‗Indigenous‘ and ‗landowner‘ are synonymous terms in this thesis when it comes to resource development areas in PNG. There is a prolific literature that clearly delineates both the positive and the adverse effects of mine development upon the livelihoods of indigenous communities. In so far as mining benefits apply, there are a range of benefits at different levels for various stakeholders, including formal and informal, contractual and non-contractual, short-term and long-term. The term ‗landowner benefits‘ are common within resource development circles where landowners exist. Along with the traditional definition of benefits, one of the most recent definitions of ‗benefits‘ has been coined by Finlayson, who described it as,
Direct monetary payments made to the National Government, and to landowners; which includes the value of goods and services provided in the mine-affected areas as a direct result of mining and the value of wages, superannuation and training for national staff (2002, p.3)
This definition however, confines the relevance of economic significance of benefits to the national and local economies, but does not include any advantages to other key stakeholders such as mining companies, foreign employees and Foreign Service providers engaged in mining developments. The definition only focused on local peoples benefits which are the focus of this study. Rigorous negotiations at Development Forums6 commonly determine the type of benefits landowners can derive from mine developments (both monetary and non-monetary). The rationale for initiating Development Forums was for communities to come to an agreement as to allow developers to access land in exchange for a suite of benefits which typically involve infrastructure and community facilities, jobs, business contracts, compensation, agricultural projects, education and training, health, landowner equity7 in the mine development and royalty shares are legally recognized instruments (Anderson & Moramoro, 2002; Banks, 1993, 2001, 2006, 2008; Connell, 1997; Filer, 2006; Finlayson, 2002; Imbun, 2006; Togolo, 2006).
With increasing inflows of mining benefits, commentators perceive that mining improves local people‘s livelihood in mining communities. However, while the mining benefits have the potential to improve communities, in most cases they are not the blessing they might appear to be, but rather can often be seen as a curse (Banks, 2005, p.185). This happens when mining politics take root at the local levels, culminating in uneven development effects, unfairness and disadvantage to local people on their own land (Filer, 2006, p.309; Veiga, Scoble & McAllister, 2001, p.191, Whitmore, 2006, p.309). Another factor that enables mining companies and the government to be indifferent towards local communities is due to the remote geographies of their locations (Banks, 2003; Paull et al., 2006, p. 34). In spite of
6
Such forums were established in PNG as a means for preparing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for each large-scale mining project. A Development Forum usually consists of government, landowners and the developer. The MOA specifies the allocation of benefits and the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder.
7
Refers to share in the ownership and hence profits (The Porgera gold mine was the first in Papua New Guinea in which the local community held equity in the mining operation. Equity in the mine was negotiated as one of the key features of the original agreement between the Porgera landowners and the national Government at the
substantial resource rents from mining, the fiscal condition and capacity of the government has been weak and it cannot provide adequate services for its citizens due to the workings of a partial and unproductive public service machinery (Banks, 2000; Dinnen, 2001; Golub, 2006, 2007). Within such an environment, the push for development tends to embody lower environmental standards which make the local communities around these operations the biggest losers (dubbed as ‗unseen casualties‘) in the broader national development discourse (Paull et al., 2006, p.34). Therefore, care needs to be taken that indigenous people are convinced, rather than
coerced, to accept a developer‘s presence (Golub, 2007, p.39). In view of the significant environmental effects, many communities see a company‘s ―goodwill gestures‖ as compensation for environmental losses they have incurred.
However, the common perception is that these are only tiny gestures compared to the huge profits made by the companies themselves. Indeed, these tokenistic actions are viewed by local people as merely the companies‘ efforts to fulfill their corporate social responsibilities8 (CSRs) (Imbun, 2006). What matters most is how the benefits provided ultimately translate into tangible sustainable development outcomes. The resource-driven economic growth that PNG has been experiencing has not really succeeded in effecting broad-based improvements in health and education services across the country (Banks, 2003, p. 224). This continuous failure of the government in bringing about tangible development from the returns of mine revenues exacerbates concerns over how these revenues are being managed. There are no concrete measurements for establishing the impact of mine benefits in arriving at a desired degree of satisfaction. Banks (2002a, p.1), argued that there has been no systematic evaluation of the benefits or costs to the various stakeholders, including landowners. Whilst reliable local data for example from a census are often limited or absent, the general focus in recent years has been on the direct impact of mines (in both negative and positive terms) without considering the context of broader changes in the social and environmental landscapes (Banks, et al , 2005, p.1). It has often been difficult to gain an overview of the impact and the benefits mining exerts on stakeholders. The lack of proper evaluation and lack of appropriate data and monitoring leads to an uninformed and murky assessment of existing problems. Concrete information would
8
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) promotes a vision of business accountability to a wide range of stakeholders, besides shareholders and investors. Key areas of concern are environmental protection and the wellbeing of employees, the community and civil society in general, both now and in the future (.http://www.iisd.org/business/issues/sr.aspx)
enable the determination of whether or not landowners have made the most of mining benefits to improve their livelihoods. For instance, merely experiencing a greater cash inflow does not necessarily infer an improvement in livelihood; rather, it is the ways in which the cash influx is used that determines the extent of improvements in the standard of living. Typically, mines are located where service provision and state presence has always been minimal or nonexistent (Banks, 2008, p.24, Jackson, 1991). One such large-scale mining project that has brought a substantial inflow of benefits to major stakeholders is the Porgera gold mine in the highlands of PNG.The benefits received, although substantial, could be viewed either as a road to disparity and desolation or as a way forward to prosperity and sustainable livelihoods and in turn toward greater local and national development.