WDEV Special Report 2/2010 (Cotton made in Africa) 1

WDEV Special Report 2/2010

COTTON MADE IN AFRICA: A FIELD REPORT

By ROGER PELTZER

“Love for Africa” was the motto at “Tchibo-World,” which took place in the third week of Junein 2009. In addition to fair coffee and African furniture, 700,000 tops, skirts and table clothsbearing the Cotton made in Africa (CmiA) label have been sold in the 900 (app.) Tchibo retailstores. The goal of this initiative is to enable African cotton farmers to cultivate their cotton ina more economic, fair and ecologically friendly manner. This experiment in Africa was a suc-cess for the Tchibo Company. The sales figures are noteworthy and other companies likeOtto, Puma and Rewe are joining the Hamburg based consumer goods enterprise and partic-ipating in CmiA.

he challenge now is to create a sta-ble ‘value-added’ chain from thefarmer to the end consumer that

ensures both fair prices and the cultivationof cotton in a sustainable, ecologicallyfriendly and fair manner. This principle isthe key to helping African farmers create asufficient basis for sustaining their ownlivelihood and to effectively battling pover-ty in Africa.

This also raises the question as towhether or not African cotton is the bestchoice for such an initiative. All cotton cul-tivated in western and southern Africa isgrown by roughly 2 million small farmers.There are no large plantations to be found.10-15% of the cotton exported worldwideis produced in Sub-Saharan Africa in thismanner, placing this region behind theUSA, central Asia and, recently, India inthe list of top exporters. But life for Africancotton farmers has proven to be very diffi-cult, especially in recent years: The pricefor cotton on the world market did not ad-just to the general increase in the cost ofraw materials at first, and when it did, itwas lacking. The first significant price in-creases have only been seen in recent

months. Previously, however, the pricesfor fertilizer had increased, more thandoubling at their peak; the price for phos-phate, the severest case, increased 10-fold. Meanwhile, the currencies of nearlyall African countries had risen against theAmerican dollar. And since cotton istraded in American dollars, this resulted inthe African farmers making significantlyless net profit despite the higher price be-ing paid for cotton on the world market(just this trend was reversed with the riseof the dollar). In many cases, sales reve-nues do not cover the farmers’ own costswhen including an hourly wage for theirown labor in the calculations.

The trading price for raw cotton inthe Ivory Coast did increase from 25 eurocents to 28 euro cents per kilogram for thecurrent season. 32 euro cents per kilo-gram, however, would be necessary tocover the farmers’ costs and compensatethem for the time worked; and such basicwages would only result in an income thatis significantly less than one Americandollar per day.

In light of this reality, many farmersin Africa have reduced the size of their

T

WDEV Special Report 2/2010 (Cotton made in Africa) 2

cotton fields. Since 2005, cotton produc-tion has dropped by more than 50% in themost important West African cotton pro-ducing countries like Burkina Faso, Chad,the Ivory Coast and Mali. The price forcotton on the world market only started torecover in 2009, making the cultivation ofcotton in Sub-Saharan Africa more attrac-tive to farmers there.

* ”White gold from the hands ofAfrican farmers”

The initiators of the Cotton made in Africaproject decided to place their faith in Sub-Saharan African cotton despite these diffi-cult conditions. The reason: Farmers incountries including Burkina Faso, Benin,the Ivory Coast, Zambia, Malawi and oth-ers, are already growing cotton undermuch more sustainable conditions thanelsewhere in the world. The typical Africanfamily farm uses rain water to irrigate thefields and does not consume largeamounts of ground water, a very limitedresource. They almost always practicecrop rotation and cultivate cotton, grainsand other crops in succession.

This does not create an imbalance, as isoften found, but rather a balance in theproduction of crops for export and of cropsfor the farmers’ own consumption.

Whereas the cotton cultures expandingover thousands of square kilometers inUzbekistan are turning entire tracts of landto steppe and drying up the Aral see, forexample, the patchwork fields in Africawith their trees and bushes look very simi-lar to regions in Europe, as seen from abird’s eye view, where family-operatedfarmers practice crop rotation. There areno monocultures to be found, which alsomeans that significantly less pesticidemust be used than on the large plantationsfound elsewhere in the world. African cot-ton production can also survive without thehelp of subsidies – as long as the price forcotton on the world market is not distorted.Subsidies in the USA, Europe and evenChina are enormous: 25,000 Americancotton farmers receive 3 billion Americandollars in subsidies each year, more thanthe value of all cotton exported from Sub-Saharan Africa.

Cotton fields in Burkina Faso

WDEV Special Report 2/2010 (Cotton made in Africa) 3

The EU also provides massivesubsidies: Cotton producers in Greecereceive 625 euro per hectare in subsidies.And this does not include the sales priceof the cotton. An economical African far-mer earns approximately 340 euro perhectare, for comparison’s sake, approx-imately a third of what his Greek colleaguemakes after selling. And this with cottonproduction in Greece serving as a rolemodel for environmental polluters: Massiveamounts of Greece’s already limitedground water are used to irrigate the cot-ton fields; pesticides are washed back intothe ground water and nearby bodies ofwater. There’s hardly a more ecologicallydamaging agrarian subsidy to be found inthe EU.

The ultimate goal of the Cottonmade in Africa initiative is therefore to takethis “white gold” out of the hands of thehard working African farmers, to help Afri-can cotton receive the recognition it de-serves in the global market, and to therebygive a previously unknown mass product apositive “market identity.” This lead Dr.Michael Otto to start an initiative in 2004 toget individual textile retailers, German de-velopmental institutions, cotton farmersoperating in Africa and non-governmentorganizations to join the Aid by TradeFoundation (AbTF): Companies like theOtto Group, Tom Tailor and Tchibo, aswell as the German Investment and De-velopment Company (DEG) and the GTZ,the cotton merchant Dunavant, the WWFand the German World Hunger Aid organi-zation see this initiative as an opportunityto provide a wide range of support for thecultivation and marketing of cotton pro-duced on a sustainable basis in Sub-Saharan Africa and for the small farmersand their families. Since then, other organ-izations such as NABU have also joinedthe initiative. Three years ago the first Cot-ton made in Africa products found theirway to the retail stores, and they havebeen there ever since.

* Standard or brand?

Creating the Cotton made in Africa brandand introducing it to the market has beenon on-going process of trial and error. Theoriginal idea was to develop Cotton made

in Africa as a type of minimal quality stan-dard for textile retailers. This type of “busi-ness to business” concept would, howev-er, by-step the end consumer and, as faras being a ‘quality standard.’ only serve asa topic for journalists’ research. It wassoon determined that this option was notparticularly attractive to the individual tex-tile retailers. Aside from eco-cotton, sus-tainable cotton production simply isn’t asubject of discussion in the public or incommerce.

The companies considering aninvestment in Cotton made in Africawanted to convey this to the consumer.The path was clear: Cotton made in Africawas to be developed into a so-called“second brand,” or quality seal. In thissense, the brands of retailers like Puma orTchibo, remain in the foreground, while so-called “hang tags” inform consumers thatthe shirt, skirt, bed sheet or hand towel isa product made from Cotton made in Afri-ca cotton. The companies participating inthe initiative also provide further informa-tion in their catalogues and retail stores.This concept brings the advantage of al-lowing Cotton made in Africa to act as a“remora” alongside established brandnames. This also saves the costs of de-veloping a brand name and the costs ofthe advertising campaign associated withsuch, which would run into millions of eu-ros for the European and American mar-kets.

* Cotton made in Africa and FairTrade

Though Cotton made in Africa follows thesame spirit, the concept does differ some-what from classic Fair Trade. The con-sumer should not pay an added fee for thecotton product made from Cotton made inAfrica cotton. The licensing costs of a fewcents per article are paid by the retailersbefore the product reaches the end con-sumer. The stated goal of the Aid by TradeFoundation is to turn Cotton made in Afri-ca into a mass product found throughoutthe catalogues of participating retailers.Cotton made in Africa is explicitly not toserve as a side product in the companies’product lines for the sole sake of display-ing the company’s sense of good will.

WDEV Special Report 2/2010 (Cotton made in Africa) 4

The seal Cotton made in Africa is to beestablished as a standard in the verycompetitive textile market so that the de-mand for high quality African cotton, andthe price for such, grow in both the midand long term.

Cotton made in Africa: Promotion

Cotton made in Africa chose thisoption due to the many problems asso-ciated with the classic “fair trade approach”from the perspective of those targetingmass markets. A small price increase tothe farmers’ advantage will generally bepassed along and continually increase asit makes its way along the merchant chain.Each link eats away at the calculated mar-gins (in part due to logistical costs), untilthe extra 10 cents originally being paid tothe farmer per kilogram result in the endconsumer paying a full euro or more perkilogram. And that would make the finalproduct too expensive for mass consump-tion in such a competitive market like fa-shion and textiles.

The other inherent problem withFair Trade is that the supply of productsfilling Fair Trade criteria often exceeds thedemand for such products many timesover. This can result in many farmers be-ing educated in sustainable productionand high hopes, only to see just a third ofthe available products purchased on thefair market at the higher cost. Two thirds ofthe farmers go home empty handed. This,too, should not happen with Cotton madein Africa.

Whether or not this concept willsucceed and actually reach the mass mar-

ket has not yet been proven. Cotton madein Africa is competing on the marketagainst classic Fair Trade products, suchas the French initiative Coton équitable,which, in cooperation with the Fair LaborOrganization (FLO), has, for example, fit-ted many employees of the French postalservice with Fair Trade work clothes.However: There are already 31 retailers inGermany, France and, since recently, theUSA cooperating with Cotton made in Afri-ca just three years into the initiative. Thisincludes the television sales channel QVCand Bierbaum company, a well-knownretailer for bed sheets, alongside the manyother companies that have already beennamed.

In 2007 approximately 400,000articles of Cotton made in Africa clothingwere sold; in 2008 that figure grew to 2.4million and in 2009 to approximately 6 mil-lion. According to estimates, 13 millionarticles of Cotton made in Africa clothingwill be sold in 2010. Assuming an averageprice of 10 euros per textile article, 60 mil-lion euros in turnover were reached in2009 and approximately 130 million eurosin turnover are to be expected for 2010. Incomparison: last year’s turnover for all FairTrade products in Germany was approx-imately 200 million euros. This may not bethe fairest comparison, since the addedvalue from the cotton on the field to thefinished textile article is, of course, muchhigher than that of coffee, for example, butthe results for Cotton made in Africa so farhave been good, even if the goal of reach-ing the mass market is still far from reach.

* How does this help the Africanfarmer?

The Cotton made in Africa brand standsfor adherence to social and ecological mi-nimal standards. In concrete terms thismeans that the price paid to the farmer forraw cotton must be transparent and com-prehensible. It also means the farmersshould be guaranteed payment within 4weeks of delivering their cotton, which isfar from being common practice in Africaat this time. Conventional cotton produc-tion requires heavy use of pesticides and

WDEV Special Report 2/2010 (Cotton made in Africa) 5

herbicides; Cotton made in Africa makessure that only approved pesticides andherbicides are used. The farmers are in-structed in the use of such chemicals ac-cording to certain minimal standards.

Along with local cotton companies,German Development Cooperation fin-ances programs for farmers participating inCotton made in Africa through the DEGand GTZ. “Demonstration crop fields” areused to show simple ways to increase soilfertility and productivity. Favorable creditconditions promote bullock traction, whichallows farmers to increase their productivi-ty and to rely more heavily on organic ferti-lizers. Integrated plant protection allowsthat chemicals are only used when specifi-cally needed and not as a general meas-ure, which in turn reduces costs and, atthe very least, slows the build-up of resis-tance against the pesticides and herbi-cides in use. The model projects in Zam-bia, Burkina Faso and Benin have shownsignificant increases in productivity and/orcost reductions ranging from 20-30%.

From village to factory: cotton gin

The African farmers should also profit fromthe Cotton made in Africa licensing fees inthe future. The licensing fee is currentlybeing used to pay for the marketing costsfor Cotton made in Africa. Currently 5 % ofthe license fee is invested in schoolprojects in the cotton producing regions.

By 2013, the marketing volume of Cottonmade in Africa should have grown to allowfor approximately 75% of the licensingrevenue to be paid directly to the farmersas a dividend or used directly to fund train-ing projects for the farmers. This shouldhelp participating farmers increase theirnet income by 10-15%.

The CmiA model projects in Benin,Burkina Faso and Zambia convinced theBill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF)to provide a total of 22 million US dollars inthe years 2010-2012 to expand these pro-grams to 265,000 farmers in six other Afri-can countries (in addition, the Ivory Coast,Malawi and Uganda). This COMPACI pro-gram (Competitive African Cotton Initia-tive) is also co-financed by the GermanFederal Ministry for Economic Cooperationand Development (BMZ), which providedan additional 5 million euros. Private cot-ton companies in Africa provided an addi-tional 20 million US dollars.

Another important aspect with re-gard to African cotton is that Cotton madein Africa has developed a reliable, world-wide supply chain in cooperation with re-nowned spinning and weaving companies.So-called “project cotton” can be found insupply in major textile producing countrieslike China, Mauritius and Turkey, it theycan be used at short notice to meet themost current demands for the newest fa-shion trends. These partner companiesrigorously tested the quality of the cottonand determined that the cotton companiesworking with the Cotton made in Africainitiative were able to provide high qualitycotton with very few impurities to theagreed upon dates and conditions. Thishas lead to a significant improvement inthe African cotton farmers’ reputation,which previously was often not that of areliable supplier of quality cotton.

* The dynamics of private enterprise

Cotton made in Africa is heavily influencedby the dynamics of private enterprise. Theparticipating individual textile retailers cer-tainly want to make a profit with CmiA bytens of thousands of CmiA farmers alsowant to increase their revenue, partly toincrease the capacity of their cotton gins.

WDEV Special Report 2/2010 (Cotton made in Africa) 6

Dr. Michael Otto, the initiator of theproject, has voiced his business philoso-phy in numerous interviews and explainedwhy there is an economic self-interest intrade for a systematic switch to the sellingand marketing of consumer goods pro-duced under sustainable conditions.Though primarily impacting the food sec-tor, news reports of scandalous working orunhygienic production conditions can leadto significant losses in sales in the textileand toy sectors, as well. Such scandalsdeals a sudden blow and can even pose athreat to the traders’ livelihood, as manymake their living on a profit margin of just1%. The marketing of products that can beproduced sustainably is a form of crisisprevention. On the other hand, this out-right form of “corporate social responsibili-ty” as seen in the Otto Group is not com-pletely risk free. Anyone claiming to onlydeal with textiles produced according tominimal standards draws the attention ofthe so-called “ campaigners.” The result:Various non-government organizationsmake finding the few black sheep amongthe thousands of suppliers and sub-suppliers their goal. Anyone making suchclaims publicly must be prepared to beheld to their word by the public; it’s part ofhaving entrepreneurial courage.

There is a long chain in CmiA overwhich the Otto Group is in contact with theAfrican cotton farmers. Each farmer has acontractual partner in the local cottoncompany operating the gins preparing thecotton for export.

The cotton company supplies thefarmer with seed, fertilizer and chemicalsand offers agronomic consultation. In re-turn, the farmer or his cooperative agreesto deliver the cotton to the cotton companyat a price agreed upon. The cotton com-pany then transfers the difference betweenthe purchase price and the pre-financedgoods and services to the farmer. This“contract farming model” has stood the testof time for decades in Africa, yet it alsodraws criticism from liberal market econo-mists and from various non-governmentorganizations. The opposition’s main ar-gument is that the farmers are findingthemselves in a dependency role in theirrelationship with the purchaser, who has asort of monopoly. Critics support a system

in which the farmer is free to choose whichgin he sells his cotton to. This would, intheory, enable the farmers to get a betterprice for their cotton. The reverse side ofthe coin, however, is that this type of liber-al system does not give the farmersaccess to credits for fertilizer or protectiveclothing, items which can only be financedand secured via the cotton that is to beproduced. The cotton sector is the onlyagricultural sector in Africa which has suc-ceeded in systematically enabling hun-dreds of thousands of small farmers togain access to credits to purchase fertiliz-er, which was only possible under the con-tract farming model. This also benefitsfood production in these regions, as clear-ly seen in recent studies in West African.The decrease in cotton production in theseregions also leads to a decrease in thecultivation of grains. The reason: The far-mers no longer had access to fertilizers.

In light of this situation, Cottonmade in Africa chose to rely on coopera-tion with well-run private cotton compa-nies. An increase in the farmer’s cottonproduction is also in the cotton companies’interest, as it allows them to increase thecapacity of their gins. The cotton compa-nies also have qualified personnel and analready present infrastructure in these re-gions, which allows them to offer trainingprograms for small farmers at an afforda-ble price, and, in turn, to introduce sus-tainable farming methods.

At the same time, Cotton made inAfrica makes sure farmers are able to en-ter price discussions on equal ground withthe cotton companies. In some cases far-mers are helped in choosing the cottoncompany they wish to deal with. This,however, is rarely an issue in West Africa,as the cotton farmers there are traditional-ly well organized and build a force thatcannot be easily over-stepped.

* Trust is good, but being sure isbetter

This, however, is far from being the casein the English speaking regions in EastAfrica: The cotton sector there is not wellorganized and serious farmers unions arerarely to be found.

WDEV Special Report 2/2010 (Cotton made in Africa) 7

Developing a reliable brand is along process and the greatest possiblesetback in the eyes of the members of thisinitiative is the possibility of images ap-pearing in the media showing CmiA far-mers bare foot and in shorts spraying poi-sonous pesticides, followed by the alarmin the nearby clinics when they find thatmany of these farmers are suffering fromheadaches and skin diseases.

Such scenarios can never be com-pletely ruled out in cooperative involvingtens of thousands of farmers. If Cottonmade in Africa is to have any credibility, itmust be verifiable that such cases involv-ing cotton farmers participating in the initi-ative are absolutely and positively excep-tions to the rule – and that this will alwaysremain so. Such proof cannot be deliveredsolely by the private cotton companiesthemselves. To establish real credibility,independent verification will be required.

Of course, this is something easiersaid than done. How exactly can onemake sure than tens of thousands of far-mers wear the proper protective clothingwhen spraying their fields? Or that theyproperly dispose of empty pesticide con-tainers and that such waste does not endup in the hands of children? Or that thefarmers practice correct crop rotation toincrease soil fertility? How can all this beensured without ensuing prohibitive costs?The bottom line is that in the end, neitherthe farmer, nor the cotton company, northe consumer is willing to bear these addi-tional costs.

Even the use of representative sur-veys would require an extreme effort andquickly carry a price tag greater than theamount of additional income that the indi-vidual farmer is to receive by participatingin Cotton made in Africa, as the farmersare spread out over many kilometers anddifficult to contact directly.

For this purpose, the Aid by TradeFoundation and the auditing firm Pricewa-terhouseCoopers (PWC) developed a so-called third party verification process thatmonitors the management concepts andclaims made by the cotton companies andwhich carries out random surveys of theparticipating farmers. This allows claims,for example of prompt payment, to beeasily verified. Random sampling is also a

reliable way to quickly receive reliable in-formation regarding the pesticides given tothe farmers by the cotton companies andwhether or not they are WHO approved.Word spreads quickly when the claimsbeing made do not prove to be true. Moni-toring other aspects, such as the properdisposal of empty chemical containers, is,however, more difficult, as many farmersdo not see this issue as being an issue.Still, there is a clear need to address suchquestions and determine whether or notthe “core claims” made by Cotton made inAfrica are, in fact, true.

The CmiA verification process isparticularly focused on continual improve-ment in meeting the CmiA sustainabilitystandards. Aside from reasons for exclu-sion (such as the cultivation of cotton innature reserves), a ‘stop light’ system isused to ensure that improvements aremade. Both the farmers and the cottoncompanies must show evidence of im-provement from ‘red’ to ‘yellow’ when theydo not meet a given standard.

So-called local boards made up ofgovernment representatives, farmers, un-ions and non-government organizations,whose role may not be limited to a techno-cratic nature, are also to be included in theverification process. The first of these “lo-cal boards” has been established in Beninthis year (June 2010).

In addition to the bi-annual inde-pendent verification, Cotton made in Africais working on a scientific impact analysisreport that is being carried out by the Na-tional Opinion Research Center (NORC) inChicago and financed by the Bill & Melin-da Gates Foundation. Everyone participat-ing in Cotton made in Africa wants to knowif and how the living conditions of the Afri-can cotton farmers and their families areactually improving due to these programs.To answer this question, representativesurveys are to be carried out at the start ofthe project “baseline,” and then again 3-4years later. These surveys are to includehundreds of farmers from all 6 African na-tions. There is hardly a comparable devel-opment project in rural Africa with suchsystematic monitoring.

Of course, this is much more easilyexpressed in theory than proven scientifi-cally in the field: Cotton is an agrarian

WDEV Special Report 2/2010 (Cotton made in Africa) 8

product that is cultivated in Africa underhighly fluctuating climatic conditions. Theprice for cotton on the world market variesas well, as has already been mentioned.The amount of rainfall in a region, or lackthereof, is often a much bigger factor forthe success of programs to increase prod-uctivity than any of the measures taken.Presenting a reliable report regarding theimpact of the initiative therefore requirescontinual, diligent observation.

* Hot potatoes in the discussion re-garding credibility: Genetically mod-ified cotton and child labor

So far Cotton made in Africa has beenable to remain neutral in the controversialdebate regarding the marketing of cottonderived from genetically modified seed.Sub-Saharan Africa was, until recently, theonly region in the world in which so-calledBt cotton was not cultivated on large fields.But this will soon change; Burkina Fasohas been experimenting with geneticallymodified cotton for several years and hasbegun to introduce Bt cotton in large scalein rural areas.

The results are quite promisingfrom the farmers’ perspective: Harvestyield has increased by up to 30% and far-mers only need to spray chemicals twiceper season (compared to 7 or 8 timeswhen growing conventional cotton). Thisdoesn’t just save the farmer money; it alsosaves him a lot of time. Spraying one hec-tare requires approximately 15 kilometersof walking. And the reduced need for pes-ticides when cultivating genetically mod-ified cotton reduces the health risk thatboth the farmers and their families areexposed to. And since genetically modifiedcotton ripens more faster, it is also an ef-fort to adapt to climate change. The far-mers are better able to react to late rain-fall.

Large scale Bt cotton production isbeing introduced widespread in BurkinaFaso; 25-30% of the field area will be usedto cultivate Bt cotton in the harvest year2009/2010.

Still, many non-government organi-zations are vehemently fighting the use ofgenetically modified seed. Aside from wor-ries of unforeseeable side effects caused

by genetically modified plants, critics oftenpoint to the high cost of genetically mod-ified seed: A poor harvest could drive far-mers deep into debt. It is also said that theAfrican small farmers are not capable ofplanting strips of conventional cotton nextto fields of genetically modified cotton, theonly means of successfully preventing thebuild up of resistance. Some “good willed”NGOs, as well as the knowledgeableAmerican author and professor Pietra Ri-vola, who wrote a striking report about a T-shirts “trip” around the world, systematical-ly ignore the fact that there is a great de-gree of professionalism in the African cot-ton sector.

Many Africans in the cotton sectorhave a very positive opinion of geneticallymodified cotton. Burkina Faso was alsoable to negotiate a deal with Monsanto inwhich the genetically modified seed de-rived from native cotton strains is to bepaid for based on the actual increase inyield and is not the exclusive property ofthe American company. This greatly de-creases the risks associated with a poorharvest. Africans supporting the use ofgenetically modified seed criticize Euro-peans for their skepticism and claim theyare trying to keep the African farmers frommaking use of the technological advance-ments that their competitors in the USAand Asia have been benefiting from forsome time. Most cotton shirts worn in Eu-rope today are made using at least somegenetically modified cotton, and it doesn’tseem to be bothering anyone.

Despite protest coming from allAfrican partners of the Cotton made inAfrica initiative, the Aid by Trade Founda-tion decided to place a three-year morato-rium on the use of genetically modifiedcotton. The fear of seriously damaging thefledgling brand name Cotton made in Afri-ca outweighed the unpleasant fact of hav-ing to go against the wishes of the Africanpartners and cotton producers in this is-sue.

Another controversial subject in thecotton debate is that of child labor, a stan-dard practice in the cotton fields of Africa.This is, quite simply, a matter of necessity;the small farmers cannot properly weedand harvest their fields without the help oftheir children.

WDEV Special Report 2/2010 (Cotton made in Africa) 9

The International Labor Organiza-tion (ILO) allows for children to aid theirparents on family farms. It must, however,be ensured that the children are not atrisk. They should also have the opportuni-ty to attend school during the growingseason. It is, in principle, forbidden to “bor-row” children to work on the plantation forlow wages. Explaining that child labor inthe form of assisting their parents on thefamily farm is a social reality in Africa thatcannot be changed overnight and that thisis necessary for the survival of the familyfarm to business partners like S. Oliverwas a difficult challenge for Cotton madein Africa. This makes it ever so importantthat Cotton made in Africa can ensure thatinappropriate forms of child labor, or evenchild slave labor, are not to be tolerated.This is also to be monitored in the courseof the previously mentioned “verificationprocess.”

The Aid by Trade Foundation hasalready started investing part of the licens-ing revenue in school projects and adultliteracy projects in Burkina Faso, Beninand Zambia. All relevant studies haveshown that school attendance in ruralareas increases proportionally as educa-tional opportunities in these regions im-prove. These efforts are also supportedfinancially by the business partners: Apart(Otto Group), Tchibo and REWE, as wellas through the DEG and GTZ Public Pri-vate Partnership funds (PPP).

* Challenges to come

Cotton made in Africa is, at this time,heavily dependant on the support of publicfunding provided by the Bill & MelindaGates Foundation and the BMZ. Withoutsuch aid it would be impossible to finance

the comprehensive training measures forapproximately 265,000 farmers or to im-plement the verification process or evenprepare an impact analysis.

The goal is to see Cotton made inAfrica standing on its own two feet on thetextile market in the next 3-4 years. Thesupport provided to the African farmers,marketing fees and other costs should becovered completely by the licensing reve-nue. To make this possible, Cotton madein Africa must increase its turnover to ap-proximately 45 million articles per year.This would also mean reaching the initia-tive’s goal of establishing a brand in themass market and not just offering a nicheproduct.

The task at hand is enormous.Many textile suppliers do make note oftheir charitable efforts in their brochures,but the truth is that products producedaccording to fair, ecological standardsmake up less than 1% of their product line.

Sustainably produced cotton willonly play a significant role in world tradefor farmers and consumers when the criti-cal public demands that at least 20-30+%of all textiles be made from sustainablyproduced cotton. Such an amount of sus-tainably produced cotton could be madeavailable to the textile industry today, andeven more in the future. The foundationexists; all that’s missing is the demand.The public should stop seeing simple no-tices of a few fair products as acceptablesocial engagement.

Roger Peltzer heads the Competitive Afri-can Cotton Initiative, which is funded bythe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation andBMZ. He is also a member of the Aid byTrade Foundation advisory board.

WDEV Special Report 2/2010 (Cotton made in Africa) 10

Cotton harvest