Comments on: Coffee in Rwanda http://greenlagirl.com/coffee-in-rwanda/ Urban environmental lifestyle blog in Los Angeles Tue, 22 May 2012 01:46:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Siel http://greenlagirl.com/coffee-in-rwanda/comment-page-1/#comment-10318 Siel Thu, 10 Aug 2006 02:13:47 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2006/08/08/coffee-in-rwanda/#comment-10318 It's a real prob, this lack of co-op coverage in the MSM. Beyond inadequate coverage, this often means that the info we DO get about co-ops ends up coming from co-ops themselves (i.e. the reason you joked you might be getting on the co-op high horse) or someone with a big stake in co-ops. Despite the fact that the info might be accurate, it's easy for some to suspect that the info's biased, since it doesn't come from a 3rd party. I guess that's where alternative media comes in -- It’s a real prob, this lack of co-op coverage in the MSM. Beyond inadequate coverage, this often means that the info we DO get about co-ops ends up coming from co-ops themselves (i.e. the reason you joked you might be getting on the co-op high horse) or someone with a big stake in co-ops. Despite the fact that the info might be accurate, it’s easy for some to suspect that the info’s biased, since it doesn’t come from a 3rd party. I guess that’s where alternative media comes in –

]]> By: Rodney North http://greenlagirl.com/coffee-in-rwanda/comment-page-1/#comment-10239 Rodney North Wed, 09 Aug 2006 02:28:06 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2006/08/08/coffee-in-rwanda/#comment-10239 I was very encouraged that an article on the front page of the NY Times business section not only wrote positively about a co-op but actually did so at great length. For what its worth, the Times business pages almost never discusses co-op's, even though they collectively represent over $100 billion in US economic activity annually. But that's another story. And, yeah, it's funny (and self-serving) that STBX should make so much out of the 70% figure, yet gloss over the fact that the 30% is going to pay for the expenses and investments of an enterprise that is owned by, and accountable to, the farmers themselves. In essence that 30% represents how the farmers have successfully pulled off the "vertical integration" trick, and have "moved upstream in the value creation process". And, if you're going to operate some trucks, one warehouse (or many), drying patios, sorters, an export sales staff, etc, then some of of your export revenue (lets say 30%)will need to go to cover those costs. What's more, that ownership stake comes with a real, meaningful vote--a democratic element that a STBX barista owning a few shares of "Bean stock" might envy. But I sense I might be getting on my "co-op" high horse again, so I'll just dismount for now. I was very encouraged that an article on the front page of the NY Times business section not only wrote positively about a co-op but actually did so at great length. For what its worth, the Times business pages almost never discusses co-op’s, even though they collectively represent over $100 billion in US economic activity annually. But that’s another story.

And, yeah, it’s funny (and self-serving) that STBX should make so much out of the 70% figure, yet gloss over the fact that the 30% is going to pay for the expenses and investments of an enterprise that is owned by, and accountable to, the farmers themselves. In essence that 30% represents how the farmers have successfully pulled off the “vertical integration” trick, and have “moved upstream in the value creation process”. And, if you’re going to operate some trucks, one warehouse (or many), drying patios, sorters, an export sales staff, etc, then some of of your export revenue (lets say 30%)will need to go to cover those costs. What’s more, that ownership stake comes with a real, meaningful vote–a democratic element that a STBX barista owning a few shares of “Bean stock” might envy. But I sense I might be getting on my “co-op” high horse again, so I’ll just dismount for now.

]]>