NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISATION, “EXOTIC” AGROEXPORTS, AND LOCAL CHANGE IN THE PACIFIC
ISLANDS: A STUDY OF THE FIJIAN KAVA SECTOR
Warwick E. Murray
Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Brunel University,
London, UK
ABSTRACT
The economically vulnerable and geographically isolated states and territories of the Pacific
Islands find themselves increasingly powerless to resist the recent accelerated diffusion of
globalisation and the economic options that this entails. Neoliberal policy has arrived in the ocean
region later than elsewhere in the tropical world and in the developing world in general. However,
it now almost exclusively frames regional and state policy agendas, and is profoundly restructuring
economies and societies across the region. Agriculture, by far the leading economic sector in
Pacific Island countries, has been targeted specifically for reform. The cultivation of non-traditional
agricultural exports has formed the centrepiece of the evolving strategy. As well as “staple”
exports such as sugar, copra, and taro going to non-traditional markets, “exotic” niche products
are being developed for export to high income markets in Europe, Asia and North America. A
major example of such a product is kava – a “traditional” crop used in the preparation of a
ceremonial and/or social drink. Psycho- and physiological properties have been identified in the
plant by the pharmaceutical industry that is marketing a range of kava products. Produced widely
across the Pacific, Fiji is the major export source. This paper traces the evolution of globalisation
in the Pacific Islands, placing the current wave of neoliberalism in its historical context. It goes on
to outline the evolution of the Fijian kava export sector, and investigates some of the local socioeconomic impacts of recent market growth. Given the evidence presented in this study, the paper
asks if the power relations evolving under contemporary neoliberal globalisation are likely to be
any different from those that existed during colonial globalisation.
INTRODUCTION
As a Fiji resident on a trip to the small South
Welsh town of Caerphilly early in 2000, I was
fascinated to discover bottles of Kava Kava
pills on sale in a local “alternative” medicine
outlet. The mildly narcotic active ingredient in
these stress-relieving and/or sleep-inducing
pills is known to Western pharmaceutical
science as kavalactone, and is found in the
piper methysticum or kava plant. This plant is
indigenous to the Pacific Island region, and
its physiological and psychological virtues
have been long known to native inhabitants.
The consumption and production of the plant
has played a central role in the islands in sociocultural/symbolic and economic terms
throughout recorded history (Brunton, 1989).
However, only within the last century has the
Western medical industry “discovered” the
Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 21(3), 2000, 355-373
 Copyright 2000 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore, and Blackwell Publishers Ltd
356
Murray
item and marketed it in various forms as a
substitute for such synthetic relaxants as
valium. In advertising the product, the
pharmaceutical companies are very aware of
the economic power of the “exotic”. The
promotional material for the “Bio-organics”
kava product reads:
(S)ometime after the sun begins its
descent into the Pacific, a delicate
breeze pushes the sweet perfume of
frangipani through the warm tropical
air… Just your average day in paradise
really – and a long, long way from the
stress and tension of an average day in
our urban landscape. When it all gets
on top of you and stress and tension
take their grip, whisking yourself away
to a peaceful tropical island can seem
tempting. Wouldn’t it be great if you
could bring a little piece of serenity into
your hectic life?
The trend towards the consumption of
“alternative”, “traditional”, and “organic”
remedies in the industrialised West is well
established, and kava represents the latest in
a long line of items imported from the
periphery. In this way, globalisation often
exploits difference in order to construct and
profit from the “exotic”.
The kava example is part of a much wider
trend of agricultural globalisation that has
pulled (or perhaps more accurately pushed)
many developing countries and regions into
internationalised markets, supplying primary
products to the Western capitalist economies
(LeHeron, 1993; Burch et al., 1996;
McMichael, 1996; Goodman & Watts, 1997;
McKenna et al., 1999). Many such products
have been marketed in terms of their
“alternative” or exotic status (cut flowers,
tropical fruits, alternative medicines, unusual
woods etc.). This globalised agricultural
economy has its roots in the European
colonial period beginning with the expansion
of the Spanish and Portuguese into the
Americas. The colonial division of labour was
intensified in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries through the action of the British and
other European powers. In the twentieth
century, however, a new international division
of labour in agriculture has evolved, in
particular since the end of the Second World
War. This has deepened agricultural
globalisation, creating a worldwide agricultural
system based on capitalist principles that
intimately links geographically dispersed
localities through patterns of agricultural trade
and investment (Friedland, 1994; Murray,
1998a).
Underlying the unfolding of globalisation
over the past twenty years or so is the spread
of neoliberalism and the free market doctrine
increasingly pursued, recommended, and
made obligatory by aid agencies, international
credit agencies, and other “development”
trustees. The ascent of this economic
management system at the insistence of global
capital, and largely to its benefit, has been
well documented (see Dasgupta, 1998 for an
entrance point). The agenda is often
portrayed as something inevitable and
irresistible, which unfolds unproblematically
across the globe, compressing space and
time, and forging one world in its wake. This
idealised, apolitical perspective fails to reflect
the contingent nature of the local
consequences of globalisation, its
geographically differentiating impacts, and
the inequitable distribution of benefits that
arise due to the asymmetric distribution of
power existing in globalised complexes.
Furthermore, it fails to account for the uneven
and often actor-specific transition to
neoliberal policy agendas in different
countries. As Winson (1997:328) argues,
“Nations have been the sites where the
struggle over neoliberal political projects has
taken place. There is much work still to do
before we understand the role of various
actors within the agro-food sector in the
intense ideological struggle that preceded
attempts to introduce various elements of a
neoliberal political agenda in one country after
another”.
Study of the Fijian Kava Sector
This paper adopts the position that
investigating the sources and impacts of
globalisation in exotic/niche (and other) agrofood complexes necessitates a political
economy perspective. This allows the analysis
to capture the historically contingent and
contested nature of the unfolding of the
agenda and its constituent processes. It also
allows the elaboration of differentiated impacts
amongst different social groups and economic
classes. As such, it draws from Winson (1997)
who proposes that such research projects
should be (1) historically detailed; (2) attentive
to class issues; (3) mindful of the political
nature of the unfolding of globalisation; and
(4) attentive to the possibility of the evolution
of a non-mainstream, non-corporate
agricultural sector (such as the organic sector
at present).
The Pacific Island region (Figure 1)
provides something of a microcosm for the
study of the recent and historic waves of
globalisation, providing situated clues as to
the more general nature of the process in the
tropical world. The remainder of this paper
describes and interprets this evolution. In
particular, the “colonial” and “neoliberal”
waves of globalisation are compared, and the
impacts in terms of the agricultural sector
outlined. Focus is then placed on the Fiji
Islands where the neoliberal agenda was first
adopted in the region. One of the
consequences of the adoption of outward
oriented reform has been the deepening in
the importance of the traditional agricultural
export sector (sugar and copra) and the rise
of a non-traditional sector (for example kava
and taro). The paper considers national and
local social and economic impacts of the
evolution of the kava export sector, drawing
evidence from the major Fijian supply locality
– Taveuni Island. Ultimately the paper reflects
on the relative political-economic position of
the Pacific Islands during the two waves of
globalisation, and asks if the recent wave is
conferring the kind of change that enables
sustainable and ethical social and economic
development.
357
WAVES OF GLOBALISATION
AND THE PACIFIC ISLANDS
Globalization is now a central theme in
the affairs of the Pacific Islands, and
Pacific Island governments are caught
up in the rhetoric, the ideology, and the
economic policies of globalization
(Firth, 2000:178).
In a recent paper, Firth (2000) explores the
framework of distinct waves of globalisation
in the Pacific Island region. In particular, these
authors detect two periods where the insertion
of the regional economy and polity into the
global system has accelerated notably.
Focusing on the agricultural sector, which
remains the leading economic sector by far,
these distinct globalisation eras could be
termed the “colonial wave” (1870s-1914) and
the “neoliberal wave” (since 1987). This
conceptualisation challenges the commonly
held belief that globalisation is unprecedented
in the region. Centrally it argues that although
historical details of the nature of the insertion
into the global system vary widely between
periods, the resulting hierarchy of political
economic power existing between the Islands
and the wider world remains much the same.
That is to say, in both periods the Pacific
Islands have been inserted into a global
economy as a resource supplier with no power
to influence conditions pertaining to that
insertion.
The first wave of Western penetration into
the Pacific Island region came in the late 1800s,
led by traders and missionaries who paved
the way for the formal, and sometimes forced,
ceding of territory and the era of colonialism
(Campbell, 1989). A colonial division of labour
ensued, with the region providing primary and
agricultural products often harvested from
colonially-established plantations. Products
were often “exotic” from a Western perspective
for the time, and included such items as
bananas, taro and tropical fruits. Staple colonial
crops as copra and sugar – grown on large
358
Murray
Figure 1. The Fiji Islands.
Study of the Fijian Kava Sector
scale plantations – operated in some cases by
slave and indentured labour were established
in such new territories as Samoa, Hawai’i and
Fiji. (Brookfield et al., 1985). The sudden thrust
of European expansion altered local society
and economy irreversibly. Among the most
important changes in agrarian production were
the beginnings of the erosion of subsistence
agriculture that had dominated exclusively
hitherto; the introduction of monocultures
across large areas partly replacing the formally
diverse small scale agriculture (Clarke, 1990);
and the intensification of formerly low energy
and input systems (Clarke, 1977). Socially, such
changes as the introduction of the concept of
private property and the concomitant reduction
in communal land tenure; the shift to household
based production; the monetisation of local
economies; the import and migration of slave
and indentured labour; and the general
migration of groups from interior areas and
outer lying islands to coastal areas on large
islands have all left enduring legacies (Overton
et al.,1999).
Following the two World Wars and up to the
end of the independence period (1960s-early
1980s), modernisation programmes in the region
became more inward-oriented and import
substitution-based (Chandra, 1993). The late
1980s saw the first appearance of the
development paradigm – neoliberalism – that
had by then had diffused across the rest of the
developing world. This laissez faire doctrine
arrived later in the region than elsewhere largely
due to the geo-strategic importance of the zone
until the end of the Cold War (Murray, 1998b).
This “geopolitical comparative advantage”
(Fleming & Hardaker, 1995) led to extremely high
levels of per capita aid in the region from
Western and Western-aligned powers designed
to maintain military allegiances (Gibson, 1993).
The New World Order evolving in the late 1980s
radically altered the position of the region in
global affairs, and ushered in more orthodox
development “advice” and “assistance” from
the pertinent agencies and governments. By
the late 1990s, the approach had become almost
hegemonic in the region as the major aid donors
359
– Australia, New Zealand and Japan – along
with such lending institutions as the Asian
Development Bank, the World Bank, and the
International Monetary Fund have imposed
conditionality on assistance (AusAid, 1998).
Many Pacific Island Countries (PICs) have
joined, or signified the desire to join, two leading
champions of free trade – the Asia Pacific
Economic Community and the World Trade
Organisation. As such, economic reforms to
downsize the civil service, reduce tariffs, reduce
government expenditure, cut subsidies,
promote exports and other economic efficiencyinducing measures are now commonplace. The
meetings of such regional institutions as the
South Pacific Forum and the Pacific Community
are increasingly centred on neoliberal themes.
Commenting on the evolving orthodoxy in the
region, Firth (2000:186) notes:
The Pacific Islands had no choice
whether or not to accept the first
globalization, and they have no choice
this time either. Pacific Island
governments in the late 1990s have no
alternative but to embrace the policies
of economic liberalization. The
international pressures are too great to
do otherwise, and the capacity of
international financial institutions to
compel obedience too large.
The adoption of such economic
management regimes is having a profound effect
on agriculture. A central objective of
restructuring has been the promotion of
traditional (sugar, copra, coffee) and nontraditional agricultural exports (NTAX) (kava,
vanilla, pumpkins, pawpaws and other fruits
and flowers).1 Given the impending reduction
in concessions through the Lomé Convention,
which grants preferential access to European
1
A “non-traditional” agricultural export is one of
three types: (1) export crops traditionally cultivated
in a country, but not exported (e.g. kava in Vanuatu);
(2) exports crops not cultivated in a country before
(e.g. squash in Tonga); and (3) traditional exports
sent to new markets (e.g. Niuean taro sent to
American Samoa).
360
Murray
markets for a number of traditional regional
exports (notably fish and sugar), PICs are
increasingly attempting to carve out niche
markets based on NTAX in Western markets.
As a consequence of the rejuvenated focus
on agro-exports, a number of worrying trends
are evolving. Food security is being
threatened as export agriculture takes
precedence over domestic and subsistence
production. Export monocultures, which raise
both economic and environmental
vulnerability, are developing in a number of
localities and countries (e.g. squash in Tonga,
taro in Niue). The process of socio-economic
differentiation is being accelerated as certain
classes (for example, the nobility in Tonga
and the merchants in the Fiji kava sector)
accrue the lion’s share of benefits. In some
cases, the pressures to reform land tenancy
to include more freehold, thought necessary
to induce greater efficiency, are growing.2 In
short, although research in this area has only
just begun, early indications suggest that
the new wave threatens the social and
economic order in a regressive way, and is
damaging local environments. This is
increasing the fragility of national economies
that are already highly vulnerable due to
geographic isolation, political-economic
smallness, and susceptibility to natural
disasters.
to regain some of the international favour
that had been seriously jeopardised
t h r o u g h t h e c o u p ( M u r r a y, 1 9 9 8 b ) .
Privatisation schemes, public sector
reform and export orientation are more
advanced in this country than elsewhere
in the region to date. Agriculture, forestry
and fisheries have been the target areas
in this endeavour, and kava is considered
one of the “success” stories of
restructuring. The political and economic
crisis following the recent coup attempt
in May 2000 3 will undoubtedly damage
Fiji’s export sectors in the short term.
However, there is no evidence to suggest
that the interim civilian government will
abandon the neoliberal model. Indeed,
solidifying export-oriented reforms may be
one way of partly repairing its damaged
international reputation.
The adoption of neoliberal policy first
took place in a systematic way in Fiji. This
followed the military coup of 1987 and the
eventual democratic assumption of power
by the coup leader, Sitiveni Rabuka. The
government attempted to shift the
economy from its former inward oriented
stance that saw the country pursuing
import substitution industrialisation
throughout most of the 1980s (Chandra,
1993). The central motive for the shift had
more to do with international politics than
economic rationale. Rabuka was desperate
3
2
In the majority of PICs and also in some remaining
territories, native-held land predominates.
(Crocombe, 1987).
THE FIJIAN KAVA EXPORT
SECTOR
The economic geography of kava
in Fiji
Kava (known in Fiji as yaqona) has been central
in economic (both semi-commercial and
subsistence) and social/cultural terms in Fiji
On May 19, 2000 an indigenous Fijian group led by
businessman George Speight stormed the Parliament
complex and held the elected government hostage
for over 50 days. The Labour Party, as the most
important party within the People’s Coalition, won
the election of March 1999 under a new constitution
of 1997. This constitution restored some of the
political rights taken from Indo-Fijians through the
1987 coup. The Coalition’s leader, Mahendra
Chaudry, was the first Indo-Fijian Prime Minister of
Fiji. The effect of this turmoil in terms of the possible
emigration of members of the Indo-Fijian community,
who generally dominate the export intermediary
sector, is contingent upon evolving circumstances.
Whilst the overall effect on the kava sector is not
determinable, it is likely to be less damaged than
other export sectors given that it does not rely on
international concessions for its survival (see Britton
& Murray, 2000 for a discussion of the background
to the 1997 constitutional reform and 1999 general
election).
Study of the Fijian Kava Sector
for hundreds of years. Lebot et al. (1997) argue
that both the financial and symbolic
importance of the crop has increased since
independence in 1970. The beverage derived
from it has assumed a role as the national drink,
helping define post colonial identity. Fiji did
not become a net exporter of the item until the
1980s (Mangal, 1988), and exports did not take
off substantially until the 1990s. This followed
the Rabuka government’s reforms and the
experimental production of kava-based items,
given the increased popularity of “alternative”
remedies in the West.4 A number of PICs,
including Tonga, Vanuatu, Samoa and the
Marshall Islands, have developed kava export
sectors in the 1990s. Fiji has become
predominant, however, given the relative
magnitude of production, superior experience,
some favourable marketing conditions (e.g. the
location of sizeable expatriate Fijian
populations in New Zealand, Australia, and
the US), and infrastructural advantages.
Kava is consumed in Fiji mainly as a drink
for both ceremonial and, more recently, social
purposes. Traditionally the exclusive beverage
of indigenous rural Fijians, a large market has
developed among other ethnic groups
(particularly Indo-Fijians) and in urban areas
across the country. The drink is normally
prepared by pounding the roots (waka) or stem
(lawena), which releases the active
kavalactones, and mixing it with water. Today
a good proportion of “grog” – as it is known
locally – is marketed in powdered form. The
effect is mildly narcotic and anaesthetic;
conversation and sociability are initially raised.
Eventually, high consumption leads to
“grogginess” and sleep.
Since independence, the kava sector has
rapidly commercialised, led at first by domestic
market opportunities. Accordingly numerous
4
According to Lebot et al. (1997), Western science
knew about kavalactones by the middle of the
twentieth century. The eventual development of the
market thus represents an example of a consumerdriven commodity chain (Leslie & Reimer, 1999).
361
localities have shifted their subsistence base
to include semi- and full marketisation based
around kava. Potential returns per unit are
relatively high. The Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) (1998) estimates
the average gross margin of one acre in 1997 to
be F$7,388.5 In certain localities, gross returns
can be much higher. A MAFF official in Taveuni
claimed that returns of over F$20,000 per acre
can be generated on that island at current prices.
Production costs are low, involving outlay for
labour (to plant, weed at regular intervals during
the two to five year life span of the plant, and
harvest), expenditure on pesticides and fertiliser
in limited (though growing) cases, and transport
costs to market (in the case of most growers to
the nearest “middleman” who will be relatively
close by). The MAFF estimates average costs
of F$2 per kilo. Thus, according to the upper
and lower limits of the estimates above, on one
acre of land with 1,000 three-year plants
producing one kilo each (a very conservative
estimate), net returns might lie anywhere
between F$5,388 and F$18,000. Whatever the
exact finances of production, returns are
extremely high in a country where the per capita
national income is equal to only approximately
F$5,000 per annum (Bertram, 1999). Kava is not
seasonal, and crops can be harvested when
required. It is common to find growers who
cultivate a range of crops, maintaining kava
plantations as “insurance” against losses – a
practice actively encouraged by the MAFF.
Given these characteristics, kava is an extremely
viable cash crop among small-scale farmers. It
is also highly environmentally sustainable
because of its relatively low demands on soil
ecosystems and the great possibilities for
rotational production.
Given the above, along with low
perishability, the crop has assumed an
important role in peripheral locations within
the Fiji group. Sofer (1985) reports that by the
mid-1980s, kava had replaced copra as the main
cash crop in the Lomaiviti group and Kadavu.
5
In April 2000, F$1 was equal to approximately
US$0.50.
362
Murray
TABLE 1. KAVA LAND USE AND PRODUCTION DATA BY DIVISION,
FIJI, 19971
TOTAL TOTAL AREA PRODUCTION PRODUCTIVITY
NO. OF
KAVA AREA HARVESTED
(metric
(metric tonne per FARMERS
(ha)
(ha)
tonne)
harvested ha)
Northern
Central
Western
Eastern
Total
1,247
456
126
576
2,405
671
255.1
48.2
288.2
1,262.8
1,678
705
102
825
3,310
2.5
2.8
2.1
2.9
2.6
4,863
4,227
119
3,680
13,889
MEAN SIZE
PLANTATION
(ha)
0.25
0.11
1.10
0.15
0.17
1
The Fiji group is divided into four divisions for the purposes of government administration. See Figure 1 for the
geographic extent of these divisions.
Source: Adapted from MAFF (1997).
TABLE 2. KAVA AREA AND FARM DATA
1978 AND 1997
Area (ha)
No. of farmers
Mean size of farm
1978
1997
2,401.36
9,280.00
0.25
2,404.00
13,889.00
0.17
Source: Compiled from Mangal (1988) and MAFF
(1997; 1998).
This is also true of Taveuni and the southern
coast of Vanua Levu today. Table 1 shows the
broad geographic distribution of plantations,
production, and farmers within the group in
1997. Plantations are most prevalent in the wet
humid Northern division that includes the
islands of Vanua Levu and Taveuni. Recently
the area under kava in the Central division has
risen significantly, particularly in the area close
to the major domestic market, Suva. At the
local scale, major plantation concentrations
exist today in Ovalau, Naitasiri, Savausavu,
Kadavu, Koro, Gau and Taveuni (see Figure 1
for locations). The average plantation size in
1997 was 0.17 hectares. This hides significant
variations. In the Western division, given
higher prevalence of strictly commercialised
ventures amongst Indo-Fijian farmers, it is ten
times larger than in the Central division where
small semi-subsistence plots dominate.
Productivity in the various divisions lies
between two to three tonnes per hectare.
Notably, there appears to be no positive
correlation between plantation size and
productivity.
Since the late 1970s, the total area under kava
has hovered around the 2,000 hectare mark
(MAFF, 1998). Of late, the proportion harvested
has increased markedly. It is estimated by the
MAFF (1998) that approximately half of all
plantations were harvested in 1997. As Table 2
Study of the Fijian Kava Sector
shows, there has been a considerable increase
in the number of farmers engaged in the activity.
The fact that the average size of holdings has
dropped between the two periods suggests that
small holders have become involved in the
market because of the proliferation of export
and local marketing opportunities. This fall in
size runs counter to the usual process of land
concentration that tends to accompany
commercialisation – especially when that
commercialisation is geared towards exports
(Shepherd, 1998).
The total contribution of kava to the
economy is not accurately measurable due to
the high level of subsistence and other
unrecorded activity. It is uncertain, for example,
how much of the total harvest enters the
domestic and international market. Lebot et al
(1997) estimate that approximately 50 per cent
is not consumed “on-farm”. If this
conservative estimate is taken to be correct,
and a farm gate price of F$14 per kg is assumed,
then farm gate sales alone generated F$23.2
million in 1997 (Murray, 2000). The MAFF
estimates that, incorporating forward and
backward linkages, the sector generated
around F$100 million in 1997 (representing
approximately 4 per cent of GDP). The
importance in terms of employment is
considerable because of the proliferation of
full- and part-time growers, and formal and
“informal” middlemen, wholesalers and other
vendors.
Export growth and the “green
gold” rush of 1998
The development of the kava export sector
began with the creation of an overseas
market amongst Fijian (both indigenous and
Indo-Fijians) expatriates in Pacific Rim
countries (including Australia, New
Zealand, the US, and Canada). Outmigration began in earnest in the 1970s, and
accelerated in the 1980s. This demand, for
beverage use, has been eclipsed by the
1990s’ pharmaceutical demand. According
to Onwueme and Papademetriou (1997), the
Western medical industry recognises five
363
medicinal properties of kava: sleep
induction; pain killing; local anaesthesia;
muscle relaxation; and anti-fungal activity.
A large market is evolving in the light of the
trend away from such synthetic drugs as
valium, and towards “organic” products.
Furthermore, increased capital mobility,
along with broader “world” knowledge
among consumers, gained through wider
travel, education, and the media, has raised
the profile of “alternative” remedies. Kava
is marketed for pharmaceutical use most
commonly in pill form, and sold under such
brand names as “Bio-organics” and
“Nature’s Own”.
The above factors have combined to raise
the volume and value of exports consistently
throughout the 1990s. As Table 3 shows, in
the 1980s export volumes and values
remained consistently below 100 metric
tonnes and F$500,000 respectively. In 1989,
however, the first exports for pharmaceutical
use to the U.S. and Australia were recorded,
and nominal values approached F$1 million.
By 1997, the value and volume of kava
exports stood at unprecedented levels at
F$3.4 million and 364 tonnes respectively.
The upward trajectory was steepened way
beyond expectation in 1998 when export values
increased by a multiple of ten to F$34.6 million.
Kava jumped from being a minor export sector
to become the 6th largest single export item
after sugar, garments, gold, fish, and timber in
terms of value (Table 4). Prices escalated from
just over F$9.25 per kg (the average price for
waka, and lower value lawena and casa are
included here) to F$26.6 between 1997 and 1998.
In some localities a kilo of fine waka sold for
F$45 per kg, triggering a green gold rush. The
vast majority of the demand came in the third
quarter of the year alone (F$23.5 million), when
pharmaceutical company represen-tatives from
the US, Germany, China and Spain travelled to
Fiji in person in order to buy up as much supply
– through local intermediaries – as possible.
Talk of kava becoming Fiji’s number two crop
after sugar, and perhaps even replacing it as
364
Murray
TABLE 3. VALUE, VOLUME AND PRICE OF FIJI KAVA EXPORTS, 1982-99
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
1
VALUE
(F$000s)
VO LUM E
(m etric tonne)
PRICE
(F$/kg)
93.0
107.6
337.4
432.2
187.5
na
202.1
963.5
na
1,203.7
1,327.1
1,914.0
2,556.5
2,745.4
2,407.9
3,366.0
34,642.8
1
22,000.0
17
22
61
75
33
na
38
147
na
141
234
280
329
315
272
364
1,302
na
5.40
4.96
6.14
5.75
5.62
na
5.30
7.10
na
8.18
5.66
6.84
7.77
8.70
8.82
9.25
26.61
na
Provisional figure
Source: Calculated from M angal (1988), Bureau of Statistics, various years, and Fiji Business
(April 2000).
TABLE 4. MAJOR SINGLE EXPORT ITEMS BY VALUE, FIJI 1994-99
(F$MILLION)
Sugar
Garments
Gold
Timber
Fish
Kava
Other
TOTAL
1
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
252.2
141.0
62.6
37.8
63.8
2.6
105.0
665.0
276.1
185.0
58.6
53.1
69.8
2.7
125.1
770.4
301.7
189.9
81.6
45.6
60.4
2.4
139.5
821.1
213.4
200.1
73.9
34.0
50.4
3.3
139.0
714.1
244.2
241
70.5
54.8
49.4
34.7
149.1
843.7
234
271.8
66.8
46.6
53.7
22.0
166.7
861.6
1
Estimated figure (based on preliminary Bureau of Statistics figures)
Source: Bureau of Statistics, various years.
the Lomé concessions were phased out,
abounded (Pacific Business, December 1998).
Although these predictions were premature,
it is instructive to note that of the major Fiji
export sectors in 1998, only gold and kava
did not enjoy significant concessions in their
major respective markets. Given Fiji’s World
Trade Organisation (WTO) membership, such
crops as kava will have to become more
important if Fiji is to maintain international
Study of the Fijian Kava Sector
favour. The crucial need to develop nonprotected sectors will rise over the near
future, given that international concessions
may be withdrawn following recent political
turmoil (see footnote 3) and the establishment
of a non-democratically elected government.
In 1999, preliminary figures of sales equal
to F$22 million suggest that the boom may
well have passed its zenith. General
international demand for the crop, however,
has not fallen (Fiji Island Business, January
1999). Rather, in the scramble to supply in
1999, immature, rotten, and adulterated crop
was exported, damaging Fiji’s reputation in
overseas markets. Buyers have been exploring
possibilities elsewhere in the region as a
consequence (e.g. Vanuatu and Samoa).
Moreover, and perhaps more ominously,
cuttings from exports have been used to set
up plantations in locations as diverse as
Mexico, Chile, Queensland in Australia, and
Hawai’i (Fiji’s Sunday Times, 6 June 1999).
These outcomes of the boom point to the dire
need for co-ordination, regulation and
monitoring in the Fijian kava export complex.
Kava differentiation and changing
commodity chains
In general terms, four differentiated product
markets for kava have evolved, and each of
these can be delimited geographically: (1)
beverage market – within the Pacific Island
region and around the Pacific Rim; (2)
pharmaceutical (extraction of kavalactones
for organic medication) – European
countries; (3) nutraceutical (dietary
supplements) – North and South America;
(4) herbal medicines – China, India and South
East Asia.
By 1998, Fiji exported kava to 29 countries.
As Table 5 shows, of the ten major markets
during this year, eight were Western capitalist
economies. The shifting geography of Fijian
kava exports reveals the dynamics of product
differentiation in the market. In the late 1980s,
beverage-use demand made Australia, New
Zealand, and Samoa the major markets. In the
365
early 1990s, pharmaceutical and nutraceutical
demand ensured that the US and Germany
became the major markets, followed later in the
decade by Spain and France. Most recently the
development of herbal medicine demand has
seen exports arriving in Asia. China has grown
significantly as a purchaser and the MAFF has
expressed the desire to concentrate a significant
marketing campaign in East and South East Asia
over the coming years (Fiji Island Business,
March 1999).
Global commodity chains for kava are also
evolving. Until 1983, at the primary marketing
end, the National Marketing Authority – as coordinator of all aspects of purchase and
marketing – controlled kava exports. Control of
the sector was handed to the Fiji Co-operative
association in 1983, and this sector received a
significant government subsidy for purchasing,
processing, and marketing until 1986. Following
the 1987 coup and the assumption of a generally
neoliberal-oriented economic regime, the market
was opened up to competition. There can be
little doubt that this was instrumental in the
establishment of a significant export sector. In
1997, there were 13 registered exporters (MAFF,
1998). Figures are not available for 1998 and
1999, but the level is likely to be significantly
higher. To date, all exporters have been
domestically owned. In 1998, however, travelling
intermediaries entered and purchased directly
from growers to a certain extent, although many
of the visiting company representatives worked
through local middlemen and exporters.
Rumours concerning the impending entrance
of American, Japanese, and other foreign capital
persistently abound. On a recent research trip
to Taveuni, a Japanese company was observed
investigating the possibility of setting up a
private kava plantation on the island. It is crucial
that the government works to maintain the
balance between locally-controlled and foreign
investment in order to sustain the flow of
benefits to the domestic economy.
The process of getting produce from the
producer to the export level and beyond is
evolving with the globalisation of the sector.
366
TABLE 5. MAJOR MARKET DESTINATIONS OF KAVA EXPORTS 1988-98
(in metric tonne)
1988
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
225
(19%)
232
(19%)
0
171
(13%)
546
(42%)
0
283
(15%)
507
(26%)
0
591
(26%)
1,376
(50%)
321
(12%)
0
785
(23%)
1,563
(46%)
666
(20%)
109
(3%)
0
11,588
(33%)
7,850
(23%)
5,395
(16%)
4,183
(12%)
1,903
(6%)
1,624
(5%)
812
(2%)
249
(1%)
286
(1%)
34,643
US
0
Germany
0
Spain
0
261
(27%)
79
(8%)
0
France
0
0
0
0
0
517
(20%)
837
(33%)
238
(9%)
0
China
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
534
(22%)
846
(35%)
543
(23%)
56
(2%)
0
Switzerland
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
New Zealand
0
Australia
0
122
(13%)
466
(46%)
0
166
(14%)
449
(37%)
0
159
(8%)
586
(31%)
0
87
(3%)
231
(8%)
42
(1%)
2,745
9
(-)
57
(2%)
0
1,204
162
(6%)
607
(24%)
18
(-)
2,556
100
(4%)
36
(2%)
0
963
78
(6%)
370
(28%)
16
(1%)
1,327
2,402
3,366
Samoa
TOTAL
196
(97%)
202
Source: Calculated based on Bureau of Statistics, various years.
1,914
Murray
1989
Study of the Fijian Kava Sector
As noted above, in some cases foreign
buyers have used established middlemen to
purchase from growers. In limited cases
foreign purchasers have assembled produce
and shipped it internationally themselves. On
occasion, when the market demands it, a
second set of middlemen in Suva sell the
produce that was destined for the domestic
market to the export companies. A further
process, in recent times, has been production
and direct export by large scale farmers.
Overall, however, the traditional model that
sees local middlemen assemble produce and
have it transported to Suva-based, generally
Indo-Fijian, export companies dominates. But
work remains to be done on the exact
breakdown of this segment of the commodity
chain. In all cases, the nature of the links
between each of these layers of distribution
is not defined through written contracts –
verbal agreements and “relationship”
contracts remain central (R. Naidu, kava
middleman, personal communication).
In sum, the system is one characterised
by a proliferation of intermediaries. It is
possible that the product will pass through
three or four hands before it reaches the
export stage. As a consequence, growers lose
much of the final market value of their crop.
This arises partly because the numericallydominant small-scale grower sector, given
costs of transport and lack of collective
marketing, tend to sell “to the nearest
middleman”. Recent political events have led
to predictions of a hollowing-out of the
intermediary sector as relatively wealthy
Indo-Fijians (especially those based in Suva)
emigrate to Pacific Rim countries. Although
this may have a destabilising effect, the
increasing presence of direct foreign buyers
and the important role of rural Indo-Fijian
intermediaries – who are less likely to feel
pressure to move out of the country – imply
that this part of the sector will remain intact.
Little is known of the distribution of
benefits between the various nodes of the
chain. Recent research in Taveuni reveals that
367
middlemen located on the island sell produce
to Suva distributors (be they vendors,
intermediaries or export companies) for a markup of approximately 50 per cent over the
original purchase price. For example in 2000,
waka purchased at the farm gate for F$18 per
kilo is sold on at F$28-30 to Suva. The total
cost of this transaction to the intermediary
(including transport, labour and incidental
costs) is somewhere around F$1.5 per kilo –
meaning that the intermediary makes a profit
of between F$8-10 on a kilo of waka at 2000
prices. The eventual price at foreign
destination is extremely variable and records
are not kept for public consumption in Fiji. In
1998, reports of waka selling at US$80 per kg
in the US were made (MAFF 1997). There is
work to be done in this important area of profit
distribution along the kava commodity chain.
There can be little doubt that at the present
time, the distribution of information favours
retailers and high-level intermediaries rather
than growers and primary middlemen. This
exacerbates the undoubted concentration of
benefits towards the retail end of the chain.
Local change in Taveuni Island, Fiji
– the 1998 boom 6
Located in the Northern division on the
south-eastern tip of Vanua Levu, Taveuni is
the third largest island in the Fiji group. It
is renowned for its rich, fertile volcanic
soils. These, along with high levels of
precipitation and insolation, make it one of
the most biodiverse and luxuriant of Fiji’s
islands, and locals refer to it as the “garden
island”. The colonial powers were quick to
exploit its agricultural potential and set up
extensive coconut plantations in the 1800s,
supplying the then highly lucrative world
copra market. Traded from the local
indigenous sector, a high proportion of the
island’s good, accessible land remains
under freehold tenure today – in Fiji as a
6
Information reported here was collected during a field
visit to the island between 5-12 April 2000. James
Britton of USP Geography accompanied the author
on this trip.
368
Murray
whole, the majority of land remains tribally
owned and has been unalienable under all
constitutions (including that of 1997) since
independence. This partly explains the fact
that, despite the abundance of natural
resources, the island has one of the highest
levels of malnutrition and poverty in the
country (K-Plange, Head, Department of
Sociology, University of the South Pacific,
personal communication). Poor social
conditions are concentrated amongst the
ethnic Fijian group7 and are in part a legacy
of colonialism and the development of
freehold land.
Today, Taveuni maintains its almost
exclusively agricultural economic base. A
high proportion of the population produces
at least some subsistence output, although
traded agricultural production is relatively
high. In total, there are approximately 2,500
farmers, the majority of whom farm small
plots of one to two acres. The agricultural
economy is functionally differentiated in
terms of race with Indo-Fijians dominating
commercial agricultural production on
relatively large plots leased from either
large scale plantation owners or from
mataqali 8 land. A small number of landholding families of European descent still
operate plantations. The numerically
largest farmer sub-group, however,
comprises indigenous Fijians. In general,
this group has moved into commercial
agricultural production only in the recent
past (MAFF, personal communication). The
7
Fiji’s two main ethnic groups are the indigenous Fijian
group that now constitutes just over half of the total
national population of approximately 800,000. IndoFijians, many of whom descend from indentured
labourers who worked on colonial sugar plantations,
represent just under half of the total population. On
Taveuni, although exact figures are not available, there
is a relatively high proportion of indigenous Fijians.
8
The central native landholding unit in Fiji that consists
of close relatives on the patrilineal side. Land is allocated
to male members of the mataqali. The colonial
administration recognised these units, and established a
formal system delimiting mataqali lands that is today
administered by the Native Land Trust Board.
major cash crops at present are taro, kava,
and copra, with exports of the first two –
both to other Fijian islands and
internationally – forming the backbone of
the local cash economy.
The local agro-economy has long
exhibited a specialisation in the production
of kava, serving as one of the major
suppliers to the rest of the country. Natural
climatic and physical advantages, a large
local market in Vanua Levu and other nearby
islands, along with ubiquitous coconut
palms under which kava can be cultivated
in the shade it requires, explains this
concentration. The total amount of land
under kava is estimated to be around 300
hectares (MAFF, personal communication),
representing half of the total Northern
division plantations, and nearly a quarter of
the total stock of the country. Annual
production has hovered around the 200-250
metric tonne mark for the last 5 years, thus
providing a significant proportion of the
country’s total domestic and export supply.
Just under half of the island’s 2,500 farmers
have plantations of kava – representing
nearly 10 per cent of the country’s total. The
first international exports from the island
took place when a local middleman set up
direct export to Sydney for expatriate IndoFijians and ethnic Fijians in 1986 (R. Naidu,
personal communication).
It was against this backdrop that the
major impacts of the national boom were
concentrated in late 1998. Purchasers from
an array of countries, working through
some of the established 20 local middlemen
and Suva-based middlemen, entered the
market “overnight” (R. Naidu, personal
communication). The sudden increase in
demand triggered a scramble to supply
intermediaries offering unprecedented prices.
Middlemen purchased parts of plants that
were not normally saleable for consumption,
including the casa, civicivi and the chopsuey,
as whole plantations were entirely stripped to
satisfy the demand.
Study of the Fijian Kava Sector
The spoils of the boom were soon evident.
Newly affluent growers and intermediaries
purchased such white goods as videos,
televisions, and stereo systems, in some cases
for the first time in their respective villages.
Electricity generators for individual homes
(Taveuni has no standing power system and
relies on communal generators), and satellite
dishes began to appear in the island’s main
settlement, Somosomo. Credit was obtained
for the purchase of highly expensive fourwheel drive trucks as the national media
reported the island – with only one sealed road
– swamped in imported vehicles (Pacific
Business, December 1998). Homes were
improved and investment in the private sector
escalated rapidly. Local supermarket owners
claim that diets visibly changed; in the villages
more expensive tinned food, biscuits and meat
were regularly consumed. Stores sold far more
beer than had hitherto been the case (S.
Prasad, Taveuni retailer, personal communication). Superficially, for a moment at least, it
appeared as if living standards had universally
increased.
However, a closer inspection of the boom
and its aftermath reveals a range of regressive
impacts and the generally short-lived nature
of the prosperity it yielded. According to the
local police, in a bid to maximise individual
earnings the theft of kava plants became
widespread, and numerous fights and injuries
were caused over this. There are reports of
the mixing of sawdust and other items in
powdered products, and the inclusion of
common tree sticks in bales of pure waka and
lawena. Much of the crop was not dried fully
before shipment, leading to rotting. Most
worryingly, in terms of the sustainability of
the local sector, is the fact that much immature
kava was harvested. The optimal “pulling” time
is three years. There are reports of kava of
only 12 to 18 months being sold. As a
consequence, a local MAFF official claims that
nearly two-thirds of the island’s total stock is
now less than two years old. Older kava was
sold in bulk and in the form of entire plants,
rather than its constituent products. As such,
369
it often fetched less than the full market price
had it been “processed”. Due to the preceding
factors, the international reputation of Taveuni
kava suffered seriously in the scramble. Finally,
during and after the boom, the use of chemical
fertilisers and pesticides became far more
widespread than it had been hitherto, signalling
possible fertility and pollution problems in
future years.
Given the problems encountered in 1998,
only a handful of the international purchasers
returned to the island in 1999. Many had
already found alternative and relatively reliable
supply sources in Fiji and beyond. Many
Taveuni inhabitants fell behind with hirepurchase payments, and repossession of items
was widespread – especially from indigenous
Fijians. It is a local belief that ethnic Fijians
spent much of the money on social obligations
– including donations to the wider village,
chiefs, and most often the church. Indo-Fijians
on the other hand, it is argued, accumulated
the money and invested in a more explicitly
capitalist fashion. Locals report that living
standards in the Fijian villages did not rise
permanently, contrasting with some of the
clearly visible structural material advances
exhibited in the mainly Indo-Fijian settlements.
Overall, it would appear that benefits were
socially concentrated in terms of economic
function, economic class, and race. Intermediaries and relatively large-scale growers
enjoyed large incomes and have managed to
sustain some of the benefits through the
investment of surplus. As previously outlined,
persons belonging to these groups are
generally either of European or Indian descent.
Ethnic Fijians – generally small scale growers
– appear to have gained little in long run
economic terms. Added to the regressive social
impact is the possible environmental cost,
which has not been investigated in any
systematic way to date. It is significant that
the majority of the interviewees directly
involved in the boom stated that they wished
to specialise in the local/national market where
demand patterns are familiar and relatively
370
Murray
predictable. In short, Taveuni’s “green gold”
rush exacerbated social inequality and proved
economically and (potentially) environmentally unsustainable. This illustrates the
vulnerability that rapid globalisation can create
in localities where economic impacts are not
foreseen and are, consequently, underregulated.
CONCLUSIONS: PROGRESS OR
REGRESSION?
Kava exports provide a valuable opportunity
for the Fijian economy. In theory at least, the
crop can be produced in a manner that is
environmentally sustainable. Furthermore,
production is suitable for peripheral localities
and for small scale farmers. Two stated desires
of the ousted People’s coalition government –
the promotion of equity and the
decentralisation of economic opportunity –
potentially could be fulfilled through the careful
promotion of exports. However, as the case
study of Taveuni shows, if globalisation is not
regulated, its net impact can be deleterious on
balance. The sudden penetration of global
forces can place local economies beyond the
control of local populations and national
governments. When change becomes
determined largely by external processes and
agendas in this way, it can prove difficult to
ensure that the direction of restructuring
benefits local society and respects the limits
of the environment. Furthermore, minute pulses
in the global economic landscape can
devastate local economies linked into global
commodity chains as monocultural suppliers.
The erosion of agricultural diversity in general
and subsistence agriculture in particular makes
the potential costs of failure in the marketplace
higher than ever before for Pacific Island
populations.
Although the political and economic crisis
of 2000 will set the kava industry back, its
medium- and long-term future rests on broader
questions of regional and global political
economy. The set of pertinent issues has much
in common with challenges facing other
developing countries involved in different
segments of the global agro-food complex.
Foreign competition is mounting both within
and beyond the region. As noted, a number of
countries around the Pacific Rim have
established relatively large-scale plantations.
To remain competitive, steps to improve the
quality of Fijian kava and moves to establish a
regional supply scheme will be crucial. Further,
to prevent the continued spread of extraregional plantations, attempts to ban the export
of planting material and establish property
rights need to be undertaken (Fiji’s Sunday
Times, 6 June 1999). Work is also needed on
the development of value adding potential in
the sector. It is uncertain exactly how much
value is being lost, and research should aim to
establish this through the uncovering of the
detail nature of global kava commodity chains.
The possibility of establishing processing
factories for foods, medicine and drinks under
joint venture agreements within Fiji needs to
be investigated. As noted, the international
corporate sector has not yet appropriated the
production and primary marketing end of this
global commodity chain. As such, a rare
opportunity for the retention of benefits within
the national economy exists.
It is critically important that the small-farm
sector maintains its central role in the market.
As indicated previously, the argument that land
concentration leads to improvements in
productivity is not demonstrable in the case
of kava. Therefore, the “increased efficiency”
argument often heard in order to justify the
demise of the small grower sector worldwide
is not applicable in this case. Rather, its
maintenance can play an important part in
ensuring that the benefits of export growth
are spread more equitably throughout society.
Also, its existence can ensure that the costs
of rapid neoliberal agricultural development
observed in a range of cases (Murray, 1998a)
– such as marginalisation, proletarianisation
and rural-urban migration – are avoided. The
further commercialisation of the small scale
kava sector needs to bear in mind the
importance of maintaining subsistence
Study of the Fijian Kava Sector
production in order to provide a basic needs
safety net. One way of increasing the viability
of the small farm sector and preventing the
accumulation of benefits in the intermediary
class is through investment in transport
infrastructure. This will help reduce the
tendency among small growers to sell to the
nearest middleman who often enjoys a local
spatial monopsony. Promoting co-operative
movements will also increase the viability of
the small-farm sector. There is a role for the
government and non-governmental
organisations in all of the above, but such
involvement and intervention is expensive. It
is a frustrating irony that obtaining the
necessary funds to resist the worst aspects of
globalisation will often necessarily involve
submitting to conditions that are likely to
accelerate its penetration.
The processes uncovered in the Fijian kava
sector are not exclusive either to that country
or to that sector. Research on Tongan squash
pumpkin, Niuean taro, and Vanuatu kava is
revealing similar social, economic and
environmental tensions (Overton et al., 1999).
During the second wave of globalisation, the
Pacific Islands may well be increasingly unable
to exert an influence over external economic
processes and regulate the local impacts of
global economic restructuring. It is important,
however, that globalisation is not ascribed with
the power to determine fully local outcomes.
Neither should it be seen as inevitable. The
wide adoption of such a fatalistic perspective
partly explains the rapidity with which the
discourse is diffusing and being
unquestioningly accepted. In this way,
economic globalisation has become a selffulfilling prophecy. It is imperative that
countries attempt to muster resistance to the
more regressive implications of economic
globalisation, and to develop from within
where possible. Achieving this is contingent
upon careful planning, and will require moves
to promote regional co-operation in terms that
go beyond the South Pacific trade agreement
currently under discussion. In the case of the
agricultural sector, a regional approach can
371
consider taking the following steps: to coordinate technology, research, and quality
control, and to share its costs; to implement
property rights legislation in pertinent areas;
to establish buffer stock systems, and regionwide agricultural marketing and production
strategy plans; and to commit to the
maintenance of native property rights.
Unfortunately, given the evolving neoliberal
order in the region – which pits country against
country in relentless competition and rewards
governments for taking their economies down
this road – striking such an agreement will be
extremely difficult. Failure to establish common
resistance will compound the exploitation of
“exotic” natural resources by external
economic powers with little regard for local
socio-economic and environmental costs. This
will further accelerate the region’s economic
descent towards the subordinate position that
it occupied during the first wave of
globalisation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank the USP
Research committee for granting the funds for
travel to Taveuni. He would also like to thank
the growers, intermediaries, MAFF
agronomists who were very forthcoming with
their time, information and ideas. Finally, James
Britton (University of the South Pacific) should
be thanked for accompanying the author on
fieldwork and offering valuable ideas.
REFERENCES
Australian Overseas Aid Program (AusAid)
(1998) Pacific Program Profiles 19981999, AusAid, Canberra.
Bertram, G. (1999) ‘Economy’, in Rapaport, M.
(ed.), The Pacific Islands: Environment
and Society, Honolulu: Bess Press.
Britton J. & Murray W. E. (forthcoming) ‘Space,
power and politics in Fiji: Geographies of
the 1999 general election’, Journal of
Pacific Studies.
372
Murray
Brookfield, H., Ellis, F. & Ward, R. G. (1985)
Land, Cane and Coconuts, Canberra:
Australia National University.
Firth, S. (2000) ‘The Pacific Islands and the
Globalization Agenda’, The Contemporary
Pacific, 12(1), 178-92.
Brunton, R. (1989) The Abandoned Narcotic:
Kava and Cultural Instability in
Melanesia, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fleming, E. & Hardaker, J.B. (1995) Pacific
2010: Strategies for Polynesian
Agricultural Development, Canberra:
Australia National University.
Burch, D., Rickson, R. & Lawrence, G. (eds.)
(1996) Globalization and Agri-food
restructuring, Sydney: Avebury.
Bureau of Statistics of the Government of Fiji
(various years) Annual Export Report,
Suva, Fiji: Bureau of Statistics.
Campbell, I. (1989) A History of the Pacific
Islands, Christchurch, New Zealand:
University of Canterbury Press.
Chandra, R. (1993) ‘Breaking out of importsubstitution industrialisation: The case of
Fiji’, in D.G. Lockhart, D. Drakakis-Smith &
J. Schembri (eds.), The Development
Process in Small Island States, London:
Routledge, 203-27.
Clarke, W.C. (1977) ‘The structure of
permanence: The relevance of selfsubsistence communities for world
ecosystem management’, in T. BaylissSmith & R. Freachen (eds.), Subsistence
and Survival: Rural Ecology in the
Pacific, New York: Academic Press, 36384.
Clarke, W.C. (1990) ‘Learning from the past:
Traditional knowledge and sustainable
development’, The Contemporary Pacific,
2(2), 233-53.
Crocombe, R. (ed.) (1987) Land Tenure in the
Pacific, Suva: University of the South
Pacific.
Dasgupta, B. (1998) Structural Adjustment,
Global Trade and the New Political
Economy of Development, London: Zed
Press.
Fiji’s Sunday Times, 6 June,1999.
Fiji Island Business, various issues.
Friedland, W.H. (1994) ‘The global fresh fruit
and vegetable system: An industrial
organisation analysis’, in P. McMichael
(ed.), The Global Restructuring of AgroFood Systems, Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
Gibson, L. (1993) ‘International aid - what’s in
it for us?’ in Waddell, E. and Nunn, P. (eds.)
The Margin Fades: Geographical
Itineraries in a World of Islands, Suva:
Institute of Pacific Studies, 141-50.
Goodman, D. & Watts M.J. (ed.) (1997)
Globalising Food, London: Routledge.
Le Heron, R. (1993) Globalised Agriculture,
Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Lebot, V., Merlin, M. & Lindstrom, L. (1997)
Kava the Pacific Elixir, Rochester,
Vermont: Healing Arts Press.
Leslie, D. & Reimer, S (1999) ‘Spatializing
commodity chains’, Progress in Human
Geography, 23(3), 401-20.
Mangal, J. (1988) ‘The marketing of yaqona’,
in J. Overton (ed.), Rural Fiji, Suva:
Institute of Pacific Studies, University of
South Pacific, 59-70.
McKenna, M., Roche, M., Mansvelt, J. & Berg.
L. (1999) ‘Core issues in New Zealand’s
apple industry: global-local challenges’,
Geography, 275-80.
McMichael, P. (1996) ‘Globalisation: Myths
and realities’, Rural Sociology, 61(1), 2555.
Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries
(MAFF) (1997) MAFF Annual Report,
Suva, Fiji: MAFF.
Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries
(MAFF) (1998) Opportunities for the
Study of the Fijian Kava Sector
Production of Yaqona in Fiji for Export,
Situation Analysis No. 1, Suva, Fiji: MAFF
and AusAid.
Murray, W.E. (1998a) ‘The globalisation of
fruit, neoliberalism and the question of
sustainability: Lessons from Chile’,
European Journal of Development
Research, 10(1), 201-27.
Murray, W.E. (1998b) ‘The global agro-food
complex, neoliberalism and small farmers
in Chile: Lessons for the Pacific Islands?’,
Journal of Pacific Studies, 22, 27-60
Murray, W.E. (2000) ‘The roots of progress?
Challenges for the Fiji kava export sector’,
in M. Reddy & B. Prasad (eds.),
Agriculture and Development in Fiji, Suva:
Fiji Institute of Applied Studies.
Onwueme, I.C. & Papademetriou, M.K. (1997)
The Kava Crop and its Potential, Bangkok,
373
Thailand: FAO Regional office for Asia and
the Pacific.
Overton, J., Murray, W.E. & Ali, I. (1999)
‘Commodity production and unsustainable
agriculture’, in J. Overton & R. Scheyvens,
R. (eds.) Strategies for Sustainable
Development: Experiences from the Pacific
Islands, London: Zed Press, 168-84.
Pacific Business (1998) ‘Nations caught by
influx in kava demand’, December, 28-29.
Shepherd, A. (1998) Rural Sustainable
Development, London: Macmillan.
Sofer, M. (1985) ‘Yaqona and peripheral
economy’, Pacific Viewpoint, 26(2), 415-36.
Winson, A. (1997) ‘Theoretical reflections:
Transnational capital and its alternatives’,
in D. Goodman & M.J. Watts (eds.),
Globalising Food, London: Routledge, 32432.