 

, r... .

 

 

M . . A;
g km;

1

ﬂﬂbmmﬁm
1

r:

$2.3; .
”mm «ﬂaw
r1 ,

7
a 5

4r .«
s.g :
:. ﬁn . rum 7 r m
. Way—rs... .T . mp.

.
v
a
a

H _ ”ma. ,

an? M... . Am;
A. paw .. 4

UN»: .. «a».

a.
c
a.
A

win ”mam... an. é:
hum.

..
i.

V.
§
.t

. it

'3: i‘!‘

i;

a car»
mwmmmi

Km.-

nlf 5
fawn.
isrifﬁ
v"\ﬂt.K2 ‘
:3
an.“ ll
3.15.
A As:

"Earth! a . 9.:
e, . 2%.»...6”. 2
. . . chm»...

a...
V. x s. u 3.
Rd.
.309»
hung»...

15.5...

‘33 A ..... b

(1.}.

 

THESE
1 LIBRARY

10003 Michigan State
3 3" 3 University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

ASSESSING AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS
IN THE WESTERN HIGHLANDS OF GUATEMALA:
A FARMER CENTERED APPROACH

presented by

Paul L. Van Tongeren

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Science degree in Resource Development

 

 

P .1 1/ 2 I (3 9
7

Major professor

Date (4 3T 31/ 3‘ (3/ 3

/
-_/

0-7639 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

PLACE IN REFURN 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

 

NOV “3323350

 

AUG 2 1 2007

 

7582207

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 C'JClRC/DatoDuepGS-p. 1 5

 

ASSESSING AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS IN THE
WESTERN HIGHLANDS OF GUATEMALA: A FARMER CENTERED APPROACH

By

Paul L. Van Tongeren

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Resource Development

2003

ABSTRACT

ASSESSING AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS IN THE
WESTERN HIGHLANDS OF GUATEMALA: A FARMER CENTERED APPROACH

By

Paul L. Van Tongeren

Growing numbers of agricultural development organizations working with
resource-poor farmers are promoting resource conserving agricultural technologies
(RCATs) as a strategy to improve food security and farm family livelihoods in
developing countries. Researchers have found that non-adoption and discontinuance of
these technologies is frequently high. Most traditional approaches to assessing these
interventions fail to reveal the reasons behind farrners’ adoption, non-adoption, or
discontinuance of these technologies; they also tend not to explore long-term impacts of
the interventions. This study examines stakeholder experiences with agricultural
development organizations promoting RCATs in four villages in the western highlands of
Guatemala. The study explores the diverse factors that inﬂuence farm household
participation in agricultural development groups and the adoption, rejection, continuance
or discontinuance of the promoted RCATs. The study also analyzes the long-term
impacts of the interventions. Finally, recommendations for research and development

practice are presented.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research project would not have been possible without the support of many
people. First, I want to thank the farmers and development professionals who generously
gave of their time to participate in this research. I wish to thank my good friends in
Guatemala, especially in Ixchiguan, who have opened their homes and lives to me and
have shown me so much generosity.

I also want to thank my family. My parents introduced me early in life to the joy of
helping o thers and always 8 upported m e in m y work and s tudies. M y brother, M ark,
provided valuable technical help as well as encouragement. My wife, Ellen, was a
tremendous source of encouragement throughout the process of writing this thesis.

Dr. Scott Witter, my academic advisor, provided valuable support throughout my
graduate program. My other committee members, Dr. Craig Harris and Dr. John Kerr,
offered valuable suggestions that greatly improved this research. Dr. Kerr provided
especially helpful suggestions during the writing process.

My studies at Michigan State University would not have been possible without the
generous support of the Center for the Advanced Study of International Development
(CASID) and the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies (CLACS).

Above all, I thank God for the opportunity to pursue graduate study and for

bringing the above people into my life. My life is fuller for having known them.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. viii

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................. ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................... x
CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1

Introduction ...................................................................................... 1

Problem Analysis ................................................................................ 3

Assessing Technology Adoption ....................................................... 3

Evaluating Agricultural Development Projects ...................................... 4

A More Holistic Approach to Assessment ........................................... 5

Purpose of the Research ....................................................................... 6

Research Directions.................................: .......................................... 6

Signiﬁcance of the Study ...................................................................... 7

The Research Methodology ................................................................... 8

Context of the Case Study ..................................................................... 9

Organization of the Study ................................................................... 11
CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 12

Chapter Introduction .......................................................................... 12

Agricultural Development Interventions for Small-scale Farmers ..................... 12

Goals ..................................................................................... 12

Strategies .................................................................................. 13

Resource Conserving Agricultural Technologies .................................. 14

Commonly promoted technologies ............................................ 15

The Agricultural Development Process ............................................. 18

Participation ...................................................................... 18

Subsidies .......................................................................... 1 8

Focusing on the Farmers ...................................................................... 20

Objectives of Farm Households ...................................................... 20

Farmers’ Objectives in Technology Adoption ...................................... 22

Farming Systems ....................................................................... 23

Assessing Interventions that Promote Resource Conserving Technologies... . . .24

Constraints to Adoption ................................................................. 25

Cost/Beneﬁt Analysis of Technologies ............................................... 25

Combined Approaches ................................................................. 27

Participatory Impact Studies ........................................................... 28

Systems Approaches to Research ...................................................... 29

F arming Systems Research Approaches ............................................. 30

Using a Farming Systems Approach for Assessment. . 31

The Context for Agricultural Development in Central America ........................ 32

iv

Biophysical and Agroecological Context ............................................ 32

Socioeconomic and Political Context ................................................ 33

Farming and Livelihood Systems in Guatemala” ... . .. ...33

History of Agricultural Development for Smallholder Farm Households ...34

Government efforts ............................................................ 34

Non-governmental organizations ............................................ 36

The Qualitative Research Paradigm .......................................................... 37

Qualitative Evaluation ................................................................. 38
CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH DESIGN .............................................................................. 39

Design Strategy ............................................................................... 39

Entry .............................................................................................. 39

Site Selection ................................................................................... 40

Sample Size .................................................................................... 4O

Informed Consent .............................................................................. 41

Data Collection ................................................................................. 41

Data Collection Methods ............................................................. 41

Open-ended, Informal Interviews ............................................. 42

Key Informant Interviews ...................................................... 42

Observation ...................................................................... 42

Review of Documents .......................................................... 43

Data Collection Process ............................................................... 43

Data Analysis .................................................................................. 45

Verification of Results ....................................................................... 46

Transferability ................................................................................. 47

CHAPTER 4

DESCRIPTION OF THE CASES ................................................................ 48

Chapter Introduction ......................................................................... 48

The Region .................................................................................... 48

The Villages ................................................................................... 50

Los Pinos ................................................................................ 50

Tres Rios ................................................................................ 52

San Lucas ............................................................................... 53

Vista Bonita ............................................................................. 54

The Agricultural Development Organizations ............................................ 55

NGO 1 ................................................................................... 56

GO 1 ..................................................................................... 57

NGO 2 ................................................................................... 58

GRO 1 .................................................................................... 59

NGO 3 ................................................................................... 59

NGO 4 ................................................................................... 60

GO 2 ..................................................................................... 61

GO 3 ..................................................................................... 62

CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS ........ * ................................................................................... 63
Chapter Introduction .......................................................................... 63
Initial Adoption of Resource Conserving Agricultural Technologies .................. 63

Adoption Through Project Participation ............................................ 63
Levels of Participation .......................................................... 63

Reasons for Participation ....................................................... 64
Constraints to Participation ..................................................... 66
Spontaneous Adoption of Resource Conserving Technologies .................. 68
Implementation and Farmer Assessment of the Technologies .......................... 69
Composting .............................................................................. 69

Soil and Water Conservation ......................................................... 70

F arming without Chemical Fertilizer ................................................. 75
Improved Agropastoral System ....................................................... 76
Other Project Components .............................................................. 77
Vegetable gardens ............................................................... 77

Irrigation .......................................................................... 78

Credit .............................................................................. 78
Post-Project Continuance and Discontinuance of the Promoted Technologies... . ..79
What Happens When Subsidies Stop ................................................ 79
Other Factors Inﬂuencing Continuance and Discontinuance of RCATs ....... 80
Composting ....................................................................... 81

Soil and water conservation .................................................... 82

Vegetable production ........................................................... 82

Impacts of Agricultural Development Interventions ...................................... 83
Improved Skills ........................................................................ 83
Increased Production .................................................................. 84
Reduction in Seasonal Migration ..................................................... 85
Alternative explanations for the decrease in seasonal migration ......... 86

Exploring Differences in the Impacts of Agricultural Development Interventions..86
Differences Between Farm Households ............................................. 86

Comparing Constraints to Agricultural Improvement Between Villages... . ...87
Comparing Impacts on Livelihoods—the Case of Potato Production . . . . ..87

CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 93
Summary ....................................................................................... 93
Initial Adoption of Resource Conserving Agricultural Technologies .......... 95
Spontaneous Adoption .......................................................... 96
Farmer Assessment of Promoted Technologies .................................... 96
Post-Project Continuance and Discontinuance of RCATs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....97
Impacts of Agricultural Development Interventions ............................. 98
Explaining Differences in Impacts ................................................... 99
Conclusions .................................................................................... 99
Initial Adoption ........................................................................ 99
Subsidies and incentives ....................................................... 100

vi

Factors Inﬂuencing Continuation or Discontinuation of Technologies... . 101

Outcomes of the Interventions on Farm Household Livelihoods ............... 102
Recommendations for Future Research ................................................... 104
Recommendations for Development Practice ........................................... 105
Lessons for the Future ....................................................................... 106

APPENDIX .......................................................................................... 110
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 116

vii

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

LIST OF TABLES

Constraints to Adoption of Resource-Conserving Technologies .................. 26
Yields of Common Crops in the Study Villages ..................................... 51
Livelihood Practices by Village ........................................................ 53
Communities Where the Agricultural Development Organizations Work ....... 56

Participation in Agricultural Development Projects by Village ................... 64
F armers’ Use of Soil Conservation Technologies by Village ...................... 71
Labor Requirements and Costs for Soil Conservation Technologies ............. 72
Comparison of Constraints by Group ................................................. 88
Comparison of Potato Yields by Village ............................................... 89

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map oquatemala with the study location indicated... . ........10
Figure 2. Determinants of Farming Systems .................................................... 24
Figure 3. The Suchiate Watershed ............................................................... 48
Figure 4. Factors inﬂuencing the outcomes of agricultural development interventions on

small farmer households .............................................................. 104
Figure 5. Live Barriers in San Lucas ........................................................... 110
Figure 6. Agroforestry System with Pasture Grasses and Arrayan in Los Pinos. . . .1 10
Figure 7. Contour Ditches with Live Barriers in Los Pinos ................................. 111
Figure 8. Terraces and Contour Ditches in Los Pinos ....................................... 111
Figure 9. A Rock Wall in San Lucas ........................................................... 112
Figure 10. Live and dead (sod) Barriers in Tres Rios ........................................ 113
Figure 11. Rock Walls and Dead Barriers in Tres Rios ...................................... 113
Figure 12. Maize Planted on Narrow Terraces in Vista Bonita ............................. 114

ix

CBA

CIMMYT

FAO

FFW

FSR/E

GO

GRO

NGO

RCAT

SWC

TOT

USAID

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Cost / Beneﬁt Analysis

Centro Intemacional para el Mejoramiento de Maiz y Tri go
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN.
Food for Work

Farming Systems Research and Extension
Governmental Organization

Grassroots Organization

Non-governmental organization
Resource-conserving agricultural technology
Rapid Rural Appraisal

Soil and water conservation

Transfer of Technology

United States Agency for International Development

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

The improvement of agriculture in less-developed countries has been a central goal
of international development interventions for over ﬁfty years. Generally, these efforts
have followed one of two basic paths: conserving resources and counteracting erosion
through soil and water conservation, or increasing agricultural production through the
introduction of modern technologies. While these efforts have had remarkable success
in some contexts, by the 19705 scholars and development practitioners were noticing that
these efforts were largely bypassing small scale farmers living on less productive lands.

This awareness led to many changes in agricultural research and deveIOpment
approaches. The realization of the differences between the ideal research station
conditions and most small-scale farmers’ contexts—often ‘complex, diverse, and risk-
prone’—led agricultural researchers in international agricultural development to develop
approaches such as Farming Systems Research and Extension (F SR/E), in which
agricultural technologies were developed under the conditions faced by farmers on less
productive lands. In some cases, agricultural scientists managed the entire process and
farmer involvement was limited. In other cases, development professionals recognized
the value of collaborating with farmers throughout the entire technology development
process and they began developing more participatory approaches such as Farmer First
and farmer-to-farmer extension, which increased the effectiveness of a wide variety of
agricultural development projects (Chambers et a1. 1989; Bunch and L6pez 1995). For

soil conservationists working in less developed countries, the increasing awareness that

soil and water conservation (SWC) was not a high priority for farmers led them to replace
an erosion control emphasis with more holistic land and soil management approaches
such as Better Land Husbandry (Douglas 1996; Hudson 1992; Hurni et al. 1996; Young
1998). Farmers’ traditional practices have also been receiving more attention (Thrupp
and Altieri 2001). Agricultural development approaches such as Low External Input
Sustainable A giculture (see Reijntjes et a1. 1 992) and A groecology (see A ltieri 1 995)
have emerged to investigate, develop and promote less costly and more ecologically
appropriate agricultural systems, based in part on farmers’ traditional systems.

In summary, the last 20 years of international agricultural development have seen
dramatic changes in approaches to agricultural research and deveIOpment practice.
Farmer participation in both research and project implementation has steadily increased.
High-input technologies designed to maximize productivity are being replaced in many
instances with lower-cost, resource-conserving technologies.

Yet despite all these changes in agricultural development thinking and practice over
the last twenty years, the results remain disappointing. The non-adoption of supposedly
more appropriate technologies is common, and the incidences of farmers abandoning
conservation technologies as soon as a project pulls out or once the subsidies stop still
seem to be the rule (Kerr 1998; Lutz et a1. 1994; McDonald and Brown 1999; Reij 1988
in Pretty and Shah 1999; Scoones 1996; Witter et al. 1996). Even technologies and
practices that farmers have evaluated as effective are not being continued (Cramb and
Nelson 1998; Fujisaka and Garrity 1991; Scherr 1995). Based on this evidence, it is
apparent that the agricultural development community is often repeating the failures of

previous efforts in promoting resource-conserving agricultural technologies (RCATs).

Problem Analysis

A solid understanding of the reasons behind farmers’ adoption, rejection,
continuance or discontinuance of RCATs is crucial for agricultural development
organizations as they seek to develop more effective approaches for their agricultural
development approaches for their agricultural development programs. However, the
traditional methods used to assess or evaluate agricultural development interventions
contribute little to our understanding of those reasons.
Assessing Technology Adoption

Many approaches to evaluating RCAT projects examine technology adoption to
determine the success of the intervention (Chambers 1997; Enters 1996; Pinheiro et al.
1998). This focus on adoption reﬂects the diffusion framework. According to this
framework, individuals go through a process when they are exposed to a new innovation
such as an agricultural technology. This process includes gathering more information,
forming an opinion, deciding to try out the technology, implementing the technology, and
then conﬁrming the decision; the result of this process is either the adoption or rejection
of the technology Glogers 1995). According to this model, the lack of awareness of a
problem and/or available solutions is the greatest barrier to adoption (Napier 1995).
Studies following the diffusion tradition use surveys to gather information on technology
adopters and non-adopters and to ﬁnd the numbers of each. Then the characteristics of
the adopter and non-adopter groups are compared in order to ﬁnd the variables that
predict adoption. The rate of adoption is also frequently studied, and farmer categories
may be constructed based on the timing of adoption. Rogers (1995) notes how well the

diffusion model corresponds with the conventional or modernist development paradigm,

in which the transfer of technology is central. In the transfer of technology (TOT)
approach to agricultural research and extension, scientists generate technologies to solve
the problems they have deﬁned—usually technical and productivity problems—and
farmers are the recipients of those technologies (Cramb and Nelson 1998; Enters 1996;
Pinheiro et a1. 1998; Turkelboom et al. 1996). In the TOT approach, it is often assumed
that the technology works and should be adopted by the targeted population, an
assumption which Rogers (1995) calls the pro-innovation bias. Thus it is assumed that
the problem is solved once farmers adopt the technology (Pinheiro et a1. 1998). Non-
adoption may be blamed on farmers’ ignorance or resistance to change, what Rogers
terms the individual-blame bias. The appropriateness of the technology is not questioned.

Many researchers have pointed out the error of relying exclusively on
measurements of adoption. Reports of high and rapid adoption rates may indicate that
farmers have been pressured or persuaded to adopt the technology, rather than proof of
the technology’s success (Enters 1996). Other researchers note that adoption studies may
interpret the willingness of farmers to try out a technology as evidence that they will
maintain or expand the practice in the ﬁrture, when that is not necessarily the case
(CIMMY T 1993; Scherr and Muller 1991).
Evaluating Agricultural Development Proiects

Traditional project-centered evaluation approaches also limit the generation of in-
depth understanding necessary to improve the effectiveness of RCAT promotion. The
information gathered in project evaluations has tended to measure the outputs of the
project. Quantitative output measurements such as kilometers of walls and bunds

constructed and hectares of land conserved, the number of tree seedlings produced, or the

number of farmers participating in training, are often used to determine whether or not
the project reached its proposed targets. However, these measurements do not represent
the longer-term impacts of conservation efforts because frequently the structures do not
last or the practices are not implemented (Pretty and Shah 1999; Shrestha and Chhetri
1996); Enters (1996:403) calls these measurements “very misleading indicators for
determining success or failure.”

Evaluations in international agricultural development have multiple purposes that
are generally determined by the entity conducting the evaluation. Donors are likely the
most frequent evaluators of projects; they often conduct evaluations to ensure that their
money was spent as speciﬁed in the proposal or to determine whether the project should
continue to receive funding (Jiggins 1995; Meyer and Singh 1997; Shepherd 1998).
Project management may use evaluations to evaluate personnel. Evaluation for the
purpose of learning from the experience is rare (Shepherd 1998).

The timing of project evaluations is also a factor. Numerous scholars point out that
very few evaluations happen several years after projects have been completed (Bunch
1999; Maddock 1994; McDonald and Brown 2000). However, longer-term studies,
conducted ﬁve or more years after the end of an intervention, may provide the best
information regarding success (McDonald and Brown 2000).

A More Holistic Approach to Assessment
Recognizing the weaknesses of conventional assessment methods, many researchers are
calling for a broader approach to assessment that includes the following objectives:

0 Understanding the farmers’ perspectives on the technologies, the farmers’

constraints, and the reasons why they choose to adopt, adapt, reject, or

discontinue the technologies (CIMMYT 1993; Maglinao 1996; Norman et a1.
1995; Rogers 1995)

o Recognizing the importance of the broader context (Hurni et al. 1996;
Maglinao 1996; Pretty et al. 1996; Scoones 2001)

0 Understanding what happens in the longer-term (Bunch 1999; McDonald and
Brown 2000; Rogers 1995)

0 Greater attention to the processes of adoption, adaptation, and discontinuance
(Sims 1999)

0 Using a systems approach in evaluation in addition to project design and

implementation (Shrestha and Chhetri 1996)

Purpose of the Research

The purpose of this thesis is to improve our understanding of the outcomes of
agricultural development interventions promoting resource conserving agricultural
technologies. Using a systems approach to assessment and a case study of stakeholder
experiences of agricultural development in the western highlands of Guatemala, this

study explores the processes and the impacts of the promotion of RCATs in this context.

Research Directions
The research attempts to answer four main questions through an inductive
approach:
1. What factors inﬂuence whether or not farmers initially adopt the

technologies and practices promoted by agricultural development

organizations? Who participates in the projects? Why do they participate? What
constrains farm households from participating? Do farmers adopt the technologies
without participating in a project?

2. How do the different stakeholders assess the effectiveness of the promoted
resource-conserving technologies and practices? What criteria do they use?
What advantages, disadvantages, and constraints to adopting the technologies do
they identify?

3. Do farming households continue to use the technologies and practices
promoted by agricultural development organizations after the projects
leave? What factors affect the continuance or discontinuance of RCATs and
other technologies?

4. What are the impacts of RCAT adoption on local farming systems and
livelihood systems? What type of impacts do farmers identify? What constraints
to improved agricultural production and livelihood improvement do stakeholders
identify? How do the impacts differ between households and in different

villages?

Significance of the Study

This study focuses on the processes involved in the adoption of resource-
conserving technologies, and the long-term impacts of those technologies in the context
of small-scale farm households in the western highlands of Guatemala. The study will
contribute to the literature on the outcomes of agricultural development interventions in

this region. In addition, this study contributes to the literature on alternative methods for

assessment in agricultural development. This research can also aid development
practitioners by increasing their awareness of the wide variety of factors that inﬂuence
farmers’ adoption and continued use of resource-conserving technologies, as well as

those contextual factors that can inﬂuence the long-term impacts of the interventions.

The Research Methodology

This interdisciplinary research draws from several different research traditions both
inside and outside of agriculture and international development, including farming
systems research, participatory development, sustainable agricultural development,
diffusion research, and qualitative evaluation. An instrumental, collective case study
approach is used; case studies are frequently being used in agricultural development
research due to the complexity of both the biophysical and socioeconomic environments
(see Cramb and Nelson 1998; McDonald and Brown 1999). T he ﬁeld research took
place in different stages between December 2000 and October 2001. Research methods
included informal, open-ended interviews, key-informant interviews, direct and
participant observation, and the review 0 f documents. T be m ajority of the interviews
took place in April, May, and August of 2001. Ninety-two interviews were conducted in
all; 81 were held with farm households from four different villages, and the remaining
eleven interviews were held with development workers and project ofﬁcials from six
different agricultural development organizations that had operated or were currently
operating in the area. Over 30 of the farmer interviews took place in farmers’ ﬁelds or

included a visit to their ﬁelds.

Context of the Case Study

Guatemala is the most populous country in Central America, with over 12 million people
(UNICEF, 2000). Two-thirds of these people live in rural areas, and depend primarily on
agriculture for their livelihoods (United Nations, 1999). Guatemala has the greatest
diversity in terms of ecosystems in all of Central America; these include the tropical
rainforests in the north and cast; a semi-arid region of low mountains in the southeast; a
wide, semi-arid tropical belt along the Paciﬁc Ocean; and the mountainous highlands
throughout the central and western parts of the country. Guatemala’s ecological diversity
is matched by its ethnic diversity—there are 22 Mayan indigenous groups in addition to
the Ladinos—the mixed Spanish and indigenous race. Approximately half of the
population is Mayan, although different deﬁnitions of ‘indigenousness’ result in ﬁgures
as low as 40 percent or higher than 60 percent (Enge and Martinez-Enge 1991; Jonas
2000; United Nations 1999). The majority of the indigenous population lives in the
western highlands, consisting of land over 1500 meters above sea level. The topography
of much of the region is steeply sloped, with soils highly susceptible to erosion. Socio-
economically speaking, the region is characterized by a predominantly indigenous
population of subsistence farmers, the majority living in extreme poverty (Elias et al.
1997). Per capita income in the rural areas of the western highlands averages between
US$300 and $440, while the national average is US$880 (United Nations 1999). The
research was undertaken in this biophysical and socioeconomic context, in the
municipality of Ixchiguan, San Marcos. Ixchiguan is located in the southwest portion of
the western highlands, high in the Sierra Madre mountain range (See Figure 1). The

municipality consists of about 30 communities, with an area of 183 km2 and a population

of 20,000 people. The central town, also called Ixchiguan, is located 300 kilometers from
Guatemala City. Four villages located in the headwater region of the Rio Suchiate
watershed were chosen as the cases to be explored. The Suchiate River eventually forms
the southern part of the border between Guatemala and Mexico and ﬂows into the Paciﬁc

Ocean. The elevations in the villages where the study took place range from 7500 to

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
     

 

MEXICO
BELIZE
0 50 100 km
| I I
| | I
0 50 100 mi
The West-timing.
Highlands
St d
,*sit: y
“ .. Quetzaltena‘hgo
'-.-.@ ‘ Guatemala
E City HONDURAS
EL SALVADOR

 

 

Figure 1. Map of Guatemala with the study location indicated.

10

 

11,000 feet above sea level. Due to the steep topography and expanding agricultural
frontier, erosion is a widespread problem.

The vast majority of the inhabitants of Ixchiguan belong to the Maya-Mam
indigenous group. They are primarily subsistence farmers, and grow corn, wheat,
potatoes, beans, and a few other vegetables. Many farmers migrate to Mexico for one to
three months each year to supplement their incomes. As the population has increased,
agriculture has been expanding into increasingly steep and fragile lands.

There have been a wide variety of agricultural development projects here,
beginning in the late 1960s These projects have been directed by government
organizations, church-based organizations, international non-govemmental organizations

(NGOs), and grassroots organizations.

Organization of the Study

This thesis is organized into six chapters. Chapter two contains a problem-focused
literature review. The third chapter describes the research design. Chapter four provides
a detailed description of the case study villages and agricultural development projects.
Chapter ﬁve presents the ﬁndings and analysis of the research. The sixth and ﬁnal
chapter contains a summary of the study, the conclusions, and recommendations for

research and practice.

11

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to expand the understanding of the theoretical context
of this study through a review of pertinent literature. This ﬁrst section examines the
goals, strategies and content of agricultural development interventions directed at small-
scale f armers. The s econd s ection focuses o n small-scale farmers: their goals, f arming
systems and livelihood strategies. The third section examines several methods used to
assess the results of resource-conserving technologies in agricultural development. The
fourth section examines the Central American context related to agricultural
development, with speciﬁc attention to the context of the western Guatemalan highlands.
The ﬁnal section discusses aspects of the qualitative research paradigm, including

qualitative evaluation.

Agricultural Development Interventions for Small-scale Farmers
M

As mentioned in the introductory chapter, past agricultural development efforts
have tended to focus either on improving production or on conserving resources. While
there remains the tendency to focus on one or the other of these goals (Reardon 1998),
growing numbers of scholars have been agreeing on the need to pursue them
simultaneously. Other agricultural development goals are also being forwarded, such as
poverty reduction, employment growth, and biodiversity protection, among others (Lee

and Barrett 2001; Pichon et al. 1999). Vosti and Reardon (1997) present a critical

12

 

 

 

 

triangle of development goals: agricultural growth, poverty alleviation, and sustainable
resource use. Dixon et al. (2001) argues that there has been a paradigm change from a
technical productivity focus to a more holistic perspective that focuses on improved
livelihoods and greater food security.
Strategies

As agricultural development organizations pursue these goals in the context of
smallholder agriculture on less productive or risk-prone lands, a common strategy which
some call sustainable agricultural intensiﬁcation (SAI) is emerging. The central idea of
SAI is to increase agricultural production to meet farmers’ food and income needs with
technologies that maintain, or even enhance, the natural resource base (Hellin and Larrea
1999; Pichon et al. 1999; Pretty et al. 1996; Young, 1998). Pichon et al. (1999:23) call
this type of strategy “the only realistic strategy for addressing poverty and environmental
problems.” Young (1998) argues that the primary objective must be people’s welfare, so
meeting people’s present needs for food and cash should take ﬁrst priority; this goal
should be pursued in ways that conserve the resource base.

There is much debate about the best approach to reach the production goals of SAI.
This debate reﬂects the differences in interpretations of sustainability in agriculture: some
groups focus on s ustainable growth, while 0 thers emphasize environmental protection,
and others intergenerational equity (Harrington 1995). Many researchers promote a low-
input approach, seeking to minimize the use of external inputs and to emphasize the use
of i ntemal resources 5 uch as m anure and c over crops. E xarnples o f these approaches
include Low Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA), Low External Input Sustainable

Agriculture (LEISA), or Agroecology. Young (1998) stresses that LISA does not imply

13

minimizing external inputs—low or even meditnn levels may be used; what is
emphasized is efﬁciency in the use of these inputs. Those in favor of these lower-input
approaches argue that they limit ecological damage such as that caused by some Green
Revolution approaches, and they are ﬁnancially feasible for a wide range of farmers
(Young 1998).

Reardon (1998) argues that these types of approaches are not sustainable because
the growth rates obtained with these technologies cannot keep up with the increasing
demand for food caused by rapid population growth. He advocates a farm capital
intensiﬁcation approach, combining resource—conserving technologies with improved
seed and inorganic fertilizers in order to adequately speed productivity growth.

Whether the SAI approaches introduce higher or lower amounts of external inputs,
scholars and practitioners agree that the beneﬁts from new practices need to be realized in
the short-run. Technologies that are designed to conserve soil, for example, should be
combined with technologies that increase yields or generate income (Bunch and Lopez
1995). Some technologies may both improve production and conserve resources; these
are what Vosti and Reardon (1997) call “overlap technologies.”

Resource ConservingAgricultural Technologi_e_s

Resource conserving agricultural technologies (RCATs) often possess different
characteristics than more production-oriented technologies such as fertilizer or irrigation.
Many types of SWC technologies are what Rogers (1995) calls preventive innovations;
these types of innovations have slow rates of adoption because the beneﬁts are hard to
perceive. E conomic returns to investments in RCATs are 0 ften realized in the longer

term compared to production-oriented technologies. RCATs may also require high initial

14

labor and cash outlays (Ellis-Jones and Tengberg 2000; Kaimowitz 1993b; Reardon and
Vosti 1997). Carson (1990) mentions that numerous biophysical and socio-economic
factors determine whether or not terraces are appropriate, and this applies to many other
RCATs; these factors include the soil type and depth, slope, climate, land tenure system,
the resources of the farmers, availability of markets, the proﬁtability of the farming
system, and the level of community organization.
Commonly Promoted Technologies

This section highlights several of the RCATs promoted worldwide and especially in
Central America that target small-scale, hillside or mountain farmers. These technologies
are widely evaluated as being effective and have been promoted in both governmental
and NGO interventions (Adriance 1997; Celis et al. 1997; Cherrett 2001; Teller 1979).

0 Bench terraces—Bench terraces are perhaps the most widely promoted soil
conservation technology. They have been promoted in international
agricultural development for over ﬁfty years; in Kenya they were introduced
in 1937 (Tiffen et a1. 1994). The advantages of terraces include superior
control of soil loss and runoff, and improved soil moisture (Carson 1990; Lutz
et al. 1994; Tiffen et al. 1994). The disadvantages of terraces include their
high construction costs and the loss of cropping area. In addition, their
construction can bring up unproductive soils (White and J ickling 1994).

0 Rock Walls—Rock walls have also been ﬁequently promoted where rocks are
prevalent. Their advantages include immediate soil retention, low
maintenance requirements, and cleaner, more workable ﬁelds (Sims 1999).

Disadvantages can include high labor requirements for construction,

15

depending on the size and quality of the construction and the loss of cropping
area.

Contour ditches—This technology is designed to control water runoff and to
improve water inﬁltration. Recommendations for shape, width and depth vary
greatly; they may be level, or constructed with a slight incline where
inﬁltration is slow. Often a live grass barrier is added on the upper side.
Disadvantages of the technology include a relatively high amount of labor
required for construction, a high skill level required for construction, and a
high maintenance requirement (Sims 1999).

Live contour barriers—This technology has been promoted worldwide in
many forms, from contour hedgerows with shrub and/or tree species—a form
of agroforestry—to grass barriers. Oﬁen farmers have substituted other plant
species in place of the ones promoted by the agricultural development
organization in order to reduce competition with crops, produce fodder, or
produce a cash crop (Ashby et al. 1996; Sims 1999). Farmers in Honduras
mentioned the following advantages of live barriers: good soil retention, easy
implementation, production of fodder, and production of biomass for soil
fertility enhancement. Farmers reported the following problems: high
maintenance requirements, some grass species were invasive, destruction by
cattle, delayed erosion control, and a lack of planting material to establish the
live barriers. Live barriers were among the most popular technologies in the
two regions described (Sims 1999). In Haiti, White and Jickling (1995) found

that vegetative SWC techniques were widely adopted and maintained without

16

incentives because they required limited labor to establish, provided multiple
beneﬁts such as fodder or wood products, and were similar to indigenous
techniques.

Composting: Composting involves the managed decomposition of a variety
of materials such as manure, vegetation, soil, ash, and sometimes lime.
Compost provides nutrients and improves aeration, soil structure and moisture
retention (Pretty 1995; Tamang, 1993). It is promoted by agricultural
development organizations in order to increase the amount of organic material
in the soil and as a way of reducing dependence on inorganic fertilizers. The
advantages of compost over manure alone are that it doubles the quantity of
organic matter, reduces insect problems, and does not “burn” the crops (Tiffen
et al. 1994). A primary disadvantage of composting is the labor requirement,
both for building the piles and for applying the compost to the ﬁelds; farmers
may also face constraints such as the unavailability of manure, the lack of
access to vegetation, or the lack of crop residues needed to build compost
piles (Harwood 1979; Pretty 1995).

Animal management strategies—These technologies or systems take
advantage of the synergistic relationships between animals and crops in the
farming system (Harwood 1979). One example involves the construction of
grass hedgerows that produce fodder grasses, which are cut and carried to the
livestock in stables. The manure of the livestock is returned to the cropping

area (Garcia et al. 2002).

17

RCATs are usually not promoted by themselves; projects generally include other
technologies to improve production. Higher external input strategies may involve the
promotion inorganic fertilizers and pesticides; more agro-ecological approaches may
introduce integrated pest management. Both approaches commonly include efforts to
help farmers diversify their production, often through vegetable gardens.
The Agp'cultural Development Process
Participation

Participation is a central element in new approaches to international agricultural
development. The ideal situation is that beneﬁciaries participate in all aspects of the
project, from problem identiﬁcation to the choice of solutions to implementation,
monitoring, and evaluation. In reality, participation varies greatly; low end participation
involves farmers trading their labor for food, cash, or other materials, while high end
participation involves real involvement in d ecision-making b y the farmers (Bass et al.
1995; Pretty 1995). Kaimowitz (1993b) notes that although almost all of the NGOs in
Central America agricultural development claim to have a participatory philosophy, most
decisions are made by the NGO or the donors, and consultation with beneﬁciaries takes
place after projects are underway. Therefore, researchers and evaluators should
investigate the nature of participation whenever agricultural development projects use the
term ‘participation’ or ‘participatory’ (Bass et al. 1995).
Subsidies

Many, if not most, of the agricultural development projects promoting RCATs have
included subsidies or incentives. Kerr (1999:182) distinguishes between the two terms:

he deﬁnes a subsidy as “a payment or service that raises the net private returns ﬁ'om an

18

activity;” an incentive is deﬁned as “something that motivates or stimulates a person to
act.” Examples of subsidies commonly provided by projects include cash payments,
food-for-work (FF W), free or low-cost inputs, and credit.

There are several arguments in favor of subsidies. Many researchers argue that
subsidies should be used when the social beneﬁts of conservation are greater than the
private beneﬁts, such as in the case of SWC projects to prevent the siltation of reservoirs
downstream from hillside farmers. Another argument is that since conservation beneﬁts
are often realized in the long-term, and resource-poor farmers must focus primarily on
meeting short-term needs, subsidies can compensate farmers while they wait for the
beneﬁts to be realized (Zaal et al. 1998). A third argument is that subsidies reduce the
risk for farmers to try out the technology (Current et al. 1995). A fourth argument is that
subsidies can boost adoption rates quickly and thus maximize people’s exposure to the
technology; the expectation is that farmers will realize the beneﬁts of the technologies in
time, and will continue to use them (Kaimowitz 1993b).

There are also many arguments against the use of subsidies. Perhaps the biggest
arguments emerge from the experiences with subsidies in SWC proj ects—researchers and
development workers have found repeatedly that farmers often stop using practices once
the subsidies stop, that maintenance of conservation works is non-existent, and that
farmers grow to expect some kind of payment for any type of conservation work (Hudson
1991; Sanders 1988; Sims 1999; Witter et al. 1996; Zaal et a1. 1998). In a project in
Ethiopia, farmers deliberately destroyed the conservation works in order to receive more
FFW to rebuild (Sanders and Cahill 1999). Other development practitioners argue that

subsidies should not be needed. Bunch and Lopez (1995:13) state that if the technologies

19

generate beneﬁts quickly, artiﬁcial incentives will not be needed; but if they do not
produce short-term beneﬁts, “...no artiﬁcial incentive will make the technology’s
adoption sustainable.”

It must be pointed out that not all subsidies or incentives have the same results.
Current et al. (1995) found that project contribution of seedlings and small tools were
enough for farmers to try agroforestry because they took away some of the risk. Food-

for—work incentives, in contrast, were linked to failed maintenance and dependency.

Focusing on the Farmers

More researchers are focusing on the farmers’ perspectives in their studies of
agricultural development. The farmers are being recognized as the ultimate decision-
makers regarding the use of their resources (Current et al. 1995; Dixon et al. 2001; Lutz
et al. 1994). Researchers are also emphasizing that farmers have multiple objectives
(Fernandez 1999; Kerr 1998; Scherr 1995; Scoones 2001; Shaxson 1999). Finally, the
diversity of households in regards to resource endowments and livelihood strategies is
being highlighted (Ellis-Jones and Sims 1999; Kerr 1998; Scherr 1995).
Objectives of Farm Households

Growing numbers of agricultural development scholars are pointing out that farm
households often have objectives that differ from those of technology developers and
agricultural development professionals, who have historically tended to emphasize
production.

Reijntjes et al. (1992) classify farm household objectives under four categories:

productivity, security, continuity, and identity. They deﬁne productivity as “the output

20

per unit of land, labour, capital (e.g. livestock, money, time or other input (e. g. cash,
energy, water, nutrients)”(p. 30). Various authors note that while agricultural researchers
have traditionally sought to maximize yields or economic proﬁtability, farmers’
productivity objectives may be different—they may be seeking to optimize returns to
their scarcest resource, or to produce a variety of outputs such as fodder ﬁ'om crop
residues in addition to grain (Reijntjes et al. 1992; Scherr and Current 1997).

The objective of security involves “minimizing the risks of production or income
losses resulting ﬁom variations in ecological, economic or social processes” (p. 31). One
primary strategy that farmers use to increase security is diversiﬁcation. This strategy
takes many forms; farmers may raise a wide variety of crops, practice intercropping; or
have animals as part of the farm in addition to crops. Farm households often have off-
farm income sources to supplement their farming.

Continuity involves maintaining the productive potential of the farm into the future.
Strategies to enhance farm continuity include not only practices of SWC and soil fertility
management, but may also include educational opportunities to improve the abilities of
both current farmers and their children to adapt to change.

Identity involves ﬁtting in with the family’s values and the culture of the
community. Reijntjes et al. point out that changes that threaten people’s values can
caused stress and opposition, while interventions that improve self-reliance and promote
community decision-making help maintain a sense of identity.

Reijntj es et a1. (1992) summarize how these objectives are interrelated:

To be sustainable, a farm system must generate a level of production that
satisﬁes the material (productivity) and social (identity) needs of the farm

household, within certain margins of security and without long-term
resource depletion. As the objectives of security, continuity and identity

21

usually compete with immediate productivity, an optimal instead of

maximum level of productivity has to be sought to ensure sustainability of

the farm system (33).
Lanners’ Obiectives in Technology Adoption
Just as farm households have multiple objectives for their farm system, they also have
multiple criteria for the technologies they choose to adopt. Many researchers note that
farmers are looking for short-term beneﬁts from the technologies they consider adopting.
These beneﬁts include increased yields, lower costs, greater proﬁts, reduced labor, and
reduced risks (Brush and Turner 1987; Hudson 1991; Sanders 1988). Ashby et al. (1996)
highlight the diverse criteria of farmers in choosing the type of plants they use for live
barriers. While the project was promoting the species that controlled erosion the best,
farmers sought barriers that would produce income and/or fodder, serve as ﬁeld
boundaries, and improve soil fertility in addition to slowing erosion. Kerr and Sanghi
(1993) noted how indigenous conservation structures also served as ﬁeld boundary
markers, while the promoted contour bunds were designed exclusively for soil
conservation. Another factor that researchers have identiﬁed as affecting farmers’
technology adoption is the technology’s compatibility with the current farming systems
being used (Brush and Turner 1987; CIMMYT 1993; Sanders 1988).

Norman and Douglas (1994) distinguish between farmers’ ability to adopt and their
disposition to adopt. The ability to adopt is determined by whether or not the technology
is technically feasible, economically viable, and socially acceptable. Farmers’
willingness to adopt a technology depends on whether or not the farmers perceive that the

new technology or practice will help them achieve their goals better than their current

technology or practice.

22

Farming Sﬁtems

Many deﬁnitions of farming systems have been forwarded. Examining several
deﬁnitions can reveal a variety of elements that would not be included in a single
deﬁnition. Shaner et al. (1982:16) deﬁne a farming system as:

a unique and reasonably stable arrangement of farming enterprises that the
household manages according to well-deﬁned practices in response to the
physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments and in accordance
with the household’s goals, preferences and resources.
Beets (1990: 4-5) describes a farming system as consisting of the following:
resources (land, labour, capital) used in activities (crop, livestock, off-
farrn) to produce a ﬂow of outputs (food, raw material, cash). . .. A farming
system is always a part of a larger social, political, economic, cultural, and
political [sic] environment which has impact on everything happening
within the farming system.
Scholars also differentiate between a farm system and a farming system: the term farm
system applies to an individual household, its resources, and the resource ﬂows and
interactions; while a farming system is a population of farm systems with broadly similar
resource bases, enterprises, and livelihoods (Brush and Turner 1987; Dixon et al. 2001).

The factors that determine farming systems are both biophysical and socio-
economic, and also endogenous and exogenous to the farming system (Dixon et al. 2001;
Fresco 1985 in Beets 1990). Dixon et al. point out that the biophysical factors tend to
deﬁne the possible farming systems, while the socio-economic factors determine the
actual farming system. Figure 2 is a graphical representation of the determinants of a
farming system. Exogenous physical factors, represented by the large rectangle, are

largely ﬁxed, while exogenous socioeconomic factors, represented by the large oval, are

dynamic and can be inﬂuenced by policy choices. Factors endogenous to the farming

23

system, whether biological or socioeconomic, are dynamic and can often by changed

through household decision-making.

 
 
 
  
   

EXOGENOUS

  
  

  

  

credit

  
  
   
   

      
       
       
       
        
   

 

 

8 infrastructure
0 information
IE .................... extension
2 off-farm xx", gender relations M’W.‘
2 opportunities _,-’, , . '~.‘ technology
0 ." attitudes and l'lSk aversron
g I" goals FARM "-\ population
0 land tenure ,I' HOUSEHOLD farm resources -,
LL] -’ health and nutrition R
O .3 . FACTORS . -, .
5 . . ,- educatron famrly 3 input supply
0 P0110195 ; levels composition :
VJ 3. ENDOGENOUS ,-

‘-. FACTORS

‘. crops livestock j

a BIOLOGICAL pim'md
O \. diseases
I— F ACTORS , ’
C.) ‘-. ,-
< _ ,x’ ,
LL sorls ‘ - . . _ _ -. wegdg _ , . " altitude
B
m
>‘ .
E PHYSICAL tepography climate
9 FACTORS
CO

 

 

Figure 2. Determinants of Farming Systems. (using categories from Fresco 1985 in

Beets 1990, and Dixon et al. 2001).

Assessing Interventions that Promote Resource Conserving Technologies

Researchers dissatisﬁed with the use of the adoption framework to assess the

success of interventions involving RCATs have developed a number of different

approaches to gather the information they seek. These approaches include investigating

the constraints to adoption, economic analyses using cost-beneﬁt analysis, and farming

systems approaches.

24

Constraints to Adoption

Shaxson (1988) argues that when conservation projects do not go well, it is crucial
to ﬁnd out why the farmers did not adopt or maintain the recommended practices. Many
studies of projects promoting RCATs have interviewed farmers to obtain their
perspectives on the factors that inﬂuence their acceptance or rejection of the promoted
RCATs. These factors can be technical, economic, social, or institutional. Some
common constraints that farmers mention are highlighted in Table 1.
Cost / Beneﬁt Anglvsis of Technologie_s

Cost / Beneﬁt Analysis (CBA) is a common method used to assess RCATs. The
proﬁtability of different technologies can be examined by comparing the ﬂows of costs
and beneﬁts over time with or without the technology (Pagiola 1994). In using CBA to
analyze soil conservation technologies, Pagiola (1994) notes that a primary difﬁculty is
accurately estimating the effects of soil degradation on crop yield. Other difﬁculties in
the analysis include choosing appropriate wage rates and the discount rate.

Lutz et al. (1994) document the use of CBA to analyze the proﬁtability of
mechanical soil and water conservation technologies ﬁom the farmers’ perspective in ten
cases in Central America and the Caribbean. The conservation technologies included
terraces, diversion ditches, live barriers, rock walls, and combinations of these
techniques. The studies found that the more expensive technologies, such as terraces,
were only proﬁtable when the crops being grown were highly proﬁtable and the land was
very vulnerable to degradation. Vegetative barriers and new cultivation practices were
much more likely to be proﬁtable due to their lower establishment costs. In addition, the

study found that adoption rates seemed to correlate well with proﬁtability estimates.

25

Table 1. Constraints to Adoption of Resource Conserving Technologies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of constraint Constraint Source
High labor requirement for Carrasco and Witter 1993;
implementation and/or Fujisaka 1999; Ganity et al.
maintenance 1998; Pellek 1992; White
and Jickling 1995
Take up too much space in the Carrasco and Witter 1993;
ﬁeld Cramb et a1. 1999;
TECHNICAL Sims 1999; Pellek 1992
Some live barrier species are too Cramb et al. 1999; Hellin
invasive and Larrea 1999; Sims 1999
High risk involved Kerr 1998
Insects and disease Cramb et al. 1999; Pellek
1992
Land conditions / soil type Ruaysoongnem 1999
Too costly Carrasco and Witter 1993;
Garrity 1998; Igbokwe et al.
1999; Sims 1999
No short-term economic beneﬁt White and Jickling 1995;
Cramb et al. 1999
ECONOMIC Lack of time or labor Sims 1999
Low prices / ﬂuctuating prices Ruaysoongnem 1999;
CIMMYT 1993
Timing conﬂicts with off-farm Celis et al. 1997
labor opportunities
InadecLuate knowledge Sureshwaran et al. 1996
SOCIAL Unfamiliar technology White and Jickling 1995
No credit or ﬁnancial incentives Cramb et al. 1999;
Sims 1999
Insecure land tenure Celis et al. 1997;
CIMMYT 1993;
INSTITUTIONAL Hellin and Larrea 1999;
Kerr & Sanghi 1993
No technical assistance Sims 1999

 

Lack of markets

Annis 1987; Harwood 1979

 

 

Lack of planting material

 

Sureshwaran et al. 1996

 

Lutz et al. also point out that in addition to CBA, institutional issues and farmer’s

attitudes toward conservation should be considered.

26

 

Ellis-Jones and Sims (1999) used CBA to analyze the proﬁtability of live barriers
and cover crops in south central Honduras. They studied four hillside farmers in different
agro-ecological environments and with different resource endowments. They found that
conservation technologies were more proﬁtable at lower discount rates, b ut that at the
interest rates that farmers would normally face—25 percent or higher—the farmers’
conventional practices were more proﬁtable than the conservation practices.
Nevertheless, live barriers were proﬁtable for all of the farmers in the study. The authors
conclude that increasing short-term beneﬁts would likely increase the adoption of
conservation technologies.

Combined Approaches

Cramb and Nelson (1998) take a two-stage approach to exploring farm-based
constraints to adoption. First, they use CBA to analyze whether or not the promoted
technologies are proﬁtable in an unconstrained setting. Then they examine the technical
and socioeconomic factors at the farm level that could constrain the farmers from
adopting proﬁtable technologies. Seven case study sites in the uplands of the Philippines
were investigated as part of a research project through the Australian Centre for
International Agricultural Research. In each site, RCATs had been promoted by an
agricultural development project. The CBA revealed that hedgerow intercropping would
be proﬁtable in the long-term, but in the short-term (0 to 5 years), farmers’ current
practices were more proﬁtable. For the second stage of research, the researchers used a
combination of Rapid Rural Appraisal, Participatory Rural Appraisal, and a formal
questionnaire survey of farm households to gather the data. They found that personal

attributes of the farmers such as age and education did not signiﬁcantly affect adoption,

27

but that managerial ability and innovativeness were important factors. Perceptions of
both the usefulness and the problems of the technology were similar among adopters and
non-adopters. F arm c haracteristics w ere m ore likely to inﬂuence adoption: farms that
were larger, ones with ﬁelds close to the homestead, ones with easily erodable soils, and
ones with uniform terrain were more likely to include the promoted technologies.
F arrners renting their cropland were less likely to adopt conservation practices, or they
used simpler conservation practices than the ones being promoted by the organization.
Labor was constrained due to the household’s needs to earn income off-farm.

Garcia et al. (1998, cited in Cramb and Nelson 1998), in another part of the study,
documented farmer adaptations to the technologies. These changes included planting the
hedgerows straight across the slope instead of using an A-frame agricultural level,
spacing hedgerows at wider intervals, replacing shrubs with grasses, and choosing plants
for the hedgerows that would generate income. Constraints to adoption mentioned by the
authors included difﬁcult access to planting materials, lack Of immediate economic
beneﬁts, and technical problems such as hedgerow competition with crops.

Participatog Impact Studies

In the last decade, a growing number of researchers have been examining the
impacts of projects that use more participatory methods to promote RCATs. Hinchcliffe
et al. (1999) document 25 case studies on the impacts of participatory watershed
management projects. The studies used a variety of Participatory Rural Appraisal and
other methods to investigate several different types of impact, including agricultural
productivity, resource degradation, livelihood diversity and stability, and increased

autonomy of local groups.

28

Svstem_s Approaﬁhes to Research

One emerging approach to studying complex problems such as those found in

international agricultural development is called a systems approach. A systems approach

differs from the traditional scientiﬁc approach, a reductionist analytical approach,

because it argues that “wholes” are greater than the sum of their parts and cannot be

understood by studying the parts alone (Bell and Morse 1999; Kleynhans 1996; Moore

1995); Bawden (1995:8) describes systems as “coherent whole entities...that possess

properties distinct from either their component sub-systems or the suprasystems of which

they are a part.” Many aspects of systems thinking originated in biology and its concept

of hierarchical structures found in living things (Checkland 1981). Characteristics of

systems include the following:

Systems have boundaries. These boundaries are deﬁned by the investigators
and are arbitrary (Bell and Morse 1999; Brush and Turner 1987).

Systems exist in an environment and interact with that environment (Bawden
1995; Beets 1990; Bell and Morse 1999).

Systems have mechanisms of communication and feedback for regulation and
control; these function both internally and between themselves and their
environment (Bawden 1995; Checkland 198 1).

Systems are purposeful—they can be understood as having goals (Bell and

Morse 1999; Kleynhans 1996).

System approaches, then, seek to understand a system by identifying its components,

examining the relationships among the components, and examining the interactions

between the system and its environment (Beets 1990).

29

ELr'ng Systems Research Approaphes

Farming Systems Research (FSR) involves the use of a systems approach in
studying a farm (Beets 1990). Bawden (1995) calls FSR “an umbrella term for a class of
research approaches,” noting that similar approaches emerged throughout the developing
world as development practitioners sought to help resource-poor farmers missed by the
Green Revolution. Speciﬁc approaches include Farming Systems Research and Extension
(F SR/E) and Farming Systems Development (F SD).

Several scholars have pointed out differences in FSR approaches. Dent (1995)
compares two approaches. The ﬁrst, called technology oriented F SR/E, seeks to develop
technologies in order to improve the efﬁciency of farming systems. Farmers are included
in the research process so that signiﬁcant factors that would impede adoption will not be
overlooked. This concept takes the socioeconomic constraints as a given. An alternative
FSR/E approach focuses on social systems, and recognizes that “bottle-necks” in farming
systems development can be cultural, sociO-economic, and institutional in addition to
technical. The view of Turner and Brush (1987) is similar to this social systems focus;
they state that the fundamental p rerrrise o f farming s ystems thinking is that a ‘ holistic
perspective’—integrating the technological, socioeconomic, environmental and political
elements of the system—will facilitate the understanding of agriculture.

Kleynhans (1996) advances 3 conceptualizations Of systems in relation to FSR: a
mechanistic view, an organisrrric view, and a social systems view. A mechanistic view of
systems explains all relationships in the system as cause-and-effect, and takes both the
environment and the goals of the farm system as given. The solutions for farm problems

are technological ones. From an organismic view, the purpose of a system is survival,

30

which requires growth. The goals of growth and production are given, and the focus of
study is to ﬁnd how the system can adapt to a changing environment. A social system
view stresses that farming systems are purposeful systems—they have goals and “can
learn, adapt and create” (Kleynhans 1996:75). The goals are not assumed.
Understanding a system involves “[being] able to explain its properties and behavior and
to reveal why it is what it is and why it behaves the way it does” (Kleynhans 1996:75).

These different perspectives on FSR highlight the wide variety of approaches under
the “umbrella.” Perhaps the best way to view FSR is with a continuum. Technology-
oriented FSR and mechanistic views of systems lie on one end, and are similar to the
conventional TOT approach. The other end of the continuum represents a holistic
systems approach, which recognizes multiple actors and goals, and the inﬂuence of
multiple contextual factors.
Using a Farming Systems Approaph for Assessment

While farming systems approaches have often been used to document existing
systems, they have been used infrequently in assessing project outcomes. One study that
used a farming systems approach for assessment is documented in Wiersum (1994). This
study sought to assess the initial impact of a development program promoting
agroforestry in Indonesia. F our h amlets w ere selected; the m ethods u sed included in-
depth interviews, observation, and some key informant interviews. The study ﬁrst
focused on the farming systems from several angles: (1) describing the biophysical,
socio-economic, cultural and political context; (2) examining the households’ access to
resources; (3) describing the production practices; and (4) analyzing decision-making in

the farm system. Then the study examined the adoption of the promoted agroforestry

31

practices and their initial impacts. Farmers were also asked why they participated and/or
adopted the practices. The results of the study highlight the large differences between the
villages studied as well as within the villages in terms of access to resources, farmers’

livelihoods, and the ‘success’ of the introduced technology.

The Context for Agricultural Development in Central America

A systems approach to investigating agricultural development requires an
understanding of the broader context of the system being studied. This section will
highlight important features of the Central American context, focusing especially on the
Guatemalan highlands context.
Biophysical and Agroecological Context

Much of Central America is mountainous land and is especially vulnerable to
degradation. Nearly two-thirds of the land in Guatemala is classiﬁed as having a high or
very high erosion risk, and its recommended use is forestry (Elias et al. 1997, Rosado et
al. 1994). However, small farm households cultivate a large amount of this land. Eighty-
six percent of the annual crops grown in Guatemala are grown on hillsides (Lindarte and
Benito 1993). The productivity of these regions is up to 200 percent less than that of ﬂat
or irrigated land (Elias et al. 1997).
Socioeconomic and Political Context

Unlike much of Latin America, Guatemala continues to be predominantly rural
and agricultural. Over sixty percent of the population lives in rural areas, and in 1997 its
agricultural exports were 57.4 percent of the total export amount (United Nations 1999).

The population growth rate is 2.5 percent, and even higher among the indigenous

32

population. As a result, the population density of the western highlands has tripled since
1950, and is now near 140 inhabitants/km2 (United Nations 1999). At the same time, the
distribution of land in Guatemala is the most unequal in Central America—81 percent of
farms are smaller than 3.5 hectares and occupy ten percent of the agricultural land, while
the top two percent of farms occupy 67 percent of the agricultural land (Goldin 1996;
Rosado et al. 1994). The vigorous Opposition to land reform in Guatemala (PichOn et al.
1999), combined with the rapidly expanding population, push farmers to take the
following actions: expand onto more fragile hillsides, intensify farming on the land they
have, and/or seek new livelihood strategies.
Farming and Livelihood Systﬂiiin Guatanﬂr
The predominant farming system of the Guatemalan highlands is what the FAO

calls the Maize-Beans, or Mesoamerican farming system. This farming system is
distinguished by the following characteristics (Dixon et al. 2001):

o the signiﬁcant proportion of indigenous population;

0 the central role, both agriculturally and culturally, of maize and beans;

0 the high degree of on-farm consumption of production;

0 the high degree of seasonal rrrigration of wage labor to lowland

agricultural and coffee estates.

Other c haracteristics O f this f arming system include low yields and e xtensive p overty,
and sparse public infrastructure. Due to the high altitude of the study area, the farming
systems there have some features that differ from the Mesoamerican system. These

features include the cold climate, with frequent frost during the dry season, and a mixed

33

production system that includes potato and wheat crops as well as the raising Of sheep by
many families.

Bernstein (1992) notes that women’s participation in agriculture in Latin America is
much lower than in Asia or Africa. Nevertheless, women’s contribution to agricultural
labor is still signiﬁcant and underestimated.

Off-farm income has become a much larger source of income in the Guatemalan
highlands since the early I990S (United Nations 1999). The traditional means for
smallholder farmers in the highlands to supplement their income has been seasonal
migration to the Paciﬁc coast region to work as laborers in large-scale, export agriculture.
Growing numbers of farmers are crossing into Mexico for agricultural work (Elias et al.
1997; Richter 2000).

During the decade of the 19905, migration to the United States skyrocketed. It is
estimated that over one million Guatemalans are now living in the US. (United Nations
1999). Remittances amount to $500 million per year, the second largest source of foreign
exchange after coffee (Elias et al. 1997).

History of Agricultural Development for Smallholder Farm Households
Government eﬂoﬁs

In Central America, agricultural research and extension institutions have focused
primarily on large scale, export agriculture and have paid little attention to sustainability
issues and smallholder farmers (Lindarte and Benito 1993; PichOn and Uquillas 1999).
Efforts at helping resource-poor farmers in Guatemala were further hindered by political
instability and armed conﬂict between the leftist guerrillas and the anti-communist

government. While the hard-line anticommunists saw the instability as caused

34

exclusively by Marxist insurgents, more moderate factions recognized that the
socioeconomic conditions of rural farm households were difﬁcult and saw rural
development as a way to solve the political crisis (Berger 1992). Early government
efforts to help small-scale farmers occurred in the 1970s and involved technical and
ﬁnancial support for growing basic grains. According to Berger, wealthier farmers
tended to beneﬁt from these programs. The government also promoted state-supported
cooperatives as a strategy to improve farmers’ standard of living without land reform,
which was politically impossible (Brockett 1998; Celis et al. 1997; PichOn and Uquillas
1999)

The biggest govemmental effort to improve agriculture in the highlands began in
the early to mid-1980s Called the Proyecto de Desarrollo Agricola del Altiplano
(Highlands Agricultural Development Project), this USAID-ﬁnanced project sought to
help small farmers through assistance in irrigation development, soil conservation, credit,
commercialization, and research and extension (Kaimowitz 1993a; Rosado et al. 1994).
Soil conservation was a major component of the strategy; the objectives were to reduce
soil deterioration, increase nutrient retention and humidity, incorporate more areas into
agricultural production with greater capacity and without deterioration, and train farmers
to practice SWC (Rosado et al. 1994). Many technologies were promoted, including
mechanical structures such as terraces, contour ditches, contour cropping, and rock walls,
and vegetative practices such as live barriers. Agronomic practices such as seed
selection, crop rotation, and green fertilizers were also promoted. The program used both

monetary and food-for-work incentives.

35

In the late 1980s and early 19905, the Guatemalan government introduced several
structural adjustment measures that affected the agricultural sector. Between 1989 and
1991, spending on public research and extension dropped by 48% and 60%, respectively
(Kaimowitz 1993b). The government extension agency was eliminated in the early
19905. Social funds were created by several multilateral development and funding
agencies in the 19905 for the purpose of relieving the harsh effects of structural
adjustment on poor communities. Most of these funds were destined for economic and
social infrastructure, such as schools, health centers, and roads (Meyer 1999).
Non-governmental Organizations

Few non-govemmental organizations (NGOs) worked in Guatemala before 1970;
these included international relief and development organizations such as CARE and
Catholic Relief Services. Movements afﬁliated with the Catholic Church were active in
organizing farmer cooperatives throughout the 19705. The numbers of NGOs grew
rapidly after a major earthquake struck the country in 1976. The ﬁrst agricultural
projects involved donations or credit for agricultural inputs, small animal projects, and
community gardens. Overall, these interventions had little impact (Kaimowitz 1993b).
At the peak of the civil war in the early 19805, the repression of community organizations
and cooperatives caused many NGOs to leave the country. Many groups returned to
Guatemala after a civilian government took power in early 1986 (Berger 1992;
Kaimowitz 1993b).

While most NGOs in Central America have used a modernist approach to
agriculture in the past, many organizations are switching to lower-input strategies

promoting organic fertilizers and SWC, as well as more participatory methodologies

36

(Kaimowitz 1993b). Some researchers argue that although the technology content has
changed, a TOT approach to disseminating the technologies persists (Jansen 1998).
Kaimowitz (1993b: 188-189) notes that there is “a tendency to promote the same few
simple practices in a wide variety Of contexts and with farmers who have different needs,

access to resources and agroecological conditions.”

The Qualitative Research Paradigm

Researchers are increasingly recognizing the need to seek the farmers’
perspectives in agricultural development. The assumptions of the qualitative paradigm
of research are consistent with this approach. This research framework is also commonly
referred to as the constructivist, interpretive, or naturalistic paradigm (Creswell 1994).
The qualitative paradigm holds that realities are socially constructed and are multiple—
there are as many realities are there are individuals, although groups of people may share
many common elements (Guba and Lincoln 1989, 1994). Researchers operating in the
qualitative paradigm argue that knowledge is created in the interaction between
investigator and respondents (Guba and Lincoln 1994). Therefore, they seek close
interactions with the individuals with whom they are involved in research; through
interaction a researcher can begin to understand reality from the participants’
perspectives.

Research in the qualitative paradigm holds a number of methodological
assumptions common to many different research strategies:

Research is carried out in a natural setting (Creswell 1998).

37

The researcher serves as the primary data collection instrument, and uses
qualitative methods such as interviews and observation (Guba and Lincoln
1989)

The design of the research is emergent; the researcher maintains ﬂexibility
to alter the design or research questions based on the data or issues that
emerge from the participants in the ﬁeld (Creswell 1994).

The aim of the research is to understand the emic views of the participants
(Guba and Lincoln 1989; Creswell 1998).

In terms of data analysis, qualitative research involves an inductive
approach, in which categories emerge from the data collected and the
interactions between the researcher and the researched (Creswell 1994).

Marshall and Rossman (1995:39) express that the qualitative paradigm is especially
suitable “for research that is exploratory or descriptive, that assumes the value of context
and setting, and that searches for a deeper understanding of the participants’ lived
experiences of the phenomenon.”

Qualitative Evaluation
Different authors have highlighted the useﬁrlness of qualitative methods in
evaluation and assessment. Baker (2000) discusses their advantages:
Qualitative and papicmratorv methods can also be used to assess impact.
These techniques Often provide critical insights into beneﬁciaries’
perspectives, the value of programs to beneﬁciaries, the processes that
may have affected outcomes, and a deeper interpretation of results
Observed in quantitative analysis.
Greene ( 1994) lists several characteristics of qualitative evaluation. First of all, it
emphasizes the importance of understanding the context over the generalizability of the
results. Secondly, it utilizes primarily qualitative methods. Thirdly, the investigator

recognizes his or her role in the process. Finally, qualitative evaluation often makes use

of case studies.

38

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN

Design Strategy

This research uses a qualitative case study approach as the design strategy. Case
study research involves the in-depth study of a speciﬁc, bounded entity, called a case.
Stake (1994) describes three types of case studies: intrinsic, instrumental, and collective.
This study is a collective case study as several villages will be examined to better
understand the issues in question. It is also an instrumental case study since the primary
issues of interest are not the cases themselves but rather the issues related to the outcomes
of agricultural development projects.

Qualitative case studies use multiple data collection methods such as open ended-
interviews, on-site Observation, and document review in order to understand the
meanings held by the participants in the case. This use of multiple methods, sometimes
called triangulation, serves as a way to clarify meaning and reduce the likelihood of

misinterpretation (Stake 1994).

Entry

Before beginning graduate studies and this research, the researcher had spent over
four years in the study area, working in two different development projects unrelated to
agriculture. This familiarity with the setting and with many of the community leaders
allowed the researcher to enter the research setting easily. The researcher still met with
local leaders and government ofﬁcials to let them know what he would be doing and the

purpose of the research before beginning data collection.

39

Site Selection
Marshall and Rossman (1995:51) list four characteristics of an ideal site for study:
(1) Entry is possible;
(2) There is a high p robability that a rich mix 0 f the processes, p eople,
programs, interactions, and structures of interest are present;
(3) The researcher is likely to be able to build trusting relations with
participants in the study; and
(4) Data quality and credibility of the study are reasonably assured.
Four villages were chosen as the cases for study from among the villages located in the
northern headwaters of the Suchiate watershed. As described above, the researcher’s
previous experiences in the communities made entry into the research setting and travel
within each community problem-free; normally these kinds of rural communities would
likely be distrustful of outsiders. To ensure a rich mix of elements to study, the
researcher sought out villages that had experienced a variety of agricultural development

interventions in the previous twenty to thirty years. A ﬁnal criterion for village selection

was relatively easy accessibility.

Sample Size

Sampling for qualitative research differs from sampling in quantitative research. In
qualitative research, the amount of data collected and the quality of that data is more
important than the number of subjects (Morse 1994). One means of determining when
enough sources have been questioned is when there is signiﬁcant repetition in the
ﬁndings (Morse 1994).

Sample sizes in similar studies dealing with agricultural development in less
developed countries are wide ranging. Fujisaka (1999) discusses two studies in the

Philippines using 55 interviews and 39 interviews. Hellin and Larrea (1999) interviewed

40

65 farmers in two municipios in Honduras to learn about their problems and perspectives
on SWC practices. The study of farming systems and RCAT adoption in Indonesia
documented in Wiersum (1994) involved 120 farmer interviews in four communities,
with two researchers working in each community. Kumar (1993) recommends a sample

size of 25 to 50 people for informal surveys.

Informed Consent

Before each interview, the researcher obtained informed consent from the study
participants. The researcher explained, in Spanish, the purpose of the study and the rights
of the participants. If potential participants seemed confused about the form, the
researcher attempted to explain the reasons for informed consent as carefully as possible.

At times a translator was available to explain the form in the Mom language.

Data Collection
Mollection Methoda

This research utilized a variety of data collection methods, including several types
of interviews, direct and participant observation, and the review of documents. These
methods are common in social science research and they also are included in a family of
research methods called rapid appraisal methods or rapid rural appraisal (RRA), now
used extensively in international development research. Kumar (1993:21) states that
these methods are ‘particularly appropriate’ in situations such as the following:

o examining the institutional constraints that farmers face in adopting recommended
innovations;

41

0 learning farmers’ views, perceptions, and recommendations about development
interventions;

0 “Why” and “how” questions such as “Why are farmers not adopting. . .?”

These data collection methods are commonly used by many researchers when assessing
the effectiveness of the promotion of resource-conserving agricultural technologies
(Bunch and LOpez 1995; Cramb and Nelson 1998; Hellin and Larrea 1999; Kerr 1993;
Wiersum 1994).
Open-ended, Informal Interviews

The bulk of the research used open-ended interviews to obtain data. The researcher
began each interview with a few questions and a number of topics in mind, but allowed
the participants freedom to expand on the different issues being discussed and to bring up
issues that were important to them in the context of agricultural development. Some
surprising information was obtained in this manner, information that likely would never
have surfaced using a highly structured interview approach.
Key Informant Interviews

These interviews involve the selection of respondents based on their experience or

specialized knowledge (Kumar 1993). These interviews used the open-ended, semi-
structured approach as well. The key informants used in this study include project staff,
community leaders, leaders Of local development groups, and farmer promoters.
Observation

Two kinds of Observational methods were used in this research. The ﬁrst involved
the researcher’s observations during initial rapid appraisal of the communities and during
other times of walking through the villages; it did not involve contact with people but

rather observations of housing locations, the locations of roads and trails, and the types of

42

soil conservation structures and other practices in the villages. These observations were
captured primarily through photography. Participant Observation took place during the
interviews and at other times during the research process. During interviews, a number
of farmers took the researcher to see their ﬁelds; this allowed the researcher to observe
the resource-conserving technologies that had been implemented by the farmers and
helped to give a better picture of the farm system. On a few occasions, the researcher
“helped” a farmer harvest some potatoes or remove rocks from a ﬁeld. When the
researcher visited the tree nurseries of several agricultural development projects, he
participated brieﬂy in the work.
The Review of Documents

Reviewing documents allowed the researcher to learn more about the agricultural
development organizations’ goals, strategies and activities. Sources of information
included the web pages of international development organizations, a diagnostic survey
of several villages conducted by one of the organizations, and an agronomist’s quarterly
and annual work reports.
Mollection Process

The ﬁrst months of ﬁeldwork of the study involved key informant interviews with
project p ersonnel and farmers k nown to the researcher. T hese interviews allowed the
researcher to learn which organizations had worked or were currently working in the
communities and what kind 0 f activities they h ad p romoted o r were promoting. T his
information was used to select the four communities to be investigated: Los Pinos, Tres

Rios, San Lucas, and Vista Bonita.l

 

1 Village names have been changed.

43

Initial visits to the communities included making observations of the types and
extent of soil conservation works; many of the observations were recorded using
photography. During these ﬁrst visits the researcher also visited farmers he knew.

Contacting farmers to set up interviews proved to be the most difﬁcult stage of the
research. Farmer schedules are highly variable, and their ﬁelds are often located far ﬁom
their homesteads. In addition, a large number of farmers work off-farm, either locally or
far away. The researcher used a number of approaches to establish contacts and set up
interviews.

Many interviews were conducted with farmers previously known to the researcher.
The researcher visited their homes, told them about his study and asked if they would like
to participate. If the time was inconvenient, a later time was arranged. Opportunistic
interviews were conducted when the researcher was walking through a village and
noticed a farmer or farmers working in a ﬁeld. Farmers were asked if they would like to
participate in a study on agricultural development. If the farmer agreed, the researcher
asked for informed consent and then proceeded with the interview.

In Los P inos and Tres Rios, m any c ontacts w ere m ade during the weekly group
activities run by the govemment-related rural development organization. The
organization’s staff provided a time for the researcher to talk about the research and ask
for volunteers from the group to be interviewed. While the process was not ideal for
ensuring the best representation of the villagers in the study, the variety of economic
levels, ages, and experiences with development organizations represented by the study

participants assured the researcher that a rich mix of data had been obtained.

44

In San Lucas, the lack of an active group at which to contact farmers resulted in a
different strategy. A farmer well known to the researcher helped to set up several
interviews and accompanied the researcher to these people’s homes or ﬁelds. This
farmer also served as a translator during parts of the interviews when it was easier to
explain questions in the Mam language; this was especially helpful in two interviews
with women.

In Vista Bonita, the researcher attempted to make contacts for interviews during a
community workday. The assistant mayor gathered the group and allowed the researcher
to speak about the purpose of the research. There was little response and apparently
some confusion about what the researcher was doing; the farmers likely thought that the
researcher was trying to form a group to carry out conservation work, rather than merely
talking with them about their past experiences with conservation projects. NO one
volunteered to participate in the study. On a later date, the researcher discussed the
research after a service in the Catholic Church. The researcher had worked with a
number of these families before, and they were more willing to participate. These

interviews were supplemented with opportunistic interviews.

Data Analysis

Data analysis occurred iteratively throughout the research process. Interview
notes were reviewed as soon as possible after the interview, and topics that emerged in
earlier interviews led to new lines of questioning in later interviews. Additional

observations from the interview were added to the ﬁeld notes. As common themes were

45

repeated in the interviews, the researcher selected the most interesting themes or issues as
categories to be pursued more in-depth in later interviews.

After the ﬁeldwork was completed, the ﬁeld notes were translated into English to
facilitate the analysis. A spreadsheet summarizing some of the data was constructed to
obtain an overall view of the interview information and to simplify comparison between
the villages. Data from the interviews were ﬁrst grouped by village, and development
worker data was gathered into a separate group. Then the data was grouped into the
categories selected during the research in order to analyze the issues of the case.
Subcategories were developed when there were large amounts of data. Category and
subcategory data were later combined from the different villages for analysis across
villages.

As the text was written and farmer quotes were inserted, the original interview

notes were frequently consulted to ensure accuracy of the statements.

Verification of the Results

In order to ensure the validity of the research, the primary method used was
triangulation. Triangulation involves the use of multiple methods and multiple data
sources (Creswell 1994). The design of this study represents triangulation on several
levels. First of all, multiple methods, including several types of interviews, observation,
and document review were used to obtain the data. Secondly, the study of four villages
provided the opportunity to study how different organizations functioned in different
contexts. F inally, rn ultiple stakeholder g roups w ere interviewed—proj ect workers and

development administrators, community leaders, farmer promoters, participants and non-

46

participants, and male and female household members—in order to obtain multiple

perspectives.

Transferability

Transferability refers the potential of results of the research to be applied in
another context. It parallels the traditional criteria of external validity, or
generalizability. Qualitative research, with its emphasis on the importance and
uniqueness of the context, does not claim that its results are necessarily generalizable; it
instead seeks to explain the context in as much depth as possible, and places the
responsibility on the reader of the research to select which procedures and conclusions of

the research can be applied in another context.

47

CHAPTER 4
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE CASES
Chapter Introduction
This chapter introduces the four villages that are the cases for the research and the
agricultural projects that have operated in these villages. The ﬁrst section will introduce
the region in general. The second section describes the four villages. The third section

describes the different agricultural projects and the technologies that have been promoted.

The Region
The four study villages are located in the municipality of Ixchiguén, San Marcos.
Ixchiguan is located high in the Sierra Madre mountain range, between the two highest

volcanoes in C entral A merica, T ajumulco and T acané. E levations o f t he m unicipality

range between 2400 meters and 3700 meters.

 

Figure 3. The Suchiate watershed.

48

The climate here is cold. Daily average temperatures are between ten and ﬁfteen
degrees Celsius. Frost is common from November through February at altitudes above
2800 meters. During the rainy season, hail is not uncommon. The rainy season runs
from May to October and is bimodal, with the highest amount of rain occurring in the
months of June and September. The average annual precipitation for the area is 2000
millimeters.

The 5 oils in this region are Andisols, which are formed from v olcanic materials.
The fertility of the two prevalent soil series is moderate to high, as is the erosion risk.
Simmons et al. (1959: 229) discuss the productive potential of these soils: “In general,
they are at such high elevations and on such steep slopes that they do not lend themselves
to favorable production of most crops” [author’s translation].

There is a main road connecting the region to the departmental capital, 45
kilometers to the southeast. The road was gravel and very rough until recently. Paving
began in 1997; the asphalt had nearly reached the entire distance to Ixchiguén by the end
Of this study. The asphalt has cut travel time in half. The road follows the top edge of
the ridge that deﬁnes the watershed; nearly all of the villages in the region are located
lower than the road. Until recently, few villages were accessible by vehicle; three of the
four villages in the study have had new roads built to them within the last ﬁve years.

The population of the area is approximately 20,000 people, and the population
density is 110 persons per square kilometer. Poverty in the region is high. San Marcos
was recently ranked as the poorest department in the country, with 86.66 percent of its

population classiﬁed as poor (Prensa Libre, 2001).

49

The Villages

This section describes each of the four villages included in the study. It begins by
discussing the geophysical characteristics and the geographic location and layout of the
village, and then discusses the typical farming systems and livelihood components found
in each village.

Los Pinos

The village of Los Pinos lies in a long, gently sloping micro-watershed that begins
at 3200 meters above sea level; most of the village lies between 3000 and 3100 meters,
and the lowest elevation in the village is just over 2900 meters. The area of the village is
18 kmz. The village is accessible by vehicles year-round and is located to one side of
the major road in the region. Los Pinos is divided into four different communities or
neighborhoods; the combined population of these communities is roughly 2000 people.
Houses are scattered throughout the basin, and most people’s ﬁelds are adjacent to their
homestead. The higher elevations of the village contain few houses; much of this area
used to be communal land but was divided up over 20 years ago to expand the
agricultural land of the village.

The population of the village is culturally diverse, containing two Mayan
indigenous groups as well as a signiﬁcant percentage of Ladinos. The vast majority of
these families are farming households. They grow potatoes, corn, wheat, and a few
vegetables. Potatoes are the principal cash crop. According to a recent diagnostic survey
by one of the development organizations currently working here, 40 percent of the crops

grown in the villages are for household consumption, and 60 percent are destined for the

50

market. Yields for potatoes average 18 quintalesz (qq) per cuerda3 (18.8 t/ha.), and
maize yields average 1.5 qq/cuerda (1568 kg/ha.). Table 2 compares the yields for
different crops in all the villages as reported by the farmers. These ﬁgures are similar to
yields in other regions of the western highlands as reported in Hostnig et al. (1998) and
Poma M. (1998).

Table 2. Yields of Common Crops in the Study Villages.

 

Yields (in guintales per cuerda)
Village

 

potato maize wheat broad beans

 

San Lucas Average: 15 qq/cu. Avg.: 1.75 qq/cu. Avg.: <1 qq/cu. Avg: 1 qq/cu

 

 

Range: 6-25 Range: 05-30

Tres Rios Average: 13 qq/cu. Avg: 1.5 qq/cu. 1 qq/cu. 1 qq/cu.
Range: 5-22 Range: 05-30

Vista Bonita Average: 11 qq/cu. Avg: 1.0 qq/cu. 1.25 qq/cu. 1 qq/cu.
Range: 2-25 Range: O.5-2.0

 

 

Los Pinos Average: 18 qq/cu. Avg.: 1.5 qq/cu. 1.25 qq/cu
Range: 3-30 Range: 05-30 Range: 0.5-2.0

 

 

 

 

 

A high percentage of families’ incomes is Obtained from non-farm or off-farm labor
Opportunities. In the past, nearly everyone migrated to the Paciﬁc coast of Guatemala or
to Chiapas, Mexico for the coffee harvest in the months of October to December; these
days only a small percentage of families goes. Several families have small businesses-—
they have small stores in their homes or they sell merchandise or produce in the local

markets. Many farmers pursue part-time agricultural work with other local families.

 

2 The quintal (qq) is the common measurement unit for agricultural products. One quintal is 100
unds.
The cuerda (cu.) is the common measurement unit for land in rural areas. One cuerda is
approximately 435 ml.

51

 

Others work as carpenters or masons. A large number of families sell animals. Several
families have family members who work in the capital. The most signiﬁcant
employment trend in the last ten years, however, is the migration of a large number Of
people, primarily young men, to the United States. The variety of livelihood components
and their importance in each of the villages are shown in Table 3.
Tres Rios

The village of Tres Rios lies at the headwaters of a steep microwatershed. The
center of the village lies at approximately 2850 meters above sea level; elevations in the
village range from 2600m to over 3100m. The topography is moderately to steeply
sloping, with a few areas of gentle slopes. An all season road to the center of the village
was built in the late 19905. The village contains between 450 and 500 people. Houses
are scattered throughout the village, and families have part of their agricultural land near
their homes. Some families whose homes are at higher elevations also own land at lower
elevations in the village. All of the families belong to the Mam indigenous group. Nearly
all of the farm households are subsistence farmers, growing maize, potatoes, broad beans
(Vicia faber), and, increasingly, vegetables such as cabbage, carrots, beets, and onions.
Yields for potatoes average 15 qq/cuerda (15.7 t/ha.) and maize yields average 1.5
qq/cuerda (1568 kg/ha.) (See Table 2). Most families migrate seasonally to earn cash
incomes. M any farmers still travel to C hiapas, Mexico for the annual c Offee harvest;
others grow maize on rented land on the coast. Farmers sell a signiﬁcant portion of their
potatoes, and this percentage is increasing due to the small-scale irrigation system
recently constructed in the community. Some families sell potatoes and vegetables in the

local markets.

52

Table 3. Livelihood Practices by Village.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVELIHOOD COMPONENT Los Pinos San Lucas Tres Rios Vista
Bonita

Growing maize for consumption XX XXX XXX XXX

Growing potatoes for consumption XXX XXX XXX XXX

Growing beans or vegetables for cons. X X XX X

Growing potatoes to sell XXX XX XXX XX

Growing vegetables to sell in local X XX

markets

Selling merchandise in local markets XX X X X

Selling merchandise in distant X

communities

Selling agricultural products in distant X

communities

Selling animals XX X X XX

Selling ﬁrewood or lumber X

Local agricultural labor XX XX X X

Local non-agricultural labor X X X

Domestic work XX

Carpenter / mason XX XX X XX

Butcher X

Store owner X X X X

Renting agriculttn'al land to others X X

Migration to coffee ﬁncas X XX XX XXX

Growing maize on the coast X X

Family members working in capital X

Family members working in US XXX XXX X X

 

 

 

 

 

Key: XXX: Most households
XX: Several households
X: Few households
San Lucas
The village of San Lucas is located along a ridge extending down from the

continental divide toward the Paciﬁc Ocean. Its elevations range from 3300m at its

53

 

highest point to approximately 2400m at its low point; most houses are located along the
ridge between 2700m and 2900m. In the center of the village—the only large, relatively
ﬂat area—a large group of houses is clustered tightly together. Most people’s ﬁelds are
located on the slopes running down from the long ridge; ahnost all of the cropland lies on
moderately sloping to steeply sloping land. The village was not accessible to vehicles
until 1997 or 1998. The population of San Lucas is roughly 800 people; all belong to the
Maya-Mam indigenous group.

The majority of the people here are subsistence farmers. Some grow potatoes and
broad beans as cash crops; nearly everyone grows maize for their family’s consumption.
Crop yields in San Lucas average 1.75 qq/cuerda for maize (1829 kg/ha.), and 15
qq/cuerda (15.7 t/ha.) for potatoes (see Table 2). A number of families raise livestock,
including cows, sheep, and pigs. Traditionally the men have migrated to Chiapas,
Mexico for the annual coffee harvest to earn cash incomes. A few community members
work as carpenters or masons. During the last eight to ten years, dozens of younger men
have migrated to the United States to ﬁnd work. An estimated 50 villagers are currently
in the US, and remittances are a major income source for many families in this village.
Vista Bonita

The hamlet of Vista Bonita is located on another ridge extending from the high
ridge of the Sierra Madre toward the Paciﬁc Ocean. Elevations in the village range from
3300m down to 2500m; the majority of the houses are located on top of a narrow ridge at
3000m. The vast majority of the agricultural land is steeply sloping (greater than 50%
slopes). Soils are very thin, and have a sandy subsoil. The village has approximately 500

inhabitants; all belong to the Maya-Mam indigenous group.

54

Access to Vista Bonita was by footpath until three years ago, when a road was built
with the help of the municipal government and other government programs. The
steepness o f the road p revents large trucks from leaving the village with m uch cargo,
however. There are several forested areas around Vista Bonita; most of these are
privately owned. With the construction of the new road, much more ﬁrewood is being
cut to be sold in the main town.

All of the farm households here farm primarily for subsistence. Very little of the
farm production is sold. Farmers grow potatoes, mainly above 2700m and primarily for
household consumption. Most farmers grow maize at lower elevations; many farmers
own or rent land in other villages at lower elevations. Runner beans (Phaseolus
coccineus) can be grown at lower altitudes, and a few farmers grow them as a cash crop.
A few families have small-scale, homemade irrigation systems, and may grow some
vegetables and potatoes during the dry season. Yields for maize average 1 qq/ cuerda
(1045 kg/ha.), and potato yields average 10 qq/ cuerda (10.5 t/ha.) (See Table 2). Many
families own a small number of sheep and/or goats, generally between ten and twenty
animals, and Often sell a few of these animals in times of econorrric hardship. Nearly all
the male farmers migrate to Chiapas, Mexico for the coffee harvest. They work there for
two to four months, beginning in September. Some farmers also migrate for four to six

weeks during May or June, when cash is scarce.

The Agricultural Development Organizations

This section introduces the agricultural development organizations that have

functioned or are currently functioning in the study communities. The organizations are

55

listed in the approximate chronological order in which they began their agricultural

activities in the region. Table 4 shows the communities in which each organization has

worked or is currently working.

Table 4. Communities Where the Agricultural Development Organizations Work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Community
. . Los Pinos Tres Rios San Lucas Vista Bonita
Organization has currently has currently has currently has currently
worked working worked working worked working worked working
here here here here
NGO 1 \/
GO 1 f l f I
NGO 2 l f / \/ J /
GRO 1 u/ l v/ f /
NGO 3 / /
NGO 4 J J l I I
GO 2 ~/ I I /
GO 3 f l J l »/
TOTALS 8 5 6 3 4 5 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-Govemmental Organization 1

The ﬁrst agricultural development intervention began in the late 19605 or early

19705, when some priests and lay people from the Catholic Church in the neighboring

municipio, o r c ounty, c ame to the a rea to O ffer agricultural training. F ive c ommunity

members from Los Pinos traveled to the other municipio to receive training; they returned

to the community to train their neighbors.

Approximately 20 farm households were

initially involved. The training included improved planting techniques, soil conservation,

composting, crop rotation, and reforestation.

Contour ditches were the primary

conservation technology promoted, but terraces and fodder grasses were also introduced.

56

 

The organization introduced many farmers to chemical fertilizer and improved varieties
of potato. Of the study villages, only Los Pinos worked with NGO 1.

As the non-participating villagers of Los Pinos noticed the great improvement in
potato production, they began adopting the new practices as well. In the mid-19705
farmers began to use credit to ﬁnance their potato production activities. Farmers
mentioned two sources for this credit: the national govemment’s agricultural
development bank, and the local cooperative, which had grown out of NGO 1.
Governmental Organization 1

The early 19805 apparently had minimal agricultural development activity, as these
were the years when the civil war reached its highest intensity. After the new civilian
administration was elected in 1985, new initiatives were begun in the region. The
govemment’s agricultural extension service joined with USAID to develop an
agricultural intensiﬁcation project, called the Proyecto de Desarollo Agricola del
Altiplano (The Agricultural Development Project of the Highlands), which was
mentioned in Chapter 2.

In the beginning, a major part of this effort involved soil conservation work using
large work teams. About 200 farmers from several villages were paid between $2 and $3
a day to build conservation structures on public lands and on farms near the main road.
This program lasted for three months. For the next several years, three or four locally-
based government extension workers promoted agricultural intensiﬁcation in many of the
villages in the region. Extension workers visited the communities regularly, often every
week. Community development committees were formed, and groups of farmers often

worked together to build soil conservation structures on each other’s ﬁelds. Other

57

practices that were taught included composting, vegetable gardens, reforestation, and
improved agronomic techniques such as crop rotation and seed selection. In some
instances, farmers were paid cash subsidies based on the area of conservation works they
completed. In most villages, however, food-for-work (FF W) was the primary incentive
used. The government extension service was ended around 1992 as a result of structural
adjustment.
Non-Govemmental Organization 2

In the mid-19805 a church-based organization became more active in agricultural
development. Initially focusing on vegetable gardens and reforestation and working with
women’s groups, the organization expanded the work to include soil conservation,
composting and improved agronomic practices. The organization has always provided
FFW for the group participants. In the 19805 and early 19905, this organization worked
in all of the study villages.

Recent efforts of this organization have shifted more towards an agro-ecological
framework, and technologies such as integrated pest management, agroforestry and
organic farming have been added. The primary goal of this organization is “to improve
and sustain the food security of the most vulnerable agricultural families in San Marcos”
(author’s translation). A formally trained agronomist visits each community every other
week. Local promoters are chosen to receive training in the technologies, and they return
to their communities to implement the technologies in the group with the assistance of the
agronomist. FFW is now offered to participants only during the ﬁrst year of activities;

the organization offers credit to group members in following years, beginning with

58

Q.500.00 and increasing each year if the families pay back the credit on time.
Communities currently involved with NGO 2 include Tres Rios and Los Pinos.
Grassroots Organization 1

This organization b egan in the late 1 9805 w hen a group O f c itizens interested in
community development began to organize themselves. The organization belongs to a
large group of grassroots organizations, through which its gets ﬁnancing and technical
support and where it networks with other agencies to provide training opportunities for its
members. This organization has members from more than ten villages; most villages
have fewer than ten members. A local farmer serves as the program coordinator.
Agricultural development is just one of the areas in which the organization works—the
organization promotes organic agriculture, specializing in composting and natural
insecticides and fungicides, and it promotes animal care with natural products as well.
The organization has frequently offered loans to group members for agricultural
production; in 1998, 70 families received loans.
Non-Govemmental Organization 3

An international NGO began working in Los Pinos in the early- to mid-19905.
Environmental protection is its primary focus, but it seeks to accomplish this goal using a
“people-centered approach,” and the organization aims “to signiﬁcantly improve the
living conditions of poor farm families.” The agricultural and natural resource
management programs have emphasized reforestation, soil conservation, and
agroforestry, but the organization has also promoted group vegetable gardens,

composting and organic agriculture. The organization also has programs in community

59

health. Most of the staff lives in the nearest city; local promoters have been used at
times. Of the four study villages, this organization has only worked in Los Pinos.
Non-Govemmental Organization 4

A second church-based agricultural development organization began functioning in
the early 19905. The goal of this organization is to increase farm households’ levels of
productivity and to strengthen community organization, in order to improve people’s
standard of living and their ability to defend and promote their rights. The organization
began working with 27 women’s groups, each consisting of 22 women. The ﬁrst
technologies or practices promoted by the organization were composting and organic
vegetable gardens, as well as tree nurseries. While the organization initially offered
FFW, it was discontinued after a few years, and the requirement that participants belong
to the women’s group was also dropped. At that time the organization decided to focus
its work on the poorest communities in the region, which included San Lucas and Buena
Vista. The organization began promoting SWC in the mid-19905, emphasizing soil
conservation technologies that involved less labor, such as living contour barriers with
fodder grasses. Formally trained agronomists visit the communities on a weekly or bi-
weekly basis.

Another new technology that the orgarrization promoted in the mid- to late-19905
was actually a new agricultural system. The system, which was being practiced in other
regions 0 f the c ountry, involved c hanging the m ethod that sheep w ere managed, from
extensive grazing to intensive stall-feeding. New, elevated sheep pens, improved fodder
grasses, and new breeds of sheep were all introduced by the project. The sheep were to

be fed with the fodder grasses. The sheep manure, which would no longer be scattered

6O

 

 

 

 

  
 

througlnu

planting.

 

 

breed of I
villages, ti
sheep.
N0
011 time t

active; ti

throughout the pasture areas, could now be used for organic fertilizer and applied to the
crop ﬁelds. The fodder grasses were planted on conservation structures in the crop ﬁelds.
The elimination of extensive grazing would allow forested areas to naturally regenerate
and would protect areas being reforested. Approximately 100 families received ﬁnancial
help to build the new stables; they also received new varieties of fodder grasses to begin
planting. The organization planned to give loans to the farrrilies to buy an improved
breed of sheep; in some villages the families received the new sheep, but in other
villages, where the improved fodder grasses did not grow well, families did not get the
sheep.

NGO 4 is also providing loans to group members. Members who pay back the loan
on time can receive a larger loan the following year. The group in Buena Vista is still
active; the program has been suspended in San Lucas due to problems with repayment.
Governmental Organization 2

This organization is a social investment fund. Communities have to apply for
projects, a process which involves a lot of paperwork and time. Projects sponsored by
the fund have included small-scale infrastructure such as roads and school buildings,
small-scale irrigation projects, latrine projects, and wood-burning stove projects. The
village of Tres Rios applied for and received a small-scale irrigation project, beneﬁting
55 families. The fund paid for the materials and skilled labor, and the community had to
provide all of the unskilled labor. Many respondents in Los Pinos reported that this
organization has a tree nursery there. This organization collaborates closely with another

governmental organization currently operating in the region, GO 3.

61

Governmental Organization 3

The third governmental organization began functioning in the region in the late
19905. It focuses on community organization, agriculture, and other income-generating
activities in rural communities. Both a formally trained agronomist and a social scientist
visit the communities once a week. The organization worked in Vista Bonita for two
years, and it is currently working in Los Pinos and Tres Rios. It promotes community
tree nurseries for reforestation, and it promotes soil conservation and vegetable gardens
in both of these communities. The organization is also playing a facilitating role in both
communities in applying for infrastructure projects, likely through the fund described
above (GO 2). In Los Pinos they are hoping to expand the potable water system, and in
Tres Rios they are trying to extend the road further down to reach most of the irrigated

areas.

62

CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS

Chapter Introduction

This chapter presents the ﬁndings of the study. The ﬁrst section reports on the
processes by which farmers initially adopt resource-conserving agricultural technologies.
The second section examines the assessments of the promoted technologies by the
farmers and the constraints to their adoption. The third section examines whether or not
farmers continue to use the RCATs after the agricultural development organizations leave
the community, and the factors that inﬂuence farmers’ decisions. The fourth section
highlights the impacts of the agricultural development projects as expressed by the
farmers. The ﬁfth section examines the reasons for differences in the impacts

experienced by farm households, examining factors at the household and village levels.

Initial Adoption of Resource Conserving Agricultural Technologies

The ﬁrst issue this research examined was the process by which farmers initially
adopt RCATs. Farmers learned about and implemented RCATs primarily through
participation in agricultural development projects, but signiﬁcant numbers of farmers
adopted certain technologies through other channels.
Adoption Througlﬂ’roiect Participation
Levels of Participation

In each of the villages studied, the majority of the respondents had participated in
agricultural development projects that were promoting RCATs. Seventy-two out of

eighty-one farmers stated that they or someone in their household had participated in at

63

least one agricultural development project. In three of the communities, the majority of
respondents had participated in at least two projects; only in San Lucas was this not the
case. The majority of farm households had many years of experience with agricultural
development projects, with 46 of the 82 respondents reporting that they had already
participated in groups before 1991. Some farmers in Los Pinos had participated in an
agricultural development group as long as thirty years ago, while participation for
farmers in the other villages dated from the mid-19805. See Table 5 for a detailed
breakdown of participation by village. In most cases, group sizes averaged between
twenty and thirty farm households. The majority of participants in the tree nursery and
vegetable garden activities were women, while men predominated in the SWC work.
The largest group sizes reported were 280 participants in Los Pinos, 52 in Tres Rios, 60
in San Lucas and 40 in Vista Bonita.

Table 5. Participation in Agricultural Development Projects by Village.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PARTICIPATION
NUMBER OF # OF GROUPS IN WHICH

HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLD HAS PARTICIPATED HOUSEHOLDS

INTERVIEWED PARTICIPATING
VILLAGE IN AG.

DEVELOPMENT
0 1 2 3 4+ BEFORE 1991

San Lucas 26 7 10 8 l O 1 3
Tres Rios 16 O 2 8 5 1 8
Vista Bonita 13 2 3 3 5 0 7
Los Pinos 26 O 3 7 9 7 18
TOTALS 81 9 18 26 20 8 46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reasons for Participation
The farmers and development workers interviewed identiﬁed several reasons for

people’s participation in agricultural development groups. A ﬁrst reason is to receive the

64

training. Several farmers expressed that they were learning new things. One woman put
it this way: “One learns a lot. Staying at home you don’t learn anything!” The second
reason people participate is that they have noticed the successes of previous
interventions. Farmers in all of the villages explained that a few families participated at
ﬁrst, but gradually a majority of the population had adopted the technologies:

At ﬁrst the people didn ’t want it; little by little they observed the others
who did it and changed their attitude.

The majority participates. They have seen the results.

Potato production was good—then everyone began to plant potatoes.
A third reason for involvement in agricultural development projects is people’s personal
motivation. A few farmers stated that they did not want to leave their children in the
same conditions in which they had lived, and they didn’t want to leave them with eroded
ﬁelds or without any trees.

A fourth reason for people’s participation that stakeholders mentioned is to receive
the subsidies and incentives provided by the projects. Subsidies included, food-for-work
(FFW), tools, other agricultural inputs, cash payments for SWC, and agricultural loans.
Community infrastructure projects were incentives that attracted many farm households.

In each of the communities studied, FFW is a motivating factor for a number of
farm households to participate. A number of farmers were grateful to receive the food:

They help us—they give us a little food. That ’s why we like to work there.

Now the institutions are helping us with a bit of food; it helps us out for a
while.

They always have helped us a little with food. In other organizations there
isn ’t any.

65

However, receiving F FW is not without costs to the beneﬁciaries. One farmer expressed
his hesitation: “I think I’m just going to work with the group this year—it takes a lot of
time and the products they give always cost us money.” He then explained that the
beneﬁciaries have to pay the cost of transporting the food from the capital and they must
help unload when the products arrive; other respondents conﬁrmed this requirement.

Special c ommunity infrastructure p roj ects are another incentive. R ecent p rojects
include roads, an irrigation project, and a gas-powered mill for grinding maize. In Los
Pinos, GO 2 was offering to bring a potable water project to the village. The farm
families identiﬁed the water project as the primary incentive to participate:

Just out of necessity we ’re working there—for the water.

We ’re just working for the water project.... Everyone in the group is going
to get water.

We have to do soil conservation, composting and work in the tree nursery
and they ’re going to give a potable water project.

They 're giving us a water project if we work there. If the group isn ’t
united, they won ’t give the project. It ’s worth Q. 150,000 [US $19,500].

Now the majority is participating because of the water project. If not [for
the water project], not as many people would come.

When several organizations are present in a village, farm households may choose the
group in which they participate based on the subsidies that are being offered; as one
farmer stated, “Everyone looks for the project that gives more help.”

Constraints to Participation

Farmers and development workers noted a number of factors that constrain farm
households from participating in agricultural development projects. A ﬁrst constraint is

that most development organizations don’t reach the more remote areas:

66

I haven 't participated with any group. No organization has come down
here.

It ’s too bad that the agronomists don ’t go there, because vehicles can ’t get
there. I don ’t know why the government employees didn ’t go there.
Nobody ’s concerned about those people.

A second constraint is the need for families to earn income. The men in some of
the communities may spend several months working outside the village. Even when they
are home, they often look for Opportunities in local agricultural day labor. As one
woman active in several local development groups stated: “For people it’s a lot to lose a
day working in the group, because they say they could be earning Q. 25.00.” (Q.25.00 is
the govemment-established minimum wage for agricultural work.)

A third category of constraints to participation is negative past experiences.
Farmers mentioned broken promises or outright fraud by a few organizations,
incompetence or corruption by local committees or group leaders, failed technologies,
and what one farmer termed “politics”—the fact that the organization was part of the
current government or was tied to a political party.

A ﬁnal area of constraints to participation is socio-cultural resistance. Farmers
related the following experiences:

Our fathers didn ’t like the new techniques. We had to respect them.

A long time ago there were people who didn ’t like [the techniques]. They
said they would lose too much land.

The people didn ’t like [the reforestation work] much. They said they
would never receive anything from the trees.

The neighbors didn ’t buy it— ‘where are our sheep going to eat? They are
lies. ’—But we decided to do it.

67

Spontaneous Adoption of Resource Conserving AmculmﬂecMOlogias

A substantial number of farmers had not participated in agricultural development
groups but had adopted some of the RCATs that were being promoted. The majority Of
these farmers had Observed what their neighbors had done and undertook their
conservation without assistance from others:

I made these rock walls—I don ’t know if it '5 straight or if it ’s wrong—we
just did it.

Other groups did it and I saw them. I made an A-frame level.

We ’re doing conservation but without levels—just with our heads.

I got the idea from the neighbors, but I did the work alone.
A few farmers had learned SWC technologies by participating in the large SWC work
groups that the government sponsored in 1986; these groups conserved public lands and
some private lands near the main road. One farmer had built rock walls on his own land
after learning how to do the work in these work groups. Another farmer said that he had
participated in the work groups in other communities, but he had not done anything on
his own land until years later:

I knew how to do it, but I hadn ’t put it into practice until I heard the talk
at church They advised us to protect our land.

Other farmers had asked project participants for help in laying out contours or building
their conservation structures:

Some people who had done the work in a group had an A-frame level. I
asked them to show me how to do it.

Someone from Los Pinos taught us. He had taken a course and came to
teach us.

68

Finally, one farmer stated that he had learned how to do soil and water conservation
while working on a coffee ﬁnca.

While there was widespread evidence of spontaneous SWC adoption, other RCATs
were much less likely to be adopted. Only one farmer who had not participated with a
group said that he practiced composting, and just one farmer among those interviewed
was building an improved stable on his own, apart ﬁ'om the project.

The quality of RCAT implementation is highly variable among spontaneous adopters.
While some farmers received help from participating neighbors or members of their
extended families, and had used A-frame agricultural levels to lay out their contours,
most spontaneous adopters built their conservation structures without using levels and
left large distances between conservation structures, making the structures less effective

at controlling erosion.

Implementation and Farmer Assessment of the Technologies
Composting

Nearly all of the agricultural development organizations had promoted composting
as a way of increasing organic material for fertilizer and reducing the need for chemical
fertilizer. The form of composting promoted by the organizations consisted of layering
several different materials, including animal manure, crop residues, leaf litter, green plant
material, soil, and ash or lime, and allowing these materials to decompose for two to three
months. This practice was a new idea to farmers. Farmers described two traditional
ways of generating organic fertilizer. The ﬁrst involved mobile sheep corrals, which

were moved every few days. The crops were later planted on the fertilized area. This

69

practice used to be widespread in the western highlands of Guatemala (eg. see Hostnig et
al., 1998), but is now rare. The second manner of Obtaining organic fertilizer is by
combining animal manure and the used animal bedding and piling it up to decompose for
three to six months. This practice is very common.

Adopting farmers in all of the study communities evaluated composting as being
successful. The farmers discussed many advantages to composting. First of all, it
increased the amount of organic fertilizer they used. One farmer said that the traditional
method of producing organic fertilizer—letting the animal manure mix with the bedding
and then piling it up to decompose for several months—did not produce enough fertilizer.
Secondly, farmers said they now purchase much less chemical fertilizer. Thirdly, farmers
were quick to point out that the compost was higher in quality than the traditional
fertilizer—it decomposed much better. F ourthly, a few farmers stated that the production
of maize and potatoes was higher with compost.

The constraints that farmers mentioned related to composting were the high amount
of labor required and the lack of resources. These resources included animals for manure
production and several types of plant materials used for composting: leaf litter, pajo'n
(Muhlembergia gigantea—a long, coarse grass), and green plant material. One
development worker claimed that people were rejecting composting because they were
confusing the concept with their traditional method for preparing natural fertilizer.
SoiLand Water Conservation

Soil and water conservation has been promoted by nearly all of the agricultural
development organizations that have worked in the region, and the vast majority of

farmers have adopted some form of the promoted technologies. Table 6 compares the

70

use of the different technologies among the four case study communities. See the

Appendix for pictures of the different technologies in the study villages.

Table 6. Farmers’ Use of Soil Conservation Technologies by Village.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Village Number of Farmers Implementing the Technology
(# 0f respondents) contour ditches live barriers dead barriers terraces
San Lucas (26) 6 8 15 9
Tres Rios (l6) 7 8 9 5
Vista Bonita (13) O 7 5 11
Los Pinos (26) 24 12 4 7
TOTALS (81) 37 35 33 32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which technology farmers adopted depended on a number of factors, including
slope, soil type, access to materials, farmer expertise, and which technologies the
organization was promoting. Farmers who owned gently sloping land adopted contour
ditches. The ditches took between one and two days to establish per cuerda. Most of the
farmers in Los Pinos used this technology. Live contour barriers were another
technology with relatively low labor requirements, requiring one day per cuerda for
gently sloping land and two to three days for steeper land. Table 7 compares the labor
requirements and other costs of the different SWC technologies that were promoted.
Labor costs are valued at Q 25 per day, the minimum wage. Several farmers reported
earning Q. 20 per day for agricultural work, especially those in the more remote villages,
so Opportunity costs for SWC may be somewhat lower. Most SWC work takes place
during the rainy season, when labor demand is relatively high. Respondents explained
that the soil would cave in if they attempted to dig contour ditches in the dry season, and

that rain was necessary when trying to establish live fodder barriers.

71

Table 7. Labor Requirements and Costs for Soil Conservation Technologies

 

 

 

 

 

PRACTICE LABOR COSTS IN LABOR COSTS OTHER COSTS TOTAL COST
DAYS per cuerda IN QUETZALES
Contour ditches 1 to 4 days Q 25 to Q100 Q 25 to Q100
Living barriers 1 to 3 days Q 25 to Q75 Plant material: Q 85 to Ql35
Q 60 ?
Dead barriers

stone walls 15 to 30 days Q 375 to Q750 Tools: Q75 Q 450 to Q825
sod barriers 4to 6 days Q100 to Q150 Q100 toQ 150
Terraces 8 to 15 days Q 200 to Q375 Q 200 to Q 375

 

 

 

 

 

 

The labor requirements for dead barriers depended on the type and quality of barrier
constructed. Well-constructed rock walls required between 15 and 30 days of labor per
cuerda, d epending o n the steepness o f t he site. T hey w ere u sually c onstructed w here
rocks were abundant, especially in the villages of Tres Rios and San Lucas. Many
farmers used barriers made out of sod, which were much easier to construct. This type of
barrier was prevalent in Vista Bonita. These barriers required only four days of labor on
less steep land and six days on steeper land.

Terraces were seen as appropriate on land that was not too steep, and with higher
quality soils—farmers stated that it was impossible to make terraces where the soil was
sandy. Farmers reported that a cuerda of terraces could require between eight and ﬁfteen
days of labor.

Farmers’ evaluations of SWC technologies were generally very positive in each of
the communities in the study. They mentioned four main beneﬁts: (1) erosion control;
(2) improved crop production; (3) fodder grass production; and (4) fertilizer retention.
Erosion control was the beneﬁt that most farmers mentioned:

Before, when there wasn ’t conservation, the water carried everything
away. Now when there are grass barriers, not as much is washed away.

72

 

Before, when you went to your ﬁeld, every year there was less earth. Now
we have contour ditches and walls.

It ’5 good because it ’s grabbing the earth. When there aren ’t barriers, the
earth slips away.

When there aren ’t curves [contour barriers], the soil washes away all at
once.

The water doesn ’t wash the soil away—the topsoil isn ’t lost.

If there weren ’t walls, all the earth would wash away at once, and only
rocks would be left.

A second beneﬁt that many farmers mentioned is improved yields. Several
farmers described the conditions without or prior to conservation:

If you don ’t do conservation, it doesn 't produce much and the following
year it doesn ’t produce at all. The land needs to rest two to three years.

When there weren ’t terraces, the maize only grew three feet high. Now
it 's improved a lot.

It 's worth it. Before, the crops just produced for one year; the next year,

the water had carried the soil away. Now it ’s consistent, on the upper and

lower parts [of the ﬁeld] .
Other farmers mentioned the actual changes in yield. In terms of maize production, most
farmers r eported a d oubling O r tripling o f yields; 5 ome farmers in Los Pinos s aid that
people did not grow maize before the organizations came. One farmer said that potato
production had increased from 5 quintales to between 20 and 25 quintales per cuerda.

A third beneﬁt to soil and water conservation that farmers in each of the

communities mentioned was the fodder grasses associated with terrace banks, live

barriers or contour ditches. One farmer stated, “It’s like two products—another harvest.”

Another family said that although they didn’t have many animals, they still beneﬁted

73

from the fodder grass because they could sell it in the local market. A third farmer noted
how he could harvest fodder grass three times during the rainy season.

A fourth beneﬁt that a number of farmers mentioned was the retention of fertilizer.
They said that before conservation the water would wash the fertilizer away; as one
farmer put it, “Before, we wasted the fertilizer.”

Not all of the technologies promoted for SWC were seen as successful. One farmer
disliked live barriers, saying the soil still washes down. Farmers in different
communities noted that some varieties of fodder grasses that organizations had brought
from other regions of the country did not grow well.

The most frequently mentioned constraints to adopting soil and water conservation
were land constraints, including steep slopes and inadequate soil types. Other constraints
were the lack of tools to perform the work; the lack of skill or someone to train the
farmers; and the large amount of labor required. Two farmers from Vista Bonita and a
project coordinator talked about the soil:

We want to continue but the earth is pure sand. It is always collapsing.
When the earth is hard, it ’s good, but when it ’s loose, it doesn ’t work.

In some villages the soil is loose. People want to do conservation, but the
land doesn 't permit it.

Other farmers claimed that their land was too steep, one farmer reﬂecting, “It’s better not
to touch it.” On rocky land, farmers said that contour ditches were impossible to make.
The lack o f t 0015 w as another c onstraint m entioned b y f armers in T res Rios and
Vista Bonita. They said that they needed shovels, picks, hoes and wheelbarrows to do
conservation. One farmer exclaimed that he had already gone through ﬁve picks in

digging out the rocks from his ﬁeld and using them to build rock walls. In some cases

74

the organizations had given tools to the groups to be used in SWC work, but these tools
were often not available.
The high labor requirement was another constraint that farmers mentioned:

I did one cuerda of terraces on my own. Alone you can ’t do it—it ’s too
much work. In a group you can make progress.

It took a lot to make the terraces. We had to bring in black dirt to put on
the terraces.

A few farmers who had not participated in conservation groups mentioned that they
lacked the skills to do conservation or that there was no one who could teach them.
Lam—nipgwithout Chemical Fertilizer

Unlike composting and SWC, farming without the use of chemical fertilizers has
had little success. At least four development organizations have been requesting that
participating farmers experiment by planting 0.5 to 1 cuerda of their maize crop without
using chemical fertilizer. The vast majority of farmers stated that farming without
chemical fertilizer does not produce a harvest. The following response was typical:

It doesn 't work—I wasted my time. The compost was good quality, but the

crop didn ’t result. With chemical fertilizer, we don 't get much, but we get

something!
Many farmers pointed out that the results would also be poor if they planted using only
chemical fertilizer; they said that both types of fertilizer were necessary. A few farmers
said that the crops or the soil had grown accustomed to chemical fertilizer. One farmer
did plant his maize crop without chemical fertilizer, and according to him the difference

in yields was minor. He still used chemical fertilizer on his potatoes, however, saying

that without it, production would be minimal. Another farmer said that potato production

75

without cherrrical fertilizer works when the land has rested for a while, and can produce

yields from 8 to 10 quintales per cuerda.

Improved Aggopastoral System

 

Groups of farmers in both San Lucas and Vista Bonita had implemented the
improved agropastoral system with NGO 3. This project sought to introduce stall-
feeding of sheep with new varieties of fodder grasses grown on conservation structures in
farmers’ agricultural lands. Approximately twelve families in each of the communities
participated in the project, in which the agricultural development organization provided
families a loan for the construction of the stables; in one of the villages farmers said the
stables had been donated. Loans were also provided in one of the commrmities for
purchasing a new breed of sheep. The farmers evaluated the stables very positively:

It ’s a valuable change. Before, we had more sheep in the old stable—on

the ground. In the rainy season they would wake up in the mud. We

would take out the manure. We had to get grass from down the

mountain.... [Now] I don 't have to carry wet grass and leaf litter for the

animal bedding in the rainy season. The animals are content. And I have

a lot less work.
Other farmers expressed how lambs used to die in the muddy conditions, or how the
sheep would get soaking wet when they were out in the pasture and it rained. Now they
stay in the stable when it rains. A few participating farmers used their own funds to build
a second improved stable or to enlarge the one they had built with the project. One non-
participating farmer was building an improved stable on his own, following the design of
the project.

A second component of the system was fodder grasses. Grasses that were brought

from other regions of the country did not grow well at higher altitudes. Farmers also

76

discussed how the fodder grasses did not produce at all during the dry season; they still
let their sheep out to pasture during much of the year.

The third component of the agropastoral system was the introduction of improved
breeds of sheep. The experiences with this component were disappointing. The
improved breeds were not introduced at all in San Lucas due to the poor performance of
the fodder grasses. Results in Vista Bonita were not much better. In one family’s case,
all of the new sheep had died; another family had one out of three die. Farmers expressed
how the new sheep were more susceptible to illness and had to be watched careﬁrlly.
Other Proiect Components
Vegetable gardens

Results 0 f v egetable garden p romotion w ere mixed. M any farmers s aid that the
vegetables grew well, but were just used for family consumption. Produce from
communal gardens was divided up among the participants. A few farmers in Tres Rios
and San Lucas were growing vegetables on their own to sell in the local markets.

Farmers and development workers mentioned biophysical constraints, the ﬁnancial
costs, and the management skills required as the constraints inhibiting vegetable
production:

We tried to plant [vegetables], but there isn 't any water.... They gave us
training, but it couldn 't be done.

We need money for the seed—it 's difficult for us to obtain the seed. We
planted vegetables because the organization gave us the seed.

One c ould s ell [vegetables], b at w e don 't know h ow to grow them w ell
enough.

Vegetable gardens produced little success, due to the unfamiliarity in their
management and the dependence on external inputs.

77

Irrigation
Farmers in Tres Rios were very enthusiastic about the irrigation project. Most
farmers have used the irrigation for growing potatoes in the dry season, mostly to sell.
Some farm households have planted carrots, cabbage, broad beans, and other vegetables
in the dry season. Several of these families have sold the produce in local markets.
Credit
Farmers in each of the study villages had experience in using credit for agricultural
production. Sometimes this credit was offered by the agricultural development project;
in one case the increased production as a result of a development project’s work led to a
demand for credit to plant potatoes.
Farmers in Los Pinos related how the govemment’s agricultural development bank
had offered credit for potato production to many farmers in the village in the late 19705.
At harvest time, the price for potatoes dropped to Q. 1.00/qq [exchange rate at the time:
Q 1.00: US$1.00]. Dozens of families were unable to pay, and according to some
farmers, a few families had lost some of their land. As a result, development
organizations hesitate to offer loans to groups from this village. In addition, most farmers
in Los Pinos and in other communities are reluctant to go into debt for commercial
agricultural production, sentiments echoed in the following comments:
Just a few people use loans. Most people work with their own
resources... When people sell at a low price, and if they have loans, they
have to go to the coast for 2, 3, 4, up to 6 months to earn the money that
they lost.
Taking out a loan is risky—it ’s hard to pay it back.

Now we 're happier because we don ’t have a commitment with the bank or
the cooperative. We ’re happier using our own resources.

78

We ’re not getting under a loan. What happens If we have a loan and we
don ’t make [any money]? Where are we going to get the money?

The majority of people don ’t want loans. The price of potatoes varies a
lot, and animals can die. Then people have more debt.

Farmers receiving loans from church-based NGOs reported mixed results. One farmer in
Vista Bonita said that ﬁfteen members out of twenty-two original recipients were up to
date with their payments; some families were unable to pay off the loans on time and
therefore were not eligible to receive any more loans. Three farmers described how they
use the loans:

With beans—if that doesn ’t work, with broad beans. If not with broad

beans, with potatoes. If not with potatoes, we use the money in business

(bringing merchandise ﬁom Mexico).

If it’s good weather, you can pay off the loan with the crop. When the

price goes down, we lose. We have to ﬁnd a way to earn [the money] so

that we don ’t default, so we have the right to credit again. The credit

helps us a lot.

They can be used for a business, a store. One can buy and sell things.
With loans, people don ’t have to go far away, they don ’t have to suﬂer on

the (Inca.

Post-Project Continuance and Discontinuance of the Promoted Technologies
What Happena when Subsidies Stop

As mentioned in the introductory chapter, agricultural development researchers
have found that the technologies promoted by agricultural development organizations are
often discontinued when subsidies stop. This research examined whether or not this
phenomenon occurred in the four study villages. Many community leaders and
development workers felt that farmers were only participating to receive the subsidies,

and quit working when the subsidies stopped:

79

VISTA BONITA: What people are interested in is that there is help, that
there are rations. When there isn ’t help, people scatter again. Those who
are committed keep working. Those who aren’t go to el otro lado
[Chiapas].

TRES RIOS: When there ’5 a project and rations, everyone is doing their
conservation, and when there aren ’t rations, they aren ’t.

LOS PINOS: Many people participate just out of self-interest, to receive
food.

Development workers had very similar experiences with subsidies:

People have grown accustomed to paternalism—getting handouts. They
don ’t continue without the stimulus.

People have grown accustomed to rations. With rations they do anything.

When the FF W was discontinued, several groups broke up....
Other community leaders and development professionals did not think that subsidies
made a major difference in most people’s continuance of RCATs:

SAN LUCAS: Not everyone continued, because there were no longer
rations, but many people did continue with conservation.

DEVELOPMENT STAFF MEMBER: Many people work for development,
but there are always those who work for food (a few).

The following sections highlight the evidence obtained in this research that many farmers
do indeed continue to practice some of the promoted RCATs after subsidies stop or
projects end.
Other @tors Inﬂuencing Continuance and Discontinuance of RCATs

While the end of subsidies may explain some of the discontinuance of RCATs in
the short term, factors related to the farm household and the broader context must also be
examined in order to discover the reasons for continuance or discontinuance in both the

short and the long term. Farmers gave a variety of reasons for their decisions to continue

80

or discontinue RCATs that are not related to subsidies but rather are related to the
characteristics of the technologies, the household’s particular situation, and economic and
institutional factors. The following section highlights some of these reasons for three of
the promoted technologies: composting, SWC, and vegetable production.
Composting

In San Lucas and Buena Vista, where a large number of farmers had used
composting in the past, the current number of users was much lower. The majority of
farmers in these communities currently use the traditional method for making organic
fertilizer—combining the animal manure and used animal bedding and letting it
decompose for several months. Farmers explained why they no longer use composting:

We made compost piles back then, but now that we have animals [sheep],
they give us manure.

Now I have the mule to make fertilizer. It stays in the stable. The pgjérl [a

tall grass used for bedding] decomposes with the heat. Now it ’s easier—it

is drﬂicult to make compost piles.
The second farmer related that he had better production with the compost piles, but he
doesn’t do it because 0 fthe time it takes. H c said that his sons were working in the
United States and that there was no longer anyone to help him.

In Los Pinos, two farmers said that the majority of farmers in their community
currently practiced composting. A farmer in San Lucas said that more farmers have
continued with composting than with SWC. In Tres Rios, farmers also expressed that
they were using composting. Given that there were a number of projects currently

ﬁrnctioning in Los Pinos and Tres Rios, it was not possible to determine if farmers would

continue to practice composting once these organizations left the community.

81

Soil and Water Conservation

Many farmers in each of the study communities expressed that they had continued
practicing SWC after projects had ended or had adopted the practices after observing
their neighbors. Several farmers shared how conservation activities had spread through
their villages:

VISTA BONITA: Those who didn ’t want [to do conservation at ﬁrst] have
now made their barriers and terraces.

LOS PINOS: Almost all the neighbors have done conservation.

LOS PINOS: Now the majority has their curves, their conservation but it
has taken a long time.

SAN LUCAS: Not everyone continued, because there were no longer
rations, but many people did continue with conservation.

T RES RIOS: It is worth it to do conservation. Almost everybody is
improving their land.

Other farmers described how much conservation they had done on their own. One farmer
had purchased 35 cuerdas of land and had done conservation on all of it. Another had
done one cuerda of conservation with a group, and then conserved 14 more cuerdas on
his own. Some farmers expressed that they had conserved all of their agricultural land.
Vegetable Production

Few farmers continue planting vegetables after projects leave. Only in Tres Rios, in
which the majority of families recently obtained irrigation, were signiﬁcant numbers Of
farmers planting vegetables on their own. Many Tres Rios farmers expressed that they
intended to start producing vegetables in the coming dry season with irrigation, but had

not grown them at any large scale yet. In each of the villages, the cost of the seed, the

82

difﬁculty obtaining the seed, and the specialized knowledge required were the most
frequently mentioned reasons for discontinuance:

They gave us the seed first. Later, when we had to buy [the seed], many
people didn 't plant. The seed is expensive.

We need money for the seed—it 's drﬂicult for us to obtain the seed. We
planted vegetables because the organization gave us the seed.

We ’ve planted vegetables on our own (my wife and I). It produces well—
we ’re just lacking a bit of knowledge. We ’d like another organization to

come to train us and help us out.

One doesn ’t have a lot of lmowledge. Those who are skilled at it say that
it does produce well. Perhaps with practice it produces good results.

Impacts of Agricultural Development Interventions
Besides their evaluations of the technologies, farm families were asked how the
projects as a whole had changed their work. They mentioned a number of areas,

including an improvement in their skills, an increase in their agricultural production, and

a signiﬁcant change in their reliance on seasonal migration.

Improved Skills

A ﬁrst area that farm families mentioned is how participating in the projects
increased their farming skills. F arrners in all of the communities commented:

TRES RIOS: We ’re learning to farm. We ’re realizing that the work looks
better, and the crops produce more now. We can make a tree nursery,
plant vegetables, and make compost piles.

VISTA BONITA: Thank God, I can do [S WC]. I can use an agricultural
level, lay out contours.

VISTA BONITA: I improved my skills—how to farm. I farmed before, but
now the production is better.

SAN LUCAS: We still put their teachings into practice. They ’re good—
our land looks better.

83

LOS PINOS: The teaching was excellent. Here we didn ’t know how to
plant potatoes before. The results on the land are good. Soil conservation

was good for us.
One farmer compared the new practices with those of farmers in another village at a

lower elevation that had not experienced agricultural development interventions:

Down below, there is better land, but people don 't do conservation. They
burn all the leaf litter. They apply chemical fertilizer three times to their

crop.
Increaaed Production
Changes in production were the second type of impact mentioned. Farmers from Los

Pinos explained the transformation in agriculture resulting from the training received

from agricultural development organizations:

With the organizations, it has improved a lot. Without the organizations,
we can 't improve production.

Before, the crops didn ’t produce anything. Now there ’s maize, potatoes,
broad beans and oats. [Wren the chemical fertilizer came and when the
foreigners came to teach us how to plant, then it changed.

We don ’t buy maize. In the past, when we didn ’t have the training, people
didn ’t plant here—they went to the coast to plant.

We have maize and potatoes now that we ’ve done soil conservation.

Before, maize didn ’t grow here, but now with chemical fertilizer and good
organic fertilizer we are succeeding.

In Tres Rios, farmers saw the irrigation project as having the most impact on production.
They explained that with irrigation they could now plant potatoes and vegetables in the

dry season. They would then sell these products.

Not all farmers experienced large increases in production. One farmer in Vista

Bonita had participated in several groups. They had built terraces and baniers, had

84

planted vegetables and made compost piles. Despite these efforts, he said that production
remained low. He then made the following comment:

It 's a wasted effort. Although one struggles and [the development
workers] help, the land is the reason.

Reduction in Seasonal Miggation

Perhaps the largest impact of agricultural development projects that farmers
mentioned was the reduction in migration to the coffee ﬁncas in Chiapas, Mexico and the
western Paciﬁc coastal region of Guatemala. One farmer in Los Pinos described

conditions in the past:

Before, there w eren ’t c urves [S WC]. P eople worked exclusively o n the
trncas—men, women and children lived on the tmcas. We ’re better of
now with the contour ditches and composting along with the improved
varieties of potatoes and wheat.... In the past when there wasn ’t the
knowledge, people didn ’t plant here. They went to the coast to plant.
Before, people would plant 1 cuerda [of potatoes] and then would go to
the coast to plant maize. Now, people don ’t go to the ﬁn_ca.

 

In Vista Bonita, all of the farmers interviewed still migrate to the coffee ﬁncas. Non-
participating farmers did not note a big decrease in the time they woud migrate, but those
farmers who had been active in agricultural development projects reported going to
Chiapas for less time than in past years:

Before, we mostly went to work with the rich and abandoned out families.
Now I don ’t have to go to el otro lado [Chiapas] in May and June. We
have food. I go just once a year.

We would go for two months at a time for a total of six months in the year.
Now I don ’t go much—just six weeks during the coﬂee harvest. Now I like

to work here, even with few resources. I 've been going less to Mexico for
3 or 4 years now.

Development professionals had varying perspectives on the impacts of the interventions

on migration. One worker estimated that only ﬁve to ten percent of the people who used

85

to go to the coast still go. A second professional stated that the people still migrate, but
for less time. A former coordinator of an organization targeting the poorest communities
in the region said that there had been “a slight decrease in migration.”
Alternative Explanations for the Decrease in Seasonal Migration

While farmer adoption of RCATs is one reason for the decrease in seasonal
migration, there are several other factors involved. In Los Pinos and San Lucas, many
people have migrated to the United States. Remittances not only keep the recipient
families from migrating to Chiapas; the families use some of the money to hire local
agricultural workers and to fund house construction projects, creating new employment
opportunities for a large number of villagers. In Tres Rios, the irrigation project may be
responsible for a substantial part of the reduction in migration, because farmers can now
work at home and grow crops in the dry season. In Vista Bonita, another reason for the
decrease in migration is that some families are currently receiving loans from the
development organization active in the community. These loans enable farmers to stay in

their community during the months when cash is scarcest.

Exploring Differences in the Impacts of Agricultural Development Interventions

A closer analysis of the data reveals differences, both among the study villages and
within each village, regarding both the types and magnitude of impacts related to
participation in agricultural development interventions and the adoption of RCATs.
Differences Between Farm Households

Within each village, farm households experienced different levels of impact. While

nearly all farmers recognized how the SWC technologies were effective in controlling

86

erosion, fewer farmers noted dramatic increases in production levels. One major reason
for different impacts is that farm households face different e conomic c onstraints. F or
example, some farmers who had implemented SWC saw only minor production gains
because they were unable to purchase chemical fertilizer or fungicides, or they had too
few animals to produce sufﬁcient quantities manure for organic fertilizer. The amount of
land owned by the household played a role in determining impacts as well. Families with
less than half a hectare of land rarely sold much of the food that they produced. A third
reason for these differences was the type of land the farmers had—production was lower
on steeper ﬁelds and on ﬁelds with sandy soils. A fourth major factor in determining
impacts is the makeup of a farm household’s livelihood strategy. Farmers with a stable
source of income, such as those working as carpenters and masons or those households
receiving remittances, could make investments and take risks that poorer farmers reliant
on local and migratory agricultural labor could not.
Comparing Constraints to Agricultural Improvement Between Villagea

Similar biophysical, socioeconomic, and institutional constraints were mentioned
by farmers in all the study villages and by the development workers. However, the
importance of each constraint varied substantially among the different groups. Table 8
compares the relative importance of different constraints according to farmers in each
village and the development workers. The numbers reﬂect how frequently the constraints
were mentioned when respondents were asked what were farmers’ biggest problems.
Comparing Impacts on Livelihoods—The Case of Potato Production

The differences in the impacts of RCAT adoption, both among the villages and

among the households within each village, can be illustrated by studying the most

87

Table 8. Comparison of Constraints by Group.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m VILLAGE VISTA TRES SAN LOS Development
F OR GROUP BONITA RIOS LUCAS PINOS workers
Frost 2 4 3 6
. } Climate: 5
m Wmd 1 2 5 1
% Late blight in 2 1 5 1 1
0 potatoes
é Insect pests 3 - l 1 -
2 Soil type 2 - 1 l 2
E Topography 2 l 1 - -
13,, Lack of water 3 - 2 l 3
g Illnesses in 1 1 2 2 -
animals
Both Low production 2 2 6 3 4
levels
Lack of 7 5 2 3 3
resources
Lack of work 3 _ 3 _ 3
m (yportunities
2 Lack of 1 - - 1 4
productive land
2 g Low product 1 4 1 14 2
prices
0 Q High input _ - 2 5 -
E 0 prices
O 0 Lack of devel. 1 1 1 1 2
g j assistance
0 Z Lack of markets 2 - 1 6 3
8 E Lack of roads 2 1
E3 Illiteracy - - - - 3
o E3
m E Cultural _ - _ - 1
‘0 resistance
a Lack of - - - - 1
organization
Poor economic , _ 1 - 1
conditions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

common livelihood component in the region: potato production. Potatoes are the primary

crop in the region—every farm household interviewed grows them. Most families must

88

plant potatoes in the rainy season since they do not have irrigation. Potatoes are
relatively expensive to produce; one cuerda costs between Q. 700 and Q. 1000 to plant.
Differences both between the villages and among households within villages are
evident when examining the potato yields that the farmers reported. As seen in Table 9,
average potato production differed substantially between villages, as did yields among
farm households within the same village. The lowest yields were reported by farmers
who did not use chemical fertilizer and/or fungicides due to ﬁnancial constraints; there
were two or three of these farmers interviewed in each village. These differences in
yields inﬂuence the role of potato production in the livelihood strategies pursued in the
different villages, since it is much more difﬁcult to make money where production is low.

Table 9. Comparison of Potato Yields by Village.

 

 

 

 

 

AVERAGE POTATO YIELD RANGE OF REPORTED YIELDS
VILLAGE . . . .
(1n quintales per cuerda) (1n quintales per cuerda)
Vista Bonita 11 2 - 25
Tres Rios 13 5 - 22
San Lucas 15 6 — 25
Los Pinos 18 5 - 30

 

 

 

 

 

Vista Bonita

Farmers in Vista Bonita credited the RCATs with improving production, even
doubling the yields, but this increase still does not make potato production proﬁtable
under most circumstances. Only a small fraction of farmers said that they sold potatoes,
and then only in small quantities such as 5-10 qum’tales. Potatoes were a major food
source, nevertheless, reducing the amount of maize that families had to purchase. The

lack of resources, as indicated in Table 8, was clearly the primary constraint these

farmers faced:

89

I think economic resources are what we ’re lacking. It ’5 just that here one
doesn ’t have money to plant well.

We lack the money to buy fertilizer and to fumigate.
If one has money, here there is potato, broad beans. But money is what
we ’re lacking, to buy chemical fertilizer. Without that, it doesn ’t produce.

The lack of local work opportunities was another major problem in Vista Bonita:

More than anything we go to the tmca to work because here there isn 't
any work.

We make practically all our money there [Chiapas, Mexico]. When we
come home, we work with that money. Here there isn ’t anywhere to make

money.

There from the tmca comes all our money. Here, the planting is only to
see if it produces something or not.

T res Rios

In Tres Rios, farmers were able to plant potatoes in the dry season as a result of the
recent irrigation project—they now have a comparative advantage over most other
farmers in the region, and can receive higher prices for their products. One farmer said
that his family does not plant potatoes in the rainy season at all due to the low prices and
the late blight ﬁmgus, which thrives in damp conditions. The primary constraints to
potato production that Tres Rios farmers mentioned were the lack of ﬁnancial resources
and low prices for their products:

The potato crop did produce but we need the resources to maintain the
crop—chemical fertilizer or something else.

In the rainy season, sometimes there '3 no money to buy fungicides—
sometimes we ’re worse oﬂ:

We 've realized that potatoes don ’t work—sometimes the price is good and
sometimes it isn 't.

People lost big with potatoes last year. But those who planted this year
made good money.

90

San Lucas

San Lucas 5 howed the greatest v ariety in the r ole o f p otatoes in farm household
livelihood strategies. Approximately 25 percent of the farmers interviewed had some
type of informal irrigation, which they used primarily to plant potatoes. About half the
farmers interviewed reported selling potatoes, but all households grew them. Farmers
here most frequently mentioned the control of soil erosion as the biggest impact of the
RCATs; fewer farmers stated that production had improved substantially. Farmers here
mentioned biophysical constraints and low production levels as the principal constraints
that they faced:

It doesn 't produce much, even when you use fertilizer. Maybe the soil
doesn ’t help.

The land doesn ’t help much. The late blight affects potatoes and maize,
and it ’3 very windy. There we run into problems.

Agriculture doesn ’t help us. It just pays for your labor—there isn 't any
proﬁt.

The land doesn ’t produce enough to eat. People have to work outside the
community.

Los Pinos
In Los Pinos the vast majority of farmers reported selling potatoes, with one farmer
saying that he had sold 100 quintales from ﬁve cuerdas. One resource-poor farmer who
owned about one hectare of land reported that he sells sixty percent of his crop, or about
50 quintales. As indicated in Table 8, most farm families interviewed mentioned the low
prices for potatoes or the lack of markets for potatoes as their largest problem:
The price is what hurts us—the price is highly variable.

Now we have had disasters with potatoes in that there isn 't a market to
which to bring them, or the price is low.

91

What we need is a market, so that our products are worth more. No
organization has been concerned with looking for markets.

I 've been working with potatoes for six years and I haven 't made any

[money].
Potato prices tend to be higher in the dry season (November through May), reaching as
high as Q. 150 per quintal, and drop when the rainy season harvest begins. In May and
June of 2000, prices dropped all the way to Q. 10 to Q. 15 per quintal, and many farmers
explained that they had lost a lot of money. When the interviews were conducted in May
of 2001, prices were about Q. 50, and in August of 2001, the time of the year when prices
are normally the lowest, farmers reported prices between Q. 80 and Q. 120. These
variations in price illustrate that potato production is risky for all farmers, especially for
farmers with few resources. They also explain farmers’ hesitance to use credit for

agricultural production.

92

CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The present study began by arguing that many traditional methods used to assess
the promotion of resource-conserving technologies in agricultural development
projects—namely, methods that focus primarily on measuring adoption—fail to consider
the diversity of factors that affect the adoption of technologies, do little to build
understanding why farm households adopt, adapt, reject, or discontinue the technologies,
and ignore what happens after the projects end, both in the short and the long term.

The purpose of this thesis was to improve our understanding of the outcomes of
agricultural development interventions promoting resource-conserving agricultural
technologies (RCATs). A holistic systems approach to assessment was applied to
examine stakeholders’ experiences with agricultural development interventions and
resource conserving technologies in the western highlands of Guatemala. The study
addressed the following research questions:

1. What factors inﬂuence whether or not farmers initially adopt the
technologies and practices promoted by agricultural development
organizations? Who participates in the projects? Why do they participate? What
constrains farm households from participating? Do farmers adopt the technologies
apart from participating in a project?

2. How do the different stakeholders assess the effectiveness of the promoted

resource-conserving technologies and practices? What criteria do they use?

93

What advantages, disadvantages, and constraints to adopting the technologies do
they identify?

3. Do farming households continue to use the technologies and practices
promoted by agricultural development organizations after the projects
leave? What factors affect the continuance or discontinuance of RCATs and
other technologies?

4. What are the long-term outcomes of RCAT adoption on local farming
systems and livelihood systems? What constraints to improved agricultural
production and livelihood improvement do stakeholders identify? How have the

agricultural development interventions made a difference?

Four communities in the western highlands of Guatemala were selected as cases to
explore stakeholder experiences of agricultural development projects that promoted
RCATs. Eighty-one interviews were conducted with members of farm households in the
four communities, and eleven interviews were conducted with staff members of
organizations that had worked or were currently working in the study communities.

The ﬁrst phase of ﬁeld research involved interviews with key informants to
determine which villages to select for study and to develop a general overview of the
cases. The main phase of research involved multiple data collection methods, including
open-ended, informal interviews, direct observation, participant observation, and a
review of documents. Farmers in the four villages were asked about their experiences
with agricultural development projects, the characteristics of their farming systems, their

use of RCATs, other income-earning strategies they used, and problems that they faced.

94

Development workers were questioned about the technologies and programs they
promoted, the levels of participation and technology adoption in the study villages, the
impacts related to the technologies that they perceived, and the constraints to livelihood
improvement for small farm households.

Initial Adoption of Resource ConservingAgricultural Technologies

Farmers learned about the promoted RCATs primarily, but not exclusively, through
the activities of a number of agricultural development organizations in the region. Most
promoted activities involved weekly or bi-weelcly meetings of the local agricultural
development group with a project representative. Farm families are trained in
agricultural technologies or they work in communal tree nurseries and vegetable gardens.
In the ﬁrst few agricultural development interventions, farmers implemented RCATs
such as SWC by working in groups on each other’s land. However, in most cases the
RCATs were implemented by the farmers working individually.

Most of the organizations provided subsidies and other incentives; the most
common subsidy was food-for-work (FFW), followed by project provision of seeds
and/or tools. Cash payments were used by only one organization and with a limited
number of farmers. A few organizations offered community infrastructure projects such
as potable water or micro-irrigation. Most organizations offering FFW distributed it by
household based on the amount of work that the household had done, measured by the
area of land conserved, the size of the compost piles constructed, or the number of days
that family members had worked in the communal tree nurseries or vegetable gardens.
The approval of community infrastructure projects was also conditioned on the levels of

village participation in and implementation of RCAT activities.

95

Spontaneous Adoption

In addition to the households that participated with the agricultural development
groups, there was widespread evidence of spontaneous adoption of these technologies by
farm households that had not participated with a group. These farmers adopted either by
observing group members from a distance and copying their work, or by asking group
participants for help.
F‘armer Assessment of Promoted Technologies

Farmers evaluated most of the promoted RCATs very positively. The beneﬁts
associated with SWC technologies included the reduction in soil erosion, the increase in
soil moisture, an increase in crop production, fodder grass production, and fertilizer
retention. Beneﬁts from composting included a reduction in chemical fertilizer use, and
increases in the both the amount of natural fertilizer available to farmers and crop yields.

The agropastoral system was a partial success. Farmers were most enthusiastic
about the new stables, noting fewer health problems and risks with the animals, greater
capture of sheep manure, and the signiﬁcant labor savings due to the elimination of the
need for animal bedding. The failure of many of the fodder grasses to grow and the
health problems with the introduced breed of sheep greatly reduced the economic
potential originally envisioned for this project. Also, the lack of fodder grass in the dry
season limits the envisioned environmental beneﬁts of reduced over-pasturing and
increased potential for natural forest regeneration, because farm families are still using
these non-agricultural areas for pasture during much of the year.

Vegetable production was a modest success, according to farmers. Most vegetable

garden promotion took place in communal gardens, and participants received a share of

96

the harvest. Farmers who had individual gardens used the vegetables mainly for
consumption; only a few farmers sold vegetables, and these farmers had irrigation.

The irrigation project in Tres Rios was seen as a major beneﬁt. Not only did
inigation allow farmers to grow crops in the dry season; the farmers also did not have to
pay for the materials.

The only RCAT that the vast majority of farmers found to be unhelpful was farming
without using chemical fertilizer. Yields of the crops were much lower than those
obtained with farmers’ usual practices.

Agricultural credit received mixed reviews from farmers. Many farmers, especially
those in Los Pinos, had negative experiences with credit and would not use it for crop
production. On the other hand, small credit programs run by church-based NGOs gave
farmers ﬂexibility to pursue a variety of income-earning enterprises, both in agriculture
and outside of agriculture.

Post-Project Continuance and Discontinuance of RCATs

While most development workers and many community leaders argued that FF W
was harmful, and that people had grown accustomed to the handouts and would not
participate without them, the evidence from this research shows that many farm
households continued certain RCATs after the projects had ended. This was especially
the case with soil and water conservation (SWC) technologies. In the case of other
promoted technologies and practices, such as composting and vegetable growing, the
results were less clear. Although composting was evaluated highly by all the farmers,
discontinuance was high in two of the villages. In the other two villages results were

mixed, but there were still active projects that were promoting composting in these

97

villages. Why did farmers discontinue composting? In some cases, they lacked the
resources, such as animals to produce manure or access to leaf litter or live plant material.
In many other cases farmers said that they now have enough animals to produce manure
and that mixing the manure and animal bedding is much easier than composting.

Continuation of vegetable production by farm households after an agricultural
development project had left the community was less common. In some cases the
farmers noted biophysical constraints, such as frost or the lack of water for irrigation. In
other cases, the high cost of the seeds or the difﬁculty of obtaining the seeds was
mentioned. A ﬁnal factor mentioned frequently by farmers was their lack of knowledge
or skill in growing vegetables. This factor was somewhat surprising, given that nearly all
of the organizations have promoted vegetable gardening. One possibility for this lack of
conﬁdence may be that most garden promotion has utilized communal gardens, and the
development workers are often present to manage the work in these gardens; household
members may not learn enough in these settings to do the work conﬁdently without
supervision in their own gardens.

Despite their positive contributions, the possibility of the improved stables being
widely adopted is remote. The cost of the materials and labor is out of reach for most
families, and the economic beneﬁts certainly do not match the costs in the short-term.
Impagta of Agricultural Development Interventions

Farmers expressed three key ways in which agricultural development projects had
improved their livelihoods. First of all, the training provided by the projects had
increased their skills in farming. Secondly, farm families’ agricultural production had

increased substantially. In Los Pinos, for example, potato yields increased by at least ﬁve

98

 

times over previous yields, and farmers who had not produced maize before the
organizations arrived were now producing it. Thirdly, the farmers said that they did not
need to migrate to the coffee ﬁncas as much anymore. In Los Pinos, very few of the
farmers still migrated; in the other communities many farmers still migrated, but for less
time than they used to go. Now they spend more time working on their own land.
Explaining Differences in Imngta

Examining the constraints that farmers and development workers identiﬁed as
affecting farm h ousehold livelihoods revealed signiﬁcant differences b oth b etween the
study villages and among households within each village. In terms of biophysical
constraints, the cold climate, severe terrain, and crop diseases were the largest obstacles.
Farmers in Vista Bonita and San Lucas faced more biophysical obstacles to improving
production than did farmers in the other villages.

In terms of socioeconomic and institutional constraints, the lack of ﬁnancial
resources was mentioned most frequently and was mentioned by farmers in each of the
villages as well as by the development workers; low prices for agricultural products were
also mentioned by all of the groups. The lack of work opportunities was mentioned in
four out of ﬁve groups. Farmers in Tres Rios and Vista Bonita seem to face more
socioeconomic limitations. Many families in Los Pinos and San Lucas were likely better

off because they were receiving remittances from family members working in the US.

Conclusions
Initial Adoption
Farm households learn about RCATs in a variety of ways. While most farm

households learn through participation in agricultural development projects, other sources

99

include neighbors, family members, and work experiences. There are several factors that
contribute to the participation of farm households in agricultural development projects.
Three factors evident in this study are the geographic, economic, and social
characteristics of the households.

There are two geographic characteristics that inﬂuence participation—the location
of the village, and the other the location of the household within the village. Villages that
are easily accessible have received more development interventions than those that are
more isolated, and thus farm households in these accessible villages have had many more
opportunities to participate than do households in remote villages. In terms of individual
households, the families that live far from the center of the villages are much less likely
to participate in agricultural development projects.

The household’s economic condition is a second factor that inﬂuences participation.
Poorer families 0 ﬁen e am c rucial income through p art-time a gricultural d ay labor and
may not have the time to participate in agricultural groups. Some farmers may spend a
major portion of their year working off-farm. Families that are better off ﬁnancially,
such as those with family members in the United States, have the ﬂexibility to participate.

A third factor is social involvement. Households involved in church groups,
women’s groups, or community development committees have many more opportunities
to be exposed to different organizations than those households that keep to themselves.
Subsidies and Incentives

It is evident from this research that development organizations’ use of subsidies and
incentives does increase the number of farm households participating in agricultural

development groups. In the case of the potable water project in Los Pinos and the

100

irrigation project in Tres Rios, it was clear that these inﬁastructure projects were the
primary motivation for people’s participation and implementation of RCATs. Food-for-
work subsidies also tend to attract farm households that would otherwise choose not to
participate. In other organizations’ projects, when FFW was discontinued, several groups
disbanded. However, the fact that subsidies are used ﬁ'equently does not imply that farm
households automatically stop using the technologies after subsidies stop. The results of
this study show that many farmers have continued to implement RCATs without project
support. Clearly, there are multiple factors involved.

Eﬁtors Inﬂuencing Continuation or Discontinaertion of Technologies

Whether or not farm households continued to use the RCATs that they had initially
adopted depended on a variety of factors, including the characteristics of the
technologies, the resources of the farm household, and the broader context.

The characteristics of the technologies were very important in determining whether
or not farm families continued to use them. For SWC technologies, those that involved
less labor to implement, such as contour ditches and live barriers, were much more likely
to b e p racticed than w ere terraces. R ock w alls w ere an exception—despite their high
labor requirements, a few farmers were continuing to build them, likely because the
removal of the rocks from the ﬁelds greatly improved crop production.

Composting was less likely to be continued. It is apparent that many farmers
discontinued composting because it had what Rogers (1995) calls a low relative
advantage—it was not perceived as being signiﬁcantly better than the traditional method

of organic material preparation, due to the additional labor it required. Another factor for

101

discontinuance, which was not explored in this research, may be the distance between the
farm homestead and the agricultural ﬁelds.

The resources available to farm households also determined continuance or
discontinuance. One important resource is labor. Farmers whose sons were no longer in
the household found it more difﬁcult to do SWC or build compost piles. Another
important resource is ﬁnancial capital. Many farmers stated that they did not have the
resources to a fford fertilizer and o ther inputs. T be high c ost o f v egetable s eed w as a
constraint that limited vegetable production for several families. A third resource is
physical capital. Farmers that had many farm animals were more likely to discontinue
composting, because the traditional method of combining the manure with animal
bedding was less labor intensive and the animals generated enough manure to improve
crop production. Farmers that had little access to fresh vegetative material nearby were
constrained from making compost piles. Finally, farmers’ agronomic knowledge or skills
were another factor that inﬂuenced continuation. Farmers who were conﬁdent in their
abilities were more likely to continue with vegetable production, for example, while
others said that they did not have the skills to do it well.

Outcomes of the Intervention_s on Farm Household Livelihoods

Bush (199711) states, “Development projects must show signiﬁcant long-term
impacts on poverty or they are pointless.” Most evaluations of development do not
examine the long-term impacts or outcomes; most organizations leave the communities,
and policies and priorities change for both governments and NGOs. Farm household
priorities and livelihood strategies change as well, given the dynamic nature of both the

farm household and the broader context.

102

 

The results of this study show that agricultural development interventions have
made signiﬁcant impacts on farming systems and livelihood systems in the complex,
diverse and risk-prone environment of the western Guatemalan highlands. Farmers have
improved their skills and gained conﬁdence, production has increased for nearly all
farmers participating, and there is less dependence on seasonal migration to earn cash
incomes. Food security for these families has improved signiﬁcantly. Most farm
families stated that the development organizations have helped them improve their lives.

However, signiﬁcant constraints exist that continue to limit the impacts of the
agricultural development interventions on people’s livelihoods. Some of the
relationships between project impacts and endogenous and exogenous constraints are
illustrated in Figure 4. Agricultural development organizations attempt to introduce new
products, but biophysical constraints such as the cold climate and steep slopes severely
limit the possibilities for agricultural diversiﬁcation and commercialization. The lack of
ﬁnancial resources prevent most farmers from making more than minor changes in their
production systems. Although production has clearly improved, highly variable prices
cause many farmers to be risk averse and avoid using credit to ﬁnance commericial
agriculture production. Harwood (1979) states that markets need to be accessible, stable,
and predictable in order for farmers to trust them. Clearly this is not currently the case
with potatoes, the only cash crop these farmers grow.

In conclusion, agricultural development organizations and RCATs have made
valuable contributions to the production, stability and continuity of farming systems in
this context. However, the agroecological limitations of the climate, combined with the

limited economic resources of these families and the limitations of the greater economy

103

for small farmers, indicate that for most households, farming will continue primarily as a

subsistence activity, and farm households will have to continue to rely on off-farm

activities to meet their income needs.

SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS

BIOPHYSICAL FACTORS

 
  
  

 
  

EXOGENOUS

 

off-farm

   
     
   
   
     

   
   

opportunities: FACTORS ,
+ local opps. infrastructure—
+ US migration credit new roads
' coffee/incas ______________ & extension:
lack of """"""""" _ - short-term projects
markets, low §338¢m¢35 ‘0 03" aversion ‘ ~ £ + large # of orgs.

      
      

higher crop p0pulation—
lack of land /% production \ ‘. land
POTENTIAL HOUSEHOLD . fragmentation

Wm BENEFITS FROM FACTORS ‘

policies -. skills family 1 inconsistent
K2: AG. DEVELOPMENT composition Hm" supply

prices Qimprove lives a
§XTII \ farm reso urcegxx growing

    

  
      

 

 

PARTICIPATIO
._ and/or RC AT improved stables .,-'
"x ADOPTION\ more crop%(§
ls. SWC and diversity .’ diseases
‘ , soil fertility) ,
z is
poor ...... ”\B ..... altitude
soils p """ ' """
PHYSICAL topography ; jg
FACTORS climate

 

 

 

Figure 4. Factors Affecting the Outcomes of Agricultural Development Interventions on

Small Farm Households.

Recommendations for Future Research

This research was conducted under the assumption that a detailed understanding of

the context is necessary to understand the outcomes of RCAT promotion. While the

results of this study do not necessarily apply in other areas, similar studies in

communities with different biophysical and socioeconomic contexts could help to

104

determine which factors are more common in their inﬂuence on farm household
responses to RCAT promotion, and which factors are more context-speciﬁc.

This research focused on a region of the western Guatemalan highlands that is
especially risk-prone and marginal for agricultural production. More studies in less
vulnerable regions would be necessary to determine whether these outcomes are common
or are determined primarily by the harsh climate.

Although this research included women’s perspectives, gender issues were not a
major focus of the study. However, it was clear ﬁom the study that gender plays a large
role in how people participate in and experience agricultural development projects. In the
projects examined in this study, women were the primary participants in both communal
vegetable gardens and communal tree nurseries. Research that explicitly focuses on
gender issues is necessary to determine the processes, impacts and outcomes of
agricultural development interventions within the farm household in addition to
examining the farm households as a whole.

One surprising result of the research was the large amount of spontaneous adoption
of SWC technologies. Research exploring this process in-depth would be helpful so that
future agricultural development interventions can improve the likelihood that their

training can spread to non-participants within the communities and in other communities.

Recommendations for Development Practice
Agricultural development organizations should continue to promote simple, low
cost 8 oil and w ater conservation technologies. Farmers d o c ontinue to use them a fter

projects leave and expand the area of their ﬁelds that are conserved. Establishing sources

105

of fodder grass for farmers seeking to adopt live barriers would eliminate one constraint
for this technology. I

Agricultural deve10pment organizations should consider promoting a composting
technology that starts with farmers’ traditional methods of organic material preparation—
combining animal manure with the animal bedding. If changes can be made to this
system that involve minimal additional labor, the technology may be more widely
adopted.

Organizations may want to promote individual gardens at the same time that they
promote c ommunity gardens. T his step could increase farm households’ m anagement
abilities so that they can continue to grow vegetables in the future. Also, a method of
ensuring access to the necessary gardening inputs after the active phase of the project
could increase farmers’ likelihood of continuing to grow vegetables.

Agricultural development organizations should continue to train local promoters in
each community so that the knowledge of these technologies is readily available to
farmers after the project ends. Several people in each community should be trained, so
that if one person leaves the community, the knowledge will not be lost.

The marketing of the agricultural products, not production itself, now seems to be
the largest constraint for the majority of farmers in this study. Agricultural development
organizations should make this aspect of agriculture a major focus of their efforts in the

years to come.

Lessons for the Future
As funding for agricultural development continues to shrink, greater pressure is

being put on organizations to use resources as efﬁciently as possible. The questions of

106

what techniques to introduce and whether or not subsidies are necessary are most
common. This research showed that certain technologies were much more helpﬁrl than
others in this biophysical and socioeconomic context. It also showed that subsidies
attracted people to participate in agricultural development that otherwise would not have
participated. On the other hand, many farmers continue practicing RCATs after subsidies
end, and many non-participating farmers adopted technologies without receiving any
subsidies at all.

One ﬁrrther question that needs to be asked more often is where should the
organizations be working. From this research it was clear that the villages with the
easiest access have enjoyed many more agricultural development opportunities, while
those communities more difﬁcult to reach have experienced far fewer interventions. Just
from observation one can notice how much less conservation behavior is occurring
further down in the valley; farmers noted this difference also. Meanwhile, some farm
households are participating with two or even three agricultural development
organizations, which are promoting ahnost exactly the same technologies, in order to
receive more FFW or other incentives. Agricultural development organizations and
ﬁrnding organizations need to ask the hard questions about reaching the long-neglected
communities. When access is a problem, a greater reliance on farmer-promoters may be
the answer. A farmer who can speak in people’s native language and who knows their
situation may be much more effective than a well-educated agronomist from the city.
The development organizations also have to coordinate their efforts better. Rather than
competing over participants by offering better subsidies, organizations should be willing

to spread the wealth into more remote areas.

107

A ﬁnal question that agricultural development organizations need to ask is how
long should organizations work in a community. There are no easy answers. It is
apparent from this research that interventions that have lasted one or two years had fewer
lasting impacts. It takes time for farmers and development workers to build trust and to
understand each other. At the same time, needs in other communities continue to be
unmet. Organizations should be ﬂexible in this area, recognizing that the more isolated
communities m ay n eed more time to adopt n ew agricultural ideas. 0 rganizations c an
also recognize these long-neglected communities as opportunities to attempt new
approaches to agricultural development, taking advantage of all that has been learned in

the last 30 years and letting the farmers themselves control their own development.

108

 

APPENDIX

109

 

Figure 6. Agroforesz System with Pasture Grasses and Arrayan (Baccharis
vaccinoides) in Los Pinos.

110

«0*

. ....“ w
. ~u-Mv; ‘-

 

Figure 8. Terraces (foreground) and contour ditches in Los Pinos.

lll

 

Figure 9. A Rock Wall in San Lucas.

112

 

Figure 10. Live and dead (sod) barriers in Tres Rios.

Figure 11. Rock walls in Tres Rios.

 

113

 

Figure 12. Maize planted on narrow terraces in Vista Bonita.

114

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

115

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adriance, J. 1997. A new “model” for peasant farming is emerging in Honduras and
Central America. In: Serageldin, I. and D. Steeds, (eds.) 1997. Rural Well-Being:
From Vision to Action. Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development
Proceedings Series 15. Washington, DC: The World Bank. 191-194.

Altieri, MA. 1995. Agroecology.: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture. Second
Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Annis, S. 1987. God and Production in a Guatemalan Town. Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press.

Ashby, LA, LA. Beltran, M.P. Guerrero, and HF. Ramos. 1996. Improving the
acceptability to farmers of soil conservation practices. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 51 (4): 309-312.

Baker, J. 2000. Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty: A Handbook
for Practitioners. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Bass, 3., B. Dalal-Clayton, and J. Pretty. 1995. Participation in Strategies for Sustainable
Development. Environmental Planning Issues No. 7, May 1995. London:
International Institute for Environment and Development.

Bawden, R. On the systems dimension in FSR. Journal for Farming Systems Research—
Extension 5(2): 1-18.

Beets, WC. 1990. Raising and Sustaining Productivity of Smallholder Farming Systems
in the Tropics. Alkrnaar, Holland: AgBé Publishing.

Bell, S. and S. Morse. 1999. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable?
London: Earthscan Publications.

Berger, S.A. 1992. Political and Agrarian Development in Guatemala. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Bernstein, H. 1992. Agrarian structures and change: Latin America. In: Bernstein, H. B.
Crow and H. Johnson. 1992. Rural Livelihoods: Crises and Responses. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press. 27-50.

Brockett, CD. 1998. Land, Power, and Poverty: Agrarian Transformation and Political
Conﬂict in Central America. Second Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

116

 

Brush, SB. and BL. Turner II. 1987. The nature of farming systems and views of their
change. In: Turner 11, BL. and SB. Brush, (eds.) 1987. Comparative Farming
Systems. New York: The Guilford Press. 11-48.

Bunch, R. 1985. Two Ears of Corn: A Guide to People-Centered Agricultural
Improvement. Oklahoma City: World Neighbors.

Bunch, R. and G. Lo'pez. 1995. Soil Recuperation in Central America: Sustaining
Innovation after Intervention. Gatekeeper Series No. SA 55. London: International
Institute for Environment and Development.

Bush, A. 1997. Evaluation and impact assessment. Appropriate Technology 24 (2): 1-3.

Carrasco, DA. and S. Witter. 1993. Constraints to sustainable soil and water
conservation: a Dominican Republic example. Ambio 22 (6): 347-350.

 

Carson, B. 1990. Terracing re-exarnined in the light of recent ﬁndings in Nepal and
Indonesia. In: Research Needs and Applications to Reduce Erosion and
Sedimentation in Tropical Steeplands (Proceedings of the Fiji Symposium, June
1990): IAHS-AISH Pub]. No. 192: 364-373.

Celis, R. M.A. Vedova, and S. Ruano. 1997. A new approach to poverty alleviation and
sustainability in the dry tropical hillsides of Central America: a Guatemalan case
study. In: Vosti, S.A. and T. Reardon, (eds.) 1997. 328-338.

Chambers, R. 1994. The origins and practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal. World
Development 22 (7): 953-969.

Chambers, R. 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London:
Intermediate Technology Publications.

Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp, (eds.) 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation
in Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Checkland, P. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.

Cherrett, I. 2001. Decentralization, rural poverty, and degradation of uplands in Central
America. Mountain Research and Development 21(3): 221-225.

CIIVIMYT Economics Program.1993. The Adoption of Agricultural Technology: A Guide
for Survey Design. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.

Cramb, R.A., J.N.M. Garcia, R.V. Gerrits, and GO Saguiguit. 1999. Smallholder
adoption of soil conservation technologies: evidence from upland projects in the
Philippines. Land Degradation and Development 10: 405-423.

117

 

Cramb, RA. and RA. Nelson. 1998. Investigating constraints to the adoption of
recommended soil conservation technology in the Philippines. In: Penning de Vries et
al. 1998. 99-120.

Creswell, J .W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J .W. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Current, D., E. Lutz and S. Scherr. 1995. The costs and beneﬁts of agroforestry to
farmers. World Development 10 (2): 151-180.

Dent, B. 1995. Theory and Practice in FSRE: Consideration of the role of modeling.
Journal for Farming Systems Research-Extension 5(1): 31-43.

Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.) 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dixon, J., A. Gulliver, and D. Gibbon. 2001. Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving
Farmers ’ Livelihoods in a Changing World. Rome and Washington DC: F A0 and
the World Bank.

Douglas, M. 1996. A participatory approach to better land husbandry. In: Sombatpanit et
al. 1997. 107-121.

Elias, S., G. Gellert, E. Pape, and E. Reyes. 1997. Evaluacién de la Sostenibilidad: El
caso de Guatemala. Guatemala: F LACSO.

Enge, KL and P. Martinez-Enge. 1991. Land, malnutrition, and health: the dilemmas of
development in Guatemala. In: Whiteford, Scott and Anne E. Ferguson, (eds.)
Harvest of Want: Hunger and Food Security in Central America and Mexico.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. 75-101.

Ellis-Jones, J. and B.G. Sims. 1999. Una evaluacion economica de tecnologias de
manejo de suelo: barreras vivas y cultivos de cobertura en ﬁncas de ladera en
Honduras. Ceiba 40(1): 21-34.

Ellis-Jones, J. and A. Tengberg. 2000. The impact of indigenous soil and water
conservation practices on soil productivity: examples ﬁom Kenya, Tanzania and

Uganda. Land Degradation and Development 11: 19-36.

Enters, T. 1996. Adoption: section review. In: Sombatpanit et al. 1997. 399-403.

118

Enters, T. 1996. The token line: adoption and non-adoption of soil conservation practices
in the highlands of northern Thailand. In: Sombatpanit et al. 1997. 417-427.

Fernandez, AP. 1999. The impact of technology adaptation on productivity and
sustainability: MYRADA’s experiences in southern India. In: Hinchcliffe et al.

1999. 75-89.

Fresco, L. 1985. Comparing Anglophone and Francophone approaches to farming
systems research and extention. Farming Systems Support Project. Networking Paper

No. 1. Cited in Beets, WC. 1990.

F ujisaka, S. 1999. A retrospection of soil conservataion in Claveria, Philippines. In:
McDonald, M.A. and K. Brown. 1999.

Fujisaka, S. and DP. Garrity, 1991. Farmers and scientists: a joint effort. In:
Moldenhauer, W.C., N.W. Hudson, T.C. Sheng and SW. Lee, (eds.) 1991.
Development of Conservation Farming on Hillslopes. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water

Conservation Society.

Garcia, J .N.M., R.V. Gerrits, and R. A. Cramb. 2002. Adoption and maintenance of
contour bunds and hedgerows in a dynamic environment: experience in the
Philippines uplands. Mountain Research and Development 22(1): 10-13.

Garrity, D.P., A. Mercado Jr. and M. Stark. 1998. Building the smallholder into
successﬁrl natural resource management at the watershed scale. In: Penning de Vries

et al. 1998. 73-82.

Goldin, LR. 1996. Economic mobility strategies among Guatemalan peasants: prospects
and limits of nontraditional vegetable cash crops. Human Organization 55 (1): 99-

107.

Greene, J. 1994. Qualitative program evaluation: practice and promise. In: Denzin, N.K.
and Y.S. Lincoln, (eds.) 1994. 530-544.

Guba, B.G. and Y.S. Lincoln, 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

Guba, B.G. and Y.S. Lincoln, 1994. Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In:
Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln, (eds.) 1994. 105-117.

Harrington, L. 1995. Sustainability in perspective: strengths and limitations of farming
systems research in contributing to a sustainable agriculture. Journal of Sustainable

Agriculture 5 (1/2): 41-59.

Harwood, RR. 1979. Small Farm Development: Understanding and Improving Farming
Systems in the Humid Tropics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

119

 

Hellin, J. and S. Larrea. 1999. Uso de vegetacion para la conservacién dc suelo y agua en
laderas: consideraciones socials y técnicas. Ceiba 40 (1): 35-39.

Hinchcliffe, F., J. Thompson, J. Pretty, I. Guijt, and P. Shah, (eds.) 1999. Fertile Ground:
The Impacts of Participatory Watershed Management. London: Intermediate
Technology Publications.

Hinchcliffe, F., I. Guijt, J .N. Pretty and P. Shah. 1995. New Horizons: The Economic,
Social and Environmental Impacts of Participatory Watershed Development.
Gatekeeper Series No. SA 50. London: International Institute for Environment and
Development.

Hostnig, R., R. Hostnig and L. Vésquez V. 1998. Etnobotanica Mam. Quetzaltenango,
Guatemala: GTZ, Poyecto Educacion Bilingue Intercultural Maya.

Hudson, NW. 1991. A Study of the Reasons for Success or Failure of Soil Conservation
Projects. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Hudson, NW. 1992. Land Husbandry. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Hurni, H., M.G. Cook and S. Sombatpanit, 1996. Soil conservation extension—a world
perspective. In: Sombatpanit et al. 1997. 3-11.

Igbokwe, K.N., R. San Buenaventura, C. Basilio, S. Killough, N. Pandhare and
Ramanchandrappa. 1999. Participatory technology development in southern India:
improving rainfed agriculture. In: Hinchcliffe et al. 1999. 48-61.

Jansen, K. 1998. Political Ecology, Mountain Agriculture, and Knowledge in Honduras.
Amsterdam: Thela Publishers.

J iggins, J. 1995. Development impact assessment: impact assessment of aid projects in
nonwestern countries. Impact Assessment 13 (1): 47-69.

Jonas, S. 2000. Of Centaurs and Doves: Guatemala 's Peace Process. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Kaimowitz, D. 1993. La Experiencia de Centroamerica y Republica Dominicana con
Proyectos de Inversio'n Que Buscan Sostenibilidad en Las Laderas. San José, Costa
Rica: Instituto Interamericano de Cooperacion para la Agricultura (HCA).

Kaimowitz, D. 1993. NGOs, the State and Agriculture in Central America. In:
Bebbington, A., G. Thiele, P. Davies, M. Prager and H. Riveros. Non-Governmental
Organizations and the State in Latin America: Rethinking roles in sustainable
agricultural development. London and New York: Routledge, 178-198.

120

 

Kerr, J.M. 1998. The economics of soil degradation: from national policy to farmers’
ﬁelds. In: Penning de Vries et al. 1998. 21-38.

Kerr, J.M. and N.K. Sanghi, 1993. Indigenous soil and water conservation in India’s
semi-arid tropics. In: Baum, Eckhard, Peter Wolf, and Michael A. Zobisch, (eds.)
1993. Acceptance of Soil and Water Conservation: Strategies and Technologies.
Witzenhausen, Germany: German Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture
(DITSL). 255-289.

Kerr, J .M., N.K. Sanghi and G. Sriramappa. 1999. Subsidies in watershed development
projects in India: distortions and opportunities. In: Hinchcliffe et al. 1999. 178-193.

Kleynhans, TE. 1996. Contributions from social systems thinking to farm systems
research and extension. Journal for Farming Systems Research-Extension 6 (2): 69-
81.

Kumar, K. 1993. An overview of rapid appraisal methods in development settings. In:
Kumar, K., (ed.) 1993. Rapid Appraisal Methods. Washington, DC: The World
Bank.

Lee, D.R., P.J. Ferraro and CB. Barrett. 2001. Introduction: changing perspectives on
agricultural intensiﬁcation, economic development and the environment. In: Lee,
DR. and CB. Barrett, (eds.) 2001. T radeoﬁ’s or Synergies? Agricultural
Intensiﬁcation, Economic Development and the Environment. New York: CABI
Publishing.

Lindarte, E. and C. Benito. 1993. Sostenibilidad y Agricultura de Laderas en America
Central: Cambio T ecnolo'gico y Cambio Institucional. San José, Costa Rica:
Instituto Interamericano de Cooperacion para la Agricultura.

Lutz, E., S. Pagiola, and C. Reiche. 1994. The costs and beneﬁts of soil conservation: the
farrners’ viewpoint. The World Bank Research Observer 9(2): 273-295.

Lutz, E., S. Pagiola and C. Reiche, (eds.) 1994. Economic and Institutional Analyses of
Soil Conservation Projects in Central America and the Caribbean. World Bank
Environment Paper No. 8. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

_Lutz, E., S. Pagiola and C. Reiche. 1994. Lessons from economic and institutional
analyses of soil conservation projects in Central America and the Caribbean. In: Lutz
et al. 1994b. 3-18.

Maddock, N. 1994. Monitoring and evaluation of agricultural and rural development
projects: a review. In: MacArthur, J .D. and J. Weiss, (eds.) 1994. Agriculture,
Projects and Development. Aldershot, England: Avebury/Ashgate Publishing. 104-
1 23.

121

Maglinao, AR. 1996. Accelerating technology transfer and adoption: the challenge to
research and extension. In: Sombatpanit et al. 1997. 405-416.

Marshall, C. and GB. Rossman. 1995. Designing Qualitative Research (Second
Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Maxwell, J .A. 1996. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

McDonald, M.A. and K. Brown. 1999. Issues and Options in the Design of Soil and
Water Conservation Projects. School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences Publication
Number 17, University of Wales, Bangor.

McDonald, M. and K. Brown. 2000. Soil and water conservation projects and rural
livelihoods: options for design and research to enhance adoption and adaptation.
Land Degradation and Development 11: 343-361.

Meyer, CA. 1999. The Economics and Politics of NGOs in Latin America. Westport, CT
and London: Praeger.

Meyer, M. and N. Singh. 1997. Two approaches to evaluating the outcomes of
development projects. Development in Practice 7 (1): 59-64.

Moldenhauer, WC. and NW. Hudson, (eds.) 1988. Conservation Farming on Steep
Lands. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.

Moore, KM. 1995. The conceptual basis for targeting farming systems: domains, zones,
and typologies. Journal for Farming Systems Research-Extension 5(2): 19-37.

Morse, J .M. 1994. Designing ﬁrnded qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K. and Y.S.
Lincoln, (eds.) 1994. 220-235.

Napier, TL. 1995. Socioeconomic and institutional constraints to adoption of
conservation practices: implications for sustainable agriculture. In: Singh, RB. and
M. J. Haigh, (eds.) 1995. Sustainable Reconstruction of Highland and Headwater
Regions: Proceedings of Third International Symposium on Headwater Control, New
Delhi, Oct. 6-8, 1995. Rottterdarn, the Netherlands: AA. Balkema

Narayan, D., 1993. Participatory Evaluation: Tools for Managing Change in Water and
Sanitation. Technical Paper # 207. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Norman, D.W., F.D. Worman, J .D. Siebert, and E. Modiakgutla. 1995. The Farming

Systems Approach to Development and Appropriate Technology Generation. F AO
Farm Systems Management Series No. 10. Rome: FAO.

122

Norman, D.W. and M. Douglas, 1994. Farming Systems Development and Soil
Conservation. F AO Farm Systems Management Series No. 7. Rome: FAO.

Pagiola, S. 1994. Cost-beneﬁt analysis of soil conservation. In: Lutz et al. 1994b. 21-39.

Pellek, R. 1992. Contour hedgerows and other soil conservation interventions for hilly
terrain. Agroforestry Systems 17: 135-152.

Penning de Vries, F .W.T., F. Agus, and J. Kerr. 1998, (eds.). Soil Erosion and Multiple
Scales: Principles and Methods for Assessing Causes and Impacts. New York: CABI
Publishing.

Pichon, F .J . and J .E. Uquillas. 1999. Rural poverty alleviation and improved natural
resource management through participatory technology development in Latin
America’s risk-prone areas. In: Pichon, F.J., J.E. Uquillas, and J. Fechione, (eds)
Traditional and Modern Natural Resource Management in Latin America. Pittsburg,
PA: University of Pittsburg Press.

Pinheiro, S.L.G., S. Chamala and CJ. Pearson. 1998. Participation in F SR/E: new
perspectives for small family farmers or just a reformulation of old development
paradigms? In: Ranaweera, N.F.C., H.P.M. Gunasena, and Y.D.A. Senanayake,
(eds.) 1998. Changing Agricultural Opportunities: The Role of F arming Systems
Approaches. Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Sustainable
Farming Systems. Sri Lanka: Asian Farming Systems Association.

Porna Morales, J .D. 1998. La Produccion de Maiz y T rigo y Su Incidencia en el Nivel de
Ingresos de Los Asociados de la Asociacio'n de Desarollo Integral Nuevo Palmira —
ADINP—Caserio Nuevo Palmira, Aldea El Carmen, Palestina de Los Altos. Tésis
para Licenciatura. Unpublished thesis. Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala—
Centro Universitario de Occidente.

Prensa Libre staff writer. 2001. Pobreza en Guatemala. Pg. 3. Prensa Libre 51 (16,376),
Guatemala, 4 Sep, 2001.

Pretty, J. 1995. Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainability and
Self-Reliance. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.

Pretty, J. and P. Shah, 1999. Soil and water conservation: a brief history of coercion and
control. In: Hinchcliffe et al. 1999. 1-12.

Pretty, J .N., J. Thompson and F. Hinchcliffe. 1996. Sustainable Agriculture: Impacts on

Food Production and Challenges for Food Security. Gatekeeper Series No. 60.
London: IIED.

123

Reardon, T. 1998. African agriculture: productivity and sustainability issues. In:
Eicher, OK. and J .M. Staatz, (eds.) 1998. International Agricultural Development.
Third Edition. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 444-457.

Reardon, T. and S.A. Vosti. 1997. Policy analysis of conservation investments:
extensions of traditional technology adoption research. In: Vosti, S.A. and T.
Reardon, (eds.) 1997. 135-145.

Reckers, U. 1997. Participatory project evaluation: letting local people have their say.
Development in Practice, 1 (3): 298-300.

Reijntj es, C., B. Haverkort and A. Waters-Bayer. 1992. F arming for the Future: An
introduction to Low-External—Input and Sustainable Agriculture. London and
Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.

Richter, M. 2000. The ecological crisis in Chiapas: a case study from Central America.
Mountain Research and Development 20 (4): 332-339.

Rogers, EM. 1995. Diﬁ‘usion of Innovations. Fourth Edition. New York: The Free
Press.

Rosado P., P., L.E. Barrientos C. and S. A. Lima L. 1994. Soil erosion control efforts in
Guatemala. In: Lutz et al. 1994b. 58-62.

Ruaysoongnem, S. 1999. Adoption of sloping land conservation practices by farmers in
the northeast of Thailand. In: McDonald, M.A. and K. Brown. 1999. 47-55.

Ruonavaara, D. 1996. Traditional Household Gardens of the Peten, Guatemala.
Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Michigan State University.

Sanders, D.W. 1988. Soil and water conservation on steep lands: a summary of workshop
discussions. In: Moldenhauer and Hudson 1988. 275-282.

Sanders, D.W., 1996. hnplementation: section review. In: Sombatpanit et al. 1997. 237-
243.

Sanders, D.W. and D. Cahill. 1998. Where incentives ﬁt in soil conservation programs.
In: Sanders, D.W., P.C. Huszar, S., and T. Enters, (eds). 1999. Incentives in Soil
Conservation: From Theory to Practice. New Hampshire: Science Publishers. 11-24.

Sanders, D.W., P.C. Huszar, S., and T. Enters, (eds). 1999. Incentives in Soil
Conservation: From Theory to Practice. New Hampshire: Science Publishers.

Scarborough, V., S. Killough, D. A. Johnson, and J. Farrington, 1997. Farmer-Led
Extension: Concepts and Practices. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

124

Scherr, SJ. 1995. Economic factors in farmer adoption of agroforestry: patterns observed
in western Kenya. World Development 23(5): 787-804.

Scherr, SJ. and E. Muller. 1991. Technology impact evaluation in agroforestry projects.
Agroforestry Systems 13(3): 235-238.

Scherr, SJ. and D. Current. 1997. What makes agroforestry proﬁtable for farmers?
Evidence from Central America and the Caribbean. Agroforestry Today (4): 10-15.

Scoones, I. 2001. Transforming soils: the dynamics of soil-fertility management in
Aﬁica. In: Scoones, I. (ed.) 2001. Dynamics and Diversity: Soil Fertility and
Farming Livelihoods in Africa. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.

Scoones, I., C. Reij, and C. Touhnin, 1996. Sustaining the Soil: Indigenous Soil and
Water Conservation in Africa. Issues Paper No. 67. London: International Institute
for Environment and Development.

Serageldin, I. and D. Steeds, (eds.) 1997. Rural Well-Being: From Vision to Action.
Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Proceedings Series 15.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Shaner, W.W., P.F. Philipp, and W.R. Schmehl. 1982. Farming Systems Research and
Development: Guidelines for Developing Countries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Shaxson, TR 1988. Conserving soil by stealth. In: Moldenhauer and Hudson, 1988. 9-
1 7.

Shaxson, F. 1999. New Concepts and Approaches to Land Management in the Tropics
with Emphasis on Steeplands. FAO Soils Bulletin 75. Rome: FAO.

Shepherd, A. 1998. Sustainable Rural Development. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Shrestha, A. and RB. Chhetri. 1996. Development projects, success or failure? Personal
perspectives on an FAO fertilizer project in Nepal. Agriculture and Human Values
13 (4): 71-74.

Simmons, C.S., J .M. Tarano T. and J.H. Pinto; P.T. Sulsona, Spanish Edition. 1959.
Clasiﬁcacio'n de Reconocimiento de los Suelos de la Republica de Guatemala.
Guatemala: Instituto Agropecuario Nacional.

Sims, B.G. 1999. Percepciones de los agricultores sobre las practices de conservacion:
estudios de caso err Guinope y El Rosario, Honduras. Ceiba: 40 (1): 13-20.

Stake, RE. 1994. Case Studies. In: Denzin, N.K. and Y. S. Lincoln, (eds.). 1994. 236-
247.

125

Stake, RE. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Sureshwaran, S., S.R. Londhe, and P. Frazier. 1996. A Logit model for evaluating farmer
participation in soil conservation programs. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 7(4):
57-69.

Tamang, D. 1993. Living in a Fragile Ecosystem: Indigenous Soil Management in the
Hills of Nepal. Gatekeeper Series No. 41. London: International Institute for
Environment and Development.

Teller, F. 1979. Agricultura: para allr' do'nde no hay agro'nomo. Guatemala: Piedra Santa.

Thomas, DB. 1996. Soil conservation extension: constraints to progress and lessons
learned in East Aﬁica. In: Sombatpanit et al. 1997. 245-256.

Thrupp, LA. and M. Altieri. 2001. Innovative models of technology generation and
transfer: lessons learned from the South. In: Wolf, S. and D. Zilberrnan, (eds.) 2001.
Knowledge Generation and Technical Change: Institutional Innovation in
Agriculture. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 267-290.

Tiffen, M., M. Mortimore and F. Gichuki. 1994. More People, Less Erosion:
Environmental Recovery in Kenya. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Turkelboom, F., G. Trébuil, and C. Vejpas. 1996. Starting fgrom the farmers’ ﬁelds: on-
farrn analysis and development of conservation strategies on steeplands. In:
Sombatpanit et al. 1997. 141-152.

Turner 11, BL. and SB. Brush, (eds.) 1987. Comparative Farming Systems. New York:
The Guilford Press.

United Nations. 1999. Guatemala: el rostro rural del desarollo humano. Edicion 1999.
Guatemala: United Nations.

UNICEF. 2000. Realidad Socioecono'mica de Guatemala: Estudios Sociales para 50
Bachillerato. Guatemala: UNICEF and Piedra Santa.

Vosti, S.A. and T. Reardon. 1997. Introduction: the critical triangle of links among
sustainability, growth, and poverty alleviation. In: Vosti, S.A. and T. Reardon, (eds.)
1997. 1-15.

Vosti, S.A. and T. Reardon, (eds.) 1997. Sustainability, Growth, and Poverty Alleviation:

a Policy and Agroecological Perspective. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.

126

 

White, TA. and J .L. Jickling. 1994. An economic and institutional analysis of soil
conservation in Haiti. In: Lutz et al. 1994b. 98-106.

White, TA. and J .L. Jickling. 1995. Peasants, experts, and land use in Haiti: lessons from
indigenous and project technology. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50(1): 7-
14.

Wiersum, KR 1994. Farmer adoption of contour hedgerow intercropping, a case study
from east Indonesia. A groforestry Systems 27: 163-182.

Witter, S.G., MP. Robotham, and DA Carrasco. 1996. Sustainable adoption of
conservation practices by upland farmers in the Dominican Republic. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 51(3): 249-254.

Young, A. 1998. Land Resources: Now and for the Future. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Zaal, F ., M. Laman, and CM. Sourang. 1998. Resource Conservation or Short Term

Food Needs? Designing Incentives for Natural Resource Management. Issue Paper
No. 77. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

127