Cocobod
Cocoa
Marketing Board
COFPMAG Coconut
Farmers Processors Marketers Association of Ghana
CMC Cocoa
Marketing Company
CRP Coconut
Research Programme
CSIR Council
for Scientific and Industrial Research
CSDP Coconut
Sector Development Project
FAO Food
and Agriculture Organization
FBOs Farmer-based
Organizations
FS Farmer
Survey
GDP Gross
Domestic Product
GEPC Ghana
GH¢ Ghana
GLSS Ghana
GNP Gross
National Product
GVC Global
Value Chain
GVCs Global
Value Chains
IMF International
Monetary Fund
MoFA Ministry
of Food and Agriculture
MOP Muriate
of Potash
NGOs Non-Governmental
Organizations
PBC Produce
Buying Company
PC Purchasing
Clerks
R & D Research
and Development
SAPs Structural
Adjustment Programs
SLF Sustainable
Livelihoods Framework
USD United States
WB World
Bank
In recent years there has been increased number of literature and
research related to value chain analysis. This study examines the vulnerability
of small-scale farmers and how through upgrading they may improve their
livelihoods. Small-scale local farmers, in their interaction with other actors,
especially buyers in the coconut chain have limited possibility to upgrade
their activities. Though the farmers undertake process, product and functional
upgrading it is difficult and ambiguous how it will reduce vulnerability and
improve livelihoods of these farmers.
The study unraveled
constraints to upgrading such as inefficient technology, poor institutional
capacities and low level investment in agricultural research. The farmers have poor socio-economic status and
they try to provide livelihood security through diversification into other
crops production and animal rearing rather than specialising in coconut
production. The role of farmers’ associations is confined to providing security
against stealing of coconut and to address low produce prices. Finally, the
paper emphasizes collective action of the farmers and executive of association
to press for higher price and political representation which may stimulate
improvement in the livelihoods of the farmers.
Economic globalisation and liberalisation of trade have necessitated
the need for small-scale farmers to upgrade production to access niche markets
and earn high crop price. Debate on upgrading in agricultural value chains and
vulnerability of small-scale farmers has become crucial among stakeholders like
Governments, Private sector, NGOs, FBOs and Development partners. This study
will contribute to this debate and existing works on global value chain of agricultural
commodities and livelihoods vulnerability of small-scale farmers; second, serve
as a guide for the various actors on the coconut chain.
Vulnerability, Value-chain analysis, Upgrading,
Coconut , Ghana
Livelihood
Livelihood
Chapter 1
Introduction: Situating the Problem
1.1
Introduction
This
study is based on and driven by an empirical observation and by a question. The
observation is that many studies of small-scale agricultural commodities in Ghana
Coconut production is the main economic
activity of the Nzema people in the Jomoro district of Ghana. It is estimated
that about 8% of rural households in Ghana Ghana
This paper gives the findings of a fieldwork
conducted in Jomoro district in Ghana Ghana
1.2 Background
The Coconut (Cocos nucifera-botanical name of
coconut) is an important palm tree of the wet tropics. The fruits provide both
food and drink and are economically important for oil production (Adam et al.
1996, Cobley and Steele 1979, Danso and Ghartey 2005: 3). The oil is used in
the manufacture of soap, margarine, confectionery, cosmetics and for cooking.
The shell is used for fuel and charcoal. The mesocarp (coir) is used for mats,
brushes and ropes and the trunk provides excellent wood for building, furniture
making and the construction of culverts (Cobley and Steele 1979).
In Ghana Gulf
of Guinea
|
Ecological Zone
|
|
||
|
Coastal
|
|
|
|
|
73,200
|
40,000
|
1,400
|
114,600
|
Source: Ghana
|
Annual Value
of Harvested Coconut
(Billion of Cedis)
|
Annual Values
of Sales of Unprocessed Coconut (Billions of Cedis)
|
||||||
|
Coastal
|
|
|
|
Coastal
|
|
|
|
|
15.7
|
2.0
|
0.0
|
17.7
|
8.9
|
1.5
|
0.0
|
10.4
|
Source: Ghana
Indeed Ghana exported about US$150,000 and
US$152,000 of coconut (that is in the form of copra) respectively in 1998 and
1999 (Danso and Ghartey 2005: 4, GEPC 2000). Coconut can thus be said to be a
livelihood crop for the people living in the coastal zone of Ghana.
In the district under study coconuts are harvested
in the dry form and the farmers prefer that to the fresh coconuts, because of
the high oil content of the dry coconuts. The general practice is that the nuts
are allowed to mature and dry on the coconut trees and fall down by themselves.
In other regions of Ghana
Another reason accounting for dwindling coconut
oil production is the presence of Nigerian buyers in the domestic market.
Changing patterns in domestic and regional coconut commodity chains including
market liberalization as result of free trade policy of World Bank (WB) and IMF
has led to the coming in of Nigerians. The Nigerian buyers purchase the raw
coconuts and export them to Nigeria
Notwithstanding the new market trends and the
supposed higher coconut price given by the Nigerians, farmers still claim to be
poor because of high production costs that take a chunk of the income they get.
The small-scale farmers therefore continue to have reduced livelihood.
Responses suggest that upgrading will make them competitive enough to get niche
of domestic and global markets.
This paper examines the vulnerability of the
small-scale coconut farmer and the possible constraints to upgrading and how
overcoming they can help to position the farmer in a better place of the
domestic and global markets and thereby reduce the vulnerability of small-scale
farmers.
1.3 Statement of the problem
The coconut industry is one of the major
sources of employment and income for thousands of people in the coastal areas
of Ghana Ghana Ghana
Coconut production has created many jobs in the
local area, mainly in the area of processing coconut oil, milling of the dry
nut to process oil, collecting of the dry nuts from farms and transporting of
the coconut oil to the marketing centers in Takoradi, Accra
and Kumasi
Despite the large number of small-scale farmers
engaged in the coconut chain, the degree of vulnerability of these farmers is
high. Vulnerability in the context of this research paper refers to the low
income and lack of voice of the farmers in the determination of the coconut
price. The farmers’ vulnerability to low prices depends upon their location in
the coconut commodity chain and access to assets such as land, credit, employment
and social networks (Bacon 2005: 503). Thus the farmers who produce the coconut
for the processors and other traders earn little income and are continually living
in abject poverty.
To help
raise the income levels of these small-scale farmers it is important that they
upgrade their activities. However, upgrading in agricultural commodities, for example
coconut production, has its own inherent problems which constraint it. Participation
in agriculture commodity chains provides producers with relatively restricted opportunities
for upgrading (Gibbon 2001:63).
1.4 Justification and Relevance of the study
Coconut is a leading export product in
developing countries like the Philippines ,
Indonesia , India , Sri Lanka ,
Thailand and Malaysia Philippines Philippines
In Ghana
Therefore, the study will contribute to the
existing works on global value chain of agricultural commodities and how
through upgrading the vulnerability of small-scale farmers can be reduced.
Furthermore, the findings and analysis of the
research can serve as guide or pointer for the various actors of the coconut
chain, their strengths and weaknesses.
1.5 Research Objectives and Questions
The objective of the study is to investigate the vulnerability of
small-scale farmers in the value chain of coconut, and how upgrading in coconut
industry might contribute to increasing the incomes of the farmers and
consequently reduce the degree of vulnerability of the coconut farmer. Analyzing vulnerability of small-scale
coconut farmers in the value chain requires a closer look at the conventional
theories on upgrading and how upgrading strategies can contribute to the
reduction of vulnerability of the producers. Answering the central question
requires a vivid understanding of the coconut value chain. For the
case of Ghana, this paper will focus on the actors in the coconut chain, upgrading
and the constraints to upgrading and how these constraints can be overcome, and
the way in which farmers (are able to) utilise their network in the realisation
of upgrading strategies.
The main research question for this study is; what are the main constraints to upgrading on
the coconut chain and how might overcoming these constraints contribute to reducing
vulnerability of Ghanaian coconut farmers?
The stages involved in answering the question
are:
(1) How much do we understand and categorize the
vulnerability of small-scale farmer?
(2) To what extent does the farmers’ interaction
with other actors in the chain, namely the buyers, influence how they are
upgrading?
(3) What are the constraints to upgrading on the
coconut chain?
(4) Will resolving upgrading necessarily contribute
to reducing vulnerability of small-scale farmers?
1.6 Methodology
This research paper is based on both primary
and secondary data collection. The study therefore consists of two methods:
1.
A
literature review on similar agricultural commodities. Here the focus of the
study is on changes in farmers’ enabling environment and level of
vulnerabilities due to economic, social and geographical factors as well as
government interventions. In this part, I did desk study which
mainly consists of literature review on global value chains in small-scale
agriculture commodities, and upgrading of agricultural production. In addition,
I reviewed literatures on coconut and other similar agricultural products in Ghana
2.
Fieldwork
in Ghana Ghana
1.7 Limitations of the Research
A research of this nature
cannot be without challenges. There were some practical limitations:
- I interviewed a very small proportion of all coconut farmers in
- I interviewed farmers, intermediaries, processors and MoFA staff in
the district and regional offices; buyers from Nigeria and transporters
were not heard because they had travelled to their country to celebrate
feast of Ramadan.
- The planned focus group discussions with buyers in
- Communicating with the farmers in Jomoro district in the local language
was very difficult and I had to engage interpreter to do translation. The
outcomes of the interviews and group discussions may probably be biased
because the interpreter was involved in the provision of extension
services to coconut farmers in the district.
1.8 Structure of the Paper
This paper consists of five chapters and organized as follows. Chapter one discusses the
situation of the problem. It contains information about coconut production and
its contribution to the economy of Ghana. In Chapter two, the concept of
upgrading will be explained and conventional approaches towards upgrading
discussed. The focus will be on the relevance of the different approaches towards
upgrading specifically for coconut production. Again theoretical framework on global value chain and vulnerability will
be discussed in detailed. Details of coconut
chain in Ghana
Chapter 2
Concepts, Framework and Key Debates
2.1 Introduction
As
discussed in chapter one, this paper is set to find out the vulnerability
condition of small-scale farmers in the coconut production and how upgrading
strategies could help improve their situation in the value chain process of
this commodity. In this chapter we discuss a selection of theoretical
perspectives, concepts and approaches that will be helpful in providing
analytical perspective and direction for the present study to achieve the
stated aim. The analysis is based on two main concepts. These are concepts of
value chain analysis and vulnerability, especially of agricultural commodities.
The chapter first discusses and conceptualizes global value chain theory,
upgrading and upgrading strategies, constraints to upgrading and vulnerability
framework. First, section (2.2) gives a conceptual explanation of global value
chain features and definitions.
2.2 Global Value Chains
First, the concepts of value chains analysis
are of various forms, namely supply chains, international production networks,
global commodity chains, French filiére approach and global value chains.
However, in the context of this research paper value chain refers to the French
filiére approach that means chain of activities as a method of study primarily
agricultural export commodities such as rubber, cotton, coffee and cocoa
(Raikes et al. 2000). Agricultural products are produced not for the mere sake
of production but for local or domestic market as well as for export. Thus
agricultural produce are meant for defined global value chains. Global value
chains (GVCs) are concerned with the ‘relative value of those activities that
are required to bring a product or service from conception through the
different phases of production (involving a combination of physical
transformation and the input of various producer services), delivery to final
consumers, and final disposal after use’ (Gereffi et al. 2001: 3). According to
Bammann (2007) a value chain is simply full range of activities required to
bring a product or service from conception, through the different phases of
production, transformation and delivery to final consumers and the final
disposal after use. A value chain is made up of a series of actors from inputs
suppliers, producers and processors, to exporters and buyers engaged in the
activities required to bring a product from conception to its end use (Bammann
2007, Kaplinsky and Morris 2001). Coconut production is a dispersed activity
and its value-chain is more complex and involves several actors. It is only
through effective means of conceptualizing the forms that the production and other
activities in the value chain can be integrated (Gereffi et al. 2001). The
different stages of processing and refining and the bulk transportation of
different coconut products may be responsible for complex nature of the coconut
chain (Mather 2008). The actors participating in the coconut chain are the
agriculture institution (CSDP/MOFA), farmers, local and regional intermediaries
(middlemen), small and large scale processors (local coconut oil processors and
manufacturing industries respectively), fresh coconut retailers, coconut oil
traders, producers’ associations, transporters and consumers. Each of these
actors plays significant role at different stages of the value chain. In
agriculture commodities value chains the leading actors are the intermediaries
(middlemen), and processors. The exact role of each actor in the coconut chain
is what has not been researched into and therefore unknown. The study is
therefore set to identify these actors and the different roles they play in the
coconut chain. It also analyses the linkages of the chain and the different
categories involve.
This
research paper investigates the extent to which asymmetrical relationships and
trust with buyers and processors provide farmers with the opportunities for
learning and upgrading. It also finds out the possible constraints to
upgrading.
Figure
1 below shows the basic coconut value chain. The coconut chain is complex
because of the range of conditions under which it is produced, the different
stages of processing and the bulk transportation of different coconut products.
Figure 1: The Basic Coconut Value
Chain
Section
(2.2) provided a conceptual analysis of a basic coconut chain and the actors
involved. This provides the platform for analysing the concept of upgrading in
the coconut chain. Hence, the next subsection (2.3) provides a brief expose of
upgrading in agricultural value chain.
2.3 Upgrading
Upgrading
of local capabilities of the small-scale farmers is critical to sustain existing
markets and offset the impact of new competitors as well as to expand into new market
niches (Dolan and Tewari 2001). Schmitz (2004) observed that, with the growing
global competition, for micro, small, and medium enterprises to participate and
gain in the global economy, they have to resort to upgrading. Upgrading as
defined by Knorringa and Schmitz (2000) is “enhancing the relative competitive
position of a firm” (to make better products, more efficiently or move into
more skilled activities). Two categories of upgrading can be distinguished from
Kaplinsky’s four forms: production and functional upgrading (Kaplinsky and
Morris 2001:76). As leaders in buyer-driven chains, buyers play important roles
in upgrading by enhancing intra-chain communication of changes in demand, taste
and what it takes to respond to these changes. It is however important to
develop mechanisms that specify areas where “local upgrading can be enhanced or
hindered by local or national buyers and in some cases by global buyers”
(Knorringa and Humphery 2000: 201).
The
research examines three main types of upgrading activities namely product upgrading,
process upgrading, and functional upgrading. For
example, process upgrading may result from new technology or information which
enables a higher volume of product to be produced for a reduced or ‘smarter’ input.
Product upgrading may result from selling a labelled product, which may command
a higher unit value and price. Both essentially require increasing degrees of
information and or technology; this necessitates a change in co-ordination and
therefore GVC governance structure (Keane 2008: 10).
2.3.1 Product
Upgrading
Product
upgrading refers to improvements in the process of production and products,
either within a firm, or a result of a series of linked actions in the
relationships between firms. According to Humphrey and Schmitz (2000) adapted
by Laven (2005: 7) product upgrading implies the “making of
a product that is of better quality, more sophisticated or simply carries
a better price”. The intrinsic value of the form, nature and
composition of a product or service is increased by product upgrading through
introduction of new products or improving existing products.
In the
case of coconut in Ghana
2.3.2 Process
Upgrading
Furthermore, process upgrading can be defined as “transforming inputs to
outputs more efficiently by re-organising the production system or introducing
superior technology” (definition by Humphrey and Schmitz 2000,
Laven 2005: 7).
Process improvements can be undertaken within
firms by introducing new machinery, or better practices. It can also result
from new capabilities acquired from inter-firm linkages. Improvements in the
process are aimed at “lower production cost, enhanced final product quality and
shorter time-to-market, improve profitability through value chain, and enhance patenting
activity” (Kaplinsky and Morris 2001:77). Other types of
upgrading, which are being less used, are inter-sectoral (or inter-chain) upgrading
and the upgrading of marketing linkages (Gereffi 1999).
Producers
(farmers) are involved in product and process upgrading in the coconut chain by
improving field practices as well as post-harvest humility control (Fromm and
Dubón 2006). Another form of upgrading which can raise the value of coconut is
the localisation of raw material processing. By processing the dried coconut
into copra or desiccated coconut may raise the market value of product rather
than selling raw nuts. Thus product upgrading is geared towards increasing
relative unit prices to remain in the market.
2.3.3 Functional
Upgrading:
Another
type of upgrading of agricultural commodities in the global value chain is
functional upgrading. Functional upgrading can
also be described as “repositioning a given firm at a higher level of the value
chain” (Humphrey and Schmitz 2000, Laven 2005:7). Thus functional upgrading of
primary commodities refers to processing of the primary commodity to by-or even
end products. Generally, the actors involved in functional upgrading activities
are farmers and processors.
Changing
functional positions, by adjusting activities undertaken within a particular
link or moving to activities taking place in other links is a means of
upgrading. It can also be a move to a new or additional value chain. The goals
of market upgrading and/or diversification are to attain a certain degree of
competitiveness where division of labour within the chain is possible. The
final aim is to increase profitability and skills in different product areas
(Kaplinsky and Morris 2001:77). Small-scale coffee and palm oil producers in
their interaction with local processors or intermediaries (middlemen-wholesaler
and retailers), have the possibility to acquire new skills and knowledge. Through
the interaction with other actors, especially the intermediaries, the farmers
build type of trust relationship and power dependence that determine how information
flows among them. By establishing good and long business relationship with the
buyers, farmers can expect to have larger sales and higher prices. On the other
hand, what other studies might not have looked at is whether coconut farmers
can benefit from a high-trust relationship with the buyers. Again, the question
is will the availability of information about market prices, quality requirement
and demand likely to have positive impact on the sales and prices of coconut (Gereffi
1999, Laven 2005: 5, Vargas 2001).
It is
evident in literature that investment in research and development (R&D)
have propensity to raise production and sales of small-scale coffee and cocoa
farmers. Consequently, it leads to increase incomes for these farmers. Many
literatures have been written on upgrading in terms of cocoa, coffee and palm
oil and how it might lead to competitiveness in the value chain of these
agricultural commodities. However, nothing or little work has been done on the
constraints to upgrading and how they might contribute to reducing vulnerability
of small-scale coconut farmers. Therefore, this paper is set to study the various
upgrading strategies in the coconut value chain and how they trickle down to
reduce the vulnerability of coconut farmers.
Conventional theory also has a narrow approach towards
the goal of upgrading, which is competitiveness. However, producers of
agricultural commodities in Ghana Ghana
Another theoretical concept, which this paper
examines, is vulnerability. Generally, small-scale farmers are perceived to be
vulnerable to several factors. In section (2.4) we look at the conceptual
theory of vulnerability of small-scale farmers in agricultural production.
2.4 Vulnerability
The falling prices of agricultural commodities
like coffee and coconut is due to increased supply. The
increasing coffee supply led to rising inventories in consumer countries and
coincided with sluggish demand and market concentration in the roasting and
trading industries (Bacon 2005, Ponte 2002a). Among the consequences are shifts
in power to the roasting and retailing end of the commodity chain and falling
prices paid to producers (Bacon 2005, Talbot 1997). Similarly, the prices
coconut producers earn are low due to unregulated supply of nuts, sluggish
demand and unfavourable market conditions. Low prices tend to devastate rural
economies and threaten the livelihood vulnerability of the coconut farmers
(Bacon 2005). It is evident that farmers only produce the nuts to a whole
litany of actors who add value by processing the nuts into coconut oil or by
selling directly to final consumers as fruits. Falling prices have tendency to
create increasing price instability both in regional and domestic commodities
markets.
In
effect the farmers are vulnerable because of low commodities prices and
subsequent low incomes as well as low voice in negotiating for higher commodity
price. Much of the literature on groups indicates that in many farming
communities there are no viable farmers’ associations that negotiate on behalf
of farmers for higher producer prices. As a result of this, poor individual
farmers have to cope with the vagaries of regional and domestic markets (Craig
et al. 2000). They therefore negotiate with buyers for prices of their produce.
And more often than not the buyers have stronger bargaining power while the
small-scale farmers who according to literature have little voice in
negotiating for higher commodity price, earn low prices and low income. The
only possible way farmers can earn better commodity price is through collective
action. However, successful collective action can be organized through well
functioning farmer association which tends to elude most coconut producing
communities.
According to literature another important
reasons which account for the vulnerability of small-scale farmers are the
absence of sound information on both domestic and international markets
opportunities, the under-development of regional commercial trade channels and
weak domestic demand due to poverty and consumption habits.
Inadequate
road infrastructure development in the area is underpinning factor for the
vulnerability of small-scale farmers in the coconut chain. Inaccessibility of
farms aggravates the plight of the farmers. Most of the coconut plantations in
the district have no accessible roads and during harvesting periods farmers
have to employ day labourers to carry the nuts over long distances to the sale
centres. Production costs eventually become high and lead to lower incomes of
the farmers.
The
livelihood vulnerability framework offers a common approach for economic crisis
and natural disasters (Bacon 2005, Combes and Guillaumont 2002, Moser 1998).
The approach examines causes, impacts on household well-being and mechanisms to
cope with and buffer damage (Bacon 2005: 501, Blaikie et al. 1994, Skoufias
2003). The next subsection (2.4.1), gives the definitions of vulnerability in
different contextual backgrounds.
2.4.1 Definition of
Vulnerability
Bacon (2005) defines ‘vulnerability as an
external source of stress or shock and an internal component describing the
exposure and response to this shock as it is interpreted through the
socioecological relationships that shape individual’s or group’s livelihood
assets’ (Bacon 2005: 501). This definition of vulnerability goes beyond the
income-based definitions of poverty and encompasses assets, entitlements and
famine (Bacon 2005, Moser 1998, Reardon and Vosti 1995, Scoones 1998, Sen 1981,
1997, Shankland 2000). Absence of sound information on both domestic and
international markets serves as impediment to small-scale farmers in accessing
these markets. Again, many literatures identify shortage of long-term financing
for perennial crops as a cause of vulnerability of small-scale farmers. Bacon
(2005) from a research he conducted on small-scale coffee producers realized
that apart from low coffee price health, environment, education and community
development constitute vulnerability of the farmers, and thus affect their
livelihood.
Leichenko and
O’brien defined vulnerability as a measure of the degree to which an entity may
be hurt or influenced by an object or event. On the other hand Reilly and
Schimmelpfennig (1999) differentiate among yield vulnerability, farmer or
sector vulnerability, regional economic vulnerability, and hunger
vulnerability. However, vulnerability is a dynamic characteristic that is influenced
by larger scale economic and environmental changes. It can result from
environmental phenomena, economic distresses, political instability or social
pressure. According to literature farmers are particularly vulnerable and
small-scale farmers are even more so, since “smallness is the most significant
factor of economic vulnerability” (Encontre 2004). The vulnerability of
small-scale farmers or producers mainly results from structural factors-
isolation, propensity to natural disasters, intrinsic income volatility, low
diversification in production and trade and export dependence.
The
consequences are the increasing risk and uncertainty and declining
self-respect. Because people move into and out of poverty, the concept of vulnerability
better captures processes of change than more static measures of poverty (Moser
1998, Rakodi 1995). According to Chambers and Conway
(1992) livelihood refers to the means of gaining a living, including the
tangible and intangible assets that support an existence. Bebbington (2000)
defines livelihoods as the way people make a living and how they make it
meaningful. Small poor farmers are
among those most vulnerable to market shocks and they tend to suffer
disproportionately when a shock occurs. It is imperative to know that farmers’
vulnerability to the falling prices depends upon their initial position in the
commodity chain and their access to assets such as land, credit, employment and
social networks.
To
overcome the challenges of vulnerability and the effects on livelihood Bacon
(2005) in his article recommends that the small-scale farmer in the coffee
value-chain diversifies and upgrades production processes to meet the
competitiveness in local, regional and possible global markets. Diversifying
the crops on a farm by planting additional crops such as bananas, plantain
and/or continue the subsistence cultivation of corn and cassava is a key
strategy to maintain food sovereignty and manage risk within the household (Bacon
2005, Ellis 1998; Reardon 1997). According to literature just like coffee
farmers, small-scale coconut farmers to survive price crashes should diversify
production and exploit their own labour (Bacon 2005, Chayanov 1966, 1925). In
Figure 3, a vulnerability model is shown depicting the context of coconut producers.
The Figure
3 below shows the analytical framework for the vulnerability context of coconut
farmers. A combination of factors namely physical, natural, human, social and
financial when exploit and utilise well may reduce vulnerability and improve
the livelihoods of farmers. Availability of land, good land tenure system,
ability of labour, networks of farmers, relationships of trust,
Figure 3: Vulnerability context of coconut producers
Source: Adapted from Carney et al. (1999)
high coconut prices, access to credit facilities and improve production equipment that stimulate upgrading will contribute to reducing vulnerability of coconut farmers.
From the
above analysis of GVC, upgrading and vulnerability it is crystal clear that
upgrading in firms entails some constraints and difficulties. There appears to
be no linear relationship between upgrading in agricultural value chain and
reduced vulnerability of farmers. Both concepts have their own problems. In
order to understand this better, in the next section, we look at constraints of
upgrading in agricultural production.
2.5
Constraints to Upgrading
In spite
of the upgrading strategies to reduce the vulnerabilities of the small-scale farmers,
there are number of constraints that militate against the positive impact of
the strategies. The mandate to provide
leadership in the development of the industry has been a major constraint.
A
draft report issued by Dy and Reyes on coconut industry in the Philippine
indicates that low investment is a constraint in the development of the
industry. According to the report the development of
small-scale agricultural industry is characterized by too many under-funded,
short duration programs which have been unable to generate a sustainable
impact. This has demoralized both farmers and agricultural extension staff in
the country. As a result, there is little or no application of fertilizers or
other inputs, and replanting has been very slow and poorly maintained (World
Bank 1999). Similarly, lack of investment in the area of research and
development (R&D) is identified by many development researchers such as Laven
(2005) as constraint to the upgrading. However, the funds require
for undertaking research and development in this area is huge and goes beyond
the means of government of many developing countries (CSDP Appraisal Report
1997). To overcome these constraints international financial institutions like
the World Bank, African Development Bank and other donors should collaborate
with agricultural institutions in research and development.
Another
constraint to upgrading in small-scale agricultural commodity chain discussed
by Dy and Reyes is limited resource allocation. According to
their argument other crops such as rice (inland valley and upland) receives by
far more budget allocation than coconut on per ha or per farmer basis.
They suggested that by letting market forces decide on what to plant and where
to plant in the context of replanting, conversion and intercropping is the
possible way out of this constraint. However they did not state whether it is
applicable to small-scale coconut production? This study will focus on
investigating this is in the context of coconut production in Ghana
The
“low intensity” approach to solving the problems of coconut industry meant lost
upgrading opportunities in the areas of increasing coconut prices, poverty
alleviation, global competitiveness and sustainable development in coconut
chain. Coconut regions in Ghana
In
some cases, the inability of small-scale farmers to engage extension services
of agriculture staff is a constraint to upgrading. Many small-scale farmers in
spite of the valuable agronomy and phytosanitary advice given by these officers
continue to depend on inefficient traditional methods and practices with its
concomitant slow growth in production and low productivity.
Sometimes
farmers plant low-yielding varieties of seeds/seedlings which affect quality of
produce and standard which are requirements of domestic and international
markets. Strict enforcement of seed laws may lead to upgrading opportunities. Furthermore,
domestic and regional markets constrain upgrading. According to literature, in
agriculture sector, domestic market places considerably fewer demands on firms
with respect to the complex requirements of quality, consistency and
reliability than does the export market (Dolan and Tewari 2001:95). Thus low
domestic demand for agricultural goods like coffee and coconut does not offer
much upgrading opportunities. To achieve increased demand small-scale farmers
should produce for export markets. However, to enter international market it is
imperative that national standards be established which are acceptable in the
international markets. As argued by Dolan and Tewari (2001), the knowledge and
capabilities required to produce for overseas markets demands close interaction
between suppliers and retailers.
In the
preceding sections we have discussed GVC, upgrading, vulnerability and the
constraints to upgrading. Central to this discussion is the livelihoods of the
farmers and how upgrading may impact positively on their livelihoods. In
preparation for analysis of the farmers’ livelihoods and vulnerability in subsection
(4.3) we use the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework as the analytical framework
for the analysis of this part. Hence, in
section (2.6), we adapt the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework which seems quite
useful for analysing and linking the concepts noted above.
2.6 Analytical Framework
2.6.1 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
The
main debate in literature for this study is will upgrading reduce vulnerability
and improve livelihood of small-scale farmers? To understand and appreciate the
debate in context of coconut farmers in Ghana
In the
context of this study, we consider the principles of SLF in relation to GVCs
and upgrading logic. The question here is should the farmers diversify into
production of other crops or do other work to create livelihood security.
Conversely, should they upgrade and specialise in only coconut production to
make them more competitive. Though the concepts, livelihoods and diversification
as well as upgrading and specialisation are important, each has its own
problems. The next subsection (2.6.2) examines in detail the conflicts between
these concepts.
2.6.2 Tensions of
Global Value Chains and Upgrading Logic versus Livelihoods Processes: Diversification
versus Specialisation
Sustainable livelihood strategy as it is in
literature is based on the principle of being holistic. That is the farmers
adopt many strategies to secure their livelihoods. Coconut farmers therefore
diversify the crops on the farms such as planting of other subsistence crops
like cassava, maize, plantain and vegetables as well as livestock rearing. The
body of literature on livelihoods diversification reveal that farmers diversify
to create livelihood security and not for profit. However, global value chains
and upgrading logic give contrarily view to livelihood processes. Global Value
Chains and Upgrading Logic entail generally specialisation. Conceptually,
farmers specialise in the production of single crop, for example, coconut and
not to diversify the crops. By specialising the farmers will be more
technically efficient, but there is inherent risk. As argued by Humphrey and
Schmitz (2002) and Fromm (2007) ‘a significant problem for firms which had
successfully managed to integrate themselves into value chains characterized by
quasi-hierarchical relationships is the danger of ‘lock in’ (Fromm 2007: 10).
Outputs of these firms go to one or a small number of customers, and they
become specialised in one particular activity, usually production, and they do
not develop design or marketing capabilities (ibid). Specialisation can lead to
‘lock-in’ and to the risk of managing it. If the farmers do not get market for
the produce, they would suffer and be more vulnerable. Conceptually, upgrading
is assumed to be better than diversification, but on the flipside upgrading
entails specialisation and the problem of ‘lock-in’. According to Humphrey
(2003), the three main strategic options for combating a ‘lock-in’ is market
diversification, excellence in manufacturing and effective use of knowledge
acquired from within the value chain (Fromm 2007:10). Diversification therefore
may develop a wide income portfolio to cover all types of shocks or stress
which the farmer may encounter. In a situation where there is coconut price
crisis, the other crops provide alternative income for farmers’ livelihoods.
Conversely, upgrading may help the farmers to deal with vulnerability but may
also lead them to do what they are used to in a way which is not seen by them.
There is therefore tension of Global Value Chains and Upgrading Logic versus
Livelihood processes. ‘The degree of specialisation or diversification may
relate to the resource endowments available and the risk associated with alternative
options’ (Scoones 2005:10).
Source: Adapted from Scoones (2005:10)
Secondly,
Sustainable Livelihood Framework is based on the principle of being
people-centred. SLF analyses the people’s livelihoods and how they change over
time. The people themselves actively participate throughout the project cycle. Livelihoods
lead to active participation of farmers in the farming activities which
consequently may reduce vulnerability. Other organisations like MoFA, NGOs and
donor partners may provide assistance in the form of resources and technical
backstop, the participation of the farmers themselves is critical for ensuring
efficient use of the resources. The livelihood emphasizes the effective
development and application of livelihood assets- human, physical, social,
financial and natural capitals- which are central to reducing vulnerability and
thereby increasing the livelihoods of the producers. The assets can be
effectively put to use when the farmers participate in required activities that
aim at reducing vulnerability. For example, implementing of upgrading strategies
or diversifying into other crops and livestock rearing depend significantly on
the involvement of farmers. Again, making sure that effective social networks and
institutions are established to mitigate the factors that increase vulnerability
and reduce livelihoods demands participation of the farmers. In effect
livelihoods strategies lead to increase participation of the people who are at
the core of the strategy.
In the
literature on GVC analysis it is emphasized that upgrading will result in
increased output and higher income, and consequently reduce livelihoods
problems and vulnerability of producers. The importance of learning and the use
of higher levels of technology to achieve upgrading appear to be possible.
However, the argument is that upgrading may have negative impact on
livelihoods. Upgrading leads to specialisation and division of labour may increase
livelihoods. But for the small-scale farmers doing the same thing over and over
again may be monotonous and kill their interests and perhaps lead to decreased
livelihoods. Small-scale farmer may prefer to do other things that will bring
income rather than specialising in the production of single commodity.
2.7 Conclusion
We have seen in this
chapter the key concepts GVC, upgrading, vulnerability and possible constraints
to upgrading. We have also examined the framework SLF and its relationship with
other concepts. The key debate of the paper that should be addressed is will
upgrading reduce vulnerability and improve livelihood of small-scale farmers?
In most cases small-scale farmers prefer diversification to upgrading for the
purpose of creating livelihood security. Diversification as discussed in many literatures
is a key strategy to maintain food sovereignty and manage risk within the
household of small farmers (Bacon 2005: 506, Ellis 1998, Reardon 1997). But
upgrading leads to specialisation which may not be the most preferred
alternative for the farmers.
In order to find solution
to the main debate, the next chapter of this paper provides empirical analysis
of socioeconomic overview and vulnerability of small-scale farmers and outlines
of actors and their interactions and economic upgrading in the coconut value
chain of a case study in Jomoro district in Ghana
Chapter 3
Following
the chain: a map of the actors and the quest for economic upgrading
3.1 Introduction
We have seen and analysed
the various concepts in the earlier chapter of this paper. Now the point of
this chapter is to provide the results and findings of a case study of the
coconut chain in Ghana
3.2 Case Study: Socioeconomic overview of coconut farmers in Jomoro
district
In
order to analyse how small-scale coconut farmers undertake upgrading as they
interact with other actors in the chain, and knowing how their socio-economic
life is, a field research was conducted from July to August in the Jomoro
district, where most of the coconut production is concentrated. Some farmers
and intermediaries were located in the following towns and villages: Half
Assini, Takinta, Jaway, Nzimitianu and Adusuazo. Two managers of processing
companies, located in Tikobo No. 1 and Esiama were interviewed. Some staffs of
Ministry of Food and Agriculture in both the district and regional offices were
also located in Half Assini and Sekondi respectively. A total of 42 respondents
were interviewed (Table 3.1)
|
Location
|
Sample
|
|||
|
Farmers
|
Intermediaries
|
Processors
|
MoFA
Staffs
|
|
|
Half
Assini
|
5
|
2
|
-
|
3
|
|
Takinta
|
5
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
|
Jaway
|
5
|
2
|
-
|
-
|
|
Nzimitianu
|
6
|
2
|
-
|
-
|
|
Adusuazo
|
4
|
3
|
-
|
-
|
|
Tikobo
No. 1
|
-
|
-
|
1
|
-
|
|
Esiama
|
-
|
-
|
1
|
-
|
|
Sekondi
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
2
|
|
TOTAL
|
25
|
10
|
2
|
5
|
Source: Author’s compilation (field survey
2010)
Out of
the sample taken, 59% (i.e. 25) of those interviewed were small-scale coconut
farmers, or belonged to the second link in the coconut chain. The
intermediaries or middlemen (i.e. local buyers & processors), which formed
the third link in the chain, made up 24% (i.e. 10) of the sample. In addition,
7% (i.e. 3) and 5% (i.e. 2) of the sample were staff from the district and
regional offices of MoFA respectively. The other cases were processing companies
who were interviewed and this constituted 5% (i.e. 2) of the sample. On the
whole, forty-two (42) interviews were conducted as against the initial planned
number of thirty-eight (38). This was made possible because of two main
reasons. First, the distances between the towns selected were not very long and
that permitted less time in traveling from one town to another. Second, the
initial anticipated constraint of non-responses of interviewees was prevented
by engaging the services of a research assistant who is well known in the
district. With his involvement the respondents readily offered their cooperation.
The
selected sample of respondents skewed towards males without any apparent
reasons. In all, 88% (i.e. 37) of the sample were males and 12% females (i.e.
5). Analysis of the age structure of the sample shows high proportion of old
people engage in coconut production in Ghana
Furthermore,
discussions were held with two groups during the study. First one was with
group of small farmers in a village called Nzimitianu, few kilometers from Half
Assini town. And the second focus group discussion was held with executives of
Half Assini Coconut Farmers’ Association in Half Assini. Coconut farmers in Jomoro
districts are small farmers with many of them having small holdings between 1
hectare and 10 hectares. Out of the sample selected, 68% of them had less than
10 ha of coconut farm. The average total number of nuts harvested per year
ranges 2,000 and 240,000 that is, between 1 and 120 metric tons. This gives
gross annual income of GH¢240.00 (€126.21 or $171.65) and GH¢28,800.00
(€15,145.56 or $20,599.02) respectively. Considering the labour cost for
collecting the nuts from the farms, transportation cost to market centre and
cost of peeling off the husks, the farmer ends up earning less income than what
is required for average living.
All the farmers interviewed have responsibility
of taking care of their family. Some of them have children who are in secondary
and tertiary institutions and they have to pay their school fees from the
little income they earn from the coconut farms. Others too have additional
responsibility of supporting other extended family relations. With little
income they find it extremely difficult to maintain their families and also
live meaningful lives. A respondent during a focus group discussion in
Nzimitianu said “we the farmers are helpless because most of us are in the
pockets of local processors and buyers. We are compelled to mortgage our farms
to them in order to get money to look after our families. It is because we are
poor”.
Generally,
the socio-economic overview of average coconut farmer in Jomoro district
reveals poor livelihood situation as a result of low output, low income level
and low standard of living, and also lack of formidable action by the producers
to voice out and negotiate for high price. Farmers therefore find it difficult
to invest the little income they get in expanding and upgrading coconut
production in the district.
To
have a clear understanding of how vulnerable coconut farmers in Jomoro district
are the next section provides the definition of vulnerability and its
categorization as unravel by the field study.
3.3 Defining and categorizing vulnerability of small-scale farmer
Economic
globalization has brought about changes like liberalization of trade and
investment, formation of regional economic agreements, implementation of
structural adjustment programs (SAPS) and removal of subsidies and price
supports (Castells 1998, Leichenko and O’brien, 2001:1). These changes have
benefited some farmers, while at the same time others are threatened by low
crop prices, removal of subsidies, competition with cheaper imports, changes in
credit availability, inability to gain access to international markets, and a lack
of access to high-yielding seeds, fertilizers, and irrigation (Leichenko and
O’brien 2001:1, McLaughlin 1996, Mittleman 1994). These changes are exposing
small-scale farmers into increased vulnerability. In this paper, attempt is
made to define and categorize vulnerability. Vulnerability must be understood
as a dynamic characteristic that is influenced by larger scale economic and
environmental changes and factors (Leichenko and O’brien 2001: 2).
First,
vulnerability is a measure of the degree to which an entity may be hurt or
influenced by an object or event (ibid). In the context of this study,
vulnerability implies market shocks (price risk management), economic shocks,
lack of voice, and livelihoods problems. For the discourse of this study meaning
of vulnerability falls in line with Bacon’s definition seen in chapter two. This
definition of vulnerability goes beyond the income-based definitions of poverty
and encompasses assets, entitlements and famine (Bacon 2005, Moser 1998, Reardon
and Vosti 1995, Scoones 1998, Sen 1981, 1997, Shankland 2000). Vulnerability
can result from: environmental phenomena, economic distresses, political
instability or social pressures. Hence, there are yield vulnerability, farmer
or sector vulnerability, regional economic vulnerability, and hunger vulnerability
(Reilly and Schimmelpfennig 1999).
From
observations and interviews, the vulnerability of small-scale coconut farmers
is categorized into three broad categories: income vulnerability, livelihoods
vulnerability and low voice vulnerability. Generally, small-scale agricultural
producers in Ghana
Now we
know the frameworks of upgrading and vulnerability and the way upgrading
impacts on livelihoods of small-scale producers from different literature. We
now start looking at the various actors and the interactions in the coconut
chain and how this helps to answer the second research question of this paper.
Section (3.4) provides analysis of situational study of coconut chain in Jomoro
district, Ghana
3.4 Actors and Interactions in the Coconut chain in Ghana
The
coconut sector in Ghana Ghana
In
order to have a clear understanding of where the small coconut farmers stand in
the global value chain, it is imperative to analyse who the actors are and what
their interactions are like. The actors participating in the coconut chain in Ghana Ghana Ghana Ghana
The
intermediaries (i.e. middlemen) form the third link in the chain. There are different
categories of intermediaries within the link. The prominent and recognised ones
are the smaller local intermediaries (i.e. buyers) and the Nigerians. The local
intermediaries are mostly indigenous young men, aged between 25 and 45 years
who purchase the raw coconuts from the farmers and sell to Nigerians. Some of
the local intermediaries are agents of the Nigerians and buy the coconuts on
their behalf for commission. Responses from the buyers show that smaller local
intermediaries trade average of 150,000 kg or 150 tons of coconut a year.
Another
category of intermediaries are those who trade in coconut oil which is
processed by small-scale village processors. This group of intermediaries is
mostly local women, and few other women from the cities. They buy coconut oil
from the local small-scale processors and farmers; and sell in Accra ,
Kumasi
At the
time of this study, the Nigerians are the group of intermediaries who trade in
largest volume of coconut in Ghana Ghana
Interviewees
asserted that in recent times Nigerian buyers (i.e. middlemen) export raw dried
coconuts to Nigeria and
sub-regional markets of West Africa and South Africa
Finally,
in Ghana Rotterdam , Germany )
and America America and other parts of Africa .
Makola is also sold at the domestic markets in Ghana
Source: Figure
by author
The
Coconut Farmers Processors Marketers Association of Ghana (COFPMAG) represents
farmers in meetings with MoFA. Apart from COFPMAG, there is Coconut Farmers’
Association in every village we visited during the study. The village associations
negotiate producer price and provide voluntary services in the form of security
for farmers. The farmers’ associations play significant advocacy role in the
coconut chain. According to the Chairman of COFPMAG, the association
coordinates the activities of Coconut farmers’ associations in various
communities in Western and Central regions. It is working to build alternative
production and consumption networks; in order to create wider markets for
coconuts in Ghana, the farmers’ association is working hard to promote consumer
education and expand alternative markets; especially with regards to marketing
of coconut oil which gradually experiencing a decline in demand. Different
actors and how they interact in the coconut chain is provided in Figure 5 above.
Now we
know the framework of GVC, upgrading, vulnerability and possible constraints to
upgrading. Secondly, we know the socioeconomic background of the farmers,
thirdly their vulnerability and finally, the actors in the chain. Now let us
start looking at their interaction with the debate of the paper. In section
(3.5) we elaborate upgrading and the type of upgrading strategies use by the
farmers.
3.5 Upgrading in Coconut production in Ghana
Upgrading
in agricultural production is likely to make the farmers gain niches in local,
regional and global markets. In preparation for answering the third research
question, this section provides empirical analysis of upgrading in coconut
value chain as unraveled by a study conducted in Jomoro district in Ghana. The
study shows that for the farmers to make meaningful impact in both domestic and
regional markets they have to upgrade the processes and products. Generally,
many farmers are making efforts to upgrade process, but lots of factors
constraints their efforts. Classifying forms of upgrading- process, product and
functional- in coconut production was difficult, especially distinguishing
specific instance of process and product upgrading (Gibbon 2003). Hence there
may be instances of overlapping in process and product upgrading.
3.5.1 Process
Upgrading
Process
upgrading is defined in literature as transforming inputs to output more efficiently
by re-organising the production system or introducing superior technology
(Laven 2005: 7). Process upgrading towards more capital- intensive production
forms was possible, for example, weeding the farm regularly in order to allow
the coconut trees to get right amount of soil nutrients, by developing more
efficient seeds/seedlings, by employing more intensive pesticides and
fertilizers regimes and by introducing mechanical harvesting and collection of
the nuts (Gibbon 2001).
During
the fieldwork planting of high yielding hybrid seedlings, application of
fertilizers and regular phytosanitary and agronomical practices were identified
as the main process upgrading strategies used by coconut farmers. Generally,
most coconut farms in the district are over 30 years and the palms are old and
very tall. The palms are therefore unable to bear more fruits. To rejuvenate
these farms 64% of farmers interviewed have planted hybrid seedlings which have
the potential to bear more nuts and shorter gestation period as compare to the
traditional West African tall (WAT) variety. Coconut Sector Development Project
of Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) produces the hybrid seedlings at its
nurseries and sells to farmers.
A good
number of sampled farmers (76%) had applied fertilizer in their coconut farms,
a strategy to improve their production processes. Many of the coconut farms in
the areas we visited aged between 30 and 60 years. The capacity of the trees to
produce more nuts has declined, because the soils have lost their nutrients
content and become infertile due to the continuous use by the trees. To
increase the fertility of the land farmers apply fertilizers (i.e. MOP and
Urea). Though the fertilizer application resulted in increased yield of nuts,
the high cost of inorganic fertilizers was a major problem to farmers. Hence
24% of farmers interviewed have not applied fertilizers on their farms. The
high cost of inorganic fertilizers has compelled them to resort to the use of
coconut husks as mulching and manure (60%).
Improved phytosanitary and agronomical
practices (i.e. field/farm maintenance) was observed by the farmers. Regular
slashing or under-brushing of coconut plantations was done by the farmers. The
study shows that some farmers weed their farms once a year (28%). Many of the
farmers interviewed (i.e. 72%) stated that they weed their farms at least twice
a year.
Table 3.2
Implementing Process Upgrading Strategies
|
Response
|
Hybrid seedlings
|
Fertilizers
|
Field Maintenance
|
Mulching
|
Post Harvest
|
|
Yes
|
16 (64%)
|
19 (76%)
|
18 (72%)
|
15 (60%)
|
5 (20%)
|
|
No
|
9 (36%)
|
6 (24%)
|
7 (28%)
|
10 (40%)
|
20 (80%)
|
|
Total
|
25
|
25
|
25
|
25
|
25
|
Source: Author’s calculations (field survey
2010).
It is
evident from the study that the farmers use low technology which is mostly labour
intensive in weeding, harvesting, collection of nuts, applying of fertilizers
and mulching in upgrading process. Majority of interviewed farmers (80%) do not
observed any post-harvest management because they sell their nuts immediately
after collection.
3.5.2 Product
Upgrading
Product upgrading is the
making of a product that is of better quality, more sophisticated or simply carries
a better price (Laven 2005: 7). From the study at least 80% of farmers
interviewed have engaged in product upgrading activities which simply corresponded
to assuring good quality seedling supply, applying fertilizers to boost production,
collecting the nut only when it was mature and not germinated, and selling it
in a clean state. The other 20% were not sure of implementing any type of
product upgrading apart from collecting matured nuts.
Responses
from the field show that 80% of farmers interviewed assured quality seedling
supply. Almost all farmers interviewed collected and sold matured coconuts
(100%). While 92% of the sampled farmers sold coconut in a clean state and the
8% sold coconuts without peeling off the husks. Table 3.3 below shows the type
of product upgrading implement by small coconut farmers.
Table 3.3
Implementing Product Upgrading Strategies
|
Response
|
Quality Seedling
|
Matured Nuts
|
Clean Coconuts
|
|
Yes
|
20 (80%)
|
25 (100%)
|
23 (92%)
|
|
No
|
5 (20%)
|
- (0%)
|
2 (8%)
|
|
Total
|
25
|
25
|
25
|
Source:
Author’s calculations (field survey 2010)
Field
observations revealed other associated activities such as collection of nuts
from farms, peeling off coconut husks and selecting of bigger nuts for sale to
buyers especially the Nigerians. The coconut husks are not processed into fibre
products by the farmers instead they give them to local buyers who sell to
Wienco Fibre Ltd a processing company at Tikobo No. 1.The company processes the
husk into five different kinds of fibre products and export to Europe
particularly the Netherlands and Germany, and also to America.
3.5.3 Functional
upgrading
Functional upgrading can be described as “repositioning a given firm at a
higher level of the value chain” (Humphrey and Schmitz 2000, Laven 2005: 7).
Functional upgrading of agricultural commodities refers to processing of the
agriculture commodity to by- or finished products (Laven 2005: 54). The processing
of coconut into half products is mainly done by farmers, while processing to
end products is undertaken by large-scale processing companies, for example,
Feanza Industries Limited and Wienco Fibre Limited. The main reasons accounting
for this are that huge capital outlays and knowledge are required in processing
coconut. In Ghana Accra
and Kumasi
Wienco Fibre Ltd processes coconut husk into fibre
products which are used for growing crops and for soil conservation. And Feanza
Industries Ltd processes raw fresh coconut oil into Organic Virgin Coconut Oil
for both export and local markets.
In the production of half products there is some
involvement of coconut farmers. The farmers grade the nuts into sizes and sell
the bigger nuts to local intermediaries or directly to Nigerians (68%). The
smaller ones are cracked, scooped out the meats from the shells and dry in the
sun for copra by the farmers (72%). The dried copra is sold to medium-scale
processing companies in Accra and Kumasi
|
Response
|
Grading
|
Drying Copra
|
Oil Processing
|
New Market
Opportunities
|
|
Yes
|
17 (68%)
|
18 (72%)
|
22 (88%)
|
4 (16%)
|
|
No
|
8 (32%)
|
7 (28%)
|
3 (12%)
|
21 (84%)
|
|
Total
|
25
|
25
|
25
|
25
|
Source: Author’s
calculations (field survey 2010)
In literature, upgrading is about the acquisition of
technological capabilities, skills and market linkages that enable firms to
improve their competiveness (Kaplinksy & Morris, 2001; Knorringa &
Schmitz, 2000; and Fromm, 2007: 20). In the case of coconut farmers in Jomoro
district, upgrading is more towards process or product upgrading than
functional upgrading which is evident from the responses about new market opportunities
(16%). Generally, the farmers agreed that, they implement improvements that
lead to functional upgrading, because they wanted better price and high income.
In spite of the upgrading strategies implement by
majority of the farmers, many factors militate against their efforts.
Therefore, the next section (3.6) identifies and discusses the major
constraints and challenges to upgrading in coconut production unraveled by this
study.
3.6 Constraints to upgrading
Coconut
industry in Ghana
Another
constraint to upgrading is the institutional capacities of the farmers and
local oil processors to access new markets and maintain them. Many coconut
farmers and oil processors lack the requisite capacity and capability to meet
the standards of global markets. Besides to compete with globally renowned
coconut exporters like Philippines
and Indonesia Ghana
Imports of other kinds of oils into domestic
markets have resulted in low demand for coconut oil. The packaging and branding
of these oils is more attractive and appealing to consumers. According to the
response of a processor the negative publicity given to coconut oil on
international market has contributed to low demand for coconut oil at the
domestic and global markets. This tends to impact negatively on product
upgrading in coconut industry in Ghana
Furthermore,
low level of investment in agricultural research, combined with its
fragmentation into many small and underfunded institutions is a major
constraint to upgrading in small-scale agriculture in Ghana Ghana
Apart from these major constraints the
problems of low investment in developing rural roads in Jomoro district, lack
of credit to farmers, unreliable domestic market and high cost of improved
seedlings and fertilizers are challenges to coconut production in Ghana in
general and Jomoro district in particular. Poor rural roads result in high
transport and transaction costs of farmers. Accessing loans from banks for
developing coconut farms is a challenge to many farmers. A farmer during focus
group discussion in Nzimitianu said “I am a customer of Jomoro Rural Bank; I
find it very frustrating and difficult in getting loan from the bank to expand
my farm. The bankers prefer to give loans to traders than farmers”. It is
therefore impossible for these farmers to upgrade the process of farming by
mechanized methods which have the potential to increase production and
consequently income of the farmers. The next section looks at how to overcome
the constraints to upgrading and the challenges the farmers face.
3.7 Overcoming the constraints to upgrading to reduce vulnerability
Over here we discuss the
solutions to the constraints and problems of upgrading as unraveled by our
interviews with the respondents. The above discussion has revealed that
coconuts farmers upgrade production. However, the most striking point which seems
to emerge from the discussion is that there are numerous constraints and
difficulties which are barriers to upgrading in coconut value chain. When asked
what could be done to overcome the constraints, the following responses were
given by the respondents. One, stronger connection for
marketing coconuts must be created. A reputable buying agent could be established
to purchase the nuts in similar manner as it is done for cocoa and oil palm.
This may provide more stable and higher income to the farmers. With adequate
motivation from government and farmers’ associations, private buying agents may
create similar markets for coconut.
Two, effective and sustainable marketing campaigns to raise the awareness of
the enormous benefits of coconut oil as well as addressing the quality aspects
of coconut oil were solutions proposed by the interviewees to address demand
reliability for coconut oil. Thirdly, processing the coconut husks into fibre
products like fibre chips and manure using the appropriate technology may add
value to the product. This may enable the farmers to overcome the problem of limited
market size since the manure may be exported to both regional and international
markets. The farmers may therefore get better price and high income which may
go a long way to improve livelihoods and reduce vulnerability. However, the
question is how do poor small farmers get the financial resources to invest in
such technology and the knowledge to process the husks into manure of
international standard?
Government of Ghana
Furthermore,
poor roads increase both transport and transaction costs of farmers and
militate against upgrading. Responses from interviewees indicated that the
central and local governments have the responsibility to carry out major road
building in the area, while communities play complementary role in keeping the
untarred roads usable. Through maintaining the roads, farmers’ associations may
encourage buyers to visit the communities to transaction business.
Acquiring loans for farming in Ghana
Finally,
the role of NGOs and Farmers’ associations in improving the institutional
capacities of its members is sine qua non for gaining access to good markets.
Without developing the institutional capacities of small farmers through
education and training their marketing and bargaining skills will continue to
be low. May be when the institutional capacities are enhanced they can stand up
to the price manipulations of buyers and become better off in terms of getting
better price and higher income. According to responses from focus group
discussions, it requires collective action by farmers and executives associations
to press for higher and better producer price. The associations must not only
provide security service, but also provide institutional capacities and capabilities
to farmers.
3.8 Conclusion
It is
evident from above discussion that small-scale coconut farmers in Jomoro
district undertake process, product and functional upgrading. However, there
are many constraints to upgrading that negate the positive impact of upgrading
strategies. For positive impact of upgrading of coconut production to be
realized the many constraints that serve as barriers to upgrading ought to be
overcome. Therefore the solutions provided in section (3.7) above worth noting.
The main actors in the production of coconut, that is farmers, need to invest
resources into the industry to ensure effective upgrading. The complementary
roles of other actors in the coconut chain as well as the government are crucial
in ensuring effective upgrading in the chain. Without overcoming the
constraints it may be difficult for the farmers to upgrade activities to gain
niches in domestic and global markets and to reduce income and livelihood
vulnerability.
In summary, we have seen upgrading constraints
which despite the different strategies implemented by these farmers militate
against their progress. We see this in the context of what they do to survive,
that is growing other crops or doing other non farm work. The argument
therefore is whether they should diversify the crops on their farms or
specialise in coconut production. Thus the next chapter looks at this conflict
in upgrading logics and the livelihood of the farmers.
Chapter 4 Livelihoods, vulnerability and
the tension within the upgrading logic
4.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses in
detail empirical issues of livelihoods and vulnerability of the small-scale
coconut producers in Jomoro district. In order to understand clearly the
vulnerable situation of the farmers, a critical discourse is made of the day to
day activities of the farmers and how they try to make a meaningful living. In
the second section of the chapter, we briefly define livelihood in an empirical
way in relation to the farmers. The next section looks at empirical assessment
of the livelihoods and vulnerability of the farmers. The
fourth and fifth sections of the chapter expatiate on the tension between
diversification and specialisation in upgrading logic as means of coping with
vulnerability and livelihoods problems; and the linkages of upgrading and
vulnerability.
4.2 Defining Livelihoods of coconut farmers
Livelihoods
of the farmers are core to the analysis of this chapter. In preparation for
this analysis, this section provides a brief contextual definition of
livelihoods of coconut farmers. In addition, a brief mention of the factors underlining
livelihoods is made here in the section. Generally speaking, the term
livelihood refers to the ‘means used to maintain and sustain life. “Means” connotes
the resources, including household assets, capital, social institutions and
networks, and the strategies available to people’ (Jacobsen 2002: 98). Effective and efficient utilization of these assets
will impact positively on livelihoods and reduce vulnerability.
In the
context of this paper, livelihood is defined as how the farmers use the available
existing assets- human, physical, social, natural and financial- at their
disposal to live meaningful socio-economic lives. The extent to which the
assets are utilised determines how sustainable and improved the livelihoods of
the farmers are. Consequently, to have a clear situational picture of the livelihoods
of small-scale coconut farmers in the district, the next subsection provides a
comprehensive discussion on the livelihoods and vulnerability of the farmers.
4.3 Assessment of the farmers’ livelihood and vulnerability
Generally,
from the interviews and field observations, coconut farmers are apparently
undertaking some degree of upgrading. Indeed there are opportunities for upgrading
to improve livelihood and live out of the web of poverty and vulnerability if
the constraints are overcome.
The living condition of
farmers we interacted with during the study clearly reveals the state of
poverty and vulnerability. All the farmers and staffs of MoFA that we interviewed
affirmed that most coconut farmers in the district are poor. In
theory, these capitals or factors- financial, social, natural, physical, and
human- determine the kinds of livelihood strategies that can be pursued to have
improved livelihoods. It is evident from the interviews
and field observations that either these capitals are unavailable or
ineffectively utilized by the farmers.
Financial resources which are available to
most of the farmers are limited. A greater number of farmers are not customers
of any bank and do not have accounts with any financial institutions. Therefore
accessing loans from banks to invest and upgrade production is difficult.
Moreover, agricultural credits (cash and inputs) from government institutions
are no longer available to be accessed by the farmers. Few farmers receive
remittances from children and other relations. Similarly, 95% of the farmers
who were interviewed have no pensions. By and large, access to financial
capital to most of the coconut farmers is limited.
Social
capital, an important factor upon which the farmers depend in pursuit of their
livelihoods is weak (Carney et al. 1999:9). From the interviews conducted small
coconut farmers have poor networks and weak social relationships with other
actors especially the buyers. The effect is high rate of stealing of coconuts
in the district. All the respondents mentioned stealing of coconuts as a
problem and result of poor network and weak social relationship among the local
people. To mitigate this social problem, Coconut Farmers’ Associations have been
formed by the farmers in the communities we visited to combat this menace. The
general view of interviewees is that the formation of the associations has
contributed to the decline of the spate of stealing of coconuts in the area.
Associations’ activities have also contributed to community development and
reduced poverty by allowing members to have greater control of their own
livelihoods, opening new economic opportunities and empowering people to
determine their own priorities and organize themselves. Some associations
choose between two or four executive members who may have knowledge of
marketing, bargaining ability, public speaking skills and the confidence of
other farmers, to negotiate for better price with the buyers from time to time.
Price
setting by cooperation does not work always. During the rainy season there is
glut of coconut and some farmers for fear of not getting buyers to purchase
their produce circumvent the system of marketing and sell individually to
buyers. Price setting by association only works in the dry season when there is
scarcity of coconuts and the farmers have more bargaining power. However, in
the other communities the system is not working because some farmers are under
some obligation to certain buyers as part of a ‘customer’ relationship linked
to the prior provision of credit. These farmers are compelled to sell at a
lower price to against the wishes of the farmer association. In situations like
this the association can do very little in terms price legislation; limiting
the use of credit from buyers is impossible because there are limited alternative
credit sources available to coconut farmers. However responses show that the
associations are doing all within their powers to ensure that farmers respect
the status quo set up for price setting. The argument pose by this paper is
that providing security against stealing of coconut and negotiating for coconut
price the most important strategies for improving livelihoods and reducing
vulnerability of farmers?
The
fertility of the land and land tenure system of the people greatly affect
farming activities in the area. A large proportion of coconut farms in the district
especially along the beaches of Gulf
of Guinea
Further,
age and health status of some farmers have serious repercussion on their work
and thus impact negatively on their livelihoods. Surprisingly, many of the
farmers interviewed are above 50 years. And not strong enough to influence
structures and processes of the coconut industry so that these become more
responsive to improving their livelihoods. Out of twenty-five farmers we
interviewed, 48% of them are above 60 years old, 12% are between 50 and 60
years and 40% are below 50 years. Clearly speaking, 60% of the farmers who were
interviewed were above 50 years and can hardly do effective weeding and field
maintenance themselves without employing the services of labour. The question
is what is the government and farmers’ associations doing to motivate the young
energetic people to take up coconut farming. Or is farming a preserve of old
people in the country.
According
to literature, livelihoods of agricultural producers depend on basic
infrastructure such as transport, shelter, agricultural inputs and production
equipment. As mentioned earlier in this paper, bad rural roads are detrimental
to development of agricultural production. Transporting coconuts from farms to
market centres in the district involves high transport and transaction costs.
The roads linking the farms and the markets are so deplorable that trucks that
ply these areas charge very high fares. The result is that production cost of
farmers is high, and their net income is low.
Finally,
the factors discussed in this section account for decreased livelihoods of the
small coconut farmers and predispose them to high degree of vulnerability. In
order to provide livelihoods security and perhaps be less vulnerable coconut
farmers diversify into growing other crops and animal rearing rather than
specialising in coconut production. Specialisation in
production activities within the coconut value chain may leave the farmers with
a limited understanding of market requirements and few opportunities to develop
capabilities in the areas of marketing and developing of other crops (Fromm
2007:11). Therefore, there is a double bind; on one hand upgrading is too hard
and on the other diversification is a battle to survive. Hence in the next section,
we look at the tension between diversification and specialisation within the
upgrading logic of coconut chain.
4.4 Diversification versus specialisation a means of reducing vulnerability
In many literatures,
small-scale farmers cope with vulnerability by diversifying the crops on their
farms. Similarly, coconut farmers in Jomoro district diversify production and
commercialization channels by planting other crops in addition to coconut.
Diversification is defined as ‘establishing flexibility and capacity to
continuously evolving circumstances’ (Barghouti et al. 2004). It also means adjusting
to the existing environmental context. However, in this study diversification
refers to growing other crops besides coconut or rearing animals or doing
non-farm activity to earn living. Diversification may result in many different
activities open to the farmers. This may reduce their dependency on a narrow
range of outputs and, as a result reduce vulnerability to shocks from
volatility of commodity prices. One reason for diversification of farm output
mix is to reduce economic risk associated with uncertainty and variations of
net farm income. During a focus group discussion with coconut farmers in
Nzimitianu, we asked participants to identify strategies to address the problem
of coconut production and how to cope with reduced livelihood. Responses
revealed that planting of crops such as cassava, maize, plantain, vegetables
and tree crops like oil palm, rubber and cocoa is a strategy to cope with
coconut crisis and to improve their livelihood. Over 90% of farmers interviewed
grow not only coconut but other crops as well as rearing of animals as security
against coconut crisis and as additional source of income. Tables 4.1 and 4.2
show different types of crops grow by farmers in Jomoro district of Ghana.
|
TYPE OF CROP
|
AREA H/A 2002
|
%
|
AREA H/A 2005
|
%
|
|
Cassava
|
18,829
|
51
|
19,121.5
|
51.2
|
|
Plantain
|
3,271.5
|
8.9
|
3,340
|
9.0
|
|
Maize
|
11,238.6
|
30.4
|
11,338
|
30.4
|
|
Vegetable
|
2,971.5
|
8.1
|
2,991.5
|
8.0
|
|
Groundnuts
|
594.4
|
1.6
|
595
|
1.4
|
|
TOTAL
|
36,924
|
100
|
37,386
|
100
|
Source: MOFA, Jomoro 2006
|
TYPE OF CROP
|
AREA UNDER CULTIVATION H/A 2002
|
%
|
AREA UNDER CULTIVATION H/A 2005
|
%
|
|
Coconut
|
30,450
|
43
|
30,450
|
42.3
|
|
Oil Palm
|
13,373
|
19
|
13,773
|
19.1
|
|
|
25,000
|
35.2
|
26,085
|
36.3
|
|
Coffee
|
891.4
|
1.0
|
500
|
0.6
|
|
Rubber
|
1,004
|
1.4
|
1,054
|
1.4
|
|
Citrus
|
305.6
|
0.4
|
250
|
0.3
|
|
TOTAL
|
36,924
|
100
|
37,386
|
100
|
Source: MOFA, Jomoro 2006
Livestock rearing is
another activity most coconut farmers engage in as coping mechanism against low
coconut price and income. The result from the study showed that 55% of the
farmers that were interviewed rear pigs and small ruminants like goats and
sheep under the coconut plantations. It is important to mention that coconut
farmers treat their livestock as a livelihood security and not for profit. Out
of their livestock farmers create insurance savings from which unexpected high
expenses, like family medical bills and children school fees are paid
(Osei-Bonsu and Dery 2009:34-43). Table 4.3 shows animals reared by coconut
farmers apart from their coconut farms.
|
TYPE
|
NUMERATION 2002
|
%
|
NUMERATION 2005
|
%
|
|
Cattle
|
2,789
|
1.0
|
3,252
|
0.7
|
|
Sheep
|
87,000
|
31.1
|
165,148
|
39.6
|
|
Goats
|
20,798
|
7.4
|
28,111
|
6.8
|
|
Pigs
|
165,062
|
59.0
|
198,202
|
47.6
|
|
Poultry
|
850
|
0.3
|
22,001
|
5.3
|
|
TOTAL
|
279,926
|
100
|
416,714
|
100
|
Source: MOFA, Jomoro 2006
Notwithstanding the
advantages of diversifying into crops production and livestock rearing, the
strategy to a large extent goes against principle of specialisation which is
associated with upgrading strategies. Upgrading as a strategy requires that the
farmers specialise in production of coconut, to achieve efficiency and to add
value to the final products. Specialisation leads to gradual accumulation of
skills and capital through constant production. As small-scale farmers upgrade
their processes (i.e. doing things better) or products (i.e. making betters
things) or move into higher value-added stages in the coconut chain (i.e.
functional upgrading), they grow from small-sized to medium-sized and some into
large-sized (Schmitz and Knorringa 2000: 181-192). Upgrading requires the use
of more sophisticated technology and sharing of information which help
producers to produce better quality products that meet the standard of
international markets. By specialising in coconut production small-scale
farmers may acquire the skill of producing better quality coconut oil,
desiccated coconut, coconut milk and powder, and manure from coconut husks.
This will enable them to access global markets and raise their income levels.
As the farmers specialise in the production of coconut and continue to utilise
their potential for endogenous technological and organisational upgrading, it
makes them more attractive to the more demanding but also better paying global
buyers in the more quality-driven market segments (Knorringa 2002: 48, Gereffi
1999, Schmitz and Knorringa 1999).
Specialisation is a way of
improving the quality of coconut products; and being more skilful and more
productive in their operations. Specialising in the production of coconut the
farmers become more innovative and competitive. But it may also lead to ‘lock-in’
(Schmitz 2002). Thus there is the danger of coconut farmers being trapped in
narrowly-confined value chain activities with low skills and low returns (Fromm
2007, Humphrey 2005). This is where the idea of a double bind said earlier on
comes into play.
Small-scale coconut farmers have no concerned for
competition rather how they are able to have improved livelihood, for example,
taking care of their families, and to pay the children’s school fees and
hospital bills. The arguments in the body of literature on the benefits for
upgrading and specialising agricultural capabilities are of less importance to
them. What matter most to the farmers according to the findings of this study,
is being able to stand the problems of volatile coconut prices and low incomes.
Hence, diversifying into planting other crops and rearing livestock may provide
the security-nets and make them less vulnerable. All told the tension between
diversification and specialisation as a result of upgrading agricultural
production still remains and worth investigating. Upgrading may not move people
away from production as they use to do. Therefore they may not see it to be
improvement rather to be downgrading. In order to create livelihoods therefore,
people must combine the ‘capital’ endowments that they have access to and
control over.
Upgrading in coconut value
chain may reduce vulnerability of farmers and impact positively on their
livelihoods. Empirically, effective upgrading is likely to result in improvements
in products, investments in people, know-how of farmers, processes, equipments,
favourable conditions, income of the farmers and above all improvements in the
livelihoods of the people. Therefore, the next subsection (4.6) elaborates how
upgrading in coconut value chain affects vulnerability of small-scale farmers
in the case study.
4.5 Linkages of Upgrading and Vulnerability
Upgrading undoubtedly can
have a positive impact on reduction of vulnerability of small producers.
Process upgrading may result in high output and the small farmers can supply
better quality output with intensive management attention to each output unit.
With better producer price the income of farmers is likely to increase and
therefore help to reduce yield and income vulnerabilities of these farmers. The
multiplier effects of increased income of the farmers are that they will be
able to pay school fees of their wards and medical bills of family members. The
problem of children dropping out of secondary schools because of unpaid fees
may minimise; and migration of some coconut farmers, especially unmarried women
to neighbouring Cote D’ivoire as well as health related problems may decrease.
Furthermore, upgrading may
result in good quality coconut which may receive premium price at both domestic
and regional markets. The demand for processed coconut products is likely to
increase and gain higher price. The culminating effect may be reduced
livelihoods vulnerability of small coconut farmers. Finally, as the farmers add
value to their products or increase the efficiency of their processes they are
likely to be more competitive at regional and international markets. Processed
coconut may earn better price and more sustainable income than unprocessed one.
Hence through functional upgrading small farmers may add value to their
products, and have stronger bargaining power to negotiate for higher price. As
the farmers earn more income from the farms, the tendency is towards living
better and decent lives. Thus their livelihoods may improve and they will be
less vulnerable.
4.6 Conclusion
This chapter has provided a
discussion of the livelihoods situation and vulnerability of coconut farmers in
Jomoro district. The day to day activities of the farmers to overcome the
constraints to upgrading and reduce vulnerability have been discussed. The
debate on diversification versus specialisation in upgrading agricultural
production and how coconut farmers perceive them as available alternatives to
improve livelihoods and reduce vulnerability has been also dealt with in this
chapter. The study revealed that, the small-scale coconut farmers are more
concerned with how to improve and sustain livelihoods than being competitive.
Being able to caretaker for their families, pay their children’s school fees
and medical bills and live descent lives are their goals. Diversifying by
growing other crops and rearing animals has been integral strategy to reducing
vulnerability and provide security against coconut price crisis. The last
chapter of this research paper provides a general conclusion and reflections
for future researchers in coconut production.
Chapter 5 Concluding comments: Reconsidering
livelihoods and upgrading
5.1 Summary
This
chapter gives the summary of the entire study and discussions on salient
aspects on coconut chain and constraints to upgrading in Ghana
5.2 Conclusion
How probable is it that
overcoming the constraints to upgrading will reduce vulnerability and improve
livelihood of small-scale farmers in a coconut chain? This was the broad
question posed by this study. In order to answer this question the study
focused on a case of coconut value chain in Jomoro district in Ghana, the
analysis asked- how much do we understand and categorise the vulnerability of
small-scale farmer, the extent to which farmers’ interaction with other actors
influence how they are upgrading and the constraints to upgrading on the
coconut chain? The analysis of the study has raised complex and ambiguous
solutions to these questions.
For example, this investigation has revealed in
chapter 3 the complex nature of the coconut value chain in Ghana Nigeria Nigeria
and Benin South Africa Accra and Kumasi
In the case of upgrading most producers had
engaged in some type of upgrading activities either process, product or
functional upgrading. Over 70% of the farmers interviewed had applied
fertilizers on their farms and observed field maintenance by weeding at least
twice in a year. However, less than 25% undertook post harvest management
because they sold the coconuts soon after collection. Again, 80% and 92% of
them ensured quality seedlings and sell clean coconuts respectively. For
functional upgrading over 60% implemented grading, drying copra and processing
coconut oil. It is also evident from the findings that coconut farmers use low
technology that is mostly labour input in weeding, collecting of nuts, cracking
the coconut and drying the meat for copra. Most of the farmers studied had
engaged in upgrading activities, particularly process upgrading. There is
opportunity for upgrading that when tap can make the farmers gain niche in
domestic and global markets. Upgrading in coconut production is possible but
there are numerous constraints and challenges. Upgrading in coconut production can
reduce vulnerability of the farmers, but may depend on how they overcome the
constraints. Therefore, there is the need for them to move up the upgrading
trajectory to product upgrading, to functional upgrading and to chain upgrading
as suggested by Kaplinsky and Readman (2001). Another suggested upgrading
strategy which may make farmers competitive is by processing coconut husks into
fibre products themselves instead of given them to local buyers to sell to
Wienco Fibre Ltd.
Regarding
the constraints to upgrading, the study revealed that low technology;
unimproved institutional capacities of the farmers and low level of investment
in agricultural research were the major constraints which should be overcome to
enable successful upgrading activities in the coconut chain. Other equally
important challenges which need to be addressed were poor rural roads network,
lack of credit to farmers, high cost of improved seedlings and fertilizers, and
stealing of coconuts. By overcoming these constraints most small-scale coconut
farmers can upgrade, become more competitive, gain niche in both domestic and
global market thereby earn more income and improve their livelihoods.
On the livelihoods and vulnerability of
small-scale coconut farmers the study showed that they earn small incomes and
as such experienced poor livelihood and high vulnerability. Further, the
involvement of farmers’ associations in price negotiation at the local is not
strong and as such farmers have low voice in the determination of coconut
price. The issue of organised collective action by the farmers to press home
their interests was found to be absent among the small coconut farmers in Ghana
Diversifying
into other economic activities such as growing of other crops and rearing of
animals such as pigs, sheep, goats and poultry, was identified by the study as
ways to safeguard against coconut price crisis and income vulnerability. Specialisation
of coconut production according to the farmers might not give them security
during crisis hence it is not a preferable option to pursue in an effort to
reduce income and livelihood vulnerabilities. Overall, the importance of
learning and the use of higher levels of technology to achieve upgrading cannot
be overemphasized. In order to reduce the vulnerability of small-scale farmers
in Ghana
The paper began with logical line of argument
that upgrading will reduce vulnerability and improve livelihood of small-scale
farmers, which appeared simple and straightforward. However, with the study
unraveling upgrading, vulnerability and livelihoods, all the three are complex.
Evidence from the study revealed there are complexities with upgrading,
complexities with livelihoods and there are tensions between the two. There are
problems with both upgrading and livelihoods of coconut farmers from the above
discussions of the case study. Therefore the answer to the initial question as
shown by the study is more complex and ambiguous. Perhaps one way that can help
bridge the tension between upgrading and livelihoods in the context of
small-scale farmers is through collective action. The farmers’ associations can
set up a quality management system to create transparent information flow about
upgrading opportunities, new markets functions and exact prices at which coconuts
are sold. By developing their own robust information and management system
farmers’ associations could also help its members at the bottom of the coconut
value chain to build a better bargaining position which may be a step towards more
political agency (Knorringa 2010: 18). Thus the question of collective action
from farmers is imperative because no other actors are likely to champion their
interests.
Finally,
this paper has tried to contribute to our understanding of how livelihood logics
influence decision making processes by small farmers on upgrading or
non-upgrading strategies. However, one important point that requires the
attention of future researchers in global values chains is the role of
government and farmers’ associations in upgrading in agricultural value chains.
Also, it is imperative for future researchers to investigate more into the
tension or conflict between diversification and specialisation in the logics of
upgrading in value chain of agricultural commodities.
Appendix 1 Map: Showing the
Location of Jomoro District in Ghana
Source: Adapted from Laven (2005: 6)
Jomoro district
where the fieldwork was conducted is indicated in white background and red
inscription at the extreme western coast of the Ghana map.
Appendix 2:
Methodology of the study; fieldwork in Jomoro district in Ghana in July-August
2010
1. To do this, I interviewed five (5) staff of
institutions involved in coconut activities in the country, for example,
Coconut Sector Development Project (CSDP) of Ministry of Food and Agriculture
(MoFA) - two (2) regional officers in Sekondi and three (3) district officers
at Half Assini. I used check list of semi- structured questions as instrument
to collect data from 25 farmers and processors, 10 intermediaries (middlemen)
and 2 processing companies. A total of 42 semi-structured interviews were
conducted in five towns and villages in the district. With the help of a
research assistance who was engaged from Half Assini I elicited responses from
interviewees. In order to know and understand well the
vulnerability situation in the day to day lives of the farmers, focus group
discussions were held with farmers’ group at Nzimitianu and executive of Coconut
Farmers’ Association in Half Assini. The focus group discussion
offered better opportunity to have broader understanding of the activities of
different actors in the chain, upgrading strategies being used by the farmers
and possible constraints that militate against upgrading.
Appendix 3:
Semi-Structured Interview Guide
Semi-Structured Interview Guide for Study on
Vulnerability
of Small-Scale Farmers in the Value Chain of Agricultural
Commodities, July-August, 2010
of Small-Scale Farmers in the Value Chain of Agricultural
Commodities, July-August, 2010
[The research is
part of the study programme for an award of MA Development Studies at the International Institute of Social Studies of
Erasmus University Rotterdam. The purpose of the research is to carry out
field assessment of how small-scale coconut farmers in the coconut value chain
implement upgrading and their livelihoods].
The information
obtained will be treated confidential and shall only be used for the purpose of
this academic research.
Name of Interviewee:
………………………………………… Age: ………
Sex: ………………
Married Status:
Single: ..................... Married: …………
Divorcee: ………… Widow/Widower: ………….
Educational level:
None: …………………… …… Primary:
…………………………
Secondary:
……........................ Tertiary: …………………………
Date: ……………………………
Theme 1: Socio-economic background of farmers
1.
Are you a
farmer Mr. /Madam.….?
2.
Do you
have coconut farm?
3.
Where is
your coconut farm?
4.
From your
estimation how many hectares of coconut farm do you have?
5.
Did you
cultivate the whole farm yourself or some were bequeathed to you?
6.
If yes who bequeathed it to you and when?
7.
Do you
share the proceeds from the inherited farm with other extended family members
and at what proportion?
8.
How often
do you harvest your coconut in a year?
9.
Do you
harvest the coconuts by yourself or with your family or you hire the services
of labourers?
10. If you engage labour services, how much do you
pay a labourer per day?
11. Does the labourer do the harvesting and picking
at the same time to earn the daily wage?
12. If no,
who does the picking of the nuts?
13. In what form do you harvest your coconut? Dry
or fresh state?
14. Do you sell your coconut?
15. Where and to whom do you sell your coconuts?
16. Let say every three months, how many coconut
can you sell?
17. Which buyer or groups of buyers do you normally
sell your nuts to?
18. Do you have specific customers/buyers who buy
your coconuts?
19. Are you in constant touch with these buyers?
20. Suppose you are in financial difficulty, do you
think the buyers would be prepared to advance to you some money and later use
the coconut they buy to pay back?
21. If yes, have you ever receive such an offer
before from your buyers?
22. How would you describe your relationship with
these buyers?
Theme
2: Upgrading and constraints to upgrading.
23. After the buyers have bought the coconuts what
do they do with the nuts?
24. A farmer friend told me that when you process
the nuts into coconut oil you get better price than selling the nuts. Yes or
No.
25. Have you ever tried to process your coconut
into crude coconut oil?
26. If no why don’t you want to process the nuts
into coconut oil? If yes are you still processing it?
27. How many times in the year do you weed under
your coconut farm?
28. Have you ever applied fertilizer to your
coconut palms before?
29. If yes how often do you do that?
30. If no,
how do you ensure that the coconut palms produce more nuts to get high yield?
31. Don’t you think if you apply fertilizers it
will help boost the yield of your coconut farm and the output will be high?
32. The technical staffs of Ministry of Food and Agriculture
are supposed to visit your farms and offer technical advice, how often do they
visit your farm?
33. In some coconut growing areas the buyers help
their farmers’ clients with financial assistance or inputs credits to maintain
their farms. Have you ever received such assistance before?
34. If yes
how did that help to improve your farming activities?
35. Is your interaction with the buyers or the
processors in any way helpful to your farming work?
36. After harvesting the coconuts how do you ensure
that the nuts are in good condition before selling them?
37. In the case of cocoa and oil palm the beans and
the fruits are respectively sorted into grades before selling to buyers. Do you
also sell your coconuts according to grades or sizes?
38. What are some of the difficulties you encounter
in making sure that your farm improves and produce more coconuts?
39. The Ministry of Food and Agriculture is supposed
to make high yielding variety of coconut seeds/seedlings available to
interested farmers. Do you go to them to buy some?
40. If no why do you not approach them to buy high
yield variety of seeds/seedlings?
41. How and where do you get coconut seeds/seedlings
for planting?
42. How does learning and sharing of information
with other farmers and/or buyers and processors help to enhance your coconut
production?
43. What other things constraint the upgrading of
your coconut farming activities?
44. What other kinds of activities do undertake to
improve your farm and increase your income?
45. Which areas, if any, need more improvements to
be done?
46. How do the changes in the local/regional
coconut market and falling coconut commodity prices affect your livelihood as a
farmer?
47. As a coconut farmer what work do you do in a
typical day apart from working in your coconut farm?
48. What other economic activity do you do apart
from farming?
49. Nowadays both salary workers and non salary
workers such as farmers operate shops in addition to their regular work or
farming. Do you have any investment in other non-farm activity or activities?
50. I am told many farmers in this area rear pigs
as an additional source of income. Don’t you think by rearing pigs you can get
additional income supplement what you get from the farming?
51. What are the main sources of your income?
52. When your income decreases or increases, how do
you adjust expenditure and income change?
53. Having more than one wife and many children is
said to be an advantage to African male farmers. What is your opinion about
this?
54. How many
wives and children do you have at the moment?
55. Do you have children who are still attending
schools? If yes, how many of them and at what level of education are they?
56. Do your wife/wives or (husband) and children
assist you in your farming activities?
57. How often do they help you in your farm?
58. Do you receive any form of micro- finance to
buy inputs such as fertilizers and agro-chemicals for your farming activities?
59. What other crop(s) do you cultivate besides the
coconut?
60. What do you do with these other crop(s) you
produce?
61. Why do you grow other crops in addition to coconut?
62. Is there any Farmers Association in your
community? If yes, do you participate in the meetings and activities of the
association?
63. How do the Farmers Associations ensure that the
interests of the members are catered for in a satisfactory manner?
64. Do the associations influence how prices of
coconut and it related products are determined? If yes how do they influence
coconut price determination?
65. Does the price of coconut vary within say a
week or a month?
66. Normally with agricultural commodities when the
prices fall farmers’ incomes also fall and vice versa? Does this apply to you
as coconut farmer?
67. To what extent do Farmers Associations ensure
that government (MoFA) provides empowerment facilities for the members?
68. How does MoFA empower the small-scale coconut
farmer like you, in upgrading his processes to reduce vulnerability (either
income or voice)?
69. In what ways can your voice as farmer be heard
in negotiating for higher coconut price?
70. In your own view what measures can you take as
a farmer to influence middlemen and processors to offer high producer prices?
71. Do you have any other thing to say concerning
you work
Operational questions under Different Themes to
be investigated
Theme
1: General information
1.
Do you
come from this area or outside this district?
2.
Where
exactly do you come from to buy coconuts?
3.
Coconut is
sold either in the dry or fresh form in Ghana
4.
How often
do you buy coconuts from the farmers?
5.
How many
tons of coconuts do you buy at a time?
6.
Do you buy
all your nuts from a single farmer or from many farmers at a time?
7.
I learnt
there are some local intermediaries between the farmers and the buyers. Do you
buy the nuts directly from the farmer(s) or from these intermediaries?
8.
Are there
differences in price if you buy from the farmer(s) directly and when you buy
from the intermediaries? If yes what are the current prices from each of these
groups?
9.
Where do
you sell the coconuts you buy?
10. Do you sell all the nuts directly to consumers
or you sell to other retailers who in turn sell to consumers?
11. How and who determines the prices of the nuts?
12. Prices of goods and services are fixed by
taking into consideration the general prices of goods and services in the
country. In fixing coconut prices do you consider general prices in the
economy?
13. How would you describe your relationship with
the farmer(s)?
14. Do you offer any help to these farmers in times
of need?
15. Give some instances where you have assisted
farmers during their difficult moments without mentioning their names.
16. Have you ever experienced any disappointment on
the part of the farmers you trade with for not supplying you the right quantity
of coconuts?
17. Are you in constant touch with your farmers?
18. What about the consumers and the processors of
coconut oil?
19. Since when did you start buying coconut from
the farmer(s)?
20. In what ways do you assist the farmers to
improve their farming work?
21. Some buyers give advance cash to their farmers’
clients to buy inputs such as fertilizers and agro-chemical to boost the
production of the coconut farms. Have you ever done so?
22. If yes, what was the result? How did it benefit
both of you?
23. If no, why haven’t you tried that?
24. What do you think the farmers can do to improve
their work and get higher yield?
25. Do you tell the farmers about prevailing market
conditions such as how consumers see the quality of the coconut they produce?
26. If you do, how does it impact on the output of
their work?
27.
Does it
improve the quality of the nut they supply?
28. Do you consider the quality of the nut when
buying the coconut?
29. What are some of the difficulties farmers face
when selling their products to you?
30. Describe briefly the process of selling coconut
in the Jomoro district?
Theme
3: Vulnerability and Farmers Livelihood
31. Does the coconut price change frequently within
a month or two?
32. How often does the coconut market price change?
33. What influence do the Coconut Farmers’ Associations
in the community have on how coconut prices are determined?
34. What role does the Coconut Farmers’
Associations play in fixing producer prices for coconut?
35. What other crops do your farmer clients
cultivate besides the coconut?
36. Do they sell these crops or it is for home consumption?
37. Do you give financial assistance to your
farmers clients when they are in financial difficulties?
38. What forms of financial difficulties do they usually
face?
39. How would you describe the general living
conditions of farmers you trade with? Are they able to pay their children’s
school fees and take care of their health needs without much recourse to you
for financial support?
40. Do the farmers borrow money from you occasionally?
41. If yes, what are some of the reasons for which
they borrow the money?
42. When do farmers scale up their borrowing rate?
Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for Ministry of Food and Agriculture
(MoFA) Staff in Jomoro District
Operational questions under Different Themes to be investigated
Theme 1: Coconut Value Chain
1.
Describe
how the farmers and actors are linked to the value chain?
2.
As staff
of MoFA is you in any way associated with coconut production and marketing in
the district?
3.
If yes,
how are you involved?
4.
If no, why
are you not in involved in coconut activities since the district is noted for
coconut production?
5.
What is
the main role you play in coconut production and marketing in the district?
6.
How do you
as an agricultural extension agent mobilize the farmers, buyers, processors
(both small and medium scale) and consumers of coconuts products in the
district?
7.
For how
long have you been working with the actors (i.e. farmers, buyers, processors,
and consumers) in coconut industry in this district?
8.
Are the
farmers indigenes of this area or they are migrant farmers?
9.
How do the farmers organize the sale of
coconuts in this district?
10. Where do the farmers sell their coconuts?
11. Which groups of buyers usually buy the coconut
from the farmers?
12. Apart from local buyers there are some buyers
from neighbouring countries who also come here to buy coconuts. Where do they
come from?
13. In what ways does your ministry monitor the
production and marketing of coconut and its related products such as coconut
oil in the district?
14. Can you give me an estimated number of coconut
farmers, buyers, processors (i.e. small and medium scale) and consumers in the
district?
15. How do you describe your interactions with
other actors of the coconut chain?
Theme 2: Upgrading and constraints to upgrading.
16. What types of upgrading activities do the
farmers undertake to improve their coconut farming production?
17. What are some of the things that can be done by
the farmers to upgrade the process?
18. How does the ministry help the farmers to upgrade
process?
19. Do the ministry staff educate the farmers on
how to upgrade (improve) their production processes?
20. If yes, how often do you give the education?
21. If no, why has the ministry failed to do that?
22. The application of fertilizer to old coconut
palms helps to increase the bearing rate of the trees. Do you assist the
farmers in fertilizer application in your district?
23. If yes, how often do you help the farmers to
apply fertilizers and insecticides to the palms?
24. If no, why?
25. How does learning and sharing of information
facilitate upgrading activities in coconut production?
26. How does MoFA ensure that farmers get access to
high yielding variety of coconut seeds/seedlings for planting?
27. What extension services does the Ministry of
Food and Agriculture give coconut farmers in the district?
28. Outline some of the major constraints to
upgrading of coconut production in the district?
29. From your experience as technical staff what are
some of the difficulties the farmers face in producing and marketing coconuts
in the district?
30. How can more efforts be mobilized to improve
the technology, knowledge and innovations in the upgrading process?
31. Which areas, if any, need more improvements as
far as the coconut industry is concerned?
Theme 3: Vulnerability and Farmers Livelihood
32. What is the acreage of coconut plantation in
the district?
33. What other economic activities do farmers you
work with do apart from farming?
34. Do the farmers receive any form of micro-
finance to buy inputs such as fertilizers and agro-chemicals for their farming
activities?
35. What other crops do they cultivate besides the
coconut?
36. What do they do with these other crops they produce?
37. Is there any Coconut Farmers Associations in
communities work in?
38. If yes, do you attend their meetings and
participate in the activities of the associations?
39. How do the Farmers Associations ensure that the
interests of the members are catered for in a satisfactory manner?
40. How does MoFA empower the small-scale coconut
farmer in upgrading his processes to reduce vulnerability?
41. To what extent do Farmers Associations ensure
that government (MoFA) provides empowerment facilities for the members?
42. How can you (MoFA) make sure that farmers’ have
big say in fixing prices of coconut and do not be at the mercies of the
middlemen and processors?
43. How do you that the farmers you are working
with are facing financial crises and poor economic conditions?
44. In what ways does decline in income
vulnerability lead to increase in farmers’ livelihoods in general?
45. What other strategies can help local farmers to
compete and to improve earning opportunities?
46. What bottlenecks prevent empowerment of
small-scale farmers and reducing vulnerability?
47. Do the farmers implement any kind of standards
to meet global market demand in the future?
48. Do have any other comments to make concerning
coconut production, processing and marketing in this district in general?
Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for Ministry
of Food and
Agriculture (MoFA) Staff in the Regional Office Sekondi/Takoradi
Operational questions under Different Themes to be investigated
Agriculture (MoFA) Staff in the Regional Office Sekondi/Takoradi
Operational questions under Different Themes to be investigated
Theme 1: Coconut Value Chain
1.
Describe
how the farmers and actors are linked to the value chain?
2.
As a staff
of MoFA is you in any way associated with coconut production and marketing in
the region?
3.
If yes,
how are you involved?
4.
What
is/are the main role you play in coconut production and marketing in the
region?
5.
How do the
farmers organize the sale of coconuts in Ghana
6.
In what
form do farmers normally sell their coconuts in Jomoro district?
7.
Which
groups of buyers usually buy coconut from the farmers?
8.
Apart from
local buyers are there some buyers from neighbouring countries who also buy
coconuts from the country?
9.
Where do they come from?
10. In what ways does your ministry monitor the
production and marketing of coconut and its related products such as oil in the
region and in Jomoro district?
11.
In what
ways does the ministry ensures quality standards in the production of coconut
to meet the local and regional markets demands?
Theme 2: Upgrading and constraints to upgrading.
12. What types of upgrading activities do the
farmers undertake to improve their coconut farming production?
13. What are some of the things that can be done by
the farmers to upgrade the process?
14. How does the ministry help the farmers to upgrade
process?
15. Do the ministry staff educate the farmers on
how to upgrade (improve) their production processes?
16. If yes, how often does your outfit give the education
to coconut farmers in upgrading process?
17. How does learning and sharing of information
facilitate upgrading activities in coconut production?
18. How does MoFA ensure that farmers get access to
high yielding variety of coconut seeds/seedlings for planting?
19. What extension services does the Ministry of
Food and Agriculture give coconut farmers in the district?
20. Outline some of the major constraints to
upgrading of coconut production in the region and in the district?
21. What are some of the difficulties farmers face
in producing and marketing coconuts?
22. How can more efforts be mobilized to improve
the technology, knowledge and innovations in the upgrading process?
23.
Which
areas, if any, need more improvements as far as the coconut industry is
concerned?
Theme 3: Vulnerability and Farmers Livelihood
24.
What is
the total acreage of coconut plantation in the region and in Jomoro district?
25. How do the changes in the local/regional
coconut market and falling coconut commodity prices affect small-scale farmers’
livelihood vulnerability in the region and perhaps the Jomoro district?
26.
What work
do you do during a typical day that contributes to increasing the farmer’s
income?
27. What other economic activities do farmers you
work with do apart from farming?
28. Do they have investment in other non-farm activity
or activities such as shops?
29. What are the main sources of income of these
farmers?
30. Mention some of the things coconut farmers do
whenever their income level increases?
31. What about when their income falls; what are
the main things they do regarding their livelihoods?
32.
Do most of
the coconut farmers you are working with have more than one wife and many
children?
33. If yes; what is the average number of wives and
children do they have?
34. Do they have children still attending schools?
35. If yes, what is the average number children
attending school at what level of education are they?
36. Do the farmers receive any form of micro-
finance to buy inputs such as fertilizers and agro-chemicals for their farming
activities?
37. What other crops do they cultivate besides the
coconut?
38. What do they do with these other crops they produce?
39. Is there any Coconut Farmers Associations in
communities work in?
40. If yes, do you attend their meetings and
participate in the activities of the associations?
41. How do the Farmers Associations ensure that the
interests of the members are catered for in a satisfactory manner?
42. Do the associations influence how prices of
coconut and it related products are determined?
43. If yes how do they influence coconut price
determination?
44.
Does MoFA
provide any services to coconut farmers as a means of empowering them?
45. If yes, what are some of these empowerment
services you give the farmers?
46. How does MoFA empower the small-scale coconut
farmer in upgrading his processes to reduce vulnerability?
47. To what extent do Farmers Associations ensure
that government (MoFA) provides empowerment facilities for the members?
48. How can you (MoFA) make sure that farmers’ have
big say in fixing prices of coconut and do not be at the mercies of the
middlemen and processors?
49. How do you that the farmers you are working
with are facing financial crises and poor economic conditions?
50.
In what
ways does decline in income vulnerability lead to increase in farmers’ livelihoods
in general?
51.
What other
strategies can help local farmers to compete and to improve earning
opportunities?
52.
What
bottlenecks prevent empowerment of small-scale farmers and reducing vulnerability?
53. Do the farmers implement any kind of standards
to meet global market demand in the future?
54. Do have any other comments to make concerning coconut
production, processing and marketing in this district in general?
55.
What are
the ministry’s agricultural policies on coconut production and marketing in the
region in general?
Adam, M., R.
Arthur, G. Duhamel, N. Ghartey, D. Overfield, and N. Willoughby (1996).
Analysis of Natural Resource Utilisation, Livelihood Systems, Coping Strategies
and Natural Resource Research Needs in the Coconut-Growing Areas of Coastal
Zone Ecosystems in Ghana (Phase 1) volume 1: Main Report.
Bacon, C.
(2005) Confronting the Coffee Crisis: can fair trade, organic, and specialty
coffees reduce small-scale farmer vulnerability in Northern
Nicaragua ? World Development,
vol. 33 No. 3, 497-511.
Barghouti, S., S.
Kane, K. Sorby and M. Ali (2004). Agricultural Diversification for the Poor:
Guidelines for Practitioners. Agriculture
and Rural Development Discussion Paper 1, the World Bank
Bedijo, J. O.
(2009). Global Value Chains, Standards and Local Enterprises Upgrading for
Export: Case of Fish Industries in Uganda, M.A Research Paper, Graduate School
of Development Studies, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague.
Carney et al.
(1999). Livelihood Approaches Compared. London
Castells, M.
(1998). End of Millennium, Malden, Blackwell.
Cobley, L. S.
and W. M. Steele (1976). An Introduction to the Botany of Tropical Crops (2nd
edition). Longman Group Limited, London
CSDP (1997).
Appraisal Report on Coconut Rehabilitation in Ghana.
Dery, S. K.
(2002). “The Cape
St. Paul
Dolan, C.S and
M, Tewari (2001) ‘From what we wear to what we eat’: Upgrading in Global Value
Chains. IDS Bulletin vol. 32 No. 3,
94-104.
Ellis, F.
(1998).‘Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification’. Journal of Development Studies, vol. 35
No1: 1-38.
Fromm, I. and
J. A. Dubón (2006) ‘Upgrading and the Value Chain Analysis: The case of
small-scale Coffee Farmers in Honduras’. Conference
on International Agricultural Research for Development, October 11-13, 2006
Fromm, I.
(2007) ‘Upgrading in Agricultural Value Chains: The Case of Small Producers in
Honduras’; GIGA Working Papers, No.
64, pp 5-32
Gereffi, G.
(1999). ‘International trade and industrial upgrading in the apparel commodity
chain’, Journal of International
Economics, 48 (1), pp. 37-70.
GEPC, (2000). ‘Comparison
of Export Performance of Non Traditional Products’ Ghana Export Promotion
Council, Accra, Ghana.
GLSS, (2000). Ghana Living Standard Survey: Reports of the
Fourth Round (GLSS4), Ghana
Statistical Service, Accra
Gibbon, P.
(2001) Agro Commodity Chains: An Introduction. IDS Bulletin vol. 32. No. 3: 60-68.
Humphrey, J and H, Schmitz (2000) Governance
and Upgrading: Linking Industrial Cluster and Global Value Chain Research,
IDS Working Paper 120, Institute of Development Studies: University of
Sussex and Institute for Development and Peace: University of Duisburg.
Humphrey, J and
H, Schmitz (2002). How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading
in industrial clusters? Institute of Development Studies, Brighton .
Humphrey, J.,
(2004). Upgrading in Global Values Chains, World Commission on the Social
Dimension of Globalization, Working Paper No. 28, ILO, Geneva
Jacobsen, K.
(2002) ‘The pursuit of Livelihoods by Refugees and the Impact on the Human
Security of Host Communities’, International Migration 40(5): 95-123.
Kaplinsky, R and J Readman (2001). Integrating SMEs in Global
Value Chains: Towards Partnership for Development, Report Prepared for UNIDO, Vienna
Knorringa, P.
(2002) ‘Cluster trajectories and the likelihood of endogenous upgrading’, In:
MP van Dijk and H. Sandee (eds) Innovation and Small Enterprises in the
Third World, Cheltenham : Edward Elgar, pp.
48-65
Knorringa, P.
(2010) ‘A Balancing Act: Private Actors in Development Processes’. Inaugural
Lecture delivered at the International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus
University of Rotterdam on 4 November, 2010, pp 1-24
Laven, A. C.
(2005). Relating cluster and value chain theory to upgrading of primary
commodities: The cocoa chain in Ghana. AMIDSt, University of Amsterdam.
Leichenko, R. M. And K. L. O’brien(2001). The dynamics of rural vulnerability to global
change: the case of Southern Africa ,Department of Geography
and Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 33 Livingston
Ave., Suite 400, New Brunswick, NJ, USA 08901-1982 2CICERO, University
of Oslo, P.O. Box 1129 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway : karen.obrien@cicero.
Lyon, F.
(2003). ‘Community group and livelihoods in remote rural areas in Ghana: How
small-scale farmers sustain collective action’. Community Development Journal,
Vol. 38 No. 4 October 2003: pp 323-331.
McLaughlin, M.
M. (1996). ‘Food security in a globalizing economy’, Development 1996(4),
51-55.
Mittelman, J.
H. (1994). ‘The globalization challenge: Surviving at the margin’, Third World
Quart. 15(3), 427-443.
Moser, C. O. N.
(1998). The asset vulnerability framework: Reassessing urban poverty reduction
strategies. World Development, vol. 26 No.1: pp1-19.
O’Neal, M. C.
(2006). ‘The Sustainability of Coconut Palm Cocos nucifera Linnaeus 1753 Groves
in Coastal Ghana’. Journal of Coastal
Research, vol. 22 No. 5: pp 1118- 1124.
Osei-Bonsu, A. And
S. .K Dery, (2009). The contribution of
livestock in livelihoods of coconut- based households in Ghana Africa ,
vol. 11 No. 4: pp 34-50.
Pegler, L. and P, Knorringa (2007).
Integrating Labour Issues in Global Value Chains analysis: Exploring
Implications for labour Research and Unions. In V. Schmidt (ed) Trade Union responses to globalisation: A
review by the global Union research network, Geneva International Labour
Office, Magheros, graphic France
& Ireland
Reardon, T. and
S, Vosti (1995). Links between rural poverty and the environment in developing
countries: Asset categories and investment poverty. World Development, 23(9), 1495-1506.
Reardon, T.
(1997). ‘Using evidence of household income diversification to inform study of
the rural nonfarm labor market in Africa’. World
Development, vol. 16 No. 9: 735-747.
Reilly, J. M.
and D, Schimmelpfennig (1999).
‘Agricultural impact assessment, vulnerability, and the scope for adaptation’,
Climate Change 42, 745-748.
Schmitz, H. and P, Knorringa (1999). ‘Learning from global
buyers’, IDS Working Paper, No. 100, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex
University.
Schmitz, H. and
P. Knorringa (2000). ‘Learning from Global Buyers’, Journal of Development
Studies, 37(2):177-205.
Schmitz, H.
(2004). Globalized Localities: Introduction: in Local Enterprises in Global
Economy; issues of governance and upgrading, edited by Hubert Schmitz, GB MPG
Books Ltd: 1-19.
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for
analysis. IDS Working Paper No. 72, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton , UK
Scoones, I. (2005). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A framework for
analysis. IDS Working Paper No. 72, Institute
of Development Studies, Sussex UK
Sen, A. (1997).
Human capital and capability. World Development, 25(12), 1959-1961.
Sen, A. (1981).
Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. New
York : Oxford
University
Shankland, A.
(2000). Analysing policy for sustainable Livelihoods. IDS Research Report 49, Institute of Development
Studies, Brighton , UK
World Bank,
(1999). Philippines
Consulted Websites
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar