Report on the Implementation of the derogation to ... - Trade Websites

Final <strong>Report</strong>
RoO Derogation under the PACP-IEPA
Environment Permit. Most projects involving large fish processing plants would qualify as Level 3
activity – projects of national significance - as defined in the Regulations.
The following process is prescribed to obtain the necessary Environmental Permit to accompany
project approval. 100
1) submission of an Environmental Permit application in standard format. Detailed information
is required in the application, including details of processes and activities involved,
identification of risks, description of potential contaminants etc. An environmental impact
assessment (EIA) or an environmental improvement plan (EIP) may be required to accompany
the application.
2) if the application is accepted, a notification of the decision is published in the GoPNG gazette,
followed by an invitation for public comment, and referral to interested parties etc.
3) the application is then evaluated by the Environmental Council, which involves rigorous
review using transparent guidelines by the panel of independent experts who comprise the
Council.
4) following approval by the Environmental Council, an Environmental Permit may then be
issued on the approval of the Minister and the project can proceed, subject to other
necessary requirements being met.
Once the permit has been issued, the company/entity concerned has three months to respond with
a Waste Management Plan (WMP) covering all forms of possible waste emanating from the
development (i.e. solid waste, air emissions and water discharge). The WMP should be monitored by
DEC (quarterly inspection), on a user-pays basis. 101
Although voluntary codes of practice apply to industrial/mining developments, nothing has yet been
formulated for fish processing developments.
Changes to the Environment Act 2000 have been proposed in recent years, with amendments passed
in June 2010. The most contentious of these amendments was the addition of new sections (69A and
B, 87 A,B,C and D) which reduced the scope of landowners and concerned parties to object to
102
proposed developments, using the Environment Act 2000 as the basis. While likely implemented
to assist in promoting mining sector developments, these amendments may have potentially set an
undesirable precedent for proposed major tuna processing developments.
With the recent change in Government in August 2011 and, in response to major protests against
the amendments to the Act, the new Government announced in early October 2011, that these
103
were to be repealed with the amendments described as “unnecessary and undesirable”.
On 26 August 2011, the newly appointed Minister for Commerce and Industry directed an
immediate review of the PMIZ involving all stakeholders, noting that “the Government recognizes
this project as important to the country, wants it to go ahead and supports it in principle” but that
“certain shortcomings must be acknowledged, and addressed”. 104 He further directed that an
independent international engineering firm be engaged to vet the design process and provide
project management services on the contract to ensure value for money. The previous government
100 Interview, DEC officials, September 2011.
101 Interview, DEC officials, September 2011
102 ActNow 2011.
103 ActNow, undated.
104 The National, 26 August 2011.
Linpico s.a.r.l. Page 73