the impact of participation in certification...
TRANSCRIPT
Academic year 2014-2015
THE IMPACT OF PARTICIPATION IN CERTIFICATION SCHEMES ON
FARMER´S LIVELIHOODS IN PROTECTED AREAS – PERCEPTIONS ON ORGANIC CERTIFICATION FOR COFFEE IN THE BIOSPHERE RESERVE
LA SEPULTURA, MEXICO
Soleto, Iván
Promotor: Prof. Dr. rer. nat. habil. Wolfgang Bokelmann
Co-promoter: Dr. Susanne Hofmann,
Dr. Juana Cruz-Morales
Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the joint academic degree of International Master of Science in Rural Development from Ghent University (Belgium), Agrocampus Ouest (France), Humboldt University of Berlin (Germany), Slovak
University of Agriculture in Nitra (Slovakia) and University of Pisa (Italy) in collaboration with Wageningen University (The Netherlands),
This thesis was elaborated and defended at Humboldt University of Berlin
within the framework of the European Erasmus Mundus Programme “Erasmus Mundus International Master of Science in Rural Development “(Course N°
2010-0114 – R 04-018/001)
Certification
This is an unpublished M.Sc. thesis and is not prepared for further distribution.
The author and the promoter give the permission to use this thesis for consultation and to copy parts of it for personal use. Every other use is subject to the copyright laws, more specifically the source must be extensively
specified when using results from this thesis.
The Promoter(s) The Author
Thesis online access release I hereby authorize the IMRD secretariat to make this thesis available on line on
the IMRD website
The Author
i
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those people whose without support this
thesis would not have been completed.
Dr. Juana Cruz-Morales for her support in the good and bad moments during field work.
Dr. Susanne Hofmann-Souki for their understanding and assistance.
All the interviewed coffee farmers in La Sepultura for participating and sharing their
knowledge.
And most especially to my father who made everything possible.
ii
Abstract
In recent years international agencies, governments and NGOs are promoting the
participation in organic certification schemes as a strategy to improve the livelihoods of
small-scale coffee producers in the southern countries, which represents around 25 million
households. The aim of this research is to assess if the participation in organic certification
schemes are a successful tool for lift out of poverty small-scale coffee growers in the South
by improving their livelihoods and reducing their vulnerability. The research methods
consisted of a wide review of relevant literature and the implementation of practical
research. The later was carried out through a Case Study using semi-structured interviews
with small-scale coffee producers and stakeholders in a Biosphere Reserve in Mexico. The
findings from this research show that positive impacts of the participation in organic
certification are in terms of natural environment conservation and knowledge about
organic practices. However, farmers are not getting the expected benefits in terms of better
social organization or higher farm-gate prices, and therefore higher income. The main
conclusions drawn from this study are that there is not a clear cut about positives effects of
participation in certification schemes in improving small-scale producer in developing
countries, and therefore further research is need to find the factors that could improve
farmer´s position in the coffee value chain and reduce their vulnerability context.
iii
Table of contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. i
Abstract .................................................................................................................................. ii
Table of contents ................................................................................................................... iii
List of figures and tables ........................................................................................................ vi
List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................. vii
Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background and significance ........................................................................................ 1
1.2 Objectives and purpose of the study ........................................................................... 4
1.3 Research questions ....................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2: Literature review .................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Certified and non-certified organic agriculture ............................................................ 8
2.1.1 Certified organic agriculture in Mexico ............................................................... 11
2.1.2 Critical voices against mainstream organic certifications ................................... 12
2.2 Theoretical framework ............................................................................................... 14
2.2.1 Value chain analysis ............................................................................................. 15
2.2.2 Coffee value chain ............................................................................................... 16
2.2.3 Governance in value chains ................................................................................. 20
2.2.4 Limitations of value chain analysis ...................................................................... 20
2.3 Participation in organic certification schemes as a livelihood strategy towards poverty
reduction of small-scale coffee producers. ...................................................................... 29
2.4 Emerging issues and the need to empirical research ................................................. 32
Chapter 3: Analytical framework .......................................................................................... 34
iv
Chapter 4: Research Methods .............................................................................................. 46
4.1 Case study ................................................................................................................... 46
4.2 Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 48
4.2.1 Source of information .......................................................................................... 48
4.2.2 Instruments to gather information ..................................................................... 49
4.3 Data analysis ............................................................................................................... 51
4.4 Research schedule ...................................................................................................... 52
4.5 Scope and limitation of the research strategy ........................................................... 53
4.6 research experience ................................................................................................... 55
Chapter 5: Research context ................................................................................................ 57
5.1 Introduction to the study area ................................................................................... 57
5.1.1 Region .................................................................................................................. 57
5.1.3 Climate ................................................................................................................. 58
5.1.4 Coffee production in La Sepultura ....................................................................... 59
5.2. Processes that influence coffee farmers´ livelihoods in La Sepultura ...................... 61
5.2.1 .The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ....................................... 62
5.2.2 The evolution of the Mexican coffee policies ..................................................... 64
5.2.3. Establishment of the Biosphere Reserve ........................................................... 66
Chapter 6: Results and discussion ........................................................................................ 68
6.1 How the certification was established in the area ..................................................... 68
6.2 The vulnerability context in La Sepultura ................................................................... 72
6.3 Livelihood strategies ................................................................................................... 75
6.4 Impacts of the participation in organic certification schemes on farmers´ assets in La
Sepultura .......................................................................................................................... 79
v
6.5 Changes in the vulnerability context .......................................................................... 83
6.7 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 85
Chapter 7: Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 88
References ............................................................................................................................ 93
Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 99
vi
List of figures and tables
Figure 1: International coffee value chain ………………………………………………………………………17
Figure 2: Assessment of livelihoods……………………………………………………………………………….25
Figure 3: Research logic……………………………………………………………………………………………………36
Figure 4: Location of one the studied communities…………………………………………………………..58
Figure 5: Procampo income support mechanism trend at real value…………………………………63
Figure 6: Trend in corn prices in Mexico……………………………………………………………………………64
Figure 7: International coffee prices fluctuation……………………………………………………………….66
Figure 8: Relationship among the different coffee stakeholders……………………………………….71
Figure 9: Timeline of the process of the certification schemes………………………………………… 71
Table 1: Matrix of data analysis………………………………………………………………………………………..37
Table 2: Calendar of activities for coffee in La Sepultura…………………………………………………..61
vii
List of abbreviations
CONANP Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales
DFID Department for International Development
ECOSUR El Colegio de la Frontera Sur
etc. Et cetera
FAO Food Agriculture Organization
ha Hectare
ICO International Coffee Organisation
IFOAM International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements
INMECAFE Instituto Mexicano de Café
Kg Kilogram
m.a.s.l Meters Above Sea Level
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
PROCAMPO Programa de Apoyos Directos al Campo
REBISE Reserva de la Biosfera La Sepultura
SLA Sustainable Livelihoods Approach
UNESCO United Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
viii
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background and significance
According to the FAO, for the value it represents, coffee is the most important tropical
commodity accounting for almost half of total net exports of tropical products and the
second most valuable commodity exported by developing countries, only behind oil. Coffee
production is estimated to involve directly 20-25 million households in the southern
countries, and indirectly around 100 million engaged in activities related to their production
and marketing (Hallam, 2003).
Large share of those smallholder farmers engaged in coffee production who live in the
southern countries often have to face with enormous challenges in order to have decent
livelihood; low prices, low bargaining power and difficult access to international markets,
including the lack of access to formal credit institutions (Ponte, 2002). Another important
difficulty to highlight is their inability to compete in terms of productivity as compared to
large plantations and firms. In addition, due to their limited financial buffer and the volatile
nature of the coffee market they are exposed to risks such as fluctuating prices or climatic
shocks (CEPAL, 2002). During the last worldwide coffee crisis from 1998 to 2003 in many
coffee exporter countries prices were falling below production cost, caused severe harm to
producers´ income (Fitter and Kaplinsky, 2001).
In many cases, this situation has led the producers to carry out agricultural production
practices harmful to the environment in order to obtain higher profits and also due to the
low technical know-how on the use of fertilizers and pesticides, which in the long term
exacerbates the problem.
Some coffee farmers are living in natural areas of special protection. One example of these
natural protected areas is the Biosphere Reserve, “places that seek to reconcile
conservation of biological and cultural diversity and economic and social development
through partnerships between people and nature” (UNESCO, 2015). This situation leads to
2
extra challenges for farmers producing in these due to the restriction to certain farming
methods on their farms.
The case of the communities where the study will focus, which are located in the buffer
zone of the Biosphere Reserve La Sepultura (“Reserva de la Biosfera La Sepultura” – REBISE),
does not represent an exception in this context. Farmers of this region in the Southern State
of Chiapas in Mexico have been growing corn, beans and later on coffee before the Reserve
was established. The establishment of the reserve involves restrictions for their inhabitants
in certain practices like slash and burn, deforestation or the use of agro-chemicals. In this
particular case, the restrictions are monitored thoroughly due to the location of the
communities, which are on the border of the reserve´s core zone (Brunel and García-Barrios
2011).
Farmers in this area complement their incomes from maize and beans, which they
themselves perceive as inadequate, with the sales of coffee (Camacho et al. 2002). The
poverty that most of the farmers in REBISE suffer, as well as in the most parts of Chiapas
where 74,5 % of the population are below the poverty line (CONEVAL, 2012), has led them
to overuse and practice unfavourable management of their own natural resources of which
they are extremely dependent.
For the farmers in the studied communities, the coffee sector plays an essential role for
their livelihoods since the main bulk of their income comes from the sales of this crop.
Furthermore, due to the altitude and slope level of their land, probably it is the most
suitable option.
In this context, organic coffee production through an integrated business model based on
organic certification schemes has been promoted by the management of the Biosphere
Reserve and several NGO´s through different projects in order to encourage the organic
coffee production, as a useful strategy to sustainable development by offering better
trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers, as
well as an efficient tool to halt the degradation of natural resources in the area which has
been caused by bad agricultural practices.
3
The organic production standards aim at creating a convergence between environmental
conservation and socio-economic development of the local populations (IFOAM, 2009). This
convergence should benefit the coffee farmers in the short and medium term by receiving
the premium prices in the specialty coffee markets and developing more stable business
relationships in different value chains; therefore contributing to the reduction of poverty.
Farmers may benefit also in the long term due to the expectation that organic farming
methods ensure the preservation of biodiversity, soil and water of the biosphere reserve
for the next generations (Barret et al., 2002).
However, in recent years some critical voices were raised against these types of standards
as a market-based mechanism. These critical voices consider that these standards applied
to certify smallholder tend to be developed with regard to first-world consumer interests
and imposed by external actors and intermediaries, with little or no farmer participation.
Therefore, the coffee growers may not experience the expected benefits, in which the main
goal is lifting smallholders out of poverty (Gonzalez & Nigh, 2005).
Some impact assessment studies suggest that effectiveness of participation in certification
schemes as a strategy to improve producers´ livelihoods should not be taken for granted,
because there is not always a causal link between certification and improvement of farmer’s
livelihood (Beuchelt & Zeller, 2011).
This current debate shows that there is a lack of information on the real effects of
participation by farmers in organic certification schemes for organic coffee; therefore, it is
important to assess the changes experienced by the farmers who sell their certified organic
coffee to organic value chains, in order to add knowledge about the potential advantages
and disadvantages of these schemes on protected areas. Thereby, the small coffee
producers and others stakeholders involved in coffee production could use this knowledge
to carry out the certification schemes in a successful manner.
4
1.2 Objectives and purpose of the study
The academic debate has acknowledged the need for further study of the topic in order to
assess the efficiency of the participation in organic certification schemes, for improving the
livelihoods of small producers throughout the world.
The following initial question for the present work emerge: Do the participation in certified
organic coffee value chains have the expected effects, in terms of changes and benefits at
local level, for the specific case of the studied communities?
For that reason, the main aim of this thesis is to understand if and how the livelihoods of
the coffee growers have changed over the years since they begin to be involved in
certification schemes.
Based on the perceptions of the stakeholders, this study attempts to assess the changes,
not only in tangible goods such as assets or prices, but also others changes like how the
participating farmers now cope with risks and vulnerabilities or if they have more stable
business relationships, as compared to their own situation before participating in the value
chains for certified products.
Since no studies on the effects of participation in certified organic value chains in this
specific region has been carried out, it appears necessary to analyse the changes that have
been experienced the small coffee producers, in order to determine if participation in
organic coffee certification schemes can be a valid strategy to improve their livelihood or
not, and why. And consequently, which are the necessary conditions to make this strategy
successful and what should be avoided.
In order to address the above mentioned objectives, with respect to the purpose of the
study, the investigation will be centred mainly on two themes:
-On one side, the research aims at investigating how livelihoods and their
vulnerability context have changed.
-In addition, the study aims to assess the changes in the coffee value chain.
5
By analysing a specific case, this paper seeks to clarify how far participation in certification
schemes may form a good strategy to achieve greater livelihood security (especially higher
incomes, more stable incomes, and reduced risks) for small-holders in the buffer zone of
the Biosphere Reserve La Sepultura.
Consequently, the aim of this thesis is to address if the participation in organic certification
schemes are a successful tool for lift out of poverty small-scale coffee growers in the South
by improving their livelihoods and reducing their vulnerability.
Furthermore, the present work may serve to add knowledge, based on evidences from this
case, on the conditions and factors of success for the participation in these types of
certifications schemes as a strategy for the improvement of livelihoods of small-holders in
the South in similar protected areas.
1.3 Research questions
In order to investigate what are the effects of participation in organic coffee certification
schemes on the livelihoods of the coffee producers, in particular the producers of the buffer
zone of the Biosphere Reserve La Sepultura, several research questions have been
formulated:
What are the livelihoods and the strategies of coffee growers in the studied
communities?
What changes in their livelihoods are perceived by small coffee farmers since they
are part of the certifications schemes? Are there differences in these perceptions?
How far does the participation in value chains for certified coffee contribute to
these changes?
Based on the related literature, with which criteria and indicators may the changes
in their livelihoods be assessed?
6
What are the causes of risk and vulnerability that coffee growers have to face?
What changes in their vulnerability context are perceived by small coffee farmers
since they are part of the certifications schemes? How far does the participation
strategy contribute to these changes?
How do these findings compare to experiences with the introduction of participation
in certification schemes in other countries and protected areas?
What conclusions may be drawn from this case on the conditions under which
participation in such schemes can be a successful strategy for improving the
livelihoods of smallholder farmers in protected areas?
7
Chapter 2: Literature review
This literature review will examine the main issues surrounding the impact of participation
in organic certification schemes as a livelihood strategy for small-holders in the South. The
literature review focuses on the main research objective set out in sub-section 1.3 of the
introductory chapter:
Understand if and how the livelihoods of the coffee growers have changed over the years
since they begin to be involved in certification schemes.
In order to address the above mentioned objective, with respect to the purpose of the
study, the investigation will be supported by a conceptual framework based on “value
chain” analysis and “sustainable livelihood” approach. This framework will allow the
analysis of farmers´ livelihoods and their role in the organic coffee value chain. In order to
assess the changes, proxy indicators will be developed based on the theoretical framework,
which have to adapt from literature to the local specific context.
As it was mentioned above, the impact of certification will be assessed in two main areas
by developing indicators:
On one side, if the participation improve farmer´ livelihoods and reduce their vulnerability.
On the other side, in the effects of the participation strategy on small-scale coffee
producer´s value chain.
By exploring the above area of literature, a significant contribution will be made to this
study. In the first place, a logical starting point is to provide the reader with an analytical
description of the terms organic agriculture, certified organic agriculture, sustainable
livelihood, vulnerability context, and value chains, which specific emphasis in the context of
the study. Additionally, participation in organic certification schemes as a livelihood strategy
in similar areas will be examined. At the end of this main section it is hoped that a critical
understanding of key issues is exhibited and that the reader will be better informed in these
areas.
8
2.1 Certified and non-certified organic agriculture
Organic agriculture
IFOAM (2009), which is the only international umbrella organization of the organic world,
defines organic agriculture as:
“Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils,
ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles
adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects.
Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared
environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all
involved”.
According to IFOAM (2009), organic agriculture is based on the principle of health, the
principle of ecology, the principle of fairness, and the principle of care:
- Principle of health means that organic agriculture should sustain the health from
the soil to human beings as one and indivisible. Therefore it should avoid the use of
fertilizers, pesticides, animal drugs and food additives that may have adverse health
effects.
- Principle of ecology means that organic agriculture should be based on living
ecological systems and cycles, and attains ecological balance. Organic farming
systems should fit the cycles and ecological balance found in nature. Organic
agriculture should conserve the common environment and adapt to local conditions,
ecology, culture and scale.
- Principle of fairness means organic agriculture should be based on equity, respect
and justice. Organic agriculture should provide everyone involved with a good
quality of life, and contribute to food sovereignty and reduction of poverty.
9
- Principle of care means organic agriculture should be managed in a precautionary
and responsible manner to protect the health and well-being of current and future
generations and the environment through preventing risk by adopting appropriate
technologies and practices.
However, there are different definitions to define the term organic agriculture, Lampkin et
al. (1999) goes in the same direction considering organic agriculture as a production system
in harmony with its local environment, using a variety of agronomic, biological and manual
techniques that do not imply the use of synthetic inputs. In addition, land husbandry
techniques are very important, such as crop-rotation or soil-conservation measures.
IFOAM definition and the principle of fairness leave room for the interpretation of the aims
behind organic agriculture, which the author considers broader than environmental
sustainability; “promote fair relationships and good quality of life for all involved”, thus
organic agriculture also aims to create sustainable livelihoods for the producers. Therefore,
international and national agencies, and NGO´s have promoted organic agriculture not only
seeking to sustain the environment system of the producers, which for people who derive
their livelihoods from resource-based activities it is extremely important, but also to
improve producers´ livelihoods through higher incomes, higher standards of living and
increased food security (IFAD, 2003).
The need to improve producers´ livelihoods in order that they are able to conserve the
natural resources in a sustainable way has been also highlighted by some of the most
prestigious international conservation organizations, which have elaborated reports (IUCN,
2004) stated that there is a clear link between poverty and environmental degradation,
described by them as a self-perpetuating negative spiral in which environmental
degradation aggravates the situation of the poorest and poverty exacerbates
environmental degradation. For example, if a community due to the lack of options is led
to practice unsustainable deforestation as their only income source, in the future they will
need to invest more time and energy to carry out the same activity (in case that it is still
10
possible), which in turn reduce their opportunities to devote time to education or to
develop other activities.
Certified organic agriculture
Lately, organic farming has experience a rapid growth in developing countries; thereby
agricultural products have to cover long distances from producers to final consumer in the
North (Parrott et al., 2006). From this fact arises the need of a guaranty about the origin
and quality of the product.
Certified organic agriculture is a legal status meaning that the organic products are subject
to organic inspection, certification and labelling in order to guarantee to the consumers that
the product that they are buying are verified to have been produced according to strict
standards related to sustainable production and environmentally friendly procedures. All
certification standards adhere to the general concepts of organic agriculture but differ in
their specific requirements (IFOAM, 2009). The certification is done by a party without
direct interest in the economic relationship between the supplier and buyer. The
organization that carries out the certification is called a certification body or certifier (FAO,
2003).
Gonzalez and Nigh (2005) define the aim of the participation in organic certification
schemes in the following way: “seeks to increase value added accruing to the farmers and
counter the trend of the globalized agro-food system of an ever declining farmer share of
the final retail value of food products”. According to this definition, from the point of view
of the producers organic certification schemes are a marketing strategy to achieve better
(and fairer) prices.
Hence, organic certifications are useful for consumers, but also for the producers since they
can increase prices and market access meeting the demands of products, which reward
more sustainable production systems, with a more direct relationship with consumer. It can
be seen as a win-win relation.
11
In the case of coffee, organic coffee producer requires not only the use of organic inputs,
but also a number of other activities aimed at improving the conservation of the natural
environment and soil fertility. For example, producers are required to plant a certain
number of trees every year, unless they already have a wide variety and number of trees.
The producers must also clear the terrain, plant new coffee trees, prepare organic fertilizer
from leaves and cherry pulps, and take measures to control plagues, among other activities.
There are annual controls done by the certifier company, and if the producers have not fully
complied with procedures they will be sanctioned by losing their certificate for a period
(IFOAM, 2009).
Beside all of these requirements, organic coffee farmers must make an annual payment to
cover the certification. The amount depends on the certification, crop and country, but it
often ranges between 350€ to 1800€ (IFOAM, 2009). Although, it could be seen as an
affordable price regarding the premium prices that are expected to obtain, for most of the
small-scale farmers which barely achieve to have a decent livelihood is a great investment.
2.1.1 Certified organic agriculture in Mexico
Organic sector in Mexico has experienced a rapid growth in the last decade, since 1996 the
annual growth has been around 33%. In Mexico, the main producing States of organic foods
are Chiapas, Oaxaca, Michoacán, Chihuahua and Guerrero, which account for 82.8% of the
total organic area. Only Chiapas and Oaxaca covers 70% of the total. In the country more
than 45 organic products are grown, of which coffee is the most important in terms of
cultivated area, with 66% of the total (70.838 ha).
When discussing Mexican organic sector is important to highlight that producers are mainly
poor small-scale indigenous producers (98% of total), meaning 30 hectares or less and with
an average of two ha per farmer. This group cultivates 84% of the organic area but only
generate 68% of the organic sector´s earnings. 85% of Mexican organic production is
intended for the export market, mainly to U.S.A. and Europe. The domestic market still
12
needs to be developed; less than 5% of organic production is marketed through specialty
stores, health food stores and cafes (Gomez Cruz et al., 2004)
These numbers show the weight of poor small-scale farmers in the sector, and thus the
importance of developing strategies to improving smallholder’s livelihoods. Therefore, the
aim of this study is to assess if participation in organic certification schemes are a good tool
to achieve that goal.
In Mexico, the leading certification agency is CERTIMEX, established in order to contribute
to the development of production through inspection and certification of organic
agricultural processes and products. CERTIMEX is accredited in order that CERTIMEX
certified organic products can freely being exported to Europe, USA and Japan.
2.1.2 Critical voices against mainstream organic certifications
In recent years, more and more critical voices have raised against mainstream organic
certification standards, not only outside the movement but especially within. These critical
voices consider that mainstream organic certification standards are taking down the original
values of the organic movement. Raynolds (2000, cited in Nelson, n.d.) holds the view that
organic standards are no longer focus on protect farmer’s rights, but on the prohibition of
chemicals inputs and its substitution for biological inputs. As it was mentioned before in this
chapter, environmental sustainability has necessary to be linked with social justice.
In addition, certification has also been criticized (Allen and Kovach, 2000) for the expensive
and difficult bureaucratic processes that low income producers have to face in order to
achieve the organic label. The requirements and the others technical aspects already
mentioned in this chapter show the obstacles that farmers have to overcome to be certified.
Probably, the main barriers to access the certification schemes are the little knowledge
about the concept and process of certification, international regulations, and trade.
Moreover, small-scale farmers have a lack of capital which may prevent them pay the
13
certification cost, and also endure the transition period before they can start getting the
premium price.
Barret (2002) pointed that in order to overcome the organic certification standards and
process, poor small-scale farmers often need the aid of an outsider advisor or external agent
who helps farmers to form cooperatives in order to obtain the organic certification. National
agencies and NGOs have promoted the establishment of producer´s association or
cooperative for small-scale producers. The aim of the establishment of cooperatives is to
share the certification cost of the certification, as well as create a collective marketing
strategy to commercialize the organic product.
Since the emergence of the different certification schemes (Fairtrade, organic, etc.)
national cooperation agencies or non-governmental organizations have provided the
necessary support to poor small-scale farmers in the South, especially with regard to
capacity building and training courses to shift to organic production and the establishment
of cooperatives or producer organizations. Gonzalez and Nigh (2005) pointed that NGO´s
also play a key role as intermediaries between cooperatives and clients in the international
markets demanding for this type of products, the reason is the lack of knowledge and the
inability of farmers to reach these potential buyers.
The concern that arises from this issue is that this dynamic could led the farmer to have a
great dependence on these organizations. Because, at least in the early years of the process,
farmers do not have the sufficient means to obtain certification for themselves and reach
the international market. Therefore, the success of the organic certification strategy
depends largely on the way the project is implemented by these organizations, and not only
on the performance of the farmers.
As it was assumed before, one of the important components of organic practice is to take
into consideration local ecological, social and economic conditions. Thus, another equally
important criticism is that mainstream organic certification leaves no room for the
participation of local farmers. As Gonzalez and Nigh (2005) pointed, most of the certified
organic crops come from tropical latitudes, however certifying agencies are based out in
14
temperate zones such as Europe or North America, where ecological principles are different
from the tropical zones. Therefore, ecological principles included in the standards must be
flexible and adapt to tropical zones with the participation of local institutions and farmers.
This top-down certification model has led local farmers to abandon their own traditional
knowledge and practices in order to meet certification standards, causing what Stone
(2004) coined as agricultural deskilling1.
2.2 Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework that the author used for this thesis is a combined approach
based on the sustainable approach developed (SLA) in the late 1990s by the DFID (Carney,
1999) and the value chain analysis (VC), which provide the framework and direction of
analysis. Although, the author used both approaches to analyse, if and how participation in
organic certification schemes have impacted the livelihoods of the coffee growers in the
studied communities, the sustainable livelihood framework has greater weight in the
analysis. The reason is that one of the main characteristics of the organic coffee value chains
is its internationalization. However the thesis is focus on the local level, specifically on the
household level, without delving into the international context and actors. Nevertheless,
VC analysis helps the author to understand under which governance structures transactions
take place and if there is a measurable change through value chain upgrading, especially in
prices and bargaining power. Furthermore, SLA will be used to, first, clarify and describe the
livelihoods and the vulnerability context of the farmers. Then, in a second step, the author
will assess the influence of the certification schemes on them. In order to do the
assessment, proxy indicators were developed within an analytical framework based on the
five different capitals described in the SLA (human, social, physical, natural and financial),
vulnerability context and value chain analysis. Several studies describe these proxy variables
as reliable indicators of well-being (Zeller et al., 2006).
1 Agricultural deskilling refers to the concept that farmers abandon their own knowledge and practices and simply follow the instructions of the “experts” (Stone, 2004).
15
2.2.1 Value chain analysis
Porter (1980) describes value chain as full range of activities performs within and around an
organization, to bring a product or service through the intermediary of production to the
final consumers, and the actors involve in the process. Therefore, it assumes that each
particular activity adds value to the organization´ products or services. Furthermore, he
links the activities to an analysis of the organizations competitive position. Porter (1980)
argues that the ability to perform particular activities and to manage the linkages between
these activities is a source of competitive advantage. The linkages between the value chain
activities are flows of information, goods and services, as well as systems and processes for
adjusting activities.
According to Wiemer (2008) value chains may contain only one firm or producer or are
inter-firm character, which means that several firms or producers are integrated in the
chain. It is not common that a single firm performs all activities from production to delivery
to the final user itself. Frequently, firms or organizations are one part of the value chain.
Wiemer (2008) defines margin profit as the difference between the cost of production and
the final price that customer pays, which are the sum of all costs incurred with the
production and delivery of the product/service (e.g. raw material, transportation,
marketing etc.). The margin profit is spreads across the suppliers, producers, distributors,
customers, and other elements of the value system. Depending on the structure of the value
chain, this margin is concentrated in some of the different members that make up the value
chain. Market position and bargaining power is used by the members to get a higher
proportion of this margin. Nonetheless, cooperation among the members of a value system
can improve their efficiency and reduce their costs in order to achieve a higher total margin
to the benefit of all of them.
The linkages among the different member of the value chain may be vertical or horizontal
and upstream or downstream (Wiemer 2008). In the case of the coffee producers, upstream
linkage would be with input providers, whilst their linkage with the distributors would be
downstream. Horizontal relationship would be cooperative relationship with other
16
producers within the value chain; an example would be the formation of a producer
organization or cooperative.
Finally, when we analyse a value chain it is also important take into consideration factors
that are internal or external to the chain and influence the activities and linkages. For
example, quality standards, consumer profile, market demand or international trade
legislation (Kaplinski and Morris 2000).
2.2.2 Coffee value chain
Porter (1980) defines the concept of value chain as all the revenues generated along the
entire supply chain of a product, from production to end use. In the case of the coffee chain,
as in many other agricultural commodities, we can appreciate a division between activities
carried out in producer’s countries and the activities carried out in consumer countries, as
is shown in the figure 1.
17
Figure 1. International coffee value chain. Source: Fitter & Kaplinsky (2001)
Generally, producer countries export green coffee, and consuming countries transform
imported green coffee into finished products for final consumption. The structure of this
value chain, which is oriented towards consumers rather than producers, results in an
accumulation of wealth closer to consumers, especially in roasting companies and big
retailers (Ponte, 2002).
18
Less than 10% of every 1€ spent on coffee went to coffee farmers. This fact demonstrates
that coffee value chain presents a clear imbalance, because the profits are highly
concentrated in the end of the supply chain, especially among roasters and big retailers, in
some cases both are the same company, thus the concentration is even higher. Only the
biggest four coffee roaster companies; Kraft, Nestlé, Procter & Gamble and Sara Lee control
69% of the roasting industry (Daviron & Ponte, 2005).This imbalance occurs due to the
bargaining power, which is the comparative capacity of people in a situation to influence
over each other, of small-scale farmers is low or non-existent, compared with that of roaster
corporations. Roasters can obtain their coffee from a variety of sources in different
countries, and use their big bargaining power to reduce the price. While farmers operate in
isolated rural areas, with little access to credit, transport or information about prices (FAO,
2003).
In producer’s countries, as is the case of Mexico, most of the value is generated by coffee
exports in the form of green coffee, whilst domestic consumption accounts for a small
share. Nevertheless, in some countries exports of processed coffee also have a significant
share of the value generated.
The primary link of the chain comprises the agricultural activities. Coffee producers carried
out the planting, harvesting, processing of the fresh cherries and drying. Primary processing
consists in separate the coffee bean from the skin and pulp of the cherry. Although there
are two methods to doing this, the wet method and the dry method, the end product of
both methods is known as green coffee.
This first stage is the primary value-adding process of the coffee bean, where coffee
producers generate earnings from sales of their crop on a farm-gate basis. Over recent
years, farm-gate coffee prices have dropped dramatically (Hallam, 2003), this may be one
the reason of the growth of certified organic coffee in the last years, as a strategy to add
more value to coffee cherries to compensate for the low market prices.
Afterwards, the coffee is transported to factories belonging to companies or cooperatives,
which are in charge of determine the quality of coffee and its subsequent listing on the
19
export market. In the export chain, in which the coffee is channelled from the producer to
the exporter, can participated several intermediaries that collect the coffee either as own
business or working for the exporter. In some cases, cooperatives perform their own benefit
and/or export; thereby cooperatives can achieve vertical integration2.
In the international market, the final stage of the coffee chain, the coffee is classified as a
commodity. The international trader might sell it directly to a roaster, or to a broker.
Secondary processing takes place in consumer countries. Secondary processing or
industrialization consists in cleaning, roasted and grinding of green coffee beans. In this
stage is where more value is added to the product. After this process the coffee is ready to
be sold to consumers.
The last link of the chain before the end consumer is carried out by retailers. The role of the
retailers within the coffee value chain is to commercialize the coffee in its various forms;
roasted, ground and soluble.
Organic coffee value chain
Consumers in the North are demanding coffee with specific environmental, quality, health
and social standards. In addition, there is a need for small-scale coffee producers to find a
strategy to overcome the imbalance in the coffee value chain. In this context is where
participation in organic certification schemes can play a key role as a strategy for value chain
upgrading through adding value at the farm-gate stage.
Schmitz & Humphrey (2009) define the term value chain upgrading as improvement in the
competitiveness of a company through improving processes or products. In this case,
farmers are seeking the product upgrading (improving product quality and value) to meet
the increasing demand of organic coffee by consumers in the North. Producers upgrade
2 Vertical integration is defined by Stuckey (1993) as an strategy used by a company to gain control over their industry´s value chain distributors in order to increase the firm’s power in the marketplace, reduce transaction costs and secure supplies or distribution channels.
20
their coffee to meet international organic certifications. Nevertheless, many organic coffee
producers do not get the benefits of premiums because they cannot cover the actual cost
of a certification process, or they cannot sell because there are no buyers available, so are
forced to sell in traditional markets. In other cases, intermediaries are those who get
certified because the benefits of price premiums are not enough for producers to pay the
certification (Chiputwa, 2013).
2.2.3 Governance in value chains
The governance concept refers to the different relationships and coordination mechanisms
among the different parties in a chain. Actors in the chain have to meet setting and
enforcement of product and process parameters in order to achieve the coordination
mechanism. Factors included within the governance are rule-making, sanctions, power
asymmetric or trust between the different actors (Kaplinski et al., 2000). According to
Humphrey and Schmitz (2001), is a non-market coordination of activities that take place in
the chain. In similar direction, Wiemer (2008) defines governance in value chains as the
manner economic activities are coordinated vertically.
In global value chains, as in the case of coffee, governance plays an essential role because
few firms have an indirect influence on the organization of the entire production and
marketing of the product by creating governance structures. This vertical governance it can
be seen in the case of organic coffee, which as it was mentioned before is mainly a buyer
led chain. Products and process parameters are set and enforcement by government’s
agencies and international organizations to ensure quality, labour or environmental
standards (Humphrey and Schmitz, 2001). These parameters have a direct influence in the
coffee producers´ access to markets and activities carried out for them.
2.2.4 Limitations of value chain analysis
Value chain analysis provides a good picture to understand and analyse the market system
that influence coffee producers and the opportunities that it presents to lift them out from
21
poverty. However, the analysis of this research is focus on the household level, and VC
analysis is mainly centred on the market system with a special focus on cost, prices,
revenues and incomes. Therefore, the focus of VC is too narrow to fully understand a
complex situation like farmers livelihoods, which comprises a broad number of factors.
Besides that, in order to analyse a value chain information of the whole chain is needed, as
well as the perspectives from all the parties involved. Therefore, as it was explained before
the study is mainly focus at the household level.
These limitations have led the author to use a supplementary approach that goes beyond
the market environment in order to understand people choices and the changes
experienced by the farmers after the participation in certification schemes. This approach
is the sustainable livelihood approach, which is explained in detail in the next section.
2.2.5 Sustainable livelihood approach
The sustainable livelihoods framework is an approach developed by DFID3 to understand
livelihoods of the poor. Chambers and Conway (1992) define livelihood as “livelihood
comprises capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims, and access) and activities required
for a means of living”. Livelihood is not just the activities that households carry out to earn
a living. Livelihoods comprises all the capabilities, assets (include both material and social
resources) and strategies required to achieve their objectives. Livelihoods also are affected
by different factors that the household may not be able to control, like seasons, natural
disasters or economic trends. A livelihood is sustainable when it can respond and recover
to abrupt changes, stress, and improve their capital without undermining the natural
resource base. Those who are not able to respond or adapt are inevitably vulnerable and
have a low probability of achieving a sustainable livelihood (Chambers and Conway, 1992).
3 The Department for International Development (DFID) is a United Kingdom government department responsible for administering overseas aid.
22
This concept, which is commonly used in contemporary writing on poverty and rural
development, delves in the way of poverty is defined. This framework enables to analyse
the relationship between the assets (physical, social, financial, human and natural capital)
of the households, their vulnerability context and the structures and processes that affect
them. Thus, it allows a holistic view on the situation of the farmers within which livelihoods
is measured in a broader way.
This framework, by providing a conceptual link between what happens inside and outside
of the household, encourages the analysis of how the life of farmers groups is affected by
institutional processes and policies, which in the case of this thesis is the organic coffee
certification schemes.
This theory has been developed to contribute to the analysis of the livelihoods of
disadvantaged populations, but also may be useful in assessing the effectiveness of the
strategies undertaken to reduce poverty.
• Livelihood assets
In the sustainable livelihoods framework, livelihood assets are tangible or intangible goods
from which people derive a flow of income or consumption. They are also something that
people through investment seek for increase future flows of income or consumption
(Carney, 1999).
According to Carney (1999) household members combine their skills, knowledge and
capabilities with the different resources to which they have access in order to generate
activities that will enable them the best possible livelihood.
Livelihood assets are element of livelihoods that influence households directly or are
potentially controlled by them. They are conventionally divided into five different types;
natural, physical, human, financial and social capital. This division is not definitive; there are
different ways of dividing up livelihood assets depending on local circumstances. One single
23
category of asset is not enough to analyse poor people´s livelihoods, because a single
category may generate multiple benefits but at the same time, the lack of it may create
necessities on various levels. Now, a brief description of the classification of assets it is
provided (Carney, 1999):
-Natural capital
For people who derive their livelihoods from resource-based activities, natural capital is
probably the most important asset, since include all natural resources stocks to which one
household has access to, such as land, water and aquatic resources, trees and forest
products, environmental services, etc. It is important to take into consideration the
condition of the resource, their productivity, how they may be changing over time, as well
as the ways in which people have access to them.
-Physical capital
Physical capital is the basic infrastructure that people need to make a living, as well as the
tools and equipment that they use. Generally, infrastructure is a public good (roads, water
supply, communications, sanitation system), while tools and equipment (seeds, fertilizers,
pesticides, traditional technology) are privately owned by an individual or a group. Lack of
adequate access to particular types of infrastructure will influence people´ ability to earn
an adequate livelihood.
-Human capital
Human capital is constituted by people’s health, ability to work, knowledge and skill
acquired through experience or observation. It is a factor of the amount and quality of
labour available. Human capital is a necessary factor to improve the use of the other four
remaining capitals and therefore generate a positive livelihood outcome.
-Financial capital
Financial capital comprises all the financial resources available in order to achieve the
livelihood objective. May come from conversion of their production or liquid assets (e.g.
24
livestock) into cash, savings, or other regular inflows of money such as pensions, subsidies
from the state or remittances. In this category we can also include the access to formal and
informal financial services in order to supplement their own financial resources.
-Social capital
All social relations between actors and/or actors and institutions. In other words, they way
in which people work together on the household or community level is the social capital.
These social resources are of key importance to achieve the livelihood objective. These
relations can be formalized with a membership (civil associations) or informal based on trust
(friends), vertical (with more powerful people) or horizontal (others like themselves). Trust,
reciprocity and mutual support can act as a safety net in times of need. In addition, these
relationships lower the costs of working together. For example by improving the
management of common resources, or reducing free riding problems. It is important to
highlight that social capital can be used in negative as well as positive ways. Belong to a
group (i.e. religion), it can be an obstacle to access to certain resources or benefits.
What determine the sort of livelihood that households are able to create for themselves at
any particular moment are the access, amount and diversity of each different asset, and the
balance between them. This idea can be express graphically as a pentagon (figure 2) that
may be large or small depending on the amount of assets. Whereas the pentagon is regular
or distorted can show the balance among assets.
25
Figure 2: Assessment of livelihood assets. Source: DFID (1999)
In the past, development agencies and programs focused their efforts on improving the
physical capital (by providing new technology and infrastructure), the financial capital (by
providing credit) and the human capital (by providing skills and training). However, in recent
years, the access to natural capital and the key role of the social capital of households have
also been taken into account (Carney, 1999).
Livelihood strategies rely on increasing the access to particular types of capital, or on
increasing the range of capitals to which a household has access. The ultimate objective of
increase the access to assets is to improve long-term livelihood security, which results in a
better quality of life.
The effectiveness of individual assets to provide security depends on the contextual factors,
such as social networks, political situations, etc. These factors are of great importance, not
only in the outcome of what people can achieve with assets, but the access to assets in the
first place.
On the whole, assets are both destroyed and created as a result of the trends, shocks and
seasonality of the vulnerability context. Shocks can wipe out assets very suddenly if they
are not protected, and adverse trends can result in them being gradually eroded if
livelihoods are not able to adapt to change.
26
• Transforming structures and processes
Within the livelihood framework, the terms structures and processes includes a broad range
of institutions, organizations, policies and legislation that may have influence on both
choices that households make about using their assets, and the amount and access to
assets.
They may operate on macro, meso and micro levels and are either private or public.
Structures and processes are closely interlinked with the assets, due to they are responsible
for the distribution of assets at the individual and community level (Carney, 1999).
According to Carney (1999), institutions may be organized and visible organizations with a
clear structure. However, there are processes in most societies that are sometimes more
difficult to identify clearly, because they do not have a very well-defined structure and may
not have any written statutes. The law is an example of a formal process, whilst an example
of an institution not officially established are the traditions or the family.
Policies affect the household decisions or how they make use of their livelihood assets. For
example, in the case of the studied communities there are policies to protect the
environment which impose restriction on natural resource use, creating a situation where
it is more difficult for local farmers to gain access to resources they normally use to support
their livelihoods.
Carney (1999) makes a distinction between structures and processes:
-Structures are private or public organisations that implement policy and legislation,
purchase, trade and perform other functions that affect livelihoods.
-Processes on the other hand determine how structures and individuals operate and
interact with each other.
Information about existing structures is important to understand how processes operate,
how they are related to other structures and what impacts they have on rural poverty and
the livelihoods of poor households. Often, structures and processes include some people at
27
the same time that exclude others. Understand the reasons and the form of this exclusion
is important when we analyse rural poverty.
Livelihood strategies and outcomes
Livelihood strategies are often complex and differ enormously at every level
(geographically, across sectors, within households and over time). Poor people usually
employ a broad range of different livelihood strategies. Some strategies are linked to
agriculture and other natural resource-based activities, but rural households also diversify
into other activities some of which are linked to agriculture and the natural resources
sector, others which are not. It has to be mentioned here though, that often livelihood
strategies are competing. Household have to decide which strategy they choose;
subsistence production, production for the market or a mix of both, participation in labour
markets or labouring in the home (DFID 1999).
The livelihood strategies that households develop to ensure their livelihoods are strongly
influence by assets at their disposal and how they can combine them, however, the
vulnerability context in which they operate, the policies, institutions and processes around
them, also influence their decisions to develop the most appropriate livelihood strategy
possible. Transforming structures and processes may enhance positives choice (e.g.
facilitating access to new markets). Nevertheless, they may also have negative effects on
livelihood choices (e.g. restricting activities).
Livelihood outcomes are the output of livelihood strategies. Strategies may lead to more or
less satisfactory livelihood outcomes - poverty is the result of “unsatisfactory” livelihood
strategies. Within this framework, the desire livelihood outcome is not only focus on
income maximization, but also in other outcomes such as increased well-being, reduced
vulnerability, improved food security and a more sustainable use of the natural resource
base as objectives (DFID 1999).
28
Livelihood and the vulnerability context
According to the definition of Chambers and Conway (1992), the vulnerability contexts are
external factors that have impacts on people´s livelihoods, and at the same time they have
limited or no control over them. For Chambers and Conway (1992), livelihoods and access
to assets are continuously affected by critical trends as well as by shocks and seasonality.
Within this framework trend is defined as a gradual change, while a shock is a defined as a
sudden change. Both of them have a direct impact upon people ´s assets status and
livelihood strategies; therefore they have an impact in livelihood outcomes. They can
impact in different manners, by weakening them, strengthening them, or forcing a new
direction. Sometimes the influence on livelihood strategies is not direct. For example, when
people design their livelihood strategies anticipating the potential impact of trends and
shocks, in order to cope better with the potentially harmful effects of such change
(Chambers and Conway, 1992).
Shocks have the characteristic of destroy assets directly, as pests or diseases. They can also
suddenly reduce their access to key livelihood assets, as in the case of natural disasters, or
they can even force people to abandon their land as part of coping strategy (civil conflicts).
Rapid change in exchange rates and terms of trade are also classified as an economic shock,
due to the impact on poor people and their inability to predict it (Chambers and Conway,
1992).
Trends are more predictable; changes in population, environmental conditions, patterns of
governance, economic conditions and technology. They have a particularly important
influence on rates of return to the livelihood strategies and their outcomes (Chambers and
Conway, 1992).
There are other changes that repeat a pattern over time; therefore, they can be easily
predicted. These seasonal fluctuations are called seasonality (Chambers and Conway,
1992). One example is the dry and rainy season, which reduces or increase the availability
of different resources at different times of the year.
29
Chamber (1992) asserts that the exposure to change not always influence people´s
livelihood in a negative way. Some trends that can be seen as a potential threat, at the same
time can offer opportunities as well. Economic trends can move in favourable direction or
new technologies may improve people lives.
The most important point that vulnerability context shows, is the fact that many challenges
faced by the poorest people in the world are influenced directly or indirectly by complex
influences, which makes them difficult to control and predict. The vulnerability of poor´s
people livelihood makes it difficult to cope with stresses, which in turns increase their
vulnerability, creating a vicious circle that is difficult to break (Wisner et al. 2003). The lack
of assets and adequate institutions make them unable to benefit even when the trends
move in a positive direction (Carney, 1999). In summary, what the sustainable livelihood
framework does offer is a way of conceptualising in a simplified way the complexity of rural
livelihoods, and the different factors that shape activities, strategies, objectives followed,
and outcomes achieved. Beside this, it seeks to understand, from a more holistic point of
view, possible relationships or links between the different variables that form and shape
livelihoods.
2.3 Participation in organic certification schemes as a livelihood strategy towards
poverty reduction of small-scale coffee producers.
In consumer countries, demand for certified organic coffee has increased in recent years.
This transformation is partly driven by growing social, environmental and health
consciousness among consumers (Ponte, 2002).
Governments, NGOs and international donors have promoted organic certifications
schemes among poor smallholders coffee producers assuming that these new market
channels contribute to poverty reduction especially through offering better prices, and
therefore better incomes.
30
In order to assess the real impacts of the participation in certification schemes a growing
body of literature has studied the effects on producers´ livelihoods in developing countries
based on environmental and socio-economic indicators.
Most studies highlight the higher prices paid in certified organic coffee value chains. Bacon
(2005) shows that farm-gate price are higher than in convectional markets. Sustaineo (2013)
supports this statement proving that higher prices lead to higher income, which in turn
reduce poverty. However, on the contrary Chiputwa et al. (2013) disagree with those
findings arguing that certified organic producers receive on average the same prices for
their coffee as the convectional markets. In the same direction, Philpott (cited in Beuchelt
and Zeller, 2011) did not locate premiums for organic coffee in Mexico.
Chiputwa et al. (2013) discover during their study about effects of organic coffee
certification schemes that one of the reason of the low prices received by the certified
smallholders is that in some case the cooperative´s certification costs are funded by
exporter companies. Thus, the companies are owners of the certification documents and
farmers who sell the coffee to these companies do not have bargaining power to negotiate
prices. This fact is also denounced by the Mexican newspaper La Jornada (Mariscal, 2010).
It claims that certified organic coffee production in Mexico is in a difficult situation due to
the entry of multinational companies, which have monopolized the production and market.
These companies impose unilateral imposition at company´s criteria, which jeopardize one
of the main goals of the participation in organic certification; improve farmers’ incomes and
thus lift them out from poverty.
Furthermore, higher farm-gate prices do not translated necessarily into higher per capita
net coffee income. A study conducted by Beuchelt and Zeller (2011) in Nicaragua over more
than 100 smallholder coffee producers show that higher prices do not cover the higher
production costs of organic farming due to organic farming is more labour intensive (Killian
et al., 2006). Although prices are important factor to determine per capita net coffee
income; yield levels, productions cost, family size and labour availability also play an
important role in it.
31
As mentioned in the previous chapter, usually farmers establish cooperative to share the
cost of the certification and market the coffee. This factor, together with the training
courses usually provided by the certification promoters (Governments, donors and NGOs)
are the other positive effects on producers’ livelihoods. Establishment of cooperatives
increase social organization and contribute to capacity building of farmers (Bacon, 2005;
Sustaineo, 2013). On the other hand, there are critical voices that consider capacity building
as a failure due to the top-down approaches during the implementation of the certification
schemes and the lack of grassroots participation (Gonzalez & Nigh, 2005).
Other studies (Paschall, 2013) also suggest improvement in education (human capital)
thanks to the training courses. Training courses enhance farmer’s management skills, which
in turn lead to higher productivity, better product quality and better knowledge about
international coffee markets. However, it has to be mentioned that better social
organization and training courses are a second order effects of the certification. Training is
provided by the implementation program not by the certification itself, which only foster
the access to training (Sustaineo, 2013).
Gonzalez and Nigh (2005) debate that certification schemes were providing training courses
when certifications began to operate. However, now the certifications have lost their initial
values, and certification inspectors are no longer agents of training and technical assistance,
but they only comply bureaucratic functions.
Before it was mentioned that certification standards can be hard to meet by the poor small-
scale farmers, therefore certified farmers need training and access to credit before and
during the certification process (Bacon, 2005; Paschall, 2013). Thus, Sustaineo (2013)
concludes that the success of the participation in organic certification schemes on
improving producer’s livelihoods depends on the quality on the implementation programs.
However, this could led to a deep dependence on the agencies and NGOs that help farmers
in the process of the certification and the subsequent marketing of coffee.
Most studies agree in the positive impacts of participation in certification schemes in the
conservation of local natural environment due to the prohibition on synthetic inputs and
32
introduction of sound environmental practices (Bacon, 2005; Beuchelt and Zeller, 2011;
Killian et al., 2006; Paschall, 2013; Sustaineo, 2013). Sustainable management of natural
resources is an important step towards reducing vulnerability of poor farmers since many
of natural disasters are caused by the degradation of their natural habitat, such as
deforestation. In addition, most smallholders derive their livelihoods from resource-based
activities; therefore organic coffee has a positive impact in their productive activities in the
long-term as well.
Although Bacon (2005) argues that participation in organic certification schemes reduces
farmers’ vulnerability, the author agrees with Beuchelt and Zeller (2011) that there is not a
clear cut about positives effects of participation in certification schemes in improving small-
scale producers´ livelihoods in developing countries. There are different factors affecting
producer’s livelihoods and many of them are out of the influence of the certification
schemes. Therefore, the implementation process carried out by agencies, donors and NGOs
plays an essential role in the success of the certification schemes to achieve poverty
reduction on poor small-scale coffee producers.
Hence, generalization about the positive impacts of participation in organic certification
schemes on smallholder coffee farmers´ livelihoods may not be justified.
2.4 Emerging issues and the need to empirical research
The study of relevant literature about participation in organic certification schemes as
livelihood strategy for small-scale producer in the South revealed that is a complex and
moving landscape. The review of literature stressed the need of empirical research since
there are contradictory results in the studies carried out about impact of certification
schemes. It is still not prove the efficiency of this strategy to improve the livelihoods of
small-scale producer in the South. In addition, there is no clear conclusion about the
necessary conditions to make this strategy successful and what should be avoided.
Therefore, there is a need to understand how this market strategy impacts on producer´s
livelihood and what are the reasons for the success or failure.
33
In other words, there is a continuing need for empirical data on causal impacts of the
participation in certification schemes, and the aforementioned review of literature supports
this claim. To arrive at a deeper understanding of how participation in organic certification
schemes improve farmers’ livelihood and reduce their vulnerability, empirical research will
be implemented.
34
Chapter 3: Analytical framework
In order to conduct the research that will answer the research objectives an analytical
framework is designed to this specific case.
Within the framework of this thesis, participation in organic certification schemes are
presented as a tool or livelihood strategy to value chain upgrading, improve livelihoods and
reduce the vulnerability of the small-scale coffee producers in the Biosphere Reserve La
Sepultura, by helping them to become more resilient to trends and shocks, and therefore
develop sustainable livelihood by themselves. This thesis will focus on the household-level
and on the interrelations of assets and the vulnerability context. The impacts of the
participation in certification schemes on the endowment of assets and vice versa are also
taken into account.
The impacts on farmer´s livelihood are measured by using a combination of the SL approach
and VC analysis by developing proxy indicators. By using Value Chain analysis a particular
focus is put on transforming structures and processes that influence producer´s livelihoods,
in particular the organic market environment. VC analysis are used in this thesis to analyses
if the participation in certified organic value chains led farmers to obtain better and more
stable prices, and if their bargaining power has increased. Whereas livelihood assets,
strategies, outcomes, and vulnerability context will be analyse with the SLA, which allows a
better understanding of the livelihood situation.
According to SLA, assets and the vulnerability context are interlinked since accumulation of
assets can reduce the negative impact of trends and shocks, and at the same time trends or
shock can destroy assets. Therefore, in order to assess the changes in the different types of
assets (natural, social, human, financial and physical capital) and if those changes have
improved the coping strategies to reduce the impacts of negative trends and shocks, proxy
indicator are developed. In addition, the causes of these changes are analysed in order to
assess whether these changes are attributable to participation in the organic certification
schemes. For example, if coffee producers receive better prices for their certified organic
coffee, it might led to higher net incomes and savings, which in turn it may serve as a buffer
35
in occasions of stresses and shocks. Therefore, in this case participation in organic schemes
would be improving producer’s livelihoods and coping strategies against negative stresses
and shocks (reducing their vulnerability). This answers the research question “Based on the
related literature, with which criteria and indicators may the changes in their livelihoods be
assessed?”
Table 1 illustrates graphically the approach that was adopted to analyse data from the case
study. In order to answer the research questions different categories based on the analytical
framework were created. Depending on the research question, the source of information
are coffee stakeholders or secondary data. Then, proxy indicators (specifications) were
developed for each category. Finally, different interviews were designed to extract the
information required for the specifications.
The research logic followed (shown in figure 3) is to link the research questions or categories
to the questions in the interviews in order to aid the analysis of the transcripts. In order to
do so, the research questions are divided into categories, which in turn are divided into
specifications. Finally, the questions in the interviews answer each of these specifications.
It would be possible that one question answer more than one specification. Rather than a
linear process, it is a cycle where the specification after the analysis helps to answer the
research questions, which in turn answer the research objective.
36
Figure 3: Research logic. Source: Own elaboration.
The different categories that help to answer the research questions, as well as the
specifications can be observed in detail in the table 1.
As described in the previous chapters, when analysing livelihoods we have to adapt the
indicators on livelihood to the local context. For that reason, the indicators suggested by
the literature review on sustainable livelihoods approach and value chain analysis were
supplemented with indicators extracted from a manual on livelihood designed by local
researchers focusing especially on the area of study (Parra, 2011).
37
Research
question
Categories Specifications Source of
information
Question in the
interviews
1. What are
the livelihood
assets and
strategies of
coffee growers
in the studied
communities?
1.1 Livelihood
Assets
1.2 Income
sources/
Productive
activities
1.3 Family
strategies
Physical Capital
1.1.1Type of crops
and hectares
Human Capital
1.1.2. Knowledge
about marketing
and organic coffee
production
Social capital
1.1.3Involvement
in producers
organizations
Natural Capital
1.1.4 Soil fertility
1.1.5 Access and
quality of water
1.1.6 Landholding
status
Financial Capital
1.1.7 Savings
1.1.8 Government
subsidies
Coffee
producers
Secondary data
of the region
(previous
studies,
internet…)
1.1.1, 1.2. 1.3.1 and
1.3.2 Which crops do
you have? And how
many hectares of
each one? Which %
represent of your
income?
1.1.2. Which activities
do you carry out in
order to produce
organic coffee?
Have you received
any training course
about organic coffee?
How would you assess
the usefulness of the
courses? Why? (1 –
very well to 5 – very
bad)
1.1.3 Do you
participate in any
producer
organization? Why?
38
Research
question
Categories Specifications Source of
information
Question in the
interviews
1.1.9. Access to
credit
1.2.1 Income from
crop and animal
production
1.2.2 Other income
activities
1.3.1 The share of
land and income of
each crop
1.3.2The weight of
coffee in the family
income
1.3.3Family
members and their
current
occupation/future
expectation
1.1.4 and 1.1.5
Secondary data
1.1.6 What is your
legal landholding
status?
1.1.7 Do you manage
to save money at the
end of the dry/coffee
season?
1.1.8 Do you receive
any government
subsidies? Which
ones? How much do
you receive? Which %
represent of your
income? And table 1
1.1.9 Answer
indirectly in Which
problems do you have
related to coffee
production or coffee
sale?
39
Research
question
Categories Specifications Source of
information
Question in the
interviews
1.2.1, 1.3.1 and 1.3.2
1.2.2 Do you have
other sources of
income?
1.3.3. What is the
occupation of the
others family
members?
2. What
changes in
their
livelihoods are
perceived by
small coffee
farmers since
they are part
of the
certifications
schemes?
2.1 value change
2.2 livelihood
assets
2.3 livelihood
outcomes
2.1.1 Prices for
their coffee
2.1.2 Contracts
2.1.3 Access to
markets
2.1.4 Bargaining
power
2.2.1 Hectares of
coffee
2.2.2 Soil fertility
Coffee
producers
2.1.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3
What the benefits are
of grow organic
coffee? Price/ Project
management/ Soil/
water/ coffee plants
2.1.2 Which types of
contracts do you have
since you are
certified?
2.1.3 Who are your
purchasers? Why?
40
Research
question
Categories Specifications Source of
information
Question in the
interviews
2.2.3 Water access
and quality
2.2.4 Subsidies
2.2.5 Relationships
with stakeholders
2.2.6 Their
knowledge about
organic coffee
production and
commercialization
2.2.7 Credit
conditions
2.3 The weight of
coffee in the family
income
2.1.4 How is your
relationship with your
purchasers? Why? (1
– very well to 5 – very
bad)
2.2.1 and 2.3 With
how many hectares of
coffee do you start
your production? How
many hectares of
coffee do you have?
Are you thinking in
increase the number
of hectares?
2.2.4 Do you receive
any subsidy from the
government due to
the coffee
production? Which
one?
2.2.5 How is your
relationship with
CONANP? Why? (1 –
41
Research
question
Categories Specifications Source of
information
Question in the
interviews
very well to 5 – very
bad)
2.2.6 Have you
received any training
course about organic
coffee? Could you
name them?
How would you assess
the usefulness of the
courses? Why? (1 –
very well to 5 – very
bad)
2.2.7 Answer
indirectly in What the
benefits are of grow
organic coffee? Price/
Project management/
Soil/ water/ coffee
plants
3. How far
does the
participation
in value chains
for certified
3.1 value chain
3.2 livelihood
assets
3.1.1 Better and
more stable prices
for their coffee
Coffee
producers
Institutions
involved in the
3.1.1, 3.2.2 and 3.2.3
What the benefits are
of grow organic
coffee? Price/ Project
42
Research
question
Categories Specifications Source of
information
Question in the
interviews
coffee
contribute to
these
changes?
3.3 livelihood
outcomes
3.1.2 More
favourable
contracts
3.1.3 Better access
to markets
3.1.4 More
bargaining power
3.2.1More
hectares of coffee
3.2.2 More Soil
fertility
3.2.3 Better access
to water and
better quality
3.2.4 Subsidies
linked with the
certification/
organic coffee
coffee
production in
the reserve
(CONANP, TNC,
CI)
University
researchers
management/ Soil/
water/ coffee plants
3.1.2 Which types of
contracts do you have
since you are
certified?
3.1.3 Who are your
purchasers? Why?
3.1.4 How is your
relationship with your
purchasers? Why? (1
– very well to 5 – very
bad)
3.2.1 and 3.3.3 With
how many hectares of
coffee do you start
your production? How
many hectares of
coffee do you have?
Are you thinking in
increase the number
of hectares?
43
Research
question
Categories Specifications Source of
information
Question in the
interviews
3.2.5 Better or
more relationships
with stakeholders
3.2.6 Better
knowledge about
organic coffee
production and
commercialization
3.2.7 More
favourable credit
conditions
3.3.3 More weight
of coffee in the
family income
3.2.4 Do you receive
any subsidy from the
government due to
the coffee
production? Which
one?
3.2.5 How is your
relationship with
CONANP? Why? (1 –
very well to 5 – very
bad)
3.2.6 Have you
received any training
course about organic
coffee? Could you
name them?
How would you assess
the usefulness of the
courses? Why? (1 –
very well to 5 – very
bad)
3.2.7 Answer
indirectly in What the
benefits are of grow
organic coffee? Price/
44
Research
question
Categories Specifications Source of
information
Question in the
interviews
Project management/
Soil/ water/ coffee
plants
Institutions interview
What is the reason
that led -name of the
institution- participate
in the organic
certification process?
What benefits are the
farmers obtaining?
How the organic
coffee can help to
improve the
livelihood of the
farmers?
How you assess these
benefits/impacts?
In your opinion, is the
certification meeting
45
Research
question
Categories Specifications Source of
information
Question in the
interviews
its objectives? What
could be improved?
Used for triangulate
the information
4. Which
risks/trends
and shocks are
farmers faced
with? And,
what are the
causes?
4.1 Risk /trends
that affect their
crops (and
livelihoods) in the
last years.
4.2 Shocks that
affect their crops
(and livelihoods) in
the last years.
4.1.1 Bad prices
4.1.2 Seasonality
(rainy season)
4.2.1 Natural
disasters
4.2.2 Pests and
diseases
4.2.3 Price
fluctuations
4.2.4 Change in
contract conditions
4.2.5 Coffee
rejection by the
buyers shock
Coffee
producers
Institutions
involved in the
coffee
production in
the reserve
University
researchers
Which problems do
you have related to
coffee production or
coffee sale? (Price
fluctuation, coffee
rejection from the
purchasers, change in
the contracts, change
in the certification
requirements, bad
prices from the
purchasers…)
What were the effects
on coffee production?
(1 - Strong effects to 5
– No impacts)
Table 1: Matrix of data analysis. Source: Own elaboration based on SLA, value chain analysis and Parra (2011).
46
Chapter 4: Research Methods
As described in the sub-chapter 1.2, this research is going to explore the impact of
participation in organic certification schemes on farmers’ livelihoods in protected areas
based on their perceptions. This particular section will provide details on the research
strategy that was adopted, together with data collection techniques, including site and
sample selection and data analysis techniques. To conclude, the chapter will introduce the
research schedule, research experience, and scope and limitations of the research strategy
and its implementation.
With respect to the overall objective of the thesis, qualitative approach was chosen.
Different techniques were chosen as instruments to collect the information; individual
interviews, two semi-structured interviews, direct observation and informal conversations.
The reason to choose more than one technique of data collection, as well as different
sources of information, was to be able to triangulate the information during the analysis.
4.1 Case study
The research method that was be used to implement the empirical research was a case
study.
Cohen and Manion (1995) describe a case study as:
‘. . . the case study researcher typically observes the characteristics of an individual
unit – a child, a class, a school or a community. The purpose of such observation is to
probe deeply and to analyse intensively the multifarious phenomena that constitute
the life cycle of the unit.’
According to this definition, a case study is interested in explaining, as detailed as possible,
how particular unit of population behave in a particular context. Multifarious phenomena
refers that the environment of the studies unit is subject to complexity.
In addition, Cohen and Manion (1995) define some of the characteristics of a case study:
47
Will have temporal characteristics which help to define their nature
Have geographical parameters allowing for their definition
will have boundaries which allow for definition
May be defined by the characteristics of the group
May be defined by role or function
May be shaped by organizational or institutional arrangements.
In the same direction, Yin (2003), defines a case as ‘an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context`.
Using a case study approach would allow the author of the thesis to analyse intensively the
link between producer´s livelihoods changes and certification schemes in the Biosphere
Reserve La Sepultura.
Given the nature of this research and the definition of the case study - In-depth study of a
contemporary phenomenon (participation on organic certification schemes), in a complex
environment (rural community in a protected area), where a variety of stakeholder
perspectives are sought (with a specific focus on coffee producers, but where other
stakeholders will form part of the study to place the study in the context of a complex
environment), with geographical parameters and boundaries (studied communities),
defined by characteristics and role of the group (certified small-scale coffee growers) – a
strategy that meets the needs of this research is a case study.
The case study aims to assess the causal relation between the participation in organic
certification schemes and the livelihood outcomes, i.e. the study try to answer if the
observed impacts are attributable to the participation in certification schemes.
The impact is the difference between the results from the case study with the
implementation of the certification and the results that would have been obtained in the
same population if the intervention had never took place (counterfactual scenario).
The results of the case study will be compared with the findings of the literature review, in
order to contrast if the results from the literature are supported by the empirical findings
48
of this research or not, and thus draw conclusions that contribute to add knowledge and a
better understanding of the impacts of participation in organic certification schemes in
similar protected areas.
In the next section methods for empirical data collection will be presented, including site
and sample techniques, and the instruments used to gather the information
4.2 Data Collection
4.2.1 Source of information
The researcher gathered the primary data through interviews with the main stakeholders
involved in the coffee production in the study area; certified coffee producers (almost all
the coffee producers in the two village chosen for the study are certified), researchers of
local Universities, members of NGO´s, and the managers of the Biosphere Reserve where
the two villages are located.
Convenience sampling was used to select the two villages of the study, Tres Picos and Nueva
Independencia, because the local University professor that supported this study in the field
had worked with them before, and therefore the access was easier. This point it is important
due to the time constrains to carry out the field work. Moreover, both communities have
been certified for the last 10 years, which it is enough time to perceive the impacts of the
certifications. Beside this, both communities have a relatively small number of inhabitants,
which facilitates to interview a large share of the farmers, activity that is very time-
consuming, and as mentioned above the time was one of the main constrains for this study.
The sample size was expected to be large enough to rely on the information obtained. High
share of farmers in the community were interviewed in order to seek for consistent answers
or contradictions about the same aspect. The first step was to interview the representatives
of the coffee producer organization, UPROSIVI, in order to obtain a list of all the members
that grow certified organic coffee and the size of their lands. Then, interviews were carried
out among certified coffee farmers.
49
In the community Tres Picos are 51 members, in which 24 were interviewed (47%). The
second community, Nueva Independencia, is smaller, with 31 members. In this case 10
coffee growers out of 31 were interviewed (32%).
The sample selection technique chosen was snowball sampling, but before the farmers
were stratified according the size of their land. The author stratified the sample (farmers)
in 3 different groups or strata, expecting to find different results depending on the hectares
of coffee. The groups are:
Small size From 0 to 2 hectares of coffee
Medium size From 2 to 5 hectares of coffee
Big size More than 5 hectares of coffee
After that, the snow sampling technique was used. Yin (2003) suggests this technique when
the interviewer has limited access to the next interviewee for different reasons. In this case,
the reason was the ignorance of the specific farmer´s location and availability. Therefore,
at the end of the interview the researcher asks for assistance from the interviewee to help
identify other farmer with similar coffee plantation size.
4.2.2 Instruments to gather information
The instruments chosen to analyse the perceptions of the households are different types of
interviews, mainly in-depth semi-structured interviews to capture stakeholder’s
perceptions aided by participatory evaluation techniques, and observation to verify some
proxy indicators on livelihood situation.
To find out the changes in farmers’ livelihoods, the author compared the situation before
and after joining certification schemes by secondary data review of the former situation
based on studies conducted before the certification, as well as by interviewing the organic
coffee stakeholders.
50
Interviews
To collect information during a case study, interviews are the main source (Yin, 2003).
Interviews allow investigating human perceptions, ideas and behaviour in complex
situations. The interviewee can express their views and opinion, which is one the main
objective of this study, investigate the impacts on people´s livelihoods through their own
perceptions.
In addition, interviews are flexible to add new questions during the interview in case that
new information or issues arise. Therefore, interviews as a technique to gather information
suits with the aim of this research since allow for in-depth discussion with stakeholders
involve in the process of coffee certification.
For the interviews with the coffee producers two interviews were developed. The first one
(Appendix 1), and more extended, was used to have a deep understanding of the situation
and perception of the farmers. Then, a second (Appendix 2), and shorter, was developed in
order to extract the key information to achieve the objective of this thesis. The reason
behind the use of the second interview was to focus the interviews on farmers´ perceptions
about the impacts of their participation on certification schemes in their livelihoods and
vulnerability context, while the first one also allow the author to understand the livelihood
situation, strategies and organic farming practices.
The author chose semi-structured interviews with close and open questions to ensure that
the interviews remain focused on the theme and direction and, at the same time leaves
room to allow the participants to express freely their personal views, perspectives and
expand on answers. A combination of open and closed questions was used to collect the
data and to facilitate the subsequent analysis of information. One of the problems with not
having very structured interviews is that it can be difficult to compare answers. For example,
some question about how was their relationship with the purchasers, were fully
standardized (1 – very well to 5 – very bad), whereas other were non-standardized, such as
the question related with their perceptions about certification (What is your opinion about
the certification schemes?).
51
The aim of the interviews was to answer the research questions mentioned in the sub-
chapter 1.3. First, understand their livelihood situation, strategies and their vulnerability
context. To secondly, assess the impact of organic certification on their livelihoods assets,
strategies and vulnerability.
Finally, the author interviewed different coffee stakeholders to contrast the information
obtained from the farmers, and to have a deeper understanding about the impacts of the
participation strategy. A template of the interview with the institutions will be found in
appendix 3.
Participant observation and informal conversations
Apart from the interviews, the researcher through participation in people´s daily lives,
observing what happens and asking informal questions also gathered information. It was
useful to understand the context and some perceptions, which there were harder to obtain
during the formal planned interviews, because people felt more relaxed to speak about
some topics during informal conversations.
4.3 Data analysis
An important part of this research is to analyse the case study data, comparing and
contrasting different stakeholder perspectives and to reflect the case study results with
respect to the findings in the Literature Review.
Qualitative analysis was used to analyse the information collected during the field work.
Bodan and Biklen (2003) defends qualitative analysis as “working with data, organizing it,
breaking it into manageable units, synthesizing it, searching for patterns, discovering what
is important and what is to be learned, and deciding what you will tell others”.
The answers of the interviews were codified and classified for easy interpretation to
highlight the important messages, features and findings. The aim of codify the answers
(attaching labels to group similar pieces of information) is to range responses into
52
categories to be able to search for causality interpretation of data and to encourage cross-
case comparison.
Cross-case comparison was applied to see if the answers from the different respondents
were in the same direction and thus a pattern emerged, or whether on the contrary, there
were contradictory answers. When most of the answers were uniform it was easier to draw
conclusion. However, contradictory answers also can help to draw conclusion, the causes
for the contradiction were sought into the others questions.
This process was very useful in forming initial ideas about the impacts of the certification
on farmer´s livelihoods and what factors seemed to be most explanatory for farmer
benefits. It allowed data gaps to become clear. The main feature of the analytic process is
examining the relationships, because it allows moving from description of processes to
explanations of why things happened. In terms of analysis, first, impact of participation in
organic coffee certification schemes on farmer´s livelihood will be described and analysed;
second, relevant literature review findings will also be compared and contrasted against the
case study findings.
Once collected all the information, the findings were presented to the thesis promoters to
obtain feedback and be assured that the findings drawn are as reliable and consistent as
possible.
4.4 Research schedule
The first step of the field work before going to the field was carried out a research of existing
literature about the area of study from secondary data. In addition, the interviews were
designed as well.
Secondly, a visit to the field was conducted. The first visit was primarily to get acquainted
with the area. The author was introduced to the coffee producers, and the aim of the
research was explained to them. During this week the author was living with a local family
in one of the two investigated villages. The purpose of this week was mainly to know better
53
the local conventions, understand the process of certification, and to gain confident with
the community, and thus have easier access to the interviewees in the future. Beside this,
the interviews were tested to see if the language and expressions used were understood by
the farmers, and if the information sought could be extracted with the interviews.
During the next step of the field work, the author came back to the communities during 3
weeks, in two different times, to conduct the (refined) interviews to the certified farmers
and key stakeholders (secretary of the coffee producer´s organization). The transcription of
the information was carried out at the same time, because during the day the farmers were
working in the field and they were only available in the afternoon.
In order to contrast the information and have a broader picture of the situation, the last
step of the research was to conduct interviews with the institutions involve in the process
of certification; Manager of the Biosphere Reserve, NGO´s (Conservation International and
The Nature Conservancy), as well as with local university coffee researchers.
4.5 Scope and limitation of the research strategy
Case study as a research strategy has some limitations; the most mentioned in the literature
is the generalization of findings (Yin, 2003). In the case of this research, perceptions of
farmers and people engaged in coffee certification in a specific protected area were
explored.
The findings of the research are hard to generalize, since there are different factors that
affect the coffee production, farmer’s livelihoods and the vulnerability context, such us
international trade, national policies and so on. Therefore, the attribution of changes to the
participation in certification schemes may not be clear. Moreover, it can be argued that
coffee producers from La Sepultura are not representative of all the small-scale coffee
producers in similar protected areas. Although, the results of this study cannot be
generalized to all the small-scale certified coffee farmers, the aim of the study is not to
create a perfect representation or to gain perfect knowledge. Instead, it attempts to shed
54
light on issues that still need to be proven. In this sense, the author focuses more on
relatability than on generalizability.
Nonetheless, when interviews are used as the main instruments of data collection the
reliability may also be called into question. The main problem is that interviews rely on
personal perceptions and opinions, therefore are open to bias and inaccuracy. This study,
in order to overcome the problem of reliability, provides argument about the
appropriateness of the case study as a research strategy, details about data collection and
sample selection techniques, as well as the actual interview questions. In addition, a
description about data analysis is provided. The research strategy and the techniques used
during the case study have validity in the research community.
Furthermore, to avoid the bias of the interviews different types of techniques and sources
were used ensuring that the research is not dependent on only one type of respondent.
Apart from the different farmer’s views, the information was contrast with researchers and
institutions workers involved in organic coffee in the area, for example the Manager of the
Biosphere Reserve. By adopting the aforementioned procedures, it is expected that the
potential bias will be minimized.
Additionally, the indicators that were used not guarantee a direct and unique link between
the changes experienced by the coffee producers and their participation in the certification
schemes, what are called soft indicators.
Due to the limitations of the study the attribution of the participation in organic certification
schemes on producers livelihoods cannot be conclude, only the contribution.
Finally, it is important to mention that in order to conduct an empirical research, especially
in rural areas, the cultural competence of a researcher is an asset to consider (Mabry, 2008).
The fact that the author shares the nationality and the language spoken in the communities
enhances the understanding of local and hidden meanings during interviews and
discussions with farmers.
55
Regarding the scope of the study, due to time and resources constraints, and aiming to
create a focus that is useful and manageable, the author had to delimit the study only to
how the livelihoods are influenced by the participation in certification schemes, without
delving deeply into how they are influenced by others processes and institutions. In
addition, in the geographic and temporal scope, the study is limited only to two populations
(Tres picos and Nueva independencia) assessing changes in their livelihoods since they are
part of certifications schemes, for 12 years to this day.
4.6 research experience
The aim of this sub-chapter is to explain how the author´s personal experience was during
the field work. Especially the interviewing skills learned during the process, which usually
are not in the academic literature. The implementation of practices and skills learned within
the academia environment are not always meeting the skill required to carry out interviews
in rural areas.
Most of the interviewing skills are learned by doing; however the advices from the local
promoter, DR. Juana Cruz, were also very useful.
The first step to do before embarking on the interviews is to notify and ask permission to
the relevant public authorities, in this case the “Comisariado” or Mayor, and present the
aim of the study to the farmers. In addition, it is also important to stress the ultimately
benefit from the study to the famers and that the farmers are not only a source of
information, this means to show that there is a common goal behind the research. In this
presentation the author committed himself to present the results to the managers of the
reserve in order to address the problems of the communities.
Another lesson learned is that it is important to spend time blending into the local context
as much as possible in order to gain confident with the local people. Confident is an essential
condition to carry out in-depth interviews. In addition, understand the local environment is
56
also necessary to be aware of the daily schedule, seasonal activities, and work habits of
potential respondents, in order to timing the work schedule.
Concerning how to conduct the interview, the following aspects were considered:
In order to gain respondent cooperation and confident it is important to realize a good
introduction mentioning the aim of the interview, the purpose of the study, how the data
is to be used and do not forget to mention the principle of confidentiality. Moreover, it is
also necessary to keep the atmosphere relaxed and informal. The author found that start
with a small talk about daily affairs, such as the weather or crop conditions enhance the
farmer to feel that the interview is more a conversation than an interrogation.
It is advisable to use the local language or expressions, and adapt the wording of the
interviews. The interviewer needs that the respondent fully understands the questions, and
thus is responding in the appropriate context.
Finally, farmers may do not remember some data, especially those related with financial
issues. The author realized that sometimes the key to avoiding this problem is to ask during
informal conversations the women of the households, since they seem to be more aware
about this type of data.
57
Chapter 5: Research context
5.1 Introduction to the study area
Before to the description and analysis of the case study results, an introduction to the study
area is presented, as well as a brief description of developments that influence the organic
coffee production in the area, in order to set the study in context.
5.1.1 Region
The two villages (“ejidos”4) of the investigation belong to the core zone of the REBISE. These
ejidos are part of the upper basin of the El Tablon River. If we take a vertical gradient, Tres
Picos is in the lower part of the basin, whereas Nueva Independencia is in the highest part
of the basin right on the border of the core zone of the reserve. Both ejidos belong to
Villaflores´s municipal area which in turn is subordinated to the capital of the State, Tuxtla
Gutiérrez (Camacho et al. 2002)
5.1.2 Geography
The Biosphere Reserve La Sepultura is located in the southwest region of the State of
Chiapas (Figure 4), Mexico. It covers an area of 44.000 hectares, with a minimum altitude
of 700 m.a.s.l and a maximum of 2,400 m.a.s.l. (Camacho et al. 2002).
Tres Picos and Nueva Independencia are geographically located between the parallels 16 °
14 '55 " north latitude and between the meridians 93 ° 35 ° 05" west longitude. They are
located at an altitude of 1040 ma.s.l and 1360 m.a.s.l. respectively (Camacho et al. 2002).
4 Ejido is an agrarian community created by land distribution under agrarian reform (1917-92). In order to constitute an ejido, peasants were given access to land. The ejido members received land for use and usufruct, but the peculiarity is that the land remained as property of the nation. The rights are inheritable, and the rights are subject to certain rules, such as land use rights are transferable to children but cannot be sold. The goal of this landholding status is a shared management of common resources among the people who have receive land under this legal form of landholding (Randall, 1996).
58
Figure 4. Location of one the studied communities. Source: Institute for Sustainable Development in
Mesoamerica, modified.
5.1.3 Climate
In the upper basin of the river El Tablón, where the two ejidos are located, the characteristic
climate is warm and humid with rainfall and high temperatures during the summer (rainy
season).
The rainy season starts in May and can last until the end of September. The winter rainfall
is less than 5% of the total annual rainfall. The total annual rainfall varies between 2000 mm
and 3000 mm, even to 3,500 mm. Also the annual average temperature fluctuates between
15 and 28 ° C (Camacho et al. 2002).
Tres Picos
59
In this characteristic climate of the highlands and slopes of the hills, the cloud forest is
distributed. However, we can find large stands of pine-oaks forests surrounding the ejido
Tres Picos (Camacho et al. 2002)
5.1.4 Coffee production in La Sepultura
The inhabitants of the reserve have been growing coffee since before the reserve was
established, in 1995. At first, coffee consumption was dedicated solely for consumption,
due to the lack of market for such crops (Camacho et al. 2002). In this area of the REBISE,
the environmental conditions are favourable (climate, altitude and vegetation) for growing
coffee Arabica variety, which is also known as shade coffee. It is called this way because
Arabica coffee is traditionally grown under a shade canopy provided by mixed native trees.
Arabica variety is of higher quality than the other variety, Robusta, grown under the sun,
and which is also the one used for soluble coffee. Because of the need for shade, coffee is
grown within the cloud forest. There are a wide diversity of tropical trees in the coffee
plantation such as chalum or vaqueta, which in turn is home of many bird species and other
kinds of wildlife (Camacho et al. 2002).
Due to the characteristics mentioned above, this crop is important for the conservation of
the REBISE. Therefore, the management of the reserve began to promote this type of coffee
by means of economic support, tools, and training. And later, through promoting organic
certifications with the expectation that this would improve the price farmers received, and
thus, make it a sustainable activity (NGO member´s interview, 20 April 2015).
Nowadays, the vast majority of inhabitants of Tres Picos and Nueva Independencia grow
coffee in their lands. On the one hand, due to restrictions imposed by the authorities of the
reserve to other productive activities such as livestock grazing or deforestation, and on the
other hand because the good prices received in the past (coffee producers´ interview, 6
April 2015)
60
The household characteristic are very homogeneous. In general, coffee farmer´s
households are headed by men aged between 40 to 60 years old. The vast majority of them
are able to read and write, but their educational level is basic. There are more than 6
household members, of which more than the 60% are children or teenagers.
Today, coffee production is one of the main productive activities. For the majority of small-
holders, coffee represents the main bulk of their income; organic certified producers gain
around 60-70% of their available income from coffee production. Also, they also use part of
the coffee harvested for consumption. Although, the most important cash crop is coffee,
they supplement their income with other productive activities such as maize, beans, parlour
palm, pine resin or livestock, but to a lesser extent.
The coffee plantations are located in the hillsides around the houses. They are managed
naturally without use of chemical inputs, and they not yet reached full production, as they
are now producing on average 550kg per hectare in a good year (coffee producers´
interview, 6 April 2015).
The plantations are small, with an average of 2.5 ha in Tres Picos and 7.6 ha in Nueva
Independencia. Coffee plantations are worked mainly by family members, with men being
in charge of the agricultural work. Although, women are also involved in the final part, in
the processing; washing and pulping. Also, at the time of harvesting, they usually hire 2 to
3 labourers to shorten the process.
Coffee production is carry out during the dry season, however there are some task that take
place during the rainy season. We can visualize the calendar of activities in the table 2. This
table gives a picture of the workload of coffee production, the tools and infrastructure
needed, and the time of the year in which each activity is carried out. The coffee growers
process the coffee cherries by washing and pulping them until they obtain a coffee bean
that is called parchment coffee, which is stored and sell it later on.
61
January Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug Sept Oct. Nov Dic
Activities
Harvest
Processing
Pruning
“Agobiar”
Clearing
Sow
“Deshijar”
Clearing
Tools and
infrastructure
Pulping
machine
Tank
Drying yard
Machete
Machete
Time Required
90hours/ha 4hours/ha
10hours/
ha
20hours/
ha
5hours/ha
10hours/ha
20hours
/ha
Table 2: Calendar of activities for coffee in La Sepultura. Source: Own elaboration based on farmer´s interviews.
5.2. Processes that influence coffee farmers´ livelihoods in La Sepultura
Farmers´ livelihood in the Biosphere Reserve La Sepultura is influenced by several external
factors, from international policies to the local institutional environment. The actors had to
adopt new strategies in order to adapt to the new restrictions and opportunities that the
changing institutional environment brings with it. Next section aims to give a brief overview,
without delving into details, of developments that affect the livelihoods of the coffee
producers, with a special focus on those affecting the production and marketing of coffee.
Rainy season
62
5.2.1 .The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
In recent years, one of the main impacts for most Mexican farmers has been the NAFTA
agreement between U.S.A and Mexico. This development has played an important role for
the farmers in the area of La Sepultura, influencing local farmers´ livelihoods drastically.
This free trade agreement was established in 1994. This treaty led to the influx of cheaper
agricultural commodities from U.S.A, which has caused serious damage to the already
marginalized rural population, especially in the south. Maize is the most important
agriculture product for most of the poorest small-scale Mexican farmers who are deeply
dependent on corn production. The increase in import of high-input and highly subsidize
maize from U.S.A made Mexican maize production unprofitable in the 1990ies. Nowadays,
U.S.A is exporting almost 3 times the amount of the Mexican corn production. Mexican
farmers are not able to compete against the U.S.A maize industry due to subsidy conditions
and asymmetric production. The U.S department of agriculture has a budget 17 times bigger
than its Mexican counterpart, despite having less agricultural production units (Kozak,
2010).
Before the NAFTA agreement, due to the important role of maize in the Mexican rural
economy, corn production was controlled and heavily subsidize by the Mexican
government. However, under NAFTA, the Mexican government decide to reduce their
protection to agricultural products, in order to comply with the liberalization process
(Gordillo et al., 1995). Moreover, the income support mechanism established by the
government in 1994 (PROCAMPO) has lost its real value over the years (figure 5). In
addition, subsidies have not been the only area where public support has been reduced,
other key areas such technical assistance, credit or infrastructure have also experienced a
reduction in the State budgets (Deere, 2002).
63
Figure 5. Procampo income support mechanism trend at real value (inflation taken into account). Source: Own
elaboration based on data from SAGARPA (2006)
Before, much of the area that today is the REBISE, was dedicated to the production of corn.
This area was one of the most important corn supplier on a national level for Mexico
(García-Barrios et al., 2009). Nevertheless, in the last decades, the sharp drop in corn prices
(figure 6) have forced producers to seek for alternative incomes sources by either make the
shift from corn to other kind of agricultural products or to seek non-farm employment. The
pressure to produce is driving these farmers to further expand their area of cultivation or
reallocate their productive resources to cattle production, resulting in soil erosion and
deforestation (García-Barrios et al., 2009). However, some of the former maize producers
driven by the bad corn prices decided to focus their livelihood strategies in growing shade
coffee within their lands with the aim of reach the international coffee markets (García-
Barrios et al., 2009).
$0.00
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,400.00
$1,600.00
$1,800.00
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Procampo shares per hectare (Mexican Pesos)
64
Figure 6. Trend in corn prices in Mexico. Source: Own elaboration based on data from SAGARPA (2006)
5.2.2 The evolution of the Mexican coffee policies
Mexico as a result of its topography, altitude, climate and soil produces high quality coffee,
mainly the Arabica variety grown under shade. Mexico is the world leader in organic coffee
production and is the fifth largest coffee producer, only surpassed by Brazil, Colombia,
Indonesia and Vietnam (SAGARPA, 2006).
Coffee is grown on over 700.000 hectares in 12 states, 400 municipalities and more than
3.500 communities. Most of the producers are smallholders (more than 90% of Mexican
coffee plantations have less than 5 hectares) and indigenous (Bartra, 2002). Coffee plays an
essential role in the Mexican rural economy, it is estimated that, directly or indirectly,
around 3 million people depend on coffee growing. However, only 17% goes to the
domestic market (Bartra, 2002).
In 1957 Mexico Convention was signed. The main objective of this international agreement,
which also involved others coffee-growing countries, was to stabilize the price of grain in
the world market.
From 1956 to 1989 the government body in charge of the integral development of the
coffee sector was the Mexican Coffee Institute (INMECAFE). The purpose of this
government body was to regulate the commercialization of coffee, for example by setting
NAFTA
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Trend in corn prices (Dollars per Ton)
Corn Price
65
a floor price. The roles of the INMECAFE were to be the representative and mediator of
coffee producers outward, intermediary in the purchase of coffee, and financial and
technical adviser. Other functions of the INMECAFE were to promote domestic coffee
consumption and increase productivity of coffee sector. Furthermore, it encouraged
policies that tried to stabilize the supply and demand of coffee (SAGARPA, 2006).
From 1982 onwards, the IMECAFE reduced their level of influence in the coffee activities,
primarily by decreasing their coffee purchases and loans to small-scale coffee producers
(SAGARPA, 2006).
The dismantling of the international coffee agreement in 1988, with the cancellation of the
financial arrangements of the International Coffee Organisation (ICO), resulted in the
international coffee market liberalization. These agreements regulated the supply, keeping
the prices relatively stable and above those that would have existed in a free market
situation (FAO, 2003). The abolition of the quota system and the dismantling of government
institutions that were operating, along with the strong growth of production in Vietnam
among other factors, caused the coffee crisis. One of the main effects was a great drop in
coffee prices (FAO, 2003).
This new international context leads Mexico to a shift in its policies towards liberalization
of the coffee sector. The first step in this direction was the disappearance of INMECAFE in
1993, which it was replaced by the Mexican Coffee Council (SAGARPA 2006).
Later, when the free trade agreement (NAFTA) came into force, the weight of the state in
the coffee sector was decreasing, gradually shifting from a protectionist to a free market
policy. This resulted in exploitation of market by roasters and retailers, domestic market
liberalization and the abolition of parastatal marketing agencies (Jan and Quesada, 2013).
Meanwhile, small producers had to cope with fluctuating prices (figure 7), and reductions
in the aid received from the state (Bartra 2002).
These facts led to the reconfiguration of the sector and the search for new market niches,
giving way to a new kind of production, based on certifications and added value, for more
66
sophisticated segments such as specialty coffees, organic, bird friendly, fair trade, among
others.
Figure 7: International coffee prices fluctuation. Source: Hallam (2003).
5.2.3. Establishment of the Biosphere Reserve
According to the UNESCO (2015) definition, The Man and the Biosphere Reserves are
“places that seek to reconcile conservation of biological and cultural diversity and economic
and social development through partnerships between people and nature”. These reserves
are internationally recognized. Although, the management corresponds to the country
where it is established.
The objective of these intergovernmental scientific programs, launched in the early 1970´s
by the UNESCO, is to reconcile the use of natural resources and socio-economic
development, under the framework of sustainable development (UNESCO, 2015). These
spaces have the function of contribute to the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems,
species and genetic variation. Besides promoting economic and human development so
that it is ecologically and socio-culturally sustainable. Finally, they have to provide support
67
for research, monitoring, education and information exchange related to local, national and
international issues of conservation and development.
When a country has a biosphere reserve, it creates environmental awareness among
citizens and rulers. The impact of humans on nature can better understood through
scientific research and innovative solutions are sought. Moreover, a reserve has the ability
to attract international attention, and therefore financial funds from various sources.
Biosphere reserves are divided into three different areas: (1) the core zone, (2) the buffer
zone and (3) the transition zone. Within the core zone no human intervention is permitted.
The buffer zones surround the core zone, and are the area where low environmental
impacts activities are permitted; generally the buffer zone is a populated area. Finally the
transition zone is where greater activity is allowed.
The Man and the Biosphere reserve La Sepultura (REBISE) was established in 1995 by the
Mexican government in the Sierra Madre of Chiapas, Mexico. The reserve is administrated
by The Federal Commission for Protected Areas (CONANP), which it is an organ of the
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Aguilar-Jiménez, 2011).
The upper Tablon river basin is located on the buffer zone, right on the border of the core
zone. The establishment of the Biosphere Reserve implies restrictions on local residents,
such as practices like slash and burn, deforestation or the use of agro-chemicals (Brunel and
García-Barrios, 2011). These limitation or prohibitions have caused impacts on the local
people livelihoods, mainly small-scale farmers.
68
Chapter 6: Results and discussion
This chapter deals with the results of the case study. The gathering of empirical data for
this research is based on a case study, to allow an analysis of real problems in a set context.
The description of the certification process, as well as the key findings about the impact of
the participation in organic certification schemes on producers´ livelihoods will be
presented and discussed.
6.1 How the certification was established in the area
The author finds it useful for the interpretation of data, to describe the process of organic
certification in the area. This information was obtained from the interviews, in particular
from the interviews with members from the NGO Conservation International, the manager
of the Biosphere Reserve and the coffee producer´s organization (UPROSIVI) general
secretary.
CONANP, CI and the USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) in a public-private
partnership promoted in the Biosphere Reserve La Sepultura a business model based on
participation in organic certification schemes for small-scale shade coffee producers in the
area that enhanced the conservation of the region and in turn allowed the farmers to get
good prices for their coffee. This business model encourages producers to implement
environmental sound practices in land management and biodiversity conservation in their
coffee plantation within the reserve. In return, they could export their coffee to the
international market at prices higher than those of conventional market.
The objectives were to enhance the farmers´ organization to improve quality and the
selection of coffee, its working capacity and its export capacity. In addition, the value added
to their coffee would led them to upgrade in the coffee value chain, and thus obtain higher
prices. However, to meet this objective it was necessary to expand their market to
companies that recognize the value of organic practices. Hence, the association with coffee
69
companies and government organization was promoted to facilitate financial and
organizational services to the cooperative to export certified organic coffee.
First, organic coffee based on international standards was promoted. Later, it was renamed
conservation coffee when new standards were added. This coffee sought both
environmental and social benefits. The manual of good practices developed by CI in the
project went beyond the organic standards, which were considered insufficient to create a
biological connectivity and preserve the ecosystem. These practices included agro-
ecological and biodiversity practices, waste management, working conditions, etc.
CI, seeking for the sustainability of the reserve wanted to improve farmers´ livelihoods
thanks to organic coffee, which they have been growing even before the establishment of
the reserve in 1995. In order to achieve this objective and provide a constant demand for
the organic coffee, CI sought partnership with Starbucks5, first as a coffee buyer, and as a
donor of CI in the project (supplementing the funds received from the USAID). The added
standards would allow Starbucks to commercialize the coffee under its own label.
Along with CONANP, a first step was to form cooperatives to certify the coffee farmers and,
in theory, reduce the certification and marketing costs. In this way, in 2001 the cooperative
“Unión de Productores de la Sierra de Villaflores” (UPROSIVI) was established, with 151
members.
The certification of coffee farms and the production process was conducted by the Mexican
certification company CERTIMEX, which would allow farmers to export their coffee to
Europe, USA and Japan.
CI introduced the collaboration of El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), Ecosur – GIEZCA,
to apply an academic methodology in the production area to allow knowledge transfer to
the producer, understand the problems and provide possible solutions (the initial idea was
to create the farmer field schools ESCEAS, but apparently they did not materialize). ECOSUR
5 Starbucks is the largest coffeehouse company in the world.
70
participated both in the development of best practices, and in training workshops with
producers.
Initially CI was the intermediary between the cooperative and the buyers due to the lack of
capabilities and knowledge of farmers to export the coffee for themselves. At the beginning,
Starbucks established contracts directly with the cooperative. However, when the demand
for their brand "Shade Grown Mexico" increased, Starbucks stated the need to establish a
marketing mechanism that would reduce its transaction costs by negotiating only with a
single supplier, since it requires increased purchases of coffee. In view of this situation, CI
established a new partnership with Agro Industrias Unidas de México (AMSA, one of the
largest Mexican agri-businesses and a subsidiary of the US Atlantic Coffee). The company
received green coffee from farmers, then; the coffee is processed, selected and evaluated.
Finally, AMSA is in charge of preparing the documentation for export.
Therefore AMSA begins to function as an intermediary between UPROSIVI and Starbucks.
In addition, AMSA pays the certification cost due to the difficulty of producers to pay for
certification, discounting the money from the price that producers receive for their coffee.
Consequently, AMSA is the one who receives the certification documents. The farmers
stated that they never had an official paper that proves that they are certified as organic
producers. A partnership with a public institution (FIRA) to promote financing for rural
producers was established to provide loans to coffee producers, but finally was transferred
to another working alliance; therefore the credits did not reach the producers. Hence,
AMSA grants loans to invest in coffee production, with considerably high interest rates,
around 10-15% according to the farmers. Farmers do not have any commercial contract
with AMSA, however they sell almost all their coffee to the company due to the lack of
others buyers in the area.
Figure 8 shows the relationship among the different stakeholder involved in this process in
a graphic manner, while figure 9 illustrates the timeline.
71
Figure 8: Relationship among the different coffee stakeholders. Source: Own elaboration
Figure 9: Timeline of the process of the certification schemes. Source: Own elaboration
In summary, CI and the CONANP established a business model based on organic certification
schemes to integrate farmers in an international organic value chain. Farmers were
provided with training courses in organic practices along with the technical assistance to
establish a cooperative.
72
Initially, organic coffee was sold to an international company directly from the cooperative.
However, due to a disagreement between the company and the farmers on how to export
the coffee another company was introduced to play the role of intermediary between the
farmers and the coffee company. Therefore, the initial business model disappeared giving
way to other scenario where certified coffee farmers sell individually the coffee to the
exporter company, which is basically the only buyer available in the area. In addition, the
exporter company is paying the certification costs, and thus obtaining the documents of the
certification, because farmers cannot afford the certification cost. At the present time, the
implementation program is finished.
In the next section, the key findings obtained from the interviews are summarized and
divided in similar themes as in the analytical framework. It is important to mention that the
analysis goes beyond the impact of the participation in organic certification schemes, and
also includes the effects of the participation in the integrated business model based on
participation in organic certification schemes. The certification schemes may foster the
second order effects such as training, establishment of cooperatives, institutional support,
etc. However, those effects cannot be attributed only to the certification schemes as such.
6.2 The vulnerability context in La Sepultura
As mentioned in the previous chapter, small-scale coffee producers are exposed to
situations of shocks, trends and seasonality. This section, based on the information
extracted from the interviews, seeks to answer the following research question: “Which
risks/trends and shocks are farmers faced with? And, what are the causes?” Especially those
factors that affect the coffee production or marketing.
Shocks
There are different types of shocks; at the social level, natural catastrophes or economic
shocks. According to the interviewees, within the past ten years the main shocks
experienced by the whole community were the Hurricane in 2011, and right after that the
73
coffee rust6. Both are affected their coffee plantation at different levels. In addition,
drought and forest fires during the dry season and floods during the rainy season can also
wipe out their assets. However, they stated that in the last years the main problems were
the aforementioned hurricane and disease.
Coffee rust could be seen as a trend, because it was detected in the area, as well as in other
parts of Mexico, for more than 10 year. However, in the last 2-3 years the disease becomes
more virulent all of a sudden and it was spread to the entire coffee plantation, causing great
losses to coffee yield. This year the losses due to the coffee rust were about 60% compare
with the last year production. Regarding that most of the farmers basically depends on
coffee production, 60% of losses in their coffee production is a shock which could lead to
the collapse of the household economy.
The hurricane affects the farmers in different ways. First, the hurricane causes flooding that
affects their crops and some houses were also affected. Secondly, due to the hurricane
some trees were felled, which led to more direct sun exposure to their shade coffee trees.
Although, there are not conclusive studies about the link between humidity, sun exposure
and coffee rust, all the farmers pointed that after the hurricane the coffee rust gets out of
control.
Shocks can destroy assets unexpectedly because their occurrence is hard to predict or
prevent. Therefore, the accumulation of assets (especially liquid assets) and insurance
schemes could help the famers to cope with shocks by reducing their negative effects.
Trends
As it was mentioned, the difference between shocks and trends is that continuous stresses
can be detected and therefore, also coping strategies developed in advance. The main
negative trend recognized by all the interviewed farmers is related to coffee prices. They
6 Coffee disease caused by the fungus Hemileia vastatrix. The symptoms are small, pale yellow spots on the upper surfaces of the leaves, which cause premature defoliation, and thus reduces photosynthetic capacity and weakens the tree. Coffee rust declines the yield drastically, and it is considered as the most economically important coffee disease in the world (Thurston, 1998).
74
have to cope with low and fluctuated prices. These fluctuations are not only between years,
but during the same year the prices experience major changes, depending if there is the
beginning or the end of the harvest.
The vast majority of the farmers complain about the extreme low prices that they receive
for their coffee (this year ranged between 39$/Kg7 to 45$/Kg), which is slightly higher than
the price received by convectional coffee farmers. Although farmers are aware that organic
coffee has a higher market value, they suggest that the reason for low prices is their low or
non-existent bargaining power.
Seasonal stresses
Apart from the coffee price variation in the market depending on the season, the most
important seasonal stress that farmers suffer is the change of season during the year. As
described previously, this area have a dry and a rainy season, therefore farmers have to
cope with ecological stress.
During the dry season they harvest the coffee and work in their plantation, while in the
rainy season they have to sustain themselves with the saving from the coffee or other
productive activities, because during rainy season the heavy rainfalls complicate working
with other off-farm activities.
Poor value chain governance
As it was described above, one of the main sources of vulnerability is the bad price received
for their organic coffee, situation derived from their position in the organic value chain.
AMSA, the intermediary between the farmers and Starbucks, exercise its asymmetric
bargaining power to pay low prices to coffee producers. This asymmetric bargaining power
is the result of several factors:
First, AMSA is the main purchaser in the area, and the only one that can buy all the supply
from coffee producers (there is only one more coffee purchaser and it is much smaller than
7 39$ Mexican pesos at the date of the research was around 2.30€.
75
AMSA). In addition, since coffee is the main source of income for most of the households
(on average 60-70% of its revenues come from the sale of coffee) the farmers have the need
to sell their coffee as soon as they harvest it to convert the coffee into cash to buy inputs,
food, pay loans, etc. Hence, due to their limited option and lack of bargaining power, they
have to accept the price that AMSA offers to them. All the farmers find this price unfair.
Some farmers argue that AMSA is playing the role of “green coyote8”, which is means that
AMSA is buying the coffee at the same price of convectional coffee thanks to its bargaining
position, and then is selling the coffee as organic to Starbucks or other companies. As it was
mentioned in the previous chapter, AMSA is paying the certification discounting the money
from the price that producers receive for their coffee to coffee, as well as obtained the
documents to certify the coffee as organic, due to the producer´s inability to pay the cost
of the certification. This leaves farmers in a high vulnerable position.
It has to be mentioned that the author tried to interview the company to have its point of
view on the matter, but the company refuses to be interviewed several times.
6.3 Livelihood strategies
In this section are presented the findings to answer the research questions “What are the
livelihood strategies of coffee growers in the studied communities?”.
Resource-based activities are the main source of income for the farmers in the studied
communities. Most of them are self-employed in agriculture. Although coffee is the most
important crop in terms of income, almost all of the households (100% in Tres Picos and
80% in Nueva Independencia) have corn and beans fields that they use mainly for
subsistence purposes; surpluses are sold at local markets. Coffee sales are the bulk of their
income, but they also have other productive activities. The different sources of income are
presented below:
8 Mexican colloquial word for intermediaries denoting a negative connotation.
76
Crops
In Nueva Independencia 62.5% of coffee farmers grow Parlor Palm and 12.5% have
livestock. There is a decreasing trend in Parlor Palm production, due to low international
demand. Farmers have had struggles to find purchaser last year, therefore they are
considering stopping growing Parlor Palm.
In Tres Picos 38% of coffee farmers have livestock and 27% are involved in Pine resin
production. According to them, resin only account for about 5 to 10% of their income.
The differences between the 2 ejidos are mainly due to the different climate condition, and
therefore in the vegetation.
Subsidies
Coffee farmers receive two types of subsidies, one is linked with coffee production, whilst
the other with the production of food crops.
Procampo is a subsidy linked with the number of hectares of corn, which main objective is
to support the household economies in rural areas. The monthly payment received is
950$/ha (52€/ha).
The other subsidy is provided by SAGARPA, which aim is to encourage shade coffee
production in the Biosphere Reserve. Before, the subsidy was linked with the production of
coffee but now the only condition is to be a member of UPROSIVI, and all the member
receive the same monthly payment, 1300$ (72€).
On-farm activities
Around 20% of the farmers, especially during the coffee harvest farmers, work sporadically
as labourer in other farm picking coffee cherries, cleaning the land or during the primary
process.
77
Off farm activities
5% of the interviewed farmers own small shops run by women, and only 20% of the women
are employed in bigger towns in the area.
These facts show that farmers have a diversify economy although, as it was mentioned
before the main source of income is the coffee production, and there is a trend to
specialized even more in organic coffee production. Almost all of them have increased their
coffee production in recent years due to expectations of good prices and because they feel
that is the only productive strategy in the area due to the restrictions imposed by the
CONANP to carry out other productive activities. More than half of the farmers (65%)
consider to continue increasing the number of hectares, even replacing the corn field for
coffee. The rest of the coffee growers (45%), mainly in Nueva Independencia, prefer to keep
the acres they already have, but renew the plantation and improve the coffee management
(because of the problem with the coffee rust).
Farmers stated that they need between 1500 and 3000 Mexican pesos per month to survive
depending on family size and if they have corn field or not. Farmers assert that the per
capita coffee income is not enough to cover their total living expenses. Coffee producers in
the area are on the verge of having economic problems due to low production and low
coffee prices. The important of this point is to highlight that farmers perceive insufficient
their coffee income to have a sustainable livelihood.
Coping strategies against shocks and stresses
In the previous section the information extracted from the interviews show that the main
shocks and negative trends experience by coffee farmers in La Sepultura are coffee prices
due to their poor integration within the coffee value chain and coffee rust.
Today producers have no power to negotiate prices with the exporter company, although
they still produce organic coffee, and each year they are visited by the inspectors from the
78
certification company. Producers receive virtually the same price as other producers of
conventional coffee.
Despite this, they do not want to stop being certified and belong to UPROSIVI, due to the
hope of better prices in the future and the perception that when you are certified it is easier
to obtain subsidies from the government
In order to overcome the problem with the bad prices received by the purchaser, UPROSIVI
built a warehouse to store all the coffee, and therefore have more bargaining power against
the exporter company, as well as use the price variations through the year in their favour.
However, this process never took place, because there is a lack of organization and trust
among the UPROSIVI members, as one farmer stated “…here everybody is working for his
own benefit, there are no cooperation or coordination, even if we know that it would be
better for us”. This shows that the cooperative is not carrying out the expected functions.
Asking about this issue, more than the half of the farmers suggested that the main reason
which they are part of the cooperative is because it is a necessary condition to obtain
government support in the form of subsidies, inputs and/or infrastructure to coffee
production.
In the interview with the secretary of UPROSIVI, he gave his view about the strategy that
farmers ought to follow in order to achieve better prices for their coffee. He argues that
UPROSIVI should pay the certification and then process (roasted) the green coffee to add
value, and therefore upgrade their position in the value chain. In that way, they could sell
coffee directly to Starbucks or other consumers such as local coffee shops, and thus would
not depend on middlemen.
Although, it seems as a viable option, the main obstacles to carry out the strategy are the
lack of credit to buy the machinery to process the coffee and the difficulties to reach an
agreement among the different communities which form part of the cooperative.
12 members pointed that they did not trust the management board of the cooperative
because they were from other community and therefore they were seeking for benefits
79
only for their own community. This absence of cohesion and trust may be the reason for
the malfunction of the cooperative.
Nowadays, the main shock for coffee farmers is the coffee rust. The CONANP along with
local Universities such as Chapingo or ECOSUR, are supporting the farmer to fight the coffee
rust with new resistant coffee varieties and training courses of ecological practices to
control the disease.
Vast majority of the farmers will renew his plantation with new varieties provided by the
CONANP, some of them will improve their managing practices to strengthen the health of
the plant and few of them are thinking to use chemical pesticides, even if is not allow by
the reserves authorities and the certification standards. Nevertheless, none of them stated
that they will shift to other productive activities.
Although, it was expected that households are seeking to diversify the family economy due
to the bad prices and coffee rust, the interviews indicated that there is a trend to specialize
and increase the number of hectares of coffee (76% of the farmers are willing to increase
their coffee hectares).
The participation in organic certification schemes does not seem to be improved the
farmers coping strategies.
6.4 Impacts of the participation in organic certification schemes on farmers´ assets
in La Sepultura
To answer the research questions “What changes in their livelihoods are perceived by small
coffee farmers since they are part of the certifications schemes?” and “How far does the
participation in value chains for certified coffee contribute to these changes?” the result are
divided in the different types of capital, which are based on the indicators developed in the
analytical framework. The changes observed cannot be attributed solely to the participation
in organic certification schemes, because the certification schemes were part of a business
model implemented by a private-public partnership, which provided different types of
80
assistance and support in order to help the farmers to meet the organic standards and
integrate them in organic coffee value chain.
As mentioned in the sub-chapter 4.2, farmers were divided in 3 different groups according
to the size of their coffee plantations in order to find different results depending on the
hectares of coffee. However, the results do not support any causal relation between the
size of the coffee plantations and the answer from farmers.
Natural Capital
Vast majority of the farmers perceive organic coffee as a benefit for their environment. The
fact that they do not use synthetic fertilizers improves soil fertility and maintains water
quality in rivers and streams, which they use for irrigation and domestic consumption. Some
farmers recognized that at the beginning was difficult for them to accept the restrictions on
synthetic fertilizer and deforestation, but now they are aware that in the long-term is better
maintain soil fertility. Several farmers highlight the problem with the reduction in soil
fertility in their corn field, where they are allow to use synthetic fertilizer ”Now we have to
use double or triple amount of fertilizer to get the same corn yield”. The manager of the
Biosphere Reserve also confirms the environmental benefits when he was asked if the
participation in organic certification schemes is meeting its objectives “The participation in
organic certification schemes have only met its objectives from the point of view of
environmental conservation…”
In relation with coffee yield there are contradictory answers. Nearly half of the respondents
reported poor organic coffee yields. Nevertheless, the coffee yields may depends more on
the management practices applied than on the lack of traditional fertilizers. From the
interviews it seems that farmers who perceive poor coffee yields are also the farmers who
have a lack of intensive management practices in their plantations; several pruning,
cleaning coffee plantations, application of compost, etc.
81
Financial/Economic Capital
At this point is where most of the respondents agree. Although the main expected benefit
from certified coffee is better farm-gate prices, all the farmers perceive as insufficient and
unfair the price that they get for their coffee. They are getting the same price as
conventional coffee producers and, due to international prices fluctuations, less than
before join the certified coffee value chain.
They are still excluded from the formal financial institutions, due to lack of collaterals.
Therefore the only option for them is to borrow money from private lenders with very bad
loan conditions.
Positive economic impacts perceived by the farmers are the saving in inputs and therefore
the reduction of production costs, because organic standards involve lower expenditures
for purchased inputs. In addition, the subsidies that they are receiving to grow organic
coffee supplement their income from the coffee.
Human Capital
Although all the farmers have been in training courses about organic coffee production,
only few of them remember the name of the organization that offered the course. However,
they are aware about the importance of those courses, because they learned how to grow
and manage organic coffee in a proper way, which it was new for them. Therefore, a change
in their human capital is appreciated and assessed in a positive way.
Nevertheless, 70% of the farmers complained about the courses because they feel that the
courses were mainly theoretical, and therefore they forgot the knowledge learned or simply
they do not know how to apply it. Moreover, another problem perceived by them is the lack
of continuity (the training courses offered by CI and Ecosur lasted only 3 years, from 2004
to 2007).
The interviews show their lack of knowledge about how the certification process and the
international coffee market work. For example, few of them knows the name of the certifier
82
company, most of the farmers confuse the certifier company with the middleman AMSA.
In addition, vast majority declared their lack of knowledge about international coffee prices
or international organic coffee value chains. Therefore, the contribution of the participation
strategy towards capacity building in business and organizational skills is missing.
Social Capital
On one hand, the certification enhances the cooperative formation, which they
acknowledge that improves their relationship with the CONANP and other institutions like
Universities or NGOs. On the other hand, as it was mentioned before, the cooperative it is
not meeting its initial objectives. Although all coffee farmers are members of UPROSIVI they
do not manage to set a collective marketing strategy for their coffee.
Apparently, they did not have a culture of working in a cooperative way, therefore the 3
years program implementation seems to be not enough to achieve the initial goals of the
project.
Vast majority of the farmers assess their relationship with the purchasers as bad or very
bad, due to their lack of capacity to negotiate prices or conditions. One of the indicators
developed to assess the impact of the certification on social capital was the implementation
of commercial contracts to avoid uncertainty. To this day, there is no contract between
farmers and the purchaser. Nonetheless, the CONANP expressed during the interview their
willingness to aid farmers to find other alternative organic value chain for the coffee
producers. This may be seem as a positive contribution of the participation in organic
certification schemes, because the CONANP is interested in promote the organic coffee
production within the reserve to meet their environmental conservation objectives,
therefore their implication to find alternatives buyers with convectional coffee it would
have been lower.
Physical Capital
Their physical assets have improved since they are part of the certification. Now they have
equipment and infrastructure to carry out the primary coffee processing; CONANP provides
83
them with drying yards and pulping machines. Therefore, the quality of their coffee has
improved.
6.5 Changes in the vulnerability context
Finally, the impacts of the participation in organic certification schemes on farmers
vulnerability based on the analytical framework developed by the author are summarized
in this section, which seeks to answer the research questions; “What changes in their
vulnerability context are perceived by small coffee farmers since they are part of the
certifications schemes? And “How far does the participation strategy contribute to these
changes?”
As explained in the analytical framework chapter, this thesis is based on the assumption of
the SLA that farmers´ assets and the vulnerability context are interlinked, and thus the
improvement of assets can reduce the negative impact of trends and shocks. Assuming this
hypothesis the author assess the impacts on vulnerability context in relation with the
impact of the participation in the business model based on organic certification schemes on
farmer´s livelihoods and coping strategies against negative trends and shocks.
The findings from the empirical research show that the main impact of the participation in
organic certification is on natural capital, specifically in soil fertility, water quality and
biodiversity conservation. Whilst data from the case study does not support an
improvement in coffee yields.
Financial capital is not substantially affected by the certification schemes, because
producers do not receive the Price premium for their organic coffee. Besides that, they are
still excluded from formal credit institution due to lack of collaterals. In addition, the saving
in synthetic inputs cannot be related only to the organic standards since most of them
acknowledged that they cannot afford them anyway. Probably the only positive impacts of
certification in relation with farmer’s income are the subsidies that they are receiving due
to certified organic coffee production.
84
Improvement of social capital is not a clear-cut impact, since the cooperative is not meeting
its initial objective and functions. Although their relationship with the authorities of the
Reserve are assessed in a positive way, their options to sell their coffee are very limited and
without any bargaining power. Hence, their access to markets has not improve/change.
Nonetheless, the CONANP is interested in promoting organic coffee to fulfil its
environmental conservation objectives, and during the interview the CONANP expressed
their willingness to help farmers to find new organic value chain, which it may be that this
support does not exist with convectional coffee.
Finally, the impact on human capital is very scarce, at least related with their knowledge
about coffee marketing and certification process. They do not have the capabilities to find
buyers, or to plan a new marketing strategy. In which the participation in organic
certification schemes has a positive impact is in their knowledge about organic coffee
practices.
In summary, the participation in organic certifications schemes has positive impact on
natural capital, whereas in the other capitals, the effects are inconclusive. With regard to
the main causes of producers’ vulnerability; bad and fluctuating prices, and coffee rust.
Farmer’s perception about the effect of certification schemes on their livelihood
vulnerability is that participation in organic certification schemes neither aggravate nor help
to solve their problems.
Despite being certified, organic coffee producers receive the same price for their coffee as
convectional producers, which they perceive as insufficient to achieve an adequate
standard of living, and besides that prices are still subject to fluctuations. In addition,
farmers do not have economic security due to lack of commercial contracts. Therefore, the
organic certification strategy is not successful to achieve value chain upgrading through
vertical integration for the farmers in the studied communities.
Apparently, the findings from the empirical study do not support a substantial impact on
livelihood assets or coping strategies against coffee rust and prices since they are
participating in VC´s for certified coffee.
85
6.7 Discussion
In this section, findings derived from the literature review and the empirical data will be
presented and briefly discussed. There were some theories presented in the review of the
literature that were supported by the empirical findings of this thesis. However, there were
others theories that did not apply in this case according with the finding from the case study.
The last research question “How these findings may be assessed in comparison to
experiences with the introduction of certification schemes in other countries and protected
areas?” will be answer in this section.
Starting with the complicated and costly bureaucratic process that poor coffee growers
have to overcome in order to achieve the organic certification and also the difficulties to
reach organic markets, the findings seem to be supported by the stance held by many
researchers (e.g Allen and Kovach, 2000; Gonzalez and Nigh, 2005), who state that
certification process is expensive and difficult for low income producers. This situation has
led to a high dependence on external agencies in order to obtain training in organic
practices to meet the organic standards and economic support to cover the certification
costs and the transition period.
Additionally, the results obtained from this case study support the argument of Beuchelt &
Zeller (2011) about low farm-gate prices received by the certified organic producers for
their coffee, which in many cases receive the same price as in convectional channels. In the
case of this case study the reason is that the exporter company who monopolize the organic
coffee market in the area have payed, and thus obtained, the certification documents
because farmers cannot afford the cost of the certification. Hence, farmers´ need of selling
their main income product together with the lack of bargaining power have not allowed
farmers to get higher prices for their coffee, despite the added value. This situation was
already observed and denounced by Chiputwa et al. (2013) and La Jornada (2010).
The aforementioned observation seems to contradict the assumption certified organic
coffee farmers upgrade their value chain by receiving higher farm-gate prices, and therefore
better incomes which can lift out them from poverty (Bacon, 2005; Sustaineo, 2013).
86
In regards to the improvement of social capital and the contribution to capacity building
due to the establishment of cooperatives, the results from the case study are more on the
side of Gonzalez and Nigh (2005) than supporting the statement of Bacon (2005) and
Sustaineo (2013), which state that participation in organic coffee certifications have a
positive impact on social capital. Gonzalez and Nigh argue that successful social
organization and capacity building cannot be achieved in a short term program.
Cooperatives formation through top-down approaches has not guaranteed the proper
functioning of the farmers´ collective work. By contrast, the more successful organic coffee
cooperatives are the ones with thick democratic decision-making and participatory political
organization.
Literature review identified as other positive impact of the participation in organic
certification schemes in producers´ livelihood the conservation of farmers´ natural
environment (Bacon, 2005; Beuchelt and Zeller, 2011; Killian et al., 2006; Paschall, 2013;
Sustaineo, 2013) which is consistent with the findings from the case study. In addition,
improvement in education seems to be verified by the results obtained during the case
study. These results could be explained by the training courses provided to farmers about
organic farming. However, based on the results from the case study, there is still a
knowledge gap among certified producers about how the process of certification works,
and about international coffee markets, included organic markets. Vast majority of farmers
acknowledged their inability to understand and access organic coffee markets.
Therefore, the findings from the case study denies the alleged social and economic benefits
(Bacon, 2005; Paschall, 2013; Sustaineo, 2013) that participation in organic certification
provides to improving the living conditions of small coffee producers in southern countries.
In summary, this case study illustrated that participation in organic certification schemes as
a valid strategy towards poverty reduction of small-scale coffee producer is not always
assured. As Sustaineo (2013) mentioned, the success of the organic certification schemes
on improving producer’s livelihoods depends more on the quality of the implementation
programs that encourage the participation in these schemes than in the certification itself.
87
Long-term projects providing training towards capacity building and access to credit appear
to be essential requirements for the success of this strategy (Paschall, 2013).
88
Chapter 7: Conclusions
The overall aim of this research was to advance an understanding of how participation in
certification schemes impact on poor small-scale farmers in the South, particularly in
improving their livelihoods and reducing their vulnerability context.
The specific research objectives of this study were to:
Understand the livelihoods and the strategies of coffee growers in the studied
communities.
Asses the changes in their livelihoods based on their perceptions since they are part
of the certifications schemes, and the contribution of the research strategy to those
changes.
Interpret the causes of risk and vulnerability that coffee growers have to face and
how far the participation in certification schemes has reduced their vulnerability.
Compare the findings from the case study with similar experiences in other
countries.
Draw conclusion on the conditions under which participation in such schemes can
be a successful strategy for improving the livelihoods of smallholder farmers in
protected areas.
This section will revisit the research objectives above, summarize the results of this study
and offer conclusions based on the results.
The literature review identified the need of the poor coffee producers in the South to find
strategies to overcome the clear imbalance that the coffee value chain presents, where
89
most of the profits are concentrated in the big roaster companies and retailers. In this
context, agencies and NGOs have promoted the participation of coffee producers in organic
certification to add value at the farm-gate stage, and therefore improve producer’s
livelihoods. Further, the study explored the impacts of participation in certification
schemes. However, there is not a clear cut about positives effects of participation in
certification schemes in improving small-scale coffee producers. Some studies state that
there are positive effects on farm-gate prices, knowledge about organic practices and social
organization due to the establishment of cooperatives to share the cost of the certification
and market the coffee. On the other hand, other studies pointed that there are cases in
which the participation strategy does not improve producers´ livelihoods. In which the
majority of the revised studies agree is on the positive impacts on conservation of local
natural environment. According to the literature, the main barriers for farmers to obtain
the certification and commercialize their certified coffee are lack of credit, little knowledge
about international markets and the process of the certification. These problems have led
farmers to have a great dependence on organizations that promote such strategies,
concluding that the success of the participation in organic certification schemes also
depends on the quality of the implementation programs.
The main conclusion that can be drawn from this research on these issues is that
generalization about the positive impacts of participation in organic certification schemes
on smallholder coffee farmers´ livelihoods may not be justified, and therefore more
research is needed about the factors and conditions under which participation in organic
certification schemes is a successful strategy for improving the lives of small-scale coffee
producers.
The second part of the study is focused on empirical research. Data derived through
empirical work regarding the impact on livelihoods and vulnerability were explored,
analyzed and contrasted with theory.
The author found that the participation in certification schemes in the communities was
carried out by a public-private partnership. The aim of the implemented project was to
90
create a convergence between environment conservation and socio-economic
development of the local populations in the Biosphere. Although, positive impacts on
producer’s livelihoods were found in terms of better knowledge of organic practices and
the conservation of their natural environment, the findings from the study do not support
an improvement in their social organization or farm-gate prices since they are involved in
the organic certification schemes. An important outcome of the research was that the
exporter company to which farmers sell their coffee is paying the certification because
farmers cannot afford to pay it, and thus obtained the certification documents. In addition,
producers are getting the same price for their certified organic coffee as convectional
farmers due to the lack of options to commercialize their coffee and their low or non-
existent bargaining power. This may help explain why the literature states that participation
in organic certification schemes does not assure higher farm-gate prices.
Therefore, the findings obtained during the field work suggest that there is problem in the
governance of the value chain. Although, governance in value chain is not part of the
analytical framework due to the focus on the household level, it seems necessary to explore
how the factors within the governance of the organic coffee value chain are influencing the
coffee producers´ livelihoods, especially the asymmetric power among the actors.
Moreover, coffee producers coping strategies against the main causes of risks and
vulnerabilities; bad and fluctuating coffee prices, and coffee diseases have not been
improved through the participation in certification schemes.
It is important to mention that the information collected from the case study is not enough
to make a solid conclusion. The participation in organic certification schemes may
contribute to the aforementioned impacts, or even it may have contributed to other
impacts that have not been seen during the empirical research. However, these impacts (or
the lack of them) cannot be attributed solely to the participation in organic certification
schemes because the certification was introduced and promoted within a project that
sought a new business model based on the integration of coffee producers into certified
international coffee value chain. Therefore, the quality of the project and its
91
implementation should be analyzed to separate the impact of the participation in the
project and the organic certification schemes as such. Furthermore, as it was mentioned
before coffee producer´s livelihoods in La Sepultura are affected and shaped by many other
factors such as international market regulations, national policies, economic trends, etc.
which are out of the influence of the organic certification schemes.
Another limitation is that governance structures, and distribution of power and risks in the
coffee value chain have not been explored in detail. Such analysis would have added further
richness to the study, but this would have compromised the focus of the research and
perhaps made the burden of work unmanageable.
The conclusions that can be drawn from this research on the impact of participation in
certification schemes in the Biosphere Reserve La Sepultura is that positive impacts on
producers´ livelihoods are mainly environmental benefits, which in the long-term it may
reduce household´s vulnerability to natural disasters like drought or flooding by protecting
watersheds and forests. However, the value chain is almost the same as in convectional
channels. Coffee farm-gate prices have not improved, and the profit is still concentrated in
the intermediary companies. In addition, coffee rust has shown that specialization in one
crop or product might be an inadequate strategy, especially regarding food security.
Because the certification strategy does not enhance the development of coping strategies
against pest or diseases (shocks in general).
Finally, further research is needed to find the factors that could make the participation in
organic certification schemes successful. In order to implement this type of studies the
author recommends to carry out long-term studies to analyze before and after situation,
and at the same time have a control group to compare with-without in order to minimized
the bias induced by the possible impacts of other external factors. Although, with-without
comparison also implies a potential bias, because the reasons why an individual participates
in a program can be correlated with the results. It is also important to compare several
coffee producers in different countries and different institutional settings. Institutional,
92
policies and market settings could also be compared in order to identify factors and
conditions which determine economic success of certification.
The conclusions of this research are based on the case study and an extensive review of
related literature which means that the conclusions are linked only to these two sources,
and therefore cannot be applied to all the small-scale coffee producers in similar protected
areas. Nevertheless, the findings can be of interest to other researchers and institutions
interested to promoted similar participation strategies.
93
References
Aguilar-Jiménez, R. (2011). Modos de vida y aproximación de sistemas ganaderos al
estándar orgánico en Villaflores, Chiapas. Unpublished Master Thesis. El Colegio de la
Frontera Sur.
Allen, P. and Kovach, M. (2000). The Capitalist Composition of Organic: The Potential of
Markets in Fulfilling the Promise of Organic Agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values, Vol.
17, pp. 221-232.
Bacon, C. (2005). Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and Specialty
Coffees Reduce Small-Scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua? World
Development, 33(3), pp. 497-511.
Barrett, H. Browne, W., Harris, P., and Cadoret, K. (2002). Organic certification and the UK
market: Organic imports from developing countries. Food Policy 27, pp. 301–318.
Bartra, A. (2002). Virtudes económicas, sociales y ambientales del café certificado El caso
de la Coordinadora Estatal de Productores de Café de Oaxaca. Instituto Maya. Mexico D.F.
Beuchelt, T. and Zeller, M. (2011). Profits and poverty: Certification's troubled link for
Nicaragua's organic and Fairtrade coffee producers. Ecological Economics 70, pp 1316–
1324.
Bogdan, R. and Biklen, K. (2003). Qualitative Research for Education: An introduction to
Theories and Methods (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education group.
Brown, O., Charavat, C., Eagleton, D. (2001). The coffee market: A background study.
London: Oxfam International.
Brunel, M. and García-Barrios, L. (2011). Acknowledging consensus and dissent among and
within stakeholder groups over conservation, production and urbanization in a Mexican
Man and the Biosphere Reserve. In: Research Journal of Biological Sciences 6 (9), pp. 459 –
467.
94
Carney, D. (1999). Sustainable livelihood approaches: Progress and possibilities for change.
London: DFID.
Camacho, A. et al. (2002). Diagnóstico Regional de la Cuenca del Río El Tablón en la Reserva
de la Biosfera de La Sepultura, Chiapas, México. Reporte de la práctica de campo.
Universidad Autónoma Chapingo.
CEPAL. (2002). Centroamérica: El impacto de la caída de los precios del café. Mexico, DF:
CEPAL.
Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for
the 21st Century. IDS Discussion paper 296, IDS-University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Chiputwa et al. (2013) No. 27 Food Standards, Certification, and Poverty among Coffee
Farmers in Uganda. Georg-August-University of Göttingen. GlobalFood Discussion Papers.
Cohen, L., Manion L. (1995). Research Methods in Education, London: Routledge.
CONEVAL. (2012). Pobreza estatal Chiapas. Mexico, DF: CONEVAL. Retrieved 20 July 2015,
from http://www.coneval.gob.mx/coordinacion/entidades/Chiapas/Paginas/principal.aspx
Daviron, B. and Ponte, S. (2005). The coffee paradox: Global markets, commodity trade and
the elusive promise of development, Zed, London.
Deere, C. (2002). Greening the Americas. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. 61-79.
Ellis, F. (2000). Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford University
Press. Oxford, Uk, pp. 7-8.
FAO. (2003). Report on “World agriculture: towards 2015/2030 an FAO perspective”. FAO.
Rome.
FAO. (2012). Report on “Analisis de la Cadena de Valor del Café con Enfoque de Seguridad
Alimentaria y Nutricional”. FAO. Rome.
95
Fitter, R. and Kaplinsky, R. (2001). Who gains from product rents as the coffee market
becomes more differentiated? A value chain analysis. IDS Bulletin 32, pp. 69-82.
García-Barrios, L., et al. (2009). Neotropical forest conservation, agricultural intensification,
and rural out-migration: The Mexican experience. In: Bioscience Vol. 59, No. 10, pp. 863 –
873.
Gomez Tovar, L., Gomez Cruz, M.A., (2004). La agricultura orgánica en México: Un ejemplo
de incorporación y resistencia a la globalización. Unpublished manuscript, Oaxaca, Mexico.
González, A. and Nigh, R. (2005). Smallholder participation and certification of organic farm
products in Mexico. Journal of Rural Studies, 21(4), pp.449-460.
Gordillo, G., et al. (1995). El sector ejidal en la agricultura Mexicana: impacto de la reformas.
Mimeograph.
Hallam, D. (2003). Falling commodity prices and industry responses: Some lessons from the
international coffee crisis. FAO. Rome.
IFAD. (2003). The Adoption of Organic Agriculture Among Small Farmers in Latin America
and the Caribbean. Thematic Evaluation. Report 1337, Rome.
IFOAM. (2009). Definition of Organic Agriculture. IFOAM, Bonn, Germany. Retrieved 20 May
2015, from http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/definitions/doa/index.html.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2004). Abbottabadƒ State of the
Environment and Development. Government of the NWFP and IUCN Pakistan. Retrieved 12
July 2015, from http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/abbottabad_so_ed.pdf
Kaplinkski, R. and Morris, M. (2000). A handbook for Value Chain Research. Prepared for
the IRDC. Retrieved 05 July 2015, from www.ids.ac.uk/ids/global/VchNov01.pdf.
Kilian, B., Jones, C., Pratt, L., Villalobos, A. (2006). Is sustainable agriculture a viable strategy
to improve farm income in Central America? A case study on coffee. Journal of Business
Research 59 (3), pp 322-330.
96
Kozak, K. (2010). Facing asymmetry. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. pp 130-141.
Lampkin, N., Foster, C., Padel, S., and Midmore, P., (1999). The Policy and Regulatory
Environment for Organic Farming in Europe. In Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and
Policy. Vol. 1, Hohenheim University, Germany.
Mabry, L. (2008). Case Study in Social Research, in The Sage Handbook of social research
methods. Los Angeles. pp. 214-227.
Mariscal, A. (2010). “Nestlé y Amsa ponen en riesgo a caficultores organicos en Chiapas”,
La Jornada, May 8.
Schwentesius Laura Gómez Tovar,
Rita Schwentesius Rindermann,
Manuel Ángel Gómez Cruz
Nelson, E.(n.d). Participatory organic certification: An Alternative Approach to Maintaining
the Integrity of the Organic Label. Retrieved 15 July 2015, from
http://www.oacc.info/Docs/Guelph2008SocialSciences/Nelson,%20Tovar,%20Rindermann
%20and%20Cruz%20(2008).pdf.
Parra, M. (2011). Manual de participación comunitaria para promotores y facilitadores del
desarrollo comunitario. ECOSUR, México.
Parrot, N., Olsen, J.E., and Hogh-Jensen, H., (2006). Certified and Non-certified Organic
Farming in the Developing World. In Halberg, H., Alroe, H.F., Knudsen M.T., and Kristensen
E.S. (Eds.) Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects. CABI
publishing, UK, pp. 154–176.
Paschall, M. (2013).The Role of Third Party Certification in Improving Small Farmer
Livelihoods. Unpublished Master Thesis. University of St. Gallen, School of Management,
Economics, Law, Social Sciences and International Affairs.
97
Ponte, S. (2002). The ‘‘Latte Revolution’ ’Regulation, markets and consumption in the global
coffee chain. World Development, 30(7), pp 1099–1122.
Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.
Randall, L. (1996). Reforming Mexico's agrarian reform. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Raynolds, L. (2000). “Re-embedding Global Agriculture: The International Organic and Fair
Trade Movements.” Agriculture and Human Values, 17, pp 297-309.
SAGARPA. (2006). Analisis prospectivo de politica cafetalera. Mexico D.F.
SAGARPA. (2004). Fomento Productivo y Mejoramiento de la Calidad del Café de México.
Mexico D.F.
Schmitz, H., and Humphrey, J. (2009). Governance and Upgrading: Linking Industrial Cluster
and Global Value Chain Research. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.
Stone, G., 2004. Biotechnology and the political ecology of information in India. Human
organization 63 (2), pp 127-140.
Stuckey, J. and White, D. (1993). When and when not to vertically integrate. McKinsey &
Company. Retrieved 12 July 2015, from
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/when_and_when_not_to_vertically_integrat
Sustaineo. (2013). Improving smallholder livelihoods: Effectiveness of certification in coffee,
cocoa and cotton. KPMG Sustainability.
Thurston, H.D. 1998. Tropical Plant Diseases. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul,
MN
Unesco. (2015). Biosphere Reserves | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization. Retrieved 19 February 2015, from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-
sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/
98
Wiemer, H. (2008). Value Chain Governance. Is it „Supply Chain Management” vs. “Pro-poor
Upgrading of Value Chains”? SMNR Vietnam, Discussion paper, 2008.
Wisner, B. (2003). At risk: natural hazards, people´s vulnerability and disasters. Second
edition, UNDP follow up for the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd edn. Vol.5, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Zeller, M., Sharma, M., Henry, C., Lapenu, C., 2006. An operational method for assessing the
poverty outreach performance of development policies and projects: results of case studies
in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. World Development 34 (3), pp 446–464.
99
Appendices
Appendix 1. Questions for coffee producers
1. How many people live with you?
2. Who is in charge of maintaining economically the family?
3. Who is in charge of organize the agricultural work?
4. At what age your children start to work in the field?
5. How much money do you need to survive?
6. What is your legal landholding status?
7. How do you distribute your land for the production and other activities (Coffee,
mais, livestock, resin, parlor palm, forest, PES)?
8. Total number of hectares? Number of each crop?
9. How much money do you obtain from the activities and subsidies? How many days
do you spend in the coffee production? How many quintales (60kg) do you produce per
hectare?
10. Do you receive any subsidy from the government due to the coffee production?
Which one?
11. Do you manage to save money at the end of the dry/coffee season?
12. With how many hectares of coffee do you start your production?
13. Are you thinking in increase the number of hectares?
14. Which coffee varieties do you grow?
15. Do you grow organic coffee?
100
16. Which activities do you carry out in order to produce organic coffee?
Vermicomposting /Compost/ Organic fertilizers /Land terracing/Filters for cherry pulps/
Drying yard / Agobio / Deshije /Pruning /Shade diversification / Others
17. Do you have organic certification? In case of negative answer, Why?
18. Do you know the name of the certification?
19. What does it means to be certified?
20. How is the process to be certified?
21. What are the benefits of growing organic coffee? Price /Soil /Coffee plants/ Rivers
or streams / Family economy /Project management
22. How you can improve the price received for your coffee? And the production of
coffee?
23. Do you participate in any producer organization? Why?
24. Who are your purchasers? Why?
25. How is your relationship with your purchasers? Why? (1 – very well to 5 – very bad)
26. Have you received any training course about organic coffee? Could you name them?
27. How would you assess the usefulness of the courses? Why?(1 – very well to 5 – very
bad)
28. How is your relationship with CONANP? Why? (1 – very well to 5 – very bad)
29. Do you think that live in the core zone of the reserve has limited your production
activities? In which way?
30. Which problems do you have related to coffee production or coffee sale? Price
fluctuation/ coffee rejection from the purchasers/ change in the contracts/ change in the
certification requirements/ bad prices from the purchasers/ Diasases/ Others
101
31. What were the effects on coffee production? (1 - Strong effects to 5 – No impacts)
32. Have you ever have to sell assets unexpectedly? Why?
33. Do you think that organic coffee helps you to cope with these stresses/shocks? (1 –
Strong influence to 5 – Nothing)
34. Which are your strategies to cope with these stresses/shocks?
35. What is your opinion about the certification schemes? Why? What do you would
change?
Appendix 2. Questions for coffee producers
1. Which crops do you have? And how many hectares of each one? Do you want to
increase the number of your coffee hectares? Which % represent of your income?
2. Usually, how many kg of coffee do you harvest per hectare? And this year?
3. Do you have other sources of income? How much do you earn?
4. What is the occupation of the others family members?
5. Do you receive any government subsidies? Which ones? How much do you receive?
6. Do you participate in any producer organization? Why?
7. What is the price that you receive for your coffee? How you can improve the price
received for your coffee? How are you going to find new purchasers?
8. Which types of contracts do you have since you are certified?
9. Which problems do you have related to coffee production or coffee sale? (Price
fluctuation, coffee rejection from the purchasers, change in the contracts, change in the
certification requirements, bad prices from the purchasers…)
102
10. How are you going to cope with the roya?
11. Would you recommend other producers to certify themselves? Why?
12. What is your opinion about the certification schemes?
Appendix 3. Question for the institutions
1. How was the organic coffee production process in the reserve of the Biosphere La
Sepultura?
2. Which certification schemes are currently working in the reserve, specifically in the
communities Tres picos and Nueva independencia?
3. What are the reason that led -name of the institution- participate in the organic
certification process?
-What benefits are the farmers obtaining?
-How the organic coffee can help to improve the livelihood of the farmers?
-How is expecting that the organic coffee will help to conserve the reserve´s natural
resources?
4. How you assess these benefits/impacts?
5. In your opinion, are the certification meeting its objectives? What could be
improved?
6. What are the perspectives of -name of the institution- in relation with the coffee
production?
7. You as an institution, which types of action are you carrying out to face/cope with
farmers risks and vulnerabilities?