Organic production - picking the pesticides out of cotton

Why organic? Reducing the level of chemical inputs in cotton production has been motiavated at the producers' end by the need to lower production costs, the growing awareness of the environmental and health dangers of pesticides use, and rapidly increasing insecticide resistance problems. Dorothy Myers of the Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK] reviews some recent developments.

Mixing homemade safe pesticides, and taking the cotton harvest to the ginnery, Maikaal, India. Photos Tadeu Caldas.

Organic food production and 'clean' clothing and textiles  industrialised countries. Integrated pest management (IPM) techniques are widely researched, but are specific to the agro-ecological production conditions in any given location, and may involve the use of pesticides. As a result, few general principles can be applied and no absolute standards set for the production. Unlike IPM, standards exist for organic production against which crops can be inspected. Certified organic cotton can command a premium in the international market place which, given appropriate arrangements along the production chain, can be translated into a premium for the farmer. In this way, fair trade and environmental objectives can both be met.

What is organic cotton?
Organic cotton is produced without the use of synthetic chemical fertilisers, pesticides, growth regulators or defoliants. The term relates to the growing process of cotton and not to processing stages beyond. Only cotton which has been inspected and certified by an institution recognised by the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM) is entitled to carry the label 'organic'. If producers wish to gain entry to regulated markets like the EU or the US with their 'organic' cotton, then certification is an essential step. Until very recently, a three-year transition period from conventional to organic production was required for certification. Cotton produced during the waiting period is described variously as 'transitional', 'pending certification' (California), or 'organic B' (Australia). Some manufacturers use labels such as 'green', 'clean' or 'natural', which can cause confusion for purchasers(1). IFOAM regulations were changed in late 1994 to a one year transition period where levels of chemical inputs are lower. This new situation is advantageous for farmers as it allows them the benefit of price premiums at an earlier stage.
    At the technical level, organic cotton can be grown in  any location where conventional cotton can be grown. Soil fertility may take time to build up if there has been high use of synthetic chemicals, using inputs such as animal and green manures, as well as fallow periods. Many methods are available for pest management depending on the pests, the level of infestation and resources (see page 12). The key to organic production lies in looking at the whole agro-ecosystem. This often means major changes for farmers who may require considerable support, at least in the early stages of conversion. Reduction in yield can be expected in the first year or two until the ecosystem reaches a new equilibrium and farmers may lose revenue unless financial support is available.

Production levels and locations
At the international level, amounts of certified organic cotton fibre reaching the market have so far been very small-6-8,000 tonnes in 1993 with 75% of the production in the US(2). Expectations were that this would increase by 50% in 1994 to 9-12,000 tonnes with a further increase in 1995. Even if the higher figure is increased by 50% again in 1995, organic cotton would only amount to 0.1% of total production. Certified organic cotton has been produced in recent years in Argentina, Australia, Egypt, Greece, India, Paraguay, Peru, Turkey and the US and more recently in Uganda and Nicaragua.
    Although most organic cotton production has been in medium to large-scale farming systems, especially in the US, organic  conversion has special advantages for small farmers in developing countries. Firstly, farmers can expect a premium. Secondly, by developing a direct organic producer-manufacturer chain, small-scale farmers can gain access to alternative marketing organisations. Thirdly, the well-documented risks to which farmers and their environment are exposed by the misuse and overuse of pesticides and other inputs are reduced. Alternative organic systems can therefore be both economically and environmentally more viable. Pilot projects are starting in several developing countries, including Uganda, Tanzania, Nicaragua and Senegal.

Yields, costs and prices
Evidence in the short-term confirms that yields will usually be substantially reduced in the early stages of conversion. In 1993, for example, figures published by the International Cotton Advisory Council (ICAC) show that in Argentina organic cotton yields fell by 36%, in Australia by 43%, India 36% and Turkey 38%. However in Tennessee and Missouri in the US yields rose by 7%(3) and in the Maikaal project in India, yields have reached their former conventional levels. Monitoring over the medium to longer term in a variety of different agro-ecological and economic situations will be important in establishing trends for organic yields.
    In the international market, the price for organically produced cotton fibre is related to the price of conventional production. The figure seems to be between 50-100% higher for organic, with a tendency towards the lower end of the range(4). In November, average organic fibre prices in the international market were US$ 1.25 per pound and may rise to $1.50-$2.00 as cotton prices are currently rising(5).
    At the farmers' level, the story is much more complicated and the actual benefits are difficult to quantify. Experience is limited to a few seasons at most and experiments involving small farmers are very new. The level of premium paid to small farmers for certified organic cotton varies between about 10-30%, but the importance of the premium varies with several factors. Farmers returns also depend on other factors: loss in yield after the organic system is introduced, savings on synthetic chemical inputs, costs of extra fertilisation, availability of alternative pest control, and cost of additional labour.
    In Turkey, the costs of production are from 11-15% higher than conventional production. Detailed work on large irrigated commercial farms with a high level of mechanisation showed that in the early stage of conversion, costs per hectare were similar to conventional production but yields were halved. In the second phase, yields recovered almost to the level of conventional yields with small increases in production costs, mostly for fertilisation(6). But the balance between cotton and other crops in the rotation is critical to yields and income levels. For example, in some countries small farmers may grow cotton-wheat-cotton in rotation. Soil fertility can be increased only if the wheat crop is replaced by a green manure crop which would probably allow cotton yields to rise but would be off-set by losing the income (or food) from the wheat crop(7).
    Table 1 indicates the importance of the pesticide component in overall chemical use in rainfed cotton production in selected countries, showing that farmers can make great savings where chemical inputs are high(8).
    The question arises whether the lower yields obtained without chemicals (and hence lower income) in the initial conversion stages is adequately compensated by savings on chemicals. Other factors clearly come into play such as the effects on cotton quality, speed of conversion (and certification) and the benefits which accrue to the people and environment in the production areas from not using hazardous pesticides.
    Harry de Vries concludes that(9):  Chemical inputs are a relatively large part of the costs of cotton production and therefore the possible cost reduction in the case of application of production methods which need less or no chemical inputs is considerable.
    But also that:  It cannot be predicted with any certainty what the consequences of this change (to organic production) will be in financial terms. However some conclusions can be drawn. Organic production has proven to be more expensive than current production. Farmers who have changed to organic production have encountered higher costs and/or lower yields. This is compensated for by higher prices in the market for organic textiles.
    If farmers are to benefit from higher prices, the gains must be distributed fairly along the chain from consumer to producer. The structure and organisation of the chain is therefore important.
    The experience of the Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK] and its partner, ENDA-PRONAT to date is promising. In Senegal, a farmer who experimented last season found that a drop in yield of 50% was compensated by reduction in input costs and a 20% price premium for the seed cotton. He ended the season with the same level of income as he would have had growing cotton in the conventional way and without the risks of pesticides use (see page 16).

Some organic cotton projects involving small farmers
India
Three organic cotton projects have been reported: one in Gujarat and two in Madhya Pradesh, one of which is the Maikaal Project (see page 12). The Gujarat State Cooperative Cotton Federation is supporting organic production with 687 hectares producing a yield of about 370 kg/ha  in 1994/5(10). Bo Weevil from Netherlands is involved and certification has been carried out by the Dutch organisation SKAL.  A 10% premium is paid. Reduction in yields has been minimal because the level of inputs used formerly was low.
    A project in Maharashtra will start in mid-1995 supported by German development co-operation (GTZ) funding through Protrade in collaboration with the Indian Central Institute for Cotton Research and EPEA Unweltinstitut. The area is one of traditionally low inputs, low yields and low profitability and farmers appear to be highly motivated for change.  A workshop for farmers in April 1995 was very well attended and an association of organic farmers was formed. It is expected that yields will be 200 kg/ha, producing 100 tonnes of organic cotton fibre this season. Planting will start in mid-June. Farmers will grow other organic produce to sell, adding to their incomes and reducing the pressure to produce larger quantities of cotton(11).

Uganda
This pilot project is in its second growing year and is supported by Swedecorp (part of the Swedish International Development Assistance) in an area where pesticides have been little used in the recent past. In the 1994/5 season, the project involves 200 smallholder farmers growing cotton on 0.5-2.5 ha in three villages of Lango District. Yields of conventionally produced cotton have been around 300 to 350 kg/ha. The total production in 1994/5 was 64,680 kg of seed cotton or about 21 tonnes of lint. The target production for 1995/6 is 500 tonnes with 1500 farmers, improved techniques and extension of area. Production has been certified by KRAV, a Swedish organisation, and a consultant agronomist has been employed to provide advice and training. The farmers will deal directly with the local exporter. Swedecorp will finance the cost of the certification and the technical assistance during the start-up phase of two years and help the exporter with market contacts in Sweden and the rest of Europe. Farmers are guaranteed purchase and prompt payment with a 20% premium. They are supplied with seeds, alternative pest controls, other inputs and training(12).

Tanzania
A GTZ IPM project investigated the possibilities for organic cotton production in the Meatu District of Shinyanga region of Tanzania in October 1994. The report concluded that prospects are promising and conversion is going ahead. The project will start in Ngohoboko, a village of 300 families with a cotton area of 800 ha. Cotton is the only cash crop for local farmers. Pest problems are not very severe and farmers have been accustomed to spraying on average four times per season.  But pesticides are increasingly expensive and there is no functioning pesticide sales system. Yields of conventional cotton in Meatu District are about 400 kg/ha(13). Certification based on the requirements of EEC Regulation 2092/91 will be carried out by IMO. Marketing prospects appear to be promising with GTZ-Protrade and the Swiss company Remei involved.

Nicaragua
A GTZ-supported programme has improved crop management and succeeded in making conventional cotton production profitable after many years of losses. Using IPM techniques, insecticide applications have been reduced from 26 to 13.5 per season within a period of four years. Yields have been maintained and production costs reduced from about US$1,720 per hectare to US$930 in 1993/4 season. One farmer grew cotton without pesticides on 2.8 ha (but used mineral fertiliser) and produced an acceptable crop which was sold in Germany. In 1994/5, with an assurance of a market in Germany, 30 small farmers started organic production on about 50 ha. In spite of the lack of experience on the part of extensionists, the farmers harvested 500 kg/ha on average, which was sold to a German company (Prolana). A strategy for combating the major pest the 'picudo' or boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis) has been crucial in the success of the project. Certification, based on EU regulations, was carried out by a local organisation which is already certifying coffee in Nicaragua(14).

Prospects look  promising for organic cotton conversion projects involving small farmers in several more countries including Benin, Mali, Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Paraguay, El Salvador and Ecuador.  

References
1. ICAC, Organic Cotton Production. In: The ICAC Recorder, Vol. XI, No. 1, March 1993.
2. Based on data collected from field experience and consultation with certifying organisations by Bo Weevil, Netherlands, in 1993.
3. ICAC Recorder, op. cit.
4. These percentages were quoted by Agro-Eco consultancy agency 14 November 1994 and confirmed in personal communication with Bo Weevil, 9 May 1995.
5. Financial Times, 1 February 1995.
6. Zeegers, J., Duurzame teeltechnieken in de katoen. Master's Thesis, Free University of Amsterdam, 1993, quoted in Harry de Vries and Henk Kox, 'An International Commodity-Related Environmental Agreement for Cotton: An Appraisal', Economics Department, Free University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995.
7. Dr. M. Rafiq Chaudhry, personal communication, 24 May 1995.
8. Harry de Vries with Henk Kox, An International Commodity-Related Environmental Agreement for Cotton: An Appraisal, Economics Department, Free University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995, page 56. Based on ICAC figures quoted in Survey of the Costs of Production of Raw Cotton, 1992.
9. de Vries, Ibid.
10. M Rafiq Chaudhry, 'Status of Organic Cotton Production'. Paper prepared for an International Workshop on Cotton Production Prospects for the Next Decade, Ismailia, Egypt, 16 November 1994.
11. Maharashtra information provided by Jeus Soth, EPA, Umweltinstitut, Hamburg, Germany, April 1995.
12. Uganda information provided by Swedecorp, 1995.
13. Information on the Tanzania project provided by Deutsche, GTZ, Eschborn, Germany, 1994.
14. Primeras Experiencias de Algodon en Nicaragua, March 1995 Memoria de Simposio de Agricultura Organica, San Jose, Costa Rica.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 28, June 1995, pages 17-19]