Fiji needs to focus more on needs of the poor

Fiji is one of the more developed countries of the South Pacific island nations, but a large proportion of the population remain in poverty and exist through subsistence means rather than through formal integration with the national economy.

This has given rise to informal employment, which does not pay well enough to elevate parts of society from poverty and creates a cycle of squatter camps around the country’s major cities, such as Suva. Because of this ongoing poverty, rampant urbanisation has led to a population disconnection between the cities and the rural parts of Fiji, which is over-burdening the cities.

Hence, in 1995 the government adopted the National Squatter Policy, which was intended to mitigate the effects of growing urbanisation by providing affordable housing and services to prevent the decay of under-privileged parts of major cities such as Suva.

The policy had two main pillars (the upgrading of existing squatter colonies and the enforcement and policing of settlement bans to prevent further growth of squatter colonies). But, the policy was not implemented properly, which was in part due to failures by the Housing Authority and Public Rental Board to properly manage their accounts.

In early 2010 it was revealed that the Housing Authority had $40 million in bad debt due primarily to unpaid instalments on low-cost housing for low-income earners. That debt stood at just $20 million at the beginning of 2009, prompting accusations of corruption from some corners of government, although the most common accusation has been that the authority has failed to aggressively collect payments.

Under the auspices of the National Squatter Policy, the Housing Authority began building low-cost housing, which was then sold to former squatters, with the government effectively acting as the lender. In cases where residents stop paying their premiums, the Housing Authority has the right to evict them, although the ballooning debt reveals the unwillingness of the department to take such extreme measures with people already made vulnerable by a bad economy.

A number of housing developments have been completed, however, lifting thousands of people out of poverty and near-homelessness. In October of 2010 the Housing Authority announced yet another development, the 185 acres housing project on land outside Suva in Tacirua East.

The Housing Authority and Rental Board’s problems with their accounts come at a time when the Prime Minister, Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, is calling on both departments to do more to eradicate the scourge of urban poverty in Fiji.

“Adequate housing and homeownership gives and maintains dignity. It empowers people,” said the Prime Minister at the groundbreaking ceremony for the housing project. “It assists homeowners to participate as equals in our economy and it creates certainty for the young and our future.”

The $50 million housing estate will be divided between housing units, which will be developed by government, and plots of land, which will be given over to people wanting to build their own house. There will be 1,050 such plots and 900 housing units.

The project is being funded in large part by China Railway First Company Limited, which in turn receives support from the Chinese government. Dr Hen Ji Heng, the Chinese ambassador to Fiji, pointed to the project as an example of ongoing close relations between the governments of Fiji and China. Indeed China is responsible for much of the development and infrastructure projects taking place on our islands.

Several further housing projects will be undertaken by the Housing Authority in the next year to two years including projects in Waila in Nausori, Tavakubu in Lautoka, Matavolivoli and Waqadra in Nadi, Natadola in Nadroga, Koronisalusalu in Tavua, and Naqere in Savusavu. All of them funded in part or in full by joint efforts between China and Fiji.

In addition to the Housing Authority, the Rental Board also provides affordable shelter to low-income earners, but on a much smaller scale with just a few thousand tenants. These tenants rent property from the board at reduced rates and the department was created as a division of the Housing Authority, which was becoming too large a bureaucracy.