ARLG 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 Teams: Jenny Wiegel (Central America), Angelica Ospina (HQ), Bernard Coppens & Nancy Quan (Honduras), Carolina Aguilar & Claudia Pineda (Nicaragua), Luc Lefranc & Justine Poldor (Haiti) Country Partners: Orvin 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

1. Assessing Resilience in Coffee-Dependent
Communities of Honduras, Haiti and Nicaragua
ARLG 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 Teams
Jenny Wiegel (Central America), Angelica Ospina (HQ), Bernard Coppens & Nancy Quan (Honduras), Carolina Aguilar & Claudia
Pineda (Nicaragua), Luc Lefranc & Justine Poldor (Haiti)
Country Partners
Orvin 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

2. 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

3. Where we Work

4. 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

5. Agroecological Principles
# Principles Sub-principles
1 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

6. 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)

7. Phase
1
Phase
2
Phase
3
Context
and
baseline
Project,
M&E
(re)Design
Pilots
Action
Reflection
Research
Sharing
PAR cycles & phases that bring learning & relationships
forward (may overlap)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11.  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

12. 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

13. Agroecological Approach
to Resilience in Coffee Landscapes
Live barriers for soil erosion Diverse agroforestry systems
Demonstration 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)

14. 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

15. 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

16. Field Work Teams
Honduras
Nicaragua
Haiti

17. 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)

18. Mixed Methods: Focus Groups
 After introductions & definitions, calendar exercise done by
farmers
 Sharing
 Final discussions

19. Mixed Methods: Field Observation & Key Actor
Interviews
 Project staff
 Partner organization staff
 Other relevant actors-
NGOs, government, etc.

20. 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
Farmer
&
Community
Typologies
Based on livelihood
variables that are
associated
with resilience
CAPITALS &
LIVELIHOOD
STRATEGIES
STRESSES
Context
PAR 1 Research
Includes desk review, field work & analysis
Absorbing
Adap ng
Transforming
Resilience
Pathway
(if ac on/reac on was
non-erosive, i.e. return
to status quo or be er)
Li
O
Fo
E
Vulnerability
Pathway
(if ac on/reac on was
erosive, i.e. return to
below status quo)
L
O
PAR 2 Reflec on
Researchers assess results, verify
findings with stakeholders and
recommend next steps
toward resilience pathways
Ac on/M
Contextualization &
Characterization
 Data exploration.
 Descriptive Statistics.
 Qualitative analysis of
interview data
(theme coding)
Adapted from Frankenberger, et al. (2014)

21. Selected Results : Reports of Main Climate Change
Effects

22. Selected Results : Reported
Agroecological Practices

23. 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

24. Livelihood Factors by Farmer Type: Haiti

25. Honduras Livelihood Assets by Farm Type
Livelihood Factors by Farmer Type: Nicaragua

26. Livelihood Factors by Farmer Type: Honduras

27. Exploring Resilience Pathways

28. Risk/opportunity matrices:
Qualitative Positioning of Farmer Groups

29. Coffee Production Risk/Opportunity Matrix

30. Agroecosystem Risk/Opportunity Matrix

31. Information and Support Risk/Opportunity
Matrix

32.  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

33. HAITI:
1. Better access to international
market and solidarity buyers
2. Technical assistance for farmers
HONDURAS:
1. Organizing producers
2. Access to market
NICARAGUA:
1. Improving production practices
2. Variety trials
Exploring Actions from the Matrices

34. 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
ResilienceCapacity
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

35. 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)

36. 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)

37. 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

38. 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

39. Our Evolving Integrated Approach
Category Examples Reasoning
Ecologically Healthy
Resource Base
Ecologically self-regulated,
Appropriately connected,
Functional and response
diversity
.
Food security MAHFP, DDI
Capacity/agency Network mapping
Measurement 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)

40. 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.

41. From Patton, 2011 p. 257
Integrating DE into a pre-existing project cycle

42. 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 trends
 Discipline for pursuing answers to questions that may
require how/why clarifications
 Collaborative skills to work with mixed group of key
stakeholders (LWR staff, country staff, farmers,
facilitator, etc.)
 Commitment to make decisions based on findings

43. 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.

44. 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?

45. 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.

46. 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?