The promising future of artisanal food production : a case study on smallholder artisanal food producers in the Valle Puebla - Tlaxcala region, Mexico

(1)

The Promising Future

of Artisanal Food Production

A case study on smallholder artisanal food producers in the Valle Puebla – Tlaxcala region, Mexico

Esther Spanjaard (10382321)

Thesis (24.080 words) July 2019

Supervisor: Dr. Nicky Pouw Second reader: Dr. Andres Verzijl MSc. International Development Studies

(2)

Abstract

The industrial agricultural paradigm has come with significant costs for Mexico on society, the environment and overall public health. A country with the highest rate of diabetes and the second highest rate of obesity, even though enough nutritious food is grown in the country to feed the entire population. Furthermore, agrochemicals are eroding the once rich soil and poverty rates are increasing continuously. The challenge is to increase nutritious food production without harming the environment, society or health. Food sovereignty is proposed as an alternative paradigm, based on sustainable local self-sufficient food systems. Artisanal producers could be key in establishing food sovereignty. This research examines the contribution of smallholder artisanal food producers to food sovereignty through the agroecological practices they adopt in Valle Puebla-Tlaxcala, Mexico. So far, most research has addressed the contribution of organic or fair-trade producers to food sovereignty. The role of artisanal producers remains unknown. A qualitative, constructivist research approach has been applied. 30 smallholder artisanal food producers where interviewed and observations were carried out. The analysis of the data confirms the hypothesis that the artisanal producers contribute to food sovereignty through the agroecological practices they adopt. Strengths can be found in an efficient use of resources, a diversity of sustainable production methods, self-sufficiency, and a basis in traditional knowledge. Furthermore, the level of autonomy, gender equality, access and control to resources and right to food was fulfilled by the SAFP. Simultaneously, this research gives a new definition of artisanal food production. Limitations are the amount of knowledge exchange and knowledge dissemination, the impossibility to transition to renewable energy and a lack of acknowledgement and investments from the government and by social movements. A possible stimulating factor are tianguis and Participatory Guarantee Systems, which increase the

possibilities for distribution and knowledge exchange amongst SAFP, increasing their access and survival rate on the market. Furthermore, the focus should shift from large producers in the North, to small producers in the more Southern states, amongst which are Puebla and Tlaxcala, as poverty rates are increasing continuously in these regions. Policy recommendations include investing in knowledge exchange programs, alternative tianguis, Participatory Guarantee System

classes and renewable energy. In conclusion, the dominant industrial agriculture paradigm needs to be shifted to a sustainable agriculture approach, focusing on food sovereignty. Acknowledging and promoting the practices of the artisanal producers will help reach that goal.

Key words: Smallholder Artisanal Food Producers, Agroecology, Agroecological practices, Food Sovereignty, Sustainable Agriculture Approach

(3)

Acknowledgements

“In the heat of impossibility, you strive” said my best friend when, despite of illness and obstacles, I received the green light to go on fieldwork, an opportunity which I took with both hands. For this reason, first and foremost, my gratitude goes out to the department of IDS: My thesis supervisor Dr. Nicky Pouw, for her constructive advice, pragmatic approach and academic guidance throughout the thesis, the study-advisor Eva van der Sleen, for her personal guidance, kindness and logistic help, and Dr. Courtney Vegelin, for thinking along with me on logistics and her flexibility. Secondly, I would like to thank all the interviewees, who took the time to share their experiences and knowledge for the purpose of this study. Furthermore, I would like to thank my local supervisor, Dr. Enrique Gomez Llata, and my key informants, Ina Vanootegem, Israel Morales de la Peña and Rocío García Bustamante, for their advice and local connections. Special thanks goes out to Ana Christina Rosales and Guillermo Gaudararma Mendoza, for joining me to the interviews and translating everything. On a more personal note, I would like to thank Cinthia and Stoffel from Hostal Cascabel, who went out of their way to make me feel at home and get acquainted in the research context, and Youandi, Luci, Manuel and Paco, for their friendship and the trips we had. And to safe the best for last, I would like to thank my partner Vincent, and my family, Herman, Marianne, Hugo and Raphaël, for their infinite moral support.

(4)

List of Figures

Figure 1: Conceptual Scheme

Figure 2: Demographic information SAFP

Figure 3: Valle Puebla-Tlaxcala displayed on map of Mexico

Figure 4: Smallholder Artisanal Food Producers’ Adoption of Agroecological Practices Figure 5: Smallholder Artisanal Food Producers and Food Sovereignty

Figure 6: Possible stimulating factors SAFP-AE-FS

Figure 7: Interrelations between the concepts SAFP, Agroecology and Food Sovereignty Figure 8: New Conceptual Scheme

(8)

1. Introduction

In the second half of the 20th_{century the agricultural paradigm in many developing countries}

shifted: Technologies, machinery and agrochemical products were adopted from the developed world. The aim of agriculture became to ensure food security, which is to feed as many people as possible (Juarez Hernandez & Hernández Cervantes, 2009). This revolution was marked as “the Green Revolution”, and has been celebrated throughout the world, as exports increased and the

diversity of available produce grew, especially in the developed world. This industrial agricultural paradigm, with food security as its aim, is still the dominant paradigm today, with more than 80% of the 1.5 billion ha used for industrial agriculture (Altieri, 2015). Yet, industrial agriculture also comes with costs: The adopted agrochemical products have proven to harm the environment and cause loss of biodiversity (Altieri, 2015). The traditional indigenous knowledge once used to farm the lands has been increasingly replaced by scientific knowledge, has been lost, lands have been lost because the farms were bought by larger corporations, and many peasant farmers were left deep in debt (Rosset, 2006) or even forced to migrate (Juarez Hernandez & Hernández-Cervantes, 2009). Indeed, resource-poor farmers gained very little from the Green Revolution (Pearse, 1980), which has changed the social conditions in rural zones

too: Industrial agricultural even comes forward in some analyses as a source of social exclusion, land degradation, and structural problems of food access (Juarez Hernandez, Hernández Cervantes, 2009). The challenge for the future is that food production needs to be increased sustainably, yet with less use of land, petroleum and water, and under the face of climate change (Altieri, 2015) while addressing social exclusion problems and environmental challenges (Juarez Hernandez & Hernández Cervantes, 2009). This challenge cannot be met with the current industrial agricultural model. In the example of Mexico, national supply has proven to be insufficient to meet domestic demand already: Córdova Izquierdo and Saltijeral (2013) note that 80% of the rice consumed by its population is imported, followed by, 42,8% of the wheat, 31,9% of the corn, and 8,2% of the beans. Cattle forms no exception to this, with 78% of the pork, 68% of the beef, 53% of the poultry, and 40% of the milk, imported for national consumption. Despite the fact that these foods could easily be grown, and the livestock could easily be kept, domestically. The authors attributed this to the lack of support from the government to the Mexican countryside, a lack of interest in fostering national production, and a false glorification of the industrial agriculture by the government. On top of these environmental and societal costs of industrial agriculture, health concerns have also been receiving more attention. Industrial agriculture does not seem able to fulfil the right to food, the right to a healthy and balanced diet. One quarter of the Mexican population suffered from a lack of food in 2010, which Flores

(9)

(2013) describes as a wake-up call to fulfil the guarantee of the right to food, incorporated in article 4 of the Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. This contrast is further

exacerbated by the fact that Mexico is second in obesity rate worldwide (OECD, 2017). This can be attributed to the fact that imported unhealthy food and beverages, such as soda, after Mexico’s entrance to the NAFTA in the 1990’s, became cheaper and resulted in a severe lack of diet amongst the rural population (Holt-Giménez & Altieri, 2013). This especially affects the rural areas, as 69% of the rural population lived in poverty in 2010 (Flores, 2013). In other words, industrial agriculture thus comes with a significant impact on society as well as the environment and overall public health.

It is thus no surprise that there is a growing interest in an alternative paradigm; a more sustainable approach to agriculture, both globally and nationally. This research sheds light on the question whether this alternative sustainable approach can be found in agroecology and food sovereignty and investigates the contribution smallholder artisanal food producers have on food sovereignty through the agroecological practices they adopt. Food sovereignty has been proposed as an alternative paradigm to the paradigm of industrial agriculture with food security as its goal. Instead of focusing on large-scale export oriented global food markets, food sovereignty focuses on small, local and autonomous food chains, as these pose a better alternative to agriculture for economic, environmental and societal reasons than the industrial paradigm does. The academic contribution of this research lies in the focus on artisanal food producers, which have never been researched in this context before, and in the focus on agroecology and food sovereignty, which have scarcely been researched in general in Mexico, and specifically in this region. From an integrated vision on artisanal food production, agroecology and food sovereignty, I conducted field research in the region Valle Puebla-Tlaxcala in Mexico. This research is qualitative in nature, and data-analysis is performed through interviews and observations. The thesis outline is as follows: In the following chapter, a theoretical framework is provided to illuminate the choice for the research question and related sub-questions. The third chapter addresses the chosen methodology. This is followed by an explanation of the research location and context. The fifth and sixth chapter address the data analysis with the theoretical implications incorporated. The thesis is concluded with a conclusion and recommendations chapter, which also includes a theoretical and methodological reflection.

(10)

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a theoretical framework that builds the foundation towards the proposed conceptual model and research questions. It provides detailed literature on the concepts of food sovereignty and agroecology, reflects on the decision to move from organic producers to artisanal producers, deciphers the definition of artisanal food producers, partially answering sub-question one, identifies possible strengths and limitations between artisanal food production, agroecology and food sovereignty, and ends with a chapter conclusion.

2.2 Food Sovereignty

As mentioned in the introduction, this research focuses on food sovereignty as an alternative paradigm towards industrial agriculture. This approach is known as the sustainable agriculture approach, and it embraces all the sustainable alternatives to the industrial agricultural

paradigm and encompasses multiple methods and practices (Juarez Hernandez & Hernández Cervantes, 2009). The aim of this alternative approach is to achieve food sovereignty instead of food security. The most common definition of food security is “the situation in which all people at all times have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (Barrett, 2002: 4). Food sovereignty was

introduced by the social movement La Via Campesina in 1996 to oppose this industrial

agriculture paradigm with food security at its root. Food sovereignty thus emerged as an opposing concept, aimed to combat the control by corporate ‘food empires’, large agricultural

farms and supermarket chains, and the neoliberal market practices that perpetuated them (Desmarais, 2007). Food sovereignty aims to place priority on food production for domestic and local markets, ensure fair prices for farmers, ensure people’s access to land, water, forests, fishing areas and other productive resources, recognize and promote the role of women in food production, stimulate community control over productive resources, protect seeds, publicly invest in support of the productive activities of families and communities and give primacy to communities in their rights to food and food production, over trade concerns (McKeon, 2015). In other words, the definition that will be followed in this research is: “Food sovereignty means people and communities have the right to define their own agricultural model, to choose what, how and when they produce and focuses on self-sufficient local food systems.”

Two practices stand out in the sustainable agriculture approach: The adoption of organic farming techniques and the agroecology approach (Juarez Hernandez & Hernández Cervantes,

(11)

2009). In this research, the focus is on the agroecology approach and not on the organic farming techniques, because one can argue that this still falls under the umbrella of the industrial agricultural paradigm of food security, which will be explained in section 2.3.

2.3 Agroecology

Agroecology can be defined as “the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agricultural ecosystems. It provides a framework to assess the complexity of agro-ecosystems” (Altieri, 2009: 1). Agroecological practices use more than one method to manage the

land (e.g. through crop rotation and crop diversification, which are polycultures instead of monocultures), focuses on self-sufficient local food systems, has a foundation in traditional farming knowledge and is less dependent on external resources such as technical assistance and chemical inputs (Juarez Hernandez & Hernández Cervantes, 2009). It links peasant knowledge and the knowledge of indigenous ancestors with scientific knowledge and is spread through bottom-up community exchanges and social networks (CAWR Coventry University, 2015, 1:43). Exemplary are the Campesino-a-Campesino networks (CAC) derived from a grassroots philosophy

where knowledge is exchanged between peasant farmers through social networks, and best practices are shared to help each other grow through participatory practices (Altieri, 2015; Rosset, Machín Sosa, Roque Jaime & Ávila Lozano, 2011). This deviates from industrial agriculture, where competition is in place, and knowledge is held secret to gain a competitive advantage. Agroecology is not a destination, but an articulation of strategies on how to achieve food sovereignty through local networks, without harming the environment (CAWR Coventry University, 2015, 7:12). The core principles of agroecology are based on: Access of peasants to land, seeds, water, credit and local markets; minimal dependence on high agrochemical and energy, and technical assistance; and a focus on recycling nutrients, enhancing soil quality and diversification of crops (Altieri & Toledo, 2011). Wezel et al. (2009) describe agroecology as a scientific discipline, a social movement and a practice. The pillar of scientific disciplines encompasses the ecology of plots, fields and herds, the ecology of food systems and the ecology of agrosystems. Agroecology as a social movement encompasses environmentalism, sustainable agriculture and rural development. Agroecology as a practice relates to the various agroecological techniques that can be adopted. These three pillars are usually intertwined, and various combinations are used by different scholars. This research is exploratory and pragmatic in nature, as it investigates the role artisanal food producers play towards food sovereignty through agroecology. For this reason, a practical approach to agroecology suits best. Following Wezel et al. (2009) this approach thus means agroecology is concepted as a practice. This is in line with

(12)

Altieri & Nicholls (2009) who conceptualize agroecology as an applied science, incorporating ecological practices. To place the artisanal food producers in the framework of agroecology, the requirements of agroecologically Based Agricultural Systems are followed, designed by Koohafkan, Altieri & Gimenez (2012), further detailed in the operationalization section. The link between agroecology and food sovereignty is widely established (Altieri, 2009; Altieri & Toledo, 2011; Wittman, 2011; Rosset & Machín Sosa, 2011). One can even argue that food sovereignty is an inevitable consequence of agroecology, as many aspects of agroecology, such as access of peasants to land, seeds and water, independence of external inputs and a focus on local ecosystems precede aspects of food sovereignty, such as local control over production and choice of used resources.

2.4 The farmers and food producers: Why not organic?

The aim is to foster food sovereignty and the question remains who will do this? What and who will ignite this agricultural paradigm shift? Small farmers are key actor in achieving food sovereignty (Altieri, 2009). Despite common belief that “bigger is better”, small farmers are more productive and resource conserving (Altieri, 2009). Aside from this, they are resilient to climate change because they have good internal adaptation strategies that enable them to prepare and cope with the effects of climate change (Browder, 1989). The resilience of small agroecological farmers is further increased because they also have sovereignty over their approach towards technology and energy (Altieri, 2015). The terms farmers and food producers are both used, depending on what the mentioned authors used as a terminology, but amount to the same thing in this research.

As stated before, a focus will be placed on agroecology and not on organic food producers. Most literature on smallholder farmers so far has, however, focused on organic food producers. This makes sense, as organic food production fulfils many of the criteria for food sovereignty. Yet, one can argue that organic food production still plays into the neo-liberal industrial agriculture paradigm. All organic food producers need to obtain organic certification. This certification can be provided by twenty-one agencies globally, of which only one, Certimex,

is based in Mexico. This is where the crux comes in: Organic certification is very hard to obtain. As the organic food sector grew significantly over the past decades, certification has moved from a self-regulated voluntary process to a third-party certification process. Although this makes accountability and objectivity easier on a larger scale, critiques include that it is a top-down approach, inaccessible to many smallholder producers, because of high costs, long waiting times and the predilection of the certification agencies for large scale producers (Nelson et al., 2016).

(13)

Indeed, the international organic certification privileges large farmers and disadvantages smallholder farmers in Mexico (Gomez Rovar, Martin, Gomez Cruz & Mutersbaugh, 2005). There is a movement growing against this strict and unfair certification process, which aims to provide organic certification through Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS). PGS can generally be defined as a “locally focused quality assurance system [that] certify producers based on active participation of stakeholders and are built on a foundation of trust, social networks and knowledge exchange” (IFOAM,

2008:1). However, as Nelson, Gomez Tovar, Schwentesius Rindermann and Gomez Cruz (2010) describe, these PGS face challenges as well, as they are not always formally recognized by the government, are negatively influenced by social conflicts and depend on donated resources too much. Nelson et al. (2016) add that indeed, PGS are still relatively new as a certification procedure, meaning the regulations can be perceived as unclear and informal. Furthermore, the question remains whether PGS can effectively function in practice, as they are not yet fully legally recognized, it’s difficult to build trust, and there is a danger of free-riding and non-compliance. Furthermore, most of the organic food production in Mexico is currently intended for export (Altieri, 2015), even though self-sufficient domestic/local food systems are better for the environment (Altieri, 2015). Lastly, organic farmers do not challenge the monoculture nature of plantations, which means only one crop is used on a field, which is contra-indicative to agroecological practices (Altieri & Nicholls, 2009). In summary, because these organic farmers are still influenced negatively by the neo-liberal policies of the industrial agricultural paradigm, with certification policies that deepen social inequalities between farmers themselves and between larger corporations and smallholder farmers, with much of their produce intended for export, and the absence of agricultural polyculture, this research will not focus on organic smallholder farmers.

2.5 The farmers and food producers: Artisanal Food Producers

Another group of smallholder farmers exists but is less acknowledged in the academic and professional literature: Artisanal food producers. Artisanal food cannot always be exported and is not officially included in many trade statistics. It’s difficult to export the product, as the quality is not consistent, quantities are usually smaller and certification to be able to export is not in reach for many artisanal food producers (Nelson et al., 2016). Furthermore, the term artisanal is contested, and bears no clear definition in academic literature, nor in policy documents or statistics institutes. Artisan food can be described as food produced by non-industrialised methods, often handed down through generations, but now in danger of being lost (School of Artisan Food, 2013). Academic literature on what artisan food is, is scarce. The World Customs

(14)

Organization (1997) defines artisanal as: (1) made by artisans, (2) made by hand or limited manual

tools, (3) without a restriction in quantity, and (4) the raw materials used come from renewable resources. This, however, is not specified for food. Camacho Vera, Cervantes Escoto, Cesín Vargas and Palacios Rangel (2019), propose a definition of artisanal food, where it is defined as that it bears a collective nature, is small scale, with a low intensity of the use of machinery and equipment, and in most cases is done to provide a livelihood. They also propose that artisanal food can be seen as an opposition to modern industrial food. This definition, although from Mexican origin, does not provide a tangible definition. In an article depicting organic versus artisan produce in Ireland by Dunne and Wright (2017), the Food Safety Authority of Ireland is cited,

which established the following criteria for artisan or artisanal foods (2015): (1) The food is made in limited quantities by skilled crafts people. (2) The processing method is not fully mechanised and follows a traditional method. (3) The food is made in a micro-enterprise at a single location. (4) The characteristic ingredient(s) used in the food are grown or produced locally where seasonally available and practical. Of all literature, this definition seems to be the most encompassing, even though it is not from a Mexican example. The magnitude of artisan food production in Mexico is hard to measure. No data exists that measures how much of the total agricultural output or how much of the smallholder farmers produce their food following the above artisanal criteria. Agriculture is the main source for employment in Mexico, with 13% of the population working in agriculture (Flores, 2013). 80% of these farmers are smallholder farmers (Flores, 2013). One of the reasons why there is no clear estimate on how much food is produced in an artisanal manner, is because much artisanal food, especially for local consumption, is locally produced and sold at the so-called open-air tianguis, comparable to the

farmers markets in Western countries. Tianguis and mercados are markets where food and goods

are distributed by local vendors. The word tianguis is derived from the Náhuatl Tianguistli which

roughly translates to mercado in Spanish (Villegas, 2016). The distinction between them in

practical terms is that mercados are enclosed and tianguis are open-air. The tianguis and mercados are

a place for commerce, are an integral part of the Mexican culture, and where historically the places where producers of neighbouring sites came to sell, buy and exchange various products (Belluci, 2002). They play an important role in the food distribution channels in Mexico (Escalona Aguilar, 2010). In-season food is bought here by restaurant owners, distributors, small shops and consumers themselves. These tianguis have revitalised local rural economies by

providing employment (McKenna, 2006), but are not documented in the national food value chain in the same way as for example an industrial agriculture to supermarket chain. Money and goods flow in a more natural way at these tianguis: Not every penny is documented, there is also

(15)

food-to-food trade exchange and food producers just count their income at the end of the day (Escona Aguilar, 2010). In other words, both artisanal food and the distribution via markets are not well documented, but on the basis of the theory, it can be derived that they play an important role in Mexico’s food production and economy. The first contribution of this research is to investigate what is understood as artisanal food production and to arrive at a clear definition. With a clear definition, acknowledgement of artisanal producers could be improved, it becomes possible to include artisanal food producers in trade statistics and certification could also become easier to obtain. Secondly, artisanal food producers have thus far not been investigated in the scope of agroecology and food sovereignty, even though artisanal food production is hypothesized as an important economic activity and there are indications that artisanal food producers already work in a way that is traditionally aligned with agroecology and food sovereignty.

2.6 Possible strengths and limitations

The relationship between artisanal food producers and food sovereignty will be researched through the agroecological practices they adopt. In order to provide an in-depth and all-encompassing overview of this relationship, strengths and limitations, within this region, will also be identified. Factors and actors that can have a stimulating or hindering effect on the relationship will be researched. The following three factors/actors might be of interest: Social movements, government policies and the role of tianguis/mercados.

Social movements play an important role towards reaching food sovereignty and can stimulate the contribution artisanal food producers can have. Wezel et al. (2009) even argue that agroecology in itself is a movement. Indeed, the social movement La Via Campesina, representing

thousands of smallholder farmers throughout Latin America, was formed with the sole mission of stimulating agroecology and food sovereignty. Peña (2016) describes how social movements help shape and negotiate agricultural policy in various ways, by establishing opportunities and synergies, and providing much needed political resistance and pressure to governments, who are heavily influenced by corporate lobby. Indeed, Altieri (2009) underlines how rural social movements understand that agroecological efforts for smallholder producers, combined with the restoration of local food systems, aid in the breakdown of the current industrial agricultural paradigm, and play a pivotal role to achieve food sovereignty by increasing political pressure. Rosset, Machín Sosa, Roque Jaime & Ávila Lozano (2011) found that the rapid spread of agroecology can, next to the natural evolution of farming practices and benefits such as resilience to climate change, largely be attributed to social movement dynamics. Peña (2013) provides a

(16)

case-study of the agroecological efforts towards food sovereignty in Ecuador and teaches us that through social (peasant and indigenous) movements, political pressure can be raised, and governments forced to reform their agricultural policies. The way in which social movements influence the potential of artisanal food producers towards reaching food sovereignty through agroecological practices in Mexico will thus be researched.

Next to social movements, governments can play a crucial role in stimulating agroecological practices. Governments can help shift the focus from powerful distribution networks of corporate agribusinesses towards peasant agriculture with short food chains and food sovereignty, going from top-down structures of government towards more bottom-up systems of governance (Blue, 2009). Altieri & Toledo (2011) describe that governments need to push major agricultural reforms in order to realize the full potential of sustainable food production. They highlight that a major constraint to reach this goal has been the powerful economic and institutional interests of the previously described ‘food empires.’ This has also influenced the extensive amount of research backed by governments and corporates done within the conventional industrial agricultural approach, and the lack of research on sustainable alternatives, ignoring or even ostracizing the potential of agroecological practices (Altieri & Toledo, 2011). Although programs have been initiated to further develop agroecological rural practices, such as the Cultural Alimentaria, Artesanal, Vinculación Comercial y Fomento de la Interculturalidad Ruralidad by the Gobierno de la Ciudad de México, Holt-Giménez and Altieri (2013)

caution that government policies should not be of a reformist nature, which attempts to co-opt agroecology in the Green Revolution, but rather be radical in nature, which places agroecology in a wider peasant movement for food sovereignty. Indeed, Peña (2013) states food sovereignty should not just be an aim within governments but become formally incorporated in the constitution. Examples of successful policies entail to collect comprehensive data on markets, promote fair and transparent prices, support affordable mechanisms to increase access to market and price information, incorporate the voices of the smallholder farmers, invest in processing and storage equipment, improve access to financial systems, improve infrastructure for accessibility and distribution, and strengthen the access and control, especially of women and the youth, of productive assets and resources (Transnational Institute, 2018: 8). The way in which governments acknowledge artisanal food producers, agroecology and food sovereignty will thus also be incorporated in this study.

Lastly, as stated in section 2.5, tianguis and mercados play a vital role in the distribution of

food in Mexico (Escalona Aquilar, 2010). They could improve the contribution SAFP have on food sovereignty, as they can function as a catalysator to increase distribution and improve the

(17)

distribution channels of artisanal food producers towards their respective consumers. This increases the market options for local consumption, which in turn contributes positively to food sovereignty. Indeed, Nigh and González Cabañas (2015) describe that local markets in Mexico have a notable impact on smallholder families economically, socially and ecologically. Economically, as the farmers who distribute their products at the tianguis get better prices for

their products, socially, as they get better recognition and appreciation for their products, and ecologically, as they can get access to training and technical assistance and agroecology through the markets. The markets provide small peasant farmers a way to escape the domination of the previously mentioned food empires that marginalize peasant agriculture. As an added bonus, it can

help retain the youth in the region and provide them with the necessary skills and knowledge which they haven’t learned from their parents as a result from the migration in the 1980’s and 1990’s (Nigh & González Cabañas, 2015). The role tianguis or mercados, further shortened to tianguis, will be researched as a contributing or hindering factor in the relationship between

SAFP, agroecology and food sovereignty.

2.7 Conclusion

The aforementioned illustrates how an alternative to the industrial agricultural paradigm is sought by both scholars and policymakers. This alternative approach can be found in

sustainable agriculture, in which organic food production and agroecology are the main two waves. The focus in this research is placed on agroecology, because it can be hypothesized that organic food production still falls under the umbrella the industrial agricultural paradigm and has already been researched extensively. Within the theoretical framework of agroecology, a shift can be seen from food security towards food sovereignty. Small farmers play an important role in achieving food sovereignty. The focus will be placed on smallholder artisanal food producers, and how they contribute to food sovereignty. Artisanal food production has not been researched in this context so far and also bears no clear definition.

Following the above, this study investigates the potential of artisanal food production towards food sovereignty through the lens of agroecology in the Valle Puebla-Tlaxcala region, Mexico. The hypothesis is that artisanal food producers contribute to food sovereignty through the agroecological practices they adopt. It challenges the current dominant paradigm of industrial agriculture that aims to attain global food security yet diminishes the potential of smallholder farmers to benefit from the domestic sustainable food market growth visible in Mexico. The aim is to identify strengths and limitations to consolidate the artisanal food production market as a viable agricultural solution towards food sovereignty through the adoption of agroecological

(18)

practices. Factors and actors that stimulate or hinder the contribution of smallholder artisanal food producers to agroecology and food sovereignty will be analysed.

(19)

3. Research Design

The purpose of this chapter is to give an overview of the methodological considerations and practices. It gives an outline of the epistemological and ontological position that guided the research, provides the main research question and sub-questions, the related conceptual scheme, indicates how the key concepts were operationalized, describes the followed methods, gives the demographic information of the sample, and highlights ethical considerations and research limitations.

3.2 Epistemology and ontology

Concerning ontology, a constructivist approach was taken, meaning social actors have an active and crucial role in the construction of social reality, a reality which is dynamic and transforms continuously. It indicates that there is no single reality or truth, and the reality can only be uncovered and understood through interpretations and their relations towards one another. It was hypothesized that both SAFP and various factors and actors influenced the relationship between agroecology and food sovereignty, they all construct the social reality through various dynamics.

Concerning epistemology, an interpretivist approach has been taken, meaning that people and social sciences should not be understood in the same manner as natural sciences. Information and scientific knowledge are not retrieved from the senses and by looking for rules of cause and effect, but rather interpreted by examining individual realities. By interviewing the various SAFP, their agroecological methods and their perception of food sovereignty, their individual realities were used as building blocks for answering the research questions.

3.3 Research questions and Conceptual Scheme

On the basis of the theoretical framework, the following research questions have been used to give direction to the thesis:

Main research question:

RQ: What perceived role do smallholder artisanal food producers play towards the goal of food sovereignty in Mexico through the agroecological practices they adopt?

Sub-questions:

(20)

SQ2: What kind of agroecological practices are adopted by the artisanal food producers? What strengths and limitations are perceived by the SAFP?

SQ3: How do the SAFP contribute to FS?

SQ4: What factors and actors can be identified that stimulate or hinder the relationship between ASFP, AE and FS?

3.4 Operationalization of concepts

The key concepts that emerge from the conceptual model and the research questions are smallholder artisanal food producers, agroecology and food sovereignty. These constructs are operationalized in table 1: Operationalizations of concepts, to be found in appendix 9.1. As stated, what constitutes to artisanal food production is not clear in the academic literature, and artisanal food production in itself will also thus be researched, this concept is partially exploratory in nature. It will be researched through interviews with various smallholder artisanal food producers, which themselves will be operationalized following the definition of Food Safety Authority of Ireland (2015). Agroecological practices are operationalized following the

agroecological requirements of Agroecologically Based Agricultural Systems by Koohafkan, Altieri and Gimenez (2012), which consists of ten points. To increase readability and coherence, these ten points are divided under four categories: Production processes, resource efficiency, resilience and adaptability, and human capital and knowledge conservation. Food sovereignty is operationalized following the definition of McKeon (2015) with related indicators, which are adapted from Binimelis et al. (2014). The various categories that derived from the theory are local food systems, access to resources, control over resources, gender equality, autonomy and food consumption and right to food. It should be noted that food sovereignty is usually researched on a national level. On the micro-level of this research, that would not make sense. This research focuses on the relationship between SAFP, agroecology and food sovereignty and

Context: Valle Puebla-Tlaxcala, Mexico Smallholder Artisanal Food Producers Food Sovereignty RQ Stimulating or Inhibitory Factors and Actors

Figure 1: Conceptual Scheme

SQ4

SQ1 Agroecological

(21)

focuses on the perceived contribution of the SAFP towards this goal. For this reason, the operationalization is the micro-level perceived contribution of the SAFP. All the key concepts, the related questions that were asked in the interviews, are added in the last column.

3.5 Methodology

As mentioned, a constructivist approach has been taken in this research. The research methodology that most aligned with this epistemological and ontological view, was a mixed methodology of the phenomenology approach and grounded theory. Furthermore, an exploratory, bottom-up, both inductive and deductive, and qualitative approach has been taken. Grounded theory was used for the first sub-question, which aimed to build a new understanding and definition of artisanal food production. From the various responses of the SAFP, a new definition was formed which drew on their experience and interpretation of artisanal food production, which was thus also exploratory and inductive. The other sub-questions and the research question aimed to understand the relationship between the SAFP, agroecology and food sovereignty through their individual experiences and perceptions of the phenomena. The data analysis was built upon in-depth interviews and the sample size was relatively small. It did partially derive from a true phenomenological approach, as the interviews were not open but semi-structured. This was thus also bottom-up, as the data analysis is built upon the answers of the SAFP, through interviews and their perception on the reality. Furthermore, sub-question 4, identifying the stimulating or inhibitory factors and actors, were also inductive. The other questions were further built on existing theory and tested whether it would also hold true for the SAFP, and thus deductive in nature. Lastly, the research was qualitative in nature, as the data analysis was formed on interviews and observations.

3.6 Access to the field

Access to conduct fieldwork in Valle Puebla-Tlaxcala was initially facilitated by a local supervisor, Dr. Enrique Gomez Llata of the Universidad de Las Americas Puebla (UDLAP). Enrique introduced me to one key informant, Israel Morales de la Peña, who helped me to get access to various SAFP in Tlaxcala. Other key informants have been Stoffel and Cinthia Moenaert with whom I was staying in Hostal el Cascabel, and Ina Vanootegem, who all provided me with more contacts and context information. The first contact with the SAFP was mostly made by myself on markets and food festivals. My Spanish was good enough to approach possible SAFP respondents, introduce myself and ask whether they would be interested in

(22)

having an interview with me. The interviews were conducted at a later moment with the help of two translators, Ana Christina (Nina) Rosales and Guillermo Guadarrama Mendoza.

3.7 Methods

This section covers what research methods were deployed during the course of the fieldwork and illustrates how these methods contributed to answering the main research question and sub-questions. The methods that were utilized were informal discussion and observation, and semi-structured interviews. The research sample was gathered by visiting markets and food festivals, with the help of key informants, and through snowballing.

3.7.1 Unstructured Observations and Informal Discussions

In order to place the answers and perceptions of the SAFP in a wider perspective, observations were done at the various tianguis and food festivals I visited to understand more

about the context of the markets, the clientele, etc. To ensure objective observation, without confirmation bias colouring my perceptions as a researcher, an observation scheme was followed, see observation scheme in appendix 9.5.1. After the observations, which lasted for exactly 30 minutes each, I walked around and had informal chats with many food producers. Both the observations and informal discussions provided contextual information and were also a means to start conversations and make connections with SAFP.

3.7.2 Unstructured Interviews

Three interviews were held with key informants, which were also aimed at providing contextual information. Two interviews were not at one specific moment and thus not recorded. All information can be found in appendix 9.2.2.

3.7.3 Semi-Structured Interviews

Thirty (30) semi-structured interviews were held with smallholder artisanal food producers (SAFP). The interview questions, which were utilized for the interviews, can be found in appendix 9.4.1. In order to increase internal validity, all interviews with SAFP were asked the same questions. They were divided into five categories, an introduction and artisanal food production, agroecology, food sovereignty, extra factors, and ethical conduct, corresponding with their respective key concepts. In the operationalization table, appendix 9.1, a more detailed overview is given of which questions reflected which part in the theory. The questions that are not in the operationalization table either served to break the ice, to gather demographic

(23)

information, or to ensure ethical conduct. Most interviews (28) were conducted by the two translators, Nina (21) and Guillermo (7). The two last interviews were conducted by me, as my Spanish improved significantly during fieldwork and I felt comfortable with the questions. The transcriptions and translations were all done by the translators. They worked together and also checked each other, increasing inter-observer reliability. Transcribing was mostly done by Nina, which Guillermo checked, and translation were mostly done by Guillermo, which Nina checked. Nina felt more comfortable in the field, as she has a background in environmental studies and could easily explain concepts when necessary during the interviews. As a literature student, Guillermo felt most comfortable with the translations. An extra check was performed by me, as I checked quality, completeness of the transcriptions and correctness of the translations, through random samples.

3.7.3.1 Demographic information SAFP

An overview of the contacts, including contact information, and location and the date of the interview can be found in appendix 9.2. 30 SAFP were interviewed, their main production could be categorized in: Bread, cookies or tortilla’s (7), drinks (6), beans (6), fruits (6), vegetables (5), honey and derivatives (3), nuts (2), herbs and spices (2), nut or chocolate butters (2), cheese (1), chocolate (1) and various restaurant meals (1). Most of the SAFP were working in an ejido,

meaning it was a family-owned business (22), four SAFP were part of a cooperative, two didn’t feel the terms fit and considered themselves independent, two considered their business as communitarian. Considering size and number of people working in the SAFP sites, the average size was two people (8), followed by six-ten (6), and ten+ employees (6), three-five employees (5) or owned by one person (4). Most producers considered their business as small (19), followed by medium (9) and large (2). Men and women were quite equally distributed, with an average-ratio of 51% women and 49% men. On average, 37% considered themselves indigenous (11), 7% partially (2), 50% not indigenous (15) and for the remaining two producers it was unclear. A ranked table of these findings can be found in appendix 9.3.1.

Figure 2: Demographic information SAFP

Sample size 30 smallholder artisanal food producers

Type of food produced Bread, cookies and tortilla's (7); drinks (6); beans (6); fruits (6); vegetables (5); honey and derivatives (3); nuts (2); herbs and spices (2); nut or chocolate butters (2); cheese (1); chocolate (1); and various restaurant meals (1)

Type of business Ejido (73%); Cooperative (13%); Independent (7%); Communitarian (7%). Size business (# people) 1 (13%), 2 (27%), 3-5 (17%), 6-10 (20%), 10+ (20%)

(24)

Size business (perception) Small (63%); Medium (30%); Large (7%) Gender (𝑥𝑥 in business) Women (51%); Men (49%)

Identification Indigenous (37%); Partially indigenous (7%); Not indigenous (50%); Unclear (7%)

3.8 Ethical considerations and challenges

This section describes what I did to ensure ethical conduct, and illuminates the ethical considerations that were made before, during and after the fieldwork and interviews. Before fieldwork, I was aware of my positionality as a white, Western female student, which could have impact on the research as my expectation was that most SAFP would identify as being indigena,

and sensitivity issues of a colonial nature can arise. Conducting research is linked to European colonialism, marginalising and excluding indigenous people throughout history (Smith, 1999). In order to navigate this, I tried to keep a low profile, followed the AISSR guidelines and discussed

it beforehand with the local supervisor. During the fieldwork, it became clear that there were no sensitivity issues of this sort at play and all SAFP were comfortable discussing their (non-) indigenous identity. Another consideration was that I’m not fluent in Spanish and needed a translator for the interviews. This could lead to a perceived distance between me and the interviewee. Aside from that, sensitivities and trust-building can be lost in translation. To mitigate this, I have discussed the AISSR guidelines with them. Aside from this, I gathered all the contacts myself, at various markets, food festivals and through snowballing. By establishing the first contact myself and introducing myself, I established a connection. If this connection felt good, I would proceed to ask whether they would be willing to have an interview with me and a translator at a later moment, at a time and place convenient for them. This helped ensure voluntary participation and trust. It also helped in decreasing the distance that could later arise between the interviewee and me because of the translator. Furthermore, my Spanish was not good enough to conduct the interviews myself, it was however good enough to understand most of what was said. This also decreased the distance, as, although the interviews were done by the translators, I could react, respond or nod appropriately too. Before commencing the interviews, I introduced myself and the translators another time, explained what I would be asking them and what the purpose of the research was, if they were ok with the interview, and asked if they also agreed that the interview would be recorded, ensuring informed consent and safety in participation. If all this was in good order, I commenced the interview. It was also made clear to the interviewees that they could stop or pause the interview at any time, and that it was fine if they didn’t want or couldn’t answer a question. As I interviewed many SAFP at the various markets, we paused the interview quite often, so the interview wouldn’t get in the way of making sales. At the end of each interview I asked the interviewees if there was something they would

(25)

like to add, change or retract. Furthermore, I asked them how I could repay them, I asked their contact details, I asked whether they would like their name anonymized in the research and explained why, and I asked whether I could take a photo and could use this in my research. These final questions helped to fully ensure informed consent, confidentiality and trust. I also made sure to provide my contact details to every interviewee, so they could reach me with later questions or addendums. I included many checks and balances to ensure none of the interviewees felt obligated or pressured into or during the interview and the responses have been positive for all the interviews. Although gender inequality is prevalent in Mexico (World Bank,

2017), and women face unfair treatment daily, I perceived no notable gender interactions. I even think being female increased my access to interviewees, and increased feelings of trust and cooperation. It was an ethical challenge beforehand to figure out a way in which to repay all the interviewees. I eventually decided to just ask them openly, and I ended up doing various things: I made a Facebook page for a producer, helped another cut up vegetables during the interview, and bought products from many of them. The only other ethical challenge I have encountered was not with the interviewees, but with the translators, as I found it hard to decide how much I had to pay them. At first, I was inclined to pay them according to Western standards. However, when I talked this through with some (Mexican) researchers, they explained me how this would be disruptive for the local market and was actually a bad idea. They told me to stick to the average wage in Mexico. Eventually I decided to follow the advice of the local researchers and paid the translators an hourly amount equivalent to Mexican standards. I did, however, also pay for transport, food, and the hours it took during transport, which is not standard in Mexico.

3.9 Research limitations

This section describes research limitations that were known before commencing the study. The limitations that occurred during and after, will be discussed as part of the methodological reflection in the conclusion. Research limitations that needed to be dealt with beforehand were attention to the level on which food sovereignty would be and could be measured. As it is always measured in the literature on a macro scale at national level, this research differs from that. As no causal relationships can be made between the SAFP and their agroecological methods (micro-level) and food sovereignty (on a macro scale, national level), food sovereignty was operationalized as the perceived contribution of the SAFP towards this goal. Another research limitation that was known beforehand was the language barrier, as I don’t speak Spanish well enough to conduct interviews. In order to mitigate possible limitations because of this, I have read and worked through the research proposal together with the

(26)

translators, so they knew specifically what was meant with each question and could easily elaborate without my help. The last limitation that was known beforehand was a short amount of time. Normally, research of this calibre is conducted with a minimum of 8 weeks. Unfortunately, due to personal circumstances, I was only able to be in Mexico for 5 weeks. In order to mitigate this, I went to the research location right away, organized as much as I could beforehand and started right away as well. I didn’t lose anytime and worked all days of the week.

3.10 Method of Data Analysis

Transcriptions and translations were done after each of the interviews. Upon returning from the field, all interviews and discussions were coded manually to discover common themes, consistencies and contradictions. Coding was done following a self-made system. The chosen codes compared significantly to the interview questions, and indications were scored. An example of a table reflecting these scores can be found in appendices 9.3.1 and 9.3.2. Other tables can be made available upon request via Esther@spanjaard.net.

3.11 Conclusion

In this research, a constructivist/interpretive approach has been taken. From an integrated perspective on artisanal food production, agroecology and food sovereignty, thirty smallholder artisanal food producers have been interviewed. Furthermore, observations, informal discussions and unstructured interviews provide extra contextual information. Ethical considerations and challenges, and research limitations were reflected upon.

(27)

4. Research Location & Context

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the research location and context of Valle Puebla-Tlaxcala, Mexico. Special attention will be placed on agriculture, food security/food sovereignty and the social context.

4.2 National level: Mexico

Mexico is the 13th_{largest country in the world and has close to 120 million inhabitants. It}

consists of 31 states and Mexico City. Religion plays an important role, with 83,9% of the population identifying as catholic and 10,1% identifying as protestant. The most spoken language is Spanish, and about 10% of the population speaks their native tongue. Andrés Manuel López Obrador is president of Mexico since 2018. Concerning the economy, Mexico is considered a rich and developed country and has one of the strongest economies of Latin America. Wealth however is very unequally distributed: Mexico has the highest Gini-coefficient (a measure of inequality) of all OESO countries and 40% of the population lives below the poverty line, of which 17% lives in extreme poverty (INEGI, 2017).

4.2.1 Agriculture, Poverty and Migration

The Green Revolution and its neoliberal policies, similar to other developing countries,

came with various costs for Mexico. In Mexico, during the 1980’s and 1990’s, many peasant farmers were forced to migrate and dependence on exterior countries for food security increased (Juarez Herndandez & Hernández Cervantes, 2009). This was a direct result of the altered agricultural policy and trade agreements in 1988 between Mexico, the United States and Canada, known as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which opened the Mexican borders to a massive import of foods, decreasing national demand, forcing national farmers to find alternative livelihoods. Indeed, it is estimated that some 4.9 million farmers were displaced as a direct result of NAFTA (Hansen-Kuhn, 2019). The liberalization policies, intended to ensure food security, achieved the opposite and led the Mexican agricultural sector in food dependency and rural poverty (Juarez Herndandez & Hernández Cervantes, 2009). Alongside this transition, the investments that were done to alleviate rural poverty and stimulate agriculture, were mostly in the form of fertilizers and agrochemicals. Nowadays, it’s becoming clearer that these solutions were detrimental on both social and environmental accounts, as they deteriorated the soil, polluted waters and decreased biodiversity. The vulnerability of Mexico under the industrial agricultural paradigm became very clear during the international food prices crisis in

(28)

2006, where for example the price for maize doubled, even though the domestic maize production could feed the entire country. The reason for this was that Mexico became increasingly dependent of external staple food supply in the Green Revolution (Juarez Herndandez

& Hernández Cervantes, 2009). Even though many peasant farmers were forced to migrate, still 22,5% of the Mexican population live in rural zones. To understand the agriculture of Mexico, it is important to know and recognize how the agricultural landscape is shaped (Altieri & Toledo, 2011). Through the revolution in 1910-1917, which resulted in the first agrarian reform in Mexico, called Plan de Ayala, many peasant and indigenous communities obtained ownership and

access to land. This social property, consisting of ejidos1_and_comunidades2_{, still shapes the current} agricultural landscape in Mexico. Although ownership of the land is not static, and there are factors threatening this social property, such as the counter agrarian reform in 1992, which aimed to make social properties available for sale, still around two-third of the land is controlled by ejidos (Altieri & Toledo, 2011). Peasant families thus play an important role in Mexican

agriculture and many smallholder artisanal food producers work as families. This aligned with the demographics of the SAFP, as 73% (22/30) were working at ejidos.

4.2.2 Agricultural Policy

As stated in the introduction, since the 1980’s, most attention in Mexico has been placed upon industrial agriculture. Large producers have been continuously favoured against smaller producers even though about two-third of the farmers are small-scale. Smallholder peasant farmers were targeted with social welfare programs rather than through agricultural investments. Nevertheless, many billions of dollars were invested in farmers through various government subsidies, such as Procampo, to stimulate agricultural growth. However, with the presidential

election of López Obrador one year ago, times might be changing in Mexico. López Obrador initiated an extensive agricultural reform, fittingly coined Plan de Ayala, referring to the previous

agricultural reform that was mostly tailored to peasant farmers. At the heart of the agricultural reform is the aim to increase food sovereignty, through land reform, increased rights of farmers, with a special focus on women and indigenous groups, a more sustainable variant of agricultural production and with attention to public health too. One of its aims is for example the commitment to decrease import of corn, wheat, rice, beans and milk, and meet the national demand with national small-scale farmers, by setting guaranteed prices for these products. The current five-year plan is focussed on helping two million farmers, who will be getting both

1_{Property owned by a (peasant) family}

(29)

subsidies and supervision via SEGALMEX (Seguridad Alimentaria Mexicana). Within the new

agricultural reform, the decrease in soil fertility and increased erosion have not been missed, and a transition to agroecology is encouraged through ANEC’s (La Asociación de Empresas Comercializadoras de Productores del Campo), agroecology program.

Figure 3: Valle Puebla-Tlaxcala displayed on map of Mexico, Puebla light blue, Tlaxcala dark blue.

4.3 Regional level: Valle Puebla-Tlaxcala

This research has been conducted in the Valle Puebla-Tlaxcala. Both Puebla and Tlaxcala are states in Mexico. Tlaxcala is a smaller state and lies almost entirely within Puebla. Both states are located in East-Central Mexico, as can be seen in Figure 2. Both states side in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, with Puebla characterized by the Popocateptl and the Iztaccihuatl, and Tlaxcala characterized by La Malinche. The basis where this research was conducted was in San Andres de Cholula, which is geographically within Puebla, but very close to Tlaxcala. As the two states are completely intertwined in terms of agricultural lands, the decision was made to expand the research area and include both Puebla and Tlaxcala, instead of only Puebla. Five major indigenous groups live in the region: The Nahuas, the Totonacs, the Mixtecs, the Popolocas and the Otomi. In Puebla, half of the inhabitants live in the city of Puebla, and the other half in the rural surrounding areas. 37% percept of the Poblanos work in agriculture, livestock and fishing, which is slightly higher than the national average. The most important activities to this extent are the production of poultry and eggs (37%), cattle (12%,), grains and pork (both 10%), vegetables

(30)

(8%) and fruit (4%). In Tlaxcala, about 78% of the population lives in cities and the remaining 22% in the rural surrounding areas. Comparable to Puebla, most of Tlaxcala’s economy lies in agriculture, livestock and forestry. Most important rural activity is manifested by the principle crops (60%): maize, barley, wheat, beans, animal feed and potatoes, followed by livestock (6,7%): beef cattle, dairy cows and fighting bulls. Both Puebla and Tlaxcala are some of the poorer states in Mexico: Puebla is third highest state by poverty rate (64,5%) and Tlaxcala the fifth (57,9%), which is significantly higher than the national average (40%). The region of Puebla-Tlaxcala is chosen to conduct this study because of its academic possibilities in local academic supervision and because it is rich in agricultural lands. Aside from this, it is safer than certain regions in for example the North. Although more agricultural activity takes place there, safety is also more of concern.

4.4 Conclusion

In conclusion, industrial agriculture led to migration, poverty and degradation of soil. Agricultural policies so far have focused on large and industrial producers, although changes can be seen in the new agricultural plans of president López Obrador. Agriculture plays an important role in the region Valle Puebla-Tlaxcala.

(31)

5. Smallholder Artisanal Food Producers and Agroecology

This chapter aims to define the concept of artisanal food production, answering sub-question 1. It furthermore dives into the various agroecological practices that are adopted by the smallholder artisanal food producers and analyses strengths and limitations, simultaneously answering sub-question 2. The data analysis is mostly based on the semi-structured interviews. When data other than the semi-structured interviews was used, this is mentioned.

5.2 Smallholder Artisanal Food Producers

In order to understand the contribution of smallholder artisanal food producers to food sovereignty through the agroecological practices they adopt, and to answer the main research question in the following Conclusion chapter, it is important to firstly examine and define the concept of artisanal food production. As mentioned in the theoretical framework, the term artisanal bears no clear academic definition and various aspects are included and excluded. The most tangible definition, which was also used whilst conducting fieldwork, came from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (2015), and stated the following criteria for artisanal food production:

(1) The food is made in limited quantities by skilled crafts people.

(2) The processing method is not fully mechanised and follows a traditional method. (3) The food is made in a micro-enterprise at a single location.

(4) The characteristic ingredient(s) used in the food are grown or produced locally where seasonally available and practical.

Of the 30 interviews conducted with artisanal food producers, almost all producers recognized their business in this definition, except for one (#2). Furthermore, most of the producers thought the definition of artisanal as provided above, was correct. This was mostly true for the second and fourth criterium, to which 26/30 of the producers agreed. Although also 25 producers found the first criterium to be true, it was remarked that the production didn’t have to be limited in quantities if you have a lot of people to work with (#9). Furthermore, 24 producers agreed to the third criterium, but four producers mentioned it did not necessarily have to be produced in a single location (#9, #10, #13, #26). When asked how the producers would define artisanal themselves, without being introduced to the previously mentioned criteria, other criteria came forward as well. The most common answer was that artisanal food was manually produced, hand-made or non-industrialized, which 27 out of 30 producers mentioned as the first and most important criterium. Even though this partially aligns with criterium 2 that was previously established, it does not contain the actual word manual or hand-made, even though this

The promising future of artisanal food production : a case study on smallholder artisanal food producers in the Valle Puebla - Tlaxcala region, Mexico