Global patterns
More than 70 countries globally produce and export cotton. Of these, eight countries are responsible for almost 80 per cent of global output. The world’s cotton market is dominated by the us which is the second largest producer after China and the largest exporter. The country exports almost 70 per cent of its cotton. The us is followed by Uzbekistan, Australia, Brazil and India. The major importers are Indonesia, the European Union (eu), China, Mexico and Thailand.
There is a kind of an oligopoly involved in this global trade, though compared to commodities like coffee, the base is wider. About 500 firms are involved, in contrast to coffee, which is dominated by four. But this statistic hides major skews in market share. Nineteen companies control about a third of the trade, handling more than 200,000 tonnes of cotton a year. cci is one of them.Another 49 companies handle about 20 per cent. The smaller companies handle the rest. Both private and state-owned companies are involved: the latter controlling 60 per cent. Private companies dominate trade in most other commodities. The preponderance of state agencies means that government policies kick in to affect pricing, mainly through subsidies. Developed nations offer the biggest subsidies, distorting international trade, usually to the detriment of third world producers.
More than a fourth of the earnings from raw cotton production come from government support to the cotton sector subsidies, in other words. Support to the cotton sector is greatest in the us, followed by China and the eu. The combined support (domestic and export subsidy) provided by the us government to cotton producers is pegged at us $4 billion. China provides us $1.5 billion, while the eu’s support of us $ 900 million is mainly for Spain and Greece. Subsidy encourages surplus production and deflation of prices. International prices have decreased continuously over the last 30 years (see graph: Downturn) when the us started its aggressive subsidy programme, through funding storage in 1985 and price support in 1996.
In this century, the us has gone a step further. us cotton imports are now covered by the Step-3 Farm Policy of 2002, which allows imports of specified quantities for specific periods of time, thus protecting domestic production. The us subsidy system is based on direct payments to farmers who can sell cotton in world markets at prices well below the cost of production. Production costs are us $1.70 per kg but its cotton is sold at us $1.18 per kg. Export subsidies for 2005-2006 amount to us $ 360 million. The same goes for the eu subsidy. Its support programme began in 1981 when Greece and Spain joined eu’s Common Agricultural Policy. Together, Spain and Greece accounted for 2.5 per cent of world production and 6 per cent of world exports in 2001, but they account for 16 per cent of world cotton subsidies. “If the eu subsidy is removed, the cotton crop will be wiped out from Greece and Spain,” says a 2005 Oxfam report. The average level of assistance across subsidising countries is us $0.58 per kg, 48 per cent of average prices.
Trade tidings
The worst losers are farmers in the least developed countries (ldc). This subsidy is helping only a few thousand farmers in the developed nations but is putting millions of poor Africans into a death trap. For example the us $4- billion subsidy that the us gives is only meant for 20,000 farmers who cultivate cotton in that country,” says D K Nair, secretary-general of the Confederation of Indian Textile Industry (citi). The fact that many countries in west and central Africa are heavily dependent on cotton exports makes the situation worse. In Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali and Togo, cotton accounts for two-thirds of agricultural exports and one-third of the total exports, meaning many livelihoods depend on growing cotton. In many non-African countries too, cotton is a major source of export revenue. In Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, it accounts for 45, 20 and 15 per cent of total commodity exports and make a significant contribution to gdp (8 per cent in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, and 4 per cent in Turkmenistan).
At the individual level, a fall in prices means attrition of incomes that are already, in many cases, close to subsistence level. At the macro level, it means that adverse terms of trade reduce revenues of governments in these countries and therefore their capacity to put in place programmes for livelihood security
Related Content
- Warmer winters 2024: Himalayas will bear maximum brunt of climate change
- Assessing the impact of climate change on public health and nutrition security
- State of the global climate 2023
- Empowering communities in the face of climate change in Egypt
- The link between disaster displacement and migration intentions
- The case for action on black carbon