The Cotton Conundrum

a greenfutures Special Edition

Published by

The Cotton Conundrum Securing the future of a very important fibre

Cotton scape

Can bold action on soil, water and climate change mitigation bail out cotton?

Simon Ferrigno looks over the past, present and future of the world’s most important textile fibre.

2

Green Futures July 2013

www.greenfutures.org.uk

draw on IPM principles: from preventative measures such as crop-rotation and selecting pest-resistant varieties to pest control through weeding or a highly targeted use of chemicals.

Investing in such solutions can help to improve cotton’s sustainability and productivity. For example, protecting farmers from market volatility can stabilise production and help brands secure their supplies.

Reducing the dependence on pesticides can cut production costs, and using water more wisely can increase production, too (cotton is relatively droughttolerant). Managing pests using ecosystem services can prevent them becoming resistant to insecticides.

And investing in cotton research and development, as with all agricultural research, pays off massively in the long term.

Three areas may be critical to cotton’s future. One is soil, which holds the key to productivity, but can

also act as a carbon sink, absorbing more carbon than it releases. Another is water, where there is still much to do in increasing irrigation efficiency, and reducing pollution from pesticide and fertiliser run-off. Finally, climate change mitigation deserves attention, as some areas become unsuitable for cotton and others more vulnerable to drought and flooding. Cotton already contributes 0.3-1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the International Cotton Advisory Committee. It will take bold action now – from industry regulators, smallholder farmers and commercial buyers alike – to ensure healthy crops and thriving markets in years to come. But there are many rewards to be won.

Industry-wide change is no less than an economic imperative

Simon Ferrigno is an independent researcher and writer on cotton and sustainability, and the author of ‘An Insider’s Guide to Cotton and Sustainability’.

Life of cotton

Photos: dszc/iStockphoto; VStock/thinkstock

Stuff of livelihoods, fruit of the loom

For Terry Townsend, Executive Director of the International Cotton Advisory Committee, industry-wide change is no less than an economic imperative: “Increasing input costs, inefficient use of fertiliser, poor water management, unscientific use of insecticides, and absentee ownership of farms are the most common factors limiting cotton productivity”, he declared at the organisation’s 70th Plenary in Argentina, back in September 2011.

Cotton gained a bad reputation in the 1980s, after decades of intensification culminated in its using 22.5% of all agricultural insecticides and 11% of pesticides. These figures are still cited in textbooks and online articles, although today cotton production accounts for 14.1% and 6.2%, respectively.

Campaigns to minimise the environmental and health impacts, by groups such as the Pesticide Action Network, led to organic cotton trials – and also to the use of integrated pest management (IPM), which emphasises the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems.

The challenges the industry faces today are well documented. Townsend and others list population and consumption growth, land degradation, water shortages, pollution, poverty and environmental damage. The cotton market is volatile, farmer revenues are declining and productivity stagnating.

Although absolute volumes of cotton sold are rising, it is losing market share to synthetic fibres like polyester, which benefited from a spike in cotton prices during 2010-2011. (The US Department of Agriculture estimates that a pound of cotton in China costs 76% more than polyester.)

Millions of small farmers still work with the most basic tools, and low incomes and lack of collateral constrain their access to credit. Pressure on land is so acute that farmers in Northern Benin told me (during a research trip in February 2013) that they fear going away to find temporary work, because the land will have been snapped up before they return.

However, these considerable challenges are no argument against cotton. When the crops do succeed, the results can be transformative. For instance, some organic cotton farmers in Benin have used their income to diversify, by becoming property developers.

Other smallholders grow cotton with food crops, which often cover most of the farm area. This diversity builds resilience against volatile weather. Cotton’s added value is that it is a cash crop, allowing farmers to invest in the land, in their children’s education, in family health, and in their community.

Many supply chain solutions have been developed (by Better Cotton Initiative, Cotton made in Africa and others) to help farmers tackle the environmental challenges while boosting their income. Most of these

Photo: iStockphoto/thinkstock

Enough cotton is grown annually to provide each person on the planet with 18 t-shirts

Cotton is threaded through human history.

Domesticated thousands of years ago in India, South and Central America and Southern Africa, it showcases the best and the worst of humanity – from innovation and creativity to slavery and environmental degradation.

The cotton plant is grown in some 80 countries by 50-100 million farmers, providing jobs to a further 250 million people in farm labour, transport and primary processing. The farms range from very small (five hectares or less in India or Africa) to giant sites covering thousands of hectares in the US, Brazil or Australia. Enough cotton is grown annually (27.8 million tonnes in 2011/12) on an area the size of Switzerland and the UK combined (2.5% of the world’s arable land) to provide each person on the planet with 18 t-shirts. Cotton also provides edible oil, and residues can be used as animal feed or fertilisers.

But cotton does not just clothe and feed us: it is the stuff of livelihoods. For many resource-poor farmers from the global South, it is a gateway to organised markets, cash, and hopes for a better future. Cotton is an important part of the global economy, but if it is to remain so in a resource constrained, heavily populated world, its production and distribution must become more sustainable and efficient. This is no niche view: it is a sentiment widely backed across the industry.

Cotton is produced across the globe under many different conditions – in arid, humid, tropical or temperate climates, in a variety of soil types, and on farms of different sizes and degrees of sophistication. This means any claims about water use, pollution or poverty are meaningless unless applied to a specific context.

Until recently there was no single point of reference for any of these claims. But now, a comprehensive dataset released by the not-for-profit industry organisation Cotton Incorporated, as part of its Life Cycle Inventory Assessment (LCIA) for cotton, provides one. It examines both the fibre and aspects of the supply chain, such as dyeing and finishing.

Results include impacts on acidification, eutrophication, global warming, ozone depletion, smog creation, energy, and water use, with textile manufacturing and

www.greenfutures.org.uk

consumer use contributing most impacts.

While Cotton Incorporated considers the exercise a ‘snapshot’, it is an important tool for considering the environmental impacts of a cotton-based product.

Janet Reed, Associate Director for Environmental Science and Sustainability at Cotton Incorporated, explains: “The obvious value of the cotton LCIA is long term, as a benchmark to measure cotton’s future environmental gains. But the LCIA has immediate and practical value for brands and retailers. There is no shortage of measurement models for textile sustainability, but there is a dearth of accurate data sets to use in those models.

The cotton LCIA fills that void, providing current and accurate cotton data that can be plugged into any measurement tool a brand or retailer chooses to use.”

– Simon Ferrigno

In its prime?

Green Futures July 2013

3

Crop challenge

4

Green Futures July 2013

organised so that little water actually fed the plants.

Tens of thousands of kilometres of unlined canals channelled water from the two rivers that fed the inland Sea to the fields in what was previously desert. Most of it sank into the soil or evaporated on the way, or from where it lay in the cotton fields. Officials didn’t care.

Some even believed that removing the sea entirely would create more fertile land, not more dusty, windblown desert. By the time the disaster was apparent, it was too late to avert it. Modest improvements in use of water could perhaps have slowed it down. Now, there are many refinements in irrigation technique which could have prevented it altogether.

Smallholder farmers can reduce their water usage, by using bed and furrow irrigation, for instance, instead of flooding their land. Simple gated pipe systems (small evenly spaced gates in the side of the pipe are used to control and target the flow of water) can also cut how much water is needed for irrigation. And increasing the soil’s organic matter can improve the water infiltration and retention capacity of the land. Educational initiatives to help farmers better understand the causes of groundwater stress, such as the farmer-managed Groundwater Systems Project, run by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in Andhra Pradesh, India, have also made a difference.

Aside from these relatively straightforward solutions, farmers can also take advantage of the latest spray irrigation systems, automation tools and moisture sensors. In fact, the current buzz term is ‘smart irrigation’. In the US, the development of more efficient irrigation systems can clearly be seen as you move west across the cotton belt, from Florida to

www.greenfutures.org.uk

Photo: iStockphoto/thinkstock

The key with cotton is how much water, and when

The world’s major crops, and the folks who tend them, have to adapt to new demands in the 21st century, and cotton is no exception.

Global warming means climate instability, with heat, drought and floods in unpredictable combinations.

How will cotton fare in this new, harsher world?

Not as badly as some people think. Its main defence will be more careful management, especially of water.

Cotton needs high soil moisture at critical periods, particularly early in development, and then likes long, hot spells when it reaches maturity. As Kater Hake of Cotton Incorporated’s Agricultural and Environmental Research Division puts it, “for most crops, the more water the better. But cotton needs not too much, especially at the start of growth and late in growing”.

Some sub-tropical regions manage that combination without help, but many cotton fields depend on irrigation. The key, then, is how much and when.

Cotton’s history should be easy to improve on.

Slave-worked plantations in the US and extraction of all the value of Indian cotton in British mills are in the past. But the dried-up salt flats where the Aral Sea once lapped the shores of Kazakhstan are more recent evidence that the cost of cultivating the fibre can be higher than anyone imagined.

However, the transformation of the 26,000-squaremile Aral Sea into a chemical-laden dustbowl has more to do with the way the Soviet-era command economy was run than with the thirst of Gossypium hirsute, the main cotton plant species. Yes, it was irrigation that caused the sea to shrink to a quarter of its original size and lose 90% of its volume, destroying a once flourishing fishing industry, but it was irrigation

Photo: BCI

Qualities such as high tolerance to heat and saline soil will prove useful, says Jon Turney.

Texas. Cotton in Texas is a billion-dollar annual industry, and is currently under intense pressure from an extended drought. Fully half the crop was lost in 2011: between November 2010 and the following July, Texas only received 1.2 inches of rain, around one-tenth the normal amount of rainfall for that period. Planting was down in 2012-13, as the rains continued to fall short.

Even in kinder years, Texas is not plentifully supplied with water. So irrigation has evolved to make better use of what there is. Farmers have moved from flooding fields, to pivot sprays above the leaves (not all that effective), to modified designs which deliver spray lower down (much better). The next move is to install costlier, but still more efficient, soil-fed irrigation, which uses a network of small pipes to deposit water near the roots. This drip irrigation reduces evaporation loss and is also an effective way of applying fertiliser, as needed.

Still smarter systems can incorporate either pivot spray or drip delivery. Variable rate irrigation moves away from wasteful blanket spraying and allows for the fact that fields and soils are not uniform. The farmer uses a detailed map of each field, compiled from knowledge on the ground and aerial photos. Mobile sprinklers linked to GPS to track their exact position can then be adjusted to deliver the right amount of water at each location they cover. Such systems cut water use by around 20%, and save fuel used for pumping in the same proportion.

Finally, there is a transition to ‘smart’ in the modern sense: not just where the water goes, but when it is applied. That can now be decided using continually updated local information. Computer models combine information about soil moisture in the field, the stage of crop growth, temperature, humidity, and local weather forecasts, and indicate when to water the crop.

Sprinkler systems are already widely linked to control by sensors, and smart phone apps that define irrigation needs more precisely are on the way.

This kind of innovation can also be combined with development of older methods. Farm ponds have long been used to store rainwater. Ed Barnes of Cotton Incorporated’s Agricultural and Environmental Research Division points to a feasibility study in Arkansas testing the idea that some ponds can be left unlined, allowing the water to seep into shallow aquifers for later recovery. This can take up less space than a larger pond and reduce evaporation losses, but needs careful surveying: build an unlined pond on sandy soil and the water is lost.

As recent years in Texas show, severe drought still undermines cotton harvests, but droughtresistant strains are also under development, both via conventional breeding and genetic manipulation.

GM strains may be more acceptable for cotton than some other crops, as earlier GM varieties, offering pest resistance and herbicide tolerance, have already been adopted by most major cotton producers.

However, more conventional breeding is also becoming more powerful because breeders are now armed with the genome sequence for cotton, published just last December. In fact, that should be ‘genome sequences’, because the main cultivated variety has doubled up its genome: it has 44 chromosomes rather than the usual 22 found in plants. As Barnes’ colleague Hake explains, this means it has extra evolutionary flexibility, and should also make breeding for desired traits a little easier.

www.greenfutures.org.uk

Sequencing a genome does not immediately tell you what all the genes do, but studies of the best understood plant, the weed Arabidopsis, have revealed what stress tolerance genes look like, according to Hake. Wild cotton has better stress tolerance than modern cultivated varieties, even though the genes are retained. Cotton also has relatively good heat and salt tolerance, so drought resistance is the main target for new strains. There are many variables to allow for, and Cotton Incorporated is experimenting with the blanket coverage of experimental plots with sensors which can be combined to give a complete picture of how trial plants are growing. In Arizona, some cotton plants are growing in fields where a mobile sensor rig measures plant height, temperature and leaf density every 10cm.

Further refinements on the way include measuring chlorophyll concentration in the leaves, and integrating the on the ground measurements with a model of how sunlight is reflected off the canopy.

The challenge, as with all such sensor arrays, is dealing with the mass of data. “These machines operate seven days a week”, says Hake. Result: many terabytes of data which have to be related to the precise genetic make-up of the plants under surveillance. The goal is to develop an analysis which shows how a new strain to be offered to farmers will fare under a wide range of conditions, and especially to identify which ones will resist extreme conditions.

Meanwhile, cotton also offers opportunities to farmers struggling with saline soils. Cotton plants have around twice the salt tolerance of wheat or rice, for example, and could be a substitute crop in places where soil quality is threatening farms. This possibility has already been explored in Japan on land swamped by the 2011 tsunami. Tens of thousands of acres of farmland were left unfit for rice cultivation when the sea receded; the salt left behind cannot be washed away because the pumping equipment was destroyed.

In north-eastern Japan, the Tohoku project is providing some farmers with cotton seed to revive their land. First results from trials on a small plot were poor because planting was late, the weather was bad and the acreage was limited. But later sowings established that cotton can be harvested from what used to be rice fields. The first garments made from Tohoku cotton are now on sale in Tokyo stores.

As agriculture continues to evolve to meet changing conditions, the Japanese farmers whose land was inundated will not be the last who learn a new routine for growing an unfamiliar crop, but one which has been cultivated for thousands of years: cotton.

How many chromosomes in this crop?

Cotton in Texas is a billion-dollar annual industry

Jon Turney is a science writer, editor and lecturer, and author of ‘The Rough Guide to the Future’.

Green Futures July 2013

5

Protein potential Let them eat cotton, too, says Roger East.

6

Green Futures July 2013

www.greenfutures.org.uk

Photo: Louella 938/shutterstock

Oysters in cottonseed oil

Photo: Willard Culver/National Geographic Society/Corbis

Perfect with pickles: cottonseed mayonnaise

Cotton growing isn’t all about textiles.

Could it become a major world food source too?

Researchers have their eye on a prize well worth aiming for.

Cottonseed is protein rich. It’s abundant; along with an annual global total of around 25 million tonnes of cotton, you get over 40 million tonnes of cottonseed. Which could, in theory, meet the needs of 500 million people.

There’s a hitch. It’s called gossypol. A naturally occurring compound found in little glands throughout the cotton plant and within each seed, gossypol is toxic to humans. It is also toxic to pigs and poultry, although cows can deal with it in moderation thanks to the digestive power of the microflora in their multi-stomach systems. (Gossypol also has contraceptive properties, but interest in exploiting this attribute, notably in China, has waned in view of its other negative effects.)

The gossypol problem has meant that, up to now, cottonseed has been at best a by-product of fibre production, and at worst a waste stream. After cottonseed has been separated out from the fibre in the ginning process, the main current ways of extracting value from it are crushing out the oil, and turning the hulls and meal into cow-cake.

It could represent a significant opportunity. The oil can be classed as edible because its gossypol content is reduced right down by the refining process, to well within food safety standards.

But edible cottonseed, with its protein content at an impressive 20% or more, could conceivably transform cotton from a source of secondary oil to a crucial part of the staple diet of millions.

Generations of Americans learned to cook with cottonseed oil, first marketed over a century ago as Wesson oil, and then popularised in the form of Crisco (Proctor and Gamble found a way of emulsifying it). It was largely displaced in US homes when soya became cheaper, but its absence of trans-fats has helped it make a bit of a comeback.

It’s now more widely used in cereals, breads and snack foods, although it remains a popular source of domestic edible oil in India.

Now, biotech research is encouraging new hopes on that score. “The big picture is to be able to help solve the food problem, to be able to feed hungry people”, says Professor Keerti Rathore, at Texas A&M University’s Institute of Plant Genomics and Biotechnology.

We have known, since the late 1950s, that it’s possible to breed a ‘glandless’ strain of cotton.

But that’s not necessarily all to the good. Without gossypol, at least in the leaves and roots, the plants lose their own front-line defences against insect predators. Growers would face an unacceptably high

risk of seeing their crop simply devoured in the fields.

In New Mexico, however, where pest eradication efforts (including the release of sterile pink bollworm moths) have reduced this threat, there is now something of a revival of interest in growing glandless cotton. Farmers who agree to try planting it are supported by the US industry association Cotton Incorporated, with a tie-in to a New Mexico State University programme that is demonstrating a whole cycle of use for the gossypol-free seeds.

The oil, extracted by cold pressing and used to cook food on campus, has a second life as biodiesel on the university farm, powering the irrigation pumps, the tractors and the delivery trucks. Shrimp are being raised on the leftover cottonseed meal mixed with algae, potentially a more sustainable resource than the usual fishmeal shrimp-food. Meanwhile, university food technologist Nancy Flores is enthusiastic about a healthy cottonseed-based snack food mixed with corn flour and green chilli.

Her colleague Lisa McKee is working on baked goods from cottonseed flour, a gluten-free wheat substitute for which she envisages a potential market in dry mixes for making cookies.

To build more revenue prospects for New Mexico’s glandless cotton growers, Cotton Incorporated’s Tom Wedegaertner took some of its cottonseed to a food innovation centre in Portland, Oregon, to develop a wider range of food products.

The menu could include a replacement for peanut butter, a milk replacement product, and even a vegetarian jerky stick.

As imaginative as these experiments are, the attractions of glandless cotton remain limited to areas of low insect threat. And that leaves out most of the world. Rathore’s research team in Texas, however, has pioneered a genetic intervention that can cut gossypol production by 95% or more in the seeds alone, leaving the rest of the plant with its natural defences intact. What Rathore does, in simple terms, is to deactivate an existing process within the seed, rather than adding extraneous

www.greenfutures.org.uk

genes to its make-up. So he believes that his plants, though they’re genetically modified, may meet less public resistance than other GM organisms. As he says, “this is a very big deal, because it clearly opens up this huge resource, either directly as food, in the form of cottonseed for human nutrition, or as feed for chickens and pigs”.

What works in the laboratory is now being tested, through experimental growing of the new GM strains. Even with a series of successful field trials, it will still be several years before anything is ready for approval and commercial release. But to say that cotton growers are watching with interest would be an understatement, to judge by the enthusiastic comments of Kater Hake, Vice-President for Agricultural Research at Cotton Incorporated. “We’re going through an opportunity of expanding the utility of cotton”, says Hake, “not just to clothe people and feed livestock and produce cooking oil, but also to be a major supplier of protein to feed people on a global basis.”

How appetising does that sound? In Rathore’s lab, he says, “people actually like the taste. I’d much rather eat cottonseed than soya beans.”

Generations of Americans learned to cook with cottonseed oil

Roger East is a freelance writer and editor, and a regular contributor to Green Futures.

Good enough to eat?

In the US, cotton is regulated as a food crop by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and regulations restrict the amount of pesticide residue allowed in cottonseed. Since most US cotton is now GM (see ‘Cotton recreated’, p8), it’s no surprise that cotton also features frequently on the list of voluntary FDA consultations with producers before they bring to market a food product made from GM plants. As of April 2013, there had been 30 such consultations involving cotton.

– Roger East

Green Futures July 2013

7

Cotton recreated

thus offered growers a way to tackle their most feared pest, and benefit from the resultant increase in yields, while cutting back or even eliminating the chemical pesticides they had hitherto used for the job. Soon it was taken up in Australia, China, Brazil and other big producers. When Bt cotton swept India too, following approval there in 2002, the country’s cotton output soared. By the end of that decade, around half of the world’s cotton acreage was planted with transgenic strains – including new varieties engineered to tolerate Monsanto’s much-vaunted RoundUp herbicide (and so cut other herbicide use and the need for tillage).

However in some countries, including many EU member states, GM cotton isn’t allowed to be grown. Farmers who buy into GM need fresh supplies of seeds each year, they point out, which makes them dependent on the merchants; they can’t be self-sufficient by saving seeds from last year’s crop because the seeds from GM plants have muchdiminished fertility and aren’t authorised for replanting.

The hoped-for reductions in pesticide use can backfire too; relying on Bt cotton’s toxicity to bollworms, rather than chemical pesticides, may invite plagues of aphids and other secondary pests which aren’t susceptible to the Bt toxin. In such cases, a lack of natural predators compounds what Emma Hockridge of the Soil Association calls “spill-over problems rather than spill-over benefits” – and farmers may end up spraying even more chemicals to deal with them.

Then there’s the threat of bollworms developing resistance to the Bt toxins. Typically, biotechnology sees itself not as the problem but as part of the solution. While good farming practices are acknowledged as vital in resistance management, a second generation of Bt cotton has also been engineered to deliver a double punch of toxin. And it doesn’t stop there. Monsanto, whose Bollgard II trademark cotton is the industry leader, is working on a third generation Bt strain. Other biotech research aims to boost everything from cotton fibre quality to disease resistance, or to cut down the gossypol content of cottonseeds, the biggest barrier to their use as food (see ‘Protein potential’, p6). GM’s opponents may not be won over, and GM remains excluded from those

Gene changers claim a growing role, and promise much more to follow. Roger East reports.

8

Green Futures July 2013

www.greenfutures.org.uk

Photos: Pallava Bagla/Corbis; FAO/Asim Hafeez

ringing endorsement, the association’s website Cotton Today speaks of “scientific advances in biotechnology ... portending a future of full cotton sustainability.” In short, it asserts, biotech is “the present and future of cotton”.

Certainly it’s a big story in cotton’s recent past.

When scientists spliced genes from the soil bacterium bacillus thuriniensis (Bt) into cotton plants, they created a modified strain that makes proteins which are toxic when eaten by the bollworm caterpillar.

Approved for use in the US in the 1990s, this Bt cotton

Photos: xxxxx

Two decades into cotton’s GM revolution, J. Berrye Worsham, President and CEO of the US industry association Cotton Incorporated, exudes complete confidence in the GM route.

“Employing biotechnology to its fullest extent, now and far into the future,” he says, “we anticipate dramatically increasing our yields of cotton fibre and using cottonseed as a food source for humans. We fully expect that this expanded use of the cotton plant will require less water and soil, greatly reducing strain on the environment.” Accompanying Worsham’s

‘niche’ markets where organic and Fairtrade standards hold sway.

Significantly, however, the CottonConnect sustainable supply chain initiative, working with farmers in South Asia and China, does not allow itself this luxury. “We take a ‘GM neutral’ position in order to have a greater impact”, says CottonConnect, pointing out that over 90% of cotton produced in India is GM. Similarly, CottonConnect’s education project for the John Lewis Foundation with Gujarati farmers in Morbi “recognises their reasons for using the GM seed, owing to benefits it brings” to their often precarious livelihoods.

The Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), designed specifically to build a channel for sustainable sourcing in the commercial mainstream, is also ‘technology neutral’ when it comes to GM. “We don’t look at seed at all in our standard”, says BCI’s Lena Stafgaard: “The key priorities are water management and integrated pest management.”

Water management, indeed, looms increasingly large (see ‘Crop challenge’, p4). And the biotech industry is hoping that successes on the water front can add more feathers to its sustainability cap, alongside the reduction of pesticides, herbicides and the need for tillage. Intriguingly, this looks likely to include the development of less-thirsty commercial cotton strains that don’t depend directly on GM. As Cotton Incorporated’s Vice-President for Agricultural Research, Kater Hake, explains, “some of the benefit from GM research in stress tolerance will be indirect. GM tools can help identify useful native traits in wild or weedy cottons that have ultra-high heat, drought or salt tolerance. These traits can then be moved into commercial varieties using genetic markers and conventional breeding.”

Up to now this has been a slow process, but the recent breakthrough in sequencing a cotton genome, with a ‘gold standard’ genome sequence published last December, provides a reference blueprint that is set to revolutionise cotton genetic improvement in the next five to ten years.

Over 90% of the cotton produced in India is GM

Roger East is a regular contributor to Green Futures.

Left: Picking Bt cotton in India Right: Making a stand for IPM in Pakistan

www.greenfutures.org.uk

Green Futures July 2013

9

Better at scale

Piling up: Better Cotton in Pakistan

10

In 2010, the total production of sustainable cotton – certified as organic or Fairtrade – accounted for just 1.4% of the global cotton market (discounting those countries with federal oversight, such as the US and Australia). Over the next two years, this proportion grew to over 3%, more than half of it produced under the wing of the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), and verified as Better Cotton. The founders of BCI did not set out to add another niche sustainability standard to the mix. Rather, their market-friendly approach is to encourage continuous improvement at a local level (see box). By engaging major retailers as members, they hope to shape the mainstream.

Currently, BCI is aiming for more than 8 million tonnes of Better Cotton Lint produced by 2020, bringing a third of the cotton market to a more sustainable footing. Those backing Better Cotton, including the Sustainable Trade Initiative IDH and the non-governmental organisation Solidaridad, believe this will be the tipping point that sees more sustainable cotton become standard across the industry.

Solidaridad advocates a more inclusive market: one which meets demand by recognising the full potential of smallholder farmers, and women in particular.

Of course, regulation also has a part to play in driving better practice. Kim Kitchings, Vice-President of the Corporate Strategic Planning and Program Metrics Department for Cotton Incorporated, points to the regulatory oversight of agriculture in countries such as the US and Australia, and the sustainable gains made by modern cotton production as a result. She explains that there may be a greater supply of relatively sustainable cotton than people realise: “There are many definitions and criteria for what is sustainable. At the heart of them are three basic

Green Futures July 2013

points: reducing the environmental impact; ensuring the system is both economical and profitable; and enhancing the quality of life of all workers. Cotton grown in developed markets like the US and Australia, which together represent approximately 20% of the global cotton supply, certainly meets these criteria.”

Nonetheless, increasing the supply of more sustainable cotton across the rest of the world – in line with BCI’s targets – requires an unprecedented expansion. And many challenges lie ahead.

So far, says Joost Oorthuizen, Executive Director of IDH, “we have rightly been focusing on supply, on farmers. And we have done pretty well on that.” The farming practices promoted through Better Cotton have, on average, been found to help farmers increase yields and maintain cotton quality without increasing their financial inputs. Few farmers are going to turn that down. “But now we have to shift our attention much more strongly to the demand side”, continues Oorthuizen. If brand procurement signals to major suppliers are saying strongly that sustainable cotton is the future, then this could be successful – but we have to be able to meet the demand, he argues. “The flipside is that if we’re not able to do so, then you run the risk of momentum being lost”, he adds.

Lise Melvin, CEO at BCI, agrees: “It’s ok to generate demand but if you aren’t able to satisfy it fast enough then retailers tend to get impatient.” However, there remain some issues on the supply side too. The strategy consultants Steward Redqueen stressed the challenges of “balancing procurement and production at competitive market prices” in a report for IDH on the impact of BCI, published in February 2013.

Ultimately, those linking procurement and production will play a vital role, and must be convinced of the worth of more sustainable cotton if it is to reach scale. “It’s not just about three or four different stages of garment factory, spinner, ginner, farmer”, explains Anita Chester, senior program manager for cotton at IDH, and former South Asia CEO of CottonConnect: “It’s about multiple layers of traders, middle men, permission agents, across countries, across states.

Everyone needs to work to make these connections.”

This has been the main focus of the Better Cotton Fast Track Program (BCFTP). Led by IDH and BCI, it brings together an elite group of BCI members – IKEA, Marks & Spencer, Levi Strauss & Co, H&M, adidas, WalMart, Olam, Nike and, most recently, Tesco. “The front runners, if you like”, says Oorthuizen. “They want to learn how to do this, and learn from each other.

Clearly, a very active and proactive procurement strategy internally in those brands and in their longterm contracts with suppliers is key.”

The crucial role of the retailers is also recognised

by Nico Roozen, Director of Solidaridad Network.

www.greenfutures.org.uk

Photo: Better Cotton Initiative

Can sustainable cotton become a global mainstream commodity?

Tim Smedley looks for action in the marketplace.

The founding father of the Fairtrade movement in the 1980s, he now argues that a market-based approach is the only way to reach the mainstream: “Around 1015 years ago, we started with NGO projects helping farmers. After this, we tried to link these farmers to the market. But now we are working the other way around: we start with the supply chain, producers and brands ... Real change can only be made when businesses integrate more sustainable cotton in their regular business and supply chain.”

A retailer that understands this well is John Lewis. It aims to use sustainable cotton wherever possible in its products. The John Lewis Foundation has developed a three-year cotton farmer training programme in India, with CottonConnect, to help reduce input costs and improve livelihoods for 1,500 farmers. John Lewis also participates in the Sustainable Clothing Action Plan (SCAP) led by WRAP, a multi-stakeholder group with the goal of improving the sustainability of clothing across its life cycle.

BCI retailer members work with local implementing partners that deliver training programmes in India, China, Pakistan, Mali and Mozambique that help reduce input cost and improve livelihoods for 165,000 farmers, by producing Better Cotton.

“This only works if brands really dig into their supply chain, map it and get to know their spinners better”, says Melvin. “They need to have a strategy and local procurement teams, in-country if it’s a big retailer, who are briefed and trained.” Such an approach, she says, can drive wholesale change throughout the chain without lapsing into the temptation to spot-buy.

The final piece in the jigsaw is convincing governments to incorporate sustainability into national standards. With cotton produced in more than 110 countries, it seems a Herculean task. However, 60% of the world’s harvested cotton in 2012 came from just three countries: China, India and the US. BCI recently revealed its expansion strategy for 2013-15, working with local implementing partners in China, India and Pakistan, and with national and global partners in Africa, Australia, Brazil, Turkey and the US to embed Better Cotton production locally through individual farm verifications. Through these collaborations, BCI aims to account for 75% of global cotton production.

“BCI is doing a great job helping farmers in developing countries achieve the same kinds of environmental gains already made by US growers at a national level”, explains Kater Hake of Cotton Incorporated, adding that the US is the world’s third largest producer and the largest exporter of cotton.

Suddenly, the target of a third of the global market by 2020 seems eminently achievable. Janet Reed, Director for sustainability, agricultural and environmental research at the US cotton association Cotton Incorporated, explains that because of federal, state and regional oversight, the US system is among the most transparent in the world. Additionally, buyers are able to track the credentials of a cotton bale via High Volume Instrument (HVI) data. “For over 30 years, HVI data has provided a government-backed statement about the quality of each bale of US lint”, says Reed. “The owner of any bale of US cotton can access HVI data on that bale from US websites, making it easy to trace the journey of the cotton from individual field to gin.”

Meanwhile in Turkey, the world’s eighth largest

www.greenfutures.org.uk

Better, how?

The Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) works with a diverse range of stakeholders, including farmers, on a journey to promote measurable and continuous improvement. BCI aims to improve resilience for the environment, farming communities and the economies of cottonproducing areas, by following the six principles of Better Cotton: 1. minimise the harmful impact of crop protection practices 2. use water efficiently and care for the availability of water 3. care for the health of the soil 4. conserve natural habitats 5. care for and preserve the quality of the fibre 6. promote decent work.

Better Cotton farmers log their progress in field books, including agronomic and economic indicators. At the end of each season, BCI’s Implementing Partners compile and submit the data, alongside data from ‘control farmers’ (who are not part of BCI), and this is completed with independent quantitative case studies. Results can be affected – sometimes dramatically – by external factors, such as rain, pests and market prices, and so real impact can only be assessed over a longer period of time. Nonetheless, analysis of medium-term trends can be a useful indicator of change. www.bettercotton.org

cotton producer, a multi-stakeholder workshop held

by BCI in Istanbul in January saw participants support the development of Better Cotton in the country. They agreed an ambitious production target of 100,000 metric tonnes of Better Cotton lint by 2015.

For all this to happen, however, the future expansion of Better Cotton capacity, establishing mainstream recognition and ensuring financial resilience for BCI needs to be reached. Currently funded by a ratio of 1:1 public and private funding, the Steward Redqueen report warns that, “The current market for Better Cotton, active for only three years, is not yet self-sustaining. This issue has been recognised

by BCI and IDH who have established a new business model for Better Cotton. The new model includes BCI charging retailer and brand members a Volume Based Fee on their Better Cotton procurement. The fees will be invested in the production and delivery of Better Cotton. This investment by BCI’s Retailer and Brand Members is complementary to on-going investments by other stakeholders, and key to the success of mainstreaming Better Cotton and ensuring supply in the future. Ultimately, it will enable financial stability and economies-of-scale to be realised.”

And perhaps there is one final ally that will help Better Cotton become mainstream, the silent majority of the cotton trade: the consumer. “There are some very interesting developments”, agrees Oorthuizen.

“Chinese young people and middle classes are very interested in sustainability, for example, perhaps more so than in the West. First, though, we need the systems: the Volume Based Fees and expanded capacity. Once all these things are in place, and the market picks it up, we’ll see how fast this can go.”

China, India and the US contributed 60% of the world’s cotton harvest in 2012

Tim Smedley writes about sustainable business for titles including the Guardian and the Financial Times.

Green Futures July 2013

11

A grower’s guide Cotton has a battered reputation as a thirsty crop, and one demanding high levels of pesticide and insecticide. But innovations in recent years reveal that these traits belong to agricultural practices, and are not inherent to the crop itself. Indeed, international efforts from the likes of the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) are steadily proving, not only that cotton production can be made more sustainable, but that decreasing the crop’s ecological toll can improve the lives and livelihoods of farmers.

Around 90% of the world’s 100 million cotton farmers live in developing countries, raising the crop on less than two hectares. These smallholders are especially vulnerable to market shifts and climate flux, and the performance of a single growing season can make or break a household. But global businesses are also tethered to the fate of these small plots. Smallholders comprise the basis of diversified and geographically dispersed supply chains, that offer greater resilience than relying on the performance of a single crop. To ensure future supply, several leading companies are intervening on the ground to safeguard the resources on which cotton cultivation depends.

12

Green Futures July 2013

The John Lewis Foundation, a charitable trust set up by the UK retailer, has invested in a three-year programme to train 1,500 farmers in Gujarat, India, in sustainable production techniques. Through a combination of field and classroom based sessions, the trainings address issues such as soil health and water conservation, pest management, reduced chemical use and decent labour standards.

The retailer is working with CottonConnect, a social purpose enterprise set up in 2009 by the Textile Exchange, C&A, and the Shell Foundation, which helps companies map sustainable strategies throughout the supply chain, from ground to garment. The organisation does not set standards for sustainability, but rather works with retailers to meet sourcing objectives, such as Fair Trade and Better Cotton. With the goal of cultivating one million acres of sustainable cotton by 2015, CottonConnect works with up to 80,000 farmers annually, predominantly in India and China.

According to Anna Karlsson, Sustainable Development Manager at CottonConnect: “Economic benefit will keep farmers interested in continuing the training and implementing the practices.

Environmental gains are secondary for most farmers.

www.greenfutures.org.uk

Photo: Better Cotton Initiative

Farmers are adopting best practice, and reaping the rewards, says Katherine Rowland.

In the short term, using fewer pesticides will save them money, and using them in the right way will have health benefits. In the long term, [better practice] improves the soil, reduces leaching of chemicals into water, and encourages biodiversity.”

While the economic gains come chiefly from spending less on inputs, which in some countries can make up 60% of cotton production costs, better land management strategies also play a prominent role. Techniques such as soil assessments, which let farmers know how much and what type of fertiliser to apply, manure composting, intercropping and crop rotations help to preserve soil health; rainwater harvesting saves on irrigation, and pheromone traps to catch insects reduce dependence on chemicals.

These approaches – already used in the US, Australia and Brazil – comprise part of a larger toolkit developed by the BCI, a non-profit multi-stakeholder initiative that aims to elevate sustainable cotton production around the world, and established the Better Cotton standard in 2009 to do so.

BCI seeks to counter the threats to the industry posed by soil erosion, water depletion, and unsafe working conditions, its principles are based on mainstreaming prudent agrochemical use, environmentally efficient production methods and improved labour conditions. Participating companies include H&M, Marks & Spencer, IKEA and adidas, alongside non-profit partners including WWF and Solidaridad. Collectively, they want 30% of the world’s cotton production to comply with BCI standards by 2020 (see box ‘Better, how?’, p11).

The 2010-11 growing seasons saw the first harvests of Better Cotton in India, Pakistan, Brazil and Mali, and Better Cotton is now grown in China, Turkey and Mozambique. Although the programme is in its infancy, it currently involves more than half a million farmers, and has had significant results.

In India, where BCI worked in nine states in 2011, the 35,000 Better Cotton farmers used 40% less commercial pesticides and 20% less water than conventional farmers, while at the same time having on average a 20% greater productivity and 50% higher profits. In Pakistan, 44,000 Better Cotton farmers similarly used 20% less water and 33% less commercial fertiliser than conventional cotton farmers while having on average a 8% greater productivity and 35% higher profits.

These efforts and advancements echo those of more developed cotton-growing countries. In the US, for example, national and local government organisations strictly regulate pesticide and irrigated water applications. Cotton growers and importers also contribute to a collective research and educational outreach program. Over the last three decades, this combination of oversight and outreach has enabled US cotton growers to reduce pesticide applications by 50% and irrigated water applications by 45%.

In addition to technical training, many of these international programmes also incorporate literacy training, women’s skill building, health and safety courses, and commitments to end child labour. Peter Salcedo, a trader for Plexus Cotton, the sixth largest cotton supplier in the world, says that retailers are responding to consumer interest in the welfare of producers, and are increasingly invested in issues like gender parity and community development.

www.greenfutures.org.uk

Consumers want to be able to trace where their goods are coming from, he says, and so brands need to be able to explain that their products have a “respectable provenance”.

In East Africa, Plexus Cotton sources its stock from BCI, and works with social business development organisations, such as Cotton made in Africa and the Competitive African Cotton Initiative, to offer supply chain traceability starting with raw materials and labour conditions.

Chimala Walusa, a farmer from the Balaka region of Malawi, is one of the 65,000 smallholders that Plexus is working with in the country. Walusa says, “My life style has changed since I became a lead farmer [in the training programme]. Before, I used to harvest less, like seven bales, but now I am harvesting more. This season I have harvested 60 bales of 90kg each. I managed to harvest all this because I followed the basic production techniques I was taught by extension agents [university employees who develop and deliver educational programmes].”

Increased yields result in direct gains for his wife and four children, Walsusa explains. “From last year’s sales, I managed to build a good house, and I bought four cattle and oxen. From this year’s [which totalled MK1,575 million / US$4,800], I am planning to buy a plot in town and build a house for rent.”

These gains resonate across the supply chain.

For the US-based retailer Levi Strauss & Co., onthe-ground efforts to improve cotton production also serve to protect its business from some of the effects of climate change. Of the 100 countries in which cotton production takes place, many are already feeling the impact of weather shifts in the form of water scarcity and constraints to arable land. As a result, they also recognise the need to implement adaptation strategies, says Sarah Young, Levi’s Manager of Corporate Communications. For a company that depends on cotton for 95% of its products, addressing these challenges at the grower level is a necessary part of sustaining their business.

In the US, increasing weather variability, alongside growing demand, is similarly “cause for concern for cotton farmers and is generating strategies to adapt”, says Ed Barnes, Senior Director of agricultural and environmental research at Cotton Incorporated, a not-for-profit organisation whose work helps US cotton farmers manage input efficiencies and reduce environmental impact. In the past, he says, “if the field didn’t look like a clean construction site, you weren’t going to plant”. But now, 70% of US cotton farmers have adopted conservation tillage practices, a modern farming technique that allows the soil to hold more moisture and nutrients, thereby decreasing dependence on irrigation and fertilisers.

The beauty of these conservation techniques, says Barnes, is that farmers still reap the same, if not higher, financial benefits. With the price of fertiliser and water rising globally, “farmers are interested in using resources as efficiently as possible”, he says.

“They are adopting more sustainable practices because they see the economic return, and that what’s good for the land is good for growers.”

From last year’s sales, I built a good house and bought four cattle and oxen

Katherine Rowland is a freelance journalist specialising in health and the environment.

Green Futures July 2013

13

Learn and share

Growing funds Heather Connon explores the incentives for investment.

14

Green Futures July 2013

and importers, performs national and region-specific research and conducts educational outreach programs to aid US growers. As a result, US growers have been able to produce more cotton while significantly reducing pesticide and water applications.

Much capacity-building comes down to communication. In India, Pakistan and Mali, murals, street performances, radio programmes and awareness-raising walks play a critical role in communicating sustainable farming practices. Hake is excited about the opportunities that new technologies offer producers worldwide: “The cell phone and smart phone revolution is connecting farmers in ways not previously possible. Not only can growers monitor field sensors from these devices, but they can get real-time updates on crop markets, local pest problems, weather alerts and advice from other farmers. This helps large and small farmers alike.”

One online tool, currently only available to US cotton farmers, is the Fieldprint Calculator: this free, confidential educational resource helps growers to observe the correlation of management practices to environmental impact. The ‘fieldprint’ describes the sustainability performance of crop production, including land use, soil health, water irrigation, energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions. As Doug Goehring, a corn, soya bean and wheat grower in North Dakota, observes, the Fieldprint Calculator allows growers not only to quantify actual impacts, but also to test future scenarios without setting foot in the field: “This calculator will help me understand how we’re being sustainable on the farm today, while providing insight for future improvements that can benefit the environment and my bottom line.”

With volatile weather conditions and increasing strain on resources, this foresight could be the most valuable tool on the farm.

Tess Riley is a freelance environmental journalist.

www.greenfutures.org.uk

Photo: ictor/iStockphoto

Growers can get real-time updates on crop markets from their smart phone

More than 80% of all cotton is produced by small-scale farmers. A number of projects are now emerging to help this vast workforce come together to share best practice and address common challenges.

The Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) is a multistakeholder initiative based in Geneva working to improve both the social, environmental and economic impacts of cotton production by establishing six basic principles that it expects every Better Cotton farmer to meet (see ‘Better how?’, p11). After three years of pilots across four countries (Mali, India, Brazil and Pakistan), BCI is now expanding to countries such as China, Turkey and Mozambique. Its target is 1 million farmers selling 2.6 million tonnes of Better Cotton by 2015, and 5 million farmers selling 8.2 million tonnes by 2020.

For Nicolas Petit, Director of Standards and Assurance at BCI, disseminating best practice to as many farmers as possible is crucial. BCI trains Implementing Partners which develop projects and materials appropriate to the particular communities they work with. In Mali, for example, it has partnered with the Association of African Cotton Producers (AProCA) and the Solidaridad Network, which is dedicated to responsible agricultural practices worldwide. Solidaridad aims to provide smallholders with access to organised markets, so that they can invest in more sustainable practices.

Together, they have implemented several projects, including Farmer Field Schools (FFS), which offer practical demonstrations of Better Cotton production principles. One study saw 2,000 Malian farmers receive pest management training across 119 FFS in the years 2011-12; those who attended produced a 40% higher yield in the following harvest than those who had not.

“In many ways, BCI is adapting the educational model we have in the US and taking it to individual farmers around the world”, explains Kater Hake, VicePresident of Research at Cotton Incorporated. His organisation, which is funded by US cotton growers

Photo Sebastien Cailleux/Corbis

Tess Riley traces the dissemination of best practice.

Fair trade and organic labels are familiar enough on our t-shirts and other cotton products, and such certification schemes do play an important role in improving the sustainability of the production of the fibre.

But these schemes are based on charging a premium price for certified cotton: a barrier to scale in a competitive market. To make a big impact on the sustainability of cotton, therefore, it is vital to bring sustainable systems into mainstream production.

That is the logic behind the Better Cotton Fast Track Fund, which began in 2010 with the aim of furthering the ambitions of the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) to become the standard for more sustainable cotton production. Eight large retailers, including H&M, Nike, IKEA and WalMart, have signed up, committing funds that are matched by the IDH Sustainable Trade Initiative, the ICCO and Rabobank Foundation, making a total of €40 million available for investment in sustainable production over the five years of the programme. Provisional figures indicate that, in the 2012-13 year, production under the programme had reached 670,000 metric tonnes (MT), up from just under 209,000 MT in 2011-12. That means the scheme is already two-thirds on the way to its one million MT target. The uptake rate among Better Cotton ginners is now 46% and among retailers 35%.

The aim is to act as a facilitator to encourage small farmers to undergo the training and production modifications needed to qualify for Better Cotton (see ‘Better, how?’, p11). Anita Chester, Senior Project Manager for cotton at IDH, says the programme is focussing on three core areas: agronomicals, as in ways to increase production; decent work, including health, labour conditions and trading rights; and the environment, which looks at the use of pesticides, water and so on. The Fast Track Fund is also looking at models which will help farmers gain access to good quality raw materials, finance and markets for their production.

The Fast Track Fund encourages the establishment of learning groups, so that farmers can share their experiences: more than 108,000 farmers were trained in 2012 alone. It is helping to set up producer organisations which can use their buying power to access good quality input materials and avoid the risk of buying fake pesticides or fertilisers. They can also sell the cotton collectively, using their sway as a group to get a better price.

Rabobank Foundation has earmarked €150,000 to fund the establishment of such producer groups, which are already common in other commodities. For many small farmers with no trading record, bank accounts or, in some cases, even identity cards, it will be the first time they have access to finance.

Iris van der Velden, Region Manager, Asia, for the Rabobank Foundation, sees this funding as a starting

www.greenfutures.org.uk

block: “The initial aim [of the Fast Track Programme] was to establish whether it would benefit farmers and the environment, and whether there was a market for the products.”

It’s early days. One producer group, ASA in India, has already been established, but van der Velden admits that it faces extra challenges as a rotational crop, used in conjunction with beans, soya and so on.

The next stage for the Fast Track Programme will be to work with the Better Cotton Initiative to set up a Volume Based Fee model, to help extend production of Better Cotton. Under such a scheme, retailers report to the BCI the amount of Better Cotton they are purchasing and the BCI then charges a fee based on these volumes. The money is then used to cover the verification costs, to finance systems to ensure the traceability of the Better Cotton supply chain and to train more farmers to improve their practices.

Devising the model is still at an early stage but van der Velden believes it will be crucial in ensuring that the Better Cotton project can become self-sustaining.

“We decided to invest in the programme as it has a high ambition to transform the market and we believe it has the potential to do so”, she remarks. She adds that it is easier to scale up the Better Cotton production than certification-based systems, where the premium charged by famers is magnified up the supply chain, making the end product more expensive.

“The large number of retailers involved means that it is a very demand-driven programme. It is not aiming to provide a guaranteed market for Better Cotton: that would be undesirable”, van der Velden explains. “The aim is that demand [from retailers] for Better Cotton will increase.” As it does, so will the incentive for farmers to invest in the future.

Demand from retailers could transform the market

Heather Connon is a freelance journalist covering all areas of finance and investment.

Green Futures July 2013

15

Fibre to fabric

16

Green Futures July 2013

different actors in the chain. That way, brands will be able to communicate much more to consumers about the process behind the products they choose, potentially driving demand for best practice.

Plexus Cotton lives up to its creed that traceability is the way forward, starting with raw material production. The company connects East African farmers with each other, and then with mills which can supply global brands. This way, the cotton delivered to the brand can easily be traced back to producers.

Of course, one way to navigate the complexity of the cotton supply chain is to keep textiles production and manufacturing close to home. The UK retailer John Lewis has been maintaining relationships with local producers, and is now celebrating the 60th anniversary of Herbert Parkinson, the textile factory in Lancashire which it owns. The factory produces John Lewis’ ownbrand duvets and pillows, weaves furnishing fabrics and fulfils the department store’s made-to-measure curtain service.

Meanwhile, behind the closed doors of milling factories, new approaches are minimising the impact of cotton manufacturing, one step at a time. One new development is the use of biological enzymes, which remove the need for highly corrosive and polluting chemicals traditionally used in cotton manufacturing processes for scouring and bleaching, denim abrasion and shade change. Enzymes allow treatments to be undertaken at lower temperatures, with neutral PH solutions; this chemical-free process requires less washing, thereby decreasing water and energy consumption.

DuPont Industrial Biosciences (DIB), a leader in the sphere, has been trialling its new bio-enzyme

www.greenfutures.org.uk

Photo: dotshock/shutterstock

Biological enzymes remove the need for highly corrosive and polluting chemicals

In the 18th century, cotton was at the heart of the Industrial Revolution in the UK, propelling the textiles market into a new age with the invention of the spinning jenny, the first machine to improve upon the spinning wheel.

Since then, the process of manufacturing cotton fibres into diversified fabrics – from jeans, to curtains and knits – has come a long way.

Now, cotton represents just over one-third of the world textile fibre demand, and the sheer size of the supply chain means there’s much room for innovation and efficiency gains. “Cotton is cultivated across 80 countries and manufactured in over 160, meaning it has a truly global supply chain”, says Mark Messura, Executive Vice-President, Global Supply Chain Marketing for Cotton Incorporated, a leading organisation working on innovation and research on cotton worldwide. He sums up the challenge: “With five steps for processing fibres into fabric, and a myriad of actors involved at each step, reducing its main impacts on water, energy and pollution from chemicals isn’t an easy task.”

True: we often forget that, before it materialises as a garment or bed sheet, the cotton plant is first cultivated and harvested, the fibre is extracted, there are preparation processes such as cleaning and combing to turn that raw cotton into yarn; then there’s the spinning and weaving, and finally finishing processes like dyeing, bleaching, scouring and printing.

Peter Salcedo, a Trader specialising in sustainable supply at Plexus Cotton, a major global procurer, points to the complexity of the cotton supply chain as an obstacle to sustainability. The key to more sustainable cotton, he believes, lies in strong relationships between

Photo: John Lewis

Emilie Beauchamp spins a tale of industrial innovation.

set PrimaGreen since 2009. Following a pilot with Cotton Incorporated in 2011, it has now designed a way of processing and dyeing knits using exclusively enzymes. DIB then deployed a large-scale testing of PrimaGreen at a Pacific Textiles factory in China in 2012. Confirming results of the latter trial, Nico van Schoot, Marketing Manager of DIB’s BioActives explains: “Not only does using PrimaGreen allow [the manufacturer] to reduce water, energy, pollutants and processing time, but the final result is a higher quality of fabric, in terms of softness and colour.”

Mary Ankeny, Director of Dyeing Research at Cotton Incorporated, agrees that bio-enzymes are part of the future of cotton processing and points to several collaborating companies whose innovations could change the market. For example, Huntsman’s new revolutionary Avitera dyes, which reduce water consumption and allow for low temperature dyeing, have already been adopted by the well-known brands Lacoste and Marks & Spencer.

Another innovative processing product may sound less impressive: foam. Clariant Business Textiles is using the spongy material it has pioneered and patented, Foam Eco Care, to apply dyes and chemistry to the fabrics instead of soaking the textiles in large pools of solutions. This new technique dramatically reduces water consumption but also has been found to increase fabric strength.

Central Textiles, a giant in yarn and denim manufacturing based in Hong Kong, is also determined to eliminate water inefficiencies, after a study in 2009 revealed it took more than 20 litres of water to dye and finish a single denim fabric. Using a vibrating membrane technology, the company is able to separate the indigo dye for denim from their waste water stream to reuse both the dye and the water.

www.greenfutures.org.uk

When it comes to the last stages of processing cotton, computer technology has also produced its share of efficiencies. Digital cotton printing does exactly what the name suggests. Hardly a difficult concept to grasp, it uses digital files to print on garment. Yet this is still considered highly novel as most designs in garments are still printed with the help of a mechanical rotary screen. This traditional method means dyeing inputs need to be manually changed for every new pattern to be imprinted, wasting materials, chemicals, and mostly time.

With highly promising new technologies, is cotton manufacturing entering a new era? Maybe not just yet, as most of these cutting edge techniques are still at the trial stage. As Ankeny explains, “The textile industry is soaked in tradition; flamboyant new concepts don’t stick easily. Small incremental changes in machinery are more accepted, but only if costs can be justified!”

Ultimately, investment in the industry will be led by brand demand, ensuring that the upfront costs of innovation pay off. Messura from Cotton Incorporated highlights the work of Polo Ralph Lauren, Levi Strauss, JC Penny and WalMart, with which Cotton Incorporated has already collaborated. He also notes the work of sustainable cotton initiatives such as the Better Cotton Initiative and Greenpeace’s Detox campaign, with names like Abercrombie & Fitch, adidas, Calvin Klein, Converse, H&M, Ikea and Nike.

“More and more retailers and textile brands have become involved deep into their supply chain over the past three years”, Messura observes. “Their involvement is necessary to find a long-term solution to pay for the costs of improvements.”

Making light work of manufacture

Digital cotton printing can help reduce waste

Emilie Beauchamp is a doctoral researcher in environmental sciences at Imperial College, London.

Green Futures July 2013

17

Proud patches

The second-hand clothing industry is a booming business

A stitch in time for sustainable fashion?

18

Green Futures July 2013

year, which according to WRAP represents £140 million in wasted goods. Even though textile and garment recycling has become more mainstream, a significant amount still ends up as trash. The Council for Textile Recycling estimates that the 2.5 billion pounds of post-consumer textile waste (which includes anything made of fabric) collected for reuse and repurposing annually comprises only about 15% of the clothing purged from the closet.

But with a mind toward limiting the amount that ends up in landfill and putting textiles toward better use, efforts on both sides of the Atlantic are encouraging consumers to recycle their wardrobe. The UK retailer Marks and Spencer (M&S) is attempting to incorporate an ethos of exchange and reuse into commercial shopping. Its ‘shwopping’ campaign urges consumers to drop off unwanted items at the store before buying new ones. The clothing is donated to the non-profit organisation Oxfam, which subsequently resells, reuses or recycles them.

The fashion retailer H&M has similarly partnered with I:CO, a clothing and accessories recycling company that aims to ensure that “old textiles enter a closed-loop production cycle and remain there”.

I:CO, which stands for ‘I collect’, is based on the idea that items can be returned to the point of purchase for recycling and reuse. According to I:CO, the company processes 500 tonnes of clothes per day across 74 countries. In 2011 the government of New York City in partnership with Housing Works, a non-profit that assists homeless people living with HIV, launched one of the largest consumer textile recycling programmes in the country. With the aim of reducing the landfill toll from the 200,000 tonnes of apparel and other textiles that New Yorkers dispose of each year, the initiative collects garments that could be reused directly from apartment buildings.

With fast and cheap fashion keeping wardrobes full to bursting, the second-hand clothing industry is a booming business. Between 1980 and 2001, the worldwide trade of second-hand apparel increased more than sevenfold, from $207 million to over a billion-dollar market, according to data from the US Department of Commerce. While some of the clothing donated through schemes like the M&S shwopping campaign and the New York City programme winds up in thrift stores, run by both commercial operations and charities, a significant portion is exported to developing countries.

The New York City apparel recycling programme works with Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles (SMART) an international non-profit association whose member companies purchase excess textiles from charities and commercial businesses. The SMART companies then sort

www.greenfutures.org.uk

Photos: monap/iStockphoto

Not so long ago, keeping apace with the latest styles would have required being handy with a needle or having deep pockets. In the 1950s, the average American household spent more than 12% of its income on apparel, while today that figure has dropped to less than 3%, its lowest point ever.

Not that we’re becoming less fashion-conscious, mind you. Having “abandoned our sewing machines and deserted our dressmakers”, consumers in the US and other developed nations are stuffing their closets full of ever-cheaper garments in pursuit of fashions that change season to season, says Elizabeth Cline, author of ‘Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion’. One consequence is a staggering amount of excess and waste that all too often flows from drawers to the dustbin. However, a growing number of initiatives are diverting this stream, and giving new life to items that are outworn, outgrown or out of fashion.

These days Americans buy just over one garment per week, spending $1,700 per household each year on apparel, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. And each year, the average American discards of 68 pounds of clothing, contributing 4% to the volume of municipal waste, reports the Environmental Protection Agency. In the UK, about 3.5 million tonnes of clothes end up in landfills every

Photo: levent konuk/shutterstock

More cotton could be spun, worn and born again, finds Katherine Rowland.

and grade the goods and assign them to new ends. Representing 200 small and mediumsized companies, SMART in cooperation with its charitable partners, diverts more than 3.8 billion pounds of post-consumer textile waste from landfills and rubbish piles every year. According to SMART, member companies are able to recycle and reuse 95% of what they collect, repurposing garments and textiles as wiping and polishing clothes, reprocessing then into fibres for upholstery, insulation, sound proofing and carpet padding, as well as exporting almost half as second-hand items bound for developing country markets.

Some observers have expressed concern that this practice could undermine local markets, especially as the volume of worn goods continues to increase. In 2001, the last year for which there is data, worn clothing was the largest US export to Sub-Saharan Africa, according to the International Trade Commission. A report issued by the Institute for Manufacturing at Cambridge University suggested that the trade in second-hand clothes inhibits the development of local apparel businesses. A study

by Oxfam, which collects second hand clothes for resale in its stores and shipment to West Africa and elsewhere, drew a different conclusion: it found that the used clothes trade is not the central obstacle to local business creation, and moreover, that it creates tens of thousands of jobs.

But what happens to that favourite item, loved to such a frayed and diaphanous state that it’s not fit for a second life? They can still be worn again, or ‘born again’ in another role, thanks to new schemes working to divert these items from landfills by turning them back into raw materials. Cotton Incorporated, an association of growers, manufacturers and retailers, has rerouted more than 600 tonnes of worn-out denim from landfills in the US. The idea behind their denim-recycling programme crystalised in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when in the midst of

www.greenfutures.org.uk

conducting a broad college marketing campaign, they saw an opportunity to capitalize on many of the persistent interests and concerns that young people were expressing – namely the desire for greater environmental sustainability and to give back to their communities.

Today, the Cotton Incorporated ‘From Blue to Green’ programme works with retailers and individuals to gather used blue jeans to make denim-based insulation. Bonded Logic, an Arizona-based cotton fibre insulation manufacturer, processes the donations into UltraTouch denim insulation, which is in turn donated to Habitat for Humanity and other charitable organisations. According to Andrea Samber, national spokesperson for the programme, From Blue to Green will receive its millionth piece of denim this year, and has already used more than 2 million square feet of insulation in constructing homes for those in need. The programme coordinators are currently working with developers in the New York-New Jersey area to use UltraTouch in homes for those affected by Hurricane Sandy.

“It’s the little engine that could”, says Samber, noting that while this effort is but a drop in the bucket, it has successfully found a new home for more than 600 tonnes of fabric that would otherwise go to waste.

Can closed-loop clothing move from niche to mainstream?

Katherine Rowland is a journalist based in New York City. Her work on health and the environment has appeared in Nature and the Financial Times.

Green Futures July 2013

19

Brand value

that represents the large US cotton industry. “They expect the green to be built in.” Which means that, whatever their buying habits, they are vocal when they learn something they don’t like.

H&M, Zara, Nike and Victoria’s Secret were among those quick to respond when Greenpeace’s 2011 Detox campaign blew the lid on the extent of hazardous chemical emissions in the textiles industry.

Alexandra Perschau, who runs Future for Cotton, a German consultancy, hopes Detox’s success will trigger more consumer support for sustainable materials. Like others, she says there is a big gap between consumer criticism of bad practices such as forced labour and poor working conditions, and their buying habits. She would like to see more done to educate consumers, starting with children in school.

It doesn’t help sustainability that fashion is fast, observes Emma Waight, an ethical consumption specialist at the UK’s Southampton University. Many mass-market labels thrive on rushing out copies of designer collections, something hard to square with cotton’s complex supply chains. But she also points to more positive signals. “The mass-market retailer H&M, now the world’s biggest user of organic cotton, more than anyone has brought sustainable cotton to the high street with its successful Conscious Collection”, she says.

As ever with fashion, good ideas move quickly.

H&M is, in turn, building on M&S’ ‘shwopping’ recycling scheme, by putting collection bins for unwanted clothes in its shops. This is helping foster a culture of donating personal items to charity that doesn’t exist in many countries, says H&M’s Lampa.

The big groups have also learnt to be more subtle in their messaging, speaking to consumers’ emotions in a lighter tone. Catchy-sounding ‘shwopping’ replaced the more worthy M&S and Oxfam Clothes Exchange.

Many brands still fear being caught up in negative publicity

H&M: a low-impact dress to impress

20

Green Futures July 2013

Puma proudly displays Cotton made in Africa (CmiA) labels on the shirts of sponsored football teams in the continent’s fast-growing markets.

Competitor adidas, like Ikea, takes a more low-key approach. They see backing Better Cotton as integral to their sustainability and brand agendas rather than something to promote to consumers.

Other brands have started out with ethics as their unique selling point. Solidaridad, the international non-governmental organisation, set up an ethical clothing retail chain, Kuyichi – and, in light of its success, established the fashion consultancy MadeBy to help others follow suit. Solidaridad works to improve environmental and social standards across brand supply chains, and actively promotes organic cotton and Better Cotton. Janet Mensink, International Program Coordinator, observes, “There is no single solution to change this sector, complimentary approaches are needed”.

But the success of labels promoting supply chain standards in the mainstream has been mixed. Big retailers say they wrestle with consumer apathy. Even when they provide information, most consumers don’t access it, says Henrik Lampa, a product sustainability specialist at H&M: “We don’t shy away from talking about the challenges.”

Many consumers are confused by the variety of claims, from vague assertions that a product is ‘sustainable’, ‘ethical’ or ‘eco-friendly’, to different organic standards, to claims about the origins of a product. And retailers are shy of the awkward questions such labels might incite: “Brands remain nervous”, says Solidaridad’s Alice Mostert, an adviser to the fashion industry. “Those that can afford it can draw on the likes of Made-by to help manage and clean up their supply chains, but many still fear being caught up in negative publicity.”

Such concerns led CmiA to drop a requirement for partners to bear its logo three years ago, says Tina Stridde, its Head of Marketing. Moreover, she says, consumers tend to associate certification with extra cost, running against CmiA’s mission to bring sustainable cotton to the mass market. Stridde is concerned that weak demand for sustainable cotton will prove an impediment to scale, a widely-shared sentiment within the movement.

However, Ebru Gencoglu, Head of Material Sourcing for adidas in Europe, is less fazed than some. She believes the future of cotton lies in transparency: with supply chains open to scrutiny, brands will have an added incentive to make the best procurement decisions.

Market research shows that consumers expect manufacturers and brands to assume environmental responsibility, adds Cotton Incorporated, the body

www.greenfutures.org.uk

Virginia Marsh is a freelance writer specialising in business, sustainability and health.

H&M is the world’s biggest user of organic cotton

Is cotton’s future in the bag?

Photo: jwaddick/iStockphoto

When it comes to selling sportswear, Puma and adidas compete as fiercely as the football teams they sponsor. When it comes to cotton, they collaborate.

In 2009, adidas and four other of the world’s most powerful brands called some 250 key suppliers to a hotel and conference centre in Sri Lanka and told them things had to change.

It was a milestone on the journey to more sustainable cotton. Four years earlier, adidas, Ikea, H&M, and Marks & Spencer (M&S) had helped found the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI). A platform for retailers, their suppliers, government and campaigners, its aim was to turn the water and pesticide-intense fibre, associated with sweat shops in poor countries, into a responsibly grown and used commodity. Two years later, the four joined with partner Levi Strauss and gathered suppliers together once more: “We saw it was easy to change behaviour,” says Guido Verijke, Ikea’s global lead on cotton and the present chairman of the BCI’s council.

“But we couldn’t do it alone.”

While BCI is starting to push itself forward, it is not a consumer-facing initiative. Each brand is left to communicate to its audience as it will, and their strategies vary widely.

Photo: H&M

Behind the scenes and on the carpet, brands are taking a lead, says Virginia Marsh.

“We have to tell a story about a farmer’s life, not how good we are”, says Ikea’s Verijke who in June fronted the retailer’s first YouTube film on Better Cotton.

Good storytelling is one of the most effective ways to attract consumer interest, and so small brands with a human-interest tale to spin can become a talking point amongst peers.

Neil Chadwick co-founded one such brand, Seasalt – a UK pioneer of organic cotton clothing which draws creative inspiration from its base on the picturesque Cornish coast. It was launched in 2007, and by last year it was on the shelves in John Lewis, one of the UK’s biggest retail chains. Consumers respond to those who do things differently, he says: “Our challenge is to gently poke the large companies.

They notice who is doing well.”

Another encouraging sign is the prominence of sustainable fashion among influential celebrities. Four years ago, Livia Firth, wife of the actor Colin, said she would only wear ethical clothing on the red carpet.

Others responded to her Green Carpet Challenge, prompting interest in sustainable couture. Meryl Streep wore Lanvin’s first eco-certified dress to the Oscars; Cameron Diaz followed with an ethically made Stella McCartney gown at New York’s Met ball; and in February 2013, Gucci – a label named and shamed

by Greenpeace – launched ‘eco’ versions of its classic bags in sumptuous-looking ethical Brazilian leather at Paris Fashion Week to critical acclaim.

Campaigners worry that ethical fashion still lives on the pages of celebrity consumer magazines, rather than in people’s wardrobes. But history suggests that where the glitterati lead, the mainstream markets eventually follow.

Green Futures July 2013

21

Credential showdown

Oliver Balch unpicks the labels and blows away the fluff.

22

Green Futures July 2013

www.greenfutures.org.uk

Photo: Jupiterimages/Creatas/Thinkstock

growers, or ideally both. Cristoph Kaut, CmiA’s Managing Director, draws a diplomatic analogy from the automotive industry: “There are different cars and they have different customers … but we all basically want to arrive at the same objective.” For car drivers, that could be home or the office. For cotton certifiers, it’s a sustainable product.

That’s not to say all the schemes are identical.

Far from it. Each certifying organisation interprets the term ‘sustainability’ slightly differently and thus adopts differing criteria. BCI and CmiA currently work together in partnership, to promote greater sustainability for African smallholder farmers, by benchmarking their standards. Their agreement means that CmiA-verified sources are recognised as Better Cotton on the market.

This partnership is an effective way to mainstream sustainability in cotton production by building on existing knowledge and activities. Both organisations

Photo: CmiA

You want a sustainable cotton t-shirt. So you take yourself down to your local high-street department store, check the label and buy yourself one. If only it were that simple... Shoppers have an increasing array of logos, marks and seals to negotiate. First you have the established brands like Soil Association, Fairtrade and Cotton made in Africa (CmiA). Then there’s Better Cotton, managed by the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), which verifies rather than certifies, so – for the moment at least – comes without a label. Not to forget own-label systems, such as those developed by John Lewis and by C&A with Textile Exchange (and the Shell Foundation).

All claim to be sustainable, so which to choose?

The easy answer is: it doesn’t much matter. Estimates differ, but cotton under these schemes still only controls less than 3% of total market share. So whichever you buy will be helping the planet or

benefit, as does Africa’s cotton sector, and in particular its small farmers, who are the weakest link in the value chain.

The most marked division is between the more social-minded Fairtrade seal and the more environmentally focused organic standards. By buying Fairtade, you are guaranteeing the producer organisation (usually a cooperative) a fair price (the so-called “minimum price”, which, depending on market conditions, should include a price premium for farmers). Buy organic, in contrast, and you have the satisfaction of knowing core agro-ecological principles have been met. So no toxic pesticides, no synthetic fertilisers, no genetic modification (more than 50% of global cotton is GM) and plenty of local inputs. Neither scheme is exclusively social or environmental, however, as the Fair for Life social responsibility standard offered

by Germany-based organic certifier IMO illustrates.

Better Cotton and CmiA, together with most in-house labels, tend to adopt a more holistic set of criteria. Better Cotton, for instance, counts maintaining healthy soils, preserving natural habitats and promoting decent work among its core metrics. Similarly, CmiA contains a range of measures addressing “environmental, economic and social sustainability” for on-farm processes. In both cases, attention is more on policies and processes than specific performance indicators. Hence, the push for producers to adopt best practice approaches to cotton growing, be that Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or related equivalents.

There are differences of scope too. CmiA, as its full name suggests, concentrates only in Africa. And within that geographical remit, it works exclusively with smallholders. Likewise, Cleaner Cotton focuses just on cotton growers in California. Better Cotton, on the other hand, covers cotton producers globally, be they large (as almost all producers are in Brazil, for example) or small (as in India and Africa). That taps into BCI’s ambition to take sustainable cotton “mainstream”, as BCI Programme Director Ruchira Joshi puts it.

Approaches to certification differ as well. Fairtrade and some organic standards insist that all certifiers must be third parties, which ensures independence but adds in cost. The extra cost, which comes above and beyond the additional cost inherent to limited volume production, usually gets picked up by the consumer at the till. BCI and CmiA, meanwhile, lean more towards self-regulation. It’s a cheaper approach, although the door remains open for additional audits by others in the supply chain as well as for third-party spot-checks.

In the case of these last two initiatives, pragmatism wins. Setting the bar lower gives space for producers to continuously improve, something CmiA actively encourages through the provision of on-the-ground training for its 480,000 participating farmers.

As would be expected, every standard comes with its own idiosyncrasies. CmiA, for example, is unique in operating along ‘social business’ lines. In this vein, it charges retailers and brands a licence fee for using cotton certified under its system. BCI, meanwhile, operates a multi-level membership for its 24 participating retailers. Top of the tree is the ’Pioneer’ category, for which Ikea, adidas, M&S and H&M have opted. According to BCI, these Pioneers are deeply committed to the success of Better

www.greenfutures.org.uk

Cotton, and wish to be a driving force in making Better Cotton a mainstream commodity. Their investment is significant, both in financial terms as members of the Better Cotton Fast Track Programme, and internally in the amount of resources they dedicate to ensure Better Cotton enters their supply chains and to bring their suppliers with them on their journey. They contribute actively to the continuous improvement of BCI, participating in investment decisions on farmer support.

Can we expect the sustainable cotton certification market to coalesce in coming years? Unlikely, says Simon Ferrigno, an industry expert and author of An Insider’s Guide to Cotton & Sustainability. He anticipates more cooperation at a regional level.

What’s important is for brands to be able to source what they need, where they need it from, “without necessarily looking to see if it’s organic or BCI or CmiA”. That’s already beginning to happen. H&M is a BCI member, for example, but sources organic too.

M&S does so too, although it also stocks cloths with Fairtrade cotton in the mix.

The certification maze isn’t just a buyer’s issue, of course. Farmers need to ensure they are in the right scheme too. At present, the general trend is to opt for whichever certifier comes knocking first. As the market for sustainable cotton grows, so should choice – as much for the producer in the field as the customer in the shop.

Swayed by the label?

Farmers opt for whichever certifier comes knocking first

Oliver Balch is a freelance writer specialising in the role of business in society.

Green Futures July 2013

23

The Cotton Conundrum is a Green Futures Special Edition, produced in association with The Better Cotton Initiative, Cotton Incorporated, IDH The Sustainable Trade Initiative, John Lewis and Solidaridad.

The Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) promotes measurable improvements in the key environmental and social impacts of cotton cultivation worldwide to make it more economically, environmentally and socially sustainable. BCI is multi-stakeholder, cooperating with organisations from across the cotton supply chain and other interested stakeholders. www.bettercotton.org Cotton Incorporated, funded by US cotton producers and importers of cotton and cotton textile products, conducts worldwide research and promotion activities to increase the demand for and profitability of cotton. www.cottoninc.com cottontoday.cottoninc.com IDH The Sustainable Trade Initiative is a non-profit organisation that brings together front-running companies, civil society organisations and governments to transform markets towards more environmentally and socially sustainable production. IDH operates globally in 16 commodity sectors ranging from coffee to aquaculture. Together with partners, IDH develops and implements innovative business models to transform entire sectors. www.idhsustainabletrade.com John Lewis operates 39 shops across the UK and johnlewis.com. A key part of John Lewis’s sustainability strategy – Bringing Quality to Life – is its long-standing objective to engage with local communities both through its shops and the John Lewis Foundation, a registered charity which provides support for communities where its suppliers operate, overseas and in the UK. www.johnlewis.com Solidaridad has a distinctive responsibility in its role as a civil society organisation determined to organise market processes in a way that will result in socially and ecologically desirable outcomes. We have a vision of ending poverty, creating opportunities for people, greater prosperity, ending oppression and ensuring that natural resources remain available for future generations. http://www.solidaridadnetwork.org

Green Futures is the go-to magazine on environmental solutions and sustainable futures. Founded by leading environmentalist Jonathon Porritt, it is published by the global sustainability non-profit Forum for the Future. www.greenfutures.org.uk www.forumforthefuture.org Editor: Anna Simpson Marketing and development: Katie Shaw Production: Ulrike Stein Production support: Sarah Veniard Assistant Editor: Duncan Jefferies Finance administration: Jenny Hammond Design: The Urban Ant Ltd. With thanks to Marcus Merry, Fionán O’Muircheartaigh and Jennifer Yuen (interns), Helius (proofreading) and Shelley Hannan (web).

Printed by Pureprint, using their environmental technology and vegetable-based inks, on 100% recycled and FSC-certified Cocoon Silk paper, supplied by Arjowiggins Graphic.

Published July 2013 © Green Futures Reg. charity no. 1040519 Company no. 2959712

By printing this publication on Cocoon Silk 100% recycled paper, rather than a non-recycled paper, the environmental impact was reduced by: 762kg of landfill, 83kg of CO2, 19,907 litres of water, 1,874kWh of energy and 1,239kg of wood.

Source: Carbon footprint data evaluated by FactorX in accordance with the Bilan Carbone methodology.

Calculations are based on a comparison between the recycled paper used versus a virgin fibre paper according to the latest European BREF data (virgin fibre paper) available. Results are obtained according to technical information and subject to modification.

Subscribe to Green Futures Keep up to date with the latest news and debate on how to make the shift to sustainability, by subscribing to Green Futures in print and online: www.greenfutures.org.uk/subscribe or contact our subscriptions team direct: Tel: +44 (0) 1536 273543 Order The Cotton Conundrum online To order more copies of The Cotton Conundrum, or to download a pdf version, visit: www.greenfutures.org.uk/thecottonconundrum We’d love your feedback on The Cotton Conundrum.

Please email our editorial team at: letters@greenfutures.org.uk

Front cover: iStockphoto/thinkstock / Back cover: enio_q/iStockphoto