Study area

The micro-regions of study are located in the state of Puebla, in the center-east of the Mexican territory, with an area of 34 289.66 Km²(^{INEGI, 2010}), which is characterized by having 5.78 million people where a high percentage has some degree of dietary poverty (^{CONEVAL, 2013}), which is why this is one of the first states to be included in PESA-FAO. By 2009, according to data from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Production, Rural Development, Fishing and Food (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación, SAGARPA), 4251 localities and 1 965 053 inhabitants were in high and very high levels of marginalization, while in 2004 the UNDP (United Nations Development Program) reported a low Human Development Index for the state of Puebla. The surface sown represents approximately a fourth of the state’s surface; the largest part falls into the category of rainfed, with the main crops being grain maize, fodder maize, carrot and onion (SAGARPA, 2014). The municipalities where the ADRs operated were Pahuatlán, Tlatlauquitepec, Tlacotepec de Benito Juárez, Chiautla, Atlixco, Coxcatlán, Ixtacamaxtitlán, Cuyuaco, Xochitlán de Vicente Suárez and Tetela de Ocampo, in the state of Puebla (Figure 1).

Source: authors’ elaboration based on data from INEGI, Municipal Geostatistical Framework. 2010.

Figure 1 Location of the micro-regions of study in the state of Puebla. 

Given the broad diversity of soil-climate, fauna, flora and agroecosystem conditions in the state of Puebla, it was decided to select three regions from the state where the ADRs have presence and work, with the aim of covering part of the broad diversity that is present in the state, taking up again in part the approach that FAO suggests (1997) to differentiate these zones, considering criteria that define zones based on combinations of soil, physiography and climate characteristics, centered in the climate and soil requirements of the crops, and in the management systems under which these develop. The regions that were selected, given that they cover a good part of the different conditions of the state, were Sierra Negra, Sierra Norte and La Mixteca. The first is a mountainous region with wide diversity of plants and animals as well as cultural; the valley with highest population and economic activity is Tehuacán, considered as the second most important city in the state of Puebla. Sierra Norte, a mountainous chain, constitutes the southern extreme of the Sierra Madre Oriental in México, located northeast of the state of Puebla; it is a region with a high humidity and extensive water currents, which favors the presence of thick forests with rocky zones. Sierra Norte is characterized by the wide variety of indigenous groups and cultures that inhabit it. Compared to these, the Mixtec region is a zone of great contrasts, which is because the Neovolcanic Axis and the Sierra Madre del Sur converge in this region, which is reflected in a contrasting climate, with a rainy and severe drought season. With a clearly uneven topography, the Mixtec is an ethnic region of difficult access in which the Mixtec people live.

Analysis of the PESA-FAO operation

As starting point for the research, an analysis of the PESA methodology and its components was performed during 2013-2014, within the framework of the activities and attributions of the State Training and Monitoring Center of Professional Services Quality (Centro Estatal de Capacitación y Seguimiento de la Calidad de los Servicios Profesionales, CECS) in charge of the Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla which, among other functions hired by SAGARPA, had the task of monitoring and evaluating PESA, with the aim of understanding the operative instruments for evaluation and follow-up (methodological guides, of regional vision, manuals, operative guidelines, calendograms of the ADRs and work programs), under the hypothesis that those who had this knowledge and transferred it to their attention groups developed better capacities for food security and sovereignty, placing the degree of evaluation of the development of capacities and technological transference based on a matrix of indicators and measuring scales shown in Tables 1 and 2; later, generating the necessary contacts for the research, supported by the evaluators and coordinators of the ADRs. Then, the dates of the visits to the localities and the beneficiaries were determined, to apply the different instruments of the study.

Table 1 Conceptual and theoretical matrix on which the study was based. 

Instrument design and logical framework

The elaboration of the field instruments stemmed from a matrix analysis between the objectives of PESA, its strategies and the intervention strategy, which as a whole make up the alternatives to reach the objectives set out in the Project through a regional vision in which both the physical and the nutritional resources were diagnosed, and a community vision that includes participant diagnosis: desires and opportunities. It should be mentioned that the matrix analysis had the approach of the PESA-FAO principles and vision.

The indicators were derived from the various projects and services of the ADRs, such as family agricultural and livestock production for auto-consumption, linked to the process of nutritional education, family agriculture and livestock production directed at the local market, micro-savings funds to strengthen the local markets, income generation in Predominant Productive Systems (Sistemas Productivos Predominantes, SPP) and technological innovations, same as the integration of nutritional education to motivate auto-consumption production, financial education for the strengthening of local markets, and the inclusion of families without conditions for production, and education in soil and water to integrate management activities, good practices, works and conservation practices of sustainable use of the soil and water as a basis for production. Values and scales were assigned for each indicator (Table 2) that could be present while gathering information, which could indicate statistically the correlation between the presence of agroecological practices and development of capacities on food security and sovereignty in the PESA beneficiaries.

Sampling

A semi-structured interview was applied, programming the visits according to the calendograms of ten ADRs, randomly selected, taking into account the three study regions previously mentioned, with the aim of evaluating the degree of knowledge and transference of agroecological innovations within the PESA-FAO by the ADRs in the state of Puebla, for the development of capacities in the beneficiaries. The visits were carried out during the months of January and April 2014, during which an interview was applied to the coordinator of each agency, under the assumption that these are the ones that have the best and most complete information about the projects that the ADR manages, its components, its strategies, concepts, knowledge and approach with which the agency’s technicians work.

The second stage of field research was carried out during the months of June and July 2014, in which a semi-structured interview was applied to a representative sample of the beneficiaries of two ADRs: MEXTLALI and GEMPROMIX, selected randomly with the aim of having a higher precision and reliability in the sample just as a statistical support, and considering that these belong to different agroecological regions. To obtain the sample of beneficiaries, a simple random sampling was carried out for finite populations, considering the number of families per agency within PESA by the year 2013, such as the population, considering the following statistical equation:

where n: total number of families to be interviewed (sample), N: population, σ ²: trial variance for unknown proportions and D: error factor, so that with 90% trust the total of families interviewed was 50, 25 beneficiaries per ADR selected.

During the second field stage, visits were carried out with the support of technical staff from the ADRs, in which the 50 families selected were visited, and a semi-structured interview was applied to them and information was obtained from direct observation in the families’ backyards. The field information was systematized and analyzed, using descriptive statistical techniques.

Agroecological knowledge by technicians from the ADRs

According to the information obtained both from the ADR and from the results observed in the beneficiaries, most of the technicians from the ADRs studied lack agroecological knowledge, with the exception of 20 % of them; although the coordinators and technicians of the rest of them mention certain principles or ideas about Agroecology, they did not present solid responses about what this scientific discipline proposes, its foundations and how it can help the agency and the beneficiaries in practice to achieve a development of capacities that could impact food security and sovereignty, and these practices were also not observed in the beneficiaries’ projects implemented. In this regard, it is evident that the methodology and the objectives of PESA do not mention Agroecology as a means to fulfill the objectives set out, but the need to advance towards this type of agriculture is implicit in these, since, as mentioned by ^{Altieri and Nicholls (2013)}, in order to reach food sovereignty humanity needs an alternative paradigm of agricultural development, which fosters a diverse, resilient, sustainable and socially just agriculture. In Figure 2, the high value refers to knowledge in agroecology, its principles and foundations by the agency’s field coordinator, who makes it extensive to his projects and work programs, verifying that facilitators and technicians know and apply them. The mean value represents knowledge of some agroecological principles, without a solid idea of what agroecology represents; the low value signals the identification of certain practices with an agroecological approach, but without having a notion of what agroecology represents and, lastly, the null value refers to the inexistence of agroecological knowledge or the identification of some principle of agroecology.

Source: authors’ elaboration based on data from the interview applied in 2014.

Figure 2 Agroecological knowledge by technicians of the total ADRs visited. 

The low presence of agroecological knowledge in technicians of the ADRs can be explained as a result of official programs with an approach of conventional agriculture, frequently basted on interests from providers of inputs that are also conventional, as well as because of the lack of human resources with agroecological training within the ADRs, and interest from them and their technicians in maintaining a dependence of the communities and beneficiaries toward them.

On the other hand, it is worth mentioning that most of the ADRs promote the sowing of six to nine plant species in a family garden (Figure 3) within which vegetables predominate, such as: radish, chard, cilantro, tomato, cucumber, among others, which have a high nutritional value and mineral and vitamin contribution (^{Camara, Sánchez and Torija, 2003}). The ADRs promote this type of crops because of the low levels of iron in children and the family in general, information derived from a nutritional study in which protein deficiency is reflected, as well as that of vitamins and minerals like iron.

Source: authors’ elaboration based on data from the inter view applied in 2014.

Figure 3 Percentages of families per plant species grown in family gardens. 

Agroecological practices implemented by the ADRs and the beneficiaries

Despite not having clear agroecological knowledge or foundations, the ADRs recommend practices related with agroecology together with the beneficiaries, such as soil conservation (terraces, berms, ditches). This type of practices have shown positive effects within family gardens; in fact, in some cases they are produced with aims of income generation through the sale of backyard products in local markets. ^{Ruíz et al. (2001)} reported that they have a benefit in the agroecosystem by retaining a higher percentage of moisture and reducing soil erosion, in addition to increasing the production of certain crops; likewise, practices were found such as biointensive beds, vermicompost and application of organic fertilizers, among others. Given the conditions characteristic of the region and the stage in which the ADR GEMPROMIX agency’s project are found, conservation and land improvement practices have not been implemented. This argument leads us to point out these differences in the selection of the ADRs, particularly in years of operation. The application of organic fertilizers produced locally with inputs from the community, and, in some cases, complemented with external inputs that are not found inside the place or are of difficult access, is another of the practices that are found in the beneficiaries’ communities (Table 3). Also, within some localities there is still application of synthetic fertilizers, which can be explained by the low fertility in the soils and the prevailing need to produce. On the other hand, there are families that elaborate manures or prepare liquid fertilizers, destined to the sale within a locality.

Crop rotation, which has shown it has benefits for pest control (^{Chaves and Araya, 2012}), is another of the agroecological practices carried out in the beneficiaries’ family gardens, although it is not recognized with the technical term, and explains the reasons why crop rotation is used or the information that the ADRs have provided, within which the importance of the plant species biodiversity stands out, which fosters an availability of rich and varied foods, and which also plays a role in the dynamics characteristic of the backyard when generating favorable interactions and complementarities for it, the species and ultimately the families, such as pest control, nutrient contribution and improvement of soil fertility (Table 4).

Social participation and inclusion

A large part of the peasant knowledge that has been transmitted from generation to generation, with technological innovations adapted to each temporal and spatial context, has enriched the phytogenetic, zoogenetic resources and in general the biodiversity from which the farmer favors, in addition to the farming practices that improve the interactions within the agroecosystem, which are reflected in a higher resilience and stability. This type of knowledge has a strong cultural and social load that reflects the dynamics characteristic of the communities and without which the foundation of the practice in itself would be hard to understand.

Although not all peasant practices are favorable, ^{Tapia (2002)} mentions that for the agroecosystem it is worth for a good part of them to be considered and rescued, so that not only the knowledge is taken up again, but rather the people can be included and participate in the processes they seek to generate. Within this context, of the 10 ADRs that were studied, 50 % showed understanding of some type of peasant knowledge, from interactions between plants and animals, land work, agricultural calendars and social practices. Of these, 30 % not only have part of this knowledge, but rather they are also interested in taking it up again and applying it in the projects that are implemented. The remaining 20% does not show interest for this type of knowledge or doesn’t know about it.

When contrasting it with the information provided by the beneficiaries, 4% of them mentioned that the agency does not consider or take into account their knowledge, while the other 96 % considers that the agency that tends to them is worried about listening to them and taking into account their knowledge for the design and implementation of the projects, being in spaces such as workshops (84%) and meetings (6%) where this takes place, while 10% of the beneficiaries could not determine at which moments or spaces the agency carries this out.

Considering, taking up again and applying knowledge of the communities’ peasants by the ADRs through a dialogue of understandings can benefit the projects from a technical aspect, when combining practices and tasks that may be useful for the objectives of those projects and of the peasants in general, and jointly, by taking this knowledge principles of equity and inclusion are fulfilled, which can favor imperatively people’s attitude towards the projects by feeling included or recognizing them as their own, acquiring co-responsibility, fundamental principle within PESA.

Although some ADRs do not consider peasant knowledge nor are they actively interested in a dialogue of understandings, 100 % of the ADRs state having principles of equity and inclusion toward all the people who want to participate in the projects they coordinate, while 40% of the ADRs state fulfilling these principles when having an open invitation for the whole community, without distinguishing gender, age, beliefs and condition in general (which does not guarantee these principles); other ADRs seek to comply through the principles suggested by PESA, through workshops, visits, transference of knowledge by generation or when defining the Family Production Unit (Unidad de Producción Familiar, UPF), facilitating the inclusion and equity sought with the communities.

It is necessary to explore and understand the culture and social structure of the communities to understand the reason for their practices and which are their needs, and therefore to achieve an appropriation and co-responsibility with the projects coordinated by the ADRs. Within this context, although 20% of the ADRs declared knowing the culture and social structure of the communities they tend to, the remaining 80% said that in addition to knowing these aspects, they take them into account for the design of their projects; 30% of the ADRs said they consulted the beneficiaries at the time of making decisions; and the remaining 70% said they make decisions jointly with the beneficiaries.

Income and employment generation

Although the principal objective of PESA is food security, it also considers income generation and employment creation to contribute to the families’ food self-sufficiency, gaining access with this to products of the basic basket that they do not obtain from the backyard or plot.

One of the most relevant areas of intervention within PESA is family agricultural and livestock production directed at the local market and the generation of income and technological innovations in predominant production systems. In this regard, 50 % of the ADRs mention that although there are beneficiaries capable of generating income through the sale of backyard products, these do not exceed 10 % of the total beneficiaries. Other ADRs (30%) mention that the beneficiaries who are generating income exceed 10%, while 20% of the ADRs state that more than 35 % of the beneficiaries have been capable of generating income through backyard production. On the side of the beneficiaries, it is reported that 64% of them seek to increase their production to cover their family diet and only 8 % mention increasing production of the crops for the family diet and local sale (Table 5).

In PESA the backyard is one of the spaces with greatest importance, since it has the potential of complementing a good part of the diet and nutritional requirements of the family members. As shown in Figure 3, most of the plant species recommended to cultivate in the backyard are vegetables, which can be because of the low levels of iron and other nutrients reflected in a nutritional study carried out by the ADRs. Although this strategy can seem adequate, it should be considered that the same species cannot be recommended to all the communities and regions, since the soil-climate and sociocultural conditions can have a rather broad gradient between these communities, in addition to some crops not being able to adapt to the region or demanding inputs and conditions that represent a higher investment for the family in time and resources, which can make the project inviable. The family gardens have shown a high productive potential that can not only complement the families’ diet, but rather can also provide a source of income through the local sale of the harvests.

A revision of the species recommended for cultivation also becomes necessary, in order to respond to the nutritional requirements of the population. Some of the species that it would be convenient to integrate for their cultivation, because of their nutritional contents, are: amaranth, spinach, purslane; and those that are already there and which respond to the required nutritional needs should be promoted, such as chard, bean, maize and the other species which, although with lower contents, offer vitamins and minerals, as well as variability in the diet of the families benefitted by PESA/FAO.

The implementation of agroecological practices within the backyards, such as fertilization through organic compounds or prepared liquid fertilizers, soil and water conservation, crop rotation and associations, are positive for the dynamics of the backyard, in addition to being appropriated by the families since they are practices that do not demand a large investment of external resources, because those necessary to implement the practices are of their own or local.