Tonga urges Pacific to halt kava extracts, but Vanuatu and Fiji push backack

May 26, 2025 10:10 pm | Posted in Business News | Share now TwitterFacebook

By Nicholas Mwai.

A brewing debate has surfaced among Pacific Island nations over how best to protect and preserve the cultural and economic value of kava, the region’s cherished traditional crop. Tonga is calling on fellow Pacific kava producers to follow its lead in restricting the export of kava for extraction—a move that has sparked strong pushback from Vanuatu and Fiji, the region’s two largest kava exporters.

Tonga’s position, grounded in concerns over cultural erosion and potential misuse of the traditional beverage, promotes the idea that kava should only be consumed in its traditional, drinkable form—not processed into extracts for capsules, powders, or supplements abroad.

Tongans argue that allowing extract production encourages abuse and commodification, distancing the product from its sacred ceremonial roots. “We believe in consuming kava, not turning it into extract,” Tonga explained. “Once people can do anything they want with it, we risk losing the essence of our culture.”

Their position draws from the recently signed Pacific Kava Origin and Place Declaration, a landmark agreement among kava-producing countries that affirms kava as a sacred, cultural, and spiritual gift of the Pacific.

The declaration calls for safeguarding the names “KAVA,” “Pacific KAVA,” and “Pacific Islands KAVA,” ensuring they are only used for products that are culturally authentic and originate from within the region. It also urges protection against the misuse or misrepresentation of kava in global markets—especially when products diverge from traditional preparation or purpose.

“Kava is not merely a commodity,” the declaration reads. “It is a symbol of peace, diplomacy, unity, and identity. Its name and practice must be protected from commodification that disregards its cultural essence and origin.”

However, industry stakeholders in Vanuatu and Fiji are pushing back, stressing that extract markets are vital for economic sustainability and do not necessarily compromise cultural values.

A member of the Vanuatu Kava Industry Association (VKIA), also an exporter of kava to the United States (U.S.) market, described Tonga’s stance as out of touch with local realities. “Of course our farmers want commodification of kava—and they don’t care what buyers do with it. We have a vibrant kava culture here, with traditional ceremonies, kava bars, and a booming export market. These coexist perfectly,” he said. “What overseas buyers do—whether in the U.S. or China—does not impact our traditions.”

According to the exporter, Vanuatu now exports more kava than all other Pacific producers combined, with demand for kava powder and extract continuing to rise. “These three roads—ceremonial use, social drinking, and export—run side by side. One doesn’t harm the other,” they added.

Fiji echoed similar sentiments. “Instead of battling over what buyers do with kava, we should be focusing on real issues—like how to support our farmers and strengthen the industry,” the statement read.

At the heart of the issue are the region’s smallholder farmers, whose livelihoods depend heavily on kava exports in all forms. Vanuatu and Fiji argue that imposing restrictions on extract-related exports could severely impact rural economies and undercut income for thousands of farming families.

“If we stop extract production, prices will fall, and farmers will suffer,” said the VKIA member. “We still hold traditional ceremonies. We still drink kava with friends. But we also recognize that economic development is key to preserving our culture.”

Jonathan Naupa, a kava exporter and representative for Vanuatu in the regional Geographical Indication (GI) discussions, offered a compromise. He supports extraction but not the use of the word “kava” for derivative products.

“It’s okay to extract kava and use it in other products, but the name should be changed,” Naupa said. “Kava is our name. Kava is our custom. Kava is our culture, and we need to protect that. There’s nothing wrong with using a gram of kava mixed into another drink—but calling that ‘kava’ is misleading. It’s not 100% kava; it’s something else.”

“If they want to extract, that’s their choice. But the name ‘kava’ should not be used in those extract products,” he added.

The Kava Declaration, backed by the Pacific Islands Forum, reflects this broader tension: between cultural guardianship and market expansion. While it sets out a framework for ethical trade and cultural recognition—including the protection of traditional names under international intellectual property law—interpretations of how best to implement these protections differ.

Tonga sees the declaration as a call to uphold purity in practice and meaning, discouraging any processing that detaches kava from its cultural origins. Vanuatu and Fiji, on the other hand, interpret protection as a matter of controlling naming rights and ensuring Pacific ownership—without halting innovation or export potential.

What’s clear is that the conversation is far from over. As demand for kava grows globally, Pacific nations must strike a delicate balance: preserving cultural identity while ensuring economic opportunity. For now, the roots of kava run deep—but the path forward remains contested.