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?

World ban on tobacco ingredients threatens livelihoods

The World Health Organisation's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control seeks to restrict global tobacco farming, and to ban certain ingredients used in blending tobacco. They meet in Uruguay next week, and this report from Zimbabwe explains how the country's economy will be hit.

A report from the Framework Alliance, an outlet supportive of the FCTC, explains that tobacco farming is really not in the interests of poor farmers (the link will also take you to the FCTC). It includes a report of the Uruguay president's resistance to 'pressure' from Philip Morris International on the issue of graphic warnings on packaging. The pressure that will be exerted on millions of farmers globally when their livelihoods are banned (as recommended by the Framework Alliance) is regarded as somehow benign by comparison.

I can't comment in detail on the agricultural economics of growing tobacco, but I can point out that it is not only tobacco companies that are opposed to the FCTC. The Framework Alliance claims that the FCTC, which includes 171 Parties, 'represents 89% of the world's population': it does not represent the farmers (link from Philippines):

In a statement, [International Tobacco Growers' Association] ITGA said that in spite of ringing the alarm bells, the ITGA’s request for 'a seat at the table' has been rejected by the WHO, who has allegedly considered farmers as 'interferences'.

'We are the people most affected by these guidelines', says Antonio Abrunhosa, CEO of the ITGA. 'Yet people with very limited understanding of how tobacco is grown are deciding on our fate at the throw of dice, without even consulting us.'

No doubt these worthy global governors believe they have done their homework: 'Articles 17 and 18 of the FCTC address economically sustainable alternatives to tobacco growing', says the Zimbabwe piece. The Framework Alliance gives the problem of economics a nod by saying 'tobacco farming does not alleviate poverty', but does not remark on the issue of how tobacco farmers should cope with a ban on their crop.

There are huge problems with this: for example the refusal to allow anyone who opposes the Convention's prohibitionist agenda to sit at the table, and a commitment to prohibition that far outstrips any concern for the livelihood of farmers, or realistic proposals to compensate them for what promises to be a devastating blow to their livelihoods. Of most concern of all is the global agenda of this juggernaut. In none of the stories do national politicians figure in this momentous issue of restricting a basic crop on which vast numbers rely.

Will national governments be expected to police bans imposed by WHO on agricultural produce? Just how expendable are these farmers' interests?