EU and American cotton subsidies impoverishing 3rd world farmers.

On the way home from university I found this article in the Metro paper...

African Cotton Traders "are locked in poverty"

Cotton farmers in west Africa are being 'locked into poverty' as a result of actions by America and the European Union, according to fairtrade campaigners. Cotton should be the 'white gold' helping millions of farmers in the region escape poverty to earn a decent living, the foundation said. But the group claimed that a 'wall of free cash' being given to farmers in the US and European countries was having a devastating effect on the industry in other parts of the world.

The US and EU together have lavished almost £20 billion over the past nine years on their cotton farmers, holding down prices in western Africa, and so perpetuating reliance on aid, it was claimed.

This incensed me, so after some prompting I did some more research. From this link...

Cotton Subsidies Costing West African Farmers £155 Million Pounds A Year, Report Reveals

To summarise, the article talks of how subsidies in primarily the US, but also in Europe, China and India, have cost West African farmers whose countries I remind you can certainly not afford such subsidies, millions of pounds a year, cutting into funds for roads, schools, and forcing a reliance on aid. The losses are estimated at $191 million or £118 million. The British government has pledged to try to help correct this at the Doha summit running for its 10th year this year.

The four countries worst affected are the "cotton 4"; Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali, who rely on cotton for 5-10% of their production base. These four countries rank between 134 and 163 of 169 countries in the human development index.

Cotton grows naturally in these parts of Africa, meaning that in ordinary circumstances the industry should thrive.

Removing subsidies apparently wouldn't cause huge price inflation in goods. (While this is true, I imagine US, European, Chinese and Indian cotton farmers might find themselves out of business.)

The US paid $24.5 billion in subsidies, the EU $7 billion, and the rest of the $47 billion China and India are responsible for. I would remind you how much larger the populations of China and India are.

Apparently they are planning on ending the subsidies, but this won't be achieved until next year.

Just thought Tv Tropes forum should know that. I'm starting to consider organising a protest to bring attention to this disparity. This isn't fair; the weakest, poorest countries are being pushed down by countries which already have every advantage. This issue needs to be kept in the public eye to ensure that politicians the world over do indeed tackle the problem as they promised.

What is everyones thoughts? Do you think it is possible for a determined campaign to get these four behemoths to give west Africa a fighting chance in its own natural industries?

Relevant is the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU. I reckon it'll be the organisation in charge of the subsidies in Europe.

I don't have any such data on America other than I know they do farming on a large scale there, and as for China and India... though I did know that a lot of cotton is grown in both countries.

For those more interested in more direct action, I'm also calling on tropers to consider doing what they can too. If you are part of a union or are at school or are part of any organisation on which some kind of organised action on this issue could be based, such as a letter campaign and the like, I would request that you do what you can. For myself, I will be consulting the Strathclyde University Student Union president to see if we can't get some kind of campaign, or an extension of an existing campaign (I'm sure there's a group in Strathclyde who will be involved in this sort of thing) going to educate people on the issue. I'm not looking to harass the government on this, I'm trying to alert as many people as possible that there is an issue here.

Thoughts?

I'm opposed to all agricultural subsidies, but I doubt that they'll ever go away. The farm lobby is too powerful.

Then that lobby needs to be opposed.

I agree, subsidies fall out of my general area of favor. I don't particularly care about the third world farmers though.

^Thats your choice, can't control how you feel. But I feel strongly that these impoverished farmers and their nations need to be given a chance to rise from poverty, for the sake of fairness and ultimately for the sake of the world at large.

EDIT: As it is, at least you oppose the subsidies.

edited 15th Nov '10 1:36:28 PM by GameChainsaw

The isn't necessary, I take the view that a business/practice that can't keep itself afloat on it's own is undeserving of existing, unless it does something important. I can definitely understand trying to keep homegrown food and crap. Or if you care about the environment and want to lower the overall shipping quota.

And I think the title is misleading. It's not impoverishing them, it's just leaving them there.

edited 15th Nov '10 1:43:57 PM by Deboss

While I'm no friend of export subsidies for farm products I do think that vital goods such as foods (which might just be the most important good next to water) should not be subject to the free market to the fullest degree. It's important to keep a large part of our food production here instead of importing everything because other countries can produce food a bit cheaper than we can. We should find a way to keep a "reserve" here with tax money just to be on the safe side. To be global famine proof.

I don't think this should apply to cotton, though. Cotton subsidies begone!

^^True. I can see the problem; the 1st and 2nd world are competing against subsistence level farming; African workers will grow cotton for far less than their competitors. 1st and 2nd world farmers can't compete. But without cutting the subsidies, west Africas cotton industry will simply not develop. Its a Catch22 situation.

However, if 1st and 2nd world agriculture cannot compete, then why? And how can it be made competitive? These are the questions. Either you have to lift the wages Africans are paid for their work, or the 1st and 2nd world farmers have to take a cut.

...or, we all have to agree to pay more for our clothes, so these subsidies aren't necessary. The more you pay in the shops, the more the farmer and those he employs take in.

edited 15th Nov '10 1:48:41 PM by GameChainsaw

Actually, it's not subsistence farming. Subsistence farming is when you only grow for yourself and can't grow anymore. The easiest way to keep production costs low for 1st world farms is heavy automation (which is already being implemented) and giving a property tax rebate for farming on it. Automated cotton farming looks something like this◊ as all the watering is done by a machine that spins around (hence the bullseye look). Farmers are shit out of luck though, the most common way of making something cheaper is to automate and cut the human factor out of as much of the loop as possible.

Besides which, as a friend of mine points out Jobs are bad.

America and the EU really need to switch to farm subsidies based on environmental stewardship rather than raw output - that is, pay the farmers to take good care of the land. As it is, the current subsidies don't help protect the average small farmer from a bad season or two, but they keep sending cash to the companies that own enormous factory farms and can afford to shrug off what would be disasters for small farmers.

Unfortunately, the politics have been framed such that small farmers feel the need to protect the subsidy policies that ultimately harm them. In the meanwhile, the factory farms threaten the U.S. economy by hiring illegal immigrants, and threaten the environment with unsustainable techniques involving massive amounts of fertilizer and pesticides on fields that only grow one crop and one crop alone. The results? Swathes of California farmland being turned into salt flats, pests developing more and more resistance to our pesticides, etc. etc.

If we want farmers and farmland to exist in the developed West 100 years from now, we should can the normal subsidy program and start paying them to take care of the land. They get enough money to secure a stable living, dependent on an ecological audit that sees how well the soil and flora are kept for. It'll revitalize the rural economies, prevent the decline of the farming profession, and has the nice side effect of giving farmers in the 3rd world a fair chance to compete. (Yes, I know the agricultural lobby will fight such a proposal tooth and nail, but that's a given.)

So the suggestion is a concentration on high-tech industries combined with a rolling back of subsidies to protect smaller farmers instead of factory farms?

Hold on, factory farms is another topic... though it relates to the whole 3rd world question. I'm focussed on the cotton subsidies. Thats a complicated enough issue?

The simple fact is that these four giants, (the US, China, India and the EU) are making it impossible for farmers in west Africa to make a decent living via cotton growing. That is the issue.

We're out to attack that specific issue. Consider making a related thread and linking this thread as a related one if we're tackling the wider issue of subsidisation as a whole.

edited 15th Nov '10 2:11:13 PM by GameChainsaw

I'm glad to see I wasn't the first one to formulate the idea that creating jobs is a bad thing.

As for one group not letting another group have a chance to make money by being cheaper or some such, that falls into the category of "tough".

edited 15th Nov '10 2:12:49 PM by Deboss

^That is actually an excellent point... but that means you need the appropriate social justice areas. That is relevant to the question too. If it is uncompetitive to grow cotton then maybe these farmers need to grow something else? Or improve their yields somehow?

^EDIT: In reply to your edit, that is fine if there is a level playing field. Competition is to be encouraged. Thats exactly why these subsidies need to be taken away. 1st and 2nd world farmers should have to compete with everyone else.

edited 15th Nov '10 2:15:42 PM by GameChainsaw

I agree. However, that would only work if Fair Trade laws are stopped. If the farmers get the same pay and have to follow the same environmental regulations, then the 1st world countries will get most of the money because A) lower shipping costs B)pre existing infrastructure.

Why do you say that fair trade laws need to be stopped?

Because he doesn't like market distortions. That's also why he is against subsides.

Sounds reasonable. But again not for basic foods.

edited 15th Nov '10 2:51:01 PM by DasAuto

I don't think they need to be in general. Just that Fair Trade laws give a significant advantage to 1st world countries because they already meet standards, while developing countries don't.

So take away the subsidies and let things right themselves organically?

Would that work? I do have a few doubts but its got to be better than the current system.

edited 15th Nov '10 2:56:43 PM by GameChainsaw

Yeah, agricultural subsidies are a terrible, terrible policy, for about 6 different reasons.

So, what is to be done? We all seem to agree that subsidies are bad. I'm going to see if I can get some kind of march or other form of action organised, or movement in that direction. I'll see if there are any movements relating to this going on in Strathclyde.

Is anyone moved to action by this? I don't expect anything but hoping against hope...

I'm pretty sure even the Tea Party couldn't kill subsidies in the face.

If nothing is done though, nothing will change.

So, what is to be done? We all seem to agree that subsidies are bad. I'm going to see if I can get some kind of march or other form of action organised, or movement in that direction. I'll see if there are any movements relating to this going on in Strathclyde.

I'm touched by your idealism, but the special interests involved are pretty entrenched.

I wonder just how big these special interests are... the only way to beat an entrenched group of lobbiers is to undermine the support for the lobby, or meet it with an even bigger opposing lobby.

EDIT: Thats why I'm on here, to inform people about the situation and help create that opposition.

edited 15th Nov '10 4:11:19 PM by GameChainsaw