ASSESSING RESILIENCE IN COFFEEDEPENDENT COMMUNITIESOF HONDURAS, NICARAGUA AND HAITI

2

The current scope and severity of challenges facingsmallholder farmers and farmworkers in coffee-

dependent communities calls for a new perspectiveon how best to nurture meaningful change withinthese populations. Predictions for areas that willremain suitable for Arabica coffee production point atreduced future capacity for production in certainregions. According to scenarios for Central America,some communities that were the focus of this studywill either need to abandon coffee cultivationaltogether, or significantly alter production practices.These assertions have serious implications; especiallyso for farmers who have cultivated coffee forgenerations, with both land and identity tied up in itsproduction. Previous attention toward sustainability isnow expanding to a focus on resilience, where aholistic approach encourages simultaneous attentiontoward land, people and markets, as well as theconditions and events that serve to either strengthenor weaken them. Increasing the resilience of coffeedependent communities is not only critical to thelivelihoods of smallholder producers andfarmworkers, but also to the national economies ofcoffee-growing countries and broader regional andnational environmental conservation.

The aim of this study was to better understandvulnerabilities in coffee dependent communities inCentral America and the Caribbean, and to contributeto strengthening resilience interventions and metricsin these contexts. We placed a special emphasis onhousehold and community resilience to climatechange, food insecurity, and coffee price/marketvolatility. Target populations were smallholder coffeefarmers and laborers on large estates, who wereparticipating in projects funded and supported byLutheran World Relief (LWR) in Honduras, Nicaraguaand Haiti (Figure 1).

Guiding questions for this research were:

1) What available resources do they draw on (i.e.,what are the strengths and vulnerabilities of thesesmallholder farmer households)?

2) What challenges are these households andcommunities facing (i.e., what are the maincategories of shocks and stresses identified)?

3) How are households responding to shocks andstresses (i.e., what are their coping strategies)?and

4) How are LWR interventions/projects shifting localresilience capacities?

The purpose of this research brief is to share theresults of a study on resilience dynamics in coffee-dependent communities of Central America and theCaribbean. (The full research report can be accessedfrom https://lwr.org/what-we-do/resilience). This briefis directed toward practitioners, researchers, policymakers and coffee industry actors that work withsmallholder coffee farmers.

1. INTRODUCTION

w Diverse shade management continues to standout as a critical practice for more resilient coffeeagroecosystems.

w Farmer organizations are key for smallholders toattain or strengthen social networks that providecritical support, ranging from access to bettermarkets to adaptive on-farm managementstrategies.

w Drought, coffee leaf rust, food insecurity andcoffee marketing were perceived as some of themost serious challenges to strengtheninghousehold resilience in coffee-dependentcommunities.

w Resilience work requires engagement bothdirectly with households and at a higher systemslevel, which could translate into engagingcooperatives, industry associations, academicinstitutions, governments, or some combinationof all of these players.

w The specialty coffee industry will be stronger andmore resilient when all parties along the supplychain value their co-dependence and makedecisions and investments that maximizebenefits to each party.

KEY FINDINGS

3

Smallholder coffee producers represent the largestsector of an approximate total of 14 to 25 million

coffee farmers globally (1). Most coffee growing areasfall within biodiversity hotspots (2), and farmmanagement within these contexts leads to distinctlivelihood outcomes, including levels of food security,poverty and natural resources conservation (3).Mesoamerican smallholder coffee farmers tend tomanage their agroecosystems for subsistenceproduction (e.g., maize), as well as for local and globalmarkets (e.g., coffee) (3-6). The crops that support thelivelihoods of smallholder coffee farmers andagricultural workers are subject to multiple shocks

and stressors related to market access, pricefluctuations, supply chain constraints, pestoutbreaks, climatic pressures, as well as socio-economic and political dynamics. Recent research onthe impacts of climate change in Central America’scoffee sector suggests that the region’s producersface challenges that affect not only the productivityand quality of their crops (e.g., coffee leaf rust or roya,extreme weather, changing seasonality, wateravailability)(7), but that can also affect the futureviability of their livelihoods (e.g., projected changes insuitability for producing Arabica coffee)(8).

Figure 1. Location of study sites

2. CONTEXT AND FRAMING

4

To guide our work, we used LWR’s definition of resilience, as “the capacity of a system (e.g., a

community) to absorb the impacts of shocks andstressors, to adapt to change, and to potentiallytransform, in a manner that enables theachievement of development results” (9). Ourresearch framework brought together selectedconcepts from the resilience literature, agroecology,the sustainable livelihoods framework and principlesfrom participatory action research (PAR). Followingearly resilience theory from the field of ecology (10)and its application to development studies (11, 12),resilience can be divided into three types of capacitiesthat respond to shocks and stressors, includingcapacities to 1) absorb, 2) adapt and/or 3) transform.In this context, shocks are perceived as sudden, manytimes unexpected, events that impact the system andcan have short or long-term repercussions; stressors,on the other hand, are longer-term trends thatundermine a system’s performance and may increaseits vulnerability (9).

Through a case study approach we integrated avariety of sources to analyze contemporary situations,with the goal of explaining the how and/or why ofobserved phenomena (13). We explored resiliencedynamics within three countries and contexts(Honduras, Nicaragua and Haiti), and applied amixed-methods approach to analyze qualitative andquantitative data from projects executed by localcounter-parts. Methodological instruments includeda literature review, household surveys, focus groupsand key actor interviews over the 2015/2016 coffeeharvest season. This approach highlightedcharacteristics that are unique to place, while alsoallowing for comparison across sites to identify moregeneralizable trends and recommendations.

3. CONCEPTSAND METHODS The cases for this study represented a mix of

resilience approaches and contexts (Figure 1),which included a diversity of partner organizations1,as follows: 1) In Honduras, we worked with a projectfocused on diversification, food security and improvedcoffee production, which engaged climate change andresilience as the project evolved; 2) In Nicaragua, theproject was specifically focused on resilience, and isdesigned as a collaboration aiming to integratelivelihood diversification, climate monitoring, andagricultural management to strengthen resiliencecapacities of smallholder coffee farmers andfarmworkers; and 3) In Haiti, the project targetedcoffee plantation renovation, income diversification,strengthening local capacity to respond to climatechange, and building social capital in smallholdercoffee cooperatives.

4.1 STRENGTHS ANDVULNERABILITIES OF SMALLHOLDERFARMER HOUSEHOLDS Determining both the actual and perceived resourcelevels within households, organizations, communities,and regions is critical to designing effective resilienceinterventions (Figure 2). A resilience lens can providea holistic view to elucidate how and why the variouscategories interact; for example, why human andsocial assets are critical considerations, even if thecore focus is on agricultural production. The followingsections provide a snapshot of asset levels based onhousehold surveys conducted in each of the casestudy sites.

4. CASE STUDIES

1 In Honduras, the main partner organization was the Christian Organization for Honduran Integrated Development (OCDIH, for its Spanish acronym);In Nicaragua the main partner organizations were CAFENICA, Centro Humboldt and Centro Intereclesial de Estudios Teológicos y Sociales (CIEETS forits Spanish acronym); and in Haiti the main partner was RECOCARNO (Réseau des Coopératives Caféières de la RégionNord, or in English - theNetwork of Northern Coffee-Growing Cooperatives).

5

Natural Assets Agricultural trends observed across all sites includedecreasing yields (a function of recent damage fromroya and other pests/diseases, and production lags thataccompany the intense renovation of coffee plots),increasing costs of production, and questions aboutfuture suitability of coffee given climate predictions.High levels of diverse shade and reports of good soil inHaiti are likely linked to the place coffee holds as a‘keystone species2’ within their shade-grown, perennialpolyculture system, where almost no synthetic inputsare applied. Respondents in Nicaragua and Honduras,on the other hand, reported ‘tierra cansada’ or worn-out land that is a combined result of deforestation andsoil degradation. In our literature review to determineagroecological practices for increased resilience,diverse shade management continues to stand out asthe most promising practice, with links to both improvedsoil health and pest and disease suppression (14).

Social Assets/Networks Strong producer organizations likely contributed tohigh scores for social assets in Nicaragua, whereparticipants reported few associations but highsatisfaction with the quality of their affiliations. Surveyrespondents and key actors mentioned the importantrole of cooperatives, and local and internationalNGOs. Occasional mention was made of family,church and school. Although we did not assessinformal networks, Haitian respondents discussed theimportance of community cohesion and ‘konbit’(collective work). This illustrates the criticalimportance of “…informal social interactions (that)are communities’ best resources for maintaining theircapacities to build social resilience and to changecollective direction”(15). Notably, there was no or littlemention of government intervention and/or supportfrom the coffee supply chain.

Figure 2. Livelihood asset variables by country

Financial assets Social assets Physical assets Natural assets Human assets

MAHFP is Months of adequate food provisioning.Mean network quality refers to how respondents rated quality of relationships – good, neutral or bad.

2 In ecological communities, keystone species play a key role by maintaining the structure and integrity of the community (14).

6

Physical AssetsRecent droughts throughout Central America and theCaribbean have highlighted the importance of waterstorage and irrigation capacities. In both Hondurasand Nicaragua, over three-quarters of householdsreported having some capacity for water storage,whereas in Haiti just over one-third reported similarinfrastructure. Only a fraction of households reportedany irrigation beyond hand watering, with over aquarter in each country reporting some type of on-farm irrigation system. Nicaragua had the bestinfrastructure for coffee production, including betterroads, processing and storage facilities. Honduransstruggle with poor roads and infrastructure, butproducers were developing small-scale processingfacilities. Haiti reported adequate coffee storagefacilities, but lacked processing and transportationfacilities. Food storage capacity is also critical, and inHonduras and Nicaragua, where storageinfrastructure has been an area of focus (eitherthrough NGO or government projects), respondentsmentioned improvements in options and fewer post-harvest losses. In Haiti, however, most farmers storeddry beans (both for food and future seed) in sackswithin the house, and reported high levels of loss frominsects and other pests.

Political/Cultural Assets Although survey questions did not solicit responsesdirectly related to political or cultural assets, thesecategories surfaced as important factors in focusgroups and/or key actor interviews. Recent politicalturmoil in Haiti and Honduras, and upcomingelections in Nicaragua, are critical considerations anda reminder of the inextricable tie between politicalcontext and resilience capacities. Though asset levelsare critical to understanding the relative position fromwhich individuals are operating, we must alsoconsider “… all those societal factors that bothfacilitate and constrain people’s abilities to accessassets, to gain capabilities for learning, and tobecome part of the decision-making process” (16, p.9).

Financial AssetsOverall, fewer than half of the survey respondentsreported profitability from agricultural activities.Results for access to credit were mixed; where creditis available, interest rates were often high, and loanswere taken out of necessity (for inputs and laborcosts), more than choice (investing in improvements).In Honduras, financial concerns were more aboutinadequate financial management skills than accessto loans. Access to financing options was especiallylow in Nicaragua, where there was a perception thatmuch of the investment has been directed toward thelarger coffee estates instead of reaching smallholderfarmers. In Haiti, access to credit was crucial for thediversification strategy of ‘ti komes’ or buying andreselling of goods; without the initial cash infusion topurchase goods, there is no hope of generatingincome for the household. Haitians noted that lack ofcredit was a limiting factor in terms of their ability toincrease their household resilience.

The access to markets data does not describe theways in which farmers actually get their product to themarket (Figure 2.) In Nicaragua, surveyed farmerswere members of producer cooperatives that havereliable contracts, and sell at least a portion of theircoffee under fair trade or other certifications. InHonduras, reliable access to markets was throughintermediaries (coyotes) who offer the advantage ofcash up-front, but often pay lower prices and provideno other support or technical assistance. In Haiti,farmers were able to sell their harvest to their localcooperatives, facilitated by the strong relationshipwith the cooperatives comprising RECOCARNO, whoin turn is currently struggling to find external marketsfor the coffee. Producers across the board mentionedfinancial help from projects (micro-loans) andpremiums – providing benefit to the producer – butoften indirectly and inconsistently, and not necessarilyin the moments of greatest need.

7

Human AssetsEducational data represented only formal educationlevels, revealing very low levels for this category ineach country. Even though our study did not includeany metrics for gauging practical farming knowledge,farmers reported that climate change has diminishedthe usefulness of accumulated, historical knowledge.In other words, climate change confounds farmers bychallenging lessons extracted through trial and errorover the years, and ‘knowing’ how to farm in aparticular site (16). Unpredictable periods of droughtand off-cycle rains affect workloads, leaving blocks of‘waiting time’ and periods where delayed work fromone crop impacts work on another. Each site reportedsome period of food insecurity, and ongoing droughtsand price increases for staple grains were a cause ofconcern that levels of food insecurity will rise in thecoming year.

4.2 MAIN CATEGORIES OF SHOCKSAND STRESSORSFarmers reported drought and roya as two of the mostsevere threats to resilience that they have faced in thelast three years (Figure 3). Survey respondents alsocited food insecurity as a constant stressor, althoughresponses about duration and severity varied bycountry. In Honduras and Haiti, farmers were mostconcerned with drought and food insecurity. And whileroya was reported as a stressor in all countries, therewas more concern about it in Nicaragua, wherefarmers reported more problems associated with royathan drought.

Figure 3. Most severe shock/stressor faced by coffee farmers

8

Drought and irregularrainfall impacting all

crops

Lower yields and qualityfor both food and cash

crops

Staggered plantings,exploring irrigation

options, seeking moretechnical assistance

Shade regulation, covercrops, systems for water

harvesting and waterconservation, climatemonitoring stations

Helplessness in facingdrought, interest in

shorter season crops,irrigation & planting

trees to changemicroclimates

Lower coffee earnings

Food insecurity,delayed/skipped cropmanagement, children

kept from school,prevents ‘ti komes’coping strategy of

reselling goods, given noinitial cash to invest

Try short term storage totry to catch any mid-harvest upswings in

price, exploring viabilityof other cash crops (eg.

cacao, malanga)

Intercropping &exploring new crops (eg.

turmeric, ginger andpassion fruit) to lessendependence on coffee,reliance on family labor

instead of hiring for helpwith harvests, look for

work off-farm

Committed to staying incoffee despite disastrous

losses over past twoseasons, give coffee toco-op hoping for good

price

Table 1. Major shocks and stressors and reported impacts and responses

Major shocks and stressors Impacts Honduras

responsesNicaragua responses

Haiti responses

Living hand to mouth

No extra cash for futureinvestments or

emergencies, inhibitsdesire to take risks withdiversification strategies(can’t afford to invest in‘unproven’ ideas), few (ifany) contingency plans

Diversifying crops tohave something to rely

on if one fails; try tomanage resources moreefficiently; seek credit

and financialopportunities

Farmworkers discussingthe need to emigrate to

find work

Subsistence farmingpractices, selling assetsand micro-commerce to

stay afloat

Lower coffee yield and quality

Increased incidence ofpests and diseases, lack

of access to coffeebuyers, concern about

quality impacts oftransitions to more

resistant coffee varietals

Farmers relatively new tocoffee production and

are still seekingtechnical assistance,lacking processinginfrastructure and

hoping to establishrelationships with direct

buyers

Renovation of old anddamaged coffee plots,demonstration plots toassess tradeoffs of newvarietals (yield/quality,

disease resistance),farmer field schools and

phone network fordisseminatinginformation

Higher demand forresistant varieties,renovating old or

damaged coffee plots,testing fungicide

treatments, additionaltechnical assistance,

loans for renovation andbetter coffee market

Lack of access tofinancing or very high

interest rates

Food insecurity,delayed/skipped crop

management (eg., limitsfertilizing or pruning), no

infrastructureimprovements (eg.,

establishing irrigation)

Seeking to improvefinancial management

skills and access tocredit

Work trades amongneighbors, revolving

credit accounts, inputsubstitutions

Work trades amongneighbors, family

sacrifices to cover mostdesperate need(s)

Prices for food staples rising

Seasonal food insecurity,exacerbated by lossesfrom poor storage and

lower yields fromsubsistence production

due to drought

Ration food, loans forfood, more crops for

consumption (instead ofselling), off-farm work,improved crop storage,

plant more diverse cropsand homegardens

Rationing food, seedbanks, improved foodstorage, food plans tocalculate family needs

and gardens for dietarydiversity

Survive on breadfruit,take out loans for food,

look for alternatives,such as shorter seasonbean varieties (more

drought resistant)

9

4.3 HOUSEHOLDS RESPONSES TO SHOCKS AND STRESSORS (COPING STRATEGIES) In focus group discussions, farmers reported a seriesof coping strategies to respond to perceived shocksand stressors (see Table 1 for a synthesis of thesefindings). Farmers discussed other shocks andstressors in addition to drought, roya and foodinsecurity. Some of these, such as ‘living hand tomouth’ or barely having enough to survive, representthe poverty traps faced by these populations thatrequire multidimensional responses. To betterunderstand the interactions between impacts fromshocks and stressors and how coffee farmers andfarmworkers are responding, we took rapidinventories through open-ended survey questions anda seasonal calendar activity (Figure 4). The majorityof Nicaraguan respondents reported positive copingmechanisms (i.e., an improved position, where theyfeel better off as a function of their action), Hondurasreported about half positive and half neutral (neitherworse or better off), whereas in Haiti most responseswere neutral to negative (i.e., a worse over-all position)– indicating a path toward greater vulnerability andeven more urgency for building resilience capacity inthese communities.

Climate changeDrought and effects from roya were reported as thetwo factors requiring the most urgent response. InHaiti, the overwhelming response to theseshocks/stressors was ‘we did nothing.’ It is unclearwhether this reflects an underlying sense of defeat,or a calculated choice of where and how to investeffort and resources. In both Nicaragua andHonduras, the majority of respondents felt that theircoping mechanisms had left them in a better position.Farmers in all countries mentioned that they aretaking the hits and attempting to stay afloat, but arealso considering how they can adjust practices to getahead. The climate stations and plan for an early alertsystem are one example of a potential transformationin Nicaragua, through a belief that access toinformation and an effective communications networkcan and will inform and inspire behavior change.

10

Coffee price/income instabilityAlthough the instability of coffee price was aperceived vulnerability across the board, the surveyrespondents were acutely aware that real change onthis issue would have to happen at a systems level.The “C” market, where the commodity price of coffeeis set, was recognized as the nexus of control, andwhile farmers mentioned responses such as trying toimprove coffee yield and/or quality, or gaming thesale date – these were seen as marginally effective.When facing low prices, other strategies includedcutting input costs, taking out loans and attempts atdiversifying household income sources. The impact oflow prices is especially problematic for farmworkers,since they are considered an ‘input’ and when costsare being cut, their already low daily wages are at risk.In Honduras (60%) and Haiti (36%) respondents saidthey felt results were the same, regardless of theircoping mechanism, which most often was working onincremental improvements in yield and quality. InNicaragua, a slight majority (43%) felt their responseswere leaving them better off, but nearly as many(40%) felt they were seeing essentially no changefrom their efforts. This likely reflects the deep senseof helplessness felt by most coffee producers andlaborers on this issue.

Food Security Of the strategies mentioned, including cropdiversification, seeking credit/taking out loans, off-farm labor and rationing food, the perception was thatthese generally resulted in positive/neutral effects inHonduras (response for each was 48%), nearly equalfor Nicaragua (45/43%), and either neutral ornegative for Haiti (36%/39%). Although we were notable to fully examine why similar responses produceresults that are perceived differently, recent worksuggests that households that have historicallyaccumulated more livelihood assets are in a betterposition to utilize new or additional resources (17).Diversification was recognized as an important optionfor improving food security, but respondentsmentioned that it requires investments of time,resources and a willingness to learn. These arerequisites for success and reflect an ongoingchallenge connected to lack of sufficient training andsupport for new endeavors.

Figure 4. Perception of effectiveness of coping strategies for different shocks or stressors

11

4.4 EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENTINTERVENTIONS ON RESILIENCECAPACITIES In each of the case study sites, LWR has targeted itsinterventions specifically focusing on producers’dependence on coffee. One approach for assessingproject efforts to increase resilience in coffee-dependent communities is to categorize theinterventions in terms of the resilience capacity theyare targeting, and use recent vulnerability andresilience assessments to identify programmatic gapsand opportunities (Table 2). We used the followingdefinitions for this categorization:

Absorptive capacity – the ability of a system toprepare for, mitigate or prevent the impacts ofnegative events using predetermined copingresponses in order to preserve and restore essentialbasic structures and functions (11, 18-20).

Adaptive capacity – the ability of a system to adjust,modify or change its characteristics and actions tomoderate potential, future damage and to take

advantage of opportunities, all in order to continuefunctioning without major qualitative changes infunction or structural identity (19, 21, 22).

Transformative capacity – the ability to create afundamentally new social-ecological system whenecological, political, social, or economic conditionsmake the existing system untenable (23).

In all three countries, project interventionsresponded, either directly or indirectly, to the shocksand stressors identified as most severe by farmers(drought, roya and food insecurity). The Nicaraguaproject stands out as best aligning project objectivesor desired effects with what we found as mostpressing to farmers, however, despite the fact thatinadequate access to financing was identified as asignificant stressor, the project lacks a financialcomponent. In addition, there was an implicitunderstanding that farmer organizations areimportant to further strengthen activities andchanges that are promoted by projects; even whenthis was not be explicit in project objectives.

Country

Honduras

Project outcomes

Families increase food production from their own land

Resiliencecapacity

Adaptive

Families increase household income from selling goods produced on their land Adaptive

Families diminish the amount of post-harvest loss of food crops Absorptive

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

Nicaragua

Coffee producing families create farm plans and establish nurseries Adaptive

Haití

Increase coffee production and revenue through resistant varieties, improvedshade management, soil fertility and ecological services Adaptive

Increase revenue sources and improve market chain for diversified products Adaptive

Facilitate access to credit and technical assistance Adaptive

Coffee producing families implement agricultural management best practices Adaptive

Coffee-dependent families have established a climate monitoring and early-warning system Adaptive

Community trainings around climate change and adaptation strategies Adaptive

Coffee producing families have completed climate change adaptation plans Adaptive

Coffee producing families establish kitchen gardens Adaptive

Farmworker families diversify their diets and improve food security Adaptive

Table 2. Categorization of project interventions from a resilience perspective

12

Resilience theory discusses the idea of pathdependency and past being the best predictors of

future. With intentional planning, this means “…actors in the system and, by extension, the systemitself, (can) anticipate the future based on experiencerather than simply react(ing) to presentconditions”(24). Climate models and monitoringactivities represent one example of this – where withintentional planning and data that is regional, insteadof limited to a single plot, coffee farmers can adjusttheir practices and/or make informed decisions aboutthe future suitability of their land for particularcrops/varieties. This improved ability to act, based onlessons learned, speaks to the value of investment inskills building and knowledge sharing that LWR ispursuing. Being able to draw out communityknowledge around context, and connecting that toother knowledge and resources that are unavailablewithin communities, could help to develop long-termplans that include contingencies, while also buildingindividual capacity and supportive networks toexecute plans.

In contrast to direct supply chain partnerships withinthe coffee industry, international developmentpartners could play a unique role, since they can becommitted to coffee-dependent communitiesindependent of whether households continue incoffee or switch to another crop. Three main stepstoward action are: 1) focusing, first, on helping

households to stabilize and make plans for a viablefuture; 2) investing in people and communities so thattheir own improved resilience capacity allows themtofare better in the face of shocks and stresses; and3) leveraging the stability generated through a higherresilience capacity to support further development(25). A suggested pathway for best accomplishingthese steps includes combining multipleinterventions, capitalizing on existing structures,incorporating both human learning and gender equity,and further strengthening and developing socialcapital (organizational affiliations and networks). Thiswill require a view toward longer-term investmentswith communities, since “… the ultimate impact of aresilience intervention should not be measured interm of the speed at which people or households getback to their original level of income/assets…butrather by the types of adequate responses put inplace by the households in the face of adverseevents”(26). The precarious position of most of thesefarmers prevents them from accurately ‘taking stock’of how specific interventions affect their livelihoodoutcomes. This type of reflection is an area ripe forcollaboration among farmers, developmentorganizations and researchers, which unfortunately israrely a part of project cycles.

5. DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

13

In the name of resilience there is a need toreconceive of the traditional relationship ofproduction by farmers and project support fromsupply chain partners to a more accuratemanifestation of the mutual reliance among theseparties. Existing relationships need to move past theidea of projects and programs to reflect theinterdependence of coffee producers, farmworkersand other supply chain participants. Ideally, thatchange in conceptualization would result in additionalinvestments in those communities for the long term,or restructuring of allocation of profits along thechain, so that producers and other actors ‘at origin’can make the needed investments to ensure a long-term supply that approaches resilience.

With similarities to agroecology, where the approachoffers principles instead of prescriptions, resiliencework is not about finding and applying the appropriatetechnological package. Instead, it is about knowing aplace and being sensitive and responsive to whatworks and what does not work. Ideally, helpinghouseholds to stabilize and make plans for a viableand resilient future will mean combining multipleinterventions, capitalizing on existing structures, and

ensuring women’s empowerment (25). Resilienceinterventions require longer-term visions that tackleissues at multiple levels and time scales, and fromdifferent angles.

Investing in the agroforestry polyculture systemsmaintained by smallholder coffee farmers can besupported through diversification strategies (both forincome and biodiversity) that bolster both ecologicaland human well-being in these coffee dependentcommunities. However, these activities should have afocus on diversifying risk instead of a focus ondiversifying activities, and involve households inassessing benefits/burdens (tradeoffs) ofdiversification strategies. As alluded to previously,even when the focus of interventions is agriculturalproduction, the focus of resilience interventionsneeds to be multi-faceted. Resilience programmingshould seek to be holistic, and include componentsfocused on developing individual assets (agency,decision-making skills, gender equity) andstrengthening social support networks in order for theinterventions to reach their full potential.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

14

1. Jha S, et al. (2014) Shade Coffee: Update on a DisappearingRefuge for Biodiversity. Bioscience 64(5):416-428.

2. Toledo VM & Moguel P (2012) Coffee and Sustainability: TheMultiple Values of Traditional Shaded Coffee. Journal ofSustainable Agriculture 36(3):353-377.

3. Eakin H, Tucker C, & Castellanos E (2006) Responding to thecoffee crisis: a pilot study of farmers' adaptations in Mexico,Guatemala and Honduras. Geographical Journal 172:156-171.

4. Isakson SR (2009) No hay ganancia en la milpa: the agrarianquestion, food sovereignty, and the on-farm conservation ofagrobiodiversity in the Guatemalan highlands. The Journal ofPeasant Studies 36(4):725-759.

5. Jaffee D (2007) Brewing justice: fair trade coffee, sustainabilityand survival (University of California Press, Berkeley and LosAngeles).

6. Martínez-Torres ME (2005) Organic coffee: sustainabledevelopment by Mayan farmers (Ohio University Press,Athens, OH).

7. Magrath J (2014) Coffee rust fungus threatens employmentcollapse in Central America (OXFAM); Issue Briefing.

8. Läderach P, et al. (2010) Mesoamerican coffee: Building aclimate change adaptation strategy (Centro Internacional deAgricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia); CIAT Policy Brief# 2.

9. Ospina AV (2015) Lutheran World Relief’s Approach toResilience: strengthening local capacities to achievedevelopment results (Lutheran World Relief (LWR), Baltimore,U.S.A.).

10. Folke C, et al. (2002) Resilience and sustainabledevelopment: building adaptive capacity in a world oftransformations. Ambio 31(5):437-440.

11. Béné C, Wood RG, Newsham A, & Davies M (2012)Resilience: new utopia or new tyranny? Reflection about thepotentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relationto vulnerability reduction programmes (Institute forDevelopment Studies (IDS)); IDS Working Paper 405.

12. Frankenberger TR, Constas Ma, Nelson S, & Starr L (2014)Current Approaches to Resilience Programming AmongNon-governmental Organizations. (May):4-4.

13. Yin RK (2014) Case study research design and methods(Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA:) 5th ed. Ed.

14. Morris KS, Méndez VE, Caswell M, Gerlicz A, & VanZonneveldM (in preparation) Agroecology and climate changeresilience in smallholder coffee farming systems of CentralAmerica (Agroecology and Rural Livelihoods Group (ARLG),

University of Vermont, Burlington, VT); ARLG Research Brief# 4.

15. Keck M & Sakdapolrak P (2013) What is social resilience?lessons learned and ways forward. Erdkunde 67(1):5-19.

16. Panhuysen S & Pierrot J (2014) Coffee Barometer 2014(Hivos/IUCN Nederland/Oxfam Novib/Solidaridad/WWF, TheNetherlands).

17. Donovan J & Poole N (2014) Changing asset endowmentsand smallholder participation in higher value markets:Evidence from certified coffee producers in Nicaragua. FoodPolicy 44(0):1-13.

18. Cutter SL, et al. (2008) A place-based model forunderstanding community resilience to natural disasters.Global Environmental Change 18(4):598-606.

19. Mitchell A (2013) Risk and Resilience (OECD Publishing).20. UNISDR (2009) Global assessment report on disaster risk

reduction: risk and poverty in a changing climate (UnitedNations International Strategy for Disaster Reductionsecretariat (UNISDR), Geneva).

21. Avelino J, Romero-Gurdian A, Cruz-Cuellar HF, & DeclerckFAJ (2012) Landscape context and scale differentially impactcoffee leaf rust, coffee berry borer, and coffee root-knotnematodes. Ecol. Appl. 22(2):584-596.

22. IPCC (2014) Summary for policy makers. Climate Change2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Globaland Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II tothe Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelof Climate Change, eds Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ,Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL,Estrada YO, Genova RC, et al. (Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA), pp 1-32.

23. Folke C (2006) Resilience: The emergence of a perspectivefor social–ecological systems analyses. Global EnvironmentalChange 16(3):253-267.

24. Cabell JF & Oelofse M (2012) An Indicator Framework forAssessing Agroecosystem Resilience. Ecology and Society17(1).

25. Irwin B & Campbell R (2015) Market systems for resilience(USAID (United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment) LEO (Leveraging Economic Opportunities) );Report # 6.

26. Béné C, et al. (2016) Is resilience socially constructed?Empirical evidence from Fiji, Ghana, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam.Global Environmental Change 38:153-170.

7. REFERENCES

15

This brief is the result of a study conducted by theUVM Agroecology and Rural Livelihoods Group (ARLG)and funded by Lutheran World Relief (LWR). We areespecially grateful for the support provided by JennyWiegel, LWR Regional Representative for CentralAmerica and Haiti and Angelica Ospina LWRResilience Advisor, on all aspects of the research andpublications. We are also indebted to LWR countrystaff Bernard Coppens and Nancy Quan (Honduras),Carolina Aguilar and Claudia Pineda (Nicaragua), LucMaille LeFranc and Justine Poldor (Haiti). We are alsovery thankful to the staff of counter-part organizationsin each country, including Orvin Colindres, OscarCórdova and Xochitl García, as well as 4 youngpromoters, all from OCDIH in Honduras; HenryMendoza and Gabriela Lagos (CAFENICA), LucreciaMartínez (CIEETS), Horacio Somarriba and MarioMontoya (Centro Humboldt), as well as 6 promotersfrom CAFENICA, all from Nicaragua; and Jean LucknerBonheur and Aldoron Francois and 5 other staffmembers from RECOCARNO, Haiti. Finally, we thankGabriela Bucini for elaborating the Figure 1 map.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSCaswell, M., V.E. Méndez, J. Hayden, J. Anderzén, A.Cruz, P. Merritt, V. Izzo, S. Castro, J. Wiegel, A. Ospinaand M. Fernandez (2016) Assessing Resilience inCoffee-Dependent Communities of Honduras,Nicaragua and Haiti. ARLG/LWR Research Brief # 5.Agroecology and Rural Livelihoods Group (ARLG),University of Vermont: Burlington, VT.

RECOMMENDED CITATION

16