Differentiation of Nephelium lappaceum producers in Honduras: perspectives for the inclusive rural bioeconomy

In the rolling hills and coastal plains of Central America, the landscape is often defined by a deep divide. On one side stand vast, modern farms equipped with the latest technology and direct lines to global markets. On the other are small family plots, where farmers work with limited resources, relying on traditional methods and local buyers. This gap, known in economics as structural inequality, means that even when a new, valuable crop is introduced, it does not lift everyone up equally. Some farmers use it to build wealth, while others remain stuck in a cycle of poverty, unable to access the same opportunities. This dynamic is particularly visible in the department of Atlántida, Honduras, a region with rich soil and a humid climate perfect for growing fruit. Here, a tropical fruit called rambutan, with its spiky red skin and sweet white flesh, has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional crops. But for this crop to truly help the region, researchers needed to understand exactly who is growing it and why some succeed while others struggle.

A team of researchers from Honduras and Nicaragua set out to map this reality by studying hundreds of rambutan farmers in Atlántida. They did not just look at how much fruit was harvested; they examined the entire picture of a farmer's life, including the size of their land, their access to technical advice, whether they belonged to a cooperative, and how they sold their produce. By gathering detailed information from 314 randomly selected producers, the team used statistical methods to group these farmers into distinct categories based on their resources and capabilities. The goal was to move beyond a simple average and see the specific barriers and strengths of different types of farmers, a necessary step for designing policies that could actually work for everyone.

The analysis revealed a clear and stark division among the growers, splitting them into three very different groups. The vast majority, representing 91 percent of the farmers, fell into a category of small-scale, subsistence-oriented producers. These farmers typically manage small plots of land, often less than two hectares, and rely heavily on selling their fruit to local middlemen who set the prices. They have very little capital to invest in new technology, rarely receive technical assistance, and operate with minimal organization. Their income is low, and they face significant vulnerability to market changes. In sharp contrast, a tiny group of just 2 percent of the farmers emerged as large-scale entrepreneurs. These individuals control massive amounts of land, with some farms exceeding 70 hectares, and possess the financial power to invest in advanced infrastructure. They sell directly to exporters and wholesalers, bypassing local intermediaries, and have high rates of access to financing and technical support.

Between these two extremes lies a small but critical group of intermediate producers, making up about 7 percent of the total. These farmers are not the largest in terms of land size, but they are distinct in how they operate. They have adopted a more commercial approach, earning significantly higher incomes than their small-scale neighbors despite having similar amounts of land. The key difference is not the size of their fields, but their ability to organize. This group is much more likely to belong to producer associations, seek out technical advice, and adopt better farming practices. They act as a bridge in the local economy, possessing the organizational skills needed to connect with larger markets and add value to their products.

The researchers found that the potential for a thriving local bioeconomy—a system where waste from the crop is turned into valuable products like nutraceuticals or cosmetics—depends entirely on how these different groups are supported. The peel and seed of the rambutan, which are often discarded, contain compounds that could be sold for high prices in health and beauty markets. However, the study shows that the small-scale farmers, who produce the bulk of the fruit, currently lack the resources to process these by-products on their own. Without help, the economic benefits of this new industry would likely flow only to the large entrepreneurs who already have the capital to build processing facilities.

To ensure that the benefits of this bioeconomy are shared, the paper argues that a single policy cannot work for all three groups. The small-scale farmers need support that focuses on building their social connections and providing low-cost access to extension services, helping them organize and gain confidence. The intermediate group, which has already shown the ability to innovate and organize, needs specific support to get quality certifications and establish collective processing centers where they can aggregate the waste from smaller farms. The large entrepreneurs, who already dominate the market, should be encouraged through regulations and incentives to share their technology and infrastructure with the wider community.

Ultimately, the study concludes that the future of rural development in this region depends on recognizing these differences. Treating all farmers as if they are the same will only deepen the existing inequalities. By tailoring support to the specific needs of each group, particularly by empowering the intermediate farmers to act as hubs for the smaller ones, it is possible to create a more inclusive system. This approach could help stabilize rural populations, reduce the pressure for young people to migrate to cities, and ensure that the value of the rambutan crop is felt by the entire community, not just a few wealthy landowners.