Case Study: Cotton production and export from Pakistan

Key IssuesPakistan is one of the largest cotton producers in the world and in 2004, was the fourth largest exporter of both cotton fabric and cotton, not carded or combed to the UK. Tracing the cotton supply chain is, however, fraught with difficulty. The production of cotton is complex involving numerous stages and different sized organizations, from multi national companies, to manufacturing associations to individual farmers. Pakistan imports and exports cotton from each stage of the production process blurring the supply chain and hindering the ability to determine the impact of UK consumption on biodiversity. There are a number of sensitive ecosystems in Pakistan, some of which are found within the main cotton growing regions. However, little information exists, to quantify the impact cotton production has on biodiversity. Problems are generally associated with agro-chemical use, water use, habitat loss and soil degradation. Integrated Pest Management including Farmer Field Schools, which target individual farmers, have been implemented in Pakistan in efforts to reduce the impacts of cotton production, but other methods such as Fairtrade or organic cotton appear to have not yet been introduced. Implementing effective measures to reduce the impact of cotton growing is difficult owing to the wide variety of actors in the production process and the different governance structures that operate at each stage as a result.

Introduction‘Cotton is the largest revenue earning non-food crop produced in the world’ 1. In 2000, 32.7 million hectares of land worldwide was under cotton production 2. Moreover, its production and processing provide income for over 250 million people globally3. The UK imported 100 thousand tonnes of all forms of cotton in 2004. Cotton fabric is the main type of cotton imported into the UK, in 2004 an estimated 28 thousand tonnes was imported from abroad. In 2004, the main exporters to the UK were India, China, France and Pakistan (see Table 1). The second largest type of cotton imported to the UK is cotton, not carded or combed. In 2004, approximately 19 thousand tonnes was imported into the UK, the main exporters being the USA, Israel, Brazil and Pakistan (Table 2).

Table 1:Export Country Imports of

cotton fabricto UK by weight(tonnes) in 2004

India 6,301.114 (22.3%)China 3,844. 062 (13.6%)France 3,576.920 (12.7%)Pakistan 2,437.993 (8.6%)Italy 1,530.948 (5.4%)Turkey 1,509.048(5.3%)Netherlands 1,119.571 (4.0%)Germany 1,012.784 (3.6%)Indonesia 917.863 (3.2%)

Scott Wilson LtdMay 2006 99

Table 2:Export Country Imports of

Cotton not carded or combed to UK by weight(tonnes) in 2004

USA 10,400.800 (54.2%)Israel 2,933.312 (15.3%)Brazil 1,986.875 (10.3%)Pakistan 1,810.062 (9.4%)Australia 1,454.875 (7.6%)Uganda 261.937(1.4%)Kenya 99.703 (0.5%)France 83.644 (0.4%)Portugal 45.187 (0.2%)

Pakistan was the fourth largest producer of cotton in the world producing an estimated 1.734 million metric tonnes or approximately 9% of the world total in 2003 4. Data for July 20055, estimated that the UK bought Rs.356.65 million of cotton fabric from Pakistan accounting for approximately 6.6% of the total value of Pakistan’s cotton fabric exports 6. In 2004, Pakistan was the UK’s fourth largest source of imports of cotton fabric and cotton not carded or combed7. The UK accounted for approximately 3% of the total quantity of exports (measured in m2) of cotton fabric in 2004 but however accounts for less than 1% of the total exports, in m 2, of cotton not carded or combed from Pakistan8.

The UK is not a major buyer of yarn or sewing thread from Pakistan. This could be a reflection of the shifts in cotton fabric production to Asia. Pakistan’s main revenues for cotton yarn are from exports to Hong Kong, China, USA, Korea Republic, Bangladesh, Turkey, Japan and Indonesia. Owing to seasonal variations in yield and the outbreak of pests, the quantities imported from Pakistan vary from year to year.

Traceability of supply chainThe cotton supply chain is characterised by a fragmented global network of cotton producers, processors and consumers. The cotton supply process can broadly be described as a six-stage process:

Growing – Cultivation of seed cottonGinning – Removal of seeds to yield raw cottonSpinning – Conversion of raw cotton to yarnWeaving – Yarn is woven to produce grey clothProcessing – Grey cloth is processed to produce finished clothApparel and Textiles – Finished cloth is manufactured into apparel and textiles.(Source: Banuri 1998)

However, in reality the supply chain is far more complex. First, merchants and agents are involved in each stage of the process which affect the movement of cotton products within Pakistan and abroad, thereby affecting the traceability of the supply chain9.

Second, the production and processing of cotton is carried out on a variety of scales from small individual farmers, medium sized organisations to large multinational corporations (some examples include Wal-Mart, Sears, J. C. Penney, Hennes & Mauritz, The Gap, Bo Weevil 10). Each represents an important component of the cotton industry and influences the governance and movement of cotton in a different way. Third, while all stages of the cotton production, processing and consumption may be carried out within a country there is also a significant volume of trade in cotton between countries during the six stages outlined above.

Fourth, the different stages of the cotton commodity chain are characterised by different governance structures. Banuri (1998) suggests that yarn and grey cloth production, for example, are influenced both by manufacturing associations and the informal sector which is ‘without a coherent collective structure’ (p.6). Apparel and textiles, on the other hand, are largely controlled by a few multinational companies and international agreements (e.g. WTO agreements). It is important to note however, that the different governance structures influence, both directly and indirectly, the other stages of the supply chain.

Fifth and finally, cotton often travels through staging countries which further impedes the traceability of the supply chain. For example, 4% of the imports to the UK of cotton fabric are from the Netherlands which is likely to act as a staging country. Comtrade data from the Netherlands shows that of all cotton fabric imported into the Netherlands, approximately 7% is

exported to the UK. Pakistan accounts for c.9% of the total cotton fabric imported into the Netherlands. It is difficult however to establish the amount of cotton fabric which is imported into the UK via the Netherlands from Pakistan.

The traceability of the cotton supply chain from Pakistan to the UK is, therefore, complicated. All stages of the cotton supply chain occur in Pakistan11 and the products from each stage are both supplied to domestic markets and are exported. In 2002/2003, for example approximately 69% of cotton yarn was available for local markets12. Overall, approximately 30 – 40% of all cotton produced is for the domestic market13. Pakistan also imports cotton in addition to producing it domestically, in 2002/2003, over 19 thousand tonnes were imported (Industrial Information Network 2005). The main exporters of cotton not carded or combed into Pakistan include the USA, India, Mali and Brazil14. This additional link in the cotton supply chain means that the impacts of imports of cotton fabric from Pakistan also have impacts on biodiversity in countries exporting cotton to Pakistan.

In understanding traceability of the cotton supply chain it is important to look at the reporting by the UK of cotton imports and the reporting by Pakistan for exports to the UK. Unfortunately, data for cotton fabric from these two countries cannot be directly compared owing to different measurement units being used. The corresponding economic value of the two figures varies quite significantly with Pakistan reporting a trade value of $15,851,661 and the UK $8,451,665. There are many potential explanations for this discrepancy which could include differences in valuation, incorporation of different forms of cotton fabric or errors in reporting.

Production of cotton in PakistanThe International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) estimates that the area under production of cotton in Pakistan was 3.2 million hectares in 2004 with 2,210,000 metric tonnes produced and a yield of 6880 metric tonnes/ hectare (equivalent to 68.8 metric tonnes/ km 2)15. Figure 1 shows the change in area under cotton production in Pakistan, (note 1 km2= 100 hectares). The general trend is an increase in land under cotton production but it is also marked by periods of decline. The reductions could be due to a number of factors, one of which, pest outbreak is discussed later in this report.

Figure 1: Graph to show the total area under cotton production in Pakistan

Source: Food, Agriculture and Livestock Division, Government of Pakistan, http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/divisions/food-division/media/asp_2003-04_table14.pdf

The main cotton growing areas in Pakistan are the Punjab and Sindh provinces. Punjab accounts for 76% of production and Sindh 23%16. The remaining production occurs mainly in Balochistan.

The Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Livestock in Pakistan provides data for 1997-1998 for the area, production and yield of cotton in Pakistan and in particular the two main cotton-growing regions (Table 3). The area of land in Pakistan under cotton production has increased from approximately 1 million hectares at independence in 1947, to c.3.2 million hectares in 200417. The cotton yields have also increased significantly over this period and the 1980s saw growth in yields from 3640 tonnes per hectare in 1982-83 to 7690 tonnes per hectare in 1991-199218.

Table 3: Table to summarise main production areas in Pakistan 1997-1998

Cotton region Area (hectares) Production (000 bales)

Yield(tonnes/ hectare)

Pakistan 2,960,000 9184 5270Punjab 2,348,000 6817 4940Sindh 600,000 2335 6620

Source: http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/divisions/ContentInfo.jsp?DivID=10&cPath=91_97_365_366&ContentID=1050

Production in sensitive ecological areas Pakistan spans a variety of altitudes and latitudes and hence features a variety of ecosystems which include a number of internationally and locally important species of flora and fauna. There is currently one UNESCO-MAP Biosphere reserve in Pakistan, the Lal Shuanra National Park and 19 RAMSAR designated sites. As can be seen in figure 2, four of these sites can be found in the main cotton growing regions of the Punjab and Sindh provinces. These are the Indus Dolphin Reserve, Drigh Lake, Deh Akro – II Desert Wetland Complex and the Uchhali Complex (including Khabbali, Uchhali and Jahlar Lakes). There are four WWF Global 200

terrestrial and freshwater Ecoregions in Pakistan: Western Himalaya Temperate Forest, Tibetan Plateau Steppe, Rann of Kutch Flooded Grasslands and the Indus River Delta (see figure 2). The Indus River Delta coincides with the cotton producing regions in the Sindh province and is shown on figure 3.

Figure 2: Map to show the location of sensitive Ecoregions, CI Hotspots, Ramsar and UNESCO –Biosphere reserves in Pakistan in relation to the main cotton producing areas:

Source: UNEP-WCMC (2005), Pakissan (2006), WWF (2006), CI International (2006)

Figure 3: Map to show the location of sensitive marine and freshwater Ecoregions in Pakistan in relation to the main cotton producing areas:

Source: UNEP-WCMC (2005), Pakissan (2006), WWF (2006), CI International (2006)

Pakistan has 16 designated and proposed national parks which have primarily been established for wildlife protection19 Chinji National Park lies in the north of the cotton growing area and covers 6095 hectares and contains tropical dry forest and woodlands and Lal Suhanra, the UNESCO-MAB Biosphere reserve, is also designated a national park (covering 87,426 hectares) and is located in the central cotton growing region. Kirthar national park is found to the southwest of the cotton growing region boundary (see figure 2). The national park however covers 308,733 hectares (which is not represented on the map) and it is likely that there is some overlap or connection to the areas of cotton production in the Sindh province. The country has also 99 game reserves, 94 wildlife sanctuaries and 7 private reserves and the total area protected in Pakistan is 9.17 million hectares 20 accounting for approximately 10% of the total land area of Pakistan. The BAP (2000) estimates 16% of the Punjab province is under protection21 and 9% of the Sindh province is protected22.

Biodiversity in priority conservation areas The key biodiversity features of the sites identified above can be summarised as follows:

Indus Dolphin Reserve (Ramsar)The Indus Dolphin Reserve was designated a Ramsar site in 2001 and covers 125,000 hectares. The stretch of river is of particular importance to the once common endemic Indus Dolphin which is listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List and on Appendix I of CITES. Since the establishment of the reserve, the numbers of the Indus Dolphin have increased and current data estimates there to be over 500 remaining individuals 23. In addition to the Indus Dolphin, the reserve provides habitat for waterbirds, grasses, riverine shrub and forest. The construction of dams for irrigation, HEP and water reserves since the 1930s threatened the

Indus dolphin species with extinction, and although its numbers are still below a thousand, it is making a good recovery.

Drigh Lake (Ramsar)The Drigh Lake was designated a Ramsar site 30 years ago and is relatively small, covering 134 hectares. The lake provides an important breeding and wintering areas for a variety of waterbirds in addition to a roosting site for the Night-Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax). The site is also important for Raptors and plants. While the numbers of birds have increased as a result of the Ramsar designation there remain a number of pressures on the site including overgrazing, siltation, diversion of water for rice production and illegal hunting24.

Deh Akro – II Desert Wetland Complex (Ramsar)The Deh Akro II Desert Wetland Complex covers 20,500 hectares in the province of Sindh. The site consists of 36 lakes and a ‘unique desert wetland ecosystem’25. The site supports globally threatened birds such as the Marbled Teal (Marmaronetta angustirostris), Ferruginous Duck (Aythya nyroca), Darter (Anhinga melanogaster) as well as the threatened mugger crocodile (Crocodylus palustris). There are also over 18 species of mammal, 16 species of reptile, 14 species of fish and 101 species of birds. The surrounding area is characterised by desert with well-established vegetation, irrigated agricultural land marshes. These areas also provide habitat for a variety of flora and fauna. There are a number of threats to the area which are in the form of hunting, fishing, overgrazing, collection of fuel wood, clearing of vegetation for burning and poor farming practices26.

Uchhali Complex (including Khabbali, Uchhali and Jahlar Lakes) (Ramsar) and the Nurri Lagoon (Ramsar) These two Ramsar designated sites are located near but not within the main cotton growing region shown in figure 2, Uchhali Complex is in the north and the Nurri Lagoon to the south of Pakistan. It is possible that cotton growing practices impact on these sites, however, more information would be needed to confirm this. Both sites are valued for their wetland habitat which accommodates numerous bird species and other flora and fauna. Pollution (both domestic and from agriculture), agriculture, hunting, fishing and population pressure all threaten these two Ramsar sites.

Indus River Delta Ecoregion (156) The Indus River originates in the Himalayas and flows for over 3000km to the Arabian Sea. The delta is home to the Indus River dolphin (Platanista minor), endemic fishes such as the Indus Baril (Barilius modestus), Indus Garua (Clupisoma naziri) and Rita Catfish (Rita rita), Giant Snakehead (Channa marulius) and the Hilsa Shad (Tenualosa ilisha). The river delta also supports large freshwater shrimp populations and other aquatic life27. The Ecoregion covers 4 million hectares and its conservation status is listed as Critical/Endangered. The Indus River Delta biodiversity has been suffering owing to the building of dams further up stream, irrigation extracting water, chemical runoff reaching the river and the introduction of alien species (ibid.).

The Rann of Kutch Flooded Grasslands Ecoregion, shown on figure 2, is not located within the main cotton-growing region but secondary impacts from activity related to cotton production further upstream could effect the Ecoregion.

The biodiversity value and current status of Pakistan’s national park and wildlife reserves is not well documented at present. The BAP (2000) identifies forests, arid and semi-arid rangelands,

wetlands and coastal waters as being at risk from biodiversity loss. Agro-ecosystems are also identified as ‘having a number of trends damaging to biodiversity’ (p16). The key threats to biodiversity in the agro-ecosystems are from soil loss, waterlogging, salinisation, intensification of production and increased use of pesticides.

Biodiversity strategy in PakistanIn 1997, the Government of Pakistan passed the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), which sets out aims for sustainable development through the ‘protection, conservation, rehabilitation and improvement of the environment’28. The EPA led to the re-design29 of the National Environmental Quality Standards (NEQS) 2001 (Self-monitoring and Industry Reporting) Rules, implemented in 2000. Industry and other stakeholders were involved in the development of the standards and agreed to an enforceable system of self-monitoring in which a pollution charge is to be paid if pollution is in excess of the NEQS. Research suggests that the NEQS is currently inadequately enforced30. This standard could have important implications for the processing of cotton31. The EPA 1997 act also set provisions for Environmental Impact Assessments to be carried out for new developments. Co-ordination for these projects has been weak however and developers have largely been left to decide whether an EIA is required. Adequate EIA practice could help enhance the protection of biodiversity.

Two other major national policy initiatives aimed at environmental protection in Pakistan may have implications on biodiversity, namely the Pakistan National Conservation Strategy (NCS) and the Environmental Protection and Resource Conservation Project (EPRCP). The goal of the NCS is to ensure development does not deplete the natural resource base of Pakistan and the EPRCP seeks to rehabilitate ‘several watersheds and rangeland areas’32 and enhance environmental protection in Pakistan. In 2000, the pilot phase of implementation was underway, with the majority of work prior to this being focused on capacity building and institutional development (ibid.). It remains to be seen what impact they will have on biodiversity. The Biodiversity Action Plan produced for Pakistan sets out a number of key strategies including increased enforcement of biodiversity laws, increased information collection on biodiversity, integration of biodiversity considerations into decision-making, raising public awareness and involvement, increased funding for biodiversity programmes 33. At present there exists little information about the success of implementation of the BAP.

Impacts of production on biodiversityThe major environmental impacts associated with cotton production and processing can broadly be summarised34 as:

Agrochemical use; Water use and contamination; Habitat conversion; Soil erosion and degradation; and Pollution from effluents.

Of these, research indicates that there are two key impacts of cotton production in Pakistan, agrochemical use and water use.

Agro-chemical useOne of the most serious threats to cotton yield in Pakistan has been attack by insects, disease and weeds35. As a result, the use of pesticides in cotton production has been high, although varied types of chemical have been used at different times. There are no accurate figures for pesticide use in Pakistan currently, Banuri (1998) estimates pesticide use lies between 13,000 and 15,000 tonnes per year whereas ‘The Pakistan Economist’ estimates 44,872 tonnes of

pesticides were used in 1998. Pesticides and defoliant chemicals, which are also used in the growing process, have a direct toxic effect on wildlife36 and have indirect temporal and spatial effects. Long-term biodiversity is threatened by the heavy use of pesticides due to bioaccumulation. Persistence of pesticides in the environment reduce fertility and increase mortality37. This could have important implications for the numerous species of waterbird and other small fauna in Pakistan. Pest resistance to pesticides has resulted after years of intensive use e.g. the attack of the bollworm during the 1970s and the invasion of the whitefly and leaf curl virus in the 1990s38. The biodiversity impacts of these episodes is unclear but pesticide use has continued to increase which implies the effects were negative.

Spatially there are implications too. Run-off from fields reaches ground water, lakes and rivers damaging aquatic ecosystems and poisoning organisms resulting in adverse effects on biodiversity. Fertilisers, although used less than pesticides and defoliants, can also have implications on aquatic ecosystems, causing eutrophication and changes in the structure of the ecosystem. Jabbar et al. (1993 cited by Banuri 1998) found small concentrations of pesticides in ground water samples from Samundri, Punjab province in the cotton-growing region.

The direct and indirect effects of pesticide application in Pakistan are not well documented. Cotton is, however, grown on 15% of the cultivable area in Pakistan and accounts, for example, for c.‘20% of the 2.5 million nutrient tonnes of chemical fertiliser used in the country’ 39. It is therefore likely that the application of agro-chemicals in cotton production in Pakistan is having an impact on biodiversity. With numerous protected wetland areas, the threat from these chemicals is particularly pertinent.

The use of genetically modified cotton has been an increasingly common practice in global cotton production, as it could lead to reduced pesticide use. In 1999, Pakistan did not have any official GM cotton crops40 and the Government of Pakistan still does not permit their growth. Research is encouraged however and the National Institute of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering (NIBGE), Faisalabad, CCRI of Multan and CEMB of Lahore are all involved with developing new varieties41. ActionAid claims that poor farmers in the Punjab and Sindh provinces planted GM crops illegally, which resulted in crop failure 42. More rigorous research is needed to be able to confirm this claim. Potential impacts on biodiversity from the introduction of GM crops are unclear but are thought to include interbreeding and contamination of existing crops and the potential positive benefit of reduced need for pesticides due to in-built resistance to pests in the GM varieties.

Water useCotton production and processing place significant demands on water resources. Extensive irrigation is required for the cotton crops in Pakistan and it is estimated 90% of cotton production occurs in irrigated areas. This creates water stress, exacerbated by irrigation efficiencies leading to the loss of large volumes of water, which can further lead to waterlogging and salinisation of soil (World Commission on Dams (WCD) 2000). Figure 4 shows that areas of water stress in Pakistan coincide largely with the main cotton growing region.

Figure 4: Map to show the areas of water stress in Pakistan in relation to the main cotton growing regions:

Source: Pakissan (2006), UNEP-WCMC (2006), WRI (2006)

Approximately 15% of the cotton growing areas in Pakistan are affected by salinity 43 with implications on biodiversity of the farm ecosystems and freshwater ecosystems. Salt in run-off has changed the species composition44. The requirement for drainage systems also exacerbates these problems. Several dams have been constructed on the Indus River, including for irrigation. Alterations to the water supply and sediment flow in the Indus have had adverse effects on biodiversity due to clearance of mangroves, forests, flora and fauna. Habitat change has resulted in, for example the desiccation of some areas causing shifts in dominant tree species types, increased sedimentation leading to fish kills, pressures on rare species such as the Indus Dolphin due to saline water, the invasion of exotic species 45. Coastal ecosystems, such as mangrove forests, have also suffered as a result of less water reaching them owing to dams created further up-stream46.

Habitat loss, soil degradation and pollutionAs mentioned above, the area under cotton production in Pakistan has steadily increased over the past century. It is not clear, however, how much of this expansion occurred on undeveloped land or replaced other crops on agricultural land. Conversion of the tropical thorn forests, swamps and riverine ecosystems of the Indus47 would have resulted in the loss of habitat for many species and also could have caused fragmentation of habitats of other species, clearly impacting on biodiversity. More information is needed in order to be able to determine whether habitat loss is a continuing trend or an historical impact.

Soil erosion and degradation is a common feature of many agricultural systems, particularly those which are intensively farmed using large volumes of pesticides, and leads to a reduced capacity to support microbes, invertebrates and plants and the longer term issue of irreversibility 48. There are also indirect effects experienced such as sedimentation and the increased salt content in rivers and lakes, due to run-off. Sedimentation and increased water salinity can have serious impacts on freshwater biodiversity49. At present, there is little available evidence to quantify the level and significance of soil erosion and degradation due to cotton production and the effects on biodiversity in Pakistan. The increased yields of cotton in the main growing areas suggest soil erosion and degradation could be a feature of cotton crops.

The processing of cotton also has impacts on biodiversity. These include pollution from effluents of chemicals used in the processing of cotton, water demand (an integrated textile mill uses c.3840 m 3

of water per day50) and the indirect effects of associated infrastructure such as buildings and roads (ibid). Pollutants threaten aquatic life; water demands lead to issues of scarcity and infrastructure developments causes habitat destruction and fragmentation. WWF Pakistan (2006) reports that ‘only export orientated units treat their effluents, control emissions, use safer chemicals and have environmental management systems in place’.

The cotton-growing region of Pakistan is also cultivated for a number of other commercially important crops. The main examples include rice, maize, rapeseed, safflower, soyabean, millet, wheat, sugar cane, groundnut, sesame, sunflower, banana and fodder51. Wheat, rice and sugar cane production are the largest, in terms of economic value, of these crops. The impacts of producing these commodities can be very similar to those of growing cotton i.e. pesticide use and increased water demands, with their resultant impacts on biodiversity52. Approximately 2.515 million hectares53 (1999-2000) are under rice cultivation, 8,067,000ha54 (2003) are under wheat cultivation and 1 million hectares255(1999-2000) under sugar cane production. There is therefore more land under wheat production than cotton but an accurate map of the locations of these two types of crops is not available. More detailed information provided by the WWF for the main cotton growing zones in Punjab and Sindh indicate that approximately one third of these areas are under cotton production56. However, without more detailed information, separating the impacts of wheat and cotton production remains problematic.

Mitigation measuresTop downOver the past few decades, the Government of Pakistan has introduced both environmental legislation and environmental policy initiatives (see ‘Biodiversity Strategy in Pakistan’ above) which could impact on cotton production and processing. The impacts of these on biodiversity are largely unknown. Similarly, the effects of the BAP (which is specifically targeted at biodiversity) on cotton production and biodiversity are not well documented. Better water management practices, such as more efficient irrigation, could also have beneficial impacts on biodiversity, particularly in freshwater

ecosystems but the extent to which such measures have been implemented requires further investigation.

Bottom upIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) is a method whereby more environmentally friendly practices are encouraged in the production of crops such as cotton57. In 2000, a national IPM programme was launched following the Government of Pakistan signing a memorandum of understanding with WWF. Evidence suggests that the use of IPM methods in cotton production have been implemented in some areas of Pakistan. Khan (2005) for example produced evidence to suggest that Farmer Field Schools (FFS)58 led to farmers spending more time on field observations, more sharing of knowledge and differences in application of pesticides suggesting a better understanding of the pest situation. Research carried out by Hamid and Poswal (1997) also showed farmers who had attended FFS reduced their insecticide inputs by 68%. The Pakistan Central Cotton Committee (PCCC) in Karachi is also pursuing programmes and activities of weed control practice in cotton and communication in agriculture59.

International and consumer driven measuresOrganic cotton production is currently carried out in c.18 countries but only accounts for 0.1% of total global cotton production60. In 2001, the key producers were the USA, Turkey, India and Peru (ibid.). There is little information about organic cotton production in Pakistan and it would appear that at present there is none. Fair trade cotton is another, generally consumer driven, measure that is being introduced in some countries in order to ensure farmers receive a fair price for their crops which includes an allowance for sustainable production61. According to a Fairtrade report published in November 2005, there are plans to ‘extend Fairtrade certification to many more producer groups and countries including…Pakistan’. Marks & Spencer announced on the 30 th January 2006 their pledge of commitment to a line of 100% Fairtrade cotton products. The Marks & Spencer campaign suggests that there is growing consumer awareness of the origins of cotton goods.

Cotton production and processing is not only influenced by national and regional policy but by international activity as well. The Multi-Fiber Agreement which was adopted in 1973, lead to textile imports being tied to individual countries. Under the World Trade Organisation these quotas have been gradually dismantled with the key objective of removing barriers to trade. In 2001, the WTO repealed the USA’s quota on imports from Pakistan and negotiations were underway to reduce the barriers to EU markets. There is however little current information available documenting the current status of the trading barriers.

A number of barriers have impeded the reduction of impacts on biodiversity from cotton production and processing. Political instability combined with inadequate government resources and a lack of political will have meant change is slow62. Inadequate involvement of the lower tiers of government and insufficient measures applied to enforce policy and legislation has meant measures to reduce the impact of cotton production and processing have been less effective (ibid). The lack of information about biodiversity issues, status and methods and the poverty of many farmers also hinder changes to agricultural practices.

Indicators of biodiversityThe Biodiversity Action Plan (2000) includes a number of indicators to monitor the key elements of biodiversity these are:

Resources allocated by the government towards biodiversity conservation The status of protected areas and the components of biodiversity identified in

Annex 1 of the Convention on Biodiversity

Participation of local communities in biodiversity conservation

There are a number of other possible indicators of the status of biodiversity which include: water quality; soil quality; pesticide sales and use for cotton growth and the volume of fair trade cotton/organic cotton imported into the UK from Pakistan.

Production of the case studyCotton production in Pakistan was selected for study through the interrogation of Comtrade data. The case study was researched using desk-based and Internet investigations in conjunction with interviews with experts from Global Footprint Network and The Living Planet. The lack of information relating to the different components of the supply chain and concerning the impacts of cotton production and processing on biodiversity has been a key limitation in producing this case study. As a result of these data gaps, the main part of the research relied on qualitative information from a variety of sources summarized in Table 4. The lack of data has also meant that assumptions have had to be made about the reliability of the qualitative data as there is insufficient research available to crosscheck findings. Another issue that was encountered was the restricted availability of maps of Pakistan owing to the sensitive issues relating to Pakistan’s disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It was not possible to resolve this issue and so the limitations involved with using dated and inaccurate maps should be borne in mind.

Data reliability The reliability of data used in this case study is questionable. Much of the quantitative data is from government sources, such as the Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Livestock. The Industrial Information Network (IIN) also provides detailed data sets for the period up to c.2002/2003. The IIN is a joint venture between the Government of Pakistan, SMEDA and UNIDO which aims to encourage technology to link businesses within Pakistan and internationally. In addition, much of the data used in this case study has been referenced from other research papers. Inconsistencies and errors associated with these papers must therefore be taken into consideration. The absence of detailed and up to date maps for the cotton producing and processing regions has meant that less reliable representations have had to be used.

Source CommentsBanuri (1998) Banuri’s key sources are expert interviews, the Government of Pakistan,

the Pakistan Agricultural Pesticides Association and the Pakistan Central Cotton Committee. The variety of sources increases the reliability of the research paper. Sources who provide information such as the government and manufacturing associations should be treated with caution due to bias. The paper is now 8 years old and the situation has most likely now changed.

Clay (2004) The data provided for cotton are from the FAO (2002) and are for 2000.Industrial Information Network Part of a joint venture which includes the Pakistan Ministry for Information

Technology and Telecoms, SEE and UNIDO. Again, data might be affected by bias to protect the commodity both internally and externally.

ICAC The ICAC was founded to help governments foster a healthy world economy. Its role is to provide information and a platform for ‘objective discussion’.

WWF Potential biases in favour of environmental/ biodiversity protection but they are independent from cotton trade.

Government of Pakistan Potentially unreliable due to bias in favour of protecting cotton industry in Pakistan. Comprehensive data collection however so good breadth of information available.

Pakissan 19 strong board of international specialists in the agriculture fields helps the

resource gain credibility.Comtrade Data The Commodity Trade Statistics Database is provided by the Statistics

Division of the United Nations.

1 Banuri, T., (1998) Pakistan: Environmental Impact of Cotton Production and Trade, IISD Paper, Canada.2 Clay, J. (2004) World Agriculture and the Environment, Island Press/Washington, London.3 Banuri, T., (1998) Pakistan: Environmental Impact of Cotton Production and Trade, IISD Paper, Canada.4 ICAC (2004) Cotton: Review of the world situation, Volume 58, Number 2, November-December 2004.Government of Pakistan accessible via http://www.infopak.gov.pk/5 Federal Bureau of Statistics 2005 accessible via. http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/statistics/external_trade/externaltrade_statistics.html6 The largest buyer was the USA which accounted for Rs.1,558.54 million or approximately 15.7%. Other key buyers include Turkey (Rs. 892.40 million), Hong Kong (Rs.531.11 million), Italy (Rs.449.25 million), U.A.E. (Rs. 432.38 million), Sri Lanka (Rs.380.67 million), and Bangladesh (Rs. 368.88 million) (Federal Bureau of Statistics Pakistan, 2005 accessible via http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/statistics/external_trade/externaltrade_statistics.html).7 Data from 1995 shows that Pakistan was not a major exporter of cotton not carded or combed to the UK but was the third highest exporter of cotton fabric to the UK. By 2000, Pakistan had become the second largest exporter of cotton not carded or combed to the UK and remained in third place for cotton fabric exports (Comtrade 2005 accessible via http://unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/).8 Comtrade 2005 accessible via. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/9 UNCTAD 2005 accessible via. http://www.unctad.org/Templates/StartPage.asp?intItemID=206810 Banuri, T., (1998) Pakistan: Environmental Impact of Cotton Production and Trade, IISD Paper, Canada.11 Pakistan has approximately: 400 textile mills; 7.7 million operational spindles; 27,000 looms in the mill sector; 250,000 looms in the non-mill sector; 700 knitwear units; 4,000 garment units; 650 dyeing and finishing units; 1,000 ginneries and 15,000 to 20,000 indigenous small scale oil expellers (Banuri 1998, Industrial Information Network 2005, Pakissan 2005).12 Industrial Information Network (2005) accessible via. http://www.iin.com.pk/SectionCategories.aspx?Id=414&operationId=85&13 Pakissan (2006) accessible via http://www.pakissan.com/english/allabout/crop/cotton/index.shtml (20/02/06)14 Comtrade 2005 accessible via http://unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/15 ICAC (2004) Cotton: Review of the world situation, Volume 58, Number 2, November-December 2004, Government of Pakistan accessible via http://www.infopak.gov.pk/16 Industrial Information Network (2005) accessible via. http://www.iin.com.pk/SectionCategories.aspx?Id=414&operationId=85&17 Banuri, T., (1998) Pakistan: Environmental Impact of Cotton Production and Trade, IISD Paper, Canada.18Banuri, T., (1998) Pakistan: Environmental Impact of Cotton Production and Trade, IISD Paper, Canada.19 UNEP-WCMC (2006) World Database on Protected Areas accessible via. http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa/ (18/02/06)20 BAP (2000) Pakistan Biodiversity Action Plan, accessible via. http://www.macp-pk.org/bap.pdf21 Including 2 national parks, 37 wildlife sanctuaries, and 19 game reserves22 Including 1 national park, 35 wildlife sanctuaries and 14 game reserves23 Ramsar Information Sheet 2001 accessible via http://www.wetlands.org/RSDB/_COP9Directory/ENG/Default.htm24 Ramsar Information Sheet 1992 accessible via http://www.wetlands.org/RSDB/_COP9Directory/ENG/Default.htm25 RAMSAR Information Sheet 2002 accessible via http://www.wetlands.org/RSDB/_COP9Directory/ENG/Default.htm26 Ramsar Information Sheet 2002 accessible via http://www.wetlands.org/RSDB/_COP9Directory/ENG/Default.htm

Robustness of case study findingsThe robustness of this case study for policy usage is weak. There is a heavy reliance on secondary, and potentially biased, data sources many of which are qualitative in nature. The cotton supply chain is complex and tracing the links between UK consumption and cotton production and processing in Pakistan is difficult. Cotton production, processing and consumption occur in Pakistan. The different types of cotton, produced at each stage of the process, are exported. Likewise various forms of cotton are imported. Data to show volumes of cotton involved in each of these stages of the supply chain are incomplete and often from unreliable sources. In addition, it is hard to accurately determine what the actual impacts on biodiversity of production and processing of cotton are, as other crops also occupy the same

27 WWF (2006) accessible via http://www.wwf.org/ (20/02/06)28 UNIDO (2000) Industrial Policy and the Environment in Pakistan 29 Initiated by the Environmental Protection Ordinance 1983.30 UNIDO (2000) Industrial Policy and the Environment in Pakistan 31 Due to emissions of pollutants associated with the cotton processing stage.32 UNIDO (2000) Industrial Policy and the Environment in Pakistan 33 BAP (2000) Pakistan Biodiversity Action Plan, accessible via. http://www.macp-pk.org/bap.pdf34 Clay, J. (2004) World Agriculture and the Environment, Island Press/Washington, London.,WWF (1999) Impacts of cotton production on freshwater resources and ecosystems, Background Paper, 1999 accessible via http://www.wwf.org/ (20/02/06), Khan et al (2005) Impact of an FFS-based IPM approach on Farmer Capacity, Production Practices and Income: Evidence from Pakistan, in: Ooi,P., et al (2005) The impact of the FAO-EU IPM programme for cotton in Asia.35 Banuri, T., (1998) Pakistan: Environmental Impact of Cotton Production and Trade, IISD Paper, Canada., The Pakistan Economist (1999) Pesticides and their impact on crop ecology, accessible via. http://www.pakistaneconomist.com/issue1999/issue41/i&e4.htm36 WWF (2006) accessible via http://www.wwf.org/ (20/02/06)37 WWF (1999) Impacts of cotton production on freshwater resources and ecosystems, Background Paper, 1999 accessible via http://www.wwf.org/ (20/02/06)38 Banuri, T., (1998) Pakistan: Environmental Impact of Cotton Production and Trade, IISD Paper, Canada.39 Banuri, T., (1998) Pakistan: Environmental Impact of Cotton Production and Trade, IISD Paper, Canada.40 WWF (2006) accessible via http://www.wwf.org/ (20/02/06)41 The World Trade Review (2004) Researchers employ genetic engineering – Cotton varieties accessible via. http://worldtradereview.com/news.asp?pType=N&iType=A&iID=90&siD=20&nID=1697042 Action Aid (2005) accessible via http://www.actionaid.org.uk/wps/content/documents/gatg_2462004_1524.pdf43 WWF (1999) Impacts of cotton production on freshwater resources and ecosystems, Background Paper, 1999 accessible via http://www.wwf.org/ (20/02/06)44 World Commission on Dams (2000) Case Study: Pakistan: The Tarbela Dam and Indus River Basin accessible via http://www.dams.org/kbase/studies/pk/pk_exec.htm (20/06/06)45 World Commission on Dams (2000) Case Study: Pakistan: The Tarbela Dam and Indus River Basin accessible via http://www.dams.org/kbase/studies/pk/pk_exec.htm (20/06/06)46 WWF Pakistan (2006) Questionnaire Response (20/02/06)47 BAP (2000) Pakistan Biodiversity Action Plan, accessible via. http://www.macp-pk.org/bap.pdf48 Khan et al (1999) Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Costs of Cloth and Leather Exports from Pakistan, Sustainable Development Policy Institue, accessible via http://www.tradeknowledgenetwork.net/pdf/sdpifullrprt_s.pdf (20/02/06)49 WWF (2000) Existing water and pesticide use practices and recommendations for environmentally friendly management options for cotton production in Pakistan, unpublished report and Banuri, T., (1998) Pakistan: Environmental Impact of Cotton Production and Trade, IISD Paper, Canada.50 Banuri, T., (1998) Pakistan: Environmental Impact of Cotton Production and Trade, IISD Paper, Canada.51 Pakissan (2006) accessible via http://www.pakissan.com/english/allabout/crop/cotton/index.shtml (20/02/06)52 (BAP 200053 Pakissan (2006) accessible via http://www.pakissan.com/english/allabout/crop/cotton/index.shtml (20/02/06) – Economic survey 1999-2000 54 Pakissan (2006) accessible via http://www.pakissan.com/english/allabout/crop/cotton/index.shtml (20/02/06)55 Pakissan (2006) accessible via http://www.pakissan.com/english/allabout/crop/cotton/index.shtml (20/02/06) - Pakistan sugar mills association Annual report 2000

area. The credibility of findings would be enhanced by further research, including via. interviews and other forms of primary data collection63 as the best source of this information, Banuri (1998) is dated. Data sources do exist for the different components of the cotton industry in Pakistan but their reliability are questionable and the impacts these have on biodiversity is not known. The information gathered for this case study, particularly in relation to the impacts of cotton growing on biodiversity, are generally applicable and could provide a useful framework or basis for future research both in Pakistan and other cotton producing/processing countries.

Author & reviewer:Victoria Wood, Scott Wilson, March 2006. Jeremy Richardson, Scott Wilson and Jonathan Loh, co-editor of Living Planet.

63 WWF (2000) Existing water and pesticide use practices and recommendations for environmentally friendly management options for cotton production in Pakistan, unpublished report.

Also see World Resources Institute (WRI) (2006) accessible via. http://www.wri.org/ (20/02/06).