Deforestation and the conversion of natural ecosystems are inextricably linked to the biodiversity crisis and climate breakdown, making them a defining challenge of our era.

But what do we mean when we talk about deforestation and conversion? What kind of ecosystems are we talking about, and does it still count if we’re planting trees in their place? At Textile Exchange, we define these terms in alignment with the Accountability Framework, an initiative that specializes in helping to transform supply chains to protect forests, natural habitats, and human rights.

As such, deforestation is defined as the loss of natural forest due to agriculture, tree plantations, or any other non-forest land use, as well as any other severe and sustained degradation.

While the terms have significant overlap, conversion specifically refers to the change of a natural ecosystem to another land use, severe degradation, or the introduction of management practices that result in substantial and sustained change in the ecosystem’s former species composition, structure, or function.

The role of the leather industry in driving deforestation

It’s estimated that 420 million hectares of forest – about 10% of the world’s remaining forests and an area larger than the European Union – have been lost worldwide between 1990 and 2020 (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization).

Deforestation has many causes, but cattle rearing is considered one of the most significant drivers. Between 2001-2015, 57% of tree cover loss was linked to just seven agricultural commodities, with cattle alone accounting for 36% (World Resources Institute). Although beef production is the primary reason for cattle farming, the leather industry also has an important opportunity to drive change. Nowadays, permanent deforestation caused by the expansion of cattle ranching happens mostly in South America, which is a major sourcing region for leather.

Unfortunately, land is currently worth more to producers when the trees are cut down and converted for productive purposes. Cattle ranching is often the go-to option due to low input costs, minimal labor requirements, and rising market demand.

When thinking about accountability for deforestation, it’s important to acknowledge the acute financial pressures that producers face, and the real opportunity costs that preserving forests and natural ecosystems would cause them.

This is why producers need genuine incentives to protect their forests and natural ecosystems. It’s vital that the responsibility of protecting forests and ecosystems is shared equitably across the whole supply chain, as well as between majority and minority world countries.

The traceability problem

Consumer brands sourcing leather have a prime opportunity to leverage their influence to prevent deforestation and change the industry for the better. However, at present, the leather supply chains pose major barriers when it comes addressing impacts at the farm level – especially considering the length of the supply chain itself, and the multiple steps involved in transforming raw hide into finished leather products.

Starting at the very beginning, it’s common for animals to live on several farms throughout their lifetime. They may be born on one farm, raised to maturity on another, then sent to another for fattening before they go to slaughter. Movement between these farms is only tracked in a handful of countries.

At the slaughterhouse stage, very few have systems in place to link hides back to the animals they came from. Typically, hides are collected and sent for preservation, after which they may be shipped all around the world. Traders are often involved at this stage, posing further challenges for traceability.

Once the skins are preserved, they may be sent far and wide for further processing.Hides will pass through the hands of processors, traders, subcontractors, and more. Most brands will be buying from product manufacturers, and few will have clear visibility further along their supply chain.

Demand for leather is not going to disappear overnight. This is why we need system-level industry transformation so that brands can map their supply chains and source verified deforestation-free leather.

New legislation is changing the rules of the game, but more action is needed

The new European Union Deforestation-Free Regulation (EUDR) applies to major industries like palm oil, soy, cocoa, coffee, cattle-derived products, and more. For leather, it will require any tanned leather, hides, and skins imported into the EU to meet their due diligence requirements, ensuring they’re not linked to deforestation after the cut-off date of December 31, 2020. Any areas that are deforested after this date will be deemed non-compliant, along with the associated commodities. This sends a strong market signal and allows brands to set precise, actionable, and measurable commitments.

These due diligence requirements will apply to all stages of the supply chain (going all the way to cow/calf producers for leather) and will require verification of deforestation-free status and geolocation date. 

This means the EUDR is set to be a powerful tool for driving action across the global supply chain. However, most change will be seen in Europe. Unfortunately, for high-risk regions like Brazil, it will be impossible for many supply chains to implement the traceability and verification needed to comply.

Reliance on new legislation is not enough in high-risk areas. To support farm-level change in these areas, brands need to go beyond divestment, and instead take direct action through well-planned investments.

What brands can do to transform leather supply chains

Divesting from high-risk regions may minimize individual brands’ deforestation impacts in the short term, but ultimately, this is not a long-term solution for accelerating industry-wide change. It’s vital that brands and retailers invest and engage in solutions that are designed to stop deforestation and conversion linked to leather sourcing.  

To galvanize action and to enable brands to catalyze positive change, Textile Exchange has launched the Deforestation-Free Call to Action for Leather, in partnership with Leather Working Group (LWG). This means we’re asking brands to commit to sourcing their bovine leather from deforestation-free supply chains by 2030 or earlier.

The initiative takes an ambitious, yet practical approach, providing a clear path for brands to help create equitable, transparent, and deforestation-free supply chains. Achieving this will be a complex and lengthy process, which is why it is designed to support brands throughout the journey, helping them tackle the challenge from multiple angles. For example, brands will receive tools and guidance on how to set leather sourcing requirements; set and meet supply chain targets; respect human rights; implement traceability; make constructive investments; and report on their progress along the way.

Collaboration is key

We realize that reaching this 2030 target will require significant time, investment, and resources from the start. It will also require brands to foster close relationships with suppliers and producers. The more that we can work together and spread the responsibility with pre-competitive collaboration, the closer we will come to making traceable and deforestation-free cattle farms the norm, and ultimately paving the way for a resilient and equitable future.

This need for partnership applies at every level, which is why we aim to leverage and add value to existing efforts in the beef and leather industry. Stakeholder engagement has been crucial to the development of the Deforestation-Free Call to Action for Leather, along with input from an NGO advisory group including the National Wildlife Federation, the WWF, and the Accountability Framework initiative, as well as a brand advisory group made up of leather brands and retailers from sectors such as fashion, automotive, and furnishings.

It is encouraging to see other initiatives happening across the industry, from local governments and slaughterhouses working to develop solutions, to projects such as Tapestry Foundation, who have set up a grant with WWF to support responsible leather supply chains in Brazil. There is also the Traceability Cluster, led by Cotance (the association of European tanneries) who are bringing the leather industry together to establish traceability solutions. Textile Exchange is closely aligned with these projects, along with the EUDR.

In essence, the Deforestation-Free Call to Action for Leather works as a funnel that brings together these various efforts, striving to promote alignment in terms of targets and approaches. As with any issue that is systemic in nature, the problem of deforestation can only be solved with strong partnerships and collaboration.

The post Combatting Deforestation from the Start of the Leather Supply Chain appeared first on Textile Exchange.

The Best Practice series sees Textile Exchange tap industry insiders to share their expertise on specialist subjects, highlighting the actions taken from the perspective of those at the forefront of these conversations.

For this edition, we speak to PANGAIA about building a brand with regenerative and innovative materials at its foundation, and what scaling these fibers sustainably looks like on the ground.

Founded in 2018, PANGAIA is both a fashion label and a materials science company. As a collective of scientists, designers, technologists, and creatives, its hybrid business model is founded on interdisciplinary collaboration, paving the way for what it calls an Earth Positive future.

The company’s approach is holistic and multifaceted, looking at ways of improving materials and systems of production at multiple levels. This ranges from investing in lower-impact, regenerative, and circular methods to creating a suite of revolutionary, patented fibers and materials. In doing so, its goal is to become net-zero by 2040 across Scopes 1-3.

Speaking with Textile Exchange, the PANGAIA Collective explained that it is “focused on investing in the future and finding problem-solving material innovations.” As such, it tackles the negative impacts of production at the raw material source, seeking to transform the industry from the start of the supply chain.

“PANGAIA is focused on investing in the future and finding problem-solving material innovations.”

When it comes to sourcing familiar materials such as cotton, PANGAIA is working to evolve existing systems and drive forward production models that not only reduce negative environmental and social impacts, but also give back more than they take from nature.

While its goal is for all virgin cotton to be grown using regenerative farming by 2026, the company’s In Conversion Cotton Capsule range represents the beginning of this journey, supporting farmers as they shift to practices that restore soil health and biodiversity. The emphasis on “in conversion” shows that this is an ongoing process, and switching to regenerative agriculture needn’t mean disrupting production or changing suppliers.

Along with this transparency also comes the recognition that terms like “regenerative” need clear definitions – without which, “buzzwords can become misleading and actually set back efforts,” according to PANGAIA. Seeing as best practices and desired outcomes vary greatly depending on the context, the company notes that “the very concept of regenerative systems means that a holistic approach must be taken, grounded in the needs and knowledge of direct practitioners such as farmers and growers, rather than prescribing a single set of requirements or practices.”

“The very concept of regenerative systems means that a holistic approach must be taken, grounded in the needs and knowledge of direct practitioners such as farmers and growers.”

Aside from committing to more responsible sourcing practices, PANGAIA takes a disruptive approach by developing pioneering alternative materials. Its team of scientists and partner laboratories has created an extensive range of bio-based solutions, with eight new materials launched in 2021. These include FLWRDWN, an alternative to feathers and synthetic down made from wildflowers, FRUTFIBER, designed to replace cotton by combining bamboo lyocell with pineapple and banana leaf – both by-products of the food industry – and PLNTFIBER, which uses plants such as Himalayan nettle, bamboo, eucalyptus, and seaweed.

It’s clear that biomimicry is key to the company’s creative strategy. Its designs are driven by what the company calls “high-tech naturalism”, which looks to harness systems already existing in nature (for example, carbon, agricultural waste, or microorganisms) to create something entirely new.

This fusion of nature and technology is especially evident in products developed in the PANGAIA Lab, launched in 2021. This is home to revolutionary fibers such as Brewed Protein, a bio-based alternative to animal fibers like wool or cashmere, created through a fermentation process using microbes.

Since the company invents ground-breaking alternatives, this in turn has also prompted it to become a leader in developing systems for data collection and analysis; conducting life cycle assessments on all its materials.

“We need many industries and partners to champion adoption of more responsible practices, production, and consumption on a global scale.”

Despite spearheading a hybrid business model that not only leads the way with responsible sourcing but also invests in tech start-ups, early-stage research, and life cycle assessments, the company still recognizes that there’s a long way to go. PANGAIA expressed that “we need many industries and partners to champion the adoption of more responsible practices, production, and consumption on a global scale.”

Of course, not all brands have capacity to invest in materials science to the level of PANGAIA, but all brands can match its commitment to climate-positive action. To achieve this, the inevitable process of refining a sustainability roadmap is something to be embraced – not avoided.

Aside from bringing environmental benefits, diversifying fibers also has the potential to reinforce a more resilient supply chain. PANGAIA’s efforts should serve to galvanize other industry actors to instigate a just transition toward more responsible raw materials sourcing, production, and innovation.

The post Scaling Materials Science in Fashion Supply Chains with PANGAIA appeared first on Textile Exchange.

The interviews are hosted by La Rhea Pepper, Textile Exchange’s Co-Founder and Catalyst. As a fifth-generation organic cotton farmer from West Texas, La Rhea holds a strong personal connection to the land, and has seen first-hand the environmental impacts of growing fibers and materials.

In this first episode, La Rhea speaks with Patrick Brown, a fourth-generation farmer in North Carolina from Brown Family Farms. His farm can be traced back to his great-grandfather, who became a sharecropper there after escaping slavery. Patrick’s grandfather then gained ownership of the land, and his family still owns a portion of it to this day.

Audio

Listen to the interview

Patrick speaks about how he has added industrial hemp to his portfolio, and is focusing on limiting synthetic inputs to the land as well as increasing soil conservation practices. He also founded Connect Group LLC which advocates for the inclusion of minority farm ownership in agricultural legislation.

Watch Video

Close video

La Rhea: We’d love to hear a little bit about the history of your farm, your roots, and the journey to where you are today with your family farm.  

Patrick: We’re about 20 miles away from the original location where my great grandfather, Byron Brown, who was the first-generation farmer, was a slave, and after being enslaved, became a sharecropper. After the time of sharecropping up until his death in 1831, my grandfather Grover Brown, utilized the land that he sharecropped and gained ownership of it. It is the land that my father, the third-generation farmer, farmed and it is where we farm today as the fourth generation.

We were born and raised on tobacco crops, those were our cash crop programs. That is what clothed us and fed us. And basically where I learned hard work in agriculture. After my father’s retirement is when I looked into pesticide-free, herbicide-free programs and incorporating industrial hemp fiber, textile grade, into our farming portfolio to be a diversified crop to help with soil improvements as well as fertility.  

We’re about 20 miles away from the original location where my great grandfather, Byron Brown, who was the first-generation farmer, was a slave, and after being enslaved, became a sharecropper.

La Rhea: What led you to looking at hemp as an opportunity and what was your learning curve there?  

Patrick: When I first started growing hemp, it was more focused on the medicinal side of retail market [industrial hemp CBD] because the woven and non-woven fiber market that we wanted to grow for was inexistent. I was licensed in the state of North Carolina under the Industrial Hemp Pilot program. North Carolina is a $9 billion agricultural state, so it produces a lot of income, that GDP growth, for the state.

Now, we want to try to make industrial hemp one of those crops that the farmer can benefit from as well as the state. We knew what the crop could do to the land. And that’s also what we focused on, using less and less fertilization from synthetic processes.

One of my key agronomy avenues to incorporate industrial hemp fiber or medicinal industrial hemp into our diversified crop portfolio is to help lower the cost of inputs. Our land had been of use of pesticides and herbicides for so many years and it was my duty as the fourth-generation steward to try to revamp that process of our land. So, we focused on adding that crop into a rotational opportunity for our crops to be diversified. About 80% of my crop rotation is now industrial hemp. That is what we now consider our cash crop.

La Rhea: Well, that certainly keeps you busy, doesn’t it?  

Patrick:  Absolutely. We’re setting our farm up for future generations. My nephews now work with me on the farm, and they are fifth-generation land stewards. We’re just teaching them the principles of how to maintain this process for generations to come.

My nephews now work with me on the farm, and they are fifth-generation land stewards. We’re just teaching them the principles of how to maintain this process for generations to come.

La Rhea: We talked about you being in Washington D.C. and having a voice in the upcoming Farm Bill. What are you doing and what do you feel like your leadership is taking you to do?

Patrick: Part of the company that I founded in 2013, the Connect Group LLC, is to focus on advocacy work and the inclusion of minority farm ownership. Currently we have lost so many acres of minority-owned land in North Carolina, and we want to make sure that we advocate for those landowners and future farmers of America.

We meet with our legislators to focus on – when bills are created – that inclusivity of minorities are included in those bills so that we can create land structure and viability for future farmers of America, especially the BIPOC-led organizations. It is very important to me to include advocacy in my agriculture setting and background.

La Rhea: What would you like to see as far as the future of hemp in the United States? 

Patrick: Education. Appropriate education on the plant to understand what the value of the crop can bring to the infrastructure of the United States and where it is in greenhouse gas improvements, climate change impact, and carbon sequestration. Those things are how we can help the environment for future generations. We’re not here to take away from the forestry industry. We’re here to add to the forestry industry. We’re not here to take away from the cotton industry. We’re here to add to the cotton industry, making the United States manufacturing as strong as it was in the sixties and seventies.

We’re here to add to the cotton industry, making the United States manufacturing as strong as it was in the sixties and seventies.

La Rhea: Amazing. So, again, stepping back, what is your vision for the future of Browns family farms and your dreams and hopes for next generations?

Patrick: My vision for Brown Family Farms is to add jobs to my county and have our own inclusive manufacturing facility that can possibly cater to the over 25,000 end products of hemp. We also want to create a space where young boys and girls can come learn agriculture, agronomy, horticulture by creating ways to offset the food insecurity that is currently happening in the United States. We want to teach students a vocational side of agriculture so they can learn to be self-sustainable and be able to start small farms at their home in the countryside.

La Rhea: It’s so interesting to think about how we lay that future for our farmers and the ripple effect. We not only have the Climate+ goal of reducing greenhouse gases, but it’s also about how we make sure that rural communities are thriving and resilient and have diversity of crops and again, addressing food security and making sure there are opportunities for future generations. You are right in the center of what we want to see and a great example to inspire us all.

So one last question as we bring our chat to a close. When you think about catalyzing action, what is your call to action? What is the one thing that you would ask our community?  

Patrick: My call to action as a farmer is to take a chance on including industrial hemp fiber. We have a lot of cotton gins in the state of North Carolina that are going out of business, and those cotton gins can be transitioned into hemp processing warehouses. There are not enough organic cotton farmers in the United States. And so I feel that this would be a way to increase that organic cotton production by also double cropping industrial hemp after cotton has been harvested. That gives farmers another potential cash market for their farm. And it also helps the land and the regeneration process. So that would be my call to action: give hemp the chance to be able to be useful.

The post Growing Hemp on Reclaimed Land with Browns Family Farm in North Carolina appeared first on Textile Exchange.

The impacts of such an event are endured long after the headlines go quiet. To gain insight into the evolving challenges faced as they rebuild and recuperate, we spoke with Kipaş Textiles, a textile manufacturing company, and TGSD (Turkish Clothing Manufacturers Association), an NGO that supports the sector.

Content warning: this article contains upsetting themes.

PHOTOGRAPHY

Sabiha Çimen

Magnum Photographer Sabiha Çimen visited the Kipaş Textiles production facilities in Kahramanmaraş, Turkey, to capture a series of film images that show the after effects and extent of the damage sustained.

Thank you to Kipaş Textiles and TGSD for sharing their stories with us from the ground.

As an industry, it’s vital that we continue to show support to the textile industry in the affected areas throughout their entire journey to recovery.

The post Rebuilding from the Rubble in Kahramanmaraş and the Surrounding Region, Turkey appeared first on Textile Exchange.

Rachel is currently the advocacy lead for sustainable fashion at the United Nations Environment Programme, overseeing a strategy looking at the role of consumer-facing communication in the context of the triple planetary crisis. With a background as an award-winning business journalist, she has also contributed to titles as varied as Vogue Business, The Business of Fashion, The NY Times, Wired, Forbes, The Guardian, Wallpaper, and more.

As part of her work helping to build Textile Exchange’s strategy around slow growth, Rachel reflects on the urgent need for the fashion, textile, and apparel industry to rethink growth if it is to meet its climate targets on time. Here, she calls for an urgent revisitation of what we consider value, and a move away from growth based on exponential increases in production and consumption volume. 

In 2019, the Global Fashion Agenda published its Pulse of the Fashion Industry report with a simple statement that transformed the way the industry should think about its sustainability work. “Fashion companies are not implementing sustainable solutions fast enough to counterbalance negative environmental and social impacts of the rapidly growing industry,” it read.

On its current trajectory, the industry today will still not transform in time for 2030, neither contributing to the intention of the Paris Agreement nor the UN Sustainable Development Goals. If it doesn’t change course, it will double the maximum required greenhouse gas emissions to stay on the 1.5°C pathway outlined by the Paris Agreement by 2030, where it should be looking to halve it, according to McKinsey & Co and Global Fashion Agenda. 

Realizing that growth is impeding progress shows us how important it is to explore what true systems change looks like for the fashion sector. While emission reduction targets are crucial, we need a complete rethinking of what we consider value and a move away from growth based on exponential increases in production and consumption volume. 

While emission reduction targets are crucial, we need a complete rethinking of what we consider value and a move away from growth based on exponential increases in production and consumption volume. 

Although the exact facts are frequently debated and ultimately will remain unknown unless production numbers are reported by all companies, it is estimated the industry puts out somewhere in the region of 80-100 billion items of apparel and footwear every year. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation previously suggested production doubled between 2000 and 2015, while the number of times a garment was worn before being discarded decreased 36% during the same period. 

This rapid increase is due to a rising global middle class, the growth of ultra-fast fashion, and an accepted narrative focused on newness and disposability. Yet to look at this through the lens of consumption alone is to place the onus on consumers for change; to suggest that reducing what we each as individuals buy is the way true transformation will occur. 

In reality, it is the system itself that must shift. The degrowth movement – a word in itself that courts controversy due to the negative connotations it implies – is anchored in this sort of economic rethinking. “Slow growth,” as we’ll refer to it here, is not about cutting production volumes overnight, but about a controlled reduction to align output with planetary boundaries as well as a social foundation. 

“Slow growth,” as we’ll refer to it here, is not about cutting production volumes overnight, but about a controlled reduction to align output with planetary boundaries as well as a social foundation.

One of the major things this calls for is a rethinking of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the primary measure of prosperity, and indeed progress, in the majority of economies around the world. 

Even its creator, an economist named Simon Kuznets, when presenting the concept in the 1930s, warned GDP shouldn’t be used to determine success alone. In The Value of Everything, economist Mariana Mazzucato points out that the biggest challenge with GDP is how it makes no distinction between services that add value to the economy, and those that are dependent on extraction. If you pollute, GDP ultimately goes up, because someone is paid to clean up after you. Similarly, terrorism, war, crime, and cancer are all good for GDP.

Furthermore, what GDP is often forgetting is that by not considering the negative impacts of growth – such as the externalities of resource extraction – it doesn’t account for the potential worsening of the human condition in the future. A landmark review of The Economics of Biodiversity commissioned in the UK in 2019, and in turn The Report of the Brundtland Commission of 1987 on Environment and Development, focused on exactly this. Both refer to the idea that sustainable development has to mean leaving behind at least as large a stock of assets as that which it inherits – in other words, taking depreciation of natural capital into account, which GDP quite literally ignores.

“Arguably, the view of the economy as external to the environment may have been comparatively harmless so long as the biosphere was more than able to supply the demands humanity made of it. That simply is not the case any longer, and has not been for many decades,” Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, economist and author of the report, explains. 

In other words, growth is not only destroying the planet without compunction, but cannibalizing its own future. Right now, we are consuming Earth’s natural resources 1.75 times faster than it can regenerate them, according to the Global Footprint Network. 

Arguably, the view of the economy as external to the environment may have been comparatively harmless so long as the biosphere was more than able to supply the demands humanity made of it. That simply is not the case any longer.

Yet tragically, many saw this coming. In 1972, a report called The Limits to Growth was released by The Club of Rome, an NGO comprised of scientists, economists, business leaders, and former politicians. Written by a group of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it examined the implications of continued worldwide growth taking into consideration population increase, agricultural production, non-renewable resource depletion, industrial output, and pollution generation – all of which the fashion industry in some way touches.

Using a computer model to crunch the numbers, it ultimately concluded that the earth cannot support such growth much beyond the end of the 21st Century, even with advanced technology. Based on tracking a business-as-usual plot line, the model showed “overshoot and collapse” by 2070. 

As we know it today, the vast majority of growth and value creation in this industry is indeed tied to extracting from the earth in order to produce new products. It’s essential we start to scale business value opportunities outside of this old model. Reaching the sustainability targets of this industry will take a straight reduction in volume output based on virgin resources. Ultimately, this means the goals of the system need to change. 

The World Resources Institute (WRI) calls this the Elephant in the Boardroom; uncomfortable and unmentioned because it challenges the entire business model as it stands. But the planet’s natural systems and finite resources cannot keep up, which means growth predicated on unchecked consumption is no longer an option, it explains. It calls instead for the pursuit of new business models that allow growth within the planet’s limits and generate stakeholder value in new and exciting ways.

Reaching the sustainability targets of this industry will take a straight reduction in volume output based on virgin resources. Ultimately, this means the goals of the system need to change.

Fashion’s growth was confronted at the Textile Exchange conference in 2021, in a keynote address given by Jason Hickel, economic anthropologist and author of Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. Referring to the industry as a textbook example of what is wrong with the economy, he explained how focusing on efficiencies is not going to cut it alone, noting that to actively achieve the climate targets set out before us, we need to scale down aggregate textile production.

The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions modeling conducted by Textile Exchange backs up this point. Even in a scenario in which substitution of materials to preferred options is aggressively and rapidly occurring, the fashion, textile, and apparel industry will not meet its 2030 target of 45% GHG emissions reduction in raw materials sourcing unless overall growth rates are also reduced. 

What’s key here is that organizations, and the industry at large, see absolute reduction in their emissions, whereby total emissions (and resource extraction) are reduced irrespective of company growth. This is compared to relative reductions, whereby emissions intensity might fall as new efficiencies and technologies are employed, but the total volume of emissions still increases as the business grows. When we talk about decoupling value creation from resource extraction, it is only absolute decoupling that matters. 

This is something luxury group Kering recently committed to – reducing its absolute greenhouse gas emissions across its businesses by 40% by 2035 on a 2021 baseline. Or, in other words, aiming to reduce the volume of its total emissions no matter how much it grows. In contrast, previous company reporting showed that while it reduced its footprint by 12% in 2018 as a proportion of revenue compared to a year earlier, on an absolute basis, that reduction was fully offset by the company’s growth. Its progress was thus “limited by its success,” reported The Business of Fashion.  

Of its recent commitment, Kering chairman and CEO François-Henri Pinault, said: “If we want to truly decarbonize our global businesses, we need to move from carbon intensity reductions to absolute reductions. I am convinced that impact reduction in absolute terms combined with value creation must be the next horizon for truly sustainable companies.”

How it is going to do so is yet to be seen, but Kering has nodded towards things like scaling repair and resale services, material innovation, and upcycling. 

If we want to truly decarbonise our global businesses, we need to move from carbon intensity reductions to absolute reductions.

Ralph Lauren has similarly previously spoken about how it can achieve “financial growth through degrowth of resources,” or in other words, producing less new product, while continuing to make a profit. Both Ralph Lauren and Kering refer to increasing their understanding of inventory to ensure less overproduction and wasted product. 

On the consumption side of things, Selfridges is also interesting to consider. In 2022, it committed to a target to have 45% of transactions across its stores and online to come from circular products and services by 2030, compared to less than 1% today. 

Increasing revenue share from circular business models and processes is crucial to achieve a decoupling of value creation and resource extraction. While numerous fashion brands have been launching all manner of circular solutions seemingly aligned with this thinking, we’re not yet at a point where any of them are able to show that doing so has replaced any significant percentage of new product creation. 

Increasing revenue share from circular business models and processes is crucial to achieve a decoupling of value creation and resource extraction.

Perhaps what’s key at Kering, is that efforts towards absolute decoupling are also being anchored by a new sustainable finance department, which will “follow in depth the decarbonization roadmap and everything linked with our strategy, and to be sure that business and sustainability go hand in hand.” This sort of systems thinking, with new value creation baked into the structure of the organization, is what it will take for success. 

At the Textile Exchange conference in 2022, a dedicated session on this topic identified the need to redefine value as an industry accordingly. A key suggestion was for a framework to help track, manage and set goals for absolute decoupling, and to create incentives to help drive this change. This must also focus on ensuring any efforts towards slowing growth understand potential trade-offs and enable a just transition.

Textile Exchange is working on a strategy to articulate its role in supporting the industry on this topic, with the intention to share it later this year. It is keen to gain (confidential) inputs on the topic and is currently gathering expressions of interest. Please contact beth@textileexchange.org if you would like to share your thoughts.

The post Slowing Down Growth and Reimagining Value Creation with Rachel Arthur appeared first on Textile Exchange.

This is the first edition in our new series of Docu-stories, where storytellers unearth the impacts of textile production on people, culture, and nature, in places that matter to them.

Here, Maia tells of the Indigenous communities and local researchers on the front line in British Colombia, fighting to rescue the remaining ancient trees from the logging industry.

On the furthest reaches of Vancouver Island, where ancient forests have grown into ecological abundance over thousands of years, forestry corporations are rampantly logging what little remains of these trees. Scars by clear cuts mark the Global North, and British Columbia, Canada is home to some of the last ancient temperate rainforests in the world. 

Mark Worthing, a Vancouver Island resident and long-time organizer for the protection of forests, has been in a race against the logging industry to track and find some of the last stands of ancient trees. The old-growth forests that logging companies are after are home to cedars, firs, and spruce that tower over 200 ft tall and are several hundred years old. Their sky-high canopies sustain a realm of life and biodiversity that thrives only in old forests. 

Worthing’s investigative fieldwork takes him into remote and rugged regions of Vancouver Island, the easier-to-access ancient forests were clear-cut years prior. With less than 3% of old-growth trees left in British Columbia, the insatiable demand by logging companies brings their operations to areas that are accessible only by barge or helicopter. Worthing believes commercial logging to be one of the most impactful landscape-level experiments ever done in North America. “It is our tar sands,” Worthing says, referring to a massive site of oil extraction in Alberta, Canada that can be seen from space and is one of the largest industrial projects in the world.

The destructive force of industrial logging spans its entire operation. “Logging roads are the fissures and fracture lines in contiguous ecosystems that serve as the central veins for healthy watersheds, species, and communities,” he explains. The impacts range from micro to macro levels, from the invasive species brought in on the tires of logging trucks and glyphosate sprayed throughout clear cuts to eliminate species diversity for mono-crop tree farms, to drillers who bore into bedrock with dynamite to blow up rock for gravel, which is then used to construct the logging roads. It is a violent, destructive operation fueled by explosives and government-subsidized incentives. 

“Logging roads are the fissures and fracture lines in contiguous ecosystems that serve as the central veins for healthy watersheds, species, and communities.”

Worthing bears witness to a level of environmental destruction that few will ever see while forestry corporations benefit from its remoteness. He describes the degree of waste he has observed from clear cuts and poorly constructed, abandoned logging roads that spur landslides and destabilize entire mountainsides. Today, logging engineers use military-grade lidar surveys to find where the best single trees are and can gauge how much timber is in the tree from a helicopter. Like predator and prey, forestry has taken to the skies to hunt down these last giants.

The pace and scale of industrial logging are impossible to keep up with. For the last two field seasons, Worthing spent months finding mother trees, high alpine berry patches, culturally modified trees (CMTs), and an array of forest sites to support The Mother Tree Project. CMTs are often modified by the process of cedar bark harvesting, a traditional technique implemented by First Nations to gather fiber from the bark of a cedar tree for an array of purposes, from ceremonial to weaving watertight baskets and regalia. Launched in 2015 by Dr. Simard, the Mother Tree Project is a long-term research initiative to “identify future forest management practices that will help forests remain productive, diverse, and resilient as the climate changes,” according to the University of British Columbia, 

Worthing was responsible for guiding Dr. Simard’s field team to ideal research sites in July. Each researcher had certain site specifications, for example, some wanted to compare soil carbon in old-growth and tree plantations. Worthing spent weeks in the forest during March and April searching for critical ecological sites and mother trees so that by the team arrived in the summer, they wouldn’t lose time in the field. Simard, who coined the term ‘mother tree’ has described them as the largest trees in forests that act as central hubs for vast below ground mycorrhizal networks and support young trees or seedlings with essential nutrients. But the logging industry thwarted Worthing’s fieldwork. “7 out of the 10 Mother trees I found or old-growth locations I was going to take students into for biodiversity research, were gone by July,” Worthing shares. “These forests are libraries of ancient data. Yet we are still logging them faster than we can even study them, that’s what breaks my heart over and over.” 

“These forests are libraries of ancient data. Yet we are still logging them faster than we can even study them, that’s what breaks my heart over and over.”

Worthing’s work not only supports Dr. Simard’s lab but also the Awi’nakola Foundation: Tree of Life Project, founded by Mak’wala Rande Cook, Hereditary Chief for the Ma’amtagila Nation in Kwakwaka’wakw Territory and renowned artist. Awi’nakola is comprised of a diverse network of scientists, artists, Indigenous youth and elders, and journalists. The approach of Awi’nakola (pronounced A-weet-nah-kyoh-lah) is in its name, Cook explains, “Maya’xala xan’s Awi’nakola is a Kwak’wala phrase that my elders use, which means respect and the environment. But respect in our language is a verb, so for my foundation, we are a team applying actionable respect for the land. We bring youth out, scientists from the Mother Tree lab, and elders; we have a big community.”

Awi’nakola’s larger goals are to restore and reconcile relationships with people and the planet by restoring forests and ecosystems while advocating for a moratorium on old-growth logging. But an urgent focus for Awi’nakola is the destruction of cultural heritage by the logging industry, which entails logged culturally modified trees, midden sites destroyed for log dumps, and ancient traditional trails converted into logging roads. 

Nations have used evidence of culturally modified trees from cedar bark harvesting in their ongoing litigation, such as the Nuchatlaht Nation which must provide evidence of the use of their traditional territory in the courts for their title case. But the logging companies are destroying this cultural heritage faster than many communities can formally document it. Ancient forests are living witnesses to Indigenous stewardship and presence on the land before the occupation of colonialism.

Rande Cook grew up in the small village of ‘Yalis (Alert Bay, BC) where he was raised off the land and could go into traditional territories to clam dig, hunt, and listen to elders share origin stories. “Growing up and getting to know that land, and also seeing the destruction of it throughout my lifetime has made me very concerned,” Cook shares. When he turned 30, he became a Chief. “[When] I took that role on, I had to ask serious questions about what it means to be a Chief and the obligations we have to the land. If we can’t look after the land, then we can’t look after our people.” He hopes for his children and other Indigenous youth to carry on a sense of stewardship and identity that he found as a kid. 

“If we can’t look after the land, then we can’t look after our people.”

Last field season, Cook brought his ten-year-old son with him to accompany the Mother Tree students from UBC. While tree core sampling and conducting archaeological digs, the students would ask his son if they could core a tree or dig somewhere. Cook recalls, “[Ethan] came up to me and said, “Dad, why are they asking me?’ I said, ‘because we are here of service to you son, this is your future on this land.” It was a really defining moment for all of us because if we can get youth on the land and they start to deepen their own roots, they’re going to look after it and apply these teachings.” Cook sees working with youth as being similar to the process of forest regeneration, just like stimulating seeds to contribute to the health of a forest, youth are being stimulated as stewards and becoming part of a collective ecosystem.

The collaboration between Awi’nakola and the Mother Tree Project also yields groundbreaking research. Cook recalls a pivotal moment when he walked with Dr. Simard through a forest that had culturally modified trees and he shared with her the stories, ceremonies, and knowledge about the cedar bark harvesting process. 

He explained that when the bark is pulled it releases energy and connects that person to the tree and forest for the rest of their life. Together, Dr. Simard and Cook examined the surrounding areas of CMTs. “[They] were abundant in everything you could think of, from berries and plants to incredibly rich soil, which is also a sign of carbon sequestration. Just that one act, ignites and stimulates the area,” Cook shares. Dr. Simard explained to Cook that if one tree is in distress, other trees in the mycelium network start firing nutrients in the direction of the tree to protect it. Indigenous stewardship has always known this scientific discovery, but the breakthrough bridges these worlds and shows how important CMTs are to the ecosystem. 

The protection of old-growth and the regeneration of impacted forests necessitates a collaborative, holistic approach. Jessica Hutchinson, a field ecologist and the executive director of Redd Fish Restoration on Vancouver Island, believes restoration offers a glimmer of hope as it rebuilds fragmented relationships and finds a way for humans to work with nature. 

We’ve noticed ecosystems we work in that have not been logged are way more resilient to climate change than those that are.

Hutchinson and her team work to restore declining salmon stocks, biodiversity, and hydrological and ecological processes that have been impacted by the logging industry. She explains, “Healthy forests are the backbones of our coastal rivers. We’ve noticed ecosystems we work in that have not been logged are way more resilient to climate change than those that are. [Watersheds] with old-growth forests, even just on one bank of the river, are doing better than those that have no old-growth forests. These forests are so critical to geomorphology, hydrological conditions, ecosystems – everything.”

For Mark Worthing, the stakes of ongoing deforestation are inherently high. “Easily we can understand the impacts of forest loss on biodiversity and resilience in the face of climate change, but what about our capacity to live culturally rich lives? This fight for ancient forests is the opportunity to reinvent ourselves in ways that are informed by the past. You can easily make a tree farm, but 10,000 years of glaciation and human stewardship is not replicable, these ancient forests as they are today, are a one-time thing.”

The post Building Reciprocal Relationships with Ancient Forests, from the Frontline in British Columbia appeared first on Textile Exchange.

In the fashion, textile, and apparel industry today, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data is theprimary method for understanding environmental impacts at a broad scale. As the name suggests, LCAs look at fibers, products, and services throughout the whole life cycle. 

For example, if we were to apply what’s called a “cradle-to-grave” LCA methodology to a cotton t-shirt, the study would start with the cotton farming and harvesting, then onto theraw material processing, t-shirt manufacturing, transportation, warehousing, and delivery to the consumer. Finally, we would investigate the t-shirt’s use phase and its end of life; for example, how it is washed, dried, and disposed of. Studies may account for less or more stages, which would be called “cradle-to-gate” or “cradle-to-cradle”.

At present, LCA methodology does have limitations. For example, LCA studies are static, meaning they only measure impacts at a single point in time, making it challenging to use them for tracking progress. Secondly, LCAs often average impacts across geographies so they may not represent the context-specific differences between locations. Thirdly, LCA studies typically only measure a specific set of impact areas, such as greenhouse gas emissions, water, and waste.

This is why we need to expand our approach to the use of impact data. Textile Exchange’s Climate+ Strategy states that we will guide the industry toward a 45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, while driving positive change across a holistic range of additional impact areas. But how exactly can we track progress on all of this? 

This is where the concept of “LCA+” comes in: our approach to impact measurement that goes beyond “carbon tunnel vision”, to also account for biodiversity, soil health, water, animal welfare, and livelihoods.

Due to the complex nature of these areas, it may not always be possible to quantitatively assess impacts today. However, we can at least strive to include qualitative assessments, to provide greater contextual understanding of the interdependent impacts associated with a fiber, material, or product. We also take this approach with our impact tools, which will become publicly available this year: the Preferred Fiber Material Matrix and the Global Fibre Impact Explorer.

Leveraging existing methodologies for climate and nature

There are a variety of different methods, indicators and metrics that can be used to measure impacts across water, biodiversity, soil health, animal welfare, and livelihoods. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we believe that collective, collaborative action is the best path to achieving our goals. For that reason, we are looking to align with the organizations leading the way in the development of measurement and target-setting methodologies. 
 
When it comes to impact areas related to “nature”, we are looking to the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) Science Based Targets for Nature initiative, which is developing methods for water, land, and biodiversity. We are also tracking the work of the Soil Health Institute and their soil health assessment methodology.
 
We are actively involved in the SBTN Corporate Engagement Program and have taken part in the consultation process of its freshwater and land methods. Our plan is to adopt these methods wherever possible.

Industry tracking and target setting is a starting point, but we need to track progress on the ground too

Textile Exchange’s LCA+ approach considers multiple levels of impact measurement.  
 
On one hand, we need to understand the impact of our industry as a whole. This includes tracking industry aggregate progress year-on-year and working towards shared targets that align with global goals. We believe that “impact” for the fashion, textile, and apparel industry related to sourcing of raw materials and fibers is about maximizing beneficial outcomes as well as minimizing negative impacts.
 
In addition to this, the Textile Exchange Materials Benchmark allows us to see how a subset of leaders are performing in their sourcing of preferred materials. Using information submitted through the Materials Benchmark, we can use LCA data to establish an estimate of the aggregated greenhouse gas and water impacts of participants’ raw materials and fibers sourcing. This provides us with two lenses of industry impact tracking – the industry as a whole, and Material Benchmark participants. Using these views, we can begin to track progress against global targets.
 
But what about the impacts happening on the ground over time? How do we collectively track these? This is where place-based impact assessments come in. 
 
To establish where data should be collected on the ground, we plan to identify “hotspots” of fibers and materials by sourcing geographies, volumes and impacts globally. Within these hotspots, we’ll seek to gather impact data, leveraging information already being collected wherever possible, and taking a thoughtful, producer-led approach to any additional impact data needs. 
 
This approach will allow us – and our members – to have a clearer view of the positive actions being taken by producers, as well as to assess overall industry progress against impact targets and areas for improvement and investment. Unlike greenhouse gas emissions, other impact areas such as biodiversity and soil health are context-specific – which means that primary, on-the-ground data collection is needed.  
 
We’re currently developing our strategy for impact data collection and place-based impact assessment and will share more on this soon.  

Keeping track of progress

In 2022, Textile Exchange launched its Climate+ dashboard, starting with progress reporting on greenhouse gas emissions reduction as well as an initial hotspot assessment for water consumption and eutrophication impacts. Additional LCA+ impact data will be collected, calculated, and available. 

Want to get involved?  

To address key data gaps, in 2023, Textile Exchange is leading LCA studies for thefollowing fibers and materials: cashmere, Responsible Wool Standard (RWS) wool, Responsible Mohair Standard (RMS) mohair, leather (bovine, ovine, and caprine), cotton (organic, conventional, regenerative practices and recycled), and polyester (recycled and virgin).  
 
Critically, all of these studies will include assessment (either quantitative or qualitative) wherever possible of LCA+ impact areas, including biodiversity, soil health, animal welfare, and livelihoods. The final studies and results will be made publicly available in LCA databases currently used by the industry. 
 
This is an opportunity for our industry to come together around the common goal of improving impact data. If you would like to contribute financially to one or more of these studies, or if you are a stakeholder that may be able to support with data collection, please get in touch with Eleni Thrasyvoulou, Impact Data Senior Manager.
 
We’ll also be launching a dedicated space on The Hub for impact data and measurement practitioners to connect and collaborate. If you’re interested in joining this community, please contact Felicity Clarke, Impact Data Senior Analyst.

The post Taking a Holistic View of Impact Measurement Through our LCA+ Approach  appeared first on Textile Exchange.

Led by a powerful trio of women of color, the organization was founded in 2020 to highlight how social justice is, and must be recognized as, intersectional with environmentalism. Acknowledging that those most impacted by the climate crisis are the least responsible, IE aims to bring their perspectives into the conversation and ensure that co-creation is embedded in solutions.

Together, Leah Thomas, the founder of IE, and Kiana Kazemi, co-director of the organization, spoke about the importance of representation in leadership, illustrating how bringing a diversity of voices into the climate conversation is fundamental to driving change.

Kiana Kazemi: Leah, it’s been almost three years since the founding of IE. We’ve built everything from a podcast to a magazine, and now we’re hosting climate concerts and handing out books for free like Oprah, where everybody gets a book! All in an effort to radically re-imagine and pave new paths for environmental education, policy, and movements. Can you tell me a little more about IE’s mission that we’ve honed in over the years?

Leah Thomas: It’s been a pleasure working together. As you know, Intersectional Environmentalist (IE) is a Black-founded and women-of-color-led environmental justice education and awareness organization that has become a leading resource for content and programs that explore environment, culture and identity. 

Environmental justice education is absent from many environmental science and STEM curriculums in the US from primary education to universities and beyond; which we believe is a large factor in the lack of funding for grassroots environmental justice and for more action and support. We want to shift environmental education, movements and policy to center environmental justice and the importance of equity in these spaces, to ensure a better and safer future for all people, especially those most impacted by the climate crisis. 

“We want to shift environmental education, movements and policy to center environmental justice and the importance of equity in these spaces, to ensure a better and safer future for all people, especially those most impacted by the climate crisis.”

Kiana Kazemi: Landing on our mission and theory of change has definitely been a beautiful journey of team collaboration and community learnings along the way. It’s amazing to think back to that first post that led to IE’s origins, calling for the mainstream environmental movement to acknowledge the intersection of social justice with environmentalism. Since then “intersectional environmentalism” has become common terminology within the sustainability space, which we never expected! Why is it so critical that we go beyond looking at climate in isolation and consider social justice too? 

Leah Thomas: Those most impacted by the climate crisis are the least responsible. Those bearing the brunt of environmental injustice are Black, Indigenous, and people of color as well as lower-income, disabled, and communities in the Global South. Race, income and ability are leading factors in who experiences climate injustice, so they can’t be left out of the conversation. Doing so is detrimental to their livelihoods. As long as this inequity persists, we must not look at climate in isolation. 

Kiana Kazemi: Having conversations around the intersection of climate and social justice is so important, but we can’t stop at that. One of my favorite things about the team we’ve built at IE is our BIPOC women leadership, and how that has translated into the transformational work we’re able to do in helping to build diverse workspaces, campus cultures, and movements. I’m curious about what your experience has been with representation in leadership structures and why it’s so important. 

Leah Thomas: Just like the earth and ecosystems thrive on biodiversity, so does the sustainability industry as a whole and leadership structures. When there are more perspectives in a room, with unique backgrounds, tackling sustainability issues can become more holistic and collaborative. We all bring such unique experiences to the table that inform how we assess and analyze sustainability and the prisms in which we see it. When we team up together, respecting and acknowledging the beauty in these differences, we can co-create new solutions to the climate crisis and create more sustainable businesses, organizations, and policies.

“Just like the earth and ecosystems thrive on biodiversity, so does the sustainability industry as a whole and leadership structures. When there are more perspectives in a room, with unique backgrounds, tackling sustainability issues can become more holistic and collaborative.” 

Kiana, with the programs you create at IE, you always ensure we partner with local people of color-led environmental justice initiatives, professors, and more. Why is it so important that historically excluded voices are represented in not only our programming but in the climate conversation as a whole? 

Kiana Kazemi: We have everything to gain and little to lose from collaboration and coalition building, which is why all our programs have community at their core. For example, in early 2022 we launched a program called the IE Contributor’s Network, which creates space for anyone in our community to submit their research, story, or artwork to be published on our platform, and get paid for it. Additionally, when showing up across the country for our in-person events, we partner with local grassroots organizations to share local stories of resilience, climate organizing, and resistance. By including these voices in our programs, we’re empowering historically silenced voices to share their climate solutions, and help our audience connect to the initiatives they care about. 

“When you have a platform to do so, no matter how big or small, including marginalized voices in environmental programs, initiatives and storytelling helps address and correct a historic lack of inclusion and pave a brighter future.”

Leah Thomas: While we’re a non-profit, we consult with businesses in every sector from fashion to technology to food and beverage and beyond to reshape their sustainability strategies to be rooted in diversity, justice, and inclusion. Companies can get started by getting familiar with environmental injustice in their surrounding communities and even the stories surrounding their suppliers across the globe. Getting to know the issues and the organizations that are fighting to correct these issues, becoming their partners and a strong support system to their efforts, is one of the best ways companies can do better. 

Many environmental justice organizations have solutions in mind but are in need of amplification and resources to carry out those solutions, which is the perfect way for companies to partner with these initiatives. 

Kiana Kazemi: I couldn’t agree more, and I’m really excited to see companies take on more responsibility in these arenas in the future. 

The post Radically Imagining a More Just Future for Climate Action with Intersectional Environmentalist appeared first on Textile Exchange.

In the face of societal crises, the belief that markets will find solutions on their own is simply untrue. Not without clear guardrails. Market incentives or rewards for more sustainable textiles are needed. But they must be guided by strict rules and governance that build and maintain trust and integrity. 
 
Instead of relying on the market to self-regulate, the best priority for companies is to transition from business models that degrade, deplete, and pollute, towards business models that conserve, restore and regenerate. 
 
That being said, the nature-market conversation is officially in full swing, creating opportunity to consider how we can best go about financing biodiversity. At the annual Davos World Economic Forum meeting in January, restoring ecosystems was on the agenda. 
 
In the SDG Tent venue, Simon Zadek of NatureFinance discussed why and how we need the market to help reverse the biodiversity crisis. Highlighting the inherent positivity of focusing on biodiversity, Zadek said:

“Nature brings positive emotions and opportunities, while climate change fills us with dread and anxiety. That’s not to say that action for nature is any easier or less worrying… but part of the appeal is that it’s more about how to regenerate nature, rather than being about what we must stop.” 

What’s more, since climate and nature are interconnected, our solutions cannot be narrow or isolated. Solving climate change means tending to the health of ecosystems too. For example, the UNFCCC estimates that natural sources such as forests, wetlands, mangroves, peatlands, and pastures can account for around a third of greenhouse gas removals. 
 
This means we must consciously avoid “carbon tunnel vision”, instead approaching climate and nature in an integrated, inclusive way. This insight is at the heart of Textile Exchange’s Climate+ strategy, which merges climate goals with key impact areas like soil, water, and biodiversity, taking a holistic vision of success for the fashion, textiles, and apparel industry. 

To avoid repeating mistakes, we can learn from climate frameworks, governance, and data

Carbon reporting has been underway for over a decade, with organizations like theScience-Based Targets initiative to the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosuresmaking real headway. Now that there’s an increased focus on doing the same for nature, it’s vital that we learn from climate and market responses.
 
Using a climate finance framework as a reference can kickstart momentum for nature, but there are a couple of key differences that cannot be overlooked. First, acting for nature will be driven by place-based needs, while climate targets are driven by a single temperature rise limit. Second, now that we know more about the intrinsic links between climate and nature, we must shift away from narrow, reductionist problem-solving, moving toward more holistic solutions instead.

Whether you agree with attaching markets to nature or not, there’s no disputing that more financing is needed to protect ecosystems, and this means doing away with harmful subsidies 

According to a Paulson Institute report, there is a $700 billion annual gap in financing for biodiversity. Finance – whether from banks, investors, governments, funders, or philanthropists – needs to move in the same direction. We simply cannot condone financial incentives and subsidies that damage the environment by canceling out positive financial flows for nature and climate.
 
A 2022 study on subsidy reform, commissioned by The B Team and supported by Business for Nature, reviewed a range of environmentally harmful subsidies across sectors. They estimated that the world is spending at least $1.8 trillion a year – equivalent to 2% of global GDP – on subsidies that drive the destruction of ecosystems and species extinction. 
 
It’s promising to see, therefore, that the new Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), agreed at COP15 in Montreal in December 2022, includes finance goals. For example, there is Target 18: To eliminate, phase out or reform incentives, including subsidies harmful for biodiversity, while substantially and progressively reducing them by at least $500 billion per year by 2030. There’s also Target 19: Substantially and progressively increase thelevel of financial resources from all sources, including domestic, international, public, and private resources to implement national biodiversity strategies and action plans, by 2030 mobilizing at least $200 billion per year.
 
Aside from governments and other state actors, another powerful influencer is of course the investor community. This includes data providers such as CDP, who guide investment decisions. Put simply, these actors have substantial control over who gets the money and who doesn’t. Therefore, focusing on disclosing “investor-grade” data can open doors for financing nature-positive activities, as well as close the door on pollution, damage, and destruction. Textile Exchange is beginning to explore this potent mix between investor-grade data and biodiversity finance, plus how our benchmarking program can support companies on this link. 

Bringing our economy within planetary boundaries requires a major shift in how financial rewards and penalties are issued to companies, as well as a wider group of stakeholders to share benefits

A growing number of organizations, including NatureFinance, the World Economic Forum, IIED, and The Biodiversity Consultancy, foresee “nature markets” as something that can be successful – providing they are properly set up and governed.  
 
But what is the “nature market”? The Taskforce on Nature Markets (summarized in a recent McKinsey article) describes it as “a system composed of transactions between separate buyers and sellers, in which the transacted good or service specifically reflects a stock of ecosystem assets or a flow of ecosystem services from terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems.” The article emphasizes that the key will be market governance and infrastructure. This includes rules of trade, pricing mechanisms as well as systems of exchange and monitoring, reporting and verification. 
 
Getting back to that finance gap for nature, Target 19 (d) of the GBF, noted a commitment to “stimulating innovative schemes such as payment for ecosystem services, green bonds, biodiversity credits, and benefit-sharing mechanisms”. Akanksha Khatri, Head of Nature and Biodiversity at the World Economic Forum, gave the following advice:

“Biodiversity credits are one of the market-based financial mechanisms that can unlock private finance by valuing ecosystem services and community benefits, beyond carbon. While the potential for impact is high, clear definitions and guardrails are urgently needed to ensure integrity, inclusivity, and transparency.”  

Once again, can we learn from carbon and its potential misuse and abuse in the marketplace, to ensure that nature markets are scaled with integrity and credibility, delivering positive outcomes for nature?
 
Along with integrity and credibility, there must also be equity and inclusivity. It is vital that nature markets work to the advantage of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities(IPLC), as these communities often hold critical knowledge and stewardship over biodiversity. The aim is to increase benefit sharing with IPLCs, and for companies to learn from those who uphold traditional and local knowledge. Not the other way around.
 
If you are reading this, you need no convincing about the urgency and gravity of the situation. This Davos session: Leading the Charge through Earth’s New Normal is a sobering reminder of what we face, and is well worth an hour of your day.

Have your say

Is your company exploring how to invest in nature conservation, restoration, or other nature-related activities? If so, how? What are the important ingredients we need to get right for financing nature to work?  

Read more of Liesl’s insights on corporate accountability →

The post Learning From Climate Action to Successfully Finance Biodiversity appeared first on Textile Exchange.

The clock is ticking. If fiber production and consumption continues at its current rate, the fashion and textile industry will not meet our shared Climate+ goal. We will fall short of the 45% drop in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions we aim to reach by 2030, and we will not have played our part in climate action to the level we’re capable of. 
 
Decisive action is necessary. But the reality of the present situation is that there are gaps across all fiber categories. Simply put, there are things we don’t know. But there are things we do know, and our report, “Fiber Pathways: The Road to a 45% Reduction” defines a direction of travel which, if followed, will start the transformation of the industry, the successful achievement of our Climate+ goals, and a more responsible future for everyone.
 
Based on our modeling, even if current and existing, proven solutions available in the market reach 50% of total fiber and raw materials production, the savings in GHG emissions will only account for a third of the total reduction targets set. That’s why material substitution is just the first of three necessary levers to pull to reach our targets on time. Beyond substituting for preferred, proven raw materials, the scaling of innovation, and the slowing down of continued growth in the annual production and consumption of new raw materials, are needed.  
 
The industry must focus on strategic fibers, too: those that represent the majority of the total global fiber volume and greenhouse gas impact. These include polyester, cotton, wool, bovine leather, nylon, and MMCFs, such as viscose. 

Improving the data that guides sourcing decisions

Right now, data widely used to draw comparisons between the impacts of these fibers and guide sourcing decisions needs improvement. As written in the Fashion Charter for Climate Action’s “Identifying Low Carbon Sources of Cotton and Polyester Fibers” report, “The mapping of current LCA landscape for cotton and polyester (PET) revealed key data gaps, inconsistent modeling approaches and lack of standardized methodology, which makes it inappropriate to compare the environmental performance of one fiber over the other.”
 
Overall, datasets lack geographic variability and transparency, and in general, existing LCAs are not comparable due to the following overarching issues:

• Inconsistent time period of data collection 
• Credits applied for biogenic carbon stored in the product 
• Implication of choice of LCA software and use of different LCA databases 
• Use of different LCA methodology 

LCA methodology, when applied to raw materials used by the apparel, textile, and footwear industry, has some key limitations as it stands today. It does not capture all impact areas such as soil health, biodiversity, animal welfare and social impacts; can be cost-prohibitive and resource intensive; there can be significant variability in the scope of what is covered as well as in other assumptions that are made; system boundaries defined for LCA studies can vary within and across fiber types, and results from LCA studies can be present in multiples ways (e.g., “global averages” or regional impacts).  
 
Most of the LCA data collected is at the global level and thus, not a full representation of country or regional production. So, we must recognize data quality and what the data covers. That’s why we’re developing an LCA+ approach to give the industry a more holistic way to fill key gaps in LCA data and methodologies, while also investing in the identification of additional impact data approaches to address other important impact areas not covered by LCA methodology today, such as biodiversity and soil health.  

Slowing down growth in the production and extraction of new raw materials​​​​​

It’s also key to recognize that right now, the sheer amount of new raw materials being grown, produced, or extracted is a barrier to achieving the level of reduction needed. This volume is increasing year on year, but to reach a 45% by 2030, it needs to slow down significantly. If this area is neglected, any progress in the remaining areas will count for little.

Action here varies from fiber to fiber, but in every case, increasing the volume of feedstocks—the raw material used for the process and manufacture of fibers—made from waste will dramatically limit the need to produce. Additionally, to start creating value outside of producing and extracting new raw materials, we must support systems that extend the usable life of garments such as resale and repair.  

At the design level, creating clothing with durability, longevity, recycling potential, and other circular end-of-life qualities in mind is key. Designing with a purpose is the first step towards responsible creation, and that can have a ripple effect across an entire supply network.

Sharing the responsibility across the supply chain

Government engagement can support and enforce waste reduction and collection to help scale recycling efforts and technologies. Informed policy and regulation allow for the rapid development of systems and mechanisms to level the playing field, and create true systemic change.   
 
But no one organization can do this alone. The responsibility for gathering data, improving data quality, designing for longevity and circularity, and investing wisely falls on all of us, across the fashion, apparel, and textile industry. We face a global challenge which by definition involves everyone and tackling it must therefore involve everyone as well.  
 
There are no silver-bullet solutions for systems change, and this transition comes with both risks and rewards. All too often, this financial burden falls on those furthest away from the final product. Putting the pressure on farmers, growers, and producers won’t lead us to sustainable change–instead, it’s about ensuring that those at the beginning of the supply chain are rewarded and valued for positive change that impacts the entire industry.  
 
We need to make the most of our existing efforts, across all programs and schemes, and look to opportunities to strengthen them, maximizing the potential for beneficial outcomes. We need to secure supply and consider climate adaptation and resilience measures. And we need to incentivize scalable solutions that reward our partners on the ground, at the farm level, who are at the forefront of the movement.  
 
For all this to happen, we must form new kinds of partnerships and new ways of working: closer collaboration, greater innovation, and a firm shared commitment to standing side by side in playing our parts. The time for working in isolation, for treating problems as standalone and abstracted from the whole, is over.  
 
Now, we have to view our absolutely critical work in its proper context, setting exploitative competitive business models aside, and approach climate action with the whole system—including the communities affected—in mind. 

Learn more

In our report, “Fiber Pathways: The Road to a 45% Reduction,” we’ve provided clear guidance on actions to take and areas to focus on by strategic fiber type: polyester, cotton, viscose, and wool. We uncover what we know as an industry, what we need to solve for, and which specific solutions we need to pilot, advance, and commercialize. Leather and nylon will be included in the next phase as we continue to build upon this work.  
 
Each year, we will expand on our guidance as we learn and make progress, solve for gaps, and identify new opportunities to move forwards. This is just the start of an evolving roadmap, but now is the time to start aligning and acting on what we know can move the needle. 

The post Mapping Out the Road to a 45% GHG Reduction for Fibers and Raw Materials appeared first on Textile Exchange.