The Phantom Limb of the Onele and Uni people

An analysis of the activities of Vanimo Jaya Limited in partnership with the One-Uni Landowner Company in the SABL Project of the portion 248C covering the Onele and Uni villages of West Aitape LLG, Aitape Lumi District.

Introduction

The Onele and Uni people of the West Aitape LLG of the hinterlands have a large area of virgin rain-forest that is home to thousands of exotic birds and animals that are authentic to the area. The people through the times gone by were mostly hunters and gatherers and often hunt animals and forage the forest for food as they enjoy their beautiful forest home. With the arrival of the government system through the influence of the colonial government, they were clustered together with their respective clans into villages and thus created the current villages that are now in existence.

This article presents their plea in the light of development that is rapidly changing the face of the environment without the supposed tangible services required.

Development

The dawn of development at last has come upon the Onele and Uni people. This development dawn came to them suddenly and forcefully with costs that are so detrimental in nature that will forever affect their lives. On July the 19^th, 2006, the Papua New Guinea Government made the initial grant to Vanimo Jaya Limited and One-Uni Development jointly. The portion 248C that was granted was an enormous piece of land that covers 47, 626 hectares of land from the Milinch of Tadji to the Fourmill of Aitape (Numapo, 2013).  It is a 99 year lease that covers at least two generations of the indigenous people’s life since the initial contract was signed.

Sadly, the plea of the Onele and Uni people had another twist. On 14th May 2007, One-Uni ceded its half share in the SABL to Vanimo Jaya Limited. It made Vanimo Jaya, a foreign company, the sole owner of the SABL that is currently in operation (Numapo, 2013).

The people of Onele and Uni since the initial operation of the SABL till now,  have suffered greatly from this deal. Though, in the early stages of the operation only a small number of people and certain clans from Ramo village, Sumo village and Barera village have received morsels of benefit. These morsels of benefit have since became a trickle and has ceased altogether. Other Onele and Uni villages are yet to experience the tangible change that has now become a phantom limb to the local villagers in the light of development. 

Impact of SABL at the National Level

At the national level, the SABL initiative has dramatically changed the development landscape of the country since its establishment. Although certain parts of the country are benefiting from the SABL, this policy has brought destruction to the land and lives of the local people in its wake in some parts of the country. In the recent MOMASE Customary Lands Summit that I attended and participated for two days in Madang in 2018, much discussion and debate immersed on this issue of SABL of, how benefiting it is to the local landowners. Recommendations for the amendment to make the SABL policy indigenous landowners' user friendly is still not properly defined. Furthermore, certain prominent development academics such as Colin Filer (2011) termed this policy as a “new form of land grabbing in PNG” created by the government without much consideration for the indigenous land owners through the legalized practice of ‘lease-leaseback’. 

Development Implications of the Onele and Uni people

The SABL as a nation-wide customary land development option is still not properly defined and has flaws that and that has been the down side of the policy affecting a lot of indigenous landowners in the country. Empowered by the lease leaseback system, foreign development entities have taken advantage of the policy and have been making profits at the expense of the people. Thus, while the government through the Land’s department is trying to sort out this issue, those who are suffering like the One-Uni people still continue to suffer.

The implications of the activities of One-Uni Landowner Company and the Vanimo Jaya Limited to the Onele and Uni people are as follows:

1. 1.      Since One-Uni has sold its share and title to Vanimo Jaya Limited, the development taking place at this stage is totally owned by the foreigners and a foreign company.

1. 2.      All the villages covered in the initial scope of the portion 248C have not benefited and will not benefit because of the reckless deal by the landowner company and the developer.

1. 3.      One-Uni Landowner Company is a defunct company (meaning it only exists in papers and it is not literally functioning.

1. 4.      The One-Uni villagers’ lands and development rights were sold to the foreigners lock, both stock and barrel.

Conclusion

The Onele people and Uni people who are within the development scope of portion 248C are suffering because of the hasty and reckless decisions made by those who represent the people and are in charge of the landowner company and other District and Provincial leaders of that day things started and fell apart. Yes, the Onele and Uni people of West Aitape LLG of Aitape Lumi District has been suffering since 2006 and are still suffering. This failed development investment and project with the lack of basic government services such as good road network from Poltulul villager via Pes Catholic station and across Yalingi River has redefined them as back page of Aitape and Lumi in the light of development.

The question, will this development dilemma be rectified for the betterment of the people of Onele and Uni villages is now on the wall.

*Note- There may be other recent under the table deals regarding the SABL project in the portion 248C that the author may not be aware even as a local researcher.

Reference

Numapo, J. (2013). Commission of Inquiry into Special Agriculture & Business Leases (SABL). National Gazette, 1–272. Retrieved from https://www.mendeley.com/research-papers/commission-inquiry-special-agriculture-business-leases-sabl 

Filer, C. (2011). New Land Grab in Papua New Guinea. Pacific Studies, 34(2), 269.