A number of important processes occurring internationally and nationally are impinging on how conservation and biodiversity strategies, environmental protection, and sustainable development can be implemented in Papua New Guinea. These include globalization, democratization, deregulation, privatization, downsizing of government, cost-recovery, corruption and poor environmental governance, and insufficient training and capacity building. These processes will impact on the way things are done. They will require us to think of new ways of doing things in environmental management. A potentially important contribution to such a discussion is a review of environmental governance in Papua New Guinea (with a focus on multilateral environmental agreements) published by the United Nations University as part of their Inter-linkages Programme (Piest and Velasquez 2003).
But while new approaches to environmental protection and conservation management must be considered, we need first to take into account some key constraints affecting environment and conservation strategies in Papua New Guinea. We must acknowledge the weak influence of DEC; the lack of coordination between departments; the limited capacity but increasing strength and potential of environmental NGOs; the declining capacity of universities and training institutions; the dominance and territoriality of sectoral departments; the prevalent ideologies of development; community attitudes and pragmatism; and the move to decentralize powers and activities without concomitant support.
We must also recognize that all the key players in environmental protection and conservation, be they national or provincial governments, aid donors, development facilitators, international NGOs, local NGOs or communities, have different agendas (for example, see Martin 1999) and different expectations and ways of measuring successful outcomes of environment and conservation initiatives.
The capacity of agencies at the provincial and local levels to handle important environmental issues, for example in relation to forestry projects, must be given high priority by the national government and donors; capacity building at the provincial and local levels in environmental management and conservation is essential. DEC must be made relevant, and universities must play a larger role, especially in training but also in research, consultancy and outreach activities. Yet both DEC and universities have had their funding seriously cut and staff morale in both has been undermined by government policies and lack of sufficient donor funding. Insufficient emphasis has been placed on training in environmental management and conservation to meet the changing needs across the country.
A number of questions must be asked:
How can the influence of DEC both in government and in the community be strengthened? Is the most effective institutional arrangement to have environment policy implementation the responsibility of an independent environmental ministry? From experience elsewhere (see Ebisemiju 1993), we would suggest it is, but what are the options and are there new ways DEC might do things?
How do we change the dominance and territoriality of sectoral departments? Unless the relationships between DEC and key departments in areas such as finance, planning, mining, forestry and agriculture change, environment and conservation policies will remain ineffective.
How can coordination between departments be improved to achieve complementary objectives, policies and programs, and resolve disagreements in policy?
How can environmental NGOs more effectively sell their vision of conservation and development?
Can we ensure the benefits of aid to Papua New Guinea do not stop when the donor leaves? Donor agencies need to put greater emphasis on ensuring sufficient capacity building and on linking up with local training institutions from the beginning of a project.
Can we ensure the donor is 'on tap, not on top ' (Carew-Reid et al. 1994)? The recipients, not the donor, must set the agenda and timeframe.
How do we deal with decentralization of powers and activities without concomitant support?
How do we cope with ideologies of (economic) development which are constantly changing to meet the latest fashion (ESD, poverty alleviation, capacity building, good governance, and so on)?
Which is more important — natural, human, man-made or social capital? Do we accept weak or strong sustainability? Priority is still given to mining and forestry, which can provide visible financial returns, but are weak on sustainability.
Environment and conservation, and indeed ecologically sustainable development, are not seriously considered by most decision makers. Why?
How do we respond to prevalent community attitudes? Most local communities are pragmatic and understandably will accept the best 'development package' offered, since government services do not meet their needs. How can we convince local communities to accept development projects that can deliver longer-term benefits and sustainability rather than promises of quick returns? How do we engender ‘conservation conviction’?
How do we improve communication between the various players and stakeholders in environmental protection and conservation, particularly local communities, given our different, often conflicting, backgrounds, visions and world views?
How do we ensure that the recent commitment to environmental sustainability (Goal 7 of Millennium Development Goals) together with the National Sustainable Development Strategy is integrated into the next Medium Term Development Strategy, and effected?
Various authors have repeatedly stressed that DEC lacks influence and bargaining power (for example, see Filer and Sekhran 1998). Indeed, government generally will lack legitimacy until attitudes towards the right of the state to control people's activities change (Whimp 1997). It has even been suggested that a moratorium on forest activities might achieve more than piecemeal and ineffective conservation policies. The 1998 downgrading of the DEC to an office (OEC) reflected the lack of government commitment to environment and conservation and had a dramatic effect on the image of environment and conservation among the Papua New Guinea community and internationally, as well as on staff morale. Although the OEC was upgraded to department status again in 2001, some people have suggested that it has lost its vision and that the underlying principles stated in the 1996 discussion paper (Department of Environment and Conservation 1996b) need to be revived.
There needs to be more meaningful stakeholder participation and consultation and public awareness in environment and conservation policy formation. Perhaps new forms of consultation and conflict resolution in environmental and natural resource management are required, drawing on traditional cultural and social mechanisms. Universities and other training institutions, whose credibility and integrity have been questioned in recent years, must assist in training and creating awareness in the community of environment, conservation and development issues. Distance education and postgraduate courses in environmental sciences, biology, environmental management, conservation and community development need to be expanded, despite decreasing staff and financial resources.
The challenge is to spread environmental awareness and conviction, and to get environmental governance right, by determining the right mix of responsibilities for government, the community, NGOs, and the private sector, within the context of a policy of ecologically sustainable development.