Introduction

• During the Cold War era, Cuba benefited from favorable trade with the Soviet Union and had the most mechanized agricultural sector in Latin America.

• After the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba faced a severe and unexpected economic and food crisis. By 1993 Cuba’s GDP fell by 35% and the average calorie intake shrank by about 1,000 calories per day1.

• Increased urban agriculture was one response to the collapse, and these farms were gradually integrated into the state-run economy2.

• Fossil fuels and agrochemicals are scarce in Cuba, and urban farms are prohibited from using chemical inputs.

• Urban farms almost exclusively use agroecological methods, which use ecological principles to reduce chemicals and fossil fuel inputs.

• Previous research suggests that Cuban farmers use agroecological principles out of necessity3 and that they have a good deal of control over their own work4,5.

• No study has directly assessed the attitudes of a large number of urban farmers toward agroecological principles or towards their own agency as a worker on an urban plot.

Results and Discussion

• Farmers exhibited significant understanding of and appreciation for agroecological principles.

• While state support is critical in supporting urban farms, farmer agency and control over work was limited by state involvement.

• According to some respondents, urban construction and development is a threat to urban agriculture because of land use policy. The increased availability of petroleum products, which is often cited in the literature, was not seen as a significant threat to urban agriculture by the farmers themselves.

Urban Farmer Perceptions of Agroecology and Worker Agency in CubaMichael Grantz and Dr. Devan McGranahan, Department of Environmental Studies

Methods

• 41 face-to-face, semi-structured interviews of urban farmers during June and July of 2012.

• 14 food production sites in Havana and Sancti Spiritus. • Digitally recorded in Cuba, and translated into English,

transcribed, and analyzed using Grounded Theory methodology in the United States.

• Respondents selected by suggestions from non-farmer Cubans and by randomly walking to farms.

• Respondents represent a variety of urban farm types and a variety of levels of experience and education.

References

1. Rosset, P.M. et. al. 1994. The Greening of the Revolution: Cuba’s Experiment with Organic Farming.

2. Nelson, E. et. al. 2009. Agriculture and Human Values3. Koont, S. 2011. Sustainable Urban Agriculture in Cuba.4. Leitgeb, F. et. al. 2012 Renewable Agriculture and Food

Systems.5. Rosset, P.M. et. al. 2011. The Journal of Peasant Studies.

Conclusion

• A helpful extension of this research would be a comparative study between urban and rural farmers on their attitudes toward these same questions. This would test the accuracy of the disparity between this study and previous studies of rural farmers.

• Future studies should consider gender roles on urban farms. This was not a focus of this study, but in the field it was apparent that one’s role on a farm is often determined by gender.

Figure 3: This table shows abridged and assimilated versions of common statements made by farmers. These statements reveal considerable support for local, chemical-free food production.

Figure 2: Urban farmers were very supportive of chemical-free agriculture and were generally familiar with the health and environmental hazards of chemical agriculture.

AbstractSince the collapse of the Soviet Union, the small island nation of Cuba has become famous for the prevalence of urban agroecology, which grew rapidly out of a harsh food shortage, economic crisis, and scarcity of agrochemicals. State institutions were and are critical in supporting this movement that began almost spontaneously out of necessity. However, there is little existing research on urban farmer perceptions of agroecology, and even less farmer-based research on the amount of control urban farm workers have over their plots. This study addresses these issues with 41 semi-structured interviews of urban farmers in Havana. Interview responses were then analyzed in order to identify concrete attitudes and ideas of farmers. The key findings of this study are that (i) urban farmers overwhelmingly understand the health and environmental hazards of agrochemicals and do not support their use in an urban setting and (ii) urban farmers do not perceive themselves as having a large amount of individual agency and control in their work.

Common Statements made by Urban FarmersLocally produced food is exceptionally freshChemical agriculture is bad for human healthChemical agriculture harms the environmentChemical products are not needed for successful production on urban plotsThe public is becoming more aware of the risks of chemical agricultureI would not use chemical products even if it were an optionChemicals alter the ecological equilibrium on farm plotsChemical use is appropriate as a last resort against pests

Figure 4: Various intercropped plants at UBPC Alamar, a cooperative urban farm in Havana. Agroecology depends on a diversity of plants in order to naturally repel and control pests.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Chemicals are generallyharmful

Chemicals aresometimes appropriate

Chemicals are notgenerally harmful

Simplified Attitudes of Respondents

Fre

qu

en

cy o

f S

tate

men

t

Figure 1: Cuni owns a small medicinal herb garden on state-owned land. He is also a Santería priest, and his neighbors visit for help with their physical and spiritual ailments.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the Biehl International Research Internship for funding this study and the Department of Environmental Studies for supporting this research after returning from Cuba.