Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural
http://www.resr.periodikos.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/1806-9479.2023.276821
Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural
ARTIGO ORIGINAL

Comportamento face ao risco e estratégias de subsistência dos produtores de cacau biológico em São Tomé e Príncipe

RIsk behaviour and livelihood strategies of organic cocoa producers in São Tomé and Príncipe

Ibrahim Prazeres; Maria Raquel Lucas; Ana Marta-Costa; Pedro Henriques

Downloads: 0
Views: 185

Resumo

O cacau é uma importante atividade sociocultural e económica em São Tomé e Príncipe (STP) e o maior contribuinte para o PIB e para as exportações do país. No entanto, os pequenos produtores ligados a esta cadeia de valor, pertencentes a duas cooperativas, enfrentam vários problemas e desafios relacionados à continuidade da produção de cacau biológico, com algumas vantagens relacionadas ao superior valor de mercado superior e sabor fino ou, à sua substituição por outras atividades mais produtivas e rentáveis. Este trabalho teve como objetivo analisar o comportamento face ao risco dos produtores de cacau biológico de STP no contexto das suas estratégias de subsistência, através da aplicação de um questionário a uma amostra de 230 famílias rurais. Os resultados mostraram não haver diferenças de governança entre as duas cooperativas. Um modelo teórico foi usado para determinar as relações entre as componentes de risco e as estratégias de subsistência. Os resultados mostram que as perceções de risco são mais importantes do que as atitudes de risco na decisão de estratégias de mitigação de risco. Além disso, as perceções desempenham um papel mediador entre as atitudes de risco dos agricultores e as estratégias de gestão de risco adotadas por eles. Estes resultados defendem medidas de política orientadas para as perceções de risco dos agricultores, a fim de implementar estratégias de gestão de risco bem-sucedidas.

Palavras-chave

cacau biológico, produtores, comportamento, estratégias, risco

Abstract

Abstract: The cocoa is an important socio-cultural and economic activity in São Tomé and Príncipe (STP) and the largest contributor to country’s GDP and exports. However, small producers linked to this chain, connected into two cooperatives, faced several significant trade-offs between the organic cocoa production, with some advantages related to its superior market value and fine flavour or, to replace it, with others more productive and profitable crops. This study aimed to analyse the risk behaviour of organic cocoa producers in STP in the context of their livelihood strategies, through the application of a questionnaire to a sample of 230 rural families. The results showed no differences in governance between the two cooperatives. A theoretical model was used to determine the relationships between risk components and livelihood strategies. The results show that risk perceptions are more important than risk attitudes in deciding risk mitigation strategies. Furthermore, perceptions play a mediating role between farmers' risk attitudes and the risk management strategies adopted by them. These results advocate policy measures geared towards farmers' perceptions of risk in order to implement successful risk management strategies.

Keywords

organic cocoa, smallholders, behaviour, strategies, risk

Referências

Cárcamo, J., & von Cramon-Taubadel, S. (2016). Assessing small raspberry producers’ risk and ambiguity preferences: evidence from field-experiment datain rural Chile (Discussion Paper, No. 1610). Recuperado em 15 de janeiro de 2022, de https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/document/download/65c68a70b754c4c7e7fb2ddacf274575.pdf/Carcamo_DARE_discussion_paper1610.pdf

Díaz-Montenegro, J. (2019). Livelihood strategies of cacao producers in Ecuador: effects of national policies to support cacao farmers and specialty Cacao Landrace (Tese de doutorado). Institut de Sostenibilitat, Universidade Politécnica de Catalunha, Barcelona, Espanha.

Ellis, F. (2000). The determinants of rural livelihood diversification in developing countries. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(2), 289-302.

Fahad, S., Wang, J., Khan, A. A., Ullah, A., Ali, U., Hossain, M. S., Khan, Huong, N. T. L., Yang, X., Hu, G., & Bilal, A. (2018). Evaluation of farmers’ attitude and perception toward production risk: lessons from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 24(6), 1710-1722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1460799

Hansson, H., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2014). Decision making for animal health and welfare: integrating risk-benefit analysis with prospect theory. Risk Analysis, 34(6), 1149-1159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.12154

Iqbal, M. A., Ping, Q., Abid, M., Muhammad Muslim Kazmi, S., & Rizwan, M. (2016). Assessing risk perceptions and attitude among cotton farmers: a case of Punjab province, Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 16, 68-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.01.009

Jansen, H. G. P., Pender, J., Damon, A., & Schipper, R. (2006). Rural development policies and sustainable land use in the hillside areas of Honduras: a quantitative livelihoods approach (Research Report, No. 147). Washington, DC: IFPRI. Recuperado em 15 de janeiro de 2022, de https://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/125233/filename/125234.pdf

Liu, E. M. (2012). Time to change what to sow: risk preferences and technology adoption decisions of cotton farmers in China. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(4), 1386-1403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00295

Liu, Z. F., Chen, Q. R., Xie, H. L. (2018). Comprehensive evaluation of farm household livelihood assets in a western mountainous area of China: a case study in Zunyi City. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 9(2), 154-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2018.02.005

McIntosh, C., Povel, F., & Sadoulet, E. (2019). Utility, risk, and demand for incomplete insurance: lab experiments with Guatemalan cooperatives. Economic Journal (London), http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ej/uez005

Meraner, M., & Finger, R. (2017). Risk perceptions, preferences and management strategies: evidence from a case study using German livestock farmers. Journal of Risk Research, 9877(July), 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1351476

Mu, J. E., McCarl, B. A., Sleeter, B., Abatzoglou, J. T., & Zhang, H. (2018). Adaptation with climate uncertainty: an examination of agricultural land use in the United States. Land Use Policy, 77, 392-401.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - OECD. (2009). Managing risk in agriculture: a holistic approach. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264075313-en.

Paul, C. J., Weinthal, E. S., Bellemare, M. F., & Jeuland, M. A. (2016). Social capital, trust, and adaptation to climate change: evidence from rural Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change-Human Policy Dimension, 36, 124-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.12.003

Prazeres, I. (2019). Estratégia de marketing e criação de valor do cacao biológico de São Tomé e Príncipe no mercado internacional (Tese de mestrado). Universidade de Évora, Évora. Recuperado em 15 de janeiro de 2022, de http://hdl.handle.net/10174/25358

Prazeres, I., Lucas, M. R., & Marta-Costa, A. (2021). Cocoa markets and value chain: dynamics and challenges for São Tomé and Príncipe organic smallholders. International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, 7(2), 64-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.18775/ijied.1849-7551-7020.2015.72.2005

Prazeres, I., Lucas, M. R., Marta-Costa, A., & Henriques, P. D. (2022). Livelihod Strategies of organic cocoa producers in São Tomé and Principe. In H. Ribeiro, T. Susak & V. Halug (Eds.), 78th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development (pp. 263-274). Recuperado em 15 de janeiro de 2022, de https://www.esd-conference.com/past-conferences.

Rahman, S. (2016). Impacts of climate change, agroecology and socio-economic factors on agricultural land use diversity in Bangladesh (1948e2008). Land Use Policy, 50, 169-178.

Suh, N. N., & Molua, E. (2022). Cocoa production under climate variability and farm management challenges: Some farmers’ perspective. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 8, 100282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100282

van Winsen, F., de Mey, Y., Lauwers, L., Van Passel, S., Vancauteren, M., & Wauters, E. (2014). Determinants of risk behaviour: effects of perceived risks and risk attitude on farmer’s adoption of risk management strategies. Journal of Risk Research, 9(1), 56-78. Recuperado em 15 de janeiro de 2022, de http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13669877.2014.940597

Ward, P. S., & Singh, V. (2015). Using field experiments to elicit risk and ambiguity preferences: behavioural factors and the adoption of new agricultural technologies in rural India. The Journal of Development Studies, 51(6), 707-724. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2014.989996

Wauters, E., van Winsen, F., Mey, Y., & Lauwers, L. (2014). Risk perception, attitudes towards risk and risk management: evidence and implications. Agricultural Economics, 60(9), 389-405. Recuperado em 15 de janeiro de 2022, de https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/5757619

Xu, D., Deng, X., Guo, S., & Liu, S. (2019). Sensitivity of livelihood strategy to livelihood capital: an empirical investigation using nationally representative survey data from rural China. Social Indicators Research, 144(1), 113-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2037-6

Xu, D., Zhang, J., Rasul, G., Liu, S., Xie, F., Cao, M., & Liu, E. (2015). Household livelihood strategies and dependenceon agriculture in the mountainous settlements in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China. Sustainability, 7(5), 4850-4869. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su7054850

Yang, L., Liu, M., Lun, F., Min, Q., Zhang, C., & Li, H. (2018). Livelihood assets and strategies among rural households: comparative analysis of rice and dryland terrace systems in China. Sustainability, 10(7), 2525. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10072525

Zhang, L., Song, J., Hua, X., Li, X., Ma, D., & Ding, M. (2022). Smallholder rice farming practices across livelihood strategies: a case study of the Poyang Lake Plain, China. Journal of Rural Studies, 89, 199-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.12.001
 


Submetido em:
08/08/2023

Aceito em:
29/09/2023

653fc4eaa953953bee5af334 resr Articles
Links & Downloads

resr

Share this page
Page Sections