Draft, finalize, and implement formal SOPs for victim identification and referral to care and train stakeholders on their use. * Proactively identify trafficking victims by screening for trafficking indicators among vulnerable populations, including individuals in commercial sex, People’s Republic of China (PRC) national workers, migrant workers, and child laborers. * Increase efforts to investigate and prosecute trafficking crimes, including those involving complicit officials and individuals facilitating child sex trafficking on private yachts and in hotels, and seek adequate penalties for convicted traffickers, which should involve significant prison terms. * Institutionalize and expand comprehensive anti-trafficking training for front-line officials, including in the basic recruit training, local police stations, and for officers assigned to the Fiji Police Force’s Human Trafficking Unit (HTU), on the indicators of trafficking, victim-centered and trauma-informed trafficking investigations, available victim protection services, and investigative techniques. * Amend trafficking-related provisions of the 2009 Crimes Act to criminalize all forms of trafficking, and amend immigration-related provisions to enable identified foreign victims to work and earn income while assisting with investigations. * Provide a legal alternative to victims’ removal to countries where they may face retribution or hardship. * Work with civil society, the private sector, and religious and community leaders to develop public awareness campaigns, including in iTaukei and Hindi, to raise awareness on all forms of human trafficking and the anti-trafficking laws, particularly among employers, foreign tourists, residents in outer island communities, and vulnerable populations, including individuals in commercial sex, persons displaced by natural disasters, foreign migrant workers, and victims of GBV. * Dedicate funding for victim services and increase the availability and quality of protection services – including renovating the Fiji Immigration Department’s (FID) safehouses and providing short-term shelter, long-term housing, counseling, and medical care – for all trafficking victims, including by partnering with and allocating sufficient funding and in-kind support to civil society service providers. * Train prosecutors and judicial officials on the application of trafficking laws, elements of trafficking, investigative techniques, evidence collection specific to trafficking cases, and alternatives to victim testimony. * Improve collaboration and communication between police and prosecutors, including by assigning a prosecutor to work directly with the police and FID on trafficking cases. * Increase oversight of working conditions for foreign construction workers and increase investigation of labor violations involving children and migrant workers for forced labor.

The government decreased law enforcement efforts. The 2009 Crimes Act criminalized some forms of labor trafficking and all forms of sex trafficking. Sections 112-117 criminalized trafficking in persons but, inconsistent with the international law definition, required either transnational or domestic movement to constitute a trafficking crime. These articles prescribed penalties of up to 20 years’ imprisonment for movement-based trafficking crimes involving adult victims, and up to 25 years’ imprisonment for those involving child victims; these penalties were sufficiently stringent and, with respect to sex trafficking, commensurate with other grave crimes, such as kidnapping. Sex trafficking crimes that did not involve movement could be prosecuted under Sections 106, 107, 226, and 227 of the Crimes Act. Section 106 criminalized sexual servitude by means of force or threat and prescribed penalties of up to 15 years’ imprisonment if the crime involved an adult victim and up to 20 years’ imprisonment if the crime involved a child victim. Section 107 criminalized “deceptive recruiting for sexual services,” including inducing and maintaining individuals in prostitution through deceptive means, and prescribed penalties of up to seven years’ imprisonment if the crime involved an adult victim and up to nine years’ imprisonment if the crime involved a child victim. Sections 226 and 227 criminalized the buying or selling of children for “immoral purposes,” which included prostitution, and prescribed penalties of up to 12 years’ imprisonment. The penalties prescribed under these sections were sufficiently stringent and commensurate with the penalties prescribed for other grave crimes, such as rape. While Sections 103 and 118 criminalized slavery and debt bondage respectively, all forms of labor trafficking were not criminalized under the Crimes Act. The law prescribed penalties of up to 25 years’ imprisonment for slavery, and it prescribed penalties of up to one years’ imprisonment for debt bondage involving an adult victim, and up to two years’ imprisonment for those involving a child victim; the penalties for slavery were sufficiently stringent, while the penalties for debt bondage were not. The government, in partnership with an international organization, conducted a desk review of its anti-trafficking laws; it was ongoing at the end of the reporting period.

The government did not report initiating any sex trafficking investigations for the second consecutive year. Authorities investigated two labor trafficking cases, compared with six labor trafficking investigations in the previous reporting period. The government continued nine trafficking case investigations – four for sex trafficking, four for labor trafficking, and one for unspecified exploitation – initiated in prior reporting periods; authorities closed one of the labor trafficking investigations due to insufficient evidence. The government prosecuted one alleged trafficker for unspecified exploitation, compared with prosecuting two alleged traffickers in the previous reporting period. The government continued three trafficking prosecutions – two for sex trafficking and one for labor trafficking – initiated in prior reporting periods. Courts convicted two traffickers in one case for child sex trafficking, compared with not convicting any in the previous reporting period. Courts sentenced the two traffickers to 14 years’ imprisonment. The government did not report prosecuting an alleged third trafficker, a foreign national, in the case; the alleged trafficker departed Fiji and resided in Australia. The government did not report any other investigations, prosecutions, or convictions of government employees complicit in trafficking crimes. However, authorities investigated two senior government officials who allegedly engaged in misconduct regarding issuance of work permits for foreign nationals. The government did not report an update to an investigation, initiated by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption in February 2021, of an immigration official in a suspected trafficking case.

The Fiji Police Force’s HTU led the government’s antitrafficking law enforcement efforts. The HTU worked with the FID Compliance and Investigation Unit (CIU) and the Labor Division of the Ministry of Employment, Productivity, and Industrial Relations (MEPIR) on cases related to cross-border trafficking and labor exploitation. However, a lack of dedicated resources and funding to combat human trafficking hindered authorities’ ability to investigate trafficking crimes. Authorities reported a lack of interpretation resources inhibited their ability to investigate trafficking cases involving foreign nationals. Authorities did not proactively investigate trafficking cases consistently and the government has only successfully prosecuted four traffickers since 2014. Police officers previously assigned to trafficking cases improperly stored documentation which resulted in missing case information, inhibiting the government’s recent ability to investigate trafficking crimes from prior years. The government did not report efforts to investigate perpetrators of extraterritorial commercial child sexual exploitation and abuse or facilitators who transported child sex trafficking victims to hotels or private yachts, despite reporting this practice increased in prior reporting periods. The government previously reported that, under Fiji’s legal system, the prosecutor’s office acted independently from law enforcement investigations, including in cases involving human trafficking; however, insufficient communication and coordination between police and prosecutors impaired the government’s pursuit of trafficking cases. Officials reported inadequate victim and witness support resources weakened prosecutorial success as prosecutors relied heavily on victim testimony; the length of judicial proceedings also hindered cooperation from victims. The government provided anti-trafficking training to its police recruits, prosecutors, and immigration officials. Law enforcement officials often were not aware of the definition of trafficking, trafficking indicators, procedures for interviewing victims, and how to proactively identify victims. The HTU did not complete SOPs for investigating trafficking cases it began drafting in a prior reporting period. The government collaborated with foreign counterparts on an international trafficking investigation.

The government decreased efforts to identify and protect victims. The government identified eight labor trafficking victims, including one boy, compared with identifying 28 labor trafficking victims in the previous reporting period. The government did not identify any sex trafficking victims for the second consecutive year. The government, in partnership with an international organization, initiated development of victim identification SOPs; the SOPs were not finalized at the end of the reporting period. The government reported relevant agencies used agency-specific identification guidelines; the HTU used a guide to identify trafficking victims, and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police’s Child Sexual Services Unit used an identification checklist. Officials did not proactively screen vulnerable populations, including individuals in commercial sex, for trafficking indicators. Due to a lack of proactive victim identification and consistent use of these guidelines, authorities may have detained and deported some unidentified victims. The government did not report an update to an NRM it began developing in 2022. The Ministry of Defense, National Security, and Policing operated a Case Management Coordinator office (CMC) and a case management mechanism with formal procedures for officials to refer victims to the CMC. The CMC coordinated victim support and oversaw the progression of investigations and prosecutions. The government did not report the CMC oversaw any cases, compared with overseeing one case in the previous reporting period.

The government did not report referring most of the identified victims, including the boy victim, to protection services. The government referred two adult male victims for protection services, compared with referring an unspecified number of victims in the previous reporting period. The government reported providing unspecified protection services directly to victims, compared with providing an unspecified number of victims with shelter, repatriation assistance, and access to basic essentials in the previous reporting period. The government could provide accommodation, legal assistance, repatriation assistance, medical care, interpretation, and funding for basic necessities to victims. The government did not dedicate funds to protection services for trafficking victims and the law did not mandate the provision of services to trafficking victims; therefore, victims often relied on NGOs, with whom the government had informal partnerships, for services. The government could shelter victims younger than 21 under the custody of the Department of Social Welfare, which operated four children’s homes in Suva and Lautoka. The government also provided support to faithbased organizations to provide shelter to some adult trafficking victims. FID operated two safehouses for foreign individuals awaiting deportation and unlike the previous reporting period, the government reported one was dedicated solely to trafficking victims. Government officials and civil society reported the two safehouses needed renovation and could not accommodate women and children victims, therefore they were referred to an NGO shelter. The government could not provide adequate housing for victims with disabilities. Victims did not have a choice between shelter options. In addition, a lack of resources dedicated to interpretation services for foreign victims impeded their access to psycho-social care.

The government allowed all trafficking victims to access protection services regardless of participation in an investigation. The government did not report if any victims participated in investigations or prosecutions. The government could not offer permanent legal alternatives to foreign victims’ removal to countries in which they would face retribution or hardship but could issue renewable, six-month work visas to victims assisting with investigations. The government did not report an update to proposed amendments, drafted in the previous reporting period, to the immigration law to incorporate provisions allowing foreign victims to stay and work for up to three years. The government repatriated three trafficking victims. The Immigration Act protected victims of international trafficking from being penalized for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of being trafficked. However, the law did not protect victims of domestic trafficking from being penalized for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of being trafficked.

The government slightly increased efforts to prevent trafficking. The Interagency National Trafficking Committee, which included government officials, international organizations, and civil society organizations, coordinated the government’s anti-trafficking efforts. The government did not report implementing or allocating funding and personnel to its 2021-2026 anti-trafficking NAP. The government conducted awareness raising activities targeting the public, and anti-trafficking materials developed in prior reporting periods remained available. The awareness raising materials were translated into Hindi, English, Thai, and Chinese; materials were not translated into local languages, which reportedly created a language barrier for the public to readily access information. MEPIR initiated development of a trafficking awareness toolkit for seasonal workers who migrate to Australia and New Zealand as part of seasonal worker schemes; the toolkit was not finalized at the end of the reporting period.

MEPIR, in partnership with an international organization, initiated a gap analysis study focused on identifying issues in the fishing industry; the study remained ongoing at the end of the reporting period. The government, in partnership with an international organization, publicly published the results of a study on the prevalence of trafficking in Fiji conducted in a prior reporting period. The study’s findings identified a limited understanding of human trafficking among the public, especially in rural areas. The government established and mandated a monitoring task force, which included officials from an international organization and MEPIR, to conduct inspections of fishing vessels in the country’s ports; the government did not report conducting any inspections by the end of the reporting period. Authorities did not adequately report the labor conditions of worksites, including construction sites, of companies with foreign owners or that had connections to foreign investors and employed migrant workers. For the third consecutive year, the government did not report how many labor inspections it conducted or report identifying any child labor violations. The MEPIR employed labor inspectors dedicated to identifying labor law violations, including wage violations. The government reported providing training to labor inspectors on victim identification. In the past, observers reported inspectors did not have an adequate understanding of forced labor or how to enforce the laws related to child labor. The Permanent Secretary for Labor issued certificates of authorization for employment agencies, which required agencies meet standards under the Employment Relations Regulations of 2008; agencies convicted of operating without authorization could be fined 20,000 Fijian dollars ($9,240), have their supervising officials imprisoned for up to four years, or both; however, authorities did not convict any agencies during the reporting period.

The government lacked a dedicated anti-trafficking hotline and relied on an NGO hotline for victims of domestic violence and child abuse, which victims could use to report trafficking crimes and seek services; authorities did not report receiving any trafficking information from the hotline. The government did not prohibit worker-paid recruitment fees. The government did not make efforts to reduce the demand for commercial sex acts. The government did not report providing anti-trafficking training to its diplomatic personnel. The government incorporated training on sexual exploitation into pre-deployment training but did not provide trafficking-specific training to Fijian military personnel prior to their deployment abroad as part of international peacekeeping missions.

As reported over the past five years, human traffickers exploit domestic and foreign victims in Fiji, and traffickers exploit victims from Fiji abroad. Approximately 20 percent of respondents to a 2023 prevalence study identified either experiencing themselves or knowing someone who experienced trafficking indicators in the hospitality, retail, wholesale, food service, vehicle maintenance, storage, transportation, construction, agriculture, fisheries, or forestry sectors. Traffickers, including family members, taxi drivers, foreign tourists, businessmen, crewmembers on foreign fishing vessels, and other traffickers exploit foreign victims, including from Thailand and the PRC, as well as Fijian women and children in sex trafficking. Traffickers exploit victims in commercial sex establishments, hotels, private homes, and massage parlors, and sometimes utilize websites and cell phone applications to facilitate the exploitation of sex trafficking victims. Traffickers exploit Fijian and PRC national women and children in PRC national-operated massage parlors and commercial sex establishments, particularly in Suva. In some cases, massage parlor owners arrange for female Fijian employees to engage in commercial sex acts with clients in hotels or commercial sex establishments. Some Fijian children are at risk of sex and labor trafficking as families follow a traditional practice of sending them to live with relatives or families in larger cities, where they may be exploited in domestic servitude or sex trafficking in exchange for food, clothing, shelter, or school fees. Foreign yacht owners and foreigners hiring locally owned yachts dock in rural Fijian islands and seek young women, usually children, for marriage; some of these women and children subsequently become exploited in forced labor or sex trafficking. Taxi drivers or other facilitators transport Fijian child sex trafficking victims to hotels in popular tourist areas or to private yachts at the request of foreign tourists seeking commercial sex acts.

Fijian children are at risk of forced labor in agriculture, retail, or other sectors. Rising levels of poverty also contributed to increased risks of Fijian children being exploited in commercial sex and forced labor. Natural disasters and climate-induced displacement significantly increases Fijians’ vulnerability to trafficking because of loss of livelihood and shelter. The economic crisis related to the pandemic, as well as recent natural disasters, increased the number of children who were driven to use the streets as a source of livelihood or compelled to seek incomes to sustain their families; these children are at risk of being exploited in sex trafficking or forced labor. Children as young as 12 were exploited in sex trafficking, sometimes by family members to purchase food and other essentials for their families. Media reports indicate an increase in online child sexual exploitation, some of which may involve child sex trafficking.

Some Fijian men reportedly marry women from Nepal and Pakistan and exploit them in domestic servitude in Fiji. Labor traffickers exploit workers from South and East Asian countries, including Bangladesh and India, in small, informal farms and factories, as well as in the construction and timber sectors. PRC nationals may have been forced to work in Fiji at projects run by PRC-affiliated companies. PRC nationals employed in Fiji affiliated with the PRC’s Belt and Road Initiative are vulnerable to forced labor, particularly in construction. Foreign nationals, including from the Republic of Korea, who are members of a foreign-based religious organization experience conditions indicative of human trafficking. Recruitment agencies operating in victims’ home countries, vessel owners, and other crewmembers exploit migrant fisherman from Southeast Asian countries, especially Indonesia, in forced labor on Fijian-flagged fishing vessels, or foreign-flagged fishing vessels (mainly PRC- and Taiwan-flagged) transiting Fijian ports and waters. Forced labor victims experience threats of violence, passport confiscation, contract switching, debt-based coercion, excessive working hours, and abusive living and working conditions. Traffickers exploit Fijians in labor trafficking abroad in Australia, New Zealand, and Egypt.