III. Reforming Cuban Agriculture While the rural infrastructure, services, and ment. “It made us pay attention to more standard of living were dramatically trans- rational methods.” (Sullivan, 2000).9 formed in the first four decades of the Cuban Now ten years later, the economy is slowly revolution, Cuban agriculture had not lost its reemerging. The GNP has grown every year taste for producing, milling, and exporting since 1995, reaching 6.2% for 1999 and an sugar. The Cuban model—characterized by estimated 4.6% for 2000. Employment is large state farms, mono-cropping, heavy use up, productivity is up, and exports are up. of mechanization and chemical inputs, cen- In agriculture, certain sectors, including pro- tralized planning, and dependence on import- duction of fruits, vegetables, and tubers for ed agricultural supplies and imported domestic consumption, have turned around foodstuffs—was sustained only through highly completely. Caloric intake rebounded to generous terms of trade of Cuban sugar for 2,473 and 51.6 grams per person—not great Soviet oil. By not producing food for domes- compared to the 1980s, but still a 33% tic consumption and by not addressing its increase compared to 1994. Neither the World Bank nor the Int e r n a t i o n a l Luckily—and I choose my wor ds caref u l l y — l u c k i l y Mon e t a r y Fund nor other international lenders 10 the roof caved in for us in 1989,” said Mavis came to Cub a ’s aid. The rec o ver y in agriculture came from internal reo r g a n i z a t i o n — n e w policies, Al va r ez, a leader in the Cuban farmers movement. ne w actors, new systems. The goal, according to Cuban Vice Minister of Agriculture Alfred o high input and low productivity problems, Gut i é r r ez, is that “Cuban agriculture has to stand Cuban agriculture became very vulnerable to a on its own two feet. We need to over come the rupture with its Soviet and eastern bloc trad- myth that agriculture must be subsidized . ” ing partners. (Gu t i é r r ez intervi e w, May 2001) The over h a u l Even before the economic crisis of the entailed major structural changes, such as: 1990s, Cuban agriculture showed decline. For • decentralization Cuban style, through years assessments pointed to slipping produc- the conversion of large state farms into tivity and increasing investment costs. In thousands of smaller farmers cooperatives 1985 the Ministry of Agriculture promoted a and leasing land in usufruct to thousands new Programa Alimentario which proposed to of private farmers; diversify agriculture and to produce more food for domestic consumption. Vested inter- • urban gardening and ecological agricul- ests in the old model, however, stalled the ture, which altered the topography of rural program before it was even implemented.8 It Cuba, introducing greater diversity and took the collapse of the Soviet Union and the organic practices and greening the cities eastern bloc for Cuban planners to radically with thousands of micro farms; rethink agricultural development. “Luckily— • reforming distribution through intro- and I choose my words carefully—luckily the duction of markets, price incentives, and roof caved in for us in 1989,” said Mavis profitability. Alvarez, a leader in the Cuban farmers move- These measures, taken as a whole, make up other res o u r ce management. Government plan- Cuba’s “third agrarian reform,” every bit as ners and farm leaders alike believed that coopera- profound as the major land expropriations ti v e members would be positive about the change and redistributions of the first two reforms of and be motivated to work. This assumption was 1959 and 1963. verified in an early study by a leading American res e a rc h e r , Carmen Diana Dee re . De c e n t ra l i z a tion of Prod u c t i o n Because they believe that they will be the beneficiaries, cooperative members are also Con ver sion of State Farms wo r king longer hours and putting in much in t o Coo p e r ati v es gr eater effort. More o ver , it is apparent that as In September 1993, the Cuban gover n m e n t owners of the means of production, they take un v eiled a major reorganization in agriculture: better care of their equipment and farm imple- res t r ucturing state farms as private cooperatives . ments. The members also feel empower ed to As President Fidel Castro explained in the Cub a n a certain degree, for they are now parti c i p a t i n g ne wspaper Gran m a (12/29/93), “The state has in production decisions for the first time and not had success in large farm business.” Dec re e ha v e elected their own management, sometimes 142 affected most of the state holdings—a total in contested elections—something quite new in 11 of 41.2% of the arable land in Cub a —and cre- the Cuban political scene. ated 2,007 new cooperatives whose membership Unlike the large state farms, the UBPCs 12 totaled 122,000 people. Called Basic Units of are smaller enterprises, member-owned and Co o p e r a t i v e Production (UBPC), the coopera- member-managed. The cooperative, not the ti v es now make up the largest sector in Cub a n state, owns the production, and the coopera- ag r i c u l t u r e. The new policy was based on the fact tive member earns based on his or her share of that smaller farms would be more easily managed the cooperative’s income. The cooperatives and better able to take on sustainable agriculture also own the buildings and farm equipment practices, which was now vital given the lack of purchased from the government at discounted 13 agricultural inputs. This was seen as a new for- prices with long-term, low-interest loans (4% mula promoting decentralized decision-making interest). The greatest structural difference about production but allowing a centralized plan- between the UBPCs and other cooperatives is ning so essential for planned biological diver s i t y , that the state retains ownership of the land pest control at a regional level, and water and and leases the land on a long-term basis, rent- andholding in Rur al Cuba (199 2 and 1997 ) 199 2 199 7 CCSs 11% UBPCs 42% CP As 10% St ate 33% Un a f f i l l i a ted 3% St ate 76% CCSs 12% CP As 9% Un a f f i l l i a ted 4% BPC is a basic unit of cooperative production. CPA is an agricultral production cooperative. CCS is a credit and services cooperative. Members of a UBPC cooperat i v e in the Hava n a pr ovince work ha r der and are mo r e committed than before, but the track rec o r d of the UBPCs has not been as st r ong as hoped. [St e v e Cag a n ] free, to the UBPC cooperative. Deere has yea r , for example, only 200 head of cattle characterized the transformation as “. the died between ours and a neighboring gigantic state farm sector was, in reality, priva- UBPC. With less than we had before, we tized,” although Deere and others recognize ar e producing more than before. that the state reserves the right to “dissolve Now eight years after the founding of the whatever UBPC . on the basis of the social UBPCs, the track rec o r d of new cooperatives is or economic interest as determined by the not as strong as was hoped. While no one calls Government” (Gaceta Oficial, 9/21/93). for a return to the state farm era, difficulties con- Many expected that replacing state farms with tinue to stymie their development. The UBPCs “so c i a l i ze d ” private enterprise would unleash inherited a highly mechanized high-input agri- en t re p r eneurial energy and rev erse the low pro- cultural model at a time when inputs are scarce ductivity found on the state farms. And for some and costly (credit and extension services have also UBPCs, the reform did mean that. Ramon Per a , been reduced). The cooperatives wer e born not the president of the cattle UBPC Mart i r es de out of plenty, like the small farmers in the agrari- Moncada in Ciego de Avila province, spoke posi- an reform thirty years earlier, but out of scarci t y , ti v ely about the conversion in a December 1999 and they lack the means of production. In addi- in t e rv i e w (R. Pera, personal communication, tion, UBPCs have shown difficulty in ret a i n i n g December 15, 1999): their workf o r ce due to inadequate living condi- With less res o u r ces than before, we are bet- tions, working conditions, and pay. And without ter small businesses than under the state a federation to unite the individual UBPCs, simi- farm system. Th e r e is a sense of own e r s h i p , lar to the ANAP cooperatives federation, the the farms are smaller and easier to manage. UBPC movement has been unable to arti c u l a t e We are more autonomous.