The issue of de-reserving native land in Fiji seems to be blown out of proportion by the use of negative connotations framed by the local media in Fiji, underscored by the article in Fiji Times.
Deregister plan
UNAISI RATUBALAVU
Thursday, February 14, 2008
There are moves by the interim Government to de-reserve native reserve land. This follows instructions from Finance Ministry permanent secretary for Sugar Peni Sikivou to the Native Land Trust Board last month to consider a proposal to de-reserve land by a consultant from India.
The cover letter of the report states the NLTB needed to consider a proposal by sugar expert Dr Krishnamurthi on the rehabilitation of the sugar industry and to have a reply by January 18.
The paper provides recommendations to use de-reserved land for lots of 40 to 400 hectares to be created and leased to individuals or companies that undertake commercial farming. The report was compiled in November last year and submitted to interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry.
Mr Sikivou refused to comment on the report, saying he was busy in a meeting yesterday. Mr Chaudhry was unavailable for comment.
Dr Krishnamurthi said in the report it was well known that Fijians did not have enough incentives for farming. "They had their own serious social problems that were ignored and that the laws governing their inheritance was of sharing and not lineage inheritance," he said.
Dr Krishnamurthi said the share of the proceeds from Fijian land was negligible and of no value. He said Fijians had a lack of security and could not finance their land.
"In effect, neither the successive governments nor the NLTB or chiefs ever contributed to the welfare of the indigenous Fijians, leaving the landowners poor in standards of living," he said.
"The Fijianisation program did not yield the desired results because of the lack of leadership."
But these statements have angered chiefs who will not allow an outsider to suggest the de-reservation of their land.
Tui Tavua Ratu Ovini Bokini said the interim administration needed to consult landowners honestly about its intentions. He said there was no way he was willing to deregister land for sugar cane as the returns were low. Native reserve land is established under the Native Lands Trust Act. This land is set aside in certain areas for the use of landowners known as ikovukovu. It is to ensure there is always sufficient land for the landowners to use.
Burebasaga confederacy paramount chief Ro Teimumu Kepa said the regime had no right to make a unilateral decision on land that was collectively owned by Fijian landowning units.
"The regime cannot bulldoze their agenda on the people. The landowners must be consulted as the asset belongs to them," she said.
Komai Nausori Ratu Meli Balenaivalu said he would not give any land for such purposes because it was owned by the past, present and future generations. "I am shocked to hear the regime is pursuing to de-register land without consulting landowners when native land is a sensitive issue Fijians value close to their hearts," he said.
Bau chief Adi Samanunu Cakobau said she was concerned about the move in her capacity as a Fijian chief.
"This is news to me and as a chief I am concerned," she said.
Fiji Times Editorial also fails to point out the distinctions between the Lands Use Commission and the De-reserving Proposal.
The excerpt:
Give them a fair hearing
Friday, February 15, 2008
THE interim administration might mean well by commissioning a report which proposes the deregulation of native reserves. But it has failed, as many governments have failed in the past, to involve the most important stakeholders of all from the very beginning of the project. This single move has the potential to derail plans.
Any dealing with the land strikes at the heart of even the most moderate Fijian. That is why it is very important that every dealing any government has pertaining to land, must involve discussions with the landowners.
They must know exactly why the report was commissioned and what the proposals in the document will mean to individual mataqali. In the present political climate, it becomes even more important for the authorities to assuage the fears and distrust of the indigenous people.
"Bainimarama said the critics and commentators have just focused on belittling the efforts of the interim government which is committed to exploring the best options available for better utilization of any type of land for the benefit of the landowners foremost, the tenants and the economy as a whole"
Already, the tone of discussions in the villages, in homes and around the yaqona bowl has taken on an alarming slant. This is because the people who own the land do not know or fail to fully comprehend what is happening.
Force will not work, neither will the gubernatorial approach. Involve the landowners now, show them the benefits that new land legislation will bring. The way to the landowner's heart and mind is increasingly through the pocket. An equitable return and security is what the landowner wants and deserves.
What government should aim to achieve, however, is to make the indigenous people less reliant on handouts such as the Agriculture Scam or, to some extent, lease payments. As the Krishnamurthi Report points out, Fijians do not have enough incentive for farming and returns from indigenous land are meagre, at best.
It goes further to say that successive governments, the Native Land Trust Board and the chiefs have not done enough for the welfare of the people. The Fijian must be allowed to play a more active role in the use of indigenous land and reap maximum returns.
This means the indigenous people must run the business be it a farm or backpacker resort themselves. The NLTB should provide funding, training and administrative support for these ventures.
It is time for the Fijian to destroy the myth that the indigenous people are lazy and cannot run farms or successful businesses.
The reasons for dereserving that land was to ensure the native landowners had enough land for their own use in years to come."
If you want to de-reserve that then you will have to evaluate the number of mataqali members compared to land available. So many times the NLTB has for invalid reasons been dereserving native land for its own purpose without informing the landowners what for."
(Niko Naiwaikula: Fiji Times Weds. February 13, 2008)
The story took on its own life when, many commentators ill-informed of the two different aspects of the Lands Use Commission and the "Krishnamurthi" Report, which some labeled as a land grab because it proposes (the key word) to de-reserve native land tracts in Fiji.
Some of the comments are from the usual instigators, who continue to broad side the proposal of de-reserving native land in Fiji, as if it was signed, sealed and delivered. Most importantly, most of scathing of comments come from entrenched Chieftains from the North-East sector, who view this proposal as a 'coup de grace' to their spheres of influence, which indirectly affects their future political aspirations.
Among the notables, the convicted Paramount Chief of Cakaudrove and former Minister for Fijian Affairs, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu whose comments appeared in a
Fiji Times article. The excerpt of the FT article:
Touch not, Tui Cakau sounds warning on de-reservation
Saturday, February 16, 2008
THE Tui Cakau, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, has warned the Native Land Trust Board against steps to de-reserve native land until the Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Agreement is resolved.
Speaking from Taveuni yesterday, Ratu Naiqama expressed concern and urged the NLTB, interim Prime Minister and the President, Ratu Josefa Iloilo, to reconsider any effort to de-reserve land.
"They should not make any hasty decision here. Precedents of reserve land being de-reserved which fell in the ambits of ALTO (Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Ordinance). A classic example was Korovuto in Nadi and NLTB has records to prove my point. They should not shy away from history. Tenants of reserve land have now been taken over by ALTO in the 1970s," Ratu Naiqama said.
He said de-reservation of land was here to stay but changes would only come about if it had the numbers in the House of Representatives.
Ratu Naiqama who was Fijian Affairs Minister in the ousted SDL government and held a managerial post at NLTB, said there was no guarantee landowners would not lose their land, given the history of landowner losses under ALTO.
"Why are they trying to touch reserve land when ALTA has not been resolved? Is this another way of hoodwinking Fijians as they did during Mahendra Chaudhry's one-year reign as prime minister?
"In all this, landowners will be the ultimate losers," he said.
This issue of land solutions has seemingly prompted the ousted Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase and other SDL patrons, who continue to issue their dime's worth, as demonstrated in a
Fiji Times article.
Qarase like other politicians with ulterior motives, unapologetically gravitate to the limelight like a baby in a christening, a bride at a wedding and a corpse in a funeral; all rolled into one.
The excerpt of the FT article:
Qarase condemns plan as land grab
Sunday, February 17, 2008
OUSTED Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase has labeled a move to dereserve native land as a "land-grab" by Mahendra Chaudhry.
"I believe that it is an initiative by the interim Minister for Finance, Mahendra Chaudhry and he is just using the consultant from India, Dr Krishnamurthi", Mr Qarase said. "This is nothing less than a grab for land for Mr Chaudhry and his followers," [Qarase] said.
Mr Qarase added there are 600,000 hectares of land already used for cane farming and that was more than enough for cane production. He [further] added the optimum level of cane production for farmers is from four to five million tones a year.
"The problem is the low production. At the moment, Fiji is producing around 50 tones of cane per hectare, but that needs to be increased to 70 or 80 tones in order to meet the optimum target level," Mr Qarase said.
Mr Qarase added if the proposal to de-reserve native land goes ahead, the interim Government would be treading on dangerous ground.
"Land to the Fijian is part of their soul, heart, culture and tradition."
Other even keeled commentators like the former NLTB lawyer, Niko Nawaikula has urged that landowners should be fully consulted in the matter according to a
Fiji Times article. The excerpt of the FT article:
Inform landowners properly: Nawaikula
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Update: 11:18AM A FORMER lawyer for the Native Lands Trust Board said landowners should be informed fully why their land was to be dereserved.
Niko Nawaikula, the deposed Deputy Speaker of the House of representatives, former secretary of the NLTB and lawyer said getting approval or consent for dereservation was not a problem.
Replying to a consultancy report from Dr Krishnamurthi of Sakhti consultancy in India prepared for interim Finance and Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, Mr Nawaikula said the important part was to inform landowners properly what they were derserving the land for.
"It took the late Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna 20 years of extensive consultation and planning to dereserve native land," Mr Nawaikula said.
"The reasons for dereserving that land was to ensure the native landowners had enough land for their own use in years to come. If you want to de-reserve that then you will have to evaluate the number of mataqali members compared to land available. So many times the NLTB has for invalid reasons been dereserving native land for its own purpose without informing the landowners what for."
Mr Nawaikula said for dereservation one needed 50 per cent of mataqali to give their handwritten consent.
On de-reserving land for sugar, Mr Nawaikula said from a landowners point of view they should be trained in the industry and farming and have an equitable share in the Fiji Sugar Corporation.
A chief from the Vuda and former diplomat and politician highlighted the sensitivity of the subject and urges for an extensive consultative process that should be presented to the grassroots and the layers above or beyond, according to a
Fiji Times article.
The stark difference in rhetoric between the Western and Eastern Chieftains has been such a contrast. Easterners (including parts of the North) reject the proposal outright, even though most have not even read the report. Some westerners can be more approachable and may take the time to consider the pros and cons.
The excerpt of the FT article:
Dereservation 'too sensitive'
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Former diplomat and landowner Ratu Tevita Momoedonu believes that dereservation of native land was a sensitive issue that would stir up the emotions of indigenous Fijians.
Ratu Tevita said that it would invite all sorts of problems. He said that the land was a sensitive issue for the Fijian people, so any plans to do anything to it should be considered carefully. Ratu Tevita said extensive consultation should be done with the landowners.
"If anyone wants to touch the land that is reserved for the Fijians, they must make their intentions very clear and consult the whole Fijian system from the village level right up to the provincial level," he said.
Ratu Tevita said landowners must be consulted and made aware of what the land would be used for.
"This is a very sensitive issue that will surely stir up the emotions of the Fijians. They just can't impose it from the top, it is dangerous." Ratu Tevita, like other chiefs, has expressed his concern on the proposal for native land to be dereserved to help boost the ailing sugar industry.
The nationalist Taukei Movement western branch assistant secretary Isikeli Uluikavoro Qoro said: "It is too sensitive to the Fijians. Please leave the native reserve land alone."
" People are moving away from their lands and living in squatter settlements around the country in search of casual labour because they are unable to put their land to good use ". (M. Chaudhry Fiji Times Sun. Feb 17th 2008)
"This is still a serious anomaly. NLTB administers the land and members of the mataqali have to lease the land from the administrators". (Krishanmurthi report- Fiji Live Feb. 18th 2008)
Despite the chorus of uninformed voices, the Native Lands Trust Board (NLTB) spokesman has officially stated that plans for the de-reserving of all native land will not get their approval, according to a Fiji Times article.
The excerpt of FT article:
NLTB no to native land proposal
UNAISI RATUBALAVU
Saturday, February 16, 2008
THE Native Land Trust Board has made it clear it will not agree to de- reserve native land.
"The NLTB will never agree to the proposal that all native land be de- reserved because we have to think of the indigenous generation," said NLTB public relations officer Ro Alipate Mataitini. Ro Alipate said even though many landowners might agree to the de- reservation of native land, the NLTB would have the last say on any development proposal.
"If the NLTB thinks the decision by the landowners will not benefit them in the long term, the process will not go ahead unless the NLTB is satisfied it will be in the long-term interests of the landowners and their descendants.
"This is important information since people must not think that just by getting the majority of landowners to approve de-reservation that it will automatically happen," he said.
About 37 per cent of native land is set aside as reserves from the total 87.75 per cent of native land in Fiji. Freehold land is about 6 per cent, state land is about 4 per cent and land for Rotumans is about 0.24 per cent, NLTB statistics say.
According to Dr Krishnamurthi, the first major step was to de-reserve all native land. "It is obvious that the 4.0 hectare farms are uneconomical, thus lots of 40 to 400 hectares be created and leased to one individual or company without affecting land ownership," Dr Krishnamurthi recommended.
He said ownership would be vested on the title holder and investments would be by the lessee at a lease period of 75 years or more.
However, a segment of the Krishnamurthi report, according to a
Fiji Live article actually identifies the reason for the lack of social mobility in Fijians, stems from the neglect of the Native Lands Trust Board(NLTB), successive Fijian Governments and the influence of Chiefs.
The excerpt of the FL article:
NLTB, Govts, chiefs accused of neglect
18 FEB 2008
The controversial Krishnamurthi report has accused the administrator of native lands, the Native Land Trust Board, successive Fiji governments and Fijian chiefs for neglecting to contribute to the welfare of indigenous Fijian people.
It highlighted that members of the mataqali (clan) had to lease their own land from NLTB, and that the board was very slow in facilitating processes including disbursing monies due to land owners.
Large amounts are still outstanding, the report alleges. “The land owners remained poor with poor standards of living,” the report stated. The NLTB is expected to reply later to these accusations.
The report by consultant M Krishnamurthi on the rehabilitation of the Fiji sugar industry recommends de-reserving land for lots of 40 to 400ha to be created and leased to one individual or company to undertake commercial sugarcane farming.
Native land comprises almost 90 per cent of the Fiji land mass. The interim Government is considering the proposal in order to revamp the ailing sugar industry.
At least two chiefs have spoken strongly against the idea – Nadroga high chief Na Ka Levu Ratu Sakiusa Makutu and Rewa paramount chief Ro Teimumu Kepa.
The report goes on to say that the major cause of productivity decline for sugar is land reservations for landowners. It said while the concept was good the practice of it did not fit any logic, that is, the land owner had to lease from the NLTB his own land and pay rentals.
“This is still a serious anomaly. NLTB administers the land and members of the mataqali have to lease the land from the administrators.”
The report claimed that it was found that NLTB was and is very slow in facilitating processes. According to the report, the share of land proceeds to Fijians were negligible and hence of no value. Thus the cropping area fell down to some 60,000 ha with an average of 25mt per ha, it maintains.
But a University of the South Pacific academic Professor Biman Chand Prasad has described the 12-page Krishnamurthi Report proposal as poorly written and lacking depth and discussion of the changed conditions that the sugar industry is operating in at present.
Professor Prasad says the report was misleading in saying that the major cause of productivity decline is land reservations for landowners.
“The report fails to refer to the many studies on the efficiency of sugarcane farming that have identified several factors which have led to the declining sugarcane yields. These include poor farming practices, rising costs of labour and farm implements and poor extension services to name a few.”
While uncertainty of tenure contributes to lower productivity, it is misleading to say that the major cause of productivity decline is land reservations for landowners.
“On the contrary, many of the leases which were not renewed since 1997 have been renewed and leased to new tenants. For example between 1997 and 2003 about 5506 leases were renewed.”
According to the report, Dr M Krishnamurthi hails from Fiji where he spent 30 years, of which 18 years was as director of Sugarcane Researches and later Sri Lanka, Thailand, India in establishment of research centres and implementation of highly profitable programmes.
Sadly, some of the most vitriolic objections are being echoed by individuals who conveniently have morphed the land issue into racial overtones, as CCF President alluded to in a
Fiji Times article. The except of the FT article:
Yabaki tells chiefs to be sensible
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Update: 1.52pm The Citizens' Constitutional Forum is concerned that the report on the Rehabilitation of the Sugar industry is being manipulated again into a racial issue, over-shadowing the problems.
"The report is revealing the reality that the sugar industry, on which about 200,000 people in Fiji depend, is doomed to collapse unless mechanised and large-scale farming is introduced," CCF Chief Executive Officer, Rev Akuila Yabaki said.
He urged landowners and chiefs to be responsible and to ponder on questions related to what crop could replace sugar and what incentives they could offer to revive the economy in the country if the sugar industry collapsed.
Interim Finance Minister, Mahendra Chaudhry promotes the positive returns for landowners, derived from this de-reservation policy, as published in a
Fiji Times article. The excerpt of the FT article:
Chaudhry defends land proposal
Sunday, February 17, 2008
INTERIM Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry has defended the proposal to dereserve all native land, saying it was in the best interests of the indigenous community.
Mr Chaudhry said the proposal would lift the Fijian community out of poverty by guaranteeing financial returns for their most treasured asset.
Mr Chaudhry also reassured the indigenous community that dereservation would not result in them losing their land. "The Fijian people own 85 per cent of the land and this proposal would put millions of dollars into the pockets of landowners," Mr Chaudhry said.
"People are moving away from their lands and living in squatter settlements around the country in search of casual labour because they are unable to put their land to good use," he said. "This proposal would result in landowners being given the lease then allowed to hire contractors to work the land while they get financial returns through cooperatives that would be set up for them. "How can we let the Fijian people live a life of indignity and poverty when they own assets worth tens of millions of dollars," [Chaudhry] said.
"We do not want to take the land away from the landowning community but to see that they receive financial returns from their resources," he said.
Mr Chaudhry said the proposal by Dr M Krishnamurti was made in light of the mill upgrades underway that would eventually require an increased cane volume of about four million tones by 2010.
Mr Chaudhry said Mr Krishnamurti had suggested dereservation to bring all available unused cane land into production. He said the proposal was handed over to the Native Lands Trust Board for consideration and the decision was left to the board on whether to go ahead with the initiative.
He claimed some people were trying to "create mischief" by opposing the plan.
Interim Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama also warns those in Fiji who prey on emotions, not to mislead, confuse and divide the community in an
article in Fiji Village.
The excerpt of the FV article:
Interim PM clears govt stance on land issue
Publish date/time: 15/02/2008 [17:11]
The Interim Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama stresses that the interim government has not taken any formal stance on the proposal in relation to the de-reservation of native lands.
In a statement this afternoon, Commodore Bainimarama said the comments which have been made on the report by Indian Consultant Dr. M Krishnamurthi, have as usual, attempted to politicize and sensationalize the land issue by selectively highlighting the recommendations in the report.
Bainimarama said the critics and commentators have just focused on belittling the efforts of the interim government which is committed to exploring the best options available for better utilization of any type of land for the benefit of the landowners foremost, the tenants and the economy as a whole.
He said in this context the interim government has set up the Committee on Better Utilization of Land and its proposals were endorsed by cabinet. However, the Committee was not even aware of Dr. Krishnamurthi's report and as such the report never featured in its deliberations.
The Interim Prime Minister said to set the record straight, the Committee's recommendations and Dr. Krishnamurthi's report are two different matters and should not be confused with governments intentions.
The Commander reveals that the Committee on better utilization of land's recommendations is a direct result of its deliberations with the NLTB and the relevance, viability and acceptance or otherwise of the NLTB's proposal for incentives to be offered to landowners.
Commodore Bainimarama states that the interim governments intentions is very clear and through the incentive packages as recommended by the NLTB, landowners should expect more rental income in the future with an increase in native land rentals to 10 percent of unimproved capital value.
He revealed that under the new proposed arrangements, the NLTB will consider waiving the 15% poundage to be charged on the proposed rental subsidy which will ensure maximum benefits are passed on to the landowners. He also revealed that the Committee on Better Utilization of Land has recommended that the term of native leases be increased from 30 to 50 years.
Bainimarama said the need to put in place an attractive incentive package that benefits both landowners and tenants is a pressing national issue that needs to be urgently addressed.
The Committee on Better Utilization of Land consists the Permanent Secretary of Indigenous Affairs Ratu Meli Bainimarama, Permanent Secretary at the Prime Ministers office Pramesh Chand, PS Land Dr. Rohit Kishore, PS for Provincial Development Manasa Vaniqi, Acting Permanent Secretary for Agriculture Dr. Rishard Beyer, Acting Deputy General Manager of NLTB Meli Benuci and Chairman of the Sugar Commission of Fiji John May.
The Interim Prime Minister stresses that the interim government fully recognizes the historical, social and cultural significance, which indigenous Fijians place on their customary land.
He said recognizing this the interim government has come up with a proposal which would accrue more benefits to the landowners, yet fully safeguard their rights to ownership as entrenched in the existing legislations.
Commodore Bainimarama stresses that it is time to put emotions aside and start looking at issues rationally.
The report by the consultant from India, Doctor M Krishnamurti to the Sugar Ministry, has recommended all native land be de-reserved. The native reserve is the land set aside for each mataqali for its planting and to support the landowning unit's needs.
The reserved land is not to be leased out as it is arable land for the mataqali's needs.
Doctor Krishnamurti's report has recommended that the 4 hectare lots for cane farming are uneconomical and 40 to 400 hectare farms are more viable. He also recommends that all investments on the proposed farms be carried out by the lessee and the lease terms be a minimum of 75 years.
Clearly the blog postings by
Fijian Custom Culture and
Solivakasama apparently fit that description of "preying on emotions".
While a
blog posting by Babasiga discuss the report in a intelligent manner and in
another post offers some comparisons to the island of Mauritius and the aspect of the declining sugar industry.
Social Bookmarking
