This study examines grassroots organizations with respect to their effectiveness in initiating a cultural change in the agricultural practices in Central American countries. This study used qualitative data from a study conducted by Sustainable Harvest Internationals’ Honduras Affiliate. The study was done to assess the long-term impacts of the grassroots organization Sustainable Harvest International. They determined that a vast majority of participants had indeed improved their living conditions and were using sustainable agricultural practices. Additional successful grassroots are provided, exemplifying the advantages of grassroots organizations in making change. The success for these grassroots organizations could provide a format for other grassroots efforts across the globe

Field, Zach

English

UNH Scholars' Repository

PerspectivesSpring 2012 Article 135-1-2012Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Central AmericanCountries: Grassroots Effectiveness in InitiatingCultural ChangeZach FieldUniversity of New Hampshire, DurhamFollow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/perspectivesThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals and Publications at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository.It has been accepted for inclusion in Perspectives by an authorized editor of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information,please contact nicole.hentz@unh.edu.Recommended CitationField, Zach (2012) "Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Central American Countries: Grassroots Effectiveness in Initiating CulturalChange," Perspectives: Vol. 4 : Iss. 1 , Article 13.Available at: https://scholars.unh.edu/perspectives/vol4/iss1/13   99  Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Central American Countries: Grassroots Effectiveness in Initiating Cultural Change                 Zach Field ABSTRACT This study examines grassroots organizations with respect to their effectiveness in initiating a cultural change in the agricultural practices in Central American countries. This study used qualitative data from a study conducted by Sustainable Harvest Internationals’ Honduras Affiliate. The study was done to assess the long-term impacts of the grassroots organization Sustainable Harvest International. They determined that a vast majority of participants had indeed improved their living conditions and were using sustainable agricultural practices. Additional successful grassroots are provided, exemplifying the advantages of grassroots organizations in making change. The success for these grassroots organizations could provide a format for other grassroots efforts across the globe.  INTRODUCTION   Sustainability is one of the most common methods of reducing our impact on the environment.  It allows for continual cultivation of natural resources, while minimizing the degradation of the environment around it. With the advanced level of technology that pervades every corner of the United States comes the ability to increase sustainability in our agricultural practices. This is expensive however, and comes at the cost of government subsidies and regulation.    However, many nations around the world do not have the financial ability to subsidize technologically advanced sustainable agriculture. Nor do they have the governmental capacity to regulate the unsustainable practices and inform the people of alternative methods. Even if there is regulation and legislation in place to promote sustainability, farmers often ignore it.  As Hellin and Schrader (2003) note, “Farmer adoption rates… are low and many development organizations have reverted to using direct incentives, such as cash payments and food-for-work, to attract participating farmers. Research in Central America shows that whilst these incentives stimulate implementation of soil and water conservation (SWC) technologies, many of the farmers abandon the technologies once the direct incentives are withdrawn.”     There are, however, grassroots organizations that work independently of the government and run on the sweat, tears, and support of their members. These organizations 1Field: Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Central American Countries: GrasPublished by University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository, 2012   100  focus on an individual level. They interact with the issues and the people involved, in ways that bureaucratic and institutional organizations never will. Sustainable Harvest International is one of those organizations.  SUSTAINTABLE HARVEST INTERNATIONAL   Sustainable Harvest International is a non-profit group, founded in 1997. Their mission is simple, “provide farming families in Central America with the training and tools to preserve our planet's tropical forests while overcoming poverty” (sustainableharvest.org). They, like many other grassroots organizations, focus on the people involved in the issue. The issue here is the slash and burn farming techniques, in which local people cut and burn vast expanses of lush rainforest to provide fertile farmland. Once the land loses its fertility, or erodes, the farmers move to cut and burn another section of rainforest. The people who do this are not mean or malignant; they are poor and uneducated farmers attempting to make a living in some of the most rural areas in the world.    Sustainable Harvest understands this; they understand that these people want to preserve their land. “Desperate farmers longed for practical training to protect local forests and restore degraded lands. Not only concerned with increased agricultural yields, these farmers also wanted to leave a healthy ecosystem for future generations” (sustainableharvest.org). Sustainable Harvest employs people native to each region and trains them. These people then work with the rural communities to educate and train community members on sustainable practices. Sustainable Harvest has programs across four countries, in over 100 communities.   To determine the effectiveness of these programs, Sustainable Harvest conducted a survey in 2010. Overall, Sustainable Harvest is responsible for the planting of nearly three million trees, preventing thousands of acres of clear cutting, and teaching sustainable farming practices to over 550 families. Additionally, they have been responsible for the creation of local Sustainable Harvest groups, cooperatives, and even a number of rural banks. Of the families interviewed for the survey, over 80% had left a portion of their land as forest preservation. Over 75% had stopped slash and burn techniques, and the communities as a whole had mostly given up slash and burn. Finally, all of the families noted an improvement in their livelihood and well-being, citing an average income increase of 39% since graduating the Sustainable Harvest program.   While no one would argue that there is still much to be accomplished, Sustainable Harvest has achieved much over the past 14 years. They sought to change the mindset and the practices of the individuals and were successful. Humphrey, Lewis and Buttel (2002) measure success in an environmental movement as having five key components. It has membership growth, organizational survival and longevity, attainment of goals, acceptance into mainstream life, and acceptance into the political system. Sustainable Harvest has been successful in the first three of these components. The last two components are rather subjective, but the communities, socially and politically, appear to accept Sustainable Harvests’ program and 2Perspectives, Vol. 4 [2012], Iss. 1, Art. 13https://scholars.unh.edu/perspectives/vol4/iss1/13   101  results, as the data indicates. This has led to the creation of localized groups who focus on maintaining, promoting and educating current and future community members about the benefits and techniques of sustainable agriculture.   Sustainable Harvest reached out to the people, not with just money and food, but with a commitment, a relatable face, and a strategy that has proved successful repeatedly. They are not looking to change the policies surrounding the issues, they are not looking to change the institutions that may promote or ignore unsustainable practices. They look to change the individuals, the communities, and to make a lasting impact on them.  SUCCESSFUL GRASSROOTS EFFORTS   There are plenty of other examples of successful grassroots organizations, which demonstrate the advantages of the grassroots individual approach. From the story of the Riverkeepers in New York, to the Occupy Wall Street movement, grassroots organizations range in size, scope and mission. However, they all have the same methodology in focusing on reaching out to the people and communities to instigate change.    In the case of the Riverkeepers, a group of dedicated individuals, led by Boyle and Richie, fought to rid the Hudson River of all the corporations that polluted it. They were told “’we’re dealing with top officials in industry. You just don’t go around treating those kinds of people like that’” (Cronin and Kennedy, 1999). They were nothing if not persistent however, and were soon involved in successful litigation against some of the biggest polluters on the river. Richie’s comments before a Congressional Committee typified the movement, saying he was “’simply just a citizen who grew up along the Hudson,’ and who, like other who loved the river, was … ‘simply an American’” (Cronin and Kennedy, 1999). Their movement encompassed individuals from scientists to commercial anglers, anyone with an interest in the river was encouraged to get involved. Today, the Hudson River is one of the cleanest on the East Coast.   In Washington State, a community came together to work as a cohesive unit, united under a simple idea. They want to create local jobs, sustainable business, and keep the money in the community. They organized to “reconnect farmers with eaters, investors with entrepreneurs, and businesses like this one with the communities and ecosystems that they serve” (Fixing the Future, 2010). Their focus is promoting sustainable living, sustainable business, and sustainable agriculture. This community, as the documentary points out, is not just working but thriving.   Finally, the Occupy Wall Street is a grassroots organization that is successful in much the same way the aforementioned movements were. They are still very early in the stages of “grassroots-dom,” but the very fact that they have brought to light a topic that was taboo is a success in itself. Income disparity, ever present, has now become a popular topic of conversation, whether around the dinner table, or around legislation committee tables. They seek institutional change, but maintain a grassroots organizational base. They have spread, they 3Field: Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Central American Countries: GrasPublished by University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository, 2012   102  have grown, and as they say, they continue to evolve (occupywallst.org). The other movements all started out by framing the issue, gaining an audience and enlisting support. The Occupy movement has done the same, and as one of their many goals undoubtedly is, they seek to end the corporate exploitation of the environment.    One might critique these movements as focusing too much on changing the policies surrounding these issues. However, there is a distinction, though perhaps subtle. These groups are focusing on changing the perceptions, framing the topic to gain support, to inform and mobilize for a cause. In the case of the Riverkeepers, the policies were already in place to regulate pollution; no one was enforcing the policies. The Riverkeepers worked to change public views on the issue, to take the matter into their own hands (Cronin and Kennedy, 1999).  BUREAUCRATIC EFFORTS   While many of the grassroots movements do ultimately result in legislation and bureaucratic changes, the initial grassroots effort shapes the process and discussion surrounding the changes. These grassroots efforts are what instigate a cultural change, they are the most effective at creating an atmosphere that promotes and sustains a cultural change, which policies only supplement. Granted, there are examples of successful initial managerial changes that result in cultural changes. However, they are infrequent.   A case in Cuba successfully demonstrates this, when in the mid-1990s, the state turned parking lots into organic gardening, turning businesses into co-ops. These cooperatives now make up a majority of the agricultural output of the Cuba. The State, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, no longer had an abundant supply of oil, and needed a way to maintain agricultural production. This is an instance of cultural changes following bureaucratic ones (Cuba: The Accidental Revolution, 2006).   However, it is often the case that managerial changes prompt cultural ones. The Riverkeepers is ironically an example of this. In 1899, the federal government passed the Refuse Act, which was then never enforced. It took a community to take action before the Refuse Act was enforced.    Jared Diamond’s book, Collapse, illustrates the lack of influence a managerial approach has to creating environmental sustainability. In his example of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, he talks about the Haitian government attempting to stem the massive clear cutting of the precious little remaining forests. The government imported alternative cooking fuels, to curb the coal creation that resulted in massive deforestation. However, the poverty was so pervasive, that this did not work; the people did not stop, their lives depended on it. Across the border, a similar situation was taking place. While the government was largely much more successful at preserving the forests, there was little commitment from the rural communities to follow the dictators’ wishes. While some may consider this a success, the fact that many poor 4Perspectives, Vol. 4 [2012], Iss. 1, Art. 13https://scholars.unh.edu/perspectives/vol4/iss1/13   103  rural farmers continue to clear-cut is an indication of a disconnect between the instituted managerial changes and the individual cultural needs (2005).    Devra Davis, in her book, When Smoke Ran like Water, illustrates how the government struggled to institute change in the automobile industry. The automobile industry fought for decades to keep lead in gasoline, as it helped maintain the integrity of the car engine. Even with the litany of evidence showing the disastrous effects of leaded gasoline, it was not until the mid-1990s that last gasoline became lead free. Every step of the way, regardless of evidence, the automobile industry has fought change. The corporate interests are more powerful and overrepresented in the government legislation than the interests of the people. The effect is a slow and cumbersome process that, if eventually implemented, then requires dutiful regulation and oversight (2003).   Institutional change is often ineffective because it is difficult to implement, regulate, and enforce. Individual needs often trump institutional demands, corporate greed often stymies legislative processes, and institutions often do not have the resources to enforce positive legislation.  CONCLUSION   Grassroots organizations however, are the counter balance to individual needs, corporate greed, and resource depleted institutions. They focus directly on the individual needs and desires. They get to the core of the issue; they frame the issue and rally support to either make change themselves, or present a strong case for institutional change. Sustainable Harvest works directly with the individuals to improve their economic, social and environmental situation. These changes have resonated with the communities where they take effect, ultimately creating a community of sustainability and economic purpose otherwise unattainable.   Grassroots organizations change the culture of the issue, they reach people in relatable ways, and they serve the interests of communities. Occupy Wall Street exemplifies how quickly grassroots organizations can spread in this day and age, as well as how a previously taboo topic can become a common topic of discussion almost overnight. The community in Washington State shows how cooperation and a commitment to sustainability can benefit the entire community and promote growth. These are all evidence of how effective grassroots organizations can be.    The examples of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and the automobile industry show the difficulties faced by institutions in attempting managerial changes. Whether through ineffective implementation and regulation, or through insistent individual needs, institutional changes face difficulty in changing the cultural attitudes, particularly in poverty-stricken areas.  5Field: Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Central American Countries: GrasPublished by University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository, 2012   104  That is not to say that grassroots organizations do not have their difficulties. They often are limited in scope, and focus on one specific issue, in one specific area. They often remain small, are limited to specific locations, and their achievements usually limited.    However, they are still much more effective than larger, more cumbersome, managerial changes. The future of grassroots organizations is boundless. In fact, following the grassroots model portrayed by Sustainable Harvest, it would be interesting to see implementation in Africa and parts of Asia. Sustainable Harvest has done what institutions have not been able to do; they educated rural communities and introduced sustainable agricultural practices. They understood, worked with, and met the needs of these communities in ways that bureaucracies never could, and that is why they are so effective.  REFERENCES  Cronin, John and Kennedy, Robert F. Jr. 1999. The Riverkeepers: Two Activists Fight to Reclaim our Environment as a Basic Human Right. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.   Davis, D. 2003. When Smoke Ran Like Water: Tales of Environmental Deception and the Battleagainst Pollution. New York: Basic Books.  Diamond, J. D. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin.  Hellin, J. and Schrader, K. 2003. The case against direct incentives and the search for alternative approaches to better land management in Central America. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 99, 61–81.  Humphrey, C. R., T. L. Lewis, and F. H. Buttel (Eds.) 2002. Environment, Energy, and Society:  A New Synthesis – 1st Edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.  Occupy Wall Street. (2011). Occupy wall street. Retrieved from http://occupywallst.org/  Video: Cuba: The Accidental Revolution. 2006. Toronto: The Nature of Things / CBC.  Video: Fixing the Future. 2010. PBS / NOW       6Perspectives, Vol. 4 [2012], Iss. 1, Art. 13https://scholars.unh.edu/perspectives/vol4/iss1/13

Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Central American Countries: Grassroots Effectiveness in Initiating Cultural Change

University of New Hampshire

Perspectives
Spring 2012 Article 13
5-1-2012
Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Central American
Countries: Grassroots Effectiveness in Initiating
Cultural Change
Zach Field
University of New Hampshire, Durham
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/perspectives
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals and Publications at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository.
It has been accepted for inclusion in Perspectives by an authorized editor of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information,
please contact nicole.hentz@unh.edu.
Recommended Citation
Field, Zach (2012) "Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Central American Countries: Grassroots Effectiveness in Initiating Cultural
Change," Perspectives: Vol. 4 : Iss. 1 , Article 13.
Available at: https://scholars.unh.edu/perspectives/vol4/iss1/13
 
 
 
99 
 
Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Central American 
Countries: Grassroots Effectiveness in Initiating Cultural 
Change  
              
 
Zach Field 
ABSTRACT 
This study examines grassroots organizations with respect to their effectiveness in 
initiating a cultural change in the agricultural practices in Central American countries. 
This study used qualitative data from a study conducted by Sustainable Harvest 
Internationals’ Honduras Affiliate. The study was done to assess the long-term impacts 
of the grassroots organization Sustainable Harvest International. They determined that a 
vast majority of participants had indeed improved their living conditions and were using 
sustainable agricultural practices. Additional successful grassroots are provided, 
exemplifying the advantages of grassroots organizations in making change. The success 
for these grassroots organizations could provide a format for other grassroots efforts 
across the globe. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 Sustainability is one of the most common methods of reducing our impact on the 
environment.  It allows for continual cultivation of natural resources, while minimizing the 
degradation of the environment around it. With the advanced level of technology that pervades 
every corner of the United States comes the ability to increase sustainability in our agricultural 
practices. This is expensive however, and comes at the cost of government subsidies and 
regulation.  
 
 However, many nations around the world do not have the financial ability to subsidize 
technologically advanced sustainable agriculture. Nor do they have the governmental capacity 
to regulate the unsustainable practices and inform the people of alternative methods. Even if 
there is regulation and legislation in place to promote sustainability, farmers often ignore it.  As 
Hellin and Schrader (2003) note, “Farmer adoption rates… are low and many development 
organizations have reverted to using direct incentives, such as cash payments and food-for-
work, to attract participating farmers. Research in Central America shows that whilst these 
incentives stimulate implementation of soil and water conservation (SWC) technologies, many 
of the farmers abandon the technologies once the direct incentives are withdrawn.”  
  
 There are, however, grassroots organizations that work independently of the 
government and run on the sweat, tears, and support of their members. These organizations 
1
Field: Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Central American Countries: Gras
Published by University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository, 2012
 
 
 
100 
 
focus on an individual level. They interact with the issues and the people involved, in ways that 
bureaucratic and institutional organizations never will. Sustainable Harvest International is one 
of those organizations. 
 
SUSTAINTABLE HARVEST INTERNATIONAL 
 
 Sustainable Harvest International is a non-profit group, founded in 1997. Their mission is 
simple, “provide farming families in Central America with the training and tools to preserve our 
planet's tropical forests while overcoming poverty” (sustainableharvest.org). They, like many 
other grassroots organizations, focus on the people involved in the issue. The issue here is the 
slash and burn farming techniques, in which local people cut and burn vast expanses of lush 
rainforest to provide fertile farmland. Once the land loses its fertility, or erodes, the farmers 
move to cut and burn another section of rainforest. The people who do this are not mean or 
malignant; they are poor and uneducated farmers attempting to make a living in some of the 
most rural areas in the world.  
 
 Sustainable Harvest understands this; they understand that these people want to 
preserve their land. “Desperate farmers longed for practical training to protect local forests and 
restore degraded lands. Not only concerned with increased agricultural yields, these farmers 
also wanted to leave a healthy ecosystem for future generations” (sustainableharvest.org). 
Sustainable Harvest employs people native to each region and trains them. These people then 
work with the rural communities to educate and train community members on sustainable 
practices. Sustainable Harvest has programs across four countries, in over 100 communities. 
 
 To determine the effectiveness of these programs, Sustainable Harvest conducted a 
survey in 2010. Overall, Sustainable Harvest is responsible for the planting of nearly three 
million trees, preventing thousands of acres of clear cutting, and teaching sustainable farming 
practices to over 550 families. Additionally, they have been responsible for the creation of local 
Sustainable Harvest groups, cooperatives, and even a number of rural banks. Of the families 
interviewed for the survey, over 80% had left a portion of their land as forest preservation. 
Over 75% had stopped slash and burn techniques, and the communities as a whole had mostly 
given up slash and burn. Finally, all of the families noted an improvement in their livelihood and 
well-being, citing an average income increase of 39% since graduating the Sustainable Harvest 
program. 
 
 While no one would argue that there is still much to be accomplished, Sustainable 
Harvest has achieved much over the past 14 years. They sought to change the mindset and the 
practices of the individuals and were successful. Humphrey, Lewis and Buttel (2002) measure 
success in an environmental movement as having five key components. It has membership 
growth, organizational survival and longevity, attainment of goals, acceptance into mainstream 
life, and acceptance into the political system. Sustainable Harvest has been successful in the 
first three of these components. The last two components are rather subjective, but the 
communities, socially and politically, appear to accept Sustainable Harvests’ program and 
2
Perspectives, Vol. 4 [2012], Iss. 1, Art. 13
https://scholars.unh.edu/perspectives/vol4/iss1/13
 
 
 
101 
 
results, as the data indicates. This has led to the creation of localized groups who focus on 
maintaining, promoting and educating current and future community members about the 
benefits and techniques of sustainable agriculture. 
 
 Sustainable Harvest reached out to the people, not with just money and food, but with a 
commitment, a relatable face, and a strategy that has proved successful repeatedly. They are 
not looking to change the policies surrounding the issues, they are not looking to change the 
institutions that may promote or ignore unsustainable practices. They look to change the 
individuals, the communities, and to make a lasting impact on them. 
 
SUCCESSFUL GRASSROOTS EFFORTS 
 
 There are plenty of other examples of successful grassroots organizations, which 
demonstrate the advantages of the grassroots individual approach. From the story of the 
Riverkeepers in New York, to the Occupy Wall Street movement, grassroots organizations range 
in size, scope and mission. However, they all have the same methodology in focusing on 
reaching out to the people and communities to instigate change.  
 
 In the case of the Riverkeepers, a group of dedicated individuals, led by Boyle and 
Richie, fought to rid the Hudson River of all the corporations that polluted it. They were told 
“’we’re dealing with top officials in industry. You just don’t go around treating those kinds of 
people like that’” (Cronin and Kennedy, 1999). They were nothing if not persistent however, 
and were soon involved in successful litigation against some of the biggest polluters on the 
river. Richie’s comments before a Congressional Committee typified the movement, saying he 
was “’simply just a citizen who grew up along the Hudson,’ and who, like other who loved the 
river, was … ‘simply an American’” (Cronin and Kennedy, 1999). Their movement encompassed 
individuals from scientists to commercial anglers, anyone with an interest in the river was 
encouraged to get involved. Today, the Hudson River is one of the cleanest on the East Coast. 
 
 In Washington State, a community came together to work as a cohesive unit, united 
under a simple idea. They want to create local jobs, sustainable business, and keep the money 
in the community. They organized to “reconnect farmers with eaters, investors with 
entrepreneurs, and businesses like this one with the communities and ecosystems that they 
serve” (Fixing the Future, 2010). Their focus is promoting sustainable living, sustainable 
business, and sustainable agriculture. This community, as the documentary points out, is not 
just working but thriving. 
 
 Finally, the Occupy Wall Street is a grassroots organization that is successful in much the 
same way the aforementioned movements were. They are still very early in the stages of 
“grassroots-dom,” but the very fact that they have brought to light a topic that was taboo is a 
success in itself. Income disparity, ever present, has now become a popular topic of 
conversation, whether around the dinner table, or around legislation committee tables. They 
seek institutional change, but maintain a grassroots organizational base. They have spread, they 
3
Field: Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Central American Countries: Gras
Published by University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository, 2012
 
 
 
102 
 
have grown, and as they say, they continue to evolve (occupywallst.org). The other movements 
all started out by framing the issue, gaining an audience and enlisting support. The Occupy 
movement has done the same, and as one of their many goals undoubtedly is, they seek to end 
the corporate exploitation of the environment.  
 
 One might critique these movements as focusing too much on changing the policies 
surrounding these issues. However, there is a distinction, though perhaps subtle. These groups 
are focusing on changing the perceptions, framing the topic to gain support, to inform and 
mobilize for a cause. In the case of the Riverkeepers, the policies were already in place to 
regulate pollution; no one was enforcing the policies. The Riverkeepers worked to change 
public views on the issue, to take the matter into their own hands (Cronin and Kennedy, 1999). 
 
BUREAUCRATIC EFFORTS 
 
 While many of the grassroots movements do ultimately result in legislation and 
bureaucratic changes, the initial grassroots effort shapes the process and discussion 
surrounding the changes. These grassroots efforts are what instigate a cultural change, they are 
the most effective at creating an atmosphere that promotes and sustains a cultural change, 
which policies only supplement. Granted, there are examples of successful initial managerial 
changes that result in cultural changes. However, they are infrequent. 
 
 A case in Cuba successfully demonstrates this, when in the mid-1990s, the state turned 
parking lots into organic gardening, turning businesses into co-ops. These cooperatives now 
make up a majority of the agricultural output of the Cuba. The State, due to the collapse of the 
Soviet Union, no longer had an abundant supply of oil, and needed a way to maintain 
agricultural production. This is an instance of cultural changes following bureaucratic ones 
(Cuba: The Accidental Revolution, 2006). 
 
 However, it is often the case that managerial changes prompt cultural ones. The 
Riverkeepers is ironically an example of this. In 1899, the federal government passed the Refuse 
Act, which was then never enforced. It took a community to take action before the Refuse Act 
was enforced.  
 
 Jared Diamond’s book, Collapse, illustrates the lack of influence a managerial approach 
has to creating environmental sustainability. In his example of Haiti and the Dominican 
Republic, he talks about the Haitian government attempting to stem the massive clear cutting 
of the precious little remaining forests. The government imported alternative cooking fuels, to 
curb the coal creation that resulted in massive deforestation. However, the poverty was so 
pervasive, that this did not work; the people did not stop, their lives depended on it. Across the 
border, a similar situation was taking place. While the government was largely much more 
successful at preserving the forests, there was little commitment from the rural communities to 
follow the dictators’ wishes. While some may consider this a success, the fact that many poor 
4
Perspectives, Vol. 4 [2012], Iss. 1, Art. 13
https://scholars.unh.edu/perspectives/vol4/iss1/13
 
 
 
103 
 
rural farmers continue to clear-cut is an indication of a disconnect between the instituted 
managerial changes and the individual cultural needs (2005). 
 
  Devra Davis, in her book, When Smoke Ran like Water, illustrates how the government 
struggled to institute change in the automobile industry. The automobile industry fought for 
decades to keep lead in gasoline, as it helped maintain the integrity of the car engine. Even with 
the litany of evidence showing the disastrous effects of leaded gasoline, it was not until the 
mid-1990s that last gasoline became lead free. Every step of the way, regardless of evidence, 
the automobile industry has fought change. The corporate interests are more powerful and 
overrepresented in the government legislation than the interests of the people. The effect is a 
slow and cumbersome process that, if eventually implemented, then requires dutiful regulation 
and oversight (2003). 
 
 Institutional change is often ineffective because it is difficult to implement, regulate, 
and enforce. Individual needs often trump institutional demands, corporate greed often 
stymies legislative processes, and institutions often do not have the resources to enforce 
positive legislation. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 Grassroots organizations however, are the counter balance to individual needs, 
corporate greed, and resource depleted institutions. They focus directly on the individual needs 
and desires. They get to the core of the issue; they frame the issue and rally support to either 
make change themselves, or present a strong case for institutional change. Sustainable Harvest 
works directly with the individuals to improve their economic, social and environmental 
situation. These changes have resonated with the communities where they take effect, 
ultimately creating a community of sustainability and economic purpose otherwise 
unattainable. 
 
 Grassroots organizations change the culture of the issue, they reach people in relatable 
ways, and they serve the interests of communities. Occupy Wall Street exemplifies how quickly 
grassroots organizations can spread in this day and age, as well as how a previously taboo topic 
can become a common topic of discussion almost overnight. The community in Washington 
State shows how cooperation and a commitment to sustainability can benefit the entire 
community and promote growth. These are all evidence of how effective grassroots 
organizations can be.  
 
 The examples of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and the automobile industry show the 
difficulties faced by institutions in attempting managerial changes. Whether through ineffective 
implementation and regulation, or through insistent individual needs, institutional changes face 
difficulty in changing the cultural attitudes, particularly in poverty-stricken areas.  
5
Field: Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Central American Countries: Gras
Published by University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository, 2012
 
 
 
104 
 
That is not to say that grassroots organizations do not have their difficulties. They often are 
limited in scope, and focus on one specific issue, in one specific area. They often remain small, 
are limited to specific locations, and their achievements usually limited. 
  
 However, they are still much more effective than larger, more cumbersome, managerial 
changes. The future of grassroots organizations is boundless. In fact, following the grassroots 
model portrayed by Sustainable Harvest, it would be interesting to see implementation in Africa 
and parts of Asia. Sustainable Harvest has done what institutions have not been able to do; 
they educated rural communities and introduced sustainable agricultural practices. They 
understood, worked with, and met the needs of these communities in ways that bureaucracies 
never could, and that is why they are so effective. 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Cronin, John and Kennedy, Robert F. Jr. 1999. The Riverkeepers: Two Activists Fight to Reclaim 
our Environment as a Basic Human Right. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. 
  
Davis, D. 2003. When Smoke Ran Like Water: Tales of Environmental Deception and the 
Battleagainst Pollution. New York: Basic Books. 
 
Diamond, J. D. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin. 
 
Hellin, J. and Schrader, K. 2003. The case against direct incentives and the search for alternative 
approaches to better land management in Central America. Agriculture, Ecosystems and 
Environment, 99, 61–81. 
 
Humphrey, C. R., T. L. Lewis, and F. H. Buttel (Eds.) 2002. Environment, Energy, and Society: 
 
A New Synthesis – 1st Edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. 
 
Occupy Wall Street. (2011). Occupy wall street. Retrieved from http://occupywallst.org/ 
 
Video: Cuba: The Accidental Revolution. 2006. Toronto: The Nature of Things / CBC. 
 
Video: Fixing the Future. 2010. PBS / NOW 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6
Perspectives, Vol. 4 [2012], Iss. 1, Art. 13
https://scholars.unh.edu/perspectives/vol4/iss1/13


https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&amp;context=perspectives

Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Central American Countries: Grassroots Effectiveness in Initiating Cultural Change

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNH Scholars' Repository

University of New Hampshire

University of New Hampshire