From the current revenue earned from mining, only land leases have been paid out to landowners and no royalty payments as yet, because there are no specific guidelines to determine the distributions.
These have brought about the great need to determine the fair share of mineral royalties between the Fiji Government and the landowners in Fiji.
Therefore, the research question for this paper is “How are multiple competing advocacy coalitions interact based on different policy beliefs and what effects do divergent definitions of the policy problems have on the agenda setting stage to formulate Fiji’s Mineral Royalty Policy?
” To answer this research question, this study utilized: i) the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to describe the formation of the three coalitions and the strategies undertaken to advocate on core beliefs and; ii) the Issue Network Theory (INT) to describe the interactions of the three coalitions in selected venues in attempts to reach a common ground before the actual agenda setting for the formulation of FMRP.
And lastly, secondary aspects are relative to policy execution.
They are allegedly to change, for example, existing rules versus economic motivations .
However, the political instability currently experienced in Fiji provides challenges to the coalitions in advocacy efforts and issues pertaining to FMRP have become politicized.
Despite the significance of mineral rights and ownership conflicts among the relevant stakeholder coalitions, including indigenous communities around the world [4,5,6,7], there is surprisingly little literature on the decision-making process for making sustainable mineral royalty policies.
Others are considered as technical and processed regularly, mainly by policy experts, outside of public attention .
As emphasized by Sabatier and Weible , the main characteristics of ACF include the following: (a) producing policies in modernized societies is very complicated, practically and legitimately and actors must be experts and also influential.