An analysis of the food security of the Rama indigenous group, Nicaragua Andrew Papworth Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Geography University College London 2018 Declaration I, Andrew Papworth, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Andrew Papworth Abstract Food insecurity affects two billion people worldwide, but food security scholarship and policy has tended to be too focused on the amount of available food, rather than whether populations are able to access and use the available food consistently. Studies have also typically focused on the global or national scale, meaning local issues are sometimes ignored. There is also no consensus on how food security should be measured. This thesis investigates the food security of the Rama indigenous group of Nicaragua who are located in the Caribbean Coast region of Nicaragua. It provides a fine-grained understanding of the determinants of their food security and what affects their vulnerability. It uses an adaptation of an Emergency Food Security Assessment (EFSA) tool called the Household Economy Analysis (HEA) and assesses its usefulness for conducting research of this type. A total of 110 household surveys and 41 semi- structured interviews, along with dietary surveys with nine families, were conducted across three Rama communities. The thesis makes three major insights. Firstly, it shows there is considerable heterogeneity within the Rama community meaning there are differences in household- level vulnerability to threats. This heterogeneity is partly determined by the geographies of access that households have to natural resources, markets and jobs, as well as differences in cultural values and endowments. Secondly, the thesis shows it is likely that global food insecurity is being underestimated because current measures of food security tend not to capture the nuances of household-level food insecurity. Thirdly, the thesis shows the need for a systems-based approach to food security. Current resilience theory has difficulties taking into account heterogeneity at the household level, meaning important socio-economic and/or environmental factors that can cause household-level inequality are missed. A more holistic, geographically-specific understanding of food security could provide a fruitful approach to trial new conceptions of resilience theory. Impact Statement This thesis made three major insights and these can be put to beneficial use in a number of ways. The first finding was the heterogeneity within the Rama community in terms of their food security. This knowledge can be used in the improvement of food security measurement, which will also be enhanced by further developing the adaptation of the Household Economy Analysis used by this thesis. The thesis argues that the heterogeneity noted is partly determined by the geographies of access that Rama households have to natural resources, markets and jobs, as well as differences in cultural values and endowments. Policymakers and other stakeholders will benefit from considering these questions of access when designing new initiatives. The second major insight of this thesis was that global food insecurity is probably being underestimated. The knowledge that food insecurity could be more extensive than presently thought could help to ensure its global prominence within development narratives, particularly in relation to the achievement of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Thirdly, the thesis highlights how food security is constructed by multiple factors, including the environment (notably climate change), public health, and access to land and employment. This suggests that because of its complexity, food security can only ever be fully understood at the local level. This knowledge will be of benefit for the development of new frames of reference. Concepts such as food resilience and food sovereignty might prove useful in this respect. This insight will also benefit policymakers and NGOs in terms of how they respond to food insecurity. It reinforces the view that the best way to improve food security is unlikely to be short-term food aid; instead, a system-based approach to the problem is needed. In terms of the further theoretical impact of the thesis, it was shown that the Rama households’ perception of risk and cultural differences, as well as decisions about, and constraints upon livelihood strategies, affected their vulnerability and resilience. This suggests that food security measurement should aim to include household perception and/or experience of food insecurity indicators. Finally, there is a paucity of research into the Rama and this thesis will raise awareness about the community and the issues they face. The impact of this research has been, and will be disseminated in a number of ways. Firstly, a post-data collection meeting was held to share the preliminary results with the Rama community. Secondly, a short summary of the project’s findings will be shared with local stakeholders and community members, which will give them the opportunity to discuss the findings and find appropriate solutions or strategies for the issues raised. Finally, the results have been presented at conference presentations and will be published in peer-reviewed publications. This will help to bring the findings of this research to a wider academic audience. Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without the considerable help I received from a number of people. The PhD was funded by an ESRC/NERC Multidisciplinary Studentship. Thank you to the two research councils and to everyone at UCL who helped to secure this position. Thank you to all those in the Rama community who participated in the research project. I am so grateful for your generosity and friendship. Thank you to everyone who helped in Nicaragua, either with the project directly or in making me feel so welcome: Jennifer, Gorman, Thalia, Orlando, Brad and Ruth, Jimmy, Ana, Juan, P, S and G. Thank you as well to John Perry and to Dr Jeremy Koster at the University of Cincinnati for making the initial trip in 2015 so much easier. Dr Emma Mitchell at the University of Virginia played a really significant part in the success of this PhD. I am enormously grateful for her help throughout the project. Thank you to my friends at UCL for your support and friendship: Adam, Clement, Harry, James D, James H, Lucien, Niranjana, Sam, Sarah and Soledad. A huge thank you is due to my supervisors, Dr Sam Randalls and Professor Mark Maslin. I massively appreciate all of the time, effort and encouragement you have given me over the last four years, and of course your always valuable insight. Finally, to my family: Sarah, thank you for being a wonderful example to aim for and for all your advice. Mum and Dad, your support has been amazing and has made everything possible. To Noah, thank you for your laughter and for the scribbles all over my drafts. To Gabriel, welcome to the world! To Hannah, thank you for putting up with me and for supporting me all the way. This project is dedicated to you. Table of Contents 1. Introduction................................................................................................ 23 1.1: The contribution of the thesis.................................................................... 24 1.2: The Case study.......................................................................................... 27 1.2.1: Location and key information............................................................ 28 1.2.2: A short history of Nicaragua….......................................................... 32 1.2.3: Food security challenges.................................................................... 32 1.2.4: Choosing the study population........................................................... 35 1.2.5: The Rama........................................................................................... 38 1.2.6: The three communities....................................................................... 42 1.3: Household Economy Analysis................................................................... 44 1.4: Project aims and objectives........................................................................ 46 1.5: Structure of the thesis................................................................................. 47 2. Literature Review........................................................................................ 51 2.1 Food Security.............................................................................................. 52 2.1.1: The causes of food insecurity............................................................. 57 2.1.2: Measuring food security.................................................................... 61 2.1.2.1: Process indicators...................................................................... 61 2.1.2.2: Outcome indicators.................................................................... 63 2.2: Vulnerability and resilience…………………........................................... 64 2.2.1: Vulnerability....................................................................................... 65 2.2.2: Resilience........................................................................................... 67 2.2.3: Criticisms of resilience theory............................................................ 71 2.3: Responding to food