FOR decades, landowners and statesmen have debated over and over, who should own the mineral in the land?
If you own the land, surely you should own what lay beneath it.
It is an argument that has resurfaced repeatedly during recent Constitution Review Commission (CRC) public consultations, with many landowning units calling for ownership of the minerals found beneath their land.
On the surface, it is an argument that appears both logical and fair. After all, if the land belongs to you, why shouldn’t the gold, copper or other valuable minerals beneath it belong to you as well?
CRC chair Sevuloni Valenitabua told the Ministry of Lands and Mineral Resources that during their consultations around the country, very few submissions were made that landowners should have ownership of everything in their land.
But according to Minister Filimoni Vosarogo, that question is far more complicated than it first appears.
Appearing before the CRC, Mr Vosarogo mounted perhaps the strongest defence yet of why Fiji’s Constitution should continue recognising mineral ownership as belonging to the State rather than individual landowners. His argument was not simply about law. Nor was it simply about mining.
Instead, it was about economics, environmental protection, national security, public finance and, ultimately, what role Government should play in managing resources that belong to an entire country.
“The State is a custodian, a trustee,” Mr Vosarogo said.
“It holds these resources not for its own enrichment, but for the benefit of all.”
Surface ownership versus mineral ownership
One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding the debate is the assumption that owning land automatically means owning everything beneath it.
Historically, that has not always been the case. Across much of the world and in Fiji, legal systems distinguish between ownership of the surface and ownership of the minerals below ground.
While landowners may own the soil, governments often retain ownership of underground resources on behalf of the nation.
It is this distinction the 2013 Constitution explicitly recognises under Section 30(1).
The Constitution spells out that all minerals belong to the State while also requiring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their development.
Mr Vosarogo argued this was not an unusual approach.
Rather, it reflects a long-established international principle that mineral wealth should benefit the wider public instead of only those fortunate enough to own land above a particular deposit.
“These minerals do not belong to the individual who happened to hold surface title. They belong to the State.”
Why governments claim ownership
To many people, State ownership may sound like Government taking control of private property.
Mr Vosarogo argues it is something quite different. He said governments acted less like owners and more like trustees.
Their responsibility is not to maximise profit but to manage finite natural resources for current and future generations.
That distinction matters. Unlike crops, forests or livestock, minerals cannot be replaced once they are extracted.
So every tonne removed today is a tonne unavailable tomorrow. Because of that, governments around the world have increasingly treated mineral resources as national assets requiring long-term stewardship rather than purely private wealth.
Countries such as Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Canada and South Africa all operate under variations of this principle.
The idea is simple. The benefits generated from mineral extraction should extend beyond the boundaries of a single landowning community.
Instead, they should contribute towards hospitals, roads, schools, public services and national development.
A question of economics
Mr Vosarogo also argued that the debate is not only philosophical.
It is deeply economic. Mining projects often generate enormous wealth through royalties, taxes and investment returns.
When governments retain ownership of mineral resources, they are able to collect those revenues and redistribute them across the country.
That income funds services relied upon by everyone, regardless of whether they live near a mine.
State ownership also strengthens Fiji’s financial position. Mineral resources become part of the country’s national assets, improving its long-term economic outlook and giving governments greater confidence to invest in future development.
By contrast, if mineral ownership rested entirely with individual landowners, the economic benefits could become concentrated within relatively small communities while the wider public continued bearing many of the costs associated with mining.
Those costs include roads, regulation, environmental monitoring and public infrastructure required to support large-scale extraction.
The environmental argument
Mining rarely affects only the land immediately above a mineral deposit.
Water systems, forests, rivers, biodiversity and neighbouring communities can all be impacted.
“Private landowners have no incentive, none, to account for the externalities of extraction,” Mr Vosarogo said.
“Environmental degradation, water contamination and societal displacement are costs borne by the many while the profits are captured by the few.”
They are responsible for balancing economic growth with environmental protection, public health and long-term sustainability.
In practice, that means regulating extraction, enforcing environmental standards and ensuring mining companies restore land after operations conclude.
Without strong Government oversight, he suggested, many of those wider public interests risk being overlooked.
More than money
Increasingly, mineral ownership is also becoming a geopolitical issue.
Around the world, countries are competing for access to critical minerals used in renewable energy technology, batteries and defence industries.
As demand grows, control over those resources is becoming a matter of national security as much as economics.
Mr Vosarogo argued that governments must retain the ability to determine how strategic resources are developed, who invests in them and under what conditions.
“We are in a race for critical minerals,” he said.
“This is not merely about economics.
“It’s about national security, defence and energy transition.”
State ownership, he said, provides that level of control while still allowing private companies to invest and operate.
It also gives governments greater certainty when negotiating with international investors, who generally prefer dealing with one legal authority rather than multiple private landowners.
The other side of the debate
Yet the issue remains far from settled. Throughout the CRC’s consultations, many indigenous landowners have argued that if the land belongs to them, so too should the minerals beneath it.
For many, the argument is about fairness. Communities often bear the environmental, cultural and social impacts of mining while questioning whether they receive an equitable share of the wealth generated.
It is a debate that reaches far beyond legal ownership. It touches on history, customary rights, development and the relationship between indigenous landowners and the State.
Mr Vosarogo acknowledged those concerns.
But he maintained that ownership and benefit-sharing are not necessarily the same thing. The Constitution already requires proceeds from mineral extraction to be shared fairly and equitably.
The question, therefore, is not simply who owns the resource, but how its benefits are distributed.
Mr Vosarogo returned to what he believed was the central issue.
This was never simply a discussion about rocks beneath the ground.
It was a discussion about what kind of nation Fiji wants to be. Whether mineral wealth should primarily benefit those who own the land, or whether it should be treated as part of the country’s shared inheritance.
“So when we ask who owns the mineral wealth,” Mr Vosarogo said.
“The answer is not just a matter of law. It is a matter of national identity.
“It is a reflection of who we are and whom we serve.”
As the Constitution Review Commission concludes hearing submissions from across the country, few issues are likely to prove as difficult or as consequential as deciding who should ultimately own what lies beneath Fiji’s soil.
