High Tide
Between Custom And Growth
Balancing Tourism And Land Rights
Following our feature on innovative tourism ventures in September-October issue of Pacific Magazine, one reader asked why we had concentrated only on “mom and pop” style ventures, when the tourism industries of so many island nations need concerted initiatives to encourage wider indigenous participation.
It speaks to a fundamental question—how to get the balance between foreign investment and local participation right—or, as Vanuatu leader Ralph Regenvanu put its, addressing the tension between the custom and market economies.
If you take Guam, Fiji, French Polynesia and the Northern Marianas out of the equation, tourism is still in its formative stages in our region. As you will read in this issue, the Northern Marianas industry is in the process of reinventing itself, and the debate about tourism and land ownership and use has gained momentum in a number of other nations in recent months.
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, minister for Fijian Affairs, Lands and Provincial Development, says the bill marks the culmination “of about 125 years of preparations and expectations by the Fijian chiefs and their tribes over their traditional customary qoliqoli rights.”
The tourism industry has expressed concern, with one estimate putting the potential cost of the legislation at almost A$1billion, and saying there should be room for appeal, a year’s grace period, and a scientific study to provide a compensation formula for indigenous owners.
Fiji Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase believes the reaction from some business leaders has bordered on hysteria, and that “some are just implacably opposed to anything the government does for the indigenous community of Fiji.”
Meanwhile in Vanuatu in September a summit discussed how land laws can allow development to take place, while respecting Vanuatu’s customary land tenure system.
Regenvanu of the Vanuatu Cultural Center told the summit that foreigners through long-term leases now control two thirds of coastal land on Efate (the main island), while land on Santo is going the same way.
His comments are supported by a recent report for Oxfam that states that in Vanuatu’s “liberalized tax haven economy, it is expatriate investors in tourism services who are primarily reaping the benefits of tourism… and foreign real
estate companies are fuelling a tourism-linked frenzy of land sales.”
A separate study on beach fale tourism in Samoa by the Center for Indigenous Governance and Development states that while the beach fale industry has contributed significantly to the development of a number of Samoan villages, they have been “overlooked, disregarded and in some cases, harshly criticized by various commentators.
“Outside consultants and investors have voiced frustration with the communal land tenures system and its requirement for consensus in decisions concerning land use… (as) small clusters of beach fale occupy some of the best coastal sites in Samoa.”
The report recommends that village leaders, international donors and the Samoan Tourism Authority should monitor and encourage the development of this sector, while minimizing harm to local people from tourism.
Meanwhile, Oxfam’s Vanuatu report warns: “There is a visible and widening divide between white wealth and black poverty as a result of the land sales and property development boom, which could be a time bomb.” It suggests this could eventually lead to resentment of tourism and tourists.
This reminds me of a T-shirt I saw a Samoan gentleman on Apia’s main street wearing last year bearing the words, “If it’s tourism season, why can’t we shoot them?” He was sporting it with a wide grin, but it would be a tragedy if that sentiment became heartfelt because the owners and caretakers of land are excluded from determining how tourism develops in their countries. The Vanuatu land summit is a good start, and the sort of discussion that needs to be had across the Pacific Islands.
