Some 40 years ago when Richard Auty coined the term "resource curse," he was writing about economies. The term was used to describe "how countries rich in mineral resources were unable to use that wealth to boost their economies and how, counter-intuitively, these countries had lower economic growth than countries without an abundance of natural resources."
The same theory can be applied—narrowed down, actually—to communities as well. For the fashion world, that term could just as much be used to describe the condition (plight, in fact) of smalltime farmers engaged in the cultivation of cotton. And, that would be worldwide, by and large.
The subject of cotton farmers keeps raising its head time and again, though in the context of broader discussions about cotton, but invariably the disconcerting issues facing farmers often languish on the periphery.
Pulling in the subject of farmers to the centrestage is a new paper from Solidaridad. The paper, Cotton and Labour, is the third in the series from the Sustainable Cotton Hub, helmed by Solidaridad, and was released on Tuesday.
The author, Tamar Hoek, summarises it best in the executive summary: "Global brands make massive profits from the sale of cotton products, but the smallholders on whom they depend remain poor – they generally are not resilient enough to invest in their own livelihoods. It is generally accepted that they are not earning a living income." Then she adds: "In order to change this they would need to receive a fairer share of the value of cotton on the global market."
The paper looks at the broader picture w.r.t. labour from three related angles: poverty and the lack of a living income; forced and child labour; and, the impact of agrochemicals on the health and safety of cotton workers. Each would justifiably merit a comprehensive report in itself, and then there is the complicated background that cannot be ignored. Taken together, these should cut the task for the Sustainable Cotton Hub to explore more micro issues concerning farmers in the days to come.
The section on poverty does two things simultaneously: by illustration, it points out the problem areas, and by implication, it lists out tasks for researchers to pursue.
Hoek outlines: "There is not a lot of reliable information available on living incomes for smallholder cotton farmers, but they are often poor and generally do not earn a living income. In order to change this, they would need to receive a fairer share of the value of cotton on the global market: a higher price that can pay for (at least some of) the needs listed above."
This is a problem area indeed: the infuriating lack of reliable information. As a matter of fact, why only "reliable" information; it's not easy to get any information in the first place in many countries. This writer should know (by virtue of living in India). You won't get much official data about the incomes of farmers in a country whose agrarian image has been forever sullied by the plague of farmer suicides. Mind you, this has been going on for decades.
This subject, unfortunately, has remained confined to activists as also a handful of journalists who write about developmental issues. India's fashion industry (where the dependence on cotton is way more than on polyester, quite unlike in the West) does not even raise an eyebrow to the plight of farmers, leave alone raise the subject at any platform worth the name. The story is probably as sordid in most other countries.
