South Pacific Land An Alternative Perspective on Tenure Traditions, Business, and Conflict Spike Boydell In the South Pacific, the growing influence of globalization and modernity privileges individual wealth accumulation through the economic benefits derived from indigenous landholdings. Yet, this phenomenon contrasts with regional tradition. Depending on the definitions of various regional organizations, the South Pacific may encompass as many as twenty-two nations. The following discussion on customary land, however, is most appropriate to twelve of them: Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. The article's generalizations also hold true for their larger neighbor, Papua New Guinea. Collectively, these countries are spread over a vast 11.5 million square miles of ocean. Nevertheless, they share a combination of geographical, biological, sociological, and economic characteristics, and they all have enduring, traditional systems of customary land tenure, which conflict with Western notions of land use. This newfound modernism affecting countries with traditions of customary land tenure means that decisions are occasionally made for personal gain rather than in the best interests of the land-owning group. Despite the influSpike Boydell is a property theorist, property rights expert, and Pacific land tenure specialist. He is foundation director of the Asia-Pacific Centre for Complex Real Property Rights and Professor of the Built Environment at the University of Technology, Sydney in Australia. Winter/Spring 2olo [I7] SOUTH PACIFIC LAND ences of individualism, however, most indigenous peoples maintain an interconnected relationship with the land, choosing not to use it as a commodity. Thus, there is a pronounced clash between indigenous values and capitalist interests, with some commentators asserting that prevailing land tenure traditions preclude the success of business ventures in the region. This article will challenge this reductionist perspective, arguing that the customary nature of land ownership and control in the Pacific does not preclude the optimum use of land-in its many forms-for development. Land in the Pacific. Scholars cite land-more specifically, the lack of clearly defined real property rights based on access to land and resourcesas a major cause of dispute and resultant instability in the South Pacific. This situation is compounded when viewed from outside by those who are familiar with the Western approach to land use. A recent report by the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat highlighted the ongoing misuse of supplanted English words from the colonial erain particular, the word ownership.' The dictionary definition of ownership, for example, is straightforward: if one owns something, it is the individual's to do with as he or she pleases. The individual has absolute right over it-to preserve it and even to destroy it. This is the Western perspective of a fee simple estate in the United States: unencumbered, absolute ownership subject only to the limitations imposed by the four powers of government-taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. As a result of colonization, the South Pacific draws more on Westminster law influences and terminology from the United Kingdom, adopting the concept of freehold instead. Freehold is shorthand for an estate in fee simple of potentially unlimited duration, and represents the most extensive property rights that any individual can hold: full ownership of the land at the grace of the Crown and guaranteed by the State. Such terms, however, are not the essence of indigenous land ownership, with its spiritual connotations and enduring notion of intergenerational guardianship. Thus, in both indigenous and Western societies, what is actually owned-individually or as a family, group, clan, or tribe-is a collection of property rights. Currently, the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UNHABITAT) is promoting a continuum of property rights under its Global Land Tool Network. These range from informal land rights, perceived tenure approaches, and customary land rights- "weak" forms of land holding-at one end of the spectrum, to registered freehold and the leasing system-"strong" forms generally found in Western societies-at the other end.' However, this continuum privileges Western forms of land holding, since informal customary tenures are located at the lowest end of the spectrum and registered freehold is at the ideal or optimal end. While this may indeed be ideal from a Western or donor perspective, the cultural context and customs of indigenous land holdings make the continuum ill-suited for the South Pacific. Freehold is unrealistic, and any adoption of leasehold solutions requires that the land be leased by customary land rights holders to other

Please summarize the articles below

• Summary
• Identifying Main Ideas

Referencing