Servicios Personalizados
Revista
Articulo
Indicadores
-
Citado por SciELO
-
Accesos
Links relacionados
-
Similares en SciELO
Compartir
Agricultura, sociedad y desarrollo
versión impresa ISSN 1870-5472
agric. soc. desarro vol.13 no.1 Texcoco ene./mar. 2016
Articles
Methodological elements for strengthening of the localized agrifood systems (SIAL) approach
1 Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias; Universidad del Cauca, Colombia; Vereda las Guacas Popayán-Cauca (faca@unicauca.edu.co).
2 Centro de Investigaciones Económicas, Sociales y Tecnológicas de la Agroindustria y la Agricultura Mundial, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo; Km. 38.5, carretera México Texcoco, Chapingo, Estado de México. México. 56230. (tartalian04@ gmail.com) (botsy01@yahoo.com).
The objective of this study is to present a proposal that contributes to strengthening the methodology of Localized Agrifood Systems (Sistemas Agroalimentarios Localizados, SIAL) through three relevant contributions. The first consists in locating the theoretical axes that support SIAL. The second is defining a series of supporting elements to generate the information that each axis demands. The third is describing the stages that researchers who select SIAL as analysis approach must follow. In order to do this, a revision was carried out about the different approaches that are used for the study of agroindustry and especially of SIAL. This allowed identifying the theoretical axes. Then, the methodological instruments that could improve the approach were selected. After, it was established that this strengthened methodological proposal would be based on two components: one of diagnosis and another of application. The suggested methodological instruments are detailed in the results, as well as the five stages that make up the strengthened proposal. Likewise, the results obtained in a study case are presented. It is concluded that this proposal can be very useful for those researchers interested in studying the link that there may be between agrifood products and the territory where they are generated, and to define whether they are capable of providing a “territorial rent” to drive economic development in these areas.
Keywords: SIAL stages; support instruments; strengthened methodological proposal; localized agrifood system
El propósito de este trabajo es presentar una propuesta que contribuya a fortalecer la metodología de los Sistemas Agroalimentarios Localizados (SIAL) mediante tres aportes relevantes. El primero consiste en ubicar los ejes teóricos que dan soporte al SIAL. El segundo es la definición de una serie de elementos de apoyo para generar la información que exige cada eje. El tercero son las etapas que debe seguir el investigador que selecciona al SIAL como enfoque de análisis. Para elaborarla se realizó una revisión sobre los diferentes enfoques que se emplean para el estudio de la agroindustria y de manera especial sobre el SIAL. Esto permitió identificar los ejes teóricos. Despúes se seleccionaron los instrumentos metodológicos que podrían mejorar el enfoque. Posteriormente se estableció que esta propuesta metodológica fortalecida se sustentaría en dos componentes, uno de diagnóstico y otro de aplicación. En los resultados se describen detalladamente los instrumentos metodológicos sugeridos, así como las cinco etapas que integran la propuesta fortalecida. Asimismo, se presentan los resultados obtenidos en un estudio de caso. Se concluye que esta propuesta puede ser muy útil para todos aquellos investigadores interesados en estudiar el vínculo que pudiera existir entre los productos agroalimentarios y el territorio donde se generan y definir si son capaces de proporcionar una “renta territorial” para impulsar el desarrollo económico de dichas zonas.
Palabras clave: etapas del SIAL; instrumentos de apoyo; propuesta metodológica fortalecida; sistema agroalimentario localizado
Introduction
Far beyond the globalization of the current economy, which is characterized by the height of transnational companies and its subsidiaries, globalization refers to a complex integration process of the global economy (Requier-Desjardins et al., 2003). Within this context, the spatial organization of the economy has been modified to give place to new processes of international division of labor, of reconfiguration of the relationships between center and periphery, and of an accelerated specialization of the territories.
The development trends that mark the current globalization are expressed in the surge of a global scenario made up of various interdependencies, networks and movements that are developed throughout the planetary system, whose components are strongly linked, with disregard of how scattered and remote the local environments are from the national or transnational scopes, or how unequal their local and rural development processes are (Braman and Srebemy-Mohammadi, 1996). Therefore, the new globalization dynamics tend to expand their level of influence on the development of territories, not only in the economic and political areas, but also in the cultural arena. This increases the complexity in the analysis of the local-global links in each territory, as well as the uncertainties that are generated around their future development (Bervejillo, 1995).
Likewise, globalization influences ever more directly the restructuring of local territories, and interacts, in an increasingly broader way, with the diffusion and transference of new paradigms that are generated for economy, technology and culture, so that this forces decision-makers to totally redesign the schemes, concepts and policies that induce the type of local development being implemented (Bervejillo, 1995).
Thus, at the same time, there is a marked differentiation of territories in globalization, as greater attention is placed in their local characteristic and simultaneously an increase in their external interdependency (Boisier, 2005). In this sense, the dichotomous vision that an image of globalization suggests, where “backwards regions versus developed regions” are presented, becomes complex to the same extent that the coexistence of both within the same geographical area takes place, implying subordination or survival, as well as adaptation to the global scenario in various ways of productive insertion that are based on different “logics” or economic and technological natures (Gatto, 1989).
It is the paradox of global/local articulation that some authors approach from the concept of “glocalization” (Rombaldi, 2001; Pecqueur, 2006). The sociologist Robertson (1995) used this notion to make explicit the interconnections between economic, social and cultural dynamics at the global and local level. In this sense, glocalization alludes to the necessary adaptation of the global (transnational companies, for example) to the local conditions, as cultural habits would be, and the projection of the local onto globalization, which is also necessary.
A vision is integrated to this that suggests a perspective of territory diversification. In this sense, Lipietz and Leborgne (1992) suggest that the spatial configuration depends more on the model of development that is implemented in the national-local scope than on the formulation of new technological paradigms, which in themselves, although expressed as a knot of relationships, are not capable of becoming configured on their own as models of complex and diverse development.
From this that, as Bervejillo (1995: 10) suggests, the “mode of territorial development is situated in this manner in the crossroads of mega-processes and local histories and strategies”.
The approach of territorial economy has its origins in the studies by Marshall (1920). However, it emerged truly with the notions of industrial districts set out by Becattini (1979) and Cappechi (1987); in France, Courlet (2001; 2004) and Pecqueur (1992; 1996) did it, defining territoriality as a strategic resource for the economic activities, and proposing the concept of Localized Productive Systems (LPS).
Another analysis trend regarding the territory is set out in the guidelines formulated for the Localized Agrifood System (SIAL), which was defined as a “model of territorial development based on the valuation of local resources, respectful of the environment, careful of the diversity and quality of agricultural and food products, preoccupied with the dynamics of local development and the new challenges of the rural world”, whose most outstanding exponents are Muchnik (2006), Boucher (2012) and Requier-Desjardines et al. (2003), who analyzed the link there was between small local agrifood systems and community development. In this way, SIAL arises as a result of a process of construction of new analytical paradigms within the scheme that connects the territorial-local-territorial with the local-global-local, and “of a progressive construction, with questions that have also been evolving in face of accelerated processes of change,” whose central theme has been directed towards studying the influence that the territory exerts on local development and whose backdrop is framed by the large global market and the impact provoked by the accelerated transnationalization of global economies (Muchnik, 2006).
However, since it is a theoretical and epistemological approach, the SIAL in and of itself does not generate development for itself, since it is not an actor. It is a system of knowledge that values the forms of territorial economic organization, whose particularity is expressed in trajectories that characterize development that may be positive, virtuous or not. Therefore, the relationship between local development and the way in which SIAL appreciates it is complex and implies an approach that integrates many elements, whether material (instruments, machines, foods) or immaterial (history and local culture, knowhow, identity), human or physical. Thus, the relationships of causality that tend to be appreciated do not turn out to be merely linear, but rather in many cases recursive and multifactorial.
One of the recurring criticisms to the SIAL approach is that it has manifested in only some “success stories”, primarily around quality products (of geographic indication type), and does not cover the diversity in links that take place between productive chain and territory. Perrier-Cornet (2009) highlighted several aspects, from his point of view, that are not addressed by the SIAL approach; some of them are the ones that refer to localization and economic efficiency, territorial strategies of large companies, “generization” of specific territorial resources, etc. According to their appreciation, there is a lack of methods and verifiable hypotheses that could allow going beyond a collection of case studies and taking advantage of the wealth of information collected to generate more complete explanations of the phenomenon studied.
Touzard (2007) agreed with this point of view when pointing out that many studies about SIAL are reduced to developing descriptions that are simple, shallow and without methodological preciseness. Accurately, Torres (2012) identifies that in-depth methods and techniques have not been formulated to study dietary, cultural and technological particularities, as well as those that make it possible to define the life cycle that agrifood systems have. Likewise, Muchnik and Sautier (1998), two of most relevant thinkers in this approach, have expressed that SIAL is a theoretical body that is found in the development and construction stage, which makes it susceptible to being improved from the addition of new research methodologies, empirical experience and theoretical debate.
Questions are added to these criticisms that still do not have a definitive response, such as the following: Starting from what degree of interaction and interdependence can it be considered that it is a SIAL? How can it be defined clearly? What is the relation between the type of proximity (geographic, organizational, etc.) and its positive effects? What are the possible scales at which it can be applied? (Fournier and Muchnik, 2010)
To a great extent, the methodological weariness of SIAL is because it is a quite extensive theoretical approach where many things fit, so it becomes more difficult to cover all the elements of study that make it up (territorial anchoring, collective action, link between product quality and territory, and constitution and conservation of territorial patrimony), with only one instrument of methodological and analytical support.
Recognizing the theoretical importance of SIAL and valuing its theoretical contribution in the studies that analyze the connection between territory and the local scope, and social change, in particular in those areas (in themselves quite complex) that articulate the small agrifood systems with the rural or community development also implies their strengthening. Because of all this, the central purpose of this study is to present a proposal that contributes to strengthening the SIAL methodology through three relevant contributions. The first consists in locating the theoretical axes that constitute the essence of SIAL, and which make it different from other research approaches about agroindustry. The second is the definition of a series of support elements aimed at generating the information that each theoretical axis demands. The third consists in the formulation of the stages to be followed by the researcher who chooses SIAL as an analysis approach.
The methodological tools that are presented here were validated in two study cases. In both, the six methodological instruments suggested in the formula were applied. However, this contribution is sustained only on the study that was carried out for the tenate cheese in Tlaxco, Tlaxcala.
Background
The most relevant feature of SIALs is their capacity to identify in the territory those resources (intrinsic and extrinsic) that are adequate to be activated through processes of collective action, which translates into an increase in the ability for interaction between various actors that inhabit the territory, a higher institutional presence, revaluation of the patrimony, increase in the competitiveness of rural agroindustries (RA), through strategies of product differentiation, as well as the development of a set of positive externalities for the local agrifood system.
From this series of elements the approach has been based on a series of theoretical axes through which its analytical framework is shown. They are described next.
Axis 1. Territorial anchoring of products
The differentiated products that are made in Rural Agroindustries that belong to a SIAL are characterized by their territorial anchoring. This means that the production is carried out exclusively in defined geographical spaces. This link happens, to a great extent, because of the effect that the territorial environmental conditions produce on the processing variables. Likewise, due to the particularities that tradition incorporates into food, to the degree that producers have transmitted the knowledge associated to the elaboration techniques (knowhow) throughout the generations. In this regard, it must be considered that the knowhow process, or learning by doing, has to do with the increase in the efficacy of production factors that occurs as a result of a continuous and historical learning process, consequence of intergenerational practice (Sanz Cañada, 2014; IICA, 2013).
Axis 2. Collective action in the territory
Collective action is the means that allows detonating the activation of territorial resources and the use of exogenous resources, with the aim of increasing the competitiveness of the AIRs and of the multisectorial and multifunctional activities with which they are linked.
The capacities of producers, the support of their family members, the levels of trust, interaction, cooperation and organization between actors, and the institutional participation for the generation of clear action rules in the territorial processes are indispensable for activation processes to take place (Boucher, 2007).
Axis 3. Link between the quality of the product and the territory
An aspect that should be permanently confirmed is the relationship between the territory and the quality of the product, insofar as this is where the management of qualification and certification processes takes on great importance. In this sense, while the first is associated to the analysis of characteristics of the product and establishes guidelines for its production, the second has the purpose of labeling, which is indispensable in markets of monopolistic competition, especially at the time of establishing benefits over differentiation and added value for the producer, as well as authenticity guarantees for the consumer (Vandecandelaere et al., 2010).
Axis 4. Constitution and conservation of territorial patrimony
The dietary heritage also occupies an important place in the SIAL; therefore, the historical recognition and symbolic value that agrifood products have from residents of the territory turn out to be defining (Giménez, 2000).
The conservation of territorial patrimony becomes a strategy for community reproduction to the extent that this is expressed, in some territories, as a special added value when it incorporates “…knowhow that has been transferred from generation to generation; this aspect […grants…] it a special symbolic value which is recognized by the inhabitants of the territory, reaching the point of making it part of its cultural heritage” (Grass Ramírez and Aguilar Ávila, 2013).
Methodology
To elaborate this methodological proposal, a revision about the different approaches that are used for the study of agroindustry, and especially about SIAL, was carried out initially. This stage allowed the theoretical axes already mentioned. Because of this, some methodological instruments were selected that could improve the SIAL approach: oral history, genealogical method, technological trajectory, qualification and certification of products, network analysis and analysis of agroindustrial chains.
Once this had been done, it was established that this strengthened methodological proposal would be sustained by two components, one of diagnosis and another one of application.
The first should begin from the moment that the researcher selects SIAL as the methodological approach that best adapts to the needs of his/ her study; it ends with the elaboration of a set of proposals directed at the activation of the Agrifood System in the territory (Velarde, 2006). In its part, the second should connect the proposals generated with the resources that allow financing them and making them true.
The validation of this proposal was carried out in a study case, the case of the tenate cheese in Tlaxco, Tlaxcala, which implied the performance of a census in 10 dairies. Six methodological instruments already described were applied to this case: oral history, to identify the origin and evolution of the cheese; genealogical method, to locate the processes of transmission of knowhow associated to its production; technological trajectory, to identify the processes of technological change and innovation; management of qualification and certification processes, to recognize the link between the quality of the product and the territory; network analysis, to estimate the set of relations that are established between actors of the process; and chain analysis, to establish the different economic interactions between the chain links and its strategies for competitiveness.
In order to perform this study, interviews were carried out with key actors, surveys were applied, and information was triangulated.
Results and Discussion
In this section, the methodological instruments suggested to improve the SIAL methodological approach are described in detail, as well as the five stages that make up the strengthened proposal. Likewise, the results obtained in the study case set out are presented.
Instruments proposed to improve the SIAL methodological approach
The instruments should have the potential to identify the territorial anchoring of products and their degree of appraisal, to recognize the processes of knowhow transmission in the communities, to understand the way in which the relationships between actors and institutions are consolidated to establish networks and the way that the assurance of the quality of local products is managed, and to guarantee their specificity to the territory and their authenticity and originality as attributes for the consumer. The use of these instruments must be carried out according to the information that each axis demands, and the capacity of interaction there is with the others to respond in an integral way to the objective of the SIAL.
Figure 1 presents, in the first place, the four theoretical axes that make up the SIAL (territorial anchoring, collective action, link between quality and territory, and constitution and conservation of territorial patrimony), and then shows the methodological instruments suggested to obtain information required by each axis (Oral History, Genealogical Method, Technological Trajectory, Qualification and Certification of Products, Network Analysis, and Agrifood Chain Analysis).
![](/img/revistas/asd/v13n1//1870-5472-asd-13-01-00063-gf2.gif)
Source: authors’ elaboration, 2013.
Figure 1 Relationship between theoretical axes and instruments proposed to improve the SIAL approach.
The methodological instruments suggested are detailed next.
Oral History
This instrument seeks to support the SIAL in the determination of appraisal of products and local resources. The patrimony is defined as the heritage of material and immaterial goods that our parents have left us throughout the local history and which forge the identity of a territory in the present (Geertz, 1996). Its inclusion demands a historical recognition of the geographical space which is the study object. Unfortunately, local history has tended to be researched and written under the terms that national or regional politics of a country mark; social history is used much less to explain the circumstances that surround the development of technology or science, aspects which are all directly involved in the study of territorial agroindustry systems.
It demands, then, the construction of the territorial history by the researcher. In this sense, oral history offers a dynamic and simple alternative for scientist to identify the symbolic value that some products have for residents and how they are considered a legacy from our ancestors (Hinojosa Luján, 2013). The main resources of oral history are, in consequence, the memories and the account that the subject makes for the researcher when the latter interviews him/her and carries out a series of questions about the affinity that has been present, throughout time, between the agrifood products and their territory, so that the degree of appraisal can be evidenced (Mariezkurrena Iturmendi, 2008).
The in-depth interview is the principal means through which the researcher can reconstruct the history that links the inhabitants and the products with their geographic space. However, there is also the alternative of the collective interview; in it, a dialogue of experiences it is sought to be produced between the researcher and a group of people that belong to the same community. Through it, the perspective of the collective (community) about a specific issue is recognized.
In the particular case of SIAL, this instrument must recognize the historical context that allowed the rise of the agrifood products, highlighting approximate dates, sites and communities that participated in the process. Later, the research must evolve into schemes that allow identifying the way in which products acquired their symbolic value through time, recognizing their influence on gastronomy, cultural events and other events of local importance, until finally reaching the current moments where the patrimonial value that was built from the history of the product in the territory is consolidated (Grass Ramírez et al., 2012).
Genealogical Method
The knowhow that is transmitted through generations constitutes part of the intangible patrimony of the territory; as consequence, it is an element of relevance in the SIAL approach. The study of the kinship relationships can be done through the application of interviews, as Rivers (1910) suggests in his definition of the Genealogical Method, or using the genealogical survey under the perspective suggested by Héritier (1981). The possibility of systematizing the surveys and evolving towards a quantitative analysis determines the main differentiating element.
In practice, the genealogical study is carried out through the application of the instrument (survey or interview) to a single actor (company, person) or to one or more families, with the goal of collecting information about its members (both ancestors and descendants) around the central subject being studied. This information is systematized and represented graphically in a document called Genealogy; in it, the way in which certain knowhow is transmitted can be recognized through the individuals that have kinship in common, and in addition, it provides the possibility of analyzing the information collected at the quantitative and qualitative levels.
The elaboration of genealogies can be done through a direct interview with the members of families that are the study object, with the aim of gathering their perception regarding the way in which knowledge associated to the elaboration of agrifood products has managed to evolve through the family structure, to identify which causes derived into rupture (or also, technological changes) of the transmission process of knowhow or certain type of productive or technical tradition. Another alternative consists in inquiring with people outside the family, with the purpose of collecting elements that are private or which were not directly considered.
In the particular case of SIAL, this instrument must recognize the way in which knowledge passed through the generations, the way in which inhabitants teach and learn the techniques for product elaboration, and the factors that have stimulated or limited these processes.
Technological Trajectory
With this instrument, it is sought to identify the innovations that the productive units have incorporated through time. The technological adoptions are supported by entrepreneurial strategies that seek to improve competitiveness, to adjust the demands of the market and to comply with the current regulation. In this regard, Jasso (2004) indicates that the technological trajectory has been broadly used for the analysis of innovation, because it is a component that is related to the life cycle of companies and technological development, with this being a complex and growing process that is not composed solely of the technological dimension, but rather is expressed also in the constitution of the market and the production systems.
In it, an analytical-conceptual approach is developed to capture relationships, processes and technological and socio-technical trajectories, and sustained on concepts created from two disciplinary matrices. The first is based on the Economy of Technological Change, which allows them to analyze the learning processes as the result of various technological trajectories (Pérez, 2001). The second takes up again the suggestions set out by Sociology of Technology, and therefore, explores aspects such as the socio-technical trajectories, the problem-solution dynamics, and the socio-technical working styles (Pacheco, 2013).
In the particular case of SIAL, the technological trajectory allows verifying the degree of persistence of the “technological tradition” in the elaboration of the agrifood products through the valuation of the effects that innovations have had throughout time in the preservation or loss of their authenticity.
Qualification and Certification of Products
It is based on the territorial anchoring, especially in the particularities of the territory that can be transformed into features of the agrifood products. As a result, the foods attain a quality associated to the territory that must be evaluated (Qualification), and taken advantage of to generate labels (Certification). This process leads to a qualitative and quantitative distinction of foods between those that are generic and those that are specific to the territory (Grass et al., 2012).
The first can be found in several localities, while the specific ones are territorially anchored, so that the latter have competitive potential through strategies of differentiation and it is in them where the SIAL approach is pertinent. The qualification requires identifying the characteristics of the product, which in addition to coming from the territory, transfer elements of distinction to it with regard to their similar ones (Vandecandelaere et al., 2010).
In turn, certification seeks to credit the link between quality and territory. For this, labeling strategies are negotiated which are associated to Geographic Indicators (GI), such as the Collective Brand (CB) or the Denomination of Origin (DO). This process is found in the community organization and institutional support, resources that are indispensable to confirm the territorial link of foods. Clearly fixing the regulations that each country has to credit this type of product is also defining, as well as the transparency and agility in the procedures that allow consolidating the processes (Boucher and Reyes, 2013).
Bowen and Valenzuela (2009) recognize that the certification is a labeling mechanism in markets of monopolistic competition, so benefits associated with the differentiation of producers compared to the rest of makers that are part of the community, are produced; therefore, this is an element that guarantees the territory-quality link and which derives into safety and satisfaction for the consumer.
Qualification and certification also incorporate some risks associated to imitations and adulteration of the original process, and the concentration of benefits in a few actors throughout the chain; thus, also, when participating in more demanding markets, select and small, there must be high capacity of reaction in face of market trends.
Network Analysis
The trust, interaction, cooperation and associative processes between residents of a territory, in addition to a greater presence and institutional management, sustain one of the defining elements of the SIAL approach, such as collective action.
Its importance derives from its capacity to activate local resources and take advantage of the external ones, which is of great relevance to increase the competitiveness of rural agroindustries and multisectorial and multifunctional activities that integrate the basked of products and services.
The application of network analysis is of great value, since it makes the visibility of the links established between the different actors and institutions in a territory possible. This resource is constructed from the knowledge of the lattice of relationships (social, technical and commercial) that are created between actors (people and institutions) (Castañeda Martínez et al., 2012).
Therefore, the analysis unit in the network approach is not the individual, but rather the network of links. Network theory offers a concrete idea of the landscapes of relationships in a territory; it corresponds to a series of lines bound by points where the last ones are the nodes or study units (people, groups, institutions), and the lines are the interactions between them. For the network analysis, the central element would not be, necessarily, the different nexus that connect individuals among themselves, but rather the way in which these are consolidated and transformed into relationships “that connect social positions” (Herrero, 2000).
The data can be obtained from surveys or interviews and through observation. In the first case, the questions are designed to test the type of relationship that is of interest (social, technical or commercial), so that the presence of contacts, businesses, links and other types of nexus can be confirmed, which may exist between the units.
In the case of SIAL, it is of interest to understand the links there are between residents of a territory to transfer the knowhow related to the techniques for the elaboration of traditional products, and the exchange of prime materials and inputs between producers, to share information about market trends, credit options and innovation processes, among many others. From the information gathered, the study of the network is carried out; this process requires labeling each informant and the actors who have links with him/her to later classify them in form of matrix or text (IICA, 2013).
Once the information is available, a specialized software for network analysis is used (for example, UCINET) to graph the network, generate indicators to perform its analysis and to elaborate proposals geared towards consolidating the links between actors. This last aspect is of great importance in the case of the SIAL to strengthen the structural collective action and, from it, to design strategies that allow taking advantage of territorial resources.
Analysis of Agroindustrial Chains
Many of the studies with the SIAL approach use the Analysis of Agroindustrial Chains as a methodological basis. This aspect allows characterizing each one of the links that make up the chain, recognizing the way in which they function and identifying the links there are between actors and the various elements that integrate it. Also, it is an effective way to analyze the levels of competitiveness of each link and of the chain as a whole; indeed, it is a means to measure the effect of public policies within the territorial context (Cuevas et al., 2004).
Although this instrument allows obtaining extensive information about the functioning of the chain, unfortunately when it is used as the sole alternative, it robs attention from several of the theoretical axes.
Machado (1998) and Machado Cartagena et al. (2000) state that the analysis of agroindustrial chains must contemplate vital elements such as the understanding of the structure, functioning and set relationships of the group of actors, and the activities related with the product. The importance of this resource to recognize market failures and to value the competitiveness of chains also stands out.
To gather the information, surveys, interviews and participative diagnosis instruments must be used, with the aim of characterizing the links of the chain and the connections between them. More detailed studies make it mandatory to stratify the actors based on reference variables; for example, the volumes of production, technological level, location and type of chain that they are connected to.
The information from each link is divided into quantitative and qualitative. The first seeks to detail aspects such as the size of the production units, the age of the producer, and the years of study of the actors, among others. The information that is related to the operation costs, income, profits and degree of competitiveness is also relevant. The qualitative part is directed at discovering the links there are between the actors that make up the chain, which allow understanding the problems, information asymmetries, impacts of public policies and institutional presence.
Strengthened methodological proposal for the SIAL approach
It is worth mentioning that the methodological guide for the activation of the SIAL, proposed by IICA (2013), makes reference to the use of methodological aspects such as recognition of the knowhow, culture as an important factor to take into consideration in the analysis, territorial anchoring and activation of the SIAL, which allow a particular description of the phenomenon. However, it leaves aside aspects that have to do with the analysis of situations observed from their development process, in their dynamics of change, that is, as a dynamic process that is product not only of interactions that take place between the local and the global, but also between the local-singular, in its history, trajectory, internal links that make up the intra- and extra- community social networks.
Also, it leaves aside the analysis of conflict as an element that induces change within the SIAL, as could be with the conflict that arises between and an artisanal system and an industrial one, the resistance versus adoption of technological change, the conflict in face of generational change of production patterns in the rescue and permanence of artisanal production, etc. However, this does not deny the fact that there are contributions that are so important that they integrate the study of conflict in the governance of SIALs, an aspect set out by Torres-Salcido et al. (2015).
The IICA methodology (2013), which serves as background for this proposal, does not introduce into its methodological and analytical scheme the suggestions formulated from the oral history, genealogical method, technological trajectories or network analysis, so it is considered that a way to strengthen the proposal is by covering these voids.
To carry out a more precise analysis, which takes up again the particular processes that allow the consolidation of an agrifood system in the local scope, the study of SIALs requires having two broad components in the methodology, one of a diagnostic character and another one of application. These are made up of five stages: the first three correspond to the diagnosis and the las two to its applicability. Next, each one of them is described in detail.
Recognition of the theoretical axes and selection of the methodological instruments for support
The first thing is to recognize the theoretical axes that define this approach: territorial anchoring, collective action, link between quality and territory, and construction and conservation of the territorial patrimony. Then, a partial or total selection of the set of support methods must be done: oral history, genealogical method, technological trajectory, network analysis, qualification and certification of products, and analysis of agroindustrial chains.
Application of instruments selected and diagnosis of territorial resources
The application of methodological support instruments allows bringing together information to evaluate collective action and the potential of territorial resources that it is possible to activate. Therefore, they are a means to validate the real possibilities for progressing from a concentration of rural agroindustries to a context of consolidation of the localized agrifood system.
In this manner, the basic information to be generated must stem, in the first place, from the degree in which customs for food elaboration are conserved, as well as from being able to identify the existing potential for their qualification and certification, and the levels of trust, interaction, cooperation and organization that there are between actors and institutions. Likewise, determining the level of appraisal of the resources and the products that sustain the level of productivity in the AIR is required. Another factor to be highlighted is the competitiveness in these, and the understanding of multisectorial and multifunctional activities that are related to them. In sum, all the previous aspects that allow making a diagnosis must be considered.
Elaboration of strategies for the activation of territorial resources
The formulation of strategies seeks to bring the reality of the territory closer to the expectations of the SIAL approach; that is, it attempts to develop a valuation of the territorial resources and to locate the increase in competitiveness of the AIRs, through an activation process.
To carry out the activation strategies, it is fundamental to reinforce structural collective action. For this purpose, there is a need to encourage the development of producers’ abilities, the participation of family members, the formation of leaders, as well as to improve the levels of communication among actors and institutions and to secure organizational processes in the communities.
SIAL Activation
Taking the strategies all the way to their use in the SIAL’s activation process demands several factors; among them, the aptitude for management of the community and institutions stands out, as well as identifying the duties of actors and having the funds to finance the process. Here, the value of collective action and funding are reiterated as vital factors to secure the strategies. The spaces where the State must participate to stimulate the local development of the AIRs are also made evident, and the strategies that can be channeled to design public policies that promote local improvement are defined (IICA, 2013).
Evaluation and feedback
Changes in the market, processes of innovation and fears that constant changes of policies and regulatory frameworks produce require a constant process of evaluation and feedback from the SIAL. The first has to be performed in an ex-ante and ex-post manner to the activation of resources, and should allow the participation of various actors in these processes. In addition, indicators will need to be designed that make it possible to measure the advance and integrate mechanisms of systematization of experiences that allow constant feedback.
The SIAL consolidation must manage to combine two aspects that seem contradictory. On the one hand, to foster the care of territorial patrimony, and, on the other, to select those innovations that allow them, without detriment to the territorial anchoring, to adjust to the requirements that the market demands, the technological developments, the public policies, and the current regulations.
Application of the proposal in a study case
The methodological proposal was put to the test in the study carried out by Grass Ramírez et al. (2013a), in research done to establish the strategies directed towards the rescue and valuation of a genuine Mexican cheese (cheese from Tlaxco, Tlaxcala), from the recognition of the causes that were impacting its extinction or growth, to guide concrete actions that will give sustainability to its production and commercialization.
The use of oral history allowed locating the development of this product through history and its prominent actors. On the one hand, those that gave origin to it in its elaboration; on the other, those who made it into a strategy of local social reproduction, that is, the ones who conserved and improved their sensory attributes throughout time (smell, flavor, texture and appearance) and adjusted the product to changes. The fact that this is a cheese that covers close to 100 years of consolidation as the typical product of Tlaxco stood out. The intrinsic value of the territorial link in its elaboration and its constant presence in the history of the town through the generation of identity factors in the memory of its inhabitants was found.
The genealogies made it possible to understand the family structures that arose from the marriages between actors who introduced the tenate cheese and the families that sustained it in time. In addition, the way in which knowhow was transmitted through the generations was located (through its promoting actors). Development also evidenced the ever present risk of losing the knowledge associated to the elaboration techniques, due to the absence of descendants or people who recover the artisanal knowledge in its process.
With the study of technological trajectories, the technological changes verified in the production of this cheese throughout a time line (nearly 100 years) were identified. Artisanal production during different periods was characterized and the principal that had been modified from small technological innovations introduced exogenously to local customs were specified, such as: adoption of liquid curdling agents, partial skimming of milk and, in some agroindustries, the use of powdered milk and plant oil to improve the yields. It was evidenced that, in general, this cheese is still being processed as its first maker conceived it, Mr. Ignacio Caballero, 100 years ago, maturing it for two weeks before sending it to the market.
With the qualification and certification of the tenate cheese, the need to establish rules of use to manage in the following years was identified, a possible certification of a geographical indication as the collective brand or in its case, the denomination of origin.
With the network analysis, understanding of the relationships between the various technological actors was broadened and the places where the nodes that are established between cheese producers and other actors outside the community were identified. Also, the levels of collective action and the community potential in the design and execution of strategies for survival of the tenate cheese were validated.
With the analysis of agroindustrial chains, the identification of two chains present in the territory was made possible, one of artisanal type and another semi-industrial one. With this, the characteristics were determined of the competition market and the strategies to face the challenges of surviving in it. Also, the levels of prices were determined, and it was found that the highest profits obtained by artisanal dairies were due to the lower number of links in the chain.
The results obtained were rather interesting, since they allowed generating action strategies, within and outside the territory, for the preservation of this dietary patrimony. Some of the endogenous ones consisted in the strengthening of abilities of cheese producers through a diagnosis that identified their levels of education and experience, which allowed potentiating their knowhow and optimizing the resources available in the agroindustries. Also, to conjugate the strengthening of the family unit and the capacities of cheese producers with a high level of territorial anchoring of cheeses, in order to evolve in the consolidation of better organizational processes; likewise, to develop the leadership of producers in order for trust to surface and for relationship to be consolidated.
In the exogenous strategies, it was suggested to increase supports from institutions to consolidate the training processes, leader formation, local, state and national fair production, and the gradual improvement of quality, innovation, labeling and the promotion of genuine cheeses. Likewise, the development of other aspects where institutions should be supported was proposed, to achieve the valuation of productive chains of the genuine Mexican cheeses, such as access to credit, implementation of traceability systems to link the quality of the product to the consumers, the design of mechanisms to improve management of inventories, and the relationships between cheese producers and marketers, as well as the creation of efficient means for communication between dairies, cheese producers and consumers.
Conclusions
The methodological weakness of SIAL is due, in good measure, to the lack of understanding of the theoretical axes that integrate it. This aspect makes it difficult for a single instrument to analyze efficiently the various elements that constitute it.
It is considered that the use of this strengthened methodological proposal can be of great use for all the researchers interested in studying the link that there may be between the agrifood products and the territory where they are generated, that is, to determine whether they have a “territorial quality” or not, or if they are able of providing a “territorial rent” to drive the economic development of the zones where they are produced.
The strengthening of the SIAL methodological process demands the incorporation of a set of methodological support tools which must be directed at gathering the information that the theoretical axes demand, which constitute this approach, and at diagnosing the initial conditions of the territory, as well as easing the processes of collective actions and of activation of territorial resources and follow-up in the evolution of the SIAL.
Literatura citada
Becattini, Giacomo. 1979. Dal settore industriale al distretto industriale. Alcune considerazioni sull ́unitá di indagine dell ́economia industriale. In: Rivissta di Economia e Poltica industriale, vol. 5, No 1. [ Links ]
Bervejillo, Federico. 1995. Globalización, descentralización y territorio. Revista PRISMA, N° 4, Universidad Católica del Uruguay. [ Links ]
Boisier, Sergio 2005. ¿Hay espacio para el desarrollo local en la globalización? Revista de la CEPAL, No. 86: 48-62. [ Links ]
Boucher, Francois. 2007. El sistema agroalimentario localizado de los productos lácteos de Cajamarca: una nueva perspectiva para la agroindustria rural. 2007. In: Álvarez Macías, Adolfo, Francois Boucher, Fernando Cervantes Escoto, y Angélica Espinoza Ortega. 2007. Agroindustria rural y territorio. Nuevas tendencias en el análisis de la lechería. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México. Tomo II. México. [ Links ]
Boucher, Francois. 2012. De los AIR a los SIAL: reflexiones, retos y desafíos en América Latina. In: Francois Boucher, Angélica Espinoza, y Mario del Roble Pensado (eds). Sistemas Agroalimentarios Localizados en América Latina: alternativas para el desarrollo territorial, Editorial Miguel Ángel Porrúa, México, 13 p. [ Links ]
Boucher, Francois, y Juan Antonio Reyes González. 2013. Sistemas Agroalimentarios Localizados SIAL, una nueva visión de gestión territorial en América Latina. IICA. [ Links ]
Bowen, Sarah, y Ana Valenzuela. 2009. Geographical indications, terroir, and socioeconomic and ecological sustentability: The case of Tequila. Journal of Rural Studies. No. 25: 108-119. USA. [ Links ]
Braman, Sandra, y Annabelle Srebemy-Mohammadi. 1996. Globalisation, Communication and Transnational Civil Society. Hampton Press: 21.36. Nueva Jersey, USA. [ Links ]
Capecchi, V. 1987. Formation professionnelle et petite entrepriseartí: le développement industriel à spécialisation flexible en Emilie-Romagne. Revue Formation et Emploi. No. 19: 3-18. July-September 1987. [ Links ]
Castañeda Martínez, Tirzo, Francois Boucher, Ernesto Sánchez Vera, y Angélica Espinoza Ortega. 2012. El papel de la proximidad geográfica y la organizada en la construcción de una estrategia colectiva vinculada a la agroindustria quesera rural. In: Torres Salcido, Gerardo, y Rosa María Larroa Torres. (coords). 2012. Sistemas Agroalimentarios Localizados. Identidad territorial, construcción de capital social e instituciones. UNAM-Juan Pablos Editor. 199-223. México. [ Links ]
Courlet, Claude. 2001. Les Systèmes Productifs Localisés: de la définition au modèle, in DATTAR. Réseaux d’entreprises et Territoires. Regards sur les Systèmes Productifs Locaux. In: La Documentación Francaise: 17-62. Paris. [ Links ]
Courlet, Claude. 2004. Les Systèmes Productifs Localisés. Un bilan sur la littérature. Etudes et Recherches sur les Systèmes Agraires et le Développement. Société française d’économie rurale. Economie Rurale, No. 279-284: 27-40. [ Links ]
Cuevas, Roberto; Omar Masera, y Rodolfo Diaz. 2004. Calidad y Competitividad de la Agroindustria Rural de América Latina y El Caribe. Uso eficiente y sostenible de la energía. Editorial FAO. Roma. [ Links ]
Fournier, Stéphane, et José Muchnik. 2010. L’approche Systèmes Agroalimentaires Localisés (SYAL), un outil d’intervention pour le développement territorial? In: Colloque ISDA, Montpellier, 28 juin-1er juillet 2010. 15 p. [ Links ]
Gatto, Francisco. 1989. Cambio tecnológico neofordista y reorganización productiva. Primeras reflexiones sobre sus implicaciones territoriales. EURE No 47, pp: 7-34. [ Links ]
Geertz, Clifford. 1996. Los usos de la diversidad. Editorial Paidós. Barcelona, España. [ Links ]
Giménez, Gilberto. 2000. La región sociocultural, Territorio, cultura e identidades. Abril 18, México. 25 p. [ Links ]
Grass Ramírez, José Fernando, Fernando Cervantes Escoto, y María Isabel Palacios Rangel. 2012. El enfoque de Sistemas agroalimentarios localizados-SIAL: Propuestas para el fortalecimiento metodológico. Reporte de Investigación, No. 92. CIESTAAM, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, México. [ Links ]
Grass Ramírez, José Fernando, y Jorge Aguilar Ávila. 2013a. El enfoque de Sistemas Agroalimentarios Localizados (SIAL). Revista Textual, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. México. pp: 45-59. [ Links ]
b Ramírez, José F., Fernando Cervantes Escoto, y J. Reyes Altamirano Cárdenas. 2013b. Estrategias para el rescate y valorización del queso tenate de Tlaxco. Un análisis desde el enfoque de sistemas agroalimentarios localizados (SIAL) Culturales [en línea] [Fecha de consulta: 14 de abril de 2014] Disponible en:<Disponible en:http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=69429400001 > ISSN 1870-1191. [ Links ]
Héritier, Françoise. 1981. La encuesta genealógica y el proceso de datos. In: Cresswell, R. y Godelier, M. (eds). 1981. Útiles de encuesta y análisis antropológicos, España, pp: 239 284. [ Links ]
Herrero, Reyes. 2000. La terminología del análisis de redes. Problemas de definición y traducción. Revista Política y Sociedad. No. 33. Universidad Complutense. Madrid. pp: 199-206. [ Links ]
Hinojosa Luján, Romelia. 2013. La historia oral y sus aportaciones a la investigación educativa. Revista de investigación educativa de la REDIECH, No. 5, Octubre 2012-marzo 2013. [ Links ]
IICA (Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura). 2013. Sistemas Agroalimentarios Localizados SIAL, una nueva visión de gestion territorial en América Latina. Experiencias en Territorios de: Argentina, Costa Rica, Ecuador y México. México. 203 p. [ Links ]
Jasso, Javier. 2004. Trayectoria Tecnológica y Ciclo de Vida de las empresas: Una interpretación metodológica acerca del rumbo de la innovación, Contaduría y Administración, UNAM, México. 83 p. [ Links ]
Lipietz, Alain y Daniele Leborgne. 1992. Idées fausses et questions ouvertes de l’après-fordisme. Espaces et Sociétés, No 66-67, pp: 39-68. [ Links ]
Machado, C. A. 1998. Agroindustria y Desarrollo Rural, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia. [ Links ]
Machado Cartagena, Absalón, Henry Samacá, y Diego Roldán. 2000. Las organizaciones del sector agropecuario: un análisis institucional. Ed. Colciencias. 312 p. [ Links ]
Mariezkurrena Iturmendi, David. 2008. La historia oral como método de investigación histórica. Revista Geronimo de Uztaríz, No. 23/24. Instituto de Historia Económica y Social Geronimo de Uztaríz, pp 227-233. [ Links ]
Marshall, Alfred. 1920. Principles of Economics [book on line]. McMillan and Co. Ltd., 8th Edition, 1920. Book IV, Chapter X. (First Edition, 1890). http://www.econlib.org/library/Marshall. [ Links ]
Muchnik, José. 2006. Sistemas agroalimentarios localizados: evolución del concepto y diversidad de situaciones. III Congreso Internacional de la Red SIAL Sistemas Agroalimentarios Locales Alimentación y Territorios ALTER 2006. Baeza (Jaén), España, 18-21 de Octubre 2006. [ Links ]
Muchnik, José, y Denis Sautier. 1998. Sistemas Agroalimentarios Localizados en construcción de territorios, CIRAD, Paris, Francia. [ Links ]
Pacheco, Pablo Antonio. 2013. Sociología de la ciencia y semiótica. El esquema actancial en la Teoría del Actor-Red y el programa constructivista. Redes Revista de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología. Vol. XIX. No. 36, Bernal. Junio de 2013. pp : 79-104. [ Links ]
Pecqueur, Bernard. 1992. Territoire, territorialité et développement. In: Industries et territoires : les systèmes productifs localisés, actes du colloque de Grenoble, octobre 1992, IREPD, 1993. pp: 71-88. [ Links ]
Pecqueur, Bernard. 1996. Processus cognitifs et construction des territoires économiques. In: Dynamiques territoriales et mutations économiques. Pecqueur, B. (dir). pp: 209-226. [ Links ]
Pecqueur, Bernard. 2006. Le tournant territorial de l’économie globale. Espace et Société. 13 p. [ Links ]
Pérez, Carlota. 2001. Cambio tecnológico y oportunidades de desarrollo como blanco móvil. CEPAL. Santiago de Chile. [ Links ]
Perrier-Cornet, Philippe. 2009. Les systèmes agroalimentaires localisés sont-ils ancrés localement? Un bilan de la littérature contemporaine sur les SYAL. In: Aubert, F. (ed) Politiques agricoles et territoires. pp: 49-68. [ Links ]
Requier-Desjardins, Denis, Francoise Boucher, Claire Cerdan. 2003. Globalization, competitive advantages and the evolution of Localised Agri-food Systems in Latin America. In: Entrepreneurship and Regional development 15-1, January-march. pp: 49-67. [ Links ]
Rivers, William Halse. 1910. La elaboración y utilización de las genealogías en las investigaciones antropológicas, The Sociological Review. Vol. III. USA. pp: 112. [ Links ]
Robertson, Roland. 1995. Glocalization: time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In: Featherstone, Mike; Lash, Scott; Robertson, Roland (eds). Global Modernities. London: Sage Publications, 1995. pp: 25-44. [ Links ]
Rombaldi, Michel. 2001. Nouvelles formes de gouvernance publique et performance territoriale: une mise en perspective régulationniste. Acte du forum de la Régulation 2001. 11 p. [ Links ]
Sanz Cañada, Javier. 2014. Sistemas agroalimentarios locales y multifuncionalidad. Un enfoque de investigación en alimentos, ciencias sociales y territorio. UNAM. Libros Problemas del Desarrollo. Septiembre 2014. pp: 87-103. [ Links ]
Torres Salcido, Gerardo. 2012. La Gobernanza de los Sistemas Agroalimentarios Locales. In: Gerardo Torres Salcido y Rosa María Larrea Torres, Sistemas Agroalimentarios Localizados identidad territorial, construcción de capital social e instituciones, Juan Pablos Editor, México. pp: 69-88. [ Links ]
Torres-Salcido, Gerardo, Rodrigo Meiners-Mandujano, David A. Morales-Córdova, Velia Marina-Carral, y Gerardo Alonso Torres. 2015. Agricultura familiar y sitema agroalimentario localizado. Políticas locales para producción de cuitlacoche (Ustilago Maydis sp). Rev. Agricultura Sociedad y Desarrollo, abril-junio :199-218. [ Links ]
Touzard, Jean. 2007. Systèmes agroalimentaires localisés : interactions locales et encastrement social. In : 43ème Colloque de l’ASRDLF, Grenoble-Chambéry, juillet 2007. 13 p. [ Links ]
Vandecandelaere, Emilie, Filippo Arfini, Giovanni Belletti, y Andrea Marescotti. 2010. Uniendo personas, territorios y productos. Guía para fomentar la calidad vinculada al origen y las indicaciones geográficas sostenibles. FAO, Roma. [ Links ]
Velarde, Irene. 2006. Metodología de activación de productos locales: construcción participativa con viñateros de la costa Berisso, Argentina, Agroindustria Rural y Territorio, Tomo 1, UAEM, México. 255 p. [ Links ]
Received: October 2014; Accepted: November 2015