From 1921, the British Government became increasingly dissatisfied with its anomalous position as a non-state organisation undertaking activities which were regarded as proper to the colonial administration and, in 1927, a governmental agency, the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, took over most of the BCGA's work although the Association continued to operate as a trade representational body.
It was organised as a semi-philanthropic body, using subscriptions from those involved in the cotton industry to distribute seed and provide technical expertise at no cost to the beneficiaries in order to develop cotton-growing, without any direct or immediate benefit to the subscribers.
[7] The association was at first given financial support by the British government, but in 1915 subsidy was withdrawn[8] and, in 1917, the Empire Cotton Growing Committee was established to take over some of its responsibilities.
In 1904 the association was applied for, and was granted, a Royal Charter and its capital was increases to £500,000 to ensure adequate funding for the extension of its expanding operations.
[10][11] In its early days, the BCGA generally worked through the Colonial Office or officials in the colonies, but it soon realised that, to meet its objectives, it needed to do more than provide seed and expertise, so from 1920 it began to supply machinery and buildings, to finance cotton ginneries and to act as selling agent for the cotton crops at guaranteed prices.
[16] However, at least ten private cotton plantation companies were floated, mainly in West Africa, between 1902 and 1914: all failed through poor planning, insufficient capital or lack of agricultural experience.
[17] The cost of supporting private firms that failed to create viable plantations also convinced the Association to rely on African producers.
[18] In West Africa, the BCGA also faced the problem that growing cocoa, peanuts or tobacco could be more lucrative than cotton, in East Africa and Northern Nigeria that local cotton industries with limited transport costs offered comparable or better prices than Lancashire and that in much of Nyasaland and Uganda poor transport links increased costs to uneconomic levels.
[26] An alternative view is that the cost of the Association's operations may have been excessive for the benefit achieved, and its obsessive quest for new supplies may have been at the expense of adapting the industry to the new technologies emerging in that period.
After the BCGA ceased its development operations in 1927, British colonial administrations assumed greater control over their cotton production.
[28] The French textile industry was even more dependent than Britain's on United States cotton, with over 90% of its supplies from that source at the end of the 19th century.
[29][30] The colonial administration did not favour of European-owned plantations but instituted a policy of forcing African producers to grow cotton and to sell it in controlled markets.
[32] Its two main problems were the unsuitability of much of French West Africa for cotton production without irrigation, and competition from local textile industries.
[34] One of the main problems the KWK had is that it initially conscripted African labour to work on plantations, both in Togo and German East Africa.
[36] A number of plantation companies experimented with cotton, but it was only when the colonial government in Mozambique followed the British example and turned to peasant production in 1906, followed by Angola in 1907, that significant amounts were produced, particularly in and just after the First World War.
[37] Most development, including the provision of free seeds and arranging transport, was promoted by colonial governors, as an organisation modelled on the BCGA only existed for a few years and did not undertake these tasks.
Frequent changes of government before 1926 prevented consistent policies being applied, and Angola and Mozambique only produced around 5% of the cotton Portugal's textiles industry required, until the establishment of the Estado Novo, which introduced increasingly brutal coercion from its inception in 1926, and particularly after 1938.
The Gambia and Sierra Leone, although having suitable climate and soils, were heavily involved in growing peanuts and, in parts of the Gold Coast, the mining industry was the main employers.
The BCGA made an agreement with the Nigerian Government in 1904 to establish model farms and a research station, build ginneries and provide suitable seeds and experts to improve the quality and quantity of the crop.
[53] In 1902, the BCGA turned to Uganda as a suitable area for growing cotton, as it possessed a favourable climate and fertile soils.
[57] From 1903, the BCGA promoted the growing of Egyptian cotton by African farmers in the Lower Shire River valley and along the shores of Lake Nyasa.
Initially, the Association's main input was the provision of free reliable seed to local farmers, but it later provided advice on cultivation and, in 1910, it built a ginnery and purchased part of the cotton crop.
[58] Also in 1910, the colonial administration made rules limiting who could issue seed to or purchase cotton from African farmers, creating a virtual monopoly for the Association.
[61] Small amounts of cotton were grown in the Zambezi valley in Southern Rhodesia and the Association saw this as a promising area to develop production by distributing suitable seed from 1904 on.
[67] The BCGA investigated cotton growing in Queensland Australia between 1904 and 1908 and again in 1911, but considered that the high cost of labour would prevent commercially successful operations.
[68] After German East Africa was occupied by British forces in late 1918, and before it was formally mandated to Britain as Tanganyika (territory), the Association was given the task of promoting cotton production, including guaranteeing prices, arranging transport and building new ginneries.
However, it was already stretched and unable to devote sufficient resources to carry this out effectively and was replaced by the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation.