Climate change -- the case for public ownership

Trent Hawkins, September 24, Links

Arising out of the UK Climate Camp in August 2008 there has developed an interesting debate between Ewa Jasiewicz, an activist in Britain, and well-known radical columnist George Monbiot about the role of so-called “state solutions” to climate change. Jasiewicz’s article, published on the Guardian website[i] and entitled “Time for a Revolution”, was an attack on Monbiot for a “controversial presentation [at climate camp] … in which he endorsed the use of the state as a partner in resolving the climate crisis”. It was also prompted by a debate between Monbiot and former National Union of Mineworkers’ leader and head of Britain’s Socialist Labour Party Arthur Scargill about what is more polluting: nuclear or coal energy.

Jasiewicz stated:

“State solutions to the climate crisis were presented to us 10 years ago through the Kyoto protocol – what were they? To privatise the air we breathe and turn carbon emissions into commodities, to buy and sell atmospheric poison, to create a new market of trading in the means of ecological destruction. It's no wonder many at the camp reject state solutions to climate change.

“The question is, who and under what conditions, controls decision making, and has climate-changing power?”

In response, Monbiot, in an article on his website[ii] wrote:

“[Jasiewicz] claims to want to stop global warming, but she makes that task 100 times harder by rejecting all state and corporate solutions. It seems to me that what she really wants to do is to create an anarchist utopia, and use climate change as an excuse to engineer it.

“Stopping runaway climate change must take precedence over every other aim. Everyone in this movement knows that there is very little time: the window of opportunity in which we can prevent two degrees [Celsius] of warming is closing fast. We have to use all the resources we can lay hands on, and these must include both governments and corporations. Or perhaps she intends to build the installations required to turn the energy economy around -- wind farms, wave machines, solar thermal plants in the Sahara, new grid connections and public transport systems -- herself?’’

There are some confused notions in these two articles, like the Kyoto protocol was a “state solution to the climate crisis” (Jasiewicz ) and that the role of the state is to “prevent the strong from crushing the weak” (Monbiot). However, the basic point that both fail to comprehend is that we do need the wealth and resources that are currently monopolised by corporations to stop climate change, however what’s needed is for that wealth to be torn from the hands of those corporations and put under popular control.

The reality is that no fossil fuel corporation can be convinced to stop expanding and making profits and instead invest its wealth in a wholesale conversion of its operations to a renewable energy-powered, sustainable industry. At the same time no capitalist government is going to be either willing or able to constrain corporations’ rights to make profits in order to drastically reduce emissions.

In other words, the only way we can make use of the massive corporate wealth that isn’t in the hands of the people is with a revolutionary struggle that institutes a government which acts in the interests of people and the planet and puts control of all sectors of the economy in the hands of ordinary working people.

The real question is what needs to be done to achieve this? There does not need to be a contradiction between what we call for today in terms of immediate measures to combat global warming and building the movement for revolutionary change. Arguing for the nationalisation of polluting industries, to be placed under the democratic control of ordinary people, is essential to constructing a movement capable of halting climate change.

Market anarchy or a planned approach

Since the release of the interim Garnaut Review (a report commissioned to recommend what policies are required by Australia to address climate change) and the Australian federal Labor government’s green paper on climate change, the focus of the debate has been almost solely on what is the best market response to global warming and how much “government regulation” is appropriate to guide this. The role of the government is reduced to determining how much large corporations will be subsidised under an emissions trading scheme (ETS).

On August 27, 2008, a report by the National Snow and Ice Data Center found that the amount of ice coverage in the Arctic was the second-worst on record (the worst being last 2007).[iii] It stated: “With about three weeks left in the Arctic summer, this year could wind up breaking that previous record”.[iv] There is now almost near certainty that the Arctic will be ice free in summer within five to 10 years.[v]

It is clear that we have reached a major tipping point in climate change, which indicates that we are already experiencing dangerous climate change. As Dr Jay Zwally, glaciologist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, put it, “the Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming… and now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died.”[vi]

NASA Climatologist Dr James Hansen has concluded that a safe climate zone necessary to preserve the Arctic lies somewhere within the region of 300 to 325 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide (CO2) atmospheric concentration. However, we currently are sitting around 385ppm.[vii]

In short we need an urgent and immediate response to the crisis, one which relies on a centralised accounting and coordination of the activities of major polluting industries through the government and enforced by the state. Market mechanisms, corporate handouts and government investment in false solutions like “clean coal” spell nothing less than the death of the liveable planet.

Cuba and Venezuela show us what is possible

Two examples illustrate what is possible when the primary sources of wealth are under popular control.

The first is Cuba, where in the space of 10 years it was able to effect an extraordinary transformation from a highly import-based and unsustainable agriculture and energy sector, to become the most ecologically sustainable country in the world.

With the advent of the film The Power of Community, a number of environmental activists have developed the perception that this transformation was merely initiated by the artificially imposed “peak oil” crisis that hit Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Because of the US-enforced and illegal economic blockade of Cuba, Cuba was forced to rely heavily on the Soviet Union as its primary trading partner. As a consequence, 98% of its oil and oil-based products came from the USSR. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba lost half its oil imports in two years. Furthermore, 66% of all its food was imported and agriculture operated along the “Green Revolution” model, whereby single monoculture crops where grown primarily for export, using high levels of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides to increase yield. [viii]

The result was an enormous food crisis. While Cuba’s response included community initiatives to grow urban vegetable and fruit gardens, the biggest factor that enabled Cuba to rapidly overcome the crisis was the significant level of state ownership of resources and industry and the existence of a socialist government.

A very useful report conducted by the UK Institute of Science in Sustainability, “Organic Cuba without Fossil Fuels”, documents exactly how the government was able to drive the process of transformation.[ix]

Beginning with a nationwide call to increase food production by restructuring agriculture, the government redivided the land and gave control of that land to the community, to best determine how to respond to the community’s food requirements. One major initiative was in urban areas, where all sorts of land was given over by the government for food production, including old car parks, disused buildings, vacant lots, etc. As a consequence 60% of Cuba’s fresh fruit and vegetables are grown in urban farms. [x]

But the government’s role extended far beyond this. It set up a seed bank in the cities to distribute seeds to urban farmers, it massively invested in biotechnology to develop increased food production without pesticides, and it even passed a law banning the use of pesticides.[xi]

As Cuban permaculturalist Roberto Perez pointed out in an interview with Green Left Weekly, no rapid solution to Cuba’s crisis would have been possible without Cuba having control over the totality of it’s resources.

“When the revolution gained sovereignty over the resources of the country, especially the land and minerals, this was the base for sustainability. You cannot think about sustainability of your resources if they are in the hands of a foreign country or in private hands. Even without knowing, we were creating the basis for sustainability.”[xii]

The second example worth considering is Venezuela.

Venezuela is one of the major oil-producing nations in the world, being the fourth-largest exporter of oil to the United States. Despite this, the country had high levels of poverty and extensive environmental destruction.

While Venezuela’s oil industry was technically nationalised in the 1970s, PDVSA was the only state-owned oil company that ran at a loss. This was primarily due to the fact that the profits of the company where being used to fatten the pockets of the bureaucrats who leached off the industry.

Since socialist president Hugo Chavez was elected in 1998 the government has taken back control of the oil industry and used the wealth from it to fund social programs aimed at alleviating poverty.

It has also been extremely conscious of reducing the country’s dependence on the oil industry and of ending the legacy of putting the needs of the environment behind that of oil production.

This is indicated in the new United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) program, which includes a section on “Defence of Nature; Planned Production”. This states that “the program of the PSUV proposes the preservation of nature and the planning of production for the satisfaction of collective necessities in harmony with the requirements of the ecosystem.” [xiii]

In 2005 the Chávez government and the PDVSA oil company made the decision to eliminate lead-based petrol. Since then, PDVSA has begun recuperating green areas, reducing emissions and cleaning up rivers and lakes. [xiv]

Under Mission Energy, some 53 million light bulbs in more than 5 million homes have been replaced with energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs[xv], with the next step being to substitute almost 27 million inefficient incandescent light bulbs by energy-saving light bulbs in the official, industrial and commercial sectors.[xvi]

President Chávez has also announced plans for a wind farm to generate electricity on the Caribbean coast[xvii] and in April 2007 the government banned construction of all new coal mines on Indigenous land in the opposition-controlled, major oil-producing state of Zulia.[xviii]

While there are major restrictions on the Venezuelan government’s ability to implement these plans, due to a corrupt bureaucracy within state institutions, it is clear that none of these things would be possible if the government didn’t have real control over the oil industry to be able to fund and enact these programs.

Nationalisation, a transitional demand

As socialists we recognise that the only way out of the mess of climate change is for the vast bulk of the economy to be put under public ownership and control, with the creation of a workers’ government that can oversee a thorough and detailed process in which the entire community can have democratic control over how the economy is run and for what purposes.

However this doesn’t prevent us advancing the demand for the nationalisation of strategic industries even before we reach that stage. In fact this demand is extremely important for posing the possibility of working people having complete and democratic control over the wealth of society (which after all was created by the labour of working people and has been stolen by a tiny number of capitalist owners), and building a movement that can win this.

Given the state of the crisis and the urgency with which we need to act, any effective program of action advanced by the environment movement to stop climate change must include the demand for nationalisation – that is to put the key energy-producing and energy-consuming industries, and other unsustainable industries, under public ownership.

But first we need to make it clear that we aren’t arguing for a public sector operating like the commercialised, profit-making enterprises we see all too often today.

Most of the public sector, if it already hasn’t been sold off and converted into privately run companies, has been turned into more or less the same thing in preparation for the time when it becomes politically possible for governments to privatise it.

Second, the public sector under capitalism is run by a big bureaucracy that the people have no control over. While we can vote for people to be in parliament who can introduce new laws, we don’t have any say over who the state employs to implement those laws. Not to mention the fact that the major parties in parliament are the representatives of big business and act to preserve profits. This means that such a struggle for nationalisation needs to be accompanied with a push for real democratic control over how the public sector is organised.

What would real government action on climate change look like?

Currently, governments in Australia, both state and federal, aren’t just sitting on their hands on climate change; they are funding and pushing for the expansion of the very industries that contribute most to the problem.

So the question is, what kind of government response is needed to avert the catastrophe?

Electricity sector

First it is essential that the electricity generation sector be put under public ownership, instead of sold off to private companies, as is being attempted by the New South Wales state Labor government. The majority of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions come from coal-fired power generation. In order to stop global warming we need to halt the construction of all new coal-fired power stations and effect a rapid conversion from coal to renewable energy, primarily wind and solar, within five to 10 years. Yet this will be virtually impossible unless the government has complete control over the electricity sector.

Furthermore, a national network of publicly owned electricity generators would ensure that the electricity produced actually meets people’s needs. A board could be elected democratically by the people and given the task of drafting a plan to transform the sector to meet the needs of the environment. This plan could be ratified by referendum and if those in charge fail to implement the necessary measures there should be the right to recall them.

The government could also set up programs to roll out energy-efficient light bulbs and whitegoods, and ban the selling of inefficient ones.

The government should adopt stringent limits on how much greenhouse gases private companies are allowed to emit and take serious measures to curb energy inefficiency. If a company continues to break the rules it should be made clear that it will be nationalised.

Public transport and freight

In Victoria, the public transport system was sold off to the multinational company Connex under the Liberal government in the 1990s. Connex’s contract is due to expire next year, but despite the atrocious state of Melbourne’s public transport system, the state Labor government is now toying with the idea of renewing Connex’s contract.[xix]

A recent article in the Melbourne Age newspaper showed that there had been a 70% increase in public transport use in last 10 years, but only a 9% increase in services, and very few new services in peak hours.[xx] Instead of re-nationalising the public transport system, the government is considering the construction of a new road tunnel at a cost of A$9 billion, and the introduction of “congestion taxes” and new tollways.[xxi] Meanwhile the major “City Link” tollway nets the Transurban corporation $1 million a day![xxii]

The federal government should nationalise Australia’s vehicle manufacturing industry, and retool the factories to pump out new trams, trains and buses to provide the massive needed expansion of the public transport system and, if necessary, produce electric cars that can be plugged into grid for those who can’t access public transport.

A publicly run public transport system is essential for rapidly expanding public transport, so that we can take millions of cars off the road, while providing the necessary levels of alternative transport. This must extend to rural areas and involve the development of high-speed, long-distance trains to drastically reduce need for carbon-intensive flying.

Another major task is the moving of freight. It was recently revealed that the state government is planning to expand Victoria’s roads to allow more “B Triple” trucks – three-carriage freight trucks.[xxiii] Such a plan is ridiculous in the context of climate change, when what’s needed is the development of a thorough system of freight-train lines to drastically reduce emissions. Such railways can be electrified with renewable energy, which could cut emissions significantly.

Water

Another problem project of the Victoria Labor government is the $3 billion desalination plant, which will have its carbon emissions “offset” by ``clean coal’’ and other “clean’’ energy sources, possibly from interstate.[xxiv] The plant is being used to discourage people from installing rainwater tanks, and failing to introduce tighter restrictions on commercial irrigators who use up most of the state's water.[xxv]

Australia is still in extreme drought, with constantly diminishing water supplies. There is a threat to the survival of one of our most important water supplies – the Murray-Darling river system. It was recently revealed in a report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that found that almost 2 gigalitres a year is consumed on Victorian farms each year. [xxvi] As the Age reported on August 28, “in total the Australian farming sector used 8521 gigalitres of water in 2006-07, with nine out of every 10 litres used for irrigation.”[xxvii]

To preserve future water supplies and the natural environment, it is essential that our water supply is completely publicly owned, and managed in a manner that responds to the needs of people, not of big business.

One major thing the government must do is take over the most water-consuming farms, particularly cotton and rice, and instead use the land to grow less water-intensive crops like hemp. Instead, the government is unwilling to restructure the water allocation to irrigators to help save the Murray-Darling system.

For domestic urban water usage the government could set up a system to roll out free water tanks and fit grey water systems to each home.

There are also a range of big corporate industries like the aluminium industry, logging, coalmining etc., which contribute enormously to climate change. The basis of their profits are processes which are intrinsically harmful to the environment so it is essential for them to be put under public ownership. Only by ensuring that the big industries are no longer run for profits, will it be possible to determine to what extent they are actually needed and to what degree their impact on the environment can be reduced.

Jobs versus the environment?

The bulk of the industries that are the biggest polluters are simply going to have to be shut down, and no corporation is going to willingly accept such a proposition. Furthermore, while some corporations are investing in renewable energy, what’s needed is a massive government investment and commitment to renewable energy, and the direct conversion of the fossil fuel industry not just a gradual “transition”.

The socialist approach puts it clearly that it isn't about putting the environment ahead of jobs, but instead that the only way any sustainable industry can operate is with workers to run it. It's clear there is a huge pool of possible workers to fill jobs in new renewable and sustainable industries, but these workers will be thrown onto the scrap heap unless there is a government plan to utilise these workers and skill them to work in those industries.

The reality is that under capitalism big business regularly chucks workers onto the scrap heap, in order to preserve profits – just look at the 380 workers being axed from the Fairfax newspapers in Australia. It’s not like there is less news to cover!

Some right-wing unions, such as the Australian Workers Union, have been able to tap into this fear by workers that they will be left without jobs. The radical environmental movement must make it clear that the only solution is the nationalisation of those industries which will have to be reorganised or phased out, to allow public boards to be established to plan the rapid industrial transition and retrain workers so that they can be (voluntarily) deployed where they are needed. This is what happens in the public education sector.

What we propose also includes a huge investment in education and skills training – to re-skill workers in the fossil fuel industry to run solar thermal plants or build wind turbines etc. There also needs to be serious investment in the research and development of more energy-efficient technology and renewable energy sources.

But it is clear that no demand for nationalisation can be won without a mass struggle of workers that forces the government to do so. Furthermore we know that no industry can operate long term within a capitalist framework as a truly community-controlled public sector. Whenever a private corporation thinks it can make a profit, there will be a push from our present capitalist governments to carve up the public sector and privatise it. Despite the fact that these are necessary services and real public assets, wealth built up by the hard labour of working people, capitalism cares only about finding new areas it can take over and operate for profit.

If we win our demand for partial nationalisation, it would open the way for many more workers to comprehend the advantages of far wider (and even complete) public ownership of the economy and shift the struggle towards achieving real democratic control over entire industries. Only when we have control of the gears, pedals and steering wheels of the economy will we have any real chance to steer us away from the brink of a climate catastrophe.

[Trent Hawkins is an activist with the Australian socialist youth organisation Resistance and a member of the Democratic Socialist Perspective, a Marxist organisation affiliated to the Australian Socialist Alliance. He also runs the Inhabitable Earth blog at http://inhabitable-earth.blogspot.com/.]


[i] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/21/climatechange.kingsnorthclimatecamp

[ii] http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/08/22/identity-politics-in-climate-change-hell/

[iii] http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5io8-mhR216BbP-65r8IrK1C6y8ZQD92QQS1O0

[iv] Ibid.

[v] http://www.climatecodered.net/arctic.html

[vi] ibid.

[vii] http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

[viii] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OrganicCubawithoutFossilFuels.php

[ix] ibid.

[x] ibid.

[xi] ibid.

[xii] http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/748/38676

[xiii] http://links.org.au/node/261

[xiv] http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/Venezuela%20and%20the%20Environment.htm

[xv] http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/708/36762

[xvi] http://www.cubanews.ain.cu/2007/0618chavez.htm

[xvii] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400601.html

[xviii] http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/706/36653

[xix] http://www.theage.com.au/national/connex-may-be-here-to-stay-20080828-44di.html

[xx] http://www.theage.com.au/national/train-trips-exceed-200-million-20080820-3ywr.html?page=-1

[xxi] http://www.theage.com.au/national/tolls-and-taxes-on-roads-agenda-20080824-41es.html?page=-1

[xxii] http://www.theage.com.au/national/transurban-to-pursue-100m-over-tunnel-20080813-3v2l.html

[xxiii] http://www.theage.com.au/national/anger-over-megatrucks-plan-20080828-44cw.html

[xxiv] http://www.theage.com.au/environment/environmental-study-gives-desal-plant-green-light-20080820-3ywm.html

[xxv] http://www.theage.com.au/national/desal-and-water-tank-wars-20080824-41et.html?page=-1

[xxvi] http://www.theage.com.au/national/water-use-falls-after-farm-cutbacks-20080828-44fh.html

[xxvii] ibid.

Cuba: The Food Crisis is Systemic and Structural

June 4, Climate and Capitalism

Address by José Ramón Machado Ventura, vice president of Cuba’s Councils of State and Ministers, to the high-level conference on World Food Security: The Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy

(English translation by Climate and Capitalism, from Juventud Rebelde, June 4, 2008)

Mr. Chairman:

Two years ago, in this very hall, the international community agreed to eradicate world hunger. It adopted a goal of halving the number of malnourished people by 2015. Today that modest and inadequate goal seems like a pipe-dream.

The world food crisis is not a circumstantial phenomenon. Its recent appearance in such serious form, in a world that produces enough food for all its inhabitants, clearly reveals that the crisis is systemic and structural.

Hunger and malnourishment are the result of an international economic order that maintains and deepens poverty, inequality and injustice.

It is undeniable that the countries of the North bear responsibility for the hunger and malnourishment of 854 million people. They imposed trade liberalization and financial rules that demanded structural adjustment, on a world composed of clearly unequal actors. They brought ruin to many small producers in the South and turned self-sufficient and even exporting nations into net importers of food products.

The governments of developed countries refuse to eliminate their outrageous agricultural subsidies while imposing their rules of international trade on the rest of the world. Their voracious transnational corporations set prices, monopolize technologies, impose unfair certification processes on trade, and manipulate distribution channels, sources of financing, trade and supplies for the production of food worldwide. They also control transportation, scientific research, gene banks and the production of fertilizers and pesticides.

The worst of it all is that, if things continue as they are, the crisis will become even more serious. The production and consumption patterns of developed countries are accelerating global climate change, threatening humanity’s very existence. These patterns must be changed. The irrational attempt to perpetuate these disastrous forms of consumerism is behind the sinister strategy of transforming grains and cereals into fuels.

The Non-Aligned Countries Summit in Havana called for the establishment of a peaceful and prosperous world and a just and equitable international order. This is the only way to an end to the food crisis.

The right to food is an inalienable human right. Since 1997, this has been confirmed on Cuba’s initiative by successive resolutions adopted by the former Commission on Human Rights and later by the Council and the UN General Assembly. Our country, representing the Non-Aligned Movement, and with the support of more than two thirds of UN member states, also proposed the calling of a seventh special session of the Human Rights Council, which has just called for concrete actions to address the world food crisis.

Hunger and malnourishment cannot be eradicated through palliatives, nor with symbolic donations which — let us be honest — will not satisfy peoples’ needs and will not be sustainable.

At the very least, agricultural production in South countries must first be rebuilt and developed. The developed countries have more than enough resources to do this. What’s required is the political will of their governments.

• If NATO’s military budget were reduced by a mere 10% a year, nearly 100 billion dollars would be freed up.
• If the foreign debt of developing countries, a debt they have paid several times over, were cancelled, the countries of the South would have at their disposal the 345 billion dollars now used for annual debt service payments.
• If the developed countries honoured their commitment to devote 0.7 % of the Gross Domestic Product to Official Development Aid, the countries of the South would have at least an additional 130 billion dollars a year.
• If only one fourth of the money squandered each year on commercial advertising were devoted to food production, nearly 250 billion dollars could be dedicated to fighting hunger and malnutrition.
• If the money devoted to agricultural subsidies in the North were directed to agricultural development in the South, our countries would have around a billion dollars a day to invest in food production.

Mr. Chairman:

I bring this message from Cuba, a country ferociously blockaded but standing proudly by its principles and the unity of its people: yes, we can successfully confront this food crisis, but only if we go to the root of the problem, address its real causes and reject demagogy, hypocrisy and false promises.

Allow me to conclude by recalling the words of Fidel Castro, when he addressed the UN General Assembly in New York in October 1979:

“The din of weapons, of threatening language, and of arrogance on the international scene must cease. Abandon the illusion that the problems of the world can be solved by nuclear weapons. Bombs may kill the hungry, the sick and the uneducated, but bombs cannot kill hunger, disease and illiteracy.”

Thank you very much.

Cuba: Urban Farmers 'Make Soil From Scratch'

Monday, June 02, IPS

The soil in Cienaga de Zapata is salty, shallow, stony and hard to plow, but this Cuban municipality is nevertheless home to more than 140 urban farmers.

"Here you have to make soil from scratch, and to begin with I had to bring it from Jagey Grande," said Nibaldo Ortega, who joined the urban agriculture movement five years ago. He plants his vegetables in beds, and between these he puts sawdust, "to carry on making soil," he said.

His crops are few in number. "I grow tomatoes, beans and radishes, mainly. Now I'm planting fruit trees," he said. But his real vocation is rearing pigs, rabbits, chickens and other farmyard animals as part of an urban agriculture livestock program.

The 43-year-old Ortega began by "raising a few little pigs" with a friend, on a small plot some distance away from the neighborhood of El Caletcn in Cienaga de Zapata. With a population 10,000, it is the largest and most sparsely populated municipality in the country, located in Matanzas province, east of Havana. The municipality is also the location of the largest and best preserved wetland in the Caribbean.

The farm now has more than 100 pigs, 292 laying hens, 30 rabbits and several Muscovy ducks, as well as other animals. "I'm the son of a small farmer, and I like this work," he said, while massaging a sow's belly to help her give birth.

As his initial land area became too small, Ortega was given the right to use (but not own) another plot of about half a hectare, opposite his own. He is getting it ready and has made a map of where he will put each sector. At the back he has reserved space for the "infirmary," for the benefit of the veterinarian who looks after his animals.

"Some inspectors came and said, 'Don't worry about how much you'll make. As long as you're producing food, there's no problem.' Before, it used to be viewed differently -- they were afraid of people earning too much personally. But now there's a different attitude to what you earn from your work. And there are certainly no days off here," he said.

Ortega signed a contract with the state for raising pigs, under which he was given 10 breeding sows. He must sell the pork he produces to the state buyer, who pays for part of it at the official price and the rest at market price, which is four times higher.

"I think it's a fair agreement, and it's good business for me, because as part of the contract they sell me imported fodder for the pigs practically at cost. Besides, it's legally earned money," he said. In his view, producers are more motivated now.

Luis Lazo, a People's Power delegate for the barrio of El Caletcn, said that previously people always had to go to other places to find pork and vegetables, "but now they can buy them nearby."

"Part of what is produced by urban agriculture provides food for social programs, such as for low-income elderly people," he said.

Alicia Abella, who is in charge of urban agriculture in Cienaga de Zapata, told the local media that there are now 146 producers in this municipality, some of whom grow vegetables, fruit and grains, while others raise livestock and poultry.

The urban agriculture movement, which now involves some 300,000 producers all over the country, on state farms, cooperatives or private farms, is based on environmentally sustainable farming methods.

According to official figures, more than 15 million metric tons of chemical-free foods -- basically vegetables, fresh herbs, fruit and rice -- have been produced in urban and peri-urban areas in the last decade.

As for the livestock programs, available reports indicate that small-scale breeders in peri-urban areas produce 12,000 metric tons of pork a year, as well as 76,000 metric tons of mutton and goat meat, and 3,400 metric tons of rabbit meat.

Experts point out that another interesting aspect, from the agro-ecological point of view, is that the agricultural and livestock programs are interdependent, so that livestock programs, in addition to producing food, supply more than 70 percent of the organic fertilizer used on the crops that are grown.

An annual 8.5 million metric tons of organic fertilizer are produced, of which 1.4 million metric tons are made of earthworm humus. These maintain the fertility of soils devoted to urban agriculture and also supply the needs of organoponic and intensive vegetable farmers. Official reports say roughly 5,000 polluted sites, generated by unauthorized rubbish dumps and abandoned lots, have been eliminated by transforming them into organoponic and intensive vegetable gardens over the past decade, in more than 200 cities and towns.

Spurred by soaring international food prices, the Cuban government decided last year to restructure its agricultural sector in order to boost productivity and reduce food imports, which this year will cost $1.9 billion.

The restructuring will include granting the use of uncultivated land to small farmers who wish to farm it and the decentralization of agricultural planning, which will focus on the local characteristics of each part of the country. The authorities have declared the food crisis to be a matter of national security.

Cuba's ecological future faces uncertainty

Cornelia Dean, March 21, New York Times

Once Castro era, U.S. embargo end, experts worry about exploitation of country's resources

Through accidents of geography and history, Cuba is a priceless ecological resource. That is why many scientists are so worried about what will become of it after Fidel Castro and his associates leave power and, as is widely anticipated, the American government relaxes or ends its trade embargo.

Cuba, by far the region's largest island, sits at the confluence of the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Its mountains, forests, swamps, coasts and marine areas are rich in plants and animals, some seen nowhere else. And since the imposition of the embargo in 1962, and especially with the collapse in 1991 of the Soviet Union, its major economic patron, Cuba's economy has stagnated.

Cuba has not been free of development, including Soviet-style top-down agricultural and mining operations and, in recent years, an expansion of tourism. But it also has an abundance of landscapes that elsewhere in the region have been ripped up, paved over or otherwise destroyed in the decades since the Cuban revolution, when development has been most intense. Once the embargo ends, the island could face a flood of investors from the United States and elsewhere, eager to exploit those landscapes.

Conservationists, environmental lawyers and other experts, from Cuba and elsewhere, met last month in Cancun, Mexico, to discuss the island's resources and how to continue to protect them.

Cuba has done "what we should have done -- identify your hot spots of biodiversity and set them aside," said Oliver Houck, a professor of environmental law at Tulane University Law School, who attended the conference.

In the late 1990s, Houck was involved in an effort, financed in part by the MacArthur Foundation, to advise Cuban officials writing new environmental laws.

But, he said in an interview, "an invasion of U.S. consumerism, a U.S.-dominated future, could roll over it like a bulldozer" when the embargo ends.By some estimates, tourism in Cuba is increasing by 10 percent annually. At a minimum, Orlando Rey Santos, the Cuban lawyer who led the law writing effort, said in an interview at the conference, "we can guess that tourism is going to increase in a very fast way" when the embargo ends.

About 700 miles long and about 100 miles wide at its widest, Cuba runs from Haiti west almost to the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. It offers crucial habitat for birds, like Bicknell's thrush, whose summer home is in the mountains of New England and Canada, and the North American warblers that stop in Cuba on their way south for the winter.

Zapata Swamp, on the island's southern coast, is known for its fish, amphibians, birds and other creatures. Among them is the Cuban crocodile, which has retreated to Cuba from a range that once ran from the Cayman Islands to the Bahamas.

Cuba has the most biologically diverse populations of freshwater fish in the region. Its relatively large underwater coastal shelves are crucial for numerous marine species, including some whose larvae can be carried by currents into waters of the United States, said Ken Lindeman, a marine biologist at Florida Institute of Technology.

Island mentality

Joshua Jelly-Schapiro, March 16, The Guardian

On a warm early morning late last July, a large crowd stood in the concrete plaza on the outskirts of the central Cuban city of Camaguey. Raúl Castro Ruz, first vice-president of the Councils of State and Ministers and Maximum General of the Cuban armed forces, was there to address the nation. In thick glasses and his customary ball-cap, Raúl stood in for his ill older brother Fidel, who due to illness was unable to deliver one of his usual everlasting speeches. Never known for his charisma, and not fond of public-speaking, Raúl extolled his people's fortitude. He urged increased milk production, decried the price of chicken and described the meaning of Revolution - "the profound conviction that there is no force in the world capable of crushing the strength of truth and ideas," and "criticising what needs criticising." And he also stated "Cuba's willingness to discuss on equal footing the prolonged dispute with the United States".

On that day in Camaguey, I watched as Raúl delivered the customary oration for the national holiday, the 26 de Julio. (The date honours the 1953 day when a young Fidel led a quixotic assault on an army barracks of Fulgencio Batista, the dictator he would depose six years later.) As Raúl's concluding cry of Viva Fidel! faded from the loudspeakers and the crowd filed from the square, conversations turned to the fiestas that were for most Cubans the real focus of their holiday. The speech seemed to resonate little. Yet what is significant about the speech is what it (and its aftermath) illustrates about the continuity within Cuba, and also the chance Raúl Castro represents for the US to establish a sane policy toward the island.

Last month headlines worldwide blared that Fidel Castro was officially standing down. Soon after, Raúl Castro was officially installed as Cuba's first new head-of-state in 49 years. Castro's departure, which has preoccupied the last nine US presidents, was met in Cuba with quiet. "When Cubans rise up to demand their liberty," George Bush asked members of the Cuban armed forces last October, "will you defend a disgraced and dying order?" Three weeks ago, as in July 2006 when Fidel took ill, there was no rising up in Havana's streets.

Cuba's government - staffed by capable and canny bureaucrats in firm control of the military and police - is carrying off a transition with minimum apparent fuss. A dearth of stories about dissidents or demonstrations since Fidel handed off power has revealed what to many Americans is a vexing truth: that the quiet is owed to much more than repression. "What the past year has shown," said Julia Sweig, author of Inside the Cuban Revolution and director of Latin American Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, "is that the regime has sources of legitimacy that Washington for many decades has not wanted to recognise, and those sources of legitimacy go beyond Fidel."

Life in Cuba remains as it has long been: an often grim struggle to provide for one's family in a broken economy. The press is censored, the dual-currencies put consumer goods and basic supplies beyond Cubans' reach, the infrastructure is crumbling. For its many failings, however, Cuba is a society with safe streets and good schools, with a state that still looks after its young and old and keeps all its citizens healthy and housed. And as recent months have shown, it has a stable government, albeit one with a growing sense that its stability will soon depend on enacting reforms to better the lot of its people.

Last September, the state distributed a document throughout the island citing the "transcendence" of Raúl's speech, highlighting his injunction to "criticise what needs criticising". The document initiated an unprecedented process: a set of meetings in workplaces and community centres wherein all citizens were meant "to analyse and make proposals on the direction of the Revolution" - as the guia de debate put it, "in an environment of absolute freedom and sincerity".

The stated expectation was that the views taken down at these assemblies - with no names attached - would serve as the basis for reforms aimed at salving the ills of a society wherein "wages are clearly insufficient," as Raúl balefully acknowledged in his speech, "to play a role in ensuring the socialist principle that each should contribute according to their capacity and receive according to their work."

The meetings have taken place since October. Participants indicate that the gatherings have been freewheeling affairs with little self-censorship in evidence. "Why don't the Cuban people have the real possibility to stay at hotels or travel to different places?" asked one college student in a January forum attended by National Assembly head Ricardo Alarcón. "Why can't we use Google and Yahoo to access the internet?" demanded another. The spirit of critique has found expression in the state press. Last fall, Juventud Rebelde, the national daily of the Communist party's youth wing, ran a series of articles on shortcomings and graft in the nation's healthcare system - normally an untouchable topic.

The process's timing expressed the political intent behind it. The sanctioned airing of discontent ended in time for the newly elected National Assembly to appoint a new Council of State. In his speech accepting the council presidency three Sundays ago, Raúl Castro alluded to the meetings, and their coverage abroad. "The international doomsayers ... tried to capitalise on the criticisms made during the study and discussion of the speech made on July 26," he intoned. "They overlooked the fact that it was criticism and debate within socialism." The airing of grievances, it would seem, is meant to expand the new government's legitimacy - and Raúl Castro's authority to enact reforms. In his inaugural speech he mentioned some of those measures. He indicated that they could include a substantive increase in state-salaries and a relaxation of laws against earning dollars through private means. He also mentioned "an excess of prohibitions and regulations", which "in the next few weeks we will start removing".

Which "prohibitions and regulations" he meant was unclear at the time. This past Thursday, however, came news of the first to be lifted. Reuters reported on an internal government memo declaring an immediate end to the domestic retail ban on computers and DVD players, with air conditioners and toasters - all products nominally prohibited in order to save electricity - to become available soon. (In recent years, Fidel's most vocal obsession was energy conservation.) Though few Cubans can afford expensive electronics, the legalisation of such goods will send an important signal.

Raúl, the long-time army chief and dour party man, is now cast in the unlikely role of reformer. As he embarks on this delicate task, he will do so at the helm of a government bolstered from many sides. First among these is the petro-largesse of Hugo Chávez - estimated currently at $4-5bn annually in free fuel, for which Cuba pays in kind with the doctors, social workers and consultants who are essential to the functioning of Chávez's social misiones. Beyond ties with Venezuela - a relationship likely more valuable to Caracas than Havana - Cuba has in the past two years entered a preferential trade agreement with Mercosur, the South American trading block; increased economic cooperation with China; and augmented ties with northern nations such as Canada, which recently stepped up its investment in Cuba's energy infrastructure. In other words, many countries have invested in Cuba's stability - and possibly enjoy a position from which to influence its affairs. The United States has not.

It is for this reason, if no other, that current events on the island should prompt a re-evaluation of US policy toward it. The embargo, now nearing a half-century old and codified as law in 1992's Cuba Democracy Act, has had many effects. It has denied Cuba's people basic goods and given its government a steady scapegoat for its failings. It has prevented Americans from travelling to the island and prohibited US firms from trading with Cuba. And, since the Helms-Burton Act in1996, it has further alienated third-countries by penalising foreign companies in the United States who do business on the island. None of these effects hastened Castro's demise. The policy - it is an open secret in Washington today - is a monumental failure.

Thankfully there are signs that change could come. In a presidential debate before the recent Texas primary, Barack Obama reiterated that he'd be willing to hold talks, without preconditions, with Cuba's new leader. The Democratic frontrunner has also voiced support for repealing restrictions on Cuban-Americans sending remittances to and visiting their families on the island. Hillary Clinton calls Obama's position "irresponsible". John McCain calls it "dangerously naïve". However, a new approach to Cuba - a country that according to the Pentagon ceased many years ago to represent a security threat to the United States - reflects not merely a refreshing realism but canny politics as well.

US-Cuba policy, goes the cliché, is not a foreign policy but a domestic one aimed at Florida. The calculus regarding Miami's Cuban voters may be changing, however - in part due to those rules instituted by the Bush administration in 2004 that candidate Obama advocates lifting. The new rules cap family visits at one every three years. Such measures have traditionally intended to placate the clique of hard-line exiles long granted de facto oversight of US-Cuba policy. With the Miami old guard itself growing old, however, many Cuban-Americans harbour deep frustration at the Bush administration's retrenched efforts to "isolate Cuba". The new rules are loathed by many, especially newer arrivals. In the upcoming US election, Cuban-Americans could well support a candidate, Democrat or otherwise, who supports their repeal.

While shifting dynamics in Miami may alter the political calculus for a new American administration, other factors could provide the weight necessary to actually change the policy. Should oil reserves discovered in Cuban territorial waters in 2006 prove as substantial as some experts predict, that will spell, according to Cuba experts like the Council on Foreign Relations' Sweig "game over" for the US bloqueo. Last month, more than 100 members of Congress signed a letter to secretary of state Condoleezza Rice stating that "it is time for us to think and act anew" toward Cuba. For now, these advocates of lifting the embargo - among them farm-state Republicans from Nebraska and Kansas seeking access for their constituents to Cuban markets - are unlikely to force a winnable vote in Congress to do so. With the added entreaties of Big Oil to access crude 50 miles from Florida's Keys, this balance will surely change.

The ultimate trajectory of a Cuba sin Fidel remains to be seen. At least one essential fact about how it will be realised, though, is by now clear. As George Bush himself put it after Castro first took ill 19 months ago, in a statement that surely rankled those dwindling few still nurturing hopes of succession from without: "Cuba's next leader will come from Cuba."

The choice facing whomever occupies the White House next year is whether to deal proactively with this fact or to persist in a policy that is today a relic of the cold war. Last July in Camaguey, in addition to remarks addressed to his countrymen, Raúl Castro also offered, as he has repeatedly since, to enter into bilateral talks with the United States to discuss the two countries' "prolonged dispute." Our next president would do well - by Cuba's people, and by us - to accept.

Healing the Rift: Metabolic Restoration in Cuban Agriculture

Rebecca Clauson, May 2007, Monthly Review

As John Bellamy Foster explained in “The Ecology of Destruction” (Monthly Review, February 2007), Marx explored the ecological contradictions of capitalist society as they were revealed in the nineteenth century with the help of the two concepts of metabolic rift and metabolic restoration. The metabolic rift describes how the logic of accumulation severs basic processes of natural reproduction leading to the deterioration of ecological sustainability. Moreover, “by destroying the circumstances surrounding that metabolism,” Marx went on to argue, “it [capitalist production] compels its systematic restoration as a regulating law of social reproduction”—a restoration, however, that can only be fully achieved outside of capitalist relations of production.1
Recent developments in Cuban agroecology offer concrete examples of how the rift can be healed, not simply with different techniques but with a transformation of the socio-metabolic relations of food production. Numerous scholars have described the scientific achievements of Cuban organic agriculture. However, the success of Cuban organic agriculture and the potential for it to influence other Latin American and Caribbean nations must be understood not simply as the application of new agricultural technology, but rather as an example of social transformation in its entirety. As Richard Levins notes, “To understand Cuban agricultural development it is first necessary to look at it closely in the richness of detail....Then we have to step back and squint to capture the truly novel pathway of development as a whole that Cuba is pioneering.”2
‘Land is the Treasure, Labor is the Key’
Marx’s concept of metabolism is rooted in his understanding of the labor process. Labor is a process by which humans mediate, regulate, and control the material exchange between themselves and nature. Land, the earth (and the ecological cycles that define it), and labor, which is the metabolic relation between human beings and nature, constitute the two original sources of all wealth. During a trip to Cuba with a group of agricultural researchers late last year I watched a horse-drawn cart transport organic produce from an urban garden of raised beds to the community stand nearby. I noticed a phrase painted on the wall of a storage building: “La tierra es un tesora y el trabajo es su llave,” land is the treasure, labor is the key. Witnessing a cooperatively run farm grow and deliver organic produce for its community provided a visual representation of Marx’s concept of metabolism. Land, providing the essential raw materials, is treated as a “treasure,” one that must not be exploited for short-term gain, but rather replenished through rational and planned application of ecological principles to agriculture (agroecology). And labor, being the physical embodiment of a “key,” can access the land’s rich qualities to provide healthy subsistence food, equally distributed to the local community.
Marx has two meanings for the term metabolism. One referred to the regulatory processes that govern the complex interchange between humans and nature, specifically with regard to nutrient cycles. The second holds a wider, social meaning describing the institutional norms governing the division of labor and distribution of wealth. The analysis of the metabolic rift addresses both of these meanings. In the ecological sense, Marx notes that capitalist agriculture ceases to be “self-sustaining” since it can “no longer find the natural conditions of its own production within itself.”3 Rather, nutrients must be acquired through long distance trade and separate industries outside of the agricultural sphere. This creates a rift in the natural cycles of soil fertility and waste accumulation.
In the wider, social meaning of metabolism, a rift is created between humanity and the natural world due to the relation of wage labor and capital. Private property in the earth’s resources, the division between mental/manual labor, and the antagonistic split between town and country illustrate the metabolic rift on a social level. In capitalism the rift is manifest in many ways, such as the primacy of corporate speculation in real estate, the loss of autonomy of subsistence farmers to the knowledge of “expert” technicians, and the demographic transition from rural farms to urban centers.
‘This is Beautiful Work’
In Cuba I was fortunate to speak with many of the farmers who worked on the organiponicos. I was frustrated that my elementary Spanish did not allow for a sophisticated conversation, but I was able to formulate a basic question. “Do you like this work?” I asked a farmer who had been showing me around the urban plots. Without hesitation, the farmer warmly replied, “Este es trabajo bonito,” this is beautiful work. Through further translation and site visits to four provinces throughout Cuba, I learned how the transformation of food production serves a practical function in Cuba; it supplies nutritious calories without the use of petroleum products, an essential ingredient in most global agribusiness food production.
The Cuban agricultural model reconnects the natural cycle of nutrients, and grounds human labor in the countryside with productive labor in the cities. The transformation of socio-metabolic relations allows biodiversity to act as a resource for food production, such as providing habitat for beneficial insects, rather than a challenge to overcome. New models of ownership and distribution allow for participatory decision making at all levels of cultivation, harvest, and consumption. A new type of labor relationship is introduced, one in which indigenous farmers interact with trained agronomists to best fit a crop to the natural environment, climate, and geography. And in opposition to the skeptics who question whether this model “can only happen in Castro’s Cuba,” farmers described the recent experiences of traveling to other Latin American and Caribbean nations to disseminate this new model of food production.
Reestablishing the Spatial Relations of Nutrient Cycles
Cuban agriculture has been lauded for its application of rational science to achieve organic agriculture.4 Accolades have come from international organizations such as those that voted to give the Cuban Grupo de Agricultura Organica the Alternative Nobel Prize for “developing organic farming methods.” The success lies partly in discovery of new methods, but also in transmitting the new information for local implementation. The 280 successful Centers for Production of Entomophages and Entomopathogens (CREEs) are a testament to the potential for rational organization of a national program for biological pest control by production of organisms that attack insect pests of crops.5 State-sponsored research that develops natural pesticides and bio-fertilizers is crucial to creating an alternative to conventional agriculture; however, it is not the fulcrum upon which metabolic restoration pivots. In order to understand the healing of the metabolic rift in relation to ecological processes, one must understand the spatial reorganization of nutrient cycling.
The ecological understanding of metabolic rift is premised on the spatial relations of physical processes regulating nutrient cycling. The separation of people from the land (rural to urban migration) creates a rift in the metabolism of nature-society relations since nutrients are transported away from the productive crops and farms where they originated, and accumulate as waste products in distant population centers. To replenish the biostructure of the depleted soil, capitalist agriculturalists must obtain nutrients through appropriation (i.e., the historic guano trade) or artificial industrial production (i.e., contemporary synthetic nitrogen) to be continuously applied to farmland. This system of food production severs the natural process of nutrient cycling, and introduces new ecological contradictions associated with the energy requirements for long distance trade in fertilizers while at the same time nutrients accumulate in the sewage of the cities. In a similar manner, the separation of agricultural animals from the cropland that produces their feeds creates a metabolic rift by interrupting the material exchange between grain feeds/livestock and livestock manure/grain feeds. As Foster and Magdoff note, “This breakdown of the physical connection between the animals and the land producing their feeds has worsened the depletion of nutrients and organic matter from soils producing crops.”6 The resulting consequence is the intensification of fertilizer application required to grow grains to meet an increasing demand for concentrated livestock production. The separation of humans, livestock, and crops breaks the return flow of nutrients to the land.
Cuban agriculture over the past thirteen years has worked to reestablish the spatial relationships between nutrient cycles and material exchanges. A key principle of Cuba’s agroecology is the “optimization of local resources and promotion of within-farm synergisms through plant-animal combinations.”7 The improved spatial integration of plants, animals, and humans can reduce the need for long-distance trade and replenish the fertility of the soil through nearby nutrient sources. Local socioeconomic circumstance and biophysical constraints dictate the type of spatial arrangement of nutrient cycles that are possible. During my visits to Cuban farms I witnessed how farming practices can sustainably cycle nutrients from either local sources or from on-site synergisms. Local resources are used to promote nutrient cycling, with methods for on-site integrations. Each of these methods attempts to fundamentally alter the spatial relations of nutrient cycling and waste assimilation in food production.
Worms, Cows, and Sugarcane
The essential factor required by all farmers for successful food production is nutrient-rich soil. Before the Special Period, Cuba relied on imported, synthetic fertilizers to achieve agricultural productivity. Today, organized systems that unite human labor, animal and crop by-products, and natural decomposition provide the essential nutrients for sustainable food production. The pathway that leads to replenished fertility and health of the soil does not require long distance trade or intensive energy inputs, rather it relies on the functions of biodiversity and ecological efficiency.
During a visit to a cooperatively run farm in East Havana, a farmer knelt down beside one of many long, rectangular concrete rows that served as high-density housing for the California red worm. He scooped his palm beneath the dark rich top layer of soil to reveal a small sample of the 10,000–50,000 worms that inhabited that particular square meter of biomass. In commercial-scale production, the worms can produce 2,500 to 3,500 cubic meters of humus from 9,000 cubic meters of organic material (a cubic meter is approximately the same volume as a cubic yard).8 Vermiculture, the method of using worm casings for soil fertilizer, is carried out on the farm so that workers can monitor daily the temperature and moisture of the worm habitat, and apply the nutrient-rich supplement to the crops at the correct time. Vermiculture in itself is not a revolutionary technique, however in Cuba it represents the final stage in an integrated process that reorganizes the use of local products to grow food.
The farmer explained how the worms can produce humus faster by using animal waste rather than vegetable waste, so he routinely obtains cow manure from a nearby farm. The cow manure is itself a product of local nutrient recycling, considering the feed inputs used to nourish the cows are the by-products of local crops. Although Cuban research centers realized decades ago that cattle could be well nourished by forage grasses, legumes, and crop residues, the prevalence and accessibility of cheap, imported cattle grain from Soviet nations left the benefits unexamined before the Special Period. A change in the material conditions of feed availability, however, allowed for closer inspection of the most sustainable uses of local resources. Cuban researchers learned that by-products from the sugarcane fields provided biological enrichment to cattle diets, and began using these “waste products” as the primary supplements for cattle feed.9 By-products from the sugarcane harvests include bagasse, molasses, and cachaza, as well as fresh cane residues such as the tops of cane stalks. Sugarcane as cattle fodder offers alternative solutions for both metabolizable energy and for protein supply. As two researchers into Cuban agroecology state: “The experiences of various countries over the last 15 years have demonstrated an economic advantage to using sugarcane as the main energy source for cattle feeding in beef and milk production. These systems are of special relevance for tropical countries during the dry season, the optimum season for the sugarcane harvest, and in turn, the most critical one for pasture and forage availability.”10
As the farmer conveyed this cascading path of nutrients from sugarcane fields to cattle troughs, from cow manure to worm bins, from worm casings to organic agriculture plots, I began to see how the nutrients within this one province of Cuba were connected through the metabolic actions of the plants and animals. This particular flow of nutrients (sugarcane, cow, worm, crop) delivered to local organic farms is not standard across all of Cuba because other regions have different resources available that can be substituted. For example, in Matanzas—the primary citrus producing province in central Cuba—orange rinds are fermented into silage to serve as cattle feed.11 Substituting local resources based on availability minimizes transportation energy expenditures and makes ecologically efficient use of nearby nutrients, thereby altering the spatial relationships of conventional agriculture’s fertilizer and waste disposal systems.
Another Pasture is Possible
As we drove down the lane to the “Indio Hatuey” Experiment Station I noticed a fenced and forested landscape on both sides of the road. My naïve assumption that this was some kind of a wood fiber plantation reflects the narrow range of delineated possibilities I’ve been trained to identify as either forest or pasture. Specialized production that produces a particular landscape is the standard model for intensive agriculture, and it represents one in which metabolic interactions between species are intentionally and intensively denied. The artistic sign at the entrance of the Pasture and Forage Experimental Station depicting cattle grazing in trees and tall grasses, surrounded by a symbolic beaker of science, was my first introduction to the sustainable silvopastoral systems.
“Welcome on behalf of the workers,” said Mildrey Soca Perez, the director of research at the station. The presentation began with a description of the holistic and interdisciplinary objectives of this experimental station, followed by a discussion of the ecological efficiency associated with livestock-crop integration. Before the Special Period, Cuba relied on an intensive production model for cattle grazing to secure milk and protein for the population. The Special Period triggered a search for alternative means of livestock production using local resources. Knowledge was reconstructed from small farmers who had preserved traditional mixed systems of land use. The spatial reorganization of crop growth and livestock production yielded mutual benefits of nutrient fertilization and waste assimilation. In hindsight, Cuban researchers from the Pasture and Forage Institute recognize that “the separation of crop and livestock production that took place was wasteful of energy and nutrients.”12 As the cows emerged from the forest trees and the researcher described the energy transfers between cows, tree leaves, and grasses, I began to see the ways in which this integration was another concrete example of restoring the rift that had occurred between constituent elements of our food production systems.
The Indio Hatuey farm raises cattle in fields planted with the tree Leucaena leucocephala.Cows eat the leaves and branches of this short and heavily forked tree, and workers regularly prune the trees so that the branches are accessible to the cattle. The cows also graze on the grasses in the trees’ understory. Leucaena trees fix nitrogen, thereby replenishing the soil that nourishes the grasses.
In addition, the cow manure helps boost the soil fertility for the trees and grasses. The utilization of organic compost on specialized monoculture systems and/or on large-scale production units has high transport and application costs, and specific labor and equipment requirements. Cuban researchers have found, however, that “when the scale of the system is kept smaller, and the degree of integration high, using these techniques is much easier, and in fact becomes a functional necessity of the system, while guaranteeing nutrient recycling.”13
The leucaena trees provide shade for the cows, thereby reducing heat stress and increasing productivity. To ensure ample photosynthesis for the grasses, the trees are planted in rows extending East-West to maximize the sunlight reaching the ground. The leucaena tree roots prevent erosion by maintaining the integrity of the soil structure, and special attention is given to the cow-tree ratio to ensure that soil compaction does not result. The researchers at Indio Hatuey station found that this system of grazing resulted in 3,000–5,000 liters milk/hectare/year with increased quality in terms of fat and protein content. In addition, the silvopastoral methods reduced the fluctuations of milk production between the rainy and dry seasons and increased the reproduction rates of the cows.
Silvopastoral methods do not only apply to cattle grazing and milk production, as these types of integrated systems are being researched for sheep, goats, pigs, and rabbits. The Indio Hatuey station also conducts research on grazing horses in orange orchards. The horses clear weeds from the orchard floor, reducing the need for herbicides, and provide manure fertilizer to maintain soil fertility. From an economic viewpoint, the orange/horse integrated system yielded a profit that was 388 Cuban pesos/hectare/year higher than the orange monoculture without animals.14 In each of these cases, the spatial relations of food production are researched and managed to maximize nutrient cycling and adapt the production system to biogeochemical features of the landscape.
On-farm experience in integrated livestock production is demonstrating the potential and viability of widespread conversion to crop/livestock systems. This transformation has implications that go beyond the technological-productive sphere. Rather, these changes directly or indirectly influence the economic, social, and cultural conditions of the small-farming families by reinforcing their ability to sustain themselves through local production. The Cuban farmers and researchers who explained the processes of local and on-site nutrient cycling helped me to see the many hands of workers that allowed this process to continue. New labor relationships, new decision-making structures, and new land and food distribution patterns not only allow for Cubans to subsist on healthier food in an ecologically sustainable manner. These structural changes have fundamentally altered society’s metabolism.
Reestablishing the Labor Relations of Food Production Systems
As noted, Marx used the concept of metabolic regulation in a wider, social meaning to “describe the complex, dynamic, interdependent set of needs and relations brought into being and constantly reproduced in alienated form under capitalism.”15 The needs and relations of social metabolism are regulated by the institutional norms governing the division of labor and distribution of wealth. The limitation of human freedom caused by the social metabolic rift provided Marx with a concrete way of expressing the notion of the alienation of nature. This second meaning of metabolism goes beyond the physical laws of nutrient exchanges and addresses the transformation in labor relations and property tenure that must accompany ecological changes if long-term sustainability is to result.
Cuba’s conventional agriculture, dependent on fossil fuels and mechanization, was carried out on large state-owned farms that controlled 63 percent of the arable land. By the end of the 1980s, state-owned sugar plantations covered three times more farmland than did food crops, making it necessary for Cuba to import 60 percent of its food, all from the Soviet bloc. The severe food crisis resulting from the Soviet collapse and the stringent U.S. economic blockade took a physical toll on the Cuban population, as the average Cuban lost twenty pounds and undernourishment jumped from less than 5 percent to over 20 percent during the 1990s.16 The agrarian reforms, which transformed land tenure and distribution outlets, were the key to recovering from the food crisis.
In September 1993, the Cuban government restructured the state farms as cooperatives owned and managed by the workers. The new programs transformed 41.2 percent of state farm land into 2,007 new cooperatives, with membership totaling 122,000 people.17 The cooperative owns the crops, and members are compensated based on productivity rather than a wage contract. In addition to being monetarily paid, the associated producers agree to provide meals to workers and personal gardening space for growing and harvesting family provisions. This change in land tenure has not only allowed for better application of organic farming methods, it has reconnected the worker to the land. This reconnection occurs both figuratively, as seen in the worker’s description of the farming job as “trabajo bonito,” but also geographically. The design of Cuba’s agricultural systems is taking into account the need to stabilize rural populations and reverse the rural-urban migration. Cuban agronomists at the Pasture and Forage Research Institute understand that this can only be achieved by rearranging productive structures and investing in developing rural areas, giving farming a more economical and social foundation.18
In addition to the cooperatively owned farms, the Cuban government has turned over approximately 170,000 hectares of land to private farmers. This reflects Marx’s view that “a rational agriculture needs either small farmers working for themselves or the control of the associated producers.”19 The government retains title to the land, however private farmers receive free rent indefinitely, as well as subsidized equipment. Many Cuban families are now viewing farming as an opportunity and have left the cities to become farmers. The National Association of Small Producers states that membership has expanded by 35,000 from 1997 to 2000. The new farmers tend to be adults with young families (many with college education), early retirees, or workers with a farming background.20
Expanding labor opportunities in rural agriculture only addresses one side of Cuba’s food production system. The emphasis placed on urban organic gardening transcends the town/country divide using a different strategy—introducing food production systems in abandoned city spaces. The organiponicos’ productive raised beds offer organic produce to surrounding neighborhoods from what were once garbage dumps, parking lots, and demolished buildings. Today, urban gardens produce 60 percent of the vegetables Cubans consume.
The urban agriculture movement began informally based on the need of urban dwellers to meet basic food requirements. The Cuban government recognized the potential for urban agriculture and created the Urban Agriculture Department to facilitate the movement. The state formalized the growers’ claims upon vacant lots and legalized the rights to sell their produce. All urban residents can claim up to one–third of an acre of vacant land, as long as they abide by the rules of all organic farming methods. By the beginning of 2000, more than 190,000 people had applied for and received these personal lots for use in organic farming. In total, 322,000 Cubans are involved in urban agriculture. The Urban Agriculture Department has acted to support and promote urban agriculture by opening neighborhood agricultural extension services where growers can bring their produce to receive technical assistance with pest and disease diagnosis, soil testing, etc.21
The transfer of technical agricultural knowledge from agronomists to food producers represents one side of the equation for successful sustainable agriculture. The Cuban model of agriculture recognizes that the artificial divide between mental and manual labor limits the range of opportunities for productive food systems. The goals of a participatory democracy for agricultural decision making have been incorporated into the new farming model, and this is made possible by the new ownership patterns. For example, the smaller cooperative farms are offered assistance by People’s Councils, located in all fifteen provinces of Cuba.22 The People’s Councils are comprised of local food producers and technicians that work together to advise the area’s farmers on best practices suited for that area. The trained agronomists work with the farmers in site-specific locations to determine the most appropriate techniques.
Farmers’ knowledge is also incorporated into agricultural conferences and academic proceedings. Fernando Macaya, the Director of the Cuban Association of Technicians for Agriculture and Forestry (ACTAF), spoke of a Provincial Meeting of Urban Agriculturists he attended in November 2006. Of 105 research papers delivered, 53 were presented by food producers, 34 from research technicians, and 12 from academic professors—61 of the presenters were women. The inclusion of experiential knowledge with experimental data leads to the application of rational science, equally accessible to all members of society. Younger generations are invited to participate in agricultural clubs in school, and teachers are encouraged to promote ecological classrooms. The most recent ACTAF-funded project brought puppet shows to elementary schools, addressing how to grow and use various medicinal herbs.23 Bridging the artificial divide between mental and manual labor is possible with new labor relationships.
The rift in the social metabolism can be overcome by melding the town/country boundaries (changing land tenure), as well as intersecting the roles of mental and manual labor (changing the division of labor). These two actions involve transformation of food production. But there is another relevant feature of the social metabolism of agriculture—the distribution of the harvest’s “wealth.” A key theme of Cuba’s sustainable agriculture is diversification of channels of food distribution. Rather than allowing one central authority to control all food distribution, flexibility is built into the distribution process to meet the populations’ varying needs. To help people cope with persistent food availability problems, a ration card is maintained which guarantees every Cuban a minimum amount of food. The diets of children, pregnant women, and the elderly are closely monitored, and intentionally low meal prices are offered at schools and workplaces, with free meals at hospitals.
Neighborhood markets sell produce from organiponicos at well below the cost of the larger community markets, providing fresh vegetables for those who cannot afford the higher prices. By the beginning of 2000, there were 505 vegetable stands in Cuban cities, with prices 50–70 percent lower than at farmers markets.24 The private farmers markets were opened in 1994 to allow outlets for increased production and greater diversity in produce. The private farmers markets provide producers with another means to distribute goods once basic necessities of the population have been met. Even though the private farmers markets operate on principles of supply and demand, governmental controls are in place to deter price gouging and collusion.
Attention is given to identifying low-income groups, and social assistance programs are created to address their food access. Marcos Nieto, of the Cuban Ministry of Agriculture, describes how “planning takes into account geographic patterns of distribution of the population, especially with regards to areas of high population density, or limited access, or poor soils, etc.”25
Sovereign Agriculture in Latin America?
The rift in social metabolism of food production under capitalism is aggravated by private ownership of land, the strict division between mental and manual labor, and the unjust distribution of the fruits of labor. Cuba’s model of agriculture systematically transcends these alienating conditions, reconnecting farmers to the land through cooperative production, participatory decision making, and diversified distribution. Can this vision for ecological sustainability and social equality extend beyond the island of Cuba?
Cuban farmers are traveling to Latin American and Caribbean nations to assist farmers in setting up similar types of food production systems. Indeed, Cuba’s fastest growing export is currently ideas. Cuba hosts many visiting farmers and agricultural technicians from throughout the Americas and elsewhere. Cuban agronomists are currently teaching agroecological farming methods to Haitian farmers, as well as assisting Venezuela with their burgeoning urban agriculture movement.
It is not only Cuban farmers that are dispersing these ideas. Peasant movements throughout Latin America are returning to traditional agrarian practices and demanding land redistribution that allows for subsistence food production. The Latin America School of Agroecology was created in August 2005 in Parana, Brazil. Founded by a partnership between two peasant movements—the Landless Workers Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores sem Terra, MST) and Via Campesina—the school focuses on bringing the principles of agroecology to rural communities throughout Latin America. According to the coordinator of the MST, Robert Baggio, the school will construct a new matrix based on agroecology. This new matrix, he explained, will be geared to small-scale production and the domestic market, respecting the environment and contributing to the construction of sovereign agriculture (http://www.landaction.org).
In this spread of metabolic restoration, we get a glimpse of Marx’s vision of a future society of associated producers. In volume 3 of Capital, Marx wrote: “Freedom in this sphere can consist only in this, that socialized man, the associated producers, govern the human metabolism with nature in a rational way, bringing it under their own collective control instead of being dominated by it as a blind power; accomplishing it with the least expenditure of energy and in conditions most worthy and appropriate for their human nature.”26
The psychological barriers that often prevent this vision from seeming possible are based on a myopic view—that of agribusiness as usual: where cows do not graze in forests and crops do not grow from worms; where farmers do not do science and workers do not eat their harvests; and where the metabolic rift in ecological and social systems becomes intensified with the ever-increasing quest for profit accumulation. Cuba’s agriculture shows that the potential for metabolic restoration is real, and it can happen now. The advance of these ideas through the rest of Latin America provides hope for future transformations.
Notes
1. Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1 (New York: Vintage, 1976), 637–38.
2. Richard Levins, “The Unique Pathway of Cuban Development,” in Fernando Funes, et al., eds., Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance (Oakland, CA: Food First Books, 2002), 280.
3. Karl Marx. Grundrisse (New York: Vintage, 1973), 527.
4. See Peter Rosset, “Cuba: A Successful Case Study of Sustainable Agriculture,” in Fred Magdoff, John Bellamy Foster, and Frederick Buttel, eds., Hungry for Profit (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000); and Sinan Koont, “Food Security in Cuba,” Monthly Review 55, no. 8 (January 2004): 11–20.
5. Funes, et. al, eds., Sustainable Agriculture.
6. John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff, “Liebig, Marx, and the Depletion of Soil Fertility,” in Magdoff, Foster, and Buttel, eds., Hungry for Profit, 53.
7. Miguel Altieri, “The Principles and Strategies of Agroecology in Cuba,” in Funes, et al., eds., Sustainable Agriculture, xiii.
8. Eolia Treto, et. al., “Advances in Organic Soil Management,” in Funes, et al., eds., Sustainable Agriculture, 164–89.
9. Marta Monzote, Eulogia Munoz, and Fernance Funez-Monzote, “The Integration of Crop and Livestock,” in Funes, et al., eds., Sustainable Agriculture, 190–211.
10. Rafael Suarez Rivacoba and Rafael B. Morin, “Sugarcane and Sustainability in Cuba,” in Funes, et al., eds., Sustainable Agriculture, 255.
11. Mildrey Soca Perez, personal communication, December 1, 2006.
12. Monzote, et. al., “The Integration of Crop and Livestock,” 190.
13. Monzote, et. al., “The Integration of Crop and Livestock,” 205.
14. Monzote, et. al., “The Integration of Crop and Livestock,” 200.
15. John Bellamy Foster, Marx’s Ecology (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000), 158.
16. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Bank, and World Resources Institute, World Resources 2000–2001—People and Ecosystems: The Fraying Web of Life (UNDP, 2000).
17. Dale Allen Pfeiffer, Eating Fossil Fuels (Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers, 2006), 59.
18. Monzote, et al., “The Integration of Crop and Livestock,” 207.
19. Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 3 (New York: Vintage, 1981), 216.
20. Pfeiffer, Eating Fossil Fuels, 60.
21. Pfeiffer, Eating Fossil Fuels, 61.
22. Juan Leon, personal communication, November 27, 2006.
23. Fernando Macaya, personal communication, November 27, 2006.
24. Pfeiffer, Eating Fossil Fuels, 61.
25. Marcos Nieto and Ricardo Delgada, “Cuban Agriculture and Food Security,” in Funes, et al., eds., Sustainable Agriculture.
26. Marx, Capital, vol. 3, 959.