Report - Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights

Our people were inexperienced and powerless against <strong>the</strong> powers and might <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> governments <strong>of</strong>
Australia, Papua New Guinea, who were colluding with Conzinc RioTinto. They were disempowered
and stripped <strong>of</strong>f <strong>the</strong>ir natural and human rights, as enshrined in <strong>the</strong> United Nations Universal
Declaration <strong>of</strong> Human Rights. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> “fallacies” was that <strong>the</strong> “Crown” (which has unfortunately
been inherited by <strong>the</strong> government – PNG) “owned all <strong>the</strong> minerals found on and under customary
land in Bougainville” for that matter also anywhere in Papua New Guinea. But this was against <strong>the</strong>
customary land tenure laws <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> people where <strong>the</strong> people own <strong>the</strong>ir land and everything that is on
it or under it, including <strong>the</strong> reefs and <strong>the</strong> sea.
A fur<strong>the</strong>r 32% <strong>of</strong> Bougainville’s most fertile land was also cultivated by foreign interests and establishing
some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> biggest coconut and cocoa plantations in <strong>the</strong> pacific region – since <strong>the</strong> German colonial
period.
A decision made in distant Port Moresby (capital <strong>of</strong> Papua New Guinea) without <strong>the</strong> knowledge <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> landowners in Bougainville was based on <strong>the</strong> 1928–1966 Mining Ordinance. Under <strong>the</strong> terms <strong>of</strong>
this Ordinance:
• Access to native land could be granted by <strong>the</strong> Administration – without reference to <strong>the</strong> owners, that
is <strong>the</strong> traditional landowners;
• A Prospecting Authority (PA) or such a license is granted for a specified area on traditional
and customary land where <strong>the</strong> miners will prospect;
• A Prospecting Authority in turn directs <strong>the</strong> company to pay an annual fee to <strong>the</strong> Administration
(i.e., <strong>the</strong> government) but not to <strong>the</strong> traditional landowners;
• In fact <strong>the</strong> said Ordinance did not even have any provisions whereby such a fee could be paid
to <strong>the</strong> traditional and customary landowners whose land was occupied;
• The authority fur<strong>the</strong>r permits, prospecting for gold or a specified mineral or minerals on any land
not o<strong>the</strong>rwise excluded by <strong>the</strong> Ordinance, subject to such conditions <strong>the</strong> Administrator thinks fit and
specifies in <strong>the</strong> authority. A prospecting authority could not cover and area exceeding 10,000 square
miles (25,899 square kilometres) and <strong>the</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> authority was normally for up to two years (Mining
Ordinance 1928 – 1966).
The Panguna mine began commercial operations in April 1972. For <strong>the</strong> CRA mining company, its
shareholders and <strong>the</strong> Papua New Guinea Government, <strong>the</strong> mine was a multi-million dollar earner.
For <strong>the</strong> Bougainville landowners it was an environmental disaster. According to Paul Quodling, <strong>the</strong>n
managing Director from 1956 to 1987 stated quite clearly that <strong>the</strong> land on which <strong>the</strong> copper ore was
dug out from would be lost for ever, and would be replaced, most likely, by a man-made Crater Lake.
Some 50 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> solid waste was also systematically stacked in a nearby valley and <strong>the</strong>se waste
dumps added some 300 hectares <strong>of</strong> flat land for <strong>the</strong> extension <strong>of</strong> mine facilities.
Over a billion tonnes <strong>of</strong> poisonous tailings from <strong>the</strong> mine was dumped straight into <strong>the</strong> Kawerong
and Jaba Rivers. Alternative methods <strong>of</strong> dumping <strong>the</strong> poisonous tailings such as tailings dams were
considered by CRA mining company but ruled out because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> high seismic activity in <strong>the</strong> area.
A pipeline transport was also considered by <strong>the</strong> company to dump <strong>the</strong> poisonous tailings into <strong>the</strong>
sea but was rejected on technological and financial grounds. Ei<strong>the</strong>r way would have not made any
difference in <strong>the</strong> destruction and pollution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> environment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 145