Cotton is the largest non-food agricultural crop in the world, grown in more than 100 countries. The total area of land under cotton cultivation has not changed much since the 1930s, but during this time production has tripled. This intensification has significant environmental costs. For example, cotton is the largest user of toxic chemicals in agriculture. What can be done to minimise the environmental impacts of cotton production?

Research from the WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund) looks at global patterns of cotton production. Tracing the development of cotton over the past century shows that labour-intensive production patterns have been replaced by systems dependent on capital inputs. This means that even in developing countries, machinery and chemical inputs dominate production.

Productivity increases are also due to genetic improvements to cotton plants. The most recent genetically modified cotton varieties produce low levels of insecticides within the plant which are intended to reduce overall pesticide use. However, the wider environmental impacts of these are not yet known.

The research shows:

• Cotton requires substantial amounts of fertilizers and pesticides. Cotton accounts for 11 percent of pesticides used each year worldwide although it only covers 2.4 percent of the world’s arable land.
• Cotton uses more water than other agricultural commodities for production and processing. Cotton processing is also a major source of fresh water pollution.
• Cotton production severely degrades soil quality because of the negative impact of pesticides on the soil micro-organisms that process nutrients.
• Cotton has a high negative impact on biodiversity. In Central America for example, the clearance of land for cotton destroyed a range of habitats, from coastal savannas to evergreen forests.

The cotton marketing chain can be divided into three different activities – production, processing and marketing. Environmental impacts occur at each stage, each the responsibility of a different set of people: production is controlled by producers and regulated by governments which oversee research, extension, input supplies and credit; marketing is controlled by clothing companies and retail chains that buy cotton clothing; and processing involves a range of people who are not well organised and neither are they controlled by the private sector or by governments.

Current cotton production is not only environmentally unsustainable; it also undermines the conditions necessary for future cotton production. Considerable work is needed if cotton production is to be brought into line with even the most basic environmental standards.

• The overall goal of a conservation strategy for cotton should concentrate on sustainable production practices, particularly minimising water and agrochemical use and maintaining healthy soil. These goals can be achieved through improved cultivation techniques, including conservation tillage and crop rotation which build organic matter into the soil.
• Organic and low-input cotton production should be encouraged. Certification standards exist for organic and are being developed for low-input cotton. There is retailer interest in both.
• Existing subsidies, especially in the USA, could be re-structured to achieve greater conservation results, but care must be taken to avoid increased impacts in other countries.
• For farmers, there is a direct interest in sustainable cotton production. They could reduce input use, maintain soil quality and increase profits. For others, however, the issue is not so straightforward. Changes to make production more sustainable cost money. Cotton interests are well-established in rich and poor countries alike, and cotton will be one of the more difficult industries in which to create positive environmental changes.

Source(s):
‘World Agriculture and the Environment: a commodity-by-commodity guide to impacts and practices’ Island Press and WWF-USA, by Jason Clay, 2004

Funded by: World Wildlife Fund; Ford, MacArthur, Avina and Packard Foundations, Pew Charitable Trusts, Interchurch Organisation for Development Co-operation, World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Inter-American Development Bank.

id21 Research Highlight: 1 February 2005

Further Information:
Jason Clay
Centre for Conservation Innovation
WWF-USA
2253 North Upton Street
Arlington, VA 22207
USA

Fax: 1(0) 703-524-0471
Contact the contributor: jason.clay@wwfus.org

World Wildlife Fund

Other related links:
'Counting the cost of a cup of coffee'

'Balancing food security and sustainability: the challenges of rice prodcution'

'US producers reap cotton subsidies and destroy African livelihoods'

'How fair is ethical trade? A look at Uganda’s organic cotton sector'

Environmental Sustainability Index

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education