...........benefits from mining operations to landowners as the best option ;-))))))))))
Sollte der Mining Act von 1992 dahingehend geändert werden dass die Landeigner alleine über Mining auf ihrem Gebiet entscheiden können so dürfte das die Umsetzung ihre Entscheidung "We want BCL back" und direkte Verhandlungen über Royaltys mit BOC in Gang setzen können.
By Eric Tapakau
PAPUA New Guinea is being predicted to hit an economic slump if the proposed amendment to the Mining Act 1992 is passed in Parliament.
The mining industry, contributing about 64 per cent of export earnings, will be thrown into chaos and many people mostly Papua New Guineans will be unemployed.
This “worst than thought” picture was painted jointly by the Department of Mineral Policy and Geohazards Management (DMPGM) and the Mineral Resources Authority while explaining the proposed amendment to the media yesterday.
DMPGM and MRA formed a committee to look at the proposed bill.
DMPGM is responsible for formulating mining policies while the MRA is responsible for the implementing these policies.
They both feared that the proposed bill would push investors away from PNG’s lucrative mining industry.
North Fly MP Boka Kondra is looking for Parliament’s support to amend the Act which would see landholders having a bigger say in developing their mineral resources and having direct negotiations with the developers.
Both the department and the MRA see increasing benefits from mining operations to landowners as the best option rather than landholders taking control over the mineral rights as they fear that there would be unequal distribution of benefits if just one group of landholders or individual take control of mineral rights.
The State has rights over minerals under the current legislations.
“The implications from the proposed Bill to transfer mineral ownership to landowners will be very drastic. It will literally change the whole scope of mining activities in PNG. State Institutions like MRDC and MRA will have to do administrative changes to align with the amendment if it is passed by Parliament,” said director of mineral policy and legislation Harry Kore.
“We must consider the wider implications of the legal, administrative, financial, social and technical effects. The substitution of the word State with landholder (inclusive of both customary and freehold land) throughout the Mining Act 1992 and the Oil and Gas Act 1998 does not adequately serve the purposes or intensions of the amendment.
“The impact on the PNG economy will be severe. Companies would not want to sacrifice their money in any high risk climates. The security of the tenure of their licence will also be in question (currently that is the main concern for companies dealing in high risk countries). If the companies do leave then thousands of Papua New Guineans will be out on the street with no jobs.”
He said the proposed change would make single landowners or family units become “filthy rich” overnight. This will also attract many crooked companies to come in and deal with these landowners at the expense of the nation.
“Under the current system, everybody in the community receives the benefits derived from the activity as long as they are impacted, regardless of whether minerals are found on their land or on a neighbouring land,” he said.