A senior Pacific economist has questioned the Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (FCCC) April 1 petrol price determination, saying the jump at the pumps appears to reflect incorrect data or an unexplained change in methodology.
Dr Kishti Sen, ANZ Group’s senior Pacific economist based in Sydney, told this newspaper the April reset — which followed the FCCC’s March review — should have been calculated using February’s Brent crude prices, not March’s rally. Under the commission’s usual approach, Sen said, the cost estimate for refined imports is driven by the Mean of Platts Singapore (MOPS) benchmark for that month, with freight, refiner margins and currency movements added or subtracted. Because MOPS itself tracks Brent crude with a one‑month lag, he argued, the best estimate of March import costs would be based on February’s average Brent price.
The average price of Brent in February was US$69 per barrel, Sen noted — a 7.2 per cent rise from January — and that movement should have translated into a modest April pump rise of roughly seven US cents per litre in urban areas, with slightly larger increases in regional and maritime communities. Instead, petrol at urban stations rose from $2.44/litre to $2.93/litre on April 1 — a 21 per cent jump — he said. Sen pointed out that this increase more closely matches a 24 per cent rise in Brent crude measured over a seven‑week span covering all of February and the first three weeks of March.
“Why month prior? The answer lies in the way the crude oil market functions,” Sen said, explaining that headline prices operate as futures contracts for delivery in coming weeks rather than immediate spot purchases. He added that refiners in Singapore and South Korea, where Fiji sources much of its refined fuel, would typically be taking delivery of March‑priced crude during April, which implies the March rally should be reflected in May 1 prices — not the April 1 reset.
Sen suggested two plausible explanations for the discrepancy: inaccurate data being fed into the FCCC’s pricing models, or a material change in the commission’s methodology that has not been publicly disclosed. He described the April determination as “confusing” and said “something seems amiss” given the established one‑month lag methodology that has underpinned past pricing reviews.
The FCCC has not publicly detailed any departure from its prior approach or explained the data sources used in the March review. The lack of transparency has prompted concern from economic analysts and underscores the sensitivity of fuel pricing in Fiji, where movements at the pump directly affect household budgets and transport and logistics costs across the islands.
Dr Sen’s critique is the latest development in public scrutiny over fuel pricing mechanics in Fiji. If the FCCC confirms a methodological change or identifies data errors, consumers and businesses would expect an explanation and potentially an adjustment timetable. Until then, the gulf between the commission’s April outcome and the one‑month lag framework Sen outlined remains unexplained.
Leave a comment