Storm Clouds Gather Over Fijian Tourism
Sydney Morning Herald
Saturday September 9, 2006
FIJI'S world-famous Cloudbreak surf spot operates on a system that territorial Australian surfers can only dream about.
Due to a deal with the reef's traditional owners, surfers have to stay at a nearby $US300-a-night resort ($396) to ride it. The resort then passes on a percentage of profits to the local community. Nearby, on Fiji's popular Yasawa and Mamanuca islands, some hoteliers simply pay locals to stay off the water around the resorts. Others build schools and infrastructure to foster goodwill. But the Fijian Government wants to extend a Cloudbreak-style scheme across the country. The Qoliqoli bill, before parliament, would return the ownership of the water off all beaches, lagoons and reefs from the Government to their traditional owners and ensure that anyone fishing, diving, surfing, sailing, and perhaps even swimming with a commercial operator in Fiji pays for the privilege. The proposed laws were voted down in parliament's last term, and were vigorously opposed by Fiji's influential military commander, Frank Bainimarama, in before elections in May. But they returned to parliament this month, prompting claims that Fiji's indigenous-dominated Government has done more for native land rights than any other in the world - and that it risks bursting the country's lucrative tourism bubble. Introducing the bill to parliament, the Lands Minister, Naiqama Lalabalavu - a high chief - singled out the Cloudbreak deal for praise and labelled some hoteliers extremists who were "indulging in alien and discriminatory practices". Hoteliers called his attack childish and irresponsible. The relationship soured further this week when they told a parliamentary committee that the bill was legally flawed, economically foolish and could lead to confrontations on beaches. "We have the prospect that immediately the bill in its present form becomes law, we are effectively out of business," said Dick Smith, chairman of the Fiji Hoteliers Association and former owner of the Musket Cove marina and resort. Hoteliers also say it is unconstitutional to transfer a public asset to 56 per cent of the population and are likely to go to court if the bill passes in its current form. Fijian newspapers published a full-page retort from the Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase, that accused hoteliers of threatening to sabotage the economy. "Some are just implacably opposed to anything the Government does for the indigenous community of Fiji," Mr Qarase said. The bill's primary aim is to protect environmental and fishing rights. Only 50 out of 410 traditionally owned stretches of water have tourist operations on them. But the $US480 million tourism industry is Fiji's biggest, earning 49 per cent of the country's foreign exchange dollars, and employing an estimated 20,000 people in 1999, leading to fears for its future. Most investors are Australian, as are most customers. A lecturer at the University of the South Pacific in Suva, Sukhdev Shah, said: "In no other country has enforcement of native [property] rights been so thoroughly and remorselessly practised and enforced." But, he warned: "Compared to the potential loss from Qoliqoli, benefits accruing to native population will more likely be minuscule."
© 2006 Sydney Morning Herald