Trade Negotiations and Regional Economic Integration in the Pacific Islands Forum

Abstract

When the Pacific Islands Forum was established in 1971, regional

Intellectual property protection and development: The case of sustainable sea transport in Pacific Island countries

“…The combination of free trade agreements and the ideational processes of WIPO-led awarenessraising and capacity building have resulted in a considerable degree of uptake of, and enthusiasm for, the global intellectual property model among national governments in the Pacific Islands (for a more detailed analysis of the politics behind free trade agreements in the Pacific Islands region see Morgan (2014) and Kelsey (2004)). This can be demonstrated by the following table in Figure 1 The assumptions made about technology, innovation and development have also led to a conceptual polarization of 'traditional knowledge' on the one hand and 'modern' innovation on the other.…”

Multilateralism and Regionalism in the South Pacific: World Trade Organization and Regional Fora as Complementary Institutions for Trade Facilitation

“…In the Final Act, countries committed to eliminate MFA quotas within a decade, and the quotas disappeared by the end of 2004. In 1999, the garment industry employed about 18,000 Fijians, and the number of factories had increased from 27 in 1988 to 110 in 1999 (Morgan , 328). By 2005, only 40 factories remained in business.…”

“…Direct and indirect employment in Fiji's sugar production numbered around 200,000 or 20 percent of the work force in 2011 (IMF, 2011). Some producers have gained a price premium through fairtrade certification, but most will have to find other work (Morgan , p. 327). Tariff reduction in Australia and New Zealand eroded the margin of protection for Pacific island exporters to those markets, and termination of the MFA destroyed much of Fiji's garment industry.…”

“…Another manifestation of this distrust, centred on concerns about ability to compete on a flat field, has been the clinging to quasi‐colonial preferential access to the markets of former imperial powers or neighbouring high‐income countries via Lomé and SPARTECA and their successors. That approach is clearly defunct in today's global economy, as ‘arguments for special treatment have, in the main, fallen on deaf ears in Brussels, Canberra and Wellington’ (Morgan , 334).…”

“…Australia and New Zealand responded by offering to take their negotiations beyond-trade issues, and between 2007 and 2009, they negotiated the launch of PACER-Plus negotiations, which begun in October 2009. 16 However, PACER-Plus negotiators progressed slowly in large part due to continuing dissonance between the position of Australia and New Zealand, who envisaged a WTO-consistent trade agreement that would not create precedents of exceptional treatment, and the Pacific islands that expected exceptional treatment (Morgan 2014). Attempts to include labour migration as a distinctive feature with favourable treatment for Pacific islanders were rebuffed by Australia and New Zealand, which preferred separate migration protocols rather than treaty obligations.…”