A high chief has warned that the latest development by Fiji’s interim regime to de-reserve native land will be a ‘catastrophic mistake’
The proposed de-reservation of native land, which comprises almost 90 per cent of the Fiji land mass, is one of the major recommendations in the report by a India-based consultant to the Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry last November.
The interim Government is considering the proposal in order to revamp the ailing sugar industry.
Nadroga chief Na Ka Levu, Ratu Sakiusa Makutu said Fiji has found itself thrust in the middle of a very traumatic period that is not only bringing the country to its knees, but tearing it apart.
“Among the long list of interim blunders, this development regarding de-reservation of native land will be a catastrophic mistake.
“I would suggest a great degree of caution,” he told Fijilive.
He said when the GCC was dismissed, most of the chiefs chose to remain silent and this should be an indicator of the sensitivity of this issue and the strength of their resolve.
Ratu Sakiusa cited a quote from the book ‘20th Century Fiji’ where Stewart Firth wrote, “Men Charles Salvage, David Whippy and Charles Pickering had no desire to convert Fijian, or to change them, or to take charge. They wish to live here, and this meant that they must fit in with the way Fijians did things, speaking the language, obeying Fijian chiefs and accepting the political dominance of the people whose country it is”.
He added that like those early Europeans we ask the same of everyone now, “that they adapt to Fiji rather than asking that Fiji adapt to them”.
and then in todays Sun “Letters to the Editor” from Ratu Epeli Vakalalabure
Final nail |
||
| Last updated 2/15/2008 10:01:22 AM | ||
|
|
||
|
Soli Vakasama 
February 15, 2008 at 3:25 pm
George Speight made a big blunder in 2000!!. He should have circumcised Chaudhry whilst he was held hostage. Now he is taking action that will haunt the Fijian people for ever. Much to the Indian Community and Nationalist’s delight!!!!..As for our circumcised Fijian soldiers, may God help them see the light. The reality of Chaudhry’s political agenda is now comin g to the fore. It is a pity, but Frank and his Fijian soldiers cocan not do much now. They have already traded their Fijian people’s heritage in exchange of Chaudhry’s support and that is the tradegy we now have to reckon with…May we have a strong Taukei leader to help us restore our lost heritage in these charade…
February 15, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Another topic 1st. the council sacked 14 union staff because they had no funds but paid a law firm $10,000 in December 2007 . Just got that off the times ! Is that the same thing they tried to do here in Sydney in 1998 with the Maritime Union of Australia members when they chased them off the wharfs with dogs and security guards ? It was taken to court and found that the Federal Government ( John Howard ) had violated and broken their own laws . They were ordered to re-instate the men , but by then , 700 lost their jobs as the company would have had the banks foreclose on them otherwise . They fought the case on the ” right to associate ” ! Does this apply in this case , if so , can you pass it onto to the men who were sacked , it might get them their jobs back , but my guess is they would have to fight their case on different grounds . never ever give up and united we stand divided we fall . Now they should lobby to have the Council sacked .
February 15, 2008 at 3:52 pm
It’s been obvious from before this coup , that Frank was used by Chaudhry . The reason was the pending questioning of Frank by Andrew Hughes . To stop himself going to prison , Frank initiated the coup . No doubt Chaudhry saw an opportunity to use this to his advantage and probably instigated the whole thing . Frank was only too willing to use the soldiers to do his dirty work . Hopefully , some of the soldiers have woken up to themselves now and have remembered their oath to serve and protect the citizens of Fiji . I’m sure the oath doesn’t say to serve and protect the Commander , President and Chaudhry ! What Fiji needs now , is a real man and real Commander , to come forward from the ranks and have all involved in this regime , arrested and brought before the Courts . I would suggest this could be done in the International arena , as the current judicuary in Fiji , is compromised and it’s ability to pass sound judgement , is non existant . Mr. Qarase is still the legaly elected Prime Minister and the Contitution has not been abrogated , nor parliament disolved . The Ministers , including the Prime minister , have not resigned and so can still ask for intervention or legally order Military officers to arrest Frank and his goons . It’s time for the people of Fiji to bring this regime to it’s knees , ask for outside intervention from the Unions and other organisations and the United Nations , it seems the Indian Government has a hand in these events ! Maybe it’s just time for the masses to parade through the streets of Suva .
February 15, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I asked the question yesterday , out of concern , not to be an alarmist as such . But if the land is de reserved , does that mean it can be used then as collateral for the farmer to get a development loan from the bank ? If that is the case , as I understand it is , and the farmer can’t service the loan and gets behind on the payments , then can the bank foreclose and take the land ? Would that mean that the owner doesn’t have legal recourse to get his land back from the bank . Is all of this proposal , simply a smokescreen to get the land from the traditional owners ? At some stage , the Fijians will have to use force to eradicate this regime and the IG . The option of going through the courts , is no longer a viable one , given that so many of the Judges sympathise with Frank and the IG . The time has come , I would suggest !
February 15, 2008 at 4:36 pm
So now we have a delegation of Chinese going to Fiji to talk to Frank about opportunities there ! Steven Spielberg has pulled out from the Beijing Olympics because the Chinese Government are buying oil and supplying weapons to the Military in Sudan . It’s the Sudanese Military who are killing innocent men , women and children , unarmed and creating the refugee situation in Darfur . Given the one child policy , the fact that the Chinese often don’t pay their workers , at all and that it is a Communist regime , why would Fiji even entertain having them invest in Fiji . Between , China and India , there won’t be anywhere for the Fijians to live soon . Or maybe the Fijians could rent from them for $600 a week ! http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-02/14/content_7605541.htm
A boycott of the Olympics has been called for by Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa and Mia Farrow , the American actress . Yet Frank wants to sell out his countrymen and country to these very same people . And did you know that the Chinese Government Spies on Australian citizens within Australia’s borders and threatens that they will take action against their loved ones back in China and that the internet is heavily censored in China . Let alone the Human rights abuses of that Godless regime against their own citizens . Shows you where Frank and Chaudhry are coming from , don’t you think ?
February 15, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Nothing to do with the above topic; BUT I am v. happy to hear that Ballu Khan has been ordered released from Police custody… ONE more Police POTE.
I think Pol. commish Full Chow must be the most stupid commish in the world; ans Nazi Ali his seconder… Maybe they are vieing for “DUNCE OF THE MONTH ??
February 15, 2008 at 6:47 pm
yes , I agree with you Linus ! well said , it must be a prerequisite to join the IG and the Military Council , one must be a dunce !
February 15, 2008 at 9:03 pm
It all seems to be unclear what the Chodo’s real intentions are. Some mentioned its vote buying from the Indo cane farmers. Is it true he will be standing for elections again? My word we’ve had enough of this arrogant destroying prick in our lives which he has ruined for over 20 years. Another idea is that he is trying to give to the Indos as much as he can under the protection of the bipolar pig Vore before he leaves the scene. There must have been a very heavy deal made between these two that both have got each others balls in each others hands. “If you squeal I squeeze”.
February 15, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Mark Manning!
Native Reserve is special land set aside by the NLTB for the exclusive future sustenance use of the landowners themselves. It is a relatively minor portion of the totality of Native Land, and is not an obstacle to renting out the vast majority of land that is available for leasing. The whole idea of Native Lease Title itself is precisely to enable landowners to collateralize their land into capital. The problem is that Native leases have been severely emasculated by the ALTA legislation, which earn the lowest land rentals anywhere in the world. The ALTA legislation is also almost completely rigged in favour of tenants, and offers landowners little or no effective recourse in the event of tenant breaches or abuses. However, as far as bank foreclosures are concerned, the banks cannot hold on to a “repossessed” lease for any longer than the lease term, because it is repossessed from the tenant, not the landowner. So I don’t think there are any real worries in that regard – yet!
But I think at least one good thing has come out of this whole sorry de-reservation episode at least. And that is that now Chodo has accidentally let the cat out the bag insofar as the acceptability of contract farming is concerned! So as the blogger “Indian” said in a previous post – landowners should now just forget about CBUL’s 10% UCV offer, and hold out instead for Krisnamurti’s 33% of proceeds under contract farming arrangements – for Native Lease that is, not Native Reserve. So spread the word to your mataqalis and tikinas, gang!
February 16, 2008 at 12:01 am
Leasing may be a quick way to get cash for the land owners but it is not the most effective way develop them. It will crowd them out from activiely participating in the economy and they will become dependent on that money for years to come. Its like shareholding in companies. Its not giving the people the skills to actively participate and acquire the business skills .IMO it can be used as a political weapon by the Indians to dig in and let the land oners become dependent on them just like the people in most western and nrthen regions. Best way is for them to set up their own agribusiness companies and earn millions from them instead.
February 16, 2008 at 8:21 am
Yes that other guy is right, the banks cannot foreclose on the land owner and his rights to the land.
Native Reserve is special land set aside by the NLTB for the exclusive future sustenance use of the landowners themselves. Why doesn’t someone find out if the reserved land is being used for that purpose. I think Qarase said something in parliament in 2005 that of all the lands reserved recently, 95% was not being utilized. So reservation is being used as a political tool at the detriment of the landowner.
By the way, on the idea of contract farming, has anyone thought about getting the Indians into a new agreement for a new contract – Girmit 2.0.
February 16, 2008 at 10:51 am
The end is near but the rats are still scrambling, scrambling for a foothold to run to the top of the mast, to put in place their fascist plans. as usual for chodo, too many enemies to crush and then hoist on his own plans.
February 16, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Why are Land owners Army personals silent ? ? ?
Do you realise that 5/12/2006 Coup was for MPC and,via Millions in Aus and ANZ accounts do distabiles the Fijians for Indians to dorminate.
Commander/IPM is in the Pay-roll too.
The Military Council too ? ? ? ?.
NEVER TOUCH FIJIAN KOVUKOVU
February 16, 2008 at 11:52 pm
The Commader is in India for Pace Maker or to secure his share of $1,700.00 in MPC personal Acc. in Sua&NZ
February 16, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Sorry it’s AUS&NZ acc.
February 17, 2008 at 7:12 am
Too much talk no action. Action is needed before its too late. Time to rise up people.
February 17, 2008 at 11:16 am
Agree with you Jose…..and Linus, true’s up…..tamani big POTEX for the police, they needed a High Court Judge to embarrass them in their faces on a simple interpretation of bail conditions….this is after Ballu’s learned QC, explained to them, then Graham Leung simplified it further, then they woke up Magistrate Kato (after 1am) and got him on the phone to clarify…..but after that nooooo, they had to go to the High Court in broad daylight, and hear it for themselves…..how friggin dumb can they be….just goes to show how empty-headed their leadership is…and do you want further tid-bit, the person propelling their endeavours was none other than our even dumber PSJ….aka perm Sec for Justice (aka military mongral)…what a sad day!
As for the current topic, if you go back a little further to when Qarase was still in power and the early days of this nonsensical coup, you will find that Dr Krishna’s consultantcy report is a replica of what Dr Sahu Khan’s submission to the Fiji Law Society on reverting idle native land to State land to be re-leased to the farmers and making it in line with the Constitution (fuggedaboutit did an interesting article on Epi Ganilau’s reaction to such a proposition). This plan for de-reservation has always been in the pipeline and now they seek to legitimise it…..we have to wake up now and smell the coffee, reeeh!??!
February 17, 2008 at 11:36 am
Budhau,
We already have Girmit 2.0 – it’s called ALTA!
Indenture has simply moved from the factor of Labour to that of Land to keep the low-yielding Sugar Industry viable.
Interestingly for anyone who knows world history, or who has seen the movie “Amazing Grace”, it was also the Sugar Industry that William Wilberforce fought for over 50 years because it was also the main justification given by British politicians for tolerating the practice of slavery back then, too!
In Fiji, we are even more patient (or anesthetized or immoral), having put up with Girmit, and then ALTO/ALTA, for over a Century. Surely now enough is enough!
February 17, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Yes, JD, enough is enough. Lethargy and immoral are an under statement. If truth be told, no one is really doing anything that really matters. The ig agendas are on- track even if we keep blogging until pigs fly. Qarase wasn’t brilliant any way or he would have had some strategy organised to counter any kind of take over when the even less brilliant Voreqe was openly threatening the nation. After all, the coup was being evident prior to that, maybe so for a year. It’s becoming also evident that this isn’t a local coup. Forget about your rights and the United Nations. They are all for Globalism which is happening in Fiji right now. The ig are not broke. They are financed. The ig and everyone in it who are in the know are all subject to the devil’s advocate Mataca. Voreqe, a catholic, is subject to him. That hierarchy is plain. Voreqe is and was a nobody until the previous coup. The sly old Mataca was always lurking in the background waiting for orders. The UN is the right- hand of the pope who set it up and the jesuits are in control who founded freemasonry, all subject to the pope. Fiji, is just another number set up to come in line like Iraq and Afghanistan and all other countries that came out of wars and revolutions. The pope is the champion of humanrights. The UN can choose to turn a blind eye so forget about the world leaders listening to your pleas of breaches of your human rights. You all know our judiciary is compromised and the ig attorney general is blatantly and grossly incompetent. The ig ombudswoman spends half the time defending her intergrity and competence against more experienced academics. The police and the army are just stooges taking orders with no intergrity to their role of duty, beginning with their so called leaders. Fiji locals are pretty much on their own. And the ig, what are they? Just a simple bunch of soon to be used by date Judas Iscariots once the agendas are in place and the one world order takes it’s course in the Fiji government systems dictated to by the same said after the election next year. Forget about New Zealand and Australia. They were the guinea pigs, test pieces, when all this started eon years ago. Tried and true before the systems were introduced to the rest of the world. So, where do we turn? Fighting is useless. I don’t see it happenning. Not with the evidently clearly laid back culture. Taki tale!!!!!!!
February 17, 2008 at 6:41 pm
The illegal interim government’s proposed Ten Percent Land Solution is a nonsense concept that won’t work ikn real life. Here’s why:
The Illegal Government’s announced increase in native land rent from
6% to 10% shows how incompetent and out of touch they are. OK,
so they realize there is a problem with low rents. And they think they
are being politically smart to promise more to the landowners without
increasing the rent paid by the tenants.
What they do not understand is that rents are not set at 6% of
Unimproved Capital Value. That is simply the maximum they can be
set at. Actual rents are worked out through a process which can and
has left them much lower, thanks to a tribunal protecting tenants’
interests. The Agricultural Landlords and Tenants Act is the most
tenant friendly legislation in the world.
A Canadian academic, Professor John Davies, calculated what the
rent would be for sugar cane land alone if the full 6% UCV applied to
all leases. According to Davies, it would be $33,835,716, not the
$2,433,774 actually paid in cane rents in the year 2000. So an
increase to 10%, if it were actually to be paid, would require payment
of $56.4 million. Where is Mahendra Chaudhry going to find the extra
$54 million?
This is before we get to the funds needed for non-cane land.
Once again, it can be seen that the Illegal Government is living in
lalaland.
– Corruption fighter
February 17, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Truesup CF!
What is 10% of “think of a number”?
UCV is such a subjective quantity that is really doesn’t matter what the percentage of it is. Especially when it is the Tribunal, and not some agreed and objective formulas, which has the final say on any disputes!
Knowing the regime’s penchant for appointing cronies, what expectations could you really have for UCV if say, Rajend Chaudhry was appointed Sugar Tribunal?
And as you have implied, the maximum percentage can be moved to 50% of UCV, but it makes no difference if the actual or average contracted percentages stay exactly the same. That is something that certainly can and probably will happen under this regime – the main difference being that this time landowners will lose their land for 50 years, not 30 (& without a sniff of COLA or anything to help keep parity)!
February 18, 2008 at 10:07 am
Rajiend Chaudary for the for the Sugar tribunal – thats true.
Why is ALTA the most tenant friendly legislation in the world – if was Mara in 1977 or around that time who had put this ALTA in place. .The Indian leadership back then, Koya and Co were opposed to this ALTA. If was some Indians in the NFP that broke away from Koya to vote for the Mara legislation which could only be passed with this few extra votes. This was Maras baby.
Well, I guess Mara was also under the spell of some Indian Mastermind, just like Ganilau, Nailatikau and FB under the spell of this present Indian Mastermind.
So if you want to blame someone for this – Blame Mara.
This UCV thing – who decided on this, we have had colonial rulers followed by the Mara regime.
When you lease your land, for 30 years or 50, you do not lose you land – (that remark about “without sniff og COLA or anything to help keep parity” – I thought that they looked at the rental on regular basis and rents go up.
As for Professor Davies research, maybe some of you may want balance that with reading up on some rebuttals of the good Prof. There is always more than one side to these stories.
The 10% solution – what they seem to be proposing is that the additional 4% goes to benefit the Matagali – the NLTB should not take its 15% cut, I think the big chiefs should also give up on their cut of this extra money – they could buy a new SUV once every 4 years, instead of once every 3.
Once some of you figure out who the enemy is – finding a solution may not be that difficult. As long as this Indian Boogeyman is around, you can not see beyond that.
February 18, 2008 at 10:41 am
The best solution to getting rid of ALTA is to not get into it. Once leases expire, do not lease the land again, do not renew it…ALTA is modern day slavery from the point of view of the owners. Landowners should start investing in their own land resources and jump into the 21st century. Those others who are insisting on ALATA should find a place on earth where they can allow them to plant cane with their ALTA conditions…simple.
February 18, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Budhau,
I take your point on ALTA reviews.
But in the end, how often are these done in practice, and what difference have they made anyway? ALTA rents are still far, FAR below what is fair or possible! Rent reviews are rare as hen’s teeth, and any rent review can simply be overturned by the Tribunal for whatever reason because there is NO EXPLICIT, QUANTIFIABLE MECHANISM (like COLA) within ALTA to deal with inflationary erosions of rent value!
So nothing can change the fact that under ALTA landowners will still be at the mercy of a system that has PROVED WITHOUT EXCEPTION, AND FOR OVER HALF A CENTURY that it is not concerned with fairness, or their interests! Blaming Mara or the Colonials won’t change that simple fact! And who cares about any putative Indian “bogeyman”? The only thing that will change it is changing ALTA through the legislative process, or abandoning it through the market action of landowners “voting with their feet” and not renewing leases! Because the legislation itself has LONG SINCE BECOME INTOLERABLE!
In that regard landowners do LOSE their land under ALTA for the period of the lease. Practically speaking, they have virtually no rights over their leased land at all during the lease term. They certainly don’t have any of the usual rights expected for landlords under normal tenancy agreements. Just one example is that it is possible for a tenant on non sugar land to be derelict on his rent payments for years, even decades, and still not forfeit his lease. Or he/she could sublet to a third party tenant under a common law 50% share-cropping revenue arrangement, and still be in NO DANGER AT ALL of losing his ALTA lease! You would know these possibilities if you’d read the Davies research as you imply!
And as for that research, I have read ALL the academic responses to it. And none of them even seemed able to understand the theory of economics. The only exception was one Oskar Kurer, who did raise a number of valid practical and theoretical issues with the research. However Davies responded to those and put them all to bed. And Kurer has since been unable, or unwilling, to engage in any further debate on the issue. In academic circles, that implies qui tacet consentire videtur, buddy!
So your 10% solution is still not a solution because it has not address ANY of the loopholes raised in previous posts.
February 18, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Landowners must not sit back on their laurels and get comfortable. They must work their land or get a job in preparation for the soon to be introduced land tax. Yes, you pay tax on your own land. If you don’t, you loose it for arreers owing.
February 18, 2008 at 6:04 pm
As Harry Belafonte sings – this beautiful song always reminds me that Fiji is the most precious place on earth – noone is going to take my land away from me – EVER!
This is my island in the sun
Where my people have toiled since time begun
I may sail on many a sea
Her shores will always be home to me
Oh, island in the sun
Willed to me by my father’s hand
All my days I will sing in praise
Of your forest, waters, your shining sand
As morning breaks the heaven on high
I lift my heavy load to the sky
Sun comes down with a burning glow
Mingles my sweat with the earth below
Oh, island in the sun
Willed to me by my father’s hand
All my days I will sing in praise
Of your forest, waters, your shining sand
I see woman on bended knee
Cutting cane for her family
I see man at the waterside
Casting nets at the surging tide
Oh, island in the sun
Willed to me by my father’s hand
All my days I will sing in praise
Of your forest, waters, your shining sand
I pray the day will never come
When I can’t awake to the sound of drum
Never let me miss carnival (everyone loves the Hibiscus Festival)
With calypso songs philosophical (Teivovo, Isa Isa, Biau mai Wasa, Lomaloma, Sai Levuka Ga, Era bini Tu, so many more.)
Oh, island in the sun
Willed to me by my father’s hand
All my days I will sing in praise
Of your forest, waters, your shining sand
February 18, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Jean’dArk: Valuation of land is actually scientific, in theory at least. ALTA
provides the following formula for calculating UVC: *(3) “For the
purposes of subsection (2), “unimproved capital value” means the
capital sum which the land the subject of the agricultural holding, if it
were held for an estate in fee simple unencumbered by any mortgage
or charge thereon, might be expected to realise at the time the
maximum rent was assessed, fixed and, certified if offered for sale
with vacant possession on such reasonable terms and conditions as
a bona fide seller might be expected to require and assuming that
any improvements thereon or appertaining thereto made by the
tenant or acquired by the tenant had not been made: Provided that
such capital sum shall only take into account the purpose for which
the land is leased and not the actual use of the land or any purpose
for which the land could be used.” In other words, you calculate the
value of production from the land, say growing sugar, and then
estimate how much a buyer would pay for the land if it generated the
income you’ve estimated. I suspect the problem is the NLTB has
been slack in doing all of the valuations on a timely basis. Either that
or the agricultural tribunals over-rule the NLTB. Which ever way you
look at it, $66 a hectare to lease good arable land is a steal.
CORRUPTION FIGHTER
February 18, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Good point Corruption Fighter. I have a copy of the article from
Prof Davies that you quoted. It was in the Sunday Times a few
years ago. It also contained the following which I circled and kept
“What is particularly disturbing about these rent levels is not simply
their absolute levels, but their relationship to the value of the output
the land can produce. In this respect, a typical parcel of cane land,
when farmed with due diligence, can easily produce 55 tonnes of
cane per hectare, which, based on the average value of cane over
the last few years ($50 per tonne), would be worth $2,750. Now given
the current $66 per ha average rent paid by tenants, rent payments
work out to only 2.4% of the value of the output the land produces.
This is by far the lowest level of any country for which we were able
to get data.”
February 18, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I wonder who is getting the lease money from all the land that Ratu KKT Mara blithely usurped from Villagers in Lakeba & other Lauan Islands?
Roads, airports, government buildings – who’s benefitting from all this money that should be paid straight to the landowners, Where is it all? How much is there? Can NLTB supply this information? Surely someone out there knows.
A meca i E fika ga – sa sega bau a silini. OK Lauans start an investigation.
February 19, 2008 at 8:50 am
Point taken CF – I have over-simplified the ALTA rent-fixing issue!
The ALTA rental assessment formula is putatively 90% “scientific”! But it might as well be 0%, because the weakest link in the process chain manifests in the phrase “might be expected to earn”!
According to whom? A qualified land valuer? A qualified agricultural expert? The NLTB? The NFU? And at what level of productivity? The industry average? The industry average if there were no burnt cane? Or the industry average no more ratoons after the third?
Then even once that rental figure’s established, whatever it is, it must then be agreed to by both the tenant and landowner under ALTA’s statutes. This is something which introduces another degree of arbitrariness and intractability.
And in the “likely” event that they can’t agree and decide, then you hit the bottom line in the whole process, in that it is the Tribunal, and not the NLTB, which is ultimately empowered under section 22 to “assess, fix and certify” ALTA rents.
There are a number of good reasons for wanting to use the UCV mechanism. But without good faith (and we know this quality has been politicized completely out of the industry now) it just degenerates into a “pity party” tug-of-war between the poor tenant and the poor landowner. And for whatever reason, we know the tenants have almost always won out!
The main reasons for wanting to use the UCV formula appear to be twofold – A. To encourage tenants to invest in the land, and; B. As a form of protection for the genuinely poor farmer, especially in the event of things like crop failures, or floods etc.
But there are much better, and more modern, ways to achieve these aims in a way that doesn’t punish the landowner, or leave him in a legal and administrative quagmire if he wants redress.
For instance, concern A. could be addressed much more simply and fairly by a well-designed productivity mechanism. This could possibly involve a sliding scale of rental percentages, inversely proportional to productivity gains, and fixed against the land’s ACTUAL average production – something which would reward the tenant but WITHOUT punishing the landowner.
Similarly, Concern B. appears to presume that farmer difficulties MUST be underwritten from landowner dues. Why? Where else in any commercial leasing arrangement do you see this kind of thinking? Why is it the landowner’s responsibility? If the tenant can’t pay, then why shouldn’t cane-cutters also subsidize him by reducing their cane-cutting charges? Or why can’t the fertilizer company further subsidize his fertilizer cost in the event that the tenant is struggling?
More realistically, surely it is the tenant’s own responsibility through some kind of industry insurance scheme. And if the poorer tenants can’t afford this, then surely it becomes an Industry-wide responsibility, or a Governmental one! But why on earth must we all assume that this must be paid for out of landowner dues?
The reason is simple and twofold: 1. The (marginal) Industry must survive, so it can’t be expected to pay (leaving the poor landowner as the sacrificial lamb), and; 2. Since other races can never privately own native land, we must offset that “injustice” by offering them de facto lease terms that approximate private ownership in lieu.
But both reasons, and the thinking behind them are fundamentally flawed. Reason # 1’s flaws are obvious and should not even need explanation. But reason # 2 is wrong because it is not only other races who can’t privately own native land. Fijians also CANNOT privately own native land – no one can! So there is no unfairness or racial imbalance in that sense. All Fijians can do is communally own native land, or have vakavanua access to it! And even then, this is only in respect of their own qele and vanua.
So if it is racial parity that ALTA is seeking, it needs to facilitate that through some other mechanism that allows other races opportunities for communal land access – but not by trying to superimpose private, freehold conditions over native title . One possible mechanism might be some form of “adoption” into particular mataqali, say by learning their particular dialect and protocols, and/or their annual involvement in certain community projects, thus qualifying them for vakavanua lease-holding, say!
There might be many other ways to affect this, but the bottom line is that ALTA is the wrong answer to the wrong question. And so it must surely now, in the 21st century, be finally seen for anathema that it is!
February 19, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Valuation can be scientific but it is probably not economically feasible
to have every small plot subject to the revaluation process. A simpler
rent adjustment would mean that administration doesn’t eat up all the
rent. ALTA has to go, that’s for sure. Thirty year leases are a
problem. May be leases could be shorter, say 15 years, or a short
roll-over could be allowed at the end of a thirty year lease. The only
thing I’m certain of is that you need a democratically elected
government to solve these problems and preferably one in which
MCP is not elected.
CORRUPTION FIGHTER
February 19, 2008 at 1:41 pm
CF, Budhau, AK, Seini, Jose & Western!
Have you guys read Paula Raqekai’s interesting land article in today’s (19/02) Times? Some previously unpublished facts and perspectives raised there – quite revealing!
Anyway, here’s a little bit more “food for thought” from Prof Davies, from his rebuttal of Oskar Kurer:
“To give one further concrete demonstration of ALTA’s limitations, mention was made earlier of the partnership arrangements common in developed democracies where landowner and tenant share costs and the crop. Now what is wrong with landowner and tenant coming together in similar partnerships in Fiji, sharing input costs, harvesting costs and then the income from the sale of the crop, along with, in the process, the ever present risk of a poor harvest? Doesn’t this put them on the same side rather than in different corners? Does it not provide incentives to landowners as well as tenants to invest in the land? Does it not capitalise on the respective strengths of each partner? Does it not automatically and equitably share subsidy payments? Is this sort of arrangement not precisely the cooperative type of venture that the nation desperately needs to encourage not just for the sake of sugar, but for the larger economy and society? Yet such partnerships would be illegal under Section 11 of ALTA.”
February 19, 2008 at 6:25 pm
This is how ALTA works:
ALTA provides for the formation of a Committee of Valuers that determines the UCV of the land – this valuation was to be done every five years.
In 1992, the Committee of Valuers used a small sample visiting 150 farms in 15 days and determined the UCV for the whole of Fiji.
The UCV value is also based on the sale of freehold land. Freehold land is scarce, the demand high and this is not a fair comparison.
Between 1977 and 1987, the minimum UCV assessed increased by 540%. From 1987 to 1992 it increased 240%.
The maximum UCV assessed between 1987 and 1992 was 500%, between 1977 and 1987 was 200%.
So, you see how the UCV values have increased and the rents based on UCV. Even the sugar cane contract from the FSC adds value to the UCV.
It is incorrect to claim that there is no mechanism within ALTA to deal with the “inflationary erosion of rent values” – this is the type of incorrect information that has been fed to common man which has brought about the dissatisfaction with ALTA.
The Landowners “voting with their feet” is not correct. Land, which has always been politicized, has been done more so since 1987. What exactly is wrong with ALTA that makes it so intolerable. If there is a problem with the 6% UCV negotiate a higher amount, if there is a problem with valuation, deal with it.
When you lease your land or any other real property – whatever the period of lease may be, you have lost your right to possession, you do not lose your right to title – that is how it works.
I think there are more intelligent people, Indians, Fijians and others who have as good a understanding of the theories of economics as this good professor Davies. It seems that some in the nationalist circles seem to be just totally fascinated by this Professor.
The land solution should be a win/win for both the tenants and the landowners – remember, there are others out that who are equally knowledgeable and maybe somewhat more impartial than this professor guy.
February 19, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Sugar cane farming Under Profit sharing plan:
Here are the numbers.
Total revenue from 1 ha.:85tons x $55/ton = $4675.00
Cost 85 x $38.00 = $3230.00
Net Profit $1445.00
0ne third to landowner $481.00
Note that the sugar price are expected to go down significantly with the EU subsidies being phased out. Also the energy prices and other costs are going up.
Also note that in a bad year, cyclone or drought, there won’t be the average 85 ton/ha.
Under 6% of UCV for class one land.
UCV for 1 ha = $9000.00
6% = $540.00. to the landowner.
Want to take a bigger cut of the tenants’ profit – go figure out what the farmer makes on an average 4 ha farm and compare that with the $7000 poverty line, add the few chickens and the vegetable garden. Note that the landowner does not pay any taxes on his lease income – there is a certain threshold, below which, the farmer will leave – maybe we can do that, just squeeze out the farmer and the land will be ours to do whatever we like.
Do we really want that, ask the chiefs in the west who make the most from agricultural land leases.
February 19, 2008 at 7:00 pm
well 4 u chodo…u must b stupid trying to revive the sugar industry. As u know dat it is no longer warranted for, landowners are tryin to use there land for crop diversification.
dont try to use them as a vote buying tactic for the election next year[ if it goes on]…
Chodo, u can dream on about dis. One final answers to u: pack our bags and go wid the farmers to your motherland where your voice will b heard as it is one of the main sponsors of the December 5th coup.
Remember this is FIJI and not little INDIA as u dreamt off..
February 20, 2008 at 10:34 am
Jean d’Ark: Will get back to you on this when I finish a bit more research that Im doing. The big issue for us bloggers I think is to get all the relevant facts on the table so that our discussion is well informed. Seems a lot of people are letting their hearts rule their heads on this one, if you know what I mean. CF
February 20, 2008 at 11:02 am
Budhau: I think we know where you are coming from now. The question you have not answered is the one raised by Prof Davies, ie why should landowners get such a tiny percentage of the revenue in Fiji compared with other countries? Dr Krishnamurthi clearly understands the international benchmarks that apply here. Are our sugar farmers inefficient – yields too low, expenses too high? What is absolutely clear is that you think that the landowner stands at the back of queue when revenue is shared. Are you concerned about landowners falling below the $7000 poverty line? if you are, it certainly does not show in your comments. CF
February 21, 2008 at 8:03 am
Budhau,
It is clear now that you are the latest incarnation of VTS and the Regime’s “blog-spoiler” propaganda troops. But thankfully you guys seem to have finally learned your lessons and are at least trying to be constructive now. So thank you for your thoughtful contributions here – maybe we might get somewhere this time if you continue to remain civil in this.
That said, I need to point out that your two comments here, although revealing, as still a couple of laps behind in the debate. We had already established that ALTA does have a review mechanism. But the point is not whether some provision for this is there in the legislation is there or not. The point is, why doesn’t the existing provision work?
We then established that in practice rent reviews are either not done, or they get dissipated within the subjectivity of UCV, or more typically, are simply reversed by the Tribunal. So what is to stop the same thing from happening again over the next 30 years under the SAME flawed legislative set-up? Nothing as far as anyone can see!
Also, your comparison of share-cropping rentals versus UCV ones, although revealing, also falls into the same trap. First of all, although your UCV estimate seems reasonable, there is simply NOTHING to stop some-one else coming up with a different figure and some justification for it. This is the problem with UCV. It appears to be objective, but it is not. Not that it can’t be precise – because it can! The problem is what will it be, and under what assumptions, and based on what expertise. That is entirely open-ended under UCV’s subjectivity as we have seen.
And so even if we accept the UCV figure in your comparison, we immediately run into the problem that we rarely if ever find the full 6% UCV levied for ALTA rentals. Indeed the average rental payment per hectare under ALTA is only around $120 – far short of the $540 you used in your analysis. So the real choice there is not between the two figures you listed, but rather between the weighted probabilities of actually getting them. And in that case a 100% chance of getting $480 certainly beats a 2% chance of getting $540. These points have made a number of times over the course of the discussion this post, so I’m not sure why you don’t seem to be able to “get it” and follow the debate on this!
Moreover, your assumption on declining future crop values of land is plain wrong! In an environment of spiraling global food and fuel prices, the value of bio-ethanol sugar production, and of alternate cash crop demands, means that the opportunity cost of agricultural land is set to surge significantly over the next decade. Landowners who are not fully informed and properly cautious about the real economic potential of their land before they run the risk of blithely stumbling into another 30 years of regret under hamstrung and bound-up leases under ALTA.
Contrary to your assurances, the practical experience is that landowners do “lose” their land over the term of an ALTA lease! This is because their normal landlord rights are severely curtailed. An example from non cane land where rentals cannot be deducted at source, relates to the known practice ALTA tenants who sublet their leases to 3rd party farmers under share-cropping arrangements. On the one hand, some of these don’t even pay their ALTA rents, while on the other hand, they engage in subletting that is illegal under ALTA. But these offenders practically never get evicted as a landlord might normally expect. This is because as I have said, landowners don’t have any practical rights under ALTA – only nominal ones that never get implemented! So practically speaking – landowners DO lose their land for the lease term!
The final issue that you still don’t seem to get is “Why do we still accept the basic ALTA premise that financial difficulties experienced by the tenant MUST be subsidized out of the fair land rental expectations of the landowner?” Why must this happen? In any normal leasing arrangement, chronic financial difficulties of the tenant are solved by him closing up shop, moving on, and being replaced by a new tenant who thinks he can do better! It is not solved by the landowner foregoing his just dues! But if a fluid tenant market is not feasible in agriculture because families will not risk the residential upheaval they face, then that the subsidization of rent needs to draw from the FSC, not the landowner. And if the industry itself is still too marginal to bear that subsidy burden, then the Government needs to step in and accept that the Sugar Industry is really just a giant social welfare instrument which it needs to subsidize. And it needs to assure that that welfare is spread evenly – between landowners, tenants and workers! But the landowner should certainly not be expected to subsidize it all!
February 22, 2008 at 8:08 am
Jean, I see the change in strategy – now attack the messenger. If someone does not agree with you, he/she is part of the regimes propaganda machinery. If you, and a few others in here, want to continue with your intellectually bankrupt arguments, name calling etc, I wish you all the best.
The UCV is reviewed every five years. There has been significant increases in the values for the UCV every time there was a review and this reflects in the increases in the rent.
The 6% of UCV is the maximum rate that is allowed. All land in the country does not have the same value. A nice fertile piece of land just outside the Ba town limit, on the banks of Ba river might get the full 6% as class 1 land.
The UCV has determined the value of all class 1 land the same. Now, why doesn’t the land owner in Segaga get the same 6%. There are other factors that go into figuring out what percentage would the landowner gets. Here it is obvious that the land in Ba is close to the Mill, there is rail line to get the cane to the mill. The transportation cost is on the mill, not the farmer. In Segaga, the situation is different – so the land owner in Segaga does not get is full 6%. The UCV value of both the land is the same, the rent on it is different.
So how about you do this. Figure out why Professor Davies is wrong when he goes about taking all the land available and multiplying that by the 6% and stating that that Landowner is owed somewhere from 30 to 50 million dollars. Tell us why a prime class 1 land in Ba does not get the same rental as Class 1 land in Segaga, which has the same UCV does not get the full 6% – or do you believe that the both should get the same rental.
Jean, you wrote, “Why do we still accept the basic ALTA premise that financial difficulties experienced by the tenant MUST be subsidized out of the fair land rental expectations of the landowner?”
I totally agree with you that the landowner has nothing to do with financial difficulties of the tenant. The point was that if there was some profit sharing formula, and the idea had recently been floated, then the landowner would have to share the “profits” and profits may not be there in some years.
Regardless of the financial difficulties, land prices, and the UCV could change – both upwards or downwards based on economic conditions in the industry. With the EU subsidies gone, won’t you agree that the UCV should be revised downwards.
As for spreading the welfare – when there was the EU subsidy, it reflected in the UCV being high. That is how the landowner shared in the subsidy, now the subsidy is gone, both the tenant and the landowner must share in that loss and that should reflect in the land values.
Jean, you wrote, ‘Contrary to your assurances, the practical experience is that landowners do “lose” their land over the term of an ALTA lease! This is because their normal landlord rights are severely curtailed.”
You don’t have to take my assurances for this. A basic knowledge of real property would tell you that once you lease any real property, you lose your right to possession for the period of the lease. If the lessee breaches some term of the agreement, the owner can terminate the lease. In our case, the owner also has the NLTB to look after the interest of the landowner. Why someone who violates the terms of the lease is not evicted, that should be something you should address with NLTB.
Yes, the owner “loses” possession of his land for the term of the lease, he does not “lose” title of that land. If there is a breach, the lease is terminated. That is what a lease is all about.
Jean, lets look at your following argument.
“In an environment of spiraling global food and fuel prices, the value of bio-ethanol sugar production, and of alternate cash crop demands, means that the opportunity cost of agricultural land is set to surge significantly over the next decade. Landowners who are not fully informed and properly cautious about the real economic potential of their land before they run the risk of blithely stumbling into another 30 years of regret under hamstrung and bound-up leases under ALTA.”
First, if there is any significant change in the economy, there is built-in review of the UCV every five years – and I have given you the numbers on how the UCV has been adjusted upwards every five years. Why do you believe that this won’t now longer be done in any new leases. I have also given an explanation as to what the 6% is – a maximum – that does not mean all land must get 6%.
The “bio-ethanol” market will be dominated by the sugar producers who have lower production cost. The cost of production in Fiji is about twice as much as some of the cheaper producers.
If the land values are set to “surge significantly” in the next decade or so, and I hope it does, I am sure that would show up in the UCV.
You see Jean, while you do have a good writing style, most of your post lack substance. Talking about being civil does not necessarily give you the higher ground. Argument like what you make and the overall silly name calling that is going in this forum – these are not the type of folks that are going to take on this IG.
I am hoping that, if nothing else, we can get formula discussed – taking the total land leased, multiplying it by 6% and concluding that that the landowners are owed some $50 million.
February 22, 2008 at 12:40 pm
BTW Budhau, please stop portraying youself as Fijian when you spelling of Fijian names betrays the fact that you are not.
February 22, 2008 at 2:35 pm
To all bloggers out there…thank you so much for the pieces of info you’ve shared, it has been an eye-opener as well as mind-boggling to me. I only worked for 5 years in the civil service without being aware of all the happenings in our nation. Call me naive/gullible but now that I’m living away from Fiji, I’m now able to see the “inner works” of our so called leaders. Isa, for all law abiding & tax paying citizens of our country, we were/are mere pawns of this enormous chess game that’s being played by our il/legal leaders… God bless us all!
February 23, 2008 at 11:17 am
Budhau
The relative fertility or arability of the land will be reflected in its output. Simply put, Class A land will for example, typically have a greater crop yield per acre, ceteris paribus, than Class J land of comparable area!
So as long as you set your UCV or share-cropping percentage at a fixed value, the overall output of the farm will automatically account for the quality of the land by yielding a greater rent quantum for higher-producing land, or vice versa.
As for the distance of the land from the mill, that is a simple economic decision – is it economically worth it to farm there or not? If not, then don’t bother! But certainly don’t expect the landowner to subsidize it by accepting trivial rents.
On the other hand if there is some residual economic viability in marginal farmland that might be teased out by more manageable rents, then I agree that you have made a valid point regarding relative farm distances to the mills.
But almost all Fiji’s sugar farms would have to be located on Seaqaqa to justify the crappy 5% of farm proceeds that ALTA rentals currently average out to.
I also don’t know where you get your $50 million recommended rent figure from, since the 10% proceeds mentioned in the Davies reports would yield ~ $20 million in a given year.
To put that figure into some context, FSC losses due to cane burning is normally even higher (eg. $23 million in 2000). So if farmers are willing to trash that much value for no reason, why is it such an ordeal for them to pay even less to landowners in rent?
Finally, you are still WRONG about landowners not losing their land for the term of the ALTA lease – because effectively that’s exactly what happens. The only rights landowners have are nominal ones. But as for actual powers or rights, they have none! This is much different from normal leasing arrangements where landlords have termination rights for breaches, and interdiction rights if the tenant activities compromise or damage property value. ALTA landlords have no such rights. Their only option for redress of any grievance is to wait out the ALTA lease term to repossess the land. Until then, they remain trapped in a kind of intractable legal “twilight zone” where they can do, and expect, nothing over breaches and grievances.
They cannot get redress if rent is too small, or is not paid. They cannot get redress if ALTA land is illegally sublet. They cannot get redress if the land is farmed over-intensively, and is not permitted to periodically lie fallow for recovery. Landowners only have nominal rights – not effective ones. Because all the ALTA mechanisms that are supposed to protect their putative rights simply DON’T WORK. The can be no argument about that fact because the last 60 years of history has PROVED IT REPEATEDLY!
So I don’t know why you keep bringing up issues like the putative ALTA rent review mechanism that demonstrably doesn’t work. And in fact, almost all of the rent increments responsible for elevating ALTA rents up to even the current inadequate 5% of proceeds that they now average out at, were only implemented post-1992. That means for most of the life of ALTA and ALTO, landowner rent receipts have been utter garbage. That means that the “too little, too late” rent increases that did eventuate from the 90’s were probably only realized as part of a Government-sponsored sweetening program to encourage lease renewals as ALTA drew to a close.
That track record in turn means that landowners can expect similar neglect under any renewed ALTA lease term. Just another 20 or 40 years of industry and Government neglect while the current lousy rent levels dissipate away under inflation, followed by 10 years of panic trying to upgrade rent levels from abysmal to inadequate again, in the lead-up to the next round of renewals. That is the established pattern, and there is absolutely nothing in ALTA that can overturn it AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN!
Anyway Budhau, in the end it doesn’t matter whether you can see this or not. Or whether you understand it or not! It does not matter a lick who “wins” this argument, or what the Regime thinks. The only thing that matters is that landowners understand that ALTA is broken, and that they also have no guarantees under the current rickety Constitutional circumstances. That means if Government doesn’t fix ALTA and come up with a good enough and safe enough deal next time, then they better get ready to “right-size” the Sugar Industry down to only a couple of hundred farms producing only a couple of hundred tons of cane per year.
March 12, 2008 at 2:32 pm
WHY WE R SO INTO RACIAL EQUALITY,HARMONY, WHEN BAVADRA WAS OUSTED WAY BACK THEN HE HAD NOTHING TO FALL BACK TO AND DIED WITHOUT EVEN RETURNING BACK TO POWER…. WHEN CHODO WAS DETHRONED HE WHEN STRAIGHT TO INDIA BECAUSE HE RIGHTFULLY BELONGS THERE SO THEY LEND HIM THEIR 50C SUPPORT…SO HE BOUNCE BACK HE IS THE BACKBONE OF THIS COUP……..PROPHISIED BY HIS PRESIDENT………LAST YEAR AND I QUOTE WE WILL FINISH WHAT WE STARTED……….AND PINOKIO WITH HIS ONE DAY REACH ARMY ARE DEFINITELY THE FISH BRAIN PLAYERS………….
June 4, 2009 at 10:18 am
The Army thinks that the UNIFORM will protect them and their families. Look beyond that uniform!!! You wear that uniform for only a number of hours within a week or fortnight, but you have a God given uniform as a fijian(TAUKEI) since you were born till the day you die. To all the Taukei in the Army, stand up for who you are and not what the uniform made you to be. Think of your families and relatives who live around you that will support you in every way but not those people who give orders and go their own way. A colonel once said “i joined the army to protect my people and my country” but the way that is going now it is more about protecting the govenment and its peace and not the people of Fiji. I pray for those in the army who stand for the people and dedicate their life serving the people of Fiji.