Destroying tobacco livelihoods

The Framework Convention for Tobacco Control this year threatens sweeping measures that will specifically affect production in Malawi so as to jeopardise their tobacco trade. What kind of grasping megalomaniacs would impose this kind of regime on people with no alternative livelihoods, in the name of health?:

During its meeting held in Geneva last week, the sub-committee has, among other things proposed that banning of minimum support prices and leaf auctions, restrict production by regulating the seasons in which tobacco can be grown, reduce the area allocated for tobacco farming, as well as ban financial or technical support for tobacco farmers. 

WHO also wants all bodies connecting governments with growers to be dismantled.

The tobacco growers association ITGA reported on this back in June, referring to articles 17 and 18 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (see sidebar):

Article 17 Provision of support for economically viable alternative activities 

Parties shall, in cooperation with each other and with competent international and regional intergovernmental organizations, promote, as appropriate, economically viable alternatives for tobacco workers, growers and, as the case may be, individual sellers.

Article 18 Protection of the environment and the health of persons

In carrying out their obligations under this Convention, the Parties agree to have due regard to the protection of the environment and the health of persons in relation to the environment in respect of tobacco cultivation and manufacture within their respective territories. 

Article 17 says nothing about strangling the industry without viable alternatives for the growers. The ITGA's position is that there are no viable alternatives, no research has been done, and the growers have been kept away from talks: evident in the proposal outlined above to dismantle cooperation between growers and governments.

Two organisations that might have an impact in this situation: the International Labour Organization, which is a UN organisation and so officially probably shares some of the anti-tobacco agenda, but also probably contains some very experienced people. And the IUF: 'uniting food, farm and hotel workers worldwide', is an international union. Could they at least express an opinion? It seems incredible that such outrageous interference with national farming activities should be allowed by a supranational body with no democratic mandate.

This story has just popped up too.

Does the World Health Organization want to kill tobacco growing in Africa?

Antonio Abrunhosa thinks so. He is the CEO of this organisation (International Tobacco Growers' Association) and you can see him in action here:



The Lagos writer of this piece, Torin Orugun, takes issue with the idea that WHO is out to destroy the tobacco industry. He cannot find any direct evidence that tobacco control expects tobacco not to be grown in Africa.

The motions on these topics are lengthy and involved and I haven't looked through them either to find evidence that WHO wants to kill off the tobacco industry in Africa. However the writer has accepted the view that tobacco kills, and that Articles 17 and 18, which concern the development of alternatives to tobacco growing, take into account the impossibility of  rushing this process. He quotes a local Framework Convention Alliance member who accuses the ITGA of being a tobacco front group (the ITGA, representing  several million farmers across the globe, has three staff including its chief executive. If it is funded by the tobacco industry it is not funded well), which wants to undermine the credibility of the World Health Organisation's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, using the farmers as a vehicle.

The case of the ITGA is that the people working on developing alternatives to tobacco in developing countries do not know about tobacco, and far from wanting to understand the experience of tobacco farmers, they actually exclude them from their discussions. Even government representatives from departments other than health are not really welcome. The delegations then hear criticisms of the contributions of the tobacco industry, including its participation in debt bondage and child labour (see link to Articles 17 and 18 above). This is disingenuous as it is a feature of poverty and characterises other industries as well. This website on child labour mentions tobacco only as one of many forms of child labour: there is no guarantee any form of agriculture replacing tobacco would be able to eradicate it. See also video at the foot of this piece.

Orogun mentions the mechanism by which all parties to the Convention must work by consensus before motions are adopted, denies that there is any plan to ditch tobacco farming and quotes people who criticise ITGA for their lack of positive comment on the positive health impact of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. He seems to conclude that representation within the World Health Organisation is fair and effective, and that it is beyond reproach on the basis of its stated aims.

Much as I agree that it is not healthy for a single industry to control agriculture in any country, as tobacco is held to do in Malawi, it is also bad that an international body that is accountable only to its members (delegates who have limited personal experience in tobacco cultivation) should control policy in member countries of the FCTC in a way that denies participatory rights to those involved in the tobacco industry. If tobacco is too dominant, this is not a problem that should be resolved by people outside the country with a clear agenda to reduce tobacco consumption. The conflict of interest is overwhelming. The balance of a country's economic and social needs should be tackled from within.


5 minutes 30 seconds in, report of an Argentinian tobacco project that has led the way locally in eliminating child labour. Source

Malawi tobacco and child labour

The Guardian has produced a video about child labour on Malawi's tobacco plantations (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also linked on the page). Although it points out that child labour is not unique to tobacco plantations, a serious and erudite looking gent near the end of the video reminds us that we can't trust the tobacco industry whatever efforts they make to eliminate child labour because they are the tobacco industry and really one has to control them and not trust them.

The video points out that tobacco farmers don't get paid until after the tobacco plantations have deducted costs from the income of each harvest. That is tenant farming in any commodity that does not offer advance payments to farmers. These are the conditions that persist for millions throughout the world. Featuring tobacco farming as an educational snapshot of the issue teaches us more about global conditions for tenant farmers than it does about the tobacco industry.

Malawi's tobacco accounts for a high proportion of its export earnings. It is absurd to state that no one employed in the management of this industry has any sense of responsibility for children. Proposals to ban the employment of children do very little to solve the problem that children can't learn on an empty stomach. The video mentions the Malawi tobacco industry's campaign against child labour, and even says that those involved seem genuinely committed to the issue – although we are still reminded at the end that the tobacco companies are only in it for profit.

Malawi tobacco has also hit the spotlight because of the plan of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (recently discussed at COP-4 in Uruguay) to ban additives that improve the flavour of tobacco. This could significantly affect the market value of tobacco in Malawi, and is likely to worsen the conditions for families employed on plantations. Malawi is not a member of the FCTC, and an organisation known as Smoke-Free Malawi has recommended that Malawi should join in order to allow representation in discussions like COP-4 (however it would also have to implement other articles further restricting tobacco use and the influence of tobacco companies). It also recommends that Malawi face the reality that global markets in tobacco will decline in future because of the health threat from tobacco, and seek alternative sources of revenue.

At least some of those involved in making the Guardian video wish to represent the tobacco industry as the big demon in Malawi, the cause of child labour in Malawi, the cause of bonded labour conditions. Child labour, claims UNICEF, is rife throughout the world involving up to 1 in 6 children (its introductory page on child labour does not even mention tobacco). Does this focus on Malawi originate from Malawi's non-membership of the FCTC, in order to generate further pressure on it to join this anti-democratic organ of world governance? Or is it just another excuse to score points off the tobacco industry as a whole?

COP-4, sadism and selfish economics

I'm not an agricultural economist, however I feel entitled to agree with the sentiments behind this post. Attempting to destroy the market value of a crop in a country such as Malawi where living into one's fifties is a luxury, in order to attempt to buy few years of life, is an act of sabotage and quite unspeakably self-centred. No doubt there are people who will claim that it is the tobacco industry that is tying farmers to poverty, but they are happy to contemplate ruining the market for burley tobacco without first being assured that there are alternative crops that will grow in areas previously given over to tobacco farming, and for which there are markets.

***

The Tobacco Free Association of Zambia has attacked its government's stance on the World Health Organisation, says the Framework Convention Alliance.

The Tobacco-Free Association of Zambia (TOFAZA) says it is against such wild accusations, and against calling for amendments to relevant Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) articles. As a result TOFAZA is calling on its government to apologise to WHO for its unwarranted attacks.

The Zambian Government does well to defend an industry on which impoverished farmers depend. The farmers are caught by the tobacco industry, not because tobacco industry is inherently evil, but because that is the way that industry behaves to vulnerable actors within its grasp. All industries would behave the same if not regulated, and in industries were not regulated in this country, children would still be going up chimneys and down mines. Would the right answer have been to have banned the energy industry or stopped people lighting fires? Of course not ... regulation has to occur if the powerless are to be protected – but not by closing it down.

 ***

Anyone wanting to see some photos of the proceeding of COP-4 may proceed here. Note the installation of large cigarettes in front of the conference venue: are they trying to make people desperate to smoke?

Scotland, Malawi and tobacco ingredients ban

According to this BBC report, tobacco farmers in Malawi could lose 60 to 90 per cent of their livelihoods, if an ingredients ban is implemented. The Scotland Malawi Partnership (whose website sports a thumbnail picture of Jack McConnell, former First Minster, whose main claim to fame was introducing the smoking ban) has operated since 2004, but it remains to be seen whether it will offer any support to Malawi in the defence of its tobacco growers. Working mostly with non-government organisations, it acknowledges that 'Malawians know best (a) ... (b) what challenges and issues there are in Malawian civil society; and (c) what mechanisms or interventions could help address these challenges'. Will this reasoning apply to anyone who wants to defend the tobacco plantations?

And does the Scotland Malawi Partnership make any attempt to work with official bodies that will represent the government viewpoint, as well as NGOs?

A quick look at the Scotland/Malawi links reveals a concern for child labour in Malawi's tobacco plantations, touched on here. This is a typical anti-smoking take on any tobacco industry: the fact is that child labour occurs everywhere and in any occupation in which children are vulnerable.  UNICEF tells us that one in six of the world's children is engaged in child labour, so talking of child labour as if it were specific to tobacco plantations is dishonest (or naive), but what is expected of reporters today. If it is common in Malawi, this is because of Malawi's heavy reliance on tobacco. Destroying Malawi's staple industry will do nothing for the welfare of its children.

So has Scotland any plans to address the issue of the tobacco industry in Malawi? Well, yes it has. Is it likely to help tobacco growers' interests? Probably not: the MSPs Michael Matheson (SNP) and Karen Gillon (Scottish Labour) have buried their differences to invite us to this meeting, both supporters of anti-smoking legislation. Speakers are Dr Jeff Collin and Dr Nathaniel Wander of Edinburgh University, both named as external co-workers of Professor Anna Gilmore.  It is hard to imagine that this meeting will agree to help Malawi to defend tobacco farmers against the ambitions of the global tobacco control community.