Transcript
FRANCESO PANFILO: The SABLs were supposed to give the possibility to the landowner to use their own land for collateral, for possible investment, for example borrowing money from the bank or for collateral for investment but in reality what has happened is that some of these companies they took over. They became almost the owners of the land as far as logging is concerned. They enter into areas that were considered sacred for the people, they did not respect the conservation areas, the sacred places, they polluted - of course they cut logs and in the process they polluted the rivers and so the environmental degradation that has taken place. So this is all due to the fact that the SABLs did not work properly.
DON WISEMAN: It is a case is it not of it being abused and being misapplied, so there was an idea, as you say it wasn't properly implemented, but it could never be properly implemented because secretly it would seem it was all a scheme to take the logs and plant oil palm
FP: Well this is a law, the SABLs result from legislation. That’s why, when for example time and again they say no more SABLs in reality there might not be a new SABL but what about the SABLS that have been functioning for years and years and years. Because you cannot do away with the SABLs unless you change the law. There has to be an act of Parliament to change the SABLs, According to me what we obtain now, through the mediation that was required by the National Court. There was a mediation between RH [Rimbunan Hijau], their subsidiary company, Gilford Ltd and the landowners, represented by the Catholic Church. The mediation requires that RH will have to re-negotiate the agreement by 2020. So this could be a real breakthrough for us until perhaps they have the courage to legislate to abolish the SABLs. You cannot just do away just by making pronouncements. Once in a while the Prime Minister through the NEC, they announce that the SABL is scrapped. They cannot do that. I believe by obliging each developer to re-negotiate the agreement according to very strict parameters, that could be a saving grace, because in our case with the mediation, it is not RH that submits the contract, it is the landowners who submit their proposal for RH to accept or not, or discuss, something like that. I don't know if you are clear in what I am saying.
DW: Yes I am. RH as you say has got until 2020. What happens between now and 2020 - you can cut down a lot of trees in that time, can't you?
FP: That is not really the case. They cannot enter now in certain areas. I don't think that, for example, where we are now that they are continuing logging. I will be there next week so I can find out. But I don't think they are logging now, they are planting and of course they are harvesting already for the oil palm. That yes, but I mean, from now, we are trying to re-organise the landowners. First of all they have to organise themselves and then we are discussing. For example one of the points from the mediation, the environmental disaster, the royalties for the cubic metres of logs, the wages of the workers - all these are included.
DW: What about the people who have lost their land and they can't grow vegetables. They've got nowhere to put their gardens?
FP: Well this will be another issue that will have to be negotiated. Of course it is very hard now to find out how much land they have lost like that. Of course at this point in time you have to know one thing - in West Pomio there are still probably some people who like that RH gets out from there, but, according to me, will never happen, because that would create too many problems for the government. And not only to the government, even in their original agreement.
DW: How can you talk about environmental reparation or making up for the environmental damage when you have taken the trees and destroyed the forest?
FP: Well that's right. This will be part of the discussion. Of course it is not a very simple thing. Nonetheless, if for example, in our discussion there is no agreement. Also at this point in time it is the National Court which is obliging RH as well as the landowners, who are represented by the archdiocese, to re-negotiate. The damage that has happened, has happened. We have to acknowledge that. For example there is another area which RH has never entered and so that agreement that was originally done has been scrapped and now the people there have submitted to RH their proposal, and we shall see how RH will respond to that.
