Elements for Re-Designing Sustainability Strategies with Groups of Small Coffee Producers

Abstract

Small producers are participating more and more in the debate on moving towards sustainable agriculture. Natural resources are given as the main reason, but these producers also base their decisions on the need to produce enough food to feed their families and strengthen local economies. During the transition, however, economic and productive sustainability represents a real challenge for the producers and the organizations to which they belong. This study analyzes the experiences of coffee-growing families located in the department of Cauca, Colombia. These families opted for a transition from conventional management to certified organic coffee production while continuing—within the framework of the agroecological transition—to produce and market food. The study aim consisted of identifying those factors that favor or pose a threat to remaining within the certification, as well as the degree of importance of these factors as they relate to the sustainability of the family production units (FPU). To achieve this, a qualitative research approach was adopted that required collaborative work tools involving producers, technicians, and researchers. Limiting factors to holding the organic certification, as identified from the results, were the precariousness of the FPUs, their dispersion and their heterogeneity, limited access to the supply chain, and the requirements for labor, while factors that favored transition were related to the extensive knowledge of the FPUs, their capacity for productive and economic diversification, the organization of collective work and the revitalization of other productive initiatives that achieve the commitment of different groups of producers. The contribution of this study lies in helping to re-design sustainability strategies with groups of small producers of coffee.

1. Introduction

The transition towards sustainable agricultural systems is a crucial issue in the context of current agriculture [1]. As environmental, economic, and social challenges intensify, more and more small producers linked to coffee cultivation are looking for alternatives that promote their sustainability and well-being. The increase in coffee production and consumption has generated pressure on ecosystems and food production, low income, and vulnerable conditions faced by small coffee farmers [2,3].

Small coffee farmers have been producing coffee with sales prices below the break-even cost, specifically in Arabica coffee-producing countries [4]. Among the alternatives proposed to improve the situation, the role of fair trade and organic certifications stands out, to promote fair prices and sustainable practices, emphasizing the importance of associativity [3,5].

Currently, some producers have proposed making the transition to organic management motivated by improving income, conserving soil, preserving biodiversity, and caring for human health. Other factors driving the transition have been the need to increase yields, improve product quality, and adapt to market demands and climate changes [6]. Although there are certified farmers who obtain better prices and income, the magnitude of this impact shows notable variability [7].

The transition process is not easy. It requires sustained effort, planning, and significant initial investment to adapt production practices to certification requirements [8]. There is a risk of falling into the trap of perfecting coffee monoculture and not designing systems based on agroecology [9]. Therefore, it is extremely important to strengthen initiatives that combine both proposals.

In the relationship between organic agriculture and agroecology, it is about recognizing the producers who operate in the field of organic production, since they have a strong opportunity to continue deepening the change in the ecological structure and functionality of their productive units. This implies overcoming the input substitution stage and integrating agroecological principles into the operation of their farms and localities. These principles address management in a diversified, productive, and resilient way [10].

The agroecological transition becomes a broader alternative and occupies an important place in the scenarios of producers, scientists, and politicians [11,12]. It is possible to have multiple starting points, and this demands a systemic change, whose intervention is linked to various strategies in the medium and long term [13,14] which requires phases of optimization, design, and change in inputs in the productive subsystems toward new management practices [15]. Additionally, attention needs to be paid to the social and cultural dimension of the region where the producers are located, with a tendency to achieve production and ecological stability. However, there are difficulties in expanding the scales of these processes or discontinuity in their execution.

According to [16], a consensus has been reached about how the integration of social and environmental elements in production can generate benefits both for farmers and for society as a whole. Achieving a more sustainable agricultural production process implies the formation and efficient management of groups of farmers to improve quantity, quality, and competitiveness. However, there are doubts about the transformative potential of global sustainability standards and certifications for small farmers. While private initiatives drive sustainable production, they do not ensure sustainable systemic change. Although certification is a step in the right direction, it is only the first toward sustainability [17]. There is a crucial point where it is necessary to critically examine the current model of sustainability in the coffee industry and consider how to improve it. In this context, the opportunity to adopt a sustainability approach that allows the effective participation of farmers and their organizations in the identification of sustainability priorities may emerge [18].

Other gaps allude to the difficulty that the implementation of the transition represents for producers, the scant study on trajectories undertaken from conventional situations and actors, and the lack of empirical evidence that facilitates the understanding of transition processes and their results [19]. They often focus on technical aspects, and little attention to the social dimension, the participation of producers, cooperation, support networks, community organization, and labor [20,21] making it possible to visualize the challenges and limitations that coffee producers face.

In these contexts, it is sought to analyze how the sustainability approaches through the differentiation of the product by organic certification that we have been able to observe can obtain relevant and effective results, from the perspective of the coffee production line, or in the line of diversification of production and transformation activities from the perspective of the family production unit. In both, there are great challenges, which require refining the strategies of promotion and support of small producer organizations.

Since 2016, in the Department of Cauca (Colombia), sixteen organizations made up of rural families decided to form the Asovidas Network and set out to generate collective dynamics to facilitate the transition from conventional coffee management to organic production on their farms. In addition, they manage initiatives for the production and marketing of food and agricultural products that promote the strengthening of family and local economies. During the process, they have faced different technical, organizational, and administrative challenges; reflected in the decrease in the number of producers that remain in the organic certification process between 2019–2022.

Therefore, this research aimed to identify factors that favor and limit remaining in production certification, as a contribution to the co-design of strategies for organizational strengthening and sustainability of the Asovidas Network. This study was carried out from the qualitative research approach using quantitative and qualitative tools and collaborative work methodologies involving farmers, technicians, and researchers.

2. Study Area and Method

2.1. Study Area and Context

The study is located in the southwest of Colombia in the rural area of the department of Cauca, with a coverage of 20 villages and/or corregimientos in the municipalities of Piendamó, Cajibío, Morales, and Caldono. According to the political–administrative division of the country, the village and/or corregimiento corresponds to the smallest unit of territorial administration in the municipalities. These in turn make up the departments.

In the Colombian coffee context, around 555,000 families are involved in the production of coffee beans, representing 19% of the rural population [22]. The majority are small producers (96%), with crops smaller than 5 hectares, occupying 72% of the cultivated area [23]. Of the total number of growers, 51% have less than 1 hectare, with an average size of the coffee crop of 0.6 hectares [23,24].

In the department of Cauca, the total area of the properties of the families linked to coffee corresponds to 273,286 thousand hectares; 91,942 (33.64%) are planted with coffee [24]. This proportion reveals that coffee cultivation is accompanied by other practices and land uses and that farmers in coffee-growing areas dedicate part of their land to the production of food and coffee, constituting a way to generate income, complemented by the sale of work days. Of 90,000 families linked to coffee, 27,000 have different certifications and contribute 32% of the specialty coffee sold [25]. The area planted with coffee in the four municipalities linked to the study represents 28.5% of the total planted, that is, 26,210 ha out of a global area of 91,942 ha [24]. Most of the producing families have small productive units with a size that ranges between 0–1 ha. In the municipality of Caldono, the production units in this range (0–1 ha) correspond to 78.31%, in Piendamó they represent 61%, in Cajibío 48.39%, and in Morales 27.92% [26].

Since 2011 there has been the “Cauca Denomination of Origin”, characterized by its organoleptic properties derived from the climatic diversity where the production units are located [27,28] in tune with international markets, which increasingly indicate more demand for coffee with differentiated quality. The National Federation of Colombian Coffee Growers (FNC) set out to take advantage of those regional coffees that would meet the requirements to be classified in these categories. In the last twenty years, there has been an expansion of coffee growing towards the south of the country—on micro-plots—related to the unavailability of labor, soil wear, and climate change in the historically coffee-growing regions of the country [29].

In the Department of Cauca, Arabica coffee is mainly for export, making it susceptible to international trade rates and exchange rate fluctuations. However, there are experiences of organizations that have sought to add value to the product through organic certification, fair trade, or with the seal of small producers, obtaining positive results in coffee prices for a few years, but with declines in production most recently. In addition, the communities involved, including indigenous communities in the cordillera and peasant communities in the foothills or high plateau of Popayán (Cauca), have been affected by economies influenced by war or drug trafficking. These communities have undergone significant individualization processes, especially among the youth within families, as they are often attracted to short-term economic activities.

A number of producer organizations are known to have addressed the transition from conventional to organic coffees. Their consolidation is related to compliance with regulatory obligations for organic certification in terms of the development of registration and quality control systems, deriving different collection modalities according to the culture of their associates [30]. These modalities are more frequent on an individual basis (campesino area of Cauca), or collection at the village community and territorial level (some Nasa indigenous areas), among other cases. Likewise, various experiences on the distribution of costs and benefits of the associates and ways of learning from the conditions of commercialization are recognized, which have facilitated gains in the chain of production and collection. This has resulted in obtaining greater knowledge about the needs of customers and criteria for setting prices in the complex international coffee market. Other organizational experiences are also observed with a reduced number of organic certified families, taking into account the total number of associates that participate in the commercialization [30].

2.2. Method

This study is part of the qualitative research approach, in which a collaborative work strategy has been adopted, using participatory methodologies that combine action research. This modality allows researchers to contribute new approaches and locally adapted research roles (Caron et al., 2014) [31]. It also enables the proposal of mechanisms to “develop new and better ways of doing things” [32], with the aim of fulfilling the study’s objective and contributing to the co-design of strategies for the strengthening and sustainability of the Asovidas Network.

A working team was formed, consisting of technicians and executives from the Fundación Colombia Nuestra (FCN), the coordinating group of the Asovidas Network, which includes representatives from the sixteen producer organizations, and researchers from the University of Cauca. The collaborative process took place through the joint participation of the three teams in regular planning and follow-up meetings led by the technical team.

2.3. Phases, Methods, and Tools

The methodological proposal was carried out between March 2021 and March 2022, and divided into two phases outlined below. These phases provided spaces for reflection and participation for stakeholders, demonstrating that experimentation is a learning tool that promotes relevance and transparency in decision-making by the actors involved, while also fostering the construction of shared strategies [33]. Initially, both virtual and face-to-face working spaces were conducted at the headquarters of the Asovidas Network located in Piendamó, Cauca. Each working team presented their interests related to the study, offering different perspectives on the problem, which proved valuable in establishing collaborative work strategies. These exchanges facilitated the exploration of the motivations behind the adoption of agroecological transition and subsequently the decision to certify production.

Based on the above, the reconstruction of the journey undertaken commenced, highlighting the main limitations faced by coffee-producing families. Additionally, there were several challenges in sustaining the agroecological transition initiative. These challenges relate to the need for adapting support to the collective organizational forms of production units, as well as the administration and management of information.

Additionally, the research team conducted a literature review of technical reports and reports submitted to the certifying company for the period 2019–2022. The combination of dialogues and secondary information allowed for the delimitation of the research problem and the construction of the methodological strategy. This was based on the fact that the information reported to the certifying company relates only to coffee and does not take into account other land uses present in the production units. Furthermore, it is often unclear how to generate the necessary resources for certification fees, especially during the transition process to organic production systems.

To carry out this collaborative process, roles were assigned according to the nature of each organization that is part of the Asovidas Network. The different work dynamics in the family production units involved in the agroecological transition were identified. An evaluation of the technical, socio-entrepreneurial, and administrative support provided by FCN was then conducted. Finally, guidelines were established for the research team’s role, adapting to the rhythms of the producers to gain in-depth knowledge about the geographical, sociodemographic, and cultural aspects, and specific characteristics of the production systems investigated in the study areas.

The proposal included the use of qualitative and quantitative methodological tools described in the second phase. These tools allowed families and organizations to propose actions aimed at solving the identified issues. Based on the practical and conceptual knowledge of the three teams, a detailed work plan was developed, outlining activities, timelines, and functions according to their specific roles and competencies.

Based on the practical and conceptual knowledge of the three teams, a detailed work plan was developed, outlining activities, timelines, and functions according to their specific roles and competencies.

2.3.1. Phase One: Rebuilding the Organic Certification Process

• Quantitative analysis

This analysis was conducted with the entire set of families that are part of the Asovidas Network, covering the period between 2019 (94 families) and 2022 (52 families). The data were obtained through the application of the “Family Production Form” survey and the creation of a farm map, carried out by the technical team during the transition process. The analysis of the information included the variables required by the certifying company. These variables were: (i) the number of producers involved in certification per year; (ii) the size and uses of the land, including total area, hectares dedicated to coffee production/growth, other crops, and areas of forest/pasture/rest; (iii) the estimated and harvested volume of the crop in kilograms.

In addition to these variables, other elements were added to complement the analysis. These included the type of shade present on the farms, the number of members and the size of the families, as well as the availability of both temporary and permanent labor.

The survey questions were coded to enable analysis using descriptive statistics. Based on this, the number of producers who remained in certification was determined by analyzing the evolution of their productivity and the size of their farms in hectare ranges. The percentage of area dedicated to coffee (for production or growth) in relation to the total area of the production unit was also examined. Additionally, the percentage of producers who had other crops, pastures, and/or forest areas on their farms was evaluated. All of these data were analyzed with the aim of obtaining a comprehensive and detailed overview.

• Qualitative analysis

To complement the reconstruction of the certification process, qualitative tools such as field visits, semi-structured interviews, and participant observation were employed by the research team. These tools were applied during planned visits by technical assistants, considering the entire area that constituted the production unit. This included different plots within the same property, as well as those located within or outside the same locality. This approach proved valuable as a means through which to establish proximity and build trust between the farming families and the researchers. Through these interactions, detailed information about the land and a deeper understanding of the producers’ experiences and perspectives were obtained.

The snowball sampling technique, as proposed by [34] was employed for the selection of interviewed farming families. In total, twenty-five visits were conducted, and an equal number of semi-structured interviews were carried out. The purpose of these visits and interviews was to gain insight into the perceptions, motivations, and limitations of the families in the certification process as part of a sustainability strategy.

The interviews were complemented by participant observation, aiming to expand the scope of the research and gain a deeper understanding of the reality. This technique allowed for the deciphering of seasonal or sporadic events to have a better comprehension of the context [35]. Participant observation contributed to broadening knowledge about management practices and actions related to work organization. Specifically, it facilitated the interpretation and verification of planning and execution actions by workgroups and subgroups in different localities, as well as the recognition of other key actors involved in the initiatives promoted by the producers.

At the same time, through participant observation, the research team was able to validate and adjust interview questions, identifying those that best suited the research objectives. The collected information, including field notes, recordings, and photographs, was subsequently systematized following four categories. In this way, a detailed and rigorous record of the information was obtained, allowing for a comprehensive analysis of the research.

The collected information was systematized using a matrix, which allowed for the interrelation of variables and the identification of sociocultural and organizational factors that influenced the retention or withdrawal from the certification process. Each interview was individually analyzed, and the corresponding reflections and conclusions were described. Subsequently, a comparative analysis of the responses from all interviews was conducted to identify similarities and differences and establish connections between the obtained information. The analyzed variables were grouped into four categories based on the type of management: (i) family level management, (ii) group-level management, (iii) intra-family agreements, and (iv) organization of other initiatives unrelated to coffee production. Additionally, the location of the production units by locality and municipality was considered, as well as the proximity between the units.

2.3.2. Phase Two: Sharing of Results and Redefinition of Strategies to Strengthen the Asovidas Network

Through this process of analysis, discussion, and planning, the foundations were laid to implement concrete actions that would improve and enhance the performance of the Asovidas Network in the coming years. After carrying out an analysis of the results, preparatory meetings were held between the technical and research teams. In January 2022, the Asovidas Network General Assembly was organized, a participatory and decision-making space, in which the results of the certification process were discussed. During this assembly, the achievements, limitations, and identified costs were evaluated, which contributed to the co-design of strategies to strengthen the production, organization, and financial viability of the network. These strategies were reflected in the 2022–2023 Action Plan.

3. Results

3.1. Agreements for Action and Follow-Up

Agreements were reached through meetings conducted between August 2021 and February 2022, along with a review of secondary information. These efforts aimed to identify the challenges associated with sustainability during the transition process through organic certification. The exchanges between technicians, producers, and researchers, with each offering their unique perspectives, allowed for a common understanding of the issues that hindered this transition. The methodological strategy allowed the identification of the role of each group in describing collaborative work strategies. The coffee producers of the Asovidas Network primarily expressed concerns about improving their income from coffee production, while also emphasizing the importance of human health, the production of healthy food, and soil conservation. On the other hand, the technical team and managers of FCN had expectations centered on their role in facilitating and encouraging producer families to transition to agroecology through organic certification.

The strategy involves action research elements and contributes to the empowerment of producers and facilitators, enabling them to make decisions and manage their own modifications [36]. Additionally, the use of this investigative strategy allowed the convergence of perceptions and expectations, leading to a redefinition of the problem within the context of a transition to sustainability. Initially, the groups focused on the transition from a productive/economic perspective, but now it is necessary to incorporate socio-organizational and cultural aspects. The latter could enhance agroecological transitions.

3.2. Deconstruction of the Certification Process

At the beginning of the transition process, the Asovidas Network considered two routes, analyzing their advantages and comparative costs: (1) organic certification, or (2) fair trade. While fair trade had some advantages (as discussed in the introduction), its implementation involved complex arrangements and higher costs. Finally, the joint decision was made to pursue the certification of coffee production as the goal of the transition.

The certification process was divided into two stages. The first stage involved socializing the potential producers to initiate certification, resulting in 280 interested producers. In the second stage, a strategy was defined to support the agroecological transition, leading to 94 producers becoming part of the certification scheme in 2019. To achieve this number of producers required selecting the necessary certifying company and defining payment strategies based on their conditions. Among the requirements of the certifying company, the design and implementation of an internal control system was required, to acquire qualitative data. Also, the creation of a team of internal inspectors responsible for preparing its regulations was required.

The process was carried out during 2019 (year zero). Each of these actions had associated costs, so it was necessary to analyze whether the producers covered them or if they would be financed through a funding project. However, the limited administrative experience of the Asovidas Network in proposing projects was not identified as a limitation at the time. This situation only became evident during the association meeting in December 2022. In that meeting, the following reflections arose:

• Producers who entered certification and remain committed to it have a long-term perspective and understand consciously that certification alone will not bring short-term benefits (years 1 and 2 at the beginning of the process). This implies that the farm development will require a time of 4 to 5 years to yield returns. This requires an advancement of mindset and professionalism in developing a productive unit, making it grow, and expanding its productive diversification.
• The financial implications depend on the volumes and qualities traded, dimensions that at the beginning were not contemplated by the coffee growers or the technicians who escorted the production. Additionally, economic and administrative responsibility implied some knowledge of the world coffee market and price cycles. The implementation period of the certification proposal coincided with high coffee prices, indicating that the special rate granted by the certification is not a differentiating factor with respect to the price of conventionally produced coffee; therefore, its attractiveness will be long-term. The high coffee prices were mainly related to external issues, derived from the situation that Brazil is facing difficulties with the coffee supply due to climatic and logistical factors and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic [37].
• In the years prior to achieving the certification status, a financing plan for the associated costs was structured, which would allow the producers to sell their coffee as organic:
  • A total subsidy of certification costs in year 1.
  • Partial annual payment of 30% in year 2, 40% in year 3, and 50% in year 4.
  • The remaining balance will be settled upon the commercialization of coffee as certified organic.

These agreements were discussed in the annual general assemblies, highlighting the challenges and limitations in obtaining large volumes and high-quality coffee. In the 2021 assembly, the Colombia Nuestra Foundation presented the actual figures for costs and volumes traded, raising concerns about the economic sustainability of the Asovidas Network.

This analysis revealed the impact of dispersion and the reduced number of families in the certification process, which resulted in insufficient cost coverage and prompted the reevaluation of promotion and support strategies to ensure the sustainability of the proposed transition through organic certification.

3.3. Elements for Understanding the Production Units

To adjust the technical support strategy, it was suggested that establishing a range of criteria would enhance the understanding of the production units (PU). This research defined the need to clearly describe the type of PU in which the organic certification process is justified. It was of paramount importance to mutually analyze the data regarding location, soil quality, height above sea level, forest cover, and water availability. The cultivated coffee area was also considered, differentiating between (a) the production and growing areas; (b) the cultivation and shade system (full sun, semi-shade, or shade); and (c) other crops and reserve zone areas. It was necessary to identify the interactions made by different family types or groups to organize the production, supply chain, and marketing activities.

It was found that one of the major technical difficulties during data analysis was the operational focus on complying with the requirements of the certifier, rather than conducting a strategic analysis of the variables related to social sustainability and economics of the PUs.

During this analysis, two types of data were differentiated: (i) analytical data that contributes to the analysis, which will be useful in defining strategies and monitoring (referred to as non-technical criteria); and (ii) operational data required by the certifier. The production planning carried out by the technical support team did not sufficiently incorporate the non-technical criteria for work organization, which are crucial in obtaining a compressive understanding of the PUs as a starting point. The planning for the consolidation of producer organizations raises the question or acknowledgment, that in general these “organizations” or “associations” were not established based on a real economic scheme but rather as a means of obtaining specific subsidies. In addition, during the planning process, the responsibilities of each of the main actors, including producers, technicians, and planners must be clearly defined, both in terms of technical assistance and the financing of the process.

It was identified that consistency is required to execute the actions determined by technicians or professionals, either immediately or in the medium term. The PUs are different by nature; the data that are determined are specific to each one. This implies that technical assistance must be customized. However, in practice, its implementation is arduous due to dispersion and the fact that the minimum number of associated families has not been reached yet.

It was determined that the quantitative statistics of the certifiers were not relevant due to the heterogeneity of the PUs. Qualitative methodologies could be a complementary and pertinent tool, as they assume that there is no homogeneous universe among producers. For example, the entry criteria for the certification process could be based on factors such as the number of coffee plantations in production or growth, and the geographical location in relation to other producers, among others. These methodologies are recognized for their importance in providing relevant information on changes, learning processes, and social interactions [38].

Based on the above, it was found that a limiting factor to remaining in the certification process is the limited knowledge of the PUs in their productive dynamics, as well as in their management to organize the different tasks (including work on other farms, also known as “day labor” or engaging in other trades). Therefore, an alternative could involve support tools for coffee growers through strategic monitoring, encompassing both tactical and operational aspects [39].

3.4. Global Data Analysis

• Producers who maintain the annual certification

According to the technical reports submitted to the certifying company, in 2019 the Asovidas Network had a group of 94 producers, who began the organic certification process. This group has varied over time, and by 2022 only 52 remained, with 43 continuing their certification between 2019–2022, and only 9 producers joining between 2021–2022. The period between 2019 and 2020 saw the largest decrease in producers, with 32 withdrawals, which coincided with a period of low technical support due to mobility restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The reasons for withdrawal were related to the duration of the certification process, initially planned for three years but extended to four, including a preliminary phase (year zero). As a result, during the certification process, these producers had to sell their products at conventional market prices, which were favorable due to high prices in the world market.

• The size of the family production unit (FPU) and its location

Table 1. Size of agricultural production units (APU) by rank, year, and number of producers.

APU Size (ha)	2019		2020		2021		2022
	N	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
0 to 1	36	38	26	42	19	39	18	35
1 to 2	31	33	22	35	17	35	17	33
2 to 5	21	23	8	13	9	18	11	21
> to 5	6	6	6	10	4	8	6	12
Number of producers	94		62		49		52

Source: FCN technical reports (2019–2022).

shows the size of the FPU between 2019 and 2022. It highlights that the highest percentage of productive units (38%, 42%, 39%, and 35%) have between 0–1 and 1–2 hectares (ha), and their percentage decreases over time. The size of the farms could be related to the number of coffee farmers who withdraw from the certification process, as previously mentioned. The PUs with a size of 1 to 2 ha increased between 2020 and 2021 and remained constant between 2019 and 2022.

Regarding the location of the FPUs, they are located in mountainous and foothill areas, as well as in the high areas around Popayán, characterized by undulating lands. In the department of Cauca, the altitude range of the coffee growing areas lies between 1758–2100 m above sea level (m.a.s.l.), which is higher than the national average. The soils with volcanic origins are homogeneous, and the climates with rainy seasons [40] favor the potential for coffee cultivation.

• Other land uses and their relationship with the transition

In addition to coffee, in 2019, 37% of the producers had other crops; 12% of them had an area greater than 20% of their farms planted with crops for self-consumption or sale at the local level. Meanwhile, in 2022, the percentage of producers with other crops was 52%, of which 25% had more than 20% of their areas dedicated to other crops. Producers who began the transition in 2019 and did not have other crops accounted for 63%; by 2022 this value had decreased to 48% (

Table 2. Number of FPU with other crops.

Year	FPU without Other Crops	%	FPU with Other Crops	%
2019	59	63	35	37
2022	25	48	27	52

Source: own compilation based on the Asovidas Network-FCN database (2022).

).

The information gleaned from the interviews indicates that, during the agroecological transition, the incorporation of crops other than coffee had a significant impact. Crop diversification allows for a reduction in economic reliance on a single product and enables farmers to diversify their source of income. Additionally, it contributes to food security by providing a wider range of food options for self-consumption and local market sales.

Furthermore, the presence of various crops in the system promotes biodiversity and enhances the resilience of agricultural ecosystems. Complementary crops can offer ecological services, such as improving soil quality, pest and disease control, and efficient utilization of natural resources. In summary, incorporating other crops into the agroecological transition provides numerous advantages: both economically and environmentally it strengthens the sustainability of the agricultural system.

As regards the analysis of land use for conservation or pastures, 88% of the producers (46 of 52) have some percentage of the total area in reserves/forests/pastures. Among them, 69% of producers have an area greater than 20% of the total area of the farm area dedicated to this use. The remaining producers (12 individuals) do not have any conservation or pasture areas. However, their total land area is less than 0.5 ha, except for one producer who has 1.5 ha. This land is divided into 1 ha for coffee in production and 0.5 ha for other crops, with the particularity that it is in the process of crop implantation (

Table 3. Number of FPUs with special areas (SA)—forest, reserve, and pasture areas.

Year	FPU without SA	%	FPU with SA	%	Total
2019	36	38	58	62	94
2022	6	11	46	88	52

Source: own compilation based on the Asovidas Network-FCN database (2022).

).

• Shadow system

It was determined that, out of the 52 producers that remained in 2022, 8% had coffee crops in full sun exposure: 77% in semi-shade and 15% in shade. Due to the nature, it is advisable to monitor fertilization and soil moisture content, as well as advisable constant shade, of at least 45% [41]. Coffee production systems with agroforestry arrangements preserve forests, conserving a wide variety of tree species, which allows the coexistence of other useful crops that provide inputs for families. These agroecological systems are also beneficial for the production and conservation of water and soils [40]. Likewise, they are consistent with market trends, enabling them to respond effectively to new marketing.

• Coffee planted area and its representation in the farm as a whole

The area planted with coffee fluctuates between 42% and 47% with respect to the total area (

Table 4. Coffee areas in production and growth.

Year	Farm Total Area (ha)	Coffee Planted Area (ha)	%	Coffee Production (ha)	%	Coffee Growing (ha)	%
2019	191.41	90.72	47	72.43	80	18.29	20
2020	125.32	54.90	44	40.01	73	14.89	27
2021	89.00	37.66	42	28.84	77	8.82	23
2022	88.00	36.97	42	28.74	78	8.24	22

Source: own compilation based on the Asovidas Network-FCN database (2022).

), which represents the cultivation in all the farms. Although the percentages of the total area are mainly stable there has been no increment of coffee production areas. Although coffee is important in the productive system, the planted areas do not cover half of the global area of the farms. This could pose a challenge in achieving significant volumes of coffee that offset the collective marketing effort of the Asovidas Network. The financial implications are closely linked to the volumes and qualities of coffee traded. Therefore, it is important to consider the influence of these factors on the possibility of remaining certified and the success of the collective marketing exercise.

According to the technicians interviewed, another factor that affects low production volumes is the low implementation of the fertilization plans in the organic transition process. This has negative effects on the productive economic field for farmers and often leads to giving up the transition [15], especially when is not carried out properly. In parallel, some families that require constant cash flow may decide to sell the coffee without any type of transformation, collecting “wet” or low-quality grain, known as “pasilla”. As a result, these farmers cannot reach the commercialization stage of dry parchment coffee to obtain better prices in the market. Consequently, not receiving enough income in a timely manner leads to abandoning the certification process. Resources derived from the commercialization of coffee contribute to families’ subsistence and can also support other productive systems on the farm. This situation may be rooted in the persisting monoculture mindset and the lack of redesigning the organizational system during the most critical stage for farmers [15].

• Areas of coffee in production and growth

The production areas covered by coffee range from 78% to 80% of the total coffee cultivation area (Table 4), affirming its position as the primary crop. It emphasizes the importance of a sustainable production project that includes periodic crop renewal, showcasing quality and quantity in coffee production, with a medium- and long-term perspective. It also highlights the difference between the profile of the coffee farmer and those who dabble in coffee intermittently or combine it with other activities outside the agricultural sector. This analysis indicates the percentage of coffee cultivation on farms as an indicator of producers who want and are able to continue with coffee cultivation for two main reasons. First, because they have the capacity to invest due to productive diversity, and second because they have an economic margin, often related to selling their workforce in the region.

To understand the factors that limit or support maintaining certification, it was emphasized that observing and maintaining a constant log of the type of farms based on the percentage of coffee in production, coffee growing, and other crops (for self-consumption and commercialization) is essential.

• Availability of labor

Among the data analyzed, the number of FPU was obtained by the number of family members (

Table 5. Number of FPU by number of family members.

Year	Number of FPUs by Range of Family Members			Total FPUs
	1 to 2	3 to 5	6+
2019	18	62	14	94
	19%	66%	15%	100%
2022	20	27	5	52
	38%	52%	10%	100%

Source: own compilation based on the Asovidas Network-FCN database (2022).

), as well as the availability and type of family labor of individuals over 15 years of age. Also, the duration of labor was differentiated between permanent and/or temporary (

Table 6. Family labor (permanent, temporary).

Year	Total Family Labor Members (>15)	Permanent	Temporal	No Work
2019	708	306	174	228
		43%	25%	32%
2022	150	51	61	38
		34%	41%	25%

Source: own compilation based on the Asovidas Network-FCN database (2022).

) as follows:

The problems and solutions identified by the families indicate that the availability of labor and the possibility of a sustainable transition to organic management implies more work. Initially, the labor is provided by the family, but there are stages of the production process where it is necessary to have a workforce at the local or regional level.

Consequently, a factor that plays favorably is related to large families and, within them to distinguish the number of family members who work permanently or temporarily in the PU. At a social level, the permanent work for some family members could indicate the sustainability of the PU, as the work required for transition would be covered by that workforce. In this way, it can be deduced that the availability of permanent labor is required to achieve the transition successfully since the agroecological model requires multiple tasks, skills development, and continuous training to have qualified labor, more efficient systems, and sustainability.

• Types of groups, work organization, and possibility of sustainability

Within the producer organizations, there are work groups that are structured by kinship or neighborhood relationships. Their dynamics are facilitated because they live in the same village or nearby villages, or by making work agreements between members, especially from the indigenous community. To manage coffee production, the groups make agreements between families, which allows them, in some cases, to expand productive areas or intensify the workforce permanently. Likewise, they make alliances to advance collective initiatives such as: (i) the assembly and operation of bio-factories of organic fertilizers to supply the demand that coffee needs to be advanced under this modality; (ii) large-scale planting of corn, beans, cassava, among others (especially in areas between 1 and 5 ha); (iii) groups of producers dedicated to the collection and reproduction of seeds (legumes, vegetables, forest species), and (iv) management of the reproduction of coffee varieties other than those they currently have.

From the analysis of the work organization, four types of groups were identified: (i) neighborhood group, (ii) extended family group, (iii) indigenous community group—Nasa, and (iv) isolated producers. In total, there are three work groups in the village, two groups of extended families, and two in indigenous communities, who jointly manage their farms, even though they have different owners. As a strategy to strengthen the organization, new alliances were promoted in 2022, where isolated producers joined neighborhood groups and other producers also joined indigenous community groups.

According to the analysis, producers who remain certified are those integrated into neighborhood work, family groups, or the indigenous community. They are mainly characterized by establishment alliances and/or farming agreements to expand the sowing area or have permanent labor for the different tasks required by the production process. However, it was found that the certifying company does not consider these strategies, as it is governed by individual ownership. This approach contradicts the structuring of productive units, which are composed of multiple lots located in different spaces and are managed productively through the organization of work groups. Thus, land ownership prevails over local management strategies.

Based on the above, the evaluation conducted with the technical team of the FCN and the representatives of the Asovidas Network highlighted the impact of collective management in organizing different tasks. The element serves to facilitate the entry or exit of the producers in the certification process, with the aim of building and strengthening work agreements that, with the support provided, promote continuity in the transition.

On the other hand, it was found that isolated producers do not continue in the certification process. The causes are linked to their location, which makes work and mutual support extremely difficult. They enter the transition without the accompaniment of other producers from the same organization and they face challenges such as limited labor staff and inadequacies in group work.

• Harvest and storage organization

On analyzing commercialization in the technical reports of 2022 and comparing it to the delivered harvest, the following behaviors of producers and groups are observed. These producers and groups deliver dry parchment coffee with the goal of being certified and seeking improvements in the sale prices:

(i)

Producers who deliver more than 70% of the harvest. A total of 21% of the producers comply with delivering dry parchment coffee to the commercial agent agreed upon by the Asovidas Network. Based on the information gathered from interviews with the producers, it was reported that they engage in collective gathering through work groups and utilize shared transportation as a cost-saving measure. Farmers’ previous experiences in certification and training in coffee quality (moisture percentage and cupping) provided feedback about the delivery process, while others opted to store the grain, waiting for a price increase. This category includes a neighborhood group and an extended family group that fulfilled between 70 and 100% of the commitment acquired. Within the family group, the implementation of management practices was evident, which encompasses everything from coffee cycles to the management of fertilizer bio-manufacturing, diversification of agricultural systems, and transformation of coffee and sugar cane. For its part, the neighborhood group collects the coffee to make a single delivery and not sell it outside of the agreement with the Asovidas Network. Additionally, as a sustainability strategy, its associates work outside their farms to cover the daily expenses of the family.

(ii)

Producers who deliver less than 70% of the harvest. Two neighborhood groups have a road network in fair condition but are located at a greater distance from the collection site compared to the rest of the organizations, resulting in higher transportation costs. These factors have negatively impacted the collection and collective marketing, highlighting the absence of a policy that contemplates these variables when entering certification processes. Other producers interviewed stated that it is the first time that they have delivered coffee collectively and within the framework of the certification. As a result, they exercised caution when marketing their harvest, choosing to deliver a portion to the Network and another portion to different buyers. Some families were unable to meet their grain quotas due to commitments such as bank loans or loyalty to previous commercial agents.

As such, the planning of the harvest is implicated in the volumes of coffee collected and, therefore, in the payment for the certification process. This transaction is made up of the amount between the certifier (external agent), the internal control system, and the administration of the information, both monetary resources and logistics of the collection. Since these are not covered by the sale of the coffee harvest, the reconfiguration of the system requires economic support through the commercialization of temporary crops or other income, favoring the permanence of the producers.

Productive certification incurs a high cost and represents complexity in the organization due to two factors: (i) the quality of the coffee beans, primarily in relation to their fertilization and processing, and (ii) the volume of beans to be marketed, which requires effective organization. Therefore, the proximity between producers and the possibility of working together for the implementation of the internal control system and technical assistance are crucial. It is essential to plan for these costs, considering that the sustainability horizon is approximately 10 years (minimum for harvest and quality maintenance).

4. Discussion

4.1. Agreements and Tools for Operation and Monitoring

The use of collaborative work mechanisms involving farmers, academics, and technicians to explore production certification strategies is also evident in experiences found elsewhere [42]. Through the collaborative process of research and innovation, problematic issues are conceptualized, and action alternatives are designed to find solutions. In general, it can be asserted that the analysis of transition experiences benefits from action research participation methodologies with socio-economic support [43]. These actions are valuable and fundamental for promoting progress and joint enrichment of knowledge, as well as for contributing to the organizational strengthening of producers.

To understand the impact of each of these aspects, it was valuable to delve into the insights of various stakeholders involved in the community process while considering a research perspective that examines farms both before and during the certification phase. Dynamic, flexible, and adaptive analytical frameworks were employed, taking into account local, regional, and global conditions, as well as the processes of change and feedback that emerged during the transition [39].

Regarding the present research, it was possible to determine that organic certification is just one of the many available options to implement agroecological production. For each of these paths, the initial approach should focus on understanding the conditions of production units and the region in which they are located. Specifically, differentiating between the operational data required for certification and those used to outline action and follow-up strategies. Also, it is important to discern what type of support could be offered to small producers to facilitate their transition toward organic certification.

Our findings show that those with long-term planning have a higher likelihood of intervention and, therefore, a greater possibility of remaining in transition. Another factor that indicates the profile of the coffee grower is related to the planning and execution of the different productive cycles, which was confirmed through interviews and observation. Subsequently, agreements can be generated among actors to clarify roles and understand social, cultural, and economic dynamics, leading to the selection of the most appropriate management tools for research and collaboration.

4.2. Elements of Analysis for Understanding Production Units

Consistent with previous research [42,44] evidence was found to support the use of mixed methodologies to enhance the understanding of complex interactions in the adoption of differentiated management practices and the management of coffee PUs. In this study, quantitative data were utilized to analyze productive conditions, while qualitative data facilitated the identification of organizations with dispersed members and low presence of family or neighborhood networks. These findings have implications for analyzing the minimum required conditions for a PU to undergo the transition process, as well as the need for differentiated strategies in technical assistance.

Detailed knowledge of the production units, tailored technical support, and an understanding of the type of PU are crucial. The results demonstrate that although farms may share basic characteristics, they can exhibit significant differences in terms of management logic and productive conditions, necessitating adapted strategies. The heterogeneity in conditions, mindsets, and objectives of farmers has a direct impact on the choice of cultivation system [39] and underscores the importance of holistically leveraging the resources of the territory within the framework of agroecology, which aims to preserve knowledge and agrodiversity [45].

Previous research has indicated that certification criteria often do not align with the specific characteristics of regions and fail to consider these heterogeneities [17]. Therefore, it is important to implement a preparatory phase that considers the initial state of each FPU regarding diversified production while also aiming to achieve a differential price through organic certification. Agrobiodiversity plays a key role in agricultural intensification [31] and is promoted under various approaches [43]. In this regard, [15] argues that the transition process requires the organizations responsible for design to evolve in terms of innovation, value chains, and territorial development policies. There are also examples of coffee organizations that are adopting a more business-oriented approach instead of empowering their members, which weakens their participation and may limit their effectiveness in capacity development and technology transfer. To achieve better territorial outcomes, it is necessary for agencies and partners to be innovative and allocate resources to both organized and unorganized farmers [46].

4.3. Analysis of the Global Data Reports

The area dedicated to coffee cultivation in the FPU does not exceed 50% of the total farm area, indicating that coffee is the main crop, but other land uses are also practiced. In some cases, it was found that coffee producers had the capacity to generate income during the initial certification process, either through crop diversification or through the sale of labor. Those who had areas of coffee in growth carried out different production cycles and showed a long-term commitment to the sustainability and expansion of their farms. This forward-looking perspective allows them to adapt more easily to changes [33] and redesign local agricultural processes based on productive knowledge, promoting a transition rooted in biodiversity and the participation of multiple actors [31].

It was found that there was a 15% increase in FPU with different land uses, including crops other than coffee. Additionally, a 26% increase was found in FPU that have forest areas, reserves, and pastures. This indicates that those who continue in the transition process in 2022 exhibit diversity in land uses. This diversification can have a positive impact on the family economy by providing food for self-sufficiency and enabling the development of other productive initiatives that can be integrated into local circuits. This peasant characteristic, expressed through the diversified occupation of the territory, represents the potential for articulation with agri-food chains that could provide socio-economic and environmental viability [47,48]. Furthermore, this study identifies the promotion of organizational forms and collaboration among FPUs located in different clusters as another strategy to complement the diversification of land uses.

Another characteristic identified in the FPUs that remain in certification is that 77% of them employ shade-grown coffee cultivation. As per [41], coffee production systems with agroforestry arrangements conserve tree species diversity in forests, allowing for the coexistence of crops that are beneficial for families. Preserving forest areas as reserves provides ecosystem services that have a positive impact on the productive environment [45,47,49,50]. Thus, it becomes a challenge to employ agriculture supported by agrodiversity management and landscape structures, taking into account ecosystem services [33], with a focus on increasing them to ensure ecological functions and interactions [51]. These strategies align with market trends and can be adapted to new marketing approaches [40].

Among the aforementioned factors, it is important to understand that the transition process towards agroecological systems requires changes in farmers’ work schedules [52]. The difficulties and solutions identified by families suggest that transitioning to sustainable organic practices involves longer working hours. Although family labor is initially utilized, there is a need for local or regional labor support at certain stages of the production process.

It was identified that FPUs integrated into neighborhood work groups continued the certification process in 80% or more cases, family groups continued at 100%, and indigenous communities at 88%. The collective work facilitated by close social and geographical proximity, as well as connections among FPUs, exhibited a positive impact on labor availability and the promotion of additional initiatives, such as biofactories, seed houses, and crop integration. This approach effectively garnered commitment from diverse groups, fostering the pursuit of agricultural system sustainability through shared experiences and knowledge.

Managing areas where different owners converge can be a key strategy to expand production units by organizing joint actions with other viable production units. To achieve this, it is necessary to redefine the concept of associativity and move beyond mere social mobilization or participation as beneficiaries of social programs toward production organizations that address social, economic, and environmental sustainability. This should involve considering administrative, financial, and economic indicators consistently in planning and management.

Studies on the sustainability of organic and conventional coffee systems, as referenced by social indicators, encompass self-consumption, participation, producer satisfaction, labor hiring, and access to health and education services [53,54]. Through observations and interviews, this research identifies key aspects within the same context: available labor force, proximity to and collaboration with other families for organized work that facilitates supply chain access and intensifies workforce capacity. Similar adoption processes into organic schemes revealed that factors such as the availability of family labor, liquidity, and location were more likely to influence the decision to transition to organic practices [55]. This suggests a focus not solely on FPU, but rather an exploration of territorial-level options.

This implies adjustments in methodologies, approaches, and means of providing technical assistance and support to impact decisions in the farming units [56]. It also demands a reconsideration of how organizations manage technical assistance, and to what extent this is geared towards supporting production or solely based on commercialization.

5. Conclusions

The results of our analysis indicate that coffee producers who participate in certification processes and are in transition have a long-term vision when establishing this procedure as a strategy. It is unlikely that they will return to the conventional production system. The factors that limit achieving production certification and remaining in the transition process are related to the geographical dispersion, the precariousness and heterogeneity of the FPUs, the limited access to the supply chain, the scarcity of the required labor, as well as the low participation of families in the organic certification process. Another limiting factor for remaining in the certification process is the limited knowledge of the PUs in their productive dynamics, but also their ability to organize different jobs (including work on other farms, known as “daily work”, or performing other trades).

The factors that promote certification meanwhile indicate that the majority of FPUs that remain in the transition in 2022 were characterized by growing coffee with other crops and having forest areas, reserves and/or pastures. Additionally, the FPUs that continue in the transition tend to work in neighborhood groups, extended family groups, or indigenous communities. These ways of working facilitate: (i) expanding areas, (ii) having labor, (iii) accessing the supply chain, and (iv) boosting other productive initiatives. The ways of organizing production activities with work groups make it possible to form groups of producers who have in common the achievement of organic production certification.

The elements that contribute to the co-design of strategies for the organizational strengthening and sustainability of the Asovidas Network must take into account that the FPUs differ in their nature. The data obtained are specific for each one, which implies the need to provide personalized technical assistance. These challenges demand adjustments by producer organizations and entities that provide technical support during the transition, with the aim of ensuring sustainability. It is extremely important to differentiate between knowledge of the operational data required by the certifier, and the data necessary to design long-term strategies to address the comprehensive management of the FPU.

From a practical perspective, the transition to agroecology involves much more than the mandatory organic certification process for exports. It goes beyond the adoption of continuous composting practices and the substitution of external inputs, as these actions alone can only stimulate a limited redesign of the system. What proves to be more sustainable and effective is the implementation of collective strategies driven by regulations or consumer preferences. This implies taking into account the interactions at the FPU in relation to the workforce, both internal and external. Therefore, the transition must focus on the availability of permanent family labor, as well as the work networks that support it. The obstacles and solutions identified by the families indicate that the availability of labor and the possibility of a sustainable transition towards organic practices require a greater effort. Not only family labor is used: in certain stages of the production process, it is necessary to have additional workers at the local or regional level. This way of organizing led to the formulation of goals and indicators, in relation to percentages of subsidy and self-financing, which was reflected in support for producers that remained until 2022 and in the expansion of the number of families in accordance with the located groups.

In the reconfiguration of strategies to ensure a successful transition, the selection of criteria for admission to organizations (to the organic certification program) was also included. These criteria detail the minimum conditions of the production units (FPU) and identify the localized core of producers to which they could join. In addition, it is essential to anticipate the requirements and strategies since the formulation of the project precedes the beginning of the certification. At the same time, the optimization of technical assistance plans is being considered with a focus on supporting diversified productive initiatives and transformation, such as the management of biofactories for organic fertilizers on a larger scale.