Assessing the social and economic benefits of organic and fair trade tea production for small-scale farmers in Asia: a comparative case study of China and Sri Lanka
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Organic agriculture has the potential to provide improved livelihood opportunities, increased income and social benefits for resource-poor small-scale farmers. It has thus become a popular strategy for economic development and poverty reduction in many areas of the global south. However, there has been limited empirical research regarding the actual benefits of certified organic production, particularly when organic is combined with fair trade certification, and for small-scale farmers who are not engaged in coffee or banana production. Further research is needed to demonstrate experiences of farmers under diverse socioeconomic conditions, organizational contexts and degrees of market access. To address these gaps, two surveys of certified organic and fair trade tea producers in China and Sri Lanka were undertaken to investigate the contributions of organic crops to the household economy. In both cases, organic production required lower investment in terms of external inputs but a higher input of farmers’ labor. The price premium received by farmers for the organic tea compensated for the extra labor input and lower yield, resulting in a net profit. However, given the relatively small plots of tea gardens of each household, organic production could not fully provide for the households’ livelihood. Non-farm income dominated the total income of the households across the study cases, despite the earnings from organic farming. In both sites, market-oriented organic tea projects have created more options for paid work locally, which benefits women of reproductive age. Social benefits of organic farming were also reported. Pursuing fair trade certification on top of organic production facilitated farmer organizing, training and community development. Organic agriculture and fair trade certification offer important prospects to improve the livelihoods of small-scale farmers in other, less favored areas of Asia. These forms of certified production could provide economic and social benefits in instances where farm income is the main source of household income.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".