Toward a Sustainable Recovery After Hurricane Mitch

Lessons from the Field Reasons for Resiliency: Toward a Sustainable Recovery after Hurricane Mitch

This report presents the methods and findings of an action research effort to measure and compare the impact of Hurricane Mitch on conventionally and agroecologically farmed lands in Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala. The project included farmers, promoters and local organizations as full partners in the research process, from beginning to end, and was designed to stimulate reflection and action based upon the lessons learned. Published by World Neighbors 2000 Printed in Honduras Also available in Spanish

World Neighbors - Central America Office Apartado 3385 Tegulcigalpa HONDURAS tel: 504-230-2006 fax: 504-230-2004 email: [email protected]

World Neighbors - International Headquarters 4127 NW 122nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73120-8869 USA tel: (405) 752-9700 fax: (405) 752-9393 email: [email protected] www.wn.org

Major support for this project was provided by the Ford Foundation, The Summit Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation and the Inter-American Foundation Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5 Hurricane Mitch Action Research Key Results

INTRODUCTION ...... 7 The Impact of Mitch Root Causes An Uneven Pattern Sustainable Agriculture Conventional Agriculture Farmer to Farmer

ACTION RESEARCH ...... 13 Overview Plot Selection Research Teams Field Work Data Synthesis Feedback Sessions

TECHNICAL RESULTS ...... 17 Overview Topsoil Soil Profiles Moisture Content Vegetation Cover Biophysical Damage Surface Erosion Gullies and Landslides

SOCIAL IMPACT ...... 23 Overview Participation Farmer Awareness A Learning Process Institutional Effects Local Government

CONCLUSION...... 29 Summary of Findings Recommendations

REFERENCES ...... 31 LIST OF PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS ...... 1 ...... 32

Acknowledgments

This project would not have and Luís Caballero, of the aged the project and ensured been possible without the in- Panamerican School of Agricul- financial backing from World volvement of many people who ture at Zamorano, Honduras. Neighbors. gave their time and enthusiasm for a process they strongly More than 40 local institutions A documentary video entitled believed in. Foremost among involved in sustainable agricul- Changing Course complements those who should be thanked ture and rural development took this report. It was filmed and are the nearly 2,000 farmers and part in this project, providing produced by Nicole Betancourt promoters in Honduras, Nicara- technical staff, creating local with Bray Poor and other associ- gua and Guatemala who took research teams and identifying ates of Nota Bene Productions. responsibility for collecting vital farmers in the communities Without their donations of time data and testimony about the where they work to take part in and equipment, the video would impact of Hurricane Mitch at a the study. A full list of participat- not have been possible. time when they were still recov- ing institutions is included in the ering from the storm them- Appendix, and all are gratefully Finally, the generous and timely selves. acknowledged. support of several private foundations gave this project the Members of the regional re- World Neighbors staff supported necessary resources to move search team and national teams the project throughout. Raúl forward. Grants from the Ford in each country were instrumen- Zelaya, then Country Director for Foundation, The Rockefeller tal in carrying out this project. Honduras, and Oscar Foundation, The Summit Foun- Eric Holt-Giménez conceived of Castañeda, Country Director for dation and the Inter-American the project, designed the meth- Guatemala, provided strong Foundation provided essential odology and served as regional leadership in their respective backing for the research pro- coordinator. Gonzalo Rodríguez countries. Essential administra- cess. Additional grants for local served as associate regional tive support was provided by research teams in Nicaragua coordinator, and Ana Sonia Nelly Cañadas in Honduras, were made by Oxfam (Great Recinos served as regional Karla Calderón and Carla Britain), ADESO (Nicaragua), methodologist and compiled the Aguilar in Guatemala and Doris SWISSAID (Switzerland), qualitative results. Jorge Gómez in Nicaragua. COOPIBO (Belgium) and Catho- Cabrera and Grupo Kukulkan in lic Relief Services (USA). Guatemala supported regional From World Neighbors head- Intercooperacion (Swiss Aid) advocacy and outreach. quarters in Oklahoma, José and ANAFAE (the Honduran Quiñónez managed logistics, National Network for the Promo- Pascal Chaput was national Pawan Gulati kept accounts, and tion of Ecological Agriculture) coordinator in Nicaragua and Lala Ramirez provided adminis- provided funding for the re- contributed to the survey design. trative support. Jim Durbin search in Honduras. Maritza Zuleta served as na- assisted with grant proposals, tional coordinator for Honduras, and Jethro Pettit supported the and Manuel Camposeco served regional team and edited the as national coordinator for final report. Catheryn Koss Guatemala. All three provided designed and produced the invaluable skills and leadership. English report, and Raúl Zelaya Data was analyzed by Nicolas and Nelly Cañadas translated Arroliga of Geodigital, in Nicara- and produced the Spanish gua, and by Angel Rodríguez version. Ron Burkard encour-

Executive Summary

Hurricane Mitch The project was designed to plots of farmland that were include farmers, promoters selected for their similarities In October of 1998 Central and local organizations as full in nearly every respect. They America was devastated by partners in the research shared the same topography, Hurricane Mitch, the worst process from beginning to angle of slope, location on the natural disaster to strike the end, and to stimulate reflec- watershed, intensity of the region in 200 years. A tropi- tion and action based upon storm, type of crops, etc. The cal depression with heavy the lessons learned. In only variation was that one rainfall caused widespread addition, the project aimed to was agroecologically farmed flooding and landslides, inform decision makers and and the other conventionally destroying homes, bridges, donors, and to influence farmed. roads, crops and animals, recovery priorities and poli- impacting 6.4 million people. cies. A total of 1,804 plots were surveyed (902 agroecological After the storm, much of the World Neighbors agreed to and 902 conventional) in 360 damage appeared to be sponsor and facilitate the communities spanning 24 related to poor land use and research, and helped obtain departments of the three deforestation. The damage to support from the Ford, countries. Of these, 1,738 agricultural land was espe- Rockefeller, Summit and were found to have valid data cially uneven: farms using Inter-American Foundations. and were included in the soil and water conservation Additional support for re- analysis. Data was pro- methods and other search teams in Nicaragua cessed for each of the three agroecological practices was provided by Oxfam countries and the results seemed to have survived (Great Britain), ADESO were confirmed and validated better than those using con- (Nicaragua), SWISSAID in workshops with partici- ventional farming methods. (Switzerland), COOPIBO pants at the local, regional (Belgium) and Catholic Relief and national levels. Action Research Services (USA). Intercooperacion (Swiss Aid) Participating farmers were Many similar observations and ANAFAE (the Honduran also interviewed about their were shared among farmers National Network for the farming practices, economic and promoters involved in Promotion of Ecological and labor investments, crop Farmer to Farmer, a Agriculture) provided funding types and yields, crop losses grassroots movement promot- for the research in Honduras. and observations of the ing sustainable agriculture in Forty local and international hurricane’s impact. Farmers Central America. In January organizations joined the were not objects of the study, 1999, a research team em- project, forming 96 local but rather involved subjects barked on a participatory research teams to carry out and took an active role in the action research project to field work in Honduras, Nica- data collection and analysis, compare the impact of Hurri- ragua and Guatemala. using and developing their cane Mitch on agroecological own knowledge and technical and conventional farms. The study examined paired abilities.

5 Executive Summary

Key Results more severe on the These results were made all agroecological plots. the more powerful by the fact Data from all three countries that they were arrived at demonstrated that plots Overall, the damage from through a participatory pro- farmed with sustainable gullies and landslides seems cess. The action research methods withstood the force to have been equally severe approach had a direct impact of the hurricane better than on both types of plots, indicat- on the more than 2,000 conventionally farmed plots ing that agroecological meth- people and 40 institutions on the most vital ods may not contribute to involved. The study became agroecological indicators, resilience in all conditions. a dynamic process of learn- such as topsoil depth, mois- Many gullies and landslides ing, sharing and validating ture content and surface originated uphill or upstream knowledge and methods. erosion. from the test sites, on poorly managed, degraded or defor- In the course of the research The sustainably farmed plots ested slopes. process, relations among had 28-38 percent more technicians, promoters and topsoil and 3-15 percent more One lesson learned is that farmers were strengthened; soil moisture than their con- when promoting institutional networks were ventional neighbors. Surface agroecological systems, broadened; women and erosion was 2 to 3 times conservation of the entire indigenous people were greater on conventional plots hillside and watershed must engaged in the process; than on agroecological plots, be considered. Protecting the family and community bonds which suffered 58 percent upper areas of the watershed were enhanced; and local less damage in Honduras, 70 can help reduce damage in decision makers were influ- percent less in Nicaragua, the lower elevations, where enced. and 99 percent less in Guate- extreme water runoff can mala. cause landslides and gullies. Testimonies and opinions Working at the farm level expressed by participants are Some results varied among alone is not enough. shared throughout this report, the three countries. Land- reinforcing the technical slides were 2 to 3 times more It may be that certain steeply findings and attesting to the severe on conventional farms sloping or vulnerable lands positive influence of the than on agroecological farms should not be cultivated at all. action research on participat- in both Honduras and Guate- Such areas may be better ing farmers and organizations. mala, but were worse on the protected as forests. If true, agroecological farms in Nica- this has implications for both A documentary video of the ragua. Gullies were less land reform and reforestation research process is also pronounced on the efforts. Farmers on high-risk available in Spanish and agroecological plots than on hillsides would need access English from World Neigh- conventional plots in Hondu- to better land and/or incen- bors. ras. But in both Nicaragua tives to grow and manage and Guatemala, gullies were forests instead of farming.

6 Introduction

The Impact of Mitch damaged. Total eco- In October of 1998 Central nomic losses America was devastated by in the region Hurricane Mitch, the worst were esti- natural disaster to strike the mated at region in 200 years. Winds of more than 180 miles per hour struck the US$7 billion.2 suffered from erosion and Caribbean coast, followed by landslides. a tropical depression that Mitch affected all sectors of hovered over the region’s the population, but the poor- In Guatemala, agricultural interior for a week, dumping est people in both urban and losses were estimated at more than 50 inches of rain. rural areas suffered the most. US$258 million. Seven per- Most vulnerable were those cent of all farmland (8,800 km living and farming on hillsides sq) was affected by the hurri- That noise we heard was like a low-flying airplane. The and near river banks. Floods cane. Ten thousand agricul- rain sounded like a river. and landslides damaged tural workers lost their jobs.4 The noise could be heard for crops, land and infrastructure, four days, and then that and cut off vast rural areas Root Causes slowed a little. Then we from markets and services. heard the wind, that sur- rounded the trees and shook One third of all economic In the aftermath of Mitch, it them from side to side. The losses were in the agricultural appeared that much of the creek thundered like a river... sector, at an estimated cost of damage was related to poor 3 Nora Aguilar US$2.3 billion. farming practices and defor- Matagalpa, Nicaragua estation. During the decades In Honduras, agricultural prior to this disaster, a mas- damages were estimated at sive loss of vegetative cover The rainfall provoked massive US$1.7 billion. Thirty-two occurred throughout Central floods and landslides, de- percent of farmers suffered America. The extensive stroying homes, bridges, total crop losses. Ten thou- clear-cutting of forestlands for roads, crops and animals, sand hectares of land were timber, ranching and farming, impacting 6.4 million people. stripped of their topsoil, and combined with widespread Of these, 9,976 were killed, at least ten of the major burning, left the region’s 11,140 were never accounted watersheds were destroyed. mountainous terrain in a for, 13,143 were injured and fragile and degraded state. 500,000 lost their homes.1 In Nicaragua, Sixty-two percent of farmers experi- Between 1990 and 1995, In both Honduras and Nicara- enced losses. Fifty-nine Central America lost gua, a third of the population percent of the bean crop and 2,284,000 hectares of forest suffered some kind of loss or 35 percent of the corn crop cover, a trend which contin- damage from Mitch. Eastern were damaged, and thou- ues at the rate of 44 hectares Guatemala was also heavily sands of hectares of land per hour. In Honduras, for

7 Introduction ested areas were reduced from 41 percent of the country’s land to 35 percent during this five-year period.5

More than 75 percent of the land in Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala is mountainous and ecologically fragile. The expansion of ranching, logging and plantation agriculture displaced millions of In Nicaragua, one of the policies that might encourage small farmers from lowland poorest countries in the sustainable land use are valleys into hillside areas. In hemisphere, 75 percent of the weak or nonexistent. Indeed, Honduras, 82 percent of the people in rural areas live in most policies favor conven- rural population (2.1 million poverty. The majority of small tional farming and short-term people) now lives on sloped farmers lack credit, land titles land use, leaving both natural land. Similar numbers are and the technical help resources and rural people reported in Guatemala and needed to diversify their more vulnerable to disasters. Nicaragua, where more than farms and improve the fertility two thirds of the rural popula- of their lands. Central America’s widespread tions farm on hillsides. rural poverty, unequal land In Guatemala, approximately tenure, and destructive pat- Land tenure is another factor. 87 percent of farms are terns of farming and land use In Honduras, more than smaller than seven hectares. all contributed to a disaster 80,000 farmers have plots These plots make up 15 simply waiting to happen. half a hectare or smaller in percent of the total farmland, The degraded state of upland size, and 250 thousand while 65 percent of all farm- areas had devastating conse- families own no land at all. land belongs to only 2.6 quences for those living Ninety percent of prime percent of the farms. “downstream.” As barren farmland belongs to ten hillsides failed to retain or percent of the population. Faced with very small hold- absorb water, a massive ings or no land at all, and a runoff carried away tons of lack of reliable credit or tech- topsoil, rocks and vegetation. nical assistance, rural Choked by the volume of In San Marcos, the best land is families have little incen- water and silt, rivers over- owned by the rich, the cattle ranch- tive to manage land in flowed their banks and de- ers. The farmer is working on the sustainable ways, to stroyed urban centers, roads, highlands, and that is where most of conserve soil and water, bridges and farms. the destruction has occurred. to protect forests or to Roberto Avila, Agriculture Promoter prevent erosion and A significant portion of Cen- San Marcos de Colón, Choluteca, Honduras landslides. National tral America’s population

8 Introduction

depends upon hillside farm- An Uneven Pattern (Farmer to Farmer), giving ers for food and grain. For impetus to this action re- example, 66 percent of the Hurricane Mitch left a devas- search project.10 corn, and 80 percent of the tating path, but the damage to beans consumed by Hondu- agricultural land was uneven. Sustainable Agriculture rans are grown on hillside Soon after the tragedy, it land. The agro-export model appeared that farms using During the past 25 years of that has prevailed in the soil conservation methods social and political turmoil, region has intensified the and other sustainable prac- Central America has wit- challenges facing hillside tices survived better than nessed a “quiet revolution” in farmers. Grain imports create those using conventional the area of sustainable agri- a disincentive to local grain farming methods.6 culture, also known as producers, restricting internal agroecology. This movement commerce and lowering Observations were quickly has been led mainly by local, prices to below their produc- shared among promoters and national and international tion cost. researchers involved in agri- non-governmental organiza- culture and rural develop- tions.11 Hurricane Mitch brought ment, suggesting that “areas global attention not only to where a lot of soil conserva- Using techniques that recover the vulnerability of small- tion has been done were only and build upon traditional scale, hillside farmers in lightly hit”7 and that “soil knowledge, agroecology Central America, but also to needs to be tied to the hill- provides viable alternatives to the important role they play in side.”8 soil degradation, burning, local food production and chemical use and the deple- natural resource manage- One program testing the tion of natural resources. ment. The hurricane exposed impact of soil conservation in Agroecology is also about a vital connection between Honduras since 1993 re- social sustainability, seeking social and environmental ported that “cropped sites to address the poverty and sustainability – and put a with vegetation contours, rock insecurity that affect rural spotlight on the role farming walls and tree fallows with- populations subsisting on methods can play in resisting stood the storm quite well, but hillside farms. or accelerating disasters. sites that did not have these investments were devas- A wide range of soil conser- Mitch was not a natural disaster. tated.”9 vation and other sustainable The disasters have been happening cultivation methods have over the years while we have been been tested and promoted by devastating the forests, burning the Additional evidence was soils, and leaving the watersheds shared among farmers and these farmer-led initiatives in unprotected. Mitch was just a farmer-leaders involved in the Central America over the response to all those disasters. grassroots sustainable agri- years. Some of the most culture movement in Central popular innovations include: Raúl Zelaya World Neighbors Area Representative, America known as Central America Campesino a Campesino

9 Introduction

• Soil and water conser- areas immediately around cultivation with modern vation methods, such as the seeds or plants in chemical inputs. Farmland is contour barriers, ditches, order to reduce soil runoff typically cleared and burned and terraces created with and concentrate nutrients. before the planting season, earth, rocks, live grasses plowed with the slope, and and other plant species to • Organic fertilizers cre- planted extensively. Inputs hold the soil in place and ated from composted include hybrid seeds, fertiliz- help retain water. organic matter or using ers, pesticides and herbi- vermiculture, and applied cides. • Cover crops, leguminous to fields to increase soil and other plant species fertility and help retain As land becomes scarce, it is grown with or between moisture in the soil. farmed more continuously crop cycles to fix nitrogen, and with shorter fallow peri- provide mulch or “green • Integrated pest manage- ods, which normally allow the manure” as composting ment, rotating crops, soil to recover. This pushes material, protect soil from cultivating beneficial plants farmers to literally “mine” the the elements, control and insects, and using soil for nutrients, and to weeds and conserve natural repellents and increasingly rely on chemical water. traps to protect crops from inputs. harmful insects. • Agroforestry, the practice Agroecology represents more of growing trees on farm- • Reduced or zero grazing, than a substitution of natural land to provide a source whereby livestock are not for artificial inputs. It is a shift of fuel, food, fodder, allowed to roam through towards an altogether differ- timber, fruit and compost fields and are kept in pens, ent farming system, one material as well as to stalls or controlled pasture which is more intensive and prevent erosion. lands for easy feeding, permanent, and which works collection of manure for with the forces of nature by • In-row tillage, a practice fertilizer, and reduced regenerating and conserving of cultivating only the damage to soil and crop- nutrients and other natural lands. resources.

Conventional Farmer to Farmer Agriculture Some of the earliest The dominant agroecological efforts in farming system Central America began in among Guatemala in the 1960s and smallholders in 1970s. This work was initi- Central America ated by World Neighbors and combines tradi- supported by Oxfam UK in tional shifting the community of San Martín,

10 Introduction

Jilotepeque in the department extension activities. By the processes of transformation of Chimaltenango. late 1990’s, an estimated in the lives of Central Ameri- 10,000 farmers and farmer- can farmers. World Neighbors identified promoters were applying and trained about 50 indig- more than 35 technological This movement has pro- enous agricultural promoters, packages on demonstration foundly changed the lives of who are now considered to farms. The movement contin- many people. The methodol- be the founders of the Farmer ued to receive support from ogy used by Farmer to to Farmer movement in the dozens of local and interna- Farmer empowers community region. The methodology tional agencies.14 members to participate, and was first captured in the now- takes as a starting point the classic book Two Ears of This is a program to transfer farmers, their families, and Corn12 by Roland Bunch. technology through horizontal their communities. channels of communication. First you teach a farmer, then he During the early 1980’s, the teaches another. That is why it The 10,000 farmers practicing Farmer to Farmer movement is known as Farmer to Farmer. sustainable agriculture in spread to Mexico, Nicaragua Central America are but a tiny and Honduras, where com- José Andino, Nicaraguan Promoter fraction of the more than four munities were organized to million hillside farmers in the promote sustainable agricul- The Farmer to Farmer prin- region. Nonetheless, Farmer tural techniques such as soil ciples are to “learn by doing” to Farmer has become a well- conservation, in-row tillage, and to respect the farmers’ established and respected crop residue management, environment, their analysis of movement with potential for cover crops, agro-forestry, their situation, and their growth. companion planting and use traditional knowledge. The of organic fertilizers.13 training is effective because it Hurricane Mitch revealed how is done orally, using simple, fragile agricultural and envi- In Nicaragua, the spread of everyday language, and in a ronmental systems really are the Farmer to Farmer move- manner that respects cultural in Central America. But the ment was encouraged during values. Frequent field visits storm’s differential impact the 1980s by the National serve as forums for feedback emerged as a silver lining in Union of Farmers and Ranch- and sharing of results. this disaster. Sustainable ers (UNAG), with support agriculture could be put to the from the Nicaraguan govern- In this way, the Farmer to ultimate test, and measured ment, the Ford Foundation Farmer methodology goes for its potential resistance and and many other international beyond agricultural technol- resilience to natural disasters. agencies. ogy. The shift in farming techniques is part of a deeper A hallmark of the Farmer to change in consciousness. Farmer approach is the Farmer to Farmer promoters participation and leadership are respected as community of farmers in all research and leaders, and are guiding

Action Research

Overview By March 1999, forty local was that one should be and international organiza- agroecologically farmed and In January 1999, a team of tions were involved in the the other conventionally development workers and project, and 96 local research farmed. researchers experienced in teams were formed to carry the Farmer to Farmer move- out field The plots were ment embarked on a partici- work in It was hard to locate the chosen through an patory action research project Honduras, two types of plots, because intentional sam- we were meticulously to compare the impact of Nicaragua searching for plots that pling process in Hurricane Mitch on and Guate- filled all of the requisites affected regions agroecological and conven- mala. All and conditions needed. It where the partici- tional farms. were organi- was not easy to find a pating institutions zations conventional plot neighbor- were already ing one where soil conser- The project was designed to already promoting sustain- vation practices were used. include farmers, promoters working in able agriculture. and local organizations as full communities Arturo, Promoter To ensure consis- partners in the research affected by Langue, Valle, Honduras tency, specific process, from beginning to Mitch. common criteria end, and to stimulate reflec- were used in selecting the tion and action based upon These institutions were also pairs of plots: the lessons learned. In familiar with horizontal meth- addition, the project aimed to ods of training and farmer-led • Proximity of the plots inform decision makers and agricultural research and • Intensity of rains and donors, and to influence extension. This experience damage recovery priorities and poli- made possible the inter- • Slope of the plot cies. institutional cooperation • Geology of the soil needed to carry out a re- • Location in the watershed World Neighbors agreed to gional study (please see the and micro-watershed sponsor and facilitate the Appendix for a full list of • Cardinal orientation of plot research, and helped obtain participating institutions). • Vegetation around the plot support from foundations • Type of permanent crop Plot Selection Time was of the essence, A total of 1,804 plots were because vital agroecological The study examined paired selected (902 agroecological data would be lost once the plots of farmland that were and 902 conventional) in 360 next seasonal rains began in selected for their similarities communities spanning 24 May. The network of Farmer in nearly every respect. They departments of Honduras, to Farmer organizations was needed to share the same Nicaragua and Guatemala. instrumental in mobilizing topography, angle of slope, Of these, 1,738 were later research teams and involving location on the watershed, considered to have valid data farmers in the process. intensity of the storm, type of and were used in the data crops, etc. The only variation analysis.

13 Action Research

Research Teams The regional team was made • thickness of topsoil up of the Regional Coordina- • depth at which subsoil Each of the 96 local research tor, who designed the meth- began teams was made up of at odology, training materials • depth at which moisture least one technician and two and data collection instru- began farmer-promoters, who were ments, an Associate Coordi- • soil texture and color directly responsible for gath- nator, and a Methodologist • vegetation cover (at 3 ering data on approximately who compiled and synthe- levels of height) ten paired plots (20 plots sized the qualitative results. • organic matter in soil altogether per team). A total Professional database design • agroecological methods of 98 technicians and 208 and processing was also used farmer-promoters participated contracted in Nicaragua and • crop losses and yields in the research teams. Honduras. • surface erosion • gully erosion The local research teams Field Work • landslides took part in intensive 1-2 day training workshops, where Each local research team As the teams worked, the they learned about the systematically selected the national coordinators made project’s objectives, the crite- ten pairs of plots to be stud- follow-up visits to clarify any ria to be used for selecting ied in their region, based on misunderstandings and plots, and the methods for the defined criteria. An entire minimize mistakes. While it gathering and interpreting day was spent studying each was not possible to accom- data. They practiced taking pair of plots. Both farmers pany each team during the measurements, gathering (agroecological and conven- gathering of information, data and filling out the forms tional) helped to survey both forms were checked thor- designed for the study. plots – a practice which oughly for errors. proved to be catalytic for Local coordinators in each many of the conventional Participating farmers were institution were given addi- farmers. also interviewed about their tional training to help them farming practices, economic ensure a common under- The agroecological indicators and labor investments, crop standing of the objectives and and biophysical damage types and yields, crop losses consistent application of the assessed included: and observations of the research methods. A Na- hurricane’s impact. tional Coordinator in each country facilitated the Both tasks, the field work and filling out the forms, took up a lot of trainings, made follow up our time. We began the field work at 7:30 in the morning and visits, produced the final stopped at 2:00 in the afternoon. Then we filled out the forms individually, following the instruction that asked to consider first the country report, and linked data on the conventional farmer, and then the data of the farmer local institutions to one an- that practiced sustainable agriculture. other and to the regional Arturo, Promoter effort. Langue, Valle, Honduras

14 Action Research

The researchers used open dialogue and a two-way communication style. Farm- ers were involved subjects and took an active role in the data collection, using and developing their own knowledge and abilities.

Data Synthesis

A database for each of the three countries was created by the national research teams and processed by Geodigital, based in Nicara- plots) and promoters. The rect the patterns they had gua. After review of the testimony was collected observed, and to better un- preliminary results, some through key informant inter- derstand the causes and errors were found in the data views and during workshops. consequences of the disaster. from Honduras and Guate- Attention was given to the role mala. Further data process- Feedback Sessions of agroecology in creating ing, correction of the errors resilience and shaping a and elimination of invalid data Once the data was pro- sustainable recovery process. was done by a support team cessed, feedback sessions Recommendations were from the Panamerican School were held on three levels: made for future action and, in of Agriculture at Zamorano, with the local research teams; some cases, commitments Honduras. with groups of trained farm- and action plans were devel- ers; and with local and na- oped. Given the sampling method tional organizations and used for plot selection, and government leaders. Fifteen A documentary video was the variability of some of the meetings were held at the filmed during the field work in data, the research team was local level and three at the all three countries, and pro- reluctant to apply overly national level (Honduras, duced in both Spanish and rigorous tests of statistical Nicaragua and Guatemala). English in time to be significance. However, visible screened and distributed at trends clearly emerged from These meetings provided a the local, regional and na- the percentages, frequencies forum for comparing and tional meetings. Copies of and media analyses done. validating the findings from the video Changing These findings were then multiple sites, and for devel- Course(Cambiando el confirmed by the extensive oping a more rigorous set of Rumbo) are available from testimony gathered from conclusions. Participants World Neighbors. farmers (on both types of were able to confirm or cor-

Technical Results

Overview agroecological farms in Nica- characteristics and to mea- ragua. Gullies (ditches sure the soil layers. Analysis of the data collected deeper than 20cm) were in all three countries demon- much less pronounced on the The thickness of the topsoil strated that sustainably agroecological plots than on and soil, and depth of the farmed plots fared better than conventional plots in Hondu- subsoil were measured, as conventionally farmed plots ras. But in both Nicaragua was the depth at which mois- on the most vital indicators of and Guatemala, gullies were ture began. To determine soil agroecological resistance, more severe on the texture and coloration, a small such as topsoil depth, mois- agroecological plots. sample of soil was mixed with ture content and erosion. water and observed through a Possible expla- series of steps. The sustain- You can see the difference nations for able plots had between the plots with these findings Topsoil 28-38 percent regards to management and and variations more topsoil to crop traditions. In the are explored Topsoil is a combination of conventional plot we could below, in the minerals and decomposed and 3-15 see that the soil was poorer, percent more its coloration more red, the analysis for organic matter. The available soil moisture topsoil shallower. While in the each of the key nutrients and consistency of than their agroecological plot, the profile agroecological topsoil make it capable of conventional of the soil was darker. The indicators. sustaining plant life. A thick neighbors. coloring was dark brown. layer of topsoil helps retain Surface ero- Soil Profiles water and promote healthy Juan Ramón Alvarez, Promoter sion was 2 to San Ramón, Nicaragua plant development. It offers 3 times Soil profiles more nutrients, reduces the greater on were con- need for chemical fertilizers, conventional plots than on ducted by making a vertical and can be highly productive. agroecological plots, which cut of about 60 cm long, 30 suffered 58 percent less cm wide and 50 cm deep at As shown in Table 1, damage in Honduras, 70 specified locations on each agroecological plots had an percent less in Nicaragua, plot. These samples were average of 1.5 – 2.5 cm and 99 percent less in Guate- used to examine the soil greater depth of topsoil than mala. Table 1. Average depth of topsoil (cm) Some indicators varied nota- Agroecological Conventional Difference Percentage* bly among the three coun- Plots Plots tries. Landslides were 2 to 3 Honduras 9.03 cm 6.52 cm 2.51 cm 38.5% times more severe on conventional farms than on Guatemala 6.88 cm 5.35 cm 1.53 cm 28.6% agroecological farms in both Nicaragua 9.11 cm 6.56 cm 2.55 cm 38.9% Honduras and Guatemala, but were worse on the * Percentage of additional topsoil depth in Agroecological vs. Conventional plots

17 Technical Results

When comparisons were made between the the soil which pronounced in areas of more paired off-plots, the thinner topsoil seen in the allows plants to intense rainfall. conventional plots indicates that this year we absorb these have lost great amounts of topsoil. Earth’s nutrients. Soil Even small differences in blood is leaking into the rivers. conservation moisture depth of between 3- Lucas Camposeco, Promoter and Technician measures, com- 14 percent, such as the Jacaltenango, Huehuetenango, Guatemala. bined with other averages of 0.3 – 1.9 cm agroecological shown in Table 2, contribute practices, improves to agroecological resilience. conventional plots. This fertility by increasing the soil’s Greater moisture retention difference was even more capacity to absorb water. correlates to lower levels of pronounced in areas of more potentially damaging runoff. intense rainfall and storm Agroecological methods can And for a farmer, one extra damage. reduce vulnerability by retain- centimeter of moist soil can ing and filtering more water, prevent crop loss during a To visualize the effect of this thereby limiting runoff and drought. difference, an additional 2 cm erosion and at the same time of topsoil on one hectare of recharging water tables. Vegetation Cover land is equivalent to 3,388 Greater moisture is also bushels of soil. In Nicaragua, beneficial for crop yields, Vegetation cover on some farmers quantified the especially during prolonged agroecological plots may value of their topsoil at dry weather. include cover crops, US$0.85 per bushel, for a agroforestry crops, live con- value of US$1,440 per hect- Research teams recorded the tour barriers, and shade trees are for each centimeter of depth at which moisture used to protect the soil, fix topsoil. began to appear in each of nitrogen and provide biomass. the excavated soil profiles, Organic material from such This difference is most likely using both tactile and visual vegetation helps restore the the product of years of soil observations. The depth was natural fertility of the soil and conservation work by the greater (i.e. less moisture) in can also provide a source of agroecological farmers, and conventional plots than in animal fodder and firewood. not to a variation in the origi- agroecological plots. Again, A wide vegetation cover helps nal condition of the land. The this difference was more to diminish the force of rain agroecological farmers simply had smaller losses under Table 2. Average depth at which moisture begins (cm) Agroecological Conventional similar conditions, due to their Difference Percentage* Plots Plots preventive measures. Honduras 9.98 cm 10.28 cm -0.30 cm -2.9%

Moisture Content Guatemala 2.44 cm 2.99 cm -0.44 cm -15.3%

Moisture plays an important Nicaragua 15.81 cm 17.80 cm -1.99 cm -11.2% role in dissolving minerals in * Percentage of additional moisture in Agroecological vs. Conventional plots

18 Technical Results drops hitting the soil, thereby A promoter in Matagalpa, In those areas where the forest decreasing the risk of topsoil Nicaragua observed that in was scarce, the disaster hit hardest. The forest disperses being loosened and washed forested areas, soil was re- water, it dilutes it, it makes it go in downhill. Root systems of tained better than in exposed different directions. This allows grasses, bushes and trees areas. He also noted that in water to fall softly on the crops. further protect the soil from areas where soil conservation And if the plot has been worked erosion. practices had been used, using conservation techniques, so much the better.

Table 3a. Vegetation Cover (percentage of plot covered) Pedro Zavala González Agroecological Conventional El Aguacata farm, Buena Vista, Nicaragua Difference* Plots Plots Honduras there seemed to be less ground 56.11% 96.63% -40.52% “washout.” These conserva- bush 11.61% 25.11% -13.5% tion measures included live tree 14.07% 9.21% 4.86% and dead barriers, and wind- breaks. “There was less Guatemala** damage in those plots than in ground 66.51% 62.82% 3.69% the conventional plots that had no vegetation cover; Nicaragua these plots washed out fast.” ground 51.69% 44.07% 7.62% bush 10.56% 10.25% 0.31% Research teams measured tree 14.41% 11.89% 2.52% and compared the percent- * Percentage of additional vegetation cover on agroecological vs. conventional age of vegetation cover at plots. three levels of height on a ** In Guatemala, only ground level vegetation cover was measured transect across each plot: ground level, bushes, and Table 3b. Vegetation Density (height or thickness) trees. They also measured Agroecological Conventional Difference Percentage* vegetation height and density. Plots Plots In Nicaragua and Guatemala, Honduras** agroecological plots had ground 18.00 cm 17.05 cm 0.95 cm 5.6% more vegetation cover than bush 62.62 cm 59.05 cm 3.57 cm 6.0% conventional plots (Table 3a). tree 3.35 cm 2.88 cm 0.47 cm 16.3% In Honduras, agroecological Guatemala plots had less vegetation ground*** 3.62 cm 1.92 cm 1.70 cm 88.5% cover than conventional plots at the lower levels, but more * Percentage of additional height or thickness on agroecological plots vs conven- (and higher) tree cover. Both tional plots Honduras and Guatemala ** Average height of vegetative cover for ground vegetation (cm), bushes (cm) and trees (mt) had higher levels of density *** Average thickness of ground cover (cm) (height or width) in all of the

19 Technical Results vegetation measured (Table sustainably suffered 58 per- 3b). cent less erosion in Hondu- ras, 70 percent less in Nicara- Biophysical Damage gua, and 99 percent less in Guatemala than land farmed Biophysical damage refers to conventionally. a range of effects on the soil profile. Research teams This data, presented in Table measured three types of 4, is fully consistent with the biophysical damage: surface findings on thickness of erosion, gullies and land- topsoil. Surface erosion is slides. the most common type of soil erosion, and is also the most Surface erosion is the wash- easily controlled by soil and ing away of surface topsoil. water conservation practices. fered less damage from On hillside farms, it is the landslides, but those in Nica- most common cause of Gullies and Landslides ragua suffered from more. degradation and declining productivity. Gullies are In Honduras, as shown in There were some weak- ditches running down the Table 5, agroecological plots nesses in the collection of hillside of 20 cm or greater in suffered less gully damage data related to both gullies depth. Landslides are a than conventional plots. In and landslides. In the field, complete dislodging of soil, Guatemala and Nicaragua, this was a more complex task vegetation and rocks. however, agroecological plots than expected, compared to suffered greater damage than the other indicators. Many During the study both surface conventional plots. gullies and landslides were erosion and landslides were larger than the sample plots measured by surface area A similar observation was and the teams failed to esti- (square meters), and gullies made for landslides (Table 6). mate relative values. This were measured by total Agroecological plots in Hon- limited the validity of the data. volume (cubic meters). duras and Guatemala suf-

Surface Erosion Table 4. Average area of Surface Erosion (m2)* Agroecological Conventional Difference Percentage** Surface erosion was two to Plots Plots three times greater on con- Honduras 7.85 m2 18.95 m2 11.1 m2 58.6% ventional plots than on Guatemala 0.12 m2 19.47 m2 agroecological plots in Hon- 19.35 m2 99.4% duras and Nicaragua, and Nicaragua 130.88 m2 444.98 m2 314.10 m2 70.6% was almost nonexistent on * Averages for Honduras and Guatemala are per plot, and for Nicaragua per agroecological plots in Guate- manzana of land mala. Land farmed ** Percentage of additional area eroded on Conventional vs. Agroecological plots

20 Technical Results

Table 5. Average volume of Gullies per plot (m3) One lesson learned is that, Agroecological Conventional when promoting agroecolo- Difference Percentage** Plots Plots gical systems, conservation of Honduras 31.80 m3 102.26 m3 70.46 m3 221.6% the entire hillside and watershed must be considered. Guatemala 29.95 m3 9.38 m3 20.57 m3 -68.9% Protecting the upper areas of Nicaragua 97.54 m3 73.51 m3 24.03 m3 -24.6% the watershed can help reduce damage in the lower * Percentage of additional gully volume on Conventional vs. Agroecological plots elevations, where extreme water runoff can cause land- Table 6. Average area of Landslides per plot (m2) slides and gullies. Working at Agroecological Conventional Difference Percentage** Plots Plots the farm level alone is not enough. Honduras 102.17 m2 221.93 m2 119.76 m2 117.2%

Guatemala 15.18 m2 62.03 m2 46.85 m2 308.6% Another possible explanation is that landslide damage is Nicaragua 508.83 m2 391.11 m2 117.72 m2 -23.1% more directly related to the * Percentage of additional landslide area on Conventional vs. Agroecological plots geological characteristics of the soil and subsoil than to However, when checked A likely reason is that much types of agricultural practices. against visible observations gully and landslide damage Therefore, faced with a phe- and testimony at the farm covered an area greater than nomenon of Mitch’s strength, level, the damage from gullies the plot being measured. any intervention, including and landslides seems to have Much of the damage origi- agroecological methods, has been equally severe on both nated uphill or upstream from its limitations. types of plots. This was an the test site, on slopes or important lesson, indicating watersheds with poorly man- It may be that certain areas that agroecological methods aged or degraded lands. such as land with high de- may not have added to resil- Deforestation was observed grees of slope, or other geo- ience in some conditions. uphill from a number of land- logical conditions such as soil slides and gullies. structure, should not be cultivated at all. Instead, such highly vulnerable slopes may Monday, when everything was over, I had the courage to come and be better protected as forests. inspect my land. I was happy because the erosion was minimal. What If true, this has implications erosion you can see here, to me is nothing. I can fix it easily. Other brothers suffered great loss of land, and they will no be able to plant for both land reform and anything on them. In other words, they have no land left to work. reforestation efforts. Farmers on high-risk hillsides would Vladimir Briones Sosa need access to better land, El Aguacatal, Buena Vista, Nicaragua and/or be encouraged to grow and manage forests instead of farming.

Social Impact

Overview strengthened, institutional Today we had the satisfaction networks were broadened, of learning more from what our The technical findings dem- women and indigenous colleagues have said. Now we onstrated that lands farmed people were engaged in the will go and communicate this sustainably are more resilient process, family and commu- to our family, so that they learn to erosion and runoff, and nity bonds were enhanced new things, and how to plant better in our plots. retain more topsoil and and local decision makers moisture, than lands farmed were influenced. Farmer at a local meeting conventionally. They also Linaca, Choluteca, Honduras revealed that the conserva- The testimonies and opinions tion of forests and water- expressed by participants in Although more men than sheds is vital regardless of interviews and during local women participated in the farming methods, and that and national meetings attest study, the women involved some land may be unsuitable to these effects. enhanced their technical skills for cultivation. and gained the respect of Participation other farmers. Several These results were made all women commented that the more powerful by the fact Broad and genuine participa- participating allowed them to that they were arrived at tion in the project helped to break out of their traditional through a participatory pro- extend its impact in the com- roles, since their agricultural cess. The action research munities. Whole families, experience was mainly limited approach had a direct impact including children, were to family orchards. All of this on the more than 2,000 involved in the field work, helped to raise their self- people and 40 institutions accompanying the teams to esteem, and earned them involved. The study became the plots to conduct the recognition in their communi- a dynamic process of learn- research. Many farmers ties. ing, sharing and validating expressed the desire to share knowledge and methods. what they had learned with In Guatemala, ten indigenous Relations among technicians, neighbors and relatives. technicians and 27 indig- promoters and farmers were enous promoters participated in the field teams, which allowed for cross-cultural I think that this research project will be more beneficial to the farmer. exchange, sharing of knowl- The most important factor of this process is that the farmer participates directly. Other research projects have always been done by techni- edge, and the strengthening cians, or more educated personnel. In this case it is not so. The of understanding among promoters themselves are participating in the survey. They are doing people of different ethnic the whole process, they are doing the counting, the profiles, they are groups and cultures. observing the slopes, and the differences between plots. Both the conventional and agroecological farmers will really see the differences that exist between plots that are conserved and those that are not. In all three countries, ties between neighbors were Juan Ramón Alvarez strengthened, as were San Ramón, Nicaragua relationships between the

23 Social Impact research teams and the farmers. Both the promoters This means that we have to go beyond that work. As a community we have to make sure that water sources are sufficiently protected, that our and technicians agreed that plots, and those of our neighbors have trees. We have to have barriers, one of the aspects of the not only low, but also including fruit trees. As long as we have adult study that they enjoyed the forests, we will have the means to resist forces like Mitch. We must most was the time for achieve a more global change. dialogue and building Participant at a local meeting friendships. Güinope, Honduras

In this way, the research process served to strengthen the transfer of knowledge For Roberto Avila, a promoter Many farmers also realized about sustainable agriculture in San Marcos de Colón in that agroecology alone is not among and between families Choluteca, the greatest enough to protect their farms. and communities, making it impact of the study was that In the local meeting in more likely that these meth- several conventional farmers Güinope, Honduras, partici- ods will be advanced by affirmed that they would pants concluded that they future generations. begin soil conservation prac- were not prepared for another tices on at least a small plot phenomenon like Mitch, and Farmer Awareness of land. Some have already they realized that the soil begun to do so. conservation work already Many farmers were convinced After observing the differ- undertaken was not sufficient that they would lose more ences between the plots, to resist the fury of the storm. land and soil if they continued participants were encouraged practicing conventional agri- to broaden their culture, and they recognized knowledge, and to Now we are thinking of reforestation, that sustainable agriculture adopt new agricul- contouring the land, and setting up wind- could prevent or diminish tural practices. breaks to give more protection to the soil. future damage. Because of the study, we are thinking about One Nicaragua, improving the environment to help us keep our land. With this study we are learning Those who practice conven- farmer, Carlos Cruz, how we can cover our land so that it won’t tional agriculture did not feel said that he used to wash away, or dry out. good while we were conducting collect leftover corn- our survey in their plots, and The sea is rich with the flowers of our earth, they realized that they had stalks and burn them. Because of the study but will no longer do this work. With time, sustained more damage, the flowers of the earth will be enriched. maybe because the plot was he understood that Burning corn stalks impoverishes the land. not taken care of properly. he was killing the A good rain falls, and it washes away. Everything that is not taken organisms in the soil, care of properly has its price. and that it is best to Carlos Cruz, Nicaraguan farmer Roberto Avila chop leftovers up and San Marcos de Colón, Choluteca, leave them on the soil to Honduras enrich it.

24 Social Impact

A Learning Process and adopted new techniques. The The study was also a practi- success of this cal learning opportunity for methodology lies those involved. Farmers were in the participa- trained to take measurements tion of farmers at and analyze the condition of all stages of the their soil and farms. They research, and the learned to make sketches harmonious and maps of their plots and to balance between theory and helped to motivate self-help identify their positions in practice. efforts in their communities, relation to the valleys and rather than simply waiting for other topographic characteris- Institutional Effects outside assistance. This local tics. They also became more leadership was then carried familiar with both types of The study’s influence on the over into the research pro- agricultural practices. institutions and organizations cess. involved, at all levels, was also clear from the testimony. This capacity for self-mobili- It is a great experience for me, and we have all taken this Farmer groups and non- zation among farmer groups experience as an additional tool, governmental organizations indicates that resilience has a because it is a simple process at the local and national social as well as a technical that we can teach others. It is a levels gained important in- dimension. While not ex- process easy to understand, and sight and skills through their plored in this study, the dy- people like it because it is dynamic and no one falls asleep. involvement. The links be- namic social and organiza- tween these groups were tional fabric of the Farmer to Promoter strengthened. Farmer movement was ob- Santa Barbara, Honduras served throughout the re- At the local level, many orga- search process. In Tocoa in the north of Hon- nizations and farmer groups duras, participants stated that had mobilized themselves The Farmer to Farmer move- they had learned about levels already in response to the ment was itself strengthened of deforestation in the zone, humanitarian emergency. through the exchange of and about the types of crops Farmer to Farmer groups knowledge among farmers, being cultivated. They also promoters and affirmed that the study helped technicians. There was a great difference between people who Participating them become more aware of were organized, not only in the Farmer to Farmer the economic, social, and Program, but also in other organizations. People institutions cultural situation of farmers in that were organized received help faster than those improved their the surveyed areas. that were on their own. And that is a result of being capacities to united, working for the good of the community. evaluate the impact of their Those who participated in the Nicaraguan Promoter survey teams also learned work, and to 25 Social Impact

In Guatemala, students from People who only learn for themselves, and are not capable of sharing Rafael Landívar University felt their knowledge with a colleague, cannot participate in this process of sustainable agriculture. When you help others, you see with satisfaction that the experience helped that you are not alone when you progress. Your neighbor and colleague them to understand the reality is also progressing. I think that every farmer should see their plot as a of farmers displaced because school where others can learn and share experiences. This will be more of the internal armed conflict productive, because if we were able to develop the research, we will also in Corozo, Izabal, and the be able to do other work with our neighbors from the community. suffering caused by Mitch. Honduran farmer in a local meeting Siguatepeque, Honduras The National Coordination of Indigenous Peasants (CONIC), a Guatemalan reach out to new communities when the challenge of pro- farmer organization working and farmers. Many farmers moting sustainable agriculture for land rights, has made involved expressed their wish and land use is of general known their decision to insti- to become volunteer promot- interest. tutionalize sustainable agri- ers of sustainable agriculture. culture within their organiza- Many organizations pooled tion for the area of Livingston. In the three countries, the their resources and provided number of participating insti- mutual support during the Similar outcomes were ob- tutions exceeded World research. This collaboration served in Honduras. In Santa Neighbors expectations, broadened each institution’s Bárbara, at the end of the indicating the high potential vision and motivated some to local meeting, the authorities for broad inter-institutional move towards more sustain- of the High School Institute coordination in the region able practices. expressed their wish to include agricultural and environmental protection in their curriculum.

The hurricane awoke the organizations that were asleep. Now all local organizations are functioning, including women’s groups, who are doing community work, like building roads and orchard planting projects.

Lucrecia Martínez, Promoter San Juan of Linaca, Choluteca, Honduras

26 Social Impact

World Neighbors staff and program leaders were influenced to adopt a broader, natural resources management approach. All projects now consider the watershed or micro-watershed as a basis for planning agricultural development activities, while continuing to give priority to the needs of the poorest farmers.

Local Government

Many actors not directly involved in the research were also influenced by the study. This was true with municipal example, an Auxiliary Mayor authorities who, in some This research helped us to in Linaca, Choluteca made municipalities of Choluteca reflect. Together, we will now the decision to become a and Francisco Morazán in write a different story. We will, member of the local Coop- as promoters, together with Honduras, made a commit- institutions and the municipal erative after participating in ment to take measures to government, carry out a one of the meetings. Local protect natural resources and conscientious work so that we authorities have become to support sustainable agri- no longer have to regret. aware of the needs of com- culture. munities that had been Participant in a local meeting Choluteca, Honduras previously forgotten. The commitment of several of them went beyond that. For Local capacity to influence state policies was strengthened through the wide diffu- In Yuscarán, where World Neighbors and Zamorano worked in the past, there was a very successful project in the lower part of the watershed, sion of the results of the but not so in the upper part. During Mitch, the lack of conservation study. For example, in Gua- practices in the upper part provoked landslides that devastated several temala, the Minister of Agri- years of soil conservation work in the lower part. culture showed interest in the study and stated that for the If you work blindly in regard to nature, nature can wipe out your work in a second. Now we are raising our heads and considering watersheds year 2000, sustainable agri- and the wider environment in our everyday decisions. culture will be one of the components of agrarian Raúl Zelaya policies. World Neighbors Area Representative for Central America

Conclusion

Summary of Findings Overall, the damage from that they were arrived at gullies and landslides seems through a participatory pro- In all three countries, to have been equally severe cess. The action research agroecological plots withstood on both types of plots, indicat- approach had a direct impact the impact of Hurricane Mitch ing that agroecological meth- on the more than 2,000 better than conventional plots, ods may not contribute to people and 40 institutions according to the most vital resilience in all conditions. involved. The study became indicators of agroecological Many gullies and landslides a dynamic process of learn- resistance: depth of topsoil, originated uphill or upstream ing, sharing and validating depth of moisture and surface from the test sites, on poorly knowledge and methods. erosion. managed, degraded or defor- ested slopes. In the course of the research The sustainable plots had 28- process, relationships among 38 percent more topsoil and 3- One lesson learned is that technicians, promoters and 15 percent more soil moisture when promoting agroeco- farmers were strengthened; than their conventional neigh- logical systems, conservation institutional networks were bors. Surface erosion was 2 of the entire hillside and broadened; women and to 3 times greater on conven- watershed must be indigenous people were tional plots than on considered. Protecting the engaged in the process; agroecological plots, which upper areas of the watershed family and community bonds suffered 58 percent less can help reduce damage in were enhanced; and local damage in Honduras, 70 the lower elevations, where decision makers were influ- percent less in Nicaragua, and extreme water runoff can enced. The study demon- 99 percent less in Guatemala. cause landslides and gullies. strated the validity of partici- Working at the farm level patory action research as a Other indicators varied notably alone is not enough. tool of social impact that among the three countries. contributes to the strengthen- Landslides were two to three It may be that steeply sloping ing of local capacities, and times more severe on conven- or vulnerable lands should that generates changes in the tional farms than on not be cultivated at all. Such participants’ attitudes. agroecological farms in both areas may be better pro- Honduras and Guatemala, but tected as forests. If true, this Recommendations were worse on the has implications for both land agroecological farms in Nica- reform and reforestation These recommendations ragua. Gullies were much efforts. Farmers on high-risk were derived from research less pronounced on the hillsides would need access findings and observations, agroecological plots than on to better land and/or incen- from the opinions and de- conventional plots in Hondu- tives to grow and manage mands of farmers, promoters ras. But in both Nicaragua forests instead of farming. and technicians participating and Guatemala, gullies were in the project, and from local, more severe on the These results were made all regional and national meet- agroecological plots. the more powerful by the fact ings held in each country.

29 Conclusion

1. Mitch brought worldwide Farmers without property practiced, as well as on attention to the social and titles also have limited the agricultural and forest environmental vulnerability access to credit or finan- products derived from this of Central America, and to cial services. system. In addition, the interconnected nature mortgage rates could be of economic injustice and 4. Economic and social costs decreased and estimated ecological degradation. derived from environmen- land values increased Governments in the region tal degradation are high where sustainable agricul- should formulate and and impact society as a ture is utilized. implement policies that whole. Therefore, it is lead to sustainable urgent to develop poli- 7. Mechanisms must be development, including cies aimed at providing developed to guarantee all sectors of society as incentives for the con- local and international stakeholders. servation of the environ- markets for organic ment. Such policies must produce and other prod- 2. This sustainable develop- go beyond sustainable ucts from sustainably ment strategy should give agriculture, to include the managed farms, at fair priority to addressing restoration and protection prices to producers. For both social and environ- of forests and watersheds. this it is necessary to mental conditions in the create a certification mountain regions, where 5. Incentives could be system and to educate most of the rural popula- provided to hillside consumers in the region. tions live, where the low- populations for environ- est poverty indicators are mental conservation 8. There is a need for an found, and where ecologi- efforts, such as providing agroecological farming cal degradation threatens financial compensation for research network, which the livelihoods of not only the maintenance of water- can establish research the rural poor but of vast sheds, reforestation, priorities, promote learn- urban populations down- biodiversity conservation, ing and exchange, man- stream. protection of topsoil or age an information and prevention of runoff. resource center, and 3. A fundamental part of maintain a database on these policies should be 6. Sustainable agricultural sustainable agriculture. the equitable distribution methods should be and legal titling of farm- promoted through na- 9. Finally, sustainable devel- land. The majority of tional research and exten- opment in Central small farmers do not have sion programs and agrar- America requires support title to the land they culti- ian policies. Incentives to for stronger local institu- vate, and this is widely farmers could include the tions and initiatives recognized as a disincen- reduction or deferment aimed at agroecology and tive for the use of sustain- of taxes on land where community self-develop- able agricultural practices. sustainable agriculture is ment.

30 References

1 International Federation of the Red Cross, Central America: Hurricane Mitch Emergency Relief, Situational Report No. 4 (final) August 2000.

2 The Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA)

3 Ibid

4 Oxfam America: Towards greater food security in Central America after Hurricane Mitch. El Salvador, 1999.

5 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

6 “Deforestation Worsened Mitch’s Toll, Scientists Say,” by David L. Marcus, The Boston Globe, November 11, 1998, page A1.

7 Email from Roland Bunch to Cornell University’s MULCH-L discussion group, January 3 1999.

8 Email from Kenneth Schlather to Cornell University’s MULCH-L discussion group, January 6 1999.

9 “Sustainable Agriculture Protects Livelihoods From Impacts of Hurricane Mitch,” by Michael Ernst, USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, December 1998.

10 Eric Holt-Giménez, Midiendo la Resistencia Agroecologica ante el Huracán Mitch, concept paper, December 1998

11 Daniel Selener, Jacqueline Chenier and Raúl Zelaya, et. al. 1997, Farmer to Farmer Exten- sion: Lessons from the Field, International Institute for Rural Reconstruction, New York

12 Roland Bunch, 1982, Two Ears of Corn: A Guide to People-Centered Agricultural Develop- ment, World Neighbors, Oklahoma City, USA.

13 Eric Holt-Giménez, 1996, “The Campesino a Campesino Movement: Farmer-led Sustain- able Agriculture in Central America and Mexico.” Institute of Food and Development Policy, Food First Development Report 10, San Francisco, USA.

14 Key organizations that have supported the Farmer to Farmer movement include COSECHA and CIDICCO in Honduras, SIMAS in Nicaragua, and the international agencies Oxfam (Great Britain), The Ford Foundation (México), Catholic Relief Services (USA), Cornell University (USA), Bread for the World (Germany), HIVOS (Netherlands) COOPIBO (Belgium) and others.

31 Appendix

List of Participating Institutions

Honduras Nicaragua Guatemala

Aldea Global ADAA-UCA ASEDE CASM ADDAC ASOAGRO/KOLWAL Cooperativa COMUCAMEL Asociación Tierra y Vida CONIC Cooperativa COMVICOL CARE Defensores de la Naturaleza Grupo GUIA CITES FUNDAECO Pastoral Social Juticalpa CIPRES FUNDATEP PROCONDEMA FIDER INTERN PRODELCAS/Pastoral Social, INPRHU-Somoto Pastoral de la Tierra/San Marcos Trujillo NITLAPAN Universidad Rafael Landívar/ SERTEDESO OCTUPAN CONDEG Vecinos Mundiales PAS-Omotepe Vecinos Mundiales PCAC-Boaco PCAC-Masaya PCAC San Dionísio PCAC-Somoto PRODESSA UNAG-Managua UNICAM

World Neighbors is a people-to-people, non-profit organisation working at the forefront of worldwide efforts to eliminate hunger, disease and poverty in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

World Neighbors’ purpose is to strengthen the capacity of marginalized communities to meet their basic needs. By strengthening these primary resources, people are helped to analyse and solve their own problems. Success is achieved by developing, testing and extending simple tech- nologies at the community level and training local leaders to sustain and multiply results.

We affirm the determination, ingenuity and inherent dignity of all people. Working in partnership with people at the community level since 1951, World Neighbors is recognized as a leader in participatory community development.

Programme priorities are food production, community-based health, family planning, water and sanitation, environmental conservation and small business.

World Neighbors is a non-sectarian, self-help movement supported by private donations. World Neighbors does not solicit nor accept U.S. government funding.

World Neighbors World Neighbors Central America Office International Headquarters Apartado 3385 4127 NW 122nd Street Tegulcigalpa HONDURAS OKC, OK 73120 U.S.A. tel: 997-1-522-970 tel: (405) 752-9700 fax: 997-1-538-756 fax: (405) 752-9393 email: [email protected] email: [email protected]

For more information about World Neighbors, please visit our website at www.wn.org.