Posted by Hiuare on 31/5/2006, 4:20 pm * The legal existence of Mata Forestry Resources Company, that is whether it is a registered company or not. * Did the landowners of Meme, Tama, Apuiraramua, Taupaiasi and Aipuru give consent/approval to the deal? * Did the Commissioner of Forest and Resources grant license to Mata Forestry Resources Company to carry out logging on those customary lands? * Did the provincial Council hear any landowners’ grievances/objections to the issue? * Why Taiarata license implicated here? Did Taiarata existing License cover those customary lands or whether Taiarata license holder had obtained approvals to log from the landowners and Commissioner of Forest and Resources? Based on these, should the applicant representatives verify whether or not they had complied fully with the rules and requirements set out under the Forest Resources and Timber Utilization Act Cap 40? For the sake of harmonizing the species of good governance, accountability, transparency, fair distributions of benefits, respect, law and order within the Southern Region, chiefs, landowners of West and East Are’Are must be on guard to iron out issues which in the long term will cause disease to our people's daily livelihood. Do you aware of any suspicious actions that relate to this issue?
202.151.26.175
The facts deposed under the above heading which appears in the Solomon Star paper on the 31/5/06 worth commenting because it constitutes suspicious actions which include:
If the applicant failed or have done that with dishonest practices, the landowners should call upon the Commissioner of Forest and Resources to suspend or cancel the applicant’s license.
Hiuare
Message Thread:
« Back to thread