Victoria Ccf 2011

8/3/2019 Victoria Ccf 2011

1/19

CCF ANALYSIS OF FOODINSECURITY TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE PROVIDERS IN

EASTERN GUATEMALA

Victoria LeBeaux


2/19

Outline

Background: Copanchorti Guatemala

Food Insecurity in Copanchorti

Technical Assistance Providers

Research Questions

Methodology

Data Preliminary Findings and CCF analysis

Discussion


3/19


4/19


5/19


6/19

Food Insecurity


7/19


8/19

Technical Assistance

Provider An entity (either governmental or non-

governmental) working on a not-for-profitbasis (i.e. does not receive payment fromclients for services provided) in the region ofCopanchorti, Guatemala (in themunicipalities of Jocotan, Camotan, Olopa,

and/or San Juan Ermita) to improve thelivelihoods of families in the region.


9/19


Providers Lack of information about these actors as a

group

Individual Projects Individual Organizations

Donors

But not across organizations


10/19


Providers The development industry has become an

important component of both life and of thelocal economy. Most educated people are, orhave been, working for the developmentprograms and institutions and development

jargon has become part of peoples everyday

language (Warren 2005).

Warren, Patrizio. "Between the Household and the Market:A Livelihoods Analysis of

SPFS-Promoted Seed Multiplication in Eastern Guatemala." 2005.http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/j5566e/j5566e00.htm#Contents


11/19

Research Questions

What contributions to communitydevelopment do TAPs see themselvesproviding?

Are any capitals lacking support from theactors at this level in the agrofood system?

Are there any common challenges faced by

TAPs working in this region, and what are theimplications for the TAPs and the communitiesin which they work?


12/19

Methods/Data

Consulted with Key Informants to get sample Sample = 26 organizations

Qualitative Research:

Semi-structured Interviews Site visits to communities where projects are taking

place

Observation of project activities (ex. Farmer field

days, capacity building classes, etc) Commentaries from clients (families on the receiving

end of development project outreach services).


13/19

Methods/Data

February June 2011

18 organizations (70% of sample)

25 hours of taped interviews

12 item questionnaire In which villages do they work

Number of families involved

Source and amount of financing

Number and type of staff

Documentation from TAPs


14/19

Analysis (so-far)

Lack of bridging social capital

Social capital building between TAPs COMUSAN (COMISION MUNICIPAL DE SEGURIDAD

ALIMENTARIA Y NUTRICIONAL )

Monthly meetings are ill attended

Send different people each time

Why?

Competition

Lack of time/pressure to perform (project evaluations)

Hindering:

Knowledge/resource sharing and building

Build and utilize political capital

Major employers, handle millions of dollars, individual politicalcontacts


15/19

Analysis (so-far)

Human capital

Within individual organizations

Understaffed

Little (if any) training in gender aspects of

development Across organizations (viewed as a group)

Lack of leadership skills Example: Mancommunidad office Intent is to help municipalities get started and

handoff to them, so they can continue theprojects in the long run, but generally this fails


16/19

Analysis (so-far)

Natural Capital has a defining influence on the

way TAPs work/on the work that they do Geography

Part of a major watershed Upper Lempa RiverWastershed (contamination, water shortages)

Soil Quality (rocky, highly eroded, little organicmatter)

Climate (erratic weather, severe weather)

How to account for this in my analysis, withoutdiminishing the importance of the othercapitals?


17/19


18/19

Closing Thought

CCF useful in this analysis because these TAPsare in themselves a type of communitycommunity of organizations

Potential to combine the CCF with other tools(Ex. Theory of organizations; geopoliticalanalysis)


19/19

Discussion

Ch'ahp'ei'x ta'p'a

(Thank you)Questions/Comments?

Documents

Victoria Ccf 2011