COTTON CERTIFICATION FOR SMALLHOLDERS IN SUB SAHARAN AFRICA
Introduction
According to Partzsch, Zander, and Robinson (2019), about 15% of the world exported cotton originates from Sub-Saharan Africa, and its significance is presumed to extend to the next subsequent years of its production. Cotton cultivation in most world countries has been linked to massive outcomes that encompass high revenues, fertile soils, increased employment, and expanded levels of living (Lakhal, Sidibé and H’Mida, 2008). Numerous researchers indicate that the product yields an estimated 50-70% revenue from exports made by the producing states. More importantly, Partzsch, Zander, and Robinson (2019) established that a large percentage of West African populations are dependent on cotton growth. However, studies explore the costs that the cotton infiltrates the smallholders in these countries, such as high production costs alongside multiple impacts on humans and the global environment (Ruigrok, 2011). For instance, it has been established that cotton growing uses almost 15% of the insecticides applied in agriculture and 11% of pesticides (Partzschet al., 2019). These massive costs are somewhat burdening to the small scale farmers, which forces them to extend to extreme ends in attempts to meet them. Such extensions tend to increase their vulnerability to exploitation by exporters and well-to-do farmers. They have increased their economic viability alongside the possibility of being kicked out of the cotton market.
Partzschet al. (2019) denotes that in an attempt to subdue and mitigate these negative impacts concerning cotton growing, both governmental and non-governmental organizations have enacted cotton certification programs on cotton export. The creation of certification programs aims to invent exceptional criteria for preventing environmental harm and increase the current cotton cultivation levels in producing countries. Kloos and Renaud (2014) indicate that the rising prospects on cotton certification have been accelerated by the increasing global production and a subsequent decline of state regulations on environmental and social conditions, specifically in the international arena. Also, it is a requirement that organic products sold in the EU market to have been certified as provided by the European Union Regulation (Partzschet al., 2019). However, these fueled programs have encountered myriads of controversies from both producers and consumers. Proponents of certification programs argue that they are embedded in ensuring environmental sustainability, therefore, reducing the level of harm to humans.
At the same time, their arguments reflect on the case that small farmers and producer groups can access international markets through the internationally accepted certificates as well as receiving product premiums. In this light, Sodjinou et al. (2015) illuminate that certification provides diversified markets for other products other than cotton; for instance, the EU market has produced a significant demand for organic products. According to the Department for International Development (DFID), organic cotton certification is a considerable construct that projects its augmented objectives of reducing poverty in developing countries and increasing sustainable agriculture (Ferrigno et al., 2005). However, DFID notes the existence of policy issues on certification schemes that have not included the resource-poor evident in most developing countries. As DFID notes, this seclusion has resulted in the prevalence of competing and incompatible certifications that have been deemed unfair and unethical in the promotion of trade (Ferrigno et al., 2005). Other researches indicate that the existing EU regulations on certification are too complicated, which forms a barrier for farmers in less developed states, limiting them to access this lucrative market. Besides this, I feel that certification is an opportunity rather than a hindrance to smallholder cotton farmers. The method has been vastly linked with instances of regular incomes to the small scale farmers, whereby they are weak and mainly reliant on the sale of cash crops. More so, the developing countries have exhibited potential benefits from certification through improved developments and boosted economies (Partzsch et al., 2019). In this light, the paper’s prime focus is to evaluate the issues surrounding cotton certification and the impacts it poses on smallholders in Sub Sahara Africa.
Literature Review
What is Cotton Certification Schemes?
Kloos and Renaud (2014) argue that the increased intent to promote corporate social and environmental responsibility towards improving trade and the rising global concern on ecological initiatives gave rise to certification initiatives. In this light, and with attempts fueled to assist producers and consumers comprehend the sustainability light, Liu, Andersen, and Pazderka (2004) explore the various schemes available as either mission-driven or commercially-oriented. Firstly, Liu, Andersen, and Pazderka (2004) indicate that mission-driven programs emphasize on both social and environmental sustainability. Certification tools in this stance are considered to be techniques to assist states in achieving high sustainability goals and outcomes (Liu, Andersen, and Pazderka, 2004). On the other hand, commercially-driven initiatives illuminate the social and environmental efforts that are geared towards securing new markets for organic products. Commercially-driven schemes, as Liu et al. (2004) spotlight, prioritize cooperation with the mission-centered initiatives to develop economies of scale mainly through collaboration and information sharing strategies. Research suggests that governments anticipate these initiatives to coordinate and influence high levels of sustainability. This argument is based on the multiple quality benchmarks stipulated by these schemes regarding environmental and social balance. It is worth noting as established by numerous researches that the governance of these schemes shifted from governmental institutions to Tripartite Standard Regimes (TSRs), which are embedded to contain sustainable agriculture and environmental setting as well. Their main objective is to oversee the set initiatives assist states in achieving sustainability in both the social and environmental sectors. The TSRs focus on standard-setting, accreditation, and certification processes. According to Loconto, Stone, and Busch (2012), standards are measures from which people and organizations are judged. They can either be formal, where they are embedded in-laws and codes of conduct or informal where they resemble norms and habits (Loconto, Stone and Busch, 2012). In this light, certification standards are formal, reflecting on set laws and codes of conduct tailored towards environmental and social sustenance. Certification, on the other hand, encompasses the issuance of assurance documents such as certificates that attest that an audit has been conducted to verify the fulfillment of the stated standards (Loconto, Stone and Busch, 2012). In this case, an international organic certificate is issued to farmers and producer groups that meet the speculated standards of the respective certifying schemes. According to Loconto, Stone, and Busch (2012), accreditation reflects the conduction of certification audits according to the set standards by various crediting bodies. For instance, Harris, Browne, Barrett, and Cadoret (2001) note that the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Accreditation Programme is mandated to accredit schemes and harmonize standards between them to ensure local and international standards are tailored towards a common goal. Harris et al. (2001) establish that the IFOAM Accreditation Program has overseen the EU Regulation rules alongside other certifying initiatives. Through the above processes, limits are set on what is auditable, that is, the set standards, certifiable in meeting the set requirements and accreditation to ensure adherence to the set standards.
Comparison between Different Certification Schemes
According to a report by the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC), cotton is a product susceptible to a range of pests, diseases, and weed infections, which calls for various techniques to counter such impacts. Partzsch et al. (2019) note that these impacts have been linked to inconsistency, especially to environmental sustainability and human survival due to their harmful effects. Due to this issue, Partzsch et al. (2019) have explored the development of various certification mechanisms to ensure the production of cotton is environmentally and human friendly. The dominant certification agencies have strived and still are trying to accomplish their set objectives while encouraging the production and use of organic products. Research indicates that the Best Cotton Initiative (BCI) focuses on six basic principles that encompass both its inclusion and exclusion criteria on its optimal objectives towards better cotton production (BCI, 2013a). It is a multi-stakeholder initiative that partners with USAID, H &M, and IKEA.
The BCI exclusion criteria reflect on efficient water use where the crops are subjected to as much water as possible. Further, Sodjinou et al. (2015) indicate that the BCI aims at minimizing the harmful impacts that arise from crop protection strategies such as the use of pesticides and insecticides. The initiative implores firms to care for the soil health while ensuring the conservation of natural habitats (BCI, 2013a). More importantly, (BCI, 2013a), the initiative is concerned about the adoption of decent work among the workers as provided by the International Labor Organization standards on work.
However, Partzsch et al. (2019) argue that due to the prevalence of complexity to align with these principles, the BCI has opted for two crucial criteria for firms and smallholder farmers to meet. First, the firms must adhere to and meet the minimum requirements, encompassing production, management, and reporting criteria (BCI, 2013a). Further, improved specifications are vested expectations for smallholder organic cotton producers. Also, through the Better Cotton Assurance Programme, the BCI has helped reduce the burden infringed on producers and firms as they strive to comply with its stated principles. The program provides incentives for producers to continuously improve their performance towards minimum requirements (Sodjinou et al., 2015). The Assurance program also acts as an oversight mechanism for the BCI in ensuring that the set principles are observed.
On the other hand, the European Union (EU) organic regulation outlines empirical criteria for cotton products denoted with the EU Ecolabel. The EU Regulation is governed under the European Commission. According to the European Commission decision of 2014, all organically-labeled cotton products need to meet the prescribed requirements as stipulated by the EU Regulation (EC) no. 834/2007. The minimum standards constitute soil treatment procedures and preservation of its fertility (European Commission, 2014). At the same time, Partzsch et al. (2019) notice that the Commission established a restraint on plant protection products and seed materials as well as cleaning products. However, Harris, Browne, Barrett, and Cadoret (2001) note the existence of complexity for both agricultural firms and producer organizations in complying with these set standards. Among the infringements include high costs to obtain certification and complexity of knowledge to comprehend and demonstrate and equivalence with the EU regulations (Harris et al., 2001). Also, Partzsch et al. (2019) stipulate the existence of pre-judgment on the inapplicability and rigidity of the EU regulations. Most farmers tend to think that such provisions are not compatible with their situations. As Harris et al. (2001) indicate, this is an existing challenge in most Third World countries.
Further, studies have established that the prevalence of record-keeping difficulties in most illiterate farmers hinders them from achieving certification. Also, there are complicated procedures during the filing process for accreditation, which encompass indecisions on choosing the best certifier.
Fortunately, Gavenauskas, Pekarskas, and Jančius (2019) stipulate that, above these complexities, the EU Regulation has identified potential mechanisms to counter them and help farmers achieve more diligently certification with fewer strains. For instance, Gavenauskas, Pekarskas, and Jančius (2019) argue that since the cost has been identified as a significant setback that limits the involvement of farmers in organic trade, local certification and inspection has been prescribed as an alternative and leaner way to obtain accreditation (Harris et al., 2001). Harris et al. (2001) also note that the method is most preferred since quite a percentage of smallholder farmers in Sub Saharan Africa are illiterate; therefore, the technique is more suitable for them. Additionally, Meinshausen et al. (2019) argue that the EU has encouraged the use of group certification and inspection where farmers are encouraged to form producer groups or cooperatives and apply certification through them. Moreover, the EU member states confided on the need for smallholder cotton producers to seek external financial (European Commission, 2014).
Likewise, the Cotton made in Africa (CmiA) initiative focuses on two sectors, the inclusion criteria which encompass minimum and improvement requirements and the exclusion criteria. CmiA requires farmers to maintain soil fertility and ensure water protection (CmiA, 2015). At the same time, Partzsch et al. (2019) note that CmiA implores on the need for transparency regarding prices advanced to farmers, especially by the exporter organizations or by the producer firms. Also, Partzsch et al. (2019), establish that the initiative provides a range for farm size, which measures at 1-3 hectares of land. Further, the scheme has been attributed to prohibiting discrimination at the workplace following the stipulations by the International Labour Organization (ILO) (CmiA, 2015). The separation of the above criteria served as a way to motivate smallholder farmers to adapt the farming the right farming methods (CmiA, 2015). Also, it was a strategy aimed at urging the cotton companies to process their role materials in an ecologically sustainable way to avoid economic and social pollution and damage.
The Impact of Cotton Certification on Smallholder Farmers in SSA
According to Kuitand Waarts (2014), it has established its essentialness and the general benefit available to small-scale farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. It is also evident that no organic production system can expand reasonably without organic certification since it is a recommended standard for most international trade organizations without which the marketability of such products is in vain (Kuit and Waarts, 2014). Mensah, Vodouhe, Sanfillippo, Assogba, and Monday (2012) have established that despite the constraints existing on the certification process, the massive benefits of having an internationally accepted certification are beyond ignorance for both producer groups and smallholder farmers. The benefits of organic certification come in hand with vast economic benefits alongside others (Oya, Schaefer, Skalidou, McCosker, and Langer, 2017). For instance, Oya et al. (2017) reveal that smallholder farmers receive premium price benefits for their exported products. Oya et al. (2017) have also established that the premium prices incorporate the costs of production alongside the expenses incurred during certification, which often acts as a compensation scheme to smallholder cotton farmers. As Barrett et al. (2001) illuminate, organic certification has provided a higher advantage of market accessibility and enlargement to smallholders. For instance, Mensah et al. (2012) indicate that farmers have attested to the added value from the organic certification where their access to external markets has been simplified. At the same time, studies explored that market accessibility has induced the development of domestic markets where the organic systems have led to the production of other products sold in local markets. Through this, smallholder farmers can gain additional incomes to sustain their operations and meet other expenses.
Additionally, Ruigrok (2011) establishes that cotton certification has been linked to increased employment opportunities for the locals in sub-Saharan Africa. Through local processing activities, numerous jobs have been created by the processing industries, which have assisted in offering an alternative, if not the primary, livelihood for most people. Meinshausen et al. (2019) argue that the presence of these non-traditional agricultural-based industries within local societies has created reliable livelihood opportunities that have invoked better living standards for all humans. Also, increased incomes have resulted in social developments in these rural areas as well as increased trading activities (Tallontire, Nelson, Dixon, and Benton, 2012). The certification has also led to the establishment of multiplier effects where the following industries are being developed in the local communities (Barrett et al., 2001). Tallontire et al. (2012) also spotlight the efficiency of the cotton certification to stimulating the development of contributory industries like seed mix, organic fertilizer supply, and vast business opportunities to various states. Further, Ruigrok (2011) has attributed organic certification to increased environmental knowledge among smallholder farmers.
Meinshausen et al. (2019) highlight that farmers are organically certified and learn how to apply environmentally sustainable approaches in their farming practices. Also, Meinshausen et al. (2019) establish that organically certified farmers have contributed to accelerated social capital where the social groups formed during certification have a broader knowledge of organization management, marketing, and financial planning and organic practices. Barrett et al. (2001) also clarify that the existing rigorous requirements by international certification have impacted the group members with a vast knowledge that still contribute to the group’s social capital. Further, Harris et al. (2001) have established that the accreditation has assisted resource-poor farmers in remaining competitive in the market. Barrett et al. (2001) have explored the ability of organic certification to attract donor interventions, which have enabled most developing states to thrive in terms of agriculture and other developments through extended aid and funding. Besides these robust benefits, Meinshausen et al. (2019) have identified the potentials of costs incurred by smallholder farmers that do not compare with the benefits. Cases of high expense and sophisticated methods have been attributed to obtaining organic certification (Meinshausen et al., 2019). Also, Barrett et al. (2001) note that the complexity and the bureaucratic nature of the procedures that revolve around the certification process have negatively impacted the locals. However, Barrett et al. (2001) argue that several certification schemes have adopted lucrative measures to help smallholder farmers overcome these impacts.
The role of State at Facilitating Cotton Production
Over the years, research indicates that cotton has been described as a significant foreign exchange earner for many countries across sub-Saharan Africa. Also, it has been attributed to accelerating a considerable amount of income to the rural people and, more importantly, to the smallholder farmers in these regions (Africa, 2017). Sneyd (2011) stipulates that the product has been termed as a critical construct in the synthesis of rural development. Further, Chauvin and Porto (n.d.) have established that the World Bank and other development institutions have refocused their efforts in multi-faceting numerous cotton exporting countries within the SSA. This is to improve their performance in the cotton sector, mainly through investment projects and institutional reforms. In this light, Tschirley, Poulton, and Labaste (2009) indicate the impactful role assumed by the state governments of the cotton-producing regions in an attempt to implement various reforms to consolidate and improve coffee production. According to Sneyd (2011), the ultimate objective of the enactment of such changes is to strengthen the competitiveness of processes such as cotton production, processing, and exportation in the rapidly accelerating demand market for the product. Also, Tschirley, Poulton, and Labaste (2009) note that these efforts are tailored towards achieving a long-term, sustainable, and equitable economic development of the African Countries. Firstly, research indicates that states have recognized the role of cotton production in the economy through the implementation of support systems to stimulate their productivity (Tschirley et al., 2009). At the same time, these governments are increasing access to services and innovations for cotton farmers to offer them integrated ideas on better methods of production (Tschirley et al., 2009). Likewise, states have emphasized the need for organic certification on both farmers and producer firms to assist them in accessing broader international markets. In light of this, Ruigrok (2011) indicates the impetus role played by such states to fund their farmers on the costs incurred during certification (Africa, 2017).
Moreover, the provision of incentives to smallholder cotton farmers and other producer firms and groups has helped decrease the cost burden of production while building support systems and chains for cotton market opportunities (Tschirley et al., 2009). Also, Chauvin and Porto (n.d.) shows that the governments have decided to invest in the development of regional textile industries in SSA, which has availed substantial markets such as the presence of local demand for cotton products. This has been made essential by the availability of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, where these states may obtain funding for such long-term projects (Chauvin & Porto, n.d.).
Additionally, the SSA states have delved into numerous research and developmental innovations tailored to identify advanced methods for fostering improved cotton production (Africa, 2017). Moreover, Tschirley et al. (2009) indicate that these states have taken into consideration the environmental precautions stipulated by various certification schemes such as the European Union Regulation that insist on producing environmentally-friendly organic products. This policy is tailored to improve the living standards of smallholder farmers by combating the issues associated with the use of chemicals such as insecticides and fertilizers that pose health challenges. Furthermore, Tschirley et al. (2009) establish that these governments are advocating and encouraging more involvement of the private sector in the organic production to foster increased competition which will undoubtedly induce more quality products. However, Tschirley et al. (2009) point out that state-controlled state models have been linked to overregulation in the cotton sector. In an attempt to counter such issues, states like Benin, Burkina Faso enacted Interprofessional Committees (IPCs), which would take over monitoring and controlling responsibility in the cotton supply chains. Also, Tschirley et al. (2009) express that the IPCs were empowered to regulate relations between stakeholders, mainly for funding and critical functions. Unfortunately, Tschirley et al. (2009) note that the functioning of the IPCs was still limited since the final decision remained with the government.
Case Study of Cotton Certification in Benin
Located in West Africa, Benin is a small country that borders the Gulf of Guinea and the Ocean to the South as well as Niger, Togo, and Burkina Faso. The country has a stable climate, which is tropically humid, especially to the South, and hence is efficient for the cultivation of cotton and other agricultural products. The country is known for its extreme cases of poverty due to poor infrastructure, which has frequently attracted foreign aids over the years (Sneyd, 2011). Half of Benin’s population is dependent on agriculture as a means of livelihood while focusing on crops such as corn, pineapple, cashew nuts, and legumes. The major export products are pineapple and cashew nuts, with cotton as the leading agricultural export and the primary foreign exchange earner to the country (Kloos& Renaud, 2014). Since the adoption of organic cotton cultivation, which was initiated by the Beninese government and the Dutch government agencies, saw the country transit from subsistent farming and, depending on aids to a self-financing scheme. The organic cotton network became self-reliant, market-oriented, and primarily scaled (Africa, 2017). Through the Organization for the Promotion of Organic Agriculture, OBEPAB, the country has managed to produce environmentally sustainable cotton, which has accelerated its cotton value chain (Mensah et al., 2012). With the launch of the Fairtrade label certification in 2005 by the French industrial and institutional partners, the country was promised better prices than their then-current markets. The Fairtrade Labelling Organization (FLO) facilitated an increased demand of Benin two times higher than the previous years. However, in 2015, many producer cooperatives were unable to market their cotton under the Fairtrade label due to the non-payment of certification costs. The situation caused a massive loss of productivity due to a lack of available consumers, which resulted in damage to produce and a decline in the established products (Sodjinou et al., 2015). The causal reason for the failure of market acceptability for the product was due to the increased use of chemicals in cotton production (Sodjinou et al., 2015). Besides the ban on the use of some pesticides and insecticides by the Beninese government, some farmers still illegally imported it from Nigeria since they could not afford the recommended chemicals (Sodjinou et al., 2015). The application of chemicals resulted in massive defects in human health, where 20% of the people succumbed to food poisoning as a result of the same. Also, Sodjinou et al. (2015) note that there was increased environmental pollution in the cases of rivers where the run-offs deposited pesticides into them, causing more harm to humans and animals. However, the incorporation of the CmiA (Cotton made in Africa) initiative was a transition phase for Benin’s smallholder cotton farmers. The CmiaA initiative is a common and best certification in Benin and among the sub-Saharan countries due to its constant involvement with NGOs. The scheme has been attributed to best focus on the interest of the smallholder farmers, which have enabled them to thrive in cotton production as well as vast access markets (CmiA, 2015). Simultaneously, the method offers exquisite criteria for farmers and improvement alternatives, which have helped increase productivity. The scheme’s main objective was to improve the Benin smallholder cotton farmers’ livelihood through better agricultural practices and to link with vast market chains. With these efforts, the CmiA policy aimed at enhancing environmental, social, and economic sustainability in the long run.CmiA scheme was geared towards the inclusion of the resource-poor farmers in Benin in the lucrative trading activities both in Africa and internationally while incorporating other standards from the international initiatives such as the European Union Regulations. The CmiA criteria advocated for the maintenance of soil fertility through the use of organic manure and environmentally friendly chemicals. According to CmiA (2015), the exclusion criteria stipulated minimum requirements such as the ban on slavery, human trafficking, child labor and all forms of exploitation on them, and deforestation of the primary forest around Benin. It is worth noting that the exclusion criteria were based on environmental sustainability, social rights on the work schedule stated by the ILO, and per the consumer preferences for sustainability. It also advocated for water protection since most of the Beninese farmers relied on irrigation as a significant source of water for cultivation (CmiA, 2015). At the same time, the initiative implored for transparency concerning the prices advanced to the farmers, especially by the producer cooperatives and exporters to avoid discrimination form international trade (CmiA, 2015). The CmiA production systems took effect majorly in Pehunco, an area in North Benin where cotton was produced on a large scale compared to other 77 cotton-producing municipalities. According to Assogba, Tossou, Lebailly, and Magnon (2014), the emphasis of the CmiA was entangled on urging farmers in these areas to adopt farming practices that focused on environmentally-friendly standards which would protect the environment and increase the demand for cotton in international markets. With the help of OBEPAB and Helvetas-Benin NGOs, the production of certified organic cotton was successful over the years of operation. Assogba et al. (2014) explain that the CmiA production systems advocated for a combination of organic and mineral fertilizers instead of exclusively mineral fertilizers to improve soil fertility. The systems incorporated the use of the method of scale and target fight “Lutteétagéeciblée (LEC) as a means to fight pests instead of relying on pesticides. According to Assogba et al. (2014), the method applied sustainable intensification, which employed physical, human, social, and available technologies and inputs that minimized the damage to the environment. In this light, the sustainability intensification led to an enthralled outcome that benefited and continues to benefit Beninese farmers to date, as shown in Figure 1.
However, the initiative posted infringements to the smallholder farmers due to the high costs of obtaining certification. At the same time, the method posted challenges to farmers, especially in the strict application of specific fertilizers and pesticides. Mensah et al. (2012) indicate that the country has faced massive threats from a lack of effective pest control systems. This has resulted in a massive decline in production quantities and profit margins to the farmers (Mensah et al., 2012). According to the Benin Food Production (BFP), the invention of some insecticides still was not an appropriate measure since they even posed harm to the farmers (Mensah et al., 2012). Therefore, the incorporation of the cotton made in Africa initiative was a great advantage to the farmers as it provided a better means for pest control. It is empirical to note that Beninese farmers have economic complications; hence meeting these requirements was a bit difficult for them. Also, the complexity of certification procedures was swampy for the locals due to Benin’s high illiteracy levels (Sodjinou et al., 2015). Also, farmers were reluctant to adopt the certification regulations since they felt it did not apply to them (Sneyd, 2011). However, since CmiA was a local certification initiative, the incorporation of local languages as interpretive mechanisms was not problematic. Also, the initiative’s continuous liaison with non-governmental organizations enabled the farmers to obtain incentives and extra funding to meet certification costs as well as other expenses (CmiA, 2015).
In collaboration with the Competitive Africa Cotton Initiative (COMPACI), the scheme availed constant training for framers in both agriculture and business sectors on the need to adopt environmentally-sustainable farming. The training focused on crop rotation strategies, application of pesticide management, minimizing pesticide use, and disasters resulting from them through proper use, storage, and disposal of used containers (Assogba et al., 2014). At the same time, the scheme offered capacity support to companies through loans and inputs on credit, which ensured continued thrust on cotton production (CmiA, 2015). Also, the program, through its increased engagement with the NGOs and the COMPACI, was involved in several developmental projects that earnestly contributed to the growth of Benin. For instance, through private and public funding, the CmiA assisted in infrastructure development for schools and promoted women cooperatives in the rural cotton-growing areas.
While incorporating sustainable measures
Fig. 1: Showing the CmiA production system and its impact on farmers (Assogba et al., 2014).
The above figure showcases the production system concerning CmiA. The inputs reflect the ones available and those availed to farmers by CmiA. While considering its sustainable measures, such as reducing environmental impact, intention to achieve food security, and efficient application of inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, the scheme achieved remarkable results. Increased cotton production in Benin’s production municipalities, high incomes for farmers and the community at large, and better nutrition due to fewer cases of food poisoning were among its accomplishments. Indeed, the scheme’s efforts and impact were felt and still are even after Benin was suspended from the CmiA program in 2013 after her government changed the framework conditions for cotton production, which the CmiA felt did not meet its sustainability objectives.
Conclusion
Cotton production in sub-Saharan Africa has had impactful effects on the economies of the cultivating states and the people. As a significant cash crop which most of the populations are dependent on, the product has been linked to high levels of income, increased development of the economies, increased trading activities, and better living standards. This has also been accelerated by the enactment of the organic certification both at the local and international levels. The certification was initiated by the rapidly rising demand for organic produce in the UK and European regions. With developing countries as leading suppliers for natural products such as cotton, spices, and coffee, organic certification was a necessity, among others. Also, the rising demand tagged along with the need for the production of less harmful and environmentally sustainable products. In this light, the European Union Regulation and other Certification schemes such as the cotton made in Africa (CmiA), Better Cotton Initiative, and the Fairtrade Cotton came up.
The schemes constituted standards to be met by smallholder farmers for them to obtain certification. Also, there existed accreditation organizations such as the IFOAM Accreditation Program that harmonized each initiative’s standard and certification requirements. The schemes availed vast benefits to farmers, especially in terms of premium prices, increased market accessibility, and assisted them to remain competitive in the market. At the same time, the certification extended a modicum of knowledge to smallholders on environmentally sustainable farming approaches and the subsequent need to adhere to them to curtail instances of food poisoning, which claimed many lives, especially in Benin. Also, the certification has helped African states and other cotton-producing countries attract donor interventions which have assisted in developmental funding projects. Their economies have also expanded tremendously since the adoption of the certification due to increased productivity, which has resulted in market recognition and improved demand chains. However, cotton certification presented complexities such as high compliance costs and redundancies in the understanding of their regulations by the illiterate farmers. Fortunately, the certification schemes such as the EU Regulation opted to encourage local certification and inspection as well as urging farmers to access alternative financial sources to help them comply with the regulations. This attracted states to encourage farmers to adopt certifications to increase productivity continuously. Through this, countries have offered incentives, constant regulations on organic agriculture and trade, as well as standardization measures to ensure requirements are met. Indeed, organic certification has revolutionized developing countries and still is. While Africa is dependent on agriculture, the certification has helped improve its quality, which will be witnessed over the next decades.
References
Africa, S.S., 2017. Restarting the Growth Engine.
Afrikrea, 2020. (Accessed 22 May 2020).
https://www.afrikrea.com/en/article/benin-woven-loincloth-table-set-in-cotton-and-bamboo-and-embroidery-set-of-2-table-cloth-sets-red-cotton-wood/S6L3LAY
Assogba, S.C.G., Tossou, R.C., Lebailly, P., and Magnon, Y., 2014. Sustainable intensification of agriculture in Benin: myth or reality? Lessons from organic and cotton made in Africa production systems. International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research, 2(5), pp.694-704.
Barrett, H.R., Browne, A.W., Harris, P.J.C., and Cadoret, K., 2001. Smallholder farmers and organic certification: Accessing the EU market from the developing world. Biological agriculture & horticulture, 19(2), pp.183-199.
BCI, 2013a. Better Cotton Production Principles &Criteria Explained. Better Cotton Initiative. Better Cotton. [Online] Available at https://bettercotton.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2014/01/Better-Cotton-Production-Principles-and-Criteria-Explained_Final-2013_ eng_ext.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2020.
Benin Cosmostore, 2020. (Accessed 22 May 2020) https://bj.cosmostore.org/catalog/product/perfumed_handcraft_candle_-_cotton_flower_190273/
Chauvin, N.D. and Porto, G., Supply chains in export agriculture, competition, and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa: A new CEPR/World Bank book.
CmiA, 2015. Criteria Matrix: Version 3.1. Cotton Made in Africa.CmiA [Online] Available at https://www.cottonmadeinafrica.org/de/deutsch-docs/cmia-standard/cmia-standard-3/130-1-cmia-criteria-matrix. Accessed 20 May 2020.
Council, E., 2007. Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labeling of natural products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Off. J. Eur. Union, 189, pp.1-23.
European Commission, 2014. Commission Decision of 5 June 2014 Establishing the Ecological Criteria for the Award of the EU Ecolabel for TextileProducts:2014/ 350/EU.
Ferrigno, S., Ratter, S.G., Ton, P., Vodouhe, D.S., Williamson, S., and Wilson, J., 2005. Organic cotton: A new development path for African smallholders? GATEKEEPER SERIES-INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL LIVELIHOODS PROGRAMME, 120.
Gavenauskas, A., Pekarskas, J. and Jančius, R., 2019. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION CONTEXT. ББК 4 С 56, p.280.
Harris, P.J.C., Browne, A.W., Barrett, H.R., and Cadoret, K., 2001. Facilitating the inclusion of the resource-poor in organic production and trade: Opportunities and constraints posed by certification. Contract Number CNTR 00, 1301.
Kloos, J., and Renaud, F.G., 2014. Organic cotton production as an adaptation option in north-west Benin. Outlook on Agriculture, 43(2), pp.91-100.
Kuit, M., and Waarts, Y., 2014. Small-scale farmers, certification schemes, and private standards: Is there a business case?CTA.
Lakhal, S.Y., Sidibé, H., and H’Mida, S., 2008. Comparing conventional and certified organic cotton supply chains: the case of Mali. International journal of agricultural resources, governance, and ecology, 7(3), pp.243-255.
Liu, P., Andersen, M., and Pazderka, C., 2004. Voluntary standards and certification for environmentally and socially responsible agricultural production and trade (No. 5). Food & Agriculture, Org.
Loconto, A., Stone, J.V., and Busch, L., 2012. Tripartite standards regime. The Wiley‐Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization.
Meinshausen, F., Richter, T., Blockeel, J., and Huber, B., 2019. Group Certification. Internal Control Systems in Organic Agriculture: Significance, Opportunities, and Challenges.
Mensah, R.K., Vodouhe, D.S., Sanfilippo, D., Assogba, G., and Monday, P., 2012. Increasing organic cotton production in Benin West Africa with a supplementary food spray product to manage pests and beneficial insects. International Journal of Pest Management, 58(1), pp.53-64.
Partzsch, L., Zander, M., and Robinson, H., 2019. Cotton certification in Sub-Saharan Africa: Promotion of environmental sustainability or greenwashing?Global Environmental Change, 57, p.101924.
Ruigrok, W., 2011. From Niche to Mass Markets: Rival Strategies in Promoting Fair Trade Organic Commodity Chains. Analyse&Kritik, 33(1), pp.213-234.
Sodjinou, E., Glin, L.C., Nicolay, G., Tovignan, S., and Hinvi, J., 2015. Socio-economic determinants of organic cotton adoption in Benin, West Africa. Agricultural and Food Economics, 3(1), p.12.
Sneyd, A.,2011.GoverningCotton: Globalisation and Poverty in Africa. Palgrave Macmillan UK, Basingstoke, NewYork.
Oya, C., Schaefer, F., Skalidou, D., McCosker, C., and Langer, L., 2017. Effects of certification schemes for agricultural production on socio-economic outcomes in low‐and middle‐income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13(1), pp.1-346.
Tallontire, A., Nelson, V., Dixon, J., and Benton, T.G., 2012. A review of the literature and knowledge of standards and certification systems in agricultural production and farming systems (NRI working paper series on sustainability standards No. 2).
Tschirley, D., Poulton, C. and Labaste, P. eds., 2009. Organization and performance of cotton sectors in Africa: Learning from reform experience. The World Bank.
Afrikrea, 2020. (Accessed 22 May 2020).
https://www.afrikrea.com/en/article/benin-woven-loincloth-table-set-in-cotton-and-bamboo-and-embroidery-set-of-2-table-cloth-sets-red-cotton-wood/S6L3LAY