Papua New Guinea - Fern

Needs Assessment Volume 1 (Alcorn 1993) and Volume 2 (Beehler 1993) sought to identify
geographic areas of primary biodiversity importance and the Catalogue of Biodiversity Data
Holdings for Papua New Guinea (Hedemark and Peters 1997), also with UNEP, systematically
constructed a database regarding all known information concerning the biodiversity of PNG.
These works are cited extensively in this report. In addition, a group of NGOs took it upon
themselves to develop a Framework document as the basis for the coming strategy. Much work
and effort went into developing a draft document that, while quite substantive, was never
completed. These information gathering and planning processes nearly a decade ago have been
of little significance. The reports have languished without resulting in development of the
formalized National Biodiversity Strategy, much less in formal implementation of an Action
Plan. They are rapidly becoming outdated.
The World Bank has belatedly begun to assist the PNG government to carry out their
Biodiversity Enabling Activities Project, a major step in the implementation of commitments
under the Convention on Biological Diversity. A National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
is to be produced and the first national report submitted. Even after the Bank waited four years
to acknowledge their obligations to serve as the conduit for GEF resources to PNG’s biodiversity
planning efforts in 1998, things have still progressed extremely slowly. In 1998 some $182,000
in GEF resources were acquired to finance these activities. Only in April of 2000 did the
government committees and World Bank staff first meet to discuss the activity, and as of March
2002 the contracting to actually start the project has only just begun.
Nearly a decade of biodiversity loss has occurred in Papua New Guinea without the benefit of a
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan as the World Bank and government had more
pressing business – both in economic and commercial forestry reforms. There were a number of
reasons for this further delay. The World Bank and PNG government were at loggerheads
during this period over a number of economic issues, which resulted in all interactions grinding
to a halt – including things like biodiversity planning activities. There also arose disagreements
regarding the use of the funds – the Bank insisted that the funds be used for bringing in expertise
from civil society and consultants, while the government wished to use the money to pay
government salaries.
In summary, important CBD outputs necessary to move forward on biodiversity conservation in
PNG have inexcusably been allowed to languish. The government of PNG has shown lack of
commitment to implementing its obligation under the treaty. The World Bank is also largely at
fault – having failed to fulfill their promise to help Papua New Guinea develop a biodiversity
conservation strategy. Meanwhile, the World Bank and government of PNG are embarking on a
major reform effort of the commercial logging industry which includes substantial GEF funding
($US 17 million) – all without the benefit of a comprehensive biodiversity planning exercise and
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.
6