5 Company–Community Partnership and Climate Change Adaptation Practices …
81
farmers perceived that climate change has little impact to their livelihood due to more
apparent important factors such as logging, mining, infrastructure development, and
political decentralization (Boissière et al. 2013), which explained why the programs
on climate change have little to no effects.
The role of private sectors is therefore indispensable to fill the vacuum in pushing
the adaptation and mitigation strategies among the smallholders. Recently, voluntary
sustainability standards such as Rainforest Alliance and UTZ, and company–community partnership, have been introduced as an alternative channel to increase adaptation
intensity. The main purpose for private sectors, particularly multinational companies
(MNCs) to engage in the company–community partnership, is to procure commodities directly from the farmers, resulting in more effective supply chains and consequently increased demands of production from their main export markets (Narrod
et al. 2009). These partnerships have strong potential to improve the farmers’ adaptation through several mechanisms, such as by offering training and support and microfinancing. Technical trainings are often implemented to increase farmers’ knowledge
of climate change impacts and potential adaptation technologies to generate better
quality of produce and protect the environment. Sometimes supports in the form of a
microfinance scheme was promoted to provide farmers with the possibility to finance
adaptation measures, and more efficient adaptation technologies were distributed
over the initiative’s network (Borsky and Spata 2018).
Despite their major roles in shaping the global agricultural supply chain and
possibly strong roles in enforcing adaptation and mitigation strategies, little attention has been given to examine to what extent private sectors manage to increase
their smallholder clienteles’ adaptive capacity. This chapter speaks to fill those gaps
by addressing the following research questions: first, what are the determinants of
participation in company–community partnership initiated by the private sector; and
second, to what extent this partnership helps the smallholders increase their farm
income and climate change adaptation strategy simultaneously through the adoption
of resource-conserving agricultural practices, crop diversification, and forest tree
planting.
The rest of the chapter is organized as follows: the Literature Review section
provides a theoretical ground of the company–company partnership and how such
initiatives were carried out in the study area; the Methodology outlines the details of
the survey undertaken between 2012 and 2014, with respondents’ profile comprises
coffee farmers with and without partnership status in almost equal numbers; the Estimation Strategies describe the regression techniques employed in this study, namely
the propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability weighting regression
(IPWR); the Results section elaborates the estimation results; and finally the last
section concludes with conclusion and the broader discussion upon this study’s
relevance to the Paris agreement.
81
farmers perceived that climate change has little impact to their livelihood due to more
apparent important factors such as logging, mining, infrastructure development, and
political decentralization (Boissière et al. 2013), which explained why the programs
on climate change have little to no effects.
The role of private sectors is therefore indispensable to fill the vacuum in pushing
the adaptation and mitigation strategies among the smallholders. Recently, voluntary
sustainability standards such as Rainforest Alliance and UTZ, and company–community partnership, have been introduced as an alternative channel to increase adaptation
intensity. The main purpose for private sectors, particularly multinational companies
(MNCs) to engage in the company–community partnership, is to procure commodities directly from the farmers, resulting in more effective supply chains and consequently increased demands of production from their main export markets (Narrod
et al. 2009). These partnerships have strong potential to improve the farmers’ adaptation through several mechanisms, such as by offering training and support and microfinancing. Technical trainings are often implemented to increase farmers’ knowledge
of climate change impacts and potential adaptation technologies to generate better
quality of produce and protect the environment. Sometimes supports in the form of a
microfinance scheme was promoted to provide farmers with the possibility to finance
adaptation measures, and more efficient adaptation technologies were distributed
over the initiative’s network (Borsky and Spata 2018).
Despite their major roles in shaping the global agricultural supply chain and
possibly strong roles in enforcing adaptation and mitigation strategies, little attention has been given to examine to what extent private sectors manage to increase
their smallholder clienteles’ adaptive capacity. This chapter speaks to fill those gaps
by addressing the following research questions: first, what are the determinants of
participation in company–community partnership initiated by the private sector; and
second, to what extent this partnership helps the smallholders increase their farm
income and climate change adaptation strategy simultaneously through the adoption
of resource-conserving agricultural practices, crop diversification, and forest tree
planting.
The rest of the chapter is organized as follows: the Literature Review section
provides a theoretical ground of the company–company partnership and how such
initiatives were carried out in the study area; the Methodology outlines the details of
the survey undertaken between 2012 and 2014, with respondents’ profile comprises
coffee farmers with and without partnership status in almost equal numbers; the Estimation Strategies describe the regression techniques employed in this study, namely
the propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability weighting regression
(IPWR); the Results section elaborates the estimation results; and finally the last
section concludes with conclusion and the broader discussion upon this study’s
relevance to the Paris agreement.