WORKING PAPER 7
Assessement of the Political, Economic, and Institutional Contexts for Participatory Rural Development in Post-Mitch Honduras
Judy Meltzer International Development Research Centre
February 2001
Rural Poverty and Environment Working Paper Series
Working Paper Series
IDRC's mandate is to initiate, encourage, support, and conduct research into the problems of the developing regions of the world and into the means for applying and adapting scientific, technical, and other knowledge to the economic and social advancement of those regions.
The publications in this series are designed to fill gaps in current research and explore new directions within a wide range of natural resource management topics. Some are narrowly focused, analytical and detailed empirical studies; others are wide-ranging and synthetic overviews of general issues.
Working papers are published by IDRC staff, hired consultants and interns, and are not part of Partner-funded research activities. Each paper is peer reviewed by IDRC staff. They are published and distributed primarily in electronic format via www.idrc.ca, though hardcopies are available upon request. Working papers may be copied freely for research purposes and cited with due acknowledgment.
Working Paper 7
Assessement of the Political, Economic, and Institutional Contexts for Participatory Rural Development in Post-Mitch Honduras
Judy Meltzer
International Development Research Centre PO Box 8500, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1G 3H9
Meltzer, J. 2001. Assessement of the Political, Economic, and Institutional Contexts for Participatory Rural Development in Post-Mitch Honduras. Working Paper 7, Rural Poverty and the Environment Working Paper Series. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
Copyright © 2005 IDRC This publication may be downloaded, saved, printed and reproduced for education and research purposes. When used we would request inclusion of a note recognizing the authorship and the International Development Research Centre.
Please send inquiries and comments to [email protected]
Cover Image: Daniel Buckles, IDRC, 1999. Design & Layout: Richard Bruneau, IDRC, 2004. Abstract Hurricane and Tropical Storm Mitch (October1998), was the worst natural disaster in Latin America in over 200 years. It had particularly devastating effects on Honduras, causing severe social, economic, and environmental damage. In the post-Mitch period the focus of the Government of Honduras is not only on reconstructing or repairing the social, economic, and environmental damages sustained, but on fundamentally transforming the economic, political, and institutional systems. This emphasis on transformation, combined with a substantial inflow of financial, technical, and human capital from multilateral and bilateral donors, has created a space in which significant changes (political, economical, social and environmental) can potentially be implemented.
The paper situates participatory rural development initiatives in the current political, economic, and institutional contexts of post-Mitch Honduras. It explores the persistent problems of democracy and ‘good governance,’ as well as examining national economic priorities and the rural economy in particular. Emerging institutional frameworks for rural development and natural resource managementCnotably the Master Plan for National Reconstruction and Transformation (PMRTN), and the Program for Sustainable Rural Development (PRONADERS) are also reviewed in light of opportunities they present and challenges they face. Particular attention is focussed on PRONADERS, which represents both a policy and strategy for long term rural development, emphasizing the sustainable management of natural resources, broad participation of diverse social actors, and a decentralization of responsibilities to the municipal level. Research institutions and civil society organizations are also reviewed and assessed in terms of research capacity and respective roles in rural development.
The paper concludes with a macro-level snapshot of ‘who’s doing what’ internationally with regard to rural development in Honduras, and how these initiatives relate to the broader political, economic and institutional contexts in which they are taking place.
Resumen El huracán y tormenta tropical Mitch (octubre de 1998), fue el peor desastre natural de los últimos 200 años en América Latina. Sus embates fueron particularmente devastadores en Honduras, donde causó severos daños sociales, económicos y ambientales. En el período posterior a Mitch, el Gobierno de Honduras (GoH) centra su atención no solamente en reconstruir o reparar los daños sociales, económicos y ambientales ocasionados, sino fundamentalmente en transformar los sistemas económico, político e institucional. Este énfasis en la transformación, combinado con la introducción en el país de capital financiero, técnico y humano de donantes multilaterales y bilaterales, ha creado un espacio en el que potencialmente se pueden poner en práctica cambios significativos (políticos, económicos, sociales y medioambientales).
El documento sitúa las iniciativas de desarrollo rural participatorias en los contextos político, económico e institucional actuales de la Honduras posterior al huracán Mitch. No sólo explora los persistentes problemas de democracia y ‘buena gobenanza’, sino que también examina las prioridades económicas nacionales y la economía rural en particular. Nuevos marcos de trabajo institucionales para el desarrollo rural y la ordenación de recursos naturales - sobre todo el Plan Maestro para la Reconstrucción y Transformación Nacional (PMRTN), y el Programa para el Desarrollo Rural Sostenible (PRONADERS) se examinan a la luz de las oportunidades que presentan y los retos que tienen ante sí. Se presta particular atención a PRONADERS, que representa tanto una política como un plan estratégico para el desarrollo rural a largo plazo, poniendo énfasis en el ordenamiento de recursos naturales, la amplia participación de diversos actores sociales y una descentralización de las responsabilidades municipales. Asimismo, se examinan y evalúan las instituciones de investigación y las organizaciones de la sociedad civil desde el punto de vista de su capacidad investigativa y funciones respectivas en el desarrollo rural.
El documento concluye con una macropanorámica de lo que está haciendo cada cual en el plano internacional (tanto bilateral como multinacionalmente, incluyendo al CIID) con respecto al desarrollo rural en Honduras, y cómo esas iniciativas se relacionan con los contextos político, económico e institucional más amplios en los que tienen lugar.
Contents
Abstract...... 5 Resumen ...... 6 Contents ...... 7 Introduction...... 8 Section I: National Political, Economic, and Institutional Contexts ...... 10 1. National Political Conditions for Participatory Rural Development ...... 10 2. Economic Conditions for Participatory Rural Development ...... 13 3. National Institutional Contexts for Participatory Rural Development and Natural Resource Management...... 20 4. Reflections on the Political, Economic, and Institutional Contexts for Participatory Rural Development in Honduras ...... 22 Section II Overview of IDRC’s, and Key Bilateral and Multilateral Programming in Rural Development and Natural Resource Management in Honduras...... 1 1. IDRC in Honduras ...... 1 2. Overview of Bilateral and Multilateral Programming in Rural Development and NRM in Honduras...... 7 3. Final Reflections...... 19 Bibliography...... 1
Introduction Hurricane and Tropical Storm Mitch (October1998), was the worst natural disaster in Latin America in over 200 years. It had particularly devastating effects on Honduras, causing severe social, economic, and environmental damage, and affecting, in one form or another, 100% of the population (CEPAL; Consultative Group Document 2000).
Leaving over 1.5 million victims in its wake,1 a significant percentage of the population continue to lack access to basic services including water, shelter, transportation, electricity, and health care. From an economic perspective, the damages totaled approximately US$3.8 billion, with replacement costs estimated at US$5 billion. Nearly 70% of the damages occurred in the agricultural/productive sectors. Extensive environmental damage was also sustained, leading to accelerated ecological vulnerability and negatively affecting the sustainable use of natural resources in the region (ibid.).
In the post-Mitch period the focus of the Government of Honduras (GoH) is not only on reconstructing or repairing the social, economic, and environmental damages sustained, but on fundamentally transforming the economic, political, and institutional systems. This emphasis on transformation, combined with a substantial inflow of financial, technical, and human capital from multilateral and bilateral donors, has created a space in which significant changes (political, economical, social and environmental) can be implemented.
The purpose of this paper is to situate participatory rural development initiatives2 in the current political, economic, and institutional contexts of post-Mitch Honduras. The paper is divided into two main sections. The first section examines the political, economic and institutional contexts, focusing in particular on those aspects which directly or indirectly influence the shape of rural development in Honduras. From a political perspective the current government, forthcoming elections, and the persistent problems of democracy and ‘good governance’ in Honduras are reviewed. National economic priorities, as well as aspects specific to the rural economy are then outlined. Emerging institutional frameworks for rural development and NRMCnotably the Master Plan for National Reconstruction and Transformation (PMRTN), and the Program for Sustainable Rural Development
1 The storm left an estimated 5, 657 dead, over 12, 000 injured and millions without basic services (CG 2000). (PRONADERS), and other laws and institutions relevant to rural development are also reviewed in this section of the paper. Particular attention is focussed on PRONADERS, which represents both a policy and strategy plan for long term rural development, emphasizing the sustainable management of natural resources; broad participation of diverse social actors, and a decentralization of responsibilities to the municipal level. Research institutions and civil society organizations are also included and assessed in terms of research capacity and respective roles in rural development.
The second section of the paper provides a macro-level ‘snapshot’ of ‘who’s doing what’ internationally (bilaterally and multi nationally, including IDRC) with regards to rural development in Honduras, and how these initiatives relate to the broader political, economic and institutional contexts in which they are taking place.
Most of the plans and initiatives for reconstruction and particularly transformation in the post- Mitch period are in their early stages. This is significant, for many of the new institutional and economic directions, reviewed in the first section of the paper, have yet to be operationalized. Although they prioritize Abroad citizen participation,” “the inclusion of multiple stakeholders,” and “greater transparency” in design and development processes, the extent to which these plans will be transformed into practice remains to be seen. There is both great expectation and skepticism towards these new changes, which require not only new institutional frameworks, but shifts in attitudes as well as new strategies and methodologies for operationalization and evaluation of projects at all levels, from donor to community. Accordingly, some of these challenges of implementation are raised and reflected upon throughout the paper.
2 For the purpose of this paper participatory rural development refers to the Ainvolvement of a range of social groups and individuals in decision-making regarding rural development goals and how they will be achieved” (Buckles 2000:2). Section I: National Political, Economic, and Institutional Contexts
1. National Political Conditions for Participatory Rural Development
This section reviews the current national political context within which participatory rural development is taking place in post-Mitch Honduras. It briefly outlines key players in national politics as well as the possible outcome of the next election. It also explores some of the persisting problems of Honduran democracy, particularly as they relate to participatory rural development.
1.1. Current Political Context
The President of Republic of Honduras is Carlos Roberto Flores Facussé (Carlos Flores), leader of the Partido Liberal de Honduras (Honduran Liberal Party), who won the national elections in 1997 with 52.8% of the votes (Elections in Honduras 1998:3). Under the provision of the Constitution approved by the National Assembly in 1982, the President is elected by a simple majority of the voters. The President holds executive power and has single, four-year mandate. Legislative power is vested in the National Assembly with 128 members elected every four years.
There are five main political parties competing at the national level in Honduras, the Liberal Party (PLH), the National Party (Partido Nacional PN), Party for Innovation and Unity-Social Democracy (Partido de Innovation y Unidad-Social Democracia - PINU), Democratic Unification Party (left) (Partido de Unificacion Democratica - PUD), Christian Democratic Party of Honduras (Partido Democrata Cristiano de Honduras - PDCH). In the last elections the Liberal Party won 67 seats, the National Party 54, with the remainder split among the PINU, PUD and the PDCH (ibid.).
The next elections will be held in November, 2001.3 According to various government and non-governmental actors in Honduras, the next elections are highly unpredictable, but many consider it likely that the ruling Liberal Party will be replaced by the National Party.4 There is a range of views as to the impacts of a shift in ruling parties. Most predict a change of personnel, which are significant as they challenge the sustainability and continuity of existing programs. However the extent to which changes will be made to specific national policies and programs which are, in many cases, highly influenced by the international community, is not clear. (The leading opposition party, the National Party is proposing concrete social and economic changes including increased budgets for education and technical training, and youth programming (J. Garcia, personal correspondence, February 2001)).
There is a high level of disengagement and loss of confidence in both national and municipal-level politics among most sectors of the Honduran population based on a history of corruption, concentration of power, lack of action or implementation of political platforms, breaches of judicial process (in the rural sector particularly with regard to land tenancy, titling and access to resources), and increasing poverty throughout most regions of the country. Some of the repercussions of these ‘problems of democracy’ are reviewed in section 1.2.
1.2. Democratic Deficit and Obstacles to ‘Good Governance’
Since Independence, Honduras’ experience with sustained political democracy has been relatively brief. Although military rule ended officially in 1980, Honduras continues to face significant challenges with regard to human rights and democratic governance - notably high levels of political corruption, some persistence in military influence over national politics, as well as a weak and corrupt judiciary and legal system.5
3 A commonly voiced complaint of participants interviewed is that Anew campaigns begin the day after elections at the national, regional, and municipal levels. With few rules governing political campaigning, such as restrictions on time and financing, there exists a state of Apermanent campaigning” in Honduras, which most feel is an enormous waste of resources, particularly in light of other pressing needs. 4 Although the National Party is officially a Conservative party, the differences between its policies and those of the Liberal Party have increasingly declined as both can be considered conservative from fiscal and social policy perspective (J. Garcia, personal correspondence, 02/01). 5 Although special commissions have been established in recent years to investigate corruption charges against government officials, to examine allegations of human rights violations by the armed forces, and to advocate for
With regard to rural development and the resolution of conflicts surrounding the control, access, and management of natural resources, problems within the judicial system are significant. Not only have most of the laws regulating rural development and NRM not been operationalized (RESAL & Oficina de Seguridad Alimentaria - E.U 1999:11), but corruption and lack of administrative and professional capacity are also characteristics of the judiciary.
Although judges are technically elected for four-year terms by the National Assembly, it is commonly understood that these are political, patronage appointments. In matters of land- titling and tenancy the courts are notoriously slow and corrupt, and a wait of over fifteen years before trial or settlement is not uncommon (ibid.). Consequently, the system presents an obstacle for the recognition and implementation of the rights of vulnerable populations, particularly peasants, women, indigenous populations, who lack access to the formal system. Furthermore, the judicial system is known to suffer from widespread corruption, lack of professional competence and competition, with political relations preceding the implementation of legal rights, particularly for politicians who enjoy immunity from prosecution. Common knowledge of corrupt practices combined with the time and financial resources required for a legal action deter individuals from seeking solutions to conflicts within the existing judicial structure. Reform of the judiciary is stated as a priority in the PMRTN, however until impunity rates decrease, laws are operationalized, the judiciary becomes an independent body, and public confidence is restored, the challenges persist.6
The disillusionment of the Honduran public is not restricted to the judiciary. There is a high degree of cynicism and bitterness vis-à-vis politicians from all parties, and the political
the reform of the military-controlled security forces and judiciary, there is evidence that corruption and human rights violations persist in Honduras (see AInformes Sobre la Situación de los Derechos Humanos en Honduras,” a Report by the National Commission for Human Rights - El Comisionado Nacional de los Derechos Humanos, Honduras 2000). 6 Among the strongest advocates for judicial reform, and specifically the need for an independent judiciary, is the Comisionado Nacional de los Derechos HumanosBan institution established to guarantee vigilance over rights and liberties recognized in the Constitution and international treaties ratified by Honduras. To address this issue, they make fifteen specific recommendations for change, including: a strengthening of legal and judicial mechanisms that guarantee impartiality and freedom from internal political or external pressure; improving professional institutions for judges; providing mechanisms to guarantee judges’s jobs and salaries to avoid political dependancy; and the need for a national dialogue which includes all social sectors to determine meaningful judicial reforms. structure.7 There is skepticism towards the government’s progressive discourses regarding transformation, for example within the PMRTN, and most are waiting to see if discourse will translate into practise and for the benefit of whom. The continued democratic deficit in Honduras is a determinant in the outcome of participatory rural development and NRM initiatives, as the disenfranchisement and cynicism that abound make people less likely to ‘participate,’ in official initiatives, provoking them to turn to alternative, informal conflict resolution (or non-resolution) options and NGO / civil society initiatives.
2. Economic Conditions for Participatory Rural Development
Central America as a region has undergone profound economic transformations in the 1990s. This section reviews current economic trends in Honduras, focussing on the national economic agenda and economic development priorities. Influenced by international financial institutions and global markets, increasing liberalization and privatization are clear trends in Honduran economic policy. These strategies have repercussions particularly for rural populations and producers, accordingly the rural economic context - specifically financing for small producers - is also reviewed in this section.8
2.1. National Economic Context Honduras, the fourth poorest country in the region, suffered severe economic setbacks as a result of Hurricane Mitch. The economic cost of Mitch to Honduras was estimated at approximately US$3.8 billion, with replacement costs of approximately US$5 billion (GoH CG Document 2000:3). A majority of these damages were incurred in the productive sectors, an estimated 70% of all major agricultural cropsBincluding bananas, rice, beans, and corn - were destroyed (IFAD 1999) With regard to export crops, banana shipments were 82.4% lower that the previous year; volume of coffee exports was down 34%. Overall agricultural production is expected to have declined by 15% from the previous year (ibid.).9
7 The Corruption Perception Index (1999). 8 Details of rural financing for small producers has also been included as it is a key focus of many national and international development initiatives currently underway in Honduras. The Government of Honduras’ primary macro-economic policies are in large part determined by international financial institutions and global markets. Objectives for the short and medium term include the recuperation of the growth index by 2001; a decrease in inflation to 8% by the end of the year 2001; the maintenance of ‘solid external accounts’; a reduction in the external debt and the acceleration of structural reforms (GoH 2000).10
The recuperation of the growth index is hoped to be achieved through massive reconstruction activity, the re-establishment of agricultural production, in increases in private investment, through the implementation of fiscal policies to strengthen the financial system and increase savings, and by accessing larger markets through the Caribbean Basin Initiative and free trade agreement with Mexico.
Honduras’ total external debt at the end of 2000 was estimated to be US$3 645 million - some 6.5% lower than last year (IDA - Preliminary Document on the Initiative for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries 1999:28). The Government expects to reduce it further by restructuring their payment schedule in the most favourable terms of the Paris Club; by obtaining more resources from the Central American Emergency Trust Fund (CAETF) to pay-off its multilateral debt; and through its qualification for the Enhanced HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Countries) Initiative, through which preliminary calculations suggest that financial assistance could amount to approximately US$676 million. This assistance would be aimed not only at easing the burden of debt-service payments but also at social and infrastructure programs (ibid.).
To accelerate the process of structural reform underway since the early 1990s, the Government will continue privatising services. Further plans for privatisation include the electric distribution lines and an increase in the role of the private sector in the administration of ports, airports, roads and waterworks.11 Other anticipated structural reforms include a
9 Inter-American Development Bank, Regional Operations Department AHonduras Recent Economic Developments” 2000. 10 These macro-economic objectives are outlined in detail in the PMRTN. 11 The failure to privatise Hondutel (telephone service) was considered a significant setback for the government, and the loss of anticipated revenue is expected to have repercussions including cuts to the public service reduction in the size of the national government and substantial decentralisation of social services to the municipal level, further trade liberalization12 and the strengthening of the process of economic integration in the region and in the world economy.
However the national economic prioritization of liberalization, export promotion and other structural reforms, have presented an obstacle to the growth of small farmers in Honduras.
Table 1 Selected Social and Economic Indicators for Honduras and the Region (1995-2000) Indicator Honduras Central America Infant Mortality Rate (for 35 every 1000 live births), 1996 Life Expectancy at Birth (yrs) Men 67.5 65.9 Women 72.3 71.1
Population Growth Rate (%) 27.4 24.7
GNP per capita 1998 (US$) 730 3,960 (LAC)
Overall Illiteracy Rate (%) 27 15 (LAC)
Rural Population as a % of 53.7 51.8 Total Population (1998)
(Source: State of the Region: A Report on Sustainable Human Development in Central America 1999)
2.2. The Rural Economy and Financing in Honduras Agriculture is the most important economic activity in Honduras, accounting for 20 percent of gross domestic product and more than 50 percent of jobs (Guillen Soto & Roger de Winter
(Interviews Oct. 2000). (The proposed offer for Hondutel was far below reasonable asking price, and therefore the offer was not accepted). 12 Tax on bananas and coffee sectors have been eliminated, and the obligation of producers to supply 7% of their crops at fixed, below-market prices for domestic consumption has been eliminated (Guillen Soto & Roger de Winter 1999).
1999). It employs nearly two-thirds of the labour force and produces two-thirds of exports. Agriculture and participatory development for rural production involve a variety of stakeholders with very different agendas, and unequal financial and political clout. Private agricultural and forestry sectors, public protection systems, large, medium, small, and non- landholders as well as municipal governments represent just a sample of the different stakeholders with divergent interests in the rural economy and production in Honduras. One of the most pressing national and international development priorities is that of rural financing, particularly for small farmers and those without land. This section will briefly review the key issues and options currently under discussion with regards to rural financing, which has emerged as perhaps the most pressing item of the national economic agenda with regards to the productive sector, in part in response to the demands of producers themselves (Falck 1999).
2.2.1. Rural Financing13
A central problem for farmers in rural Honduras (among a range of problems including low poor soils and access to markets), is the lack of access to financing and credit. Most adversely affected by lack of access to credit are landless and small-scale farmers and women. Landless and small-scale farmers represent approximately 66% of all producers in Honduras, see Table 2). There exist a range of financing organizations, including banks and a variety of informal credit organizations, but their benefit to women and small farmers is limited for a variety of reasons. The inverse relation between size of landholding and access to financial credit is evident in Table 3.
13 Much of the information in this section is derived from AEscenarios de Proyectos para el Sector Agricola Hondureno, Documento Preliminar, preparado por - M. Guillen Soto, Roger de Winter Agosto 1999 and from presentation and documents provided by Mary Falck at a conference on rural financing in Tegucigalpa, April 24/00. Table 2: Type and Number of Producers in Honduras
Type of Producer No. of families (1000s) % of Producers
Landless Farmers 65.0 21.0
Small-Scale Farmers 140.0 45.2
Medium to Large-Scale Farmers 90.0 29.0
Cooperatives and Associations 15.0 4.8 Total 310.0 100.0 (Source: Informe de Desarrollo Humano Honduras 1998, PNUD)
Table 3 - Credit : Size of Landholding (1993) No. of Hectares No. of farms % of Farms that received credit
Less than 1 80 088 2 %
1-2 66 920 5 %
2-3 44 823 6 %
3-5 35 830 8 %
5-10 34 980 9 %
10-20 22 775 11 %
20-50 19 996 13 %
50-100 6 635 19 %
100-200 3 167 23 %
200-500 1 650 29 %
500-1000 275 33 %
1000-2500 87 39 %
2500 and up 23 26 % (Source: Escenarios de Proyectos para el Sector Agricola Hondureno, Documento Preliminar Agosto 1999, CIDA)
The formal financial sector includes financial institutions that are regulated by the Law of Financial Systems Institutions (Ley de Institutions del Sistema Financiero). There are seventy-three official financing institutions including commercial and state banks, savings and lending associations, insurance companies, pension funds, money exchanges, and financing associations (sociedades financieras) (Guillen Soto & de Winter 1999). Of the formal financial institutions, only commercial and state banks, and financing associations finance agricultural production. The agricultural sector received only (approximately) 11% of the financial resources given to all productive sectors, and within the agricultural sector financing is oriented towards large landholders and export production e.g. coffee (ibid.).
The informal financial sector is more accessible to small land-holders, and includes a range of non-banking institutions and actors including individual entrepreneurs, moneylenders, friends and parents, as well as other alternative financing systems. Two important examples are the Private Development Organizations (Organizaciones Privadas de Desarrollo - OPDs), and Savings and Credit Cooperatives (Cooperativas de Ahorro y Credito).
OPDs are non-banking organizations which participate in the financing of small businesses in both rural and urban areas. They are regulated by the civil code, and some are affiliated with the Federation of Private Development Organizations (FOPRIDEH) - a federation which plays a primarily representative role vis-à-vis OPDs and the State. Currently in Honduras there are an estimated 115 OPDs, of which 56 offer services to agricultural and microenterprise activities. According to Vega (1995), only 18% of OPD loans go towards agricultural activities. Key obstacles facing OPD credit programs include a high cost of operations and consequently a poor record of sustainability (Guillen Soto & de Winter 1999).
For small-scale farmers, the cooperative system has proved itself to be a more viable means of financing, although 65% of federated cooperatives are located in urban settings, with requirements similar to private banks including property ownership (J. Garcia, personal correspondence February 2001). Cooperatives are regulated through the Ley de Cooperativas, and the principal organizing body is the Honduran Institute of Cooperatives (IHDECOOP).14 The Cooperatives belonging to the Federation, have a combined membership of approximately 245 552 people, and it is estimated that a large percentage of members are women and others with limited resources in rural sectors. Between 1993 to 1997, membership in cooperatives increased by 82% in Honduras (Guillen Soto & de Winter 1999).
Of all the informal systems, the most common source of credit is through ‘comerciantes’ or business people, for whom financing is not their principal activity. They generally offer credit to promote their principal product or commerce thus securing demand and supply of their products. Usually this type of credit relation is without guarantees, documents or anything official other than the word of the producer. The financing ‘buyers’ who give credit against future harvest usually charge an interest rate of approximately 10% per month. Despite the fact that this type of credit is not in favour of the producer, 17% of small producers were using this credit source. Friends and parents also represent another common source of finance used by approximately 14% of small farmers (ibid.).
Other alternative financing systems have been promoted by the government as well as through development initiatives. They include communal banks, rural savings and credit organizations, which present several advantages for rural populations including low cost access to credit, greater local participation, as well as opportunities to save and increase incomes (for both women and men) with returns higher than inflation rates. Alternative systems of financing also face challenges in management and administration. However the legal framework for these cajas rurales, important for transparency, regulation, and legitimacy, is in the process of being established, and likely won’t be in operationalized for another two to three years (J. Garcia, from interview with D. Buteau, PAGS-CIDA 2001). The University of Zamorano in conjunction with SAG, CIDA-PAGS and the European
14 Cooperatives are also integrated through la Federacion de Cooperativas de Ahorro y Credito de Honduras (FACACH) - they have created an auto-regulation system “Inspectora y Protectora de Cooperativas (IPC)”.
Community has carried out a comprehensive survey on rural financing systems in Honduras, including an inventory and typology of institutions by region (Zamorano 2000).
3. National Institutional Contexts for Participatory Rural Development and Natural Resource Management
This section explores the institutions and policies that are shaping participatory rural development and natural resource management in Honduras. The institutional context in which development is taking place in Honduras is undergoing significant transformation in the wake of Hurricane Mitch. A Consultative Group, composed of national and international members, and some civil society representation, assessed development priorities for the region.15 Based on this framework, the Master Plan for National Reconstruction and Transformation in Honduras (PMRTN) was drawn up. The PMRTN is an ambitious document that sets out guidelines for all aspects of development for all regions of the country. With regard to rural development its lays the groundwork for National Program for Sustainable Rural Development PRONADERS which is intended to structure and coordinate the planning, implementation, and financing of rural development initiatives. Of note is the emphasis in both the PMRTN and PRONADERS on participatory approaches, citizen and civil society participation, as well as transparency in governance. Also significant for rural development is the PMRTN’s focus on the decentralization of administrative roles and responsibilities to municipal levels. Both PRONADERS and plans for decentralization are outlined in this section.
Other national institutions and policies that are relevant to participatory rural development and NRM including the Law of Modernization and Development of the Agricultural Sector (LMDSA), civil society organizations, NGOs, and academic institutes, are also reviewed.
15 With regard to civil society participation in the PMRTN process, a Commission for the Participation of Civil Society in National Reconstruction and Transformation was established within the framework of the PMRTN, including representatives from AMHON - the Association of Honduran Municipalities, representatives from the private sector, and other representation from within civil society. 3.1. The Consultative Group and the Stockholm Declaration
The overall strategy for reconstruction and transformation in the post-Mitch period, not only in Honduras but the region as a whole, has been largely defined by the Consultative Group for the Reconstruction and Transformation of Central America (CG). The CG was formed in response to the devastating impact of Hurricane Mitch on Central America and includes representatives from the international community (including Canada, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the United States), and the governments of Central America who have committed to sharing the responsibilities for reconstruction and transformation in the region. At the second meeting of the CG in Stockholm May 1999, the following principles and goals for reconstruction and transformation in the region were defined:
• Reduction in the social and ecological vulnerability of the region; • Reconstruction and transformation of Central America on the basis of an integrated approach of transparency and good governance; • Consolidation of democracy and good governance, reinforcing the process of decentralization of governmental functions and powers, with the active participation of civil society; • Promote respect for human rights as a permanent objective. The promotion of equality between women and men, the rights of children, of ethnic groups and other minorities should be given special attention; • Coordinate donor efforts, guided by priorities set by recipient countries; • Intensify efforts to reduce the external debt burden of the countries of the region (CG Document 1999).
Within the parameters set by the CG, individual countries developed their national plans for reconstruction and transformation in the post-Mitch period. The Honduran Government’s Master Plan for Reconstruction and Transformation (PMRTN) is reviewed in the following section, with specific attention to its implications for rural development and natural resource management.
3.2. Honduras’ Master Plan for National Reconstruction and Transformation (PMRTN)16
The (PMRTN) general objectives are to : 1. Rehabilitate and vitalize the productive sector 2. Rebuild and improve the country’s infrastructure 3. Rehabilitate and reform the social sector 4. Strengthen the macro-economic stability 5. Institute a new plan to prevent and mitigate disasters 6. An efficient and transparent management of the resources destined for reconstruction
According to the Government of Honduras (GoH), the Plan has significant support from different political sectors and civil society both at the local and national level. With specific regard to NRM, the government aims to have a decentralized National System of Protected Areas and of territorial reorganization by 2001. They specifically state that civil society must participate in the protection of the environment and other NRM objectives. According to the GoH, it is expected that by 2005:
• There will be an annual growth rate higher than 5% (facilitated by HPIC) • There will be a 10 % reduction in poverty • Qualitative and quantitative improvements in education, health, nutrition and housing • Consolidation of processes of structural reform and state modernization • A substantial reduction of the deterioration of the environment • A high level of democratic participation
Key areas of focus include economic reactivation with productive employment and rural financing; the reduction of poverty and the promotion of human development; the sustainable protection of natural resources; and the strengthening of democratic participation.
16 The information in this section is primarily drawn from the PMRTN document drawn up by the GoH. Specific objectives with regard to agriculture include: the rehabilitation of small farming through increases in productivity and “competitiveness” through greater access to markets; the improvement of watershed management; and institutional support in planning, research, and technical assistance. There is similar emphasis in the PMRTN with regard to forestry, with additional emphasis on reform of relevant legal structures to promote better management of forests and protected areas.
On natural resource management, the PMRTN states that “technological backwardness in the use of resources, the non-application of laws, and the apathy of decision makers have lead to a deterioration of the environment.” To counter these trends three broad objectives are outlined: the protection of the environment; the development of eco-tourism, and increasing the effectiveness of civil society’s participation in decision-making processes (including a closer relationship between the national government and local municipal governments) (ibid.).
However, the PMRTN alters the institutional shape of rural development and natural resource management most significantly through the creation of a new framework for rural development: the National Program for Sustainable Rural Development - Programa Nacional de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible B(PRONADERS), reviewed in the next section.
3.3. National Program for Sustainable Rural Development / Programa Nacional de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible - PRONADERS
PRONADERS, the National Program for Sustainable Rural Development, is a program developed by the Ministry for Agriculture and Livestock (Secretaria de Agricultura y Ganaderia - SAG) in conjunction with multilateral donors including IFAD, UNDP, and FAO. It is both a policy and strategy plan for long term rural development which emphasizes the sustainable management of natural resources; broad participation of diverse social actors, and a decentralization of responsibilities to the municipal level. This section will review PRONADER’s objectives; stated strategies for implementation; its institutional framework including the division of roles and responsibilities, and emphasis on participation.
According to the Government of Honduras (GoH), underlying PRONADERS are principles of expanded citizen participation, decentralization,17 sustainable natural resource management and increases in agricultural productivity, to contribute to overall poverty alleviation and increased market integration for rural populations.
3.3.1. Objectives of PRONADERS
PRONADERS has identified the following broad objectives:18 1. To develop and consolidate a new institution / institutional framework for sustainable rural development, by means of an iterative process. The framework will be flexible and integrated, focussing interventions primarily on communities in agro-ecologically vulnerable areas of the country.
2. To initiate, develop, and consolidate “productive economies” in poor rural communities through integrated management of soil, water, forest, biodiversity and other natural resources to achieve an improvement in incomes of rural families. To achieve this, services required include access to financial services; technology for production, and access to markets.
17 In all government documents reviewed, ‘decentralization’ has positive connotations of empowerment for local populations, and is seen as an essential mechanism for local development and participation. This perspective coincides with the trend towards decentralization in the region and beyond, as part of a larger package of (neo- liberal) political and economic policies. It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the arguments for and against decentralization. 18 This information comes from the document: Documento Marco del Programa Nacional de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible, published by the Secretaria de Agricultura y Ganaderia - PRONADERS - (July 2000), put together by the Equipo Tecnico Nacional, with support from Instituto Interamericano de Cooperacion Agricola (IICA), Proyecto Ruta, FAO, PNUD, PAAR. Also referred to is the SAG document “Programa Nacional de Desarollo Rural Sostenible - PRONADERS” (12/99). There are various accounts of the PRONADERS institutional framework, in different SAG documents, although wording between each document differs with regard to specific objectives, they all have common foci. 3. Access to the above services are to be articulated through innovative, transparent, and equitable mechanisms of transfer and management of technical and financial resources, allowing for the development of institutional / self-governing capacities of local organizations and municipalities. Ultimately this would promote increased participation of producers in local decision-making; services provided to meet local needs; diminish transaction / operational costs; allow for more equitable access to services, and increase communities’ capacity for negotiating and voicing demands.
4. Promote the sustainable management of natural resources and biodiversity with emphasis on the application of a participatory and effective legal framework for territorial ordering, including: the development of a judicial framework to regulate NRM; improved access to services that promote and support “rational use” of natural resources and environment.
5. Establish a documentation / dissemination system for information, technologies and so forth, with the participation of public and private entities to promote, coordinate, and facilitate access and exchange of information between programs, projects, “tecnicos,” and producers.
Relevant themes and issues cited as cutting across the above objectives include transparency; decentralization, sustainability, gender equity, local capacity, watershed management, and citizen participation (SAG Document, 12/99).
3.3.2. Strategies for Implementing PRONADERS Objectives19
PRONADERS and its various objectives are implemented at three distinct levels: the political level, the operational level, and the executing level. The political level represents the policy function of PRONADERS, and includes the Secretary of Agriculture and Livestock (SAG), and the Consultative Group (Consejo Consultativo) in policy and decision-making processes. The operational level is composed of the National Directorate for Sustainable Rural Development (Direccion Nacional de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible - DINADERS) and
19 (Ibid..). the National Fund for sustainable Rural Development (Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible -FONADERS), responsible for facilitating, coordinating, and financing the various projects. The third executing level consists of municipalities, and civil society and community organizations, responsible for implementing projects at the local level. The structure and mandate of PRONADERS is a relatively new, unique type of institutional arrangement for the national government. Its progressive orientation is reflected in the general priorities identified for its implementation below:
• Differentiated interventions which take into account the heterogeneity of poor rural communities in location, resources, access to services, infrastructure etc.. That is, PRONADERS projects are to be designed according to specific areas’ location vis-a- vis watersheds / hillsides, the socio-economy of the community, access to services and so forth. A gendered perspective and attention to vulnerable groups / distinct ethnicities is also to be incorporated in analysis and intervention.
• The development of local capacity (of producer organizations, municipalities, and civil society organizations) to ensure participation, transparency, and equity in resource use.
• Increased capacity for inter-institutional and economic alliances. PRONADERS documents and participants interviewed acknowledge that the success of this new institutional framework will depend on its capacity to develop links at the political, operational, and executing levels with public and private sector institutions.
3.3.3. Institutional Framework of PRONADERS: The Division of Roles and Responsibilities20
20 Much of the information in this section is from the document APRONADERS - Marco Basico Institucional,” Secretaria de Agricultura y Ganaderia (July 2000). This section looks at how the specific roles and responsibilities are allocated within PRONADERS. The previous section identified the three levels at which PRONADERS functions: the political or policy level (SAG, Consejo Consultative); the operational level (DINADERS and FONADERS), and the executing level (municipalities, NGOs, civil society and community organizations etc.). This section explores the specific roles and responsibilities as they are allocated at each level, to further clarify how PRONADERS intends to operationalize (at all levels).
As noted above, at the political or policy level, the key actors are the Secretary of Agriculture and Livestock (SAG) and PRONADERS’ Consultative Council. Although together they form the policy arm of the institution, they have distinct roles in this regard. SAG’s role, for example, has been primarily ex-anteBdesigning and overseeing PRONADERS as a whole, and translating the activities and experiences of PRONADERS into policies for rural development at the ministerial level in conjunction with the activities of related ministries.21 SAG literally created PRONADERS (based on the PMRTN), defining its structure, priorities, and resources. It approved the operating manual of FONADERS, as well as the activities of DINADERS; selected the Consultative Council for PRONADERS, and continues to preside over the Executive Committee. SAG continues to play a significant role, however, as it is charged with monitoring and evaluating the activities of PRONADERS, in conjunction with the Financial Department and General Directorate for Public Investment.
The Consejo Consultativo or Consultative Council plays a key role at the political level, providing the link between PRONADERS and SAG in the elaboration of policies for rural development. Specifically, the Consultative Council is responsible for: • ensuring that the institutions of PRONADERS (i.e. FONADERS and DINADERS) are meeting their mandate; • supporting PRONADERS initiatives, ensuring that they respond to the demands of rural populations;
21 Intra-departmental communication and cooperation within government was considered to be extremely weak by the participants interviewed, however this was not the focus of research and therefore no concrete data was generated. • establishing and operationalizing adequate channels of inter-institutional communication (i.e. between PRONADERS institutions and donors, municipalities, communities..); • assisting SAG in designing and implementing policies for sustainable rural development; • systematically receiving information on the various activities and projects of PRONADERS, evaluating them in order to put forth proposals for improvement; • planning strategies, developing mechanisms and actions to enable the achievement of project objectives, and • inviting international actors, donors, cooperants to participate in PRONADERS meetings, and activities.
At the second level, the operational level of PRONADERS, there are three key bodies. The Executive Committee, DINADERS, and FONADERS. The Executive Committee is composed of the directors of DINADERS and FONADERS, a representative from the Ministry (SAG), as well as representatives from civil society organizations (to be determined). The Executive Committee has an ‘overseeing’ function, to:
• ensure that principles, mission, vision and policies established for PRONADERS are met; • harmonize institutional functions of DINADERS and FONADERS; • facilitate implementation and actions of PRONADERS; • serve as a coordinating mechanisms for the two arms: DINADERS and FONADERS, and • establish links with other organizations etc. working in sustainable rural development.
With regard to the latter point, it is specified that the Executive Committee will create links / mechanisms with other organizations, in the context of specific projects with public or civil society organizations, for example, or to tap into outside expertise on various aspects of the rural development problematic (PRONADERS - Institutional Framework 2000:11).
It is DINADERS and FONADERS, however, that are the actual ‘operational arms’ of PRONADERS and their assigned functions are therefore reviewed in some detail.
DINADERS - National Directorate for Sustainable Rural Development (Direccion Nacional de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible)
Documents on the institutional framework of PRONADERS (July 2000), state that DINADERS is responsible for promoting, coordinating, facilitating and implementing policies and participatory processes for rural development, and strengthening the capacity of local and municipal organizations in this regard. Specifically, it will:
• support SAG in policy and strategic decision making for sustainable rural development; • work with international and other donors in design and execution of projects; • supervise, coordinate, as well as monitor and evaluate the projects; • harmonize, coordinate, and maintain relations with OPD’s (private development organizations) to exchange methodologies, information, and technologies for rural development; • identify, within the framework of sectoral policies, needs and demands for the formulation of projects; • work with national and international organizations to execute projects that are in line with local and regional needs / demands; • strengthen the technical, methodological and operating capacity of associated institutions / organizations and promote the active participation of organizations, communities and municipalities; • monitor and evaluate projects within the PRONADERS framework; • develop the capacity of local organizations and municipalities for self-government; • facilitate mechanisms for the generation and transfer of technology; • establish information systems on projects in order to orient decision-making and policies; • create registries and evaluate the capacities of organizations and technical experts in Honduras in order that they participate in projects; • supervise, coordinate, and monitor and evaluate rural development projects, and • act as Technical Secretariat (advisory) for the Consultative Council of PRONADERS.
DINADERS itself consists of an executive directorate; technical teams for policy and planning, as well as a branch for “promotion and operations.” It is this latter branch which analyses and defines the rural problematic, formulating policies and strategy proposals regarding rural development for the ministry of agriculture (SAG). They are also responsible for systematizing the institutional experiences of PRONADERS, however methodologies and mechanisms for doing so remain to be defined. This branch also participates in negotiating the terms of contracts with national and international donors; evaluating and monitoring DINADERS activities; as well as monitoring, re-orienting, and evaluating PRONADERS projects. According to the PRONADERS Institutional Framework (July 2000), the promotions and operations branch of DINADERS will also “promote the development of analytical capacities and dissemination of rural development policies to create spaces for reflection and awareness.”
According to the same document, although the promotions and operations branch is responsible for carrying out project monitoring and evaluation, it is the technical team within DINADERS that is charged with defining the mechanisms and methodologies to monitor projects, as well as communicating and coordinating PRONADERS activities with NGOs, private development organizations (OPDs) and civil society organizations.
FONADERS - National Fund for sustainable Rural Development (Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible)
FONADERS’ mission is to provide a “transparent, effective and efficient operational environment for the financial administration and operation of PRONADERS and projects within” (SAG: PRONADERS Marco Basico Institucional, 2000). It is responsible for the evaluation and monitoring of financial aspects of PRONADERS , and consists of a Junta Directiva (administrative arm), General Management, as well as individual operational “units” (unidades).
Specific functions of FONADERS include: • ongoing monitoring and evaluation of PRONADERS financial systems; • systematize accumulated financial experience of projects in order to perfect systems and procedures; • lend financial administrative services to DINADERS as needed; • maintain accounts for projects under execution, conforming with terms of contracts with financing agencies; • manage contracts and acquisitions according to norms established by projects and DINADERS; • prepare financial reports on projects and PRONADERS; • systematically undertake audits of accounts and financial processes, and • strengthen and support financial institutions / organizations linked to PRONADERS.
At the head of FONADERS is the Junta Directiva which is also integrated with other national-level ministries and departments, specifically the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry for Technical and International Cooperation. The role of the Junta is to orient financial policy for the FONADERS General Management team, within national economic, financial and legal parameters as well as the mandate of PRONADERS itself. It also authorizes the General Management in signing contracts, and provides the budget and annual operational plans for FONADERS. It is the FONADERS’ General Management team in conjunction with operational units, that define and implement the operational manual of FONADERS.
Other intermediary mechanisms established by PRONADERS to facilitate coordinated functioning of its different arms, and not mentioned in the preceding review include the National Committee for the Selection of Sub-Projects (Comité Nacional de Seleccion de Subproyectos); the Committee for Contracts and Acquisitions of PRONADERS; and other mechanisms for advising, coordinating and controlling PRONADERS (see Box below).
In the short-term and medium term (approximately 2 years), PRONADERS aims to have accomplished the following tasks: • designed a strategy for rural development with focus on watersheds; • designed programmes based on an analysis of strategic areas for rural development; • developed base (case) studies; • established an inventory of projects; • established an inventory of NGOs working in areas related to rural development; • established a registry of “intermediarios;” • incorporated BID (Inter-American Development Bank) projects into PRONADERS; • initiated evaluation and negotiation for the incorporation of other projects into PRONADERS; • identification of new projects; • defined (and installation of) local and regional structures for these projects, and • initiated capacity-building programs at local level as part of the implementation of above objectives; • Design and implementation of an information system to facilitate decision-making processes.
And at the level of local organizations and civil society: • Design and implementation of mechanisms at the local level through which to systematize experiences and projects already in execution; • Design and implementation of a capacity-building program at the local level.
3.3.4. Participation and PRONADERS
One of the most striking aspects of the PMRTN as well as CG documents and the PRONADERS proposal reviewed in the next section, are their emphasis on “participatory development,” “citizen participation,” “the involvement of multiple stakeholders” etc.. It is apparent that at the level of discourse, these documents support the inclusion of all implicated sectors in the design, development, and implementation of development initiatives. It is still unclear, however, as to what degree participatory discourses are, or will be translated into practise. There are already complaints being voiced about the lack of consultation in planning processes. (For example by the Association of Municipalities of Honduras (AMHON) with regard to decentralization processes, and by several sectors of civil society with regard to new forestry laws). Other limitations include lack of time, resources, knowledge and tools to actually operationalize participatory processes.
Public and sectoral reaction vis-à-vis PRONADERS and state strategies for rural development has been sceptical. Among international donors, NGOs, and even national government officials there seems to be a ‘wait and see’ attitude, a withholding of opinion until there is evidence that the PRONADERS, which seems to be generally well received in theory, will be adequately operationalized. Although some of the participants interviewed expressed some concern that PRONADERS would be “buried” with a change in government in the next elections, most felt that, as its contracts and commitments will extend past the election date, PRONADERS would persist, with perhaps some changes to personnel rather than policy.22
Other challenges facing PRONADERS are the broad scope of its mandate, and the relatively weak in-house institutional capacity for research on issues in rural development. The leadership of PRONADERS is aware of, and explicit about these challenges, and there is currently momentum within PRONADERS to forge links with external public and private institutions to strengthen capacity for research and program implementation.23
PRONADERS currently represents the primary institutional framework for rural development in Honduras, however other institutions and laws, both new and old, also play a significant role in the (sustainable) development of the rural sector. Accordingly the next section will briefly review these other relevant components of the institutional-legal framework for rural development and natural resource management.
22 In personal correspondence, J. Garcia states that based on interviews, general opinion is that PRONADERS has at least a 50% chance of success vis-a-vis sustainability. 23 Interviews with PRONADERS participants / team members October, 2000.
3.4. Other Components of the National Institutional / Legal Framework for Rural Development and NRM The priorities emphasized in the PMRTN and PRONADERS are not altogether new to the Honduras Government. Since 1992, the Government of Honduras has been developing plans for the ‘modernization’ of the State, which have included major changes to public administration systems to create a favourable macro-economic framework for modernization (IDB 1999; GoH 2000). The majority of these initiatives have also prioritized decentralization and increased civil society participation. As part of its initiative to modernize, the National government changed existing laws and passed new laws aiming to modernize rural development and increase State efficiency. Included in this list are the Law of Modernization and Development of the Agricultural Sector (Ley para la Modernizacion y el Desarrollo del Sector Agricola - LMDSA); the Municipalities Law (Ley de Municipalidades) which guides decentralization; and the Forestry Law (and forestry agency AFE-COHDEFOR); (Sistema Nacional de Areas Protegidas Reglamento del Sistema Nacional de Areas Protegidas (SINAPH) (National System for Regulation of Protected Areas); Ley General del Ambiente (General Environmental Law); La Nueva Agenda (see above list).
This section will briefly review the intended impacts of these laws and the challenges of implementation, with the exception of the Municipalities Law to be reviewed in the next section, which focuses specifically on decentralization and local capacity.
3.4.1 The Law of Modernization and Development of Agricultural Sector
The Law of Modernization and Agricultural Development (Ley de Moderniazacion y Desarollo del Sector Agropecuario - LMDSA) was passed in 1992, and introduces substantial changes in the legal framework regulating the agricultural sector, prioritizing the further opening of agricultural markets, increased agro-exports and the elimination of subsidies on agricultural products (ibid.).24 The primary principles and priorities underlying
24 Many small-scale farmers as well as Consejo Coordinador de Organizaciones Campesinas de Honduras - COCOCH, were opposed to this law due to lack of consultation (others view that spaces for participation in its formulation existed but were not used) - (J. Garcia, personal correspondence, February 2001). the law include: i. The promotion of commercial agricultural development in conjunction with peasant agriculture; ii. The strengthening of the capacity of the public sector to develop policies for sustainable rural development; iii. The strengthening of private sector participation in the definition and execution of policies; iv. The (institutional and regional) decentralization of public goods and service delivery (IDB Problemas y Oportunidades para el Desarrollo de la Economia Rural 1999:32). It is clear that these principles are similar to the ones guiding the current framework for rural development - PRONADERS.
The LMDSA was also responsible for creating the Council for Agricultural Development (Consejo de Desarrollo Agricola - CODA), an organization that was intended to consult and coordinate among institutions working in this sector. However since its inception, it has been criticized for having very weak or no communication with civil society organizations, the NGO community, and with other state ministries and agencies working in this area (ibid.).
With regards to forestry, the LMDSA holds several implications: $ It devolves ownership of trees to the landowners $ It aims to further open markets and increase the private commercialization of forestry $ It establishes a framework for sale of national forests by means of tender $ It aims to improve land titling, and therefore more sustainable use of forests $ It promotes the regulation of the rights of populations living on forest lands.
3.4.2. Ley General del Ambiente
The General Environmental Law or Ley General del Ambiente (LGA) was put in place in 1993 in order to establish a legal and normative framework for all aspects of the environmental protection and regulation in Honduras. Specifically LGA is intended to protect, conserve, restore, and sustainably manage natural resources in the interest of the public. Although it provides a relatively comprehensive and progressive framework for environmental protection, its usefulness has been limited by weak capacity for implementation. The key implementing institution is the Secretaria de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente (SERNA), responsible for policy development and regulation (IDB Document 1998), however SERNA has generally lacked the capacity to implement / enforce Environmental Licenses, assessments and other mechanisms for protection.25
3.4.3. Ley Forestal
Passed in the early 1970s the Forestry Law was intended to guarantee the protection of national forests and wildlife through the establishment of protected areas, and a program for management and reforestation, however critics state that the Law has not been enforced, and the forestry agencies charged with implementation have predominantly facilitated the exploitation of forestry resources.26
In 1999, CIDA’s PAGS program co-hosted a technical workshop on Forestry and Sustainable Development in which the Council for Agricultural Development, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (SAG), and COHDEFOR (Honduran Corporation for Forestry Development) established in 1974, identified strategies and policy options with regard to the sustainable management of forests over the next two decades. The box below lists the key challenges presently facing sustainable forestry management in Honduras:
25 SERNA consists of five Directorates: Directorate for Environmental Management - Direccion de Gestion Ambiental (DGA), the Directorate for Evaluation and Control - Direccion de Evaluacion y Control Ambiental (CECA), the Directorate for Biodiversity - Dirreccion de Biodiversidad (DIBIO), the Directorate for Water Resources - Direccion de Recursos Hidricos (DRH), and the Directorate of Climate Change - Direccion de Ordenamiento y Cambio Climatico. As with other state institutions, SERNA has been decentralizing components of its programming over the past several years. Most notable, in this regard has been the establishment of Municipal Environmental Units (Unidades Ambientales Municipales - UAMs), whose functions include local management, coordination, and decision-making over environmental / NRM issues, implementing legislation and increasing local participation (community, civil society, private sector) in environmental management (J. Garcia, personal correspondence Feb. 2001, and SERNA document: http://rds.org.hn/~serna/direcciones/dga/dga_umas.html). 26 The Forestry Law was opposed by many community groups as it did not take into account local capacity of these groups to sustainable manage forestry resources at lower costs using local resources, but rather favoured Atecnicos forestales” (J. Garcia, personal correspondence, Feb. 2001). Furthermore, according to some civil society groups such as Alianza Agroforestal, that organized to counter the proposed law, left farmers out of the picture (both in terms of consultation and the law itself) neglecting their role in forest management (Celinda Villeda via J. Garcia - interview Jan. 2001).
• Absence of long term vision, or clarity of policies and objectives; • Unstable policy environment - uncoordinated and contradictory policies; • Inadequate incentives framework; • Non-implementation of policies; • Insufficient coordination among institutions • Operational inadequacy of AFE-COHDEFOR, combined with administrative and legal weaknesses; • Insufficient presence in the field; • Decentralization of responsibilities without sufficient preparation or transfer of resources; • Increased vulnerability of watersheds due to deforestation; • Improper use of land in relation to ecosystem capacity; • Unresolved, unregulated issues surrounding land tenancy; • Forest management without criteria / indicators for sustainability; • Firewood - consuming 100 times more wood than industrial usage; • Demographic pressures increasing; • Inadequate participation of affected populations (considered essential); • Lack of coordination among various stakeholders.
(Source: Memoria del Taller Tecnico: La Contribucion de los Bosques Latifoliados al Desarrollo Sostenible de Honduras: Lineas Estrategicas para Entrar en el Siglo XXI, 1999)
A new national forestry plan - PLANFOR- was elaborated in the mid-1990s outlining forestry priorities from 1996 to 2015. PLANFOR also advocated the decentralization of forestry management and protection, the creation of a ‘forestry fund,’ and the consolidation of national systems of protected areas (SINAPH, a National System for the Regulation of Protected Areas has been approved). Its implementation has been challenged, however, in part by the contradiction between the legal framework and
agency strategies and the tension between agricultural and commercial development and goals of conservation (Falck 1999:7).
In light of these challenges, a new forestry law is currently under negotiation to be formulated by November 2000 and passed by February 2001. This entails the restructuring of CODHEFOR, which will reduce in size from 1200 employees to just 250, and be renamed Secretaria Forestal Nacional (SEFONAC). Given the scale of reduction, sources who have been tracking developments in this area confirm that the new department will have to delegate the implementation of its projects and activities to NGOs and other civil society organizations.
3.4.4. Laws Pending Approval
There are several other laws pending approval which will also impact the shape of rural development in Honduras. These include the law for territorial ordering (Ley de Ordenamiento Territorial); the general forestry law (Ley General Forestal); and a law of the waters (Ley de Aguas). The General Forestry Law is still to be approved, and involves the restructuring of institutions responsible for issues in this area including CODHEFOR, as described above. One of the most pressing issues pertaining to rural development is that of land titling, included in the pending Law for Territorial Ordering. The Law for Territorial Ordering was elaborated by the ministry for the environment (SERNA), in order to establish norms and rules to promote a balance between human populations, natural resources and economic and social activities. As previously noted, territorial rights and land titling are some of the foremost issues for rural development and natural resource management in Honduras. Land titling has been the responsibility of the National Agrarian Institute (Instituto Nacional Agraria - INA) since 1991, under the
Agriculture Modernization and Development Law, and administered by the Judiciary.27 INA is charged with resolving land titling issues for both farmers of export crops as well as those producing basic grains and carrying out small-scale agriculture. However, according to a study by Harvard Law School (1999), the former are favoured by INA with regards to resources and access to land (Trackman, Fisher, and Salas 1999:13).28 The National Agrarian Registry (Registro Agrario Nacional - RAN) is the operational land titling arm of INA, responsible for preparing titles to be issued and maintaining an index of titles granted. According to the Harvard report, in 1999 RAN was completing between 1,200 and 1,600 registrations each month. INA’s funding comes partially from the GoH, and indirectly from international donors through (now PRONADERS) projects such as Proyecto de Administracion de Areas Protegidas (PAAR) and PROLANCHO, as well as from CIDA.29
The relevance of the legal framework and the above laws to rural development is clear, although their impact and authority is undermined by persistent weaknesses in the judicial system, outlined in Section One. However the impact of the legal framework on rural development cannot be dismissed on the basis of judicial weakness, or lack of implementation and enforcement, for these ‘umbrella’ laws shape institutions and programming for rural development. For example, one of the most significant institutional shifts with regard to rural development in Honduras is the extensive decentralization process currently underway in Honduras, under the regulatory framework of the Municipalities Law ( Ley de Municipios) which sets out the legal framework within which
27 The National Agrarian Institute (INA) was originally created in 1962, and although it was charged with some aspects of land redistribution, titling became its central focus in 1991. 28 This bias also results for the process by which land-titling takes place. Typically, land is allocated by INA to Abeneficiaries,” who purchase the land via loans from private sector banks or other sources of credit such as FONAPROVI - national fund for the production of housing (Tackman, Fisher, and Salas 1999:13). Significant amounts of credit are more easily accessed by larger-scale, export crop producers. 29 One of PAAR’s primary objectives is to modernize the property registration system for rural areas to create a base for the implementation of effective titling (PAAR 1999).
decentralization processes will be operationalized, and la Comision Nacional de Descentralizacion (National Commission for Decentralization), the operational body. Accordingly, the proceeding section examines the nature and impacts of decentralization on rural development in Honduras.
3.5. Decentralization and Local Capacity30
In the post-Mitch period, there has been increasing attention to the role of municipalities and local governments in part due to the key roles they have played in the reconstruction process. Not only is decentralization considered to be an important mechanism for increasing citizen participation in development processes, but Honduras has one of the strongest decentralization laws in Central America (Canadian Urban Institute 1999:1).
Within the PMRTN, decentralization encompasses not only decision-making about programs and public budgets, but also the transfer of responsibilities to citizens and to organizations of civil society. Key steps include:
• the decentralization of education, with several operating procedures devolved to the Departmental Directorates of Education;31 • an increased role for municipalities through the organization of one hundred and twenty-five Development Councils and Departmental Development Commissions;
30 Both the UNDP (1997) and the World Bank (1992, 1995) define ‘decentralization’ as the Atransfer of responsibility for planning, management, and the raising and allocation of resources from the central government and its agencies to field units of government agencies, subordinate units or levels of government or semi-autonomous public authorities or corporation, area-wide, regional or functional authorities” as conceived by Rondineli, Nelleis and Cheema (1983). As Gershberg (1998) has noted, however, ‘decentralization’ is a slippery word. Referred to as both a means and an end, its impact on governance, and in particular social service delivery, remains unclear. In discussions on decentralization, there is often a distinction made between ‘deconcentration,’ the delegation of responsibilities to other bureaucratic agencies, and ‘devolution,’ the delegation of responsibilities to autonomous, private or public organizations outside the bureaucracy (Olowu 1997:165). Much of the information on decentralization in Honduras in this section is drawn from the “Feasibility Study on Municipal Strengthening in Honduras” - prepared by the Canadian Urban Institute for CIDA in 1999. 31 These Directorates of Education are in place, but in practice there has not yet been any shift (J. Garcia, personal correspondence February 2001).
• in the agricultural sector, the Government states that the majority of rural development programs have been re-oriented to guarantee the participation of communities, NGOs and local governments in the development of their own communities. Projects cited include the Rural Development Plan for the Western Region (PLANDERO), the Program to Support Small and Medium-sized Farmers in the Olancho Region (PROLANCHO), the Rural Development Project of the East-Centre Region (PRODERCO), the Rural Development Project for Southern Lempira (Ph. II), the Rural Development Project for the Southwestern Region (PROSOC) and the National Program of Sustainable Rural Development (PRONADERS). (Within PRONADERS, it is explicitly stated that citizen participation through councils, guilds, organizations is fundamental, that decentralization is required for good governance at the local level, and the empowerment of local populations).
3.5.1. Challenges of Implementation
Although there is a very strong Association of Municipalities (Asociacion de Municipios de Honduras - AMHON) driving the decentralization process from the grassroots, municipalities generally lack the capacity, revenue base and resources, to take on the responsibilities that have been assigned to them (ibid). Municipalities are differentially empowered and tend to have very weak administration and management capabilities.32 According to a document presented by AMHON, the national government has not taken adequate steps to implement decentralization processes, has not consulted with municipalities regarding their needs, and has failed to transfer funds and other resources to the municipal level as required for the management of local infrastructure (AMHON 2000). Moreover, technical assistance and capacity-building are costly, and credibility in local level politicians has not significantly increased (Raudales, FUNDEMUM via J.
32 Organizations such as La Fundacion de Desarrollo Municipal (FUNDEMUM) have been working to strengthen capacity of municipal governments to undertake increasing responsibilities, and in certain Departments (e.g. Lempira Sur), municipalities have united to confront common problems (e.g. environmental management).
Garcia, persona correspondence, February 2001). However there seems to be widespread awareness of these obstacles among the sectors involved, and there also tends to be general agreement that conflict resolution mechanisms aimed specifically at the municipal level are needed, particularly in the absence of functioning legal mechanisms to settle disputes that will inevitably arise over resource access and control.
In addition to the above laws and institutional structures, rural development in Honduras is also affected by the capacity for national / local institutions to research the issues faced, and develop innovative, locally-adapted solutions for transformation. Accordingly, the following section analyses the national capacity for research in areas of rural development and natural resource management.
3.6. Academic / Research Institutes
Based on interviews with actors in various sectors, including academics and researchers, it appears that institutional capacity for research is for the mostpart extremely poor in Honduras, although pockets of strong research capacity and individual researchers of course exist. The capacity of any institution or individual for research is contingent upon financial, human, and institutional resources, and is shaped by the context in which it is (or is not) taking place. Although local human resources for research are available, (including at the grassroots level for example among farmers),33 other financial and institutional resources are less so. Research capacity in Honduras is consistently described by academics, and participants in NGOs and government as “weak.” Key contributing factors cited included a lack of funding for independent, long-term research; few incentives within universities and institutes to undertake research, for example little emphasis on, or opportunity to publish or present etc.. Although there exist pockets of expertise and research contracted to individuals, much of it is (development) project
33 COSECHA , for example, is a Honduran institution supporting research at the grassroots among farmers (with IDRC support), with significant success in adapting new techniques (nineteen to date) in addition to traditional sustainable techniques.
related, and tends to be short term. Often the results of project related research tend to leave with the project, and are not broadly disseminated, at least not among the research community. A further challenge is the lack of communication and cooperation among universities in Honduras, in part due to distinct program niches combined with competition for scarce funds. The lack of financial resources for independent research is perhaps the most significant challenge facing researchers and research institutions in post-Mitch Honduras, and government funding to public institutions in this regard has declined dramatically through the 1970s and 1980s. This section reviews the research capacity (strengths and weaknesses) of organizations and institutions working in areas relating to rural development, including universities, public, and private institutions. However, as previously noted, it does not necessarily reflect the level of expertise or research capacity of individuals within each institution.
3.6.1. Universities / Academic Institutions
There are both private and public universities and colleges in Honduras, and although there exist ‘pockets’ of expertise in many institutions, there is a lack of necessary financial and human resources for long-term, independent research. With regard to rural development, the university that appears to have the strongest capacity for research is the Pan-American School of Agriculture BZamoranoBa private university which receives a significant portion of its funding from international donors, universities and corporations.34 In addition to undergraduate programs in agriculture, agroindustry, natural resources management, and rural development, Zamorano offers a Masters of Professional Studies in Tropical Agriculture in conjunction with Cornell University.
With regard to research in participatory rural development in Honduras, Zamorano has particular expertise in areas of rural financing (see Doyle & Falck 2000: Sistemas Financieros Rurales - El Caso de Honduras); watershed management (Procuencas Project), funded by the Canadian - Honduran Environmental Trust Fund; the UNIR
34 Zamorano is located approximately 30 km from the capital city, Tegucigalpa in the Dept of Francisco Morazan.
project, funded by the Kellog Foundation, which works with rural communities in a range of development initiatives, including administrative / communication capacity-building, appropriate technologies, and agri-business; and US$8.7 million in funding from USAID to undertake an “agricultural revitalization project.” The agricultural revitalizations project aims to increase the productivity, employment, and income of more than 12, 000 small and medium producers in regions most affected by Mitch, through agriculture-related technical and capacity-building assistance. Geographic and theme areas targeted for assistance are: Olancho and El Paraiso with a focus on coffee and plantain production; Olancho, El Paraiso, and Francisco Morazan in bean production; Atlantida, Yoro and Colon regarding dairy production; El Paraiso, Comayagua and Choluteca in apiculture; as well as several Departments in the West and South of Honduras in poultry farming (Zamorano website, 2000).
Given its agricultural focus and international sources of funding, much of its research is oriented to, and by, development programs and projects. Due to its status as a Pan- American university, and its international student population, Zamorano is sometimes criticized for its lack of local base in rural communities in Honduras35 - however given the extent and focus of its outreach projects this is clearly changing.
Public universities and schools include Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Honduras (UNAH) with several campuses throughout the country, including the Centro Universitario Regional Del Norte located in San Pedro Sula, in the Department of Cortés; and the Centro Universitario Regional Del Litoral Atlantico (CURLA), located in the port city of La Ceiba in the Department of Atlantida. CURLA is a technical school oriented to agricultural and forestry sciences, with programs and departments focussing
35 Most participants interviewed agreed that of all the institutes of higher education in Honduras, Zamorano had by far the greatest depth, resources and expertise. All agreed however, that its focus was not primarily on the Honduran context, as it carried out very little research at the local level and significant proportion of the students were from other countries in the region and beyond. The need to focus on issues specific to the Honduran context, however, has been recognized and is being addressed.
on agriculture and livestock, rural economics and development, agronomy etc.. CURLA also hosts and manages a germplasm bank which serves as a base for research on fruit diversification in Honduras. (This was created as part of a CIDA-funded agroforestry project with COHDEFOR in La Ceiba - Proyecto del Bosque Latifoliado). However CURLA’s research capacity is generally considered to be weak, not only due to consistent funding for independent research, but also as a result of internal politics and weak administration (Interviews Honduras: 2000).
Universidad Pedagogico Nacional (UPN), ESNACIFOR - Escuala Nacional de Sciencias Forestales, and the Escuela Nacional de Agricultura (ENA) are also public universities. ENA, located in Catacamas in the Dept. of Olancho, is considered to have greater relative research capacity in areas relating to rural development among public universities. It has several laboratories available for research on crops, dairy, soil (still under development) and meat, supported for the most part through international funding. However ENA’s research is predominantly technical and applied, and it lacks the resources for research as compared to private institutions. (University of Guelph and CIDA have provided support to ENA, and CIDA’s PAGS program has worked with ENA in the past - also supporting a germplasm bank similar to CURLA`s).
The focus of the National School of Forestry Sciences, ESNACIFOR, located in Siguatepeque, Dept. of Comayagua, also undertakes applied research which it also carries out on behalf of the government department for forestry, CODEHFOR. ESNACIFOR has both the technical equipment and human resources for GIS research and application, in part due to technical support and funding from GTZ since 1994 (J. Garcia, personal correspondence, February 2001). It also has significant tracts of forests available to its students for forestry research. According to most who are familiar with its programs, its capacity for research and related activities such as publishing remains weak. (As noted, this is a pervasive problem among most of the publicly funded universities in which there is little funding or incentive to publish research papers, and more emphasis on applied research and actual projects). The fact that research at these universities and schools remains very weak does not necessarily reflect the capacity of
individual professors within each institution, and it is quite common for individual professors to take on outside research contracts in their field of expertise.
3.6.2. Other Public and Private Research Institutions
Fundacion Hondurena de Investigacion Agricola - FHIA
The Fundacion Hondurena de Investigacion Agricola (FHIA) is a private non-profit research foundation whose research is primarily oriented towards export crops and agro- industry, as evidenced by its mission statement: “...our research stimulates agricultural development and exports...”(FHIA website). Its claims to have the best agricultural and crop research facilities in Honduras are echoed by those outside of FHIA working in rural development and agriculture. However its focus on export crops heavily influences its actual and potential role in small-holder agriculture and sustainable, participatory rural development, that is, its research is driven more by market / export demands than by needs of small producers with regard to agricultural technologies, NRM, food sovereignty or poverty.
As a private organization FHIA sells its research services and products, although it does receive some funding from international donors including USAID. Its services include research, training, technical consulting, laboratory services, and agricultural marketing. Its clients range from international donor organizations (often for SAG related rural development projects), to private corporations, national government, and individual farmers.
As mentioned above, its research focusses on export crops, specifically on bananas and plantain, cocoa, and rice. FHIA has additional research programs on crop diversification and seeds, and other ‘special projects’ including studies at its Forestry Centre for Humid Tropical Plants (CADETH), a project on organic agriculture and a new agricultural technologies project in La Esperanza, Dept. of Intibuca. See Box below for details on various FHIA research initiatives.
Specific examples of FHIA Research Initiatives:
• The Banana (& Plantain) Program: This program was initiated by the United Fruit Company in 1958. FHIA took over the program and expanded it to include plantains in 1984. The overall objective of the program is to develop hybrids of export variety bananas and plantains that were resistant to specific diseases and insects. • The Cocoa Program aims to generate and transfer low cost technologies to promote the development of this crop. The programs supports the transfer of technologies between small cocoa producers of the Atlantic Coast area resulting in improved crop handling techniques. Honduras is the leading exporter of cocoa in Central America. • The Crop Diversification Program aims to identify and develop crops and/or species that may represent alternatives to traditional agriculture. The focus of research is on crops with export potential or profitable substitution of imports that may be produced locally by small and medium sized farms. • The Vegetable Program supports the export vegetable industry and promotes its diversification. It specifically seeks to identify different vegetable crops and to develop production systems for both local and export consumption, for example for producers of cucumbers, pickling cucumbers, zucchini, sweet onions, processed tomatoes etc.. • The Rice Program, part of the larger Seed Program aims to obtain new rice varieties for improved seeds. Research includes studies of the factors that reduce crop yields; analysis of the present commercial varieties available in Central America, and the development of a new commercial seed. • FHIA has also undertaken research in organic agriculture, with financing from USAID. This project was created in response to the perceived high demand internationally for organic products, whose prices exceed those of non-organic products. The project's goal is to increase the economic level of small farmers by promoting the cultivation of organic products for export. (PAGS supported a local NGO in Comayagua - SEDES-in
a project related to ecological alternatives to conventional agriculture in the Comayagua Valley, which has since been extended to more communities with CARITAS funding). • Technical services provided by FHIA include water and soil analyses, irrigation drainage projects, and environmental impact studies.
Private sector companies, in particular the multinational fruit companies privately fund their own research, however this is not viewed as public knowledge or shared in a formal way with other organizations.
As noted above, research capacity in the private sector, although heavily oriented towards export / cash crops, is considered to be greater in the private sector primarily due to the availability of resources. Within the public sector, and more specifically with regard to rural development, the Directorate of Science and Technology for Agriculture and Livestock was initiated with a research mandate. The next section reviews DICTA’s capacity in this regard.
DICTA - Direccion de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agropecuria
DICTA is part of the national Secretaria de Agricultura y Ganaderia (SAG), and although it was created in 1992 under the Ley de Modernizacion it only became fully operational in 1995. Generally, research undertaken by DICTA has tended to be very technical, focussing on plant breeding (export crop focus) and technology transfer. DICTA has been composed of three distinct sections: an executive level, a normative / technical level, and an operational level, however they are currently undergoing significant restructuring, which includes the creation of four departmental divisions, and the development of a new strategic plan.
Prior to restructuring, DICTA objectives were:
• to support and increase production and productivity in agriculture and livestock, through the provision of services to generate and transfer technologies for domestic food security and for export; • to coordinate the development of technology transfer activities (related to agriculture and livestock) through the National System for Research and Agricultural / Livestock Technology Transfer (Sistema Nacional de Investigacion y Transferencia de Tecnologia Agropecuaria - SNITTA), which integrates representatives from public and private sectors, national and international donors, and civil society organizations working in this area; • to design and develop integrated technological alternatives for productive sectors, and in response to production needs; • to promote the creation and operation of private sector industry, in order to provide efficient technical services to producers; • to promote and disseminate modalities for technology transfer to producers and facilitate their capacity in this regard, and • to build capacity of technical specialists in the private sector in the adoption of new modalities for agro-development, in order that these are transferred to the producer.
Although research was limited from DICTA’s inception, restructuring has limited DICTA’s capacity for research even further, and according to several sources, although DICTA has six research stations, research activities have all but stopped until the restructuring process is complete. The strategic plan for DICTA is still being developed, however there is little evidence to show that DICTA’s research capacity will increase post-restructuring. It is anticipated that any research undertaken within the new framework will focus on applied research in areas such as technology transfer and agro-business development. It is anticipated that rather than implement research projects, DICTA will most likely act as an executing agent, contracting other organizations and research institutes to carry out the work. (The types of projects it would engage with are in the process of being defined). A complaint levelled against the restructuring process, and DICTA in general, is that it has been based on a largely internal process of consultation, and has not included
communities, agro-businesses or other stakeholders in the process (Consultant’s Report - CIDA 2000).36
There are other NGOs institutes within Honduras that undertake various types of research including national organizations such as the Centro Internacional de Información Sobre Cultivos de Cobertura, CIDICCO; and the Asociación de Consejeros para la Agricultura sostenible, Ecológica y Humana, Cosecha; as well as regional organizations with offices in Honduras, including the Tropical Agriculture and Higher Education Centre, CATIE; CIAT-Laderas, and the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, FLACSO.
CIDICCO was created in 1990 with the purpose of identifying, documenting, disseminating and researching the use of cover crops by and for small farmers, in light of innovations in this field including nitrogen fixing, organic agriculture, and solid erosion. Also working at the grassroots, COSECHA researches participatory methodologies with regard to small farmer technology, innovation and dissemination. CATIE, one of the regional research organizations with an office in Honduras, undertakes research to generate and validate technological practices for agricultural production and natural resource management, specifically in areas of: agroforestry; germplasm conservation and improvement; the development of technologies for sustainable management of natural forests; as well as socio-economic analysis and valuation of policies regarding environmental goods. CIAT-Laderas, another regional organization (CIAT) with an office in Honduras, forms part of the larger Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), focusses specifically on issues surrounding hillside agriculture and watershed management including participatory methodology for research and programming. Similarly, COLABORA, also a regional organizations, aims to develop the capacities of national and regional actors to improve the quality of decision-making with
36 It is beyond the scope of this paper to detail the history of DICTA’s projects which, despite the technical focus, have covered a range of areas. One example is the GTZ-supported project on ecological alternatives to conventional agriculture (1995), managed by DICTA and SAG - SENASA, carried out by COSECHA in El Paraiso (J. Garcia Feb. 2001).
regard to natural resource management and rural development. It accomplishes this, in part, through research and analysis on processes of collaborative decision-making.
There are a variety of other research institutions and organizations, both national and international, that operate within the sphere of civil society. As previously noted, civil society organizations or CSOs have come to the fore front of the rural development paradigm in the region and worldwide, particularly as spaces for participation, active citizenship and grassroots development. The next section, therefore, provides an overview of certain sectors of civil society, with emphasis on the rural sector.
3.7. Civil Society
Similar to other countries in the region, Honduran civil society is very active and extremely heterogeneous, including diverse actors and organizations ranging from Indigenous organizations, worker’s organizations to rural women’s fronts. By most accounts, the face of civil society is changing in Honduras as longstanding organizations rebuild in the wake of extreme military repression in the 1980s, and new organizations emerge. In the post-Mitch period, diverse civil society organizations have become some of the most vocal advocates of social change particularly with regard to land reform, access to resources, and basic human rights. In spite of increased activity and international support for ‘civil society strengthening’ - a key focus of development programming - Honduran civil society continues to be quite fragmented. Such fragmentation stems not only from distinct agendas and priorities, but also competition for resources and spaces for participation. There are relatively limited intra-institutional channels for political participation (although civil society consultation has increased in the post-Mitch period)37, and often influence is achieved through particularistic relations with specific ministries or politicians (Interviews 2000). Co-optation of civil society organizations for specific political interests has been prevalent through the 1990s. The
37 For example, the Commission for the Participation of Civil Society in National Reconstruction and Transformation.
absence of agreed upon “rules” or mechanisms for civil society or citizen participation is perhaps one of the biggest challenges facing the implementation of decentralized, participatory mechanisms in rural development.
This section looks some of the key organizations working in areas related to rural development and natural resource management, including producer and Indigenous organizations, popular organizations including unions and cooperatives, as well as non- governmental organizations.
3.7.1. Producer Organizations
The country's first national producer organizations were formed in the mid-1950s and played a significant role in the establishment of the Instituto Nacional Agrario in 1961 and the enactment of the Agrarian Reform Law in 1962, which freed some of the uncultivated lands of the foreign owned fruit companies. Some of the largest federations of Honduran producers, emerging through the 1960s and 1970s, include the National Federation of Honduran Producers (Federacion Nacional de Campesinos de Honduras) or FENACH, National Union of Producers (Union Nacional de Campesinos) or UNC, and National Association of Honduran Campesinos (Asociacion Nacional de Campesinos de Honduras) or ANACH, and the Honduran Federation of Agrarian Reform Cooperatives (Federacion de Cooperativas de la Reforma Agraria de Honduras) or FECORAH. Despite numerous attempts to unify these national organizations in the late 1970s and 1980s, the sector remains characterized by division due to distinct political affiliations (Library of Congress 1993).
In 1988 ANACH, the UNC, and FECORAH, along with several smaller producer organizations, united under the banner of the Coordinating Council of Honduran Producer Organizations (Consejo Coordinador de Organizaciones Campesinas de Honduras) or COCOCH, to lobby for agrarian reform. However in 1992, the movement was split by disagreement over the government’s proposed Agricultural Modernization Law and the three major organizations left COCOCH to form the National Peasants Council (Consejo Nacional de Campesinos) or CNC. Although many producer organizations are concerned with issues of food security, land reform, access to markets
and technology, persistent divisions among organizations continue to weaken this sector of civil society.
One example is Via Campesina an international movement which coordinates peasant organizations of small and middle-scale producers, agricultural workers, rural women, and indigenous communities from Asia, Africa, America, and Europe. The leader of Via Campesina in Honduras is also the head of COCOCH, the Coordinating Council of Honduran Producer Organizations. Via Campesina focuses on issues of: food sovereignty, agrarian Reform (with a focus on land issues), gender (including women’s access to natural and financial resources), human rights, trade and markets (as they relate to rural development), as well as biodiversity and genetic Resources, and alternative agricultural practises.
Of note are the producer organizations established by, and for, women. Although women’s organizations are increasing in number in Honduras, they are by no means a new phenomena. Women's producer organizations date back to the 1920s, and were participants in the banana strike of 1954. (Coincidentally, 1954 was also the year in which women received the vote, making Honduras the last country in the region to extend voting rights to women) (Library of Congress 1993). In the late 1970s, a national peasant organization, the Honduras Federation of Peasant Women (Federación Hondureña de Mujeres Campesinas--FEHMUCA), was formed; by the 1980s, it represented almost 300 organizations in Honduras. In the late 1980s the Council for Integrated Development of Peasant Women (Consejo de Desarrollo Integrado de Mujeres Campesinos--CODEIMUCA) was established and represented more than one hundred women's groups (ibid.).
Producer organizations have often formed coalitions with other sectors of civil society, including unions, Indigenous and environmental organizations, primarily around particular issues. One of the most recently formed coalition organizations is the Honduran Agroforestry Alliance (AHA), composed of producer, Indigenous, and environmental organizations with the objective of analysing and establishing consensus
on the new Forestry Law that is currently under debate in Congress.38 The members of the AHA include:
• Federación de Cooperativas Agroforestales (FEHCAFOR) • Consejo Coordinador de Organizaciones Campesinas de Honduras (COCOCH) • Consejo Nacional Campesino (CNC) • Confederación Nacional de Pueblos Autóctonos de Honduras (CONPAH) • Confederación de Organizaciones Indígenas de Intibucá (COPIN) • Confederación Hondureña de Cooperativas (CHC)
Other participating organizations include:
• Asociación Nacional para el Fomento de la Agricultura Ecológica (ANAFAE) • Asociación para una Sociedad más Justa (ASJ) • Consejo de Instituciones Evangélicas de Desarrollo (CONSEDE)
3.7.2. Indigenous Organizations
Another key civil society organization in Honduras participating in issues surrounding rural development and NRM is the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Honduras (CONPAH). CONPAH works with eight indigenous and black populations throughout Honduras on a variety of issues including access to land, resources and human rights.
38 With regard to the new Forestry Law they insist that it must contribute to the economic, social and cultural development of the country through profitable, but sustainable management of natural resources. Furthermore, they feel that for the Law to be effective, it must include a framework to coordinate activities among public institutions, municipalities and other actors relevant to forestry; it must create a stable regulatory environment for the management of forests and productive forestry activities, with clear regulations, as well as public coordinating / supervising bodies which are accountable to both private sector peasants needs. According to the AHA, the Law must also ensure the integration of forested areas in territorial distribution, and planning for use of natural resources, and strengthen capacity of the National System of Protected Areas of Honduras (SINAPH), at the same time ensuring that the rights of populations living in forested areas are considered. A priority for AHA with regard to the new Forestry Law is the need to promote scientific and applied research on forestry management and ensure that the information and technologies are available to all stakeholders. They emphasize that rural populations must participate in the sustainable management of forests and commercial benefits accrued (AHA & RDS websites 2000).
The total indigenous population in Honduras is estimated to be just under half a million people, representing around 10% of the total population. The groups are: Pech (1,595), Tawahkas (500), Xicaques (10,000), Chortis (3,500), Lencas (90,000); also Misquitos (35,000) and Garífunas (300,000) who are classified as indigenous in studies on the subject but who are of mixed, Afro-Caribbean origin and who settled in the area after the arrival of the Spanish. (Ramón D Rivas, Pueblos Indígenas y Garífunas de Honduras, 1993).
Indigenous groups are among the most marginalized in Honduran society, and, similar to producer organizations, continue to wage a longstanding battle with the Honduran government over access to land and resources. Disputes also occur directly with landowners, with national and multinational logging companies, and coastal tourism enterprises, and there is agreement that mechanisms for conflict resolution among such diverse stakeholders are crucial (RDS & Abyala & HNMT websites 2000).
In response to the lack of government attention to the problems they faced, indigenous groups in Honduras began to organize themselves into federations in the early 1980s under the CONPAH umbrella. Key organizations include FETRIXY (Federación de Tribus Indígenas Xicaques de Yoro, Federation of Xicaque Indigenous Tribes of Yoro); OFRANEH (Organización Fraterna Negra de Honduras, Fraternal Organization of Blacks of Honduras), MISKUT (representing Moskitia’s Indigenous population), and the National Table (Mesa) of Indigenous peoples. As evidenced in the previous section, Indigenous Federations form alliances with other civil sectors around particular issues vis-a-vis rights and rural development, and have even established more permanent coalitions, for example the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations (Consejo Cívico de Organizaciones Populares e Indígenas) or COPIN, which has over 2500 members.
3.7.3. Unions and Cooperatives
Unions have played a significant role in the civil sphere since the 1950s, and the labour movement as a whole is known as one of the strongest in the region (Library of Congress 1993). The labour movement in Honduras became a significant political force in the country in 1954, with the ‘great banana strike’ and the subsequent legalization of unions and collective bargaining. In the 1990s approximately twenty percent of the overall formal work force was represented by some type of union, and about 40 percent of urban workers were union members (ibid.).
Honduras has three major labor confederations: the Confederation of Honduran Workers (Confederación de Trabajadores de Honduras--CTH), claiming a membership of about 160,000 workers; the General Workers' Central (Central General de Trabajadores-- CGT), claiming to represent 120,000 members; and the Unitary Confederation of Honduran Workers (Confederación Unitaria de Trabajadores de Honduras--CUTH), formed in 1992, with an estimated membership of about 30,000. The three confederations included numerous trade union federations, individual unions, as well as some producer organizations.
In addition to the various unions, cooperative and private associations have increased in number through the 1980s and 1990s, often coalescing around a single export crop. These include the Association of Coffee Exporters of Honduras (Asociacion de Exportadores de Café de Honduras - ADECAFEH), the Association of Coffee Producers of Honduras (Asociacion de Productores de Café de Honduras - APROCAFEH), and the Central for Coffee Cooperatives of Honduras (CCCH).
The roles of these and other organizations vary, ranging from providing support for small producers of export crops to increasing export opportunities for Honduran products. The Central for Coffee Co-operatives of Honduras (CCCH), for example, was established in November 1997 in order to improve the situation of the coffee producers by guaranteeing them a minimum price, direct purchasing, as well as credit allowance and long term relationships (RDS 2000).
3.7.4. Non-Governmental Organizations
There are numerous national and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) currently working in areas of rural development and NRM in Honduras. Many of these NGOs have extensive experience with participatory approaches including participatory action research, which has been practised in Honduras since the early 1980s. In fact participatory methodologies have been developed and are currently used by at least fifty NGOs (in multiple sectors) as part of their intervention strategy (Interview, Mejia 2000). However in many cases participatory methods are not a permanent part of their intervention strategies, but rather used as a means to access communities and funding resources.
Despite the existence of a variety of NGO networks and the Association of Non-governmental Organizations (ASONOG), as well as eighteen networks of NGO networks, the NGO community is relatively fragmented, lacking coordination and cooperation among different sectors including government and other institutions, for example universities. Based on interviews with participants within and outside of the NGO community in Honduras, there was general consensus that competition for project funds took precedence over research and learning. International donors continue to contribute the majority of financial and other resources to NGOs.
Those NGOs that are oriented towards research and information dissemination focus more on the systematization of information, rather than on substantive research projects. However this focus and experience in systematization should not be overlooked, as it partially serves to bridge the existing gaps between research and development. Key organizations working in systematization, or areas of monitoring and evaluation include the Institute for Cooperation and “Auto-Development” (ICADE - Instituto para la cooperacion y autodesarollo), which offers a Diploma in Systematization in conjunction with the University of Cuba; ANDAR, a women’s organization and in particular its network: Red Nacional de Proyectos Hacia la Equidad en Honduras REDNA which has,
among other things, systematized gender methodologies and strategies used by fifteen other women’s NGOs; and the Centre for Human Development (Centro de Desarollo Humano) CDH which is also in the process of developing methodologies for systematization.
In general, civil society organizations in Honduras continue to increase in number and strength, using both the space created by national discourses and formal openings for dialogue as well as donor emphasis on civil society participation with a view to increased citizenship and ‘good governance. This section is by no means an exhaustive list of civil society actors currently active in Honduras, but represents an overview of key sectors working in issues relating to rural development.
4. Reflections on the Political, Economic, and Institutional Contexts for Participatory Rural Development in Honduras
The dual agenda of reconstruction and transformation, as reflected in the PMRTN, represent an ambitious program of development for post-Mitch Honduras. The challenges faced are multi-levelled and involve a range of government and non- government actors (stakeholders) including national and international donors, NGOs, civil society organizations, research institutions, municipalities, and communities as well as individuals.
Many of these challenges come under the broad framework of ‘governance.’ If current weaknesses in the rule of law and judicial system are not addressed, and mechanisms put in place such as land titling and registry systems, programs for the protection of vulnerable areas, and natural resource management are unlikely to be successful. Perhaps even more challenging is the sense of disengagement and lack of confidence in government and governing systems that result in large part from perceived corrupt political practises and ‘old style politics’ based on clientelism rather than due process. Such undemocratic practises and resulting ‘citizen’ disengagement have created a ‘thin’
democracy, in which all Hondurans are legal (nominal) citizens yet a majority are (or feel) excluded from meaningful participation in social, political and economic life.39
However these challenges extend beyond issues of governance and citizenship, for Honduras also faces very real physical, economic, and social ‘problems’ which can not, for the most part, be captured or addressed through quick or simple solutions. At their broadest, these problems manifest in widespread poverty and ecological vulnerability, linked to numerous, interconnected factors ranging from basic education and health services to hillside farming, economic access and conflict over natural resources. The conceptualization of such ‘problems’ and perceived ‘solutions’ is contingent upon stakeholders’ perspectives. This challenge of incorporating multiple stakeholder perspectives is acknowledged in the PMRTN and more specifically PRONADERS, addressed through discourses of participation and consultation.
As Cleaver (1999) points out, however, increased stakeholder participation does not necessarily translate into transformative capacity or influence. She argues that participation (both political participation and participation as a development approach), has come to be seen as intrinsically goodCan unproblematic means to empowerment (p.598), however it remains hollow as a concept without clarification as to what it entails in specific contexts. In the Honduran context, subordination and increased participation are not necessarily diametrically opposed, but shaped by broader social, historical, and economic circumstances. In Honduras and elsewhere, more powerful stakeholders including international donors and governments have traditionally wielded more power or ‘voice’ in defining ‘problems’ and strategies for intervention, despite the increasing use of participatory methodologies.
39 The term ‘thin democracy’ was first coined by Benjamin Barber to describe a system that does not provide the opportunity for citizens to participate meaningfully in public life (Barber, 1984 in Conaghan 1996:50).). ‘Thin’ democracies have come to be characteristic of the region, partly as result from a narrow focus on institutions and elections and minimal procedural criteria for what constitutes ‘a democracy’ (see Linz & Stepan 1997; Vilas 1997; Oxhorn 1999).
In spite of these challenges, the dialogue on reconstruction and transformation in Honduras has created a space for the transformation of traditional development practices, evidenced in the emphasis by the GoH on the importance of (multi stakeholder) participation in all aspects of rural development and NRM processes; in the focus on ecological sustainability, gender and equity; as well as in the recognition of the need for more coordinated efforts among actors and institutions.
This space also exists in the National Program for Sustainable Rural Development (PRONADERS). Not only does PRONADERS allow for the creation of a new institutional framework for rural development, but one with an explicit focus on participation and transparency. It argues for more coordinated development intervention, as well as information exchange, reflection and learning. PRONADERS has also identified transversal issues, including gender equity, watershed management, local capacity and decentralization. Perhaps most significant is PRONADERS strong team and team leaders, clearly committed to changing the way that rural development takes place. As a framework for, ideally, all rural development initiatives in Honduras, the implication is that national, multilateral and bilateral initiatives will have to re-orient themselves to the new institutional framework, and incorporate the accompanying emphases on coordination, participation, transparency, and information exchange. Already the major multilateral and key bilateral donors have re-located their rural development projects within the PRONADERS framework, including bilateral donors: the Swiss Cooperation Agency (COSUDE), IICA, USAID, GTZ, JICA, UK Development Department, the EU, and CIDA, and multilateral organizations including: the FAO, IFAD, UNDP, the World Bank, and the IADB.
This is perhaps not as surprising as the PRONADERS initiative has been supported and largely funded by international donors, notably IFAD and the UNDP; and perhaps more significantly, participants interviewed from both international and national organizations agree that there is a pressing need for more coordinated intervention and information exchange, including research for development. They reiterated the lack of coordination and the subsequent “reinventing of the wheel” as a key issue related to information
dissemination and the flow of knowledge. None of the international or national organizations interviewed during the research process had explicit research components as part of their project cycle, and ‘research on the go’ was common practice to address information gaps as they arose during the course of a project.40
A further concern with regard to rural development intervention, raised by participants in donor organizations and government alike, was the gap between research, development, and policy-making. PRONADERS, with its mandate to incorporate all three aspects appears well positioned to serve as a potential bridge, if it is able to successfully form links with outside organizations, including research and academic institutions.
Despite the serious economic, political, and social challenges, the PMRTN and specifically PRONADERS appear committed to changing the face of rural development programming in Honduras, and have already made significant steps forward. These include the formation of the National Committee of Project Directors who will monitor policies, impacts, evaluation and follow-up of proposed changes, as well as Technical Teams who will work on project operationalization in their respective areas of expertise. A Project Evaluation System has also been initiated in order to facilitate systematization and sharing of findings, lessons learned etc..(IDRC will be supporting related knowledge sharing initiatives to this end as well). Donor representatives (named the G12) participate in joint meetings to share information and avoid unnecessary duplication or re-inventing the wheel in the project context. Additionally, local-level consultations are currently taking place in various regions of Honduras, with participation from farmer organizations, private sector, local government and community organizations. Perhaps most significant with regard to PRONADERS` long-term sustainability is the fact that since its inception it has retained its autonomy, transparency, and emphasis on strong technical capacity and
40 Typically, in these instances, an international consultant is hired externally to carry out the required survey or analysis, and the information generated is disseminated no further than the individual project, with documentation often leaving the country with the consultant. The result is lack information exchange and duplication of research.
participation (J. Chenier, in interview via J. Garcia, personal correspondence February 2001).
Section II Overview of IDRC’s, and Key Bilateral and Multilateral Programming in Rural Development and Natural Resource Management in Honduras
1. IDRC in Honduras
This section provides an overview of the International Development Research Centre’s (IDRC) past, current, and potential future activities with Honduran partners in research and development. IDRC has had longstanding and varied activities and partners in Honduras and the region, extending back to the Centre’s establishment in 1970.
Projects through the 1970s ranged from the technical, including the development of cropping systems and drought resistant crops, to an orientation towards policy research and information management. Examples of the latter include a 1978 project on the impact of agricultural policy on employment, and the establishment of the Latin American National Agricultural Information Centres in 1979.
Through the 1980s, IDRC project development and implementation in Honduras continued to increase and diversify. Technical, crop-oriented research and otherwise, continued (Turpentine Derivatives (1987), Banana / Plantain Improvement (1989)), and research projects in other areas such as health, economics and community organization emerged. Community Organizations (PHC) 1983, Maternal Health in Peri-Urban Tegucigalpa (1987), Rural Employment (1980), and Children as Agents of Change (1987).
The first IDRC project on sustainable hillside agriculture in Honduras was initiated in the early 1990s, serving as a basis for current (Minga) projects in this area. Orientation towards social research for development, such as Gender and the Urban Informal Sector (1991), Integrated Rural Development Evaluation (1990), and Community Resource
Mapping and Policy Research (1994) was also evident in the early 1990s. However this did not occur at the expense of more ‘technical’ projects, in fact the development and dissemination of the high-yielding Goldfinger cooking banana and plantain hybrids in 1995, remains one of IDRC’s most publicly known projects. Incidentally, research for the Honduran part of this project was carried out by the Honduran Foundation for Agricultural Research (FHIA), which continues to be one of the strongest research institutions in export crops in post-Mitch Honduras. In 1996, another technical project to develop expertise in radar remote sensing, titled Use of RADARSAT for Natural Resource Management, was implemented as a joint project including Honduras (Honduran Corporation for Forestry Development), Panama, Costa Rica and Canada’s Centre for Remote Sensing. At around the same time, IDRC supported the Honduran Council for Science and Technology in the creation of an Industrial Support Unit to be used by national institutes / ministries for industrial innovation and consultation.
In 1997, IDRC’s programming modality shifted with the creation of multi-disciplinary Program Initiatives (PIs) around three broad research areas: Social and Economic Equity, Natural Resource Management, and Information and Communication Technology. Since this shift, the bulk of programming in Honduras has been undertaken by the Alternative Approaches to Natural Resource Management Program Initiative, or Minga. Building on previous research on sustainable hillside agriculture, Minga initiated the second phase of the Participatory Farmer Research for Sustainable Management of Honduran Hillsides, which is ongoing today. This project is coordinated by the Sally Humphries at the University of Guelph, Canada, and research is undertaken in conjunction with the Pan-American School of Agriculture - Zamorano, as well as the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). The project seeks to develop the capacity of farmers to generate appropriate technologies and influence local natural resource management institutions, to contribute to the process of democratization at the local level. During Phase I, a research team facilitated the formation of twenty community-based farmer research groups in three Departments of Honduras. A key focus has been the incorporation of women's priorities in the identification of farmer group experiments, by modifying a participatory methodology developed by CIAT, also
with support from IDRC. Such participatory research methodologies, present a way for local and municipal governments to develop mechanisms for enhancing local capacity to manage natural resources equitably and sustainably, particularly in the wake of decentralization and the transfer of previously national government responsibilities to lower levels.
Along similar lines, the second phase of the Sustainable Hillsides Agriculture project, a Latin America-wide initiative, aims to improve the livelihood of poor hillside farmer communities through the development of sustainable land use systems, innovative participatory organizational forms, as well as the development and validation of policy tools. Specifically, the project implements: gender-sensitive stakeholder analysis and the development of collective action models for watershed management; development and validation of policy tolls for sustainable resource management as well as strategies for small-enterprise and market development The scope of the project is broad, and includes Colombia and Nicaragua as well as Honduras. The Centre for Research in Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) is the coordinating organization for the project.
Also focussed on the rural development problematic is a Minga-supported project to ‘Scale-up Successful Agroecological Experiences in Latin America and the Caribbean.’ This too is a regional program, including recipients in Chile (Sustainable Agriculture Networking and Extension - SANE and the Centro de Educación y Tecnología - CET), Cuba (Asociación Cubana de Técnicos Agrícolas y Forestales - ACTAF), Peru (Equipo de Desarrollo Agropecuario de Cajamarca - EDAC-CIED), and Honduras (Asociación de Consejeros para una Agricultura Sostenible, Ecológica y Humana - COSECHA). This project emphasizes the need to consider environmental, social, technical and cultural aspects of sustainable rural development, in line with the agroecological approach to rural development, promoted by the Latin American Consortium on Agroecology and Sustainable Development (CLADES) and other NGOs in the region. It recognizes that the process of ‘scaling up’ agroecological approaches and beyond present a significant research and development challenge. Accordingly, the research has tested a series of strategies to scale-up successful agroecological experiences in specific areas of the four
countries; areas chosen have contrasting potentials in terms of institutional capacity, social organization and environmental and economic conditions.
The main hypothesis of the proposal is that scaling-up is possible if NGOs are able to: • network more effectively with farmers associations and other institutions • strengthen links, training, dissemination and validation at a farmer to farmer level • strengthen the role of rural promoters • improve the participation of farmers in niche markets.
The project is to initiated and monitored these four scaling-up experiences, and comparatively evaluated the impact of the different strategies employed, and systematize lessons learned, disseminating them widely to illuminate other development processes.
A key focus of the Minga PI, that distinguishes it from other natural resource management Program Initiatives (including Community Based NRM, CBNRM, and People Land and Water, PLAW) is its focus on multi-stakeholder conflict resolution and collaboration in conflicts over natural resources. Along these lines, the Synthesis of Experiences With Collaborative Decision-Making (1997) was initiated to document successful cases of conflict management and resolution, to provide guidance to local communities, university groups and public agencies which seek to encourage public sector/civil society dialogue and collaboration in advancing environmental and social objectives. A key output from this project is the publication (in English and Spanish) of the book Cultivating Peace, edited by Daniel Buckles, which documents case studies of conflict situations where local actors have made a concerted effort to manage or transform the conflict, and to draw lessons from these cases for a broader research and action, as well as policy agenda. Institutions in Honduras collaborating in this project are the Pan-American Agricultural University, Zamorano. A key Honduran case study, documented by Jacqueline Chenier, Stephen Sherwood and Tahnee Robertson, is the Network for Collaborative Natural Resources Management (COLABORA), a network of organizations concerned with strengthening community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) processes, and NRM-related conflict in Honduras, established in
1994. Significant to the current emphasis on participation in PRONADERS, the COLABORA experience suggests that the establishment of CBNRM can help to resolve disputes and promote more responsible and democratic change by facilitating communication and learning among diverse parties and by placing decision-making power in the hands of stakeholders.
Although Minga has been the primary program initiative supporting research in Honduras since 1997, currently there are several projects under development or exploration through other IDRC program initiatives and secretariats.
One of these explorations involves two program initiativesBEcosystems Health (EH) and Cities Feeding People (CFP) - and IDRC’s Environmental Management Secretariat (EMS). In collaboration with Habitat’s Urban Management Program for Latin American and the Caribbean, the goal of the project is to foster the use of research to guide a municipal planning and development process founded on social equity, a healthy population and sustainable resource management. The two municipal candidates for the project are Puerto Cortes in Honduras, and Quetzaltenango in Guatemala.
The Environmental Management Secretariat is also in the process of developing another project involving Honduras. The project, still under negotiation, proposes a regional initiative to: identify key lessons learned post- Mitch on the impacts of social and ecological vulnerability in the planning, provision and management of basic environmental services (servicios ambientales basicos) to relocated populations, and produce teaching materials as well as provide training and capacity-building for municipal technical specialists. A key partner in the project, which is jointly funded by the IADB, is the Federación de Municipalidades del Istmo Centroamericano (FEMICA), whose role in the promotion and implementation of municipal government policies in the region would also be strengthened through this initiative.
IDRC’s Trade Employment and Competitiveness Program Initiative (TEC) is also in the process of developing a project entitled “Central America in the World Economy of the
21st Century,” which aims to contribute to overcoming the lag in Central America in analysis and research of international economic matters and make these results known to the public and policy makers of the region. The project would have three main components: research, training and an Annual Congress. The research would consist of the preparation of twelve studies by research centres or universities in Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Costa Rica.
At a much earlier, exploratory stage is the possibility of the International Model Forest Network Secretariat’s (IMFNS) expansion into Honduras. The International Model Forest Network came into being in 1992 as an outgrowth of the successful Canadian Model Forest Network, started two years earlier to strengthen the management of Canadian forests on a sustainable basis. The international network was launched by the Canadian Government at the Earth Summit (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, and now has several international model forests sites, established or under-development in Canada, Mexico, Russia, the United States, Chile, Argentina, Japan and Malaysia. The primary goal of the IMFN is to establish a global network of model forests that will represent most of the major forest ecosystems of the world, and to ensure that all partners, regardless of political or economic status, can contribute to, and share in the benefits of the network as they work toward the sustainable management of forest ecosystems.
Minga is also in the process of developing a project with the new national program for sustainable rural development (PRONADERS), emerging from Honduras’ Master Plan for Reconstruction and Transformation, and housed within the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. Broadly, the project seeks to strengthen the capacity for learning and knowledge sharing for rural development initiatives. The proposal is still in the early stages of development.
Finally, IDRC’s Fund for Reconstruction Studies, is still underway. Initiated in 1998 to facilitate the generation and application of research to assist researchers and policymakers in the region identify effective strategies for reconstruction in El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Specifically IDRC provides individual grants to support research in all sectors. Approved proposals in Honduras include: • Application of Internet technologies in the development of commercial and sectoral information services in support of medium, small, and micro-enterprises. • Impact of Mitch in the Dept. of Choluteca on the design of programs and projects for reconstruction. • Social impact of hurricane on populations in affected areas. • Reconstructing soils in Yorito, Lago de Yojoa and North Coast communities in Honduras in conjunction with IPCA (Project for Participatory Research in Central America) and farmers research teams (CIALS). • Community-based rural reconstruction and human capacity building in higher education in Honduras. • Reconnaissance of the damages to the water supply sources and distribution systems and an assessment of the principal limitations in their reconstruction on the North Coast of Honduras. • Extension of the program for microregional development in Dept. of Choluteca • Strengthening of democracy and development among Honduran Youth.
2. Overview of Bilateral and Multilateral Programming in Rural Development and NRM in Honduras41
All multilateral and bilateral documents prioritize (in some form or another) environmental and natural resource management, as well as rural development and sustainable agriculture. Almost all ‘donor discourses’ emphasize the need for participation, consultation with local actors and various stakeholders involved. Questions remain as to what extent discourses on participatory development are translated into practise, and using which methods, tools and approaches. The following section attempts to capture
41 The majority of information in this section was generated through interviews with participants in donor organizations as well as from donor websites and documents.
an snapshot of “who’s doing what” with regard to bilateral and multilateral initiatives in rural development and NRM in Honduras. It first provides an overview of the International Development Research Centre’s past and current projects in Honduras.
Since 1998, many bilateral programming strategies have been revised to respond to emergency and reconstruction needs post-Mitch, accordingly the first table provides a sector specific financial snapshot of “reconstruction and transformation” activities. (Note that it does not include funds under negotiation which are significantly greater than those currently contracted). The Table is followed by an overview of bilateral donor activity extending beyond post-Mitch emergency activities, highlighting some project details where available, although micro-level project details are not included. The second section reviews similar information for multilateral organizations. The information in this section is by no means conclusive, but rather provides an overview of key donor program directions, and perhaps more importantly illuminates how “development problems” or challenges facing Honduras are conceptualized by the donor community.
Table 3 Funds for Reconstruction and Transformation by Sector - Feb. 2000 (Millions of US$)
Sector Non- Reimbursable Total % of Total Reimbursable Funds
Agriculture 94.4 18.3 112.7 8.0 %
Forestry 2.4 0 2.4 0.2 %
Environment 3.6 - 3.6 0.2 % (Source: GoH Document from CG Meeting- Tegucigalpa Feb. 2000)
2. 1. Bilateral Assistance
Most bilateral assistance to Honduras is in the form of project-specific, non-reimbursable funding. The amount of bilateral aid currently contracted is estimated at US$1, 078.5
million (CG Document, 2000), with priority given to the social sectors; natural resources and the environment; democratic governance; infrastructure support; and debt repayment. Germany, Spain, Sweden and Japan are the largest bilateral donors, having signed US$44.8 million, US$46.9 million, US$59.8 million, and US$52.6 million respectively. The proceeding sections provide a more detailed look at certain donor- specific activities related to (participatory) rural development and natural resource management.
This section provides a snapshot of donor current and future programming foci.
The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
CIDA has recently outlined a new five-year program strategy for Honduras (2001-2006). Generally, this strategy consists of three key areas of intervention: basic human needs and reduction of social vulnerability; the environment and reduction of ecological vulnerability, and good governance through decentralization and increased transparency. Specific programs and projects within these three areas are in the process of being defined, however with regard to the first area, CIDA intends to work within the framework of the Poverty Reduction Strategy, and in coordination with multilaterals and other donors on issues of basic human needs, and specific sectoral foci on health and education. Watershed management and hillside stabilization are highlighted as priorities for environmental programming, in addition to support for the restructuring of national landholding / titling system. Finally, a focus on governance includes support for civil society organizations as well as natural resource management and policy - building on projects such as PAGS (Project to Support Policies for Sustainable Natural Resource Management).
PAGS, a continuing programming priority in CIDA’s strategy, is seen as a forum for coordination with and among government institutions and departments. It is well situated for this purpose, within the Honduran Ministry for Agriculture and Livestock (SAG). It aims to facilitates discussion and assist in enabling the creation of a coherent policy
framework for the sustainable management of renewable natural resources, as well as a mechanism to implement such policies in a coordinated fashion. Specifically, PAGS seeks to improve the sustainable management of renewable natural resources in Honduras by:
• Strengthening the institutions responsible for sustainable renewable natural resource management; • Harmonizing policies, laws, regulations, and other tools to implement policies; • Fostering coordination and cooperation among all the players involved in the sector who manage and/or use renewable natural resources; • Promoting synergy between the different development projects and initiatives, particularly field projects, in order to draw on their experiences when defining a more appropriate policy and legal framework.
USAID
USAID is one of the largest bilateral donors in Honduras and the region. Its 2000 program strategy focusses on the following areas: economic reactivation, environmental management, (responsive) health systems, governance (rule of law, transparency and human rights), and includes support for local governments and basic education (USAID website 2000). With specific regard to rural development and natural resource management, their environmental management program focus on increasing the number of NGOs working in protected areas; improving and increasing watershed / resource environmental management plans; and promoting the collaboration of municipalities in watershed management. Much of their funding in this sector has been channelled through the Program for Sustainable Management of Selected Natural Resources and Biodiversity, and the Honduran Environmental Protection Fund. The former generally aims to improve sustainable management of the natural environment and protection of biodiversity, and consists of several sub-grants towards conservation of ecosystems/biodiversity and sustainable management of watersheds, through the
development of improved management plans for protected areas within the Honduran National System of Protected Areas. The latter, the Honduran Environmental Protection Fund also aims to strengthen and expand environmental protection and natural resource management activities carried out by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Honduras. It is managed by Fundación VIDA, which reviews and funds joint project proposals presented by smaller Honduran NGOs generally partnered with U.S. However this project was expected to be completed in July 2000.
Another ongoing project in rural development is the Agricultural Revitalization Project, co-funded by USAID and Zamorano (the Pan American School of Agriculture), which aims to provide technical assistance and training in improved agricultural technologies, and enhanced marketing and business management in order to increase productivity, employment and income among small farmers in regions that were affected by Hurricane Mitch.
GZT
Together with Honduran partners, GTZ’s three key areas of intervention within Honduras are: i. the protection of resources and rural development, ii. primary schooling and iii. the promotion of the private sector. In the post-Mitch period, GZT has committed to continue support to ongoing projects in NRM and rural development including:
• Assistance to the agricultural school Zamorano (EAP), Zamorano • Social Forestry Programme - advisory services for Honduran Forestry Policy - integrated forestry management - promotion of small farmers • Integrated food security programme, Intibucá • Rural development, Lempira • Protection of the biosphere Rio Plátano, Puerto Lempira
• Protection of the National Park Monte Celaque, Gracias a Dios
GTZ’s largest post-Mitch rural development project is in conjunction with SAG and aims to assist with the rehabilitation of agricultural production for small and medium farmers, particularly producers of basic grains and women working in the agricultural sector. It is primarily a relief-type project, with provision of seeds and technical services (GTZ 1999). Also in the planning stage is a project to promote and support local communities in the context of decentralization in Honduras (GTZ 2000).
Agencia Espanola de Cooperacion Internacional (AECI)
Also a significant source of bilateral support, the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation (AECI) has three specific areas of focus in its programming Honduras: institutional strengthening-with particular emphasis on judicial reform; human resource development and education; basic social services, particularly maternal-infant health; and environment and sustainable rural development. Although most of AECI funding is directed towards the reconstruction of public utilities (water, electricity, health etc.) in the latter category they are supporting rural credit institutions, and participating in management project for the Rio Danto Watershed, including a biophysical analysis and management plan for the zone.
Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
In the post-Mitch period, Japan has signed a total of US$52.6 million non-reimbursable (including re-programmed) funds and is negotiating US$201.2 million more. (This is more than the combined total of other bilateral donors). Historically JICA’s assistance in the region has focussed on the “technological” aspects of rural development and natural resource management. However more recently JICA has adopted a “softer” approach,
with attention to policy structures, organizations, environmental monitoring and human capital.
In Honduras this shift is evident in their initiative to build the capacity of agricultural and producers organizations in conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture (SAG). Also notable with regard rural development and natural resource management, and relevant to Minga’s conceptualization of a research coalition is JICA’s confirmed plan to establish a Centre for Agricultural Training and Development (CEDA) (also in conjunction with SAG), and provide US$2.6 million assistance to strengthen the academic and research capacity of the National School of Forestry Sciences (ESNACIFOR). Both of the above initiatives acknowledge not only the need for increased national capacity for research in these areas, but also JICA’s substantial support in this regard.
2. 2. Multilateral Assistance
Many of the large multilateral involved in reconstruction and transformation in post-Mitch Honduras are branches of financial institutions such as the World Bank or the Inter- American Development Bank. Accordingly, unlike most bilateral programming, much of the financing is “reimbursable” - or given as a loan. Although multilateral programs and projects are often implemented with national counterparts including NGOS and civil society organizations, many of the participatory rural development initiatives are carried out in conjunction with the Government of Honduras. As noted in Section 1, multilateral, notably the UNDP, IFAD, and the FAO, have had an significant influence on national policy with regard to rural development and natural resource management. In most cases, multilateral aid strategies are multi-pronged, with various components aimed at distinct sectors.
The similarities in the programming foci of the multilaterals is striking, revolving around four general themes: poverty reduction, governance, environmental protection and economic development. Poverty reduction programs tend to focus on social services and
food security; whereas support for governance prioritize the strengthening of citizenship, decentralization and capacity-building for government institutions. With regard to the environment and environmental protection, watershed and land management are prioritized, and finally most multilaterals consider increasing productivity and access to markets crucial for economic development.
This section provides a brief overview of the program orientation of key multilateral actors in Honduras, focussing primarily on their programs for rural development and natural resource management.
The World Bank Group
One of the largest multilateral actors in Honduras is the World Bank Group, which consists of five closely associated institutions: the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD); International Development Association (IDA), International Finance Corporation (IFC); Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA); and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). However it is the IDA that is primarily involved in the Honduran reconstruction and transformation process.
The Bank's core areas of assistance in Honduras are poverty reduction through increased access to social services; public sector “efficiency” and private sector development, and environmental protection (website). Assistance for emergency rehabilitation and reconstruction activities is also a priority. With regard to rural development and natural resource management, one of the most significant programs supported by the World Bank is the Administration of Rural Areas Project (Proyecto Administracion de Areas Rurales) or PAAR Program. PAAR was created to strengthen the administrative / institutional capacity of the forestry sector and support local participation in the management of natural resources. It was also given the mandate of operationalizing the national system of protected areas and modernizing the rural land registry system (the responsibility of Instituto Nacional Agraria).
Other key World Bank rural development initiatives are the Rural Land Management Project (RLMP), which aims to provides institutional strengthening and investment support in land administration and natural resources management;42 and recently, as part of RLMP, an Access to Land Pilot Program43 to be undertaken in conjunction with the Instituto Nacional Agrario (INA); as well as a municipal watershed and rural development project to support the Government's decentralized program of watershed management and promote community and municipality-managed forestry activities.
The World Bank’s International Development Association, in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is also supporting a debt reduction package of US $900 million for Honduras under the (enhanced) Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC).44
United Nations Organizations
Similar to the World Bank Group, United Nations support to Honduras is disbursed through various different (more or less decentralized) arms of the UN, including UNICEF, UNESCO, UNDP, IFAD and FAO. It is the latter three which undertake programming most relevant to rural development and natural resource management.
United Nations Development Program
UNDP programming in Honduras falls under three general categories: governance, the environment, and poverty. ‘Governance’ programming includes institutional
42 In response to Mitch some of the funding allocated to the RLMP was reprogrammed with to finance emergency activities, including flood and watershed management. 43This pilot program aims to support market-oriented land reform, financing land purchases for about 1,000 beneficiary families, the providing technical assistance and increased access to commercial financing.
44At the end of 1999, Honduras' total external public debt was approximately US$3.1 billion, equalling more than 300 percent of the country's central government revenue.
strengthening and the promoting coordination and cooperation for development; support for State modernization initiatives including decentralization and municipal development, and the strengthening of civil society organizations. With regard to the environment, UNDP funds projects to strengthen local capacity to manage natural resources, as well as the associated public and private organizations; it also seeks to promote strategic alliances between organizations; monitor international environmental initiatives and conventions, and support environmental education and awareness. UNDP’s intervention in areas affecting poverty include support to local strategies aimed at reducing rural poverty; support for intersectoral planning both at central and local levels for poverty reduction, as well as support for the national HIV / AIDS program.
Food and Agriculture Organization
FAO supports projects in several areas of rural development including forestry, food security and support to producer organizations in Honduras. More specifically the FAO has ongoing projects that support transformation processes in the forestry sector and the Honduran Forestry Agenda in general, as well as the Central American component of the Program on Forests, Trees and Rural Communities (FTPP), as well as supporting agro- forestry production associations. It also provides assistance to the Food Security Program in Honduras, and for the “integration and normalization” of methods for seed analysis. The FAO’S largest project in Honduras, however, is that of rural development of Southern Lempira.
The principal aim of this area-based participatory rural development project is to improve the sustainable agricultural development practices and the socio-economic conditions of poor rural households in the part of the Department of Lempira.. Implemented in cooperation with the Ministries of Agriculture (SAG), Planning, and Education, the main components of the project include: introduction of environmentally-friendly and profitable farming practices, improvement of household nutrition and health, introduction of more participatory approaches to municipal planning and the strengthening of self-help organization capacities.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
IFAD is a specialized agency within the UN group with the specific mandate to provide loans and grants to combat rural hunger and poverty in developing countries. It does this primarily by “improving the productivity of on and off-farm activities” (http://www.ifad.org/). IFAD funds a significant number of the large-scale rural development projects currently housed within the PRONADERS framework, including:
• Rural Development Plan for the Western Region (Plan de desarrollo rural de la región de occidente - PLANDERO) • Rural Development in the Central Eastern Region (Proyecto de desarrollo rural en el centro oriente - PRODERCO ) • Rural Development in Proyecto South Western Region (Proyecto de desarrollo rural de la región sur occidental de Honduras - PROSOC), and • National Fund for Rural Sustainable Developement (Proyecto del fondo nacional de desarrollo rural sostenible - FONADERS).
IFAD also set up FIDAMERICA, a network intended to promote “the exchange of experiences and information among IFAD-financed projects in the region,” and, secondly, to support and promote project teams to search more broadly for information and contacts by using the Internet and the Latin American Farming Systems Research Methodology Network (RIMISP).
The European Union
Honduras forms part of the co-operation agreement signed in February1993 by the EU and Central America countries. In its 1998-2000 strategy for co-operation in Honduras, the EU proposes three primary areas of intervention:
1. Democratic consolidation with a concentration on citizens’ rights, strengthening of the rule of law, and support for decentralization. 2. Investment in human capital, with a focus on education and health. 3. Sustainable and equitable economic development in order to increase access to productive resources and markets.
Within this third area, much of the European Union’s programming for rural development and NRM occurs via their Food Security Program, which prioritize issues surrounding land ownership, rural financing and women’s access to credit, seeds and seed technology, other green technologies, commercialization and agricultural products.
The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
The Inter-American Development Bank provides loans for a range of diverse projects, recent examples include Revitalization of the Rural Economy to Transparency in Government Procurement as well as Road Infrastructure and the Social Investment Fund (FHIS) (Public Information Centre: List or Recently Approved Projects). IDB projects that are directly relevant to NRM and rural development include:
• National Environment Strategy - The program to finance consulting services to carry out planning and policy formulation for the development and implementation of the country's environmental strategy. • Watershed Management Program - An US$80 million dollar watershed management program consisting of various watershed management projects. The program is currently being designed by CATIE and CIAT-LADERAS in Honduras, to be implemented next year. • Support for SAG - The purposed of this program would be to strengthen the Secretariat of Agriculture in its planning and strategic information areas so that it can implement the government's economic and social policy more efficiently. (ibid.).
Other multilateral initiatives...
As noted in the introduction to this section, this description of bilateral and multilateral is by no means exhaustive, and there are a myriad of other multilateral, international, bilateral, public and private initiatives underway. One of the outcomes of devastation caused by Hurricane Mitch was an increase in inter-organizational cooperation in Central America, not just to administer emergency relief, but in long-term ‘transformation’ in the region. The Consultative Group and the Stockholm Declaration are one such example. With regard to rural development, another inter-organizational body entitled “Interagency Group for Rural Development in Latin America and the Caribbean” formed. It includes the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, the FAO, ECLAC, IFAD, and the IBD. Its stated purpose is the “facilitate the sharing of information and working experience and to carry out joint activities at the regional, subregional, and national levels to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the services provided to the countries of the region (IGRD Charter Agreement 2000:1). Priorities identified by the Group include: consolidating public policy reforms to help reduce market distortions; modernizing the agricultural public sector and delivery of basic services; developing land markets by strengthening the legal framework and organizing land registries; developing rural financial markets; sustainable use of natural resources; rural infrastructure and human resources training (ibid. p.6).
3. Final Reflections
This paper has sought to provide an overview of the changing institutional, economic, and social contexts of rural development in Honduras, including a snapshot of various bilateral and multilateral donor activities. In the wake of Hurricane and Tropical Storm Mitch, which devastated the region in 1998, the Government of Honduras has charted an ambitious course for reconstruction and transformation of socio-economic and political
institutional contexts, guided by the Consultative Group’s Stockholm Declaration, and elaborated in a national master plan - the PMRTN. Within the PMRTN, and of key significance for rural development in Honduras, was the creation of a National Program for Sustainable Rural Development (Programa Nacional de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible - PRONADERS) within the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock.
PRONADERS is both a policy and strategy for long-term rural development and increased agricultural productivity, which seeks to prioritize sustainable natural resource management, participation, and decentralization of rural development to municipalities. It is still in its early stages of implementation, and despite international donor support, strong leadership, political will, and initial successes in broad consultation and transparency, it faces serious challenges including a lack of capacity and resources at municipal levels, political vulnerability, a very ambitious scope, and institutional weaknesses in such areas as research capacity. Whether PRONADERS will be able to fill its mandate for increased agricultural productivity, decreasing poverty, and cohesive development programming in the rural sector in a participatory, transparent, and decentralized way, remains to be seen. It is recognized, though, that these institutional shifts cannot succeed in isolation, but are contingent on broader reforms not the least of which include land titling, access to markets and credit, and judicial reform.
Transformation in rural development does not rest on the shoulders of government alone. Civil society organizations in Honduras, from producer organizations, and unions to women’s groups, and indigenous organizations, have a long history of engagement in issues affecting rural development, and their increased participation is fundamental to deepening democracy. Although emerging government discourse on increased citizen participation may lead to an opening of the public sphere, organizations face persistent challenges of fragmentation and competition for scarce funds.
Similarly, academic and research institutions have significant roles to play in new strategies for rural development at levels of both policy and practice. As noted in previous sections, although local human capital for research is available, inadequate
funding and institutional weaknesses undermine research capacity in universities and government institutes alike.
Clearly international donors, bilateral and multilateral, have important roles to play in assisting government and research institutions, as well as civil society organizations, in achieving their goals. This is an iterative process however, as institutional shifts in rural development will also have an impact on the nature or modality of rural development programming. If, as PRONADERS intends, donors and projects can increasingly coordinate their work, sharing knowledge and lessons learned, useful gains will have been made.
As noted in the Introduction, this document has not sought to be prescriptive, but rather provide a glimpse of complex, intertwined, institutional, economic, and political contexts, towards a greater understanding of the opportunities and challenges, facing rural development in post-Mitch Honduras.
Bibliography
Andino, E. D.. Consorcio para el Manejo Integrado de Suelos Fragiles de CentroAmerica - Informe Consultoria ‘Recopilacíon y Sistematizacíon de la Informacíon Existente Sobre Tecnologicas de Manejo de Suelos Fragiles en Honduras y Nicaragua,’ 1999.
Apoyando la Reconstruccíon de los Países Centroamericanos Despues del Huracan Mitch, Gerencia Regional America Central GTZ 1999.
Associacíon de Municipios de Honduras APropuesta de Accion Municipal” Documento Preparado para el Grupo Consultivo, Tegucigalpa Feb. 2000.
Avances en la Reconstruccíon y Transformacion Nacional - Honduras a un ano despues del Mitch, Gobierno de la Republica de Honduras 1999.
Business Opportunities in Central America’s Reconstruction - Inter-American Development Bank, Office of the Canadian Executive Director, Sept. 1999 Bulletin.
Bustamente, B. & Sturzinger, U.. Extension agricola en laderas: Analisis de experiencias con sistemas de extension agrícola en Honduras, (Coleccion ASEL), Programa Suizo con Organizaciones Privadas para la Agricultura Sostenible en Laderas (PROASEL), Enero 2000.
Bustamente, B., Zellweger, T. & Sturzinger, U.. Invertir la mirada: Elementos de un nuevo enfoque para la extension agrícola (Coleccion ASEL) Programa Suizo con Organizaciones Privadas para la Agricultura Sostenible en Laderas (PROASEL), 1998.
Bustamente, B. & Sturzinger, U.. Con hombres y mujeres: Propuesta de una metodologia practica para incorporar el enfoque de genero en proyectos de desarrollo (Coleccion ASEL) Programa Suizo con Organizaciones Privadas para la Agricultura Sostenible en Laderas (PROASEL), 1999.
Bustamente, B. & Sturzinger, U.. La distribucíon de tareas entre hombres y mujeres en el area rural (Coleccion ASEL) Programa Suizo con Organizaciones Privadas para la Agricultura Sostenible en Laderas (PROASEL), 1998.
Centroamerica: Cambio Instituticional y Desarrollo Organizativo de las Pequenas Unidades de Produccíon Rural, Naciones Unidas Comision Economica para America Latina y el Caribe - CEPAL 1999.
Central America after Hurricane Mitch: The Challenge of Turning a Disaster into Opportunity. Consultative Group Meeting for the Reconstruction and Transformation of C. America, Inter- American Development Bank 1999.
CIAT- LADERAS Proyecto: Manejo Comunitario de los Recursos Naturales en los Ecosistemas de Laderas, Honduras y Nicaragua.
Cleaver, F. “Paradoxes of Participation: Questioning Participatory Approaches to Development,” in Journal of International Development, V.11, pp.597-612, 1999.
Conaghan, C. “A Deficit of Democratic Authenticity: Political Linkage and the Public in Andean Polities,” in Studies in Comparative International Development, V.31, N.3, pp.32-55, 1996.
Cuestionario para Agricultores Experimentadores, COSECHA 1999.
Decision Making for Sustainable Natural Resource Management: Nine Tools That Help, CIAT.
Encuentro Internacional: Ruralidad Sostenible Basada en la Participacíon Ciudadana, SAG 1999.
Encuentro Internacional: Ruralidad Sostenible Basada en la Participacíon Ciudadana, Conclusiones (Falck, M), SAG 1999.
Estado de la Region en Desarrollo Humano Sostenible - Resumen 1999.
Falck, M.. Zonas de Intervencíon para el Desarrollo Rural (Despues de Mitch), Un Analisis 1999.
Falck, M.. Preliminar, El Funcionamiento del mercado de politicas, Negociando el transito del enfoque del Bien-Estar al Bienser, 1999.
Fase Preparatoria de Levantamiento de la Demanda (FPLD) para el Fideicomiso de Desarrollo Rural (FDR) del Programa Nacional de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible (PRONADERS), Gobierno de la Republica de Honduras, Secretaria de Agricultura y Ganaderia 1999.
Feasibility Study on Municipal Strengthening in Honduras, Prepared by Canadian Urban Institute, Fundacion para el Desarrollo Municipal, & CIDA, 1999.
Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible (FONADERS), Secretaria de Agricultura y Ganaderia (SAG) Gobierno de la Republica de Honduras, October 1999.
Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible (FONADERS) - Documento de Trabajo, Secretaria de Agricultura y Ganaderia (SAG) Gobierno de la Republica de Honduras 2000.
Hocdé, H.. Los promotores campesinos: La pedagogia de la comunicacíon horizontal (Coleccion ASEL) Programa Suizo con Organizaciones Privadas para la Agricultura Sostenible en Laderas (PROASEL), 1998.
Honduras: Assistance and Cooperation from the International Community during 1998-1999. Consultative Group Meeting for the Reconstruction and Transformation of C. America, IDB 1999.
Honduras: Recent Economic Developments, Document Presented to the Consutative Group Meeting in Honduras. InterAmerican Development Bank, Regional Operations Dept. II, 2000.
Honduras and the International Community: Strategic Alliance for National Reconstruction and Transformation. Consultative Group Meeting, Gobierno de la Republica de Honduras 2000.
Hurricane Mitch and Georges: From Relief to Reconstruction - The United State’s Response, USAID 1999.
Informe Anual de Actividades 1999 Proyecto de Administracion de Areas Rurales (PAAR), Secretaria de Agricultura y Ganaderia, 2000.
Inter-American Development Bank, Approved Project Documents -Honduras 1999.
Inventario ASEL - Institutciones que trabajan en agriculturea Sostenible en Laderas Doc. 175 (PASOLAC)
La Via Campesina Secretaria Operativa Internacional - Dossier de Documentos, April 2000.
Library of Congress (American) Country Documents, 1993, 1995.
Linz, J. and Stepan, A. “Toward Consolidated Democracies,” in L. Diamond. M. F. Plattner, Y. Chu, H. Tien (eds.) Consolidating the Third Wave of Democracies: Themes and Perspectives. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1997.
Master Plan for National Reconstruction and Transformation, Gobierno de la Republica de Honduras 1999.
Memoria del Taller Tecnico: “La Contribucion de los Bosques Latifoliados al Desarrollo Sostenible de Honduras: Lineas Estrategicas para Entrar en el Siglo XXI, PAGS- ACDI 1999.
Oxhorn, P. “When Democracy Isn’t All That Democratic: Social Exclusion and theLimits of the Public Sphere in Latin America,” Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Canadian Association for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, 1999.
Proyecto de administracion de Areas Rurales (PAAR) - Informe Anual de Actividades 1999, Honduras.
Plan Operativo de Fase 2000-2003, PASOLAC- Documento 245, 1999.
PNUD (UNDP) Gestion del Desarrollo, Gestion Ambiental y la Reduccion del Riesgo: Una Trilogia Unica - Reunion del Grupo Consultative 2000.
Post-Mitch Honduras Rural Sector Review: Summary and Sector-Specific Proposals - an Agenda for Action. InterAmerican Development Bank, Regional Operations Dept. II, May, 1999.
Preliminary Document on the Initiative for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) - Case of Honduras, International Development Association 1999.
Principios de Estocolmo y sus Propuestas de Seguimiento - Avance del Trabajo del Grupo Agroforestal y Ambiente 2000.
Problemas y Oportunidades para el Desarrollo de la Economia Rural Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo Dept. Regional de Operaciones II, Abril 1999.
Programa Nacional de Desarollo Rural Sostenible, Gobierno de la Republica de Honduras, Sectretaria de Agricultura y Ganaderia 1999.
Progressing on the Road to National Reconstruction and Transformation. Consultative Group Meeting, Gobierno de la Republica de Honduras 2000.
Propuesta de un Programa de Seguridad Alimentaria, Red Europea de Seguridad Alimentaria (RESAL) & Oficina de Seguridad Alimentaria, Comunidad Europeo, 1999.
Robertson, T., Laurent, J.M. Metodologia para el Manejo Colaborativo de Cuencas - Anexo 1, 2000.
SIDA’s post-Hurricane Mitch Activities (www.sida.ca)
Statement of the IMF Representative at the Consultative Group Meeting in Honduras, 2000.
Sistema de Financiamiento Rural SAG-DGDA-PAGS 2000 (http://rds.org.hn/docs/documentos)
Sistema de las Naciones Unidas en Honduras, Reunion del Grupo Consultivo 2000.
Sustainable Rural Development in the Context of a New Reading of Rural Reality: “The New Rurality”, IICA 2000.
Taller Regional: Lecciones Aprendidas de los Proyectos Apoyados por la ACDI en CentroAmerica en Materia de Manejo Participativo de Cuencas, Proyecto de Apoyo a la Gestion Sostenible de Recursos Naturales (PAGS), 2000.
Tablas, V. R.. Inventario, Sistematizacíon y Tipificacion de los Sistemas de Financiamiento Alternativos: el Caso de Honduras, 2000.
The Stockholm Declaration. (www.ud.se/english/gcmeeting/decl.htm)
The World Bank Group in Honduras (www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/offrep/lac/hn.htm)
Uniendo Esfuerzos para el Desarrollo Agroecologica, Associacion Nacional Para el Fomento de la Agricultura Ecologica (ANAFAE).
Vilas, C. “Participation, Inequality, and the Whereabouts of Democracy,” in D. Chalmers, C. Vilas, K. Hite, S. Martin, K. Piester, M. Segarra (eds.) The New Politics of Inequality in Latin America: Rethinking Participation and Representation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Zamorano University - Falck, M. & Doyle, P. “Sistemas Financieros Rurales: Inventario, Sistematizacion y Tipificacion,” Honduras June, 2000.
The Rural Poverty and Environment Working Paper Series
1. Rusnak, G. 1997. Co-Management of Natural Resources in Canada: A Review of Concepts and Case Studies. 2. McAllister, K. 1999. Understanding Participation: Monitoring and evaluating process, outputs and outcomes. 3. McAllister, K. and Vernooy, R. 1999. Action and reflection: A guide for monitoring and evaluating participatory research. 4. Harrison, K. 2000. Community Biodiversity Registers as a Mechanism the Protection of Indigenous and Local Knowledge. 5. Poats, S. 2000. Gender and natural resource management with reference to IDRC’s Minga program. 6. Lindayati, R. 2000. Community Forestry Policies in Selected Southeast Asian Countries. 7. Meltzer, J. 2001. Assessment of the Political, Economic, and Institutional Contexts for Participatory Rural Development in Post-Mitch Honduras. 8. Hill, C. and Paulson, S. 2001. Workshop on Gender in Environment and Natural Resources Management, March 2001. 9. Brooks, D.B., Wolfe, S. and Shames, T. 2001. Local Water Supply and Management: A Compendium of 30 Years of IDRC-Funded Research. 10. Lee, M.D.P. 2002. Community-Based Natural Resource Management: A Bird’s Eye View. 11. Sick, D. 2002. Managing Environmental Processes Across Boundaries: A Review of the Literature on Institutions and Resource Management. 12. Mujica, M. 2002. Assessing the Contribution of Small Grants Programs to Natural Resource Management. 13. Frias, G. 2003. Invasión Forestal: Khla Nagnegei Taíñ weichangepan. 14. Ghose, J.R. 2003. The Right To Save Seed. 15. Wiens, P. 2003. The Gendered Nature of Local Institutional Arrangements for Natural Resource Management: A Critical Knowledge Gap for Promoting Equitable and Sustainable NRM in Latin America. 16. Goetze, T.C. 2004. Sharing the Canadian Experience with Co-Management: Ideas, Examples and Lessons for Communities in Developing Areas. 17. Currie-Alder, B. 2004. Sharing Environmental Responsibility in Southeast Mexico: Participatory Processes for Natural Resource Management. 18. Suzuki, R. 2005. The Intersection of Decentralization and Conflict in Natural Resource Management: Cases from Southeast Asia. 19. Bruneau, R. 2004. Watershed Management Research: A Review of IDRC Projects in Asia and Latin America. List Updated May, 2005
Postal Address: PO Box 8500 Ottawa, ON, Canada K1G 3H9
Street Address: 250 Albert Street Ottawa, ON, Canada K1P 6M1
Tel: (+1-613) 236-6163
Fax: (+1-613) 238-7230
E-mail: wmanchur”idrc.ca
Website: www.idrc.ca