Editing Subsidy (section)

====Agricultural subsidies====
Support for agriculture dates back to the 19th century. It was developed extensively in the EU and US across the two World Wars and the Great Depression to protect domestic food production, but remains important across the world today.<ref name="Robin et al 2003" /><ref name="Myers 1996" /> In 2005, US farmers received $14 billion and EU farmers $47 billion in [[agricultural subsidies]].<ref name="Kolb 2008"/> Today, agricultural subsidies are defended on the grounds of helping farmers to maintain their livelihoods. The majority of payments are based on outputs and inputs and thus favour the larger producing agribusinesses over the small-scale farmers.<ref name="cheapMyers and Kent 2001" /><ref name="Steenblik 1998">{{cite web|last=Steenblik|first=R.|title=Previous Multilateral Efforts to Discipline Subsidies to Natural Resource Based Industries|url=http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/fisheries/1918086.pdf|work=Workshop on the Impact of Government Financial Transfers on Fisheries Management, Resource Sustainability, and International Trade|access-date=2013-08-05|year=1998|archive-date=2012-10-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121022174905/http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/fisheries/1918086.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> In the US nearly 30% of payments go to the top 2% of farmers.<ref name="Robin et al 2003" /><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.heritage.org/agriculture/report/how-farm-subsidies-harm-taxpayers-consumers-and-farmers-too |title=How Farm Subsidies Harm Taxpayers, Consumers, and Farmers, Too |access-date=2018-04-23 |archive-date=2018-04-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180423232755/https://www.heritage.org/agriculture/report/how-farm-subsidies-harm-taxpayers-consumers-and-farmers-too |url-status=unfit }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://fairfarmsnow.org/who-benefits-from-farm-subsidies/ |title=Who Benefits from Farm Subsidies? |access-date=2018-04-23 |archive-date=2018-04-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180423232528/https://fairfarmsnow.org/who-benefits-from-farm-subsidies/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

By subsidising inputs and outputs through such schemes as "yield based subsidisation", farmers are encouraged to over-produce using intensive methods, including using more fertilizers and pesticides; grow high-yielding [[monocultures]]; reduce [[crop rotation]]; shorten fallow periods; and promote exploitative land use change from forests, rainforests and wetlands to agricultural land.<ref name="Robin et al 2003" /> These all lead to severe environmental degradation, including adverse effects on soil quality and productivity including [[erosion]], nutrient supply and salinity which in turn affects carbon storage and cycling, water retention and [[drought tolerance|drought resistance]]; water quality including pollution, nutrient deposition and [[eutrophication]] of waterways, and lowering of water tables; diversity of flora and fauna including indigenous species both directly and indirectly through the destruction of habitats, resulting in a genetic wipe-out.<ref name="cheapMyers and Kent 2001" /><ref name="Robin et al 2003" /><ref name="Portugal 2002">{{cite journal|last=Portugal|first=L.|title=OECD Work on Defining and Measuring Subsidies in Agriculture|journal=The OECD Workshop on Environmentally Harmful Subsidies, Paris, 7–8 November 2002|year=2002}}</ref><ref name="OECD 2003">{{cite web|last=OECD|title=Perverse incentives in biodiversity loss|url=http://www.oecd.org/env/resources/19819811.pdf|work=Working Party on Global and Structural Policies Working Group on Economic Aspects of Biodiversity|access-date=2013-08-05|year=2003|archive-date=2013-12-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203022538/http://www.oecd.org/env/resources/19819811.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

Cotton growers in the US reportedly receive half their income from the government under the [[Farm Bill of 2002]]. The subsidy payments stimulated [[overproduction]] and resulted in a record cotton harvest in 2002, much of which had to be sold at very reduced prices in the global market.<ref name="Kolb 2008" /> For foreign producers, the depressed cotton price lowered their prices far below the break-even price. In fact, African farmers received 35 to 40 cents per pound for cotton, while US cotton growers, backed by government agricultural payments, received 75 cents per pound. Developing countries and trade organizations argue that poorer countries should be able to export their principal commodities to survive, but protectionist laws and payments in the United States and Europe prevent these countries from engaging in international trade opportunities.