Before the Papua New Guinea government delegation travelled to Dubai for the UN’s annual climate pantomime, the PNG Environmental Alliance put out a position statement on the development of a regulatory framework for carbon markets in the country.
Thanks for reading REDD-Monitor! Subscribe to receive new posts and support my work.
The position is available in full below. The PNG Environmental Alliance is concerned about the government’s failure to allow meaningful stakeholder input and public stakeholder consultation during the process of the revising the Climate Change Management Act.
The PNG Environmental Alliance states that,
The legislation lacks clarity, has no adequate references and links to other elements of the legislative framework, the carbon market and international guidelines, and it therefore can be considered anything but robust. There are still significant gaps that need to be resolved.
One of the PNG Environmental Alliance’s requests to the government is that the current moratorium on REDD voluntary carbon market projects should not be lifted. Neither should any other carbon market projects be allowed “until a full carbon market regulatory framework is in place”.
On 4 December 2023, at COP28, a representative of the PNG Environmental Alliance handed the statement to Simo Kilepa, PNG’s Minister for Environment, Conservation, and Climate Change.
Kilepa, it seems, did not read the statement. If he did, he completely ignored it.
On 5 December 2023, Kilepa signed an updated Memorandum of Understanding with Blue Carbon LLC, a United Arab Emirates-based carbon offsetting company. Blue Carbon has signed carbon deals with several countries. In Africa the company’s deals cover a total area larger than the UK.
According to a statement on the Prime Minister’s Facebook page,
The MOU, a refined and updated accord, builds on previous agreements between Blue Carbon and Papua New Guinea and positions them to delve deeper into projects particularly related to the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
A US$100 million conservation deal with France
On 3 December 2023, Marape met French President Emmanuel Macron and thanked him for a US$100 million “country package” aimed at “preserving nature, forests, and mitigating climate impact”.
The Department of Prime Minister and National Executive Council website states that the “country package” represents a “groundbreaking financing mechanism” aimed at:
Achieving 30 per cent protection of land and sea by 2030;
Realising a 25 per cent reduction in deforestation and forest degradation by 2025;
Establishing a sustainable financing mechanism for forest biodiversity; and
Supporting scientific research and education to nurture future generations.
In July 2023, Macron visited Papua New Guinea where he announced the US$100 million “country package”. His visit coincided with France’s TotalEnergies investment decision on a liquefied natural gas project that TotalEnergies is developing with ExxonMobil, Santos, and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration.
In addition to the impacts of extracting the gas from the forests of Papua New Guinea and the climate impacts of burning the gas, this LNG project is also a major factor behind the Ihu Special Economic Zone, which is planned to cover 85,000 hectares of land that is currently forest on the coast of the country. A pipeline from the LNG project is planned to pass through a large petroleum park in the Ihu Special Economic Zone.
Macron spoke about the conservation funding at a press conference in APEC House in Port Moresby on 28 July 2023. Upstairs from that event, investigative journalist Rachel Donald was mingling with politicians, state officials, and fossil fuel executives.
Donald spoke to a representative of TotalEnergies, who didn’t realise she was a journalist. He told her that the company was irritated that Macron’s event was at the same time and in the same building, as their decision announcement. “Coinciding it with a conservation event? It doesn’t look very good for us,” he said.
He also confirmed that carbon credits from the conservation project would be used to offset emissions from the LNG project. But later on, when she asked him for an on the record comment, he denied knowing anything about the conservation project.
Here is the PNG Environmental Alliance position statement on the country’s regulatory framework for carbon markets:
PAPUA NEW GUINEA ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE POSITION STATEMENT
PNG’s PROGRESS ON DEVELOPMENT OF A REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CARBON MARKETS
Date: 23 November 2023
We are the Members of the PNG Environmental Alliance (PNGEA), a group established to be the national voice for civil society organisations on all issues related to the environment in Papua New Guinea (PNG). As civil society organizations, we are actively engaged and working directly with a large number of our customary landowning communities. One of our responsibilities is to voice their concerns and ask questions to the leaders of this country, to help communities defend their rights and interests, and to ask questions that keep our leaders accountable to their people.
This position statement is written to voice our grave concerns regarding the development process of PNG’s regulatory framework for carbon markets. Our members have been actively involved in this process, and over the past three years, it has unfortunately been necessary for us to write numerous official complaint letters and release media statements to try ensure our Government follows proper process, in particular on genuine stakeholder consultation, consideration of stakeholder concerns and the protection of the rights of our customary landowning communities.
Our most recent letter to Government (dated 22 September 2023) and media statement regarding this letter, concerns the development process of the Climate Change (Management)(Carbon Market) Regulation 2023, and the revision process of the Climate Change Management Act (CCMA). Our main concern voiced in this letter is on the lack of consideration of the stakeholder input by the CCDA for the Regulation development process, and the lack of public stakeholder consultation for the CCMA revision process.
Climate Change (Management) (Carbon Market) Regulation 2023 was not validated by the stakeholders
In our letter, we express our surprise and concern on the Carbon market regulation validation workshop of 18 August 2023, at which the Climate Change and Development Authority (CCDA) appeared to be hastily and prematurely forcing through the new Carbon market regulation. During the workshop it became clear that the majority of the stakeholders, including representatives from other key government departments, University of PNG, private sector and other NGOs did not agree with the overall process of the carbon market regulatory framework development and the content of the final draft version of the Regulation. One key issue is the definition of Carbon Rights, which most stakeholder agreed are not defined properly and that the current definition will not be conducive to the stakeholders, clan leaders, landowners and communities, engaged in a carbon project. To the PNGEA this is a strong indication that the validation workshop was premature.
The PNGEA was asked by CCDA to propose an improved definition of Carbon Rights during the last technical stakeholder workshop on the Regulation, but maintained their original position on this essential issue: Carbon ownership and rights need to be identified by an Act of Parliament, i.e., at the level of the CCMA, not at the level of a Regulation, and a thorough stakeholder discussion and consultation on the meaning and implications of the definition of carbon ownership and rights needs to be held to produce an agreed and well-understood definition. It should not be proposed by one stakeholder at the time of a validation workshop, but has to be widely discussed as to its practical implications, in particular for all clan leaders, landowners and communities.
The observed disagreement with most stakeholders on the final draft Regulation during the validation workshop, is in stark contrast to the triumphalist announcement on the Facebook page of the CCDA straight after the workshop, that the Regulation is a ‘pioneering regulatory framework’, that has received ‘resounding validation from national stakeholders’ and will ‘provide a robust and accountable market mechanism’.
The legislation lacks clarity, has no adequate references and links to other elements of the legislative framework, the carbon market and international guidelines, and it therefore can be considered anything but robust. There are still significant gaps that need to be resolved, with the most pressing concerns the PNGEA has on the final draft Regulation being:
The Paris Agreement stipulates the need to avoid double counting, in accordance with guidance adopted by the Conference of the Parties. This legislation is regrettably silent on double counting. In order to have any credibility on the international stage and operate as a legitimate system, the legislation needs to be fleshed out in full as to how double counting will be avoided.
The Regulation only has very general requirements included in relation to Project Development, FPIC, Benefit Sharing and Grievance Mechanisms. Some very brief references are made to PNG’s recently launched FPIC and Benefit Sharing & Distribution guidelines, however, these guidelines only apply to REDD+ projects. The REDD+ Development Guidelines, which provide very important guidance on carbon project development, are not defined or referred to at all in the Regulation. References are made in the Regulation to “other approved standards and guidelines”, however, none of these currently exist. This means that for all types of carbon credit generating projects other than REDD+ projects, there are no safeguards to be followed, meaning no protection of the rights and interests of the customary landholding communities.
The PNGEA has repeatedly raised its reservations on the definition of Carbon Rights and Carbon ownership within the Act, amongst many other issues. At present, it is widely held by multiple stakeholders that Carbon Rights are not defined properly and will not be conducive to all stakeholders engaged in a carbon project. With 97% of land in Papua New Guinea being held under customary ownership by our local tribes and clans, the definition of the rights to the benefits of carbon credits is of great significance.
The PNGEA has been trying to work with the Government now for over a year to assist in the drafting of the Regulation. During most of this time, the PNGEA has had to persistently pressure the government to listen to our input and concerns. During the Regulation validation workshop, it became clear that many of the comments submitted through comment matrices by the PNGEA and other stakeholders were left unanswered, with others dealt with in a cursory manner at best, giving the impression that the CCDA is reluctant to take on board stakeholder comments and suggestions. The PNGEA and other stakeholders observed that overall, the Regulation in its current final draft form, is rather flimsy, and liable to lead to deleterious consequences in the future, if further discussing and drafting of the Regulation is not undertaken.
The PNGEA therefore, after the Regulation validation workshop, wrote their letter to Government, asking them to show leadership to help protect the reputation of our country in navigating the carbon market, and stating that they do not consider the Carbon market regulation validated, but rather acknowledge it for what it is; a document still very much in draft form in need of amendments. This is especially pertinent given one of the key outstanding points is the definition of Carbon Rights. Once it is written into law, how this term is interpreted is defined for decades to come. The implications of incorrectly defining this term and others will affect many of PNG’s most vulnerable citizens; our rural customary landowning communities. For this reason, more than any other, the PNGEA strongly urged the Government of Papua New Guinea to continue to work on their carbon market legislation.
PNG Government breaches its own REDD+ FPIC Guidelines: no public stakeholder consultation on the CCMA revision process
The PNGEA has repeatedly called for the revision process of the CCMA, which is closely related to the development of the Regulation, to also go through a proper process of public stakeholder consultation, as per the PNG National REDD+ FPIC Guidelines.
Regarding the CCMA revision, the PNGEA has requested for the revision of the CCMA to take place through a transparent process, including thorough stakeholder consultation, with key points for the revision being the definition of “carbon rights” (and any reference to primary and secondary carbon rights), references to safeguards and regulations for all types of carbon credit projects, alignment of existing forestry, environmental and energy legislation, and a clear outline of how carbon projects will be nested within a national approach, and how this will be governed.
However, the CCMA revision has now been completed without proper public stakeholder consultation, and submitted to Parliament. It is unclear what changes have been made, and whether all the essential issues identified by the PNGEA have been given due consideration. The CCDA claims that there has been on-one-one consultation with stakeholders on certain Sections, but it is unclear which key stakeholders were consulted and on which Sections, as no information on this has been provided.
The manner in which this revision of the CCMA has been done, sees the PNG Government breaching its own REDD+ FPIC Guidelines, which in Section 1.4 and 1.6 clearly stipulate the need for wider stakeholder consultation.
Working with the PNG Government to move forward
In its letters to PNG Government officials and its media statements, the PNGEA has always emphasised its willingness to continue to work with the PNG Government to develop a robust overall regulatory framework for carbon projects and the carbon market in PNG, that protects the rights and interests of all our citizens, but in particular our rural customary landowning communities. However, we have not received any response to our latest letter, and instead of correcting their breach of our REDD+ FPIC Guidelines and put the revision of the CCMA through public stakeholder consultation, the PNG Government has moved to submit the revised CCMA to Parliament.
Therefore, the PNGEA members now resort to the international arena of the UNFCC COP28, to repeat their request for the PNG Government through our Climate Change and Development Authority to:
Publish a clearly outlined plan for the development and implementation of a full regulatory framework for carbon markets in PNG, including development of a range of Safeguards and Regulations that cover all types of carbon projects and financing, and that properly link implementation and enforcement of their safeguards with the CCMA;
Provide sufficient time and opportunities for stakeholder consultation, genuinely considering and incorporating their concerns and input, on all elements of the regulatory framework currently under development or that still need to be developed;
Continue the development process of the Carbon market regulation, taking on board stakeholder input, to arrive at a robust and complete version. We need to make it very clear again here that in the event that the Regulation would go through in its current form, the PNGEA, as the leading group reflecting conservation organisations in PNG, will distance itself from it;
Prepare a further revision process for the PNG Climate Change Management Act in accordance with the requirements of our REDD+ FPIC Guidelines, to ensure its revision aligns with the final version of the Carbon market regulation, the still to be developed Safeguards for all other carbon projects and, most importantly, includes a well-understood and widely agreed definition of Carbon Rights;
Not lift the current Moratorium on new REDD+ Voluntary Carbon Market projects, nor to allow any other carbon market projects, until a full carbon market regulatory framework is in place; and
Ensure that all REDD+ and other national carbon market related income is managed through dedicated funds under the independently governed PNG Biodiversity and Climate Fund, and not through Government controlled Trust Funds.
We welcome the interest and engagement by other countries, international institutions and organisations, and private investors to be involved with carbon market projects in PNG, and the potential we envisage that this will provide for the country and our customary landowning communities into the future. In order not to jeopardise these prospects, it is critically important to ensure a full regulatory framework with all the required regulations and institutional arrangements is developed and put in place first, and that systems are functioning to ensure oversight and compliance.
Without these in place, there is no guarantee that the rights of our customary landowning communities will be upheld, and that they will be involved in carbon projects in a meaningful way, through fully transparent processes that guarantee they receive the majority of the benefits realised. These benefits are vital for paving the way towards meaningful long-term improvements in their lives, while safeguarding their environment and culture in an inclusive sustainable development approach.
Authorised by the following PNG Environmental Alliance members: Bismarck Ramu Group (BRG) Centre for Environmental Law & Community Rights (CELCOR) Consultative Implementation & Monitoring Council (CIMC) FORCERT – Forests for Certain: Forests for Life! Partners with Melanesians (PwM) PNG Council of Churches (PNGCC) Research & Conservation Foundation (RCF) Tenkile Conservation Alliance (TCA) Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program (TKCP) Wide Bay Conservation Association (WBCA)
Thanks for reading REDD-Monitor! Subscribe to receive new posts and support my work.
(misspelling in line 12 "not be lifter.") Of course there is "lack of public stakeholder consultation for the CCMA revision process." People misunderstand the process of "government" - you cannot govern by committee (to wit: the proverbial horse designed by a committee); you cannot include all the input from the "little people," it is a complicated process to coalesce enough power to govern. Then eventually people get tired of that version of authority and throw them out, to be replaced by an opposition party that operates basically the same way, going in and out of power (like Marx said) like links on a sausage. The people are the cobblestones, business always the beneficiary.
(misspelling in line 12 "not be lifter.") Of course there is "lack of public stakeholder consultation for the CCMA revision process." People misunderstand the process of "government" - you cannot govern by committee (to wit: the proverbial horse designed by a committee); you cannot include all the input from the "little people," it is a complicated process to coalesce enough power to govern. Then eventually people get tired of that version of authority and throw them out, to be replaced by an opposition party that operates basically the same way, going in and out of power (like Marx said) like links on a sausage. The people are the cobblestones, business always the beneficiary.