Ocean Law Bulletins

Under Fiji law, the Charitable Trusts Act, 1945 (Charitable Trusts Act) provides the legal process to establish or incorporate a Charitable Trust. The incorporation of a Charitable Trust creates a legal "person" that may among other things: employ people, hold a bank account, secure office premises, enter contracts and sue and be sued.

To comply with section 2 of the Charitable Trusts Act, the proposed Charitable Trust must comply with one of the limited number of "charitable purpose[s]" set out in the Charitable Trusts Act. If the Charitable Trust does not meet one of these purposes then its registration may be refused by the Registrar of Titles.

On 30 August 2020 the relevant Minister in exercising his powers under section 2 of the Act, issued Legal Notice No. 78 of 2020 Declaration of Charitable Purpose (“Notice”) that has the effect of increasing the categories of charitable purposes thus enabling more Charitable Trusts to be registered under Fiji law. 

Kawakawa (Grouper) and Donu (Coral Trout) are Fiji's most popular eating fish and are highly prized by all Fiji citizens. For a number of years, many of Fiji's citizens have been taking a voluntary pledge not to consume these important species during their peak breeding season (June to the end of September). 

In 2018, Fiji's Minister of Fisheries imposed a legal ban on the capture of a number of listed species of Kawakawa and Donu from June to the end of September each year. This was followed in June 2019 by Fisheries Regulations implementing this seasonal ban.

Recently, in August 2020, the Minister of Fisheries has amended the seasonal ban by reducing it by two months, effectively ending the ban on 1 August 2020. In this legal bulletin we briefly review the seasonal ban, its amendment and the reasons that marine scientists called for the seasonal ban to assist in the sustainable management of these popular species.

Oceans Governance is a 3rd year undergraduate course offered by the School of Marine Studies, within the University of the South Pacific (USP).

Oceans Governance attracts a number of motivated students from a variety of Pacific Island Countries who frequently bring years of professional work experience to compliment their future careers as marine managers and decision makers. Oceans Governance complements the 2nd year undergraduate course in “Law of the Sea”. Both courses are designed by the highly regarded law of the sea and fisheries legal expert, Mr Pio Manoa who is currently working with the Forum Fisheries Agency.

While our firm has been privileged to coordinate and teach Oceans Governance and Law of the Sea for the last 3 years - to reflect the multi-disciplinary nature and broad topic that is Oceans Governance - a variety of guest lecturers have complimented the course. As well as adding interest and providing inspirational talks for the students this demonstrates the depth of knowledge and expertise in the Pacific. In this brief overview of the course we draw specific attention to the expertise of the visiting lecturers and the efforts made by the talented students of USP and how we think this bodes well for the Pacific region in the future.

At present, Tuvalu does not have a national ocean policy that unites Tuvaluans and the Government towards implementing a shared vision and aims for its ocean and resources. The need for a national ocean policy arises due to the importance of the ocean and its resources to Tuvaluans in terms of culture, food, and economy[1], the wide variety of ocean uses, and the need to protect and sustainably manage Tuvalu’s natural resources in an integrated way[2].

In this report the authors review Tuvalu’s governance context, the laws and policies that presently exist and explain why a national ocean policy is needed. The authors set out the sort of process that they think is suited to Tuvalu culture and the Tuvalu context and why they are hopeful that from this process there should emerge a way to create coordination across government and all sectors of Tuvalu society for the benefit of all Tuvaluans and Tuvalu’s ocean and the health of its resources.

The authors believe it is not enough for Tuvalu to have a well written National Ocean Policy, if it is not implemented and owned by the Tuvaluan people. This means the process to create the ocean policy must be locally driven with procedures for inclusive and respectful consultation. This is to ensure that the moralities and legitimacy of an integrated ocean policy are created along with the national ocean policy.

On 12 May 2020, Fiji’s Ministry of Economy[1] published a working draft of Fiji's first National Ocean Policy (NOP) and opened it up for public consultation. The period of public consultation will end on 25 May 2020. [Editor's note: our firm made its submission on 24 May 2020 and amongst other submissions, we respectfully submitted, in accordance with our analysis below that extending the time to consult on the draft NOP beyond 25 May 2020 would be welcome.] 

The NOP represents a step forward for Fiji’s ocean governance in that it endeavours to consolidate ocean initiatives through its aim to increase integration between Fiji government Ministries[2]. As the NOP explains Fiji is blessed with large areas of ocean and marine resources that it has both rights to use but responsibility to manage. These ocean areas accommodate numerous and sometimes competing uses and may be adversely impacted by a range of development activities that are regulated by different government Ministries or Departments. National oceans governance is therefore notoriously difficult unless there is a single vision or policy that commits all of government to follow and implement in an integrated way. 

As a small group of Fijian and Fiji-based lawyers, with an interest in law of the sea, oceans governance, traditional rights, and Fiji’s unique law and governance system we provide our analysis of the draft NOP and provide some respectful suggestions for consideration as part of the important consultation process. We note at the outset that we fully support this initiative by the Fiji government and are pleased that this process is being locally driven.

In accordance with the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) Pacific Island Countries (PICs) have the use and management rights to the resources within and under huge areas of Pacific ocean. These rights include the exclusive sovereign rights to use and manage all of the resources in these ocean spaces and on and under the seabed. However, there remains disagreement between some PICs over where the maritime boundaries should be drawn as well as a lack of a unified position in relation to how the resources should be exploited.

As the world goes through unprecedented change due to the Covid-19 pandemic, renewed cooperation among PICs is more important than ever to secure better governance, more effective fisheries management and more benefits from the resources flowing back to Pacific Islanders.

Dr Transform Aqorau has recently published an insightful article that explains some of the resilience more Pacific based tuna operations are experiencing in the face of Covid-19. This is available here.

In this legal bulletin we set out an explanation of the law and governance context that we hope explains why and how more regional cooperation to implement a shared plan with more transparency at regional and national levels will benefit Pacific Islanders.

Early effects of Covid-19 on the Pacific fisheries

It is still too early to tell how the world will deal with the longer term effects of Covid-19, will it shrug it off and return to normal? Does Covid-19 provide new opportunities to do things differently? Is there an opportunity for things to be better? In the Pacific and for Pacific Islanders both the value of tuna resources (renewable if managed properly) and the fact that more benefits should be flowing directly to Pacific Islanders have been acknowledged for sometime.

However, how to realise more benefits for Pacific Islanders from a resource that they have the exclusive rights to manage and benefit from, while dealing with threats from multiple sources, is a complex challenge with no simple answer.

Thankfully, Dr Transform Aqorau, has published an excellent and thought provoking piece titled: COVID-19 and its likely impact on the tuna industry in the Pacific Islands 

Amongst other things, Dr Transform points to increased cooperation among Pacific Island governments and more involvement of Pacific Islanders. His piece supports an interesting idea that Covid-19 gives rise to- do we want to go back to the old normal or is there an opportunity for something better? 

Dr Transform's full article can be viewed either below or where it was first published, the Devpolicy blog: here

Seabed mining is a new industry that seeks to exploit the value of metals on or in the seabed. The drivers for this industry include the rising demand and costs for the metals in question. Many of the potential mining sites are found under the Pacific Ocean in areas beyond the national jurisdiction of any State. This area of deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction is defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ("LOSC") as “the Area”.

This new industry is intended to be regulated pursuant to LOSC by the International Seabed Authority (a body created by LOSC). The International Seabed Authority will issue licences to Applicants that are sponsored by nation States (sponsoring States). The licences will be issued subject to conditions that are intended to protect the marine environment, however, sponsoring States are themselves subject to duties under international law and amongst other things are required by LOSC to have their own legislation in place to regulate the mining companies that they sponsor. If this legislation is not in place or is inadequate then sponsoring States will not meet their international law duties, will incur legal risk, and this new industry will not be properly regulated.

In this bulletin, we set out what is known from a legal and governance perspective about seabed mining in the Area, describe how the international regulatory framework is supposed to work and review the results of a recent legal analysis that demonstrates the legal framework is not yet in place to meet various requirements under the international legal framework. We respectfully suggest that this legal analysis supports the view that seabed mining is not, as yet, ready to proceed as an effectively regulated industry in accordance with international law.

Please note: This update relates to draft legislation and in September 2021, Fiji's Parliament enacted the Climate Change Act, 2021 - for a full explanation of the Act - please click here

Fiji’s new proposed climate change law affects every Fiji citizen regardless of whether s/he is a Minister, member of Parliament, Permanent Secretary, a CEO of a company, a builder, an IT expert, a marine scientist or proponent of marine conservation, a retailer, a farmer, or a member of a community or neighbouring Pacific Island country at risk of displacement as a result of climate change.

In the last few years, Fiji has become a global and regional leader in raising awareness of climate change, its effects and what all nation States should do to reduce their emissions to keep us within 1.5C of average global warming and avoid dangerous climate change. Fiji's leadership in this arena has in the last month produced a draft Climate Change Bill (the Bill) which is available for public consultation. It has been reported (Fiji Sun, 8 August 2019) that the government of Fiji intends the Bill to become law, by being passed as an Act of Parliament before December 2019. If the Bill is passed it will become the Climate Change Act (the Act). Although not presently law, to avoid confusion we simply refer to the proposed legislation as "the Bill" or "the legislation" in this bulletin as it has not, as yet, become an Act of Parliament.

In this extended and detailed legal bulletin we review the Bill to assist with the further consultations that should take place and, we hope, assist the bold statement and action that Fiji is demonstrating in the face of the climate emergency. All the persons that have been involved in this review support Fiji’s initiative to introduce comprehensive climate change legislation, and provide comments in the spirit of raising awareness of, and assisting with consultation about, the legislation to best suit it to Fiji’s context.

To have your say on the Bill, and to obtain an electronic copy, please click: here

Fish stocks around the world are in decline with a large proportion of this decline attributable to the widespread practice of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Declining fish stocks result in increased fishing efforts to make up the shortfall of catches and this often leaves fishing vessels operating beyond economic and ecological sustainability. Subsidized fishing fleets often backed by national governments are one way to skirt this economic inconvenience.

Tragically, another alternative is cost-cutting on the human side of commercial fishing. This results in poor working conditions for fishing crew, forced labour, slavery and even human trafficking. This forms a hidden subsidy of sorts for IUU fishing that impacts those directly responsible for catching fish and tainting the seafood that is supplied globally. The Pacific Island Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) which was established with the mandate to assist Pacific Island Countries manage their fishery resources is taking measures to address this oft-neglected aspect of fisheries.

FFA members lay claim to some of the richest tuna stocks globally. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) states have sovereign rights to manage their 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This means that the right to issue licences and on what terms and conditions lies with these states and within their EEZ. In this legal bulletin we consider how the FFA is implementing a decision of its members to use licence conditions to better regulate working conditions on fishing vessels that operate in its waters.