https://doi.org/10.29312/remexca.v15i6.3589

elocation-id: e3589

Sánchez-Gómez, Caamal-Cauich, and Pat-Fernández: Food sovereignty in the production and marketing of vegetables native to Mexico

Journal Metadata

Journal Identifier: remexca [journal-id-type=publisher-id]

Journal Title Group

Journal Title (Full): Revista mexicana de ciencias agrícolas

Abbreviated Journal Title: Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agríc [abbrev-type=publisher]

ISSN: 2007-0934 [pub-type=ppub]

Publisher

Publisher’s Name: Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias

Article Metadata

Article Identifier: 10.29312/remexca.v15i6.3589 [pub-id-type=doi]

Article Grouping Data

Subject Group [subj-group-type=heading]

Subject Grouping Name: Articles

Title Group

Article Title: Food sovereignty in the production and marketing of vegetables native to Mexico

Contributor Group

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Sánchez-Gómez

Given (First) Names: Carlos

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff1]

Superscript: 1

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=corresp; rid=c1]

Superscript: §

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Caamal-Cauich

Given (First) Names: Ignacio

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff1]

Superscript: 1

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Pat-Fernández

Given (First) Names: Verna Gricel

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff1]

Superscript: 1

Affiliation [id=aff1]

Label (of an Equation, Figure, Reference, etc.): 1

Institution Name: in an Address: División de Ciencias Económico-Administrativas-Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. Carretera México-Texcoco km 38.5, Texcoco, Estado de México, México. CP. 56230. Tel. 595 9576210. [content-type=original]

Institution Name: in an Address: Universidad Autónoma Chapingo [content-type=normalized]

Institution Name: in an Address: División de Ciencias Económico-Administrativas [content-type=orgdiv1]

Institution Name: in an Address: Universidad Autónoma Chapingo [content-type=orgname]

Address Line

City: Texcoco

State or Province: Estado de México

Postal Code: 56230

Country: in an Address: Mexico [country=MX]

Author Note Group

Correspondence Information: [§] Autor para correspondencia: carlossg1607@gmail.com. [id=c1]

Publication Date [date-type=pub; publication-format=electronic]

Day: 28

Month: 10

Year: 2024

Publication Date [date-type=collection; publication-format=electronic]

Season: Aug-Sep

Year: 2024

Volume Number: 15

Issue Number: 6

Electronic Location Identifier: e3589

History: Document History

Date [date-type=received]

Day: 01

Month: 05

Year: 2024

Date [date-type=accepted]

Day: 01

Month: 08

Year: 2024

Permissions

License Information [license-type=open-access; xlink:href=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/; xml:lang=es]

Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons

Abstract

Title: Abstract

The value of horticultural production native to Mexico has grown over time; it was 86.722 billion pesos in 2021. This research aimed to characterize the production and marketing of horticultural products native to Mexico through the food sovereignty approach (1980-2021). The variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics and were supported by trend regression models. The volume of native horticultural production was 10 million 469 thousand tons in 2021, with the production of tomatoes, chilies, beans, husk tomatoes, and squash standing out. Real prices for native horticultural products have declined over time. The apparent national consumption of native vegetables was 3 million 781 thousand tons in 1980 and 6 million 952 thousand tons in 2021; there was, therefore, a growth rate in demand of 83.84%. Self-sufficiency in the production of vegetables, pulses, legumes, and seeds was 150.59%, horticultural trade openness was 9.95%, and the import dependency indicator was 2.27% in 2021. The Mexican Republic must renounce its dependence on a few horticultural products for export and produce the chili and beans necessary to meet the domestic demand required by the country.

Keyword Group [xml:lang=en]

Title: Keywords:

Keyword: consumption

Keyword: horticultural production

Keyword: trade

Counts

Figure Count [count=1]

Table Count [count=4]

Equation Count [count=14]

Reference Count [count=30]

Page Count [count=0]

Abstract

The value of horticultural production native to Mexico has grown over time; it was 86.722 billion pesos in 2021. This research aimed to characterize the production and marketing of horticultural products native to Mexico through the food sovereignty approach (1980-2021). The variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics and were supported by trend regression models. The volume of native horticultural production was 10 million 469 thousand tons in 2021, with the production of tomatoes, chilies, beans, husk tomatoes, and squash standing out. Real prices for native horticultural products have declined over time. The apparent national consumption of native vegetables was 3 million 781 thousand tons in 1980 and 6 million 952 thousand tons in 2021; there was, therefore, a growth rate in demand of 83.84%. Self-sufficiency in the production of vegetables, pulses, legumes, and seeds was 150.59%, horticultural trade openness was 9.95%, and the import dependency indicator was 2.27% in 2021. The Mexican Republic must renounce its dependence on a few horticultural products for export and produce the chili and beans necessary to meet the domestic demand required by the country.

Keywords:

consumption, horticultural production, trade.

Introduction

Countries exercise food sovereignty when they freely decide how they produce and distribute their food in their own territory; according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2013), food sovereignty rests on six pillars: food is more than just a commodity, it respects food suppliers, knows the agrifood chains, controls locally, uses sustainable technologies, and is compatible with natural resources.

Food sovereignty differs from food security, as the latter is based on the availability, access to food, biological utilization, and stability of the three elements mentioned above (FAO, 2013). The concepts of food security and food sovereignty are sometimes used interchangeably or are considered diametrically opposed; the sovereign is understood as the nation-state, a region, a locality, or the people, and it is the one who ensures the well-being of farmers and consumers (Edelman, 2014).

Food sovereignty is an antithesis to corporate forms of food production, managed with the discourse of trade freedom in the World Trade Organization (McMichael, 2014); it is a path for the defense of the peasant pathway as a means to produce food sustainably (Bernstein, 2014).

Food sovereignty is a struggle against a capitalist model based on land alienation, the assignment of specific gender-specific roles, and the commodification of nature and genetic resources (Grey and Patel, 2014). Food sovereignty is a concept that recalls the need to build diversity where the terms of community and ecology come together (Agarwal, 2014).

The food sovereignty movement is not opposed to international trade but rather to the privileged place given to trade in terms of policies and rules in agrifood production (Burnett and Murphy, 2014). Food sovereignty policies focus on an agroecological production model, state protection, counter-hegemonic discourse, food as a human right, local production, hunger generated by inequality, refusal to use genetically modified seeds, access to land, predominance of collective values, and health equity (López, 2015; Weiler et al., 2015).

The methodologies to address food sovereignty are numerous; Vergara et al. (2022) report that the topic has been studied qualitatively and quantitatively: in the first approach, it is analyzed from the historical, analytical, synthetic, phenomenological point of view and through the case study and concerning the second approach, it has been explained using inferential statistics, multicriteria analysis, multiple linear regression, and multiple equations.

Ayala and Schwentesius (2014) point out that food security and sovereignty can be addressed through the product system approach, the revealed competitiveness index, the calculation of food self-sufficiency, the agricultural trade openness index by product, and the SWOT matrix. Valencia et al. (2019) used Johansen’s cointegration approach to explain Mexico’s food sovereignty of basic grains, obtaining income and price elasticities of import demand, and they concluded that Mexico had lost sovereignty by becoming more dependent on imports.

In Chile, food sovereignty in sustainable food production was analyzed through sampling; the parameters studied were access to resources, production models, transformation and marketing, food consumption and the right to food, and agrarian policies (Franco et al., 2021). The objective of the research was to characterize the production and marketing of horticultural products native to Mexico through the food sovereignty approach for the period between 1980 and 2021.

Materials and methods

The variables developed to characterize sovereignty in the production and marketing of horticultural products native to Mexico were analyzed using descriptive statistics (Infante and Zárate, 2012) and with the help of trend regression models (Gujarati and Porter, 2010; Greene, 2018). The statistics used were: maximum value; minimum value; average

X ¯ = i=1 n X i n

; median (intermediate value of observations); growth rate

Final value initial value -1 *100

; real price

nominal price CPI base 2018 *100

; variance

σ X 2 = i=1 n (X i - X ¯ ) 2 n-1

; standard deviation

σ X = σ X 2

; coefficient of variation

CV= σ X X ¯ *100

; and correlation coefficient

ρ XY = Cov(X, Y) Var(X) Var(Y) = σ XY σ X σ Y

The trend line equation y= βX+c was estimated by the ordinary least squares method. Where: Xi and Yi = observed values, n= total number of observations, nominal price is the current price, CPI base 2018 is the national consumer price index (CPI) with base year 2018, σXY = covariance between variable X and Y, σX = standard deviation of variable X σY= standard deviation of Y, y = predicted value, c= intercept, and β the slope.

The variables used were indicators of national native horticultural production, the evolution of the real prices of native horticultural products (forage products were included), national demand or apparent national consumption (ANC), obtained from the sum of production and imports and exports were subtracted, food self-sufficiency in vegetables native to Mexico (production/production + imports-exports) (Ayala et al., 2012; Ayala and Schwentesius, 2014), horticultural trade openness index, calculated with the sum of imports plus exports as a percentage of GDP (Durán and Álvarez, 2008; Ayala et al., 2012), horticultural import dependency (imports/production + imports - ending inventory), based on the calculation of the Center for the Study of Sustainable Development and Food Sovereignty (CEDRSSA, 2007).

The list of plant species native to the Mexican Republic, which includes vegetables, pulses, legumes, and seeds, was taken from the inventories of the National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO, 2008) and the checklist of native vascular plants of Mexico (Villaseñor, 2016). The data were obtained from the Agrifood and Fisheries Information Service (SIAP-SIACON, 2023), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAOSTAT, 2023) and the CPI of the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI, 2023).

In the international trade of horticultural products, only those products that have their center of origin in Mexico are considered. Values and prices are at constant 2018 prices, production volumes in tons (t) and areas in hectares (ha).

Results and discussion

Indicators of horticultural production originating in Mexico

The sown area allocated to horticultural production native to Mexico has decreased over time, while the harvested area went from 1 million 753 thousand hectares in 1980 to 2 million 75 thousand hectares in 2021 (Table 1), indicating that there was a growth rate in the harvested area of 18.32%.

Table 1

Table 1. Horticultural production native t Mexico (1980-2021).

Year Area sown (ha) Area harvested (ha) Area damaged (ha) Production (t) Average yield (t ha-1) Production value (thousand pesos at 2018 prices)
1980 2 180 136 1 753 748 4 26 388 3 462 360 6.65 49 576 232
1985 2 327 647 1 997 663 329 590 3 955 162 8.32 54 345 041
1990 2 547 002 2 350 815 194 769 4 977 544 9.85 66 781 656
1995 2 621 264 2 289 687 330 490 5 605 731 13.23 50 184 989
2000 2 470 005 1 840 146 628 850 6 189 953 12.17 51 962 027
2005 2 110 706 1 604 638 504 046 7 077 374 14.43 53 837 898
2010 2 252 592 1 976 519 269 293 7 971 970 15.06 62 785 543
2015 2 091 097 1 952 077 137 261 9 289 297 17.83 72 073 062
2020 2 130 628 1 975 345 155 110 10 467 818 17.97 90 597 684
2021 2 105 722 2 075 045 30 477 10 469 398 17.81 86 722 705

[i] Data from SIAP-SIACON and INEGI’s CPI.

The maximum harvested area was 2 million 472 thousand hectares, recorded in 1998, and the minimum was 1 million 228 thousand hectares in 2011. Ayala et al. (2012) pointed out that, in vegetables, the area harvested has increased and that production has been favored by the technification of irrigation systems. The volume of native horticultural production had an increasing trend over time; the maximum volume produced was 11 million 5 thousand tons recorded in 2018, and there was a growth rate in production of 202.38%, comparing the years 1980 and 2021.

As the sown area has remained in the order of 2 million hectares, the increase in production volume is explained by increased horticultural yields. Sosa and Ruiz (2017) found that agricultural production (including vegetables, pulses, legumes, and seeds) increased in the period from 1980 to 2015. For their part, Cruz et al. (2013) noted that the main factors explaining the growth in the volume of horticultural production between 1994 and 2009 were yields and, to a lesser extent, area.

The maximum yield in horticultural production native to the Mexican Republic was 18.24 t ha-1, recorded in 2018, and the minimum of 6.65 t ha-1, occurred in 1980. The average yield in the study period was 12.98 t ha-1, and the yield growth rate was 167.95% comparing 1980 and 2021. The increases in the yields of native horticultural production are mainly explained by the increases in both the labor and capital factors.

Regarding the value of production, it stood at 49.576 billion pesos in 1980 and at 52.811 billion pesos when Mexico entered the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1986, the value continued to increase and reached 53.433 billion pesos when the country entered the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994.

The highest growth rate of the value of native horticultural production compared to the previous year was 65.84% in 1990, the lowest was -29.01% in 1988; there was a rate of 64.21% comparing the years 1986 and 2021: economic policies of free access to markets had a little significant effect on the growth of the value of native horticultural production.

For 2021, in the sown area, the following crops stood out: beans with 1 million 690 thousand hectares, green chili with 83 thousand hectares, and chihua squash with 70 thousand hectares. As a proportion of the total area sown in the year in question, beans, green chili, and chihua squash accounted for 80.27%, 3.98%, and 3.34%, respectively. In the damaged area, beans stood out with 68.07%, chihua squash with 20.37%, and green chili with 6.19%. On the other hand, the following crops stood out in terms of volume (and represented of the total): tomatoes (31.75%), green chili (23.48%), beans (12.31%), nopalitos (tender cactus) (8.3%), husk tomatoes (7.88%), and zucchini (5.39%); the latter is explained by the fact that these products are the basis of the diet of the Mexican population.

The highest yields in 2021 were obtained in the production of nopalitos (69.8 t ha-1), tomato (69.34 t ha-1), and chayote (65.13 t ha-1); the lowest yields were recorded in beans (0.77 t ha-1), chia (0.76 t ha-1), and chihua squash (0.6 t ha-1). In the total value of native horticultural production, tomatoes stood out with 31.99%, green chili with 23.95%, and beans with 20.83%. No records were found of the production of jaltomate and chipilín.

Behavior of real prices of vegetables native to Mexico

The real prices of native horticultural products have decreased over time; if the prices of 1980 and 2021 are compared, there was a growth rate in the price of zucchini of -47.46%; sweet potato, -40.43%; chayote, -45.67%; green chili, -35.70%; epazote, -10.89%; beans, -43.97%; sunflower, -53.39%; huazontle, -44.20; jicama, -34.50%; pápalo, -79.08%; tomato, -12.38%; husk tomato, -59.49%. In the case of amaranth, it was -83.78% (comparing 1985 and 2021), in chilacayote -83.06% (1990 and 2021), pipicha -87.85% (1990 and 2021); negative growth rates were also recorded in dried chili, forage beans, cowpeas, forage sunflower, and forage nopal.

The decline in the real prices of native horticultural products means that producers receive fewer economic resources for their traded products. Martínez and Martínez (2013) indicated that total factor productivity in agriculture did not grow between 1991 and 2005 and that input prices have grown faster than the price of agricultural products (horticultural products were included in the analysis).

Nevertheless, there were cases of products that had positive growth rates comparing the years 1980 and 2021; for squash, the price went from $6 630.00 to $7 344.00 t-1 (rate of 10.77%); chihua squash, $23 937.00 to $26 743.00 t-1 (11.72%); chia, $15 702.00 to $50 348.00 t-1 (220.65%); nopalitos, $2 617.00 to $3 002.00 t-1 (rate of 14.72%). For its part, in quelite, the price was $7 448.00 t-1 in 1990 and $10 402.00 t-1 in 2021, there was therefore a growth rate of 39.66%.

In the statistical analysis, the maximum prices occurred in amaranth ($106 000.00 t-1), chia ($85 000.00 t-1) and dried chili ($77 000.00 t-1); the minimums were recorded in forage beans ($775.00 t-1), forage sunflower ($480.00 t-1) and forage nopal ($371.00 t-1). Those with the highest variation with respect to the mean were forage sunflower (97.56%), amaranth (88.84%) and pipicha (87.55%) (Table 2).

Table 2

Table 2. Statistical analysis of the real rural average price ($ t-1).

Product Maximum Minimum Mean Median σ2 X σX CV
Amaranth 106 274 6 953 21 747 13 791 373 286 136.45 19 320.61 88.84
Zucchini 10 976 5 079 7 130 6 411 2 894 274.27 1 701.26 23.86
Squash 19 921 2 486 8 076 6 840 17 809 023.36 4 220.07 52.25
Chihua squash 55 742 15 510 29 281 26 858 83 971 914.13 9 163.62 31.3
Sweet potato 7 328 3 883 5 183 4 820 993 895.73 996.94 19.23
Chayote 11 122 2 636 4 715 3 643 4 579 534.99 2 139.98 45.38
Chia 85 816 2 793 30 766 24 409 617 058 539.05 24 840.66 80.74
Chilacayote 24 660 3 546 7 206 5 445 23 378 455.77 4 835.13 67.1
Dried chili 77 409 40 472 54 628 52 015 97 716 210.26 9 885.15 18.1
Green chili 18 055 5 940 10 482 9 158 13 727 943.02 3 705.12 35.35
Epazote 8 835 2 458 4 374 4 018 2 066 621.97 1 437.58 32.86
Beans 25 480 9 353 14 893 13 854 16 468 524.69 4 058.14 27.25
Forage beans 999 775 867 851 7 245.45 85.12 9.81
Cowpeas 15 003 5 148 6 684 5 942 5 740 420.4 2 395.92 35.84
Sunflower 17 206 3 029 8 434 7 349 11 158 116.51 3 340.38 39.61
Forage sunflower 3 952 480 1 103 648 1 157 706.62 1 075.97 97.56
Huauzontle 8 446 2 264 3 979 3 573 2 135 448.12 1 461.32 36.72
Jicama 6 222 2 491 3 894 3 676 692 314.03 832.05 21.37
Forage nopal 1 908 371 735 472 258 388.69 508.32 69.19
Nopalitos 10 298 2 069 4 105 3 807 3 491 196.26 1 868.47 45.52
Pápalo 16 060 2 080 5 290 4 254 12 301 621.49 3 507.37 66.3
Pipicha 20 078 1 412 6 868 3 934 36 162 283.09 6 013.51 87.55
Quelite 12 198 2 152 6 059 5 380 7 722 947.34 2 779.02 45.86
Tomato 12 049 5 861 8 592 8 548 2 278 974.05 1 509.63 17.57
Husk tomato 12 628 4 263 7 131 6 421 5 107 423.17 2 259.96 31.69

[i] Data from SIAP-SIACON and INEGI’s CPI.

Due to the low prices received by producers in rural areas and the small agricultural areas they own, the income obtained can often not cover the costs they incur in carrying out their productive activities.

National and per capita consumption of horticultural products native to Mexico

In the international trade of vegetables from Mexico, imports had a downward trend in the study period, with the maximum import being 856 984 t in 1982 and the minimum 93 515 t in 1995 (Table 3). Comparing 1980 and 2021, there was a negative import growth rate of -68.21%. The horticultural products imported in 2021 were (and occupied in the total volume): green chili (0.97%), squash (1.01%), sunflower seeds (10.51%), dried chili (15.50%), and beans (72.01%). A total of 444 306 t of beans were imported in 1980 and 175 088 t of beans in 2021 (rate of -60.59%).

Table 3

Table 3. Apparent national consumption of vegetables native to Mexico and daily per capita consumption (1980-2021).

Year Imports (t) Exports (t) ANC (t) Population Per capita consumption (g day-1)
1980 764 822 445 445 3 781 737 67 561 216 153.36
1985 833 341 603 686 4 184 817 76 030 535 150.8
1990 455 585 701 761 4 731 368 84 169 571 154.01
1995 93 515 1 257 703 4 441 543 91 843 905 132.47
2000 168 812 1 364 480 4 994 285 98 785 275 138.09
2005 149 194 1 450 879 5 775 689 105 669 369 147.75
2010 198 056 2 240 990 5 929 036 113 748 671 137.78
2015 152 809 2 906 450 6 535 656 121 347 800 143.75
2020 191 944 3 606 491 7 053 272 127 792 286 146.25
2021 243 143 3 760 166 6 952 374 128 972 439 142.92

[i] Data from SIAP-SIACON, FAOSTAT and CONAPO. Per capita consumption excluded forage products.

Regarding native horticultural exports, there was an upward trend over time; the maximum volume exported was 3 760 000 t recorded in 2021, and the minimum was 443 000 t in 1983. There was a positive growth rate in the exported volume of 744.14% comparing 1980 and 2021. The native horticultural products exported and their share in the total volume in 2021 were: sweet potato (0.19%), beans (1.03), dried chili (1.12), squash (14.58), green chili (32.45), and tomato (50.63%).

Sánchez et al. (2019) reported that tomatoes, chili, squash, and beans stand out in Mexico’s horticultural trade, in addition to the fact that there is a trade dependency on the United States of America since more than 90% of horticultural exports go to that country.

Concerning demand, the ANC has increased because the population has increased; it was 6 952 000 t in 2021. The maximum demand was 7 746 000 t in 2018 and the minimum was 3 781 000 t recorded in 1980. There was a growth rate in demand of 83.84% comparing 1980 and 2021. The ANC exceeded production between 1980 and 1986; the deficit in production was 319 377 t in 1980 and 56 003 t in 1986. For the period between 1987 and 2021, production exceeded the ANC; the surplus in production was 408 890 t in 1987, and 3 517 000 t in 2021; the growth rate in the surplus of production was 760.14% comparing the years 1987 and 2021.

Regarding per capita consumption of native horticultural products, the variable showed a slight upward trend over time. The maximum consumption was 164.86 g day-1 recorded in 2018, the minimum was 104.18 in 2011 and the average was 145.45 g day-1. There was a negative growth rate in the consumption of native vegetables of -6.81% comparing 1980 and 2021.

The demand for horticultural products native to Mexico is a function of price, income, and population. The correlation coefficient between the quantity demanded of native horticultural products and the average price was -0.44932425 (if the variable of quantity increases, the variable of price decreases), quantity demanded and agricultural GDP 0.72707261, and quantity demanded and population 0.9868969.

Self-sufficiency in the production of vegetables native to Mexico

Self-sufficiency in the production of vegetables native to Mexico showed a growing trend in the study period; ie., Mexican producers have managed to meet the demand for vegetables, pulses, legumes, and seeds that the country needs. In 2021, the demand for horticultural products native to Mexico was met by production by 150.59% (Table 4) in a harvested area of 2 075 000 ha, production of 10 469 000 t and a population of 128 000 000 inhabitants.

alig

Table 4

Table 4. Food self-sufficiency, import dependency, and trade openness index of Mexico’s native horticultural activity.

Year FS (%) ID (%) Agricultural GDP (BP) Imports (BP) Exports (BP) HTOI (%)
1980 91.55 18.09 520.138 14.297 8.489 4.38
1985 94.51 17.4 534.201 11.843 9.02 3.91
1990 105.2 8.39 567.777 9.776 20.662 5.36
1995 126.21 1.64 527.896 1.433 32.073 6.35
2000 123.94 2.65 478.612 1.925 22.406 5.08
2005 122.54 2.06 497.31 2.513 29.742 6.49
2010 134.46 2.42 586.171 4.418 39.105 7.42
2015 142.13 1.62 676.3 3.773 57.95 9.13
2020 148.41 1.8 827.807 4.574 94.937 12.02
2021 150.59 2.27 883.859 5.81 82.106 9.95

[i] Data from SIAP-SIACON, INEGI’s CPI, World Bank, and FAOSTAT. FS= food self-sufficiency; ID= import dependency; HTOI= horticultural trade openness index; GDP, imports and exports are at constant 2018 prices.

Trade dependency indicators

The horticultural trade openness index has increased over time (Figure 1); the maximum value was 12.02% in 2020, the minimum was 2.5% in 1992, and it went from 4.38% in 1980 to 9.95% in 2021, implying a greater participation of native horticultural products in international trade. The indicator of horticultural import dependency had a downward trend over time; the maximum value was 18.69% in 1981, the minimum value was 1.55% in 2014, and it was 2.27% in 2021.

Figure 1

Trade indicators for native horticultural products.

2007-0934-remexca-15-06-e3589-gf2.jpg

Of the horticultural products native to Mexico analyzed, in volume, the three main imported products are sunflower seeds, dried chili, and beans, while in exports, they are squash, green chili, and tomato. According to Brambila et al. (2014), Mexican agriculture transitioned from an agriculture based on grains and industrial products to an agriculture and livestock farming based on chicken, beef, pork, eggs, milk, fruits, and vegetables.

Conclusions

In the medium term, the area allocated to native horticultural production in Mexico is expected to range in an area that covers two million hectares; in contrast, for the same previous period, the production volume, average yield, and value of native horticultural production will continue to increase over time. Agricultural policies should not only focus on traditional crops such as beans, chili, tomatoes, and squash but also on increasing the production of other native crops such as amaranth, chia, chilacayote, huazontle, pápalo, pipicha, quelite, jaltomate, and chipilín.

It is necessary to increase the real prices received by the country’s horticultural owners, in addition to granting them direct transfers that are aimed at increasing their incomes. Food policies should be oriented towards promoting the consumption of vegetables that have their center of origin in the country and mentioning the positive effects of their consumption on people’s health. With the ratification of the Agreement between Mexico, the United States of America, and Canada in 2020 and the policies managed by the government in power in the field of food, in the short term, it is expected that the indicator of food self-sufficiency in native vegetables will continue to increase, whereas the indicator of horticultural trade openness and the indicator of import dependency are forecast to remain with minimal variations.

The Mexican Republic must reorient its dependence on a few horticultural products for exports; it is necessary to increase the volumes of other native horticultural products that do not appear in total exports; likewise, the production of basic foods such as chili and beans must be guaranteed, so that native horticultural production meets the domestic demand required by the country.

Bibliography

1 

Agarwal, B. 2014. Food sovereignty, food security and democratic choice: critical contradictions, difficult conciliations. Journal of Peasant Studies. 41(6):1247-1268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.876996.

2 

Ayala-Garay, A. E.; Schwentesius-Rindermann, R.; Almaguer, V. G.; Márquez, B. S.; Carrera, C. B. y Jolalpa, B. J. L. 2012. Competitividad del sector agropecuario en México: implicaciones y retos. Plaza y Valdés Editores, México. 5-56 pp.

3 

Ayala-Garay, A. E.; Schwentesius-Rindermann, R. y Carrera-Chávez, B. 2012. Hortalizas en México: competitividad frente a EE. UU. y oportunidades de desarrollo. Globalización, Competitividad y Gobernabilidad. 6(3):70-88. 10.3232/GCG.2012.V6.N3.04.

4 

Ayala-Garay, A. E. y Schwentesius-Rindermann, R. 2014. Seguridad y soberanía alimentaria, conceptos teóricos y formas de análisis. In: Seguridad y soberanía alimentaria en México. Plaza y Valdés Editores, México. 13-25 pp.

5 

Bernstein, H. 2014. Food sovereignty via the ‘peasant way’: a sceptical view. The Journal of Peasant Studies . 41(6):1031-1063. 10.1080/03066150.2013.852082.

6 

Brambila-Paz, J. J.; Martínez-Damián, M. A.; Rojas-Rojas, M. M. y Pérez-Cerecedo, V. 2014. El valor de la producción agrícola y pecuaria en México: fuentes de crecimiento, 1980-2010. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas. 5(4):619-631. https://doi.org/10.29312/remexca.v5i4.923.

7 

Burnett, K. and Murphy, S. 2014. What place for international trade in food sovereignty? The Journal of Peasant Studies. 41(6):1065-1084. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.876995.

8 

CEDRSSA. 2007. Centro de estudios para el desarrollo sustentable y la soberanía alimentaria. Indicadores económicos de seguridad y soberanía alimentaria, actividad productiva y paridad urbana-rural. Cámara de Diputados (CD). México. 21-87 pp.

9 

CONABIO. 2008. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. Capital natural de México. Vol. I: conocimiento actual de la biodiversidad. México. 565-603 pp.

10 

Cruz-Delgado, D.; Leos-Rodríguez, J. A. y Altamirano-Cárdenas, J. R. 2013. México: factores explicativos de la producción de la producción de frutas y hortalizas ante la apertura comercial. Revista Chapingo Serie Horticultura. 19(3):267-278. http://dx.doi.org/10.5154/r.rchsh.2012.05.029.

11 

Durán-Lima, J. E. y Álvarez, M. 2008. Indicadores de comercio exterior y política comercial: mediciones de posición y dinamismo comercial. CEPAL, Naciones Unidas, Chile. 43 p.

12 

Edelman, M. 2014. Food sovereignty: forgotten genealogies and future regulatory challenges. Journal of Peasant Studies. 41(6):959-978. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.876998.

13 

Franco-Crespo, C.; Andrade-Sánchez, V. y Baldeón-Báez, S. 2021. Identificación de modelos de producción sostenible de alimentos en el cantón Píllaro como aporte a la soberanía alimentaria. IDESIA. 39(3):125-134. 10.4067/S0718-34292021000300125.

14 

FAO. 2013. Seguridad y soberanía alimentaria. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura. 37 p.

15 

FAOSTAT. 2023. United Nations of Food and Agriculture Organization. Crops and livestock products 1980-2020. https://www.fao.org/faostat/es/#data/TCL.

16 

Greene, W. H. 2018. Econometric Analysis. 8th Ed. Pearson. United States. 112 p.

17 

Grey, S. and Patel, R. 2014. Food sovereignty as decolonization: some contributions from Indigenous movements to food system and development politics. Agric. Hum. Values. 32(3):431-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9548-9.

18 

Gujarati, D. N. y Porter, D. C. 2010. Econometría. Mc Graw Hill. México. 921 p.

19 

INEGI. 2023. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Índice nacional de precios al consumidor (IPC) 1980-2020. https://www.inegi.org.mx/app/indicadores/?tm=0#D628194.

20 

Infante-Gil, S. y Zárate-Lara, G. P. 2012. Métodos estadísticos. Colegio de Postgraduados. México. 610 p.

21 

López-Giraldo, L. A. y Franco-Giraldo, A. 2015. Revisión de enfoques de políticas alimentarias: entre la seguridad y la soberanía alimentaria. Cadernos de Saúde Pública. 31(7):1355-1369. 10.1590/0102-311X00124814.

22 

Martínez-Damián, M. A. y Martínez-Damián, M. T. 2013. Productividad total de los factores en la agricultura y horticultura mexicana: 1991-2005. Revista Chapingo Serie Horticultura. 19(3):255-366. http://dx.doi.org/355-366.10.5154/r.rchsh.2012.08.043.

23 

McMichael, P. 2014. Historicizing food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies. 41(6):933-957. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.876999.

24 

Sánchez-Gómez, C.; Caamal-Cahuich, I. y Valle-Sánchez, M. 2019. Exportación hortofrutícola de México hacia los Estados Unidos de América. Estudios Sociales. 29(54):1-20. https://doi.org/10.24836/es.v29i54.766.

25 

SIAP-SIACON. 2023. Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo rural. Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera 1980-2020. https://www.gob.mx/siap/documentos/siacon-ng-161430.

26 

Sosa-Baldivia, A. y Ruíz-Ibarra, G. 2017. La disponibilidad de alimentos en México: un análisis de la producción agrícola de 35 años y su proyección para 2050. Papeles de Población. 23(93):207-230. 10.22185/24487147.2017.93.027.

27 

Valencia-Romero, R.; Sánchez-Bárcenas, H. y Robles-Ortiz, D. 2019. Soberanía alimentaria de granos básicos en México: un enfoque de cointegración de Johansen a partir del TLCAN. Análisis Económico. 34(87):223-248.

28 

Vergara-Romero, A.; Menor-Campos, A.; Arencibia-Montero, O. y Jimber-Río, J. A. 2022. Soberanía alimentaria en Ecuador: descripción y análisis bibliométrico. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia. 27(98):498-510. 10.52080/rvgluz.27.98.8.

29 

Villaseñor, J. L. 2016. Checklist of the native vascular plants of Mexico. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad. 87(3):559-902. 10.1016/j.rmb.2016.06.017.

30 

Weiler, A. M.; Hergesheimer, C.; Brisbois, B.; Wittman, H.; Yassi, A. and Spiegel, J. M. 2015. Food sovereignty, food security and health equity: a meta narrative mapping exercise. Health Policy and Planning. 30(8):1078-1092. 10.1093/heapol/czu109.