total attributable to carbon emissions (on average 4.2 tonnes/year of CO 2 ). The
standard deviation around these values tended to be low, especially for the Ecological Footprint. This indicates that there was not very much disparity in the household
Ecological Footprint between the corridor towns sampled, with averages between
2.4 and 3.1 global hectares at the extreme, respectively for Santa Marta and Santa
Elena – a difference in the averages amounting to 0.7 global hectares. These results
suggest that these small-scale farmers are not living within 1 Earth, as their average
score was 1.7 Earths (see Table 5.4) – this is comparable to Costa Rica’s 1.7 Earths
for 2020 (Global Footprint Network 2020; see Table 3.1). This finding is surprising
because one would expect small-scale farmers to have less of an environmental
impact as producers, which helps to balance their consumption. However, since the
Footprint Calculator does not input information for biocapacity (e.g., as evident for
the carbon component), perhaps there is overestimating of their environmental
impact and hindering their measured overall environmental performance.
5.4 Follow-up Interviews
The results of the follow-up interviews are summarised next – based on the English
translation provided by the Spanish-speaking surveyors who helped to execute the
fieldwork (see Acknowledgements). In this section, each of the seven (open-ended)
interview questions will be portrayed individually in terms of their findings.
5.4.1 Q1: What Type of Crops Do You Grow, and in What
Proportion?
There were four main or primary crops in the study area. They were coffee, followed
by cattle (cows), and then grass (for cattle) as well as sugarcane (Fig. 5.5). Secondary
crops included lychees, pepper, and cacao as well as fruits and vegetables and so
on – in quantities of <2 hectares (except for SF02, where 3 hectares of land were
being protected). These constituted a total of 267.2 hectares. Commonly, coffee was
grown as the primary crop and sugarcane or cows with grass for cows as secondary
crops. Crops were sometimes mixed, with up to four crops listed; but more often
there were monocultures (in 75 cases, or 78%), where only one crop was grown –
usually coffee (Fig. 5.6). It should be noted, however, that pastoral farming (mostly
cows and some pigs) sometimes occurred alongside arable farming. It was less
common to grow a mixture of crops beyond four crops, although this did occur in
the study area.
74
5 Case Study – Findings
standard deviation around these values tended to be low, especially for the Ecological Footprint. This indicates that there was not very much disparity in the household
Ecological Footprint between the corridor towns sampled, with averages between
2.4 and 3.1 global hectares at the extreme, respectively for Santa Marta and Santa
Elena – a difference in the averages amounting to 0.7 global hectares. These results
suggest that these small-scale farmers are not living within 1 Earth, as their average
score was 1.7 Earths (see Table 5.4) – this is comparable to Costa Rica’s 1.7 Earths
for 2020 (Global Footprint Network 2020; see Table 3.1). This finding is surprising
because one would expect small-scale farmers to have less of an environmental
impact as producers, which helps to balance their consumption. However, since the
Footprint Calculator does not input information for biocapacity (e.g., as evident for
the carbon component), perhaps there is overestimating of their environmental
impact and hindering their measured overall environmental performance.
5.4 Follow-up Interviews
The results of the follow-up interviews are summarised next – based on the English
translation provided by the Spanish-speaking surveyors who helped to execute the
fieldwork (see Acknowledgements). In this section, each of the seven (open-ended)
interview questions will be portrayed individually in terms of their findings.
5.4.1 Q1: What Type of Crops Do You Grow, and in What
Proportion?
There were four main or primary crops in the study area. They were coffee, followed
by cattle (cows), and then grass (for cattle) as well as sugarcane (Fig. 5.5). Secondary
crops included lychees, pepper, and cacao as well as fruits and vegetables and so
on – in quantities of <2 hectares (except for SF02, where 3 hectares of land were
being protected). These constituted a total of 267.2 hectares. Commonly, coffee was
grown as the primary crop and sugarcane or cows with grass for cows as secondary
crops. Crops were sometimes mixed, with up to four crops listed; but more often
there were monocultures (in 75 cases, or 78%), where only one crop was grown –
usually coffee (Fig. 5.6). It should be noted, however, that pastoral farming (mostly
cows and some pigs) sometimes occurred alongside arable farming. It was less
common to grow a mixture of crops beyond four crops, although this did occur in
the study area.
74
5 Case Study – Findings