Why can't SABL be granted to incorporated land groups (ILG) in PNG?

By Isaac Suafia

Recently I was reading an article written by Collin Filer.

Filler was one of my lecturers for the course “Indigenous People and Mining Projects” through online out of Australia National University (ANU) in 2014.

He is well versed with the wealth of knowledge and experience in land and natural resources development in PNG.

I see him as one of my best lecturers and have been following his academic work.

In 2011, he wrote a paper to be presented at International Conference on Global Land Grabbing.

The paper is entitled as “The New Land Grab in Papua New Guinea”.

As I read through it I took particular interest in how SABL has been administered and whom did Minister grant the SABLs to.

I came across Section 11 and Section 102 of the Land Act 1996.

Section 102 of Land Act states that ‘a special agricultural and business lease shall be granted: (a) to a person or persons; or (b) to a land group, business group or other incorporated body, to whom the customary landowners have agreed that such a lease should be granted’.

I questioned myself: Why can’t the Minister grant the lease to the land group preferably the Incorperated Land Group (ILG) in PNG?

Three assumptions provide answer to this question.

If the lease is granted to the landowners

1) Landowners don’t have the capital and technology to develop agriculture business

2) The customary land tenure system will slow the progress for development

3) It will scare the investors from investing on our land.

Although these assumptions are true to some extent should we continue to allow these assumptions to influence our approach to doing business with foreign investors on our land?

Generally, our foreign policy encourages being good neighbours to our international friends in governance, politics, commerce and trade.

We want them to invest on our soil to stimulate economic growth.

Although it’s critical to embrace foreign investment for economic growth it’s also important to question the assumptions that we’ve trapped ourselves in.

Can we change it? Many commentators will argue that it’s difficult.

We’ve witnessed that in how different individuals, groups, organization, politicians have argued about the move by Prime Minister James Marape to close down Porgera Mine and review the agreement.

We’ve heard and read about how PNG Chamber of Mines and Petroleum had defended the international mining cooperation.

Similar sentiments can be raised in the grant of SABL to ILG.

However, limiting our thinking to these assumptions will hinder our progress.

It will keep us within the colonial cage in post colonial era.

We’ve seen most foreign companies and individuals growing roots in PNG through SABL schemes whilst landowners are eating from the scraps that fall from the table.

If we read the SABL report most of SABLs were granted to foreign companies and individual businesses men-NOT a landowner group under their ILG.

I strongly believe that if the SABL is granted to the land group ( ILG) it creates opportunity for ILG to own the lease and operate business in partnership with investors.

Under the ILG Act 1974, ILG was created not only for the state and developer to go to seek consent from landowners to operate business on customary land but also allows them to participate as a business entity to maximize ILG Members’ share.

Since the ILG own the lease, it can lease it to potential investors. This will potentially create wealth for landowners and enable them to move up the development ladder.

What state can do is to invest in capacity building program for ILG so that they are equipped to participate in the business development.

Thank you, over to you land professionals