Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Participatory guarantee systems and the re-imagining of Mexico’s organic sector

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

Abstract

Although it is the most widely accepted form of organic guarantee, third party certification can be inaccessible for small-scale producers and promotes a highly market-oriented vision of organics. By contrast, participatory guarantee systems (PGS) are based on principles of relationship-building, mutual learning, trust, context-specificity, local control, diversity, and collective action. This paper uses the case study of the Mexican Network of Local Organic Markets to explore how PGS can be used to support a more alternative vision of organics, grounded in the notion of food sovereignty. It presents some of the key challenges and opportunities associated with the approach, and highlights its potential to serve as a locally-based institution for collective action, thereby offering some structural support to alternative agri-food initiatives.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although no definitive date marks the beginning of the organic movement, early pioneers included Sir Albert Howard, Lady Eve Balfour and Rudolf Steiner, who were active in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, and the popularity of the concept began to grow significantly in the 1960s and 70s as it was associated with the surge of a broader environmental movement.

  2. Given the highly grassroots, and in many cases still experimental, nature of PGS initiatives, the numbers registered in the database are likely a significant underestimation of the actual numbers of producers and consumers engaged in some way in PGS around the world. This is borne out by stories presented in the PGS Task Force’s monthly newsletter, which recounts many experiences with participatory certification that are not registered in the database.

  3. Although Ostrom’s “Common Pool Resource Institutions” typically refer to the governance of natural resources such as grazing lands, forests or fisheries, in the case of PGS the integrity of Mexico’s local organic markets can be considered a common pool resource, as it contributes significantly to the livelihood opportunities for the participating small- and medium-scale producers and is predicated on the ways in which productive lands and spaces are managed.

  4. For a more detailed account of how PGS functions on the ground in Mexico, as well as the rationale behind its adoption, see Nelson et al. (2010), Villanueva and Schwentesius (2012) and IFOAM (2013).

  5. The remaining 40 % of producers differentiated their goods in some way from the certified organic products offered, for example through the use of signage or colour-coded table coverings.

  6. Levels of concern regarding the validity of PGS were particularly high amongst members of one of Oaxaca City’s markets that, for a number of years, had been working collectively with the third party agency Certimex to achieve organic certification for its producers using an adapted version of the internal control system model.

  7. There is currently no official seal used as an identifying label for products certified through PGS in Mexico; however the Mexican Network of Local Organic Markets’ logo is widely recognized and, although it is not affixed to products for sale, does go same way toward establishing the legitimacy of the PGS ‘brand’.

  8. At the time of research, a 3 year project funded by the Canadian International Development Agency and administered by the Falls Brook Centre that had been central to the development of PGS capacity had come to an end, while a new short-term project with the Ministry of Agriculture was beginning. At the time of writing, cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture to facilitate the implementation of PGS in the country was ongoing.

  9. The Network was granted permission to act as such a recognized organization, lending legitimacy to PGS as carried out by its member markets.

  10. Notably, within the Network itself tensions exist between advocates of a more radically alternative food system vision and those with somewhat more conventional ideas regarding local organic markets.

  11. The Brazilian legislation was eventually passed in 2003, and regulations that included recognition of three forms of organic certification (third party, PGS and social control) came into effect in 2007 (Meirelles 2010).

  12. In addition to consumer preference for some kind of certification system to be in place it is worth remembering that, as mentioned earlier, the Mexican Organic Products Law makes such certification a legal requirement, and it is also beneficial for sales outside of Network markets where there may be no direct contact between producer and consumer, for example in the case of organic specialty stores.

  13. As noted earlier, the high levels of trust reported by consumers in Network producers might suggest that constructing PGS is unnecessary. In Brazil, recognition of the unique circumstances created by face-to-face producer–consumer contact led the Brazilian government to officially recognize a third organic certification option. In cases of direct sale, producers can be granted certification based on their membership in a recognized producer or market association—a process referred to as certification by “social control” (MAPA 2008). This might be an avenue worth exploring in the Mexican context; however, the current structure of the country’s organic legislation might render it impossible, while interest on the part of Network producers to expand their marketing options through PGS might render it undesirable.

  14. Since the research was conducted, the six markets that have fully developed PGS committees have made significant progress in establishing clear processes for addressing non-compliance.

Abbreviations

IFOAM:

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements

PGS:

Participatory guarantee systems

References

  • Allen, P., and M. Kovach. 2000. The capitalist composition of organic: The potential of markets in fulfilling the promise of organic agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M.A., F.R. Funes-Monzote, and P. Petersen. 2012. Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: Contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32: 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M.D., and A.C. Bellows. 2012. Introduction to symposium on food sovereignty: expanding the analysis and application. Introduction to guest-edited symposium of five papers. Agriculture and Human Values 29(2): 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böstrom, M., and M. Klintman. 2006. State-centered versus nonstate-driven organic food standardization: A comparison of the US and Sweden. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 163–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camp, R.A. 2007. Politics in Mexico: The democratic consolidation, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desmarais, A. 2007. La Via Campesina: Globalization and the power of peasants. Black Point: Fernwood Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escalona, M.A. 2009. Los tianguis y mercados locales de alimentos ecológicos en México: su papel en el consumo, la producción y la conservación de la biodiversidad y cultura. Doctoral dissertation. Córdoba, Spain: University of Córdoba.

  • Flora, C.B., and J.L. Flora. 2006. Rural communities: Legacy and change, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaventa, J. 2006. Triumph, deficit, or contestation? Deepening the ‘deepening democracy’ debate. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez Tovar, L., M.Á. Gómez Cruz, and R. Schwentesius Rindermann. 1999. Desafíos de la agricultura orgánica. Mexico City: Editorial Mundi Prensa.

    Google Scholar 

  • González, A.A., and R. Nigh. 2005. Smallholder participation and certification of organic farm products in Mexico. Journal of Rural Studies 21: 449–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D. 2000. Organic and conventional agriculture: materializing discourse and agro-ecological managerialism. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 215–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements). 2008. Participatory guarantee systems: Case studies from Brazil, India, New Zealand, USA, France. Bonn: IFOAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements). 2013. Sistemas Participativos de Garantía: estudios de caso en América Latina. Bonn: IFOAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía). 2011. http://www.inegi.org.mx. Accessed 25 Mar 2011.

  • Källander, I. 2008. Participatory guarantee systems—PGS. Stockholm: Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaltoft, P. 2001. Organic farming in late modernity: At the frontier of modernity or opposing modernity? Sociologia Ruralis 41(1): 146–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg Jr, J., S. Lezberg, D. De Master, G.W. Stevenson, and J. Hendrickson. 2000. Tasting food, tasting sustainability: Defining attributes of an alternative food system with competent, ordinary people. Human Organization 59(2): 177–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MAPA (Minstério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento). 2008. Controle social: na venda direta ao consumidor de productos orgânicos sem certificaçáo. Brasilia: MAPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meirelles, L. 2010. Regulation of the participatory guarantee systems in Brazil: A case study. Bonn: IFOAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, O. 2006. Understanding post organic fresh fruit and vegetable consumers at participatory farmers’ markets in Ireland: reflexivity, trust and social movements. International Journal of Consumer Studies 30(5): 416–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutersbaugh, T. 2005. Fighting standards with standards: harmonization, rents, and social accountability in certified organic agrofood networks. Environment and Planning A 37: 2033–2051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, E., L. Gómez Tovar, R. Schwentesius Rindermann, and M.A. Gómez Cruz. 2010. Participatory organic certification in Mexico: An alternative approach to maintaining the integrity of the organic label. Agriculture and Human Values 27: 227–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., and T.K. Ahn. 2008. The meaning of social capital and its link to collective action. In Handbook on social capital, ed. G.T. Svendsen, and G.L. Svendsen. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, R. 2009. The value of nothing: why everything costs so much more than what we think. Toronto: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimbert, M. 2008. Towards food sovereignty: Reclaiming autonomous food systems. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poteete, A.R., M.A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2010. Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Raynolds, L. 2000. Re-embedding global agriculture: The international organic and fair trade movements. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynié, D. 2011. 2011 World youths: A worldwide survey. Paris: Fondation pour L’Innovation Politique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigby, D. and S. Bown. 2003. Organic food and global trade: is the market delivering agricultural sustainability? In Paper presented to the European society for ecological economics frontiers II conference, 11–15 Feb, Tenerife, Spain.

  • Seppänen, L., and J. Helenius. 2004. Do inspection practices in organic agriculture serve organic values? A case study from Finland. Agriculture and Human Values 21: 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyfang, G. 2007. Cultivating carrots and community: local organic food and sustainable consumption. Environmental Values 16: 105–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suarez, L. 2014. National law of organic production in Mexico finally enters into force. Global PGS Newsletter 4(7): 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tovey, H. 1997. Food, environmentalism, and rural sociology: on the organic farming movement in Ireland. Sociologia Ruralis 37(1): 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villanueva, V., and R. Schwentesius. 2012. PGS networks: The experience of Red Mexicana de Tianguis y Mercados Orgánicos. Global PGS Newsletter 3(2): 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vos, T. 2000. Visions of the middle landscape: Organic farming and the politics of nature. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 245–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willer, H. and J. Lernoud. 2014. The world of organic agriculture. Statistics and emerging trends 2014. Frick: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and Bonn: IFOAM.

  • Wittman, H., A.A. Desmarais, and N. Wiebe (eds.). 2010. Food sovereignty: Reconnecting food, nature and community. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanasi, C., P. Venturi, M. Setti, and C. Rotta. 2009. Participative organic certification, trust and local rural communities development: The case of Rede Ecovida. New Medit 2: 48–56.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the producers, consumers and organizers of the Mexican Network of Local Organic Markets, without whom the research presented here would not have been possible. They also acknowledge Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and International Development Research Centre for the generous funding provided.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Rd. East, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada

    Erin Nelson & Karen Landman

  2. Department of Agroecology, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Km. 38.5 Carr. Mexico-Texcoco, Chapingo, Edo de Mexico, Mexico

    Laura Gómez Tovar & Elodie Gueguen

  3. Department of Sociology/Anthropology, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Rd. East, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada

    Sally Humphries

  4. Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias para el Desarrollo Rural Integral (CIIDRI), Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Km. 38.5 Carr. Mexico-Texcoco, Chapingo, Edo de Mexico, Mexico

    Rita Schwentesius Rindermann

Authors
  1. Erin Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Gómez Tovar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elodie Gueguen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sally Humphries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karen Landman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rita Schwentesius Rindermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin Nelson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nelson, E., Tovar, L.G., Gueguen, E. et al. Participatory guarantee systems and the re-imagining of Mexico’s organic sector. Agric Hum Values 33, 373–388 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9615-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9615-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation