IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/inramo/245867.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Eco-certified contract choice among coffee farmers in Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Lemeilleur, Sylvaine
  • Subervie, Julie
  • Presoto, Anderson Edilson
  • de Castro Souza, Roberta
  • Macchione Saes, Maria Sylvia

Abstract

We survey Brazilian coffee farmers’ preferences for attributes of voluntary sustainability standards using a choice experiment. We collected original data from 250 coffee farmers who live in the state of Minas Gerais who were asked to choose from several hypothetical buying contracts for eco-certified coffee. Our results suggest that both cash and non-cash payments may motivate farmers to participate in sustainability standard certification schemes that require improved agricultural practices. Preferences for non-cash rewards such as long-term formal contracts or technical assistance, however, appear highly heterogeneous. Results more-over show that the minimum willingness-to-accept for the adoption of composting is twice as high as the maximum price premium for certified coffee in the current context, which may partly explain why most coffee farmers continue to be reluctant to enter the most stringent eco-certification schemes such as the organic standard. French abstract : Dans cet article, nous étudions les préférences des producteurs de café brésiliens pour les attributs des standards volontaires de durabilité, par une méthode d’expérimentation des choix. Nous avons collecté des données originales auprès de 250 producteurs de café de l'État du Minas Gerais, invités à choisir parmi plusieurs contrats d'achat hypothétiques exigeant l'amélioration des pratiques agricoles. Nos résultats suggèrent que les paiements monétaires et non monétaires peuvent inciter les agriculteurs à participer à des standards de durabilité certifiés. Néanmoins, les préférences pour les récompenses non monétaires, tels que les contrats formels de long terme ou l’assistance technique, apparaissent très hétérogènes. De plus, les résultats montrent que la prime de consentement à adopter le compost comme moyen de fertilisation est deux fois plus élevé que la prime maximum actuelle pour le café certifié. Ceci peut expliquer en partie la raison pour laquelle la plupart des producteurs de café continuent d'être réticents à entrer dans des systèmes de certification exigeant comme le standard d’agriculture biologique.

Suggested Citation

  • Lemeilleur, Sylvaine & Subervie, Julie & Presoto, Anderson Edilson & de Castro Souza, Roberta & Macchione Saes, Maria Sylvia, 2016. "Eco-certified contract choice among coffee farmers in Brazil," Working Papers MOISA 245867, Institut National de la recherché Agronomique (INRA), UMR MOISA : Marchés, Organisations, Institutions et Stratégies d'Acteurs : CIHEAM-IAMM, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro, Montpellier, France.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:inramo:245867
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.245867
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/245867/files/WP_4_2016_No%20longer%20available.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.245867?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henson, Spencer & Masakure, Oliver & Cranfield, John, 2011. "Do Fresh Produce Exporters in Sub-Saharan Africa Benefit from GlobalGAP Certification?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 375-386, March.
    2. David Revelt and Kenneth Train., 2000. "Customer-Specific Taste Parameters and Mixed Logit: Households' Choice of Electricity Supplier," Economics Working Papers E00-274, University of California at Berkeley.
    3. Muradian, Roldan & Corbera, Esteve & Pascual, Unai & Kosoy, Nicolás & May, Peter H., 2010. "Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1202-1208, April.
    4. Inma Borrella & Carlos Mataix & Ruth Carrasco‐Gallego, 2015. "Smallholder Farmers in the Speciality Coffee Industry: Opportunities, Constraints and the Businesses that are Making it Possible," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 46(3), pages 29-44, May.
    5. Minten, Bart & Randrianarison, Lalaina & Swinnen, Johan F.M., 2009. "Global Retail Chains and Poor Farmers: Evidence from Madagascar," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 1728-1741, November.
    6. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    7. Douadia Bougherara & Pierre Combris, 2009. "Eco-labelled food products: what are consumers paying for?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(3), pages 321-341, September.
    8. Maertens, Miet & Swinnen, Johan F.M., 2009. "Trade, Standards, and Poverty: Evidence from Senegal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 161-178, January.
    9. Blackman, Allen & Naranjo, Maria A., 2012. "Does eco-certification have environmental benefits? Organic coffee in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 58-66.
    10. Norbert Schulz & Gunnar Breustedt & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2014. "Assessing Farmers' Willingness to Accept “Greening”: Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 26-48, January.
    11. Daniele Pacifico & Hong il Yoo, 2012. "Iclogit: a Stata module for estimating a mixed logit model with discrete mixing distribution via the Expectation-Maximization algorithm," Working Papers 6, Department of the Treasury, Ministry of the Economy and of Finance.
    12. Subervie, Julie & Vagneron, Isabelle, 2013. "A Drop of Water in the Indian Ocean? The Impact of GlobalGap Certification on Lychee Farmers in Madagascar," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 57-73.
    13. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    14. Romy Greiner, 2016. "Factors influencing farmers’ participation in contractual biodiversity conservation: a choice experiment with northern Australian pastoralists," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 60(1), pages 1-21, January.
    15. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    16. Christensen, Tove & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Nielsen, Helle Oersted & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Hasler, Berit & Denver, Sigrid, 2011. "Determinants of farmers' willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones--A choice experiment study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1558-1564, June.
    17. Broch, Stine Wamberg & Strange, Niels & Jacobsen, Jette B. & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2013. "Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 78-86.
    18. Giovannucci, Daniele & Ponte, Stefano, 2005. "Standards as a new form of social contract? Sustainability initiatives in the coffee industry," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 284-301, June.
    19. Daniele Pacifico & Hong il Yoo, 2013. "lclogit: A Stata command for fitting latent-class conditional logit models via the expectation-maximization algorithm," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 13(3), pages 625-639, September.
    20. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    21. Pirard, Romain & Lapeyre, Renaud, 2014. "Classifying market-based instruments for ecosystem services: A guide to the literature jungle," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 106-114.
    22. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    23. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    24. Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Schulz, Norbert & Breustedt, Gunnar, 2014. "Assessing Farmers' Willingness to Accept "Greening": Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Gremany," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170560, Agricultural Economics Society.
    25. Louviere, Jordan J & Hensher, David A, 1983. "Using Discrete Choice Models with Experimental Design Data to Forecast Consumer Demand for a Unique Cultural Event," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(3), pages 348-361, December.
    26. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    27. Krishna, Vijesh V. & Drucker, Adam G. & Pascual, Unai & Raghu, Prabhakaran T. & King, E.D. Israel Oliver, 2013. "Estimating compensation payments for on-farm conservation of agricultural biodiversity in developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 110-123.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sylvaine Lemeilleur & Julie Subervie & Anderson Edilson Presoto & Roberta de Castro Souza & Maria Sylvia Macchione Saes, 2020. "Coffee farmers’ motivations to comply with sustainability standards," Post-Print halshs-02278751, HAL.
    2. Demarchi, Gabriela & Subervie, Julie & Leite, Fernando Palha & Laclau, Jean-Paul, 2021. "Farmers' preferences for water-saving strategies in Brazilian eucalypt plantations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    3. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    4. Greiner, Romy, 2014. "Willingness of north Australian pastoralists and graziers to participate in contractual biodiversity conservation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165839, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    6. Bennett, Michael T. & Gong, Yazhen & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2018. "Hungry Birds and Angry Farmers: Using Choice Experiments to Assess “Eco-compensation” for Coastal Wetlands Protection in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 71-87.
    7. Greiner, Romy, 2015. "Motivations and attitudes influence farmers' willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 154-165.
    8. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    10. Zandersen, Marianne & Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Nainggolan, Doan & Gyldenkærne, Steen & Winding, Anne & Greve, Mogens Humlekrog & Termansen, Mette, 2016. "Potential and economic efficiency of using reduced tillage to mitigate climate effects in Danish agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 14-22.
    11. Na-na Wang & Liang-guo Luo & Ya-ru Pan & Xue-mei Ni, 2019. "Use of discrete choice experiments to facilitate design of effective environmentally friendly agricultural policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1543-1559, August.
    12. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
    13. Maldonado, Jorge H. & Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio & Henao-Henao, Juan P. & Bruner, Aaron, 2019. "Does exclusion matter in conservation agreements? A case of mangrove users in the Ecuadorian coast using participatory choice experiments," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Arriaza Balmón, Manuel, 2014. "Agri-environmental schemes in olive growing: farmers’ preferences towards collective participation and ecological focus areas," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182918, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Kaczan, David & Swallow, Brent M. & Adamowicz, W.L. (Vic), 2013. "Designing a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program to reduce deforestation in Tanzania: An assessment of payment approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 20-30.
    16. Zandersen, Marianne & Oddershede, Jakob Stoktoft & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Nielsen, Helle Ørsted & Termansen, Mette, 2021. "Nature Based Solutions for Climate Adaptation - Paying Farmers for Flood Control," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    17. Eric Giraud-Héraud & Jean-Pierre Ponssard & Bernard Sinclair Desgagné & Louis-Georges Soler, 2016. "The agro-food industry, public health, and environmental protection: investigating the Porter hypothesis in food regulation," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 97(2), pages 127-140, September.
    18. Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Rodriguez-Entrena, Macario & Arriaza, Manuel & Gomez-Limon, Jose A., 2015. "Matching supply-side and demand-side analyses for the assessment of agri-environmental schemes: The case of irrigated olive groves of southern Spain," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211919, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Star, Megan & Rolfe, John & Barbi, Emily, 2019. "Do outcome or input risks limit adoption of environmental projects: Rehabilitating gullies in Great Barrier Reef catchments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 73-82.
    20. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:inramo:245867. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/moisafr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.