Papua New Guinea produced its own national report for the 1992 World Summit on Environment and Development, also called the Rio Earth Summit (Unisearch PNG 1992) and the governor general and the Environment minister led a high-powered delegation from Papua New Guinea to the Summit. Papua New Guinea signed the various Rio instruments, committing itself to the global strategy for sustainable development^[2] (Department of Environment and Conservation and Department of Foreign Affairs 1992). In 1993 Papua New Guinea developed its own National Sustainable Development Strategy. The University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) assisted this process by running the annual Waigani Seminar on the theme, From Rio to Rai: Environment and Development in Papua New Guinea. These developments are outlined in various documents: Stretim Nau Bilong Tumora (Department of Environmental Science University of Papua New Guinea and Policy Co-ordination and Monitoring Committee of Department of the Prime Minister and NEC 1993); Yumi Wankain (United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 1994); and the Waigani Seminar book series, entitled From Rio to Rai (Gladman et al. 1996).

This commitment to sustainable development was reiterated when Papua New Guinea's National Executive Council (NEC) endorsed the National Sustainable Development Strategy in 1994. The National Sustainable Development Strategy was a program of comprehensive capacity building and support for resource and environmental planning, development and management. It was Papua New Guinea's ‘Agenda 21’, our response to the commitments given by the government at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and a reaffirmation of the Five Goals and Directive Principles of the national constitution. It was our commitment to ecologically sustainable development (ESD), the creation of a process for an ecologically and economically sustainable, socially equitable society (Diesendorf 1997).

The activities and recommendations generated by both Rio and by the 1993 Waigani Seminar seem now to have been largely forgotten, or at least given very low priority, though hopefully this is changing. The National Sustainable Development Strategy became caught up in a number of ministerial and departmental reshuffles, ending in the Department of National Planning and Implementation. Some of the outcomes are reflected in the 1998 Papua New Guinea Human Development Report (Office of National Planning 1999) and the Papua New Guinea Population Policy (Department of Planning and Monitoring 1999). In 2000 Papua New Guinea also committed itself to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (UNDP 2003) and recently published its own PNG Millennium Development Goals (Government of Papua New Guinea and United Nations in Papua New Guinea 2005). Through 2005–2006 various workshops have been held in Papua New Guinea involving government departments and including other Pacific nations on ‘mainstreaming environment into development planning’ (Saulei personal communication 2005; Banga personal communication 2006). In January 2006, through funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Papua New Guinea government, working with Columbia University and local Papua New Guinea stakeholders/participants, has initiated a strategy to implement Goal 7 of the Millennium Development Goals — ‘ensure environmental sustainability’ (Melnick et al. 2005). Both DEC and UNDP regard this as a high priority and have initiated activities in both waste management (DEC, Joku personal communication 2006) and in broadening the parameters to be considered (UNDP, Bade personal communication 2006). However, many lessons are still to be learned. We continue to exploit our natural resource base unsustainably, especially in mining, petroleum and forestry, and use the income generated on questionable development activities which often ignore the poverty of many of our people and the decline in services, both rural and urban.

Few government documents or statements refer to the National Sustainable Development Strategy, though occasionally sustainable development is referred to in lieu of social and economic development. DEC documents do refer to 'environmentally sustainable development' (Department of Environment and Conservation 1996a, 1996b), and the Department of National Planning does refer to 'integral human development and sustainable livelihoods' (Office of National Planning 1999). However, even a consultancy report on sustainable development funded by UNDP at that time failed to mention the agreed strategy (McMaster personal communication 1999). Notably, the Department of Mining does have a sustainability policy (Banks 2001; Filer 2002). Yet the 2005 Medium Term Development Strategy 2005–2010 (MTDS) scantly or only indirectly refers to sustainability or sustainable development (Department of National Planning and Rural Development 2004).

Quite often it has been hoped that the National Sustainable Development Strategy would be resurrected. In preparation for the ten-year review of Agenda 21, the United Nations (UNDP) in Papua New Guinea advertised the position of a project coordinator (Papua New Guinea Post-Courier 25 January 2002) to manage a secretariat for Papua New Guinea's preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development ('Rio + 10'), to act as the secretary for the Papua New Guinea national steering committee and to prepare the national assessment report. Such a national review was required to document Papua New Guinea's progress in implementing Agenda 21. The report was prepared by a team from UPNG (University of Papua New Guinea 2002), but it was never accepted , nor presented by the government at Johannesburg, due to its critical nature. However Papua New Guinea did submit its own report in 2004 to the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing Countries. (Government of Papua New Guinea 2004). In early 2005 the government of Papua New Guinea advertised for a position of coordinator for Goal 7 of the Millennium Development Goals.

Despite the package of enlightened legislation passed between 1978 and the early 1980s, its implementation has been very weak, enforcement poor and in most areas ineffective. The Environmental Planning Act, 1978 required all development projects which might have a significant environmental impact to comply with environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures, including the submission of an environmental impact statement (EIS) or plan. This has not been strictly followed. Approvals to proceed with development required approval of the EIS and of a subsequent environmental management and monitoring plan (EMMP); these working documents were intended to safeguard the project through its life and to ensure environmental best practice. The system needed effective enforcement, which was seldom catered for within DEC, which lacked an adequate budget and manpower support. This requirement for an EIA was followed in the mining sector, only in the last fifteen years in forestry, and in recent years to a lesser extent in agricultural, fisheries and infrastructural projects and a few other projects. In infrastructure projects, especially roads and bridges, EIAs were undertaken as a donor requirement and DEC and line departments such as the Department of Works and Implementation were targeted for staff training. But the process has been cumbersome and often ineffective due to limited funding and human resources. Some proponents, particularly in the agriculture and forestry sectors, either ignored the whole process or paid scant attention to it.

In 1978 parliament introduced the Environmental Contaminants Act, which aimed to reduce pollution and to control the use of hazardous chemicals such as pesticides and industrial chemicals. By the mid 1990s regulations existed for pesticides but not for other hazardous chemicals, and pollutants were not controlled except through legislation concerning discharges into waterways. Guidelines were introduced in the early 1990s for registration and labelling. The latter are ignored fifteen years later. All importers, distributors and users are required to be familiar with the FAO Pesticide Code (Food and Agricultural Organization 2003) but most are unaware of this code of best practice.

After twenty years there was general agreement that environmental management was not very effective.

Consequently, in 1995 DEC (which was responsible for implementation of the legislation), with the assistance of AusAID, embarked on a review of its mandate and mission and proposed a totally new environmental regulation framework and new strategic directions. The department made public its proposals and requested comment.

In a publication entitled Strategic Directions for 1996–1998 (Department of Environment and Conservation 1996a), DEC stated as one of its key objectives:

Another DEC publication, released in March 1996 (Department of Environment and Conservation 1996b, 5–6), outlined a proposed new regulatory framework for environmental protection. This is outlined in more detail below. The new regulatory framework was said to be based on an number of important principles, namely: certainty and integrity, transparency, consultation and communication, flexibility and practicality, cost-effectiveness and efficiency, 'polluter pays', the 'precautionary principle', and integration of economic and environmental decision making.

In 2000, a new Environment Act was passed, consolidating three existing acts (Environmental Planning, Environmental Contaminants, and Water Resources), with the intention of providing a more efficient assessment, approval and monitoring system. The legislation became effective in January 2004.

The new regulatory framework distinguishes three different levels or streams of regulation, depending on the magnitude and significance of the activity (Department of Environment and Conservation 1996b; Department of Environment and Conservation 2004a):

It is expected that most forms of environmental management will focus on Level 1 and Level 2 activities, with hazardous environmental contaminants and important pollutants subject to Level 2 regulatory mechanisms, and only Level 3 activities requiring an EIA (See Figures 10.1 and 10.2.).

Associated with implementation of the new act, DEC introduced a series of important new regulations (see, for example, Department of Environment and Conservation 2004b, 2004c, 2004d) and an operational manual for its staff (Department of Environment and Conservation 2004a). Some of these regulations/guidelines now need review and updating. Also, a number of codes of practice are now in place (covering solid waste/landfills, fuel storage, motor mechanics workshops, oil palm operations and environmental guidelines for roads and bridges, as well as a Logging Code of Practice for forestry (Department of Environment and Conservation and National Forest Authority 1995)). The effectiveness of some of these codes of practice is open to question and a number are proponent-driven, with an understaffed DEC. A review of the overall effectiveness of the new act and its implementation is urgently needed.

During a long process of self-review and AusAID 'DEC strengthening' (AusAID 1999), DEC received substantial funding cuts; many staff were made redundant and the department was downgraded to an office. At the end of 2001 it was upgraded again to department status. However, four years after this long and much needed review, DEC seems to still lack direction and financial capacity; it suffers from a scarcity of personnel skills and experience, and the decision-making process lacks accountability and is not seen as sufficiently transparent either by officers within the department or by the community. Policy is not implemented or enforced effectively.

A useful review of priority environmental concerns in Papua New Guinea was done by Nicholls for the International Waters Programme (Nicholls 2002). He identified ten areas: increasing land degradation; increasing environmental risk from hazardous materials; declining water quality in rivers and coastal areas; disturbed or unpredictable hydrological regimes; loss of critical habitats and biodiversity; declining coastal and marine resources; inadequate or unsatisfactory water supplies; declining air quality in urban area; noise pollution; and climate change. Given poor environmental governance in Papua New Guinea and people’s lack of awareness about and/or poor attitudes towards the environment the few efforts to address these issues have had little success and certainly have not been sustained.

DEC from 2004 to 2006 initiated a much-needed review of chemical management in Papua New Guinea. This followed Mowbray’s review of chemical management (National Profile on Chemical Management) (Mowbray 2000). With financial assistance from UNEP and funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through the Stockholm Convention, the Papua New Guinea POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants) Project reviewed the use of DDT and PCBs, the production of furans and dioxins, and the use of chemicals in agriculture, forestry and industry; it also carried out reviews of legislation and of education and training, conducted awareness activities on chemicals, and updated the 2000 National Profile (Mowbray 2005). An action plan was prepared to be submitted to the Stockholm Convention Conference of Parties in 2006 (Department of Environment and Conservation 2006). This was done jointly with several government departments and non-government persons.

There are many problems facing DEC in effectively carrying out its mission. These include mobility of staff at all levels, lack of job security, continually changing organizational structures, office machines and telephones that do not work, and absenteeism. Many of these and other problems were noted in a National Profile on Chemical Management, in which forty-three recommendations were made to improve chemical management in Papua New Guinea (Mowbray 2000). These points were reiterated in the 2004 update of the National Profile (Mowbray 2005). DEC and provincial governments must be given the capacity to implement the new environmental regulatory framework, and DEC needs the firm support and political will of Papua New Guinea's leaders.

Despite the new act, Sivusia-Joyce (2005) notes in a brief review that DEC has been under-resourced and deprived of its powers resulting in neglect of environmental regulation, monitoring, evaluation and compliance issues. Few if any prosecutions have been made for causing environmental harm. There are many continuing breaches of the pesticides regulations — both unregistered pesticides being imported and sold and Papua New Guinea labelling guidelines being ignored. Chemicals continue to be used unsafely due to lack of adequate chemical regulations, the absence of a licensing system for high-risk users (such as pest-control and timber treatment operations) and inadequate occupational health and safety standards and practices. Where DEC has requested information from companies on discharges and emissions, responses have not being forthcoming.

One added constraint in Papua New Guinea is that there are few ‘environment-orientated’ NGOs in Papua New Guinea; most are active in conservation and forestry-related activities. Hence there is no ‘watchdog’ organization monitoring or auditing what DEC does and does not do on environmental issues. Likewise, some companies can ignore the law, or requests from DEC, and not be answerable to anyone.

It is generally accepted that conservation policy in Papua New Guinea has not worked for over two decades. Three outdated conservation acts — the Conservation Area, National Parks, and Fauna (Protection and Control) acts — also need to be replaced (Unisearch PNG 1992).

Unfortunately, most responsibility for conservation on the ground seems to have been passed to provincial and local-level governments, who have neither the capacity nor funds to do very much. Much of the work in conservation is now done by NGOs working with local communities. But a new legislative framework needs to be developed, taking into account wildlife management areas (currently the main type of protected area), integrated conservation and development (lCAD) (Saulei and Ellis 1997) and conservation/protected areas, and biodiversity conservation. This will be difficult in a country with clan-based land tenure. There are many competing forms of land use, and trade-offs will be necessary. Conservation of marine areas is also new to Papua New Guinea and lacks appropriate legislation.

Various reviews of conservation and conservation policy were conducted in the 1990s by DEC, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and UNDP, covering protected area management rehabilitation (WWF and DEC 1992); conservation strengthening (WWF and DEC 1993); and the Conservation Resource Centre/ICADs (Sekhran and Millar 1994; Ellis 1997; McCallum and Sekhran 1997; Saulei and Ellis 1997; Van Heldon 1998). National parks as such are probably irrelevant in the Papua New Guinea land tenure context, but wildlife management areas (WMAs), ICAD projects, and new types of multipurpose protected marine areas need to be established. Furthermore, if conservation management is to work, it needs to involve people at the provincial level as well as the national government and local communities and landowners, and the plethora of local and overseas NGOs.

Over recent years the World Bank and AusAID have, intermittently, conducted feasibility studies of sustainable forest management and conservation (including a component on conservation planning and management (AusdAID 2000; World Bank 2000), and a study for a Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (World Bank 1998)). In 2002 proposals were invited for provision of consulting services to assist in the preparation of a National Biodiversity Strategy, Action Plan and National Report, with funding from the Global Environment Fund (GEF). Nothing happened until 2005, when DEC began holding consultations to develop a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and an important up-to-date review and proposal was prepared by Kwa (Kwa 2005) and discussed in a stakeholder workshop in Port Moresby in September 2005.

Through 1997–2000 the Papua New Guinea BioRap Project conducted a national biodiversity assessment and developed computer models useful for biodiversity planning in Papua New Guinea (Nix et al. 2000). Such models incorporated opportunity costs associated with agriculture and forestry, conservation commitments, and areas to be excluded because of high land-use and population density, and developed a set of conservation priority areas. Progress in using these models and incorporating environmentally sensitive and vulnerable areas has been ongoing but slow. Meanwhile a small number of new conservation areas has been gazetted under existing legislation.

Important reviews of conservation law have been conducted by Kwa (2004) and Whimp (1995, 1997). An ongoing review of conservation areas (known as the RAPPAM review) is presently being coordinated by WWF (Yamuna personal communication 2005). WWF has also initiated a local marine management area (LMMA) (Samuel personal communication 2005) and a marine ‘ecoregions’ project covering the Bismarck and Solomon Seas.

Similarly, with MacArthur Foundation funding, WWF, the Nature Conservancy and UPNG have been jointly developing a conservation area planning and capacity building training program entitled Strengthening Conservation Capacity within PNG. This project entails the production of training modules and postgraduate short courses, and certificate and diploma courses in conservation. A 'conservation leadership initiative’ and training program, involving training in the teaching of conservation and environment curricula, has also been introduced by the University of Goroka, jointly with an NGO, Research and Conservation Foundation (Tiu personal communication 2005).

The development of a Conservation Trust Fund is another positive development supplementing government action. The Mama Graun Trust Fund has been established to support biodiversity conservation and related sustainable development initiatives. Its overall goal is stated as 'providing resource owners and managers with a long term source of funding', by attracting donor support for conservation in Papua New Guinea. More specific objectives include: to integrate conservation of biodiversity into sustainable development programs and activities; to conserve — and when necessary restore — priority natural biodiversity resource areas; to strengthen the capacity of resource owners to conserve and sustainably manage their own biological resources; and to enhance the knowledge and information base needed to monitor and achieve sustainable resource management and biodiversity conservation (Papua New Guinea Conservation Trust Fund Limited 2000; The Nature Conservancy and Papua New Guinea Conservation Trust Fund 1999). Unfortunately with the abandoning of the World Bank based National Forestry and Conservation Project, the implementation of the Trust Fund has been put on hold, although the Nature Conservancy hopes to resurrect it in the near future.

DEC conservation staff numbers have also been severely reduced, with many experienced staff leaving and joining NGOs. This severely limits DEC's capacity in relation to conservation, and greater responsibility therefore rests with provincial and local-level governments, and especially with NGOs and communities.

There are many conservation NGOs in Papua New Guinea, actively involved in education and awareness, in ICAD projects and assisting in community support and legal assistance. Some provide legal services to communities where environmental damage occurs or human rights are infringed. They are especially vocal on forestry activities and conservation matters. Though they tend not to be very critical of government, they provide crucial support both for communities on the one hand and for government on the other, especially DEC and the National Forest Authority.

An added complication for environment and conservation policy is the post-1995 provincial and local-level government reforms. These reforms have transferred many of the responsibilities of the national government to the provinces without concomitant financial and manpower support. This includes responsibilities for environmental management and conservation, and environmental governance. The present lack of capacity in the provinces for environmental and conservation management is a major problem.