ABSTRACT
In 2011, the five leading exporters of cotton were the United States, India, Brazil, Australia and Uzbekistan (NCC, 2012). In the period 1996-2005, global cotton production contributed 3 per cent to the total water footprint of crop production in the world (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011a). Global production of cotton products required 233 billion m3 of water per year, out of which about 57 per cent was consumption of green water, 32 per cent consumption of blue water and 11 per cent water to assimilate nitrogen fertilizer. This estimate still excludes the grey water footprint from the textile industries. For most consumers, the impacts of their cotton are not nearby, because cotton is often imported from other countries. In the European Union, for example, where little cotton is grown, most of the water footprint of cotton consumption is located outside Europe, with major impacts particularly in India and Uzbekistan, but also in Pakistan, Turkey, China, Syria, Turkmenistan and Egypt (Chapagain et al., 2006b). In most of the European countries, there is no cotton farming at all, so that 100 per cent of the cotton comes from elsewhere. Take for instance the United Kingdom, where all cotton is imported. Figure 5.1 shows how the blue water footprint of cotton consumed in the UK can be localized in different regions of the world. The most important growing regions of irrigated cotton consumed in the UK are Turkey and India. If there is one single crop to be elected for its most disastrous effects on natural water flows and water quality in river basins, cotton has a good chance of winning. The blame is of course not on cotton, but on the people that have decided to grow it at too large a scale in unsuitable regions. When it comes to the question who precisely is to be blamed, it becomes a bit difficult. Farmers are the ones who actually use the water and apply fertilizers and pesticides, but governments have been promoting intensive farming practices at unsuitable locations, enabling it by developing irrigation infrastructure and providing subsidies. Furthermore, the apparel industry and consumers have contributed to the race to the bottom, whereby prices of cotton clothing are often extremely low, making it hard for farmers and small manufacturers to adopt better technologies. The interest in sustainable consumption and production has been marginal, but is fortunately growing. The awareness among cotton consumers about remote impacts is still low. A major problem is the complexity of the world cotton market, whereby it is hardly possible to trace the origin of the cotton for an individual shirt or pair of jeans (Rivoli, 2005). Most retailers and brands have no idea where the cotton with which they work was grown. Sometimes they know the source country or region, but in order to know the sustainability of a specific batch of cotton, one would need to know more, because there can be large differences in the performance of individual farmers from a certain region, caused for instance by the technique, amount and mode of irrigation and the practice of applying chemicals. Good examples of cotton growing do exist, but are not mainstream. Not all cotton is grown in areas with too little rain and too large irrigation demand. Not all cotton is grown with an overkill of artificial fertilizer and pesticides, witness for example the efforts in organic farming.
