Politicians such as Mr. O’Neill and Mr. Smith are simply intimidated by Mr. Conrad’s intellect, innovation, ethics. He has brought more export earnings and jobs to PNG every year than those two failures have combined over their careers.

Shame on the Australian Associated Press for promoting such shameful political mudslinging in its usual attempt to keep PNG under the thumb of Australia.

PNG has all these mineral and hydrocarbon resources. lets develop them so that we can become industrialised.

Why should PNG be prevented from advancing and instead be enticed by money to just sit back and not develop our natural resources whilst these industrialized nations continue to advance their economies, all the while polluting, and even increasing the pollution emitted into the atmosphere. Lets get one thing straight, these leading economies of the world will not slow down their industried because money needs to be made.

By developing our resources we can develop new ideas and even develop technology for alternative sources of clean energy e.g. using thermal enery to general electricity in the Lihir Gold mine operation.

If the Office of Climate Change is really going to do something about improving the lives of the people then i suggest that its function and operation be made absolutely transparent.

THE AGE (AUSTRALIA) PUBLISHED A GOOD SUMMARY ARTICLE OF THE ODDITIES OF KEVIN CONRAD’S BUSINESS DEALS IN PNG:

Climate hero under fire in PNGIlya Gridneff
May 8, 2009
One of the world’s leading voices on climate change policy, Kevin Conrad, has been linked to a string of failed business dealings in Papua New Guinea.

Conrad, PNG’s UN Special Envoy and Ambassador for Climate Change and Environment, came to international notoriety at the Bali conference in 2007 he told the US to either lead the debate or get out of the way.

This year the UN Environment Program named Conrad a ‘Champion of the Earth’.

Last year, Time magazine named Conrad number one “Leader and Visionary” within its annual list of “Heroes of the Environment”.

But in PNG, Conrad has a different legacy.

PNG’s Public Service Minister Peter O’Neill when opposition leader in parliament in 2007 attacked the government on Conrad’s business dealings.

He accused Conrad of involvement in a failed housing scheme in the 1990s for the Public Officers Superannuation Fund where 17 million kina ($A8million) was paid but not one single house was built.

O’Neill also alleged Conrad in the early 2000s was involved in PNG’s banking corporation losing almost 35 million kina ($A18million) while landowners lost their coffee plantations because of the collapse of an coffee export company.

PNG’s Eastern Highlands province Governor Mal Smith told AAP that Highlanders who lost coffee plantations due to Conrad fear they will lose their forests through his climate change dealings.

“We don’t trust him with the money carbon trading will bring,” he said.

Paul Barker director of PNG think-tank, the Institute of National Affairs, said Conrad’s international persona was quite different to the perception in PNG.

“There are tens of thousands of (superannuation fund) contributors now asking where did the funds go?” he asked.

“And now if he is going to be directly involved in a mechanism managing trust funds for carbon trading, well concerns about the past need to be resolved.

“He really needs to do a little bit of explaining.

“There is a wide public scepticism within PNG.”

Conrad was notably absent from this week’s PNG Office of Climate Change and Environment Sustainability roadshow touring the country to promote and explain their push towards carbon trading.

And Conrad did not respond to approaches in relation to O’Neill’s allegations.

But in an interview earlier this year with AAP, when asked if he was a failed businessman Conrad said: “I’ve succeeded more than I’ve failed. If you look at PNG every businessman has failed about as often as they have succeeded and the reason is because the government has had too much control.”

1. One can only assume that both the Forestry Minister and Environment Minister were present when Cabinet set up the new Office to coordinate between the many departments and stakeholders affected by climate change. Therefore, to say that a coordination office cannot operate with out repealing existing legislation is factually incorrect.

2. If a country like PNG expects the international community to provide funding to support climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, then for reasons of transparency and accountability a trust fund with international participation is necessary. What is the Governor afraid of, that he will not be able to get his hands on the funds if managed to international standards?

3. From reading recent statements by the OCC, no licenses were issued at all. Interested parties were only invited to register. So, this claim also appears factually incorrect.

4. For the Governor, from a province with very limited forest resources, to be self-appointing himself chief policy guru is quite outrageous. From my understanding, the point of engaging with the World Bank, UNDP, UNEP and FAO is primarily to develop a sound and participatory policy framework that will build a partnership between forest communities, donors, governments, etc.

So, again, it seems to me that the National and Mel “Kela” Smith have their own agendas here — and they are not fighting for the interests of the rural forest owners of Papua New Guinea.

Nevertheless, questions remain about the way the OCCCT was established. And the OCCCT and FCPF are not above criticism – as we have noted in the past on REDD-Monitor. REDD-Monitor believes that the criticisms raised by the article deserve a response. We look forward to further discussion about the points raised.

1. The National Newspaper is owned by Rimbunan Hijau (RH), the largest Malaysian logging firm operating in PNG. It is obvious why RH would like to discredit the Government’s efforts to control the logging and provide rural communities other alternatives.

2. The Governor, Mal ‘Kela’ Smith, previously asked Cabinet for exclusive rights to be the Governments ‘carbon trader.’ An offer Cabinet rejected. He now seeks to discredit the government for managing this process in cooperation with the World Bank, UNDP, UNEP and FAO rather than his private businesses.

In summary, REDD Monitor needs to be more responsible and not simply become an agent for private interests seeking to discredit the difficult and ongoing process to transparently reduce rates of deforestation and forest degradation.