Vulnerability of Birds to Extinction

According to the world extinction trend, 50% of critically endangered bird species are predicted to go extinct in 5 years; 20% of endangered species in 20 years, and 10% of vulnerable species will be extinct in 100 years. As for all other birds not on the IUCN list, extinction may happen within the next 800-2800 years (Crosby et al. 1994).

Furthermore, the extinction trend was shown to be non-random and concentrated in certain genera and families. For instance, the flightless birds, the non migratory water birds, and birds with beautiful plumage (parrots) are most vulnerable.

Furthermore, certain life history traits make some species more extinction-prone than others. Extinction risk will be higher for specialised species than generalists; species with small populations, small geographic ranges, and poor dispersal ability. Species with low fecundity, and long generation times are predicted to be at most risk because they would recover slowly from a severe reduction in population size and remain threatened longer by demographic and stochastic factors. Species with high offspring production, short generation times, and small body size, are predicted to be less susceptible to extinction because they are not as prone to large stochastic population fluctuations. High levels of local bird endemism coupled with increasing rates of forest change mean that more PNG species are likely to become threatened in the near future

Life histories do not act in isolation to cause extinction; rather they are influenced by environmental stochasticity as well as human activities. Crosby (1994), upon quantification of extinction threats showed that 51.9% of threats were from the loss and alteration of habitat, 23.2% by small ranges and or small populations, and 7.6% through hunting, persecution, accidental trapping and subsistence egg collecting. Predation and displacement by introduced species made up 5.8% of threats while commercial egg collecting accounted for 2.6%, natural causes 3.3% and other threats 3.1%.

Activities such as human persecution and introduced predators are harmful for taxa that have slow rates of population growth by disturbing the balance between the fecundity and longevity of such species. In contrast, sources of extinction risk that reduce niche availability, through habitat loss, represent a threat to taxa that are ecologically specialized.

According to the threat quantification data, over half of the current threats on birds are happening because humans are interfering with the habitat of these birds.

Archaeological evidence suggests that birds have been made extinct through selective over-harvesting by humans. However, current trends show that birds are often threatened with extinction because humans are having a detrimental impacts on their ecology and the threat is exacerbated when the birds have limited adaptability and hence resilience to withstand environmental.

Furthermore, more bird extinctions (83%) have occurred on oceanic islands than on the continents. New Guinea is itself a large island positioned between Australia and Asia. Mayr and Diamond (1976) also observed that the New Guinea montane forests are like islands separated by a sea of forest and therefore suggested that the Theory of Island Biogeography and extinction risks are relevant to these “islands”. Islands of habitat can also be created by human activities.

Ref:
CROSBY, M. J., STATTEERSFIELD, A. J., COLLAR, N. J. & BIBBY, C. J. (1994) Predicting avian extinction rates. Biodiversity Letters, 2, 182-185.
MAYR, E. & DIAMOND, J. M. (1976) Birds on islands in the sky: Origin of the montane avifauna of Northern Melanesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 73, 1765-1769

This may be the way to go……..

Violence does not have to be the last resort to all our frustrations with the government being dictatorial in its pursuit for development. There need not be needless loss of lives, and increased animosity between the government and the people.

We can learn a thing or two from world leaders like Mahatma Ghandhi, Martin Luther King – they used non-violent resistance tactics such as boycotts, information warfare, picketing, vigils, lobbying, civil disobedience etc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance) – to achieve their agenda.

Mobilizing the public in PNG can turn nasty as we have seen seen what happened with the Asian Riots. Even if we have a plan of action, we may not be able to control opportunists who may mis-represent our intentions. Those of us on email, make about 5 % of the workforce, we can mobilize ourselves and carry out some of those non-violent tactics.

For instance, from personal relationships, we as individuals know that it takes compromise for a continual growth on our lives. From the latest turn of events, I’d say we have been like a little kid throwing a tantrum and demanding that we get our way. We have done this and now we have hit a headlock then what??  Violence by the public will serve as fuel to harden the heart of the government against truth and justice.

Maybe it is time to change tactic, maybe its time to stop demanding and start negotiating. Maybe its time to get organised and engage the government in a dialogue to reach some consensus: afterall, things (including our culture, and our forests) will indeed change sometime in the future, we cannot keep delaying the inevitable.

We can organise open forums, and debates and invite our members of parliament to attend and participate. We can pitch our best brains against theirs. If we have anything to say, we will say – if they have anything to say they will say. Let the people be the judge. Maybe we can even convince them, or they will make us see what we have not seen. Invite the media to publicize the sessions.

Minister Fairweather, has given us a tactic we can use; at every opportunity ask your member in the presence of media and the public, what their stance are with regards to the latest turn of events. Put them on the spot. For too long, we have been attacking the law and not the people that voted for it. Use such opportunities to find out where they stand. Then, I suggest take it a step further by publicizing their answer. This should put pressure on the government.

The Great Pacific Plastic Soup

Rubbish dump found floating in Pacific Ocean is twice the size of America

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512424/Rubbish-dump-floating-Pacific-Ocean-twice-size-America.html

A rubbish dump twice the size of the United States has been discovered floating in the Pacific Ocean.

The vast expanse of debris, made up of plastic junk including footballs, kayaks, Lego blocks and carrier bags, is kept together by swirling underwater currents.

It stretches from 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan.



Because the rubbish, which has been called a “plastic soup” and a “trash vortex”, is translucent and lies just below the water’s surface it cannot be seen in satellite photographs.

American oceanographer Charles Moore discovered the Great Pacific Garbage Patch by chance in 1997 while taking a short cut home from a yacht race.

He said: “Every time I came on deck there was trash floating by. How could we have fouled such a huge area? How could this go on for a week?”

Around a fifth of sea junk is thrown off ships or oil platforms – the rest comes from land

He warned that the rubbish could double in size over the next decade if consumers do not cut back on their use of plastics. More than a million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals die every year as a result of plastic rubbish.

Syringes, cigarette lighters and toothbrushes have all been found inside the stomachs of dead seabirds.

The rubbish can also be dangerous for humans, because tiny plastic pellets in the sea can attract man-made chemicals which then enter the food chain.

Research director Dr Marcus Eriksen said: “What goes into the ocean goes into these animals and onto your dinner plate. It’s that simple.”

Oceanographer Curtis Ebbesmeyer compared the rubbish to a living entity. He said: “It moves around like a big animal without a leash.”  Describing what happens when it reaches land, he said: “The garbage patch barfs, and you get a beach covered with this confetti of plastic.”

The rubbish dump is made up of two linked areas either side of Hawaii. Around one-fifth of the junk is thrown off ships or oil platforms, while the rest comes from the land.


Related Reading

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/pollution/trash-vortex/

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/great_pacific_garbage_patch.php

http://tshirttote.org/fun-zone-2/turtle-time/

http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/ocean_hall/marine_debris.html

http://www.inkoma.com/read.asp?id=1940

http://blog.mywonderfulworld.org/2009/03/the-great-pacific-garbage-patch.html

http://wireless-mesh-fm-radio-tv-media.blogspot.com/2009/08/giant-island-of-plastic-in-pacific.html

http://milkywaybroadcast.com/trash-island-in-the-pacific-ocean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

Sir Michael on drivers of ecosystem change and climate change battles……

This is an excerpt of the speech by Sir Michael on the 27th of May, 2010 at the Oslo Climate and Forest Conference.

“Looking back, attempts to resolve deforestation have been suffocated by misunderstandings. The North told us the causes (of deforestation) were issues like corruption and land rights. But, these are largely symptoms, not drivers. Developing countries understand that economics drive deforestation ‐‐ pure and simple! The real problem is an international market failure. Today, markets value forests more destroyed than standing.

Together, we must find ways to value forests more alive than dead!

In PNG, deforestation and degradation contribute over 90% of our total emissions. And many other REDD+ countries have a similar profile. For all of us, forests are our heritage, history and culture. But, development options, like logging and agricultural expansion, create tremendous pressure on our remaining forest reserves. ……..However, PNG is committed to change direction. Clearly, we cannot win the battle against climate change unless we first defeat deforestation.”

I pulled out 9 points worth noting from less than two paragraphs given above.

  1. Deforestation is a symptom of corruption.
  2. Land rights is neither a driver nor a symptom of corruption
  3. Economics drive deforestation
  4. We must value forests more alive than dead
  5. Degradation and deforestation  contribute over 90% of  our total emissions
  6. Forests is our heritage, history and culture
  7. Development options create tremendous pressure  on our remaining forest reserve
  8. PNG is committed to change direction
  9. PNG cannot battle against climate change unless we first defeat deforestation

There is no denying that, the forest is our heritage, it contains our history and has shaped our culture (point 6).  Indeed, our culture is the accumulated wealth of experiences and adaptations  over time and is the fundamental basis of our language, our social relations and spirituality. The rich detail of this knowledge system and the specific management practices of natural resources, as well as religious beliefs and rituals based on this knowledge is evidence of the long interaction between our forefathers and nature.  The reverence our forefathers showed for these customs and traditions was because their  survival depended on rituals that kept  this knowledge alive (which sadly, in our generation is being  overtaken by the glamor of the western culture). Indeed, for any PNGean, it is intuitive understanding that forests have more value being alive than dead (point 4).

Sir Michael hits the nail on the head, indeed, economics drive deforestation (point 3). The demand for tropical logs in North America and Europe and even Japan for instance, creates the market that loggers have to fill. These developed countries have the money to spend on luxuries like matching furnitures made from tropical hardwood – this demand drive logging in forested countries. Loggers have no committment to protecting livelihoods; their bottom line is maximum profit from an available market.

Preserving a rich cultural heritage or buying into the glamour of economic development, is a dilemma for forested countries including PNG. Without other options to raise the currency needed for economic development, countries are forced to sell their natural resources. Indeed, developmental aspirations put a tremendous pressure on forest reserves  (point 7). However, as a sovereign nation, PNG has the right decide its own path to achieving development without being dictated to by outsiders. Whether we should engage outsiders to dig, log and fish our resources now, or whether we should develop these resources one at a time and work to develop our own human resource in the meantime – these decisions reside with our leaders. As a sovereign nation, it is up to the government to balance economic development with forest conservation to protect livelihoods.

Sir Michael tells the world that attempts have been made to resolve deforestation.  What attempts, when the lowand of PNG has been mapped as Forest Management Area (FMA); what attempts, when logging activities are happening  in protected areas like the Wildlife Management Areas (WMA)? If PNG is committed to change (point 8), then it definitely is not showing.

The unique land tenure system in PNG is NOT a symptom of corruption (point 2), rather the  unique system, affords protection to customary land when it declares that a landowner cannot sell, lease or otherwise dispose of customary land or customary rights, and that any attempt to do so will be void (Land Act 1996).  This system discourages the sale of customary land because the founding fathers of the Constitution knew that land is a social security for the landowner.

On the other hand, numerous evidence exist to show that  indeed, deforestation through large-scale commercial logging  in PNG is a symptom of corruption (point 2).  This is a quote from a member of parliament on logging in his province as was documented in the Barnett Forest Inquiry, “It would be fair to say, of some of the companies, that they now roam the countryside with the self-assurance of robber barons; bribing politicians and leaders, creating social disharmony and ignoring laws in order to gain access to, rip out, and export the last remnants of the province’s valuable timber.These companies are fooling the landowners and making use of corrupt, gullible and unthinking politicians.” Indeed, the lack of political will for forest conservation, as well as lack of enforcement and prosecution of “robber barons” is a major driver of deforestation in PNG.

Sir Michael, however, forgot to mention that the  high population growth rate (2.7%) is  also a driver of land degradation. Land degradation happens through small-scale agriculture which is comparable in percentage to forest loss to the deforestation caused by logging (45.6% and 48.2% respectively).   This is to be expected because bulk of the population (80%) live in rural areas and  maintain a livelihood by exploiting the land and the forest.   There are already signs of intensification in land degradation for expansion of food-cropping in PNG.

The minimal and even lack of  basic services  and infrastructure in rural areas is another factor driving forest owners to welcome  environmentally degrading projects. Furthermore, in areas where it is not feasible for logging (or any other economical viable activity), there is increased human migration across community domains in search of  such opportunities and basic government services  which are mostly clustered around existing economically viable settlements. This in-country migrations disproportionately intensifies land degradation in certain areas of the country.

Sir Michael rightly points out that deforestation and land degradation contribute over 90% of the PNG total emission (point 5).  The government has to address emissions from both deforestation and  subsistence land use by taking actions such as stop issuing new logging permits to loggers; put a quota on the number of used cars that can be imported from Japan; in the same vein, improve public transport.  Furthermore, the government if serious  in PNG becoming a carbon neutral society in the near future must provide alternatives to her people to wean them from the dependency on the forest. This could be achieved through several means including subsidizing of solar power packs so people stop burning wood and kerosene for fuel and light; subsides gas stoves –  to name a few. In this way, the forest will be left alone for REDD+ projects.

Finally, addressing climate change is not a battle for PNG to fight (point 9).  Climate change – the inevitable heating of the earth’s  climatic system is part of a system of  warming and cooling which has been happening since dinosaurs roamed the earth, however, the heavy reliance  on fossil fuels by humans in the race for economic development has churned out more green house gas into the atmosphere, thus accelerating the green house effect.   No government in the world including PNG, should dream of saving  the world from climate change – this is a global issue to be addressed at the global scale and the only hope is  for the countries to collectively  cut down the amount of green house gases going into the atmosphere.  It is to be lauded that PNG has stood up to the challenge of becoming carbon neutral in the near future. Climate change however, is a global issue and REDD+ is just one mitigating  action that is why, the government must be realistic and make decision to address the issue  within our cultural and socio-economic boundaries. Before we save the world we must look after our people, afterall it will be the actions of these people who will determine whether PNG becomes carbon neutral in the near future or not.

Living in a healthy environment is my right

During the talk back show on Wednesday 2nd June 2010, the public was told that, the changes to the Environment Act 2000 to Article 69  STAY OF OPERATION OF ORIGINAL DECISION, does not impinge on the rights of local people. I am not a lawyer, but from my view as a conservationist and a landowner; gagging the public from contesting Environmental Impact Assessment decisions is an abuse of human rights, because every person  (and more so for the people who own land in the vicinity of project sites) reserve the right to protect the environment that sustains their livelihood – even if that means taking the challenge to the court of law because, these people will live with the consequences of activities that happen on their land.

The fact remains – Papua New Guineans will continually depend on the land to sustain their livelihood for a long time to come. Even the founding fathers of the PNG constitution recognized this in the Fourth Directive Principle of the  National Constitution. This Directive Principle states that we will strive to protect  the natural resources  that had sustained livelihoods since humans arrived on the island of New Guinea some thousands of years ago. Numerous commentators observe that, indeed, the nation of PNG has catapulted from the stone-age straight into the space-age in less than eight decades, this however,  holds true for only 20% of the population. The bulk of the population  in PNG (~80%) still depend on their environment to sustain their livelihood; the same way their forefathers lived. A healthy environmental is a prerequisite for this lifestyle.

Article 22 of the Human Rights declaration also states that everyone has a right to social security. Social security for any indigenous  person including any PNGean  is in an healthy environment; a piece of land (or waterbody or beach-front etc.)  to make, and sustain a livelihood. Indeed, owning a piece of land in PNG is security against poverty and hunger. Apart from being security against poverty, a healthy piece of land is the  protection of human health by way of water resource protection.

With the new proposed changes, the landowners’ future is now in the hands of the director of the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). The director reports to the government of the day. The changes in the law would not have caused such a hype if the people have trust in the government to look after their future, but with a below average track record – it is alarming for this generation of landowners to put their future and the future of their descendants in the hands of the government who, as is apparent now, wants to make money at the expense of the well-being of her people. How much money is enough money for economic development?

We cannot deny the fact that, without manufacturing industries, the only option for PNG is to sell her natural resources to raise the capital needed for economic development – sadly, the government seems incapable of finding that fine balance between exploiting for  economic development  and protecting the environment to preserve the livelihood of her people.

An healthy environment is a basic human right – every Papua New Guinean, including politicians come from a village and belong to a tribal group that owns a piece of land. Therefore, when it comes to protecting a piece of land,  the fight should spring up intuitively from deep within. The proponents of this law, must either be living in denial of their roots, they have been brainwashed  or  they just don’t realize the implications of their action and are just puppets controlled by  greed.

Papua New Guineans want this draconian piece of law withdrawn! It is completely unacceptable and certainly not in the best interests of the 80% of Papua New Guineans who live off their environment (forest, fishing ground, river streams).

Rice is NOT food security for PNG

A family meal in PNG is incomplete without rice. Indeed, rice has fast become a staple for town residents within three decades since independence.  Rice is referred to by various names including “marasin” or medicine and has the same effect as its name on some people. One can never go wrong when presenting to relatives back home  a bag or packet of rice.

Rice is consumed by nearly half of the entire world population and many countries, like Asia, are completely dependent on rice as a staple food. More information on rice can be read here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice

Rice is said to be the worlds food security, and in PNG there is a rush for rice cultivation. Indeed, there is a 10-year Domestic Rice Development Policy that was approved by the National Executive Council in 2005. The policy aims to establish “a sustainable domestic rice industry that would enhance household food security and nutrition, generate cash income for farmers, and reduce dependence on imported rice.  The NEC decision stands even when  peer-reviewed studies show that rice only makes 9% of Papua New Guineans diet while local staples make up 68% of the diet.

The government has engaged the Filipinos, the Chinese, the Taiwanese and the Japanese  to teach Papua New Guineans to plant rice. Rice is now grown in small scale in several provinces in PNG. This website (http://www.grain.org/hybridrice/?lid=203) reports that hybrid rice has been introduced in the Ramu Valley in the vicinity of the Chinese Ramu Nico Company by the Chinese themselves. According to the miners, the rice is going to be food security for the local people displaced by the mine.

However, should rice be encouraged as the food security for PNG? I won’t deny that I enjoy my rice ever so often, especially rice from my grandmothers  small rice plot. But, should PNG embrace rice as a food security over our local staple cultivars (viz taro, banana, Irish potato and  sweet potato, cassava, sago and nuts).

Rice is fast to grow and easy to cook, however, in favouring this faster growing species we can neglect our local taro and  banana cultivars –a legacy passed on from our forefathers.  Through breeding over thousands of years, these traditional cultivars are suited for this tropical environment and have adapted to the diseases and pests.  On the other hand, rice – grown in monoculture is susceptible to outbreaks of pest infestation and disease –  without the protection afforded by adaptation to the local environment, the whole crop may be lost.

Rice is fast food because indeed it  is fast to grow and easy to cook, however the process  from the plot to the plate is labour intensive. Unlike our native cultivars, processing rice requires time and effort. First, the rice plot must be kept clean. This is more intensive then the three or four weeding required for a taro garden.  Second, rice need to be harvested as soon as the grains mature. Studies show “..that proper timing is important in harvesting the crop as losses could be incurred if rice is harvested too soon or too late…. Delayed harvesting exposes the crop to insect, rodent and bird pests, in addition to increased risks of lodging and grain shattering.” In contrast,  our native cultivar – the banana is always the last food crop harvested in old gardens. Now this is food security for people as they leave old garden plots and move to start new plots.

Furthermore, husking rice requires time and effort. Rice mill is the technology to husk rice, however mills are expensive, and needs fuel to run, and if the mill is not yours, you have to pay others to husk the rice for you.

Rice is said to contain more kilojoules of energy per serve when compared to other carbohydrates however, white rice lacks essential vitamins and minerals.  Beriberi was the disease most often found in Asian countries (especially in the 19th century and before), due to those countries’ reliance on white rice as a staple food. Eating a mixture of native carbohydrates with greens and fruits and nuts is nutritionally, a better option.

Rice cultivation smothers and kills native rainforest seedbank.  To cultivate rice requires a plot cleared of all grass and trees and debris; the store of forest seedbank. Continually using this plot of land suppresses the growth of forest and encourages the development of grasslands (as seen in rice growing countries). Planting rice along river valleys eliminates saplings and shrubs which serve an important role of slowing the velocity and reducing the impacts of floods.  Growing rice also removes trees and shrubs that protects the topsoil from being washed away in this environment  where rainfall over 100mm per annum is the norm.

Food security for PNG is in its local cultivars. Therefore, research should be focussed on the preservation and improvement of these local cultivars to withstand diseases and pest as well as being able to withstand the impacts of the new threat – climate change. The government instead of hiring rice consultants, should use that money to fund research to  fortify our native cultivars against  pest and diseases – and especially the three main staples that were hard hit:  the taro against the taro beetle, the potato against the potato blight and the banana against the Black Sigatoka.

Bolivian indigenous knowledge

“In Lake Titicaca in Bolivia, a Quechua Indian told me that everything one does in life involves looking forward while going backward simultaneously. This I didn’t understand. I said, ‘What do you mean, going backward?’  And he said,’Well, it’s very simple. For us, for the Quechua, the past is in front of us. It’s in front of us because we know the past and we can look at it. And the future is behind because we don’t know what it brings so we move into the future, but we move backwards.’ The expression is ñawpaman puni. This idea of moving into the future while looking clearly into the past is something that is lacking in all these considerations about development and alternatives to development, and about what is going to happen and from where we can create an alternative to development.

This lack of historical depth is what is going to prevent us from thinking of real alternatives to development.”

(David Tuchsneider 1992:63-64)

REDD in PNG

http://www.redd-monitor.org/2010/04/08/latin-american-indigenous-forum-rejects-carbon-trading/

Congratulations to the Latin America Indigenous Forum for taking a stand after long and consultative consideration. For sure, climate change is a global issue that requires local initiatives to mitigate. Any local initiative cannot single-handedly save the world from the impacts of climate change. All peoples can only do their part in their local settings and hope that the sum of local actions will culminate into an outcome desirable for the Planet earth. In striving toward this goal, indigenous communities must not be coerced and bullied into taking measures that will disadvantage them in the long term. Communities must be given the space to decide their approach within their respective socio-economic and cultural jurisdictions.

It is disheartening to realise that PNG has not done a proper analysis on the impacts of implementing REDD on our existing socio-economic status; the long-term impacts on our people and our culture. I wonder why the knee-jerk reaction to REDD by the PNG government without thinking about the implications of locking away forests for REDD – the very forests which sustained our fore-fathers livelihood in the stone-age and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future for 75-80% of the populace – even as we enter this so-called space-age. Doing REDD in PNG is not going to save the planet earth from impacts of climate change. What makes PNG think that we can become the saviour of the world from impacts of climate change? It may be good record for history books, but what about the price that we will pay on our way into the history books. Is the price worth paying?

Unlike the Latin America Indigenous Forum , the PNG government does not even have a position on this issue even though we have gone ahead to make a pledge to Planet Earth. How realistic and achievable is our pledge to Planet Earth that PNG will become a carbon-neutral society come 2050? Where will PNGs economic development be  in 2050 – I can only wonder. Only a few developed nations can hope to reduce their carbon footprint to less than half of their baseline by 2050. Could PNG reach this state come 2050? Come 2050, if the medical service is good, I will be a 74 year old grandmother maybe great-grandmother. I can only wonder if my children’s lives and my grandchildren’s lives will be any better than what I have now. Maybe I am just a pessimist and that we have already figured out how to get there in the governments 2050 vision.

The meaning of success

“To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a little better; whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is the meaning of success.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

A call for passive resistance

This post was in response to this video in youtube…. RD Tuna: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLkUPCci2QA&feature=player_embedded

We are the customers that keep businesses operating;  we are the market, manufacturers work hard to supply. When we want more, we create the demand that businesses have to satisfy- businesses exist because of customers (you and I). Once the company has established itself, we the customers keep them operating with our money when we buy their products

And for so long now, we have been made to feel that we are helpless customers, dependent on what is on sale. But the truth is we are more than just customers. We are actually POWERFUL decision makers. We have the money that businesses need to continue their operations. We can decide where to spend our hard earned money. We can choose who to give our hard earned money to. Having the power to decide, would you give your money to a business that is mistreating our fellow country men? Would you support a business that is destroying our natural and pristine environment? Would you give your money to a company that does not reinvest in our country? Will you give your money to a foreign company that ships our kina out of the country? The truth we have to know is………WE, THE CONSUMERS HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE ON WHO GETS OUR HARD EARNED KINA.

Ghandi did and he called it passive resistance. He pulled it off without inciting violence. Ghandi influenced India to boycot British products causing Britain to loose the India market leading to profit loss for companies who had market niches in India. India gained independence peacefully  through acts of passive resistance and boycotts.

It was done, it can be done.  We can collectively make the decision to use passive resistance and boycotts to show our displeasure by deciding to boycott products from corrupt companies. The good thing about this is that, corrupt politicians do not have the power to stop a boycott. Corrupt policemen with guns have no power to stop a boycott.

Boycotting is an individual decision and very powerful when done collectively. There is no need for protest marches, it does not give rise to violence and does not require the audience of our locally elected leaders. There is not need to loot shops then get in trouble with the law. We can all decide to boycott products and certain traders and make them go out of business. We cannot stop business for RD tuna, but we can boycott RD tuna products and eventually cause them to go bankrupt, we can also lobby companies to boycott RD products.

Boycotting is a personal decision made when you go shopping and consciously decide on what product you will spend your hard earned money on. It is a very powerful protest avenue – only very effective if  everybody gets involved.

In turn, invest your money in PNG companies and products. These local companies are here to stay. Your kina invested in local companies will come around …maybe to your hauskrai contributions… or maybe as a sponsorship for the local soccer club you kid plays in or  as offerings to the church you go to  or an xmas visit to the hospital where a relative is admitted in..We have to consciously support companies that support local initiatives.

Now is the time to live our lives consciously. Be wise and make decisions that have a lasting impact for the good of the wider community in PNG.

cheers and God Bless PNG

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.