Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:35:45.756Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perspectives on native maize conservation in Mexico: a public programme analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2020

Vladimir Pelcastre ,
Eduardo García-Frapolli Open the ORCID record for Eduardo García-Frapolli [Opens in a new window] ,
Bárbara Ayala-Orozco Open the ORCID record for Bárbara Ayala-Orozco [Opens in a new window]  and
Elena Lazos-Chavero Open the ORCID record for Elena Lazos-Chavero [Opens in a new window]
Vladimir Pelcastre
Affiliation:
Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro 8701, Col. Ex-Hacienda San José de la Huerta, CP 58190, Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico
Eduardo García-Frapolli*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro 8701, Col. Ex-Hacienda San José de la Huerta, CP 58190, Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico
Bárbara Ayala-Orozco
Affiliation:
Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro 8701, Col. Ex-Hacienda San José de la Huerta, CP 58190, Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico
Elena Lazos-Chavero
Affiliation:
Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito Maestro Mario de la Cueva s/n, Ciudad de la Investigación en Humanidades, Ciudad Universitaria, CP 04510, Coyoacán, Ciudad de México, Mexico
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Eduardo García-Frapolli, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In any conservation programme, a variety of actors participate and interact in its different phases. They commonly have different perspectives and priorities regarding conservation, and diversity in the ensuing perspectives constitutes a barrier to effective conservation. In this paper, we analyse the different perspectives around the Programa de Conservación de Maíz Criollo (Programme for the Conservation of Native Maize in Mexico; PROMAC) in order to understand the possible causes that resulted in the programme not fulfilling its objectives. We used Q methodology and semi-structured interviews with farmers from a natural protected area to analyse the perspectives of the key actors who conceptualized, designed and implemented the programme and of the target population. Our research identified two different perspectives: (1) native maize can only be conserved with the support of community processes; and (2) the government, and not farmers, is responsible for the conservation of native maize. For farmers, native maize is key to their subsistence livelihoods, and they participated in the programme because of government monetary incentives. These differences contributed to dissimilar interpretations throughout the programme’s implementation phase, which, in turn, likely contributed to PROMAC failing to meet its objectives.

Keywords

discourse analysisnatural protected areaspolicy cyclepriority species
Type
Research Paper
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 33 - 40
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Foundation for Environmental Conservation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altieri, MA (2018) Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, G (2009) The evolution and resilience of community-based land tenure in rural Mexico. Land Use Policy 26: 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellón, M, Dulloo, E, Sardos, J, Thormann, I, Burdon, JJ (2017) In situ conservation-harnessing natural and human-derived evolutionary forces to ensure future crop adaptation. Evolutionary Applications 10: 965–977.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birkland, TA (2007) Agenda setting in public policy. In: Fischer, F, Miller, GJ, Sidney, MS (eds), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods (pp. 63–78). Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Boedhihartono, AK, Bongers, F, Boot, RG, van Dijk, J, Jeans, H, van Kuijk, M et al. (2018) Conservation science and practice must engage with the realities of complex tropical landscapes. Tropical Conservation Science 11: 1940082918779571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S (1980) Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cairney, P (2020) Understanding Public Policy. London, UK: Red Globe Press Google Scholar
Catalano, AS, Lyons-White, J, Mills, MM, Knight, AT (2019) Learning from published project failures in conservation. Biological Conservation 238: 108223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CONANP (2016) Programa de conservation de maíz criollo en México [www document]. URL www.gob.mx/conanp/acciones-y-programas/maiz-criollo Google Scholar
CONANP (2017) Programa de Manejo del Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna Meseta de Cacaxtla. Mexico City, Mexico: SEMARNAT.Google Scholar
Dunlop, CA (2017) Policy learning and policy failure: definitions, dimensions and intersections. Policy & Politics 45: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foyer, J (2012) Ver su riqueza en los maíces: un panorama de las iniciativas de conservación de maices criollos en México [www document]. URL https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00994898/document Google Scholar
Foyer, J, Ellison, N (2018) Conserver les maïs mexicains. La diversité bio-culturelle et ses ambiguïtés. Études Rurales 202: 120–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garibay Velasco, RM (2017) Maíz criollo en áreas naturales protegidas: avances, límites y retrocesos. La Jornada Ecológica 212: 20–22.Google Scholar
Hirsch, PD, Adams, WM, Brosius, JP, Zia, A, Bariola, N, Dammert, JL (2011) Acknowledging conservation trade-offs and embracing complexity. Conservation Biology 25: 259–264.Google ScholarPubMed
Howlett, M, Ramesh, M, Wu, X (2015) Understanding the persistence of policy failures: the role of politics, governance and uncertainty. Public Policy and Administration 30: 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jann, W, Wegrich, K (2007) Theories of the policy cycle. In: Fischer, F, Miller, GJ, Sidney, MS (eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods (pp. 43–62). Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Kato, T, Mapes, C, Mera, L, Serratos, J, Bye, R (2009) Origen y diversificación del maíz. Mexico City, Mexico: CONABIO.Google Scholar
Lazos, E, Chauvet, M (2012) Análisis del contexto social y biocultural de las colectas de maíces nativos en México. Informe de Gestión. Mexico City, Mexico: CONABIO.Google Scholar
Louette, D, Charrier, A, Berthaud, J (1997) In situ conservation of maize in Mexico: genetic diversity and maize seed management in a traditional community. Economic Botany 51: 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadal, A (2000) The Environmental and Social Impacts of Economic Liberalization on Corn Production in Mexico. Zurich, Switzerland: WWF-OXFAM.Google Scholar
Pacicco, L, Bodesmo, M, Torricelli, R, Negri, V (2018) A methodological approach to identify agro-biodiversity hotspots for priority in situ conservation of plant genetic resources. PLoS One 13(6): e0197709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perales, H (2016) Landrace conservation of maize in Mexico: an evolutionary breeding interpretation. In: Maxted, N, Dulloo, E, Ford-Lloyd, B (eds), Enhancing Crop Genepool Use: Capturing Wild Relative and Landrace Diversity for Crop Improvement (pp. 271–281). Wallingford, UK: CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quist, D, Chapela, IH (2001) Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414: 541–543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simons, J (2013) An introduction to Q methodology. Nurse Researcher 20: 28–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sweeney, S, Steigerwald, DG, Davenport, F, Eakin, H (2013) Mexican maize production: evolving organizational and spatial structures since 1980. Applied Geography 39: 78–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toledo, VM, Barrera-Bassols, N (2017) Political agroecology in Mexico: a path toward sustainability. Sustainability 9(2): 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Exel, J, de Graaf, G (2005) Q Methodology: A Sneak Preview [www document]. URL www.qmethod.org Google Scholar
Watts, S, Stenner, P (2012) Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method & Interpretation. London, UK: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Yeomans, K, Golder, P (1982) The Guttman–Kaiser criterion as a predictor of the number of common factors. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician) 31: 221–229.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Pelcastre et al. Supplementary Materials

Pelcastre et al. Supplementary Materials

Download Pelcastre et al. Supplementary Materials(File)
File 17.9 KB