was-ls
l, ' LIBRARY 1

:1qu Michigan State
University _,

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

ROAD DEVELOPMENT, MARKET ACCESS, AND NATURAL
RESOURCE USE ON NICARAGUA’S ATLANTIC COAST

presented by

KRISTEN M. SCHMITT

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Fisheries and Wildlife
Science

 

 

M? be

Major Professor’sTSignature
5/ l l/ 2 000;
Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

n.o.-.—-—.-.u..—.-.—--‘AL---.-.-.---—-.-.-.-u-.-._.. -

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

p..-
I—v‘
"...~‘t
’
I”

.4
I\)
4:)
it:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:/Prolecc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.lndd

 

ROAD DEVELOPMENT, INCREASING MARKET ACCESS, AND
NATURAL RESOURCE USE ON NICARAGUA’S ATLANTIC COAST
By

Kristen M. Schmitt

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Fisheries and Wildlife

2009

ABSTRACT

ROAD DEVELOPMENT, INCREASING MARKET ACCESS, AND NATURAL
RESOURCE USE ON NICARAGUA’S ATLANTIC COAST

By
Kristen M. Schmitt
Road development is often blamed for negative environmental outcomes;
however the indirect pathways connecting road building with environmental change are
complex and poorly understood. I examine how one possible indirect pathway, increasing
market access, can affect household environmental resource use on the Atlantic coast of
Nicaragua. A continuum of communities varying in degree of market access is examined
both before and after road completion. Specifically, I look at shifting market flow and
price changes for natural resource goods and corresponding fishing and farming decisions
in response to new roads. I also examine employment trends as a factor that could
potentially mitigate environmental change. Fisheries markets in the area were more
responsive to market access improvements than agricultural markets. With increased
access, fishers increasingly sold to non-local buyers, overall export of fisheries products
increased, and markets for new products emerged. Prices of fisheries goods increased
with proximity to markets and the availability of non-local sales outlets. Observed
changes in employment included household diversification into sales, wage work and
remittances, and Shifts away from farming and fishing. Household changes in fishing and
farming investments were not observed within the one year time flame of the study, and
therefore the environmental implications of increased market access are still uncertain.
Further long-term study planned in the area and additional biological monitoring will

help to determine the full environmental consequences of market access.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank each of the many people who assisted me in completing my
work. My advisor, Dan Kramer and my committee members Jerry Urquhart and Geoff
Habron have been wonderful to work with, and I am especially grateful for my inclusion
in multiple aspects of the research process, from grant-writing to journal submission.
Thank you also to Jenni Van Ravensway for her patient help with map development.

Many thanks to the people of Pearl Lagoon, Haulover, Raitipura, Awas, Orinoco,
Karawala, and Bar del Rio Grande for taking the time to answer survey questions,
provide insight on life in coastal Nicaragua, and assist me with my study. I am very
grateful to the employees of the Pearl Lagoon Alcaldia, especially Xenia Gordon who
frequently shared her data and time with me. I would also like to thank the members of
the communal board for allowing this research and Sharing their knowledge. Keyla
Hebbert Kelly, Elin Morales Patterson, and Claudia Taleno were all wonderful colleagues
and assisted me in conducting household surveys, handling logistics, and developing and
discussing ideas. I would also like to thank Ms. Ingrid and Mr. Kern for their constant
assistance, good food, and a ‘home away from home’ during my time in Pearl Lagoon.

My funding sources, the Tinker Foundation, the Surfn'der Foundation, and the
Gilbert W. Mouser Memorial Scholarship made it possible for me to complete my
research. I would also be remiss if I did not acknowledge the support of friends and
family in completing this degree, and I would especially like to thank Evan for his
unwavering interest in my work and his assistance with everything from data analysis to

draft review.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER 1

ROAD DEVELOPMENT AND MARKET ACCESS ON NICARAGUA’S
ATLANTIC COAST: IMPICATIONS FOR HOUSEHOLD FISHING AND FARMING

PRACTICES ........................................................................................... 1
Summary ...................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................... 2

Study area ............................................................................ 5
Methods ....................................................................................... 8
Community selection and sampling .............................................. 8
Analysis ............................................................................... 11
Results — Fisheries products ............................................................... 13
Market flow ........................................................................ 13
Price ................................................................................. 14
Household behavior ............................................................... 16
Results — Agricultural products .......................................................... 17
Market flow ......................................................................... 17
Price and household behavior .................................................... 18
Discussion ................................................................................... 20
Market flow and price ............................................................ 20
Household behavior ............................................................... 23
Environmental implications ...................................................... 25
Conclusion ................................................................................... 27
References ................................................................................... 44

CHAPTER 2

ROAD ACCESS, EMPLOYMENT DIVERSIFICATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CHANGE ON NICARAGUA’S ATLANTIC COAST ....................................... 49
Summary ..................................................................................... 49
Introduction ................................................................................. 50

Employment and the environment ............................................. 50
Study area .......................................................................... 52
Methods ..................................................................................... 54
Community selection and sampling ............................................. 54
Analysis ............................................................................ 56
Results ....................................................................................... 58
Environmental indicators ......................................................... 59
Discussion ................................................................................... 60
Resource use implications ........................................................ 62
References ................................................................................... 72

iv

APPENDICES

Appendix A ................................................................................. 75
Appendix B ................................................................................. 84
Appendix C ................................................................................. 87
Appendix D ................................................................................. 88

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 List of study communities ............................................................. 30
Table 1.2 Principle market outlets for fisheries products ..................................... 31
Table 1.3 Emerging markets for fisheries products ............................................ 32
Table 1.4 General linear model results — variation in shrimp prices ........................ 33
Table 1.5 Change in time spent fishing ......................................................... 34
Table 1.6 Market outlets for agricultural products ............................................. 35
Table 2.1 List of study communities ............................................................ 66
Table 2.2 General linear model results — in-household job diversity ....................... 67

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Map of study communities ........................................................... 36
Figure 1.2 Principle market outlets for white Shrimp ........................................ 37

Figure 1.3 Monthly exports of white shrimp from Pearl Lagoon ............................ 38
Figure 1.4 Distance to market and white shrimp prices ......................................... 39
Figure 1.5 Distance to market and first-class fish prices ........................................ 40
Figures 1.6a and 1.6b Distribution of prices received for white Shrimp ..................... 41
Figures 1.7 Importance of shrimp and lobster fisheries to household income ............ 42
Figure 1.8 Relative change in exports of agricultural goods 2007-2008 .................... 43
Figure 2.1 Map of study communities .......................................................... 68
Figure 2.2 Job diversity vs. household wealth ................................................. 69
Figure 2.3 Relative change in the importance of income sources 2007-2008 ............. 70
Figure 2.4 Distance to market and average rank of job importance ........................ 71

vii

CHAPTER 1
ROAD DEVELOPMENT AND MARKET ACCESS ON NICARAGUA’S
ATLANTIC COAST: IMPICATIONS FOR HOUSEHOLD FISHING AND
FARMING PRACTICES

Summary

The portrayal of road development as a classic environment versus development
debate may be due to the fact that the indirect pathways connecting road building with
environmental change are poorly understood. We examine how one of these pathways,
increasing market access, can affect household behavior and environmental resources on
the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua. Specifically, we look at shifting market flow and price
changes for natural resource goods and corresponding fishing and farming decisions as a
result of recent road development. We examine a continuum of communities of varying
degrees of market access both before and after road completion. Fisheries markets in the
area were more responsive to market access improvements than agricultural markets.
With increased access, fishers increasingly sold to non-local buyers, overall export of
fisheries products increased, and markets for new products emerged. Prices of fisheries
goods increased with proximity to markets and the availability of non-local export sales
outlets, though temporal price increases were not observed. Household behavioral
changes as measured by fishing and farming investments were not observed within the
one year time frame of the study, and therefore the environmental implications of
increased market access are still uncertain. Further long-term study and additional
biological monitoring are needed to determine the full environmental consequences of

market access.

Introduction

In remote communities, individual households are often the principle agents of
environmental change (Angelsen & Kaimowitz 1999, Gbetnekom 2005). Household
actions such as expanding or reducing agricultural lands, changing herd grazing patterns,
and increasing or decreasing fishing effort can all directly influence the conservation and
persistence of natural resources. As many remote communities become increasingly
connected to urban centers through transportation infrastructure (Uchida & Nelson 2009),
it is important to understand how this connection will affect household behaviors, and
subsequently the natural resource base on which many rural communities depend.

Road construction is often considered a chief development objective amongst
lesser developed countries as a means of reducing poverty and providing essential
services (Gibson & Rozelle 2003, Leinbach, 2007). However, road building’s effect on
household actions, the environment, and especially the pathways through which these
effects occur are complex. Studies examining the impact of roads on natural resources do
not always distinguish between the direct environmental effects (e.g., damage to wildlife
movement) and the indirect environmental effects (e. g. influences on household farming
behavior), even though the indirect effects are often more severe (Angelsen & Kaimowitz
1999, Lambin et al. 2003). The pathways through which roads affect household decisions
are varied and can include providing access to markets, encouraging human migration
and promoting an influx of new technologies to previously unconnected regions (Xu et
a1. 2006, Kramer et a1. 2009). A better understanding of these pathways could provide a
framework for addressing what is often perceived as a classic environment versus

development debate surrounding road construction.

 

In studying the market access pathway and its effect on household behavior there
are several uncertainties. Often, infrastructure development reduces transportation costs
and times to remote communities and provides greater access to external markets (Nelson
& Hellerstein 1997, Edmonds 2002). However road development does not universally
lead to increased export capabilities for rural residents. Access to rural areas may increase
imports of some goods in lieu of or in addition to exports, each scenario leading to
different household decisions (Shriar 2006, Leinbach 2007). Access to new markets often
changes prices for natural resource goods; however the direction and magnitude of
change is often variable and dependent on the specific commodity. Price changes can
provide strong behavioral incentives for rural resource users, and ecological, economic
and social context can influence how households react to these changes.

Depending on how new infrastructure affects market access, households will
respond in ways that may be environmentally harmful or beneficial. For example,
increased proximity to markets has been associated with increased fishing pressure in
Papua New Guinea and subsequent catches of smaller fish and lower trophic level species
(Cinner & McClanahan 2006). In West Africa, new roads have increased imports of
wheat to rural communities, which decreases incentives for farmers to grow alternative
subsistence crops such as millet, ultimately leading to expanded cotton cultivation
(Wagner 1986). Decreased transport costs for rural villages in Indonesia have led to the
growth of rubber cultivation (Miyamoto 2006). There may also be tradeoffs between
different types of natural resources when isolated areas become connected to markets. In
studies of Miskito communities in Honduras, Dodds (1998) notes that increasing access

to markets has increased lobster exploitation while decreasing agricultural land clearance

due to a substitution of livelihoods. Improved transport can also open local markets for
previously unexploited species often with little warning to managers and severe
consequences for these Species (Berkes et a1. 2006).

Increased market access can induce price changes for natural resource products.
Depending on the specific commodity, prices will respond differently to access; for
example, prices for products that spoil easily may increase at a higher rate with access
(Baltenweck and Staal 2007). Increased prices for agricultural goods and/or lower prices
for agricultural inputs often lead to forest clearing and agricultural expansion amongst
farming households (Jacoby 2000, Gbetnekom 2005). Similarly, price increases for
marine products can shifi fishers’ attentions to more profitable species (Salas 2004).
These shifts may have ecological consequences depending on the characteristics of
export markets, local ecological conditions, regulations, and myriad other factors.
Alternatively, prices may not change with improved transport pathways, resulting in no
change in land-use patterns (Shriar 2006). A better understanding of the complex
relationships between market access, price changes, and environmental effects could
provide insights which could mitigate negative environmental outcomes where road

development is considered a priority.

This study focuses on the household behavioral effects of increased market access
in communities on the Nicaraguan Atlantic coast and the corresponding implications for
lagoon fisheries and rainforests. We address the following questions: 1) Has market
access increased on the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua? 2) How, are imports, exports and

pricing of natural resource goods from coastal communities changing due to new

infrastructure connection? 3) How are increasing market access and price changes
affecting household behavior in regards to fishing and farming practices? Though we
explore the effects of market access on household behavior as a proxy for environmental
change, we do not describe associated environmental outcomes.

Most studies that explore the relationship between market access and fishing and
farming practices focus on single communities rather than a suite of communities that
differ in their degree of market access. Similar studies have also selected areas where
roads have been thought to already have had an effect, ignoring considerations of the
counter factual which in turn undermine claims of causality. We attempt to address these
issues by examining several communities with varying degrees of isolation both before
and after increased market access. Doing so may also help elucidate the complex
pathways by which road building affects household behavior. In addition, since context is
important in understanding the effects of market access, we will introduce the area as an
important place in which to continue long term research on decreasing remoteness and

environmental change.

Study Area

The Atlantic coast of Nicaragua has historically been notorious for its
geographical and cultural isolation from the rest of Central America. Recent road
development in these previously remote areas provides a unique opportunity to
understand the extent and environmental consequences of market integration. The

environmental importance of the region, the historic isolation of Atlantic coastal

communities and their reliance on natural resources make this region particularly well
suited to examining these associations.

The area known as the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua actually encompasses about
50% of the land area of Nicaragua, spanning from the central mountain regions east to the
Caribbean Sea (Sollis 1989). The Atlantic coastal region is lower in elevation and tends
to be warmer and wetter than the western half of the country; it is also one of Central
America’s richest areas in natural resources and includes varied terrestrial ecosystems
(mangrove forests, pine savannahs, and tropical lowland rainforest), and marine
ecosystems (lagoons/estuaries, reefs, turtlegrass flats) all of which contribute to high
regional biodiversity (Weaver et al. 2003). These ecosystems are commercially as well as
ecologically important, with marine environments housing fish, Shrimp and spiny lobster
(Panulirus argus). The Pearl Keys, a series of small islands several kilometers out to sea
from the Pearl Lagoon estuary host nesting populations of hawksbill turtles
(Eretmochelys imbricata). Due in part to the historical isolation of the towns located
along this coast, many of these natural resources remain relatively intact (Jameson et
al.2000) although anecdotal information abounds about declining fish and wild animal
populations.

In addition to geographical barriers, the eastern and western parts of Nicaragua
are culturally distinct with most indigenous and English-speaking Creole communities
located on the Atlantic coast, and the majority Spanish speaking ‘Mestizo’ populations
controlling Nicaragua’s central government in the West (Sollis 1989). There are six
principle ethnic groups that populate the Atlantic including the Miskitu, Sumu, Rama,

Garifuna, Creole and Mestizo. Since 1987, an Autonomy Statute has allowed for

increased political participation of Indigenous and Creole people and has divided the
Atlantic coast into two semi-autonomous regions, the RegiOn Auténoma Atlantica del
Norte or RAAN, and the Regién Auténoma Atlantica del Sur or RAAS. This has also led

to some substantial re-organization of the govemance structure in these areas.

This study focuses on a subset of communities within the Pearl Lagoon and the
Desembocadura de la Cruz de RioGrande counties (both located within the RAAS),
which vary according to their distances from a newly completed road running from the
riverport city of e1 Rama to the town of Pearl Lagoon (Figure 1.1). Construction of the
trans—isthmian highway connecting Pearl Lagoon to Managua began in 2005. Funded by
Nicaragua’s Institute for Rural Development (IDR) with Japanese aid, the road was
completed in the fall of 2007, although the majority of the road became passable during
the previous dry season (J anuary-April, 2007). Future road development projects and
construction of a deep water port are planned in the region.

During the past two decades, most commercial activity in the RAAS has been
centered around the regional capital of Bluefields, which is connected by river networks
to the town of el Rama and then by roads to the Western half of the country. Residents of
the coastal communities make a living mainly from fishing, farming, wage labor and
small-scale commercial activity, often participating in several of these activities. Most
artisanal fishers on the coast are multi-species fishers and change fishing practices
depending on the time of year, abundance of the target organism and access to gear,
among other factors. For example, a fisher may spend some months working on a friend’s

motorized lobster boat near the Pearl Keys, and some targeting gill fish within the lagoon

(for a more complete description of coastal fisheries, see Appendix B). Many fisheries
products, such as fish and white shrimp (Litopenaeus schmitti), have historically traveled
through middlemen to processing plants located in Bluefields and Managua, or have been
sold for local consumption within the communities. The exception to this transport
pathway is lobster, which are sold to lobster companies based in the east via lobster-
buying middlemen on the Pearl Keys. Agriculture in the Pearl Lagoon basin is practiced
both for subsistence and small-scale commercial purposes with most produce sold in
Pearl Lagoon town (IREMADES 2007). Most farms are set up as multi-Species
agroforestry systems, with a variety of root crops (cassava, dachin), basic grains (corn)
and tree crops (coconut, plantain, oranges) grown on the same farm.

Road connection between the city of el Rama and the town of Pearl Lagoon could
dramatically increase market access for fisheries and agricultural products, especially
where products have been previously shipped through Bluefields and along the lengthy
river-bus routes to Managua. In turn, improved market access and associated household,
decisions may have profound implications for coastal residents and their natural resource

base.

Methods
Community selection and sampling

This study considers both spatial and temporal changes in household behavior and
resource use along the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua. Six communities (Table 1.1) were
selected for the study, which fall along a continuum of proximity to markets; Pearl

Lagoon, Haulover and Raitipura/Awas were newly connected by road to Managua during

the time period of the study. The northern communities of Orinoco and Karawala/Bar del
Rio Grande are located approximately 40 minutes (24km) and 2.5 hours (85 km)
respectively by high speed boat from the new road. These times are lengthened
considerably when Slower and larger boats, typically used for transportation and
shipping, are employed (Figure 1.1).

To look at temporal variation, data were collected during two field seasons; the
first occurred between June and August of 2007, before the road into Pearl Lagoon had
been firlly completed, but after it was functionally passable during dry weather'. The
second collection period occurred between May and August of 2008, after the road had
been established in Pearl Lagoon for 8 months. The communities of Orinoco and Bar del
Rio Grande were visited only in 2008. Communities were not randomly chosen; criteria
used to select the different communities included Similarities in size and in the economic
activities employed as well as varying distance to Managua.

Household surveys were used to assess involvement in fishing and farming
activities within and between communities (Appendix A). Households were asked
questions regarding prices received and sales outlets for products. Respondents were
asked to rank fisheries and agricultural products from most to least important contributors
to household income. We also collected data on environmentally relevant activities
within a household, including the amount and intensity of land cultivation and fishing
gear ownership. This data was used as a proxy for measures of environmental change.
For example, a Shift in gear ownership could indicate an increase in fishing effort for
some species which could result in increased yield relative to species abundance. In

order to capture variation between years as opposed to variation amongst households

 

' The road was already completed as far as Haulover during the first data collection period.

within a community, the same houses were interviewed in 2007 and 2008. Surveys were
developed and pre—tested during the 2007 field season. In total, 165 households were
surveyed in 2007 and 223 in 2008.

Depending on the community, either random sampling or systematic sampling
was employed. For those communities with an available list of adult residents (Pearl
Lagoon and Raitipura/Awas), names were randomly selected via a random number
generator (Excel) and the corresponding household was then visited. This list of residents
was obtained from a 2006 community socioeconomic study (IREMADES 2007).
Selected respondents were not interviewed if they were no longer living in Pearl Lagoon,
if they were living in the same household as another survey respondent, or if after
repeated attempts, the person was not found. For communities with no existing list of
residents (Haulover, Orinoco, Karawala, Bar del Rio Grande) a systematic sampling
scheme was used, where surveys were conducted with every nth house (2“, 3“)
determined by dividing the number of households in a community by the desired number
of surveys (Cinner 2005 following deVaus 1991). The number of surveys per community
ranged from 12 to 61, depending largely on the population of the community; a minimum
of 10% of households were surveyed in each community.

Surveys were conducted both by the author and 2 trained research assistants from
the coastal communities. Surveys were completed with any selected adult member with
knowledge of the economic activities of that household in order to capture perspectives
from adults of different ages and sexes. More than one person was permitted to answer
survey questions when the interviewee had limited knowledge, and another member of

the household could provide more detailed answers on fishing and farming-specific

10

 

questions. In order to capture adequate data for describing change in fisheries and
agricultural markets, those employed in fishing and farming were oversampled in Pearl
Lagoon.2 Oversampled individuals are included in analyses except when indicated
otherwise. In addition, surveys were conducted with business owners who worked as
middlemen in the buying and selling of fisheries products (known locally as
acopiadores).

Data on fisheries sales were collected from the municipal government office to
assess changes in the volume of products traveling via different market pathways
(Alcaldia Municipal, Laguna de Perlas; X.Gordon 2007, 2008). Receipts on acopio
(seafood collection facilities) sales and road transport for fisheries products are generally

collected monthly by the local fisheries inspector and compiled into monthly reports.

Analysis

Our analyses focused on changes in market flow, price and household behavior
(ie. gear investment and agricultural practices) among and between communities with
different degrees of market access in 2007 and 2008.3‘ Analyses were all performed in R
(R 2008). Specifically, we incorporate four analyses. First, we considered changes in

principle sales outlets for fisheries goods between 2007 and 2008 using Pearson’s chi-

 

2 This was possible due to the 2006 socioeconomic study, which contained general occupational data for
this town. We randomly selected 20 fishers and 10 farmers, oversampling these groups by 7 fishers and 4
farmers as compared to a random selection of households. The 4 oversampled farmers were
opportunistically chosen, as many of those listed as farmers in the 2006 socioeconomic study were no
longer engaged in farming, making random sampling difficult. We also opportunistically selected 10
fishers to complete a shorter fishing Specific survey

3 Since more households were interviewed in 2008 compared with 2007 (223 compared to 165
respectively), I have removed these newly sampled households from certain analyses that aim to look at
change in individual household behavior between years.

11

squared test.4 We predicted that fishers would shift their selling to Pacific (i.e. non-local)
buyers due to increased buyer concentration, buyer availability and price differences.
Second, we examined changes in the mean price and distribution of prices received by
households for fisheries and agricultural goods between 2007 and 2008. Differences in
mean prices between 2007 and 2008 were assessed using paired data (ie. same
households in 07 and 08) with Wilcoxan Signed rank—sum tests. Variation in the price
distribution of Shrimp for each year was examined using an F test for variance. Third, we
examined the effect of a) household proximity to markets and b) specific market outlet on
the price received for shrimp and fish using a general linear model. Since most fishers
sell to more than one location, fishers preferred primary and secondary sales outlets were
both included (Table 1.2). Although many factors could potentially to contribute to price
differences, we focused on these descriptors in order to specifically explore market
access and its relationship to price change. Regressions were performed for both 2007
and 2008. Distance to the road was considered a good proxy for market access since
coastal transport occurs via one mechanism (boat). We predicted that prices received by
fishers would be greater for communities with greater market access (Baltenweck and
Staal 2007). In addition, we predicted that preferentially selling to certain market outlets,
for example Pacific (west Nicaraguan) buyers, would increase prices received for
products. The type of market outlet available was related to distance; in communities far
from the road, Pacific buyers were not present. Therefore, distance was controlled for in
the linear model while assessing the effects of individual market outlets. We performed

this analysis for fish and shrimp Since strong markets for each exist in Managua.

 

4 One sales outlet category with a low number of respondents was eliminated since the low values violated
chi-squared test assumptions.

l2

Diagnostic plots from the shrimp price models showed no evidence of heteroscedasticity,
and residuals were approximately normally distributed.5 Diagnostics for the fish price
models were also acceptable after one point of undue influence (Cook’s distance > 0.5)
was removed. The effect of distance to market on agricultural prices was also examined
using a general linear model. Finally, variation in the amount of fishing gear along a
distance-to-road gradient was investigated using general linear models. Differences in the
type and amount of fishing gear owned by the same household in 2007 and 2008 were
examined using paired t-tests. As most fishers are involved in more than one fishery,

changes in gear ownership could indicate shifting focus from one fishery to another.

Results - Fisheries products
Market Flow

Among the six communities listed above, 47% (n=78) of households interviewed
in 2007 and 50% (n=112) in 2008 were engaged in fishing as an income earning activity.
Although the same market outlets are used by fishers in both years of the study (Table
1.2), in 2008 more fishermen (60% in 2008 vs 32% in 2007) reported selling shrimp
primarily to Pacific vendors, and fewer (12% in 2008 vs 30% in 2007 %) reported selling
primarily to local businesses and individuals within their communities (Pearson’s chi
squared test, X2=6.99, dfi3, p=0.07; Figure 1.2). Within the fisheries sector, the white
shrimp (Litopenaeus schmitti) market showed the most substantial changes in market

flow.

 

5 Although two points of undue influence existed in the 2007 model (Cooks distance >0.5) removing these
points did not change the relative significance of predictor variables; therefore, these points are included in
the analyses.

13

In addition to changes in the shrimp market, new or re—emerging markets for
fisheries products are evident (Table 1.3). One example is the market for Blue crab
(Callinectes sapidus). Although crab was exploited in the area prior to a processing plant
closure in 2002, only two fishers in our road-accessible communities reported selling
crab (as opposed to home consumption or barter) in 2007. Each respondent reported
selling to local markets. In 2008, 18 fishers among the road accessible communities sold
crab; 39% of these sold to vendors for road transport (Table 1.3).

Looking at aggregate data from sales receipts collected in Pearl Lagoon, we can

 

see a clear change in avenue by which Shrimp is leaving the community and in the
volume of exported product (Figure 1.3).6 Although no data exists prior to 2007, the road
was not passable before 2007 and therefore all shrimp sales via road clearly represent a
shift in export flow. Sales for fish are still made primarily through the acopios, however

sales receipts Show that fish sales along the road are beginning to increase as well.

Price

In 2007, our model explained 52% of the variation in Shrimp price and in 2008 it
explained 60% of the variation (Table 1.4). The average price that fishers received for
shrimp amongst all surveyed communities was 31.6 cérdobas i 11.09 c6rdobas in 2007
and 28 c6rdobas i 8.05 cérdobas in 2008 ($1 US = 19.1 cérdobas, July 2008). As
distance from the road increases by one km, the average price that fishers receive for
shrimp decreases by 0.12 :t 0.06 cérdobas/lb in 2007 and 0.18 :l: 0.03 cOrdobaS/lb in 2008

(Figure 1.4). A comparison of prices in 2007 and 2008 suggests that as market access

 

6 Acopio sales for Shrimp are collected from one principle acopio in the area (MarCaribe) as the others do
not buy and sell shrimp.

14

increased over time, this relationship became stronger (Figure 1.4). Even when the same
distance gradient was used in 2008 (eliminating the communities of Orinoco and Bar del
Rio Grande), our model showed that shrimp price decreased by 0.22 :1: 0.06 cOrdobas/lb
with each km from the road, a more extreme price difference compared to our model of
all six communities. The negative distance-price relationship also holds for “first class”
fish (i.e. high-quality species intended for sales rather than home consumption) however
the relationship, although significant, is not as strong as that portrayed for Shrimp. Fish
price decreased by 0.012 i 0.006 cOrdobas/lb per km from road in 2007 and 0.018 i 0.01
cOrdobaS/lb per km in 2008, and distance combined with primary market outlet explains a
relatively small amount of variation in fish price (R2=0.23, Figure 1.5).

Although distance was the most important predictor of average shrimp price,
primary market outlet had a significant influence on price in both years (Table 1.4).
Secondary market outlet also had an effect on Shrimp price in 2008. Two specific sales
outlets contribute to the overall significance of primary market in our model. In both
years, selling locally to individuals and hotels, when compared to the reference category
of Pacific buyers, reduced the price received per pound of Shrimp (2007: B = -l6.2 i 3.7,
t = -4.3, p = <0.001 and 2008: B= -5.75 i 3.15, t = -1.82, p = 0.07). As hypothesized, in
2008 fishers were receiving less per pound of shrimp from acopios than from Pacific
buyers, ([3 = -4.31 :l: 1.98, t = -2.l7, p = 0.03). These trends are also reflected in our
model describing fish prices in 2008. Primary market outlet had a significant effect on
fish prices, with road exports producing higher prices both through local vendors ([3 =
4.01i1.18, t = 3.4, p = 0.001) and Pacific vendors ([3 = 1.65i0.76, t = 2.17, p = 0.03)

when compared with local acopios. Looking at the individual price effects of specific

15

sales outlets in our model can help determine the influence of the road itself since many
of the export markets in Pearl Lagoon are a direct consequence of the road (e. g buyers
from the Pacific).

Temporal price changes for individual households Show slightly different trends.
Between 2007 and 2008, for the m sample of households (all communities), the
average price received by fishers per pound of shrimp was unchanged (mean 2007=3 1.2
cordobaS/lb, mean 2008= 30.4 cordobas/lb; Wilcoxan signed rank sum test, V=108.5,
p=0.38). However, the variance in the average price received clearly differs between

years (variance test, F 26,26 = 3.15, p=0.005, Figures 1.6a and 1.6b).

Household behavior

Perceived importance of fisheries products could strongly influence fisher
behavior and investment. Between 2007 and 2008, lobster became relatively less
important whereas shrimp became relatively more important to household income for
people fishing those respective products (Figure 1.7). In Haulover for 2008, the relative
contribution of Shrimp to income (as ranked on a 1-5 scale by households themselves)
even surpassed the contribution of lobster.7

The changes in market flow and pricing that have been described did not result in
. significant changes in fisher investments in time or gear (which could signify a shift in
effort from one fishery to another). Spatially, both individual community and distance
from road were poor predictors of the amount of gear possessed by a household (see

Appendix B for more description on fisheries and gear). The number of cast nets for

 

7 The sample Size of households in Haulover was increased between 2007 and 2008, although since
households were randomly selected, this difference in sample Size should not influence relative rankings.

16

 

shrimping owned per household decreased with distance from road and was the only gear
type that Showed a significant relationship with distance (B = -0.0ld:0.003, t = -2.94, p =
0.004), however distance only explained 10% of the variation in number of cast nets per
household (F 13., p=0.004). Temporally, fishers reported owning significantly more boats
and lobster traps in 2008 compared with 2007, showing a general increase in gear
investment (boats: t = -l .75, df=82, p=0.08, traps: t = -2.27, df=87, p=0.025). When the
2007-2008 comparison is restricted to our road-accessible communities where we might
expect higher fish and shrimp prices to Spark higher investments in gear, the amount of
boats shows no change in significance (t = -0.37, df=30, p=0.71). Gill net ownership
decreased between 2007 and 2008 (t = 2.27, df=87, p=0.03) reportedly due to increased
theft. Between 2007 and 2008, no clear change in time allocated to fishing effort was
seen (Table 1.5). The majority of respondents reported Spending the same amount of time
fishing for various fisheries products, including products such as shrimp for which new

markets have arisen.8

Results - Agricultural products
Market Flow

Among surveyed households, 34% (n=56) were engaged in farming in 2007 and
47% (n=104) in 2008, which includes farmers that were oversampled in Pearl Lagoon.
The percent of households allocating produce to specific final destinations (i.e. household
consumption, local markets, etc.) underwent minor changes between 2007 and 2008

(Table 1.6). Coconut was the only product that increased substantially in exports when

 

8 Time investment could not be statistically examined spatially (ie. between different communities) because
of low numbers of responses in certain categories which violated assumptions for the chi squared test.

17

 

the same households are compared between years (Figure 1.8). Other products, such as
rice, beans and corn appear to be exported less in 2008 versus 2007. In general there was

an increase in the percentage of farmers selling produce locally in 2008.

Price and household behavior

Temporally, there was an increase in food prices between 2007 and 2008 for all
agricultural products except for coconut, likely related to global increases in food price
between these two years.9 Agricultural prices showed different patterns of spatial
variation (positive, negative and no relationship with distance) depending on the crop.
For example, coconut prices (again in cOrdobas) increased with distance from the road,
(0.02 d: 0le distance + 3.3 i 0.2, R2 =0.52) cassava prices decreased (-0.01 :l: .004x
distance + 3.0 :l: 0.2, R2 = 0.1) and beans showed no significant relationship (-0.01 i
0.02x distance + 10.9 :t 0.8, R2 =0.04). All of these products are common components of
local diets.

Though farming is not considered a lucrative profession in Atlantic coastal
communities when compared to fishing, 16.4% (n=27) of households interviewed in 2007
and 17% (n=3 8) in 2008 considered farming their most important source of income.
Survey respondents have been actively farming on their land for an average of 32 i 26.3
years (2008 data). Both communal and private farm land ownership are common on the
Atlantic coast. In 2008, 48% of farming households (n=49) reported farming on
communal land and 50% (n=52) reported ownership of private land, with no spatial

pattern in private vs. communal ownership. Many of these farms were inherited from

 

9 One of the most pronounced price changes was in beans, which jumped from an average of 5.1 to 10.4
cordobas per pound.

l8

parents or other family members; 58% of farming households (n=60) inherited their land
and 41% of households (n=43) reported having to clear new land for their farm.

Household farming decisions (behavior) can include allocation of land use, choice
Of inputs and land clearance decisions. Among sampled farmers, clearing new land for
farms as opposed to inheriting previously cleared land was more common in communities
farther from the road. In Karawala, Orinoco and Bar del Rio Grande, 58 % of respondents
reported having cleared new land for their farms, as opposed to 23 % in our road-
accessible communities. As of 2008, the ratio of land cultivated to total land owned or
used (a proxy for the intensity of land use) showed no relationship with distance from the
new road (R2=0.02, F137 = 1.044, p=0.23). This ratio ranges from an average of 0.23
manzanas (100 yards x 100 yards) farmed/owned in Karawala to 0.75 manzanas in Bar
del Rio Grande, representing high variation in nearby communities.

Of the 104 farming households interviewed in 2008, 8.7% (n=9) reported using
pesticides or chemical fertilizers, and 3.9% (n=4) reported using mechanized equipment
(all Chainsaws), suggesting relatively low intensity farming. Sixty-seven % of households
(n=70) reported engaging in crop rotation, where some land is left fallow for a number of
years. The average length of fallow time practiced amongst the coastal communities was
2.85 years, although not all farmers reported a Specific fallow time. AS of 2008, just 9.6%
of farmers reported cattle as one of their most important agricultural products, and most
farmers had a low density of cattle given their farm size (between 0.36 and 0.83
cows/manzana of pasture land), which also implies the use of relatively low-impact

farming that does not necessitate total land clearance.

19

Discussion
Market flow and price

Observing trends pre and post road development in Atlantic coastal Nicaragua
may help to identify indirect or complex pathways by which roads impact the
environment. We found that post-road, the flow of fisheries goods through primary
market outlets in Pearl Lagoon appears to be changing significantly. Due to the high
demand for seafood in Managua and other parts of Western Nicaragua, communities
located near the new road have seen an increase in buyers transporting shrimp and fish
directly to Managuan markets, contributing to changing fisher decisions about where to
sell their product (Figure 1.2). The road is an increasingly utilized transport pathway for
seafood export, and shrimp exported along the road from Pearl Lagoon in 2008 greatly
exceeded those exported during 2007 (89,650 lbs vs. 35,490 lbs respectively) while sales
via local acopios decreased only slightly. This implies that overall volume of shrimp
being exported increased and volume previously sold through the acopios was not simply
replaced by volume leaving by road (e. g., Figure 1.3).10 Furthermore, the total amount of
shrimp exported from the community may be greater than reported as there is allegedly a
fair amount of underreporting in the road transport permit system so as to avoid a 1% tax
on catch value (X. Gordon, Alcaldia Municipal, Laguna de Perlas, pers. comm).
Increasing market access could be changing incentives for fishing certain species; overall
exports of some products including sea cucumber (e. g., Holothuria mexicana) and ray
(e. g., Dasyatis guttata) increased in 2008 (Table 1.3). Long term monitoring may clarify

whether this is actually related to the road’s influence. In addition, a market has re-

 

“) Note: volume traveling through the acopios was likely higher in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s before
the MarCaribe processing plant was shut down.

20

emerged for blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), which was rarely sold in 2007, but rather
fished for home consumption. Plans are currently in progress for re-opening a local crab
processing plant which ended operations in 2002. This re-opening is linked to the new
ability to rapidly transport refiigerated product to Managua (D. Taylor, MarCaribe, pers.
comm).

The increase in seafood export opportunities amongst newly road-accessible
communities was shown to be a likely influence on prices for these products. This is
evident given the positive relationships between market proximity and prices received for
shrimp and first class fish (Figures 4 and 5). For all of the study communities, distance to
road is equivalent, relatively, to distance to Bluefields, the largest market in the RAAS
located south of the study communities. It is possible, therefore, that this market as
opposed to the road itself could be driving the price-distance relationship. However, as
would be expected if the road were influencing prices, the price-distance relationship was
more pronounced in 2008 than in 2007, a trend which should continue if the road’s
influence increases. Given the Similarities between our study communities in Size and
economic activities, market proximity is the most likely explanation for this
relationship1 '.

In addition to the effect of market proximity, Specific sales outlets also influenced
shrimp prices. Sales to local markets were less profitable for fishers and consequently
fishers’ preferences shifted away from local sales outlets, especially as a first choice
(Figure 1.2). There was also a difference in price between specific types of export

markets; fishers generally received less money for shrimp from acopios in 2008 than

 

” Communities do vary in their predominant ethnicities. However preliminary analyses as to whether
ethnicity influenced prices received for products were non-significant.

21

from Pacific buyers, most likely due to higher transport costs for acopios. This price
difference contributes to the overall price significance of primary sales outlet in our
model, and demonstrates a price effect related directly to road transport. Similarly, fishers
received more money for fish when selling to local or Pacific vendors for road transport
when compared to the traditional option of selling to acopios.

The permanency and consistency of these price trends for all fishers are unclear.
In 2008, fishers in the Pearl Lagoon area reported both receiving higher and lower prices
from Pacific vendors. Many suspected that Pacific buyers were offering higher prices in
order to undercut local acopios and establish a local, loyal customer base. '2 However
among all fishers there appeared to be other advantages of selling directly to Pacific
buyers including increased availability of buyers at all hours, decreased risk of spoilage
because buyers took over the responsibility of providing ice and coolers, and a greater
consistency in price offered as evidenced by the decreased price variance between 2007
and 2008. All of these factors serve to decrease risks for individual fishers. '3 Price
stabilization is one feature that you might expect to see in maturing markets. These
factors could also help to explain the shift in preferred sales outlets towards Pacific
vendors.

Agricultural products showed different trends than those observed for seafood. As
of 2008, there was no consistent evidence of shifting export markets for agricultural

goods, and no clear relationship between product price and distance to market. The only

 

‘2 Or a financially obligated customer base. Often buyers will lend money or gear to fishers on the
condition that they get the first opportunity to buy that fishers product.

‘3 For example, if a fisher is unsure if he will be able to sell his product for an acceptable price, he may
decide to catch a smaller amount of shrimp. This avoids the burden of visiting many households in an
attempt to sell everything, and the risk of a large amount of spoiled catch if no one is buying. With more
willing buyers, this fisher can now catch a large amount and be assured of selling them at a profitable price.

22

crop showing an increase in exports from the coast was coconut due to the presence of
one buyer from Managua. Other products like basic grains generally showed a decrease
in the number of households selling to export markets. This could be due to higher food
prices in 2008, which may provide incentives to use more crops for household or local
consumption, rather than engaging in commercial food sales (F afchamps 1992). Also,
heavy rains in the northern communities destroyed much of the rice crop in 2008. Finally,
transport costs are perhaps still too high to make the export of agricultural goods
profitable, and Atlatntic prices for produce are usually higher than prices offered from
Pacific consumers (Appendix C). Difficulty in separating how much of a household’s
agricultural produce is going for export versus local consumption may also be disguising

some patterns of change.

Household behavior

Market access may affect household fishing practices which translate directly to
environmental change. Changes in gear or time investments are not apparent among
fishers on the Atlantic coast even though the relative ranking of Shrimp’s importance to
income has increased among shrimping households (Figure 1.7). This ranking change
could be influenced by many factors including new market outlets for shrimp, the
relatively low gear investment needed for shrimp versus lobster (Appendix B), and a slow
start to the 2008 lobster season. Investments of time or equipment often lag behind
increased profits, especially amongst risk-averse individuals or households. A lack of
access to credit required to purchase more gear may have the same effect. The need for

gear is often cited as prohibiting households from increasing their fishing time.

23

Although changes in market structure and price were not seen in the agricultural
sector, one might expect such changes in the future. Farming practices that have
environmental impacts may be important to monitor amidst increasing market
connection.

Farmland clearing and cultivation represent basic household decisions. Contrary
to expectations, land clearing is disproportionately high in more remote communities.
This is most likely due to the higher availability of uncleared land in the northern remote
areas and a higher proportion of previously disturbed land to the south, necessitating less
new clearing. Frequently families in the area rotate cultivated areas each year to maintain
soil fertility, meaning that a substantial proportion of farmland goes unused in any given
year (Dodds 1998). However, we found no relationship between distance and the ratio of
land farmed to owned, an indication land-use intensity. Although there are strong
correlations in the literature between road building, forest clearance for agriculture and
farming intensity, (Pfaff et a1. 2007) these relationships may be driven by a pathway other
than market access, for example immigration to a previously remote area.

Land in the tropics is often deforested for cattle. Beef, averaging about 23
cordobas/lb. in coastal communities in 2008 may be an agricultural product that would be
profitable to export via road. Low numbers of cattle farmers and low cattle density
observed in 2008 could provide a starting point for monitoring if and how traditional
agroforestry-type systems on the coast change in the presence of market outlets, and
whether the change comes from local communities or migrants. Finally, farming

techniques on the coast currently involve few inputs and frequent use of a fallow system.

24

Decreasing input costs and increased imports of farming technologies given greater road

access could change these current low-input farming practices.

Environmental implications

Fisher behavior can directly impact fisheries resources by increasing or
decreasing yields of a species relative to that species’ abundance. Although exports of
fisheries goods are increasing and transport pathways are changing, behavioral changes
are still unclear and therefore environmental implications are unknown. In the future,
enhanced market access will likely translate to changes in fisher practices including an
increase in the exploitation of more lucrative Species. Overall abundance of most of these
organisms is unknown for Pearl Lagoon. Although catch data for area fisheries are often
available, few stock assessments or maximum sustainable yield estimates exist; it is
therefore possible that some fisheries could sustain increases in exploitation. Studies
elsewhere in the western Atlantic with similar combinations of industrial trawling and
artisanal fishing Show no concrete evidence of biological overexploitation for white
shrimp (L. schmitti) populations as of 2000 (FIRMS 2005). If true for Pearl Lagoon,
increases in Shrimp export and shrimp buyers may improve local livelihoods while
causing no danger to Shrimp populations or associated food webs in the lagoon. Some
studies dispute this however, reporting obncem over increasing shrimp scarcity in Pearl
Lagoon (Gonzales-Colindres 2006). The situation is similar for crab, which were more
heavily exploited before 2002 when the local crab processing plant was functional.

According to fishers, crabs have since recovered in size and abundance.

25

The observed shifting patterns in market flow could also benefit currently

. overexploited species. There is an abundance of anecdotal information on declining fish
populations in Pearl Lagoon, as noted by smaller catch sizes, and through increased
effort, gear, and travel distance required for catching the same amount of product (A.
Downs 2008 pers comm., Hostetler 2000). If the shrimp market becomes more profitable
due to improved market access, some of the fishing effort in the area could shift towards
shrimp and away from heavily exploited fish or lobster species. The increase in assigned
income importance of Shrimp relative to lobster may exemplify the beginning of such a
trend (Figure 1.7). On the other hand, access to Managuan markets may eventually make
some fish species more profitable or create new markets which could in turn influence
household fishing decisions and increase yields. Seasonality of the fisheries may also
preclude replacing gill fishing activity with shrimp fishing.

Before the road was completed, many people in the Pearl Lagoon area looked
forward to the potential for exporting agricultural goods, viewing agriculture as a
potentially viable alternative to fishing declining populations. However, transporting
produce to Managua from the coast is still not cost effective; prices for several commonly
grown agricultural goods are often higher on the Atlantic coast than in Managua, a much
different price relationship than for fisheries goods (Appendix C). Instead of providing
an export market for coastal residents, the road has provided an avenue for imported
agricultural goods and meats from the Pacific, a trend seen elsewhere in the developing
world (Shriar 2006, Leinbach 2007). This could change if more profitable crops, better
technology including agricultural inputs, or more efficient transportation are introduced

(Edmonds 2002). If market opportunities for certain types of agriculture emerge,

26

consequences include an increase in the relative ratio of land farmed, cattle volume and
density, and shorter or nonexistent fallow cycles in more accessible communities.
Environmental consequences could include increased deforestation, soil nutrient
depletion, increased chemical inputs, less emphasis on agroforestry/tree-cropping, and
increased soil erosion (Wagner 1986). Approximately half of all surveyed farming
households report farming on communal land as opposed to private land. Since secure
land tenure is often correlated with lower environmental damage in the presence of road
disturbances (Maki et a1. 2001), proportional decreases in private ownership could
potentially have negative environmental consequences, although in Nicaragua private

ownership does not always correspond to perceived tenure security (Broegaard 2005).

Conclusion

The effects of roads on market access and price are often uncertain and therefore
limit firll understanding of the influences of road development on household behavior and
natural resource use. In eastern Nicaragua however, rapid market changes can stem from
road building to previously remote communities. To date, fisheries markets in this area
appeared to be much more responsive to market access improvements than agricultural
markets. Avenues for selling fisheries products, especially white shrimp, are changing
rapidly in the RAAS due to new transport avenues to western Nicaragua. Overall exports
appear to be increasing, and markets for new fisheries products have emerged. Changes
in market flow have been accompanied by a stabilization of price for shrimp and
logistical advantages for fishermen, although not a Significant change in the average price

received for shrimp. Prices of fisheries products are higher with proximity to markets and

27

the availability of non-local export sales outlets. Despite reported increases in the
importance of shrimp to household income, corresponding investments in gear or time
have not yet occurred within the first 1.5 years of road access. Shrimp export increases
however suggest that fishers are able to sell more shrimp without these investments,
perhaps due to less spoilage and less local consumption. Changes in fishing practices and
exports may eventually change overall yields which could impact the resource.

While changes in agricultural practices due to road building are abundant in the
literature, new transport avenues appear to have caused little change amongst the local,
low-input, rotating agricultural systems on the Atlantic coast within the time frame of this
study. Despite connections to larger cities, low prices and cost prohibitive transportation
inhibits exports from the coast in the short term and promotes imports of produce and
certain meats to the Atlantic coast. The potential for migration to the area however is high
and could cause land cover changes without corresponding changes to land farmed by
coastal residents.

Substantial biological monitoring is needed to determine the environmental
consequences of market access and the sustainability of local fisheries and rainforests.
Without an idea of overall abundance, managers are unable to tell if market changes and
fisher behavior are actually impacting the resource. In the case of fisheries, it may be
informative to track particular species of concern, such as the IUCN critically endangered
species Epinephelus itjara (giant grouper), currently fished and sold on the Atlantic coast
(IUCN 2008). Roadways also open potential avenues for the transport of prohibited

fisheries goods, such as undersized shrimp and lobster. ‘4 Conversations with fisheries

 

‘4 This is in addition to increasing transport of small but legal product, such as the minimum allowable
shrimp sizes (61-70 Shrimp per lb).

28

officials suggest that this is likely to become a problem in Pearl Lagoon without an
increase in enforcement. In light of the fact that many rural communities, development
organizations, and governments are now pushing for better connection and access to
markets (BlOndal 2007), understanding how to avoid the development-environment
conflict is important.15 With a full appreciation of how market connection influences
household behavior on Nicaragua’s Atlantic coast, proper planning can accompany
infrastructure projects to address environmental concerns before they become threats to

local biodiversity and livelihoods.

 

'5 Several factors have been identified that may mitigate negative environmental outcomes of market
access. Some of these include the presence of traditional land and ocean management systems (Aswani
2002, Cinner 2005), secure land tenure (Alston 1996), economic or social institutions that control prices for
natural resource goods (Kronen 2004), and the implementation of rights-based fisheries systems (Costello
et al 2008). The effects of these mitigating factors are by no means universal, and all merit further study to
explore their viability in varied contexts.

29

Table 1.1 Study communities, including their relative sizes and distance to the newly
constructed road in June, 2008 (IREMADES 2007, Ministerio de Salud, RAAS 2006).

For more information on individual communities, see (IREMADES 2007).

Distance to
Community Abbreviation Road (km) in 2008 # of Households

 

Haulover H 0 214
Pearl Lagoon PL 0 496
Raitipura/Awas RA 1. .9 8 1
Orinoco O 24 126
Karawala K 84.7 23 1
Bar del Rio Grande B 88.9 36

 

30

 

 

$23055 Seam: u0 83838800
$0300.82: 003E358 L050 8 >386 820er commas: £23m EC 050
.couafismcoo :82 Lou EBA—8800 moo 0.2020050:
0.: E 0.3% can m0mm0£m2£m0afifl .002 9 28 a 82005 _ A 208: .0004
.8333 E .8 00E 880 m_ :23ng Bag 08:3 38:3
30m 0 000205 0038:8800 E0303 e050 8 «swung/H 8 0.03
a tommcmb 98 3:00am >3 8 3.858% c0330: he seemed >m 200:? £83
30¢ 8 0:80 on? 060208 Gfioemv 302-com 3 28 fl 8:on
.3352 a cogaufiu “00:08 0385a
A8253 £60m Lo.“ 2080628 00 ~00 Sons? 300: b80505
S 35:03: $2503 388% 050 £08 3 “00:30:05 >4 Sons? 3004
:05 mm 98 .0025? 2:52 3980 :32 8 28 mm “0355
.282 800 Ho «sway—£2 sat—£02m
5 303: 00:39:00 03:50 8 Son 3 835E tommceb moEoo< m0a00<
on? 580626 .3 S: 0.8 000.: SESEEoo 130000 08 E .
3269a Sigma Com 3:30 “.898 0363a 05 .38 3 045305
gram—000G =e$§>0£a< 8st

$5330.53 :05 .3 8 BENCH on EB 30:50 0005

.msafiw E25033 5 Emma aoowj :00; 05 E 805$ .3 @0552 mm .3268; m0t0nmm .8.“ 30:30 “00.38 0365.5 .N.~ 033.

31

:03 mm whom :00...“ :0 200 80080 830582 ...
8050c 53> £0300 80¢ 00x8 0.0m N

8080qu 00:23 .3 0082—00 $80008 80a 80x8 809 _

 

85058: mm am 85058: 03 O 88.35. amuumzmab
«080 0:5

Sim o .02 or o 2: as 303208
.000: 8000004

83 o 02 :3 o 08 38.55 0:538: :00
1.0080000 00m

3me S 2 0 o 0 883% 80.0.0Q :00

30m

23 Q R 9.3. 02 o 20.00 033.05%

x00008w 805

1303.: 080230001— £0 000m o\° :33 2: 080230004 .X. Box Ax.
«cam 53

 

.woom 000 boom macaw 38000 00t00802 05 80¢ 00800 800 08003 0:802“ 2000 @0085 008000808 00:00.8 30:0 5qu

08 8000808 m0w080080m .003<\088:0M 000 80580: 60093 100m 85; 300008 m0t0fim 00m 30x38 wcmw808m .m.— 035.

32

Table 1.4. General linear model results explaining variation in shrimp prices.

 

Source DF SS MS F p value R2

2007

Distance from road 1 653.89 653.89 8.65 0.006

Primary (preferred) sales outlet 4 1447.84 361.96 4.79 0.004

Secondary sales outlet 5 742.44 148.49 1.96 0.11

Model 10,34 3.76 0.002 0.53
2008

Distance from road 1 1934.98 1934.98 63.93 <0.001

Primary (preferred) sales outlet 4 409.76 102.44 3.38 0.015

Secondary sales outlet 5 310.20 62.04 2.05 0.085

Model 10,58 8.77 <0.001 0.60

 

33

Table 1.5. Percentage of fishers who reported spending more, the same amount, or less

time fishing specific products in 2008 compared to 2007.

% Fishing more % Fishing same % Fishing less n

 

Lobster 33 45 21.5 51
Shrimp 27.5 39 33 69
Fish 21 50 29 66
Crab 30 50 20 20

 

34

Tablel.6. Percentage of households that reported using/selling products for home
consumption, local markets, and export markets for the communities of Pearl Lagoon,
Haulover, Raitipura/Awas, and Karawala (2008). Households surveyed in 2008 only

were not included. ‘6

 

 

Product % Home consumption % Local marketl % Export2 n
2007
Cassava 40 50 10 32
Root crops 30 55 15 20
Banana family 25 61 14 44
Coconut 42 45 13 31
Fruit 36 56 8 25
Beans 42 26 32 19
Rice 22 33 44 9
Corn 28 39 33 18
Beef/Milk 50 , 50 0 4
2008
Cassava 27.5 62.5 10 40
Root crops 19 81 0 16
Musaceae 21.5 68.5 5 51
Coconut 15 45 40 20
Fruit 12.5 75 12.5 16
Beans 50 30 20 30
Rice 27 45.5 27 22
Corn 33 51.5 15 33
BeefYMilk 50 50 0 10

 

' Local market includes some undefinable home consumption
2 Export may also include local market sales and home consumption

 

'6 Data have been paired to avoid different sample sizes, though the exact 11 may still be different due to
households that started or stopped farmin g that product as one of their top 4.

35

$986580 beam Co Q32 A.“ 0.53%

 

 

EC M355.

 

 

 

p

   

C

«3052—5

hog—5mm

 

 

 

 

98M >62
venom
33:58:50 beam

 

 

 

 

 

233$ 02 .3. in O O

 

In!

335...“!

 

 

   

.\.v

C.

   

C /.
\.-..tMJ. xi. 1...,
i / C
C l\\ C. ‘1.
.\ _\. . .
x _\ «it
E o C v
A. a: x
_ .\\
I/r \.\.Aw C
MI. C. C “\
C x .
_\ C E
y“ \‘\\ m\ 1; .
C .. ..n\ ./ C
C . A .1.
i. x C
C (a I: ,
C. - .. A.
C . \ r, C C
. L\ \n \ 1.1/ CC.‘\1/ C
\K it (1..“ y
«\1/ 1 11x\\i /. x /\\\i
.\ / W
C. .\ ... /
C .u... ./.1C.
xx C
C2
ititlmlili l
\\

 

F5— 00 o \C \x v\ \/ /-
\ijx.l\/HV \ \ ”C. (4
.m\ r I \\ C.

 

36

0.7 -

 

0.6 4 , I 2007, 11:44
2008, [F42

 

 

 

Proportion of fishers .

 

 

Market outlet

Figure 1.2. Principle market outlets for white shrimp (L. schmitti) among survey
respondents in the communities with new road access (Pearl lagoon, Haulover,
Raitipura/Awas). More shrimp went to Pacific vendors in 2008 as opposed to staying in

the community.

37

.Cwoom .hoom gov—ow .X ”mm—Com at 2st 486622 32813 C32 use banana 5053 mm .838
9:9? xwom .82on .5 mafia—BE: Co 822me .28.. 05 no woe—089E mama 95.3w =a 3:889: on: Com—cm 2: 28 mofioom 2:

3:82am: on: 33% 2F .38 do noon 52309 8093 :85 E 5:08 some 28 CCCCCECCB. 4 3825 953m .3 Wesson .m.— 0.53m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£82
8m 8m
2:28 8 C e m C. m N C2228 m C e m_v_m N_C
- o
0" I" s ‘1‘.
.88
-88C 1
m
.882 m.
m
.88 m.
d
-883 m
83m cacao: a u . oooom
moamgomli
-888

 

38

40

 
   
 
 
 
 

 

 

co
c
c :
:1 35 Haulover, n 16
E Pearl Lagoon, n=18
o
E 30 ‘
~o
3 . .
3 Raltrpura/Awas
'1: 25 7 n=12
2 ' Orinoco
E 20 _ n=15 Bar Pomt
.: n=5
m
G)
en
g 15 d _
> n—
< y
10 I I I I
0 20 40 60 80

Distance to market outlet (km)

Figure 1.4. In 2008, the average price fishers received for white shrimp (L. schmitti)
decreased in communities that are further from the road (solid line). Average price =
—0.17 i 0.03 x distance + 32.32 i 1.83. The dotted line represents the relationship for

2007 (-0.12 i 0.06 x distance +37.98 i 2.96).

39

      
   

 

no

8

“1 15 Haulover, n=20

a 4R ..

a arttpura/Awas,

c

E 14 n=12

3, ._ fear] Lagoon

.8 - n=17 K h
E. ~ _ ~ Orinoco arawa
.= 13 - ---------
:8

G)

en

ea

in

3 12

< I I I T l

 

 

Distance to market outlet (km)

Figure 1.5. In 2008, the average price fishers received for their first-class (high quality)

fish decreased for communities firrther fiom the road.

Average price = -0.017 i 0le distance + 13.99 3: 0.31. The dotted line represents the

relationship for 2007 (-0.012 at 0.007x distance + 13.25 i 0.24).

40

.83. E baseman“ 36.5: @0382 00E E 855.» BE. ASHE man?» 50; 5 3.552%

203 £838: 8% BB .983 88 ea 0%: 88 5 88E“ 8C 8:8 C3 8382 BE 885. .84 a. .8.— 25$

832:3 5 95...? no out.— uaaecsu 5 95:7. Co 93.5

8 me 8 mm 8 m.” 8 m." 8 m... 8... mm 8 m." a." m._

 

sploqasnoq 3!!!qu 1° JoqmnN

 

 

 

41

.U‘
o
o

:‘e

U1

0
4*?! 4n

 

i 2007
L 2008

a? é

Community

Relative importance of
lobster to Income
:5
o
O

 

5”
Ln
0

.U‘
o
o

 

Relative importance of
shrimp to income

 

1
1
3.50 7% ~

Figure 1.7. Relative importance of lobster (top) and shrimp (bottom) to household
income by community (H=Haulover, PL=Pearl Lagoon, R/A=Raitipura/Awas,
K=Karawala) for 2007 and 2008. The y axis represents how fishers rate lobster/shrimp
against other fisheries by importance to their household income (5 = most important
income source from fisheries, 1 = least). These rankings are compiled from households

that are engaged in lobster/shrimp fishing respectively.

42

30-
25-
20‘
15‘
10—

5C

 

 

-5 a
.10 C
-15 C
-20 C
-25 '4

% change in
reported exports 2007-2008

 

 

Cassava Root Banana Coconut Fruit Beans Rice Corn

famfly
Product

Figure 1.8. Relative change in percent of farmers who sold product to an export market
(often in conjunction with local markets and home consumption) in 2008 compared to

2007. Coconut shows a strong increase due a single buyer from Managua.

43

References

Alston, L.J., Libecap, G.D., & Schneider, R. (1996) The Determinants and Impact of
Property Rights: Land Titles on the Brazilian Frontier. Journal of Law, Economics and
Organization 12(1): 25-61

Angelsen, A. & Kaimowitz, D. (1999) Rethinking the causes of deforestation: Lessons
from economic models. The World Bank Research Observer 14(1): 73-98.

Aswani, S. (2002) Assessing the Effects of Changing Demographic and Consumption
Patterns on Sea Tenure Regimes in the Roviana Lagoon, Solomon Islands. Ambio 31(4):
272-284.

Baltenweck, I. & Staal, S. (2007) Beyond One-Size-Fits-All: Differentiating Market
Access Measures for Commodity Sytems in the Kenyan Highlands. Journal of
Agricultural Economics 58(3): 536-548.

Berkes, E, Hughes, T.P., Steneck, R.S., Wilson, J .A., Bellwood, D.R., Crona, B., Folke,
C., Gunderson, L.H., Leslie, H.M., Norberg, J ., Nystrom, M., Olsson, P., Osterblom, H.,
Scheffer, M. & Worm,B. (2006) Globalization, Roving Bandits, and Marine Resources.

Science 331: 1557-1558.

Blondal, N. 2007. Evaluating the impact of rural roads in Nicaragua. Endeleza
International Development Consulting, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, Danida.
URL http://www.um.dk/en/menu/DevelopmentPolicy/Evaluations/Publicatiorgl
EvaluationStudies/2007-3+Evaluation+Studyhtm

Broegaard, RI. (2005) Land Tenure Insecurity and Inequality in Nicaragua.
Development and Change 36(5): 845-864.

Cinner, J. (2005) Socioeconomic factors influencing customary marine tenure in the
lndo-Pacific. Ecology and Society 10(1): 36.

Cinner, J. & McClanahan, TR. (2006) Socioeconomic factors that lead to overfishing in

small-scale coral reef fisheries of Papua New Guinea. Environmental Conservation
33(1): 73-80.

44

Costello, C., Gaines, S.D. & Lynham, J. (2008) Can Catch Shares Prevent Fisheries
Collapse? Science 321: 1678-1681.

Dodds, DJ. (1998) Lobster in the Rain Forest: The Political Ecology of Miskito Wage
Labor and Agricultural Deforestation. Journal of Political Ecology 5: 83-108.

Edmonds, C. (2002) The Role of Infrastructure in Land-use Dynamics and Rice
production in Viet Nam’s Mekong River Delta. Asian Development Bank ERD Working
Paper Series No. 16, Manila, Philippines.

F afchamps, M. (1992) Cash crop production, food price volatility, and rural market
integration in the Third World. American Journal of A gricultural Economics 74:90-99.

FIRMS Fisheries Resources Monitoring System. (2005) Marine resources — Western
central Atlantic [F AO]. URL http://firms.fao.or2/firms/resource/1 1842/en

Gbetnekom, D. (2005) Deforestation in Cameroon: immediate causes and consequences.
Environment and Development Economics 10: 557-572.

Geist, H.J. & Lambin, ER (2002) Proximate causes and Underlying Driving Forces of
Tropical Deforestation. BioScience 52(2): 143-150.

Gibson, J. & Rozelle,S. (2003) Poverty and Access to Roads in Papua New Guinea.
Economic Development and Cultural Change 52(1): 159-185.

Gonzalez-Colindres, CO. (2006) Description and analysis of the white shrimp
(Litopenaeus schmitti) fisheries in Pearl Lagoon, Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua, with focus
on the gear selectivity in the artesanal fleets. pp. 15-22. The Norwegian College of
Fishery Science, University of Tromso. Norway.

Hostetler, M. (2000) In: Taking Care of What We Have: Participatory Natural Resource
Management on the Caribbean Coast of Nicaragua. Eds. Christie, P., Bradford, D.,Garth,
R., Gonzalez, 3., Hostetler, M., Morales, 0., Rigby, R., Simmons, 8., Tinkham, E.,
Vega, 6., Vernooy, R., and White, N. pp: 17-46. Ottawa, IDRC Books.

45

IREMADES Instituto de Recoursos Naturales, Medio Ambiente, y Desarollo Sostenible,
and URACCAN Universidad de las Regiones Autonomas de la Costa Caribe
Nicaragfiense. (2007) Diagnostico de las comunidades miskitu y afrodescendientes del
municipio de Pearl Lagoon, Region Autonoma del Atlantico Sur de Nicaragua.
Bluefields, Nicaragua

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature (2008). 2008 IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. URL www.iucnredlist.org

Jacoby, H.G. (2000) Access to Markets and the benefits of Rural Roads. The Economic
Journal 110: 713-737.

Jameson, S.C., Trott, L.B., Marshall, M.J. & Childress, M.J. (2000) Nicaragua:
Caribbean Coast. In: Seas at the Millennium: An environmental evaluation, ed. C.
Sheppard, vol. 1, pp. 517-530. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science.

Kramer, D., Urquhart, G., & Schmitt, K. (2009) Globalization and the Connection of
Remote Communities: A Review of Household Effects and Their Biodiversity
Implications. Ecological Economics — In revision

Kronen, M. (2004) Fishing for fortunes? A socio-economic assessment of Tonga’s
artisanal fisheries. Fisheries Research 70: 121-134.

Lambin, E.F., Geist, H.J. & Lepers,E. (2003) Dynamics of Land-Use and Land-Cover
Change in Tropical Regions. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 28: 205-241.

Leinbach, T. (2007) Rural Accessibility Decision Making. In: Making World
Development Work, eds. G. Leclerc and C.A.S. Hall, pp. 474-86. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.

Maki, S., Kalliola, R. & Vuorinen, K. (2001) Road construction in the Peruvian Amazon:
process, causes and consequences. Environmental Conservation 28(3): 199-214.

Ministerio de Salud, RAAS. 2006. Plan de Trabajo del Area de Evaluacion. Municipio
Karawala, Nicaragua.

46

Miyamoto, M. (2006) Forest conversion to rubber around Sumatran villages in Indonesia:
Comparing the impacts of road construction, transmigration projects and population.
Forest Policy 9: 1-12.

Nelson, G.C. & Hellerstein, D. (1997) Do Roads Cause Deforestation? Using Satellite
Images in Econometric Analysis of Land Use. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 79(1): 80-88.

Pfaff,A., Robalino,J.,Walker,R., Aldrich,S., Caldas,R., Reis,E., Perz,S., Bohrer,C.,
Arima,E., Laurance,W., & Kirby,K. (2007) Road Investments, Spatial Spillovers, and
Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Regional Science 47(1): 109-123.

R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL
http://www.R-Droiect.org.

Salas, S., Sumaila, U.R., & Pitcher,T. (2004) Short-term decisions of small-scale fishers

selecting alternative target species: a choice model. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 61(3): 374-383.

Shriar, A.J. (2006) Regional integration or disintegration? Recent road improvements in
Petén, Guatemala: A review of preliminary economic, agricultural, and environmental
impacts. Geoforum 37: 104-112.

Sollis, P. (1989) The Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua: Development and Autonomy. Journal
of Latin American Studies 21(3): 481-520.

Uchida, H. & Nelson, A. (2009) Agglomeration Index: Towards a New Measure of

Urban Concentration. Background paper for the World Bank’s World Development
Report 2009.

Wagner, H.G. (1986) The supra-regional and regional impact of major road-building
projects in West African countries. Applied geography and development 27: 39-59.

Weaver, P.L., Lombardo, D.M. & Martinez-Sanchez, J .C. (2003) Biodiversity and
Tropical Forest Conservation, Protection and Management in Nicaragua: Assessment and
Recommendations. USAID/Nicaragua with USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.

47

Xu, J., Fox, J., Melick, D., Fujita, Y., Jintrawet, A., Jie, Q., Thomas, D., &
Weyerhaeuser, H. (2006) Land Use Transition, Livelihoods, and Environmental Services

in Montane Mainland Southeast Asia. Mountain Research and Development 26(3): 278-
284.

48

CHAPTER 2
ROAD ACCESS, EMPLOYMENT DIVERSIFICATION, AND

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE ON NICARAGUA’S ATLANTIC COAST

Summary
Increasing market access (decreasing remoteness) is often associated with a

greater availability of non-farm employment, and hence, a change in environmental
resource use. However, the full effects of employment diversification on the
environment are often unclear. We examine the effects of recent road development on
household employment among remote communities in Nicaragua, and explore how
employment diversification may act as an indirect driver of environmental change. We
conducted household surveys on employment, land cultivation, and fishing investments
in six communities over a two year period following the completion of a new road in
2007. Changes observed with increasing spatial access (proxied by distance to road) and
temporal access (between 2007 - 2008) include household diversification into sales, wage
work and remittances, and shifts away from farming and fishing. While changes suggest
a possible decrease in resource-extractive activity, we suggest factors such as migration
to the area, consolidation of resource based employment, and the re-investrnent of income .
into resource-extractive activities will add complexity to these outcomes in future studies

of the region.

49

Introduction

Connecting remote communities to larger urban areas affects existing local
natural resources through both direct and indirect mechanisms. Many relevant direct
effects have been studied (1). Indirect mechanisms are varied and include changing
socioeconomic conditions that influence how human communities interact with local
natural resources (2). Improved road access is associated with the ability of rural
households to diversify their incomes into non-farm activities (3, 4). An increase in non-
farm opportunities is often seen as instrumental in reducing forest clearing in rural areas.
It is frequently unclear however whether these employment shifts ultimately result in
positive or negative local environmental outcomes. The type of off-farm labor available,
the manner in which income earned from off-farm labor is invested, and a variety of
contextual factors such as governance, access to credit, education, and wealth all
influence environmental outcomes. In rural communities where non-farm resource
intensive occupations are common (ie. fishing) the effects of income diversification are
less studied and may exhibit different patterns.

As communities around the world become more connected to global markets (5),
understanding the complex relationships between socioeconomic and ecological change
will become increasingly important. In areas where road building is being undertaken for
development purposes, monitoring long term changes in employment is necessary to help
clarify the relationships between decreasing remoteness, livelihood and employment

opportunities, and environmental impact.

Employment and the environment

50

Past work on employment diversification in Nicaragua has shown that access to
infrastructure can play a key role in making non-farm labor available for rural residents
(6). The ability for a household to diversify income sources may be strongly influenced
by certain contextual factors, for example identification with a specific social group (7) or
initial wealth/capital (6). Diversification is associated both with improved economic
conditions and with risk management during less favorable economic conditions (7, 8).

Information on how employment diversification affects natural resources is often
conflicting, and remains relatively unstudied in Nicaragua. Elsewhere in Latin America,
participation in off-farm labor and availability of migrant work has led to reduced land
cultivation and forest re-growth (9, 10). In other cases however, migrant remittances have
been invested back into environmentally harmful activities such as shrimp farming (11)
or into extractive equipment, such as motorized boats (12). Wages earned from off-farm
labor may also be re-invested into the purchase of additional agricultural land (l3, 14).
Among fishing communities in Honduras the increased availability of lobster diving
employment resulted in an environmental ‘tradeoff’, increasing lobster exploitation but
decreasing forest clearance (15). Employment diversification may have different
environmental outcomes depending on whether it takes place in farming or fishing
communities.

The intent of this study was to explain the preliminary effects of infrastructure
connection on household employment among remote communities in Nicaragua, and to
explore how employment diversification may act as an indirect driver of environmental
change. We monitored the rapidity of employment changes after approximately 1.5 years

of road access along a gradient of communities with different degrees of road access. We

51

examined whether job diversity and the receipt of remittances were linked to drivers of
environmental change, as measured by land cultivation and fishing gear accumulation,
and we discuss potential environmental consequences of employment changes. Data
presented here were used primarily to identify initial trends denoting meaningful research
directions for a long term study monitoring socioeconomic variables (including

employment shifts) and environmental change on Nicaragua’s Atlantic coast.

Study area

The Atlantic coast of Nicaragua provides an ideal setting to examine the
relationship between road building, employment, and potential environmental impacts.
Recent infrastructure development, the environmental significance of the region, limited
employment opportunities, and its historical isolation from major urban centers all
contribute to its relevance.

The area known as the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua encompasses about 50% of
the land area of Nicaragua, spanning from the central mountain regions east to the
Caribbean Sea (16). The Atlantic region is rich in natural resources and includes varied
terrestrial ecosystems (mangroves, pine savannahs, tropical lowland rainforest), and
marine ecosystems (lagoons/estuaries, reefs, turtlegrass flats) all of which contribute to
the regions relatively high biodiversity (17). These ecosystems are commercially as well
as ecologically important, with marine ecosystems housing fish, shrimp and spiny lobster
(Panulirus argus), that contribute to the local economy. Due in part to the historical

isolation of the towns located along this coast, many of these ecosystems are still present,

52

although anecdotal information about declining fish and wild animal populations is
prevalent (18).

In addition to geographical barriers, the eastern and western parts of Nicaragua
are culturally distinct with most indigenous and English-speaking Creole communities
located on the Atlantic coast, and the majority Spanish-speaking ‘Mestizo’ populations
controlling Nicaragua’s central government in the West (16). There are currently six
principle ethnic groups that populate the Atlantic including the Miskitu, Sumu, Rama,
Garifiina, Creole and Mestizo. Since 1987, an Autonomy Statute has allowed for
increased political participation of Indigenous and Creole people and has divided the
Atlantic coast into two semi-autonomous regions, the Region Auténoma Atlantica del
Norte or RAAN, and the Region Autonoma Atlantica del Sur or RAAS. This has also led
to some substantial re-organization of the governance structure in these areas.

This study focuses on a subset of communities within the Pearl Lagoon and the
Desembocadura de la Cruz de RioGrande municipalities (both located within the RAAS),
which vary in distance from a recently constructed road running fi'om the riverport city of
el Rama to the town of Pearl Lagoon (Figure 2.1). This segment of the highway that
connects Pearl Lagoon to Managua was begun in 2005 and completed during the fall of
2007, while the majority of the road became passable during the 2007 dry season
(J anuary-April, 2007). Future road development projects and the construction of a deep
water port are planned in the region.

Employment on the Atlantic coast has historically been limited to fishing,
farming, and small scale service industry and wage work (e. g. baking, construction,

tourism). This economy has recently seen a large influx of money due to remittances

53

from family members working on cruise ships and for tourist establishments. Road
development itself may bring new employment in the form of increased tourism, fisheries
transport/vending, and additional service work. Shifting employment patterns may play

an important role in how local natural resources are maintained.

Methods
Community selection and sampling

This study examines preliminary trends in employment, cultivation, and fishing
gear investments amongst six communities on the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua over a 1.5
year period spanning completion of a new road. The selected communities fall along a
continuum of road access (Table 2.1); Pearl Lagoon, Haulover and Raitipura/Awas were
newly connected by road to the capital city of Managua during the time period of the
study. Orinoco and Karawala/Bar del Rio Grande are located approximately 24km and 86
km respectively to the north of the new road; travel among these communities is
conducted by boat along the coast (Figure 2.1).

Data was collected during two field seasons; the first data collection period
occurred June - August of 2007, before road completion into Pearl Lagoon. The second
collection period occurred May - August of 2008, after the road had been fully in place in
Pearl Lagoon for about 8 months. The communities of Orinoco and Bar del Rio Grande
were visited only in 2008. Communities were selected for similarities in size and in
economic activity, as well as varying distances to new road access.

Household surveys were used to assess household income-earning activities,

relative wealth, and fishing and farming investments among communities. Survey

54

respondents were asked to rank household income-eaming activities from most to least
important; these activities were then characterized by the interviewers as one of the
following categories: fishing, farming, sales (self employed), wage labor (paid hourly),
professional (salaried), remittance income, or other income source. Although many
studies on employment distinguish only between farm labor, off-farm agricultural labor,
and non-farm labor, we were interested in a broader category of employment and natural
resources, and therefore specifically included additional activities.

In order to describe general employment trends, an overall ranking was assigned
to each income source for the household ranging from zero (i.e. household not engaged in
that activity) to five (i.e. most important income source for the household). Rankings
were adjusted for the overall diversity of income sources within the household, under the
assumption that for a household with one income source, that source would be more
important than to a house with multiple sources of revenue even when ranked first. For
example, a household might rank fishing =5, farming =4, and sales =3 as their sources of
income. Each ranking would be divided by the sum of all rankings (5+4+3=12), resulting
in a final rank of fishing = 0.41, farming = 0.33, sales = 0.25. We also collected data on
environmentally relevant activities within a household, including the amount and
intensity of land cultivation, and fishing gear ownership.

Depending on the community, either random sampling or systematic sampling
was employed. For communities with an available list of adult residents interviewees
were randomly selected using a list of residents obtained from a 2006 community
socioeconomic study (20). Selected respondents were not interviewed if they were not

living in Pearl Lagoon, if they were in the same household as another selected survey

55

respondent, or if after repeated attempts the person was not found. For communities with
no available list of residents a systematic sampling scheme was used; surveys were
conducted with every nth house (2“, 3“) determined by dividing the number of
households in a community by the desired number of surveys (21). The number of
surveys per community ranged from 10 to 61, depending largely on the population of the
community; a minimum of ten percent of households were surveyed in each community.

In order to capture variation between years as opposed to variation among
households within a community, the same houses were interviewed in 2007 and 2008.
Surveys were administered by the lead author and two trained research assistant from the
coastal communities. Surveys were developed and pre-tested during the 2007 field
season, and the survey for 2008 was revised some. In total, 144 households were

surveyed in 2007 and 204 in 2008.

Analysis

We examined the variation in job diversity among households using a general
linear model; all analyses were conducted with R statistical software (22). Distance to
road as a proxy for road access was our principle predictor of job diversity after first
accounting for the total number of residents in a household. We also examined the effect
of wealth on job diversity since wealth has been found to be important in overcoming
entry barriers, allowing families to diversify (6). Though several other factors could
potentially affect job diversity, we limited our analysis to observe the specific affects of
access and wealth. Job diversity was based on the number of different income sources for

a household as categorized into predetermined categories by the interviewer. Since most

56

households found it difficult to estimate yearly income, wealth was measured using a
simple material style of life (MSL) index (23), calculated by recording particular
possessions within a household (gas stove, radio, cell phone) and adjusting for the
percentage of people who owned these items within the entire Pearl Lagoon basin (20).
We also used a linear model to examine individual household gains/losses in job diversity
between 2007 and 2008 and its relationship to road proximity.

In order to describe overall community employment trends, we used linear models
to examine the ranked importance of each income source (adjusted for jobs within a
household) and its relationship to road proximity. We chose to use community as the
level of analysis in this case because income sources (and therefore ranked importance)
vary widely between individual households. A linear model was considered effective for
the purpose of describing trends, however since the adjusted rank of income importance
is somewhat ordinal, we performed Spearrnan rank correlation tests as well. These tests
revealed the same trends as our regression analyses, so only the regression results are
described.

Past studies suggest that employment diversification may lessen the labor that can
be dedicated towards clearing and cultivating land (10). We therefore used linear models
to test the relationship between job diversity and the amount of farmland owned, amount
of land in cultivation, and the ratio of cultivated land to total land among farmers in 2008.
Extent of cultivation can be used as a proxy for forest clearance, while ratio of cultivated
to owned land can indicate the intensity of agricultural efforts and length of fallow
cycles, affecting environmental indicators such as soil nutrient balance (24). In addition

we tested the relationship between fishing gear owned (total gear and specific types of

57

gear) and job diversity. Increased gear investments can signify an increase in fishing
effort, which may decrease species yields relative to abundance. A shift in gear
possession may shift effort from one species to another with potential consequences for
individual species (25). We also used a linear model to examine whether the importance
of remittance income was linked to gear ownership and land cultivation, since remittance
income has been associated with investments in farming and fishing (13 — see Appendix

D for a list of all models used).

Results

As was expected, household job diversity was positively related to road access (as
proxied by distance to road) in both 2007 and 2008, after first accounting for the number
of people living in a household (6.9 people per household in 2007, 6.8 in 2008). An
increase in 1 km distance from the road resulted in 0.006 fewer types of income sources
per household in both 2007 and 2008. However, only 11% of the variation in job
diversity was explained by our model in 2007 and 12% in 2008 (Table 2.2). Household
wealth (as measured by MSL score) was non significant in describing job diversity in our
linear model for 2008. Wealth exhibited a non-linear relationship with job diversity,
increasing until four income sources and then decreasing (Figure 2.2). There was also an
increase in job diversity per household from 2007 to 2008, with noticeably more sources
of income per household in 2008 than in 2007 (intercept = 1.80 i 0.19 in 2008, 1.55 :1:
0.18 in 2007).

Though road access contributed to job diversity, it had no relationship to whether

a household gained or lost income sources between 2007 and 2008 (R2<0.001, t = -0.16,

58

p=0.87). However, there were patterns in the types of employment that were associated
with gains versus losses in household job diversity between each year of the study.
Households that lost or retained the same number of jobs from 2007 to 2008 generally
assigned an increase in the importance of farming and sales labor to their income during
those same years (Figure 2.3). Households that increased their job diversity between
2007 and 2008 assigned increased importance to remittances, sales and wage labor. In
addition, households that diversified jobs saw a decrease in the importance of natural
resource based employment overall, i.e. fishing and farming. Fishing decreased in
importance markedly among families that lost jobs, and moderately amongst families that
gained jobs.

Looking at the continuum of coastal communities demonstrates further trends in
road access and employment type. In our study communities, the mean (by community)
ranked importance of farming decreases with proximity to road (R2 = 0.77, t = 3.66, p =
0.02 — Figure 2.4) whereas the mean importance of remittance employment shows an
opposite (and only moderately significant) trend (R2 = 0.46, t = -1.86, p = 0.14), as does
sales work (R2 = 0.52, t = -2.1, p = 0.1). The ranked importance of fishing shows no
consistent trend with distance (R2 = 0.1, t = 0.7, p = 0.53). With increasing access,
options for alternative income sources may arise that families will preferentially choose

in lieu of farming or as a supplement to farming income.
Environmental indicators

Within-household job diversity in 2008 did not significantly influence the amount

of land owned (R2=0.001, t=0.33, p=0.74), the amount of land in cultivation (R2=0.006,

59

t=0.67, p=0.5), or the ratio of land in cultivation to land owned (R2<0.001, t=0.07,
p=0.95) amongst farming families. Job diversification also did not affect the amount of
total fishing gear owned, or the amount of specific gear types (e. g., Total gear: R2 =0.001,
t=0.49, p= 0.62). Whether a household was earning income from remittances had no
effect on total land ownership, the ratio of cultivated to owned land, or the amount of
fishing gear owned. The receipt of remittances did have a slight positive effect on the
amount of land cultivated by a household, however it explained little of the variation in

land cultivated (R2=0.09, t=2.87, p=0.005).

Discussion

Observed patterns in job diversity and ranked job importance among our study
communities followed expected patterns with increasing road access in two ways: (i)
Opportunities for families to diversify into non-farm employment became more apparent,
and (ii) and a shift away from farm labor was seen (6, 26). F eedbacks between non-farm
income sources and environmental outcomes (land clearance, cultivation intensity, and
gear investment) are not yet clear and warrant continued long-term study as access
increases on the coast.

Among our study communities in coastal Nicaragua, job diversity increased with
proximity to the road in both 2007 and 2008. For all study communities, proximity to
road also paralleled proximity to Bluefields, the largest town in the RAAS located about
50km south of Pearl Lagoon by waterway. Both the road and Bluefields may contribute
to higher job diversity through increased commerce and access to non-local employers

(ie. recruiters from abroad) or business partners. Job diversity also increased from 2007

60

to 2008 among all towns. Given that study communities both near and far from the road
saw comparable increases in job diversity in 2008, regional factors leading to
diversification are likely. For example, high food prices in 2008 increased financial
stress on many households and may have induced some families to seek additional
sources of income as a risk-management strategy (8). At the same time however, we may
be seeing strategic diversification due to opportunities provided by the road, including
easier avenues for buying and selling goods. This may translate into more local
entrepreneurial opportunities in sales and more profit in retail. Although currently
difficult to separate, it is possible that both necessity and opportunism are driving job
diversification depending on the particular community or household. The non-linear
relationship between job diversity and wealth may be an indication of this; wealth
increased with job diversity up to a point, but some of the poorest households in the area
also had the most varied incomes (e. g., Figure 2.2).

Proximity to road was not a determinant of whether an individual household
gained or lost income sources between 2007 and 2008. Among households that
diversified, relative importance of employment shifted from natural resource-based jobs
to sales income, remittances, and wage employment (e.g., Figure 2.3). Shifts away from
farming could be due to the low revenue, slow returns, and difficult labor associated with
farming when compared to other local employment options (18). Although fishing has
more immediate returns, increasing scarcity of certain species and frequent gear theft
may have contributed to a shift of some households away from fishing employment.
Those who lost income sources between both years of the study seemed to retain farming

and sales employment as their main sources of income, suggesting that farming played an

61

important role in coastal employment and in offsetting risks involved with losing other
income sources.

The importance to income of remittances and sales employment increased with
road access both temporally (between 2007 and 2008) and spatially (with proximity to
road). The importance of agriculture to income decreased with proximity to road (e. g.,
Figure 2.4), which echoes observed temporal changes. Fishing importance showed no
meaningful trend with distance, perhaps because high returns from fishing may provide
less of an incentive to diversify income, even if road access provides additional

employment opportunities.

Distance to road only explained 11% of the variation in household job diversity,
and in communities located near to one another the importance attributed to different
income sources was very variable. For example, remittance income was ranked over
twice as important for the community of Pearl Lagoon when compared to the neighboring
community of Haulover (H=0. 1 , PL=0.25). Road proximity only explained 46% of the
variation in mean importance of remittance income among the study communities.
Though we examined the effects of ethnicity on changes in household job diversity,
meaningful relationships have not yet emerged. Clearly there are other variables that are
needed to thoroughly examine employment trends. Specifically, we recommend future
analyses should include such measures as access to education, access to credit, and

physical geography (ie. proximity to shrimp fishing grounds).

Resource use implications

62

No relationship was observed between job diversification and investments in
fishing gear or farm ownership and cultivation. This contrasts with the expectation that
increasing off-farm employment would decrease the labor available for cultivation.
Household receipt of remittances had no meaningful effect on farmland investments. In
spite of examples from previous studies noting household investment of remittance
income into fishing equipment (12), we found no relationship between the receipt of
remittances and amount of fishing gear owned, even though investment in gear
(motorized boats, more gill nets) can be used as a local strategy to increase catch and
income. More targeted studies looking specifically at remittance income and where it is
invested may clarify this issue.

Although roads are often associated with providing avenues for agricultural
expansion into previously remote areas (27), we did not see any evidence of agricultural
expansion from within the coastal communities. In fact farming became less important
with increasing access. The potential for agricultural expansion with road-building may
be counteracted in coastal Nicaragua by the ability of families to diversify their income
sources and seek off-farm employment. However, diversification has not yet produced a
corresponding decrease in farming effort as proxied by land cultivation. Rather than
eliminating farm laborers, households may be having an unemployed member of the
household utilize alternative income sources that become available. Alternatively, 1.5
years post-road development may be too little time to see meaningful feedbacks between
job diversification and fishing and farming investments. Households may be risk averse,

and therefore reluctant to immediately invest or disinvest in gear or land conversion

63

without other forms of support, for example access to credit or assurance that new
income sources are relatively stable.

Increasing road access and subsequent income diversification may lead to shifts
away from strictly natural resource based employment, such as fishing and farming. At
first glance this would appear to have obvious positive effects on local fisheries and
lessen rainforest clearing. However the full implications are still ambiguous.
Employment could shift away from fishing or farming among local households, but could
open opportunities for migrants to extract fisheries goods and clear farmland. Both of
these issues are currently considered to be serious threats in the Pearl Lagoon basin, as
the ‘agricultural frontier’ advances from the West, and local fishers complain of outsiders
using what have historically been community fishing grounds (18). In addition, both
agriculture and fisheries have the potential to become more consolidated; fewer
households may earn a living from farming, but could be using more intensive methods
on larger tracts of land. In the fisheries sector, effort could become concentrated among
those with more expensive gear allowing for more efficient extraction, especially as
fisheries resources continue to decline.

After only two years of road development in remote coastal areas of Nicaragua,
we have identified changing patterns of employment affected in part by increased market
access. While observed diversification into sales, remittance and wage income suggest a
possible decrease in resource-extractive activity, migration to the area, consolidation of
resource based employment and the re-investrnent of income into resource-extractive

activities may lead to more complex outcomes. Future analysis will be required to

64

disentangle these feedbacks and to realize the full effects of decreasing remoteness on

natural resource use in this area.

65

 

 

8%: 32a: .85 835 8 8.8 v. usage
88 286 68$ 3:22 8 :8 m 885 2m 8 .3
883 83:8 8C 8 Co 88:0
C88: 3322 5 8.. E $338.83
883 286 8C. 8 .E 883 :3;
88C 286 EN 8 m 88:5:
8555...... 8.2.88: 88 45: 83. 822.55.? E5555
255939 .«c “x 3 eon—3m:—

Comds 3:06:88“ C833 .3 moEoEEo

28588 was Koom =& C0 we 38 383.880 have 05 8 oogmmw mazes—2: $035888 .858 C0 839639 .—.N 033—.

66

 

 

2d Sodv 38¢ 09;.” $on
mmd 34 mm; mm; 8 £183 alum—om
mood 3d Saw $.w ~ 38 89c 85880
:5? 3.2 3.: 8.: 8 2238; s 288 .8 .382
33
fl. fio Sodv :uw am H .N .362
Sodv m.§ 3.x 3.x 8 38 80¢ 883me
Rod 3 .m $.m $6 H 22395: 8 Bacon mo 588:2
33
NM 2...; m b m2 mm mn— 3.5.5

.woom was room 8 20:88: Ba. >38ch 92. 05 33888 828088 8383 .N.~ 03ah

67

8:88:88 32% mo 9&2 ._.N 08H.”—

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

  

68

 

\ .8 f,
..... (f, \ \IL: g
a ,_, \_\ .\ I r I x! H. x n -
xi 6 J a. ‘
mEocoim . \\ ‘ \x.
. 8:38.58?“ \ .\\\
I . i\\‘1.\,.\ A
H T W
x \. .z [a
895—85 \\
.6 a, ,Q/ V 8
.LN «a ., m
f. A
\ .8 ,..\ x x m
\ \»l\l\\ /;/,il\\....\) fi/
V \.. ‘ _ x!“
p .\ (\vl% \\|11\ l//. N /f\
\x .,,/r - .., /
a w ,/
C J.
VI
3&3982 \\
,.\\
Rom 262 I 8
$53— 13!! Ni
38:38:80 83m 0 K
. . 7 a w
.fJ, (Ivy \.// IIIIII I ¢{\ \
x . ,8
v .
N» n. \
£880 .5— 5. 8m 0 I a. \ \x
3&gfihg A15 \ .Mln.if; Jilytrnjfzs/ \X3..l,i .1 L
M .6 .\ _\\{\
is o \u ‘_ /
x \W), (Wm. \.\\ “I .(J
, ”.4 .x \ _

 

 

 

Average wealth score (MSL)
h—O—fl

 

0 l 2 3 4 5 6
Diversity of household income sources

Figure 2.2. Household wealth increased as households added up to four income

sources.

69

 

 

I Households losing/rctainingjobs

‘ Z Households gainingjobs

 

Difference in ranked importance
from 2007-2008

 

 

-O.15 ~
F'Bhing Farming Remittance Sales Wage Professional

Employment category
Figure 2.3. Change in the importance of income sources between 2007 and 2008.
The vertical axis represents the difference in magnitude of ranked importance ofeach
job to overall household income from 2007 to 2008. The bars represent households
that lost or maintained job diversity from 2007-2008 versus those that gained jobs in

the same time period.

70

 

 

0.4

 

t O Fanning l 4*
0.35 l E] Remittancer K t y
R2 0 77 /”’3 B
03 _ T / l
:T . *
025 jg PL ‘01- *
-0 WA
0 2 ’ // 1
Cf]

 
   

Average rank ofjob importance

R2 = 0.46

0 10 20 3O 40 50 60 7O 80 90 100
Distance to market outlet (km)
Figure 2.4. The ranked importance by community of farming and remittance income
showed opposite relationships with increasing market access in 2008. The importance
of farming to income increased with distance to market, and the importance of

remittances decreased with distance. See Table 2.1 for the communities represented.

71

References

l. Forman, R.T.T. and Alexander, LE. 1998. Roads and Their Major Ecological
Effects. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Svst. 29, 207-231.

2. Kramer, D., Urquhart, G. and Schmitt, K. 2009 Globalization and the Connection
of Remote Communities: A Review of Household Effects and Their Biodiversity
Implications. Ecological Economics - in revision

3. Rigg, J .D. 2006. Forests, Marketization, Livelihoods and the Poor in the Lao PDR.
Land Degradation and Development 17, 123-133.

4. Leinbach, T. 2007. Rural Accessibility Decision Making. In: Making World
Development Work. G. Leclerc and C.A.S. Hall (eds). University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque, pp. 474-86.

5. Uchida, H. and Nelson, A. 2009. Agglomeration Index: Towards a New Measure of
Urban Concentration. Background paper for the World Bank’s World Development
Report 2009.

6. Corral, L. and Reardon, T. 2001. Rural Nonfarm Incomes in Nicaragua. World
Development 29(3), 427-442.

7. Ellis, F. 1998. Household Strategies and Rural Livelihood Diversification. Journal
of Development Studies 35(1), 1-38.

8. Reardon T., Berdegué, J ., Barrett, GB. and Stamoulis, K. 2007. Household Income
Diversification into Rural Nonfarm Activities. In: Transforming the Rural Nonfarm
Economy: Opportunities and Threats in the Developing World. Haggblade, S., Hazell,
P.B.R., and Reardon, T. (eds). The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

9. Klooster, D. 2003. Forest Transitions in Mexico: Institutions and Forests in a
Globalized Countryside. The Professional Geographer 55(2), 227-23 7.

10. Gray, C.L., Bilsborrow, R.E., Bremner, J.L. and Lu, F. 2008. Indigenous Land
Use in the Ecuadorian Amazon: A Cross-cultural and Multilivel Analysis. Human
Ecology 36, 97-109.

72

l l. Adger, W. N., Kelly, P. M., Winkels, A., Huy L. Q. and Locke.C. 2002.
Migration, remittances, livelihood trajectories, and social resilience. Ambio 31 . 358-
366

12. Kronen, M. 2004. Fishing for fortunes? A socio-economic assessment of Tonga‘s
artisanal fisheries. Fisheries Research 70, 121-134.

13. Mulley B.G. and Unruh, J .D. 2004. The role of off-farm employment in tropical
forest conservation: labor, migration and smallholder attitudes toward land in western
Uganda. Journal of Environmental Management 71, 193-205.

14. Eder, J .F. 2006. Land Use and Economic Change in the Post-Frontier Upland
Philippines. Land Degrad. Develop. 17, 149-158.

15. Dodds, DJ. 1998. Lobster in the Rain Forest: The Political Ecology of Miskito
Wage Labor and Agricultural Deforestation. Journal of Political Ecology 5, 83-108.

16. Sollis, P. 1989. The Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua: Development and Autonomy.
Journal of Latin American Studies 21(3), 481-520.

17. Weaver, P.L., Lombardo, D.M. and Martinez-Sanchez, J.C. 2003. Biodiversity
and Tropical Forest Conservation, Protection and Management in Nicaragua:
Assessment and Recommendations. USAID/Nicaragua with USDA Foreign
Agricultural Service.

18. Hostetler, M. 2000. In: Taking Care of What We Have: Participatory Natural
Resource Management on the Caribbean Coast of Nicaragua. Christie, P., Bradford.
D., Garth, R., Gonzalez, 8., Hostetler, M., Morales, 0., Rigby, R., Simmons. B.,
Tinkham, E., Vega, G., Vernooy, R., and White, N. (eds) Ottawa, IDRC Books, pp
l7-46. ‘

19. Ministerio de Salud, RAAS. 2006. Plan de Trabajo del Area de Evaluacion.
Municipio Karawala, Nicaragua.

20. IREMADES Instituto de Recoursos Naturales, Medio Ambiente, y Desarollo
Sostenible, and URACCAN Universidad de las Regiones Auténomas de la Costa
Caribe Nicaragiiense. 2007. Diagnostico de las comunidades miskitu y
afrodescendientes del municipio de Pearl Lagoon, Region Autonoma del Atlantico
Sur de Nicaragua. Bluefields, Nicaragua

73

21. Cinner, J. 2005. Socioeconomic factors influencing customary marine tenure in
the Indo-Pacific. Ecology and Society 10(1), 36.

22. R Development Core Team 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. (http://www.R-

projectorg)

23. Hamilton, S., DeWalt, BR. and Barkin, D. 2003. Household Welfare in Four
Rural Mexican Communities: The Economic and Social Dynamics of Surviving
National Crises. Mexican Studies 19(2) 433-462.

24. Wagner, H.G. .1986. The supra-regional and regional impact of major road-
building projects in West African countries. Applied geography and development 27,
39-59.

25. Mangi, SC, and Roberts, GM. 2006. Quantifying the environmental impacts of
artisanal fishing gear on Kenya’s coral reef ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin
52, 1646-1660.

26. Hazell, P.B.R., Haggblade, S. and Reardon,T. 2007. Structural Transformation of
the Rural Nonfarm Economy. In: Transforming the Rural Nonfarm Economy:
Opportunities and Threats in the Developing World. Haggblade, S., Hazell, P.B.R.,
and Reardon, T. (eds). The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

27. Pfaff,A., Robalino,J.,Walker,R., Aldrich,S., Caldas,R., Reis,E., Perz,S., Bohrer,C.
et al. 2007. Road Investments, Spatial Spillovers, and Deforestation in the Brazilian
Amazon. Journal of Regional Science 47(1), 109-123.

74

Appendix A: 2008 Community Household Survey
Survey of the Economy and Natural Resources of Coastal Communities:

ID # Surveyor initials Date: Head of
household: QM LLF

 

l. a. Name (optional) b. Age
c. Gender d. Ethnicity e. Education level

 

 

 

2. In which community do you live?
3. How many years have you lived (in the community)?

4a. How many people live in your household?

4b. Has anyone left your household in the last year? :yes ( l) Tino (0)
4c. If yes, when did they leave and why?

 

4d. Education level of the person (people) who is no longer living in the house?

 

4e. What are the effects on the household of this person leaving?

5. Right now how does your household have money coming in? Can you please put
these in order by importance (show laminated cards):

 

Occupation Type Does your household
(construction, earn more or less
baked goods, from this compared

 

 

 

 

 

etc) to last year? M=1,
L=2

a. Fishing
b. Farming
c. Selling products (ie. pulperia,

baking)
d. Wage labor (ie. construction)
e. Domestic work (ie. Cooking,

washing, cleaning)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f. Professional Salary (ie. Office,
teacher. nurse)

g. Tourism services (ie. hotels)

h. Transportation work

i. Money from family

J-

Other

 

If fishing is ranked, go to fisher survey (question 35).

6. Do you have a farm? 2 yes ( l) Tno (0) [If yes go to farmer survey (question
43)]

75

7. How many times did you travel to each place in the last year?

 

 

 

a. Bluefields How long did this take?
b. Kukra Hill How long did this take?
c. Managua How long did this take?
d. Other:

 

8. Do you think the local control of natural resources has increased, decreased or
stayed the same in the last year? :increased (2) ‘_;stayed same (1) jdecreased (0)

9a. Has your family income increased, decreased or stayed the same from 1 year ago?
: Increased (2)

:1 Stayed same (1 )

.7 Decreased (0,)

9b. If it has increased/decreased, why?

10. In your household, can you put in order which thing you spend the most on,
second most, third most, etc?

 

 

 

 

 

a. Food e. Clothing

b. Transportation f. Shelter

c. Energy (electricity, charcoal, propane) g. Other:

d. Education expenses

1 la. Does your household have a radio? # 1 1b. Propane cocina? #

11c. Cell phone? #

11d. If your household owns a cell phone, what do you use it for? ] Pleasure (0) 3
Business (1)
Description:

12a. How many times did you do unpaid work (community, friend) in the last
week?

12b. How many times did you share food with another household in the last week?

 

Strongly agree (4)
Strongly disagree (0)

Neutral (2)
Disagree ( I )

Agree (3)

 

16. Most of your food comes from local farmers and
fishers.

 

17. This year you bought more food (like vegetables)
that came from outside of the community.

 

 

18. This year you bought more packaged food (not from
farm) than last year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76

 

18b. Can you tell me the proportion of the food in your household that comes from
each of these sources?
Local % Outside % Packaged %

 

 

 

19. Travel has become easier in the last year. I

 

20. Travel has become cheaper in the last year.

 

21. You feel safe in Pearl Lagoon.

 

22. Most people in PL are basically honest and can be
trusted.

 

23. The strength of the community has increased in the
last year.

 

24. More people from out have moved to the community
in the last year.

 

25. Tourism has increased in the town in the last year.

 

26. Tourism is a good thiggfor the community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27. The road is a good thing for our community.

 

28. Are there any new families who have moved to town? Where can I find them?

29. Do you have any other comments about economics and natural resources in Pearl
Lagoon?

77

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A: :30. .050
3. .5 5 830882.038.

 

 

A. C :30. .050
6. .E 5 $3882.28“...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N. _ _ o. Am. 050.... E0.. £0055 Am... 050.... 50.. m.00:0> AC 3000.5
0. w n 2.. :5... A3 50.0 ..
. . . 530500000
0 w v .5023. 0.8. .0. £02.? 3004 2002.... vac. .0. 300...; :80.— AC .904 _ _ .9 530m _ _ .
m m _ AN. :30. E 0300... .3 :30. E 2003. Am. 0Emm _ _ Am. 25% _ _ 050:3 5mm
2 0 who; :0 0503‘ A 3 £00. :0 0.000.... 2 0 0.02 _ _ A: 3.03 _ _ mmflo «who. .0
At :30. .050 A, C :30. .050
6. a. 5 85882038. 6. .E 5 8.8882018.
m. _ _ o. 3. 0.0.0.... E0: 300...; .0 0.50m.— Eo... E0055
0 m . A... 52. 0.. so...
.0 w v .035... 000. .0. £09.? .0004 2002...... 000. .0. 800:? :80.— Am. 3.0.. . . AC .053. s. _
m m _ Hoflm Am. :30. 5 0.000... Amy :30. E 0503. Am. 0E5 _ _ 3... 080m _ _
momma . : £3 .5 2.8.... 21.8. .5 2.8.... 3 2. as: _ . 2. one; _ . .3 955m A.
E
:30. .050 C... :30. .050
30 .E E mad—0008320000 6. .E E 8.3000852009—
m_ _ _ 0. Am. 0503. E0... £0055 A3 0.50.... Eot m.00..0>
.. M. . .3 so... 3... So...
0 m v .0038. 2.0. .0. E0053 .804 2002.... .000. .0. 200:? .80.. .0 $0.. _ _ A9 .0309. s
m m _ a. 55. c. o..8< a. 55. a. 2.8.. 5 85am _. _ a. 2.5 _
:3... S 2.8.. S we. 8 2.8... 2. 2o: s. 3353 E .233 a
A......E.o.. wcooom .0m 5.... .mm 0.50» .8. $8» ”02.00.:
.2: .35 325 as 0. 50% .0. m_ 6.50.0
.2000 gnaw: .00 :55 2.5 05% 00.00500 some 2.8.00.5 30..
0220:. :3. :0» .32 6.0:. chofio .020 E .30 8on
5.23 00 55:. mac—0.8% 05 m_ mam: 000.0 5...
mezzo .3 30: .3. mom—0 0:05... 00. E05 :8 :0» 00 0:3 :0» 0.< Km .0: 0m :0» 00 .055 .mm

 

 

 

 

.080

am:

 

”mm.$<\m.=a_:mm\.o>o_:eIEoommn— to“... - 2.053.... 5sz

78

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AC :30. .050
A0. .7. E 00.300000E0EO0A.

 

 

AC :30. .050
A0. 4.. E 00.0000000503000.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N. . . 0. Am. 0.0.00“. E05 0.00:0> Am. 0....000 E0... 0.00:0>
A. w n A... E0... A... E0...
0 m w .0005... .000. .0.. 0.0.0:? .000. 20005.... 000. .0.. 0.00:0.» .80.. Am. 000.. _. . Am. .033. _ _
m m . Am. :30. E 0.000... AN. :30. E 0.000< AN. 0E0m _ _ Am. 0Emm _ _ l
A: 0.80. :0 0.000.... AC 000. :0 0.000< A: 0.03. 2 A... 00.03 _ _ AC .050 .w
A: :30. .050 E :38 .050
6. .E s 8.888538. 6. .r. 5 8.08.8838.
m. . . 0. Am. 0....000. E05 0.00:0> Am. 0500.. E0... 0.00:0>
A. w n A: .. E0... A 3 E0...
0 m 0.. .0005... 000.. .0. 0.00:0.» .000. 20:05.. 000.. .0.. 0.00:? .0001. Am. 000.. . _ Am. .0..0m . .
m m . AN. :30. E 0.003. AN. :30. E 0.000.... Am. 05% _ . Am. 0E0m _. _
E as. 8 282 S as. 8 2.8... 3 2oz : E as; _ _ G. 8.0 1. ..
A... 5.8. .050 E :33 .050
6. .5 5 8.888538. 6. 1.. 5 8.8880508.
m. .. 0. Am. 0....000. E0... 0.00:0> Am. 05.00.. E0... 0.00:0>
A. w n A... E0... A .0. E0...
0 m .0 ..0:0:0.. 000. .0.. 0.00:0.» .0001. 0.00.05... .000. .0.. 0.0.0:? .80.. Am. 000.. . _ Am. .0..0m _ .
m N . 0... ES. 5 283. 0... :39 a. 2.8... .0. 280 c .0. 280 _ a .
A... 0.30. :0 0.003. A: 0.00. :0 0...00< A: 0.0.). . _ A... 00.03 _ __ Am. :0cw0m l .0
E :30. .050 A: :30. .050
6. .r. E 8.888538. 6.. .E =. 8.888888.
N. . . o. Am. 0.0.000. E0... 0.00:0> Am. 0....000. E0... 0.00:0>
0 w n A... E0... A... E0... .
0 w v 0.00.05... .50. .0. 0.0.0:? .000. ..000:0.. .000. .0. 0.0.0:? .000; Am. 000‘. . _ Am. .050m. _ _ :0. 20.00.05: 0.000
m N . AN. :30. E 0.000< Am. :30. E 0.000... AN. 05% _ _ Am. 0E0m __ _ 9.0...
2.0.00. :0 0.0.004. A .. 0x00. :0 0.000... A. . 0.02 _. .. A C 00.03 . ._ 000.0 2.000% I .U

 

 

 

 

 

 

79

 

.200 .._

 

”0.0.0E .00m. .w

 

0.0: .000 .

 

0.0: .30.... .0

 

0E. wco. .0

 

08.. ___0 .o

 

0.0.... ..

 

0.00.. .0

 

 

0.00..
.00. .30E 30:

 

0.00..
0.... >=0E 30:

 

8. S2

 

A: 08..

 

Am. 280

 

Am. 0.0.).

 

 

 

0.00» .00. 0. 00.0..E00 0.00m w:.30:0.. 0... .0 .::0E0 0E00 0... .0 .000. .0.0E 0>0z 00.. on .N..

80

 

 

 

3V :EEEamcoo :30 _ w to; ~fiEsEEoo E 25.2335

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3: E538. 95.. Socco> AN: >.::=EE8 E 35%
2.; ~€==EE8 5:5 m.5::o> 2: 3:2: wEmmoooa 5 2:2 520000 I .fi

A8 cczaEzmcco :30 2 2 3.: “EcsEEoo E 2:3239:

AC r5928. 3:5: m5nco> .8 9:25:50 E 8.5%
«E b_::EEoo 5:5 :53“; 232:2: wEmmoooa 5 2:2 255:5 Id

3: :EEEsmcco :30 _ 2 AC EcsEEoo E 29.2335
.3 ton—2:: 3:5,. 25::o> A N: bEsEEoo E 3.5% 30.5
2; ..§:=EE8 5:5 m._o::o> 2 V 3:2: wEmmooEa .5 2:2 “00.. .550 lb

3: :EEEzmcco :30 _ _ cu azczEEoo E 2:223?—

Amv roam—5: .35: 25:55 A N: bEzEEco E 35%
A3 bEzEEoo 5:5 mac—E?» 2: 3:3: 9.3355 .5 2:2 mous> |.:

8:2: 30% 2:0» :25 :5: E2:

0: :3» 5:0 :03 8355 :0 5:5 so» :3 so: NEE: So» :0 “moE
8E: x::E .5» o: :osE o: m:::N::E on :osE C23: “:5 =: 28:3 2: E2: .5» me5
Bo: 2m Bo: dm »::E Bo: .3 >5: .3 $2: 25:5: :2 E2: :8 .5» 0: 0:3 .3 m of 2: 8:3 5:

 

8v mm“: _ __ 2: 0:5: _. E Am: 29:: $3» “:2 3 BSQEOU wEE..:: 2:: .5 E25: 2%: 2: 5 am:— d5E :53 .5» 5Q .03

 

E 5:8: 5 2.285:
AC :::_ Bo__::_-_ A: 55:88:02.2»: _:o_Eo:oC scan: :5» :0 0m: .5» on xwo_o::ooS:oEE:Uo 5:3 :3
3V ESEE: A: :::_ >6: ::o_o_ : :55: :5» 8w .5» 2: Bo: :3

25:: 25 :2 so» 3:: :62 >5: .3:
8V _:::EEoUC A: 8:35: m._::=EEoo 5 2:35 “5:2 25 2 .nm:
NEE: 2830: so: on 58E Bo: «32:: :5» :8 3:: .5» o: 2:10 m:::N::E ES: 25: :3

 

 

”2:0 u2:_:E 5335 :0. ”$5532: 5E3:

81

 

 

8. 5.55350 :30 . .3 35:55.00 E 2:=:.>.::.
.3 05:55: :5: m:o::0> .NV b.5555 E 5:27..
.3 5.5.5550 5:5 55:55 2 0 2:2: 5.9002: 5 2:2

Lop—HO .—

 

3: :o.:m53m50 :30 _ _ .m: b.5558 E 2:::.>.::.
.m. 25:52. :5: 55::0> .5 3:25:50 E .0055
2.: 5.5.5550 5:5 m:o::0> .3 2:2: 5.3002: 5 2:2

2:8 5.2 |.:

 

.8 5:915:50 :30 _ _ Am: 5.55500 E 225.35.
.3 50:52: :5: m:o::0> .N: 5.5.5550 E 550m
2; 3.5.5500 5:5 50:55 2: 2:2: 5.2002: 5 2:2

23:0 :00@ IA

 

.5. 5.55350 :30 _ . .9 5.55550 E 225.35.
3: 05:52: :5: m:o::0> 30 2.5.5550 E A55%
3; 3.55550 5:5 55::0> :0 2:2: 5.3002: 5 2:2

05:35.: I:

 

.5. 5.553550 :30 . _ .3 2.5.5500 E 2:::.>.::.
.C 50:55: :5: 25:55 .9 5.55550 E 0.05%
.3 ~£55550 5:5 m:.0::0> 2 0 2:2: wEmm002: 5 2:2

:50 ll:

 

3. 5.553550 :30 . _ .3 3.55500 E 225.35.
.3 25:55: :5: 25::0> .0 5.5.5550 E 85%
.3 3.505500 5:5 25:55 .3 2:2: 5.2002: 5 2:2

00.: [Jw

 

.8 :5.X:E=m:50 :30 . . Am: 2.55550 E 2:::.3::.
.3 555:: :5: 25::0> 8: 5.55550 E 35%
.3 2.5.5550 5:5 m5::0> .3252: 5.2002: 5 2:2

m::0m III:

 

 

 

 

 

 

3: 5.55350 :30 . . .3 3.55500 E 2:=:.>.::.
.9 05:55: :5: 25:55 .3 3.5.5550 E 0.05%
.3 3.55550 5:5 m:.0::0> . .0 252: 5.2002: 5 2:2

 

 

50:: E2: .0

 

 

* The following questions were included in the 2007 survey but excluded from
the 2008 survey:

What do you think is the most important thing happening around the community?
What is the second most important? Third most important? (Ifquestion is unclear,
what is a topic that many people are discussing or that many are concerned about).

 

a.__ Land demarcation g._ Road Construction
b: Sea products h. Job availability

c. _Safety i. :Tourism

d. _Immigration j. Health

e_ Education k. Other:

f.___ —Local government

Do you think these resources are better, worse, or the same compared to last year?

 

Better (3 ) Same (2) Worse (, 1) Don't Know (.0)

 

a. Sea products

 

b. drinking water

 

C. ocean water

 

d. forest

 

e. soil

 

 

 

 

f. wild animals

 

 

 

 

How do you expect each topic to be 10 years in the future (for your children)?

 

Better (3) Same (2) Worse (Q l ‘) DK (0)

 

a. access to education

 

b. access to health care

 

0. job opportunity

 

(1. health of natural resources

 

 

 

e. community safety

 

 

 

 

 

On a scale of 0 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree:

 

The road is a good thing for our community.

 

The community knew about the road.

 

 

 

The community has planned for the new road.

 

Will the road be paved with concrete? 2 yes ( 1) :no (0) Idk (3)
Will the road work all year? 3 yes (1) :no (0)

Have you travelled on the new road?

a. To Kukra Eyes (1) Inc (0)

b. To el Rama Eyes (1) Jno (0)

c. To Managua Eyes (1) Inc (0)

What changes have you noticed due to the road? When did you first notice changes?

83

Appendix B: Characteristics of artisanal fisheries in Atlantic coastal Nicaragua

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of fishers
Product Location fished Gear/Vessels Used Seasonality participating
Outside the lagoon, . Motorized boats
. near the Pearl Keys
Spmy lobster . . O Lobster traps Year-round except for
. (dlvmg) and . 50
Panullrus argus northeast ofthe (wood/wue mesh) or closed season.
keys (trapping) d1v1ng equ1pment
o Canoes (sail/oar or
. . . small motor).
Whrte shnmp . Ins1de lagoon, near . Han d-thrown cast Dry season 69
Penaeus schmmz shore nets Feb. - May
0 Some trawl nets.
5 Canoes (sail/oar or
. Seabob Just outside of the small motor). .
szhopenaeus la 00 near shore o Hand-thrown cast Aprll and October unknown
kroyeri g n, nets.
0 Some trawl nets.
Lagoon g111 fiSh . Variable according to
e.g., o Canoes (sad/oar or . . .
Centropomus spp small motor) specres, gill net
C noscion s ” Inside lagoon, some 0 Motorizedboats fishing is most 69
y Lo botesp p " near river mouths . Gill nets ' effective during the
surinamensis, 0 Hook and line ramy season, July-
. Nov.
Bagre marmus
Blue crab Inside lagoon, near .
- 31
Callinectes sapidus shore . Wire traps Year round
Outside lagoon,
Seafish (e “car ”‘6 Pea” Keys’ . Hook and line Cau ht main] durin
. .g. ofien caught while . g y g 23
yellowta1l, snapper) fishers are lobster 0 Long hne lobster season
fishing.
Green turtle Outside lagoon o Motonzed boats Open season, approx 8

C helom'a mydas

 

 

o Turtle nets

 

June - Sept.

 

 

84

 

 

Product

Main market
outlet(s)

Destination

Pertinent regulations for artisinal
users

 

Spiny lobster
Panulirus argus

0 Acopio's on Pearl
Keys

0 Export

0 Closed season from approximately
Mar lst to May 3lst.

0 Minimum size of 14 cm long or 602.
without head (Atlantic).

0 Maximum of 300 traps per artisinal
boat

 

White shrimp

0 Acopios in town
0 Vendors (local and
non-local) for road

0 Export
5 National urban
centers

0 No specified closed season for artisinal
fishers
0 Minimum size of 71-80 shrimp per lb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Penaeus schmitti export . Local 0 Trawling prohibited within lagoon
0 Local households/ consu tion 0 Minimum trawl net mesh size of 3/4 in.
businesses mp 0 Capture of larvae/juveniles prohibited.
Seabob . Locall based got?“ don - Export prohibited for dried product.
X iphopenaeus y ump 0 Trawl net restrictions (see above) also
. vendors o - Reg10nal urban
kroyerz centers apply
Lagoon gill fish . . 0 Minimum mesh size for gill nets of 4
e.g., 2322332333.“... WW in-
Centropomus spp., non-local) for road 0 National urban 0 Maximum of 10 nets per fisher, 120 m
Cynoscion spp., ex rt centers long per net
Lobotes . {Zeal household s/ 0 Local 5 Local restrictions on length of gill net
surinamensis, businesses consumption allowed, based on vessel type (range 600-
Bagre marinas 1000 yds of net).
0 Vendors for road . EXP? rt .
Blue crab transport 0 Natlonal/ reg1onal
Callinectes sapidus 0 Local households/ tranczfnters . None known
businesses .
consumptlon
Seafish (e . Aco io's on Pearl 0 Local 0 Length restriction on long line of under
ellowt ail, snf' ) Ke p consumption 25 nautical miles, only round hooks
y p per ys 0 Some export permitted
0 Local
Green turtle consumption 0 Closed season fiom March 1 - June 30
Chelom'a mydas . Local households 0 Regional urban (2006).
centers

 

 

 

 

 

85

Note: This chart is meant to represent some of the predominant artisanal fisheries on the
Atlantic coast of Nicaragua and their general characteristics, but is by no means
exhaustive. Coastal communities vary in their access to different fisheries and possession
of gears, but the products listed above can be and often are fished by the residents of all
six study communities. The column “% of fishers participating” refers to the percentage
of surveyed fishers who report engaging in each fishery in 2008.

References for Appendix B:

Christie, P. J. (1999) “In a Country without Forest, No Life is Good”: Participatory Action
Research in the Neo-Liberal Context of Nicaragua. Natural Resources and Environment, The
University of Michigan

Gonzalez-Colindres, CO. (2006) Description and analysis of the white shrimp (Litopenaeus
schmitti) fisheries in Pearl Lagoon, Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua, with focus on the gear selectivity
in the artesanal fleets. The Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromso.
Norway.

Jamieson, M. (2002) Ownership of Sea-Shrimp Production and Perceptions of Economic
Opportunity in a Nicaraguan Miskitu Village. Ethnology 41(3): 281-298

J oseph-Sequeira, KM. (2002) Development of Artisanal Fishery in Rama Cay community,
Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua. The Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromso.
Norway.

Ministerio de Fomento, Industria y Comercio. (2005) DRGN - AdPesca (Direccion General de

Recursos Naturales, Administracion Nacional de Pesca y Acuicultura). Legislacion en materia de
Pesca y Acuicultura. PASMA-DAN IDA, Managua Nicaragua.

86

23860 mi boumamxoaga 3 3:3 33 oo. 2m :83 mo 33. E .35: 023.858
553 «388 :mm 20:3 8% 8m in Sm 32.5 48?: 02.5 32003 2888.“ x organ—83‘. 222253: MOWOsz woom 33. a 80¢
:83 8a 825 12330th gov—.88 mswmcflz .5822an some 5 22:5 62:2: mo @633 Bob :83 mowfioiw 2: 8m mecca c822

 

 

82 532 he mooE ..
- - . :3 ._oo 8:3
N m e m N 59%:
- - N m w v «>330
- - 2 m2 2 2 88m
€0on “on S _ 3 mm NV “comma Hoe 953: nonmom
- A in“. 20.8850 $3
2 boo Hoe R zoomed so: 2 2 2 £28
boo Hoe - on boo .oa - aw Sosa Hop 2 n: E A. as. geomoaooov
xooam
35w; 2
8 No 3 2 2 some“. so: :95 5.5m 233
. 353:
ME .5 mm m Q 2.. :5on so: owfi data 823
mot—amfieo __mu 88.38393 floats:— tmEocoém sewed two.— 32—20 835...—

aswagz «sun—32 «swag—2

.£ .8.— muneuhco E 88...— wccu 52:72:...

mueew 323—32? 6:: 822—2.. 323 ._3 22:: 32a .35.:an ”U 56:09?

87

_.o u a 5 55:55.2 58553 555353 a 8855 .__

 

50.. 3 8535

5:3 5838.595

 

58 8 8535 38555.5
58 3 8535 85— own?
- L58 3 8535 85m
58 8 8535 m5nmfi
+ ...58 9 8535 w55m

mo 2:85 3 85:85 8555 5:35:80
A38: :5:
8585 85558.3 85:55 8 53556 92. .38: 38 .38: Em .35: .2205
.3595 8:30 5% 50 585
0585 85552 mo 853095 8 53:86 92. 5% mo 55:5 58,—.
2:85 855:8: mo 8538.5 .8 33:86 52. 855282528 525
+ *2:85 85:52 me 85:55 8 53.855 98. 855:8 .8555”—
8585 85:52 Mo 85:85 .8 33858 £2. 8:26 v5.5.5
50: 3 8535 woom
. - 82 85% no: a 8832:
t .+ 5183 025—8
. 38 o
....58 8 8536 #205320: 5 2558M 5 >6 9 _. woom
. .+ *58 3 8536 #25825; 5 2558a 3385: £2. boom 20525:
559.5 3835...; «5655::— 2555.» 3.3555 33.255 .8 5.5

N 5.55 5 32%—«5 .8.— 52. 3.252 5 552:?

88