The article below has been written by Adi Elisapeci Samanunu who originates from Vuna, Taveuni in Fiji and who has taken a keen interest in finding out the reason why these two different races i.e Fijians & Indians are always at logger heads when it comes to Land Issues in Fiji. Her interest to research this area grew even more when she saw how the needs of Indigenous Fijians in Fiji appears to be watered down at several levels by the current regime. It appears the final straw has been the so-called blurring of Fijian's Identity now that a memo has been sent out to all Government Ministries in Fiji stipulating the new change. This article has been written to enable those to have a glimpse as to the complications that exists between the two dominant races in Fiji namely, Fijians, the Indigenous or First Nation People of Fiji and the Foreign locals of Indian Diaspora brought in well after the Deed of Cession to work the sugar cane farms.
By Domo Lali Ni Vanua
Read more;
---------------------------------
Land tenure system in Fiji is an institution in itself which is set apart by the distinctiveness of Fijians and their culture as well as its history. Period being examined are from 1945 through to 1970 and thereafter, and brief snippets of reforms introduced by British rule in the form of registration and formalisation of tenure which saw milestone development two main public agencies, Native Land Commission and Native Land Trust Board. These were instrumental in capturing vital information regarding land boundaries, tribal ownership, Crown, freehold private property and land leases. Both the Spate report (1959) and Burns report (1960) became pivotal in attempts towards land reforms. What makes this topic and the process of land reform tenure an interesting study are the dynamics of interplay and divisions between the two main ethnic groups, Fijians, as customary landowners and the Indian diaspora who make up the bulk of sugar cane farming on lease lands. The purpose of this essay is to explore attempts made to reform land tenure in Fiji and examine how successful these efforts have been and identify the main areas of obstacles. Throughout the essay I will focus more on customary native lands and less on freehold private property and Crown lands. Through this process of comparing the attempt to reforms made and their success or lack of, I will also examine some aspects of both Fijians and Indians part that impacts agricultural/subsistence land tenure. I hope to shed more light on several questions that emerge. Such questions include; why is it that within the sugar industry, an aspect of Fiji’s economy that sees Indian cane farmers or Girimit, products of Indentured labour, not only tilling the land but using their economic clout and contacts to lobby against Fijian land ownership and chiefly system, alleging Chiefs are caught up in rent seeking behaviour due to their close proximity to land valuations and lease rent setting. Furthermore, access, distribution and utilization of rights to land are focal points as they reflect an embedded line of actions with defined patterns and pose several obstacles, one of which, due to the different interpretation placed on property and ownership by Fijians as pitted against capitalistic or western model.
Fiji comprises of 322 islands over approximately 18,333 square kilometres, Viti Levu, the largest and Vanua Levu as second. Experts noted that approximately 83% of Fiji’s total land are described as ‘traditional, customary, or native’ tenure land systems. Private freehold land which makes up 8% can be sold in open market subject to land legislation in place and 9% Crown land which is made up of forested inlands and mangrove flats and which can only be leased. Private property as evidenced by Europeans who acquired predominantly high quality freehold land was not a practice common to that of Fijian customary land ownership. It is obvious that the two perspectives of land ownership one of a capitalistic model and the other customary had two separate meanings. Native or Customary land are subdivided into two categories, Lease land and Reserve land. Lease lands means any person of racial origin is entitled to lease such land however, it differs for Reserve land as this is only accessible by Fijians. Bulk of these lease lands are leased to non-Fijians some for 30 years and are renewable, a practice that differs from Crown lease which allows a total number of 99 years lease. These leases are managed by Native Land Trust Board on behalf of the land-owning mataqali.
To understand land tenure system in Fiji and land reforms implemented to date, it is important to grasp the values and meaning of land to Indigenous Fijians who belong to the traditional Fijian village life and land, cited here is an excerpt from Ward (1987),[1]
“ The Fijian village is symbol of Fijian society and polity, a settlement unit,
and a focus of rural economic activity. ….Rural life for most native Fijians
still revolves around their village and depends in large measure on their land.”
Land is central and forms an integral part within a defined communal social structure in the Fijian society. Through oral tradition and passed down, these information forms the basis of tribal, customary land ownership which are formally recognised, recorded under Native Lands Act established and kept in Native Lands Commission, a reform executed under British rule. This is also embedded in the Fiji’s Constitution. It affirms the four levels or blocks that makes up the Fijian social hierachical structure, ‘Vanua’ at the apex, often consisting of several villages, all coming under one chief, followed by Yavusa, Mataqali and Tokatoka.[2] The bottom of this block is called kovukovu which sits under the mataqali land and given to woman as dowry and is carried down to her descendants which then gets reverted to the mataqali when they die. At the core of these social units are families and their role within the Fijian social structure connecting them to their lands which can be identified by their status when one consults the register of births and deaths or ‘Vola ni Kawa’ held at Native Land Commission. Information of birth and death are obtained from Registry-General which are frequently updated by Provincial office which neither comes under the Commission or Registry-General as it is part of the Fijian Administration.
Land reforms are vital and becomes the responsibilities of the chief who plays a significant leadership and decision making role on all relevant matters pertaining to land. These are often carried out through consultations within this social strata, using a top down and bottom up approach at all levels of consultation when dealing with land tenure or any reform issues. Unlike Crown and private freehold land, native land is communally owned within each Vanua with a leading landowning unit or mataqali under the leadership of a properly installed chief and instrumental in any negotiations on land reforms. Failure to involve the chiefly mataqali, or land owning unit, can create much dispute, unrest and conflict. This is a tight arrangement as the Commission as part of Government looks after land ownership and any dispute, whilst Native Lands Trust Board is an independent statutory body administering native land on behalf of the land owners. As noted by Nayacakalou (1971),[3]
“The law requires that native lands be held ‘according to native
custom as evidenced by usage and tradition’….”
Land reforms formulated after 1945 to 1970, can be summed up as what Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna, a chief and a lawyer, under the guidance of British colonial administration had early initiated and set in motion with the Native Land Trust Ordinance (NLTO). Ratu Sukuna paid particular attention to finer details when codifying land laws to protect Fijian interests from unruly elements of settler societies who did not share Fijians’ communal values to land. These differences became early symptoms of problems that was to come and which Sir Arthur Gordon, Fiji’s first Governor had earlier flagged, and later articulated in House of Lords by Lord Stanmore,[4]
“…officials concerned…., have taken for the last 36 years
a wrong view of the Treaty of Cession…….the noble Earl [Im Thurn]…will
adopt the new-fangled theory that natives of Fiji have no right in the
land they hold, except such as the indulgence of the Crown may choose to give.”
Settler society right up to today still struggle to accept these views and find it difficult to agree with these land reforms predicting that these policies, which helped codified a quasi-traditional set-up will pose challenges to future changes impacting on social, political or economic. One of the difficult tasks being faced now are the differences in views by settler society and the Fijian perspective to land tenure system. A case in point shared by those opposing the Fijian view, that the alienation of customary land from the market as well as the ongoing disputes between lease agreements, impacts greatly on land valuations and affects the political process. Experts monitoring developments and land reforms in Fiji noted these differences in outlook has created much misunderstanding and distrust.
In Fiji as generally defined, land policies and land laws points to two main objectives, to protect the rights of customary landowners and make land accessible for economic development. The case being that both these two as noted above, often are found to be in conflict with each other. As noted during Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara’s term as Prime Minister, the Government of Fiji have put in place mechanisms for making land accessible for economic development while at the same time protecting the rights of customary landowners. Fijians are no different from its island neighbours as they share a commonality, that majority of land is customary-owned. The challenges are, how best can these sensitive issues be approached and not stir up conflicts within as the case in Fiji?
Fijians have experienced great changes to the ways land is allocated and controlled. Land boundaries and determination of native land ownership codified in the Native Lands Act requires the holding of native land by native Fijians. Changes are often governed by both customs or government law. As early detected by Colonial administration who saw the need to protect Fijians from loss of their land which they felt may lead to social disruptions if such situation occurred. Sir Arthur Gordon, who had set up the Native Land Commission with its specific task to collate and record information pertinent to land ownership by each Fijian tribes, a set up that has been heavily critiqued by Indian diaspora today as evident by various articles authored by several academics of Fiji Indian descent. The Commission had ensured that each Fijian tribes were able to give an oral account by a nominated spokesperson of circumstances which led their tribe’s occupation on the land they claimed and which is a current practice. Commission sittings are lengthy where it offers the platform to hear and capture and record tribal claims to their lands. Validation of land ownership by tribes on land they have occupied till now are all named and can be traced on aerial photographs, where evidence of pre-occupied land now mainly covered by bushes can easily be identified. These sites are well recorded and documented on survey maps of the Native Land Commission and the oral traditions account of Fijians claim can be checked and validated. Furthermore, a reform that was completed in 1967 a task assigned to the Native Reserves Commission as noted by Nayacakalou (1971),[5]
“Its job was to earmark a proportion of total holdings of a given unit…
The rest is then available for leasing. This work arose largely in
response to the needs of Indian community for leasing land from Fijian owners.’
Evidently it has been observed that critics who either are not fully conversant with these details or find them as good grounds to frame their arguments to deconstruct Fijian social structure using economic progress as reasons for their proposals. In their effort to push for reforms they fail to take into considerations that Fijians are Indigenous in their land and the intricate details of how they model and conduct their lives, beliefs and culture are deeply imbedded and centred around their land and environment. Sadly, when these opposing views are made public, opportunist capitalise on them using their influence to push these issues into the making of policies at Government level, which ultimately inflame issues around land reforms and cause distrust between the Fijian society and Indians.
Land is a sensitive issue to the Ai Taukei as there exists an inter-connectedness and attachment to land which forms an integral part of their being. This view is not shared with Indians and those that favour an economic model of land ownership, thus further deepening the social and racial divisions within the two major ethnic groups in Fiji. The fact that Fijians are landowner and Indians as tenant does not sit well with Indians and which has been the core of Fiji’s land problem and heavily politicized. Observers questioned, whether this would have been one of those reasons that caused Sitiveni Rabuka to lead a group of military men and execute the 1987 coup-de-tat in Fiji? Some even suggested Rabuka’s coup may have been triggered and linked to elements contained in both the Spate (1959) and Burns report (1960) which revealed factors regarding Fiji’s slow growth and development citing land problems and rapid population growth as two root causes, suggesting a rational structural change to Fiji’s economy. To get an inkling of these Spate and Burn reports, quoted are comments from Taylor (1987),[6]
“ The proposals were straightforward; free-up access to land;
promote greater efficiency on Fijian communal land; encourage
independent farmers; expand the range of export crops; encourage
beef and dairy production; improve pastures and expand
fertilizer usage…Expanded forestry, fishing and also mining….”
Whilst there are constraints to reforms on land tenure in Fiji, it has to a large degree shaped Fijian settlement patterns, subsistence farming, later, cash cropping and agriculture systems, tourism, mining ultimately forming an important component of socio-economic and political structure. Two types of Native lease agreements exists which are geared towards the sugar industry and other like tourism development land sites for large hotels or other commercially driven agricultural development which is governed by two pieces of legislation namely, 1970 NLTA which governs non-agricultural leases and the 1976 ALTA which caters for agricultural leases. The introduction of 1966 Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (ALTO) had put in motion the differentiation between agriculture and non-agriculture leases. This reforms again met with strong criticism by the Indian camps as the differences in lease agreements became a political discussion as previous to the passing of ALTO all native lease agreements had been governed under the 1940 Native Land Trust Ordinance (NLTO).
As can be deduced, the dynamics surrounding debates on reforms on land tenure and conflict arising out of these debates affects those in politics and also at the ground level. The two distinct arguments of tenure system based on traditional or native system and the economic model of property, access, acquisition and ownership as defined in western concept and as evident in the Spate and Burns report are indeed in conflict with Fijians Customary ownership. Politicians from Indian dominated Party and critics have been quick to blame that elite Fijian Chiefs hold strong influence over Fijian society through their management of land-tenure system thus resulting in economic and political dominance. This argument are founded on the ongoing political debate between Indian elites and their supporters who are bent on viewing the Fijian social system as being a problem and cites Fijian chiefs as instrumental to these problems. In essence, Fijian chiefs have the important role to exert their influence over the productive resources of Fijian economy which does not necessarily mean they are doing this for self gain as it is done in the interest of those Fijians from within their provinces or Tikina and/or Vanua they represent.
Critics goes further to fault chiefs claiming, these chiefs have gained control over use of native lands as well as setting lease rents and its distribution. These information are baseless as all matters pertaining to setting of land leases and its control are managed under Native Land Trust Board, a government agencies that are assigned these tasks rather than being done by these chiefs themselves. Like any capitalistic or western model board which has a chair, who oversees and makes executive and collective decisions over the affairs of its board, so too are the affairs of Fijians and their land with all its respective chiefs doing likewise. It is therefore calculable to think otherwise, as the chiefly system in Fiji has played a vital role in minimising the impact of disestablishing contradictions embedded in much of these processes, providing political stability and harmony in Fiji’s governance right up to 2006 coup.
Fiji’s main issues of obstacles to reform land tenure are varied as can be extrapolated from the several issues already highlighted. The World Bank had cited Fiji to be one prone to adverse weather conditions during cyclone months. To quote from a recent report released by WB,[7]
“.Fiji Islands are characterized by physical, demographic and socio-economic
conditions and pressures that exacerbate vulnerability and the risks posed by natural and human-induced hazards.”
The lack of knowhow and skilled persons in Fiji to cater for its growing needs adds to this litany of problems. The deep ethnic divide between Fijians and Indians does not help as it only escalates Fiji’s current problems as can be seen in the recent coup of 2006. Some experts claim, by removing native land from the market will ultimately make the construction of “fair” or “market” values of land and the rents in lease agreements problematic. Critics argues and claims, leases and land tenure system within the sugar cane farming industry have been in part, maintained through excess earnings in the sugar industry made possible by subsidy payments from the European Union.
The debate regarding the differences between lease agreements and the politics around the enactment of ALTO[8] by parliament has been a key area argued by the Indian camps. These groups argue that not only the rent setting for sugar leases which are governed by agricultural leases as formulated by NLTA are done indifferent ways although intertwined with that of non-agricultural leases which requires a rental income to secure these leases. Ultimately, both these as identified by experts have no fixed value and which leads to them looking to the position of native land from an economic model thus questioning the use of its high proportion of land mass of 87% and failing to consider the plight of Fijians who have a very different perspective to their land tenure. It is important that those evaluating Fiji’s economy and land tenure take into considerations that Fijians through the Native Land Trust Board review of 1969 – 1974 further examined aspects of land tenure both agricultural and non agricultural under ALTA and evaluated land and given valuation as set by a committee of valuers who sit at the request of the Minister of Lands every five year period. Whilst customary or native land are being alienated from the market, some experts claim that its valuation can be calculated in direct comparison to that of private freehold land. With the current fluid state Fiji is in post 2006 coup, one can only assert that the relationships between politics and land and the conflicts emanating from these have indeed pushed Fiji to the brink of economic collapse. As echoed by experts that certain politicians and/or political parties have politicized land issues in Fiji to meet their agendas and ultimately created havoc instead of good. This has impacted on the impasse Fiji is at currently and it has been reported that this current illegal regime are bent towards changing state policies on land and changing the formal legislation, rules and regulations pertaining to land tenure. Will these coup-led land reforms be catalyst for more conflict for Fiji in the future?
In conclusion, the dynamics of land related politics between the two major ethnic groups has caused conflicts which has escalated to Fiji’s current coup culture. Attempts over the years made to reform land tenure in Fiji have been slow and gradual. The two main distinct arguments of tenure system as defined in Customary law based on Indigenous value or ownership and the economic or capitalistic model of property, access and ownership are evidently in conflict with each other. As can be seen in the sugar agricultural leases has created much ongoing political debate which ultimately is causing friction between the two ethnic groups, Fijians and Indians. Expert proposing for a rational structure change to Fiji’s economy, pointed towards land problems and rapid population as main causes to Fiji’s slow growth and development but fail to consider that there exists two different perspectives of how land tenure is viewed and valued in Fiji.
Bibliography
ü France, P. , 1969 The Charter of the Land. Custom and Colonisation in Fiji. Oxford University Press (1969).
ü Nayacakalou, R. N., 1971. Fiji: Manipulating the System. In Crocombe, R (Eds.), Land Tenure in the Pacific. (p.p.206-225). Melbourne: Oxford University Press, Melbourne
ü Crocombe, R., The South Pacific. An Introduction. Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific(5ed. 1989). Chapter 9, p.p. 105 – 118).
ü Overton, J., Land and differentiation in Rural Fiji. The Australian National University National Centre for Development Studies. Pacific Research Monograph no.19. (1989).
ü Overton, J. (ed.),1988. Rural Fiji. University of the South Pacific, Suvab
ü Ravuvu, A., 1988. Development or Dependence: The Pattern of Change in a Fijian Village. Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific, Suva.
ü Ravuvu, A., 1987. The Fijian Ethos. Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific, Suva.
ü Scarr, D., 1984. Fiji: A short history. George Allen & Unwin, Sydney
ü Spate, O.H.K., 1959. The Fijian People: Economic Problems & Prospects. A report for the Legislative Council of Fiji, Council Paper No. 13 of 1959. Government Press, Suva .
ü Sutherland, W., 1992. Beyond the Politics of Race: An alternative history of Fiji to 1992. Political & Social Change Monograph 15. Department of Political & Social Change, Australian National University, Canberra.
ü Tuisawau, Rt.M., 1992. The Fiji Times. 21 July 1992: 3.
ü World Bank. Expanding the Measure of Wealth. Indicators of Environmentally Sustainable Development.. 1997.
ü Ward, R.G., Native Fijian Villages: A Questionable Future? In Future Imperfect? Edited by Taylor, Mi., (Allen & Unwin, 1987), chap.3. p.33.
Internet Sources
Native Land Trust Board, "Native Land Trust Board Website," http://www.nltb.com.fj. Accessed 20 May 2010 at 9pm.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/PACIFICISLANDSEXTN/0,,contentMDK:22479543~menuPK:441893~pagePK:2865066~piPK:2865079~theSitePK:441883,00.html
[1] Ward, R.G., Native Fijian Villages: A Questionable Future, in Future Imperfect? Edited by Taylor, M., ( Allen & Unwin, 1987), chap.3, p.33.
[2] France, P., The Charter of the Land. Custom and Colonisation in Fiji. (Oxford University Press, 1969) Chap.9. p.166. (refer Appendix 1)
[3] Nayacakalou, R, Fiji. Manipulating the System, in Land Tenure in the Pacific. Edited by Corcombe, R.,( Oxford University Press, 1971).Chap.11 p.207.
[4] France, P., The Charter of the Land. Custom and Colonisation in Fiji. (Oxford University Press, 1969) Chap.9. p.166. (refer Appendix 1), p.
[5] Nayacakalou, R. R., Fiji. Manipulating the System, in Land Tenure in the Pacific, edited by Crocombe. (Oxford University Press, 1971), chap. 11 p.p.208 – 209.
[6] Taylor, M., Fiji Future Imperfect. (Allen & Unwin, 1987), chap. 1 p.3.
[7] World Bank Resource. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPACIFICISLANDS/Resources/FIJI_ASSESSMENT.pdf
[8] Native Land Trust Board
Fiji comprises of 322 islands over approximately 18,333 square kilometres, Viti Levu, the largest and Vanua Levu as second. Experts noted that approximately 83% of Fiji’s total land are described as ‘traditional, customary, or native’ tenure land systems. Private freehold land which makes up 8% can be sold in open market subject to land legislation in place and 9% Crown land which is made up of forested inlands and mangrove flats and which can only be leased. Private property as evidenced by Europeans who acquired predominantly high quality freehold land was not a practice common to that of Fijian customary land ownership. It is obvious that the two perspectives of land ownership one of a capitalistic model and the other customary had two separate meanings. Native or Customary land are subdivided into two categories, Lease land and Reserve land. Lease lands means any person of racial origin is entitled to lease such land however, it differs for Reserve land as this is only accessible by Fijians. Bulk of these lease lands are leased to non-Fijians some for 30 years and are renewable, a practice that differs from Crown lease which allows a total number of 99 years lease. These leases are managed by Native Land Trust Board on behalf of the land-owning mataqali.
To understand land tenure system in Fiji and land reforms implemented to date, it is important to grasp the values and meaning of land to Indigenous Fijians who belong to the traditional Fijian village life and land, cited here is an excerpt from Ward (1987),[1]
“ The Fijian village is symbol of Fijian society and polity, a settlement unit,
and a focus of rural economic activity. ….Rural life for most native Fijians
still revolves around their village and depends in large measure on their land.”
Land is central and forms an integral part within a defined communal social structure in the Fijian society. Through oral tradition and passed down, these information forms the basis of tribal, customary land ownership which are formally recognised, recorded under Native Lands Act established and kept in Native Lands Commission, a reform executed under British rule. This is also embedded in the Fiji’s Constitution. It affirms the four levels or blocks that makes up the Fijian social hierachical structure, ‘Vanua’ at the apex, often consisting of several villages, all coming under one chief, followed by Yavusa, Mataqali and Tokatoka.[2] The bottom of this block is called kovukovu which sits under the mataqali land and given to woman as dowry and is carried down to her descendants which then gets reverted to the mataqali when they die. At the core of these social units are families and their role within the Fijian social structure connecting them to their lands which can be identified by their status when one consults the register of births and deaths or ‘Vola ni Kawa’ held at Native Land Commission. Information of birth and death are obtained from Registry-General which are frequently updated by Provincial office which neither comes under the Commission or Registry-General as it is part of the Fijian Administration.
Land reforms are vital and becomes the responsibilities of the chief who plays a significant leadership and decision making role on all relevant matters pertaining to land. These are often carried out through consultations within this social strata, using a top down and bottom up approach at all levels of consultation when dealing with land tenure or any reform issues. Unlike Crown and private freehold land, native land is communally owned within each Vanua with a leading landowning unit or mataqali under the leadership of a properly installed chief and instrumental in any negotiations on land reforms. Failure to involve the chiefly mataqali, or land owning unit, can create much dispute, unrest and conflict. This is a tight arrangement as the Commission as part of Government looks after land ownership and any dispute, whilst Native Lands Trust Board is an independent statutory body administering native land on behalf of the land owners. As noted by Nayacakalou (1971),[3]
“The law requires that native lands be held ‘according to native
custom as evidenced by usage and tradition’….”
Land reforms formulated after 1945 to 1970, can be summed up as what Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna, a chief and a lawyer, under the guidance of British colonial administration had early initiated and set in motion with the Native Land Trust Ordinance (NLTO). Ratu Sukuna paid particular attention to finer details when codifying land laws to protect Fijian interests from unruly elements of settler societies who did not share Fijians’ communal values to land. These differences became early symptoms of problems that was to come and which Sir Arthur Gordon, Fiji’s first Governor had earlier flagged, and later articulated in House of Lords by Lord Stanmore,[4]
“…officials concerned…., have taken for the last 36 years
a wrong view of the Treaty of Cession…….the noble Earl [Im Thurn]…will
adopt the new-fangled theory that natives of Fiji have no right in the
land they hold, except such as the indulgence of the Crown may choose to give.”
Settler society right up to today still struggle to accept these views and find it difficult to agree with these land reforms predicting that these policies, which helped codified a quasi-traditional set-up will pose challenges to future changes impacting on social, political or economic. One of the difficult tasks being faced now are the differences in views by settler society and the Fijian perspective to land tenure system. A case in point shared by those opposing the Fijian view, that the alienation of customary land from the market as well as the ongoing disputes between lease agreements, impacts greatly on land valuations and affects the political process. Experts monitoring developments and land reforms in Fiji noted these differences in outlook has created much misunderstanding and distrust.
In Fiji as generally defined, land policies and land laws points to two main objectives, to protect the rights of customary landowners and make land accessible for economic development. The case being that both these two as noted above, often are found to be in conflict with each other. As noted during Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara’s term as Prime Minister, the Government of Fiji have put in place mechanisms for making land accessible for economic development while at the same time protecting the rights of customary landowners. Fijians are no different from its island neighbours as they share a commonality, that majority of land is customary-owned. The challenges are, how best can these sensitive issues be approached and not stir up conflicts within as the case in Fiji?
Fijians have experienced great changes to the ways land is allocated and controlled. Land boundaries and determination of native land ownership codified in the Native Lands Act requires the holding of native land by native Fijians. Changes are often governed by both customs or government law. As early detected by Colonial administration who saw the need to protect Fijians from loss of their land which they felt may lead to social disruptions if such situation occurred. Sir Arthur Gordon, who had set up the Native Land Commission with its specific task to collate and record information pertinent to land ownership by each Fijian tribes, a set up that has been heavily critiqued by Indian diaspora today as evident by various articles authored by several academics of Fiji Indian descent. The Commission had ensured that each Fijian tribes were able to give an oral account by a nominated spokesperson of circumstances which led their tribe’s occupation on the land they claimed and which is a current practice. Commission sittings are lengthy where it offers the platform to hear and capture and record tribal claims to their lands. Validation of land ownership by tribes on land they have occupied till now are all named and can be traced on aerial photographs, where evidence of pre-occupied land now mainly covered by bushes can easily be identified. These sites are well recorded and documented on survey maps of the Native Land Commission and the oral traditions account of Fijians claim can be checked and validated. Furthermore, a reform that was completed in 1967 a task assigned to the Native Reserves Commission as noted by Nayacakalou (1971),[5]
“Its job was to earmark a proportion of total holdings of a given unit…
The rest is then available for leasing. This work arose largely in
response to the needs of Indian community for leasing land from Fijian owners.’
Evidently it has been observed that critics who either are not fully conversant with these details or find them as good grounds to frame their arguments to deconstruct Fijian social structure using economic progress as reasons for their proposals. In their effort to push for reforms they fail to take into considerations that Fijians are Indigenous in their land and the intricate details of how they model and conduct their lives, beliefs and culture are deeply imbedded and centred around their land and environment. Sadly, when these opposing views are made public, opportunist capitalise on them using their influence to push these issues into the making of policies at Government level, which ultimately inflame issues around land reforms and cause distrust between the Fijian society and Indians.
Land is a sensitive issue to the Ai Taukei as there exists an inter-connectedness and attachment to land which forms an integral part of their being. This view is not shared with Indians and those that favour an economic model of land ownership, thus further deepening the social and racial divisions within the two major ethnic groups in Fiji. The fact that Fijians are landowner and Indians as tenant does not sit well with Indians and which has been the core of Fiji’s land problem and heavily politicized. Observers questioned, whether this would have been one of those reasons that caused Sitiveni Rabuka to lead a group of military men and execute the 1987 coup-de-tat in Fiji? Some even suggested Rabuka’s coup may have been triggered and linked to elements contained in both the Spate (1959) and Burns report (1960) which revealed factors regarding Fiji’s slow growth and development citing land problems and rapid population growth as two root causes, suggesting a rational structural change to Fiji’s economy. To get an inkling of these Spate and Burn reports, quoted are comments from Taylor (1987),[6]
“ The proposals were straightforward; free-up access to land;
promote greater efficiency on Fijian communal land; encourage
independent farmers; expand the range of export crops; encourage
beef and dairy production; improve pastures and expand
fertilizer usage…Expanded forestry, fishing and also mining….”
Whilst there are constraints to reforms on land tenure in Fiji, it has to a large degree shaped Fijian settlement patterns, subsistence farming, later, cash cropping and agriculture systems, tourism, mining ultimately forming an important component of socio-economic and political structure. Two types of Native lease agreements exists which are geared towards the sugar industry and other like tourism development land sites for large hotels or other commercially driven agricultural development which is governed by two pieces of legislation namely, 1970 NLTA which governs non-agricultural leases and the 1976 ALTA which caters for agricultural leases. The introduction of 1966 Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (ALTO) had put in motion the differentiation between agriculture and non-agriculture leases. This reforms again met with strong criticism by the Indian camps as the differences in lease agreements became a political discussion as previous to the passing of ALTO all native lease agreements had been governed under the 1940 Native Land Trust Ordinance (NLTO).
As can be deduced, the dynamics surrounding debates on reforms on land tenure and conflict arising out of these debates affects those in politics and also at the ground level. The two distinct arguments of tenure system based on traditional or native system and the economic model of property, access, acquisition and ownership as defined in western concept and as evident in the Spate and Burns report are indeed in conflict with Fijians Customary ownership. Politicians from Indian dominated Party and critics have been quick to blame that elite Fijian Chiefs hold strong influence over Fijian society through their management of land-tenure system thus resulting in economic and political dominance. This argument are founded on the ongoing political debate between Indian elites and their supporters who are bent on viewing the Fijian social system as being a problem and cites Fijian chiefs as instrumental to these problems. In essence, Fijian chiefs have the important role to exert their influence over the productive resources of Fijian economy which does not necessarily mean they are doing this for self gain as it is done in the interest of those Fijians from within their provinces or Tikina and/or Vanua they represent.
Critics goes further to fault chiefs claiming, these chiefs have gained control over use of native lands as well as setting lease rents and its distribution. These information are baseless as all matters pertaining to setting of land leases and its control are managed under Native Land Trust Board, a government agencies that are assigned these tasks rather than being done by these chiefs themselves. Like any capitalistic or western model board which has a chair, who oversees and makes executive and collective decisions over the affairs of its board, so too are the affairs of Fijians and their land with all its respective chiefs doing likewise. It is therefore calculable to think otherwise, as the chiefly system in Fiji has played a vital role in minimising the impact of disestablishing contradictions embedded in much of these processes, providing political stability and harmony in Fiji’s governance right up to 2006 coup.
Fiji’s main issues of obstacles to reform land tenure are varied as can be extrapolated from the several issues already highlighted. The World Bank had cited Fiji to be one prone to adverse weather conditions during cyclone months. To quote from a recent report released by WB,[7]
“.Fiji Islands are characterized by physical, demographic and socio-economic
conditions and pressures that exacerbate vulnerability and the risks posed by natural and human-induced hazards.”
The lack of knowhow and skilled persons in Fiji to cater for its growing needs adds to this litany of problems. The deep ethnic divide between Fijians and Indians does not help as it only escalates Fiji’s current problems as can be seen in the recent coup of 2006. Some experts claim, by removing native land from the market will ultimately make the construction of “fair” or “market” values of land and the rents in lease agreements problematic. Critics argues and claims, leases and land tenure system within the sugar cane farming industry have been in part, maintained through excess earnings in the sugar industry made possible by subsidy payments from the European Union.
The debate regarding the differences between lease agreements and the politics around the enactment of ALTO[8] by parliament has been a key area argued by the Indian camps. These groups argue that not only the rent setting for sugar leases which are governed by agricultural leases as formulated by NLTA are done indifferent ways although intertwined with that of non-agricultural leases which requires a rental income to secure these leases. Ultimately, both these as identified by experts have no fixed value and which leads to them looking to the position of native land from an economic model thus questioning the use of its high proportion of land mass of 87% and failing to consider the plight of Fijians who have a very different perspective to their land tenure. It is important that those evaluating Fiji’s economy and land tenure take into considerations that Fijians through the Native Land Trust Board review of 1969 – 1974 further examined aspects of land tenure both agricultural and non agricultural under ALTA and evaluated land and given valuation as set by a committee of valuers who sit at the request of the Minister of Lands every five year period. Whilst customary or native land are being alienated from the market, some experts claim that its valuation can be calculated in direct comparison to that of private freehold land. With the current fluid state Fiji is in post 2006 coup, one can only assert that the relationships between politics and land and the conflicts emanating from these have indeed pushed Fiji to the brink of economic collapse. As echoed by experts that certain politicians and/or political parties have politicized land issues in Fiji to meet their agendas and ultimately created havoc instead of good. This has impacted on the impasse Fiji is at currently and it has been reported that this current illegal regime are bent towards changing state policies on land and changing the formal legislation, rules and regulations pertaining to land tenure. Will these coup-led land reforms be catalyst for more conflict for Fiji in the future?
In conclusion, the dynamics of land related politics between the two major ethnic groups has caused conflicts which has escalated to Fiji’s current coup culture. Attempts over the years made to reform land tenure in Fiji have been slow and gradual. The two main distinct arguments of tenure system as defined in Customary law based on Indigenous value or ownership and the economic or capitalistic model of property, access and ownership are evidently in conflict with each other. As can be seen in the sugar agricultural leases has created much ongoing political debate which ultimately is causing friction between the two ethnic groups, Fijians and Indians. Expert proposing for a rational structure change to Fiji’s economy, pointed towards land problems and rapid population as main causes to Fiji’s slow growth and development but fail to consider that there exists two different perspectives of how land tenure is viewed and valued in Fiji.
Bibliography
ü France, P. , 1969 The Charter of the Land. Custom and Colonisation in Fiji. Oxford University Press (1969).
ü Nayacakalou, R. N., 1971. Fiji: Manipulating the System. In Crocombe, R (Eds.), Land Tenure in the Pacific. (p.p.206-225). Melbourne: Oxford University Press, Melbourne
ü Crocombe, R., The South Pacific. An Introduction. Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific(5ed. 1989). Chapter 9, p.p. 105 – 118).
ü Overton, J., Land and differentiation in Rural Fiji. The Australian National University National Centre for Development Studies. Pacific Research Monograph no.19. (1989).
ü Overton, J. (ed.),1988. Rural Fiji. University of the South Pacific, Suvab
ü Ravuvu, A., 1988. Development or Dependence: The Pattern of Change in a Fijian Village. Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific, Suva.
ü Ravuvu, A., 1987. The Fijian Ethos. Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific, Suva.
ü Scarr, D., 1984. Fiji: A short history. George Allen & Unwin, Sydney
ü Spate, O.H.K., 1959. The Fijian People: Economic Problems & Prospects. A report for the Legislative Council of Fiji, Council Paper No. 13 of 1959. Government Press, Suva .
ü Sutherland, W., 1992. Beyond the Politics of Race: An alternative history of Fiji to 1992. Political & Social Change Monograph 15. Department of Political & Social Change, Australian National University, Canberra.
ü Tuisawau, Rt.M., 1992. The Fiji Times. 21 July 1992: 3.
ü World Bank. Expanding the Measure of Wealth. Indicators of Environmentally Sustainable Development.. 1997.
ü Ward, R.G., Native Fijian Villages: A Questionable Future? In Future Imperfect? Edited by Taylor, Mi., (Allen & Unwin, 1987), chap.3. p.33.
Internet Sources
Native Land Trust Board, "Native Land Trust Board Website," http://www.nltb.com.fj. Accessed 20 May 2010 at 9pm.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/PACIFICISLANDSEXTN/0,,contentMDK:22479543~menuPK:441893~pagePK:2865066~piPK:2865079~theSitePK:441883,00.html
[1] Ward, R.G., Native Fijian Villages: A Questionable Future, in Future Imperfect? Edited by Taylor, M., ( Allen & Unwin, 1987), chap.3, p.33.
[2] France, P., The Charter of the Land. Custom and Colonisation in Fiji. (Oxford University Press, 1969) Chap.9. p.166. (refer Appendix 1)
[3] Nayacakalou, R, Fiji. Manipulating the System, in Land Tenure in the Pacific. Edited by Corcombe, R.,( Oxford University Press, 1971).Chap.11 p.207.
[4] France, P., The Charter of the Land. Custom and Colonisation in Fiji. (Oxford University Press, 1969) Chap.9. p.166. (refer Appendix 1), p.
[5] Nayacakalou, R. R., Fiji. Manipulating the System, in Land Tenure in the Pacific, edited by Crocombe. (Oxford University Press, 1971), chap. 11 p.p.208 – 209.
[6] Taylor, M., Fiji Future Imperfect. (Allen & Unwin, 1987), chap. 1 p.3.
[7] World Bank Resource. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPACIFICISLANDS/Resources/FIJI_ASSESSMENT.pdf
[8] Native Land Trust Board
0 comments:
Post a Comment