THE FUTURE IS INCLUSIVE

The Cuban government is widely regarded as one of the pioneers of the institutionalization of sustainable agriculture. It is through local branches of MINAGRI and Sanidad Vegetal, two government organizations, that the Cuban government is able to influence production decisions of individual farmers and practically induce agroecological techniques. There is a deep integration of politics and farm management, as members of the Communist Party also sit on cooperative boards.

The influence of the Cuban state goes further than that though. Inputs are controlled by a government institution called La Agricultura and chemical inputs are severely restricted. One study showed that it is nearly impossible to get access to chemical fertilizers and/or pesticides, where only one farmer was given access to them by La Agricultura, through shown results of productivity and the sale of the complete harvest to that same organization, La Agricultura. Even though these inputs are available on the black market, they’re extremely limited in amount and have a very high cost.

Levins described the ecological transformation in Cuba barely a few years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, showing the swift response of the Cuban government to this event. That same year, the Cuban government halved its control over agrarian land from 80% to 40%, due to the agrarian crisis. In 2008, a new reform took place, reducing state ownership over farmland to 25%. However, the state still has authorization over the organization of farmland and can exert power over which lands are bought and sold.  

Farmers in Cuba receive almost monthly visits by representatives of Sanidad Vegetal, which carries out inspections and provides extension services to the farmers, informing them of pest bio-control and inter-cropping possibilities. Most studies document a positive view from the farmers towards this service. As farm monitoring is being carried out through government associations, it can effectively make adjustments towards keeping sustainable agriculture a dominant paradigm in the country.

A question that was raised due to this influence by the Cuban government, concerned the organization of the agroecological paradigm in the country. Agroecology needs local organization to fully function, as bottom-up structures are widely regarded as one of the foundations of the paradigm. That is why the top-down approach seemed as a paradox: Applying a vertical organization to an agricultural paradigm that demands a horizontal organizational structure. 

The Cuban government is aware of this and has been attempting to stimulate participatory processes within and between communities. The Campesino-a-campesino movement (CAC) is a great example of this. As the National Association of Small Farmers (ANAP) adopted the horizontal Freirian pedagogy (after Paul Freire) of organization, a network for interaction between farmers was established, where successful innovations were shared and visits to farms were scheduled. This platform made the peasants protagonists of their own story. In less than ten years, the transition to agroecological and diversified production systems spread to more than a third of all Cuban families. It is because of this platform that the total contribution of peasant production to national production increased drastically and it is assumed that the greater growth in productivity in Cuba than in Central America has been mainly the consequence of the organization of the CAC in Cuba and the great role the ANAP played in promoting this network. 

The difference between these two extension methods is the position of the key actor: in  classic agricultural extension, the key actor is the agronomist or researcher and farmers are mostly passive. This means that the success of an agricultural extension is mainly based on the budget that can be spent for research by agronomists. This is also the reason why in a lot of cases, projects by development NGOs are successful until they run out of money – after which the farm reverts to its pre-project state. In CAC, the key actor is the peasant, with the technical staff occupying a different role: facilitating and supporting a process of farmer’s knowledge sharing. Here is the concrete difference visualized:

Another prominent programme undertaken by the Cuban government concerns the activity of participatory plant breeding to rediscover local seed varieties, which are often underused and neglected. This has been implemented in three municipalities across the country and shows promise because of its deep participatory nature.

References

[1] Levins, R. (1993). The ecological transformation of Cuba. Agriculture and Human Values, 10(3), 52–60.

[2] Machín Sosa, B., Jaime, A. M. R., Lozano, D. R. A., & Rosset, P. M. (2013). Agroecological Revolution. The Farmer-to-Farmer Movement of the ANAP in Cuba. 

[3] Nelson, E., Scott, S., Cukier, J., & Galín, Á. L. (2009). Institutionalizing agroecology: Successes and challenges in Cuba. Agriculture and Human Values, 26(3), 233–243. 

[4] Paz, J. V. (2011). The Cuban Agrarian Revolution: Achievements and challenges. Estudos Avançados, 25(72).

[5] Ríos Labrada, H., Hernández Espinosa, M. M., & Rosas Sotomayor, J. C. (2006). Los agricultores mejoran cultivos. INCA.

[6] Rosset, P. M., & Altieri, M. A. (2017). Agroecology: science and politics. Rugby: Practical Action Publishing.