The Dollar A Day Dress

This film was created by BBC's Panorama in 2005. The team travelled the world to create the film which highlighted how the global garment industry can harm poor countries. 

Steve Bradshaw travelled from the Andrew to the Sahara collecting different fabrics for an outfit which was designed and made by a group of London Fashion Students, then was modelled at London Fashion Week. Each piece of fabric symbolised the plight of millions who live on less than a dollar a day to make the clothing that people all over the world wear.

Some people believe that the best way to help the poorer countries would be to 'wean' them off Western aid, ensuring a free and liberal world trade system. In this documentary, Panorama uncovers some of the harsh truths about the affect free trade has on the developing world and as to whether it would do more harm as well as more good.

Some of the findings:

• Cotton from Mali: Mali is one of the poorest countries in the world where farmers were encouraged to grow cotton. Cotton prices in the world market is dropping and the farmers are facing competition from heavily subsidised US cotton farmers. The West gives fifty billion dollars to Mali in aid, but three hundred billion dollars to its own farmers, giving Mali farmers no chance.
  The World Trade Organisation has ruled US subsidies illegal as it's a clear breach of the West's 'commitment' to free trade, however the US are yet to change this.
  As well as this, the famous blue robes of nomads in Timbuktu are no longer made from Malian cotton but from cotton textiles manufactured in China.
• Cotton from Uganda: In Uganda, most people wear second hand clothes which have been donated by the richer countries. This trade ruins the chances of growth for the local textile industry.
  Some Africans call the clothes "dead white men's clothes" not believing that people would willingly throw away such things. This comes back to an issue of sustainability. Until the country can phase out cast offs, their industry will not be able to provide the jobs and economic growth Uganda needs.
• Alpaca wool from Peru: In Peru, farmers are facing the loss of the country's most valuable resource as the quality and price of wool from the farmed Alpaca's suffers from poor breeding methods. The wool is supposed to be one of the worlds most luxurious and expensive fabrics.
  This is a great contrast to those farming the Alpaca's who are some of the poorest people in the world as the quality and price of the wool has taken a 'nose dive' due to poor breeding.
  More developed countries have also started to import some of Peru's genetic stock and began breeding selectively to produce finer wool which the Peruvian farmers can not live up to unless the richer countries share their breeding technology.
• Silk from Cambodia: In Cambodia, 1 in 5 people depend on the garment industry for their livelihood. The 250,000, mostly women workers, earn good wages and say they work in good conditions. The factories they work in are monitored by the International Labour Organisation supported by Cambodia's new labour union.
  The garment factories blossomed after Cambodia signed a global quota system, obliging rich nations to buy from countries with high labour standards, however in Jan 2005 the regulations ended and the country has to now compete with China whose workers wages and rights are unprotected.
  Cambodia's only chance of success is to market its labour standards to companies who are keen to protect their brand name. This would then give big companies a unique selling point, however the country could also likely to fall victim to "a race to the bottom" over labour standards.

I personally am quite shocked over the findings of this Panorama investigation. I can't quite believe how selfish the richer countries are and their unwillingness to really help the third world countries which have been and still are key to the fashion industry. High street fashion companies could make a real stand with partnering with a country such as Cambodia which has much higher labour standards than the countries they are currently opting to manufacture garments in. Why wouldn't a high street brand want to help and support a country where there is fair labour? It is all part of the selfishness, low costs at manufacturing provide companies with a bigger turn over. I'm sure, should this be campaigned about people would fight for the brands they are wearing to have been made in a country with high labour standards rather than made by sweatshop slaves and be prepared to pay more, knowing they are making an impact and changing the lives of thousands in the East.

Reference: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4314653.stm