Devouring profit - International Coffee Organization

More documents

Recommendations

Info

18 microbials) and, if necessary, the occasional use of safer pesticides. In theory, the farmer should be sufficiently knowledgeable about CBB to estimate its economic potential to eat into his <strong>profit</strong> and employ the right control method at the right time to optimise his income by rationalising costs incurred. This is a tall order. The farmer is expected to make quite detailed field-measurements, take notes, calculate damage and employ a “just-in-time” approach to control. The reality is that the farmer’s understanding and resources severely limit his ability to accomplish this. He therefore frequently adopts a “just-in-case” approach where he sprays insecticide, perhaps several times a year, to suppress the problem. This may cost him more money, damage the environment, his health and the image of coffee to the consumer. IPM was not developed in the tropics for smallholder farmers but in northern countries. According to Morse and Buhler (1997) the broad approach of IPM as we understand it today had its origins in North America and as such it can be seen as a technological innovation born out of the industrialisation of capital-intensive agriculture where the expansion of production based on price supports generated an appreciable surplus for the U.S. government in the 50’s. This expansion of agriculture developed a particular dependence upon chemical pest control that inevitably led to environmental problems. Under these circumstances IPM emerged as a new alternative to deal with pest problems as an environmentally friendly strategy with the aim of reducing the worrying dependence of farmers on pesticides. Morse and Buhler observe that since IPM stems from capital-intensive agriculture: “it can not be easily transferred into the social context of resource-poor farmers doing agricultural work in developing countries”. As we will see, the adoption of IPM components in the case of CBB illustrates this important insight. A further problem with IPM is that everyone, from organic farmers to agrochemical companies, claim to adopt its principles. As such it has lost a certain amount of force due to the broadness of its constituency.
I believe that a man who has spent a considerable part of his life growing coffee, and on extension work in coffee country, has a right to air opinions and advance ideas that may prove of value. [AE Haarer, 1956] 19
Page 1 and 2: Devouring Profit the socio-economic
Page 3 and 4: Markets can be efficient, but nobod
Page 5 and 6: 4 6 9 11 19 31 42 51 64 72 78 84 96
Page 7: Gleaning, the term for cultural con
Page 10: 10 Some of the recommendations of t
Page 13 and 14: Colombia: “Authorities from the p
Page 15 and 16: are not used to making measurements
Page 17: Advantages of Bb: environmentally s
Page 21 and 22: 2.1 India In India two main regions
Page 23 and 24: 2.2 Ecuador An RRA was carried out
Page 25 and 26: case reduction for quality is small
Page 27 and 28: nity are not paying enough attentio
Page 29 and 30: Table 12. Main problems in coffee p
Page 31 and 32: “Agricultural production has evol
Page 33 and 34: Picking of the infested berries and
Page 35 and 36: Table 15. Harvesting periods of som
Page 37 and 38: which is in fact the cheapest compo
Page 39 and 40: enefit seen as a consequence of the
Page 41 and 42: But we have to consider also that t
Page 43 and 44: CBB is a complex pest because it ca
Page 45 and 46: 4.2 Estimation of a loss function f
Page 47 and 48: During the field visits many farmer
Page 49: 4.4 Cost structure for CBB manageme
Page 52 and 53: 52 The previous chapter dealt with
Page 54 and 55: 54 On average the share of CBB mana
Page 56 and 57: 56 5.3 Economics of CBB in Guatemal
Page 58 and 59: 58 5.4 Economics of CBB in Mexico U
Page 60 and 61: 60 For the same percentage of CBB t
Page 62 and 63: 62 Because of these factors it can
Page 64 and 65: 64 Pest control needs to be viewed
Page 66 and 67: 66 Because of inadequate training,
Page 68 and 69:
68 6.5 Rural wages Since CBB contro
Page 70 and 71:
70 many other coffee countries. The
Page 72 and 73:
72 Quality of the product, quality
Page 74 and 75:
74 face of world coffee and to form
Page 76 and 77:
76 A more complete socio-economic
Page 79 and 80:
ANECAFÉ. 1999. Proyecto manejo int
Page 81 and 82:
GARCÍA, A. 1998. Diagnóstico Inic
Page 83:
UPTON, M. 1996. The Economics of Tr
Page 86 and 87:
86 Table 31. Area and share of the
Page 88 and 89:
88 Ecuadorian coffee growers Main c
Page 90 and 91:
90 Colombia or Honduras for instanc
Page 92 and 93:
92 As can be observed, 60% of farme
Page 94 and 95:
94 Analysing Figure 20, we see that
Page 97 and 98:
This appendix reviews the economic
Page 99 and 100:
export about 20,000 tonnes (somethi
Page 101 and 102:
national economy of Honduras. Betwe
Page 103 and 104:
1985 and 1992 the national coffee p
Page 105 and 106:
estimated at 6%. Colombia’s princ
show all

Devouring profit - International Coffee Organization

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?