Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Institutional support and in situ conservation in Mexico: biases against small-scale maize farmers in post-NAFTA agricultural policy

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the major adjustments brought on by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was a change in the relationship between Mexican agricultural support institutions and the small-scale agricultural sector. Post-NAFTA restructuring programs sought to correct previous inefficiencies in this sector, but they have also had the effect of marginalizing the producers who steward and manage the country’s reserve of maize (Zea mays) genetic diversity. Framed by research suggesting that certain maize varieties in a rain-fed farming region in southern Sonora are in danger of loss due chiefly to long-term drought, this article explores the ramifications of post-NAFTA agricultural policies for in situ maize diversity conservation. Qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews with agricultural support institutions and participant observation with farmers, were used to gather data on dryland farmers’ access to research and extension, as well as possibilities for collective action. In southern Sonora, agricultural support is oriented primarily toward high-tech production, and there are structural barriers to small-scale farmers’ access to research and extension institutions. Further, collective action around agriculture is limited. These circumstances represent significant limitations to farmers’ options for accessing new techniques which might help maintain maize diversity in the context of economic and environmental change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Native Seeds/SEARCH is a Tucson, AZ-based non-profit seed bank maintaining collections of crop varieties from the southwest of the United States and northwest Mexico (www.nativeseeds.org).

  2. In SIAP’s online database, data for Alamos are available only from 2002 onward.

  3. In my 2004 survey of one Alamos ejido (N = 30), only 27.6% of farmers reported selling maize. In contrast, 100% of farmers reported selling their sesame crop, and 62.1% and 80.2% reported selling beans and squash, respectively.

  4. See Haenn (2005) for a review of the structure of the ejido system and its implications for land tenure and community expansion in Mexico. Sheridan (1996) presents a similar review of the structure of ejido communities in Sonora.

  5. Initially, under the administration of Ernesto Zedillo (1994–2000) these programs were introduced as Alianza para el campo. However, under the Vincente Fox administration (2000–2006), the name of this program was changed to Alianza contigo (“Alliance with you”). There was significant continuity between these two administrations’ management, and the term Alianza is used to refer to the programs of both periods.

  6. The amount of farmers’ income accounted for by PROCAMPO varied by state in the SAGARPA survey, and this variation is mirrored in the literature. In Veracruz, where producers earn approximately $300 US per hectare for their maize crops, PROCAMPO offers an additional $82 US per hectare of support (King 2006), an amount equal to 21% of a given farmer’s per-hectare income from maize. For poor maize producers in Chiapas, this proportion may be as high as 50% of the gross value of maize production (Hellin et al. 2007).

  7. Translation by the author. The original reads: “La Alianza surgió a fines de 1995 y comenzó a operar en 1996, en un contexto marcado por la creciente influencia del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte sobre la economía Mexicana. En ese marco se estableció que la Alianza buscaría impactar sobre la producción y productividad, el ingreso de los productores, la capitalización de sus unidades productivas, la innovación tecnológica, y la capacitación.”

  8. Translation by the author. The original reads: “…enfrentan limitaciones estructurales que en muchos casos evitan el aprovechamiento pleno de las inversions, lo que a su vez reduce sus impactos.” By the same token, however, the report found that large-scale farmers also were less likely to experience high impacts from Alianza’s investment possibilities, given that the size of investment that the program was able to offer was likely to have little impact, in terms of relative improvement, on these farmers’ productive schemes.

  9. See Haenn (2005), and Sheridan (1996) for more extensive reviews of this type of small-scale production in Mexico.

  10. CIANO and CIMMYT both work in partnership with local universities to train students in agriculture. However, the training these students receive is shaped by the orientation of these institutions toward the irrigated, mechanized agricultural systems found on the coastal plain. Furthermore, with relatively lucrative opportunities available in private extension work within these systems, it would make little sense for a student to choose to study relatively unprofitable rain-fed agriculture.

  11. In fact, one government-employed agronomist with whom I spoke in 2004 could think of only one acquaintance—a resident of Sinaloa—who worked as a private extensionist with small-scale, rain-fed agriculture.

Abbreviations

BANRURAL:

Banco Nacional de Crédito Rural (National Rural Credit Bank)

CIANO:

Centro de Investigaciónes Agrícolas del Noroeste (Agricultural Research Center of the Northwest)

CIMMYT:

Centro Internacional para el Mejoramiento del Maíz y el Trigo (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

CONASUPO:

Compañía Nacional de Subsistencias Populares (National Company for Popular Subsistence)

FAO:

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FERTIMEX:

Industria Mexicana de Fertilizantes (Mexican Fertilizer Industry)

INIFAP:

Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas, y Pecuarias (National Institute for Forestry, Agricultural, and Livestock Research)

NAFTA:

North American Free Trade Agreement

PAPIR:

Programa de Apoyos a Proyectos de Inversión Rural (Support Program for Rural Investment Projects)

PIEAES:

Patronato para la Investigación y Experimentación Agrícola del Estado de Sonora (Agricultural Research and Experimentation Board of the State of Sonora)

PROCAMPO:

Programa de Apoyos Directos al Campo (Program of Direct Support to the Countryside)

PRODESCA:

Programa de Desarrollo de Capacidades en el Medio Rural (Program for Rural Capacity Building)

PRONASE:

Programa Nacional de Semillas (National Seed Program)

SAGARPA:

Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, and Alimentación (Secretary of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries, and Nutrition)

SDR:

Secretaría de Desarrollo Rural (Secretary of Rural Development)

SINACATRI:

Sistema Nacional de Capacitación y Asistencia Técnica Rural Integral (Nacional System for Integrated Rural Capacity Building and Technical Assistance)

References

  • Appendini, K. 2001. De la milpa a los tortibonos: La reestructuración de la política alimentaria en México, 2nd ed. Mexico City, Mexico: El Colegio de Mexico and the United Nations Institute for Social Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bänziger, M., G.O. Edmeades, D. Beck, and M. Bellon. 2000. Breeding for drought and nitrogen stress tolerance in maize: From theory to practice. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.

  • Barbier, E.B. 2000. Links between economic liberalization and rural resource degradation in the developing regions. Agricultural Economics 23: 299–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkin, D. 2003. El maíz y la economía. In Sin maíz no hay país, ed. G. Esteva, and C. Marielle, 155–176. Mexico City, Mexico: Consejo Nacional para las Culturas Populares.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellon, M.R., M. Adato, J. Becerril, and D. Mindek. 2005. The impact of improved maize germplasm on poverty alleviation: The case of Tuxpeño-derived materials in Mexico. Mexico City, Mexico: CIMMYT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biles, J.J., and B.W. Pigozzi. 2000. The interaction of economic reforms, socio-economic structure, and agriculture in Mexico. Growth and Change 31: 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biles, J.J., K. Brehm, A. Enrico, C. Kiendl, E. Morgan, A. Teachout, and K. Vasquez. 2007. Globalization of food retailing and transformation of supply networks: Consequences for small-scale agricultural producers in southeastern Mexico. Journal of Latin American Geography 6: 55–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonilla, J., and G. Viatte. 1995. Radical reform in Mexican agriculture. OECD Observer 191: 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, S.B. (ed.). 2000. Genes in the field: On-farm conservation of crop genetic diversity. Rome, Italy: IDRC/IPGRI/Lewis Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, S.B. 2004. Farmers’ bounty: Locating crop diversity in the contemporary world. New Haven, UK: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, S.B., and H.R. Perales. 2007. A maize landscape: Ethnicity and agro-biodiversity in Chiapas, Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 121 (3): 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, M.A., and B.W. Tomlin. 2002. The making of NAFTA: How the deal was done. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, K.J., S.B. Brush, M.N. Grote, and P. Gepts. 2007. Describing maize (Zea mays L.) landrace persistence in the Bajío of Mexico: A survey of 1940s and 1950s collection locations. Economic Botany 61 (1): 60–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CIMMYT. 2006. Is native maize diversity being lost in Mexico? CIMMYT E-News 3 (11). http://www.cimmyt.org/english/wps/news/2006/nov/fraylesca.htm. Accessed 10 Dec 2006.

  • De Janvry, A., E. Sadoulet, and G. Deanda. 1995. NAFTA and Mexico’s maize producers. World Development 23 (8): 1349–1362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, A. 2004. Drought enters ninth year in birthplace of the Green Revolution crisis for farmers in the Yaqui Valley. Encina Columns, Spring Edition, Stanford Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, 11–14.

  • Dyer, G., and E. Taylor. 2002. Rethinking the supply response to market reforms in agriculture: Household heterogeneity in rural general equilibrium analysis. PhD dissertation, University of California, Davis.

  • FAO/SAGARPA. 2003. Evaluación de la Alianza para el campo, 2002: Informe de evaluación general, conclusions y recomendaciones. http://www.evalalianza.org.mx/eval2002/productos/informes/NAL_CONYREC_2002.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2006.

  • Fitting, E. 2004. “No hay dinero en la milpa”: El maíz y el hogar transnacional del sur del valle de Tehuacan. In La economía política de la migración internacional en Puebla y Veracruz: Siete estudios de caso, ed. L. Binford, 61–101. Mexico City, Mexico: CONACYT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitting, E. 2006. Importing corn, exporting labor: The neoliberal corn regime, GMOs, and the erosion of biodiversity in Mexico? Journal of Agriculture and Human Values 23 (1): 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García Barrios, R., and L. García Barrios. 1990. Environmental and technological degradation in peasant agriculture: A consequence of development in Mexico. World Development 18 (11): 1569–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gravel, N. 2007. Mexican smallholders adrift: The urgent need for a new social contract in rural Mexico. Journal of Latin American Geography 6: 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haenn, N. 2005. Fields of power, forests of discontent: Culture, conservation, and the state in Mexico. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellin, J, M. Lundy, and M. Meijer. 2007. Farmer organization, collective action, and market access in Meso-America. Paper presented at Research Workshop on Collective Action and Market Access for Smallholders, Cali, Colombia, October 2–6, 2006. http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/capriwp67.pdf. Accessed 29 Oct 2008.

  • Hendrickson, M., and H. James. 2005. The ethics of constrained choice: How the industrialization of agriculture impacts farming and farmer behavior. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (3): 269–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INEGI. 2005. II conteo de población y vivienda 2005. http://www.inegi.gob.mx/est/contenidos/espanol/proyectos/conteos/conteo2005/default.asp?c=6224. Accessed 11 Dec 2006.

  • Keilbach Baer, N.M. 2005. Maíz y frijol en México: Perspectivas frente a la liberalización total de su comercio en el 2008. Reference document for the Oxfam-Central America Free Trade Campaign. Mexico City, Mexico: Oxfam GB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keleman, A. 2005. Methodology in a time of crackdown. Tropical Resources: The Bulletin of the Yale Tropical Resources Institute 24: 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keleman, A. 2008. Maize diversity loss and patterns of environmental and cultural change in Alamos, Sonora. Unpublished Working Paper.

  • King, A. 2006. Ten years with NAFTA: A review of the literature and an analysis of farmer responses in Sonora and Veracruz, Mexico. CIMMYT Special Report 06–01: Mexico City, Mexico: CIMMYT/Congressional Hunger Center.

  • Klepeis, P., and C. Vance. 2003. Neoliberal policy and deforestation in southeastern Mexico: An assessment of the PROCAMPO program. Economic Geography 79 (3): 220–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, S., and S. van Wijnbergen. 1992. Maize and the free trade agreement between Mexico and the United States. The World Bank Economic Review 6 (3): 481–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipper, L., and D. Cooper. 2008. Managing plant genetic resources for sustainable use in food and agriculture: Balancing the benefits in the field. In Agrobiodiversity, conservation, and economic development, ed. A. Kontoleon, U. Pascual, and M. Smale, 27–39. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, F.W. 1998. Interpreting NAFTA: The science and art of political analysis. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J.H. 1997. Privatizing the family farmer: NAFTA and the transformation of the Mexican dairy sector. Human Organization 56 (3): 321–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J.H. 1999. The neoliberal project and governmentality in rural Mexico: Emergent farmer organization in the Michoacán highlands. Human Organization 58 (3): 274–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J.H. 2001. Reconfiguring the countryside: Power, control, and the (re)organization of farmers in west Mexico. Human Organization 60 (3): 247–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadal, A. 2000. The environmental and social impacts of economic liberalization on corn production in Mexico. Gland, Switzerland and Oxford, UK: WWF International and Oxford GB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadal, A. 2002. Zea mays: Effects of trade liberalization on Mexico’s corn sector. In Greening the Americas: NAFTA’s lessons for hemispheric trade, ed. C.L. Deere and D.C. Esty, 143–162. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadal, A., and T.A. Wise. 2004. The environmental costs of agricultural trade liberalization: Mexico-US maize trade under NAFTA. Discussion Paper No. 4, Working Group on Development and Environment in the Americas. http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/WorkingGroup.htm. Accessed 9 Dec 2006.

  • Nadal, A., and H. García Rañó. 2006. Trade, poverty, and the environment: A case study in the biosphere reserve Sierra de Santa Marta. Final Report to World Wildlife Foundation, Mexico, DF.

  • Olson, M. 1971. The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega Paczka, R. 2003. La diversidad del maíz en México. In Sin maíz no hay país, ed. G. Esteva and C. Marielle, 123–154. Mexico City, Mexico: Consejo Nacional para las Culturas Populares.

    Google Scholar 

  • PIEAES. 2001. A model for productive farmer-researcher partnerships. Organizational brochure. Sonora, Mexico: PIEAES.

  • Pilcher, J. 2002. Industrial tortillas and folkloric Pepsi: The nutritional consequences of hybrid cuisines in Mexico. In Food nations: Selling taste in consumer societies, ed. W. Belasco and P. Scranton, 222–239. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, J., and A. Puyana. 2006. Diez años con el TLCAN: Las experiencias del sector agropecuario mexicano. Mexico City, Mexico: FLACSO-El Colegio de México.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAGARPA. 2002. Resultados de la aplicación del cuestionario a productores de PROCAMPO. http://www.procampo.gob.mx/result_enc_procampo.html. Accessed 11 June 2006.

  • Sheridan, T. 1996. Where the dove calls: The political ecology of a peasant corporate community in northwest Mexico. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shriar, A. 2002. Food security and land use deforestation in northern Guatemala. Food Policy 27: 395–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SINACATRI. n.d. http://www.sinacatri.gob. Accessed 20 Nov 2006.

  • Smale, M., M.R. Bellón, and J.A. Aguirre Gómez. 1999. The private and public characteristics of maize land races and the area allocation decisions of farmers in a center of crop diversity. Economics Working Paper No. 99-08. Mexico City, Mexico: CIMMYT.

  • Stanford, L. 1994. Transitions to free trade: Local impacts of changes in Mexican agrarian policy. Human Organization 53 (2): 99–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yetman, D. 1998. Scattered round stones: A Mayo village in Sonora, Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yetman, D., and T. Van Devender. 2002. Mayo ethnobotany: Land, history, and traditional knowledge in northwest Mexico. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yúnez-Naude, A. 2003. The dismantling of CONASUPO, a Mexican State-trader in agriculture. The World Economy 26: 97–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a the Yale Tropical Resources Institute Summer Fellowship; the Coca-Cola World Fund at Yale; the Yale Latin American and Iberian Studies Summer Travel Grants; the Yale Agrarian Societies Summer Travel Grants; and the EPA STAR Fellowship. Native Seeds/SEARCH provided institutional support, and Dr. Suzanne Nelson offered invaluable input and collaboration in fieldwork. The author is indebted to Drs. Michael R. Dove, Cheryl Doss, Jonathan Hellin, Alejandro Nadal, Antonio Serratos, John Tuxill, and David Cleveland, as well as three anonymous reviewers, for comments on a series of drafts. Finally, thanks are due to the Colegio de Mexico, CIMMYT, and the Fox International Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fox International Fellowship, Yale University, c/o Food and Agriculture Organization, Agricultural Development Economics Division, Room C309, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153, Rome, Italy

    Alder Keleman

Authors
  1. Alder Keleman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alder Keleman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keleman, A. Institutional support and in situ conservation in Mexico: biases against small-scale maize farmers in post-NAFTA agricultural policy. Agric Hum Values 27, 13–28 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9192-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9192-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation