National Goal 4 of the preamble of Papua New Guinea’s Constitution calls for the wise use of PNG’s resources for the current generation and for future generations.
My central argument is that the wise use of PNG’s natural resources, from its constitutional foundation and apart from the interests of developers, should accommodate the interests of five main entities: the individual, the family, the village, the land, and the state or government. This, it is argued, can best be described as “concentric constitutionalism”, and it is to be differentiated from anthropocentric and ecocentric constitutionalism.
Anthropocentric constitutionalism is the prevailing view in environmental law. One of the main documents that reflects this is the Stockholm Conference of 1972, which frames environmental law as existing to safeguard Homo sapiens. The value of nature derives from its utility to the human being. The PNG Environment Act 2000 is indicative of the current anthropocentric conception of environmental protection.
Ecocentric constitutionalism, on the other hand, suggests that the law should actively protect the environment for its own sake, recognising its inherent value and right to exist and flourish. In an example of this, in March 2017, the New Zealand Parliament passed a law giving legal personhood to the Whanganui River. There are at least six countries that have granted legal personhood to nature: Ecuador, the United States (at the local and tribal level rather than nationally), Bolivia, India, New Zealand and Panama.
There are two sources of motivation for the ideas I am setting out here. The first is The Melanesian Way, a seminal 1980 text in Papua New Guinean indigenous thinking, authored by my father Bernard Narokobi soon after independence. Narokobi contributed to the writing of the PNG Constitution and was one of the country’s first lawyers.
The second source of my views is the National Goals and Directive Principles (NGDP), located in the preamble of the Constitution. Goal 1 is Integral Human Development; Goal 4 is Natural Resources and Environment, requiring sustainable use of resources; and Goal 5 is PNG Ways, promoting the country’s cultural identity.
The concept of concentric constitutionalism that I am proposing helps to understand how one might accommodate the various interests in PNG. It takes its cue from the Constitution, National Goal 1, “Integral Human Development”, Directive Principle 6, which asks for development to take place primarily through the use of Papua New Guinean forms of social and political organisation.
Papua New Guineans have occupied their lands, mountains, islands, seashores and rivers for 50,000 years. It has been an intricate, harmonious co-existence between humans, the physical environment and the flora and fauna. To view man as the primary objective of environmental protection would be wrong. To view nature as the primary objective of environmental protection would be equally wrong.
I argue that the various interests should be viewed as constituting an “ecosystem of biological, social and cultural relations”. The five interests — the individual, the family, the village, the land and the state — share a common centre and are best pictured as concentric rings rather than standing in a linear or hierarchical ordering.
Figure 1: The ecosystem of biological, social and cultural relations
Source: LawAsia conference paper
The individual is at the centre of the various interests that exist. In my view, the exploitation of natural resources in PNG must be directed at the development of the whole person, or integral human development.
Following the individual, the next layer of interest is the family. Directive Principle 5 of National Goal 1 states:
… the family unit to be recognised as the fundamental basis of our society, and for every step to be taken to promote the moral, cultural, economic and social standing of the Melanesian family
The village or community comes next. The Melanesian Way (p. 13) outlines its importance:
A Melanesian village is a vital and dynamic human institution. It is not the shapeless, impersonal, juristic layout of buildings that a modern suburban city is. A village is a cultural unit, an organ of civilisation, technology and enterprise.
The extraction of resources must not only respect the environment but equally respect the villages and communities that occupy the space where these natural resources are located.
Following the village or community is the environment, for which I use the term land, intended in a general sense. Land in PNG is sacred. The Melanesian Way posits that land is not “real estate”, but “real life”. Our memory and spirit are situated in our land. Our land holds the life of our ancestors, and it is where we will be buried.
National Goal 4, “Natural Resources and Environment”, in directive principles 1 and 2, calls for:
(1) wise use to be made of our natural resources and the environment in and on the land or seabed, in the sea, under the land, and in the air, in the interests of our development and in trust for future generations; and
(2) the conservation and replenishment, for the benefit of ourselves and posterity, of the environment and its sacred, scenic and historical qualities.
I believe that the terms of directive principle 2 are wide enough to preserve the environment for its intrinsic “sacred, scenic and historical” value, and are sufficiently strong to resist any development activity that would destroy these qualities. Such a conclusion should only be reached after the interests of the individual, the family and the community are taken into account.
The state is the final layer of interest, occupying the outer circle. It bears the ultimate responsibility of balancing the varying interests through its three main functions: law-making, policy formulation and implementation, and adjudication.
In practical terms, this framework calls for several changes to the way PNG now regulates resource use.
First, the Environment Act 2000 and related laws should be redrafted so that approvals for extractive projects turn not only on impacts to air, water and ecosystems, but also on effects on the individual, the family and the village as distinct interests recognised in the National Goals.
Second, the village should have legal recognition and standing as a political and cultural unit, so that communities can appear in their own right in decisions about resources located on their land.
Third, courts and regulators should treat directive principle 2 of National Goal 4 as a substantive limit on development, capable of refusing consent to activities that would destroy the sacred, scenic or historical qualities of a place, once the interests of the individual, family and community have been considered.
In sum, while there is currently a shift in global thinking away from anthropocentric constitutionalism towards ecocentric constitutionalism, a careful consideration of PNG’s Constitution suggests a different approach. Whilst conferring legal personhood on natural entities enables specificity in environmental protection, the Constitution points to the need for patience and dialogue to accommodate the various levels of interest and ensure the wise use of its natural resources for present and future generations. This includes, where appropriate, preserving them for their sacred and scenic value.
This is an edited version of a paper presented at the LAWASIA Conference held in Port Moresby from 20 to 21 August 2026.
