Potentials and constraints of the farmer‐to‐farmer programme for environmental protection in Nicaragua

Abstract

The natural environment in Nicaragua has been damaged by rural development policies geared for the export of cash crops, by uneven land distribution and the near absence of concerns about the environmental effects of the prevailing model of development. The demands made by market forces for the export of primary materials have been reasons for land degradation in the big farms, and the need to survive a poverty stricken existence has forced the peasantry to damage the marginal and fragile land they worked. Successive governments did not address these underlying causes of environmental degradation, and even the opportunities afforded by the environment programme that resulted from the 1979 Sandinista revolution, did not result in significant environmental improvements. The paper briefly considers the constraints faced by the Sandinista administration and how the farmer-to-farmer programme (Campesino-a-Campesino) was brought about as a result of the impacts of the Sandinista era. The substantive part of the paper considers PCAC's significance as an agroecological programme and its advantages and limitations for improving peasants' livelihoods via dissemination of land-protective measures. The viability of the programme is assessed by field work carried out examining in detail the case of three communities, and the paper concludes that the gains made in environmental protection and conservation are in jeopardy without structural policy changes. The paper proposes that for the programme to improve its potential, adequate political will, power and organization are necessary to facilitate greater access to secure land tenure among the peasantry.

Disseminating Improved Practices: Are Volunteer Farmer Trainers Effective?

“…However, travel distances reduced as they acquired experience because farmers nearby began to seek their services as their ability became apparent. Our findings agreed with those of Braun and Hocde (2000) and Hawkesworth et al (2003), who reported that credibility and ability of farmer trainers needs to be tested and seen by farmers in order for them successfully to share their knowledge and experiences with others.…”

Enantioselectivity in degradation and ecological risk of the chiral pesticide ethiprole

“…This information is conducive to the development of chiral pharmaceuticals and pesticides with a short half-life, high bioactivity, and low ecological toxicity. Importantly, the chiral ethiprole enantiomers exert dramatically different influences on soil microbial community structures and ecological succession in agroecosystems (Hawkesworth & García Pérez, 2003). Therefore, we propose that the enantioselective behavior and resultant ecotoxicology of chiral pesticides need to be considered in pesticide registration before the application of a chiral pesticide in agricultural systems.…”

Voluntarism as an investment in human, social and financial capital: evidence from a farmer-to-farmer extension program in Kenya

“…At the center of this approach are farmer trainers, known by many different names in different countries and projects. In Nicaragua, the farmer trainers are known as promoters (Hawkensworth and Garcia Perez 2003) while the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology in Kenya calls them farmer teachers (Amudavi et al 2009). In Burkina Faso, farmer trainers are known as farmer advisors (Lenoir 2009) while in Peru they are known as farmer extension agents (Kamayoq) (Hellin and Dixon 2008).…”