By David Lepi | January 20, 2026
The recent call by Minister for Tourism, Arts and Culture, Hon. Belden Namah, for an intervention budget for tourism, agriculture, fisheries and forestry should be staging point of the much talked about ‘National Reset' or 'Hard Reset.’
Perhaps the no nonsense Minister Namah may be blunt but what he is saying is actually true. These sectors, once upon a time when the country was at its infancy were called the Primary Industry and of course was the cradle of the young economy.
Today they are potentially the sustainable backbone of the economy, yet they remain trapped in a cycle of rhetoric and lip service. Successive governments acknowledge their importance in principle, but in practice continue to prioritize extractive industries while the renewable and people-centered sectors are left underfunded and under planned.
Namah goes further to say these sectors are inclusive sectors and stresses this point in saying you cannot teach a lad in Tambanum village along the Sepik River the art of carving. He is born with the chisel in hand and on the day he could walk he knows what shape, size and kind of wood to carve a mask, suspension hook or a clan totem of crocodiles and birds. The same could be said of a Sipaka in Tambul, where the country’s food basket is on vegetable farming or teach a _papu_ on Lou Island, beautiful Manus, about fish net.
In this sense inclusivity mean everyone, olgeda _man na meri_ regardless of education or training, who is willing to participate is able to engage in tourism, agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Essentially our people have the traditional knowledge and skills passed on from generations on farming, carving, fishing etc where they can easily take part meaningfully in any of the above sectors.
Notwithstanding, Papua New Guinea has never lacked grand visions or eloquent speeches about its economic future. What it has lacked, repeatedly, is the political courage to translate those visions into sustained, well-funded action.
This contradiction is not new. PNG Vision 2050, the country’s flagship long-term development strategy, clearly states that Papua New Guinea must shift its economic base away from an overreliance on mining and hydrocarbons towards renewable sectors — agriculture, forestry, fisheries and tourism. The Vision, initiated by the country’s founding father Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare, recognizes that although mining dominates exports and revenue today, it does not provide inclusive or sustainable prosperity. By 2050, PNG aims to be among the top 50 countries on the UN Human Development Index, supported by effective service delivery, human capital development, wealth creation and the sustainable use of natural resources.
In other words, the policy intent already exists. What Minister Namah is calling for is the missing link: a properly costed intervention approach that answers the hard question governments often avoid — how much will it really cost to make this work, and what is the cost of doing nothing?
Minister Namah’s proposed intervention budget is not a slogan. It is a detailed financial plan that should capture all direct, indirect and opportunity costs of implementation, from programme design and staffing to infrastructure, monitoring and the economic losses borne by communities when opportunities are missed. It shifts policy debate from vague aspirations to measurable commitments. It envisions government to compare scenarios: investing now versus paying a much higher social and economic price later.
Prime Minister Hon James Marape has himself echoed this logic. When opening the Special Economic Zone Summit in May 2023, he stated plainly that “a sustainable economy is a diversified economy.” He was right. Diversification is not an abstract ideal; it is the effective anchor of long-term stability, resilience and national participation. Special Economic Zones will only succeed if they are connected to productive domestic sectors — farmers, fishers, foresters, tourism operators and SMEs — rather than operating as isolated enclaves.
Tourism, in particular, remains one of PNG’s most underutilised economic enablers. Globally, tourism drives GDP growth, creates employment at scale (especially for women and youth), earns foreign exchange, stimulates SMEs and accelerates infrastructure development. It also delivers broader national benefits: cultural preservation, environmental stewardship, soft diplomacy and international visibility.
Tourism offers something extractive industries cannot — inclusive growth that spreads income directly into communities.
The United Nations Tourism framework and the Sustainable Development Goals reinforce this point. Tourism is recognised as a tool for economic diversification, value-added services, green growth and resilience. Countries like Thailand has linked tourism with agriculture to keep the tourist dollar circulating locally, strengthening rural economies and reducing import dependence.
For Papua New Guinea, the choice should be obvious. Tourism, agriculture, fisheries and forestry are not fringe sectors to be acknowledged in speeches and abandoned in budgets. They are the pillars of a diversified, inclusive and resilient economy — exactly what Vision 2050 envisages and what the Prime Minister himself has publicly championed.
Minister Namah’s call is not just a sectoral plea, but is a challenge to the entire political establishment. Any government must respect these sectors that should show in budget allocations, programme design and long-term planning.
If government is serious about economic diversification, human development and shared prosperity, then the time for chronic rhetoric is over. The intervention approach must begin now, with tourism and renewable sectors placed where they belong: at the very center of Papua New Guinea’s development agenda.
