Western agricultural subsidies are starving Africa, not feeding it: An Essay
Year after year, governments in Brussels and Washington dole out billions of euros and dollars respectively in subsidizing their local food production. In 2021 alone, the U.S. government issued about 27 billion dollars in agricultural subsidies. These hefty sums often go to farmers, whether large corporations or smaller-scale family farms, everyone gets a taste of the “free” money. Farmers that are targeted for these subsidies are usually those that grow staples like wheat, corn, dairy, poultry, depending on the government’s policy objectives.
The reasoning behind this agenda isn’t far-fetched. If one were to consider the recent revelations of the Russia-Ukraine war, one could easily imagine why these actors would desire some form of self-sufficiency in their food production. For those who may not know, the E.U.’s over-reliance on Russia for a significant source of its energy put the E.U. in a compromised position when the war in Ukraine, which it had vehemently opposed, broke out.
Of course, the quest for food security is reason enough for these Western actors to employ subsidies, a notorious market disruptor. But, where the problem lies is the ripple effect these subsidies have on the lives of people on an entirely different continent, Africa. What usually happens is this — American and E.U. farmers use the subsidy money they receive to grow the size of their operations, which will in turn make them more competitive than say their African counterparts. This means that American and E.U. farmers can grow more of a particular product, for cheaper; and they often do, resulting in them producing more than can be consumed locally.
On the surface level, having a surplus of agricultural produce sounds like a good thing, especially in a world where the world’s poorest suffer from hunger in Africa. As racist as that sounded coming from Donald J. Trump, America’s immediate former president, you cannot dispute the truth it holds. In the short run, cheap food from the West will provide relief to Africa, the continent with most of the hungry people on earth. Nevertheless, this relief is temporary and unsustainable in the medium to long run.
If you see past the immediate succour offered by cheap agricultural imports from the West, you will see the many socio-economic woes it presents to African countries that already struggle to feed their people. One apparent bust in this arrangement is the displacement of local farmers in various African countries. Most notable are the tomato farmers in Ghana and the onion farmers in Cameroon who were put out of work by cheap imports from the E.U. This means a loss of livelihood for the displaced farmers; and implicitly, the loss of taxable income on the part of the government. More importantly, it further deprives the region of its capacity to feed itself, hence, making it more dependent on the international food market.
However, relying on the international market for your food opens you up to supply shocks, which in recent times have been occasioned by events such as the COVID-19 disruption of global value chains; food export bans imposed by governments across the world, and the war in Ukraine, an important food exporter.
Ordinarily, one would be tempted to quickly dismiss this phenomenon as one of the ugly sides of globalisation. After all, it’s a game where there are winners and losers. But, it’s not quite the case here — the subsidies given by the West to their farmers are an unfair advantage that leaves behind African farmers, who usually lack access to similar funding if any at all. The game of international trade is rigged against these farmers who mostly engage in subsistence farming to earn a living.
Moreover, another danger posed by the influx of subsidised food into African markets is the uncertainty it breeds. This uncertainty stems from the fact that there’s no legal obligation on Western governments to maintain their agricultural subsidies on a level that ensures the production of food surplus for export to Africa. In summary, who’s to guarantee that subsidy food will reach Africa tomorrow? Hoping to keep feeding from subsidies issued by foreign governments is simply not sustainable; not to mention the national security risks it presents.
What happens when your benefactors are unable or unwilling to pay for your meal? In the case that cheap Western agricultural exports are unable to reach Africa, disaster will strike. The artificially low price that everyone had gotten used to would skyrocket overnight as imports dry up, and the local farmers who have been disengaged wouldn’t be there to save the day either.
With the above said, I rest my argument that Western agricultural subsidies, albeit helpful in the short-run, eventually do not support Africa’s capacity to sustain its population. This is especially saddening when you put into consideration Africa’s wasted potential. The continent is blessed with huge arable land, about 40% of the continent’s land area, as well as a burgeoning young population — both, recipes for a no-brainer agro-revolution.
If these benefactors in Europe and America truly want to help, they should help Africa feed itself, and not feed Africa. They can do this by exporting capital to complement the large farmable land in Africa, and the available youthful labour. A good source of this capital could be the excess subsidy budget that Western countries use to finance cheap agricultural exports that find their way to Africa. Instead of cheap food, Africa is better off receiving low-interest loans invested towards bolstering local food production. With the further assistance of technology transfers from these advanced countries, Africa has the potential to one-day feed itself as well as other parts of the world.
Alternatively, in the meantime, African states need to update their trade policies to help tackle the negative effects of foreign subsidies in their respective food markets. To this end, these states should look into operating rules against unfair competition in international trade; especially those circumventing subsidies and dumping. In so doing, they would protect the interest of their local farmers, and nurture the capacity to feed their population.
