Comments

Excellent piece Richard. I recently worked with NatureFiji on an IUCN consultancy to identify the 2 economic sectors with the greatest impact (and potential to mitigate) on biodiversity in Fiji. For terrestrial environments agriculture was far and away the most important sector and the issue with increasing kava production (and associated impacts) clearly acknowledged in the literature, species assessments and expert assessments. The next stage of this project is coming up, I hope NatureFiji, Dick Watling will include you in their discussions.

Thanks very much, Ryan, for raising these issues. On your first point - There has indeed been significant conversion of forested land to grow export crops in the past. For instance, I mentioned in the blog that the growing exports of taro, over the past fifteen years or so, led to rapid deforestation in Fiji's Taveuni island (a relatively small island which accounted for two-thirds of Fiji's taro exports at the time). The difference lies probably mainly in the relative level of economic incentives. Taro was selling for around $2 per kg at the farm gate, whereas the price of kava can exceed $100 per kg. Evidently the figures are not directly comparable, because kava takes three or four years to grow and it is a processed product, requiring considerable further work to dry and grind the product; whereas taro takes about nine months to grow and is sold pretty much fresh from the ground; nevertheless, overall, kava offers a higher return for farmers. In addition, there is currently the added pressure from the Covid-related shutdown of the international tourist industry, which previously accounted for some 40% of Fiji's GDP; there have been literally thousands of former employees of the tourist industry put out of work and they have returned to their communities, urgently needing a source of income. Growing kava for export has offered a ready source of cash - and a lifeline for rural economic survival... albeit at the cost of rapid erosion of the natural resource base. On your second point - Most of the land currently being deforested is under traditional land tenure - that is, owned by communities. It is mainly allocated to community members for their individual use through traditional mechanisms - though some is now more formally leased through the iTaukei Land Trust Board (TLTB). Both mechanisms could potentially provide means to limit or slow the risk of land degradation - but the systems need time to adjust to the new levels of threat.

Interesting piece Richard. I have two questions I'd be really keen to hear your thoughts on. First, why do you think that the land conversion you describe is happening now, rather than in the past? I would have thought that other agricultural production, including cash crops, would similarly have been more economically attractive than it being idle/forested, or even subsistence farmed. Is it just that the price is so high now that it offsets preexisting environmental and social references to maintain cover? Or what is special about kava, say compared to other lucrative crops or even non-agricultural productive land uses? Second, and this is certainly a naive question on my part and related to where I am coming from in the first question, what is the tenure situation on the recently converted lands? I'm guessing not protected, privately owned, or communal? As you might be aware, other Pacific countries also are suitable for and grow a fair bit of palm oil which has only recently hit record prices again, and looks like this trend will only continue (thus making conversion attractive, given the crop's life cycle). This spills over to vegetable oil costs and food inflation, but also producer (and potential producer) behaviour, like your kava example. Thanks Ryan

This is a terrific piece of work. I have been looking for this information for some time. When do you think the alternative IMF Fund will be available?

Thanks for this excellent and informative tribute, Doug. Brij richly deserves the recognition he has received for his work, and you our gratitude for having written and spoken about his many achievements. Brij was indeed fortunate in having a dear friend and a valued collaborator in you. Vinaka vakalevu and Dhanyabad!

https://voiceoftheeasternseaboard.wordpress.com/2022/01/20/a-response-to-russell-yangindui-article-women-parliamentarians-in-the-2017-general-elections-part-one-and-part-two-a-critical-and-analytical-perspective/ This is my comprehensive reply to your article which I think is fairly good article.

Thanks Hava.

Is the focus only on physical abuse or are people in PNG also aware of other forms of abuse, such as emotional, mental, financial, etc?

This is the root cause: "Some people with very traditional beliefs think they have the right to control their partner and that women aren’t equal to men."

This was an interesting read and as you said, good recommendations remain just that without appropriate action.

I agree. It's about time that stories are told on the impacts of the scheme to families in rural and urban communities, according to their viewpoints.

The scheme has not been without problems - not unexpectedly so for something of this nature, and now fears that covid-19 could be the final straw, if not the killer blow, is alarming. Media have reported the problems with scheme, which is fair enough, but there are many success stories as well. Now’s the time to step up and report them, especially Pacific media. Besides dry figures and analysis, human interest stories. Talk to the families who have benefited from the scheme. How did it change their lives? How do they feel about shutting it down? How will they be affected?