PROFILE of the DRAWA MODEL AREA Appraisal for a Community Managed Forest Area in Fiji

PACIFIC GERMAN REGIONAL FORESTRY PROJECT

PROFILE of the DRAWA MODEL AREA Appraisal for a community managed forest area in Fiji

Christine Fung May 2005

Secretariat of Deutsche Gesellschaft für the Pacific Community Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH PROFILE OF THE DRAWA MODEL AREA

Secretariat of the Pacific Community / German Technical Cooperation Pacific-German Regional Forestry Project

Cover photos (first row, left to right): Photo 1 Drawa woman washing pots in Drawa River. Photo: R.J. Blank, December 2004 Photo 2 Newly accessed Drawa village. Photo: R.J. Blank, December 2004 Photo 3 Keka and Vatuvonu village youths. Photo: R.J. Blank, December 2004 Photo 4 Dalo plantation, Drawa model area. Photo: J. Mateboto, September 2004

(second row, left to right): Photo 5 Davui vatu – stone for heralding villagers, Drawa village. Photo: R.J. Blank, December 2004 Photo 6 House with thatched bamboo walls, Drawa village. Photo: R.J. Blank, September 2003 Photo 7 Lutukina River, western boundary of model area. Photo: C. Fung, May 2004 Photo 8 School children of Lutukina District School. Photo: C. Fung, May 2004

Table of Contents

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...... v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I

1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 1

2. PHYSICAL PROFILE...... 2 2.1 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION 2 2.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY 4 2.3 CLIMATE 5 2.4 GEOLOGY 6 2.5 SOIL 7 2.6 LAND USE CAPABILITY (LUC) 10 2.7 FLORA AND FAUNA 12 2.7.1 Forest ...... 13 2.7.2 Non–timber forest product (NTFP) ...... 16 2.7.3 Botanical surveys ...... 17

3. LAND TENURE PROFILE ...... 19 3.1 LAND TENURE IN FIJI 19 3.1.1 Types of Land Ownership ...... 19 3.1.2 Formal Leases...... 20 3.1.3 Informal reserves...... 20 3.2 LAND TENURE IN THE DRAWA MODEL AREA 21 3.2.1 Formal leases In the Drawa Model area ...... 22 3.2.2 Informal reserves In the Drawa Model area ...... 23 3.2.3 Informal tenureship arrangements in the Drawa Model area...... 24 3.2.4 Tenureship arrangements outside the Drawa model area...... 25

4. SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PROFILE...... 27 4.1 THE MATAQALI’S OF THE DRAWA MODEL AREA 27 4.2 TRADITIONAL STRUCTURES 28 4.2.1 Vanua Structure – Tikina Wailevu...... 29 4.2.2 Yavusa Drawa Structure ...... 29 4.3 FORMAL STRUCTURES 30 4.3.1 The Drawa Landowners Forest Management Cooperative Ltd (DraFCo) ...... 31 4.4 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS 33 4.4.1 Inter-mataqali conflict ...... 33 4.4.2 External parties...... 35

5. CURRENT LAND USE PROFILE...... 36 5.1 PAST CULTIVATION 36 5.1.1 Past Timber Harvesting Activities...... 37 5.2 LAND USE INSIDE THE DRAWA MODEL AREA 37 5.2.1 Land users of the Drawa model area ...... 38

i 5.2.2 Cultivation in the Drawa model area ...... 39 5.2.3 Cultivation site selection...... 42 5.2.4 Working groups ...... 45 5.2.5 Farming pattern in the Drawa model area...... 45 5.2.6 Land use technologies ...... 48 5.3 LAND USE OUTSIDE THE DRAWA MODEL AREA 49 5.3.1 Land use pattern outside the model area...... 49 5.4 FUTURE LAND USE PLANS FOR THE DRAWA MODEL AREA 52

6. ECONOMIC PROFILE ...... 54 6.1 FACTORS INFLUENCING PRODUCE MARKETED 54 6.1.1 Traditional taboos...... 54 6.1.2 Church demand...... 54 6.1.3 Accessibility ...... 55 6.1.4 Market prices ...... 55 6.2 MARKET CENTRES 55 6.2.1 Market Access ...... 56 6.3 CASH PRODUCE 57 6.3.1 Marketing...... 58 6.4 OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME 61 6.4.1 Cutting sugar-cane ...... 63 6.4.2 Remittance from working relatives outside village ...... 64 6.4.3 Non-timber forest products (NTFP)...... 64 6.5 BARTERING AND RECIPROCITY 65

7. ISSUES AND CONCERNS...... 66 7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 66 7.1.1 Agriculture practices...... 66 7.1.2 Specific areas for protection...... 66 7.1.3 Role of taboos ...... 68 7.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES 69 7.2.1 Traditional institutions and norms...... 69 7.2.2 Effects of Commercialisation...... 70

8. LIST OF ANNEXES ...... 73

9. GLOSSARY ...... 73

10. REFERENCES...... 74

ii List of Tables

Table 1. Soil pH categories...... 7 Table 2. Summary description of the soil main units in the Drawa model area...... 9 Table 3. Fiji land use capability classes...... 10 Table 4. Land use capability classes for Drawa model area ...... 11 Table 5. Forest Cover and Forest Functions of the Drawa model area ...... 14 Table 6. List of rare or threatened taxa in the Drawa model area ...... 18 Table 7. Area under Native reserve in the model area...... 22 Table 8. Area under informal reserve in the model area ...... 24 Table 9. Traditional tenureship arrangements in the Drawa model area ...... 25 Table 10. Land tenureship arrangements outside the model area...... 26 Table 11. Number of mataqali members of the Drawa model area...... 28 Table 12. Past cultivation areas in the Drawa model area ...... 36 Table 13. Major land users in the Drawa model area...... 39 Table 14. Area presently under cultivation in the Drawa block...... 41 Table 15. Description of main cultivated areas in the model area...... 41 Table 16. Characteristics of main soils cultivated in the Drawa model area ...... 42 Table 17. Characteristics for cultivation site selection by the Drawa farmers ...... 43 Table 18. Inputs for crops cultivated in the Drawa model area ...... 47 Table 19. Land use by the Drawa mataqali outside the model area ...... 50 Table 20. Other land users of land utilised by Drawa mataqali outside the model area ...... 50 Table 21. Approximate distance to major markets (in kilometres; as of 2003)...... 57 Table 22. Marketing scale of main cash produce ...... 59 Table 23. Market price for main cash produce (2002)...... 60 Table 24. Marketing of secondary cash produce...... 61 Table 25. Other sources of income aside from agriculture:...... 62 Table 26. Utilisation of cane cutting income ...... 63

iii List of Figures

Figure 1. Location map of the Drawa model area...... 3 Figure 2. Vanua Levu water catchments ...... 4 Figure 3. Main creeks and rivers of the Drawa model area...... 5 Figure 4. Vanua Levu rainfall pattern...... 6 Figure 5. Geology of Vanua Levu ...... 6 Figure 6. Soils of the Drawa model area...... 8 Figure 7. Land use capability classes of the Drawa model area ...... 12 Figure 8. Vegetation cover of Vanua Levu...... 13 Figure 9. Forest Function of the Drawa model area ...... 14 Figure 10. Pre-harvest inventory coupes of the Drawa ...... 15 Figure 11. Land tenure in the Drawa Model area and it’s vicinity...... 21 Figure 12. Native Reserves in the Drawa model area ...... 23 Figure 13. Mataqali’s of Vanua Drawa...... 27 Figure 14. Traditional hierarchy for Vanua Drawa ...... 29 Figure 15. Fijian social categories- example: Yavusa Drawa...... 30 Figure 16. The Drawa Landowners Forest Management Co-operative (DraFCo) Structure...... 31 Figure 17. Organisational structure of mataqali Nakalounivuaka DraFCo representation ...... 32 Figure 18. DraFCo link to traditional structures ...... 33 Figure 19. Past and present land use in the Drawa model area...... 40 Figure 20. Farming pattern in the Drawa model area ...... 46 Figure 21. Land use outside the Drawa model area...... 51 Figure 22. Main market centres on Vanua Levu...... 56 Figure 23. Approximate number of standing cash crops per mataqali (as of beginning 2003) ...... 57 Figure 24. Main markets for major cash crops...... 58 Figure 25. Sites of historical significance and interest...... 67 Figure 26. Food crop/ wild food consumption in Keka, Vatuvonu and Lutukina Village...... 72

List of Plates

Plate 1. Physokentia thurstonii...... 18 Plate 2. Old stone terracing on Nakase land ...... 48 Plate 3. Davui vatu – Drawa village ...... 68

List of Annexes

Annex 1 Non-timber forest uses by the Drawa model area mataqali Annex 2 History of land tenure in Fiji – an Overview Annex 3 Overview of Past and Present Land Use in the Drawa Model Area Annex 4 Major crops in the Drawa model area Annex 5 Value of crops and wild foods consumed per mataqali household per week

iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research BMZ Bundesministerium Für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit (German Federal Ministry for Economic Development Cooperation) DBH Diameter at Breast Height DLRPD Department of Land Resources, Planning, and Development DLT Diameter Limits Table DMA Drawa Model Area DraFCo Drawa Forest Landowners Co-operative GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Technical Cooperation) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAB Fijian Affairs Board FMP Forest Management Plan IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources LOAD Land Owners Association of Drawa LUP Land Use Plan MASLR Ministry of Agriculture, Sugar and Land Resettlement NLC Native Lands Commission NLTA Native Lands Trust Act NLTB Native Land Trust Board SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community

v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides the basis for the land use planning of the Drawa model area (DMA). The planning process was funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Development Cooperation, BMZ (Bundesministerium Für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit) and facilitated by the SPC/GTZ Pacific German Regional Forestry Project (PGRFP), in collaboration with the Department of Land Resources Planning and Development (DLRPD), of the Ministry of Agriculture, Sugar, and Land Resettlement (MASLR). Information was derived largely through both, participatory and technical survey, and research. At the time of reporting, construction of a vehicular access, running from Lutukina District School to Drawa village, was nearing completion. The situation analysis of the DMA detailed in this report is prior to the establishment of this Drawa road.

The Drawa model area for sustainable forest management (SFM) is located in the centre of Vanua Levu, the second largest island of Fiji. It covers 6,345.5 hectares of mountainous terrain, covered with indigenous and restored secondary forest. Most of the area is in the province of Cakaudrove whilst the Macuata province captures the NNW end. The entire model area is under native land tenure, with customary ownership belonging to eleven mataqali (landowning unit). Only four of the eleven mataqali reside in the model area. There are six main villages of residence for Drawa mataqali members and their households. Two villages - Drawa and Vatuvonu, are located within the model area; another two - Keka and Lutukina, are in the periphery of the area and, located away (north) from the model area, are Batiri and Nayarailagi villages. Outside the model area, land use (by Drawa mataqali) is mainly on freehold land, state schedule A land, and on other mataqali land.

There are two main types of land use reserves existing in the DMA 1) native reserve – formal reserve registered by the Native Land Trust Board for exclusive use of the mataqali; and 2) traditional reserves – informal reserves dictated by customs and taboos. Based on the physical characteristic of the area, government agencies such as the Department of Land Resources Planning and Development (DLRPD) and the Forestry Department, have a defined set of land classifications. These classifications provide a reference, and in some cases, are regulations, for land use.

The survey revealed that land use was not restricted to mataqali land with most mataqali utilising land not belonging to them. The more traditional practice of sharing yavusa and mataqali land is still common in the DMA. Nevertheless, whilst traditional agreements on land utilisation and access, are still honoured in the DMA, commercialisation and increasing population, is revolutionising these land use arrangements in the more economically aspiring villages. In Batiri village for instance, traditional arrangements on land access agreed to a century ago, between the landowners and the adopted mataqali Nakalounivuaka of Drawa, are being disputed. The registered landowning mataqali are increasingly flexing their landowning rights to nullify these existing informal traditional agreements.

It is evident that though the villages in the Drawa model area are one of the few in Fiji still adhering to traditional laws, their culture is in a state of transition. For the villages outside the DMA, the reliance of villagers’ on traditional social structures and networks is waning as a cash driven economy enables them to provide for their households independently. A breakdown in the social hierarchical structure is implied in the relationship between the mataqali Bakibaki and their yavusa Drawa. The mataqali Bakibaki members living in Suva

are developing an increasingly autonomous stance, where they do not accept representation through their yavusa Drawa (residing in the DMA). The customary practice of consulting with the yavusa and vanua is considered redundant by some mataqali who prefer to have a direct involvement in their land dealings. This is not (yet) relevant for the other mataqali / yavusa relationships in the DMA.

At present, approximately 10.5% of the model area is under cultivation, where the land user group is commonly the household unit. These areas are mainly open grassy pockets and patches on steeper forestlands. Most of these land users are residents of the model area with very little activity from mataqali members residing outside the area. The landowners place a higher value on the utilitarian quality of their forests rather than its environmental functions and aesthetic features. Forestland is valued more for its capacity to grow yaqona and dalo, the two main cash crops, rather than for its timber and non-timber value. However, awareness and educational programmes over the years, and the participation of landowners in the SFM project activities, have made the resource owners more perceptive to the ecological and economical value of their forest.

Agriculture is the main source of income for the people of Drawa. The main cash crops are limited to dalo and yaqona and have been so for the past few decades. The scale of cultivation in the DMA is expanding and crops cultivated are less ‘mixed’, with farmers now focussing on cash crops dictated by market demands. The production of cash crops is seen to be as important (if not more) than subsistence production. Labour roles are gradually becoming distinctly gender defined as the men, who were once involved in subsistence cultivation, focus more on the ‘important’ task of securing cash through the cultivation of yaqona and dalo, whilst the women continue to carry out the ‘secondary task’ of providing for the daily household consumption. Poor accessibility to the main market centres and high transportation costs discourage the marketing of lower return, perishable produce, such as vegetables and minor root crops, whilst in some mataqali traditional taboos do not allow the marketing of certain wild foods. With the road development to Drawa village, a crop suitability and market survey will be the next step in determining viable commercial crops for the defined sites.

The various locations of the mataqali make for good socio-economic comparison, as there are striking differences in the lifestyles of the villages. Batiri village is located next to the main Labasa-Nabouwalu highway with easy access to the Seaqaqa and Labasa market centres. Drawa village on the other hand, is in the centre of the island where, until the recent establishment of a vehicular road, the nearest road (Lutukina) was a 2½-hour trek through mountainous terrain. The intake of processed food in Batiri is higher as crops are grown primarily for cash rather than consumption. This, may in part, be attributed to the better market access, which allows the Batiri villager to sell a diverse range of crops compared to the restricted cash crops (yaqona) that can be transported by the Drawa villagers. In Batiri and Keka village, natural nutritious food produce is sacrificed for the market and processed food bought from the store is consumed. This has implications on the villagers’ health with reported increases in obesity and non-communicable diseases (Labasa and Savusavu Health Centre, 2003). The Batiri villagers also have more income generating opportunities such as cane cutting, farmhands, part-time labourers, maids, and cleaners. In Drawa and Vatuvonu, the limited availability of cash and inaccessibility to stores has the villagers on a regular diet of produce from their land. These observations call for the monitoring of socio- economic impacts the new Drawa road will have on the villagers.

1. INTRODUCTION

This report attempts to describe the environmental, social, and economic profile of the mataqali of the Drawa sustainable forest management (SFM) model area and provide insight to the dynamics of rural Fijian communities. The information, derived largely through extensive research and participatory consultations, forms the basis of the Drawa model area land use plan. Participatory rural appraisal tools employed in the field included semi-structured questionnaires, transect profiling, and resource mapping with relevant experts consulted on technical issues. The information gathering and reporting process was from 2002 to 2003, followed by the land-use planning phase. This comprehensive survey complements previous studies, which include botanical and ethnobotanical surveys, a gender baseline study, a socio-economic survey, and a PRA of needs and wants in the model area.

An integrated multi-disciplinary team, made up of landowner representatives, officers from the Department of Land Resources, Planning, and Development (DLRPD), Agriculture extension officers, officers from the Fijian Affairs Board, Forestry officers and the PGRFP, made up the survey team.

1.1 Background

The Drawa model area SFM project is a progression from the Fiji-German Nakavu Natural Forest Management Pilot Project (NFMPP). The Nakavu pilot area covers 300 hectares of natural forests. The main objective of the NFMPP was to develop a sustainable indigenous forest management system, integrating a silviculturally sound concept and reduced impact logging. The end of the four-year project (1990 – 1994) produced the following key elements: i) the realisation of an inventory of the area earmarked for logging; ii) the selection of tree species based on a tree species specific table (created by using a simulation model) with lower limit diameters and, iii) the active inclusion of the rural forest owners in the forest cultivation. The positive results of the pilot project were encouraging enough to extend and expand the bilateral forestry project to allow the model to be adapted to different environments in the region. October 1994 saw the inception of the SPC1/GTZ2 Pacific German Regional Forestry Project (PGRFP) in Suva.

In Fiji, a model area was set up in Vanua Levu. The model area was for the implementation of improved guidelines for reduced impact logging and silvicultural principles developed from experiences during the NFMPP (refer to “The Natural Forest Management Pilot Project – Final Report” SPC/GTZ – PGRFP technical report no.14). The Drawa model area was identified as an ideal location because of the largely untouched forest stands and the consent from the main stakeholders namely, the landowners, the Forestry Department, the concession holder (Fiji Forest Industries) and the Native Land Trust Board. In 1999, the Drawa model area for community– based sustainable forest management was delineated and the SPC/GTZ Pacific German Regional Forestry Project commenced with field activities. A pre-harvest inventory of the forest areas and subsequent data analysis resulted in the development of species-specific diameter limit tables (DLT) for the Drawa model area. In simulation, it appeared possible to apply the new Drawa diameter limit tables successfully on the Nakavu inventory data as well as on the data collected in the National Forest Inventory (De Vletter and Mussong, 2001). The DLT provided

1 Secretariat of the Pacific Community 2 German Technical Co-operation

guidelines on diameter felling limits and logging intensity interventions. Forest growth and increment (based on NFMPP data) were also taken into consideration. This silvicultural concept strives to ensure that only the strongest tree that has reached its growth threshold is harvested, so that the regeneration and growth dynamics of the forest ecosystem is least affected.

In the course of the forest management planning process, it became apparent that land use activities in the model area, especially agriculture, seriously threatened the timber base in the model area. It was realised that a holistic land use plan was needed to address agriculture activities in order to safeguard timber supply in the model area. This report, inter alia, provides the baseline information for the land use plan.

Since the creation of the model area, there has been wide awareness building efforts on sustainable forest and land use management in the model area. In addition, landowners have been actively involved in the pre-harvest inventory fieldwork and in the management planning process. Awareness creation not only targeted resource owners and users, but also stakeholders involved with the Drawa SFM project. Awareness activities included community education trainings, gender training, landowner awareness visits to Nakavu, and PRA in the villages. This has provided the people of Drawa with a solid understanding of the requirements for sustainable forest management and land use management. The landowners are currently preparing for logging, following given silvicultural guidelines and reduced impact logging standards and principles as stated in the forest management plan.

2. PHYSICAL PROFILE

2.1 Geographical Location

The Drawa sustainable forest management (SFM) model area is on Vanua Levu, the second largest island in Fiji. It sits on the centre of the island at 4033000mE and 2029000mN (figure 1). The area is approximately 6,345 hectares, covered with primary and largely restored secondary forest stands.

The bulk of the Drawa model area is in the district of Wailevu, of the province of Cakaudrove. A small portion on the northern tip enters Dreketi district in Macuata province. Two villages, Drawa and Vatuvonu, are located in the model area, whilst Keka village is on its southern periphery and Lutukina on the northern end.

2 Figure 1. Location map of the Drawa model area

(Data source: GIS Unit, DLRPD)

2.2 Topography and Hydrology

Elevations in the model area range from 300 to 700 metres above sea level. The Tavea mountain peak, on Bakibaki land (trig point), is the highest point at an altitude >700m. Long meandering streams cut strongly into the rolling to very steep, mountainous terrain. A third of the forest area in the model area is under protection due to the steepness (>25°) of the slopes and its soils’ high vulnerability to erosion.

Two main water catchments are contained within the project area. These are the Dreketi catchment draining north, and the Wailevu (Coastal) catchment, draining south (figure 2). The two major rivers, the Lutukina and Drawa, join up further north to form the Naua River. The Naua River feeds into the main Dreketi River (deepest river in Fiji) which discharges out to mangrove flats along the northern coast. The Qaqara and Wainiqima streams (figure 3) of the Wailevu (Coastal) catchment drain south.

Figure 2. Vanua Levu water catchments

Drawa model area

(Source: SOPAC)

Figure 3. Main creeks and rivers of the Drawa model area

(Data source: GIS Unit, DLRPD) 2.3 Climate

Rainfall pattern in Fiji is mainly orographic (influenced by island topography and the prevailing southeast trades). The Drawa model area has a very weak dry season with an average rainfall of 3500 – 4500mm per annum. High rainfall is normally experienced from November to April (http://www.met.gov.fj) whilst the drier and cooler period is from May to October.

The Drawa model area sits on the band of high precipitation running NE-SW on the windward side of the island. This band forms along the high mountain ranges, which forces moisture saturated southeast trade winds upwards (Figure 4). The air masses cool as they move upwards, and often reach the point of condensation. Thus, much more precipitation generally occurs on the upper parts of windward slopes of high hills and mountains than in leeward slopes. The mountains of Vanua Levu (and Viti Levu) create wet climatic zones on their windward side and are important source areas for streams. The leeward slopes experience much lower precipitation due to the “rain shadow3” effect. This difference greatly influences land use.

3 as air masses pass the crest and begin to move down slope, they warm, and having already precipitated much of their rain, pass down slope releasing only small quantities of additional rain.

Figure 4. Vanua Levu rainfall pattern

Drawa model area

south east trade winds N

(Source: Leslie, D., 1997)

2.4 Geology

The Drawa model area is largely of the Natewa volcanic group, which is chiefly of submarine flows, breccias and volcaniclastic sediments of basic andesite composition. The Natewa group was formed during the period of active volcanism in the late Miocene in central Vanua Levu and this succession seems to form a basement for most of Vanua Levu (Colley and Flint, 1995). Radiometric dating indicates the Natewa group to cover an age range from about 7.5ma to 3.5ma (late Miocene to mid Pliocene). Within the Drawa model area are acid andesite plugs with associated breccia sheets belonging to the Nararo volcanic group. The Nararo volcanic group cuts into the Natewa succession and is dated mid to late Pliocene (3 - 2ma).

Figure 5. Geology of Vanua Levu

Drawa

(Source: http://www.mrd.gov.fj/gfiji/Index.html)

To the south and south west of the Drawa model area, gold prospects are widely scattered with anomalous gold values found near the Tavea plateau, a volcanic plug. The plug area may possibly have been a caldera with the surrounding rim eroded away, leaving the central area exposed as a raised plateau (Jay and Jensen in Colley and Flint, 1995). The Mount Kasi gold mine is located to the west of the model area. The Mount Kasi prospect is a little-eroded, structurally controlled, high-sulfidation system, where gold-copper mineralization is formed at high crustal levels (Corbett and Leach, 1997).

2.5 Soil

The Drawa model area soils had developed mostly from the Natewa volcanic group, of basic and intermediate andesites and other volcanics. Scattered intrusions of the younger Nararo volcanic group, of acidic composition, form the other minor soil series. This includes the Monasavu soils formed from the Tavea acid andesite plug, the highest point in the model area.

The general soil types in the model area are steepland soils related to or associated with humic latosols4 (FAO: Humic/Dystric Cambisol) formed under a climate of very weak or no dry season where the moisture regime is udic5 to perudic6, and well drained. These steepland soils have a moderate to severe erosion potential upon removal of forest cover. The Drawa soils are generally within the isohyperthermic7 (<600m) soil temperature regime (STR), whilst the soils of the steeper areas (Monasavu soil series on Tavea peak; and Wailulu series) enter an isothermic8 STR. Heavy leaching from high rainfall, has the soils at a pH that is moderately to extremely acid (Table 1).

Table 1. Soil pH categories Rating pH Description Major Soil Series in Drawa Very high >9.0 extremely alkaline 8.5 – 9.0 strongly alkaline 7.9 – 8.4 moderately alkaline High 7.3 – 7.8 slightly alkaline 6.7 – 7.2 near neutral Medium 6.1 – 6.6 slightly acid 5.6 – 6.0 moderately acid Nauluvatu; Driti Low 4.4 – 5.5 strongly acid Sote; Lobau; Visa; Monasavu, Wailulu Very low <4.4 extremely acid Naicola (Adapted from Leslie and Seru, 1998)

The predominant soil series in the Drawa model area are the Lobau, Naicola, Sote, Nauluvatu and Visa series. The Sote soils dominate on mid slopes of hilly lands and forms around water catchment areas and alluvial plains (figure 6). The Lobau soils feature in the centre of the model

4 soils developed on young volcanic material (latosolic soils); loamy sand texture to a depth of 100cm from soil surface; having high organic carbon content 5 humid climate where the soil is not dry (in any horizon) for as long as 90 days 6 like udic but rainfall >evapotranspiration in most years and water moves through the soil in all months 7 mean annual soil temperature range >22°C, with the difference between winter and summer mean temperatures <5°C; generally at altitudes <600m 8 mean annual temperature >15°C; generally at altitudes >600m

area where terrain is very steep and vegetation is under protected forest. The Naicola soils cover most of the area on the northwestern end that are under high production forests. On the eastern side of the model area the Nauluvatu and Visa soils dominate. These are areas covered by medium to dense multiple use (production) forest.

Figure 6. Soils of the Drawa model area

Legend 10 to Soil Series 3 1 – Sote 2 1 2 – Lobau 2 DRAWA 3 – Naicola 1 10 4 – Nauluvatu 3 2 5 – Visa 1 1 3 8 8 6 – Namara 1 11 2 7 – Keiyasi (< 600m altitude) 9 4 VATUVONU 8 – Driti 1 8 2 9 – Monasavu 5 1 (> 600m altitude) 7 6 2 7 10 – Kavula 12 2 2 1 1 11 – Wailulu (>600m) 5 2 8 12 - Solevu 12 8 KEKA

(Data source: GIS unit, DLRPD)

Table 2 describes the characteristics of the main soils in the Drawa model area. Soil “limitations” refer to the physical qualities of the soil and related environmental factors that adversely affect the soil’s capacity to sustain production. When determining the degree of soil limitation, the following factors are evaluated (Leslie, D. 1997): - susceptibility to erosion; - steepness of slope; - susceptibility to flooding; - liability to wetness or drought; - salinity; - depth of soil; - soil characteristics (texture, structure, pH, fertility, etc.) and; - climate.

Table 2. Summary description of the soil main units in the Drawa model area

Soil Type Main Feature Parent rock Soil Limitations Vegetation and Land Use Lobau Well drained udic Andesitic tuffs and Very severe soil erosion Majority under forest. (unit #124) (perudic) steepland marls potential on all slopes when Where cleared used for FAO: soil formed under a forest cover removed, strong subsistence root crops Dystric climate with no dry soil acidity; severe nutrient followed by bush fallow. Cambisol season deficiencies of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorous. Visa Steep land soils Sedimentary rocks On sloping land subject to Much still under (unit #125) formed under a of intermediate and moderate to severe erosion indigenous forest. FAO: climate with a very basic composition where vegetation removed; Elsewhere, cleared for Dystric weak or no dry strong soil acidity; and grazing with introduced Cambisol season. nutrient deficiencies of grasses or tree crops on phosphorous and nitrogen the more gentle slopes Sote Perudic, well drained Sedimentary rocks Soil erosion potential when Indigenous forest but (unit #126) soil formed under a of intermediate and forest cleared and cultivated cleared in many places for FAO: Humic climate with a weak basic composition particularly on slopes >3°, pasture (dairying) Cambisol or no dry season. In strong soil acidity; and Vanua Levu - limited nutrient deficiencies of to southern wetter phosphorous and potassium areas. Naicola Steep land soil Andesites and Moderate to severe soil Predominantly under (unit #166) formed under a sedimentary rocks erosion potential when the indigenous forest. FAO: Humic climate with no dry of intermediate forest is cleared; surface Elsewhere in subsistence Cambisol season. Well drained composition. In boulders; extremely acid pH; gardens, for yams, udic (perudic) soil Vanua Levu nutrient deficiencies of bananas, dalo, kumala, (like Lobau). derived from the phosphorous, potassium, and cassava. Cropping 2- andesites of the and nitrogen; and likely 3 years followed by bush axial mountain aluminium toxicity. fallow. range Nauluvatu Steepland soil from Acid andesite Severe sheet and rill erosion Much under forest, some (unit #159) acid andesite formed potential when forest cleared developed for pasture, but FAO: Eutric under a climate with and cultivated. Slight to main use is for Cambisol no dry season. moderate potential for debris subsistence cropping (root Develops on slides; moderate soil acidity; crops and yaqona steeplands only in and nutrient deficiencies of small areas in phosphorous, potassium. central Vanua Levu Keiyasi Steepland, bouldery Calcareous tuffs Profile shallowness; slope; Used for subsistence root (unit #113) clay developed from and marls moderate to severe soil crops followed by 5 years FAO: Haplic marls and moisture deficits grass fallow; areas Kastanozem calcareous tuffs experienced during the dry commonly been planted formed under a season; potential soil out in Pinus caribaea, and climate with a erosion risk; soil acidity and elsewhere mainly rough moderate dry nutrient deficiencies of grazing season – restricted potassium, phosphorous, to the ustic9 moisture nitrogen region Monasavu Clay developed on Acid andesite Steep slope, very severe Almost entirely under (unit #223) steep slopes above (Tavea plug) erosion potential, soil acidity dense forest, only very FAO Humic 600m under a and nutrient deficiency occasionally used for Cambisol climate with subsistence cropping continuous rainfall and no dry season (Source: Fiji soil taxonomic unit description handbook, Leslie, D. and V, Seru. 1998)

9 limited moisture with a marked dry season (>3 months), some moisture available during growing season

2.6 Land Use Capability (LUC)

A land use capability (LUC) classification is described as, “the systematic arrangement of different kinds of land according to properties that determine its capacity for sustained production, where capability is used in the sense of suitability for productive use” (Leslie, D. 1997). The Land Use unit of the MASLR assesses land use capability based on its LUC Land Inventory System. The land inventory maps out parent rock type, soil type, slope, erosion, vegetation, and current land use. Land inventory units describing these factors are then delineated on a final land inventory map. These factors form the basis for evaluating and assessing the degree of soil limitation.

Table 3. Fiji land use capability classes

Land Class Description Class I Versatile multiple-use land. It is flat (0-3°); has deep easily worked, fertile soils; no erosion risk; well drained but not seriously affected by drought, and the climate is favourable for the growth of a wide range of crops. No special soil conservation measures required. Class II Good arable land with slight limitations, which make it more difficult to manage than class I. The land may be flat to gently undulating (0-7°); well drained to moderately drained, deep to slightly shallow, and fertile to moderately fertile soils. Simple management and conservation practices to overcome soil limitations are easy to apply. Class III Fair arable land with moderate limitations, which restrict the choice of plants and/or require intensive soil conservation measures. The land may be flat or gently sloping (0- 11°); slightly unstable; of moderate to severe wetness; subject to frequent damaging floods; and have shallow; moderately stony and/or infertile soils Class IV Marginal arable land with severe limitations, which restrict the choice of crops grown, or require intensive soil conservation measures, and very careful management. Limitations may affect land use in both of these ways. Class IV land may be flat to rolling (0-15°) and may comprise one or more of the following: poor to very poorly drained; stony or bouldery soil; very shallow soils; infertility; coarse textured soils with very low moisture retention capacity; or mangrove or peat that can be drained and reclaimed for cropping Class V Land is unsuitable for arable cropping but suitable for pastoral or forestry use. Steepness (slopes 16-20°) or stoniness are the main limitations. Only slight erosion risk under pasture or forest trees Class VI Marginal pastoral land with moderate to severe limitations. Land is too steep (21-25°) for pastoral use; or has a high susceptibility to erosion, or there is evidence of severe past erosion. Soil limitations include shallowness, low moisture retention, and low fertility. Production or commercial forestry is the preferred land use Class VII Unsuitable land for pastoral use and marginal for commercial forestry land is either very steep (26-35°); highly susceptible to erosion; there is evidence of severe past or present erosion; soils are either very shallow, very bouldery, or with very low fertility. Class VIII Land is generally unsuitable for productive use in both agriculture and forestry. This is primarily very steep mountain land mostly above an altitude of 800m. It also includes lowland areas in unfavourable situations, such as extreme erosion or high susceptibility to erosion (particular mass movement, or extreme stoniness, shallowness or infertility. Class VIII land is best protected and/or reserved for watershed and environmental purposes

(Source: Leslie, D., 1997)

The land inventory units are grouped into eight major land use capability classes (Table 3). This can be further sub-classed according to major soil limitations: erodibility (E); wetness (W); soil limitation within the rooting zone (S); and climate (C). The eight main land use classes are denoted with capital Roman numerals and when citing a subclass (limitation), the capital alphabet is placed after the main class e.g. class ‘VE’ denotes land capability ‘five’ with ‘erodibility’ as the main soil limitation.

Of the eight LUC classes described for Fiji, the Drawa model area falls under the five classes on the steeper end of the scale i.e. IV to VIII (table 4). These five classes however, are broadly delineated for the whole model area and can be further defined into smaller land use capability units for land classes

Table 4. Land use capability classes for Drawa model area

CLASS Area (hectares)

Mataqali IVE VE VIE VIIE VIIIE Total Slope 12° - 15° 16° - 20° 21° - 25° 26° - 35° >35° Bakibaki 163.3 416.3 778.2 163.3 163.3 1684.4 Drawa/Drano 22.1 23.3 2.4 47.8 Koroni 79.3 191.8 89.7 360.8 Nadugumoimoi 17.1 65.1 40.6 14.9 137.7 Nakalounivuaka 138.4 549.3 449.5 124.5 14.9 1276.6 Nakase 27.1 47.2 53.0 34.7 162.0 Navoatu 2.8 66.5 11.7 81.0 Navunicau 110.6 430.6 545.4 119.5 1206.1 Tonikula 33.7 321.7 155.6 131.3 642.3 Vatucucu 8.0 9.0 7.0 1.4 8.2 33.6 Vatucucu 12.4 3.0 15.4 Vulavuladamu 56.5 106.7 357.4 128.6 48.6 697.8

Total 658.9 2161.0 2557.7 417.8 550.1 6345.5

% Class area 10.38% 34.06% 40.31% 6.58% 8.67% 100% (Source: GIS unit, DLRPD)

The land classes described for the Drawa model area range from land that is marginally arable to that which is unsuitable for agriculture. More than 70 per cent of the Drawa model area falls under LUC class V and VI, reflecting the area’s high susceptibility to erosion upon removal of vegetation cover. These areas are recommended for forestry. The greater portion of land class VII and VIII are placed under protection forest (table 5). These steep ridge areas are often bouldery and rocky, with primary forest cover and meandering creeks cutting steeply into the sheer massive volcanics. The lower land classes (IV and V) exist in pockets and may be utilised for agriculture but only with soil conservation interventions.

Figure 7. Land use capability classes of the Drawa model area

LEGEND N

(Data source: GIS Unit, DLRPD)

2.7 Flora and Fauna

The rainfall pattern of the island (section 2.3) results in a distinct zoning of vegetation cover (Figure 8). The windward side of the island is dominated by forest cover whilst the dry talasiga lands form a corridor along the margins of the leeward side of the island. The Drawa model area is located within the high-forested zone of Vanua Levu. Most of the sugar cane plantations are established on the leeward side.

Figure 8. Vegetation cover of Vanua Levu

Drawa model area

(Source: Leslie, D., 1997)

2.7.1 Forest

The Drawa model area is predominantly under medium dense to scattered forest cover. The forest function map identifies 43.9% of the model area to be “multiple-use” forest (where timber production is included) and 32% “protection” forest (where forestry operations are limited mainly to manual extraction). The remaining 24.1% are either “preserved” forest areas (for conservation reasons) or non-forest areas where crown density is less than 15%. The original primary forest types are mainly multi-storied with the top canopy at about 30 m height in average.

A wide strip of “protected forest” follows the steep volcanic mountain ridges cutting east west across the model area. Protection of this forest area arises from its steepness and very high soil erosion susceptibility (Figure 9). The non-forest areas in the model area are mainly grasslands, scrubs, reed, and freshwater marshes occurring in patches throughout the model area, including within the protection forest strip. Outside the protected forest zone, most of the model area is identified suitable for production or commercial forestry (Fiji LUC).

Secondary forests, developed from abandoned cultivation sites of more than 100 years ago, are widely scattered in the model area. Most bush fallow, especially in Nadugumoimoi, Nakase, and Tonikula, has reverted close to its primary composition. In the wider open areas, meremia vines are seen to smother shrubs and trees. Old village sites are identifiable by existing vegetation, a mix of the tree crops, shrubs, and ornamental plants.

Figure 9. Forest Function of the Drawa model area

LUTUKINA LEGEND

DRAWA Dense multiple use forest

Medium dense/ scattered multiple use forest

Medium dense protection forest

Dense protection forest

Non forest

Dense preserved forest

Medium dense preserved forest VATUVONU Timber production hardwood plantation

(Source: Management Services Division, Forestry Department)

Table 5. Forest Cover and Forest Functions of the Drawa model area

Forest Cover Multiple Use Protection Preserved Non Forest Total area Total Area Forest10 (ha) Forest11 (ha) Forest12 (ha) (ha) (ha) (%) Dense Forest13 30.30 17.90 2.60 50.80 39.35 Medium Dense14 1404.70 866.80 184.20 2455.70 Scattered Forest15 1352.30 1148.80 176.70 2677.80 42.20 Non Forest16 1161.20 1161.20 18.30

Total 2787.30 2033.50 363.50 1161.20 6345.50 100.00 (Source: Department of Forestry, 1999)

10 areas carrying indigenous forest cover, to be used for timber production, catchment protection, wildlife habitat, forest recreation and amenity uses and for minor forest products. 11 areas of highly sensitive native forest by virtue of their topography, climate, soil type, or combinations of those factors. Timber harvesting or other forestry operations restricted to minor forest products or to manual or non- mechanised timber extraction. 12 areas of natural forest to be maintained in an undisturbed natural condition and for the preservation of specific biological values. 13 crown density by trees and/or ferns 75 – 100% and ground coverage by grass, palm, and or bamboo 0 – 25%. 14 crown density by trees and/or ferns 45 – 80% and coverage by grass, palm, and/or bamboo 20 – 55%. 15 shrub forest (including scattered coconut stands), dense bush land (thickets) with single trees. Crown density by trees and/or ferns 15 – 50% and ground coverage by grass, palm, and/or bamboo 50 – 85%. 16 with less than 15 % crown cover.

2.7.1.1 Drawa model area forest pre-harvest inventory In 1999, the Forestry Department, with the support of the PGRFP and assistance of the Drawa landowners, undertook a pre-harvest inventory of the model area. The pre-harvest inventory of the DMA is based on a systematic sampling design, whereby parallel strips are laid down, with continuous plots of 20 x 10m (0.02 ha/plot). In a net production forest of 2,679ha, 18,068 plots was established with all trees >= 35cm assessed for species, dbh17, height and quality. In June 2000, the inventory of all production forest inside the DMA was completed. The data collected in the inventory made it possible to develop sets of species-specific diameter limit tables for the DMA. The figures found were generally slightly lower than figures from the NFMPP area in Nakavu, but still representative of the average forest in Fiji (De Vletter and Mussong, 2001)

Figure 10. Pre-harvest inventory coupes of the Drawa

001

003 004 002

001

001 006

001 005 010 004 003

007 008

010 005

002 009 009 006 002 001 004

008 006 005 004 003 001 002 006 007 005 003 007 001

004 002 003 001

(Data source: Management Services Division, Forestry Department)

The most frequent species inventoried in the model area were Damanu (Calophyllum vitiense), Kaudamu male (Myristica gillespieana), Yasiyasi (Syzygium spp, and Cleistocalyx spp.), Sa (Parinari insularum), Sasawira (Dysoxylum richii) and Waciwaci (Sterculia vitiensis). About 70% of the dominant species with dbh greater than 35cm are of good to high marketability and fifty per cent of these dominant species are in Fiji’s top 10 marketable species list. Only Sa and Tadalo (Pagiantha thurstonii) of the major species have no commercial recognition at present. The

17 diameter at breast height

properties and economic potential of some lesser-used timber species, including species reserved for community non-timber usage, will need further investigating.

The inventory survey also revealed some forest cover disturbance in Bakibaki Coupe 4, Nakalounivuaka Coupes 3 & 10, Navunicau Coupes 5 & 6, Vulavuladamu Coupes 1-4 (have been logged) due to the establishment of gardens or small agricultural plots (De Vletter and Mussong, 2001).

For more details on the inventory, please refer to the report: “Evaluation of Forest Inventory Data Collected in the Drawa model area, Fiji Final Report.” by De Vletter and Mussong, 2001 (PGRFP technical report PHI.01.01).

2.7.2 Non–timber forest product (NTFP)

The term “non-timber forest product” encompasses all biological material, other than timber, extracted from forest and agroforestry environments for human use. It includes both commercial and potentially commercial species and is valued by humans for both consumptive and non- consumptive purposes. NTFP is not a biological category but rather a political economic category (http://www.ifcae.org/ntfp).

The ecology and value of NTFP’s are increasingly highlighted as forest inventories move away from timber-based inventories towards systems of ecological land classification, which include shrub and herb species.

In the Drawa model area, the most abundant NTFP is coconut, with plantations established during the colonial period in the early fifties. Forests were cleared to make way for coconut plantation agriculture. These were mostly concentrated on Drawa, Bakibaki, Koroni, and Lutukina land. Cocoa plantations were also established on cleared forest areas, across from Tonikula land (outside the model area). Both plantations are no more utilised, because of high transportation costs and poor cocoa prices in the region.

Some non-timber trees/plants have been domesticated to provide a steady supply of products/ produce. The main ones being pandanus, fruit bearing trees/plants and tree crops (citrus, bananas, plantain, breadfruit, mangoes, Malayan apple, etc.). The tree crops are the main providers of food security in the rural village and play an important role in the socio-economic well being of women, the main users.

Clusters of colourful shrubs and flowers mark old habitation sites in the model area and its abundance has raised suggestions for a study on the economic viability of marketing fresh cut flowers in the Drawa model area, once access is improved.

2.7.2.1 Non-timber utilisation of trees Annex 1 lists' non-timber uses of forest trees, as given by the Drawa model area mataqali. Almost every tree has at least one non-timber use or value. The common uses for non-timber forest products, as listed by the mataqali, include: - Medicine

- Crafts - Building materials - Ceremonial vessels and paraphernalia - Food – spices, condiments, accompaniments - Oils; lotions - Tools – farming; fishing; construction - House furniture and fixtures – mats; mattress and pillow stuffing

The survey indicated that whilst landowners are aware of the valuable properties and uses of various tree species, the utilisation of this resource is declining due to more readily accessible alternatives. This decline in use and need is in turn changing the attitude of landowners towards the value of trees. Where once these trees were of great social benefit, they are now, indiscriminately cleared to make way for cultivation.

2.7.3 Botanical surveys

A good information base, identifying endemic species and poorly known or unknown species, is essential for the identification of conservation priorities. Habitats of threatened and endangered indigenous species need consideration for conservation or protection.

In Drawa, previous botanical studies include: 1. Ethnobotanical study of the Drawa model area in 2000, by Marika Tuiwawa & Isoa Korovulavula 2. Re-identification of some Indigenous tree Species found in the Drawa model area in January 2000, by Saula Vodonaivalu 3. Floristic survey of the native forest catchment in October 1999, by Marika Tuiwawa

The 1999 survey carried out in the Drawa catchment by Marika Tuiwawa revealed that 51.2% of the native flora species in the Drawa catchment are indigenous and 47.3% are endemic. The relatively high percentage of endemic species in Drawa is consistent with the overall Fiji count (40%) of endemic taxa in native flora. The survey also identified 10 taxa considered to be “threatened” in Fiji (Table 6).

The conservation status attributed to each of the 10 “threatened” taxa follows the list in the National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan report submitted to the Department of Environment (BSAP Technical Report 1998). Despite the recording of the above threatened taxa elsewhere in Fiji, there is every possibility that they may now be lost due to destroyed habitat in the course of economic related developments (Tuiwawa, 2000).

Cycas seemannii is identified in the 2004 IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) Red list of threatened species as ‘vulnerable’ and is considered to be facing high risk of extinction in the wild (VU A2c, version 3.1, 2001). Also on the list is Physokentia thurstonii, an uncommon sub canopy endemic palm with characteristic stilt roots found only on Vanua Levu and Taveuni (Tuiwawa, 2000). This special palm is categorised as ‘lower risk’ but ‘near threatened’ and close to qualifying for ‘vulnerable’ (LR/nt, version 2.3, 1994). The major threat to this palm population is habitat loss and degradation from agriculture and poor land management

Table 6. List of rare or threatened taxa in the Drawa model area Family Botanical Name Origin Conservation Previous Recording Status Apocynaceae Alyxia bracteolosa Indigenous Data deficient Cakaudrove Aspidiaceae Tectaria menyanthidis Indigenous Threatened Cakaudrove Chrysobalanaceae Atuna elliptica Endemic Threatened Nadroga-Navosa, Naitasiri Cycadaceae Cycas seemannii Indigenous Critically Ba, Bua, Makogai, threatened Macuata, Navosa Cyatheaceae Cyathea affinis Indigenous Threatened Ba Mimosaceae Serianthes melanesica Endemic Data deficient Rewa Orchidaceae Malaxis platychila Endemic Threatened Ba, Namosi Pandanaceae Freycinetia vitiense Endemic Threatened Cakaudrove, Namosi Psilotaceae Tmeripteris truncata Indigenous Threatened Ba, Namosi Rubiaceae Squamellaria imberbis Endemic Endangered Cakaudrove (Tuiwawa, M., 2000)

Plate 1. Physokentia thurstonii

(Tuiwawa, 1999) Physokentia thurstonii - an uncommon sub- canopy endemic palm with characteristic stilt roots - pictured here in Drawa.

3. LAND TENURE PROFILE

Land tenure systems are manmade social definitions. The system is made to accommodate the particular way of life of the people, laws and most importantly the physical environment. It is subject to change and is transmitted from generation to generation with efficient modification. (Boydell, 2001)

3.1 Land Tenure in Fiji

Please refer to annex 2 for a summary on the history of land tenure in Fiji.

3.1.1 Types of Land Ownership

3.1.1.1 Native land Native land is land owned by indigenous Fijians. These are owned by landowning units, commonly mataqali, but may be tokatoka or yavusa groups as well. Despite the ownership status, the existing Native Lands Act (cap 133), except under stated conditions, prohibits native owners’ from alienating native land. So whilst the indigenous landowner holds rights over the land (physical, derive income, leasing, management), he does NOT have the power to dispose of native land nor does he have the power to bequeath any portion of land to non-registered landowning members. Ownership of native land is communal and all decisions to be made regarding the land need the consensus of the landowning unit. The Native Land Trust Board (NLTB) is the custodian of all native land in Fiji. Section 4(i) of the Native Lands Trust Act (NLTA) states that the “control of all native land shall be vested in the Board and all such land shall be administered by the Board for the benefit of Fijian landowners”.

Native land can be categorised into two tenure groups: 1) native reserve and 2) non-reserve. Native reserve is for Fijian use only and serves to support future landowner needs. Under section 15 of the NLTA, the NLTB is empowered to set aside any portion of native land as “native reserve”. Almost 40% of native land is under native reserve, and so is not open for leasing. Native land, surplus to these requirements, and thus not in reserve, are the non-reserve native land. These lands can be leased to non-Fijians and Fijians. Leasing of all native land goes through the NLTB.

3.1.1.2 State schedule A and B land State schedule A and B land (SSA and SSB respectively) is land held in trust by the State. SSA is land once belonging to an extinct landowning unit. SSB is land that was not claimed during the initial registration of lands (by the NLC) in the early 1950’s. These lands were placed under government trusteeship for those (indigenous and non-indigenous) who genuinely needed land. The reversion of SSA and SSB land to native land is currently underway with fiducial powers transferred from the Lands Department to NLTB. This includes all ALTA (Agriculture Landlord and Tenant Act) expiries and existing agriculture development. This process will extend native land area in Fiji to about 90%.

3.1.1.3 Freehold land Under this tenureship, the owner exclusively and privately owns the freehold title. He may dispose of it as he pleases. Ownership under ‘freehold’ describes the meaning of ‘ownership’ in its truest sense where the owner has full rights to alienate land.

3.1.2 Formal Leases

Formal reserves refer to leaseholds regulated and recognised by government and NLTB. The following types of leases, applying to non-reserved native land, may be relevant for the DMA: 1) Agriculture lease - such leases are normally for 30 years. The land is removed from the realm of custom for that period with the lease holder normally having both exclusive rights to its use and the power to sell the lease without the consent of the owning group, or groups. The leasehold can be used as security for raising loan capital, and a lending agency could foreclose on lease if loan repayments and charges are not maintained. The need for a lease in order to obtain a loan from a finance agency is a prime reason for a Fijian farmer to take out a lease over part of his or her own mataqali land, even when the right to continued use already exists. 2) Forest concessive licence – issued in forest areas for specific terms wherein sustainable may be carried out. Royalties premium and after costs are levied by NLTB for logging operations 3) Forest logging licence – annual logging licence for specific area issued to landowners. Outside contractors can then enter into contract with licensee landowners for the logging of the licensed area.

Provisions for leasing of native reserve: 4) NLTB Class J - generally similar to the standard agricultural leases but apply only to native reserve land and thus can only be held by Fijians. However, such organisations such as the Methodist church, the FDB and the Native Lands Development Corporation (NLDC) can hold such leases through their status as ‘Fijian entities’.

3.1.3 Informal reserves

The informal reserve, also referred to in this report as traditional reserves, are those not officially recognised by formal authorities but are accepted and respected by the community and is bound by customary law. The land reserves may serve: ! to provide for traditional obligations including the church ! to manage natural resources through application of a moratorium ! to protect sites of social (spiritual) significance ! as a mark of respect upon a chiefs passing away

The head of the yavusa, or vanua, after consultations with yavusa or vanua elders, decides on the terms and conditions of the reserve.

3.2 Land Tenure in the Drawa Model area

The whole Drawa model area is under native land tenement. Majority of mataqali lots are in Cakaudrove province with only Lutukina and Nakase falling into Macuata Province. Native reserves marked in the model area are units formally registered with the native lands commission. Land tenement types outside the model area are freehold and State Schedule A land.

Figure 11. Land tenure in the Drawa Model area and it’s vicinity

Legend Land Tenure Province Native reserve, Drawa Bua Freehold Native land Cakaudrove Drawa model State schedule A area boundary (now reverted to native land) Macuata

(Data source: NLTB)

3.2.1 Formal leases In the Drawa Model area

3.2.1.1 Expired / past leases a) Agriculture lease – mataqali Bakibaki leasing to Josese of mataqali Nakalounivuaka during the copra subsidiary period. Now expired.

b) Forest concession lease - a 30-year Forest Concession lease of the Drawa model area was issued to the Fiji Forest Industries Ltd (FFI) in 1969. An extension of another 5 years was granted upon its expiry in 1999. During this concession period, extraction of timber was only from one of the mataqali lot – Vulavuladamu. The concession was surrendered prematurely in March 2003, in response to a request from the Drawa landowners for purpose of setting up a community-based logging enterprise. The Drawa Forest Landowners Co-operative (DraFCo), the business entity of the Drawa model area mataqali, is awaiting approval from NLTB for a Forest Concessive license for the area.

3.2.1.2 Active; current and pending licence/reserves a) Native reserves - are registered by the NLTB. These areas are scattered throughout the model area, as shown in figure 12. Most village sites are under native reserve. The native reserve in mataqali Koroni is the area traditionally handed over to the family of their female members. Traditional church reserves may be contained within the native reserves, where utilisation is restricted for church needs.

b) Logging licence – DraFCo just recently obtained a 1-year logging licence only for the first coupe to be logged (coupe 3, Koroni).

c) Concessive licence – the DraFCo will be lodging an application for a concessive licence for the Drawa model area. Once this is obtained, a singular logging licence will no longer be required.

Table 7. Area under Native reserve in the model area Mataqali Native Reserve % under Native (Ha) Reserve Bakibaki 53.50 3.2 Koroni 102.87 28.52 Nadugumoimoi 70.47 51.2 Navunicau 56.30 4.7 Nakalounivuaka 194.40 15.2 Vatucucu lot 42 15.39 100 TOTAL 492.93 7.75

(Source: NLTB data)

Figure 12. Native Reserves in the Drawa model area

(Data source: NLTB)

d) Mineral prospecting license – The special prospecting licence (SPL) 1374 overlaps with the Drawa model area. The licence was granted to Burdekin Pacific Limited by the Fiji Mineral Resources Department (MRD). Burdekin Pacific Ltd. currently operates the Mount Kasi gold mine nearby. A great deal of mineral exploration was carried out around Tavea Mountain with some anomalous gold values found from rock chip samples along creeks (grade values up to 74g/t Au). Section 7 of the Native Land Trust Act subjects native land to the provisions of the mining act.

3.2.2 Informal reserves In the Drawa Model area

3.2.2.1 Church reserves The church reserves are often within the formal native reserve. The church reserves of wild and cultivated gardens solely serve to meet church related commitments. The church reserve in Nadugumoimoi and Navunicau, bound by the yavusa Drawa, provides for the Drawa villager’s commitments to the church. The reserve on Bakibaki land is for the Vatuvonu villagers and on Tonikula land for the Lutukina villagers. The church reserved land is committed for an indefinite period.

Table 8. Area under informal reserve in the model area Mataqali Traditional reserve Bakibaki 0 Drawa/Drano 18.3 (village) Koroni 0 Nadugumoimoi 0 Navunicau 87.6 (church) Nakalounivuaka 13.0 (church) Vatucucu lot 42 0

TOTAL 171.1 Ha (Data source: Drawa PRA, 2003)

3.2.2.2 Sacred sites Sacred sites include burial grounds, old village sites and other areas of great cultural significance. These area are considered tabu sites.

3.2.3 Informal tenureship arrangements in the Drawa Model area

Past surveys from around the country (Annex 2) indicate that cultivation, at the subsistence scale, is dictated largely by accessibility and site conditions, rather than ownership boundaries. This practice holds true in the Drawa model area where the traditional land tenure system of acquiring temporary land rights is still practiced.

In Drawa, land access arrangements are commonly through yavusa kinship. Drawa villagers utilise other mataqali land of the same yavusa. In the same way, Keka villagers (of yavusa Naduri) actively plant on mataqali land of yavusa Naduri regardless of mataqali ownership. The utilisation of land by non-mataqali members in the Drawa model area is summarised in table 9.

The mataqali Bakibaki has only two members, both residing in Suva. Customary decisions’ regarding their land is conducted through their yavusa Drawa of Drawa village. The Drawa villagers utilise Bakibaki land through yavusa privileges. Vatuvonu village is on Bakibaki land and the villagers (mataqali Vatucucu) utilise land through traditional Vanua ties. Mataqali members of Nadugumoimoi are residing outside the model area and away from the other villages. Their land is land utilised by the Drawa villagers, as members of the same Yavusa, Drawa.

Members of the mataqali Koroni are now residing in Batiri village with the mataqali land currently occupied and utilised by those of Labetia settlement. Though the Native Land Commission registers the land under mataqali Koroni, traditional rights over 254 acres of the land was handed over to the family of the mataqali women. This area is registered as native reserve with the NLC.

Table 9. Traditional tenureship arrangements in the Drawa model area

Drawa land Non-mataqali land Traditional relationship Land Tenureship user(s) Koroni Labetia settlement Blood ties from the female side - 254 acres of mataqali land (vasus) of the mataqali traditionally given to the maternal lineage. descendents of the mataqali Koroni in the 1930’s. - mataqali Koroni has given up all land rights to these families. Assemblies of God These are members of Land given is part of above belonging Church Lutukina village to Labetia settlement where the headman was granted land use access. Bakibaki Nakalounivuaka Belonging to the same Yavusa 1968 mataqali Nakalounivuaka – Drawa traditionally sought permission from Bakibaki for land. Drawa villagers Belonging to the same Yavusa – Drawa Vatuvonu villagers – Vatuvonu village is on Bakibaki Traditionally given to Vatucucu by the mataqali Vatucucu land. Yavusa Drawa Mataqali Navunicau Belonging to the same Yavusa Traditionally given to the Yavusa and villagers of – Drawa Drawa by the Nadugumoimoi elders. Drawa Nadugumoimoi Mataqali Nakase - Belonging to same Yavusa - mataqali Tonikula declared extinct Lutukina. when last registered member - Head of Nakase mataqali passed away married to Lady from - All rights currently in trust by NLTB mataqali Tonikula (the last member now deceased).

(Data source: Drawa PRA, 2003)

3.2.4 Tenureship arrangements outside the Drawa model area

The non-mataqali land utilised by the Drawa mataqali is commonly shared with other mataqali. There are some circumstances however, where land is traditionally given to the outside mataqali for their exclusive use. This is the case in Nayarailagi village, where the land owning yavusa gave an extinct mataqali land (native land SSA 640) to some mataqali Nakalounivuaka members. Though the yavusa formally registered the names of the mataqali Nakalounivuaka members under their yavusa, the land utilisation of SSA 640 is under informal arrangements. SSA 640 is still held in trust by NLTB, awaiting confirmation of native ownership. In Batiri village, the mataqali Vuniqesa registered the Koroni mataqali members under their yavusa thereby formalising land access rights to the Vuniqesa mataqali land.

The mataqali in Keka and Lutukina village share the yavusa land (yavusa Naduri and Lutukina respectively) with other villagers. Land use is reminiscent of the more traditional practice where forest areas of the yavusa or village are accessible to all (Annex 2). The use of freehold land in Dogoru and Natuvatu by Keka villagers (including mataqali Vulavuladamu) is carried out without any formal or informal, agreement, with the landowner. The Natuvatu freehold land belongs to the Anglican Church and currently lies uninhabited. The Keka village land users assert the landowners are well aware of the activities carried out in Natuvatu and so far, there has been no

opposition or reaction from the church. Refer to Section 5.3.1., Figure 21, for mataqali locations outside the model area.

Table 10. Land tenureship arrangements outside the model area

Land utilised Drawa Mataqali Land tenure Landowner – Land user relationship land users Village Mataqali / land name Koroni Batiri village Vunimala Native land

Vuniqesa Native land Mataqali Koroni – dependent of Yavusa Batiri, mataqali Vuniqesa of Batiri village Nakalounivuaka Batiri village Vunimala Native land Informally adopted by Yavusa

Batiri village To be reverted to State schedule Native Land A18 1709 Nayarailagi Extinct (Native State schedule Nakalounivuaka is dependent of Yavusa village Land –mataqali) A – 640 Naumanawai of Nayarailagi village with land (na-i-kanakana19) given from extinct tokatoka Levuka of mataqali Naqaravatu Land to be returned when mataqali Nakalounivuaka becomes extinct.

Nakase Lutukina Rokotora Partly native Mataqali Nakase belongs to Yavusa village reserve Lutukina of which all these mataqali Lutukina Partly SSA comes under Nabaukerekere Native land Navunicau Nakorovou Vunibalawa Native land Mataqali Navunicau (of Yavusa Koroni) settlement belongs to Vanua Drawa

Vulavuladamu Keka village Naduri Native reserve Mataqali Vulavuladamu belongs to Nabou Native land Yavusa Naduri of which mataqali Naqara, Naqara Native land Vatumua, Naduri and Nabou also comes Vatumua Native land under Natuvatu Freehold Belonging to Anglican Church. planting without permission Dogoru Freehold

(Data source: Drawa PRA, 2003)

19 Piece of land traditionally given to mataqali and descendents due to lack of land available to the mataqali. I -kanakana meaning – to feed from land

4. SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PROFILE

4.1 The Mataqali’s of the Drawa model area

The Drawa model area comes under 11 mataqali (clans) belonging to 5 different yavusa (tribes).

Figure 13. Mataqali’s of Vanua Drawa

VANUA DRAWA

Yavusa Yavusa Yavusa Yavusa Yavusa DRAWA NADURI VATUCUCU KORONI LUTUKINA

Head of Yavusa Head of Yavusa Head of Yavusa Head of Yavusa Head of Yavusa Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali DRAWA NADURI VATUCUCU KORONI LUTUKINA

Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali NAVUNICAU NAQARA NABAUKEREKERE VATUMUANI NABOUWAQA

Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali NADUGUMOIMOI VATUMUA SAISAINOKO VUNIBALAWA ROKOTORA

Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali BAKIBAKI VULAVULADAMU NAVICIGIYAGA NAVOATU TONIKULA

Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali NAKALOUNIVUAKA NABOU NAQATO NAKASEDAMU NAQARANIGATA

Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali LALAVATU WADRA NAKASE

Drawa model area (Adapted from Native Lands Commission records, 1959)

The mataqali structure given in the above figure differs from the earlier given structure (Fung, 2001). The above structure is as recorded by the Native Lands Commission whilst the earlier one was drawn out by the mataqali members. The NLC records show mataqali Tonikula and Nakase belonging to the yavusa Lutukina. This does not agree with the 2001 survey, where the Nakase mataqali members placed these two mataqali under the yavusa Lualua. The yavusa “Lualua” is nowhere registered with the NLC. Discrepancies such as this are common in Fiji. Early reports reveal that, in some instances, Fijians appear uncertain when asked to which mataqali they belong, or would give different answers if the questions were framed in relation to land registration or social and ceremonial practice. Thus, there are now two parallel sets of classification: one based on the commission’s records and the other on the socio-political organisation of the village, as the people know it (Nayacakalou in Ward 1985, 1975:14). The official yavusa Lutukina will now apply for mataqali Tonikula and Nakase.

There are 429 registered mataqali members belonging to the Drawa model area as recorded by the Native Lands Commission (table 11). The landowning rights of the indigenous Fijian are

legitimately recognised only when the person is registered in the vola ni kawa bula (register of Native Landowners) with the Native Lands Commission.

Table 11. Number of mataqali members of the Drawa model area

Number of Registered Village of Province Mataqali Members residence Male Female Total Cakaudrove Drawa Navunicau 43 34 77 Tikina Wailevu Bakibaki 0 2 2 West Nadugumoimoi 3 1 4 Drawa / Drano 5 4 9 Navoatu 0 2 2 Keka Vulavuladamu 35 35 70 Vatuvonu Vatucucu Lot 6 9 15 Batiri / Nayarailagi Nakalounivuaka 106 91 197 Batiri Koroni 8 12 20 Macuata Lutukina Nakase 13 20 33 Tikina Dreketi Tonikula extinct 0 Total 219 210 429 (Source: Native Lands Commission, 2000)

Majority of the Drawa model area mataqali reside outside the model area, in the villages of Lutukina, Batiri, Nayarailagi, and Keka. Even though there are mataqali members residing in other parts of the country, most are on Vanua Levu. The last significant movement of the Drawa people was in the early 1900’s, which saw the mataqali Nakalounivuaka in Drawa and Vatuvonu village relocating to Batiri and Nayarailagi village and the Yavusa Koroni to Batiri village. The population in the Drawa model area has remained relatively stable since.

4.2 Traditional Structures

Local institutions in villages are considered traditional or informal when the institutional arrangements or rules are determined by sanctions, taboos, customs, and traditions. The traditional institutions are based on norms of solidarity and reciprocity, the key elements to household livelihood strategies and community cohesion. The leaders of these traditional institutions often embody an historical and lineage alliance with their territory that empowers them with important rights and obligations.

4.2.1 Vanua Structure – Tikina Wailevu

4.2.1.1 Traditional authorities Communal living is dictated by customary obligations towards the Vanua and towards one another. Traditional authorities often play the role of mobilizing this type of collective action, sometimes with the help of churches.

The Cakaudrove area of the model area is in the Tikina (district) of Wailevu and is under the traditional domain of the Turaga na Tui Wailevu, the paramount chief of the people of the Vanua Drawa. The Macuata area is in the Tikina of Dreketi under the Vunivalu of Dreketi. The Tui Wailevu represents the Tikina in the Great Council of Chiefs and in all traditional meets. Given in Figure 14 is the traditional hierarchy of the Vanua Drawa.

Figure 14. Traditional hierarchy for Vanua Drawa

Titles

Tui District - Wailevu Wailevu Tikina

Region - Drawa Turaga ni Yavusa Vanua Walievu

Tribe - Drawa Turaga ni Qali Yavusa Yavusa Drawa

Clan Turaga ni Mataqali Mataqali Mataqali Drawa

Household Tokatoka

(Data source: Drawa PRA, 2003; diagram own)

With the codification of the “mataqali land ownership’ type tenure, the chiefs hold no legal rights over mataqali land, even though they do receive a portion of any royalty paid on the land. Traditionally however, they are very influential on matters regarding the ‘Vanua’. The ‘Vanua,’ is a social-cultural system arising from an intrinsic amalgamation of the physical, the spiritual and the social entity (Ratuva, S, 2002). Despite having an autonomous status over their land, the mataqali still observes traditional protocols in matters of the ‘Vanua’ such as land development and land disputes.

4.2.2 Yavusa Drawa Structure

Each Yavusa has a hierarchical arrangement where each mataqali has a traditional role to play in their Yavusa and Vanua as a whole.

4.2.2.1 Social categories Within each structure, there exists a strong hierarchical order whereby each clan is confined to a specific role in the system. Including the commoners, there are at least six social categories of men within the Fijian social structure (Narayan, 1984). These social categories are defined by birth and sex. Each Yavusa has a head or turaga ni yavusa. The turaga ni yavusa of the yavusa Drawa belongs to the mataqali Drawa. The turaga ni yavusa is the traditional leader, or chief, of all mataqali in the yavusa. The executives or sauturaga is the secondary chief whose duty is to advise the chief and get to express his opinion during important decision-making. The highest ranking man of the sauturaga would become the chief if, for some reason, there was no one in the turaga mataqali who could be the next chief, an unlikely but possible situation. The mataqali matanivaunua, the heralds or diplomats, are the chiefs spokesmen. All communications to the chief (turaga ni yavusa) is carried out through the matanivanua. The bete mataqali are the priests and the bati mataqali are the warriors. Other groups, traditionally divided based on the specialized skills they possess, are gonedau the fishermen, and the mataisau the carpenters.

Figure 15. Fijian social categories- example: Yavusa Drawa

Turaga Mataqali (Ruling chiefs) Mataqali Drawa Turaga ni yavusa

Sauturaga Mataqali (Executives) Mataqali Navunicau

Matanivanua Mataqali (Diplomats/ Heralds) Mataqali Nakalounivuaka

Bete Mataqali (Priests)

Bati Mataqali (Warriors)

(Data source: Drawa PRA, 2003; diagram own)

4.3 Formal Structures

Formal structures are institutions governed by prescribed laws of the country and thus officially recognised by both government and private sector.

4.3.1 The Drawa Landowners Forest Management Cooperative Ltd (DraFCo)

The Drawa Landowners Forest Management Co-operative Limited (DraFCo) was formed in late 2002 and formally registered with the Fiji Co-operatives Department the following year. The cooperative, set up as a business entity for the landowners of the Drawa model area, functions through a Board of Directors made up of representatives of the mataqali members of the Drawa model area. The consultations carried out during the formation process of the co-operative followed traditional protocols. In the course of these consultations it was decided that the extinct mataqali Tonikula, currently held in trust by the NLTB, be excluded from the model area until land ownership is determined.

Figure 16. The Drawa Landowners Forest Management Co-operative (DraFCo) Structure

Drawa Landowners Forest Management Co-operative Ltd. (DraFCo) Board of Directors – 9 members

Chairman Mat. Nakalounivuaka

Assistant Chairman Mat. Vulavuladamu

Secretary Mat. Nakalounivuaka

Treasurer

Lutukina Village rep. Batiri/Nayarailagi Keka Village rep. Vatuvonu Village rep. Drawa Village rep. Village rep. Mat. Nakase Mat. Koroni Mat. Vulavuladamu Mat. Vatucucu Mat. Drawa

(Data source: Drawa Forest Management Plan, Draft, 2005; diagram own)

4.3.1.1 DraFCo Representations Each mataqali of the Drawa model area is represented in the DraFCo Board. Each board member is nominated by mataqali members and endorsed by their turaga ni mataqali. The DraFCo structure ensures each of the village of residence (Keka, Vatuvonu, Drawa, Batiri, and Nayarailagi village) is represented (through mataqali member). To prevent conflict of ethics over business and traditional interests, the turaga ni mataqali, are not members of the DraFCo board. This also allows the turagas ni mataqali to act as a monitoring body of the DraFCo Board. In keeping with traditional procedure, the mataqali’s Bakibaki and Nadugumoimoi are represented in absentia by nominees of their turaga ni yavusa (Drawa).

4.3.1.2 Mataqali organisations - Nakalounivuaka The mataqali Nakalounivuaka has a committee made up of representatives from each household of the mataqali. The committee is chaired by the turaga ni mataqali who has the primary role of ensuring that their DraFCo Board member represents the interest of each household in the mataqali. This committee is also responsible for disseminating information to other mataqali members living away from the village (Nayarailagi and Batiri). All proceedings of the committee are relayed to the non-resident mataqali members, through their representative. The structure is as shown in figure 17.

Figure 17. Organisational structure of mataqali Nakalounivuaka DraFCo representation

Drawa Landowners Forest Management Co-operative DraFCo Made up of representative from all Drawa mataqali

Nakalounivuaka board member nomimated by committee supported by the turaga ni mataqali

Representative of Mataqali Committee Mataqali members Nakalounivuaka living away Chairman - turaga ni mataqali

Household Household Household Household Household representative representative representative representative representative

Household Household Household Household Household

(Data source: Drawa PRA, 2003; diagram own)

The other mataqali do not have such an arrangement but collectively meet for discussions with their turaga ni mataqali and their Board representatives. The interests of the non-resident members are usually unrepresented. It should be noted however, that compared to the other Drawa mataqali, Nakalounivuaka is the largest in terms of members, with a great number living away from the village. So given the size and the distribution of its members, such an organisational mechanism may seem more necessary than in the case of the other smaller mataqali.

4.3.1.3 Link to traditional structures As DraFCo functions in an environment that still follows traditional structures, it has aligned itself to existing local (informal) structures. These traditional structures play an important role in maintaining solidarity and stability amongst its people. The Drawa mataqali heads for instance, had to inform the heads of their respective yavusa and subsequently the Tui Wailevu of their intention to form DraFCo. The traditional equivalent to DraFCo board authority is at the turaga ni mataqali level. Though DraFCo operates as a separate business entity, it is bound by traditional

procedures and protocols when dealing with the neighbouring mataqali. The relationship with the mataqali outside the model area depends largely on the cohesion of the yavusa, the structure that binds the mataqali together.

Figure 18. DraFCo link to traditional structures

Tui Wailevu Direct communication if regarding Turaga Natovatu business matters

Turaga ni Yavusa Wailevu

Yavusa Drawa Other Yavusa's outside Drawa Block Turaga ni mataqali DraFCo represents DraFCo Turaga ni Mataqali Turaga ni Mataqali Board in the traditional system Drawa Block Communication outside the Block channel followed Mataqali members for contacting outside mataqali

(Data source: Drawa PRA, 2003; diagram own)

4.4 Existing and Potential Conflicts

The need to gain communal agreement to a land use has often been stated as a hindrance to development. This is especially true for long-term land uses such as forestry. Where and when there are disagreements in the landowning unit, projects are often impossible to proceed or productivity is lessened.

Internal disagreements may be intra-mataqali squabbles between i-tokatokas (households) and / or between mataqali of a yavusa. This often relates to unclear land demarcation, land allocation (intra-mataqali) and land rights.

4.4.1 Inter-mataqali conflict

4.4.1.1 Claiming extinct mataqali Previously, the official procedure for dealing with extinct mataqali land was to place the land under the trusteeship of the State (state schedule B). Now, under the NLTA, custodial powers over such land are transferred to the NLTB.

Any claim of ownership on an extinct land is submitted to the NLC. If there is more than one claimant then an NLC tribunal decides on the owning unit/ family, by way of traditional and family

lineages and the need of the claimants. Such is the case for extinct mataqali Tonikula. The enatic20 descendents of the extinct mataqali Tonikula (mother was last surviving member of Tonikula) are claiming ownership to the Tonikula land. These claimants are members of the mataqali Nakase of the yavusa Lutukina. The claim is disputed by the yavusa Lutukina on the grounds that customary practice dictates that an extinct mataqali land is taken up by the yavusa (Lutukina). Most Lutukina villagers belong to the yavusa Lutukina. Land rights to the extinct mataqali are with the NLTB until ownership is resolved.

This dispute over ownership has prompted the yavusa Lutukina to withdraw extinct mataqali Tonikula land from the Drawa model area until land ownership, and thus beneficiaries, are determined.

4.4.1.2 Lack of arable land The growing demand for arable land, arising from a rapidly expanding population and an intensifying focus on commercial production, has the mataqali Nakalounivuaka, of Batiri village, marginalized by the landowning mataqali of Batiri. Though they have traditional approval to utilise this land, legally they are considered trespassers.

4.4.1.3 Mataqali representation in absentia The conflicting parties are the mataqali Bakibaki and their yavusa Drawa. The only two members (both ladies) of the mataqali Bakibaki are residing in Suva. In keeping with traditional convention, the mataqali is represented, in their absence, by the turaga ni yavusa of Drawa. Even though the turaga ni yavusa of Drawa has every traditional right to act on behalf of the mataqali members, the mataqali members hold legal land rights over their land, and in the formal context, this overrides traditional law.

Due to poor communication between the yavusa Drawa and mataqali Bakibaki, the Bakibaki ladies were largely ignorant to the sustainable forest management (SFM) project and its implications. The Bakibaki members expressed concern and were outraged over the unauthorised decisions made regarding their mataqali land. They feared losing control over their land (upon signing of a memorandum of understanding binding all mataqali’s to practice SFM in the model area) and suspicious of being deprived of a fair share of return. As a result, the mataqali Bakibaki threatened to withdraw from the Drawa SFM Project. The women are currently deliberating on their involvement with DraFCo and the SFM Project.

The above situation reflects the strained relationship between the Bakibaki ladies and the yavusa Drawa. These differences in fact stem from old conflicts as indicated by the lack of initiative displayed the yavusa Drawa to consult with the ladies from the beginning and the Bakibaki ladies preconceived suspicion on the motives of their yavusa.

The poor consultation with members of the landowning unit is a common problem in Fiji and arises largely from wide migration and settling of members away from their village of usual mataqali residence. Given the requirement for consensus, from all mataqali members on all matters pertaining to their land, the communication and consultation process can be tiresome and time consuming. Communication can be challenging especially if family ties (blood and /or emotional ties) are weak. This may arise from poor association between the members; family

20 related from mothers side

disputes, and members having no affiliation to their mataqali due to an upbringing detached (physically and emotionally) from the mataqali village. The differing expectations amongst mataqali members over the utilisation of their land have often stalled development in rural areas.

The communication problem is aggravated by the breakdown in traditional ties and customs. Traditionally, the communal social structure encouraged close association and fostered strong bonds within the yavusa, the village, and the maternal village. This is breaking down, as individuals grow independent of these structures. The traditional tenure system, which allows the yavusa to make decisions for their mataqali, is now challenged, as the individual mataqali, as registered owner of the land, does not see the need to consult with their yavusa. This is mostly relevant for the urban dwelling mataqali, whose social structure does not depend on village support systems (like the Bakibaki mataqali).

4.4.2 External parties

4.4.2.1 Incorrect land boundary In Drawa, questions have been raised concerning the boundary between the mataqali Nakalounivuaka and the freehold land. This is the eastern boundary of the model area. Village elders remember the traditional boundary to follow creek east of the area. The current boundary recorded by NLC has the boundary shifting into the mataqali unit, thus excluding a portion of the claimed mataqali land. This NLC recorded boundary does not follow any prominent land feature (commonly ridge, creek or spur), like other conventional land boundaries, thus casting some doubt over its validity. This is currently being clarified with the Native Lands Commission.

4.4.2.2 Neighbouring mataqali – potential conflict With the Drawa model area locked in by other mataqali land, it is inevitable that these surrounding mataqali will be affected by the operations in the model area. This includes, increased traffic through their mataqali land, possible disturbance of waterways, and the socio-economic advantage the Drawa mataqali may have other the villagers.

So far, these surrounding mataqali have been supportive of the Project with the turaga ni yavusa of Drawa keeping the other yavusa heads abreast of Project developments. The DraFCo has decided to include the non-Drawa mataqali members in some activities of the co-operative.

5. CURRENT LAND USE PROFILE

This section will discuss the land use status inside the Drawa model area and the land use situation of the Drawa mataqali outside the model area. Information is derived mainly from the PRA survey of 2003. Please refer to Annex 3 for an overview of past and present land use in the DMA.

The Drawa mataqali has two main land utilisation areas: 1. Inside the Drawa model area – which is further defined according to land users: residents of the Drawa model area and non-residents 2. Outside the Drawa model area by mataqali members in the locality

Discussions on land uses inside the Drawa model area include both Drawa mataqali and non- mataqali land users. Land use outside the model area exclusively focuses on the Drawa mataqali activities.

5.1 Past Cultivation

Approximately 10.5 per cent of the Drawa model area is under bush fallow with largest areas on Navunicau and Nadugumoimoi land (Table 12).

Table 12. Past cultivation areas in the Drawa model area Mataqali land Total Area (ha) Past cultivation area (ha) % Past cultivated areas Bakibaki 1684.40 60.88 3.61 Drawa 47.80 0.06 0.12 Koroni 360.80 62.78 17.40 Nadugumoimoi 137.70 34.31 24.92 Nakalounivuaka 1276.60 30.49 2.39 Nakase 162.00 0.24 0.15 Navoatu 81.00 n.a. Navunicau 1206.10 447.85 37.13 Tonikula 642.30 0.00 0.00 Vatucucu Lot 1 33.60 n.a. 0.00 Vatucucu Lot 2 15.40 n.a. 0.00 Vulavuladamu 697.80 27.70 3.97

TOTAL 6345.50 664.31 10.47

(Source: PRA, 2003; NLTB data)

These old and widely scattered cultivation sites have seen very little activity since abandonment more than a century ago. This has resulted in largely restored bush-fallow areas, now covered with indigenous tree stands that are close in stocking volume to the primary forest stands.

However, in the more open areas (north-west of the model area), meremia vines are prevalent. The old cultivation sites are evidenced by the presence of fruit trees and food crops as custom dictates the farmer to leave in the ground at least one of each crop cultivated before shifting to a new garden plot.

Cultivation over the last 50 years has been mainly on native reserve land . In 1962, the provision of copra subsidy, by the then colonial government, prompted the large scale planting of coconut trees in the Drawa model area. The establishment of coconut plantations along river flats continued through to 1975. Areas targeted were mainly along riverbanks of the Drawa River, on Bakibaki, Nakalounivuaka, and Drawa mataqali land, and the riverbanks of the Naua river flowing along Koroni land.

5.1.1 Past Timber Harvesting Activities

Timber harvesting was first carried out in the Drawa Model area in the 1960’s using ”pit sawing” techniques (The Drawa Forest Management Plan, 2004). A non-mechanised system of felling was practiced on a small scale with low ecological impact almost impossible to detect today. In the early 1990’s, a small portion of mataqali Vulavuladamu coupe 1 was conventionally logged. Subsequent inventory survey data revealed that most of the high-class species (such as Dakua makadre and Dacrydium nidulum - yaka) were heavily selected (“creamed”) during the operation. There was no further timber harvesting in the model area until August 2002 when the landowners of mataqali Nakalounivuaka were alerted to clandestine logging taking place on their land. These illegal loggers, trespassing into mataqali Nakalounivuaka land, were targeting the two highly valuable commercial species, Dakua makadre, and Dakua salusalu, especially abundant in coupe 2. By the time the authorities intervened and logging forcibly halted, a total volume of 144 m3 (mainly Dakua) in coupe two had been felled (Watling, 2003). No other logging activities have taken place since.

5.2 Land use inside the Drawa model area

Two main types of land use are identified in the model area. First is the utilisation of natural products, and the second, is the utilisation of land for agriculture and habitation. Natural resources encompass all natural products in the model area. Harvesting of these natural occurring products is only at a subsistence scale and is commonly for: food, medicine, building materials, ceremonial vessels; garments; decorations, ornaments and crafts (refer to Ratu, 1999, for more information). The extraction of forest products is largely to meet the requirements of the mataqali and the effect on the forest density or composition is of low significance. In the Drawa model area, this type of land use is currently non-destructive because of the low population utilising the resource and the customary laws controlling the harvesting of such products.

The utilisation of land for the cultivation of crops has a more significant impact on the forest density and composition than the above. Clearing for agriculture is in fact the main cause for the removal of forest trees in the Pacific. The DMA land users practice a shifting cultivation system, or “slash and burn” agriculture. Despite cultivation in the model area for more than a century, the forest ecosystem has remained relatively stable as population density and hence demand on the land has been always low. This has allowed for long fallow periods, giving time for the restoration of vegetation and soils of the cultivated sites.

5.2.1 Land users of the Drawa model area

The Drawa model area currently supports about two hundred and seven people (2003 survey). These land users are mostly the Drawa mataqali and their households. There are two main types of land users in the model area: 1. The residents – mataqali members and their households living within the model area and 2. The non-residents - mataqali members (and their households) and non-mataqali members (and their households) living on the outskirts of the model area.

Land use by the Drawa mataqali is not confined to their mataqali land only with active planting taking place elsewhere. Cultivation sites are selected in terms of accessibility and ecological conditions and are not restricted to mataqali land.

Occasionally non-Drawa mataqali members harvest natural resources in the model area. These land users are mainly from the surrounding villages of Keka and Lutukina. Lately, however, there have been reported incidents of people coming all the way from Dreketi, some 20km away, to harvest prawns in the creeks of the Drawa model area. The harvesting of prawns by trespassers for income generation goes against customary laws. This influx of poachers is new for the area and is at present still at a low level. With the construction of the road to the model area, this illegal land use will need closer monitoring.

5.2.1.1 The resident land users There are 62 residents in the Drawa model area (Table 13). These are: Drawa villagers (on Drawa/Drano land), Vatuvonu villagers (on Bakibaki land) and, Labetia settlement on Koroni land. The first two villages belong to the mataqali of the Drawa model area whilst the Labetia settlers do not. All cultivation carried out by these households is contained in the Drawa model area.

Vatuvonu village, with three dwelling houses, has a population of ten from three households. The areas currently under utilisation are the village area, which is under native reserve, and along Nadudu and Laqerelevu creeks flowing into Vatuvonu creek from Nakalounivuaka land. Aside from scattered planting on the neighbouring freehold land, east of the model area, the Vatuvonu villagers live primarily from Bakibaki and Nakalounivuaka land.

Drawa village is made up of the mataqali Drawa/Drano, Navunicau, Navoatu, and Nadugumoimoi. The village has a population of thirty-two from six households and sits on the crook of the Drawa River arm, on Drawa/Drano land. The river creates the boundary between Navunicau, Nadugumoimoi and Drawa/Drano land (see Figure 3). The villagers are the only land users of their mataqali land.

On Koroni land, three households with a population of twenty make up the Labetia settlement. The settlement is situated across from Lutukina District School with the Naua River separating the two. This land is marked as native reserve with the Native Lands Commission.

5.2.1.2 The non-resident land users Most cultivation by the mataqali living outside the model area takes place closer to their village of residence. Therefore, land utilisation in the model area is not as extensive or intensive as that

carried out by the model are residents. The non-resident land users number at about one hundred and forty-five with most residing in Lutukina and Keka village.

Table 13. Major land users in the Drawa model area MAJOR LAND USERS: TOTAL Other MATAQALI LAND Population land UTILISED residing inside residing outside the No. No. supported by utilised? the model area model area mataqali land

Bakibaki Nakalounivuaka Vatuvonu 10 members in Batiri 0 10 No Nakalounivuaka villagers village – insignificant (irregular)

Nadugumoimoi

Navoatu Drawa villagers 32 Nil 0 32 No Navunicau

Drawa/Drano

Koroni Labetia 20 AOG church 32 settlement members - Lutukina 12 No village

Nakase Mataqali Nakase Tonikula Nil 0 households residing 71 71 Yes in Lutukina village Vatucucu Lot 42

Vatucucu Lot 1 Nil 0 Nil 0 0

Vulavuladamu Nil Mataqali households 0 residing in Keka 62 62 Yes village

TOTAL 62 145 207

(Source: PRA, 2003)

The mataqali Nakase living in Lutukina village has thirteen households with seventy-one people. The mataqali and their households utilise Nakase, Tonikula and Vatucucu land. The main cultivation site however, is closer to the village on the outskirts of the model area. Keka village is the residence for sixty-two members and households of the mataqali Vulavuladamu. The mataqali Nakalounivuaka men of Batiri village also utilise their mataqali land and Bakibaki land but this is not significant and thus not considered, for this current period at least. The Labetia residents provided members of the Assemblies of God church, residing in Lutukina village, with a small piece. This is in the Koroni native reserve. The ten church members have built a small church and established plantations around it. The church is located some 100 metres west of Labetia settlement.

5.2.2 Cultivation in the Drawa model area

Only 10.50 per cent of the model area (Table 14) is under utilisation with some of these areas in previously cultivated sites. The steep and rocky terrain in the centre of the model area lies largely

untouched. Most present subsistence cultivation is on native reserves. These reserves, which are concentrated around the villages (Vatuvonu, Drawa, and Labetia settlement), are largely under bush fallow as planting has been active in these areas for generations. Coconut plantations established along the river flats more than 30 years ago, are now intercropped with root crops and vegetables. The main land use in the model area is food crop agriculture. Cultivation in the Drawa model area is still at a small to medium scale, where the primary aim is to meet subsistence and immediate cash needs. At present there is no full commercial scale farming in the model area though cultivation is steadily progressing to this level.

Figure 19. Past and present land use in the Drawa model area

Lutukina Vil Mat Mat Mat Rokotora Navoatu Drawa

Mat Drawa Vil Mat Vatucucu Koroni Mat Nadugumoimoi Mat Saisainoko Mat Naqato Mat Nakasedamu

Mat Nakasea Mat Tonikula

Mat Nakalounivuaka

Mat Navunicau

Mat Bakibaki Vatuvonu Vil

Mat Vulavuladamu

Freehold Natuvatu

Mat Nabou Mat Vatumua Keka Vil

Mat Naduri Freehold Dogoru

LEGEND DRAWA Village Past cultivation site Drawa mataqali boundary Naitve/ traditional reserve

Current cultivation site Mataqali boundaries

Creek

(Data source: PRA, 2003 and GIS unit, DLRPD)

Table 14. Area presently under cultivation in the Drawa block Mataqali Land Total Area Present cultivation area % Cultivation in the (ha) Mataqali Bakibaki 1684.40 145.51 8.64 Drawa 47.80 11.85 24.78 Koroni 360.80 28.76 7.97 Nadugumoimoi 137.70 87.52 63.56 Nakalounivuaka 1276.60 150.62 11.80 Nakase 162.00 87.18 53.81 Navoatu 81.00 Navunicau 1206.10 134.34 11.14 Tonikula 642.30 0.00 0.00 Vatucucu Lot 1 33.60 Vatucucu Lot 2 15.40 Vulavuladamu 697.80 20.82 2.98 TOTAL 6345.50 666.59 10.50 (Data source: PRA, 2003; GIS unit, DLRPD; NLTB)

Table 15. Description of main cultivated areas in the model area Mataqali land Site description

Bakibaki Initial planting mainly around the Drawa river tributaries of Nabuasa and Namatasebu creeks. Now yaqona cultivation, at low level commercial scale, actively expanding upwards towards ridges All on native reserve in the vicinity of Vatuvonu village

Drawa/Drano Very little cultivation with most of the area dominated by tall grass and water reeds and poorly drained clayey soil. Scattered planting only along walking tracks Koroni Mostly dalo and yaqona, planted on steep slopes (class VI) with relatively dry soil. Along river flats kumala, cassava and bananas planted amidst coconut trees Close vicinity of homes Nadugumoimoi Mainly on slopes along Savuni creek to ridge

Nakalounivuaka 2 sites: a. Along Nadudu and Laqerelevu creek. Yaqona at a low level commercial scale b. Dalo planted mainly around lower reaches of Nabuasa creek, towards Drawa River. Yaqona on slopes

All on native reserve in vicinity of Vatuvonu village

Nakase Scattered cultivation plots along Narara creek Navoatu Mostly old cultivation sites Navunicau Most cultivation on ridge and slopes in the middle of the mataqali area, valley depressions and flat pockets. Planting also on ridge separating mataqali Navunicau land and mataqali Sasainoko Tonikula Semi-commercial scale cultivation on classes V and VI Subsistence cultivation along creeks Vatucucu lot 1 Very little active planting. Largely old cultivation sites. Scattered planting creek banks and 42 Vulavuladamu Most planting along Wainiqima creek. Large-scale yaqona plantation for both subsistence and income.

(Source: PRA, 2003)

5.2.3 Cultivation site selection

The farmers of the Drawa model area employ two methods when selecting suitable sites for the cultivation. The first method is based purely on information imparted from old farmers, or passed on from past generations. This information, especially pertaining to areas lying under fallow, commends or condemns old sites based on its productivity history. The other method is by visually assessing the physical characteristics of the locality. This assessment is based on knowledge handed down through generations and from extensive cultivation experience. The following are the basic physical characteristics assessed by farmers when choosing a new site: - soil colour, texture, drainage properties, vertical depth - sunlight exposure - moisture - existing vegetation (botanical indicators).

These methods determine the most suitable crop(s) for the site and the fallow period required (for temporary fallow system) for soil (and vegetation in some cases) restoration.

Table 16. Characteristics of main soils cultivated in the Drawa model area Mataqali land Dominant soil General soil characteristics w.r.t cultivation series cultivated - National scale Koroni Sote ! Strong soil acidity Nadugumoimoi ! Nutrient deficiencies of phosphorous and potassium. ! Well drained. ! Indigenous forest but cleared in many places for pasture (dairying). Navunicau Naicola ! Extremely acid pH ! Nutrient deficiencies of phosphorus, potassium, and nitrogen, and likely aluminium toxicity. ! Well drained. ! Predominantly under indigenous forest. Elsewhere in subsistence gardens for yams, bananas, dalo, kumala and cassava Cropping period 2-3 years followed by bush fallow Lobau ! Strong soil acidity ! Severe nutrient deficiencies of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous. ! Well drained. ! Where cleared used for subsistence root crops followed by bush fallow. Bakibaki Visa ! Strong soil acidity ! Nutrient deficiencies of phosphorus and nitrogen. ! Well drained. ! Much still in indigenous forest. Elsewhere cleared for grazing with introduced grasses or tree crops on the more gentle slopes.

Nakalounivuaka Nauluvatu ! Moderate soil acidity ! Nutrient deficiencies of phosphorous and potassium. ! Well drained. ! Much under forest, some developed for pasture, but main use is for subsistence cropping (root crops and yaqona). (Adapted from Leslie and Seru, 1998)

Soil type is the major influencing factor when selecting a site for a targeted crop. Site selection habitually begins by identifying tree clusters that typify the desired basic soil properties. Exposure

of the site to sunlight also dictates the type or variety of crop planted as experience shows that this influences productivity in some way. This factor however is secondary with soil type still the main determinant.

In Drawa, farmers identify soils under forestland to be ideal for kava and other main staple root crops. The tree cluster indicators for yaqona cultivation sites are mainly on steep slopes In addition, farmers prefer steep slopes as it is less back breaking (literally) to till than the gentler slopes. Therefore, the lack of suitable arable land (less than class VI) is not the only contributing factor towards the cultivation of steep lands. At present, the Drawa farmers do not consider the erosion susceptibility of the steep land soils when clearing for cultivation and no measures are in place to counter this.

Table 17. Characteristics for cultivation site selection by the Drawa farmers Biological Indicators Soil/land Identified ideal crops / Other comments characteristic use vaivai21, selavo22, mako23, Dark moist soil Dalo, yams, cassava, Continual planting koka24, mission grass, (friable-firm), deeper pineapples, plantain, paragrass, guinea grass areas reddish and bananas, sweet potato, less moist, medium- bele, kawai coarse gravel; clayey in some areas salato25, masivau26, dawa27, Dark soil, shallow, Yaqona, dalo, uvi, dalo-ni- Considered best soil for waciwaci28, ivi29 friable tana, plantain yaqona and dalo 10 years production before shifting vesi30, dawa21, koka17 Dark very friable soil, Rarely cultivated shallow areas, – dry reddish soil at intervals vico31, ota32, duruka33, Very wet, dark clayey Ota, dalo, duruka, Continual planting rourou34 loamy soil watercress qato35, wabosucu36, Reddish soil, dry, Yams, bananas, plantain, viliyawa37, reeds friable to firm at depth cassava, pineapple, kawai nokonoko38, damanu39, Reddish soil, medium Cassava, kawai, plantain, 2 years before shifting yasiyasi40, tubonu41, to coarse gravel, very tivoli caukuro42 firm

21 Serianthes vitiensis 22 Alphitonia zizyphoides 23 Trichospermum sp. 24 Bischofia javanica 25 Dendrocnide harveyi 26 Gironniera celtidifolia 27 Pometia pinnata 28 Sterculia vitiensis 29 Inocarpus fagifer 30 Intsia bijuga 31 Not available 32 Diplazium esculentum 33 Saccharum edule 34 Colocasia esculenta 35 Dicranopteris caudata 36 Mikania micrantha 37 Not available

Biological Indicators Soil/land Identified ideal crops / Other comments characteristic use River banks Dark sandy soil with Dalo, duruka, watermelon, Continual planting good drainage vegetables vesi24, cibicibi43, ivi21 Dark, wet, clayey, Dalo, banana, plantain, 4 years planting silty and shallow soil duruka, pandanus, ota, Allow for 7 years fallow yaqona, coconuts before returning koka16, masivau18, vau44, Dark, wet soil, deep, Yaqona, dalo, plantain, 7 years planting; allow for 4 salato17 friable with gravely bananas, pandanus years fallow before returning parent material One of best planting sites reeds, bobo45, sama46, Talasiga, reddish dry Cassava, yams, kawai, 2 years planting bamboo, a’viakai47, kura48, soil, darker in stony kumala, tivoli, pineapple, 49 50 Allow for 8-10 years fallow lolo , banikasi areas before returning vuci – paragrass, sila ni Dark clayey, sticky, Dalo, duruka, jaina, karisi, Continual planting wai51, mile-a-minute, poor drainage rourou (kera), via, maletawa52, rourou watercress diadia53, qato29, bamboo54, Shallow soil, very Pineapple 2 years production only wire grass, mission grass, friable when maletawa44, nokonoko33, dry/exposed, kura40, usi55, sinu56, lolo44, unexposed- friable to dali57, maqo58, voivoi59 firm velau60, caukuro34, male61, Dry, deep reddish Pineapple, yams, bele, 1-3 years production yaka62, buabua63, sea64, soil, firm to very firm 65 cassava, vuani Allow 6-7 years fallow qumu , wild pineapples, (solanacea) vono66 Secondary growth - mile-a- minute, reeds, sama, mama qumu, vakacara ni davui (Source: Drawa PRA, 2003)

38 Casuarina equisetifolia 39 Calophyllum vitiensis 40 Syzygium diffusum 41 Not available 42 Gymnostoma vitiense 43 Cynometra insularis 44 Hibiscus tiliaceus 45 Mussaenda raiateensis 46 Commersonia bartramia 47 Not available 48 Morinda citrifolia 49 Ficus vitiensis 50 Not available 51 Coix lacryma-jobi 52 Dysoxylum gillespieanum 53 Not available 54 Bambusa vulgaris 55 Not available 56 Wikstroemia foetida 57 Not available 58 Trichospermum calyculatum 59 Pandanus thrustonii 60 Gymnostoma vitiense 61 Myristica sp.(castaneifolia, chartacea, macrantha) 62 Dacrydium nidulum 63 Fragraea gracilipes 64 Parinari insularum 65 Acacia richii 66 Alyxia spec.div.

The soils cultivated in the model area are generally well-drained, acidic, and phosphorous deficient. The classification of soil units identified so far is too broad and general to determine a distinct relationship between crops cultivated and soil type. Generally, however, most subsistence farming is currently taking place on Visa and Sote soils with a great area of bush fallow on the Naicola soils (Navunicau and Nakase lot). Yaqona dominates on the steepland soils of Lobau and shares Visa soils with subsistence crops.

5.2.4 Working groups

The main cultivation group is the household unit. Cultivation for daily household sustenance and household income is carried out in household or family groups: The family unit is the nuclear family as defined by western terms. The “household” is defined as ‘members of the immediate and/or distant family eating from one kitchen (source)’. However, communal support is engaged, when the individual or household needs labour assistance with their gardens, especially for forest clearing, and garden maintenance. Village working groups assist individual farmers on a rotational basis, in what is termed as solesolevaki. The household reciprocates by providing food for the group. This communal arrangement does not take away the control the individual has over his garden. This is a common practice in Drawa village, but it is a declining in the other villages.

The mataqali or yavusa working group may be mobilised to respond to larger Vanua or village needs. This may include village infrastructure (church, hall, bridge, etc.) and church obligations (hosting vanua for church celebrations, village levies etc.). Reserved sites are utilised for providing for these needs.

5.2.4.1 Gender groups Household cultivation and fishing may be carried out together by men and women. Whilst yaqona and dalo planting is the male’s domain, women can be involved in the intercropping of these cash crops with subsistence food crops and assist in the weeding of the gardens. An exclusive zone to the women however is the backyard garden providing only for daily consumption.

At the larger social groupings, (yavusa and village) roles are strongly gender defined. Men rarely get involved in (river) fishing activities with this left to the women. When harvesting river products, mataqali members are not restricted by mataqali boundaries though they are bound by any tabus placed on the sites. Normally the males provide the staple foods (root crops) whilst the women provide the accompaniment.

5.2.5 Farming pattern in the Drawa model area

Subsistence gardens are established in the village locality, on the nearby river flats and adjacent sloping lands. An agroforestry farming system is practiced where mixing and inter-cropping of fruit trees, vegetables and staple root crops are common. Short term and medium term crops (dalo, pineapple, kumala, cassava) are intercropped with the longer term /permanent crops (coconut trees, citrus, yaqona). Normally there is a good variety of crops with no single crop dominating. Shifting cultivation is the customary practise in these areas where cultivated areas are left to fallow for 8 to 15 years. In Koroni and Nadugumoimoi land, inter-cropping of dalo, bananas,

cassava, and yaqona in coconut plantations is prevalent. Many of the banana and fruit trees are remainders from old gardens. Other subsistence gardens exist as little pockets scattered around the model area but more commonly within bush fallow areas. The women commonly plant bele, eggplant, pumpkin and chillies near their homes.

Figure 20. Farming pattern in the Drawa model area

Mixed-cropping under coconut plantations Agroforestry system

Inter- cropping close to village. Includes staple roots and vegetables • Decreasing multi-cropping • Increasing River mono-cropping of yaqona on upper slopes Restored • Dalo on lower bush fallow slopes with banana and fruit trees

creek Scattered planting along river banks by women

LEGEND

Yaqona plants Vegetables and small crops – bele/ eggplant/ chillies

Dalo plants Fruit and food trees e.g. citrus/breadfruit Staple roots – cassava/ yams/ kumala Coconut trees Banana / plantain trees

(Source: Drawa PRA, 2003)

When moving towards the centre of the model area, most of the fruit and vegetable crops drop out. Gardens become less diverse as large plots of the cash crops, dalo, cassava and yaqona, take over with only minor intercropping of the other root staples (yams, kumala) and/or vegetables. Yaqona plantations, once widely established on all land classes, are now increasingly concentrated on the steep slopes. Intercropping yaqona with dalo and kumala was also a common practice but this is now declining as the increasing importance of yaqona, as a cash

crop, pushes other crops out. The degree of involvement of women in cultivation decreases with distance from the village.

On the steeper lands, primary and fully restored secondary forest stands on steep lands are “slashed and burnt” to make way for the larger-scale yaqona (and sometimes dalo) plots. Aside from the soil suitability, the demand for extensive cultivation, favour these large areas of unutilised forestland over the limited land areas of the already established gardens. Utilisation of these plots can be up to 10 years before moving on to another freshly cleared site. This cultivation pattern differs from the mixed subsistence cropping where cultivation rotates within an established area (normally a reserve). The large-scale cultivation of yaqona and dalo is not contained and plots are more extensive and clearing of covering vegetation more intensive. Since the last survey conducted in 2001, the cultivation of yaqona has intensified with gardens established farther away from the usual cultivation sites. Despite this however, the extent of forest areas cleared since 2001 is not very significant as most planting is still occurring on the already cleared sites.

Table 18. Inputs for crops cultivated in the Drawa model area

Major crops currently Land Tools/fertilisers Mataqali Land Scale of cultivation cultivated class used Bakibaki Yaqona VII Hand tools, Semi-subsistence to chainsaw commercial No fertiliser Drawa/Drano Tree crops IV Hand tools Low-level subsistence No fertiliser Koroni Dalo, yaqona VI, IV Hand tools Subsistence to low-level No fertiliser commercial Cassava VI, V Kumala, bananas IV, VI Subsistence Vegetables IV, VI Nadugumoimoi Yaqona, dalo V, VI Hand tools Subsistence No fertiliser Vegetables, kumala, IV bananas Nakalounivuaka Yaqona, dalo V, VI Hand tools, Subsistence – Semi chainsaws commercial No fertiliser Kumala, cassava IV, V Hand tools Subsistence

Nakase Yaqona V, VII Hand tools Subsistence – Semi No fertiliser commercial Navoatu Insignificant Navunicau Yaqona VII Hand tools Subsistence Weedicide Bananas V, VI No fertiliser Tonikula Yaqona VI Hand tools Subsistence- Semi- Vegetables IV No fertiliser commercial Vatucucu lot 1 Cassava, Vegetables V Hand tools Subsistence + 42 No fertiliser Vulavuladamu Yaqona VI, VI Hand tools, Semi subsistence-commercial Other root crops chainsaw Weedicide No fertiliser (Source: Drawa PRA, 2003)

Even though the use of machineries and fertilisers are still uncommon in the model area, the number of farmers now using pesticides and weedicides are fast increasing. These farmers are mainly dalo farmers planting on a semi-commercial scale. Hand tools such as knives, axes, digging sticks and forks are the usual implements, but recently chainsaws were used for clearing trees for yaqona and dalo plots.

There is no major livestock husbandry occurring in the model area except for a few poultry roaming and feeding on the village greens and pigs reared on the outskirts of the village. The livestock is primarily for home consumption and pigs are sometimes sold, or bartered, at social events.

5.2.6 Land use technologies

Land use technologies refer to the cultivation techniques applied in the Drawa model area.

5.2.6.1 Past cultivation technologies Evidence of terraced gardens was observed in Nakase (Plate 2). These stone terraces run along the banks of the creek but its magnitude could not be discerned as most of the area lies under well established secondary vegetation. Clearing of two tiers indicate the terrace wall to be at least 0.5 metres high and approximately 1.5 metres wide.

Plate 2. Old stone terracing on Nakase land

(Photo: C. Fung, 2002) Remnants of stone terraces in the Mataqali Nakase

Other sightings of similar terraces as reported by villagers need verification. Anecdotal information suggests that these terraces, unlike in Nakase, are built across steep ridges. Information on the age and function of these terraces are yet to be determined.

5.2.6.2 Present cultivation technologies On the steeper lands, where the major cash crops are increasingly favoured, there is very little to no soil conservation measurers/technologies. Methods currently practised on the steep lands appear crude but is, to a limited extent, effective. This includes the digging of small water channels vertically down slope, in between rows of crops, to encourage drainage. However, if applied on a larger scale (e.g. dalo cultivation), the technique may have an adverse effect in facilitating erosion.

Some extension work, initiated in 2001 and 2002, on contour farming with vetiver grass as hedgerows, saw a couple of farmers adopting this system. This contour farming method is based on the Sloping Agriculture Land Technology (SALT) scheme that was first developed at the Mindanao Baptist Rural Life Centre in the Philippines. The main objective of SALT is to turn a sloping piece of land into a productive upland farm. A couple of Drawa farmers applied this on their small subsistence garden plots.

5.3 Land Use outside the Drawa model area

The mataqali cultivating outside the DMA are: i. Mataqali Koroni in Batiri village ii. Mataqali Nakalounivuaka in Batiri village and in Nayarailagi village iii. Mataqali Nakase in Lutukina village iv. Mataqali Navunicau in Nakorovou settlement (adjacent to Koroni land) v. Mataqali Vulavuladamu in Keka village

Most of the land utilised by the above mataqali are shared with other land users, usually the landowning mataqali and fellow villagers.

5.3.1 Land use pattern outside the model area

Most cultivation carried out outside the model area is on previously cultivated areas. In Natuvatu, Keka villagers clear secondary forest areas and old pastoral land for semi commercial agriculture. In Batiri and Nayarailagi, on the leeward side of the island, vegetation cover is predominantly talasiga67 with pine plantations, sugarcane farmland and scrubs.

The main cash crops are dalo and yaqona with more diverse secondary produce marketed (vegetables, fruits, river and marine produce) compared to that marketed by those in the Drawa model area.

67 highly degraded "sunburnt lands," dominated by ferruginous latosol soils; grassland savanna landscape

Table 19. Land use by the Drawa mataqali outside the model area Drawa land user Mataqali land Total area Present Cultivated Native % Area currently utilised/ Tenure (Ha) cultivation area area reserve utilised

Koroni Vunimala 34.38 27.34 5.51 100% (Batiri village) Vuniqesa 1050.71 9.50 5.30 1.4% Nakalounivuaka Vunimala 34.38 27.34 5.51 100% (Batiri village) SSA 1709 695.49 34.70 695.49 695.49 100% Nakalounivuaka SSA 640 258.44 157.95 258.44 43.83 61.1% (Nayarailagi Vil.) Nakase Rokotora 633.58 35.04 26.83 210.93 42.8% (Lutukina village) Lutukina 129.34 0.64 8.49 6.7% Nabaukerekere 84.40 12.28 0.06 14.6% Navunicau Vunibalawa 228.71 11.34 10.3 5.0%

Vulavuladamu Dogoru freehold 370.11 93.61 3.14 26.2% (Keka village) Natuvatu freehold 2338.2 107.35 6.80 4.9% Naduri 43.61 8.20 40.10 43.61 100% Nabou 801.82 0.00 9.59 1.2% Naqara 786.63 239.40 30.4% Vatumua 390.78 27.34 5.51 8.4% Drawa village Nakasedamu 616.42 Insignificant

(Source: NLC data; PRA 2003)

Table 20. Other land users of land utilised by Drawa mataqali outside the model area Drawa mataqali land Mataqali land utilised Other land users Land area users (hectare) Koroni Vunimala (Batiri village) Batiri villagers 34.38 Vuniqesa None 1050.71 Nakalounivuaka Vunimala (Batiri village) Batiri villagers 34.38

Native land SSA 1709 Batiri villagers 695.49 Native Land SSA 640 None 258.44 (Nayarailagi) Nakase Rokotora Lutukina villagers 633.58 Lutukina Lutukina villagers 129.34 Nabaukerekere Lutukina villagers 84.50 Navunicau Vunibalawa – Nakorovou None 228.71 settlement Vulavuladamu Naduri Keka villagers 43.61 Natuvatu Keka villagers 2338.20 Naqara Keka villagers 786.63 Vatumua Keka villagers 390.78 Nabou Keka villagers 801.82 Dogoru Keka villagers 370.11 Drawa village Nakasedamu None 616.42 (Source: Drawa PRA, 2003)

Figure 21. Land use outside the Drawa model area

SSA 1709 Batiri Village Namunawai Mat. Vunisitisiti Mat.

Mat. Mat. Mat. Koroulutu Mat. Vunisitisiti Vuniqesa Nautkara- wakarawa Nayarailagi Village Mat. Nakorotuwa

SSA 640 Mat. Vuniqesa

Lutukina Village Mat. Dreka

Mat. Vuniqaikacu

Mat. Nautokara- wakarawa

Legend Natuvatu

Native Land

State schedule A

Freehold Keka Vil. Actively cultivated area

Village

Dogoru Drawa model area boundary

(Source: Drawa PRA, 2003, NLTB data, GIS, DLRPD)

Most subsistence planting takes place in the village locality. These village areas are under native reserve or yavusa land. The villages are contained in the following areas: Lutukina village is established on mataqali Rokotora, Batiri village is on state schedule A (SSA) 1709, Nayarailagi village is on mataqali Nautokarawakarawa (Figure 21) and Keka village is on mataqali Naduri.

Table 19 reflects the lack of land available to the mataqali Nakalounivuaka of Batiri village. This in fact has been a concern raised from previous surveys (Fung et al., 2001). Native land SSA 1709 though large in area, is mostly under pine cover. This area is utilised by the Batiri villagers.

Mataqali Koroni (of Batiri village also), on the other hand, is fortunate to be given access to a portion of mataqali Vuniqesa land. The Koroni mataqali members concentrate most of their cultivation on this area.

5.4 Future Land Use Plans for the Drawa model area

There is a general indication of increased agriculture activity in Drawa especially by those occupying the model area and the mataqali Nakalounivuaka in Batiri village. Koroni mataqali in Batiri village is the only mataqali with no expressed plan to utilise their mataqali lot. The Koroni mataqali in Batiri and mataqali Nakalounivuaka in Nayarailagi are secure with the land currently made available to them.

Future migration into the model area is still not clear but it is certain that with better access there will be increased agriculture activity in the Drawa model area.

Aside from the Nakalounivuaka members of Batiri village, all mataqali revealed that land currently available to them adequately provides for their current and future subsistence and cash needs.

A. Koroni The members of the mataqali Koroni find it more convenient living in Batiri village even though their mataqali land is walking distance to the Lutukina road. Despite the attraction of a road running through their mataqali land, the current members of the mataqali Koroni in Batiri village express no desire to move back to their land to reside or to plant.

The land currently available to Labetia settlement adequately caters for their present and immediate future needs. In preparation for future demands, a strip of land has been identified suitable for agriculture.

B. Drawa/Drano; Nadugumoimoi; Navunicau The Drawa villagers utilising these lands have plans to expand their farming activities especially for yaqona. The villagers are planning to increase their production to a commercial scale and with the improvement of access, an increase in dalo production envisaged and diversification of other food crops. Most agriculture activity will take place on mataqali Navunicau land.

C. Vulavuladamu Mataqali members indicated that there is sufficient land available outside the model area for cultivation. This includes mataqali land of the yavusa Naduri and adjacent freehold land Natuvatu and Dogoru. The freehold land, belonging to the Anglican Church, caters largely for cash crops. However, given the insecurity of these non-mataqali lands, the need to reserve some suitable land for farming in their mataqali lot was recognised.

The women expressed a desire to diversify their food crops, for both subsistence and income generation. Of particular interest are carrots, cabbages, beans, tomatoes and other widely consumed vegetables still uncommon in the gardens in Keka. These gardens are to be established close to the village on neighbouring mataqali land.

D. Vatucucu Land utilised by the Vatucucu mataqali of Vatuvonu village envisages further agriculture activities in Nakalounivuaka land. This will mainly be cash crops such as yaqona and dalo.

E. Nakalounivuaka Members of Nakalounivuaka in Batiri village have plans to establish yaqona and dalo plantations on their mataqali land in the Drawa model area. This arises from the lack of arable land available to them in Batiri village. Planting in the Drawa model area will be carried out mainly by the male youths.

F. Tonikula/Nakase Extinct Tonikula land is currently under dispute. The disputing parties are members of the mataqali Nakase (of yavusa Lutukina) and the yavusa Lutukina. Ownership is to be determined by the arbitration committee of NLC but the land currently held in trust by the NLTB. Tonikula mataqali land is currently excluded from the Drawa SFM project.

Planting in Nakase is at a subsistence scale but there are plans to expand to semi-commercial.

6. ECONOMIC PROFILE

This section briefly discusses the economic status of the Drawa people as previous studies adequately cover this (Qalo 1996; Ratu 1998; Fung 2001). The focus in this section will be on the main income sources and implications of commercialisation on land use and social structures.

6.1 Factors influencing produce marketed

The marketing of food crops and produce vary with different mataqali and determined largely by the following factors: ! Existing traditional taboos - for some mataqali only ! Vanua/ church demand ! Poor road access – Drawa and Vatuvonu village ! Poor market prices – cost of cartage too expensive, e.g. coconuts

6.1.1 Traditional taboos

Different mataqali and villages observe traditional taboos in varying degrees. The utilisation of natural resources is controlled through taboos. It is normally the turaga ni qali, in consultation with other mataqali heads, who declares a taboo over a site or resource. It is common practice in rural Fijian villages to place seasonal taboos on the marketing of selected wild foods. In some cases, as in Drawa, there is a complete ban on the commercialisation of all natural/wild food products, whilst others, as in Keka, the ban may be temporary (harvesting of prawns) and only in response to the depleting resource.

There is a tabu on all wild foods in the Drawa model area. The sale of all wild produce such as ota, duruka, rourou and all river produce is prohibited and for subsistence consumption only. The tabu has been in place since the beginning of the century and as yet, there are no intensions to lift this ban. These products can however be bartered with other produce (such as rice from Seaqaqa, marine foods from Wailevu coast). The Drawa and Vatuvonu villagers unconditionally accept this taboo and strictly adhere to it. Some Keka villagers however admit to selling prawns and ota despite the taboo.

The yavusa Naduri (Keka village) places a seasonal moratorium on the harvesting of freshwater prawns when numbers are observed to be declining. In the mangrove and coastal areas of Wailevu, Keka villagers and, to a lesser extent, Vatuvonu, harvest and market marine and mangrove produce with permission from the land owning yavusa.

Cultivated crops, such as citrus, breadfruit, bananas etc. can be sold.

6.1.2 Church demand

Church obligation is almost synonymous to Vanua responsibility. The cash needed for compulsory household church levies is the responsibility of the household but larger responsibilities such as the village or vanua contributions come from the church reserve areas. The gardens not only provide for cash but also feed the masses during church functions. These areas are not for the financial benefit of individual households.

6.1.3 Accessibility

The lack of vehicular access to Drawa and Vatuvonu village restricts the marketing of heavier produce such as dalo and other root crops. For Drawa and Vatuvonu villagers, yaqona takes precedence over dalo because of ease of cartage. This influences the crops cultivated with Drawa villagers planting significantly more yaqona (per capita), but lesser dalo, compared to the other mataqali.

6.1.4 Market prices

The low market price for copra has affected the marketing of coconuts especially for the Drawa and Lutukina villagers. Coconut plantations abound the riverbanks of the Drawa and Lutukina Rivers but large-scale sale of coconuts (to copra mills in Savusavu) was more than a decade ago. The current low market price now makes it uneconomical to hire lorries to cart bags of coconuts to Savusavu or to the middleman in Seaqaqa and Labasa. Coconuts, once a big earner for the Drawa model area is now only a secondary cash produce with Nayarailagi village only selling in large quantities.

Fluctuating market price of dalo and yaqona however, has had very little effect on the marketing of these two produce as both, relative to the other crops grown, still provide the best return.

6.2 Market Centres

The major markets for the Drawa model area villagers are Labasa, Savusavu and to a lesser extent, Seaqaqa. The main modes of transport to these markets are by public bus or hired lorry for large cargo. Goods can be sold either directly to the consumer or through a middleman.

The Labasa municipal market is the main commercial centre for the greater Vanua Levu Island farmers and fishermen. This includes farmers from the Cakaudrove and Bua province. Labasa town, with a population of 6,491 in the town area and 17,604 in the peri-urban (Fiji census 1996) is the largest commercial centre on the island and seats the main administrative offices. Labasa is the favoured market centre for most farmers in Vanua Levu because of, 1) higher demand and 2) it is the main administrative and commercial centre in Vanua Levu.

Savusavu, the next biggest town on Vanua Levu, is much smaller than Labasa with a total population of 4,970 with half residing in town, and the other half in peri-urban areas (Fiji census 1996). The subsistence demand in Savusavu is very low as most households have backyard gardens. Savusavu however, is an active hub for middlemen trading on a commercial scale.

The Seaqaqa market, the least favoured market due to very poor demand, is usually bypassed for the Labasa market. The 394 population making up the Seaqaqa urban area are mainly civil servants and FSC (Fiji Sugar Corporation) officers. They, and travellers on the Savusavu highway, are the main consumers of farm produce.

Roadside marketing is especially common for Batiri village located close to the main highway. Women normally tend these roadside stalls.

Figure 22. Main market centres on Vanua Levu

Batiri

Lutukina Nayarailagi Drawa

Vatuvonu

Keka

Legend

N Town/ market centre Road

Drawa mataqali Village Feeder road Coastline (Source: GIS Unit, DLRPD)

6.2.1 Market Access

The mataqali members residing in Batiri, Nayarailagi, Keka and Lutukina village have vehicular access to the markets. The main Labasa-Nabouwalu highway runs past Batiri village whilst Nayarailagi and Lutukina villages have a feeder road connecting it to the highway. A 1km feeder road connects Keka village to the Wailevu coastal road, the main road for villages along the Wailevu coast (figure 22). This is also the closest vehicular road for the Vatuvonu villagers who travel on foot or by horseback to Keka. The Drawa villagers trek or travel on horseback (at time of reporting) to Lutukina village. Long spells of wet weather often renders the Lutukina and Keka feeder roads unsafe for vehicles including 4WD.

Table 21. Approximate distance to major markets (in kilometres; as of 2003) Type of Nayarailagi Batiri Lutukina Drawa Vatuvonu Keka Village access (via Lutukina (via Keka village) village) Market Labasa Vehicular 43.75km 45km 78km 78km 89.50km 91.25km road + track 5.25km 5.25km Savusavu Vehicular 49.5km 51.75km 80.25km 80.25km 53.75km 53.75km road + track 5.25km 5.25km Seaqaqa Vehicular 14.5km 16.75km 44.75km 44.75km 56.25km 56.25km road +track 5.25km 5.25km

6.3 Cash Produce

A survey of standing crops in the field showed yaqona and dalo to be the dominant crops followed by yams, cassava, plantain and bananas. The survey also revealed recent planting focussing mainly on yaqona and dalo (refer to annex 4). As everywhere else in rural Fiji, dalo and yaqona are the main cash crops for the Drawa people. These crops have expanded from a subsistence scale production to semi-commercial.

Figure 23. Approximate number of standing cash crops per mataqali (as of beginning 2003)

14,000.00

12,000.00

10,000.00 Yaqona

8,000.00 Dalo

Cassava

(2003) 6,000.00

4,000.00 NUMBER OF PLANTS PLANTS OF NUMBER

2,000.00

0.00 village village Keka village Batiri village Batiri Vulavuladamu, Drawa village Drawa Nakalounivuaka, Nakalounivuaka, Nakase, Lutukina Nayarailagi village Navunicau/Drawa, Vatucucu, Vatuvonu MATAQALI

(Source: Drawa PRA, 2003)

Figure 23 provides an estimate of the major crops planted and owned by the mataqali. Not represented in the chart are Bakibaki – residing in Suva; Nadugumoimoi – residing away from

project area; Tonikula – extinct; Koroni – not available. Drawa villagers have the highest number of yaqona plants in the field, reflecting their heavy reliance on this crop for cash. Poor transportation to markets discourages the large-scale cultivation of heavier crops such as dalo. The chart shows mataqali Nakalounivuaka of Nayarailagi village having the overall highest number of cash crops in the field. This may be attributed to the higher population of the mataqali (highest number of households), the abundance of arable land available to them (as opposed to Batiri village), and the ease of carting the produce to the markets (as opposed to Drawa and Vatuvonu village).

For the Keka villagers, the nearby coastal environment is an important source of income for the women.

6.3.1 Marketing

6.3.1.1 Dalo, yaqona, cassava, seafood Men typically market the main cash crops. These can either be sold ‘retail’ to consumers or ‘wholesale’ (minimum weight applied to sell produce) to the middlemen. With Savusavu as the more accessible domestic port of entry for Vanua Levu, most middlemen and direct buyers from Viti Levu converge here to buy produce from the farmers. Keka villagers sell dalo and seafood to an established middleman in Savusavu, who then sells to clientele in Viti Levu and abroad.

Figure 24. Main markets for major cash crops

LEGEND Cassava/ plantain/ yams Cassava/ plantain/ yams Dalo Dalo

Yaqona Yaqona

Cassava/ plantain/ yams

Dalo

Yaqona

Cassava/ plantain/ yams

Dalo Labasa Savusavu Roadside

Yaqona

01234567

No. Mataqali

(Source: Drawa PRA, 2003)

Dalo and yaqona are the preferred agriculture produce because of the steady demand, and the familiarity of the crop to the farmer (Fung 2001). On main market days, yaqona and dalo are sold

at a larger (wholesale) scale where 40 – 50 kg of yaqona (one plant) and 500kg dalo can be sold on average. These main market days are usually in preparation for the start of a school term, for Christmas, Easter, weddings, births, church fundraisings, and other events requiring large sums of money.

Table 22. Marketing scale of main cash produce

Produce Labasa market Savusavu market Retail Wholesale Retail Wholesale Yaqona All villages All villages Keka, Vatuvonu Keka, Vatuvonu Dalo All villages Nayarailagi, Lutukina Keka, Vatuvonu Keka, Vatuvonu Cassava All villages Lutukina, Batiri, Nayarailagi Keka, Vatuvonu Keka Other seafood Keka Beche de mer Keka (Holothuria edulis) (Source: Drawa PRA, 2003) Note: Retail: sold to direct to household consumers and small-scale intermediaries; sold per quantity Wholesale: produce sold in large bulk to bigger businesses (commonly through middlemen), sold per weight

Most rural farmers see yaqona and dalo as a safe and sure commodity to market, despite fluctuating market prices. Though there are indications of an increasing demand from overseas markets (MASLR 2002), the effect on the rural village farmer appear to be minimal. Possible factors attributing to this include: - The monopoly the middlemen have over the market price at the farmer level - Export demand is adequately met by the large commercial farmers - The rural farmer is not producing export quality crops to break into the overseas market - The rural farmer can not guarantee a regular supply to secure a market

The commercial dalo farmers and middlemen appear to benefit most from the growing overseas demand. The middlemen buy dalo in Savusavu and Labasa for about $0.70 - $1.00/kg and this is subsequently sold to exporters for $1.50 - $1.80/kg (MASLR, 2002).

The middlemen in Savusavu, offer the best prices for bulk (dalo, seafood and prawns especially) produce. Keka villagers and, to a lesser extent, Vatuvonu, target the Savusavu market. Keka villagers earn well from seafood (especially beche de mer, Holothuria edulis) and prawns, which are sold by the kilo to the middleman (Fung, 2001). Even though the seafood industry is a lucrative market, the trade at this community-level needs better organisation (groups of fishermen) and costly equipment (outboard motor, boat, fishing gear, etc.). Other seafood, coming from mangroves and reef flats, include, crabs -qari (Scylla serrata), mud lobsters- lairo (Sesama gracilipes) and mangrove crabs – kuka. The Keka villagers have open access to the marine resources, though they must abide by traditional laws of the area. Due to its high market value, Keka villagers do not normally consume these marine delicacies in daily meals, except on special occasions. These marine products are in fact one of the major sources of income for the women of Keka. Vatuvonu women also target these marine produce by travelling more than 5 kilometres on foot to the mangrove and coastal areas.

Other cash crops currently exported are cassava and yams with cassava the next major root crop exported after dalo. The main overseas market for these root cops is New Zealand where a high Pacific Island population resides (MASLR, 2002).

Table 23. Market price for main cash produce (2002) Produce Main market Market price Village not selling (when in season) produce Yaqona Labasa market $12.00/kg (waka–roots) $6.00/kg (lewena – stem) $18 – $20 /kg (plant) Dalo Labasa market $7.00 - $10.00/ bundle Savusavu market (wholesale) $0.70/ kg $10/ bag (45kg) Roadside (Savusavu buyers) $0.90 - $1.00/kg Cassava Labasa market $3 /heap (7-8 medium sized tubers) Drawa Middlemen $15 - $20.00/ 45kg bag Freshwater Labasa $8/kg Drawa, Vatuvonu prawns Savusavu (wholesale quantity) $11/kg Middlemen, Labasa $7/kg Mud crabs Savusavu $2 for 6 crabs Lutukina, Batiri, (lairo) Nayarailagi, Drawa Crabs (qari) Labasa $8 each (large) Lutukina, Batiri, Savusavu (wholesale) $8/kg Nayarailagi, Drawa Middlemen, Labasa/ Savusavu $5/kg (Source: Drawa PRA, 2003)

6.3.1.2 Minor cash produce Women tend other crops that supplement the yaqona and dalo income. These crops are important subsistence foods and whilst providing nutritional diversity to household meals, they are a vital cash source for the women, providing them with a socio-economic safety net. These produce, harvested from the wild, from old garden sites, and cultivated in backyard gardens, provide the women with an income to meet daily household needs and small everyday expenses. There has been no significant growth in the production of these crops compared to dalo and yaqona.

The marketing of these secondary cash produce in Labasa and, or, Savusavu is normally in conjunction with the marketing of the major cash crops and town business. Batiri and Nayarailagi women also set up roadside stalls (Labasa-Nabouwalu highway) and even though this saves on transportation costs, the produce is sold at a lower price.

Not all produce is marketed by the mataqali. The Drawa villagers for instance, rarely market any of the minor cash produce listed due to poor accessibility and, because of the prohibition on wild foods.

A few of the women have expressed a desire to expand their vegetable gardens to semi- commercial farming. The main crops they were interested in were, chinese cabbage, carrots, radishes and beans. The lack of technical knowledge, unfamiliarity with the planting requirements of the crop and lack of seedlings prevent them from successfully establishing these gardens to the scale they desire. A cabbage garden established in Keka village died prematurely, because it was planted on the wrong soil, and was infested with fungi.

Table 24. Marketing of secondary cash produce Produce Market Market Price Village restricted from (when in season) marketing Yams Labasa market $5/heap (4 tubers) Minimal scale: Drawa $15/basket $15/basket (10 tubers)

Plantain Labasa market $10.00 /bundle Minimal scale: Drawa (10 – 12 bunches) $3/heap (10 fingers) Roadside $6/bundle Kumala Labasa market $3/heap (15 tubers) Minimal scale: Drawa Seaqaqa market $20/bag (45kg) Labasa market $25 - $30/bag (45 kg) Bananas Labasa market $2.50/hand – green Minimal scale: Drawa $6 - $10 bundle Rourou Labasa and Savusavu $1.50/bundle Prohibited: Drawa, Vatuvonu Roadside $1/bundle Ota Labasa and Savusavu $2/bundle Prohibited: Drawa, Vatuvonu Roadside $1/bundle Bele Labasa and roadside $1/bundle Prohibited: Drawa, Vatuvonu

Eggplant Labasa market $1/1/2 plastic bag (20) Prohibited: Drawa, Vatuvonu Coconuts Labasa and Savusavu $0.07 - $0.08 each Minimal scale: Drawa, Vatuvonu Chillies Labasa market, roadside $1/bowl (2 handfuls)

Duruka Labasa market, roadside $2.00/bundle (6-8) Prohibited: Drawa, Vatuvonu

(Source: MASLR 2003, Drawa PRA, 2003)

6.4 Other Sources of Income

All other sources of income are, apart from the permanently employed, secondary to agriculture. The remittances from relatives working in the urban areas, in Fiji and overseas, are an important cash supplement for the villagers. Another important income source is cane cutting with all mataqali involved in this activity every year.

Mataqali Nakalounivuaka of Batiri village is the only mataqali with salaried workers residing in the village. Members of the other mataqali in the formal workforce reside away from the village, closer to their site of employment. The salaried workers in Batiri village include teachers and soldiers. The teachers work in nearby schools in Seaqaqa and Batiri whilst the soldiers live in the village when not on duty at the military barracks in Labasa.

There are also a few pensioners and villagers on social welfare. The Department of Social Welfare gives a monthly stipend to those who cannot for provide themselves. These are mainly the elderly and the handicapped. Allowances are made of the orphaned young and abandoned children. Pensioners include a retired schoolteacher, in Batiri village, and a retired military officer, in Drawa village.

From mid to late nineties, the Mount Kasi Gold Mine employed a couple of men from Keka and neighbouring Dawara village as field assistants. In 2000, the depressed gold market forced mine operations to a halt, but with the price now recovering, there have been indications of operations resuming. There is a possibility that the Mount Kasi Company will approach the Keka villagers for field assistance in gold exploration work in the Drawa model area.

Table 25. Other sources of income aside from agriculture: Source of Income Approximate Income (Mataqali members residing in village) 1 2 3 Mataqali Nakalounivuaka – Batiri Village Cane cutting (10 trucks of cane over 3 weeks/annum) by mataqali $1000.00 $2000.00 by village $3000.00 $5000.00 Weeding mahogany plantation (320ha) In groups of 10 men $12/ha Social Welfare benefits 1 person (60 y.o.) for medical reasons $33/mth Pension 1 Retired Teacher NA Fiji Military Forces 4 of private rank $500/mth(each) School Teachers (x2) Primary School (x1); Secondary (x1) NA Remittance from relatives Relatives assist towards Vanua functions, 20% of total expected 50% of total expected church, schooling family contribution family contribution

Mataqali Nakalounivuaka – Nayarailagi Village Cane cutting Village gang (up to 15 persons); 1month; $1,500.00 $2000.00 $3000.00 church construction

Mataqali Navunicau/Drawa – Drawa village Cane cutting (1-2 months) $2000.00 $3000.00 To meet traditional obligations; church demands and schooling costs Remittance from relatives Relatives assist towards Vanua functions, 20% of total expected 50% of total expected church, schooling family contribution family contribution Pensioner NA Social benefit NA

Mataqali Nakase – Lutukina village Cane cutting village project $10,000 / 2 months household $100/month $50/month $150/month Remittance from relatives Yavusa, mataqali and household obligations Varies Handicraft $500 Mats, baskets

(Source: Drawa PRA, 2003) Note: NA - information not available; where relevant and possible three households per each mataqali were surveyed.

6.4.1 Cutting sugar-cane

The sugar industry is a major contributor to the financial welfare of these rural farmers. This is by way of labour (cane cutting) during the cane-harvesting season, which runs for about 6 months (September – February) every year. The Fiji Sugar Corporation is the only buyer of raw cane in the country. For the people of the Drawa model area cane cutting is normally carried out in the Seaqaqa cane belt area where most farmers are Indo-Fijians. The harvesting of cane is carried out in crews (harvesting gangs), thus providing a good opportunity for the village and village groups to earn money collectively. Many community projects, such as church construction, community hall, and contribution to church/vanua were funded from cane cutting proceeds.

Table 26. Utilisation of cane cutting income Scale Range of earnings Main Purpose (in a month) Village $1500 - $5000 Construction of church, community hall Mataqali $1000 Schooling, Vanua obligations Household $50- $150 Schooling, household expenses

(Source: Drawa PRA, 2003)

Cane cutting is a relatively good and reliable source of income for the rural villagers. The income derived from cane cutting depends primarily on the tonnage harvested which in turn is affected by weather conditions, quality of sugarcane stand, prescribed quotas, and the rate of harvesting. The highest amount collected was from Lutukina village where the villagers earned $10,000 over a period of 2 months for the construction of the village community hall. The village cane cutting groups are efficiently organised, through village structures.

The sugar cane farmers normally approach the villagers for a cane harvesting gang. The cane harvesting gang sets up camp on the farmers land and can be away from the village for periods of up to 6 weeks. The cane farmer provides food for the cane cutter during this time. The female family members may be involved during this cane-cutting season as cooks for the cane cutters. However, they do not necessarily stay for the whole duration of the harvesting season with men taking over the cooking chores whilst women return to the village to attend to household duties. In other cases, when there is a large harvesting programme (involving big groups such as yavusa or village gang), the women draw up a housekeeping roster to tend to the cane cutting gang throughout the harvesting season. Women who have schooling children do not normally leave the village for long periods.

None of the mataqali members are cane farmers themselves. In the mid 1990’s, there was a very successful cane farmer (named the cane farmer of the year for the Seaqaqa sector) from Lutukina village (Qalo, R. 1996: p15). Unfortunately, due to unwise business decisions and mounting debts the cane farmer lost his farm and farming equipment, and has since given up farming. This was all within a period of 3 years. Most Drawa people are well aware of this incident and attribute it to poor money management. Most villagers are reluctant to farm sugarcane themselves stating that it is too difficult, time consuming and a full time job that will not allow them to tend to their gardens, and carrying out their traditional and church obligations.

The conversion of crown lease land (schedule A and B) to native land and the review of native lease terms and lease renewals have cast a cloud of insecurity over long-term investment on

native lease land. Most Indo-Fijian farmers are withdrawing from cane farming and around Fiji cane farms are increasingly abandoned. How this lease insecurity affects sugarcane farming in Seaqaqa is yet to be determined but if so, the rural villagers may no longer be able to rely on cane cutting as an income source.

6.4.2 Remittance from working relatives outside village

Relatives working in urban centres contribute up to 50% toward the household and mataqali commitments. These working relatives are mostly in Labasa and the major towns in Viti Levu (Suva, Lautoka, Nadi). The contributions assist towards church levies, Vanua obligations and, at household level, for schooling and large household items, the household cannot otherwise meet. Elderly folks who have children living in urban centres sometimes have money sent to them to meet daily needs.

Working relatives play a major role in the development of these rural villages and it is common to have village /mataqali members residing in urban areas to set up associations to assist their relatives in the rural areas. Unfortunately, there is no such association for any of the villages of the Drawa model area.

6.4.3 Non-timber forest products (NTFP)

Non timber forest products, though often considered marginal forest resources, have a very important function in the lives of the village communities. The main NTFP marketed are from domesticated trees and plants such as citrus, pineapples, bananas and breadfruit, as traditional taboos forbid the sale of the wild products.

Though the medicinal plant properties for the usual illnesses are common knowledge, it is a specially gifted family/person who is endowed with the knowledge of herbal medicines and potions to treat the more difficult and/or mysterious maladies (refer to Annex 1 for NTFP uses). It is against tradition to profit financially from these healings and ‘gifts’ (mats, tabua, goods) and services (such as labour) are the usual form of appreciation.

6.4.3.1 Handicrafts Purely the women’s domain these are mostly mats and baskets, weaved from pandanus and coconut leaves. The mats are for the home, for income generation and for participating in the traditional reciprocity system (exchanged for goods and/or services). The marketing of mats has been declining over the years despite a growing market in urban centres. Women attribute this to difficulties in finding a good market outlet and the high cost of wool to decorate the edges. Women from other parts of the country also state the high cost of pandanus leaves but for the Drawa women (especially Keka) this is at present not a problem as they have enough pandanus trees to harvest. There are plans to expand current pandanus plantations and establish new ones, in response to the lucrative market for mats.

Kuta mats, made from soft sedge (Elaeocharis plantaginea, Cyperaceae), are the more special mats fetching a good price in the markets. These sedges are not very common the Drawa model

area and women (mainly from Keka village) harvest these from outside the model area close to the Wailevu coast. Unlike the pandanus mats, most of the women are unfamiliar with the weaving of kuta.

Women sell the handicrafts individually at the major markets or made upon request. The sale of handicrafts is only to subsidise the income derived from agriculture. Men are not involved in any form of handicraft.

6.5 Bartering and reciprocity

Drawa and Vatuvonu village are still actively bartering. Wild foods from the forest are bartered with specific foods, normally marine produce from the south (Wailevu coast) or farm produce from the North (Seaqaqa). Pork or prawns are bartered for marine fish; dalo or yams are bartered for rice; vegetables (ota, duruka, rourou) are bartered for sugar and flour. Bartering is particularly vigorous when the villages are hosting a function, such as a wedding or church meet, when a variety of dishes are desired for the menu. Mats are another commonly bartered item in rural villages. These are usually bartered for household items and linen (pots, plates, blankets, sheets, mosquito net) with bartering taking place with or through relatives in urban areas. The bartering of produce has almost disappeared in Batiri and Nayarailagi village where goods are marketed for cash rather than exchanged for other produce.

The presentation of ‘gifts’, such as crops, mats, tabua and yaqona, is the traditional remuneration for herbal medicines, traditional healings, and other traditional services and tasks rendered. Traditional reciprocity is based on a ‘gift’ system where all exchanges of goods and services are treated as gifts and in which negotiation plays no part. The ‘gift’, depends on the service provided, with a tabua signifying a high level of acknowledgment (or request if seeking assistance). Cash is seen as impersonal and not appropriate for such traditional exchanges.

7. ISSUES AND CONCERNS

7.1 Environmental concerns

7.1.1 Agriculture practices

The Drawa model area, with its high rainfall and steep slopes, is very susceptible to erosion upon clearing of the vegetation cover. Agriculture activities, now expanded to semi-commercial scale, are the main reason for forest clearance. Erosions and landslips are common, especially from faces of steep slopes cleared for yaqona gardens. Unsustainable land use practices continue despite the land users of the Drawa area observing firsthand its detrimental effects.

The increasing cultivation of cash crops has farmers clearing more forest areas, despite the abundance of restored fallow areas in the model area. This is mainly because: ! The soils under these forest areas are identified as more suitable for yaqona than the soils of the previously cultivated areas ! Forest areas are easier to clear than areas with secondary vegetation of entwined creepers and vines ! Mind-set amongst villagers that land is unlimited, therefore leading to its squander ! The higher monetary value placed on agriculture crops over forest trees ! The preference for planting yaqona on steep slopes

The unsustainable cultivation on steep slopes may be attributed to the lack of knowledge on technologies and practices appropriate for such terrain at a semi-commercial scale. It is however encouraging to note that recently the Drawa resource owners have curbed their forest clearing, as they increasingly appreciate the financial potential of their forest timber. Cultivation is now contained mainly on existing cleared areas and fallow sites. Apparently, the main driving force for the sustainable utilisation of forests is its financial benefits. The Drawa resource owners are now recognising two main income sources from their land: agriculture and timber.

With accessibility as an important criterion for garden site selection, the improved access into the model area (logging tracks and roads) will result in more gardens springing up in the area. Appropriate (environmentally suitable) agriculture sites and land use technologies need to be quickly identified and demarcated to contain these agricultural activities.

7.1.2 Specific areas for protection

The threatened cycad and palm species, Cycas seemannii and Physokentia thurstonii respectively, should be captured under a protected area. Community awareness on these species is needed as the larger Drawa populace is ignorant of its threatened status, making it vulnerable to agriculture clearing and logging.

Protected forest areas, designated a ‘protected’ status by the Forestry Department, covers about a third of the Drawa model area. With guidelines of a forest management plan and a land use plan, land clearing activities (such as roading) in these vulnerable areas are to be either prohibited, or kept to a minimum. Sites and artefacts of historical significance require protection and conservation. These include:

! the stone davui or heralding bugle of Drawa village (plate 3) ! the old village site with its human pen (bai ni bokola) for keeping prisoners for purpose of human sacrifice and sometimes consumption ! a stone in the form of pig (riveting legend behind this) ! koroniyalewa is an old village site with a remnant house foundation (believed to still house 3 sisters who do not allow men who sleep in the site to leave) ! vuvu ni uca – a ridge on Navunicau with remnant sacrificial stones, it is believed that the rain gods dwell here.

Figure 25. Sites of historical significance and interest

(Source: Drawa PRA, 2002)

Plate 3. Davui vatu – Drawa village

(Photos: R.J. Blank, 2004) Heralding stone (davui vatu). Used in the olden days to call people together or warn of tribal invasions

7.1.3 Role of taboos

Mistakes have been made by simply assuming that indigenous people have a strong conservation ethic that will keep them from overusing resources, such as wildlife. The strength of taboos hinges on the cohesion of the vanua. Once this breaks down (through increased individualism; leasing out land to non-mataqali members, increased settling of outsiders in the area) the hold the vanua has over its people weakens.

To some, the taboos on the commercialisation of wild foods seem archaic, given the potential of improving their livelihoods through capital held up in these resources. On the other hand, if this escalates to the exploitation of the resource, then taboos play an important role in conserving these resources. This is as observed with the moratoriums placed periodically on prawn marketing and prawn harvesting in Keka and Vatuvonu village respectively. These taboos are not permanent in time and space and may be removed either upon replenishment of food resources or end of given periods, such as the breeding season.

As seen in Drawa, the total ban on commercialisation of wild foods does not prevent its marketing entirely. Adherence to such taboos, though still intact in the interior villages, is slowly deteriorating in the fringing villages. Few villagers have started marketing ota and prawns but this is surreptitiously carried out, on a small scale. Interestingly, it is the outside women, married into the Drawa mataqali, who admit to this.

Ironically, the taboo placed on commercialisation of all natural products, despite all its noble intensions, may actually encourage unsustainable land use practices and social problems through: ! increased forest clearing for cash food crops to compensate for the restricted wild foods, ! increased confrontations with traditional authorities as improved access encourages the illicit marketing of the banned resources, ! decreased sense of ‘value’ attached to these restricted wild foods as they are regarded to have no monetary value.

Under the current conditions (money driven economy, fragmentation of traditional ties, increased flow of outsiders into the model area, etc.), effective awareness, closer monitoring, and stringent mechanisms should be in place to ensure observance of such taboos. Whilst traditional laws play an important role in resource conservation, these have always been in response to the needs of the vanua. So if present socio-economical conditions call for a review of these taboos, then it is imperative that the essence of the taboo is conserved, that is, the maintenance of wild foods/forest products, for the benefit of present and future generation.

7.2 Socio-economic Issues

Drawa (and Vatuvonu) village is the most traditional of the Drawa mataqali and the impact the new road (accessing Drawa village to peri-urban and commercial centres) will have on the village would make an interesting and valuable study. These include farming practices, observance of marketing taboos, daily diet make up, communal activities and migration into the model area. Most Drawa mataqali members have set up homes closer to schools (Lutukina, Seaqaqa, Dreketi) due to transportation difficulties. With the road, there is a possibility they will return to the village. This improved access will result in increased land use activities, larger social groupings and higher pressure and demand on resources. The effect this will have on traditional land use arrangements will need monitoring.

Even though increasing cash cultivation has seen the indiscriminate clearing of forest areas, the clearings do not encroach into traditional taboo sites. These are still respected and protected.

7.2.1 Traditional institutions and norms

Traditional institutions play an important role in ensuring a minimal level of food security and safety net for most of the vulnerable groups. Their strength or weakness is often associated with relatively greater or lesser levels of social capital68 and intra community conflict. This is evident from the increased commercialisation, which encourages individualism. Solidarity and reciprocity, the key elements in household livelihood strategies and community cohesion, are slowly taken over by units that are more independent, with a self-sufficiency strengthened by cash availability.

Where once traditional institutions (yavusa and vanua) had a great say in the utilisation of mataqali lands, mataqali are now increasingly exercising their legal authority over their land, leading to a more autonomous mataqali unit. In the Drawa model area villages, traditional protocol

68 The norms (reciprocity, trust), networks and social relations embedded in social structures (local institutions) of society that enable people to coordinate action and achieve desired goals - Putman, Coleman and North, World Bank Social Capital Initiative

is still followed, where all decisions regarding mataqali land is in consultation with other yavusa members. This bond however, is fragmenting amongst mataqali living in urban and peri urban areas, as shown in the case with mataqali Bakibaki (residing in Suva) and their yavusa Drawa.

7.2.2 Effects of Commercialisation

7.2.2.1 Individualism Drawa village is the only village where communal labour on the individual’s garden is still practised. In Keka, Lutukina, Batiri and Nayarailagi, each household looks after their own with higher farming inputs, such as chainsaws, pesticides, and fertilisers, applied. The intensifying need for higher crop production has driven farmers to invest more on their gardens through the acquisition of farming equipment and materials. At the higher end of the semi-commercial production scale, individuals are able to build up provisions and self-sufficient income sources. This lessens the individual farmer’s reliance on communal support and ‘frees’ them from the obligatory reciprocity-system, customary when rendering and receiving such services. Conversely, villagers are increasingly opting for cash remuneration for services provided.

In some rural areas, the increasing independence, instigated and strengthened by cash economies and supporting infrastructure, has caused households to detach from the village to settle independently on their mataqali land (tiko vakagalala). This has not yet occurred in the Drawa model area.

In the peri-urban villages, the purchasing power of the villagers enable them to purchase traditional necessities (mats, tabua, crafts) instead of laboriously producing it. With less reliance on communal networks for the obtainment of these goods, the villagers practice some degree of independence. This purchasing power has also contributed to the loss of traditional knowledge, concerning the manufacture/production of traditional wares and paraphernalia.

7.2.2.2 Land use access

In the subsistence context, traditional practice of sharing land continue to operate but once commercial interests become dominant, legally registered status takes over as the guiding principle for land use. (Ward 1995)

Greater demand for land has led to traditional land agreements being challenged and land accessibility to non-mataqali members restricted. In Batiri village, population pressures, intensifying cash cropping and limited arable land, are building up to the displacement of the mataqali Nakalounivuaka members (of Batiri village). The Batiri mataqali landowners now declare ‘their land as theirs only’ and revoke past traditional agreements as obsolete, given the current livelihood demands. The non-mataqali land users argue that existing traditional arrangements are perpetually binding. State laws overrule customary laws in such matters.

Vatuvonu villagers, Drawa villagers, Nasiciva settlement (Koroni land) and mataqali Nakalounivuaka (Batiri village) all utilise land under traditional agreements and arrangements. The continuance of such arrangements depends largely on honouring traditional ties and the stability of the vanua structures.

7.2.2.3 Diet Annex 4 provides information on the daily diet of Keka, Vatuvonu and Lutukina villages, as given by their women. A detailed analysis of this information is beyond the scope of this report. The mataqali from Drawa, Nakalounivuaka and Koroni were missed out, as there were not enough available women to participate in the survey.

The survey of daily household consumption revealed stark differences in the diet of the villagers. The mataqali Vulavuladamu of Keka village consumes more store-bought food and less wild/ cultivated foods than the households in Lutukina and Vatuvonu. An adult of a Keka household consumes an average of $21 worth of wild foods per week, for mataqali Nakase in Lutukina village consumption per adult is about $42 and in Vatuvonu village about $106. With mataqali Vulavuladamu made up of many households, two households from the mataqali were interviewed to ensure that the household details were a fair representation for the mataqali, and even village. The average value of wild/ cultivated foods consumed in 1 week per adult compared fairly ($22.14 and $20.05).

The difference in the dietary make-up reflects the differing socio-economic conditions of the villages. Factors affecting the daily household consumption include: 1. the wild foods available 2. degree of observance of traditional taboos 3. market value of wild foods 4. market access 5. accessibility of the villages to stores 6. division of labour during food gathering.

The high consumption of store-bought food in Keka village is mainly due to the high market value placed on wild foods. Despite the abundance of prawns and seafood available in Keka, not much is consumed as they fetch very attractive prices in the market. It is a prime source of income for the women. As the women control the make up of daily household meals, the sacrificing of these produce for the market directly affects the nutrition intake of the household. The sale of fresh water prawns, crabs, mud crabs and mud lobsters, enables the villager to buy cheaper food from the shops (3-minute noodles, biscuits, bread, noodles, tinned meat, tinned fish, and flour) with money still to spare. This way, food quality aside, they get more out of their produce. In addition, the presence of a canteen in Keka village makes it more convenient for the villagers to buy food rather than go through the arduous task of harvesting. In Keka village, mangrove and river produce are consumed once a week, on average. Rice, tinned fish/meat, noodles, flour and sugar appear more frequently on the daily menu. There is a paradox in living standards where increased income from the sale of wild foods usually results in the higher consumption of less healthy processed food.

Neighbouring Vatuvonu on the other hand consumes large quantities of high value (monetary) wild foods (especially prawns). The village is located in an area rich in river produce and with the ban on the marketing of wild foods, money does not influence its consumption. In Vatuvonu and Drawa village, the men often accompany the women to gather food for the household meals. This includes plantation work and fishing. There are no stores in the village.

On average, Lutukina consumes less wild/cultivated foods than Vatuvonu but more than Keka (annex 4). The daily diet in Lutukina is mainly root crops and leafy vegetables. Protein, normally in the form of fish and game meat, is significantly lacking. Compared to Vatuvonu, Lutukina women

have to travel farther to harvest a decent quantity of prawns, partly accounting for the lack of these produce in regular meals. In addition, in Lutukina fishing and prawn harvesting mainly involves only women (In Vatuvonu men help the women).

Figure 26. Food crop/ wild food consumption in Keka, Vatuvonu and Lutukina Village

$45 Lut ukina V illage $40 V at uvonu V illage $35 Keka Village $30

$25 $20

$15

per adult per week $10 Market value consumed $5

$0 Ota Bele Dalo Yams Kumala Rourou Plantain Cassava Eggplant Coconuts Mud crabs Freshwater fish

Food crop/ wild food Freshwater prawns

(Data source: Drawa PRA, 2003)

8. LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1 Non timber forest uses by the Drawa model area mataqali Annex 2 History of land tenure in Fiji – an Overview Annex 3 Overview of Past and Present Land Use in the Drawa Model Area Annex 4 Major crops in the Drawa model area Annex 5 Value of crops and wild foods consumed per mataqali household per week

9. GLOSSARY

Mataqali Clans who are the agnatic69 descendents of a son of the yavusa founder. This is the landowning unit in Drawa Tabu Forbidden, prohibited Tokatoka Extended families belonging to a mataqali; core members are related agnatically to mataqali founder Vanua Formed of the agnatic descendents of a common ancestor or ancestral god, living in the same area. Normally a confederation of yavusa. Vola ni kawa bula Register of Native Landowners Yavusa Tribe of agnatically related members, composed of several mataqali whose members are in turn the agnatic descendents of a son of the yavusa founder

69 related on the father’s side

10. REFERENCES

Boydell, S. 2001. Philosophical perceptions of Pacific property – Land as communal asset in Fiji. In: Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Annual Conference; 21 -24 January, 2001, Adelaide, Australia

Colley, H. and Flint, D.J. 1995. Metallic mineral deposits of Fiji. Suva: Mineral Resources Department: Memoir No. 4

Corbett, G. J. and Leach, T. M. 1998. Southwest Pacific rim gold-copper systems: structure, alteration, and mineralization. USA: Society of Economic Geologists

Department of Forestry. 1999. Forestry facts and figures, Fiji, 1998. Suva: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests, Fiji.

De Vletter, J. and Mussong, M. 2001. Evaluation of inventory data collected in the Drawa model area, Fiji: Final report. Suva: Pacific German Regional Forestry Project report: PHI.02.01

FAO. 1985. Planning for sustainable use of land resources: Towards a new approach. In: UNCED. Agenda 21. Background paper, chapter 10. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Fiji Bureau of Statistics. 2004 http://www.spc.int/prism/country/fj/stats/about_us.htm. Retrieved from the Internet 18 August 2004

Fiji Meteorological Service. 2004 http://www.met.gov.fj. Retrieved from the Internet 10 February 2004

Fiji Mineral Resources Department. 2004. http://www.mrd.gov.fj/gfiji/Index.html. Retrieved from the Internet 12 January 2004

Fung, C. et al. 2001. The people of the Drawa model area: Needs and wants, a participatory rural approach. Suva: Pacific German Regional Forestry Project report: Soc.01.01.

IUCN 2004. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.redlist.org. Retrieved from the Internet 13 December 2004

Larmour, P. 1994. Is there a ‘new’ politics in the South Pacific? p. 3-15. In Busch et al. (eds). New politics in the South Pacific. Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific.

Leslie, D.M. 1997. An introduction to the soils of Fiji. Christchurch, New Zealand: Caxton Press. 182p.

Leslie, D. and Ratukalou, I. 2002. Review of rural land use in Fiji: Opportunities for the new millennium. Suva, Fiji: Oceania Printers. 175p.

Leslie D.M and V.B Seru. 1998. Fiji: Soil taxonomic soil descriptions handbook: Supplement to the national soil map, volumes 1 and 2. Lincoln, New Zealand: Manaaki Whenua Press.

Narayan, J. 1984. The political economy of Fiji. Suva: South Pacific Review Press. 138 p.

Native Lands Commission. 1958. Register of native lands. Fiji: Native Lands Commission

Native Land Trust Board. 2004 http://www.nltb.com.fj. Retrieved from the Internet 04 May 2004

Pacific German Regional Forestry Project. 2004. The Drawa forest management plan – Draft. Suva: Pacific German Regional Forestry Project

Qalo, R. 1996. Socio-economic baseline study report, Drawa: Draft. Suva: Pacific German Regional Forestry Project report: Soc.01.96.

Rakai M.T., Ezigbalike, I.C., and Williamson, I.P. 1995 Traditional land tenure issues for LIS in Fiji. The University of Melbourne, Australia. http://www.sli.unimelb.edu.au/research/publications/IPW/ipw_paper25.html. Retrieved from the Internet 24 August 2004

Ratu, T. 1998. Gender baseline study, Drawa model area villages, Vanua Levu. Suva: Pacific German Regional Forestry Project report: Gen.01.98.

Ratuva, S, 2002. Anatomizing the Vanua complex: Intra-communal land disputes and implications on the Fijian community. In: Transforming land conflict. Proceedings of the FAO/USP/RICS Foundation South Pacific Land Tenure Conflict Symposium, 10-12 April 2002, Suva Fiji. Suva: University of the South Pacific

Tuiwawa, M. 1999. Floristic survey of the native forest catchment in Cakaudrove province, Vanua Levu, Fiji. Suva: Pacific German Regional Forestry Project technical report: Bot.02.99

Tuiwawa, M. 2000. Botanical study report, Drawa model area, Vanua Levu. Suva: Pacific German Regional Forestry Project report: Bot.02.00

Tuiwawa, M. and Korovulavula I. 2000. Ethnobotanical study report, Drawa model area, Vanua Levu. Suva: Pacific German Regional Forestry Project report: Bot.03.00

Watling, D. 2003. Assessment of logging in the Drawa model area, Cakaudrove, Vanua Levu. Suva: Pacific German Regional Forestry Project report: Env.01.03

Ward, R.G. 1995. Land, law and custom: diverging realities in Fiji. p. 198-249. In Ward, R.G. and Kingdon, E. (eds). Land, custom and practice in the South Pacific. Cambridge University Press.

75 Annex 1

Non-timber Forest Uses Identified by the Drawa Model Area Mataqali

Annex 1

Non-timber uses of forest products

Degree Local Name Botanical Name Plant part - Uses User Market of Use (Drawa dialect) Baka ni viti Ficus smithii Bark – diarrhoea 0 Leaves – headaches Balabala Cyathea Lunulata Buds – pillow filling M/F 1-2 0 Bark – flower and house ornament, bure roofing and floor Medicinal: Outside bark – back-ache Buds – postpartum haemorrhage, uterine haemorrhage Bitu Bambusa vulgaris House walls; water vessel (esp. for M/F 1 - 2 0 ceremonial yaqona presentation); clothes line pole, clothes pegs, vase, cooking vessel Bobo Mussaenda raiateensis Medicinal: F/M 3 0 Bark – menstrual pain, ulcers Bua ni viti Fagraea berteroana Garlands, oil perfume F/M 2 0 Medicinal: Bark – high blood pressure Leaves/outside bark- stomach ailments Cau damu Heritiera ornithocephala Medicinal: M/F 3 0 (Rosarosa) Bark – migraines Caukuro (Velau) Gymnostoma vitiense Medicinal: 3 0 Outside bark/bark roots –for ulcers Cevuga Hair dye 1 0 Dawa Pometia pinnata Fruit - consumption 4 0 Doi damu/ Alphitonia franguloides Medicinal: 3 0 selavo Bark – Puerperal sicosis Roots – headache Drove Zingiber zerumbet Roots/Leaves – thrush F/M/C 5 0 Galo Flagellaria indica Baskets, house decoration, binding ropes F/M 2-3 0 for houses

Gasau Reeds Leaves – house thatching M 2-3 0 Kavika Syzygium malaccense Fruit - consumption F/M/C 4 0 Medicinal: Bark/buds/leaves – thrush Outside bark – back-ache Koka Bischofia javanica Medicinal: F/M/C 3 0 Bark – thrush Kuluva Dillenia biflora Medicinal: M/F 3 0 Bark – over working/ stress Kura Morinda citrifolia Medicinal: M/F 3 0 Leaves – cuts, body aches Bark – high blood pressure Fruit – diabetes Kuta Elaeocharis plantaginea, Mats F 4 3 Cyperaceae Lantana Lantana camara Medicinal: M/F/C 4 0

KEY User: M – Male, F - Female; C - Children Degree of Use: - 1 (hardly ever used) – 3 (sometimes) - 5 (used frequently) Market: - 0(never) – 3(sometimes) - 5(often); NA (not allowed) Annex 1

Degree Local Name Botanical Name Plant part - Uses User Market of Use (Drawa dialect) Leaves - Thrush (strained with kavika leaves); cuts (stops bleeding) Losilosi Ficus pritchardii Medicinal: C/FM 4 0 Leaves - thrush (esp. children) Macou Cinnamomum sp. Outside bark – fragrance for body oil; food F 2 0 spice Makita Atuna racemosa Seeds - hair dye (pounded) F 3 0 Bark - boat driving pole, spear (fishing), axe and spade handles, digging implement, roof thatching Makosoi Cananga odorata Oil perfume; garlands F 3 0 Malawaci Buchanania attenuata Medicinal: C/M/F 3 0 Outside bark/bark - scraped for ringworm Kaudamu Male Myristica Fruit – baking powder for puddings F 2 0 sp.(castaneifolia, chartacea, macrantha) Maqo Mangifera indica Medicinal: F/M 5 0 Outside bark/bark - diarrhoea Mawu Outside bark/leaves - fragrance for body F 3 0 oil Niu Cocos nucifera Trunk - house posts F/M 5 0 Leaves – fans, baskets; brooms, handicraft Nut - body and cooking oil, consumption Husk: roping fibre; strainer

Ota Diplazium dilatatum Subsistence consumption F 5 NA (bartered with produce from sea with coastal villages seashore) Qiqila Micromelum minutum Medicinal: F/M 5 0 Leaves – sore throat infection, cuts Quwawa Psidium guajava Fruit - consumption F/M 5 0 Medicinal: Leaves – stomach ache (constipation) Sa Parinari insularum Medicinal: M/F 3 0 Outside bark – asthma Salato Laportea harveyi Medicinal: Bark Takataka / Branch – clothes pegs F 2-3 0 Taqataqa Medicinal: Leaves – menstrual pain Roots – joints/pain, muscular cramps Tarawau Dracontomelon vitiense Fruit - consumption F/M/C 5 0 Uci Euodia hortensis f. Bark/leaves – for steam bath F/M 5 0 simplicifolia Flowers – fragrance for body oil; garlands Uvi, kumala, Dioscorea Consumption F/M 3 0 tivoli Vadra Pandanus tectorius. Bone fracture and dislocation F/M/C 4 0

Vakaceredavui Tarenna sambucina Medicinal: F/M 3 0 Bark – cleanse after birth for women; stomach cleansing for children Non-timber uses of Forest Products

Degree Local Name Botanical Name Plant part - Uses User Market of Use (Drawa dialect) Varawa Mats – plain large only (coco) F/M 4 3 Vau Hibiscus tiliaceus Bark –sieve for yaqona and oils; F/M 3 Ceremo- nies only ceremonial garments; garlands Vesi Intsia bijuga Medicinal: F/M 2-3 0 Outside bark - cleanse stomach Vacea Neonauclea sp. Bark – cough medicine, asthma F/M 3 0 Voivoi Pandanus cultivars All types of mats, baskets F/M 4 0 Vono Alyxia bracteolosa Oil perfume; garlands 4 Wabosucu Mikania micrantha Medicinal: F/M/C 5 0 Leaves/bark – stomach-ache, cuts (stop bleeding) Walai Entada phaseoloides Medicinal: Leaves – measles (steam bath) C 3 0 Bark –sexual stress in men when having M 3 0 relationship with older women (dogai) Wamere Binding ropes for houses, trays, baskets F/M 3 3

Wamidri Stenochlaena palustris Medicinal F/M 3 0 Wamodiri Medicinal: M/F 3 0 Creeper – diabetes (pounded with kava roots) Wavoti Ipomea congesta Medicinal: F/M 3 0 Creeper – cleanse stomach Wi Spondias dulcis Fruit - consumption F/M/C 4 0 Leaves – consumption outside bark – cooked with fatty food to reduce fattiness (like vinegar) Medicinal: Bark/leaves/fruit- thrush

Yaro Premna taitensis Medicinal: F/M 3 0 Leaves, outside bark – headache (migraine) Yavu lolo Medicinal: F/M/C 3 0 Leaves/bark –migraine, Buds - asthma, cough

KEY User: M – Male, F - Female; C - Children Degree of Use: - 1 (hardly ever used) – 3 (sometimes) - 5 (used frequently) Market: - 0(never) – 3(sometimes) - 5(often); NA (not allowed) Annex 2

History of Land Tenure in Fiji - An Overview

By Christine Fung

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Protection of native lands...... 1

2. Land ownership and registration ...... 1 2.1 Pre-cession landholdings...... 1 2.2 Standardising Land Tenure ...... 3 2.3 Land registration...... 3 2.3.1 Implications ...... 3 2.4 The standard social hierarchy model...... 4

3. Land use pattern ...... 5

4. Conclusions ...... 6

5. Bibliography...... 7

Annex 2

1. PROTECTION OF NATIVE LANDS

In Fiji, the “traditional” communal land tenure has been shown to be not entirely traditional but products of colonial selection and amplification of earlier precedents (Larmour 1994). Prior to the British colonial rule a punishment. Powerful chiefs had power to give and take land away. With increased settling of European farmers in Fiji in the 1860’s land dealings became rampant especially between chiefs and European beachcombers. Land was freely given away or sold by chiefs and also illicitly claimed by settlers. In response to this, the then Governor of colonial Fiji, Sir Arthur Gordon, put a stop to all land dealings and in 1875, prohibited the sale of all Fijian land. Gordon’s wish to protect Fijians from the risk of losing the bulk of their land stemmed in part from his belief that if a ‘native race’ were to be preserved, it must be permitted to retain its native lands’ (Ward 1995). Government land and labour policies of the 1870s and 1880s were designed to protect Fijians from loss of their land and from the social disruption, which, it was thought, would follow such loss. As native land needed to be first recorded and registered, the Native Land Commission (NLC) was set up in 1880, as an authority to settle boundaries and to enquire and investigate claims to land by indigenous landowners. The non-alienability of native land was formalised in an Ordinance of 1912, which states, “native land shall not be alienated by native landowners whether by sale, grant or exchange except to the Government of the Colony”. “Native land” is defined as land above the high water mark, not being freehold nor owned by the State in accordance with the provisions of the Crowns Lands Act (http://www.nltb.com.fj).

In the early 1930’s the leasing of native land was fast increasing and the growing population of Indian farmers were in need of land. The crucial issue was to meet this demand, without compromising the land rights of the native landowners. Also concerning was the independent land dealings carried out by individual clans, resulting in widely varied lease terms. The Governor at that time, Sir Arthur Richards, proposed establishing a central body to hold the land in trust, and lease it to willing farmers on terms that would be uniform throughout Fiji (http://lala-sukuna.biography.ms/). Ratu Sir Lalabalavu Sukuna also earlier suggested this concept. To push the proposal through, Ratu Sukuna extensively and intensively lobbied mataqali groups around the country on the need for this central body. Finally, after a long and vigorous debate, the Great Council of Chiefs approved the scheme in what Sir Philip Mitchell, the then Governor, described as "one of the greatest acts of faith and trust in colonial history". In 1940, the Native Land Trust Board was established and appointed as legal custodian of all native lands in Fiji. The Native Land Trust Act of 1940 was modelled in part on the Native Lands Ordinance of 1927 of the Gold Coast (Ghana) as amended in 1930. It sought to regulate the leasing of native land, make more land available to non-Fijians (or to Fijians who wished to farm on land over which an individual lease title was registered), and to reserve sufficient land solely for Fijian use to ensure that communities could continue to maintain their exiting lifestyle. Section 4(i) of the NLTB Act states that “control of all native land shall be vested in the Board and all such land shall be administered by the Board for the benefit of the Fijian landowners”. It became illegal to lease native land except through the NLTB.

2. LAND OWNERSHIP AND REGISTRATION

2.1 Pre-cession landholdings Land usage was a strong marker for ownership. Whilst the forest was seen as belonging to the larger social group, once a plot was cultivated, this land was regarded as the property of the land user, who most

1 History of Land Tenure in Fiji – an Overview

commonly was an individual or a household. Even though land was held communally in Fiji, land use was actually more individualistic (or by household, tokatoka).

Thomson, one of the early Native Lands Commissioners, recorded three basic categories of land to which different groups or individuals might hold different types of rights (1908). 1) The veikau or forest is regarded as the domain of the broadest social or settlement unit, often now equated as the yavusa. The boundary of the community veikau is not clearly defined with control over the area decreasing with increasing distance from the village. Use of veikau is open to all villages but subject to approval of the chief. 2) The qele or qele ni teitei (garden land) is a cultivated piece of veikau. The land user, which is either a household or tokatoka, holds land rights to the piece of land cultivated. This land right remains in the hands of the household or extended family as long as it is under continued use (Ward 1995). 3) When land is abandoned and allowed to fallow, the land users land rights over the unused land diminishes with time. Eventually, the land could revert to forest, become veikau, and once more revert to the general control of the maximal lineage group whence it could again be separated for use as qele.

Figure 1 Customary Land use in Fiji, Pre-Cession

Yavusa ownership Available to all villagers Claim over veikau declines with distance from village

VEIKAU (Forest)

Reverts Cleared for cultivation

Fallow land Qele ni Land rights of Teitei Household/family cultivation previous user (Garden diminish with time land) Cultivated plot regarded as belonging (usufruct) to household or family As long as land is used, land rights is with the cultivator Abandoned

(Information from Ward 1995; diagram own)

2 Annex 2

2.2 Standardising Land Tenure In the late 1870s, the colonial administrators set about identifying a standard land tenure system for Fiji and the subsequent registration of landholding units. When chiefs were consulted on setting up a common land tenure system during the chief’s council meeting in 1878, leading chiefs from Ba, Bua and Lau advocated the dividing of land in portions to the people, so that each individual would have his own allotment. The council also went further and resolved that the land be divided among the occupants according to the families of the landholders (Ward, 1995). Government did not accept the council’s proposal for individual holdings as it was seen (mistakenly so) to go against the customary communal tenure. In fact, the chiefs’ proposal was closer in a number of respects to contemporary practice of land allocation and use at the time, and to ‘ownership’ in a European sense, than was Gordon’s communal idea (Ward 1995). Lengthy discussions in Native Council meetings over the customary land tenure showed clearly that there was no single system per se.

Eventually, at the 1879 meeting, the chiefs under considerable pressure, declared that the true ownership lay with the mataqali. Therefore, the “mataqali landownership” tenure system was codified despite all debate in earlier meetings pointing to smaller units, or even individuals, as the prime landholding units. In 1880, the first Native Land Ordinance was gazetted and the first version of the orthodox model was enshrined in law.

2.3 Land registration In the early 1900s, the colonial government-appointed Lands Commissioner, G.V. Maxwell, forged forward with the model of the mataqali land ownership. Maxwell produced the first branching diagram of the vanua, yavusa, mataqali and tokatoka system. Maxwell felt that with the system, ‘boundaries of their (Fijians) land are obtained without difficulty and the disputes are easy to settle…’ (Ward 1995). The fact that the some tenureship arrangements could not be accommodated in the model did not deter Maxwell, who simply re- interpreted these ‘wayward’ arrangements on the model framework.

During the initial registration (1900’s), Commissioners (of the Native Lands Commission) appointed to ascertain land ownership and registration were met with resistance as Fijian councils who were charged with assisting, were unwilling to do so as registration of land could remove one of their main roles, adjudicating on land disputes (Ward 1995). In addition, there were numerous reports from commissioners that people wanted landholdings registered in the name of tokatoka or its local equivalents rather than mataqali. This was resisted by government as they felt such an exercise was too costly and would take too long. With growing demand for more land for non-Fijians, pressure for an expeditious land registration mounted, and so the Native Lands Commission pushed on using the mataqali ownership model.

2.3.1 Implications

Owing to the mobility of tribes and alienability of land, pre-colonialism, present patterns of land allocation reflect the situation during the land registration period. Claims therefore that current records of land occupation have been thus since time immemorial cannot be sustained (Ward 1995).

The demarcating of boundaries and registration of names resulted in the fixating of landowning groups to their registered land. As Ward (1995) reports: “The fixing of the boundaries of the land that the NLC decided

3 History of Land Tenure in Fiji – an Overview

belonged to each mataqali, and the registration of the names of members of each owning group, legally removed flexibility of older arrangements. The formal freezing of landholdings and landowning units by NLC registration made the older mechanisms for redistribution of land extra-legal. Mataqali with large holdings but declining membership may live beside others with limited land but burgeoning numbers. The resulting inequalities are less likely to be eased by customary means. If a mataqali increased or decreased in size, the land it owned could not change. If the group died out, its land would revert to the Crown. This was a major change as formerly the land of an extinct mataqali would have become available for use by other people in the area.”

2.4 The standard social hierarchy model Following from the application of the mataqali ownership model for registering native land, the Native Land Commission in 1939, formulated and endorsed a standard Fijian social hierarchy framework. This framework, now firmly established in law, outlines the social structural framework for native landholding. It secures ownershipÅ of a marked land to a mataqali and their agnatic descendents.

Figure 2 Standard Fijian social hierarchy

VANUA Headed by Turaga-Taukei

YAVUSA (Tribe) Headed by Turaga-ni-qali

MATAQALI (Clan) Headed by Turaga-ni-mataqali

i-TOKATOKA (Smaller clan - household)

Ravuvu (in Ward 1995) describes the standard Fijian hierarchy of social groups as follows: at the apex is the Vanua formed of agnatic descendents of a common ancestor or ancestral god living in the same general area. Each Vanua would have one or more yavusa, the members of agnatic lineage. The yavusa is composed of several mataqali whose members are in turn the agnatic descendents of a son of the yavusa founder. Within each mataqali are one or more extended families, or tokatoka, whose core members would be related according to the same principles. Although common descent provides the basis of membership at all levels, others can be included ‘socially or legally’ in the group to the extent that some people consider

Å It should be noted that the term ‘ownership” is loosely used. Mataqali ownership of land does not bestow individuals with land ownership but rather with customary land use rights. Boydell and Shah refer to case reports where the courts declared that the mataqali did not have legal personality and thus could not give others the right of representing it when it does not have such a right itself. The legal system recognises NLTB as the legal owner and the rightful litigant for all claims regarding native land (Boydell and Shah 2003). This is still a contentious issue amongst Fijian landowners and such legal precedents have not prevented the mataqali from pursing individual legal land rights as opposed to the power solely vested in NTLB.

4 Annex 2 themselves to belong to one mataqali for traditional reasons, even though they are registered officially as members of another mataqali.

Ward describes the hierarchical structure above to be a “simplified representation of reality, not a portrayal of the diversity of reality” (Ward, 1995). Way back in 1878, the Buli Serua asserted that his father, himself, and his son all belonged to different mataqali, an impossibility under the model of agnatic mataqali. Some areas had no tokatoka units, others had no mataqali and some villages were in mataqali units only, no yavusa. In western Vanua Levu, some societies were matrilineal with some land rights also following the matrilineal relationship.

Mid-nineteenth-century practice differed from the above orthodox structure in three main aspects: i) Mobility of people: tribes rarely remained in the land that they were founded on. Tribal wars, shifting agriculture, natural disasters and merging with other tribes; were some of the reasons Fijian tribes moved around. Thomson (1908) asserts that the “Fijians had no territorial roots. It is not to say that no tribe now occupies the land held by its fathers two centuries ago. They are united by consanguinity, not by joint ownership of the soil” (Ward 1995). ii) Alienability and transferability of land: the frequency and widespread nature of the movement of the people and settlements also indicates that land was transferred temporarily or alienated permanently in pre-contact times (Ward, 1995). Alienability of land as understood by the indigenous owner also differed from the western understanding. The native system commonly alienated the use of land, a more usufruct arrangement. Ownership to land was thus not meant in the western sense of freehold. It was land use rights that were transferred, until the occupants need it. iii) The level within the social hierarchy at which land was ‘owned’: As mentioned in section 2.1 whilst the veikau or forest, was deemed to be held in the name of the broad yavusa, the qele was recognised as belonging to the extended family or the individual who had cleared and planted it and it lay under their authority while crops and veimada rights remain. (Ward 1995).

3. LAND USE PATTERN

There have been wide discrepancies in land tenure arrangements actually practiced and the standard ‘customary’ system, legally codified in acts and ordinances. The registration of the mataqali, as the landholding unit, came with the assumption that land use also followed this landholding tenure. Observations, pre and post registration, in fact contradicted this. Land users were in fact not bound by mataqali land boundaries and households were seen to be the main land use unit. Land ownership and use were often not in accord (Ward 1995).

Studies by Ward (1995) in the late 1950s in isolated Saliadrau (interior Serua), Sote village (Tailevu North) and Nabudrau village (lower Rewa river delta), showed the village households planting according to ecological conditions and accessibility rather than ownership. The practice was also observed by other researchers in other parts of Fiji (Belshaw, 1964). This land use pattern suggested the continuing pre- registration practice where land rights are largely determined by the establishment of qele-ni teitei (figure 1).

However, one of the villages with extensively established coconut plantations (Sasa village, northwest coast Vanua Levu), showed landowners discouraging fellow villagers from using their mataqali land. Three

5 History of Land Tenure in Fiji – an Overview

decades later, a follow up survey of the villages visited in the 1950s by Ward indicated a similar changing pattern in land use. The survey revealed a decrease in the number of planters utilising non-mataqali land and this was more evident for villages with improved urban access. The increasing reluctance of the mataqali to allow non-members to use their land stemmed mainly from population pressure and commercial aspirations (Ward 1995).

Current trend in Fiji reveal landowners becoming increasingly possessive over their land. Whilst the traditional practice of sharing land continue to operate in the subsistence context, legally registered status takes over as the guiding principle for land use once commercial interests become dominant. As commercial agriculture becomes more important and the commodification of land increase, landowners are less willing to allow others to use their land without payment especially when commercial or long-term crops are involved (Ward 1995). The establishment of long-term crops by a non-mataqali is seen as a threat by landowning mataqali, because of customary implications. The long-term crops tie up the areas as qele ni teitei, removing it from the common veikau pool, thereby giving the land user authority over the land. This practice using customary mechanisms to secure long-term and exclusive individual access is one of the emerging reasons for a mataqali’s hesitation in granting free access to their registered land, especially to fellow yavusa members, who customarily have this access right.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The current land tenure framework is an adaptation and modification of pre-colonial tenure systems and not a long-standing traditional arrangement. With the rapid socio-economic changes in the turn of the 20th century, the colonial administrators saw the need to put in place a tenure system that served to protect native lands. The mechanism to do this was by legally ensuring the non-alienability of native land. This prompted the registration of land boundaries and ownerships, and in the process a framework for landownership, now considered the standard model for Fijian social hierarchy, was developed. This structure is a greatly simplified version of the diverse and complex Fijian social customs and land traditions that existed during pre-registration days.

A significant development in the Fijian tenurial system was the establishment of the Native Land Trust Board. The NLTB is the legal custodian and representative of all native land in Fiji. The Fiji courts have yet to recognise the mataqali as an independent land owning legal entity. This has been a frustrating obstacle for mataqali seeking court redress on unfavourable land negotiations and unfair land use compensations, made by on their behalf by NLTB.

With increasing commercialisation and population pressure, the customary pre-colonial practice of open veikau usage, though still active in some rural villages, is discouraged amongst commercially oriented villagers. Even though current trends indicate land use practices aligning more towards the orthodox model of mataqali land usage, the land use group is the household. Mataqali households are increasingly detaching from the communal structure to set up on individual parcels of land. The need for the individual mataqali member to develop commercially on his mataqali land calls for long-term security, normally obtained through a formal lease (usually an agriculture lease). However, the exorbitant fees charged by NLTB for processing these lease applications have been bitterly criticised by the largely subsistence farming mataqali members and is seen as a deterrent towards improving rural livelihoods.

6 Annex 2

Recurring reports in the media on mataqali dissatisfaction over NLTB representation, the growing individualism amongst villagers and within the mataqali, and, inter alia, the demand for land security may indicate a need to review existing tenure structures. We may need to go back to the preamble of the Native Lands Ordinance No.21 of 1880Å, which stated, “the ‘ancient customs’ would be maintained ‘until the native race be ripe for a division of such community rights among individual”. The colonists envisaged that the ban on alienability of land would be temporary. The ordinance stated did permit landowners to divide their landholdings amongst the individuals of their group, if they wished. The Fijian landowner was provided with the opportunity to own land individually, land that can later transfer to freehold. Because this latitude was rarely, if ever, used, it was removed in the Ordinance No. 21 of 1892 (Ward 1995). Is the time now ‘ripe’ for such structures?

As stated by Boydell and Shah, “…land tenure systems are manmade and they evolve to serve the needs of the people…the system is made to accommodate the particular way of life of the people, laws and most importantly the physical environment.”

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boydell, S. 2001. Philosophical perceptions of Pacific property – Land as communal asset in Fiji. In: Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Annual Conference; 2001 21 -24 January, Adelaide, Australia. University of the South Pacific

Boydell, S. and K. Shah 2003. An inquiry into the nature of land ownership in Fiji. In: The International Association for the Study of Common Property, Second Pacific Regional Meeting, 7-9 September 2003 Brisbane, Australia. University of the South Pacific.

Larmour, P. 1994. Is there a ‘new’ politics in the South Pacific. p. 3-15. In Busch et al. (eds). New politics in the South Pacific. Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific.

Narayan, J. 1984. The political economy of Fiji. South Pacific Review Press. 138 p.

Native Land Trust Board. 2004. http://www.nltb.com.fj. Retrieved from the Internet 04 May 2004

Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna - Biography http://lala-sukuna.biography.ms/. Retrieved from the internet 18 January 2005

Ward, R.G. 1995. Land, law and custom: diverging realities in Fiji. p. 198-249. In Ward, R.G. and Kingdon, E. (eds). Land, custom and practice in the South Pacific. Cambridge University Press.

Å Section 3(iii) of the Ordinance declared that ‘all native land shall be alienable from the native owners to any person not a Fijian except through the Crown and the said lands shall be alienable to the Crown only in cases and under the restrictions hereinafter set forth’.

7 Annex 3

Past and Present Land Use in the Drawa Model Area

DMA PRA, 2002 -2003

Past and Present Land Use in the Drawa Model Area

Past and Present Land use in the Drawa Model Area

Mataqali Land use history Present land user Land <100 years Vatuvonu and Drawa villagers Major land cultivation was in 1962 by Most of the current land utilisation in the model area mataqali Nakalounivuaka of Batiri village, for is by the Vatuvonu villagers planting in the native copra plantation and root crops. Areas reserve in the village locale. At the northern end of targeted were along the Savuni and lower the mataqali bock, the Drawa villagers are actively Nabuasa creek (class lV). planting dalo and steadily moving towards higher ground into protected forest areas (class V rapidly progressing to class Vl). There are other little Bakibaki Bakibaki cultivation pockets along the tracks and creeks, where soil is easy to till, and no clearing is required. The central portion of the Bakibaki land has very little or no activity taking place.

<100 years Vatuvonu villagers Past cultivation has been mostly in the native The Vatuvonu villagers carry out most of the reserve at the north-west tip of the model cultivation in the model area with major activities area. This area opened up during the occurring along the Vatuvonu river and its tributaries. subsidised copra period in the 1960’s, which Yaqona cultivation is expanding to a semi- in turn provided an opportunity for commercial scale and planting is now advancing establishing subsistence gardens. This area towards higher ground from the lower riverbanks. was utilised by the mataqali members Most yaqona plantations are on class VI land. The residing in Batiri village. Farming was active north-western tip of the mataqali lot is also gradually from 1962 but by the early 1970’s planting seeing new activity with the Nakalounivuaka was gradually slowing down due to the lack members of Batiri village slowly establishing yaqona of transportation infrastructure and had and dalo plots in fallow areas of more than 20 years. ceased altogether by the end of 1975. The establishment of the coconut plantation was The centre of the Nakalounivuaka model area on land leased out by the mataqali remains largely untouched. The harvest from the

Nakalounivuaka Nakalounivuaka (Nakalounivuaka) to one of their own traditional reserve, across the river from the village members (ref 4.2). The same mataqali area provides for church commitments. member also leased land from Bakibaki for the same purpose.

In 1997, cultivation resumed in the area with farming of yaqona and dalo. The whole reserve area, including the patch across from Vatuvonu village, is under bush fallow and in most areas reverted to forest.

<100 years Drawa villagers Very little cultivation as tall grass, water Low scale subsistence for household needs. Mixed reeds and poorly drained clayey soil crops planted include, staple roots, vegetable, and dominate the area. Scattered planting along fruits.

Drawa Drawa walking tracks. The whole Drawa mataqali land is under traditional reserve. All produce is for vanua or church needs. Annex 3

Mataqali Land use history Present land user Land <100 years Drawa villagers The whole Nadugumoimoi is under bush Yaqona cultivation on steep slopes by the Drawa fallow where in parts a secondary forest has villagers is rapidly increasing in Nadugumoimoi. been established. The yavusa Drawa has Cultivation of root crops and vegetables in the reserved more than 50% of the area reserved area is for subsistence consumption only. (70.47ha) only for church and vanua obligations. This reserved land is dominated Nadugumoimoi Nadugumoimoi by class lV and V land. <100 years Drawa villagers The top northern end of the lot, close to the Planting in Navunicau by the Drawa villagers is the village (Drawa) is under native reserve. This fastest growing in the model area. The Drawa area is scattered with old plantations from villagers extensively utilise Navunicau land, as the more than a century ago (1800’s). Largely other areas available to the villagers are either under restored secondary forests merge with native reserve (Nadugumoimoi) or not suitable for primary stands. The old cultivation sites are cultivation (heavy clays in Drawa/Drano). Yaqona

Navunicau Navunicau evidenced by the presence of fruit trees and root crops, planted on steep slopes, are steadily (mainly citrus), and tree crops (breadfruit and progressing from subsistence scale to semi- plantain). commercial. The steepland soils of the Lobau series dominate in this area. <100 years Labetia settlement; AOG church members of Lutukina village Coconut plantations established more than Less than 10 per cent of the Koroni model area is 30 years ago flank both sides of the Naua under utilisation, with most activities contained within river, which forms the boundary between the the native reserve. Yaqona, cassava, dalo, bananas, mataqali Koroni and Lutukina land. and kumala are inter-cropped in the coconut Subsistence cultivation in the past 50 years plantations. Quilted on the steep slopes, directly was concentrated in the native reserve area, behind the settlement and the church, are dalo, which covers about 28.5 per cent of the yaqona, and cassava plots with pawpaws lining the Koroni Koroni land. Part of this native reserve has top ridge. never been touched. Along the walking track running through coupe 2 are scattered gardens of root crops and tree crops. Yaqona and root crop plantations are established in the centre of coupe 3. Planting is on a semi- subsistence/ low commercial scale. Nakase households Almost of half of the Nakase land lies under Cultivation in the Nakase model area is inside protected forest. The other half area is “protection forest area”. Yaqona is the primary crop mainly under bush fallow with remnants of planted on these slopes with other root crops in

old dwelling foundations, last inhabited more between. Clusters of root crops are common along

Nakase Nakase than a century ago. In some areas, the riverbanks. These are ‘sideline’ affairs with crops cultivation methods applied then, such as planted casually, along walking tracks, e.g. a stone terracing (plate 2), are still in place. cassava stem inserted here and there. Most fallow areas have been fully restored. Nakase households About two-thirds of the Tonikula model area Subsistence cultivation is mainly along riverbanks is under protection forest. As in Nakase, the with scattered (‘sideline’) plots of root crops and Tonikula land is scattered with old artefacts vegetables along walking tracks. and historical landmarks, mainly near creeks, left behind by inhabitants of more than 100 Tonikula years ago. The bush-fallow areas around the old village sites have lain undisturbed for more than 50 years. Past and Present Land Use in the Drawa Model Area

Mataqali Land use history Present land user Land Bamboo reeds and tall grass with rocky soils Insignificant dominate in Vatucucu Lot 1. Lot 42 is entirely No significant activity in either Lot. Scattered, under native reserve and is largely under ‘sideline’ gardens along creeks by the women of

Lot 42) Lot 42) forest cover. Lutukina village Vatucucu Vatucucu (Lot 1 and (Lot 1 and

<100 years Vulavuladamu households In Vulavuladamu, the lower portions of Cultivation is concentrated on the south-east corner coupes 3, 4 and 6 are lying under bush for of the model area along Laselase creek (coupe 1). over 30 years. Old cultivation sites are also There are no other activities in the model area with along the lower reaches of Laselase and the Vulavuladamu members carrying out most of Wainiqima creek. their planting outside of the model area. In the 1980’s, the then concessionaire, FFI, Vulavuladamu Vulavuladamu carried out logging in parts of coupe 4 and 6.

Annex 4

Major Crops in the Drawa model area

Drawa Model Area PRA, 2003 Annex 4

Market value of crops in the field

Crop Age Number of plants Weight Current local market Total Value in the field price Standing in Field

Mataqali Nakalounivuaka, Nayarailagi village Preferred Market: Labasa Market Other: Seaqaqa market

Yaqona 1 month – 12 2000 ½kg/plant $12.00/kg (waka -roots) months $6.00/kg (lewena - stem) 1 yr - 2 yrs 3000 800g/plant $18/kg/plant 2 yrs - 3 yrs 1000 1 kg/plant

3 yrs and over 2500 2-3 kg/plant (max. 7yrs) Dalo 1 – 5 months 800 $0.70/ kg 6 – 9 months 10,000 $10/ bag (45kg) Cassava 1 – 5 months 4500 6 - 12 months 7000 Banana Less than 1 year 1000 $2.50/bundle – green 1 year 500 $10/bundle – ripe Coconut 20- 30 years $8/ 100 coconuts

Mataqali – Nakase, Lutukina village Preferred Market: Labasa Market Other: Seaqaqa market

Yaqona 3-4 years 40kg/plant $12.00/kg (waka -roots) 20kg waka / 20kg $6.00/kg (lewena - stem) lewena

Dalo 6 – 8 months Labasa market $7.00 - $10.00/ bundle Roadside (Savusavu buyers) $0.90 - $1.00/kg Cassava 7 – 12 months $15 - $20.00/ 50kg bag (middle man) Plantain 1 year $10.00 bundle Yams 9 months $15.00/ basket $5.00/ heap Chillies 8-12 months $1/bowl

Duruka March –May $2.00/bundle (6-8) every year Kumala 3 – 5 months $20/bag (40 - 50kg) Major crops in the Drawa model area

1 Yaqona 1- 3 years 500 2 /2 kg /plant $20/kg 3 - 5 years 3000 4 –5 kg /plant Dalo 7 – 9 months $0.68 /kg or $680 /ton Cassava 1 year $15.00 /bag (45kg)

Plantain 8 – 12 months $5.00 - $10.00 /bundle (10 – 12 bunches) Kumala 3 months $25 - $30/bag (45 kg) Banana 10 – 12 months $6 - $10 bundle

Mataqali – Navunicau/Drawa, Drawa village Preferred Market: Labasa market Other: Seaqaqa market, Savusavu market

Yaqona 1 – 12 months 3000 More than 1 year 7000 $20/plant $21 000 Dalo 8 – 12 months 3000 $3,500

Produce not normally sold Yams 9 months 200 plants $400.00 Plantain 12 months 200 bundles $2000.00 Ota Prawns Bananas 1000 plants $5000.00 Dalo-ni- 200 $100.00 tana Cassava 20 bags $20/bag $400.00 Coconuts 200 acres = 10,000 100 coconuts/$7.00 $0.07 x 300,000 plants @ $0.07/coconut coconuts 30 coconuts /plant $21,000.00 Total = 300,000 coconuts

Mataqali Nakalounivuaka, Nayarailagi village Preferred Market: Labasa Market Other: Seaqaqa market Yaqona 1 month – 12 2000 ½kg/plant $12.00/kg (waka -roots) months $6.00/kg (lewena - stem) 1 yr - 2 yrs 3000 800g/plant $18/kg/plant 2 yrs - 3 yrs 1000 1 kg/plant 3 yrs and over 2500 2-3 kg/plant (max. 7yrs)

Dalo 1 – 5 months 800 $0.70/ kg Annex 4

Crop Age Number of plants Weight Current local market Total Value in the field price Standing in Field Mataqali – Nayarailagi, Batiri village Preferred Market: Labasa Market Other: Seaqaqa market; Roadside 6 – 9 months 10,000 $10/ bag (45kg) Cassava 1 – 5 months 4500 6 - 12 months 7000 Banana Less than 1 year 1000 $2.50/bundle – green 1 year 500 $10/bundle – ripe

Coconut 20- 30 years $8/ 100 coconuts

Mataqali – Nakase, Lutukina village Preferred Market: Labasa Market Other: Seaqaqa market Yaqona 3-4 years 40kg/plant $12.00/kg (waka -roots) 20kg waka / 20kg $6.00/kg (lewena - stem) lewena

Dalo 6 – 8 months Labasa market $7.00 - $10.00/ bundle Roadside (Savusavu buyers) $0.90 - $1.00/kg Cassava 7 – 12 months $15 - $20.00/ 50kg bag (middle man) Plantain 1 year $10.00 bundle

Yams 9 months $15.00/ basket $5.00/ heap Chillies 8-12 months $1/bowl Duruka March –May $2.00/bundle (6-8) every year

Kumala 3 – 5 months $20/bag (40 - 50kg)

Major crops in the Drawa model area

Summary of total crops standing in the field (early 2003)

Estimated plants Crop in the field

Mataqali Nakalounivuaka, Nayarailagi village Yaqona 8,500 Dalo 10, 800 Cassava 11,500 Banana 1,500 Coconuts Mataqali – Nakalounivuaka, Batiri village Yaqona 3,500 Mataqali – Nakase, Lutukina village Yaqona 1,800 Dalo 800 Cassava 500 Plantain Mataqali – Vulavuladamu, Keka village Yaqona 1,900 Dalo 2,100 Cassava 1,650 Mataqali – Vatucucu, Vatuvonu village Yaqona Dalo 1,800 Cassava 1,100 Pineapples 2,000 Mahogany 50 Mataqali – Navunicau/Drawa, Drawa village Yaqona 10,000 Dalo 3,000 Produce not normally sold by Drawa villages (due to poor access) Yams 200 Plantain 100 Bananas 1,000 Dalo-ni-tana 200 Cassava 200 Coconuts 300,000 200 acres = 10,000 plants @ 30 coconuts /plant

Annex 5

Value of food crops and wild foods consumed per mataqali household per week

Drawa Model Area PRA, 2003 Value of food crops and wild foods consumed per mataqali household per week

Typical 1 week menu for household of mataqali Vulavuladamu (1)

Mataqali Vulavuladamu - 2 Adults; 1 Four-year old child

Meal Source Consumption of natural Day Meal Naturally existing Planted Store bought produce Day 1 Breakfast Rice, tea, sugar Lunch coconuts, Cassava, rourou, 2 cassava roots freshwater fish ½ bundle rourou 2 coconuts 3 medium size fish Dinner Mud crabs, Cassava 4 mud crabs coconuts 2 cassava roots 2 coconuts Other Oranges, 6 oranges Sugarcane Day 2 Breakfast Tea, flour, sugar oil (pancakes) Lunch Coconuts Bele, dalo 2 dalo 1 bundle bele 1 coconut Dinner Dalo, eggplant Curry, oil tinned fish 2 dalo roots 1heap eggplant Day 3 Breakfast Coconuts Flour, baking powder, 1 coconut tea, sugar Lunch Plantain (vudi) Tea, sugar 4 vudi Dinner Rice, curry, noodles, tinned fish Day 4 Breakfast Tea, flour, sugar, oil, baking powder (pancakes) Lunch Eggplant Rice, curry 3 large eggplants Dinner Freshwater fish, Dalo 4 fish coconuts 2 coconuts 2 dalo Day 5 Breakfast coconuts Rice, tea, sugar 2 coconuts Lunch coconuts Rourou, cassava 1 bundle rourou 2 coconuts Dinner Coconuts Dalo ni tana (tannia), Tinned fish 5 tannia pumpkin leaves 1 bundle pumpkin leaves 2 coconuts Saturday Breakfast Dalo Tea, sugar 2 dalo roots Lunch Out at seashore collecting seafood – lunch: Seafood and left over root crops Dinner Fish Cassava 4 Fish 2 Cassava roots Sunday Breakfast Bread, butter, tea, sugar

Lunch Ota, fish, Dalo 5 dalo coconuts 10 fish 3 coconuts Dinner Leftover from lunch

1 Annex 5

Summary of value of food crops and wild foods consumed by mataqali Vulavuladamu(1) household per week

Mataqali Vulavuladamu – Keka village (2 adults; 1 child) Market Price Crop Total quantity Total $ (when in season) Dalo 13 roots = 3 bundles $10/bundle $30.00

Cassava 6 roots = 1 heap $2/heap $2.00

Plantain 4 = ½ heap $3/heap $1.50

Kumala 5 roots = 1/3 heap $3/heap $1.00

Rourou 1 ½ bundles $1/bundle $1.50

Bele 1 bundle $1/bundle $1.00

Eggplant 1 ½ heap $1 $1.00

Coconuts 17 coconuts $0.06 each $1.02

Freshwater fish 21 medium = 3 bundle $5/bundle $15.00

Mud crabs 4 crabs $2/six crabs $1.33

Total Weekly Invisible Income (2 adults; 1 child) $55.35

Per adult1 $22.14

1 Adult = >16 years old; 1 child (10yrs – 16yrs old) = ½ adult consumption; 1 child <10 yrs old = not counted

2 Value of food crops and wild foods consumed per mataqali household per week

Typical 1 week menu for household of mataqali Vulavuladamu (2)

Mataqali Vulavuladamu - 7 adults; 4 children

Meal Source Consumption of natural Day Meal Naturally existing Planted Store bought produce Day 1 Breakfast Lemon leaf tea, plantain sugar 1 bundle vudi coconuts 5 coconuts Lunch coconuts, Rourou, cassava 1 basket cassava 3 coconuts 2 bundles rourou Dinner Coconuts Cassava, pumpkin 1 basket cassava leaves 3 bundles pumpkin leaves 3 coconuts Other Oranges, 6 oranges sugarcane Day 2 Breakfast Coconuts Tea, rice sugar 2 coconuts Lunch Coconuts Cassava, bele, tannia ½ basket tannia, ½ basket cassava, 2 bundles bele, 3 coconuts Dinner Fish (sea), dalo 2 bundles dalo coconut 20 medium sized fish 3 coconuts Day 3 Breakfast Coconuts Cassava Tea, sugar 3 coconuts, 1 basket cassava Lunch coconuts Rourou, cassava 3 coconuts 2 bundles rourou cassava from breakfast Dinner Ota, freshwater Cassava 1 basket cassava fish 5 medium sized fish 1 basket ota Day 4 Breakfast Lemon leaf tea, Sugar, rice 5 coconuts coconuts Lunch coconuts Rourou, cassava 1 basket cassava 3 coconuts 2 bundles rourou Dinner Cassava, eggplant Tinned fish 1 basket cassava 10 large eggplants Day 5 Breakfast Tea, sugar, flour 3 coconuts (pancakes) Lunch coconuts Bele, cassava 3 coconuts 3 bundles bele 1 basket cassava Dinner Ota, freshwater dalo 2 bundles dalo fish 5 medium sized fish 1 basket ota Saturday Breakfast coconuts Rourou rice, curry, tea, sugar 2 coconuts 3 bundles rourou (curried) Lunch coconuts Rourou, cassava 3 coconuts 2 bundles rourou Dinner Lairo, coconuts dalo 20 lairo 4 coconuts

3 Annex 5

Mataqali Vulavuladamu - 7 adults; 4 children

Meal Source Consumption of natural Day Meal Naturally existing Planted Store bought produce

Sunday Breakfast Coconuts Flour, baking powder 4 coconuts (for scones) tea sugar Lunch Ota, fish (sea), Dalo 2 bundles dalo coconuts 6 coconuts 10 medium sized fish Dinner Ota, fish, Cassava Leftover ota and fish coconuts ½ basket cassava 2 coconuts

Summary of value of food crops and wild foods consumed by mataqali Vulavuladamu(2) household per week

Mataqali Vulavuladamu – Keka village (7 adults; 4 children) Produce Quantity Market Price (when in season) Total $

Dalo 4 bundles $10 bundle (4 - 5 bundles) $40.00 Cassava 8 baskets $2/heap (10 roots) $40.00 $5/basket (25 roots)

Plantain 1 bundle $6/bundle $6.00 Kumala ½ basket $3/heap (15 roots) $2.50 $5/basket Rourou 11 bundles $1/bundle $11.00 Ota 2 baskets = 10 bundles $2/bundle $20.00 Bele 5 bundles $1/bundle $5.00 Eggplant 10 large $1/1/2 plastic bag (20) $1.00 Coconuts 54 nuts $0.06 each $3.24 Freshwater fish 30 medium = 5 bundles $5/bundle $25.00 Mud crabs 20 $2 for 6 crabs $6.66

Total Weekly Invisible Income (7 adults; 4 children) $160.40

Per adult $20.05

4 Value of food crops and wild foods consumed per mataqali household per week

Typical 1 week menu for household of mataqali Vatucucu

Mataqali: Vatucucu, Vatuvonu Village - 2 adults, 1 child

Meal Source Consumption of natural Day Meal Naturally existing Planted Store bought produce Day 1 Breakfast Lemon grass, Plantain, cassava Sugar 12 plantains coconuts 3 coconuts 2 cassava roots Lunch Prawns, ota, Dalo 20 prawns coconuts 1 bundle dalo 2 coconuts Dinner coconuts Rourou, dalo (from 1 bundle rourou lunch) 1 coconut Day 2 Breakfast freshwater fish, Rourou, dalo 1 bundle dalo eel 6 fish 2 eels Lunch From Breakfast Dinner Lemon leaf Yams sugar 2 yams Day 3 Breakfast Lemon grass Yams Sugar 3 – 4 yams Lunch Fish, prawns Bele 3 fish 20 prawns 1 bundle bele Dinner Ota, coconuts 3 coconuts 1 bundle ota Day 4 Breakfast Tea, sugar, flour Lunch Dhal, rice Dinner Ota, coconuts Dalo 3 dalo 3 coconuts 1 bundle ota Day 5 Breakfast coconuts Rourou, dalo 1 bundle rourou, 2 coconuts, 1 bundle dalo Lunch Fish dalo 4 fish dalo from lunch Dinner Lemon grass Yams 4 yams Saturday Breakfast Lemon grass Yams Sugar 3 – 4 yams Lunch Fish, prawns Bele 3 fish 20 prawns 1 bundle bele Dinner Ota, coconuts 3 coconuts 1 bundle ota Sunday Breakfast Lemon leaves, Plantain, cassava Sugar 12 plantains coconuts 3 coconuts 2 cassava roots Lunch Fish, prawns, dalo 3 fish coconuts, ota 20 prawns 1 basket ota 4 coconuts 1 bundle dalo Dinner Leftovers from lunch

5 Annex 5

Summary of value of food crops and wild foods consumed by mataqali Vatucucu household per week

Mataqali Vatucucu – Vatuvonu village (2 adults; 1 child) Produce Quantity Market Price Total (when in season) $ Dalo 5 bundles $10 bundle (4 - 5 roots) $50.00 Cassava 4 roots = ½ heap $2/heap (10 roots) $1.00 $5/basket (25 roots) Yams 14 roots $5/heap (4 roots) $15.00 $10/basket (10 roots) Plantain 24 fruits $3/heap (10 fruits) $7.50 Rourou 2 bundles $1/bundle $2.00 Ota 4 baskets = 20 bundles $2/bundle $40.00 Bele 2 bundles $1/bundle $2.00 Coconuts 24 nuts $0.06 each $1.44 Freshwater prawns 80 prawns = 10kg $8/kg $80.00 Freshwater fish 19 medium fish = 3 bundles $5/bundle $15.00

Total Weekly Invisible Income (2 adults; 1 child) $213.94

Per adult $106.97

6 Value of food crops and wild foods consumed per mataqali household per week

Typical 1 week menu for household of mataqali Nakase

Mataqali Nakase, Lutukina Village - 4 adults, 4 children

Meal Source Consumption of natural Day Meal Naturally existing Planted Store bought produce Day1 Breakfast Lemon leaves, Dalo Sugar 10 dalo roots Lunch Coconuts Dalo, rourou 8 coconuts 5 bundles rourou Dinner Coconuts, lemon Dalo, bele, chillies 5 coconuts 5 bundles bele 3 lemon ½ heap chillies Day 2 Breakfast Lemon leaves Cassava Sugar ½ basket cassava

Lunch coconuts Cassava, rourou ½ basket cassava 3 bundles rourou 5 coconuts Dinner Coconuts Cassava, plantain, 8 cassava roots rourou, bele 4 plantains 3 bundles rourou 2 bundles bele Day 3 Breakfast Lemon leaves, Plantain Sugar 10 plantains coconuts 5 coconuts Lunch coconuts Cassava, rourou ½ basket cassava 3 bundles rourou 5 coconuts Dinner coconuts Dalo, bele 6 dalo root 5 bundles bele 4 coconuts Day 4 Breakfast Lemon leaves, Rice, sugar 2 coconuts coconuts Lunch Rourou, cassava Curry 4 bundles rourou 1 basket cassava Dinner Tannia, Eggplant Curry, dhal, rice 10 large eggplants ½ basket tannia

Day 5 Breakfast Tea, sugar, biscuit Lunch Coconuts Rourou, cassava, yams 2 coconuts freshwater fish 5 medium sized fish 3 bundles rourou ½ basket cassava 2 yams Dinner yams, cassava Tinned fish, noodles, 2 yams flour ½ basket cassava

Saturday Breakfast Lemon leaves Dalo Sugar 8 medium dalo roots Lunch Coconuts Cassava, plantain Sugar 7 cassava roots 4 plantains 2 coconuts

7 Annex 5

Mataqali Nakase, Lutukina Village - 4 adults, 4 children

Meal Source Consumption of natural Day Meal Naturally existing Planted Store bought produce Dinner Ota, freshwater Dalo, plantain, yams 3 dalo fish, coconuts 3 vudi 2 yams 1 basket ota 5 coconuts 6 medium sized fish

Sunday Breakfast Coconuts Tea, rice, salt 2 coconuts Lunch Ota, freshwater Dalo, vudi, yams 3 dalo fish, coconuts 3 plantains 2 yams 1 basket ota 5 coconuts 6 freshwater fish Dinner Leftover from lunch

Summary of value of food crops and wild foods consumed by mataqali Nakase household per week Mataqali Nakase – Lutukina village (4 adults; 4 children) Produce Quantity Market Price Total (when in season) $ Dalo 30 roots = 6 bundles $10 bundle (4 - 5 roots) $60.00 Cassava 11 ½ baskets $2/heap (10 roots) $59.50 1 heap $5/basket (25 roots) Yams 8 roots $5/heap (4 roots) $10.00 $10/basket (10 roots) Plantain 24 fruits $3/heap (10 fruits) $6.00 $6/bundle Kumala ½ basket $3/heap (15 roots) $2.50 $5/basket Rourou 21 bundles $1/bundle $21.00 Ota 2 baskets – 10 bundles $2/bundle $20.00 Bele 12 bundles $1/bundle $12.00 Eggplant 10 large $1/1/2 plastic bag (20 medium) $1.00 Coconuts 50 nuts $0.06 each $3.00 Freshwater fish 17 medium = 3 bundles $5/bundle $15.00

Total Weekly Invisible Income (4 adults; 4 children) $210.00

Per adult $42.00

8 Value of food crops and wild foods consumed per mataqali household per week

Market prices used (Source: Drawa mataqali farmers/Ministry of Agriculture late 2002)

Crop Current local market price Yaqona $12.00/kg (waka -roots)$6.00/kg (lewena - stem) $18/kg/plant; $20/kg $20/plant

Dalo $0.70/ kg; $0.68 /kg or $680 /ton $10/ bag (45kg) Roadside (Savusavu buyers) $0.90 - $1.00/kg Cassava $15 - $20.00/ 50kg bag (middle man) $15.00 /bag (45kg); $20/bag Banana $2.50/hand – green $10/bundle – ripe $6 - $10 bundle Coconut $7 - $8/ 100 coconuts $0.07/coconut Plantain $5.00 - $10.00 /bundle (10 – 12 bunches) $10.00 bundle

Yams $15.00/ basket $5.00/ heap

Chillies $1/bowl (2 handfuls) Duruka $2.00/bundle (6-8) Kumala $20/bag (40 - 50kg); $25 - $30/bag (45 kg)