Key offificial breaks silence over customary land issue

The work on the Asian Development Bank (A.B.D) land lease project is far from completed. More consultations are being planned.

So says the Team Leader and Project Manager for the Asian Development Bank TA in Samoa, Hinauri Petana. She told the Sunday Samoan she has broken her silence because she wants the public to know the reality of the situation.

Ms. Petana was responding in relation to a complaint lodged with the A.D.B by a local group who fear that the government’s plan to promote the economical use of customary land could result in the alienation of Samoa’s inheritance.

Speaking to the Sunday Samoan, she said she was never approached by the four prominent village matai, Fiu Mataese Elisara, of Sili, Leuleuiali’i Tasi Malifa, of Afega, Tele’ai Dr. Sapa Saifaleupolu and Liliomaiava Ken Lemeta of Vaimoso and Safotu.

Instead, they went straight to the A.D.B Head Office.

This, she believes, could have been solved internally with government and the Asia Development Bank office in Apia.

“One of the things that people don’t know is that I was involved from the start of this project."

It started under my watch as C.E.O. for the Ministry of Finance,” she told the Sunday Samoan.

It started with a first project to developing small businesses here in Samoa.

The problem, she said, started when it came to accessing credit because a lot of these businesses that Government was looking to support were in the rural areas and with customary land.

At the same time, the government had already been thinking about how to open up economic opportunities for the people. They relied heavily on remittances. Then there were limited approaches to how to stimulate economic activity out in the rural communities.

The concern was that the land was generational.

“And we wanted not to take away, remove or anything but to add value,” said Ms. Petana. “How to open up these opportunities by using that land, by the people, for the people! At the time, we were talking about how we could do it internally.”

One of the most successful businessmen at the time was the late Fuimaono Mimio from Falealili.

He owned big taro plantations and was one of the country’s biggest exporters. There were others including Aiono Luti, who had been successful in plantations, enough to start off their cattle industry.

“We thought that if there were others who wanted to follow in the footsteps of people who were pioneering large agricultural businesses that through the land leasing arrangements, maybe that was one option.”

There were constraints when the small business project started. The first phase was in 2007 with the Task Force headed by the late Reverend Elder Oka Fauolo and other church and community representatives. Key government ministries were also involved.

Ms. Petana said the purpose of the meetings that took place were to gauge and to disseminate the intentions of government.

“At the time we really had no clear approach, but at least to raise with the people the awareness that government was interested in looking at promoting economic use of customary land, but especially to do with revisiting and reviewing the leasing framework.

“And some of the things that have been levied in the papers and elsewhere, even people from outside that have been writing about this, fail to recognize leasing had been well in place before we started talking about revisiting this.”

Ms. Petana says that during these consultations, none of the four matais ever came or made any enquiries.

Sapa, she says, was overseas at the time.

The second phase started. Based on the findings initial meetings, government looked into the key constructs of infrastructure of government in terms of institutional roles and legislation. This resulted in the set up of the Customary Land Advisory Commission.

“One of things that was promoted right from the start, even up to now, there is no way the land is going to be alienated. The customary rights of the land owners remain, as it was in the beginning, right up till now.

There is no intention of government to change that.”

During the second phase, media publicity was done on all three TV stations, the broadcasting stations about the public consultations that would take place.

In the first phase, 2007 to 2009, 20 consultations were carried out.

There were 13 in Upolu and seven in Savaii. In the second round of consultations, two were held at Upolu and two at Savai’i.

Ms. Petana says the second consultations were not with greater detail and was to introduce the Customary Land Advisory Commission (CLAC). This was to explain the legislation that had been passed by Parliament to establish the Commission and its work and essentially in that legislation that it would operate for seven years, on a sunset clause and be reviewed.

Ms. Petana said that the project was now in the third phase and would run out in Dec 2016.

“The unfortunate thing is that, in the first and second phase, none of the four came.”

She remembers being invited by the Law Society in November, 2013, to present a paper at the Law Symposium as an update on the project and what it was about. This was attended by Leuleuiali’i who had a copy of her speech which was distributed afterwards.

“We spoke very briefly and he said he wanted to talk to me about this and I said, no problem, I’m available anytime.

Up until then, none of the other three ever came, whether it was Fiu, Teleai or Liliomaiava.

“If there is anything that I’m concerned with, was that without even giving us any opportunity to speak, to talk, to discuss, they immediately went into this, in terms of approaching the A.D.B. and complaining to the A.D.B about supporting this programme that would affect the rights of landowners.”

“I can assure you, sitting in government and the people that we’re dealing with, they are matai too and are genuinely interested in ensuring their rights remain.”

Consultations will continue and are far from finished. The third phase will be led by CLAC with the assistance of the Ministries of Government.

“We are then going to be talking real issues, in terms of their land leasing rights, because there is a reference in that Act about the mortgaging of the lease interest. We’re talking of not the land lease but the lease interest.”

An example used was a hotel. Under the MNRE current process, 30 plus 30 years is given to hotel development on such leases. So there are a lot of questions that come into what happens. If the land owner goes to the bank, gets money, and during that six year period there are repayment problems of management.

“These are the kinds of issues that we are now starting to look at in terms of ensuring that the customary land rights, the lease rights are married to the point where there are a lot more voice from the land owners than currently being done.”

“As I said, there is a process that we are far from finished and that dialogue is yet to come to fruition in terms of gaining a lot of commentary, a lot of views.”

These discussions will be about structure and at the same time examining issues in terms of content. It’s important to Ms Petana, that before the consultations take place, they themselves need need to understand and convince people with whom they are consulting with, that this is the way forward.

“I can tell you this though, the assurance that we can give to you and the rest of this country, the land rights of customary owners remain. Nothing is going to change! It’s basically looking into how active their role can be in that process of leasing than it is right now, where they just get paid the leases and all.”

“Because we are just as concerned about future generational opportunities, future generational rights and that’s the reason why that Constitutional provision is not going to change.”

Ms. Petana reassures the public that every other amendment or review of current legislation on leasing will be done to strengthen this further and not to amend to take any rights away from the people at all.

It was not till the Round Table discussions hosted by the O.S.P.F. that took place last November that Ms. Petana came face to face with the four matai.

“So the first time we actually spoke with, and at times, it was at, was when the OSPF had a Round Table discussion and brought all of us face to face.

And that was my concern that we had gone out to the A.D.B. before we had an internal discussion.”

“They took documents and read it. They assumed a lot of things without any discussion at all! And that’s my concern, that if you really want to be open, transparent, accountable, I’m more than ready, but to come out like that, blindsided by all these insinuations, speculations, when the project is still going and were far from finishing.”

“It also disturbs me when you have people who are gaining prominence in environment in New Zealand like Iati and them, talking so openly... to me, these people have no idea what we’re doing.

“Again, to assume and speculate like they had been doing, I think they’re doing not just the Government but the country a disservice, because you’re only going to provoke and at the same time, you can easily mislead people, because the heart of all this is to do with raising the standard of living of all Samoans.”

She emphasised that this project ensures there are economic benefits that will help to sustain not just their families and communities but at the end of the day, they are productive contributors to the growth of Samoa.”

As for mediation, that choice is for government to make. “But you know when you go into these kind of things with a confrontational attitude, how can you expect the government to turn around and say, come in, be a partner and mediate?”

Also in her role, Ms. Petana is cautious that the elections are coming up, and “all of this can quickly come down to abusive use of opportunities that we should be building on to talk to each other, because of these political interests”. “I’m not saying that they are talking whether for the opposition or themselves. All I’m saying is that there hasn’t been an opportunity to hear fairly the government. They are now claiming they’ve been talking to so many.

Who are these people? “

Last year, many changes were made to the pulenu’u because their terms had come to an end and there were new people appointed. And by the time the consultations took place, they were unaware of the first round of consultations.

She is saddened that the matais did not approach her to discuss their grievances and feels that if they still had not been happy, could have taken their grievances to government.

“I’m not complaining because I’m in this position, but what I’m saying is that when you start talking about rights, you also need to think about the rights of others.”

“So they’re talking about the rights as land owners as matais as community leaders and all this and then just... as if we who have been involved from the start were promoting anything other but the rights of the landowners.”

“And so it saddens me that it’s come down to this level of communication, to the point where we’ve drawn in the Prime Minister when the project is far from complete. That’s really what I’m concerned with.”

“Part of the reason, they feel like we’re hiding something, were not. All of them have had a role in the government. They are extremely intelligent, highly intelligent members of the community, certainly with the international recognition of Fiu and his experience as well as the others, is certainly well acknowledged.”

But as a government employee for 30 years, Ms Petana says that before you take out anything, you need to consult internally because there’s a lot of cross cutting impacts between the different mandates of Ministries and agencies.

“You can’t just stand up and go without that collective understanding and support”.

“And that’s what [Fiu has] forgotten, I think, because he just thinks like, you should bring it out and talk to us and then we’ll give you our views and then you put it in. Yes! But only after we ourselves have discussed, have accepted, have understood each other.”

It’s been almost ten years into the project. Ms Petana salutes A.D.B., for having supported the project so long. Normally, it only last up to six years maximum.

“It’s not as if we go out, everything is cast in stone or cement, in that we cannot change. We need to hear the voice of the people about what these things are and government will make the final decision.”

Meanwhile, the A.D.B. has indicated they are willing to support government to provide resources for a national communications specialist. All they are talking about is the approach and lack of communication.