Impact of Climate Change on Rural Salvadorian Farmers

Transcription

Impact of Climate Change on Rural Salvadorian Farmers
Jennifer Dorrance,
Meredith Hauber,
Michelle Hurley, and
Sandra Khananusit The George Washington University May 12, 2011
Table of Contents
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 1 Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 3 El Salvador Country Information ................................................................................................... 5 Background ............................................................................................................................. 5 Climate Risks .......................................................................................................................... 5 Food Security Implications ...................................................................................................... 7 Actors in Climate Change, Environment, and Agriculture Development ................................. 8 The Capstone Project ................................................................................................................. 11 Objective & Scope................................................................................................................. 11 Methodology.......................................................................................................................... 12 Individual Farmer Interviews ........................................................................................... 12 Focus Groups .................................................................................................................. 12 Historical Farmer Interviews ............................................................................................ 12 Sample Selection ............................................................................................................ 13 Limitations in Methodology .............................................................................................. 14 Review of Results ....................................................................................................................... 15 Individual Farmer Interview Results ...................................................................................... 15 Basic Household Information .......................................................................................... 15 Basic Farming Information .............................................................................................. 16 Farming Practices ........................................................................................................... 20 Economics ....................................................................................................................... 23 Observed Climate Changes and Causes ........................................................................ 25 Observed Impacts and Actions Taken ............................................................................ 26 Climate Change Awareness ............................................................................................ 27 Focus Group Results ............................................................................................................ 28 Historical Interview Results ................................................................................................... 29 Changes in Agriculture and Farming Practices ............................................................... 29 Weather, Climate, and Environmental Changes ............................................................. 30 Impacts of Disasters and Risk Management ................................................................... 30 Themes ....................................................................................................................................... 31 Existing Capacities of Individuals and Households ............................................................... 31 Access to Climate and Weather Information ................................................................... 31 Cost, Availability, and Selection of Farm Inputs .............................................................. 33 Water Management and Food Security .......................................................................... 34 Food Security and Income Diversification ....................................................................... 36 Spending Priorities and Investment Decisions ................................................................ 38 Training and Technical Assistance ................................................................................. 39 Adaptive Farming Practices at the Household Level ............................................................ 41 Detecting a Shift .............................................................................................................. 41 Adaptive Farming Practices ............................................................................................ 42 Community Action and Collective Resources for Adaptation ................................................ 45 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 49 Potential Projects for Implementation in El Salvador ............................................................ 49 Future Work for FTF Volunteers in El Salvador .................................................................... 49 Incorporating Adaptation Principles in Agriculture Program Design ..................................... 50 Appendix 1: Livelihood Zone ....................................................................................................... 55 Appendix 2: Field Survey Forms ................................................................................................. 59 Appendix 3: Community Information Table ................................................................................. 76 Appendix 4: Rainfall Patterns ...................................................................................................... 80 Table of Figures
Figure 1: Map of El Salvador with Departments visited outlined ................................................. 13
Figure 2: Field study overview .................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3: Crops grown by department ........................................................................................ 16
Figure 4: Do you sell your crops? .............................................................................................. 17
Figure 5: Where do you sell your crops? .................................................................................... 17
Figure 6: Livestock ownership .................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7: Land size cultivated by department ............................................................................. 18
Figure 8: Land size cultivated by gender .................................................................................... 18
Figure 9: Land terrain variation by tenure ................................................................................... 19
Figure 10: Common pests and the crops they harm ................................................................... 20
Figure 11: Farming techniques ................................................................................................... 20
Figure 12: Farming techniques by tenure ................................................................................... 21
Figure 13: Reasons for trying a new technique .......................................................................... 21
Figure 14: Input purchase decision making ................................................................................ 22
Figure 15: Perceived weather changes ...................................................................................... 25
Figure 16: Stated causes of the changing climate ...................................................................... 26
Figure 17: Climate change awareness ....................................................................................... 27
Figure 18: Focus group activity results ....................................................................................... 28
Figure 19: Weather information sources ..................................................................................... 31
Figure 20: Weather accuracy ...................................................................................................... 32
Figure 21: Weather information sources by gender .................................................................... 32
Figure 22: Number of weather information sources by gender ................................................... 33
Figure 23: Planting decision making ........................................................................................... 43
1
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Winrock International and the Farmer-to-Farmer
program supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development. This research would not
have been possible without the guidance and support of Winrock’s Jennifer Grems, Ricardo
Hernandez Auerbach, Arlen Garza, Nona Fisher, and Vickie Limbird.
We are also very appreciative of the assistance received from Plan International’s
Carmen Figueroa, Mercedes Garcia, Jose Luis Perez, Debora Aguilar, William Ernesto
Palacios, Lucio Antonio Galdamez, and Martha Irene Enamorado.
Additionally, we would like to acknowledge The George Washington University’s Elliott
School of International Affairs’ International Development Studies program for its financing and
for incorporating the unique “Capstone” experience into the curriculum. A special thanks to Dr.
David Gow at the Elliott School of International Affairs. As our Capstone Advisor his guidance,
feedback, and encouragement were invaluable.
Last but surely not least, we would like to express our deepest appreciation for the many
individuals and families in El Salvador who took the time from their busy lives to meet with us,
share their experiences, beliefs, and opinions, and allow us the opportunity to represent them
through this report.
2
Executive Summary
El Salvador is the smallest and most densely populated country in Central America, with
approximately six million inhabitants. Approximately 37 percent of the population is below the
poverty line, with the majority located in rural areas. The economy contracted 3.5 percent in
2009 due to reduced export earnings and remittances, as well as higher food and energy
prices—reversing progress made towards addressing poverty.
Climate change trends are projected to exacerbate food security conditions. Changes in
temperature, rainfall amount and patterns, and arable land all have pronounced impacts on
agriculture, including: affecting what crops can grow; shifting
traditional growing seasons; fueling soil degradation trends; altering
presence of diseases, pests, and weeds; and resulting in loss of
production of staple crops. Small scale subsistence farmers are
among the groups hardest hit by these changes in terms of food
security.
The objective of this consultancy was to explore climate
change impacts on food supply and security as well as on hazards
that threaten subsistence farmers in El Salvador. Based on research
The El Salvador Farmerto-Farmer program aims
to generate rapid,
sustained, and broadbased economic growth in
agricultural sectors, and is
implemented by Winrock
International in
partnership with Plan
International.
and a two week field study on the perception of a group of
subsistence farmers on climate change, hazards, and impacts on living conditions, the GWU
Capstone Team identified potential actions that farmers could take to increase resilience to
challenges faced and enhance food security.
The following report includes a brief discussion on El Salvador, climate change and food
security projections, and the policy environment addressing these issues. The field survey
methodology and study results are then overviewed (see Results). Select themes are identified,
drawn from interactions in the field and from research (see Themes). Key results and themes
are discussed in the context of food security, livelihoods, and adaptive practices, and include:
Farmer perceptions of climate change, hazards, and their impacts

Nearly all people interviewed showed an awareness of deviations from normal climatic
patterns, with men and women consistently identifying similar perceived changes
including heavier, more intense rainfall, hotter temperatures, and unpredictable weather.

A large majority of farmers noted reductions in yield of staple crops in the last year—due
to variable weather and climate—but reduced yields of basic crops do not always
3
correlate with reduced food security, especially when other coping or adaptation
strategies are in place.

Half of the farmers who showed an awareness of a change in climatic patterns were
undertaking some change in behavior to mitigate the negative impacts, such as new
farming techniques and income diversification.

Farmers’ perceptions of and responses to soil fertility appeared to be a stronger factor in
promoting innovations and changes in farming practices, as they were more likely to
adopt techniques that helped improve their crop’s productivity and soil fertility.
Potential actions to increase resilience to climate changes and enhance food security

Access to accurate weather information is critical to make informed planting and crop
selection decisions.

Identification of appropriate mixes of production activities can help buffer or recover from
negative impacts. Important adaption options in the agricultural sector include: crop
diversification, mixed crop/livestock farming systems, using different crop varieties,
changing planting and harvesting dates, and mixing less-productive, drought-resistant
varieties and high-yield water sensitive crops

Farmers are finding ways to decrease costs of farm inputs. Increasing availability and
variety of inputs can help to lower costs and promote greater yields and food security.

Water management (e.g., increasing rainfall productivity and capturing rainfall for use) is
an essential focus area in working with farmers dependent on rain-fed agriculture.

Farmers are pursuing investment strategies when possible, but are often limited by
surrounding factors such as minimal off-farm employment opportunity. Attention must be
given to feasibility and sustainability of strategies selected.

Training and technical assistance activities can assist in identifying and overcoming
existing barriers and challenges to implementation of sustainable farming and other
practices, including winning farmer buy-in to try new approaches.

Community and collective action initiatives can foster stewardship of shared resources,
provide a type of safety net, and promote environmentally sustainable practices. Many
communities see value in expanding this type of engagement.
Based on findings, recommendations are provided for areas where Farmer-to-Farmer
implementing organizations can work with the targeted group of farmers, potential future
projects, and considerations for incorporating climate change adaptation and food security into
future work (see Recommendations).
4
Capstone Report – May 12, 2011
El Salvador Country Information
Background
El Salvador is the smallest yet most densely populated country in Central America, with
approximately six million inhabitants and a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of US
$3600. Population is concentrated in urban areas (64 percent), with density in urban areas
projected to rise continuously in the next several decades. GDP is comprised primarily of
services (59.9 percent) and industry (29.1 percent), followed by agriculture (11 percent), with
agriculture’s share declining and services rising.
The economy is the third largest in Central America, and is intricately linked to shifts in
the regional economy. Lead export partners are the U.S. (44 percent), and neighbors
Guatemala (14 percent), Honduras (13 percent), and Nicaragua (6 percent). In 2009,
remittances formed over 16 percent of GDP. These linkages and the global financial crisis
resulted in the economy contracting 3.5 percent in 2009 due to reduced export earnings and
remittances, as well as higher food and energy prices—reversing progress made towards
addressing poverty.
Approximately 37 percent of the population is below the poverty line, with the majority
located in rural areas. Underemployment is high, with estimates as high as 43 percent. A
significant challenge faced by El Salvador is to create alternative employment opportunities for
the underemployed, particularly agriculture workers and small scale farmers.1 The country’s low
population growth rate of 0.3 percent, which accounts for population loss through outward
migration, is correlated with unavailability of alternatives.
Climate Risks
Due to its physical location and geotectonic characteristics, El Salvador is exposed to a
variety of hydro-meteorological and geophysical natural hazards. Globally, El Salvador has the
second highest economic risk exposure to two or more hazards, according the Natural Disaster
Hotspot Study by the World Bank. The same study also ranks El Salvador second among
countries with the highest percentage of total population considered to be at a “Relatively High
Mortality Risk from Multiple Hazards”.2 The United Nations (UN) considered approximately 89
1
2
(USAID, 2010)
(Dilley, 2005)
Back to Top
5
percent of the territory, 95 percent of the population, and 96 percent of GDP to be at risk of one
or multiple threats as of 2010.3
Globally, the country has ranked 17 on the Global Climate Risk Index from 1999-2009,
topping the Risk Index in 2009 largely owing to the impacts of Hurricane Ida, which caused
widespread destruction to infrastructure, agriculture, and other sectors.4 The Global Climate
Risk Index quantifies the direct socio-economic impacts of extreme weather events over a
specific time period, focusing on human fatalities and economic loss, offering an important
indicator of a country’s vulnerability and exposure to extreme weather events.
El Salvador’s tropical climate has pronounced wet (May to October) and dry (November
to April) seasons with an average annual rainfall of 66 inches, 90 percent of which falls during
the wet season.5 The El Niño/La Nina (ENSO) climate pattern—whose strength is likely to
worsen for Pacific countries as a result of climate change—subjects El Salvador to periodic
floods and droughts. In both ENSO and non-ENSO years, El Salvador is consistently hit by
large hurricanes and tropical storms that often result in widespread flooding, landslides, and
disruption to the agricultural sector. These extreme weather events have caused significant
economic losses including a $68.9 million loss in basic grains during 2009 and 2010 (see table
Impacts of Recent Storms on Agriculture). Severe land degradation in terms of reduced plant
coverage and soil quality compounds the impact of these hazards, presenting clear challenges
to retaining soil moisture and nutrients, and enhancing agricultural productivity. High rates of
deforestation—the second highest in the region because of land use changes—also contribute
to the country’s vulnerability to floods and landslides.6
Impacts of Recent Storms on Agriculture7
Year
Storm
Impact on Agriculture
2009/2010
Storm Ida, Agatha, Matthew
$68.9 million in basic grains lost
2005
Tropical Storm Stan
70 percent of basic grain, corn, beans that 30 percent of
the population depend on for subsistence destroyed
1998
Hurricane Mitch
Overflow of Río Grande and Lempa Rivers; 100,000
hectares and 49 percent of agriculture/livestock lost
3
(UNDAC, 2010)
(Germanwatch, 2011)
5
(Central Intelligence Agency)
6
(World Bank, 2010)
7
(World Bank, 2009)
4
Back to Top
6
Climate modeling shows that Central America and Latin America may bear the second
highest cost for climate change impacts globally; the top expected burden will be addressing
water supply issues and flood management. Projected impacts on El Salvador include:8

Temperature: +0.8 to 1.1 C by 2020, and +2.5 to 3.7 C by 2100.

Precipitation changes: -11.3 to +3.5 percent by 2020, and -36.6 to +11.1 percent by
2100. Drying trends have already been seen in the last decade.

Sea level: +20 cm by 2030, and +70 cm by 2100. Land loss possible due to sea levels
rise is 10 to 27.6 percent of total land.
Changes in temperature, rainfall amount and patterns, and arable land all have
pronounced impacts on the agriculture sector, including: affecting what crops can grow; shifting
traditional growing seasons; exacerbating soil degradation trends; altering presence of
diseases, pests, and weeds; and resulting in loss of production of key, staple crops.
Food Security Implications
Global food prices are likely to keep rising as production struggles to match demand,
and extreme weather events and precipitation patterns are exacerbated by climate change.
Sharply rising food prices presents a threat to the nutrition and livelihoods of vulnerable
populations. El Salvador is one of the most vulnerable countries to food price shocks in Latin
America, owing to a high reliance on food imports, high rates of poverty, and a relatively low
capacity to execute policies that cushion the effect of rising prices, according to World Bank
analysis.9 Even with no climate change, according to some projections the world price of maize
would rise by 63 percent, soybeans by 72 percent, and wheat by 39 percent by 2050. Climate
change results in additional price increases—a total of 52-55 percent for maize, 94-111 percent
for wheat, and 11-14 percent for
soybeans in the same period.10
Household-level agricultural
production is a critical component of
Average Reduction in Yields under Variable Climatic
Conditions Compared to Normal Years
Source: First National Communication on Climate Change in
El Salvador, 2000
Drought
food security and rural livelihoods.
Abnormal Rainfall
(e.g., during ENSO)
Maize, rice, and beans comprise
Maize
- 14 percent
- 23 percent
more than 50 percent of the daily
Rice
- 13 percent
- 25 percent
caloric intake in rural areas, and
Beans
- 8 percent
- 15 percent
Sorghum
- 9 percent
- 13 percent
sorghum cultivation enables many
8
(First National Communication on Climate Change in El Salvador to the UNFCCC, 2000)
(World Bank, 2011)
10
(Nelson, 2009)
9
Back to Top
7
farmers to raise livestock.11 Drought and abnormal rainfall patterns—without infrastructure or
mechanisms to cope with these occurrences—are among the most significant obstacles to
increasing yields in rural areas, resulting in the decline in food production per capita currently
seen. Inconsistent water availability also negatively impacts livestock, which further reduces
available household income and food supplies. Migration out of agriculture to other sectors
owing to general hardships, weather shocks, and diminished economic gains compound
existing trends away from self-sufficiency in food production.
Among farmers in El Salvador, small scale, subsistence farmers—who cultivate small
plots and produce primarily for their own consumption—may be among the groups hardest hit
by changes in weather and climate in terms of food security. Subsistence farmers rely almost
exclusively on rain-fed agriculture and are the most susceptible to even slight changes in
precipitation amounts and patterns (only five percent of El Salvador’s arable land is irrigated).12
Additionally, these farmers usually live in low-lying or remote hilly areas that are highly prone to
floods and landslides, and where soil quality is poor. Limited access to markets and main
towns—particularly during the rainy season when roads are often damaged by mudslides or
flooding—limit opportunities for non-farm employment and supplementary income (Appendix 1).
Actors in Climate Change, Environment, and Agriculture Development
Government agencies, local and international non-governmental organizations (NGO),
and research institutions can play an integral role in mitigating the effects of climate changes
and variability for rural farmers. The below table discusses select actors currently working with
rural farmer communities in El Salvador.
In general, national government agencies have offered subsidies (such as seeds and
fertilizer) and other economic incentives to encourage agriculture sector development, provide
environmental assessments and weather information, and research improved agriculture
production systems. However, "since the beginning of the 1980s, El Salvador has shown a
dramatic decline in public funding for agricultural extension".13 Much of the government focus is
now on large agri-business development and not on aiding subsistence farmers.
The
government has also established several environmental laws against burning, contamination,
and pollution. However, “there is no comprehensive national law controlling environmental
protection, and the legislation that is on the books is poorly enforced”.14 NGOs often act as
11
(World Bank, 2009)
(World Bank, 2009)
13
(Solís & Bravo-Ureta, 2005)
14
(Encyclopedia of the Nations, 2011)
12
Back to Top
8
bridging organizations between rural communities and national and local governments, and
work in diverse areas of rural development including agriculture, food security, and education.
In the agricultural sector, many also offer technical assistance and trainings in sustainable
farming practices, improving business value chains, and nutrition.
Select Actors Working In Rural Farm Communities in El Salvador
Selected Actors
Mission
Sample of Current Work
Government
Ministry of the Environment
and Natural Resources
(MARN)
To reverse environmental
degradation and reduce risks; lead
public environmental management
that is structured, inclusive,
accountable, and transparent
High priority on risk management
support during this rainy season
(urban and rural areas); functions
include environmental assessment,
landfill regulation, etc.
Centro Nacional de
Tecnología Agropecuaria
(CENTA)
Leading agency in charge of
research and extension of
technology transfer in the
agricultural sector; seeks to
improve agricultural production
systems
Works with small farmers on a variety
of seed programs, including a bean
program in La Libertad; offers bean
seeds to small farmers, (with less than
1 hectare), who utilize lower farm
inputs to develop and test resiliency to
pests15
Ministry of Agriculture and
Livestock (MAG)
Facilitate and streamline
Weekly wholesale prices of
development of agriculture, forestry, vegetables, fruits and grains via SMS;
fisheries, and aquaculture through consultation to promote business skills
effective services to contribute to and agribusiness strategy; distribution
welfare of Salvadorians—especially of seed and fertilizer
of the rural family
Ministry of Health
Works to extend health care
Passed a law in 2010 forming a
services to all citizens and works Commission that will shape the
with communities and other sectors National Food and Nutrition Policy;
and social players to ensure a good this specifically includes executing
quality of life
programs and projects related to the
production, commercialization,
industrial processing and personal
consumption and use of basic foods;
in rural areas, the Ministry of Health
has initiated nutrition campaigns16
Additional government agencies that work in fields related to environment, agriculture production, and
food security include the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Economy, and others.
15
16
(University of Michigan, 2008)
(La Ley de creación de la Comisión nacional de alimentación y nutrición, 2010)
Back to Top
9
Non-Governmental and International Organizations
Caritas / Catholic Relief
Services
Works through local parishes,
ensuring that the needs of the poor
in even the most remote regions
are addressed; affiliated with the
Catholic Church
Projects include savings-led
microfinance, agriculture for basic
needs, integrated watershed
management
Foundation for the
Cooperation and Community
Development of El Salvador
(CORDES)
Development NGO founded as a
Projects focus on rural development
result of rural communities
and sustainable agriculture with a
organizing in Chalatenango; acts as specific focus on women; in
umbrella organization for
Chalatenango, they offered workshops
microeconomic development and and provided Tortilla corn dough mills,
environmental NGOs
and assisted in implementing crop
diversification17
Millennium Challenge
Corporation (MCC)
Five year, $461 million compact for
strategic investments in education,
public services, agricultural
production, rural business
development, and transportation
infrastructure
Plan International
Works with 429 communities in 61 Child health; education; promoting
municipalities of 5 departments to child protection; promoting
promote rights of the child
participation; income generation for
rural families
Winrock International
Generate broad-based economic Increase agricultural sector
growth in targeted agricultural
productivity and profitability;
sectors of El Salvador and increase strengthen agricultural institutions and
the American public’s
value chain alliances; improve
understanding of international
conservation and sustainable use of
development
natural resources
UN World Food Programme
(WFP)
Works with other actors on policy
development and operational
implementation in the field in key
areas of intervention for food
security
Transportation project to physically
unify El Salvador’s Northern Zone with
the rest of the country to enable new
economic opportunities for rural
households
School meals, mother/child health and
nutrition; regional relief and recovery
operation; Purchase for Progress
(P4P); emergency preparedness and
response; capacity development
Additional non-governmental and international organizations that work in related fields include: the United
Nations, United Nations Environmental Program, and others.
17
(Salv Aid)
Back to Top
10
The Capstone Project
The Farmer-to-Farmer (FTF) program is a U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) funded program that provides technical assistance to farmers, farm groups, and
agribusinesses in developing countries to promote sustainable improvements in food security
and agricultural processing, production, and marketing. Volunteers provide assistance in areas
including technology transfer, enterprise development, and environmental conservation. Since
2009, FTF has increased its focus on food security and plans to incorporate considerations for
climate change and environmental vulnerabilities into work on food security.
The El Salvador FTF program (2009-2014) aims to generate rapid, sustained, and
broad-based economic growth in agricultural sectors.18 The program is implemented by Winrock
International (Winrock) in partnership with Plan International (Plan), two international NGOs.
Winrock, which works globally to empower the disadvantaged, increase economic opportunity,
and sustain natural resources, lends considerable expertise in sustainable agricultural, climate
adaptation, and food security.
Plan, one of the oldest and largest children's development
organizations in the world, has been working to advocate the rights of the child in El Salvador
since 1976. With a presence in 429 communities in 61 municipalities, and program offices
located in Cabañas, Chalatenango, and La Libertad, Plan is expanding their expertise to the
relationship between climate change and food security for rural families.
Objective & Scope
The objective of this consultancy is to explore climate change impacts on food supply
and security as well as on hazards that threaten subsistence farmers in El Salvador. The GWU
Capstone Team (team) was tasked with conducting a field study on the perception of a group of
subsistence farmers on climate change and hazards, and perceived impacts on living
conditions–-with particular attention to vulnerable groups such as women. Based on research
and interactions in the field, the team identified potential actions that farmers could take to
increase resilience to the challenges they face and overcome key barriers to enhancing food
security. Finally, recommendations are provided for leverage points in which FTF implementing
organizations in El Salvador can help the targeted group of farmers to attain FTF goals, as well
as considerations for future work.
18
(Winrock International)
Back to Top
11
Methodology
The team conducted a literature review and field study on the agricultural conditions of
Salvadorian subsistence farmers. Beginning in January of 2011, the team undertook a literature
review to become familiar with current knowledge on climate change and food security, with a
focus on El Salvador and Latin America. The team identified best practices and lessons learned
in improving food security and agricultural adaptation to climate change, which were compiled
into a training package, later presented to Plan Technicians supporting the FTF program.
During a two week field visit in March 2011, the team travelled to farmer communities for
eight days. The team prepared and implemented a survey methodology to collect information
from subsistence farmers which included individual farmer interviews, focus groups, and life
history interviews with senior members of communities (Appendix 2).
Individual Farmer Interviews
The individual farmer interviews were the primary method for gathering information in the
field. The purpose of these interviews was to explore perceived climate changes and impacts on
food supply and security of the household, as well as on hazards that threaten farmer
livelihoods. To capture this information the team designed a survey with five sections: Basic
Household Information, Basic Farming Information, Farming Practices, Economics, and
Farmers Perceptions of Hazards. To account for differences in gender-based perceptions and
experiences, the team requested that approximately 50 percent of interviewees were female.
Focus Groups
To supplement the individual interviews, the team held two focus groups in the
community cooperative, Irrigation Association of South Atiocoyo (ARAS) in La Libertad. One
focus group consisted of three women and the other of seven men. Focus groups were meant
to provide a “community level” perspective versus the individual-level perspective of farmer and
historical interviews. In addition, the team sought to compare female and male perceptions on
how changes in climate and hazards have affected livelihoods.
Discussion was structured
around a group activity on identifying and ranking perceived changes in climate, causes of those
changes, and how changes have impacted the lives of the participants and their communities.
Historical Farmer Interviews
To further supplement the individual interviews, the team conducted a “life history
interview” with an older, experienced farmer in each of three departments visited. The historical
Back to Top
12
farmer interviews were designed to capture perception of issues over time, with a focus on
changes and turning points. The interview included three sections: Basic Household
Information, Basic Farming Information, and Perceptions of Changes and Hazards. The final
section of the interview involved compiling a timeline related to environmental changes and
hazards observed on their farm or in their community. The team sought to interview at least one
older female.
Sample Selection
Through judgmental sampling, the team selected 15 of 34 municipalities that Plan is
currently supporting through the El Salvador FTF program (Appendix 3). These communities
were located across eight municipalities in three of El Salvador’s 14 departments. Figure 1 is a
map of El Salvador outlining the visited areas as follows: northern La Libertad, Cabañas, and
Chalatenango. Figure 2 lists all visited communities and total participant numbers. While the
team initially selected the communities, Plan staff worked with community leaders to select the
interviewees. The team separated into two groups of two persons each and a translator in order
to conduct the individual interviews, focus groups, and historical interviews.
Figure 1: Map of El Salvador with Departments visited outlined
Back to Top
13
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Department
Municipality
Community
Individual
Interviews
La Libertad
San Matias
Las Flores
4
La Libertad
San Matias
EL Jicaro
2
La Libertad
Tacachico
Husisilapa
4
La Libertad
Tacachico
ARAS
3
Chalatenango
San Francisco Morazan
Higueral
4
Chalatenango
San Francisco Morazan
Teosinte
3
Cabañas
Ilobasco
Huertas
4
Cabañas
Ilobasco
San Jose Calera
5
Cabañas
Sensuntepeque
Los Yugos
4
Cabañas
Sensuntepeque
Las Marias
1
Chalatenango
La Laguna
La Cuchilla
4
Chalatenango
La Laguna
Plan Verde
4
La Libertad
Tacachico
ARAS
La Libertad
Tacachico
San Jorge
2
Chalatenango
Nombre de Jesus
Quipure
2
Chalatenango
Nombre de Jesus
Junquillo
2
9
San Salvador
10
San Salvador
Historical
Interviews
Focus
Groups
Training
for Plan
1
1
7 men
3 women
1
19
Total:
48
3
10
19
Figure 2: Field study overview
Limitations in Methodology
While the team prepared a standardized methodology for all interviews, questions were
not always phrased identically due to 1) translation, 2) time limitations, 3) variance in style
between the two groups, and 4) modifications based on the interviewee’s understanding of the
question. These variations may have shaped interviewee responses and results.
In addition, given that Plan staff worked with community leaders to select interview
candidates, a potential selection bias exists. For example, interviewees selected may have
been more engaged in the community and Plan’s current efforts. It is possible that those
selected were more informed on certain issues and/or inclined to learn about and adopt new
approaches, compared to those not participating in Plan programs.
Also, the team had requested that approximately 50 percent of individual farmers
interviewed were women, at least one historical interview participant was a woman, and one
focus group was comprised of 5-8 women. The actual sample consisted of 44 percent women
for individual interviews, no women for historical interviews, and a focus group of three women.
This sample offered insight into differences between genders, but affords more weight to men.
Back to Top
14
Review of Results
This section reviews responses received from the 48 individual farmer interviews, two focus
groups, and three historical interviews.
Individual Farmer Interview Results
The team conducted and analyzed a total of 48 individual
farmer interviews across 15 communities in three departments. Of
these interviews, 27 participants were male and 21 female.
Responses provided the team with household and farming
information, and perceived climate changes and impacts on farmer
Household Statistics
Interviewee Age
Average: 43.8
Mode: 46
Range: 16 - 81
livelihoods.
Basic Household Information
Occupations: The most popular primary occupation of the
interviewees was “farmer” followed by “housewife”. Also, 71 percent
identified at least one other income source or role in the community.
Some popular roles were farmer (often cited by women as secondary
Household Size
# Members (ave.): 5.8
# Children (ave.): 2.6
# Children (mode): 2.0
Total household members
represented: 276
# Adults: 152
# Children: 124
to housewife), hired farm laborer, bricklayer, carpenter, animal
husbandry, and sales—either as a shop owner or by direct sales of crafts and foods.
Thirty-two interviewees had children in school and 25 interviewees reported that their
children help farm. Boys and girls frequently had different farm support roles; boys tended to
help with “hard” labor related to planting and harvesting while girls helped with “soft” labor such
as carrying food and water to the fields. The girls also assisted with household chores like
cooking, cleaning, and firewood collection.
Energy Sources: The vast majority (92 percent) reported using firewood in the
household, primarily for cooking. The majority (86 percent) reported no difficulty in obtaining
firewood, with pruning trees around the home or plot as the main source. Other interviewees
reported walking up to two hours to collect firewood, often accompanied by children. Also, 39
respondents had electricity, 22 people used gas, and one person had a photovoltaic panel.
Water Sources: Many households used a community or national water system as the
primary household water supply (50 percent).
The next most popular water sources were
Back to Top
15
collecting water from a spring or well (23 percent) or piping or pumping from a spring (23
percent). Of those without a household water system, six respondents—all female—walked 10
to 20 minutes to a spring or well to collect water, making one to three trips daily; this task was
often given to female children. Four respondents received piped water from family or friends.
Rainwater harvesting was also reported (15 percent) as a supplementary source. However,
rainwater from barrels or catchment containers was commonly only used for cleaning.
Basic Farming Information
Crops: Of the 47 farmers who grew some kind of crop either for consumption or sale,
nearly all reported growing staple maize and beans, and 70 percent reported growing sorghum.
A majority (70 percent) also
diversified their production by
growing at least one other type
of crop in addition to these
staple crops, with 40 percent
growing vegetables. Types of
crops grown varied somewhat
by
department;
varieties
were
interviewees
Libertad
cash
cultivated
mostly
and
crop
in
by
La
Chalatenango.
Previous studies conducted in
the country suggest that the
Figure 3: Crops grown by department
poorest farmers are usually more dependent on subsistence crops, with cash crops providing a
larger percentage of total output value for more well-off farmers.19 Although there is little
empirical evidence regarding cash versus food crops under climate change scenarios, other
evidence suggests that cash crop producers can be “maladaptive”—seeking short-term gains by
continuing with the same production methods—while food crop producers have adaptation
strategies that are more concerned with reducing or managing risk.20
Farmers were also asked whether their crop yield for last season’s harvest was average
in comparison to harvests from previous years. Most (87 percent) said they had a lower yield,
10 percent said the harvest was average for all of their crops, and three percent did not know.
Of those who had a lower yield than average, one-third had lost half or more of at least one of
19
20
(World Bank, 1998)
(Slater, 2007)
Back to Top
16
their crops. In 2010, El Salvador experienced the effects of the La Nina phenomenon that
contributed to above-average rainfall that negatively affected the Primera harvest—particularly
for beans—and the Postrera season for farmers.21 Most interviewees did report lower bean
harvests than average, and 37 percent indicated lower maize yields owing to excess rain.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents sold at least some of
their crops, although this response varied significantly by
department
(Figure
4).
Approximately half of respondents
in Cabañas and Chalatenango did
not sell any of their crops. In
contrast, every respondent in La
Libertad sold at least some of their
produce. A slight majority (60
Figure 5: Where do you sell
your crops?
Figure 4: Do you sell your
crops?
percent) also sold their crops directly following the harvests, with
the remaining 40 percent selling crops incrementally. Incremental
sales were used to pay off debts, to buy production inputs, or harvests were held and sold
strategically in order to obtain higher prices. Interviewees sold these crops in a mix of markets
(Figure 5), including within their local communities, the department’s main town, or to
intermediaries.
respondents
In
had
La
Libertad
only,
three
arrangements
with
local
sugarcane and rice mills to sell, and sometimes
hull, their harvests.
Livestock: In addition to producing crops,
households also kept livestock; the type and
number of which are typically contingent upon
household wealth in El Salvador. 22 Only two of 48
interviewees did not own any livestock, with most
respondents owning poultry, followed by cows and
then pigs (Figure 6). Food was the most commonly
cited use of livestock (56 percent), followed by
income (39 percent), and transport (5 percent).
21
22
Figure 6: Livestock ownership
(FEWSNET, 2010)
(FEWSNET, 2010)
Back to Top
17
Ownership of animals other than poultry varied by department. Most (80 percent)
respondents in La Libertad owned animals such as cows and pigs, compared to 70 percent of
respondents in Cabañas, and 60 percent in Chalatenango. Ownership varied less by gender,
with 30 percent of women who responded either owning no animals or only raising poultry,
compared to 23 percent of men. However, many of the female respondents were participating in
Plan’s poultry program. Therefore, these numbers may not be indicative of average livestock
ownership in these municipalities.
Land: Of the 47 farmers who grew crops for consumption or sale, approximately half
cultivated less than 2.1 manzanas, one-quarter cultivated 2.1 to 4.2 manzanas, and one-quarter
cultivated 4.2 manzanas or more.23 The size of
the parcel cultivated varied by department and
gender (Figures 7 and 8 respectively). No
interviewee in Cabañas cultivated more than
2.1 manzanas, and La Libertad had the
highest number of respondents (27 percent)
who worked on more than 4.2 manzanas.
Males were also more likely than females to
Figure 7: Land size cultivated by department
cultivate more than 4.2 manzanas. Those who own
less
than
2.1
manzanas—while
capable
of
producing the majority of their annual food needs—
use what they harvest mostly for household
consumption and still depend on food purchased
from the market to supplement their diets.24
23
24
Figure 8: Land size cultivated by gender
1 manzana = 0.71 hectares
(FEWSNET, 2010)
Back to Top
18
Of interviewees who indicated the status of their land ownership, nearly half rented (45
percent).25 A few respondents also shared how they pay for rented lands including cash or in
crops. Most farmers (82 percent) cultivated only one parcel of land, which was often located on
a steep hillside. Sixty percent of interviewees farmed hilly land, 20 percent farmed land that
was flat, and the remaining 20 percent farm land that was both hilly and flat or which varied year
by year depending on what parcel of land they are able to rent. A higher percentage of known
renters farmed less “desirable” parcels of
land that were located on steep hillsides or
that varied year by year (Figure 9).
Historically,
renting
and
sharecropping
arrangements are less advantageous than
ownership since these lands also carry less
secure property rights and leave users
unable to obtain credit or collateral to make
improvements.26
Land
ownership
also
varied greatly by gender, with a majority (75
percent) of responding females renting the
Figure 9: Land terrain variation by tenure
land they cultivated compared with only 17
percent of men. Legally, women have equal rights in obtaining access to land and credit
markets, but tradition considers them unsuited to dealing with economic and financial markets.
Inheritance is the primary means by which women become land owners.27
Only a small percentage of farmers (12 percent) who responded had to walk more than
30 minutes to reach their plot, but of those, several had to walk nearly 1.5 hours over fairly hilly
terrain. A little more than half of the respondents also hired labor to help on their farm, with the
hired help used to prepare the land before planting, sowing, and at harvest-time.
Water: Three-quarters of farmers interviewed depended on rainfall as the only source of
water for their crops. Of the farmers who used supplemental water sources, most utilized either
rainwater harvesting (9 percent) or carrying water from nearby rivers or streams (9 percent).
Nearly 20 percent of respondents also indicated that they used a sprinkler or hose system to
water vegetables grown near the house. Only two farmers—both interviewed in ARAS—used
25
Owing to the potential sensitivity of land ownership, respondents were not always asked if they owned the land
they cultivated. Land rights are not considered fully secure by many people in El Salvador and an estimated 57
percent of the rural population does not have legal access to land (See Footnote 27).
26
(Seligson, 1995)
27
(USAID, 2010)
Back to Top
19
irrigation for their farms, although one of these was a tilapia farmer. Another farmer in the same
community, however, indicated that he did not use irrigation because it was too expensive to
connect his land to the ARAS irrigation system.
Pests: Twenty-five farmers offered their observations on various pests and diseases
(Figure 10). Most (75 percent) said that pests were increasing in number, 13 percent felt they
were the same as in the past, and 12
percent felt the number of pests
varied year-to-year or they did not
know. Four farmers said that they
need more chemicals now than in the
past in order to manage insects, and
four also said that there are more
pests during the dry season than
there used to be. One interviewee felt
that since her family had stopped
burning the land, pests had “become
more of a problem.”
Figure 10: Common pests and the crops they harm
Farming Practices
Farming Techniques: Interviewees employed a wide range of farming techniques. Many
were conservation practices that improved farmer’s fields, suggesting that farmers do undertake
improvements they perceived to be beneficial. Furthermore, use of farming techniques did not
Respondents
vary significantly between men and
women. Both indicated practicing the
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
same variety of techniques and at
similar implementation rates. As shown
in Figure 11, the majority mulched,
used zero tillage, and did not burn the
soil. Only six percent of respondents
reported that they burned the land
before planting or during harvest. This
Farming Techniques
reported response rate conflicts with
reports from Plan Technicians working
in the areas and through field visit
Figure 11: Farming techniques
Back to Top
20
observations. A reason for this inconsistency could be that farmers selected for interviews are
more informed about sustainable farming practices. One community leader said he was one of
only two in his community choosing not to burn the land. He stated, “It’s hard to be the example”
and that other community members think he is “crazy” for not burning.
Although there are reasons
to expect rental practices to result in
under-investment
in
soil
conservation, primarily because of
the short term of most leases, the
survey reveals that a variety of
conservation measures were used
on rented lands or sharecropped
land. In fact, as seen in Figure 12, a
greater proportion of rented fields
than owned fields used conservation
Figure 12: Farming techniques by tenure
practices. Although owners were
somewhat more likely to use barriers (live or dead) to prevent soil erosion, renters were more
likely to intercrop, leave land fallow, practice crop rotation, and to not burn the land.
Exactly half of the interviewees who responded have tried some kind of new farming
technique in the past several years. Reasons for trying new farming practices varied widely, but
were most often related to either increasing crop yield and soil fertility (46 percent), or because
of problems with pests (26 percent). Figure 13 shows all stated reasons. Plan training was also
mentioned by several respondents as a reason for trying new techniques. Many respondents
who said they had not tried any new farming practices noted that they always relied on
“traditional methods”, suggesting
an aversion to trying unfamiliar
techniques with unknown benefits.
Other factors mentioned for not
changing techniques were that
renting land made it difficult to
innovate, they did not know of any
new techniques, or they lacked
funds to try new farming practices.
Figure 13: Reasons for trying a new technique
Back to Top
Also, men were more likely than
21
women to report trying new techniques. There was no significant difference in whether anyone
was more or less likely to try a new technique based on owning instead of renting his/her land,
suggesting that other factors were responsible for influencing farmer’s decisions on whether to
innovate with farm practices than land tenure.
Production Inputs: Many respondents obtained their
seeds from more than one source, with one-third receiving free
maize seeds and fertilizer from a government program. Sorghum
was always saved by respondents for replanting next season,
beans were usually saved, and maize was sometimes saved but
usually bought. Factors influencing respondent’s decisions on
whether to save seeds included the amount of the previous
harvest, and whether the seeds were considered of a high
enough quality to replant. Eleven percent of respondents
indicated they depended solely on saved seeds for planting next
Some flowers are natural
insect repellants.
Nasturtiums: ward off moths,
beetles, squash bugs, flies
and aphids. Intercrop with
squash, pumpkins, cabbage,
beans, cucumbers and
squash.
Marigolds: ward off beetles,
worms and flies. Intercrop
with tomatoes, asparagus,
cabbage and beans.
year’s staple crops. This diversity in seed sources may not be a good indicator of seed security
for all farmers, however, as some interviewees indicated that they wanted to reuse seeds but
had to buy new maize seeds every year because the only available varieties were transgenic.
Most interviewees also used chemical
fertilizers and pesticides for their crops; but, of
the 75 percent who used chemical fertilizer, 20
percent mixed in organic matter. The remaining
25
percent
fertilizers.
An
reported
they
used
overwhelming
organic
majority
(86
percent) responded that they used chemical
pesticides.
Factors
influencing
interviewees’
decisions on the type of crops they decided to
plant and the type of production inputs they
bought were complex and varied (Figure 14).
Advice
from
agricultural
store
technicians,
wanting to buy “traditional,” familiar varieties,
Figure 14: Input purchase decision making
and store availability were the most listed
reasons for buying specific input types. Advice from neighbors and family was another common
source of influence on which specific crop varieties and fertilizer types to use.
Back to Top
22
Harvest Storage: Nearly all respondents (95 percent) indicated that they stored their
harvest, with the same percentage storing their crops in metal silos (graneros). One respondent
who grew rice said he stored his produce in bags, while another used plastic barrels. Only 13
percent lose any of their stored harvest, owing almost exclusively to excess humidity or rats
consuming the stored yield. These numbers represent an encouraging use of graneros. Proper
use of graneros reduces post-harvest losses owing to pests in maize and improves
smallholders’ food security, especially by enabling farmers to strategically sell reserves as
needed, as opposed to after harvests when prices are lower.
Training and Technical Assistance: Of interviewees who responded, most (71 percent)
have received some form of technical assistance and/or training, with the rest either indicating
they have not received any training or assistance (24 percent) or not knowing if they have (5
percent). Interviewees listed a wide range of organizations offering assistance, with Plan most
commonly listed (60 percent) followed by church organizations,
Number of Interviewees
Receiving Training and
Technical Assistance
CENTA, CORDES, and MCC. Only 23 percent reported
Development Organizations
Plan International
18
MCC
4
FEZAN
1
Caritas
1
Taiwanese Mission
1
largely consistent with other surveys conducted of farmers in
receiving technical assistance from government sources—
rural El Salvador.28
Interestingly, of the nine respondents who indicated
they had received training in organic fertilizers, approximately
Community Organizations
Church
7
Cooperatives
1
CORDES
5
half still used chemical fertilizers on their farms. Several said
Government
CENTA
Other
other farm techniques taught to farmers, which may not remain
Private Sector
Agriculture Store
Sugar Mill
5
2
that organics were too difficult to make, or it took too much time
and too many ingredients. This finding has implications for
employed following termination of the training or technical
assistance program depending on factors such as labor or
1
1
input costs (as many programs give participants inputs for free
during the pilot phase).
Economics
Spending: Many interviewees were asked to divide a circle into the percentage of all
household income spent on the farm versus household. Responses varied but the vast majority
reported a 50 percent/50 percent split, and slightly more allotted a higher percentage to the
28
(World Bank, 1998)
Back to Top
23
farm. Interviewees were also asked to identify and rank the most expensive items they purchase
for both the farm and household. Top farm expenditures were 1) fertilizer, 2) pesticides, and 3)
seeds. The top household expenditures were 1) food, 2) health, and 3) education, while utilities,
transportation and clothing were also commonly cited as other expenses. Women and men
reported similar percentage allotments and top household expenditures. Moreover, responses
were similar across the three departments.
Remittances: “Remittances accounted for 16 percent of GDP in El Salvador in 2009, and
about a third of all households receive these transfers”.29 This survey revealed a slightly lower
rate with 20 percent of respondents receiving remittances. This could be due to remittances
being a sensitive, personal topic, and select respondents electing not to share this information
with the interviewer.30 Interestingly, women replied “yes” at a substantially higher rate than
men—31 percent and 15 percent respectively. All remittances were reported to be from the U.S.
and all were from family members, mostly children. Many respondents also noted that since the
U.S. economy has been poor, remittances have been lower. There is much debate about the
long-term development benefits of remittances. Studies have found that remittances spent on
investment goods (education, housing, and business) can help to build human and physical
capital and benefit long-term development. However, most people living at a subsistence level
spend their remittances on consumption goods (food and consumables) which tend to have little
impact on household status or local economies.31 During this study, there was no consistency to
what remittances were used for, but food purchases and farm inputs were popular responses.
Most remittances received were absorbed into household income and spent primarily on
consumption goods or immediate needs such as healthcare.
Credit: The majority of interviewees had utilized credit (58 percent). Women reported
utilizing credit at a slightly lower rate (56 percent) than men (62 percent). Of the 25 credit
recipients, the primary usage was to purchase farm inputs. Two respondents reported opening
successful stores with the funds, and one used credit to pay school fees. The majority of
recipients received credit from banks or NGOs; input suppliers, intermediaries, farming
cooperatives, and community micro-lending credit groups were also important sources of credit.
29
Plan technicians accompanying the interviewers noted that they had knowledge of select interviewees receiving
remittances, despite responding “no” when asked if remittances comprised an income source.
31
(Social Science Research Council , 2009)
30
Back to Top
24
The 42 percent of interviewees that did not use credit were asked “why not”. Responses
varied and were sometimes accompanied with a story of a family member or friend losing their
home or land to credit agencies. The most popular reasons given were that credit is too risky,
carries high interest rates, and is difficult to repay. Some
In La Cuchilla, an NGO helped
start a micro-credit lending
group. Within just 3 years the
group grew so large it had to
split into two. Today there are
70+ members and the most
popular loans are for business
startups!
interviewees were also denied loans due to a lack of sufficient
assets. During discussion, interviewees also noted that credit
applications required “too much paperwork and time”, and
preferred asking family and friends first.
Two respondents
said that they previously used credit, but since they have now
grown their savings and income they no longer require credit.
Observed Climate Changes and Causes
When asked to list any changes in the
weather or climate observed over the past 515 years, interviewees presented a wide
variety of responses as presented in Figure
15. There was a general consensus among
the individual interviews, historical interviews,
and focus groups that the temperature is
higher and the weather is becoming less
predictable. In the individual interviews, men
and women consistently identified the same
perceived climate changes including, heavier,
more intense rainfall, higher temperatures
(both during the day-time, impacting the
length of time farmers are able to work in the
Figure 15: Perceived weather changes
field, and at night-time, impacting comfort levels), and unpredictable weather.
The responses of more rain overall were primarily from Chalatenango while the few
responses indicating less rain overall were in all three departments. More specifically, most
farmers shared that the 2010 rainy season was especially abnormal—with intense, higher than
normal rainfall in September, and a sudden end to rains resulting in a dry October. These
farmer perceptions were confirmed using internationally tracked weather data, which showed
much higher than average rains in September and severely lower rains in October as compared
to a 20-year average (Appendix 4). While the majority reported higher temperatures, two
respondents, both from the community ARAS, mentioned temperatures are frequently lower.
Back to Top
25
Most of the noted changes in wind were from Cabañas or Chalatenango. Other changes
reported included hail in Chalatenango, specific storms such as Ida, and increased cloudiness
in the dry season.
Individuals provided a wide array of
causes for the changes noted; the primary
causes
Most
identified
cited
were
anthropogenic.
deforestation
and
contamination as the major drivers of
climate changes. Several also mentioned
that the vegetation and climate drastically
changed after the civil war due to burning
Figure 16: Stated causes of the changing climate
or bombing of land.
Observed Impacts and Actions Taken
Respondents identified several impacts caused by the observed changes in climate,
ranging from income loss, changes in food and water supply, and increased health problems for
people and livestock. Health was cited most frequently (83 percent), with influenza and diarrhea
topping the list of illnesses. Respiratory disease, headaches, heat stress, and skin rashes or
burns were also identified. Men more frequently reported crop loss (78 percent) followed by
negative human health impacts (74 percent). Women, on the other hand, named negative
health impacts (81 percent) followed by crop loss (48 percent) and loss of livestock (33
percent). Both men and women noted more pests and disasters such as landslides. When
asked who is impacted most by changes in climate, a majority (75 percent) said either “children”
or “children and elderly,” with many adding that this group was more susceptible to disease.
Of those who mentioned negative impacts to livestock, nutrition and water-related issues
were most prominent, and cows and poultry were most sensitive. Regarding livestock impacts
from drought, an interviewee from Husisilapa said, “humans can adapt but animals cannot,” and
require added care measures from their owners. Diminishing crop yields and sickly livestock
disrupt food security. Of the 26 interviewees asked whether observed climate changes had
impacted food security, the majority (62 percent) mentioned at least one of the following
outcomes: declining quantity or quality of food, decline in the portion of food grown versus food
purchased, less purchasing power, and food substitution (mentioned only by women).
Individuals citing negative impacts related to climate changes were then asked if they
had taken any actions to reduce those impacts. Of the 32 that responded, 56 percent said that
they had taken some type of action, 34 percent had not taken any action, and nine percent felt
Back to Top
26
the damage was “irreversible.” Many actions taken coincided with sustainable agricultural
practices including not burning, leaving some land fallow, and growing dual purpose crops such
as fruit trees. In addition, interviewees highlighted community actions including a disaster relief
organization and a recycling committee. Regardless of whether an interviewee reported having
taken action or not, most had suggestions they felt might alleviate impacts. The most popular
responses included reforestation, changes to farming techniques, or changes in crop varieties.
Climate Change Awareness
Individuals were asked if they had ever heard of the phrase “climate change” with a
follow up request to define it. Forty-two individuals responded and were divided into the
following five categories:
1. Heard of climate change, did not define
(24 percent).
2. Heard of climate change, partially defined
(i.e.
extreme,
unpredictable,
“crazy”
weather) (29 percent).
3. Heard
of
climate
change,
correctly
defined (12 percent).
4. Had not heard of climate change, did not
define (33 percent).
5. Had not heard of climate change, but
offered an accurate description of climate
change causes or impacts (two percent).
Figure 17: Climate change awareness
Approximately two-thirds of respondents had heard of “climate change” with most
attributing this to TV or environmental training classes offered by NGOs or the community
church. Nearly half (43 percent) of all respondents were able to fully or partially define the
concept, with some referencing scientific aspects such as atmospheric gases and the ozone
hole. Responses classified as “partially defined” cited characteristics often associated with
climate change such as rapid or extreme weather variations and growing strength or frequency
of natural disasters. This general conceptual understanding is an important baseline and
essential in raising awareness of projected changes, potential impacts, and adaptive measures
to enhance food security. A few interviewees also asked for a definition after offering their
response, showing an interest in learning more about these issues.
Back to Top
27
Focus Group Results
The team conducted two focus groups in ARAS in La Libertad. One group consisted of
seven men and the other of three women. The focus groups provided the team with areas of
potential differences between how males and females perceive changes and impacts on
livelihoods. They were not designed to be representative of the entire interview sample, or to
provide conclusive evidence of gendered issues.
The groups were first asked to identify changes in climate and weather prevalent in their
community. The results were displayed and discussed. Second, the groups were asked to
identify impacts related to these changes. Again the results were displayed and discussed.
Next, the individuals were asked to select the three most important changes and the three most
important impacts. A discussion followed and participants were asked what they believed to be
causing these changes. Figure 18 features a summary of the results.
Figure 18: Focus group activity results
The focus group participants identified many changes, impacts, and causes discussed in
the individual interviews, such as increased heat, deforestation, and unpredictable weather.
However, the focus groups were unique in presenting the different priorities and perspectives of
men and women. Regarding impacts from climate and weather changes, the men selected
harvest decline as the number one choice while the women focused on human health. The men
Back to Top
28
also prioritized human health impacts but in conjunction with livestock illnesses. This difference
may be associated with men and women filling different household roles.
Economic impacts were also noted by both men and women. However, men focused on
opportunity cost of lost yields, while women focused on increased expenses. During the
discussion, women stated that all changes and impacts (e.g., crop loss, sickness, and property
damage) resulted in higher costs, and this is a major
issue in the community.
Another interesting observation was that the men
listed deforestation and contamination as both changes
and causes, showing the interconnectedness of these
issues for rural Salvadorians. Both groups also discussed
the importance of community action. The men suggested
community efforts against contamination and litter while
the women noted community environmental classes and
In ARAS, the community united
against a local coffee mill that is
disposing untreated wastewater into
the primary water supply. The
government supported the community
protests and ordered the mill to build a
wastewater treatment system. This
initial win has encouraged the
community to go against larger
industries including Kimberly Clark
paper product factory.
united efforts to protect their surrounding environment.
Historical Interview Results
One “life history” interview was conducted in each of the three departments visited.
Interviewees were all male, and their ages ranged from 62 to 78. These interviews sought to
identify perceived changes over time in weather, climate, farming practices, and other factors.
The interviewees leveraged varying frames of references in recounting past events, including
the civil war, eras of government policy, relocation, and changes in occupation. Two still
cultivated basic grains; the oldest cultivated only vegetables for consumption.
Changes in Agriculture and Farming Practices
All interviewees recalled that fertilizer was not necessary “before” (and was also likely
not readily accessible). About 25 years ago, interviewees began to use chemical fertilizer to
improve yield given poor soil quality. One interviewee noted that fertilizer is “weaker” now—
which might denote worsening soil chemistry rather than input potency. Two of the three
interviewees noted increased quantity and resistance of pests that now attack crops, requiring
use of pesticides of growing strength. All three reported that yields were hurt for various crops
and that some crops can no longer be planted due to weather changes. Only one interviewee
reported receiving technical assistance; farming practices were altered (to using no-burn) as a
result.
Back to Top
29
Weather, Climate, and Environmental Changes
The three interviewees felt that it is hotter now than in their childhood (or even compared
to 20 years ago), impacting their work hours in the field and their general comfort level. All three
noted that there were far more trees and wooded areas in the past. Loss of forest cover was
attributed to destruction stemming from war (i.e., burning), cutting trees for firewood and
income, and clearing land for livestock. Notably, all three also linked this deforestation to
impacts such as loss of nutrients in the soil, rising temperatures, and/or occurrence of hazards
(e.g., landslides, flooding). Also, all felt that rainfall and the rainy season have become
increasingly unpredictable, beginning around 10 years ago. Two respondents shared their prior
strong confidence in cabañuelas, a traditional form of weather forecasting where they observe
the first 31 days in January to predict the weather for the next twelve months, and planting in
April even if “soil was dry as dust” if this is what the cabañuela predicted. However, now they
feel these traditions are increasingly less effective given growing unpredictability.
Impacts of Disasters and Risk Management
Two interviewees recounted that earthquakes have altered water sources, in terms of
location (e.g., of springs) and supply over time. One farmer pointed to a stream with abundant
fish which is now “just dry” as an example of how a hazard—or hotter temperatures—appeared
to impact water supply and aquatic life. All interviewees recalled flood events, with one noting
that “rivers cannot hold as much water anymore” beginning about 15 years ago. People
previously lived on higher ground to manage impacts from swelling rivers, but this strategy is
less used now. One interviewee chose to rent lands on higher ground, despite lower yields, in
order to reduce the risk of crop loss due to flooding.
Other issues discussed included the declining size of cultivated plots and conveniences
due to improved roads and availability of vehicular transportation. Additionally, interviewees
explicitly stated or implied that humans are responsible for many of the negative changes now
seen and that “mistakes” or “sins” (e.g., deforestation) must be recognized and understood in
order to rectify the problems observed.
Back to Top
30
Themes
This section explores select observations and themes drawn from all discussions in the field and
additional research. Themes will be discussed in the context of impacts on food security and
livelihood of the interview sample.
Existing Capacities of Individuals and Households
The majority of farmers interviewed—in the individual interviews, historical interviews,
and focus groups—showed some awareness of the changes in their surrounding environment.
Many shared ways in which they had already begun to cope with changes observed. Below is a
discussion of existing resources and capacity of these farmers to adapt to changes, as well as
areas in which capacities can be strengthened to further improve resilience and enhance food
security of farmers, given the long-term changes in climate projected for El Salvador.
Access to Climate and Weather Information
Access to accurate weather information is critical to make informed planting and
crop selection decisions. Farmers in developed countries have access to high-quality and
timely climate and weather data, and can learn about trends in climate without needing to sense
them independently. The same is often not true for farmers in poorer countries, who are more
on their own in discerning longer-term climate shifts and agriculture forecasts. Timeliness and
accuracy of information is especially important for planting decisions of subsistence farmers
because there are often no reserve inputs (e.g., seeds) to replant if the initial sowing is
unsuccessful.
Respondents
Most farmers reported receiving
climate and weather information from
multiple sources. Many of the 42 total
respondents reported multiple sources of
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
climate and weather information, with 60
percent identifying television followed by
31 percent stating radio (Figure 19).
However, the television and radio sources
were not agricultural forecasts but were
Weather Information Source
composed of the daily or weekly weather
report. Some respondents stated that
Figure 19: Weather information sources
Back to Top
31
long-term forecasts were not available, and relied on their own experience or that of neighbors.
Only seven indicated they received no information on the weather.
most
people
had
Respondents
Although
access to several sources of weather
information,
perceptions
of
their
reliability and accuracy were low. The
wide majority of interviewees felt that the
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
weather information they received was not
accurate
(Figure
20).
The
only
interviewees who felt that the information
was accurate or usually accurate were
from Chalatenango.
Opinion on Weather Information Accuracy In addition, women were far more
likely than men to receive no weather
Figure 20: Weather accuracy
information or to lack more than one
information source (Figure 21). No
women
reported
using
their
own
knowledge or experience as a source
of weather information, and generally
responded more positively regarding
the
accuracy
received.
of
During
information
discussions,
they
it
seemed that many women did not
follow the weather or forecasts closely
as it was less integral to their stated
Figure 21: Weather information sources by gender
roles as “housewives”, despite their
participation in farm activities.
An important step in adapting to climate change is availability and access to
trusted sources of information on potential weather variation. There is a need to link
farmers to climate change and variability information that is tailored to local, agriculture-oriented
audiences. For example, local advisories can help farmers better plan field operations, avoid
costs of re-sowing crops, and adjust varieties from long to medium or quick-maturing varieties if
a shorter growing season is forecasted. A recent research project in India that provided farmers
Back to Top
32
with timely, medium-range weather forecasts customized to each district may provide valuable
lessons in the utility and challenges of this adaptation approach.32
As women appear to depend more on
single sources of information or have no weather
information at all, particular care should be taken
to include gender considerations in designing
information outreach programs. In addition,
farmer’s concerns regarding the inability of the
government to provide wise advice on weather
forecasting and climate trends need to be better
understood and addressed in order to bridge the
gap between availability of information and its
utility for farmer’s decision-making.
Figure 22: Number of weather information
sources by gender
Cost, Availability, and Selection of Farm Inputs
Farmers were already finding ways to decrease cost of farm inputs. In El Salvador,
it was estimated in 2009 that the average farmer needs to invest over US$350 per year in
agrochemicals and hybrid seeds, often representing half of their annual income.33 Almost all
interviewees reported purchasing seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, although some
indicated they would occasionally use less chemical fertilizers to save on costs. A majority of
interviewees shared that they saved seeds from their harvest when possible to reduce input
costs of the following planting season; sorghum seeds were almost always saved, beans were
usually saved, and maize was sometimes saved. Eleven of 34 respondents were also involved
in government free seed programs, which also provided small amounts of fertilizer, to reduce
spending on inputs. However, some respondents noted these free seed programs are often
implemented at the local level and are highly political, and believed that such programs should
be enjoyed by all and not based on political affiliations. An additional note of caution in reliance
solely on government free seed programs is that it may limit diversification of seed types (e.g.,
more climate tolerant varieties) unless there is an active research and development effort by
government to identify and distribute these varieties.
Increasing the availability and variety of farm inputs can further lower costs and
promote greater food security. When asked how they decide what items to buy, the majority
reported basing decisions on availability and/or recommendation at their local agricultural supply
32
33
(Australian High Commission, 2011)
(Instituto de Permacultura de El Salvador, 2009)
Back to Top
33
store for varieties that are most effective that season. Limited seed varieties available in stores
and high input prices may limit the ability of farmers to try more resistant seed varieties or other
products. Working with agricultural supply stores presents one opportunity to share knowledge,
technology, and new practices.
There is also an opportunity to supplement purchased inputs with organics or less
expensive alternatives. Some interviewees had begun to produce organic fertilizer and
pesticides as a result of direct training, or by necessity in order to reduce the cost of purchasing
chemical versions. While farmers often noted that chemical versions were more effective, many
recognized benefits to soil quality of using organics as well as noting cost savings. Assisting
with and promoting strategic use of these alternative inputs could decrease household farm
expenditures and encourage more environmentally-friendly farming practices.
Water Management and Food Security
Of farmers interviewed, almost all relied primarily on rainfall as the water source
for their crops, with three-quarters using only rainfall. This aligns with UN Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) statistics that almost 90 percent of farmed land in Latin America
and the Caribbean is rain-fed.34 In El Salvador, this share is slightly higher as only 5 percent of
arable lands are irrigated.35 A recent assessment led by the International Crops Research
Institute found that “farmers’ yields in rain-fed areas are two to fivefold lower than achievable
potential yields and that current rainwater use efficiency is only 35–45 percent in most rain-fed
areas,” indicating an opportunity to strengthen the production capacity of farmers to enhance
their yields and food security.36
Water management is an essential focus area in working with farmers to build
resilience, adapt to climate changes, and maintain or improve food security conditions.
Almost 90 percent of El Salvador’s annual rainfall comes during the rainy season and farmers
have observed shifts in timing, overall quantity, and intensity of rains in the last 5-10 years.37
Because of the risk of crop failure associated with this unpredictability—which is likely to
increase with climate change—smallholder farmers may prefer to reduce the risk of crop failure
due to droughts before electing to make investments to improve soil fertility, crop varieties, and
other inputs as a matter of sequencing spending to minimize potential losses.38 The literature
body tends to agree that while periodic, severe droughts (i.e., meteorological droughts) may
34
(FAOSTAT, 2005)
(World Bank, 2009)
36
(Wani S. e., 2009)
37
38
(Hilhost, 2000)
35
Back to Top
34
result in complete failure of rain-fed crops and call for relief efforts, the majority of droughts
consist of shorter dry spells (i.e., 2-4 weeks) which can be bridged through improved water
management.39 Measures to manage water can be grouped into two general categories—those
aimed at increasing rainfall productivity (e.g., improving infiltration and reducing evaporation)
and those aimed at capturing rainfall for use. Both of these categories increase the efficiency of
rain-fed agriculture and can boost the grain yield per unit of rainfall.
Mulching and use of barriers are proven methods that improve infiltration, reduce
evaporation, and increase yield for farmers in El Salvador and the region. The majority of
farmers reported using mulching on their lands, and
approximately
one-quarter
used
barriers—reducing
evaporation, run-off, and erosion, and increasing soil
infiltration. There are many case studies quantifying the
benefits of such practices. A controlled test at San
Francisco Menendez School in El Salvador showed that
stubble mulch applied on the soil surface increased maize
yields by 90 percent in drought years as compared to
adjacent plots not pursuing this practice.40 In Honduras,
use of vetiver grass live barriers on sloped plots was
correlated with net increases in maize yield in drought
years versus similarly sloped lands without live barriers.41
These proven practices and other techniques to increase
Case Study: Infiltration Pits
“Some farmers in Central America
dig infiltration pits along contours.
Rainwater collects. During a dry
spell, the water infiltrates the soil
and is used by crops. Crops can
grow up to maturity by using this
conserved moisture. Farmers’
experience shows that even if there
are only five days with rain in the
whole rainy season, the crops can
reach maturity using conserved and
harvested water in the pits.”
Source: Altieri, Miguel, and Koohafkan,
Parviz. Enduring Farms: Climate
Change, Smallholders and Traditional
Farming Communities. Jutaprint, 2008
rainfall productivity—such as soil bunds, terracing, and
contour cultivation—can be expanded to raise yield and improve resilience to unpredictability of
rains.
Capturing rainfall for use through rainwater harvesting (RWH) increases rainfall
efficiency and can help bridge gaps in agriculture water supply to stabilize yields. While
approximately 15 percent of farmers interviewed reported harvesting rainwater, the majority
used stored rainwater for cleaning—indicating some awareness of RWH techniques but
generally for domestic use, not for use on crops to bridge potential dry spells. The RWH method
employed was almost always use of open barrels or rooftop runoff collection. RWH techniques
for the farm, including micro-catchments, storage tanks, or farm ponds, were rarely observed.
39
(Wani S. S., 2009)
(Winrock International)
41
(Hellin, 2001)
40
Back to Top
35
Studies show that supplemental water
Rainwater harvesting is being used at home and
can be promoted in the fields.
during dry spells in the amount of 50-200 mm
per hectare in a season can help increase yield
of staple crops by more than 100 percent, as
compared to having no water during a dry spell.
For small scale rain-fed farms, this may present
the
difference
between
losing
all
or
a
substantial portion of crops, and achieving
yields that are comparable or near-comparable
with non-drought years.42 One project in
Tanzania found that micro-catchment systems
improved maize yields by 120-152 percent during seasons with dry spells.43 This has clear
favorable food security implications.
The cost per hectare of pursuing more RWH in rain-fed areas can be relatively low,
especially in comparison to investing in irrigation or public water infrastructure in hilly areas, and
at a level that may be feasible for farmers to undertake individually or collectively, or an area for
effective intervention by government or other organizations.44 Further, having RWH systems in
place has been shown to positively impact farmers ability and decisions to invest in wells,
pumps, fertilizers, and pest management, as well as increase planting of vegetables (for
consumption or sale).45 With water cited as one limiting factor for raising livestock, RWH can
also contribute to farmers capacity to maintain healthy and larger types of livestock for
consumption or as an income diversification strategy.
Food Security and Income Diversification
Reduced yields of basic crops did not always correlate to perceived reductions in
food security, especially when other coping or adaptation strategies were in place. While
many individuals (69 percent) stated that they had lost significant portions of their crop yields
and experienced death or harm to farm animals (42 percent) due to climate changes, several
(38 percent) also indicated that there had not been an impact on the family’s food security. All
of these responses came from Chalatenango and Cabañas.
Responses were separated based on gender in order to determine whether different
gender roles affected food security perceptions. Thirty seven percent of women and 40 percent
42
(Sharma, 2009)
(Kayombo, 2004)
44
(Barron, 2009)
45
(Sharma, 2009)
43
Back to Top
36
of men said that their food security had not changed, despite last year’s lower crop yields and
little or no sales of their crop.
Diversification of income away from reliance on farming operations was an
effective strategy being pursued by farmers for managing food security and improving
resilience to climate risks. The weak correlation between yield and food security can be
explained by many of these farmers having other sources of income. Typical income sources
included sale of crops in some quantity (66 percent) and strategic husbandry and sale of
livestock (39 percent). Of reported sources, while many were still tied to farm operations (e.g.,
on-farm employment), several were non-agricultural (e.g.,
security guard at local plant, employee in community potable
water system unit, sales of homemade shampoo products).
Approximately 75 percent of women sold other products (e.g.,
snacks, ice cream), while many men worked secondary jobs. In
one instance, a man held three different jobs in addition to
being a farmer (i.e., blacksmith, barber, bricklayer). Moreover,
30 percent of this group said they received remittances. It
should be noted that these diversification strategies were
Income diversification: In La
Cuchilla a Peace Corp
volunteer taught women to
make organic shampoos that
are packaged in recycled soda
bottles. Since its inception, the
shampoos have begun selling
in local area stores—offering
additional household income
while using environmentallyfriendly production practices.
activities that could be carried out by most households without
reducing their time spent on subsistence crop cultivation, as
many depend on seasonal labor. This suggests a preference
for alternative income-generation that does not threaten the
ability of the family to produce food for their own household.
Diversification to non-farm economic activities is important in maintaining and enhancing
food security of households by providing access to income for discretionary spending or
potential savings. This is especially valuable in light of decreased yields cited by most
interviewees, which impacts consumption, sales, and purchase of food—all which have income
and spending implications. Also, “lessening dependence on farm income enables greater
flexibility in managing...changes” that occur, including the unpredictability of weather noted by
interviewees.46 A case study on adaptive capacity of farmers in Mexico and Argentina found
diversity of income sources to be a key component of this flexibility, enabling farmers to
“maintain functioning of [their respective systems] after being affected by a stressor” such as
flooding or drought.47 However, care must be taken to promote activities that complement and
46
47
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007)
(Wehbem M.B., 2005)
Back to Top
37
do not jeopardize household subsistence food production, as these may potentially be viewed
as too risky by some farmers.
Diversification activities and opportunities should continue to be promoted and
expanded. Many farmers are doing what they can to diversify their income sources, but are
often limited by surrounding factors such as minimal off-farm employment opportunity, distance
to larger markets, and lack of business development knowledge. Programs that raise human
capital (e.g., education, skills development) and which create or broaden “networks” between
communities (e.g., markets, communications) can strengthen capacity for small-scale enterprise
and income diversification. Plan’s current scholarship program may be a platform from which to
expand to build this capacity.
Spending Priorities and Investment Decisions
Household spending on goods to satisfy immediate needs is a necessary priority,
but lack of strategic spending on durable productive assets may limit capacity. Regarding
spending, the mode response from interviewees was that 50 percent of income was spent on
household needs and 50 percent was spent on farming inputs. Similarly, those who were
receiving remittances reported spending amounts received primarily on food, farm inputs,
health, and clothing. Among the 58 percent who received or were receiving credit, nearly all
report that borrowed money primarily goes to purchasing farming inputs needed for the season.
In all categories of respondents, spending on durable productive assets—such as
equipment or infrastructure to improve yield—was absent. Whether this is due to the nature of
questions asked, or due to actual minimal spending on productive assets cannot be determined
beyond doubt. However, it is within reason to infer that the latter may be true as the majority of
interviewees had a subsistence lifestyle, with little disposable income and little ability to grow
savings. Investment in productive assets is often considered an important strategy to enhance
yield, generate new income, improve food security (through greater food supply or more funds
to access food supplies), and alleviate poverty for farm households. In risky environments,
productive assets can play dual roles by not only increasing production but also potentially
shielding farmers from certain risks such as erratic rainfall.48
Farmers were already pursuing limited investment strategies when possible, but
more attention must be given to sustainability of strategies selected. Many interviewees
are practicing shorter term “investment” strategies such as purchasing small pigs, raising them,
and selling them when money is needed for basic needs such as food, medicine, or farm inputs.
48
(Takeshima, 2010)
Back to Top
38
However, these strategies are increasingly at risk given perceived climate change impacts
noted, including perceived decreases in water supply (e.g., drying or contamination of rivers)
and livestock feed available (e.g., lower sorghum yields)—limiting households’ ability to raise
livestock. For those able to raise cattle, clearing of forested lands for grazing often exacerbates
impacts on the environment and community, fueling trends of deforestation and land
degradation. Ironically, many farmers recounted stories of cattle (their own or those of
neighbors) being “washed away” by swelling of rivers or landslides following heavy rains—both
of which are hazards tied directly to deforestation as well as larger climate changes.
A reluctance to borrow money was prevalent among many farmers, which limits
their ability to invest in longer-term productive assets. It is of note that limited access to
credit was not viewed as a constraint; rather the most cited reasons for not pursuing credit were
that it was “too risky” (given uncertainty of yields and thus repayment), and that “interest rates
are too high”. This is consistent with other studies conducted among farmers in Chalatenango
which found these two factors as the most significant contributors to farmers’ “unwillingness to
commit their few assets to collateral requirements”.49
Better understanding the investment behavior of small-scale farmers in El Salvador and
discussing these issues with them will be critical to any intervention aiming to encourage
investment decisions; in particular, any intervention should recognize that farmers have
legitimate fears over risking their limited assets for loans and work. The relationship between
preferred income generation methods, spending decisions to meet immediate needs, and riskaversion to investments to potentially better meet future needs has direct impacts on household
food security. Educating farmers and raising awareness of these interconnections can spur
thinking towards longer-term investment and motivate adoption of sustainable practices.
Exploring alternative strategies for encouraging on-farm investments, such as through collective
activities or cooperatives, is an appropriate way to build on current investment behavior.
Training and Technical Assistance
Training and technical assistance activities can help in identifying and
overcoming challenges towards sustainable implementation of taught practices. A clear
distinction was made between training and technical assistance (e.g., extension services).
Training was seen as a one-time, group event whereas technical assistance was longer-term,
often on an individual basis and accompanied by supporting resources.
The majority of
interviewees had participated in one or both types; respondents in La Libertad tended to
49
(Shelley, 2004)
Back to Top
39
indicate lower participation rates. Since the survey was implemented where Plan is active, Plan
was the most cited implementer of training and assistance. Many respondents were involved in
the Plan vegetable garden or poultry programs for health and food security and spoke positively
about their experiences. Training and technical assistance by other organizations varied from
new farming techniques (e.g., erosion prevention), sanitation (e.g., latrines, water filters), waste
management (e.g., trash collection), among other areas where needs were identified.
Identifying farmer’s constraints, priorities, and decision-making processes can
help prioritize areas for potential intervention and customize measures to win farmer
buy-in for strengthening capacity. New farming techniques taught were sometimes, but not
always, employed. One example is in the area of organics. Nine people stated they were
trained on making organic fertilizer or pesticide—five by Plan, two by their church, and one by
another NGO. All nine were from Chalatenango or Cabañas, and five were male and four
female. For organic fertilizer, six people reported using organics in conjunction with chemicals.
For organic pesticide, only three reported using organics and all continued to purchase
chemicals. Most respondents that used organics believed them to be healthier, safer, and better
for the soil; however, chemicals deliver better results for yield. Organics were thought of as
difficult and time intensive to produce, and not all inputs were readily available in the area (e.g.,
soil from a specific ant species).
This type of farmer feedback is essential in refining training and assistance to target
specific barriers to translating learning into implementation. In this example, when training in
organics production, specifying a path for obtaining inputs during training or as part of technical
assistance could increase adoption. Understanding that time and cost are prominent concerns,
identifying organic mixes whose preparation requires less time and expense than traveling to
purchase chemical variations at an agriculture supply store can help to win farmer buy-in.
Another way to ease the production burden is to encourage people to work together to pool
inputs, delegate work, and share product. Perhaps most importantly, organic variations must be
tailored to farmer needs and shown to be comparably effective to chemicals in enhancing soil
quality and addressing pests that are of greatest concern. Addressing such key concerns can
maximize value and results of training and assistance efforts.
Small-scale food production and its relationship to household food security is inextricably
linked to factors including, but not limited to, access to accurate and timely information,
appropriate inputs, income generation opportunities, appropriate and targeted assistance, and
flexibility to adjust current practices and behaviors to suit changing conditions. These areas
should be analyzed as a whole in order to determine adaptive measures that are best suited for
households, communities, and regions.
Back to Top
40
Adaptive Farming Practices at the Household Level
A review of the literature suggests that planned adaptation to climate change at the
farmer level requires three basic steps: detecting a shift in one’s external environment,
determining that it would favor a change in behavior, and undertaking that change.50
Interviewees were aware of changing weather patterns and environmental shifts, identified
impacts of those changes, and half indicated taking conscious actions in response to changes
they were seeing. However, it was difficult to isolate adaptive practices on the farm owing to
perceived changes in climate patterns from other reasons for undertaking changes in farming
techniques, such as farmer’s perceptions of soil fertility.
Detecting a Shift
Nearly all people interviewed showed an awareness of deviations from normal
climatic patterns, with men and women consistently identifying similar perceived
changes including heavier, more intense rainfall, hotter temperatures, and unpredictable
weather. One farmer said that he felt these changes are “permanent and not the result of just a
few bad years, and planting is becoming more risky,” while another noted that these changes
were “not normal over the longer-term history”. As noted by other farmers, however, climate
variability in El Salvador is a “normal” part of cyclical weather patterns, with droughts often
occurring every year, especially in association with El Niño events. In addition, every year
during the rainy season there is a short period of time without rain (canícula). 51 Although a lack
of details in farmer responses precludes a rigorous analysis of the accuracy of farmer’s
perceptions compared to historical averages, evidence from other countries is mixed on the
ability of farmers to correctly perceive longer-term climate shifts. There is ambiguity over
whether detection of changes equates to actual recognition of trends or stems from the
tendency to overestimate the frequency of negative events.52
Half of the farmers who showed an awareness of a change in climatic patterns
were undertaking some change in behavior to mitigate the negative impacts of changes they
identified. Regardless of whether an interviewee reported having taken an action or not, most
farmers had suggestions regarding what they would like to do, given adequate resources or
opportunity, to alleviate the impacts of perceived changes. There was no correlation between a
farmer’s knowledge of global climate change and his/her likelihood of taking any action to
50
(Burke, 2010)
(FEWSNET, 2010)
52
(Cooper PJM, 2008)
51
Back to Top
41
respond to perceived climate changes, suggesting that education alone on the existence and
scientific causes of climate change will not be enough to alter farming practices at the individual
level. However, scientific knowledge can still complement local knowledge to help people
understand why changes are happening and why they might need to try new ways to adapt to
new circumstances.53 Although surveys are an imperfect way of gauging farmer’s perceptions,
these results illustrate that recognition of a climate trend is only one factor—and perhaps not the
most significant—involved in enabling adaptation to changing climate conditions.
Adaptive Farming Practices
One area widely recognized as an important factor for increasing the resiliency of
agricultural systems is the identification of appropriate mixes of production activities
that have the ability to help buffer or recover from negative impacts.54 Important adaption
options in the agricultural sector include: crop diversification, mixed crop/livestock farming
systems, using different crop varieties, changing planting and harvesting dates, and mixing lessproductive, drought-resistant varieties, and high-yield water sensitive crops.55 Agricultural
adaptation therefore involves two types of modifications in production systems. The first is
increased diversification that involves engaging in production activities that are drought-tolerant
and/or resistant to temperature stresses as well as activities that make efficient use of the water
and temperature conditions. Crop diversification can serve as insurance against rainfall
variability as different crops are affected differently by changes in precipitation levels. A second
agricultural adaptation strategy focuses on crop management practices geared towards
ensuring that critical crop growth stages do not coincide with very harsh climatic conditions such
as mid-season droughts or excess rainfall. Crop management practices that can be used
include modifying the length of the growing period and changing planting and harvesting dates.
Only a small percentage of these farmers were undertaking changes that could be
viewed as active adaptation measures at the farm-level in response to increasing climate
unpredictability and variability. Changes in farming practices indicated by farmers in
response to perceived climate changes included earlier preparation and planting of cropland,
improving irrigation systems for vegetables, and diversification of seed variety to spread risk;
several others also indicated they would like to diversify the type of crops they planted. Many
farmers appeared at a loss as to how they could respond to increased unpredictability; common
themes that appeared in individual responses were growing uncertainty regarding the “real” start
53
(Riahan & M Huq, 2010)
(FAO, 2010)
55
(World Bank)
54
Back to Top
42
date of the rainy season, which inhibits proper planning for planting decisions, and a frustration
with lack of resources or know-how to counteract the changes they were seeing. One farmer
whose crops had been over-inundated with rain last year was asked whether he had done
anything to reduce the negative impacts of changing weather. He replied that he “didn’t know of
any crop varieties that were flood-resistant.”
Interviewees also showed a preference for timing their cropping decisions based on
adequate soil moisture or waiting until rainfall had become steady, although the second most
popular response was to rely on tradition and experience. Some reported that planting at the
same time each year is safer because the start of the rainy season is variable, choosing to
avoid the potential risks that might be involved in changing their traditional planting dates.
Nearly all respondents noticed a change in the start of the rainy season or felt that it was
becoming more “unpredictable”, and
unprepared and they must “rush to
plant.” Climate change projections for
El Salvador indicate an increase of
rain during the month of April, which
could be a false signal of an early start
Respondents
when it arrives early their plots are
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Check soil When rain is Start of Tradition, moisture
steady rainy season calendar
for the rainy season with delays of the
May rains.56 These “false starts” to the
rainy season can have significant
negative impacts on crop production,
Response to: How do you decide when to plant?
Figure 23: Planting decision making
as seedlings may be lost if planted
before rains are well-established and farmers must buy additional seeds and replant. This kind
of loss would have a small but significant impact on poorer households, who may have already
exhausted financial resources and obtained credit to buy seeds and other inputs.
Farmers’ perceptions of and responses to soil fertility appeared to be a stronger
factor in promoting innovations and changes in farming practices, as they were more likely
to adopt techniques that helped improve their crop’s productivity and soil fertility. Increases in
soil erosion and runoff as a result of increased intensity of rainfall events and increasing scarcity
of water during the dry season will be important impacts of climate change in El Salvador on
farmer’s crop yields and productivity.57 Planting trees around their cropland and leaving land
fallow were the most common adaptation activities cited by farmers in response to perceived
56
57
(MARN, 2007)
(Kundzeqiez, 2007)
Back to Top
43
climate change impacts. Moreover, seven of the 19 farmers who reported using new farming
techniques in the past several years did so in order to increase their crop yields and/or because
they were trying to improve soil quality; each cultivated land on steep hillsides already subject to
soil degradation. Many farmers also already employed practices that maintain or improve soil
nutrients, including mulching (71 percent), zero tillage (64 percent), not burning the soil (55
percent), using some kind of a barrier (40 percent), rotating crops or leaving land fallow (26
percent), and using live barriers (20 percent). Sustainable soil management practices were not
the only techniques utilized in response to soil degradation, however. An increasing use of
chemical fertilizers as a result of decreasing soil fertility was another commonly cited theme
throughout the individual and historical interviews.
Adaptive practices that improve soil quality and crop yield will likely be welcomed
by farmers, although other factors and incentives may influence implementation of these
practices. Of the 50 percent of respondents who indicated they had not tried any new farming
practices in recent years, nearly half indicated relying solely on “traditional techniques and
methods”, suggesting a possible risk-aversion to exchanging familiar practices for those with
unknown outcomes. Other studies in Central American countries and past experience in El
Salvador suggests that farmers opt for techniques that maximize returns on labor inputs
required for implementation; crops that help prevent run-off and erosion as well as serve other
purposes such as sugarcane and pineapple have also been utilized because they provide
additional household benefits.58,59 It is likely that the same preference for technologies that
provide short-term and long-term benefits will hold true for adaptation to climate change,
particularly for households with less land and monetary resources. Also notable were
differences in the types of stated adaptive techniques by land ownership. Only one known renter
indicated planting trees—as trees are long-term investments—around his farm, compared to
four who owned their own land. These trends suggest that conservation techniques that need to
be renewed annually such as mulching and certain types of barriers are more likely to be
adopted on rented or sharecropped plots.
Contrary to findings from other studies, neither land tenure nor plot size were
determining factors in whether farmers were willing to try new techniques, although types of
techniques employed varied. Evidence from other studies suggests that insecure land tenure
limits the effectiveness of training and technical extension as farmers with lower levels of land
ownership are less likely to adopt new farming techniques or methods.60,61 Additional cases
58
(Bunch, 1995)
(Schrader, 2001)
60
(Schuck, 2002)
61
(Bezbaruah, 2002)
59
Back to Top
44
also indicate that farmers are less likely to innovate when their plot size falls below a certain
size, as limited economies of scale on small farms for certain transaction costs increases the
costs of inputs and decreases output prices.62,63 However, in this study farmers who rented were
actually more likely to try new farming practices (50 percent) in comparison to owners (36
percent). Our results also suggest that farmers cultivating smaller plots of land are not much
less likely to invest in new farming practices that would improve and safeguard their production.
Approximately half of respondents who cultivated less than 1.5 hectares reported they had tried
new farming techniques, compared to 30 percent of farmers cultivating more than 1.5 hectares.
One probable explanation for these relationships could be because adaptation is plot-specific; in
other words, it is not the size of the farm but the specific characteristics that dictate a need for a
specific method of adapting to climate change. Understanding specific deficiencies on farmer’s
plots will enable more targeted technical assistance with a higher likelihood of adoption.
Community Action and Collective Resources for Adaptation
Community and collective action initiatives are an effective way to foster
stewardship of shared resources, provide a type of safety net, and promote
environmentally sustainable practices. Many communities, even those without current
initiatives, saw value in expanding this type of engagement. Interviewees in four of the 15
communities visited spoke of different types of initiatives within their respective communities to
assist in farming operations, enhance resilience to hazards, and/or environmental management.
Community
ARAS, La Libertad
El Jicaro, La Libertad
La Cuchilla, Chalatenango
Plan Verde, Chalatenango
Community Initiative(s)
Irrigation association providing members with scheduled access to water for
farming
Farming cooperative that offers credit to members, helps negotiate input
purchases, and offers jobs for working cooperative lands ($3/day)
Has community trash/recycling program, disaster prevention program
(especially for landslides), and community organic fertilizer group
Has community trash/recycling program, disaster prevention program
(especially for landslides), and community micro-credit committee
Community level initiatives can foster ownership of efforts and stewardship of shared
resources. For example, the irrigation network in ARAS enables members to expand beyond
maize and bean production to growing rice and tilapia, presenting new economic opportunities.
Despite easier and more predictable access to water (as compared to areas without irrigation),
62
63
(Maddison, 2007)
(Ashley, 2001)
Back to Top
45
community members are conscious of not overdrawing or wasting water. One tilapia farmer
spoke of working with owners of nearby grazing lands to recycle water from tilapia pools for
pastures, showing value for collaboration and respect for community water users.
Initiatives can also provide a type of safety net, equipping farmers with greater knowhow to effectively address recurring risks and hazards. National government training on disaster
prevention in La Cuchilla and Plan Verde—areas prone to landslides during heavy rains—led to
these communities authoring plans that are operationalized during rains, including preventative
evacuations, central meeting points, and other assigned responsibilities. Given difficulty of
access through the mountainous terrain of Chalatenango and the unpredictability of rains
reported by farmers, local disaster preparedness is critical for enabling a timely and effective
response to natural hazards. Moreover, social capital has been documented in El Salvador as
fundamental in reducing disaster risk and as a positive feature for adaptation processes.64,65
Research and practice have shown that collective action institutions are very important
for technology transfer in agriculture and natural resource management among small-holders
and resource-dependent communities. They are also important for spreading information and
technology practices for climate change adaptation. For example, in El Jicaro, members of the
cooperative tested a new seed variety being promoted by the agricultural store through a pilot
project and adopted its use after they saw it was drought-resistant and had high yields. In
several Andean communities farmers have developed a knowledge system on climate change
and its potential effects on their productivity through education and sharing observations on
gradually changing weather patterns.66
In addition, environmental protection and sustainable farm practices can be promoted
through community initiatives. As part of trash collecting and recycling programs in the two
Chalatenango communities—designed with assistance from church organizations—households
deposit all materials in a central location. This had positive immediate and long-term impacts on
sanitation and the environment, and was being adopted by older community members and the
younger generation. In La Cuchilla, there was also a subgroup that pools resources to mix
organic fertilizer and shares the output. Organic fertilizer was recognized to be weaker than the
chemical variation but known to be better for soil chemistry and used when possible.
Interviewees in these four communities, as well as some in other communities visited,
expressed a desire to create or expand community efforts. The focus group of men in ARAS,
which did not yet have a civil protection committee, discussed creating such a group to respond
64
(Lavell, 2004)
(Schipper, 2006)
66
(Meinzen-Dick, 2010)
65
Back to Top
46
to hazards. They also discussed implementing a trash/recycling program in order to reduce the
volume of trash in rivers and creeks, a perceived cause of flooding, and had begun research on
having their community pay to access a nearby municipal trash processing plant. Among other
visited communities there were also suggestions for potential initiatives (e.g., reforestation).
Another useful aspect of community actions in climate change adaptation is their
potential to function as risk-sharing and risk-reduction mechanisms. Risk-sharing mechanisms
such as cooperatives also allow farmers to accept risks in pursuing alternative livelihood
strategies and innovating with farming practices without compromising their current food
production. A more informal alternative would allow each household involved in a group to grow
its own subsistence crops while all households in the group collectively experiment in alternative
uses of land on another plot, with risks and returns shared in a predetermined amount. Such a
collective arrangement could be promising because it allows for smaller groups where trust
levels are high, avoids jeopardizing the food production of members (cited by one interviewee
as a reason for not joining a cooperative), and the free rider problem is minimized. Another
example is an innovative use of an index-based micro-insurance scheme in Bolivia that
combines incentives for risk reduction and a flexible, people-centered index mechanism.
Farmers identified as “good practitioners” by their peers farm reference plots similar in terms of
temperature, precipitation, humidity, and soil type; these plots serve as indicators of whether
production levels have been adversely affected by environmental factors—triggering a payout.
The system encourages other farmers to match the reference farmer’s implementing efforts to
reduce the effect of drought and excess rains because those farmers run the risk that otherwise
their own plot will be more significantly affected than the reference farmer.67
Analysis of a set of sustainable community initiatives—two which involved communities
visited in this study—suggests a set of common factors that contribute to the success of such
projects in El Salvador68:
67
68

The vision, commitment, and hard work of those involved.

Sound community organizing based on local needs, experiences, and culture.

Development of appropriate teaching and training methods and materials.

The ability to raise grant money and use available materials creatively.

Linking economic, environmental and cultural issues to support community development.

Creating opportunities for individuals to grow and develop.

Developing alliances with other similarly-motivated communities.
(Fundacion Profin)
(Neşecan, 2007)
Back to Top
47
At the same time, potential obstacles to community action also include:

Unwillingness of individuals to join efforts owing to failure of previous cooperative efforts.

A need to balance women’s “traditional” responsibilities with income-generating work.

Challenges of learning unfamiliar skills and ways of thinking.

Difficulties in finding markets and transport for products.

Lack of local opportunities, drawing young people to work elsewhere or migrate abroad.

Concerns over food security and a lack of extra income impeding conservation of some
environmental resources.
The types of community initiatives discussed are examples of initiatives which may
resonate with other communities with similar circumstances and enabling factors. While
collective action projects have certain limitations and drawbacks such as the potential to
misrepresent priorities from a unified “community” or for elite domination of projects, it is an
important strategy that should be considered in promoting environmental protection and
adaptation to climate changes. 69
69
(Mansuri, 2004)
Back to Top
48
Recommendations
Potential Projects for Implementation in El Salvador

Leverage technologies such as cellular phones to
expand technical assistance to under-served areas,
link farmer to more specialized information on weather
conditions and weather advisories for their locale, and
access market prices for nearby towns to help farmers
get the best price for their crops and products.
Expanding technical assistance
using technology: Many people
have cell phones with cameras;
if their plant is being attacked
by a new pest or disease they
are unfamiliar with, ask them to
take and send pictures to Plan
staff, who can then text back
with key information.

Assist farmers in pursuing non-farm economic
activities or longer-term investment in productive
assets and/or ventures when possible, with attention to
selecting strategies that are sustainable and can
generate continuous income without jeopardizing household food production.

Educate farmers on various credit options, and experiment with alternative
collective arrangements for promoting on-farm investments. Work with farmers
interested in credit to identify suitable options given existing assets and repayment
potential, and to complete paperwork—cited as one barrier to borrowing.

Lay groundwork for community action projects in areas such as sustainable farm
practices, waste management, and reforestation. Small community pilot projects can
serve as success stories that expand participation.

Leverage innovators and early adopters of sustainable practices as much as
possible. With limited staff and resources for hands-on technical assistance, having well
trained community members that are skilled in certain areas can have significant impact.
Promote early successes of these leaders and their value to the community.

Utilize existing networks to share innovative and accurate information. Many
people report receiving information and decision making support from community church
programs or agricultural stores. These networks should be connected with accurate
weather information, environmental sustainability knowledge and agricultural,
technological advancements.
Future Work for FTF Volunteers in El Salvador

Analyze dominant and emerging pests and diseases, and identify adequate
management practices or natural pest control measures. Many farmers noted that
pests were increasing in number and strength, and were no longer manageable using
previous practices; several noted new types of insects or plant diseases they had not
seen before that had significant impacts on select crops.

Analyze soil quality in selected areas to identify specific deficiencies and
determine immediate and longer-term measures for improving soil health.
Improving soil quality is essential to sustaining and increasing yield. Pin-pointing
Back to Top
49
deficiencies may offer guidance on appropriate corrective measures, such as suitable
organic fertilizer mixes.

Identify practical ways for farmers to diversify income away from staple crop
sources. This could involve broad study across a number of communities, or a small
scale demonstration project in one community, to document existing capacities,
opportunities, and a potential roadmap for such diversification to occur.

Identify ways to overcome specific challenges identified in this study so that
awareness can be translated into actions. Examples of challenges identified in this
report include economic limitations and risk perceptions. Targeted actions would include
measures such as income diversification and adoption of sustainable farm practices.

Raise awareness and engage farmers at the individual and community level on
issues that promote enhanced collective security and sustainability (e.g., reforestation,
community-level actions in recycling, disaster relief). Strengthening community networks
can have positive impacts on the resilience of households in the face of weather shocks
or production losses.
Incorporating Adaptation Principles in Agriculture Program Design
Select considerations for addressing climate change adaptation when designing new programs
or activities to encourage sustainability of the agriculture sector are highlighted below.

Understanding local perceptions is critical to designing interventions aimed at
encouraging farmers to change their farming practices, techniques, and
decisions. People may or may not make the link between observed changing climate
conditions and impacts on food security, health, crop yields, and other areas. There is
often a considerable bias towards maintaining “traditional” ways, and thinking that what
worked in the past should work in the future—a perception that must be incorporated in
any intervention designed to motivate change.

Improving access to accurate and timely weather information (and longer-term
forecasting on general climate shifts) can reduce uncertainty for farmers and
enable them to better understand and adapt to changes. Farmers may or may not
recognize the signs that climate conditions are changing, and evidence is mixed on
farmers’ ability to correctly perceive longer-term shifts.

Analyzing prevalent and emerging trends shared by farmers, both in terms of
perceptions and scientific reasoning, is an important step in identifying
appropriate interventions. Comparing perceptions to scientific evidence can provide a
clearer picture of trends and potential solutions. For example, in El Salvador, farmers
noted general increases in pests and diseases and were attempting to find ways to
manage this change. Merging their observations with scientific knowledge can lead to
identifying adequate management practices or natural control measures.

Promotion of farming techniques that reduce the impact of rain on soil, reduce
soil erosion and surface runoff, and enhance infiltration should be tailored to
address household-specific priorities and constraints. In El Salvador, increased
intensity of rainfall and scarcity of water during the dry season is expected as a result of
Back to Top
50
global climate change, with negative long-term impacts on farming due to increases in
soil erosion and runoff. However, not many of the interviewees used live barriers
although they are useful to slow down rain on steep slopes, catch soil, allow for moisture
infiltration, and can supplement family income. Solutions that provide multiple, tangible
benefits such as fruit trees have often been preferred by farmers in El Salvador,
although farmers with insecure land tenure may prefer to utilize other options that do not
require longer-term investment such as mulching.

Encouraging rainwater harvesting (RWH) on rain-fed farms is an important
strategy for reducing vulnerability to rainfall variability. In El Salvador, some of the
greatest threats to the agricultural sector will stem from increased recurrence of dry
periods during July and August, in addition to increasing rain intensity. Few interviewees
had secured or diversified sources of water for their farms. RWH systems include run-off
storage for supplemental irrigation using storage structures such as farm ponds, earth
dams, water pans, and underground tanks. RWH exhibits good returns on investments,
yielding net profits of USD 150-600 per hectare in Burkina Faso and USD 110-500 in
Kenya, with high replication potential globally.

Income diversification, particularly non-farm income, is a key component to
ensure food security under climate change, as relying solely on mono- or staple-crop
production is more vulnerable to climate shocks and unpredictability. In El Salvador,
because so much of the population is linked to the agricultural sector, returns to off-farm
activities are likely tied to productivity in the agricultural sector, affecting demand for both
agriculture and wage labor and off-farm goods and services. Considerations of impacts
and context must be reviewed in designing income diversification programs to ensure
total benefit.
Back to Top
51
Bibliography Ashley, C. a. (2001). Overview: Rethinking Rural Development. Development Policy Review , 395-426.
Australian High Commission. (2011). Australians help farmers to adapt to climate change. Retrieved from
Australian High Commission: http://www.india.embassy.gov.au/ndli/pa0611.html
Barron, J. (2009). Rainwater Harvesting: A Lifeline to Human Well-Being. Retrieved from Stockhold
Environment Institute International: http://seiinternational.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Water-sanitation/rainwaterharvestingpb090330.pdf
Bezbaruah, N. &. (2002). Factors affecting cropping intensity and use of fertilizers and. Indian Journal of
Agricultural , 169–79.
Bunch, R. &. (1995). Soil recuperation in Cenral America: sustaining innovation after intervention.
Sustainable Agriculture Programme of the International Institute for Environment and
Development , 1-18.
Burke, M. a. (2010). Food Security and Adaptation to Climate Change: What do we know? In D. L. Burke,
Climate Change and Food Security.
Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). The World Factbook. Retrieved from Central Intelligence Agency:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
Cooper PJM, D. J. (2008). Coping Better with Current Climatic Variability in the Rain-. Agriculture,
Ecosystems, and Environment , 24-35.
Dilley, M. (2005). Natural disaster hotspots : a global risk analysis. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Encyclopedia of the Nations. (2011). El Salvador – Environmen. Retrieved from Encyclopedia of the
Nations: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/El-Salvador-ENVIRONMENT.html
FAO. (2010). Climate-Smart Agriculture: Policies, Practices, and Financing for Adaptation for Food
Security, Adaptation, and Mitigation. Rome: FAO.
FAOSTAT. (2005). Retrieved from FAO: http://faostat.fao.org
FEWSNET. (2010). El Salvador Livelihood Zone 1. Retrieved from FEWSNET:
http://www.fews.net/docs/Publications/sv_zonedescriptions_en.pdf
FEWSNET. (2010). Statement: El Salvador. Retrieved from FEWSNET:
http://www.fews.net/Pages/remote-monitoring-archive.aspx?gb=sv&l=en
(2000). First National Communication on Climate Change in El Salvador to the UNFCCC. Ministry of
Environment and Natural Resources.
Fundacion Profin. (n.d.). Noticias. Retrieved from Fundacion Profin: http://www.fundacionprofin.org/fmra.html
Germanwatch. (2011). Global Climate Risk Index. Retrieved from Germanwatch:
http://www.germanwatch.org/klima/cri.htm
Hellin, J. a. (2001). Impact of Vetiveria Zizanioides Live Barriers on Maize Production in Honduras. Oxford
Brookes University.
Hilhost, T. a. (2000). Nutrients on the Move: Soil Fertility Dynamics in African Farming Systems. London:
International Institute for Environment and Development.
Instituto de Permacultura de El Salvador. (2009). Instituto de Permacultura de El Salvador - Información.
Retrieved from Instituto de Permacultura de El Salvador:
http://www.permacultura.com.sv/inicio.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Kayombo, B. H. (2004). Effect of Micro-Catchment Rainwater Harvesting. International Soil Conservation
Organization Conference. Brisbane: International Soil Conservation Organization.
Back to Top
52
Kundzeqiez, e. a. (2007). Freshwater Resources and Their Management. Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability . Cambridge University Press.
La Ley de creación de la Comisión nacional de alimentación y nutrición. (2010). Retrieved from Ministerio
de Salud.
Lavell, A. (2004). The Lower Lempa River Valley, El Salvador: Risk Reduction and Development Project.
In G. a. Bankoff, Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development & People (pp. 67-82). London:
Earthscan.
Maddison, D. (2007). Perceptions of and Adaptation to Climate Change in Africa. World Bank Work.
Mansuri, G. a. (2004). Community-Based and Driven-Development: A Critical Review. World Bank
Research Observer , 1-39.
MARN. (2007). Vulnerabilidad y adaptacion al cambio climatic de los pobladores rurales de la planicie
costera central de El Salvador. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARN).
Meinzen-Dick, R. H. (2010). The Role of Collective Action and Property Rights in Climate Change
Strategies. CAPRi Policy Brief Number 7 .
National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center. (n.d.). TRMM Monthly/ Seasonal Estimates.
Retrieved from National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/fews/central_america/anomalies.shtml
Nelson, e. a. (2009). Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation. IFPRI Food Policy
Report .
Neşecan, B. a. (2007). Sustainable Development in El Salvador: Principles in Practice. In La Florida.
Permaculture Institute.
Riahan, M., & M Huq, N. A. (2010). Understanding Climate Change from below. Bangladesh: ActionAid.
Salv Aid. (n.d.). Integrated Family Farm Plan Project (2005-2007). Retrieved from Salv Aid:
http://www.salvaide.ca/IntegratedFamilyFarmPlanProject.html
Schipper, L. (2006). Climate Risk, Perceptions, and Development in El Salvador, Working Paper 93.
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
Schrader, K. (2001). Barreras vivas de Saccharum sinense y Pennisetum merkeri. Retrieved from
WOCAT: http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/wocat/wqtsum.asp?questid=HON03
Schuck, E. N. (2002). The role of land tenure and extension education in the adoption of slash and burn
agriculture. Ecological Economics , 61–70.
Seligson, M. (1995). Thirty years of transformation in the agrarian structure of El Salvador, 1961-1991.
Latin American Research Review , 43–74.
Sharma, B. (2009). Rainwater Harvesting: A Lifeline For Human Well Being. Retrieved from United
Nations Environment Programme/Stockholm Environment Institute:
http://www.unep.org/Themes/Freshwater/PDF/Rainwater_Harvesting_090310b.pdf
Shelley, B. (2004). Campesino Food Security, Risk Management, and Rural Development: Lessons from
El Salvador.
Slater, R. a.-M. (2007). Climate Change, Agricultural Growth, and Poverty Reduction. Retrieved from
Overseas Development Institute: http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/1260.pdf
Social Science Research Council . (2009). Topic 10 – Remittances, Consumption and Investment.
Retrieved from Social Science Research Council (SSRC):
http://www.ssrc.org/publications/view/96D00F02-4155-DE11-AFAC-001CC477EC70/
Solís, D., & Bravo-Ureta, B. E. (2005). Economic and Financial Sustainability of Private Agricultural
Extension in El Salvador. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture , 26.2.
Takeshima, H. a. (2010). Market and Climatic Risks and Farmer’s Investments in Productive Assets
under the Second Fadama Development Project in Nigeria. IFPRI.
UNDAC. (2010). Evaluacion de la Capacidad Nacional para la Respuesta a Emergencia. El Salvador:
UNDAC.
Back to Top
53
University of Michigan. (2008). Subsector Overview: Common Beans in El Salvador. Retrieved from
University of Michigan: https://www.msu.edu/~bernsten/beanatlas/Country%20Pages-withGIS/El%20Salvador/1.SubsectorOverview/el_salvador_text_subsector_overview.2.htm
USAID. (2010). USAID Country Profile Property Rights and Resource Governance: El Salvador.
Retrieved from USAID.
Wani, S. e. (2009). Rainfed Agriculture: Unlocking the Potential. Cambridge: CABI International.
Wani, S. S. (2009). J. Past Trends and Future Prospects of Rainfed Agriculture. CABI International.
Wehbem M.B., e. a. (2005). Social Methods for Assessing Agricultural Producers’ Vulnerability to Climate
Variability and Change based on the Notion of Sustainability.
Winrock International. (n.d.). Agriculture Growth in El Salvador. Retrieved from Winrock International:
www.winrock.org/fact/facts.asp?CC=6159&bu=
Winrock International. (n.d.). Lessons Learned: The Environmental Protection Project in El Salvador.
Winrock International.
World Bank. (2009). Climate Change Aspects in Agriculture, El Salvador Country Note. Retrieved from
World Bank:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/LACEXT/0,,contentMDK:22077094~
pagePK:146736~piPK:146830~theSitePK:258554,00.html
World Bank. (2010). Disaster Risk Management in Latin America and the Caribbean: GFDRR Country
Notes, El Salvador. World Bank.
World Bank. (1998). El Salvador: Rural Development Study. Washington D.C.: International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development.
World Bank. Identifying Appropriate Adaptation Measures to Climate Change. In Climate Change
Adaptation in the Agricultural Sector: Challenges and Opportunities. World Bank.
World Bank. (2011). Vulnerability to Food Price Increases in LAC, 2011: A Preliminary Analysis.
Retrieved from World Bank:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLAC/Resources/LAC_FoodCrisis.pdf
Back to Top
54
Appendix 1: Livelihood Zone
Livelihood Zone Map
Last Update: May 201070
Fieldwork was conducted in Livelihood Zone 1
(see green zones circled in red) in three
departments: Chalatenango, the northern part of
La Libertad and Cabañas.
70
(FEWSNET, 2010)
Back to Top
55
Livelihood Zone Information
Back to Top
56
Source: (FEWSNET, 2010)
Back to Top
57
Livelihood Zone 1 Seasonal Calendar
Source: (FEWSNET, 2010)
Back to Top
58
Appendix 2: Field Survey Forms
Individual Farmer Interview Questions
Purpose of Farmer Interviews:
Interview subsistence farmers to explore climate change impacts on food supply and security, as
well as on potential hazards that threaten their livelihoods.
Methodology:
 Sample to be surveyed is approximately 45 – 52 of 750 farmers that Plan International is
currently supporting through the El Salvador Farmer-to-Farmer program.
Interview
format will be semi-structured conversations with farmers (aiming for 50 percent

women).
 A template form for recording information will be used.
 If appropriate, ask select questions while touring farm operations.
 End by asking if interviewee has any questions for us. Ask them if they would like to tell us
anything else related to the topics discussed.
 Additional information:
o Internally, we will be meeting in the evenings daily to synthesize information and
what we have learned/observed.
Interview:
Thank you for taking the time to talk with us today. We are a group of students from George
Washington University in Washington, D.C., and are here working with Winrock and Plan
International in order to learn about your work and the challenges you face. The goal of our interview
is to understand the work you do on your farm, and how changes in weather and natural disasters
have affected the life of you and your family. We will not share any economic information with your
names, and will keep other information in confidentiality that you ask us to. However, we would like
to be able to quote you about your experiences and difficulties that you face in farming.
Survey questions:
Questions are listed in the first column, elaborations and notes are provided in the second column.
Table 1: Basic Household Information
Department
Municipality
Community
Gender
1
What is your name?
2
3
What is your age?
How many adults and children are in your
household?
Adults __________ Children__________
4
If there are children, are they in school?
YES________________
NO____________
5
If there are children, do they help farm?
YES________________
NO____________
6
What is your primary occupation?
Do you do other work to supplement your
family’s income?
Farmer
7
Farm employee
Back to Top
59
Bricklayer
Carpenter
Animal Husbandry
Other
10
Table 2: Basic Farming Information (for last 12 months / last growing season)
(Point to note: Do farmers notice any changes/trends in the below information?)
What crops do you grow and how much do
Crop
Yield
Average?
you yield?
Sold Amt
When
Was this amount average compared to
recent years?
Maize
11
Did you sell any of what you produced?
Wheat
12
How much?
Sorghum
13
When?
Beans
8/
9
Rice
_______
14
Where do you sell crops?
15
Do you own livestock?
If yes, what types, how many, how are they
used?
Have you recently sold or purchased
livestock? Why?
16
17
YES________________
NO____________
Type
Usage
#
Sold #
Poultry
Pigs
Cattle
Goats
___________
18
How much land do you cultivate? (1.4
manzana=1 hectare)
0.1-1.5 ha_ (0.14-2.1 manzana)
1.5-3.0 ha_ (2.1 -4.2 manzana)
3.0-4.5 ha_ (4.2-6.3 manzana)
19
How many plots?
20
Where are they?
hillside
close
far
21
Do you hire laborers for your farm
operations?
21
If yes, how many?
21
What time of year/what harvest?
22
Table 3: Farming Practices
What are your “farming techniques” that you
utilize in relation to land use?
Crop rotation/selection_
YES________________
NO____________
Intercropping
Soil bunds_
Grass strips_
Back to Top
60
Zero tillage_
Mulching_
Live barriers_
Agroforestry_
Others__
23
Have you tried any new farming techniques
within the past few years? If yes, what?
24
Why were changes implemented?
25
Where do you get your water for the farm?
Bore well___
River_______
Drip irrigation________
Rainwater harvesting____
Canal___
Tank___
Pond___
Stream__
Well___
Others__
26
Do you have an irrigation system for the dry
season?
27
What are your farming inputs?
Where do they come from?
How much do you use per year?
How much does each cost?
YES________________
NO____________
Seeds: Amount ________ Est. Price ________
Origin _____________
Origin _____________
Origin _____________
Fertilizers: Amount ________ Est. Price ________
Origin _____________
Green manure: Amount ________ Est. Price
________ Origin _____________
Herbicides: Amount ________ Est. Price ________
Origin _____________
Insecticides: Amount ________ Est. Price ________
Origin _____________
Other pesticides: Amount ________ Est. Price
________ Origin _____________
28
How do you decide what to buy?
29
What is your growing/planting cycle?
30
How do you decide to crop?
31
Do you receive any info on weather
problems? If yes, from whom?
32
Do you store your havest?
YES________________
NO____________
33
34
Where do you store your harvest?
Do you generally lose any of your stored
harvest?
YES________________
NO____________
35
If yes, why?
Pests
Disease
Back to Top
61
Flood
Other
37
Have you received any technical assistance
and from whom?
38
Table 4: Economics
Please tell us about your household
consumption / spending… percentage in
each category:
inputs to farm production
food buying
household fuel
health
debt
transport
rent
school
savings
other
other
39
Do you receive remittances?
40
If yes, from whom/where?
41
42
What are they used for?
Have you ever asked for credit from any
source?
43
If yes, from where
44
If yes, what did you use it for?
45
46
If no, why not?
What energy/fuel sources do you use in
your household?
47
Do you have difficulty obtaining fuel
sources?
YES________________
NO____________
YES________________
NO____________
Table 5: Farmer Perception of “Hazards ”
48
In the past 5/10/15 years, have you seen
any changes in weather? If yes, what?
Potential prompts:
rainy season:
early
late
normal
Overall rainfall: more
less
normal
low
normal
Temperature:
49
“You mentioned _____ changes. Have you
seen any impacts like change in crop yield,
livestock, water availability and health...?”
high
crop yield
livestock
water
health
Other
Back to Top
62
50
If yes, have you taken any actions to reduce
negative impacts (risks) from the above
changes and hazards?
Change cropping pattern_
Shift from crops to livestock_
Change to more cash crops_
Change to more crops we will eat_
Reduce amount of livestock_
Grow low input crops_
Grow crops that use less water_
Cultivate some parts of the land and leave rest
fallow_
Leave all land fallow_
51
If yes, [even with making changes in your
farming activities] do these weather
changes have an impact on your livelihood
and food situation?
Crop loss
Low yields
Food scarcity
Debt Increase
Unable to pay loans
Others
52
53
54
Who would you say has been most affected
by changes in weather?
What do you believe causes the changes
you have seen?
Have you ever heard of climate change?
What is it?
Men_ Women_ Children_ Elderly_ All the family_
Don’t know_
Thank you
Thank you for your time today.
Is there anything you would like to ask us?
Is there anything else you would like to share?
Back to Top
63
Focus Group Discussions Outline
Purpose of focus groups:
Explore climate change impacts on food supply and security, as well as on potential hazards that
threaten subsistence farmers in El Salvador. Contrast female and male perceptions on how changes
in weather and disasters have affected livelihoods; contrast group interactions and responses with
individual farmer responses to similar questions. The focus groups should provide a “community
level” perspective versus the more individual level perspective of farmer and historical interviews.
Methodology:
 Hold two (2) “focus group” of 5-8 individuals in one municipality/community during the
second week of field research.
 One group will be composed of women, the other group will be composed of men.
 We are requesting to hold focus groups in one (1) community in one (1) of the following
municipalities. Plan International should confirm these selections are feasible and
appropriate:
o La Libertad: San Matias (near river, has flood risk)
o Chatalenango: San Francisco Morazan (little rainfall, no river)
o Chatalenango: Nombre de Jesus (potentially prone to floods and landslides)
 Structure:
o Icebreaker activity and introductions
o Group activity on identifying and ranking issues related to changing weather and
environmental conditions
o Use provocative statements (e.g., based on initial findings in individual farmer
interviews) to encourage ongoing discussion on select “prompts”.
Group Introductions:
Open with ice breaker activity. A note-taker will collect basic participant information as part of
introductions.
Introduction
Department
Municipality
Community
Introduction:
Thank you for taking the time to talk with us today. We are a group of students from George
Washington University in Washington, D.C., and are here working with Winrock and Plan International
in order to learn about your work and the challenges you face. The goal of our meeting is to
understand the work you do on your farm, and how changes in weather and natural disasters have
affected the life of you and your family.
We would like this session to be interactive and encourage you to share your opinions. Although we
will audiotape this discussion, your identity will never be revealed, or connected in any way to your
comments. While we may report quotes collected during this interview, at no time will we connect
those comments with any individual. You are free to stop participating or withdraw at any time.
Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves. Please state your name, age, how many people
live in your household, and how many help farm. (We will add a fun icebreaker activity too)
Name
Age
# in house
# help farm
Participant 1
Back to Top
64
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Activity and Discussion
“We’ve spoken to many farmers in this area. They’ve shared that they’ve noticed many changes in
weather in the last few years. We are hoping to have a discussion with you on your opinion of the
changing weather, and how this is impacting you and your community.”
We’d like to do a group activity to identify and rank climate/weather issues observed by your
community…
First: Write down the changes in environment, climate and weather you have noticed on these cards.
Second: Lets place the cards on the board/table and we will discuss the results: i.e. does everyone
agree that “X”? Why do you think this has been occurring?
(DISCUSSION)
Third, write down on these cards how these changes have affected you or your community. We will
place these cards above the “causes” of the changes previously discussed. They will be arranged into
a “problem tree”, with the problems/issues forming the “roots” and the impacts/effects forming the
“branches”.
(DISCUSSION)
Everyone has been given different colored stickers. Please place your stickers on the cards that you
consider most important.
(DISCUSSION)
Potential Discussion Prompts:
Please tell us about weather patterns in the last few years.
Has weather been more unpredictable?
Does the rainy season start earlier/later?
Has the weather been more extreme?
Is rainfall more/less?
Is expected temperature higher or lower?
Have there been outbreaks of pests and disease in your community. Have you
experienced any unusual outbreaks in the past few years?
What do you think cause(s) could be?
Has there been an impact on crop yield, income, and your lifestyle from any of the
above issues? If yes, what?
How has your community responded?
Please share your experiences related to natural disasters (e.g., floods,
hurricanes, earthquake, land changes).
- How has your community been affected?
- Who is most impacted?
- Has there been an impact on crop yield, income, and your lifestyle from any of
the above issues? If yes, what?
Back to Top
65
- How has your community responded?
- Have you recovered from these disasters?
What do you think the cause(s) of this could be?
What have you done/can you do to reduce negative impact (assuming that
impacts are negative)?
Are you familiar with the idea of “climate change”?
• Thank you for your time today.
• Is there anything you would like to ask us?
• Is there anything else you would like to share?
Back to Top
66
Historical Interview Questions for Field Research
Purpose of historical interviews:
Explore climate change impacts on food supply and security, as well as on potential hazards that
threaten subsistence farmers in El Salvador. This set of interviews will focus on “historical depth”
and may touch on the interviewee’s perception of evolution of issues over time - at the individual and
community level.
Methodology:
 Conduct three (3) “life history interviews” with older, well-respected farmers (at least one of
whom will be female); one (1) older farmer interviewed per Department.
 We are requesting historical interviews with one older farmer in the following communities:
o Cabañas
o Chalatenango
o La Libertad
 Each interviewee will also be asked to compile a timeline related to environmental changes
and hazards observed on their farm/in their community.
Introduction:
Thank you for taking the time out to meet with us. We are a group of students from George
Washington University in Washington, D.C., and are here working with Winrock and Plan
International to help them and us learn about your work and the challenges you face. The goal of our
interview is to understand the changes that have occurred in the past and how changes in weather
and past disasters have affected the life of you, your family, and community. We will not share any of
the economic information with your names, and will keep other information in confidentiality that you
ask us to. However, we would like to be able to quote you about your experiences.
Historical Interview Prompts:
Questions are listed in the first column, elaborations and notes are provided in the second column.
Table 1: Basic Household Information
Department
Municipality
Community
Gender
1
What is your name?
2
What is your age?
3
How long have you lived in this community?
Table 2: Basic Farming Information
4
What crops do/did you grow?
Maize
Wheat
Sorghum
Beans
Rice
5
Have you seen farming techniques change over time?
6
If yes, what?
7
Why were changes implemented?
Back to Top
YES________
NO_________
67
Table 3: Perception of Changes and “Hazards”
(Complete a timeline along with questions/discussion)
We are interested in learning about the environment and weather in your community, from when you
were young until now. To help us understand this, we would like you to help us “map” important
events and changes in your community on this timeline.
We have drawn a timeline and marked important events that have occurred, for example, we have
listed “before the civil war”, “during the civil war”, “after the civil war”, last year, and now.
Please add important positive or negative events in chronological order on this line. Then we can
discuss the causes of the events and their impacts.
8
Please tell us about weather patterns over time. Do
you remember any important events? Have you seen
any changes?
ADD TO TIMELINE
9
If yes, what do you think the causes of these changes
could be?
10
Please discuss other changes you have seen in your
surrounding environment (e.g., forests, rivers).
11
How have you or your community been affected by
the “…..” changes/problems you mentioned?
12
Who is most affected?
13
Are there traditional methods or knowledge you or
your community used to adapt to changing
climate/weather conditions?
14
Are those strategies still being used?
15
El Salvador has been hit by a number of severe
weather events in the last decade, with much damage
to the agriculture sector.
Please share your experiences related to extreme
weather events (e.g., floods, hurricanes, earthquake,
land changes).
ADD TO TIMELINE
Examples: Storms Ida, Agatha, Mathew (2009-2010)
Tropical Storm Stan (Oct. 2005)
Earthquakes (Jan. and Feb. 2011)
Hurricane Mitch (Oct. 1998)
How have you/your family/the community handled
these events?
16
17
How have you/your family/the community handled
these events?
18
Have you noticed any trends in migration?
Generational trends/tendencies?
19
If yes, why are people leaving?
20
Are people leaving now for different reasons than
when you were younger?
• Thank you for your time today.
• Is there anything you would like to ask us?
• Is there anything else you would like to share?
Back to Top
68
Individual Farmer Survey (Spanish)
Back to Top
69
Back to Top
70
Back to Top
71
Back to Top
72
Back to Top
73
Focus Group Discussion Outline (Spanish)
Back to Top
74
Back to Top
75
Appendix 3: Community Information Table
Department
Libertad
Municipality
San Matias
Community
Las Flores
Information on Community
(Provided by Plan staff or Interviewees)
Plan’s Presence – worked here 2 years
Little crime - very tranquil community












La Libertad
San Matais
El Jicaro









71
80% of the economy is agriculture and livestock
Remittances – Families living in colorful houses in the
community receive remittances.
Primary production: maize, beans, sugar cane, (no
vegetables)
Livestock include: cows
Often burn sugar cane to harvest (to scare snakes,
sharp leaves). This is a bad practice but takes place
anyway
Sugar cane is generally harvested in March
Harvest is 2-3 weeks minimum
Farmers rent trucks to take the cane to sugar mills
There are 3 sugar cane mills nearby in Cabañas
Role of children on farm—Children, (10-12 years old)
often get $3-4 working 6 - 11 AM to pay for school
supplies; if family cannot afford to hire help, they pull
their children out of school to work on family farm.
Often, children help farm by bringing water/food to
field, helping to carry things, house chores, or farm
work directly.
School year is January - October. Often children are
older than their “grade” in school.
Water must be purchased from private vendor (e.g.,
water truck) at end of dry season
There is a farmers’ association
Plan’s presence – New to community (less trust)
San Lorenzo Cooperative operates within the
community
71
Cooperative : Social Enterprise to share production
of cattle and agriculture
Founded 30 years ago through government land
reforms
Currently have 78 members out of community of 1342
total (300 families)
Have a general assembly where elect a board and
president that sit for 3 years with 2 term maximum
Current president is the youngest in history (elected
because the cooperative wants to encourage young
to stay in the area and to stay in farming)
Shared land for grazing 450 heads of cattle and have
Information about the cooperative was received from interviewees
Back to Top
76





La Libertad
Tacachico
Huisisilapa








La Libertad
Tacachico
ARAS













72
a well to supply houses and to supply the cattle
New people cannot join because no one will give up
their limited lands that were originally paid for
Shared machinery (tractor, machinery for making
cattle feed)
If a member passes away, the land goes to the
spouse followed by children
Operates through a bank credit which is re-paid
through production
After loan payment the profit is used to give
retirement payments to elderly and then divided
among members based on number of days worked
Plan’s presence - more than 20 years
More developed than San Matais
Strong agriculture sector
Key production: rice, livestock, tilapia, loroco (edible
flower), basic grains, watermelon
No water in dry season
Comprised of many refugees from the civil war who
had fled from Chalatenango to Honduras and
returned after 7-10 years
Well organized, with strong women’s association
Has a community center that is teaching women and
girls embroidery and to sell the products
More developed than San Matais
Strong agriculture sector
Key production: rice, livestock, tilapia, loroco (edible
flower), basic grains, watermelon
This is an irrigation association that manages water
resources; has water all year round.
Inside ARAS, many groups (e.g., aquaculture,
livestock, loroco, rice)
Serves as “credit” source to members. Different
interest rates offered by credit organizations
depending on what product is being promoted/pushed
at the time (e.g., currently low interest rate for tilapia
to help this sector)
A tilapia production company exists within ARAS.72
Producing tilapia in the area for 20 years; Began with
technical assistance program from the Taiwanese
Mission.
Three years ago the cooperative’s tilapia production
became an enterprise.
Now have people that have trained in aquiculture at
university and they train all of their own employees.
They received 60k from the government and then
farmers matched the funds receiving stocks in return.
Currently have 105 members and employ seven
people.
Production cycle is in three phases (reproduction,
reversion, and development) and lasts 45 days.
Produce 3 million baby tilapia per year.
Information about the tilapia company was received from the director Mario
Back to Top
77




Chalatenango
San Francisco
Morazan


Higueral







Chalatenango
San Francisco
Morazan
La Laguna
Sell throughout the country but primarily in La
Libertad and 55 local tilapia farmers nearby.
Water is from the irrigation system and if get too
much water during rains they release it into nearby
fields.
Currently digging a new pond and expanding.
The director reported that “it has been a very good,
strong, safe business” and he could not name any
challenges, issues, or bad years.
High elevation in mountains
Crops include: mango, avocado, pineapple, orange,
etc.
Had received some support from World Food
Programme
Plan and Ministry of Health provided training on child
nutrition. Trained 4 women to weigh children and
track weight to note health, give advice on nutrition.
Water is piped from springs to nearby large town
Has a Peace Corp Volunteer
The community has 300 manzanas of shared land
that people can request to crop. The people do not
pay rent for land but leave mulch and sorghum to
maintain it.
Grazing land is rented for $6 per head of cattle. The
money is used to maintain fences and water.
The land is distributed by request not proportional to
farm size. Almost all people have individual lands.
Teosinte
La Cuchilla







A very active Peace Corp volunteer is present and
has helped on the farms, teaches about the
environment in the local school, and works with
women on operating small business such as making
and selling organic shampoos.
The community Catholic Church operates many
community groups. They have been around for many
years but really flourished 5 years ago.
The groups consist of men and women (told only a
minority of women do not participate)
Church Group: focused on the mass and teaching
about religion
Social Group: Organizes cleaning and environmental
projects in the community. The community pays to
send the leader around the country for trainings. He
then returns and shares the lesson with the group.
People have been taught about climate change,
disasters, and sustainable practices such as not
burning the land.
Civil Protection Group: organizes workers during
emergency; for example last rainy season all worked
together to cleanup a mudslide. This group also
watches for dangers and warns people. The school is
the local evacuation shelter but has not had to be
used for any hazards yet.
Micro-Credit: an NGO began a micro-credit group 3
Back to Top
78
La Laguna
Plan Verde
Nombre de
Jesus
Nombre de
Jesus
Junquillo
Quipure



Cabañas
Ilobasco
San Jose
Calera
Cabañas
Ilobasco
Huertas
Sensuntepeque
Los Yugos











Cabañas
Sensuntepeque
years ago that has since split into two groups with a
combined 70 members
Has a community organization that coordinates NGO
activities
There are three springs nearby but the water is not
potable and only used for cleaning.
Plan built a water pump but when turned on the pipes
burst and it broke. The community has gathered
money to buy replacement materials and is now
working with Plan and the mayor to fix it.
Very poor area
Interviewed only women as Plan works with women
here
Poorest and driest community visited so far
110 families; houses are far apart
Trees include: banana, coconut, mango, maize
Skinny cows
Very dry and dusty. Not as steep as Chalatenango
but much rockier and bumpier.
Took approx. 60 minutes for us to get there from the
last paved road.
A lot of land with dry grass (no crop stalk remnants)
unlike other communities
Stone fences and dry trees; a bit “greener” higher up
Impassible at 4 points during rainy season due to rise
of water level and stones blocking paths. Uncertain
how long this takes to clear (“it depends” how long
City Hall takes to move debris)
Las Marias
*The following information was taken from conversations with Plan staff during field visits. The team
requested additional information on each community, but did not receive it.
Back to Top
79
Appendix 4: Rainfall Patterns
Percentage of Total “Normal” Rainfall73
The following maps show the amount of rainfall experienced in September 2010 and October 2010
as a percentage of the total “normal” rainfall, with “normal” defined as a 20-year average. As
observed by the majority of farmers interviewed, there was above average rainfall in September and
below average rains in October.
73
(National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center)
Back to Top
80

Impact of Climate Change on Rural Salvadorian Farmers

Transcription

Similar documents

wlfm-postcard starburst - Westland

The HighGrow Agri Model

Horticulture Innovation Lab Regional Center at Zamorano in Honduras

The Barn

Jolly Jumper Moses Basket with Stand

Poster 1: Lessons from farmers in eastern New Zealand

FWAG Spring Conference 2015

lettre d\351cembre 2014 usa

Russell