37th INTERNATIONAL COTTON CONFERENCE Bremen: Sustainability and legislation in textiles and apparel

#ShowYourStripes Graphics and lead scientist: Ed Hawkins, National Centre for Atmospheric Science, UoR. Data: Berkeley Earth, NOAA, UK Met Office, MeteoSwiss, DWD, SMHI, UoR & ZAMG

This is the basis of an in-person presentation that I delivered, with the support of the CRDC, on March 20, 2024. The presentation itself was not commissioned and was written pro-bono.

Good Morning, thank you all, both in the room and on the internet for listening and thank you very much to the Bremen Cotton Exchange and Fiber Institute for inviting me. Today I am going to talk a little bit about sustainability and legislation. We are just going to focus on EU legislation but regulatory proposals are also on the table on the other side of the Atlantic. The thrust of my presentation is that you need to be aware of this and you need to pay attentionto what is being suggested. If enacted, all this legislation will impact millions of livelihoods -including, quite possibly, your own.

We are all aware that ‘something’ must be done. Almost all of us agree that climate change is real and may be approaching a tipping point, that human rights abuses, poverty, and injustice don’t seem to be going away, and that ever-greater numbers of species and ecosystems are threatened. We need a more sustainable system of production and consumption, and certainly in textiles and apparel - self-regulation has not worked. Now that Shein and Temu are on the scene, I think even die-hards realize it never will.

So, let us agree: regulation is essential - and as soon as possible. But - and this is a very important but - we do not want legislation for legislation’s sake. We want legislation that will demonstrably achieve the stated objectives, as simply and as cheaply as possible. We want to make the textile and apparel sector sustainable. What does that mean? And how do we do it?

Sustainability Defined

It is not uncommon to hear people in the apparel space stating that sustainability is somehow vague and ill-defined - almost in the eye of the beholder. That is not true. The path toward defining sustainability is a long one and has culminated in 3 overarching global agreements. It began with the 1987 Brundtland Report - Our Common Future - in which UN member states committed not to consider the environment as a sphere separate from human actions, ambitions, and needs. And that, I quote: “Even the narrow notion of physical sustainability implies a concern for social equity between generations, a concern that must logically be extended to equity within each generation”

Following the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in 2000, these objectives were codified in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which you can see on the screen behind me. The target date for meeting these was 2015. The principal aim was to end extreme poverty and hunger, followed by the achievement of universal primary education and gender equality, and then, three health-related targets.

As we are all aware, alas, eradicating poverty and hunger was not achieved in 2015. So, in September 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, was adopted by all UN member states. This lists 17 Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs, with a target date of 2030. As you can see from the screenshot showing now, eradicating poverty and hunger has been split into two goals. The three health targets – which were also not met in 2015 – have been combined into one, but the principal critical objectives remain the same: Ending poverty and hunger, whilst ensuring good health, good education, and gender equality for all.

The European Union and its member states were of course signatories. Indeed, the European Union website proclaims “We are committed to implementing the SDGs in all our policies and encourage EU countries to do the same”.

That same year, in December 2015, The Paris Agreement - a legally binding international treaty on climate change - was adopted by 196 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris. Since then there have been another 7 conferences of the parties or COPs. Number 29 will take place in Baku, Azerbaijan in November. The overriding message coming out of the most recent COPs was “Maintaining a clear intention to keep 1.5°C within reach”. While Holding businesses and institutions to account; Mobilizing more financial support for developing countries, and marking the “Beginning of the End” of the Fossil Fuel Era”

The European Union and member states have all signed up for this, so, along with implementing the SDGs in all its policies, the EU must ensure their policies phase out fossil fuels and target climate change with justice. But that is not all. On the 19th of December 2022, a third global agreement on sustainability was added by all parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity which took place in Montreal, Canada: “The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework”. The European Union is listed among those who hosted consultations and provided financial support - along with the governments of several EU member states. That framework specifically states: “The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including its Vision, Mission, Goals and Targets, is to be understood, acted upon, implemented, reported and evaluated, consistent with the following: a)Contribution and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.... b)Different value systems [acknowledgment of].... c) Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach.... d) National circumstances, priorities and capabilities [ability to contribute according to].... e) Collective effort towards the targets.... f) Right to development....”

So there you have it. That is the globally sanctioned trifecta of sustainability. This is what everyone - legislator, brand, or consumer has to adhere to. Whether you are considering sustainability legislation, marketing, or reporting, the question to ask is: How does it reduce poverty and hunger? How does it equitably reduce emissions? How does it preserve both biodiversity and the income and prospects of local - and particularly indigenous -populations?

It is self-evident that all this must be achieved whilst respecting an even earlier global accord: the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966

This is listed as both a core and a universal instrument in the foundational legal framework for international human rights. Human rights are the focus of an entire piece of proposed EU legislation, commonly known as CS3D, and we will hear more about that a little later. The screenshot that you see now, shows what that Covenant states: All countries have the right to economic self-determination and may freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources.

Since this is a cotton conference I would also like to quickly point out that UN Resolution 78/169 was passed in December last year. This Resolution specifically: “Stresses that the sustainable production, consumption and use of natural plant fibres may contribute to broader efforts towards the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as of ....the Paris Agreement, and the achievement of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.”

So the promotion of natural fibers is another feature that we should be looking for in any and every relevant piece of proposed EU legislation.

In a nutshell then:

1) Sustainability is defined. It’s a state in which No Poverty, No Hunger, respect for all peoples, sovereignty over local resources, equitable GHG reduction, and the phase-out of fossil fuels, are all obtained.

Furthermore

2) The EU has agreed to these definitions.

It follows automatically, that whatever the EU is proposing as “Green” or sustainable legislation must comply with those global commitments: the SDGs, Paris Accord and subsequent COPs, Kunming Montreal, and the Covenant on Human Rights.

Now let’s see if it does - because if it doesn’t, and this is vital, neither the EU nor anyone else should be recommending continuing with these proposals. We do not want legislation for legislation's sake. Indeed, that would be the worst of both worlds. Ineffective legislation, if enacted, will prevent effective legislation. Worse, as we shall see, it could cause serious harm to the world’s poorest without any environmental benefit whatsoever.

Proposed Regulation:

There are several pieces of sustainability legislation on the European Union’s books. Today, we will briefly touch upon 3 of them:

a) The Product Environmental Footprint or PEF. This is a labeling tool. The objective is to guide consumers towards more sustainable clothing choices, and so, as brands and designers seek to fulfill those choices, guide apparel to a greener fairer space. The volume of “sustainable’ fibers purchased will increase and that of less ‘sustainable’ fibers will fall.

There are currently 2 versions. The EU version, which is under wraps, and the French version which is due to be implemented in April. Many believe that if the French PEF is already in force, then any EU PEF will have to adopt or adapt to that model as brands will, not unreasonably, refuse to deal with multiple different PEF systems and labels. So we are going to use the French PEF for discussion purposes.

b) The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation - or ESPR.

c) The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive - or CS3D

I have recently co-authored - with someone many of you already know well, Terry Townsend - 2 papers: A lengthy and in-depth analysis of the proposed ESPR, and a brief overview of the French PEF. This would be a good time for me to point out that whilst these papers were commissioned and published by the Australian Cotton Research and Development Corporation - indeed, the CRDC has funded my attendance here today - I am not a CRDC employee and those reports do not represent the CRDC’s opinion - only their arms-length contribution to what they believe is a vital debate.

The PEF

So, without further ado, does the French PEF, as currently proposed, satisfy the overarching sustainability requirements that we have just discussed? The answer is no. It falls at the first gate.

The French PEF currently includes 18 sub-scores, with 4 ‘bonuses’ under construction. But none have anything to do with the socioeconomic impact. There is no recognition of the French Administration’s commitment to incentivize the consumption of natural plant fibers, and no recognition of the vital role that fiber production plays in the achievement of No More Poverty and No More Hunger, for the millions of smallholders who gain all or part of their cash income from fiber production.

For cotton alone, the ICAC calculates that there are a little over 24 million farmers. Around 40% are female and the average land holding is only 1.3 hectares. All of this is ignored and in direct violation of “Our Common Future”, France is considering the environment as a sphere separate from human actions, ambitions, and needs. France is focusing on social equity between generations in the Global North alone, without considering equity within the current generation at all.

Furthermore, as you can see from the chart on the screen now, in direct violation of France’s commitment to phase out Fossil Fuels, fossil fuel-based polyester is promoted by the French PEF as by far the most sustainable option of the mainstream fibers.

You may well now be asking yourself - where on earth are those numbers coming from? In detailed specifics, we don’t know. It doesn’t say. But as a general principle, they are coming from a random assortment of LCAs - or Life Cycle Analyses - all prepared using different boundaries and methodologies, with more or less representative data in terms of geographies and time frames. LCA theory, indeed data theory, says you can’t compare studies using different boundaries and methodologies, but everyone seems to be doing it anyway.

Since the data comes from existing LCAs, when it comes to climate change and whether what the French PEF is promoting in this area constitutes an equitable reduction in GHG emissions, the answer again is No. This is categorically not what the PEF will promote, and this is not a problem specific to the French, or indeed, EU PEF. It is common to all impact evaluations and LCAs as currently practiced.

What do I mean by this?

It is self-evident that if we are successful in ending hunger and poverty, the consumption-based carbon emissions of the very poorest will increase. That is the desired outcome. When talking about subsistence farmers, other things being equal, the only way that these people can increase their consumption is if they increase their production. Yet when it comes to evaluating carbon emissions whether for PEFs, ESPR, CS3D, or any and every sustainability claim, everyone treats the emissions associated with Burkinabe cotton, a Mongolian cashmere goat, a Quechua or Aymara alpaca, or Lao silkworms as if they were identical to those of Total or Saudi Aramco. Since this methodology runs counter to the stated objective, it can’t be scientific.

And that’s not all, as you can see from the chart, the French PEF has a “Water Use” score. It also has a land use score which it appears to equate to biodiversity. But land and water are natural resources. As we just saw from the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, whether China, India, and Mongolia choose to use their land and water for cotton, silk, or cashmere is entirely their prerogative.

As to where the water data is coming from. We do know that. The Ecobalyse PEF website tells us - roughly translated - that “modeling of the “Depletion of water resources” indicator is based on data from the Kering EP&L database.”

The screenshot you see now tells you how Kering evaluates the impact of water depletion in cotton cultivation.

As we can see, according to Kering, and hence the French - and possibly, eventually, EU - PEF, cotton from the Ivory Coast or Côte d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe is environmentally extremely harmful, and presumably, to be avoided at all costs. The negative impact of water consumption alone from cotton cultivation in those two countries is €76 and €73 per kilo of material, respectively. Since this is a cotton conference, I imagine many if not most of you are aware that neither Côte d'Ivoire nor Zimbabwe has any irrigated cotton. So what we are talking about here is rainfall.

Not growing cotton will not make rainwater on fields available for the local population to drink or wash with. It will not even reduce the plant uptake, indeed some studies suggest it might increase it. More to the point, in much of the Global South farmers have no other income-earning opportunities. They must farm. Subsistence farmers need a cash crop to enable them to purchase the goods and services that they cannot produce themselves - health care, education, clothing, transport, and even essential foodstuffs such as rice for example in much of sub-Saharan Africa. If they cannot sell cotton, these farmers will cultivate their second most profitable crop option instead.

If such a metric becomes embodied in legislation, the net impact will be to make those farmers poorer. There will be no positive impact on water availability.

The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation - or ESPR

Moving on to the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation - or ESPR. As I mentioned, Terry and I have a lengthy report on that, which some of you may have seen - at least in the form of the Executive Summary - and which is available, open source on the CRDC website. For the ESPR, the same concerns apply. There is no evidence of any commitment to incentivize the consumption of natural plant fibers. Furthermore, every category in the proposed ESPR Report carries the asterisked caveat: “Please note that in this context, sustainable does not include the social dimension.” But we have just seen that the EU has committed not to consider the environment as a sphere separate from human actions, ambitions, and needs, since 1987.

The ESPR proposal includes two performance requirements directed specifically at cotton:

“- performance requirement on maximum limit of water consumption related to the production of cotton .”

“- performance requirement on maximum limit of fertilisers, pesticides and insecticides to the production of cotton “

There is nothing at all about cotton’s role in achieving no more poverty and no more hunger. Nor are there any matching performance requirements for polyester to enable the proposed ESPR to fulfill Europe’s declared intention to phase out Fossil Fuels. The ESPR also proposes a: “- performance requirement on minimum content of material with sustainability* certification per kg or unit of textiles and footwear”

But there are no sustainability certifications whatsoever for virgin polyester, despite that fiber constituting over 50% of the global fiber supply. Whether that polyester was produced using antimony. Whether its production posed an “unreasonable risk” to workers and fenceline communities from the release of cancer-causing 1,4-dioxane. These are all health concerns every bit as vital as the toxicity of pesticides and fertilizers.

Based on the latest data, Eunomia tells us that there is a “30x difference between the highest and the lowest methane emissions of oil-producing countries – so where your plastic comes from matters”.

Surely these considerations are more vital than measuring fertilizer use - which is as much a function of the soil type and climate the producers were naturally endowed with as anything else.

Yet the ESPR hands polyester a free pass.

Indeed, the ESPR adds another layer to the EU’s failure to honor its global commitments in its planned sustainability legislation - that of failure to adhere to WTO regulations. If the performance requirements for cotton cited above apply, cotton from the Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe will presumably either be excluded from the EU market or in some way penalized. But if the EU imposes such performance requirements, it is erecting non-tariff or ‘technical’ barriers to trade. These are governed by the Uruguay Round Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. Technical regulations cannot be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective.

At no point does the proposed ESPR demonstrate that the Report’s proposals will increase the used - rather than usable - life of apparel, which is their stated objective, and so what must be proven for the measures to constitute acceptable technical barriers. And finally, when proposing to introduce regulations that are novel and may have a significant effect on other nations, the member concerned - in this case the EU - is required to notify other members of the proposals, early enough in the proceedings for comments and amendments. We can find no evidence that any of the obligatory notification and consultation requirements have taken place. Certainly, the draft ESPR Report makes no mention of them.

As for adherence to Kunming-Montreal’s stipulation that biodiversity is to be understood, acted upon, implemented, reported, and evaluated, consistent with the Contribution and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, we can find no evidence of this in the draft ESPR report either. Quite the contrary, ESPR claims “Biodiversity impacts are especially high for cashmere”. No evidence of this is provided.

The dominant narrative in the popular press and policy circles is that Mongolia’s rangelands are widely degraded. 70% is a frequently cited estimate. But, as our report notes, when you look at the evidence a) the claims of degradation appear exaggerated, and b) the extent to which any degradation is due to livestock rather than other factors - particularly climate change - has not been evaluated. For example, as of February 26, this year, extreme weather conditions in Mongolia - known as Dzud - had killed 2.1 million head of livestock out of a total of 64.7 million. Deaths are expected to continue to accumulate through April.

Indeed, Kering, recently funded a NASA-executed study of Mongolian cashmere herding from which the primary finding was that: “weather and climate had a much stronger impact on rangeland conditions than the goats’ grazing.”

Mongolia is one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world. Per Capita income is only 40% of the global average, and about one-third of its largely indigenous population of 3.3 million people is nomadic. The Mongolian word for “rangeland” is synonymous with “homeland”, and herding sheep, goats, horses, camel, and yak, including cashmere goats, is integral to these indigenous people’s culture and traditions.

Clearly, Mongolian cashmere herding should play an important role in enabling the EU to fulfill two of its sustainability commitments: reducing poverty and malnutrition, and that in a manner consistent with the contribution and rights of local and indigenous peoples. All this is not justcompletely ignored by the proposed ESPR. Cashmere is presented as a sustainability villain.

Just how much of a villain you can gauge from this screenshot.

Kering’s 2022 EP&L, despite the findings of their own study that weather played a far greater role in rangeland conditions than any goat, nonetheless evaluates the negative impact in land use alone, of cashmere animal rearing in Mongolia, at €2,708 per kilo of material.

Some of you at this point may also be thinking: Hang on, Mongolian Land is Mongolia’s natural resource. It’s theirs to dispose of as they wish. Saying otherwise, particularly with no real concrete evidence of harm, is a violation of their right to economic self-determination and to freely dispose of their own natural wealth and resources.

I would agree with you. And this brings us neatly to the last piece of EU legislation that we are going to touch upon today.

CS3D, the Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. We only have a minute or two to touch upon this. Just enough to say that it will be based upon reporting - and that companies will be reporting impacts based upon the kind of data we have been discussing. Indeed use of Kering’s EP&L will presumably be one such approved mechanism.

The draft version of CS3D that I have seen states that the proposed legislation’s objectives include “fostering the sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries.” and that it will work with “several other legislative initiatives aim(ed) at mitigating environmental impacts of products during their whole lifecycle, including.....ecodesign requirements and that companies should pay special attention to any adverse impacts on vulnerable groups including indigenous peoples.

But we have just seen that the other proposed measures that will feed into CS3D, ie the PEF and ESPR, will not do any of this. Indeed, it seems more than likely that some of the metrics that companies will be using to demonstrate their sustainability - notably land and water use -will themselves constitute a violation of the very human rights that CS3D is supposed to protect.

What can I say at this point, except reach out to your communities and talk to your MEPs - or, if you are outside the EU, your diplomatic representatives? Legislation is coming. It is up to each and every one of us to ensure that it can and will deliver on its promises. What is on the table in the EU right now cannot and so will not.

Thank you all very much for your time.