Autorrealización de la persona

‘LOC business contract’ is the sixth of the seven themes under the category ‘Organisation of LOC business’. A business contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more persons, parties or entities. The three LOCs have business contracts that were entered into between them and their respective logging companies. These business contracts were viewed by the landowners as the medium through which much needed public infrastructures and services could be delivered by the responsible parties as per the business contract. Under the repealed 1979 Forest Policy, the business contracts were such that the logging companies were the ones responsible for the development of public infrastructures (roads and bridges); this made sense, as had the capacity to do so. However, under the current 1991 Forest Policy, many business contracts were such that the logging companies were less directly involved and paid in the form of levies for the development of specific projects agreed under the business contract. For example, the project development levies are often intended for funding specific projects like reforestation and public infrastructure such as roads, bridges and schools. These levies or funds are paid to the LOC (business entity) with the expectation that they were put to their intended purposes.

Hence the significance of a properly developed business contract has the potential of benefiting the landowners and for the three LOCs. Whether they made good business contracts is not known, but the results below will provide some insights into that.

Several themes emerged following the data generation and analysis process, as outlined in Section 4.3. Those that relate to ‘LOC business contract’ were grouped together and their details displayed in Table 4.8. The totals under ‘no. of clan leaders’ column indicate the total number of clan leader who contributed to each theme.

Table 4.8: Themes relating to LOC Business Contract and clan leaders per LOC making reference to them (N=57 Raicoast LOC, 54 Hawain LOC, 54 Amanab

LOC)

Themes relating to LOC business contract LOCs No. of clan leaders

i. The LOC executive signed the business contract but never contributed towards its drafting and never understood all its contents.

Raicoast 44 (77%) Hawain 47 (87%) Amanab 36 (67%) ii. The LOC executives lacked the appropriate

knowledge, skills and experience to negotiate the business contract to their advantage.

Raicoast 52 (91%) Hawain 53 (98%) Amanab 50 (93%) iii. The development projects expected by the

landowners were poorly defined in the business contract.

Raicoast 52 (91%) Hawain 53 (98%) Amanab 48 (89%) iv. The business contract was done in a great

rush.

Raicoast 50 (88%) Hawain 52 (96%) Amanab 47 (87%) v. The landowners never contributed to or had

access to their business contract.

Raicoast 36 (63%) Hawain 42 (78%) Amanab 36 (67%) vi. The rates of log export premiums or the

various levies paid to the LOC by the logging company are probably inadequate to generate sufficient funds for the construction of large- scale development projects.

Raicoast 44 (77%) Hawain 50 (93%) Amanab 48 (89%)

From Table 4.8, and for all three LOCs, all six initial themes are the most frequently commented on, as shown by the high percentages (between 63 to 98%) of participants from the three LOCs who made reference to them. These themes highlight issues relating to the business contract of the three LOCs.

The first theme, ‘The LOC executive signed the business contract but they never contributed towards its preparation and never understood all its contents’, was commented on by between 67 to 87 percent of participants from the three LOCs. The participants doubted that the LOC executive had the capacity to develop or negotiate a business contract that would offer real benefit to them. The role of the LOC executive was mainly just to sign despite not understanding important details.

The second theme, ‘The LOC executive lacked the appropriate business knowledge, skills and experience to negotiate the business contract to their advantage’, was commented on by

between 91 to 98 percent of participants from the three LOCs. This has impacted the outcome of the business contract as reflected by the third theme, ‘The development projects expected by the landowners were poorly defined in the business contract’, that was commented on by between 88 to 96 percent of participants from the three LOCs. The business contract would have had much to offer to the landowners had it been properly done and from the results here relating to the first, second and third themes, the LOC executives of all the LOCs performed badly in this area.

The fourth theme, ‘The business contract was done in a great rush’, was commented on by between 87 to 96 percent of participants from the three LOCs. This activity was performed immediately after the formation of the LOC and the participants doubted whether the LOC executive had had time to participate effectively in the development of the business contract or to obtain outside assistance.

The fifth theme, ‘The landowners never contributed to or had access to the business contract’

was commented on by between 63 to 78 percent of participants from the three LOCs. The participants expressed that the LOC executive did not never attended to the every responsibilities of their LOCs following their appointment and never updated the landowners on developments relating to the business contract and, most importantly, how it will benefit them.

The sixth theme, ‘The rates of log export premium or the various levies paid to the LOC by the logging company are probably inadequate to generate sufficient funds for the construction of large-scale development projects’ was commented on by between 77 to 93 percent of participants from the three LOCs. In general, the rate for the log export premium varies from PGK1610 to as high as PGK30.00 per cubic metre of exported logs while the rates for the various levies (education, infrastructure and reforestation) vary from PGK1.00 to as high as PGK10.00 per cubic metre, depending on the export log price. For example, for a log price of between PGK50-100 per cubic metre, the logging company is expected to pay PGK2 per cubic metre to the LOC. With the higher log prices, say from PGK111-150, a higher rate (but not more than PGK10.00) is paid by the logging company to the LOC, say at a rate of PGK5.00 per cubic metre. In other words, the rate of the various levies (PGKina per cubic metre) increases with the price of the export logs. As one staff of Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS) puts it, “the above rates would have generated at least PGK20,000.00 to up to PGK100,000.00 per year for each of the LOCs, including the Amanab LOC”. While these amounts may appear to be a lot of

16 _{Papua New Guinea currency in kina and toea.}

money, but with no proper plans of how the money is going to be used and considering the fact that many of the public facilities expected by the landowners are capital intensive, such amounts of money are in fact inadequate.