A farmer's market in Havana.

http://www.cityfarmer.org/CubaSpringPhotos.html

Once farmers have sold their quota to the state, they may sell their excess fruit and vegetables here.

In 1993 when the government began to break up the state farms, they introduced Resolution 357, allowing the formation of these relatively autonomous cooperatives. They still farm government land but they own the harvest. However, they must sell their quota to the state and adhere to state rules, like selling at 20% below the farmers' markets.

In addition to a salary, the 43 workers on Norma's farm receive 40 pesos worth of produce a month. As the average monthly wage is about 217 pesos (roughly US $10), the supplemental food is welcomed. They also breed goats, sheep and chickens for the workers. They also have a large selection of herbs which they sell fresh and dried. Spices are almost impossible to get outside of the organiponicos. (Oh and Cubans hate pepper - they don't even have a pepper shaker on the table usually.) Medicinal herbs, known as green medicine, are also grown here. The use of alternative medicine is widespread as the nation's health system is also besieged.

They also teach organic gardening courses on-site and are hoping to incorporate canning and preserving into the curriculum. Oh, and there was one other problem, jars (for preserving) are very hard to come by in Cuba.

Norma Romero Castillo/Miguel A. Salcines Lopez-  UBPC. Organoponico Vivero Alamar

Ave. 160 Esq. Parque Hanoi -- Zona 6, Alamar. H. del Este -- Ciudad Habana. Cuba Telef: 65 37 97

Antonio Nunez Jimenez Foundation

The Antonio Nunez Jimenez Foundation is a non-profit, dedicated to promoting sustainable environmental practises. The group is housed in a beautiful, well-maintained museum, a tribute to its founder, a prolific writer, scientist, explorer, and obsessive collector. Here they offer permaculture courses; publish and distribute brochures and newsletters; and maintain a small demonstration garden. Course graduates then go out and start urban gardens on roof tops, boulevards and in community spaces.

Around the corner from A. Nunez was one of the government run, seed houses (Casa de Semillas). These "gardening stores" sell a variety of seeds, seedlings, biological pest controls, organic fertilizers and tools; supplies that are hard to come by since the collapse of the Soviet Bloc. None of the farmers we talked to saved their own seeds because the seeds were so readily available from the government, and storage was a problem in the tropical environment. However, they did complain about the lack of variety. For example, we saw only one variety of lettuce being grown on the farms.

...

Recent Reforms in Cuba --  http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2003-4/2003-4-01.htm

Faced with this crisis, Cuba radically changed the state sector in 1993; about 80% of the farmland was then held by the state and over half was turned over to workers in the form of cooperatives—UBPC (Basic Unit of Cooperative Production). Farmers lease state land rent free in perpetuity, in exchange for meeting production quotas. They may even bequeath the land, as long as it continues to be farmed. A 1994 reform permitted farmers to sell their excess production at farmers' markets.

The reforms emphasized five basic principles. Foremost of these was a focus on agroecological technology, supported by the state/university research, education, and extensions system. There had been researchers, outreach specialists, and faculty devoted to agroecology before the crisis. The crisis not only brought them to the forefront, but universities, research centers, and agricultural policies were reoriented to make agroecology the dominant paradigm. To begin to understand the magnitude of this reorientation, imagine for a moment that your local college of agriculture reoriented its entire curriculum, research, and extension programs to agroecology. Pick yourself up off the floor, and now image that all the universities as well as all national agricultural policies in your country were reoriented to agroecology.

A second principle of the reform was land reform; state farms were transformed to cooperatives or broken into smaller private units, and anyone wishing to farm could do so rent free. In effect, a right-to-farm policy was implemented. A third principle of the reform was fair prices to farmers: Farmers can sell their excess production at farmers' markets; average incomes of farmers are three times that of other workers in Cuba. A fourth principle of reform is an emphasis on local production in order to reduce transportation (and hence energy) costs. Urban agriculture, a key to this reform, produces nearly the recommended daily allowance of 300 grams per person of produce. The fifth principle of reform is farmer-to-farmer training as the backbone of the extension system.

Impact of the Reforms

What were the results of these reforms? Production of tubers and plantains tripled and vegetable production quadrupled between 1994 and 1999, while bean production increased by 60% and citrus by 110%. Potato production increased by 75%, and cereals increased by 83% between 1994 and 1998. Calorie intake rose to 2,580 per capita per day—just under the minimum recommended by the World Health Organization. This is despite Cuba being the second poorest country in the Americas.

The conversion of Cuba's agriculture to more sustainable practices has focused on urban agriculture and domestic crops. Indeed, these practices seem to free up scarce chemicals for the traditional export crop, sugar. Sugar continues to be produced in monoculture, but increasing amounts of organic sugar are being produced, largely for export.

Urban agricultural production climbed from negligible in 1994 to more than 600,000 metric tons in 2000. There are more than 200,000 urban farm plots ranging in size from a few meters to a hectare in size. Production practices rely on organic matter, vermiculture, raised beds, crop rotation, companion cropping, and biopesticides. Yields are between 6 and 30 kilos per square meter and are predominantly roots, tubers, and vegetables. A proposed project called Calle Parque (street parks) will extend urban agriculture and provide much-needed urban cooling by converting some streets in central Havana to parks and gardens. The reforms have not yielded dramatic results for sugar, meat, or dairy, nor for traditional import crops (rice and beans). Cuba continues to rely on food imports, as it has since it was colonized.

In 2000, Cuba imported US$141 million in rice, US$65 million in beans, and US$60 million in milk products. Cuba also imports about one million metric tons of feed grains, nearly a half million metric tons of soybeans, 100,000 metric tons of chicken and pork, as well as substantial amounts of cooking oil, soybean meal, and malt. Because of the U.S. embargo, Cuba has to buy these products from distant countries, adding on average 30% to the cost of food imports over what they would pay for U.S. products. For example, Cuba buys rice from India and China, dairy products from the European Union, grains from South America and Eastern Europe, and meat from Canada and Brazil.

Meat production and dairy production were hit particularly hard by the loss of subsidized Soviet feed and petroleum. The loss of petroleum meant that animal traction became a strategy to reduce reliance on farm machinery. Animal traction is also better for soil management, particularly given the smaller farm size after land was redistributed. However, the conversion to animal traction was impeded by lack of oxen and expertise. The solution was to prohibit slaughter of cattle without government permission (in order to build up the herd) and to create "schools" to train the oxen (and presumably farmers). More than 150,000 oxen have been trained at these schools, and pairs of working oxen are ubiquitous throughout Cuba. This dramatic transformation did not come without a cost—the availability of beef plummeted, and anyone caught illegally slaughtering cattle could spend up to 20 years in jail.

Policy Themes --  This kind of policy solution—trading personal liberty for social goals—is common in Cuba. Not only cattle are managed as a national resource—the dean of an agricultural university in Cuba declared that "soil is a strategic national resource." Intellectual property is also managed as a public resource. Cuban researchers are developing biotechnology applications for agriculture and medicine. However, the Cuban government prevents anyone from patenting discoveries funded by government research. Intellectual property developed with public funds is treated as a public resource.

Social equity is a clearly a higher priority for the Cuban government than personal liberty. Indeed, Cubans even share their poverty; living standards are uniformly low. Yet, despite being the second poorest country in the Americas, there is no widespread hunger; housing is generally free, if dilapidated and crowded; Cubans are one of the most educated populations in the world; and there is universal free health care. All Cubans have access to a basic (although minimal) diet through their ration card. Cubans supplement this with food they grow, barter for, or buy at farm stands, farmers' markets, or dollar stores. Cubans spend about two thirds of their income on food, but not everyone has the same buying power. A 2000 Lexington Institute study found that it took the average Cuban on a government salary four days to earn enough money to buy a basket of food consisting of one pound each of pork, rice, and beans, two pounds of tomatoes, three limes, and a head of garlic. A retiree on a pension would need 7.2 days, and a private taxi driver in Havana would need 3.5 hours.

Citizen Responses

Cubans themselves have a range of responses to this situation. Some Cubans are dedicated to social equity and are pragmatic about the individual sacrifices required so that everyone has something to eat. Others are discontented, even resentful, feeling that they are underemployed given the level of (free) education that they have and could have a higher living standard under a capitalist system. No one says that the situation is easy, and the embargo (called a blockade in Cuba) is viewed by all as the primary barrier to improving the situation.

The Farm Bureau has made some headway with the State Department to allow some U.S. exports. Indeed, while in Havana, we bought Washington State Red Delicious apples (for 50 cents each!) at a dollar store. Cuba wants to buy U.S. farm products: rice, dairy products, feed grains, soybeans, meat, and poultry. However, it is unlikely they will be able to do so without some means of earning dollars, and their export products are sugar, citrus, tobacco, tropical fruits and vegetables, and seafood, which would compete with some U.S. producers.

The Future

What will the future bring? Quien sabe. Everyone expects political changes when Castro dies, but one must be mindful that there is an immense state communist system that permeates Cuban society. Many people benefit from this system, and Cubans are well aware of the example of the Soviet collapse and ensuing economic and social crisis in Russia. Regardless of what happens on the political level, it seems likely that Cuba will continue to promote agroecological practices and to expand urban agriculture simply because they are yielding results. The bad experiences with large agricultural operations, both before and after communism, make it unlikely that anyone could credibly promote a return to large, high-input operations as a matter of national policy.

The positive results that farmers, university researchers, and extension are getting from the transformation of Cuban agriculture will likely encourage them to continue to pursue sustainable practices whatever comes next. Cuban people are eating better and healthier than before, though things are far from perfect. However, the relevant comparison is to other Latin American countries; Cuba simply does not have the widespread hunger, destitution, and suffering that are commonplace in countries with much higher GDP per capita.

The extent of future success with sustainable agriculture will of course depend on what markets Cuban farmers will have access to and what types of competition they will face from imports. Although great strides have been made, Cuba will likely always be a food importer, and it will certainly be in Cuba's interest to buy its imported meat, rice, beans, oil, soy, and dairy products as cheaply as possible. [ Editor Note – This is really the only part We disagree with – especially on beans, oil, soy and diary! Why can’t Cuba produce these? ]  

A Short Addition on Coops vs Collectives (seems coops better for framing and collectives for small businesses)

It is possible to set up an organization whereby it is owned by the community (the members) and operated democratically by the workers. Policy issues would have to be negotiated between the two constituencies. Ideally, the workers would have the protection of a union [ Why any unions in such a set up??? ] whose values and actual functioning parallel direct democracy, in order to protect against rouge power tripping member boards or other such tendencies that would undermine democracy within. On the same token, the workers should be required to negotiate with the community with regard to the end result of what is done or produced (ie. we could do without a collectively run GMO farm, or chemical manufacturer, that is not accountable to the community). Also, both constituencies are checks upon one another.

In short, a sort of decentalized socialist democracy and economic democracy, as a coalition between workers in an organization and the community it affects. Unfortunately, the process to reform coops or collectives into a hybrid modelof direct democracy is tough, and it might be less effort tobuild them up anew.

Co-operatives are about workers, producers, consumers, etc having a share or the rights of the OWNERSHIP of whatever, whereas a collective is about the workers, producers,etc, having equal MANAGEMENT rights and decision-making responsibilities. Co-ops usually have a board of directors that may or may not include workers, but collectives are run by the people who make the big decisions together. Whether you work in a co-op or collective, you have to work under certain decisions that are made...it's just that in a co-op, you might have to live with decisions that you had no input into, but in a collective, you helped negotiate any decisions that were made.

So it's a lot harder for collectives to sell-out

For More Information –

 Deere, C.D. (1996). The evolution of Cuba's agricultural sector: Debates, controversies and research issues (International working paper series, IW96-3). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Food and Resource Economics Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.

Funes, F., Garcia, L., Bourque, M., Perez, N., & Rosset, P. (Eds.) (2002). Sustainable agriculture and resistance: Transforming food production in Cuba. Oakland, CA: Food First Books.

Sinclair, M., & Thomson, M. (2001). Cuba: Going against the grain: Agricultural crisis and transformation. Boston, MA: Oxfam America.

international@lifecyclesproject.ca, http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1460