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

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

iii

Acknowledgements

Thankyoutomysupervisor,Dr.RyanIsakson,forhisguidancethroughoutboththisthesisprojectandmuchofmyacademiccareer.ManythankstoDr.HeldaMorales,forinvitingmetoSanCristóbalandsupportingmyfieldresearch.Aswell,thankyoutoAnneGreenbergforherassistanceduringinterviewsandinsightintoagroecologyinChiapas.Tomyfriendsandfamily,fortheirconstantencouragementandsupport.Aboveall,IwouldliketothanktheproducersoftheTianguisfortheirpatience,hospitalityandenthusiasmthroughoutmyfieldresearch.

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

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

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

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).

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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).

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

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

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

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’.

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

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)

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

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.

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

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

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).

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

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

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).

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).

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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.

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

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,

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.

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”.

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.

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).

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”

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).

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.

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

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

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

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,

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).

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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%

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

106

ThepoliticalsignificanceoftheTianguisvariedgreatlyamongtheproducers.

Inconversation,theEPmemberconfirmedthatcertainproducersweremore

politicallymotivatedtoparticipatethanothers.Sheherselfstronglyfeltthis

connection,statingthatthatchoiceofwheretopurchasegoodsisapolitical

decision24.

24“Dondesecompraesunadecisiónpolitica”

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.

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,

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

119

circumstancesanddemonstratedhowspecializationofproductionandincreased

dependenceonpurchasedfoodhavenegativelyimpactedhishousehold’sfood

security.Whereasotherproducershavecontinuedtodiversifytheirproducts,his

householddidotherwise;theconsequencesofwhichwerereflectedinhisaccount.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ☐☐ ☐☐☐

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?

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

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.

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?

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

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?

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?

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?