TURUBU OIL PALM PROJECT: A snapshot of community views
A case study published by Oxfam in April 2014
Logging companies mentioned in this document:
APRIL 2014
A barge that transfers the timber to the logging ship in Turubu Bay. Photo: Vlad Sokhin
TURUBU OIL PALM PROJECT
A snapshot of community views
SUMMARY
The vast majority of land in Papua New Guinea is held in customary land ownership: originally
asserted to be 97 per cent of the country. 1 However, since 2003, an estimated 12 percent of
customary land in PNG has passed into the hands of domestic and foreign companies under the
Special Agricultural and Business Lease (SABL) scheme.2 This snapshot report looks at one of these
SABLs – in the Turubu area near Wewak, in PNG’s East Sepik Province.
The SABL covering the Turubu area was officially granted on 2 September 2008 to Sepik Oil Palm
Plantation Limited.3 The lease was for a period of 99 years, and covered an area of 116,840 hectares
in the East Sepik Province of PNG known as Portion 144C.4 According to the Land Investigation
This is a joint publication of Oxfam in PNG and Oxfam Australia
Report completed by the Department of Lands and Physical Planning, the proposed use of the lease
was oil palm development.5
In June 2013, Oxfam staff and members of Turubu Eco Forestry Development Program (TEFDP), an
Oxfam partner organisation, visited six villages in the Turubu area and spoke to members of the
community about their experiences with the SABL. This report is the result of discussions with a small
number of community members and some desk research reviewing the documentary information that
was available. It provides a snapshot of the experiences of those that Oxfam and TEFDP spoke to,
and some of the concerns that they raised about the development. The views and experiences of
community members are diverse, and are unlikely to all be reflected in this report.
In discussions that Oxfam had with the community, some of the following issues were raised:
Free, prior and informed consent: landowners are required to consent to the granting of a
SABL, but some community members indicated they did not consent, while others raised
concerns with the information provided to them by the landowner company, Limawo Holdings
Limited, prior to their consent being granted.
Environmental and social impacts of the development: community members mentioned
concerns with deforestation, water pollution, destruction of sacred sites and community
conflicts.
Benefit-sharing: while several members of the community indicated they had received
financial or other benefits from the development, some indicated they had received nothing,
or that they were unsure what payments had been made to whom.
Delay in palm oil: several community members expressed concern that they have seen
logging activity, but have not as yet seen palm oil development on their land.
In May 2011, following pressure from domestic and international sources, the PNG government
launched a Commission of Inquiry into SABLs. The final report of that Inquiry noted several problems
with the Turubu SABL, including issues with landowner consent to the development. It recommended
that the SABL granted to Sepik Oil Palm Plantations be revoked.
Based on the information available, Oxfam has serious concerns about this SABL. Community
comments suggest that the development is not meeting the expectations of all members of the
community, and that there is a high level of dissatisfaction in some parts of the community about the
SABL. The lack of information about payments to community members is also worrying. Oxfam is
concerned to see that the proceeds from the development are shared fairly with the Turubu and
Sausso landowners and that it does not result in loss of their forest resources without adequate
compensation, or damage to their long-term livelihoods. The evidence presented in the Commission
of Inquiry’s report also raises significant questions about whether the logging in Turubu is genuinely
related to the proposed palm oil development. More fundamentally, claims by community members
that they did not give their free, prior and informed consent to the development, when combined with
the evidence presented to the Commission of Inquiry, call into question the legality of the lease and
the validity of the logging that continues to occur in Turubu.
2
CONTENTS
SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 3
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 4
FREE, PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT ................................................................................ 6
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ...................................... 8
Deforestation............................................................................................................................. 8
Water pollution .......................................................................................................................... 9
Loss of cash crops .................................................................................................................... 9
Community disharmony, fear and uncertainty ........................................................................... 9
BENEFITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 10
DELAY IN PALM OIL .................................................................................................................. 10
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT .......................................................................................................... 11
FUTURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................ 12
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 13
OXFAM’S RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 14
INTRODUCTION
The vast majority of land in Papua New Guinea is held in customary land ownership: originally
asserted to be 97 per cent of the country. 6 However, since 2003, an estimated 12 percent of
customary land in PNG has passed into the hands of domestic and foreign companies under the
Special Agricultural and Business Lease (SABL) scheme.7
Under PNG law, when a customary group holds land, the customary landholders can form an
incorporated land group (ILG). This ILG becomes the representative of the group in the formal legal
system, and can enter into agreements and conduct transactions on behalf of the whole customary
group (although in practice ILGs can sometimes represent the interests of powerful elements of the
group and can exclude women).8 Incorporation alone does not give the customary landholders a legal
title that can be subleased or used as loan collateral.
Enter the SABL. The granting of the SABL is a two step process. In the first step of the SABL scheme,
also known as the “lease-leaseback” scheme, landowners can lease an area of customary land to the
State. Section 11 of the Land Act 1996 (PNG) provides that this lease must be executed ‘by or on
behalf’ of the customary landowners, and a government inquiry into SABLs confirmed that this
requires the customary landowners to “give their consent and sign the relevant lease documents to
indicate they are fully aware of the State’s acquisition of their land for SABL purposes”.9 Section 102
of the Land Act 1996 then provides that the Minister can grant an SABL to a person, land group,
business group or other incorporated body ‘to whom the customary landowners have agreed that
such a lease should be granted.’ 10 This second step therefore also hinges on the consent of local
landowners to the lease over their land. However, in rural communities with little access to education
services, lack of access to information, legal advice and resources puts communities at a huge
3
disadvantage when negotiating with potential developer companies or other powerful groups. In these
cases, the process of giving consent can be manipulated or abused.
The process of granting a SABL is overseen by five separate government agencies. There are limited
official regulations or procedures governing the process, but there are elements of accepted practice.
One key element of this is a requirement for the Department of Lands and Physical Planning to
conduct a land investigation process to ascertain that landowners are fully aware of the SABL and
consent to it, determine the boundaries of the SABL and prepare a Land Investigation Report
recommending whether the SABL should be granted.11
The SABL scheme has been widely criticised. For example, in March 2011, 26 academics and civil
society representatives signed the Cairns Declaration, which raised concerns about the scale of lands
leased under the SABL scheme, and that SABLs were being made without the prior knowledge and
informed consent of customary landowners. The declaration called on the Government of PNG to
declare and enforce an immediate moratorium on the creation of new SABLS, halt the issuing of new
Forest Clearing Authorities, and declare a temporary moratorium on the implementation of existing
Forest Clearing Authorities.12
In May 2011, following pressure from domestic and international sources, the PNG government
launched a Commission of Inquiry into SABLs. The Inquiry held hearings in Port Moresby and around
the country, including hearings in Wewak in February 2012 relating to the Turubu SABL. After
significant delays, PNG Post-Courier reported in September 2013 that the report of the Inquiry had
been presented to Parliament. The report was incomplete, comprising separate reports by two of the
three Commissioners who conducted the Inquiry and considering only 42 of the 75 leases that
originally formed part of the Inquiry. Nonetheless its results were damning: in presenting the report
to Parliament, Prime Minister O’Neill claimed that out of the 42 leases, “only in four leases were there
bona fides landowner consent and a commercially viable agricultural project being undertaken”.13
Of the two Commission of Inquiry Reports, Commissioner Nicholas Mirou’s report covered the SABL
in Turubu, and found serious deficiencies in the way the lease had been granted, including with regard
to landowner consent and the conduct of government processes necessary for the granting of an
SABL. The Commissioner recommended that the SABL grant to Sepik Oil Palm Plantations Limited
be revoked.14
METHODOLOGY
Information for this snapshot report draws on desk research and discussions with community
members from the SABL area. In June 2013, Oxfam staff and members of Turubu Eco Forestry
Development Program (TEFDP), an Oxfam partner organisation, visited six villages in the Turubu
area and spoke to members of the community about their experiences with the SABL. Oxfam and
TEFDP staff conducted one on one or small group semi-structured interviews with 13 people for this
report, and also helped to facilitate eight large group open discussions (between ten and 20 people
per discussion). This is a small segment of people in Turubu – the listening team spoke to people
from 11 of the approximately 50 villages in the SABL area.
Participants in interviews were either self selected or selected by TEFDP staff based on having been
involved in negotiations around the SABL. Participants in group discussions were self selected. Four
of the people interviewed were women, and nine were men, including one officer of TEFDP. The low
participation of women was because men were more likely to have been directly involved in
negotiations about the SABL due to their position in customary landholding structures. Group
discussions were conducted in separate groups of women and men to ensure that the viewpoints of
both women and men were heard.
4
Group discussions focused on six questions: how people used their land before the development,
whether this has changed after the development, whether they have received some benefits from the
development, whether there have been any problems because of the development, whether the
development affected their ability to grow or buy food, and what community members would like to
see happen. Interviews included these questions, but focused more on the processes that led to the
granting of the SABL.
Group discussions and interviews were fluid – while facilitators had a list of guiding questions to start
discussion, in general the discussions took their own form and community members expressed their
views and provided information that they saw to be relevant. As a result, issues that may have been
discussed extensively by one group may not have come up in another. In some group discussions,
facilitators also expressed views and this may have influenced the content and direction of those
discussions. In one group discussion with women, women were not aware of the SABL and the
discussion therefore focused only on how they use their land. For this reason, the discussions with
the community are characterised as a listening exercise, rather than a research exercise.
This report does not represent the views of all people covered by the Turubu SABL or provide an
authoritative picture of the actions that took place – rather it presents a snapshot of the views of
individuals who elected to share their concerns with Oxfam and TEFDP, supplemented by desktop
research where available. It aims to present these views to ensure that they are part of the broader
discussion and debate currently going on regarding this SABL, and the SABL system in general.
Oxfam staff also requested a meeting with Limawo Holdings Limited in June 2013 and provided a list
of questions for discussion. However, at a meeting, a representative of Limawo Holdings advised that
they did not wish to answer questions as they had outlined the relevant information in the Commission
of Inquiry hearings and it would be available when the final report of the Commission of Inquiry was
released. Oxfam also provided extracts of this report to Limawo Holdings Limited, Sepik Oil Palm
Plantations Limited and Wewak Agriculture Development Limited for comment in January 2014, but
received no response.
5
THE SABL IN TURUBU
Turubu is located in PNG’s East Sepik province, on the north coast of the island, and includes coastal
areas as well as forests and grasslands. Besides gardening and growing their own food, people in
Turubu also use the land to grow cash crops, such as cocoa, sago and coconut.15 Many community
members spoke of the fish in Turubu’s bay and streams, and animals in the forest, as important food
sources. 16 Indeed, one person referred to Turubu’s forests as “like supermarkets” for the local
population.17
The land also plays an important cultural and spiritual part in the lives of the community, containing
sacred sites and ancestral burial grounds. One man described Turubu Bay, on which his community
lives, as their “heart”, while another said that “man with no land is no man”.18
The SABL covering the Turubu area was granted to Sepik Oil Palm Plantation Limited in 2008.19 The
lease was for a period of 99 years, and covered an area of 116,840 hectares in the East Sepik
Province known as Portion 144C.20 According to TEFDP, this lease covers the entire Turubu local-
level government area, and part of the neighbouring Sausso area. There are at least 56 ILGs within
Portion 144C. According to the Land Investigation Report completed by the Department of Lands and
Physical Planning, the proposed use of the lease was oil palm development.21
The leaseholder, Sepik Oil Palm, is wholly owned by two shareholders: Limawo Holdings Limited
(holding 20% of the shares) and Wewak Agricultural Development Limited (holding 80% of the
shares).22 Limawo Holdings is an umbrella landowner company, ostensibly representing the interests
of the landowners in the SABL area. Wewak Agricultural Development Limited also holds a Forest
Clearing Authority covering the Turubu area. 23 It originally had three shareholders, all Malaysian
nationals, but each has since transferred his shares and all shares are now owned by a company,
WADL Investments Limited, whose registered office is in the British Virgin Islands.24
The Commission of Inquiry report notes that Sepik Oil Palm Plantations Limited and Wewak
Agriculture Development Limited did not appear to have certification to carry on a business activity or
participate in a national enterprise from the PNG Investment Promotion Authority (IPA), although this
needed to be confirmed by the IPA and the companies.25
FREE, PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT
Although there are safeguards in the SABL process that are designed to ensure that leases are
granted with the consent of the community, in Turubu’s case, reports of several community members
raise serious concerns about whether the principle of free, prior and informed consent was followed
consistently.
What is free, prior and informed consent?
Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is recognised in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration says that “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith
with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain
their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories
and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of
mineral, water or other resources”.26 FPIC requires that people must be adequately informed about
large projects in a timely manner and given the opportunity to approve or reject projects prior to the
commencement of operations. This includes participation in setting the terms and conditions that
address the economic, social and environmental impacts of the project.27
6
As part of the land investigation process, the District Lands Officer completing the Land Investigation
Report is required to certify that the customary landowners agree to lease their land. The Land
Investigation Report for Turubu contained such a certificate. 28 Representatives of 56 ILGs also
signed a document entitled Declaration of Custom in Relation to Land Tenure, which was attached to
the Land Investigation Report. 29 However, the listening team heard several concerns about this
process.
Several community members indicated that representatives of Limawo Holdings conducted
awareness sessions or held discussions in their villages before asking them to sign a consent form.30
One woman from an inland village said her village had been told a company would come to collect
their logs.31 However, five other people indicated they were not told about logging in these sessions.
One man from another inland village indicated representatives of Limawo told his village “you have
to fill this form so that we’ll be able to get overseas companies to come and to develop the area and
bring out the oil palm in our Turubu oil palm company”. However the representatives did not mention
logging.32 Two men and a woman, also from inland villages, also said that representatives of Limawo
told their villages about palm oil but not logging.33 Another man interviewed in a coastal village claimed
he felt tricked: “they trick us, ‘this is an oil palm project it’s an agriculture project’ but really they were
smart enough they were bypassing (they were trying to bypass), fast track by using the forestry”.34
Some people reported other issues with the consent process. One man who signed a form on behalf
of his ILG indicated that he did not know that the land would be leased for 99 years.35 Another man
who signed a form said he was given the form to sign one day, and told he had to sign it by the next
morning if his village wanted to receive the promised benefits of school buildings, permanent houses,
employment and money.36 Another man (who did not himself sign a form) said his understanding from
the information provided by Limawo was that the development would only be occurring on 10,000
hectares of land, but not that the investor would gain a lease over the whole Turubu area.37
Community members also alleged that members of Limawo Holdings promised them benefits if they
allowed the development, which they did not receive. These included a hospital, church programs,
school services, permanent houses, water supply, and school fees.38 One community member in a
coastal community indicated he was promised anchorage fees and storage fees for the logs being
kept on the beach on his land before being shipped out, however, he did not receive these.39
One man indicated that his elder brother signed for his family’s land without his consent while he was
away in another province, raising the anger of his village for not consulting them.40 Another man
indicated he had refused to sign a consent form, but that his land was included after a neighbour with
a common land boundary signed the consent form. 41 In one coastal community, a clan leader
indicated that he and two others had signed forms giving the company permission to unload
machinery from the Bay, and their land had subsequently been included in the lease, despite the fact
they had not to their knowledge signed any other forms: “We were shocked, we were asking ourselves
who signed for that land. And now the SABL, they said, now they are the authority of the land”.42
In a discussion with women in an inland community, one woman commented “[t]he fathers of the land
never discuss or inform us mothers of the land to come together and agree upon and sign the
agreement about the land. This has upset some of us and we are not happy.” 43 In one village in the
Sausso area, none of the women the listening team spoke to were aware that there was a lease over
their land at all.44
One woman summarised the process as this:
“Before the development came, they came and conducted their awareness. They did not conduct
feasibility studies. They just come in with force brought in their consent forms. They visited individual
households, themselves appointed company directors and committees for this company. Then they
formed the landowner company on top of this and brought in the company. Then they went to every
household and family unit, forced them to write their names down on the forms and signed the papers
and brought them back to the company. Only one week given and they did it by force.”45
7
The Commission of Inquiry also considered evidence on community consent, commenting that the 56
ILGs listed did not cover the majority of landowners within portion 144C, as was evident from the
objections and petitions the Commission had received. Commissioner Mirou noted that the officer
from the Lands and Physical Planning Office of the Department of East Sepik Province responsible
for preparing the Land Investigation Report “relied entirely on ILG information provided to him by...the
Chairman of Limawo Holdings and his executives.” The Commissioner also suggested it appeared
that this officer failed to conduct social mapping to ascertain the clan ownership of land within the
SABL.46
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF THE
DEVELOPMENT
In both community meetings and individual interviews, the listening team heard many complaints
about environmental damage from the development. Experiences of the development varied
significantly between communities. In coastal communities, several people spoke of the impact of
the log pond and shipping operations on the beach, reef and coastline. In inland areas, several spoke
of issues related to logging operations. Within coastal or inland areas, experiences also varied
between different community members. For example, in interviews and group discussions within one
inland village several people complained of water pollution from logging while one man said that the
logging was not spoiling waterways or destroying sago as it was too far away.47 One man interviewed
complained that 80 per cent of his land had been logged.48 In group discussions, several women and
men spoke about logging on their community’s land but did not indicate the extent of these operations.
Several people who participated in discussions had not seen any logging or other development
activity on their land or their community’s land. The summary below highlights some of the issues that
community members raised with the listening team, but this should be read with the understanding
that there are a wide variety of experiences of this SABL, and this is just a small snapshot.
Deforestation
Several community members spoke of deforestation. In both coastal and inland villages, several
people commented that logging had led to a loss of animal life from the area, which has made hunting
difficult: “The bush has now been destroyed, birds, pigs and different other type of animals all ran
away”.49 Some community members also spoke about damage to the forest as a loss in and of itself:
“That land has been damaged. That was a very, natural resource, and it’s forest, where we don’t
have, we preserve it for our wildlife. It’s untouched land, and this land is right far away from us, and
we preserve it for wildlife protection, and what-not, but the company came in, they went at the back
door, and they spoiled all this nature.”50 One woman also claimed that unwanted logs and other forest
resources have been discarded and left to rot.51
Several people also complained that sites of particular cultural and spiritual importance to the
communities have been destroyed or compromised, including ancestral burial grounds, birthing
grounds and other sacred sites.52 An August 2011 submission to the SABL Commission of Inquiry
signed by 17 clan leaders from Tring, Yibap, Kamasau and Murai, claimed that prior to the
development, company agents completed an “eye survey” of the land, but customary landowners
were not consulted or approached to take part. The submission also claimed that the Lands
Department survey section was not involved, and that as a result the sacred places were destroyed
and not compensated.53
The same submission also states that extensive forest clearing was undertaken to build a road linking
Turubu Bay to the proposed oil palm site, but landowners were not present to record the volume of
timbers removed. It also claims that logging occurred on one clan’s land away from the road line but
‘the land was not compensated’. The submission queries why logging is continuing after the road has
8
been built.54 Having only spoken to a sample of villages in the SABL area, it is not possible to gather
a full picture of the extent of logging operations in Turubu. However, in a group discussion in June
2013, one man in Turubu Bay indicated that 38 to 40 shipments of logs had been shipped off since
the development started and that the ships are 7,000 to 8,000 cubic metres.55 Commissioner Mirou
also observed signs of logging activity during the Commission of Inquiry’s February 2013 site visit
and spoke to a forester working on the development, who confirmed that selective logging was
occurring on the SABL project site.56
Water pollution
Water pollution was also identified as a serious concern, which some members of the community
attributed to the development’s logging and shipping activities. Two people interviewed asserted that
soil and debris from road and bridge construction have washed into and polluted the rivers.57 The
Tring, Yibap, Kamasau and Murai submission to the SABL Commission of Inquiry accuses the
development workers of setting up camp sites near flowing rivers without adequate toilet facilities: "All
human wastes and foreign elements were dumped into the rivers which make water unsafe for
consumption and other purposes.”58 Coastal community members also raised concerns about the
impact of shipping operations – a log pond and jetty that have been built at Turubu Bay to transport
logs onto a ship. Women and men in community discussions complained that oil and waste from
shipping and the log pond are contributing to pollution, killing fish and prawns in the waterways and
destroying the reef.59 One woman in a community discussion said that water pollution has caused
health problems, such as rashes and diarrhoea.60
Loss of cash crops
Women and men in community discussions also commented that cash crops, a significant source of
food and income for local populations, have been affected.61 One man Oxfam spoke to described
how road construction has caused water to accumulate and destroy crops such as cocoa and
coconut.62 Two of the women interviewed commented that women would sell cash crops, like betel
nut, to raise money for their children’s school fees and that damage to their crops has affected this:
“We come to sell our produce at the market to get money for children’s school fee. We have no more
hope after the destruction by the company”.63
In February 2012, the Commission of Inquiry visited the log pond site and also noted environmental
damage:
“There were ominous signs of environmental damage to the sago and mangrove palms along the
seashore, part of the mountain cut to extract stones and soil was subject to erosion and created very
serious environmental concerns. There was no strict adherence and policing done by DEC on the
environmental damage to the coastline where the logging wharf was erected.”64
Community disharmony, fear and uncertainty
Several community members told the listening team they had experienced conflict between
community members on matters relating to the development. Augustine Mondu of TEFDP noted that
there is fighting within the community about land access, as people whose hunting grounds have
been destroyed are hunting on others’ land in secret.65 Women and men in community discussions
also noted that disputes have also erupted around land boundaries, land ownership, consent to the
development and access to royalties.66 Women in two villages also commented on domestic violence:
in one instance because of men in the community, who are employed in the development, drinking
on payday, and in another because of household disputes relating to men’s work on the logging ship.67
Several people also expressed fear, uncertainty or anger about the lease or the potential development
that may occur in the future. One man told Oxfam that he fears the future: “...the land now is leased
to the state for 99 years. That’s the only scare that drives the spine out of our life.”68 Another said:
9
“This is our concern that in the past the land was ours but now lost. Why? We ourselves did not know
that the land is lost. We are not the owner of the development. Other people brought in the
development and we lost our land now. We are no longer having the rights to the land.”69
BENEFITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT
Some members of the Turubu population told the listening team they had received payments or
compensation of various kinds from the companies involved. Two men from an inland village
indicated they had received royalties or other payments for logs.70 Another man from a coastal village
stated he had received compensation for his damaged cash crops, but no royalties or further
payments.71 A man from the same coastal village mentioned that each of the three clans in that village
had been given 10,000 kina in 2009 as compensation money.72 Another man said Limawo Holdings
paid him 2,000 kina when he signed the lease.73
Others reported that they were aware other people had received payments. For example, one man
said that two clans had received royalty payments for logging conducted on their land, but he did not
know how much.74 Another man said he and his clans had not received any payments, but people
from a neighbouring village had received payments.75 One woman who said she had not received
payments commented: “When the people get the royalty payment I am not very sure whether the
money is shared equally or not and thus there is dispute among family members too.”76
Some said they had received no payments at all.77 The Chairman of TEFDP expressed his personal
situation like this: “No, I have not received any other payments [he had previously indicated he had
not received compensation]. Maybe they were given. But I don’t know they might have given it to
some wrong person. My brothers, not even my brothers benefitted. I have four brothers. We are the
land owners. We are the legitimate land owners. And we have not received any form of
compensation. We are still waiting. I wrote them a letters already, I informed them about it, but they
have not responded."78 The overall picture is of a lack of information and transparency regarding
payments to community members.
Without seeing the full SABL, it is not possible to estimate what landowners should be receiving or
entitled to. A 2012 affidavit filed by a representative of Wewak Agriculture Development Limited
indicated that the daily revenue from logging operations is estimated at K120,000 per day and that
Sepik Oil Palm Plantations Limited had paid the PNG Forestry Authority K1.2 million in royalties. 79
However, this document does not state what money was or will be paid to landowners in the SABL
area. It has also been reported that SGS, the Swiss company which monitors logging exports for the
PNG government, valued tracked shipments out of Turubu in 2012 alone at almost $US6.5 million.80
Roads and bridges have been built as part of the development, and some cited benefits from this.
One woman commented this made it easier for women to travel to the market and earn money. 81
Another man commented that he initially did not want the road but now is happy it is there as it gives
access to people who were isolated before.82 However, three people expressed frustration at poor
quality construction of the roads and bridges.83 For example, one woman claimed that the bridge is
made of unstable logs and soil, prone to being washed away in periods of high rainfall.84
DELAY IN PALM OIL
The purpose of the Turubu SABL is palm oil production. The Land Investigation Report for the SABL
also states that the proposed use of the lease is for oil palm project development.85 A 2012 affidavit
filed by a representative of Wewak Agriculture Development Limited states that the purpose of the
development is palm oil, but that “the area has to be cleared of the timber and other forest resources
prior to the planting of oil palm”.86 It also states that the logging is being done “with the full knowledge
10
and permission of the Papua New Guinea Forest Authority” and that once the forest is cleared, Sepik
Oil Palm will commence developing and planting of oil palm.87 However, the evidence presented in
the Commission of Inquiry report raises questions about the relationship between the logging in
Turubu and the palm oil development. For example, the Commission found a document prepared by
Wewak Agriculture Development Limited suggesting that Wewak Agriculture “is eager to clear some
8,472 hectares of forested area however [is] only willing to plant in grassland areas constituting 4,044
hectares.”88 The Commission of Inquiry conducted a site visit to the oil palm site in February 2012.
The oil palm site is located at Malabo Grassland in Turubu inland, in villages that Commissioner Mirou
associated with the Limawo clan.89 Commissioner Mirou observed that “the Oil Palm planting program
is developing at a very slow rate without management expertise and accommodation for housing the
staff.”90 From the site visit, the Commissioner concluded: “Our assessment was that it [the oil palm
seedling site] was only recently planted and that there was no existing infrastructure to satisfy the COI
that work was progressing since the SABL was issued on April 2008.” He also commented that the
relevant Provincial Forest Officer did not attend the Inquiry to “assist the Commission with information
on why the logging continued to operate whilst the nursery was actually located on grassland before
the saddle of ridges and forested areas near Cape Turubu and Turubu villages”. 91 More recently,
news reports have mentioned further seedlings being planted in the Turubu area, but have not clarified
the link between the planted areas and those where logging took place.92
Community members expressed concern at the lack of progress with oil palm. In the words of one
interviewee, “When they came they said ‘we are going to bring oil palm project’. Now it’s almost five
years now and nothing has materialised...And they still logging.”93 Another man commented: “Well,
at the moment as far as I know I heard and I saw the nursery was on the ground, but the factory is
not on. And we don’t know who, which investor will be the oil palm investor. At the moment we don’t
know that, and we hear, we see the logging companies here already”.94 The listening team did not
hear accounts of anyone receiving payments from the palm oil development, or having palm oil
planted on their land. On the other hand, there were numerous accounts of logging, and all payments
mentioned came from logging, lease payments or compensation for damages to cash crops. Some
people interviewed were convinced that the oil palm project was merely an excuse to commence
logging the land, with one man commenting “This developer came and told us that they came to
develop oil palm but they lied to us and they are into logging...They purposely came to do logging
and covered up to establish an oil palm project, which, to make matter worse, did not even start yet.
If they were going to develop the oil palm project, then they could have installed the mill first. Right
now there is no oil palm mill plus the things needed for an oil palm project are not readily available.
Besides, the tanks for collecting the oil palm oil are not built yet, so basically they have come to lie to
us.”95
If this is the case, Turubu would not be alone: in a recent article, “Oil Palm and Deforestation in Papua
New Guinea,” a number of authors researched 36 proposals to develop oil palm plantations in order
to determine whether these were likely to eventuate as oil palm plantations in the foreseeable future.96
They found that of the 36 oil palm proposals, 24 did not have sufficient suitable land to allow oil palm
development and 21 are controlled by companies with no experience in the industry. In fact, they
concluded that only five of the 36 proposals were likely to result in actual oil palm plantations in the
near future.97
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
While comments from community members generally focused on the role of the companies, there are
also concerns regarding the role of the government in this SABL. In particular, the concerns raised
around consent suggest there may have been deficiencies in the oversight of that process by the
relevant government officials. Before granting an SABL, the Department of Lands and Physical
Planning is required to prepare a Land Investigation Report, which certifies among other things that
the land is suitable for agriculture and that the customary landowners consent to the development.
11
The Commission of Inquiry report was very critical of the conduct of the officer of the Lands and
Physical Planning Office of the Department of East Sepik Province who completed the Land
Investigation Report. Concerns raised by Commissioner Mirou included:
There are a number of State leases within the SABL area, including a cattle ranch, military
training area, airstrip, district offices and a high school, but these do not appear to have been
excluded from the lease.98
The officer completing the report did not conduct an area survey or prepare a survey map
during the land investigation.99
The officer relied on information about ILGs and their consent to the development provided
by the Chairman of Limawo Holdings and his executives.100
It appears the officer did not conduct social mapping to ascertain the clan ownership of land
within the SABL.101
The officer signed a certificate claiming he had walked the boundaries of the SABL in
company with the 56 ILG chairmen but later admitted he did not walk the boundary.102
The Land Investigation Report did not contain a section covering whether any reservations
needed to be made for customary rights over the land.103
Members of TEFDP also reported that the Provincial Lands Office did not do a thorough survey of the
land, and did not visit all ILGs to survey the land and validate consent.104 Community members in one
village also raised concerns that they have not been visited by a representative of government in
relation to the SABL.105 The Commission of Inquiry report also comments on several instances of
documentation missing from the files of a number of government agencies.106
FUTURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
The listening team asked community members to talk about what they wanted to see happen with the
SABL in their area. Community members gave a broad range of responses. A number of women and
men commented that they wanted the SABL revoked and the land title returned to the customary
landowners.107 This was also the request of a petition presented to the Commission of Inquiry and
signed by 58 Turubu and Sausso landowners.108 Some expressed that they wanted to develop the
land themselves, or bring in a different developer: “I would like to have my land back. Because land
is my life, it’s my life. I can develop it in the way that I can, the best way to develop the land”.109 Some
other community members indicated that they wanted the logging to stop.110
It is important to note that despite opposition to logging, several community members were optimistic
about the possible benefits of the palm oil operations, and commented that they wanted the palm oil
development to start or wanted further community consultation about the future of the oil palm
development. 111 This may reflect a view that palm oil can bring longer-term livelihood and
development opportunities than logging. Some expressed a desire for assistance from the
government or NGOs: “Government must bring an investigation team to find out about this oil palm
company here and check the work of ILG. What ILG chairman is doing, they get the money, and how
they share the money.” 112 Others expressed a desire to see money or other benefits from the
development, including royalties, compensation, water supply and better housing.113
Community members in Turubu have already taken a range of actions to make their concerns known.
Members of TEFDP and others have written letters to Sepik Oil Palm Plantations Limited and Wewak
Agricultural Development Limited, raising their concerns with the development, and have also
petitioned the government. A number of people submitted petitions and reports to the Commission of
Inquiry.114 The Tring, Yibap, Kamasau and Murai submission states how they entered into mediation
with the development company after “observing unethical conducts”, but that their “disputes and
grievances were ignored.”115 A group of landowners representing five ILGs have also initiated a suit
in the National Court of PNG against Sepik Oil Palm Plantations Ltd, Limawo Holdings Ltd and Wewak
Agriculture Development Ltd. The suit is seeking to have the lease revoked and returned to the
12
landowners as well as an interim restraining order and damages for environmental damage and cash
crops.116 This case is still underway.
At present, the situation in Turubu remains uncertain. Amidst reports of interest in the land from other
investors117 and despite the SABL Commission of Inquiry report calling for the Turubu SABL to be
revoked, it appears that, as at 6 April 2014, the logging operation in the affected area continues. The
Prime Minister of PNG has reportedly stated that the SABL scheme will not continue in its current
form: “We will no longer watch on as foreign owned companies come in and con our landowners,
chop down our forests and then take the proceeds offshore” 118 However, it is not clear what will
happen to the existing SABLs, including Turubu, with local NGOs ActNow and Bismarck Ramu Group
calling on the government to revoke all invalid SABLs and stop logging operations from continuing.
CONCLUSION
As stated above, this report is the result of discussions with a small number of community members
and some desk research reviewing the Commission of Inquiry report and what other documentary
information was available. It provides a snapshot of the experiences of those that Oxfam and TEFDP
spoke to, and some of the concerns that they raised about the development. The views and
experiences of community members are diverse, and are unlikely to all be reflected in this report.
However, based on the information available, Oxfam has serious concerns about this SABL.
Comments summarised above suggest that the development is not meeting the expectations of all
members of the community, and that there is a high level of dissatisfaction in some parts of the
community about the SABL. The lack of information about payments to community members is also
worrying. Oxfam is concerned to see that the proceeds from the development are shared fairly with
the Turubu and Sausso landowners and that it does not result in loss of their forest resources without
adequate compensation, or damage to their long-term livelihoods. The evidence presented in the
Commission of Inquiry’s report also raises significant questions about whether the logging in Turubu
is genuinely related to the palm oil development. More fundamentally, claims by community members
that they did not give their free, prior and informed consent to the development, when combined with
the evidence presented to the Commission of Inquiry, call into question the legality of the lease and
the validity of the logging that continues to occur in Turubu.
13
OXFAM’S RECOMMENDATIONS
Oxfam calls on the Government of PNG to:
1. Implement the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendation to revoke the current SABL to Sepik
Oil Palm Plantations Limited and return the land title to the customary landowners.
2. Ensure that any future development in the Turubu and Sausso area, including any future
development involving the same companies as the current SABL, is made with the full free,
prior and informed consent of the customary landowners. Assist the Turubu and Sausso
landowners to access independent legal advice if renegotiating the oil palm lease or a future
land deal.
3. Conduct or commission an assessment of the damage done to cash crops, food crops, land
areas and waterways (including Turubu Bay) as a result of the development.
4. Repair basic road infrastructure that was constructed as part of the SABL but has fallen into
disrepair.
5. Ensure regular updates about the status of forestry operations and development in the Turubu
area are provided to local landowners and community members in a transparent way, for
example through community meetings and consultations.
Oxfam calls on the companies involved (Wewak Agriculture Development Limited, Sepik Oil
Palm Plantations Limited and Limawo Holdings Limited) to:
1. Immediately cease logging operations on portion 144C.
2. Provide Turubu and Sausso landowners and their representative groups with copies of all
documentation relating to the SABL, including the lease itself.
3. Release information about the volume of logs exported from portion 144C, the profits made
from these logs, and the royalty payments made to members of Limawo Holdings and
community members in Turubu and Sausso. Ensure this information is made available to men
and women in each of the villages covered by the SABL.
4. Reach a fair benefit-sharing agreement with communities regarding payments for logging
royalties, port use fees, and other expected payments associated with the logging operations
that have been undertaken to date.
5. Provide financial compensation to communities affected for any damage done to crops, land
and waterways, where this has not already been provided.
14
NOTES
1 See T Anderson (2010) “Land registration, land markets and livelihoods in Papua New Guinea” in Anderson,
T. and Lee, G. In Defence of Melanesian Customary Land. Sydney: Aid/Watch; AusAID (2008) Making Land
Work—Volume One: Reconciling Customary Land and Development in the Pacific. Canberra: AusAID.
2 C Filer (2011) ‘The Political Construction of a Land Grab in Papua New Guinea.’ Canberra: Australian
National University, Crawford School of Economics and Government (Pacific Discussion Paper 1).
3 Gazettal Notice No G154, Papua New Guinea National Gazette, 2 September 2008.
4 Gazettal Notice No G154, Papua New Guinea National Gazette, 2 September 2008. Some other documents
relating to this land (such as the Land Investigation Report) refer to the land area as 123,200 hectares.
5 Land Investigation Report, signed by District Lands Officer on 20 May 2008. Provided to Oxfam by TEFDP.
6 See T Anderson (2010) “Land registration, land markets and livelihoods in Papua New Guinea” in Anderson,
T. and Lee, G. In Defence of Melanesian Customary Land. Sydney: Aid/Watch; AusAID (2008) Making Land
Work—Volume One: Reconciling Customary Land and Development in the Pacific. Canberra: AusAID.
7 C Filer (2012) ‘The Commission of Inquiry Into Special Agricultural and Business Leases in Papua New
Guinea: Fresh Details for the Portrait of a Process of Expropriation’. Paper presented at the International
Conference on Global Land Grabbing II, October 17‐19, 2012.
8 AusAID (2008) Making Land Work—Volume Two: Case Studies. Canberra: AusAID.
9 SABL Commission of Inquiry, Final Report, Chief Commissioner John Numapo, June 2013, available at:
http://www.coi.gov.pg/documents/COI%20SABL/Numapo%20SABL%20Final%20Report.pdf at p. 18.
10 Land Act 1996 (PNG), section 11 and 102, available at: http://www.paclii.org/pg/legis/consol_act/la199648/
(accessed 12 November 2013), see also C Filer (2011) ‘The Political Construction of a Land Grab in Papua
New Guinea.’ Canberra: Australian National University, Crawford School of Economics and Government
(Pacific Discussion Paper 1)
11 See SABL Commission of Inquiry, Final Report, Chief Commissioner John Numapo at pp 23-24.
12 Ase, D. et al., 2011. ‘The Cairns Declaration: The Alarming Social and Environmental Impacts of Special
Agricultural and Business Leases (SABLs) in Papua New Guinea.’ Available at:
http://www.woodlandleague.org/documents/Cairns%20Declaration.pdf.
13 Report from PNG Post Courier, re-published on ActNowPNG, 23 September 2013,
http://www.actnowpng.org/content/reports-land-leases-reveal-corruption-pm-o%E2%80%99neill (accessed 25
October 2013)
14 SABL Commission of Inquiry, Final Report, Commissioner Nicholas Mirou, June 2013, available at:
http://www.coi.gov.pg/documents/COI%20SABL/Mirou%20SABL%20Final%20Report.pdf (Henceforth “SABL
CoI Report – Mirou”)
15 Women’s FGD B, Interview 3, Interview 2, Interview 9, Interview 1
16 Interview 3, Interview 5, Women’s FGD B, Interview 11, Men’s FGD D
17 Interview 5
18 Interview 3
19 Gazettal Notice No G154, Papua New Guinea National Gazette, 2 September 2008.
20 Gazettal Notice No G154, Papua New Guinea National Gazette, 2 September 2008. Some other
documents relating to this land (such as the Land Investigation Report) refer to the land area as 123,200
hectares.
21 Land Investigation Report, signed by District Lands Officer on 20 May 2008. Provided to Oxfam by TEFDP.
22 IPA Extract for Sepik Oil Palm Plantations Limited dated 28 May 2012..
23 C Filer (2011)
24 Company Extract from PNG Investment Promotion Authority (IPA), dated 1 November 2013. NB: the 2012-
13 Annual Report for Wewak Agriculture Development Limited lodged with the IPA notes that “This company
has ceased operations”. However, at the time of publication, Wewak Agriculture Development is still listed as
the majority shareholder in Sepik Oil Palm Plantations Limited on the IPA website:
http://www.ipa.gov.pg/pngcompanies.
25 SABL CoI Report – Mirou, p 834.
26 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, article 32(2)
27 C Hill, S Lillywhite and J Leske (2013) The Right to Decide: Company Commitments and Community
Consent. Melbourne: Oxfam Australia and CAER.
28 Land Investigation Report, signed by District Lands Officer on 20 May 2008.
15
29 Affidavit of J Dayamba, 30 August 2013, Dayamba and Ors v Sepik Oil Palm Plantations and Ors, currently
before the National Court of PNG
30 Interview 5; Interview 11; Interview 13.
31 Interview 11
32 Interview 7.
33 Interview 4
34 Interview 2.
35 Interview 8
36 Interview 6, Interview 7. Interview 8
37 Interview 13; Interview 6.
38 Interview 3; Women’s FGD C.
39 Interview 3
40 Interview 1
41 Interview 5
42 Interview 3
43 Women’s FGD E
44 Women’s FGD H, Women’s FGD E
45 Women’s FGD C
46 SABL CoI Report – Mirou, pp 836-838.
47 Men’s FGD F; Women’s FGD E.
48 Interview 5
49 Women’s FGD B, Interview 13, Interview 11, Interview 5, Interview 7.
50 Interview 7.
51 Interview 11
52 Men’s FGD F, Interview 5, Interview 13,
53 Tring, Yibap, Kamasau and Murai submission to SABL CoI, 29 August 2011
54 Tring, Yibap, Kamasau and Murai submission to SABL CoI
55 Men’s FGD D
56 SABL CoI Report – Mirou, p 830.
57 Interview 11, Interview 13
58 Tring, Yibap, Kamasau and Murai submission to SABL CoI
59 Interview 3, Women’s FGD B, Women’s FGD C.
60 Women’s FGD B
61 Interview 3, Womens’ FDG C
62 Interview 2
63 Women’s FGD C; Interview 4
64 SABL CoI Report – Mirou, p 831.
65 Interview 13
66 Interview 1, Women’s FGD E, Men’s FGD F.
67 Women’s FGD A, Women’s FGD C.
68 Interview 1
69 Men’s FGD F
70 Interview 5; Men’s FDG F
71 Interview 3
72 Men’s FGD D
73 Interview 2
74 Interview 13
75 Interview 7
76 Women’s FGD F
77 Interview 11, Interview 13, FGD D, FGD F.
78 Interview 13
79 Affidavit in Support (Albert Lau), 1 May 2012, in Dayamba and Ors v Sepik Oil Palm Plantations and Ors,
currently before the National Court of PNG.
80 J Chandler, ‘Stealing the Great Rainforests of PNG’, The Global Mail, 5 February 2014,
http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/stealing-the-great-rainforests-of-png/796/
81 Interview 11
82 Interview 13
83 Interview 2, Interview 11, Women’s FGD B
84 Interview 11
85 Land Investigation Report, signed by District Lands Officer on 20 May 2008.
16
86 Affidavit in Support (Albert Lau), 1 May 2012, in Dayamba and Ors v Sepik Oil Palm Plantations and Ors,
currently before the National Court of PNG.
87 Ibid.
88 Ibid.
89 SABL CoI Report – Mirou, p 830.
90 SABL CoI Report – Mirou, p 831.
91 SABL CoI Report – Mirou, p 841.
92 See “Oil Palm Project Sets Up Nursery”, The National, 4 April 2014, as extracted on ActNOW:
http://www.actnowpng.org/content/oil-palm-project-sets-nursery
93 Interview 2
94 Interview 7
95 Interview 2; Men’s FGD A
96 To do this, the authors used metrics related to the suitability of the leased land, the experience and capacity
of the development company in plantation and mill development, and socio-legal constraints on development.
97 Nelson, P. N., Gabriel, J., Filer, C., Banabas, M., Sayer, J. A., Curry, G. N., Koczberski, G. and Venter, O.
(2013), Oil palm and deforestation in Papua New Guinea. Conservation Letters. doi: 10.1111/conl.12058
98 SABL CoI Report – Mirou, pp 835, 839.
99 SABL CoI Report – Mirou, p 835, 840.
100 SABL CoI Report – Mirou, p 836
101 SABL CoI Report – Mirou , p 837.
102 SABL CoI Report – Mirou, p 838.
103 Ibid.
104 Discussion with J Kalebe, 29 October 2013; also reported in Men’s FGD G.
105 Men’s FGD G.
106 SABL CoI Report – Mirou, pp 842 to 846.
107 Women’s FGD B, Women’s FGD C. Men’s FGD D, Men’s FGD F, Interviews 6, and 7.
108 Petition from Landowners in East Sepik, dated 8 February 2012.
109 Interview 7.
110 Men’s FGD F, Interviews 2, 6 and 13.
111 Interviews 2, 6, 7 and 13, Men’s FGD F
112 Men’s FGD F.
113 Interview 2, Interview 11, Women’s FGD C, Men’s FGD F
114 Interview 5; Interview 7; Interview 13
115 Tring, Yibap, Kamasau and Murai submission to SABL CoI, undated.
116 Dayamba and Ors v Sepik Oil Palm Plantations and Ors.
117 “Sepik SABL Oil Palm Project will Go Ahead”, PNG Post-Courier, 29 March 2014, extracted by ActNOW
PNG; http://www.actnowpng.org/content/sepik-sabl-oil-palm-project-will-go-ahead
118 “Reports on Land Land Leases Reveal Corruption – PM O’Neill”, PNG Post Courier, re-published on
ActNowPNG, 23 September 2013, http://www.actnowpng.org/content/reports-land-leases-reveal-corruption-
pm-o%E2%80%99neill (accessed 25 October 2013)
17
© Oxfam International PNG and Oxfam Australia April 2014
This paper was written by Fyfe Strachan and Victoria Sanderson. Research was undertaken jointly by Oxfam
International PNG, Oxfam Australia and Turubu Eco Forestry Development Program. Oxfam and TEFDP
acknowledge the assistance of Gabriel Molok, Augustine Mondu, Monica Wanderut, Jimmy Kalebe, Snezana
(Susan) Duric, Kelly Dent, Elizabeth Saunders, Kelly Flanigan, and Sam Tuijer in the production of this
publication.
For further information on the issues raised in this paper please e-mail phillippea@oxfam.org.au
This publication is copyright but the text may be used free of charge for the purposes of advocacy,
campaigning, education, and research, provided that the source is acknowledged in full. The copyright holder
requests that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other
circumstances, or for re-use in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, permission must be secured
and a fee may be charged.
The information in this publication is correct at the time of going to press.
OXFAM
Oxfam is a world-wide development organisation that mobilises the power of people against poverty. We are
an international confederation of 17 organisations networked together in more than 90 countries, as part of a
global movement for change, to build a future free from the injustice of poverty:
Oxfam America (www.oxfamamerica.org)
Oxfam Australia (www.oxfam.org.au)
Oxfam-in-Belgium (www.oxfamsol.be)
Oxfam Canada (www.oxfam.ca)
Oxfam France (www.oxfamfrance.org)
Oxfam Germany (www.oxfam.de)
Oxfam GB (www.oxfam.org.uk)
Oxfam Hong Kong (www.oxfam.org.hk)
Oxfam India (www.oxfamindia.org)
Oxfam Intermón (Spain) (www.oxfamintermon.org)
Oxfam Ireland (www.oxfamireland.org)
Oxfam Italy (www.oxfamitalia.org)
Oxfam Japan (www.oxfam.jp)
Oxfam Mexico (www.oxfammexico.org)
Oxfam New Zealand (www.oxfam.org.nz)
Oxfam Novib (Netherlands) (www.oxfamnovib.nl)
Oxfam Québec (www.oxfam.qc.ca)
This is a joint publication of Oxfam in PNG and Oxfam Australia
18
