statement of the word count - usalcampus.usal.es/~ehe/papers/microsoft word -...

1 Cuba’s Sustainable Agriculture Model in the Context of Globalization

STATEMENT OF THE WORD COUNT

Number of words including in-text references, contents, acknowledgments and

glossary: 11.992

Elisa Botella Rodríguez

19 September, 2006.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 5

2. Cuban Agriculture: from Colonial and Classical Dependence to Dependent

Development 7

3. ‘The Special Period in Peacetime:’ the Years of the Fat Cow were over (1989-

1999) 13

4. Understanding the Evolution and Present Situation of Cuban Sustainable

Agriculture. 21

5. Concluding Remarks 48

Bibliography 56


GLOSSARY

ACAO Cuban Association of Organic Agriculture

Acopio National Union of State food collection and distribution agency

ACP Agricultural Production Co-operative

ACTAF Cuban Association of Agricultural and Forestry Technicians

ANAP National Association of Small Farmers

BUCP Basic Units for Co-operative Production

CMEA Council of Mutual Economic Assistance

CSC Credit and Service Co-operative

CUC Peso Convertible Cubano

INCA National Institute of Agricultural Sciences

MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture

MST Landless Workers’ Movement

ONE National Statistics Office

PSD Participatory Seed Diffusion project

TNC Trans-national Corporations


-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS-

I am greatly indebted to all the Cuban institutions and individuals who welcomed me

by giving me access to their valuable testimonies, knowledge and time. They all helped

me to document this vision of Cuba’s sustainable agriculture in the contemporary context

of globalisation. Especially, I sincerely show my gratitude to Fernando Funes Monzote

and his family who kindly offered me all their hospitality, knowledge and help during my

fieldwork in Cuba. Finally I would like to thank my supervisor at ISA for his constant

advice and understanding. However, I alone am responsible for the all the ideas and

mistakes represented here.


1. INTRODUCTION.

“When we had already found all the answers, the questions changed.” (Indios Aymara,

Región Andina, en De Souza Silva, 2003: 1)

At first sight, Cuba seems a peculiar enclave full of old automobiles that, however,

work unbelievably well. This is because behind the working process of the economy

Cuba counts with great technical and productivity skills able to progressively adapt its

growth to external forces. Yet, when Cuba had already developed a model based on

industrial agriculture and, to a lesser extent, import substitution industrialisation (1959-

1989), the global context changed, forcing the island to search for new answers. It was

precisely sustainable agriculture, which seeks the best use of nature’s goods and services,

farmers’ knowledge and skills, and people’s collective capacity to work together, that

emerged in the 90’s as one of the main answers to face the worst crisis of Cuban history.

Today, sustainable systems in Cuba have gradually taken enormous steps towards

diversity and efficiency. (Pretty, 2002)

Despite these notable advances, this research will analyse to what extent Cuba’s shift

to organics in the 90’s was merely a required answer to the harsh crisis that followed the

socialist collapse. Moreover, in spite of its being a necessary answer, this study will

discuss whether under the current context of globalisation sustainable agriculture could

be an alternative for both developing and developed nations.


In order to discuss these issues thoroughly, this research will be divided into five

sections. Section two will briefly summarise Cuba’s agrarian evolution. I will then

describe Cuba’s agrarian performance from colonial and classical dependence, under the

Spaniards and the US respectively, to dependent development on the Soviet block and

Green Revolution practices. Dependency, which refers to Cuba’s patterns of trade,

development and agriculture, that for almost five centuries were highly connected to

external forces and interests, has taken different forms but has continually limited the

island’s capacity to achieve sustainable growth.

Section three will describe the conventional agriculture exhaustion in Cuba, which

was already present in the late 80’s and saw the emergence in the 90’s of the worst crisis

of its history. Accordingly, I will explore the measures that were adopted to overcome the

depression; first by the government and second by the academia and its organic

agriculture movement.

Section four, which is based on my experiences from the field, will explore the

situation and evolution of sustainable agriculture in contemporary Cuba. To do so I will

analyse the main players behind the organic agriculture movement and the long process

of convergence and social capital formation between academics, farmers and the State. In

light of this I will describe the current level of conversion from conventional agriculture

to agroecology in which Cuba finds itself: the input substitution agriculture. This type of

agriculture presents not only some of the problems of industrial farming but also some

signs of sustainability. By understanding the phase at which Cuba’s agrarian conversion

is located I will further evaluate both the main achievements and weaknesses of today’s

sustainable agriculture in Cuba.


The research will conclude that sustainable agriculture was adopted as an

indispensable solution to the crisis. However, the initiative has evolved and currently

contains remarkable lessons, challenges, recommendations and potentialities to keep in

mind for tackling other rural and agrarian crisis worldwide.

2. CUBAN AGRICULTURE: FROM CLASSICAL AND

COLONIAL DEPENDENCE TO DEPENDENT DEVELOPMET.

“Agriculture is based in the society in which is placed, was born and works in consonance

with the institutions in which is inserted: with them agriculture grows and is shaped, with them

stagnates and declines.” (Conde de Pozos Dulce, 1866 in Machado, 2006)

Cuban agricultural history has been one of colonisation. Pre-Columbian Cuba was first

inhabited by the Ciboneys who arrived on the island about 6,000 years ago. They were

simply fisherfolk and gatherers. The Arawak arrived later (about 1,500 years ago), and

they practiced low-input agriculture as well as gathering and fishing. (Fernández, 2005)

Columbus arrived in 1492 and claimed the island for Spain. By 1511, land was being

given to Spanish settlers who began to cultivate sugarcane - a crop introduced into Cuba

after Columbus’ second expedition - by progressively spreading it all over the island.

(Wright, 2005)

A turning point occurred after the successful Haitian slave upheaval in 1789. Sugar

production dropped dramatically in the ex-French colony and both the new labour regime

of African slaves - that by the 18th century were brought from Nigeria to work in the


emergent sugar plantations - and the Haitian revolt impelled the Spaniards to fill in the

gap by increasing Cuba’s sugar production. Apart from sugar the Spaniards brought other

products from the ‘Old World’ such as wheat, citrus, cattle, sheep, goats and pigs that

seemed to adapt adequately to Cuba’s tropical conditions while promoting agricultural

diversification. Consequently, sugar was not the island’s most significant crop until the

beginning of the 19th century. Until then either the Spaniards or the emergent class of

autochthonous small and medium farmers left parts of fertile land to beef cattle while

expanding the island’s sugar production. (Fernández, 2005)

The second great shift occurred after the War of Independence against the Spanish

domain from 1895 to 1898. By the end of the 19th century, and especially after Cuban

independence, a small group of US capitalists and TNCs started controlling the

ownership of Cuba’s main estates by investing in sugar plantations while attempting to

urbanise and industrialise the country. As a result, in 1934 thirteen of the sugar

latifundios were yielding 70% of the total output. At the same time small, diversified

exploitations dropped from 90,000 in 1895 to 38,130 by 1934. (Wright, 2005) By this

time, 95% of the land was in private hands while Cuban small farmers held land basically

through unfavourable contracts like tenancy, sub-tenancy or sharecropping that blocked

the local market functioning. Despite small farmers using more traditional methods and

lowering the use of inputs than the intensively farmed latifundios, they lost their

competitiveness during the first half of the 20th century. They were forced to abandon

their lands while the Cuban government favoured US sugar plantations. This period

represented Cuba’s export-led growth phase characterised by its classical dependence on


US holders and TNCs focused on sugar monoculture, industry promotion and

urbanisation.

Classical dependence transformed Cuban campesinos into agrarian employees,

widening the gap between a highly urbanized population and the very many poor

peasants. On the eve of the 1959 Revolution, income inequality, land distribution,

illiteracy, diseases and the differences between rural and urban areas were extreme and

unsustainable. Rural dwellings rarely counted on electricity, health conditions or fixed

running water. Land holdings were extremely concentrated, with the largest 9 percent of

all farmers owning 62 percent of the land. The latifundio held over 4 million hectares of

idle lands while 200,000 Cuban families were landless and 600,000 unemployed. (Rosset

& Benjamin, 1994)

To stop these increasing social disparities, Cuban peasants who felt exploited and

marginalised by the US monopoly began organising numerous social movements. As a

result, in 1959 the Revolution succeeded in the island by shifting Cuban agriculture to the

Soviet Green Revolution style of production. The Government enforced two agrarian

reform laws in 1959 and 1963 giving the land to the tillers and creating new types of

properties: ACP (Agrarian Production Cooperative) and CSC (Credit and Service

Cooperatives). However, a great amount of expropriated land from US companies still

remained in state hands. Thus the State created large corporations of agrarian production

that followed Green Revolution practices. In other words, these plantations were highly

dependent on chemicals, fertilizers, and machinery imported from the USSR and its

satellites. This marked the starting point of an era of dependent development

characterised by its ‘gigantism’ given that colossal exploitations were traditional features


of Cuba’s agrarian landscape. Yet such an agrarian system was sustained thanks to the

favourable terms of trade that Cuba achieved throughout the Council of Mutual

Economic Assistance (CMEA). By selling its sugar production at favourable prices, Cuba

was able to buy the large amounts of petroleum, chemicals and fertilizers demanded by

its ‘giant agriculture.’

The Revolutionary government promoted several attempts to diversify agrarian

production and decrease the island’s sugar dependency. However Cuba’s incorporation in

the CMEA deepened its economic reliance on sugarcane. Hence Cuba simply shifted

from classical dependence under the US influence, to dependent development under the

USSR sphere. As described in Table 1, either the Revolution or the export-led growth

phases were flawed in diversifying agriculture and eliminating Cuban extreme

dependence on sugar.

Consequently, in the early 80’s Cuba witnessed the first negative externality signals of

a long history of sugar monoculture. Nonetheless, in the early 80’s professionals were

already aware of Cuba’s agriculture inefficiency and beforehand they developed the

sustainable know-how required to confront the crisis a decade later. (Machado, 2006)


Table 1

From Colonial and Classical Dependence to Dependent Development in Cuba

COLONIAL DEPENDENCE 1492-1898

CLASSICAL DEPENDENCE 1898-1959

DEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT 1959-1989

Relations with the rest of the world

Exports oriented towards the Spanish market.

Export-led growth: US capital and interests.

The Cuban Revolution: shift to socialism and CMEA.

Main actors of the economy

Predominance of small and medium farmers. To a lesser extent agrarian elite (sugar planters) and Spanish landholders. African slaves: manpower required by sugar plantations.

Development of latifundia (sugarcane): foreign capital entrance (US TNCs). Cheap labour force (from Jamaica and Haiti).

URSS and CMEA. State farms employees and to a lesser extent, small farmers.

Prospects for growth

Four centuries of agrarian development: small holders class, integration among agriculture and livestock.

Sugar mono-crop production and industry promotion Imbalance between agriculture and urban industry.

Green Revolution technology. Very good terms of trade and great variety (perochemicals) of inputs availability. Benefits of re-exporting petroleum.

Level of trade

High but reliant on the Spaniards.

High and dependent on US interests

High but highly dependent on CMEA’s imports.

Role of the state

Intermediate state sometimes captured by vested interests

Generally captured and moved by US interests.

A socialist state committed with the island’s equitable and social development that forgot the costs of industrial agriculture.

Key sectors of the economy

Primary goods exports (tobacco, sugar and tropical fruits) and livestock.

Sugar cane latifundia. Urban industrialisation.

Sugar monoculture. To a lesser extent, industrialisation based on imports.

Income inequality

High but not extreme

Extreme income and social inequalities: rise of political and social tensions.

Promotion of social equality: education, health, infrastructures etc.

Type of dependence

Colonial dependence: dependent on the empire’s interests: Spain. Relatively small plantations and diversified agriculture. Balance between agriculture and industry.

A model merely attached to US interests and its experimentation with sugar monoculture.

Lack of agricultural diversification. Vulnerability of the island’s economy under the CMEA to international market forces.

Source: original, Evans 1979.


Up to 1989 dependency on external forces for trade, urbanisation, feeding the

population and development lessened Cuba’s capacity to achieve sustainable growth. As

a result dependent citizens rather than entrepreneurial ones were created, slowing down

people’s and the State’s capacity to produce social capital. (Ostrom, 1998, in Pretty,

2002) The collapse of socialism transformed Cuba into the last socialist satellite that

without its planet had to confront a severe crisis.

Summarising, colonial dependence under Spanish control, classical dependence under

the US influx and dependent development under Soviet influence, all formed the

breeding ground of the crisis of the 90’s. In particular, dependent development on the

USSR gave Cuba’s agriculture and government an impulse that was unaware of the

ecological limits of growth and the environmental pillars of the sustainable development

of productive forces. Today Cuba is still struggling to tackle the consequences.

(Machado, 2006)


3. ‘THE SPECIAL PERIOD IN PEACETIME:’ THE YEARS OF

THE FAT COW WERE OVER (1989-1999).

“Today Cuba faces the most difficult challenge in its history”…in addition to the worsening

blockade exercised for more than 30 years by the United States, it now has to resist the effects

of a second blockade provoked by changes in the international order…” (Castro, 1992)

In the late 80’s the industrial model of agrarian production began to show its

deficiencies, a generalised decrease in productivity and other efficiency indicators. A

great number of commodities and an important proportion of arable land used for export-

led production commenced to show important signs of degradation. Although the fall of

communism (1989-90) occurred half a world away from Cuba, its consequences directly

influenced the Cuban economy and its conventional model of agriculture. The Socialist

demise accelerated a necessary transformation that had been waiting to take place since

the early 80’s. Both the exhausted style of ‘giant’ agriculture and the academic and

professional arenas were prepared to carry out the necessary transformations. (Alvarez,

2002)

Cuba’s agrarian dependency before the collapse of socialism is summarised in the

following tables. Table 2a shows the import coefficients for agricultural products in Cuba

in 1989. They appear represented as the percentage value added contributed by imported

inputs used in the island’s production. As Table 2a illustrates the import coefficient in

1989 was pretty high, demonstrating Cuba’s large dependence on external partners not

only for agrochemicals and animal feedstocks, but also for foodstuff. Basic elements like

cereals, beans or rice were imported to sustain the Cubans’ diet.


Table 2a

Import coefficients for agricultural products in Cuba, 1989.

CATEGORY IMPORT COEFFICIENT (%)

Foodstuffs Cereals Beans Rice

100 90 49

Raw Materials Fertilizer Herbicide Animal feedstocks

94 98 97

Source: Pastor, 1992.

Regarding Cuba’s dependence on agricultural inputs, Table 2b shows the high

percentage imported by Cuba in 1989 of fertilizers and pest controls. This elevated share

was possible thanks to the favourable sugar prices (up to 5.4 above the market prices)

Cuba used to obtain through the CMEA.

Table 2b.

Dependence on agricultural inputs imports, 1989.

ITEM % IMPORTED

Fertilizer 48

Insecticide, Fungicide, herbicide 82

Source: Deere, 1992.


Table 2c completes this look at Cuba’s agrarian import structure before the socialist

demise. It contains Cuba’s structure of foreign trade in 1988 and its main commercial

partners. As we can observe the USSR was Cuba’s main trade partner in both export and

import terms. Also many of the former socialist countries of Eastern Europe such as

Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary or East Germany represented an important share of Cuba’s

trade destinations.

Table 2c

Structure of Cuban foreign trade in 1988

COUNTRIES EXPORTS (%) IMPORTS (%)

USSR 66.7 70.8

Romania, Czechoslovakia,

Bulgaria, Poland, East Germany &

Hungary.

15.0 13.8

Rest of the world 19.3 15.4

TOTAL 100.00 100.00

Source: MINAGRI, 1988.

In short, not only the collapse of the socialist bloc (1989-90) but also Cuba’s

incapacity to generate sustainable growth, increase and diversify its exports, and

accomplish import substitution resulted in the severe crisis of the 90’s. (Mesa-Lago,

2005) Additionally, once the commercial relations with the Soviet Bloc finished, the US

imposed a trade embargo. The Cuban government then declared a ‘Special Period in

Peacetime’ (1990-2005) by building up a set of strategies to overcome the depression that

put the country on a ‘wartime economy style austerity program.’ The worst moment of

the crisis occurred in 1993 during the food crisis. This severe famine propelled the whole


island to search for answers. Such answers emerged from the two main social poles of the

economy: academia and the state.

3.1. ACADEMIA’S RESPONSE TO THE CRISIS.

Cuba was not totally unprepared to face the crisis. One of the main blueprints of the

Revolution was the broad development of higher education, research and development

institutions. Moreover, since the early 80’s, Cuba’s leaders began to criticise the limits of

both the island’s external dependency and its prospects of growth based on light industry

and agricultural commodities exportation. In response, politicians decided to encourage

technological expertise as the most valuable commodity of Cuba’s development. The

Cuban state invested up to $12 billion over the remainder of the decade in developing a

set of knowledge assets based on skilled workers and human capital. All of them trained

to come forward with advances to confront the crisis. (Rosset and Benjamin, 1994)

In particular, in the early 80’s young scientists from the Agriculture Ministry and

universities --encouraged by the ecological movement worldwide-- advanced several

criticisms against the dominant pattern of agriculture. They began to search for

alternatives such as biological control of insect pests, biofertilisers, soil management,

intercropping, water recycling, green manures etc. While this class of young researchers

organised different series of conferences on pest management and organic agriculture,

Cuba’s official research policy needed time to support such initiatives. Little by little, a

split emerged between younger scientists and at the other extreme, older researchers or

bureaucrats who occupied leadership positions in the government. While the former

favoured alternatives the latter remained attached to industrial agriculture. As a result


young researchers stressed their frustration at agricultural civil servants in favour of the

Green Revolution agriculture. They highlighted that their sustainable agriculture

initiatives were not taken seriously enough to be implemented on a national scale. (Rosset

& Benjamin, 1994: 28) (Funes-Monzote, 2006) In 1993 once the Special period was

declared these young researchers decided to form the Cuban Association of Organic

Agriculture or ACAO. A social movement that started to implement alternative advances

in agriculture and livestock already developed since the early 80’s.

3.2. STATE’S ANSWERS TO THE CRISIS.

After a really harsh period from 1989 to 1994, in 1995 the Cuban economy stopped

decreasing and began to show timid advances. The State proclaimed a recovery period

based on a new policy package to reactivate Cuba’s overall performance. Several core

economic activities were really depressed due to the crisis. Thus the State tried to open

new spaces where Cubans could find a starting point of higher incomes fuelled at the

same time by a solvent demand. (Fernández, 2006)

Generally, in the economic and financial field, the State opened the country to foreign

capital looking for competitive technology, markets and financial sources. The tenancy of

hard currency within the national borders was not penalised anymore. Further a new

monetary unit, the CUC (or Cuban convertible peso that equals one dollar), was created

as an easy and rapid way to get the hard currency needed to fuel the economy. To deal

with the emerging unemployment of the crisis-period the State legalised the independent

work or auto employment.


On the other hand, at the forefront of the national openness to counteract the

depression, the government embarked on building up the tourist sector. By introducing

new operational modalities and different ways of joint-venture with foreign capital

(mainly Spanish: Melia, Barceló etc.), Cuba’s government has restructured national

tourism since the early 90’s. Hotel chains like Gran Caribe, Horizontes or Isla Azul as

well as tourist and leisure companies like Cubanacán or Gaviota have been created to

offer a great array of amenities and activities. Consequently, tourism has become today’s

engine of the Cuban economy. However, it has been created as an export-led activity that

deepens social disparities by excluding nationals. (Pérez Villanueva, 2004)

The State was also forced to redefine its role in both the new national and international

contexts of economic depression and globalisation respectively. By emphasising the

necessity of playing an active role, Cuba’s government has been changing its centralised

management. It has also promoted a progressive decentralization in production direction.

(Fernández, 2006)

In particular, in the agricultural arena the State also implemented a great range of

structural adjustment measures to halt its negative pattern of growth during the crisis. By

being aware of the real possibilities of an economy extremely reliant on imports, the

Government started implementing new agrarian technologies less reliant on external

inputs. (Fernández, 2006)

On the one hand, the State introduced structural changes in property relations. The

third land reform law was enforced in 1993 to overcome the crisis, redistribute state lands

and stimulate agrarian production. This law created a new type of holding: the BUCP or

Basic Unit of Cooperative Production. Generally BUCPs were former state farmers or


idle lands, given in usufruct contracts to the tillers. They share Cuba’s land tenure stage

with the earlier types of properties (founded under the first and second land reforms of

1959 and 1963) summarised in Table 3. The APC are Agrarian Production Cooperatives

where peasants voluntarily associate and deliver their lands by sharing in common

property agricultural tools and machinery. The CSC or Credit and Service Cooperatives

are formed by family farmers who owned the land and found being a cooperative

advantageous in terms of services and credit. Other less important types of landholdings

represented in Table 3 are: usufruct lands in rural areas, urban agriculture plots, new

generation farms – similar to BUCPs but with different conditions – and lastly, state

enterprises, entirely in state hands.

Table 3

Current structures of Cuba’s land tenancy

STRUCTURE ORIGIN LAND AND RESOURCES

APC Farmers own the land Voluntary association and

delivery of land

CSC Renters, agrarian workers,

sharecroppers, owners

Private lands

BUCP Former state plantations workers Collective usufruct of lands. They

bought the tools, animals etc.

LAND IN USUFRUCT IN THE

RURAL SECTOR

State owned areas: coffee, cacao

and tobacco.

Usufruct: state owned lands

URBAN AGRICULTURE Quads, roofs, balconies, urban or

semi-urban plots

Privates or in usufruct. They use

organic methods.

NEW GENERATION FARMS State owned farms without the

BUCP requisites.

The state owns the tools, means

and the land.

STATE ETERPRISES Cuban state lands Everything is owned by the state.

Source: Funes, 2002.


On the other hand, the State reopened a free market for agricultural activities. Such

free markets of offer and demand fostered food production and family farm economies by

enabling peasants to sell their surpluses in local areas. (Fernández, 2006)

Additionally, the state redistributed idle lands in usufruct to individual farmers and

families to yield them on export-led crops like tobacco, cacao or coffee. Simultaneously,

the State attained a decentralisation process of agrarian management in favour of regional

economic and corporative entities.

Finally, the State launched the urban agriculture program to deal with shortages in

rural production supply, petroleum and difficulties in its transportation and urban

unemployment. It was also an attempt to achieve urban food security. The starting point

of urban agriculture was located in Havana. There, every available space like balconies,

terraces, gardens and small peri-urban plots were used to grow vegetables, fruits and

viands. Since the early 90’s the State has given support to numerous initiatives of urban

agriculture. For example the Cuban State has supported the permaculture proposal

developed by the Foundation Núñez Jiménez of Nature and Men. This NGO sees urban

agriculture as a way of sustaining the family in the city against the harsh crisis as well as

a cultural approach that reshapes the interaction between men and nature. By recovering a

good cultural balance between men and nature (lost for many years under the Green

Revolution mentality) this Foundation attempts to spread the family farmer knowledge

across the island. Thus it organises workshops and agroeological meetings to educate

both urban inhabitants and rural farmers. (Sánchez, 2006)


4. UNDERSTANDING THE EVOLUTION AND PRESENT

SITUATION OF CUBAN SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE.

“If sustainability is an emergent property of human interaction, likely sustainable solutions

will rise just through social learning… an interactive process through what the main actors of

the development process are committed to implement and go forward with concerted actions.”

(De Souza, 2003: 2)

Today Cuba represents the first example of a sustainable agriculture model

implemented on a nationwide scale. During my fieldwork in the island I explored the

evolution and present functioning of Cuba’s experience. In doing so I realised that while

ecological agriculture in other regions has been occasionally spurned from mainstream

policy, at least in Cuba there is a current drive towards sustainability.

In general, there are three main causes of the operational problems of sustainable

practices worldwide. First, there are conflicting economic interests within the private

sector to enhance sustainability. Still, in Cuba, the lack of both corporate interests and the

direct presence of TNCs fuelled sustainability. Other dilemmas usually appear related to

certified organic agriculture perceptions. Because organic products represent an

interesting niche market for TNCs as being very attractive for First World’s consumers.

At the beginning, Cuba’s certified organic agriculture was perceived as ideologically

conflictive with the mandate for self-sufficiency and ecological agriculture as being

simply low-yielding. However, after ACAO institutionalisation in 1999, the State put

organic standards and certification on the map to enable market-oriented production.


Lastly, the well-known debate on sustainable and small farming yield ability must be

accounted. In Cuba both the failure of Green Revolution production and the long tradition

and expertise of its campesinos pushed Cubans to see family farming as a more efficient

pattern of production. (Wright, 2005)

In particular, the ‘Special period’ forced Cubans to understand that the country will

never return either in the short or in the long term to the external economic conditions

that allowed industrial agriculture. In contrast, the crisis and its needs encouraged an

indispensable consensus in the search for new, permanent and systemic paths of

sustainable growth. Cuba’s sustainable agriculture would then enable national food

security through primary production based on export-oriented surpluses. Subsequently it

will allow pollution reduction, soil viability, biodiversity soundness and social solutions

for its rural world. (García Trujillo, 1997)

4.1. FORCES BEHIND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND SOCIAL

CAPITAL FORMATION (1993-2006).

This part of the investigation attempts to describe the long process of understanding

and social capital formation between academia and its organic agriculture movement

(ACAO), the State and farmers, performed by Cuba (1993-2006) on sustainable

agriculture development.


Conventional wisdom defines social capital as ‘the structure of relations between

actors and among actors that encourages productive activities.’ At the same time, social

capital decreases the costs of working together while facilitating cooperation and

lessening unencumbered private actions that result in resource degradation. (Pretty, 2002:

152)

Social capital formation in Cuba has been achieved once the State, researchers and

institutions have become aware of the changes needed in both Green revolution mentality

and technology to confront the crisis. This awareness took time, and initially Cuba’s

agrarian institutions and the State had to be reshaped through different phases of

knowledge generation. (See Table 4)

As shown by Table 4, right after the Revolution, from 1962 to 1975, Cuba basically

sketched out the design of the knowledge and institutions required to support agriculture.

Subsequently, from 1976 to 1985, the government further consolidated the set of Cuban

knowledge assets of agriculture under the Green Revolution mentality. Yet in 1986-93,

the direction of such knowledge generation process began to show deficiencies and had

to be readdressed. The exhausted Green Revolution style of production should be

readapted to the shifting international circumstances. Simultaneously, it should be

reduced Cuban dependence on both external ideologies and relations enhanced by

USSR’s anthropocentrism and CMEA, correspondingly. As a result, since 1993, Cuba

started the build-up of a strategic set of research and knowledge assets to absorb not only

the country’s primary resources but also the autochthonous physical and human capital.

(Suárez, 2006)


By and large, Cuba’s knowledge generation process on agriculture demonstrates that

social capital formation requires time. Because both knowledge and sustainability takes

time, local knowledge and familiarity with a place known better by farmers. Otherwise if

a society forgets where it lives, then the landscape could be manipulated by mixing up

means and ends of agrarian development while people may hardly realise that anything

has occurred. (Pretty, 2002) The mistake of misreading the means and ends of agrarian

development was precisely the consequence of the anthropological mentality in which

Cuba’s industrial agriculture was involved. A misconception of agricultural growth that

lacked embedded nature in the socioeconomic progress. Such pattern of industrial

agriculture, however, was fuelled by two factors. First, the scientific community lacked a

strong general awareness. Second, the State’s incapacity to radically shift its agrarian

policy, principally in the late 80’s when the country accomplished impressive agrarian

records, like 3,100 tons of viands and vegetables, 913,000,000 litres of milk or 1,000,000

tons of citric. (Machado, 2006)

A turning point, however, occurred during the third phase of Cuba’s knowledge

generation process in agriculture: the need for changes (1986-1993). This phase was

fuelled by either the exhausted Green Revolution agriculture or the economic crisis. Both

factors led to the necessary general awareness within the scientific community to shift

from the former mentality. As a result, ACAO emerged in 1993 from the young scientist

community by searching for answers to face the crisis.


Nevertheless, ACAO needed time to attain social capital maturity. Because as the

Cuban experience demonstrates, development of sustainable sector’s groups is usually

shaped in three periods: reactive dependence, realization independence and awareness

independence. (Funes-Monzote, 2006)

Firstly, the reactive dependence stage implies the group formation aiming to face a

critical situation and attain a desired outcome, like eco-efficiency, by diminishing costs

and damage. Nevertheless they do not yet apply regenerative components. This is exactly

Cuba’s case when in the midst of the crisis the academic sphere represented by ACAO

began to demand sustainable practices implementation. Their scope for action, though,

was limited. Because both the State and many farmers - still attached to Green

Revolution mentality - needed time to come to an ideological agreement. (Pretty, 2002)

The second phase, realization independence, involves the group’s growing

independence. The group develops its initial general awareness of a new long-term

reality. Then it begins to build horizontal links with other organizations while individuals

tend to engage in active experimentation by sharing results. This is the evolution

experienced by ACAO from 1993 to 1999, when the group received The Right

Livelihood Award. Then the Government recognised the potentialities and achievements

of Cuba’s sustainable agriculture by institutionalising ACAO. The State included the

movement in ACTAF or The Cuban Association of Agrarian and Forestry Technicians.

There rests the starting point of understanding between academia and the State on

sustainability.1

1 ACTAF is a governmental association founded in 1987, focused on agrarian transition towards an ecological

balance, with a gender perspective, participative approach and respect of the technical-professional ethic.


Finally, awareness independence implies the group’s engagement in creating their own

realities by looking forward to develop. In particular, this is the stage in which ACTAF

has been placed since 1999. Consequently ACTAF is currently promoting a great array of

activities such as: local and agrarian development support, training for professionals and

producers, net integration, multidisciplinary group formation, international homologation

of agrarian disciplines, extension and experience exchange and farmer-academic

knowledge etc. On the whole, ACTAF is finally working in consonance with both Cuba’s

government and campesinos. (Funes, 2006)

Table 4

Cuba’s social capital formation on Sustainable Agriculture

MAIN ACTORS

INSTITUTIONALIZATION

AND CONSOLIDATION

1962-1985

THE NEED FOR

CHANGES

1986-1993

STRATEGIC

INNOVATIONS

1993-1999

SOCIAL CAPITAL

MATURITY AND SOCIAL

LEARNING FORMATION

1999-2006

The role of the state

Under the URSS’ ideology:

anthropocentrism and

gigantism

The state began to

understand the sheer

situation adopting

some measures but the

change of paradigm

took time.

The realisation of

sustainable agriculture

possibilities.

Coherent interaction among

academia, institutions and

peasants.

The role of

Academia

Attached to USSR’s

mentality and the lack of

strong cohesiveness

Reactive dependence:

ACAO’s gestation and

rise.

Realisation

independence. From

ACAO to ACTAF

Awareness independence.

ACTAF: long term

sustainable development

The role of farmers

Important: first and second

land reforms to give the land

to the tillers.

They were not taken

into account. However

they were highly

affected by the crisis.

Organic agriculture

means both a shift in

their technology and

mentality.

Understanding between

peasants, the state and

academia. Recovery of

peasant knowledge and

expertise.

Source: fieldwork, 2006.


As Table 4 and my experiences from the field demonstrate, sustainable agriculture in

contemporary Cuba is placed in the phase of social capital maturity and social learning

formation (1999-2006). At this stage the understanding between academia, state and

farmers is beginning to work showing interesting outcomes. However Cuba’s sustainable

agriculture also presents relevant shortcomings. Specifically, the main drawback to

overcome is the current phase of Cuba’s agrarian conversion. A middle level known as

‘input substitution,’ that should evolve to fully achieve sustainability.

4.2. CUBA’S PATH TOWARDS AGROECOLOGY: ITS CURRENT STATE

OF THE ART.

Although Cuba is the largest example of conversion from conventional agriculture to

sustainable practices, in practice the island is on his way to agroecology. The vast

majority of Cuban agricultural officials and scholars whom I interviewed concurred on

the same idea: ‘Cuba has not entirely achieved a full conversion from conventional to

organic practices. Further Cuba is situated on its way towards sustainability; a middle

step called input substitution agriculture.’ Therefore, Cuba’s agriculture currently

portrays a less industrialised model, an increased use of ecological technologies as well

as a greater intentional, mainstream conscious process towards sustainable practices.

Thus, full transformation is the key aspect to overcome before tackling other important

shortcomings of Cuba’s alternative. In general, the full conversion from conventional

agriculture to organic farming takes from three to five years. This is the period needed by

a farmer for switching to organics and equalling the levels of productivity and


profitability obtained in the final years of conventional production. After that time, and

taken for granted that agroecology has been properly introduced, sustainable practices

generally become more beneficial than the former system. (Rosset & Benjamin, 1994)

Table 5

Characteristics of Conventional, Input Substitution and Agroecological systems

CHARACTERISTICS CONVENTIONAL INPUT SUBSTITUTION AGROECOLOGICAL

Main goal

Maximize

Maximize → Optimize

Optimize

Meaning of Agriculture

A business

Dependent on subjacent

worries: external factors

Multifnctionality

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT

Externalities

Comparative advantage

Reliance on external inputs (petroleum)

Labour requirements

Labour productivity

Productivity of land (long-term)

Production (land)

Incentives structure

Space for local market

Prices: rural earnings

Quality of food

Access to land

Autonomy

Negative

Static

High

Low, hired

Low

Low to medium

Highest

Really low

None

Low

Low

Unequal: concentrated

Low

Negative → Positives

Static → Dynamic

High

High, hired

Low → Medium

Low to medium

Medium

Low to medium

Little

Low

Medium → High

Medium

Medium

Positive

Dynamic

Low

High, family and communal

High

High

Low/medium

High: participatory

High

Fair

Healthy: natural

Equal

High

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Sustainability

Plant diversity

Integration of crops and livestock

Plant nutrition

Decomposition and nutrient cycling

Human displacement of ecological process

Low

Low

None

Chemical

Low

High

Low → Medium

Low → Medium

Little

Biological and organic

Low to medium

Medium

High

High

High

Reconstruction of living soils

High

Low

TECHNOLOGICAL IMPACT

Generation of technology

Research design

Reliance on external human inputs

Top down, imported

Conventional agronomic

High

Top down, imported

Conventional agronomic

Medium

Participatory, local knowledge

Participatory research

Medium →Low

Source: Rosset, 1997. Gliessman, 2000.


Table 5 illustrates the three specific levels of agrarian conversion. Level 1 is based on

increasing the efficiency of conventional practices to reduce the use and consumption of

costly, scarce or environmentally damaging inputs.’ (Gliessman, 2000: 303) This is the

dominant way of production focused on economic maximization and high rates of return

in the short term. Though, in the low and medium term it starts to demonstrate its

decreasing efficiency in economic, social and environmental terms. This has been the

type of agriculture developed in Cuba from 1959 to 1990. A model focused on the Soviet

style of agriculture and characterised by its ‘gigantism.’ It is additionally characterised by

high capital requirements, low sustainability, and low generation of technology and plant

diversity, high reliance on external inputs or low autonomy and flexibility, among other

aspects.

Level 2 of conversion would consist on substituting conventional inputs and practices

with alternative methods. It is a model situated in between the dominant system and the

agroecological one, called ‘input substitution.’ This paradigm has plenty of similarities to

conventional agriculture, such as high external inputs dependency, low-medium

productivity of land, scarce generation of technology, low autonomy and flexibility etc.

Yet it starts to show several sound environmental aspects of agroecology. For instance,

input substitution agriculture begins to demonstrate a certain degree of plant diversity,

less environmental damage, less reliance on petrochemicals among other genuine

characteristics of the Level 3. This Level 3 of conversion is focussed on redesigning the

agroecosystem to function on the basis of a new set of sound ecological processes.

(Gliessman, 2000)


Cuba is precisely situated in Level 2 of conversion due to the complex process of

adaptation. As mentioned before, such adaptation firstly requires a shift of mentality

among the primary players of Cuba’s agriculture. To date, both the Cuban government

and civil society at least have understood the necessity of working together by

distinguishing means and ends of agrarian development. Yet in order to accomplish a full

agrarian transformation Cubans must be conscious of the drawbacks of its input

substitution agriculture while accounting the outcomes achieved so far. Then, Cuba’s

present Level 2 will be able to evolve towards Level 3 of conversion.

4.3. SHORTCOMINGS.

Now that we have already known the main weakness of Cuba’s alternative, placed in

Level 2 of conversion, I will further explore other limits to overcome before fully

accomplishing sustainable agriculture. I will do so by considering not only the particular

problems of the alternative paradigm, but also the common weaknesses found in Cuba’s

agrarian sector. Such general shortcomings might block the island’s agrarian conversion

as well as its future agrarian and rural development.

4.3.1. General Framework in which Sustainable Agriculture will be inserted.

When talking about sustainable agriculture’s shortcomings and Cuba’s conversion

process, it must be first accounted the limited framework in which these practices would

be inserted. I mean, the complex Cuban farming structure. In doing so, I will discuss the

general agrarian problems of food security, permanence of Green Revolution ideology,


and the property, commercialization and integration drawbacks I observed during my

fieldwork.

a) Food Security

In 1989 Cuba displayed an agricultural sector similar to California’s that suddenly was

forced to double its food production while more than halving its agrarian inputs. To

confront the crisis the island had to maintain its export crop production so as not to

further decrease the country’s desperate foreign exchange position. Therefore, since the

90’s Cuba has witnessed significant deterioration in the level of self-sufficiency in food

production, import substitution and industrialisation. (Mesa-Lago, 2005) Further, Cuba’s

poor agricultural performance during the 90’s has resulted in adverse fiscal and external

deficits. Such deficits have forced the island to import great volumes of foodstuffs while

hindering exports growth and diversification. (García Molina, 2004)

All these structural and food supply problems were easy to detect during my stay in

Cuba. However, I also realised that the island’s food security drawbacks did not emerge

during the crisis. Moreover, ‘food security had shown itself to be the Achilles’ heel of the

revolution.’ (Rosset & Benjamin, 1994: 4) In reality, from 1959 to 1989 Cuba’s growth

was based on dependent development centred on sugar exports and a high degree of food

imports apart from petroleum and chemical products. Hence Cuba had never held

autonomy over both its food system and its structure of imports; either during the

socialist period or during the Special period (see Table 6). As a result, Cuba has ended


up importing much of its food such as rice from China, cereals from Europe or even other

foodstuff from the US.2

Table 6.

Import structure by group of products.

1990 2004

MM $ % MM $ %

Total 7416,5 100,0 5549,2 100,0

Food stuff and food raw materials,

beverage and tobacco

903,8 12,2 1119,9 20,2

Fuel and lubricants 2022,8 27,3 1292,5 23,3

Machinery and transport equipment 2718,5 36,7 1202,0 21,7

Other manufactures and non-food raw

materials

1771,4 23,9 1934,8 34,9

Source: Fernández, 2005.

Table 6 shows how the structure of imports by group of products varied from 1990 to

2004. It is true that in 2004 the foodstuff imports were higher; nevertheless they were

also important before the Special Period. Hence, Cuba from the 90’s on has deepened its

former dependence on fuel and food imports. The current recovery process, therefore, is

extremely relevant. It might increase national agrarian production and subsequently

reduce Cuba’s expenses to ensure its food security.

2 E.g. it very popular in contemporary Cuba the US imports of chickens’ legs and wings paid in cash by the government.


b) Agrarian Commercialization

Linked to the island’s capacity to sustain its population, the problem of agrarian

commercialization should be briefly explored. This is a complex problem.

Cuba’s agrarian commercialization is canalised through an inefficient central market

in which the farmer is unable to close the productive cycle. This central market is

monitored by Acopio. A state centralised company that even controls input

commercialization. Acopio manages over 80-85% of fundamental and less fundamental

production. It also monitors the free market of primary products by fixing up maximum

prices that lessen producers’ incentives to create productive reserves. There are also other

markets to sell primary production. For instance there is a rationed market, a fixed prices

market, a hard-currency market and obviously an informal market. Among them, only the

free market may possibly work by giving a coherent incentives structure as well as being

a place where small farmers can freely sell their surpluses. (Nova, 2006)

Given the current and inefficient Cuban commercialisation system, organic products

possibly will have many problems to reach consumers both in the national and in the

international arena. In particular, there is no Cuban legal framework to commercialise

organic products. Therefore organic commercialisation depends on the type of

exploitation where these products are cultivated. There appears an additional structural

problem of Cuba’s agriculture: the overdue property drawback.


c) Landholding problems

In Cuba many agrarian structures are outdated. They have not evolved in a consistent

way accounting for the internal and external circumstances. In theory, the third land

reform of 1993 - known for many as the ‘silent agrarian reform’ - redistributed state

owned lands by creating BUCPs. The state lent the land to the tillers by usufruct; in

perpetuity but without a specific contract that sometimes could hinder socio-economic

efficiency.

In light of this, Table 6 and graphs 1 and 2 above show Cuba’s agrarian structure

evolution from 1992 to 2004.

Table 6

Changes in the Cuban land distribution 1992-2004. (In percentage)

AGRARIAN STRUCTURE 1992 2004 Total 100 100

State owned sector 75 34,5 Not state owned 25 65,4

BUCP ----- 38,9 APC 10 8,9

PRIVATE AND SCC 15 17,6 Source: Fernández, 2005.

Graph.1

CUBA'S AGRARIAN STRUCTURE IN 1992

State owned sectorNot state ownedBUCPAPCPRIVATE AND SCC

Source: ONE, 1994.


Graph.2

CUBA'S AGRARIAN STRUCTURE IN 2004

State owned sectorNot state ownedBUCPAPCPRIVATE AND SCC

Source: ONE, 2005.

As shown by Table 6 and Graphs 1 and 2, in 2004 despite the third agrarian reform

having been already enforced, indirectly the State still owned a great percentage of land

under the BUCPs type of holding. Consequently, today many Cuban campesinos working

at BUCPs remain as mere employees of the former state farmers. Thus they do not feel

any sort of attachment to the land they cultivate. Moreover, there are many idle lands that

the State has not distributed yet. Ultimately, in spite of the ‘silent land reform’ of 1993

the Cuban state still owns over 70% of the arable land.

It is with reference to this that I visited a livestock BUCP, Palmasola, in Martí

municipality, Matanzas province. There, farmers do not get enough for self-sustenance.

The BUCP’s administrator, Fran Díaz, documented how the lack of incentives has

created farmers who are completely uncommitted to the land and cattle they raise.

Farmers feel just like simple employees of the former state farmers. An absence of


coherent incentives commonly found in many former URSS’s satellites of Eastern

Europe as a feature of socialist agriculture. (Díaz, 2006)

Therefore, it has been commonly argued that in developing countries these types of

cooperatives have been fostered by governments as instruments of economic

development. However they have eventually failed to improve poor people’s social and

economic conditions. Moreover such cooperatives have ended up triggering organised

labour for exploitation, as the Cuban BUCPs shows. (Pretty, 2002) Nevertheless, we find

other socialist types of land redistribution that appear to be much more beneficial. For

instance, in China the land was given to families, workers and village communities free

to decide what to produce, who to sell it to, and at what price. If Cuba had followed such

pattern, it would have probably been self-sufficient in food by obtaining exportable

surplus. This class of land policy would have also given more opportunities for Cuba’s

future sustainable agriculture development and its market insertion. (Mesa-Lago, 2005)

To sum up, farmers, scholars and civil servants presently at the forefront of Cuba’s

recovery period agree in halting this type of incoherent cooperatives. They even stress

that ‘a fourth land reform must be implemented as one of the main pillars of the advance

of Cuba’s overall agrarian performance.’ (Funes, 2006) (Nova, 2006)


d) Agrarian integration and diversification

Finally, during my stay in Cuba I realised that its future development of sustainable

agriculture might be hindered by the lack of proper integration between the main sectors

of the economy.

Economic development has been defined as a ‘process of moving from a set of assets

based on primary products, exploited by unskilled labour, to a set of assets based on

knowledge, exploited by skilled labour.’ This transformation implies ‘human and

physical capital attraction into commerce, agriculture, and manufacturing, the heart of

modern economic growth.’ (Amsden, 2001: 2-3) In this view, Cuba still has a long way

to go. It has never fostered the proper integration between its key economic sectors. The

island has always been an economy extremely reliant on developing specific activities:

first sugar, and now tourism and its related services. Therefore Cuba appears to have

followed the opposite path of economic development as it lacks the proper shift from

assets based on primary products to those based on knowledge. While Cuba is changing

its productive structure and tourism is becoming the engine of the economy, national

industry and agriculture only provide 67% of the inputs required by tourism. Additionally

the island paradoxically counts with a great amount of human and skilled capital. Still

this human capital is distributed between a developed service segment (typical of a First

World economy) and secondary and primary sectors highly dependent on technology,

energy and manufacture or light industry imports. Simultaneously, such imports are

essential elements to the functioning of Cuba’s installed capacities. (Marquetti Nodarse,

2004)


4.3.2. Changing producers’ and institutions’ mentality: a difficult task.

Today Cuba still presents a strong Green Revolution mentality within agrarian

institutions, policies and farmers. This type of agriculture was highly attached to

anthropocentric philosophy that misread means and ends of agrarian development while

overestimating the role of technology in research design. Thus science strategies were

basically seen as institutional building to fill in the science-development gap. Hence

policies implemented never included the science result users by adopting a management

model pushed by science (push approach) and never based on demands (pull approach)

(García Capote, 1996). For many years scholars were unable to understand peasants’

needs while the change of mentality was usually misunderstood just as the shift on

farmers’ behaviour. Regulations and economic incentives were common mechanisms to

encourage changes in behaviour but did not guarantee the required shift on attitudes.

Therefore many Cuban farmers have commonly reverted to Green Revolution methods

when incentives end or regulations were no longer enforced. (Pretty, 2002) Accordingly

the majority of scholars whom I interviewed emphasised that technological and mentality

advances must come across together to properly apply sustainable agriculture. (Rodríguez

Castellón, 2004)


4.3.3. Specific problems of Cuba’s sustainable agriculture.

In particular, Cuba should overcome different problems to promote the successful

final step towards sustainability.

First, Cuba lacks a proper level of livestock-agriculture integration. Thus sustainability

in Cuba must be reoriented to integrate agriculture and livestock sectors in a coherent

way. In this light, institutions like the Research Institute of Animal Feedstock and

Sustainable Farming of Indio Hatuey, University of Matanzas, are successfully working

towards agriculture-livestock integration. Through knowledge generation and building up

training this institution has developed interesting practices. For instance it is extending

sustainable forestry-fodder systems, broad concepts of sustainable livestock, new forages

with great potentialities for the tropics, research and improvement in bovine feedstock,

and experimenting with grass and its associated services. Although these pilot results

have been carefully evaluated, they still have the challenge of being extended all over the

country. (Fieldwork, 2006) (Monzote and Funes-Monzote, 1997)

On the other hand, Cuba ought to strengthen the relationship between rural and urban

agriculture. Havana and Matanzas are the main agrarian provinces in Cuba. Though they

present a clear disparity between urban and rural areas in terms of infrastructure, yielding

practices, agricultural supply and demand or peasants’ living conditions; not to mention

more depressed provinces like Pinar del Río, Granma, Guantánamo or Holguín. Hence

urban agriculture should be understood as a pillar of rural agriculture needed to revitalise

countryside life. In addition where it works it should promote the ‘greening’ of the cities.

(Rosset & Benjamin, 1994) In short, urban agriculture should overcome a threefold


challenge of its proper implementation in rural areas, its needed balance between rural-

urban needs and its large-scale extension.

Finally, Cuba’s sustainable agriculture in practice lacks a national organization to

develop creditable organic products, with an identification and guarantee stamp

supported by the State. Moreover the State should work as a professional consultant that

monitors organic production regulation, processing and trade to protect consumers.

(Rodríguez Castellón, 2004)

4.4. OUTCOMES: EXPERIENCES FROM THE FIELD.

Cuba’s sustainable agriculture additionally presents relevant outcomes foreseen as the

pillars on which the mentioned challenges may be overcome. This part of the research

examines the outcomes found in my experiences from the field.

4.4.1. Urban agriculture.

In today’s ‘globalised’ agricultural negotiations it is commonly believed that small

countries cannot feed themselves while they need imports to cover their local shortages.

Still, Cuba has taken enormous steps towards self-reliance since the loss of its key trade

relations. (Robert &Thanos, 2003)

It is also frequently argued that a country cannot feed its population without chemicals

and pesticides. Hence we need the efficiency of large-scale holdings to produce enough

food. However, in the vanguard of Cuba’s recovery from a food crisis we find small


farmers and gardeners that without machinery and imported chemicals have proved to be

more efficient than large-scale units. (Robert &Thanos, 2003)

During my fieldwork I visited a couple of urban gardens and organic points of sales

which seemed to be efficient from the economic, social and environmental point of view.

Apart from this threefold efficiency I realised that a new type of effectiveness comes out

when former state idle lands begin to produce by promoting broad economic benefits for

the whole urban community. Cuba’s urban agriculture additionally appears to be a new

source of employment generation that in 2002 incorporated up to 326.000 people in the

program. (García Molina, 2004)

In order to document the urban agriculture’s outcomes I spent one day at Alamar’s

organic garden. Located in a rubbish dump outside the urban centre of Alamar, very close

to Havana, Alamar’s organic garden is a BUCP founded in 1997 with 800 m2 area and

five workers. Although the cooperative was born in a difficult phase of Cuba’s economy

with scarce resources, both the political will to build up and the National Research

Institutes’ expertise fostered its efficient functioning. The need for food, Cuba’s agrarian

tradition and its population’s literacy were the corner stones of Alamar’s initiative.

Progressively, the organic garden spread positive externalities all over the nearby

inhabitants. For instance employment opportunities, health food, fair prices and

transformation of unproductive lands in vegetable gardens, have fostered a closer contact

between new generations and agriculture. Advances in vegetables widespread, irrigation

systems, protected yields and production diversification all resulted in a rapid expansion.


Nowadays the organic garden is diversified in five management units and six

diversification and commercialization improvement areas. Consequently in nine years the

cooperative has become a fruitful incipient enterprise, efficient from the economic, social

and environmental perspective.3 Moreover, the organic garden presently counts with 3.7

hectares and 86 employees with a high degree of cooperative attachment. Incentive

mechanisms and a constant worker-oriented policy centred on the job conditions

improvements have been broadly successful.

In summary, Alamar’s experience has demonstrated a significant outcome and

potentiality of contemporary Cuba’s sustainable agriculture. An initiative we should

observe vigilantly. Particularly in light of the world community’s and states’ failure to

meet the less ambitious of the Millennium Development Goals: halving the number of

food-insecure people in developing nations. (Wright, 2005)

4.4.2. Participation and Social Knowledge.

Another relevant outcome I found during my fieldwork was Cuba’s attempt to create

social knowledge and participation in rural areas. As an example, I will briefly introduce

the project of ‘Participatory Seed Diffusion’ (PSD) that summarises the experiences

developed by Humberto Ríos of INCA (National Institute of Agricultural Sciences,

University of Havana); with whom I spent one day to document the experience.

3 By analysing the monthly and annual benefits of Alamar’s organic garden, I realised that its production does not

only cover the costs and salaries, but also achieves high benefits to reinvest in human capital, infrastructure and deeper

agrarian diversification. For instance, the net income in hard currency in 2005 was 3,800,000 CUC. Benefits were

1,400,000 CUC; both of them have increased progressively since the cooperative creation in 1997.


In general, the public breeding sector in Cuba and Latin America has considered agro-

biodiversity management and plant improvement exclusive activities of professional

researchers for many decades. With this regard Cuba has taken advantage of the space

opened by the crisis to expand participatory seed dissemination programmes.

Theoretically, PSD is focused on improved seeds and organic practices diffusion

among rural peasant’s communities. In practice, by integrating diversity, organising seed

fairs and markets to experiment with many varieties, peasants choose the types they find

more appropriate for their land and climatic conditions. Once farmers see the favourable

effects of genetic diversity testing, they organise themselves in farmer research groups.

These groups are in charge of promoting knowledge, social organisation and

entrepreneurial centres that sponsor intensive genetic flows and continued discussion

surrounding local innovation.

In particular, the alternative has been developed since 1999 in Pinar del Río, with the

peasants of La Palma whom I interviewed. Before 1999 these farmers did not have any

incentives to take care of their lands. Their economic situation did not leave room for

improvement because they barely subsisted with scarce productions. In 1999, however,

Humberto Ríos and his INCA’s research team arrived to this ACP to distribute different

types of improved seeds among the farmers. At the beginning the peasants of La Palma

did not take the project seriously. They were used to being ignored by professionals. The

vast majority of researchers that used to come to the field with ideas of distributing

improved seeds forgot the term ‘participation’. Clearly, professionals knew pretty well

the advantages of these practices in fostering biodiversity and yield rotation. Yet they

were unable to account the valuable peasant knowledge and peasants did not feel part of


the process. Since this PSD project has been implemented, the main peasants of La Palma

have become key players fully integrated in the project. They have progressively shifted

from scarcely sustain their families to grow all the food for the household maintenance

while selling their surpluses in free markets within the cooperative. As Coco, Andrés and

other farmers of La Palma documented during my visit, they have taken advantage of

‘participation’ from a double perspective. First, every farmer in this cooperative has

learnt how to interact with each other by properly exchanging their valuable peasant

knowledge. Second, it seems to be participation between professional researchers and

farmers. (Ríos Labrada, 2006)

On the whole, La Palma’s success has lead INCA’s research group to develop similar

experiences in other provinces (Holguín, Villa Clara or Guantánamo) or even other Latin

American regions (e.g. University of Villa Flores in Chiapas, México). Such initiatives

are being supported by foreign funding (e.g. Canadian International Development

Agency or Swiss Development Cooperation) and international scholarship (like Julia

Wright from HDRA, the Organic Organisation in UK). These innovative types of

institutional arrangements appear to be really important when fostering scientists’ and

farmers’ collaborative efforts. In addition they might be a significant step to consider

when developing better understanding of local seed systems and agro-biodiversity

incentives. They should be then cautiously seen as ‘development cells’ for national and

international advance. (Ríos Labrada, 1999)


4.4.3. Small Farmers: Social Connectedness and Federation.

Cuban small farmers’ (organised in both APC and CSC) experience, tradition and

agricultural systems provided a buffer of resources and inputs scarcity during the crisis.

Further many small farmers have developed the alternatives to sustain national food

security in Cuba. They have proved to attain more efficient land use, production and

organisation methods than large-scale holdings. Therefore Cuba’s campesino sector

should be seen as a key element in the preservation of traditional crop and livestock

varieties required to sustainable agriculture advance. (Funes-Monzote, 2006)

Accordingly the increasing understanding among institutions and farmers is an

emergent property in Cuba. Such an understanding has derived from small peasants

engaging in their own experimentation (e.g. urban agriculture and PSD). Cuban

campesinos then supported by professionals have contributed to novel technologies

building based on ‘farmer to farmer’, and ‘group to group’ mechanisms. Yet nowadays

long term interconnectedness must be guaranteed. To do so, federation appears to be the

answer.

Federation ensures long term stability of social connectedness among groups to either

work together on sustainable agriculture promotion or influence district, regional or even

national bodies. Federated groups with strong leadership will further promote direct links

between governmental institutions’ goals and poor peasants’ or landless groups’ needs.

Consequently interconnectedness between groups will be more likely to result in natural

resources advances than centralised schemes alone. (Pretty, 2002)


Particularly, ANAP (National Association of Small Farmers) is a good example of

Cuba’s sustainable alternatives embedded in federated institutions. ANAP is a non-

governmental organisation that in harmony with the Government enhances social and

economic small farmers’ interests while working towards agricultural advance. By the

national spreading of the ‘farmer to farmer’ technology, organising workshops between

officials of the Ministry of Agriculture or Higher Education and campesinos, or

international gatherings with other small farmers’ groups (like the MST of Brazil or Vía

Campesina), ANAP and the Cuban government share a true project of transformation. A

consensus based on sustainability as an emergent property of valuable systems of social,

human and natural capital. (Rodríguez, 2006)

4.4.4. Diversification and Potentialities.

Last, Cuba’s organic production presents important diversification and export

potentialities.

As an example, organic rice has been popularized since the 90’s proving that self-

organization and low-input agriculture might be supplementary pillars to successfully

achieve food security. The popular rice production was initially a grassroots movement

towards self-sustenance. It was people’s answer to face the crisis by yielding rice in

unused lands combined with other crops. Progressively rice surpluses were likely to be

sold in free markets of primary goods formed by peasants. Thus organic rice has ended

up representing an important source of households’ income. Nowadays organic rice has

grown rapidly by achieving unexpected results. For instance, in 2001 popular rice


covered more than 50% of total domestic rice production. (Funes-Monzote, 2006) (Funes,

2002)

On the other hand, an incipient industry of organic medicinal and cosmetic plants (like

aloe vera) is being broadly applied since the early 90’s in Cuba. These plants are foreseen

as one of the angular stones of Cuba’s future development. At the moment the total

production of medicinal plants, flavourings and colourings means more than 1,000 annual

tones with increasing perspectives in the next years. (Rodríguez Castellón, 2004)

Furthermore, in La Palma or Alamar’s urban garden I found harvests in initial phase of

organic sugar and exotic fruits, ecological coffee, cacao or mushrooms. All of these pilot

projects have been carefully evaluated and adapted to local conditions while integrating

all the social agents in a meaningful way. Thus they also portray the possibilities of

Cuba’s organic landscape.

To fight against unemployment, the rural-urban exodus and the challenge of large-

scale extension of low input agriculture (highly dependent on labour force), Cuba’s

government has applied a great array of economic, social and moral incentives. In doing

so, the State attempts to hold people living in the countryside by giving equal

opportunities or even better than those found in the cities. For example, the municipality

of education (University at all levels, Educative Television etc.), countryside campaigns

or higher salaries have shown important advances since the early 90’s.

Finally, Cuba has been doing research since the early 80’s on sustainable technology

such as bio-fertilizers, green manures, crop rotations, intercropping, earthworm humus,

waste recycling, reforestation etc. Thanks to Cuba’s broad research institutional net, the

long experience on community work and the recent return of many persons to the


countryside, these practices have been applied on a national scale. A remarkable

technological and social outcome we should observe alertly.

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS.

“An experiment that the world should be watching” (Rosset & Benjamin, 1994: 7)

This research concludes by stressing that Cuba’s sustainable agriculture despite being

a necessary answer in the midst of the most severe crisis of its history also implied an

audacious shift to organics. By changing its rules of the game, Cuba has demonstrated to

have the first alternative model of agriculture on a national scale in human history. Apart

from Cuba, only Switzerland has adopted since the early 90’s a national policy for

sustainable agriculture. Yet, Switzerland is a wealthy country that can afford support for

alternatives. However Cuba during the Special Period could not manage to do anything

else. (Pretty, 2002) Then, only Cuba has proved how alternative agriculture might work

and exists while in practice it remains a dream worldwide.

Consequently, important lessons, recommendations and challenges from the

exceptional Cuba’s experience can be accounted elsewhere. Because agrarian reforms,

sustainability, local production and markets, or urban agriculture, are key issues for

accomplishing sustainable, agrarian and rural development worldwide.


5.1. LESSONS.

Despite its exceptional history, geography, climate and political system Cuba emerged

from the crisis, offering coherent agrarian and rural development lessons. Cuba’s self-

sustaining and alternative practices and policies could be really useful for other countries,

not only developing but also industrialised nations.

Since agrarian and rural sectors in the majority of Third World countries are in really

deprived conditions, development will have to include them in a meaningful way. The

role of agriculture in economic development has been traditionally seen as secondary.

Today development economists have come to realise that far from playing a supporting

role in the process of economic development (as the Cuban experience demonstrates),

agriculture and rural development must play and indispensable part in any holistic

scheme of economic progress; especially in developing countries. (Todaro, 2003)

In Third World countries, like Brazil or Venezuela sustainable agriculture appears to

be a necessary - but not sufficient - condition to deal with their rural crisis and improve

their livelihood options of production, resilience and food security. For instance,

Venezuela in spite of having enough petroleum to sustain an industrial agriculture, it is

presently confronting a harsh rural and agrarian crisis. Chavez appears committed to

resolve the rural and agrarian problems. However the opposition of landlords, the failure

to address the dumping effects of massive food imports, and the relative lack of an active

peasants’ organization to put land reform and sustainability on the map, have resulted in

keeping the process uneven at best. On the other hand, Brazil counts with an active

subject, The Landless Workers’ Movement (MST), pressuring the government to solve


the rural difficulties. The MST has shown that by implementing agroecology,

organization in settlements and access to land, the relationship between environment and

local economic development would be very positive. Still, the MST lacks a true

engagement with academia, institutions and state. (Rosset, 2005)

Additionally, Cuba offers some lessons for industrialised countries, such as

alternatives to petroleum-based and unhealthy food systems. Because nowadays in

developed economies food is the main source of illness and their consumption of petrol

and other non-renewable sources are beginning to show signs exhaustion.4

Moreover, the damaging effects of modern agriculture in First World economies call

into question its long term efficiency. For instance, Pretty has assessed the annual total

external costs of UK industrial agriculture in 1996 to be £2343 million, equivalent to

£208 per hectare of arable and permanent pasture. Yet this study has only estimated

financial negative externalities. Therefore it is likely to underestimate the total negative

impacts of conventional agriculture. (Pretty et al., 1996) In this light, from the social

perspective industrial agriculture worldwide has often cut small farmers off their lands

and markets fuelling urban-rural disparities. Hence diversifying agriculture and

integration between rural and industrial areas is a global problem in both developed and

developing nations, as shown by the EU and its Common Agrarian Policy’s rural

development strategy. This rural development package confronts disparities between

rural and urban areas in the EU’s members by giving more opportunities and support to

less developed regions. There sustainable agriculture based on family farming might

4 e.g. Therefore HDRA, the Organic Organisation in UK or the International Federation of Organics Movements in

the United States are implementing and developing sustainable alternatives


tackle rural-urban imbalances in a significant way. It will also foster the formation of

local markets based on dynamic comparative advantages by enabling forward linkages

between agriculture and the rest of the economy.

In short, what Cubans have already accomplished left us wondering, while no one

would wish such economic crisis on our own countries (either developed or developing).

Furthermore, to what degree we did not require a Special Period ourselves. By forcing us

to shift to practices with greater long-term sustainability we would act before the damage

of industrial agriculture will be irreversible. (Rosset & Benjamin, 1994) The options are

available for both industrialised and developing countries. Also the net benefits of

sustainable agriculture are broadly demonstrated. Nevertheless, ‘to date, the words have

been easy, but the practice much more difficult.’ (Pretty, 2002: 76)

5.2. CUBA’S CHALLENGES.

Contemporary Cuba additionally faces sheer problems of inequality and dependency

on tourism and hard currency to develop. Such shortcomings might hinder the full

accomplishment of agricultural conversion. They can also raise further challenges for

internal policy agendas like how best should Cuba enhance transformations that lead to

sustainable progress and organic agriculture? Or would Cuba require another external or

internal shock to fully achieve the final level of agricultural conversion?

The last events occurred in the island of Castro’s temporary power delegation might

involve important political, social and economic changes in Cuba’s society. Potential

changes that might give more opportunities for Cuba’s sustainable growth and organic


agriculture advance in the present context of globalisation. Thus we should watch them

alertly.

On the other hand, Cuba presents more specific challenges to sustainable agriculture

implementation. As regards as urban agriculture, despite it represents the most

remarkable outcome of Cuba’s sustainability, it emerged as a temporary response to food

scarcity and unemployment in the cities during the crisis. Therefore, the initiative ought

to evolve towards a further integrated approach rather than being just a temporary

solution. (Cruz & Sánchez, 2005)

Finally, in order to overcome such challenges Cuba should design long-term

development outlooks focused on its prospective exportable outcomes. This way Cuba

will gradually build up the requisites to shift from its predominance of natural

comparative advantages to those national and dynamic advantages such as the

autochthonous knowledge. This will give more opportunities for Cuban organic products

and their export potentialities.


5.3. POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

Cuba’s sustainable agriculture model as a response to the crisis - even if unexpected or

required - reveals how in the current context of globalisation there is no one recipe for

agrarian and rural development; there are many. However the Cuban alternative contains

at least three general issues to consider when designing national and international

agendas on agrarian, rural and sustainable development worldwide.

First, Cuba presents a unique experience in participation, social learning and social

capital formation. By developing sustainable know-how Cuba has achieved considerable

improvements on collective action, inclusion and its surrounding environment.

Therefore this research might contribute to the present debate on globalisation and

sustainable development policies required to solve agrarian and rural crisis. In this light

Cuba’s paradigm illustrates the positive and political alternative side of the globalisation

coin. The idea of ‘globality’ based on shared concerns of an emergent global civil society

surrounding environmental quality, social cohesion, gender equality and ethnic diversity.

Because after many years of misreading means and ends of development, Cuba has

enhanced policy makers to work with professionals and farmers. As a result, coherent

strategies have been developed along the lines that local people’s demands and from

which natural ecosystems will benefit. (Pretty, 2002) (Beck, 2000)

Second, while Cuba literally has no access to chemicals critics fear that organic

production could end when money and petrochemicals become available as the economy

overcomes its current situation. Nonetheless Cuba’s sustainable agriculture model has

clearly shown that the lack of availability of agrochemicals and petrol is not sufficient to


entirely shift from conventional to sustainable practices. Institutional will (even if

belated), education, social and human relations are prerequisites for improving nature as

well as keys of agrarian and rural development everywhere. (Pretty, 2002) (Roberts &

Thanos, 2003)

Last, the Cuban experience demonstrates how policy reforms, even if delayed and

needed, can do much to internalise negative externalities of industrial agriculture. The

main issue rests on how policy-makers decide an appropriate combination of solutions,

how these are integrated, and how farmers and consumers are embedded in the process of

reform itself.

From the 90’s on global community’s concern on environmental and social matters

has grown. After the rise of what Stiglitz called the post-Washington Consensus more

instruments and broader goals have been stressed to attain ‘equitable sustainable

development.’ (Stiglitz, 1998) As part of this search, sustainable agriculture and rural

development have been put on the map. However, in the majority of industrialised and

less developed nations’ policies schemes, sustainability have tended to remain in

‘greening the edges’ instead of ‘greening the middle’ of farming. Only Cuba and

Switzerland have incorporated sustainable agriculture at the heart of their agricultural

development policy. Other countries like Brazil, Bolivia or even China have witnessed

some progress on agricultural sustainability at sub-regional or project levels;

consequently advances have taken place “in spite of, rather than because of, explicit

policy support.” (Pretty, 2002: 73) Accordingly, without appropriate policy support,

sustainable agriculture initiatives are likely to remain localised at best.


At present most international organisations - like FAO or the World Bank -, most

policy analysts and sustainable agriculture groups at least have recognised the required

policy framework to support farming, rural development and environmental protection.

Such policy framework could enhance employment, protect and improve natural

resources, and support rural communities. However there is still a long way to go. Thus

the Cuban experience might be a lighthouse to illuminate other alternatives towards

sustainability worldwide. (Pretty, 2002)


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Álvarez, M.D. 2002. ‘Social Organization and Sustainability of Small Farm

Agriculture in Cuba,’ in F. Funes, F., García, L., Bourque, M., Pérez, N., Rosset, P.,

2002. Sustainable agriculture and resistance: Transforming food production in Cuba.

(Oakland: Food First Books), p. 72-89.

Amsden, A. 2001. The Rise of “the Rest”. Challenge to the West from Late-

industrializing Economies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Beck, U. 2000. ¿Qué es la Globalización? Falacias del globalismo, respuestas a la

globalización. Barcelona: Editorial Piados.

British Embassy (Cuba). 2006. Organic Agriculture in Cuba, 26 June 2006.

Castro, F. 1992. Discurso pronunciado en la Conferencia de Naciones Unidas sobre

Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo, Río de Janeiro.

Cruz, M.C, & R. Sánchez. 2005. Ciudad Sustentable. Reflexiones sobre: la

agricultura y sus relaciones en el ambiente urbano. La Habana, Cuba: Fundación

Antonio Núñez Jiménez de la Naturaleza y el Hombre.

De Souza Silva, J. 2003. ¿Una Época de Cambios o un Cambio de Época? Marco de

referencia para la construcción de escenarios para la innovación agraria. Matanzas:

Instituto de Pastos y Forrajes de Indio Hatuey (Working Paper).

Deere, C.D. 1992. Socialim on one island? Cuba’s National Food Program and its

prospects for food security. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies (Working Paper Series

no. 124).


Deere, C.D. 1997. ‘Reforming Cuban Agriculture.’ Development and Change, no. 28,

p.649-669.

Deininger, K. 2003. Land policy for growth and poverty reduction: a policy research

report. Washington, DC, World Bank, and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Díaz, F. 2006. Interview with Francisco Díaz, Palmasola BUCP, Martí Municipality,

Matanzas, 14 June. 2006.

Esperance, M. 2006. Interviews with Dr. Marcos Esperance, University of Matanzas,

EEPF Indio Hatuey, 12-14 June. 2006.

Evans, P. 1979. Dependent Development. The Alliance of Multinational, State and

Local Capital in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Fernández, P. 1997. ‘El Nuevo modelo agrario: un desafío en el umbral del tercer

milenio.’ La Habana: ANEC

Fernández, P. 2005. ‘La evolución de la agricultura cubana y su contribución al

desarrollo económico’, private email to Elisa Botella. 22 June 2006.

Fernández, P. 2006. Interview with Pablo Fernandez, Ministry of Economy and

Planning, Cuba, 20 June. 2006.

Funes, F (et al.). 2005. Sustainable agriculture and resistance: Transforming food

production in Cuba. Oakland: Food First Books.

Funes, F. 2002. ‘The organic farming movement in Cuba,’ in Funes, F., García, L.,

Bourque, M., Pérez, N., Rosset, P. Sustainable agriculture and resistance: Transforming

food production in Cuba. (Food First Books: Oakland), p. 1-26.

Funes, F. 2006. Interview with Dr. Fernando Funes, ACTAF, Cuba, 23 June. 2006.


Funes-Monzote, F. 2006. ‘Towards sustainable agriculture in Cuba,’ private email to

Elisa Botella. 18 March 2006.

Funes-Monzote, F. 2006. Interview with MSc. Fernando Funes-Monzote, Cuba, 29

June. 2006.

García Capote, E. 1996. ‘Surgimiento, evolución y perspectivas de la política de

ciencia y tecnología en Cuba (1959-1995).’ La Habana: material impreso.

García Molina, J.M. 2004. ‘Reformas económicas, políticas macroeconómicas y

desempeño económico reciente,’ in E. Álvarez and J. Máttar (coords.), Política social y

reforma estructurales: Cuba a principios del siglo XXI, LC/L.2091, Mexico City,

ECLAC Subregional Headquarters in Mexico/National Economic Research Institute

(INIE)/United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

García Trujillo, R. 1997. ‘Cuba en busca de la sostenibilidad de su agricultura.’

Producción Agroecológica, Casos Latinoamericanos, no. 56, p. 39-52.

Gliessman, S. 2000. Agroecology, Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agricultur.

US: Lewis Publishers.

Information archived at (2006):

<http://www.agroecology.org>

<http://www.mstbrazil.org>

Machado, H. 2006. Interview with Dr. Hilda Machado, University of Matanzas, Cuba,

1 June. 2006.

Marqueti Nodarse, H. 2004. ‘Cuba: importancia actual del incremento de las

exportaciones,’ in Pérez Villanueva (et al.) Reflexiones sobre la Economía Cubana (La

Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales), p. 142-183.


Mesa Lago, C. 2005. ‘Social and economic problems in Cuba during the crisis and

subsequent recovery.’ CEPAL Review, nº.86, p.177-199.

MINAGRI. 1988. Datos básicos. Ministerio de la Agricultura, Havana, Cuba.

Monreal, P. 2004. ‘La globalización y los dilemas de las trayectorias económicas de

Cuba’, in Pérez Villanueva (et al.), Reflexiones sobre la Economía Cubana (La Habana:

Editorial de Ciencias Sociales), p.471-490.

Monzote, M. and Funes-Monzote, F. 1997. ‘Integración ganadería–agricultura. Una

necesidad presente y futura.’ Revista Agricultura Orgánica, no.3, p.1-7.

Nova, A. 2004. ‘La agricultura urbana y la producción de alimentos’, private email to

Elisa Botella. 26 June 2006.

Nova, A. 2006. Interview with Dr. Armando Nova, University of Havana, Centre for

the Study of the Cuban Economy (CEEC), 27 June. 2006.

ONE: National Statistical Office. 1994. Anuario estadístico de Cuba, 1994, Havana.

ONE: National Statistical Office. 2005. Anuario estadístico de Cuba, 2005, Havana.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for

Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pastor, M, Jr. 1992. External shocks and adjustment in contemporary Cuba. The

Internacional & Public Affairs Center, Occidental Collage (Working Paper).

Pérez Villanueva (et al.). 2004. Reflexiones sobre la Economía Cubana. La Habana:

Editorial de Ciencias Sociales.

Pretty (et al.). 1996. ‘An Assessment of the Total External Costs of UK Agriculture.’

Agricultural Systems, no. 65, Vol.2, p.113-136.


Pretty, J. 2002. Agri-Culture. Reconnecting People, Land and Nature, Earthscan

Publications Limited: London.

Ríos Labrada, H. 1999. Participatory Plant Breeding in Cuba. INCA, Havana, Cuba.

Ríos Labrada, H. 2006. Interview with Dr. Humberto Ríos and his Research Team of

INCA, 29 June. 2006.

Ríos Labrada, H. 2006. Interview with La Palma’s campesinos, Pinar del Río, Cuba,

29 June. 2006.

Roberts, J.T. and N. D. Thanos. 2003. Trouble in Paradise. London: Routledge.

Rodríguez Castellón, S. 2004. ‘La agricultura orgánica en Cuba’, in Pérez Villanueva

(et al.), Reflexiones sobre la Economía Cubana (La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias

Sociales), p.367-383.

Rodríguez, G. 2006. Interview with MSc. Guillermo Rodriguez, Regional vocal of

ANAP, Matanzas, 15 June. 2006.

Rosset, P. 1997. ‘Alternative agriculture and crisis in Cuba.’ Technology and Society,

vol. 16, no. 2, p.19–25.

Rosset, P. 2005. “Moving Forward: Agrarian Reform and Food Sovereignty.” Land

Research Action Network (LRAN) and Center for the Study of Rural Change in Mexico

(CECCAM), Mexico. Archived at: <http//www.landaction.org>

Rosset, P. and M. Benjamin. 1994. The Greening of the Revolution: Cuba’s Experiment

with Organic Agriculture. Melbourne: Ocean Press.

Sánchez, R. 2006. Interview with Roberto Sánchez, Fundación Núñez Jiménez para la

Naturaleza y el Hombre, Havana, 19 June. 2006.


Santamaría, O. 2006. Interview with MSc. Omar Santamaría, agroecological famer

and member of ANAP, Varadero, Cuba, 16 June. 2006.

Stiglitz, J.E. 1998. “More instruments and broader goals: moving toward a post-

Washington Consensus.” Conferencia Anual WIDER , Helsinki, enero 1998, reimpreso

Capítulo 1 en The Rebel Within, Ha-Joon Chang (ed.), Londres: Wimbledon Publishing

Company, 2001, p. 17-56.

Suárez, J. 2006. Interview with Jesús Suárez, University of Matanzas, Cuba, 12 June.

2006.

Todaro, M. 2003. Economic Development. Eighth Edition, Essex, UK: Addison

Wesley Longman Limited.

Universidad Agraria de la Habana (Cuba). 2006. EIDAR, Encuentro Internacional de

Desarrollo Agrario y Rural, por un Desarrollo Sostenible, 6-9 June 2006.

Universidad de Matanzas, Estación Experimental de Pastos y Forrajes de Indio Hatuey

(Cuba). 2006. Agricultura Sostenible y Desarrollo Agropecuario, 12-15 June 2006.

Wright, J. 2005. ¡Falta Petroleo! Cuba's experiences in the transformation to a more

ecological agriculture and impact on food security. PhD thesis, Wageningen University,

The Netherlands.

Wright, J. 2006. Interview with Dr. Julia Wright, HDRA, the Organic Organisation in

UK. La Habana, 21 June. 2006.


“Though they said we were a satellite of the Soviets, our planet has

disappeared and we are still here circling around.” (Cuban officials

interviewed by Rosset and Benjamin, 1994: 8)

statement of the word count - usalcampus.usal.es/~ehe/papers/microsoft word -...

Documents