But a cooperative approach needed

Duncan Wilson

Ownership of traditional rights to beach, lagoon and reef will be transferred to Fijian clans.

Investors warn that misinformation, inadequate consultation and resource provisions in the qoliqoli bill could cripple tourism, Fiji's greatest money-maker.

Villagers' misunderstanding of their fishing rights and the bill have already harmed the industry, they claim.

In November 2004, villagers claiming fishing rights and ownership over the Narara reef area in the Yasawa Islands in western Fiji, a prime cruising and resort location, intimidated two tourists and stole their diving equipment.

The tourists were with 59 others on a Captain Cook Cruises-owned vessel.

History and Law 1874: Fijian chiefs asked the British Crown to return their reefs. 1881: The Crown confirmed its agreement to the request. 1982: The Great Council of Chiefs approved changes to the laws. 2003: Cabinet decided to hand ownership of the foreshore land to the traditional owners. 2004: In late September, the draft bill is released to stakeholders for consultation. The bill is expected to be passed, pending any amendments.   Current Law Currently, the State owns all land below the high water mark right out to the 12 miles of territorial waters. Proposed Law The Fiji Government will return proprietary ownership of foreshore land within the customary fishing area back to the fishing grounds' traditional owners. It would be the first Commonwealth country to confer such a proprietary right.

Cruise company general manager Jim Bradfield, said the company had legal permission to use Narara reef as a dive site and the robbery was uncalled for.

Bradfield said many tourism operators oppose the bill and want government assurances that its enactment will not encourage confrontation.

“In that small incident, the villagers felt they might have a claim and they have since been advised they were wrong. We work very closely with the (village) group and that's important. But it's our view that the sea belongs to the Fiji government, not with the village. The sea is owned by the state.

“While we are anxious about it (the bill), we realise it is going to take time. We have got to know where we stand. We don't want change.”

The altercation came just a week after landowners from Mobi and Nabila villages in Nadi threatened to disrupt the construction of the Marriott Fiji Resort and Spa unless they were compensated for the damage they claim the construction caused to their fishing ground.
Bradfield, with other operators and the Fiji Hotel Association (FHA), want increased education for villagers on fishing and proprietary rights.

FHA's president Dixon Seeto said some villagers, especially in the more remote areas, thought the bill had already been passed, and misunderstood their rights.

“The misunderstanding has made certain resource owners believe that this piece of legislation has been enacted. In our discussions with the Attorney-General he has undertaken that the matter will be clarified with resource owners.

Ratu Osea Gavidi

“Tourism can be a very fragile industry, they (tourists) can go to any part of the world. We need to do everything possible to make sure everything is protected, while ensuring that all the stakeholders benefit from it.

“Government and government ministers predict record growth rates, and we can't leave this to chance. The industry would like to work with government.”

Seeto suggested a joint ministerial educative project that involved chiefs and villagers.

The Fiji Visitors Bureau is already working to explain the bill to provincial councils.

Martin Darveniza, chief executive of Tabua Invesments, the primary developer of the Denarau Island integrated resort at Nadi, said investors and resource owners' submissions on the Fisheries Bill should adopt a cooperative and considerate approach to ensure effective legislation.

“Some people believe that efforts should be made to dissuade government from proceeding, but they have made it very clear they will proceed with this, and this needs to be recognised.

“Too often in the past operators and developers stood in one corner and resource owners stood in the other. I believe the way forward is to bring them together.

“It's very imperative that such a broad-based programme is undertaken. We have to bring the two minds together.”

But industry figures complained the government had failed to explain what regulatory conditions would be attached to the management of qoliqoli areas.

Seeto told ISLANDS BUSINESS: “This is only the act, but what is more important is the regulation that governs the act, which drives the act and makes it work. They specify the act's parameters and, if there's money involved, distribution and revenue schemes, we would like to see such detailed legislation come out now for scrutiny.”

Seeto said developers needed more information about the regulations.

If passed in its current form, the Customary Fisheries Act would establish a regulatory Customary Fisheries Commission, with which resource owners and ministers must consult. Buried under a part of the bill headed “Miscellaneous”, it mentions the three parties' wide-ranging powers to prescribe by-laws and enforcement procedures and sanctions; grant public access, and adjudicate disputes.

These generalities, however, provide little assurance or guidance to developers.

It may not be enough to assuage investors' fears, identified by University of South Pacific tourism lecturer Dr David Short, of the bill's issuance to resource owners of the rights to exploit any mineral reserve on operators' tourist land.

“If they think there might be oil, for example, or another precious resource in an area used for tourism, there's nothing to stop them from mining that.”

As yet, the bill lacks provisions for compensation or negotiation if such an event does occur; it merely indicates it might be under the jurisdiction of the new Customary Fisheries Commission.

The government has moved to address investor concerns. Though the bill is key to the government's commitment to raise the economic status of indigenous Fijians, it emphasises the bill would not affect commercial tourism's use of the qoliqoli, or grant exclusive possession of the areas to resource owners. It has also promised effective regulatory bodies and procedures.

Up until 1987, tourism operators had free use of the qoliqoli, and payments for its use were nominal or non-existent. But the areas' increased demand and signs of environmental degradation prompted resource owners to form the lobby Fiji Tourism Resource Owners Association.

Association president, Ratu Osea Gavidi, said resource owners were marginalised until 2000 when a new “paradigm” of participation emerged.

Assisted by the Ministry of Tourism and government affirmative action programmes, the association ran workshops and meetings that galvanised resource owners, and worked for the return of the qoliqoli and the current bill.

Gavidi said resource owners were more informed and involved as a result. He saw such legislation as vital to resource owners' complete and profitable participation in tourism, and vital to removing their discontent.

But such discontent may afflict developers and Fiji's multi-million dollar tourism industry, if their concerns regarding misinformation, inadequate disclosure of regulatory conditions, and resource rights are not properly addressed.