27 APPENDIX Table B1 – Descriptive table: Characteristics of the studied farms NICARAGUA1 NICARAGUA BRAZIL2 2014 2016 T-C 2016 T-C

(1)

27

APPENDIX

Table B1 – Descriptive table: Characteristics of the studied farms

NICARAGUA1 _NICARAGUA _BRAZIL2

2014 2016 T-C 2016 T-C

Treatment farm

Control 1

Control 2

Treatment farm

Control 1

Control

2 Difference

Treatment 1

Treatment

2 Control Difference

Number of farms 1 3 1 1 3 1 - 1 2 13 -

Other certification No Yes No No Yes No - Yes Yes Yes -

Farm size (ha) 187.68 159.70 100.74 192.31 154.85 108.11 -70.65 1,566.00 4,284.00 2,600.00 3,250.00

Coffee area (ha) 151.80 88.30 96.60 162.24 98.60 100.00 -36.36 605.00 2,838.00 1,570.00 1,873.00

Permanent workers (max) ₈₀ 38 44 ₇₀ ₅₆ 80 -66 189 529 177 541

(of which interviewed) ₃₇ 53 6 ₄₀ ₄₃ 9 -12 73 167 112 128

Temporary workers (max.) 550 213 800 560 215 600 -255 317 230 108 439

(of which interviewed) 162 210 82 145 192 79 -126 109 76 88 97

Production (quintals)3 _4,500 _1,933 _6,116 _4,552 _1,717 _4,865 _-2,030 _- _- _-

Production (kg) 207,000 88,918 281,336 209,392 78,967 223,790 -93,365 3,796,680 1,500,000 2,296,680

Production (bags) 3,450 1,482 4,689 3,490 1,316 3,730 -1,556 63,278 25,000 38,278

Yield (quintals/ha) 29.64 23.43 63.31 28.06 17.41 48.65 -38.00 - - - -

Yield (tons/ha) 1.36 1.01 2.91 1.29 0.80 2.24 -1.75 1.10 0.96 0.15

Quantity sold under FT (bags) - - - 0 - - - 640 - -

Quantity sold under other certifications (bags) - - - - 3,239 - - 38,302 17,000 21,302

No certified coffee sold (bags) - - - 3,491 - 777 - - - - -

Coffee sold in international market - - - Yes Yes Yes - Yes No -

Premium received from other certifications or extra

price paid by buyers? - - - Yes Yes No - No Yes -

(2)

28

Table B2

–

Descriptive: households’ characteristics

Nicaragua Brazil

2014 2016 2014-2016 2015 T-C

Total Treatment Control Total Treatment Control Difference Total Treatment Control Difference

FTUSA certified (1=Yes, 0=No) 0.362 - - 0.364 - - - 0.68 - - -

HOUSEHOLD CHARACHTERISTICS

Household size 4.881 _5.25 _4.66 _4.88 _5.07 _4.77 _0.00 _3.52 _3.54 _3.46 _0.09

Maximum years of education in the household 6.981 _7.53 _6.66 _7.111 _7.64 _6.81 _-0.14 _9.58 _9.73 _9.24

0.49*

Proportion of women 0.49 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.01 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.00

Number of farmworkers 1.61 1.74 1.54 1.881 _1.96 _1.84 _-0.27*** _1.22 _1.17 _1.31

-0.13***

Dependency ratio 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.03 0.69 0.68 0.70 -0.02

Proportion of family members employed 0.421 _0.39 _0.44 _0.391 _0.36 _0.41 _0.03 _0.63 _0.62 _0.63 _-0.01

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Percentage of people with food security2 ₁₉1 ₁₁ ₂₃ ₂₉1 ₂₁ ₃₄ _-0.10*** ₉₇ ₉₇ ₉₈

-1

Monthly salary (US$) 121.31 _124.6 _119.4 _96.91 _81.7 _105.6 _24.40*** _334.2 _329.0 _345.1

-16.12 Income from the studied farm (US$) 880.6 898.8 870.1 683.2 707.4 669.2 197.45** 3251.4 3219.3 3320.1 -100.88 Income from other sources (US$)3 _746.21 _791.8 _717.7 _1480.01 _1921.0 _{1181.0 -733.80*** 2766.0} _3266.6 _{1702.2 1564.41**} Percentage of income from the studied farms 68.5 66.3 69.8 73.6 68.3 76.6 -0.05*** 67.5 64.9 73.0 -0.08

Percentage of income from other crops4 _7.11 _4.4 _8.7 _30.31 _21.8 _32.7 _-0.23*** _0.5 _0.6 _0.2 _0.00

Percentage of income from non- agricultural sources 24.41 _29.2 _21.7 _49.71 _55.9 _44.0 _-0.25*** _32.2 _34.6 _26.8

0.08***

Land ownership (%) 31.31 _29.2 _32.5 _30.01 _32.2 _27.0 _0.01*** _2.0 _2.6 _1.0 _0.02**

Probability of being under the poverty line (%)5 _50.1 _52.2 _48.9 _46.9 _47.3 _46.7 _0.03*** _17.7 _16.4 _20.4

-0.04**

Observations 550 199 351 508 185 323 625 425 200

*** p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1.

The table reports the descriptive characteristics of Brazil and Nicaragua (baseline and end line). The first column of each group reports the total average, while the second and the third show respectively the average of the treatment and the control group. It is also reported the difference between baseline and end line in Nicaragua and between treatment and control in Brazil, with their significance levels. (1) The difference between treatment and control group is statistically significant. (2) Food security is measured with the ELSCA

index(3) Income from other sourcesincludes the income from farmworkers’ own land and from other non-agricultural sources. (4) Other cropsrefers to farmworkers’ own crops.

(3)

29

MAPS OF THE STUDIED FARMS

Figure 1 - Research sites in Nicaragua

Source: International center for tropical agriculture (2014)

Figure 2 – Research sites in Brazil

(4)

30

TABLE C1: INDEX OF WELFARE

ONLY NICARAGUA BOTH ONLY BRAZIL

WELFARE

EDUCATION

How easy do you find to access education?

Did the farm provide you with aids to education?

Did the farm provided you or a other members of the family with courses?

HEALTH

Household's distance from the closest healthcare centre?

How wasy do you find itto access healthcare services? Do uou have access to medical

assistance?

LIVING STANDARDS Per capita income

Assets - House quality: toilet or latrine; electricity; material of the

house; fuel

Assets - House quality: water through

pipes, number of rooms in the house

Assets - Transports: bycicle, motobike Assets - Transports: car Assets - Non-productive assets:

mixer, iron, television

Assets - Non-productive assets: radio

phone

Assets - Non-productive assets: internet, computer, fridge; washing machine,

microwave Assets - Animals for production: pigs,

hens, horse

Does you family own land? Does you family own a house?

FOOD SECURITY ELSCA INDEX

SATISFACTION LEVEL

How satisfied are you with food

(5)

31

TABLE C2: INDEX OF EMPOWERMENT

ONLY NICARAGUA BOTH ONLY BRAZIL

INVOLVEMENT IN

POLITICAL LIFE

How involved do you feel in politica life

(Local-Regional-National)?

How much influence do you have in politics, at community

level?

How involved do you feel in the decision-making of the community where you live?

WORKING HOURS Average number of hours

worker per day

CONTRACTS

Percentage of farm workers in the household having a

written contract

Percentage of farm workers in the household having a

long-term contract WORKING

ENVIRONMENT

How stable do you find your job?

How easy is for workers to discuss work-related issues with the farm management

board?

How easy would it be for you to change job position?

ORGANIZATION Percentage of workers

involved in FTUSA Percentage of workers

involve in syndacates Percentage of workers invoved in toher cooperative

Percentage of workers involve in groups of women

Percentage of workers involved in comunal groups

Percentage of workers

(6)

32

GRAPH 1: PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING IN NICARAGUA

GRAPH 2: PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING IN BRAZIL

Graph 1 and 2 show the results of the propensity score matching. They show the distribution of the propensity scores in the treatment and control group before and after the matching. The overlapped zone corresponds to the area of common support.

0

1

2

3

0 .2 .4 .6 .8

propensity scores BEFORE matching

treated control 0 1 2 3 k d e n s it y _ p s c o re

.2 .4 .6 .8

propensity scores AFTER matching

treated control 0 1 2 3 4

.2 .4 .6 .8 1

propensity scores BEFORE matching

treated control 0 1 2 3 4 k d e n s it y _ p s c o re

.2 .4 .6 .8 1

propensity scores AFTER matching

(7)

33

TABLE D1

–

NICARAGUA: Propensity score matching

–

Estimation of the p-score

Table D1 reports the results of the logit regression of the independent variables on the treatment, in order to calculate the propensity score used to match control and treated units.

(1)

VARIABLES

treatment

Household size

0.0321

(0.0281)

Proportion of female workers in the household

-0.00215

(0.165)

Proportion of permanent workers in the household

0.450**

(0.204)

Mean years of education of workers

0.0565

(0.0630)

Mean years of education squared

-9.13e-05

(0.00518)

Working years in the farm

0.194***

(0.0379)

Working years in the farm squared

-0.00592***

(0.00181)

Dependency ratio

-0.526

(0.357)

Log of distance from farm

-0.0426

(0.0475)

Workers age

0.00592

(0.00736)

Proportion of workers in the household

-1.271***

(0.396)

Literacy ratio

0.262 (0.316)

Someone in the family working in another farm (1=yes, 2=no)

-0.0106

(0.132)

Constant

-1.421***

(0.522)

Pseudo R-squared

0.107 Observations

508

(8)

34

TABLE D2

–

BRAZIL: Propensity score matching

–

Estimation of the p-score

Table D2 report the results of the logit regression of the independent variables on the treatment, in order to calculate the propensity score used to match control and treated units.

(i)

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Treatment

Household size 0.0398

(0.0439) Proportion of permanent workers in the household 0.176

(0.126)

Literacy ratio 0.0307

(0.306)

Mean years of education of workers 0.0951*

(0.0566)

Mean years of education squared -0.00462

(0.00359)

Dependency ratio -0.157

(0.294)

Working years in the farm 0.0742***

(0.0238)

Working years in the farm squared -0.00222***

(0.000821)

Proportion of women in the household -0.0212

(0.245)

Workers age 0.0240

(0.0282)

Workers age squared -0.000238

(0.000315) Proportion of employed people in the household -0.0414

(0.247) Presence of a field workers in the family (1=yes, 2=no) -0.752***

(0.163) Presence of an administrative worker in the family (1=yes, 2=no) -0.568**

(0.265) -0.481***

(0.164) Family member working in another farm (1=yes, 2=no) -0.280* (0.156)

Constant -0.185

(0.732)

Pseudo R-squared 0.0566

Observations 625

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

(9)

35

TABLE E1 – NICARAGUA -

Propensity score matching:

test of differences in means

Table E1 reports the results of the t-test between treated and control units in the variables used to calculate the propensity score. The p-values reported in columns (iv) reveal that in the matched sample there are not statistically significant differences between treated and control units, which means that the matching was successful. The results are confirmed by the standardized percentage bias reported in column (iii), which needs to be less than 10%.

Variable Matched Treated Control %bias t p>t

U 5.0649 4.7709 12.9 1.41 0.159 M 5.0649 5.0234 1.8 0.17 0.86

U 0.41295 0.41862 -1.5 -0.16 0.871 M 0.41295 0.43835 -6.8 -0.69 0.493

U 0.77054 0.77085 -0.1 -0.01 0.993 M 0.77054 0.77241 -0.5 -0.05 0.96

U 5.3179 4.4088 28.5 3.08 0.002 M 5.3179 5.2913 0.8 0.08 0.937

U 38.17 29.866 23.5 2.57 0.01 M 38.17 37.392 2.2 0.21 0.834

U 5.9782 4.1218 42.6 4.68 0 M 5.9782 5.7924 4.3 0.4 0.703

U 56.43 34.18 21.1 2.27 0.023 M 56.43 53.327 2.9 0.32 0.761

U 0.3303 0.32593 2.1 0.22 0.824 M 0.3303 0.32787 1.2 0.1 0.971

U 3.2312 3.4534 -15.4 -1.63 0.104 M 3.2312 3.1981 2.3 0.23 0.821

U 30.46 30.665 -2.1 -0.22 0.826 M 30.46 30.052 4.1 0.43 0.665

U 0.35624 0.40647 -27.1 -2.87 0.004 M 0.35624 0.34918 3.8 0.4 0.703

U 0.83769 0.7822 23.2 2.45 0.015 M 0.83769 0.83642 0.5 0.06 0.955

U 0.48649 0.52322 -7.3 -0.8 0.426 M 0.04849 0.48367 0.6 0.05 0.957 Mean years of education

Mean t-test

Household size

Percetage of female working in the farm

Porcentage of permanent workers

Proportion of employed people in the household

Proportion of peole older than 8 who can read and write

Family member working in another farm (1=yes, 2=no)

Mean years of education squared

Mean working years

Mean working years squared

Dependency ratio

Distance from the studied farm

(10)

36

TABLE E2: BRAZIL

–

Propensity score matching: test of difference in means

See note to table E1.

t-test

Variable Matched Treated Control %bias t p>t

U 3.5435 3.455 5.7 0.66 0.51 M 3.5183 3.4663 3.3 0.47 0.64

U 0.43961 0.45 -2.1 -0.25 0.803 M 0.44214 0.3954 9.6 1.39 0.165

U 0.92016 0.89783 11.6 1.38 0.169 M 0.91822 0.91748 0.4 0.06 0.954

U 6.4973 6.1547 9.6 1.12 0.261 M 6.4892 6.5656 -2.1 -0.31 0.756

U 54.439 51.254 5.8 0.69 0.491 M 54.542 55.318 -1.4 -0.2 0.84

U 0.19994 0.21249 -5.9 -0.69 0.489 M 0.20024 0.20639 -2.9 -0.41 0.681

U 7.092 5.7942 18.7 2.17 0.031 M 6.8641 7.1853 -4.6 -0.66 0.512

U 100.13 79.85 10.3 1.2 0.232 M 95.591 101.21 -2.9 -0.4 0.686

U 0.45755 0.45492 1.1 0.13 0.893 M 0.45662 0.4594 -1.2 -0.17 0.862

U 42.308 41.896 3.3 0.39 0.698 M 42.126 42.334 -1.7 -0.25 0.805

U 1935.3 1921.8 1.2 0.15 0.883 M 1921.5 1934.7 -1.2 -0.18 0.857

U 0.62257 0.63148 -3.2 -0.37 0.713 M 0.62892 0.62345 1.9 0.28 0.782

U 0.64706 0.78 -29.7 -3.38 0.001 M 0.66993 0.66015 2.2 0.3 0.767

U 0.06588 0.065 0.4 0.04 0.967 M 0.06846 0.07873 -4.1 -0.56 0.574

U 0.19765 0.21 -3.1 -0.36 0.72 M 0.20049 0.23868 -9.5 -1.32 0.188

U 0.11765 0.185 -18.8 -2.27 0.023 M 0.1198 0.11646 0.9 0.15 0.882 Proportion of employed people in the

household

Presence of a field worker in the family (1=Yes, 0=no)

Presence of an administrative worker in the family (1=Yes, 0=No)

Someone in the family working in geneal services or assistance to health and security at work (1=Yes, 0=No)

Someone in the family working in other farms (1=Yes, 0=No)

Age of workers squared

Mean

Household size

Porcentage of permanent workers

Proportion of peole older than 8 who can read and write

Mean years of education

Mean years of education squared

Dependency ratio

Mean working years

Mean working years squared

Proportion of women in the household

(11)

37

ATTRITION

In footnote 14 of the paper, we introduced the problem of attrition regarding the Nicaraguan sample.

As both households in treatment and control group left, attrition was not a big issue in our study.

However, it is worth to show how replacement was done. . The replacement was done randomly among

those farmworkers coming from the same communities of the workers who had left, assuming that

they had similar cultural background, lifestyle, living costs and cost of transport to the farm. In this

way, they built a new sample, comparable to the previous one and to the treatment group. Households

who left the sample were replaced with new households similar in characteristics. In table F1 we

compared people who left the sample with people who stayed in the sample, to understand the

characteristics of the ones who had left. We found that people who left had higher percentage of

temporary workers in the family, were more distant to the farm and had lower salary and per capita

income. Table F2 shows that new households were similar to the old households in most

characteristics.

Table F1

Comparison between people who left the treatment and people who stayed

STAYED

LEFT

DIFFERENCE

Treatment (1=yes, 0=no) 41.71 58.29 -16.58***

Proportion of temporary workers 0.8634189 0.9352337 -0.072***

Distance from farm (minutes on foot) 44.92 74.44 -29.52***

Living on farm (1=yes, 0=no) 0.227 0.773 -0.546***

Household size 5.065 4.78 0.285

Proportion of female in the household 0.49 0.49 0

Dependency ratio 0.32 0.32 0

Mean years of education of workers 3.73 4.36 -0.63**

Mean years worked in the farm 5.77 3.84 1.93***

Proportion of employed people in the family 0.41 0.42 -0.01

Age of workers 32.26 29.73 2.53**

Per capita income 287.38 176.93 110.45***

Monthly salary 125.2 113.3 11.3*

(12)

38

Table F2

Comparison between replaced and replacement households

Old who left New who replaced DIFFERENCE

Proportion of temporary workers 0.05 0.136 -0.086***

Household size 4.78 4.8 -0.02

Dependency ratio 0.322 0.335 -0.013

Mean years of education of workers 4.36 4.77 -0.47**

Mean years worked in the farm 3.84 3.8 0.04

Proportion of employed people in the family 0.42 0.39 0.03

Age of workers 29.73 29.85 2.53**

ANALYSIS OF COFFEE MARKET

Graph 3– Changes in coffee production in Brazil and Nicaragua.

Period: 2011-2016. Source: re-elaboration on data from ICO (International Coffee Organization)

-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Coffee production (% change from previous year)

(13)

39

Graph 4– Changes in coffee prices paid to growers in Brazil, Nicaragua and Honduras. Period: 2011-2016

Source: re-elaboration on data from ICO (International Coffee Organization)

Graph 5– Changes in coffee exports from Brazil, Nicaragua and Honduras. Period: 2011-2016

Source: re-elaboration on data from ICO (International Coffee Organization)

-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Prices paid to coffee growers

(% change from the previous year

)

Brazil Nicaragua Brazil export Nicaragua exports

-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Coffee exports (% change from the previoous year)

(14)

(15)