Farmer Field Schools (FFSs)

24 Pages·2017·1.87 MB·English

sustainability
Article
Farmer Field Schools (FFSs): A Tool Empowering
Sustainability and Food Security in Peasant Farming
Systems in the Nicaraguan Highlands
EsperanzaArnés1,* ID,CarlosG.H.Díaz-Ambrona1 ID,OmarMarín-González1and
MartaAstier2
1 Dpto.ProducciónAgraria,CentrodeEstudioseInvestigaciónparalaGestióndeRiesgos
AgrariosyMedioambientales,UniversidadPolitécnicadeMadrid,28040Madrid,Spain;
[email protected](C.G.H.D.-A.);[email protected](O.M.-G.)
2 CentrodeInvestigacionesdeGeografíaAmbiental,UniversidadNacionalAutónomadeMéxico,
CampusMorelia,Morelia581910,Mexico;[email protected]
* Correspondence:[email protected]@upm.es;Tel.:[phone];
Fax:[phone]
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)
Received:5July2018;Accepted:19August2018;Published:24August2018
Abstract: Farmerfieldschools(FFSs)emergedinresponsetothegapleftbytheworldwidedecline
inagriculturalextensionservices. Withtime,thismethodologyhasbeenadaptedtospecificrural
contextstosolveproblemsrelatedtothesustainabilityofpeasant-farmingsystems. Inthisstudywe
drawuponempiricaldataregardingthepeasant-farmingsystemintheNicaraguanhighlandsto
evaluatewhetherFFSshavehelpedcommunitiesimprovethesustainabilityoftheirsystemsandthe
foodsecurityoftheirresidentsusingsocioeconomic,environmental,andfoodandnutritionsecurity
(FNS)indicators. Inordertoappreciatethelong-termimpact,westudiedthreecommunitieswhere
FFSswereimplementedeight,five,andthreeyearsago,respectively,andweincludedparticipants
andnonparticipantsfromeachcommunity. WefoundthatFFSshaveagradualimpact,asthereare
significantdifferencesbetweenparticipantsandnonparticipants,anditisthecommunitythatfirst
implementedFFSsthatscoreshighest. TheimpactofFFSsisbroadandlonglastingforindicators
related to participation, access to basic services, and conservation of natural resources. Finally,
this paper provides evidence that FFSs have the potential to empower farmers; however, more
attentionneedstobepaidtocriticalindicatorslikeproductioncostsandtheuseofexternalinputsin
ordertoscaleuptheirpotentialinthefuture.
Keywords: peasant-farmingsystems;foodandnutritionalsecurity;agriculturalextensionservices;
CentralAmerica;sustainabilityindicators
1. Introduction
GlobalizationpoliciesandstructuraladjustmentsinLatinAmericahaveledtocutbacksinclassical
extensionservicesandhavesteadilychangedtheagriculturallandscape[1]. Ruralcommunitiesand
nongovernmentalorganizationshavetakenovertherolesformerlyplayedbyresearchersandextension
specialists with respect to technology transfer and innovation [2]. This new scenario called upon
internationalcooperationprogramstoadoptradicalanddifferentmethodologicalapproaches,which
had to be adapted to local socioeconomic, cultural, and agroecological conditions. The challenge
in this new scenario was to achieve locally more effective agricultural innovation by applying a
new methodology that combined innovation based on extension and training, and participatory
learner-centerededucationalmethods[3].
Sustainability2018,10,3020;doi:10.3390/su10093020 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability2018,10,3020 2of24
Farmer field schools (FFSs) emerged in response to these training and innovation paradigms.
FFSswereaparticipatorymeansofgeneratingmethodologicaltoolstoimprovedecision-makingskills
andpromotelocalinnovationforsustainableagriculture[4]. TheywereintroducedbytheFoodand
AgricultureOrganization(FAO)inIndonesiain1989butrapidlyscaledupandwereadoptedonall
continents. Originally,theirmainpurposewastodealwithspecificproblemsrelatedtopestcontrol
andintegratedpestmanagement(i.e.,planthopperinfestationinirrigationrice),buttheywerealso
areactiontoratherinefficient“top–down”modelsofextensionism[5]. Theirworkingmethodology
wasadaptedtospecificlocalcontextsandneeds. ThisiswhyFFSsfocusedoncropsandagricultural
practicesinsomeregions[6,7],andweremoresociallyorientedinotherswheretheyaddressedhealth
problems,suchasfoodsecurity[8,9].
Althoughseveralparticipatoryextensionandresearchmodels,like“farmer-to-farmer”programs
orlocalagriculturalresearchcommittees(CIALS—Spanishacronym),wereappliedinLatinAmerica,
FFSs did not start up until 1997 [10]. Four years later, the Integrated Pest Management Program
of Central America (PROMIPAC—Spanish acronym) and FAO introduced FFSs in Nicaragua
with the assistance of a number of NGOs, such as CARITAS, FIDER, ADDAC, UNAG, and/or
INSFOP-UNICAM [11,12]. In Nicaragua, 41.9% of the population lives in rural areas (classed as
municipalities with a population of less than 2500) [13], and the peasant and family economy
accounts for about 50% of the value of the country’s gross agricultural production [14]. From an
agroenvironmentalviewpoint,thistypeoffarminghasagreatimpactontheconservationofnatural
resources,socioculturaltraditions,andfoodandnutritionsecurity[15,16]. However,theforestarea
hasdeclinedby13%overthelast25years[13],andover16.6%ofthecountry’spopulationstillsuffers
fromhunger[17].
AccordingtotheFAO[18],“foodandnutritionsecurity(FNS)existswhenallpeopleatalltimes
havephysical,social,andeconomicaccesstofood,whichissafeandconsumedinsufficientquantity
andqualitytomeettheirdietaryneedsandfoodpreferences,andissupportedbyanenvironment
ofadequatesanitation,healthservices,andcare,allowingforahealthyandactivelife”. Toensure
FNSandsustainableagriculturalproduction,Nicaragua’sgovernmentpassedtheFoodandNutrition
Sovereignty andSecurityLawin 2009. Thislaw setupaninstitutionalframework forsolvingthe
problem of hunger and led to the creation of municipal-level food-security committees. This was
conducivetotheestablishmentofFFSsasthebackboneoftheirsustainabilityandfood-securitypolicy.
FFSswerecreatedasshort-termtools;however,theeffectsofFFSsrelatedtoimprovementsin
thesocial,environmental,andeconomiclivelihoodoffarmersaredesirablysustainable. Inthissense,
theFFSsapproachisconsistentwithotherfood-assistanceprogramsstudiedinothercountries,where
ithasbeennotedasapotentialsocial-innovationtoolforempowermentandtransformation[19].
Therefore, FFSs mandate more sustained work on the adoption of the proposed technologies
andpractices. Asinanyadoptionprocess,FFSsrequireagoodmethodologicalframeworktogether
withhighlymotivatedparticipantsandaprofessionalfacilitatorteam[20–22]. FFSscomprisethree
methodological phases: (i) experiential learner-centered and field-based learning, (ii) observation,
experimentation, analysis, and assessment over a timespan to internalize the agroecological and
socioecologicaldynamics,(iii)groupandindividualdecision-makingandcapacity-building[3].
There is no agreement on how to assess the impact of FFSs. There have been some attempts,
mainlyfocused,however,onmeasuringfarmers’knowledgeofpestmanagement[7,22]. Manyauthors
whohavebeenconnectedwithFFSareconcernedaboutthesustainabilityofFFSimpacts;theyalso
agreeontheneedtoassessthelonger-termeffectsofFFSs[3,5,6].
SuchFNS-orientedFFSswereimplementedbyINFOP-UNICAMandtheUniversidadPolitécnica
deMadrid(UPM)from2005to2010atSanJosédeCusmapa(Nicaragua). ThemaingoalsoftheseFFSs
were: (1)improvefoodandnutritionsecurity;(2)promotetechniquestoconservenaturalresources;
and(3)enhancesocioeconomicwelfare.
Giventheseidentifiedneeds,themainobjectiveofthispaperistoevaluatelong-termFFSimpacts
onsustainabilityandfood-securityindicatorsinNicaraguanmountainpeasantcommunities. Another
Sustainability2018,10,3020 3of24
relatedobjectiveistoevaluatethetechnologyadoptionprocessintermsoftypeoftechnologyand
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 24
timetoadoption.
2. Material and Methods
2. MaterialandMethods
22..11.. DDeessccrriippttiioonn ooff SSttuuddyy AArreeaa
TThhrreeee ccoommmmuunniittiieess ooff SSaann JJoosséé ddee CCuussmmaappaa ((NNiiccaarraagguuaa)) wweerree sseelleecctteedd iinn tthhiiss ssttuuddyy:: TTeerrrreerroo,,
LLllaanniittooss,, aanndd ÁÁnnggeell 22.. TThheeyy aarree ssuurrrroouunnddeedd bbyy uunndduullaattiinngg ttooppooggrraapphhyy wwiitthh ssllooppeess rraannggiinngg ffrroomm 1155%%
ttoo 2200%%.. TThhee cclliimmaattee iiss ddrryy--ttrrooppiiccaall wwiitthh aann aavveerraaggee aannnnuuaall rraaiinnffaallll rraannggiinngg ffrroomm 11220000 ttoo 11440000 mmmm,,
ffaalllliinngg mmaaiinnllyy ffrroomm MMaayy ttoo SSeepptteemmbbeerr ((ffiivvee mmoonntthhss)) aanndd aann aannnnuuaall mmeeaann tteemmppeerraattuurree ooff 2277 ◦°CC
((FFiigguurree 11))..

FFiigguurree 11.. MMaapp ooff tthhee ssttuuddyy aarreeaa llooccaatteedd iinn NNiiccaarraagguuaa ((CCeennttrraall AAmmeerriiccaa))..
Agricultural soils should be used with care given that they are shallow (with a depth of less than
Agriculturalsoilsshouldbeusedwithcaregiventhattheyareshallow(withadepthoflessthan
40 cm) [23]. Today, land in Nicaragua is mainly used for arable and cattle farming (86%), and the
40 cm) [23]. Today, land in Nicaragua is mainly used for arable and cattle farming (86%), and the
remaining land area is occupied by forests (12.5%) and urban areas (0.5%). Poor agricultural practices
remaininglandareaisoccupiedbyforests(12.5%)andurbanareas(0.5%). Pooragriculturalpractices
on sloping lands cause severe soil erosion and landslides [24].
onslopinglandscauseseveresoilerosionandlandslides[24].
22..22.. MMeetthhooddoollooggiiccaall FFrraammeewwoorrkkss aanndd DDaattaa CCoolllleeccttiioonn
DDuurriinngg tthhee FFFFSSss iimmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn,, mmoorree oorr lleessss aallll tthhee ffaammiillyy mmeemmbbeerrss ooff 2200 ttoo 2255 hhoouusseehhoollddss
ppaarrttiicciippaatteedd iinn tthhee pprrooggrraamm.. FFaarrmmeerrss aatttteennddeedd FFFFSSss ffoorr eeiigghhtt ttoo nniinnee mmoonntthhss,, aafftteerr wwhhiicchh llooccaall
iinnssttiittuuttiioonnss imimpplelemmeenntetedd a afoflolollwow-u-pu ppropcreoscse.s Ts.heyT hmeeyt fmroemt ftrwomo totw foourto timfoeusr at iwmeeesk aonw ae leekaronninga
plelaortn i(ntegmpplootra(treilmy plooraanreildy lboya noendeb yofo ntheeo fptahretipciapratinctips)a nints )oirndoerrd teor teoxecxhcahnagneg eexepxepreireinecnecse soonn ccrroopp
mmaannaaggeemmeenntt bbaasseedd oonn iinntteeggrraatteedd ppeesstt mmaannaaggeemmeenntt ((IIPPMM)),, aannaallyyzzee tthhee aaggrrooeeccoollooggiiccaall ssyysstteemm,, aanndd
ddiissccuussss ssooiill-- aanndd wwaatteerr--ccoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn tteecchhnniiqquueess.. TThhee FFFFSS ccoovveerrss tthhee eennttiirree ccrrooppppiinngg sseeaassoonn ffoorr tthhee
sseelleecctteedd ccrrooppss ((mmoossttllyy ggrraaiinnss aanndd vveeggeettaabblleess)),, iinntteerrssppeerrsseedd wwiitthh ccrroossss--ccuuttttiinngg sseessssiioonnss aaddddrreessssiinngg
nnuuttrriittiioonn aanndd hhyyggiieennee,, mmaarrkkeettiinngg,, aanndd lleeaaddeerrsshhiipp iissssuueess [[2255]]..
TThheerree iiss nnoo aaggrreeeemmeenntt oonn hhooww ttoo aasssseessss tthhee iimmppaacctt ooff FFFFSSss,, nnoott eevveenn wwhheenn iinntteeggrraatteedd ppeesstt
mmaannaaggeemmeenntt iiss tthheek keeyyi sissusuee[ 3[]3.]H. Howoweveevre,rt,h tehceo cmopmlepxleitxyitoyf ofafr fmarimngi-nagc-taivcittiyviftoyr cfoesrcteost htoe tahdeo padtioopntoiofna
ohfo lais thicolaipstpicr oaapchprtooascuhs ttaoin saubsitliatiynaasbsielistsym aesnste[s2s6m].eTnht e[r2e6a].r eTthoeorles tahraet atossoelss stshuastt aaisnsaebsisl istyu,sutanidnearbsitloitoyd,
uasndtheersatoboildit yaso tfhae asybisltietym otfo a msyasitnetmai tno amnadinimtapinr oavned iitmspersosevnet iitasl efsusnecnttiioanl fsuonvcetirotnims oev[e2r7 t,i2m8]e. [I2n7,t2h8i]s.
In this study, we selected the Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Natural Resource
Management Systems (MESMIS, the acronym in Spanish) [29] to evaluate the impact of FFSs on the
sustainability and FNS of mountain peasant-farming systems. According to MESMIS, the steps are:
(i) characterize communities, including their socioenvironmental context; (ii) identify and derive the
Sustainability2018,10,3020 4of24
study,weselectedtheFrameworkforAssessingtheSustainabilityofNaturalResourceManagement
Systems(MESMIS,theacronyminSpanish)[29]toevaluatetheimpactofFFSsonthesustainability
SaunstdainFaNbilSityo 2f0m18,o 1u0,n xt aFiOnRp PeEaEsRa RnEt-VfaIErWm i ngsystems. AccordingtoMESMIS,thestepsare: (i)charac4t eorf i2z4e
communities,includingtheirsocioenvironmentalcontext;(ii)identifyandderivethecriticalpoints
carnitdicainl dpiociantotsr sanacdc ionrddiicnagtotorsF aFcSc-oprrdoimngo tteod FpFrSa-cptricoemsoatnedd tpecrahcntoicleosg iaensd,c toencshindoelroinggietsh, ecoennsviidroernimnge nthtael ,
esnovciirooencmoneonmtailc, ,saoncdiofeocoodn/omnuictr, iatinodn aforeoads/nouftervitaioluna tairoena;sa onfd e(viiai)ludaetvioenlo; pa,nmd e(aiisi)u rdee,vaenldopm, omneiatosrurthe,e
arnedsu mltionngitionrd tihcea troerssu.lting indicators.
TThhee MMEESSMMIISS iiss aa ssyysstteemmiicc frfraammeewwoorkrkt hthata,tu, nulniklieketh tohsoesue suedsebdy boyt hoetrhaeur tahuotrhsosrusc shuacshA alsl eAnl[l2e8n] ,
[h28ig],h hliigghhtlsigthhtes tbhoet tboomtt–oump–uapp parpoparcoha.chIn. Ino uorusr tsutduyd,yt,h tehei ninddicicaatotorsrsw weerree aaggrreeeedd wwiitthh tthhee ssppeecciiaalilsistt
tteeaamm aanndd wwiitthh tthhee ffaarrmmeerrss.. AAlll ltthhee iinnddiiccaattoorrss wweerree sseelleecctteedd tthhrroouugghh ppaarrttiicciippaattoorryy mmeetthhooddoollooggieiess
((PPaarrttiicciippaattoorryy RRuurraal lAApppprraaisisaal l((PPRRAA)) aanndd ccoommmmuunnitityy ssuurrvveeyyss)) aanndd wweerree aalilgignneedd wwitithh tthhee oobbjejeccttiviveess
ooff tthhee FFFFSSss. .NNeevveerrththeelelessss, ,aaltlhthoouugghh oobbtatainininingg ininddiciacatotorsr swwaas snnoot tththee uultlitmimaatet eggooaal loof fththee sstutuddyy, ,tthhee
mmeeaassuurreemmeennt taanndd mmoonnitiotorirningg oof fththeessee isis aa kkeeyy ffaacctotorr inin oorrddeerr ttoo ggiivvee rreeccoommmmeennddaatitoionnss toto aalll ltthhee
aaggeennttss ininvvoolvlveedd [[3300]]. .
AAccccoorrddiningg toto ththisis mmeeththooddoolologgicicaal lddeessigignn, ,ththrereee tytyppeess oof frreessuultlsts ccaann bbee aannaalylyzzeedd aanndd ccoommppaareredd: :
((aa)) rreessuullttss ffoorr tthhee ppaarrttiicciippaannttss ffrroomm tthhee tthhrreeee ccoommmmuunniittiieess, ,wwhhicichh iinncclluuddeedd ffaarrmmeerrss tthhaatt hhaadd
ppaarrtticicipipaatetedd inin FFFFSSss inin tthhrreeee ddiiffffeerreenntt yyeeaarrss; ;((bb)) rreessuultltss ffoorr tthhee nnoonnppaarrtticicipipaanntsts ffrroomm tthheessee tthhrreeee
ccoommmmuunnitiiteiess; ;anadn d(c)( cr)esruelstus lftosrf tohre tthweot gwroougprso—uppsa—rtipcaiprtaincitps aanntds naonndpanrotnicpipaartnictsip—ainnt se—acihn oef atchhesoef
ctohmesmeuconmitimesu. nities.
22.2.2.1.1. .DDaatata CCoolllelecctitoionn
DDaattaa wweerree ccoolllelecctteedd inin 22001133, ,aanndd 6677 sseemmisistrtruuccttuurreedd hhoouusseehhoolldd ssuurrvveeyyss wweerree ttaakkeenn inin eeaacchh ooff tthhee
tthhrreeee ccoommmmuunniittiieess ffoorr ppaarrttiicciippaannttss aanndd nnoonnppaarrttiicciippaannttss. .FFigiguurree 22 ssppeeccifiifieess tthhee yyeeaarr inin wwhhicichh ffaarrmmeerrss
ffrroomm tthhee tthhrreeee ccoommmmuunnitiiteiess aatttetennddeedd FFFFSSss, ,ththee titmimee ininteterrvvaal leelalappsseedd ssininccee ththeeyy ccoommppleletetedd ththee FFFFSSs,s ,
aanndd tthhee yyeeaarr iinn wwhhiicchh ddaattaa wweerree ccoolllleecctteedd:: TTeerrrreerroo ((22000055,, 88 yyeeaarrss)),, LLllaanniittooss( (22000088,,5 5y yeeaarrss),),a annddÁ Ánnggeell2
2( 2(2001100,,3 3y yeaearsr)s.).

FFigiguurree 22. .DDaatetes soof ffafarmrmeer rfifieeldld sscchhooool l(F(FFFSS) )imimpplelemmeenntatatitoionn aanndd ddaattaa ccoollleleccttioionn. .
WWee uusseedd nnoonnpprroobbaabbiilliittyy ssaammpplliinngg, ,wwhhicichh rreeqquuirireess pprreevvioiouuss kknnoowwleleddggee ooff tthhee ppooppuulalatitoionn ffoorr
ssaammppllee ssttrraattifiifcicaatitoionn..T hTihsissa mspamlinpglimnge thmodetdhooeds ndooteuss enraont duomse serlaencdtioomn, ansedlercetleiovna,n tacnhda rarcetleervisatnicts
c(hqauroatcatse)riwsteicrse u(qseudottaos)s ewgreergea tuestehde staom spelgerteogaimtep rthoev esiatsmrpelper etsoe nitmatpivroevnee ssit.sF orellporwesinengtRatoivdernigeusse.z
FOoslluonwai[n3g1 ],Rwoedsriegleucetze dOgesuognraa p[h31ic]a, lwaned fsuenleccttieodn algqeuoogtraasp(hi.iec.a,lF FaSnsdp afrutincciptiaonntasla nqduontoansp a(ir.teic.,i pFaFnStss) .
pAacrctiocridpianngtst oaMndor anleosnVpaalrlteijcoip[3a2n]t,st)h. eAsacmcoprldeisnigz ethoa dMaocroanlefisd eVnacellelejov el[3o2f]9, 5%thea nsdaammplaer gsinizoef ehrardor oaf
c0o.n08fi.dIetnccoen tlaeivneeld o2f 09o5u%t oanfdth ea 4m2ahroguinse ohfo ledrrso(r9 opfa r0t.i0c8ip. aItn tcoanntdai1n1endo 2n0p aorutitc iopf atnhtef a4m2 ihlioeus)seinhoTledrsre (r9o ;
p2a4rtoiucitpoafntth aen6d4 1h1o nuosenhpoalrdtsic(i1p5anpta fratimciipliaenst) ainn dTe9rnreornop; a2r4t iocuipt aonf tthfaem 6i4l iheso)uisnehLolalndist o(1s5, apnadrt2ic3ipoauntto afnthde
96 0nhoonupsaerhtioclidpsan(1t1 fpaamrtiilcieips)a ninta nLdla1n2itnoos,n panardt ic2i3p aonuttf aomf iltihese) i6n0 Áhnoguesle2h.oAldllsi n(d11ic aptoarrsticwiperaenct aalcnudla t1e2d
nforonmpairntifcoirpmanatti ofanmdielireivs)e dinf rÁonmgethl e2.s uArlvl eiyn,daincadtothrse sweedraet acawlceurelamteeda sfruormed ifnofroermacahtihoonu dseehriovledd. from
the survey, and these data were measured for each household.
2.2.2. Characterization of the Communities
Terrero, Llanitos, and Ángel 2 are three communities in San José de Cusmapa (Nicaragua) and
are representative of the mountain-farming systems in the region, where arable and livestock farming
are the main economic activities, have risk of soil erosion, and mainly use family labor [33] (Figure
3). The three communities have identical socioeconomic characteristics. Families are usually rather
large, with an average of 6.5 persons per household and 2.8 children under 15 years. Due to the
steepness of the area, the population is spread across the region (only 19% is concentrated in the
Sustainability2018,10,3020 5of24
2.2.2. CharacterizationoftheCommunities
Terrero,Llanitos,andÁngel2arethreecommunitiesinSanJosédeCusmapa(Nicaragua)and
arerepresentativeofthemountain-farmingsystemsintheregion,wherearableandlivestockfarming
arethemaineconomicactivities,haveriskofsoilerosion,andmainlyusefamilylabor[33](Figure3).
Thethreecommunitieshaveidenticalsocioeconomiccharacteristics. Familiesareusuallyratherlarge,
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 24
withanaverageof6.5personsperhouseholdand2.8childrenunder15years. Duetothesteepnessof
cthoeunartyea s,etahte), paonpdu flaartmioenriss ssppernedad anac arvoessratghee oref g4i0o mn(inon wlyal1k9i%ngi sfrcoomn ctehnetirra hteodusine ttoh ethceoiur nptlyots [e3a4t)],. Tanhde
7fa6r6m2 eirnshsapbeintadnatsn oavf eSraang eJoosfé4 0dem Cinuwsmalakpinag afrreo mcotnhseiidrehroeuds Cehtootrhoeteirgpalso, ta[n3d4] .thTehye o76cc6u2pinyh aa btietrarnittosroyf
oSaffnicJioaslléyd aenCdu tsrmadaiptiaoanraellcyo ncosindseirdeedreCdh oinrodtieggeanso,uasn d[3t5h]e. yAoltchcuoupgyha tthereryit ohrayvoe fffiocrieaglloynaen dsotmraed ictuioltnuarlalyl
pcorancstiidceerse idn itnhdeiigr ednaoiluys li[v3e5s]. aAnldth laonudg-hmtahneyagheamveenfto sreygstoenmess,o tmhee ccuullttiuvaratilopnr aocf tliacnesdrinactehse oirf dbaeailnysl iavneds
saonrdghlaunmd-, manadn acgoemmmenutnsityys treemsosu,rtchees cmulatnivaagteiomneonft laarned srtailcle dsiostfinbcetainves aonf dthseo rregghiuomn ,[3a6n]d. Tchoem fmarumneitrys
irne stohuisr creesgmionan aargee pmeeansatnatrse tshtailtl cdoismtimncotnivlye ohfotlhde drievgeirosnifi[e3d6 ]a.nTdh esmfaarlml-secraslien ftahrimssr eegmiopnloayreinpge faasmaniltys
ltahbaotrc omanmd onmlyoshtolyld dpirvoedrusicfiinedg asnudbssmistaelnl-csec alperfoadrmucstse mlpikloe yimngaifzaem, ilbyelaanbso,r aanndd msoosrtglyhupmro duusciinngg
isnutbesricsrtoepnpceinpgr opdrauccttiscelisk [e3m7].a Aizlel, fbaemanilsie,sa nwdosrko rtghheuirm owusni nlagnidn t(e5r.c3r ohpap),i nbugtp sroamcteic hesou[3s7e]h.oAldllsf aremnitl iaens
wavoerrkagthee oirf 0o.w34n hlaan. d(5.3ha),butsomehouseholdsrentanaverageof0.34ha.

Figure 3. Landscape, crops, and livelihood of mountain peasants in Nicaragua.
Figure3.Landscape,crops,andlivelihoodofmountainpeasantsinNicaragua.
There are two growing seasons: the primera season is the first and extends roughly from May to
Therearetwogrowingseasons: theprimeraseasonisthefirstandextendsroughlyfromMay
July, and the postrera season runs from August to November. Maize is only grown in the primera
toJuly,andthepostreraseasonrunsfromAugusttoNovember. Maizeisonlygrownintheprimera
season and is sown between May and June using an espeque (a hand-piece built with a metal tip
season and is sown between May and June using an espeque (a hand-piece built with a metal tip
attached to a wooden stick that is used to make the hole). Depending on the community’s altitude,
attachedtoawoodenstickthatisusedtomakethehole). Dependingonthecommunity’saltitude,
maize might be sown in dry soil (hot places) or after the third consecutive rain. Many farmers
maizemightbesownindrysoil(hotplaces)orafterthethirdconsecutiverain. Manyfarmersconsider
consider the moon’s phases to ensure a better crop-root hold. Beans are grown twice a year. During
themoon’sphasestoensureabettercrop-roothold. Beansaregrowntwiceayear. Duringtheprimera
the primera season, beans are sown together with sorghum, and several days after the maize is sown.
season,beansaresowntogetherwithsorghum,andseveraldaysafterthemaizeissown. Themaize
The maize stems are bent when the first season of beans is harvested manually at the end of August.
stemsarebentwhenthefirstseasonofbeansisharvestedmanuallyattheendofAugust. Thesecond
The second season of beans is sown in September after the heat wave period (canícula). Maize is
season of beans is sown in September after the heat wave period (canícula). Maize is harvested
harvested manually in November. Postrera beans are harvested in December, and sorghum is
manually in November. Postrera beans are harvested in December, and sorghum is harvested in
harvested in February (seven to eight months after establishment) (Appendix A). Weeding is
February(seventoeightmonthsafterestablishment)(AppendixA).Weedingisperformedbefore
performed before sowing either with synthetic agrochemicals (glyphosate) or manually. Around 50%
sowingeitherwithsyntheticagrochemicals(glyphosate)ormanually. Around50%offarmersfertilize
of farmers fertilize by applying from 65 to 130 kg ha−1 of 18:46:00, 15:15:15, 20:20:20 or urea and from
byapplyingfrom65to130kgha−1of18:46:00,15:15:15,20:20:20orureaandfrom390to520kgha−1
390 to 520 kg ha−1 of compost. Some farmers apply vermicompost, but it is usually sold. From 17% to
50% of farmers conduct pest management by applying from 60 to 500 cc ha−1 of cypermethrin or
pyrethroids.
All families raise poultry in their backyards but only 25% raise larger animals (Figure 3). Most
households (83.6%) depend on seasonal migration (working as coffee harvesters in Honduras for one
or two months) as a source of income. This extra income is spent on buying food that they cannot
produce, such as salt, sugar, milk, and cloth and agricultural inputs. As a result, any coffee-related
external driver (e.g., price fluctuation and rust epidemic) has an impact on these systems by varying
the demand for hired labor and therefore the source of supplementary income for many of the
households.
Sustainability2018,10,3020 6of24
ofcompost. Somefarmersapplyvermicompost,butitisusuallysold. From17%to50%offarmers
conductpestmanagementbyapplyingfrom60to500ccha−1ofcypermethrinorpyrethroids.
All families raise poultry in their backyards but only 25% raise larger animals (Figure 3).
Mosthouseholds(83.6%)dependonseasonalmigration(workingascoffeeharvestersinHondurasfor
oneortwomonths)asasourceofincome. Thisextraincomeisspentonbuyingfoodthattheycannot
produce,suchassalt,sugar,milk,andclothandagriculturalinputs. Asaresult,anycoffee-related
externaldriver(e.g.,pricefluctuationandrustepidemic)hasanimpactonthesesystemsbyvaryingthe
demandforhiredlaborandthereforethesourceofsupplementaryincomeformanyofthehouseholds.
2.2.3. DerivationofIndicatorsAccordingtoFFSImplementation
Thederivationofindicatorsispartoftheevaluationprocess,andtheirdevelopmentistherefore
basedontheidentificationofcriticalpoints,whilealwaysmaintainingadirectrelationshipwiththe
general attributes of sustainability [29]. According to MESMIS, sustainability is defined by seven
generalattributes: productivity,stability,reliability,resilience,adaptability,equity,andself-reliance.
Sustainabilityattributesaretranslatedintodiagnosticcriteriathat,atthesametime,connectindicators
withidentifiedcriticalpointofthesystem(Table1). Asthecriticalpointswereidentifiedbeforethe
FFSprojectswereimplemented,thisstudyfocusesexclusivelyontheidentification,measurement,and
monitoringofspecificindicatorssoastounderstandtheimpactoftheFFSineachcommunityover
time[25,38]. TheFFSsimplementedinourthreecommunitieshadthreemainobjectives: (1)improve
allthreedimensions(availability,access,andutilization)offoodandnutritionsecurity;(2)promote
techniquesofnatural-resourcesconservationinordertoincreasetheenvironmentalcapital,and(3)
enhancesocioeconomicwelfare. Allthreeobjectivesareshownintheareaofevaluationshownin
Table1. Some28indicatorsweredevelopedandclassifiedbyareaofevaluation: 13food-and-nutrition,
seven environmental, and 11 socioeconomic indicators. FNS should be considered as a key and
holisticissueforpeasant-farming-systemsustainability,whereasthesocioeconomic,institutional,and
environmentalcontextareoutcomesanddriversthatfeedthewholesystem[39].
Table 1. General attributes considered to derive the sustainability indicators in a highland
peasant-farmingsysteminSanJosédeCusmapa(Nicaragua).
General Diagnostic Areaof
CriticalPoint Indicators
Attributes Criteria Evaluation*
Maizeproduction FNS
Lowproductivity Beanproduction FNS
Sorghumproduction FNS
Productivityand
Productivity
efficiency Maizeyield En
Beanyield En
Lowefficiency
Sorghumyield En
Benefit-to-costratio E
No.ofspeciesgrown En,FNS
Stability Lowagrodiversity
Diversity No.ofanimalspeciesbred E,FNS
Resilience
Reliability Limitedeconomic
No.ofincomesources E,FNS
diversity
Sustainability2018,10,3020 7of24
Table1.Cont.
General Diagnostic Areaof
CriticalPoint Indicators
Attributes Criteria Evaluation*
Proteinsupply FNS
Criticalfoodstrategies Energysupply FNS
Foodstrategiesinlean
FNS
season
Erosioncontroltechnologies En
Fertilityconservation
En
Adaptability Capacityofchange Limitedtechnology technologies
adoption(adaptation Integratedpestmanagement
En
mechanism) (IPM)
Leveloftheoretical
S
knowledge
Alternativeeconomic Off-farmincome
E
activities representativeness
Engelcoefficient(proportion
Lowfoodequity FNS
ofincomespentonfood)
Inappropriatesoiluse Forestcover En
Equity Equity
Highproductioncosts Productioncosts E
Limitedaccesstobasic Femaleparticipation S
services Accesstobasicservices S
Maizeself-sufficiency FNS
Irregularfood
Beanself-sufficiency FNS
self-sufficiency
Organizational Sorghumself-sufficiency FNS
autonomyand
Self-reliance Poorexternalinput
decision-making Externalinputautonomy E
autonomy
power
Participationinlocal
Lowcollectiveness S
organization
*FSN:FoodandNutritionalSecurity;En:Environmental;E:Economic;S:Social.
I.Productivity
Seven indicators were chosen to evaluate the productivity and efficiency of the systems as
follows: (i)maize,(ii)bean,and(iii)sorghumproduction,allexpressedaskgperson−1year−1. These
indicatorsarealsomeasuresoffoodavailability,becauseavailabilityismostlyequivalenttoproduction
in subsistence farming systems. We also measured: (iv) maize, (v) bean, and (vi) sorghum yield,
allexpressedasMgha−1,and(vii)benefit-to-costratio(onlymaizeandbean)thatestablishestheratio
ofproductioncostandopportunitycosts(familylaborandseedprice)toincomereceivedfromthe
saleofstaplegrainsatmarketprice. First,thebenefit-to-costratiosofmaizeandbeanwerecalculated
separately. Second,eachvaluewasmultipliedbytheproportionoflandusedtocultivateeachcropin
ordertoyieldtheoverallratio.
II.Resilience,stabilityandreliability
Numerous studies document that agrodiversity is linked with the resilience, stability, and
reliability of agroecosystems when abrupt and structural changes occur [28,40,41]. According to
FAO,[42],resilienceisdefinedas“theabilityofasystem,community,orsocietyexposedtohazardsto
resist,absorb,accommodateto,andrecoverfromtheeffectsofahazardinatimelyandefficientmanner,
includingthroughthepreservationandrestorationofitsessentialbasicstructuresandfunctions”.
In peasant-farming systems, resilience is maintained through the conservation of base resources
andagrodiversity[43–45]. Biologicalandeconomicdiversificationisconsideredakeystrategyfor
overcomingmanyofthefoodemergenciesfacedbydevelopingcountriesandruralcontexts[46].Three
indicatorswereselectedasfollows: (viii)numberofagriculturalspeciesincultivation,(ix)number
ofanimalspeciesbred,and(x)numberofincomesources. Asregardsthelatterindicator,thesale
Sustainability2018,10,3020 8of24
ofstaplegrainsisonlytakenintoaccountwhenfarmersstatethatthisactivityisaregularsourceof
incomebecausecropsaresoldasanoptionandnotasaneed.
III.Adaptability
Adaptability is an attribute of sustainability related to the capacity of change in a system.
Adaptabilityisreinforcedthroughthelearningprocessesthatgivetothecommunitiestheabilityto
innovateandempowerthemselves[43–45]. Suchcapacityofchangecouldbegeneratedbytheactual
systemasamechanismorstrategyofadaptation,orcouldbeinducedbyexternalagentsthroughone
ormoretechnologiesinordertoaddressaparticularproblem.
Onthisbasis,eightindicatorswerechosenasfollows:(xi)Proteinsupplyisexpressedasgprotein
caput−1day−1, and(xii)energysupplyasKcalcaput−1day−1. Bothwerecalculatedasthesumof
protein supply or energy supply from daily food intake (maize, bean, sorghum, coffee, rice, and
meat)anddividedbythenumberofpeoplelivingineachhousehold(countingadultsandchildren).
(xiii)Foodstrategiesinleanseasonareexpressedasacoefficientrangingfrom0to1andarecalculated
according to farmer survey responses as a qualitative variable (Table 2). Households often adopt
severalfoodstrategies;thevalueoftheindicatorwascalculatedastheaverageinthesecases.
Table2.Standardizedscaleaccordingtofarmers’responsesw.r.t.quantitativeindicators.
QuantitativeIndicators VariableStatus StandardizedScale
Foodstrategiesinleanseason
1:Donotexperienceleanseason 1
0.75:Eatafoodsubstitute 0.75
0.5:Reducefoodintake 0.5
0.25:Stopeatingafoodstuff 0.25
0:Fastforpartoftheday 0
IPM
Atleast2IPMwithnochemicaltreatment 1
Atleast2IPMwithchemicaltreatment 0.75
OneIPMwithnochemicaltreatment 0.5
OneIPMwithchemicaltreatment 0.25
Onlychemicaltreatment 0
NoIPMandnochemicaltreatment –
Accesstobasicservices
Tap 1
Watersystem Well 0.5
River 0
Yes 1
Electricitysystem
No 0
Latrine 1
Sanitarysystem Septictank 0.5
No 0
(xiv) Erosion control technologies were calculated as the sum of the techniques adopted by
farmers in order to improve soil retention and conservation. In the surveys, we considered five
typesoftechniques: livebarriers(treesorvegetation),deadbarriers(stonesorwoodfences),terraces,
dikes,andstubblemaintenance(mulch). (xv)Fertility-conservationtechnologieswerecalculatedas
thesumofthetechniquesadoptedinordertoimprovesoilfertility. Atotalofsixtechniqueswere
considered: intercropping,rotation,organicmanure,stubbleincorporation,biofertilizer,andnotburn.
(xvi)IPMisexpressedasacoefficientrangingfrom0to1andiscalculatedaccordingtofarmersurvey
responses(Table2).Weconsideredfivepest-controltechniques:traps,naturalpesticidesorinsecticides,
Sustainability2018,10,3020 9of24
intercropping,trapcrops,andpostharvestcare.Alltheparticipantstookatestontheirfieldknowledge
beforeandafterFFSimplementation.
Farmersshouldhaveputmostoftheissuesintopracticeoveryears, sothetestwasrepeated
in 2013 to reassess their knowledge level. This was measured by the indicator: (xvii) level of
theoreticalknowledgeexpressedasascorerangingfrom0to10andcalculatedusingthecorrected
test. There were 20 questions each with three possible choices. Finally, (xviii) off-farm income
representativenessisexpressedasapercentageandcalculatedastheproportionofoff-farmincome
overtotalperceivedincome.
IV.Equity
Regardingthemeasureofequity,fiveindicatorsweretakenintoconsideration. (xix)TheEngel
coefficientisexpressedasapercentageandindicatestheproportionofincomespentonfood. Itwas
calculatedasthepriceofthestandardfoodbasketinNicaraguadividedbythepercapitaGDP[47]
Forestcoverisexpressedasapercentageandcalculatedconsideringtheforestarea(i.e.,coniferous
forestandperennialcrops(coffeeandfruittrees))withrespecttothetotallandareaperhousehold.
(xxi)ProductioncostsareexpressedasNIOha−1includinghiredlabor,landrental,andinputcosts.
(xxii)Femaleparticipationisexpressedasapercentageandcalculatedastheproportionofwomen
participatingineveryFFS.(xxiii)Accesstobasicservicesisexpressedasacoefficientrangingfrom0
to1andiscalculatedaccordingtofarmersurveyresponses(Table2). Itaccountsforthreetypesof
basicservices(water,electricity,andsanitationsystems),andthevalueoftheindicatoriscalculatedas
theaverage.
V.Self-reliance
Non-self-relianceinapeasant-farmingsystemcouldcauseeconomicproblemsifthereisnosocial
capitalinordertosetupcontrolmeasuresoroffsettherisksfacedbyfarmerswhoaremoredependent
onexternalinputs. Theindicatorsexplainingthissituationare: (xxiv)maizeself-sufficiency,(xxv)bean
self-sufficiency,and(xxvi)sorghumself-sufficiency,allexpressedasapercentageandcalculatedas
kgcrop−1produceddividedbykgcrop−1eaten. (xxvii)ExternalinputautonomyisexpressedasNIO
ha−1 andaccountsforexternalagrochemicalproducts(fertilizer,herbicides,andpesticides),aswellas
improvedmaizeandbeanseeds. (xxviii)Participationinlocalorganizationisexpressedasthenumber
ofprojectsorlocalassociationsinwhichanymemberofthefamilyisinvolved.
TheimpactofFFSsismeasuredusingtheindicatorslistedinTable1. Thelistincludesdirectand
indirectindicators. Directindicatorsmeasuretheimpactbasedontheirrealvalue(i.e.,production,
protein supply, or participation). Indirect indicators measure the impact according to the level of
adoptionofmanagementtechnologies(i.e.,erosion,fertility,IPM)ornutritionstrategies(i.e.,food
strategiesinleanseason,ornumberofanimals). Inthesameway,therearequalitativeandquantitative
indicators;therefore,Table3showshowtheoptimalvaluesofeachofthemhasbeenconsidered.
Sustainability2018,10,3020 10of24
Table 3. Optimal values for the 28 sustainability indicators according to the source literature and survey responses for three communities in San José de
Cusmapa(Nicaragua).
Indicators Units Optimum Basedon Source
Maizeproduction kgcaput−1 274.00 Maizeconsumptioninsubsistencesystems References[40,48]
Beanproduction kgcaput−1 36.00 Nationalbeanconsumptioninruralareas Reference[49]
Maximumproductionofsorghumharvested
Sorghumproduction kgcaput−1 209.37 Survey
acrosscommunities
Maizeyield Mgha−1 1.30 AveragemaizeyieldinNicaragua Reference[50]
Beanyield Mgha−1 0.65 AveragebeanyieldinNicaragua Reference[50]
Sorghumyield Mgha−1 1.30 Maximumyieldachievedacrosscommunities Survey
Benefit-to-costratio coefficient 2.50 Farmerandothersimilarsurveys Reference[40]
No.ofspeciesgrown number 12.00 Farmers PRA
No.ofanimalspeciesbred number 2.50 Farmers PRA
No.ofincomesources number 5.00 Farmers Survey
Proteinsupply gcaput−1day−1 52.00–70.00 Nicaragua’saveragedietaryproteinsupply [51,52]
Energysupply kcalcaput−1day−1 1900–2249 Nicaragua’saveragedietaryenergysupply [53]
Foodstrategiesinleanseason * 1.00 Specialistteamandresearchers Table2
Erosion-controltechniques no.ofadoptedtechniques 5.00 Specialistteam Survey
Fertility-conservationtechniques no.ofadoptedtechniques 6.00 Specialistteam Survey
Integratedpestmanagement * 1.00 Specialistteam Table2
Leveloftheoreticalknowledge score 10.00 Specialistteam Test
Off-farmincomerepresentativeness % 50.00 Farmers Survey
Proportionofincomespentonfood % ≤35.20 Nicaragua’sEngelcoefficient [54]
Forestcover % 96.00 %oflandsuitableforforestinSJC [55]
Productioncosts NIOαha−1 813.98 Minimumvaluereportedincommunities Survey
Femaleparticipation %ofwomen 50.00 Farmersandspecialistteam PRA
Accesstobasicservices * 1.00 Researchers Table2
Maizeself-sufficiency % 100.00 Maximumreportedvalue Survey
Beanself-sufficiency % 100.00 Maximumreportedvalue Survey
Sorghumself-sufficiency % 100.00 Maximumreportedvalue Survey
Externalinputautonomy NIOha−1 437.93 Minimumreportedvalueacrosscommunities Survey
Participationinlocalorganizations no.oforganizations 3.00 Farmers Survey
(*)SeeTable2forfurtherexplanationofunits;PRA:ParticipatoryRuralAppraisal.SJC:SanJosédeCusmapa.(α)ISOcodeforthecurrencyofNicaragua.1NIO≈0.03328EUR.