Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 577–591 | Cite as

Co-operative or coyote? Producers’ choice between intermediary purchasers and Fairtrade and organic co-operatives in Chiapas

Article

Abstract

Coffee producers in many parts of the world have the option of either becoming a member of and selling their coffee to a Fairtrade and organic co-operative, or selling it to a “coyote”, the Central American nickname for intermediary purchaser. This study investigates why different producers make different choices, looking at both material and immaterial costs and benefits of the two choices. A qualitative study from Chiapas (Mexico) finds that a main reason for not choosing the co-operatives is the production requirements that follow organic certification. A survey on production costs confirms that members of an organic co-operative have more work hours than non-members in the same area. A probit analysis indicates that both coffee plot size and number of working household members influence the producers’ decision on sales channel. However, the study also finds that aspects not related to the organic production requirements can affect the choice, such as the level of trust in co-operative leadership, and the co-operatives’ payment systems.

Keywords

Fairtrade Organic production Farmer cooperatives Coffee Mexico 

Abbreviations

Certimex

Certificadora Mexicana de Productos y Procesos Ecológicos

FLO

Fairtrade International

IAI

Inter-American Institute for global change research

PRD

Partido de la Revolución Democrática

UREAFA

Unión Regional de Ejidatarios Agropecuarios, Forestales y de Agroindustria de los pueblos Zoque y Tzotzil del Estado de Chiapas

References

  1. Arruda, C. 1997. Business ethics in Latin America. Journal of Business Ethics 16: 1597–1603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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): 497–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barham, B., M. Callenes, S. Gitter, J. Lewis, and J. Weber. 2011. Fairtrade/organic coffee, rural livelihoods, and the “Agrarian Question” : Southern Mexican coffee families in transition. World Development 39(1): 134–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrera, J.F., M. Parra Vázquez, O.B. Herrera Hernández, R. Jarquín Gálvez, and J. Pohlan. 2004. Plan Estatal de Manejo Agroecológico del Café en Chiapas. Guía hacia una cafeticultura sustentable. Tapachula, Chiapas, México: Comisión para el Desarrollo y Fomento del Café de Chiapas y El Colegio de la Frontera Sur.Google Scholar
  5. Basu, P., and J. Chakraborty. 2008. Land labour and rural development: Analyzing participation in India’s village dairy co-operatives. The Professional Geographer 60(3): 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernard, T., and D.J. Spielman. 2009. Reaching the rural poor through rural producer organizations? A study of agricultural marketing co-operatives in Ethiopia. Food Policy 34: 60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beuchelt, T., and M. Zeller. 2011. Profits and poverty: Certification’s troubled link for Nicaragua’s organic and Fairtrade coffee producers. Ecological Economics 70: 1316–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolwig, S., P. Gibbon, and S. Jones. 2009. The economics of smallholder organic contract farming in tropical Africa. World Development 37(6): 1094–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bray, D.B., J.L.P. Sánchez, and E.C. Murphy. 2002. Social dimensions of organic coffee production in Mexico: Lessons for eco-labeling initiatives. Society and Natural Resources 15: 429–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castellanos, E., C. Tucker, H. Eakin, H. Morales, J. Barrera, and R. Diaz. 2012. Assessing the adaptation strategies of farmers facing multiple stressors: Lessons from the Coffee and Global Changes project in Mesoamerica. Environmental and Science Policy 26: 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Certimex (Certificadora Mexicana de Productos y Procesos Ecológicos. S.C.). 2007. Normas para la producción, el procesamiento y la comercialización de productos ecológicos. www.certimexsc.com/docs/Normas%20CERTIMEX%20actualizadas%202007.pdf. Accessed May 2007.
  12. Deininger, K. 1995. Collective agricultural production: A solution for transition economies? World Development 23(8): 1317–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischer, E., and M. Qaim. 2012. Linking smallholders to Markets: Determinants and impacts of farmer collective action in Kenya. World Development 40(6): 1255–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FLO (Fairtrade Labelling Organisation). 2012. Fairtrade and coffee. Commodity Briefing. http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2012/F/FT_Coffee_Report_May2012.pdf. Accessed Feb 2013.
  15. FLO (Fairtrade Labelling Organisation). 2013. http://www.fairtrade.net/. Accessed Oct 2013.
  16. Fulton, M. 1999. Co-operatives and member commitment. Liiketaloudellinen-Aikakauskirja 4: 418–437.Google Scholar
  17. Fulton, J. 2004. Understanding co-operative behaviour. The prisoners dilemma approach. In Co-operatives and local development, ed. C. Merrett, and N. Walzer. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  18. Giovannucci, D., and R. Juárez Cruz. 2006. Análisis Prospectivo de Política Cafetalera. Mexico: FAO.Google Scholar
  19. Gliessman, S.R. 2008. Agroecological foundations for designing sustainable coffee agroecosystems. In Confronting the coffee crisis: Fair trade, sustainable livelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico and Central America, ed. C.M. Bacon, V.E. Méndez, S.R. Gliessman, D. Goodman, and J.A. Fox. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gobbi, J.A. 2000. Is biodiversity-friendly coffee financially viable? An analysis of five different coffee production systems in western El Salvador. Ecological Economics 33(2): 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gonzalez, A.A., and R. Nigh. 2005. Smallholder participation and certification of organic farm products in Mexico. Journal of Rural Studies 21(4): 449–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen, M.H., J.L. Morrow, and J.C. Batista. 2002. The impact of trust on cooperative membership retention, performance, and satisfaction: An exploratory study. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 5(2002): 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansmann, H. 1996. The ownership of enterprise. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.Google Scholar
  24. ICO. 2014. www.ico.org/prices/p2.htm. Accessed Jan 2014.
  25. INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografía). 2007. www.inegi.gob.mx. Accessed April 2007.
  26. Jaffee, D. 2007. Brewing justice: Fair trade coffee, sustainability, and survival. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jones, E.C. 2004. Wealth-based trust and the development of collective action. World Development 32(4): 691–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kilian, B., C. Jones, L. Pratt, and A. Villalobos. 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): 322–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. LeVay, C. 1983. Agricultural co-operative theory: A review. Journal of Agricultural Economics 34(1): 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lopez Arévalo, J. 2007. Globalisation neoliberal. El caso Chiapas. Tuxtla Gutierrez: Universidad Autonomo de Chiapas.Google Scholar
  31. Lyngbæk, A.E., R.G. Muschler, and F.L. Sinclair. 2001. Productivity and profitability of multistrata organic versus conventional coffee farms in Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems 53: 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martinez-Torres, M.E. 2006. Organic coffee: Sustainable development by Mayan farmers. Athens: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Murray, D., L. Raynolds, and P. Taylor. 2006. The future of fair trade coffee: Dilemmas facing Latin America’s small-scale producers. Development in Practice 16(2): 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Milford, A. 2012. The pro-competitive effect of coffee co-operatives in Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 10(1), ISSN (Online) 1542-0485. doi:10.1515/1542-0485.1362.
  35. Mujawamariya, G., M. D’Haese, and S. Speelman. 2013. Exploring doble side-selling in co-operatives, case study of four coffee co-operatives in Rwanda. Food Policy 39: 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mutersbaugh, T. 2004. Serve and certify: Paradoxes of service work in organic-coffee certification. Environment and Planning 22: 533–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pascucci, S., C. Gardebroek, and L. Dries. 2012. Some like to join, others to deliver: An econometric analysis of farmers’ relationships with agricultural co-operatives. European Review of Agricultural Economics 39(1): 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pérez Grovas, V. 2000. Evaluación de la sustentabilidad del sistema de manejo de café orgánico en la unión de ejidos Majomut, región de los Altos de Chiapas. In Sustentabilidad y sistemas campesinos, cinco experiencias de evaluación en el México rural, eds. O. Masera, and O. López-Ridaura. Mexico: Mundi-Prensa. Universidad autonomo de Chapingo.Google Scholar
  39. Pérez Grovas, V., J. Burstein, E. Cervantes, and L. Carlsen. 2002. El caso de Mexico. In El café en México, Centroamérica y el Caribe: Una salida sustentable a la crisis, eds. V. Pérez Grovas, J. Burstein, E. Cervantes, L. Carlsen, and L.H. Navarro. Mexico: Coordinadora de Pequeños Productores de Café de Chiapas.Google Scholar
  40. Raynolds, L. 2002. Consumer/producer links in fair trade coffee networks. Sociologia Ruralis 42(4): 404–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raynolds, L., D. Murray, and P. Taylor. 2004. Fair trade coffee: Building producer capacity via global networks. Journal of International Development 16(8): 1109–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raynolds, L. 2009. Mainstreaming fair trade coffee: From partnership to traceability. World Development 37(6): 1083–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Renard, M. 1996. Les interstices de la globalisation. Un label (Max Havelaar) pour les petits producteurs de café. Thesis (doctoral)-Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail.Google Scholar
  44. Rice, R.A. 2001. Noble goals and challenging terrain: Organic and fair trade coffee movements in the global marketplace. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14(1): 39–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruben, R. 2008. The development impact of fair trade: From discourse to data. In The impact of fair trade, ed. R. Ruben. The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Ruben, R. 2012. The fair trade balance: New challenges after 25 years of Fair Trade Ruerd, FERDI Policy Brief # 52. http://www.ferdi.fr/uploads/sfCmsContent/html/111/Ferdi-Br52-Ruben_WEB.pdf. Accessed Nov 2013.
  47. SAGARPA (Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación). 2005. Plan Rector del Sistema Producto Café en Mexico. www.cedrssa.gob.mx/?doc=281. Accessed May 2007.
  48. Sexton, R.J. 1990. Imperfect competition in agricultural markets and the role of co-operatives. A spatial analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(3): 709–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. SNIDRUS. 2007. (Sistema Nacional de Información para el Desarrollo Rural Sustentable). http://www.agrochiapas.gob.mx/. Accessed in April 2007.
  50. SPC. 2007. (Sistema Producto Café): www.spcafe.org.mx. Accessed in April 2007.
  51. Talbot, J.M. 2004. Grounds for agreement. The political economy of the coffee commodity chain. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  52. Thorp, R., F. Stewart, and A. Heyer. 2005. When and how far is group formation a route out of chronic poverty? World Development 33(6): 907–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turtiainen, T., and J.D. von Pischke. 1986. Investment and finance in agricultural service cooperatives, World Bank Technical Paper Number 50.Google Scholar
  54. Wooldridge, J.M. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research InstituteBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations