BY MORRIS NAFU

Joseph Hurutarau, Director of Environment and Conservation Division, from Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology (MECDM), is optimistic about the Mineral Resource Bill 2025, highlighting its potential to promote sustainable mining and environmental protection in the Solomon Islands.

Speaking at the Bills and Legislation hearing on Tuesday, September 2, 2025, he stressed that the bill’s success hinges on addressing its key weaknesses and risks.

“Theoretically, the bill supports sustainable and responsible mining practices in Solomon Islands.

“However, enforcement remains a challenge for all of us,” Hurutarau said.

He pointed to specific sections of the bill – Part 3 on mining prohibited and restricted areas, Part 9 on mine closure, and Part 10 on environmental protection – as central to its focus on safeguarding the environment.

Hurutarau also reminded lawmakers that exploration, prospecting and mining activities are classified as prescribed developments under the Environment Act 1998, requiring approval and consent through established processes.

With the Environment Act set to be repealed and replaced to strengthen safeguards, the bill must ensure alignment with environmental protection goals, including technical and scientific reviews, monitoring, and enforcement.

He also raised concerns about terminology in Part 3, suggesting that “mining protected areas” could be misleading and recommended clearer language such as “areas protected from mining”.

Hurutarau also calls for independent reporting and disclosure of mining operations, including tailings management and structural integrity, to ensure accountability.

The bill’s effectiveness, he noted, depends on several assumptions: clear identification and enforcement of protected areas, strong cooperation among government, communities, and private sectors, robust monitoring and oversight, and sufficient financial resources for implementation.

Hurutarau concluded by highlighting ongoing challenges namely; limited enforcement capacity due to financial and human resource constraints, low community awareness and technical knowledge hindering meaningful engagement, inadequate financial assurances from mining companies for rehabilitation, and a shortage of technical expertise to apply best practices.

As Solomon Islands moves forward with the Mineral Resource Bill 2025, these reflections from the Environment Division underscore the need for a strong, well-resourced framework to ensure mining benefits do not come at the expense of the nation’s precious environment.

For feedback, contact:[email protected]

BY IRWIN ANGIKI

Embassies of Japan and the United States have echoed shared disappointment over Solomon Islands’ decision to exclude dialogue and development partners from this year’s Forum Leaders meeting.

Solomon Islands, as chair for the 54th Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting (PIFLM), had decided to defer the post-Forum dialogue which necessitates the attendance of the 21 Forum dialogue and development partners, which include China, Japan, the US and Taiwan.

Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele announced this deferment decision in parliament on August 6, drawing push backs reported by international and regional media from some of the partners including the US and Taiwan.

Notably, China has not, with its embassies in New Zealand, Tonga and Solomon Islands reiterating China’s respect and support for Pacific Island countries’ efforts for better development.

Some Forum member countries were also reported to voice disagreement, few threatening to pull out of the one-week meeting.

Palau’s President Surangel Whipps Jr said while he respected Solomon Islands’ position and accepted the deferment decision, he was not happy about it, Radio New Zealand (RNZ) reported on August 19.

Samoa’s caretaker Prime Minister Fiamē Naomi Mataʻafa told ABC Pacific on August 7 that Samoa would likely boycott the meeting.

The Guardian reported August 16 that Tuvalu’s PM Feletei Teo said his country may pull out, adding that he ‘would wait to see how other Pacific leaders respond before deciding whether or not to attend the forum’.

PNG PM James Marape told PMN he had advised PM Manele in a letter to ‘stick to the spirit of the regional architecture isolating personal bilateral preferences. Manele denied this at a local press conference on August 8.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told RNZ he would rather there were no changes to the status quo.

A US state department spokesperson said the US was ‘disappointed’ by the exclusion and supported ‘continued attendance of all PIF partners, including Taiwan, at the annual PIF Leaders Meeting’, Reuters reported on August 7.

In Island Sun’s combined interview with the US and Japan embassies on August 28, US Chargé d’affaires to Solomon Islands Dan O’Hara reiterated this:

“The United States was very disappointed by this, this decision to exclude dialogue and development partners from the PIF leaders meeting this year. We support the continued attendance of all PIF partners, including Taiwan, at the annual PIF leaders meeting as previously agreed by PIF leaders in 1992, here in Honiara.

“And all those partners, development partners and dialogue partners, Taiwan included, in line with that 1992 consensus, should be invited to participate regardless of where the PIF is hosted.

“Now, that said, as a PIF dialogue partner, the United States appreciates the important role PIF plays in setting the region’s priorities and engaging with external partners on issues of shared concern. We remain committed to engagement with the Pacific Islands and deepening our partnerships with the Pacific Islands Forum and bilaterally with the countries in the Pacific to support a free and open Indo-Pacific region. And we remain honoured to be a founding PIF dialogue partner.

“Changing status quo on partner participation in PIF raises questions about possible influences of outside partners.”

Japan’s Ambassador to Solomon Islands, His Excellency Keiichi Higuchi, echoed the sentiments, saying:

“We were also disappointed to hear that we would not be invited to the Honiara Summit. In fact, we had hotel reservation and all that. So when I reported to Tokyo that you’re not invited, they were very disappointed.

“We also believe that Taiwan should be invited, as has been done before. I’m not going to talk too much into geopolitical side of it, but we do appreciate the fact that PIF has invited Taiwan all along since 1992 communique. So that’s a disappointment.

“That said, we do respect the collective will of PIF members. So once that collective will was made to defer this dialogue meeting with dialogue partners or development partners, we respect that and we hope that unity among the PIF is not broken.

“And we look forward to contributing in the future, not in September, during the September meeting, but after the September meeting. So whatever deferred meeting, we look forward to participating in that meeting at a later stage.”

China rejects allegations

The root of the deferment saga has been blamed on geopolitics, with some commentators associating it with China’s continued attempt to isolate Taiwan diplomatically. China refers to Taiwan as its province.

Opposition MP Peter Kenilorea Jnr told parliament last month ‘this issue is all about China and Taiwan’.

Other Pacific leaders have also weighed in on this with indirect remarks blaming ‘outsiders’ for this rift.

China has refuted these allegations.

Global Times reported on August 14 that the Chinese embassy in New Zealand rejected these ‘groundless accusations’ and that ‘as a dialogue partner of PIF, China respects the Forum’s role in regional cooperation, values its relations with the PIF, and welcomes opportunities to work with PIF members and other dialogue partners how to support the development of Pacific Island developing countries under the Forum dialogue mechanism’.

Looking forward to a successful PIFLM

As of this week, all 18 PIF member countries are confirmed to participate in the PIFLM, which begins Monday next week, Sept 8-12.

Chairman of the Local Organising Committee for the PIFLM, Sir Dr Jimmie Rogers made the confirmation at a talkback show on SIBC Monday this week.

Rogers said that 17 leaders have confirmed attendance, with the exception of Samoa which has just held its elections on Friday last week.

He said they are expecting feedback from Samoa this week.

Rogers however reiterated that Samoa will attend.

The Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting is the region’s peak political gathering.

The members of PIF are Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

According to the Forum website, the 21 dialogue partners are:

Canada (1989), France (1989), Japan (1989), United Kingdom (1989), United States of America (1989), People’s Republic of China (1990), European Union (1991), Republic of Korea (1995), Malaysia (1996), Philippines (1999), Indonesia (2001), India (2002), Thailand (2004), Italy (2007), Cuba (2013), Spain (2014), Türkiye (2014), Germany (2016), Chile (2021), Norway (2021) and Singapore (2021).

The five founding Dialogue Partners were Canada, France, Japan, United Kingdom and the US.

Taiwan although missing from PIF’s official list of dialogue partners is considered one especially by its three remaining diplomatic partners – Tuvalu, Palau and the Republic of Marshal Islands.

Palau is set to host next year’s 55th PIFLM.

For feedback, contact:[email protected]

BY JOHN HOUANIHAU

Japan’s Ambassador to Solomon Islands Keiichi Higuchi has reassured that Japan’s commitment to assist in monitoring and clearing unexploded ordnance (UXO) in the Solomon Islands is ongoing.

He explained that Japan responds to the Solomons’ requests based on local needs.

“When it comes to economic assistance, including how to handle UXO, it’s not our style to impose something on the recipient country, but we first listen to what’s really necessary or what’s needed for whatever purpose of the economic assistance. And that same thing goes for the UXO,” he said.

Under the UXO effort, Japan provided a Landing Craft to the Ministry of Police, costing 120 million Japanese Yen (around SBD6.6million), after it was signed by then-foreign affairs minister Jeremiah Manele and the former Japanese Ambassador, HE Miwa Yoshiaki on May 17, 2023 in Honiara.

Japan also allocated SBD6,239,500 for Unexploded Ordnance Disposal in Central and Western Solomon Islands under the Grant Assistance for Grass-Roots Human Security Projects (GGP) programme.

In terms of collaborating with international organisations under the Programme in the fiscal year 2024, UNDP, expiring on March 31, 2026, Japan will enhance the National Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Programme in the Solomon Islands.

Under this programme, Japan also conducted an environmental assessment for the establishment of a coordination office for the disposal of UXOs costing 79,107,000JPY (around SBD4.4million).

Five staff members of the Ministry of Defence of Japan conducted training for the staff of the EOD Team of RSIPF for capacity building and raised awareness among the public from January 23-31, 2024.

From February 3-14, 2025 under the programme, six staff members of Japan’s Ministry of Defence conducted training to the staff of the EOD Team on the knowledge on UXOs produced by the military forces of Japan and Allied nations, and training of public awareness for the staff of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism.

Among the assistance Japan has provided for effective work relating to UXOs;

– 1 Pneumatic shovel (CAT) costing SBD$2,630,000

– 2 all-terrain cart (KAWASAKI) SBD$298,000

– 1 station wagon (Land Cruiser- Toyota) SBD$358,000

– 2 Pickup truck, single cabin (Toyota) costing SBD$746,000

– 2 Boat (Y-SATO MARINE) costing SBD$418,000

– 2 Storage boxes for explosives (Port shipping containers) costing SBD$47,700

– 1 Fire extinguisher (Busfire store) costing SBD$29,800

The list of items that are yet to be provided includes various attachments for pneumatic shovels (CAT) costing SBD$364,000, storage containers for explosive materials (Port shipping containers) SBD$239,000 and storage for explosive materials costing SBD$567,000.

For feedback, contact:[email protected]

BY JOHN HOUANIHAU

War legacies, more broadly, are a critical component of the Solomon Islands and United States bilateral relationship.

US Embassy Chargé d’affaires in Honiara, Dan O’Hara, said this when responding to the question of repatriation of families of Solomon Islanders who have died from World War II UXO, or the victims who have survived.

Speaking in an exclusive interview, Mr O’Hara said that the US has been and remains committed to identifying and remediating UXO here in Solomon Islands and other countries.

“We have to work together with any receiving country. And we call it receiving and sending countries under the Vienna Convention. So here in Solomon Islands, the United States is the sending country, and Solomon Islands is the receiving country,” he explained.

Known as the “treaty on treaties”, the VCLT establishes comprehensive, operational guidelines, rules and procedures for how treaties are drafted, defined, amended and interpreted.

According to O’Hara, the US has to work with receiving countries on war legacy cooperation around the world.

“And here, at a specific request from the Solomon Islands government a little over a decade ago, we’ve been prioritising the UXO.

“In the past decade, it’s an example of true partnership between our countries on this UXO priority, and it’s the foundation of future cooperation on a range of UXO or war legacy issues.

“And that UXO contamination, again, is a big, big, big piece of that. That’s why the United States is the single largest funder of humanitarian UXO clearance work worldwide, globally, across the world. Nobody funds UXO work around the world more than the United States does. We are the largest donor to humanitarian mine action globally, full stop,” O’Hara said.

He emphasised that the US has been working with governments to make progress on their priorities.

For feedback, contact:[email protected]

Lands commissioner criticises draft mining bill for weak landowner protection, ignored recommendations

BY NED GAGAHE

Commissioner of Lands Allan McNeil has strongly criticised the draft Mineral Resources Bill 2025, warning that it fails to address long-standing problems over land registration and risks leaving customary landowners vulnerable.

Speaking before the Bills and Legislation Committee, McNeil expressed disappointment that despite repeated consultations with the Ministry of Mines and legal drafters, none of his recommendations were incorporated into the Bill.

“Instead of strengthening the link between the Land and Titles Act and the mining regime, the Bill has actually removed the requirement for mining companies to register leases with the Registrar of Titles altogether. That is a step backward,” McNeil told the hearing.

McNeil noted that the Bill makes only a reference to registered customary land, which he described as “very rare” in Solomon Islands.

He cited the example of Tanagai, where a perpetual estate is recorded simply as “customary land” without naming the rightful owners.

This, he said, this creates confusion about who should receive lease payments.

He stressed that such limited recognition does little to resolve the more serious issue of ensuring landowners are properly identified and recognised through transparent, government-supervised processes.

McNeil further warned that the draft Bill effectively leaves the responsibility of identifying landowners to mining companies themselves, a process he argued was deeply flawed and potentially unjust.

He questioned whether private companies could ever replicate the transparent and public processes required under the Customary Land Records Act, which include public notices, village consultations, and genealogy-based hearings overseen by government recording officers.

“Leaving it to the mining companies risks undermining fairness and legitimacy. This is something government must oversee from the very start of mining applications,” McNeil said.

McNeil urges the committee to reconsider the omissions in the draft Bill, stressing the importance of integrating customary land recording into the mining process to protect both landowners and investors.

He concluded that without such measures, the Bill risks creating further disputes and confusion over land ownership in mining areas.

For feedback, contact:[email protected]