Solomon Island: Governments Mismanagement of Natural Logging Resource - Essay Example

Politics in the South Pacific Solomon Island: Government’s Mismanagement of Natural Logging Resource In recent years, Solomon Island’s unsustainable increases in logging activities widely distressed the state’s tropical forest and the government is being blame for its blatant disregard and mismanagement of the island’s natural logging resource. The discussion on this paper will focus on the deforestation caused mainly by mismanagement and other factors relevant to the logging industry which one way or another contributed to the deforestation of the tropical forest. A nation located in the east of Papua New Guinea in the South Pacific, Solomon Island is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of government. The 1998-2000 civil war, commonly known as the ethic tension was believed to have come from the islander’s inherent cultural division and hostility towards people in neighboring villages and nearby islands even before it was conquered by the United Kingdom in 1893. The intrinsic disparity of the islanders established by lengthy history of atrocities towards each other, made many political experts to reflect on Solomon Island as a weak state with a parliamentary democracy that do not allow any political figure to govern (Dauvergne 2001:71). It is according to Otter (2002:46), a country with a culture incapable of imposing standardized and state rules, build and sustain state agencies, administer their own natural resources, and their nation’s economy. Since the British gave the island its independence in 1978, the Solomon Island’s government development strategy was to focus mainly on their natural resource exports. Consequently, the islands economy was fundamentally dependent on few industries such as logging, fisheries, and palm oil, which regrettably run by few self-serving and ineffectual elite. The logging industry in Solomon Island started in the early 1960’s involving government lands or properties acquired by government through leased. The Levers Timber Pacific monopolized log production, which is about 75% (Kabutaulaka 2000:1) of the total log production of the state. It was only in the early 1980’s when multinationals companies predominantly from Southeast Asia companies, were allowed to join the country’s logging industry. It was also during this time that logging activities shifted from government‘s controlled land to customary land and for that reason, land owners became directly involved in the industry. According to Dauvergne (2001:23), landowners control approximately 87% of the total land area of the Island and customary landownership rights are determined by family and clan membership with traditional rules that vary across the country. In 1981 to 1983, intensified by government encouragement to foreign investors to join the industry, logging license issuance increased enormously and in 1999, 91 logging permits were issued (Dauvergne 2001:24). Since then, the island’s economy became fully dependent on the logging industry and by 1990, 34.5% of Solomon Island total exports were coming from forest products (Kabutaulaka 1998:1). For nearly three decades, the country enjoys the economic benefits of log exports notwithstanding some incidents of logging-related conflicts. However, due to the economic crisis in Asia in 1997, log prices went down considerably resulting to the suspension of logging operation as hundred of thousands of cubic meters of log were abandoned because nobody wants to buy it. Arguments on Solomon Island’s natural resources crisis, predominantly rain forest mismanagement, often revolve around three important actors in the industry. Normally, inquest to the logging companies come first as their activities, operations, economic and environmental effects are extremely evident and pertinent to the situation. Moreover, influential corporations in consumer countries are sustaining the activities of these companies, while apparently taking advantage of the islands weak political leadership to gain massive profit from the forest industry. People supporting these arguments often point their fingers to government officials receiving bribes from multinational companies, while others insist that logging companies are evading taxes and making surreptitious arrangements involving producers and buyers to report false export volumes. In a 1995 report, according to Kabutaulaka (1998:1), Solomon Island lost SI$96 million in revenues and taxes in 1993 due to false reporting of export volumes. Another major player and widely regarded as the most prominent actor in the rain forest dilemma is the state itself. The government’s inferior policies, outdated parliamentary Acts, and worthless state leadership significantly contribute to derisory logging and rain forest management. In addition, the inability of the state to execute policies and regulation, and failure to enforce an effective tax collection system aggravates the quandary further. For instance, the export duty collected by government in 1995 surprisingly dropped by SI$12.6 million regardless of the increase in the value of log exports in the international market (Kabutaulaka 1998:1). Moreover, the government was reported giving task breaks for influential logging companies with strong political connections, which many of these companies were actually puppets of the multinationals with associations to prominent political figures. For instance, tax exemptions in 1996 reached SI$53 million or 66% more than the previous year. The increase in tax exemptions were mainly from complete tax breaks from log exports prearranged to companies linked to Prime Minister Mamaloni. In 1995, Integrated Forest Industries paid no exports taxes (as part of the generous tax breaks) after allegedly distributed SI$7 million to ministers and senior officials (Dauvergne 2001:123). It seems that the deforestation and destruction of the rain forest and other economic crisis are more likely to come from the state’s incompetence than the logging companies activities. The third actors are the landowners whom many believe were greatly responsible to deforestation and dreadful conditions of the forest. This argument is contrary to the common assumption that landowners are underdogs and victims of the logging companies and are not benefiting well in the industry. The fact that landowners were energetic participants in the logging operations, they are more vulnerable to temptation of higher income and luxury. They would probably sign logging agreements blindly, as this is the only source of income they knew and the easiest way to get rich. Moreover, logging companies would often times take advantage of this inherent human weakness and offer these landowners quick money and a good life. In most cases, perpetrators of these acts are educated landowners who are taking advantage of the ignorance of their fellow villagers and landowners Kabutaulaka (1998:1). For this kind of persons, financial gains come first and environmental concerns follow later. For instance, as cited by Kabutaulaka (1998:1), the Choiseul Province landowners groups were reported directly negotiating with Eagon Resource Development Limited for logging contracts with special agreement to clear and convert the forest into plantation after logging. This special agreement sounds logical and pro-environment but technically, this is not reforestation, as it would not regenerate the original forest. The agreement would only develop a monoculture forest plantation that would not restore the ecological balance in the area. Unfortunately, the Solomon Island government is powerless and cannot do anything to stop it, as there is an existing agreement between the landowner and the logging company. In addition, the state’s legislative control over the logging industry had little impact on aggressive investors particularly doing the time of Solomon Mamaloni government in 1989 to 1993 and 1994 to 1997 (Dauvergne 2001:74). Other good examples are the landowners of Rendova Island in the Western Province who are mostly working as consultants and intermediaries for the logging company as part of the Timber Rights Agreement. Next are the landowners not far from the area who are at first opposing logging activities on their lands but it turn out that they only wanted a hefty compensation for illegal logging activities in their area. These kinds of situation prove that some iniquitous and influential landowners, who are earning a lot by being either an intermediary or plain voracious, can greatly affect the outcome of the logging industry in Solomon Island. Although problems presented in the preceding section are just a fraction of the actual predicament in the area, they are enough to draw the line linking the Solomon Island’s government profound mismanagement of its own forest and natural logging resource. First, the state’s administration is inherently weak and cannot even enforce policies and regulations in most sectors of the society thus; they cannot possibly do better with the logging industry. They are intrinsically unwilling to restore and reconcile even after the civil war and as per Otter (2002:46) is an indication of an entrenched division in the society that is so difficult to improve. Furthermore, a government of insatiable and incompetent elite that is more interested in corruption and getting rich than delivering basic services such as health and education to the public. The behavior of the logging firms and landowners towards the logging industry are comprehensible, as it has appeared to be just a ghastly reflection of the government’s own character. It is not astonishing that a rich multinational company would bribe government officials who in fact are more than willing to accept and do anything for money. In the end, logging company would augment its production beyond the unsustainable level to recover the value of gifts and sweeteners it had given to the heads of government. Consequently, after few exchange of generosity and reciprocated benefits, logging companies would now have tough connections and by confidence would aggressively take over lands for their logging activities regardless of the law. The landowners on the other hand, encouraged by their governments evident disregard of the environment, would do their own thing and inventively find ways to earn more through illegal agreements with multinational companies. Furthermore, knowing their government weakness, they would eventually group together and run the industry on their own accord. Consequently, large portions of the logging activities are unfettered and beyond the sustainable limit set by law. Solomon Island is weak and “its very existence as a state is under serious threat” (Otter 2002:46). If the logging firms and landowners are depressing manifestation of the government’s character, then the government is an appalling reflection of its people. The civil war is obviously a sign of a deeper predicament in the society and it should not be taken lightly. The old development strategy apparently brought disparities between the wealthy and the underprivileged, a wide gap between rural and urban inhabitants, and tension in most part of the country. It has produced a community of people surviving through foreign assistance and profits from untenable harvesting of natural resources, and very much reliant on fisheries and palm oils. A flawed strategy does not consider people as beneficiaries of growth but a mere factor of production (Otter 2002:47). People with no livelihood and suffering from the social disproportion would probably find ways to alleviate their situation. They will therefore ignore a government that could not provide meaningful way of life and supporting only the interest of the few (Otter 2002:48). On the other hand, the Solomon people by themselves are a fundamental issue; they are in fact the root of all of this as they have history and reputation of being socially deranged, with so little trust to other people and no optimism for the future. Otter (2002:46) made his assertion of the islanders as an assortment of incongruent clans and villages with extensive records of aggression towards their neighbors. This is in fact evident in 1893 when the British protectorates united the inhabitants for the first time in one political leadership. They are culturally diverse in many ways as their loyalty is not limited to the island alone but extends to their village, clan, and family. This is the islander’s exceptional cultural reality and regrettably, it is in fact the foundation of political organization in the island. On the contrary, in almost every progressive nation in the world, the people’s love for their country is much stronger than their loyalty with the other elements of the state. This is probably the reason why in 1992, their own and longest Prime Minister of Solomon Island, Solomon Mamaloni said that Solomon Islands “has never been a nation and never will” (Otter 2002:46). The government’s mismanagement of the natural logging resource is to be expected in a nation with no sense of sanguinity and universal love of country. There is no doubt the mismanagement of the natural logging resource was due to the inherent social disparity, government inferior management, and embezzlement of logging revenues consequential to the absence of diversified investment. Bibliography Brooks Douglas, 1998, Challenges for Asia’s Trade and Environment, Economic Staff Paper no. 57, Economics and Development Resource Center, ©1998 by Asian Development Bank, January 1998, ISSN 0117-0511 Dauvergne Peter, 2001, Loggers and Degradation in the Asia-Pacific: Corporations and Environmental Management, Published 2001 Cambridge University Press, ISBN 052100134X   Kabutaulaka Tarcisius Tara, 1998, Paths in the Jungle: Landowners, Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Solomon Islands, Department of Political and Social Change, Division of Politics and International Relations, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Available online at http://www.wrm.org.uy/deforestation /Oceania/Solomon.html Otter Mark, 2002, Development Planning for a Divided Society in a Failed State: The Case of Solomon Islands, Development Bulletin 60, School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane Read More