LIBRARIES
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICI-I 48824-1048

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

SMALL LETTUCE FARMERS ACCESS TO DYNAMIC MARKETS
IN GUATEMALA

presented by
LUIS GEOVANNY FLORES NAVAS

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master in Science

Department of Agricultural Economics

  
         

4

r’s Signatu

E/yLQ 23, 2590 ”5“

Date

ajor Professo

”i3

 

MSU is an Affirmative ActiorVEqual Opportunity Institution

-.-----«-:--.--:--n-u—.---u-u-.-u-w-n-o-I-o-n-u-u-n-o-t-o-n-o-c-—-----o--n-o-o-o-o-o-ono-o—o-o—o-ID0-o-o--o-

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:/ClRC/DateDue.indd-p.15

 

SMALL LE'I'I‘UCE FARMERS ACCESS TO DYNAMIC MARKETS IN
GUATEMALA

By

Luis Geovanny Flores Navas

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of
Master of Sciences

Department of Agricultural Economics

2004

Abstract

SMALL LETTUCE FARMERS ACCESS TO DYNAMIC MARKETS IN
GUATEMALA

By

Luis Geovanny Flores Navas

Supermarkets in Central America continue to grow in market share, becoming an
attractive, lucrative market for a variety of fresh fi'uits and vegetables (FFV). While
major changes are taking place in the supermarket procurement system, different
transaction attributes are necessary to supply this growing market. This paper discusses
the case of Guatemalan lettuce procurement changes and the effects on their suppliers.
With over 36% of the overall country sales of lettuce, supermarkets continue to expand,
sourcing mainly from small and medium growers. This paper provides an analysis of the
determinants of market choice for small lettuce producers, the technologies they choose
to fulfill supermarkets grades and standards and finalizes with a revealing analysis of net
income effects of suppliers to supermarkets and suppliers to traditional wholesale

markets.

Dedication

To Maripaz, my wife.

Acknowledgments
I thank Dr. Thomas Reardon, for his continued support and encouragement and the

members of my committee, Dres. Lawrence Busch and Dave Weatherspoon.

I also thank the project Partnerships for Food Industry Development, Fruits and

Vegetables (PF ID—FV) and their funding institution, the US Agency for International

Development (USAID), for having financed in full the cost of this study.

iv

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................. v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................... vi
INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1
1. EMPHUCAL CONTEXT ....................................................... 3
1.1 Supermarket effects on FF V markets ..................................... 3
1.1.1 Supermarkets procurement practices .............................. 3
1.1.2 Supermarket-induced change on wholesale sector ............... 7
1.1.3 Implications for producers .......................................... 7
1.2 The lettuce Market ........................................................... 8
1.2.1 Structural analysis of the lettuce market ........................... 9
2. THEORETICAL MODEL ....................................................... 12
3. IMPLEMENTATION MODEL ................................................. 14
3.1 Sample characteristics ....................................................... 14
3.2 Data collection ............................................................... 14
3.3 Hypothesis ..................................................................... 14
3.3.1 Market channel participation ....................................... 14
3.3.2 Technological effects of supermarket channel adoption 16
3.3.3 Net Income effects on supplying supers ........................... 16
4. RESULTS 17
4.1 Probit regression results for determinants of market choice ............ 17
4.2 Technological effects of market choice ................................... 19
4.3 Net income effects of supplying supermarkets .......................... 21
5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 23
APPENDIX ........................................................................ 25
REFERENCES .................................................................... 48

List of Figures

Figure 1. Lettuce Market Channels and Actor Market Share .................. 29
Table 1. Determinants of Supermarket-market Choice .......................... 26
Table 2. Results of Cobb Douglas Production Function Estimation ......... 27
Table 3. Characteristics of the Production per Market Channel ...... 28

vi

Executive Summary

In this study, the Guatemala lettuce producing sector was examined in September
2004 under three important research questions triggered by the recent developments of
supermarket procurement in the country. With 35% of total lettuce sales, supermarkets
are growing a fast rate becoming an important market choice for small and medium-scale
lettuce producers, and an alternative to the traditional open-air market. Lettuce were
chosen because, while they are a common item supermarkets shelves, they are not treated
under a commodity concept --as are roma tomatoes or onions-- since there is a high
degree of market differentiation through quality and pricing. This differentiation was
expected to result in different findings and guidelines to conduct similar research on other
minor crops. The study’s research questions are (1) What are the determinants of market
channel participation? (2) What are the technological effects of participation in each

market channel? (3) What is the net income effect of supplying supermarkets?

Using binary regression evaluation for the vector of attributes that farmers
incorporate to their production systems in order to supply each channel, data was
gathered on conditions that favor the implementation of such vector of attributes from a
statistically representative sample of growers from both channels, the supermarket and
the traditional channel. The study found that farmer characteristics such as higher
education, possession of livestock and belonging to some form of association favor the
financial capacity of small and medium-scale farmers to supply supermarkets. The study
also determined that once the choice for the supermarket channel has been made by the

farmer, there are changes in their technology choice that allow them to increase the

vii

number of cycles grown a year, owning and renting significantly more land than those
selling to the traditional market channels. The results show that the number of cycles
grown by supermarket suppliers is in a 4:1 relationship compared to those supplying to
traditional markets, confirming significant factor bias differences between channel
participants.

The results obtained to determine the income effect of supplying to one channel
versus the other are certainly striking. The results can be summarized as follows. (1)
Selling lettuce to supers is three times more profitable for farmers than in the traditional
market channel. (2) Supermarkets pressure for higher quality and more intensive use of
land favors less use of labor per unit produced, and higher investment in agricultural
inputs. (3) The annual revenue, on average, for supermarket suppliers suggests that small
farmers participating in the supermarket channel are almost five times above the country

per capita income.

viii

INTRODUCTION

For many years, the literature on fresh fruit and vegetables (FFV) from Latin
America related to farmers’ access to markets has disregarded domestic supermarket1
markets. The separation of production into domestic consumption and exports did not
include the local supermarket channels because there were considered a “negligible
niche” (Berdegue et al. 2004). However, the fast growth of supermarkets in Latin
America in the last decade documented by Berdegue, Farina, Mainville, Reardon, et al
(several years) has started to fill that literature gap with findings describing supermarket
growth and the implications of their different transactions and standards imposed on
farmers from those of the traditional domestic and export markets.

Traditional markets have been highly studied for years (Seidler 2001, Belik 2000,
Calderon 2003, Escobal 2000). The non-traditional export sector markets and their effects
on local FF V have been also explored to some extent in the literature (Barham et a1 1992,
Fischer 2003, TED 1997). Recently, research has started on the rise of supermarkets and
the changes in their product procurement systems (Berdegue et a1 2004, Farina 2002,
Reardon 2004, Balsevich 2003). However, their effects on the wholesale sector and
growers have not been studied with the exception of Mainville (2004) whose study in
Brazil focused on the effects of changes in market structure and technology implications
on tomato and lettuce suppliers. Mainville’s results, however, are obtained in a more
advanced supermarket procurement context different from the incipient stage of

supermarket development in Guatemala. Hernandez et al. (2004) studied tomato growers

 

' The term “supermarket” is used for simplicity. It includes self service supermarkets, hypermarkets, price
clubs, and discount stores ranging from 1000 square meters and up.

1

participating in supermarket channels in Guatemala - but tomatoes are a commodity, and
supermarkets and growers in that subsector tend to be interrnediated by wholesalers,
without direct relationships with the supermarkets that we find in the case of the
differentiated product lettuce. Our examination of producers of the latter for the
supermarket sector is the first in Latin America.

This thesis contributes to filling that gap in the literature by providing insights on
the effects of the rise of supermarkets on the market for a non-commodity, highly-
perishable product where quality differentiation is a supermarket requirement and there
are direct relations between producers and supermarkets. After reviewing the recent
development of supermarket procurement systems in Guatemala and the structure of the
lettuce value chains, this study addresses the following research questions. (1) What are
the determinants of grower’s participation in market channels (supermarket versus
traditional)? (2) What are the technological effects of participation in each market
channel? (3) What is the net income effect of supplying supermarkets? Answering these
questions has unveiled specific effects of early supermarket growth on small and medium
producers. The findings set the ground for further discussions on high-value crop
promotion to the supermarket channel by rural development and agribusiness
stakeholders in Guatemala and Central America. The data used for this study was
collected in September 2004 in the main lettuce growing area, the Guatemalan western
highlands.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 is on the empirical context. Section 2
presents the theoretical model. Section 3 focuses on the implementation model. Section 4

centers on the results. Section 5 presents the conclusions.

l. EMPIRICAL CONTEXT

1.1 Supermarket effects on FFV markets

Driven by increases in per capita income and the affluence of city dwellers that
rely on supermarkets for their food purchases, supermarkets are no longer known as the
shopping stores of the wealthy and upper middle class (Holmes 2003, Reardon et al.,
2004). Several factors have triggered this growth: (1) As the incomes of the lower middle
class grow, the opportunity cost of time becomes higher. (2) Fewer trips to the food store
have made the use of refi‘igerators ubiquitous. (3) Wet markets are no longer close to all
consumers, and their locations do not appeal anymore to the thriving households. (4)
Cleanliness is highly valued by consumers as compared to open-air, wet markets. This
means grth opportunities for fresh produce sold through supermarkets which have
gone from a negligible niche 5-10 years ago to an overall FFV market share of 10%

(compared with an overall share of supermarkets in food retail in Guatemala of 35%).

1.1.1 Supermarket procurement practices

For most of the 19905, supermarkets in Guatemala used a traditional procurement
system that relied mainly on the traditional wholesale markets and store-by-store
procurement, and interrnediation by brokers. This has changed in only the past few years,
with a rapid modernization of their procurement systems. What would seem today as a
long hiatus for supermarkets to switch from the traditional to a differentiated procurement

system was caused by: (1) not being able to sell the volume required to justify

investments in their own farm operations or to engage in outgrower schemes through
wholesalers or directly with farmer groups; (2) a lack of physical infrastructure and
logistical capacity to manage centralized purchases; (3) a lack of capacity to substitute
the role of traditional wholesaler/brokers to consolidate products from many producers
and different quality grades and perform basic grading and sorting (Reardon et al., 2002).

What were the major constrictions of Guatemalan supermarkets’ traditional
procurement system to allow supermarkets to increase market share in FFV? (1) It didn’t
allow for a quality differentiation from their fiercest competitors, the traditional open-air
markets and mom and pop stores; (2) it could not avoid further sorting and grading down
at warehouse and store level, which meant higher costs thus a disadvantage in price. This
helps explain in part why supermarkets’ F FV market penetration has not grown higher
during the same time period where supermarket sales for overall food products grew from
15 to 35% (Berdegue et al., forthcoming).

AS follows are the four strategic elements (the four pillars noted by Reardon et al.
2003) in the recent evolution of the supermarket procurement systems in Guatemela,
including organizational and institutional changes.

First, supermarket chains shifted from store-by-store procurement to
centralization of procurement systems, by using large distribution centers. A centralized
procurement system allows for (1) increasing economies of scale by transacting with
bigger volume purchases; (2) stiffer controls of product consistency with supermarket
requirements in grades and standards; (3) reduced coordination costs as less people are

contacted and fewer calls are made per purchase order. For instance, La Fragua2 reached

 

2 Leading supermarket chain in Guatemala

this year a 98% centralization rate of FFV for their 105 stores. While Unisuper3 plans to
centralize 50% of their FFV in 2005 in their 27 stores, starting by the most delicate
items—those that need cold storage and demand higher quality care.

Second, once specialized/dedicated wholesalers were available, supermarkets
started replacing the traditional wholesalers to differentiate them fiom their competitors.
Specialized/dedicated wholesalers work with suppliers on (1) closely monitoring a more
responsive supply program to quality, and consistency to the supermarket requirements;
(2) fonnalizing the business transactions under the government taxation rules, making the
buying process more transparent and formalized for suppliers and supermarkets; (3)
vertically coordinate — and even vertically integrate — with outgrower schemes providing
services to farmers such as credit, technical assistance, etc.

Third, supermarket chains began to move fi'om purchase on spot markets to direct
purchasing from growers. “Direct” is defined as the purchase straight from the producers
or through a specialized/dedicated wholesaler under a “preferred supplier program”.
Preferred supplier schemes constitute the most modern type of procurement schemes by
major supermarket chains worldwide. Direct procurement from producers allows
supermarket chains a number of advantages; ( 1) select producers capable of meeting the
required grades and standards; (2) reduce number of suppliers per product; (3) increase
safety in highly-risky products such as strawberries and lettuce; (4) improving product
merchandising and prices by encouraging brand competition; (5) reduce quality
monitoring costs by inspecting fewer suppliers of the same product. These five
advantages are applicable to lettuce given its high perishability and consumer requests for

consistent quality traits and freshness.

 

3 Second tier supermarket chain in Guatemala

Fourth, the completion of the above strategic steps enables supermarket chains to
institute private quality and safety standards to continue differentiating from open-air
markets and mom and pop stores. In the case of lettuce, only La Fragua has implemented
quality and safety assurance initiatives, whereas Unisuper has only established private
quality standards in some of their highly perishable products such as lettuce. One
example from La Fragua is the institution of PIPAA4 food safety certification of
strawberry, bell peppers and, lettuce suppliers. Even though La Fragua has informed
suppliers of the need of such standards on an advisory basis, this disposition may signal
subsequent obligatory requirement in the near future.

As informed by La Fragua lettuce suppliers, there are a number of reasons why
supermarkets moved forward with private standards: (1) instituting private standards
enables the supermarket to eventually target the consumer with marketing campaigns
about the nutritional, quality, and safety characteristics of their lettuce, contrasted with
those of the open-air markets and mom and pop’s stores; (2) tougher quality standards
minimize shrinkage at the distribution center and store levels making the procurement
and sale processes more efficient — and higher efficiency means more savings; (3)
liabilities and consumer dissatisfaction claims can be reduced dramatically; (4) more
value-added programs, cross-merchandising (e. g. with salad dressings, fruit combinations
and non-produce items) can be implemented with confidence when there is reliability on
products’ quality and safety; (5) private label programs, which has been informed to start

in La Fragua in 2005, can be put into action for the “store’s choice.”

 

4 Agricultural and Environmental Integral Protection Program. PIPAA lends third party certification
services for a cost charged to producers

6

1.1.2 Supermarket-induced change on wholesale sector

Since the modernization of the procurement systems of Guatemalan supermarket
chains started, traditional wholesaler/brokers are losing market share as they no longer
supply all product categories to the largest supermarket chains (Berdegue et a1,
forthcoming). Additionally, new specialized/dedicated wholesalers are emerging to
supply supermarkets with lettuce that meet higher quality and safety standards than the
traditional market.

There are major changes between how specialized/dedicated wholesalers and
traditional wholesalers operate in the FFV sector as they face a different set of market
conditions. For instance: (1) most FFV are not sold in bulk in supermarkets, which forces
specialized/dedicated wholesalers to enter supermarkets with a brand, and with plastic
wrapping or bunching; (2) in order to ensure uniformity in quality, higher coordination
efforts must be established between specialized/dedicated wholesalers and their product
base while traditional wholesalers seldom know the producers (3) most of the time
specialized/dedicated wholesalers must capitalize to pay some of their producers in cash
and withstand the 15-20 day credit period when selling to supermarkets, while traditional

wholesalers operate on a cash basis.

1.1.3. Implications for producers

Under a strict and demanding regime of standards aiming at the widening of the
FFV quality and safety gap and the narrowing of the price gap between supermarkets and
the traditional wholesalers, it can be inferred that producers: (1) need to adopt

technologies that can allow them to supply more quantity, better quality and more

consistently throughout the year c. g. same seed variety grown by all farmer members; (2)
need to become more competitive against larger farmers by consolidating volume and
participating in economics of scale to sort, pack, and transport the product to the
supermarket distribution center efficiently; (3) need to adopt managerial systems that can
allow for fast decision making, centralized coordination of production among several
members to satisfy convened supermarket procurement programs throughout the year; (4)
must have the financial capital to stand credit periods and revolve capital into several
production cycles5 a year to close the 52 week supply window; (5) need to adapt rapidly
to a different working culture where higher quality and safety standards will gain them a

bigger slice of the market pie.

1.2 The lettuce market

Agricultural trade articles are referred to as commodities and non-commodities.
Agricultural commodities are widely consumed products traded principally on the basis
of price such as wheat, tobacco or wool. Non-commodities are items of not massive
consumption for which specific attributes are negotiated along with price. Lettuce is
considered by supermarkets as a non-commodity because: (1) 65% of the country overall
consumption takes place in Guatemala City (with 22% of the population). (2) In areas of
Guatemala where lettuce is not grown, this item is mainly purchased by restaurants and
the better-off households and not by the rural poor (personal communication September
2004 with L. Gomez, Perishable Division Manager, UNISUPER, and

Canu 2004). (3) Supermarkets encourage suppliers to differentiate through brand

positioning, vacuum packing, plastic wrapping, labeling and attractive product display

 

5 A production cycle for lettuce grown in Guatemala is 60-65 days
8

(personal communication September 2004, Carlos Rendon, Perishables Division
Manager, La Fragua, S.A.).

The production of lettuce in Guatemala is in the hands of 1421 small and medium
farmers (National Statistics Institute — INE - 2003), of less than 3.5 hectares except for
four large farming companies that manage farms above this area. According to INE, the
total country lettuce output is 9830MT. Granados (2004) reported that 8199MT were

exported to Central America in 2003, leaving a total country consumption of 1631MT.

1.2.1 Structural analysis of the lettuce market

In 2003, La F ragua and Unisuper, the two leading chains with 80% of the supermarket
sector, sold 36.5% of the lettuce bought by Guatemalan consumers. The supermarket
chains bought the lettuce from approximately 45 small growers and 4 large farming
companies (Personal communications September 2004 with J. Gonzalez, Quality Control
Manager, Perishables Division, La Fragua, SA, and L. Gomez , Perishable Division
Manager, UNISUPER). The remaining 63.5% is sold through open air markets and
around 30 independent supermarket stores.

Figure 1 presents the different procurement avenues of supermarkets. First, there
are companies considered specialized/dedicated wholesaler that started as a preferred
supplier, but now have out-grower schemes under implicit contracts.
Specialized/dedicated wholesalers have the role of sorting, grading, packing, and
delivering to the distribution center of the chain. The share of this type of wholesalers is

4% of the total supermarket procurement.

FIGURE 1.
LETTUCE SUPERMARKET CHANNEL AND ACTORS SHARE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% La Fragua/Unisuper
E
e I |
g 42% . 02%)

(4%) Large Con‘panleSl 52%) _ A
3 Specialized functions as Small Farmer La'gguggg'zms‘ 8
6’ Wholesaler Specialized Org Directly e\°
E Wholesaler

t fi— J

o I
2
g 73%
o SUPPLIED BY
8 SMALL GROWERS
n.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other preferred suppliers include large companies with a mixed system of their
own production and reliance on outgrower schemes. These companies supply 22% of the
total supermarket purchases from their own fields, and also supply 42% of the total
lettuce sales to supermarkets from small growers’ production. These large companies
recruit, train and provide inputs to their small suppliers in an integration scheme. At
harvest time, the product is collected semi-graded for further grading and packing at large
companies’ warehouses. This condition makes the large company a specialized/dedicated
wholesaler as the supermarket knows they outsource production to meet the demand, but
the observance of production standards falls under their responsibility. Third, individual
small growers organizations are also part of the pool of preferred suppliers. They
organize into family member groups, or community groups guided by a leading team in
charge securing the right inputs, technical assistance and capital, marketing, quality
control, and managing the accounts. Their sales to supermarkets account for 42% of total

lettuce sales.

La Fragua and Unisuper both centralize 100% of their lettuce procurement
(Gonzalez 2004 and Gomez 2004). As was informed by Unisuper during the field work,
lettuce from traditional markets are not purchased anymore as they have enough suppliers
that offer consistent quality since 2002. Their lettuce is supplied by four dedicated
wholesalers/preferred suppliers which half of them also supplies La Fragua. This
situation makes both procurement systems very similar even when the relationship of

volume purchases from La Fragua to Unisuper is around 30 to l. 6

 

6 La Fragua reported sales of 2.6 million heads for 2003, while Unisuper reported 41 thousand heads for the
same year.

11

2. THEORETICAL MODEL

It is known that farmers’ decision of supplying one market or another is categorized
as a function of the set of incentives and capacity variables that allow the fulfillment of
technological requirements (Sadoulet et de Janvry 1995 and Drummond and Goodwing
2000). From the two lettuce market channels reviewed the traditional market channel has
a vector of attributes that are said to be conventional while the supermarket vector of
attributes involves “new attributes” (Mainville 2004). For example, higher quality of
lettuce demanded by supermarkets may require the use of a hybrid seed that can compete
better with weeds, thus reducing the amount of weeding labor, but tripling this input’s
price. This means a farmer that supplies lettuce to the traditional market channel under
conventional attributes, could supply supermarkets assuming he has the capacity to shift
to a higher isoquant (increasing capital use, thus higher risk) to acquire more expensive
seeds and reduce labor.

This example helps to understand that both decisions above (to produce under
conventional attributes or under a new set of attributes) are economic decisions that can
be modeled as a function of variables (Sadoulet and de Janvry 1995). Thus, the
determinants of participation in a given market channel (Y) is equal to variables that
reflect a variety of output prices (X1), input prices (X2), risk (X3), quasi-fixed capital
(X4), physical capital (X5), and other shifters (Xi). A typical representation of this
equation in economics is:

Y = X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, Xi
Following a producer’s decision to participate in the supermarket channel, next is the

choice of technology (embodied in a set of adoption choices of capital items) conditional

12

on the vector of product transaction attributes, net income and risks determined by the
supermarkets. As evaluated extensively in preceding sections, supermarkets aim at
differentiating their supply from the traditional market in a variety of features and
benefits. Such collective set of new product attributes is attained by using specific seed
varieties, refrigerated transportation vehicles, tight production schedules, etc. A similar
equation as in determining the participation on a given market is used to represent the

technology choice (Reardon et al., 2004; Mainville 2004).

13

3. IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

3.1 Sample characteristics

A random sample population of 170 small and medium farmers was calculated from
the total population of 1421 lettuce producers using a hyper-geometric formula at 90%
confidence level and 5-6% accuracy of sample proportion. The sample is divided in 139
traditional market suppliers and 31 subjects that are supermarket channel suppliers. The
31 supermarket suppliers account for 82% of the total supermarket channel volume

procured from small farmers.

3.2 Data collection

A specific survey was designed for this lettuce study adapted from the survey
instrument used on tomatoes in Guatemala by Reardon et al., (2004). The order of the
sections in the survey was established after several rounds of field-testing, to intercalate
more difficult and detailed questions with others which are less complicated to answer,
and also to mix more sensitive issues with others which raise less concerns on the part of

the respondent. A copy of the survey instrument is attached in the annex.

3.3 Hypotheses

3.3.1 Market channel participation
Based on the vector of “new attributes” of the supermarket channel, as explained in
Section 2, the following hypotheses are formulated. The first set of assets hypothesized to

be important to determine small/medium growers supermarket channel participation is

14

land holding and heads of livestock. These two characteristics can be considered proxies
for financial capability and production capacity. Second, for lettuce farmers to have the
capacity to adopt managerial systems that can allow fast decision making, and
participation in centralized coordination schemes, the hypothesized conditions are: (l)
The older the producer, the harder it is to adapt to fast decision making processes — given
the rural environments and well cemented working cultures. (2) Longer distance to the
market is expected to have negative effect on supermarket channel participation. Third,
lettuce farmers that can participate in the supermarket channel must have the financial
support to increase output and have revolving capital during credit periods. Given the
lack of efficient credit markets in the rural areas, there are a number of alternative sources
of credit for small farmers. One of the main sources of credit are associations, as shown
in the survey results. This is why it is then hypothesized that (1) being associated to a
SEQ or coop favors their participation in supermarket channels. (2) Owning a truck is
expected to be correlated with the participation in supermarket channels as it is an
indicator for higher-than-average income in the rural areas. (3) Family size is expected to
have a positive correlation as more labor is available for the cultivation of a labor-
intensive crop such as lettuce. (4) Non-farm rural employment is expected to be
negatively correlated with the supermarket channel choice as the more time the family
works outside the farm, the less number of production cycles are expected to be

cultivated as the family will depend less on this economic activity.

15

3.3.2. Technological effects of supermarket channel adoption

Empirical evidence gathered during the survey suggests that the choice of what
technologies producers use is decided once they have chosen their market channel. For
producers that choose to grow lettuce for the supermarket channel, the following
hypotheses are developed.

First, due to the high demand for quality and consistency in volume, it is expected
that all agrochemical inputs will be positively correlated with the choice of the
supermarket channel. This hypothesis is based on the reasoning that the higher the
quality7 requirements, the higher the pressure for the use of pesticides (Thrupp, 1995).

Second, the higher the output demanded by the supermarket channel, the lower
the amount of labor per unit of land. This hypothesis is formulated since farmers are
expected to trade off more units of labor for more units of capital as the supermarket

channel can be more capital intensive.

3.3.3 Net income effects of supplying supers.

To determine the net income effects (costs and benefits) to small and medium
farmers supplying the supermarket channel, a profitability analysis was conducted to
allow comparison of production costs, technology used and net gains in one channel
versus the other (Reardon et a1 2004). The hypothesized result is that supermarket
suppliers are better off than traditional market suppliers due to better and more consistent

prices than in the traditional channel value chain.

 

7 Quality understood as physical, sensorial characteristics such as size, taste, color, firmness, etc.

16

4. RESULTS

4.1 Probit regression results for determinants of market choice
In order to evaluate the potential determinants of choice for the supermarket-
market channel from the traditional market channel, a binary differentiation with a probit

function was used. The function is represented as follows .

 

Probit function: 6(2) : (D(Z) E J; ¢(V)dV

—1 / 2
where ¢(V) represents the normal distribution (272-) exp

this portion measures the probability of access to the supermarket channel based
on the growers characteristics:

P (y =1/x) = P (y =l/x, ,x,, ..... x,)

(~zz/2)

 

 

 

Where:

i represents each grower (i = 1, ..., 170);

j represents the market channel j=0 for traditional markets suppliers and j=1 for
supermarket suppliers

P represents the probability that a channel has been chosen by a producer i;

X, represents variables: producer’s age, producer’s education, family size,

availability of own transportation (truck), membership in an association or
cooperative, non-fann rural income ration, heads of livestock, land holding, land

holding squared.

17

The Haussman test for endogeneity was performed on this regression and

corrections implemented. The probit regression results (presented in Table 2) can be
summarized as follows:
First: as hypothesized, producers with more land and more heads of livestock are more
likely to participate in the supermarket channel. This shows that they have the capacity to
increase output and adopt the needed set of technologies. Besides, not only the
coefficients are positive as expected, but both variables are also significant.

Second, the expected results in the second hypothesis of under section 4.3.1
validated the regression results. Although the grower’s age is not statistically significant,
the correlation is negative as expected a priori. In the case of education, the table shows a
strong positive correlation between farmers’ capacity to adopt managerial systems and
fast decision making as they get more educated. It is arguable how much education plays
a role in helping determine market channel choice. More exploration of subjects needs to
be done in this regard.

Finally, the results under for the third hypothesis, the variables under this
condition would favor the financial capability of small farmers to withstand the output
demand and credit periods established by supermarkets. Thus, associating to an SFO or
cooperative that could function as a lender or creditor to the farmer favors the
participation in the supermarket channel, as is confirmed by the regression results, and is
statistically significant. According to the survey performed for this study, most small and
medium farmers supplying supermarkets are part of an association, and in some cases the
association delivers the product to a specialized wholesaler. Consequently, owning a

truck or his own vehicle for transportation is also a favorable condition to participate in

18

the supermarket channel. The other two conditions, although with no statistically

significant results, have the opposite sign contrary to what was expected.

4.2 Technological effects of market choice

The technology used by a given grower is represented by a Cobb Douglas
production function which is a mathematical relationship that establishes the rapport
between the different production factors and the output of different combinations of

factors. The production function is represented as follows:

Y. =fl0*X{" *Xf’ *st ..... *ka

I

Where:

Y represents the total production of lettuce for each grower (i = 1, ..., 170);

X Is the vector of k variables representing different production factors that
explain or affect the production of lettuce. The representation of aggregated effect of

several explanatory variables is represented as follows:

X I” ' = Labor expenses in cultural practices, harvest and some post harvest
activities

X 2” 2 = Total area cultivated in the 2003-2004 agricultural year

X 3’3 3 = Cost of agrochemicals used and the marginal productivity if fertilizers

X f‘ = Cost of foliar fertilizers applied (weighted by the price vector).

X f5 = Cost of herbicides applied (weighted by the price vector)

X 5° = Cost of fungicides applied (weighted by the price vector).

19

X 7‘” = Cost of insecticides applied (weighted by the price vector)

X f” = Quality of land based on ratio of area under irrigation and total farm size

Since the separation of producers by market channel introduces a bias derived
from an endogenous stratification on market channel, this bias needs to be corrected.
Heckman’s bi-etapic method is used for this operation. The production functions are
estimated for the groups accessing supermarkets and those accessing traditional
markets. The estimator used in this production function uses the Inverse Mills Ration
(IMR) as the regressor calculated from the probit function for the market choice
evaluation presented before.

The equations for the production functions of traditional and supermarket channel

suppliers are represented as follows:

YSUP=logflO +,B,logXl +,le0ng +,B3logX3 +,B,logX4 +,le0ng +fl6X6 +,B,X7 +,6,,X8 +it+e
YTRAD:lOgflo+flllogXl +13leng +fl310gX3 +134 logX4 +tgslogxs +166Xo +fi7X7 +a68Xs +A+£

Where lambda represents the IMR. The rest is specified in the same manner as the results

shown in Table 3.

Contrary to the first hypothesis under 3.3.2, non of the agrochemicals evaluated in
the regression are statistically significant. This may indicate that there is pressure from
the supermarket on keeping pesticide use under control.

The second hypothesis was validated by the regression and is statistically
significant showing that the more area is planted, the higher the marginal product per unit

of land. This explains in part the economic benefit of higher number of production cycles

20

per year. Although the model considers only the land used for lettuce, it is important to
see that farmers that supply to supermarkets not only own significantly more land than
farmers that supply only to traditional markets, but they also rent more land to produce
more production cycles a years.

To reinforce the point, the results are also consistent with the difference in
number of production cycles per year between both market channels. For instance, while
the average number of production cycles of the traditional market is only 3.84 and a mean
cultivation of 1.17 hectares per year, supermarket suppliers have adopted technological
changes that expanded their land needs. As a result an average of 17 production cycles
are grown a year and an average of 4.0 hectares planted.

From the results of the model, it can be observed that labor use and area planted is
highly significant for both channels, which confirms the factor bias differences between
traditional market and supermarket suppliers. It is important to note that labor costs are
the main variable responsible for the difference in net gains according to the profitability
study. The results of these calculations suggest that as more labor is added to the
production, the lower (see negative sign of the coefficient) the marginal product obtained

per added unit of labor.

4.3 Net income effects of supplying supermarkets

The profitability analysis tells five important facts about the net income effect of

supermarkets on suppliers. (1) Selling lettuce to supers is three times more profitable for

 

8 Although the variable land quality (ratio of land with irrigation and to total area of the farm) was included
in this analysis, the difference between irrigation access across channels was not significant, thus no
hypothesis were formulated for this variable.

21

farmers than in the traditional market channel. (2) Supermarkets pressure for higher
quality and more intensive use of land favors less use of labor per unit produced, and
higher investment in agricultural inputs. The information analyzed implies that the latter
does not necessarily mean higher use of pesticides, but the use of high-performance
seedlings. (3) If on average, supermarket suppliers are producing 4 hectares per year,
with net annual revenue of over 88,0009, this suggests small farmers participating in the
supermarket channel are almost five times above the country per capita income of $1700.
(4) The survey revealed that the average amount of funds received in credit is only about
Q20,000 ($2,500), which is less than 1/6th of their financial needs. (5) The labor used by
traditional market suppliers per hectare was significantly higher than the labor used by
the supermarket suppliers, which could be explained by economies of scale in labor use,

as the number of production cycles goes back to back.

 

9 Q16,000*4 Hectares / dollar to quetzal exchange rate of 1-8.

22

5. CONCLUSIONS

This study researched the determinants of market choice between the supermarket
channel and the traditional market channel, the technological effects of each market
channel, and the net income effect of supplying supermarkets in the context of a non-
commodity product.

Four major findings can be concluded from this research. First, the advantages of
belonging to an association are the strongest determinant of small farmers participation in
supermarkets. Without the associations performance of transaction attributes small
farmers could not participate in this channel even having the capital capacity. Second, the
technological effects of the supermarket channel were considerably accentuated in the
use of high-performance seedling than in the use of agrochemicals. This technological
difference with traditional market participants has an impact on yielding and profits and
merits to be explored further. Third, it was of particular attention to establish that
supermarket channel participants get on average three times the profits that traditional
channel participants get. This is not just due to higher productivity, but rather to high
input of labor in the traditional channel lettuce farming system.

Finally, the fourth key finding is how surprising it was to find out that, on
average, small and medium supermarket channel participants have reached a level of
almost self-financing. Their calculated annual income places them far from being
considered among the rural poor anymore. This is very important for the continued
discussion on the impact of supermarket grth on small farmers in developing

countries. While it is not argued that this could be an especial case — given the lettuce

23

production culture in Guatemala — the next steps in pursuing supermarkets research
should be include a closer approach at more non-commodity products where small

farmers have natural competitive advantages.

24

Appendix

25

Table 1. Determinants of Supermarket-market choice

 

 

Variables Coefficient (SE) Sig.
Constant .8118 (1.2221)

Grower age (years) -.0080 (.0170)

Grower education (years) .1594 (.0591) **
Family size (# members) -.1019 (.0915)

Has a truck a (Yes =1, No =2) 1.417 (.4646) *
Distance to market (Km) -.0022 (.0028)
Association a (Associated=l) .7670 (.3319) **
NFRI Ratio, (non-farm income) 2.184 (1.512)
Livestock (heads) .0012 (.2452)

Land (hectares, farm size) .2904 (.1009) *
Number of observations 170

Pseudo R2 0.4384

 

(** sig=10% * Sig. =5%)

Table 2: Results of Cobb Douglas Production Function Estimation

 

 

SUPERMARKET TRADITIONAL
Elasticity Elasticity
(SE) (SE)

(Coefficient) (Coefficient)
Constant 19.47 2.4051 9.9341 1.2741
Labor -2.344** .3961 -.7248** .1309
Lettuce Area .7983** .3363 .2102* .1309
Fertilizers -.1803 .2415 .0789 .0555
Foliars .2050 .1812 .0833" .0249
Herbicides .0364 .0457 .0489 .0462
Fungicides .0288 .0411 .0080 .0552
Insecticides -.0166 .1680 -.01525 .0293
Land quality -.0087 .0326 -.0397** .0202
Inverse Mills

. 0.0981 0.2416 0.4868 0.3128

ratio
Wald Statistic 130.04 79.60

0.0000 0.0000

Prob > Chi2

 

Notes: ** 5% Sig. ,' * 10% Sig.

27

Table 3. Characteristics of the production per market channel

 

Lettuce Production Characteristics per Market Channels

Average farm size in Hectares
Lettuce growing area in Hectares
Production average (boxes of 30lbs)
Production cycles (average)

Growers of one cycle per year (%)
Growers of two cycles per year (%)
Growers of 3 cycles per year (%)
Growers of 4 cycles or more per year (%)
Growers of one cycle per year (counts)
Growers of two cycles per year (counts)
Growers of 3 cycles per year (counts)

Growers of 4 cycles or more per year

(counts)

Total
n=170
1.84
2.40
2604.09
6.3
9.8
30.5
19.5
43.9
16

50

32

72

Supermarkets
N=3 1

4.43

5.75

2732.16
17.3

0.0
0.9
1.8
25.0
0

l

2

28

Farm Gate Prices (box of 30 lbs in Quetzales (Q) ($1.00 = Q8.00)

Average price per 30le box
Maximum average price

Minimum average price

Std. Deviation

Range

Total revenue per 1 hectare (Q.)
Total cost (lHa)
Commercialization cost (Transport)
Total cost agricultural inputs

Total cost labor

Total cost plowing

Net revenue

Profit margin (%)

INCLUDING HOUSEHOLD LABOR
Total revenue per 1 hectare (Q.)
Total cost (lHa)
Commercialization cost (Transport)
Total cost agricultural inputs

Total cost labor

Total cost plowing

Net revenue

Profit margin (%)

16.2

100.0
16.0

15.6

28.8
62890.91
47531.19
6719.41
18900.57
18951.23
2959.98

15359.72
24.4

62890.91
48324.08
6719.41
18900.57
19743.98
2959.98

14566.82
23.2

26.1

26.7
19.0
4.1

13.7

71309.38
47413.08
6803.08
26047.30
11609.97
2952.73
23896.30
33.5

71309.38
48231.73
6803.08
26047.30
12428.62
2952.73
23077.64
32.4

Traditional

n=139
1.24
1.66

2476.02
3.84

30.8
94.2
57.7
84.6
16
49
30
44

22.0

32.0

12.0

5.1

26.0
54472.44
47955.67
6635.73
17949.58
20400.41
2969.80

6516.77
12.0

54472.44
48692.93
6635.73
17949.58
21137.81
2969.80

5779.51
10.6

Sig

”099}

93939393

 

Notes: a= significance level at 10%

28

 

 

FIGLRE 1. LETTUCE MARKET CHANIELS AND ACTORS MARKET SHARE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERMARKET CHANNEL TRAD'T'ONAL MARKET
CHANNEL
. WHOLESALE MARKETS
REFAILING La Fragua/Unisuper TOTAL MARKET SHARE
TOTAL MKT. SHARE 35.5% 535%
sw LACISW sro Tradtional Wholesalers
WHOLESALING I (4%) l (185610496) ' (32%) ‘ (111196)
pRODUONG l SMALL GROWERS LAC SMALL GROWERS

(82%) (22%) (100%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 references: LF: La Fragua; UNI: Unisuper; SW: Specialized/dedicated wholesalers are buyers that
collect, grade and coordinate production from small growers; LAC: Large agricultural companies only
grow and sell their own production of lettuce; SFO: small farmers association produce their own lettuce,
seldom times buy from other growers and sell directly to supermarkets; TW: traditional market
wholesalers. LAC/SW: are both large agricultural companies as well as specialized/dedicated wholesalers.
Supermarket channel shares calculated based on purchase data provided by La Fragua and Unisuper.
Traditional market shares calculated based on total production data from INE (2003) and Granados (2004).

29

Questionnaires Used

ACCESO DE PEQUENOS Y MEDIANOS PRODUCTORES DE NICARAGUA, GUATEMALA Y
COSTA RICA A MERCADOS DINAMICOS NACIONALES Y REGIONALES

Encuestador: Llene todos estos datos antes de iniciar la visita

ENCUESTA A PRODUCTORES DE LECHUGA

 

(1)Producto: (A) Lechuga:
(2) N° encuesta: di0 nor cl supervisor (Cedigo Pais-Producto-Circuito- Encuestador-Numero

 

encuesta):

Fecha: 3. Pais: 4. Encuestador: 5. Supervisor:

2004 Guatemala = 1 Sergio = 1 Luis F = 1

Mes: Septiembre?_ Nicaragua = 2 Alvin =2 Edwin P. = 2

Fecha: _ Costa Rica = 3 Abigail = 3 Fernando B. = 3
Arturo = 4 Carlos R. = 4
Danilo = 5

 

 

 

 

6. Circuito al que corresponde la encuesta, £1ng por el supervisor:
Supermercado Lider (La Fragua) = 1

Supermercado secontier (Unisuper) = 2

Circuito tradicional = 3

 

Lugar (al menos nombre del sitio y departamento):

 

 

Como llegar:

 

Sefior/Sefiora: Buenos dias/ tardes. gPuede usted atenderme unos minutos?: Mi nombre es.... Estoy
trabajando para el Proyecto Colaborativo de Acceso de Pequeilos y Medianos Productores a Mercados
Dinamicos, y el proyecto Socios para el Desarrollo de la lndustn'a dc Alimentos en Guatemala para ver
cémo estan los pequefios y medianos productores haciendo para vender sus productos en los mercados de
su pais y de la region.

CONTROL 1: He venido a platicar con usted porque me inforrnaron que usted es un productor dc lechuga.
(3E5 correcto? SI NO
[Es Necesario que haya producido lechuga durante el aria agricola anterior (mayo 2003-abri12004), no
necesariamente al momenta de la encuesta]

 

CONTROL 2: También me informo que usted vende su Lechuga a (nombre del Circuito de
comercializacio'n en la pregunta 6), es correcto? SI NO

Si la respuesta a control 1 y/o a control 2 es “no”, debe concluir 1a entrevista.

El estudio es hecho por varios organismos intemacionales que tienen representantes aqui en el pais
(entregue informacio'n con nombre, telefono y direccio'n de organizacio'n y representantes del proyecto en
el pais). Los resultados del estudio se van a usar para tratar de que hayan politicas y pro ectos que mejoren
la comercializacién de los productos de los pequer'ios productores. SU PARTICIPACI N ES
TOTALMENTE VOLUNTARIA Y USTED N O ESTA OBLIGADO A PARTICIPAR. La
informacion que usted me entregue sera totalmente confidencial y sera protegida por las instituciones que

3O

 

esta haciendo este estudio. (gQuiere usted responder la encuesta? Muchas gracias. Ptda en lo posible
sentarse en an [agar adecuado.

 

gSu nombre por favor?

 

 

 

 

 

gTiene teléfono o teléfono celular? gMe miede dar el numero?

 

 

LCémo se llama aqui esta fmca?

 

Encuestador: Debe utilizar los siguientes co'digos en las respuestas de preguntas con
respuesta si, no, nsnr, otra y NC: si = 1, no = 2, nsnr = 3, otra = 4, NC =5

A. Experiencia en produccion de lechugas

(7). gDesde que' afio produce lechugas?
nsnr

(8) gCuél es la actividad productiva principal de esta familia?

Produccién de lechuga

Otra__

nsnr___

(9).;Es usted miembro o socio de una Cooperativa? si no nsnr
Nombres de las cooperativas:

 

PREGUNTAR SOLO SI EN LA 9 respondid que si
(10) (La Cooperativa esta activa?
si no NC nsnr

 

(11) Una Asociacion? si no NC nsnr
Nombre de las asociaciones:

 

 

 

PREGUNTAR SOLO SI EN LA 11 respondio que si
(12) (La Asociacion esta activa?
si no NC nsnr

 

[Activa significa que si se reu'ne, si provee servicios o si la misma vende los productos de sus miembros]

gQue servicios recibe de cualquiera de las organizaciones de productores, sea usted socio o no sea socio?

(13) No corresponde

(14) asistencia técnica si_ no_ nsnr

(15) acceso a insumos si_ no_ nsnr

(16) capacitacion si_ no_ nsnr

(17) servicios de maquinaria si_ no__ nsnr
(18) venta de maquinaria si_ no_ nsnr

31

 

(19) equipos si_ no nsnr

(20) crédito (sea on dinero 0 en insumos o cualquiera otra forma) si_ no_ nsnr
21i) acopio si_ no_ nsnr

(22) seleccién o errrpacado de sus productos si_ no___ nsnr

(23) procesamiento si__ no_ nsnr

(24) mercadeo de sus productos si_ no____ nsnr

(25) transporte de productos a dc insumos si_ no_ nsnr

(26) otros si_ no nsnr (detallar)

 

LY hace cinco afios, usted pertenecia a mas, menos o igual numero de organizaciones o asociaciones?

(27) nunca ha sido socio dc ninguna organizacién o asociacién

 

(28) mas
(29) menos
(30) igual
(3 1) nsnr
B.Hogar

Podria, por favor, contarme quiénes son las personas que conforman su hogar, con las que usted vive?
[Preguntar par todas las miembras del hogar primera par fila y luego hacer las preguntas par cada
miembro (par calumna). Hagar se refiere a susfamiliares directas del productor que residen en la
vivienda]

Nombre (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
Sexo Edad Grado de La semana pasada La semana pasada
1 = mUl'er escuela (,trabajé fuera de la gtrabajo dentro de la
2: hombre finca? finca?
(32) Adultos 15-65
afios
32A Productor
328
32
32D
32E
3
3
326
33 Nifros 0-15 ar'ros
33A
33B
3
33D
33E
33
3
33
33
(34) Mayores > 65
afios
34A
34B

34D
34

 

32

 

I (34F) 1 F l 1

(De qué esta hecha la casa donde usted vive:
(35) material de construccién

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(36) otros

(37) nsnr

gTiene electricidad?

(38) si _

(39) no_

(40) nsnr _

gTiene agua entubada / agua potable en la casa?

(41) si_

(42) no __

(43) nsnr

T ipa de F inca

[Hacer una pregunta y campletar la calumna de actualmente y hace 5 arias y luego pasar a la siguiente

pregunta.

Hacer e1 cdlcula alfinal de la tabla inmediatamente porque serd necesaria usar ese nrlmera mas adelante].

(A) (B)
7 Actuahnentc? Hace 5 afios?

(44). gCuéntas hectares de tierra son de su propiedad 0 de la Hectares Hectares

propiedad de su esposa aqui en esta fmca 0 en otras fincas que nsnr nsnr

usted administre?

(45). gLas tierras que son de su pmpiedad tienen escrituras de Si Si

propiedad a1 dia? No No
NS/NR NS/NR

(46). gCuantas hectares tiene usted, entregadas por otra

persona para que usted las trabaje? Hectares Hectares
nsnr nsnr

(47). gCuantas hectares de tierra tiene tomadas en alquiler?
Hectares Hectares
nsnr nsnr

(48). gCuantas HECTARES de tierra tiene usted tomadas a

medias? Hectares Hectares
nsnr nsnr

(49). gCuantas HECTARES de tierra tiene usted dadas en

alquiler a otras personas de fuera del hogar? Hectares Hectares
nsnr nsnr

(50). gCuantas HECT ARES dc tierra tiene usted dadas a

medias a otras personas de fuera del hogar? Hectares Hectares
nsnr nsnr

 

 

 

33

 

 

 

Encuestador: Haga la siguiente operacidn:
44+46+47+48-49-50= hectares

[" ‘Recuerde que este calcula se utilizara mas adelante y usted
deberd campletarla de este calcula]

 

 

 

(51) Cuanto vale una Hectare de tierra en la zona de su finca?

(52) Cual es el Costa de alquiler por Ha? indique si por _mes 0 par afio

FINCA

De aqui en adelante la encuesta se refiere a tada esta superficie resultante de la aperacia'n de la tiltimafila
del cuadra anterior

(53). LCual es el area que usa para cultivos agricolas (anuales y perennes) de este total de hectares
que usted maneja?
hectares
nsnr
[e1 total de hectares se refiere al calcula 44 + 46 + 47 + 48 - 49 - 50 = hectares realizada
anteriarmente]

(54). LCuantas hectares de ese total se dedicaron a la ganaderia (en pastas)?
hectares
nsnr

(55). LCuantos ciclos/cosechas de lechuga sembro usted el afio agricola pasada, es decir, entre mayo del
2003 a abril del 2004?

temporadas/cosechas de lechuga

nsnr

Para e1 aflo agricola anterior (mayo 2003-abril 2004)

 

Temporada/cosecha N° Lechuga ?
Ha nsnr

 

 

(5 6). LY cuantas hectares sembré e1 ano
agricola anterior (mayo 2003-abril 2004)
en

temporada/cosecha numero 1 de?
(encuestador: calcular area basado en
numero de ciclos por extensién/ciclo)

 

(57). en la temporada/cosecha numero 2
dc?

 

(58). en la temporada/cosecha numero 3
de?

 

(59). en la temporada/cosecha numero 4
de?

 

(60). en la temporada/cosecha numero 5
de?

 

 

(61) Si hay mas ciclos, cual fue el total de
area cultivada en el anogagricola

 

 

 

 

34

Observaciones:

(62). LY ahora en el afio agricola de mayo 1999 a abril 2000, cuantos temporadas/cosechas de lechuga
sembré usted?

temporadas/cosechas de lechuga

nsnr

Para e1 ailo agricola entre mayo 1999 y abril 2000
[Hacer preguntas par fila par tipa de lechuga].

 

Temporada/cosecha N° (A)
Lechuga?
Ha nsnr

 

 

(63). LY cuantas hectares sembro el ailo
agricola anterior (mayo 1999-abril 2000)
en

temporada/cosecha numero 1 dc?
(encuestador: calcular area basado en
numero de ciclos por extension/cicla)

 

(64). temporada/cosecha numero 2 de?

 

(65). temporada/cosecha numero 3 de?

 

(66). temporada/cosecha numero 4 dc?

 

(67). temporada/cosecha numero 5 dc?

 

 

 

 

 

(68) .tcmporada/cosecha numero 6 de?

 

 

Observaciones:
(69) (En todas las HECT ARES que usted manej a, cuantas se pueden regar en un afio normal?
hectares
nsnr
[ T atal las—hectares se refiere al calcula 44 + 46 + 47 + 48 - 49 — 50 = hectares realizada

anteriarmente. El drea que puede regar signified que area tiene actualmente riego]

gCuantas HECTARES de tierra tiene con los diferentes sistemas de riego en el periodo 2003-2004?

[Se refiere al cicla agricola pasada, es decir, entre mayo de12003 a febrera del 2004
Primera pregunte que tipa de riego tiene (porfila) y luego complete Ia infarmacia'n par columna.
Granos bdsicas se refiere afi'ijales, maiz; OB: Otros vegetales son atras hortalizas y frutas]

(A) (B) (C)

Otros Granos basicos

Surco o
1 Goteo

 

(,Cémo regaba en 1999?

(C)
Granos basicos
Surco o vedad

74 Goteo
7

 

35

{Ia fuente de agua de riego es?
(76) no tiene agua de riego

 

(76) rio

(77) (A) pozo artesanal _ (B) Cuantos
(78) (A) pozo mecanico _ (B) Cuantos
(79) nsnr—

(,Si tiene riego, cuanto 1e costo el equipo de riego para Lechuga?
(80) Bomba?=

(81) Pozo mecanico?

(82) Pozo artesanal?:

(83) Car'ros, tuberias y/o canales por Ha?:

(84) Picos aspersores?

(85) Otros—

(86) (Durante cuantas horas a1 dia se riegan las lechugas?

gCual es el costo de operacion del sistema de riego en verano?

(87) costo mensual de electricidad?:_ [si campra las servicios de electricidad]

(88) litros de combustible al dia?: [si utiliza generadar para generar electricidad]

[Se refiere al costo de aperacia'n del aria agricola pasada]

(89) (,A cuantas kildmetros de aqui esta el pueblo donde esta e1 mercado donde usted vende? km
nsnr

Cual es el nombre del mercado?

(90) LA cuantas kilometros de aqui esta la carretera principal? km _nsnr

(91) LY cuanto tarda usted normalmente en llegar en la temporada de secas con el transporte que usted
normalmente usa para ir a la carretera? (A) horas y (B) minutos

(92) gY cuanto tarda en la terrrporada de lluvia? (A) horas y (B) minutos

gComo ara usted ara su tierra?:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(A) (B) (C) (D)
Si=1 Propio = 1 Si es Alquilado, Si es propio, en
No=2 Alquilado = 2 cuanto 1e cuesta que afro lo
Nsnr =3 Prestado = 3 par Ha? conrpro?
Servicio gratuito =
4
(93) Usa tractor?
(94) Animal?
(95) Arado de
estire animal?
(96) Arado para
tractor?
97) Manual?

 

 

 

 

 

(98). LAqui en esta casa, algunos de los rniembros de su hogar son duefios de una carrrioneta o camion?
(A) si_ (B) cuantas?____
(C) N0—
(D) nsnr—

36

 

(99). gCuantas cabezas de ganado tienen los miembros de esta familia?
(A) cabezas de ganado o animales de transporte o arado
(B) nsnr
[pregame cuantas vacas, taras, bueyes, navillas, cabras, avejas, y caballas tiene, same]

(100). LCuéntas cabezas de ganado tenian hace 5 aftos los miembros de esta familia?
(A) cabezas de ganado o animales de transporte o arado
(B) _nsnr

LQué cultivos o pastas sembré e1 afio agricola pasada (mayo 2003 a abril 2004)
[Preguntar par temporada/cosecha primera (par filo), luego preguntar par hectares para otras verduras y
granas bdsicas (par calumna)]

Temporada/cosecha N° Hectares dc (C)
(A) (B) nsnr
Otras verduras Granos basicos

101
102
103
104
105
l

10
108

 

LQué cultivos o pastos sembré e1 afio agricola entre mayo 1999 y abril 2000?
[Preguntar par temporada/casecha primera (par fila), luego preguntar par hectares para atras verduras y
basicas
Temporada/cosecha N° Hectares de (C)
(A) (B) nsnr
Otras verduras Granos basicos

 

109
110
111

112
113
114
115
ll

gCuales son sus tres cultivos mas importantes EN VENTAS?
[Se refiere al cicla agricola del aria pasada de mayo 2003 afebrera 2004]

(117) 1° cultivo
(118) 2° cultivo
(119) 3° cultivo

 

 

 

gEn sus cultivos de Lechuga para el Afro agricola mayo 2003 a feb 2004 cuantas cajas produjo en

[Preguntar par cicla primera (campletar cuantas temporadas/casecha primera), luego preguntar par
hectares para en las calumnas]
LTemporada/cosecha I Lechtga I

 

 

37

 

(A) (B)
Ha Nsnr

 

(120). Total de cajas por ciclo
por numero dc ciclos?

 

(121). la ternporada/cosecha 2?

 

(122). la temporada/cosecha 3?

 

123). la temporada/cosecha 4?

 

(124). la temporada/cosecha 5?

 

 

 

 

 

(125). la temporada/cosecha 6?

 

Encuestador: no alvide preguntar: (126)4' Cudntas libras tiene cada caja de lechuga ?

(12 7) gCudntas libras tiene coda caja de tamate manzana cosechada
9

[En sus cultivos dc Lechuga para el Afio agricola mayo 1999 a feb 2000 cuantas cajas produjo en

[Preguntar par cicla primera (campletar cuantas temporadas/casecha primera), luego preguntar par
hectares en las calumnas]

 

Temporada/cosecha Lechuga

(A) (13)
Ha Nsnr

 

 

(128). Total de cajas por ciclo
por numero de ciclos??

 

(129Lla temporada/cosecha 2?

 

Q30). la ternporada/cosecha 3?

 

(131). la temporada/cosecha 4?

 

(132), la temporada/cosecha 5?

 

 

(133). la temporada/cosecha 6?

 

 

 

 

Encuestador: no alvide preguntar: (I 34) gCua'ntas libras/unidades tiene cada caja de lechuga?
LBS UNIDADES
(I 35) gCudntas libras tiene cada caja de tamate manzana casechado

38

supermercadas”, entances haga las preguntas 165 y 166. Si no, pase a la pregunta 167.]
(165). gEn qué aflo vendio por primera vez cualquier producto agricola a ..... ?

ailo

nsnr

 

(166) {Cuantos dias tarda en pagarle e1 ?
(A) dias
(B) nsnr

(167) LRecibe usted asistencia técnica?
Si No nsnr [Si la respuesta es “N0 " pose a las preguntas [78-188]

(,Quien le da a usted asistencia técnica en cualquiera de sus cultivos?
Haga lapregunta par coda item de lafila primera, luego complete las calumnas]

 

Fuente de asistencia (A) (B) (C) (D)
técnica LES individual a de Es gratuita LCon que frecuencia gTambién
grupo? o paga lo visita en su finca? para lechuga?
0 = esta fuente NO 0 = no
1= Individual 1=si paga 1= semanalmente 1= si
2 = 2-3 veces por 2=nsnr
2= grupo 2=no paga mes 3=nc
3= 1 vez por mes o
menos
4=nsnc

 

(168) Agronomo o técnica
del supermercado

 

(169) Agro'nomo o técnica
de una ernpresa formal
que le compra sus
productos para el
supermercado

 

(170) Agrénomo o técnica
de la asociacion,
cooperativa o grupo

 

(171) Agronomo o técnica
de una ONG o prgyecto

 

(172) Agrénomo o técnica
del gobierno

 

(173) Agronomo o técnica
de las casas comerciales

 

(174) Agroindustn'a

 

175) Los interrnediarios

 

(176) Algun vecino

 

(177) Otra persona u
organizacién

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

gQuien 1e da a usted crédito para cualquiera de sus cultivos o cualquier otro motivo?
flago lo pregunto par coda item de lafila primera, luego complete las calumnos]

 

Fuente de crédito

(A)
gCantidad que le presto en el aflo
agricola mayo 2003 a abril 2004,
para capital de trabajo?

(B)
LCantidad que le presto en el afio
agricola mayo 2003 a abri12004,
para inversion?

 

(178) Banco

 

(179) Supermercado

 

(180) Empresa formal que le
compra sus productos para el
supermercado

 

(181) Asociacion, cooperativa o
grupo

 

18g ONG o proyecto

 

(183) Gobiemo

 

(184) Casas comerciales

 

(185) Agrondustria

 

( 186) Intermediarios
(Comprador)

 

(187) Vecinos o prestamistas

 

(188) Otra persona u
Eganizacion

 

 

 

 

(189) LTiene usted invernadero? (SI=1; No=2)

Si tiene usted invernadero,

(190) Cual es el area (mtsz)

(191) Qué area utiliza para la Lechuga? (mtsZ)
(192) Para qué tipo de Lechuga: iceberg = l_; Lechuga romaine =2 _; Ambos =3__
(193) Es Propio?__ (Si=1; No=2)

(194) Desde qué ano?

(195) Cuénto ha pagado en inversién?

(196) Es Alquilado?_ (Si=1; No=2)

(197) Desde que ar'io?

(198) Cuanto paga por mes? gane'

(199) Nsnr—

Lleva ud. registros de produccién?

(200) si_

(201) no_

(202) nsnr__

40

 

Quisiera ahora hacerle unas preguntas sobre los insumos que usa en la produccién de lechuga [Si el costo
esta desglosada par Ha llene la calumna Cantidad par Ha. Si el costo esta desglosada par drea total de
lechuga, Ilene la calumna Cantidad par drea total y (2031') especrflque cud! es el drea total a que se

 

41

 

Quisiera ahora hacerle unas peguntas sobre los insumos que usa en la produccién de tomate manzana en
[Si el costo esta desglasada par Ha Ilene la calumua Cantidad par Ha; Si e! coma esta desglasada par
drea total de tomato, Ilene Ia calumna Cantidad par area total y (2101') especifique el cual es el drea total

 

42

 

(,Podria informarme sobre el trabajo en el cultivo de lechuga en la ultima temporada/cosecha de lechuga
que haya cosechado por Ha? [Haga las pregunta de uno actividad primera y luego Ilene lasfilas y
_ calumnas de esa actividad antes de ' '

   
    
 
 
 

(217A) Menoresd
(217B) Varonesl

(217C) Mg'Leresl
217D Ma creed

 

5 atlas
5 silos

 

 

 

  

(218A) Menores de 4 atlas
(2188) Varones 15-(5 aflos
(218C) Mujeres 15-(5 altos
218D Ma ores de t 5 ailos

 

 

  
 
 
 

 

 
  

(219A) Menores de 4ailos
(219B)Varonc515-(5 atlas
(219C) Mujges 15-65 atlas
2190 Ma oresdetSanos

 

 

  
  
   
 
   

 

(220A) Menores
(2203) Varones lS-t
(220C) Mujeres 1 HS aflos
220D M ores

   

 

 

 

(221A) Menores d
(2213) Varoncs 15-( S afios
(221 C) Mujeres 1 5-65 afios
ZZID Ma are: de t 5 aflos

r”! ‘ ‘ ,> 1'LL-uhig . . é} . .,. .. L - . . ... v -.: -
222A Menores de 4a os
2228 Var-ones 154 5 at as
222C Mujeres 15-(5 at as
2220 Mayores de t 5 allos

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43

 

P383
(228) {,Cuanto paga por la oosecha de cada caja?
(229). aCuintas cajas se cosecharon? cajas
resultado I Multiplique pregunta 1 x pregunta 2- — page par todas las cajas =
(230) LCuinto se page por jornal normal? por jornal normal
resultada 2 Divide resultado l Ipregunta 3=nl1mero equivalente de jornales en la cosecha
(231) (_Qué porcentaje dc mujeres/ nlflos/ varones participan en la cosecha? _%
resultado 3: multiplique el resultado 2 por el % e ingrese este data en la tabla en l—a categorla que corresponda
Encuestador: Si la clasificacion se page por caja calcule los jamales de la siguiente forma:

 

 

(232) (,Cuinto paga por la daslflcacldn de cada caja? C6rdobasl Quetzales
(233) gCuintas cajas se claslficamn? cajas
resultado 1 Multiplique pregunta l x pregunta 2 = pago par tadm las cajas =

(234) gCuinto so page per jomnl normal? por jornal nornnl

resultado 2 Divida resultado 1 / pregunta 3= m'm'lera equivalente de jomales en la clasificacién

(235) gQué porcentnje de mujereal nlflosl vnrones particlpnn en la claslflcacidn? _%

resultado 3: multipliquc cl resultado 2 por el % e ingrese este data en la tabla en la categoria que corresponda

 

55. LPodria informarme sobre el trabajo en el cultivo del tomate manzana en el ultimo temporada/cosecha
de tomato que haya cosechado par Ha? [Hoga las pregunta de una actividadprimera y luego Ilene las f las
columnas de esa actividad antes de [asar a la si_ iente actividad
are! ' -' ;‘ ~ urea»: master‘s. '

 

(236A) Mcnores de 4 atlas
(2363) Varones 15-t 5 atlas
(236C) Mujeres 15-65 atlas
2360 Ma ores de t 5 atlas
. SEPR , ‘ .RACIGN *3 Eli PARAMSIEMBRA Incl

T_"l7_A) Menores de 4a as
.__B) Varones 15—( 5 at as
(2 7C) Mujeres 15-65 at as
(1 7D) Mayores de t 5 a as

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Menores de 14 ar'los
Varoncs 15.65 afios
M ' 15-65 ailos

de 65 anos

Menores de 14 ar‘ros
Varoncs 15-65 ar’los
M 15-65 atlas

de 65 ar’los

Menores de 14 atlas
Varoncs 15—65 atlas
M ' 15~65 atlas

de 65 anos

Menores de 14 arias
Varoncs 15—65 atlas
M 15-65 al’los

de 65 ai’los

Menores de 14 aflos
Varoncs 15-65 atlas
M 15-65 anos

de 65 atlas

Menores de 14 ar’los
Varoncs 15-65 atlas
M 15-65 ar‘los

do 65 ai’los

Menores de 14 anos
448 Varoncs 15—65 aflos
M 15-65 anos
44D de 65 ailos

45A Menores de 14 atlas
458 Varoncs 15-65 afios
4 M 15-65 atlas
245D de 65 afios

46A Menores de 14 ailos
46B Varoncs 15-65 aflos

 

46C M 15-65 afios
de 65 ailos
Encuestador: Si la cosecha se paga por caja. entonces calcule los jomales de la siguiente forma:
(247) aCuanto paga por la cosecha de cada caja? C6rdobas/ Quetzales
(248) LCuintas cajas se cosecharon? cajas
resultado 1 Multiplique pregunta 1 x pregunta 2 = pago por todas las cajas =
(249) LCII‘IIIO se paga por jornal normal? por jornal normal

resultado 2 Divida resultado l /pregunta 3 = numero equivalente dc jomales en la cosecha

(250) gQué porcentaje de mujeres/ nIIlos/ varones participan en la cosecha? _%

resultado 3: multiplique e1 resultado 2 por el % e ingrese este dato en la tabla en la categoria que corresponda
Encuestador: Si la clasiflcacian se paga por caja calcule los jornales de la siguiente forma:

(251) LCuanto paga par la clasll‘rcacl6n de cada caja? Cdrdobas/ Quetzales
(252) (,Cuintas cajas se claslficaron? cajas

resultado 1 Multiplique pregunta l x pregunta 2 = pago por todm las cajas =
(253) aCudnto se paga por jornal normal? por jornal normal

resultado 2 Divida resultado 1 lpregunta 3 = numero equivalente de jomales en la clasificacion
(254) gQué porcentaje dc mu jeres/ nlilos/ varones participan en la clasiflcaclén? %
resultado 3: multiplique cl resultado 2 por el % e ingrese este data en la tabla en la categoria que corresponda

45

(255) LTiene certificacion de calidad para sus lechugas?
si no on proceso nsnr

 

Si 1a respuesta es si 0 en proceso, pregunte cuales certificaciones?

 

Certificacién (A) (B)
(Si=1; No=2; Requerida o dada por:
Nsnr=3) Supermercado = (1)

Exportador = (2)
Agroindustria = (3)

ONG = (4)
Cooperativa/Asociacion= (5)
Otros= (6)

 

(256) Sello PIPAA

 

(257) Sello Paiz

 

(258) Certificacién Organica

 

(259) Otro? Nombre de la
certificacién

 

(260) Otro? Nombre de la
certificacién

 

 

 

 

 

(261) Si responde “si” en la pregunta (255), gDesde que' afio tiene esta certificacién de calidad?

aflo

nsnr
(262) LDescontando todos los costos que tiene para producir la lechuga que usted vende, cuanto 1e quedo
dc ganancia en el afio agricola mayo 2003 a abri12004?

Ganancia (C6rdobas/Quetzales por ailo)

Pérdida (Co'rdobas/Quetzales por aflo)

Ni pérdida ni ganancia

(263) (Preguntar sdla si e! productor vende a supermercadas a a empresa que compra para las
supermercadas). LDesde que su lechuga se vende a superrnercados usted econémicamente anda ..?

Mej or
Pear
Igual
Nsnr

{,Qué tan conveniente son los siguientes canales de comercializacion para un productor de lechuga coma
usted?

 

(A) MALO (B) BUENO (C) REGULAR (D) NSNR

 

(264) Entrega directa a un
supermercado

 

 

(265) A una empresa que
compra para un
supermercado

 

 

 

 

 

 

46

 

(266) A un intermediario
aqui en la finca

 

(267) L0 transporta y lo
vende a un interrnediario en
un mercado mayorista

 

(268) La transporta al
mercado y lo vende a usted
mismo a los consumidores

 

(269) L0 entrega
directamente a un
exportador

 

(270) L0 vende a una
agroindustria para procesar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(271) Otro

 

Para terminar, quisiera ahora preguntarle su opinion sabre cual de estos canales dc comercializacién le
conviene mas

 

Categoria (A) (B) Intermediario (C) Llevar a1 (D)
Supermercado en la finca mercado Nsnr
(La Fragua, mayorista en
Unisuper) el pueblo

 

(272) El precio

 

(273) Seguridad de
acceso continua a este
mercado?

 

(274) Cantidad de
lechuga vendido

 

(275) Rechazo de
producto

 

(276) Calidad del
lechuga

 

(277) Asistencia
técnica

 

(278) Cre’dito

 

(279) Facilidad de
venta

 

(280) Seriedad del
comprador

 

(281) Respeto de las
agos

 

282) Pago rapido

 

 

(283) Otros beneficios
que le da e1 comprador
(detallar abajo del
cuadro)

 

 

 

 

 

 

47

References

Balsevich, F., Berdegue, J., Flores, L., Mainville, D., Reardon, T., Busch, L., Unneverhr,
L., 2003. “ Supermarkets and Produce Quality and Safety Standards in Latin America”.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75 (5).

Balsevich, F., Reardon, T., Berdegue, J., Hernandez, R., Jano, P., 2004. “Acceso de
pequefios productores de tomate a los supermercados en Nicaragua”. Working paper.

Barharn, 3., Clark, M., Katz, E., Shurman, R., 1992. “ Nontraditional Agricultural
Exports in Latin America”. Latin American Research Review, 27, (2): 43-82.

Belik, W., 2000. "Mecanismos de coordenacao na distribuicao de
alimentos no Brasil." Abastecimento e seguranca alimentar: Os limites da
liberalizacao. W. Belik and R. S. Maluf. Campinas, UNICAMP: 131-159.

Berdegue, J .A., F. Balsevich, L. Flores, and T. Reardon. 2005. “Central American
Supermarkets’ Private Standards of Quality and Safety in Procurement of Fresh Fruits
and Vegetables,” Food Policy, accepted July.

Berdegue, J., Balsevich, F., F lores, L., Reardon, T., 2004. “ Central American
Supermarkets’ Private Standards of Quality and Safety in Procurement of Fresh Fruits
and Vegetables”. Food Policy.

Calderon J ., 2002. “Acceso de Pequeflos y Medianos Agricultores a1 Mercado
de Supermercados”. AGEXPRONT, Division de Desarrollo. Guatemala. (non-published)

Escobal, J .A., 2000. “ Competitividad y Eficiencia en la Comercializacion Mayorista de
Alimentos en el Peru”. Concentracién de los segmentos de transforrnacion y mercadeo
del sistema agroalimentario y sus efectos sobre los pobres rurales, Satiago de Chile.

FAO hgpzl/www.fao.orgzenglish/newsroom/news/2003/23060-en.html

Farina, E., 2002. “ Consolidation, Multinationalization, and Competition in Brazil:
Impacts on Horticulture and Dairy Product Systems”. Development Policy Review,
2002, 20 (4): 441-457.

Florida, U. 0., 1991. “The Importance of Wholesale Produce Markets”. University of

Florida and USDA in cooperation with the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services.

48

Granados, J .C., 2004. “Analis del Comercio Regional y Extragional de Frutas y
Hortalizas en Centro America”. PFID-F&V, Michigan State University. Report non-
published.

Hernandez, R., Reardon, T., Berdegue, J., Balsevich, F., Jana, P., 2004. “Acceso de
pequefios productores de tomate a los supermercados en Guatemala”. Working paper.

Manville, D., 2004. “ Strategic Responses to Structural Change in Agrifood Markets:
Essays on the Fresh Produce Market of Sao Paulo, Brazil”. Michigan State University,
Dissertation.

Reardon. T. and , J. Berdegue, 2002. “ The Rapid Rise of Supermarkets in Latin
America: Challenges and Opportunities for Development”. Development Policy
Review 20(4) : 371-388.

 

Reardon. T. and E. Farina, , 2003. “ The Rise of Private Food Quality and Safety
Standards: Illustrations from Brazil”. Intemflogrl Food and Agribusiness Ma_nagement
Review.

Reardon, T., C.P. Timmer, C.B. Barrett, J. Berdegue. 2003. “The Rise of Supermarkets in
Africa, Asia, and Latin America,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85 (5),
December: 1140-1146.

Farina, E. 2002. “Consolidation, Multinationalization, and Competition in the
Supermarket and Processing Sectors in Brazil: Impacts on Horticulture and Dairy.”
Development Policy Review 20(4): 441 —457

 

Sadoulet, E. and A. de J anvry, , 1995. “ Quantitative Development Policy Analysis”.
Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

Seidler, E., 2001. “Wholesale Market Development”. 22nd Congress of the World Union
of Wholesale Markets, Durban, South Africa.

Tropp, D., D. Skully and J. Link, 2002. “Mexico's Changing Marketing System for Fresh

Produce: Emerging Markets, Practices, Trends, and Issues”. Washington DC,
Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture.

49

 

rilllljjlllljlllljljll