Date post: | 03-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | team-el-salvador |
View: | 220 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 30
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
1/30
2013
Brent Hassebrock, Morgan Rogg
and Sarah White
Team El Salvador 7
February 28, 2013
Microcredit Evaluation among
Shrimp Cooperative Participants
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
2/30
[1]
Acknowledgements
We would like to extend a thank you to all those involved in the planning, organization, and
execution of this project, as well as to those community members who participated in the
interviews we conducted. The shrimp cooperative leaders interest, openness, and attention to
detail allowed us to gather valuable data that would not have been obtained if not for the time
and consideration of these producers.
We would also like to extend a special thanks to Juan Luna, Humberto Rosa, Maria Elena Vigil,
Erica, Amilcar Cruz, Leo, David Marroquin and Jose Dolores Rojas for sharing their knowledge
and for connecting us with local communities. Their efforts in providing information, mediation
and transportation were invaluable in making this project a reality. Our interpreter/translator,
Kayla Gilchrist, was a wonderful asset and went beyond her duties to fulfill the role of
communicator, facilitator, and liaison. The support and accommodation of the Coordinadora
staff, as well as of our host families, ensured that our time in the community was comfortableand filled with delicious Salvadorian food. Finally, we would like to thank the rest of Team El
Salvador and Adele Negro for their unwavering support.
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
3/30
[2]
Table of Contents1.1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Project Scope .......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Introduction of Indicators........................................................................................................................ 7
2.4 Indicators of Success: ............................................................................................................................. 7
2.5 Explanation of Indicators ........................................................................................................................ 8
2.6 Interview Summaries .............................................................................................................................. 9
2.6.1 Fauna Silvestre ................................................................................................................................. 9
2.6.2 San Francisco ................................................................................................................................... 9
2.6.3 Salvadorea .................................................................................................................................... 10
2.6.4 Santa Rosa ...................................................................................................................................... 10
2.6.5 Sara y Ana ...................................................................................................................................... 10
2.6.6 San Hilario ..................................................................................................................................... 11
2.6.7 Dr. Armando Navarrete, Biologist ................................................................................................. 11
3.1 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Challenges & Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................. 16
4.1 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 17
4.2 Looking Forward .................................................................................................................................. 18
5.1 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 20
5.1.1 Appendix I: Key Informants .......................................................................................................... 20
5.1.2 Appendix II: Interview Questions for Cooperative Leaders .......................................................... 21
5.1.3 Appendix III: Interview Questions for Environmental Expert ...................................................... 23
5.1.4 Appendix IV: Relevant Photos ...................................................................................................... 25
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
4/30
[3]
1.1 Executive Summary
The relationship between the Monterey Institute of International Studies and La Coordindora-Asociacin Mangle is continually strengthened and renewed each year through valuablecooperation and skills-based learning experiences among the two organizations. This year marks
the sixth year of team El Salvador project work in the Bajo Lempa and the Bay of Jiquiliscoareas, and the fourth year of collaborative projects within the framework of a Memorandum ofUnderstanding withLa Coordinadora-Asociacin Mangle.
During the three weeks of project work in the region between January 7 and January 25 of 2013,the team examined the functioning and impact of the microcredit program ofAsociacin Manglewithin the shrimp farming credit linebased on reported high rates of loan repayment in thatsector. Through interviews with local cooperative leaders and members, the microcredit teamdetermined a need to develop and define the rules and techniques of the Production andCommercialization Program for the shrimp farming sector in order to help strengthen appropriateand consistent management and monitoring of the shrimp production credit line. The team
recommended that Asociacin Mangle work with cooperatives to develop a group savings planthat would eventually lessen dependence on loans, and that the organization provide informationthrough workshops and trainings to assist cooperatives in improving their operations both interms of production and environmental sustainability.
The microcredit team held interviews for two weeks with cooperative leaders to ascertain currenteconomic, social and environmental trends within the cooperatives and their communities. Theseinterviews also enabled the team to examine the impact ofAsociacin Mangle loans as a broaderdevelopment program according to various predetermined indicators of success of within variouscategories. The specific categories and indicators will be introduced later in this report. Theinterviews provided substantial information for a more in-depth understanding of the nature and
the history of the relationship Asociacin Mangle maintains with communities and the shrimpcooperatives in the area.
The report includes a summary of each interview as well as an overall evaluation of allcooperatives interviewed based on pre-determined indicators. Given the interview data,discussions with Mangle representatives, and review of pertinent program documentation, thereport also includes recommendations for how to strengthen the microcredit program. Lastly theteam has provided suggestions for how future delegations may carry forward this project.
This collaborative experience has provided the students of the microcredit team with asubstantial professional experience that enhances aspects of their academic pursuits and career
aspirations, while also deepening their cross-cultural understandings.
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
5/30
[4]
1.2 Introduction
The microcredit program ofAsociacin Mangle provides small loans to producers for the
purpose of purchasing the inputs necessary for a cycle of production. The program aims to give
producers a means of income that will ultimately improve the quality of living of the community.From an annual portfolio of $150,000 of funding that comes from the Inter-American
Foundation, this program provides low interest loans to three different production sectors in the
Jiquilisco Bay: shrimp farming, agriculture and livestock.
Mangle differentiated shrimp farming as a separate line of credit from the broader category of
agricultural loans within the last year. As such, the organization has yet to develop a microcredit
administration and regulation plan specific to this sector. Although the shrimp farming line of
credit is relatively new and unregulated, it reports excellent rates of repayment. It is for this
reason that we, in conjunction with the board members ofAsociacin Mangle, chose to use the
shrimp-farming sector as the basis for a model framework.
After meeting with the members of the board and program coordinators on January 7th, 2013,
the microcredit team started working to evaluate the success and impact of the Mangle
microcredit program among shrimp farming cooperatives in the Salinas del Potrero hub. The
teams objective was to present a framework of indicators of success that could be used for
future evaluations of other sectors under the Mangle microcredit program. To facilitate a more
comprehensive evaluation and understanding of the programs effectiveness, the team devised
indicators of success within six distinct categories, as follows:
Impact of Microcredit on Production of Shrimp Farm Cooperatives
Quality of Mangles Organizational Relations with Shrimp Farm Cooperatives
Short-Term Community Development as a Result of Microcredit
Long-Term Community Development and/or Investment as a Result of Microcredit
Sustainability of Microcredit Program
Impact of Microcredit on Environmental Sustainability of Production
The team selected these categories in order to facilitate an evaluation that goes beyond defining
the programs success as simply heightened shrimp production or excellent microcredit loan
repayment rates. This evaluation also considers the programs effects on quality of life for
shrimp cooperative members and their families; investment in production-related and
community-related infrastructure; Mangles organizational relations with community members
and an understanding of their needs; and the ability of the program to help beneficiaries become
economically independent as well as minimize the environmental impact of production. The
team hopes that this evaluation will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
6/30
[5]
potential success of the microcredit program as an integrated development program within the
community rather than as solely a credit system.
2.1 Project Scope
This project evaluated the functioning and management of the microcredit loan program
administered byAsociacin Mangle in the shrimp farming sector. The emphasis was on the roles
assumed by the lending program as part of a community-wide, sustainable development strategy
in the area of the Bajo Lempa and the Bay of Jiquilisco. The lending program contains three lines
of credit currently, those being: shrimp, livestock and agriculture. According to Mangle, the
lending program overall has exhibited a low reimbursement rate of less than 30%. However, the
shrimp sector boasted a much higher rate of repayment, which Asociacin Mangle viewed as a
success. The team analyzed the relationship between Asociacin Mangle and shrimp farming
cooperatives in the region that participated in the microcredit lending program. The team alsoexamined shrimp farming production and commercialization strategies to understand how
cooperatives utilized loans and to measure the economic, environmental and social sustainability
of the lending program. The team then extrapolated the data to form recommendations for
Asociacin Mangle to improve the sustainability of its microcredit lending program as a whole.
2.2 Methodology
Prior to Team El Salvadors arrival in the Bajo Lempa, the microcredit team submitted its projectproposal to the board members ofAsociacin Mangle for review. After an initial discussion of
the merits of the proposal, the team met with Production Program Coordinator, Juan Luna to
finalize the methodologies and deliverables of the project, and then created a work schedule for
the weeks that followed.
In order to gather the necessary information on cooperative success within Mangles credit
structure, the microcredit team conducted qualitative research based on three methodologies:
semi-structured interviews of cooperative leaders using open-ended questions; a review of loan
documents and scientific literature pertaining to the Bay of Jiquilisco shrimp sector; and, when
possible, the direct observation of shrimp cooperatives production practices and attitudes. JuanLuna and Humberto Rosa, Microcredit Program Coordinator, scheduled interviews with
cooperatives leaders, credit administrators, and an environmental expert in the shrimp production
sector.
In the days before the first cooperative meeting, the team developed a series of 37 interview
questions for cooperative leaders (see Appendix II) based on the indicators of success, in order to
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
7/30
[6]
gather qualitative data from each cooperative and to later categorize this information by
indicator. The team then devised open-ended interview questions in order to obtain in-depth,
unbiased responses with respect to some of the impacts of the microcredit system that were not
previously considered or that were incidental effects or externalities. By allowing the
interviewees to answer the questions freely and engage in an open conversation about their
experiences in the microcredit program, the team aimed to gather more data and with greater
reliability.
When possible, team members supplemented the information they received from the interviews
with direct observations of the cooperatives operations, such as: the use of floodgates and
reservoir canals; the proximity of mangrove forests and the use of buffer zones; and the number
and state of any tanks showing signs of being affected by shrimp disease. The team had already
conducted a general literature review of the shrimp farming sector prior to its arrival in El
Salvador, then gathered additional scientific resources specific to the region after meeting with
the Mangle board. During the three weeks in-country, Humberto Rosa provided the team withavailable loan documents for shrimp cooperatives participating in the microcredit program.
The team met with representatives of six shrimping cooperatives located near the Bay of
Jiquilisco between Wednesday, January 9 and Friday, January 18, 2013. Five of the cooperatives
are located in the Salinas del Potrero hub, while the sixth, San Hilario, is located in the Salinas El
Zompopero hub. Interviews conducted at the cooperative site generally lasted between sixty and
ninety minutes. Four of the cooperatives interviewed either had previously received or currently
receive microcredit loans from Mangle: Fauna Silvestre, San Francisco, Santa Rosa, and Sara y
Ana. The other two cooperatives, La Salvadorea and San Hilario, had never received shrimp
microcredit loans from Mangle; however, both expressed interested in participating in theprogram. These cooperatives answered questions pertaining to how they perceived the
microcredit program and how they believed that a microcredit loan from Mangle would impact
their shrimp production in their cooperatives.
Additionally, the team met with Armando Navarrete, a biologist and expert on the environmental
impact of shrimp production, as well as with microcrdit coordinator Humberto Rosa.
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
8/30
[7]
2.3 Introduction of Indicators
The team chose its indicators to reflect the dimensions of a successful microcredit lending
program that enables inside-out (as opposed to outside-in) community development and
improves economic development and independence as well as environmental sustainability whilealso maintaining strong relationships with communities. They are divided in the following six
categories with specific indicators for each category:
2.4 Indicators of Success:
Category I: Impact of Microcredit on Production of Shrimp Farm Cooperatives
Indicator 1: Microcredit has allowed for increased production
Indicator 2: Microcredit has allowed for investment in operational capacities
Category II: Quality of Mangles Organizational Relations with Shrimp Farm Cooperatives
Indicator 3: Cooperatives prefer Mangle microcredit loans over bank loans
Indicator 4: Cooperatives feel they have strong relations with Mangle
Indicator 5: Mangle microcredit system accommodates individual cooperative needs
Category III: Short-Term Community Development as a Result of Microcredit
Indicator 6: Microcredit boosts income for basic needs
Category IV: Long-Term Community Development and/or Investment as a Result of Microcredit
Indicator 7: Microcredit allows for improved investment in communities
Category V: Sustainability of Microcredit Program
Indicator 8: Cooperatives are not dependent on microcredit program
Indicator 9: Cooperatives feel they could not produce without microcredit in the future
Indicator 10: Cooperatives are not vulnerable to economic or natural shocks
Category VI: Impact of Microcredit on Environmental Sustainability of Production
Indicator 11: Microcredit restricts use of watershed polluting inputs
Indicator 12: Microcredit facilitates infrastructure that lessens environmental impact
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
9/30
[8]
2.5 Explanation of Indicators
I. The impact of the microcredit program on production is indicative of the programs economic
sustainability for the cooperatives. Since the loans fund inputs for shrimp production, the team
assumes that if this leads to increased production and investment in operational capacities, theincome for families of producing cooperatives would increase, thus advancing their economic
stability.
II. The quality of the relationship between Asociacin Mangle and the cooperatives is
instrumental to the success ofMangles microcredit program since the program is based on an
honor system framework. Here, quality of relationship is demonstrated by cooperative preference
forMangle as a lender over a bank, the stated quality of relations by the cooperative members,
and the ability ofMangle to understand and respond to the situation of each community and the
respected challenges they face. The team evaluated the programs accessibility to cooperatives
and provided an understanding of individual cooperatives perceived quality of relationship with
the organization.
III & IV. The lending programs impact on short- as well as long-term community development
demonstrates the outcomes that access to financing is achieving or not achieving in the
cooperatives communities. It is important that short-term and long-term needs both be met and
that the satisfaction of one does not restrict the fulfillment of the other. Some short-term needs
often also represent long-term needs, such as investment in education. The team evaluated how
cooperatives utilized their incomes from production to meet short-term needs in the community
such as providing for basic needs, and how cooperatives invest their incomes from production inlong-term targets for the community, such as infrastructure, health, education, etc.
V. The ability of a microcredit program to continue to operate over time would indicate the
programs economic sustainability, which in turn affects the economic viability of individual
cooperatives. For the lending program to continue to operate in the longer term, however, it is
important that at some stage the cooperatives no longer require loans; this would therefore enable
Asociacin Mangle to devote funds elsewhere in the area as needed. To measure this, the team
evaluated whether or not cooperatives felt that they could become independent of microcredit
loans in the future. It is also important that Asociacin Mangle have the capacity to recover
loaned money. The team also evaluated how the cooperatives respond or plan to respond to
market shocks and natural disasters that could prevent them from being able to pay back their
current loans.
VI. The last indicators of success ensure that microcredit loans do not directly fund practices that
are harmful to the environment. Since shrimp farming occurs in tanks near mangrove swamps,
the team assessed the degree of use of inputs that pollute the watershed. Furthermore, certain
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
10/30
[9]
production infrastructure improvements can have positive or negative impacts on the
surrounding environment; therefore, the team assessed the infrastructure improvements
cooperatives had made and the reasons for them In considering environmental sustainability, the
team recognizes the severe challenges cooperatives face in any production process. Therefore,
the team does not view sustainability as a rigid, defined, end goal, but rather a continuing process
of improvement which strengthens the resiliency, stability, and adaptability of the cooperatives.
2.6 Interview Summaries
2.6.1 Fauna Silvestre
The interview with Mr. Romeo took place at the cooperative. He stressed the significance of the
cooperatives involvement with Asociacin Mangle following the governments demobilization
of its armed forces, and stated that the cooperative has an exceptional relationship built on trustwith Asociacin Mangle, like brothers. The team discovered microcredit loans significantly
increased the cooperatives production levels, and that subsequent higher yields positively
correlated with the cooperative members abilities to support their families. Unfortunately, the
cooperative perceives significant risk of the Mancha Blanca virus lowering its yields. Mr. Romeo
did not believe that the cooperative could produce without microcredit loans and stated that
deeper and more structurally sound tanks would allow them more economic independence in the
future. The cooperative uses various chemical inputs in production alongside natural fertilizer
and employs a mono-culture system, and does not have a water and nutrient cycling system.
Following the interview, Mr. Romero gave the team a tour of the shrimp tanks.
2.6.2 San Francisco
The interview with Rogelio Arriaga took place at his home. Mancha Blanca virus currently
lowers the cooperatives production level, but Mr. Arriaga revealed that the cooperative
improved its production methods to increase yields. The cooperative uses the microcredit loans
to purchase production inputs, specifically larva and concentrated feed, and Mr. Arriaga
emphasized that if the cooperative can buy more larva, then its yields will increase. The
cooperative never used microcredit loans for infrastructure improvements, but is considering the
option and mentioned needing a loan to deepen the tanks. The cooperative worked with
Asociacin Mangle years ago and lost contact for some time, but began working with Asociacin
Mangle again last spring. Hub President Mauricio Cruz helped them regain their credibility with
the organizationafter the cooperative could not repay a microcredit loan. The cooperative enjoys
the ability to apply for multiple microcredits at once to guarantee that it acquires all the
production inputs it needs each cycle. The cooperative does not anticipate successful production
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
11/30
[10]
cycles without the microcredit loans. The cooperative applies 15-15-15 fertilizer and employs a
mono-culture system, and does not have a water and nutrient cycling system.
2.6.3 Salvadorea
The interview with Jos Martinez took place at the cooperative and another cooperative memberalso participated. Half-way through the interview, the team learned that the cooperative has
interest in participating in Mangles microcredit program, but has not actually received loans to
date. The cooperative cannot currently obtain a microcredit loan because its production permit
expired. As a result, the team reframed some interview questions to identify how the cooperative
would hypothetically utilize a microcredit loan, and omitted questions that were not relevant to
the cooperative as a non-participant in the microcredit program. The cooperative wants to expand
its infrastructure, i.e. wants to improve their tanks and install reservoir canals, and also has
interest in receiving training to increase their production capacity. The cooperative uses the
various and commonplace chemical inputs in production alongside natural fertilizer and employs
a mono-culture system, and does not have a water and nutrient cycling system. Mr. Martinez
gave the team a brief tour of the shrimp tanks following the interview.
2.6.4 Santa Rosa
The interview with Jos Isabel Rivera took place at the cooperative in the company of another
cooperative member. The team discovered that the production levels were relatively low and
that overall, the strategies of the cooperative were similar to others interviewed such as selling to
intermediaries, spending microcredit on production inputs and using concentrated feed inproduction. The loans fromMangle have increased production capacity substantially and overall
the relationship between the cooperative and the lender is good. The loans have provided a
higher standard of living for the cooperative and their families, and Mr. Rivera highlighted the
need for Mangle to continue working with the cooperatives in the future. Mr. Rivera pointed out
that in order to produce independently in the future, the cooperative would need financing to
invest in infrastructure improvements. Finally, the cooperative uses the various and
commonplace chemical inputs in production alongside natural fertilizer and employs a mono-
culture system, but has a water and nutrient cycling system in place. Following the interview,
Mr. Rivera showed the team around the production ponds.
2.6.5 Sara y Ana
The interview with Mauricio Cruz took place at the Asociacin Mangle offices in San Nicolas,
where the team learned that Mr. Cruz is also president of the Salinas del Potrero hub. The
cooperative has some level of production-increasing infrastructure already in place due to
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
12/30
[11]
microcredit loans, and one tank now operates independently of loans. The loans enabled the
cooperative to transition into a semi-artisanal production type. Mr. Cruz explained that the
cooperative has set production goals with specific requirements to reach a monetary goal for the
other tanks to be able to operate independently from Mangle loans in the future. These plans rely
upon more loans, which the cooperative needs for infrastructure improvements. The cooperative
currently wants loans to install pumps. The cooperative uses synthetic chemical inputs,
concentrated feed and natural inputs. Mr. Cruz closely related the cooperatives environmental
impacts and limitations to production issues, such as maintaining the optimal density of shrimp
in the ponds to avoid spreading disease while producing at a higher intensity.
2.6.6 San Hilario
The interview with Delmy Josefina Viera took place at her home in San Hilario. The cooperative
is at a higher production level than cooperatives in Salinas del Potrero and wants to install
infrastructure that both increase production and the value of the product. Ms. Viera specifically
mentioned wanting to build a warehouse and a processing plant to be able to store the product
and avoid some of the price-setting incurred by intermediaries, and to derive added value to
increase the price of the product. During the interview, the team discovered that San Hilario
cooperative does not receive loans fromAsociacin Mangle. Ms. Viera notified the team that the
cooperative seeks training from the organization and has requested a loan. The cooperative
currently receives loans from a local church, but that without any loans production could not
continue. The cooperative uses significantly less chemical inputs in production, and wants to
integrate tilapia into the production system.
2.6.7 Dr. Armando Navarrete, Biologist
The interview with Dr. Navarrete took place at his residential laboratory in San Hilario. From his
experience working with local shrimp as a biologist with ICMARES and ITCA, Dr. Navarrete
deeply understood the challenges that shrimp producers faced and gave the team an in-depth list
of these issues. The team discovered that many of the economic challenges that producers faced
directly implicated environmental sustainability shortcomings. For example, poor water quality
is a problem that can affect the production of the shrimp, since the shared water sources used to
fill the tanks are often already highly polluted. In addition, erosion caused by deforestation can
reduce the depth of the shrimp ponds, which significantly increases shrimp mortality.
Dr. Navarrete shared many valuable insights regarding ways that producers can increase
production and can improve the sustainability of their operations. He stated that the use of lime is
damaging to the environment and to production because it prevents the decomposition of organic
material in the tanks, which can affect shrimp quality and increase the incidence of disease. In
fact, he noted that MARN recommends that producers stop using the compound. In addition, Dr.
Navarrete believes that the local production of more sustainable shrimp feed would be possible
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
13/30
[12]
with increased training and technical support. If local producers could manufacture a viable feed
from local sources, they would be able to reduce dependence on imported fish feed that has a
carbon footprint from transportation as well as being sourced from other fish species. Dr.
Navarrete also stated that molasses is an effective substitute for conventional fertilizers. It can
produce an equivalent algal bloom to feed shrimp and shade the tanks, while having other
important benefits: reduced organic waste materials left in the tanks, reduced incidence of
disease, and reduced eutrophication of waterways. In addition, Dr. Navarrete believes that
closed-cycle production is the best way to increase production while reducing the incidence of
disease. In the current form of production, the incidence of disease increases significantly once
intensification of production surpasses 8-10 shrimp per meter squared. Finally, Dr. Navarrete
stated that the industry would benefit from the creation of a green labeling system to differentiate
sustainably farmed shrimp from those farmed using more conventional methods.
3.1 Evaluation
Indicator 1: Microcredit has allowed for an increase in yield from production
Successful.
Among all cooperatives interviewed, all informants acknowledged a significant increase in
production due to access to microcredit. Informants stated microcredit guarantees and augments
the inputs needed for cultivation which increases their production. It is clear from the interviews
that the microcredit program is most successful in allowing cooperatives to increase their
production levels.
Indicator 2: Microcredit has allowed for investment in operational capacities
Minimally successful.
Cooperatives primarily used microcredits for production inputs rather than infrastructure or
operational technology. However, individual cooperatives reported that microcredit loans
facilitated extra profits that enabled the construction of guard houses and general maintenance of
tanks. In addition, two cooperatives within Salinas de Potrero received microcredit loans forinfrastructure. In general, cooperatives have an interest in improving their infrastructure but
prioritize obtaining microcredit loans for production inputs. This shows a trend toward short-
term solutions to ensure the success of a cycle rather than long-term investment in operations.
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
14/30
[13]
Indicator 3: Cooperatives Prefer Microcredit Program to a Bank Loan
Successful.
All cooperatives interviewed prefer theAsociacinMangle microcredit program to a bank loan
due to the lower interest rates offered by the organization. Because the cooperatives do not have
collateral in the form of land, they are ineligible for a bank loan. One cooperative stated that the
organizations efficiency in loan disbursement is an advantage compared to the lengthy process
of obtaining a bank loan.Asociacin Mangle successfully provides greater credit access to the
community while quickening the process to adapt to the communitys needs.
Indicator 4: Cooperatives feel they have good relations withAsociacin Mangle
Successful.
All cooperatives interviewed stated they have good relations withAsociacin Mangle. Noted
quotes are, They are our brothers, and, We are their sons. Two out of six cooperatives
interviewed stated thatMangle providing the necessary funds and training to establish their
operations. Two cooperatives expressed positive experiences withAsociacin Mangle, but noted
that room for improvement remains. Related to the previous indicator, cooperatives enjoy a
positive relationship withMangle due to mutual trust and understanding of community
challenges. This unique relationship allows greater flexibility for repayment and strengthens
community relations.
Indicator 5:Asociacin Mangle microcredit system accommodates individual cooperative needs
Successful
Cooperatives appreciated that theAsociacin Mangle microcredit program allowed them to
apply for multiple microcredits needed for production inputs simultaneously. Individual
cooperatives also expressed gratitude for the level of flexibility and understanding for
unpredictable circumstances or difficulties during production cycles and the possibility of
refinancing. The cooperative leaders commonly considered the adaptability of the Mangles
microcredit approval and regulation system to reflect the strength of the program.
Indicator 6: Microcredits improve the ability of community members to meet basic needs
Successful
In all cooperatives currently receiving credits fromAsociacin Mangle, microcredits improved
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
15/30
[14]
the ability of the community members to meet basic needs, such as food, clothing, shoes and
supplies for home gardening and animal husbandry. Cooperatives stated that the microcredit
allowed them to purchase a larger quantity of larva and concentrated feed, leading to increased
production and thus increased income.
Indicator 7: Microcredits allow for improved long-term investment in communities
Unsuccessful
A few of the cooperatives stated that the microcredit loans allowed for increased investment in
long-term community development. Those that did indicate that they used funds for long-term
development cited more consistent schooling for local children and the construction of access
roads that made it easier for buyers to reach the producers. The Sara y Ana cooperative used
microcredit loans to install a potable water system, reflecting a longer-term investment in the
community as a result of having the microcredit financing.
Indicator 8: Cooperatives are not dependent on Microcredit Program
Unsuccessful
All interviewed shrimp farming cooperatives participating in theAsociacin Mangle microcredit
program remain dependent upon microcredits for their production with the exception of one tank
in the Sara y Ana cooperative which now operates without loans which Ms. Viera attributed to
extensive infrastructure and greater economies of scale. In general, cooperatives relied heavily
upon microcredit loans to purchase every input necessary for a cycle of production, notably forlarva, feed, and lime.
Indicator 9: Cooperatives feel they could produce without microcredit in the future
Unsuccessful
Cooperatives generally doubted that future production could be sustained without microcredit
loans. However, two cooperatives supposed that economic independence could be feasible with
training and improved infrastructure. Given the general dependence on loans for production
inputs each cycle, as well as the involvement of loans in almost all future plans, cooperatives do
not envision producing independently from loans in the future.
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
16/30
[15]
Indicator 10: Cooperatives are not vulnerable to economic or natural shocks
Unsuccessful
Vulnerability to the white-spot (mancha blanca) virus concerns most of the shrimp
cooperatives, as do natural disasters. Cheaper contraband shrimp from Honduras and Nicaragua
also limit the cooperatives ability to compete economically in the region. Overall, cooperatives
remain highly vulnerable to these disruptions that can hinder their abilities to repay microcredit
loans in the future.
Indicator 11: Microcredit restricts use of watershed polluting inputs
Minimally successful
Mangle gives loans specifically for lime but not for synthetic or natural fertilizer such as Melaza.All interviewed cooperatives in Salinas del Potrero apply lime and granulated chlorine, as well as
fertilizers to the tanks as this is not restricted by the microcredit program. All cooperatives
purchase imported concentrated feed usingMangle loans. Although the loans for these inputs
substantially increase production, they fund practices that ultimately pollute the watershed for
reasons explained above from the interview with Dr. Navarrete.
Indicator 12: Microcredit facilitates infrastructure that lessens environmental impact
Unsuccessful
The cooperatives in Salinas del Potrero, with the exception of Santa Rosa, do not have reservoir
canals to recycle nutrients and circulate water; this exacerbates water quality conditions and the
health of the ecosystems associated with the watershed. In all cooperatives, loans were used for
production inputs, rather than for infrastructure that lessens environmental impact. Overall, the
majority of microcredit loans fund inputs that harm the ecosystems both inside and outside the
tanks rather than circulation projects that alleviate the damage to these ecosystems.
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
17/30
[16]
3.2 Challenges & Lessons Learned
As with any project, the team faced several challenges. In some cases, those challenges delayed
the projects momentum or hindered the validity/reliability of the data collected. This section is
meant to pinpoint such aspects in order to better inform future evaluation expectations and toprovide recommendations for what can be improved upon by both Team El Salvador and
Associacin Mangle in the future.
A. Interview questions should be as clear and concise as possible. The team found that the first
set of interview questions the team drafted was too complex and required additional explanation
by team members and the interpreter, which took up more time during interviews. The final draft
of interview questions was established through trial and error. While a similar strategy will likely
be required should future evaluations be developed, it should be noted that the language and the
framing of questions should be clear and simple. It is important to note that cooperative and
community members may not share the same terminology as Monterey students or may havetheir own terminology that Monterey students are not aware of. These details should be noted
and incorporated in interview questions when possible.
B. Inconsistent communication between team El Salvador and Asociacin Mangle prior to Team
El Salvadors arrival in the Bajo Lempa limited effective preparation and caused confusion
between the two parties regarding the project scope during the teams first few days in the Bajo
Lempa. Establishing clearly designated contacts in September/October would allow both parties
to better communicate so as to create a project plan that would employ the areas of competence
of Monterey Institute students and at the same time serve the needs ofAsociacin Mangle.
C. Three weeks go by quickly. Scheduling as many community meetings and interviews as
possible in the first few days helps guarantee that the group will have sufficient time to gather
necessary data and add meetings/interviews as necessary.
D. Shrimp farmers do not necessarily know the varieties of shrimp species that they cultivate or
other related technical or scientific terminology. It is best not to rely on interviews to obtain this
information, but instead, conduct research ahead of time, when possible.
E. It is essential to ask the interviewees permission before recording. Furthermore, interviewees
do not generally answer interview questions in just a few words; therefore, it is very helpful to
have the interview recording in order to listen to responses again when compiling and analyzing
data
.
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
18/30
[17]
F. When requesting documentation or assistance from Asociacin Mangle, project teams should
specifically indicate the information they are seeking (documentation or an interview) and
specify their objective in doing so, in order to eliminate any misinterpretation. It may not always
be obvious to Asociacin Mangle what teams are seeking or why.
4.1 Recommendations
A. Develop a Best Practices and Techniques Document
Given that the shrimp line of credit is relatively new and that currentlyAsociacin Mangle has
no written protocol specific to the shrimping microcredit program, a priority would be to
establish a process to facilitate appropriate and consistent management and monitoring of this
line of credit. The written protocol should list specific eligibility requirements, as well as outline
and define the best practices and regulations of the production and commercialization program
for the shrimp sector. It is further recommended that the best practices outlined in this document
include measures to improve the sustainability of operations, such as reductions in the use of
chemical fertilizers and lime. We suggest using theReglamento de Credito Agropecuario as a
framework for developing this document. This document is important for establishing written
standards to effectively monitor the program.
B. Require Financial Planning for Microcredit Applicants
The team recommends thatAsociacin Mangle require producers applying for a microcredit loan
to meet with the organizations accountants prior to the disbursement of the funds in order todevelop a financial business plan. This plan would include both short-term and long-term goals
and strategies, with the final objective of reaching economic self-sufficiency. In addition, this
business strategy should include contingency plans to help producers better manage those
problems that could negatively affect production, such as flooding or disease epidemics. The
requirement would ensure that the beneficiaries of the microcredit see their operation as a
business with a future, so that every decision is made with the final objective of financial
independence in mind. The team anticipates that additional financial planning would also limit
the risk of default or refinancing.
C. Require Microcredit Beneficiaries to Participate in a Group Savings Plan
A key characteristic among all cooperatives interviewed is their dependence on microloans for
the purchase of major production inputs at each production cycle, a dependence compounded by
the general consensus that production would not be possible without access to microloans.
Considering this dependence on loans for the purchase of inputs, the lack of funding for
maintenance and infrastructure, and the high vulnerability to economic and natural shocks, the
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
19/30
[18]
team believes that a group savings plan would relieve the combined financial stress that these
three factors present. The incorporation of a group savings plan could:
Encourage and facilitate improved financial planning Mitigate or alleviate losses due to epidemics or natural disasters Provide funds for general maintenance of infrastructure Provide funds for expansion and improvement of operations (such as improved
technology, infrastructure, and training)
In the case thatAsociacin Mangle does not have the capacity to develop this feature in-house, a
solution may be to add a prerequisite that the cooperatives have and contribute to a group savings
plan with a local bank. This aspect could operate on an honors system or, alternatively,
cooperatives receiving credit could show proof of having and contributing to a group savings
plan by providing bank statements with each new credit application.
D. Provide Knowledge Sharing & Training to Bolster Production
Upon interviewing biologist Armando Navarrette of the Central American Institute of
Technology working with the Business Foundation for Educational Development (ITCA-
FEPADE), it became apparent that shrimp cooperatives lack knowledge and training on how to
produce in a manner that will not only increase their yield but also minimize their impact on the
environment. This interview highlighted a number of techniques that would improve production
and lower costs.AsociacinMangle, as a creditor,should not necessarily have to stipulate how
cooperatives conduct their operation. However, given the organizationsposition and credibility
in the community, theMangle could successfully facilitate knowledge sharing. We suggest that it
bring in experts and host workshops or trainings for the benefit of both the Mangle staff and
cooperative members. The team also notes that cooperative leaders expressed an interest and
need for additional training to improve their production levels.
4.2 Looking Forward
The indicators used in this evaluation can be expanded upon to reflect the needs and the structure
of other sectors receiving microcredit. This would allow future Team El Salvador project teams
to use the same framework of indicators to assess those sectors. While the background research,
interview questions, and the dimensions of each indicator will differ between lines of credit, the
outcome of this project should offer a reliable foundation for future evaluations ofAsociacin
Mangles microcredit program; furthermore, it is hoped that future student delegations will assist
in the implementation of our recommendations.
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
20/30
[19]
Lastly, the project team strongly believes that an overall assessment of the accounting structure
used in the microcredit program would be valuable, but it should be noted that this type of
evaluation will require a specialized team with training in accounting and financial management.
By increasing the involvement of MBA students in future Team El Salvador delegations, we
believe that an accurate and in-depth evaluation of the administrative and financial divisions of
the microcredit program ofAsociacin Mangle could be achieved.
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
21/30
[20]
5.1 Appendices
5.1.1 Appendix I: Key Informants
Who Where Date Time
Jos Amilcar Cruz, president of
Mangle Board of Directors; Erica,
Mangle accountant; Humberto Rosa,
Coordinator of Microcredit Program
San Nicolas 1/7/2013 2:00 pm
Juan Luna, Production Program
Coordinator and liaison setting up
meetings with cooperative leaders
San Nicolas 1/8/2013 2:00 pm
Romeo, leader of Fauna Silvestre
Shrimp Cooperative
Salinas el Potrero 1/9/2013 9:00 am
Rogelio Arriaga, leader of San
Francisco Shrimp Cooperative
Salinas el Potrero 1/10/2013 9:00 am
Juan Jos Martinez, leader of
Salvadorena Shrimp Cooperative
and Rigoberto, member
Salinas el Potrero 1/11/2013 9:00 am
Jos Isabel Rivera, leader of Santa
Rosa Shrimp Cooperative
Salinas el Potrero 1/15/2013 9:00 am
Mauricio Cruz, leader of Sara y Ana
Shrimp Cooperative
San Nicolas 1/16/2013 9:00 am
Dr. Armando Navarrete, biologist San Hilario 1/17/2013 9:00 am
Delmy Josefina Viera, Administrative
Manager of San Hilario Shrimp
Cooperative
San Hilario 1/18/2013 9:00 am
Humberto Rosa, Coordinator ofMangles Microcredit Program
San Nicolas 1/22/2013 9:00 am
Mangle Board of Directors and
Project Liaisons (Presentation of
Preliminary Findings)
Ciudad Romero 1/24/2013 9:00 am
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
22/30
[21]
5.1.2 Appendix II: Interview Questions for Cooperative Leaders
Introduccin
Esta entrevista ser ms bien como una encuesta, porque sabemos que su tiempo es muy valioso.Por eso, nos gustara que nos d respuestas completas pero precisas para poder abordar todas las
preguntas y para no malgastar su tiempo. Antes de nada, muchas gracias por su participacin, su
ayuda en cuanto a responder estas preguntas nos permite entender mejor por qu su cooperativa
ha tenido xito en cuanto al programa de microcrdito de Asociacin Mangle para el sector
camaronero. Esperamos que esta informacin pueda ayudar a Asociacin Mangle mejorar la
gestin de su programa para serviles mejor a ustedes como participantes tanto como a la
comunidad. Como lder de la cooperativa, nos gustara que conteste usted estas preguntas de
parte de la cooperativa entera.
Preguntas de Produccin
1. Cuantos miembros tiene su cooperativa? De estos cuantos participan en el cultivo?2. Cuantos quintales de camarones se cosechan durante cada ciclo?3. Cuantos estanques utilizan ustedes actualmente para la produccin?4. De qu tamaos son los estanques?5. Cuantos ciclos hay durante un ao entero?6. Cules especies de camarn cultivan ustedes?7. Qu es el porcentaje de su cosecha que venden ustedes?8. A quin(es) venden su producto?9.
Adnde lo venden?
10.A qu precio se venden sus camarones?11.El microcrdito les ha permitido aumentar su produccin? Por cuanto ha aumentado su
produccin?
12.El microcrdito les ha permitido ampliar su operacin? En el caso que s, cmo?13.Les interesa la expansin? Si la respuesta es s, que tipo de expansin les interesa?
Preguntas de Administracin
14.Con cuanta frecuencia reciben ustedes un microcrdito? Cuantos microcrditos se leshan otorgado hasta ahora? Cundo saco usted su primer micro crdito?
15.Existen cuotas o lo pago usted en una vez?16.De qu manera invierten ustedes su micro crdito?17.Cules son los requisitos que tienen satisfacer para obtener un crdito?18.Despus de recibir el cheque de Mangle, hay algn requisito ms con lo que cumplir
para la asociacin?
19.Qu tipo de obstculos les impedira reembolsar su microcrdito?
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
23/30
[22]
20.Cules son las dificultades (o retos) que enfrentan ustedes como beneficiarios y quetendra que tomar en cuenta Mangle para poder mejorar su programa de microcrdito?
(Tienen ustedes su herencias de cmo funciona mejor el programa de mangle?)
21.Cmo evala usted la experiencia que han tenido con el programa de microcrdito deMangle?
22.Cmo describira usted la relacin entre mangle y ustedes? Han tenido buenaexperiencia trabajando con Mangle?
Preguntas del Desarrollo de Comunidad
23.Cmo ha mejorado este micro crdito la vida de ustedes y/o sus familias?24.Cmo han utilizado las ganancias de la produccin de camarn?25.Han utilizado las ganancias de la cooperativa para mejorar la infraestructura de la
comunidad (por ejemplo, para construir un camino o un canal de agua)?
26.Tienen ustedes otra fuente de ingresos aparte del cultivo de camern?27.Cules son las ventajas de participar en el programa de Mangle en vez de sacar un
crdito de un banco tradicional?
Preguntas de la Sostenibilidad del programa
28.Si no hubieran sacado el microcrdito, podran, actualmente cultivar el camern (en estemomento por ejemplo)?
29.Qu es lo que les permitiran en el futuro cultivar sin ayuda financiera (por ejemplo:recursos, herramientas, tecnologa, infraestructura)?
Preguntas de la Sostenibilidad del Medio Ambiente
30.El cultivo de camarones sin hacer dao al medio ambiente, o sea, de manera sostenible,es una prioridad para los miembros de la cooperativa, o la produccin es lo principal?
31.Sabe usted de leyes ambientales que de alguna manera afecten su capacidad paracultivar el camern, ya sea de forma positiva o negativa? (Por ejemplo, hay lmites que
se imponen?)
32.Alguien viene peridicamente para monitorear la produccin?33.Qu tipo de qumicos se utilizan en el cultivo del camarn? Por ejemploCal hidratada,
Cloro granulado o Hipoclorito potsico
34.Se utilizan fertilizantes tales como Triple 15, 16-20-0, Urea granulada 46%, Melaza?35.Se utilizan concentrado? Y de qu tipo y de dnde viene?36.Siembra usted un cultivo aparte del camarn? Hay especies diferentes en un estanque?37.Qu tan lejos est(n) ubicada(n) su(s) estanque(s) de los manglares?38.Obtienen ustedes la post-larva de un laboratorio o es silvestre? Y de qu porcentaje
viene del laboratorio?
39.La cooperativa utiliza algn tipo de sistema de circulacin de nutrientes? Por ejemplo,canales reservorios? Les parece que funciona bien?
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
24/30
[23]
5.1.3 Appendix III: Interview Questions for Environmental Expert
1. Cules son los impactos ambientales del cultivo de camarones en la zona de incidenciade mangle?
2. Cules son los retos ms grandes que enfrentan los camaroneros al intentar producir demanera ms sostenible?
3. Todos los camaroneros de la zona cultivan la misma especie de camern? Hayrestricciones (climticas, legales u otras) con respecto a qu tipo de especie(s) de
camarn se puede(n) cultivar?
4. Hay camaroneros en la zona que obtienen larvas silvestres, o las consiguenexclusivamente de laboratorios?
A. Cules son los efectos que el cultivo de larva de laboratorio tiene en el medioambiente?
5. Cules son los impactos ambientales de utilizar concentrado?A. De dnde proviene el concentrado que usan los camaroneros de la zona? De qu
est compuesto el concentrado?
B. Hay tipos de concentrado que son menos dainos para el medio ambiente que otros?C. Hay cooperativas en la zona que alimentan a los camarones con algo que no sea
concentradoo sea, de alimentacin natural?
6. Hay cambios que usted recomendara a los camaroneros para reducir la incidencia deenfermedades entre los camarones?
A. Es factible la incorporacin del policultivo (la incorporacin de otra especie decamern, por ejemplo)?
B. Qu tipo de infraestructura tendran que construir los camaroneros en el caso de queincorporaran el cultivo de otras especies (de camarn, o de cangrejo o tilapia)?7. Aparte de la Mancha Blanca, hay otros agentes patgenos que afectan la produccin del
camarn en la zona?
8. Qu porcentaje de la cosecha total del camarn, en un ao normal en esta zona estimarausted que se pierde por causa de enfermedades?
9. Hay ms incidencia de la Mancha Blanca entre la larva que proviene de loslaboratorios?
10.Cmo se propaga la Mancha Blanca de una cooperativa a otra? (a travs de las aguasresiduales, el uso grupal de la misma fuente de agua, en los laboratorios, etc.)
11.Cules son los efectos ambientales negativos causados por el uso de cal hidratada en losestanques de camarn?
12.Cules son los efectos ambientales negativos causados por el uso de cloro en losestanques?
13.Cules son los efectos ambientales negativos causados por el uso de abonos ofertilizantes en los estanques?
14.Cul es el propsito principal del uso de abonos/fertilizantes?
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
25/30
[24]
15.Para disminuir la penetracin de la luz solar, hay otro mtodo de crear sombra en losestanques?
16.Como fuente de alimentacin para los camarones: Si se usa algas para alimentar a loscamarones, se reduce la cantidad de concentrado en los estanques?
17.El uso de abono reduce el oxgeno disuelto en los estanques (tal y como pasa con lafloracin de alga)?
18.Se ha comprobado que el uso de abono afecta de forma negativa a los ecosistemas msall de los estanques (en el manglar)?
19.Ya entendemos que no hay mucha informacin sobre las descargas producidas por lascooperativas camaroneras, pero cmo afectan estas aguas residuales las cercanas, por
ejemplo, el manglar?
20.De ser posible, de qu manera podran las cooperativas llegar a reducir el uso dequmicos o abonos?
21.Considera que el uso de abonos o desinfectantes orgnicos es una alternativa viable aluso de los qumicos sintticos? Qu alternativas se podran utilizar?
22.Segn su pericia y experiencia, qu tan eficaces son los abonos o desinfectantesorgnicos ?
23.Sabe usted cuantos camaroneros de la zona estn utilizando actualmente abonos odesinfectantes orgnicos?
24.Sabe usted si el nivel de produccin de una cooperativa de la zona se ha visto afectadode alguna manera por las aguas residuales producidas por otra cooperativa cercana?
25.Cul sera la distancia que se recomienda establecer entre una camaronera y el manglar?26.Qu tamao o tipo de zona de amortiguamiento protegera mejor la naturaleza en las
cercanad de los estanques?
27.Cundo los funcionarios del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente (MARN) monitorean lascooperativas camaroneras, qu tipo de muestras toman? Qu es lo que buscan? Hay un
nivel especfico de qumicos que no se puede exceder en el cultivo?
28.Tiene usted recomendaciones para mejorar la sostenibilidad de las operacionescamaroneras en general?
29.Usted ha visitado alguna vez las siguientes cooperativas?A. Faunas Silvestres (Salinas de Potrero)B. Salvadorea (Salinas de Potrero)C. San Francisco (Salinas de Potrero)D. Santa Rosa (Salinas de Potrero)E. Sara y Ana (Salinas de Potrero)
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
26/30
[25]
5.1.4 Appendix IV: Relevant Photos
Seor Romeo demonstrating how a sluice gate works, Fauna Silvestre Cooperative,
January 9, 2013.
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
27/30
[26]
Sluice gate, Fauna Silvestre Cooperative, January 9, 2013.
Tanks at La Salvadorea Cooperative, January 11, 2013.
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
28/30
[27]
Sluice gate at Salvadorea Cooperative, January 11, 2013.
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
29/30
[28]
Casting the net, Santa Rosa Cooperative, January 15, 2013
Shrimp harvest, Santa Rosa Cooperative, January 15, 2013.
7/28/2019 Microcredit Final Report
30/30
Shrimp harvested at Santa Rosa Cooperative, January 15, 2013.
Monterey Microcredit team with Jos Isabel Rivera, Santa Rosa Cooperative, January 15, 2013.