Mongolia Has an Answer to Fast Fashion: Sustainable Cashmere

As your project page says: "the infrastructure in Mongolia is not developed enough to produce them." What are the metrics that you are going by? How would you say what infrastructure is not enough, and what are the precise project goals so that you can say after the project that the work is indeed complete?
Again, I can only relate to processing here. As mentioned already, we took GOTS as a compass when identifying what the sector needed to achieve. Not only because GOTS is comprehensive (covering all relevant impact categories in textile processing with solid requirements), but also as once achieved, it makes credible sustainability communication possible globally.

This posed significant challenges on the sector (and the country), especially in regard to infrastructure. While the use of chemicals or social sustainability could be easily improved, aspects such as wastewater treatment or waste management posed bigger challenges, as Mongolian capacities for wastewater treatment were not sufficient. This was something that the industry (or individual companies) could not solve themselves.

Regarding the project’s goal. There is always work to be done. Also, in regard to STeP Ecolab, we will apply for a second phase (via SWITCH Asia), where we want to address further sustainability measures that could not be done in the first phase. Further implementation of Circular Economy aspects (very interesting for cashmere!) is one such next goal, amongst others. Also, without COVID striking, there might have been even more development with the sector. But our biggest goal for this first phase of the project was to show the industry what sustainability means, why it is important and that it is an opportunity rather than a threat.

Looking back at the project we can say that this mission was accomplished.

The landscape is huge, and the project canvas is big. It's not just a question of marketing the cashmere, but also issues like deforestation, landscape erosion, etc. That necessarily means working with a number of organisations as well as government agencies. How is this being worked out in the field?
Again, I can only relate to processing here. Challenges in processing differ from the ones you mentioned, aspects such as wastewater usage or disposal but are still relevant sustainability topics and—moreover—not easily addressed by individual companies nor the sector. To overcome those challenges, the wool and cashmere sector and relevant political actors had to jointly formulate the necessary measures.

Building trust and understanding for each other was a necessary first step, the joint formulation of an industrial roadmap (and how supporting actors need to be involved) helped to visualise what needs to be done. The timings agreed upon in the roadmap also held (and keep holding) the pace high so the momentum can be retained.

"Based on the voluntary code of practice, together with industry stakeholders, the project partners will develop a label to help European consumers recognise the industry’s efforts." What is this label going to be? Could you please explain?
During the project, we discussed continuously about the labelling question. Both options—external sustainability labels (such as GOTS) on the one hand and the development of an own certification scheme—have their advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, the sustainability challenges of the Mongolian cashmere industry especially on herding level are quite unique.

The nomadic structures and processes cannot (by now) be addressed by any relevant sustainability textile standard, therefore own measures needed to be formulated and implemented (for details you would have to refer to AVSF).

On the other hand, ‘own’ standards are not known by potential buyers (and their consumers!), they therefore require significant amounts into communication / building up credibility—especially given the broad range of already existing standards (and the amount of greenwashing made by parts of them). Those communication costs could be better used in other ways in order to promote sustainability in the sector.

We therefore decided to follow a hybrid approach: On the farming level, our partner AVSF has developed a nomadic cashmere standard and is now trying to get it accredited under the IFOAM umbrella (therefore making it compatible with GOTS). While working with the processors however, we mostly focussed on implementing measures ‘on GOTS level’, the nature of cashmere processing does not differ much (in regard to sustainability!) from processing of other fibres. This orientation towards GOTS (and other comparable sustainability standards) helped the processing industry also in remaining flexible when it comes to communication of their measures.

The CSCP emphasises these competencies: Sustainable Value Chains, Hand-and Footprint Assessments, Multi-stakeholder Engagement, as well as Participatory Strategy Development and Design and Communication. Could you briefly outline these for us? How do these work on the ground?
I can maybe briefly show this on the case of STeP Ecolab: Creating and promoting sustainable value chains must be the goal of our project (and is the mission of the CSCP). Especially in more complex value chains like wool and cashmere textiles, this cannot be done only by addressing individual actors. Sustainability has to be implemented on herding and processing level, but it has to be made visible and relevant on retail / consumer level.

All actors, including enabling actors such as policy makers and financial intermediaries, have to be involved and have to feel involved in order to make an effective change. A common vision has to be drafted, trust needs to be built, individual measures aligned.

Therefore, multi-stakeholder mapping and engagement is crucial in such projects, a participatory strategy development enables all relevant actors to identify with the common target. Still, all work has to be based on a scientific foundation in order to make sure that a project achieves the impact it wants to achieve.

A hand and footprint assessment (or hot-and sweet spot analysis) serves as a baseline for understanding where the problems are, what measures might be necessary and which actors need to be involved into the process. We like talking about hot spots and sweet spots as we do not want to approach such projects exclusively from the negative/risk perspective, but identify sustainability related opportunities, or sweet spots. And nomadic wool and cashmere has many of those to offer.

Lastly, the best sustainability measures are not sustainable, if they are not seen or understood by the consumers. Therefore, design and communication always have to play a core role from the very beginning of such projects.

There are issues of animal welfare, and a strident movement against anything that is animal-derived. What is the project's official stand on the subject? It's a tricky issue to handle.
Again, I can only speak for the CSCP. Nomadic herding can be seen as one of the most authentic and natural ways of ‘utilising’ animals. Obviously, the animals have to be treated with the necessary respect.

The same goes for potential environmental issues such as overgrazing. Both need to be addressed and is being addressed by sustainability standards and programmes such as STeP. As long as this is the case, I don’t see any reason against animal-derived products. Especially not in the Mongolian context, where the animals have a vast landscape which they are using since centuries. Also, from a climate perspective it wouldn’t make sense, as not utilising those animals would not stop them from emitting CO2.

You have quite a few project partners. How are you working with AVSF, MWCA, etc. Who is the nodal agency for the project? How much funds have been allocated under the SWITCH Asia programme?
The lead partner is AVSF (Mongolia). They are responsible for coordinating the work amongst the partners. AVSF is well connected in Mongolia, as they are present here since quite some time. This proved crucial for the success of the project, such an endeavour with multiple actors—many of them Mongolian—could have never been managed effectively from Europe.