Land Problems in

FRANCOIS RAVAULT )

- A land tenure system exists within the legal land system of the a legal and social framework - social territory is that of the French Civil Code. organisation, methods of individual and . But there are still used two methods of collective land appropriation, and land appropriation, individual and joint owner- laws derived from them. Any economic ship, which are incompatible with the system allows for some adjustment in the spirit and letter of French law. demand for land according to availability, Almost all usable land in the residen- and conditioned by economic, social and tial zone in , Mahina to Paea, with political forces. the exception of a few enclaves of former To what extent is the land system in Polynesian dwellings, is individually French Polynesia responsible for the state owned; as is much of the southern coast of its agriculture? What characteristics of Tahiti and a few sectors of the penin- should it have to facilitate the agricultural sula, especially rural districts with a development planned by the local govern- heavy proportion of inhabitants of mixed ment? Before answering- these questions, race ídemis). such as Papara and it is necessary to understand the history Afaahiti; islands of tourist resorts such as of land policy starting from the break Moorea and ; much of Raiatea, with the past made by the proclamation Tahaa, and even to a lesser degree of the French Civil Code at the end of the , certain atolls of the Tuamotu ar- last century. chipelago, and several of the Marquesas I am deeply grateful to the High Com- Islands. Land is owned jointly almost missioner, Paul Cousseran, who in- everywhere else. In the outer ar- troduced me to this subject from l$ own chipelagoes, particularly Raiatea-Tahaa, ekperience. I have also a deep intellectual although joint ownership does not cover debt to all those jurists and social science most private property, does affect prac- researchers, especially R. Calinaüd and tically all native islanders. P. Ottino, who have contributed to a How were individual and joint owner- knowledge and solution of land problems ship established in French Polynesia? in French Polynesia. "When, in 1842, established its Historical Background to Land and Protectorate on the Kingdom of Tahiti. . . Estates land holdings were regulated by non-codified A hundred years after France an- customs . . . an individual had no written nexed the Pomare Kingdom and its deed to guarantee his rights. the actual oc- dependencies in 1880, and more than cupation of the land being. in general.'the thirty years after the suppression in 1945 source and proof of such rights. It was im- of the codified laws and native juriSdic- perative that some order be made in this em- tion of the Leeward Islands, and ptiness. '' (Bonneau, 1965, p.3).

.- 31 O. R..S.X O. M. Fonds DocumenfaÍrd Apart from a concern for legal order, p.6) the deeds do not always offer sound the Protectorate and then the .Colony guarantees as to the limits and capacities authorities were also responding to the of the properties, nor for the identification i economic context of the second half of the of the -owners. At the same time that 19th century particularly the demand ownership declarations were being from industrialised countries for oils by registered, a systematic survey of all par- trying to encourage land settlement for cels of land should have been carried out. coconut plantations. To do this it seemed Public surveys, after a timid beginning ’ necessary to give Polynesians, who con- under the Second Empire, were aban- sidered the land an inalienable family doned in 1906 when a hurricane destroyed right, individual ownership. This was done the first documents. They began again by supplying them with deeds of owner- following the proclamation of the decree ship which could serve as a legal basis for of 9 August 1927. At present, surveys are property- transactions. At the -same..time still -unfinishedsfor the southern-group of -- the administration set up the French mor- the Marquesas and in the Tuamotu ar- tgage system and began registering chipelago, and should be updated. In view property rights and their holders without of Polynesian customs regarding tran- surveying the land itself. The Tahitian smission of names and lines of descendan-. Law of 1852, established a procedure for ts, the precise identification of owners the declaration of land titles and a required qualified staff which did not register in which was to be recorded, on exist at the time, and meticulous methods the declaration of the occupant, the name, which were never uséd. Instead, a card owners, limits and approximate capacities index is kept of claims which were gran- of every property. ted. The administration granted many Though the system was simplified it deeds between 1852 and 1930, and for was not acceptable to the subjects of the many claimants they are, even today, the two last sovereigns of Tahiti. It was sole legal proof of ownership. However, \ therefore necessary to wait for an- the goal of increasing individud owner- nexation, and the decree of 24 August which, in order to encourage ship has not been attained. Certainly 1887, many people claimed land in their per- claim ants to come forward. stipulated sonal name, but in the following that any undeclared land would become generation many of these properties, in- public property. With a few variations and stead of being subdivided, have become improvements, especially in the Leeward the joint property of the heirs. Other Islands (annexed in 18981, this procedure people, particularly in the Leeward Islan- was gradually extended to the entire ds, made joint declarations and now Colony, although it was not until 1920-25 therefore find themselves joint owners. that it was applied to the east of the Tuamotu archipelago, and 1945 to Rapa, The deficient deeds and the rapid growth of joint ownership did not however ’ Rurutu and Rimatara. hinder the sudden increase in land tran- The results of this policy were disap- sactions during the first decades of this pointing, although its essential socio- century. economic goals were reached. “The main fact of agrarian history in the 20th century, I have written “Delivered on the simple declaration .elsewhere, is this stupendous transfer of of the parties concerned, with no serious rights which allowed for ’the establish- control in the field . . .” (Bonneau, 1965, ment of white and part-white owned

32 8 .

properties to the detriment of the native mostly in the city on the income earned properties which were reduced to minimal by investing the profits of agriculture in proportions”: (Ravault, 1972, p.23). A business enterprises, and the majority of number of factors made this transfer rural dwellers, who were dispossessed of possible. With subsistence agriculture, most of their land inheritance and lived population increased slowly and there was on the pittance they gathered from the little pressure on the land. cash economy. *A number of sales contracts were am- The period of economic dynamism biguous : the purchasers bought the and social differentiation, in which the ownership rights defined in the Civil Code Civil Code was instrumental, was followed whereas the sellers believed they were between 1930 and 1960 by three decades selling only the right of use. marked not only by stabilisation of land There was systematic recourse to sale ownership, but also by a growing socio- by auctioa- and sale-with-option-to-repur- -. .= economic-srisis. - chase, which obliged the recalcitrant joint Joint ownership, the complexjty of owners to transfer their rights. The com- which has increased from one generation mon use at that time of sales by auction to the next, increased considerably. In explains why the problem of joint Papeari during the thirties only 20% of possession was not a great obstacle to the the land in the district remained under establishment of estates owned by the joint ownership. In 1968, this proportion whites or halfcastes. It was quite easy to was slightly above 50%. Joint possession purchase shares in joint-owned properties involved not only the original families from owners who lived there and were not who never divided their lagds, but also making use of their land, or who did not the descendants of immigrants’of mixed live there, and then to ask the court to race who settled locally and became make allocations and to purchase the culturally assimilated. remaining shares through the court. This situation appears to be linked Until 1934 there was no control on more to overall economic development property transfers between individuals. than to the administration’s land policies. Individual ownership was encouraged Between 1930 and 1960, the administration by the establishment of coconut plan- continued to create conditions favourable tations, which came to dominate the to individual ownership by facilitating coastal plains, and the development of allocations, by attempting to avoid an ex- other exportable crops such as coffee and cessive break-up of properties while vanilla, which occupy available ground in carrying out the land survey, by creating the major river valleys and slopes. The a Department of Lands, and by setting up initiative came from the popaa a genealogical index system open to the (whitemen) and demi (part-whites), but public. Against this tendency, in order to Polynesians with cash needs followed the protect “native” property, by the decree trend and neglected food crops, which by of 25 June 1934 the administration then were grown mainly on hilly ground required all real estate transfers between which rapidly deteriorated. Stimulated by living parties to be officially authorised. almost constant price increases until 1928, This inhibited the acquisition of land by copra production increased rapidly. Chinese and other foreigners. . Individual ownership was also en- During this period there was a clear couraged by the concealed opposition bet- decrease in real estate transactions. But ween a middle-class, mainly of demis, who in reality, it was the overall socio- kept their links with the land but lived economic situation rather than the decree

33 % protecting “native” property that Over only a few years, the entir’ discouraged such dealings. There were no structure of the economy had been over- more coconuts‘left to plant except in the turned. The traditional export economy >?! Tuamotu Islands. The Polynesians, who was replaced by an economy of services . had become distrustful, were no longer . . which was also an economy of salaries. sellers and, above all, the rural economy The rapid growth. of the employment and of the French in Oceania was approaching salaries. increases caused the decline of a crisis, Copra production, which had in- the traditional export crops. In the Wind- creased rapidly until 1936, gradually ward Islands in particular, although there stabilized. Prices, continued to decrease was still a preoccupation with agriculture, between 1929 and 1941, and reached their there was a progressive adaptation of highest level at the end of the second production to the ever-increasing needs of world war, but between 1948 and 1960 the the local market. average FOB price, levelled at about 26 This ~-historical..summary-makes-two ~ francs: *At the -same-time,--between 1948 points clear. Firstly, the vigorous increase and 1962, the cost of living index In- of individual ownership was related to the creased by approximately 70 points, and dynamism and interests of the middle the annual population increase (2.5% bet- class. At the end of the 19th century and ween 1931 and 1946) rose to 3.3% the beginning of the 20th century, the Agriculture in the Territory was in Civil Code was the legal instrument for crisis. From 1955 onwards, large numbers the establishment of an economy of of Polynesians, no longer able to continue agricultural exports and the importation living from agriculture, migrated to New of manufactured products, a simple trade Caledonia. The descendants of the land- economy of colonial exploitation. This owners who -created the plantations still economy was successful between the received their annual ground rents but no . wars, but it -collapsed after 1945 with the . longer invested them. Inspector General deterioration of trading terms and the in- Guillaume noted that from 1956 onwards, crease of population. In the context of an \ people speculated on the unearned in- economy of salaries and services, in- crements expected from the development dividual ownership rarely served to of the residential areas and city zones in promote agriculture. On the other hand, response to the increase in. tourism, the land as an object of speculation which, in Tahiti, gave rise to a substantial allowed the land owners, at least in overestimation of land assets. Tahiti, to make easy money and the new Specialists (agronomists, lawyers) middle class (civil servants, merchants, hovered at the bedside of the sick child. A members of the liberal professions) to project for the revival and diversification make potentially lucrative investments. of agriculture, a “commission for the im- provement of the land system” chaired by Secondly, in contrast, joint possession a magistrate, proposed measures to which Consolidated positions in the rural promote the joint ownership of land, but area and especially in the outer ar- their report was not considered by the chipelagoes appeared to be not only a Territorial Assembly or the Central relic of the past, but also a reaction to Parliament. A start was made on the im- dispossession and an adaptation by the plementation of plans for revival but the Polynesians to an economy in turmoil advent of the Centre d’Experimentation combined with an increasing population. du Pacific (Atomic Testing’Centre for the It iq interesting to nbte that it developed Pacific) in 1962 made all efforts null and considerably between 1938 and 1960, after void. the great era of real estate dealings.

34 *... ._

II The Land Tenure System by any procedure, t..e necess,,y to Individual ownership and joint owner- have recourse to a land surveyor and ship fit into very different contexts. The an estate specialist, the indolence of the natives, interfere with allótments. .land tenure system of the Civil Code is well known. The problem stems from joint (Bonneau, 1965, pp.8-9). possession which leads to indirect forms This analysis is based on facts which and rights of land use by the owners, ,.-should .not be .undervalued, but it fails ’ governed, in the absence of clear completely to take into account the socio- regulations, by customary practices. economic and cultural context of the problems relating to land estates. It is Joint Ownership ’ perhaps necessary to point out that: In a territory where the French Civil o the Polynesians for a long time Code has the force of law throughout, rejected the procedure of the tomite joint ownership raises certain questions. before ,adhering’ to it and thus . Is it the mere total of “combined in- making a break with the past (see dividual properties” as affirmed by P anoff, 19661. several jurists who refer to the concept of absolute property rights as contained in the administration’s policy, which the Civil Code? It would then be charac- had followed this principle until terised “from a socio-economic point of 1960, failed during the crisis in the view of . . . by anarchy, insecurity and colonial economy; under-development” (Calinaud, 1976, p.3). the spectacular reduction of joint is “true collective property used to at- Or ownership over the last 15 years in tain a common goal”? These are fun- damental questions, for over and above the Leeward Islands, and in par- any legal appearances, they establish the ticular on Tahiti; followed social problem of the origin and nature of the and economic change, proof that land tenure systems in French Polynesia. the technical obstacles hindering the allocation process are not in- Can joint possession be considered merely as a “local” deviation of the Civil Code, surmountable ; or is it the expression of a specific land o on joint ownership, the rural tenure system? Before proposing my own Polynesian areas and especially in analysis, I would like briefly to consider the outer archipelagoes is linked to the arguments of holders of the classic an economic, social and cultural line of thought. environment which has been relatively preserved. The Classical Interpretation * Should this classical interpretation of For those decreasing numbers who do joint ownership then be rejected out of not doubt the universal value of the prin- hand? Of course not, for in’ the islands ciples contained in the Civil Code, joint which have been the most affected by ac- possession is merely a matter of technical culturation, in particular the Society and problems. A magistrate, without sub- western Tuamotu Islands, the kaditional scribing to the opinion, sums up their basis of customary law has been severely arguments in the following manner: jolted. Although this does not mean that The scattering of the Territory, the all land owners wish to change from joint difficulty of establishing the rights of ownership, those who do are hampered by . . everyone, the minimum costs entailed technical obstacles.

35 which indicates the allocation of land 7 Customary Law ’ !\ the result of a claim, a partition, the sim- Although in all the archipelagoes I ple fact of occupation: a will, or indeed its’l, worked in, customary law is based on cer- purchase. tain common principles, the operation of All these .factors, which were ap- the land tenure system is not always parent in all the islands I visited, prove satisfactory. that for Polynesians there is a fundamen- Precisely this inefficiency feeds the tal distinction between what I will call , arguments of those who see joint owner- collective control of the land (@wu), ship only as the’ result of a poor ap- which is the prerogative of the descen- plication of the French system. dants of the beneficiary of the original deed of allocation, and effective rights in The goals of the land tenure system the plantations held jointiy or individually by the cultivators themselves or their Property documents (for example, the heirs, - . tomite and correspon~ng-surv-~~), This phenomenrin, which can be and data relating to land use (the associated with ä division of ownership, allocation of plots for different types of furnishes proof that the Polynesian con- cultivation and rearing), show a cept of ownership as it is still firmly held discrepancy between the very general is hardly compatible with that contained nature of appropriation of fenua (land) by in the Civil Code as it is almost always in- groups of relatives descended from terpreted in French Polynesia. What is titleholders, and the very precise nature the significance of this division? of property rights relating to the cultivation of plantations. The latter may In distinguishing two categories of land rights which correspond to two levels be collective (in the case of coconut or coffee plantations), but in practice are of appropriation, the Polynesians are almost always individual, in regard for in- evidently attempting to fulfil two different stance to copra pr.oduced on a joint-owned goals. There is no ambiguity about the second. Effective rights to the plantations \ coconut plantation. In the complex cultivation arrangements quite frequent in allows people to satisfy the needs of the the , a superimposition of basic family units. With the development rights on a single parcel of land can result of a cash economy, these have become in the allocation of various types of the cells of a consumer society, even in cultivation to different farmers. For in- the most distant islands. No doubt there stance, one can find a coconut plantation has been an adaptation of customs here, worked by the various members of one for it appears that agricultural work used family group, while under the trees, to be carried out collectively by the mem- bananas and taro are grown by other who bers of an extended family under the hold rights. Except when the plantations authority of the head of that family, who are very old and the original planters would then distribute thc harvest between have been forgotten (on coconut and less the basic family units. frequently coffee plantations), farmers The ethnologist Ottino (1971) has almost always justify their rights by irrefutably demonstratcd in his study on referring to two categories of complemen- (the reach of which goes well tary events: to the action of having plan- beyond the context of the islands of the ted the crops, attributed to them or their western zone of the ), not that ancestors, or to a “deed” (for want of a land has’ a social value, which was better word) written or not, copied or not, something already known (Panoff, 1970;

36 Finney, 1973; Hanson, 19731, but how it lineage issuing from a common ancestor has preserved that value. originating in a particular district or “In spite of the new economic con- island, who may well be many ditions which radically modified the generations back in time. But this con- inter-relationship of generation and dition in itself is not sufficient. One must production, and made the conjugal also be integrated into one and/or the family emerge at the centre of the ex- other of two social categories which are tended family unit, the principles for- really .localised segments of the vast ming the basis of the extended social group formed by the descendants of family” continue to determine the that particular ancestor. Briefly, these ïdeas and behaviour of the categories are the restricted opuhoe which Polynesians. What are these? groups together very close relations . . . The undifferentiated character of the who are full, consanguine, uterine, or social structure allows anyone sometimes adopted brothers and sisters, theoretically to be “related to one’s father who have been raised together, and the and mother; one’s four grandparents, extended ophoe whieh is a group of.close. r. eight great-grandparents”, and could to relatives descended from the initial unspeakable confusion of parental and restricted group of brothers and sisters marital ties to the extent that almost and the following generations, that of the anyone may be a fifii with “the quasi- children and the grandchildren. totality of the other inhabitants of the The opu fetii is a category which can village and the atoll”, and many more be defined as a former relative, more islands too. Ottino demonstrates however likely to be dead than .living who gave that the various groups of relatives foun- birth to a group of now elderly brothers ded by descent “have a concrete and sisters, represented by at least one existence only insofar as they coincide surviving person, who forms the main with one or more territorial units . . .Y, element of an extended opu hoe. This an- The collective control of land (joint cestor is often at the base of the property ownership according to the Civil Code) rights. and effective rights in it depend on the In order to understand the mechanics conditions of residence and a nucleus of of transmission of property rights it is im- residents cultivating the family property. portant to point out that these social Land ownership is therefore a deter- categories are not frozen. “With the mining factor, of kinship: inherited land passage of time and the disappearance of guarantees the perpetuity of the family the preceeding generations” (Ottino) (see unit, but territorial security can only be fig. 31, the extended opu hoe is dissolved assured, in the context of residence, by by the death of the last representative of actual use of one’s land rights. the initial group of siblings. As many restricted opu hoe groups then come into The socio-geographical basis of custom existence as there are families of first generation descendants in that group. To Under customary law, to be a jatu these groups are added the following (owner) in the widest possible sense of the generations, so they in turn become the term, one must be a taata tutnu: one must head elements of new extended opu hoe. have family roots in the area. That status The reference to a common ancestor, is acquired in two ways. and the fact that one belongs to a It is necessary to be a member localised group of relations, has a precise through one’s father and/or mother of a meaning that I would like to’show while

37 ‘? “? Lr , analysing traditional family trees which two or three generations - in which eff&\ are the basis for proof of ownership. tive property rights can be exercised. Th rights. Genealogical trees to which lists of relevant span is that of the extended o& land have been annexed, the paruu tutu hoe. which is hardly surprising since un-;, (customary wills) are transcribed in the der customary law, the normal operation puta tupunu (book of the ancestors) which of the land tenure system implies the are kept by the family heads. In the past, existence of a powerful control and com- at least for the Tuamotus, this preser- munity spirit .which can work effectively ’ . vation was ensured by the district coun- only at the level of coherent family cils which kept them available for those groups. under their jurisdiction. In Rurutu and The quality of tuntutumu which con- Rimatara up until 1945, genealogical fers “potential ownership” requires two knowledge was in the hands of the conditions: a common ancestor as the speakers representing the main family basis of the right, and membership of a units who would intervene particularly in local group determined both by residence land matters, in local customary jurisdic- and by descent allows a person to make tions. These genealogies allow a person to use of the right. examine his origins by direct or any other line back to the common founding an- Patrilineal estates and land groups cestor at the base of the rights; and to In all the islands where customs have prove in the same way that he belongs to been preserved, it is easy to identify the a “residential line”, the continuity of depth and spread of groups who control which is ensured from generation to the land by counting the number of . generation only by the descendants of those generations between the present persons who are considered as residents. inhabitants and the people who, according These lists of names show quite to them, are at the origin of their rights. clearly that the descendants of people who In Tatakoto, in eastern Tuamotu have settled elsewhere, following a (Ravault, 1978, p.57), referring to the \ marriage or adoption, are never men- tomite of 1903 and 1919, it is noticeable tioned if the absence is longer than two or that, if several of the titleholders are still three generations. Elderly people do not alive, most of the present claimants are know or have no wish to know their the children, grandchildren, and even the relatives living elsewhere descended, for great-grandchildren (hina) of the original instance, from a brother or sister of one claimants. They are therefore close of their ancestors who travelled to other relatives or very close relatives. In areas. They consider that those absent Rurutu, an island where the land survey, are incapable of belonging to one or other made from 1950 onwards, caused a of the localised social categories generalised partition of lands (De described earlier, that they have broken Bisschop, 1952), the land groupings are, as off their family ties and, which comes to a rule, even more restricted. In the con- the same thing, have automatically for- text of these groupings, the way property feited their land rights. In this way, they is transmitted varies according to the ‘ are simply reaffirming the principle of land tenure system, and must be under- collective appropriation of the land - the stood before analysing the rules governing qualification of tuuta tumu applied to a access to the land. group and not an individual. And they im- For the Civil Code, groups of joint co- plicitly put limits on the socio-temporal owners are made up of all “qualified” world - ownership rights can be lost in descendants (those with legal capacity

38 whose numbers increase with every Code, in customary law the originating generation) of a common ancestor who members may hold three main categories was allocated the title to a specific of rights. These are the rights to use property. A person may therefore belong family lands, to reap the fruits of them, ’ to several joint ownerships spread out and to a certain extent to collect fees for territorially, and his or her property their use. The resemblance goes no fur- rights in the abstract shares in the ther. A distinction must be made in property concerned cannot be questioned customary law between the rights. at- regardless of residence and the tached to the forms of land use, and a genealogical depth of the kin groups to right of control held by those who inter- which he or she belongs. vene within the various groups in the In customary law, the reality is quite distribution of lands and plantations, and another matter. The available documents who play an important role in the system (or oral accounts) which mention claims, of property transmission. Here I shall distributions or wills made in the past, describe the former. show that the same person may exercise Three main categories of rights . rights in land previously attributed to his variable in content and duration, apply to immediate ancestors on both sides, paren- different forms of land use. ts, grandparents and tupuna (earlier The first is the right to build one’s relatives), or to members of various opu fare (house) on family land, and in par- hoe of different categories of relatives. He ticular on a “city lot” allocated for this or she therefore not only has possible ac- purpose. Throughout French Polynesia, cess, jointly with his or her own siblings, residential fenua are often occupied by the to the inheritance which was transmitted homes of various members of the exten- to them in the direct line, but can also by ded family unit. Fenced in by white- virtue of residence share in the washed walls in the Tuamotu and Austral inheritance of collateral branches which Islands, or surrounded by shrubbery are no longer represented Jocally. In this (especially in the Society Islands), these case one may be dealing, in the properties occupied for generations by the sociological context of the extended OPU lines of residents testify to the per- ‘- hoe, with more distant relatives (uncles, manence of the family group. The right of aunts, cousins) who are also the trustees’ residence, over and above a man’s of the legal titleholder. If the holder of a mobility and the impermanence of the right living or dead, has no descendants buildings, has a truly perpetual character. - at all, or none living on the spot, his land The second is the right to plant food returns to resident members of his opu crops: tubers, vegetables, musaceae, hoe. Over two or three generations, this destined principally for family consump- results in the loss of the property for tion; and cash crops, coconut palms, cof- those absent, as customarily land rights fee or vanilla plantations, which earn in- lapse through lack of use. For the come. By planting a person obtains exten- Polynesians, therefore, the recorded sive rights, for besides the possession and allocations do not always have the value use of the propefty, it is possible where of definite property titles which the Civil perennial crops are concerned to entrust Code confers on them. The rules relating the operation to a third party who can to residence are as important as descent transform or even destroy it. In the establishing a person’s inheritance rights. Eastern Tuamotus as well as the Effective rights Australs, the Rural Economy Department If we use an analogy with the Civil staff were able to renew coconut and cof-

39 f

fee plantations belonging to planters lineage, the means of access to effectí! whose parents were still alive. Property ownership are extremely complex, depe4 rights to a plantation last in general as ding on residence and on the nature of the long as the crop: this can be less than a right of use involved: does he want toit year for root crops; eighty years or more create a plantation or to obtain land b for coconut palms. The duration of a per- already planted? They depend also on his 1 son’s rights also depends upon the genealogical position within the various technical ability of the farmer to preserve land groups which control the lands or \ the fertility of the ground, besides the fun- plantations he wishes to obtain.

+ damental requirement of residence. In To give as clear an account as Rurutu, several taro plantations have possible of the diversity of situations I en- been operated by the same lineage for countered, I will use precise examples generations: the, taro, a domesticated taken from a particular “model”, taken plant basic to everyday nutrition, is inten- from tomite and survey records in Takato, sively cultivated with traditional Ahe and Rurutu. Figure 3 shows two opu = techniques.-.Acquired rights, may- be fran- 1 7, fetii -(I and -II-) originat-hg from -+auples -- smitted to descendants as long as they whose forebears were considered to be the remain resident. This does not apply to definitive titleholders of the rights now other tubers such as cassava and sweet held by their descendants. They potatoes, as their simple planting proceeded with an initial allocation of the techniques allow them to be grown on the land amongst themselves (through the poorest slopes or plains, not entailing per- tomite for example), amongst their ‘manent occupation of the ground and con- children and some of their grandchildren sequent establishment of land rights of a (Generations 1 and 2), of whom several particular user and his lineage. today have two generations of descen- The third is the right to participate in dants themselves. Originally this , the profits of the plantations (coconut, distribution was uneven: the elders of coffee) set up by their forebears, reserved Generation 1 benefitted most, while their by the heirs of the farmer if he is known, resident childless brothers and sisters, or \ or if not, by the heirs of the previous non-resident siblings married or adopted titleholder, which is frequently the case in elsewhere, received less. the Tuamotus. This right to harvest is In the opu fetii I, all of Generation 1 collective, but in practice it is always in- having disappeared, the allocation of dividual, following a property allocation property rights covering residential sites (see p. 24) and it can be transferred to a and the fenua planted by the tane of I, by third party in the case of temporary ab- his resident children and by Al who today sence. But the beneficiary, unlike the is a very old man, was made between the planter who retains rights to the results of sole local representatives of the opu hoe his efforts for his entire life, may not him- originating from A, D, and E. self destroy the plantation as he in- D, who was the last survivor of dividually is using a right which is essen- Generation 1, besides land disfributed to tially a collective one. The life-span of him by the tomite, took control of the perennial crops is a factor attaching far- lands claimed by childless B, and by C, mers to the ground but only if they bring whose descendants were all absent. He an economic benefit, which is rarely the allocated the lands involved between the case in the present economic situation. descendants of A (Al, A2, A3), D1 and EF1 (still alive at the time) who already Access to land had the use of the lands given to them by For a member of any particular their ow% parents.

40 This distribution will be temporary as father. Each time the inheritance is in- on the death of EF1 with no local descen- creased, for example by the death of EF1, dants, and in the absence of EF2 who was or reduced, for example by the return of not living there at the time. Al (the eldest A3, a redistribution has to take place. In member of the family) will take over con- the first case, especially in the poorest trol of the lands of the deceased and islands, the eldest child is most likely to allocate them between the resident take the available plantations (Ravault, descendants of A and D, reserving for his 1978, p.66). In the second, a returning own opuhoe the larger part of the cake. family member will be unwelcome, When EF2 returns to claim his rights, he especially if he has been absent for a long will not have much trouble in recovering time, but he has satisfied. Properties left the lands claimed by his father, but he unused or not yet distributed, a frequent will not be able to obtain any of thefenua situation in the Australs, will be con- amui of his uncle B and aunt C. trolled by the senior heir, who must agree When D of Generation 2 in his old age to any fresh distribution of these lands. settles permanently in Papeete with one In the Tuamotus as well as the of his children, the same thing will not Australs, a certain number of lands ap- happen as he has been careful to have his propriated by highly extended family son return to thefenuu to ensure the guar- groups are the object of conflicts between dianship of his property. various branches. These are generally In the opu fetii II, the situation is even fenua of vast dimensions without any simpler. H, the sole survivor of his opu hoe great economic interest (coral soil, slopes (Generation 11, considers himself the only etc.); Having never been used, they sup- “owner” of the family lands, as well as posedly belong to distant lupuna. In those attributed in the past to his Rurutu, when the survey was made, a deceased siblings who have descendants certain number of fenua were attributed to on the spot. persons long since dead. Their localisation Each group of siblings and their is the result of very old distributions. descendants now have properties to be Members of restricted opu hoe who no allocated between the various family cells longer have direct rights through living composing the group. The rights to be em- forebears (D2 of Generation 3, and ployed, and ways of obtaining access to Generation 2 adults of opu ferrii II) are in the land depend on the social status of the a more precarious situation as they are persons involved and the form of land use. not fatu mau, “true owners” according to In principle the rights are equal the expression used in the Tuamotus. among the older group of siblings, as each Their right to this categorisation is rarely person, on division of the area by one of disputed, but is reserved to the members the elders, obtains according to hidher of the eldest generations. In this case, D1 needs (number of children etc.), a portion and H who are the first to obtain the of fenua (perennial plantations plus land to inheritance of their deceased siblings be developed) which is inherited through may, in principle, make use of the land as direct or collateral descent. Each person they wish. In fact, they must respect the is master over his own part of the earlier appropriation where the land has inheritance and it cannot be taken from been continuously occupied. This is the him as long as he continues to use the case for G1 and G2 who divided their land or if it is exploited during his father’s land between them. But if heirs lifetime by one of his descendants, for return to the /enua to claim their example D1, who acts in the name of his inheritance rights from a deceased party

41 who never lived there (DY),they must their own children access to their pia$., give them lands where they can reside tations. Those best off are the farmer<$ and plant, but may refuse them access to who look after the family lands on behalf i ’ the perennial plantations. In the of their parents who reside in Tahiti (see ’!+ Tuamotus there are family members fig. 6, Dl’), and who frequently have deprived of any access to the land. In the other sources of revenue besides copra Australs where there is no lack of land, and so content themselves with a sym- such occurrences are probably very rare. bolic fee to prove their rights. f Finally, it should be pointed out that . 5! minor children’s rights (11 and E) are held by an elder who quite often has adop- The land tenure system ted them. This analysis of the customary land Members who still have living tenure system, makes it apparent that the forebears with rights are not “owners”. rules which grant a person ownership - Nevertheless, depending on availability, essentially ensure the continuity of the they may ask for land from their direct territorial settlements of family groups, forebears (Al’), or failing that from other and the elimination of non-residents. members of the family (D2’from D1 and Priority of inheritance in the direct line is to Al). The latter, however, must give also ensured although there can be suc- priority to their own descendants. The op- cession by collateral lines when effective portunity to build houses or to plant crops rights are no longer used. They also cannot be refused them. The planting of enable a family member, whilst his perennial crops or the harvesting of parents are still alive, to acquire tran- productive plantations for the payment of smissible property rights to the lands he a fee which in general represents 50% of has planted. Insofar as these rights con- the harvest, is subject to the residence of cern the crops and not the land they are the holder of the “harvesting right” and temporary, but if they are made use of the economic interest in such venture, continuously, within the same lineage, \ variable from one archipelago to another. they tend to become perpetual. In Rurutu and Rimatara where sig- In this system, the role of the elders nificant areas are not developed and is clear. Within the extended opu hoe they where coconut and coffee plantations are control the rights no longer used because few and mainly for family use, access to of departures and distribute them bet- land ownership does not pose any ween different groups of siblings of the problems. In the eastern Tuamotu ar- same level and within their own group. chipelago where copra is still in most of This authority, necessary for the system the islands the only source of revenue, the to function efficiently, can involve same is not always the case. The resident privileges. During such distributions, it is owners lease to their relatives of the tempting for elders to appropriate for younger generations only those lands that themselves the vacant fenwr, especially if they do not want or cannot use, for in- in the past they were given to persons stance because of their age, to make who left no descendants lfenua amui). copra. I have even come across a few These privileges place the system in examples of fathers who have refused’ jeopard y.

42 I

.. I II

* 2

I2

I Figure 5: Kinship groups and access to land 0 Woman - married deceased fi non-resident other men & women (unspecified) I . (1) resident previously title-holder (2) resident elsewhere, adoDted vounr! * --I (3) not always resident / (4) single man i-‘;:”*

k \ qk 1, ?c I The distribution of property attributed Tuamotu group, the tomite procedui to the key ancestor becomes confirmed which was made obligatory by the over time, when at level 3 siblings with colonial authorities (see p. 51, merely con-’: their now descendants, classified as stituted a step in the customary process t, “third blood” (second cousins of the hina of transmission and distribution of proper- g generation) are too distantly related to ty. Elsewhere it was the beginning of a cooperate. The choice is twofold; either process which could have resulted in the “i the last representative of the preceeding progressive paralysis of the traditional ’ generation (Al or any other surviving system, and the establishment of a joint elder) by a parau iutu gives his blessing to possession situation related in some previous distributions while distributing. aspects to that of the Civil Code. the fenua amui under his control; or else From the time of the first land the various groups of siblings concerned allocations and much .later-joint-owner----- proceed with the distribution amongst ship rights were questioned. Some themselves, often causing conflict. They Polynesians, constrained by various then set themselves up in various provisions of the Civil Code (see p. 71, or autonomous land groups. influenced by its individualistic approach, acted beyond the rights of use and Alterations to customary law possession given them by custom and, The land tenure system just described using prerogatives reserved until then for applies to all of the geographically distant their elders, disposed of their heritage by and isolated islands, the eastern Tuamotu alienation or by legacies to people 6ften group, Rurutu, Rimatara, and the enterprising Polynesians, who were not Marquesas. These have preserved their always close relatives (members of the socio-ethnic purety (eastern Tuamotus), extended opu hoe) or residents. In doing so, they not only became conscious or un- . ar assimilated other ethnic elements, and so up to now have conserved their conscious creators of individual owner- ship, but also were largely responsible for \ traditional social structures and com- muna1 institutions, enabling them to react the progressive paralysis of the in a specific manner to the colonial tran- customary system. Abandoning the sformations. There is no doubt that the traditional principles of distribution and collective control of land associated with transmission of property weakened the authority of the elders. Divisions were no the exercise of individual effective rights, a consequence of the spread of a cash longer carried out under customary law, economy, is an adaptation of traditional and it was no longer possible to maintain institutions to modern times. joint possession at the level of theopu hoe People in the Society archipelago, or socially coherent kin group. In each western Tuamotu group, and Tubuai from generation, rights on the contrary became more and more spread out as the joint . the beginning of the 19th century onwards had strong ties with the outer world. owners were obliged to refer to the Economic contacts resulted in an increase titleholders to justify their rights. of inter-island schooner traffic and the The weakening of fellowship between establishment of trading posts, and in a ferii, which is the consequence of this ex- multiplication of marriage alliances with tension of land groups, can involve two the popaa and demis. The customary land main types of conflicts. tenure system underwent marked In the first, residents are opposed to modifications both in its operation and in non-residents, who may b,e tempted to ask the form of property rights. In the eastern for a legal distribution. This happens

44 -- -. .- *I

fairly often in the Society archipelago. Or The land system and the special case of they may claim their share of the har- rural leases vest, which occurs less frequently. The For several decades, officials respon- . residents are unlikely to give them sible for development were mainly con- satisfaction by adhering to the concept of cerned with the problems of joint owner- ownership contained in the Civil Code, for ship. Recently, especially since the ad- it is not in their interests to accept the ministration’s document regulating amputation of their inheritance and to rural graht non-residents effective rights leases to allow the. development of modern agriculture, a significant debate refused them by customary law. has started about the status of farmers In the second case, the residents come who are not owners. This is particularly into conflict among themselves over important in the Society Archipelago, working on jointly owned properties. An- where >landis often formeduder leases. nual -crops are - rarely ‘an issue for the These may be written or spoken rights they give rise to ‘are not long- agreements by which the holder of land lasting, but the same does not always ap- rights transfers their use to an outsider. ply to perennial plantations. There are The terms of the lease cover the area of two possibilities: either different branches land made available and the particular of the same family are unable to reach ‘ forms of its use, the legal conditions of agreement on the distribution of rights use - farming, share-cropping - the and the fenua are either occupied by force period of the lease and the fees payable. or deserted when the conflict becomes too The rights given under a lease vary bitter. Or else a modus vivendi. which nor- according to the property system covering mally reflects only the relations of force, the land concerned. In the individualistic is established between the families in- and exclusive concept of the Civil Code volved. Each one then has a certain num- (Ravault, 1972 and 19741, the lease covers ber of fenua which; depending on the kind “the ground and everything above it” of plantations concerned (coconuts in the (houses, plantations) which in the case of ‘Society and western Tuamotu Islands, or indirect farming constitutes the usable coffee plantations in the Australs unit. (Tubuai), are worked in diferent ways. In the first case, each of the titleholders is In the case of joint ownership, the allowed to harvest the crop periodically crops are the issue and not the ground. for number of years. In the second case, Depending on the type of joint ownership the plantation is open to one and all at a one is confronted with (customary law given date, but each person harvests the joint possession, or joint ownership of the coffee for himself and according to his Civil Code type), the consequences of this ability. A means for distributing the har- break-up can be quite different. vests “in time” is substituted for the In the first case the land is distributed customary distribution “in space”. In- by area, and the leasehold can be con- stead of each titleholder becoming respon- sidered, regardless of the standing crops, sible for a parcel of land as long as he as the unit of use. It can be fransferred resides on it, the result is a de facto joint by the holder of the rights on condition he ownership situation like that of the Civil occupies the land. With this proviso, Code. As nobody wants to work for which is related to the basic nature of the anyone else, and this discourages all land land tenure systems involved, a person investment. finds himself in an individual ownership

45

Y \ situation like that provided for in the Civil lease, found increasingly near the 1% Code. residential market places in Tahi, When in the second case, where the’ Moorea and Raiatea, becomes more lik customary divisions are no longer carried tenant farming each time the lessee geh out, and all rights are held jointly, the authority to cut down the coconut palms definition of the leasehold depends*on the on the leased property. Or the owner will! type of land use that has evolved. Each sign a share-cropping lease (the price new planting constitutes a unit of use, varying with the quantity and value of the whatever the complexity and nature of harvest) with a lessee who runs the later improvements that may have been coconut, vanilla or coffee plantation. made. If the crops concerned are annual In the second case, there is a kind of ones, perhaps replanted two or three lease found only in the Tenitory which times on a slope fu fuupu on a slope), the. could be considered “caretaking”, in the rights- created become -extinct very strict sense, as the user does not pay fees quickly and the property returns to the .of any sort; This applies to all types of family inheritance. If combined plantations (sunken taro plantations, fuupu cultivations are concerned, as for instance mua on hill slopes, crop-growing under in the dominant agricultural landscape of coconut palms etc.). Within the context of coconut palms, bananas and root crops, Polynesian joint ownership, as well as the over time the short-term crops important demi estates dedicated to copra progressively disappear while the coconut and intensive farming. The-owners are of- plantation persists for several decades. ten absent and content themselves on This will be managed on a rotation their visits with presentations of a bundle system by the heirs of the planters. The of taro, a stem of bananas, a suckling pig holder of the right to harvest can transfer etc., which the share-cropper caretakers his rights to a third party, whether a consider simply as gifts. relative or not, while another titleholder The price charged leasehold rights can plant jehi or taro underneath the varies. The Chinese in Tahiti who practise \ coconut trees. A plurality of cultivations “mountain truck farming” pay very lit- can correspond therefore to a plurality of tle; but on the plains, because of individual or collective rights of use, speculation, land rentals can sometimes direct or indirect. In such conditions, as reach exhorbitant rates. there is no longer any unified use, the In share-cropping, the calculation of analysis of land use and subsequent iden- the respective shares of the owners and tification of crops to be leased must be the lessees is fairly strictly defined. When made by a meticulous analysis of the an owner grants a farmer land that has agricultural landscape. already been planted with coconuts or cof- The fees and duration of a lease are fee for example, the rule is to split the agreed by the two parties. The type of harvest fifty/fifty. When he leases land to land use allowed by the lease depends on be developed (by planting vanilla, for in- the agricultural activity, whatever the stance), the tenant receives 75 to 80% of ownership system may be. It is possible to the harvest=produce. The work involved in distinguish crops bringing in revenue establishing the plantation and wages for (copra, vanilla, coffee) from those workers when the flowers are “married” destined to feed the family. etc., are responsible for this better rate. In the first case, an owner will sign a In. the absence of a written contract lease with a market gardener who sells mentioning the terms of the lease, the almost all of his harvest. This type of custom is to take into account the x’ “ . * 24 . I J

duration of plantation (faapu). This in- which similarly privileged people holding volves the distinction of cultivations with rights to large areas. On a cultural level, short or average vegetative cycles (root these two factors are closely linked by the crops and vanilla essentially), and plan- importance placed on the social and tations (coffee and especially coconut) professional mobility of men. which can produce for several decades. This lease system conveys perfectly In the first case, the initial lease the relationship of domination established which must allow the farmer to harvest a between the beneficiaries of the develop- matured crop is of variable duration: a ment of a trade economy (the halfcaste few ’weeks for vegetables, several months middle class and joint land right holders), for sweet potatoes, one year for water- and ,the Polynesian farmers who find I melon, three years for vanilla etc. The themselves deprived of land and unsup- lease is then tacitly renewed, expiring in ported by custom. reality only when the returns have This system of land tenure is par- become ridiculously low. Quite often the ticularly backward in regard to rural farmer- abandonsthe -plotbf lalid-before- leas%holds,’and is responsibEfor the- poor . the ground becomes barron. The owner, results of the territory’s agriculture. on the other hand, recovers land that brings in a fair return. Whatever the case, III The Land Tenure System and the duration of the lease does not depend Agriculture solely on the crops grown but on the For the past few years, especially the technical capacity of the farmer to main- five year plan began in 1971, the govern- tain the fertility of the land as long âs ment of French Polynesia has tried to possible. Except for a few cases’(swamp devise and put into operation an taro, vanilla), this is not easy in agricultural development programme. tradition al agriculture. One goal of this programme was to In perennial agriculture there is no . allow land improvement by initiating precise rule - all depends on the mobility structural reforms in areas as diverse as , of the farmer and especially on the will of professional organisation, cash flow, and ’ the owner who, if he wants to, can hire a the land tenure system itself. share-cropper for a single copra or vanilla Another was directly to promote harvest. Where joint ownership is defined agricultural improvement. In the Society by the Civil Code, “rotation” makes Islands the means used included the leaseholds less secure. development of crop and animal produc- Whereas joint ownership represents a tion (vegetables, fruit, eggs, milk, meat form of resistance and adaptation to the etc.) for local consumption, and to a new colonial system, the establishment of the start (mainly in the distant ar- system of leases just described was en- chipelagoes) for the export of such couraged on the legal level, by, the lax products as coffee, vanilla and of course character of the Civil Code. In the ab- copra, by assuring an improvement both sence of any regulations, this favours land in the existing plantations and in the plant owners to the detriment of the farmers stock, which almost everywhere was at who are left with no legal status. On an the end of its life span. agricultural level it was encouraged by Such a programme has a twofold ob- the existence of intensive agriculture jective, economic and social: to increase characterised, save for exceptions like the agricultural productivity to satisfy local division of taro plantations, by archaic demand, permitting a reduction in the techniques and mediocre production, economic deficit; and to increase the

47

.. standard of living of the farmers to con- mercial agriculture can be summed up i\ tribute to stabilising the rural population a few figures. Its place in the Polynesian 1% in their own districts and islands. The economy of fifteen years ago was essen- i . results unfortunately have not been up to tia1 but now it has become of hardly any i expectations. importance: 6.73% of the Gross National Agriculture is in decline. In the Wmd- Product (GNP) (Institut d’Emission 1 ward Islands available statistics on com- d’Outre-Mer, 1976, p.11). The value of mercial production, obtained from the local commercial production (retail price) . market in Papeete, show that traditional has‘never reached 25% of that of impor- cultivation of musaceae, root crops, and ted foodstuffs. For the first time in 1977, um (breadfruit) is m aintained, while .its -share of the total value of imports copra, coffee, and vanilla have lost almost reached 22%. That same year, the all importance. Elsewhere, subsistence “covering rate of imports by exports agriculture persists, but the main export (essentially agricultural) was only 5% . . .” products-are -goingAhrough-a -particularly 7.. (S.E.R.,-1976,-~.6). 11 serious crisis. The coffee plantations of Can the land tenure system of French the Australs and the Polynesia be held responsible for such a have been abandoned or are under-ex- situation in view of the other constraints ploited: exported in part until W, coffee on agricultural development? A land no longer satisfies even local demand. tenure system will increase production The vanilla plantations which contributed while improving the standard of living of significantly in the past to cash revenue, the farmers, in a cash economy only if it especially in the Leeward Islands, have ensures the security of leaseholds. The ap- almost all been abandoned and the export propriated lands must be identified and of dried vanilla has fallen to practically demarcated; the holders of land rights nothing! The productive potential of the must be known, whether they be in- coconut plantations, which has not been dividuals or groups; and a person must be revitalised except in the eastern part of easily able to give proof of such rights. \ the Tuamotus, remains under-exploited In addition, something must be done especially in the centre and western zones to enable farmers to initiate projects of a of the Tuamotu and the Tubuai. Copra size appropriate to their work potential production, after a temporary burst in and their needs and in a site favourable to 1975, in 1978 reached its lowest point since - that particular agricultural activity. the end of the war, with less than 13,000 There should be sufficient legal control of tons. the land to allow techniques to be im- Agriculture is also characterised by proved and investments to be agreed. And the difference which is tending to deepen, finally, farmers should be able to make a between the productive capacity of fair profit from their labours. agriculture for the open market and for The land system in French Polynesia local demand. Production of vegetable does not fulfil either of these conditions. and animal foostuffs is concentrated essentially in Tahiti and to a lesser extent Security of leaseholds in Raiatea, Hauhine (melons and water- Neither civil law nor customary law melons), and in Tubuai (vegetables, gives sufficient guarantee of ownership or especially potatoes), and cannot really ensures the legal security of leasehold take off, in spite of progress made since tenure. 1971. The deeds of ownership delivered by The insufficiencies of Territorial com- the administration do not always give suf-

48 I ‘i 8 “2 .

ficient guarantee with regard to the limits 123) pertinently noted that land conflicts and content of land as well as an iden- which form a “highight in social life” tification of the owners. Under such con- most often concern land of no great ditions, the services of the Land economic value. This remark is true of Registration Department are restricted, the Australs, but does not always apply to and as Coppenrath (n.d.,.p.l) has pointed the atolls of the Tuamotu archipelago out, the mortgage system which is per- where all the fenua planted have an sonal can “only fulfil its goal on the con- economic interest. dition that deeds giving the lay-out of a Another factor of insecurity of land given piece of real estate be perfectly development is the possibility of non- drawn up and contain precise and full in- resident eo-owners claiming under the formation on the identities of the parties.” Civil Code the part of the copra or coffee Not only landin joint ownership is in- harvest which customary law refuses volved here, and the insecurity is not only them. Most of the time they do nothing legal. The thirty-year leasehold guaran- about it or they content themselves with a tees a “purchaser of real estate against symbolic fee. Even where custom has the claims of an heir of a joint owner been most altered, the principle of unknown until such time” (Coppenrath, residence continues to influence their n.d., PA), but it does not protect a person behaviour, if only because the products in from encroachments by the descendants this case have a low marketable value. of the seller who consider, often quite Would this be the same if the island rightly, that the property rights were not products were suddenly greatly revalued? always transferred correctly. On this In the most distant archipelagoes (the issue, the Teva Nui Association made eastern Tuamotu zone, Rurutu, Rimatara) some “absolutely shocking discoveries” where the traditional social structures (Tauhiti, 1978, p.18). It is useless to point have been preserved, such conflicts are out that these facts feed the bitterness of rare for the way in which customary law ‘ the rural population towards the demis works has not yet changed profoùndly. and the administration, and that they However, at the present time there no form the basis of court cases which in no longer exists locally any centralised way encourage the exploitation and organisation to preserve traditional development of the land. documents and make them available for Legal provisions do not ensure the consultation. In Rurutu the registers of security of the leaseholds, and neither customary jurisdiction which were kept does customary law. This is only to be ex- up to 1945 were destroyed by cyclone pected when it has lost its substance. A Emma in 1970. In the Tuamotus, the co-owner who take the risk of working “district books’’ in which land deeds were land appropriated by a social group preserved have disappeared. At present, larger than the extended ophoe may find family members who are not elders have himself in conflict with the most distant much trouble in obtaining the genealogies fetÌi. The “stealing” of copra harvests is preserved by their elders, and consider often at the base of a great deal of therefore that they do not have access to litigation in the western Tuamotu and the all the land they could have rights to. Leeward Islands. However, one should not In Tatakoto, some properties have exaggerate its significance: there can be been claimed by several family groups such other reasons for under-worked only because certain genealogies have coconut plantations as the poor pur- been manipulated. If these conflicts do not chasing power of copra. Panoff (1964, p. degenerate, it is only because on an atoll

49 I

I I l 5. ‘i overall statistics available on the matter, 2 which is entirely used, the rights of the ‘ occupants remain the strongest. but the little precise information available corroborates the impressions obtainable <\ Conditions of access to land and through actual knowledge of the land and i agricultural activity the examination (Jf aerial photographs ’ available for the Society archipelago. . Both the provisions related to the. methods of acquisition and transmission The partial I!j%; census of properties1 of land, and those that define the content of more than SO hectares made on the and duration of land rights are unsatisfac- basis of areas registered for the survey tory and neither the Civil Code nor plan gave thc following results customary law in the socio-economic con- (Guillaume, 19.56, Appendix III, ~.4):~ text of French Polynesia allows a person access to land to farm under satisfactory Tahiti Moorea Itaiatea Tahaa Huahine conditions. 26.3% 20.8% 4f;.df%, ‘ 30% 19% Present structures of land tenure are characterised firstly by a quantitative Locally, in Maharepa-Moorea in 1966 distribution of individual or joint-owned and in Papeari-?‘ilhiti in 1968 (Ravault, properties (“potential” rights) which is 1967, p.75; 1977a, Appendices I and II), the particularly inequitable. division of property gave rise to a distinc- Because of the failings of the system tion between what Ihmont (n.d., p.5) has of registration of land rights, here are no called “latifundia” and “microfundia”. i

Maharepa I’apeari

Properties Total Size (ha) Size (ha.) Total Sixc (ha.) Size (ha.) <5 % >50 % e5 >SO %

Individual 47 27 5.5 2 34.1 96 88 16.7 2 62.6 Joint owned 25 12 10.6 1 20.4 66 49 13.6 1 50.9

These figures show that joint owner- land owners (maitily demis and popaal ship diminishes the effects of land concen- concentrate in their hands an important tration while aggravating the consequen- proportion of availilble land, while the ces of micro-ownership. This distribution majority of other til lcholders (essentially is the result after several decades of Polynesians) are rctluced to a bare living. evolution of the interplay of property tran- In the case of joint ownership, one sactions which took place during the first can note an uncyual distribution of part of the century, and of subsequent property rights at the level of potential evolution which sa% a good number of the group rights as well tis at the level of ef- more important estates appropriated by fective individual rights. It has already default and fall into joint possession and, been pointed out tiow, by virtue of the conversely, a certain number of individual principle of residence, localised branches and joint-owned properties broken up by of the same family could recover land left the practice of distribution. vacant by branches which had migrated This distribution is fundamental to the elsewhere; but in gciicral the eldest bran- structure of land tenure. A minority of ches would give thcmselves the better

50 part of the cake. Within the same group of termarriage, a situation prevalent in the resident siblings, the distribution of effec- outer archipelagoes, also increases this tive rights, over two or three generations .subdivision. In Tatakoto where the sur- results in further inequities. face area is approximately 600 hectares, claims broke up the atoll into more than The principle of residence, in conjunc- 2,500 plots. As groups hold land in each of . tion with rights of descent encourages a the three sectors, there are farmers who concentration of ownership and con- make copra in ten or more plots spread stitutes an effective monopoly. But it is all over the atoll. In the high islands, necessary to point out that those who where the more numerous population is monopolise the land are residents capable spread out over several districts, the in- of developing it themselves while the conveniences of subdivision are less sig- owners of latifundia appropriated in- nificant. Distributions are often carried dividually are most often absentees. out by taking into account the parents’ Secondly, the structure of tenure is residence: one child will go to live in his characterised by a parcelling of property, father’s village, another to his mother’s more typical of joint ownership than of in- village. dividual ownership, especially in the Tuamotu Islands. The third characteristic of the land tenure structures is the high frequency of Under individual ownership, quan- absenteeism which applies more to in- titative distribution and parcelling of land dividual than joint ownership. are connected phenomena dependent on land history. The microfundia are not In Maharepa in 1966, 67.1% of land ap- operated not because they are broken up, propriated individually belonged to absent but because their size renders difficult persons, 94.6% of whom lived in the their use for agricultural purposes. In residential zone. In Papeari in 1968, land spite of transfers (distributions, sales) absenteeism was not so widespread. ’which may have affected them, large or Among individual owners, it applied to al’erage properties provide valleys, and only 37.1% of titleholders and 29.8% of plateaux land in the plains, for various areas concerned, but in urban areas it agricultural purposes and may be worked reached 89% (see Appendix I). under suitable conditions. Guillaume (1956, Appendix III. p.6) Absenteeism. developed over time. considered that the subdivision of proper- Copra revenues made the land initially an ties was not pushed very far because of instrument to obtain the economic and the joint. ownership of the land. In fact,. social success which could be realised apart from large plots which have no only in the city. The crisis of the colonial precise attribution within the group economy, more apparent after the end of because of their low economic value and the second world war, discouraged invest- are consequently no longer occupied, the ment in agriculture. During great customary practice of generations never economic changes of the last few years, to regroup paternal and maternal land became a tool of speculation. In inheritances hag led to subdivision on a Tahiti, Moorea, Raiatea, and even in large scale in the most utilised areas: the Tahaa, a new form of absenteeism residential zones and taro fields of the developed: the plots of “developed” Australs, and the coconut plantations of estates (see Appendix III) were acquired the eastern Tuamotus. A high level of in- by members of social categories who,

51

.. ’ ”I along with the traditional mixed-race mid- majority of owners lived in the ruri+ dle-class, made the most out of the world and were related to families w& economic expansion: merchants, civil ser- had settled in the district. In the Leeward vants, members of the liberal professions, Islands and the Australs, a precise. well-to-do pensioners. An analysis of the analysis would certainly give comparable authorisations fur real estate transfers for results. In the less populated central and the past ten years shows that rural people western Tuamotu the figures would be rarely purchase land and, when the case much’higher. As indicated above (see p. arises, have no possibility of purchasing 42) absenteeism at this level is due property. they--have used under joint - mainly to- economic-fxctors: possession before it has been allocated to . Among individual holders of effective their non-resident ferii. property rights, absenteeism is related Under joint ownership, absenteeism is primarily to the increasing economic im- far less common, whether it concerns portance of cash crops (copra, coffee), land groups as a whole or individuals who and secondly to the extent to which- are uwners of effective land rights (par- customs have changed. Absenteeism is ticipation in the harvests of perennial not very widespread .in Rurutu where crops 1. copra, coffee and vanilla are limited. This In Papeari in 1968 (see Appendix II), is not the case in Tuamotu. The following only 18% of the district’s property groups figures for Ahe and Tatakoto show the were not represented locally and they distribution of owners receiving income held only 3% of the district lands. The from copra, according to residence:

TABLE 2 Residents (RI Non-residents (RI

. Not working ’ Working the land ‘ the land ,

Ahe 18 19 26 Tatakoto 12 13 20

In Tatakoto, besides a certain number ~ The effects of property structure on forms of temporary absentees who granted of owner-farming share-croppers the use of their land, there In the Society archipelago, the was a fairly large number of elderly property structure is characterised by an people who controlled land “kept” for extremely unequal distribution and a high them by younger relatives. In Ahe, where degree of absenteeism. This is responsible customs have not been so closely for a very clear predominance of indirect followed, a few non-residents share in the owner-farming, únless the land is used for copra revenues. speculative development or simply left It’must be pointed out that, in both cases, idle. absenteeism is fairly high but has no For instance, in Maharepa-Moorea in great economic significance since the fees 1966 (see also Appendix V), the paid remain very low. distribution of forms of owner-farming by 6 geographic areas (in percentages of plots operated before) was the following:

52 .

Hain Valley

Direct owner-farming 35.6 16.8 Indirect owner-farming by lease 10.5 11.6 by share-cropping 50 37 by caretaking 3.2 34.6 Undetermined 0.7 -

Share-cropping of coconut and vanilla owner-farming and caretaking of lands plantations predominated everywhere. belonging to residents, or locally Caretaking is common in valley culti- represented property groups, prevail. vation, but the leasehold remains tenuous. Coconut, coffee and other vanilla plan- Under joint ownership, depending on en- tations are farmed by their owners; ex- vironmental factors and the economic and cept when they are abandoned for more socio-cultural context variable from island remunerative employment provided by to island, the distribution of forms of the government or local commune. Absent owner-farming depends mainly upon the holders of harvesting rights never make ultimate agricultural activity. their presence felt. Only a few elderly persons with no cash income give- their In Rurutu which has conserved an ïand over to share-croppers. agriculture essentially oriented towards The following was the situation in food crops (taro, manioc etc.), direct Papeari in 1968:

TABLE 4

Plain 70 Valley 70.

i.Direct owner-f arming 71.4 70 Indirect owner-farming by renting 18.1 16 by share-cropping 3.8 6 by caretaking 6.7 8

I I 1 In Papeari, the development of wage- market are still grown, mainly by owner- earning related to the Atomic Testing farmers. Programme can explain the decline in ex- In the Tuamotu Islands where copra port crops and the near-disappearance of is the main source of cash, the situation is share-cropping. Only food crops destined completely different as the cases of Ahe for family use and sale in the Papeete and Tatakoto showed in 1977.

TABLE 5

Direct owner-farming (A) Share-cropping (B) Total ! Tatakoto 28 107 137 l27 Ahe 17 3 110

I s

% - These figures reflect the social struc- cultivation, joint ownership is not a t. ture. On both of these atolls, the farmers drance because the farmer gains dur$ represent only a minority of people in- the year from the effort he has put inh- terested in the operation of the coconut the task of cultivation. However, “it doe8 plantations. not encourage one to improve the ground, or to take advantage of manuring which Control of land would mainly profit the successors to the In the past jurists and agronomists land. In the case of perennial cultivations have emphasized the advantages offered . . . no co-owners . . . appear to want tc by individual ownership as compared to give themselves the trouble of caring for joint ownership. This opinion should be the plantations, the benefit of which would considerably modified in view of the go to their successors. Even more serious socio-economic context. none of the co-owners wishes to make 2 According to the Civil Code, “owner- decision to renew the plantation ox ship is the right to make use of and regenerate it. This decision can only bf dispose of things absolutely”, that is, to made by all of the interested parties. make no use of them, to make extensive amounts to saying that a jointly ownec use of them, or make use of them for ends property is automatically deprived of tht other than agriculture. In a country’where benefits of property improvements.’ a number of owners, when not (Report on the agricultural policy of tht speculating, remain attached to the forms government, 1963). of land utilisation inherited from the In the archipelagoes where customarj colonial period (extensive coconut plan- spacial distributions give theii tations and rearing), the concept of ab- beneficiaries extended rights which can solute control as contained in the Civil not be contested as long as they residt Code is an obstacle to agricultural there, such criticisms are ill-founded. Thc development. It must be pointed .out that, success of regeneration of the coconu because of (competition from imported plantations in some of the atolls of thc products etc.), the present economic*con- eastern Tuamotu zone, and the creation o text is hardly favourable to agriculture a certain number of new coffee plan and property investment involves a risk tations in Rurutu and Rimatara, are proo that only a minority of owners have of this. Apart from the economic context taken. The majority prefer to lease their the main obstacle to agriculturaf progresi land to planters at high rates, the latter here is not the land tenure system but thc concentrating on cultivations that satisfy conservative outlook which characterise: the needs of the local market. Or they en- all rural societies, especially when elderl! trust their coconut plantations to share- persons are called upon to make thc croppers who cannot alter the ultimate essent ia1 decisions. form of the plantation. In the context‘of a On the other hand these comment colonial economy, the Civil Code con- sum up the inconveniences of joint owner tributed to the creation of a class of par- ship for agricultural development 01 ticularly disadvantaged farmers with islands where customary law has lost it neither status nor true control of the land. influence. The system of joint ownershil Within the context of joint ownership, explains the difficulties encountered tel the main criticisms made by or fiteen years ago by the Department o agriculturalists are on the level of main- Rural Economy in encouraging th tenance and renewal of the plantations. renewal of coconut plantations (centra According to them, in short term and western zones of the Tuamotu Is

54 .

lands), and the regeneration of the coffee reform. The government has no intention plantations (for instance in Tubuai and of reconsidering rights of ownership by ), even when its initial per- ‘ initiating a redistribution of unused or un- suasion was successful. der-worked latifundia. The idea is to en- In a traditional -agricultural system, courage the major landowners to develop hardly preoccupied by the idea of produc- their properties, or to allow for them to be tion per unit area, except for a few crops farmed by third parties under reasonable (swamp taro and vanilla), which involve conditions. The solution‘of the problem of simple methods suited to local harvesting joint ownership can be found only by techniques, joint ownership does not sig- acknowledging the situation as it is and nificantly hinder production as long as the by attempting to adapt it. - security of the leaseholds is ensured at Reforms of any kind are difficult to opu hoe levels, which in any case is not promote in French Polynesia for any legal supposed to provide for a high standard of document, which inevitably is of general living:. application, must be adapted to correct In subsistence production, involving failings in the land tenure systems of very traditional complex agricultural com- different socio-economic regions. Joint binations of perennial plantations ownership of the Civil Code type common (coconut and vanilla) with short term in the Society archipelago and the western cultivations (musaceae and root crops), Tuamotus, and the cause of innumerable the Polynesians, especially in the Society conflicts, has not much to show for it in Islands, do not see the advantages of a comparison with customary joint owner- land tenure system which while ship which continues to function normally. . authorising the superimposition of effec- In these conditions, in the local context, tive rights, allows several farmers to use the establishment of an effective reform the same space. The harvesting of joint- requires the following. owned coconut and coffee plantations New legislation needs to take into con- . requires only a minimum of upkeep sideration existing structures while being necessary to collect the products and is aware of their evolution and change. This the’ same everywhere regardless of the means that on the one hand, without system of ownership. disregarding the “potentialities” of metropolitan law where it is applicable, it IV Reform of the Land Tenure System may be necessary to innovate. In par- I have. tried in the main report, ticular, I cannot see how joint ownership without formulating any value judgemen- could be organised in a territory where ts, to analyse the land tenure systems of the CO-owners are dispersed French Polynesia and to show how they geographically, merely by substituting may influence agricultural activity. majority rule for unanimity. The reality Without going into detail about land of residence which is fundamental in tenure arrangements, the adjustment of customary law must be taken into ac- which depends on the skill of legal exper- count. It is not easily compatible with the ts, I would now like to point out what the Civil Code but it is a move in the direction main basis for land reforms in the rural of the desired goal: the creation of a truly world ought to be, taking into account the rural population. government’s goals for agricultural On the other hand, it is not possible to development within the market economy. find an appropriate solution to problems The reform of the land system con- purely and simply by reverting to sidered here, is not an agricultural tradition. The Polynesians in this sphere

55 \a ‘c > have not always behaved as they might legislation if serious disruption of the have been expected. Everywhere, in- fragile socio-economic balance of rural cluding the distant atolls, they aspire to societies is to be avoided. the comforts that technological There should be similar reasoning in civilisation can bring to their lives, though regard to land leases. To grant the non- not necessarily adhering to all the values owner farmer, working on joint-owned provided by such civilisation. It is not land, a legal status before settling the desirable to break the cohesion of groups problems inherent in the ownership of siblings who constitute the basic unit of system. is putting the cart before the hor- society, particularly in the archipelagoes. se. However, in Tahiti, Moorea, and But it,is not by basing this cohesion on the Raiatea, favourable conditions for setting authority of the elders that the future up such a statute already exist. There are smooth operation of the land system can many unused or under-worked in- be ensured. This authority, because it is dividually-owned properties for which the so often accompanied by privileges, is writing of leases poses no serious legal more and more frequently contested by problems. A number of planters, the younger people. stimulated by the proximity of an expan- In applying any new legislation, the ding urban market, are committed to a responsible authorities should adopt a path of change. The technical staff of the realistic attitude which takes into account Department of Rural Economy can come the situation existing in the various ar- in with maximum effectiveness. chipelagoes. It is urgent to find a solution The government’s goals for agricultural to the problems posed by joint possession development will be achieved in the Society Islands and the western in the short and medium term only if the part of the Tuamotus. The same does not agricultural potential of the land is deter- always apply in the distant archipelagoes. mined within the context of a Territorial In certain atolls of the eastern part of the development plan. Especially in the Wind- Tuamotus, customary joint ownership is ward Islands, if the situation is left to it- not yet a hindrance to the regeneration of self, agriculture will be driven from the coconut plantations. In Rurutu, joint coastal plains by residential development, ownership is not responsible for the aban- pleasure parks and tourist amenities. In doning of the coconut and vanilla plan- the Leeward Islands and especially tations. nor for the feeble extension of the Wuahine. the systematic purchase of joint new coffee plantations. In one place the ownership shares by foreigners who wish increase in the number of wage-earners is to become individual owners clearly the cause, in another the weak purchasing shows that, in the present situation, joint power of copra brings with it the risk of a ownership does not always sufficiently en- rural exodus in the near future. At the sure the preservation of property for moment, the improvement of rural agricultural purposes. economy depends to a greater extent on The government’s goals will be the effects of more extended technical achieved only if those involved in assistance to farmers, on a reorganisation cultivation and stock-raising are allowed of inter-island transport, or on control of to carry out their farming in a reasonable production prices, than on the reform of manner, profiting from the fruits of their the land tenure system. Evolution and labour. This applies to non-owner farmers change are unavoidable and one must as much as to joint owners. In all of provide for their consequences by im- French Polynesia, regardless of the land mediately setting up appropriate tenure system, the responsibility for the

56 I

work is always left in the hands of in- Development companies and rural dividuals: the basic cell for rural develop- organisations established to buy up ment, taking into account an evolution land or agricultural estates which which has been underway for some time, have been freely put on the market by remains the elementary family unit. their owners, as well as uncultivated A certain number of steps to en- land destined to be returned to their courage production, especially of a fiscal owners after eventually having been nature, will also have to be taken. developed. However, these provisions will have In the communes and sections of com- . positive results only ,if land rights, munes which would be chosen, a jurist especially in regards to joint ownership, (not necessarily a magistrate but above are thoroughly reviewed. all som eone familiar with the situation) and a land surveyor, who would be A review of land right assisted by two locally resident represen- “If one wants to reach a method of tatives, could proceed with the inquiries organisation for management of jointly necessary to obtain a deed of property held land which is rational and above all and the corresponding parcel plans. This efficient and if, as I shall point out, one operation should be announced in advance desires to set up property taxation or through the usual channels, and non- organisations of the SAFER type, it residents with claims to put forward seems indispensible to have initially a would be invited to make them on the spot completed and closed list of the joint or to have themselves represented. After owners concerned . . .” (Calinaud, 1975-76, a certain period, the ordinary civil p.34). jurisdiction would rest in the last resort In order not to delay the launching of on the validity of the property deeds. the government-‘s projected development On the basis of established documents operations indefinitely, I would like to which should be regularly updated, a real propose that the verification procedures estate index system could be organised. for land rights be linked with the On these documents could be indicated all 1 establishment or rather, in the majority deeds bearing on the transmission of of cases, with the revision of the land sur- property. The genealogies established vey. This should be done as a priority in during the investigations could also be an- the islands or the sectors where govern- nexed; a copy of the files would then be ment has concrete development projects. preserved at the main administrative cen- It is useless to survey the interior of tre of the commune. islands which are not or never have been Property conservation used and therefore are of no economic in- terest. Neither can I see why one should By establishing in 1974 “protected proceed with the surveying of certain agricultural zones”, the Territory has sparsely inhabited islands while a revision provided itself with the necessary tool for is imperative in certain of the high islands “conservation or agricultural im- with real possibilities for development. provement” of inherited land. But as the Finally, I would like to point out the Social and Economic Committee pointed existence of recent aerial photographs out in 1978, “four years after the creation which are available in the Territory and of this legislation, only one agricultural which would facilitate operations con- zone has been created on the motu of siderably. Huahine (and) another agricultural zone ‘ *In France SAFERS are “Land is beïng created in Papara.”

57 \-E-”-- &

The various inquiries and ad- It also provides a codification of ren- ’i, ministrative procedures required to obtain tal fees (in share-cropping, “the, part this kind of classification ought therefore coming to the lessor . . . cannot be higher I to be simplified, if possible. There already than one third of all the products sold”), exists a spontaneous method of organising allowing each party to make a legitimate space (concentration of urban and tourist profit out of his contribution to sectors, localisation of latifundia and agricultural activity. microfundia, distribution of the main land Such provisions, which at the present utilisation forms), perfectly time especially-in the Society archipelago distinguishable in aerial photographs concern individual ownershis more than which would well facilitate this work. joint ownership, could be applied to the It is doubtful, as the French example whole territory immediately solutions can shows, that the creation of protected be found to the problems posed by joint agricultural zones is an efficient weapon ownership. . against speculation. As Dumont (n.d., For some time now, the sole policy of p.33) suggests, in order to “moderate the the administration and jurists has been to price increase on agricultural lands”, one .- consider that Co-owamshould be-allowed could look into the creation (see note 2, p. access to individual ownership by 52) of SAFERS so that, by adapting them facilitating distribution. It would be better to the local context, and by the use of to make a change. public credits, land acquired could not However, this does not mean that ac- only be reassigned but also, contrary to cession to individual ownership should what is happening in France, be leased. always be discouraged, especially, for To set up such a structure the survey example, in the case of the large estates, would have to be terminated and a statute owned by demis, where the parcelling adopted for the non-owner farmer. following legal distribution does not com- promise the existence or prohibit the set- - . The status of the farmer ting up of viable agricultural operations. A land reform essentially has two sets However, in the traditional world and of provisions. The first relates to rural especially in distant archipelagoes, joint leases which are already being considered possessions should be obtained and made \ by the Territorial authorities. The second functional since they are a factor fun- relates to joint ownerships, still only- a damental to social stability and .the proposal, which ought to be’ approved by preservation of property. Contrary to the French legislators. In view of the what took place in rural leases when the complexities of the problems involved, Civil Code was used, it will not always be this is considered here in greater detail. possible to do this by adapting French The suggested system of rural leases legislation to local reality, but customary law, properly adapted, can be used as a provides for long leases (9 years) and their renewal, to allow the lessee the legal instrument in the service of develop- chance of reaping the fruits of his work ment. and investment. It also provides for the In order to do this, it is necessary to right of pre-emption and the right to in- acknowledge the right of the co-owner to demnification on departure, each time the his plantations, even and especially if this lessee has contributed to the development concerns perennial cultivations, and to of the property. This indemnification can make this right trnasmissible to his heirs. be an encouragement to reinvest in It should be noted that local jurisprudence agriculture. (Calinaud 1, has taken a considerable step

58 ‘- I. ,

in this direction by assimilating this fun- agricultural areas are limited and most damental element of customary law with property is under-worked, two categories certain usages of pre-revolutionary of measures to encourage development France (“surface rights”) which the Civil could be planned. The first would be to ,Code never abolished. For more security, require owners of undeveloped land or a statute should be adopted by-the land--left -abandoned- for more than five legisla ture. years either to develop it or to lease it Customary distributions should be within a period of two years. . legalised wherever they exist among The second would be fiscal. A tax’on socially coherent groups of relatives undeveloped rural properties has existed (restricted or extended opu hoe). and joint in the Territory .since 1953, but it has

ownership by more extended groups never been collected. The State Council, ‘ should’ be discouraged. in a ruling on an appeal brought by one of A “system of consultation and the first persons so taxed, considered that decision” (the legal form of which is to be this tax -contained a certain number of determined) -should be created which, in technical imperfections which were an ob- substituting itself for a birthright subject stacle to its being applied. It would be to challenge, would have a triple function: desirable to remedy these imperfections. assigning, lands to be developed, A precise survey is not necessary to renewing exhausted plantations, and set- localise the latifundia which have not tling dispute initially privately. been developed. Dumont (n.d., p. 29) has The existence and efficiency of this shown that a “land tax . . . is a factor structure would be subject to the essential to agricultural development . . . following conditions’. A deed of con- the primary basis for the take-off of an stitution ought to be made by some of the autonomous, self-supporting develop- Co-owners representing perhaps “half of ment,” but this presumes close technical the property rights”, and opposable by surveillance, public business organisations the other Co-owners. The managerial cen- supporting a network of cooperatives, and tre would be established in the section of high prices which already exist in French . the commune where the titleholders have Polynesia. The collection of a land tax the most land. would require a revision of the cadastral The formalities for convening plan. mee tin g s having be en established, Another form of taxation, which decisions would be made by the majority would discourage land speculation and be of those present, those opposing being easy to determine, could ultimately be able to bring the dispute before an charged on profits made on the sale of itinerant judge or a communal jurisdic- plots of land. tion which would rule on the matter in the . These are some of the steps which, if last resort. In a territory where kin adopted, could contribute to an im- groups are geographically highly disper- provement of local agriculture, on con- sed, such an arrangement is necessary if dition of course as Calinaud has pointed decisions made are to be effective, out (1976, p- 6.51, that ‘‘concrete develop- ment projects” are available to begin Steps to encourage production with. It is hardly sufficient merely to change the judicial context in order to In a territory where useful modify the socio-economic situation.

59

- -__ ._ .. . .-_-. ~ . __ . __ . . ---Y- a 5

- . “ ......

Properties belonrrine tn: 1 Y --_ -I Category of Properties Residents "wesidents living in: City countryside Outside Polynesia (BYha.) No. Total area No. Total area No. Total area (ha.) NO. Total area - (ha.) (ha.) 1 0-0.9 33 16.2382 12 6.3615 8 5.8077 3 1.0547 2 1-4.9 21 46.6570 8 - - 18.5962 1 1.5930 3 5-9.9 3 25.9008 ------4 10-19.9 2 22.9613 ------5 20-29.9 ------6 30-49.9 ------I 1 118.1624 - - - -

Total 60 362.4183 . 23 175.1110 9 18.9297 , 4 2.6477

...... -. . ..

.,A41 . , ......

;I -. ' ,I 1.

i i... i... . I

I I

~.

l i

i

l

i

I I

l" '! E ..

o) N Price per sq. metre for undeveloped land in:

Papara I Mataiea i Year No. of Av. pkice Min. Pape ari No. of EjZL AV. price Min. Max. No. of Av. price b. transfers a 5 price a5 price price transfers Ma. *5 price price 1959 5 1960 26 <1 52 1 6 59 - - 44 1 1961 2 129 6 - - 8 62 63 7 131 116 1962 5 202 5 7 5 3 - 6 76 3 123 1 .1 16 1963 49 - - 3 8 79 6 257 - 10 112 1964 17 106 2 368 -. 4 103 1965 12 301 14 700 - - 5 1966 47 244 15 - 6 24 1967 34 201 10 583 1968 69 353 2 729700 - 6'243 1969 87 3 150 1970' 47 327 6 1,256 - 52 427 8 1,550 - - 48 - 40 1931 57 385 69 800 - - 155 1972 69 575 64 1,519 - 5 650 1973 120 518 28 1,450 - 50 670 1974 185 566 48 1,250 87 183 . 1975 101 619 42 2,985 249 54 502 1976 57 729 8 2,638 140 10 238 1977 44 745 44 1,859 1,313 41 2,593 1,125 31 2,213 '"àfers during only 6 month --

Appendix III: Real estate speculation In both communes of the south coast of Tahltl from 1959 to 1977. Plain Mountain Valley Form of 1 2 land use 3. 4 34 1 2 3 4 1+2+4 2,3 C 7 6 Ca 3 1 Mu 2 1 3 .2 3 1 Swamp taro 1 2 Dry taro 2 Potatoes 1 Vegetables 1 1 - C Ca + 1 C + Mu 2 1 1 C + Ca + Mu 1 C + Mu + taro 2 C + Mu + Ma C + Mu 1 Taro L 1 + 2 11 Taro -t P + L 1 Mu + Taro 2

E 1 4 C+E 3 -1 - - 1 1 Total '19 6 4 13 2 1 3. 10 1 2 3 11 C Copra 1 Direct development Ca Coffee 2 Renting ' Mu Musaceae 3 Share-cropping P Potatoes 4 Carstaking' L Vegetables I A Pineapple Ma Manioc (cassava) + Indicates a person or group employs several forms of land use , Indicates a person or group exercises one. or more forms of land use in a complex tenure

(Source: F. Ravault, 1977a). 1 Appendix Papeari: types of agricultural land use in individual properties, 1968 .cr IV: *. I

(Source: F. Ravault, 1977a) *, 8.. .

REFER'EN~Es.-'- .- - ._..__...... -..-__ ___.

I Bissehop, .E..-$e; ."De .la situation critique du regime ...... 1966. "Un demi siecle de contorsions 952.; i +-?;.i2 L 3 .-&&et dahs'les:'E'.E.O.-en.'gen~~ juridiques: le regime foncier en et en l'ile Rurutu en particulier." Polynesie Francaise de 1842 a Project d'application de mesures a 1892." .boumal of PaCijic History. Vol ! . prendre en vue d'un redressement 1, pp. 115-127.Canberra. I de cette situation, Rurutu. 17 p. ! multigr...... l970.-7k terre et l'organisation sociale Polynesie. f Bonnean; RJ; 1965 ?'Les.,pfoblemes de la tenure des Petite Bibliotheque, , ,* ...... Li ... terr'es 'en Polynesie Francaise. Paris. . .< Cahier de Documentation, no. 4. "Rapport sur 'la politique agricole "-----.-_._. ._ .. Paaeete,~?P.. mu!tigr, __ - - ~ ___. .------. -.. -.--.du.-GourvernemenL-presente a C a lin a u d, R., "Note sur l'indivision agraire et 1'Assem blee Territoriale de :;la UX-rurauxen Polynesie Fran- ..... :. ... .: ..... Polynesie. Francaise le. 4 Nov&- e.." Papeete, 65p. . , ' . . bre, 1963." t. ... robleme 'de l'indivision." y\; -:,.., . ': . .... '::-i .. Ravault, .' *aMihaiape, etude de"structu& orme des regimes Ifonciers. .. :...... F:.;1967!? . agraires." ORSTOM..Paris. 114 p. ent. technique no. :159;:South ., ...... 1972Ct'~L~origine" de la proprìete"'rbncïer Csmmissiop, Noumea, .E4 , *.desIles-de-la-Societe, essai d'inter-

,~,..-.. : . . i ._. . : pretation geographiquer!':.QRSTOM,

i .. . -1.: ...... '. Cahiers Series. .++Ic,~.Humes,

Vol:...... IX. no& PP. 2?:2-?; .? J; i; :-;', ?.!:I-~.....?;.-~.1974..!? Via-.regime! de': i!&ploit,ation,.:en Polynesie Francà&+'; r.0~~0.M. Cahiers Series Sciences Humaines, ,,:.:.,:::i ...... Vol. XI, nos.. 34, ppI.325-7:;u;. ision.: aux Ïles .Australes." "ORSTOM, Paris, 57p. ..i::.... e ari, '"l';organi S a tion de e dans .y 'district de la Cote Taluti., , .Centre. :.0.RSTOM .. de Papeete! 233 P., . i; J.5'" . \'.,/ ':>j$\*,i\: : ...... :.., 1 ::., ,':,;.,;::':>- 'A: propos des's. baux :ruraux." : :*..!:.,: Bullefii. .de la: S0ciet.e des: .Etudes

I l,.:;: .I Oceaniennes, ,,j'01.,16, .no.,200, .pp. 23- 31...... "Structures foncieres et economie '. du.coprah dans l'archipel des Tu a m o t u. '! : Centre ,O R.ST0.M ide Papeete, 164 p...... - '.' '. ' Service'de Rurale de la Polynesie Francaise, . 'l'Economie' '. ':.' .., ... 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978. 1 . Bulletins de Statistiques agricoles.nos...... 5, 6, 7. . . /._ .: ...... , -.

..1978. mation de la Maison des Jeunes. .._.,... . i ' :.. Maison de la CdtGe de..F!olynesie

65