Opinion column: “What I think,” by F. Traoré, Dr Honoris Causa
President of AProCA

On 7 February 2008, I was in Brussels for a meeting on cotton organized by IDEAS centre and the ACP.
The C4 countries and representatives of the European Union were the main guests invited to attend this meeting, which was similar to the one IDEAS organized in October 2006 in the United States.

This time, however, in addition to the C4 ministers, IDEAS invited representatives of other African cotton-producing countries.

The meeting was chaired by Ambassador Ouédraogo, Chairperson of the ACP Cotton Committee in Brussels and Permanent Representative of Burkina Faso to the European Union.

n their communications, the African ministers and ambassadors explained that income from African cotton boosted efforts to combat poverty and that a great many people in Africa depended on cotton for a living.

Cotton is one of the few cash crops which is produced in several African countries and which is of vital importance for the economies of these countries. In view of the threat to cotton from subsidies, African negotiating experts immediately joined forces and gave their backing to the C4 countries.

At the Brussels meeting, the ministers of the C4 and other African cotton-producing countries emphasized cotton's role in agriculture and the relationship between cotton production, grain growing and animal husbandry.
The speakers also brought out the natural ties (the proximity of the two continents), the historical and linguistic connections (the languages adopted – English, French and Portuguese) and the social and economic links that bind Africa to Europe.
In my view, the dynamic flow in economic ties has stopped with the production and marketing stage in Africa. Europe has not gone on to process cotton on our continent – it has looked elsewhere.

When they took the floor, the representatives of the European Union acknowledged cotton’s key contribution to the development of African countries. In an exception to the rule, these speakers acknowledged the diversity of crops (animal husbandry, cereals, cotton) on African cotton-growing farms. However, they continued to back their argument based on the “several million they thought they had invested in the development of African countries”.

They went on to claim that the African countries fail to include the cotton crisis in their lists of priorities when they submit funding requests to the EU.
With regard to the phasing-out of subsidies, they felt that the proposal of 65% decoupling should suffice and that the difficulties in the African cotton-growing sector could be solved if the Americans would only follow suit.

When I responded to these statements by the European Union, I began by stressing that it was difficult for me to understand how the European Union could pour so many millions into our countries without seeking to ascertain the impact of its support on the cotton sector - a topic which has come up consistently in our exchanges of views.

Ambassador Ouédraogo recalled that several years ago, the European Union had earmarked € 15 million for the cotton sector in an official document. Of this total, however, only € 2 million has actually been disbursed. This example shows that European taxpayers are contributing to development and that the funds collected are placed at the disposal of the European Union to solve a problem which the African cotton producers are facing; nevertheless, despite the arrangements made, the money has not reached the African cotton-growing industry.
When this happens, the € 15 million earmarked to solve a pressing problem becomes much less urgent!
I find that the European taxpayers have been fooled, and the African cotton producers for whom the money was collected are dying a slow death. This state of affairs does not facilitate and should not reflect Europe-Africa relations. And European taxpayers are hit twice: first, when they back efforts to combat poverty, and second, when they see cotton producers immigrating from African shores. When this happens, they will be at a complete loss!
The African cotton producers who are at the heart of our discussions have not really felt affected by everything being discussed in international bodies – they watch their young people migrate and can no longer afford to keep their children in school. As dire poverty spreads, the money from European taxpayers lies idle somewhere.
The European Union often singles out the United States, saying that it can do more. Yet African cotton producers do not see the difference because they have not received what they have been promised. They are in the process of abandoning a job that they know, that they want to do and from which they would like to earn a living.
If they do not receive tangible support, African cotton producers will end up by saying that these two powers are exactly the same.

With regard to subsidies, when the European Union proposes a 65% decoupling rate, I feel that Europe can do better or more with the same amount, provided it does not tie this sum to production.
The European cotton-producing countries, Greece and Spain, are wealthy countries with abundant means, but their producers – our brothers - are producing at a loss and at the expense of their fellow farmers on other continents. I am certain that producing a loss does not enhance the dignity of the European cotton producers. I find it absolutely normal that the European countries are giving their producers the money they need to remain on their farms and opt for profitable speculation.
As President of AProCA, I would like to reach out to these Greek and Spanish cotton producers so that we can have a dialogue. In this exchange of views, we could show them that we are not against the fact that they want to remain on their farms and that we support them in their desire to produce at a profit. We would like to show them that we are not what some politicians have made us out to be - politicians who stand like a curtain between us producers on the two continents.
I would also like for the European Union to manage its funds more transparently. European taxpayers are going to ask the EU for explanations, and African cotton producers are going to have their eyes glued to the EU because they have heard promises that have not been kept.
I think that the brotherly ties between our two continents must be enhanced to help us solve current problems. As we cope with globalization, we will have to readjust even the historical ties between Europe and Africa; otherwise other partners will step in. Europe's knowledge of Africa will not serve any purpose in this fight because it is economic results that will count. If such efforts are based on sound economic reasoning, they will pay off.
The Africans appreciate results that enable them to live, and so they back this type of partnership from which they stand to gain. I can say that this seminar has taught us a great deal about what Europe and Africa must take into consideration if they are to find solutions that meet the needs of their peoples.