Fijian landowners are entitled to 80 percent of mining royalties. The Fiji Times reports, though, that the total royalty paid is only three to five per cent, a sliver of what the minerals are worth. That gap runs through a submission from the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission to the Constitution Review Commission, which asks for indigenous communities to be heard properly before mines or other projects go ahead on customary land.
Commissioner Alefina Vuki said the body wants the constitution to name free, prior and informed consent outright. Communities would then get a genuine chance to speak before anything affecting their land, resources or heritage is signed off. Fijivillage reported that the commission also wants amendments that give customary owners better protection and set a duty to consult first.
Ownership against state power
The text safeguards indigenous ownership of iTaukei, Rotuman and Banaban land, yet the state may also take land by force of law for public ends or national development. The commission describes that as a tension. Vuki, appearing before the review panel, was blunter about two clauses. Section 28 looks strong on its face, she said, but Section 27 weakens it. “Land rights and the protection of it may be an illusion,” she said.
She also compared the charters. The 1997 constitution shielded indigenous legislation behind demanding consensus rules. The 2013 version removed them, so parliament can now change or scrap measures such as the iTaukei Lands Act 1905 by simple majority, with no obligation to consult the communities concerned. The commission wants the 1997 entrenched clauses restored, fitted to today’s single-house parliament.
What lies beneath the land
Minerals are the sharpest part of the argument. Fijivillage said the Mining Act sets no requirement to obtain landowners’ agreement before exploration licences or leases are issued, and that villagers frequently hear about a project only when the operator needs to enter their land. The commission says this clashes with international standards. Vuki pointed to the UN declaration on indigenous peoples and ILO Convention 169.
The Fiji Times quoted her on Section 37, the “three feet below” rule. “What this means is when there are minerals, the State has some surface rights,” she explained, and when there are none, indigenous people hold some. She set out five violations that follow. Landowners can be told about a mining lease but cannot refuse it. The state deals with mining companies itself, which turns custodians into passive recipients of decisions made elsewhere. Past mining at Namosi, she said, left toxic damage because exploration went ahead without a right to say no. And splitting surface land from minerals cuts against the iTaukei idea of vanua, in which land, people and resources form one whole.
The commission offered two routes. Section 30 could be amended so that mineral rights belong to customary landowners. Or, if the state keeps ownership, the constitution could guarantee consent, fair sharing of benefits, environmental safeguards and compensation for harm.
The submission also criticises the wide limitation clauses in the 2013 constitution, which it says allow basic rights to be curtailed too easily. Restrictions, it argues, should be reasonable and proportionate.
Sources
- Human Rights Commission wants indigenous landowners to have greater say over mining projects (Fijivillage)
- Colonial doctrines violate human rights – FHRADC (The Fiji Times)
- Land rights protection an illusion – Vuki (The Fiji Times)
