Businesses make long-term investments based on certainty about the rights they hold, the costs they will face and the rules that will apply throughout the life of a project.
The Commercial Use of Marine Areas (CUMA) Bill 2025 proposes a significant change to Fiji’s marine ownership framework.
It seeks to transfer ownership of certain marine areas used for commercial purposes to customary owners and establish a compensation scheme for their access and use.
These areas may include the water, foreshore, seabed, airspace and certain natural or reclaimed land.
The proposed changes could affect investment confidence, access to finance, operating costs and the long-term viability of tourism businesses.
Their implications may also extend across the wider business ecosystem because tourism operators rely on banks, insurers, investors, contractors, transport providers, suppliers and professional services.
If the new framework creates additional costs or uncertainty for tourism developments, connected businesses could also be affected through delayed projects, reduced spending or changes to existing commercial arrangements.
FCEF supports the fair recognition of customary interests and the principle that communities should benefit appropriately from commercial activity within their traditional areas.
However, a reform of this significance must also provide clarity on existing legal interests, future compensation obligations and the regulatory processes that businesses will be required to follow.
Fair recognition and business certainty should not be treated as competing objectives; a carefully designed framework should deliver both.
Summary of recommendations
In their official submission to the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights, the Fiji Hotel and Tourism Association (FHTA) included 14 recommendations that the Government and the Sub-Committee must take into account before passing the bill. These include:
1. Reset the consultation process – Undertake transparent and structured consultation with tourism and marine operators, customary owners throughout Fiji, financial institutions, affected communities, public agencies and other stakeholders before the Bill proceeds.
2. Reconsider the proprietary ownership-transfer model – Determine whether the Bill’s objectives can be achieved through statutory recognition, benefit-sharing, consultation and co-management while preserving State ownership and coherent national regulation of marine areas.
3. Clarify the Bill’s scope and legal effect – Clearly define the rights transferred by a vesting order, the rights and responsibilities retained by the State, the public rights that continue, and the activities, organisations and supporting services captured by the Bill. ‘Commercial tourism activity’ and the practical limits of ‘marine area’ should be settled in the Bill itself, including appropriate exclusions for developed reclaimed land, existing State leases, declared port areas, navigation channels and established public infrastructure.
4. Complete independent economic and fiscal assessments – Assess the likely effects of the Bill on investment, financing, property values, operating costs, employment, consumer prices, State revenue, public infrastructure and Fiji’s competitiveness before enactment. A further project-specific assessment should be required before vesting any area where significant existing or proposed activity may be affected.
5. Establish a clear and nationally consistent compensation framework – Define ‘fair and equitable’ compensation through a transparent methodology, clarify the role of the iTaukei Fisheries Commission, distinguish compensation from rent and other payments, and ensure that compensation remains proportionate and commercially sustainable.
6. Prohibit double compensation and recognise existing arrangements – Credit prior rents, premiums, access payments, conservation contributions, goodwill payments and community benefits against any new liability. Existing compensation and community arrangements should not be reopened without the written agreement of affected parties or an independent legal determination.
7. Automatically preserve existing legal interests – Protect existing leases, licences, concessions, approvals, easements, mortgages, compensation agreements and State-approved projects for their existing terms. These interests should not be compulsorily renegotiated or altered solely because a marine area is vested. The Bill should also provide a staged and managed transition, preserve existing arrangements under the Regulation of Surfing Areas Act, and require consultation on draft regulations and an implementation roadmap before commencement.
8. Strengthen governance, procedural fairness and judicial oversight – Require clear statutory criteria, independent technical and legal advice, conflict-of-interest safeguards, public notice, access to evidence, meaningful objection rights and written reasons for decisions.
The Tribunal must be independent and appropriately qualified, judicial review must remain available, and TLTB must operate under published service standards, decision timeframes, fee schedules and proportionate enforcement procedures.
9. Verify customary ownership and boundaries before vesting – Require independent mapping and surveying, publication of boundaries and supporting evidence, notice to all affected parties, a formal objection process and final resolution of overlapping claims before any vesting order is made. A publicly accessible register of verified owners, boundaries, vested areas and conditions should be maintained.
10. Protect public access, maritime operations and essential State functions – Preserve lawful passage, navigation, anchoring, mooring, recreational and subsistence use, and ordinary access to marine areas. Vesting should not disrupt ports, shipping, inter-island transport, emergency access, public infrastructure, utilities, disaster response, environmental regulation or national security.
11. Preserve State leases, minerals, revenue and infrastructure rights – Clarify responsibility for administering existing State leases and collecting revenue after vesting. State ownership of minerals and the operation, maintenance and future development of ports, channels, jetties, utilities, coastal works and other essential infrastructure must remain protected.
12. Protect and encourage conservation partnerships – Exclude genuine non-commercial conservation, restoration, research and environmental-stewardship activities from inappropriate fees and compensation obligations. Existing marine protected areas, locally managed marine areas and community conservation arrangements should be recognised and preserved.
13. Develop a more balanced alternative framework – Consider a statutory benefit-sharing and co-management model supported, where appropriate, by a nationally administered funding mechanism. Any funding model should be introduced only after consultation and economic assessment and should include transparent collection, distribution, reporting and auditing arrangements.
14. Promote active iTaukei economic participation – Complement compensation and benefit-sharing with enterprise development, access to finance, skills training, joint ventures, equity participation, procurement opportunities and support for iTaukei-owned tourism, conservation, transport and marine-service businesses. Taken together, these measures would provide a more balanced framework for recognising customary interests and delivering fair economic benefits without undermining existing rights, public access, investor confidence, national infrastructure or the coordinated management of Fiji’s marine resources.
Compensation must be clear and fair
The Bill also provides for a compensation scheme between customary owners and affected interest holders. It also states that payments must not be unreasonable or burdensome and should, as far as practicable, be borne by consumers or users of the commercial activity.
The way compensation is determined therefore matters not only to the business making the payment; it may also affect the price paid by visitors and other users.
Many tourism businesses already contribute through access payments, leases, employment, local procurement, community projects, infrastructure and environmental initiatives.
A fair framework should recognise these contributions and guard against overlapping obligations. It should explain, in simple terms, how compensation will be assessed, what existing arrangements will be considered and how disagreements will be resolved. A transparent and consistent national approach would provide greater confidence and fairness for all parties.
Recognition and certainty can coexist
This should not be framed as a choice between recognising customary interests and supporting business confidence. Both can be advanced through careful consultation and practical legislation.
Drawing on FHTA’s recommendations, FCEF believes the way forward should include:
Meaningful consultation with customary owners, affected businesses, financial institutions and public agencies;
Clear protection of existing leases, licences, approvals and contractual interests for their agreed terms;
A transparent and consistent approach to compensation;
Recognition of payments and community benefits already being provided;
Confirmation of ownership and marine boundaries before vesting occurs;
Protection of public access, navigation and essential services;
Independent assessment of the wider economic and operational implications; and
Consultation on regulations and implementation arrangements before the framework takes effect.
There is also an opportunity to consider benefits beyond compensation. Greater iTaukei participation through employment, skills, procurement, enterprise ownership, finance, joint ventures and equity partnerships could create broader and more lasting value.
Getting the framework right
Marine areas are also public and national assets connected with navigation, ports, fisheries, environmental regulation, disaster response, climate resilience, infrastructure, public revenue and national development. Any recognition of customary interests must therefore be balanced with the State’s continuing responsibility to regulate and manage these areas coherently in the national interest.
FCEF recognises FHTA’s leadership on this important issue and supports continued, constructive dialogue before the Bill progresses.
