Skip to main content

Deconstructing homegardens: food security and sovereignty in northern Nicaragua

Agriculture and Human Values volume 33, pages 239–255 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Development scholars and practitioners are promoting food security, food sovereignty, and the localization of food systems to prepare for the projected negative impacts of climate change. The implementation of biodiverse homegardens is often seen as a way not only to localize food production but also as a strategy in alignment with a food sovereignty agenda. While much scholarship has characterized and critiqued food security and sovereignty conceptualizations, relatively little research has examined people’s lived experiences in order to test how such theoretical visions play out on the ground in farming communities. Based on a case study of four coffee cooperatives in northern Nicaragua, we examine a non-governmental organization (NGO)-supported project promoting food security and sovereignty through development of homegardens. We ask: To what extent are homegardens an effective strategy to reach food sovereignty? And, why may farmers be resistant to changing their food production and consumption strategies to embrace biodiverse homegardens when they improve food security? We discuss characteristics of agroecological homegardens, the distinctions between food security, food sovereignty and dominant discourses of development, the history of food sovereignty in Nicaragua, and farmer perspectives on homegarden implementation. Despite historic critiques, NGOs are poised to facilitate the transformation of food and agricultural development by employing counter development strategies, a necessary step if homegardens are to be successful in the long term. To conclude, we propose some strategies NGOs and communities might pursue to move forward with homegardens as a food sovereignty strategy. This research suggests that a food sovereignty approach still rooted in mainstream development models faces significant obstacles to moving beyond food security and into a farmer-led food sovereignty agenda.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. The second-level cooperative is grouped into the category of “NGO” for this research since they were charged with the implementation of the project strategies. Historically, this is the role of NGOs but organizations like ADECOOP have adapted since the height of fair trade supported projects that employed second-level coops with what were traditionally roles carried out by development NGOs.

  2. Marx and Engels applied the idea of metabolism, an exchange where an organism draws upon materials and energy from its environment and converts these by way of various metabolic reactions into building blocks necessary for growth, to society and saw a major disconnect or “rift” in the recycling of nutrients back to the soil, this was the basis of his arguments against a capitalist agriculture that could no way maintain a consciousness to regenerate the resources it was extracting from the soil (Foster 1999, pp. 382–384).

  3. Economists (Sen 1981, 1987) and development scholars (Ericksen 2008; HLPE 2012) have since sharply criticized this Malthusian notion.

  4. At the time of release of this research, PCaC had facilitated multiple exchanges of Segovian farmers to other regions of Nicaragua, Honduras, and elsewhere. PCaC is a farmer movement, or social process methodology developed in the 1970s in Mexico. The process employs a popular education methodology where farmers share with their peers innovative new solutions to problems that are common among many farmers. This method offers some direction in how to overcome development discourse by depending on local realities and ingenuity (Holt-Gimenez 2006).

Abbreviations

ADECOOP:

Pseudonym for a second-level coffee cooperative in Nicaragua’s Segovias region

ATSC:

Pseudonym for a local Nicaraguan NGO

NAC:

Pseudonym for a US-based NGO

NGO:

Non-governmental organization

References

  • Adler, P.A., and P. Adler. 1987. Membership roles in field research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M.A. 2009. Agroecology, small farms, and food sovereignty. Monthly Review 61(3): 102–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M.D., and A.C. Bellows. 2012. Introduction to symposium on food sovereignty: Expanding the analysis and application. Agriculture and Human Values 29(2): 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apthorpe, R., and D. Gasper. 1996. Reading development policy and policy analysis: On framing, naming, numbering, and coding. The European Journal of Development Research 8(1): 16–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arce, A., and N. Long, eds. 2000. Anthropology, development, and modernities: Exploring discourses, counter-tendencies, and violence. New York: Routledge.

  • Barkin, D. 2006. Building a future for rural Mexico. Latin American Perspectives 33(2): 132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkin, D. 2002. The reconstruction of a modern Mexican peasantry. Journal of Peasant Studies 30(1): 73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, A. 2007. Social movements and the politicization of chronic poverty. Development and Change 38(5): 793–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H.S., and B. Geer. 1957. Participant observation and interviewing: A comparison. Human Organization 16(3): 28–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beuchelt, T., and D. Virchow. 2012. Food sovereignty or the human right to adequate food: Which concept serves better as international development policy for global hunger and poverty reduction? Agriculture and Human Values 29(2): 259–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, J.A., and T.W. Walker. 1993. Understanding Central America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, J. 2009. Food security, food sovereignty, and local challenges for transnational agrarian movements: The Honduras case. Journal of Peasant Studies 37(2): 319–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.C., and M. Purcell. 2005. There’s nothing inherent about scale: Political ecology, the local trap, and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon. Geoforum 36(5): 607–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burmeister, L.L., and Y.J. Choi. 2012. Food sovereignty movement activism in South Korea: National policy impacts? Agriculture and Human Values 29(2): 247–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2013. Reclaiming food security. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2011. The real cost of cheap food. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • CEPAL. 2010. The economics of climate change in Latin America and the Caribbean. Santiago, Chile: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condra, A. 2012. Food sovereignty in the United States: Supporting local and regional food systems. Journal of Food Law and Policy 8: 281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deere, C.D., and P. Marchetti. 1985. The peasantry and the development of Sandinista agrarian policy, 1979–1984. Latin American Research Review 20(3): 75–109.

  • Desmarais, A.A. 2008. The power of peasants: Reflections on the meanings of La Via Campesina. Journal of Rural Studies 24(2): 138–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmarais, A., and H. Wittman. 2013. Farmers, foodies and first nations: Getting to food sovereignty in Canada. Conference paper #3, Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue, Yale University, New Haven CT, 14–15 September.

  • Djankov, S., J. Montalvo, and M. Reynal-Querol. 2008. The curse of aid. Journal of Economic Growth 13(3): 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douwe van der Ploeg, J.D. 2010. The peasantries of the twenty-first century: The commoditization debate revisited. Journal of Peasant Studies 37(1): 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterly, W., and W.R. Easterly. 2001. The elusive quest for growth: Economists’ adventures and misadventures in the tropics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R.M., R. Fretz, and L. Shaw. 2011. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Enriquez, L. 1991. Harvesting change: Labor and agrarian reform in Nicaragua, 1979–1990. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enriquez, L. 1985. The dilemmas of agro-export planning in revolutionary Nicaragua. In Nicaragua: The first five years, ed. T.W. Walker, 42–64. New York: Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enriquez, L., and R.J. Spalding. 1987. Banking systems and revolutionary change: The politics of agricultural credit in Nicaragua. In The political economy of revolutionary Nicaragua, ed. R.J. Spalding, 105–125. Boston: Allen & Unwin, Inc.

  • Ericksen, P.J. 2008. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change 18(1): 234–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, A. 1992. Imagining a post-development era? Critical thought, development, and social movements. Social Text 31–32: 20–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eyzaguirre, P.B., and O.F. Linares. 2007. Homegardens and agrobiovidersity. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn, M. 2012. Framing transformation: The counter-hegemonic potential of food sovereignty in the US context. Agriculture and Human Values 29(2): 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2008. Declaration of the high-level conference on world food security: The challenges of climate change and bioenergy. Rome: FAO Newsroom. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2008/1000829/index.html.

  • FAO. 1996. Rome declaration on world food security and world food summit plan of action. World Food Summit, 13–17 November 1996. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

  • Farrington, J., and A. Bebbington (eds.). 1993. Reluctant partners? Non-governmental organizations, the state, and sustainable agricultural development. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, J.B. 1999. Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: Classical foundations for environmental sociology. American Journal of Sociology 105(2): 366–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galjart, B. 1995. Counter-development: Possibilities and constraints. In Community empowerment: A reader in participation and development, eds. G. Craig, and M. Mayo. London: Zen Books.

  • General Law on Food Sovereignty, Food Security, and Nutrition. 2009. Law No. 693. http://legislacion.asamblea.gob.ni/Normaweb.nsf/($All)/B58490A0C8DAB2AD06257657006A573D?OpenDocument.

  • Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2010. Post-development possibilities for local and regional development. In Handbook of local and regional development, eds. A. Pike, A. Rodriguez-Pose, and J. Tomaney, 1–17. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2006. The end of capitalism (as we knew it): A feminist critique of political economy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, S., and G. Mohan. 2005. Relocating participation within a radical politics of development. Development and Change 36(2): 237–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HLPE. 2012. Climate change and food security. A report by the high level panel of experts on food security and nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome.

  • Holt-Gimenez, E. 2006. Campesino a Campesino: Voices from Latin America’s farmer to farmer movement for sustainable agriculture. Oakland, CA: Food First.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt-Giménez, E. 2002. Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: A case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 93(1): 87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt Giménez, E., and A. Shattuck. 2011. Food crises, food regimes, and food movements: Rumblings of reform or tides of transformation? Journal of Peasant Studies 38(1): 109–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hospes, O. 2013. Food sovereignty: The debate, the deadlock, and a suggested detour. Agriculture and Human Values 31(1): 119–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development). 2009. Agriculture at a crossroads: Executive summary of the synthesis report. Washington, DC: Island Press. http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Executive%20Summary%20of%20the%20Synthesis%20Report(English).pdf.

  • Kabeer, N. 1994. The structure of revealed preference: Race, community, and female labor supply in the London clothing industry. Development and Change 25(2): 307–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, J. 2011. Understanding non-governmental organizations in community development: Strengths, limitations, and suggestions. International Social Work 54(2): 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A. 1999. The development of capacity. NGLS Development Dossier. New York: CDRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurjanska, M. 2012. Partners for Peru: The collaboration of development-oriented organizations and coffee cooperatives on local social, economic, and environmental development projects. LASA Presentation: University of São Paulo, March 12.

  • Lawrence, G., and P. McMichael. 2012. The question of food security. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 19(2): 135–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linkogle, S. 1998. Soya, culture, and international food aid: The case of a Nicaraguan communal kitchen. Bulletin of Latin American Research 17(1): 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lofland, J., and L. Lofland. 1995. Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C., and G.B. Rossman. 2011. Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 2014. Historicizing food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6): 933–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 2012. The land grab and corporate food regime restructuring. Journal of Peasant Studies 39(3–4): 681–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Méndez, V., R. Lok, and E. Somarriba. 2001. Interdisciplinary analysis of homegardens in Nicaragua: Micro-zonation, plant use and socioeconomic importance. Agroforestry Systems 51(2): 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystem and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskow, A.L. 1996. The contributions of urban agriculture in Havana, Cuba, to individual control and community enhancement. PhD dissertation, University of California, Davis.

  • NAC and ATSC. 2011. Diagnostico desarrollado en 18 cooperativas afiliadas a ADECOOP en el marco del proyecto seguridad alimentaria y nutricional. Esteli, Nicaragua: NAC and ATSC de Nicaragua.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ninez, V.K. 1986. Household gardens: Theoretical considerations on an old survival strategy. Lima, Peru: International Potato Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD/FAO. 2012. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2012–2021. OECD Publishing and FAO.

  • Patel, R. 2009. What does food sovereignty look like? Journal of Peasant Studies 36(3): 663–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, R. 2007. Transgressing rights: La Vía Campesina’s call for Food Sovereignty. Feminist Economics 13(1): 87–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto, I., J.H. Vandermeer, and A.L. Wright. 2009. Nature’s matrix: Linking agriculture, conservation, and food sovereignty. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peek, L., and A. Fothergill. 2009. Using focus groups: Lessons from studying daycare centers, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina. Qualitative Research 9(1): 31–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimbert, M.P. 2008. Towards food sovereignty: Reclaiming autonomous food systems. International institute for environment and development (IIED).

  • Roberts, S.M. 2005. NGOs and the globalization of managerialism: A research framework. World Development 33(11): 1845–1864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosset, P.M., R. Patel, and M. Courville (eds.). 2006. Promised Land: Competing visions of agrarian reform. Oakland, CA: Food First Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosset, P.M., B.M. Sosa, A.M.R. Jaime, and D.R. Lozano. 2011. The campesino-to-campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: Social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(1): 161–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, H.J., and I. Rubin. 2012. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Washington DC: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiavoni, C., and R. Patel. 2009. The global struggle for food sovereignty: From Nyéléni to New York. Journal of Peasant Studies 36(3): 682–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S., and P.A. Niederle. 2010. Resistance strategies and diversification of rural livelihoods: The construction of autonomy among Brazilian family farmers. Journal of Peasant Studies 37(2): 379–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A.K. 1987. Hunger and entitlements. Japan: World Institute for Development Economics Research.

  • Sen, A.K. 1981. Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and depression. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SIMAS (El Servicio de Informacion Mesoamericano sobre Agricultura Sostenible). 2010. Contextos de la soberania alimentaria en Nicaragua. Managua, Nicaragua: Honduras y Guatemala.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, N. 2006. The economics of climate change: The stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utting, P. 1988. The peasant question and development policy in Nicaragua. IDS Bulletin 19(3): 40–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargas-Lundius, R., G. Lanly, M. Villarreal, and M. Osorio. 2008. International migration, remittances, and rural development. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

  • Veteto, J.R., and K. Skarbo. 2009. Sowing the seeds: Anthropological contributions to agrobiodiversity studies. Culture & Agriculture 31(2): 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Braun, J., J. McComb, B.K. Fred-Mensah, and R. Pandya-Lorch. 1993. Urban food insecurity and malnutrition in developing countries: Trends, policies and research implications. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, B. 1991. War on the land: Ecology and politics in Central America. London: Zed Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, E. 1985. To feed or to educate: Labeling in targeted nutrition interventions. Development and Change 16(3): 475–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windfuhr, M., and J. Jonsen. 2005. Food sovereignty: Towards democracy in localized food systems. Warwickshire: ITDG Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wittman, H. 2009. Reworking the metabolic rift: La Via Campesina, agrarian citizenship, and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 36(4): 805–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittman, H., A. Desmarais, and N. Wiebe. 2010. Seeing like a peasant: The origins of food sovereignty. In Food sovereignty: Reconnection food, nature, and community, ed. H. Wittman, A. Desmarais, and N. Wiebe, 1–14. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2007. Agriculture for development: World development report 2008. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. 2014. Food sovereignty in practice: A study of farmer-led sustainable agriculture in the Philippines. In Globalization and food sovereignty: Global and local change in the new politics of food, ed. P. Andrée, J. Ayres, M.J. Bosia, and M.J. Massicotte, 199–227. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yachkaschi, S. 2012. Engaging with community-based organizations. In Capacity development in practice, eds. J. Ubels-Naa-Aku Acquaye-Baddoo, and A. Fowler, 194–207. London: Earthscan.

  • Yin, R.K. 2009. Case study research, design, and methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zalkin, M. 1990. The Sandinista agrarian reform: 1979–1990. International Journal of Political Economy 20(3): 46–68.

  • Zoomers, A. 2010. Globalization and the foreignization of space: Seven processes driving the current global land grab. Journal of Peasant Studies 37(2): 429–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research would not have been possible without the participation of the Nicaraguan respondents who took time away from their labors to participate in interviews, Erika Pérez who not only facilitated the connections with participating organizations but also provided necessary moral support, Christopher Bacon for inviting me to participate in the research and Maria Eugenia Flores for sharing perspectives and logistical support in dissemination of this research to the participating Nicaraguan cooperatives, Karen Sanchez for much needed methodological and moral support, the technicians at the second-level cooperative for collaborating and facilitating research while working overtime 6 days a week, and Roberta Jaffe and Steve Gliessman for sustained mentorship over the years. The authors would also like to thank Michael Carolan and Maria Fernandez-Gimenez for their mentorship, comments, and asking the hard questions that contributed to this paper. All errors are ours. Karie Boone received financial support from the Center for Collaborative Conservation to carry out this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Karie Boone & Peter Leigh Taylor

Authors
  1. Karie Boone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Leigh Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karie Boone.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boone, K., Taylor, P.L. Deconstructing homegardens: food security and sovereignty in northern Nicaragua. Agric Hum Values 33, 239–255 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9604-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9604-0

Keywords

  • Food sovereignty
  • Food security
  • Nicaragua
  • Development discourse
  • Homegardens