Development and Sustainable Agriculture in Central America:
A Case Study of Belize
Clay Chastain
Miriam Sitz
Globalization and International Development
SOCI 4362-1
Dr. Spener
ABSTRACT
This paper examines a sample of the numerous obstacles that affect and inhibit
economic, social, environmental, and agricultural development within the Central
American country of Belize. After surveying a number of these influences, agricultural
development (as it relates to overall development) will be explored in depth, with special
attention given to environmentally safe agrarian practices and to organizations that aid
Belize and other Central American countries in developing sustainably.
Chastain and Sitz 1
Development and Sustainable Agriculture in Central America:
A Case Study of Belize
Belize, a country situated between Mexico and Guatemala on the Caribbean side
of Central America, boasts rich natural resources and is home to a unique and diverse
cultural environment. Although much of the region has been prone to political instability
and internal conflict, the small country of Belize has been a relatively stable and
prosperous nation. However, economic and social inequalities (vestiges of the country’s
colonial heritage), disparities of the resources available to rural and urban areas, and
problems in education, infrastructure, and communication hinder the state’s development.
A growing interest among Belizean farmers in healthier and more efficient agriculture is
leading to the intervention of international non-profit organizations, which aim to
promote sustainable farming methods. The improvement of agrarian practices has the
potential confront and overcome many of the obstructions to development that Belize and
other Central American countries face today.
A SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IN BELIZE
Like many countries in the region, the notion of underdevelopment characterizes
Belize, thanks in part to the legacy of British colonialism. Today, lingering effects of
colonial practices are “manifested . . . in high rates of poverty, increasing foreign debt,
and decreased food-self sufficiency” (Babcock and Conway 2000:73). Belize, known as
British Honduras from 1864 to 1964, was originally established as an export only region.
The British crown did not establish a stable economy during colonial times; rather, Belize
“was predicated on the extraction of forestry products using slave and indentured labor
under the control of a European minority” (Babcock and Conway 2000:73). This system
Chastain and Sitz 2
of export oriented, exploitative control remained in place “through the 1940s, and
economic diversification did not occur until the post-war period of the 1950s” (Babcock
and Conway 2000:73). Until the 1980s, Belize remained a subservient and
inconsequential country in the eyes of the rest of the world; only later did the idea of
export diversification come into play. It was not until 1981 that a series of territorial
disputes between the United Kingdom and Guatemala were settled, resulting in Belize’s
full independence from the traditionally oppressive, British system of governance.
Currently, given a strictly economic and numerical assessment of development,
Belize falls in the middle-percentile of all countries in the world. It is ranked below Costa
Rica and Panama, but remains the third most developed country of this region. As such, it
is one of the more developed countries for the area and better models the transition to an
urban, service-based industry (Human Development Reports 2009).
During the 1950s, the British-supported logging industry ended prematurely due
to poor forest management and caused the country to switch to other industries (Peedle
centers around “only a few primary exports (sugar, citrus, bananas), a small number of
trading partners, and imported consumer goods” (Babcock and Conway 2000:73).
Consequently, the country finds itself in a perpetual cycle of “vulnerability and
dependency” (Babcock and Conway 2000:73). The introduction of Belize into the global
market dominated by the Global North has helped the country to invest in relatively
stable markets. The “close and cordial relations with the United States” that Belize has
“traditionally enjoyed” (U.S. Department of State 2001), prove to be advantageous for
the country as a whole. Babcock notes that “[d]evelopment efforts in Belize have
included structural adjustment plans financed by the IMF, participation in a World Bank
Chastain and Sitz 3
Social Investment Fund, and a number of USAID infrastructure and economic
stabilization programs . . . [along with] membership to CARICOM and other preferential
trading agreements” (Babcock and Conway 2000:73). One of these initiatives, financed
in the mid-1980s by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
and other private aid groups, aimed to increase export diversification by increasing cocoa.
With the recent full independence of the country, “fundamental issues of
sovereignty and economic independence . . . [have complicated] the private sector’s
ability to provide services to the population” (Gaarder and McCommon 1990:347). This,
combined with the mono-economy policies of the former British colonial government
and the lack of any functional infrastructure (347), placed Belize in an unfortunate
situation for positive economic development. In 1984, the Accelerated Cocoa Production
Project attempted to measure the viability of foreign assistance to produce sustainable
growth within a Caribbean country (Gaarder and McCommon 1990:343-346). The
project was in most terms deemed a success, largely because of the transparency it
afforded to all parties involved: clear expressions of commitment from all organizations,
comprehensible statements of purpose, straightforward definitions of members’ roles, an
unambiguous leadership and decision-making process, a system to facilitate open
communication, and a problem-solving process to review progress (Gaarder and
McCommon 1990:351). While intuitively desirable, these simple characteristics did not
exist in previous attempts to develop the Belizean economy.
The assistance of the Hershey Foods Corporation and PVOs such as USAID
helped to alleviate the problems of “markets and marketing, productivity, credit, and a
lack of infrastructure” (see Figure 1) (Gaarder and McCommon 1990:358). This
Chastain and Sitz 4
dependence on foreign investment sustained (and continues to sustain) the agricultural
economy of Belize. Furthermore, since the release of this report in 1990, new economic
strategies such as “tax incentives and loans for commercial agricultural operations, and
the establishment of several Free Trade Zones design to attract foreign investments”
(Babcock and Conway 2000:73) have been enacted. The authors of the Hershey report
note that project was in “the ‘enlightened self interest’ of the multinationals” (Gaarder
and McCommon 1990:359), an aside that casts doubt on the true economic autonomy of
the Belizean government.
Today, while Hershey Foods Corporation still has some bearing on the Belizean
economy, sugar, citrus and banana comprise the core of agricultural production in the
country. The importance of sugar export began as successive waves of “mestizos who
fled the Caste Wars in Mexico's Yucatan in the late 1800s” (Peedle 2006) came to work
in BelizeIn the 1970s and 1980s, sugar was still a relatively high-priced export
commodity; “the most equitable of Belize’s cash crops with many small farms” (Peedle
2006). “In Belize, the ratio [of sugar production total GDP] fell from approximately 23%
of GDP in 1970 to approximately 7% in 1999… [due to] increased production costs
combined with depressed world prices” (Francis, Iyare, and Lorde 2007:237). Looking at
combined totals of sugar and concentrated orange juice, these commodities accounted for
72.1% of total exports in 1980, 62.1% in 1990, and 53.5% in 2000 (Francis 2006:52). In
2000, the top export shifted from sugar to concentrated orange juice because commodity
exports such as orange juice concentrate “receive preferential access to European and
North American markets (Francis 2006:52-62). This data shows that traditional exports
(bananas, sugar, and citrus fruits) are declining as export diversification has increased.
Chastain and Sitz 5
Francis suggests that “[i]n the short run, . . . agricultural export diversification causes
economic growth in … Belize” (Francis, Iyare, and Lorde 2007:246). However,
economies are not stabilized with unsustainable, short run endeavors. Even in instances
of mutual cooperation between the United States and Belize, such as the Hershey Foods
Corporation investment, projects have not had lasting impact on the nature of the exports
within the country. Such investment ventures and Free Trade Zone projects serve to
reinforce a system of disproportionate benefit between Belize and foreign investors.
It should be noted that the problems within Belize are not strictly based on economic
disparities but also come from social inequalities. Poorly maintained national
infrastructure gives rise to some of the most fundamental barriers to development. “Many
of the rural areas remain without reliable electricity or easily accessible sources of
drinking water, and medical services for rural areas are distant and limited in the services
provided” (Babcock and Conway 2000:73). Failures in the educational system of the
country also contribute to the widening development gap between urban and rural areas.
Babcock and Conway note that “[a]n estimated 40% of Belizean children fail to complete
school and only 50% of secondary school-age children enroll” (2000:73). A Library of
Congress study (1992) observed that “[d]ropout rates and absenteeism were higher in
rural areas, largely because of the seasonal demand for agricultural labor and the
perception that schooling beyond the basic level offered no increased opportunities.” The
implications of this unfortunate but predictable fact reach far into the future, affecting the
next generation of Belizean citizens. The study elaborated, stating that “students who
dropped out of primary school (or, indeed, failed to attend) generally belonged to the
poorest and least-empowered segments of Belizean society: the children of subsistence
Chastain and Sitz 6
farmers, agricultural laborers, illegal aliens, and the inhabitants of the urban slums.
Without primary school credentials, these individuals faced the continued prospect of
lifelong underemployment or unemployment” (Library of Congress 1992). Inadequate
schooling and poverty perpetuate one another, driving the living conditions of rural
Belizeans ever downward. The children of impoverished subsistence farmers or laborers
will be required to enter the workforce at an early age to supplement their family’s
income, consequently not receive a quality education, and someday unintentionally
introduce their own families to a similar but worse situation than their own as by
adulthood they have fallen deeper into poverty.
Language differences contribute as much to class inequality as do education and
economic inequality. As with other Caribbean countries colonized by the British, English
was put in place as the country’s official language. This seemingly innocuous action
precipitated a clear cultural hierarchy between native cultures and the colonial machine.
As time passed, the prevalence of English served not only to separate Belize from within
but also to isolate it from nearby Spanish and indigenous dialect speaking countries (see
Figure 2). The same 1992 Library of Congress study concluded that “[l]inguistic diversity
among the English-speaking population reflected and perpetuated social inequality.”
Furthermore, because English is considered the primary language in Belize, “. . .
standard English was the sole language of instruction [in school and] students who came
to school lacking proficiency in standard English suffered significant problems in
comprehension” (Library of Congress 1992). Consequently, education is considered to be
“patchy in rural areas” (Peedle 2006). The 1980 Belizean census, as reported by the 1992
Library of Congress study, found that a significant amount of people could speak
Chastain and Sitz 7
English, but did not differentiate between the many regional dialects found in the
country. Belize Kriol is based on but distinct from English. The study noted that “English
speakers of higher socioeconomic status and education could switch with relative ease
between Standard English and Belizean Creole [whereas the] English-speaking urban and
rural poor possessed more limited degrees of competency in Standard English” (Library
of Congress 1992). In 1993, the functional literacy rate was estimated to be only around
40% (Peedle 2006).
The diversity of languages in Belize limits flow of information. The government
system, operated in English, isolates the rural, Spanish or Kriol speaking community.
Nearly every Belizean news source is broadcast or published in English, limiting the
scope of information to only those who could comprehend the language (Kidon Media
Link 2001), a surprising and unfortunate fact given that Belizean communication
companies are privatized, assumedly offering information a diversity of consumers with
varying opinions and viewpoints. Until certain communities can provide Spanish or
indigenous dialectic versions of these communications, public access to information will
remain shockingly poor. A study concerned with the spread of information about malaria
demonstrated the effectiveness of improving accessibility to information. “Belize . . .
experiences endemic malaria with an increasing rate of new malaria cases since 1990,
especially in children 12 years and younger” (Cropley 2004:2). Information about the
dangers associated with the illness was distributed in Spanish to migrant and refugee
mothers, and the study produced overall higher awareness about malaria.
Migrants have begun to increase in recently years, sending what was the traditional
Belizean society into a state of constant change and having an effect on language,
Chastain and Sitz 8
socioeconomic divisions, and labor. “For the first time in Belize’s history, the mestizos
are the most numerous cultural group, resulting in what has been called “the Latinization
of Belize”, and contributing to a heightening of ethic tensions and declining rates of
literacy in English” (Babcock and Conway 2000:74). In 1987, Belize was estimated to
have a population of 176,000 (Gaarder and McCommon 1990:347), and in 1993, there
were an estimated 28,500 immigrants living in Belize, most from Guatemala and El
Salvador (Babcock and Conway 2000:74). Increased immigration is linked to a strain on
limited social services and on the job market. “Because these immigrants are willing to
work for low wages, they have displaced native Belizeans in some of the seasonal
agricultural industries” (Babcock and Conway 2000:74). For example, “[t]he banana and
citrus industries in the south are controlled by a handful of large landowners and rely on
labor from Honduras, Guatemala[,] El Salvador, many of whom first arrived fleeing civil
war[, and a] large Mennonite community [that] arrived from Mexico in the 1950s”
(Peedle 2006). Much of the immigration is caused by external influences like “unstable
prices for primary exports combined with local constraints, such as land shortages and
high rates of unemployment [which] produce constantly shifting patterns of international
mobility in the Caribbean” (Babcock and Conway 2000:72). This, in turn, produces
significant effects in Belize and other countries of the area, including “economic
dependency, increased social stratification . . ., and a failure to stimulate capitalgenerating initiatives” (Babcock and Conway 2000:72).
Significant emigration of Belizeans to other countries also occurs. Babcock states that
at least 60,000 Belizeans live abroad, nearly 1/3 of the country’s population (Babcock
and Conway 2000:75). Similar to the reasons of immigrants to Belize, migrants out of the
Chastain and Sitz 9
country name educational and economic opportunities abroad as reasons for their
emigration (Babcock and Conway 2000:76).
Poor management of the country by the Belizean government is the root of many of
the country’s issues. The government has been accused of engaging in highly corrupt
practices intended to support a “small business elite [that] still controls much of the
export and import trade” (Peedle 2006) rather than to strengthen the country’s
agricultural economy. Rosaleen Duffy presents the idea of a “shadow government”: one
that uses of semi-legal methods to protect the financial interests of the social elites in
Belizean society (2000). She cites the importance of international investment in Belize as
being enhanced because of its status as a major offshore banking center (OFC) after
deregulation of international banking in the 1980s, which is largely financed by illicit
sources (Duffy 2000:552). She claims that “. . . Belize is the site of a number of ‘holding
companies’ that are not required to disclose who their investors are or from where the
finance originated [which is] mentioned in US government documents regarding the
drugs trade and money laundering activities in the Caribbean” (Duffy 2000:552). She
compares the investment strategies and foreign ownership in Belize to those in Sierra
Leone, universally recognized as a shadow state, where investors use local economic and
political links to further their personal agendas (Duffy 2000:553).
Finally, Duffy argues that the shadow state in Central America is “at its most
pervasive and its most effective . . . in drug trafficking. The organizations and the
networks involved in trafficking have not only incorporated the state apparatus, but
created a mutant set of state agencies that protect and support their activities” (2000:554).
Shadow governments, then, do not improve the country but rather protect, disguise, and
Chastain and Sitz 10
even finance illicit activities such as drug trafficking. The increasing role of tourism in
economic development of the country provides a convenient backdrop for the drug trade:
“[t]ourism development in Belize has been partially dependent on drug culture in the
industrialized world on two levels: recreational drug taking by tourists, and funding of
tourist developments by capital derived from dealing and smuggling” (Duffy 2000:554).
All these factors are correlated to the overall poverty level of the country. A 1997
UNICEF study estimated that “25% of all households in Belize should be classified as
poor” (Babcock and Conway 2000:73). The government maintains unsustainable systems
by oppressing an isolated rural workforce, largely ignorant of the gravity of their
situation. While progress has been made in the past, Belize remains a country dependent
upon its ties to the Global North, producing short-run commodities at the expense of the
native and migrant populations.
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
A myriad of factors contribute to the current state of development in Belize, from
vestigial colonial structures and foreign investments to linguistic differences and
immigration. After having explored the full panorama, one area in particular merits a
closer look: agricultural development. As is the case in many countries of Central
America, Belize finds itself today on the dawn of a new age of agricultural and
environmental development, an age that places more value in economic and
environmental sustainability than in mass production and heartless economic efficiency.
Before investigating the sustainable agricultural practices currently being implemented in
the country, however, one must first understand the unsustainable techniques that have
characterized the agricultural development of Central America and Belize in the past.
Chastain and Sitz 11
Slash and burn agriculture, also called swidden agriculture, is an ancient form of
agriculture that historically, was reasonably sustainable. First, trees and woody plants are
cut down in a given area and allowed to dry on the ground until just before the rainy
season begins. Before the rains, the now dry organic material is burned and converted
into a nutrient rich ash in which crops are planted. After planting on the land for a period
of three to five years the nutrients in the soil are depleted, the abandoned fields area
allowed to return to a more natural state, and eventually can be used again for cultivation
(Cornell 2007).
The unsustainable nature of slash and burn agriculture does not come from the
practice itself, which actually mimics natural disturbances, but rather from the volume of
people engaging in swidden agriculture without possessing the knowledge of how to
successfully and sustainably execute it. In the past, small indigenous groups utilizing the
slash and burn approach could move from a cleared area and not need to return to it for
fifty years or more (telephone interview with Randy Morrison, Sustainable Harvest
International, 19 November 2009). Population increases, however, mean that more people
are using (and sometimes, improperly using) this cultivation style and consequently
clearing large areas of forest with “a lack of detailed knowledge of local soils, climate,
and ecosystems, a lack of agricultural knowledge and skills, a lack of credit and technical
support, and poor integration with local and regional economies” (Cornell 2007).
Another unsustainable agricultural practice plaguing the development of Central
America, Belize and other developing nations is the overdependence and subsequent
overuse of pesticides, chemicals, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Pesticides
and GMO seeds exemplify the unsustainablility of endeavors seeking short run benefits, a
Chastain and Sitz 12
topic previously discussed in another avenue of development. In a telephone interview,
Randy Morrison of Sustainable Harvest International (SHI), a Maine-based non-profit
organization that “provides farming families in Central America with the training and
tools to overcome poverty while restoring the planet's tropical forests” (Sustainable
Harvest International 2008d), explained that chemical and seed companies offer free
GMO seed or pesticides to the local municipality which then distributes the chemicals
and seeds to the community without instructions or safety warnings. Farmers who have
never before used chemicals naturally see a significant increase in yield or decrease in
pests, and then use the extra income they receive from their farms to purchase more
chemicals (Morrison, telephone interview, 19 November 2009).
Genetically modified organisms do bring a number of benefits to farmers. GMO
seeds are genetically engineered moderately pest and highly herbicide resistant, allowing
for greater quantities of chemicals than normal to be used on crops. A small number of
large biotechnology companies in developed nations are responsible for all current,
innovative research into GMOs, giving those firms total control of the price and
distribution. Braun and Ammann note that the fact “[t]hat companies strive for
intellectual property rights (IPR) through patenting or other protective mechanisms is
understandable and largely unavoidable, if innovation is to be maintained. However,
provisions need to be made so that the agricultural research institutions of developing
countries can obtain easy access to the patented materials and procedures as well as to the
knowledge they need in order to improve the position of poorer farmers” (2002:13).
The use of GMO seeds has the potential to negatively impact the environment in a
number of ways. Losses of biodiversity, the multitude of different living organisms in an
Chastain and Sitz 13
ecosystem, are “undoubtedly occurring in many parts of the globe, often at a rapid pace.
These losses require countermeasures such as an increased effort towards conservation by
many different means” (Braun and Ammann 2002:6). Habitat destruction and the
introduction of exotic species are the two primary causes of biodiversity losses. GMOs
damage biodiversity in that they fill the role of an exotic species and, due to their
genetically engineered superiority, take over niches filled by natural plants. Additionally,
transgenic crops can vertically transfer their altered genes to wild plants thereby changing
characteristics of those native plants. The changes might be adaptive advantages that
could lead to a proliferation of a few crop varieties, “in other words, a loss of cultivar
biodiversity” (GMO Compass 2006). A reduced diversity of cultivars, different varieties
of plants of the same species, increases a crop’s susceptibility to widespread outbreaks of
plant diseases and pests.
The heightened herbicide tolerance of GMO seeds leads to an increased use of
pesticides in Central American and Belizean agriculture. Often chemicals are distributed
to farmers for free by the government or municipality in an effort to augment production.
Equally often, however, recipients of the pesticides are given no instruction about proper
use or safety measures. Morrison reports having seen empty chemical containers being
used in homes in Belize for food or water storage containers, and farmers spraying
hazardous chemicals with no protective gear. GMO are usually terminating; that is, the
crops they produce do not in turn produce more seeds, meaning that farmers have to
purchase seeds every year rather than use the collected seeds of the previous year’s
harvest (telephone interview, 19 November 2009).
Chastain and Sitz 14
According to Randy Morrison and SHI, the stagnation of agricultural development in
Central America and specifically in Belize can be blamed on a number of factors, many
of which have already been touched upon in the summary of development section of this
paper. Farmers remain unaware of better agricultural practices because of their own
impoverishment. They live in poor communities without running water or electricity, let
alone knowledge of sustainable alternatives. Libraries are few and far between, and many
of the farmers currently practicing unsustainable or even dangerous farming techniques
lack the schooling to be able to take advantage of a library. As often is the case, poverty
goes hand in hand with poor education. Furthermore, linguistic diversity prevents some
farmers from accessing information in a language that is comprehensible to them. Finally
slash and burn agriculture, the most common alternative to sustainable agriculture,
requires such a great physical effort and time commitment that farmers interested in
improving the sustainability of their methods simply cannot afford to take the time to
learn about such practices – the livelihood of their families depends on their constant
work.
Sustainable agricultural development entails a variety of practices implemented in
Central American communities. A fundamental principle of healthy development is
sustainable exploitation, and the most effective source of positive development in the
arena of sustainable agriculture has been non-profit organizations that focus on education
and outreach such as SHI.
“The biological basis for all sustainable harvesting is reproductive surplus” (Hilborn,
Walters, and Ludwig 1995:47). Reproductive surplus is the number of offspring from any
given organism that remain after subtracting the number of organisms needed to replace
Chastain and Sitz 15
the genitor. The sustainable yield is calculated by the reproductive surplus per productive
unite, and the absolute size of the population. For example, “[i]f one seed planted
produces five seeds in the harvest, then the sustainable yield will be four times the
population size” (Hilborn, Walters, and Ludwig 1995:47). The population size and
density also must be taken into account when calculating sustainable yield; among plants,
for instance, habitat will be a limiting factor, as the environment can only provide
nutrients for a certain number of organisms. “As more and more seeds are deposited per
unit area (be they wheat or trees), the reproductive surplus generated by each seed
declines due to competition for space, moisture, and nutrients” (Hilborn, Walters, and
Ludwig 1995:48). Sustainable harvesting, then is harvesting that takes into account the
sustainable yield of a crop, does not exceed that amount, and as a result, will not affect
the reproductive surplus of the organism over time. Also, historical data alone cannot be
the basis for sustainable harvesting numbers because of natural, random fluctuations in
population size (Hilborn, Walters, and Ludwig 1995:50). A common problem in
beginning to exploit a new natural resource is that non-sustainable yields are available
during the initial years of harvesting, when the population has a higher number of older
organisms or unproductive local subpopulations (Hilborn, Walters, and Ludwig 1995:49).
The only way to avoid overexploitation is with an intentional willingness to forgo
attempts to maximize yield (Hilborn, Walters, and Ludwig 1995:61), a strategy that
contradicts classical theories of economic development.
In Belize, as well as in other Central American countries, non-profit organizations
such as SHI are making the greatest strides in promoting sustainable agricultural
development. SHI “addresses the tropical deforestation crisis in Central America by
Chastain and Sitz 16
providing farmers with sustainable alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture”
(Sustainable Harvest International 2008c). The strategy that SHI applies in all of their
Central American project areas (including Panama, Belize, Honduras, and Nicaragua) is
to employ local residents as field trainers who then provide training to other local
residents (Sustainable Harvest International 2008a). The organization recognizes the
importance of respecting the farmers’ autonomy and sovereignty, and for this reason uses
local field trainers to avoid casting even a shadow of paternalism. Also, “[l]ocal residents
possess an intimate understanding of the local geography, customs and circumstances of
the participants that allows them to work very effectively (Sustainable Harvest
International 2008c). Field trainers work for three to five years with families and farmers,
providing direct, hands-on training at least twice a month. In Belize, the trainers are
Mayan and speak the native language of the local villages, confronting a major challenge
to development in the country. In the Toledo district in southern Belize, a full time trainer
works in the local schools teaching sustainable tactics to the children of the community
(Morrison, telephone interview, 19 November 2009).
SHI and other similar organizations teach a myriad of sustainable agricultural
practices to farmers of Central America. In Belize, SHI teaches the following methods, in
addition to numerous others. Alley cropping is the practice of restoring nitrogen to the
top layer of the soil by planting nitrogen-fixing trees (with strong taproots to carry
nitrogen from deep under the surface up to the topsoil) in the midst of their crops. The
foliage can provide shade for crops like coffee, and after decomposition, mulch. Biogas
digesters are simple machines that allow organic material and manure to decompose in an
anaerobic setting and release methane gas. The gas is used for cooking on a methane
Chastain and Sitz 17
cook stove. Bocashi is a highly effective, safe, inexpensive and natural fertilizer made
from readily available materials like coffee pulp or rice hulls, manure, yeast and
molasses. Alternative pesticides use natural ingredients like hot peppers, cow urine, garlic
and soap to create potent but nontoxic pest control concoctions. Additionally, SHI
teaches families to build chicken coops that centralize the location of manure (to be used
in biogas digesters), protects chickens from predators, and centralizes the location of eggs
(Sustainable Harvest International 2008b). These are just a few examples of the many
realizations of sustainable agriculture that SHI and similar organizations teach to small
farmers and families.
In terms of development at large, improved agricultural practices help families to
improve their standards of living and gain access to new markets. The Toledo Cacao
Growers Association in Toledo, Belize, for example, provides nearly all of the chocolate
sold by the organic, fair trade company Maya Gold, and farmers in Toledo sell ginger to
an emerging business in Maine which manufactures organic dog treats called Barkwheats
(Sustainable
Harvest
International
2009).
Furthermore,
SHI
and
comparable
organizations teach Belizean farmers how to add value to their products by, for example,
selling sugar in compressed cakes rather than raw (Morrison, telephone interview, 19
November 2009). These superior farming methods leads to increased profits for farmers,
access to better education for their children, increased exposure to world markets, and
generally a higher quality of life.
The rich natural resources of Belize have allowed the nation to prosper in spite of
tumultuous periods during the nation’s history. Lingering effects of the country’s colonial
heritage are manifest in economic and social inequalities and in disparities of the
Chastain and Sitz 18
resources available to rural and urban areas. This, combined with problems in education,
infrastructure, and communication negatively impact Belize’s capacity for development.
However, international non-profit organizations are responding to the growing desire
among Belizean (and other Central American) farmers for efficient and environmentally
conscious agrarian practices. Healthy and sustainable agricultural initiatives have the
potential to ameliorate a number of the problems that have historically limited
development in these countries and that currently plague Belizean and Central American
societies.
Chastain and Sitz 19
References
Babcock, Elizabeth C. and Dennis Conway. 2000. "Why International Migration Has
Important Consequences for the Development of Belize." Conference of Latin
Americanist Geographers Yearbook 26:71-86.
Braun, Richard and Klaus Ammann. 2002. “Biodiversity: The Impact of Biotechnology.”
Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. Oxford: EOLSS Publishers. Electronic
edition. Retrieved on November 4, 2009 from http://www.botanischergarten.ch/
EFB/UNESCO-Biodiv-Biotech-Final.pdf.
Cornell, Joseph. 2007. "Slash and Burn." Encyclopedia of Earth. Washington, D.C.:
Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the
Environment. Retrieved on November 21, 2009 from http://www.eoearth.org/
article/Slash_and_burn.
Cropley, Lorelei. 2004. “The Effect of Health Education Interventions on Child Malaria
Treatment-seeking Practices Among Mothers in Rural Refugee Villages in Belize,
Central America.” Health Promotion International 19:2-8.
Duffy, Rosaleen. 2000. “Shadow Players: Ecotourism Development, Corruption and
State Politics in Belize.” Third World Quarterly 21:549-565.
Francis, Brian. 2006. "The Nature and Extent of Agricultural Export Diversification in
Belize and Dominica." Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies 31:39-64.
Francis, Brian, Sunday Osaretin Iyare, and Troy Lorde. 2007. “Agricultural Export
Diversification and Economic Growth in Caribbean Countries: Cointegration and
Error-Correction Models.” The International Trade Journal 21:229-256.
Chastain and Sitz 20
Gaarder, Robert and Carolyn McCommon. 1990. “Hershey Foods, Cocoa, and Belize: A
Collaborative Model for Third World Development.” Public Administration and
Development 10:343-360.
GMO Compass. 2006. “Biodiversity.” Retrieved on November 18, 2009 from
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/environmental_safety/
166.biodiversity_threatened_genetically_modified_plants.html.
Hilborn, R., C. J. Walters, and D. Ludwig. 1995. “Sustainable Exploitation of Renewable
Resources.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:45-67.
Human Development Reports. 2009. “Human Development Report 2009: Belize.” New
York, NY: Author. Retrieved on November 15, 2009 from
http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_BLZ.html.
Kidon Media Link. 2001. “Newspapers and News Sources from Belize.” Author.
Retrieved on November 14, 2009 from http://www.kidon.com/media-link/bz.php.
Lewis, M. Paul. 2009. “Languages of Belize.” Dallas, TX: Ethologue: Languages of the
World. Retrieved on November 12, 2009 from http://www.ethnologue.com/
show_map.asp?name=BZ&seq=10.
Library of Congress. 1992. “Belize: A Country Study.” Washington, DC: Tim Merrill.
Retrieved on November 14, 2009 from: http://countrystudies.us/belize.
Peedle, Ian. 2006. "Country Profile Belize." New Internationalist 392:36-36.
Sustainable Harvest International. 2008a. “International Programs – Country Programs.”
Surry, ME: Author. Retrieved on November 18, 2009 from
http://www.sustainableharvest.org/Country_programs.cfm.
Chastain and Sitz 21
Sustainable Harvest International. 2008b. “International Programs – Techniques.” Surry,
ME: Author. Retrieved on November 18, 2009 from
http://www.sustainableharvest.org/techniques.cfm.
Sustainable Harvest International. 2008c. “Who We are – History.” Surry, ME: Author.
Retrieved on November 18, 2009 from http://www.sustainableharvest.org/
history.cfm.
Sustainable Harvest International. 2008d. “Who We Are – Mission.” Surry, ME: Author.
Retrieved on November 18, 2009 from http://www.sustainableharvest.org/
whoweare.cfm.
Sustainable Harvest International. 2009. “Annual Report FY2009.” Surry, ME: Author.
Retrieved on November 18, 2009 from http://www.sustainableharvest.org/
pub_annualreports/AnnualReportFY2009.pdf.
U.S. Department of State. 2001. FY 2001 Country Commercial Guide: Belize.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Chastain and Sitz 22
Figure 1
(Gaarder and McCommon 1990:352)
Chastain and Sitz 23
Figure 2
(Lewis 2009)