hen the World Bank funds a development project, it
deals with governments, and in so doing, signals that those governments and
their traditional ways of doing business are legitimate. Why, then, would
the people of Papua New Guinea, through their environmentally concerned
non-governmental organizations, be objecting to any mention of World Bank
support for forest development projects? 
Don't they need help from forestry
experts in the safe extraction of timber and other forest products? Don't
they appreciate the years of effort that the World Wide Fund for Nature has
put in to further ensure that forest development will be done for the good
of the people and their resources?
Something is very wrong here, and the WWF has experienced some obviously
severe embarrassment in the case of its apparent attempts to cover up the
involvement of the World Bank in its Papua New Guinea forest resources
development project. The country's terrain is very rugged and
infrastructure has been difficult to develop because of the cost of roads
and other facilities. Most of the country is very rural in character, and
its forest tracts are the third largest in the world. Forests are the
common property of the population, who feel that they are vital to food
security and cultural maintenance.
In 2002, local environmental organizations held vigorous protests
against the concept of "land mobilization" - which to them meant
that the government would control use of forest resources. A government
force was dispatched to put down the demonstrations, and five Papuans were
killed.
According to the Environmental News Service, rural Papuans object to the
fact and degree of government corruption that has been responsible for poor
forestry practices in the country. Logging companies have looted the
forests, causing great environmental damage, and government officials have
been accused of looking the other way, and allegedly, taking bribes to do
so. When the WWF wished to convene a multinational forestry summit that
would have included Papuan government officials, it tried to keep secret
the fact that the summit would have been largely funded by the World Bank.
Papuan environmentalist NGOs were outraged that their corrupt officials
would have been honored by invitation to be a part of such a gathering, and
outraged that the WWF had tried to keep secret the fact of World Bank
involvement that would legitimize those corrupt officials.
The people of this troubled nation deserve transparency on the part of
their government in all matters, and on the part of any agency such as the
WWF, that purports to "help" them in true conservation of their
natural resources. If it is true that the WWF knew of the corruption of
Papuan government officials, and ignored this in the organization process
of the forest summit, then their reputation is deservedly tarnished, world
wide. IWMC is a proponent of open and transparent process for all nations,
and especially in the case of conservation matters. The natural resources
of each nation must be conserved for and by its citizens, in order that
future generations may live decent lives in richly sustained, productive
environments. If WWF truly covered up its proposal for funding from the
World Bank, in order to attract funding despite knowledge of corruption,
then all its other projects should be scrutinized before being approved
anywhere.
