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

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

Correlates of Maize Land and Livelihood Change Among Maize Farming Households in Mexico

“…The new policies re-oriented public policy toward those farmers considered to have commercial potential: generally the larger farmers, with land amendable to irrigation and mechanization, and a production capacity that permitted sales to commercial wholesalers (Appendini, 2014;Keleman, 2010). PROCAMPO, the direct per-hectare payment program for all farmers of basic grains (irrespective of scale), was initiated in 1994 and quickly became one of the only remaining accessible sources of agricultural support for maize smallholders.…”

“…Grain farmers in the state have substantially benefited from the new support programs of ASERCA: namely, support for commercialization in international markets (the price insurance program Cobertura de Precios, and support for futures contracts, Compras Anticipadas); income support in light of market volatility (Ingreso Objectivo); and support for technological improvements via investment in irrigation and mechanization (Appendini, 2014;Eakin, Bausch et al, 2014;Fox & Haight, 2010;Keleman, 2010).…”

Densidad de siembra y crecimiento de maíces forrajeros.

“…En el Estado de Oaxaca, en el 90% del área total establecida con maíz se utilizan variedades nativas, provenientes de treinta razas (Aragón et al 2005); de las 59 que existen en el país (Martín et al 2008), lo que se explica porque esta gramínea se originó y domesticó en México (Pecina et al 2009, Keleman 2010 hace nueve mil años a partir del teocintle tropical (Warburton et al 2008, Piperno et al 2009). Solo el 10% de la superfi cie establecida con híbridos en esa entidad federativa incluye genotipos sembrados para forraje, los cuales rinden 36,2 t/ha de biomasa (SIAP 2010).…”

In defense of ecuaros and biodiversity in a Purhépecha community, Michoacán, Mexico

“…In post-NAFTA Mexico the government has marginalized small producers while privileging hi-tech, export-oriented agribusiness firms. An additional consequence is the lack of research and technical assistance necessary for supporting the in situ conservation of maize varieties that has traditionally been carried out by small farmers (Keleman 2010). …”