Agroecology on the periphery: A case from the Maya-Achí territory, Guatemala

ABSTRACT

In this paper we examine processes of scaling agroecological practices in the Maya-Achí territory of Guatemala. We compare the Achí case to other examples documented in the literature and the key factors, or “drivers,” reported as important if not essential for scaling to occur. We find that the Achí scase is complex with regard to these drivers. Factors such as constructivist learning/teaching methods, favorable public policies, and strong social fabric appear to be weak, absent, or even negative. This is due in part to the violence and repression of the 1980s, which resulted in the assassination of 20 percent of the population by the military and paramilitaries, leaving the territory socially fragmented. Projects incorporating agroecology (revalorization of ancestral practices, seed saving, elimination of external inputs, strengthening soil health, increasing/guarding agrobiodiversity) are viewed as a potential strategy to aid in community recovery, and are promoted by local associations as well as by international institutions and NGOs. While social and cultural recuperation were initially hypothesized as primary causes for the adoption of practices, we encounter a range of additional and complex factors, such as the expectation of economic benefits and the presence of aid and development organizations. By analyzing these drivers and barriers we contribute to the ongoing debate over how agroecological practices may be scaled-out, particularly in regions exhibiting less than ideal conditions.

KEYWORDS:

• Agroecology
• Maya-Achí
• Guatemala
• non-governmental organizations
• development

Acknowledgments

We are deeply indebted and grateful to the promotores and promotoras of Qachuu Aloom, the participants, as well as the numerous community leaders who helped us carry out this work. Without your patience and assistance none of this would have been possible. We also give many thanks to Marc Edelman and Peter Rosset for their valuable comments and input.

Notes

1. Since 2008, the lead author has been visiting the Achí territory, as a human rights observer, consultant on local projects, and researcher. This inevitably informed the questions and hypothesis of this research, and facilitated long-term trusting relationships with organizations.

2. Under Rosset and Alieri’s (2017) much more detailed explanation of scaling, our definition would be considered “scaling-out,” in contrast to that of “scaling-up” which deals with vertical processes of grassroots/local moving into political/institutional realms.

3. While recognizing the potentially loaded connotation of the term “technical assistance” or “technician,” we acknowledge that the methodologies employed by this group, as well as most others in the territory, are indeed influenced by more conventional methods of teaching, often comprising a sort of hybrid between it and more horizontal forms.

4. While many farmers claim that there was no need for soil enhancement techniques before the 1970s, due to the natural fertility, a number of them also speak about the ancestral use of applying zompopo (leaf cutter ant) litter, and ashes, to their fields to improve fertility. We also acknowledge the role and importance of traditional management of organic matter, through the mulching of plant residues, as well as the use of polycultures, rotations, and agroforestry.

5. In one particular community we document the widespread use of agroecological practices alongside a constant turnover of development projects that use financial payments as a means to motivate residents, with a noted high level of success.

6. We recognize that not all ancestral practices are or should be deemed agroecological. Certain customs, such as the burning of fields (leftover organic material that would better be composted for soil fertility) and forests, to create pasture, are looked down upon by all organizations, and conform part of their sensibilización (consciousness-raising) program, with the goal to teach about their ineffectiveness and damaging consequences, as well as propose other options.

7. Clearly there are examples that speak otherwise. In our experience with one particular program that works with the children of massacre survivors, we find great interest in linking historical memory and cultural recuperation with that of ancestral practices and knowledge.