The influence of the campesino a campesino movement in Cuban

agriculture during the “special period”.

By Dirk Fleischheuer

1

Definitions:

Agro-ecology:”The scientific basis of alternative agriculture, synonymous in some circles with

collective action on the eco-management of the natural resource base; common usage in Latin

America.”

Campesino: “Traditional, peasant, small-scale, autonomous farmer.”

(Wright, 2009)

Introduction

In this report I reflect on the effects the Campesino a Campesino (CAC) movement had on the Cuban

agriculture and overall economy during the period after 1990 and the role it played in relation to

that economy. The report is devided into sub-sections. To fully understand the impact the CAC

movement had on the transformation of Cuban agriculture it is important to be aware of the special

circumstances Cuba faced during the time of the intervention. Likewise it is equally important to

understand the difference between the agro-ecological method of farming advocated by the CAC

promoters and the methods of the industrialized agriculture that had previously dominated Cuban

agriculture. I talk about these issues in section 1 and 2 respectively. Section 3 talks about the

measurable impacts on Cuban agricultural economy, while section 4 and 5 reflect more on the

“special” case Cuba. In section 6 I talk about the possible future developments in Cuban agriculture.

The moviemento Campesino a Campesino.

One of the key characteristics of the CAC’s movement is its focus on sustainable agricultural

development. Which according to Holt-Giménez can be defined as a method that: “…meets the

needs of present generations without compromising the needs of future generations to meet their

needs…” This concept emerged as an answer to the green revolution development methods which

failed to solve the problem of rural poverty in Latin America during the 1960’s and 1970’s. At the

same it time caused severe damage to the rural ecosystems through the use of heavy machinery,

agrochemicals and irrigation. As an alternative to these methods various international NGO’s

developed projects for sustainable agriculture in Mesoamerica during the 1970’s and 80’s. These

projects were carried out on village level and the agricultural techniques introduced to the small-

hold farmers were then put into practice. Over time these smallholders developed a strategy of a

2

low-risk, modern/ traditional mix of alternative techniques to improve the agro-ecological resilience

and productivity of their farming. In so called intercambios de campesino a campesino (farmer to

famer meetings) the knowledge gained by the smallholders was then shared and collected and over

time developed into complex agro-ecological farming styles. (Holt- Giménez, 2006) It is this sharing

and developing of knowledge between the campesinos that is arguably another defining key

characteristic of the CAC movement.

Cuba and the beginning of the “special period”

After the Cuban revolution of 1959 the relationship between Cuba and the United States of America

deteriorated rapidly and culminated in the cessation of all diplomatic contacts and the imposition of

an almost total economic embargo in 1961. Even though trade between Cuba and other countries

continued, the value of trade from Latin American countries with Cuba dropped from $84 million in

1958 to about one million in the late 1960’s. During this time Cuba became almost totally dependent

on the Soviet Union. (Shkolnick, 2012) In 1988 Cuba imported 83.8% of its total imports from the

socialistic block countries of Eastern Europe while exporting 81.7% of its total exports to the same

countries. The agricultural dependency on the main export crops of tobacco, sugar and citrus was

significant and 50% of the agricultural land of Cuba was covered by the three crops. These

monocultures were characterized by a method of high external inputs of agrochemicals and large

scale mechanized production. In return Cuba received favourable terms for the import of petroleum,

machinery and raw materials. Of the Cuban protein requirements 57% were imported and over 50%

of meats, dairy products, edible oil, herbicides, fertilizers, feed concentrates for livestock were

imported as well. (Gliessman & Rosemeyer, 2010) While this model of agriculture and trade

provided food security to the Cuban population it did not provide food sovereignty. In 1989 the

socialistic block of Eastern Europe collapsed which led to a loss of 85% of Cuban trade relations and

now the country was neither capable of importing sufficient food, nor able to import the necessary

inputs (fertilizers etc.) to produce food under the old production methods. The Cuban government

declared the “special period”, an economic policy based on war-time austerity measures,

implemented in peace time. Part of these measures was the break- up of large state-owned farms

into Basic Units of Cooperative Production (UBPCs) in order to speed up the adoption of new low

external input practices. (Rosset et al, 2011) This was based on the recognition that production on a

smaller scale was more efficient and led to the incorporation of approximately 150.000 workers into

the UBPCs. (Gliessman & Rosemeyer, 2010) However, this transition produced mixed results as the

former state employed farmers were slow to adapt to the new requirements. Therefore the more

important changes took place at the small-hold farmer level itself. Practically all campesinos of Cuba

3

belong to one of two types of cooperatives, either to the Credit & Service Coops (CCSs), or to the

Agriculture Production Coops (CPAs). The CCS’s are made up of campesino families. They own their

farms and work the land individually, but through the Coop membership they can act as a group if it

comes to obtaining credit, marketing of their produce, the combined use of farm machineries and

the achievement of economics of scale. The CPAs are collective farms where all assets including land

and machinery are owned collectively. Almost all Cuban farmers whether CCS or CPA members

belong to the National Association of Small Farmers the ANAP. (Rosset et al, 2011) During the crisis

those small-hold farmers were less affected because they engaged in a more diversified agriculture

which was more locally orientated and less dependent on external inputs. (Gliessman & Rosemeyer,

2010) It was to those farmers the ANAP turned in order to meet the immediate demand for food

with traditional methods of production. They needed campesinos who still remembered how to

plough with animal traction and how to use the manure as fertilizer. It was the first step in the

transformation of Cuban agriculture. (Holt-Giménez, 2006)

The campesino a campesino movement comes to Cuba

In 1995 the first agricultural workshop in Cuba was held. In the middle of the “special period” a team

of three promoters gave a workshop on water and soil conservation which was attended by 12

farmers. Two of these farmers put the methods they had been taught into practice and in August of

1996 they passed on their experiences to their neighbours in the first Cuban campesino a campesino

workshop. With the help of the ANAP and the German NGO Bread For The World the workshops

were extended to all Cuban municipalities and within a year 600 farmers were trained in the new

methods. (Holt-Giménez, 2006) The results were a better connection of the people with the land and

higher incomes because the quality of the work had improved. (Rosset et al, 2011) Particular success

was achieved with livestock. During the period from 1995 to 2000 the livestock under campesino

management increased while livestock managed by state and UBPC farms could not recover. In 2006

the campesino sector of Cuba owned over 43% of Cuban livestock while only owning 13% of the

land. (Gliessman & Rosemeyer, 2010)

4

Eight years after its introduction the Cuban campesino a campesino movement had grown to over

100,000 participating smallholders. (Holt-Giménez, 2006) Even though the data to prove cause and

effect is not available, as neither the Ministry for Agriculture nor the ANAP maintains such data, the

data shown in Figure 1. seems to reflect the connection between the CAC movement and its new

methods of production and the increase in total production. (Rosset et al, 2011)

Figure 1. Total production from the Cuban campesino sector between 1988 and 2009. The

production in 2008 was affected by three hurricanes. Source: Rosset et al, 2011

5

Figure 2.compares the percent contribution the campesino sector had in farmland and its total

national contribution to the production of key food crops in 1989 and 2008. In all crop categories the

numbers of production improved significantly and to a much bigger proportion than the increase in

farmland cultivated by campesinos would suggest. (Rosset et al, 2011)

Based on the above statistics it can be said that the Cuban campesinos were an important link in

preserving livestock and traditional crop varieties which, from a local perspective, are extremely

important for a sustainable agriculture. (Gliessman & Rosemeyer, 2010)

If we look at the numbers relating to the food production by campesinos and the use of

agrochemicals we also gain some useful insight into the benefits of the new methods of production.

The production numbers of vegetables (a typical campesino crop) for example declined in the period

6

from 1988 to 1994 by 65%. In 2007 those numbers had climbed back to 145% of the 1988 levels,

despite a reduction of agro chemical usage of 72% compared to 1988 levels. Other campesino crops

like beans or roots and tubers showed similar patterns. This is in stark contrast to sugar cane (not a

campesino crop) were yields fell by 28% compared with 1988 levels even though the reduction in

agro chemical inputs was only 5%, which is practically insignificant. (Rosset et al, 2011)

See Figure 3. for details. (Source: Sosa et al, 2013)

Note: All data in comparison to 1988 data.

The overall participation rate of campesinos which used new, organic methods of fertilization and

pest control was for some techniques as high as 95%.

See figures 4 and 5 for details.

7

Figure 4 shows to which extent surveyed farmers in Cuba used organic inputs and techniques to

improve soil fertility.

8

Figure 5 shows to which extent farmers used organic inputs and techniques to control pest and

diseases.

Source: Wright, 2009

Other methods promoted by the CAC movement were the increased use of animal traction. While at

the end of the 1980’s the number of tractors in Cuba was around 90,000 the number of operational

tractors soon dropped significantly due to a lack of fuel, missing parts and maintenance. That’s why

about 300,000 oxen teams were trained reducing the dependency on fossil fuels, improving the

mechanical control of weeds and thereby substituting herbicides. To further improve soil fertility and

control pests more effectively crop rotations and polycultures were developed. This led to an

increase in the yields of important crops such as cassava or beans. (Gliessma n & Rosemeyer, 2010)

One of the reasons for such improved yield in polycultures is that insects which are harmful to one

crop are fought off by insects attracted by the other crop. (Patel, 2007)

Another positive side effect of campesino farming is its improved adaptability to climate change and

better resilience to extreme climate events. Agro-ecological CAC farms in Cuba suffered less

hurricane damage in 1998 than farms practicing more conventional methods of farming. The CAC

9

farms suffered less erosion, landslides and fewer plants knocked down, the latter due to a more

multi-storied farming system where only the tallest plants were knocked down and where the lower

story crops quickly benefited from the added sunlight. Further to that a lot of trees blown over were

quickly stood up again by the campesino families. (Rosset et al, 2011)

The role of the ANAP

The initial role of the ANAP in Cuban agriculture was that of a supporter of the revolution and

promoter of peasant integration into Cuban society. In 2001 it took on the role of a promoter of the

strategic nationwide implementation of agro-ecology. The ANAP is the only organisation of Cuban

campesinos and it reaches into the most remote corners of the island of Cuba. It is able to mobilise

and guide farmers through its network and has great educational influence. (Sosa et al, 2013) The

political mass-mobilisation methodology of the ANAP made it possible that every cadre and militant

of the organisation could be held responsible for the promotion and facilitation of the movement in

their respective area. By 2003 the agro-ecological Campesino a Campesino movement had spread to

all Cuban provinces. (Rosset et al, 2011)

Why is Cuba a special case?

The scaling up of sustainable agriculture on a state-wide basis is mainly a political project that will

require the collaboration of the farmers and the countries institutions like its government ministries,

markets, banks and other social institutions. (Holt-Giménez, 2006) In socialist Cuba in the 1990’s

such collaboration was arguably easier to achieve than for example in Venezuela in the early 2000’s.

As Linton Page argues the Venezuelan state failed, for some time to increase participation in a

repeasantization process because people had to shift from a capitalist way of thinking to a more

socialist way. Neither was Venezuela under a trade embargo and did therefore not face hunger and

food shortages as Cuba did. (Linton Page, 2010) It can therefore be argued that the political

influence on the movement in Cuba was a significant factor in its huge success, even though the

campesino a campesino movement was successful elsewhere as well – as is well documented.

It is also interesting that, after the initial crisis, the Cuban economy did much better than other post-

Soviet economies. This might have only been possible due to the political system in Cuba that was in

a position to administer the dramatic decline of living standards in the early 90’s without being

subjected to political unrest or protests. (Hoffmann and Whitehead, 2006)

10

The future of Cuban agriculture

Despite the success of the campesino a campesino movement Cuba is still a country dependent on

food imports. Increased food production through locally available resources is officially promoted to

reduce this dependency. However it seems that in reality the focus is on the promotion of industrial-

agriculture schemes instead of local peasant production. This return to conventional agriculture

suggests that agro-ecological production methods are, at least by some decision makers, only

viewed as “alternatives” during times of scarcity. It is estimated that Cuba has approximately 7

million hectares of land suitable for crop production. If this land would be farmed with diversified

agro-ecological methods, this would be sufficient to make Cuba not only food self-sufficient, but also

turn it into a food exporting nation. (Alteni and Funes-Monzote, 2012) One potential market for

Cuban products could be the United States (once the embargo is lifted) with its demand for natural,

organic products. Renewed trade with the U.S. would also reduce the costs for imports, as the U.S. is

Cuba’s closest neighbour. (Shkolnick, 2012) A return to industrial agriculture or a possible

involvement with genetically modified crop products, as alleged by Alteni and Funes, seems

therefore a rather short sighted and paradoxical approach.

Conclusion

The campesino a campesino movement of Latin-America is as much about agro-ecological farming as

it is a social movement and about the escape from old power structures and poverty. In this respect

Cuba is a somewhat different case. The Cuban government identified the small-hold farmers as a

vital tool in the combating of a threatening famine. By drawing on the knowledge of the campesinos

the economic crisis could be mitigated and the agriculture of the country could be adapted to the

new realities. The turn towards more ecologically sustainable methods of production was borne out

of necessity rather than conviction. It proved however that organic agriculture can be viable on a big

scale and that it can be sufficient to feed a whole country. It is highly questionable if this could have

been achieved without the centralised structure of the Cuban political system and the vital role the

ANAP played in implementing, monitoring and evaluating the reforms. The interventions in

agricultural policies during the special period turned a potential catastrophe into a success story for

the supporters of agro-ecological farming and also consolidated a socialist regime during a time

when other socialist regimes around the world collapsed. One should not forget however, that at the

11

root of the success were the peasant farmers with their abilities, knowledge and a will to produce

food.

12

Bibliography

Alteni, M. and Funes-Monzote, F. 2012: The paradox of Cuban Agriculture. Links. Internet Journal of

Socialist Renewal. Available: http://links.org.au/node/2704

Gliessman, R. & Rosemeyer, M. 2010: The Conversion to Sustainable Agriculture. Boca Raton. CRC

Press. P. 205 – 239.

Hoffmann, B. and Whitehead, L. 2006: Cuban Exceptionalism Revisited. German Institute of Global

and Area Studies. No. 28 September 2006. p. 9; 10. Available:

http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/lsn/abstracts/932909.html viewed 10/02/2014.

Holt-Giménez, E. 2006: Campesino a Campesino. Voices from Latin America’s Farmer to Farmer

Movement for sustainable Agriculture. Oakland; Food First Books.

Linton Page, T. 2010: Can the state create campesinos? A comparative analysis of the Venezuelan

and Cuban repeasantization programmes. Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 10 No. 2, April 2010. P

251 – 258. Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2009.00244.x/abstract

viewed 10/02/2014

Patel, R. 2007: Stuffed and Starved. Brooklyn. Melville House Printing. p. 170

Rosset et al, 2011: Rossett, M. Braulio, M. Adilén, M. Dana, R. The Campesino-to-Campesino

agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: social process methodology in the construction of

sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies. Vol. 38, No. 1,

January 2011, p. 161 – 191. Available:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03066150.2010.538584#.Ut1F50Cvljo viewed

20/01/2014

Shkolnick, J. 2012: Sin Embargo; The Cuban Agricultural Revolution and what it means for the United

States. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law. Fall 2012. Vol. 17. Issue 3. Available: http://0-

web.ebscohost.com.library.ucc.ie/ehost/resultsadvanced?sid=7140c464-394f-4e98-af2e-

70fec85dafc7%40sessionmgr4003&vid=12&hid=4204&bquery=TI+(sin+embargo

%3aThe+Cuban+Agricultural+Revolution)&bdata=JmRiPWJ0aCZkYj1hOWgmdHlwZT0xJnNpdGU9ZW

hvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d viewed: 20/01/2014

13

Sosa et al, 2013: Sosa, B.M. Jaime, A.M.R. Lozano, D.R.A. Rosset, P.M. Agroecological Revolution: The

Farmer-to-Farmer Movement of the ANAP in Cuba. ANAP. Havana. p. 110 Avaiable:

http://www.viacampesina.org/en/index.php/publications-mainmenu-30/1448-agroecological-

revolution-the-farmer-to-farmer-movement-of-the-anap-in-cuba Viewed 28/01/2014

Wright, J. 2009: Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in an Era of Oil Scarcity. London. Earthscan

p. xv, xvi, 243.

14