Page 1
LinkingAgroecologyandHouseholdFoodSecurity:ProducerExperiencesattheTianguis“ComidaSanayCercana”inChiapas,Mexico
By
SarahHorne
AThesisSubmittedtoSaintMary’sUniversity,Halifax,NovaScotiaInPartialFulfillmentoftheRequirementsfor
TheDegreeofMastersofArtsinInternationalDevelopmentStudies
November2012.Halifax,NovaScotia
CopyrightSarahHorne,2012
Approved: Dr.RyanIsakson Co‐Supervisor
Approved: Dr.AnthonyO’Malley
Co‐Supervisor Approved: Dr.HeldaMorales
Reader
Approved: Dr.TonyCharles Examiner
Date:November,2012
Page 2
ii
Abstract
LinkingAgroecologyandHouseholdFoodSecurity:ProducerExperiencesattheTianguis“ComidaSanayCercana”inChiapas,Mexico
By
SarahHorne
Abstract:Theattainmentoffoodsecurityhaslongbeenanimportantissueinthefieldofdevelopment.Interestingly,alargepercentageofthoseconsideredto‘foodinsecure’belongtothehouseholdsofsmall‐scaleagriculturalproducers.Thepracticeofagroecologyisemergingasanaccessibleandsecuremeansofproductionforsuchhouseholds.Moreover,ithasbeenarguedthatproducerscanearnhigherincomesduetotheincreasingdemandforcertified‘organic’products.Usingthecaseofsmall‐scaleproducersinChiapas,Mexico,thisthesisseekstoexploretheimpactthatagroecologicalpracticescanhaveonfoodsecuritywithinproducerhouseholds.Asitshallbeargued,thediversityandstabilityinherentinthepracticeofagroecologyprovidesproducerswithameansofachievinghouseholdfoodsecurity.Moreover,producerparticipationwithinalocalfoodmarket,whichprovidesthemwithfairsellingconditionsandasenseofcommunity,strengthenssuchconditions.
November2012
Page 3
iii
Acknowledgements
Thankyoutomysupervisor,Dr.RyanIsakson,forhisguidancethroughoutboththisthesisprojectandmuchofmyacademiccareer.ManythankstoDr.HeldaMorales,forinvitingmetoSanCristóbalandsupportingmyfieldresearch.Aswell,thankyoutoAnneGreenbergforherassistanceduringinterviewsandinsightintoagroecologyinChiapas.Tomyfriendsandfamily,fortheirconstantencouragementandsupport.Aboveall,IwouldliketothanktheproducersoftheTianguisfortheirpatience,hospitalityandenthusiasmthroughoutmyfieldresearch.
Page 4
iv
TableofContentsChapterOne:Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1
1.1ThesisProblematic.………………………………………………………..……………………11.2Methodology………………………………………………………..……………………………..41.3ThesisOutline………………………………………………………..……………………………7
ChapterTwo:LiteratureReview……………………………………………………………………….9 2.1FoodSecurity………………………………………………………..…………………………….9 2.1.1Availability…………………………………………………………………………..13 2.1.2Accessibility………………………………………………………………………...13 2.1.3NutritionalValue………………………………………………………………….15 2.1.4FoodSovereignty………………………………………………………..………..17 2.2FoodSecurityandAgriculturalProduction…………………………………………20 2.2.1CurrentPractices:ConventionalAgriculture…………………………23 2.2.2ConsequencesofConventionalAgriculture……………………………26 2.3Agroecology………………………………………………………………………………………32 2.3.1CriticismsofAgroecology.…………………………………………………….35 2.3.2ThePotentialofAgroecology………………………………………………..41 2.4OrganicCertificationandLocalFoodMarkets…………………………………….44 2.4.1TheNeedforCertification…………………………………………………….45 2.4.2CriticismsofOrganicCertification………………………………………...46 2.4.3“BeyondOrganic”:ParticipatoryGuaranteeSystems……………..50 2.4.4BenefitsofLocalFoodMarkets……………………………………………..52ChapterThree:TheMexicanContext……………………………………………………………...57 3.1FoodInsecurityinMexico………………………………………………………..………...57
3.2OrganicAgricultureinMexico………………………………………………………..…..583.3TheMexicanNetworkofOrganicMarkets…………………………………………..60 3.3.1Limitations………………………………………………………..…………………62
ChapterFour:CaseStudy‐Tianguis“ComidaSanayCercana”………………………63 4.1TheEvolutionoftheTianguis………………………………………………………..…...63 4.2HouseholdCharacteristics………………………………………………………..………..70 4.3AgriculturalPractices………………………………………………………..………………74 4.3.1AgriculturalInputs…………………………………………..…………………..77 4.3.2TheImportanceofAgroecology……………………………………………80 4.4FunctioningoftheTianguis……………………………………………………………….82 4.4.1PricesattheTianguis…………………………………………………………..84 4.5ProductionandConsumptionPatterns………………………………………………89 4.5.1ChangesinProduction…………………………………………………………91 4.5.2AdditionalPurchasingPower……………………………………………….94 4.5.3PurchasedFoodItems………………………………………………………….94 4.5.4DailyEatingHabits………………………………………………………………98 4.5.5DietaryChanges…………………………………………………………………100
Page 5
v
4.6OverallImpactofParticipationintheTianguis…………………………………103ChapterFive:Discussion……………………………………………………………………………….107 5.1LocalFoodMarkets………………………………………………………..………………..107 5.1.1ImprovedSellingConditions………………………………………………107 5.1.2TheImportanceofCommunity…………………………………………...109 5.1.3TheImpactofConsumerDemand……………………………………….110 5.2Agroecology………………………………………………………..…………………………..112 5.2.1Productivity………………………………………………………..……………..112 5.2.2MinimalDependenceonPurchasedInputs………………………….113 5.2.3ImprovementstoLandHoldings…………………………………………114 5.2.4TheImportanceofKnowledge……………………………………………114 5.3FoodSecurity………………………………………………………..………………………...116 5.3.1TheImportanceofProducingforHouseholdConsumption….116 5.3.2ImprovedHouseholdNutrition…………………………………………..118ChapterSix:Conclusion………………………………………………………..……………………….120References……………………………………………………………………………………………………..124AppendixA:InterviewGuide………………………………………………………………………..134
Page 6
vi
AcronymsCAT TechnicalAssistanceCommittee(ComitédeApoyoTecnico)CSA CommunitySupportedAgricultureDFID DepartmentforInternationalDevelopmentEP EquipoPromotorFAO FoodandAgriculturalOrganizationGlopolis PragueGlobalPolicyInstituteIAASTD InternationalAssessmentofAgriculturalKnowledge,Scienceand
TechnologyforDevelopment IPC InternationalPlanningCommitteeforFoodSovereigntyIFOAM InternationalFederationofOrganicMovementsKcal KilocalorieMXN MexicanPesoNAFTA NorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreementNGO Non‐GovernmentalOrganisationNOSB NationalOrganicStandardsBoardPGS ParticipatoryGuaranteeSystemREDAC MexicanNetworkofOrganicMarkets
(RedMexicanadeTianguisyMercadosOrgánicos)USD UnitedStatesDollar
ListofFiguresFigure1:WealthIndexSurvey…………………………………………………………………………...70Figure2:TheLivelihoodStrategiesofProducerHouseholds……………………………….72Figure3:HectaresofLandUnderProductionperHousehold………………………………76Figure4:ProducerAttendanceonMarketDays………………………………………………….82Figure5:TheTenMostCommonlyPurchasedItems…………………………………………..95ListofTablesTable1:PricecomparisonofTianguisandcentralmarketproducts…………………….85
Page 7
ChapterOneIntroduction1.1 ThesisProblematic
Foodinsecurityandhungerhavelongbeenimportantissuesintherealmof
development.Intheattempttocombatfoodinsecuritythroughouttheworld,apush
wasmadetodrasticallyincreaseagriculturalproduction,asitwasbelievedatthe
time,thatconditionsoffoodinsecuritywereaconsequenceofinsufficientfood
supply.Theagriculturalpracticesthatemergedrelyheavilyoninputssuchas
specializedseeds,chemicalfertilizers,pesticidesandirrigationandthetechniqueof
monocropping.
Thoughthesepracticeshavegreatlyincreasedoverallproductionlevels,very
littlehasbeenaccomplishedinthewayofeliminatingfoodinsecurity.Infactas
Weis(2007:11)states,“therehasneverbeenmorefoodavailableperpersonona
globalscalethanthereistoday1”,yetlargeportionsoftheglobalpopulation
continuetoliveinconditionsoffoodinsecurity.
Theconsequencesofmodernagriculturalpracticesarewidespreadandfar‐
reaching.Notonlyhasfoodinsecuritycontinuedtopersistbutthespecializationof
agriculturehasledtoanincreasinglysimplificationofdietsworldwide.Itis
estimatedthatasmanyastwobillionpeoplecurrentlysufferfromsomeformof
1Thoughitisrecommendedthatapersonconsume2,200caloriesdaily,enoughfoodisproducedworldwidetoprovide2,800caloriesperperson(Chappell&LaValle,2011:6).
Page 8
2
nutrientdeficiency(Frisonetal.,2006:168),oftenreferredtoas“hiddenhunger”
(Kennedy2003;Pisupati 2004). Suchconditionsareaconsequenceoftheincreasing
inabilityofmuchoftheglobalpopulationtodiversifytheirdietsandaccessfood
itemscontaininghigherlevelsofmicronutrients.
Theenvironmentalandsocialconsequenceshavealsobeendevastating;
leadingtoanextensivelossofbiodiversityandtheerosionanddegradationofthe
verylanduponwhichtheglobalpopulationssubsists.Thedependenceoncostly
chemicalinputshasplacedmanyproducersinapricesqueeze,inwhichtheir
expensescontinuetoriseastheirprofitsdrasticallydecrease.Infact,thoughthey
themselvesareproducingfood,small‐scaleproducersandtheirhouseholdsaccount
for“halfofthehungerworldwide”(UNMilleniumProject,2005:104).Itisbecoming
increasinglyclearthatthecurrentsystemofagriculturalproductionisboth
insufficientinmeetingtheneedsoftheglobalpopulation,aswellasunmaintainable.
Avarietyofpathwaysforwardhavebeenpresented,oneofwhichisthe
practiceofagroecology.Relyingontheuseoflocallyavailableandaccessible
materialsandtechnologies,asopposedtothepurchaseofvariousinputs,
agroecologyisthoughttopossessthepotentialofreshapingagriculturalpractices.
Moreover,itisoftenstatedthatthroughsuchpracticessmall‐scaleproducerscan
earnhigherprofitsandsubsequentlyimproveconditionsoffoodsecuritywithin
theirhouseholds.Inordertodosohowever,producersneedaccesstosuitable
marketsandthecertificationofagriculturalproductsisoftennecessary;whichin
itselfprovidesmanyobstaclesthatcanimpedeasmall‐scaleproducerfromfully
Page 9
3
benefiting.Withthisinmind,newinitiativesarecommencing,whichseekmore
easilyfacilitatecertificationforsuchproducers,aswellasgeneratelocaldemandfor
theirproducts.
Thefocusofthisthesisprojectisthereforetwo‐fold.Firstly,itistoexplore
theimpactthatagroecologicalproductionpracticescanhaveonthehouseholdfood
securityofsmall‐scaleproducers.Subsequently,theseconddimensionistoexplore
thepotentialbenefitsthatproducerscanderivefromsellingsuchgoodsandbeinga
participantinalocalfoodmarketsystem.Thiswasaccomplishedthroughfield
research,workingwithagroecologicalproducersinChiapas,Mexico.Thecommon
denominatoramongtheseproducersisthattheyallretailsomeportionoftheir
productsatalocalfarmer’smarket.Therefore,theTianguis“ComidaSanay
Cercana”providesaperfectenvironmentinwhichthesetwoelements‐production
andretail‐intersect.
ThroughoutthisthesisIwillarguethatthediversityandstabilityinherentin
thepracticeofagroecologyprovidessmall‐scaleproducerswithameansof
achievinghouseholdfoodsecurity.Moreover,producerparticipationwithina
certifiedlocalfoodmarketprogram,whichprovidesthemwithfairselling
conditions,strengthenssuchconditions.
Page 10
4
1.2 Methodology
Toaddresstheobjectiveofthisthesisproject,bothanextensivereviewof
relevantliteratureandfieldresearchwereundertaken.Fieldresearchwas
conductedoverasix‐weekperiodbetweenOctoberandDecember2011,withthe
focusofcapturingtheexperiencesofagroecologicalproducersparticipatinginthe
Tianguis“ComidaSanayCercana”2,or“HealthyandLocalFood”market,locatedin
SanCristóbaldeLasCasas,Mexico.Themainsourceofdatawascollectedthrough
fourteenstructuredinterviewswithmembersoftwelveparticipatinghouseholds3.
Multiplemembersfromtwoofthehouseholdswereinterviewedbecausethefamily
representativeswhosellattheTianguisarenotfullyactiveintheproduction
processandwerethusunabletoconfidentlyanswerkeyquestions.Insuch
instancesresponseswereoftenverysimilar,withonlyfewandminordiscrepancies.
Thesampleofhouseholdsinterviewedwaslargelydeterminedbythe
availabilityoftheproducersbutwasalsoselectedtoreflectthediversityofproducts
andexperiencesamongthoseparticipating.Ofthetwelvehouseholds,sixsold
vegetablesattheTianguis.Amongthosesixhouseholds,fourproducean
assortmentofvegetableswhiletheremainingtwomarketmorespecialized
productsattheTianguis.Twohouseholdssoldprocessedgoods(namelycheeseand
mangoproducts)whileanotherthreehouseholdssoldpreparedgoodssuchas
2HenceforthreferredtoastheTianguis,whichistheNahuatlwordforopen‐airmarket.3Interviewswerecompletedthroughtheaidofatranslator,whoprovidedbothaclearunderstandingandconsistencythroughouttheresearchperiod.
Page 11
5
candiedfruits,tortillasandtamales.Theremaininghouseholdraisedlivestockand
soldavarietyofanimalproducts.
Toaccommodateproducers’schedules,interviewsweregenerallyconducted
attheTianguisduringmarkethours.Howeverduetovariousreasons,notall
producerswerepresentformarketdaysandinsomecases,producersonly
participateonaseasonalbasis.Assuch,ahandfulofinterviewswereconductedin
therespectivecommunitiesofcertainproducers.Byconductingsuchinterviews,
experiencesthatmightotherwisehavebeenoverlookedwererecordedand
providedthepossibilityoffurtheranalysisregardingtheextentofproducer
participationandtheimpactoftheTianguisonfoodsecurity.
Observationsduringmarkethourswerealsoakeyfactorinthedata
collectionprocess.Additionally,ahandfulofproducersextendedaninvitationto
visittheirrespectiveresidencesandplots.Suchopportunitiesmadeitpossibleto
triangulateaccountsprovidedduringinterviewsandprovidedimportantcontext
regardingthefunctionsoftheTianguisaswellashouseholdconditions.
Inadditiontointerviews,afoodrecallstudywasconductedinordertogaina
betterunderstandingoftheproducers’dailyeatinghabits.Inordertogeta
completeunderstandingofconsumptionpractices,participantswereaskedtorecall
thepreviousday’sdietonmultipleoccasions.However,theshortnessofmy
researchperiod,combinedwithirregularattendanceofcertainproducersatthe
Tianguisposedaslimitationstothissurvey.Intotal,twenty‐sevenrecallswere
Page 12
6
conducted,inwhicheachproducerinterviewedparticipatedatleastonce,though
oftentimestwotothreetimes.Additionally,notesweretakenofmealseatenduring
fieldvisitsandaddedtothetotalnumberofmealsrecorded.Inthiswaytheitemsof
28breakfasts,29lunches,28suppers,aswellasdetailsofsupplementarysnacks
throughouttheday,wererecordedorobserved.Afurthercomponentofthefood
recallwastobetterunderstandfromwherethefoodcomes,andthereforeforeach
itemconsumedtheproducerswerealsoaskedtoidentifywhetheritwaspurchased,
acquiredthroughanon‐monetaryexchangeorgrown/raisedbythehousehold.
Thefinalsteptakenduringtheresearchperiodwasasemi‐structuredkey
informantinterviewwithoneofthemembersoftheEquipoPromotor,thebodythat
managesandregulatesparticipation,aswellasthegeneralfunctioningofthe
Tianguis.Thisinterviewprovidedimportantcontextualinformationand,onceagain,
offeredanopportunitytotriangulatedataandgaininsightfromadifferent
perspective.
Theoriginalintentofthisthesisprojectwastocomparetheconditionsof
householdfoodsecurityofbothagroecologicalandconventionalproducers,
howeverinaccordancewithadviceprovidedbyhostresearchers,agroecological
producersbecamethesolefocusofthiswork.Thereasonforthisislargelyduetoa
strongsuspicionofoutsidersamongsuchproducers,andworkingwithalimited
budgetandsubsequenttimeconstraints,itwassimplyunfeasibletoestablishthe
leveloftrustthatwasfelttobenecessaryinordertoworkwithconventional
farmers.Inacceptingthislimitation,allfieldresearchwasconductedwith
Page 13
7
producersparticipatingintheTianguis,withwhomhostresearchershadastrong
connection.Albeitasmallsample,theseproducerswereawillingandengaging
group,withwhomIwasabletointeractwith,individuallyandasawhole,multiple
timesthroughoutmyresearchperiod;thereforeobtainingadetailedcompositionof
theirexperiences.
1.3 ThesisOutline
Throughouttheproceedingfivechapters,myargumentwillbepresentedin
full.Chaptertwoprovidesareviewoftheliteraturerelevanttothisthesistopic;
beginningwithanoverviewofthenotionoffoodsecurity,howourunderstandingof
thetopichasbeenshaped,aswellasanycriticisms,whicharelargelyderivedfrom
supportersoffoodsovereignty.Additionaltopicstobediscussedincludethecurrent
practiceofconventionalagriculture,thealternativepracticeofagroecology,aswell
asthelimitationsofeach.Lastly,adiscussionontheevolutionoforganic
certificationandthedevelopmentoflocalfoodmarketswilltakeplace.Asitshallbe
examined,acommoncriticismisthatsmall‐scaleproducersareoftenunableto
accessbothcertificationprogramsandlargemarkets.However,alternative
processesinbothinstances,whichseekingtobemoreinclusiveforsmall‐scale
producers,areemerging.Adiscussionoftheirpotentialandlimitationswillbe
examined.
Page 14
8
Chapterthreeprovidesthecontextinwhichtheempiricaldatawillbenested.
InformationisprovidedregardingtheconditionsoffoodinsecuritywithinMexicoas
wellasthegrowthofthecountry’sorganicsectorofagriculture.Thischapteris
concludedwithanoverviewoftheMexicanNetworkofOrganicMarkets(REDAC),of
whichtheTianguis“ComidaSanayCercana”isamembermarket.
Chapterfouriscomposedofasynthesisofthedatacollectedduringmyfield
researchinSanCristóbaldeLasCasas.Here,keyfacetsoftheagroecological
practicesaswellasconsumptionandpurchasinghabitsoftheproducersare
discussed,inadditiontothefunctioningoftheTianguis.Thesubsequenttwo
chapterswillcontainanalysisanddiscussionofkeyfindings(ChapterFive),aswell
asmyconclusionsandrecommendations(ChapterSix).
Page 15
9
ChapterTwoLiteratureReview2.1 FoodSecurity
Sincethenotionoffoodsecurityservesasaprimefocusofthisthesisproject,
afirmunderstandingoftheconceptisessentialforanalysis.Thenotionoffood
securityhasbeenevolvingovertime,somuchsothatamultitudeofdefinitionsare
claimedtoexist.Theterm,however,originatedinresponsetotheworldfoodcrisis
in1972‐1974(Maxwell,1996:156).Originally,foodsecuritywasdefinedasthe
“availabilityatalltimesofadequateworldfoodsuppliesofbasicfoodstuffs…to
sustainasteadyexpansionoffoodconsumption…andtooffsetfluctuationsin
productionandprices”(QuotedinMechlem,2004:633).Atthetimediscussion
concerningfoodsecuritysolelytookplaceatthestatelevel,whichasPatel
(2009:676)notes,greatimpactedthedevelopmentoftheterminsomuchthatit
wasbelievedthatfoodwouldbeaccessibletoallthroughstateredistribution
mechanismssolongasavailabilityassufficient.Therefore,thisoriginaldefinition
aroseoutofconcernsoveragrowingglobalpopulationandthecapabilityof
producingenoughfoodforall(Patel,2009:676),andasPottier(1999:11)states,
conditionsoffoodinsecuritywerefirstunderstoodastheresultof“aglobalsupply
problem.”Atthetime,thefocuswaslargelyplacedonachievingfoodsecurityatthe
globalandnationalstages;however,thisapproachprovedinsufficientinfully
addressingthesituation.Asufficientquantityoffoodatthenationallevelisnot
synonymouswiththefairdistributionoffoodor“foodproduction”amongtheentire
Page 16
10
population(Scialabba,2007:6)andconditionshaveproventhatsufficientquantity
isnotenoughtoensurefoodsecurityforall.
Thenotionoffoodsecurityunderwentasignificantreorientationinthe
1980s,largelyattributedtotheworkofAmatyaSen(Maxwell,1996:156)andhis
influentialnotionoffoodentitlement.Proposedasawaytoexplaintheoccurrence
offaminesandhungerevenintimesofanoverabundanceoffood,Senarguesthat
withinthecurrentsystemfoodisnotdistributedequally;thataccesstofoodmust
be“earned”andismediatedthroughwhatheterms“entitlements”(Sen,1999:162).
Thisistosaythatpeoplesufferfromhungerorfoodinsecurityduringtimesof
plentybecausetheylacktheentitlementorabilitytoacquirethefoodthathasbeen
produced.
Underthisapproach,itwasdeterminedthatanindividual’sentitlementisa
functionofmultipleconsiderations.Thefirstistheidentificationofone’s
endowment;beingthe“productiveresources”thatanindividualpossesses,and
whichhasvalueinthemarket.Typicallyanendowmentisderivedthroughan
individual’sabilitytoworkandearnawage,thoughitcanalsomanifestintheform
oflandownershiporfinancialcapital(Sen,1999:162).Itisthroughtheuseofthese
endowmentsthatanindividualgeneratestheirentitlement,ofwhichSen(1981:2)
identifiesfourgeneralcategories:a)trade‐basedentitlement;b)production‐based
entitlement;c)own‐labourentitlementandd)inheritanceandtransferentitlement.
Thesecondconsiderationarethepresent‘exchangeconditions’,through
whichthevalueofone’sendowmentsiscontrastedwiththecostofobtainingother
goodsandservices;essentiallydeterminingtheamountoffoodthatcanbeacquired
Page 17
11
withanindividual’sentitlement.Sincefoodandendowmentsareunequally
distributed,circumstancesmayariseinwhichthevalueofone’sendowmentisno
longerenoughtoobtainsufficientsustenance.Thereforewhilefoodisavailable
peoplemayfacehungerbecausetheirendowmentisn’tsufficientenoughtoensure
theirentitlementoffood(Sen,1999:162‐163).Insuchcasesparticularly,the
availabilityofsocialsecurityprogramscanplayanimportantroleinensuringan
individual’sentitlementtofood(Sen,1981:6).
ThroughtheproposaloftheEntitlementApproach,Senultimatelyshiftedthe
focusoffoodsecurityfromthesupplysidetotheabilitytodemand(Pottier,1999:
12).Additionally,ithasbeenarguedthatpoorerhouseholdsarelesslikelyto
produceasurplusoverandabovewhattheythemselvesrequireforimmediate
consumption,whilehouseholdswiththisabilitycantransformthissurplusinto
otherformsofassets,whichenablesthemtoenduretimesofuncertainty(Maxwell
&Frankenberger,1992:12).
AsSenillustrated,thoughasurplusofagriculturaloutputmaybeachieved,it
ispossiblethatmanywillbeunabletogainaccessandsubsequentlyareforcedtogo
without.Thereforeaccessisakeyvariableintheattainmentoffoodsecurity.Access
canbeachievedeitherthroughmarkettransactions,whereindividualsand
householdsusetheirincometopurchasefood;subsistencefarming,wherebyfoodis
producedforconsumptionwithinthehousehold,oragovernmentguaranteeor
socialsecurity.Whenfoodispurchasedthroughmarkettransactions,accessibilityis
highlyimpactedbythestateoffoodpricesatthetime.Highpricescanplacefood
Page 18
12
outsideofthereachofmany,leadinginsteadtogreaterfoodinsecurity(Gani&
Prasad,2007:313‐314).
Sen’sproposaloffoodentitlementsaddedgreatlytothediscussionasit
revealedthatfoodsecuritymaynotbeachievedonanindividualorhouseholdlevel,
eventhoughsufficientfoodisavailable(Mechlem,2004:634).Perhapsmost
importantly,however,Sen’stheoryplacedimportancemoresquarelyonaccessand
entitlementsasopposedtoproductionlevels(Maxwell,1996:157).Nolongerwas
increasedagriculturalproductionseentobethesolerequirementforfoodsecurity.
ThesubsequentdefinitionputforthbytheFoodandAgricultural
Organisation(FAO)illustratesthemultiplicityexistentwithintheconceptoffood
security,andtheneedforabroaderfocus.TheFAOstatedthatfoodsecurityexists
“attheindividual,household,national,regionalandgloballevelswhenallpeople,at
alltimes,havephysicalandeconomicaccesstosufficient,safeandnutritiousfoodto
meettheirdietaryneedsandfoodpreferencesforanactiveandhealthylife”
(QuotedinPatel,2009:677).Thisdefinitionillustrateshowthefocushasshifted
fromsimplythemerequantityoffoodtothatofqualityandaccessibility,andnow
includesacknowledgementofthevariouslevelsofanalysisatwhichfoodsecurityis
achieved(Mechlem,2004:637).Whilediversityconcerningtheclassificationoffood
securitycontinuestopersist,typicallyalldefinitionscontainthreekeyfeatures;
namely‘Availability’,‘Accessibility’and‘NutritionalValue’.
Page 19
13
2.1.1 Availability
Thoughavailabilityisnolongerthesolemeasurementusedtodetermine
levelsoffoodsecurity,itcontinuestobeancriticalfactorofconsiderationasfood
securityatanylevelcannotbeachievedwithoutobtainingalevelofagricultural
productionthatcansustaintheneedsofthepopulation(Gani&Prasad,2007:313).
Inthisway,Maxwell&Frankenberger(1992:4)referto“sufficiency”offoodstocks,
arguinghoweverthatgenerallyitisthesufficiencyofcaloriesreceivedthatisthe
primaryfocus,notproteinandnutrientcompositions,nor“foodqualityandsafety”.
LovendalandKnowles(2007:64)describeavailabilityasthe“physicalpresenceof
food”,whichatthehouseholdlevelcanbeachievedthroughself‐productionor
markettransactions.Onceagainhowever,thoughasufficientquantityofavailable
foodiscertainlyaconcernoffoodsecurity,Tweeten(1997)notedthateventhough
foodmaybeavailable,fairandequaldistributionisnotnecessarilyachieved
(Scanlan,2001:234).Thefactalonethatenoughfoodisproducedtofeedtheglobal
populationandyetlargeportionsofsaidpopulationcontinuetoliveinconditionsof
hungerandinsecurityindicatesthatthemereavailabilityoffoodisnotenoughto
achievecompletesecurity(Chappell&LaValle,2011:8).
2.1.2 Accessibility
FollowingSen’swork,MaxwellandWiebe(1999:828)addedadditional
characteristicstotheunderstandingofaccessibility.Theyarguethatinorderto
achievemeaningfulaccesstofood,itmustbe“sufficient”intworespects;that
accessiblefoodmeetscaloricrequirementsandsecondlythataccessisensuredover
Page 20
14
thelong‐term.Simplyput,“ahouseholdcanhardlybeconsideredfoodsecureifitis
abletomeetitscurrentnutritionalrequirementsonlybydepletingorsellingits
endowmentofresources‐yetthisiswhatanuncriticalfocusonaccessand
sufficiencyimplies.Ontheotherhand,accesstofoodmustalsobesufficientunder
allpossiblecircumstanceswithinanyparticularperiodoftime,whichraisesthe
notionofvulnerability”(Maxwell&Wiebe,1999:828).Thispositionissupportedin
Maxwell&Smith(1992)whereitisarguedthatadiscussiononfoodsecuritymust
includereferencetovulnerabilityandactionsofriskavoidancewithinalivelihoods
strategy.Theliteratureonlivelihoodsisdenseandwithinthisdialoguewillnotbe
examinedinitsentirety4,howevertherearekeyinsightspertainingtofoodsecurity
thatcanbedrawnout.
ChambersandConway(1992:6)statethat,“alivelihoodcomprisesthe
capabilities,assets(stores,resources,claimsandaccess)andactivitiesrequiredfor
ameansofliving…”MaxwellandSmith(1992:4)arguethattheachievementoffood
securitymustbenestedwithinthecontextoflivelihoods,statingthat“itis
misleadingtotreatfoodsecurityasafundamentalneed,independentofwider
livelihoodconsiderations:peoplemaygohungrytopreserveassetsormeetother
objectives”.Similarly,theresearchofDeWaal(1989)isusedasacasestudyto
illustratehowpeopleattempttosustaintheirlivelihoodsattheexpenseofincreased
hungerandtherefore,foodsecurity(Maxwell,1996:158).Supportiveofthisstance
isadiscussionwithintheworkofIsakson(2009:60)pertainingtoLipton’snotion
4For Further readings see Chambers & Conway (1991); de Haan & Zoomers (2005); Scoones (1998; 2009)
Page 21
15
ofthe‘safety‐firstdecisionrule’,inwhichconditionsofvulnerabilityencourage
individualstoemployactionsof‘riskaversion’.Insuchcases,actionsaregenerally
undertakennotbecauseindividualsandhouseholdsbelievethattheywillproduce
thegreatestreturnbutsimplybecauseitisbelievedthatsaidactionswillensure
someformofstability.
VulnerabilityisofkeyconcernbecauseasYoung(2004:4)interjects,some
populationsaroundtheworldaresusceptibletoseasonalfluctuationsregardingthe
availabilityoffood,acircumstancethatmustbetakenintoconsiderationinthe
attempttoachievegenuinefoodsecurity.MaxwellandWiebe(1999:828)notethat
vulnerabilityisderivedthroughavarietyofmeans,suchaslowproductivitydueto
environmentalcircumstancesaswellaschangesinwagesorprices.LikeYoung,
theymaintainthatvulnerabilityisnotalwaysstaticbutcanalsoappearasa
seasonal“unpredictability”.Therefore,vulnerabilitytorisk,aswellasthestabilityof
thelivelihoodstrategypursuedisarguablyofgreatconcern.
2.1.3 NutritionalValue
Additionally,foodmightbeavailableandaccessiblebuttruefoodsecurity
remainsunachievediffoodislackinginbasicnutritionalbenefits.Thereforethe
finalbasiccharacteristicoffoodsecurityistheoverallnutritionalvalueoffood
consumed.Tweetenreferstothisas‘foodutilization’,arguingthatfoodsecurity
mustbemeasuredbymeansotherthanmerecaloricintake(Scanlan,2001:234).
Thenutritionalvalueoffoodconsumedishighlyimportantasdietslacking
beneficialproteinandnutrientscanleadtoincreasesinthespreadandseverityof
Page 22
16
diseasesandepidemics,aswellasdecreasesinlifeexpectancyduetomalnutrition
(Young,2004:4).
Interestinglyenough,ithasbeenarguedthatobesityisquicklybecominga
veryvisiblesymptomoffoodinsecurity.AsTanumihardjoetal(2007:1968)state,
“whenfoodinsecurityexistsinacommunity,sufficientorevenexcessiveenergy
maybeprovidedbythelimitedfoodsavailable,butthenutritionalqualityand
diversityofthefoodsinthedietmaynotsupportahealthynutritionalstatusduein
parttoinadequatemicronutrients”.Inthiswayithasbecomeapparentthatinmany
dietsworldwide,qualityoffooditemsisbeingscarifiedintheattempttoassure
greaterquantity;oftenthroughtheconsumptionoffooditemsthatarehighinboth
carbohydratesandfats,whilegreatlylackingnecessarynutrients(Tanumihardjoet
al.,2007:1968).
Together,concernsofavailability,accessibilityandnutritionalvaluehave
formedamorecomprehensiveunderstandingoftherequirementsforfoodsecurity.
Thoughthisconcepthascertainlyevolvedinordertomorefullyaddressthecore
conditionsofhungerandmalnutrition,itisnotwithoutitscritics.
Page 23
17
2.1.4 FoodSovereignty
ThetransnationalpeasantmovementLaViaCampesinaarguesthatfood
securitycannotbeachievedwithoutfirsttheachievementoffoodsovereignty,a
popularnotionoftheirowncoining.Thoughthetwoconceptsareoftenplacedin
oppositiontooneanother,ithasbeensuggestedthat“differencebetweenfood
securityandfoodsovereignty[isthat],thefirstone[isconcernedwith]settingthe
goal,theother[isconcernedwith]definingthewaytorealizeit”(Glopolis,ND:1).In
thisway,foodsecuritycanbethoughtasa‘technical’approach,whereasfood
sovereigntyisdistinctively‘political’.(Lee,2007:5).Theseobservations,infact,
serveasthekeycriticismagainstfoodsecurity;insomuchthatbyfocusingpurely
ontheendgoalofensuringthattheentireglobalpopulationhas‘accesstosufficient,
safeandnutritiousfood’,nothingissaidabouttheconditionsthroughwhichthis
goalisachieved(Pateletal.,2007:90;Rosset:2003:1).
AsPateletal.(2007:90)states,“foodsecurityisagonisticaboutthe
productionregime,aboutthesocialandeconomicconditionsunderwhichfoodends
uponthetable”.Insubsequentwritings,Patel(2009:677)continuesthisargument,
maintainingthatbyneglectingtoaddressconditionsofproduction,foodsecurity,as
ithasbeendescribed,iseasilyachievablewithinimprisonedpopulationsorunder
theruleofadictatorship.Moreover,Rosset(2003:1)maintainsthattruesecurityis
hardlyattainablewhenapopulation’saccesstofoodisdependantonthewhimsand
volatilityoftheglobalmarketorthepoliticalagendasofexternalbodies.Inthisway,
foodsovereigntyisseentobeanissueofnotonlyfoodsecuritybutofnational
Page 24
18
securityasawhole.Thereforefoodsovereigntyseekstogobeyondthelensoffood
securityinaddressingissuesoftradeandproductionconditions.
Similarlytothatoffoodsecurity,thedefinitionoffoodsovereigntyhasalso
undergoneaprocessofalterationandre‐thinking.In1996,LaViaCampesina
definedfoodsovereigntyas“therightofeachnationtomaintainanddevelopits
owncapacitytoproduceitsbasicfoodrespectingculturalandproductivediversity.
Wehavetherighttoproduceourownfoodinourownterritory.Foodsovereigntyis
apreconditiontogenuinefoodsecurity”(LaViaCampesina,1996:1).The
InternationalPlanningCommitteeforFoodSovereignty(IPC)outlinedfour
priorities,or“pillars”ofthefoodsovereigntymovement.Theseinclude:
a)encouragingtheuniversalrightto“safe,healthyandculturallyacceptablefood”
forallindividuals;b)fosteringconditionsofimprovedaccesstoresourcesrequired
forproduction;c)advocatingforthewideradoptionofagro‐ecologicalmethodsof
agriculturalproduction,andd)fightingtowardstheeliminationoftradepolicies
thatnegativelyimpactfarmers,suchassubsidiesandlowpricemechanisms(Lee,
2007:6‐7).
Subsequenttransitionsinthedefinitionoffoodsovereigntyhavebeenwell
recordedandanalysedbyPatel(2009:666‐667),beginningwiththatwhichwas
releasedin2002:
Foodsovereigntyistherightofpeoplestodefinetheirownfoodandagriculture;toprotectandregulatedomesticagriculturalproductionandtradeinordertoachievesustainabledevelopmentobjectives;todeterminetheextenttowhichtheywanttobeselfreliant;torestrictthedumpingofproductsintheirmarkets;andtoprovidelocal
Page 25
19
fisheries‐basedcommunitiesthepriorityinmanagingtheuseofandtherightstoaquaticresources.Foodsovereigntydoesnotnegatetrade,butrather,itpromotestheformulationoftradepoliciesandpracticesthatservetherightsofpeoplestosafe,healthyandecologicallysustainableproduction.
Thoughthebasisofthisdefinitioncontinuestogenerallyreflectthe
fourpillarspreviouslydiscussed,Patelnotesthatthecollectiveprocess
throughwhichitwascreated,becomeshighlyevidentduetotheinclusionof
awiderangeoftopicsaswellasscales.Asanexampleofsuchoccurrences,he
highlightsthepresenceofthebroadconcernof“sustainabledevelopment
objectives”,aswellthosespecifictothecircumstancesofsmall‐scalefishing
communities.
Themostrecentdefinitiondescribesfoodsovereigntyasfollows,
therightofpeoplestohealthyandculturallyappropriatefoodproducedthroughecologicallysoundandsustainablemethods,andtheirrighttodefinetheirownfoodandagriculturesystems.Itputsthosewhoproduce,distributeandconsumefoodattheheartoffoodsystemsandpoliciesratherthanthedemandsofmarketsandcorporations.Itdefendstheinterestsandinclusionofthenextgeneration.Itoffersastrategytoresistanddismantlethecurrentcorporatetradeandfoodregime,anddirectionsforfood,farming,pastoralandfisheriessystemsdeterminedbylocalproducers.Foodsovereigntyprioritiseslocalandnationaleconomiesandmarketsandempowerspeasantandfamilyfarmer‐drivenagriculture,artisanalfishing,pastoralist‐ledgrazing,andfoodproduction,distributionandconsumptionbasedonenviron‐mental,socialandeconomicsustainability.Foodsovereigntypromotestransparenttradethatguaranteesjustincometoallpeoplesandtherightsofconsumerstocontroltheirfoodandnutrition.Itensuresthattherightstouseandmanageourlands,territories,waters,seeds,livestockandbiodiversityareinthehandsofthoseofuswhoproducefood.Foodsovereigntyimpliesnewsocialrelationsfreeofoppressionandinequalitybetweenmenandwomen,peoples,racialgroups,socialclassesandgenerations(CitedinPatel,2009:666).
Page 26
20
Inthisdefinition,Patelonceagainemphasisesthecontradictionsitcontains,
namelythattheuseofsweepingstatements,suchasthereferenceto“thosewho
produce,distributeandconsume”,whichcouldallowfortheinclusionand
legitimizationofthedesiresoftransnationalcorporations.Itisarguedthatsuchan
inclusiveprocesshasthepotentialtorallyvaryinggroupingstowardsacommon
goal,howeverisitonlybeneficialsolongasacoresetofideasareestablishedto
anchorthemovement.
Inanimportantcritiqueoffoodsovereignty,Menezes(2001)arguesthat,
thoughanimportantelement,foodsovereigntyitselfisnotenoughtoensurefood
security;insomuchthattherightofapopulationtodeterminetheitemsthatthey
chooseto“produceandconsume”doesnotensuresufficientaccesstofoodforall.
Henoteshowever,thatmanyofthevastchallengesconfrontingthefoodsovereignty
movementarefirmlyintegratedintheglobalizedsystemandareoftentimeswell
outoftheinfluenceofrallyinggroups.
2.2 FoodSecurityandAgriculturalProduction
Therehasbeenmuchdiscussionregardingtherelationbetweenfood
securityandmethodsofagriculturalproduction,generallyconcerningproductive
capabilitiesandenvironmentalconsequences.Aspreviouslydiscussed,genuinefood
securityisencapsulatedwithinalivelihoodstrategyandrequiresthatfoodis
Page 27
21
available,accessibleandnutritious.Thereforevariousmethodsofagricultural
productionwouldarguablyhavegreatimpactsontheachievabilityoffoodsecurity.
Inlinewiththeearliernotionthatfoodinsecurityissimplydueto
insufficientsupply,manysawtheneedforagriculturalproductiontotakeanintense
focusonincreasingtheavailabilityoffoodthroughincreasedproductivity(DFID,
2004:7).However,asithasalreadybeennoted,theincreaseinagricultural
productionachieved,hasdonelittleinthewayofeliminatingconditionsoffood
insecurity.
Itshouldalsobenotedthatanattempttosimplyredistributetheglobal
surplusoffoodwillbeinsufficientinfullyaddressingtheissueoffoodinsecurity
andcouldmoreovergenerateharmfulunintendedconsequencesonruraleconomies
andpopulations(UNMillenniumProject,2005:103).Therefore,whileitisgenerally
acceptedthatinordertocontinuetofeedtheworld’severgrowingpopulation,
higherlevelsofagriculturalproductionwillbeneeded(Pretty,2009:1).Itis
moreovernecessarythatsuchincreasesinproductionareconcentratedinlocales
wherethepopulationresidesinconditionsoffoodinsecurity(Altieri,2002:2).With
thissaid,thesolutionwillrequireamoreequitabledistributionofthemeans
necessarytoincreaseproductivity(UNMillenniumProject,2005:103),andnot
simplyofexcessfoodstocks.
Althoughsuggestionsforthefuturearebeginningtoemerge,aconsensus
regardingthepathwayforwardisstilllacking.Ononesideistheargumentfor
furtherintensificationthroughtechnologicaldevelopments,whicharearguedto
Page 28
22
haveservedtheglobalpopulationwellinthepast.Howevercriticspointtothe
detrimentalenvironmentalandsocialconsequencesofsuchmethods,aswellasthe
factthatanexclusivefocusonagriculturalproductivityhasdonelittletoensure
foodsecurity(Kasturi,2009:164).
AsGliessman(1990:367)states,“mostofmodernagriculturalsciencehas
beenbasedonmorenarrowinterpretationsofproductionproblems.Researchhas
beendirectedatmaximizingproduction,ratherthanoptimizingitwithina
particularfarm’sagroecosystemlimits.”Thealternativethatmanyarenowpointing
toiswidelyreferredtoasthe‘sustainableintensification’(Pretty,2009;Badgleyet
al,2006)ofagriculture,whicharguesthatmethodsemployingminimalornoinputs
arebettersuitedtoincreaseagriculturalyieldsandmendenvironmentalconditions.
Resultsareachievedbyskilfullyemployingnaturallyavailableinputsasopposedto
syntheticfertilizersandpesticides(DFID,2004:18;Prettyetal.,1996:4‐5).Forhis
part,Pretty(2009:3)arguesthatthesolutionwillnotbeaone‐size‐fits‐all
approach,asitmustbemalleabletoavarietyoflocalandenvironmentalconditions.
Moreover,itwillbeessentialthatsuchagriculturalpracticesareaccessibleto
thepopulationsinthegreatestneed.Itisthereforeimportanttoalsotakeinto
accountthefinancialconstraintsthatmanyoftheworld’sagriculturalproducers
face.Inthislight,thesolutionwillneedtobeavailablecheaplyandlocally,as
expensiveinputsaresimplyinaccessibleformanyproducers(Pretty,2009:2).
Page 29
23
2.2.1 CurrentPractices:ConventionalAgriculture
Largelypresentononesideoftheargumentisthecontinuationand
expansionofconventionalagriculture5,thepracticeofwhichisgenerally
characterizedbythetechniqueofmonocroppingaswellasaheavilyusageof
capital,irrigationandexternalinputs,suchaschemicalpesticidesandfertilizers.
Thefunctionoftheseinputsistwo‐fold;astheycompensateforthecontinual
removalofnutrientsfromthesoil,aswellaslesseningthepotentialforyieldlosses
duetonaturalcompetitionandpests(Beus&Dunlap,1990:594;Chappell&
LaValle,2011:5).Thisapproachisaproductofthemodernizationtheoryof
development,whichadvocatesforthecompletetransformationofasocietyfrom
‘traditional’and‘primitive’toonethatisinnovativeandindustrializing(e.g.Rostow,
1960).Thisisviewedtobetheonlypathtodevelopmentandbyadheringtothe
actionsandprescriptionsofdevelopedcountriesthesamelevelofeconomicgrowth
canbeachievedbydevelopingcountriesaswell(Parayil,2003:277‐278).The
primarygoalofmodernizationistoincreaseeconomicgrowth,whichwill
eventually‘trickle‐down’tothepoor(Harrison,1988:154).Whilethisproposalhas
beenmetwithcriticism,itcontinuestobehighlyinfluential.Inaccordancewiththe
notionofmodernizing,traditionalknowledgeisviewedas“inefficient,inferior,and
anobstacletodevelopment”(Agrawal,1995:413).
Withinthisprocess,theintensificationoftheagriculturalsectorisseentobe
theprimaryrequirement.Byindustrializingtheagriculturalsector,itbecomesmore
5Alsoknownas“IndustrialAgriculture”(Chappell&LaValle,2011:5).
Page 30
24
productivewhilerequiringlesslabourinputs,whichenablesmoreworkersto
relocateintootherburgeoningindustries,fuellingeconomicgrowth.The
intensificationoftheagriculturalsectorisalsosaidtohavethebenefitoflowering
foodcosts,therebyincreasingtheamountofincomethatthepoorcanusetowards
theacquisitionofotherbasicnecessities(Grove&Edwards,1993:136)and
loweringrealwagessothatanemergingindustrialsectorcanbecostcompetitivein
globalmarkets.
ThehistoryoftheGreenRevolution,whicharoseoutofresearchregarding
advancesinagriculturalproductionduringthe1950s(Parayil,2003:975),isoften
citedbythosechampioning,aswellaschallenging,conventionalagriculture
practices.Bydevelopinghigh‐yieldingcropvarieties,whichwerehighlyreceptive
tochemicalfertilizersandirrigation,itwasbelievedthatglobalconcernover
populationpressureandlimitedavailabilityoffoodwouldbesoothedanda
reductioninpovertywouldbenotedindevelopingcountries(Buckland,2004:156).
TheGreenRevolutionhasbeenarguedtobeanexampleof“a‘successful’technology
transferevent”,insomuchthat‘modern’practicesthatwerefirstimplementedin
theNorthwereintroducedandappliedwithindevelopingcountriestoincrease
agriculturaloutput(Parayil,2003:977).However,thispracticewasdependanton
“theadoptionofa‘modern’packageofagriculturaltoolsandpractices”(Parayil,
2003:975),whichrequiredthatthelandandsurroundingenvironmentbeadapted
totheneedsofthetechnologyapplied(IAASTD,2009:10).Throughthisprocess,
farmersnolongerplayanactiveroleinthedevelopmentand“processof
Page 31
25
innovation”.Insteadtheymerelybecome“recipients”ofproductsdesignedin
laboratories.Insuchaway,thefarmerandthetransferofknowledgethrough
generationsarenolongeressentialtothecontinuationofproduction(Weis,2007:
30)
ThoughGreenRevolutiontechnologyhasbeensuccessfulindrastically
increasingyieldswithoutconvertingfurtherlandholdingsforagricultural
production(Uphoff,2002:3;Weis,2007:165),itsachievementsarenotwithout
limits.ThoughGreenRevolutiontechnologiesinitiallycontributedtodramatic
increasesinagriculturalyields,Power(1999:188)arguesthatthereisnoevidence
thatthistrendwillcontinue.Moreover,advocatesofconventionalpracticesfailto
considertheenvironmentalimpactsofmoderntechnologies(Chappell&LaValle,
2011:7).Infact,inrecentyearsharvestshavebeenseentodrasticallydecreaseor
languish(Uphoff,2002:5),thereasonsforwhichwillbeclarifiedinsubsequent
discussions.Moreover,thedamagedstateoflandcurrentlyundercultivationmayin
factincreasethedesiretoworknewlandholdings(Power,1999:188).
Moreover,theyieldincreasesachievedbytheGreenRevolutionintheend
didnoteliminatetheglobalissuesofhungerandmalnutrition.Thoughfoodprices
dropped,accesstofoodcontinuedtobeproblematic(Chrispeels,2000:3).Instead
ofsolvingtherootissue,theGreenRevolutionsimplyintroducedanewformof
dependence,inwhichachievementsinagriculturalproductionwerecontingenton
theheavyuseofindustrialinputs(Freidmann,2005:243).
Page 32
26
2.2.2 ConsequencesofConventionalAgriculture
TheadvancementoftheGreenRevolutionbroughtforthavarietyof
criticisms.WhileGreenRevolutionpracticesgreatlydemonstratedtheirpotentialto
produceimpressivelyhighyields,theyoftendidsowithenvironmentallyand
sociallydisastrousconsequences;manyofwhichwillbefurtherdiscussedinturn.
Loss of Biodiversity
Biodiversityplaysanimportantroleinthesuccessandcontinuationof
agriculturalproduction,howeveritisalsogreatlyhinderedbytheverynatureof
monocroppingtechniques,whicharedominantinconventionalagriculture
practices.Biodiversitycanbeexpressedthroughvariousdimensions,twoofwhich
areofkeyimportanceinreferencetoagriculturalproduction.Thefirstiswith
regardtogeneticdiversitywithinaspecies(Srivastavaetal.,1996:2),whichis
fundamentallyimportantbecausethepresenceofvaryingtraitsenableaspeciesto
reactandadapttochangesintheirenvironment(Atta‐Krah,Ketal.,2004:184).
Thedisappearanceofthisdiversity,oftenreferredtoasgeneticerosion,has
becomeofgreatconcernduelargelytocropspecializationanduncertainties
regardingtheadoptionofnewvarietiesofseedsandtheirpotentialtodrivelocal
varietiestoextinction.Byreducingdiversitywithinagriculture,cropscanbecome
morevulnerabletopestsanddiseasesandshocks,thereforeheavilyimpactingthe
stabilityofproduction(Brush,1992:148‐149;Ehrlichetal.1993:10).Forherpart,
Thrupp(2000)highlightstheimmenseimportanceofmaintainingbiodiversityin
relationtobothagriculturalproductionandfoodsecurity.Intermsofagricultural
Page 33
27
production,geneticdiversityallowsfornaturalinterbreedingandevolutionofcrops
aswellasconditionsofincreasedresiliencyandstability.
Thesecondimportantdimensionofbiodiversity,regardingagricultural
production,issimplythepresenceofnumerousuniquespecies(Srivastavaetal.,
1996:2‐3),aswouldbefoundinapolyculture.Theimportanceofthisdiversitylies
inthefactthatthecultivationofmultiplespecieshelpstoensurethatthefailureof
onedoesnotnecessarilytranslateintoafailedharvest(Power,1999:187).
Diversityamonginsectsisalsohighlybeneficialforagriculturalproductionin
regardtonaturalpestcontrol.Notallinsectshavethesamedamagingeffecton
crops;infactsomeserveasanaturalenemytocroppeststherebylimitingcrop
losses.Thus,theapplicationofchemicalpesticidesmayhavetheparadoxicaleffect
ofmakingcropsmoresusceptibletopests;thecycleofwhichisreferredtoasthe
“pesticidetreadmill”andwillbediscussedshortly.
Thelossofdiversityisnotonlyfeltinthefieldsbutalsointheconsumption
patternsoftheglobalpopulation.Currently,only30cropsaccountfor95percentof
thecaloriesandproteinsconsumedworldwide(Weis,2007:16‐17).Furthermore,
theglobalpopulationacquiresapproximatehalfof“allplant‐basedcalories”through
theconsumptionofthreecrops:rice,wheatandmaize(Hillel&Rosenzweig,2008:
333).This“one‐sidednessofagriculture”(Stadlmayretal.,2011:693),asaresultof
thepastconcentrationonincreasingtheproductionofcerealcrops,hasleadtothe
Page 34
28
emergenceofincreasinglysimplifieddietsandwidespreadnutrientmalnutrition
(UNHumanRightsCouncil,2010:12).
Soil Depletion
Likewise,bothEhrlichetal.(1993)andThrupp(2000)observethatthe
maintenanceofbiodiversitywithinthesoilitselfisalsoessential.Itistheworkof
manyvitalorganismswithinthesoiltoensurethefertilityandhealthofthesoilas
wellasthecollectionandretentionofnecessarynutrients.Thrupp(2000)also
argueshowever,thatthedestructionofbiodiversityandsubsequentimpactson
productionandfoodsecurityisnotnecessarilyapreconditionforallmethodsof
agriculturalproduction.
However,thesuccessofconventionalagricultureishighlydependantona
fewkeyfeaturesthatoftengeneratedadversesideeffects.Thefirstwasaheavy
applicationoffertilizers,whichhelpedfarmerstoachievehigheryieldsduetothe
factthattheseedsrespondfavourablytotheadditionalinputsofnitrogen.However,
suchdramaticincreasesareoftenachievedattheexpenseofthe‘naturalnutrient
cycles’withinthesoilitself(Ehrlichetal.,1993:11‐12),aswellasthatofnearby
watersourcesandaquaticecosystemscausedbyseepageofresidualchemicals
(Weis,2007:31).
Theenvironmentalconsequencesofagriculturalproductionisofgreat
concernnotonlyforthesake,andimportance,ofbiodiversityitselfbutalsoforthat
factthatsuchneglectsubsequentlyservestodecreasethefutureproductive
Page 35
29
capacityofthemethod,whileatthesametime,generatescircumstancesofgreater
foodinsecurity(Thrupp,2000:269).Thereforetheproductiveandenvironmental
consequencesofthemethodsofagriculturalproductionemployedaredirectly
relatedtotheachievementoffoodsecurity(Nijkamp&Vindigni,2002:495).
Furthermore,ithasbeennotedbyscholars(Ehrlichetal.,1993;Thrupp,
2000)thatwhilegreatprogresshasbeenmadeintermsofincreasingagricultural
output,ithascomeatthesteeppriceofbothqualityandquantityofnatural
resources.Thelossofvitaltopsoil,groundwaterandbiodiversitycangreatlyhinder
thepotentialforincreasedagriculturaloutputandtheprogresstowardsfood
security.Intermsofsoilloss,itisnotonlyquantitybutalsoqualityofcultivatable
landthatiscauseforconcern.Somemethodsofagriculturalproductionhavethe
tendencytonegativelyimpactsoilconditionsandwhensoilerodesordeteriorates
atamorerapidpacethanitcannaturallyregenerate,theoverallproductivityof
agriculturalpractisesisgreatlydiminished(Ehrlichetal.,1993:8)andfuturefood
productioniscompromised.
The Pesticide Treadmill
It’sarguedthattherepeateduseofchemicalpesticideslocksproducersintoa
cyclicalpattern,identifiedasthe“PesticideTreadmill”(Perfectoetal.,2009:54;
Moore‐Lappéetal.,1998:54),fromwhichisitdifficulttoescape.AsPerfectoetal.
(2009:53)highlight,pesticidesareindiscriminatewhenitcomestotheorganisms
thattheykill.Thereforewhileapesticidemayeliminatepests,italsowipesout
Page 36
30
insectsthatwouldotherwisehadservedasnaturalpredatorstopests.Moreover,
pestshavebeenknowntodevelopresistancetotheaffectsofpesticidesafter
repeatedapplication(Moore‐Lappéetal.,1998:54).Coupledwiththediminished
populationofnaturalenemies,pestpopulationsonceagainincrease,forcing
producerstoadoptmorepowerfulchemicals,whichmightservetostemthe
problemintheshort‐termbutovertimesimplycontinuestoreinforceproducer’s
dependenceonsuchmethods(Perfectoetal.,2009:54).
Asimilarpatternhasemergedpertainingtotheuseanddependenceupon
chemicalfertilizers.Priortothecreationofchemicalfertilizers,producersensured
thattheirsoilmaintainedthenutrientsrequiredforagriculturalproductionthrough
variousmethodsthatincludedtherotationofcropsandreutilizingoforganic
materials.Howeverwiththeadventofchemicalfertilizers,producersbeganto
forsakethesepastpractices,whichensuredthatthesoilascomposedofsufficient
organicmaterialsandwasproperlymanaged,andbegantorelayexclusivelyonthe
applicationoffertilizers(Smil,2001:21).Inthecyclethatfollowed,themore
fertilizerapplied,leadtotherecyclingoflessorganicmaterialinthesoil,which
consequentlygeneratedtheneedformorefertilizer,continuingthesequenceof
dependence(Perfectoetal.,2009:56).Thoughhemaintainsthattheglobal
populationcouldnotbefedwithouttheuseofchemicalfertilizers,Smil(2001:205)
doesconcedethattheyhavegeneratedmany“undesirableconsequences”
pertainingtosoilquality.Suchconditionsincludethereducedabilitytomaintain
waterandincreasedvulnerabilitytoerosion,aswellastheaforementionedlackof
Page 37
31
organicmatter.AsPerfectoetal.(2009:56)state,thereasonforthiscycleisless
understoodthanthatofthepesticidetreadmillbutitisassumedthattheapplication
ofchemicalfertilizersdistortsthenaturalcycleofnitrogeninthesoil.
Inappropriate Technology
IrrigationisalsoanessentialfeatureofGreenRevolutionagriculturebutit
toocomeswithunaccountedenvironmentalcosts,suchasincreasedsalinization
andwaterloggingofthesoil.Moreover,thecostsassociatedwithinstallingand
maintaininganirrigationsystemhascontinuedtoclimb,makingitanunfeasible
optionforthoseexperiencingreductionsinthepriceofcrops(Ehrlichetal.,1993:
11‐12).
Likewise,ithasbeennotedthatnotallfarmersbenefitedequallyfromthe
implementationoftheGreenRevolution.Sincethesetechnologieswereengineered
tothriveunderthebestconditionspossible,theyweregenerallyinappropriatefor
usebypoorfarmerswhocultivatemarginallands(Grove&Edwards,2003:137;
Uphoff,2002:9).Themerecostofinputsensurethatthosewhohavemoneyor
accesstonecessarycreditarefavouredoverthosewithout(IAASTD,2009:64),and
consequentlyenableslargerlandholderstousurpthelandofsmallerproducerswho
cannotaffordthetechnologyandthereforeareunabletocompete(Weis,2007:
108).WhiletheGreenRevolutiondidincreaseagriculturalproductivity,thebenefits
oftheinitiativeweredistributedinahighlyinequitablemannerandthenotionof
increasedproductionleadingtoareductioninpovertylevelsdidnotholdtrue
(Buckland,2004:157;Parayil,2003:976).
Page 38
32
Asaresult,theGreenRevolutionwasoftendevastatingforbothfarmersand
thelandscape.Ascropdiversitygavewaytothepracticeofmonocropping,farmers
becomecaughtina“doublepricesqueeze”,wheretheyaretrappedbetweenthe
raisingcostsofinputsanddecliningprofits,andwithnodirectcontactwiththe
market,areoftentimesforcedtoselltoamiddleman,whosubsequentlyclaims
muchofthesurplusgeneratedonthefarm(Friedmann,2005:243;Weis,2007:82).
Asithasbeenstated,“anagriculturalsystemrequiringfinancialsuicideonthepart
ofthefarmercannotbesaidtobesustainable”(MaddenquotedinChappell&
LaValle,2011:11).
2.3 Agroecology
Aspreviouslymentioned,inlightofthelimitationsofcurrentconventional
practices,acallhasgoneoutforashiftinboththefocusandthinkingsurrounding
agriculturalproduction,andhassubsequentlyledtothere‐emergenceoftraditional
knowledgeandpracticesinagriculturalproduction.Agroecologyhasemergedasa
methodofagriculturalproductionthatfallsinlinewithPrettyetal.’s(1996:5)
notionofsustainableintensification.Thefocusofthisapproachisagroecosystems,
whichAltieri(2002:8)describesas“communitiesofplantsandanimalsinteracting
withtheirphysicalandchemicalenvironmentsthathavebeenmodifiedbypeopleto
producefood,fibre,fuelandotherproductsforhumanconsumptionand
processing.”Itisbyrecognizingandappreciatingtheseexchanges,thatagroecology
seekstogenerategreaterlevelsofproductivity,withtheminimaluseofadditional
Page 39
33
inputsandthesubsequentcreationofenvironmentallyandsociallyharmful
consequences(Altieri,2002:8).
GroveandEdwards(2003:139)arguethatunlikeindustrial‐input
technology,whichrequirestheimplementationofacomplete“technological
package”,agroecologicalapproachesarebettersuitedtoadapttochangingand
imperfectcircumstancesinthefields.Embeddedinagroecologyisthenotionthat
humanbeingsshouldemployagriculturalmethodsthataretailoredtotheirlocal
environment(Alteri,1995:55).Inthisway,agroecologydiffersgreatlyfrom
conventionalagriculture,whichhasundergoneaprocessof‘distancing’,inwhich
technologyandpracticeshavebeenconstructedindependentlyofthe
environmentalconsiderationsinwhichtheywillbeapplied(Norgaard&Sikar,
1995:28‐29).Furthermore,whileconventionalagriculturalpracticesrelyheavily
onnewinnovationsregardingmachinery,pesticidesandfertilizerstomaintain
productivecapabilities,agroecologyiscomprisedofavarietyoflessintrusive
methods,includingcroprotations,theplantingofpolycultures,integratedpestand
nutrientmanagement,useofcropcovers,waterharvestingandlivestockintegration
(Pretty,2006:13;Altieri&Nicholls,2005:33‐34).Unlikethetechnologydeveloped
throughtheGreenRevolution,agroecologicalpracticesarenotapackagetobe
appliedinthesamefashioninallenvironmentsandcircumstances,andtherefore
mustconformtotherealityofmanydifferingsituations(Altieri,2002:16).
TheUnitedNationsHumanRightsCouncil(2010:10)haslabelled
agroecologytobea“knowledge‐intensive”approach,insomuchthatitcombines
Page 40
34
breakthroughsinecologicalsciencewiththelocalknowledgeandpracticesof
farmersthemselvestoimplementagriculturalpracticesthatareenvironmentally
sustainableandproductive(McAfee,2006:10),andbyextension,demonstratesthe
validityofvaryingepistemologies(Norgaard&Sikar,1995:21).However,thehigh
levelofknowledgecanalsoposeasalimitationtotheadoptionofagroecology.
Moreover,aproducercannotsimplystopapplyingchemicalinputsand
expecttoachievesimilaryields;moreover,theprocessofconvertingfrom
conventionalagriculturetoagroecologicalmethodscanoftentimestakeyearsto
complete(Altieri,1995:192).Therefore,Pretty(2009:4)arguesthattomakethe
transition,producers“mustfirstinvestinlearning”.Duetothepushtowards
specialisationandmonocropping,producersmustre‐familiarizethemselveswith
practicesthatencouragediversity,oftentimesthroughon‐farmexperimentationor
informationalsessions.However,asWeis(2007:30)notes,itisoftendifficultfor
farmerstoregainknowledgethathasbeenlost.Forherpart,Scialabba(2007:6‐7)
arguesthatsocialorganisationcanhelptonegatesuchlimitations.Aspartofa
largergrouping,producerscanlearnfromoneanother,allowingmanytoovercome
theirlackofinexperienceandknowledge.Suchorganisationscanresultin
improvementstoproductivitylevels,thedesignationofhigherimportance
regardinglocalknowledgeandmethods,aswellasagreatersenseofcontrolover
theagriculturalsystem.Assuch,thoughsuccessfultransitionsrequireaccessto
informationandknowledge,socialorganisationscanbeusedasameansto
overcomethisoftentimes,insurmountableseemingobstacle.
Page 41
35
Therefore,ashifttowardsagroecologyshouldnotbeinterpretedasashift
awayfromscientificknowledgeanddevelopmentasfurtherresearchisrequiredto
understandtheinnerworkingsofvariousenvironments(Weis,2007:170).Pretty
(1996:5)arguesthatcriticsareoftenquicktolabelitasa‘backward’approachto
agriculturalproduction.Howeveragroecologyshouldinsteadbeunderstoodasan
approachthatabsorbslessonsfrombothtechnologicaladvancesandthetested
practicesoffarmersandappliestheminamoreenvironmentallysustainableand
productivemanner.
2.3.1 CriticismsofAgroecology
Therearehowever,manywhocontinuetostronglyvocalizethesuperiority
andgeneralneedforthecontinuationandimprovementofconventionalagriculture
practices.CurrenteffortsarebeingmadeatrevivingtheGreenRevolutionwitha
distinctivelyAfricanfocus;relyingheavilyontherepackagingofconventional
practicessuchasimprovedseedvarieties,irrigationandchemicalinputstoimprove
theproductivityofsmall‐scaleproducers(RockerfellerFoundation,2006:9).Forhis
part,Seavoy(2000:31)arguesthatsuchmodernizationofisanecessaryfacetin
achievingeconomicdevelopment.Moreover,Borlaug(2000:488)passionately
denouncesthosewhosupportanalternativemethodasahindrancetofurther
progressandachievement.
Criticismsconcerningtheagroecologicalapproachfallintoavarietyof
categories,withitsproductivepotentialandneedofnaturalfertilizersoftenacting
Page 42
36
asthestartingpoint.Anadditionalconcernisthegreateruseofhumanlabour,each
ofwhichwillbediscussedinturn.
Productivity
Ithasbeenarguedthattheimplementationofagroecologicalpracticeswould
haveminimalimpactonoverallfoodproductionsincelargeportionsoftheglobal
populationalreadyemploylow‐inputmethods;lackingthemeanstoacquirethe
equipmentnecessaryforconventionalagricultural(Chrispeels,2000:3).However,
Badgleyetal.(2006:88)statethatthoughalargepercentageofagricultural
productionindevelopingcountriesisachievedthroughtheuseoflowintensive
methods,designatingthem‘agroecological’wouldbeinappropriateand,infact,
yieldincreaseshavebeendocumentedinsuchsituationswhenaconversionto
agroecologyhastakenplace.
Itshouldbenoted,asMcAfee(2006:5)argues,thatcritiquesbasedon
productivityaregenerallyfaultyduetotheirlimitedperspective.Productivityis
generallymeasuredby“yieldsperunitofsurfacearea”butthisignoresaspectssuch
assoilqualityandfutureproductivecapacity.Therefore,asMcAfeecontends,itis
contentioustoplaceimportanceontheshorttermoverthelongterm,asdomany
whocalculatetheproductivityofthesetwoapproaches.
Withthatsaid,thedebatesurroundingyieldsislargelybetweenthe
techniqueofmonocroppingversuspolycroppinginwhichtheformer"implicitly
regardsagricultureasamechanicalprocess,withinputsbeingconvertedinto
Page 43
37
outputsbysomefixedformula,whereaspolycroppingrecognizestheinherently
biologicalnatureofagriculture”(Fernandesetal.,2002:29).Whencompared,
Uphoff(2002:15)statesthatlarger,moreextensiveoperationsseldomsurpass
smaller,moreintensivelymanagedonesintermsofoutputperunitofland.Though
largefarmsmightbedeemedmoreprofitablethansmall‐scalefarms,itwouldbe
wrongtoassumethemtobemoreproductive.Instead,“substitutingcapitalfor
labourthroughmechanizationinlargerholdingdoesnotnecessarilyraiseyields,
thoughitcanraiseprofitsforownersofcapital,especiallyifsubsidized”(Uphoff,
2002:15).
Altieri(2009:105)notesthatwhentheoveralloutputofsmall,diversified
farmistakenintoconsideration,insteadofmerelyfocusingontheyieldsofasingle
crop,suchfarmsarefoundtobemoreproductivethanlarger,monocropped
landholdings.Thisislargelyduetothetechniqueofpolycropping,otherwiseknown
asintercropping,inwhichavarietyofcropsareplantedinterspersed,each
possessingspecificattributesthatarebeneficialfortheirneighbors(Liebman,1995:
108‐109).Thisisreferredtoas“facilitation”,inwhichacropisabletoenhancethe
surroundingenvironmenttotheadvantageofothercrops(Altieri,2002:10;Power,
1999:186).
Increasedstabilityandpestresistancearealsocitedasbenefitsof
polycroppingtechniques.AsScott(1998:269)states,“diversityistheenemyof
epidemics”.It’sarguedthatdiseaseandpestsarecapableofspreadingatamore
rapidpacewhencropsare“geneticallyuniform,numerousandovercrowded”(Hillel
&Rosenzweig,2008:332)andthattheseconditions,whicharegenerallyfoundin
Page 44
38
monocroppedfields,canleadtowidespreadcroplosses.Converselywithin
polycultures,iftheproductionofonecropishindered,itispossiblefor
neighbouringcropstoincreasetheirownproductivity,usingthenowavailable
resources,apossibilitythatcouldnotarisehadthecropsbeenplanted
independently(Power,1999:187).Thereforepolyculturesarecapableofachieving
higher“productivityintermsofharvestableproductsperunitofarea”,realizable
becausetheirstructureleaveslittleroomforweeds,encouragespestanddisease
resistanceandmoreefficientlyprocessesavailableresources.(Altieri,2002:10;
Holt‐Giménez&Patel,2009:113;Liebman,1995:108‐109;Power,1999:186).
Inadditiontoamoreefficientuseofresources,Chappell&LaValle(2011:
10)citea“relativelyhighlabourquality”,whichisgenerallyduetofamily
participationintheproductionprocess,throughwhichmembershavea“stakein
farmsuccessratherthanalienatedoutsideworkers”,aswellasanindependence
frompurchasedinputsasadditionalreasonswhysmall‐scaleproducersaremore
productive.
Inresponsetocriticismsregardingthevastenvironmentalconsequences
generatedbyGreenRevolutiontechnology,Dr.NormanBorlaugarguesthatinorder
toachievesimilarlevelsofproductivity,intheabsenceofsuchtechnologies,it
wouldhavebeenobligatorythatmillionsofhectaresoflandwereconvertedinto
farmland.Hefurthermorequestionstheenvironmentalimplicationsofsucha
transformation(Borlaug,2000:488).Howeverforherpart,Power(1999:188)
argues,“thereisnoconvincingevidencetodatetosupportthenotionthat
Page 45
39
increasingproductivityofagriculturalsystemswillprotectneighbouringnatural
areas.”Infact,shecontinuesbysuggestingthatattractiveprofitsachievedthrough
increasedproductivitycouldservetogeneratehigherinterestinthefieldand
subsequentlytheconversionofadditionalland.Insupportofthissuggestion,
Chappell&LaValle(2011:7)citecasestudiesinwhichitwasconcludedthat
agriculturalintensification,achievedbywayofincreaseduseofcapital,didinfact
ledtoincreaseddeforestationandconversionoflandforagriculturalpurposes.
Conversely,intensificationachievedthroughincreasesinlabourdidnotencourage
furtherdeforestation,andmoreoverhastheaddedpotentialofreducingrural
unemploymentandurbanisation(Chappell&LaValle,2011:7).
Moreover,comprehensiveresearchconductedbyBadgleyetal.(2006)
suggestedthattheintensiveapplicationofagroecologicalproductionmethodscould
“contributesubstantially”toensuringsufficientproductionlevelsrequiredtofeed
theglobalpopulation;doingsoinawaythatsuchproductionlevelscouldbe
achievedthroughtheuseoflesslandthaniscurrentlybeingfarmed.Suchfindings
alsonegatetheargumentthatadditionallandwouldberequiredforagroecological
methodstoachievethesameresultsasconventionalagriculture.
Limited Availability of Natural Fertilizers
Dr.Borlaugisalsoamongthosewhoquestionthequantityofnatural
fertilizersavailable.Hisargumentthattheglobalpopulationcouldnotbefed
withouttheuseofchemicalfertilizersisbasedontheassumptionthatproduction
Page 46
40
levelscouldnotbematchedwithouttheuseofsuchfertilizersandthatanyattempt
atamassingasufficientsupplyofnaturalfertiliser,viaanimalmanure,would
requirevasttracksoflandtobeconvertedintopasturesforlivestock(Hesser,2006:
184).AssimilarargumentisputfourthbySmil(2001:204),whostatesthatit
wouldbeimpossibletofeedtheglobalpopulationwithouttheuseofchemical
fertilizersandmoreoverthatbillionsofpeopleowetheirveryexistencetothe
creationofsuchfertilizers.
Inlightoftheseobjections,astudybyBadgelyetal.(2006:91‐93)examined
thepotentialofgreenmanure;aninputcomprisedofcropsthataretilledintothe
soiltoenhancenitrogenlevelsandactasafertiliserforsubsequentyields.This
practicealone,notinconjunctionwithadditionalagroecologicaltechniquesthat
couldalsoenhancenitrogenlevels,wasfoundtogeneratemorenitrogenthanis
currentlyusedunderconventionalmethods,notonlyachievingcomparableyields
butalsoleadingtoimprovedsoilfertilityandretentionofwater,aswellasinsome
situations,resiliencytodisease.
Greater Need for Labour
Intermsoflabourrequirements,itholdstruethatagroecologicalapproaches
aregenerallymorelabourintensive,howeversomewouldarguethatthis
characteristicshouldnotbeviewedasanegativeconsequenceoftheapproach.In
fact,theindustrializationofagriculturalproductionhasleadtolossofemployment
inthissectorandsubsequentlyfoodinsecurityofportionsoftheglobalpopulation
(McAfee,2006:7).Additionallysincethedemandforlabourisgenerallyrequired
Page 47
41
yearround,agroecologicalmethodsofproductionpossessthepotentialofre‐
stimulatingdemandforagriculturallabour,generatingrelativelystableconditions
ofemploymentforruralpopulation,contributingtofoodsecurityinfurther
householdsaswellaspossiblystemmingurbanmigrationandthespreadof
shantytowns(Altieri,2009:106;Badgleyetal.,2006:94;McAfee,2006:7).
2.3.2 ThePotentialofAgroecology
Havingreviewedthecriticismofagroecology,itisclearthatsuchconcerns
aregenerallyunfoundedandinfact,inonespecificcase,namelythatofthegreater
needforlabour,thesupposedcriticismcouldactuallybeanadvantage.Thepractice
ofagroecologypossessesadditionalbenefitsaswell,especiallyforthose
populationswho,asAltieri(2002:2)argues,couldbenefitthemost.
Accessibility
AsstatedbyAltieri(2002:15)“farmerscannotbenefitfromtechnologies
thatarenotavailable,affordableorappropriatetotheirconditions.”Withitsfocus
ontheuseofavailabletechnologiesandtechniques,agroecologyisperfectlysuited
toaddressthisreality,andmoreover,hasthepotentialtogreatlyimprovethelives
ofsmallscalesproducersbybreakingthecycleofcontinuedindebtednessthatis
oftengeneratedfromadependenceoncostlychemicalinputs(Scialabba,2007:6).
Furthermore,sinceagroecologicalmethodsareadaptedtosuitthe
environmentinwhichtheyareapplied,theyarebeingusedtogenerategreater
Page 48
42
levelsofproductioninverymarginalconditionsandaresubsequentlyimproving
thefoodsecurityofhouseholdsthatoftenfacehighlevelsofinstability(Uphoff,
2002:11‐12).
Environmental Benefits
Asidefromproductivitylevels,Pretty(2009:6)statesthatagroecological
practicescanalsogeneratepositiveenvironmentalconsequences,limitednotonly
toimprovedsoilfertilityandreducederosionbutalsocleanerwaterandgreater
biodiversity.Environmentalimprovementscaninturngreatlyenhancethe
sustainabilityandlongevityofaproducer’slivelihood,asinthecaseofnatural
inputssuchasmanureandcompost,whichnotonlyvastlyimprovesoilqualitybut
alsostrengthenthehealthofthecrops,makingthemlesssusceptibletodamage
causedbypestsorweatherevents(Altieri,2002:10).Infact,itisfurthermore
arguedthatwhenconfrontedwithextremeweatherconditionsandevents,
agroecologicalplotsarefarmore“resilient”(Holt‐Giménez&Patel,2009:101).
ResearchconductedinCentralAmericainthewakeofHurricaneMitchrevealedthat
theplotsconventionalfarmersincurredgreaterlevelsofdamagethandidtheir
agroecologicalneighbours,whousedmethodssuchasintercropping,cropcovers
andagroforestry(Altieri,2002:10;Holt‐Giménez,2006:192).Manyofthe
agroecologicaltechniqueshavethebenefitofcreatingconditionsofincreased
stability,whichreducesvulnerabilitytounforeseenevents(Scialabba,2007:7).
Page 49
43
Improved Social and Human Capital
Moreoverithasbeenarguedthatthebeneficialreachofagroecological
methodsisnotmerelylimitedtoenvironmentalconditionsorproductivity,butcan
alsogreatlyenhancewhatPretty(2009:6)referstoas“humanpotential”.Henotes
thatsomeofthemanifestationsofsuchimprovementsinclude“theenhancedability
toexperimentandsolveproblems,coupledwithanaugmentedsenseofself‐esteem
andworth”(Pretty,2009:6).Correspondingly,Uphoff(2002:13)notedthatfarmers
practisingagroecologygainedboththeskillsandconfidencetotackleproblemsand
expandtheirknowledge.Suchimprovementsnotonlyaccrueonanindividualbasis
butalsoarediscernableatthecommunitylevelthroughthedevelopmentof
strongercohesionandsocialties(Pretty,2009:6).
Improved Household Nutrition
ToledoandBurlingame(2006:478)advocatefordeeperinvestigationinto
thelinkbetweenbiodiversityandnutrition,arguingthatitisessentialinaddressing
concernsofmalnutrition.Aspreviouslydiscussedthereisgrowingconcernover
agriculturalspecializationandtheconsequentialdependenceonalimitedvarietyof
itemsforconsumption(Hillel&Rosenzweig,2008;Stadlmayretal.,2011;Weis,
2007).Ithasfurthermorebeenarguedthatthediversityencouragedthrough
agroecologycantranslateintomorediversifiedandstablehouseholdconsumption
patterns,notonlybywayofagreatervarietyofgrowncrops,butalsothe
integrationofmeatandotheranimalproductsintohouseholddiets(Pretty,2009:6;
Scialabba,2007:9).Moreover,it’ssuggestedthatthereexists“asignificantelasticity
Page 50
44
ofconsumption”withinmanyruralhouseholds,meaningthatlargeryieldsarenot
necessarilysentstraighttomarketsforsalebutinstead,greaterquantitiesare
consumedwithinhouseholds(Pretty,2009:6).
Asidefromtheaforementionedbenefits,ithasalsobeenarguedthat
producerscanprofitgreatlyfromthesaleoftheiragroecologically‐produceditems,
assuchproductscancommandhighermarketprices;enablingproducersto
generateamorereliablesourceofincome(Chappell&LaValle,2011:11)and
possibly,byextension,increasehouseholdfoodsecurity(Scialabba,2007:6).In
ordertodoso,producersmustbeabletodifferentiatetheirproductsfromthose
thathavebeenconventionallyproduced.Inthisway,certificationbecomesan
importantmatterfordiscussion.
2.4 OrganicCertificationandLocalFoodMarkets
Intermsofcertificationforagriculturalpractices,productsaretypically
labeledas‘organic’,whileagroecologicalcertificationissignificantlylessprevalent.
AsdefinedbytheNationalOrganicStandardsBoard(NOSB),“Organicagricultureis
anecologicalproductionmanagementsystemthatpromotesandenhances
biodiversity,biologicalcyclesandsoilbiologicalactivity.Itisbasedonminimaluse
ofoff‐farminputsandonmanagementpracticesthatrestore,maintainandenhance
ecologicalharmony”(citedinAllen&Kovach,2000:222).However,thepracticesof
agroecologyandorganicagriculturearenotnecessarilysynonymousandinfact,as
Page 51
45
itwillbediscussedshortly,oftentimescertifiedorganicproductsfailtomeetthe
standardsofagroecology.
2.4.1 TheNeedforCertification
Duringthe1970sand1980s,whenthepushfororganiccertificationfirst
emerged,standardsweregenerallyenforcedona‘voluntaryandself‐regulatory’
basis;knownas‘firstpartycertification’,asthoseparticipatingrepresentedafairly
smallandcloselylinkedcommunityofproducersandconsumers.However,dueto
increaseddemand,thesubsequentexpansionoftheorganicsectorandthe
accompanyingexpansebetweenactiveparties,thisformofcertificationwasno
longersufficienttoensurewidescaleconfidenceintheorganicnatureofthe
productsbaringthelabel.Thustheshiftwasmadeto“thirdpartycertification”,
throughwhichorganicstandardsandmeasuresofaccountabilitywereestablished
byoutsideparties(Nelsonetal,2010:228).
Itwastheelongationofthesupplychain,andtheever‐expandingdistance
betweenproducersandconsumersthatgeneratedtheneedforcertification;therole
ofwhichistwo‐foldandimpactbothsidesofthetransaction(Källander,2008:4).
Ononehand,certificationenablesproducerstodifferentiatetheirproductsfrom
thosethatareconventionallyproduced,subsequentlyenablingthemtodemanda
higherprice.Moreover,certificationprocessesprotectproducersfromalossofboth
marketshareandprofit,duetoaninfluxoffalselylabelledproducts(Lohr,1998:
1125;MoralesGalindo,2007:90).Guthman(2007:458)notesthatthough
Page 52
46
producersmightparticipateinacertificationprogrambecausetheyshareasimilar
setofvalues,thegeneralpremiseisthatlabelingworksasacompensationmethod.
Fromtheconsumer’sstandpoint,certificationcreatesasenseofconfidence
intheproducts,assuringconsumersthatthoughorganicproductsmightbearno
visibledifferencefromotherproducts,theywereinfactgrownorprocessed
accordingtosanctionedpracticesandarethereforeworththehigherprices(Lohr,
1998:1125;MoralesGalindo,2007:90).
2.4.2 CriticismsofOrganicCertification
The Conventionalization of the Organic Sector
Guthman(2007:461)arguesthatifalabellingsystemistohaveanymerit,a
mandatoryconditionisthatallproducerscannotmeettherequirements;otherwise
itwouldbeimpossibletodifferentiatebetweenproducts.Inthislogic,regulations
mustserveasobstaclestoentryintothesystem.However,thosethatdosatisfy
expectationsarerewardedwiththerighttoapplythelabeltotheirproduct,and
subsequentlyreceivehigherpricesfromconsentingconsumers.Suchasystemhas
beendescribedasapotentialmeansforincomeredistribution,astheproducers
“whodothingsdifferently”arerewardedbyconsumers.Howevertherehasbeen
growingconcernovertheintegrityandvirtueofcertification.Manyresearchers
(Allan&Kovach,2000:224‐5;González&Nigh,2005:499;Friedmann,2005:253)
havehighlightedthegrowthoftheorganicsectorandarguedthatthepotentialfor
increasedprofitshasappealedtoproducerswhomightotherwisenotshareasense
ofcommitmenttothefoundationsoforganicagriculture.
Page 53
47
Moreover,Raynolds(2000:303)arguesthatthelaxstandardsofmany
certificationprogramsplacestheorganicsectoringraveriskofbecomingnothing
morethanafacetoftheconventionalsystem.Ithasbeenarguedthattheguidelines
forcertificationaregenerallyonlycapableofdictatingwhatinputsarepermissible
foruseandwhicharenot,insteadoffullyencapsulatingtheidealsoftheagro‐
ecologicalmovement,bothinenvironmentalandsocialterms(Nelsonetal.,2010:
228;Rigby&Brown,2003:5).Duetothis,ithasbecomelegitimatetomerelyreplace
chemicalinputswithnewlymarketedbiologicalinputs(Allan&Kovach,2000:224).
Inthisway,Freidmann(2005:230)questionswhetherthegrowthoftheorganic
sectorissimplygeneratingspaceforanorganicinputindustry,inlieuofchemical
inputs.Furtherexamplesincludefarmersnolongerallowingforfallowperiodsto
rejuvenatetheirland,orinsomecases,havebeguntomonocroporganicproducts,
bothpracticeswhicharenotinlinewiththeoriginalidealsofagroecological
production,butcanbeallowableundersomecertificationprograms(Allan&
Kovach,2000:224;Altieri,2009:111).
SuchcircumstanceswerealsorecordedinGuthman’s(2009)research,
involvingorganicproducers,ofvarioussizes,inCalifornia.Shefoundthatthough
themajorityoftheproducersinterviewedwereemployingpracticesthatwere
acceptableundertheauspicesoforganicfarming,suchpracticesoftenfellfarshort
fromthebroaderambitionsofagroecology.An‘input‐substitution’approachto
agricultureproductionwasquiteprevalent,asproducerssimplypurchased
permissibleinputsasopposetousingon‐siteinputsandemployingtechniquessuch
ascropcoveringandcomposting;bothofwhicharetechniqueschampionedby
Page 54
48
agroecology(Guthman,2009:261).Itwasmoreoverarguedthattheacceptabilityof
suchpracticeswithinorganiccertificationleavesproducerswithlittle“incentiveto
incorporateandidealpracticewhenanallowableonewillsuffice”(Guthman,2009:
265).
Intermsofsocialconditions,Nelsonetal.(2010:228)arguethatcertification
requirementsdo“littleornothingtofosteridealssuchasprohibitingtheentryof
largeagribusinessintothemarket,protectingsmallscalefamilyfarms,ensuringfair
treatmentofworkers,limitingtheextentofmonocropproduction,orfavouringlocal
productionandconsumptionnetworks.Asaresult,mainstreamcertification
systemsleavetheorganicsectorvulnerabletotheaforementionedprocessof
‘conventionalization’”.Raynolds(2000:298)sharesthisconcernandarguesthat
organiccertificationhasaveryrestrictedfocusonconditionsofproduction.Though
muchisdelineatedintermsoftheenvironmentaldimensionsofproduction,littleis
saidregardingsocialconditions.Therefore,intheabsenceofsocialregulations,
producerscanachieveorganiccertificationdespite“grosslabourviolations”;once
againleavingtheorganicsectorvulnerabletobecomingincorporatedasmerely
anothersegmentoftheconventionalsystem(Raynolds,2000:303).
Limited Access for Small‐Scale Producers
Additionally,andoftheutmostimportancetothisthesisresearch,isthefact
thatstudieshavebeguntochallengethenotionsmallscaleproducersarebenefiting
themostfromtheinternationalorganicmodel.Infact,ithasbeenarguedthata
Page 55
49
largeproportionoftheindustryismanipulatedbymediumorlargescaleproducers
whohaveidentifiedtheexpandingorganicmarkettobe“agoodcommercial
proposition”(Raynolds,2000:302‐303).Moreover,thoughorganicproductionis
widespreadthroughouttheworld,thevastmajorityoftheproductsaredestinedfor
foreignandinternationalmarkets(Altieri&Nicholls,2005:264),wheresmall‐scale
producersfaceamultitudeofobstaclesintheattempttocompeteatthatscale
(Raynolds,2000:303)Inmanywaystheorganicsectorisseentohavemovedoutof
thereachofmanysmall‐scaleproducers(Nelsonetal,2010:227).
Muchofthecriticismstemsfromthecertificationprocessitself,whichis
oftenalongandtediousprocess,regularlyrequiringmultipleyearstoreach
completionandinmanywayeffectivelybarssmall‐scaleproducersfromaspiringto
andsubsequentlyobtainingcertification.Tobeginwith,manyproducerslack
informationregardingorganicproductionmethods,certificationandmoreover
accesstoconsumersandmarkets(Raynolds,2000:302).Moreover,filingthe
necessarypaperworkisoftendifficultforalargeportionofsmall‐scaleproducers
whoaretypicallyilliterateorsemi‐literate(Raynolds,2004:736).Furthermore,
obtainingorganiccertificationisbothcostlyandtimeconsuming.Thecostsofland
inspectionsaloneareoftentooexpensiveformanyproducerstobear(Källander,
2008:6;Raynolds,2004:736)andthetransformationprocessthatmightbe
requiredtomeetcertificationrequirementscanpotentiallytakeyears.Morales
Galindo(2007:90)suggeststhatthiswaitingperiodprovidesproducerswithtime
tobecomeeducatednotonlywiththecertificationproceedsbutalsomarket
Page 56
50
availabilityandvariousmethodsofproduction.However,duringthistimeframe,
producersarerequiredtopaythenecessaryfeesforcertificationbutarenot
compensatedequallyfortheorganicnatureoftheirproducts.Suchrequirements
arefoundtodiscouragesmall‐scaleproducersfromseekingcertificationandas
such,theydonotreceiveequalmonetarycompensationfortheirefforts(Nelsonet
al,2010:229).
2.4.3 “BeyondOrganic6”:ParticipatoryGuaranteeSystems
Intheattempttomovebeyondthecriticismssurroundingorganic
certificationandtheaccessibilityofthesectorbysmall‐scaleproducers,
ParticipatoryGuaranteeSystems(PGS)haveemergedasanalternativetothethird‐
partysystemofcertification(Nelsonetal.,2010:230).Linkedtotheoriginalsystem
offirstpartycertification,whichwassupersededinthe1990s,thismovementis
comprisedof“locallyfocusedqualityassurancesystems[that]certifyproducers
basedonactiveparticipationofstakeholderandarebuiltonafoundationoftrust,
socialnetworksandknowledgeexchange”(IFOAM,2011:1).ThoughPGSscomply
withthenormsoftheInternationalFederationofOrganicAgricultureMovements
(IFOAM),theydifferinthattheyrequirelessrigorousstepsforverification,much
lowerassociatedcostsandplaceimportanceoneducatingbothproducersand
consumersonvarioussocialandenvironmentaltopics(GómezTovaretal.,2007:7).
ThoughPGSscertainlydifferfromeachother,theyareallbuiltuponafew
basicpremises.Thefirstismultifacetedparticipation;assuchregulationsand6(Nelsonetal.,2010:227)
Page 57
51
accountabilitymeasuresaretypicallygeneratedthroughtheinputofproducers,
consumersandresearchers(Nelsonetal.,2010:230).Insodoing,asenseof
‘collectiveresponsibility’isfosteredandconditionsofincreaseddialogueamong
actorsencouraged(May,2008:4).However,asKällander(2008:22)highlights,itis
sometimesdifficulttoensureconstantparticipationonthepartofconsumers.With
thatbeingsaid,theimportanceofconsumerparticipationshouldnotbeoverlooked
astheyhavethepotentialofcontributingsignificantlyinvariousareas.Moreoverit
issuggestedthatparticipationalsoservestoeducateconsumers,whichinturncan
leadthemto“happilypayfairpricesfortheproduce”(May,2008:5‐6).
Transparencyandtrustarealsotwoimportantandinterconnectedelements
ofaPGS.Transparencyrequiresthatnoinformationisheldofflimitsandthat
everyoneinvolvedhasatleastsomeunderstandingofthePGSaswellasameansto
haveanyquestionsanswered.Suchconditionssubsequentlyfeedintoan
environmentoftrust.Lastly,PGSsareintendedtobe“non‐hierarchical”,insomuch
thatresponsibilitiesaresharedamongthoseinvolved(May,2008:7‐8).
Itshouldbenotedhoweverthatinmanycountries,however,foraproductto
belegallyconsideredorganicitmustbecertifiedthroughthemethodofthird‐party
certificationandoftentimesPGSsarenotrecognized.Thus,apushforawider
acceptanceofcertificationmethodshasbegun(IFOAM,2011:2‐3).
Moreoverwhenaccepted,certificationunderaPGSisnotsufficientenough
forproductstobeexportedunderthelabeloforganic,butisrathersolelyfor
productsconsumeddomestically.However,thisisnotseenasalimitationasthe
focusofthePGSapproachisuponsmall‐scaleproducersandinternal,localfood
Page 58
52
markets.Intheseshortenedcommoditychains,trustandrelationshipsbetween
producersandconsumersreplacestheneedforthirdpartymonitoring(Nelsonet
al.,2010:230).
TheInternationalFederationofOrganicMovements(IFOAM)(2011:2)
highlightsmultiplebenefitsthatsmall‐scaleproducerscanderivefrombeingpartof
aPGS.Ashasbeenpreviouslydiscussed,certificationisoftenalongandcostly
process,howeverPGSsgenerallyrelymoreonvoluntarytimecommitmentsthan
financialcommitments,arguablymakingcertificationandentryintothemarket
moreaccessibleforproducers.Moreover,theimpactofincorporatingconsumers
intothecertificationprocessistwo‐fold.Suchparticipationservesnotonlyto
educateconsumers,buttoalsogeneratealocaldemandandconnections.Finally,
PGSsareoftenviewedtobeempoweringandservetogenerateandenhancesocial
capital.
2.4.4BenefitsofLocalFoodMarkets
Localfoodmarketshavegrowninpopularityandtakeonavarietyofforms,
themostpopulargenerallybeingcommunity‐supportedagriculture(CSA)and
farmers’markets.CSAsderivetheirnamefromthefactthatconsumerspurchasea
“share”ofafarmer’sharvestatthestartoftheseasonand,inreturn,receivea
weeklysupplyoffreshproducethroughouttheseason.Inthiswayproducers
receiveareturnontheireffortfromtheonsetandthepotentialrisksassociated
withagriculturalcultivationarenotshoulderedsolelybyproducersbutarealso
Page 59
53
sharedwithconsumers(Hinrich,2000:299;O’Hara&Stagl,2001:545).Farmers’
marketsfunctioninawaythatconsumerscanpurchasegoodsfromandinteract
directlywithproducers.Productsareoftenharvestedthedaypriorto,ormorning
of,marketdayssothattheyarefreshwhenpurchased,therebyrequiringno
additivestoensuretheirkeep(LaTrobe,2001:182).
Localfoodmarketscanprovidebenefitsforbothofthepartiesinvolved,
consumersandproducers.Whilesuchmarketsprovideconsumerswithaccessto
freshandaffordablefooditems(Hinrich,2000:297;LaTrobe,2001:189),the
benefitsaccruedbyproducersarelargelymonetary,insomuchthatproducerscan
maintainagreaterportionoftheirearningsbysellingdirectlytoconsumersand
forgoinganytypeofmiddleman,whicharguablyenablesthemthemaintaina
greaterdegreeofcontrolinthedecisionmakingprocessandcaptureagreatershare
oftheeconomicsurplus(Hinrich,2000:297;LaTrobe,2001:184).Additionally,it
hasbeenindicatedthattheaverageconsumerwillpayadditionalmoneyto
purchaselocallyproducedgoods,andisinfactwillingtopayevenmorewhenthey
aredealingdirectlywiththeproduceratamarket7(Parrlberg,2010:149)
Moreover,bysellinglocally,thedistancethatproducersandtheirproducts
musttraveltomarketisoftendrasticallyreduced.Thishastheaddedconsequence
ofallowingproducerstodeterminewhattogroworproducebasedonqualityand
taste,asopposedtohowwelltheitemssurvivetransportation(Stagl,2002:152‐3).7Thisstatementhowevercallsintoquestiontheearlierclaimsregardingtheaffordabilityofproductsfromlocalfarmer’smarkets,howeverthisparadoxisleftunmentionedintheliterature.
Page 60
54
Afurtherbenefitforbothconsumersandproducersisderivedfromthe
socialnatureoflocalfoodmarkets,specificallyCSAsorfarmer’smarkets,inwhich
peoplearegenerallyrequiredtoassembleandinteractatpredeterminedtimes
(Hinrich,2000:298).Suchanarrangementworkstoenhancecommunication
betweenbothparties(Stagl,2002:146)andprovidesconsumerswiththe
opportunitytoaskquestionsdirectlytotheproducersthemselves,whichcan
generateconditionsofconfidenceandtrustinproducts(LaTrobe,2001:183).As
Hinrich(2000:298)states:“Onecouldcometoamarket,expectingtoseeacertain
farmer,whoseeggsorrhubarborspringgreensoneespeciallyfancies.The
relationshipbetweenproducerandconsumerwasnotformalorcontractual,but
ratherthefruitoffamiliarity,habitandsentiment,seasonedbytheperceptionof
valueonbothsides”.However,LaTrobe(2001:190)highlightstheneedfor
verificationandassuranceoftheproductssoldatfarmer’smarkets,sinceitis
possibleforconsumerstobemisinformedormisleadregardingtheirpurchases.
Suggestionstocountersuchpossibilitiesinclude,proofofcertificationorplotvisits
toensurethequalityofproducts.Overallhowever,studiesshowthatproducers
generallyenjoysellingatsuchmarketbecauseoftheenvironment,aswellasthe
addedbenefitofhigherearningpotentials(Hinrich,2000:298).
Localfoodmarketsarearguedtopossessadditionalbenefitsforconsumers.
First,Stagl(2002:153)statesthatlocalfoodmarketscansatisfymultipleconsumer
demandsatthesametime.Thoughconsumersmayattendalocalfoodmarket
primarilytopurchasefreshproducts,itisalsopossibleforthemtoactinaccordance
Page 61
55
withotherdesires,suchasoutofsupportforlocalproducersorenvironmental
sustainability,andsocialinteractionswithlike‐mindedconsumersandproducers.
Onceagaintheabilitytoconversedirectlywithproducersisimportant,asitallows
consumerstoaskquestionsregardingtopicssuchasproductioncondition,which
theyotherwisenothavetheabilitytoask,andthereforemakewellinformedchoices
regardingthepurchasethattheymake(LaTrobe,2001:184).
Regardingthistopic,Dubuisson‐Quellier&Lamine(2008:59)discuss
Micheletti’sideaofindividualizedcollectiveaction,whichstates,“inthehandsof
knowledgeableconsumers,shoppingbasketsandcaddiescanbecomeakindof
ballotpaper”.Inthiswaytheyarguethatbysatisfyingvariousdesires,individual
choicescanleadtocollectiveaction.However,Guthman(2007:472‐473)questions
whethersuchdecisionsshouldbelefttoconsumers,andmoreover,howsuch
decisionscouldbeexpectedtogeneratebenefitsforthegeneralpopulation.Ofkey
concernforGuthmanisthefactthattheuseoflabelsassucharegulatorytool,
signalsthatapricecanbeplacedonethicaldecisions.Thisinturn,rendersthemas
nothingmorethanacommoditywithinthemarketsystemanddiminishesthe
potentialforchangeandactiontobeinitiatedthroughforumsotherthanthatofthe
market.
Additionally,localfoodmarketsimprovenutritionamongconsumers,asthey
notonlyhavegreateraccessto“healthyandfresh”products(LaTrobe,2001:189)
butalsoagreatervarietyofsaidproducts.Itwouldbeerroneoustoconceivethat
consumptionoflocalproductsequatestolimitedvarietiesorchoices.Infact,
Page 62
56
studieshaveshownthatawidevarietyofproductscanbeobtainedthroughlocal
foodmarkets,sinceproducersareoftenkeenonaddingtotheirrepertoireof
products.Consequently,thishasleadtobetterhealthconditionsforconsumersas
theyhavebeenfoundtoconsumeahigherquantityandawidervarietyoffruitsand
vegetables(Stagl,2002:155).
Thoughlocalfoodmarketscanprovidebenefitsforbothproducersand
consumers,theliteratureonthetopiclargelypertainstothebenefitsofthelatter.In
factmuchofthediscussionconcerningproducersmerelyfocusesonincome
possibilities,whileconsumershavetheabilitytoexercisegreaterchoice,fulfill
multipledesiresandimprovetheirnutritionandfoodsecurity.Duetothis
imbalanceinmuchoftheliterature,itisthereforeimportanttoexplorethepotential
benefitsforproducers.TheexperiencesofproducersattheTianguis“ComidaSanay
Cercana”willserveacasestudytoexploretheimpactthatparticipationinlocalfood
markets,aswellasthepracticeofagroecologycanhaveonthehouseholdfood
securityofproducers.
Page 63
57
ChapterThree
Context:FoodInsecurityandOrganicProductioninMexico3.1 FoodInsecurityinMexico
InMexico,foodinsecurityislargelyduetolimitedaccesstofoodratherthan
limitedavailability.Infact,datashowsthatbetween2003and2005foodproduction
levelsinMexicowereat3,270kilocalories(kcal)percapitaperday,whichiswell
abovethe1,850kcalgenerallyagreedtobeessential(Juarez&Gonzalez,2010:3).
Infact,Juarez&Gonzalez(2010:1)statethatineachoftheMexicanstates,atleast
10percentofthepopulationhasinsufficientaccesstofood.Suchstatisticsarefar
greaterinthesouthernregionsofMexico,as47percentoftheChiapaspopulation
wasfoundtoliveinconditionsof“foodpoverty8”.Mexicoiscurrentlyexperiencinga
“nutritionaltransition”(AlvarezGordillo,etal.2009:34)inwhichtheincreased
consumptionofsugars,fatsandrefinedcarbohydratesisgreatlyincreasing.Infact
processedfooditemsarebeingmoreaccessibleformuchofthepopulation,asthey
aregenerallycheaperthanfreshproducts.Duetosuchcircumstancesobesity,
diabetesandotherdietarydiseasesareincreasinglyresultingfromfoodinsecurity
8AsdefinedbyJuarezandGonzalez(2010:4),ahouseholdisunderstoodtobelivinginfoodpovertywhen“theydidnothaveenoughincometopurchasegoodsfromthebasics[food]basket,eveniftheyusedtheirtotalincome”.
Page 64
58
3.2 OrganicAgricultureinMexico9
ThestateofChiapasishometoMexico’ssecondlargestindigenouspopulation,
accountingfor30percentofthegeneralpopulation.Asaconsequence,traditional
agriculture,whichfocusesonthecultivationofmaizeandcoffee,aswellas
polyculturesofadditionalcrops,continuestoendure.Howeverduetolimitedaccess
tobothcreditand“technicalsupport”,thesesmall‐scaleproducersarefindingit
progressivelyhardertoparticipateintheglobalmarket(Skeffingtonetal.,2008:1).
Mexico’sorganicsectorwascreatedfromtheonsettosatisfyforeign
demandforsuchproducts.Inthelate1980sMexicanproducerswhohadbeen
overlookedbytheGreenRevolutionandthesubsequentadoptionofchemicalinputs
weresoughtoutbyforeigncompanieslookingtoexporttheirorganicallyproduced
crops(GómezTovaretal.,2007:2).Sincethattime,organicagricultureinMexico
hascontinuedtoexpand.InfactwhileMexicanagricultureonawholehasfaltered,
theorganicsectorhasexperiencedwidespreadgrowth,intermsofemployment,
landuseandincome(Nelsonetal.,2008b:1).In2008,morethan300000hectares
oflandwerereportedlybeingorganicallyfarmedbyover83000producers.The
vastmajorityoftheseproducers(98percent)farmlessthanthreehectaresofland
eachandmorethanhalfareindigenous(Nelsonetal.,2008a:24).
However,organicproductioninMexicoishighlyspecialized,notonlyin
termsofthecropsgrown,butalsointermsoftheconsumerbase.Coffee,cocoaas9Muchoftheliteraturesurroundingtheorganicsector,theOrganicNetworkofMarkets,aswellasParticipatoryGuaranteeSystemsinMexicohasbeenwrittencollaborativelybyasmallgroupofresearchers.
Page 65
59
wellasvariousfruitsandvegetablesareallgrownorganically,however85percent
ofallproductsareexportedtoforeignmarkets(Nelsonetal.,2008a:24).Gómez
Tovaretal.,(2007:3)howevernotetwoexceptionstothisrule,aslargequantities
oforganichoneyisconsumeddomestically,asforthemostpartisallofMexico’s
organicallyproducedmeatanddairyproducts.
Itisarguedthatthisexport‐orientatedstrategylimitsthecreationof
domesticmarketsandcangenerateconditionsofvulnerabilityduetoinstabilitiesin
internationalcommodityprices(Nelsonetal.,2008a:24).Moreover,muchofthe
supposedorganicproductsareproducedthroughthepracticeofmonocropping,
whichisknowntocreateconditionsofsoilinfertilityandsusceptibilitytopests
(GómezTovaretal.,2007:2).
Ofthe15percentorganicproductsthatareconsumeddomestically,itis
believedthatonlyone‐thirdisinfactmarketedasorganic,whilethereminding
productsaresoldamongtheirconventionallyproducedcounterparts.Such
circumstancesaregenerallylinkedtolimitedconsumerknowledgeregarding
organicproductsaswellaswillingnesstopaythehigherpricesthatareattributed
tosuchitems(GómezTovaretal.,2005:463‐464).Thoughthegreatermajorityof
organicproductsaredestinedforforeignmarkets,alocalmovementisbuilding,in
whichstoresarecarryinglocalproductsandorganicmarketsaregreatlyincreasing
innumber(GómezTovaretal.,2007:3).
Page 66
60
3.3 TheMexicanNetworkofOrganicMarkets
TheMexicanNetworkofOrganicMarkets10(REDAC),createdin2004,has
playedalargeroleinthelocaldemandfororganicproducts.Originatingwithonly
fourmarkets,thisnetworkisnowcomprisedofseventeensuchmarkets,whichare
locatedinninestates,oftenthroughthesupportoflocaluniversities,non‐
governmentalorganisations(NGOs)andparticipationofbothproducersand
consumers(Nelsonetal.,2008a:24).
TheprimeobjectiveofREDACistwo‐fold.Intermsofenvironmental
considerations,REDACseekstoreducethedistanceproductstraveltomarket,as
wellasgarbagegeneratedfromexcesspackaging,andfurthermore,promotesboth
environmentallyfriendlymethodsofproductionaswellasconsciousness.Socially,
REDACseekstoensurethatlocal,healthyproductsareaccessibletoallcitizensand
thatproducersarefairlycompensatedfortheirefforts.(Nelsonetal.,2008a:24;
(GómezTovaretal.,2007:4).Moreover,themarketsarenotsimplyplacesof
exchangebutmoreimportantlyareareasoftrustandcommunity.Inorderto
encouragethegrowthofsuchconditions,manyofthemembermarketshost
workshopsandothersuchactivitiesforconsumersandproducersalike(Nelsonet
al.,2008a:24).Similarly,thesemarketsareseenasplaceswherebothproducers
andconsumerscanexpressthemselvespolitically(Nelsonetal.,2008a:24),asithas
beenarguedthatagroecologicalproductioninChiapasis“anactofrebellion”,
linkingthepracticetotheZapatistauprisingwhichbeganasadirectresultto
Mexico’sacceptanceoftheNorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreement(NAFTA)in199410“RedMexicanadeTianguisyMercadosOrgánicos”
Page 67
61
(Skeffingtonetal.,2008:6).Whiletheuprisingitselffallsoutsideofthescopeofthis
thesisprojectitisimportanttonotetheimmenseimpactithashadinmanyfactsof
lifeinChiapas.Inmanyways,theZapatistacommunityhassoughttodisassociate
themselvesfromtheMexicangovernmentandtheneo‐liberalideology,including
agro‐exportsasameansofgeneratingforeignexchangeandpromotingeconomic
growth.Insodoingthesecommunitieshaveembracedthepracticeofagroecology
throughvarioustechniques(Skeffingtonetal.,2008:6).
ConcerningtheoverallsituationoforganicagricultureinMexico,REDAChas
hadanimpactonmakingcertificationmoreaccessibleforsmall‐scaleproducers.In
2006,theMexicangovernmentcreatedalawthatmadecertificationmandatory
shouldaproducerwishtomarkethis/hergoodsasbeing“organic”,both
domesticallyaswellasabroad.Theintroductionofsaidlawwasexpectedtopresent
agreatobstacletosmall‐scaleproducers;aspreviouslydiscussed,certificationcan
beanexpensiveandtime‐consumingprocess.Inlightofthis,REDACsuccessfully
foughttohavetheuseofPGSslegitimizedforproductssoldlocally(Nelsonetal.,
2010:231).AsadirectconsequenceoftheREDAC’sefforts,producerswhoare
certifiedthroughaPGScanlegallymarkettheirproductsasbeingoforganic
nature11(Nelsonetal.,2008a:25).
ThelegitimationofPGScertificationcouldgreatlyimpactthecircumstances
ofsmall‐scaleproducers,whocontinuetobehighlyprevalentintheMexican
11Itshouldbenotedhoweverthattherehasbeensomeconcernthat“lawyersandlegislatorsinvolvedintheprocessmaylacksufficientunderstandingofPGStoensureitssuccessfulincorporationintothelegislativeframework”(Nelsonetal.,2010:231).
Page 68
62
organicsector,sinceorganiccertificationtendstobeadifficultandexpensive
endeavour,andisthereforeofteninaccessibletomanysuchproducers.Infact,itis
estimatedthat25%oflandthatcouldbecertifiedhasnotreceivedsucha
designation(Nelsonetal.,2008b:1‐2).Consequently,REDAChasdeemedthe
developmentofPGSsamongmembermarketstobeoftheutmostimportance,asa
largemajorityoftheparticipatingproducersareconsideredtobesmall‐scale,most
ofwhomhavenotacquiredcertificationthroughothermeans(Nelsonetal.,2010:
231).ThoughagenerallynewconceptinMexico,manymembermarketsarealready
beginningtogeneratetheirownPGS(GómezTovaretal.,2007:7).
3.3.1 Limitations
Howeveritisimportanttonotethatthesemarketsdonotfunctionwithout
somedifficulties.Perhapsoneofthebiggestobstaclesisobtainingthefunding
requiredtoensurethecontinuationofthemarketsthemselves.Assuch,themarkets
areoftenmanagedthroughvolunteerlabourandaresometimesunabletocoverthe
costsofrentingspacefortheactualmarket(Nelsonetal.,2008a:25).
Limitedfundscanalsohindertheexpansionofsuchmarketsastrainingor
educationsessionsmayhavetobeforgone.GómezTovaretal.(2007:6)statethat
whileanincreasingnumberofproducershaveexpressedinterestinconverting
theirpracticesandparticipatinginsuchmarkets,manylacktheknowledgeand
financestodoso.Suchcircumstancescanmoreoverleadtoaninabilitytosatisfy
consumerdemand.
Page 69
63
ChapterFour
CaseStudy:Tianguis“ComidaSanayCercana”4.1 TheEvolutionoftheTianguis
Whatwouldlaterdevelopintoaweeklyfarmer’smarketintheheartofSan
CristóbaldeLasCasas,Chiapas,beganin2005,whenagroupoffourwomenbegan
sharingconcernsaboutthequalityandproductionconditionsofthefoodthatthey
andtheirfamilieswereconsuming.Concernswereparticularlyfocusedontheuseof
watercontaminatedbyuntreatedsewage(‘aguasnegras’)inagriculturalpurposes.
Thoughnotagriculturalproducersthemselves,theybegantonurturetheideaof
generatingameansthroughwhichtheycouldimprovesellingconditionsforsmall‐
scaleproducersinthestateofChiapas.Theybelievedthatthiscouldbeachieved
throughtheformationofacollective,whichwouldgeneratebetterconditionsof
interactionbetweenconsumersandproducersandideallyeliminatethemiddleman
fromtransactions(Melgoza,2009:4).Thewomenrecognizedthatthereexisted
multipleproducerswhowerealreadyemployingagroecologicalmethodsof
productionandbegantoseekthemoutamongthestallsofthecentralmarket.In
thisway,theymetwithlocalfarmerswhousedcleanwaterreservesandrefrained
fromemployingchemicalinputsintheproductionoftheirproducts,eventhough,
withintheconfinesofthemarket,theirproductswerenotmarketeddifferently
fromthoseproducedthroughconventionalmethods(ReyesGómez,2010:48).By
seekingtheadviceoflocalresearchersandreviewingliteratureonsimilar
Page 70
64
experiences,theprojectbegantotakeshape,andinJuly2005theCanastaOrgánica,
or“OrganicBasket,”projectbegan(Melgoza,2009:7).
Fromtheoutset,thegoalsoftheprojectweretoimprovehouseholdaccessto
cleanandhealthyagriculturalproducts,whilegeneratingconditionsfordialogue
andtrustbetweenproducersandconsumersandenhancingenvironmental
awarenessandtheneedforresponsibleconsumerism(ReyesGómez,2010:49).As
describedduringaninterviewwithoneofthemembersoftheTianguis’sleadership
team,theOrganicBasketprojectfunctionedsimilartotheCanadianequivalentof
CommunitySupportedAgriculture:consumerscompletedaweeklyorderform,
whichoutlinedavailableproducts.Orderswereeitheremailedorphonedinmid‐
weekandpickeduponSaturdays.Thecostsofrunningandmaintainingthisproject
werecoveredbya15%increaseinthepricechargedtotheconsumers(Escalona
Aguilar,2009:244).
Theprojectexperiencedsteadygrowth,thoughasparticipationintheproject
grewitsoonbecamelogisticallydifficulttopreparethedesirednumberofbaskets.
TheEquipoPromotoralsowasfacedwithincreasedproducerinterestintheproject
butultimatelyhadtorejectmanyinquiriesduetolackofinformationconcerning
theoriginandconditionsofproductionoftheproductsinquestion.Asitwas
explained,inthebeginningtherewereveryfewrequirementstoparticipate,
needingonlytheuseofcleanwater,absenceofagrochemicalsandforallproductsto
beoflocalorigin.Itsoonbecameclearthattheimplementationoffurther
requirementswasneededasnumerousvendorsarrivedwithgoodsofquestionable
origins(PersonalInterview,2011).Withanincreasingamountofbothconsumers
Page 71
65
andproducersinterestedintheproject,theprojecttookonanewelement,changing
fromorganicbasketstoafull‐fledgedmarketinwhichconsumersandproducers
directlyinteractedwithoneanother.Insodoing,Tianguiswasabletofullyintegrate
intoREDAC(ReyesGómez,2010:53).
ThegoalsoftheTianguisremainedverymuchthesametothoseofthe
CanastaOrganica, withtheadditionofastrongerfocusonagroecologyand
responsibleconsumerism.TheComitédeApoyoTecnico12(CAT)wascreatedinone
sensetoconfirmtheconditionsoftheproducers’plotsandensurethattheproducts
soldattheTianguiswereproducedinaccordancewithagroecologicalprinciples
(Melgoza,2009:15‐17),butalsoasmeanstosupportandeducateproducersonhow
toimprovetheirtechniques(Skeffington et al., 2008: 5). Thoughsomeplotswere
lessthanideal,therequirementsforproducersoffreshproductsincludedthe
identificationoftheexactlocationsoftheproducers’plots,theknowledgeofwhich
ensuredthattheyarenotcultivatedinregionsemployingcontaminatedwater,as
wellastheguaranteeduseofcleaninputsandapromisetoreducethequantityand
toxicityofpesticides(Melgoza,2009:15‐17).Inshort,producerspledgedtoproduce
accordingtoasetofagroecologicalguidelinesestablishedbyTianguispromoters.
Theycoulddosoimmediatelyoroveranestablishedperiodoftime.
ThefocusonagroecologyhascontinuedtodevelopattheTianguisas
producershaveattendedworkshopsconcerningcleanproductiontechniquesand
pestmanagement,amongothertopics.Suchworkshopsareparticipatory
environmentsinwhichproducersareencouragedtosharetheirownknowledge12TechnicalAssistanceCommittee
Page 72
66
withthewidergroup.Therehavealsobeenopportunitieswhenproducershave
visitedoneanother’splots,bothtolearntechniquesandtogiveadvice(Melgoza,
2009:26).
CurrentlytheTianguismembersareintheprocessofadoptingand
implementingaPGS.DuringaninterviewwithanEPmember,shediscussedhow
theprocessupuntilthispointhasbeenlengthy,thoughnecessary,inorderto
ensurethatitistrulyparticipatoryandreflectiveofthedesiresofallinvolved.
Presently,committeeformedbyproducers,consumersandagroecologistshave
generatedadocumentdetailingthenormsandproceduresofTianguis’certification
process.Itisimportanttonote,thattheyarenotseekingtocertifytheproductsas
beingof‘organic’nature,butinstead‘agroecological’.Asitisstated,thoughthe
normsmayreflectandbearsimilaritiestomanyofthosefoundinorganic
certificationprocesses,thatoftheTianguisdiffersinsomuchthataninput‐
substitutionapproachtoagriculturalpracticeisinsufficientasitcontinuesto
generateacycleofdependenceamongproducers;nomatteriftheinputsareof
chemicalnatureornot(Moralesetal.2011:1‐2).Therefore,thecertification
processdraftedrequiresthatproducersgobeyondtheminimalstandardsoftenset
throughorganiccertification,andstrivetoimplementpracticesthataretruly
agroecological.
AsoutlinedbyMoralesetal.(2011),therearethreeoverarchingstandards
mustbemetforaproducertogaincertification.Thefirstisthatproductsdestined
forsaleattheTianguismustbeconsidered‘clean’,meaningthattheywere
producedwithouttheuseofhormones,antibiotics,oragrochemicals.Moreover,
Page 73
67
watersourcesmustbeunpollutedandtheplotshouldbefreeofanygarbagethat
couldimpactthehealthofbothconsumersaswellasneighbours.
Thesecondstandardisthatproductionisagroecologicalinnature.Important
considerationisgiventothecareandimprovementofsoilconditions.Rotational
croppingandtheuseofcompostandotherorganicmaterialarerecommended
actions,aswellastheconstructionofterraces,whennecessary,toreducesoil
erosion.Importanceisalsoplacedonensuringthegrowthofbiodiversity.Producers
areencouragedtogrownumerousvarietiesofcrops,aportionofwhichshouldbe
nativetothearea.
Thefinalstandardisthatofsocialjustice.Incaseswheremustoftheworkis
completedbyfamilymembers,itmustbeensuredthatchildrenattendschooland
thathouseholddecisionsaremadeinajustandinclusivemanner.Insituations
wherepaidlabourisemployed,thelengthofaworkdayshouldbereasonableand
workersmustbejustlycompensated.
Thequestionguide,whichistobecompleteduponcertificationvisitsto
producer’splots,clearlydemonstrateseachofthesestandardsrequiredtogain
certification.Thisguideiscomprisedofin‐depthquestionspertainingtoavarietyof
agriculturalaspectssuchas,butnotlimitedto,howthesoilandnearbywater
sourcesarecaredfor;thecultivationofbiodiversity;pestmanagementtechniques;
andelementsofanimalproductionandcare.However,alsoincludedareadditional
questionsregardingthesocialconditionsofbothhouseholdmembersandpaid
workers(Moralesetal.2011:10‐18).
Page 74
68
Therearenodirectcostsforcertification,howeverproducersmaybeasked
tohelpcoverorprovideforvariousindirectcostswhichmayarrive,suchas
transportation,accommodationsandtheprovisionoffoodduringthecertification
visit.Moreover,producerscanreceivedifferingtiersofcertification.Transitional
certificationstatusisprovidedtoproducerswhohavesatisfiedtheminimal
requirementsforparticipationbutneedtocontinuetomakeimprovementstotheir
agriculturalpractices(Moralesetal.2011:6).Duringmyfieldresearch,thefirstplot
receivedcertificationundertheTianguis’PGS;withtheconfidencethatmorewould
followshortly.
Nevertheless,thoughtheTianguishasthusfarbeenquitesuccessful,itdoes
notfunctionwithoutlimitations.IndiscussionwiththeEPmember,itwasher
opinionthatthemostpressingobstaclesfacingthecontinuationoftheTianguisare
funding,participation,technicalsupportandfindingadequatephysicalspace.The
EPismanagedbywayofvolunteerhoursandwhileitwasfeltthattheproducers
havecometobemoreactiveandtakegreaterinitiativeamongthemselves,thereis
stillmuchorganizationalworktobedonebytheEP.Limitedfundingalsofeedsinto
theissueoffindingasuitablemarketfacilitytorent.Ahandfulofproducersandthe
EPmemberalikeallcitedfrustrationsovertheircurrentrentalspace,whichisoften
quitehotandmuggyandastherebyfelttocompromisethefreshnessoftheir
products.Moreover,thecurrentfacilitydoesnotprovideroomtogrow,nordothey
currentlyhaveaccesstoanareawheretheycouldhostmeetingsorworkshops,
circumstancesthatwereofgreatdisappointmenttotheEPmember.
Page 75
69
Moreover,producerparticipationisalsoaconcernandthememberwith
whomIspokewonderediftheproducersfeltasiftheywerepartofacommunityor
iftheTianguiswasmorethansimplyaplacetoselltheirproducts.Suchconcernis
foundedontheperceivedneedfortheEPtoenticeproducerstoparticipatein
variousactivitiesoutsideoftheTianguis.Thisconcern,andthesentimentsofthe
producersconcerningtheimportanceoftheTianguiswillbediscussedingreater
depthinasubsequentsection.
Thefinallimitationwasregardinglimitedtechnicalsupport,inwhichitwas
statedthattheresearchers,whohavebeenveryactiveintheTianguis,cannot
alwaysbeexpectedtobeavailable.Inthepastthoughaidfromlocaluniversity
studentswasalsosoughtafter,itwasfeltthatsuchexperienceswerenotalways
successful.However,therearedifferingopinionsonthistopic.Conversely,an
academicinvolvedwiththeTianguisfeltthattheEPhascontinuallyturneddown
outsideoffersandopinions.
Despitesuchlimitations,theEPmemberwasoptimisticaboutthefutureof
theTianguis.Thesimplefactofcontinualexistencewasseentobeagreat
achievement,astheTianguishasmanagedtostaymoreorlessintactandunified
sinceitscreation.Visionsforthefutureincludethepurchaseofspaceforthemarket
aswellastruck,whichwouldenablethemtovisitneighbouringmarkets,and
continuedactivitiestoincreasethepublicconsciousness.
Page 76
70
4.2 HouseholdCharacteristics
Asaforementioned,diversityaboundsattheTianguis,andnotsimplywith
regardtotheproductsavailable.Theexperiencesandsocio‐economicpositionof
eachproducervastlyvaries.Theaveragehouseholdsizeoftheselectedsampleis
4.75people,comprisedof2.58adultsand2.17children,howevereventhisstatistic
hidesthefactthathouseholdsizesrangedfromtwotoninemembers.
Tobetterappreciatethehouseholdconditionsofproducers,awealthindex
surveywasconductedandwhenpossible,theresultsofthesamplewerecompared
tothecharacteristicsofthegeneralpublicinbothSanCristóbaldeLasCasasand
Chiapasasawhole.
Sources:SurveydatacollectedbyauthorandMexico(2010b). Figure1:WealthIndexSurvey
AsindicatedbyFigure1,themajorityofproducershadaccesstotheitemsor
servicesindicatedinthewealthinventory.Thelackofavehicleoraccesstowaterat
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
RunningWater
Electricity IndoorPlumbing
WashingMachine
GasStove Vehicle AccesstoWateratPlot
TianguisProducers SanCristóbalPopulation ChiapasPopulation
Page 77
71
thehousehold’splotwereviewedaslimitationsbythoseinterviewed,howeverthe
latterevenmoreso.Withoutavehicle,producerswereforcedtorelyonpublic
transportationsuchastaxisorcollectivebuses,whichcanbeacostlyandtime‐
consumingprocesssincemanyoftheproducerstravelintoSanCristóbaldeLas
Casasfromoutlyingtownsandcommunities.Forthetwohouseholdswithoutaccess
towaterattheirplots,thelimitationswereextensive.Inthecaseofonehousehold,
whichalsodidnothaverunningwaterwithinthehouse,theywererequiredto
purchaseandrationaweeklysupplyofwater.Thoughcostly,doingsoenabledthem
tocontinuetocovernotonlyalltheirpersonalneedsbutthoseoftheirlivestockas
well.Thesecondhouseholdhadrunningwaterattheirhomestead,whichwas
locatedafairdistancefromtheagriculturalplottheyworked,forcingtheproducer
torelyexclusivelyonrainwater.Thisgreatlylimitedthehousehold’sabilitytonot
onlyachieveself‐sufficiencybutalsotoparticipateintheTianguis,asthehousehold
onlysoldtheirexcessvegetables.Inthisway,thisproduceronlysoldherproducts
seasonally,sincesellablesurpluseswereonlycommonduringtherainyseason.
Foralargemajorityofproducers,sellingattheTianguisonlyrepresentsone
elementintheiroften‐diversifiedlivelihoodstrategies.Infactofthetwelve
interviewed,onlyoneproducerhouseholdreliesexclusivelyontheincome
generatedattheTianguis.Figure2isanattemptatdemonstratingthediversityof
livelihoodactivitiesamongproducersattheTianguis.Asillustrated,eachhousehold
hasaverydifferentlivelihoodstrategy,oftencomprisedofmanyincome‐generating
activities.Thethreetopmostbarsrepresentthethreehouseholdsthatrelysolelyon
Page 78
72
theiragriculturalproduction,whileallotherhouseholdsreceiveincomeorsupport
fromothersectors.Thedivisionsshouldnotbemistakentorepresenttheextentto
whicheachhouseholdreliesonacertainincomeorsupport,butinsteadasamere
representationofthedifferenttypesofactivitiesthatgointothedifferentmembers’
livelihoodstrategies.
Figure2:TheLivelihoodStrategiesofProducerHouseholds
Duringinterviewswithproducers,itoftenbecameapparentthattheextent
towhichparticipationintheTianguishasthepotentialtoimprovebothfood
securityandgenerallivingconditionsisgreatlydependentonthedegreetowhich
thisactivityfactorsintotheirlivelihoodstrategy.Atoneendofthespectrum,one
producerconfessedthatoncevariouscosts,suchasthatoftransportation,aretaken
intoaccount,sheoftendoesn’tknowifshebreaksevenwhencomingtothe
Tianguis.Sellingthereplaysaveryminorpartinherlivelihoodstrategyasshe
TianguisSales
MarketSales
SalesatStores/Cafes
EmploymentofOneorMoreHouseholdMember(s)
GovernmentPrograms
NGOSupport
Other
Page 79
73
makesmostofherincomefromsellingherproductsinorganicstoreslocatedin
MexicoCity.Inhercase,theprimarymotivationforherparticipationattheTianguis
isasenseofconvictiontothecauseaswellasthedesiretopurchaseagroecological
produceforconsumptionwithinherownhousehold.Thesecircumstancescanbe
contrastedwiththoseofanotherproducer,inwhichasidefromtheTianguis,the
householdreliesuponthesaleofherproductsinlocalcafes,aswellasthecasual
employmentofanotherfamilymember.Thoughinthiscase,theproducerdoesnot
generallysellsubstantialquantitiesattheTianguis,anyadditionalincome
contributessignificantlytoensuringthattheneedsofthehouseholdaremet.
Generally,theTianguisplayedasignificantroleinthelivelihoodstrategiesof
thehouseholdsinterviewed,however,furthervarianceswererecorded.Threeofthe
producersinterviewedonlysellattheTianguisonaseasonalbasis.Fortwoofthese
producers,itisduetothefactthatwhiletheygrowavarietyofcrops,onlyoneis
cultivatedforsaleattheTianguis.Thereforetheyonlyparticipatewhentheir
productisinseason.Theremaininghouseholdisthatwhichisgreatlyhinderedby
limitedaccesstowaterandthussellsonasporadicbasis.
Theamountofhoursdedicatedtoagriculturalproductionalsovariedamong
producers.Intermsofthenumberofhourseachproducerworksatanactivity
directlyrelatedtotheirproduction,41.67%ofproducersworkfivehoursorless
eachday,while33.34%workeighthoursormore.Theremainingproducerswere
unabletospecifythetypicalnumberofhoursthattheyworkeachdaysincethetime
thattheydedicatedtoagriculturalproductionasmoresporadic.Withregardtoany
Page 80
74
changesinhoursworked,justoverhalfoftheproducersstatedthattheamountof
timespentworkingeverydayhasincreasedsincejoiningtheTianguis.Themost
widelyidentifiedreasonwastheacquisitionofnewideasorcropvarieties,which
requireadditionalcommitment.Twofurtherreasons,eachidentifiedbyone
producerrespectively,wereanincreaseinthevalueplacedontheirworkandthe
factthattheTianguisprovidedastablesellingenvironment.Inadditionto
agriculturalproduction,producersalsocitedtimespentworkingotherjobsor
householdchoresandresponsibilities.
Whenaskedhowmanyhourstheysleepeachnight,threequartersofthe
producersstatedthateachnighttheysleepeighttoninehours,whiletheremaining
quartersleepsixtosevenhoursanight.Withregardtochangesinhourssleptdue
toTianguisactivities,threeproducersstatedthatthenightspriortomarketdays,
theysleepanaverageof3.5hourslessthantheyusuallywould.Ashared
characteristicoftheseproducersisthattheysellvariouspreparedfooditemsand
attributetheirlackofsleeptothenatureoftheirworkandthedesiretoensurethat
theirproductsaresoldfreshonmarketdays.
4.3 AgriculturalPractices
Themajorityofproducersinterviewedhaveafamilyhistoryofagricultural
production,andthoughpreviouslyunderstoodbyothernames,agroecologyisoften
describedasa‘familytradition’.Halfoftheproducershavebeenemploying
Page 81
75
agroecologicalmethodsofproductionforovertwentyyears.16.67%havebeen
doingsofortentonineteenyearsandtheremaining33.34%haveonlybeen
employingsuchmethodsfornineyearsorless.Intermsofchemicalusage,41.67%
ofproducersstatedthattheyhadatonepointusedchemicalinputs,suchas
fertilizersorpesticides,butsubsequentlystoppedafternoticingeitherthedamage
thatwasbeingcausedtotheirplot,oradeclineinproduction.
Oneproducernotedthatamemberofhishouseholdcontinuestogrowcorn,
onaseparateplot,withthehelpofchemicalfertilizers.Thoughinterestedinthe
potentialoffarmingorganically,theproducerstatedthathisfatherisnotyet
convincedandhehimselffeelsthathehasnorighttoforcetheissueashisfather’s
livelihoodisdependantonhiscornproduction,andhecannotguaranteeasufficient
yield.However,thehouseholdhasrentedasmallplotwheretheyhavebegun
experimentsofgrowingcornwithreducedapplicationsofchemicalinputs.When
describingtheresults,itwasfeltthataftertwoharveststhehouseholdhadboth
gainedandlost.Forthefirsttest,insteadofputtingdowntworoundsofchemical
fertilizer,theproducerusedonlyoneandreapedagoodharvest.Thesecondtime
aroundhowever,hereceivedpoorresults;thoughhefeltthatitwasduetothefact
thatheplantedtwomonthslaterthanheshouldhave,thanwiththelesschemically
intensivemethodofproduction.
Whilesuchalimitedhouseholdexperimentisinnowayconclusive,this
anecdotehighlightstheimportantconsiderationsthatproducersneedtotakeinto
accountwhenchangingtheirmethodofagriculturalproduction.Theproduceralso
notedthatwhilehisfatherhasyettocompletelyoverhaulhisproductionmethods,
Page 82
76
hehasbeguntomakesignificantchanges.Onesuchexampleistheactofreturning
harvestwastetothesoil,insteadofsimplyburningit.
IntermsofhowlongeachproducerhasbeenparticipatingattheTianguis,
almosthalf(41.67%)joinedwhentheprojectfirstbegan,sixyearsago,while
16.67%haveonlybeenactiveforoneyearorless.
Thoughvaried,themajorityofproducerscurrentlyhavefivehectaresofland
orlessunderproduction,asdemonstratedinFigure3.Includedinthiscalculation
arethetwoproducerswhoraiselivestock,eitherfortheirdairyproductsorasmeat.
Respectively,theywork25and6hectaresofland.Generally,alllandisownedby
thehouseholdandinthemajorityofcaseswasacquiredthroughinheritance.Only
twoproducerscurrentlyrentland;oneasmallplottoholdhersheepandtheother
istheaforementionedtestplotforgrowingcorn.
Figure3:HectaresofLandUnderProductionperHousehold
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
LessthanOne One‐Five Six‐Ten Eleven‐Fifteen
Sixteen‐Twenty
Twenty+
Households
Hectares
Page 83
77
Itshouldalsobenotedthatoneproducerwasexcludedfromthese
calculationsbecauseshedoesnotownorrentanylandbutinsteadpurchasesinputs
fromanotherproducerintown,whichshethenprocessesintocandiedfruit.Sheis
abletoparticipateintheTianguisonthebasisthattheproducerfromwhomshe
purchasesthefruitemploysacceptableagriculturalproductionmethods.
4.3.1 AgriculturalInputs
Onthewhole,Tianguisproducerspurchaserelativelyfewagriculturalinputs,
theonlyexceptionbeingthecandiedfruitproducer.Themostcommonlypurchased
inputislabourpower,hiredbyjustoverhalf(58.34%)ofthehouseholdssampled.
Amongthose,43%hiremultiplefulltimelabourers,whiletheothersemploycasual
labour,typicallyforshortperiodsduringplantingorharvestingtimes.Intermsof
thecostoflabour,themajorityofproducerspaytheirworkersbetween100‐130
pesosperday,whichiswellabovethedailyminimumwageintheregion,setat
56.70pesos(Mexico,2012).However,twohouseholdsemployedthelabourofboys,
whowerepaidsignificantlyless,at30pesosperdayand800pesospermonth,
respectively.
Seedswerethesecondmostcommonlypurchasedinput;reportedby41.67%
ofproducers.However,itisimportanttonotethatseedsaregenerallyonly
purchasedonanoccasionalbasis,asthelargemajorityofproducersattemptto
regularlysavetheirseedsfrompreviousyears.Otherpurchasedinputsinclude
manure(25%),materialssuchaspackagingandfoodadditives(i.e.fruitandvanilla)
(25%),animalfeed(16.67%),compost(8.34%)andwater(8.34%).When
Page 84
78
discussingthepurchasedinputsofhishousehold,oneproducerstatedthatwhileit
couldpotentiallybearguedthathisyieldsaresmallerthanthoseachievedthrough
conventionalmeans,hederivesgreatsatisfactionfromthefactthathedoesn’thave
topayhighinputcosts.
Limiteddependenceuponpurchasedinputsdoesnotmeanthatthefarmers
arenotattentivetothefertilityoftheirsoil,ortopestandweedmanagement.All
producersdescribedtheirownnaturalpestremedies,and90%statedthatthey
applysomeformofcompostandemployintercroppingtechniques.Croprotations
werealsohighlyprevalent.Duringoneplotvisit,theproducerexplainedhis
techniqueofbuildingacompostpileinvariousspotsinhisfield.Oncethecompost
hasbrokendown,heplantsdirectlyontopofthepileandbeginstheprocessagain
elsewhereonhisland.
Allagriculturalproducersattestedtohavingexperiencedsomeformofcrop
failure,largelycausedbyvariouspestsorweatherconditions;howevermany
attributedthelackofwidespreaddevastationtothevariousmanagement
techniquesthattheyemploy.Themostcommonlycitedpestsincludedwormsand
moths,whichweredescribedasyearlyannoyancesbutweregenerallycontrolledby
meansofahomemaderemedy.Weathereventssuchasfrost,rainandhailproved
moredifficulttomitigate,theresultsofwhichsometimesdestroyednewlyplanted
seedlings.Regardinglivestock,oneproducercitedanimalinjuryandillnessasakey
concern,arguinghoweverthatbyprovidingtheiranimalswithsuperiorcareand
supervision,theyareabletosignificantlyreducethespreadandseverityofsuch
Page 85
79
occurrences.Coldweatherhoweverisalsoaproblem,especiallyforthegrowthof
eggsandnewlyhatchedchicks.
Onlyoneproducerdisclosedthatsheexperiencedawidespreadcropfailure,
losinglargeportionsofhercocoacropstoanewpestthepasttwoyears.Currently
heremployeesareattemptingtoaddresstheissuebypruningtheplantstoboth
encouragebetteraircirculationandremoveinfectedbranches.Theproducerfelt
thatthisnewpestwouldsoonrunitscourseandleavethearea.Shealsofeltthatthe
damagingimpactsofpasthurricaneshadweakenedherland,causingherplantsto
bemoresusceptiblewhenthispestarose.
Whilethepestmanagementsolutionsusedbytheproducersvariedgreatly,
allarederivedfromanaccumulationofknowledge,sometimespasseddown
throughfamilytradition,orasneighbourlyadvice.Oneproducerinparticularfelt
thatherhousehold’scropswerestillgreatlysusceptibletopestsbecausetheystill
havemuchtolearn,concerningrepellentsandremedies,highlightingthe
importanceofknowledgeacquisitioninthesuccessofagroecologicalmethods.
Whenaskedtodescribethequalityofthelandtheyown,thelargemajorityof
producersinsistedthattheirlandisofgoodquality,thoughvariousissueswerealso
revealed.Duringfieldvisits,plotsofmixedsoilqualitywereencountered,aswellas
acouplewithslopedportionsandonethatwasparticularlyrocky.Aswithpest
managementsolutions,however,allproducershadfoundwaystoworkwithinthe
confinesoftheirgivensituations.Onewasintheprocessofinstallingterracesto
preventfurthererosion,whileanotherrefrainedfromplantingonslopedareas
Page 86
80
duringthedryseasonsincethecropswouldbeunabletotakefulladvantageofthe
limitedwaterresources.
Producerswerealsovocalabouttheircommitmentstotheirlandandthe
necessityof‘givingback’wasoftenstated.Withregardstoimprovedlandquality,
themajorityofproducersstronglyfeltthattheworkandnaturalinputsthatthey
havebeenputtingintothelandwastheprimefactorcontributingtowardsimproved
conditions.Itwasoftenstatedthatwithoutsuchcontributionstheycouldnot
possiblyreachormaintaintheircurrentlevelofproduction.Oftheproducerswho
citednoimprovement,twoclaimedthattheirlandhasalwaysbeenofgoodquality
andthattheyhavesimplyworkedtomaintainit.
4.3.2 TheImportanceofAgroecology
TheproducersattheTianguisvocalizedverystrongconvictionsaboutthe
importanceofemployingagroecologicalpractices.Thoughopinionsvaried,they
werelargelyassociatedwiththreebroadinterrelatedthemes:health,foodquality,
andtheimportanceoftheland.
Itwaswidelyperceivedthatagroecologicalpractisesenabledtheproducers
andtheirhouseholdmemberstoconsumehealthieritemsandeliminatedtheneed
toworryoverthepotentialeffectsofchemicalsusedbyconventionalfarmers.Infact
forsomeproducersitwasthisconcernthatinitiallypeakedtheirinterestin
agroecologyandthepracticeofgrowingforhouseholdconsumption.Anewfound
confidenceinthequalityoffooditemsconsumedwithinhouseholdswasalso
mentionedbymultipleproducers,aswasanimprovementintaste.Oneproducer
Page 87
81
spokepassionatelyagainstthespeedatwhichcropsarecurrentlygrown,arguing
thatnoweverythingis“express”andthatwhileearsofcornmightnowbelarger
thanthosepreviouslygrown,hedoesnottrusttheproduct,orthemethodof
production.Insteadheviewsagroecologyasawaytoestablishahigherleveloffood
qualityandto“rescuewhattheirgrandparentsleftthem”.Concernsoverthehealth
ofanimalsaswellasfuturegenerationswerealsostated,bothintrinsicallylinkedto
theimmenseimportancethattheproducersplacedontheland,whichwas
commonlyreferredtoas“agift”and“aninvestment”.Manyproducersviewed
agroecologicalpracticestobeawaytocontributetothehealthoftheenvironment
andgivestrengthbacktothelandthatsustainsthem.
Manyalsofeltverystronglyabouttheimportanceofsharingtheirknowledge
withothers.Oneproducerstatedthatpeopleoftentellhimthathismethodsarea
lotofwork.Nevertheless,givenhisconvictionthatagrochemicalsdestroythesoil
andrenderlandworthless,hebelievesthatitisaworthwhileinvestment.Hehas
beenworkinghislandformanyyearsyetithasretainedbothitsqualityandvalue,
whichheattributestohisagriculturalpractices.
Beyondsuchconcerns,twoproducersalsostatedthattheyderiveimmense
enjoymentfromtheirmethodsofagriculturalproduction,bothintheactualwork
thatgoesintotheprocessbutalsofromthesatisfactionofprovidinghealthproducts
fortheirhouseholdsandthewiderpopulation.
Page 88
82
4.4 FunctioningoftheTianguis
TheTianguisisheldthreetimesaweek,onWednesdays,Fridaysand
Saturdays,from10amuntil3pm.OnFridays,it’sheldatalocalresearchcentre,
whilethetworemainingmarketdaysareheldinthecourtyardofarestaurantinthe
citycentre.Attendanceoftheproducersisneithermandatorynorregulated,butis
insteaddependantonthediscretionofeachproducer.OneEPmemberexplained
thatinthebeginningtheTianguiswasonlyheldonSaturdays,butthatthe
producersthemselvespushedforadditionalmarketdaysonWednesdaysand
Fridays.
Figure4:ProducerAttendanceonMarketDays
AsFigure4shows,attendanceonbehalfoftheproducersvariedgreatly
dependingonthedayoftheweek.Multipleproducersindicatedthattheirlimited
participationislargelyduetoadecreasednumberofconsumersattendingthe
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
WedNov9th
FriNov11th
SatNov12th
WedNov16th
FriNov18th
SatNov19th
WedNov23rd
FriNov25th
SatNov26th
ProducersinAttendance
Date
Page 89
83
TianguisondaysotherthanSaturday.Formanyproducers,thecostsofcominginto
townforslowermarketdaysreportedlyoutweighedtheminimalbenefitstobe
gained.Assuch,producerattendancewascloselytiedtodailyearningpotentials.
Thegenerallackofrecordkeepingamongproducersmadeitdifficulttogainaclear
pictureofdailyearningsattheTianguis,butthoseproducerswhowereableto
provideestimatesunanimouslyrecognizedSaturdaytobethebestdaytoattendas
itdrewalargercrowdofconsumers.Rangingfrom735‐815pesos(56.54‐62.70
USD13),Saturdayearningsareapproximatelydoublethe375‐390pesos(28.85‐
30.00USD)earnedfromtheWednesdayandFridaymarkets.Marketday
observationsconfirmedthesestatements,astherewasanoticeabledifferenceinthe
numberofconsumerspresentdependingonthedayoftheweek.Whereas
Saturdaysweresteadilybusysaveforthelasthourorso,Fridaysconsistedlargely
ofasmallerrushes,seeminglycorrespondingwiththebreaksoftheprofessorsand
students,andWednesdayswereneverattendedbymorethanahandfulofpeopleat
onetime,oftenquitesporadically.
Earningsvarynotonlyduringtheweekbutalsothroughouttheyear.80%of
thecropproducersindicatedthatearningsattheTianguisvariedduringtheyear,
whichwaslargelyattributedtotheimpactsofweatherconditionsuponthequantity
ofproductsavailabletosell.Excessiverainandfrostwerenotedasthebiggest
offenders,followedbytheoccurrenceofhailandconditionsduringthedryseason.
13Basedonanexchangerateof1USD=13MXN
Page 90
84
Eachoftheseweatherconditionscanhavedevastatingimpactsonproductionlevels
andasanextension,theearningsoftheproducers.
Thetimeoftheyearwasalsoreportedascausingvariances.Fewproducers
reportedariseindemandfortheirproductsduringperiodssuchasholidaysor
growingseason.Additionally,oneproducerstatedthatbecauseherproductsarenot
necessitiesbutmoresooccasionaltreats,herearningstendtovarygreatly.
Conversely,theproducerswhoreportedstableearningsthroughouttheyear
indicatedthatsuchconditionsareachievableduetothefactthattheygrowatheir
cropsaccordingtotheseason,andthereforealwayshaveproductsavailableforsale.
Theproducerssellinganimalproductsalsocitedseasonalvariationsintotal
sales,asbothstatedthattheyareheavilyimpactedbyholidaydemand.Intermsof
thedairyproducts,itwasonceagainstatedthatasanitemthatisnoteaten
regularlybyeveryone,demandtendstovarythroughouttheyear.
4.4.1 PricesattheTianguis
Duringinterviews,halfoftheproducersinsistedthattheyreceivedbetter
pricesfortheirproductswhensellingattheTianguisversussellingelsewhere.Two
producerslinkedtheresultingpricedifferencetoanunwillingnessamong
consumersatthecentralmarkettopayhigherprices.Divulgingfurther,one
producerlinkedthepricedifferentialtoproductknowledge,arguing,“atomatois
justatomatotopeoplewhodonothaveinformation”.Itwasbelievedthatonce
peopleareinformedandawareoftheconditionsinwhichtheirfoodisproduced,
theywouldbemorewillingtopaythehighercostsfoundattheTianguis.
Page 91
85
Table1:PricecomparisonofTianguisandcentralmarketproducts(AsoftheweekofNovember20th‐26th,2011)
14Atthecentralmarket,sevenbananasaresoldforfivepesos,whileattheTianguiseightaresoldfortenpesos.15Atthecentralmarket,twelvelemonsaresoldforfivepesos,whileattheTianguissixaresoldforfivepesos.16Atthecentralmarket,chickenissoldfor30pesosperpound,whileattheTianguisawholechickenissoldfor150pesos(approximately1‐1½kilograms)17Atthecentralmarket,fifteeneggsaresoldforeighteenpesos,whileattheTianguistwelveeggsaresoldforfortypesos.18AtaMasecaTortilleria,thirty‐onetortillasaresoldfortenpesos,whileattheTianguistwelvearesoldfortenpesos.19Atthecentralmarket,threetamalesaresoldfortenpesos,whileattheTianguistheyaresoldforfivepesoseach.
Item CentralMarket(Priceperitem)
Tianguis(Priceperitem)
PriceDifference(Percentage)
Vegetables
‐GreenBeans 10pesos 10pesos 0%‐Onions 10pesos 10pesos 0%‐Potatoes 10pesos 10pesos 0%‐Lettuce 5pesos 5pesos 0%‐Spinach 5pesos 5pesos 0%‐Broccoli 8pesos 10pesos 25%‐Carrots 5pesos 5pesos 0%‐Radishes 1peso 3pesos 300%Fruit
‐Bananas14 0.71pesos 1.25pesos 76.06%‐Lemons15 0.42pesos 0.84pesos 100%AnimalProducts
‐Chicken16(perlb) 30pesos 45.45–68.18pesos 51.50–127.27%‐Eggs17 1.2pesos 3.33pesos 177.50%PreparedFoods
‐Tortillas18 0.32pesos 0.83pesos 159.38%‐Tamales19 3.33pesos 5pesos 50.15%‐CandiedFigs 2pesos 5pesos 150%
Page 92
86
TobetterunderstandthedifferenceinpricesofproductssoldattheTianguis
versusthecentralmarket,apricecomparisonwasconducted,inwhichavarietyof
productscurrentlyforsaleatbothlocationswereselectedforassessment.
TheresultsaredisplayedinTable1,andindicateaninterestingdistinction
betweentheitemsthatcostmoreattheTianguisandthoseatthatareroughlyequal
inprice.Asidefromvegetables,allotherproductsincludedinthesurveyarepriced
muchhigher,oftentimessignificantlyso,attheTianguisthanatthecentral
market20.Duringinterviewstwoproducers–onesellingprocessedgoodsandthe
otherpreparedfoods–feltthatthenatureoftheirproductsallowsthemtoreceive
betterreturnsfortheirgoods.Theformerproducerstatedthatifsheweretosimply
sellmangoes,shewouldreceivemuchlowerpricesbecause“peoplecouldbuy
mangoesbythetruckload”.Howeverbyprocessingthemangoesandsellingthemas
saucesorjams,sheisabletochargehigherpricesforherproductsandcapturethe
valueaddedbyherlabour.Similarly,thelatterproducer,whopreviouslysoldmaize,
madetheswitchtoproducingtortillasbecauseshefeltbydoingsothatshecould
earnmoreincomebysellingaprepareditemversusthegrain;onceagainincreasing
herearningsbyaddingvalue.Furthermore,thehigherpriceofhertortillaswas
justifiedbythefactthatsheis“spending”herlifemakingthembyhand.Unlikeat
thetortilleriaswheremachinesdomuchoftheworkandcaneasilyberepairedor
replaced,shemakesthetortillasmanually.Inbothsituations,theproducersfelt20Itisimportanttonote,however,thattheproductionmethodsoftheitemssoldinthecentralmarketareunknownandthereforethiscomparisononlyservestoexploretheimpactthatassociationwiththeTianguiscanhaveonthepricesofgoods.
Page 93
87
stronglythattheefforttheyexpendgreatlyaddsvaluetotheproductstheyofferand
thatinthiswaytheyearnahigherincomethaniftheyweretosimplysell
unprocessedorunpreparedgoods.Intermsofanimalproducts,asimilaropinion
wasexpressed,asoneproduceralludedtotheextensivecareandeffortthatgoes
intoraisingthehousehold’slivestock.Inallthreecases,pricesweresettoreflectthe
additionallabourthattheirproductsrequired.
Asillustratedhowever,thesamecannotbesaidforvegetables,whichare
generallysoldatthesamepriceregardlessofthelocation.Infact,whenfirst
approachedatthebeginningofthepricecomparison,oneofthevegetable
producerswasconfidentthatthesamepriceswouldbefoundatbothlocations,
eventhoughinanearlyinterviewshestatedthatshereceivesbetterpricesforher
productsattheTianguis.Inordertounderstandthisapparentcontradiction,itis
importanttoacknowledgethesituationsinwhichtheproducerssoldtheirproducts
priortotheTianguis.
Themajorityofproducersstatedthattheysoldineitherthecentralmarket
(33.34%),tosuperstores(16.67%)or,inthestreets,door‐to‐doorortoa
middleman(25%).Ofthetwolattercategories,allbutoneproducerfeltthatthe
Tianguisofferedthembettersellingconditionsthantheirpriorarrangements.
Thosewhopreviouslysoldtosupermarketsspokeofhighadvertisingcostsand
unfavourableconditionsfortheirproducts21,aswellastheapplicationof
21SuchwastheexperienceofoneproducerwhosehouseholdformerlysoldtheirproductstoasuperstoreinTuxtlaGutiérrez.Thehouseholdwasrequiredtopayfor
Page 94
88
unwarrantedpenalties22,allofwhichplacedlossessquarelyontheshouldersofthe
producers.Regardingthethirdcategory,oneproducerfeltthatthepredetermined
andfixeddaysoftheTianguisnowprovidesherwithasenseofstabilityunrealized
whilesellingtoamiddleman,whileafurtherproducercitedthatthoughshe
continuestoperformthesamemannerofwork,itislessfatiguingbecauseinstead
ofrisingattwoo’clockinthemorningandsellinginthestreets,shecansleeplonger
andsellintheshadeandamongfriendsattheTianguis.Itisthereforepossiblefor
producerstofacelessuncertaintyregardingthepricethattheywillreceiveandthe
quantitythattheywillsellattheTianguis.
Additionallyoneproducerdisclosedthatvariationsinproductivityand
subsequentlytheavailabilityofproductsbroughtonbyweatherpatternscanhave
animpactonthepricesofgoodsatthecentralmarketbutnotattheTianguis,where
pricesgenerallyremainconstantdespitevariousfactors.Thiscanworkbothways,
however,aspricesatthecentralmarketcouldbefoundtobelowerorsometimes
higherthanthosechargedattheTianguis.
anyin‐storeadvertisingandonlyreceivedcompensationfortheproductspurchasedbyconsumers.Moreover,theiritemswereneverincludedinstoresalesandfeltstronglythatconsumersgenerallyoverlookedthem,asaconsequence.Theproducerfeltthatthoughherhouseholdcontinuestosellthesamequantityofproductsasbefore,theyarenowfairlycompensated. 22Anotherproducerspokeofhisexperiencessellingtovariouscompanieswhowouldfinehimwithavarietyofunwarrantedpenaltiesoroccasionallypayhimlessthanwhathewasowedbecausetheyclaimedthathisproductswereofpoorquality.
Page 95
89
4.5 ProductionandConsumptionPatterns
Justasproducersdiversifytheirlivelihoodstrategies,theyalsotendto
cultivateandproduceavarietyofproducts.Suchdiversityiseasilynoticeableatthe
tablesofthoseproducerswhosellawidevarietyofproduceattheTianguis,
howevereventhosewithamorespecializedselectionforsaletendtogrowawider
varietyforhouseholdconsumption.Suchcircumstanceswerefirstrevealedduringa
fieldvisit,inwhichaproducerguidedresearchersthroughherplot,pointingoutthe
cropsthatshegrowsforsaleattheTianguis,thosethatshesellsatthecentral
marketandthosethataregenerallyforhouseholdconsumption.Itsoonbecame
clearthatitemsshesellsattheTianguisonlyrepresentaverysmallportionofcrops
shegrows.Thereasonforthis,sheexplainedisduetoacollectivedecisionamong
theTianguismemberstominimizeinternalcompetition.Sixoftheeightproducers
whosellamoreselectassortmentofproductsattheTianguisgrowadditional
varietiesthattheydonotsellatthislocale.Onceagain,twoproducersexplained
thatthisarrangementislargelyduetoconcernsoverthepossiblecreationof
internalcompetition.Oneproducerinparticularfoundthisarrangementtohavea
motivatingeffect,inwhichshearguedthatitchallengeseachofthemtobecreative
withtheproductsthattheyofferandencouragestheadvancementofdiversity.For
herpart,shecitedthedesiretomakejamsandmarmalades,aswellasadd
cinnamon,pepperandotherfruitstoheralreadyexpendedinventoryofproduce.
Comparableconditionswerefoundtobetrueinregardtotheraisingof
livestock.Thoughonlytwoproducersspecializeinthesaleofanimalproductsatthe
Tianguis,atotaloftenofthetwelveinterviewedraiseanimals.Thetopfiveanimals
Page 96
90
cited,inorderofpopularity,includewerechickens,rabbits,ducks,sheepand
turkey,thoughthelistismuchmoreextensiveforthetwowhospecializeinthis
area.Foreightproducers,animalsareraisedstrictlyforhouseholdconsumption,
thoughtheyallhavesold–andattimescontinuetosell–eggswhenspecifically
requestedbyaneighbourorconsumer.Howeversuchtransactionsonlytakeplace
afterhouseholdconsumptionhasbeencovered(i.e.only“surplus”productsare
sold).Againtheconcernofcompetitionwasraisedasoneproducerwhopreviously
soldmeathassincestoppeddoingsosincetheentryofotherproducersintothe
Tianguis.
Whileallproducerscultivatedcropsorraisedanimalsforhousehold
consumption,theextenttowhichtheydidsovariedamongthesample.Intermsof
theproportionofproductionconsumedwithinthehousehold,nearly60%ofthe
producersmaintainthattheyconsume25percentorlessoftheirproduct;17%
consumehalfoftheirproduction.Thevariationamonghouseholdswaslargely
attributedtoeitherthescaleofproductionorthenatureoftheproductssold.
Theremainingquarterofrespondentsstatedthatthemajorityoftheir
produceisconsumedintra‐household,sellingnomorethat25%oftheiroutput.In
twocasesthiswasduetothefactthatwhiletheygrowsuchawidevarietyofcrops
overall,theysellonlyaspecificitemattheTianguis.Theadditionalproducer
cultivatesprimarilyforhouseholdconsumptionandonlycomestomarketif
additionalquantitiesareremaining.
Page 97
91
Household Food Availability
Aquarterofproducersinterviewedstatedthattherewereperiodsduringthe
yearthattheirhouseholdlackedasufficientquantityoffood.Thoughthereasons
forthisdeficiencyandthetimeofyearinwhichittookplacedifferedforeach
producer,theyalltiedbacktodifficultiesposedbydecreasesintheirlevelofeither
productionorsales.Themajorityofthosewhostatedthattheirhouseholdfacedno
suchperiodsofuncertaintylinkedtheirsituationtothefactthattheycontinueto
growaportionoftheirproductsstrictlytosatisfyhouseholdconsumptionand
thereforearguedthattheyalwayshaveaccesstowhattheygrowthemselves.Itis
alsointerestingtonotethattwooftheeightproducerswhoinsistedthattheir
householdfacednosuchperiodsjustifiedtheirresponsewithanexplanationof
theirfamily’ingenuity.Itwasarguedthatduringdifficultperiodsinthepast,
individualsdevelopedstrategiesandlearnedtomakethemostwithwhattheyhad
availabletothematthetime.Suchskillsareneverthelessrelieduponinmorerecent
periodsofdifficultyaswell.Inthisway,itwasindicatedthatthoughhouseholds
continuetofaceuncertaintyandepisodesofinsufficiency,themajorityhave
developedtactics,suchastheactofgrowingforconsumptionorlearned
resourcefulness,tolessentheirrisk.
4.5.1 ChangesinProduction
AquickwalkthroughboththeTianguisandthecentralmarketwouldreveal
differencesinthetypesofproduceavailable.Thoughmanycommonitemscanbe
foundatbothlocations,certainitemsaredistinctlyfoundatoneortheother.When
Page 98
92
askediftherewereanycropsthattheyhadstoppedgrowingsincejoiningthe
Tianguis,theunanimousanswerwas“no”;however,40%ofproducersdid
acknowledgethattherearecertaincropsthattheyhavebeguntogrowlessofdueto
lackofdemandattheTianguis.Suchcropsincludemustardgreens,turnipgreens
andcertainvarietiesoflettuces;asitwasclaimedthattheseitemseitherdonot
appealtoTianguisconsumersorthatconsumersdesiremorediversitythantheone
ortwotypesoflettucespreviouslyproduced.
Incontrast,sevenproducersstatedthattheyhavestartedgrowingnewcrops
sincejoiningtheTianguis.Onaverage,eachoftheseproducershasacquired
approximatelythreenewcrops,withsomeproducersaddingasmanyasten.The
mostwidelyaddedcropsincludenewvarietiesoflettuce(57.14%ofproducers),
arugula(28.57%),tatsoi(28.57%)andredchard(28.57%).Howeverthetotallistis
quiteextensive,aseachofthefollowingitemswereeachcitedbyoneproducer
respectively:redmustardgreens,Japaneseturnip,yellowsquash,Chineseparsley,
longspinach,berries,kale,bunchingonion,carrots,beets,artichoke,potatoesand
celery.Themostwidelycitedreasonforproducer’sadoptionoftheaforementioned
vegetableswasentirelybasedonconsumerdemandsattheTianguis,whichcaused
manyproducerstoseekoutthenewcropsor,insomecases,theywereactually
giventherequiredseedsbyinterestedconsumersoranemployer.Threeproducers
statedthattheydidnotgrowthesecropspriortotheTianguisbecausetheywere
notfamiliarwiththem.Inadditiontocommencingcultivationofvariousvegetables,
oneproduceralsobeganproducingchocolateduetoconsumerdemand.Infact
therewasonlyonecaseinwhichaproducerdeclinedtoaddanotheritemtotheir
Page 99
93
sellinginventory,despiteexpresseddemand.Herreasonfornotdoingsowasin
responsetotheadditionalworkthatwouldberequired.
Aninterestingremarkofferedduringoneinterviewwasthatsellingatthe
Tianguisrequiresthecultivationofsmallerquantitiesofadiverserangeofitems.It
wasarguedthatitisonlyworthsellingatthecentralmarketiftheproducergrows
multiplebedsofthesame,orveryfew,crops.ConverselyconsumersoftheTianguis
areofteninsearchofanarrayofchoicesandthereforeitisbesttogrowasmaller
amountofmoreitems.Inthisway,participationwithintheTianguishaslargely
impactedboththevarietiesandquantitiesofitemsproduced.
Intermsofanimalproducts,twoproducershavesincebeguntoraisenew
animalspeciessincejoiningtheTianguis:rabbitsandgoats.Thedecisiontoraise
theseanimalswaspartlyfordirecthouseholdconsumption,aswellasthe
possibilitytosellmeatandotheranimalproductsattheTianguis.Oneproducerin
particularhasdiversifiedheranimalproductsfurtherandhasintroducedpackages
ofpreparedmeatsandsaucesintoherselectionofavailableitems.
Thoughthelargemajorityoftheseproductswerestartedinresponseto
consumerdemand,theproducersstatedthattheyhavealsointegratedthemajority
oftheproductsintotheirdiets.Infactonlythreeproducersidentifiedvegetables
thattheygrowbutdonoteat.Amongtheproductsthatarenotconsumedwithinthe
households,producersdonoteatgarlic,arugulaandredmustardgreens,dueto
theirstrong,unfamiliartaste;oneproduceralsonotedthatshedoesnotconsume
thespinachthatshegrowsbecausesheisunsurehowtoprepareit.
Page 100
94
4.5.2 AdditionalPurchasingPower
FiftypercentofproducersstatedthatbysellingattheTianguis,theyhave
sincebeenabletopurchaseitemsthattheycouldnotaffordpreviously.Theitems
nowpurchasedvariedfromproducertoproducerbutincludedhouseholditems
suchasrefrigeratorsandblenders,aswellasfooditems,oftentimesmeatordairy
products.Inotherhouseholds,theadditionalincomeasusedtocovervariouschild‐
relatedneedsoruniversitytuition.
Twoproducersnotedthattheyhavenotincreasedtheirpurchasingpower
becausetheydonotsellattheTianguisyearround.Inoneinstancethisisduetothe
growingseasonofthespecificcropthattheysellattheTianguis,thoughtheother
producerisgreatlylimitedbylackofaccesstowaterandthereforeonlysellsduring
therainyseason,whensheismorelikelytohaveasurplusofproducts.
4.5.3 PurchasedFoodItems
Thepercentageoffoodpurchasedvariedamongthetwelvehouseholds
interviewed.Inthecaseoffivehouseholds,a“quarterorless”ofitemsconsumed
withinthehouseholdwerepurchased,afurtherfourhouseholdspurchased“half“of
theirfooditems,whiletheremainingthreestatedthattheypurchased“most”ofthe
itemsconsumedwithinthehousehold.Itisinterestingtonotethattheproducers
whopurchase“most”oftheirfooditemssharedacommoncharacteristic;inso
muchthattheyeachsoldwhatisconsideredtobeaspecialtyitem.Unlikeother
producerswhosoldvegetables,fruit,meatortortillas,theseproducerssolditems
suchaschocolate,candiedfruitandcheese;eachofwhichwerestatedtobehighly
Page 101
95
susceptibletounstabledemand,andofwhichthehouseholditselfcouldonly
consumesomuch.Conversely,thehouseholdsthatpurchasedasmallerproportion
oftheirfoodgenerallyboughtonlywhattheydidnotproducethemselvesand,as
previouslynoted,manyhouseholdsgrewproductsinadditiontothosethattheysell.
Suchcircumstanceswerewidelythesamepriortoparticipationwithinthe
Tianguis,withonlythreehouseholdsindicatingchangesinpurchasinglevels.Two
suchhouseholdspurchaselessthantheydidbeforeduetoanincreaseinthe
varietiesofcropsthehouseholdgrows,whiletheadditionalhouseholdnow
purchasesmorethantheyoncedid,duetoanincreaseinavailableresourcesand
purchasingpower.
Figure5:TheTenMostCommonlyPurchasedItems
Figure5illustratesthetenfooditemsmostcommonlypurchasedbythe
householdsinterviewed.Asshown,mostproducerspurchasethemajorityoftheir
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Market SmallStores Supermarket Tianguis Neighbour OrganicStore
Page 102
96
itemsfromthemarket,whereastheTianguisislargelyunrepresented,exceptin
regardtothepurchaseofvegetables.Itisimportanttonote,however,thatthis
figuredoesnotaccountforfoodthatisacquiredoutsideofthemarket,including
self‐productionandnon‐marketexchangesamongTianguismembers.
Ofthetwelvehouseholds,onequarterstatedthatthereweretimesduringa
typicalyearinwhichthehouseholdhaddifficultypurchasingfooditems.Onceagain
thiswasprimarilyattributedtolimitedincomefromsales.Conversely,thosewho
neverhaddifficultywithpurchasesgenerallystatedeitherthattheyalwayshad
accesstosufficientfundstopurchaseneededitems,orthatthehouseholditself
boughtverylittleandreliedmoresoonself‐provisioning.However,thoughthey
initiallystatedthattheirhouseholdsfacednosuchperiodsofuncertainty,two
householdsindicatedthattheirabilitytopurchasefooditemsthattheydonotgrow
issometimesimpactedbyslowperiodsinbothproductionandselling.
Tobetterunderstandtheconsumptionpatternsoftheproducers,eachwere
askedtolistthefooditemsthattheytypicallyeataswellastoparticipateinafood
recall,bothaspartoftheinitialinterviewsaswellassubsequentfollow‐ups,
dependingonavailability.Thereasonfordoingsowastoevaluateapossible
differencebetweentheproducer’sperceptionsofwhattheyconsumeincomparison
withactualcircumstances.Theonlyitemtobementionedbyallproducerswas
vegetables,andoftentimesitwasquantifiedas“alot”,thoughveryfewelaborated
onthevarietiesthattheyconsume.Asidefromvegetables,beans,chickenandbeef
Page 103
97
werelistedduringthemajorityofinterviewsandrabbitmeat,riceandeggswereall
listedbyaquarterofproducers.
Whenaskedifthereareevertimesinwhichit’sdifficulttoacquirethefoods
itemsspecifiedintheaforementionedquestion,approximatelythree‐quartersof
producersrespondednegatively,explainingthateithertheygrowenoughforown
consumption(44.45%)orthatthereisalwaysenoughmoney(33.34%),withone
additionalproducercitinghouseholdingenuity.Interestingly,whenprobedfor
furtherinformationconcerningthespecificitemswhicharedifficulttoacquireand
thereasonswhy,themostcitedresponsewasdairyproducts,whichinfactonly
factoredintothedietsof20%ofproducers.Twoadditionalitems,eachcitedby
producerrespectively,weremeataswellasbeansandcorn.Unanimously,the
reasonsfordifficultiesobtainingtheseitemswereduetothehighcostsofeach,
whichproducerscouldnotaffordintimeswhentheirownproductswereearning
themasufficientincome.
Generallyhowever,producersassertedthattheyweresatisfiedwiththefood
itemsthattheycurrentlyconsume,withonlythreeproducersidentifyingfooditems
thattheywouldliketoconsumebutdonotcurrently.Ineachcase,thefooditemin
questionvaried.Foroneproducer,theiteminquestionwassardines,whichher
husbandenjoysbuttheyrarelypurchase.Anothercitedgranolaandyoghurtasa
favouriteofherchildren,thoughtheexpensivenatureoftheseproductslimitedthe
frequencyinwhichtheycouldbepurchased.Thefinalitemcitedwasthe
consumptionofadditionalmeatproducts.Interestingly,thisproducerstatedthat
Page 104
98
herhousehold’sabilitytoconsumemeatproductsislimitedbythegrowthrateof
theirlivestock,makingnomentionofthepossibilityofpurchasingsuchproducts.
4.5.4 DailyEatingHabits
Thecompletionofthefoodrecallstudyaidedintheattempttobetter
understandthedailyeatinghabitsofproducers.Subsequently,theoverallresults
fromtherecallwerecomparedtoElPlatodelBuenComer,afoodguidethatwas
compiledbytheMexicangovernmenttoreflectfooditemsandportionsthatare
culturallysuitableaswellaseasilyaccessibletothegeneralpopulation.Thisguide
illustratesaplatedividedintothirds,reflectingbothportionsizesaswellasthe
elementsrequiredforabalanceddiet:(1)fruitsandvegetables,(2)cereals,and(3)
legumesandanimalproducts(Mexico,2003:14‐16;Mexico,2010a:34).
Overthecourseofthefoodrecallstudy,aswellasafewmealtime
observations,353fooditemswererecorded.Ofthattotal,29.74%belongedtothe
categoryoffruitsandvegetables,28.05%werecerealsandafurther26.06%were
legumesandanimalproducts.Theremaining16.15%ofitemsrecalledfellintothe
groupingof“Others”,largelyconsistingofcoffee,sodaandsnackitems.Itis,
however,importanttonotethatwhilefruitsandvegetablesaccountedforalmosta
thirdofthetotalitemsrecorded,thelargemajorityofvegetableswerenot
consumedastheirownservingbutratheraspartofanomeletteorquesadilla.
Therefore,asillustratedbyoneexample,thoughtheproducerindicatedthataspart
ofherlunchsheatebothlettuceandtomato,theyweremerelyslicesonasandwich.
Page 105
99
Thoughtheinformationgatheredthroughthefoodrecallcannotspeaktoportion
sizes,itdoesshedlightonthetypicalconsumptionpatternsoftheproducers.
Breakfast:Onlyfiveitemswereconsumedinatleast25%ofrecordedbreakfasts.In
descendingorder,theseitemswere:tortillas,coffee,beans,eggsandtomato.
Whatisconcealedhowever,isthefactthatvegetablesasawholeconstituted20%of
theitemsrecorded.Thoughonceagain,theygenerallywerenotconsumedontheir
own,awidevarietyofvegetableswererecorded,includingnewlyacquireditems
suchasspinachandchards.Fruitwaslargelyunrepresented,mentionedonlysix
timeswithinthetwenty‐eightmeals,withthemajorityderivedfromthe
consumptionoffruitjuice.60%ofbreakfastsincludedelementsfromthethree
categoriesoutlinedbyElPlatodelBuenComer.
Lunch:Themostconsumeditemsatlunchweregenerallysimilartothose
consumedearlierintheday:tortillas,fruitjuice,beans,tomatoandrice.Three‐
quartersoflunchesincludedelementsfromthethreefoodcategories.Onceagain,an
arrayofvegetableswasconsumed,accountingforalmostaquarterofitemsrecalled,
whereasfruitwasoverwhelminglyconsumedasjuice;recordedinfifteenofsixteen
meals.Meatandanimalproductsaccountedforjustunderafifthoftheitems
consumed,chicken,beefandeggscombiningtoaccountforthemajorityofsuch
items.
Page 106
100
Supper:Whilelunchistypicallythelargestmealoftheday,supperwaspratically
non‐existantamongtheproducers.Infact,halfoftherecordedmealsconsisted
soleyofcoffeeandbread,orasimilarcombination.Moreover,onfouradditional
occasions,supperwasnoteatenonthedayrecorded.Onlyfouritems‐coffee,bread,
tortillas,andcheese‐wereconsumedaspartof25%ofmeals.Oftheothernine
meals,onlyfiveofthemincludeditemsfromeachofthethreefoodcategories.Fruit
wasexcludedfromallmeals,beansincludedonlyonceandcoffeewasconsumedin
twiceasmanymealsasallthevegetablesrecalled.Overall,supperwastheleast
diversifiedmealrecorded.
Snacks:Throughouttheday,snacksweregenerallyararity,astheywereonly
includedinlessthanhalfoftherecallsconducted.Fruitaccountedfor50%ofthe
itemsrecorded,amongwhichorangesandbananaswerethemostcommon.Cereals
anditemsdesignatedtothecategoryof“other”,whichincludedsoda,coffeeand
sweets,eachrespectivelyaccountedforapproximately20%ofitemsconsumed.The
tworemainingitemswerevegetables.
4.5.5 DietaryChanges
Whenaskedtodiscussanydietarychangessinceparticipatinginthe
Tianguis,tenoftwelveproducers(83%)respondedthattheirdietshadimproved.
Thoughdietshadchangedinavarietyofways,58%ofrespondentsmaintainedthat
theynowconsumemorevegetables.Accompaniedbythischangeinconsumption
wasagreaterdegreeofgeneralawareness,andinsomecasesconcernsabout
Page 107
101
possiblecontaminatesinconventionallygrownproducts.Threeproducersstated
thattheynoweatmoreagroecologically‐producedfooditems,whiletwoadditional
producershavechangedthewayinwhichtheytypicallycookvegetables;oneopting
toeatmorefreshvegetablesasopposedtoboiledones,whiletheotherhaslearned
tomakeavarietyofdishesthroughconversationswithconsumersandparticipation
inworkshops.
AdditionalincomeearnedatbysellingattheTianguishashadimpactsonthe
dietsoftwooftheproducers,astheystatedthattheadditionalpurchasingpower
enablesthemtopurchaseandconsumeitemsthattheydonotgrowthemselves,
thereforeexpandingtheiraccesstoitemsthatwerepreviouslyoutofreach.
Forthetwowhocitednochangesintheirdiets,inonecaseitwasduetothe
household’spre‐existingabilitytoeatwhatitwanted,whiletheotherproduceronce
againfacesavarietyofproductionlimitationsandstatedthatthehousehold
generallyeatsandgrowswhatitalwaysdid.
Producersindicatedthatnotonlyhavetheybeguntoeatmorevegetables
thanbefore,buttwo‐thirdshavealsobeguntodiversifyandincludenewvarieties
intotheirdiets.Themostwidelycitedvegetableswerenewvarietiesoflettuce(50%
ofproducers),chards(37.5%),arugula(37.5%),andtatsoi(25%),thoughspinach,
broccoli,peas,greenbeanssprouts,mushrooms,redmustardgreens,kaleand
mustardseedswereeachcitedbyoneproducerrespectively.Theonlytwonon‐
vegetableadditionswerewholewheatbreadandpreparedmeats,bothofwhichare
Page 108
102
eitherpurchasedorexchanged23withothervendorsattheTianguis.Themost
commonresponseastowhyproducershavebeguntoconsumesuchitemswas
attributedtothefactthattheypreviouslydidnotknowabouttheitems,orinone
case,howtopreparethem.Positivefeedbackfromconsumerspurchasingtheitems
andinsistencebyafriendregardingthehealthbenefitswerecitedeachbya
producer.
Thoughoneproducerindicatedthathishouseholdhasbeguntoeatmore
vegetablessincejoiningtheTianguis,healsostatedthattheydonoteataswellas
theyoncedid.Whilethechangethatbroughtonsuchcircumstancesisnotrelatedto
hisparticipationattheTianguis,itdoeshoweverprovidesomeinterestinginsight.
Approximatelyfifteenyearsago,thehouseholdgrewalargevarietyofagricultural
products;howeverwithfewnearbyroads,theyhadlimitedmarketopportunities
andtheirproductswereprimarilydestinedforhouseholdconsumption.Insodoing
theyhadplentyoffoodavailablebutlittlemoneytopurchaseadditionalitems.With
time,however,ahighwaywasconstructednearbyandthefamilydecidedtoraise
cattle;theproductsofwhicharenowbeingsoldattheTianguis.Theproduceris
adamantthattheyatemuchbetterbefore,whentheyhadverylittlemoneybut
providedforthemselves,firmlystatingthat“Moneyandahighwaydonotmean
23IntermsofproductexchangesbetweenTianguismembers,accountsofsuchhappeningswererare,andonlyreportedtwice.Inoneinstance,whichasbothdiscussedduringaninterviewandwitnessedthroughmarketdayobservations,theproducerregularlyexchangessomeofherremainingvegetablesforafewloavesofbread.Inthelatteroccurrence,aproducerdiscussedhowhisparticipationattheTianguisledhimtobecomeacquaintedwithanotherproducerwhoresidesinthesametown.Theircloseproximitytooneanotherhasenabledthemtoexchangeproductsoutsideofmarketdaygatherings.
Page 109
103
progress”.Duetoeconomicspecialisation,thehouseholdmustnowpurchaseallthe
itemsthattheyoncegrewforthemselves.Thoughmoneyisnotcurrentlyanissue
forthehousehold,theproducerstillfeltverystronglythatthequalityofhousehold
consumptionhasbeennegativelyimpactedbyspecializationofproduction.
4.6 OverallImpactofParticipationintheTianguis
WhenaskedtodescribetheoverallimpactsthatparticipationintheTianguis
hashadontheproducer’shousehold,theresponseswereunderstandablyvaried.
However,somewhatsurprisingly,economiccircumstanceswerefactorsinveryfew
descriptions.Thegeneraleconomicimpactwaslargelycontingentuponthe
durationandextentofparticipation.Thosethatsawlittletonoeconomic
improvementdueparticipationintheTianguisweregenerallytheproducerswho
hadmostrecentlyjoined;participatedonaseasonalbasis;orinonecase,weremore
reliantonsaleselsewhere.One‐thirdoftheproducersnotedthatparticipationhas
increasedtheirhouseholdincome,albeitgenerallynotinasignificantway.
Mentionedonceagain,byacoupleofproducersrespectively,wereimprovedeating
habitsandenvironmentalpractices.However,thevastmajorityofresponseswere
greatlylinkedtoemotionalandsocialaspectsofparticipationwithintheTianguis.
Friendshipwasviewedbyoneproducerasthemostimportantimpactof
participationwithintheTianguis,andisasentimentthatwassharedbyothersas
well.TheTianguisisviewedasaspacewheretheproducerscannotonlyselltheir
productsbutalsoengageinconversationswithotherproducersandconsumers
Page 110
104
alike.Formany,theenvironmentandcompanymakestheworkfarmoreenjoyable
andasaforementioned,wasoneofthereasonswhyproducerscitedimproved
conditionsattheTianguisversuselsewhere.Chattingandlaughteramong
producerswasoftenobservedduringmarkethoursandinthewordsofone
producer,“Whatisitworthtohavemoneybutnofriends?”AsnotedbytheEP
member,theproducerssellingattheTianguiscomefromavarietyofbackgrounds,
lendingtoadiversifiedenvironmentwhereeachhasdifferentideasandwaysof
being.
TheTianguisisalsoviewedtobeamotivatingandempoweringplaceas
producersfeltthattheirworkwasimportantandvaluedbyothers.Themeat
producerstatedthatthroughherparticipationintheTianguis,peoplehavegottento
knowherandherhusbandbetter.Theyhavefurthermoregainedthetrustand
loyaltyofconsumerswhohavecometorecognizethequalityoftheirproducts.
Consumertrustandinputisimmenselyimportanttothisproducerasthecareand
passionwithwhichsheengagedwithcustomerswasoftenobserved.
ThemostwidelycitedimpactofparticipationintheTianguiswasincreased
knowledgeandawareness.ManyfeltthatasparticipantsintheTianguis,theyhave
becomemoreinformedandhaveexperiencedanincreaseinconsciousness
regardingtheirresponsibilitiestothelandthattheywork.Asoneproducerstated,
manylearningopportunitieshavearoseoutofparticipationintheTianguis.The
occasionstovisiteachother’splotsandexchangeinformationwerehighlyprized,as
wereworkshops.Moreover,notonlydotheylearnfromeachotherbutalsothrough
conversationswithconsumersonmarketday.Theinformationgatheredthrough
Page 111
105
Tianguisrelatedexperienceshasimpactedthehouseholdsinavarietyofways,
includingconsumptionchoicesaswellasproductionmethods.
Moreover,inconjunctionwiththeirparticipationintheTianguis,three
producersspokeoftheirinvolvementinsimilareventsororganisation.One
producerhasacceptedmultipleinitiationsbycommunitiestoconductworkshops
andpresentationsdemonstratingthepotentialofagroecologicaltechniques,while
anotherproducer,alongwithagroupofwomen,recentlyopenedasmallrestaurant
inthecity,focusingonagroecologicallyproduceditems.Anadditionalproducer
spokeofherassociationwithanotherorganisation,whichhasprovidedherandher
husbandopportunitiestotravelaboardtolearnaboutvariousmovementsand
techniques.Shefeltthattheopportunitytotraveltoothercountriesandexperience
lifefirsthandinothercultureshaspositivelyimpactedhowsheandherhusband
interactandmakedecisions.Similarity,whendiscussinghowdecisionsaremade,
anotherproducerfeltthatparticipationintheTianguishascreatedanenvironment
ofincreasedcommunicationandsharingwithinhishousehold,leadingtoshared
participationinthedecisionmakingprocess.Infactwhenaskedaboutthedecision‐
makingprocesswithintheproducer’shouseholds,thegeneralresponsewasthat
decisionsaremadecollectively,andinthreecasesthechildrenwerealso
incorporatedintotheprocess.
Page 112
106
ThepoliticalsignificanceoftheTianguisvariedgreatlyamongtheproducers.
Inconversation,theEPmemberconfirmedthatcertainproducersweremore
politicallymotivatedtoparticipatethanothers.Sheherselfstronglyfeltthis
connection,statingthatthatchoiceofwheretopurchasegoodsisapolitical
decision24.
24“Dondesecompraesunadecisiónpolitica”
Page 113
107
ChapterFive
Discussion
5.1 LocalFoodMarkets
Thebulkoftheliteraturewrittenregardinglocalfoodmarketsisfocusedon
themanybenefitsaccruedbyconsumers,withrelativelylittleinsightintothe
impactsonproducersbeyondthepotentialforretainingahigherportionoftheir
earnings.AsthecasestudyofproducersattheTianguisinSanCristóbaldeLas
Casasillustrated,sellingattheirlocalfoodmarkethadother,andinsomecasemore
meaningful,benefitsandimpacts.
5.1.1 ImprovedSellingConditions
Thoughithasbeenstronglyarguedthatlocalfoodmarketscanserveasa
mechanismtoensurethatsmall‐scaleproducersreceivebettercompensationfor
themethodstheyemploy,thepricecomparisonindicatedthatwhencomparedwith
pricesatthecentralmarket,onlycertainitemsearnhigherreturns.
Forthosewhodidbenefitfromhigherearnings,andchosetoelaborateon
thesituation,somefeltthatconsumerawarenessconcerningthequalityoftheir
productsenabledthemtochargehigherprices,whileothersfeltthattheadded
effortthattheyputintoprocessingtheirproductsorrearingtheiranimals
warrantedahigherreturn.
Page 114
108
Vegetableshowever,whichaccountforalargeportionoftheitemssoldat
theTianguis,weregenerallyfoundtocostthesameinbothlocations.Thisisan
interestingpoint,especiallyashalfoftheproducersinterviewed,includingmultiple
vegetableproducers,insistedthattheyreceivedhigherpricesfortheirproductsat
theTianguis.SincemanyTianguisproducerseitherbeganorcontinuetoselltheir
productsatthecentralmarket,thereisapossibilitythatsomeoftheitemspricedin
thecomparisonwereproducedagroecologicallyaswell,howeveritiscertainthat
thoughsellingunderthebannerandcriteriaoftheTianguis,vegetableproducers
generallychargenomorethantheircentralmarketcounterparts.
Additionally,concernsoverinternalcompetitionattheTianguislimitedthe
extenttowhichsomeproducerscouldbenefitmonetarilyfromtheiragroecological
practices.ThismeantthatsomeproducerssoldonlyspecificitemsattheTianguis,
thoughtheygrewagreatmanymore;mostofwhichweredestinedforhousehold
consumptionorsaleinlocationssuchasthecentralmarket,undistinguishablefrom
allotherproducts.
Besidesprices,twoadditionalfactorscouldbecontributingtoproducer’s
receivinghigherincomesfortheirproducts.One,whichwillbediscussedatgreater
lengthinasubsequentsection,isdirectlyrelatedtothenatureoftheagroecological
methodsusedbyproducers,whichtheyrelylittleonpurchasedinputs,therefore
enablingthemtokeeptheircostsdown;whiletheotherisaconsequenceofthe
improvedsellingconditionswhichtheTianguisprovidesthem.Halfofthe
producersinterviewedstatedthattheyusedtoselltheirproductstosuperstores,
Page 115
109
othervendersordoor‐to‐door.Comingfromsuchcircumstances,allbutone
producerprovideddetaileddescriptionsoftheirimprovedsellingconditionsatthe
Tianguis.ForsometheTianguisprovidesalocaleinwhichtheyarenotassaultedby
unfairpenaltiesorexorbitantadvertisingcosts.Forothers,theTianguisprovidesa
previouslyunknownsenseofstabilityorsimplyamoreenjoyableselling
environment.Therefore,whilesomeproducersclearlyreceivehigherpricesfor
theirgoodsattheTianguis,othersearnhigherincomesbecauseofthestableand
fairenvironmentoftheTianguis.
5.1.2 TheImportanceofCommunity
Thoughtheabilitytochargehigherpricesmightbeseenasabenefitto
sellingatafarmer’smarket,economicbenefitsrankedlowinimportanceforthe
producers.Infact,whenaskedthedescribewhattheoverallimpactoftheTianguis
hasbeenintheirlife,veryfewmentionedanyeconomicbenefitandinthefewcases
thatitwasmentioned,theimprovementstothehousehold’seconomywas
describedasbeingsmallinscale.Infact,onlyhalfoftheproducersindicatedthat
theyarenowabletopurchaseitemsthattheycouldn’tbefore,whichgenerally
referredtohouseholdappliances,fooditemsandchildrelatedneeds.Instead,
friendshipwashighlyvaluedbytheproducers.TheTianguisisviewedasaspace
wheretheproducerscouldnotonlyselltheirproductsbutalsoengagein
meaningfulconversationsandrelationshipswithoneanother,aswellasconsumers.
Thedevelopmentofconsumertrustwasofkeyimportancetooneproducer;a
Page 116
110
sentimentechoedbyotherswhendiscussinghowtheyfeltmorevaluedwhen
sellingattheTianguis.Moreover,plotvisitsandworkshopscreatedopportunities
fordialogueandknowledgesharingamongproducers;opportunitieswhichare
importantinsupportingandsustainingagroecologicalpractices.Itisthereforethe
senseofcommunity,sharingandtrustamongbothproducersandconsumersthat
madeparticipationintheTianguismeaningfulformanyoftheproducers,as
opposedtoanypotentialeconomicbenefits.
5.1.3 TheImpactofConsumerDemand
InaccordancewithStagl(2002:155),thewidevarietyofproductsavailable
attheTianguisdemonstratedthateatinglocallydoesnotnecessarilyresultin
limitedoptions.Infactawiderdiversityofproducts,specificallyvegetables,was
foundattheTianguis.Suchcircumstancesaredirectconsequencesoftheimpact
thatconsumerdemandhashadontheTianguisproducersandtheproductsthat
theysell.
Asitwasnoted,consumerdemandhasbeenhighlyinfluentialindetermining
whatproductsareproducedandsubsequentlysoldattheTianguis.Itwasargued
thatTianguisconsumersdemandvarietyasopposedtolargequantitiesofafew
itemsandthatitisthereforebettertogrowalittlebitofalotofitemsversusalotof
onlyafew.Suchdemandgreatlyimpactedproducersandtheirdecisionsasalmost
three‐quartersofproducershavebeguntogroworproducenewitemstosellatthe
Tianguis,generatinganextensivelistofnewproducts.Itshouldalsobenotedthat
Page 117
111
theadoptionofallofthesenewproductswerethedirectresultofconsumer
demandandwereneverreportedlyinitiatedonthepartoftheproducer’s
themselves.
However,thoughconsumerdemandhasalteredproduction,ithasgenerally
beenquitecontained.Noproducercompletelystoppedgrowinganyspecificcropor
productorwholeheartedlyembracedonlythosethatconsumersdemanded.Thisis
highlightedinthefactthatwhileincreasesinvarietyhaveoccurred,noproductsor
cropshavebeendiscontinuedbutmerelydecreasedinquantity.Moreover,the
majorityofproducersstatedthattheyhaveintegratedthenewlyproducedproducts
intohouseholdconsumption.Thoughrareoccurrences,suchproductswerenoted
duringthefoodrecallsurvey.
Overall,theTianguisprovidedastableandfairenvironmentwhere
producerscouldselltheirproductsdirectlytoconsumers.Whiletheliterature
surroundinglocalfoodmarketsgenerallyfocusesontheeconomicbenefits,
producersoftheTianguisplacedlittleimportanceonthisaspect.Insteadimmense
valuewasseenintheirabilitytointeractwithandlearnfromfellowproducersand
consumersalike.Consumerdemandclearlyhadahandinnotonlydeterminingthe
productssoldattheTianguisbutalsohadanimpactontheconsumptionpatternsof
theproducersthemselves,asmanycitedhavingimprovedtheireatinghabitsasa
result.
Page 118
112
5.2 Agroecology
5.2.1 Productivity
Aspreviouslydiscussed,manywhofeelittobeincapableofmatchingthe
yieldsofconventionalagriculturehavecalledtheproductivityofagroecologyinto
question.Howeverproducersgenerallyvocalizednosuchconcernsandinstead,
theiragroecologicalpracticesenabledmanytoharvestyieldsthatsatisfiednotonly
theneedsoftheirhousehold,butthoseofconsumersaswell25.Withregardtopests,
thoughaconstantnuisance,producershavebeenabletoemploytechniquesthat
havereducedtheirsusceptibility.Infact,onlyoneproducercitedhaving
experiencedwidespreadlossesduetopests;anewphenomenonforwhichsheis
implementingmanagementtechniques.Extremeweatherconditionswereperhaps
themostworrisomeforproducers,ascropsandlivestockarenegativelyaffected.
Overallhowever,producersvoicednodissatisfactionwiththelevelofproductivity
thattheiragroecologicalpracticesreaped.Moreover,asitwillbediscussedfurther,
manyproducersindicatedthattheirhouseholdsfacednoperiodofuncertaintyor
wantduetothefactthattheirpracticesprovidedthemwithaconsistentharvestof
diversecrops,whichcoveredboththeneedsofthehouseholdandconsumer
demand.
25Perhapstheonlyexceptiontothistrendwouldbetheproducerwhoreliedheavilyonrainwaterandthereforehadreducedharvestduringthedryseason.Suchcircumstancesarehoweverduetoherlimitedaccesstowaterandnotheragroecologicaltechniques.
Page 119
113
5.2.2 MinimalDependenceonPurchasedInputs
Thoughitisnotanapproachcompletelydevoidofinputs,agroecologyrelies
onmorelocallyandaccessibleelements,supportingtheargumentthatsuch
methodscaneaseandeliminateproducers’dependenceoncostlyinputs.Though
producerswereunabletoprovideanaccountofhowmuchtheyspentoninputs
yearly,thelistwasquiteminimal,inwhichonlylabourandoccasionalseed
purchaseswerewidelyreported.Insteadofrelyingonexpensivefertilizersand
pesticides,producersgenerallyemployedbeneficialpolycroppingtechniquesand
alsoappliedcompostormanure,aswellashouseholdpestmanagementremedies.
Inthisway,producershadminimalrelianceon,orneedfor,purchasedinputs,as
muchofwhattheyrequiredoremployedwereeitherlocallyavailableorderived
directlyfromthehouseholditself.Suchcircumstancesmayalsoexplainwhy
producerscitedhigherprofits,despiteattimes,chargingsimilarpricestothose
foundatthecentralmarket.Whatisleftunansweredhowever,iswhetherTianguis
vegetableproducerscouldiffact,demandhigherpricesfortheirproducts.The
literaturesuggeststhatconsumersarewillingtopayfortheirproductswhenthey
havedirectinteractionwiththeproducer;enablingthemtoaskquestionsand
becomeacquaintedwiththeproductionmethods.Suchanotionisreminiscentof
thestatementmadebyoneoftheproducers,inwhich“atomatoisjustatomatoto
peoplewhodonothaveinformation”.Itisthereforearguablethatbycreating
conditionsofgreaterknowledgeandawarenessconcerningagroecological
productionmethodsamongconsumers,producerswouldfindthattheycould
chargehigherpricesfortheirproducts.
Page 120
114
5.2.3 ImprovementstoLandHoldings
AsMcAfee(2006:5)argued,itwouldbeshortsightedtofocusmerelyon
productionlevelsandthatemphasisshouldalsobeplacedonthelong‐term
conditionsofthelandbeingused.Producersoftenreportedadeepconnectionwith
theland,whichformanyhadbeendevelopedorenhancedsinceadopting
agroecologicalpractices.Itwasalsostronglyfeltbymanythatthetechniquesthey
employhavegreatlybenefitedandimprovedthequalityoftheirlandholdings.
MirroringthefindingsofHolt‐Giménez(2006:192),oneproducerdiscussedhow
herland,thoughitdiddeclinesomewhatinquality,faredfarbetterthan
neighbouringplotsinthewakeofHurricaneMitch;theresultofwhichshe
attributedtoherpracticeofagroecology.
5.2.4 TheImportanceofKnowledge
Asithasbeennoted,agroecologyisknowledgeintensiveanditspractices
mustbeadaptedtosuitvaryingcircumstances.Forthemajorityofproducers,
agroecology,thoughpreviouslyknownbyothernames,hasbeenafamilytradition,
inwhichpracticeshavebeenpasseddownandrefinedthroughgenerations.Inthe
caseofpestmanagement,whileresponsesoftenvaried,producershaveeach
developedtheirownsuccessfulrecipesorpractices.Overtimeproducershave
developedandretainedtechniquesthataretailoredtotheirindividualsituations.
Howeverasoneproducernoted,knowledgeisnotacquiredinstantlyandthe
subsequentpracticesareonlyperfectedafteraperiodofexperimentation.Inher
Page 121
115
opinion,herhouseholdwaslesspreparedandthereforemoresusceptibletopests
becausecomparedtootherhouseholdsparticipatingintheTianguis,herswas
relativelynewtoagroecologicalpracticesandhadyettodevelopconsistentpest
managementtechniques.
Additionally,manyproducersdiscussedtheirexperienceswithconventional
methodsandthesubsequentreasonsfortheirreturnorcommencementof
agroecologicalpractices.Often,thedecisivemomentinwhichproducerschoseto
converttheirpracticeswaslinkedtodegradingsoilconditionsanddecliningyields,
whichareattributedtotheconventionalmethodsthattheywereemploying.
However,asoneproducerhighlighted,thechoicetocompletelyoverhaul
agriculturalproductionisnotonethatshouldbemadelightly,norwithout
acknowledgmentofthepotentialrisks.Thoughhisfatherhasexpressedinterestin
thepotentialofagroecology,hehasyettofullycommit,ashislivelihoodisgreatly
dependantonhisagriculturalproductivity.
Scialabba(2007:6)arguedthatsocialorganizationscouldplayalargerolein
educatingandtransmittingknowledgeamongproducers,apositionthatis
supportedbyexperiencesattheTianguis.Thesenseofcommunityandabilityto
shareknowledgewasofgreatimportancetotheproducers.Workshopsandplot
visitsenabledthemtoengagewithoneanother,sharingtechniquesandknowledge;
whilemarketdaysprovidedthemtheopportunitytointeractwithconsumers,as
wellasoneanother.
Page 122
116
Suchexperienceshavealsohadimpactsoncommunicationwithinthe
household.Manyproducersdescribedasharedmethodofdecision‐makingwithin
theirhousehold,howevertwoinparticularattributedanenvironmentofincreased
dialoguedirectlytotheirparticipationintheTianguisorexperiencesabroad.Afew
producersarealsoactiveoutsideoftheTianguis,usingvariousopportunitiesto
bothlearnandsharetheirownknowledgewithother.
5.3 FoodSecurity
5.3.1 TheImportanceofProducingforHouseholdConsumption
Whendescribingtheideaofentitlements,Sen(1981)notesthatthe
endowmentsrequiredtoensureone’sentitlementtofoodareoftenderivedintwo
ways:throughone’sabilitytoworkforawage;orthepossessionofcapital,suchas
land.Tosomedegree,theproducersattheTianguiscraftedtheirfoodentitlements
throughbothmeans,astheyallgroworproducetheirproductsforbothsaleand
householdconsumption.Howevertheexperiencesofthemajorityofproducers
indicatedtheimportancethatthelatterconsiderationhasinassuringfoodsecurity.
Onlyaquarterofproducersinterviewedstatedthatthereweretimesduring
theyearinwhichtheirhouseholdslackedsufficientquantitiesoffood;thereason
forwhichwasalwaysattributedtolimitedfinancialmeansduetoslowperiodsin
eitherproductionorsales.Theremainingmajorityindicatedthattheirhousehold
facednosuchperiodbecausetheygrowaportionoftheirproductsstrictlytosatisfy
householdconsumptionandinsodoing,ensuredthattheyalwayshadaccessto
Page 123
117
sufficientfoodquantities.Thereforeitseemsthatthehouseholdsthatreliedtoa
lesserextentonthesaleoftheirproductwereperhapsmoreself‐sufficientandwere
abletogeneratemorestableconditionsoffoodsecurity.
Asimilarsituationasfoundtobetruewhenproducerswereaskedfordetails
specificallyregardingthefooditemstheypurchase.Thoughtheextenttowhich
eachhouseholdconsumedpurchaseditemsvaried,responseswereunifiedin
statingthatthetimesofdifficultyaredirectlyrelatedtoslowperiodsinsales.
Conversely,producerswhoreportednosuchperiodsofdifficultygenerally
attributedittothefactthattheypurchasedverylittleandreliedmoresoonitems
thattheythemselvesgrow.Thoughtwosuchhouseholdsdidadmitthatslow
periodsinsalescanhindertheirabilitytopurchaseotheritems,thefactthatthey
toogenerallyconsumewhattheygrewmeansthatwhiletheirpurchasesmightbe
limitedattimes,extremeperiodsofdifficultyarenotencountered.
Itisalsoimportanttonotethatproducersgenerallyfoundabalancebetween
addressingconsumerdemandsandprovidingfortheneedsoftheirhouseholds.
Onceagain,thoughmanyproducershaveadoptednewproductstosatisfy
consumers,noproductshavebeenfullydiscontinued,norhaveentireyieldsbeen
setasideforsaleatthemarket.Aprimeexampleofthisbalanceisproductionof
eggsamonghouseholds.Whileafewhouseholdsproduceeggs,onlyonesellsthem
attheTianguisonaregularbasis.Theremaininghouseholdsconsumethese
productswithintheirhouseholdsandgenerallyonlyselltheleftoverstoneighbours,
thoughsometimesconsumersaswell.Inthisway,thoughdemandexists,producers
Page 124
118
havedecidedtosatisfytheneedsoftheirrespectedhouseholds,insteadofthe
potentialmarketdemands.
5.3.2 ImprovedHouseholdNutrition
Pretty(2009:6)arguedthatcropdiversitycanleadtodiversityontheplate
andsubsequently,improvedhouseholdnutrition.Themajorityofproducerscited
dietaryimprovements,largelybywayofincreasedconsumptionofvegetables.
Moreover,thoughproducerspreviouslygrewanarrayofproducts,consumer
demandhasinfactcreatedevenmorediverseconditions.Forproducers,the
introductiontonewproductsandabilitytoconversewithconsumershasgenerally
ledtoamorediverseplate.Thoughallnewproductswereacquiredtoaddress
consumerdemand,producersreportedthattheytoohavebeguntointroducesuch
itemsintotheirowndiets,saveforthefewthathavebeenexcludeddueto
unfamiliartastes.Suchcircumstanceswereverifiedbythefoodrecallsurvey,which
recordedtheconsumptionofitemssuchaschardsandspinach.
Perhapsoneofthemostilluminatingexperiencesregardingthepotential
ofagroecologytoimprovenutritionandsubsequentlyhouseholdfoodsecurityis
thatoftheproducerwhosehouseholdhasceasedtogrowanarrayofcropsfor
householdconsumptionandnowfocusesprimarilyonthesaleofspecialized
products.Thisproducerfeltstronglythathisfamilynolongereatsaswellasthey
usedtonowthattheydon’tgrowforhouseholdconsumption.Hisstatementthat
“Moneyandahighwaydonotmeanprogress”spokevolumesabouthis
Page 125
119
circumstancesanddemonstratedhowspecializationofproductionandincreased
dependenceonpurchasedfoodhavenegativelyimpactedhishousehold’sfood
security.Whereasotherproducershavecontinuedtodiversifytheirproducts,his
householddidotherwise;theconsequencesofwhichwerereflectedinhisaccount.
Page 126
120
ChapterSix
Conclusion
Thoughdiverseinamongstthemselves,theexperiencesoftheproducersat
theTianguisdemonstratedtheimpactthatthepracticeofagroecologycanhaveon
householdfoodsecurityaswellasthebenefitsofparticipatinginalocalfood
market.Althoughmuchoftheliteraturepointedtoincreasedincomesasabenefit
forsellingatlocalfoodmarkets,suchadvantageratedfairlylowamongproducersof
theTianguis.Whilemanydidfeelthattheyreceivebetterprices,themonetary
benefitoftheiractionswasminimal.Itwasinsteadtheimprovedconditions,social
environmentandsenseofcommunitythatproducer’sfoundtobethegreatest
remunerations.
Infact,suchanatmosphereservedtogreatlyenhanceboththeproducers’
agroecologicalpracticesandsubsequentlytheirhouseholdfoodsecurity,as
knowledgewassharedamongproducersaswellasconsumers.Throughsuch
exchangesproducerswereabletolearnimprovedtechniquesfromtheirpeersas
wellasbuildtrustamongconsumers.Interactionwithconsumersalsoleadto
dietarychanges,asproducerssoughttosatisfyconsumerdemandandsubsequently
incorporatedsuchrequestsintotheirowndiets.
Theexperiencesofproducersillustratedtheimmenseimportanceof
agroecologyininsuringthatthehouseholdhadaccesstosufficientandnutritious
fooditems.Thevariousagroecologicaltechniquesemployedensuredthatproducers
Page 127
121
reapedharveststhatfulfilledbothhouseholdandconsumerneeds,withouttheuse
ofcostlyinputsandallthewhileimprovingthequalitytheirlandholdingsand
sustainingtheirlivelihoods.
Oftheutmostimportanceisthediversityandstabilityembodiedin
agroecology,whichenabledproducerstoensurethefoodsecurityoftheir
household.Bygrowingadiversearrayofcrops,producerswereabletoachievea
levelofself‐sufficiency,whichwasreflectedinthefactthatthemajorityof
householdsdidnotfaceperiodsoffoodinsecurityduetotheiractionofcultivating
fortheirownconsumption.Oneexperienceinparticularillustratedindetailhow
specializationanddecreaseddiversitycannegativelyimpacthouseholdfood
security.
Additionallyitcanbearguedthattheagroecologicalproductionofmany
producersenabledthemtoachievesignificantconditionsoffoodsovereigntywithin
theirhouseholds.Unhinderedbyadependenceoncostlyinputs,marketpricesor
concernsoverdegradinglandholdings,producerswereabletoensurethatthe
dietaryneedsoftheirhouseholdswerebeingmet.Whileconsumerdemandwas
showntohavenoteworthyinfluenceovertheadoptionofspecificcrops,producers
temperedconsumerinfluenceandultimatelymaintainedcontrolovertheir
practices.
Asithasbeendiscussed,thecurrentpracticeofconventionalagriculturehas
generatedamultitudeofdevastatingenvironmentalandsocialconsequencesand
hasmoreoverbeenunabletoaddresstherootcausesoffoodinsecurityworldwide.
Page 128
122
Eventhoughthereisanoverabundanceoffoodglobally,muchofthepopulation
continuestofacehungerandmalnutrition.Asithasbeenstated,avastpercentage,
approximatelyhalf,belongstothehouseholdsofsmall‐scaleproducers.Inlightof
thisglobalparadox,focusneedstoshiftfromthemereabundanceoffoodto
ensuringthatwhatisproduced,isaccessiblebyall.Theexperiencesofthe
producersattheTianguisillustratedhowthepracticeofagroecologyhasthe
potentialtodrasticallyreshapetheconditionsoffoodsecuritywithinthese
households.
Foritspart,theTianguisprovidesanenvironmentwhereproducerscansell
theirproducts,aswellaslearnfromandengagewithboththeirpeersand
consumers.Thisdynamicwasshowntohavefar‐reachingconsequencesonthe
householdfoodsecurityofproducers.TheexperiencesoftheTianguisalso
demonstratethepotentialofsocialorganisationsinaidingproducerstoovercome
theobstaclesthatlimitedinformationcanposeintheattempttoconvertorimprove
theiragriculturalpractices.
Moreover,theminimalcostsandtransitionalprocessassociatedwiththe
impendingPGSensuresthatparticipationandcertificationareeasilyaccessibleto
small‐scaleproducers.Inherwork,Raynoldsquestionedwhetherorganic
certificationwascapableofaddressingsocialissuesduetoitsstrongenvironmental
focus.TheTianguisproducershaveidentifiedconditionsofsocialjusticetobeof
highimportance,andassuch,haveincludedcertainrequirementsintheir
certificationcriteria.Beingintheimplementationstage,itistooearlytosuggestany
Page 129
123
far‐reachingsocialchangehoweverthereisthepotential,shouldtheparticipants
continuetoadheretothesecriteria.
Whilelocalfoodmarketsandcertificationprocesses,suchastheTianguis,
cangreatlybenefitsmall‐scaleproducers,theyarenotwithoutlimitations.Foran
endeavoursuchastheTianguistosucceed,andexpand,engagementwithboth
producersandconsumersisrequired.However,asdiscussedinboththeliterature
andcasestudy,thelimitedavailabilityoffunding,andsubsequentdependenceon
voluntarylabour,cangreatlyimpedtheprogressofsuchmarkets,notonlyinterms
ofeducationalendeavoursbutalsotheirveryexistence.
Moreover,asGuthman(2007)noted,foralabellingsystemtohavemerit,a
mandatoryconditionisthatallproducerscannotmeettherequirements.Arguably
suchcircumstancesformabarrierforproducerswhomaywishtoachieve
certification,butlackaccesstonecessaryresources,suchascleanwater.Although
thecertificationsystembeingimplementedattheTianguisincludesthe
achievementoftransitionalstatus,manyproducerswillcontinuetobeeffectively
prohibitedintheabsenceofagreaterfocusonthedistributionofaccessto
resources.
Page 130
124
ReferencesAllan,Patricia&MartinKovach(2000).Thecapitalistcompositionoforganic:The
potentialofmarketsinfulfillingthepromiseoforganicagriculture.AgricultureandHumanValues.17:221‐232.
Altieri,MiguelA.(1995).Agroecology:TheScienceofSustainableAgriculture.(2nd
edition).Boulder,Colorado:WestviewPress‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐.(2002).Agroecology:thescienceofnaturalresourcemanagement
forpoorfarmersinmarginalenvironments.Agriculture,EcosystemsandEnvironment.1971:1‐24.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐.(2009).Agroecology,SmallFarmsandFoodSovereignty.Monthly
Review.July‐August:102‐113.Altieri,MiguelA.&ClaraI.Nicholls(2005).AgroecologyandtheSearchforaTruly
SustainableAgriculture(1stEdition).UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme.AlvarezGordillo,GuadalupedelCarmenetal.(2009).ASocio‐CulturalDiagnosisof
AdloescentDietsinComitán,Chiapas.SocialMedicine.4(1):32‐47.Agrawal,Arun(1995).DismantlingtheDivideBetweenIndigenousandScientific
Knowledge.DevelopmentandChange.26:413‐439.Amador,M.F.&StephenRGliessman(1990).AnEcologicalApproachtoReducing
ExternalInputsThroughtheUseofIntercropping.InStephenR.Gliessman(Ed.)Agroecology:ResearchingtheEcologicalBasisforSustainableAgriculture(146‐159).NewYork:Springer‐Verlag.
Atta‐Krah,Ketal.(2004).Managingbiologicalandgeneticdiversityintropical
agroforestry.AgroforestrySystems.61:183‐194.Badgleyetal.(2006).Organicagricultureandtheglobalfoodsupply.Renewable
AgricultureandFoodSystems.22(2):86‐108.Beus,CurtisE.&RileyE.Dunlap(1990).ConventionalversusAlternative
Agriculture:TheParadigmaticRootsoftheDebate.RuralSociology.55(4):590‐616.
Borlaug,NormanE.(2000).EndingWorldHunger:ThePromiseofBiotechnology
andtheThreatofAnti‐scienceZealotry.PlantPhysiology.124:487–90.
Page 131
125
Brown,LesterR.(2011).WorldOnTheEdge:HowtoPreventEnvironmentalandEconomicCollapse.NewYork:WWNortonandCo.
Brown,L.R.&Kane,H.(1994).FullHouse:ReassessingtheEarth’sPopulation
CarryingCapacity.NewYork:WWNortonandCo.Brush,StephenB.(1992).ReconsideringtheGreenRevolution:Diversityand
StabilityinCradleAreasofCropDomestication.HumanEcology.20(2):145‐167.
Buckland,Jerry(2004).PloughingUpTheFarm:Neoliberalism,ModernTechnology
andtheStateoftheWorld’sFarmers.BlackPoint,NS:FernwoodPublishing.Chambers,Robert&GordonR.Conway(1991).SustainableRuralLivelihoods:
PracticalConceptsforthe21stCentury.IDSDiscussionPaper296.Chappell,MichaelJahi&LilianaA.LaValle(2011).Foodsecurityandbiodiversity:
Anagroecologicalanalysis.AgricHumValues.28:3‐26.Chivian,Eric&AaronBernstein(2008).GeneticayModifiedFoodsandOrganic
Farming.InEricChivian&AaronBernstein(Eds.)SustainingLife:HowHumanHealthDependsonBiodiversity(383‐405).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Chrispeels,MaartenJ.(2000).BiotechnologyandthePoor.PlantPhysiology.124:
3‐6.Crosson,P.&Anderson,J.(1995).AchievingaSustainableAgriculturalSysteminSub‐ SaharanAfrica.BuildingBlockforAfricaPaperNo2,AFTES,TheWorldBank, WashingtonDC.DeHaan,Leo&AnnelieZoomers(2005).ExploringtheFrontierofLivelihoods
Research.DevelopmentandChange.36(1):27‐47.DepartmentforInternationalDevelopment(DFID)(2004).Agriculture,hungerand
foodsecurity.UKDepartmentforInternationalDevelopment.London.Dubuisson‐Quellier,Sophie&ClaireLamine(2008).Consumerinvolvementinfair
tradeandlocalfoodsystems:delegationandempowermentregimes.GeoJournal.73:55‐65.
Ehrlich,PaulR.etal.(1993).FoodSecurity,PopulationandEnvironment.Population
andDevelopmentReview.19(1):1‐32.
Page 132
126
Fernandes,Ericketal.(2002).RethinkingAgricultureforNewOpportunities.InNormanUphoff(Eds.),AgroecologicalInnovations:IncreasingFoodProductionwithParticipatoryDevelopment(21‐39).Sterling,VA:EarthscanPublications.
Freidmann,Harriet(2005).FromColonialismToGreenCapitalism:Social
MovementsandEmergenceOfFoodRegimes.RuralSociologyandDevelopment.11:227‐264.
Frison,E.A.etal.(2006).Agriculturalbiodiversity,nutrition,andhealth:Makinga
differencetohungerandnutritioninthedevelopingworld.FoodandNutritionBulletin.27(2):167–179.
Gani,Azmat&BimanChandPrasad(2007).Foodsecurityandhumandevelopment.
InternationalJournalofSocialEconomics.34(5):310‐319.Gliessman,StephenR.(1990).QuantifyingtheAgroecologicalComponentof
SustainableAgriculture:AGoal.InStephenR.Gliessman(Ed.)Agroecology:ResearchingtheEcologicalBasisforSustainableAgriculture(367‐370).NewYork:Springer‐Verlag.
PragueGlobalPolicyInstitute(Glopolis)(ND).FoodSovereigntyAsAWayToAchieve
FoodSecurity:SmallStepsInTheCzechRepublicTowardsSustainableAgriculturalProductionAndConsumption.PolicyBrief.Accessedat:http://glopolis.org/en/articles/food‐sovereignty‐way‐achieve‐food‐security/
GómezTovar,Lauraetal.(2005).CertifiedorganicagricultureinMexico:market
connectionsandcertificationpracticesinlargeandsmallproducers.JournalofRuralStudies.21:461‐474.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐.(2007).ReturningtotheRootsoftheOrganicIdeal:Local
MarketsandParticipatoryCertificationinMexico.Accessed:http://www.organicagcentre.ca/Docs/SocialScienceConferences/Rita%20Schwentesius%20et%20al%20paper.pdf
González,AlmaAmalia&RonaldNigh(2005).Smallholderparticipationand
certificationoforganicfarmproductsinMexico.JournalofRuralStudies.21:449‐460.
Green,GaryPaul&AnnaHaines(2012).AssetBuilding&CommunityDevelopment
(3rdEdition).Washington,D.C.:SagePublications.Grove,ThurmanL.&CliveA.Edwards(1993).DoWeneedanewdevelopmental
paradigm?Agriculture,EcosystemsandEnvironment.46:135‐145.
Page 133
127
Guthman,Julie(2000).Raisingorganic:Anagro‐ecologicalassessmentofgrowerpracticesinCalifornia.AgricultureandHumanValues.17:257‐266.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐(2007).ThePolanyianWay?VoluntaryFoodLabelsasNeoliberal
Governance.Antipode.456‐478.Harrison,David(1988).TheSociologyofModernization&Development.Winchester,
Mass.:UnwinHyman.Hesser,Leon(2006).TheManwhoFedTheWorld:NobelPeacePrizeLaureate
NormanBorlaugAndHisBattletoEndWorldHunger.Dallas,Texas:DurbanHousePublishingCompany.
Hillel,Daniel&CynthiaRosenzweig(2008).BiodiversityandFoodProduction.In
EricChivian&AaronBernstein(Eds.)SustainingLife:HowHumanHealthDependsonBiodiversity(325‐381).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Hinrich,C.Clare(2000).Embeddednessandlocalfoodsystems:notesontwotypes
ofdirectagriculturalmarket.JournalofRuralStudies.16:295‐303.Hochreiter,Claudia(2011).¿Certificadoconconfianzaysolidaridad?Actitud,
beneficiosyretosdecampesinosorgánicosenSistemasParticipativosdeGarantíaenCacahoatán,Mexico.(MastersDissertation).UniversityofNaturalResourcesandLifeSciences:Vienna.
Holt‐Giménez,Eric(2006).CampesinoACampesion:VoicesfromLatinAmerica’s
FarmerToFarmerMovementforSustainableAgriculture.Oakland,California:FoodFirstBooks.
Holt‐Giménez,Eric&RajPatel(2009).FoodRebellions!CrisisandtheHunderfor
Justice.Boston,MA:GrassrootsInternational.InternationalAssessmentofAgricultureKnowledge,ScienceandTechnologyfor
Development(IAASTD)(2009).IAASTDGlobalReport:AgricultureataCrossroad.Washington,DC:IslandPress.
InternationalFundforAgriculturalDevelopment(IFAD)(2003).TheAdoptionof
OrganicAgricultureAmongSmallFarmersinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbea:ThematicEvaluation.ReportNo.1337.
InternationalFederationofOrganicMovements(IFOAM)(2008).Participatory
GuaranteeSystems:5CaseStudies.IFOAM,Germany.Accessedat:http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/pdfs/PGS_PDFs/Studies_Book_Web_20091030ILB.pdf
Page 134
128
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐(2011).HowGovernmentsCanSupportParticipatoryGuaranteeSystems(PGS).IFOAM.Accessedat:http://www.ifoam.org/press/positions/pdfs/Policy_Brief_PGS_web.pdf
Isakson,S.Ryan(2007).BetweentheMarketandtheMilpa:MarketEngagements,
PeasantLivelihoodStrategies,andtheOn‐farmConservationofCropGeneticDiversityintheGuatemalanHighlands.(DoctoralDissertation).UniversityofMassachusetts:Amherst.
Juarez,Benjamin&CarlosGonzalez(2010).FoodSecurityandNutritioninMexico.
USDAForeignAgriculturalService,GlobalAgriculturalInformationNetwork(GAIN)Report.
Källander,Inger(2008).ParticipatoryGuaranteeSystems–PGS.SwedishSocietyforNatureConservation.Accessedat:http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/standards/pgs/pdfs/PGSstudybySSNC_2008.pdf
Kennedy,Ginaetal.(2003).Thescourgeof“hiddenhunger”globaldimensionsof
micronutrientdeficiencies.Food,NutritionandAgriculture.32:8‐16.Kent,George(2005).FreedomFromWant:thehumanrighttoadequatefood.
Washington,D.C.:GeorgetownUniversityPress.Kuyvenhoven,Arie&RuerdRuben(2002).EconomicConditionsforSustainable
AgriculturalIntensification.InNormanUphoff(Ed.),AgroecologicalInnovations:IncreasingFoodProductionwithParticipatoryDevelopment(57‐70).Sterling,VA:EarthscanPublications.
LaTrobe,Helen(2001).Farmer’smarkets:consuminglocalruralproduce.
InternationalJournalofConsumerStudies.25(3):181‐192.Lee,Richard.(2007).FoodSecurityandFoodSovereignty.CentreforRuralEconomy
DiscussionPaperSeriesNo.11.Liebman,Matt(1995).PolycultureCroppingSystemsinAgroecology:TheScienceof
SustainableAgriculture.(2ndedition)Alteri,MiguelA.(Ed.)Boulder,Colorado:WestviewPress
Lohr,Luanne(1998).ImplicationsofOrganicCertificationforMarketStructureand
Trade.AmericanJournalofAgriculturalEconomics.80(5):1125‐1129.
Page 135
129
Lovendal,C.R.&M.Knowles(2007).Tomorrow’sHunger:AFrameworkforAnalysingVulnerabilitytoFoodSecurity.InGuha‐Khasnobis,Basudeb,ShabdS.Acharya&BenjaminDavis(Eds.)FoodSecurity:Indicators,Measurements,andtheImpactsofTradeOpenness(62‐94.).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
May,Christopher(2008).PGSGuidelines:HowParticipatoryGuaranteeSystemsCan
DevelopAndFunction.IFOAM.Accessedat:http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/pdfs/PGS_PDFs/PGS_Guidelines_EN_Web.pdf
Maxwell,Daniel&KeithWiebe(1999).LandTenureandFoodSecurity:Exploring
DynamicLinkages.DevelopmentandChange.30:825‐849.Maxwell,S.&M.Smith(1992).HouseholdFoodSecurity:AConceptualReview,inS.
Maxwell and T. Frankenberger (eds) Household food Security: Concepts,Indicators, and Measurements: A Technical Review. New York and Rome.UNICEFandIFAD.
Maxwell,Simon(1996).Foodsecurity:apost‐modernperspective.FoodPolicy.
21(2):155‐170.Mechlem,Kerstin(2004).FoodSecurityandtheRighttoFoodintheDiscourseof
theUnitedNations.EuropeanLawJournal.10(5):631‐648.Melgoza,Verónica(2009).Recuperacióndenuestraexperiencia2005‐2009.Redde
productoresyconsumidoresresponsables“ComidaSanayCercana”.SanCristobaldeLasCasas,Chiapas.
Menezes,Fancisco(2001).FoodSovereignty:Avitalrequirementforfoodsecurity
inthecontextofglobalization.Development.44(4):29‐33.Mexico.(2003).GuíadeOrientaciónAlimentaria.SecretaríadeSalud.‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐(2010a).Manualparalapreparaciónehigienedealimentosybebidasenlos
establecimientosdeconsumoescolardelosplantelesdeeducaciónbásica.SecretaríadeSalud.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐(2010b).IntitutoNacionaldeEstadísticayGeografía.CensodePoblacióny
Vivienda2010.Accessedat:http://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/mexicocifras/default.aspx?src=487&e=7
Page 136
130
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐(2012).ServiciodeAdministraciónTributaria.SalariosMínimos2011.Accessed:http://www.sat.gob.mx/sitio_internet/informacion_fiscal/decanu/150_22452.html
Moore‐Lappé,Francesetal.(1998)WorldHunger:12Myths.(2ndEdition).London:
EarthscanPublications.Morales,Heldaetal.(2011).NormasyProcedimientosdelaCertificación
AgroecológicaParticipativadelaReddeProductoresyConsumidores“ComidaSanayCercana”.Accessed:http://redcomidasanaycercana.codigosur.net/leer.php/1479251
MoralesGalindo,Isabel(2007).Regionaldevelopmentthroughknowledgecreation
inorganicagriculture.JournalofKnowledgeManagement.11(5):87‐97.Nelson,Erinetal.(2010).ParticipatoryorganiccertificationinMexico:an
alternativeapproachtomaintainingtheintegrityoftheorganiclabel.AgricHumValues.27:227‐237.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐.(2008a)Growingalocalorganicmovement:TheMexican
NetworkofOrganicMarkets.LeisaMagazine.24(1).pp24‐27.Archivedathttp://orgprints.org/13879
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐.(2008b).ParticipatoryGuaranteeSystems:NewApproachesto
OrganicCertification–TheCaseofMexico.16thIFOAMOrganicWorldCongress.Modena,Italy.June16‐20,2008.Archivedathttp://orgprints.org/11652
NijkampPeter&GabriellaVindigni(2002).Foodsecurityandagricultural
sustainability:anoverviewofcriticalsuccessfactors.EnvironmentalManagementandHealth.13(5):495‐511.
O’Hara,SabineU.&SigridStagl(2001).GlobalFoodMarketsandTheirLocal
Alternatives:ASocio‐EcologicalEconomicPerspective.PopulationandEnvironment:AJournalofInterdisciplinaryStudies.22:533‐554.
Paarlberg,Robert(2010).FoodPolitics:WhatEveryoneNeedsToKnow.NewYork:
OxfordUniversityPress.Parayil,Govindan(2003).MappingtechnologicaltrajectoriesoftheGreen
RevolutionandtheGeneRevolutionfrommodernizationtoglobalization.ResearchPolicy.32:971‐990.
Page 137
131
Patel,Raj(2009).Whatdoesfoodsovereigntylooklike?TheJournalofPeasantStudies.36(3):675‐718.
Patel,Rajetal.(2007).ExplorationsOnHumanRights.FeministEconomics.13(1):
87‐116.Perfecto,Ivetteetal.(2009).Nature’sMatrix:LinkingAgriculture,Conservationand
FoodSovereignty.Washington,D.C.:EarthscanPublications.Pisupati,Balakrishna(2004).ConnectingtheDots:Biodiversity,Adaptation,food
SecurityandLivelihoods.UNEP,Nairobi.Pottier,Johan(1999).AnthropologyofFood:TheSocialDynamicofFoodSecurity.
Malden,MA:BlackwellPublishersInc.Power,AlisonG.(1999).LinkingEcologicalSustainabilityAndWorldFoodNeeds.
Environment,DevelopmentandSustainability.1:185‐196.Pretty,Jules(2009).CanEcologicalAgricultureFeedNineBillionPeople?Monthly
Review.61(6):1‐8.Pretty,JulesN.etal.(1996).SustainableAgriculture:ImpactsonFoodProduction
andChallengesforFoodSecurity.InternationalInstituteforEnvironmentandDevelopment.GatekeeperSeriesNo.60.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐.(2003).Reducingfoodpovertybyincreasingagricultural
sustainabilityindevelopingcountries.Agriculture,EcosystemsandEnvironment.95:217‐234.
Raynolds,LauraT.(2000).Re‐embeddingglobalagriculture:Theinternational
organicandfairtrademovements.AgricultureandHumanValues.17:297‐309.‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐.(2004).TheGlobalizationofOrganicAgro‐FoodNetworks.World
Development.32(5):725‐743.Rigby,Dan&SophieBrown(2003).OrganicFoodandGlobalTrade:IstheMarket
DeliveringAgriculturalSustainability?TheUniversityofManchester.SchoolofEconomicStudies,DiscussionPaperSeries:No.0326.
ReyesGómez,AntonietaCarolina(2010).RedComidaSanayCercana:Construyendo
NuevasEstrategiasdeComercializaciónyProducción.ElColegiodelaFronteraSur.SanCristóbaldeLasCasas.
RockerfellerFoundation(2006).Africa’sTurn:ANewGreenRevolutionforthe21st
Century.NewYork:TheRockerfellerFoundation.
Page 138
132
RosegrantM.W.&Agcaolli,M.(1994).Globalandregionalfooddemand,supplyand
tradeprospectsto2010.IFPRI,Washington,DC.Rosset,Peter(2003).FoodSovereighty:GlobalRallyCryforFarmerMovements.
Backgrounder.FoodFirst:InstituteforFoodandDevelopmentPolicy.9(4).Accessedat:http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/policy_library/data/01064/_res/id=sa_File1/
Scanlan,StephenJ.(2001).FoodAvailabilityandAccessinLesser‐Industrialized
Societies:ATestandInterpretationofNeo‐MalthusianandTechnoecologicalTheories.SociologicalForum.16(2):231‐262.
Scialabba,NadiaEl‐Hage(2007).OrganicAgricultureandFoodSecurity.Foodand
AgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations.InternationalConferenceonOrganicAgricultureandFoodSecurity.3‐5May2007.FAO,Italy.
Scoones,Ian(1998).SustainableRurallivelihoods:AFrameworkForAnalysis.IDS
WorkingPaper72.‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐(2009).Livelihoodperspectiveandruraldevelopment.Journalof
PeasantStudies.36(1):1‐26.
Scott,JamesC.(1998)SeeingLikeAState.London:YaleUniversityPress.Seavoy,Ronald(2000).SubsistenceandEconomicDevelopment.Westport,
Connecticut:Praeger.Sen,Amartya(1981).PovertyandFamines:AnessayonEntitlementsandDeprivation.
NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐(1999).DevelopmentAsFreedom.NewYork:AnchorBooks.Sheehy,M.Skeffingtonetal.(2008).Lessonsfromtwocontrastingorganicgrowing
systems‐Chiapas,MexicoandCuba.DevelopmentsFutureseBook;Proceedingsofconferenceat24th&25thNovember2007;DevelopmentEducationNetwork(DERN),NUIGalway&IrishAid.NUI,Galway
Shiva,Vandana(2000).StolenHarvest.Cambridge,MA:SouthEndPress, Smil,Vaclav(2001).EnrichingtheEarth:FritzHaber,CarlBosch,andthe
TransformationofWorldFoodProduction.Cambridge,Massachusetts:TheMITPress.
Page 139
133
Srivastava,Jitendraetal.(1996).BiodiversityandAgriculture:ImplicationsforConservationandDevelopment.WorldBankTechnicalPaper,Number321.
Stadlmayr,Barbaraetal.(2011).Nutritionindicatorforbiodiversityonfood
consumption‐Areportontheprogressofdataavailability.JournalofFoodCompositionandAnalysis.24:692‐698.
Stagl,Sigrid(2002).LocalOrganicFoodMarkets:PotentialsandLimitationsfor
ContributingtoSustainableDevelopment.Empirica.29:145‐162.Tanumihardjo,SherryA.etal.(2007).Poverty,ObesityandMalnutrition:An
InternationlaPerspectiveRecognizingtheParadox.JournaloftheAmericanDieteticAssociation.107(11):1966‐1972.
Thrupp,LoriAnn(2000).Linkingagriculturalbiodiversityandfoodsecurity:the
valuableroleofagrobiodiversityforsustainableagriculture.InternationalAffairs.76(2):265‐281.
Toledo,Álvaro&BarbaraBurlingame(2006).Biodiversityandnutrition:Acommon
pathtowardsglobalfoodsecurityandsustainabledevelopment.JournalofFoodCompositionandAnalysis.19:477‐483.
UNHumanRightsCouncil(2010).Session16.ReportsubmittedbytheSpecial
Rapporteurontherighttofood,OlivierDeSchutter.UNMillenniumProject(2005).Halvinghunger:itcanbedone.TaskforceonHunger.
Sterling,VA:Earthscan.Uphoff,Norman(2002).TheAgriculturalDevelopmentChallengesWeFace.In
NormanUphoff(Ed.),AgroecologicalInnovations:IncreasingFoodProductionwithParticipatoryDevelopment(3‐20).Sterling,VA:EarthscanPublications.
ViaCampesina.(1996).FoodSovereignty:AFutureWithoutHunger.Weis,Tony(2007).TheGlobalFoodEconomy:TheBattleForTheFutureofFarming.
Halifax,NovaScotia:FernwoodPublishing.Young,E.M.(2004).Globalizationandfoodsecurity:novelquestionsinanovel
context?ProgressinDevelopmentStudies.4(1):1‐21.
Page 140
134
AppendixA:InterviewGuide
Name: Date:Location:
1. a)Howmanypeopleliveinyourhousehold?b)Howmanychildren?
2. a)Howmanyyearshaveyoubeenfarmingunderorganic,agroecologicalorcleanmethods?☐<1☐1‐5☐6‐10☐11‐15☐20+b)HowlonghaveyoubeensellingattheTianguis?c)Howmanyhoursaday/weekdoyouwork?d)HasthischangedsincejoiningtheTianguis?e)Ifyes,why?f)Howmanyhoursdoyousleepeachnight?
3. a)Areyourcropssold,consumedinthehouseholdorboth?Before☐Sold☐Consumedinthehousehold☐BothAfter☐Sold☐Consumedinthehousehold☐Bothb)Howmuchisconsumedorsold?Before All Nearlyall Half QuarterNoneSold ☐☐ ☐☐☐Consumed ☐☐ ☐☐☐After All Nearlyall Half QuarterNoneSold ☐☐ ☐☐☐Consumed ☐☐ ☐☐☐
Page 141
135
c)Ifchanged,why?
d)Ifcropsaresold,howmuchdoyouearnfromthecropsalesinagivenweek?
e)Doesthisvaryfromseasontoseason?
f)Byhowmuch?
g)Why?
h)Whatisthebestseason/time?
i)Whatdoyoudowiththerevenuefromyouragriculturalsales?
4. a)Arethereanycropsthatyou’vestoppedgrowingsincebelongingtoTianguis?
b)What?c)Why?d)Arethereanycropsthatyou’vestartedgrowingsincebelongingtoTianguis?e)What?f)Why?g)Growanythingthatyoudon’teat?
Page 142
136
h)What?i)Whydon’tyoueatthem?
5. a)Doyouraiseanylivestock(ie.Chickens,turkeys,pigs,cows,goats)?Before:After:b)Ifyes,whattypesofanimalsandhowmanydoyouhave?
Before AfterTypeofAnimal Number TypeofAnimal Number
c)Ifchanged,why?d)Isyourlivestock,ortheproductsofyourlivestock(e.g.eggs,wool)sold,consumedwithinthehouseholdorboth?BeforeAnimal1 ☐Sold☐Consumedwithinthehousehold☐BothAnimal2 ☐Sold☐Consumedwithinthehousehold☐BothAnimal3 ☐Sold☐Consumedwithinthehousehold☐BothAnimal4 ☐Sold☐Consumedwithinthehousehold☐BothAnimal5 ☐Sold☐Consumedwithinthehousehold☐BothAfterAnimal1 ☐Sold☐Consumedwithinthehousehold☐BothAnimal2 ☐Sold☐Consumedwithinthehousehold☐BothAnimal3 ☐Sold☐Consumedwithinthehousehold☐BothAnimal4 ☐Sold☐Consumedwithinthehousehold☐BothAnimal5 ☐Sold☐Consumedwithinthehousehold☐Both
Page 143
137
e)Approximatelyhowmuchisconsumedorsold?Before All Nearlyall Half QuarterNoneSold ☐☐ ☐☐☐Consumed ☐☐ ☐☐☐After All Nearlyall Half QuarterNoneSold ☐☐ ☐☐☐Consumed ☐☐ ☐☐☐f)Ifchanged,why?
g)Ifsold,howmuchdoyouearnfromthesalesinaweek?
h)Doesthisvaryfromseasontoseason?
i)Byhowmuch?
j)Why?
k)Whatdoyoudowiththerevenuefromyourlivestocksales?
6.
Page 144
138
a)Arethereanytimesduringtheyearinwhichthemembersofyourhouseholdsdonothaveasufficientquantityoffood?
b)Ifyes,when?
c)Why?
7. a)Whatfoodsdoyoutypicallyeat?
b)Aretheretimeswhenyouhaveadifficulttimeacquiringthesefoods?c)Ifyes,which? d)When?e)Why?f)Arethereothertypesoffoodthatyouwouldliketoincludeinyourdietbutareunabletodoso?g)Ifyes,what?h)Why?i)Whydon’tyoueatthem?j)HasyourdietchangedsincebelongingtotheTianguis?k)How?
Page 145
139
l)Why?m)Isthereanythingthatyoueatnowthatyoudidn’tbefore?n)What?o)Whydoyounoweatit?
8. a)Whatpercentageoffoodconsumedbythehouseholdispurchased?
Before All Nearlyall Half QuarterNone ☐☐ ☐☐☐After All Nearlyall Half QuarterNone ☐☐ ☐☐☐b)Ifchanged,why?
c)Pleaselistfoodthatyourhouseholdtypicallypurchases
d)Wheredoyoupurchaseyourfood(ie.Otherfarmers,tianguis,Walmart)?Before AfterFoodItem Where
purchasedFoodItem Where
purchased
Page 146
140
e)Whatdidyoueatyesterdayforbreakfast,lunch,dinnerandsnacks?Whatwasfromyourfarm,purchasedorexchanged?(OF=ownfarm,P=purchased,E=exchanged)BreakfastItem
OF P E LunchItem OF P E
DinnerItem
OF P F SnackItem OF P E
f)Arethereanytimesduringthecourseofthetypicalyearinwhichyouarenotabletopurchaseasufficientquantityoffoodforyourhousehold?g)Ifyes,when?h)Why?
Page 147
141
9. a)Whatinputs(ie.fertilizer,seeds,labour,etc)doyoupurchaseeachyear?Before AfterInput1 Input1
Input2 Input2
Input3 Input3
Input4 Input4
Input5
Input5
b)Howmuchofeachinputdoyoupurchaseinagivenyear?
c)Howmuchdoyouspendoneachoftheseinputsinagivenyear?Before After Howmuch
purchased
Howmuchspent
Howmuchpurchased
Howmuchspent
Input1
Input1
Input2
Input2
Input3
Input3
Input4
Input4
Input5
Input5
10. a)Haveyouexperiencedanycropfailures?b)Ifyes,duetowhat?c)Howfrequently?
Page 148
142
11. a)DoyousellyourcropsorproductsatplacesotherthantheTianguis?b)Ifyes,where?
12. a)Doyoureceiveadditionalsupportorincomefromsourcesotherthanyouragriculturalproduction(eg.Wagelabour,remittances,salesofhandicrafts,etc)?Fromwho/what?
13. a)Howmuchlanddoyouwork?b)Howmuchofthisdoyouown?c)Howmuchofthisdoyourent?d)Doyouownlandthatyourenttootherfarmers?e)Describethequalityofthelandthatyouworkf)Hasthequalityofyourlandchanged(ie.improved,worsened)?g)Why?
14. Whowouldyouidentifyasthekeydecisionmakerofthehousehold?
15. Whyisagroecologyimportant?
16. InwhatwayshassellingattheTianguisimpactedyourhousehold?