There is increasing recognition that significant hidden costs associated with agrifood systems are not reflected in market prices. Coffee is among the three most traded agricultural commodities in the world and supports the livelihoods of more than 30 million smallholder households. This study quantifies the environmental and social hidden costs of coffee value chains in three countries in Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Uganda, and Tanzania) to guide interventions to address them. We apply and refine simplified True Cost Accounting (TCA) methodologies to quantify environmental hidden costs associated with climate, soil, water, and biodiversity, as well as social hidden costs associated with child labour, gender inequality, and the living income gap. We use the marginal damage cost approach of Lord (2023) to monetize externalities and quantify significant social and environmental hidden costs that add up to USD 5–7 per kilogram of coffee. These hidden costs equal 70%–125% of the farm gate price for Arabica and about twice the farm gate price for Robusta, relative to average prices at the time of the surveys. Hidden costs associated with the living income gap constitute the largest share, particularly in Ethiopia. Large variations in hidden costs across different production systems and regions underscore the importance of detailed value chain assessments to take action to address these hidden costs.
There is increasing recognition that significant hidden costs associated with agrifood systems are not reflected in market prices. Coffee is among the three most traded agricultural commodities in the world and supports the livelihoods of more than 30 million smallholder households. This study quantifies the environmental and social hidden costs of coffee value chains in three countries in Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Uganda, and Tanzania) to guide interventions to address them. We apply and refine simplified True Cost Accounting (TCA) methodologies to quantify environmental hidden costs associated with climate, soil, water, and biodiversity, as well as social hidden costs associated with child labour, gender inequality, and the living income gap. We use the marginal damage cost approach of Lord (2023) to monetize externalities and quantify significant social and environmental hidden costs that add up to USD 5–7 per kilogram of coffee. These hidden costs equal 70%–125% of the farm gate price for Arabica and about twice the farm gate price for Robusta, relative to average prices at the time of the surveys. Hidden costs associated with the living income gap constitute the largest share, particularly in Ethiopia. Large variations in hidden costs across different production systems and regions underscore the importance of detailed value chain assessments to take action to address these hidden costs.
There is increasing recognition that significant hidden costs associated with agrifood systems are not reflected in market prices. Coffee is among the three most traded agricultural commodities in the world and supports the livelihoods of more than 30 million smallholder households. This study quantifies the environmental and social hidden costs of coffee value chains in three countries in Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Uganda, and Tanzania) to guide interventions to address them. We apply and refine simplified True Cost Accounting (TCA) methodologies to quantify environmental hidden costs associated with climate, soil, water, and biodiversity, as well as social hidden costs associated with child labour, gender inequality, and the living income gap. We use the marginal damage cost approach of Lord (2023) to monetize externalities and quantify significant social and environmental hidden costs that add up to USD 5–7 per kilogram of coffee. These hidden costs equal 70%–125% of the farm gate price for Arabica and about twice the farm gate price for Robusta, relative to average prices at the time of the surveys. Hidden costs associated with the living income gap constitute the largest share, particularly in Ethiopia. Large variations in hidden costs across different production systems and regions underscore the importance of detailed value chain assessments to take action to address these hidden costs.
We contribute to the understanding of household resilience to shocks by using high-frequency data collected in short spans of two to three months. We examine three issues: first, whether frequent shocks within the year affect households’ food security in short periods of two to three months. Secondly, whether Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis (RIMA II) can be used to measure the resilience capacity of households to shocks using high-frequency data, and whether the accumulation of shocks erodes this resilience. Thirdly, whether the resilience estimation using RIMA II compares closely with the subjective resilience measure. Our study reveals that (1) shocks specifically drought and theft of agriculture produce within the year affect the food security of the households, (2) RIMA-II metrics can be used to measure the resilience capacity of households with high-frequency data collected in six months duration, (3) the asset pillar is a crucial factor in ensuring the resilience of households within short periods (4) RIMA II and the subjective resilience measure are moderately comparable and each may identify different factors that constitute resilience. The results highlight the need for development and humanitarian agencies to consider supporting asset building and non-farm income-generating activities to moderate the effects of shocks on resilience.
We contribute to the understanding of household resilience to shocks by using high-frequency data collected in short spans of two to three months. We examine three issues: first, whether frequent shocks within the year affect households’ food security in short periods of two to three months. Secondly, whether Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis (RIMA II) can be used to measure the resilience capacity of households to shocks using high-frequency data, and whether the accumulation of shocks erodes this resilience. Thirdly, whether the resilience estimation using RIMA II compares closely with the subjective resilience measure. Our study reveals that (1) shocks specifically drought and theft of agriculture produce within the year affect the food security of the households, (2) RIMA-II metrics can be used to measure the resilience capacity of households with high-frequency data collected in six months duration, (3) the asset pillar is a crucial factor in ensuring the resilience of households within short periods (4) RIMA II and the subjective resilience measure are moderately comparable and each may identify different factors that constitute resilience. The results highlight the need for development and humanitarian agencies to consider supporting asset building and non-farm income-generating activities to moderate the effects of shocks on resilience.
We contribute to the understanding of household resilience to shocks by using high-frequency data collected in short spans of two to three months. We examine three issues: first, whether frequent shocks within the year affect households’ food security in short periods of two to three months. Secondly, whether Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis (RIMA II) can be used to measure the resilience capacity of households to shocks using high-frequency data, and whether the accumulation of shocks erodes this resilience. Thirdly, whether the resilience estimation using RIMA II compares closely with the subjective resilience measure. Our study reveals that (1) shocks specifically drought and theft of agriculture produce within the year affect the food security of the households, (2) RIMA-II metrics can be used to measure the resilience capacity of households with high-frequency data collected in six months duration, (3) the asset pillar is a crucial factor in ensuring the resilience of households within short periods (4) RIMA II and the subjective resilience measure are moderately comparable and each may identify different factors that constitute resilience. The results highlight the need for development and humanitarian agencies to consider supporting asset building and non-farm income-generating activities to moderate the effects of shocks on resilience.
Les médias en ligne et journaux parus ce jeudi 19 février à Kinshasa, commentent largement l’initiative de mettre en place la commission « vérité et réconciliation » afin de baliser le chemin au dialogue national inclusif en République démocratique du Congo proposée par Conseil interreligieux Congolais (CIC).