How Do Social Disparities Shape Differentiated
Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change?
Applying an Intersectional Lens to the Case of Cocoa Smallholders
in Southwestern Ecuador
Belle de Jonge
Research Master International Development Studies Student Number: 10642293
Email: belle-dejonge@hotmail.com Word count: 29.939
Supervisor: dr. E.A.J. (Esther) Miedema Second reader: dr. M.A.F. (Mirjam) Ros-Tonen
I. Abstract
Climate change can have a particularly detrimental impact on the lives and livelihoods of smallholders in rural areas due to their marginalized location, direct reliance on the natural environment and low levels of agricultural technological innovation. Adaptive capacity represents the potential of an actor or set of actors to adapt to climate change and is shaped by social processes. Existing literature has found disparities in adaptive capacity between
smallholders of different social categories due to gender inequalities and other factors. However, few studies seek to explain why those disparities occur. To address this gap, this thesis aims to analyze how different compositions of social categories result in differentiated adaptive capacity of cocoa smallholder farmers in the context of southwestern Ecuador. This study examines six key domains of adaptive capacities: economic resources, social capital, awareness and training, technology, infrastructure and institutions. Using an intersectional feminist framework, this study focuses on the heterogeneity of smallholders, and moves beyond previous research by further disaggregating according to gender, age, class and levels of formal education. The research builds on a sequential design and was initiated with a bottom-up approach of participant observation to inform the semi-structured interviews held with smallholders. It concluded with external expert interviews and a reflection meeting with smallholders for triangulation purposes. The data demonstrates that disparities are shaped by unequal access to education, training, decision-making power, economic resources and gender inequality. The strengthening of social
organization, increasing awareness of climate change, enhancing gender equality and access to education is needed to increase the adaptive capacity of smallholders. This study reveals the shortcomings of a homogenous representation of smallholders, and how it obscures the underlying reasons for which adaptive capacity is disparate.
Keywords: climate change, adaptive capacity, gender, intersectional feminist framework, smallholder farmers, Ecuador
II. Acknowledgements
En Ecuador conocí gente maravillosa y generosa. Un agradecimiento muy especial a mis vecinos en Santa Rosa que me dieron la bienvenida en mi lugar de investigación, me ofrecieron un lugar para quedarme, cenas y me invitaron a unirme a ocasiones festivas e incluso a un viaje familiar. Gracias a ti tuve un hogar lejos del hogar durante el período de mi investigación.
Quisiera expresar mi más profundo agradecimiento al agrónomo Figueroa, mi supervisor local, que hizo posible ejecutar mi investigación en el área.
Agradezco especialmente a mis padres y a mi hermano por estar allí para mí, por alentarme y confiar, les agradezco desde el fondo de mi corazón su genuino apoyo emocional en mi búsqueda de la justicia.
Estoy particularmente agradecido a los Dres. Esther Miedema, que proporcionó críticas constructivas y al mismo tiempo me animó a estructurar mis pensamientos y otras razones. Esta tesis marca el final del programa de dos años, el maestro de investigación de estudios de desarrollo internacional. Tuve la suerte de tener colegas maravillosos, valientes e inspiradores a los que ahora puedo llamar amigos. Quiero agradecer especialmente a Alyssa Schmirler, Marijke Huzen y Tatjana Zemeitat por su apoyo y el tiempo que tomaron para aconsejarme sobre mi tesis.
In Ecuador I met wonderful and generous people. A very special thanks to my neighbors in Santa Rosa who welcomed me on my research location, offered me a place to stay, dinners, and invited me to join festive occasions and even a family trip. Thanks to you I had a home-away-from-home during the period of my research.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to agronomist Figueroa, my local supervisor, who made it possible to execute my research in the area.
My special thanks go to my parents and brother for being there for me, for encouraging and trusting, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your genuine emotional support in my pursuit of justice.
I am particularly grateful to Drs. Esther Miedema who provided constructive criticism while also encouraging me to structure my thoughts and further reason.
This thesis marks the end of the two-year program, the research master international development studies. I was lucky enough to have wonderful, courageous and inspiring colleagues that I can now call my friends. I want to especially thank Alyssa Schmirler, Marijke Huzen and Tatjana Zemeitat for their support and the time they took to advise me on my thesis. Finally, I want to thank my good friend Josephine Eisses for the illustrations she made for my thesis.
III. Acronyms and Abbreviations
CNN-511: Coleccion Castro NaranjalCONAIE: Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FEPP: Fondo Ecuatoriano Populorum Progressio
GAD: Gender and Development
INAMHI: Instituto Nacional Meteorologia e Hidrologia INEC: Instituto Nacional De Estadística Y Censos IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IMF: International Monetary Fund
KIT: Royal Tropical Institute
NGO: Non-governmental Organization
OPEC: Organization of Oil-exporting Countries SDGs: Sustainable Development Goals
UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change WED: Women, Environment and Development
IV. List of figures, images and tables
Figures
Figure 1 Acceptance of climate change 49
Figure 2 Perceived reasons for climate change 52
Figure 3 Irrigation systems 58
Figure 4 Agrochemical usage 61
Figure 5 Overall participation 74
Figure 6 Participation in different kinds of groups 74
Figure 7 Participation in training of smallholders who weren’t member of a group 76
Figure 8 Participation in training of smallholders who were member of a group 76
Images
Image 1 Left cocoa CNN-51, right cocoa nacional 46
Image 2 Monilla in cocoa CNN-51 53
Image 3 Left is cocoa nacional affected by monilla and right is a healthy cocoa nacional 54
Image 4 Gravity irrigation system 57
Image 5 Sprinkling irrigation system 57
Image 6 Bottles of agrochemical products found in the fields 60
Image 7 Bottle of agrochemical products found in the fields 60
Image 8 Farmer showing his soil with earthworm, to reassure he did not use chemicals 62
Tables
Table 1 Research participants 32
V Table of Contents
I. ABSTRACT ... 2
II. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 3
III. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ... 4
IV. LIST OF FIGURES, IMAGES AND TABLES ... 5
Figures ... 5
Images ... 5
Tables ... 5
1. INTRODUCTION ... 13
1.1 THE INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON SMALLHOLDER FARMERS ... 13
1.2 EXPLAINING DISPARATE ADAPTIVE CAPACITY ... 15
1.3 A CASE STUDY OF COCOA SMALLHOLDER FARMERS ... 16
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 17
1.5 THESIS OUTLINE ... 17
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 19
2.1 INTRODUCTION ... 19
2.2 CLIMATE CHANGE ... 19
2.2.1 Human-induced climate change ... 19
2.2.2 Mitigation and adaptation ... 20
2.2.3 Measured climate change and perceptions of climate change ... 20
2.3 CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ... 21
2.3.1 Vulnerability, exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity ... 21
2.3.2 From vulnerability to adaptive capacity ... 22
2.4 ADAPTATIONS TO CLIMATE CHANGE ... 22
2.4.1 The concept of adaptation ... 22
2.4.3 Examples of adaptation practices ... 23
2.4.4 Concurrent enhancing of social and environmental wellbeing ... 24
2.5 ADAPTIVE CAPACITY ... 24
2.5.1 The concept of Adaptive Capacity ... 24
2.5.2 Determinants of adaptive capacity ... 24
2.6 INTERSECTIONALITY IN ADAPTATION RESEARCH ... 25
2.6.1 Using an Intersectional Lens ... 25
2.6.2 The aim of an intersectional framework ... 26
2.7 CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND CONCLUSION ... 27
3. METHODOLOGY ... 29
3.1 INTRODUCTION ... 29
3.2. RESEARCH PARADIGM AND STRATEGY ... 29
3.2.1 The transformative paradigm ... 29
3.2.2 Ontology ... 29
3.2.3 Epistemology ... 29
3.3 SEQUENTIAL RESEARCH DESIGN ... 30
3.4 UNIT OF ANALYSIS, SAMPLING STRATEGY AND SAMPLE ... 30
3.4.1 Unit of analysis ... 30
3.4.2 Sampling strategy ... 30
3.4.3 Sample ... 31
3.4.4 Selecting Participants of Reflection Meeting ... 32
3.5 DATA COLLECTION METHODS ... 32
3.5.1 Participant Observation ... 32
3.5.2 Semi-structured interviews with internal experts ... 33
3.5.3 Semi-structured interviews with external experts ... 34
3.6 QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS ... 34 3.7 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES ... 35 3.7.1 Axiology ... 35 3.7.2 Code of Conduct ... 35 3.7.3 Giving Back ... 35 3.8 QUALITY CRITERIA ... 36 3.9 POSITIONALITY STATEMENT ... 37 3.9.1 Positionality ... 37
3.9.2 The outsider position ... 37
3.9.3 Challenges regarding positionality ... 37
3.9.4 Power (im)balances ... 38
3.10 RESEARCH CHALLENGES ... 38
3.10.1 Interviewing Individually ... 38
3.10.2 A remote location and finding suitable spaces to execute research ... 38
3.11 CONCLUSION ... 39
4. COCOA FARMERS IN SOUTHWESTERN ECUADOR ... 40
4.1 INTRODUCTION ... 40
4.2 HISTORY ... 40
4.2.1 Cocoa: the seed of gold ... 40
4.2.2 Changing position of Ecuadorian cocoa production ... 40
4.3 ECONOMY ... 41
4.3.1 A new ‘gold’ mine discovered ... 41
4.3.2 Debts, economic crisis and dollarization ... 42
4.4 POLITICS ... 42
4.4.1 An end to the turbulent years ... 42
4.4.3 Moreno succeeds Correa ... 43
4.4.4 The 2019 protests ... 43
4.5 DEMOGRAPHICS ... 44
4.5.1 Ecuador’s inhabitants ... 44
4.5.2 The conditional cash transfer program ... 44
4.5.3 Migration ... 44
4.6 THE RESEARCH LOCATION ... 45
4.6.1 Where are the villages situated? ... 45
4.6.2 Relatively short period of habitation ... 45
4.6.3 Landowners and day laborers ... 46
4.7 GENDER RELATIONS ... 47
4.7.1 Gender roles in rural areas ... 47
4.7.2 Gender relations in the production process of cocoa ... 47
4.7.3 Lower female participation in planting and selling cocoa ... 48
4.8 CONCLUSION ... 48
5. A JUMBLE OF PERCEPTIONS, WITH A LOGICAL EXPLANATION ... 49
5.1 INTRODUCTION ... 49
5.2 PERCEPTIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ... 49
5.2.1 Climate Changes ... 49
5.2.2 No Climate Change ... 51
5.2.3 Perceptions of cause of Changes ... 51
5.2.4 Effects on Crops ... 52
5.3 MEASURED CLIMATE CHANGE ... 54
5.3.1 Rainfall ... 55
5.3.2 Temperature ... 55
5.3.4 The effect of deforestation on rainfall patterns ... 56
5.4 ADAPTATIONS TO CLIMATE CHANGE ... 56
5.4.1 Irrigation ... 57
5.4.2 Agricultural Chemicals ... 60
5.4.3 Reforestation ... 64
5.4.4 Other Forms of Adaptation ... 64
5.4.5 No adaptations ... 66
5.4.6 Migration ... 67
5.5 CONCLUSION ... 68
6. CAPTURING DISPARITIES IN ADAPTIVE CAPACITY ... 70
6.1 INTRODUCTION ... 70
6.2 DETERMINANTS OF ADAPTIVE CAPACITY ... 70
6.2.1 Important determinants according to internal and external experts ... 70
6.2.2 Determinants are interrelated ... 75
6.3 EXPLAINING DISPARITIES IN ADAPTIVE CAPACITY ... 77
6.3.1 Gendered role patterns: Who works and who helps? ... 77
6.3.2 Access to training ... 82
6.3.3 Decision making power in public sphere ... 84
6.3.4 Decision making power in private sphere ... 85
6.3.5 Decision-making power regarding adaptations ... 86
6.3.6 Awareness of Climate change and age ... 87
6.3.7 Awareness of climate change and farming experience ... 88
6.3.8 Awareness of climate change and education ... 88
6.4 CONCLUSION ... 89
7. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION ... 90
7.2 SOCIAL DISPARITIES SHAPING ADAPTIVE CAPACITY ... 90
7.2.1 Gender ... 90
7.2.2 Age ... 91
7.2.3 Education ... 91
7.2.4 Intersecting social categories ... 91
7.3 THEORETICAL REFLECTIONS ... 92
7.3.1 Intersectionality ... 92
7.3.2 Adaptive capacity ... 92
7.4 METHODOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ... 93
7.5 IMPLICATIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE ... 93
7.6 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH IN THE RESEARCH AREA ... 94
7.7 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ... 95
7.8 CLOSING REMARKS ... 96
VI. REFERENCES ... 98
VII. APPENDICES ... 102
APPENDIX 1. PARTICIPANT LISTS ... 102
1.1 Individual interviews – internal experts ... 102
1.2 Focus Group Discussion ... 105
1.3 Individual interviews – external experts ... 105
APPENDIX 2. LOGBOOK ... 106
APPENDIX 3. OPERATIONALIZATION TABLE ... 109
3.1 Climate change ... 109
3.2 Adaptive capacity (to climate change) ... 109
3.3 Intersecting social categories ... 112
APPENDIX 4: PROFILES OF SMALLHOLDERS WITH DIFFERING ADAPTIVE CAPACITIES ... 114
4.2 Profile of a smallholder with low Adaptive Capacity: Julio Ruiz ... 114
4.3 Profile of a smallholder with low-average Adaptive Capacity: Raquel Martinez ... 115
4.4 Profile of a smallholder with average Adaptive Capacity: Lara Gonzalez ... 116
1. Introduction
1.1 The influence of climate change on smallholder farmers
Julio Ruiz is a 74-year-old cocoa farmer and lives alone in a house at the entrance of the village of Rambután in Ecuador. He never had the possibility to go to school, like most community members of his age, so he does not know how to read or write. Julio has worked in agriculture all his life. He has one hectare of land with irrigation where he grows cocoa, banana, yucca and citrus fruits. The farm is his only source of income. In the past years, Julio saw changing patterns in the climate. The rains became unpredictable, drizzle rain occurs more often and the
temperature slightly rose. As a result, his crop yield has diminished due to diseases and plagues in his cocoa.
Lara Gonzalez is a 37-year-old cocoa farmer from Santa Rosa, just about 10 km away from Rambután. She lives with her husband and her youngest daughter. She had her first daughter at a young age and therefore did not pursue an education after primary school. Lara works on the farm, although she describes it more as supporting her husband than working. Lara in not so involved on the farm and therefore does not have extensive knowledge on producing cocoa and climatic changes.
The household of Lara depends on an irrigation farm of three hectares for their income. When needed, their youngest daughter helps on the farm as well. They do not contract other people because it is expensive. They do not participate in many groups, but are connected to the group that organizes irrigation. She did not participate in training. Lara believes that the climate has changed, but she does not really see ways in which they could change the way they work on the farm. She does not feel motivated to make changes, unless there would be a clear indication that it would improve their (economic) position.
Juan Garcia is a 46-year-old cocoa farmer and a respected community member of Santa Rosa. He had the opportunity to continue studying after high school and acquired a lot of knowledge on agriculture and cocoa. He grew up in Santa Rosa, where he now lives with his wife and four children. Juan has 10 hectares of land that he inherited. On his plantation, he installed different irrigation systems. He took up credits to finance his agricultural activities. The cocoa he produces, he first dries on his family’s tendal2 and in their drying machine, before selling it.
Juan works on his land together with employees. One employee works for him six days a week and a few other laborers work for him every once in a while. He has a lot of responsibilities in
addition to his farm, so his employees often work without him, such as when he travels to the city for meetings with an organization or the local government. He is president of various groups and well known by all community members. Juan also maintains good contact with the agronomist of Fondo Ecuatoriano Populorum Progressio (FEPP)3 and other influential figures in the area such as the leaders of the communities of Rambután and Los Canelos. He is well aware of climate change and he is taking little steps to make small adaptations on his farm, such as lowering the amount of chemicals that he uses.
Julio, Lara, and Juan are all part of the same cocoa producing community; yet, they experience the effects of climate change differently. Julio worries about the decrease in his crops, while Lara is not planning on implementing adaptation to climate change on her farm, whereas Juan
currently dreams of opening his own chocolate factory in the area. As we see, for Julio climate change is a threat to his existence, but Lara is indifferent, and Juan works around it.
Julio is not alone in his existential struggle against climate change. Rapid and uncertain changes in temperature and rainfall pattern in the tropics and subtropics, deepen the vulnerability of agricultural systems, especially food production (Abdul-Razak & Kruse, 2017). These changes can have detrimental effects as “the well being of 700 million people globally is dependent on social–ecological systems via agriculture and fisheries”(Cohen et al., 2016, p. S309). Smallholder farmers in rural areas, like Julio, Lara and Juan, are especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change (Mashizha, 2019). This vulnerability is expected to worsen over time and cause a
significant decline in the production of important and staple food crops (ibid.).
While for many years researchers focused on biophysical factors in agricultural context of adaptation to climate change, it is increasingly acknowledged that social issues cannot be neglected (Cohen et al., 2016; Ribot, 2014; Friedman et al., 2019). The United Nations’ 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) highlights that current challenges concerning climate change are as much about equality and social justice as they are about biodiversity, ecosystems and the environment and need to be addressed as an ‘indivisible whole’ (Ravera et al., 2016).
Social issues shape the vulnerability of people to climate change to a great extent. Cinner et al. (2018, p. 117) define vulnerability as a combination of the exposure (i.e. the local display of climate change), sensitivity (i.e. the dependency of people on affected resources) and adaptive capacity (i.e. to which extent they can adapt or even take advantage of experienced changes). Differences in vulnerability arise from non-climatic factors, multidimensional inequalities, and are often produced by uneven global and local development processes. Heightened vulnerability is the product of intersecting social processes that result in inequalities in socioeconomic status
and income, as well as in exposure. Such social processes include, for example, discrimination on the basis of gender, class, ethnicity, age, and (dis)ability (IPCC, 2014).
1.2 Explaining disparate adaptive capacity
Scholars, such as Ribot (2014), point out that there is little research that examines why adaptive capacity is lacking, why assets are inadequate or why social protections are absent or fail. “We must take a structured look back to evaluate how and why societies place and leave certain categories of people at risk” (Ribot, 2014, p. 4). Researching lack of adaptive capacity as a cause in itself is not enough, scholars should be asking what shapes adaptive capacity.
The existing body of literature on disparities in adaptive capacity to climate change falls short in that it focuses on who has a certain degree of adaptive capacity rather than why a person has a certain degree of adaptive capacity. For example, Abdul-Razak and Kruse (2017) found that female farmers and farmers without formal education have a lower adaptive capacity than male farmers and farmers with formal education. They go on to argue that the expectation that women are among the groups that are negatively impacted by climate change can be confirmed.
However, the differences between women (or between farmers without formal education) and how these can be explained remain unexplored. To focus on only gender (or any other identity category in isolation), bears the risk of homogenizing a group of women or men (Jost et al., 2016). Using an intersectional lens helps to avoid the risk of homogenizing a group. I explain the notion of intersectionality in more depth in the theoretical chapter (chapter 2).
In general, research on climate change has often overlooked gender and the recognition of the significance of gender as a dimension in environmental studies is quite recent (Ravera et al., 2016). In the mid 1990s feminist political ecologists introduced a conceptual framework for examining human-environmental issues. Critical issues of power were addressed explicitly, and gendered forms of knowledge and gendered governance structures of the environment were emphasized. More recently, feminist political ecology has incorporated the intersectional approach. I explain the notion of intersectionality in more depth in the theoretical chapter
(chapter 2). This approach helps to explain how different gender identities, associated with other identities, are co-produced through power relations, shaped in everyday life and explain different interactions with land, water, trees or other natural resources (Ravera et al., 2016). Using this lens, we can also try and understand how Lara’s situation is yet again different from both Julio’s and Juan’s.
Why a person has a certain degree of adaptive capacity and how disparate adaptive capacities are shaped are central questions, since these questions lead the way to examine and alter underlying structures that cause disparate adaptive capacity. Until now there are only a few scholars that attempted to do research on these questions (Cohen et al., 2016; Friedman et al., 2019). A better understanding of how social inequality affects, and is affected by, efforts to build adaptive
capacity is crucial to avoid unintended effects of policies that try to increase adaptive capacity, and outcomes that may unwittingly aggravate social inequalities (Cinner et al., 2018).
This research disaggregates identities of participants further than earlier studies, to understand additional nuances in depth. As Friedman et al. (2019) proposed for future studies, I chose to do an empirical study that incorporates the complexity of intersecting identities in its design. By focusing on disparities in adaptive capacity, it is expected that this study will contribute to efforts to support smallholder farmers with low adaptive capacity whilst avoiding the risk of
exacerbating inequalities that can result from approaches that do not take disparate adaptive capacity into account.
1.3 A case study of cocoa smallholder farmers
My research focused on cocoa smallholder farmers like Julio, Lara and Juan in Southwestern Ecuador, as they are especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change, yet their farms are extremely important for the worldwide cocoa production. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that over 80 % of cocoa comes from 7 to 8 million small, family-managed cocoa farms worldwide (Vaast & Somarriba, 2014). The smallholders that produce cocoa have little capital and subsequently low investment capacity for technical innovations resulting in low yields. The effects of climate change, including drought, pest and disease outbreaks, put their small yields at an even higher risk (Vaast & Somarriba, 2014). Additionally, Cocoa smallholders are highly exposed to cocoa price volatility due to its
dependency on global stock levels and carry a disproportionate risk in the supply chain (Ton et al., 2008).
Additionally, researching cocoa smallholders was of particular interest because cocoa is not simply a cash crop, it can help to address climate change. The cultivation of cocoa can contribute to seemingly unrelated issues such as tropical biodiversity, migrant bird habitats, the provision of other ecosystem services (e.g., carbon sequestration) as well as with small farmer empowerment and wellbeing (Eakin et al., 2011). Cocoa production can benefit the environment in the above mentioned ways if the crop is produced sustainably on shade plantations that allow the
preservation of tropical forests (Noriega et al., 2017; Pontón Cevallos, 2005; Vaast & Somarriba, 2014). Consequently, production on shade plantations can contribute to addressing climate change challenges.
Focusing on cocoa smallholders was also interesting because of persisting gender inequality in cocoa producing communities (Osorio et al., 2019). Cocoa is considered to be a man’s crop in producing areas and it is difficult for women to control land, productive assets and the income from the sale of the product. As a result, there exists an imbalance between women and men in decision-making regarding agricultural investment and household expenditure. Addressing these
inequalities can go hand in hand with adapting to climate change, as becomes clear in later chapters of this thesis.
1.4 Research questions
Building on the problem statement and gaps in knowledge highlighted above, this thesis sought to answer the following main question:
How do social disparities shape differentiated adaptive capacity of cocoa smallholders in Southwestern Ecuador?
To help answer the main question I formulated the following sub-questions:
Sub-question 1: How do farmers’ perceptions of climate change compare with climate change as measured by the Instituto Nacional Meteorologia e Hidrologia (INAMHI)4?
Sub-question 2: How do different smallholders adapt to local climate changes? Sub-question 3: Which determinants are important in shaping adaptive capacity?
Sub-question 4: What disparities in adaptive capacity exist and how can these disparities be explained?
All questions were examined through an intersectional lens. The first two sub-questions were needed to ‘set the scene’ and to understand the environmental and social context of my research location. These last two sub-questions examine capacities to adapt in contrast to sub-question two which examines adaptations to climate change. Especially the second part of sub-question four is crucial for this research, because it brings the understanding of adaptive capacity further, from who has less or more adaptive capacity to why.
1.5 Thesis Outline
In this chapter I introduced the focus of this study, the adaptive capacity to climate change of cocoa farmers in Southwestern Ecuador, and discussed the knowledge gap concerning
intersectionality within research on adaptive capacity. Before continuing to the next chapter, I invite the reader to read the five profiles of smallholders (appendix 4). These profiles are
expected to make the theoretical, methodological and analytical part of this thesis come to life.
4 The Instituto Nacional Meteorologia e Hidrologia (INAMHI) is the national meteorological agency of Ecuador.
In the second chapter of this thesis, I present the theoretical framework, in which I introduce the theories used in the research and the concepts that can be found in my conceptual framework. Thereafter, in the methodological chapter, I describe how my research is embedded in the transformative paradigm and discuss how I conducted my research and how I analyzed my data. Chapter four gives an overview of the history of cocoa in Ecuador and its importance for the economy, of the politics of Ecuador related to sustainable development and more general demographics. I also discuss the specific local context of the cocoa producing community in Ecuador and I briefly reflect on other cocoa producing communities in Peru and Ghana.
Chapter five constitutes the first of two empirical chapters and offers a description of the climate change that is taking place in the area and the adaptations that are practiced. Chapter six analyzes social inequalities that shape smallholders’ adaptive capacity. Chapter seven presents the
conclusions and discusses how to strengthen adaptive capacity. In this chapter, I formulate an answer to the main research question, and reflect on the methodology and theory I used. In addition, I discuss the implications of my research and contribution to literature. Finally, I make suggestions for further research and policy recommendations.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Introduction
This chapter offers a review of existing literature on intersectionality and adaptive capacity, and discusses the theoretical points of departure of this research. First, in section 2.2, the concept of climate change is discussed, including differences between what is referred to as ‘measured’ climate change and perceptions thereof. In section 2.3 I then explain how climate change can aggravate existing social inequalities. Through the use of the concept of vulnerability, I argue that this is especially true for existing gender inequalities. To understand vulnerability the concepts of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity are examined. In section 2.4, I discuss adaptations and how these are connected to the concept of adaptive capacity. Section 2.5 examines adaptive capacity more elaborately and identifies generic and practical determinants of adaptive capacity used in this research. Subsequently, in section 2.6, I discuss the intersectional framework, which is used to examine disparate adaptive capacities. Lastly, the conceptual model is presented.
2.2 Climate change
2.2.1 Human-induced climate change
Human-induced climate change is a post-industrialization problem caused by the net emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere (Gupta, 2014). GHGs such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) emerge from the way we produce and consume. They emerge from our energy, agricultural, industrial and spatial planning systems, and they then envelope the earth and increase its temperature (ibid.). Nearly all climate scientists (97% or more) are convinced that human-induced climate change is happening and accelerating (Maibach et al., 2014, p. 295). Dangerous impacts are becoming evident around the world and are projected to get (much) worse in the decades to come (ibid.).
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines human-induced climate change as:
[A] change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods (2011, p. 2).
The UNFCCC makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition and climate variability attributable to natural causes. The definition of the UNFCCC differs from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that defines climate change as:
[A] change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties,
and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forces such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions, and persistent
anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use (2014, p. 6).
In this research, I will use the UNFCCC definition because their definition focuses on human-induced climate change. It is the human-human-induced climate change that has dangerous impacts around the world. Hereafter, I will refer to human-induced climate change as climate change in my thesis.
2.2.2 Mitigation and adaptation
Mitigation and adaptation are two possible approaches of responding to climate change. Mitigation (reducing climate change) is a human intervention to enhance the “sinks” or reduce the sources of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Edenhofer, 2015). Sources that should be reduced are, for instance, the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, heat or transport. The sinks that accumulate and store these gases are, for instance, oceans, forests and soil.
Adaptation (adapting to life in a changing climate) involves adjusting to actual or expected future climate (Edenhofer, 2015).The goal of adaptation is to reduce our vulnerability to the harmful effects of climate change, such as sea-level encroachment, extreme weather events and food insecurity.
Climate change has the characteristics of a collective action problem at the global scale, because most greenhouse gases accumulate over time and mix globally (Edenhofer, 2015). Furthermore, emissions by any agent (e. g., individual, community, company, country) affect other agents. For these reasons, international cooperation is required to effectively mitigate greenhouse gas
emissions and adapt to other climate change issues. This thesis focuses on adaptation, since smallholder farmers need to adapt to changes that are already happening.
2.2.3 Measured climate change and perceptions of climate change
Measured climate change5 and perceptions of climate change are both necessary concepts to examine disparities in adaptive capacity. In this section, I provide definitions of both concepts and explain why it is important to distinguish between the two. INAMHI has different weather stations that measure, among other things, rainfall patterns, humidity and temperature across
5 I refer in my thesis to ‘measured’ climate change, to make a distinction between what local weather stations measure and perceptions of climate change of smallholders. I am aware that depending on time, place and how you measure, climate change effects can vary and
Ecuador. I define ‘measured’ climate change as climate change measured by INAMHI’s weather stations. Rainfall can be very location specific (as will become clear in chapter 6). The weather stations provide information about the weather on a more aggregate level. Measured climate change potentially masks discrepancies between different localities (and may not be perceived as most ‘accurate’). The regional climate changes that weather stations detect should be partnered with perceptions of climate change of participants.
Existing literature suggests that it is perceptions of climate change that inform and motivate (cocoa) smallholders as to which adaptations (if any) they will implement rather than climate change as measured by institutions such as the INAMHI (Alam et al., 2017; Hoan et al., 2019; Friedman et al., 2019). Consequently, smallholders with different perceptions have different adaptive behaviors (Hoan et al., 2019; Ngigi et al., 2017). I define perceptions of climate change in terms of individual views that cocoa smallholders and agronomists have of local climate change, expressed in individual interviews. Perceptions of individual farmers provide a necessary bridge between the scientific understanding of climate change and the impacts as felt at local levels (Friedman et al., 2019). As authors such as Alam et al. (2017) have argued, without an understanding of the cocoa farmers’ perceptions of climate change, adaptation strategies of external institutions to support smallholders adaptive capacity are unlikely to be effective. Measured climate change and perceptions of climate change are both necessary to examine in order to understand why and how smallholders adapt.
2.3 Climate change vulnerability
2.3.1 Vulnerability, exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity
Vulnerability is a concept that is often employed to explain why people are differently affected by climate change. Vulnerability is defined as the susceptibility to harm, or “the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected by climate change or other hazardous non-climatic events” (Engle, 2011; IPCC, 2014, p. 5). The definition of vulnerability is consistently partnered with three related concepts: exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity (Friedman et al., 2019). The concept of exposure generally refers to the degree, duration, and/or extent of climatic impact. In the case of this research, the exposure included climate variables, projected changes, and impacts on individual cocoa smallholders (Friedman et al., 2019). Sensitivity means how affected a system is after having been exposed to the stress (Engle, 2011). Sensitivity involves factors that could influence the level of climate-related impacts, such as access to land and income
diversification (Friedman et al., 2019). A key source of differentiation in terms of sensitivity to climate change is livelihood diversification, including the number, types and combinations of livelihood sources (Friedman et al., 2019). For example, smallholders who focus solely on the production of crops might be more sensitive to climate-related shocks than farmers who also trade goods at a local market (ibid.).
Adaptive capacity refers to the conditions that enable systems, institutions, humans and other organisms to anticipate and respond to change, to minimize the consequences, to recover, and take advantage of new opportunities (Cinner et al., 2018; IPCC, 2014; Nelson et al., 2007). Adaptive capacity is determined by an array of factors, discussed in section 2.5.2. These factors are neither independent of one another nor mutually exclusive. Therefore, adaptive capacity is a result of a combination of these factors (Abdul-Razak & Kruse, 2017). Adaptive capacity affects vulnerability by ‘regulating’ exposure and sensitivity (Engle, 2011).
2.3.2 From vulnerability to adaptive capacity
In recent years, scholarly work on the effects of climate change at the local level has made a gradual shift away from vulnerability assessments, towards an emphasis on strengthening adaptive capacities to reduce vulnerabilities. The creation of less vulnerable, more resilient individuals, societies, and communities by enhancing the mechanisms that promote adaptive capacity is an important element in adaptation literature. A focus on adaptive capacities recognizes the agency and autonomy of those most affected by climate variability and change, instead of categorizing marginalized groups as passive victims (Bee et al., 2013).
However, it is of great importance to emphasize that vulnerability (and adaptive capacity) to climate change is neither fixed, an intrinsic characteristic of certain people or groups of people, nor is it derived from a single social dimension like being poor, rural, woman or part of a particular (or marginalized) community (Jerneck 2015). Vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities are not individual or personalized characteristics, but structural, relational and process-oriented conditions. For example, vulnerabilities of women, as a historically marginalized group, are rooted in gendered division of labor, decision-making power, access to land tenure and other resources. Similarly, disproportional climate impacts on the basis of other social categories are due to social processes and not intrinsic characteristics of a person or group. Due to the nature of the concepts, I consider the intersectional feminist framework to be suitable for this research. In section 2.6, I elaborate on this framework.
2.4 Adaptations to climate change
2.4.1 The concept of adaptation
Anthropological scholars have shown that humans are inherently adaptive creatures (e.g. Engle, 2011). When faced with adversity, such as climate stress, people will adapt (ibid.). People and the systems in which they live, adapt or adjust to environments in both anticipatory and reactive ways. The concepts of anticipatory and reactive adaptation have formed the heart of the IPCCs characterization of adaptation, which defines it as a “process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects” (Engle, 2011, p. 648). Dankelman (2010, p. 7) conceptualizes human adaptation to environmental change as “physical, social, and political adjustment[s] in ... human systems in response to actual or expected climatic [or other environmental] stimuli or effects,
which moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities”. Dankelman shows that the adjustments can be in physical, social and political spheres.
Eakin et al. (2011, p. 355) consider an ‘adaptation’ to be “the decision-making process and set of actions undertaken to maintain the capacity to deal with future change or perturbations to a social-ecological system without undergoing significant changes in function, structural identity, or feedbacks of that system while maintaining the option to develop”. Eakin et al. (2011) argue that an adaptation is not only an action, but also firstly a decision-making process. In addition, they connect adaptations to adaptive capacity by saying that adaptations are undertaken to
maintain adaptive capacity in the future. Adaptations are associated with capacities necessary for effective response. Various studies (e.g. Adhikari et al., 2018) have found smallholder farmers were limited in their practice of adaptation options due to a limited capacity to implement adaptations.
2.4.2 Autonomous and planned adaptations
Adaptations can derive from an internal incentive or can be initiated by external agencies. Individual autonomous adaptations on a household-level are carried out by either individual family members or all family members (Adhikari et al., 2018). In the case that external
institutions may either initiate or support adaptation measures, adaptation could be understood as “planned” adaptation (ibid.). Adhikari et al. (2018) found that if external agencies supported individual autonomous adaptation measures, these measures were more likely to become more effective. Their study highlights that with the support from government and other external institutions, effective adaptation measures at the household level can enhance the adaptive capacity of individual households within communities (Adhikari et al., 2018).
2.4.3 Examples of adaptation practices
Adhikari et al. (2018) argue that individual smallholders should be supported through various adaptation measures such as agroforestry, organic farming, sustainable farm management, low-cost technology, crop diversification, and access to finance and information. Agroforestry practice, in particular, is a low-cost alternative that can increase productivity, generate income, and diversify livelihood opportunities. From an ecological perspective, it will also support ecosystem restoration and soil conservation, and reduce land degradation and associated environmental risks (Adhikari et al., 2018).
Eakin et al. (2011) examined smallholder coffee systems in Mesoamerican Pacific Rim. They found agricultural practices changes, social organization, change in crops, marketing strategy changes, change in coffee variety, new economic activities, increased time and labor investment and migration among others as adaptations. Moreover, agronomic adjustments and new forms of social organization were among the more significant responses of farmers to environmental and market shocks (Eakin et al., 2011).
2.4.4 Concurrent enhancing of social and environmental wellbeing
Ideally, adaptations of households, governments and other organizations should result in both more environmental friendly practices, while enhancing human well-being (Eakin et al., 2011). For example, in order to sell cocoa in an organic or gourmet commodity market, farmers will have to change their mode of production, including making agronomic adjustments in input use, harvesting techniques and soil and shade management. These agronomic adjustments will in turn likely affect the incidence of pests and microclimatic conditions in cocoa plantations, mediating crop loss as a result of pests and diseases (Eakin et al., 2011). Another example of concurrent enhancing of human wellbeing and sustainability is the idea of “integral farms”, which is popular in Ecuador. Integral farms allow various subsystems to work together. This type of farming enhances the sustainability of agricultural production with more environmental-friendly practices, safeguarding the food sovereignty of the population and improving the quality of life of farmers (Muñoz-Espinoza et al., 2016).
2.5 Adaptive Capacity
2.5.1 The concept of Adaptive Capacity
Closely related to the concept of adaptation is adaptive capacity. Engle (2011, p. 647) describes adaptive capacity as “the ability of a (social or ecological) system to prepare for stresses and changes in advance or adjust and respond to the effects caused by the stresses.” Since adaptive capacity is not equally distributed, as mentioned earlier, it is important to identify what shapes and enhances adaptive capacity and what diminishes this capacity or acts as a barrier to the capacity to adapt (Adger et al., 2009).
As was mentioned earlier in this chapter, adaptive capacity refers to the conditions that enable systems, institutions, humans and other organisms to anticipate and respond to change, to minimize the consequences, to recover, and take advantage of new opportunities (Cinner et al., 2018, IPCC, 2014, Nelson et al., 2007). According to Engle (2011), the basic role of adaptive capacity is generally accepted as a desirable characteristic or positive property of a system to reduce vulnerability. Rather than defining adaptive capacity in terms of a property, I adopt a processual conceptualization, acknowledging that this capacity is constantly subject to change.
2.5.2 Determinants of adaptive capacity
The notion of adaptive capacity has been well theorized, however, scholarly work on the subject has been fairly abstract in nature and scholars continue to be challenged by identifying generic and practical determinants of adaptive capacity (Cohen et al., 2016). An important exception is the work of Abdul-Razak & Kruse (2017). I use the work of these authors in order to move beyond adaptive capacity in the abstract sense and arrive at an operationalization of the concept that is ‘researchable’ and applicable to the research locations’ context. In addition, I have drawn
inspiration from the ways in which Cinner et al. (2018), Hoan et al. (2019) and Ngigi et al. (2017) break down the concept of adaptive capacity.
Adaptive capacity is shaped by a range of factors (Hoan et al., 2019). Abdul-Razak & Kruse (2017) break the concept of adaptive capacity down into six determinants: economic resources, social capital, awareness and training, technology, infrastructure and institutions. Each one of the determinants is further broken down into a number of indicators (for more detail, see the
operationalization table in appendix 3.2). The determinants are interrelated and mutually reinforcing, they cannot be seen as isolated. Cinner et al. (2018) also emphasize that the
determinants of adaptive capacity they identified are interlinked, so reactions and interactions can occur among any of the determinants.
2.6 Intersectionality in adaptation research
2.6.1 Using an Intersectional Lens
This study uses the intersectional feminist framework, which I present in this section. Friedman et al. (2019) used vulnerability as a lens through which to interrogate the heterogeneity of responses to climate change. The vulnerability approach predisposes the analysis toward risks, hazards, and minimizing negatives. Friedman et al. (2019) argued that employing a vulnerability framework served to engage climate scholars and initiate a more nuanced discussion of gender issues in the climate discourse. However, to further explore the characteristics and drivers for building adaptive capacity to climate change, they argued other additional frameworks are required.
An intersectional approach aims to understand how different axes of experience and identity (e.g. gender, sexuality, class, caste, race, age, education, access rights) intersect and produce different effects that could not be explained by analyzing single categories (Crenshaw, 1990). Djoudi et al. (2016) argue that intersectionality has the potential to address some misleading issues relating to the climate change debate and analysis. An oversimplified inclusion of gender perspectives can lead to misconceptions about gendered dimensions of vulnerability and adaptation practices, and thus can result in misguided recommendations. Studies and political initiatives with a tendency for simplification risk reinforcing categorizations. They donot take into account how differences are socially constructed, context-specific, and how differences may shift in local realities of climate change (Kaijser & Kronsell, 2014). Certain aspects of dominance or marginalization cannot be ascribed to one single factor, as they are all part of a greater pattern (ibid.).
Intersectionality is an approach to understanding intra-group difference and the existence of multiple axes of identity that govern an individual’s or group’s relationship to power (Osborne, 2015).
Intersectional thinking challenges ‘one- size- fits-all’ approaches – often perceived to be the best way to quickly reach most people in emergencies – to
offer a framework for better integrating social heterogeneity, by exposing explicit and implicit assumptions about predefined social categories (Chaplin et al., 2019, p. 3).
Chaplin et al. (2019) argue that intersectionality provides an analytical tool for understanding and responding to the ways in which individual factors or identities intersect with others, to enable more nuanced understanding of people’s needs, interests, capacities and experiences.
2.6.2 The aim of an intersectional framework
The aim of an intersectionality approach is not simply to include as many analytical categories as possible, but to widen the perspective and reflect upon what factors may be relevant in a
particular setting (Kaijser & Kronsell, 2014). When using an intersectional strategy, the individual researcher may need to select and prioritize the most interesting or relevant
intersections in the particular case, while keeping in mind the bigger picture (Kaijser & Kronsell, 2014).
Thompson-Hall et al. (2016), in line with Kaijser and Kronsell (2014), argue that utilizing an intersectional lens without clarifying explicit goals and objectives could yield large,
unmanageable bodies of data. However, when the focus is on specific vulnerabilities to specific stressors, such as climate change-related impacts, these framings can help to more effectively identify situational aspects such as informal institutions, e.g., social norms, that may hinder climate change adaptation. Focusing on relevant intersections makes it easier to identify
appropriate adaptation based policy interventions and opportunities to change those aspects that help to facilitate adaptation.
Thompson-Hall et al. (2016) argue that when applied within localized agrarian settings, intersectional approaches offer ways of understanding how social dimensions of identity are interlinked with systems of power and social institutions (both formal and informal). Together, hose social dimensions and systems of power shape situation-specific interactions between individual farmers, households, and agroecosystems. These intersections result in unique and dynamic adaptation needs. According to Djoudi et al. (2016) critical intersectional assessment supports the unveiling of agency and emancipatory pathways in the adaptation process. To answer the research questions, and particularly those pertaining to disparate adaptive capacities, I make use of intersectionality.
Scholars found disparities in adaptive capacity are shaped by socio-demographic factors such as age, level of education, gender, marital status, social standing within the community and
residential status (how much time a person lived in a certain area). I decided to mainly focus on the first three, because they were more prevalent in the literature (Abdul-Razak & Kruse, 2017; Chepkoech et al., 2020; Cohen et al., 2016; Jost et al., 2016; Lawson et al., 2019).
2.7 Conceptual model and conclusion
In this theoretical chapter, I defined the key concepts and indicated the relationships between the concepts. The key concepts of my research are climate change, adaptive capacity, adaptations, social disparities and intersectionality. The intersectional lens is placed at the top of my
conceptual model to indicate how I used an intersectional lens to examine my research questions. Climate change aggravates existing social disparities. The examination of disparities in adaptive capacity can shed light on how adaptive capacity is shaped by intersecting social categories. These social categories should be given serious attention in addressing climate change. The focus of building adaptive capacity should not merely be on agronomic and technical solutions.
Intersecting social disparities, climate change and farmers’ perceptions thereof, influence their adaptive capacity. Building adaptive capacity to climate change can be an opportunity to enhance social equality, but at the same time bears a risk for aggravating social disparities, depending on how the capacity to adapt is built. When social (in)equalities are taken into account when
building adaptive capacity, social equality can be enhanced. In my conceptual model, the indivisible whole of social disparities, adaptations and adaptive capacity can be identified.
3. Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This next chapter aims to provide clarity on the methodology of my research. Scholars such as Chepkoech et al. (2020), Cohen et al. (2016) and Friedman et al. (2019) point out that qualitative data from smallholders is needed to look beyond quantifiable environmental or technological assets influencing capacities to adapt. My research builds on this recommendation by centering the experience of the cocoa farmers. In section 3.2 I discuss the research paradigm and strategy, including my ontological and epistemological stance. In section 3.3 the research design and the collection of primary and secondary data are described. Section 3.4 covers the unit of analysis, the sampling strategy and sample. Section 3.5 elaborates on research methods. In section 3.6 the qualitative analysis is discussed. In section 3.7, I explain my axiology. Section 3.8 examines the quality of the research. In section 3.9, I explain my positionality. Finally, in section 3.10
challenges of the research are discussed.
3.2. Research paradigm and strategy
3.2.1 The transformative paradigm
This research and my own paradigmatic beliefs fit best within the transformative paradigm that encompasses paradigmatic perspectives that are meant to be emancipatory, participatory, and inclusive (Mertens, 1999). The transformative paradigm provides a framework for addressing inequality and injustice in society and consequent methodological decisions (Mertens, 2007). The transformative paradigm places a central importance on the lives and experiences of marginalized groups (Mertens, 1999). In this context, the role of the researcher is reframed as one who
recognizes inequalities and injustices in society and strives to challenge the status quo, and who possesses a shared sense of responsibility (Mertens, 2007).
3.2.2 Ontology
The ontological assumption of the transformative paradigm aligns with constructivists in that reality is socially constructed. However, transformative researchers try to ensure that exclusion of the less powerful is not continued through the research process (Mertens, 2007, Romm, 2015). As a transformative researcher, I need to be aware of societal values and privileges in determining the reality, to understand how certain perspectives of reality become favored over others (Romm, 2015). This is important for identifying the power dynamics that have shaped whose voices were heard, and whose voices were silenced and what values defined realities (Mertens, 2007; Diver & Higgins, 2014).
3.2.3 Epistemology
necessary to have an interactive link between the researcher and research participants (Mertens, 2007). I gained trust and built partnerships with my participants and stayed away from the role of “expert” (Diver & Higgins, 2014; Mertens, 2007). According to Mertens (2007) a researcher can choose quantitative or qualitative or mixed methods, but methods should be adjusted to
accommodate cultural complexity, power issues should be explicitly addressed, and issues of discrimination and oppression should be recognized.
3.3 Sequential research design
For this qualitative research, a sequential design was adopted, that is, the collection of data took place in three consecutive phases within one study. The first phase was an introductory phase, which allowed me to get to know the context and to collect the first data. In phase one, I did numerous (participant) observations. Because this phase was largely inductive, it led to bottom-up data that were necessary to construct the interview questions for the second phase. Thereafter, I collected the second round of data by doing semi-structured interviews. The second round of data and the subsequent analysis thereof provided me with a thorough understanding of the research problem (Ivankova et al. 2006).
The third round of data built on the second phase and consisted of five external expert interviews and a reflection meeting. The analysis of this data served to refine, elaborate on, and explain findings that emerged during phases one and two. In addition to primary data, I collected secondary data from the weather stations in La Troncal and Milagro, which are the stations closest to the research location. INAMHI provided me with the numbers on rainfall, humidity and temperature of those two weather stations from the last 30 years.
3.4 Unit of analysis, sampling strategy and sample
3.4.1 Unit of analysis
The unit of analysis of this study is the disparities in adaptive capacity to climate change of smallholder cocoa farmers. I deliberately chose to examine the adaptive capacity of individuals. Examining adaptive capacity on a household level provides a research on how households adapt to and cope with climate change. When examining the adaptive capacity of a household,
individual disparities in adaptive capacity are overlooked. Research on a household level does not help to understand gender, age, or educational disparities of adaptive capacity. Since I used an intersectional lens and tried to unpack these disparities, I did the sampling on the level of the individual. The following section describes the sampling process.
3.4.2 Sampling strategy
The sample for this study was obtained through purposive sampling. I used a combination of criterion- and snowball sampling, which are two approaches in the purposive sampling (Bryman,
2012). Sampling was geared to recruiting farmers who were over the age of eighteen, and
cultivated cocoa and met criteria of a ‘smallholder’. ‘Smallholder agriculture’ is used to describe rural producers, predominantly in developing countries, who farm using mainly family labor and for whom the farm provides the principal source of income (Morton, 2007). The term
‘smallholder’ is used to denote these farmers, and they can be found on a continuum between subsistence production and concentration on crop production for the market (ibid.). In order to answer my research question, recruiting people with differing social categories was essential. Therefore, in addition to sampling on the basis of the initial criteria, I used criterion sampling. I sought to include participants from different age groups, different levels of schooling and an equal amount of female and male farmers for the interviews. Ethnicity is not a focus of my thesis because all my participants were mestizo (mixed race).
The internal experts (cocoa smallholders) that participated in my research were residents of one of the following villages: Santa Rosa, Los Canelos and Rambután. These villages were selected because of the access to research participants that FEPP could facilitate, since FEPP works within those communities. I sought to balance the number of residents from each of the three villages. The most effective way for me to find participants in a short period of time was snowball sampling. FEPP was my gatekeeper, helping me identify the first research participants that I required to start the snowball sampling. Since FEPP has worked in the area for six years, they have established extensive contacts with cocoa smallholders in the three sample villages. I asked the first participants for recommendations for other participants. They personally introduced me or gave me directions on how to find other cocoa smallholders. I was aware that sampling through FEPP created a bias in my sample. Therefore, I also purposefully approached people for an interview that were not or did not want to be involved with FEPP. The sampling approaches mentioned above turned out to be fruitful. All of the potential participants I contacted agreed to do an interview and only one did not want to be recorded.
3.4.3 Sample
The research sample was composed of two groups: internal experts and the external experts. A total of 41 interviews were held with cocoa smallholders (see table1). The smallholders were of different age groups. Four of the interviews were with farmers who worked in the growing of cocoa, but who did not own or rent their own piece of land. They were day laborers, or
jornaleros/as. In Chapter 5, I explain why I consider them as a distinct group. While I analyzed
Regarding the interviews with external experts, I conducted an interview with three professionals of FEPP that were actively involved in the research area. In addition, I arranged interviews with people that had expertise on themes that needed further elaboration in order to answer my research questions. One of those interviews was with a meteorologist from INAMHI and one doctoral researcher from Ecuador doing research on gender in a rural area in the same province. For a more detailed overview of the interviewees, please consult appendix 1.
3.4.4 Selecting Participants of Reflection Meeting
The reflection meeting took place at the end of the research, after I had built relationships with several smallholders (see section 3.5.4). Similar to the interviews, I wanted to include different age groups, genders and residents from the different villages in the reflection meeting. I invited a total of eight smallholders, with whom I had developed a closer relationship over time. Of these eight invited smallholders five attended the reflection meeting. Unfortunately, the people from Tamarindo were not able to attend, due to transportation issues. Three of the participants were female and two were male.
3.5 Data collection methods
3.5.1 Participant Observation
Participant observation was the first research method that I used for this research. With the
Village No. of female participants No. of male participants
Santa Rosa 6 7
Los Canelos 10 6
Rambután 6 6
Total 22 19
qualification of ‘participant’ observation, I want to draw attention to the fact that I immersed myself in the research community for an extended period of time, while observing behavior, asking questions and listening to what is said in conversations (Bryman, 2016). My local
supervisor, agronomist Figueroa6, introduced me to residents of the research area and I was able to take the first step in creating a bond, which is crucial to carry out successful participant observation. I quickly formed rather close bonds with some of the villagers, because I found a place to live in Santa Rosa and became involved in the life of the cocoa smallholders on a daily basis.
During the fieldwork period I regularly taught English classes on Wednesday evenings (see also 3.7.3). Additionally, I helped sell prepared food at the local market in Estero Piedras every Thursday. I also regularly engaged in conversation and became familiar with the villagers. Furthermore, I participated in numerous farmer group meetings and trainings and visited several cocoa plantations. A logbook of these activities can be found in appendix 2. In addition, I visited an organic cocoa farm in the northern part of Ecuador, to observe similarities and differences with regard to cultivating cocoa.
I kept extensive notes of my observations. During the interview phase I continued my participant observations. I was able to observe phenomena mentioned during interviews in practice. The participant observations helped me to increase the suitability and accuracy of my interview questions and to complete a picture of the life of cocoa farmers that I could not have formed solely through interviews. Therefore, I consider the data gathered through this method insightful and essential.
3.5.2 Semi-structured interviews with internal experts
The second phase of my research consisted of semi-structured interviews with cocoa
smallholders. The interviews were meant to deepen my understanding of the data I had gathered during the first phase. I took the survey questions of Abdul-Razak and Kruse (2017) as a starting point. As I mentioned in the theoretical chapter, these authors move beyond adaptive capacity in the abstract sense and arrive at an operationalization of the concept that is ‘researchable’. Their research revealed gender and educational biases in adaptive capacities. However, they argued that for explaining those results qualitative studies that involves smallholder’s perspectives should complement the research (Abdul-Razak & Kruse, 2017). With my qualitative research I strived to focus on the perspectives of smallholders. I turned Abdul-Razak and Kruse’s survey questions into questions suitable for the semi-structured interviews. I edited the questions making use of the data gathered during the observations, to make them more suitable for the specific research context. Furthermore, I added open questions. I conducted 41 interviews among smallholders of
the three indicated villages. The semi-structured interviews were indispensable for this research, because most findings are derived from interview data.
3.5.3 Semi-structured interviews with external experts
The research concluded with external expert interviews and a reflection meeting with
smallholders for triangulation purposes. I conducted five semi-structured interviews. I prepared questions, but also asked questions that evolved from the interview and were not prepared beforehand. I used these interviews to clarify on certain themes that I had not fully understood yet, that I felt were not properly addressed by the other methods or needed more depth. I planned for these interviews in the last phase of my research, because I wanted to start from a bottom-up understanding, and not be influenced too much by the opinions of external experts.
3.5.4 Reflection meeting
At the end of the fieldwork period, I checked my findings with my participants to see if they felt their perceptions were reflected in my preliminary findings during a reflection meeting. I
organized this meeting at my home, because I had a big table, enough chairs and a quiet, private and cool space to facilitate the meeting. For information on the participants of the meeting see section 3.4.4. The meeting was made up of two distinct parts. The first part had the characteristics of a group interview, and I asked several questions on different topics about which I still needed clarification. The second part took the form of a focus group discussion. During this part I
discussed the findings derived from the previous methods, to hear opinions and collect additional information from cocoa farmers on my research. The ideas and opinions given by the participants of this meeting confirmed the data I collected previously. I felt reassured that my findings did not just project my own understanding but reflected the understanding of my participants.
3.6 Qualitative Data Analysis
The qualitative analysis was conducted using Atlas.ti and the structure offered by directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The interviews were included in an excel sheet with an overview of all answers that participants gave in which common and frequently discussed themes were identified. These themes were both ‘manifest’, directly observable from the interview text, as well as ‘latent’, derived from what Saldaña (2013) refers to as a reading between the lines. With this information and the knowledge from the field in mind, I developed the first version of my coding scheme.
Following the structure of directed content analysis, I created code groups, in which I listed my first directed codes. With those first codes I started analyzing my interviews, the first cycle of coding. During the coding process new codes were iteratively added if a word, phrase or paragraph was decoded and no appropriate code existed yet to encode with. These codes were than added to one of the existing code groups. In the second code cycle, I especially focused on
