The EC’s decision to begin the withdrawal of its trade and pricing preferences for ACP sugar exports as early as 2006 has led to criticism even from within EU member states. For example, a British House of Commons report on fair trade and the EU’s trade agreements with ACP countries, while not critical of the EC’s reform of the sugar regime per se, gives voice to concern that due attention be paid to the implications of reform on ACP countries that rely on the EU market. The authors of the Report were seeking reassurance that capacity outside the sugar sector would be built in affected countries. ^[54] If this production capacity is to be successfully built in Fiji then the funds borrowed by the Fiji Government from the ADB, together with the considerable flow of monies from a range of other sources, including from the EC, will have to be used wisely. These funds must not be used only to restructure the ailing sugar industry. They will need to be invested in projects that provide employment opportunities for grassroots sugar producers who lose confidence in their industry and find they have little option other than to seek work in Fiji’s growing informal sector.

Employment opportunities and income for citizens and their families and communities and the nation’s capacity to generate foreign exchange are areas where the loss of EU sugar trading and pricing preferences will be keenly felt, particularly when it is remembered that the problems associated with the sugar industry do not stand alone. Fiji’s garment industry has declined. The free market-informed decision to end the MFA without provision for any form of global market regulation aimed at offsetting the disadvantage to be borne by garment-producing countries that cannot match the low wages paid to China’s rural-to-urban migrant workers is the most immediate cause of the difficulties now faced by Fiji-based garment manufacturers. These are difficulties that have combined with but cannot be overcome by trading concessions granted to Fijian manufacturers by the Australian Government. Extending the S–TCF scheme and reductions in ‘rules-of-origin’ percentages for cut, make and trim garments returning to Australia will not compensate for the loss of US market quotas attached to the MFA.

In the argument I have presented above, I note that the Fiji Sugar Cane Growers’ Council’s leader, Jaganath Sami, projected that ‘by 2009, at least 65 per cent of cane farmers may not be viable’. ^[55] This is a worst-case scenario. However, it is already clear that a significant number of cane growers whose families will no longer be in a position to live from the proceeds of their crops will move to town and it is equally clear that the quality of their lives will be impacted greatly by the policies adopted by their government. Not only will they require their share of the funds flowing into Fiji to offset the negative impact of the end of trade and price preferences for sugar, they will need to benefit from innovative polices adopted by their government with respect to the provision of housing and secure tenure of suitable land; the provision of basic services such as water, electricity and sewerage; promotion of the informal economy, including the possible licensing of informal trading enterprises such as roadside stalls and backyard mechanical repair shops; the provision of accessible grassroots saving opportunities and micro-credit facilities; and suitable investment in human capital, particularly in the training of workers.

The growth in remittances is a bright spot on Fiji’s economic landscape. Remittances are being touted by international bodies such as the World Bank, the IMF, the ADB, the ILO and even APEC as a means of providing ‘the most direct, immediate, and far-reaching benefit for overseas workers, their families, and their countries of origin’. The authors of such glowing endorsements then often go on to note that ‘despite the social and other costs of migration, many families of overseas workers, particularly those in the low-income sectors, rely on remittances’. It is this reliance that has led to the current push to identify measures that would ‘harness’ inflowing funds as an investment resource. There would be considerable benefit to be derived from schemes intending to channel these funds into projects such as the establishment of grassroots credit cooperatives or micro-banks. However, there is another face to the current push to ‘harness’ remittance monies. It relates to what has been described enthusiastically as the ‘generation of vibrant competition among banks, money transfer agencies, and other traditional remittance players … to serve as remittance conduits’. These banks, money transfer agencies and others are claiming for themselves the brief of facilitating the shift of remittance payments from informal to formal channels. They claim that their participation in ‘the remittance market’ will benefit those who work overseas and remit monies to their families in their home country. ^[56] However, there is room for some suspicion when it comes to assessing their claim to be promoting primarily altruistic motives. Western Union’s ‘vision’ of ever-more McDonald’s restaurant outlets for money transfers serves to underline the predominantly commercial, profit-driven nature of their endeavours.