i Patrick W. Staib Anthropology This dissertation is approved, and it ...

In the 2005–2006 season, UCA farmers were able to sell 48% of their total
aggregated product in the specialty, certified organic, and Fair Trade market (also see
Table 3). This meant that they received the favorable price of specialty markets for only
48% of the coffee they marketed through the cooperative, or not even one-quarter of the
cargas that they brought in during the harvest. The other 52% that year sold at the NY
Board of Trade commodity futures market price, which in times of stable prices would
not be a major issue as long as they meet or exceed the “living price.”
The same year, several farmers resigned from the UCPCO because their specialty
yield was low: approximately 46%. Many farmers considered that unacceptable.
However, there is little oversight to ensure that the co-op will pay out to its farmers what
actually was sold to specialty markets. In other words, as my neighbor Don Eddy
accused, “Nos robaron (They stole from us).” Some farmers do not understand the
additional fees that could drive their payout down, but Eddy was tired of working harder
for a lower (organic) yield and then selling a smaller percentage to specialty markets in
the end. He left the UCPCO and joined the UCA after that season. 87
Clearly there are risks associated with collective labor practices. The issue of
aggregation of the crop is a sensitive one for farmers such as Eddy and Danilo, who
invest their own time and resources in order to produce high-quality coffee. Danilo, in
particular, exports directly to specialty markets so he does need to combine with farmers
“a quienes les importa menos (who could care less).” In Danilo’s words,
87 Eddy actually accused the directorship of UCPCO of taking on too many expenses.
The UCPCO had their own dry mill (beneficio seco) and tractor-trailer. He felt that the
member-farmers were paying for luxuries from which only a few of the UCPCO
members could benefit.
240