Trying times ahead for tourism

Robert Keith-Reid

Visitors are pouring into Fiji in record numbers. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being sunk into at least six big and many more smaller beach resort hotels. But there is a storm gathering off the beaches.

All eyes on Fiji...a new bill to transfer ownership of coastal areas from the high water mark to lagoons and reefs to the clans that claim qoliqoli rights to them could have immense implications for a business dedicated to keeping its customers happy.

Resort owners and operators are deeply worried about it. They fear it could badly cripple tourism for the South Pacific's number one visitor destination.

Squalls are happening already. There is a long list of incidents in which tourists, tour operators and yachts are being confronted and threatened with threats and demands by Fijian landowners who want money for the use of their beaches, lagoons and reef areas.
In the old days, Fiji coastal clans claimed traditional fishing rights covering areas demarcated as “qoliqoli”.

In those days it was just fishing that had value, and Fijians were pretty relaxed about letting outsiders who asked politely to fish in them.

That is the way it still is, to an extent, but now other elements are being added to the value of the qoliqoli. Surfing, diving, fishing, cruising, water-skiing, and beach access. There's money in the way of access fees to be made from those water sport activities.

Many business operators have made amicable deals with the villagers about the commercial use of their lagoon waters.

But more and more ugly incidents are happening, such as the seizure of diving gear and threats of violence.

Except for fishing, villagers have no legal grounds for claiming money for the commercial use of their qoliqoli areas. They soon will have.

Indigenous Fijians own 90 percent of the land in the 340-island country. Now the government is preparing to fulfill a promise made in Queen Victoria's name after Britain took Fiji over in 1874.

This is that ownership of traditional rights attached to beach, lagoon and reef areas will be transferred back from the state to the 410 Fijian clans that claim them.

State land runs from the high water mark to the 12-mile offshore international limit.

The government has published a bill to transfer ownership of coastal areas from the high water mark to lagoons and reefs to the clans that claim qoliqoli rights to them.

The transfer has immense implications for a business dedicated to keeping its customers happy.

It has regional and international implications also, since Fiji will become the first Commonwealth country to confer such a proprietary right.

The repercussions of the transfer, good and bad, will be watched with interest in other Pacific Islands countries, such as Vanuatu, Samoa and the Solomon Islands, where the exploitation of coastal areas for tourism is becoming an issue.

Traditional land and lagoon owners naturally want a chunk of the cake.

As one local chief put it in a letter to a cruise company: “We intend to fight for our God given rights with regard to the ownership of the fishing grounds on which your boats have been using and earning millions from it for years. Compensation may be demanded from your company.”

In Fiji, the scenario has already been blighted by fighting between villages over which village commands “ownership” of surfable waves.

Attorney-General Qoriniasi Bale insists that legislation for the transfer which the government plans to have enacted by the end of this year, will not erode free public access to beaches and lagoons.

What the Fiji Hotel Association (FHA) is worried about is that beach resort members will be met with demands and threats aimed at guests who rather than swim in a pool, decide to step on to the beach for a swim in the lagoon.

The issue is so sensitive that the association and its individual members have been reticent in discussing it.

One hotel owner, Richard Evanson, the American-born founder of the internationally famous Turtle Island resort and a naturalised Fiji citizen, has bluntly warned that in its present form, the bill would be a disaster for tourism and for investment in the industry.

In a letter to Bale, Evanson says his company agrees with the FHA that as it stood, the bill “would have such a disadvantageous impact on tourism in the short, medium and long-term that it must be seen as being contrary to the best interests of the tourism industry and the nation. He adds that if promulgated, the bill will send “a very negative message to present and future tourism developers worldwide about Fiji.

“It would be the first time any country has considered such proprietary rights, transfers of state assets to indigenous people, whilst not acknowledging the rights of existing occupiers. It will have a significant adverse effect on future investments in Fiji.”

Evanson says according to legal advice from top experts in the field, the qoliqoli bill can't in fact be applied to existing beach resorts since the purchase or leases of the sites occupied by them give them a continuing right of access to adjoining foreshores, seabeds and reefs under a common law principle known as non-derogation from grant.

In other words, since government authorities had approved the use which would be put to legally acquired land, there could be no interference with the use of adjoining beach area that were consistent with the needs of a beach resort.

“The practical outcome of this legislation is to render all existing hotels as exceptions to the operation of the bill. This will mean there are no licences needed by any existing hotels for them to operate commercial activities on the foreshores, seabeds and coral reefs. As a result, no revenue will be collected.”

Only new hotels would have to pay for beach and lagoon rights. Evanson said only about 50 of the 410 qoliqoli areas had tourism potential.

An “enlightened alternative” for the government would be to impose an “ego-charge” of F$20 (US$12) on all visitors aged 16 and over, on leaving Fiji. This would raise an estimated F$9 million a year, and if distributed to all 410 qoliqoli, each owner would receive about F$22,000 a year.

Evanson says a 2004 survey of about 1000 outbound tourists showed that about one-third would be happy to pay such a charge, one-third opposed the idea and the others didn't have a view.

Respondents on average said they thought a fair charge would be about F$18 (US$10.80)
This study showed that “two-thirds of visitors to Fiji believe that such a charge would be acceptable as long as it was utilised specifically for resource management.”

According to the bill, the management of qoliqoli would be put in the hands of the Native Lands Trust Board (NLTB), which by law manages all Fijian communally-owned land, including the issue of leases, for Fijian clan owners.

But many Fijians are discontented with NLTB's management charges and policies and are opposed to the extension of the board's jurisdiction to cover qoliqoli.

SOME INCIDENTS Be prepared for an unfriendly reception in more and more parts of "friendly" Fiji, as the country's tourism industry promotes it. Some of the landowners have revised their ideas about what reception should await visitors to their shores. It may happen also in Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and Samoa. In Fiji, some of the incidents recorded below are in fact encouraged by foreign businesses who want to capture pleasant little spots as their exclusive reserves. Letter from a desperate resort owner: "We are quite happy to pay money to any village or organisation that is legally asking for money for the use of their land or water. However, to be rung up and threatened to pay up or else the boats will be stopped from using their waters is not correct or good for the tourist industry." News report: "Police in Fiji's western division are investigating reports of alleged threats by landowners against resorts in the Mamanuca Islands-a group of landowners stormed into a resort demanding money for the use of their fishing ground." Complaint from a luxury cruise boat skipper: "A group of village headed by a very voluble man tried to board the vessel-my steward and I asked if they would retire to the shore to meet. Their demands were for $100 a night-very aggressive and demanding-our guests observed the whole farce from the ship." Quote: "The people of Yanuca are most unfriendly and are arrogant and aggressive. I emphasise that their behaviour is not indicative of the wonderful Fijian people we meet in the course of our cruise." "We have dived on this reef many times-we anchored near a small punt-the occupants started shouting and swearing at us to leave-this is the first time in 27 years of diving and boating in the Mamanucas that I have experienced this sort of problem." Letter from landowner leader: "The Native Customary Rights bill has been passed through the upper and lower house-the people you are straining relationships with now have the sole power and authority to allow or disallow you from using their native fishing, diving, swimming, diving, watersports rights-they don't need you, but you need them." Things "seemed to have changed," wrote one long-time visiting family after being told to "f--off" from a favourite swimming haunt. Guests from a neighbourhood resort arrived, claimed "exclusive use" and "threatened" us. The family was told to "leave the area immediately by the American boat driver." And in contrast-from a letter from a representative dismissing claims of exclusivity made by commercial users of a surfing area: "We don't give and will never ever give or consent anyone to have exclusive rights over the reefs-enjoy your surfing and diving and please do make an effort to visit our village and make yourself known to the village people."