Curtis NRA, recently advising on the loss of their natural environment in two instances of illegal logging in Papua New Guinea (see previous posts), used this description, attributed to Tim Anderson USyd 2006: “Access to materials for food; housing; materials for medicine; fuels; fences; weapons; tools; canoes; textiles; string bags (bilums); cords and rope; musical instruments; artworks; and, articles of personal adornment, ritual and magic”.
This makes sense when you consider that the customary landowners in Papua New Guinea, particularly those remote from a major town like Lae, Madang or Port Moresby, do not have access to a trading venue (market), for their goods. Nor is there a social security system in PNG.
SO! The ecosystem goods and services above are all that they have for survival.
Rod Campbell from Melbourne-based ‘Economists at Large’ points out that the above definition only includes ‘goods’ and NO ‘services’, such as climate regulation, water regulation etc., And, he is right, however Anderson may have concluded that the customary landowners took these for granted.
Curtis NRA adopts the now commonly accepted list of 20 goods and services, modified and complemented after Costanza 1997.
Interesting, it’s true that a lack of formal markets makes reliance on traditional goods and services all the more important.
What was the outcome of the 2 cases in PNG that you refer to?
The first case (the KA roadline in the Western Province) resulted in a finding for our clients of PNG K226 million. The latest in the Gulf/Sthn Highlands has yet to be decided.
Avid PNG-watcher here. It’s interesting to see the legal system used for these environmental efforts. Can you give an idea of what stage the second trial is at, and whether you’ve given your appraisal yet? Would be great to get an idea of what the damages are this time around
Hi Ian,
Your definition above seems heavy on ecosystems “goods”, but perhaps light on “services”. Could/should it be extended to include “indirect use values” such as erosion control, flood protection, water quality aspects? Perhaps these aren’t relevant in your cases, but what about more broadly?
Cheers
Rod
Yes Rod, but this is Anderson’s (USyd) list applicable to subsistence societies in PNG, the full list of 20 ecosystem goods and services is much more inclusive and includes all of the use and non-use values and indirect values you mention.