13.07.2015 Views

Fishy business. The Social Impact of SST.pdf - Act Now!

Fishy business. The Social Impact of SST.pdf - Act Now!

Fishy business. The Social Impact of SST.pdf - Act Now!

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

But it is the provincial government’s <strong>business</strong> that has been most controversial <strong>of</strong> late. Twoisland fishing groups, Bismark Fisheries and Nusa, have court cases pending against a recentsale <strong>of</strong> Provincial Government land by the waterside <strong>of</strong> the old wharf where both companieswere operating fishing cooperatives (Section E, Lot 3). <strong>The</strong> property was sold to Sir HugoBerghuser by the East Sepik Provincial Government for K150,000 in the form <strong>of</strong> shares in SirHugo’s Sepik Sea Products [formerly Sepik Marine Products] company. A company searchreveals that, as <strong>of</strong> 21 February 2001, Sir Hugo owns 850,000 ordinary K1 shares, and the EastSepik Development Corporation Ltd. owns 150,000 ordinary shares <strong>of</strong> the same. This wasaccomplished without formal valuation <strong>of</strong> the property, without a National Land Boarddecision, without Provincial Executive Council agreement, and very quickly after the propertyhad been transferred to the East Sepik Provincial Government by the Fisheries Division <strong>of</strong> theDepartment <strong>of</strong> Agriculture. <strong>The</strong> question remains regarding what role the ESPG had in evictinglong-term local fishing cooperatives (including market warehouses, boat storage, repair andresidential facilities) in order to make way for Sepik Sea Products, in the form <strong>of</strong> a new fastfood and ice cream shop.A look at the Joint Venture Project Proposal submitted by Sir Hugo to the East Sepik ProvincialGovernment in 2000 goes some way towards explaining the logic, or justification, <strong>of</strong> theCorporate Plan. While the proposal predates the Corporate Plan, all its terms have yet to beactualized. We may therefore look forward to the project daring to “legitimize what others sayis illegal.”Excerpts are as follow:This proposal sets out the details <strong>of</strong> the proposed entry by SMPL/BWT into the export fishmarket to Japan, USA and EU. BWT has an approved fish factory at their premises at 17Mile, Central Province. It has the only approved license in PNG for the US market underthe HACCP plan. BHL [Bismark Holdings?] will supply bottom fish and other marinespecies caught by the local fishermen and will have four (4) longliner tuna vesselssupplemented by the three (3) existing BWT longliners.Project Cost first stage (6 months)(a) Upgrading the existing premises to an acceptable health and export market standardK400,000.36

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!