BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Subsidies incentivise environmentally harmful farming practices

Subsidies can contribute significantly to longer term ecological and environmental damage. By rendering the export of food so profitable, subsidies increase the use of air freight and rapid road haulage, increasing the emissions cost of trading produce. Subsidies also cause the loss of land management and farming skills amongst the working population of developing states. As small farmers and more affluent land owners are priced out of domestic markets by imports from the developed world, they will increasingly turn to alternative methods of making money. Farming skills will not be passed on to other family members or to agricultural workers. Unemployed agricultural workers will be affected by deskilling. In addition, they may migrate away from their home states in search of jobs. Otherwise useful, fertile land may be left fallow, becoming damaged and eroded due to neglect. Subsidies encourage monoculture farming – the large scale production of specialised produce. Subsidies instituted by the US government that were intended to encourage the production of maize for use in biofuels led many farmers to give over excessive acreage to the crop. Monoculture crops can expose farmer to economic risks that subsidies cannot compensate for. If a particularly virulent strain of disease attacks a monoculture crop it is likely to spread quickly, assisted by the large, un-partitioned fields and storage areas that are characteristic of the practice. This, in turn, will lead to widespread crop failure, incurring significant losses for the farmers involved. Moreover, the need to protect large amounts of uniformly vulnerable biomass from pests and disease causes farmers to employ large quantities of pesticides, insecticides and herbicides, all of which can damage soil quality, pollute water sources and harm local biodiversity.[i] Finally, subsidies also encourage intensive agricultural production in unsuitable or unstable areas. Examples of this practice include the cultivation of fruit and vegetable crops in naturally arid areas of south California. Successful cultivation of this produce has necessitated the construction of extensive and disruptive irrigation networks. The burden that irrigation has placed on the Sacramento-san Joaquin delta, west of San Francisco has become so great that the salinity of delta water is now slowly increasing, due to tidal intrusion of seawater. This change in the salt content of irrigation water threatens to pollute the same soil that the irrigation system feeds.[ii] [i] Price, Aaron E., ‘Corn Monoculture no friend of Biodiversity’, Ethanol: Salvation or Damnation?, University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Journalism and Mass Communications DEEP Report, 2008, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/journalismstudent/16/ [ii] Ikehara, Marti E., and Ingebritsen, S.E., ‘Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta The sinking heart of the state’, U.S. Geological Survey, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1182/pdf/11Delta.pdf
Subsidies foster growth in developing economies

American and European food subsidies actually act to support growth and productivity in the developing world. The kinds of foodstuffs typically exported to poorer states are staples like wheat, maize, milk products and sugar. Subsidy and food aid schemes ensure that basic goods are available to consumers in poorer states at prices lower than a domestic market could comfortably sustain.[i] It is arguable that the most efficient development solution for many of the world’s poorest states does not include investing in capital intensive commodity crops. Spending on fertilisers, land and equipment is essential for farmers seeking to grow sufficient quantities of corn or soy to compete in global and local market places. The scale of capital investment required by maize and wheat is so high that domestic food prices within many African and Asian states would jump rapidly if wholesalers, manufacturers and families were no longer able to acquire these commodities via subsidised imports from developed countries. Agricultural businesses in the developing world are more likely to profit from exports of labour-intensive produce. Palm oil, prepared vegetables, spices, cocoa and cut flowers are crops that can only be produced in a narrow range of climates and environments. The geographical locations of the largest palm oil and cocoa producers give them a competitive advantage over more prosperous northerly states. Similarly, the higher price commanded by commodities that are difficult to produce in other areas of the world means that farmers’ profit margins will be wider once they have accounted for transportation costs. Compare this situation with the profit made on processed potatoes in the US and the UK- often fractions of a penny or a cent- and the advantages of exporting value-added goods become obvious.[ii] [i] Davies, Daniel, ‘Africa does not need more expensive food’, guardian.co.uk, 26 July 2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/26/dumpingdumping [ii] Braun, Joachim von, Gulati, Ashok and Orden, David, ‘Making Agricultural Trade Liberalization Work for the Poor’, International Food Policy Research Institute, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/symp04_paper_von_braun_e.doc
Subsidy reform of the type proposed will undermine agricultural businesses in the developing world

Even adamant anti subsidy advocates agree that abolishing current financial assistance measures will do more harm than good. Reform of current subsidy policies would achieve more than their complete elimination. Many family farms in the US and the EU are running on extremely slim profit margins, which are squeezed by supermarkets,[i] and eliminating their subsidy payments would devastate their incomes, forcing the sale of land and the sale or slaughter of livestock. The lacunae and negligent administrative conduct that anti-subsidy campaigners claim is characteristic of the policy’s overall inefficiency are simply design flaws that appropriate legislation can correct. Both the Rural America Preservation Act[ii] and the 2002 Farm Bill[iii] offer the opportunity to remove many of these negative traits from America’s farm subsidy regime. They will cap the amount given to large, heavily capitalised agricultural corporations. These policies will also assist in encouraging the conservation and husbandry of natural resources, and ensuring the health of existing farm soil. Policy makers already recognise the perversity of paying owners of farmland large sums simply to keep the land clear and ready for agricultural use, without also monitoring Similarly, in Europe, reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy following the ratification of the Treaty of Nice in 2003 now require farmers to engage in sustainable agricultural practices. Penalties reduce the size of the subsidy available to farmers who disregard the limits imposed by the Treaty. The EU is also due to begin applying a policy of intervention pricing. Intervention pricing represents a form of dynamic subsidy. If commodity prices fall below a certain level, the EU will buy up produce in order to raise its price. This method allows the EU to reduce standard subsidy payments, which might incentivise overproduction during periods of economic stability, while allowing it to protect farmer’s incomes if market prices fall. [i] Vorley, Bill, Food, Inc. Corporate concentration from farm to consumer, UK Food Group, 2003, http://www.ukfg.org.uk/docs/UKFG-Foodinc-Nov03.pdf, pp.21, 11 [ii] Congressional Research Service, ‘S. 1161: Rural America Preservation Act of 2011’, 112th Congress: 2011-2012, 9 June 2011, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1161&tab=summary [iii] Johnson, Renée, ‘What is the “Farm Bill”?’, CRS Report for Congress, 1 April 2008, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/104270.pdf
Free trade and aid distribution

A subsidised farming industry is not protectionism rather it helps to create the most stable farming infrastructure possible. Agricultural commodities are subject to significant swings in price, due unpredictable changes in the weather, in pest activity and market volatility. Without government support to smooth the impact of market fluctuations, huge numbers of American farmers would be pushed into bankruptcy and forced off of their land and into penury. This would have knock on effects on economies throughout Europe and the United States, and would devastate many small rural communities. Even if side proposition only eliminated subsidies paid to large agribusinesses, rather than farms with substantial family or community involvement, food prices within developed states would still be significantly disrupted. This would have a material impact upon the standard of living of all but the wealthiest individuals. Moreover, ending subsidy schemes would also reduce the volume of food exports currently being sent to developing states. While side proposition may attempt to argue that this will benefit the domestic economies of developing nations, they fail to recognise that the needs and demands of developing populations will quickly outgrow the types of products available on domestic markets. Milk powder is a necessity in any state with a high birth rate – so how will a state with a minimal dairy industry and almost no livestock reserves satisfy this source of demand? States including Equatorial Guinea, Micronesia and Sao Tome would be confronted with exactly this type of problem.
Subsidies exacerbate poverty

Neither the US nor the EU can be held responsible for international externalities caused by subsidy policies. If the US were to stop funding its farming industry, other developed nations would continue to engage in practices that would distort the international market. Indeed, the USA’s share of world food exports has been either flat or falling for almost 25 years, so it would be disproportionate to claim that the US is the primary cause of declining farm revenues in the developing world. The European Union only has the ability to prevent its members applying subsidies to products that they trade to other EU member states. If EU subsidies were abolished, individual member states would still be within their rights to impose subsidies on goods exported to foreign markets. Moreover, other developed states that are not affiliated with the US and the EU also spend large amounts of money on subsidy policies. Farmers in both Norway and Switzerland receive approximately 70% or their revenue from government payments. Similarly Japan protects its farming community with an array of national subsidies and tariffs. Finally, it should be pointed out that the international market for cotton is not analogous or comparable to the international market for staple foods. It is possible to make a case for eliminating subsidised cotton, while retaining the subsidy structure used to support the prices of grain, rice and other consumables. If side proposition truly wish to create an environment in which poorer states’ agribusinesses can compete on equal terms with their wealthier counterparts, they should be prepared to make a nuanced distinction between the need to eliminate subsidies in some areas, and the importance of retaining them in others.
Subsidies incentivise environmentally harmful farming practices

Food is a unique good, in the sense that it is essential for sustaining life, and plays a significant role in ensuring social stability and supporting the health and development of children. Governments should not gamble on an industry that supplies a commodity of such great importance by exposing farmers to the fluctuations and speculative impulses of the food markets. Nor should farmers and their crops be exposed the effects of sudden environmental change without some form of defence mechanism or insurance scheme being put in place. Realpolitik dictates that, no matter how interdependent and interlinked the world becomes, it will always be necessary for the state to secure a reliable food supply for its population. The importance of retaining some form of independence from other commodity suppliers has been heightened by the geopolitical debates surrounding the war on terror. It would be perverse to expect developed states to recreate the economic and political conditions that led to dependency on mineral oil within their domestic markets for grain, milk and sugar. Political unrest has affected stability in Africa’s major food producing regions (Zimbabwe, Cote d’ivoire); climactic disasters in Russia (one of the world’s largest grain exporters) have caused bread prices to rise across the world. All of these occurrences could adversely affect food prices and reduce standards of living within supposedly safe, secure and wealthy states who therefore need to be able to produce enough food to cover most of their needs rather than relying on imports. There are limits to the extent to which cash and monetary wealth can be used to influence environmental and ecological conditions in the world at large. The destruction of agricultural land or harmful agricultural practices can take decades to correct. Under these circumstances, domestic food subsidies are entirely necessary form of government spending.
Subsidies foster growth in developing economies

As observed by the analyst Daniel Davies, not all primary commodity producers are impoverished states, and not all of these states participate in trade agreements or customs unions as lucrative as those operated by the EU.[i] States such as Brazil and Malaysia have already made significant progress towards achieving their development goals. Their governments do not find it difficult to guarantee that families have enough to eat; they are beginning to interact with international markets on their own terms, identifying and pursuing trade opportunities based on aspirational and normative ideas, rather than the imperative of achieving a minimal standard of economic, infrastructural and social development. Such states occupy a precarious position. They may wish to reduce their dependence on development aid, may wish to take certain state and social services out of the hands of NGOs or intergovernmental agencies. However, without the ability to compete against other states on fair terms, these states may remain continuously dependent on foreign support. To put it simply, sometimes the best form of development aid that one state can offer another is an acknowledgement that it should be allowed to participate in the business of statehood as an equal. Although cheap foreign food may facilitate a basic level of development, developing states must eventually be granted the freedom to engage with the world’s markets on their own terms. The hazards inherent in a state of perpetual underdevelopment, and the dearth of skills and political capital that it causes, are much greater, on balance, than the minimal risk to food security associated with an increase in the export of foodstuffs from the developing world. [i] Davies, Daniel, ‘Africa does not need more expensive food’, guardian.co.uk, 26 July 2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/26/dumpingdumping
Subsidy reform is already taking place in many areas of the world

Farm subsidies represent little more than a highly inefficient foreign aid scheme, funded wealthy states’ tax payers. In essence, subsidies do little more than use tax revenue to reduce the price and control the production of certain agricultural goods. These goods, as has been discussed above, are then sold to the developing world at prices lower than poor states’ domestic markets can match. This is, effectively, equivalent to making payments to developing states – individuals in developing states spend less money on food under the status quo, so have more money to spend on other things.[i] This situation is problematic, firstly because it obstructs the development of developing states’ agricultural sectors. A rational system of aid giving should not create dependence or inhibit growth. Secondly, “funds” provided to developing states via subsidy schemes are also shared with wealthy first-world farmers an agribusinesses. Subsidies remain a considerable source of profit for the agricultural sector. It seems irrational to pay farmers to improve the monetary and fiscal environment in developing states, rather than allowing aid-giving states to provide money directly to underdeveloped areas. Under the status quo, first world agribusinesses do little more than add to the transaction costs of sending aid to developing economies. If the quality of roads and rail lines in a state is so poor that food deliveries are delayed, why not pay for upgrades to transport infrastructure? If both the educational institutions and the service sector of a state are underdeveloped, invest in a state’s education system and encourage partnerships with ship brokers and accountancy firms? Subsidising food in order to offset the worst effects of deprivation, marginalisation, environmental damage and retrograde or corrupt government will do nothing more than entrench the poverty that afflicts many developing nations. It will prevent states’ agricultural sectors growing or functioning competitively and it will continue to foster the dependence on western largess that contemporary development theory attempts to avoid. [i] Davies, Daniel, ‘Africa does not need more expensive food’, guardian.co.uk, 26 July 2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/26/dumpingdumping
Subsidy reform of the type proposed will undermine agricultural businesses in the developing world

Reform will never effectively turn the tables in subsidy distribution. Large-scale agribusinesses have the power to manipulate policy through lobbying and directed campaign contributions in order to ensure they can maintain their comfortable government issued subsidies. Small family farms cannot compete with rich agro-corporations, who can spend millions of dollars lobbying to stop legislation that would reform current problematic subsidy expenditures. This is exactly why the implementation of bills similar to the 2002 Farm Bill (alongside others supported by subsidy reform activists such as Senators Chuck Grassley and Byron Dorgan) has been slow and piecemeal. As any system aimed at channelling federal money to agriculture will be open to abuses by individuals or organisations with sufficient resources to identify the lacunae in subsidy systems, it would be far better to end subsidies completely, supporting poorer farming families instead through welfare benefits and tax credits. Further, although the EU has made headway in reforming its approach to farm subsidies, it has done nothing to address other forms of subsidy. Payments made to cotton producers within the EU have survived reform programmes initiated in 1999, 2003 and 2007 more or less intact.[i] Moreover, the EU cotton subsidy is one of a small number of EU agricultural payments that remains linked to production – raising the same issues relating to over-production and export market distortion discussed above. [i] Jowit, Juliette, ‘Cotton subsidies costing west African farmers £155m a year, report reveals’, The Guardian, 15 November 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/15/cotton-subsidies-west-...
Mexico is poor; it is the economic conditions that drive conflict not the U.S.

Declining real income drives social unrest and instability. Real incomes for workers in Mexico's manufacturing sector declined by a cumulative 2.6 percent between 1995 and 2005. It is likely that the decline in the informal economy is larger. The Government keeps a tight control over the minimum wage preventing it from rising. Although this does not affect many Mexicans directly a lot more have their wages set at a multiple of the minimum wage. At the same time there has been high unemployment and lower benefits.[1] In 1994-5 Mexico was hit hard by a financial crisis known as the ‘peso’ or ‘Tequila’ crisis. The peso depreciated by 47%, inflation went up to 52% and GDP fell by 6% not reaching its 1993 level until 1997. Unsurprisingly household income fell substantially; by 31% between 1994 and 1996, those in poverty rose from 10.4% of the population to 17%[2] Since 1996 although Mexico has experienced growth not only has it been slower than most developing countries this has been significantly cut into in real per capita terms by population growth. Mexico has large disparities in income between urban and rural areas and the gap between rich and poor has been widening.[3] The inequality leads people to be more willing to engage in the potentially lucrative drugs trafficking and the informal economy. Unemployment meanwhile makes them more likely to take drugs themselves as an escape. [1] Gundzik, Jephraim P. , ‘As Elections Approach, Mexico Faces Internal Instability', Power and Interest News report. [2] Baldacci, Emanuele, Luiz de Mello and Gabriela Inchauste, Financial crises, Poverty and Income distribution, IMF Working paper, pp.20-21. [3] Economy Watch, ‘Mexico Economy’, 24 March 2010.
U.S. demand for drugs

Mexico has its own problems with drugs consumption so the demand problem can’t all be blamed on the US. Mexico City's former chief of police, Gertz Manero has said there are now 4.5 million crimes a year committed in Mexico. "90% of those are stealing or are related to stealing. And 90% of those are for less than 8,000 pesos (about US$727). Mostly this is for drugs." Unemployment due to liberalisation of the economy has led to mass drug consumption so drugs would continue to flow into Mexico and enrich the cartels even if the U.S. drugs market dried up.[1] [1] Evans, Leslie, 'Electoral Democracy Has Yet to Shake Mexico's Corrupt Bureaucracy', UCLA International Institute, 16 March 2005.
U.S. supplies the guns used by drugs cartels

This is claiming exactly the opposite of the previous point on U.S. demand for drugs; is not Mexican demand for guns as much to blame for guns in Mexico as U.S. supply?  The US has put considerable effort into making sure that the Mexicans are able to counter cartels armed with guns with U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers training Mexican army commandoes. Similarly the Marine Corps also is working on an exchange program with the Mexican Marine Corps that will include sharing experiences on urban warfare. The US also arms the Mexican armed forces to prevent them being outgunned by the gangs.[1] [1] Bowman, Tom, 'CIA And Pentagon Wonder: Could Mexico Implode?' NPR.
U.S. anti-drugs policy focuses on the supply of drugs not the root problem of demand

There will always be two ways to solve the problem of illegal drugs, focusing on demand and focusing on supply. Focusing on supply is a valid strategy, as the US pushes the price of drugs on US streets up so it pushes the drugs beyond the ability of most people to afford the drugs and will as a result mean less drug addicts in the United States. This in turn could result in a drop in supply.
Weak Mexican government is to blame not the U.S.

Mexico’s government is no weaker than any other government. The country in Central America which has the lowest homicide rate is Costa Rica,[1] a country which has no standing army.[2] Yet it suffers from many of the same disadvantages that Mexico has, for example, like Mexico it is on the drugs route to the United States. This implies that at the very least having a weak government is not the whole cause of Mexico’s conflict. Yes there is a weak government in Mexico, particularly at the local level, but we need to ask ourselves how the government becomes so subverted. The answer is money. There have been allegations that President Vicente Fox allowed the most powerful drug lord to escape prison in 2001 in return for $20 million.[3] If the very top of the governmental hierarchy can be subverted for money then the rest is as well. [1] Schwarz, Isabella Cota, ‘Homicide rate drops to lowest in region’ The Tico Times, 8 June 2012. [2] ‘Costa Rica’, The World Factbook, 24 May 2012. [3] Rohr, Mathieu von, ‘A Nation Descends into Violence’, Spiegel Online, 23 December 2010.