Papua Needs Assessment - UNDP

3.3 Land and environment
As noted earlier, Papua’s greatest comparative advantage is its natural resources.. However
while abundant, these natural resources , are finite and some uses have the potential to impact
their future availability. Furthermore, because of the intimate relationship between the land, sea
and the socio-cultural and economic (livelihood) status of many communities, the manner by
which the 42.2 million ha of land is used is a cross-cutting issue with profound implications.
However, with the diversity of social systems, there are many, often competing paradigms for the
use allocation of resources. Formal property rights are often at odds with informal adat governed
property rights, while illegal resource appropriation undermines both. Although some resources
remain robust to further exploitation, others are already subject to increasing scarcity. In some
areas, intense extraction activities are causing some local people to irreparably lose their
environmental assets, spawning conflicts between local people over natural resources and disrupting
delicate ecosystems. This environmental damage has a disproportionate impact on the poorest
for whom the local environment is their primary means of livelihood and for whom employment in
other sectors is inaccessible. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of land use, according to BPS
(2003).
Figure 3. Land uses in Papua
Source: UNDP, based on Papua in Figures, BPS 2003
Papua is rich in copper, gold, silver, oil, gas, timber and marine products, such that the extraction
of natural resources by corporations is the primary source of income in the Papuan economy
(see section 3.2). The value of these primary commodities combined with the remoteness of their
locations renders them vulnerable to illegal and excessive extraction. In addition to threatening
the long-term health of thelocal ecosystems, the unlawful extraction of natural resources has
serious economic implications. In 2002 alone, illegal logging in Papua resulted in an estimated
Rp. 558.8 billion (roughly US$ 60 million) in lost state income, which could have been used for
vital public services. In 2003 and for coming years, such losses were estimated at Rp 2.142
10