Search

Both certification and participation in farmer organizations are associated with economic and social benefits for farmers. However, knowledge about potential differences in perceived benefits resulting from participating in different forms of organization and certification schemes is limited. In this paper, we distinguish three types of farmer organizations in the Indonesian coffee sector: farmer groups, cooperatives and KUBEs. We compare the perceived benefits of farmers in these different forms of organization, including unorganized farmers, and of farmers in different certification schemes (i.e., Fairtrade, UTZ certified, Rainforest Alliance, and 4C). We found that certified farmers perceive higher benefits than uncertified farmers, and organized farmers perceive higher benefits than unorganized smallholders. Farmers with a dual membership (for example of a farmer group and a KUBE or cooperative) experience more benefits than farmers who only participate in farmer groups. Although farmers belonging to different certification schemes do significantly differ in their perceived benefits, we could not identify clear patterns based on the different schemes. Weconclude that integration of the different organizational forms, and a more intense collaboration between the different ministries underlying each organizational form, may further improve the benefits perceived by farmers in the Indonesian coffee sector.

(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.)Coffee is one of the most-traded commodities and highest-valued cash crops worldwide. Since coffee is mostly produced on small-scale holdings in developing countries, its production plays a vital role in the livelihoods of 25 million rural households in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In India alone, it provides livelihoods for more than 150,000 growers and one million workers and their families (United Nations (UN) 2012) and small-scale holdings account for 70 percent of the nation's production (Coffee Board of India (CBI) 2015). Coffee became an important export commodity for India after its independence, and today, almost 80 percent of the coffee produced is exported (CBI 2015). Globally in 2012, India was the fifth-largest coffee producer in the world and the third-largest in Asia (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2012), contributing 4 percent of the world's total production (UN 2012).The majority of the small-scale coffee producers in India are poor, and the worldwide coffee crisis in the early 2000s further impoverished them. During the crisis (Ponte 2002), many of India's smallholders suffered from hunger and took on large amounts of debt, and a few committed suicide (Chattopadhayay and John 2007). In response to volatile market prices, credit constraints, and supply shocks, several alternative market channels-fair trade, organic, Smithsonian bird-friendly, and Rainforest Alliance certification -have been promoted as possible solutions. These certification schemes are based primarily on environmental and social parameters. Fair trade certification, for example, is aimed at improving the living conditions of operators of certified farms, and organic and bird-friendly certification schemes promote organic agriculture and preservation of bird species on certified farms. Simultaneously, certification schemes recognize that profitability is the major driver of adoption of such certifications by smallholders and hence incorporate provisions for price premiums for certified farmers.Another factor in development of certification schemes worldwide is demand by consumers in developed countries for environmentally friendly and socially responsible coffees (Rice 2001, Basu, Chau, and Grote 2003). Fair trade certification, which is one of the oldest and is the second-largest initiative after organic certification, is known for promoting social justice and having high standards in terms of development that favors small-scale producers (Raynolds, Murray, and Heller 2007). Under the fair trade regime, small-scale coffee farmers in developing countries are supposed to benefit from longterm trading relationships, price premiums, social projects such as establishing schools and healthcare centers, flexible credit arrangements, and greater labor rights (Muradian and Pelupessy 2005, Raynolds, Murray, and Heller 2007).Several empirical studies, conducted mostly in Latin America and Africa, have examined factors that influence adoption of fair trade certification and its impacts on household welfare in terms of incomes and consumption expenditures (Arnould, Plastina, and Ball 2009, Jena et al. 2012, Ruben and Fort 2012, Chiputwa, Spielman, and Qaim 2015). The results have been mixed. Jena et al. (2012) studied coffee-growers in Ethiopia and found that organic and fair trade certifications there did not contribute to incomes or reduce poverty but did have a significant impact on per capita consumption. Ruben and Fort (2012) also found no significant gains in income for fairtrade-certified Peruvian coffee farmers. However, Arnould, Plastina, and Ball (2009) found small, uneven increases in household welfare in Peru, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. Recently, in a study in Uganda, Chiputwa, Spielman, and Qaim (2015) found that fair trade certification had a significant positive impact on household living standards relative to organic and UTZ certification. All of these studies were based on cross-section data and used propensity score matching with either a binary or multiple treatments. …

Private sustainability standards are increasingly important in food trade with developing countries, but the implications for smallholder farmers are still poorly understood. We analyze the implications of different coffee certification schemes in Ethiopia using cross-sectional survey data, and regression and propensity-score-matching techniques. We find that: Rainforest Alliance (RA) and double Fairtrade-Organic (FT-Org) certifications are associated with higher incomes and reduced poverty, mainly because of higher prices; Fairtrade (FT) certification hardly affects welfare; and Organic (Org) certification reduces incomes, chiefly due to lower yields. Cooperative heterogeneity importantly shapes these results. Results imply that private standards may not always deliver what they promise to consumers.