Abstract

Life for the urban poor is becoming increasingly difficult throughout the Pacific. Despite a great deal of emphasis on modern development and apparent concern for the poor by governments and donors, living conditions are not significantly improving. In Fiji where squatting accounts for a growing proportion of urban dwellers, the possibility of the introduction of the Qoliqoli Act 2006, intended to return coastal land and traditional fisheries to indigenous owners, may lead to even more complex urban problems.

Fiji Today

From the outside the perceptions of Fiji are contradictory. Happy, relaxed, sunny, a ‘beach’ culture that is also coup-ridden, dangerous, racist and so on are common (mis)understandings, but like any place there are other, more complex interpretations and views. Fiji is physically and economically quite developed. There is an important industrial sector, and tourism, mining and sugar provide most of GNP. Suva has around 250,000 people in the greater Suva area. It is busy, congested, and noisy. There is also misery. Housing ranges from high class expensive to less than basic. People mostly have food, but a growing number has limited access to land. There are opportunities for many (and for others there are few chances). Extremes exist and poverty and inequality are increasing, but so too is wealth and opportunity (see Bryant, 1993; Lingam, 2005). Like any developing country, the economy and social life are undergoing dramatic stress and change. Land ownership is always an issue.

There has always been a great deal of debate over Fijian land and land rights (Pacific Islands Forum, 2001). Much of this surrounds the expiry of agricultural leases and the impact on rural cane farmers. Other commentary surrounds the migration of dispossessed farmers to urban areas and the impacts on land there, particularly in the mushrooming squatter settlements of the main towns, but there has been very little commentary on the possible consequences of returning the qoliqoli to traditional landowners.

As is now well known, political circumstances for Fiji underwent several dramatic shifts between the late 1980s and 2006 resulting in a change in ethnic representation in urban areas, and in the squatter settlements surrounding them. People of all ethnic groups have moved in growing numbers to the towns, but there has been very limited assessment of who lives where. What has continued to be obvious is growing international migration of both Indo-Fijians and indigenous Fijians, as well as more obvious representation of indigenous Fijians in urban areas (see, for example Mohanty, 2006), despite the fact that unemployment is higher there (Narsey, 2006: 23).

Political Change and the Qoliqoli

The most recent Fiji coup in 2006 was partially carried out as a response by the military commander, Commodore Frank Bainimarama to three pieces of legislation being debated by the then Qarase government. One of those proposed pieces of legislation was the Qoliqoli Act. This Act was intended to ensure that the rights to the seabed, foreshore and indigenous fisheries of Fiji are invested in indigenous land owners. Management would be under a Qoliqoli Commission. This is an important piece of legislation. It has been a long time in the making, and in essence would recognize the rights of customary owners to their coasts.

The Qoliqoli Act has raised a number of fears in Fiji, not least from hoteliers, many of whom are afraid that recognition of indigenous ownership will lead to exploitation, conflict, and ‘the end of tourism’. Other tourist operators, particularly those who operate small resorts and have always worked closely with the traditional owners are more sanguine and already have in place systems of support, employment and payments to the communities, recognizing that fair payment for the use of Fijian land is only as it should be, considering the impact that tourism has on Fiji in terms of cultural, environmental, social and economic change.

Of particular concern, and an issue which has not been adequately discussed or even recognized is how would the Qoliqoli legislation (if ever enacted) impact upon the urban poor, specifically (but not solely) the squatters? Many people, including indigenous, rely to a large extent on gathering from the sea shore, fishing, and recreational use. The legislating of the foreshore into landowner hands will at times lead to conflict and misunderstandings and this has already occurred to some extent. In Suva for example, where squatter settlements on coastal areas are growing rapidly, indigenous owners are preparing for ownership by demanding rent, or outright removal of communities who have lived in these areas, sometimes for generations. Whether or not some compromise is ever reached over the details of the Act and whether or not it ever becomes law is still in doubt. The question of ownership of traditional fishing grounds and rights to the foreshore will come up again in the future, despite its suspension by the interim Prime Minister, Voreqe Bainimarama. Consultation on and recognition of the squatter situation with respect to the Qoliqoli is therefore imperative.

Much of Fiji’s urban housing and businesses, recreation facilities and sources of livelihood are found in the Qoliqoli. Urban areas are largely located on the coast, and despite the departure of many people from their traditional land areas to urban settlements, large numbers continue to utilize the qoliqoli for fishing, gathering shellfish, building and gardening. Most of the one hundred and eighty squatter settlements are coastal, but others are on watercourses running inland from the sea and will also come under the Qoliqoli Act. Potentially, if the Act is passed, there will be conflict (Bryant-Tokalau, 2006a&b).

Political and Social Change

Since 1987 there have been four military coups in the Republic of Fiji. With each one life has become more difficult for greater numbers. Despite political upheaval the economy has grown and overseas investments continue. Tourism, the greatest income earner, has survived several slumps, but since the last coup the outside world is looking elsewhere and for the first time a sustained drop in visitor arrivals has been seen (Harrison, 2003; Fiji Times, 2007). Coups have damaged Fiji’s socio-economic status and a generation now exists which has seen no other way to have government except through force.

Squatter settlements are growing, with some current estimates of between 80 -100,000 people living in informal housing or ‘squatter’ settlements. The total Fiji population of 900,000 is estimated to have between 25 and 33 per cent living in poverty, many of these in the settlements (Mohanty, 2006:66.) Health and social implications for those living there are significant. Thousands face an intermittent and unclean water supply, yet formal statistics claim that 97.5% in urban areas have access to safe drinking water (Fiji National Planning Office, 2004: 58). The health disaster that was ‘waiting to happen in, for example, Suva, Nadi, Ba and Labasa’ in the 1990s (Bryant, 1993) has pretty much come to pass.

Urban land, access and rights of the homeless are becoming a worrying issue. Added to that urban households, particularly of indigenous Fijians, are larger than before and than those in rural areas (Narsey, 2006: 2). Pressure for the small amount of freehold is intense, making it unaffordable for low-income housing. Competitive interests for state and native lease make it difficult to find suitable land for low-cost housing, and squatters are becoming more aggressive in their movement onto State land. The legislation introducing the Qoliqoli Act, which was under discussion in 2006 and dropped by the military government in the coup of November of that year, could have implications for the burgeoning urban populations.

Fiji Urban Squatters

In 1986 the capital city of Suva was estimated to have 26 squatter settlements with one in every eight persons in Suva living there. Of these, 5349 (56.7 per cent) were Fiji-Indian, 3733 (39.6 per cent) were indigenous Fijian and the remaining 348 of other races demonstrating a slight increase in the proportion of ethnic Fijian squatters since 1983 (Bryant, 1992).

By the mid-2000s, urban population numbers had grown from 35 per cent of total population in 1970, to 53 per cent with the expectation of 69 per cent by 2030 (Mohanty quoting United Nations, 2004). This is in sharp contrast to the situation in 1983 when around 39 per cent of the total population lived in urban areas (Bryant, 1993: 11). By 2005 there were estimated to be around 82,000 squatters living in more than 180 informal settlements (Lingam, 2005), with some very high densities, particularly in the older settlements.

If squatting may be taken as an index of increasing poverty and vulnerability, then indications are that the two major ethnic groups are living in worsening circumstances. with the level of poverty increasing by the 1990s, but life appears to have become more difficult for indigenous Fijians, in contrast to the relatively worse situation for Fiji-Indians in 1989 (see Bryant, 1993: 71-81; Bryant-Tokalau, 1995b:112; UNDP, 1997).

Urban inhabitants depend very heavily upon their gardens, farms and fishing for subsistence with few members of the household working in formal employment (Bryant-Tokalau, 1995a: 6). Despite the level of gardening in some of the settlements (see Thaman, 1988), it is obvious that households living in peri-urban situations need cash for necessities such as food, transport, school fees, books and uniforms, as well as traditional and other obligations. Such pressures have meant that households are increasingly moving closer to the urban areas where employment and other means of earning an income are more possible. Squatter settlements on native and state land have thus burgeoned in the past decade, many of these on the i-qoliqoli.

Urban Squatting and Poverty

Whatever the ethnicity of Fiji’s squatters, what is most obvious is that life for the poor is becoming increasingly difficult. Numbers living below the government estimated poverty line have increased annually. In the mid 1990s around 25% were considered poor (UNDP, 1997). By 2005, although hotly debated, the figures cited range from 34 to 55 per cent of employed workers earning below the poverty line (Narsey, 2005). Consecutive governments have attempted to address the issues of poverty, squatting, urbanization and failures in health, education and services, but the approaches have been scattered and often contradictory. For example, the Laisenia Qarase led Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Coalition Government in 2004 allocated F$55.59 million to address issues of poverty and in 2005 this was increased to $59.71million.

Contradictory approaches to issues of poverty and squatting have meant that successive governments have introduced policy which has alternately attempted to remove squatters, supported and condemned non-government efforts, and upgraded settlements. As the then Minister of Housing in 2006, one Government Minster commented that “the more than 10% of the country’s population who are forced to survive as squatters are like thieves because they live illegally on someone else’s land … and police should make very effort to round them up and remove them”. (Fiji Sun, 26 September, 2006). It was in such a climate that the Qoliqoli Act was drafted. This Act which looks like a positive attempt to restore land and foreshore to the rightful indigenous owners could have significant consequences for the poor throughout Fiji, but most notably in urban areas.

Fiji’s i-Qoliqoli

The Qoliqoli Act 2006 was intended to recognize the rights of indigenous customary owners to their coasts, foreshore and indigenous fisheries. The recognition of these rights means a transfer of ownership from the State (The Republic of Fiji) to the proprietary owners and for the establishment of a Qoliqoli Commission. This piece of legislation is intended to right an historical wrong whereby under the Deed of Cession of 1874 the signatories’ (chiefs) gave Fiji unconditionally to Queen Victoria. Land has since been returned, but such a process was never completed for the Qoliqoli, despite persistent demands (Bryant-Tokalau, 2006b).

Although this piece of legislation is now on hold (or even dropped altogether depending on the outcome of the coup) it may resurface in the future and as such needs sustained discussion and understanding. The Qoliqoli, loosely translated, means fisheries, but it is much more complex than that. Qoliqoli is, according to the proposed Act:

…any area of seabed or soil under the waters, sand, reef, mangrove swamp, river, stream or wetland or any other area, recognised and determined within customary fishing grounds under the Fisheries Act … and includes any customary fishing grounds reclaimed before or any qoliqoli area reclaimed after the commencement of this Act…

This means that all internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial seas and waters within the exclusive economic zone would be subject to the new Act and as such would include fisheries resources in their broadest sense, including ‘any water-dwelling plant or animal, at whatever stage of development, and whether alive or dead, and includes all types of eggs of a water-dwelling animal…’

Management of the rights to these areas will be under a Qoliqoli Commission, appointed by the Fijian Affairs Board. The Native Land Trust Board shall administer the i-qoliqoli area on behalf and for the benefit of the i-qoliqoli owners and the Commission shall administer and manage fisheries operations within i-qoliqoli areas for and on behalf of, and for the benefit of traditional owners.

While indigenous rights to the i-qoliqoli are both fair and just, the issue is very complex and likely to lead to divisions both within indigenous Fijian mataqali and other non-indigenous groups, including hoteliers, and the large numbers of people living on land which is not traditionally theirs. In Fiji, land is registered and managed by the Native Land Trust Board. The process of land registration took place over a lengthy period under British administration and the leadership of Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna who established the NLTB both as a ‘solution’ to providing land for Indo-Fijian farmers and providing income to the indigenous owners and returning land to those whose land it was. The process was long and not without conflict and disagreement but eventually land was registered and placed under the NLTB. There continue to be rival claims over this land. Such a process has not ever taken place for the i-qoliqoli and this is where doubts now arise.

As stated above, the most publicized opposition to the Act has been from hoteliers, and it is their fears that Bainimarama has been most vocal about. Issues surrounding tourism and the Qoliqoli are largely resolved at the personal level between land and hotel owners, and although rights remain contested, the real problems will emerge in areas where populations who are not traditional owners reside upon and use the Qoliqoli.

As urban areas are largely coastal, housing the majority of squatters and other poor, and despite the removal of many from their traditional land areas, many continue to utilize the qoliqoli for subsistence and shelter. Although most live very near the foreshore and traditional fishing grounds, many more live on watercourses running inland from the sea which will also come under the Qoliqoli Act. Potentially, if the Act is passed, there will be conflict. Already people (including indigenous Fijians, Indo-Fijians and others) have been asked to move from their settlements, to pay fees, or prevented from utilizing the Qoliqoli by indigenous traditional landowners. Although these incidents are still few, the potential for displacement and uncertainty is large. Just who the real owners are will take a long time to determine and there will always be disagreement.

Urban settlements which have existed for as long as forty years in mangrove areas around Suva, and where permission to build has been granted by agreement with land owners through a sevusevu or traditional presentation of kava¹ or a tabua (whales tooth), may no longer have long-term security. Younger generations of landowners, seeing the possibility to earn large rents or to utilize land for other purposes, may terminate long-held agreements. Some of this is happening already and the impact will be greatest on poorer sections of the community (both indigenous and otherwise) who have limited options.

The Qoliqoli issue is therefore complex. Obviously rights to land should be returned to traditional owners and this has long been demanded. Practically however, with growing numbers of poor, the displacement and movement of people from traditional villages in other parts of Fiji, as well as from expiring cane leases, will combine with the need for populations to obtain a livelihood from the Qoliqoli, making the area highly contested. It is hoped that fairness and reason will prevail and that landowners will be open to use of their Qoliqoli, but under the current circumstances of political uncertainty and growing poverty this is less likely. The legislation is currently stalled under the interim regime and before it is revived there needs to be considerable discussion and debate, not only amongst landowners but also amongst those likely to be affected.

Footnote

1. kava, or piper methysticum, is a drink made from the pounded root of the pepper plant. It is widely drunk both on formal, ceremonial occasions, as well as socially.

References

Bryant, J. 1992 Urban poverty in Fiji: Who are the urban poor? Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 13(2): 90-102

Bryant, J.J., 1993. Urban Poverty and the Environment in the South Pacific. Department of Geography and Planning, University of New England: Armidale.

Bryant-Tokalau, J. 1995a Fiji Poverty Study, Revised scoping study for comment by Fiji Poverty Study Technical Working Group, July, UNDP: Suva

Bryant-Tokalau, J. 1995b The myth exploded: urban poverty in the Pacific. Environment and Urbanization, Vol 7(2): 109-129

Bryant-Tokalau, J. 2006a. ‘Bainimara risks alienating many countrymen’ Opinion Piece. Otago Daily Times, November 8th, Page 15.

Bryant-Tokalau, J., 2006b Fiji’s Qoliqoli Act. Opinion Piece. Otago Daily Times, December 18th, Page 19.

Fiji National Planning Office, 2004. Millennium Development Goals: Fiji National Report. Ministry of Finance and National Planning, Suva.

Fiji Sun, 27 September, 2006. “Squatting is like stealing: Caucau”.

Fiji Times Online. 2007. “Coups cost 12 years of growth”, Wednesday, July 04, 2007. www.fijitimes.com/story.asp. Accessed May 12, 2008.

Government of Fiji, 2006. Qoliqoli Act 2006 (Bill No. 12 of 2006). www.fiji.buzz.com/bills-and-acts/the-qoliqoli-bill-2006.html. Accessed 9th October 2007 2:19pm.

Harrison, D. 2003. Themes in Pacific Island Tourism. Pp.1-23 Harrison, D. (ed.) Pacific Island Tourism . Cognizant Communication Corp: New York.

Lingam, D. 2005. The squatter situation in Fiji, A Report by the Ministry of Local Government, Housing, Squatter Settlement and Environment, Suva, Fiji.

Mohanty, M. 2006. Urban squatters the informal sector and livelihood strategies of the poor in Fiji Islands. Development Bulletin, No. 70: 65-68 April, Australia National University, Canberra, Australia.

Narsey, W. 2005. Just Wages For Fiji. The Ecumenical Council for Research and Advocacy, Suva.

Narsey, W. 2006. Report on the 2002-3 Household Income and Expenditure Survey. Vanuavou Publications, Suva.

Thaman, R.R. 1988. By the People and for the People: home gardening and national development in the Pacific Islands. Pp. 167-182 in J. Hirst et. al. (eds) Small-Scale Agriculture. Commonwealth Geographical Bureau & The Australian National University.

United Nations. 2004. World Urbanisation Prospects: The 2003 Revision, Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York.

United Nations Development Programme, 1997. Fiji Poverty Report UNDP, Suva.