CBD training for
indigenous local community resource managers at BASKEN village, SUMKAR
DISTRICT, Madang, Papua New Guinea
 |
Some participants taking notes on Traditional Knowledge
during the CBD workshop at Basken. |
Convention on biological diversity TRAINING FOR local
community resource managers IN Madang, Papua New Guinea
Report
prepared by Wenceslaus Magun for CBD and MAKATA Incorporated,
May 2015
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………3
Background……………………………………………………………………......4
Introduction…………………………………………………………………......5-6
Aims
and Objectives………………………………………………………….........6
Expected
Outcomes…………………………………………………………...........6
Workshop
Outcomes……………………………………………………….....7-21
Follow-up…………………………………………………………………….........22
Annex
Evaluation………………………………………………………...........................23
Annex ii
Training Program……………………………………………………….........24-25
Annex iii
Participants List……………………………………………………………....26-27
Acknowledgements
We take this opportunity to thank the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) for its continued support to the indigenous local community
resource owners in Papua New Guinea through us.
On the 26-28 August, 2014, CBD sponsored Adolphina Luvongit from Mahonia Na Dari, Edward
Yamai, from Mt Hagen Archdiocese and Wenceslaus Magun from MAKATA, representing
NGO’s in PNG, to attend the Regional Capacity-Building Workshop for the Pacific
Region on Traditional Knowledge and Customary Sustainable Use under the
Convention on Biological Diversity. With
support from the World Indigenous and Local Community Land and Sea Managers
Network (WIN), managed by the Equator Initiative (EI) United Nations
Development agency (UNDP), they remained in Apia, Samoa and participated in the
Small Island Developing States Summit (SIDS), as community ambassadors for
biodiversity in the SIDS process from the 29 August to 5 September 2014. We
therefore acknowledge the support from WIN, EI, and UNDP.
This will be the second CBD training in PNG for indigenous local
community resource managers. The first
workshop was conducted at Mur, Rai Coast District, Madang, in December 2014, with
funding assistance from TNC.
In this workshop we thank the Basken people for generously welcoming
me to their village to conduct this training. Many thanks to my officer, Adolph
Lilai and Karkum’s chief, Joseph Parek and his family for looking after me on
my way to Basken and Michael the owner of the hire car I used. We thank Mark Khonn, the Business Development
Officer for Rai Coast District, who organized this workshop and extend my
gratitude to the Basken Elementary School Board and teachers for allowing us to
use their classroom for the training.
We thank individuals and family members who looked after Mr. Magun whilst
in Basken village, particularly to Mr. Avon Wail, his dedicated wife and his
family.
Finally, we thank God for His continued grace and blessings to us all!
Background
This CBD training
was conducted at Basken village, Sumgilbar Local Level Government, Sumkar
District, Madang, Papua New Guinea.
It takes about
two hours by road to get to Basken from Madang town, the central city of Madang
Province. Once you get to Karkum along the sealed main Madang-Bogia/Sepik
Highway along the coast, you then take a detour and climb the hills on a dirt
road till you reach Basken village which is about nine (9) kilometers from the
main road at the Karkum village junction. The road to Basken can be impassable
during wet seasons and one may only get there using four wheel drive
vehicles. I was fortunate, in this trip,
as the road was in a much better state when I visited Basken while overlooking
the fact that the road truly needed urgent maintenance.
Basken village
has 5 major clans: Makakal, Maluwo, Nawang, Bopsu and Kumberken. They have two (2) elementary schools and one
(1) primary school. They have one (1)
Aid Post with a Community Health Worker serving them. They have a few primary
industries which include: 6 Cocoa Driers; 18 Copra Driers made out of local
timber, corrugated iron, flat metal sheets and bush materials; 5 Poultry farms;
2 Rice Milling Machines; 1 Drum Oven; and 1 Coconut Oil Press.
There are
three Christian denominations at Basken which include: Catholic, Christian
Mission Fellowship and the Jehova’s Witness.
Their Cash
Crops include: Copra; Cocoa; Betel nut; and Market food crops. Other Income
Sources are: 5 Trade Stores and 1 Petrol Station. They have a registered women’s group which
assists local women with business skills, and other services called, Neksab
Women’s group.
Mr. Magun arrived
in Madang on 25th of April and spent a few days coordinating this
CBD workshop before traveling to Basken on the 29th of April. He did
the workshop Overview that evening and showed a few educational awareness
movies. He began the training on
Thursday 30th of April and completed it on Friday 1st of
May. He left Basken on Saturday 2nd
of May and returned to Port Moresby that same day.
Some of you
may have read the first report on Mur Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
training report. For those who have not
sighted it, let us take you back to why we are running this CBD workshop.
In 2014, 26-28
August, Adolphina Luvongit, Edward Yamai, and Wenceslaus Magun representing
NGO’s in PNG attended the Regional Capacity-Building Workshop for the Pacific
Region on Traditional Knowledge and Customary Sustainable Use under the
Convention on Biological Diversity. With
support from the World Indigenous and Local Community Land and Sea Managers
Network (WIN), managed by the Equator Initiative (EI) United Nations
Development agency (UNDP), they remained in Apia, Samoa and participated in the
Small Island Developing States Summit (SIDS), as community ambassadors for
biodiversity in the SIDS process from the 29 August to 5 September 2014.
The CBD
Workshop’s and SIDS Summit’s, Outcomes calls us to implement the Samoa
Pathway. In order to do that, we ran a
CBD workshop at Mur village Madang using TNC grant in December 2014. This will be our second CBD workshop.
The target audiences
of the workshop were indigenous local community resource managers from Basken
and Karkum. Indigenous local community resource managers from Dimer and other
inland villagers did not make it even though we had extended the invitation to
them. They have instead asked us to run a separate training for themselves.
This workshop
covered both Plenary Sessions using flip charts, Group Work, Group
Presentations and Plenary Sessions on CBD and Traditional Knowledge using
PowerPoint presentations. In the
evenings we showed the participants and the rest of the villager’s educational
awareness videos ranging from “Mi Inap” a local movie which promoted self
reliance in a village in Rai Coast, Madang to “Gifted Hands” a movie that tells
the story of retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.
On Friday
during the video session we got the participants to present their resource management
strategies for Karkum and Basken communities to the audience. It gave the participants the opportunity to
actually present their work to the rest of the community members.
All the
participants and their community leaders agreed that we should not present them
their Certificates after the workshop until a proper graduation ceremony is
arranged when they will invite Mr. Magun to present them their Certificates.
They also
assured Mr. Magun that they will use all the flip charts with notes written on them
for all the Sessions and carry out awareness in their respective communities at
their own convenience and time.
The training
motivated shy villagers who had traditional knowledge but felt “small” or not
so important/insignificant to feel proud of themselves. They came out and shared their traditional knowledge and
skills to the rest of the participants.
One participant spent quite some time with Mr. Magun telling him his
creative and innovative skills and abilities which he use to build village
technologies for pulping rice, scraping coconuts, and making modified torch out
of used and broken equipment parts and wood.
This participant later visited Mr Magun prior to the video session at
night and showed him his wooden hand crafted “Kalibobo” light house with actual
light blinking when he switched on the battery controlled light switch. The artwork was so impressive Mr Magun wished
he had sufficient money to buy it from him.
We did not do
the Monitoring and Evaluation exercise however, the participants urged MAKATA
to conduct a similar training again so that many more villagers and indigenous
local community resource managers can attend.
They told Mr. Magun of how happy they are to have learned about how to
manage their resources, PNG’s Biodiversity, PNG’s 4th National Goal
and Directive Principle, the Protected Area Policy and about CBD and their
Traditional Knowledge.
At the end of
the workshop, Mr. Magun left the address of the CBD on one of the flip charts on
the classroom wall and encouraged the participants to write to the CBD
Secretariat for assistance.
For the full
list of workshop participants including their names and contact details, refer
to participants list in Annex III.
Aims and Objectives
Aim: Empower indigenous local community
resource managers on Resource Management, PNG Biodiversity, PNG’s Fourth
National Goal and Directive Principle, PNG’s Protected Area Policy and the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Traditional Knowledge.
Objective: Participants empowered to see how
their resource management efforts links with PNG’s 4th National Goal
and Directive Principle, PNG’s Protected Area Policy and the Convention on
Biological Diversity and Traditional Knowledge with the 3 CBD Objectives:
(1) Conservation
of biological diversity.
(2) Sustainable
use of its components; and
(3) Fair
and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources
Expected
Outcomes
Expected
outcomes of the workshop are as listed below.
·
Twenty nine (29) indigenous local community
resource managers gained knowledge on Resource Management, PNG Biodiversity,
PNG’s 4th National Goal and Directive Principle, PNG’s Protected
Area Policy, Convention on Biological Diversity and Traditional Knowledge.
These participants
learned that the CBD under Article 8, paragraph (j) respect, preserve and maintain traditional knowledge of Indigenous Local Communities’ relevant to the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity; promote its wider
application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge;
and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits.
·
Participants gained knowledge on Aichi
Biodiversity Targets
·
Participants encouraged to work with experts to
adapt ‘Other Effective Area-base
Conservation Measures’ that can be effectively used to achieve Aichi
Biodiversity Target 11.
Workshop
Outcomes
This
report is written in English. All the
Sessions were also prepared in English but presentations were all done in the
Melanesian Tok Pidgin the most commonly used language in PNG.
Day 1. Wednesday
29th April, 2014
Mr. Magun left Madang about 1 pm and arrived at
Karkum village about 4pm in the afternoon.
He called into chief Joseph Pareks house who welcomed him to
Karkum. He spent a few minutes there at
Karkum with Joe and his family catching up on their turtle conservation
project’s activities and other local issues before hitting the road again for
Basken with MAKATA’s Community Facilitator, Adolph Lilai who comes from Karkum.
They arrived at Basken about 6pm in the evening.
After being introduced to the family Mr. Magun
was to stay with, Mr. Lilai returned to Karkum to bring a digital camera so we
could capture photos from the workshop. Before leaving for Karkum Mr. Lilai got
Basken Village Recorder, Mr. Henry Baleng to help Mr. Magun with Basken
baseline study and assist him in the training as he was committed to some work
back at Karkum village.
Whilst Mr. Lilai left for Karkum village, Mr Magun
had something to eat before showing a few videos starting at 7pm to the locals
at Basken. When most of the villagers
arrived, he was formally welcomed to Basken by their Ward 7 Councilor, Mr. Joe
Lamit who then asked him to introduce himself and give the overview of the
planned workshop.
The day’s activities ended at about 12 mid night.
Day 2. THURSDAY
30TH APRIL, 2015
Session
2: Introduction, workshop overview, Resource Management Plan, PNG Biodiversity,
PNG’s 4th National Goal and Directive Principle, PNG Protected Area
Policy and Introduction to CBD - Facilitator: Mr. Magun
Plenary
Session 1: Workshop Aim, Objectives, Overview and Resource Management
We started the workshop at 9am with an opening
prayer led by Wenceslaus Magun. Mr. Magun then welcomed all the participants
and introduced himself. He then asked
each of the participants to introduce themselves.
He then asked the participants to go up to the
flip chart pinned on the wall and indicate how much knowledge they have about
the Convention on Biological Diversity.
This exercise was to give him some background knowledge on the level of
knowledge the participants had about CBD.
This exercise showed that 85 per cent of the
participants lacked any knowledge at all about CBD. Five per cent had heard or
acquired some knowledge about it but don’t know much about it, four per cent were
confused and one per cent indicated that he had some knowledge about it but is
not too confident to talk about it.
Once that was done, Mr. Magun recapped the Aim,
Objectives and Overview of the workshop as demonstrated on Illustration 4 and 5
above which he had done the previous night during the video show.
Workshop
Aim, Objective and Overview
Aim: Empower indigenous local community
resource managers on Resource Management, PNG Biodiversity, PNG’s Fourth
National Goal and Directive Principle, PNG’s Protected Area Policy and the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Traditional Knowledge.
Objective: Participants empowered to see how
their resource management efforts links with PNG’s 4th National Goal
and Directive Principle, PNG’s Protected Area Policy and the Convention on
Biological Diversity and Traditional Knowledge to indigenous local community
resource managers on the 3 CBD Objectives:
i). Conservation
of biological diversity.
ii). Sustainable
use of its components; and
iii). Fair
and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources
Mr. Magun said for the participants to understand
CBD, they need to first establish their own resource management areas.
He emphasized that establishing protected areas
is not simply setting aside a track of land for “protection.” Rather it
requires developing a strategic landscape and land use plan or a community
resource management plan. This is a big
task and requires money, technical staff, and long-term funding if we are to
adapt modern scientific conservation areas management tools.
He elaborated further that in order for this
protected area to be effective, their plan must address the various threats to
the area and the biodiversity it supports.
Mr Magun highlighted some of the threats to give
the participants a fair idea about what he was talking about by drawing to
their attention what JANT had done to the vast tropical virgin forest in
transgogol, the Ramu Sugar and Oil Palm plantation that has transformed a virgin
grassland habitat of the Ramu plains into agro-industry, and the Ramu Nickel
and Cobalt mine at Krumbukari and Basamuk plant as few examples of extractive
industries activities. He went on to
point out threats by international ships berthing at the Madang wharf or other
ports in PNG bringing in with them invasive or alien species, pollution, and
other human social behaviors causing increase in global warming.
He reminded the participants though that
establishing “protected” areas is actually not a strange concept as most
indigenous local community resource managers have traditionally practiced this
one way or another through the establishment of “no go zones” called “ples
masalai” or sacred areas.
He said in some communities they practiced
traditional management practices by following certain rituals to create,
establish and abide by those rituals in ensuring that villagers and poachers
don’t enter into the “no go” zones to hunt, fish, do gardening, collect fire
wood or disturb the environment.
Traditional sanctions are imposed to ensure that villagers respect the
resource management areas. Those that
break the rules usually suffer from some form of illness or experience some
kind of misfortunes.
Many indigenous tribal societies have practiced
this and this was not something unfamiliar to the Basken and Karkum
villagers. He drew cases from Kimadi and
Magubem communities some 20 km from Basken in the sea turtle restoration and
protection program (STRP) under TIRN, and sustained by MAKATA as classical
examples to elaborate this case.
Mr. Magun checked with the participants if they
understood what he was talking about and got a favorable response.
He then moved on to another setting in the modern
case. He said today scientists and
community organizers are building indigenous resource owners capacities to
adapt modern resource management strategies to fulfill the CBD’s Objective which is linked to PNG’s 4th
National Goal and Directive Principles and the Protected Area Policy.
One way of doing this is to identify their
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats using the SWOT analysis tool
and the Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound or SMART
analysis tool.
He also helped the participants realize that in
order for that to happen, they need to identify their Vision and Objectives or
in the Melanesian Tok Pidgin he explained, “Driman Tingting or Vision and As tingting
as Objective”
He then took them through a breakout group
exercise and helped them develop their Resource Management Strategy Plan.
Just before lunch Karkum and Basken villagers
made presentations on their SMART and SWOT analysis exercises. We then went for lunch at about 1pm.
Lunch
Plenary
Session 2: Group presentations on their Draft Resource Management Plans
We resumed class at about 2pm.
Mr. Magun then asked the participants to go into
their respective groups and do their presentations on their Strategic Resource
Management Plan. Both Karkum’s and
Basken’s demonstrated that they grasped the knowledge and process of developing
their resource management plans using their SWOT and SMART tools. They stressed that they will deliver their
presentations to their respective communities and develop it further.
This was satisfying to Mr. Magun. He then ended this session and moved on to
PNG’s Biodiversity, PNG’s 4th National Goal and Directive Principle
and linked this session with it.
Session
3: PNG’s Biodiversity, PNG’s 4th National Goal and Directive
Principle and PNG’s Protected Area Policy
In this session Mr. Magun empowered the
participants to see a broader picture of how their resource management plans
fulfills PNG’s 4th National Goal and Directive Principle and the
PNG’s Protected Area Policy which also fulfills the CBD Objectives.
He informed the participants that PNG has a land area
of about 462 840 thousand square kilometers and a total sea area of 3 120 thousand kilometers according to the National Sustainable Land Use Policy document. He said, it may seem that PNG has a huge land
and sea area with a small population of about 7 to 8 million people but this is
not true as some communities have much smaller land and sea areas compared to
others. He used his own people of
Bagabag, Riwo, Karkar and Manam Islands as examples to demonstrate this fact.
Mr. Magun further elaborated that PNG occupies 1
per cent of the world land area, has about 6 to 7 per cent of world total
biodiversity which is equivalent to 400,000 to 700,000 species from an estimated
14 million species on earth, according to PNG National Biodiversity Strategy
Action Plan, 2007 (NBSAP).
He added that PNG signed the Treaty on the
Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992 and ratified it in March 1993. Under this obligation PNG must fulfill its
international commitment to ensure that by 2020, 17 per cent of land and water
resources and 10 per cent of marine resources should be protected. He added that PNG also ratified the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITIES), in 1976 which
meant that Papua New Guineans are forbidden to trade endangered species such as
sea turtles.
He quoted the Guiding Principles of the Policy on
‘Protected Areas’ as, “A fair and thoughtful system of management area
network.”
He shared quote from Bruce Beehler et al in the Lessons Learn article for
the YUS Conservation Program to stress that there is not one way of achieving
conservation outcomes. “Every
conservation project in the field is an experiment so one should think
carefully, adapt, refine, and innovate.”(Beehler et al, 2013).
He then touched on the Constitution of the
Independent State of Papua New Guinea.
He informed the participants that PNG’s founding fathers, when
developing the National Constitution were so wise to include in the 4th
National Goal and Directive Principle on;
Natural resources and environment: -
WE ACCORDINGLY CALL FOR–
(1) wise use to be made of our natural resources and the
environment in and on the land or seabed, in the sea, under the land, and in
the air, in the interests of our development and in trust for future
generations; and
|
(2) the conservation and replenishment, for the benefit of
ourselves and posterity, of the environment and its sacred, scenic, and
historical qualities; and
|
(3) all necessary steps to be taken to give adequate protection
to our valued birds, animals, fish, insects, plants and trees.
|
He pointed out that according to the NBSAP
report, after almost 40 years since independence in 1975, PNG is estimated to
have an estimated 56 protected areas.
This is about 3 per cent of the total land mass of PNG of 462 840 (thousand) square kilometers and a total sea area of 3 120 (thousand) kilometers according to the
National Sustainable Land Use Policy document.
He told the participants that this is far below
the anticipated CBD Objective of 17% of land and water and 10% of marine
resources to be protected by 2020.
In fact Mr. Magun informed the participants that in
essence, much of the 56 protected areas documented in the NBSAP document are
not being managed adequately and some don’t seem to be in existence at
all. In addition, he told them that this
is compounded further by the fact that there aren’t any Ranger programs currently
operating under the State’s relevant authorities or respective provincial
authorities to ensure that the established protected areas are being managed. He then gave some examples of WMAs in PNG
like Bagiai WMA, Kau WMA in Madang, and others.
The participants learned that protected areas can
be established for conservation, recreation, cultural, historical, ecological,
scientific or other identified purpose either on State or alienated land or
customary land (indigenous local communities land or unalienated land).
He then explained to the participants what forms
of protected areas they can establish on their customary land by explaining to
them the options of creating Wildlife Management Areas, Sanctuaries, Protected
Areas and Reserves. He used YUS Tree
Kanagaroo Conservation Area as one good example.
He added that there are also “Other effective
area-based conservation measures,” such as the Conservation Deed tool which he
adapted for Karkum turtle conservation program which expired in 2013 and is yet
to be reviewed pending funding assistance.
He told them that the State on the other hand can
establish National Parks or Provincial Parks and Conservation Areas. Mr. Magun then gave examples of the Kuk
Heritage site in the Western Highlands Province and the Variarata National Park
at Sogeri, in the Central Province. He
elaborated further that if a community intended to establish a National Park,
they have to go through the process of selling their land to the State which
would then convert their customary land to stand hold. This will then allow the State to establish
protected area. But he said resource owners through the Indigenous Land Groups
can also seek legal advice to lease their land to State or private corporations
for that matter in order to acquire equitable economic gain.
He informed the participants that 97 per cent of
PNG land are customary owned. That makes
it quite challenging and difficult for the State to fulfill its CBD obligation
unless indigenous local community resource managers are empowered to establish
protected areas on their land.
He reiterated that Target 11 of the Aichi
Biodiversity Target under CBD’s Objective calls for all governments who have
signed the CBD treaty and ratified it to ensure that: “By 2020, at least 17 per
cent of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10 per cent of coastal and
marine areas especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and
ecosystems services of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation
measures and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape;”
He informed the participants also that Target 12
points out that: “By 2020, the extinction of known threatened species has been
prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline,
has been improved and sustained.”
He highlighted Target 12 to draw to the attention
of the Karkum resource managers to realize why it is so important for them to
save the critically endangered leatherback turtles.
Mr. Magun further pointed out that, “there are
only three (3) legal structures of Protected Areas in PNG and these are: i)
National Parks; ii) Wildlife Management Areas; and iii) Conservation Areas.
He warned the participants that the dangers of
these laws is that there is no provision in the Fauna (Protection and Control Act) 1966 that prevents or protects our
resources from extractive industries.
The same is true for the Conservation Areas Act 1978, as the Minister
for Environment and Conservation has the ultimate power over our resources. He said, the minister decides whether any
mining, logging, or petroleum activity will or can take place or not and that
decision can override the Indigenous Local Communities’ (ILC) decision in
achieving their conservation or resource management plans outcomes if ILCs
resource managers do not make bold decision to stop such activities taking
place on their land whilst promoting sustainable resource management
practices.
This brought us to the end of the days sessions.
Day 3. FRIDAY 01ST OF MAY, 2015
In this session, Mr. Magun empowered the
participants about what the Convention on Biological Diversity is. He touched on the Background of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Objectives of the Convention
(Article 1); Terms (Article 2); Institutional Framework; Secretariat of the
CBD; the Thematic Programmes of Work and the Cross-Cutting Issues.
He informed the participants that CBD was opened
for signature in Rio in 1992 (the Rio “Earth Summit”). In 1992 – 193 countries
signed the legally-binding treaty. He
added that 39 countries have ratified the Protocol and that PNG signed it in
June 1992 and ratified it in March 1993. “That means that PNG has made a
commitment to fulfill the objectives of the CBD which are: i) Conservation of
Biological Diversity; ii) Sustainable use of its components; and iii) Fair and
equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic
resources, ” he stressed. He used couple of examples to demonstrate
further the objectives of CBD.
Mr. Magun also gave a brief history of the CBD,
highlighting the establishment of the Cartagena Protocol in 2003; the Nagoya –
Kuala Lumpur and Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2010; and the Nagoya Protocol on Access
Benefit Sharing in 2010. He told the participants that the Convention (Article
1), “is an environmental treaty for sustainable development.” He gave the definition of Biological
Diversity (Article 2) as, “the variability among living organisms from all
sources including, inter alia,
terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes
of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species
and of ecosystems.”
He explained to them how the Institutional
framework of the CBD functions. He added
further that, “the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity was
established (Article 24) to support the goals of the Convention. Its principal functions are to prepare for,
and service, meetings of the Conferences of the Parties (COP) and other
subsidiary bodies of the Convention, and to coordinate with other relevant
international bodies.”
|
He said: “The Secretariat is institutionally
lined to the United Nations Environment Programme, its host institution and,
pursuant to decision 11/19, is located in Montreal, Canada since 1996.”
The participants learn that the Conference of the
Parties (COP) is the governing body of the Convention, and advances
implementation of the Convention through the decisions it takes at its biennial
meetings (the COP). They learn that to date the COP has held 10
ordinary meetings, and one extraordinary meeting. The recent COP 12, was held in October 2014,
at the Republic of Korea of which a member of the Pacific Caucus, Te Tui had
attended and is keeping us updated.
Mr. Magun informed the participants about the
Seven (7) Thematic Programmes of Work established by COP which include:
Agriculture Biodiversity, Dry and Sub-humid Lands Biodiversity, Forest
Biodiversity, Inland Waters Biodiversity, Island Biodiversity, Marine and
Coastal Biodiversity, and Mountain Biodiversity.
The participants were asked to go up to the front
and identify which Thematic Program of work their resource management program
came under. It was interesting to see
them indicating Targets i) Aichi Biodiversity Targets, ii) Access to Genetic
Resources and Benefit Sharing, iii) Biodiversity for Development; iv)
Biological and Cultural Diversity; Communication, Education and Public
Awareness (CEPA); Gender and Biodiversity; Protected Areas; Sustainable Use of
Biodiversity; Traditional Knowledge, Innovations and Practices etc.
He then summarized the Cross-Cutting Issues which
corresponded to the issues addressed in the Convention’s substantive provisions
in Articles 6-20, and provided bridges and links between the thematic
programs. These Cross-Cutting Issues
included: Aichi Biodiversity Targets; Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit
Sharing; Biodiversity for Development; Biological and Cultural Diversity;
Climate Change and Biodiversity; Communication, Education and Public Awareness:
CEPA; Economic, Trade and Incentive Measures; Ecosystem Approach; Gender and
Biodiversity; Global Strategy for Plant Conservation; Global Taxonomy
Initiative; Impact Assessment; Identification, Monitoring, Indicators and
Assessments; Invasive Alien Species; Liability and Redress – Article 14(20;
Protected Areas; Sustainable Use of Biodiversity; Tourism and Biodiversity;
Traditional Knowledge, Innovations and Practices – Article 8(j) and related
issues including 10(c); and Technology Transfer Cooperation .
He stressed that what we were actually doing at
this workshop and what the ILC’s are doing in their respective local
communities was in fact fulfilling some of these “Cross-Cutting Issues.”
He reiterated the three (3) Objectives of the
Conventions: i) Conservation of Biological Diversity; ii) The Sustainable use
of its components; and iii) The fair and equitable sharing of its benefits
arising from the utilization of genetic resources.
He then pointed out its Vision: “By 2050,
Biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and widely used, maintaining
ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits
essential for all people.
He informed the participants that Strategic Goal
A – addresses the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming
biodiversity across government and society! He said Target 1 for this Strategy,
demands that by 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the values of
Biodiversity and the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably.
He pointed out that under Strategic Goal B –we
must reduce direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use! Target 5 of this Goal indicated that “by
2020, the rate of loss of all national habitats, including forests, is at least
halved and where feasible, brought close to zero (0) and degradation and
fragmentation is significantly reduced.” He continue with Target 6 elaborating
that it calls for “All fish and invertebrates stocks and aquatic plants are managed
and harvested sustainably, legally and applying ecosystems based approaches, so
that overfishing is avoided, recovery plans and measures are in place for all
depleted species. In Target 10, He said:
“By 2016, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs and other
vulnerable ecosystem impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are
minimized so as to maintain their integrity and functioning.”
Mr. Magun further stressed that Target Goal C –
points out that: “By 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water and 10%
of coastal and marine areas especially areas of particular importance of
biodiversity and ecosystem services are conserved through effectively and
equitably managed ecological representative and well connected systems of protected
areas and other effective area based conservation measures and integrated into
wider landscapes and seascapes.”
He then connected this Target to PNG’s Protected
Area Policy Goal so the participants can make sense out of it.
He said Target 12 says, “By 2020, the extinction
of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status,
particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.”
Mr. Magun once again reiterated the steps taken
by Karkum villagers are actually fulfilling this Target.
He then informed the participants about Strategic
Goal E which calls for “Enhance implementation through participatory planning,
knowledge management and capacity building.
Target 18 of this Goal aims to see that: “By 2020, the traditional
knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities
relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources are
respected, subject to national legislation and relevant international
obligations and fully integrated and reflected in the implementation of the
Convention with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local
communities at all levels.”
He told the participants that, one of the reasons
CBD has engaged him and his team to conduct this training is to fulfill this
Target.
Mr. Magun concluded this
session with Article 8 – In-Situ-Conservation,
(8j): “Subject to its national
legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and
practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the
conservation and sustainable use of Biological Diversity and promote their
wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such
knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the
benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and
practices.”
The participants then went for a lunch break at
about 2pm before returning at 3pm for the next session on Connecting
Traditional Knowledge and Conservation.
Session
5: Connecting Traditional Knowledge and Conservation. – Facilitator: Mr. Magun
We resumed class at 3pm
For this session, Mr. Magun used the Powerpoint
to do his presentation.
Mr. Magun informed the participants on the World
Intellectual Property Rights.
Mr. Magun told the participants that the Intellectual
Property or IP refers to the creation of mind such as invention, designs,
literary and artistic works, performances, plant varieties and names and signs
and symbols.
He informed the participants that the World
Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) recognizes those traditional elements
as protectable.
“IP would enable their holders to have a say over
their use by others,” he said.
He added that in 2007, the United Nations (UN)
General Assembly adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The Declaration recognizes that: “Indigenous
peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals
have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in exercise of their
rights in particular based on their indigenous origin or identity (Article 2).”
In Article 31, Mr. Magun emphasized that it:
Provides that indigenous peoples “have the right to maintain control, protect
and develop their intellectual Property (IP) over such cultural heritage,
traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expression (TCE).”
He said TK is a living body of knowledge that is
developed, sustained, and passed on from generations to generation within a
community often forming part of its cultural or spiritual identity.
He added that TK is knowledge, know-how, skills,
innovations or practices passed between generations in a traditional context
that form part of the traditional lifestyles of indigenous and local
communities who act as their guardians.
He gave examples of TK as: i) Knowledge about
traditional medicine; ii) Traditional hunting and fishing technique; and iii)
Knowledge about animal migration patterns or water management.
Furthermore, Mr. Magun informed participants that
TCE are forms in which traditional culture is expressed. This can be in songs, dances, handicrafts,
designs, ceremonies, tales, or artistic or cultural expressions.
He urged the participants to benefit from TK and
TCE.
He said indigenous peoples and local communities
that develop, maintain and identify culturally with them should gain from these
TK or TCE and must not be exploited or be used by outsiders especially local
tourist operators, scientists, industries, universities and others.
This was in fact a very lively session as
participants once empowered, felt they were knowledgeable on so many things
regarding conservation and biodiversity, cultural heritage, songs and dances,
expressive arts and so forth.
In this session Mr. Magun informed the
participants that the Nagoya Protocol was done to operationalize one of the
three (3) objectives of the CBD: i) Conservation of biological diversity; ii)
Sustainable use of its components; and iii) Fair
and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of the genetic resources.
In other words, the Nagoya Protocol was done to
ensure that CBD’s Objective 3 is actually implemented by all parties including,
governments and the ILCs. He reiterated
that the Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) was done because the CBD provisions
were not fully implemented and that there were cases of misappropriation of
genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.
He pointed out the principles under Article 15
CBD on Fundamental ABS which included: “Sovereign rights over natural
resources; Prior informed consent (by Parties and ILCs); Mutually agreed terms,
including the sharing of benefits arising from the commercial and other
utilization of genetic resources.”
Under Article 8 (j) CBD, Mr. Magun said:
“Governments are to respect, preserve, maintain and promote the wider
application of traditional knowledge with the approval and involvement of
relevant indigenous and local communities.”
He pointed out that very little awareness is being carried out by
legitimate government agencies or authorities and lined agencies to inform,
educate and empower our people on their rights.
He said PNG needs laws, procedures and policies
to ensure benefit-sharing once genetic resources leave the country. He emphasized that there is a need in PNG for
clear procedures when accessing genetic resources.
Mr. Magun added that according to CBD,
“Traditional Knowledge (TK) related to biological resources (ATK) can be an
important source of information for identifying new uses of genetic resources.
He then went on to explain to the participants
how Access Benefit Sharing (ABS) and TK works.
As ILC resource managers and resource owners he stressed that they must
understand that prior to sharing their traditional knowledge, or for any
outsider to enter into any Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT) and Conditions to access
their genetic resources (GR) they must first be informed, and educated about
the deal they are trying to enter into.
Once they fully understand the processes and agree on the benefits to be
obtained from their GR or traditional knowledge then they may enter into a MAT
with the user to have access to their genetic resources or traditional
knowledge. This process is known as:
“Prior Informed Consent (PIC), granted by a provider of GR and/ Associated
Traditional Knowledge (ATK) holder to a user.”
Once they are satisfied with that step than they can move on to:
“Negotiate between themselves (providers of GR e.g. National Competent
Authority, ILCs etc) and the (user e.g. scientists/industry(ies)/ research
universities etc) to develop mutually agreed terms (MAT) between the provider
and the user that ensure that the benefits obtained from their GR and
associated traditional knowledge are shared equitably.”
Mr. Magun added that once that is in place, the
users can then go ahead and develop products either for non-commercial or
commercial utilization using the GR (and associated TK): e.g. basic research,
research and development, development of new pharmaceuticals, biotechnological
products and etc. He reiterated that
benefits-sharing (monetary and non-monetary): eg. Royalties, technology
transfer, training and etc can then be shared between the user and the provider
equitably based on the MAT.
He said, according to the Objective of Nagoya
Protocol, “the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the
utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, thereby
contributes to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.”
In PNG he said, there
are still gray areas in our laws, policies and procedures in regards to Access
to Genetic Resources and Access to TK associated with GR and laws on Benefit
Sharing. PNG being a signatory of this
treaty needs to develop domestic laws for: Obtaining PIC or prior approval and
involvement of indigenous and local communities (ILCs) for access to genetic
resources where they have established rights to grant access to those
resources; and Setting out criteria and/or processes for obtaining PIC or
approval and involvement of ILC – related work in 8j. Once this law is in place
it will ensure that TK held by indigenous and local communities is accessed
with PIC or approval and involvement of ILC and MAT established. It will also ensure that benefits are shared
equally between the user and producer who had obtained the GR and/or TK.
To wind up here are some of the core elements:
Traditional Knowledge and ILCs
“The Nagoya Protocol recognizes the value of
community protocols of ILCs in the ABS process.
·
Article 12 (1): “In implementing their
obligations under this Protocol, Parties shall in accordance with domestic law
take into consideration indigenous and local communities customary laws,
community protocols and procedures, as applicable, with respect to traditional
knowledge associated with genetic resources.”
·
Article 12 (3): “Parties shall endeavor to
support, as appropriate, the development by ILCs, including women within these
communities of: a) Community protocols in relation to access to traditional
knowledge associate with genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing
of benefits arising out of untilization of such knowledge.”
·
“Obligation of Parties to establish mechanisms to
inform potential users of TK associated with genetic resources about their
obligations, including measures as made available through the ABS
Clearing-House;
·
“Obligation to not restrict the customary use and
exchange of genetic resources and associated TK within and amongst ILC
(including across borders).”
In order for this to happen the Nagoya Protocol
recommended the following tools and mechanisms to assist with implementation:
·
Capacity-building/Awareness raising
(which we are currently doing and can do much more if funded);
·
Technology Transfer;
·
National Focal Points and Competent
National Authorities – whose obligation among other
things, will provide information to applicants seeking access to TK on:
Information on procedures for obtaining PIC and MAT from ILCs, where possible
and for i) granting access or issuing evidence that access requirements have
been met, ii) advising on applicable procedures for obtaining PIC and entering
into MAT;
·
ABS Clearing House;
·
Financial Mechanism;
·
Monitoring and Compliance with Protocol;
·
Complimentary work under 8 (j)
Note: Mr. Magun has yet to visit Dr Eric Kwa
following his invitation to be briefed on some of the issues. Dr. Kwa is a
former Law Lecturer at the University of PNG and now the Chairman of the Law
Reform Committee
Video
Session: At night Mr. Magun continued with video shows
till 12 mid night.
Many words of acknowledgement and appreciation
were shared during the video session and closing up ceremony.
Mr. Magun was given a big dish of cooked
vegetables, greens and a whole roasted chicken.
Thank God he was allowed to share the food with others.
Follow
-up
There
were several activities that needed to be done as identified through the course
and closing of the workshop. These are listed below:
(1) Burn
CBD course content and related topics onto CD and deliver to these participants
(2)
Liaise with CBD for more awareness materials on
CBD
(3) Mobilizing of distribution of awareness materials
(4) Wenceslaus to burn copies of the topics taught
and other CBD resource materials onto CDs for these participants. He will hand deliver these CDs to the
participants when he next visit these communities and present both the CDs and
their Certificates.
(5)
Wenceslaus will continue to liaise with CBD for
additional information.
(6)
Further
Training Workshops on Convention on Biological Diversity
(7)
The training workshop was the second of its kind in
Madang and has generated a lot of interest among the participants.
1.1 Venue:
Basken Elementary School, Basken village, Sumgilbar Local Level Government, Sumkar
District, Madang, Papua New Guinea
1.2 Trainer
Wenceslaus
Magun
MAKATA
Port Moresby
Ph: (675) 71959665
Email: magun.wences@gmail.com
Wenceslaus Magun is the Project Coordinator for MAKATA’s
Turtle Program and was responsible for all logistics and coordination. Wenceslaus put in fulltime for this training
program taking care of all logistics, coordination and support. He also facilitated the training on Traditional
Knowledge, PNG’s Protected Area Policy and how it is linked to the Convention
on Biological Diversity and what conservation practitioners do on the ground to
implement these policies.
He has represented his organization in numerous
international gatherings including the inaugural World Indigenous People’s
Conference in Darwin in 2013, and the recent Convention on Biological Diversity
workshop in Apia Samoa in 2014 as well as the Small Islands Development States
Forum also held a week later in Apia, Samoa.
1.3 Participation
·
Indigenous local community resource managers from
Karkum and Basken (Sumkar District)
1. Training
Workshop Goals
The training workshop seeks to enhance the capacity of Indigenous
Local Community Resource Managers on the Convention on Biological Diversity. It
specifically seeks to build a grassroots constituency for conservation by
raising awareness on Developing Community Resource Management Plan, PNG’s
Biodiversity, PNG’s 4th National Goal and Directive Principle, PNG’s
Protected Area Policy, Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD’s Targets,
Traditional Knowledge and Nagoya Protocol.
The expected outcomes for the training workshop are:
(1) Twenty
nine (29) indigenous local community resource managers have successfully
completed this training
(2) Participants
to be certified with a certificate of participation in the training at an
appropriate date, time and venue as per the Basken people’s pending decision
(3) Copies
of this presentation to be burnt to CD and made available to the 29 course
participants along with their Certificates
(4) Share
this course content on Web2 and with relevant partners and stakeholders.
Annex
I. Evaluation
Mr Magun did not conduct the Evaluation
exercise. However, the general feedback
he received from the participants was very positive. The participants appreciated the course
content. They could practically relate
to the lessons from developing their strategic resource management plan, to
seeing value in PNG’s biodiversity, to the PNG Constitution, PNG Protected Area
Policy and how it relates to the CBD.
They fully understood their role in establishing protected areas on
their customary land to fulfill the CBD’s objectives. They also appreciated and value their
traditional knowledge and cultural rights after learning some profound lessons
on CBD’s Traditional Knowledge and the Nagoya Protocol and how it relates to
achieving Conservation outcomes.
They also asked Mr. Magun not to present their
Certificates after the workshop but to wait until a ceremony is organised for
the official presentation of their Certificates. They will inform and invite Mr. Magun for
their graduation ceremony.
Annex II. Training Program
Training Workshop Program
Day
|
Activities
|
Day 1
Wednesday
29/04/15
|
7pm till 12 midnight
Orientation
EVENING
9pm – 12 pm
Ø Introduction
Ø Overview of the Workshop Topics
Ø Video session and message sent to villagers to
attend workshop
|
Day 2
Thursday
30/04/15
|
Ø 8:15 am – 9:30am
Ø Introduction & Overview of the Workshop
Topics
Ø SWOT and SMART tools analysis and presentation
Ø Developing Community Resource Management Plan
12:00 mid day – LUNCH BREAK
1:15 pm – 4:00 pm
Ø Group presentation of Community Resource
Management Plan
Ø PNG Biodiversity
Ø PNG Constitution’s 4th National Goal
& Directive Principle
Ø PNG Protected Area Policy in light of CBD
8:00 – 12:00 mid night
► Video Sessions
|
Day 3
Friday
01/05/15
|
8:30-12:00 noon
Ø Recap of Resource Management Plans to PNG
Biodiversity, PNG Constitution’s 4th National Goal and Directive
Principle and National Protected Area Policy
Ø Convention on Biological Diversity History
12:00 -1:00 Lunch
1:15 pm -5:00 pm
Ø Aichi Biodiversity Targets
Ø World Intellectual Property – Traditional Knowledge
Ø Nagoya Protocol
8:00 pm – 12 mid night – Video Sessions
|
Day 4
Saturday
02/05/15
|
8:15-10:00 am
Ø Left Basken for Madang
Ø Madang to Port Moresby
|
Annex III. Participants List
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY TRAINING.
Participant Attendance List.
29th to 30th of April till 1st
of May 2015
No
|
Name
|
Gender
|
Village
|
Contact
|
1
|
Joe Lamit
|
M
|
Dumoken Clan, Ward 7, Councillor
|
|
2
|
Kosmas Lamit
|
M
|
Nivuvet clan, Ward 7
|
|
3
|
Otto Tebar
|
M
|
Utagor clan, Ward 7, Village Leader
|
|
4
|
Dorrin Baleng
|
FM
|
Makakal clan, Ward 9
|
|
5
|
Henry Baleng
|
M
|
Makakal Clan, Ward 9
|
|
6
|
Norman Bai
|
M
|
Makakal Clan, Ward 9
|
|
7
|
Belynda Puken
|
FM
|
Maluwo Clan, Ward 9, Women’s Representative
|
|
8
|
Mekam Tim
|
M
|
Ugai-Mauwo Clan, Ward 9, Village Leader
|
|
9
|
Patricia Gaga Kollan
|
FM
|
Maluwo Clan, Ward 9, Elementary Teacher
|
|
10
|
Judith Malep
|
FM
|
Maluwo Clan, Ward 9
|
|
11
|
Awon Wail
|
M
|
Maluwo Clan, Ward 9, Village Leader
|
|
12
|
Bagom Mekam Tim
|
M
|
Maluwo Clan, Ward 9
|
|
13
|
Lidia Awon
|
FM
|
Maluwo Clan, Ward 9
|
|
14
|
Susie Wail
|
FM
|
Maluwo Clan, Ward 9
|
|
15
|
Wesley Gom
|
M
|
Kumberken Clan, Ward 9, Vice Chairman Nekwab Group
|
|
16
|
Nivadum Puken
|
M
|
Kumberken Clan, Ward 9, Village Leader
|
|
17
|
Maki Kalal
|
M
|
Kumberken clan, Ward 9
|
|
18
|
Maria Wail
|
FM
|
Maluwo Clan, Ward 9
|
|
19
|
Kumok Anut
|
M
|
Namonken Clan, Ward 9
|
|
20
|
Dorothy Kumok
|
FM
|
Namonken Clan, Ward 9
|
|
21
|
Augustin Anut
|
M
|
Namonken Clan, Ward 9, Village Leader
|
|
22
|
Ben Woyu
|
M
|
Kumberken Clan, Ward 9
|
|
23
|
Timothy Andul
|
M
|
Makakal Clan, Ward 9
|
|
24
|
Terence Awon
|
M
|
Maluwo Clan, Ward 9
|
|
25
|
Luak Woyu
|
M
|
Nawang Clan, Ward 9, Model Farmer
|
|
26
|
Morris Kawang
|
M
|
Dumoken Clan, Ward 7
|
|
27
|
Moses Kawang
|
M
|
Dumoken Clan, Ward 7
|
|
28
|
Willie Malibun
|
M
|
Makakal Clan, Ward 9, Ward Councilor
|
|
29
|
Benjamin Kalal
|
M
|
Makakal clan, Ward 9
|
|
