Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and Specialty Coffees Reduce Small-Scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua?
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
World Development Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 497–511, 2005
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev 0305-750X/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.002
Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair
Trade, Organic, and Specialty Coffees Reduce
Small-Scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern
Nicaragua?
CHRISTOPHER BACON *
University of California, Santa Cruz, USA
Summary. — This paper links changing global coffee markets to opportunities and vulnerabilities
for sustaining small-scale farmer livelihoods in northern Nicaragua. Changing governance struc-
tures, corporate concentration, oversupply, interchangeable commodity grade beans, and low farm
gate prices characterize the crisis in conventional coffee markets. In contrast, certified Fair Trade
and organic are two alternative forms of specialty coffee trade and production that may offer
opportunities for small-scale producers. A research team surveyed 228 farmers to measure the im-
pact of sales on organic and Fair Trade markets. The results suggest that participation in organic
and Fair Trade networks reduces farmers’ livelihood vulnerability.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Key words — coffee, Central America, Nicaragua, vulnerability, Fair Trade, livelihood
1. INTRODUCTION and eco-labeled (i.e., organic, bird-friendly,
and Fair Trade) coffees (Goodman, 1999; Rice,
Activist pressure and the expanding specialty
coffee market have provoked a small, but grow-
ing, percentage of those that daily drink 2.28 * Pedro Haslam, Byron Corrales, Nick Hoskyns, and
billion cups of coffee to remember the 20–25
Paul Katzeff are coffee and development professionals
million families that produce and process this
who taught me through experience the meaning of
valuable bean (Conroy, 2001; Dicum & Luttin-
ger, 1999). Small-scale family farms produce quality coffee, Fair Trade, and small-scale farmer co-
over 70% of the world’s coffee in 85 Latin operatives in northern Nicaragua. Henry Mendoza and
American, Asian, and African countries I worked with a group of 16 agricultural technicians to
(Oxfam, 2001). Most coffee producers live in help design, field-test, and conduct the survey. Nicholás
poverty and manage agroecosystems in some Arróliga at GeOdigital did an excellent job managing
of the world’s most culturally and biologically the mountains of data created by these surveys. This arti-
diverse regions. cle benefited from ideas and commentary from Daniel
Changing patterns in global coffee commod- Press, Jonathan Fox, Roberto Sanchez-Rodriguez, Ern-
ity chains including the disintegration of the esto Mendez, Stephen Gliessman, and David Goodman.
international coffee agreement in 1989, market Many thanks to the three anonymous reviewers for their
liberalization, corporate consolidation, increas- useful comments. Funding to cover my expen- ses came
ing production, and a worldwide coffee glut from The Switzer Foundation, The Center for Global
have plunged commodity prices to their lowest Conflict and Cooperation International Field Disserta-
levels in a century (Ponte, 2002a, 2002b). How- tion Scholarship, PASA-DANIDA, and the Department
ever, increasing consumer awareness regarding of Environmental Studies at the University of Califor-
issues of quality, taste, health, and environment nia, Santa Cruz. Final revision accepted: October 11,
have created a growing demand for specialty 2004.
497498 WORLD DEVELOPMENT
2001). Specialty and eco-labeled coffees offer continue, and prices may remain low for the
price premiums. The volumes of coffee moved coming years (CEPAL, 2002). The disintegra-
through specialty, organic, and Fair Trade tion of the International Coffee Agreement
commodity chains remain relatively small and (ICA) and market liberalization contributed
must be set within the context of changing glo- to increasing global coffee production. The
bal coffee markets. increasing coffee supply led to rising inventories
During the last four years, green coffee prices in consumer countries and coincided with slug-
have fallen from US$1.20/lb to between gish demand and market concentration in the
US$0.45 and 0.75/lb. Low prices continue to roasting and trading industries (Ponte,
devastate rural economies and threaten the 2002a). 1 Among the consequences are shifts
biodiversity associated with traditional coffee in power to the roasting and retailing end of
production (CEPAL, 2002; IADB, 2002). Per- the commodity chain and falling prices paid
manent employment in Central America’s cof- to producers (Talbot, 1997).
fee sector has fallen by more than 50% and The ICA was a set of international agree-
seasonal employment by 21% (IADB, 2002). ments that set production and consumption
In Matagalpa, Nicaragua, falling coffee prices quotas and governed quality standards for
have accelerated migration to urban poverty most of the coffee industry from 1962 to 1989.
belts. A walk through a coffee farming commu- A combination of processes, including (i)
nity in Coto Brus, Costa Rica, reveals eroded increasing fragmentation in the geographies
hillsides where farmers recently replaced coffee of production and consumption, (ii) shifting
agroforestry systems with treeless cattle pas- geopolitical conditions as the United States
tures. Since the 1999–2000 harvest the value perceived less of a threat from the Latin Amer-
of Central American coffee exports has fallen ican left, and the (iii) changing development
from US$1.678 billion to US$938 million in models as Indonesia and Brazil moved away
2000–01 and an estimated US$700 million for from import substitution toward export led
the 2001–02 harvest (IADB, 2002). Declining growth contributed to the disintegration of
export revenues have created debt that exceeds the agreement (Ponte, 2002b). Free from inter-
US$100 million. As debt in the coffee sector in- national quotas, green coffee prices initially fell,
creases, banks have foreclosed on farms and ex- briefly rebounded during 1994–98, then plum-
port companies (Dı́az, 2001). meted before rebounding slightly in early 2004.
This paper examines how changes in the glo- The two primary coffee varieties are arabicas
bal coffee market and falling coffee commodity and robustas. Farmers in Latin America, Ethi-
prices affect small-scale farmers’ livelihood vul- opia, and Kenya have historically cultivated
nerability in northern Nicaragua. Section 2 is most of the arabica beans that are generally
a synopsis of the changing tendencies in the considered of higher quality and sold to spe-
global coffee trade. Section 3 briefly reviews cialty markets at slightly higher prices than
theories linking price shocks to livelihood vul- robustas. Brazil, Vietnam, and Uganda pro-
nerability and then applies this framework to duce most of the world’s robusta coffees. Two
a farmer typology revealing the consequences tendencies are eliminating the previous compet-
of the coffee crisis. Section 4 presents the results itive advantages held by countries producing
of research that investigated the hypothesis that arabica coffee varieties. In the last 10 years,
farmers selling Fair Trade and organic coffees Brazil more than doubled its production of ara-
are less vulnerable than those linked only to bic coffees and now produces close to half of
conventional coffee markets. In the final sec- the world’s arabica coffee. Furthermore, many
tion, I discuss strategies to reduce vulnerability roasting companies can substitute between ro-
without reproducing the same structures that busta and arabica beans in their blends; thus,
created the coffee crisis. the price differential between robusta and arab-
ica coffees is rarely more than 10 cents/lb. The
price reported below is for other milds, arabica
2. CHANGING STRUCTURES IN THE beans grown outside of Colombia Figure 1.
GLOBAL COFFEE MARKET The disintegration of the ICA coincided with
geopolitical shifts, including the fall of the So-
Booms and busts punctuate international viet Union and the state’s declining role in com-
commodity price histories. The driving forces merce. As many national agricultural ministries
behind the current four-year decline in green dramatically decreased their role in coordinat-
coffee commodity prices suggest this cycle will ing coffee production, commercialization, andCONFRONTING THE COFFEE CRISIS 499
250.00
200.00
Price US$ per 100 lbs
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Years
Figure 1. International coffee prices. Sources: Average yearly prices for arabica coffee beans (other milds) from
International Coffee Organization (2003).
quality control, governments lost international 1999). These dominant trends mask the growth
negotiating power. Producers and exporters and emergence of specialty and certified coffees.
gained flexibility and more direct market ac-
cess. Large-scale transnational trade and roast- (a) The rise of specialty coffee
ing companies were quick to enter the spaces
opened by the retreating state. The combina- The North American specialty coffee market
tion of market liberalization and increased annually grows 5–10%, and it reached an esti-
coffee production coincides with high rates mated retail value of $7.8 billion by 2001. This
of transnational corporate concentration. By rapid growth contrasts to slow demand growth
1998, Philip Morris, Nestlé, Sara Lee, Proctor for bulk commercial grade coffees. Unheard of
and Gamble and Tchibo controlled 69% of 30 years ago, the specialty or gourmet market
the roasted and instant coffee market (van segment represents 17% of US coffee imports
Dijik, van Doesburg, Heijbroek, Wazir, & by volume and 40% of the retail market by
Wolff, 1998, cited from Ponte, 2002a). Eight value (Giovannucci, 2001). The United States
transnational export–import companies control purchases one quarter of internationally traded
56% of the coffee trade (van Dijik et al., 1998; coffee in the world (Giovannucci, 2001).
cited from Ponte, 2002a). In 1982, a handful of small-scale coffee roast-
The changing structure of the global coffee ing companies joined together to form the Spe-
commodity chain has led to declining prices cialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA).
paid to producers. Since the fall of the ICA The mission of the SCAA is to promote high
producers’ share of the final retail price has quality gourmet coffee and sustainability
fallen from 20% to 13% (Talbot, 1997). Histor- (SCAA, 2002). The SCAA’s 2600+ members
ically, coffee producing countries in Latin are primarily small-scale roasting companies,
America, Asia, and Africa captured close to traders, and sellers of coffee-related accessories,
55% of the coffee dollar, significantly more than but the membership also includes larger com-
many other tropical export crops, such as bana- panies (Starbucks and Folgers), farmer organi-
nas and cacao. However, power shifts and pro- zations, and producing country representatives.
duction trends in the coffee commodity chains Commercial grade coffees do not have equally
have decreased producing countries’ share to strict quality requirements, are commonly sold
an estimated 22% (Talbot, 1997). These are in tin coffee cans, and often cost the consumer
the trends in the conventional green coffee mar- half the price. In addition to claims to superior
ket which in 1999–2000 moved an estimated taste, specialty coffee companies celebrate
102.5 million 60 kg sacks of coffee with a the craftsmanship of coffee roasting and
wholesale value of US$14 billion (SCAA, preparation; they employ more specialized500 WORLD DEVELOPMENT
roasting processes, focus on product freshness from eliminating synthetic pesticides and fertil-
and use large marketing expenditures to differ- izers. Coffee covers an estimated 2.8 million
entiate their product from the bulk commercial hectares in Mexico, Colombia, Central Amer-
grade coffees. The specialty roasters depend on ica, and the Caribbean. While some of this cof-
a higher quality coffee bean and are generally fee is produced without shade trees, farmers
willing to pay producers price premiums for grow more than 60% under the shade of native
better beans. and exotic trees. These shade coffee landscapes
conserve biodiversity, soil, and water (Mendez,
(b) Eco-labels and alternative coffee markets 2004; Perfecto, Rice, Greenberg, & Vand der
Voort, 1996).
Small-scale specialty roasting companies pio- In contrast to organic certification, which is a
neered the introduction of organic and Fair set of standards that regulates inputs and prac-
Trade coffees into the United States and helped tices in the production process, Fair Trade certi-
the specialty coffee market become the most ac- fies the trade process. 3 Fair Trade supporters
tive space for eco-labeling in the food sector. believe that trade has the potential to either
Nearly all eco-labeled coffees are also consid- exploit or empower producers in the global
ered specialty coffee. The North American re- South. Fair Trade advocates refute the basic
tail market for certified organic, Fair Trade, Neoliberal assumption that expanded trade will
and shade grown coffee is approximately increase social and environmental benefits for
US$188 million. The estimated worldwide retail everybody, and assert that North–South trade
value of these coffees is roughly US$530 million relations are plagued by power inequalities
(Giovannucci, 2001). Despite their relatively and exploitation. Four international Fair Trade
small market share, coffee roasters and retailers associations define Fair Trade as follows: ‘‘Fair
anticipate rapid and sustained growth for certi- Trade is a trading partnership based on dia-
fied coffees. logue, transparency and respect, that seeks
Certified organic coffee currently accounts greater equity in international trade. It contri-
for 3–5% of the US specialty coffee retail mar- butes to sustainable development by offering
ket and remains the most widely recognized better trading conditions to, and securing the
eco-label (Giovannucci, 2001). Most consumers rights of, marginalized producers and work-
in the United States and Europe recognize the ers—especially in the South. Fair Trade organi-
organic label from its widespread usage on zations (backed by consumers) are engaged
fresh fruits and vegetables. The International actively in supporting producers, awareness
Trade Center estimated the worldwide retail raising, and in campaigning for changes in the
market value of all organic food and beverage rules and practice of conventional international
products at US$21 billion in 2001 (Interna- trade (IFAT, 2004).’’
tional Trade Center, 2002). Price premiums, Fair Trade markets find their roots in more
and 10–20% growth rates in retail markets, than 50 years of alternative trade relationships.
have contributed to an increasing number of Long before certification existed, churches,
acres entering certified organic production. disaster relief organizations, and solidarity
In workshops, Nicaraguan farmers often list groups had formed more direct trade relation-
the following among their motivations for mov- ships with refugees and marginalized groups.
ing toward certified organic production: It is They paid producers better prices, offered mar-
safer for their families and children without ket access, and provided technical assistance.
agrochemicals on the farm, it lowers expendi- These Northern organizations distributed Fair
tures for synthetic inputs, it is better for the Trade crafts and foods through religious and
environment, and it helps protect the water. solidarity networks. However, the volumes
In Latin America, thousands of coffee, cocoa, of Fairly Traded goods remained small and
vegetables, and fruits farmers have solicited the development impact limited. In 1988, a
and received organic certification. 2 Mexico ex- church-based NGO in the Netherlands teamed
ported the first organic coffee and remains a up with a Mexican smallholder coffee coopera-
pioneer in the organic industry (Nigh, 1997). tive to launch the Max Havaalar Fair Trade
While health remains consumers’ primary moti- product certification (IFAT, 2004). The certifi-
vation for purchasing organic products, devel- cation started a Fair Trade mainstreaming pro-
opment agencies, environmental activists, and cess that permitted wider participation by
many farmers’ associations also support the industry actors. This initiative grew quickly;
certification for the ecological benefits gained Northern countries formed national Fair TradeCONFRONTING THE COFFEE CRISIS 501
labeling organizations, and more Southern pro- the Latin American and Caribbean regions
ducer groups accessed these networks. In 1997, experienced at least 38 major natural disasters
these organizations joined to form Fair Trade and over 40 episodes when the GDP per capita
Labeling Organizations International (FLO-I), fell by 4% or more (IADB, 2000). Scholars and
which promotes Fair Trade, establishes stan- development professionals have considered
dards, and coordinates an international Fair these phenomena in a special issue of World
Trade product monitoring and certification sys- Development that examined the interplay be-
tem. This system now includes hundreds of tween household vulnerability, coping strate-
companies, and more than 800,000 producers gies, economic crises, natural disasters, and
in over 40 countries are involved in Fair Trade household well-being (Skoufias, 2003).
networks (FLO, 2003). The livelihood vulnerability framework offers
The Fair Trade standards stipulate that trad- a common approach for both economic crisis
ers pay a price that covers the costs of sustain- and natural disasters (Combes & Guillaumont,
able production and livelihoods, provide a 2002; Moser, 1998). This approach examines
premium for social development, sign contracts causes, impacts on household well-being and
that encourage long-term planning and stabil- mechanisms to cope with and buffer damage
ity, and help provide preharvest credit (FLO, (Blaikie, Cannon, Davis, & Wisner, 1994;
2003). In the case of both coffee and cocoa, Skoufias, 2003). Vulnerability contains an
only small-scale producer organizations are external source of stress or shock and an inter-
eligible for certification. However, the FLO’s nal component describing the exposure and re-
certification organization also certifies large sponse to this shock as it is interpreted through
agricultural businesses producing bananas, the socioecological relationships that shape an
tea, and fruit. Certification standards vary be- individuals or group’s livelihood assets. These
tween crop and social organization (large farm descriptions of livelihood vulnerability respond
or cooperative), but they all share minimum to critiques of a narrow focus on income-based
standards for social and economic development definitions of poverty and draw from Sen’s pio-
supplanted by antiexploitation clauses. The neering work on assets, entitlements and fam-
expanding list of Fair Trade certified products ines (Moser, 1998; Reardon & Vosti, 1995;
includes coffee, cocoa, tea, fruits, wine, sugar, Scoones, 1998; Sen, 1981, 1997; Shankland,
honey, bananas, rice, crafts, and some textiles 2000).
(EFTA, 2003). Coffee was the first certified Fair Livelihood refers to the means of gaining
Trade product and remains ‘‘the backbone’’ of a living, including the tangible and intangible
the system, accounting for the majority of the assets that support an existence (Chambers &
Fair Trade retail sales (Raynolds, 2002b). Ana- Conway, 1992). Bebbington added a cultural
lysts estimate that roughly 1–2% of the global component to the material and economic focus
coffee trade is certified Fair Trade (Oxfam, behind livelihood assets, simply defining liveli-
2001). A livelihood vulnerability framework hoods as the way people make a living and
will help understand how participation in Fair how they make it meaningful (Bebbington,
Trade and organic coffee networks impacts vul- 2000). The addition of meaning into the defini-
nerability to the coffee crisis. tion of livelihoods provides a theoretical space
for including farmer perceptions and narra-
tives, and an entry point for beginning to
3. LIVELIHOOD VULNERABILITY, understand the subjective feelings of well-being
FARMER TYPOLOGY AND THE COFFEE and empowerment. In this way, livelihood vul-
CRISIS IN NORTHERN NICARAGUA nerability = livelihoods (material and intangi-
ble assets) + (exposure to) a stress or shock.
(a) Livelihood vulnerability framework When vulnerable livelihood assets are ex-
posed to a stress, the stress can diminish the as-
The regional impact of the coffee crisis can be set’s productivity or quality and/or limit access;
considered an example of the frequent eco- the consequences are declining resource flows
nomic crises that affect the global South. These to the households. Intangible assets, such as
economy-wide shocks have many possible trig- kin and friendship networks, are often the most
ger events, including hurricanes, earthquakes, important relationships that households mobi-
rapid devaluations, recessions, market shifts, lize to reduce vulnerability. Household liveli-
declining terms of trade, and commodity price hood projects that are exposed to a stress will
crashes (Skoufias, 2003). From 1980 to 1999 likely reallocate their assets to cope with the502 WORLD DEVELOPMENT
declining quality of life (Skoufias, 2003). Previ- agro industrial plantations maintain a per-
ous studies have documented a wide variety of manent labor force. Most large-scale and the
coping mechanisms to reduce damages and sur- agroindustrial plantations have integrated pro-
vive crises; many of these mechanisms such as cessing facilities on the farm, occasionally
pulling children out of school to avoid expenses exporting their own coffee (Table 1). These
can diminish long-term development potential farms usually provide living quarters and food
and maintain households in a ‘‘poverty trap’’ to farm worker families. Rural landless workers
(Skoufias, 2003; Varangis, Siegel, Giovannucci, continue to live in extreme poverty. During the
& Lewin, 2003). Other common coping mecha- coffee harvest, the large plantations employ and
nisms include migration, increased borrowing, house hundreds, sometimes thousands of coffee
crop substitution, and decreasing inputs. pickers.
Households will decide to reallocate their assets Like most countries in Central America, Nic-
according to their perceptions and capabilities. aragua’s coffee farm ownership is highly con-
centrated. In Central America, the largest
(b) A farmer typology for the Central American plantations and agroexport businesses account
and Nicaraguan coffee sector for 3.5% of the farms, 48.6% of the total land
in coffee production, and an estimated 57.8%
Different farmers produce coffee in different of the region’s coffee production (CEPAL,
ways, under different agroecological conditions, 2002). During the 2000–01 coffee harvest in
and in a variety of positions vis-à-vis the com- Nicaragua, 404 (2.4%) of the country’s largest
mercialization chains leading to the market. farms accounted almost 25% of the land in cof-
Farm size provides a good general indicator fee production and roughly 52% of the produc-
to describe the different forms of coffee produc- tion (UNICAFE, 2001).
tion and commercialization (CEPAL, 2002).
An estimated 85% or 250,000 of Central Amer-
ica’s coffee farmers are micro and small-scale (c) The coffee crisis in Nicaragua
producers. The family is the primary source
of labor on these farms. These households often It is difficult to isolate the impacts of the cof-
produce corn and beans and/or work off the fee crisis from the series of negative shocks
farm. In contrast to the microproducers, most (Hurricane Mitch, drought, declining commod-
small-scale farmers employ day laborers during ity prices) that continue to affect Central Amer-
the coffee harvest. The small-scale farmers I ica (Varangis et al., 2003; Wisner, 2001). In
surveyed in Nicaragua grow more than half of Nicaragua, the 1999–2001 droughts added fur-
the food they eat. These farmers intercrop ba- ther stress to low coffee prices. In the tropical
nanas, oranges, mangos, and trees for firewood dry regions, including the northern depart-
and construction within their coffee parcels. ments of Estelı́, Madriz, and Nueva Segovia,
Households measure annual yields in coffee the farmers did not harvest their subsistence
and associated crops. Medium, large and the crops. In focus groups, small-scale farmers told
Table 1. Typology of coffee producers in Nicaragua
Farm size (ha) Micro Small-scale Medium Large Agro-industry Total/average
70
Average productivity (qq/ha)a 2.51 5.55 11.00 19.91 29.87 16.62
Number of producers 41,698 5,204 732 245 159 48,038
Total area (sq ha) 36,000 45,000 14,000 8,000 5,000 108,000
Production in (qq)a 263,000 599,000 284,000 394,000 260,000 1,800,000
% of total farms 86.8 10.83 1.52 0.51 0.33 100
% of total surface area 33.25 41.83 13.11 7.09 4.72 100
% of production by group 14.6 33.3 15.8 21.9 14.4 100
Manzana (mz) = 0.7 ha
Quintal (qq) = 100 lb or 46k
Source: CEPAL (2002); adapted from UNICAFE database. Estimated total harvest levels for 2000–01.
a
Average productivity statistics were generated from previous studies, not from the 2000–01 harvest.CONFRONTING THE COFFEE CRISIS 503 us how they lived off mangos, yucca, bananas, structural problems underpinning the crisis and the other subsistence crops that they inter- (Varangis et al., 2003). However, after five crop with their coffee. years of protests and three years since signing People’s vulnerability to the falling prices de- an agreement with the government, the rural pends upon their location in the coffee com- landless workers union recently won titles for modity chain and their access to assets such more than 2,000 ha of land for some 3,000 rural as land, credit, employment, and social net- workers. works. The coffee crisis is felt by most of the country’s estimated 45,334 micro and small- scale farmers. These smallholder households 4. THE IMPACT OF ORGANIC, FAIR sell coffee as their primary source of cash in- TRADE AND SPECIALTY COFFEE come. Farmers talk about pulling their children out of school, migration, and increased heath (a) Study design and methods problems. The microproducers often work as day laborers on large plantations because their The research I conducted in Nicaragua small parcels and current management prac- started after 15 months accompanying a coffee tices are not sufficient to support the family. quality improvement project with coffee coop- In the late 1990s coffee annually contributed eratives. I developed a set of indicators combin- US$140 million to the national economy and ing my research interests with criteria suggested provided an equivalent of 280,000 permanent by the cooperatives’ administrative directors agricultural jobs (Bandaña & Allgood, 2001; and elected leadership. After designing and CEPAL, 2002). Researchers estimate that Nic- fieldtesting a survey, we scheduled a training araguan laborers have lost over 4.5 million days workshop attended by the cooperatives’ agri- of work during the first two years of the coffee cultural extension agents. Following the train- crisis (CEPAL, 2002). The rural landless coffee ing, extension agents decided to either workers are more vulnerable than smallholders. perform a complete census or I randomly se- The large plantations that employ these work- lected 12–15 farmers from their cooperatives’ ers have high monetary costs of production membership lists. The larger unions of cooper- (US$0.74–1.08/lb) due to dense cropping pat- atives designated a representative first level terns, dependence on paid labor, and intensive cooperative from which farmers were randomly chemical inputs. 4 In 2001, the banks stopped sampled. offering credit for coffee and foreclosed on The survey primarily contained structured debt-ridden farms. closed ended interview questions and a walking In the mountains north of Matagalpa, banks assessment of the farmer’s principal coffee par- and plantation owners stopped paying and cel. While the extension agents conducted the later stopped feeding their workers. Hungry survey, I followed up with multiple visits to and without work, thousands of families each research site. During these visits, I evalu- marched down from their individual parcels ated data quality and ensured comparative and large plantations. People grouped together methods. I also worked with a gender specialist along roadsides and in public parks where they to conduct 10 focus groups separated by sex. I lived in miserable conditions surviving on food drew focus group participants from the same donations. They demanded food, work, health list of farmers that participated in the sample care, and land (Calero, 2001; Gonzalez, 2001). and used these results to help triangulate re- I interviewed one woman who had camped by sponses given in the surveys. Finally, I inter- the road for the last three days with her chil- viewed the cooperatives’ elected leadership dren, and she stretched out the palm of her cal- and professional staff and reviewed the cooper- loused hands and said, ‘‘You see these hands. atives’ internal documents regarding coffee These hands are for working not for receiving sales. donations.’’ The aid agencies have responded The 228 farmers that participated in this with food for work programs, providing pack- survey are from a diverse social and ecological ages of donated rice, beans, sugar, and oil to terrain. The social landscape includes first plantation owners who can supplement their level cooperatives (20–50 members) and regio- lower wages with food and entice the rural nal cooperative unions (1500+ members). laborers back for this season’s crop. As a recent Although the distribution of farm sizes in this World Bank study notes the Central American sample resembles the percentages described in governments have largely failed to address the Table 2, this sample differs from the national
504 WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Table 2. ANOVA results comparing altitude and certification with price as dependent variablea
DF Sum of squares Mean square F-value P-value Lambda Power
Certification 1 1640169.310 1640169.310 78.945CONFRONTING THE COFFEE CRISIS 505
tified markets or sign contracts with importers. US$0.56/lb. In comparison, farmers selling to
The export cooperative manages external rela- conventional markets averaged US$0.40/lb.
tionships that move coffee to certified markets Many of these average farm gate prices are
and organizes an internal price structure that below smallholders’ estimated monetary pro-
determines prices received at the farm gate. duction costs, which are between US$0.49 and
All cooperatives that commercialize coffee 0.79/lb. 8 The consequences of low farm gate
penalize farmers for defects, but none that I prices are further exacerbated by long delays
observed provides clear incentives for high between depositing the dehulled coffee beans
quality coffee. As coffee roasters increase their at the processing and export plant and receiving
push for higher quality and cooperatives in- the final payment. Most cooperatives pay farm-
crease their knowledge and infrastructure for ers in stages: first as credit for the harvest and
measuring quality, an incentive system will wet-milling, next a payment when they bring
likely emerge. the wet coffee parchment to the dry processing
The cooperatives allocate a portion of the facility, and a final adjustment when all has
higher prices offered by Fair Trade and organic been exported and actual prices are calculated.
markets to invest in productive infrastructure, A few export cooperatives treat farmers and
pay debts, provide credit, provide technical cooperatives as clients who own the inventory,
assistance, cover administrative and certifica- and thus bear the risk, until the importer buys
tion costs, and to fund housing and education the coffee. If their coffee does not sell, the farm-
projects in farmer communities. Two coopera- ers receive no payment. Farmers waited an
tives in this study used up to half of the Fair average of 73 days before receiving the full pay-
Trade and/or organic premiums to pay out- ment for their organic coffee. Farmers generally
standing debt. These practices result in lower sell some of their coffee to low-paying middle-
coffee prices to producers. Table 3 summarizes men to satisfy the immediate need for cash as
the average prices received at the farm gate they wait for higher prices in the specialty mar-
for sales through different commodity chains. kets.
Most farmers sell their coffee to multiple These smaller producer cooperatives have
markets. Nicaraguan cooperatives linked to or- joined together to form unions of cooperatives
ganic and Fair Trade markets sell up to 60% of that can manage the economies of scale, pool
their coffee through conventional markets. the resources, and export coffee. Export coop-
Thus, the average price for all the coffee sold eratives need access to larger credit lines to
by the farmer may be significantly less than pay the farmers before their physical product
prices paid in the different alternative markets. is actually exported. Banks, roasting compa-
For example, although the 11 cooperative nies, and importers are increasingly reluctant
members received US$1.09/lb for the portion to provide this credit to these cooperatives.
of their coffee sold directly to the roaster, the Even well established export cooperatives with
average price for all their coffee was US$0.58/ over US$300,000 in working capital must rely
lb. 7 Thirteen members of a cooperative linked on a handful of foundations and one roasting
to organic and Fair Trade markets averaged company for preharvest financing.
Table 3. Average prices reported at the farm gate for the 2000–01 harvest
Where did you sell the coffee? Price paid per How long until How many farmers
pound green coffeea you were fullya paid? sold to each market?
Cooperative-direct to roaster US$1.09 (0.04)/lb 33 (6.1) days 11
Cooperative-Fair Tradeb US$0.84 (0.07)/lb 41 (86.6) days 36
Cooperative-organicb US$0.63 (0.11)/lb 73 (78.4) days 61
Cooperative-conventional US$0.41 (0.04)/lb 46 (62.9) days 84
Agroexport company US$0.39 (0.04)/lb 24 (50.3) days 51
Local middleman US$0.37 (0.02)/lb 9 (27.3) days 72
Source: Participatory farmer survey conducted from July to August 2001.
a
Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.
b
Although, some coffee was certified as both Fair Trade and organic, most farmers understood and thus reported
that they were commercializing either Fair Trade or organic. They did not give a single price for both certifications.506 WORLD DEVELOPMENT
(c) Vulnerability and changes to the enough to offset the many other conditions that
quality of life have provoked a perceived decline in the qual-
ity of one’s life.
Farmers selling to a cooperative connected
only to conventional markets are four times
more likely to perceive a risk of losing the title 5. LEARNING FROM ALTERNATIVES
to their land due to low coffee prices than mem- TO REDUCE VULNERABILITY
bers of cooperatives connected to alternative
coffee markets. In the survey, 224 farmers an- What can the livelihood vulnerability frame-
swered the following questions: ‘‘Is there a risk work reveal about the coffee crisis? In contrast
you will loose your farm this year? If there is a to the narrowly focused income-based ap-
risk, why?’’ Of the 180 farmers who commer- proaches to poverty, the livelihood approach
cialized a portion of their coffee to organic, Fair provides a more detailed description that ex-
Trade, or roaster-direct market channels, eight plores how people make a living and how they
farmers perceived a risk that they could lose make it meaningful. It provides a theoretical
their farm this year due to low coffee prices. space for incorporating the multiple household
Eight of the 44 farmers who belong to cooper- and collective coping strategies, including sub-
atives selling only to conventional markets also sistence production, kinship networks, barter,
indicated a risk of losing their farm due to bank migrations, increased labor time, political
foreclosures and low coffee prices. 9 mobilization, and protest. Linking vulnerability
When I asked leaders from each cooperative to livelihood projects and trade networks be-
to design project evaluation indicators, they gins to suggest why some households are more
suggested I consider health, environment, edu- vulnerable than others. The approach will lead
cation, and community development in addition to an integrated response to the coffee crisis
to coffee price and quality. Measuring quality of well beyond the current program of debt relief,
life is a difficult task. A small-scale farmer, from quality improvement programs, and food
a cooperative in Jinotega, said that, ‘‘Well being donations.
is to have health, food, education and tranquil-
ity in the family.’’ Farmers articulated the rela- (a) Diversification to reduce vulnerability
tionships between low coffee prices and their
quality of life in focus groups. Their own words Starting from a livelihood project approach
tell the story: A female coffee farmer from Jino- implies interventions working with small-scale
tega, explained, ‘‘We can’t buy our clothing, producers and laborers to increase access to
shoes. . . We are surviving off bananas.’’ Two land, build stronger producer organizations,
other farmers added, ‘‘[We give] insufficient participate in alternative markets, increase
management and attention to our coffee planta- government investments in rural health and
tion.’’ and that there is ‘‘Deterioration [of the education, and diversify production and com-
relationships] in our family.’’ 10 Another farmer mercialization channels. Development actors
from the department of Madriz said, ‘‘We have can learn from and support local coping mech-
a little help, a little room to breath, with the 50% anisms. I asked farmers in the focus group to
the coop buys as Fair Trade.’’ identify their activities and strategies to address
In conclusion, the evidence from this survey the coffee crisis. Their responses reveal a few
suggests that participation in alternative coffee coping mechanisms: ‘‘Planting more bananas
trade networks reduces exposure and thus vul- and citrus,’’ ‘‘Redoubling the labor that we
nerability to low coffee prices. The farmers put in as a family in order to survive,’’ ‘‘Work
linked to cooperatives selling to alternative organically to obtain better prices and lower
markets received higher average prices and felt the costs of production, because chemical fertil-
more secure in their land tenure. However, 74% izers are very expensive.’’ Diversifying the crops
of all surveyed farmers reported a decline in on a farm, such as planting additional fruit
their quality of life during the last few years. and/or the continued subsistence cultivation
The responses to this question about quality of corn and beans has long been a key strategy
of life showed no significant difference between to maintain food sovereignty and manage risk
farmers participating in conventional and alter- within the household (Ellis, 1998; Reardon,
native trade networks. This finding and the re- 1997). The tendency of small farms to survive
sults of the focus groups suggest that income price crashes by exploiting their own labor
from coffee sales to alternative markets is not has been documented since Chayanov firstCONFRONTING THE COFFEE CRISIS 507
investigated agrarian transitions in the former ducers and their organizations must invest in
Soviet Union (Chayanov, 1966 [1925]). The coffee quality improvement infrastructure and
third quote represents two reasons—lower training (Table 4). 11
costs and price premiums—for moving toward Although the global demand for Fair Trade
organic agriculture. These are only a few cop- labeled products grew by 42% during 2002–
ing mechanisms that farmers mobilize to nego- 04, Fair Trade remains a very small market seg-
tiate with the coffee crisis, other observed ment of the global market (FLO, 2003). Due to
activities include sharing resources through kin- low demand and high quality requirements,
ship networks, local migration, and increased many Fair Trade certified cooperatives must
barter. sell close to 70% of their coffee into the lower
All of these activities may reduce vulnerabil- paying conventional markets. Assuming that
ity without reproducing the same structures one accepts Fair Trade as one model that can
that created the coffee crisis. Diversification help reduce vulnerability, the next question is
beyond coffee is important, and much can be on how to scale up.
learned from the failures of previous export- Markets are institutions that reflect the col-
oriented diversification projects (Sick, 1997). lective results of socially agreed upon rules
However, the following discussion investigates and practices. The North American public is
the role of diversifying into alternative coffee increasingly aware of sustainable coffee market-
production and trade networks. What interven- ing messages, and mainstream news has cov-
tions can help expand coffee production and ered the coffee crisis. Specialty roasting
trade models that reduce vulnerability and companies are forming campaign alliances with
move toward long-term sustainability? civil society organizations and producer coop-
eratives. A few roasting companies, such as
(b) Making markets: the promise and peril Equal Exchange, have teamed up with the faith
of coffee’s alternative trade and production community (Lutherans, Quakers, Catholics,
networks etc.) and civil society organizations (Oxfam)
to build campaigns promoting Fair Trade. Stu-
Nicaragua has the potential to emerge as a dent activists have recently formed the United
world leader in the production and trade of Students for Fair Trade to coordinate a na-
specialty, organic, and Fair Trade coffee. In tional student fair trade movement in more
the last ten years, cooperatives, technical assis- than 100 universities across the United States.
tance organizations, and the donor community People and their organizations are making mar-
have worked with Nicaraguan farmers and kets.
their organizations to increase participation in Fair Trade and organic certifications are two
specialty coffee markets. Although 80% of Nic- examples of attempts to build alternative pro-
araguan coffee is potentially specialty coffee, duction and consumption networks. To the ex-
only about 10% of the 2000–01 harvest was ex- tent that Fair Trade networks create a working
ported as specialty coffee (Bandaña & Allgood, model of their principals in practice, they help
2001; USAID, 2002). To increase participation coffee drinkers align their tastes to specialty
in the specialty coffee markets, including sales coffee with their social justice values. Seen from
into the Fair Trade and organic segments, pro- this perspective, Fair Trade offers a technology
Table 4. Nicaraguan production of specialty, organic and Fair Trade coffee 1987–2007
Period Area in production Farmers
Hectares Percentagea Number of farmers Percentagea
Pre-1994 420 0.5 156 5.1
1994–2002 6,089 6.7 3,927 12.9
2002–07b 10,959 12.0 7,070 23.3
Source: The Cooperative League of the United States of America (CLUSA) 2002.
a
Both area and farmer percentage calculations use the data from the 1997–98 harvest. However, as the coffee crisis
continues, the national area in coffee production will likely decrease, so these are conservative estimates. It is still
unclear what the future holds for the total number of farmers involved in coffee production.
b
CLUSA technicians derived these projections by multiplying the current numbers by 15% per year for the first four
years and 10% for the two final years.508 WORLD DEVELOPMENT
that can help reimbed economic relationships does not also promote consumer education
into a set of social values (Polanyi, 1944; Ray- and expand alternative markets, these actors
nolds, 2000c). risk pushing too many people toward a small
The promise of re-embedding trade into a so- exit (Oxfam, 2002).
cial value system is matched by the challenges
and contradictions involved in attempts to in-
fuse 21st century capitalism with social and 6. CONCLUSIONS
ecological justice. In the United States, most
Fair Trade and organic products are consid- A few farmers also offered their strategies for
ered specialty items and sold at prices signifi- the long-term resolution of the crisis. Byron
cantly above their conventional competitors; Corrales says, ‘‘We need to apply agroecologi-
this links affluent consumers in the North to cal coffee production practices and sell to a just
livelihood struggles in the South. Further re- market.’’ And Jose Saturnino Castro Peralta of
search, action, and exploration would investi- the La Providencia Cooperative said, ‘‘We need
gate and address these class differences and to maintain and strengthen the cooperative and
escape the confines of this market niche. Mar- improve the quality to get better prices.’’ These
ket-based approaches accept consumers as quotes represent individual responses to the
stakeholders in the international development changing structures of the global coffee markets
process and downplay their role of citizens and international development agendas. Eight
(Goodman & Goodman, 2001). Certification Nicaraguan cooperatives, that collectively
as a tool for producer empowerment is further represent more than 7,000 small-scale farmers
challenged by the proliferation of certifications, created a collective response. They formed
such as Rainforest Alliance and Utz Kapeh, CAFENICA, the Nicaraguan association of
which offer lower social standards than Fair small-scale coffee farmer cooperatives. CAFE-
Trade and lower environmental criteria than NICA provides technical assistance helping
organic certification. However, in the short member cooperatives coordinate and execute
term, many of the questions concern how to their own development projects. It also pro-
grow these markets. vides political representation for small-scale
Changing markets and power shifts to the producers and coordinates collective marketing
roaster and retailer end of the commodity chain strategies.
suggest a set of demand side interventions that Alternative models can help reduce liveli-
compliment more innovative supply side pro- hood vulnerability to the crisis in conventional
jects. Donors such as the US Agency for Inter- coffee markets. As the crisis deepens and alter-
national Development, European Union, native models mainstream, they will encounter
World Bank, and the Ford Foundation are increasingly large obstacles and contradictions.
funding projects to address the coffee crisis. Addressing these issues requires a more diverse,
While some foundations have funded innova- committed and critical dialogue that engages
tive approaches partnering business and civil historical ideals and existing trading practices.
society organizations to expand alternative This dialogue could stimulate Fair Trade praxis
markets, most of the multilateral funding re- and the continued evolution of a process in-
mains narrowly focused on production prac- tended to increase social justice in our food sys-
tices for niche markets. If multilateral funding tems.
NOTES
1. See Ponte (2002a) for a detailed discussion of the 2. Millions of peasant farmers around the world
causes, mechanisms, and consequences of the coffee produce food without using synthetic inputs. Thousands
crisis. He also provides a good summary of the global of coffee producers continue to manage their coffee trees
coffee commodity chain theory. He uses this approach to applying the minimum amount of work and no inputs
carefully demonstrate how shifts in consumption pat- from outside the farm. They may simply manually
terns and commodity chain governance structures have remove the weeds once or twice per year and harvest the
led to declining revenues to producing countries and cherries when they ripen. Although these farmers may
increased profits to the international roasting compa- meet the basic requirements for organic certification, the
nies. fact that they do not actively manage their farms andCONFRONTING THE COFFEE CRISIS 509
have neither filled out necessary documentation nor 7. The prices in Table 3 are average prices for each
solicited third-party inspection legally prohibits them market reported by the farmer. These prices are received
from selling certified organic products. Many classify on the farm after deducting costs for dry processing,
this as passive organic production. organic certification, debt service, and export; other
costs including transportation to market, land, labor,
3. For additional information on the Fair Trade, and capital have not been deducted.
consult Raynolds for conceptual frameworks and
research into Fair Trade bananas (Raynolds & Murray, 8. See endnote 5.
1998; Raynolds, 1997, 2002a, 2000c). Early work on Fair
Trade coffee has been published by Brown (1993); also
9. Land ownership in Nicaragua has been highly
see Renard (1999a, 1999b) and Rice (2001). Leclair
contested for more than a quarter century. These
(2002) provides a more comprehensive summary of the
perceptions are not ill founded; CEPAL estimates that
alternative trade organizations and the fair trade of
between 500 and 3,000 Nicaraguan coffee farms have
crafts as well as food products.
been lost due to the coffee crisis (CEPAL, 2002).
Follow-up research found that members of the coop-
4. Estimates for the costs of production vary widely. erative selling all of their certified organic coffee to Fair
Many of the costs incurred on family labor farms do not Trade markets were able to purchase additional land
show up in monetary values. It is clear that large technified and the cooperative membership continued to expand,
farms have higher dollar expenditures. An internal report while two of 18 members of a cooperative selling to
at National Union of Farmers and Ranchers (UNAG) conventional markets sold their land (Bacon, forth-
estimates that monetary production costs on large farms coming).
are double those on passively managed small-scale farms
(Corrales & Solorzano, 2000).
10. This direct translation refers to increased stress,
5. Recent research by Mendez describes the multiple more arguments, and likely more abuse as the poor farm
roles that shade trees play in the livelihood strategies of households try to make by with less. One leader of rural
small-scale producers in El Salvador (Mendez, 2004). peasants has clearly linked falling coffee crisis to
See Bray et al. and Nigh for detailed descriptions of the increased abuse and discrimination against women.
social dimensions of organic coffee production in Mex-
ico (Nigh, 1997; Hernández Castillo & Nigh, 1998; Bray, 11. Katzeff (2001) and Giovannucci (2001) concur that
Plaza Sanchez, & Murphy, 2002). flavor is the most important factor in the specialty coffee
roaster’s buying decision. Flavor is identified in coffee
6. In Matagalpa, cooperatives, municipal authorities, tasting laboratories. Eight cooperatives in Nicaragua
exporters, and businesses recently sponsored the first fair recently teamed up with Thanksgiving Coffee Company
to celebrate the beginning of the coffee harvest. People and used funds from USAID and other donors to build
have long celebrated the end of the harvest. All festivities cupping labs as part of the coffee infrastructure con-
were canceled during the first three years of the coffee trolled by the cooperatives. The project has led to an
crisis. But the recent fair reflects the region’s determina- improved reputation for Nicaraguan coffee, better prices
tion to keep planting this once golden bean. Folkloric to the cooperatives, and an estimated 25 containers
dances often depict campasino families cultivating corn (valued at more than $1 million) in additional coffee
and picking the red coffee cherries. sales (Bacon, 2001; Bacon, forthcoming).
REFERENCES
Bacon, C. (2001). Cupping what you grow: The story of in the Andes. Annals of the Association of American
Nicaragua’s coffee quality improvement project. Geographers, 90(3), 495–520.
Unpublished evaluation, Santa Cruz, CA. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (1994).
Bacon, C. (forthcoming). Small-scale coffee farmers At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and
negotiate globalization, crisis and Fair Trade. Unpub- disasters. London: Routledge.
lished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Bray, B. D., Plaza Sanchez, J. L., & Murphy, E. C.
Santa Cruz, CA. (2002). Social dimensions of organic coffee produc-
Bandaña, R., Allgood, B., (2001). Nicaraguan coffee: tion in Mexico: Lessons for Eco-Labeling initiatives.
The sustainable crop. Managua, Nicaragua. Unpub- Society and Natural Resources, 15(6), 429–446.
lished paper. Brown, M. B. (1993). Fair trade. London: Zed Books.
Bebbington, A. (2000). Reencountering development: Calero, E. C. (2001, July 23). Intentan frenar exodo
Livelihood transitions and place transformations campesino. La Prensa, pp. D1.510 WORLD DEVELOPMENT
CEPAL (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el growers in Chiapas, Mexico. American Anthropolo-
Caribe) (2002). Centroamérı́ca: El impacto de la gist, 100(1), 136–147.
caı́dea de los precios del café (LC/MEX/L.517). IADB (Inter-American Development Bank) (2000).
Mexico, DF: CEPAL. Social protection for equity and growth. Washington,
Chambers, R., & Conway, G., (1992). Sustainable rural DC: IADB.
livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st Century. ICO (International Coffee Organization) (2003). Prices
IDS Discussion paper 296, IDS-University of Sussex, paid to growers in Member Export Countries.
Brighton, UK. . Retrieved 14.11.03.
Chayanov, A. V. (1966 [1925]). The theory of the peasant IFAT (International Federation for Alternative Trade)
economy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. (2004). What is Fair Trade? .
CLUSA (Cooperative League of the United States of Retrieved 24.08.04.
America) (2002). Nicaragua specialty coffee produc- Inter-American Development Bank, US Agency for
tion 1987–2007. Internal database, CLUSA, Mana- International Development, World Bank (2002).
gua, Nicaragua. Managing the competitive transition of the coffee
Combes, J.-L., & Guillaumont, P. (2002). Commodity sector in Central America. Background report for a
price volatility, vulnerability and development. conference April 3, Antigua, Guatemala: IADP,
Development Policy Review, 20(1), 25–39. USAID, WB.
Conroy, M., (2001). Can advocacy-led certification International Trade Center (2002). Overview of world
systems transform global corporate practices? Evi- markets for organic food and beverage, estimates.
dence and some theory. Working Paper No. DPE-01- International Trade Center, UNTAD/WTO.
07, Political Economy Research Institute, Amherst, Katzeff, P. (2001). President of the Specialty Coffee
MA. Association of America. Nicaragua Personal com-
Corrales, B., & Solorzano, J., (2000). Costos de Pro- munication.
ducción: Aporte al informe del consejo nacional. Leclair, M. S. (2002). Fighting the tide: Alternative trade
Memo, Unión Nacional de Agricultura y Ganadero, organizations in the era of global free trade. World
Managua, Nicaragua. Development, 30(6), 949–958.
Dı́az, R. P., (2001). Situación y perspectivas de la Mendez, V. E., (2004). Traditional shade, rural liveli-
caficultora en Centro América: La crisis internac- hoods, and conservation in small coffee farms and
ional de precios. PNUD, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, cooperatives of Western El Salvador. Unpublished
pp. 1–47. doctoral dissertation, Department of Environmental
Dicum, G., & Luttinger, N. (1999). The coffee book: Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA,
Anatomy of an industry from crop to the last drop. USA.
New York: The New Press. Moser, C. O. N. (1998). The asset vulnerability frame-
Ellis, F. (1998). Household strategies and rural liveli- work: Reassessing urban poverty reduction strate-
hood diversification. Journal of Development Studies, gies. World Development, 26(1), 1–19.
35(1), 1–38. Nigh, R. (1997). Organic agriculture and globalization:
EFTA (European Fair Trade Association) (2003). The A Maya associative corporation in Chiapas, Mexico.
Fair Trade Yearbook: Challenges of Fair Trade Human Organization, 56(4), 427–436.
2001–2003. Belgium: European Fair Trade Associa- Oxfam (Brown, O., Charavat, C., & Eagleton, D.)
tion. (2001). The coffee market: A background study.
FLO (Fair Trade Labeling Organization) (2003). Stan- London: Oxfam.
dards in general. . Retrieved 8.01.04. Poverty in your coffee cup. London: Oxfam Interna-
Giovannucci, D. (2001). Sustainable coffee survey of the tional.
North American specialty coffee industry. Philadel- Perfecto, I., Rice, R. A., Greenberg, R., & Vand der
phia, PA, Summit Foundation. Voort, M. E. (1996). Shade coffee: A disappearing
Gliessman, S. R. (1998). Agroecology: Ecological pro- refuge for biodiversity. BioScience, 46(8), 598–
cesses in sustainable agriculture. Ann Arbor Press: 609.
Ann Arbor, MI. Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The
Gonzalez, D. (2001). A coffee crisis’ devastating domino political and economic origins of our time. Boston,
effect in Nicaragua. The New York Times (August MA: Beacon Press.
29), A3. Ponte, S. (2002a). The ‘‘Latte Revolution’’? Regulation,
Goodman, D. (1999). Agro-food studies in the ÔAge of markets and consumption in the global coffee chain.
Ecology’: Nature, corporeality, bio-Politics. Sociolo- World Development, 30(7), 1099–1122.
gia Ruralis, 39(1), 17–38. Ponte, S. (2002b). Brewing a bitter cup? Deregulation,
Goodman, D., & Goodman, M. (2001). Sustaining quality and the re-organization of coffee marketing
foods: Organic consumption and the socio-ecological in East Africa. Journal of Agrarian Change, 2(2),
imaginary. In J. Murphy & M. Cohen (Eds.), 248–272.
Exploring sustainable consumption: Environmental Raynolds, L. (1997). Restructuring national agriculture,
policy and the social sciences (pp. 97–119). New agro-food trade and agrarian livelihoods in the
York: Pergamon. Caribbean. In D. Goodman & M. Watts (Eds.),
Hernández Castillo, R. A., & Nigh, R. (1998). Global Globalizing food: Agrarian questions and global
processes and local identity among Mayan coffee restructuring (pp. 119–132). Routledge: London.You can also read
