Devouring profit - International Coffee Organization

More documents

Recommendations

Info

64 Pest control needs to be viewed within the context of farmers’ goals – which are not necessarily the maximisation of yields. [Croxton, 1994]
We have attempted to show that CBB is a very complex pest with many factors affecting both its abundance and control. In the following analysis we will integrate all the information we have gathered to formulate a strategic view of the problem. 6.1 IPM strategy According to the <strong>International</strong> Pest Management Institute (2002), IPM is: “a system using multiple methods, a decision making process, a risk reduction system, information intensive, biological based, cost effective and site specific”. If this is a widely accepted definition it is very clear that IPM is a complex strategy to be understood and carried out by farmers whatever their socio-economic conditions. This approach implies a concerted effort by farmers to comprehend the relationships between the different components and concepts of IPM. We broadly support this approach to pest control but it needs to be made clear that IPM is neither easy to understand nor easy to carry out. Indeed we submit that the above description meshes uneasily with our own perceptions of resource-poor farmers’ present capabilities. Either IPM has to become easier to undertake or farmers will require intensive re-skilling. 6.2 How IPM strategy clashes with socio-economic reality If we look at the requirements of IPM against farmers’ needs and abilities, we deduce that smallholder coffee farmers are not ready for IPM. It presupposes a certain level of education that is frequently lacking and a way of looking at things that is foreign. Intrinsically it is a very modern concept, a “knowledge intensive” solution and we believe it is emblematic of smallholders’ problems as they try to survive in a global economy, on the wrong side of the ‘digital divide’. IPM principally depends on measurement of pest levels and then calculations to estimate crop damage and then a decision by the farmer on whether to control or not, and if so which method to use. In its original form, it is predicated upon the farmer having at least secondary education and a fairly sophisticated knowledge of pest biology so that he can apply the correct control at the moment when the pest is at its most vulnerable or before it is at its most damaging. It is rooted in a certain ethic, where the farmer invests in knowledge, equipment and extra labour in the expectation of it saving him more in the long run than he expends. The problem is that this reasoning is not readily transportable to smallholder farmers with at most primary education, less than perfect confidence in experts and limited resources. What is worse, many scientists and extensionists who serve these farmers, have been taught about IPM as though it is an established fact and not something that is necessarily work-in-progress, questionable, negotiable or subject to revision. 65
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 and 18: Advantages of Bb: environmentally s
Page 19 and 20: I believe that a man who has spent
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 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?