Showing posts with label 큐바농업. Show all posts

2018/12/18

Cuba's sustainable agriculture at risk in U.S. thaw

Cuba's sustainable agriculture at risk in U.S. thaw

Cuba’s sustainable agriculture at risk in U.S. thawMarch 25, 2016 8.39pm AEDT

Author
Miguel Altieri

Professor of Agroecology, University of California, Berkeley
Disclosure statement

Miguel Altieri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Partners

University of California provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation US.

View all partners Republish this article

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.
Organic farm, Alamar. Melanie Lukesh Reed/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Email
Twitter393
Facebook8.2k
LinkedIn
Print

President Obama’s trip to Cuba this week accelerated the warming of U.S.-Cuban relations. Many people in both countries believe that normalizing relations will spur investment that can help Cuba develop its economy and improve life for its citizens.

But in agriculture, U.S. investment could cause harm instead.

For the past 35 years I have studied agroecology in most countries in Central and South America. Agroecology is an approach to farming that developed in the late 1970s in Latin America as a reaction against the top-down, technology-intensive and environmentally destructive strategythat characterizes modern industrial agriculture. It encourages local production by small-scale farmers, using sustainable strategies and combining Western knowledge with traditional expertise.

Cuba took this approach out of necessity when its economic partner, the Soviet bloc, dissolved in the early 1990s. As a result, Cuban farming has become a leading example of ecological agriculture.

But if relations with U.S. agribusiness companies are not managed carefully, Cuba could revert to an industrial approach that relies on mechanization, transgenic crops and agrochemicals, rolling back the revolutionary gains that its campesinos have achieved.
The shift to peasant agroecology

For several decades after Cuba’s 1959 revolution, socialist bloc countries accounted for nearly all of its foreign trade.

The government devoted 30 percent of agricultural land to sugarcane for export, while importing 57 percent of Cuba’s food supply. Farmers relied on tractors, massive amounts of pesticide and fertilizer inputs, all supplied by Soviet bloc countries. By the 1980s agricultural pests were increasing, soil quality was degrading and yields of some key crops like rice had begun to decline.

When Cuban trade with the Soviet bloc ended in the early 1990s, food production collapsed due to the loss of imported fertilizers, pesticides, tractors and petroleum. The situation was so bad that Cuba posted the worst growth in per capita food production in all of Latin America and the Caribbean.

But then farmers started adopting agroecological techniques, with support from Cuban scientists.

Thousands of oxen replaced tractors that could not function due to lack of petroleum and spare parts. Farmers substituted green manures for chemical fertilizers and artisanally produced biopesticides for insecticides. At the same time, Cuban policymakers adopted a range of agrarian reform and decentralization policies that encouraged forms of production where groups of farmers grow and market their produce collectively.Havana market. Julia Dorofeeva/Shutterstock

As Cuba reoriented its agriculture to depend less on imported chemical inputs and imported equipment, food production rebounded. From 1996 though 2005, per capita food production in Cuba increased by 4.2 percent yearly during a period when production was stagnant across Latin America and the Caribbean.

In the mid-2000s, the Ministry of Agriculture dismantled all “inefficient state companies” and government-owned farms, endorsed the creation of 2,600 new small urban and suburban farms, and allowed farming on some three million hectares of unused state lands.

Urban gardens, which first sprang up during the economic crisis of the early 1990s, have developed into an important food source.

Today Cuba has 383,000 urban farms, covering 50,000 hectares of otherwise unused land and producing more than 1.5 million tons of vegetables. The most productive urban farms yield up to 20 kg of food per square meter, the highest rate in the world, using no synthetic chemicals. Urban farms supply 50 to 70 percent or more of all the fresh vegetables consumed in cities such as Havana and Villa Clara.
The risks of opening up

Now Cuba’s agriculture system is under increasing pressure to deliver harvests for export and for Cuba’s burgeoning tourist markets. Part of the production is shifting away from feeding local and regional markets, and increasingly focusing on feeding tourists and producing organic tropical products for export.

President Obama hopes to open the door for U.S. businesses to sell goods to Cuba. In Havana last Monday during Obama’s visit, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack signed an agreement with his Cuban counterpart, Agriculture Minister Gustavo Rodriguez Rollero, to promote sharing of ideas and research.

“U.S. producers are eager to help meet Cuba’s need for healthy, safe, nutritious food,” Vilsack said. The U.S. Agriculture Coalition for Cuba, which was launched in 2014 to lobby for an end to the U.S.-Cuba trade embargo, includes more than 100 agricultural companies and trade groups. Analysts estimate that U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba could reach US$1.2 billion if remaining regulations are relaxed and trade barriers are lifted, a market that U.S. agribusiness wants to capture.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Alabama Congresswoman Terri Sewell tour a Havana farmers’ market, November 2015. US Department of Agriculture/Flickr, CC BY

When agribusinesses invest in developing countries, they seek economies of scale. This encourages concentration of land in the hands of a few corporations and standardization of small-scale production systems. In turn, these changes force small farmers off of their lands and lead to the abandonment of local crops and traditional farming ways. The expansion of transgenic crops and agrofuels in Brazil, Paraguay and Bolivia since the 1990s are examples of this process.

If U.S. industrial agriculture expands into Cuba, there is a risk that it could destroy the complex social network of agroecological small farms that more than 300,000 campesinos have built up over the past several decades through farmer-to-farmer horizontal exchanges of knowledge.

This would reduce the diversity of crops that Cuba produces and harm local economies and food security. If large businesses displace small-scale farmers, agriculture will move toward export crops, increasing the ranks of unemployed. There is nothing wrong with small farmers capturing a share of export markets, as long as it does not mean neglecting their roles as local food producers. The Cuban government thus will have to protect campesinos by not importing food products that peasants produce.

Cuba still imports some of its food, including U.S. products such as poultry and soybean meal. Since agricultural sales to Cuba were legalized in 2000, U.S. agricultural exports have totaled about $5 billion. However, yearly sales have fallen from a high of $658 million in 2008 to $300 million in 2014.

U.S. companies would like to regain some of the market share that they have lost to the European Union and Brazil.

There is broad debate over how heavily Cuba relies on imports to feed its population: the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that imports make up 60 to 80 percent of Cubans’ caloric intake, but other assessments are much lower.

In fact, Cuba has the potential to produce enough food with agroecological methods to feed its 11 million inhabitants. Cuba has about six million hectares of fairly level land and another million gently sloping hectares that can be used for cropping. More than half of this land remains uncultivated, and the productivity of both land and labor, as well as the efficiency of resource use, in the rest of this farm area are still low.

We have calculated that if all peasant farms and cooperatives adopted diversified agroecological designs, Cuba would be able to produce enough to feed its population, supply food to the tourist industry and even export some food to help generate foreign currency.

President Raul Castro has stated that while opening relations with the U.S. has some benefits,

We will not renounce our ideals of independence and social justice, or surrender even a single one of our principles, or concede a millimeter in the defense of our national sovereignty. We have won this sovereign right with great sacrifices and at the cost of great risks.

Cuba’s small farmers control only 25 percent of the nation’s agricultural land but produce over 65 percent of the country’s food, contributing significantly to the island’s sovereignity. Their agroecological achievements represent a true legacy of Cuba’s revolution.

Agriculture
Cuba
Organic farming

Tweet
Share
Get newsletter

The Conversation is a non-profit + your donation is tax deductible. Help knowledge-based, ethical journalism today.
Make a donation

You might also like

Here’s what better relations with the US mean for city farms in Cuba

After the handshake, Cuba has lots to do to normalize relations

As Obama makes historic visit, is Cuba ready for change?

How low-tech farming innovations can make African farmers climate-resilient

Sign in to comment
28Comments
Oldest Newest

John Doyle

logged in via Facebook

It’s absolutely essential that the US agricultural model is not allowed to supplant the indigenous Cuban one. Since subsidised agricultural exports from the US are geared to undercut local production, the local system will be bankrupted. It is seen in many nations from Mexico to Kenya. It’s a vicious form of colonialism.

Imagine all Cuba’s progress since 1959 being swallowed up in a few years.You can rest assured the US will be all too ready to scalp Cuba.

I have said in TC before Cuba is monetary sovereign.This means it can fund its development indigenously at no cost by paying for works directly through their central bank. Under NO circumstances should Cuba take out any loans in any foreign currency! Cuba has full control of its own currency, but none over dollars ,euros etc.

Make sure your leaders are not lead by the nose to ruin Cuba’s advantages.They will be inexperienced but a few principls if adhered to should help avoid pitfalls. I am not hopeful but I would like to hope Cuba can steer a path to it’s future free of colonial risks.Read more
3 years ago
Report

Terrence Treft

In reply to John Doyle

hear, hear!
3 years ago
Report

G Wang

logged in via GoogleIn reply to John Doyle

I agree almost 100% with everything in this post. Please, Cuba, DON’T let American agribusiness take over your ways of food production. It will be the greatest tragedy possible if that happens.
3 years ago
Report

Robert J Kolker
Robert J Kolker is a Friend of The Conversation

In reply to John Doyle

It is not colonialism. It is business competition. Lets see which model wins out in the market place.

No doubt if the Cuban granola and chicken-poop model fails, the U.S (as usual) will be blamed. The U.S. is always to blame. That is the price we pay for succeeding where others fail.
2 years ago
Report

Larry press

logged in via Google

A prominent Cuban roboticist wants to build autonomous machines to sow and harvest seeds:https://cachivachemedia.com/robots-made-in-cuba-d21ce5cd134e#.vthhvexs4I wonder whether he is designing with large corporate farms or those of 300,000 campesinos in mind. I suspect the latter.
3 years ago
Report

This comment has been automatically flagged for inspection by a moderator.

Darryl Reynolds

As a farmer, I couldn’t help but feel sorry for my Cuban counterparts when we visited. They are subsistence at best. They are forced to sell 80% of their production to the government so they focus most of their efforts on the 20% they can sell themselves. The lowest quality and poorest production goes to the government. They have learned to survive with very little and at least are no longer starving as they were in the 90’s. The market is much to small to be of much interest to most companies and is still a communist controlled totalitarian state. It is a lessen in survival and determination. Nothing more.
3 years ago
Report

Will Hunt

In reply to Darryl Reynolds

Yep, a farmer friend of ours was in Cuba last month and said it was the pits. He said 40% of their best land was completely covered in El Marabú or Marabou weed (Dichrostachys cinerea) which was out of control and they have nothing that works on it.

If they were to “revert to an industrial approach that relies on mechanization, transgenic crops and agrochemicals, rolling back the revolutionary gains that its campesinos have achieved” they might be able to get on top of it.
3 years ago
Report

Kevin Franck

logged in via GoogleIn reply to Darryl Reynolds

As an American farmer, I hope you’ve taken some notes. I find these peasant farmers to be the mirror image of earlier American Farmers who were more inventive and creative and not blindly dependent on Gov and Coprations
3 years ago
Report

Chuck Burks

logged in via Facebook

Easy for a well-paid UC Berkely professor to sing the praises of peasant agriculture. After all, he doesn’t actually have to grow his own food. His oppulent pay makes it easy for him to by “fair trade” items, even at Bay Area prices. But one wonders how many of those Cuban peasant farmers, if given a chance, would bolt to the U.S. or any of a slough of other countries.
3 years ago
Report

Tim Chambers

logged in via Google

It is also certain that the food they produce with agroecological methods is much more nutritious than that produced by Green Revolution methods 60 years on, which no doubt accounts for much of the obesity in this world. Food grown in dead soil simply doesn’t have the nutrients needed to satisfy normal dietary requirements for vitamins and minerals. So people keep eating more of it and consume to many calories. The U.S. is the most obese nation in the world. India, which adopted American agricultural practices in a big way in the 1960s is third in obesity. Gee, I wonder why.
3 years ago
Report

Will Hunt

In reply to Tim Chambers

Oh so obesity is the farmers fault then Tim? And here’s me thinking it was inactive people spending their life in front of keyboards, TVs and steering wheels.
3 years ago
Report

Tim Chambers

logged in via GoogleIn reply to Will Hunt

What are you being so defensive about? Did I say it was the farmers' fault? I didn’t even use the word. It is the fault of a methodology promoted by schools of agriculture, chemical companies, and others with an interest in maximizing yields and/or profits. The consequences were unintended and possibly unforeseen.

Obesity is a problem worldwide, not just in the United States. It often coincides with malnutrition, and not necessarily with sitting all day on one’s haunches. The fault lies in the food we eat, and the methods used to raise it. Some farmers are beginning to recognize that and finding better ways to raise healthier and more nutritious crops by reinvigorating their soils and adopting ecologically sustainable methods.
3 years ago
Report

Na Tran

In reply to Tim Chambers

It is also certain that the food they produce with agroecological methods is much more nutritious than that produced by Green Revolution methods 60 years on …

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Much to the annoyance of the alternative food crowd, nearly every test has found at most only trivial differences in nutrition levels based on farming method.

…. which no doubt accounts for much of the obesity in this world.

Another false claim. The Green Revolution preceded the modern increase in obesity by decades and many folk who eat only conventional produce are not obese.

The U.S. is the most obese nation in the world.

Too many cheap calories from fats and sugars, not enough exercise. Not sure how “agriculture” is to blame.

India, which adopted American agricultural practices in a big way in the 1960s is third in obesity.

Only in gross numbers. Per capita India is not even in the top 40 according to the OECD countries rankings report. http://www.oecd.org/health/Obesity-Update-2014.pdf

Gee, I wonder why some people just make things upRead more
3 years ago
Report

Na Tran

In reply to Tim Chambers

You say you aren’t blaming farmers then say:

The fault lies in the food we eat, and the methods used to raise it.

Since the farmer is responsible for the “method” you are blaming farmers. I also find your claim that “reinvigorated soil” has anything to do with obesity somewhat mirth inducing.
3 years ago
Report

Kevin Franck

logged in via GoogleIn reply to Na Tran

Do you just go around looking for a comment that you can through trash at ? Almost every post in your history shows signs of deep seated anger within and the need to blame others because you possibly got the shaft every in life. Why is that someone else’s fault ? I noticed your other comments just get deleted.
3 years ago
Report

Na Tran

In reply to Kevin Franck

Not really, buddy. I’m guessing you are in the organic industry and I must admit I do despise that industry and its ill-informed vocal supporters for the obvious reason that they are part of an anti-biotech propaganda war that is already undermining global food security. Hunger is worth getting worked up about.
3 years ago
Report

Tim Chambers

logged in via GoogleIn reply to Kevin Franck

If he wants to shill for a Biotech industry that makes its money by patenting mule seeds as a means to transfer wealth from farmers to Wall Street investors, or is paid to do so, which is probably the case, your admonitions won’t stop him.

I don’t let him bother me. Neither should you.
3 years ago
Report

Na Tran

In reply to Tim Chambers

No, I do not get paid to comment. Is Big Organic paying you?

I see you’ve also made the bizarre claim that GM may be the cause of the microcephaly epidemic in Brazil. Good for you. The world of facts and reality are not for everyone.
3 years ago
Report

mem_somerville

logged in via Twitter

My twitter feed was very interested in these “artisanally produced biopesticides”. Do you have more information on those?

I know that Cuban scientists were working hard on sustainability solutions. They developed their own Bt corn to fight their pests. They had a fast-growing GMO tilapia in the 1990s! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10373604

I hope that these terrific researchers get connected with the wider scientific community to get the credit they deserve, too.
3 years ago
Report

Na Tran

The Cuban government thus will have to protect campesinos by not importing food products that peasants produce.

You want to stop non-farmers from accessing low cost imported food because you think it is important to maintain a perpetual class of impoverished peasants? That sounds like the ultimate lose-lose to me.
3 years ago
Report

John Doyle

logged in via FacebookIn reply to Na Tran

No , not at all. American agricultural produce is sold at below its cost to produce. Multibillion subsidies keep US farmers in work. No matter how efficient, or not, the locals are they cannot compete with dumped produce. The US has a Mexican problem because after NAFTA came into force Mexican agriculture was trashed by imports, so the farmers crossed the border looking for work.The ultimate lose-lose is to adopt your attitude.
3 years ago
Report

musings o'hara

logged in via Google

I’ll bet they have a lot less Type 2 diabetes there, too. I understand there are many people around the world trying to introduce sustainable agriculture into their own domains. Prince Charles for instance asserts that he is using such methods on his own properties and touting it for the rest of Britain. Why should Cuba not host people who have this angle on things (not necessarily Charles, but perhaps)? I would imagine that everyone can learn from the Cubans and rather than be on the receiving end of subsidies and false largesse, perhaps they could lead.

Recently saw a clip on the gorgeous coral reefs in the area, which used to be more widespread in the Caribbean, but which have been killed partly by the tourist trade and hotels. It now seems that sustainable hotel accommodation is on the table too, with the new air bnb movement. Perhaps again, Cuba could say no to those who want to plant their brand in their soil, in favor of smaller and less harmful ventures. It could be a thing for someone who wants to develop to stay small.Read more
3 years ago
Report

Miguel Altieri

Professor of Agroecology, University of California, BerkeleyIn reply to musings o'hara

now US companies want to keep Cuba organic to feed the elites of US…same export model that will have same consequences that I described in paperhttps://www.politicopro.com/home
3 years ago
Report

sandeep banerjee

logged in via Google

Most probably in the late 1990s an article was published in the Monthly Review narrating the difficult and painful transition of Cuban agriculture towards organic/natural agriculture from chemical agriculture of “green revolution” type (Soviet variety). It was then a compulsion triggered by collapse of the USSR. I shall be much obliged and helped if the present author and/or readers kindly suggest a reading list on this area.
You mentioned another intriguing aspect of Cuban agriculture in the 2012 January issue of Monthly Review; that was regarding GM crops [The Paradox of Cuban Agriculture]. Does this new relation with the USA pose any change in this aspect, suppose towards acceleration or increase?Thanking you
3 years ago
Report

Mer Frazer

logged in via Facebook

This is so sadly predictable. And I have at least some empathetic grasp of the fact that for Cubans who want their isolation with the US ended this ‘opening’ is good news, but it is clear that within a decade they will rue the day. Cuba and its unique sense of community, with all its deprivations and fault lines ( which are of course in all societies if one looks hard enough) will be a distant and dare I say beautiful memory compared with the corporate take over that has already begun.
The US , already in a profound and ever spirally downward decline, should be learning how to cope from Cuba- not the other way around……
3 years ago
Report

Robert J Kolker
Robert J Kolker is a Friend of The Conversation

To anyone who knows the answer:

How well are the Cubans eating these days?
2 years ago
Report

ronald g davis

In reply to Robert J Kolker

From my direct experience in the last year/two the Cubans I have seen and met are not starving. If one looks at the images carefully even on websites you might notice the size of the people – not the 3 million tourists – but the Cubans –wide and a few looking obese. In addition it would behoove those skimming Altieri’s essay to take a second reading and respect his data/facts sincehe has described the matter of agro ecological that is organic farmers producing enormous amounts of food that the USDA lies about in order to prove the Cubans are in need of US shipments of food to save their lives. They already import US GMO grain from the Midwest. They also import some food from Argentina and Brazil – imagine there are other countries that produce food and have trade with Cuba. Brazil big time! [China, Russia. France, Japan] The Cubans import stuff that is difficult to grow in tropical climates. Urban farms & gardens in Havana cannot use –pesticides. Banned!The organic food movement Altieri notes was pumped into practice when the Soviets couldn’t support Cuban big Ag. There is some evidence that organic food production started before 1989.
The agricultural statistics are a jumble unless you sort them out from the US propaganda to the Cuban defensiveness against distortions.

RgDavisPhDRead more
2 years ago
Report

Most popular on The Conversation
View from The Hill: Morrison goes a bridge too far to outsmart Shorten
Grattan on Friday: Unions likely to be more challenging for a Shorten government than boats
Having a second child worsens parents’ mental health: new research
Curious Kids: Why don’t dogs live as long as humans?
Designing cities to counter loneliness? Let’s explore the possibilities
Why the public isn’t allowed to know specifics about the George Pell case
How low will Bitcoin now go? The history of price bubbles provides some clues
We have a Christmas comet: how to

Fifty years later, an agricultural revolution - The Globe and Mail

Fifty years later, an agricultural revolution - The Globe and Mail

Fifty years later, an agricultural revolution

Open this photo in gallery:

Farmer Armando Roche climbs up onto his antiquated tractor at his farm in Artemisa province outside Havana.

KEVIN VAN PAASSEN/KEVIN VAN PAASSEN/THE GLOBE AND MAIL
SONIA VERMA
SAN ANTONIO, CUBA
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 13, 2011UPDATED MAY 3, 2018

For years the land lay fallow, swallowed by thorny weeds. Strangers called it a lost cause. Armando Aroche saw a golden opportunity.

It was 2008 and Raul Castro, in his first major speech as Cuban President, made a shocking admission: 50 years of state-controlled agriculture had failed, resulting in chronic food shortages. The island was importing 80 per cent of the food it subsequently rationed for public consumption.

Mr. Castro offered free, 10-year leases on idle land to anyone willing to try their hand at farming.

Mr. Aroche, a rotund, 53-year-old peasant, was among the first to queue in San Antonio, a small municipality a half-hour drive from Havana.

"I was not afraid of anything," he recalled. He had a faint childhood memory of a well on the southwest corner of a particular stretch of land, which he requested. He was awarded 7.28 acres and named his farm "San Juan." He borrowed his neighbour's tractor and irrigation system and, against all odds, managed to coax 68 tonnes of sweet potatoes and tomatoes from the earth that year, which he sold back to the state at a profit.

Today, he gazes out on his fields from beneath his sunhat. Too much rain means his tomato plants are flowering. His 1952 Ferguson tractor is on its last legs. A team of oxen plow the land as if in slow motion.

But despite these hardships, farmers such as Mr. Aroche are being held out as shining examples of the new face of Cuban socialism. The cabbage, onions, carrots and lettuce he cultivates are described by government officials as the fruits of their "new and improved system" that has boosted food production by awarding more land to peasants who farm it for a profit.

Since Decree No. 259 was passed in 2008, 170,000 peasants across Cuba have been granted land. In San Antonio alone, 410 people have applied for land with 283 of those applications granted.

"Pretty soon we will run out of lands to grant," confessed Georgina Gutierrez Jimenez, president of the local chapter of the National Association for Small Farmers.

Each farmer can apply for a land grant of 13.48 acres. If the farm proves successful, they can apply for another. Farmers can also use their profits to buy their own equipment, insecticides and fertilizer – something the state used to strictly control. Each farm owner pays a 5-per-cent income tax to the state, and 3 per cent to the local agricultural co-operative.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Aroche, a trained mechanic, used to work at the "state enterprise of assorted crops," and earned the equivalent of $9 a month. He demurred when asked about his income today, but acknowledged it is exponentially higher. For the past few years, his family has been able to afford long holidays on the beach.

He employs six workers, who are each paid a monthly wage of $12, plus a yearly bonus. They help themselves to food grown on the farm and often receive a small cash "tip" at the end of each day.

The new agricultural policy has succeeded in boosting food production, officials say.

"There has been an enormous impact," said Arturo Aleaga Cespedes, a lawyer with the National Farmer's Association. He cites a 60-per-cent increase in the production of rice, milk, vegetables and root vegetables.

However, it's still not enough to satisfy Cuba's food needs.

"We produce a lot, but the demand and consumption are always increasing," Ms. Jimenez said.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

Another challenge is persuading a younger generation of Cubans to take up their leaders' challenge and return to the land. Many, like Mr. Aroche's own children, were educated for urban jobs in state offices that are under enormous pressure to trim their bloated payrolls.

The country's public service is set to lose up to half a million jobs over the next five years.

Mr. Aroche's 26-year-old daughter, Joseline, quit her job as an economist when her son was born three years ago. Now, as she contemplates returning to the work force, she faces "not a lot of options," she said.

Her father believes the future of his family, and that of his country, lies in the land: "To work in the field is very hard. It's something most people don't like, but it's work that needs to be done," he said.

The agricultural reforms – considered radical at the time – have proved to merely foreshadow larger changes sweeping through Cuba as the government relaxes its communist grip on everything from private enterprise to real estate in an attempt to generate revenue.

"The only problem is that all of this should have been done sooner," Mr. Aroche added.

----------

Cuba’s New Agricultural Revolution: The transformation of food production in Cuba : Food First

Cuba’s New Agricultural Revolution: The transformation of food production in Cuba

Laura J. Enríquez | 05.01.2000

May 2000, Development Report No. 14

Introduction

The first half of the 1990s witnessed the initiation of a major transformation of Cuban agriculture. From an emphasis on state farms, as the politically and technologically appropriate strategy of agricultural development, to the adoption of a new approach highlighting the advantages of tying producers to small areas; from an export-oriented production emphasis to the promotion of food crop production; and from a reliance on high technology to one on alternative technologies, this transformation is touching on a number of the central aspects of agricultural production and development. Together these changes have become the core of the Cuban government’s overall effort to resolve the dramatic crisis that had come to characterize the country’s agricultural sector and food security in the early 1990s. Their success or failure will be integrally related to the future course of Cuban socialism.

The most immediate stimulus for these changes was the desperate situation Cuba found itself in following the disintegration of the international division of labor, of which it had formed a part. With the societal transformations that occurred in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in 1989 and 1990, and the resulting dissolution of the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) that they had been the centerpiece of, Cuba was suddenly faced with a drastic shortfall of imports of all kinds and the disappearance of preferential markets for its own principal exports.

The urgency of Cuba’s agricultural crisis of the early to mid-1990s highlights in a dramatic fashion the fundamental weaknesses inherent in the classical (socialist) model of development that its government adopted more than three decades ago.

The problems that Cuba experienced as a result of the COMECON’s disappearance pointed to a underlying tension, which also played a significant role in creating the need for the modifications currently underway in Cuban agriculture. That tension stemmed from the limitations inherent in the model of agricultural development that was adopted by Cuba’s socialist government in the early 1960s. Referred to by some (Pérez Marín and Muñoz Baños 1992; Rosset et al. 1993) as the “classical model” of agricultural development, it was characterized by its emphasis on agroexport production, its heavy reliance on mechanization of production processes, with a concomitant development of social services (especially its educational system) that encouraged a constant increase in this reliance through the exodus of people from the countryside, and overall priority being placed on state versus private farms. By the early 1990s it had become readily apparent there were fundamental weaknesses in this strategy, which made its appropriateness for a relatively small, strongly-agricultural economy highly questionable.

The following essay will examine the evolution of the transformation taking place in Cuban agriculture today. It will do so by focusing on the ways in which these changes have emerged and are taking shape in one sector of agriculture, that directed at the domestic market. By focusing on the food sector of agricultural production and distribution, we can obtain a clear picture of both the dimensions of the contradictions inherent in the classical model of development, as well as the importance of the modifications that are currently being implemented in Cuba’s countryside.

The arguments set forth in this essay are based on fieldwork conducted in Cuba during the 1990-1998 period, which involved interviews with policy-makers and implementers in the Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI), the Ministry of the Sugar Industry (MINAZ), and the National Association of Small Farmers (ANAP), as well as with agricultural producers organized in several forms of production relations: Basic Units of Cooperative Production (UBPC), Agricultural Production Cooperatives (CPA), and Credit and Service Cooperatives (CCS). In addition, analysis of secondary sources and government data was undertaken, which provides some of the “harder” evidence for my assertions about this transformation.

Our exploration of Cuba’s agricultural transformation will begin with a sketch of the classical model of development that dominated the policy making process toward this sector and society. The government’s response to the food crisis triggered by the disintegration of the COMECON will be analyzed through an assessment of the numerous efforts that have been initiated to address it, which form integral parts of the larger process of agricultural transformation. Finally, the agricultural transformation underway in Cuba today will be situated within a larger discussion of the transformation processes that have been set in motion in a variety of socialist, or formerly socialist, countries, with the goal of highlighting the similarities and differences between the Cuban case and the others. In so doing, I seek to assess the extent to which the changes taking place in Cuban agriculture approximate the emerging trend of transition away from what has heretofore been known as “socialist agriculture.”

DR14 Cubas New Agricultural Revolution

(PDF) Cuba’s Agricultural Revolution: A resilient social-ecological system perspective

Cuba’s Agricultural Revolution: A resilient social-ecological system perspective

Article (PDF Available) · December 2014 with 319 Reads

Export this citation

Richwell Tryson Musoma

Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Zimbabwe

Discover the world's research

15+ million members

118+ million publications

700k+ research projectsJoin for free

Figures - uploaded by Richwell Tryson Musoma

Author content

Three phases in Transformation (Stockholm

…

Content uploaded by Richwell Tryson Musoma

Author content

Download full-text PDF

Cuba’s Agricultural Revolution: A resilient social-ecological system perspective*

*Richwell Tryson Musoma, SLU, Sweden, email: rlmu0001@stud.slu.se

1. Introduction

The Cuban agrarian development serves as a model for what humanity can attain. However, it

is also a lesson for us not to wait for crises (like the Cuban food crisis in early 1990s) to adapt

quickly to changing socio-ecological and economic challenges like food shortages. External

drivers and shocks to the social-ecological system have for long been known for causing

negative impacts to social, economic and environmental systems without considering them as

potential to bring change and lead to the attainment of a stable and resilient environment.

This paper analyses Cuba’s environmental degradation caused by conventional agriculture

prior to the “Special Period” and how this contributed to “alternative” agriculture thereafter

using resilience thinking. The paper uses the concept of resilience that relates to the ability for

renewal, reorganization and development, which has received less focus in ecology, but

important for sustainability (Ganderson and Holling, 2002; Berket et al., 2003, cited in Folke,

2006). To achieve this, the paper starts with the context analysis. This section presents the brief

history of Cuba and the environmental degradation that was caused by the agriculture sector

prior to the “Special Period,” the institutional settings, legal frameworks and the management

system of land and soil resources in agriculture. The second part introduces the concept of

resilience in a social-ecological perspective and how it is used in natural resources

management. The emphasis here is put on the understanding of resilience and how it can help

understand the case. The third part provides a discussion of the resilience process in Cuba’s

agricultural revolution. Theory and policy implications are raised as the concluding remarks.

2. Context Analysis

2.1 Cuba’s agricultural history

Land and soil have remained a strategic resource for Cuba since the time it was a Spanish

colony between 1492 and 1898 (Zepeda, 2003). During this colonial era, both the local Taino

people and forests were eliminated to pave way for extensive dairy cattle and sugarcane

monocrop fields belonging to a few rich owners and worked by slaves. It got under the rule of

the United States (US) military between 1898 and 1902 (Alverez, 2004). Over the next few

decades US businesses and private owners acquired some of the best land and sugarcane

production increased to the detriment of food security and the environment. Due to the land

ownership and wealth being in the hands of the few, a large part of the natives remained poor

and with low incomes to sustain their livelihoods.

According to Zepeda (2003), the US military rule was overthrown and socialist government

took over. The seizure of US property invited US policy of isolation to the island which by

default turned to the Soviet Bloc. Automatically, Cuba adopted the Soviet agricultural model

– large monoculture state farms, highly mechanized, heavily reliant on chemical fertilizers and

pesticides (Zepeda, 2003). This modern model due to its high capital requirements got subsidies

from the Soviet Union through exchange of oil, chemicals and machinery for Cuban sugar

(Ibid.). Zepeda (2003), states that subsidies suddenly disappeared after the fall of the Berlin

Wall in 1989. This came as a shock to the country which also at the same time saw the US

trade sanctions being tightened. The unexpected events led to an economic crisis termed the

“Special Period.” Abruptly, oil imports dropped by 50%, availability of fertilizers and

chemicals fell by 70% and food imports dropped by 50% (Zepeda, 2003).

2.2 Agricultural legal frameworks, institutions and the ecological impacts

It is impressing to note that Cuba had a complete legal framework for environmental protection

and prevention of ecological degradation since 1959. Agriculture in particular had several

notable laws and regulations that include Law 239 of 1959 that is called the Leyde Repobacion

Forestal (Law of reforestation) (Pichs, 1992, cited in Alverez, 2004). The objective of this law

is to conduct a national reforestation program. Another law of interest to the sector is Law 81

of 1997 which is the Law on the environment passed by the National Committee for Protection

of Environment and Rational Use of Resources (COMARNA) (Diaz-Briquets and Pérez-

López, 2000, pp. 65-67; cited in Alverez, 2004). However, the institutions for natural resources

management are weak as cited by Diaz-Briquets and Pérez-López (2000, pp. 65-67; cited in

Alverez, 2004, p. 3);

Environmental protection institutions are weak, and their ability to enforce laws and

regulations is severely limited by their lack of authority to interfere in matters under

the control of economic-sector ministries.

Various records show ecological degradation caused by heavy mechanized and often

monoculture agriculture in Cuba (Alverez, 2004). Among the most critical were one million

hectares of salinized soils, the expanded recurrence of moderate to extreme soil erosion, soil

compaction with its resultant soil barrenness, loss of biodiversity and deforestation of vast

lands (Funes-Monzote, n.d). Besides the land resources, water resources were also affected as

the agricultural sector made supply of irrigation water a top priority. “An ambitious dam

construction program and an increase in the extraction rate of underground water have resulted

in the contamination of a considerable volume of water in aquifers and increased salinization

from salt water intrusion near coastal areas,” (Díaz-Briquets and Pérez-López, 2000; cited in

Alverez, 2004).

The above account of natural resources occurred prior to the Special Period. However, during

the period some negative effects can also be observed. Of importance is the reduction of several

areas of the national budget provision for environmental research. According to Alverez

(2004), this includes the risk to the protection and upkeep of its scientific accumulations and

to the diminishing of training. Soil erosion this time was mainly due to deforestation due to

high demand of firewood for energy.

3. Understanding Resilience

3.1 Resilience concept and the social-ecological system perspective

Resilience was initially presented by Holling (1973) as an idea to help comprehend ecological

systems limitation with option attractors to hold on in the first state subject to perturbations

(Folke et al, 2010). It can be defined as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and

reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure

and feedbacks, and therefore identity, that is, the capacity to change in order to maintain the

same identity,” (Holling, 1986). In ecology therefore it becomes the capacity of an ecosystem

to cope with disturbances such as pollution and fire without changing into a qualitatively new

state. Socially, it is the ability of human communities to recover or withstand shock, for

example environmental, social, economic change or political disturbances. Due to the dynamic

nature, the interactions and interdependency of ecosystems and humans, resilience therefore

need to analyse the social and ecological system as a whole.

Most work on resilience in ecology has been dedicated on the ability to absorb shocks and still

maintain function. However, recently a resilience approach to sustainability has concentrated

on how to build the ability to manage surprising change, the capacity to renew, reorganise and

develop. According to Stockholm Resilience Centre (n.d), the concept also moves past viewing

people as outside drivers of ecosystem changes and rather takes a look at how humans relate

to the biosphere and this is called a social-ecological system (SES). SES is an incorporated

arrangement of ecosystem and humans with equal feedback and reliance. The idea underscores

the people-in-nature point of view. In a resilient social-ecological system, shocks have the

potential to create opportunities for development or innovation. In a vulnerable system, even a

little disturbance may cause drastic social results (Adger, 2006).

Resilience thinking change policies from those that wish to cope with, adapt to and shape

change to those that enhance sustaining desirable ways for development in changing social,

economic and environmental situations. Holling (1973; cited in Folke, 2006) illustrates the

existence of multiple stable basins in natural systems. He presented resilience as capacity to

persist within such basin in face of transformation. Therefore, according to Holling (1973, p.

17; cited in Folke, 2006);

Resilience determines the persistence of relationships within a system and is a measure

of the ability of these systems to absorb changes of state variables, driving variables,

and parameters, and still persist.

To understand resilience thinking and its application, it is important to shortly discuss the two

key concepts that are adaptability and transformability. Walker et al., (2004:5; cited in Folke

et al., 2010) defines adaptability as “the capacity of actors in a system to influence resilience.

It captures the ability of an SES to learn, combine experience and knowledge, alter its feedback

to changing external drivers and internal processes, and further development within the current

stability domain or basin of attraction. By contrast, transformability is “capacity to create a

fundamentally new system within ecological, economic, or social structure make the existing

system untenable,” (Ibid).

According to a report for The Swedish Environmental Advisory Council (n.d), in sustainable

natural resources management, resilience of social-ecological systems can be used to

understand three things that are;

 How much shock human and natural system can absorb and still remain within a

desirable state and or develop

 The degree to which it is capable of reorganizing

 The degree to which the system can build capacity for learning and adaptation

3.2 Cuba agricultural revolution and resilience

In contrast to the biosphere approach of ecologists who define resilience in terms of the

capacity of the environment to adapt or stay the same after shock, the case of Cuba is

identified to be unique. The concept of resilience that helps to understand the case of Cuba

is “transformability.” This concept was briefly presented in the previous subsection.

According to Walker et al., (2004, p. 5; cited in Folke et al., 2010);

“Transformation or transformability in social-ecological systems is defined as the

capacity to create untried beginnings from which evolve a fundamentally new way of

living when existing ecological, economic, and social conditions make the current

system untenable.”

Through the government, agencies, networks, institutions, and innovations, Cuba managed to

initiate and transform towards sustainability. Cuba was practicing an environmentally

degrading agricultural model (conventional agriculture) before the Special Period and turned

to an alternative agricultural model due to a sudden economic and political crisis. This post-oil

resilience carried with it productive implications bringing reorganization and rebuilding of the

ecosystem at the same time improving the household food security.

In light of this crisis the Cuban government moved a national push to change the agrarian sector

from industrialized farming to low-input and self-reliant agriculture. Because of the reduced

availability of chemical inputs, oil and machinery, the government moved to replace them with

locally available substitutes. When yields and farming production fell due to scarcity of inputs,

the first problem was of machinery and chemicals. Through some legislation, the government

encouraged the increase of the national ox head to provide traction substituting tractors. A

series of methods to produce organic substitutes, for example, compost manure substituted

synthetic fertilizers. This alternative method due to its inapplicability to big state owned farms,

prompted the government to Basic Units of Cooperative Production (UBPCs), a form of

worker-owned enterprise or cooperative small farms which became applicable (Funes-

Monzote, n.d). The effort from Campesino a Campesino (farmer-to-farmer) movement as well

as training, extension and research by Asociacion Cubana de Tecnicos Agricolas y Forestales

(ACTAF) also promoted agroecology (Altieri and Toledo, 2011).

Through its interest in having food locally produced and not moved long distances to the market

(locavorism), 383,000 urban farms with more than 50,000 hectares produce in excess of 1.5

million tonnes of vegetables enough to supply 40-60% of the city of Havana (Altieri and

Toledo, 2011). This has helped the country to transform and reorganize attaining self-reliance

in food at the same time practicing an ecological sustainable agricultural practice.

4. Discussion

4.1 Transformation to sustainable agriculture

Sustainable agriculture is defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development

(WCED, 1987), as “that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability

of future generations to meet their own needs.” Though according to COMARNA (1991, p.20;

cited in Alverez, 2004) reforestation efforts were initiated in the late 1970s, real frantic efforts

started in the late 1990s (during the Special Period). Since then 110, 000 hectares have been

replanted each year in Cuba. Díaz-Briquets and Pérez-López (2000; cited in Alverez, 2004),

also highlights the decrease of population growth to below 1% having direct implications for

sustainable agriculture due to its translation to less environmental degradation.

However, interesting to note is that the end of the Soviet subsidies brought low-input

sustainable agriculture and national-scale organic farming (Carney and Haynes, 1993, p. 1).

During the same time, issues of sustainability were supported by Cuban scholars, technicians

and extension services who helped form farmers. The “alternative” agriculture model included

organic fertilizers, bio-pest control, and use of animal traction power, crop diversification,

more local labour input, soil conservation and reclamation of degraded lands. The management

of natural resources and the advancement towards sustainable agriculture was also due to use

of local knowledge and alternative technologies (Carney and Haynes, 1993). Socially, the

Special Period also contributed to reversing the rural-to-urban migration in a bid to increase

people in farming. Cuba unintentionally rejected Green Revolution principles, adopting social

and ecological tailored agricultural process.

Transformational change in Cuba’s agricultural model shows a change in a stable social-

ecological system that brought up a new state of agriculture model that drastically reduced

impacts on the environment. It resulted in changes of the perceptions about industrialized

agriculture, social networks, and patterns of interactions among actors, including political and

power relations and other related institutions. Because the transformation was not deliberate,

but an adaptation action due to the effects of the Special Period, it becomes a “forced

transformation.” According to Olsson et al. (2004; cited in Folke et al. 2010), case studies of

SES suggest that transformation takes three stages. The first is getting prepared or preparing

for the SES for change. Secondly, the movement by making use of the crisis as a window

opportunity for transformation. Lastly, the building resilience of the new SES. Stockholm

Resilience Centre (n.d) identifies three phases in the transformation and this fits in the Cuban

case (fig. 1).

Fig 1: Three phases in Transformation (Stockholm Resilience Centre (n.d))

4.1.1 Preparation phase

In response to the food shortage crisis, Cuba had two choices that is to starve or self-reliance

without the use of chemicals or machines in agriculture. The efforts of small-scale farmers, for

example, in Havana initiated urban gardens. This was independent of the government actions.

Crops were grown in vacant lands, rooftops and balconies. Those with space began to rear

small livestock bringing in sustainable organic farming in urban Cuba. The government,

complemented this effort some few years later through creating Urban Agriculture Department

(UAD) to aid developing state-funded infrastructure for urban agriculture (Funes-Monzote,

n.d). UAD then worked with agriculture research sector and some learning institutions to

develop information and resources to push up the new trajectory of development – sustainable

agriculture.

4.1.2 Navigation phase

The Cuban government through the UAD and some farmer-to-farmer organizations

(Campesino a Campesino) helped scale up the innovations for organic agriculture. UAD

adopted city laws to permit public or private vacant land to be used as farms, established

initiatives, for example seed houses and necessary inputs to assist local farmers. A network of

extension agents was also established to disseminate information and appropriate technologies

that were independent of synthetic chemicals and machinery. They also trained the locals on

bio-fertilizers, composting and crop rotations among other initiatives.

4.1.3 Resilience building

In this phase that resulted in a renewal, reorganization and development, the Cuban government

provided incentives, for example the issuance of rent-free land (Alverez, 2004). This was to

encourage the use of land for food self-reliance. Social networks were mobilized especially

through the Campesino a Campesino to support the new sound social-ecological system.

5. Concluding remarks

5.1 Theoretical conclusions

As opposed to the natural scientists who define resilience in terms of the capacity of a post-

crisis environment to return to its original stability state, the paper identified combined social-

ecological system resilience after an economic crisis that carried with it reorganization to a

desired environmental state. In the context of Cuba, the Special Period led to a renewed,

reorganized and developed SES.

The concept of resilience helps to understand the success of the agriculture revolution in Cuba

and its links to social and ecological issues. It gives insight on community-based resilience that

grasp both ecological management principles and household food security. For example

agriculture’s return to Havana city shows a new urban ecology, meant to provide food while

reorganizing to natural process. Within the concept, it can also be seen that environmental

stewardship is the basis for social and economic development. The sustainable use of soil and

land that followed the Special Period led to food sufficiency and promoted locavorism thus

reducing carbon footprint associated with the industrialized agriculture. It is also important to

note that the resilience concept enhances chances of sustainable development in changing SES.

The sudden drastic changes that brought up the Special Period were inevitable and helps to

view components or actions required to reorganize.

According to Stockholm Resilience Centre (n.d), transformational change is vital to move out

of “bad state” (social-ecological traps) and moving away from likely critical levels. Cuba

moved from unsound industrialized agriculture that it was trapped in since its colonization to

a sustainable agriculture model. This removed the likely threshold, for example land

degradation, soil compaction, pollution by chemicals and overuse of water for irrigation. In the

Cuban case there is a clear link between crisis and opportunity for organization. The sudden

withdrawal of subsidies from the Soviet Union to support industrialized agriculture gave Cuba

an opportunity to transform to sustainable agriculture.

Resilience concept also helps to appreciate the importance of networking and adaptive co-

management to find solutions to environmental problems. The farmers cooperated among

themselves and with other institutions to engage in organic farming during the Special Period.

The Cuban government through the Ministry of Agriculture, agriculture research, extension

agencies and the Campesino a Campesino generated innovations and incentives for

sustainability which helped in the transformation to a resilient system.

However, the concept is limited in exploring how diversity can play a role in resilience and

transformation. It should be noted that during the Special Period, exports from mining (nickel),

fisheries and health products contributed to the wellbeing of Cuba. Evidence from rural

development concepts like the Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) emphasizes on how diversity can

lead to social resilience and sustainable environments. Investing in diversity can help people’s

livelihoods to become resilient to changes. Resilience also gives less insight into how much

shock the SES is able to absorb and remain in the same state. It is therefore important to analyse

the degree which the system is capable of reorganizing and develop. The degree to reorganize

and develop is influenced by many factors, for example the society, economy, power-relations

and institutions within a system.

5.2 Policy recommendations

Resilience in SES is not only important to sustainable natural resources management, but also

to sustainable development. Policies should enhance resilience in the face of unpredictable

situations either, be it environment phenomenon like Hurricanes or socioeconomic like market

failures. Policies should drive change in a sustainable manner and know the channels and actors

that they are made for so that they encourage effective adaptation. Above all, policy for

resilience in SES should embrace and strengthen diversity and linkages between people and

nature, through;

 Addressing polies tailored to scale and situation

 Differentiating policies that slow down or accelerate sustainable development

 Provision of support, economic and social incentives for sustainable natural resources

management, and

 Strengthening institutions and linkages for SES resilience.

6. References

Adger, W.N. 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16 (3) (2006), pp. 268–281

Altieri, M.A., Toledo, V.M., 2011. The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing

nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. Journal of Peasant Studies 38,

587–612. doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.582947

Alvarez, José. 2004. Cuban Agriculture before 1959: The Political and Economic Situations.

FE479 . Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Alvarez, José. 2004. Environmental Deterioration and Conservation in Cuban Agriculture. FE489.

Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Carney, Judith A., and Richard Haynes. 1993. from the Editors. Agriculture and Human Values 10

(3, summer): 1-2.

Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems

analyses. Global Environmental Change 16, 253–267. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002

Folke, C., S. R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and J. Rockström. 2010. Resilience

thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15(4):

20. [Online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/

Funes-Monzote, F. N.d. Towards sustainable agriculture in Cuba.

Holling, C.S. 1986. Resilience of ecosystems: local surprise and global change. Pages 292-317 in

W.C. Clark and R.E. Munn, editors. Sustainable development and the biosphere. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Stockholm Resilience Centre. N.d. Applying resilience thinking seven principles for building

resilience in social-ecological systems

The Swedish Environmental Advisory Council. N.d. Resilience and Sustainable Development.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. p. 27.

Zepeda, L., 2003. Cuban Agriculture: A Green and Red Revolution. Choices: The Magazine of

Food, Farm, and Resources Issues

(PDF) Cuba’s Agricultural Revolution: A resilient social-ecological system perspective. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272790002_Cuba's_Agricultural_Revolution_A_resilient_social-ecological_system_perspective [accessed Dec 18 2018].