Public consultations on Fiji’s century-old mining laws have concluded with landowners in the Central and Western divisions demanding a stronger role in how mineral and quarry resources are managed and who benefits from their extraction. Mineral technical advisor Dr Apete Soro said the message from communities was clear: landowners want “a seat at the table” in permitting, licensing and benefit-sharing under any new legislation replacing the Mining Act 1965 and the Quarries Act 1939.
Speaking after the consultations, Dr Soro said many participants criticised the current system as predominantly a government-led process in which landowners have “very minimum involvement or participation.” He pointed specifically to the permitting stages — from exploration licences to mining leases — where customary landholders want formal rights to participate in decisions that affect their land and livelihoods. “There have been quite a lot of discussions on their participation in the process,” he said.
The consultations also highlighted widespread calls for a fairer distribution of economic returns. “Apart from participation, there is also a call for a more equitable or fair share of benefits, whatever benefits are realised or gained from either mineral exploration or mining to help landowners have a fair share,” Dr Soro said, echoing longstanding grievances that communities hosting state or private resource projects receive inadequate compensation.
Perhaps the most politically sensitive demand is around ownership. Dr Soro said landowners repeatedly urged that ownership of minerals be returned to those who hold the land, rather than remain vested in the State. That point, he cautioned, presents a constitutional as well as legislative challenge: ownership provisions are embedded not only in the Mining Act but also in the 2013 Constitution, complicating any straightforward transfer of rights back to landowners.
The government-led review of the mining and quarries laws will therefore run in parallel with broader constitutional discussions, Dr Soro indicated. He said newly appointed commissioners tasked with a constitutional review will need to hear the submissions that emerged from these consultations, even though the process for amending the Constitution is distinct and more involved than revising ordinary statutes. “We understand that the process of changing the Constitution is a very different process, but this is something that is coming out loud and clear,” he said.
The consultations add fresh pressure on policymakers already engaged in debates about legal and governance reforms. Earlier reporting noted assurances from the Attorney-General that any constitutional review would comply with legal standards; the landowners’ submissions underscore why constitutional questions are central to resource governance reform. The next phase will be for the law review team and the constitutional commissioners to consider how to reconcile statutory reforms with entrenched constitutional provisions — a task that Dr Soro acknowledged will be “a challenge” but one the consultation organisers aim to reflect faithfully in their recommendations.
Leave a comment