Trade officials and Ministers have been meeting this week in Brisbane to hammer out a new trade agreement between the Pacific Island Countries, and Australia and New Zealand: PACER-Plus.
But even before they started, these negotiations have been controversial.
In August, two days before the Pacific Islands Forum, the heads of state of the 14 Pacific nations were adamant in saying that they were not ready to negotiate. But by the time the Forum meeting had ended, they had done a complete about turn and agreed to start negotiations. There is no doubt that Australia and New Zealand can get their way in the Pacific, but at what price?
The Pacific’s development future is on the table in these negotiations. A rigid free trade agreement could have severe impacts on jobs and livelihoods in the Pacific, and exacerbate the growing levels of poverty and ill-health in the region particularly if they lead to local producers being pushed out of the market by cheaper imports from Australia and New Zealand.
A key risk is the loss of government revenue from tariff reductions that could see Tonga losing 19 per cent of government income from a free trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand, Vanuatu 18 per cent, Kiribati 15 per cent, and Samoa 12 per cent. For many of these countries, the projected loss of government revenue is more than their total health or education budgets.
What is needed is an economic co-operation agreement with the Pacific’s development at its core. Australia and New Zealand have talked the talk on making this a development agreement, they now need to walk the walk.
Given the small size of most island economies and the diversity of societies in the region, there is no off-the-shelf model for an agreement on economic co-operation that could help the Pacific’s development.
These small island nations face complex challenges in their economic development including remoteness from international markets, high transport and communications costs, small population sizes and small domestic markets.
In open competition they are not likely to do well. The question of how they can use international trade to enhance their development given these competitive constraints is a key question.
There needs to be objective research conducted into the types of trade and other economic policies that would benefit the Pacific. A rush to start negotiations without this preparation could cause irreparable damage to the Islands’ economies and their development prospects. There is a lot at stake for the people of the Pacific.
Pacific Island countries are already on the wrong side of a massive trade imbalance with Australia and New Zealand which is almost 6:1 in favour of the two major regional economies once extractives from Papua New Guinea are excluded. A poor agreement is likely to widen this trade imbalance even further.
A good start would be to remove the barriers that make it difficult for the Pacific businesses to export. Many barriers to trade lie in Australia, not the islands. Australian regulations have stymied niche agricultural exports from island countries, at a time when Pacific farmers are seeking new markets. For example, bans on the importation of commercial quantities of kava into Australia have damaged an industry worth tens of millions of dollars to Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.