Many Brands and Retailers Do Not Know Where the Cotton They Use Comes from

The problem with such varying results (even though similar trends emerge within these calculations) is that people can choose the numbers that suit their convenience while making an argument. This does not help matters. Your comments, please.
Tamar Hoek: True, but in the view of Solidaridad the industry is hiding behind the fact that there is not enough data or information available. This leads to brands and retailers, as well as other stakeholders, not doing anything at all. Research shows that cotton productions and cotton farmers are negatively impacted by climate change. We do not need to have perfect data to be able to work on improvements.

Upcoming European legislation will eventually also lead to more accurate data. If brands and retailers want to make claims about sustainable cotton, they need to have scientific data that this cotton is sustainable, meaning they need to have accurate data.

OBEPAB (Organisation for the Promotion of Organic Agriculture in Benin), the organic farmer’s organisation in Benin, is a good example of how climate smart cotton production works (see also the case study from PAN UK on page 22 of the Cotton and Climate paper). But we need more detailed figures on the ecological, agronomic and economic results of these examples in order to fully understand how it works. And we need more examples of producers in other parts of Africa and in Asia to develop climate smart cotton production globally.

Technically speaking, cotton production is up the same fashion chain as apparel. So, cotton should be seen as Scope 3 of the apparel sector. How does this work on the ground?
Cotton is indeed part of Scope 3. It is important that when brands and retailers set SBTs, they include cotton in their Scope 3 emission reduction plan.

The report talks about "low input" and "high input" systems. Prima facie, it would seem that the "high input" systems are also high-volume segments, in the sense that more cotton is produced through such "high input" systems. Your comments, please.
Tamar Hoek: China and India are still the biggest cotton producing countries in the world, together producing some 12 million MT. The majority of the cotton here is produced by smallholder farmers in low input systems. China and India are followed by the US and Brazil, those countries are known as high input systems, but together they produce only half of what China and India produce.

The report suggests a number of ways by which to reduce emissions. It would help if there are numbers to go by. Currently, cotton (together with other plant-based fibres) accounts for 14% of the emissions. My question: how low can this be brought down to? Do you have an estimate or working hypothesis?
Tamar Hoek: Page 23 of the paper holds the answer: “Cotton, unlike synthetic fibers, captures carbon from the atmosphere during the plant stage. While the scientific understanding of exactly how soil sequesters carbon is developing, there is a widespread consensus that farming activities that improve soil health (cover-cropping, minimum tillage, reduced synthetic chemical use) can increase the soil’s capacity for both carbon and water storage.

Furthermore, carbon is stored in the cotton fibre itself. Some estimates indicate that on a global average the amount of carbon stored is greater than the emissions associated with cultivation activities and required materials. However, there is a high degree of variation in both GHG sequestration and emissions depending on production methods—so much so that the amount of variation can be enough to entirely wipe out the net-positive amount of CO2 captured.”

As you can see there is room for more research to narrow down on what works and doesn’t. To foster experimentation in net-zero cotton production, farmers will need to see the incentive. This can be achieved if companies were to start buying higher volumes of cotton from agroecological or regenerative farmers that care for soils and limit the use of inputs.