Towards a Conservation Strategy

The first step is to fully involve the local residents as stakeholders, and to gain their support for establishment of a protected area. Maureen Ewai (of Conservation International) is already talking with them and Jean-Paul Sounier also has close contacts and relationships.

This clearly relates to the boundary question. From our own perspective, we will look towards delineating an area which will include the totality of the karst system; Conservation International will doubtless look towards a boundary which contains the biotic communities of high diversity; and the residents of the area will doubtless look to traditional hunting or gathering areas. WE also assume that the coastal area with its various karst springs and the fringing reefs will be a necessary part of any protected area. As we see it at present, we will have to take the time to work through the boundary question with the various clan and family groups who are involved. The aim must be to find consensus on a boundary which both:

• Meets protected area and World Heritage criteria, and
• Maintains the interests and rights of the resident communities

This may well be time-consuming as a number of resident communities will be involved, each claiming control over their own area. Experience elsewhere in Papua New Guinea indicates that it well may be possible to establish a series of separate but adjoining protected areas by approaching clans separately and seeking the establishment of such areas within each clan's territory through a lot of community-based work and incentives. Conservation International has already worked with this strategy in other areas, and we understand they intend to do the same in the Nakanai. These separate areas might then be tied together and jointly managed under the aegis of a World Heritage site or other recognized definition.

We also emphasise that we do not see the establishment of a protected area as necessitating any displacement of the people who live within the area. They should not only be guaranteed continuing tenure but given the opportunity to develop consensus on a management plan and program for the site.

It is clear that we must also recognize the reality that if timber harvesting is eliminated, as would be the case if a protected area is established, then the economic benefits to the local community must be restored from some other source. On one hand, further development of non-timber forest products can not only further this, but Asian experience shows that it will in the long term provide more long-lasting economic benefits to the resident communities than will timber harvesting. Further, the ‘profits’ will remain in the local economy rather than being exported. There are also good potential opportunities for nature-based tourism, including lower-level caves, scuba diving, rafting, hiking, and for cultural tourism.

Funding will also be required to underwrite the costs of re-afforestation to restore forest quality where necessary as a result of either timber harvesting or the 1997 cyclone. Experience in Southeast Asia , particularly Indonesia and Vietnam , shows that this can be accelerated by soil stabilization and using a proper sequence of planting.

The next level of decision lies with the East New Britain Provincial Government, as being best able to generate protective legislation in support of the local communities. Finally, international recognition (and potential international funding) depends upon recognition by the National Government.

Thus, we must establish liaison and maintain contact with the NGOs already working in East New Britain , with the Nakanai and other communities, and with both levels of government.