Assessing Resilience in Coffee-Dependent Communities of Honduras,

Haiti and NicaraguaARLG Team:V. Ernesto Méndez (Honduras), Martha Caswell (Nicaragua), John Hayden (Haiti), Janica Anderzén

(Nicaragua), Angel Cruz (Honduras) Peter Merritt (Haiti), Sebastián Castro (Data analysis), Victor Izzo (Data analysis)

LWR TeamsJenny Wiegel (Central America), Angelica Ospina (HQ), Bernard Coppens & Nancy Quan (Honduras),

Carolina Aguilar & Claudia Pineda (Nicaragua), Luc Lefranc & Justine Poldor (Haiti)

Country PartnersOrvin Colindres, Oscar Cordova, Xochitl García- OCDIH (Honduras); Henry Mendoza-CAFENICA, Lucrecia

Martínez-CIEETS, Horacio Somarriba-Centro Humboldt (Nicaragua); Marc Sept, Aldron Francois, Joisel Pierre Roland- RECOCARNO (Haiti);

Promoters, Extensionists and Youth Research Assistants

The Agroecology & Rural Livelihoods Group (ARLG- www.uvm.edu/~agroecol )

Community of practice: mutual learning and collaborative practice between faculty, students, staff & other collaborators.

Research: integrating Agroecology and Participatory Action Research (PAR) to study, inform and have impact on key agrifood system issues at multiple scales.

Teaching and training: undergraduate and graduate level courses & advising, International Agroecology training courses, Certificate of Graduate Studies in Agroecology

Where we Work

Agroecology integrates ecological science with other scientific disciplines (e.g. social sciences) and knowledge systems (e.g. local, indigenous) to guide research and actions towards the sustainable transformation of our current agrifood system.

Science Social MovementPractice

Agroecology

Agroecological Principles# Principles Sub-principles1 Conserve and enhance agroecosystem

diversity at multiple levels Preserve and enhance crop diversity Preserve and enhance crop genetic diversity

2 Conserve and enhance soil health and nutrient cycling

Manage all soil properties: biological, physical and chemical Conserve and enhance soil organic matter

3 Conserve and enhance natural/ecological pest and disease regulating mechanisms

Minimize use of synthetic pesticides Manage habitat to enhance natural enemies

4 Minimize dependence on external synthetic inputs

Minimize use of synthetic pesticides Minimize use of synthetic fertilizer

Consulted Reference: Agroecology Research Group, UC Santa Cruz (consulted 1/10/2015) http://agroecology.org/Principles_List.html

5 Enhance agroecosystem performance without compromising the natural resource base

Improve ecological agroecosystem management efficiency Improve economic agroecosystem management efficiency

6 Diversify livelihoods to manage and mitigate risk

Balance cash and subsistence production Balance number of incomes sources

7 Prioritize and enhance local food production for food security and food sovereignty

Link livelihood strategies for food security/food sovereignty

8 Strengthen local organizations Support democratic farmer organizing Strengthen farmer organization networks

9 Integrate farmer/local and scientific knowledge

Create farmer scientist teams Generate space for respectful dialogue

A cyclical approach where research and non-research partners are involved in an iterative process of research, reflection and action (e.g. solving a problem) Negotiated process involving complex power dynamics. Accountability & transparency values. Works better for long-term processes and relationships. Belief that research has a role to play to reach solutions to day to

day challenges.

Reflection

Action

Research

Sharing

From Bacon, et. al. (2005) http://repositories.cdlib.org/casfs/rb/brief_no6/

Participatory Action Research (PAR)

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Context and

baseline

Project, M&E

(re)DesignPilots

Action

Reflection

ResearchSharing

PAR cycles & phases that bring learning & relationships forward (may overlap)

Source: Méndez et al (2013). Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37(1):3-18

Participatory Action Research Principles

Agroecology Principles

PAR foregrounds empowerments as community partners play key roles in defining the research agenda.

Agroecologists work with farmers, food consumers, communities, agricultural ministries, food advocates and others to empower people.

PAR processes are context dependent as they bring together interdisciplinary teams responding to stakeholder aspirations.

Agroecology establishes farming and food systems that adjust to local environments.

PAR research processes inform action at multiple scales for positive social change.

Agroecology seeks to manage whole systems.

PAR processes deepen as long-term relationships are formed and multiple iterations of this cycle occur.

Agroecology develops strategies to maximize long-term benefits.

PAR processes listen to a diversity of voices and knowledge systems to democratize the research and social change processes.

Agroecology implies processes to diversify biota, landscapes and social institutions.

Participatory Action Research and Agroecological principles

Study on Resilience in Coffee Dependent Communities

Better understand the vulnerabilities faced by coffee dependent communities, and how LWR projects are/can contribute to building and measuring resilience in these communities, in general, and specifically in Nicaragua, Haiti and Honduras. Assess current situation Forward looking Timeline: July 2015- present

Farmer and Coffee System Types

Diagram based on Moguel and Toledo (1999) Conservation Biology 13:11-21

Shade Types

Farmer Characteristics

Rustic polyculture

Smallholder, cooperative, Indigenous

Traditional polyculture

Smallholder, cooperative, Indigenous

Commercial polyculture

Different farmers & farm sizes, depending on country

Shaded monoculture

Different farmers & farm sizes, depending on country

Unshaded monoculture

Medium to large farms

Manage a coffee plot (collectively or independently).

Manage milpa (corn & beans, maybe squash), homegardens and other crops, mostly for household consumption.

All crops are affected by direct (e.g. drought or excessive rain) or indirect (e.g. diseases) effects of climate change.

Also affected by volatile coffee and corn markets.

Smallholder Coffee Farmers & Climate Change

Resilience

The capacity of a system (e.g. a community) to absorb the impacts of shocks and stressors, to adapt to change, and to potentially transform, in a manner that enables the achievement of development results (e.g. sustainable livelihoods, well-being, poverty alleviation).

LWR (A. Ospina), 2015

Agroecological Approach to Resilience in Coffee Landscapes

Live barriers for soil erosion Diverse agroforestry systemsDemonstration plots and

Farmer Field Schools

Agroecological farm practices that could be ecologically sound and viable for livelihoods: Not new- traditional/local & soil conservation,

agroforestry, etc. since the 1970s. Integrated farmer, technical and scientific knowledge

co-creation (human, social & cultural assets) Knowledge and experience of NGOs & projects

(human assets) Farmer movements and agroecology (social & political

assets)

A Livelihoods Approach to Resilience in Coffee Landscapes

How do people make a living & how they make it meaningful

Focus on financial, social, physical, natural and human assets

Social: support networks, organization

Financial: income, credit, savings

Natural: land, crops, water, soil

Human: Education, capacities, food security,

Physical: roads, production & processing infrastructure

Cultural: language, customs, cosmo-visions

Political: voice, networks, power

Livelihood framework for smallholder coffee producers, by Amekawa et al 2010, adapted by Jha et al 2011.

Application for use in analysis of Resilience of Coffee Dependent

Communities

Field Work Teams

Honduras

Nicaragua

Haiti

Mixed Methods: Household Surveys

Revised and validated in each country. 45-60 min, written Household & farm level

Selected livelihood assets: natural, social, human, financial Agroecological practices Food security

Honduras (n=60); Nicaragua (n=70); Haiti (n=71)

Mixed Methods: Focus Groups After introductions & definitions, calendar exercise

done by farmers Sharing Final discussions

Mixed Methods: Field Observation & Key Actor Interviews

Project staff Partner organization

staff Other relevant

actors- NGOs, government, etc.

Data & Analysis

Typologies: How similar or different are the families/households surveyed?

Two-step cluster analysis to develop typologies # of agroecological practices

used (natural & human assets, diversification)

# income sources (financial assets, diversification)

Total owned land (natural assets) Total plant diversity (natural

assets, diversification)

Mann-Whitney U test to compare means of variables used to cluster

Contextualization & Characterization Data exploration. Descriptive Statistics. Qualitative analysis of

interview data (theme coding)

Adapted from Frankenberger, et al. (2014)

Selected Results : Reports of Main Climate Change Effects

Selected Results : Reported Agroecological Practices

Assessing Variability in Farmer Populations

Cluster Analysis: assessing if farmer

samples were different enough to

separate into groups

Type 1: Smaller farms, less agrobiodiversity, fewer agroecological practices and sources

of income

Type 2: Larger farms, more

agrobiodiversity, more agroecological

practices and sources of income

Livelihood Factors by Farmer Type: Haiti

Honduras Livelihood Assets by Farm TypeLivelihood Factors by Farmer Type: Nicaragua

Livelihood Factors by Farmer Type: Honduras

Exploring Resilience Pathways

Risk/opportunity matrices: Qualitative Positioning of

Farmer Groups

Coffee Production Risk/Opportunity Matrix

Agroecosystem Risk/Opportunity Matrix

Information and Support Risk/Opportunity Matrix

What are the questions we can answer with the data that we have?

Is it possible to share, replicate or adapt what we are learning across contexts?

What are the actions for various stakeholder groups?

Exploring Actions from the Matrices

HAITI: 1. Better access to international

market and solidarity buyers2. Technical assistance for

farmers

HONDURAS:3. Organizing producers4. Access to market

NICARAGUA:5. Improving production

practices6. Variety trials

Exploring Actions from the Matrices

Transformative(change)

Adaptive(flexibility)

Absorptive(stability)

Protective(ex post-

relief)

Preventative(ex ante- avert)

Promotive(assets-

enhance)

Transformative

Intervention types, short- to long-term impacts

Resil

ienc

e Ca

paci

ty

1. Assess resilience capacity.2. Determine desired impact. 3. Select intervention (matching it to intervention

categories). 4. Use M&E to assess direction and rate of change.

Positive, maintained changes, indicate potential for more ambitious/longer term interventions.

Adapted from Béné, 2012

Tentative Steps in Resilience Processes

Country Direct effects of projects Preventative Promotive

Honduras

Families increase food production from their own land ✔(adaptive capacity)

Families increase household income from selling goods produced on their land

✔(adaptive capacity)

Families diminish the amount of post-harvest loss of food crops ✔(absorptive capacity)

Families eat a more diverse diet by incorporating new foods grown on their land

✔(adaptive capacity)

Nicaragua

Coffee producing families create farm plans and establish nurseries ✔(adaptive capacity)

Coffee producing families implement agricultural management best practices

✔(adaptive capacity)

Families in coffee-dependent communities have established a climate monitoring and early-warning system

✔

(adaptive capacity)Community trainings around climate change and adaptation strategies ✔

(adaptive capacity)

Coffee producing families have completed climate change adaptation plans

✔(adaptive capacity)

Coffee producing families establish kitchen gardens ✔(adaptive capacity)

Farmworker families diversify their diets and improve food security ✔(adaptive capacity)

Haiti

Increase coffee production and revenue through resistant varieties, improved shade management, soil fertility and ecological services

✔(adaptive capacity)

Increase revenue sources and improve market chain for diversified products

✔(adaptive capacity)

Facilitate access to credit and technical assistance ✔(adaptive capacity)

Transformative(change)

Adaptive(flexibility)

Absorptive(stability)

Protective(ACTIVITY 1)

Preventative(ACTIVITY 2)

Promotive(ACTIVITY 3)

Transformative

End of project year 1

End of project year 2

End of project year 3

“Resilience needs to be built through a holistic approach that integrates and implements a variety of interventions. (Using a) …sequential and incremental approach.” (Béné, 2012 p. 42)

Variation types – Want to note benchmarks, but also rate/direction of trajectory between points

Dynamical – unpredictable variation, even bifurcations

Dynamic – predominantly upward or predominantly downward

Static – Little variation

Adapted from Patton, 2011

Core conceptual frameworks

Applications for resilience M&E

Agroecology- systems approach, transdisciplinary, strong ecological basis, knowledge co-creation

Resilience work, as a function of its focus on holistic responses, parallels agroecology in challenging the more traditional ‘project’ model that expects quick and easily demonstrable returns.

Participatory Action Research-cyclical, reflective, co-production of knowledge and inquiry

“Navigating the middle’ – bridging role, looking for healthy integration of top down ‘best practice’ options and local knowledge/grassroots innovation. Networks of those involved in change innovate, adapt, and track processes and impacts.

Developmental Evaluation- uses tools/concepts that are attuned to complexity and encourage co-evolution of thinking

Need for resilience M&E to be willing and able to account for emerging properties and detect appropriate causal relationships, keep macro-/micro-system dynamics in mind while watching for changes in local context/global trends.

Exploring the Integration of Concepts for Resilience Monitoring &

Evaluation

Our Evolving Integrated ApproachCategory Examples Reasoning

Ecologically Healthy

Resource Base

Ecologically self-regulated, Appropriately connected, Functional and response diversity

.

Food security MAHFP, DDI Capacity/agency

Network mappingMeasurement of perceptions around: - Personal change - Family change - Group change - Community change

Resilience projects need to include process and behavior-based indicators, the presence of which “…identifies resilience in the system; their absence or disappearance suggests vulnerability and movement away from a state of resilience” (Cabell, 2012 p2)

Emergent Indicators re: trajectory of pressure from shocks and stresses (increased/decreased), indicators of improved response strategies (fewer erosive coping mechanisms)

“…the ultimate impact of a resilience intervention should not be measured in term of the speed at which people or households get back to their original level of income/assets…but rather by the types of adequate responses put in place by the households in the face of adverse events.” (Bene, 2016 p. 166)

Indicators Ideally serve different audiences, factors

that are important/monitor progress for target populations, project staff, organizations and researchers.

Are selected through a participatory process involving all of the above. May decide on monitoring some that only serve a specific audience.

Focus on systems-level outcomes.

From Patton, 2011 p. 257

Integrating DE into a pre-existing project cycle

How complex is our method?

Who is needed? A trainer and someone to accompany staff as they

learn to integrate new techniques and questions into their existing project management role.

What skills?Ability to recognize emerging trendsDiscipline for pursuing answers to questions that may

require how/why clarificationsCollaborative skills to work with mixed group of key

stakeholders (LWR staff, country staff, farmers, facilitator, etc.)

Commitment to make decisions based on findings

Comprehensiveness How comprehensive is the method?

Includes quantitative and qualitative measures

Focus on multiple time scales Does it allow for measurement of the

key elements of LWR’s resilience approach (capitals, attributes, capacities)? If done well, yes.

Rigor

• From an academic perspective, how would your method be viewed by your peers? • Participatory methods sometime seen as not as

rigorous – Belief they are as rigorous as more conventional

research, but different– Prioritize end-user, but allow for conventional

research

• What would be their critiques?

Practicality• On a scale from 1-10, how practical do you

believe your method is with regard to being implemented and used by project staff without significant external support? – With training and initial accompaniment should be an

7/8, depends on interest and willingness to jump in from front-line staff.

• Why? Things to consider include:• the cost and effort of the method vis a vis the size or scale

of the program, in particular current LWR programs that are roughly between $1-$5 million.

• effort needed to analyze, reflect and incorporate the information back into the project.

Cost

• What is the cost of using your method? • If it can only be implemented by a consultant

or academic, what would the range be for its cost?

• If it can be used by project staff, how many staff would be needed to undertake it effectively and what percent of their full-time may it take?