Ryan Isakson on Crop Diversity in Guatemala

July 2008

A large part of PERI’s mission is the training of new progressive, socially-engaged economists. In these occasional interviews, we highlight the work of graduate students and recent graduates. In this interview, Smita Ramnarain, current Ph.D. student in Economics, questioned recent graduate Ryan Isakson about his dissertation and his choice of the University of Massachusettsfor his graduate work.

Ryan Isakson received his Ph.D. in 2007. He is an Assistant Professor of International Development Studies at Saint Mary's University, Canada. His research interests lie at the intersection of rural livelihood strategies, poverty alleviation, and the sustainable management of environmental assets. His current research explores how the cultivation of biofuels affects the food security of peasant farmers.

Your dissertation was titled “Between the Market and the Milpa: Market Engagements, Peasant Livelihoods and the On-Farm Conservation of Crop Genetic Diversity in the Guatemalan Highlands.” How did you arrive at such a specific area of study?

In my dissertation I investigate how different forms of market participation shape the livelihood strategies of peasant farmers in the Guatemalan highlands and their conservation of agricultural biodiversity. As you might suspect, I didn’t have this research question in mind when I started my postgraduate education. Even though I had a vague appreciation for the concept of ‘biodiversity,’ like most people, I hadn’t considered that humankind’s food crops would not be able to adapt to changing environmental conditions unless a sufficient pool of germplasm was maintained in farmers’ fields. Moreover, I had no idea that peasant farmers from the global south – the very individuals who are often conceptualized as the development ‘problem’ – were, in fact, responsible for conserving the vast majority of this diversity, ultimately securing the global food supply and providing an invaluable environmental service.

I know that it’s not the most exciting path to come upon one’s dissertation topic, but I learned about the relevance of crop genetic diversity and its contribution to global food security in a paper by my soon-to-be advisor, Jim Boyce. He was on sabbatical at the time; I happened across the article while conducting a literature review for my economic development class. The subject immediately captivated me. In particular, I was intrigued that the economic activity of food production could actually improve environmental sustainability and that the farmers responsible for conserving diversity were often among the most politically, economically, and socially marginalized people in the world. It was a textbook example of what economists refer to as a ‘positive externality’: peasant farmers in the global south produce something of value to all of humanity (viz. the conservation of crop genetic diversity) but they do not receive any compensation for their efforts. From a social justice perspective, this struck me as unfair. At the same time, it also presented a paradox: development in the centers of agricultural biodiversity could displace the peasant farmers who conserve the vast majority of crop genetic diversity, bringing the unintended consequence of eroding a key pillar of global food security.

Intrigued by this paradox, I began exploring strategies for improving the living conditions of peasant farmers that would encourage – rather than undermine – the agricultural practices linked with the on-farm conservation of crop genetic diversity. Under the guidance of Professor Boyce, I conducted a literature review on the relationship between intellectual property rights, traditional knowledge, and crop genetic resources.

While the review was very informative, a preliminary research trip to Guatemala was even more influential. Recognized by botanists as a ‘megacenter’ of diversity, Guatemala has experienced a profound economic, political, and social transformation over the last decade. The 1996 Peace Accords that ended nearly four decades of civil war in the country ushered in a number of neo-liberal development policies and an even larger number of NGOs and aid initiatives eager to implement them. Given that much of the literature on crop genetic resources had hypothesized that the expansion of markets would inevitably result in genetic erosion, I was curious how the new and expanding linkages with global markets were transforming Guatemalan peasants and their conservation of agricultural biodiversity.

What guided your choice of Guatemala for fieldwork?

I entered graduate school with the specific intention of specializing in sustainable development in Latin America. My decision to research crop genetic diversity narrowed the possible research sites to the three countries recognized as hotspots for agricultural biodiversity in Latin America: Mexico, Peru, and Guatemala. Honestly, I think that I would have been happy conducting research in any of these countries. In fact, I hope that I will someday have the opportunity to do so. The particular political and economic conditions in Guatemala at the end of the 1990s are what drew me to begin my research there. Even by Latin American standards, the country had one of the highest degrees of inequality, but the recently completed peace agreement had fostered a contagious sense of optimism in the country. Though many of the promises that were made have yet to be fulfilled, the country has undergone a profound political and economic restructuring in the last ten years. I was fortunate to have had the opportunity to conduct my research during this unique juncture in history.

What surprised you the most in carrying out your research?

The finding that surprised me the most was that expansion of markets does not inherently result in lower levels of crop diversity on Guatemalan farms. While the development of certain types of markets can be linked either directly or indirectly to the loss of crop genetic resources, the development of other types of markets may actually facilitate their conservation. For example, households that are more heavily reliant upon hired agricultural field hands tend to maintain less diversity in the field. But, at the same time, income from other types of markets (e.g. regional labor markets, remittances from the U.S., and the home-based production of petty commodities) may actually enable the cultivation of crop genetic resources by generating much-needed income for peasants who would otherwise be unable to subsist on an insufficient quantity of poor quality land. Whether farmers’ participation in the market economy has a positive or negative impact on crop genetic resources is heavily contingent upon the social contexts in which those markets operate. In particular, I found that cultural values and political processes play a very important role in determining whether market activities contribute to or undermine the conservation agricultural biodiversity.

How are peasant livelihoods connected with the conservation of crop genetic diversity?

By all measures, the agricultural diversity conserved by farmers in the Guatemalan highlands is impressive. In addition to cultivating a variety of fruit trees, legumes, squash, herbs, and greens, the typical agricultural household grows three varieties of maize (or ‘corn’). Some families grow as many as five maize varieties on less than one hectare of land. That diversity stands in great contrast to the uniformity of the ‘modern’ agriculture that is practiced in industrial nations. In the United States, for instance, corn is the most widely grown crop, accounting for 15% of the total agricultural acreage. Not only is most maize monocropped in the States, but a mere six varieties of the crop account for nearly half of the total area.

A number of factors account for the rich agricultural diversity maintained by Guatemalan peasants. In part, the motivations are economic. Historically isolated from commodity markets, peasants had to cultivate a range of crops in order to fulfill their various subsistence needs. While some varieties of maize are better suited for tortillas, others make better quality tamales, still others are used to make various specialty dishes. Some varieties have short growing times, while others have a later harvest. Growing various types of maize also enables farmers to hedge against the risk that a particular variety will perform poorly in a given year.

In addition to economic motivations, environmental factors also encourage farmers to cultivate a diversity of crops. Like most centers of agricultural biodiversity, the landscape of the Guatemalan highlands is dramatic. With 12,000 foot mountains plummeting down into wide river valleys, there are a variety of growing environments. Accounting for differences in altitude, rainfall, and soil quality, farmers match seeds to the different environmental niches. Peasant farmers demonstrate impressive agro-ecological knowledge. This is particularly evident in the predominant agricultural system known as milpa, where maize is intercropped with beans, squash, and other useful plants. When grown together, the three principal milpa crops are agronomic complements. The maize grows tall and upright; its stalks providing support for the beans to climb and eliminating the need for poles. Symbiotically, the beans fix nitrogen in the soil, providing important nutrients for the maize and squash. For its part, the squash, with its large leaves, provides a ground cover that discourages weeds and maintains moisture in the soil.

Lastly, cultural and social reasons help to account for the rich agrodiversity in the highlands. Most peasants in the Guatemalan highlands are of Mayan descent. They are still deeply influenced by the Mayan creation myth, the Pop Wuj, which describes how the gods created humans from maize. Invoking Mayan symbolism, many farmers discuss the non-agricultural traits associated with the different colors of maize and – stressing the Mayan value of complementarity – believe that it is necessary to balance one color of maize with another. Maize also plays a very important role in contemporary social relations: sharing seeds with family members and neighbors helps to fortify social bonds, and donating surplus crops to community celebrations and those who have fallen upon hard times help to strengthen communal ties.  

Influenced by the various economic, environmental, cultural, and social forces, Guatemalan peasants cultivate a variety of crops – and even multiple varieties of any given crop – on their small plots of land. As the crops cross-pollinate, farmers select seeds with desired traits, ensuring a constant flow of new crop varieties and the dynamic conservation – as opposed to static preservation – of agricultural biodiversity.

How do you see crop genetic diversity in Guatemala being challenged over time? What policies can be brought about to reverse the adverse effects seen thus far?

As I mentioned, the conservation of crop genetic diversity is shaped by a variety of forces. For most Guatemalan peasants, cultivating diversity is more than the economic practice of producing crops. It is also an expression of cultural identity, a means for fortifying social bonds, and a creative response to the varied environmental conditions of the highlands. Given the multiplicity of factors shaping its conservation, it is difficult to predict the future of agricultural biodiversity in this genetic hotspot. What is clear, however, is that the erosion of crop genetic diversity in Guatemala is not a forgone conclusion. With creative interventions that respect cultural difference and reward farmers for their environmental stewardship, it is possible to achieve development goals while simultaneously fortifying this cornerstone of global food security.

One of the greatest threats to agricultural biodiversity is the loss of habitat. Most Guatemalan peasants are crowded onto small plots of land. Redistributing land from the elites who tend to cultivate export crops or leave their land fallow would fulfill one of the peasantry’s principal development goals (namely, leveling the country’s highly unequal agrarian structure) while creating additional habitat. The little land that is available for milpa agriculture is threatened by urban sprawl and population growth. Selling agricultural easements to farmers and communities who wish to continue cultivating traditional crops would protect genetically diverse habitats and generate additional income for the peasant farmers who maintain them. In terms of population growth, partial solutions can be found in rural women’s desire for greater reproductive rights and access to education.

As I discuss in my dissertation, there are a number of other possible mechanisms for achieving the peasantry’s development goals while encouraging the ongoing conservation of agricultural biodiversity. These include flexible, well-paying jobs that would enable farmers to improve their economic conditions while granting them the flexibility to attend to more culturally and socially fulfilling activities such as cultivating subsistence crops for household consumptions; the creation of niche markets that generate a price premium for farmers who cultivate rare crop varieties with desirable traits; and simply recognizing and respecting farmers for their important contribution to global food security rather than condemning them as ‘backward’ and an impediment to Western visions of development.

What was the experience of doing fieldwork like for you? Do you have any advice for those aspiring to incorporate field research in their own dissertations?

Conducting field research in the Guatemalan highlands was a lot of fun and an incredibly educational experience. Most economists base their research on models or secondary sources. Working in the fields with farmers, sharing meals with them and their families, and partaking in community celebrations not only provided the basis for some great friendships, it also allowed me to contextualize my research. Knowing the farmers and the ways in which they construct their world enabled me to ask better and more informed questions and to process their responses more appropriately. Over time the farmers and I became increasingly comfortable and open with one another; I like to think that that provided me with a more informed understanding than I would have otherwise had.

Even though I have very fond memories of my fieldwork experience, I can’t say that it wasn’t without its difficulties. As an economist, I was not trained in qualitative research methods and spent a lot of time learning them in the field. Additionally, conducting field research in a foreign culture can be very isolating. Even though people were unbelievably friendly, I often felt very alone. Fortunately, I had some good friends and fellow graduate students who were also conducting field research in the area. The ability to compare notes and share our experiences with one another was comforting and helpful. One of them was an anthropologist; I’m incredibly grateful for his patience in discussing qualitative research methods with a hopeless economist.

In terms of advice, I would highly suggest learning about qualitative research methods in advance. Talk with people who have recently conducted fieldwork about their experiences (particularly people in the ‘softer’ social sciences) and check out a couple of good books (Russell Bernard’s Social Research Methods provides a helpful overview). Additionally, try to coordinate your fieldwork experience with a friend. It’s much better being able to share the experience!

Why did you choose the University of Massachusetts for your graduate work?

I first learned about the economics program at UMass from my undergraduate advisor at the University of Utah. He was aware of my interest in social justice and heterodox economics and knew that I had particularly enjoyed my courses with E.K. Hunt. When I told him that I was interested in pursuing a PhD in economics, he immediately suggested that I consider the program at UMass. I still remember the giddy feeling that I got when first reading about the program. I was struck by the ideological breadth of the department’s faculty and a curriculum that entailed a diversity of economic theories and demonstrated a commitment to placing economic processes in their historical and social contexts. Equally important, I read the profiles of Jim Boyce and Carmen Diana Deere and knew that I’d have capable mentors to help guide me through my overlapping interests in sustainable development, agriculture, and Latin America. A few years passed before I eventually arrived at UMass – I dabbled in the publishing business, obtained a second bachelors degree in Spanish, and had a couple of false starts down different paths – but those experiences strengthened my resolve to enroll in the program and undoubtedly heightened my appreciation for UMass’ unique approach to the study of economics.