CmiA and BCI: Sustainability Efforts Focus on Income and IPM
January 5, 2012 By Simon Ferrigno
consultant
and Francesca Mancini
Food and Agriculture Organization
The Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) and Cotton made in Africa (CmiA) are two relatively new initiatives aiming to create a market for a more sustainable commodity: cotton. They include principles of integrated pest management (IPM) and set verifiable criteria for this cotton.
There are several initiatives and standards now promoting sustainability in cotton production, which can become quite confusing for cotton users (such as retailers) wanting to improve their own overall footprint.
Cotton farming has vastly reduced its environmental and social impacts in recent years, but there is still room for initiatives aimed at further improving cotton’s sustainability performance. From 1988 to 2008, cotton’s share of value of global pesticide and insecticide consumption declined from 11% and 19% to 6.8% and 15.7%, respectively, while overall global agricultural pesticide sales have risen.
However, despite years of efforts to reduce risks associated with exposure to pesticides, poisoning levels in agriculture remain at similar levels to 1985, and highly hazardous pesticides are still used at a significant rate, including on cotton.
Controlling Pests with Minimal Poison
Some of the newer initiatives are making the practice of IPM a core part of their production systems and requirements (although not the only ones, as other areas such as labor standards are covered).
IPM is not a new concept and has been applied to cotton for more than 30 years. IPM principles are present in most standards and systems to address cotton and sustainability – including organic farming, to a greater or lesser extent – and are also used in many systems planting biotech cotton.
The starting point of IPM is to go beyond a basic objective to use pesticides more efficiently or less frequently. Rather, it encourages producers to take the entire agro-ecosystem into account and to use a range of farming practices such as crop rotation, planting of multiple crops, and to move away from monoculture, to reduce the need for pesticides altogether and improve crop performance.
There are about 200 definitions of IPM, but the one used by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations is the most commonly recognized by the UN system, as well as by the World Bank and international NGOs such as the Pesticide Action Network. FAO defines IPM as:
“The careful consideration of all available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of pest populations and keep pesticides and other interventions to levels that are economically justified and reduce or minimize risks to human health and the environment. IPM emphasizes the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.”
However, the actual way that IPM practice might be implemented in the field can vary widely, depending on the preferred approach and underlying philosophy of the promoter. Some approaches might place a higher priority on productivity. Consequently, they take an approach focusing on optimizing input management to maintain or increase yields. Others might focus more heavily on building resilience of the farming system to maintain consistent production over the long term.
Options for Sustainability
BCI and CmiA are two relatively new initiatives implemented to promote systems for more sustainable cotton, while trying to create mass commodity markets for it. In so doing, they have sought to offer a complementary product to organic and Fairtrade cotton, which many be seen as more niche options. Both work with existing initiatives such as IPM where possible to enable them to get started more rapidly by working with producers already trained in plant-protection practices.
BCI has adopted the FAO definition of IPM, while CmiA has adopted many of these practices without embracing a comprehensive definition of IPM to date. In CmiA, these practices may vary from country to country as the program works with existing national initiatives, which differ across Africa.
CmiA began producing in 2005 with 150,000 farmers in Africa, and is now established in six countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia. Production in 2010/11 was 90,240 tonnes of CmiA-verified lint. Better Cotton is currently being grown in Pakistan, Mali, India and Brazil, and has only recently completed its first season of production in 2010/2011; the volume produced was 35,000 tonnes of lint, excluding Brazil. BCI has ambitious production targets of 300,000 tonnes in 2012 and 1 million tonnes in 2015. CmiA’s target for 2012 is approximately 160,000 tonnes of verified lint.
Both programs are targeting ways to improve the livelihoods of farmers and to reduce the risks of pesticide use in cotton farming while trying to make the crop more profitable and sustainable.
Rules of the Game
The two programs have core criteria that farmers must meet. The BCI requires farmers to minimize the harmful impacts of crop protection practices, use water efficiently, care for the health of soil, conserve natural habitats, preserve the quality of the fiber, and promote decent work practices. Under CmiA, there are eight Exclusion Criteria setting minimum requirements in the areas of labor rights and conditions, natural resources conservation, pesticide use, genetically modified cotton, and business rules.
CmiA qualification is stricter on the selection of pesticides, although BCI is more detailed on some areas such as labeling and handling. Both systems face the common problem of a lack of available alternatives for many highly hazardous pesticides. There is, however, work underway in some countries (such as investments in pesticides manufacture in Senegal) that in the future could lead to more options being available. In India and Pakistan, botanical extracts and other biopesticides are more readily available.
BCI and CmiA are trying to address an ongoing problem. While there has been a significant reduction in overall global pesticide use in cotton, the use of highly hazardous pesticides is not uncommon. In the context of smallholder production in developing countries, there are continuing issues of weak enforcement of pesticide legislation, quality control, accumulation of obsolete or poor quality pesticides, illegal trade and sub-standard pesticide application equipment. Human health risks from handling and use of pesticides are higher among small-scale farmers living in hot climates, where overall mitigation measures are inadequate or unfeasible. Socioeconomic and climatic conditions, rather than the size of farm, appear to be more important factors in determining exposure risks.
Conclusions
Both the BCI and CmiA programs offer a lot of promise in terms of improving agricultural practices and increasing the volumes of cotton produced to recognizable criteria that can be communicated to consumers. This benefits the entire cotton sector, and it is hoped that actors in the cotton value chain beyond production will also recognize and value the importance of improving these practices. The two systems have already delivered significant benefit and there is potential for more. There is also scope for both systems to converge in their definition of IPM, which would help reduce the potential for confusion in the marketplace.
However, a full adoption of IPM practices in developing countries requires adequate support to farmers in terms of training and access to economically viable alternatives to highly hazardous pesticides.
Socially and environmentally sustainable cotton production is only possible if the profitability of farmers can be sustained. Therefore, both systems also need to continue their efforts to improve the profitability of cotton production (reducing production costs and/or improving yields, for example). Given that there is documented evidence that the adoption of IPM can improve both yield and productivity, we have reason to be optimistic that the promise of these two systems can be fulfilled.
GET THE NEWSLETTER TODAY!
