KEY MESSAGES

� The traditionally dichotomized realms of therural and urban are becoming increasinglyblurred, due to livelihood diversification. Gaining a heightened understanding of what kindof space and what types of livelihoods exist is ofvital importance to formulating/implementingsuccessful programmes.

� While rural & urban linkages assist households incoping with food insecurity such linkages areinadequate to allow for accumulative strategies

capable of preventing food insecurity. Whendesigning interventions it is critical that thesecoping strategies are considered.

� Migration as an urban & rural linkage does not trigger increased capital flows capable ofbolstering household food security. Indeed,livelihoods appear to be excessively weak forhouseholds to be able to share produce or incomes outside of the immediate family.

RURAL-URBAN LINKAGESGuatemala

Full reports available from www.actionagainsthunger.org.uk

January 2012

Action Against Hunger www.actionagainsthunger.org.uk

Action Against Hunger | ACF International is an international humanitarian organisation committed to ending childhunger. Recognised as a leader in the fight against malnutrition, ACF works to save the lives of malnourished childrenwhile providing communities with sustainable access to safe water and long-term solutions to hunger. With 30 years of expertise in emergency situations of conflict, natural disaster and chronic food insecurity, ACF runs life-saving programmes in some 40 countries benefitting nearly 5 million people each year.

RURAL-URBAN LINKAGES IN GUATEMALA2

INTRODUCTION & CONTEXTGuatemala is a middle low-income Central Americancountry that, in 1996, signed the Peace Accords thatofficially put an end to a devastating 36 year long civilwar. Half of Guatemala’s people are now consideredto be below the poverty line, with 72% of thispopulation estimated to be in the rural areas.¹ Despiteoverall food availability, Guatemala suffers the world’sfourth highest child chronic malnutrition rate − 49.9%.²Indeed, as figure 1 demonstrates,³ over 50% of ruralGuatemalan children are stunted, compared to 30%of those coming from urban areas.

This paper presents results from research conductedin the municipal capital of Solola which is nestled atthe heart of the country’s Western Highlands.Semi-structured interviews were administered to 50respondents (24 rural, 26 urban residents) located atSolola’s well renowned market, while shorterinterviews were held with an additional 27respondents. The following briefing paper focuses onhow the rural and urban realms of Guatemala interlinkin Solola.4 These linkages and their influence on foodsecurity and nutrition are subsequently discussed alongwith their implications for policy makers.

RURAL & URBAN SPACESThe findings of this case study cast doubt on the overallutility of differentiating Solola’s households accordingto the traditional dichotomy of urban versus rural. Thedifficulty of classifying Solola’s residents in relationto the rural or urban is, for instance, evidenced bythe government’s demographic statistics. Guatamala’scentral government agency, the National Institute ofStatistics, estimates that roughly 68,120 (60%) ofSolola’s 113,078 are urban. Conversely, data from theMunicipal Council of Solola (2008) suggests that only13% of official city residents can actually be classifiedas living in an ‘urban’ space.

Walking around the city reveals that even the lives ofthe city’s residents are steeped in rural activities,whilst its outer edges are embedded in an agriculturalcountryside. The importance of agriculture inurban-based livelihoods cannot be over-emphasized:80% of urban respondents 5 owned family land. Noneof these respondents, however, owned enough to meet

FIGURE 1: CHRONIC UNDERNUTRITION IN GUATEMALA

Perc

enta

ge o

f Ch

ildre

n St

unte

d

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

UrbanRural

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

¹ UNHABITAT (2011) Global Report on Human Settlements 2011: Cities and ClimateChange, Earthscan Press, London-Wasington DC. Available online at: http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=555 [Accessed 08/12/2011]. ² WFP (2011)“Guatemala Country Profile: Overview”, World Food Programme (WFP). Available online at: http://www.wfp.org/countries/Guatemala/Overview [Accessed03/12/2011].³ INE (2009) “V Encuesta de Salud Materno Infantil 2008-2009”

(National Survey on Maternal and Child Health), Instituto Nacional de Estadistica,Guatemala. Available online at: http://www.ine.gob.gt/np/ensmi/Informe_ENSMI2008_2009.pdf [Accessed 05/01/2012].4 Asfaw A. (2007) “Supermarket Purchasesand the Dietary Patterns of Households in Guatemala”, IFPRI Discussion Paper 696.Available at: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00696.pdf [Accessed 08/12/2011].

FIGURE 2: MAP OF ACF ACTIVITIES

Sololà

LegendResearch LocationACF Areas of Operations

El Estor

Chiquimula

San Marcos

ACF has been operational in Guatemala since 1998,providing emergency assistance to households affectedby natural disaster. Activities include emergency fooddistributions and the provision of tools. ACF also adoptsan integrated approach through longer-term foodsecurity, nutrition and WaSH programmes.

Guatemala City

RURAL-URBAN LINKAGES IN GUATEMALA 3

the 50-80 cuerdas 6 estimated to be required for familysubsistence.7 Rather, 86% of the respondents with landowned 10 cuerdas or less. Unsurprisingly, the majoritycould not draw any income from their land with 70%of urban land owners growing only for personalconsumption. The vast majority of households grewmaize for tortillas, although beans were anothercommon crop grown. Ultimately, the majority of urbanhouseholds grow food (a rural activity), yet diversifytheir incomes by engaging in a number of non-farmactivities.

On the other hand, while over 80% of rural respondentsowned land, only a few grew enough to sell, where62% of rural land owners grew purely for personalconsumption. In fact, just like their urban counterparts,no rural respondent (whether growing for personalconsumption or trade) accessed the 50-80 cuerdasnecessary for household subsistence. This could explainwhy Solola’s market, traditionally dominated byfarmers and direct producers8, is now dominated bywholesalers and intermediary traders: 94% of ruralvendors reported selling only produce they purchaseelsewhere.

Indeed, the rise of the rural intermediary trader is notonly attributable to ‘a lack of access to land’ but also

the pronounced seasons of hunger which affect thevast majority of rural Guatemalans. ACF evidencesuggests levels of acute malnutrition peak betweenMay and September. Seasons of hunger are primarilytriggered by lack or excess rain, a depletion of grainreserves before the new harvest and insufficientdemand for agricultural labour. Seasonal hunger anda lack of access to land has forced many rural dwellersinto intermediary trading further demonstrating howrural residents are increasingly taking on incomegenerating activities traditionally associated with theurban context.

In essence, the vast majority of households, labelledas either rural or urban, employ livelihood strategiesnot conventionally associated with their respective‘rural’ or ‘urban’ sectoral classification. Ruralhouseholds clearly maintain a strong foothold in urbanspaces and vice versa. Ultimately, however, livelihooddiversification through rural and urban linkages hasmanifested as a coping strategy rather than as anaccumulative one, as a key informant explained: “Rightnow I have a thousand occupations and work in manydifferent places, we do what we can to get food”.

MIGRATION Data on inter-generational family migration patternsrevealed that permanent migration is not common.An overwhelming majority, 86%, live in the samevillage/town as their parents and grandparents did,while 43% said all immediate family still reside in thevery same place. Rural households were much lesslikely to have a migrant − with 55% of rural and only30% of urban households not encompassing a familymember who had migrated. Regardless of the type ofhousehold, however, an insignificant amount of peoplereported receiving any financial help from migrantswho had migrated within Guatemala. Accordingly,respondents suggested that internal migrants did notmake enough to send back. Meanwhile, sharing of farmproduce between rural and urban family members wasnon-existent, as many explained: “we do not growenough to share”, “others have their own land”, “no

5 For clarification purposes it is worth noting the municipal capital of the region ofSolola is also called Solola. 6 This study classifies urbanites as people with their primaryresidence in a city within an urban municipality. While dwellers residing outside a do-mestically classified city were considered rural. 7 Where roughly 1 square kilometre isequal to 250 cuerdas, or 1 square mile is equal to 650 cuerdas.

8 See for example, Tanaka, S. L., & H. Wittman (2003) “The Agrarian Question inGuatemala”, Land Research Action Network Country Background Paper Guatemala. Available online at: http://www.landaction.org/display.php?article=54 [Accessed 08/12/2011].

RURAL-URBAN LINKAGES IN GUATEMALA4

one shares, it’s each to their own”. Therefore, itappears that migration (as an urban to rural linkage)did not trigger an increase in the flows of goodsbetween households which could help bolster foodsecurity. Perhaps, however, migration may have easedthe burden of household food insecurity − as anabsentee member would increase the overall amountof food available to the residual household members.

Interestingly, evidence regarding internationalmigrants and remittances paints a somewhatcontrasting picture. Indeed, over two thirds ofinternational migrants were reported to sendremittances to their immediate family, whichultimately helped increase household food security.Evidently, external migrants generate enough incometo actually send some form of remittance back home,whereas internal migrants simply cannot afford to.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONSThe municipality of Sololá is clearly an urban areawhere agriculture thrives; the city is surrounded onall sides by farming plots and steep marginally plantedmaize fields. Conversely, rural dwellers areincreasingly engaging in a number of activitiesconventionally associated with urban contexts. Thislivelihood diversification increasingly blur the lines ofthe traditionally dichotomized, urban and rural realms.Carefully identifying exactly what kind of space andwhat types of livelihoods exist is thus the first step tomaking a program successful.

While livelihood diversification increasingly links therural and urban spaces, for most, it is a coping strategyrather than a means to accumulate assets. In this senserural and urban linkages through livelihooddiversification may (at best) assist rural and urbanhouseholds in coping with household food insecurity− yet such linkages are currently inadequate to allowfor accumulative strategies capable of preventing foodinsecurity. Moreover, acknowledging that thisdiversification is a consequence of coping is of primaryimportance. For example, intermediary traders are

often viewed as inherently detrimental to producersin any given market and policy makers have beenknown to design programs in order to eliminate them9.In the case of Guatemala, interventions formulatedto reduce intermediary traders would have seriousimplications for food insecure households.

The results of this study suggest that for thoseinterviewed, migration does not trigger increasedcapital flows capable of bolstering household foodsecurity. Nor does it appear to lead to improvednutritional status. Moreover, as 80% of both rural andurban respondents did not have access to theminimally estimated amount of land required for theirown subsistence − it is not surprising that sharing ofproduce does not occur outside the immediatehousehold. From a food security and nutritionperspective, the implication of these findings wouldsuggest that before policy makers consider investingin interventions which encourage internal migration(such as the creation of social support networks fornew migrants), it may be more useful to, firstly,concentrate investment on other programmes (suchas in urban agriculture or nutrition awareness).

9 See for example, Murakami T. (1997) “Los mercados y pueblos mayas en el altiplano de Guatemala”, Informe de las Investigaciones Etnológicas en el Centro y Sur de Guatemala 1991-1994. Tokyo: Museo de Tabaco y Sal.

By Ioulia Fenton and Frank van Lerven