.

Gold standard was to ensure that the money collected from donations of trips must make its way to forests in Costa Rica, cookstoves in rural Africa, and wind farms in India. Other quality carbon offset programmes around the world are Carbon Footprint and MyClimate.

Yet none of the above certified globally funded projects has ever benefited the customary carbon owners in PNG. Not even the Gold Standard’s projects has ever set foot in PNG shores to donate to customary landowners against logging, land use clearing and to cover the cost of managing the standing forests.

In your next trip, remember, offsetting your carbon footprint is about more than calculating the amount and donating, it’s about selecting projects that will have genuine impact. PNG has never benefited from tourism carbon footprint in the past years, although has the largest rainforest in the world. – Via Garamut News.

Travelers to PNG and the Pacific will pay for their trip’s Carbon Footprints to save the Forests

Extracted from WORLD TRAVEL AND TOURISM COUNCIL (WTTC) | EDITED

Addressing climate change is a must for both travelers and Travel & Tourism on the whole. While there are many facets to increasing sustainability in the industry, carbon offsetting is one topic that many travelers overlook as a necessary imperative in creating trip based around the ideals of low-impact and eco-friendly.

At its core, the carbon offsetting industry is about reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in equal proportion to your personal or family emissions. Every aspect of our lives — electricity usage, food consumption, mileage driven — contribute to carbon emissions and are therefore a factor impacting climate change.

The term “carbon footprint” refers to the carbon pollution and greenhouse emissions a single person or company generates.

Carbon offsetting programs aim to compensate for that carbon footprint by supporting programs elsewhere in the world that remove carbon dioxide from the air in equal measure. These programs are often tree planting and reforestation initiatives, as well as investment projects to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.

For travelers, carbon offsetting is an important topic because flying significantly ups your carbon footprint.

In fact, one meteorologist from the United States was so taken aback by the impact of his frequent travelers that he announced he and his wife would never again take a flight. He wrote:

“World governments will never agree in time to coordinate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. If anything is to change, it will have to come from individuals taking ownership of the problem themselves. … By vowing not to fly, I went from having more than double the carbon footprint as the average American to about 30% less than average.” [Quartz]

For those unable or unwilling to give up flying altogether, carbon offsetting programs become a way to mitigate the negative environmental impact of your trip.

Because although there is debate in the industry about efficacy of many carbon offsetting projects, the industry has made significant strides in the past decade to overcome the obstacles and produce high quality programs with a measurable impact on the carbon dioxide entering Earth’s atmosphere.

Carbon Offsetting as an industry is not without debate. In the early days of carbon offsetting initiatives, there were few standards ensuring the funded projects were genuinely compensating for the carbon dioxide emissions of individuals and companies.

One significant advancement in the industry has been the development of standard minimums for the type of projects that qualify as a carbon offset.

Funded programs must be those that would not be possible without the money from carbon offsetting.

If a company or individual already donates to rainforest reforestation, then that donation does not count as a carbon offset since the action was in motion already.

Instead, the best carbon programmes are now funding projects that would not otherwise be possible — wind farms that previously had no viable funding source, or development projects in developing countries to provide people with alternatives to wood-burning cookstoves.

With the projects now certified and tracked, companies around the world have stepped up their efforts to offset carbon emissions — corporations are some of the largest funding sources for carbon offsetting programmes.

But at the corporate and personal level, one of the largest criticisms centers on the fact that offsetting doesn’t address the underlying behaviors.

There is no possible way that humans can undo the damage caused by burning fossil fuels.

Although carbon offsets can mitigate the damage, the only true solution is seriously altering our consumption habits.

You don’t get a “free pass” to unsustainable behavior just because you plan to offset your actions.

Some contend that carbon offsets give people a clean conscious to pay others to offset their personal choices, and that’s the sort of attitude that set in motion the climate issues we are facing today.

There’s validity in each side of the debate. We certainly have an obligation to lessen our carbon footprint just as we offset those emissions that are impossible to fully mitigate.

Offsetting your carbon footprint is about more than calculating the amount and donating, it’s about selecting projects that will have genuine impact.

Many of the best programs use carbon offset funds to bring critical services like energy, water, and food to vulnerable people and places.

When donating to a program, one way to ensure the money will make its way to high-quality projects is to look for certification and the baseline standards the organization’s projects.

One respected company within the industry is Gold Standard (https://goldstandard.org). This group grew from a need for high quality oversight over the many carbon offsetting programs.

Gold Standard was “established in 2003 by WWF and other international NGOs as a best practice benchmark for energy projects developed under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Gold Standard was set up to ensure that projects delivered genuine emission reductions and long-term sustainable development.

“Many of the projects funded by the carbon offset calculators below are certified by this organization, ensuring the money will make its way to forests in Costa Rica, cookstoves in rural Africa, and wind farms in India.” [Nothing was allocated to PNG for its forests]

Lessen the carbon impact of your trip [to PNG]

Your flights will usually represent the largest portion of your trip’s carbon footprint; consider using airlines that have invested in advanced technology and equipment to already lessen the impact of your flights.

This National Geographic piece lists the most fuel-efficient airlines in the word. Additionally, consider how you can shift your plans to include closer destinations, or accommodations using renewable energy sources.

Calculate the carbon footprint of your trip [to PNG]. Use an online calculator to input the details of your next trip and calculate a number to represent the carbon impact of your trip. This calculator from Carbon Footprint is free and includes a range of options to calculate the carbon footprint of flights, buses, trains, and more.

Choose a quality carbon offset programme. Once you have a figure representing the carbon footprint of your trip, select an organization with funding quality and certified carbon reduction programmes around the world. Carbon Footprint supports industry certified programmes, as does MyClimate. [None of them, Carbon Footprint, https://carbonfootprints.com and MyClimate, https://myclimate.org) has any carbon reduction programmes in PNG].

Many of the most touristed destinations in the world — reefs, beaches, and rainforests [in PNG] — are already stressed by climate change.

With a commitment to lowering your personal carbon footprint and offsetting trips [when travelling to PNG], you can be a part of the climate change solutions. Travelers must join the global efforts to keep this planet livable.

Visiting Papua New Guinea

If you are travelling to PNG or are planning to or you already are a regular traveler with repeated trips to PNG, then know the following fascinating facts and share with your friends, relatives, colleagues or neighbors.

With over 60% of the country’s surface area covered by forests, PNG is home to the third largest area of intact tropical forests in the world. A large portion of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions come from the use of land and forests.

PNG’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are mostly from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF). PNG’s CO2 emissions from LULUCF in 2007 were 146.5 – 268.6 million tCO2.

It is the second largest island in the world, with over 29 million hectares of forested land which are customarily owned by the indigenous people – the Government has no legal control over the land, forests and carbon ownership.

The customary landowners (CLOs) in PNG are custodians of the 97% of the land mass in the territory of sovereign nation of PNG which come under a customary landownership recognized by the law in the country, which is a total area of 462,840km2 (an area 25% larger than the size of Japan).

Some of these production forests areas are comprised of high quality tropical hardwoods and other forest products and are major export revenue source for PNG.

Yet none of the globally funded projects has ever benefited the customary carbon owners in PNG. Not even the Gold Standard’s projects or Carbon Footprint and MyClimate has ever set foot in PNG shores to donate to customary landowners against logging, land use clearing and to cover the cost of managing the standing forests.

The Indigenous Rights of the PNG customarily landowners are protected under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and Indigenous Rights is now part of the negotiating text on REDD+ at the UNFCCC COPs.

Travellers to PNG and the Pacific will pay for their trip’s carbon footprints directly to the customary forest carbon owners to preserve the forests against logging, land use clearing and to cover the cost of managing the standing forests. -Via Garamut News.

 

Lessen the Carbon Impact of your Trip to Papua New Guinea and the Pacific

By NIGEL KAUA | VIEWPOINT

Your flights will usually represent the largest portion of your trip’s carbon footprint; consider using airlines that have invested in advanced technology and equipment to already lessen the impact of your flights.

This National Geographic piece lists the most fuel-efficient airlines in the word. Additionally, consider how you can shift your plans to include closer destinations, or accommodations using renewable energy sources.

Calculate the carbon footprint of your trip to Papua New Guinea (PNG) and the Pacific. Use an online free carbon calculator to input the details of your trip and calculate a number to represent the carbon impact of your trip.

Choose a quality carbon offset programme. Once you have a figure representing the carbon footprint of your trip, select an organization with funding quality and certified carbon reduction programmes around the world that is transparent and your money goes right down to the intended purpose.

Organizations such as Carbon Footprint, https://carbonfootprints.com and MyClimate, https://myclimate.org do not have any carbon reduction programmes in PNG and the Pacific.

Not even the Gold Standard (https://goldstandard.org) has any direct project in PNG to benefit the indigenous carbon owners.

Many of the most raveled destinations in the world — reefs, beaches, and rainforests in PNG and the Pacific — are already stressed by climate change.

With a commitment to lowering your personal carbon footprint and offsetting trips when travelling to PNG and the Pacific, you can be a part of the climate change solutions. Travellers must join the global efforts to keep this planet livable.

If you are travelling to PNG and the Pacific or are planning to or you already are a regular traveller with repeated trips to PNG and the Pacific, then know the following fascinating facts and share with your friends, relatives, colleagues or neighbors.

With over 60% of the country’s surface area covered by forests, PNG is home to the third largest area of intact tropical forests in the world. A large portion of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions come from the use of land and forests.

PNG’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are mostly from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF). PNG’s CO2 emissions from LULUCF in 2007 were 146.5 – 268.6 million tCO2.

It is the second largest island in the world, with over 29 million hectares of forested land which are customarily owned by the indigenous people – the Government has no legal control over the land, forests and carbon ownership.

The customary landowners (CLOs) in PNG are custodians of the 97% of the land mass in the territory of sovereign nation of PNG which come under a customary landownership recognized by the law in the country, which is a total area of 462,840km2 (an area 25% larger than the size of Japan).

Some of these production forests areas are comprised of high quality tropical hardwoods and other forest products and are major export revenue source for PNG.

Yet none of the globally funded projects has ever benefited the customary carbon owners in PNG. Not even the Gold Standard’s projects or Carbon Footprint and MyClimate has ever set foot in PNG shores to donate to customary landowners against logging, land use clearing and to cover the cost of managing the standing forests.

The Indigenous Rights of the PNG customarily landowners are protected under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and Indigenous Rights is now part of the negotiating text on REDD+ at the UNFCCC COPs.

Travellers to PNG and the Pacific will pay for their trip’s carbon footprints directly to the customary forest carbon owners to preserve the forests against logging, land use clearing and to cover the cost of managing the standing forests. – Via Garamut News.

Part of the tropical rainforest in the highlands of PNG. Image: Jacob Wani.

Customary landowners must consider what Paris Accord has to offer PNG forests amid logging options

By PETER S. KINJAP | COMMENTARY

PAPUA New Guinea (PNG) is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol and is amongst the 164 countries in the world that have submitted their national plans to combat Climate Change since the Paris Agreement was adopted in December of 2015.

PNG needs to earnestly embrace what the Paris Accord has to offer.

With 60% of the country’s surface area covered by forests, is home to the third largest area of intact tropical forests in the world. A large portion of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions come from the use of land and forests (LULUCF). A well-established forestry sector concentrating on the extraction and export of logs contributes approximately US$297 million to PNG’s national economy each year.

Carbon, as an alternative commodity for trade, should have been included as part the government’s drive to promote environmentally sustainable economic growth.

When carbon trade was first suggested for PNG, two expatriates; Kevin Conrad and Robert Kirks were pushing for each of their carbon trade schemes. While Kirks was not easily accepted with his voluntary carbon trade scheme into PNG, Conrad had his way to convince the then Prime minister Sir Michael somare with REDD+.

The then Deputy Prime Minister Hon. Don Polye got behind Kirks seeing it would benefit the customary land, forest and carbon owners in PNG. A bit of tag of war between Polye-Kirks and Somare-Conrad over which carbon trade scheme would best fitting the nation.

Robert Kirks never failed by got sidelined by the government, and thus Voluntary Carbon Trade scheme was not supported by policy framework and not recognized by the Government.

The NA-led Government was then very instrumental in policy framework for REDD+ programmes in PNG. Whilst REDD+ is seen as having enormous potential in PNG, challenges may lie ahead.

The country’s forestry sector is also characterized by a lack of transparency and accountability mechanisms, persistent allegations of corrupt practices and significant losses to the government purse.

Therefore, it is a requirement under this international treaty to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). This is to ensure we assist in the international effort to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.

Many people in the developed world speculate that reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation of forests in developing countries will be cheap and easy.

In the case of PNG, it will not be cheap and easy to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation of forests.

The implementation of REDD+ on customary land will be a daunting task for the government because natural forests and land belongs to the customary landowners (CLOs), and not the Government.

As such the PNG Government will have to find better ways to implement the REDD+ concept so that REDD+ is efficiently implemented in PNG.

In so doing, the CLOs will be happy, the Government will be happy, carbon brokers will be happy, and REDD+ projects will not be jeopardized in future due to legal, social and environmental implications.

Moreover, PNG will fulfill its international obligation to reduce its GHG emissions from LULUCF. And this will portray a good image of PNG on the international arena.

More than 97% of the land in PNG is customarily owned, accounting for the total of 29 hectares of forested land. Therefore, control of deforestation and degradation of forests will not be an easy task.

In an undated article, researcher Nalau Bingeding of National Research Institute points out there is likely to be conflict of interest among CLOs and competition between developmental sectors for forested land for development.

Conflict of Interest between city resident CLOs who may want a logging or agroforestry project, while village based CLOs may want a conservation or carbon trade project. A good example is the issuance of the SPABL over a large area of forest in the Collingwood Bay Area (Oro Province).

Competition between development sectors – One sector may want a piece of a forested land for its development, but another sector may also be interested in the same piece of land for its development. For example, a company may want to develop a forested land for oil palm, but the Department of Environment and Conversation may want that land for conservation. So there will definitely be competition for forested lands for development.

So how do we eliminate conflict of interest among CLOs and competition between developmental sectors for forested lands for development?

A National Land Use Plan (NLUP) is an option that has to be looked at. With a NLUP, areas around the country have to be designated for different economic activities based on some opportunity cost or cost-benefit-analysis and sound scientific knowledge (both forested and non-forested land).

In this way the most appropriate activity or activities are designated for an area, thus it should minimize the chances of conflict of interest among CLOs and competition between developmental sectors for development of forested lands.

In order for customary land to be unlocked for social and economic development, a report recommended for a voluntary registration system of customary land to be established under the Land Groups Incorporation Act 1974 (recommendation 49). Since 2009 two Acts have been passed by parliament in response to this recommendation: (i) Land Group Incorporation (Amendment) Act 2009 and (ii) Land Registration (Customary Land) Act 2009.

The mechanisms for unlocking customary land for social and economic development are not yet in place.

There has been an increase in the number of Special Agricultural and Business Lease (SABL) granted over customary land in the name of economic development.

If SPABLs are granted over customary land (under the Lease Lease-Back (LLB) system) for REDD+ program and carbon trade, we may attract the ire of the international community.

This is because indigenous rights are protected under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Rights is now part of the negotiating text on REDD at the UNFCCC COPs.

To date, SABLs in the country have been reported channeled through a competent court, all leases under SPABL were forfeited and the land is back to the customary landowners.

The Government is yet to publish all the forfeited leases under SABL.

REDD+ funds were proposed to put in trust accounts set up by parliament and then monies disbursed to customary landowners via a board of trustees.

REDD+ funds already established include Mama Graun Conservation Fund, PNG National Forest Fund (GreenPeace 2010) and the PES Fund (EcoForestry Forum 2010).

Whether these funds are indeed operating to benefit the indigenous people of PNG or not is something not known at this stage. - Via Garamut News.

Is REDD+ program easy and cheap to implement in Papua New Guinea?

REDD+ in Papua New Guinea – Land, Carbon Ownership and Benefit Sharing

Papua New Guinea’s (PNG) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are mostly from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF). PNG’s CO2 emissions from LULUCF in 2007 was 146.5 – 268.6 million tCO2.

PNG is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore, it is a requirement under this international treaty to reduce our GHG emissions. This is to ensure we assist in the international effort to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.

Many people in the developed world speculate that reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation of forests in developing countries will be cheap and easy.

In the case of PNG, it will not be cheap and easy to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation of forests.

The implementation of REDD+ on customary land will be a daunting task for the government because natural forests and land belongs to the customary landowners (CLOs), and not the Government.

As such the PNG Government will have to find better ways to implement the REDD+ concept so that REDD+ is efficiently implemented in PNG.

In so doing, the CLOs will be happy, the Government will be happy, carbon brokers will be happy, and REDD+ projects will not be jeopardized in future due to legal, social and environmental implications.

Moreover, PNG will fulfill its international obligation to reduce its GHG emissions from LULUCF. And this will portray a good image of PNG on the international arena.

More than 97% of the land in PNG is customarily owned. Therefore, control of deforestation and

degradation of forests will not be an easy task.

Some control of deforestation and degradation of forests can be attained within timber concessions (TRPs and FMAs) with SFM practices, but that is temporary (only for 35 or 50 years). After a concession has expired and land has been returned to CLOs, control of deforestation and degradation of forests cannot be guaranteed.

Currently some 14 million hectares is considered as production forests and may be some 4 – 5 million hectares is currently under PNGFA, out of the 29 million hectares of forest we have in PNG.

Nevertheless, our Climate Change Ambassador Kevin Conrad and his sidekicks have now committed the country to a national REDD+ program on the international level. Therefore we will have to deal with 29 million hectares of forest now (6 -7 times the current forest area under PNGFA), which will involve more work and problems.

If some of the 29 million hectares of forested land is to be used for REDD+ program, there is likely to be conflict of interest among CLOs and competition between developmental sectors for forested land for development.

Conflict of Interest between city resident CLOs who may want a logging or agroforestry project, while village based CLOs may want a conservation or carbon trade project. A good example is the issuance of the SPABL over a large area of forest in the Collingwood Bay Area (Oro Province).

Competition between development sectors – One sector may want a piece of a forested land for its development, but another sector may also be interested in the same piece of land for its development. For example, a company may want to develop a forested land for oil palm, but the Department of Environment and Conversation may want that land for conservation. So there will definitely be competition for forested lands for development.

So how do we eliminate conflict of interest among CLOs and competition between developmental sectors for forested lands for development?

A National Land Use Plan (NLUP) is an option that has to be looked at. With a NLUP, areas around the country have to be designated for different economic activities based on some opportunity cost or cost-benefit-analysis and sound scientific knowledge (both forested and non-forested land).

In this way the most appropriate activity or activities are designated for an area, thus it should minimize the chances of conflict of interest among CLOs and competition between developmental sectors for development of forested lands.

Although there are pros and cons for the 3 scales of REDD+ implementation, the National and Nested approaches are generally accepted as adequate for addressing carbon leakage.

Although we do not have a national policy for REDD+ as yet, Kevin Conrad and his sidekicks have already committed the country to a national REDD program at the international level. But this is ironical because the Government has no legal control over customary land and forests.

Since Kevin Conrad and his sidekicks have already committed the country to a national REDD program, we have no choice but to mobilize much of the 29 million hectares of forested land (customarily owned) for REDD+ program. But how do we do that?

In order for customary land to be unlocked for social and economic development, the NLDT report (2007) recommended for a voluntary registration system of customary land to be established under the Land Groups Incorporation Act 1974 (recommendation 49). Since 2009 two Acts have been passed by parliament in response to this recommendation: (i) Land Group Incorporation (Amendment) Act 2009 and (ii) Land Registration (Customary Land) Act 2009.

Nevertheless, the Department of Lands and Physical Planning is yet to establish a Directorate to handle issues pertaining to customary land.

Since the mechanisms for unlocking customary land for social and economic development are not yet in place, how do we mobilize the 29 million hectares of forested land (which is customary land) for REDD+ actions?

We have in recent years seen an increase in the number of Special Agricultural and Business Lease (SPABL) granted over customary land in the name of economic development.

However, if SPABLs are granted over customary land (under the Lease Lease-Back (LLB) system) for REDD+ program and carbon trade, we may attract the ire of the international community. This is because indigenous rights are protected under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Rights is now part of the negotiating text on REDD at the UNFCCC COPs.

Under the LLB system customary land use is suspended for the duration of the lease period (99 years). Under this system we violate indigenous rights under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and contradict the negotiating text on indigenous rights under REDD at the UNFCCC COPs.

On the Department of Lands and Physical Planning website it states that SPABLs will be for a period of 10 – 20 years and the land rights will be reverted to customary landowners thereafter. However, the SPABLs that have been granted over customary land are for periods ranging from 40 – 99 years (77% of the SPABLs are for 99 years). So if some of those SPABLs are for REDD and carbon trade, then I am afraid something is not right and SPABLs will be condemned by NGOs and Human Rights Groups.

To date, SPABLs in the country have been channeled through a court order sought by Oro Governor Gary Juffa at the PNG National Courts. All leases under SPABL were forfeited and the land is back to the customary landowners.

Carbon dioxide is a gas, therefore it can be considered an international commodity because it goes anywhere in this world.

Carbon is a chemical element that remains where it is found until it is given off as carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4). Therefore it is a local commodity.

In PNG land and forests are customarily owned by the people. Therefore the carbon in the forest (in the living tree, dead wood, forest litter, and organic carbon in the soil) is technically and legally owned by customary land owners.

At many forums and workshops, customary land owners have made it clear that they want a bigger slice of the cake. Some have even suggested that the government keeps its fingers away from their forest and money.

However, one must remember that in a sovereign nation one has to pay tax to the government for conducting commercial activities. Therefore, it would be better for the government to collect its 10% tax and the rest of the benefit be given to customary landowners.

Alternatively, REDD+ funds could be put in trust accounts set up by parliament and then monies disbursed to customary landowners via a board of trustees.

The same idea is currently implemented by the Government with Mama Graun Conservation Fund. Other fund types that have been proposed for PNG REDD+ funds include the PNG National Forest Fund (GreenPeace 2010) and the PES Fund (EcoForestry Forum 2010).

Therefore, PNG need to look at these options and come up with the best option for the country.

REDD+ program will not be easy and cheap to implement in PNG as speculated. However, it will only succeed in PNG if the following is observed: the rights of the indigenous people to the use of their land and forests are protected, the ownership to forest carbon is vested in customary landowners and a bigger share of the pie (benefits) is given to CLOs. 

A transparent, traceable and decentralized system is needed to address the issues of carbon ownership and benefit sharing.


Source: Nalau Bingeding, National Research Institute, Port Moresby, undated.