Reframing ‘Crisis’ in Fair Trade Coffee Production: Trajectories of Agrarian Change in Nicaragua

Fraser, James A.; Fisher, Eleanor; Arce, Alberto

doi:10.1111/joac.12014

Cited by 28 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, cases of mismanagement and corruption appear to be recurrent, affecting both producers´ participation in certified markets as well as the degree to which they can benefit from them. The most common problems appear to be mismanagement and misuse of premia, high indebtedness, corruption, lack of transparency and the concentration of decision-making in management positions (Abarca-Orozco, 2015;Lyon, 2005;Fraser et al, 2014;Milford, 2004;Milford, 2014;Smith 2007;Dolan, 2010;Francesconi and Ruben, 2014;. Such issues are of course interrelated, as one can lead to or enable the other.…”

Section: Pos Context: Management Relationships With Producers and Bumentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other forms of external aid are debt settlements (Staib, 2012), extension support in kind (Vasquez-Leon, 2010;Walsh, 2004;Heller, 2010;Jaffee, 2006;Asfaw et al, 2009b), establishing access to certified markets (Abarca-Orozco, 2015;Dowdall, 2012;Beall 2012) as well as income diversification programmes (Milford, 2014). Finally, certified POs and plantations are also reported to receive funds for non-productive programmes (Wilson, 2010;Makita, 2012;Ellery, 2010) and to mediate in the delivery of government and international aid services, as in the case of natural disasters (Mendez, 2002;Dowdall, 2012;Fraser et al, 2014).…”

Section: Support To Strengthen Pos (N=42)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Producers are also reported to collectively decide to use of social premia to pay off PO debts, often resulting from previous mismanagement and corruption (Fraser et al, 2014;Mendez, 2002;Minten et al, 2015). Additionally, in times when the conventional price is approaching the certified price, POs are reported to divert the 'social' premium to boost their price and maintain their market share (Dowdall, 2012;CESU, 2012;Smith, 2010;Sutton, 2014).…”

Section: Pos and Producers (N=21)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to some studies, POs apply for larger loans based on their expectations about the premium and are forced to default if they are unable to recover the expected Fairtrade price, in which case losses are likely to be deducted from the final price paid to farmers (Abarca-Orozco, 2015;Fraser et al, 2014). Another issue reported to affect the significance of the Fairtrade price premium is non-compliance of buyers regarding Fairtrade premium payments and the limited power of FLO to enforce the standard, due to fears of losing an important market for producers .…”

Section: Price Premium As Additional Payment (N=22)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An important implication of the capacity of certified POs to broker government and donor funds is that it attracts producers, regardless of their expectations of benefits from certified markets (Jaffee, 2006;Milford, 2004;Milford, 2014;Pollack, 2006;Fraser et al 2014). In fact, external incentives may be the main, if not the only reason for adoption, suggesting that certification promises of benefits alone are not enough to incentivise adoption, as Beall (2012) and report for RSPO and GlobalGAP Another matter is whether this support benefits a wide group of producers or is also subject to elite capture, an issue explored under the sections on distributional dynamics and contextual factors affecting PO's effectiveness.…”

Section: Support To Strengthen Pos (N=42)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effects of certification schemes for agricultural production on socio-economic outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Oya¹,

Schaefer²,

Skalidou³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding, producing and synthesising high-quality evidence of what works, for whom, why and at what cost. We believe that better and policy-relevant evidence will help make development more effective and improve people's lives. 3ie systematic reviews 3ie systematic reviews appraise and synthesise the available high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of social and economic development interventions in low-and middle-income countries. These reviews follow scientifically recognised review methods, and are peerreviewed and quality assured according to internationally accepted standards. 3ie is providing leadership in demonstrating rigorous and innovative review methodologies, such as using theory-based approaches suited to inform policy and programming in the dynamic contexts and challenges of low-and middle-income countries. About this reviewEffects of certification schemes for agricultural production on socio-economic outcomes in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review, was submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of grant SR6.1158 awarded under Systematic Review Window 6. This review is available on the 3ie website. 3ie is publishing this technical report as received from the authors; it has been formatted to 3ie style. 3ie will also publish a summary report of this review, designed for use by decision makers, which is forthcoming.All content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors or its board of commissioners. Any errors are also the sole responsibility of the authors. Comments or queries should be directed to the corresponding author, Carlos Oya, co2@soas.ac.uk Certification schemes (CS hereafter) set voluntary standards and monitor their compliance (through independent auditors) to make agricultural production socially sustainable and agricultural trade fairer for producers and workers. Although CS are mainly characterized by the description above, they can also be systems engaging in a wider range of activities in policy, advocacy, capacity building, and building markets and supply chains around the objectives of social sustainability. These standards matter for consumers, especially for ethical and safety-aware consumers. They are expected to contribute to a wide range of socio-economic and environmental outcomes, ultimately improving the wellbeing of farmers and agricultural workers, whether employed by corporate plantations or individual producers. They try to achieve these aims through a combination of standard-setting actions, capacity building and training different types of market interventions, such as guaranteed market outlets, price premium, and credit facilities among others, and the application of adequate labour standards. Do certification schemes work for the wellbeing of agricultural producers and workers in low and middle incom...

show abstract