Food security: Different Perspectives

Despite a global consensus on nutrition being a key issue for nations, the paradigms relating to food security and food systems have changed significantly over the last two decades of the XXI century. On the one hand, the social and environmental role that agriculture plays has been revitalized, moving from the preconception that it is solely an activity related to food production to becoming a key element in local and regional development. Furthermore, the relationships between stakeholders within the food system were reevaluated with particular emphasis on that between the farmer and consumer. The AFSCs established elements of interest by creating “connections between rural and urban areas through alternative food movements, created in opposition to a move towards globalization [and] defining themselves as an innovative medium for the creation of a sustainable food paradigm” (^{Marsden & Morley, 2014}, as quoted in ^{Reina-Usuga et al., 2018, p. 184}).

In this context, food security is a multidimensional concept (^{Urquia, 2014}) described during the World Food Summit held in 1996 as follows:

“…Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (^{Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], 1996, p. 1}).

This concept presupposes the existence of a series of dimensions -availability, access, utilization and stability- that are necessary, but not sufficient, to achieve food security and that will, on paper, be operationalized in the following paragraphs.

1) Availability. The tenet of availability is that food exists in all nations in sufficient quantities to satisfy current and future food demands. This then “addresses the ‘supply side’ and is based on the level of food production, stock levels and net trade” (^{FAO and UE, 2010, p. 5}).

With this in mind, and in order to analyze and operationalize this perspective, we propose undertaking an analysis of availability considering several factors that can impact the stock levels of food items, namely:

2) Access. The second dimension of food security entails a growing awareness that food production, or its physical existence, does not guarantee that people can consume it as “ways to access food include trade, barter, foraging for wild foods and community support networks”. (^{FAO and EU, 2010, p.5}) This is an extremely important point as it pertains not only to the actual existence of food supplies but the physical and economic ability needed to access them;

[…]we must bear in mind that access to food supplies depends on market conditions and the cost of food, as well as people’s purchasing power, all of which ties in with opportunities for employment and subsistence’ (^{FAO and EU, 2010, p.1})

With this in mind, from the consumers’ perspective, prices are a key consideration in achieving access to food in the context of food security (^{Dowler et al., 2011}, as quoted in ^{Chiffoleau et al., 2019}, p.183) Thus, access can be analyzed using factors that can influence this dimension, outlined below.

3) Utilization. Here we understand utilization to mean “the way the body makes the most of various nutrients in the food”(^{FAO and UE, 2010, p.6}). This is a multi-dimensional concept as it involves aspects that go beyond food, including hygiene, access to sanitation, water and information about food safety. It is also reflected in the extent to which people benefit from food (in terms of quantity, caloric intake, in proportion and access to basic nutrients). The utilization dimension can be analyzed and operationalized as in the previous cases, by considering the factors that can influence both the quality and the safety of the food, as well the consumer’s knowledge regarding nutritional content, food safety, and the standard with which the food was produced and processed. These factors are as follows:

4) Stability. Given that the first three dimensions are necessary steps in achieving food security, stability is a cross-sectional dimension that can only be attained when the first three are sustained in the long term. Therefore variations, be they internal or external factors of the territory, do not compromise the supply of healthy food products for a region’s population. (^{FAO and UE, 2010}).

From a macro point of view, stability entails the existence of public policy designed to bolster production, balance access to food supplies and encourage the availability and acquisition of safe food products. However, factors that impact on small agri-food production units, primary producers or agro-industries exist. Thus, the element of stability can be analyzed from the following perspective:

However, to achieve food security the dimensions need to be integrated to create sustainable and functional food supply systems using alternative structures consisting of “production, collection, storage, production, consumption [and] commercialization of food products” (^{Bassols et al., 1994, p.36}). Furthermore, it is important to consider that the previous food security construct has a broad analytical scale, at a macro level and on a national scale. It is therefore important to add that although this construct can provide suitable theoretical elements for the analysis of each of the pillars, for the effects of this study, the scope of impact that AFSCs such as M100- an example of an SMC- should be understood and recognized, applied to the aforementioned pillars they may be specific to a micro scale.

This should not be considered a weakness, but as a window of opportunity to encourage and strengthen these alternative organizations, highlighting the contribution to and importance of these markets to local food security in urban areas.

Short Marketing Chains for Food Security

SMCs are defined as “forms of commerce based on the direct sales of fresh or seasonal products [with no or low intermediation] between farmers and consumers”. This encourages geographical proximity, boosts family agriculture, reduces the links on the food value chain and builds trust (^{Padilla and Oddone, 2016}). These SMCs are “spatial concentrations of agricultural exploitations, businesses or institutions in a network that specializes in one subsector or several subsectors of certain agri-foods, according to territory.” (^{Delgadillo and Sanz, 2018, p.10}) These SMCs main characteristics are based on proximity to production, distribution, marketing and consumption areas, as well as the ‘great participation of small stakeholders [that consist of units of] household [and] artisanal economy and flow orientated towards local and regional markets” ^{Azevedo, 2009, p.11})

According to ^{Goodman et al. (2012}), the perception of an unsustainable industrial food model, specific to and characteristic of a globalizing food supply model, could have created the emergence of movements and food production and consumption sites based on ethical and responsible principles centering on organics. Their organizations, such as the SMCs, “represent a promise of separation, [transcending] the long chain supply models, that represent the social construction of new economic models” (^{Chiffoleau et al., 2019, p.182}). These new models counter hegemonic and homogenizing consumer tendencies characteristic of globalization’s commercial processes such as “transnational agri-food businesses [heralding] changes in food consumption based on the expansion of prepared and industrialized food” ^{Pensado, 2003, p. 204}), coupled with changes in food patterns, an increase in the importation of food products with doubtful nutritional value, fast food chains becoming mainstream and an increase in self-service chains.

With changes in the dynamic relating to food production, processing, distribution and consumption at this time, food supply alternatives arose that can be considered as options as they represent exchange points for agri-food goods. These goods can be classified as artisanal, traditional, agroecological or organic and their marketing dynamics promote SMCs, fair trade and the distribution of benefits among stakeholders. These types of organizations, with the SMCs being of particular interest, stimulate territorial development and question the traditional, dominant agro-industrial model. (^{Renting et al., 2003}).

Given the concept of the SMCs is polysemic, it is important to mention two of the lenses through which these organizations were approached analytically.

From the point of view of supply, SMCs are built on face-to-face interactions between farmers and consumers (^{Korhonen et al., 2017}). They can be comprised of self-sufficiency systems such as collective vegetable gardens and certain types of urban farming, community gardens or personal gardens. Other examples are commercial exchange chains, farmers markets, organic or agro-ecological street markets, markets based on barter, roadside sales and community farming. On the other hand, seen through the lens of demand or consumption, SMCs create a new emphasis on origin, food quality, transparency, traceability, access and the price of the food, aspects which directly impact on consumption.

The El 100 Market in Mexico City

The M100 is a Civil Association that was established as a permanent marketing alternative, with no intermediaries between producers and consumers, and was the first of its kind to be awarded the Participatory Organic Certification given by the Agricultural and Rural Development Ministry (sader) and the National Service for Agrifood Health, Safety and Quality (SENASICA) (Time Out Mexico, 2020; ^{M100, 2020}). The M100 is comprised of 46 producers, 89% of whom work in the food sector and the remaining 11% in activities such as ceramics, arts and crafts, personal care, and the sale of biodegradable cleaning products (^{M100, 2020}).

The market opened in 2009 (^{López and The Universal Agency, 2011}) and was named El 100 because of the criterion that their products must come from regions no more than 100 miles away (160 kilometers). However, despite the market being envisioned as focusing on local goods produced in an area close to Mexico City, consumer dynamics led to the distance criteria becoming more flexible (^{Salgado- Sánchez and Castro-Ramírez, 2016}). Currently, 50% of the products come from Mexico City, 32% from Mexico State, 7% from Morelos, 2% from Puebla, Veracruz and Queretaro respectively, and 5% from Tlaxcala (^{M100, 2020}).

The M100’s organizational structure is one of internal collaboration, focusing on the inclusion of stakeholders and trust-building between the producer and consumer, as well as producer-producer. This is a commercial association model with no intermediaries and is therefore a solid example of an SMC coming to fruition. Furthermore, this food supply model fosters a sustainable relationship between the countryside and urban consumer areas such as CDMX, creating a space that encourages family agriculture, diverse ways of working and fair trade through responsible farming practices and consumption.

El Mercado El 100 and food security in CDMX within the framework of the health crisis

The focus of the online survey’s questions was information-gathering and to establish the contribution that this supply structure makes to food security in cdmx’s neighborhoods, as seen from the point of view of the pillars previously described. Other areas of interest were the challenges and opportunities faced when selling food products in Mexico City before, during and after the Covid-19 health crisis. The survey results, answered by about 10 vendors, can be seen below.

It is important to note that 40% of the vendors who answered the questionnaire were women and 60% were men. Given the focus on contributing to knowledge regarding the food sector, 100% of those surveyed produced agri-food goods or utensils used in the food sector. It is, therefore, important to highlight the heterogeneous nature of the vendors and their relative activities (products made from prickly pear, cereals and grains; edible plants; fruit; vegetables; vanilla and other pods; organic eggs and coffee; coffee and coffee-based products; cocoa and cocoa-based products; utensils used in the food sector). The range of surveyed vendors validates the information relating to the M100 because even if the food sector vendors who did not take the survey vary from those profiled in this study, they do offer products from the above categories. The survey results show that 50% of those who answered actively take part in all the pillars of the agri-food value chain; only 20% are involved in primary production; 10% solely in food processing and a final 20% in food processing and sales activities. This shows a producer with a complete understanding of agri-food chain’s links, which could contribute to comprehensive product development strategies being devised.

80% of the agri-industrial and production entities owned by those surveyed are family run. 40% of them were launched in the last 5 years and 60% opened in M100 during that same time span.

Joining M100 meant greater earnings from increased sales for these producers. It also brought an increase in their production capacity and the possibility of obtaining agroecological or organic certification as well as access to courses relating to production. All of the above contributed to job creation.

The availability dimension in the M100 for food security

As stated in the section on theory and methodology, availability, as a food security dimension can be operationalized from a series of factors that impact on food production levels.

In this context, the results of this survey showed that the units’ production volume is limited, a trend that has continued over the last few years, with a slight uptick. However, this makes it difficult for producers to get into chains such as supermarkets or self-service stores so that they can scale successfully.

The availability of food products in this market can be impacted by production volume, land tenure and the acquisition or use of workspaces, be they owned, rented or collective. It is interesting to note that 60% of the producers surveyed owned their place of work, whilst 40% rented, representing a vulnerability factor for renters.

Factors relating to climate change such as droughts, flooding, infestations, changes in the length or intensity of seasons (such as heatwaves or excessive wind) can also directly impact production levels. Those surveyed were asked about these issues. The results showed that 60% of those surveyed suffered a negative impact on their production levels due to droughts or the length of the low-water season, whilst 40% had been affected by flooding. 50% reported problems in production levels due to infestations and 60% negative impact on production due to heatwaves.

When looking at the producers’ turnover as an indicator of economic sustainability, there was a downward trend. This decrease sharpened due to limits on movement being put in place in cdmx and a reduction in domestic demand for food, from the beginning of the health crisis. As a result, sales shrunk by up to 70%, an important consideration given that M100 represents the main income perceived by 80% of the vendors.

Similarly, when looking at the impact of the health crisis on production (see Figure 1), it is noteworthy that the perception of availability of and ease of access to raw materials (seeds, compost, fertilizers, or irrigation systems) has become more negative, moving from being seen as “Good” or “Very Good” for 70% of those surveyed (7 out of 10 of the farmers) to 30% (3): from “Fair” 30% (3) to 50% (5) and rated “Poor” by 20% (2).

Source: prepared by the authors based on the surveys

Figure 1 Perception of availability and ease of access to raw materials prior to and during Covid-19, 2020 

Furthermore, when looking at availability and access to labor (see Figure 2), the level of availability changed from “Good” or “Very Good” from 60 to 30% (6 to 3) and from “Very Poor” to “Poor¨ from 0 to 20% (0 to 2). This is due to the restrictions placed on movement affecting staff needed for sowing, farming, harvesting and food processing.

Source: prepared by the authors based on the surveys.

Figure 2 Perception of the level of availability and access to labor before and after Covid-19, 2020 

When looking at the access to spaces for production, storage and processing the rating changed from “Good” or “Very Good” from 70% to 30% (7 to 3) and the “Poor” rating increased from 0 to 30% (0 to 3) (see Figure 3).

Source: prepared by the authors based on the surveys.

Figure 3 Perception of the level of availability and ease of access to infrastructure prior to and during Covid-19, 2020 

All the above created a reduction in production volume for 60% (6) of the participants. Thus, even if these food supply units have the potential to contribute to the availability dimension of food supply as a pillar of food security, when faced with adverse external conditions such as the health crisis, the conditions needed for them to work, and their food production capacity, is made very vulnerable. This could affect one of the links of the food supply chain in urban areas.