1 CUBAN SMALL FARM LIV ELIHOOD STRATEGIES: A CASE STUDY OF FIFTEEN HOUSEHOLDS IN THE SIERRA DEL ROSARIO REGION By VANESSA KENDALL HARPER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006
2 Copyright 2006 by Vanessa Kendall Harper
3 For my parents, John and Barbara.
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Achieving my academic goals was possible beca use of the continuous and self-sacrificing love of my parents, John and Barbara, and my si blings, Elizabeth and Matthew. Each of them encourages and whole-heartedly nurtures my vision. They have provided me with emotional and financial support throughout th is process, and for that I am most grateful. This thesis would not have b een possible without the incredib le support of my advisory committee. I would like to thank Peter Hildebrand for first inspiring me to work in Cuba and who, despite my lengthy procrastination at times, never lost faith in my ability to accomplish my goals. He spent countless hours ed iting this thesis, offering valu able advice and expertise, and encouraging my academic development. I w ould like to thank Fred Royce and William A. Messina, Jr. for playing such inst rumental roles in helping me to acquire permission to work in Cuba, as well as for both the development and executi on of this thesis. I w ould also like to thank Robert McSorley for his continuous support throughout the process of this work and especially for his ecological expertise and innovative ideas. Guillermo GÃ¡lvez was instrumental in helping me to acquire the needed permission to conduc t research in Cuba, in partnering me with collaborating Cuban institutions, and assisting me in many ways during my stay in Havana. I am much appreciative of his time and efforts. I would like to acknowledge both the University of Florida (U F) and the University of Havana (UH) and the many people who assisted in acquiring both permission and visas that allowed my travel to Cuba. Among them I wi sh to thank Dennis Jett, Dean of U.F.Â’s International Center, as well as Christina Diaz a nd Carmen Castillo of U.H.Â’s office of the vicerectoria . I would also like to thank the Center for Latin American Studies at UF and the Tinker Foundation for awarding me supplemental funds for travel to and w ithin Cuba during the summer of 2006.
5 The Cuban institutions and their personnel involv ed in this study were essential to the execution and success of the wor k. I would like to thank the Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en Agricultura Tropical (Institute for Fundamental Investigations in Tropical Agriculture or INIFAT) for accepting my proposal and agreeing to be a primary collaborative partner in this study. The pers onnel of INIFAT provided me with their time, materials, and expertise, all of which contributed significantly to this research. From INIFAT, I would like to acknowledge the following people for their indi vidual attention and s upport: Zoila Fundora, Leonor CastiÃ±eras, Raul CrÃstobal, TomÃ¡s Shagar odsky, and, most notably, Lianne FernÃ¡ndez. Lianne dedicated significant amounts of her time a nd expertise to this st udy. I would like to especially thank her for her tran slating assistance and her hard work and dedication. She has not only proven to be an exceptional collaborative, academic partner, but a dear friend as well. I would also like to thank the personnel at the Sierra del Ro sario Research Station located in the Sierra del Rosario Biosphere Reserve. Personnel provided me with housing, meals, and transportation during fieldwork. They also contri buted greatly to this study by offering useful advice and expertise. I would especially like to acknowledge Ma ritza GarcÃa, Fidel HernÃ¡ndez, and Raudel GarcÃa for their time, knowledge, a nd for making fieldwork fun. Additionally I would like to thank Julio and Raudel for being great chauffeurs and Juli o and Manuel for proving great meals. In addition, I would like to tha nk a number of people in Cuba for taking the time to assist me during my stay. I owe a special thanks to Liane de Armas for her assistance with language training and for being a friend during my stay in Havana. I would like to thank Armando Nova, Fernando Funes, and Mavis Alvarez for taking their time to meet with me about my research. I would also like to thank Carmita, Enrique, En riquito, Brilly, Tony, Al fonso, Ideina, and once
6 again, Lianne, for taking such good care of me du ring my stay in Cuba. Their generosity and unconditional support proved extraordinary and I will always consider them as mi familia Cubana . I would also like to thank my many friends who provided additional support throughout the process of this research, most notably: Gale n McGee, Jennifer Pope, Daniel Nevins, Buster OÂ’Conner, Dana Rasmussen, Dave Wilsey, Shay Du mas, and Britt Coles. I would like to thank Nora and Pamela as well for their emotional suppor t throughout this entire process. Rick Stepp provided a tremendous amount of support during my academic development and throughout the process of this thesis and to him I am grateful. In conclusion, I also want to thank the fa rmers and their families for agreeing to be involved in this study. Each farmer spent numerous hours talking with me. I am much appreciative of their honesty and efforts in helping to make this work successful. They are an amazing group of people and I have learned a great deal from them. I will never forget their kindness or their hospitality.
7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ........10 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......11 LIST OF OBJECTS................................................................................................................ .......15 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .18 Background..................................................................................................................... ........18 Problematic Situation.......................................................................................................... ....20 Researchable Problem........................................................................................................... .21 Objectives and Procedures...................................................................................................... 22 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....23 Research Design and Methods................................................................................................24 Significance of the Research..................................................................................................2 7 History of Collaboration....................................................................................................... ..28 Organization of the Thesis..................................................................................................... .28 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE A ND FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS...............................30 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........30 The Farming System Approach to Res earch, Development, and Extension..........................36 Sustainable Livelihood Perspective........................................................................................38 Mixed Method Framework.....................................................................................................40 Multidisciplinary Research and Complex Systems................................................................41 The Ecosystem Concept and Systems Ecology......................................................................42 Ecological Economics........................................................................................................... .44 The Human Ecosystem Approach..........................................................................................45 Ethnographic Linear Programming........................................................................................46 3 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY: AN OVER VIEW OF THE AGROECOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL ECONOMY CONTEXTS OF CUBA FROM PAST TO PRESENT...............51 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........51 Contextual Relevance to the Thesis........................................................................................51 Cuba from Early Inhabitants to 1959......................................................................................52 The Cuban Revolution: Cuba from 1959 to 1989..................................................................64 The Special Period in Time of Peace: Cuba from 1990 to 2003............................................86
8 Complexity, Diversity, a nd Change: Cuba Today..................................................................91 4 RESEARCH LOGISTICS, DESIGN, AND METHODOLOGY...........................................97 Research Logistics............................................................................................................. .....97 Obtaining Permission......................................................................................................97 Principal Collaborator...................................................................................................100 INIFATÂ’s Research Project and its Relevance to the Thesis........................................101 Timeline....................................................................................................................... ..104 Phase 1 of primary research...................................................................................104 Phase 2 of primary research...................................................................................105 Research Design, Methodology and Techniques..................................................................107 Research Design............................................................................................................107 Research Framework, Perspective and Approaches......................................................108 Sample Selection and Unit of Analysis.........................................................................110 Sources and Accuracy of Data......................................................................................110 Research Methodology..................................................................................................112 Research Techniques for Data Collection.....................................................................115 Purposive conversations.........................................................................................115 Modified sondeos and semi-structured interviews.................................................116 Direct observation..................................................................................................117 Free-listing and surveys.........................................................................................118 5 THE SETTING: BIOPHYSICAL A ND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT.........................121 Orientation.................................................................................................................... ........121 Ecological Characteristics....................................................................................................1 21 The Sierra del Rosario Ecol ogical Research Station............................................................125 Specific Locality.............................................................................................................. .....126 Socioeconomic Characteristics.............................................................................................127 6 THE LIVELIHOOD SYSTEM: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.......................................136 Introduction................................................................................................................... ........136 Geographical Situation......................................................................................................... 136 Household Composition.......................................................................................................137 Land Use and Tenure............................................................................................................ 138 Household Economics..........................................................................................................14 2 The Market..................................................................................................................... .......146 Cooperatives, ACOPIO and Se lling Surplus Production.....................................................152 Production Activities.......................................................................................................... ..159 Plant Production............................................................................................................160 Animal Production.........................................................................................................165 Value-Added Production...............................................................................................168 Plant-based value-added production......................................................................169 Animal-based value-added production...................................................................170 Forestry-based value-added production.................................................................171
9 Other Production...........................................................................................................173 Off-Farm Work and Additional Cash Income...............................................................174 Factors Limiting Production.................................................................................................175 Post-Harvest Storage of Production......................................................................................179 Reproduction Activities........................................................................................................ 180 Household Integration into the Market.................................................................................182 Point of Contact with the Market..................................................................................182 Annual Cash Income and Market Expenses..................................................................185 Primary Production Activities and Prices Earned from Each Market Outlet................187 Limitations and Constraints..................................................................................................18 7 7 THE ETHNOGRAPHIC LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODEL........................................244 Introduction................................................................................................................... ........244 The Ethnographic Linear Programming Model Process......................................................244 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................248 APPENDIX A PLANT SPECIES FOUND ON FARMS.............................................................................255 B TYPE AND NUMBER OF ANIMALS PER HOUSEHOLD.............................................256 C RANGE OF PRICES OF PRODUCTS SOLD TO EACH MARKET OUTLET................257 D SUMMARY OF HOUSEHOL D CHARACTERISTICS.....................................................258 E CONVERSION FACTORS FOR TR ADITIONAL CUBAN MEASURES.......................259 F HUMAN ECOSYSTEM MODEL.......................................................................................260 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 261 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................271
10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 6-1 Number of years each household has participated in their respective CCSs...................206 6-2 Amount of pesos or production paid to the CCS following the sale of production.........208
11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Ten distinct forms of organization with in three primary categ ories of production (State, non-State, and mixed) of CubaÂ’s agricultural sector..............................................49 2-2 Sustainable rural livelihoods : a framework for analysis....................................................50 3-1 CubaÂ’s geographical situa tion with reference to surr ounding countries and bodies of water.......................................................................................................................... .........94 3-2 Provinces of Cuba.......................................................................................................... ....95 3-3 Digitized copy of the first page of the original Pla tt Amendment of 1903........................96 4-1 Schematic diagram illustrating the steps of the ELP methodology.................................120 5-1 Biogeographic regions of Cuba.......................................................................................130 5-2 Photo of a typical view in the Sierra del Rosario.............................................................131 5-3 Map of Cuba with the loca tions of the six United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural OrganizationÂ’s (UNESCO) designated biosphere reserves........................132 5-4 Photo of the Sierra del Rosario Ec ological Research Station entrance...........................133 5-5 Illustration of the wester n provinces of Cuba (Pinar del Rio and Havana) with emphasis on the geographical locality of the four municipalities....................................134 5-6 Photo of the Las Terrazas community located within the Sierra del Rosario Biosphere Reserve...........................................................................................................135 6-1 Photo of a house located within the Si erra del Rosario mountains surrounded by undulating terrain ( baldio ) that is impossible to cultivate...............................................189 6-2 Photo of a house located in the lowlands of the Sierra del Rosario near town and surrounded by flat land....................................................................................................190 6-3 Household composition of each farm household.............................................................191 6-4 Amounts (hectares) of each category of land and total land held by each household.....192 6-5 Photo of a housing structure, which occ upies space within land comprising the house and homegarden...............................................................................................................19 3 6-6 Photo of the son of a farmer harvesting Ipomoea batatas ( boniato or sweet potato) on a typical plot of farmla nd located in a hillside.................................................................194
12 6-7 Photo of a typical pasture with Royal Palm Trees ( Roystonia regia .) utilized as a grazing area for livestock.................................................................................................195 6-8 Total amount (hectares) of land versus to tal amount (hectares) of agricultural land per household.................................................................................................................. .196 6-9 Percent of all fifteen house holds that either hold land in usufruct, are proprietor of their land, or both............................................................................................................ .197 6-10 Percent of total annual producti on consumed and sold per household............................198 6-11 Amount of pesos spent on additional rice per year..........................................................199 6-12 Schematic diagram of the agricultural ma rket system as defined by the members of the 15 farm households....................................................................................................200 6-13 Photo of a typical Cuban bodega where Cubans receive Stat e-rationed items, located in Havana, Cuba...............................................................................................................2 01 6-14 Photo of a typical Cuban commercia l store that sells consumer goods in pesos cubanos (CUCs), located in Havana, Cuba.....................................................................202 6-15 Photo of Lianne FernÃ¡ndez Granda interviewing vendors at a typical Cuban mercado libre agropecuario (MLA), located in Havana, Cuba.....................................................203 6-16 Photo of a typical punto de venta (point of sale) where CCS members can sell their surplus agricultural pro duction, located in Havana Province, Cuba................................204 6-17 Photo of a farmer holding two limas that were purchased on the black market..............205 6-18 Photo of a typical contract be tween ACOPIO and a CCS farmer...................................207 6-19 Amount in pesos paid to CCS per year for emergency funds and social services...........209 6-20 Total plant types considered mo st important for all 15 households................................210 6-21 Plant production livelihood st rategies (i.e. activities) c onsidered most important for household consumption...................................................................................................211 6-22 Most common plant production livelihood stra tegies (i.e. activities) considered most important for household consumption.............................................................................212 6-23 Photo of a farmer harvesting Manihot esculenta ( yuca or cassava) from his farm for household consumption...................................................................................................213 6-24 Photo of palmiche (the fruits of Roystonea regia ( palma real or royal palm)) [left] and coffee beans (the fruits of Coffea arabica ( cafÃ© or coffee).......................................214
13 6-25 Plant production livelihood st rategies (i.e. activities) c onsidered most important to households for generating cash........................................................................................215 6-26 Most common plant production livelihood stra tegies (i.e. activities) considered as most economically important by households...................................................................216 6-27 Total types of animals present in all 15 farming systems and presence of each type for each household...........................................................................................................21 7 6-28 Types of animals most important fo r household consumption for each of the 15 households..................................................................................................................... ...218 6-29 Photo of a typical turkey raised and killed for meat for the annual celebration el fin de aÃ±o ............................................................................................................................... 219 6-30 Primary types of animals considered most economically important for generating cash for all 15 households................................................................................................220 6-31 Value-added production activities of th e livelihood system and which households consider a given activity a primar y value-added livelihood strategy..............................221 6-33 Value-added production livelihood strate gies considered most important for generating cash................................................................................................................ .221 6-34 Photo of dulce de fruta bomba ( Carica papaya ), a typical sweet food made by cooking papaya, sugar, and water....................................................................................222 6-35 Photo of Lycopersicon spp. bottled as pure de tomate (tomato sauce), Ipomoea batatas ( boniato or sweet potato), and Oryza spp. ( arroz or rice) for sale to particulares (individuals).................................................................................................223 6-36 Photo of value-added orquidias ornamentales (orchid ornamentals) sold on the side of the road to tourists and local particulares (individuals). The pl ant is attached to a quartered, dried coconut, which is then attached to a piece of wood and a metal wire for hanging.................................................................................................................... ...224 6-37 Photo of a man selling queso (cheese) and barra de guayaba (bar of guava jelly), illegally, along the side of the road..................................................................................225 6-38 Photo of madera (wood) piled and prepar ed to burn to produce carbÃ³n (charcoal).......226 6-39 Photo of madera (wood) slowly burning over many hours to produce carbÃ³n (charcoal) for both household consum ption and sale to the market................................227 6-40 Photo of handcrafted herramientas (tools) made on farm for both household consumption and sale to particulares (individuals) to generate cash..............................228
14 6-41 Photo of a handcrafted pilÃ³n (large, wooden mortar) made to sell to particulares (individuals) to genera te household cash.........................................................................229 6-42 Other production livelihood strategies (i.e. activities) of the livelihood system and which households engage in each for household consumption or use.............................230 6-43 Other production livelihood strategies (i.e. activities) of the livelihood system and which households engage in each for the purpose of generating cash............................230 6-44 Photo of a typical bohÃo ciclÃ³n used for everyday storage and shelter during hurricanes..................................................................................................................... ....231 6-45 Trees harvested for the production of carbÃ³n (charcoal) and madera (wood) for household consumption and sale.....................................................................................232 6-46 Amount of retirement pesos per househol d per year and disaggregated according to sex............................................................................................................................ ........233 6-47 Photo of a container holding pe sticide that was bought from the mercado negro (black market) and sprayed on a plot of farmland by a farmer during an interview.......234 6-48 Photo of a farmer holding a fruit (coffee bean) of Coffea arabica infested with la broca ( Hypothenemus hampei or coffee berry borer beetle ). This infestation makes the coffee beans unusable for household consumption or sale to ACOPIO....................235 6-49 Photo of harvested Pouteria sapota (mamey) that was quickly sold to an intermediario (intermediary) because of a lack of storage facilities...............................236 6-50 Reproduction activities, in cluding off-farm work and other activities, and which households engage in each...............................................................................................237 6-51 Market outlets that each household sells to on a regular basis........................................238 6-52 Amount of pesos earned per household from selling at the feria in September 2005.....239 6-53 Photo of tables set up at the feria with farmerÂ’s surplus agricultural production for sale to the public............................................................................................................. .240 6-54 Annual cash income reported by each household............................................................241 6-55 Comparison of reported annual cash inco me earned (pesos) and total amount spent (pesos) on additional rice per year...................................................................................242 6-56 Total amount of pesos spent in the formal and informal economies per household during 2005.................................................................................................................... ..243 7-1 An example of a linear programming matr ix and its components that serves as the basic matrix of an ELP livelihood system model............................................................247
15 LIST OF OBJECTS Object page 6-1 Figure 6.20 as an Excel file..............................................................................................2 10 6-2 Figure 6-21 as an Excel file.............................................................................................21 1 A-1 Excel file of plant species found on farms.......................................................................255 B-1 Excel file of type and nu mber of animals per household.................................................256 C-1 Excel file of range of prices of products sold to each market outlet................................257 D-1 Excel file of summary of household characteristics........................................................258 F-1 Human ecosystem model of a small-scale, agriculture system in Cuba (household scale)......................................................................................................................... .......260
16 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science CUBAN SMALL FARM LIV ELIHOOD STRATEGIES: A CASE STUDY OF FIFTEEN HOUSEHOLDS IN THE SIERRA DEL ROSARIO REGION By Vanessa Kendall Harper December 2006 Chair: Peter E. Hildebrand Major Department: Interdisciplinary Ecology This research presents a modi fied, exploratory case study, in human ecological perspective, of 15 small-scale farm households located among ei ght communities in four municipalities and two provinces within the Sierra de l Rosario region of western Cuba. It is a collaborative effort among the University of Florida (UF), the Univ ersity of Havana (UH), the Cuban Institute, El Instituto de Investigaciones Fundam entales en Agricultura Tropical (Institute for Fundamental Investigations in Tropical Agri culture or INIFAT), and the au thor. These small-scale farm households have a highly complex livelihood system because it is impacted not only by biophysical conditions, but also Cubaâ€™s unique sociopolitical economy. Farmers produce a wide range of products derived from both plants and animals. Perhap s most critical are the farmersâ€™ marketing arrangements that force this into bei ng a significantly more co mplex livelihood system than what is found in mo st developing countries. These farm households are first homes and seco nd businesses and are best characterized as subsistence farm households. Farm-household liv elihood strategies (i.e. the activities they choose to be involved in) are selected for this dual purpose. In order to achieve food security and meet annual cash needs, these farm households must diversify their livelihood activities in an effort to meet their primary household goa ls. They must produce enough food to meet
17 household consumption requirements while simulta neously delivering thei r quotas to the State collector agency, ACOPIO. They must also produce enough products be yond their quota to sell for necessary, as well as some discretionary, cash income. Data collected suggest that households are adap table and maintain a high level of resilience via diversified livelihood strategies (both agricultural and non-a griculturally based) but continue to face varying, but chronic, levels of uncertainty and food insecurity. Consequently, diversification of livelihood stra tegies is the mechanism through which households cope with a restrictive yet dynamic political economy a nd limited resource access and availability. Households indicated that they each actively inco rporate 8 to 20 plant-based activities, 2 to 11 livestock-based activities, and 1 to 4 value-added production activ ities. Some households also incorporate other production ac tivities and/or generate cash income from off-farm work. Household members act as entrepreneurs by pe rceiving opportunities to engage in cashproducing activities and independent ly organizing, operating, and assuming any associated risk to create products in order to generate needed cash income. This entrepreneurship often enables household members to meet minimum consump tion requirements (of both food and non-food consumer goods) but continues to be constrained in the face of the complexity of CubaÂ’s political economy, a lack of access to the free agricultural mark ets, the inconsistency and/or unavailability of critical agricultural inputs and other resources, and enviro nmental factors such as geography and climate.
18 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Small-scale tropical agricultural systems wo rldwide exhibit many similarities. These systems are often subsistence-oriented, resource-limited, and usually integrate multiple crops and livestock to form complex systems of biologica l diversity. Underlying these similarities are dynamic interrelationships between humans and the biophysical environment. As dynamic systems, they are subject to perturbation and change . This is a study of such a system in western Cuba and the economic and political circumstances that have driven systemic shocks that have created changes both within and bey ond individual control. In this thesis I set out to understand, describe, model, and subsequently analyze political, economic, and ecolo gical factors that drive small-scale agriculture of 15 farm households and their encompassing liv elihood system in four municipalities within the Sierra de l Rosario region of western Cuba. Background In order to understand the pres ent context of Cuba, one must begin with the islandÂ’s unique socioeconomic and political development from a gl obal perspective, over time, and recognize its inextricable link to Cuban agri cultural history. Also impera tive to understanding present day Cuba is familiarity with U.S. influence on CubaÂ’s history as illustrated by U.S.-Cuba relations, over time. Following European conquest in the late 1400s, CubaÂ’s biophysical and human geography began a dramatic and continuous change . In the centuries that followed, Europeans and Americans settled the landscape, establishing large-scale cattle haciendas (ranches), coffee and tobacco farms, and monoculture sugar pl antations. By the 1700s, CubaÂ’s production had entered the global market and by the late 1800s, th e sugar industry had become the dominant unit of agriculture on the island, often driving the pe riodic rises and declines of the Cuban economy into the 1900s.
19 Throughout these centuries, CubaÂ’s dependence on the United States (USA) strengthened both politically and economically. The USA pr ovided military support to Cuba during her fight for independence against Spain. By the mid1950s, Cuba and the USA were primary trading partners. In 1959, Fidel Castro le d the Cuban Revolution to power. Agrarian land reform laws and expropriation of lands and businesses (USA a nd other nations as well) followed, as a more socialist leadership began consequential socio economic and political modifications. U.S.-Cuba relations steadily declined as the USA initiated an economic embargo and Cuba became a full member of the Soviet-based Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON). Agrarian issues remained a focus in Cuba and State-cont rolled collectivization of land (into State farms and cooperatives) was promoted as a supe rior form of socialist agriculture. CubaÂ’s economy grew throughout the 1970s a nd 1980s, largely as a result of Soviet subsidies. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, coupled with the disintegration of COMECON, propelled Cuba in to a sudden resource cr isis in 1990. Almost overnight, Cuba faced extreme resource constraint s, as the country no longer received imports such as fuel, machinery, and foodstuffs on wh ich the economy had become dependent. This period of time, coined the PerÃodo Es pecial en el Tiempo de la Paz (Special Period in Time of Peace or Special Period), spawned a collaborative effort between the Cuban government and the Cuban people to promote and achieve food and re source self-sufficiency. These promotions have successfully contributed, to some degree, to CubaÂ’s resilience (i.e. th e ability to withstand the severe economic shock and continue to functi on) in the face of advers ity (e.g. loss of Soviet subsidies and related resource c onstraints, effects of the U.S. economic embargo, constrained sugar production). The implementation of low-input agricultural practices, the proliferation of urban gardening, the opening of the mercados libres agropecuarios (free agricultural markets or
20 MLAs), and the conservation of natural resources and endemic biological species, coupled with the Cuban economyÂ’s recent broader integration into the global trading system, are all efforts that have aided in the provision of the populati onÂ’s basic food, housing, ed ucational, and health needs (although FAO basic nutriti on requirements and achieving f ood security is debated among international scholars and institutions). Problematic Situation Although Cuba has made great strides sin ce the beginning of the Special Period and successfully provides the Cuban populace with ba sic food, housing, education, health care, and on occasion, the option for obtaining land for agricultural production, the people of Cuba continue to struggle with an increasingly complex political ec onomy and a lack of certain necessary resources that could ultimately improve their livelihoods. Sin ce the early 1990s, the Cuban government has broadened CubaÂ’s integra tion into the global trad ing system with the acquisition of new trading partne rs and the allowance of forei gn investment in the national tourist sector. They have also implemented se lected agricultural, free market mechanisms in order to make food more accessible to the Cuban population. However, along with the lack of additional market-oriented reforms, failure to repa ir relations with the US A, arguably, continues to constrain the growth of CubaÂ’s economy. The Cuban government provides its citizens with subsidized housing, health care, and food rations. However, most citizens must purchas e additional needed items such as clothing, household supplies, and additional food to compleme nt those rations received from the State. Therefore, Cubans must acquire some dispos able cash with which th ey can purchase these needed items. Broadly, Cubans acquire cash in come from either State or non-State employment. As State employees, Cubans work directly for th e State and are paid subsidized wages in Cuban pesos. This includes general employment by State institutions, as well as that in mixed
21 enterprise between the State and foreign invest ors (e.g. tourist and businesses such as hotels)1 and State pensions received for retirement. Employees in the non-State sector acquire cash income from profits from non-State, private en terprise. This type of employment includes private enterprises such as paladares (family-owned restaurants), casas particulares (familyowned houses that provide room s for international tourists),2 some agricultural cooperatives, and non-State, independent family farms. The non-St ate sector also includes remittance in hard currency sent from abroad. This thesis is concerned with how a group of fifteen Cuban farmers who work within nonState, private enterprise acquire food and cash to improve the quality of their livelihoods. In order to achieve food security and meet annual cash needs, these farm households must diversify their livelihood ac tivities in an effort to meet their primary household goals. Farmers must diversify production and produce enough food to meet household consumption requirements while simultaneously delivering their quotas to the State collecti on agency, ACOPIO, and diversifying their production to produce enough products be yond their quota to sell for necessary, as well as some discretionary, cash income. Researchable Problem Little is known about the mi cro-economy of these farm hous eholds by collaborating Cuban institutions. Research for this thesis was conducted in collaborat ion with the Universidad de La Habana (University of Havana or UH) and thr ough UH, the Cuban agricultural institution, El Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en Agricultura Tropical (In stitute for Fundamental 1 The State receives payment from foreign investors in hard currency (e.g . Euros) but pays State employees subsidized wages of Cuban pesos. Even though they are paid in Cuban pesos, employees of mixed enterprise, unlike other State employees, gene rally have access to tips in hard cu rrency and other material goods. 2 Private enterprises such as paladares and casas particulares are taxed by the State and are required to give a percentage of their profits to the State. The State also controls the capacity of these enterprises in an effort to curb their growth.
22 Investigations in Tropical Agricu lture or INIFAT). INIFAT is CubaÂ’s oldest agricultural institute and a primary academic, collaborative partner of UH. INIFATÂ’s research with these 15 farm hous eholds has primarily focused on genetic diversity present in the farming systems a nd gene flow both within and between their homegardens. Over the course of nine years, INIFATÂ’s research t eam has collected data regarding plant species diversity and usage, farmer decision-ma king, and seed selection, as well as preliminary socioeconomic data. Although INIF AT has worked with these farm households on a number of occasions for the purposes of thei r research and although th e research team has collected a wide variety of useful data, little or no data have been collected regarding livelihood strategies and microeconomics at the household level. My re search was designed to help INIFAT fill this gap. Objectives and Procedures The overall objective of this resear ch was to understand, describe, model, and analyze small-scale, farm households with resource limita tions in four municipali ties within the Sierra del Rosario region of western Cuba . The procedure used to meet this objective was to utilize the Ethnographic Linear Programming (ELP) me thodology to understand and describe and subsequently model the livelihood system of th ese 15 farm households. ELP is a methodology (described in greater detail in Ch apter 4) that guides the acquisit ion of household level data (both qualitative and quantitative) to achieve two goa ls: 1) an understanding of day-to-day household livelihood strategies3 that allows for a holistic descripti on of a selected groupÂ’s encompassing 3 Livelihood strategies are those activities that a particul ar household engages in from among all those available in its livelihood system (Hildebrand et al., 2003).
23 livelihood system4 and 2) the incorporation of indi vidual household data into a linear programming matrix in Excel that subsequently produces a mode l that that can predict diverse responses of heterogeneous households to new livelihood alternatives, emerging production technologies, and changing policies, as well as systemic shocks such as hurricanes, drought, and pest invasions (Hildebrand et al., 2003). This procedure involved two key aspects: 1. Qualitative description and subsequent an alysis of the livelihood system through identification of its components, constraints, potential flexibility, a nd household goals, while considering the greater political economy and agricultural history of Cuba. 2. Quantitative assessment of the current economic function of both individual households and the encompassing livelihood system from a micr oeconomic perspective in relation to the greater agroecological and political economy contexts of Cuba. Within this overall objective, a secondary specif ic objective was to provide the framework of an ELP model to the primary collaborato r, INIFAT, to be further refine d as a useful tool to explore household responses to systemic shocks (e.g. hu rricanes, drought, and pest invasions) and to provide projected responses to the implementatio n of alternative livelihood activities, improved infrastructure, emerging production t echnologies and changing policies, before such changes would be implemented. Research Questions The complex issue, the conceptual framew ork, and methodology regarding this research were defined prior to fieldwork. But, as with most exploratory case studies that utilize a mixed methods approach with knowledge claims grounded in pragmatism, research questions for this thesis evolved during fieldwork and the preliminary processing of data. Research questions explored throughout this thes is include the following: 4 A livelihood system is the full range of production and reproduction (i.e. those that contribute the maintenance of a household and its members) activities available to the individuals in all households in the system from which a particular household chooses its strategies that secure its livelihood (Hildebrand et al., 2003).
24 1. What livelihood strategies comprise the liveli hood system of selected farm households in four selected municipalities within the Si erra del Rosario region of western Cuba? a. Which livelihood strategies are pr imarily subsistence oriented? b. Which livelihood strategies are primarily market-oriented? c. Which livelihood strategies are both? 2. How do the selected farm households use the agrobiodiversity in their farming systems? 3. How do the selected farm households genera te cash (for both necessary items and any discretionary spending) using thei r surplus agricultural production? 4. What and approximately how many types of plan ts exist within the farming systems of the selected farm households and for what are they used? 5. From a microeconomic perspective, how is the market defined in this context? 6. What factors limit househol d participation in the mercados libres agropecuarios (free agricultural markets or MLAs) of Cuba? 7. What types of constraints exis t that affect household agricult ural production and cash income generation in order to meet household goals? 8. To what extent do the selected farm househol ds participate in ag ricultural c ooperatives? 9. How are the relationships between farm-household members and external institutions defined? a. What benefits are received or not received? b. What is the level of access available for assistance? 10. How do the selected farm households cope with resource limitations? Research Design and Methods This research utilizes a modi fied, exploratory case study rese arch design that is framed by a mixed method approach with knowledge clai ms based on pragmatic grounds. Case study designs are useful when a rese archer wants to explore a comp lex issue through description and contextual analysis (Creswell, 2003). Triangulation (i.e. mixed methods) is useful when the researcher intends to collect both qualitative and quantitative data, as each technique of data
25 collection contributes a slight ly different insight and allo ws for a more comprehensive understanding of th e study subject. This thesis is inherently interdisciplin ary and uses frameworks, perspectives, and approaches derived from many disciplines, al l of which underpin and enhance the driving methodology of this research. A sustainable liv elihood (SLA) approach guides this research within the overall mixed methods , case study design. An SLA approach centers on people and their livelihoods and places emphasis on unders tanding limited resource livelihoods and the factors that shape them, as well as the relations hips and interactions between them and their contextual environment, in a holistic manner. Additionally, this research draws from a number of diverse disciplines such as economics, anthropology, and ecology by utilizing various approaches within these disciplines. These additi onal approaches are discussed in more detail in Chapters 2 and 4 and include the following: 1. The farming systems approach to researc h, development, and extension (FSRD&E): Serves as the historical foundation of the ELP Methodology th at drives this research. 2. The complex systems approach of ecology: Applies the concepts of ecosystem a nd holism to guide a systems-oriented approach to understanding the many variables of interest and how they interact as a whole. 3. An ecological economics approach: Integrates the study of Â‘n atureÂ’s householdÂ’ (i.e. ecology) and Â‘humankindÂ’s householdÂ’ (i.e. economics) and serves as an approach to explore the integration and relational exchanges between nature, the economy, and the State. 4. The human ecosystem approach of ecological anthropology: A sub-approach of complex systems that considers humans and information flows as central components (along with en ergy and matter) in the concept of ecosystem. This approach is used to exp licitly illustrate the complexity, flows, and interactions of and within the livelihood system under observation (i.e. a
26 modified schematic model) and the agro ecological and politi cal economy contexts within which the research is situated, over time. The ELP methodology drives this research. Th e above disciplines, su b-disciplines, and approaches each underpin and enhance this methodology.5 Based on traditional linear programming, the ELP methodology was designed specifically to assist in understanding and examining potential interventions and improve ments for diverse rural livelihood systems. Individual household data con cerning livelihood strategies are collected from a sample of households and account for numerous variables including household composition, food and cash needs, seasonality, resource constraints (i.e. availability of fertilizer, etc), labor available and invested, types of production and reproduction activities, activities chosen, and the role of gender (among others). Detailed information concerning these and other relevant variables provides the basis to determine 1) what is done; 2) who does wh at; 3) when it is done; 4) why it is done; and 5) how it is done. This ultimately allows for a thorough understanding of the livelihood system (Hildebrand et al., 2003; Hildebrand and Sullivan, 2002). Once this information is gathered, it can be entered into a linear program matrix in Excel in order to generate a model of the livelihood sy stem of the community being investigated. Once calibrated and validated, a liv elihood system model can pr edict diverse responses of heterogeneous households to new livelihood alte rnatives, emerging production technologies, and changing policies, as well as systemic shocks su ch as hurricanes and dr ought or other drastic events that change policy or availability of re sources (Hildebrand et al., 2003; Hildebrand and Sullivan, 2002). This methodology is furt her described in Chapters 2 and 4. 5 Although the aforementioned disciplines, sub-disciplines , and approaches certainly influence this work, it is beyond the scope of this thesis to explore each of these in their entirety. In-depth, in terdisciplinary exploration is best conducted by using a team of scientists and professionals from a number of fields. Research at the thesis level does not allow for in-depth exploration from each discip linary perspective nor does it generally favor a teamresearch approach. However, as an interdisciplinary ecol ogist, effort was made to observe and collect data from many areas in order to meet the needs of this thesis.
27 Significance of the Research Studies focusing on Cuban agriculture, the ec onomy, and trade, most notably regarding sugarcane production and its expo rtation, had been a predominan t theme for many decades until the years following the Special Period when agricultural studies shifted their focus to postSpecial Period agricultural organi zation and production, sustainable agricultural practices, urban agricultural production, and govern ment emphasis on agricultural cooperative collectivization. Small-scale, independent, nonState farmers in Cuba are important contributors of agricultural products to both th e national food supply and export markets. This non-State component of the agricultural sect or has been of minimal focus in the literature, especially by researchers outside of Cuba. Of those studies th at have focused on this, most explore issues and aspects regarding the unidades bÃ¡sicas de producciÃ³n cooperativa (basic units of cooperative production or UBPCs) and the cooperativas de producciÃ³n agropecuarias (agricultural production cooperatives or CPAs). Little research to date ha s focused on independent farmers who own their own land, independent farmers wh o use land held in usufruct, or independent farmers who are members of a cooperativa de crÃ©dito y servicios (credit and service cooperatives or CCSs).6 This research aims to fill the gap in that literature. The ELP methodology was developed in the late 1990s and since then has been utilized by a number of graduate students and faculty whos e research focuses on small-scale, agricultural livelihoods. These studies have explored a range of aspects in diverse geographical locations throughout the world. However, no research to date has utilized this novel methodology to explore small-scale, agricultural livelihoods in Cuba . This research aims to fill the gap in that 6 Examples of works that have focused on these are SaÃ©z (1997) and Ricardo (2003).
28 literature as well by contributing to the growing ELP literature targeting tropical smallholder livelihoods. History of Collaboration The University of Florida (UF) and UH have a long history of academic collaboration that precedes the Cuban Revolution of 1959. It began in the 1930s. In fact, the first U.F. honorary degree was presented to a Cuban ambassador and of all the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, UH was the first to participate in an academic exchange agreement with UF. For the decades that followed, the University of Florid a was a prime destination for Cuban students studying abroad. However, during the 1960s, relati ons between Cuba and the USA were strained due to differing political ideologies and economic agendas. As a result, professional, academic exchange of information between th e two universities all but ceased. In the early 1990s, collaborative efforts be tween the two universi ties recommenced but because of continued sociopolitical differences, academic exchanges and collaborative research efforts have been difficult. In 2003, UF and UH signed a cooperat ive agreement, establishing an initiative to promote further academic collabor ation. More recently, a Cuban studies working group was formed through U.F.Â’s Center for Latin American Studies that has attracted a number of faculty from a wide range of disciplines inte rested in conducting rese arch in Cuba. Also, a U.S. Treasury Department institutional license was renewed by UF in 2005, paving the way for future faculty and student resear ch between the two universities. Organization of the Thesis The body of the thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 provides a review of the relevant literature, emphasizing the theore tical and conceptual components that drive the framework and significance of this research. Chapter 3 presen ts a chronological hist ory of Cuba from preEuropean contact to the present while consid ering the agroecological and political economy
29 contexts, incorporating U.S. influence on CubaÂ’s history as illustrated by U.S.-Cuba relations, over time. This chapter is not intended to be comprehensive but rather aims to present key events and illustrate relevant linkages. Chapter 4 describes in detail the research design, techniques, and methodology utilized for this research. It also further introduces the primary collaborators of the research, the University of Havana and INIFAT, and explains the deve lopment and evolution of the study during two periods of primary data collection. Chapte r 5 introduces the area of study, the four municipalities within the Sierra del Rosario region of western C uba and the Sierra del Rosario Biosphere Reserve that encompasses significant por tions of each of these municipalities. This chapter describes both the ecological and socioec onomic characteristics of the locality. Chapter 6 presents data collected and analyzes the livelihood strategies a nd encompassing livelihood system of the selected farm households. Chap ter 7 presents a descri ption of the Ethnographic Linear Programming model. And Chapter 8 concludes with a summary of the finding, final thoughts, and recommendations for future research.
30 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS Introduction Agriculture, throughout time, has played a central role in th e evolution of human culture, allowing the transition from small-scale hunter-gather societies to large-scale, nation states. This transition has occurred at different rates, ove r time. Regardless of a countryÂ’s stage of agricultural development, ther e are shared problems of pr oduction and food security found across biomes and ecosystems. Although tropical ag ricultural systems, in theory, could produce food crops throughout the year, there are numerous biophysical and socioeconomic factors that prevent this from b ecoming reality. Many tropical countries have acid ic soils with low natural fertility and seasonality that ra nges from very wet to very dry, which often makes these systems highly susceptible to pest invasions and natura l disasters such as drought and hurricanes. Furthermore, the tropics comprise a majority of the worldÂ’s developing countries, and therefore tropical, small-scale agricultural systems are often s ubject to further constrai nts such as a lack of access to and availability of resources, including irrigation, monetary credit, market contact, and agricultural inputs. Agriculture in the tropics ranges from smallscale, low-input household farming systems to large-scale, high-input conventiona l farms. These agricultural pr oduction systems, regardless of size, face similar biophysical conditions and seas onal and climatic constraints but primarily differ in regard to access to and availability of resources and primary production goals. Whereas medium and large-scale farming systems are primarily concerned with maximizing production for sale, small-scale farming systems are dual-purposed in the sense that they rely on their production first and foremost for subsistence purpos es with surplus production allocated to some
31 aspect of the local, national, or internati onal market economy. These small-scale farm households act first as homes and second as businesses (Hildebrand et al., 2003). Although there are certainly many examples of small-scale urban agricultural systems found throughout the tropics, small-scale farming sy stems are primarily rural or semi-rural and often sustain more than half, and up to 90%, of the population in some developing countries (Peter Hildebrand, 2004, University of Florida, personal communication). Regardless of locality, these small-scale producers are e ngaged in a chronic struggle to secure a reasonably sustainable livelihood that meets food, clot hing, and shelter and, hopefully, discretionary cash needs. Livelihood strategies are the subset of activitie s within a livelihood system that each household selects in order to meet household needs. Thes e strategies are the product of household-level decision-making but are largely shaped by bioph ysical, agroecological, social, and political economy contexts at varying scales. Much work to date has explored aspects of small-scale, agricultu rally based livelihoods throughout the tropics in regard to these contextual circumstances . Many of these studies have focused on Africa. Examples include works by Mortimore and Adams (2000), Barrett et al. (2001), Gladwin et al. (2001), Ronc oli et al. (2001), Batterbury (2001), and Francis (2002) with emphasis on a range of related aspects such as livelihood response to external influences, the impact of non-farm income diversification on livelihood economics and policy implications, and the role of livelihood strategy di versification in the creation of landscapes. Other works have focused on Central America (Litow, 2000; Peters on, 2001; Wiggins et al., 2002; Jansen et al., 2003;), Southeast Asia (Dharmavan, 2000; Alther et al., 2002), and the Caribbean (Itzigsohn, 1995; Gum, 2000). No research to date has e xplored small-scale, agricultural livelihood
32 strategies at the household scale in Cuba. This research aims to contribute to that body of literature. It is often the case that indus trialization and increasing levels of integration into the neoliberal global economy play crucial roles in the ec onomies of small-scale farming systems. This type of growth and economic deve lopment is often correlated with a decrease in national food security and a growing dependence on imports a nd donor-financed subsidies. It has not always been the case, but since the early 1990s, Cuba ha s, in many regards, been isolated from these changes and external dependences that continue to rapidly alter the small-scale, farm-household livelihoods of her Latin American neighbors. Like many developing, tropical economies, farmhousehold livelihood strategies in Cuba face limited access to and availabili ty of resources and households engage in income di versification spanning both the formal and informal sectors of the economy. Unlike other developing, tropical ec onomies, however, farm households of Cuba are situated in a unique political economy context that has been shaped by mandatory agricultural land reform within a largely State-controlled plan ned economy and restricted access to the greater national and international markets. Cuba has been the focus of numerous agricu ltural studies, especially since the Agrarian Reform Laws and governmental efforts toward s land collectivization following the Cuban Revolution of 1959 (RodrÃguez, 1963; Bianchi, 1964; Burchardt, 2001; Alvarez, 2004a). Studies focusing on Cuban agriculture, the economy, and trade (Roca, 1994; Kost, 1998; Muraro and Spreen, 1999; Nova, 2002; Alvarez, 2004a; Mess ina, 2004), most notably with regard to sugarcane production and its exportation (Jenks , 1972; PÃ©rez-Lopez, 1991; Pollitt, 2004), has been a predominant theme for many decades until th e years following the Special Period in Time of Peace (Special Period), when agricultural st udies shifted their focus to post-Special Period
33 agricultural organization, producti on, and/or environmental impacts (Deere et al., 1994; Alvarez and Puerta, 1994; SÃ¡ez, 1997; EnrÃquez, 2000; Sinclair and Thompson, 2001; Alvarez, 2000; Alvarez, 2002; Alvarez, 2004a; Ricardo, 2003), su stainable agricultural practices (Carney, 1993; Funes et al., 2002; Nicholls et al., 2002; Wezel and Bender, 2002; Izquierdo et al., 2003), urban agricultural production (Chaplow e, 1998; Novo and Murphy, 1999; Companioni et al., 2002; Cruz, 2003; Henderson, 2005), and government emphasis on agricu ltural cooperative collectivization characterized by decreased State intervention and increased worker participation and autonomy (Kay, 1988; Murray, 1994; Royce, 1996; Alvarez, 1999; Deere and PÃ©rez, 1999; DÃaz GonzÃ¡lez, 1999; PÃ©rez Ro jas and EchevarrÃa, 2001). Today, CubaÂ’s agricultural sector can be divided into ten distinct forms of organization within three primary categories of production: State, mixed, and non-State (see Figure 2-1). The State agricultural sector is comprised of 1) government-run St ate farms; 2) New Type State Farms (GENT); 3) Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) farms (which include farms of the Young WorkersÂ’ Army (EJT) and the Ministry of the Interior (MIN INT)); and 4) selfprovisioning farms at workplaces and public institutions. The mixed sector is comprised of joint ventures between the State and foreign capital. Ma rtÃn (2002) states that collectively, these two sectors comprise approximately 25.7% of all agricultural pr oduction in Cuba. The additional 74.3% of agricultural production comprise s the non-State sector (MartÃn, 2002). The non-State sector can be fu rther divided into two types of production: collective and individual. Collectiv e production includes the cooperativas de producciÃ³n agropecuarias (agricultural production coope ratives or CPAs) and the unidades bÃ¡sicas de producciÃ³n cooperativa (basic units of cooperative production or UBPCs). Mar tÃn (2002) notes that of the 74.3% of non-State agricultural production, these tw o types of agricultural organizational units
34 account for only 3.6%. The remaining 70.7% acc ounts for the individual sector, which is comprised of three units of production: 1) cooperativas de crÃ©dito y servicios (credit and service cooperatives or CCSs); 2) indivi dual farmers who use land held in usufruct; and 3) individual farmers whose land is considered private property (MartÃn, 2002). This thesis is concerned with the non-State, individual unit of production, most specifically those farmers who identify as being members of a CCS. From the start of the Revolution until the Sp ecial Period, the State wa s the most important sector of agricultural producti on. During this time, State farms were the primary producers of staple foods such as milk, beef, rice, roots a nd tubers, and poultry, all of which are important components of the food rationing system in Cuba. State farms were also main exporters of citrus, sugar, and coffee. In contrast, farmers in the private sector at this time were primary producers of maize, vegetables, tobacco, beans, and cacao (MartÃn, 2002), also key products of both national consumption and international export. Nova (1994) asserts that, during this time, w ith only 20% of the total agricultural area, private farmers contributed 35% of national pr oduction while using less than 20% of the resources invested in agricultur e. Furthermore, private farmers then, as today, also primarily produced for household and local consumption, of ten supplementing daily food requirements and eliminating the need for excess food purchases from the market sector. This suggests that private farmers, at this time, contributed over 1/ 4 of CubaÂ’s total agri cultural production, which illustrates their importance as contributo rs to the national food supply (Nova, 1994). The dissolution of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECOM), following the disintegration of the Soviet Block in 1989 an d 1990, sent Cuba into an economic crisis. A number of government-backed initiatives were implemented in an effort to re-organize
35 agricultural production in order to provide e nough food for national c onsumption. Among these initiatives was the re-organizati on of State-controlled la nds into either 1) non-State, cooperative holdings (i.e. CPAs, UBPCs, and CCSs) with sli ghtly less government intervention and varying degrees of increased worker autonomy; or 2) small parcels of land (usually 6 cordeles or 0.25 ha) in usufruct for small-scale, individual pr oduction. As a result, State farmland shrank from 75% of the arable land to approximately 33% by 1996 (MartÃn, 2002), as more arable land was moved into the non-State sector.1 Non-State agriculture production, in terms of cont ribution to the national food supply, continued to increase in importance. Private farmers remain an important contribut or of staples for the national food supply as well as for selected agricultural exports (e.g. co ffee, cacao). They are also important producers for household consumption, providing food that supplements items provided through the State rationing system and thus reducing the need to pu rchase these additional items from the market sector. MartÃn (2002, p. 63) notes that following Â“a sustained decr ease in numbers in the 1980s, in the 1990s the individual farmer sector bega n to recover both in terms of numbers and acreage.Â” She further states that private sector farmers today hold 55% of the private farmland in Cuba. This number is up from 42% in 1988, furt her illustrating their prol iferation following the Special Period as well as their economic importance in CubaÂ’s present economy. Cooperatives within the non-Stat e sector have been of mini mal focus in the literature regarding Cuba and those studies that have focu sed on cooperatives in Cuba have mostly focused on UBPCs and CPAs (Deere, 1992, 1994, 1995; Sims et al., 1993; Royce, 1996; Royce et al., 1997). Little research to date has focused on individual farmers whose land is either private or 1 Authors and sometimes, the Cuban government, are inconsistent regarding statistics on what constitutes State versus non-State agriculture.
36 held in usufruct and individual farmers who have joined CCSs. This research further aims to assist in filling the gap in this literature. The Farming System Approach to Rese arch, Development, and Extension Economists began studying peasant farms almost a century and a half ago. However, research targeting how these farms function, why they continue to struggle with poverty, and how they continue to survive when constantly faced with uncertainty and food insecurity continues (Hildebrand and Sullivan, 2002). These, often rural, small-scale and limited-resource, family-managed farms are complex systems of crops, livestock, water sources, soils, labor and other resources and characteristic s integrated within an, ofte n unpredictable, environmental setting. Farm families manage these system s in accordance with their household goals, preferences, capabilities, and av ailable resources and technologies (Shaner et al., 1982). Adding to this complexity is the inhe rent diversity that exists among farm households, especially in terms of household goals and available res ources, even within seemingly homogeneous communities (Hildebrand et al., 2003; Hildebrand and Schmink, 2004). Simultaneously investigating the inter actions of the physical, biological a nd socioeconomic characteristics of these systems continues to be a challenge, but understanding them is critical, as these farm households are important parts of society and food production systems throughout the world (Hildebrand and Sullivan, 2002). In the early 1900s, the Russian economist A. V. Chayanov (1926) was the first to suggest that the management of family-farm households differs from capitalist logic, asserting that peasant farms are units of both production and consumption. Furthermore, these farm households are not primarily conc erned with maximizing profits, but instead with assuring food security for the householdsÂ’ members (Hildebra nd and Schmink, 2004). Further complications arise when household composition, over time, is considered, as demographic patterns (e.g.
37 migration, gender, and age) can contribute to varying levels of household economic stress (Schmink, 1984; Hildebrand and Schmink, 2004). Ac knowledging this complexity at the turn of the 20th century, Chayanov and other economists recognized that the most thorough study of these systems would require a multidisciplinary approach (Hildebrand and Sullivan, 2002). However, as with most disciplines by th e mid-1900s, agricultural research replaced a multidisciplinary, whole-farm perspective with a mo re reductionist, highly specialized scientific approach to research and development (Hildeb rand and Sullivan, 2002). This contributed to a fragmented understanding of the various componen ts of farming systems with little discussion and collaboration across disciplines. Howeve r, the term Â‘Farming Systems ResearchÂ’ was applied in the 1970s to several different activit ies being developed in Latin America and Africa that shared a common concern and purpose but lacked methodological consistency. Global concern with rural, small-scale family farms a nd the re-introduction of the need to thoroughly understand them from an emic and multidisciplinary perspective became evident, but also obvious was the need for a unified methodologic al approach to research (Collinson, 2000; Hildebrand and Waugh, 1986; Norman, 1982). The farming systems approach to research (FSAR) has been con tinuously evolving since the 1970s. Farming systems research slowly bega n a shift back towards multidisciplinarity and new techniques of data collection emerged. Examples of new data collection techniques included the Sondeo (Hildebrand, 1982) methodology, ra pid rural appraisal (RRA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) (Chambers, 1997). The Sondeo methodology was developed and refined during the 1970s. This conversationa l survey replaces a survey instrument and is interested in information, not responses to pr e-determined questions. It is an inductive methodology that benefits from an interdisci plinary survey team and allows on-farm
38 understanding of the system under observation in less time and at a lower cost (Hildebrand, 1982; Hildebrand and Schmink, 2004). RRA also em erged in the 1970s in an effort to collect location-specific information, more quickly with less expense. PRA evolved from RRA during the 1980s. PRA remained cost and time effectiv e, exploratory and conversational, but differed from RRA in that the methodology urged the resear cher to shift his or her role from elicit investigator to community-empower ing facilitator (Chambers, 1997). Hildebrand and Waugh (1986) note that in the 1980s, it became evident that two basic complimentary components comprised the over-ar ching farming systems research approach. These two components are farming systems appr oach to infrastructural support (FSIP) and farming systems research and extension ( FSRE). FSIP is concerned with the macro, socioeconomic and pure research context that includes variables Â“outside the farm gateÂ” (e.g. information). FSRE, on the other hand, is concer ned more with the micro, farmer-oriented and applied research context that in cludes variables Â“inside the farm gateÂ” (e.g. applied technology) (Hildebrand and Waugh, 1986). Together, however, th ey comprise the all-inclusive concept, farming systems research and development ( FSRD) (Shaner et al., 1982; Hildebrand and Waugh, 1986), which is the foundational framework underpinning the methodology used for this research. Sustainable Livelihood Perspective The concept of a Â‘sustainable livelihoodÂ’ was first used in the early 1990s as a development concept. Sustainable Livelihood A pproaches (SLAs) and related perspectives evolved from this concept. The United Kingdom Â’s Department for International Development (DFID), affiliated with the Institute of Deve lopment Studies (IDS), was one of the first proponents of this type of approach, supporti ng the approachesÂ’ founda tion, which centers on people and their livelihoods. These approaches prioritize peopleÂ’s asse ts (both tangible and
39 intangible), level of vulnerability (ability to withstand shocks), and th e institutions and policies that reflect poor peopleÂ’ s priorities, instead of those priori ties of the elite (IDS, 2006). Defining exactly what is a sustainable livelihood has b een debated in the liter ature regarding rural livelihoods and development, poverty reduction, and environmental management (Scoones, 1998). Although it is beyond the scope of this thesis to determine whether or not the farm households involved in this study are tr uly sustainable, a sustaina ble livelihood pe rspective, derived from sustainable livelihood approaches, offers a framework for analysis of the livelihood system under investigation. Utilizing this framework for analysis may provide a baseline for preliminary assessment of livelihood sustainability as well as for future work that may subsequently define the livelihood system under observation as sustainable or not, thereby contributing to the relevant, growin g literature. For the purpose of this research, the definition of a sustainable livelihood as presented by Scoones (1998) and derived from the Institute for Development Studies (IDS) (2006) and Chambers and Conway (1992), serves as a reference point and working definition for preliminary analysis. The definition is as follows: A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (both material and so cial resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustai nable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base. (Scoones, 1998, p. 5) Utilizing a perspective such as this serves as a guide for developing key questions during primary data collection and subsequent analysis. As illustrated in Figure 2-2, the basic elements of a sustainable livelihood pers pective utilized during fieldwor k and analysis, based on those described by Scoones (1998), include the following: 1. Analysis of the contexts in which the liveli hood system is situated, including, but not limited to: policy setting, politics, histor y, agroecology, and socioeconomics.
40 2. Assessment of all possible livelihood resources, both tangible and inta ngible, available to or constraining households w ithin the livelihood system. 3. Assessment of all available live lihood strategies (i.e. producti on and reproduction activities) available to households with the livelihood system as well as each householdÂ’s unique combination of these strategies. 4. Characterization of household or livelihood system strategies in regard to category of strategy (agricultural in tensification, agri cultural extensifi cation, livelihood diversification, and migration). 5. Analysis of outcome as based on household ch oice of combinations of livelihood strategies. 6. Assessment of institutional processes that are embedded in a matrix of formal and informal institutions and organizations, wh ich mediate the ability to carry out or prevent the ability to carry out such strategies to subsequently achieve, or not achieve, such outcomes. This type of framework can be applied to a range of scales from individual, household, community, region, nation-state, to global. This research utilizes this framework for farmhousehold livelihood exploration at the scale of household. The basic elements presented above were used as initial categories for the collecti on of data. These basic elements were further complemented by additional, and more detailed, household-specific information relevant to the ethnographic linear programming (ELP) met hodology with the aim of providing enough information for the development of an ELP livel ihood system model. Ma ny of these categories of information are utilized for data collecti on and analysis in both the sustainable livelihood perspective and the ELP methodolog y, but preference for data collect ion techniques and types of data collected was given to ELP, as it is the overall methodology driving this research. This methodology is discussed in more detail below and in Chapter 4. Mixed Method Framework A mixed method approach, one that includes both qualitative and quantitative methods and types of data, frames this research. Comb ining these two primary types of methods was probably first attempted in 1959 by Campell and Fi ske to study the validity of psychological
41 traits (Creswell, 2003). This work influenced others to attempt a mixed methods approach to research. Researchers recognized that all methods have limi tations. They believed that combining methods would help to alleviate overall bias as well as to help develop or inform other methods throughout the process. The c oncept of triangulation, a means for seeking convergence across qualitative and quantitative methods, emerged from this during the 1970s (Jick, 1979; Creswell, 2003). Today a mixed me thods framework is a popular approach to research, especially within interdisciplinary studies such as this that integrate the social and natural sciences. Multidisciplinary Research and Complex Systems Since the 1980s, there has been a growing tr end in academic research that utilizes a multidisciplinary perspective. Disciplinary reductionism led to research becoming so specialized that it became difficult to communicate ideas to anyone outside the field of study. Specialization, without a doubt, is imperative for knowledge of any given area to grow but the lack of communication across disciplines has prove d problematic, especially in regards to policy initiatives, technological introdu ctions, and conservation and development efforts. This is because problems concerning both the natural and social sciences are complex interactions of both biophysical and human compon ents that require interdisci plinarity to understand the complex whole. Understanding the totality of the en tire system being investigated is critical to assure that any potential solu tion or introduction into that sy stem is scale-appropriate and effective. TodayÂ’s academia finds itself peppered with interdisciplinary programs and research objectives, as a more holistic, systems-oriented approach to research is becoming a favored methodology among those studying human-environment in teractions. Odum (1971) states that a system is a generic term used across disciplines and referencing WebsterÂ’s Collegiate Dictionary,
42 further describes it as Â“regularly interacting and interdependent components forming a unified wholeÂ” (Odum, 1971, p. 4). There are all kinds of systems ranging from open to closed that can exist either physically (e.g. electr ical circuit) or conceptually (i.e. information, ideas, sets of laws). Some systems can be sufficiently unde rstood from one discip linary perspective (e.g. electrical circuit) but other systems, often referred to as complex systems (e.g. ecosystems), typically require study that is hi ghly interdisciplinary. This thesis draws from such diverse disciplines as ecology, economics, anthropology, a nd farming systems research and development to utilize an interdisciplinary, systems-oriented approach to research a nd contextual analysis. This interdisciplinary perspective underpins the Ethnographic Linear Programming Methodology that drives the objectives of this research. The Ecosystem Concept and Systems Ecology Tansley was the first to publish the term Â‘ecosystemÂ’ in 19352 after recognizing the interdependency that exists between plants and animals, and between them and their surrounding, nonliving environmen t (Odum, 1997; Golley, 1993). Early conceptions of the fundamental ecosystem unit suggested its formation was a result of the inte raction between biotic organisms and the surrounding abiotic (i.e. phys ical and chemical phenomena) environment, which in turn formed part of a hierarchy of phys ical systems that range from the universe as a whole down to the atom (Tansley, 1935; Golle y, 1993; Odum, 1971). This organized unit was believed to exhibit a progression towards equilibrium, a state that may never be fully obtained, but could be considered to have been achie ved whenever the intera cting components were constant and stable for a long e nough period of time (Tansley, 1935). 2 TansleyÂ’s colleague, Roy Clapham coined the word in 1930 but never published it.
43 Considered the most basic unit3 in ecology, the ecosystem, as a theoretical concept, has been subject to debate and evolution since the 1930s. Building on TansleyÂ’s concept, an ecosystem4 was later defined as a complex, self-sustain ing system comprised of interacting biotic and abiotic communities (Clapham, 1981). Ea rlier conceptions of the ecosystem proved insufficient for some ecologists who suggested that the ecosystem was instead a functional organization at non-equilibrium,5 whose hierarchical components, combined, produce larger functional wholes. This func tional interaction of compone nts allowed properties to emerge6 that were not present or evident at the level, or sc ale, below. This revi sed and genrally accepted concept acknowledges an ecosystem as a truly complex system whose complexity must be considered when being studied. Attempting to understand this complexity through a formalized approach of holism7 gave rise to a branch of ecology known today as systems ecology (Odum, 1971; Odum, 1997). Like systems biology, systems ecology applies a holistic view to the interactions and transactions within and between biological, abiotic and ecological systems, whose holism suggests the study of both parts and wholes (Odum, 1997). Systems ecology is concerned with energetics and productivity and its mode of scientific inquiry is the general application of systems analysis procedures to the study of eco logical systems (Odum, 1971). Some work in 3 Odum (1997) supports this concept, asserting Â“the ecosystem level is the logical level around which to organize theory and practice in ecology because it is the lowest level in the ecological hierarchy that is complete--that is, has all the components necessary for function and survival over the long term.Â” 4 Abbreviation of the term Â‘ecological systemÂ’ (Odum, 1971). 5 Equilibrium is a tendency towards creating negative feedbacks, which are feedbacks in a system that seek to maintain homeostatic processes. The degree of equilibrium in an ecosystem is dependent on the scale of observation and generally requires long periods of monitoring to determine the systemÂ’s equilibrium conditions. 6 Based on the concept of Â‘emergent propertyÂ’ (Odum, 1997). 7 The idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and that the properties of a given system cannot be determined or explained by the sum of its component parts alone. The system as a whole determines how the parts behave and the functional interaction of the parts drives the behavior of the system (Odum, 1997).
44 systems ecology emphasizes the idea that the stru cture and function of ecosystems are almost always influenced by human activity to some degree. Although this thesis in not concerned with analyzing the energetic s of the livelihood system under obs ervation, it does utilize system ecologyÂ’s foundational concept of holism and th e importance of incorporating the human component into the concept of ecosystem. Furthermore, systems ecology paved the way for other ecological sub-disciplin es and approaches, most notably, ecological economics and the human ecosystem approach, both of which are of concern to this thesis. Ecological Economics Ecological economics and the human ecosystem approach influence this research and concepts from each are utilized in both the methods and contextual analysis. Ecological economics is a branch of economics that ad dresses the interdepe ndence and co-evolution between the biophysical environment and human economies. Neo-classical economics has largely ignored nature and biol ogical ecology has largely ignored economics. But as Costanza et al. (1991) point out, Â“the most obvi ous danger of ignoring the role of nature in economics is that nature is the economyÂ’s life s upport system, and by ignoring it we may inadvertently damage it beyond its ability to re pair itselfÂ” (p. 8). The concept of capital is central to economies at all scales. However, this term has had multiple meanings in different fields. In this work I will draw from concepts and definitions established in ecological economics. Ec ological economics acknowledges two types of capital as fundamentally complementary, both of which relate to both economics and ecology: natural capital and manmade capital. Natural capital incl udes the atmospheric, soil and water structures and plant and animal biomass. These collectivel y represent the natural ca pital stock that forms ecosystems, which use primary inputs such as th e sun to yield ecosystem services and physical natural resource flows. Examples include fish, cr ude oil, and timber, all of which are important
45 resources for human use. Manmade capital (i.e. currency) exists because of the existence of natural capital stock (Costanza, 1991). Costanza (1997) states that the current economic paradigms such as capitalism, socialism, and the various mixtures of the two, are based on the Â“underlying assumption of continuing and unlimited economic growth.Â” Clearly there ar e limits to resources and environmental consequences to industrial production that are trea ted as externalities rather than factors to accommodate within the system. Although this thes is is not concerned with economic theory per se, this thesis does explore the integration a nd relational exchanges be tween nature, the economy and the State. The Human Ecosystem Approach Although it is likely that human activities have impacted most ecosystems on the planet, a useful distinction for human ecosystems is defi ned as those human-dominated systems in which the human species is a central agent (Stepp et al., 2003). Biological ecosystems can be bounded as well as transcend scal e (e.g. community of trees forest Appalachian mountain range) by describing any situation where ther e is a relationship be tween organisms and their environment. Human ecosystems share th is ability (e.g. household community nation state world) and describe ecosystems involving human interactio ns. Although these systems can be bounded, they do not exist independently, but instead inte ract in a complex web of human and ecological relationships that connect all human ecosystems to make up the biosphere (Odum, 1971; Odum, 1997). Stepp et al. (2003) assert that these systems are driven largely by the biotic and abiotic components through the flow of information. Syst ems analysis largely concerns itself with matter and energy. But Stepp et al. (2003) suggest that the human ecosystem is comprised of not only matter and energy, but also an equally important component, information .
46 The human ecosystem approach is most directly utilized in this research through visual modeling of the larger contexts in which the farm-household li velihood system is situated. Human ecosystem models use a visual language, based on conventions partially derived from Odum (1971), to convey a great deal of detailed information in a re latively simple form. This is illustrated in Chapter 6. Ethnographic Linear Programming This research is based on the Ethnogra phic Linear Programming (ELP) Methodology. This methodology was developed in the late 1990s by a group of researchers at the University of Florida (UF) who had been using linear progr amming for economic analysis of small-scale, farm-household livelihood systems (Hildebra nd, 2006, University of Florida, personal communication). By incorporat ing ethnographic data collecting techniques into the former, conventional methodology of linear programmi ng, a novel way of understanding farming systems resulted (Breuer, 2003). Individual household data concerning livelihood strate gies are collected using ethnographic, economic, and farming systems resear ch and extension data collection techniques from a sample of households and entere d into a linear program matrix in Excel to generate a model of the livelihood system of the community being investigated. ELP modeling accounts for numerous variables including household compositi on, food and cash needs, seasonality, resource constraints (i.e. availability of fertilizer, etc.), labor availabl e and invested, types of production and reproduction activities (i.e. livelihood strategies), chosen ac tivities and the role of gender (among others) (Hildebrand et al., 2003). Detailed information concerning these and other relevant variables provides information to determine 1) what is done; 2) who does what; 3) when it is done; 4) why it is done; and 5) how it
47 is done. This ultimately allows for a thorough understanding of the livelihood system. Once calibrated and validated, the live lihood system model can predic t heterogeneous responses of diverse households to new liv elihood alternatives, emergi ng production technologies, and changing policies, as well as systemic shocks such as hurricanes, droughts, and pest invasions; or other drastic events that change policy or the availability of resources (Hildebrand et al., 2003; Hildebrand and Sullivan, 2002). Research addressing small-scal e, agriculturally based livelihoods is conducted across disciplines at UF and a number of students and fa culty, in the late 1990s, began to utilize this innovative methodology in their work. Among some of the first researchers to utilize the ELP methodology were masters and PhD students worki ng with small farmers in different areas throughout the world. Early work s include Arguello (1996), Ar aujo (1997), Cabrera (1999), Breuer (2000), Kaya et al. (2000), Litow (2000) , and Sullivan (2000). These works focus on a range of topics (e.g. economic a lternatives in small-scale agrofo restry systems, farm problems and extension programs, the role of medicinal plants in livelihoods, livelihood farming system adoption of alternative activities, food security and livelihood strategies , and strategies for mitigating household stress) in a range of geogr aphical areas (e.g. Brazil, Peru, Paraguay, Mali, Guatemala, and Senegal). Interest in and use of the ELP methodology has continued to gr ow since 2000. More recent examples include Bastidas (2001), Th angata (2002), Breuer (2003), Mudhara (2003), Bellow (2004), and Church (2005). These works, too, focus on a wide range of topics (e.g. agroforestry adoption and carbon sequestrati on, alternatives for im proving agroecosystem worker livelihoods, alternative livelihood strategy adoption, and the impact of irrigation on technology adoption by smallholders) in a number of geographical areas (e.g. Ecuador, Malawi,
48 Zimbabwe, and Guatemala). The rationale for utilizing this methodology in research involving small-scale, diverse, agricultural livelihoods is best expressed by Hild ebrand et al. (2003): Ethnographic Linear Programming, which co mbines methods from anthropology and economics, is a useful tool for researcher s and technology developers, policy makers, and managers of infrastructure and natural resour ces. It can help them understand the varied responses of diverse households to past or potential modifications. ELP is a dynamic, adaptive methodology that has evolved through an iterative trial and e rror process. The methodology is a working tool applicable befo re and during project implementation, rather than a purely analytical tool for obtaini ng static results afte r the fact. (p. 11) This research is a collaborative effort between the University of Florida, the University of Havana, the Instituto de Investigaciones Fundame ntales en Agricultura Tropical (Institute for Fundamental Investigations in Tropical Agricult ure or INIFAT), and me. An ELP model can serve as a useful tool for INIFATÂ’s future work to assist in the improvement of small-scale Cuban farmer livelihoods. Little work to date has utilized the ELP methodology to assess smallholder livelihoods in the Ca ribbean and no work to date ha s utilized this methodology to assess smallholder livelihoods in Cuba. This res earch hopes to provide an additional work to the growing body of literature that utilizes the ELP methodology to further assist in understanding and examining diverse small-scale, rural, a nd limited resource livelihood systems throughout the tropics.
49 Figure 2-1. Ten distinct forms of organization within three pr imary categories of production (State, non-State, and mixed) of CubaÂ’s agricultural sector, from MartÃn (2002).
50 Figure 2-2. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis (Scoones, 1988).
51 CHAPTER 3 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY: AN OVERVI EW OF THE AGROECOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL ECONOMY CONTEXTS OF CUBA FROM PAST TO PRESENT Introduction Cuba is the largest of the Greater Antill es islands in the Caribbean. The Cuban archipelago is comprised of the mainland, the Isla de la Juventud (the Is le of Youth, which was previously known as the Isla de los Pinos or the Isle of Pines) and more than 16,000 small islands and coastal keys. Cuba is bordered by the Gulf of Mexico, th e Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. It is geographically positioned sout h of Florida, west of the Bahamas, northwest of Haiti, north of Jamaica, and east of Mexico. From the eastern point, Punta del Quemado, to Cabo San Antonio in the west, th e island extends 1200 km in length, with a total su rface area of 110,860 km2 (PÃ©rez, 1995; Rogozinski, 1999). Figure 3-1 shows a map of CubaÂ’s geographical situation with reference to surrounding countries and bodies of water. Today, Cuba consists of fourteen provinces and one special municipality, the Isla de Juventud, as represented in Figure 32. The country has a tropical climate with annual temperatures ranging between 23 and 27 C and an annual mean temperature of 25 C. The average relative humidity is 80%. CubaÂ’s seasonality consists of a dry season from Nove mber to April and a rainy season from May to October.1 Contextual Relevance to the Thesis In order to understand the cu rrent agroecological and poli tical economy context within which this research is situated, it is important to understand the history of Cuban agriculture and 1 Although Borhidi (1996) asserts that the dry season lasts mainly from December through April and the rainy season from May through November, the farmers interviewe d for the purpose of this thesis and personnel from collaborating Cuban institutions suggest that the dry seas on occurs from November through April and the rainy season, from May through October.
52 its inextricable link to the Cuban economy. Also important to understanding this context is U.S. influence on CubaÂ’s history as illustrated by USACuba relations, over time. This chapter is not intended to be comprehensive but rather aims to present key events and illustrate relevant linkages. Understanding the context within which this research is situated is very important when thinking about appropriate interventions. Cuba from Early Inhabitants to 1959 Little is known, with certainty or precision, regarding CubaÂ’s pre-Columbian past. The Amerindian tribe, the Ciboney (or Siboney) are be lieved to be the oldest known inhabitants of the island, having arrived in Cuba sometime ar ound 1000 BP. They lived in rock shelters and caves along the coasts of eastern Cuba and in open-air villages in the west. The Ciboney utilized the natural resources of the island, both land a nd sea, for hunting and gathering purposes. The Ciboney shifted westward following successive waves of immigration of two Arawak groups, the Sub-TaÃno and the TaÃno, both of whom originated in South America and migrated northward along the West Indian archipela go (PÃ©rez, 1995). These Arawakan groups found refuge in Cuba beginning around 1100 BP in an effo rt to escape conflict with a fierce rival, the Caribs (PÃ©rez, 1995; Rogozinski, 1999). It is believed that the SubTaÃno settled Cuba prior to the TaÃno and dwelled in coneshaped palm-thatched huts ( bohÃos) and organized themselves in villages of multi-family dwellings. They too utilized the land and s ea for hunting and gatheri ng, but unlike the Ciboney, they also cultivated small plots of land and enga ged in a South American system of raising root plants called conuco (PÃ©rez, 1995; Rogozinski, 1999) , a system that is still ut ilized in parts of the country today. Archeologists in Cuba have recently asserted the existence of a third cultural group, the MayarÃ, who appear to ha ve settled Cuba at roughly th e same time as the Sub-TaÃno. Evidence suggests that this group, like the Ci boney, relied on hunting and gathering for
53 subsistence, but were less involved in maritime activ ities. It is believed that the MayarÃ cultural group was either marginalized or absorbed by the Sub-TaÃno migration. Inhabitation of the TaÃno followed. They shared a common diet and similar dwellings and social organization as that of the Sub-TaÃno (PÃ©rez, 1995). Recorded history in Cuba began in Oct ober 1492 when Christopher Columbus and his crew landed on the island , later claiming the territory for Sp ain. In Cuba, Columbus and his crew first came in contact with the Arawaks, since they primarily inhabited the eastern part of the island at that time. The Spanish described this cultural group as peaceful, hospitable, and friendly (Rogozinski, 1999). They eventually came in contact with the Ciboney, following their exploratory migration to the we stern end of the island. The Spanish perceived the Ciboney as savages, naming them Guanahacabibes (PÃ©rez, 1995; Rogozinski, 1999) , a name that remains to this day to describe the most western part of the island. Because initial explorations of the island had failed to produce evidence of gold, Cuba was not of prime interest to the Spanish until 1508. P opulations of Spanish settlers had increased on the neighboring island of HispaÃ±ola (Haiti and th e Dominican Republic) a nd settlers were in search of new land to exploit. Resources were becoming scarce on HispaÃ±ola and the native population was dying out. Settlers sought a land with less comp etition for resources and a new supply of Indians available for forced integration into the encomienda system. In 1511, Diego VelÃ¡squez de CuÃ©llar initiated Cuban occupa tion and eventually founded the first Spanish settlement Baracoa on the eastern coast of the island in 1512. Amerindians of Cuba resisted Spanish occupation. Spanish forces fought back, k illing a large number of Indians. The Spanish utilized those natives not killed, as slave labor. Another si x settlements were established on the
54 island during the following four years. Havana was one of these six settlements, founded in 1514 and formally established as capita l of the island in 1607 (PÃ©rez, 1995). Estimations of the Indian population, both in Cuba and throughout the Caribbean, at the end of the 15th century, vary considerably and have been debated in the literature for centuries. Precise numbers, more than likely, will neve r be known. Lynn McAlister (1984) acknowledges this inevitability when stating Â“No one knows how many Indians i nhabited the Western Hemisphere in 1492 and, indeed, the problem has ge nerated one of the live liest controversies in American ethnohistoriography.Â” PÃ©rez (1995) stat es that estimations in Cuba, alone, have ranged from 16,000 to as many as 600,000. He also suggests that more current calculations estimate the pre-Columbian population of the island at approximately 112,000, with approximately 92,000 Sub-TaÃno, 10,000 TaÃno, and 10,000 Ciboney. Physical exhaustion, malnutrition, and a lack of immunity to European -introduced diseases, led to a serious decline in the native population. The numbers declined from the estimated 112,000 in 1492 to fewer than 3,000 by the mid-1550s (PÃ©rez, 1995). Both the human and landscape geography changed dramatically in the centuries following European conquest. From the 1500-1800s, Spania rds established settlements on the island, giving rise to the Cuban peasant as well as a sm aller class of more elite landowners of large cattle haciendas (Jenks, 1928). European conquest of the Americas flourished during this period and piracy and smuggling by the French, Dutc h, British and Spanish (among others) were prevalent as they competed for control over the Caribbean. The British captured Havana in 1762 and occupied the island for approximately 11 m onths. Cuba was returned to Spain in 1763 by order of the Treaty of Paris, which put an end to the Seven Years War. Throughout these centuries and beginning in 1522 (Sta ten, 2003), African slaves were forcefully brought to Cuba.
55 Estimations vary, but several sources suggest that African slaves totaled at least 60,000 by the mid-late 1700s (PÃ©rez, 1995; Staten, 2003; Rogoz inski, 1999). An abundance of cheap slave labor, coupled with 1) the emerge nce of the USA as a market for Cuba; 2) the Spanish CrownÂ’s liberalization of trade reforms in 1778 and 1791; and 3) the slave rebellion of St. Dominique (Haiti) of 1791, allowed for the birth and subseq uent success of the Cuban sugar industry (Staten, 2003). Although sugarcan e is not an endemic plant of Cuba, its introduction to the island and subsequent establishment has proved, over time, to be inextricably linked to the Cuban political economy and USA-Cuba political and economic relations. By the early 1800s, European colonies we re well established in North America and commerce between Cuba and the USA continued to grow as Cuban ports ope ned to neutral ships for trade. Throughout the early 1800s, small tobacco farms ( vegas ) and coffee farms became prevalent. Export production of coffee increased from 50,000 arrobas (1 arroba = 25 pounds) in 1804 to 2,566,359 arrobas in 1833 (Jenks, 1928; PÃ©rez, 1995). These crops, along with sugarcane, dominated CubaÂ’s monoculture, agri cultural economy. Trade continued with the USA and USA-Cuba relations fu rther strengthened following th e purchase of Florida, by the USA, from Spain. Americans, Dutch, and French colonized ar eas throughout Cuba. The introduction of the steam engine and other agricu ltural technology by 1818 and the c onstruction of CubaÂ’s first railroad in 1837, further improved agricu ltural production and tr ade, especially of sugarcane. Land formerly dedicated to other crops, such as coffee, was instead util ized for sugar production to enable supply to meet demand. Sugar dom inated the Cuban economy from 1834-1867 (Jenks, 1928) and accounted for approximately 60% of Cuban exports in 1840 (PÃ©rez, 1995). This
56 percentage increased to 74% in 1860 (PÃ©rez, 199 5) and accounted for more than 30% of world (except India) market production (Jenks, 1928). By the mid-1800s, Cuba was the most importa nt trading partner of the USA, which came to depend solely on the island for sugar. Othe r Cuban imports such as coffee, tobacco and molasses were also important to North America. U.S. exports to Cuba were equally as important. The number of U.S. ships arriving in Cuba increased from 150 in 1796 to 1,886 in 1852 and carried goods such as text iles, salt, corn, and flour (PÃ©r ez, 1995). Cuba-U.S. relations were strong and in 1840, the USA guaranteed Cuba military support if the island were to be threatened by war. Annexationist movements we re strong both in the USA and Cuba during the 1840s and 1850s (Deere, 1998), which led to attemp ts by the USA to purchase the island from Spain from 1848 until 1861. PÃ©rez (1995) states that Â“the sugar estate became the predominate unit in the economic life of CubaÂ” during the 1860s. Immigration from Am erica, Europe and CubaÂ’s surrounding islands continued to alter CubaÂ’s human geography. Indivi duals and families immigrated to the island in search of work, to develop agricu ltural or cattle estates, or to participate in the Cuban-U.S. economies as merchants, bankers, and ship-owner s (Jenks, 1928). Spanish settlers in Cuba began to openly challenge Spanish rule in 1868, resulting in the first Cuban War of Independence that lasted until 1878 (also referred to as the Ten Year War). Cuba looked to the USA for protection but a lack of support by the U.S.-backed European Powers prevented any assistance. A number of both national and international events profoundly influenced CubaÂ’s economy and governance in the decades that followed. Rebe llions that occurred during CubaÂ’s first War of Independence left CubaÂ’s agriculture sector and national economy dama ged and in disarray.
57 This allowed foreigners to gain more agricultural and economic cont rol. Concurrently, Cuba lost her foothold for sugar exportation to Britain and Europe as Eur opean Powers began to grow beets for sugar production to alleviate dependenc e on sugar imports from abroad. Beet sugar accounted for only 14% of total world production in the 1850s, but by the 1880s, this percentage had increased to more than 50%. Cuban sugar production for the world market decreased from 29% in the late 1860s to 11% tw enty years later (PÃ©rez, 1995). Additionally complicating CubaÂ’s agricultural sector was the abolit ion of slavery on the island in the 1880s. These losses led Cuba to co ncentrate on the USA market for sugar exports. The 1891 Foster-Canovas Act put in writing CubaÂ’s preferential access to the U.S. market, securing CubaÂ’s export market but further agit ating relations between the USA and Spain. Although Cuban sugarcane passed the one million t on mark in 1894, the USA rescinded its tariff concession to Cuban exports, causing Cuba to lose its privileged access to its only available market. Profits quickly decline d. This crisis led to unemploym ent throughout Cuba, a decline in North American imports, and civil unrest among the population. PÃ©rez (1 995) asserts that the Cuban economy in 1894 Â“Â…had faltered and pol itical discontent was increasingÂ” (p. 156). Political dissent precipitated a second War of Independence in Cuba, led by notable figures MÃ¡ximo GÃ³mez and JosÃ© MartÃ. This second war commenced in 1895 and called for economic as well as political autonomy from Spain. Th e war against Spanish fo rces brought destruction and instability, leading to smalle r national conflicts be tween separatists and loyalists. The USA continued to invest in Cuba but with reserva tion. Cuba turned to th e USA for military support but U.S. President William McKinley refused. Out of concern for Americans residing in Cuba, the USA sent the naval battleship, the Maine, to HavanaÂ’s harbor in January 1898. In February of that year, the Maine suffered an explosion for reasons that to this da y are inconclusive and
58 debated. This explosion height ened tensions between the USA and Spain, but not wanting to recognize the Cuban rebel government, the McKinl ey Administration still avoided military interference (Bethell, 1993). In April, it was evident that Cuban revol utionary forces were winning the war and McKinley requested congressional authorization to militarily intervene in Cuba to stop the war. A growing sympathy in the USA for Cuba n independence influenced McKinleyÂ’s Administration to pass the Teller Amendment prior to military intervention. The Teller Amendment disclaimed any intent by the USA to exercise sovereignty over the island and promised to leave the government and control of the island to the Cuban people following the war but also permitted U.S. military presence on the island to assure the removal of Spanish troops (PÃ©rez, 1995; Bethell, 1993). The Spanish-American War began in late Ap ril 1898. Spain ceded to the USA later that year and denounced any claim to Cuba. U.S. military occupation on the island began in January 1899. The Teller Amendment was succeeded by the Platt Amendment in 19032 and is considered a defining historical moment in U. S.-Cuba relations. Modified from the Teller Amendment, the Platt Amendment granted Cuba her independence but also stated that the USA had the right to intervene militarily on the isla nd for Â“the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and for discharging the obl igations with respect to Cuba imposed by the treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and un dertaken by the government of CubaÂ” (Congress of the United States of America, 1903, see 2 The Platt Amendment was introduced by Senator Orville Platt in 1901. It was abrogated in 1934.
59 http://www.historicaldocume nts.com/PlattAmendment.htm ). It further stated that the government of Cuba was prohibited from Engaging in any treaty with a foreign power that jeopardizes the islandÂ’s independence. Engaging in any treaty with a foreign pow er that permits colonization or military occupancy by that foreign power. Assuming or contracting any public debt. Additionally, the amendment proclaimed that All acts of the United States in Cuba during military occupation are to be ratified and validated and that all Â“lawful rights acqui red there under shall be maintained and protected.Â” The government will execute and if need be, extend, plans that are already or to be mutually agreed upon (e.g. prevention of epid emic and infectious diseases) to assure protection of both CubaÂ’s people and U. S. citizens residing in nearby ports. The Isla de los Pinos (now called Isla de Juventud) is omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba. Cuba must sell or lease to the United Stat es Â“Â…lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points to be agreed upon with the president of the United StatesÂ” in order to enable the United States to maintain the inde pendence of Cuba (i.e. GuantanÃ¡mo Naval Base). That Â“by way of further assurance the gove rnment of Cuba will embody the foregoing provisions in a permanent treaty with the United States.Â” Figure 3-3 shows a digitized image of part of the first page of the original amendment that was signed in 1903. The Platt Amendment was signed by both th e U.S. and Cuban governments in 1903 and that same year, U.S. military occupation ende d and Thomas Estrada Palma was elected Cuban president. The following year, Cuba and th e USA ratified a treaty on commercial reciprocity and, granted by a provision of the Platt Amendment, the USA leased the area today known as the U.S. GuantanÃ¡mo Bay Naval Base. U.S. investment in Cuba continued. Jenks (1928) estimates that in 1894, U.S. investments in Cuba to taled $50 million. During the period of U.S.
60 intervention from 1899-1902, U.S. investment d eclined to $30 million but then increased dramatically between 1902-1906 to $80 million. Deere (1998) notes that by 1903, 37 American colonies were established on the island and th at by 1913, American colonies totaled 64. The Cuban railway expanded and foreign capital conti nued to pour into Cuba. PÃ©rez (1995) asserts that by 1913, foreign capital Â“dominated the Cuba n economy,Â” with total investments estimated at $60 million by the British, $12 million by the French, $4.5 million by the Germans, and over $200 million by the USA. U.S. investments in Cuba included but were not limited to agriculture (e.g. sugar, citrus, tobacco), mining, the railway, and banking. Although Cuba had finally gained political inde pendence, pockets of rebellion persisted on the island. Instigated by the suspicion of fra udulent presidential electi ons, JosÃ© Miguel GÃ³mez led a rebellion in 1906 that precipitated a second round of U.S. military in tervention that lasted until 1909. GÃ³mez became president and U.S. mili tary occupation ended. Germany had been rising to power since th e early 1900s, eventually leading to conflict between the Allied and Central powers. World War I began in 1914 but the USA and Cuba did not declare war against Germany until 1917 (PÃ©rez, 1995; Schroeder, 1982). CubaÂ’s agricultural economy benefited from Eu ropean inability to maintain beet sugar production and an increase in the world market pr ice of sugar. This period of time, from 1914 until 1920 is known as the Dance of the Millions , a prolific and prof itable period of Cuban agricultural history when Cuban world market sugar production and value increased steadily from 2,615,000 tons worth $163.4 million (77% of total export value) in 1914 to 3,742,000 tons worth $1,016.8 million (92% of total export value) by the beginning of 1920 (Schroeder, 1982). The high demand for sugar during this period of prosperity required large-scale financial investment and the Cuban sugar business rapidl y expanded to meet this demand. However, by
61 the end of 1920, the period of Cuban prosperity e nded almost as quickly as it had begun. The sugar boom reached its climax and the price of sugar fell from 22.5 cents per pound in May 1920 to 3.8 cents per pound in December of that same year (PÃ©rez, 1995). Sugar surpluses increased and the Cuban bank system collapsed. Civil war was feared as the country faced sudden bankruptcy. Armed uprisings in the Oriente (eastern part of Cuba) le d to an exodus of American colonies from Cuba and by 1925, most Americans ha d returned home. Tariff Acts raised tariffs, the black fly caused a citrus quarantine in Hava na, and the hurricane of 1926 devastated most remaining American enterprises (Deere, 1998). Trade between Cuba and the USA declined. Cuba began to recover in the following year s. Sugar production resumed, although not to its former capacity, as a number of sugar mills were closed. The price of sugar declined but then increased slightly, again reaching 3.8 cents pe r pound in 1924 (Staten, 2003). Alfredo Zayas was inaugurated as Cuban president in 1921 and in 1925, J.P. Morgan and Company loaned $50 million to Cuba. Gerardo Machado took office as president of Cuba in 1925, the same year that the first Communist Party of Cuba was formed. Machado suspended the Cuban constitution, effectively making himself dictator (Franklin, 1997). Americans be gan to re-invest in Cuba and some trade resumed. MachadoÂ’s control of the c ountry weakened however following the peak of the Great Depression in the USA. Cuban opposition and the threat of U.S. interv ention led to Machado fleeing the country. Carlos Manuel de CÃ©spedes became provisional pr esident. A faction of the Cuban army, led by Sergeant Fulgencio Batista, staged a coup that removed CÃ©spedes and installed RamÃ³n Grau San MartÃn. The USA prepared for military interv ention but Batista, in 1934, overthrew President Grau San MartÃn and within a few days, tempor arily installed Carlos Hevia, then Manueal MÃ¡rquez Sterling y Guiral, and th en Colonel Carlos Mendieta Mone fur. Later that year, the
62 USA and Cuba signed the Treaty on Relations between Cuba and the United States, which abrogated the Permanent Treaty of 1903 and th e Platt Amendment of 1903 (with the exception that the USA would continue to occupy the Guan tanÃ¡mo Naval Base). There were a number of temporary presidents until 1940 when Batista ran for office (Franklin, 1997). A new Cuban Constitution took effect that same year. Investment in Cuba declined from 1929 to 1943 and Cuban proprietors gained greater control over enterprises in Cuba. By 1939, fortyseven foreign sugar mills had passed to Cuban ownership (Deere, 2006). Although Cuba gain ed greater control over sugar production, a number of U.S. acts, treaties and laws in the y ears that followed influenced U.S.-Cuba relations, especially regarding sugar. Among these were the Jones-Costigan Act, the New Reciprocity Treaty, and the Law of Sugar C oordination. Batista won the Cuban Presidency in 1940. The Communist Party of Cuba had grown in previous years, ri valing the Cuban Constitutional Liberals ( AutÃ©ntico Party). With growing support from the Communist Party, Batista was elected. Cuba entered World War II in 1941. In 1943, Batista legalized the Communist Party of Cuba and established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, an ally of the USA at that time. His term ended in 1944 and the leader of the AutÃ©ntico Party, RamÃ³n Grau San MartÃn, succeeded Batista as president (Franklin, 1997). Wo rld War II ended that same year. In October 1945, Cuba joined the United Nations. Eduardo ChibÃ¡s broke from the AutÃ©ntico Party and organized a new opposition party, the Partido del Pueblo Cubano (Orthodox Party or Party of the Cuban People) in 1947 and was elected president the following year. Following ChibÃ¡sÂ’ sudden death in 1951, Batista staged a military coup and seized power the following ye ar. A recent graduate of law school, Fidel Castro RuÃz ran for Congress as a member of the Orthodox Party in 1952. That same year,
63 Batista staged another coup, suspended the C uban Constitution, and became dictator. Fidel Castro led other revolutionaries on an attack on the Moncada barracks in Santiago de Cuba in 1953. The revolt, named the Movimiento del 26 de Julio (The 26 of July Movement), resulted in many deaths and Castro and other survivors were sentenced to 15 years in prison (PÃ©rez, 1995; Franklin, 1997). Running unopposed, Batista was elected for anothe r term as president in 1954. In response to public demand, he claimed general amnesty for Castro and other participants of the Moncada attack. Castro went into exile in Mexico wher e he met Ernesto Â‘CheÂ’ Guevara and organized an armed resistance against the Batista governme nt. He and Guevara, along with other revolutionaries, boarded a la rge boat that they named Granma and landed in Oriente province in 1956. BatistaÂ’s military prepared for the attack and killed a majority of the revolutionaries, excluding Castro, Guevara, and CastroÂ’s brother, RaÃºl. These three men, along with a handful of others, escaped into the nearby Sierra Maestra mountains and established a rebel base camp. Anti-Batista protests and attacks occurred ac ross the country the fo llowing year and the rebel army received greater sympathy and support among the Cuban population. BatistaÂ’s military attempted control by killing active me mbers of the revolutionary movement. The Eisenhower Administration of the USA claimed a neutral position re garding Cuba at that time but continued to supply BatistaÂ’s forces with arms and training through 1957. By 1958, the USA ceased its support of the Batista government and imposed an arms embargo, encouraging Batista to accept exile in the United States. In Ja nuary 1959, Guevara took command of Santa Clara, Batista fled to the Dominican Republic, and revolu tionary forces took control of Havana, thereby establishing the success of the Cuban Revolution of 1959.
64 The Cuban Revolution: Cuba from 1959 to 1989 PÃ©rez (1995) states that following the triumph of la revoluciÃ³n in 1959, Â“Fidel Castro stood at the head of a movement of e normous popularityÂ” (p. 315). In Fe bruary of that year the Cuban Constitution was reinstated and following the resignation of JosÃ© MirÃ³ Cardona, Castro became Prime Minister of the country. PÃ©rez (1995) la ter asserts that regard less of FidelÂ’s and the revolutionary movementÂ’s popularity, the Â“social stru ctures were in disarray, the political system was in crisis, the economy was in distressÂ” ( p. 315). Cubans were also beginning to make demands. The new Cuban government began impleme nting reforms immediately and in the first nine months of that year, Â“an estimated 1500 decr ees, laws, and edicts were enactedÂ” (p. 319). These reforms included telephone rate reduc tions, health and educational reforms, unemployment relief, and raised wages (PÃ©rez, 1995). Utilizing Cuban census data taken before 1959, Alvarez (2004a) provides a concise, but detailed overview of primary characteristics of Cuban agriculture prior to the Revolution. At the start of the Revolution, the agrari an structure of Cuba was prim arily characterized by a skewed distribution of land with a majority of land in the hands of a minor ity of proprietors, a significant proportion of which were foreigners, who largel y owned and managed large-scale, monoculture plantations of sugarcane, coffee, tobacco, and cattl e. Almost all Cuban e xports were agricultural commodities between 1940 and 1949, with sugar a nd its derivatives dominating exportation. Not only did sugar exports dominate CubaÂ’s forei gn trade, their dominant trading partner, with respect to both exports and impor ts, was the U.S (Alvarez, 2004a). Close economic relations between the two count ries largely resulted from reciprocity treaties beginning in 1902. These treaties offered exclusive preferential tariff treatments by and for the two countries. In 1959, 1/3 of all U.S. s ugar imports were from Cuba. The Sugar Act of
65 1948 exemplified preferential treatment in regard to sugar. Al varez (2004a) states that the Sugar Act: Â…allocated to Cuba an import quota equivalent to 98.64% of the difference between U.S. consumption requirements and the sum of the fixed tonnage quotas for the domestic areas and the Philippines, with the remaining 1.36% goi ng to other foreign countries. Thus, this arrangement allocated nearly all of the incr eases in U.S. consumption requirements to Cuba. The 1951 amendment enabled domestic pr oducers to participate in the growth of the U.S. market; that is, a ny growth in U.S. consumpti on beyond 8.35 million short tons was shared 55% by domestic areas and 45% by foreign countries. (p. 16) The USA had economic underpinnings that, in pa rt, explained their pr eferential treatment of Cuban exports, especially sugar. Beginning in the late 1800s, Americans immigrated into Cuba. Although American immigration ebbed and flowed from then until 1959, various periods of colonization established economic ties to C ubaÂ’s land. Americans es tablished agricultural estates and other businesses (Alvarez, 2004a). Over time, American entrepreneurs became la ndholders of large-scale sugar plantations, they constructed and controlled CubaÂ’s railway, and were integrated in numerous other aspects of the economy. In 1939, U.S. investors owne d 68 of the 176 sugar mills and 55% of total production. American investment in the Cuba n sugar industry decrea sed after 1939. Although U.S. investor ownership declined by 1950 to 44 of the 161 existing mills, they still owned almost half (47%) of the total output (Alvarez, 2004a). Economic interest in Cuba was evident. However, following the enactment of the firs t Cuban Agrarian Reform Law of May 1959, differing interests between the USA and Cuban governments arguably precipitated a feud that has continued to this day. The first Agrarian Reform Law of May 1959 proved to be one of the most drastic, influential, and controversial reforms enacted by the new Cuban government. Composed of nine chapters and 77 articles, this law greatly modifi ed Cuban land distribution. The first Agrarian Law proclaimed a number of objectives. Most notably it stated that all real esta te holdings by a
66 single owner were restricted to 402 ha. An exception was made in the case of large farms with intensive production. These larger farms were restricted to 1340 ha, or sometimes more, if primary production was in sugar, ri ce or livestock. Lands that ex ceeded these restrictions were nationalized. Expropriation of land fell under the supervision of the Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria (National Instit ute of Agrarian Reform or IN RA). Compensation was provided in the form of twenty-year bonds that bore an annua l interest rate of 4.5%, with payments based on the assessed value of land used for tax purposes (Alvarez, 2004a; PÃ©rez, 1995). Expropriated lands in Cuba were either re-distr ibuted to individuals in parcels of 26.8 ha (with sharecroppers, squatters, and renters receiving pref erential claim if they were working the land) or reorganized into cooperatives. The re form law also set objectives for agricultural diversification, import substitution, and the preven tion of future foreign control (Alvarez, 2004a; PÃ©rez, 1995). Within the agricu ltural sector, the law specified the creation of three types of cooperative production units: agricultural cooper atives, INRA-administered farms, and cane cooperatives. By August 1962, only cane coopera tives survived (Bia nchi et al., 1964). The reform measures gathered popular support among workers, peasants, and the unemployed. Support was not provided however by those involved in la rge-scale agriculture such as sugar, tobacco and cattle, those involve d in importing businesses, nor by those holders of foreign capital invested in sugar, agriculture, or foreign trade (Alvarez , 2004a). Additionally, supporters of the Batista government found refuge in the United States and counter-revolutionary activity had already begun. Ca stroÂ’s government expropriated the lands once belonging to batistianos and the U.S. government began protesti ng Cuban tribunals that executed former Batista officials (PÃ©rez, 1995).
67 Further protested by the USA were the Cuba n terms of compensation for expropriated land. In retaliation, the USA alluded to the possibi lity of reducing the Cuban sugar quota. Cuba eventually negotiated compensa tion with property owners an d governments of all foreign countries who previously invested in Cuba, except for the USA. Castro rejected U.S. demands for prompt compensation and the USA failed to ne gotiate. The issue has remained unresolved to this day (PÃ©rez, 1995; Franklin, 1997). Concurrently, the Partido So cialista Popular (Cuban Co mmunist Party or PSP) was growing in size in Cuba and members were increasingly moving into government appointed positions. PÃ©rez (1995) states that Castro, believing members of this party to be comprised of Â“Â…men who were truly revolutiona ry, loyal, honest and trainedÂ…Â” (p. 323), turned to the party for greater support. By 1960, Cuba-U.S. relation s were hostile. Having lost their primary trading partner, coupled with th e U.S. threat to modify the sugar quota, Cuba re-established diplomatic relations with the S oviet Union. The Soviet Union agreed to purchase Cuban sugar and offered the island $100 million in credits, technical assistance and crude and refined petroleum. Prior to this time, expropriations of foreign business had focused on agriculture. However, following the newly formed economic agreement with the Soviet Union, Cuba nationalized foreign refineries . In response, the USA cut Cuban sugar imports by 700,000 tons, effectively zeroing out the quota for that year (PÃ©rez, 1995). In the months that followed, the Cuban govern ment expropriated additional U.S. properties and nationalized branches of North American banks. In October 1960, the USA imposed an economic embargo against Cuba, banning all exports to Cuba ex cept for some medicine and foodstuffs. In response, Cuba e xpropriated all remaining U.S. pr operties, most of which were private enterprises such as railroads, cinema s, hotels, casinos, insurance companies, and
68 chemical companies (among others). Later that year, the Soviet Union and other eastern block countries agreed to purchase th e remaining balance of Cuban suga r and by the end of the year, the Soviet Union had replaced the USA as C ubaÂ’s primary trading partner (PÃ©rez, 1995). In January 1961, Cuba announced that U.S. citi zens required a visa to enter the country and the USA officially broke di plomatic relations with the island. The Swiss Embassy in Havana assumed U.S. diplomatic and consular representation in Cuba. Later that year, the Czechoslovakian Embassy in Washington served as the same for Cuba. Following that, the U.S. State department declared that U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba must obtain passports endorsed by the State Department (Franklin, 1997). A break in diplomatic relations with the US A had consequences for Cuba. PÃ©rez (1995) states that: So central was the presence of North American property in the national economy that its expropriation suddenly thrust upon Cubans responsibility for managing production, resources, and distribution on a vast scale. The Cuban government found itself assuming an increasingly larger role in the management of th e economy. Once this process was underway, it was all but impossible to arrest and reverse. (p. 328) In an effort for greater control and e fficient management, the Cuban government Â“consolidated control over virtua lly all key sectors of the private enterprise, Cuban as well as North AmericanÂ” (PÃ©rez, 1995, 328). Non-cane estate s were converted into State farms (Deere, 1996). By the end of 1961, the State controlled a pproximately 85% of the total productive value of Cuban industry. State planning was of furt her critical importance because of the U.S. economic trade embargo, which also served to facilitate a stronge r economic relationship between Cuba and the Soviet Union and other Ea stern Block countries. The nationalization of Cuban property also affected Cuban property ow ners, often resulting in lower wages and a decline in their standard of living. The State was techni cally the new employer and any opposition by former Cuban property owners was viewed as anti-revolutionary by the Cuban
69 government. These new policies lost support am ong liberals and moderate s, and precipitated further association between the Cuba n government and the PSP (PÃ©rez, 1995). In May 1961, the Cuban government establishe d the AsociaciÃ³n Nacional de Agricultores PequeÃ±os (National Association of Small Produ cers or ANAP), which was founded to defend the peasantry of the State and to manage and distribu te credit, inputs, and t echnical assistance to small farmers (Dumont, 1970). Membership to this mass organization was limited to those farmers with fewer than 67 ha and to larger farmers who had demonstrated allegiance to the Revolution. Alvarez (2004a) st ates that ANAP was the only officially recognized Cuban association that maintained a private sector component. Conc urrently, the Cuban government initiated a countrywide campaign that encouraged the organization of farmers from the private sector into smaller, cooperative groups. Private farmers were encouraged by ANAP to pool their land and other resources with neighboring farmer s to form agricultural associations, either asociaciones campesinas (Peasant Associations) or cooperativas de crÃ©dito y servicios (CCSs or credit and services cooperatives). Also init iated by the government in 1961 were humanitarian efforts that established social programs such as the national literacy campaign (PÃ©rez, 1995; Alvarez, 2004a). In Cuba that same year, the State marke ting agency, ACOPIO, wa s given monopoly by the Cuban government over agricultural procurem ent and food distribu tion (Deere, 1996). Sugarcane cooperatives were converted into St ate cane farms and the governmental agricultural diversification plan was extended to these farms. These diversification efforts, however, led to devastatingly low sugar producti on yields as a result of poor agricultural management and a failure to recognize sugarcaneÂ’s perennial nature (Deere, 1996). Rice, potato, and vianda (roots and tubers) production was likewis e affected by centralized c ontrol. Further affecting
70 agricultural crop production, a nd thereby stressing food production and the overall Cuban economy, was a severe drought (PÃ©rez, 1995). In January 1962, John F. Kennedy was inaugurat ed as U.S. president and announced plans for the re-establishment of peaceful relations with Cuba. Shortly thereafter, he announced that the USA did not intend to resume diplomatic relati ons with the island after all, because of their association with communist countr ies. In the months following, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) attempted assassinations of Cast ro and U.S.-Cuba relations remained hostile and tense. Explosions occurred in Havana and Cuba feared a full U.S. invasion. In April of that year, the USA issued a White Paper on Cuba, refe rring to the island as a Soviet satellite. The USA offered aid to Cuba under the condition th at the island would cut ties with communist governments. That same month, Kennedy announced that the U.S would not militarily intervene in Cuba (Franklin, 1997). Later that month, during a funeral for Cubans who were killed in a recent bombing in Havana, Castro announced that the Cuban revolution was socialist in characte r and stated that he believed a U.S. invasion was imminent. On April 17, an invasion force of the CIA entered Cuba. Known in the USA as the Bay of Pigs, this failed military invasion resulted in military combat between the two countries and a victory by Cuba . Later that month, C uba urged the USA to enter peaceful negotiations but the Kennedy Admini stration refused. Castro later announced that the Cuban Constitution was outdated and that Cuba was in need of a reformed socialist Constitution. The USA initiated additional operati ons later that year, such as Operation Peter Pan and Operation Mongoose, to assist Cubans an d Cuban exiles in fleeing the island and/or in attempts to overthrow Castro (Franklin, 1997; PÃ©rez, 1995).
71 In 1962, a number of countries within the Orga nization of American States (OAS) voted to suspend Cuban membership. In Cuba, non-sugarcane estates were officially converted into State farms and Castro announced that these farms represented a Â‘superior form of socialist agriculture.Â’ During th e Second Declaration of Havana, Ca stro proclaimed Cuban philosophy and policy as Marxist-Leninist. The Kennedy Administration broade ned the stipulations of the economic embargo against Cuba, rejecting the imports of goods made from Cuban materials (Franklin, 1997). In May of that year, Castro accepted the Soviet proposition of nuclear missiles for placement on the island as protection against potential U.S. military invasions. In October, Kennedy publicly announced that Soviet-backed nucle ar missile sites had been established on the island. He then ordered a naval blockade to prevent the deliver y of additional nuclear weapons to the island and demanded that Cuba immediately dismantle the miss ile sites. The possibility of nuclear war between the USA and Cuba and the S oviet Union was imminent each day for almost two weeks (Franklin, 1997). The Cuban Missile Crisis ended at late Oc tober 1962, following an offer to the USA made by Soviet UnionÂ’s Premier Nikita Sergeyevich Kh rushchev. Khrushchev promised to withdraw Soviet missiles from Cuba and to not inte rfere in the internal affairs of Turkey if the USA agreed to end the naval blockade, to not invade Cuba, and to remove U.S. nuclear missile sites from Turkey. During the months that followed, all parties involved met these conditions. Kennedy announced that the USA, however, would not end its anti-Cuba political a nd economic policies. In December, Cuba released U.S. prisoners captu red during the Bay of Pigs in exchange for $53 million in U.S. exports of medicine and baby food (Franklin, 1997; PÃ©rez, 1995).
72 Food shortages in Cuba in 1962, partly as a result of the U.S.-imposed economic embargo, influenced a government initiative to implem ent a food rationing syst em. Although the first Agrarian Reform Law promoted diversificati on and import substitution, Cuban reliance on sugar exports and foreign imports increa sed. Deere (1996) affirms, Â“wh ile agricultural diversification and import substitution would remain as long-term goals, they could not be achieved at the cost of sugar cane production and the foreign exchange generated by sugar expo rtsÂ” (p. 6). But, Cuban sugar production was declining. Sugar production decreased from 6.7 million tons in 1961 to 3.8 million tons in 1963. PÃ©rez (1995) notes that Â“not in twenty years had Cuban sugar production been so lowÂ” and that the effects were felt in all sectors of the economy (p. 338). CubaÂ’s attention became, yet again, focu sed on sugar production. A renewed focus on sugar production Â“offered an obvious and relativ ely cost-effective method of reversing the mounting balance of trade deficits by mobilizing efforts around a sector in which Cuba possessed adequate personnel and sufficient experienceÂ” (P Ã©rez, 1995, 339). Furthermore, world market sugar prices had recently increased, once again providing Cuba with a global market for any exportable production. In 1963, Castro announced th e governmentÂ’s renewed interest in sugar production and that effort was to be concentr ated on meeting a ten million ton goal set for 1970 (Deere, 1996). Internationally, tension between the USA and Cuba persisted. The USA continued to tighten restrictions on the economic embargo. In July 1963, the U.S. government made travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens illegal. Under the author ity of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the U.S. government revoked Cuban import regula tions and prohibited ec onomic transactions between the two countries. This prohibition included unlicensed commercial or financial
73 transactions as well as money spent on travel to the island. The USA also froze all Cuban-owned assets in the country (Franklin, 1997). In October 1963, the Cuban government enacted the second Agrarian Reform Law. Alvarez (2004a) states that th is law expropriated the land fr om most farmers who had land holdings greater than 67 ha and that the two agrari an reform laws combined transitioned 70% of Cuban agricultural land to the State. Alvarez (2004a) also notes th at exceptions to this law were made if: 1) the farms were worked by several br others Â“each with a per capita area below the 67 ha limitÂ” (p.40) and 2) the INRA considered th e higher acreage farms to be exceptional, with high productivity and farmer willingness to c ooperate with State agricultural plans. Deere (1996) notes that the ev ents leading to this second agrarian reform have been broadly debated in the literatur e. Drawing from Acosta (197 2) and RodrÃguez (1965), Deere states Â“Cuban authors tend to st ress the growing counter-revolutiona ry position of the remaining capitalist farmers and how they were a negative influence over the peasantry, spreading rumors that all land was to be nationa lizedÂ” (p. 4). On the other ha nd, drawing from Chonchol (1963) and Dumont (1970), she asserts, Â“other authors see the decision as a product of the growing tension between State control of the economy and the continuing impor tance of capitalist producers in agriculture. The State did not want to build up the economic strength of this sector, and was not providing the incentives or inputs to stimulate itÂ” ( p. 4-5). Deere (1996) further concludes that the non-State (i.e . private) sector, furthermore, relied on wage labor, which was Â“increasingly viewed as incompatible with th e now explicitly socialist character of the revolutionÂ” (p. 5). The Second Agrarian Reform Law further served to organize Cuban production along socialist lines by promoti ng collectivization of land (Alvarez, 2004a). In a further effort for State
74 control over agricultura l production of the non-State sector , limitations were established regarding direct sales of produce from small farm er to consumer by restricting sales to 25 lbs (Deere, 1996). Furthermore, in an effort to achieve the 10 million ton goal set in 1963, government efforts continued to focus on s ugarcane production. A national campaign was implemented throughout the 1960s. Acreage of plan ted cane expanded, as did the duration of the harvest. Moral incentives fo r greater sugar production were emphasized for producers while monetary incentives were elimin ated (PÃ©rez, 1995). In 1964, the Soviet Union agreed to purchase two million tons of sugar in 1965, thre e million tons in 1966, four million tons in 1967, and five million tons annually from 1968 to 1970 (Franklin, 1997). Efforts were made throughout the 1960s in Cuba to distribute free goods among the populace. Fees were eliminated for health care, day-care, education, funeral services, local bus transportation, sports events, utili ties, and telephone serv ices. Rents were fi xed at a minimum of 10% of income, if collected at all. Cuban offi cials discussed the possibility of the abolition of money altogether (PÃ©rez, 1995). Tensions remained between the USA and Cuba as peaceful negotiations could not be achieved. In 1965, Castro proclaimed that those Cubans wanting to leave the island were free to leave fro m the port of Camarioca (Franklin, 1997). In 1966, Castro asserted that it was CubaÂ’s emigration policy to permit all those who wanted to leave Cuba to leave. U.S. airlifts transported more than 200,000 Cubans to the USA by the end of 1973. The USA continued to streng then the economic emba rgo against the island by ceasing food shipments to any country that so ld strategic or non-strategic goods to Cuba. Later that year, U.S. President Johnson signed in to law the Cuban Adjustment Act, a U.S. policy that exempted Cubans from general migration laws. The law stated that any Cuban who had
75 reached U.S. territory since 1959 would be eligib le for permanent residency after only two years (Franklin, 1997). Franklin (1997) states that in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Federal District Court decision in United States vs. Laub, which lega lized travel to Cuba for U.S. citizens on the condition that travelers follow the Treasury Depart ment regulations regarding the exchange of money that were established in 1963 by the Kenne dy Administration. She fu rther explains that less than two months later, the U.S. State Department revoked Public Notice 179 of January 1961 and issued a new notice restrict ing travel to, in or through C uba and that U.S. passports had to be specifically endorsed for tr avel to the island. This restri ction was issued annually or biannually until 1977.3 By the end of 1967, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. District Court upheld the U.S. State DepartmentÂ’s regulations that prohibited the use of U.S. passports for travel to Cuba but did not prohibit its use fo r such travel as long as the passport was not presented to Cuban authorities and stamped w ith Cuban visas. Tensions between the two countries continued into the 1970s. The 1970 sugarcane harvest succeeded in produc ing a record crop of 8.5 million tons, but failed to achieve the anticipated goal of ten million tons. The net result was damaging to the Cuban economy, as sugarcane production effort had been made at the expense of other sectors of the economy and the 8.5 million ton production coul d not compensate for this expense. As a result, production of basic foodstuffs, such as fruits, vegetables, milk, poultry, and meat, declined. Because so many resources had been invested into sugarcane production, consumer goods were in short supply throughout the country. Also contributing to this decline in consumer goods were devastating hurricane s that occurred throughout the mi d-late 1960s. Hurricane Flora 3 Following several years of reprieve, the restriction was again imposed in 1982.
76 hit the eastern provinces of Cuba in 1963 resulting in thousands of deaths and an estimated $500 million in damages. CubaÂ’s economy was furthe r stressed by another hurricane in 1964 and yet another, Hurricane Inez, in 1966, th at destroyed a large portion of CubaÂ’s s ugarcane crop (PÃ©rez, 1995). The funneling of a majority of CubaÂ’s resources into sugarcane production and its subsequent failure to achieve ambitious goals is a prime example of how government initiatives were stressing the economy, as efforts towards ce ntralization focused on la rge goals that would benefit the State instead of smalle r goals that benefited the local populations of towns and cities. Further stressing the economy was the immigra tion of hundreds of thousands of Cubans to Florida as Â“...81% of the economically active population reaching Flor ida through 1962 were professional, managerial, cleric al, and skilled workersÂ” (PÃ©r ez, 1995, p. 343). This immigration further compounded the adverse effects on ma nagement and the Cuban economy caused by North American emigration following the 1959 Cuban Revolution. In the face of these challenges, the Cuban government set forth new initiatives for the 1970s by focusing on what they believed were two of the key drivers of unsatisfactory performan ce of the Cuban economy: over-centralization and ineff ective incentives (PÃ©rez, 1995). The 1970s in Cuba were characterized by ec onomic policy reforms that were gradually introduced up until the mid-late 1980s. In an e ffort to improve the performance of the economy, the Cuban government began by decreasing cent ralization through the re -organization of its Cuban Ministries. A primary example of this was the reorganization of the Ministry of Industries into smaller ministri es of sugar, basic industry, f ood production, light industry, and mining and the Ministry of Construction into se parate agencies of so cial and agricultural construction, agricultural livestoc k, construction materials, and i ndustrial construction. Reform
77 and re-organization encouraged the development of a new Cuban Constitution that was established in 1976 (PÃ©rez, 1995). In an effort to create more localized government, the Cuban Constitution led to the development of a national assembly and the elect ion of provincial and local government officials across the island. The former six provinces were reorganized into 14 smaller provinces and local government was consolidated into 169 municipalities. In an effo rt to emphasize more localized, mass participation, the Poder Popular (The PeopleÂ’s Power) was es tablished, which enabled the election of municipal assemblies, provincial assemblies, and deputies, all of which comprised the Cuban National Assembly (PÃ©rez, 1995). This process of democratization also result ed in the encouragement of trade unions and mass organizations such as the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDRs), the Federation of Cuban Women (FMC ), and the AsociaciÃ³n Nacional de Agricultores PequeÃ±os (National Association of Small Farmers or ANAP). These organizations were granted larger roles in policy and program formulation and impl ementation. In the years that followed, these organizations, respectively, convened at nationa l meetings. To tackle the second driver inhibiting the Cuban economy, the Cuban government simultaneously reintroduced material incentives into the economy. Th is was largely achieved through the creation of labor norms and quota incentives, overtime bonuses, wage increases and material incentives (e.g. televisions, washing machines, etc.) for exemplary workers. The Anti-Loafing Act of 1971 required males between the ages of 17 and 70 to perform productive labor, resulting in an increase of more than 100,000 persons in the workforce. These initia tives increased production of consumer goods (PÃ©rez, 1995).
78 Additional modifications includ ed a move away from non-mark et distribution. Fees were re-established for certain servic es such as telephone usage an d bus transportation. However, many services such as health care, education, retirement pensions, and certain rationed items remained under centralized contro l. Many types of consumer goods and formerly rationed items became available on the free market. Increased worker participation le d to an increase in production, which inevitably enabled economic grow th throughout the early years of the 1970s. Export of production and non-sugarcane agriculture increased and the livestock sector expanded (PÃ©rez, 1995). Between 1970 and 1974, the Cuba n economy saw a per capita growth of 8.2% (Madrid-Aris, 1997). These government effort s towards export diversification and import substitution proved effective thr oughout the 1970s, primarily streng thened through the first FiveYear Plan of 1976-1980, Â“...which sought a better balance and integration between the sugar export sector and the industrial and food sectorsÂ” (Kay, 1988, p. 1244). While U.S.-Cuba relations remained tense and co mbative, CubaÂ’s relations with the Soviet Union grew stronger. In 1972, Cuba joined the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON). Coupling national initiatives to promote growth in the Cuban economy were support and subsidies provided by the Soviet Uni on, mostly through high prices paid for Cuban imports, subsidized exports to Cuba, and monetary loans of credit for CubaÂ’s trade deficits. By the mid-1970s, approximately 40% of exports went to and 50% of imports came from the Soviet Union (PÃ©rez, 1995). In 1975, as part of the efforts for conventions of the revised mass organizations, the First Party Congress convened. During this meeting, th ey established the Sistema de DirecciÃ³n y PlanificaciÃ³n de la EconomÃa (Economic Pla nning and Management System or SDPE), which promoted the decentralization of State farms a nd focused on greater enterprise autonomy. The
79 Theses on the Agrarian Question was also approved at the Party Congress convention and emphasized production cooperatives as important complements to State farm production. The committee suggested that together, State farms and cooperatives exemplified the two chosen paths to achieve efficient and effective socialist agriculture (Deere, 1996; Kay, 1988). ANAP, in the late 1970s, further encourag ed cooperative production by encouraging individual farmers to pool their land and re sources together, following their adoption of voluntary collectiviza tion as a long term goal of the associ ation (Deere and PÃ©rez, 1999). This led to the establishment of the cooperativas de producciÃ³n agropecuarias (agricultural production cooperatives or CPAs) and the official recognition and promotion of the CCSs, which were originally created during the early years of the Revolution following the creation of ANAP (Alvarez, 2004a). CPAs are groups of indi vidual farmers who volunt arily pool their land together (and give up their land titles) for coll ective agricultural production and whose wages are based on effort and participation. CCSs are indivi dual farmers that maintain their individual land but engage in cooperatives to sh are resources and receive benefits such as accessibility to bank credit and collective profit sharing. Incentives for individual farmers to collec tivize land included in creased supplies of technology, inputs, credit and material incentives in the form of profit sharing (Meurs, 1989; Alvarez, 2004a). Participation in creased slightly but not to the ex tent that the Cuban government had hoped. Despite efforts to collectivize as much agricultural land as possi ble, private (i.e. nonState) agriculture (e.g. non-cooperative indi vidual producers) still accounted for 30% of agricultural land and 26% of agricultural pr oduction in the mid-late 1970s (Deere, 1984; CEE, 1983; Meurs, 1989).
80 Throughout the late 1970s, th e freeze between Cuba and the USA began to thaw. Although tensions remained strong on behalf of the Cuban American exile community, Castro and U.S. President Jimmy Carter openly discusse d potential talks of peac e. In 1977, Carter did not renew the ban on U.S. travel to Cuba (as we ll as Vietnam, Cambodia, and North Korea) and subsequently lifted the ban on U.S. citizensÂ’ spending U.S. currency in Cuba. The economic embargo and military presence at GuantÃ¡namo Bay, however, continued (Franklin, 1997). Later that year, Cuba and the USA agreed to establish Interests Sections in each otherÂ’s countries to deal with trade a nd consular matters and to serve as channels of communication. This represented the first diplomatic presence of the USA in Cuba and Cuba in the USA since the USA severed diplomatic relations with C uba in January 1961. Castro also publicly announced that Cuba would be willing to disc uss payment of compensation for expropriated lands if the USA would be will ing to compensate for the damage caused to the Cuban economy by the U.S. economic embargo. Carter, however, re fused such negotiations, stating that the U.S. economic embargo would continue. In 1979, C uba implemented a new policy that allowed Cuban Americans from abroad to visit th eir relatives in C uba (Franklin, 1997). U.S.-Cuba relations again declined throughout the early years of the 1980s, largely as a result of dissatisfaction with the way each gove rnment was handling various military initiatives and national issues regarding Cuban immigration to the USA. Tension also still remained because of a failure to reach a mutual agr eement concerning respective economic compensation for past deeds. In response to CubanÂ’s e xpressing a desire to leave the country, Castro announced in April 1980 that any Cuban who wanted to leave the country could do so if they departed from the port in Mariel, located west of Ha vana. This resulted in an influx of more than 40,000 Cubans into Florida. In May of that year , in response to the large number of emigrants
81 from Cuba, Carter opposed the boatl ift, instead encouraging an ai rlift. Because the USA failed to negotiate terms such as ending the economic embargo, Castro refused to cooperate. As a result, numerous hijackings and ille gal boat trips to the USA resulte d. In September of that year, Castro announced an end to the Mariel Boatlif t. Migration talks between the two countries occurred but failed to reach any agreement (Franklin, 1997). Hijacking of U.S. planes to Cuba and unres olved talks concerning emigration between the two countries continued throughout the early 1980s. In 1982, U.S. President Reagan reinstituted the travel ban to Cuba, again suspendi ng U.S. citizensÂ’ rights to spend money there despite the fact that the U.S. courts had recen tly upheld the right to travel to the island. Exceptions were made for government officials, those traveling for the purpose of making news or documentary films, those engaging in pr ofessional research, a nd people visiting close relatives. In April 1984, the Supr eme Court of the USA heard arguments for and against travel restrictions to Cuba in the case of Reagan v. Wald and in June of that same year they voted 5 to 4 to uphold Treasury Department restrictions on trav el to Cuba on the groun ds that restrictions were part of the U.S. economic embargo and not about political control to travel (Franklin, 1997). Migration talks between the tw o countries continued and in December 1984, they finally came to an agreement that called for the U.S. ad mission of 3000 political prisoners in exchange for 2764 unwanted Marielitos (Cuban immigrants that arrived to the USA from Cuba following the Mariel Boatlift during the early 1980s, who were deemed unwanted by the U.S. government). They also established that 20,000 Cubans were permitted to immigrate to the USA from Cuba every year. Some, but not all, of these c onditions were met before Cuba suspended the Migration Treaty in May 1985 in retaliation for the br oadcast of the U.S. financially-backed
82 program, Radio MartÃ (Franklin, 199 7), a radio and television broa dcaster based in Miami that transmits Spanish-language radio broadcasts ai med with the mission of combating communism by providing listeners in Cuba (and other parts of Latin America) with an uncensored view of current events. Despite the attention given to migration issues and U.S. policy during the early 1980s, the Cuban government continued its national efforts toward decentralization, land collectivization, and the introduction of selected market mech anisms. In 1980 and 1981, the Cuban government established the mercados paralelos (parallel markets) and the mercados libres campesinos (free peasant markets (which were later referred to a the mercados libres agropecuarios or the free agricultural markets or MLAs fo llowing their re-introduction in the early 1990s), both of which were governed to some extent by the free-marke t principles of supply and demand. The parallel markets were markets provisioned by the State th at sold an array of products, including those that were included in State rations as part of the libreta . The prices for these rationed items, however, were typically higher than those at the State-run bodegas where State-rationed items were purchased. The free peasant markets had minimal State in tervention and typically a broader range of foodstuffs but at higher prices, as prices were determined by sellers and based on consumer demand. Individual, private-sect or (i.e. non-State) farmers a nd those individual farmers who were part of cooperatives were able to sell their excess producti on. Individual farmers could sell whatever quantity of produce they wanted at these markets but cooperative members could only sell surplus produced over and above the procurement quotas of ACOPIO (Kay, 1998). The purpose of implementing this type of market was to expand production, to diversify output, and increase quality of food products in an effort to help provide farmers and all categories of
83 workers the option to spend their increased inco mes on better quality and more diversified crops (Ghai et al., 1988). In the beginning, the free peasant markets we re created for private farmers to sell their produce directly to consumers, but in practice, intermediaries who had no hand in the actual production of the products, became involved. Thes e free peasant markets allowed participators an opportunity to increase their income but through 1981, sales of their production only accounted for 5% of national food production. (U tting, 1992). The free peasant markets were temporarily closed for several months in 1982 and 1983 as a result of accusations against intermediaries and others taking advantage of the system (Utting, 1992; Gh ai et al., 1988). In 1985, the role of the free peasant markets was re-evaluated. According to ANAP, in 1984, peasant market produce was still of only minor signi ficance. Ghai et al. (1988) state that in 1985 sales from the free peasant markets amounted to only 70 million pesos compared to 900 million pesos for food products sold in the parallel markets. He further notes that regardless of this fact, the contribution of particular crops was dispropo rtionately large. Ghai et al. (1988) state: The best example may be that of garlic, a cr ucial ingredient of C uban cuisine, for which the peasant markets were responsib le, in the first half of that year (1985), for 80.9% of the total sold. To the typical Cuban household, en joying a relatively larg e disposable income, and long accustomed to spending a high proportion of available cash on food Â– in dining out to supplement the meat ration, for exampl e Â– the availability and quality of prized ingredients can easily outweigh cons iderations of price. (p. 51) However, the free peasant markets were closed indefinitely in 1986 when the Â‘rectificationÂ’ pro cess began. Deere and Meuers (1992) ar gue that these markets were closed because the Cuban government realized that it wa s highly contradictory to establish free peasant markets during a time when the State was al so encouraging land collectivization and cooperativization Â“Â…since peasan ts could earn exceptionally hi gh incomes selling in the free
84 market; when further development of the cooperative movement appeared to be stymiedÂ…Â” (Deere, 1996, 18). In February 1986, Castro addressed the Thir d Congress of the Cuban Communist Party, describing the system of reforms concerning the introduction of the free market in Cuba as a Â‘rectificationÂ’ of errors, thereby establishi ng the CampaÃ±a de Rectif icaciÃ³n de Errores y Tendencies Negativas (Campaign to Rectify Erro rs and Negative Tendencies). PÃ©rez (1995) states that following the meetings where leader s, activists, and worker s expressed concern over violations of rules, corruption and fraud con cerning the free peasant market experiment, these meetings demonstrated the failure of the SDPE at al l levels. He further stat es that this political strategy reversed the direction of recent ec onomic policies towards de -centralization back towards more centralization through the eliminat ion of market-oriented mechanisms. This movement was not only accomplished through the clos ing of the free peasant markets but also through initiatives such as a tightening of labor norms and wages, a rejection of profit as an incentive for managerial performance, and an emphasis on moral incentives (PÃ©rez, 1995). In November 1987, the USA and Cuba met in Mexico and reached two agreements. The first was to reinstate the Decembe r 1984 migration agreement and to continue future talks to find reasonable solutions regarding the broadcast of Radio MartÃ. In December 1988, the U.S. Treasury Department, again, tightened travel rest rictions to Cuba. These new restrictions required potential travelers to provide a written st atement of why the proposed trip falls within the rules for legal trav el. In November 1989, the U.S. Treas ury Department implemented a new condition regarding travel to Cuba that stipulated travelers c ould not spend more than $100 per day on travel-related expenditure s (Franklin, 1997). Despite the 1987 agreements, relations between the two countries remained tense.
85 In the late 1980s, relations be tween Cuba and the Soviet Uni on began to falter. Soviet Union Prime Minister Mi khail Gorbachev began to implement economic reforms centered on the introduction of selected market mechanisms, th e restoration of privat e property, and other nonsocialist measures while Cuba continued focusi ng on the rectification pr ocess. PÃ©rez (1995) notes that this caused an Â“irrepar able ideological riftÂ” between the two countries (p. 381). PÃ©rez (1995) continues stating that rela tions declined further as the Soviet Union gradually renounced Marxist-Leninist principles, dismantled Socialist structures, and repaired political relations with the USA. The actions of the Soviet Union initia ted a chain reaction of ev ents throughout Eastern Europe, as one by one, Â“countries of the Socia list bloc broke with the Soviet Union and eventually socialism itself foundered and fell among the Warsaw Pact nationsÂ” (PÃ©rez, 1995, p. 382). Within a short period of time, the USSR dism antled and communism collapsed in Eastern Europe (PÃ©rez, 1995). Just prior to this, more than 85% of CubaÂ’s tr ade was with socialist countries in Europe. Funes (2002) states that just prior to the co llapse of the European socialist countries: Cuba imported two thirds of its foodstuffs, almo st all of its fuel, and 80% of its machinery and spare parts from socialist countries. W ith the crisis, CubaÂ’s purchasing capacity was reduced to 40%, fuel importation to a third, fertilizers to 25%, pestic ides to 40%, animal feed concentrates to 30%; and all agricultural activities were seriously affected. Suddenly, $8 billion a year disappeared from Cuba trade. (p. 6) Effects of this sudden loss of imports were felt immediately and in al l sectors of CubaÂ’s economy. For the second time in thirty years, Cuba lost its principal tradi ng partner. This time, however, Cuba did not have altern ative sources to which it could tu rn for assistance and aid. The economic crisis worsened into the early 1990s and initiated the PerÃodo Especial en el Tiempo de la Paz (Special Period in Time of Peace or Special Period) in Cuba.
86 The Special Period in Time of Peace: Cuba from 1990 to 2003 Funes (2002) notes that be tween 1989 and 1993, the Cuban GNP fell from $19.3 to $10 billion, as imports were reduced by 75%. Many industries close d, electrical plants and public transportation worked at a minimum capacity (E spinosa, 1997), and an additional 200 consumer goods were added to the ration list (PÃ©rez, 1995) . Cuba struggled to increase food production while maintaining production for exports, Â“all with a more than 50% drop in the availability of inputsÂ” (Funes, 2002, p.7). Goods and services became scarce and Cuba, once again, responded to th is scarcity with a new regime of rationing (PÃ©rez, 1995). PÃ©rez (1995) states that in August 1990, the Cuban government announced the implementation of th e Special Period, a framework that would employ new austerity measures and new rationing sc hedules. In an effort for initial execution of these new measures, the Cuban government announ ced the implementation of its National Food Program (El Programa Alimentario) (Enriquez, 1994). This program focused on efforts to achieve minimum levels of food self-sufficiency, especially in regards to roots and tubers and vegetables (Deere, 1996). Funes (2002) summarizes the to tality of these new measur es, stating that the Cuban government implemented a Â“new domestic economi c policy, an opening to foreign investment, the liberalization of the rule s governing the possession of dolla rs by Cuban citizens, and the granting of licenses for private work in various se ctorsÂ” (p.7). Funes furt her lists a variety of specific measures that were introduced in an e ffort to drive the implementation of these new policy reforms (p.7): Decentralization of the State farm sector through new organizational forms and production structures. Land distribution to encourage production of different crops in various regions of the country.
87 Reduction of specialization in agricultural production. Production of biological pest co ntrols and biofertilizers. Renewed use of animal traction. Promotion of urban, family, and community gardening movements. Opening of farmersÂ’ markets under Â“supply and demandÂ” conditions. The agrarian reform policy of this Special Period was to boost domestic crop and animal production while transitioning to a low external input form of agriculture (Funes, 2002). As Cuba struggled to implement new economi c policies and a new agrarian reform, the USA began a process of tightening the economic embargo against the island. In 1992, U.S. President George Bush asked the U.S. Treasury De partment to formulate regulations to Â“forbid ships that contain Cuban goods or goods in wh ich Cuba has an interest from loading or unloading at U.S. portsÂ” (Franklin, 1997, 292). The purpose of this was to reduce the number of ships that chose to conduct trade with the island. This same initi ative also limited the number of humanitarian aid packages sent to Cuba by U.S. citizens (PÃ©rez, 1995; Franklin, 1997). Later that year, the U.S. government enacted the Torricelli bill. This bill prohibited subsidiaries of U.S. businesses operating in third countries from trading or investing in Cuba (PÃ©rez, 1995; Funes, 2002). PÃ©rez (1995) states that the Torricelli bill included trade in medical supplies, food, and medicines, which in 1992 Â“r epresented 90% of Cuban trade with U.S. subsidiariesÂ” (p. 384). This law al so further authorized the U.S. president to withhold free trade agreements, debt relief, and economic assistance with all countries that provided aid to Cuba (PÃ©rez, 1995). That same year, the USA, again, further restri cted U.S. travel to Cuba. Cuban-American family spending on travel was limited and luggage weight was restricted, drastically limiting the amounts of much needed consumer goods that were often carried back to the island by U.S.
88 visitors. Throughout the early 1990s, consumer goods became more and more scarce. Blackouts were often imposed daily, fossil-fueled transpor tation availability decr eased dramatically, and normal daily activity became increasingly difficu lt. During these years, the Cuban government pursued new trading partners, new markets, and new sources of fore ign exchange. Some of these goals were met as commercial ti es were renewed or established with countries such as China, North Korea, Vietnam, and several other count ries throughout Latin America and the Caribbean (PÃ©rez, 1995; Franklin, 1997). Tourism increased as niche tourist markets were created in the hopes that they could provide a source of much needed foreign exchan ge for the Cuban economy (PÃ©rez, 1995). As noted by PÃ©rez (1995), this goal wa s met but with a mixed blessing, as it was a Â“dollar tourism in a peso economyÂ” (p. 390). The distinction betw een deteriorating national living standards and affluent tourists became apparent. Hotels, night clubs, and restaurants we re opened for tourists, all of which were unaffordable for the vast major ity of Cubans. Over time, not only was there a noticeable distinction between Â‘poor Â’ Cubans and Â‘wealthyÂ’ tourists , another distinction grew out of the Cuban populace itself, as thos e working in the tourist sector had more ready access to tips and other gifts in foreign exchange. This ini tiated a national differentiation in wealth that persists today, as those Cubans with access to foreign currency had, a nd continue to have, a greater purchasing power for items that were, an d are, for most Cubans, unaffordable (PÃ©rez, 1995). An influx of U.S. dollars bred a complex a nd unbalanced national economy. At the onset of the tourism influx, the value of the peso wa s tied to the U.S. dollar. In 1992 and 1993, the black market exchange rate incr eased from 10 pesos to the dollar to more than 100. Stores that sold goods only in dollars were opened and all kinds of consumer good that could not be found
89 in government stores could be purchased from th ese markets in dollars. Yet, during these early years, the possession of dollars by Cubans was considered illegal a nd therefore, Cubans were not permitted to purchase items from these stores (PÃ©rez, 1995). PÃ©r ez (1995) notes that the pursuit of dollars led to an increase in theft, which, in tu rn, further contributed to th e scarcity of supplies. It became commonplace for Cubans to purchase need ed items from the black market on a regular basis. This pursuit also had other repercussions. Prostituti on increased and Cubans began leaving high-status positions as teachers and en gineers for jobs in the tourist industry where access to dollars was almost always assured (PÃ©rez, 1995). In 1993, the Cuban government decriminalized C uban possession of dollars partly in the hopes of curbing transactions w ithin the black market. New St ate stores were created where Cubans could legally spend their dollars on cons umer goods that could not be found in the Staterun stores selling consumer goods in pesos. The Cuban government also promoted private enterprise that year through the authorization of self-employment. Under this law, approved persons could operate businesses, such as hair salons, computer programming, and auto shops, with services offered to the public at competitive prices. Artists were also permitted to sell their work to the public in either national or fo reign currency. By mid1994, over 200,000 individuals had obtained these self-employment licenses (PÃ©rez, 1995). That same year, the government slightly move d away from centralized State land holdings and towards the creation of c ooperatives on State land with an aim of somewhat increasing worker autonomy. The unidades bÃ¡sicas de producciÃ³n cooperativa (basic units of cooperative production or UBPCs) were promoted as State fa rmland that could be used, free of charge, by cooperatives in permanent usufruct (MartÃn, 2002) . These cooperatives maintain contracts with the State and must fill continual quotas. A ny excess production beyond these quotas can be sold
90 in the free market at free-market prices and in pesos (PÃ©rez, 1995). The idea was that by promoting autonomy and providing material in centives to maximize production, these units would increase agricultural production, ther eby making more food ac cessible to the public. By the mid-1990s, there were a total of 2,879 UBPCs, involving 3,161,000 ha of cultivated land and some 260,000 members (Royce 2004). The govern ment also began to take steps to get these surplus agricultu ral products to the publ ic. In 1994, the government re-opened the mercados libres agropecuarios (free peasant markets or MLAs ), allowing for the sale of individual farmer and cooperativesÂ’ surplus production (after mee ting contracted quotas established with State agencies such as ACOPIO) to the public at prices governed by supply and demand (PÃ©rez, 1995). Cuba exerted tremendous effort to provide for the Cuban people, through the reorganization of agricultural lands , to increase production with fe wer inputs, the authorization of private enterprise, and the promotion of tourism. However, the peopleÂ’s needs were still not being met. Discontent grew among some Cubans who sought relief through emigration. Cubans fleeing for the USA on makeshift rafts ( balseros ) grew in number each year from 1990 to 1994. Hijackings of boats by armed hijackers occurred regularly (PÃ©rez, 1995). Again in 1994, Castro announced that any Cuba n wanting to leave could do so and would not be stopped by the government. This, once agai n, led to an influx of Cubans to the USA. Hundred of Cubans arrived each day until Sept ember 1994 when the USA and Cuba, once again, came to a compromise concerning immigration issues. Cuba woul d control illegal departures and the USA would permit 20,000 Cubans to immigrate to the USA each year if they had been approved to receive a visa (PÃ©rez, 1995).
91 The Clinton Administration, in 1994, further rest ricted family remittances to Cuba and travel by U.S. citizens. In February 1996, th e Cuban military shot down two U.S. planes, arguing that the pilots left international waters and entered Cuban airspace . This precipitated the passage of the Helms-Burton Act that year, whic h further tightened the U.S. economic embargo. There was, however, some reprieve for the Cuban populace in 1999 following the signing of an Executive Order by President Clinton. Ross a nd Mayo (2002) state that this executive order Â“permitted U.S. food sales in Cuba to small pr ivate farmers, private cooperatives, individual Cuban nationals, private home-b ased restaurants, non-government organizations (NGOs), and the government-formed basic units of cooperativ e production (UBPCs)Â” (p. 382). They also note, however, that there were no actual sales of significance because there were no mechanisms in Cuba to allow U.S. firms direct access to the specified groups or organi zations to arrange such sales (Ross and Mayo, 2002). In October of 2000, President Clinton signe d the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSRA), which allowed U.S. firms to sell agri cultural production, food products, and medicine to any entity in Cuba. Cuba initially turned down food export offers from the USA but following Hurricane Mitchell in November 2001, Cuba turned to the USA for food. They were especially inte rested in purchasing bulk commodities such as rice to replenish ration stores. These purchases have been in cash (Ross and Mayo, 2002). Ross and Mayo (2002) further explain that in 2002, the Cuban gove rnment indicated that it would continue to import foodstuffs from the USA. In 2004, C uba purchased nearly $400 million in food and agricultural products from the USA. Complexity, Diversity, and Change: Cuba Today Today, CubaÂ’s economy can be characterized by increasing complexity driven by a dual economy and a continuing failure to repair relations with the USA. Select market mechanisms
92 have slightly thwarted State cen tralization efforts. Approximate ly two million tourists visit the country each year, approximately one billion dolla rs of remittances are sent to Cuban citizens each year, and foreign investment between C uba and other countries, continues to grow (DomÃnquez, 2004). CubaÂ’s government replaced U.S. dollars with the pesos convertibles (Cuban convertible pesos or CUCs) and opened up casas de cambio (CADECAs) for Cubans to exchange foreign currency for these CUCs. The CUC acts as a foreign exchange currency. State employees in Cuba are still paid in pesos cubanos , which as of 2006, were exchanged 24:1 with the CUC. Food markets in Cuba can be divided into four general categories: 1) bodegas (where rationed items are purchased at subsidized prices); 2) peso stores and markets; 3) stores and markets in foreign exchange (i.e. CUCs); and 4) the unofficial, informal economy (which include the underground and black markets4). Cubans are still provid ed a monthly ration of food subsidized by the State but must purchase additiona l necessary items from one of these markets. Cubans with access to CUCs (this includes rem ittances in foreign currencies that can be exchanged for CUCs) can purchase items not found in State stores and markets in the stores and markets that deal in foreign exchange. Those who do not have access can save their Cuban pesos and exchange them for CUCs. When items cannot be found or cannot be afforded, Cubans often turn to the only other viable alternative fo r obtaining needed items, the underground, or black, markets of the informal economy. Relations between the two countries remain unstable and differing political and economic agendas continue to prevent p eaceful reconcili ation. Approximately 20,000 Cubans continue to 4 See Chapter 6 for a discussion of the distinction between the underground and black markets of the unofficial, informal economy as defined in this thesis.
93 immigrate to the USA every year. Travel by U.S. citizens is still restrict ed and only those with permission from the U S. Treasury Department can legally visit. Many social and economic changes have taken pl ace in Cuba since the onset of the Special Period. Efforts have been made to re-organi ze the State and non-State agricultural sectors to increase production using less inpu ts and more worker autonomy. Selected market mechanisms have been implemented at a national level to provide incentives for increased production. And effort has been made to promote foreign inve stment to provide the Cuban government with a source of much needed foreign exchange. All of these measures collectively drive government effort to achieve a more balanced domestic econo my and to ensure national food security for its citizens. Dominquez (2003) best summarizes these efforts by stating: Perhaps the single most noteworthy trait of the change that has already taken place is that there are many more diverse ways than before 1990 for Cubans to engage in their economy and their society. From such diversity come bot h creativity and growth but also inequality. How these gains and losses are weighed, mixe d, shaped, and misshaped is a key to the future yet to be known. (p. 14)
94 Figure 3-1. CubaÂ’s geographical situation with reference to su rrounding countries and bodies of water (United States Central Intelligence Agency, 1994).
95 Figure 3-2. Provinces of C uba (Cuba Travel Maps, 2006).
96 Figure 3-3. Digitized copy of the first page of the original Platt Am endment of 1903 (Congress of the United States of America, 1903, see http://www.historicaldocume nts.com/PlattAmendment.htm ).
97 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH LOGISTICS, DESIGN, AND METHODOLOGY Research Logistics Obtaining Permission I began the process of working in Cuba by cont acting Fred Royce, Assistant Scientist from the University of FloridaÂ’s Department of Ag ricultural and Biological Engineering. Dr. Royce conducted primary research on a sugarcane cooper ative in Cuba in 1996 and continues to be involved in the promotion of academic collaborat ion between the two countries. He and three other members of my committee (Peter Hild ebrand, William A. Messina, Jr., and Guillermo GÃ¡lvez) were key participants in establishing the academic cooperative agreement between the University of Florida (UF) and the La Universidad de La Habana (University of Havana or UH) in 2003. This research will ideally serve as a prelude to future U.F. and U.H. student-faculty academic initiatives under the um brella of this agreement. Permission to work in Cuba is a two-fold process requiring authorization from both U.S. and Cuban officials. I outline below the steps I took in this research to obtain permission from both governments to legally conduct primary research in Cuba. On the U.S. side, a complicated and dynamic process has been implemented that falls under the purview of the Treasury Department. Policy is often a direct reflection of U.S.-Cuba political relations. Over the years, freezes and thaws have occurred in the relations hip. Since the Cuban revolution in 1959, various U.S. policies have restricted travel by U.S. citizens to the island. Th e Cuban Assets Control Regulations of the U.S. Treasury Department requir e that Â“persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction be licensed to engage in any transa ction related to travel to, a nd from, and within CubaÂ” (U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2006, see
98 http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enfor cement/ofac/programs/cuba/cuba.shtml ). The historical context of this is reviewed in Chapter 3. Licenses are granted to a number of categor ies of travelers who are permitted to spend money under either a general license or a specific license. Speci fic licenses are those issued by the U.S. Treasury DepartmentÂ’s Office of Foreig n Assets Control (OFAC) and are granted on a case-by-case basis. The categories listed below present general information to provide the context for permission acquisition for this specific research. U.S. policy regarding Cuba frequently changes. Current information regardi ng U.S. citizen travel to Cuba can be obtained via the U.S. Department of State. Licenses ar e permitted for the following groups of travelers: General licenses: o Journalists, U.S. government officials, members of inte rnational organizations of which the USA is also a member, and fu ll-time professionals whose travels are directly related to research in professional areas or attendance at a professional meeting or conference. Specific (OFAC-granted) licenses: o U.S. citizens who are immediate family members of Cuban citizens, educational institutions (undergraduate and graduate students, faculty and staff), religious organizations, and other specific license s issued on a case-by-case basis (e.g. humanitarian projects, free-lance jour nalism, professional research, public performances, athletics or other competitions, etc.). Permission for my travel to Cuba fell under an OF AC-granted specific license that allows travel by those who are a part of a U.S. educationa l institution. However, there are a number of stipulations under this ar ch of permission. Undergraduate and graduate students must meet one of the following requirements: OFAC-granted license for educational inst itutions include those travelers who are: o Undergraduate and graduate students partic ipating in a structur ed program lasting at least 10 weeks, graduate students conducting noncommercial Cuba-related academic research for the purpose of qualifying for a graduate degree, U.S. academic institutional faculty and staff engaging in teaching or other scholarly
99 activities, and educational institutional faculty and staff teaching or conducting scholarly research. Since the early years of the Cuban Revolut ion, U.S.-Cuban government relations have been tumultuous. The degree to which the USA rest ricts U.S. citizen travel to Cuba has varied throughout the decades. Most recentl y, travel restrictions have again increased. For many years, educational institutions have been granted a ge neral institutional license. However, in recent years, universities have been required to rene w this license each y ear. In 2004, a number of university institutional licenses were not renewed as a result of the U.S. government tightening restrictions on U.S.-Cuba relatio ns. UF appealed this decisi on and in February 2005, their institutional license was re-instated. University possession of an institutional license is essential for graduate students to travel to Cuba for acad emic purposes. Additionally, it was necessary for me to obtain a letter of permission from the dean of U.F.Â’s International Center, Dennis Jett, stating that I had permission under U.F.Â’s inst itutional license to trav el legally to Cuba. Conducting field research in Cuba requires that the investigat or collaborate with a Cuban institution and be granted a Cuban academic res earch visa. This research was conducted with support from UH and the Cuban agricultural institution , El Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en Agricultura Tropical (Institute for Fundamental Invest igations in Tropical Agriculture or INIFAT). I was very fortunate to initially gain the support of U.H. faculty member, Guillermo GÃ¡lvez, who was instrumental in my receiving permission from both the Cuban government and U.H.Â’s Vice RectorÃa de Relaciones Internacionales y Post Grado (Vice President of International Re lations and Graduate Studies), Christina DÃaz, for my intended research objectives. Dr. GÃ¡lvez also served as liaison between potenti al collaborative Cuban institutions and me. It was because of his effo rt and support that I was afforded the opportunity to collaborate with these institutions and th at I received a Cuban academic research visa.
100 Principal Collaborator INIFAT is over 100 years old and is considered the oldest agricultural institute in Cuba. Their scientific work includes a range of activi ties. Examples include: 1) research regarding plant genetic selection, conservation, and deve lopment; 2) the implementation of low-input agricultural practices; and 3) urban agricultural development. Their work is recognized both nationally and internationally. The institution is s ituated in Santiago de Las Vegas, located west of Havana City. INIFATÂ’s res earch teams, however, conduct scie ntific research throughout the country. I approached one of these research teams within the institu tion with my research objectives. Because of our similar interests, we agreed to act as primary collaborators under the supervision of UH. Prior to my initial travel to Cuba, my thesis objectives, generally, we re to: 1) use the ELP methodology to model urban-agricult ural livelihoods; 2) to empiri cally determine the influence of household market participation on plant species diversity in urban home gardens (i.e. patios, backyard and side-yard gardens); and 3) to ex plore the role of urban gardening and market integration as a livelihood diversification strate gy. I anticipated achieving this by conducting interviews with members of at least 30 households within both th e center and the periphery of Havana City. However, while I was already in Cuba and shortly befo re the initiation of fieldwork, I was informed that my request fo r the specific interviews had been denied. Although I could not conduct research w ith urban households, I was permitted to accompany my collaborative INIFAT research t eam to the Sierra del Rosario Biosphere ReserveÂ’s (SRBR) Ecological Research Station to interview members of rural households who live outside and along the periph ery of the Reserve. These households were currently participating in one of INIFATÂ’s on-going resear ch projects targeting th e conservation of plant genetic resources in rural farming systems. With no other option, I se ized the opportunity and,
101 with the approval of my supervisory committee, m odified my research objective. Modifying my research objective according to these new conditions resulted in the research presented in this thesis. This circumstance underpin s the potential bias that exists in this research and was a key determinant for the need to retu rn to Cuba for a secondary phas e of primary data collection in 2006. INIFATÂ’s Research Project and its Relevance to the Thesis In 1998, INIFAT began a research project titled Contribution of Homegardens to the In Situ Conservation of Plant Geneti c Resources in Farming Systems , in collaboration with the International Plant Genetic Resources Institut e (IPGRI), a center of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), based in Italy. The objective of INIFATÂ’s research is to promote the use and development of homegardens for the in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity in Cuba by investiga ting household homegardens in three communities located in three geographically distinct Cuban provinces (CastiÃ±eiras et al., 1999): 1. Rural and semi-rural households w ithin the Sierra del Rosario in the western provinces of Pinar del Rio and Havana. 2. Rural and semi-rural households residing on th e periphery of the Cienfuegos Botanical Garden (JBC) in the central province of Cienfuegos. 3. Rural households within a buffer zone of the Alejandro de Humboldt (Alexander Humboldt) National Park in the eastern province of GuantÃ¡namo. Specific objectives of INIFATÂ’s study have included (CastiÃ±eiras et al., 1999): 1. Surveying type and number of plant species wi thin each homegarden and assessing interand intra-specific diversity. 2. Determining what species have the greatest poten tial for further genetic diversity research. 3. Investigating further the genetic vari ation of five targ et plant species: Xanthosoma spp. (e.g. malanga or taro), Musa spp. (e.g. plÃ¡tano or banana), Capsicum spp. (e.g. ajÃ or chili pepper), Phaseolus lunatus (e.g. frijol negro or black beans), and Pouteria sapota (i.e. mamey).
102 4. Examining the biological, cultural, and socio economic factors related to plant distribution and gene flow both within and among farming systems. 5. Developing a computer information syst em to manage collected information. A total of 107 households with homegarde ns were visited by INIFAT during 1998-1999 (36 in Pinar del Rio/Havana Provinces; 45 in Ci enfuegos Province; 26 in GuantÃ¡namo Province) and 38 of these (19 in Pinar del Rio/Havana Provinces; 12 in Cienfuegos Province; 13 in GuantÃ¡namo Province) were selected for IN IFATÂ’s study based on the following criteria established by INIFAT (C astiÃ±eiras et al., 1999): 1. The number of useful, cultivated species is greater than 30. 2. Traditional, local varieties of useful, cult ivated species are pr esent and/or abundant. 3. Seeds are not generally purchased but instea d saved or acquired from other farmers. 4. Household size and composition suggests the farming system will be passed down to a member of the family. 5. Off-farm work by household memb ers does not affect homegard en production as a primary livelihood production activity. 6. Homegarden production is utilized primarily for subsistence purposes with only surplus production sold or traded. 7. The homegarden has existed for a minimum of 10 years. 8. Homegarden spatial distribution meets INIFAT personnelÂ’s subjective judgment of whether or not the household promotes ecologi cal niches within the agroecosystem. 9. The household has no legal issues with the government regarding land tenure. 10. The homegarden contains at least th ree of the following plant species: Xanthosoma spp . , Musa spp . , Capsicum spp . , Phaseolus lunatus , and Pouteria sapota . 11. The homegarden manager (i.e. farmer or head of household) demonstrates some level of consciously conserving and promoting plan t genetic diversity in the homegarden. Throughout the years, the objectives set fo rth by INIFATÂ’s research have been accomplished and the project continues to evolve. Households located in Cienfuegos Province no longer participate in the study. Households lo cated in the western a nd eastern region of the
103 island do continue to participat e in various aspects of the research. The primary purpose of INIFATÂ’s visit to the Sierra del RosarioÂ’s Ecological Resear ch Station during summer 2005 was to collect samples of Zea mays (maize) from the previously selected 19 households affiliated with the project. Zea mays was collected for the purpose of determining genetic variability and presence of traditional varietie s in these farming systems. Because the research team was already planning to visit households in the area, I was encouraged to accompany them in order to collect data for my thesis. The original research objective of this thesis was no longer feasible because 1. These households were the only possible househ olds I could interview during my threemonth stay in Cuba. Therefore, I could not conduct a random sampling of at least 30 households. This limitation makes it impossible to assume that data collected are applicable to my defined population. 2. INIFATÂ’s household selection criteria em phasized households that were primarily subsistence-oriented and that ha d little or no integration into the greater free-market economy of Cuba (i.e. mercados libres agropecuarios or free agricultural markets or MLAs). Therefore, it appeared irrelevant to measure a householdÂ’s level of partic ipation in the market and then subsequently explore its influence on plant species diversity in the farming system. 3. Because of lost time, I had very limited time re maining to be in the field (less than three weeks). Therefore, the research needed to be feasible within this time constraint. Because of these conditions, a new research objective had to be considered. A meeting was held with the research team from INIFAT and my thesis committee was contacted via email to explore the possibilities. IN IFAT continued to express inte rest in an ELP livelihood model and the decision was made to modify the resear ch objective to instead explore non-urban, farmhousehold livelihood strategies of the 191 households already particip ating in INIFATÂ’s on-going research projects. INIFAT also expressed that the subject area most lacking in their larger farming system study were those data regardi ng household-level microe conomics (e.g. annual 1 Only 15 of these 19 households participated in this re search. Reasons for this are discussed below in the section titled Selection Sample and Unit of Analysis .
104 income, prices of items, points of contact with the greater market economy, etc.). Because the development of an ELP model largely depends on obtaining quantitative ec onomic data as well as qualitative data, it was decided by all parties involved to modify the research objective to what is currently presented in this thesis. This deci sion was appropriate because it allowed me to meet the criteria for my thesis and to contribute usef ul information to my primary collaboratorÂ’s ongoing study. Timeline I traveled to Cuba to conduct this research tw ice over a period of 11 months. Both trips to Cuba were to collect primary data specifically for this thesis and to subsequently provide INIFAT with all data, with the aim of eventu ally making available to them a working ELP livelihood system model. For the sake of clarity, these two periods are further referred to as Phase 1 and Phase 2 of primary research. Phase 1 occurred from June 20, 2005 to September 17, 2005. Phase 2 occurred from May 7, 2006 to June 8, 2006. Phase 1 of primary research I arrived in Cuba on June 20, 2005 and during the first six weeks, I: Met with committee member, Guillermo GÃ¡lvez of the University of Havana, in an effort to finalize future fieldwork objectives. Met with the Cuban agricultural institutions, th e Instituto Nacional de Ciencias AgrÃcolas (National Institute of Agricultural Science or INCA) and INIFAT, in an effort to identify a principal collaborator for this research. Received language training. On August 12, 2005, I accompanied two members of INIFAT, Lianne FernÃ¡ndez and Leonor CastiÃ±eiras, to the SRBR. We were permitted to reside at the Ecologica l Research Station under the supervision of the Director , MarÃtza GarcÃa. Lianne Fern andez and I conducted interviews with 15 farm households within four municipalities within the Sierra del Rosario over a period of
105 seven days. Each of these farm households lives either within or outside and along the periphery of the SRBR. The majority of the households live outside the SRBR. These households were interviewed to collect data concerning liveli hood strategies (i.e. produc tion and reproduction activities), integration into both the formal and informal sectors of the economy, plant species diversity present in the farming system, and ot her aspects related to data collection for the development of an ELP model. Following fieldwor k, I returned to Havana to process all data. Six days later, Lianne FernÃ¡ndez a nd I returned to the field for four more days to meet with each of the 15 households again to acquire more detail ed information and to cross check questionable data gathered during the first interview. Following this trip to the field, I returned to Havana and resided there until September 17, 2006. Over the course of this time period, I: Met with U.H. faculty and affiliates regarding various aspects of my research. Among them were Armando Nova from the Centro de Estudios de la EconomÃa Cubana (The Institute for Studies of the Cuban Economy or CEEC), Fernando Funes from the Instituto de GanaderÃa Tropical (The Institute of Tropi cal Livestock or IGAT), and Mavis Alvarez, a former director within th e AsociaciÃ³n Nacional de Agricu ltores PequeÃ±os (The National Association of Small Farmers or ANAP). Examined and processed my data enough to ma ke general assumptions about the direction of the research. Gave a formal presentation about my experi ence and presented my preliminary findings and future direction of the resear ch to personnel from INIFAT and UH. I left Havana and returned to Florida on September 17, 2005. Phase 2 of primary research I arrived to Cuba on May 7, 2006 and over the course of the first 17 days, I: Met with committee member, Guillermo GÃ¡lvez of the University of Havana, to review the direction of the thesis and finali ze plans for Phase 2 of fieldwork. Participated in a two week Cuban Agricultural Tour, arrange d through collaborative efforts on part of the University of Florida and the University of Havana. This tour, although unrelated to the necessary requirements for this thesis, served as a rare opportunity to
106 become more informed about Cuban agricultu ral organization and production. As part of this tour, I was able to visit a number of diffe rent types of agricultural cooperatives (e.g. CPA and UBPC), State farms, and government experimental research stations for both crops (e.g. sugarcane) and lives tock (e.g. cattle). I was also afforded the opportunity to expand my scientific network by meeting a nd speaking with a num ber of scientists, farmers, cooperative members, and State offici als regarding relevant aspects of my thesis. Met with my collaborative partner, INIFAT, to review work to date and establish a fieldwork objective for Phase 2 of primary data collection. On May 24, 2006 I accompanied two members of INIFAT, Lianne FernÃ¡ndez and Zoila Fundora, to the SRBR. We were, once again, pe rmitted to reside at the Ecological Research Station under supervision of th e Director, MarÃtza GarcÃa. Li anne FernÃ¡ndez and I conducted interviews with the same 15 farm households th at had been interviewed twice during Phase 1 of primary data collection. We conducted interviews with these farm households over a period of nine days. Each of the 15 farm households was intervie wed at least twice for a minimum of two hours. These households were interviewed to co llect data concerning co operative association, integration into the market (e.g. prices of items in both the formal and informal economy, amount of money spent in each sector of the economy, etc.), association with INIFAT and assistance received from particip ation in INIFATÂ’s on-going farmi ng systems research projects, types of institutional support available and received, and agroecological techniques and consciousness. Four households were extensiv ely interviewed a third time for a minimum of 2 hrs each to acquire additional, highly detailed data regarding their liv elihood strategies and agricultural production. These f our households were interviewe d more extensively for the purpose of building, calibrating, va lidating, and testing scenarios for an ELP livelihood system model. Following this trip to the field, I returned to Havana and resided there until June 8, 2006. Over the course of this time period, I:
107 Met with committee member, Guillermo GÃ¡lvez, to review Phase 2 data and to discuss the direction of the thesis. Met with Armando Nova to review key ec onomic components of the thesis and to exchange useful economic information. Processed and reviewed data with pers onnel from INIFAT, most notably, Lianne FernÃ¡ndez. I left Havana and returned to Florida on June 8, 2006. Research Design, Methodology and Techniques Research Design The very nature of research implies that the researcher makes some assumption about knowledge claims. Additionally, strategies of inquiry Â“Â…provide specific direction for procedures in a research designÂ” (Creswell, 2003, p.13) and contribute to the overall research framework. At the highest level, this resear ch is framed by a mixed method approach with knowledge claims based on pragmatic grounds. This research utilizes a modified exploratory case study research design. Case study designs are useful when a researcher wants to explore a complex issue through extensive description and contextual analysis. The case study design is exploratory because (Creswell, 2003) The situation demanded flex ibility to allow for an open and emerging design. The research involves an in-dep th, longitudinal examination of a single complex issue (i.e. farm-household livelihoods with in the unique political economy of Cuba) that is bounded to some extent by time and activity. Data collection techniques used a mixed method approach seeking to understand the complex issue, to explore the process of farm-household livelihoods, and to describe the experiences of farm-household members. Fieldwork and data collection we re undertaken prior to defini tion of research questions. The complex issue, the conceptual framework, and the methodology, however, were determined before fieldwork began. Research questions were finalized following re search and typically be gin with Â‘whatÂ’ or Â‘how.Â’
108 Research does not state hypotheses. The design is considered modified because The ELP methodology requires collection of quantitative data, as well as qualitative data, in order to build a livelihood sy stem model that reflects current livelihood strategies of selected farm households when tested. The over-arching framework indicates a mixed method strategy of inquiry through the use of semi-structured and open-ended questions that refer to relevant theoretical literature to complement those semi-structured a nd open-ended questions that do not. The research seeks to fulfill specific objectives (Creswell, 2003). A frequent criticism of the case study resear ch design is that its dependence on a single case study prevents broader, conclusive gene ralizations (Yin, 1994). Although conclusions derived from a case study may not statistically apply to a defi ned population, generalization from single case studies, and especially multiple case studies, can be applied to theory (Yin, 1994). While this research cannot necessarily be used to make broader generalizations about the larger population, it does suggest promising areas for future inquiry. In addition, it provides a systemic framework for approaching these issues and identifies key variables for further study. Furthermore, this research relies heavily on primary data collected during field research. Although field research measuremen ts, when compared with surveys and experiments, tend to be less reliable, they do, generally, have more valid ity. This is important for exploratory case studies such as this because validity in terms of understanding and describing the situation (i.e. livelihood system) in time and place context is mo re important than being able to identically replicate the study. It is the understanding of the situation that driv es the purpose of a case study, which ultimately provides a foundation for future inquiry (Bernard, 2002). Research Framework, Perspective and Approaches A mixed methods framework guide s this research. The use of mixed methods in research evolved from the use of one basic scientific me thod to the use of a variety of methods. This
109 research uses a variety of methods and techniqu es (e.g. semi-structured interviews, free-listing, purposive conversations, on-farm direct obs ervation, ELP methodology) to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. Each method provides a slightly different insight and adds to a more comprehensive understanding of the whole. This is especially important when using a case study research design coupled with a systems-orie nted approach, as there are many variables of interest whose understanding tends to cr oss over disciplinary boundaries and scales. Sustainable livelihood approaches (SLA) and pe rspectives further gu ide this research within the overall mixed methods framework. The SLA perspective centers on people and their livelihoods and places emphasis on understanding limited resource livelihoods and the factors that shape them, as well as the relationships and interactions between them and their contextual environment, in a holistic manner. Additionally, th is research utilizes a number of approaches that compliment the research framework and pers pective. These approaches also underpin the methodology and data collection techniques used in this study. Each of these approaches is discussed in more detail in Chap ter 2. These approaches include 1. A farming systems approach to researc h, development and extension (FSRD&E): a. Serves as the historical foundation of the primary methodology (i.e. ELP) that drives this research. 2. A complex systems approach: a. Applies the concepts of ecosy stem and holism to guide a systems-oriented approach to understanding the many variables of interest and how they interact as a whole. In addition, it draws from the concept of emerge nce that suggests that multiple variables interact together in a manne r that cannot be predicted from knowledge of the behavior of each individual variable. 3. An ecological economics approach: a. This approach integrates the study of Â“natureÂ’s householdÂ” (ecology) and Â“humankindÂ’s householdÂ” (economics). This approach incorporat es ecological costs and benefits into more traditional economic analyses and modeling. In this research,
110 it serves as an approach to explore the integration and relational exchanges between nature, the economy, and the State. 4. A human ecosystem approach and modeling (see Chapter 6 for the visual model): a. A sub-approach of complex systems that considers humans and information flows as central components (along with energy and matter) in the concept of ecosystem. This approach is used to model (i.e. explicit ly illustrate) the co mplexity, flows, and interactions of and within the livelih ood system under observation (e.g. a schematic model) and the agroecological and political economy contexts within which it is situated, over time. Sample Selection and Unit of Analysis Sampling for this research was non-probabilistic and purposive. Time constraints, coupled with a limited and pre-determined sample choi ce (i.e. households were previously selected by INIFAT), ultimately decided this type of sampling. Fifteen farm households within four municipalities that are situated either within or bordering the SRBR were selected from the 19 households that INIFAT began working with in 1998 as part of their aforementioned farming systems project. Not all 19 households could par ticipate because of time constraints and because household accessibility was uncertain. Th e selection of 15 was purposive, based on recommendations from INIFAT personnel. The unit of analysis for this study is household. However, the aggregation ability of the ELP methodology and model allow for analysis of the observed livelihood system at the scale of community. Sources and Accuracy of Data In research, sampling is the act, process, or te chnique of selecting a suitable sample; or a representative part of a population for the purpose of determini ng parameters or characteristics of the whole population (Babbie, 1990; Creswell, 2003) . Research conclusions and generalizations are only as good as the sample upon which they are based. Determining parameters or characteristics of a whole population requires that the sample be probabilistic and large enough to be statistically significant to represent the defined population. The sample used for this study
111 does not meet either of these stipulations. Furt hermore, the research design is an exploratory case study and does not require a larg e, probabilistic sample. Ther efore, most conclusions drawn in this thesis refer only to the community of those households participating in the study. This study relied to some degree on informant r ecall (e.g. yields, prices, cash income, etc. from previous years) to collect portions of the data. Informant re call is a research technique that has been utilized widely in anthropology (Stepp, 2002), but also to some degree in farming systems research and especially in st udies employing the ELP methodology. Although researchers may not refer to this technique as su ch, informant recall of pa st behavior and events is embedded in these methodologies and approach es. It is important to note that most households involved in this study do not keep records regarding income or agricultural production. This research relied heavily on info rmant recall and a number of those interviewed expressed concern that they could not accurately remember yields and prices from previous years. For this reason, these figures may not be en tirely accurate, but do suggest ranges of prices and yields, along with genera l trends related to them. This research utilizes both primary and sec ondary data. Primary data concerning the ELP livelihood model were collected during fieldwork. On-farm fieldwork took place with each of the selected households. Guided by the ELP me thodology, a variety of techniques was utilized to collect data. These are discussed below. S econdary data belonging to INIFAT and containing data from their previous work with the selected households we re also utilized. Most useful among these data were those concerning plant sp ecies diversity and usage in each of the householdÂ’s homegardens. These data were used to cross check primar y data collected during Phase 1 and Phase 2 research. These species reco rds also served as useful checklists for plant species surveys during the in itial part of fieldwork.
112 Research Methodology This section provides more specific info rmation regarding the ELP methodology and the process of constructing a livelihood system model. Outlined below are the general types of data collected and the general pro cess used to construct the ELP model. For a detailed account of the ELP methodology and model construction refer to Hildebrand and Sullivan (2001), Hildebrand et al. (2003) and Hildeb rand and Schmink (2004). Linear programming is a mathematical opt imizing procedure that underpins the ELP methodology. This mathematical programming allo ws for minimization or maximization of an objective, subject to a set of c onstraints. It is the basic t ool used by the ELP methodology and enables economic analysis of a small-farm liv elihood system with respect to household-level livelihood decision-making and di versity (Hildebrand and Sullivan, 2002; Hildebrand et al., 2003). Individual households are no t well suited to being average d, as is commonly the case in traditional economic analyses. The ELP met hodology integrates a variety of research techniques, most notably ethnogr aphic, that reduces or eliminates the need for making assumptions (Hildebrand and Sullivan, 2002; Hildebrand et al., 2003; Hildebrand and Schmink, 2004). This methodology incorporates a va riety of data from a sample of households that is used to build a livelihood system m odel, allowing for an holistic understanding of 1) what is done; 2) who does what; 3) when it is done; 4) why it is d one; and 5) how it is done. This allows the ELP methodology and subsequent model to account for diversity, as well as recognize commonalities among households. Ultimately, an understanding of the livelihood system allows the ELP livelihood model to serve as a usef ul tool to predict the variable responses of diverse households to new livelihood alternatives, em erging production technologies, a nd changing policies, as well as systemic shocks such as hurricanes, drought , and pest invasions (H ildebrand et al., 2003;
113 Hildebrand et al., 2003; Hild ebrand and Schmink, 2004). Pr oducing an ELP model that represents a real-world livelihood system allows for relatively inexpensive assessments of project ideas, policy scenarios, sy stemic shocks, etc. to be run prior to their implementation (Bernet et al., 2001; Hildebrand et al., 2003). A livelihood system is the composite of all act ivities available to households in the system from which to secure their livelihoods. Therefor e, the livelihood system forms the basic matrix of the ELP model. This is because the livelihood system is what is common to all households in the system. The first step in building an ELP model is to utilize a vari ety of approaches and techniques, grounded in ethnographi c and economic methods, to collect on-farm data that comprise the basic matrix. The basic matrix, generally, includes the following categories of information (Hildebrand et al., 2003): 1. All available on-farm and o ff-farm production activities. a. These include crop and livestock activities conducted on-farm as well as off-farm activities such as hiring labor and off-farm work. 2. All common reproduc tion activities. a. These include activities that contribute to the maintenance of the household and its members. 3. All available resources (i.e. land, labor, water, cash, etc.) and constraints to be met (i.e. food, cash, household goals, etc.). a. Seasonality or periodicit y is also considered. 4. Common input and output coefficients used in the matrix (i.e. amount of resources used or product derived from each production and consump tion activity). These coefficients include (but are not limited to) the following in formation for each relevant activity: a. Agricultural production dependa ble yields (Breuer, 2000). b. Prices of products bought and sold. c. Credit costs. d. Units of weight.
114 e. Labor allocation and distributi on according to gender and age. f. Land area and type of ownership/use. Following the construction of the basic matrix, household-specific information is collected and added to the matrix. This is accomplished by initially selecting one household from the sample to obtain specific information regarding a ll relevant activities and constraints from the household members, both individu ally and as a group. Househol d-specific information includes the following (Hildebrand et al., 2003): 1. Resource availability for each production and consumption activity. a. This includes household-specific information su ch as land area for each specific use, land tenure, irrigation, labor av ailability, cash needs, and consumption requirements for each household member. 2. Household goals (maximized or minimized) and objective function(s). Once the ELP model proves feasib le and appears to adequately2 reflect the first household, another household is selected from which to acquire household-specific information. This begins the process of calibra tion and validation. The second household should share the same livelihood system as the first, but the constr aints, requirements, and household composition should differ. If the ELP model adequately describes the second household, several more households are modeled. Once the model adequately simulates each of these diverse households, it is considered validated (Hildebrand et al., 2003). Once calibrated and valida ted, the model can be used to pr edict responses of these diverse households to new livelihood alternatives, em erging production technologies, and changing policies, as well as systemic shocks such as hurricanes and drought. The new option is added to the matrix and the model solved for the desired objective function in re lation to existing farm 2 The term adequately is subjective. The model should re flect correct activities (i.e. strategies) of the household but should not be expected to simulate the household exactly. Simulating the household exactly suggests that artificial constraints have been built into the model (Hildebrand et al., 2003).
115 activities (Hildebrand et al., 2003). Figure 4-1 pres ents a schematic diagram illustrating the steps of the ELP methodology. Research Techniques for Data Collection Guided by the ELP methodology, a number of da ta collection techniqu es were utilized during fieldwork to collect the information needed to construct the ELP livelihood system model. These techniques were used to collect both qualit ative and quantitative data and include the following: Purposive conversations (Fitchen, 1990). Modified sondeos (Hildebrand, 1981; Breuer, 2000; Hildebrand and Schmink, 2004). Semi-structured interviews. Direct observation (Bernard, 2002). Free listing (Bernard, 2002) and bot anical and zoological surveys. Purposive conversations Purposive conversations are too informal to be called interviews but they are not mere idle conversation either (Fitchen, 1990). Purpos ive conversations took place with several knowledgeable outsiders throughout the course of this researc h. These conversations were beneficial because they allowed me to dial ogue with a number of know ledgeable outsiders, including U.H. academics, INIFAT personnel, and other professionals. Purposive conversations took place during both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of resear ch. These conversations contributed to this research in a variety of ways. The most notable conversations were with: Personnel from INIFAT, most notably Leonor Cas tiÃ±eiras, Zoila Fundora, RaÃºl Cristobal, TÃ³mas Shagarodsky, and Lianne FernÃ¡ndez. Personnel from the SRBRÂ’s Ecological Research Station, most notably MarÃtza GarcÃa, Raudel GarcÃa, and Fidel HernÃ¡ndez.
116 Personnel from UH and affiliated institutions, most notably Guillermo GÃ¡lvez, Fernando Funes, Armando Nova, and Mavis Alvarez. Modified sondeos and semi-structured interviews Hildebrand and Schmink (2004) state that the in itial objective in regard s to constructing an ELP model using the ELP methodology is to define and describe the livelihood system of the farm households within the area of interest . Hildebrand (1981) found that a form of sondeo is a time and cost effective technique to accomplish this objective. Hildebrand and Schmink (2004) describe a sondeo as a conversational survey that does not depend on a survey instrument and is interested in information, not responses to pre-de termined questions. This technique is inductive rather than statistical and typically involves an interdisciplinary research team. Because an interdisciplinary team is infeasible in this context, a modified sondeo (Breuer, 2000), utilizing one interdisciplinary researcher was used. A modified sondeo (Breuer, 2000) was initially used with each household in order to establish a relationship as an affiliate of a tr usted Cuban institution as well as to gain a preliminary sense of the household, its primary activities, and the community in which it is situated. This technique was complemented by semi-structured interviews. Utilizing a semistructured approach to interviewing allowed me to ask each household many of the same questions, but also allowed for the order and manne r of interviewing to differ appropriately from one household to the next. It al so assisted in obtaining in-depth information through the use of flexible, conversational interviews that were no t restricted by a prescrib ed question order, but were instead structured to an extent that allo wed for the acquisition of necessary data. (Sommer and Sommer, 1997). These complementary techniques were used during Phase 1 research to acquire the necessary information that was to be used to construct the basic matr ix of the ELP livelihood
117 system model. In-depth and semi-structured, conversational interviews were also conducted with each household during Phase 2 of research in an effort to collect household-specific data to effectively calibrate and validat e the potential livelihood system model. During both phases, the combination of these two techniques proved effec tive. Flexibility allowed for exploration and spontaneous dialogue that inevita bly established a repertoire th at enabled a more structured questioning to take place. This more structured questioning allowed me to acquire those data essential for an understanding of these farmersÂ’ livelihood syst em and the potential creation of an ELP livelihood system model. Direct observation The very nature of field research suggests di rect observation of soci al phenomena in their natural settings (Bernard, 2002). Furthermore, direct observation allows the investigator to independently observe the situation under examin ation in order to reconcile observation with respondent response. This research, although supported by a familiar and often trusted Cuban institution, made inquiries conc erning sensitive subject matter such as household economics, challenging. Some households were understandably reserved at ti mes when discussing sensitive subject matter. Therefore, direct observation wa s useful in a number of instances. A prime example includes a particular household who appear ed reluctant to divulge that their livelihood strategies included a monetarily productive strategy of selling dulces (i.e. frozen treats made of sugar and fruit) from their home. Although the h ousehold denied having a lternative strategies (i.e. other than on-farm pr oduction) for generating income , direct observation during sondeos and semi-structured interviews, allowed me to witness this transacti on. Direct, independent observation was utilized during both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of research.
118 Free-listing and surveys In addition to the aforementioned data collect ion techniques, a surv ey of plant species diversity and usage was conducted with each of the 15 households. The purpose of the survey was twofold: 1. To determine which plant species are of pr imary economic importance to the household and which are of primary importance for household consumption. 2. To assess plant species divers ity in each household farming system and to determine the significant use of each of these plant species. Information concerning the first purpose was acquired through free listing. Free listing is a data collection techni que that allows the researcher to ask the informant to Â“list all the X you know aboutÂ” or inquire, Â“what kinds of X are there?Â” (Bernard, 2002). In this case, X refers to the most economically important plants and the most important plants for home consumption for each household. Information concerning the second purpose wa s acquired through the use of a survey. INIFAT collaboratively worked w ith a graduate student from Ital y in 2004. His work focused on plant species diversity in homegardens of the same households with whom my research was conducted. Because one of the obj ectives of this research was to determine species diversity present in the farming systems of these farm house holds, this list served as a useful tool for comparison and as a checklist during plant surveys of the farming systems. Because of time constraints, a lack of resource s, and a lack of permission to transport plant material, voucher specimens to confirm species identification were not collected. However, surveys of what plant species were present in the farming system (both homegarden and farm) were conducted through direct obs ervation and unstructured inte rviewing. Household members walked with us throughout the farming syst em while we asked them what species and approximate numbers they had in both their hom egarden and farm. Because of time constraints and because of the abundance and complex inte rcropping of hundreds of plant species, exact numbers of each plant species could not be determ ined. The survey, however, provides a general idea of what types of plants are found in each of the farming systems and approximate numbers.
119 This allows for general interpretation of the most abundant species planted and what their primary uses are throughout the area. A complete list of the types and estimated numbers of plants found in the farming system (i.e. homegarden and farm) of each household can be found in Appendix A.
120 Figure 4-1. Schematic diagram illustrating the steps of the ELP methodology (Hildebrand et al., 2003, based on Bastidas (2001) ).
121 CHAPTER 5 THE SETTING: BIOPHYSICAL A ND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT Orientation The orography of Cuba is quite varied, as seve ral isolated mountains ranging in height are found across the island. In western Cuba, the Co rdillera de Guaniguanico, comprised of the Guaniguanico Massif, stretches over the whole provi nce of Pinar del Rio. It can be divided into two distinct areas of geological ages and composition. The olde st area is the Sierra de los Organos in the west and the youngest is the Sierra del Rosario in the east . The Sierra de los Organos consist of Jurassic limestone deposited on salty sandstone with its highest peak, the Pan de AzÃºcar, reaching 591 m in height. The younge r Sierra del Rosario is highly varied in geological structure with the highest peak, Pan de GuajaibÃ³n, comprised of limestone and reaching 692 m (Borhidi, 1996). The research for this thesis was conducted with 15 small-scale, limited-resource farm households located within the Sie rra del Rosario. The eastern edge of the Sierra del Rosario lies on the border of the provinces of Havana and Pina r del Rio, approximately 60 km west of CubaÂ’s capital, Havana. The western edge of the Sierra del Rosario lies east of the center of Pinar del Rio Province, approximately 50 km northeast from th e city of Pinar del Rio. This portion of the Guaniguanico Massif covers an area of appr oximately 10,925 sq m (Oficina Nacional de EstadÃsticas, 2006). Figure 5-1 illustra tes the biogeographic regions of Cuba. Ecological Characteristics The Sierra del Rosario encompasses an area that exhibits a complex geo-morphological diversity that engenders a variet y of soil types, influencing, to some degree, the presence of endemic flora, the prevalence and success of cer tain agricultural products (e.g. coffee) and the overall diversified landscape (UNESCO, 2006) . Dominant soil types include cambisols,
122 ferrasols, and luvisols (CastiÃ±eiras et al., 1999; MarÃtza GarcÃa, 2005, Sierra del Rosario Ecological Research Station, personal commun ication). The dominant ecosystem types are tropical dry forest and deciduous forest. Major habitats and land cover types include: forest ecosystems (e.g. evergreen tropical forest, coni ferous forest with pine, and semi-deciduous forest), thorny xeromorphic thicket, pasture la nd, residential areas and agroecosystems (Capote LÃ³pez et al., 1998; UNESCO, 2006). Figure 5-2 is a photo of a typi cal view of the mountains of the Sierra del Rosario. CubaÂ’s seasonality, like most ot her tropical countries, is catego rized bi-annually with a dry season and a rainy season. Although Borhidi (1996) asserts that the dry s eason lasts mainly from December through April and the rainy seas on from May through November, the farmers interviewed for the purpose of this thesis a nd personnel from collaborating Cuban institutions suggest that the dry season occu rs from November through April a nd the rainy season, from May through October. The rainiest month is typically June and the driest is typically December (MarÃtza GarcÃa, 2006, Sierra del Rosario Ecological Research Station, personal communication). Atmospheric currents and geographical positio ning make Cuba susceptible to cyclonic activity, which primarily occurs during the rainy season, most ofte n between July and November. Alternation of cold and warm fr onts throughout the dry season allo w for sporadic rains. Unlike typical monsoon climates, the dry season of Cuba is not entirely dry (B orhidi, 1996). However, increased global temperatures and decreased global rainfall in recent years have led to a decrease in sporadic rainfall during the dry season and a more active hurricane season during the months characterized as wet (MarÃtza GarcÃa, 2006, Sier ra del Rosario Ecological Research Station, personal communication).
123 Throughout the western part of Cuba, the av erage annual temperature ranges from 2425 C. The area that comprises the Sierra del Ro sario has an average annual temperature of 24.4 C, but because this area varies in altitude from 50 to 565 m above sea level, temperatures can drop below 25 C during the winter. The coldest months are typically January and February and the hottest months are typically July and August. Monitored temperatures, since the 1980s, observed a minimal temperature of 3.8 C and a maximum temperature of 36.2 C. Annual precipitation throughout these mountains averag es 2000 mm and humidity averages between 6570% during the dry season and 8590% during the rainy season (Mar Ãtza GarcÃa, 2006, Sierra del Rosario Ecological Research St ation, personal communication). Prior to European conquest, the area suppor ted indigenous Amerindians who utilized the surrounding environment for subsistence purposes. However, little is documented regarding the exact relationship these natives ha d with their biophysical environm ent. The original vegetation of this area remained intact until the early 1800s. However, by the early 1900s, proportions of the forest had been removed in order to provide land for latifundios ; the cultivation and creation of large estates of CubaÂ’s most nationally important agricultural crop at the time, sugarcane; and the peak of the coffee industry as a result of th e immigration of French co lonists (Vales et al., 1998; MarÃtza GarcÃa, 2006, Sie rra del Rosario Ecological Re search Station, personal communication). Regardless of the history of deforestation in the area and the varied progression of land use by humans throughout the centuries, the area enco mpassed by the Sierra del Rosario exhibits potential for biological conservati on. The Sierra del Rosario c ontinues to be recognized, both nationally and internationa lly, for its inherent biodiversity and conservation of species of both flora and fauna. In 1984, the United Nations Edu cational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
124 (UNESCO) declared approximately 25,000 ha with in the Sierra del Rosario as a biosphere reserve, the first of six now f ound throughout the country. Declarat ion of this Biosphere Reserve was part of UNESCOÂ’s Man and the Biosphere Program , officially launched in 1970 in an effort to reconcile the conservation of natural resources with their sust ainable use (Herrera et al., 1998; Herrera el al., 1993; Capote LÃ³pez, 2001; UNESCO, 2006). Today, this reserve continues to be one of CubaÂ’s most important areas for cultural and historic preservation and biological conservation of both endemic and introduced flora and fauna. The reserve is home to 608 groups of hi gher plants (e.g. trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants) and 281 groups of lower plants (e.g. mu shrooms, mosses, and lichens). There are approximately 889 cultivated plant species. E ndemic species, both cultivated and wild, account for 11-34% of total species depending on the area . In terms of fauna, there are a reported 117 species of birds (12 endemic), 33 species of rep tiles (27 endemic), 16 species of amphibians (13 endemic), and 11 species of mammals (MarÃtza GarcÃa, 2006, Sierra del Rosario Ecological Research Station, personal communication). Although these numbers represent those species found throughout the approximate 25,000 ha of the reserve, they serve as a benchmark for describing the biodiversity found throughout the greater area of the Sierra del Rosario. Figure 5-3 presents a map of UNES COÂ’s Cuban biosphere reserves. Biosphere reserves are interna tionally recognized areas of land that support flora, fauna and communities of humans (i.e. human ecosystems) and are designated as such in order to fulfill three basic interdependent functions: 1) to contribute to the conservation of landscapes ecosystems, and species/genetic variation; 2) to foster socio-culturally and ecologically sustainable human economic development; and 3) to assist in the exploration of local, regional and global issues of conservation and de velopment by providing support for research,
125 monitoring, education and the ex change of information (UNESC O, 2006; Capote LÃ³pez, 2001). Cuban administrative authorities involved with the reserve include the Ministerio de Ciencia, TecnologÃa y Medio Ambiente (The Ministry of Science, Te chnology, and the Environment or CITMA), the Ministerio de Agri cultura (The Ministry of Agriculture or MINAGRI) and the Ministerio del Turismo (Ministry of Tourism or MINTUR) (UNESCO, 2006). The Sierra del Rosario Ecological Research Station Prior to the designation of the Sierra del Rosario Biosphere Re serve, an ecological research station was established in th e community of Las Terrazas dur ing the 1970s and over the last several decades has become a crucial factor in the communityÂ’s ecological objectives. The entity serves the community as an on-site field res earch station and works collaboratively with both national and international scientists focusi ng on issues such as sustainable economic development, global environmental change, ecotourism, human ecosystem resilience and biological and ecological conservation. The research station is comprise d of a self-funded staff of scie ntists and affiliates with the legal capacity for decision making related to local scientific investigation and ecotourism projects. The research station staff monitors various socio-cu ltural, biological and ecological factors, collaborates on and lead s scientific research projects a nd acts as the primary extension agency in the area, working closely with co mmunity farmers on farm-related conservation and production issues (e.g. conservation of plant genetic diversity, soil erosion, climate change, etc.) and general public outreach conc erning environmental education. The research station also serves as an educational center for tourists and students visiting from abroad (Zoila Fundora, 2005, INIFAT, personal communication; MarÃtza Ga rcÃa, 2005, Sierra de l Rosario Ecological Research Station, personal commun ication; Capote LÃ³pez, 2001). Figure 5-4 is a photo of the entrance to the Sierra de Rosari o Ecological Research Station.
126 The Sierra del Rosario Ecological Research St ation works collaboratively with the Cuban government ministries and all other organizations and institutions affiliated with the area. One of the primary agricultural institutions is th e Instituto de Investigac iones Fundamentales en Agricultura Tropical (The Institute for Fundamental Investig ations in Tropical Agriculture or INIFAT). Personnel from the Sierra del Ro sario Ecological Resear ch Station serve as collaborative partners in some of INIFATÂ’s ongoing research projects targeting small-scale, agriculturally-based farming systems in regards to plant genetic conser vation. This work is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. The se lected farm households for this study are located within or in the surroundings of the Sierra del Rosario Biosphere Re serve. Personnel from INIFAT and the Sierra del Rosario Ecological Res earch Station have worked with these farmers since 1989 and continue to serve as an educational and material resource for these families. This is further discussed in Chapter 6. Specific Locality The farm households involved in this rese arch are distributed among eight communities in four municipalities and are located either within or along the peri phery of the reserve. Most households are situated outside of the Reserve. Three of the muni cipalities are loca ted within the province of Pinar del Rio and incl ude: San CristÃ³bal, BahÃa Honda , and Candelaria. The fourth municipality, Artemisa, is located within the province of Havana. Figure 5-5 illustrates the specific locality of these four municipalities within the two we stern provinces of the island, Pinar del Rio and Havana. The following information for each municipal ity regarding area and population from 2002 is provided by the Oficina N acional de EstadÃsticas, Cuba (2006). San CristÃ³bal municipality has an area of 936 sq km and a population of 70,100. BahÃa Honda municipa lity has an area of 784 sq km and a population of 46,105. Candelaria m unicipality has an area of 199 sq km and a
127 population of 19,398. Artemisia (the only one of the four municipalities located in Havana Province) has an area of 690 sq km and a population of 80,385. Together, these four municipalities encompass an area of 2,609 sq km and have a population of 215,988. Socioeconomic Characteristics Agro-socioeconomic activities of this area, prio r to the late 1800s, c onsisted primarily of coffee and sugar plantations or latifundios , large land estates that ofte n rented out parcels of land to farmers for small-scale agricultural production. Immigrated proprietors w ho utilized slaves to maximize both their production and profit often controlled these planta tions and estates. Following the abolition of slavery in 1886, latifundios and large-scale sugarcane and coffee plantations began to disaggregate and smaller tracts of land became occupied by more families moving into the area. These families used th e land primarily for subsistence purposes, with primary production in subsistence agriculture and the extraction of forest wood for construction and the production of charcoal (MarÃtza GarcÃa , 2006, Sierra del Rosari o Ecological Research Station, personal communication; Fidel Hern Ã¡ndez, 2006, Sierra del Rosario Ecological Research Station, personal communication). Following the Revolution of 1959, the Agrarian Reform Laws further influenced the redistribution of the land, as large, non-State farm s were parceled out to individuals and families who agreed to use the land for agricultural a nd forest production for both subsistence purposes and sale to the State. Socioeconomic developmen t of the area officially began in 1968 with the community today know as Las Terrazas, which is located within th e Sierra del Rosario Biosphere Reserve. This development was pa rt of a government in itiative to reforest approximately 5000 ha of the land, while simultane ously developing a residential community to provide housing for 120 families formerly disperse d throughout the region (Zoila Fundora, 2005, INIFAT, personal communication; MarÃtza GarcÃa , 2006, Sierra del Rosario Ecological Research
128 Station, personal communication). Figure 5-6 is a photo of the Las Terrazas community located within the biosphere reserve. It was primarily government and community ef forts to promote both sustainable use and the conservation of available natural resource s that led to UNESCO designating the area an internationally recognized bios phere reserve in 1984. An ecotourism objective followed and was developed in the region in the late 1980s, further establishing the communityÂ’s objective to fulfill community needs while simultaneously promoting historical and socio-cu ltural preservation (e.g. Buena Vista Coffee Plantation) and biological an d ecological conservation (e.g. orchid species diversity, agrobiodiversity, and bi rd populations) (UNESCO, 2006; MarÃtza GarcÃa, 2006, Sierra del Rosario Ecological Research St ation, personal communication). The development of the Hotel Moka, within the Las Terrazas community, solidified the ecotourism objective. Develope d by Tourism Minister Osmany Cienfuegos in 1990, this ecolodge was created in an effort to promote eco tourism as a means to generate money for the community. This effort included employing loca l residents and promoted the generation of income while maintaining a community centere d on sustainable use a nd conservation of the surrounding biophysical environment (Zoila Fund ora, 2005, INIFAT, personal communication). Although ecotourism benefits many in the area (e .g. residents of Las Terrazas community), it does not generally directly benefit small-scale farm-households either within or especially outside the reserve, 15 of which are of primary focus of this study (MarÃtza GarcÃa, 2006, Sierra del Rosario Ecological Research St ation, personal communication). Today, the primary economic activities of the area include the following: Agricultural production including vegetable production, root and tuber production, coffee production, and livestock (i.e. meat , dairy, and honey) production. Forest production including fi rewood, lumber, and charcoal.
129 Ecotourism. Off-farm government employment, which range s from environmental work within the area (e.g. reforestation and ecotourism) to education, service, or military jobs located within or outside the Sierra del Rosario area. A majority of households in rural and semi-ru ral areas throughout the Sierra del Rosario (both within and outside the Re serve, with most located house holds outside of the Reserve) maintain a farm and/or homegarden. Thes e farming systems are utilized primarily for subsistence purposes with surplus products sold to the available market economy for the purpose of generating cash income (often to compensate fo r what is not provided by the State). This is further discussed in Chapter 6.
130 Figure 5-1. Biogeographic regions of Cuba. Abbrev iations: ACE Alturas de Central (Alturas de Santa Clara, Alturas del Nordeste, Al turas del Noroeste), ACM Alturas de Camaguey-ManiabÃ³n (Sierra de Cubitas, Peniplano de Florida-Camaguey-Tunas, Sierra de Najasa, Grupo de ManiabÃ³n), AHA Alturas de la Habana-Matanzas (including Alturas de Bujucal-Madruga -Coliseo), ASC ArchipiÃ©lago SabanaCamaguey, CGU Cordillera de Guaniguanico, IJU Isla de Juventud and ArchipiÃ©lago de los Canarreos, LOC Llanura Occidental , LOR Llanura Orient al, LZA Llanura de Zapata (including Cienagas de Zapata), MES Macizo del Escambray, MSB Macizo de Sagua-Baracoa, PGU PenÃnsula de Gu anahacabibes, SMA Sierra Maestra. Adapted from Hedges, S.B. (1999) in Borhidi (1996).
131 Figure 5-2. Photo of a typical vi ew in the Sierra del Rosario. Part of the heterogeneous landscape is covered in layered vege tation that is often dominated by Roystonea regia ( palma real or royal palm). Humans have altere d the other part, mostly for forestry and agriculture. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
132 Figure 5-3. Map of Cuba with th e locations of the six United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural OrganizationÂ’s (UNESCO) de signated biosphere reserves (UNESCO, 2006).
133 Figure 5-4. Photo of the Sierra del Rosario Ec ological Research Station entrance. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2006).
134 Figure 5-5. Illustration of the western provinces of Cuba (Pinar del Rio and Havana) with emphasis on the geographical localit y of the four municipalities where the 15 farm house holds reside, with respect to the Sierra del Rosario Biosphere Reserve. The four municipalities include: San CristÃ³ba l, BahÃa Honda, Candelaria, and Artemisa . Adapted from CastiÃ±eiras et al. (1999).
135 Figure 5-6. Photo of the Las Terrazas commun ity located within the Sierra del Rosario Biosphere Reserve. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005)
136 CHAPTER 6 THE LIVELIHOOD SYSTEM: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Introduction This chapter describes the livelihood system of 15 farm households located within the Sierra del Rosario region of western Cuba. A livelihood system is considered to be the composite of all activities availa ble to all households in the sy stem from which to choose to secure their livelihoods. In th is livelihood system, each of the 15 households has a unique set of livelihood strategies , or activities, that they select from among the total strategies available. These livelihood strategies are comprised of bot h production and reproducti on activities that are bounded by limitations and constraints such as labor availability, limited quantities of resources (e.g. water for irrigation, chemical inputs, additiona l labor), cash needs, and access to the market. These small farmers are forced to diversify thei r production in order to meet two primary goals. The first is to meet basic household consumption n eeds. The second is to generate cash income via sales to various market outlets within the fo rmal and informal economies that operate within a dual currency system. These farmers have an exceptionally complex livelihood system because it is impacted not only by biophysical conditions but also a unique and dynamic sociopolitical economy. Geographical Situation The 15 farm households are distributed among fo ur municipalities within the Sierra del Rosario Mountains of western Cuba. One househol d is located within th e Sierra del Rosario Biosphere Reserve (SRBR) while the other 14 resi de outside the Reserve, along the periphery. The specific geographical situation of these 15 farm households differs greatly. Some are located adjacent to a primary road while others are located over 2 km from any paved road. Some households have easy access from the road to their home while other, more remote
137 households have steep and rugged paths that are difficult to trav erse following heavy rains. Geography and proximity to a town also differ among households. Some households are located in the mountains, often surrounded by undulating terr ain with inclined area s that are impossible to cultivate. See Figure 6-1. Ot hers are located near towns, often in lowland areas where land is typically flat or only slig htly hilly. See Figure 6-2. Household Composition Figure 6-3 shows the household composition of each of the 15 farm households. The figure distinguishes between members considered as the hearthhold and those considered as the household. Drawing on definitions from Mcllvaine-Newsad (2000), a hearthhold is comprised of the persons who, normally, are physically present or reside in the domicile. These persons do not necessarily have to be related. A household comprises the persons who contribute to or receive something from the grouping of persons a ssociated with a domicile. A household differs from a hearthhold because persons belonging to a household may not reside in the domicile and are therefore considered affiliated members of the household. A hous ehold typically includes those members considered as the hearthhold. Distinguishing between hearthho ld and household members for th is study is important for a number of reasons. Some households have extende d family that live in close proximity that, to varying degrees, contribute to or benefit from the grouping of persons associated with that household. These extended families are consider ed the affiliated members of the household. Contributions by affiliated members can be quite be neficial. For example, during the harvest of crops, affiliated members provide additional labo r (which is typically scarce) to accomplish a task that is bounded by time. Affiliated member s can also serve as additional supervision for children, allowing the adult household member (often the adult women) more time for reproduction activities. Distingui shing between household and hear thhold is also useful when
138 considering household consumption of either food or non-food based products, or both. This is because affiliated members may act as a constraint on resources, especially if they benefit from their association with the household more than they contribute to that household (e.g. eat food but do not contribute cash income, labor, etc. ). On the other hand, affiliated members may lessen household constraints, for example, by c ontributing cash income from off-farm work. Among households, numbers of hearthhold memb ers range from 1 to 8 and numbers of affiliated members range from 0 to 7. Together , these numbers comprise the household. Total numbers of household members range from 2 to 11. Household two differs from the others because the family owns two houses. One is locate d in a more rural area, more than 1 km from the closest primary road and adjacent to the fam ily farm. The other is located in a small town and surrounded by other houses. Both houses have a homegarden. The family does not reside in the house located near the farm but instead resides full-time in the house located in town. The adult male of the household (i.e. the farmer inte rviewed for this study) ty pically works alone (or sometimes with his children) at the house and farm locat ed in the rural area. It is atypical to have two homes. Land Use and Tenure Each of the 15 households maintains both a homegarden and a farm. The homegarden typically surrounds the house and contains a wide variety of species, including ornamentals, medicinal plants, tropical fruit trees, and some herbaceous crop plants (e.g. ajÃ or chili peppers). Some homegardens blend into surrounding forest and are intercropped with coffee and fruit trees. Farms are located either directly adjacent to the house and blend into the homegarden and/or surrounding forest or are located off-site, sometimes as far as 2 km away. The structure and composition of the farm is similar for each hous ehold in that part of the farm is generally intercropped with two or more species (e.g. malanga or taro and ajÃ or chili peppers), another
139 part is planted with only one crop (e.g. maÃz or maize), and yet anot her blends into surrounding forest and is intercropped with coffee and/or some fruit trees. Total amount of household land ranges be tween 0.33 and 53.72 ha. Farm size often depends on total length of time as a farmer (as primary occupation) and household composition. Some farmers have recently retired from non-fa rm professions and hold only a small amount of land for provisional farming. Others have been farming for decades and have acquired more land over time. Farmers with smaller tracts of la nd tend to have smaller families and vice versa. Those farms with large parcels of land typi cally have multiple houses and related families residing on that land. One example is household four. With 53.72 ha, this tract of land is much larger compared to the other 14 households. The proprietor of this farm who was an agricu ltural worker prior to the Revolution, acquired as much land as possible as a small farmer following the first Agrarian Reform Law of 1959, and has been acquiring additional land ever since. There are a total of five houses on his land, all occupied by his children and siblings, and their respective families. These households share land, resources, and often pool together a ma jority of the money earned annually from agricultural sales.1 Although this household may be atypical in terms of amount of land, it is very similar to other households in te rms of production and reproduction activities and integration into the market. Furthermore, members of this household proved to be some of the most open individuals intervie wed and therefore, the informati on acquired is useful regarding a number of aspects of this research. 1 This is not always the case. Some household members have off-farm jobs. In that cas e, sometimes they keep their own money. The households on this land typically pool money only when joint agricultural production is sold to a market outlet.
140 Farmers typically divide their land into five categories: 1) land o ccupied by the house and homegarden; 2) arable farmland; 3) pasture; 4) forest (often intercr opped with coffee and/or some fruit trees); and 5) unusable land. Forest that is intercropped with coffee and/or fruit trees can be located on land comprisi ng the house and homegarden or land considered as farm. For the purpose of distinctio n of land types, farmers were aske d to list amount of forested area separately, regardless of its location. Figure 6-4 shows the amount (hectares) of each category of land held by each household, as well as am ount (hectares) of total land per household. Land dedicated to the house and homegarden includes structures such as any houses, animal stalls, secaderos (concrete slabs for drying agricu ltural products such as coffee), and other storage structures. These structures utilize a portion of the land, making it unavailable for agricultural production. Farmers fo und it difficult to separate am ount of land dedicated to the homegarden from amount of land dedicated to structures. The st ructures are modest in size and usually occupy only a small portion of this total la nd. This is important to note because the total amount listed for this category is not what is actually in production. This does, however, provide a general idea of the amount of land dedicate d to homegarden producti on. Figure 6-5 is a photo showing a housing structure that occupies space within land co mprising the house and homegarden. Land dedicated to farmland, in this context, includes land used for agricultural production such as vegetables, some fruits, and roots and tubers (i.e. viandas ). It excludes agricultural production such as coffee and some fruit trees. Th is is because coffee and some fruit trees are intercropped with forest trees, and therefore are included in la nd categorized as forest. In addition to coffee and fruit trees, forested land al so includes numerous sp ecies of non -fruit trees that are utilized for the production of wood for both construction and the production of charcoal
141 (carbÃ³n ). These production activities ar e further discussed below under value-added and other production activities. Figure 6-6 shows the son of a farmer harvesting Ipomoea batatas (boniato or sweet potato) on a typical plot of farmland located on a hillside. Land dedicated to pasture includ es that not utilized for agri cultural production but instead utilized as pasture to graze animals. This la nd occasionally includes tre ss that can be used for construction wood or the production of charcoal. However, trees from the forest are used more often for those types of production. The most common tree found in pastures is Roystonea regia (royal palm or palma real ). Figure 6-7 shows a typical pasture with R. regia utilized as a grazing area for livestock. Unusable land is land that is too steep and/ or too rocky for agricultural cultivation, and therefore is not utili zed by farmers for any type of production. Although total amount of household land ranges from 0.33 to 53.72 ha, amount of available agricultural land is less for some house holds. Five of the 15 households have land as part of their total land that cannot be u tilized for agricultural production. Figure 6-8 shows the amount of available agricultural land compared to the total amount of land for each of the 15 households. Farmers either own their land or use land held in usufruct . The Cuban government provides idle land in usufruct to farmers (or poten tial farmers) on the conditions that they utilize the land for agricultural production, th at they do not diminish the va lue of the property, and that they forsake the land should the government need it for a particular purpos e. It is common for men who have retired to receive six cordeles (0.25 ha) of land held in usufruct if they want land to produce for subsistence purposes or for products to sell to th e State, at their cooperatives respective punto de venta (point of sale), or at the mercados libres agropecuarios (free agricultural markets or MLAs). Six farmers (40%) are proprietors of all of their land, six (40%)
142 hold all their land in usufruct, and three (20%) own part of the land w ith the additional part belonging to the State (see Figure 6.9). Household Economics These farm households are first homes and s econd, businesses. Farm-household livelihood strategies are selected fo r this dual purpose. These households are similar in the sense that they each diversify their livelihood strategies in an e ffort to meet primary household goals. The first goal is to produce enough food to meet household consumption requirements. The second is to produce enough products to sell for cash income.2 Although some of the members of these households receive money from the State for retire ment, the primary occupation of each head of household is farmer. Therefore, the primary sour ce of income for all 15 households is farming. Each of the 15 households was asked to divide its total annual producti on into percent used for household consumption, percent used for on-farm animal consumption, and percent sold to the market. All 15 households stated that at least 50% of their total annual production was consumed on farm by either household members or household animals. Amount of production consumed on farm ranged from 50-90%, with over half of the households selling at least 40% of their total annual production. This is illustrated in Figure 6-10 and shows that the householdsÂ’ primary purpose of production is for subsistence while also illustrati ng that each of these households is integrated into the market to some degree. Household inte gration into the market is discussed below. The rationing of a few food items, such as m eat and animal fats, began in 1961. In March 1962, the Cuban government established a national food rationing system by order of Law No. 2 Farmers must diversify production and produce enough food to meet household consumption requirements while simultaneously delivering their quotas to the State collector agency, ACOPIO, and diversifying their production to produce enough products beyond their quota to sell for ne cessary, as well as some discretionary cash income. This is further discussed throughout this chapter.
143 1015 and under the direction of the Ministerio del Co mercio Interior (Ministry of Internal Trade or MINCIN). Alvarez (2004b) st ates that a food rationing system was implemented because of a combination of two factors. The first factor was the increasing demand for food as a result of more purchasing power among the public as a result of wage increases and lower expenses because of government-subsidized utilities such as rent and electricity. He attributes the second factor as being a decrease in overall food production as a result of land re-d istribution and the restructuring of agricultural pr oduction lands following the Agrarian Reform Law of 1959. The rationing system distributed to each nÃºcleo familiar (household composed of one or more individuals) one libreta (rationing booklet). Depending on the number of consumers on each rationing booklet, households were entitled to purchase a specific quantity of the rationed items (Alvarez, 2004b). Alvarez (2004b) explains that at the onset of this system, practically all food items were included but since then items subject to quotas ha ve not remained static over time. Over the years, as production of some items such as fr uits, vegetables, and eggs increased, they were removed from the libreta and sold por la libre (freely) (Alvarez, 2004b). Various circumstances over the years influenced the types and am ounts of products provide d by the food-rationing system. Among them were: 1) the opening and closing of the mercados paralelos (parallel markets) in the 1980s; 2) the constraints on agricultural production as a result of the PerÃodo Especial en Tiempo de Paz (Special Period in Time of Peace or Special Period) throughout the early to mid-1990s; 3) the legaliz ation of holdings of foreign currency and remittances from abroad in 1993; and 4) the opening of the mercados libres agropecuarios (free agricultural markets or MLAs) in 1994. A decrease in agricultural produc tion resulted in less available food in the 1990s and the re-opening of the MLAs made available anot her outlet (instead of the
144 bodegas and placitas where food quotas are filled) for hous eholds to purchase additional food items not being provided by the State (Alvarez, 2004b). The food rationing system continues today. Ra tioned items are purchas ed at a very low, subsidized price at bodegas and placitas (State-run stores). Different bodegas and placitas receive different types of pr oducts. Although certain products such as bread and rice are typically available, these State -run stores are not consistent throughout the country or throughout provinces and municipalities in terms of the availability of some types of food products. Although this research does not explore why thes e differences exist, it is important to note because each of the 15 households mentioned the inconsistency within the food rationing system and how it affects them. Items not available at their respective bodega or placita , like those not provided at all through the rationi ng system must be purchased from the free market or the informal markets (i.e. underground and bl ack markets) at much higher prices. Even when the rationing system does provide some necessary products to these farmers, it often does not provide the necessary amounts. E ach of the 15 households supported this claim stating that the products offered through the libreta had to be complemented with foods that were either produced by them or purchased from the mark et. This was best illustrated by their need to grow or purchase additional rice an d beans (rice is not grown in this area so producing it is not an option but beans can be grown and often are to complement quotas), two items that are staples of the food-rationing system and typical foundati ons of the Cuban diet. Several households stated that the ration card only provides five pounds of rice per person per month and that that is not enough. For adequate provisi ons, additional rice must be pur chased at least every two months, and more often than not, once a month.
145 The amount of rice purchased by a household largely depends on household composition. Total amount of pesos spent on rice per year pe r household ranges from 840 to 4200 (35 to 175 CUC or 42 to 210 USD3). Figure 6-11 is a chart illustra ting this. The purchase of additional food items such as this can be a big annual expense when compared to the Cuban average nominal salary of 234 pesos (9.75 CUC or 11.70 USD) per month4 (Togores and GarcÃa, 2002). Furthermore, this is only one example of many necessary items that these households need to purchase on a consistent basis. Other commonly purchased food items include garlic, onions, beans, cooking oil, sugar, and meats. These households are best characterized as subsistence farm households. However, not every product can be produced on farm. Some le vel of market integration is inevitable. Processed items such as oil, sugar, soap, a nd other household cleaning supplies are not always conducive to being produced by a single household. Some items such as fish, milk, and meat are inaccessible if the household does not possess the necessary ecological habitats (i.e. water sources for fish) or animals (i.e. chicken and da iry cows) for their production. Therefore, these households diversify their agricultural produc tion in order to suppl ement food items (or quantities of items) not provided through the Stat e-rationing system as well as to earn cash 3 Calculations are based on the June 2006 exchange rate of the peso cubano to the peso convertible and the U.S. dollar to the Cuban peso convertible . As of June 2006, 1.00 peso convertible could be exchanged for 24.00 pesos cubanos and $1.00 USD could be exchanged for approximately 0.80 pesos convertibles . 4 This figure is taken from Togores and GarcÃa (2002). This is a 2002 figure based on statistics from the Ministry of Finance and Prices. The authors st ate that this does not represent real Cuban wages because nominal wages do not take into account increases in the consumer price index. Therefore, the figure of 234 pesos, based on the authorsÂ’ calculation is significantly less. In ad dition, these farm households are self-employed, not employees of the State. There is no official record that details private farmerÂ’s total annual production, how much is consumed on farm and how much is sold to the market. This is because their primary agricultural production is not only sold to the State, but also to entities within the informal economy, where pric es are significantly higher. Raw data gathered during interviews suggests that the figure offered by Togores an d GarcÃa may often be doubled or tripled for the farmers interviewed for this study. This figure is being used on ly as a benchmark to illustrate that large portions of cash income can be spent on additional amounts of necessary food items that are not provi ded through the state food rationing system.
146 income from the sale of surplus production in order to purchase both food and non-food items from the market. This is further illustrated below . The Market Cuba has an economy like few if any others in the world. Since 1959, CubaÂ’s economy has been shaped by agrarian reform laws, subsidi zed salaries and social services, varying degrees of centralized State control, dynamic economic and political relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and, most recently, an in crease in foreign touris m and national private enterprise. Today, Cuba circulates two exch angeable currencies, the national money, the peso cubano (Cuban peso or moneda nacional ) and the peso convertible (convertible peso or CUC). The peso convertible is exchangeable with other countriesÂ’ currencies but the peso cubano is only exchangeable within Cuba. The June 2006 national exchange rate exchanged 24 Cuban pesos for every 1 CUC. The Cuban peso serves as the currency in which all Cuban employees are paid by the State. National salaries are subsidized in order to provide a wide array of Â‘freeÂ’ social se rvices to all Cubans. These services include health care, education, and reduced utili ty rates (among others). The CUC initiated circulation in the early 1990s to serve as an internationalized dollar-oriented marketized component (Ritter, 1995). To complement the two types of currencies in circulation, tw o main types of markets exist within Cuba, ones that sell products in the Cuban pe so and ones that sell products in CUCs. At an exchange rate of 24 pesos cubanos for 1 CUC, few Cubans can afford to shop in the stores that sell products in CUCs unless they have access to additional, non-State income such as remittances, tips via the tourist industry, or in come received from sales of products in the informal economy (i.e. underground and black markets). However, food rations and State subsidies do not provide for all of the necessi ties of most Cuban hous eholds. All necessary
147 products cannot be found or purchased in State-run stores. It is often th e case that Cubans can only find certain necessary items in those stores tr ansacting in the foreign exchange currency (i.e. dollar stores or tiendas en CUC , also called chÃ³pin or shopping). CubaÂ’s economic complexity has arguably led, in recent years, to an emerging differentiation among Cubans in terms of who can afford to purchase products in CUCs and who cannot. Most Cubans are forced to save the limited funds they receive from the State to exchange their Cuban pesos for CUCs to purch ase items only sold in CUCs or they must diversify their livelihood strategi es to find ways of obtaining more cash, whether that cash be in moneda nacional or CUCs. The situation is the same for households located in both urban and rural areas. All 15 households interviewed for this study are in tegrated into the market to some degree. They both sell to and purchase from the market. Wh at constitutes the market varies with context. For example, the market system of Cuba is much different than the market system of her Latin American neighbors, primarily because of the ex istence of a State-run food rationing system and CubaÂ’s unique political economy. Described below is how the market is defined within the context of these 15 small-farmer livelihoods as understood by the author based on extensive interviews with household members. Although the national market sy stem of Cuba is considered and parts are included, certain compon ents of this larger system (i .e. imports and exports) are not thoroughly explored, because they do not directly concern these pa rticular farmers. Figure 6-12 presents a schematic diagram that illustrates the authorÂ’s interpretation of what constitutes the market, as defined by the 15 farmers interviewed for this study. The market, in this context, is divided into two primary sectors, the State sector and the non-State sector. The State-sector is comprised of State-run stores and markets. State-run stores
148 include those that sell ratione d goods and those that do not. T hose that sell State-rationed goods are the bodegas and placitas . Those that do not sell State-rationed goods are the tiendas en pesos cubanos (stores with goods sold in the national money or moneda nacional ) and the tiendas en CUC (stores that sell goods in th e convertible Cuban peso or pesos convertibles ). Cubans can purchase goods in ei ther store but the tiendas en CUC are much more expensive for the same products. However, buying from these stores is sometimes a necessity because certain goods are not sold or are not plentiful in the tiendas en pesos cubanos . The State-run market system includes the mercado paralelo (parallel market). This market, established in the 1980s, provides food funneled through State channels at prices higher than those found in bodegas but often cheaper than those found in the MLAs . Figure 6-13 shows a typical Cuban bodega where Cubans receive State-rationed items in pesos cubanos . Figure 6-14 shows a typical commercial, State-run store that sells consumer goods in CUCs. The non-State sector is compri sed of entities that fall with in the formal and informal economies. The formal economy includes gove rnment-approved priv ate markets, where individuals can sell their surp lus production to the public at prices governed by supply and demand. These markets include the mercados libres agropecuarios (free agricultural markets or MLAs) and puntos de venta (points of sale). The MLAs are agricultural markets with many vendors selling both plant and animal products. Vendors are either: 1) farmers; 2) family members of farmers; or 3) intermediarios (intermediaries) who purch ase goods from the farmers who produce them and then sell them for a highe r price at the MLAs. Figure 16-15 is a photo of a mercado libre agropecuario (MLA) in Havana City, Cuba. Figure 16-16 shows a typical punto de venta where members of cooperativas de crÃ©dito y servicios (credit and service cooperatives or CCSs) can sell their surplus production.
149 In the MLAs today, it is more common to find vendors who are intermediarios than vendors who are farmers. Puntos de venta are points of sale managed by cooperative members. Members of cooperatives can pool together their ag ricultural production a nd sell it from these small structures located throughout towns. Th ese points of sale can specialize in crop production, animal production, or both, depending on the type of cooperative and types of production of its members. Togores and GarcÃa (2004) st ate that the informal economy in Cuba has always existed, although its characteristics have varied depending on a number of aspects, most notably CubaÂ’s various economic situations, over time. Prio r to CubaÂ’s loss of the Soviet Union and COMECON as primary trading partners in 1989 and 1990, the informal sector of the economy mostly served to fill the need for goods not provi ded by State-supplied stores and markets. They further explain that throughout the 1980s, CubaÂ’s economy began a steady improvement and as a result, prices in the informal economy markets we re not as high when compared to official State prices (Togores and GarcÃa, 2004). In the early years of the 1990s, this sector of the economy flourished, as it was the only available market from which Cubans could pur chase the items they needed. With a sudden disappearance in imports and a falling GDP, the State could not supply it s stores and markets with the items that the populat ion needed (Togores and GarcÃa , 2004). Togores and GarcÃa (2004) state Â“between 1993 and mid-1995, the submerged economy reached its greatest volume, corresponding to the years when food scarcity was highest. Duri ng this period, informal market transactions surpassed sales in the official economyÂ” (p. 273). The informal sector of the economy began a decline after 1995 when the State policy measures were implemented, the MLAs were re -opened, and self-employment was liberalized
150 (Togores and GarcÃa, 2004). As the formal econo my gained strength and more products were available at affordable prices, it began to compete with the high prices of the informal economy markets. Although the formal economy has ga ined some strength since the mid-1990s, the informal economy persists today and as noted by Togores and GarcÃa (2004): Â…a significant volume of purchases and sales for a given group of articles continues to flow through the informal market, where they ar e offered at lower prices than those of the only alternative optionÂ—the market in foreign exchange. (p. 273) This Â‘market of foreign exchangeÂ’ refers to the State-run stores th at sell goods in CUCs ( tiendas en CUC ). Many of these items are unafforda ble given a CubanÂ’s average salary. Although the informal economy market s sell goods at much higher pr ices than what are found at State-run stores and markets, th ese prices are considerably less than those found for the same products in the State-run fore ign exchange stores (i.e. tiendas en CUC ). Therefore, the informal economy is a viable and often necessary option fo r individuals to obtain the goods they need for day-to-day survival and quality of life. For the purpose of this thesis, the informal economy includes the mercado subterrÃ¡neo (underground market) and the mercado negro (black market). Selling on and primarily buying from these two market systems within th e informal economy is often inevitable and commonplace for all of the households involved in this study. This is simply because, at times, it is the only place where certain needed items can be purchased. This thesis divides the informal sector of the economy into two distinct categories because they have a distinct difference. The underground market is char acterized by the selling of legal items from person to person. One person can sell to another person, a particular , or to an intermediary ( intermediario ), a middleman who then sells the same product for a higher pr ice either through a privat e market entity (i.e. MLAs), or directly to another consumer. A ccording to the farmers interviewed, although the
151 government does not look upon this favorably, th ey often overlook this exchange of legal products for money. Legal products refer to those not strictly cont rolled and rationed by the State. There are certain items the government deems illegal to sell to or purchase fr om anyone other than a State entity. Primary agricultural (plant and animal -based) products considered illegal include some meat (e.g. cattle, buffalo, and equine animals), milk and its derivatives (e.g. cheese), coffee, tobacco, cacao, potatoes, honey, and sugar.5 They are designated as such because the government does not allow these products to be sold in the MLAs and therefore, they are products for which there is not a surplus and therefore they ca nnot be sold via the non-State sector at the free agricultural markets. Togores and GarcÃa (2004) note that this is because some livestock such as cattle and equine animals are deficient in supply and Stat e-access to the purchase of additional animals is limited. Items such as coffee, tobacco, and cacao are considered to be exportable goods for the foreign market and must remain protected to ensu re adequate supplies for exportation. Potatoes and sugar are highly subsidized crops, requiri ng large amounts of foreign, chemical inputs and are important components of the State food rationing system. For the purpose of this thesis, additional produc ts other than those li sted above, are also considered as black market items. These products include those items that are typically stolen, or Â‘pinched,Â’ from State-run st ores. These products include chem ical inputs such as pesticides, tools such a limas and machetes , and some clothing such as plastic work boots ( botas de agua ).6 5 Honey and sugar are not mentioned in Togores and Ga rcÃa (2004). These were added because the farmers interviewed for this study mentioned them, along with the others, as illegal products to sell. 6 A number of different items could also be considered illegal because of their pilferage from State agencies. These listed items refer only to those specifically mentioned by these 15 farm households as items commonly purchased on the black market.
152 Cheese, because it is produced from milk, is also included in this category, as are gallos de pelea (roosters for cockfights) because this activity is illegal. In summary, any product grown or produced on farm by household members that is not considered illegal by the State is consider ed as comprising those bought and sold on the underground market. Any products that the State deem s illegal to buy or sell in the free market, roosters and other animals protected by the govern ment (e.g. cow, buffalo), and products that are typically stolen or Â‘pinchedÂ’ from State-run stores and then re-s old, are considered to be items that comprise those found on the black market. Figure 6-17 shows a photo of a farmer holding two limas (metal files that sharpen machetes) th at were purchased on the black market. Cooperatives, ACOPIO and Selling Surplus Production Today, CubaÂ’s agricultural sector can be divided into ten distinct forms of organization within three primary categories of production: State, mixed, and non-State. See Chapter 2 for a more detailed explanation. This study is conc erned with the non-State sector of agricultural production. Included in this se ctor are: 1) indi vidual farmers who participate in cooperativas de crÃ©dito y servicios (credit and service cooperatives or CCS s); 2) individual farmers who use land held in usufruct; and 3) individual farmers whose land is considered privat e property. Of these, this thesis concentrates on those farmers participating in a CCS because 13 of the 15 households are members of seven different CCSs. Two households, 8 and 12, do not participate in a cooperative of any kind and are individual fa rmers whose land is held in usufruct. Household participation in the CCSs ranges greatly in terms of length of time as a member.7 Some households have only recently joined a CCS while others have been members since their creation 7 Other individual farmers who are members of a CCS can hold their land in usufruct as well.
153 in the early 1960s. Table 6-1 show s the length of time that each household has participated in their respective cooperative. CCSs were established shortly after the first Agrarian Reform Law of 1959 and the creation of the AsociaciÃ³n Nacional de Agricult ores PequeÃ±os (National Association of Small Farmers or ANAP) in 1961. Alvarez (2004a) note s that by mid-1963, there were 527 CCSs with more than 46,000 members working a total of 433,000 ha of land. Membership continued to grow until the mid-late 1970s, following the creation of the CPAs. Alvarez (2004a) states that a probable explanation for this is that ANAP shifted its emphasis to these newly formed CPAs and away from CCSs and as a result , the CCS movement weakened. In the past two decades, however, numbers of CCS members have again increased. Using data from estadÃsticas agropecuarias , MartÃn (2002) states that in 1997, there were 2709 CCSs comprised of 159,223 members working 11.8% of total ag ricultural land and that in recent years, numbers of farmers joining CCSs have begun to exceed numbers of farmers joining CPAs. In the CCSs, individuals join together to rece ive credit and services from State agencies but work their farmland independently and do not share with other cooperative members land or money earned from selling products to the market. They may, however, share machinery and equipment if those items are available. Particip ating in this type of cooperative provides small farmers with two primary benefits. The first is better access to input s and State institutional assistance. The second is the provision of an avenue for farmers to sell their agricultural products at fixed prices8 through State agencies based on prod uction plans and contracts (MartÃn, 2002). Some CCSs can be described as fortalecida (strengthened), meaning that they are more 8 Fixed prices only apply to the amount of production contracted between farmers and state agencies. Surplus production beyond these quotas can recei ve higher prices based on negotiati ons between both parties or through sales at the MLAs.
154 organized and typically have be tter access to State resources and more consistent production plans with State agencies than those cooperatives not character ized as such. Two of the 15 households, numbers 13 and 15, participate in cooperatives characterized as fortalecida . Each of the 13 households stated that the r eason they joined these cooperatives was to unite with other small farmers to achieve better access to tools, inputs, and assistance from State agencies such as ANAP. When asked about th is access, most households expressed similar experiences. Prior to the Special Period, these fa rmers did receive some assistance and resources from State agencies via their cooperative. Wh en asked what kinds of services and resources were received, farmer responses highlighted the following benefits: pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, tools, clothing, work boots, and extension services for both plant and animal production. However, during the most critical years of the Special Period, resources and extension services became scarce. According to the households, the situation has not improved. Of the nine households that identify themselves as a member of a CCS both prior to and after the Special Period, all nine stated that they receive much less today th an prior to the Special Period. Several farmers emphatically stated that today they receiv e Â“absolutely nothing Â” via their cooperative from State agencies. As members of CCSs, these farmers are assu red access through their cooperative to State agencies to sell their surplus agricultural produ ction (that production which is not consumed on farm). Cooperatives, as a whole, make cont racts with State agenci es based on anticipated production quotas of particular ag ricultural products. These cont racts are primarily made with the State food collection and di stribution agency, ACOPIO. Th is collection and distribution system was established in 1962 and has been th e official link between producers and consumers since the early years of the Revolution (Alvarez, 2004b). Established within this system in the
155 1980s were the Empresa de Frutas Selectas (Ent erprise of Selected Fr uits) and the Empresa Forestal (Forestry Enterprise). These represent the primary State agencies to which the farmers interviewed for this study sell their surplus produce. Most other agricultural crops are sold to ACOPIO. Certain fruits are sold to the Empresa de Frutas Selectas for the domestic and tourist markets (Alvarez, 2004b). Harvested wood ( madera ) and charcoal ( carbÃ³n ) are sold to the Empresa Forestal. Once cooperatives establish a plan with ACOP IO and/or its subsid iaries, a designated member of the cooperative then makes smalle r production plans and contracts with individual farmers who are members of the cooperative. The idea is that these smaller contracts will eventually serve to meet producti on quotas of the larger cooperat ive contract established with ACOPIO. These individual contracts with farmer s vary from season to season and from year to year depending on agricultural production. Thes e contracts are made on a case-by-case basis with farmers and are based on the farmerÂ’s anticip ated production. Qualit y of production is also considered. These same kinds of contracts can be made between ACOPIO and small farmers who are not members of cooperatives, but are of ten not as consistent and sometimes more difficult to establish. Each of the 13 househol ds participating in a CCS has a consistent production plan with ACOPIO via their CCS. This contract is renewed every few months based on anticipated production. Figure 6-18 shows a typical contract betw een ACOPIO and a CCS farmer. There are two main types of CCSs in terms of category of agricultural production. There are regular CCSs that primarily focus on plan t-based agricultural production and there are Cooperativas Ganaderas (livestock CCSs) that primarily focus on animal-based production such as meats and milk. Both types are found with in the livelihood syst em of these 15 farm
156 households. Crop-based CCSs do not exclude the production and dist ribution of animal products and animal-based cooperatives do not exclud e the production and distribution of crop production. Twelve households participate in a cooperative focused on plant-based agricultural production. Only one of the 13 households who are members of a CCS is a member of a cooperativa ganadera . Surplus production (production that exceeds cont racted plans with ACOPIO) can be sold to three primary entities: 1. Farmers sell production above and beyond their quota to ACOPIO and can often negotiate a better price for certain items, especially if these items are in high demand by the State. 2. Farmers sell surplus production in the free market, either at the MLAs9 or puntos de venta . 3. Farmers sell their production in the informal economy, in the underground and/or black markets. Most farmers sell some surplus production to AC OPIO after contracts are met and typically try to negotiate a higher price. If a higher price cannot be obtained, these farmers often look to other avenues for selling their producti on. Certain items, such as coff ee and milk, can, legally, only be sold to State agencies. Farmers often sell their surplus production of coff ee to ACOPIO but that is not always the case with other products. Often, products considered illegal to sell at the free markets are not sold to ACOPIO, but instead are sold in the black market where a much higher price can be obtained. None of the 15 households sell at the larger , established MLAs. However, a number of households do sell at their cooperativeÂ’s respective punto de venta (point of sale). As members of these cooperatives, farmers ar e required to pay a tax to the CCS that is often a percent based on production sold to Stat e agencies or at the puntos de venta . These taxes are generally paid to 9 Farmers can sell their surplus production at the MLAs but no ne of the 15 farm households do primarily because of limited production, a lack of desire to do so, and/or a l ack of transportation to transport both themselves and their products to town where these MLAs are located.
157 the cooperative each time products are sold. These taxes range among households from 2 to 15%. Sometimes this percent is established pe r sale and sometimes per amount of pesos earned from sales. Table 6-2 shows the amount, based on sales to State agencies and the puntos de venta , that each household pays to their respective cooperative . Although it is likely that there are reasons why these amounts differ from household to hous ehold, even within the same cooperative, interviews did not inquire about this. Furthermore, there are so me discrepancies in these data that are worthy of mention. All 15 households were asked about the tax pa id to their CCS after selling to State agencies, while they were not asked about taxes in regards to the puntos de venta . Data regarding these taxes are only noted for households who mentioned it during interviews. Other discrepancies in the data exist. Household five did not state a percent based on sales to either entity. This household stated that they do not pay cash to their cooperative, but instead pay this tax in actual production. Although this household, like the others, sells to State agencies, they only provided inform ation in regards to sales at the puntos de venta . Household 13 also stated that in addition to paying a tax to the CCS, they also pay a tax to ANAP. This may be because their CCS is a fortalecida and therefore, much more integrated into State institutions such as ANAP than other households. Househol d 15 did not express the tax as a percent but instead stated that they were required to provide to their CCS a dditional milk and beef. Households eight and 12 are not included because they do not participate in a CCS and do not have consistent plans with AC OPIO, nor do they sell at the puntos de venta . CCS members also pay an annual fee to thei r cooperative. These fees, according to farmers, are collective holdings of cash that can be utilized by indivi dual cooperative members or the cooperative collectively to provide cash in times of need or for social events. Most
158 cooperatives also make available a lawyer to coop erative members and this fee often covers that accessibility as well. All adult members of the household typically pay these fees. Proprietors of the land and heads of the household in terms of t hose who utilize land held in usufruct, often pay more than other adult members of the household. Figure 6-19 shows the amount each proprietor of land or head of household pays to the cooperative for these additional emergency funds a nd social services per year. Again, although it is likely that there ar e reasons why these amounts differ fr om household to household, even within the same cooperative, inte rviews did not inquire about this . Households eight and 12 are not included because they are not members of a CCS. There is no information available for household 13. Another benefit of belonging to a CCS, as noted by those farmers interviewed, is the provision of access to credit. Farmers can receiv e bank credit via their respective cooperatives. Farmers can use this credit as cash in times of need to purchase additio nal plants, inputs, and other resources that benefit production of products that are to be primarily so ld to State agencies. Although obtaining this credit is an option, only two of the 13 households participating in a cooperative have taken advantage of this opportunity. Both cases ut ilized credit to improve their coffee production, a product of primary importance to State agencies. These two households used this credit to purc hase additional coffee plants and have four years, after borrowing, in which to pay back the lo an. They also stated that if farmers are not able to pay back the loan on time, the bank rese rves the right to take their land, regardless of whether they own it or hold it in usufruct. B ecause of the current state of CubaÂ’s political economy, all banks are owned by the State. Ther efore, this is the onl y option for farmers, whether or not they participate in a cooperati ve, to acquire credit fo r agricultural production.
159 As previously mentioned, integration into the informal sector of the economy (i.e. underground and black markets) is often inev itable and commonplace for all 15 households. Because it is the type of item sold and bought that characterizes the underground and black markets, particulares and intermediarios are key players in both. Particulares are individuals who buy products from other individu als usually for the purpose of self or family consumption. Items sold between individuals are typically more expensive than those found in State-run tiendas en pesos cubanos or bodegas and placitas but much less expensive than what is found in the tiendas en CUC (if those items are even available ther e at all). Some items sold between individuals are virtually impossibl e to purchase in any kind of stor e and therefore this exchange is sometimes the only way to acquire a needed it em. Prices for many items, when sold, receive a much better price from particulares than from State agencies. Intermediarios are intermediaries who typically purchase large amounts of products directly from farmers and then re-sell th ese products for a higher price to another intermediario , directly at the MLAs, directly to vendors at the MLAs, or to other individuals who directly consume or use it. These intermediaries often pay much higher prices th an State agencies but also sell for higher prices to the next buyer. Au thors, city dwellers, a nd the farmers interviewed for this study have argued that this is one of the primary reas ons produce is so expensive, and often unaffordable, in the MLAs in larger cities like Havana. Production Activities A total of 66 production activit ies within the livelihood system from which these farmers choose in order to maintain their livelihoods are detailed in this thesis . Households choose a unique combination of production activities to provide food and non-food products for subsistence as well as to generate cash income from the sale of these products to purchase other
160 necessary items from the market.10 Production activities are thos e that produce something that can be consumed or used (by household members and/ or on-farm animals) or that bring in cash. Production activities of the liveli hood system of these farmers ar e divided into five distinct categories: 1) plant production activities; 2) animal productio n activities; 3) value-added production activities; 4) othe r production activ ities; and 5) off-farm work. Plant Production Plant inventories of both homegardens and fa rms of these 15 households suggest that, on average, there are 39 types11 of plants present in a given farm ing system. Total numbers of types of plants per household ranges from 14 to 61, with a median of 37. The true total number of types of plants per household is actually highe r, as many ornamental species and medicinal plants were largely ignored during plant survey s. Household homegardens and farms have an abundance of plant richness that is often interc ropped and dispersed throughout the area. Many species, including food crops, medicinals, and orname ntals are wild. Theref ore, total numbers of some plant types can reach into the hundreds and are difficult to exhaustiv ely count. Listing the total plant production activities of these farmer s was not attempted within this thesis. In addition, farmers exert primary effort only for thos e plant activities which are most important for household consumption or whose products can be sold to the market. Furtherm ore, this thesis is concerned with illustrating the pr imary livelihood strate gies, or activities, that households choose in order to achieve a reasonably sustainable livelihood. A list of all plant types and approximate 10 Farmers generate cash from sales to both State collection agencies (e.g. ACOPIO) and other market outlets (e.g. puntos de venta , particlaures , intermediarios ) in both the formal and info rmal sectors of the economy. 11 Distinguishing between species and genera was not always possible. Type of plant refers either to species or genus. Plants could not always be only categorized as one or the other. Some species can be grouped under one genus because species were difficult to distinguish and most importantly because the genus, as a whole, represents a plant production activity (e.g. Phaseolus , Musa ). Others species must be catego rized as such because the different species within that genus represent di fferent plant production activities (e.g. Annona , Citrus ).
161 numbers present in each of the householdsÂ’ farm ing systems were inventoried (excluding some ornamentals and medicinals) a nd can be found in Appendix A. Farmers were asked to list the most important plants in their farming systems. Results of all 15 households show that 68 pl ant types were listed. All forthcoming figures regarding production activities are organized according to the hi erarchical category of genera because knowledge of specific species varies among farmers. Some farmers were able to distinguish among species and varieties (i.e. according to th e scientific name) but others only knew certain plants by common names. Sometimes this is im portant and sometimes it is not. For example, distinguishing between the diffe rent species of the genus Annona is much more important than distinguishing between the different sp ecies (and varietie s) of the genus Musa . This is because different species or varieties of Musa ( plÃ¡tano or banana) are typica lly grown the same way throughout the year and utilize the same amounts of resources. They also, collectively, can be classified as one type of livelihood activity, as they require , approximately, the same amounts of labor and have similar production requirements and constraints and serv e to fulfill the same household needs. Different species of Annona on the other hand, can di ffer greatly in terms of all the aforementioned factor s. Different species of Annona (i.e. chirimoya and guanabana ) can be very different fruits with very different consumption and economic importance, as well as production requirements and constrai nts. Therefore these species often represent different types of production activities based on th ese factors. Furthermore, all interviews during 2005 and 2006 were conducted during the ra iny season (May through Octobe r) and if farmers mentioned plants commonly produced during the dry season (e.g. Phaseolus ), these plants were not available for on-site species identification.
162 Figure 6-20 lists the 68 most important plant ty pes (in general) of the 15 farm households. These plant types were determined through extensiv e interviews and on-farm plant inventories. They represent those plant types that are most important to members of a given household. They include food crops (fruits, vege tables, condiments, sweeteners, a nd roots and tubers), medicinals, tree species harvested for wood fo r construction and/or charcoal production, and plants utilized for animal feed. When possible, certain gene ra were listed more than once because more specific data regarding species exists. An (X) denotes that the plant type was specifically mentioned by a respective household as important dur ing one of four interviews. An (x) means that the plant type was not mentioned during an interview but a significant number (> 50) of the plant was present in the farming system. Because of the error a ssociated with informant recall (see Chapter 4), it is assumed by the author that respondents may sometimes forget to mention plant types that are important to the household and therefore, an assumption is made that a given plant is important to a given household if it is abundant (more than 50 plants) in the farming system. This information was taken from on-farm plant surveys conducted in August 2005. Of these 68 most important plant types, hous ehold members were asked to state which types are most important for household consump tion and which are most economically important in terms of generating cash from sa les to various market outlets (e.g. particulares , intermediarios , puntos de venta , ACOPIO). These two categories, together, represent the 47 plant production livelihood strategies , or activities, available to all households within the livelihood system. Households were permitted to list the same plant type for both if the household considered the plant to be important for household consumption and for generating cash. Figure 6-21 lists the plan t production livelihood strategies (i.e. activities) reported by households as most important for household consumption. All 47 of the primary plant
163 production activities reported are considered important for household consumption by one or more of the 15 households. Again, an (X) is used to denote that the plant type was specifically mentioned by a given household during an interview and an (x) means that the plant type was not mentioned during an interview but a significant number (> 50) of the plant was present in the farming system as observed during on-site plant inventories. Importance of these plant pr oduction livelihood strategies is distributed among the 15 households with varying frequencies. Howeve r, there are some commonalities. There are 15 plant production livelihood strategi es out of the tota l 47 listed in Figure 6-21 that are most common (considered to be important by at least 50% of households) to households within this livelihood system. This is explicitly illustrated in Figure 6-22. Several types of fruits are listed in Figure 6-22. These fruits include: 1) Persea americana ( aguacate or avocado); 2) Psidium guajava ( guayaba or guava); 3) Pouteria sapote (mamey); 4) Citrus spp. ( naranja or orange); 5) Musa spp. ( plÃ¡tano or banana); and Cucurbita moschata ( calabaza or pumpkin). Fruits are an important co mponent of the household diet. Because these items are not distributed through the State food rationing system, they must either be produced by a household or purchased from the formal (e.g. MLAs, puntos de venta ) or informal (e.g. underground or black market) economies. Growi ng these crops eliminates the need for these additional purchases from the market. The situation is similar for roots and tubers, legumes, and grains. Listed in Figure 6-22 are: 1) Ipomoea batatas ( boniato or sweet potato); 2) Xanthosoma sagittifolium ( malanga or taro); and 3) Manihot esculenta ( yuca or cassava). These three are important sources of starch for household diets. Also listed are Zea mays ( maÃz or corn), and important source of carbohydrates, and Phaseolus vulgaris ( frijol or bean), and important source of protein. Coffea
164 arabica ( cafÃ© or coffee) and Saccharum officinarum ( caÃ±a de azucar or sugarcane) are important for household consumption as well. These items, after processing, are ra tioned through the State but are limited in quantity and e xpensive to purchase in the tiendas en CUC . On-farm production provides some households with important items like these that are often otherwise unaffordable. Figure 6-23 shows a farmer harvesting Manihot esculenta ( yuca or cassava) from his farm for household consumption. Roystonea regia ( palma real or royal palm) is also considered important to a number of households. This palm, considered the national pa lm of Cuba, can be util ized for four primary purposes. The trunk of the tree can be used as wood for construction. The palm fronds are often used as thatching for roofing. The long, solid stems to which the fruits are attached are tied together and used as brooms. These brooms are used to sweep houses for the purpose of cleaning and can be used to sort and turn fruits left to dry on secaderos (concrete drying slab). The fruits, called palmiche , serve as an important animal feed for pigs. Figure 6-24 is a photo of palmiche (the fruits of R . regia ) and coffee beans (fruits of C . arabica ) drying on a secadero surrounded by pasture with numerous, interspersed mature trees of R . regia . In addition to listing which plant types ar e most important for household consumption, farmers were asked to list which types of plants are most important for generating cash. There are 27 plant production livelihood st rategies (i.e. activities) th at are considered to be economically important for these 15 households. Th ese plants represent those that households not only consume, but primarily sell to generate cash income. Figure 6-25 lists the 27 plant production livelihood strategies considered as most important for generating cash. These plant production livelihood strategies ar e distributed among the 15 households with varying frequencies. However, there are so me commonalities. There are six economically
165 important plant production livelihoo d strategies that are most co mmonly considered (by at least 50% of households) as important within this livelihood system. See Figure 6-26. The six plant types listed in Figure 6-26 represent those plant production livelihood strategies that generate cash income. This table, however, only shows those plant production activities that are of economic importance to the greatest number of households. Some plant production activities are important to households in general (e.g. Persea americana ), while others are only important to individual households (e.g. Ananas comosus ). Animal Production Animal production is an important aspect of these householdsÂ’ livelihoods. Farmers were asked to list all of the domesticated animals pres ent in their farming systems. Results of all 15 households show a total of 15 type s of animals. Total numbers of types of animal per household can be found in Appendix B. On average there ar e six types of animals per household, with total numbers ranging from 2 to 11 and a median of seven. Animals were divided into types based on the information given by the farmers. Cows ( vacas ) and oxen ( bueyes ), for example, were listed as two separate types of animals because they perform very different functions. Cows often produce milk and oxen are used as animal tract ion for transportation of both people and goods and for preparing the soil. Ages of these two types of animals were also listed separately because young bulls and cows ( terneros/terneras and aÃ±ajos/aÃ±ajas ) are often used as meat for sale to the State, unlike dairy cows and oxen. All other animals have females and males grouped as one category (or type of anim al). Examples include rabbits ( conejos/conejas ), sheep ( carneros/carneras ), goats ( chivos/chivas ), and dogs ( perros/perras ). This is because no significant difference between sexe s was noted among these types of animals in regards to use or production. There is, however, one exception.
166 Roosters and hens ( gallos/gallinas ) were also listed as only one category because responses among farmers did not always distinguish between sexes. However, a difference between hens and roosters exists. Both hens and roosters are a source of meat but hens offer an additional product, eggs, and roosters can be sold live for cockfight s for a very high price. This distinction is most important in terms of generating cash. Figure 6-27 shows the total types of animals present in all 15 farming systems as well as in which farming systems these animals are present. Farmers were asked to list the animals that are most important in terms of household consumption and most important for generating cas h income via sales to the market. Together, these two categories represent th e primary animal production live lihood strategies, or activities, available to all households with in the livelihood system. House holds were permitted to list the same animal type for both if the household cons idered the plant to be important for household consumption and for generating cash. The 15 households lis ted a total of seve n types of animals as most important for household consump tion. These are listed in Figure 6-28. Thirteen of the 15 households stated that pigs and chickens are the most important animals for household consumption. These animals are t ypically found in high numbers in these farming systems and provide an important source of protein for household membersÂ’ diets. Six households stated that turkeys are also an im portant meat source. Turkeys are primarily important for households as special meat for parties held December 24 to celebrate el fin del aÃ±o (the end of the year). Generally, if households do not produce their own turkeys, they save cash to purchase one at this time. Although data rega rding exact prices of these turkeys were not gathered, a number of househol ds did mention that it was a big annual expense to buy one. Producing turkey on farm for this end of the year celebration eliminates this annual expense for
167 some households. Figure 6-29 presents a photo of a typical turkey that is raised and killed for meat for the annual celebration el fin del aÃ±o . Some households listed that sheep, goats, a nd rabbits are important sources of meat for household members as well. Household 15 also lis ted cow as an important animal for household consumption. This is because this householdÂ’ s primary animal productio n livelihood strategy is dairy production. Fresh cow milk is provided through the State food rationing system but is usually only distributed to ch ildren under seven, the elderly, th e ill, and pregnant women. Producing fresh cow milk on farm provides, for th is household, an important source of protein and calcium that is generally not easy to obtain be cause of limited quantities, strict State control, and high prices. In addition to providing meat and animal by-products for household consumption, animals and their products are also sold to the market in order to generate cash. Some households diversify their market producti on by including sales of animal meats and by-products. Although all households benefit from animal production activities for household consumption, not all farmers choose to sell animals and their products on the market. Five of the 15 households stated that they do not engage in anim al production activities to generate cash income. Farmers who do sell animals and/or their products listed a total of eight types of animals as most important for generating cash income via sale to the market (see Figure 6-30). Among the 15 households, pigs are consider ed the most common animal production livelihood strategy for generating cash. The othe r animals represented are less common among total households and vary with frequency. It is important to note that Fi gure 6-30 lists only the most important types of animals for generating cash from the market on a regular basis. It is common for households in this system to sell all types of animals if they are in need of cash that
168 cannot be generated from their usual livelihood ac tivities. Farmers may choose to sell animals such as oxen, cows, or mules to either ACOPIO, another State enterprise, or particulares if they want to acquire additional cash for an expens ive purchase, such as a new refrigerator. Value-Added Production Value-added refers to the process of alteri ng an original product for the purpose of generating increased revenue or gaining a market advantage. A value-ad ded product is one that has been changed, produced, or segregated such that a higher value can be obtained from its sale. Value-added can include many things. In this context, it refers to the value added to a product as a result of the additional labor a nd resources used to produce a final altered product. Within this livelihood system are a number of value-added li velihood strategies (i.e. activities) that produce value-added products that are derived from bot h plant and animal sources. These activities produce products that can be consumed on farm , used by household members, or sold for offfarm consumption or usage (and thereby gene rating cash income). Value-added production activities help to promote live lihood activity diversification by creating an additional product from primary production that can be used or sold (often for a higher price). There are a total of six value-added production activities that repres ent those value-added production livelihood strategies of the livelihood system. These activities are ca tegorized as follows: 1) plant-based valueadded production livelihood strategi es, animal-based value-added production livelihood strategies, and forestry-based value-added produc tion livelihood strategies. Although forest-based products are certainly plan t products, they are segregated here for the purpose of illuminating the difference between those activities based on agricultural production (i.e. crops) and those based on fo rest production. This is primar ily because farmers use more resources for agricultural production. The surro unding forests are typically self-sustaining and receive no cultivation, inputs, or ot her additional resources. Generally the only resource used for
169 forestry-based production is household labor. Figure 6-31 lists the six value-added production livelihood strategies and which households engage in each. Farmers were asked to list which value-adde d production activities are most important in terms of household consumption and use. Five of the six value-added pr oduction activities were identified. Figure 6-32 shows t hose value-added production liveli hood strategies most important for household consumption and use and which households participat e in each activity. Farmers also were asked to list which valueadded production activitie s are most important in terms of generating cash inco me. All six of the total valueadded production activities were identified. However, not all 15 households uti lize these value-added pr oduction activities to generate cash. Ten of the 15 households do engage in value-adde d production livelihood strategies in order to generate cash via sales to the market. Figure 6-33 shows those value-added production activities most important for generatin g cash income via sale to various market outlets (e.g. particulares , intermediarios , ACOPIO) and which households engage in each for cash. Plant-based value-added production Plant-based value-added produc tion livelihood strategies incl ude the: 1) production of sweets; 2) production of orchids; and 3) production of tomato sa uce/paste. Sweet production includes those sugary foods such as marmalades, fr ozen fruit popsicles, and fruit pastes. In this context they specifically refer to dulce de fruta bomba (boiled papaya fruit in syrup), barra de guayaba (guava cooked in sugar water and pressed into a ba r of jam), and durofrio de frutas (frozen fruit and sugar water). Figure 6-34 shows dulce de fruta bomba ( Carica papaya ), a typical sweet food made by cooking papaya, sugar, and water. These value-added products are typically made from fruit harvested on farm. Th ey require the addition of sugar, a rationed item that is limited in quantity, difficult to find (or too expensive to buy) on the black market, and too
170 expensive to purchase from the tiendas en CUC . One household mentioned that they would like to diversify their livelihood activities by incorpor ating the selling of sweets but that it was not possible because of a lack of access to addi tional sugar and the high price of it in the tiendas en CUC (where the product tends to be plentiful). This household, unlike many of the others, does not grow their own sugarcane for on-farm consumption. Tomato sauce and paste are also value-a dded products typically made using on-farm produce. These products are an important component of Cuban cooking and not a common product provided as part of CubaÂ’s food rationing system. Many farmers grow tomatoes on farm for household consumption, but only two households stated that they produce enough tomatoes to make these products for sale. Figure 6-35 is a photo of Lycopersicon spp. bottled as pure de tomate (tomato sauce), along with other ag ricultural products, for sale to particulares . The selling of orchids in this area can earn a significant amount of cash. These farmers live either within or along the pe riphery of a biosphere reserve, which is a popular destination for both domestic and foreign tourism. Orchids are propagated on farm and attached to pieces of shaped wood, quarter slices of dried coconut shell, and/or placed in a hand-crafted wooden plant holder. They are then fastened to a metal hanger and sold as a finished product. Household five is the only household that listed this activity as a means for generating cash income. This household is unlike the others because one of the fa mily members hosts tourists in her home (i.e. casa particular ). This gives this household ready access to potential buyers at tourist prices. Figure 6-36 shows orchid ornamentals prepared for sale to tourists. Animal-based value-added production Animal-based value-added production liveli hood strategies include cheese production. Only household 15 engages in this value-adde d (animal-based) production activity. This household is unlike the others because it is the only household that participates in a cooperativa
171 ganadera , which focuses primarily on animal production. Households involved in this type of cooperative typically have more animals in orde r to meet production quotas for State agencies via their cooperative. Cow milk, beef, and chee se production are very important to the State because production has been low for a number of year s. The State includes some of these items, primarily milk, in the State rationing system and th erefore, exerts effort to acquire as much of this production as possible from both the State and non-State ag ricultural sectors. The selling of cow milk, cheese, and beef to anyone other than the State is illegal and can result in severe penalties. However, selling cheese and milk (not beef12) is somewhat commonplace in certain areas throughout Cuba, es pecially throughout this region. Individuals who produce these products sometimes choose to ri sk repercussions and stand on the side of the road with cheese to sell to passing drivers. Sel ling to entities other th an those run by the State can earn a significantly higher price than selling to the State. Fi gure 6-37 presents a photo of an individual selling queso (cheese) and barra de guayaba (guava jelly) along the side of the road to passing motorists and pedestrians. Forestry-based value-added production Forestry-based value-added production livelihood strategies include the production of charcoal ( carbÃ³n ) and the production of tools ( herramientas ). The production of charcoal is an important livelihood activity for most farmers. Th irteen households engage in this activity for either household consumption or to generate cas h, or both. All 13 households utilize this product for household consumption. Some households do not have electricity or a source of gas for 12 The farm households interviewed stated that the police tend to be lenient with illegal selling of milk and cheese. This is not the case with beef. Selling beef is strictly forbidden by the State and may result in long periods of jail time.
172 cooking, so there is always a market. Charcoal is an important energy source because it can be produced on farm and is easily accessible for everyday use. Seven of the 13 households that produce carbÃ³n also sell it. Some households sell this product to State agencies (e.g. Empresa Forestal , a subsidiary of ACOPIO), but most sell to other individuals (i.e. particulares ) for a much higher price than wh at is offered by the State. Charcoal is typically produced adjacent to the house within an area of the homegarden. Figure 6-38 shows wood piled and prepared to burn for the initial stage of carbÃ³n production. Figure 639 shows the latter stage of carbÃ³n production as wood slowly bur ns over many hours to produce the final product, charcoal. The production of tools is another importa nt activity for many households. Seven households make tools. The meta l for the tools is typi cally purchased on the black market or reused from older tools in need of repair. The handles ( cabos ) are cut and shaped by farmers using on-farm sources of wood. A pilÃ³n is a large mortar and pestle made out of wood for the purpose of separating the rind of coffee from the bean. It is an essential tool for the households that engage in coffee production. The production of tools is important because si nce the onset of the Special Period, imports of necessary items such as tools has been limited. It is difficult and expensive to purchase these items from the State, if they are available at al l. Producing tools on farm eliminates the need to spend time searching for tools to buy and the expense of buying these high-priced items on the black market or from the State. Although data collected from observa tions and interviews suggest that several of these households sell these tools to others in the informal economy, only household eight stated that they engage in this activity for the purpose of generating cash. Several households did state that they often make these tools for friends and neighbors. Figure
173 6-40 shows handcrafted tools made on farm by a farm er for on-farm use and/or sale to generate cash. Figure 6-41 shows a handcrafted pilÃ³n (i.e. the mortar component of a mortar and pestle that is used for removing the outer rind from th e coffee berry prior to drying and roasting), made for the purpose of household use or sale to particulares to generate household cash. Other Production Other production activities are thos e that do not fall within the other three categories of production activities (i.e. plant-based, animal-bas ed, and value-added). These activities include the production of milk and the harv est of forest trees for wood to use as construction materials. Figure 6-42 shows which house holds engage in these other production livelihood strategies for on-farm consumption or use. Figure 6-43 shows which households engage in these other production livelihood strategies for genera ting cash via sales to the market. All 15 households harvest forest trees for house hold use. Wood from these trees is often used to construct houses, animal stalls, and othe r on-farm structures such as storage sheds and bohÃos cÃclones (an a-framed, thatched-roofed structure used for storage and as shelter during tropical depressions and hurrica nes). These structures are typically located within the homegarden area, adjacent to the house. Figure 6-44 shows an example of one of these structures. Wood harvested from the forest can also be sold to State agencies, primarily the Empresa Forestal . Five of the 15 households harvest wood ever y 2 to 4 years to sell to the State in order to earn cash. These households tend to have larg er amounts of forested land than the others. There are, however, two exceptions. Household 14 did not state that any of its land was considered forest. This is probably not accurate. One of household 14Â’s primary livelihood activities is the production of charcoal. Perhaps they use trees that are intercropped th roughout the farm and homegarden (and therefore
174 forest was not considered a separa te category of land). Household four has over 10 ha of forest. This household stated that they do produce charcoal using trees from this area but they do not harvest for wood to sell to the St ate. Figure 6-45 shows tree sp ecies harvested for the production of carbÃ³n (charcoal) and madera (wood) for household consumption and sale. Only household 15 engages in milk production. As with cheese production, and explained above, this household primarily engages in animal -based production activi ties. This household has a weekly contract with ACOPIO concerning this production. Milk, like cheese, is illegal to sell to anyone other than a State agency. The selling of milk on th e black market, however, is a common activity according to a num ber of farmers interviewed. Household 15 did not state if they sell to entities other than the State. Off-Farm Work and Addi tional Cash Income All 15 farmers interviewed stated that they are not employed off farm and that instead, they are self-employed farmers. They earn most of their annual cash income by selling their agricultural production, beyond subsis tence, to: 1) State agencies ; 2) the public through their CCSÂ’s respective punto de venta (except households ei ght and 12); and 3) particulares and intermediarios on the underground and black markets. As noted above, some cash is generated through value-added production activities such as carbÃ³n and dulces and other production activities such as the harvesting of forest trees and milk production. Some farmers also receive money from the State for retirement every month. Some farmersÂ’ wives receive retirement as well. To tal household cash income from retirement ranges from 2200 to 5400 pesos ( pesos cubanos ) per year. Figure 6-46 show s the amount of money that each household receives from the State per year for retirement, as well as which portion is from the male and which is from the female.
175 Other members of some households do have o ff-farm jobs. The money earned from these jobs often contributes to the familyÂ’s livelihood. Households seven and eight stated that they each have a daughter who is employed off farm and that the income she receives contributes to household total annual cash income. Households fi ve and 15 stated that they receive remittances from abroad. One of these two households stated they receive up to 7200 pesos (~300 USD) per year from family members living in the United Stat es. Access to these ty pes of additional cash income can be of significant value to these hous eholds. In the case of household seven, the daughter has a job that allows her to travel abroad where she can acquire items that are otherwise too difficult to purchase in Cuba. She lives in a house adjacent to her fatherÂ’s (the farmer interviewed) and has only one child. The addition of her annual cash income allows this family a greater opportunity to spend money for discretionary purposes than some of the other households interviewed for this study. Factors Limiting Production There are a number of factors that limit the production of these farm-households. Farmers were asked which factors affect their producti on the most. Responses were similar for each household and include: 1) climate; 2) lack of inputs; 3) pest invasi ons; 4) lack of transportation; 5) lack of access to the MLAs; 6) lack of discretionary funds to hire extra labor; and 7) theft. Recent changes in climate are of great concern to all of the 15 households. In recent years, droughts have been more severe and hurricanes ha ve increased in strength and frequency. These farmers have little to no option fo r irrigation of their crops as each of the 15 households stated that they rely only on rainfall to water their plants. Those few households that live near a water source (i.e. river or small lake) have few options for transporting this water to their farm or homegarden. Hurricanes can be devastating to crop production. Torrential rains and heavy winds often destroy many crops. If a hurricane hi ts immediately prior to harvest, there is the
176 potential for the loss of a major portion, if not al l, of certain crops. Each of the 15 households has suffered severe crop damage as a result of hurricanes in the past three years. As previously mentioned, since the early ye ars of the Special Peri od, inputs have been scarce. Prior to the Special Pe riod, some of these farmers relied heavily on chemical inputs such as pesticides, herbicides, and fe rtilizers to improve and increase production. From the early 1990s, inputs have been very scarce and these fa rmers have implemented more agroecological techniques such as crop rotation, the addition of organic matter to the soil, and animal traction for tillage. Although these farm ers acknowledge the benefits of these low-input and arguably more sustainable techniques, each of the 15 house holds stated that if chemical inputs were available, they would use them. Some households manage to find some chemical inputs on the black market, but prices are generally high and often unaffordable. For thos e farmers who produce coffee, each stated that fertilizer must be added for optimal production. Some households have access to small amounts of fertilizers from the State via th eir cooperative but others do not. What seemed to be of even more importance was farmer need for pesticides to combat pest invasions. This is especially the case with those households who pr oduce coffee as a crop of prim ary importance for generating cash. Figure 6-47 presents a photo of a plastic container holding pesticide that a farmer bought from the mercado negro (black market), which he sprayed on his farm during an interview. In recent years, coffee producers have battled an increasingly devast ating pest invasion. The coffee berry borer beetle ( la broca ), Hypothenemus hampei , is endemic to Central America but has been present in Cuba for decades. However, it has only recently begun to affect these farmers over the past five years. According to them, the invasion worsens every year. Female beetles bore into coffee bean fruits and lay eggs . Once this process takes place, the coffee bean
177 decreases significantly in terms of quality and often cannot be used, and especially cannot be sold to State agencies. Household one stated that his livelihood has suffe red in recent years as a result of this pest infestation. This household has approximately 4000 coffee plants in his farming system. He stated that, on average, these plants yield approximately 200-300 latas (1 lata = 28 lbs) of coffee beans (fresh). This is how much coffee he pr oduced two years ago. As a result of this pest invasion, last year he was only able to harvest six latas of coffee beans. ACOPIO pays six pesos per lata of coffee. At this price, household one is accustomed to making about 1200-1800 pesos per year just from coffee production. This is a si gnificant loss when compar ed to the 36 pesos he is presently making from this pr oduction. There are several exam ples such as this among these farmers. When asked how to be rid of the pest, farmers replied that the entire crop must either be fumigated or cut down. Because fumigation is not an option, several farmers are now in the process of cutting down their coffee plants . Figure 6-48 shows a coffee bean ( Coffea arabica ) infested with la broca ( Hypothenemus hampei or the coffee berry borer beetle), which renders it useless in terms of both household c onsumption and sale to the market. Another factor limiting the production of these farmers is lack of transportation. Many farmers have bueyes (oxen) or mulas (mules) to both ride and carry their products from one point to another. These animals are especially im portant for those households who do not live on a primary road because they must carry their pr oduction to the closest primary road to meet ACOPIO in order to sell their surplus production. Even when these farmers do have these types of animals to utilize as transportation for bot h themselves and cargo, many farmers live too far from town to travel there to distribute their surplus production at the MLAs. One household has a jeep, but this is not common for most small farmers in the area. Even though this farmer has a
178 jeep and on occasion takes his pr oduction into town to sell to particulares and intermediarios , he often does not have the discretionary cash to bu y the gasoline needed for this transportation. Several households mentioned that they would cultiv ate more crops if they were assured of being able to sell them at the MLAs. But without accessible and dependabl e transportation, these farmers do not have this option. Most farmers stated that they have additional land that is currently not being cultivated. When asked why they did not cultivate it to incr ease their agricultural production, most farmers stated that it was simply because they did not ha ve sufficient labor to do so. The hiring of labor for cleaning and harvesting is an option, but most households do not have the discretionary cash available to hire these workers.13 Farmers who produce coffee often do spend some of their annual cash income hiring labor during harvests. According to farmers, this is a necessity in order to harvest all of the crop on time (because there is not enough available household labor) but problematic because farmers must pay workers 10 pesos per lata of coffee when ACOPIO only pays them six pesos per lata . Theft of both crops and animals is common in th is area. Every farmer interviewed has had something of significance stolen in the past two years. Several households had animals such as oxen, mules, pigs, and cows stolen. This is pr oblematic for two primary reasons. The first is that these items are incredibly difficult to repl ace, both because they are not easily available and when they are available, they are expensive. Having an ox stolen can affect transportation and tillage of the soil prior to planting. Having a pig stolen can affect household consumption and potential cash income. Having a cow stolen can seriously affect State production quotas. 13 There is also the issue of legality, as most workers can not legally hire workers to assist with their non-State agricultural production.
179 The second problem that this can create is one with the State. Several farmers mentioned that it is common for farmers to have to pay the State several hundred pesos if an important animal such as a cow, ox, or horse is stolen fr om them. When asked why this policy is common practice, some farmers explained that the State tries to prevent households from eating certain on-farm animal meat (cow, buffalo, and equine animals) and blaming their disappearance on theft. The State also wants to prevent farmers from selling these animals to other particulares for higher, negotiable prices instead of the Stat e at fixed prices. Although the disappearance may be a result of theft, farmers noneth eless can be penalized for this. Crop production is also frequent ly subject to theft, especia lly if the householdÂ’s farm is located off-site, away from the house. Theft of fruits such as mamey and mango were reported as those plant products most co mmonly stolen. But it is not out of the ordinary for corn, pumpkin, and other crop produc ts to be stolen as well. This theft usually occurs at night. Post-Harvest Storage of Production The post-harvest storage of production is a concern for any small farmer, as storage facilities for large quantities of products are generally no t available. This is one of the primary reasons why these farmers continue to contract their production to State agencies such as ACOPIO year after year. All of these farmers stat ed that ACOPIOÂ’s prices are low and that they often pay late, sometimes 3 to 4 months after they have collected the production. However, these plans assure the sale of significant amount s of products. Some of these households do not have electricity, let alone cooled storage facilities, to store perish able products. Most perishable items do not sustain for long periods of time in CubaÂ’s tropical climate. A lack of storage facilities also justif ies to these farmers the need to sell to intermediarios . These intermediaries typi cally purchase larg e quantities at one time to re-sell at the MLAs or to other intermediarios , unlike particulares who typically only purchase small
180 amounts for self or family consumption. Figur e 6-49 shows a farmerÂ’s porch covered with recently harvested Pouteria sapota (mamey) that was quickly sold to an intermediario because of a lack of storage facilities. Although it is no t monetarily beneficial, mo st households also will give surplus production that cannot be consumed or sold as gifts to schools and hospitals. This gift giving does carry with it social recogniti on often provided by the State in the form of certificates. Cubans are often characterized as being i nventive people and finding ways to Â‘make-doÂ’ with what they have. These farmers re-use a wide range of items as storage containers for products. Dried beans and other grains are typica lly kept in glass jars. Purees, sauces, and pastes are often stored in old beer bottles and lidded w ith old beer caps. Reproduction Activities Reproduction activities are those that contribute to the maintenance of the household and its members. Within this livelihood system, th ese activities include cl eaning, cooking, washing clothes, caring for children, shopping at the mark et, tending to household animals, and religion. Some of these activities are more gender specific than others. This, however, largely depends on household composition. Reproduction activities ar e generally the same for every household. Every household cooks, cleans, washes clothe s, shops at the markets, and tends to household animals. However, not all households ha ve children and/or adol escents and therefore, do not need to invest time and energy into ta king care of them. Cooki ng includes preparing the food and the actual cooking of the food. Cleanin g includes cleaning the house as well as cleaning the walkways in the homegarden. In te rms of taking care of children and adolescents, this activity includes general parental supervisi on, preparing daily baths, dressing the children, and helping with homework. Washing the clothe s includes washing, hanging clothes to dry, and ironing.
181 There are a number of different types of markets. Shopping at the market includes the time and energy spent shopping at bodegas , MLAs, tiendas en pesos cubanos , and tiendas en CUC . Most households have dogs and cats and various other animals that live either within the household or in the homegarden. Animal care activ ity includes the time it takes to feed these animals and tend to any additional needs. Also included in reproduction activities are off-farm and other activities. These activities do not necessarily contribute to the maintenance of the household but they do utilize time, labor, and/or resources of household members. Th ese activities include: schooling, cooperative meetings and social events, religion, and periods of rest. It is mandatory in Cuba for all children to attend school through the 9th grade. Education is subsidized by the State and free for Cubans, even at the graduate level. All children from these households attend school throughout the year from September through June. Some adolescents a nd adults attend college or engage in graduate studies. Cooperative meetings are held once a month an d each farmer from the 13 households that participate in CCSs attends these meetings every month. They, on average, last 2 to 4 hours. Some CCSs host social events such as parties to celebrate birthdays, meeting production quotas, and holidays such as el dÃa de los campesinos (small-farmer day). The amount of time that each of these households dedicates to these vari es from month-to-mont h and year-to-year. One household is religious and dedicates time every week to religious activities. The months of July and August are considered mont hs of vacation for all Cubans. Children and higher education students do not at tend school at this time. Although this provides more time for on-farm production activities, temperatures dur ing these months are generally very high. Therefore, most household members limit the amount of time spent in the field. Whereas most
182 farmers spend 8 to 10 hrs a day working in the field (both in the homeg arden and farm) during most months, they only spend 4 to 5 hours in the field during these two m onths. Therefore, the hours not spent working on production activities during these two months are considered as periods of rest for household members. Figure 6-50 lists these reproduction (including off-farm and other) livelihood strategies (i.e. activities) and shows which households en gage in each. Figure 6-50 accounts for both hearthhold and affiliated members (i.e. house hold). This is because affiliated household members sometimes live in close proximity to the farmers interviewed for this study and participate in these activities on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. For example, a farmer may live in a house adjacent to a hous e occupied by his daughter and he r son. This farmer may take care of her son while she is at work. In ex change, the daughter may cook and clean for her father, especially if the farmerÂ’s wife is no longer present. Household Integration into the Market Point of Contact with the Market Each of the 15 households is integrated into the market to some degree. As previously mentioned, production can be sold to three primar y outlets: 1) State agen cies (e.g. ACOPIO and its subsidiaries); 2) the free markets (MLAs and puntos de venta ); and 3) particulares and intermediarios in the formal and informal (underg round and black markets) economies. Sometimes farmers also sell their surplus production at placitas and other State-run markets. This, however, was only mentioned by three of the 15 households and not thoroughly explored among all households during interviews. As a result, this information is not explicitly included. These three households do sell most of their surp lus production to ACOPIO so their selling to State institutions is represented nonetheless. Fi gure 6-51 shows the points of contact that each
183 household has with the market. In other words, these are the outlets to which these households sell to on a regular basis. Unlike other private farmers throughout the area , these 15 households have an additional point of contact with the market . Each of these 15 households has participated in a project implemented by the Instituto de Investigac iones Fundamentales en Agricultura Tropical (Institute for Fundamental Investig ations in Tropical Agriculture or INIFAT) since 1998. This on-going study investigates plant genetic conser vation both within and between the farming systems of these households. By participating in this project, these households have received benefits such as tools, seeds, informational bulletins and workshops, and an opportunity to sell their surplus agricultura l production to the public. Under this program, INIFAT has facilitated ferias 1 to 2 times a year for the past two years. These ferias are daylong events that bring thes e farmers and their family members together for an informational workshop. Represen tatives from State inst itutions such as ANAP, Agricultura Urbana (Urban Agri culture), and Asamblea Nacional del Poder Popular (Assembly of the PeopleÂ’s Power) attend thes e meetings to discuss with fa rmers any concerns they may have regarding their agricultural production. These informational sessions provide an opportu nity for farmers to ex change agricultural knowledge, seeds, and experiences w ith one another. It also pr ovides them the opportunity to ask for the assistance they need from the State in stitutions present. Following the informational session, farmers are permitted to sell any of thei r surplus agricultural production to the local population at prices determined collectively by th e farmers. INIFAT provides transportation for the farmers and their products both to and from these ferias . Thirteen of the 15 households participated in the feria that took place in September 2005 at which this writer was present.
184 Households six and 12 did not attend. When aske d why they did not take the opportunity to sell, they stated it was because they do not enjoy sel ling to the public or because they did not have enough production to sell at that time. Farmers stated that these ferias offer them a unique opportunity that is beneficial in many ways. Farmers are able to express their con cerns regarding their ag ricultural production and learn new methods for potentially alleviating certain problems. Th ey are also able to exchange seeds with other farmers, which gives them the opportunity to increa se the plant genetic biodiversity within their farming systems. According to the farm ers who do participate in these events, more than half stated that the greatest be nefit of this participation is the additional cash income they are able to generate as a result of selling their su rplus production to the public. Farmers were asked how much money they made during the feria that took place in September 2005. Farmer responses show a range of 200 to 800 pesos generated during that one day of selling. Figure 6-52 shows the amount of pe sos made per household th at did sell at the feria in September 2005. Farmers who did generate cash from sales of th eir agricultural producti on stated that this additional income was of great importance to thei r families. Each family was able to purchase additional clothing, food, and other products for h ousehold consumption and use. These farmers also expressed gratitude for this opportunity and a desire to participate in these ferias more frequently, especially during periods following la rge harvests when production is greatest. As mentioned above, lack of transportation and la ck of access to markets to sell their surplus agricultural production are factor s that limit both their producti on and the generation of cash. These ferias provide these farmers a rare opport unity to exchange knowledge, forge mutually beneficial relationships with other farmers, and to in crease their annual cash income.
185 This is one example of how greater access to the market and institutional support can improve these farmer livelihoods. Figure 6-53 is a photo of tables set up at the feria with farmersÂ’ surplus agricultural production fo r sale to the public. Annual Cash Income and Market Expenses During interviews, farmers were asked to state their total annual cash income. This income includes cash earned through sales of agricultural (plant and animal), value-added, and any other production activities to all mark et outlets, cash received from the State for retirement, cash received from off-farm work, and cash received from remittances. Figure 6-54 shows the total annual cash income reported by each of the 15 households. These farmers live mostly hand-to-mouth and do not keep records regarding production yields and amounts of cash earned from sales. Determining these annual cash income amounts was very difficult for most of the farmers interv iewed. Amounts of cash earned were reported as approximate values and most farmers stated that they simply could not remember. Data analysis shows that the majority of these reported valu es for annual cash income are more than likely much less than what farmers actually earn per year. This is best illustrated when comparing the amount each household spends on rice per year to amount of total annual cash income. Figure 655 compares these two values for each household. Households 2 and 11 reported the amount of pe sos spent on rice per year as greater than total annual cash income earned. Households 1 and 12 reported the amount spent on rice as approximately 1/2 of their total annual cash income. It is possi ble that some farmers may have over-estimated the amount spent on rice purchases pe r year, but even if th at is the case, total annual cash income must still be under-reported because rice is only one of many items these farmers must purchase on a regular basis. Noneth eless, this information illustrates the difficulty
186 farmers have in keeping track of money that is spent and money that is earned on an annual basis. It also illustrates that cash income is a sensitive topic. Like total annual cash income, total annual expenses are also difficult for farmers to recollect. Farmers were asked how much household cash was spent in both the formal and informal economies during the year 2005. Hous ehold responses are shown in Figure 6-56. Money spent on the State-subsid ized quota (i.e. rations) from bodegas and placitas is not included in total spent on purchases in the fo rmal economy. Purchases in the formal economy include food and non-food items purchased from the free market (e.g. MLAs, puntos de venta ), State-run markets (e.g. parallel market, bodegas ), tiendas en pesos cubanos , and tiendas en CUC . Purchases from the informal economy include those purchases from particulares (i.e. other individuals) and include the purchase of items from both the underground and black markets. This question was difficult for most farmers to answer and responses generally represent whatever recently purchased items came to mind for each farmer. Households three, nine, and 12 stated that they spent very little to no money on items purchased from the informal economy. Household two would not answer the question so th ere are no data available for money spent in either economy. Household seven spent an unusua l amount of money in the formal economy last year because his family purchased high-priced items such as new electrical cooking devices and a new refrigerator. Although these data, more than likely, do not represent the true amount spent per year, these numbers, like tota l annual cash income, offer insight into farmers perceptions of their personal integration into the market and of fers a general idea of amount spent per year per household.
187 Primary Production Activities and Pri ces Earned from Each Market Outlet Farmers were asked for information regarding prices for each primar y product with respect to each of the available ma rket outlets (i.e. ACOPIO, particulares , intermediarios , and the feria ). A list of these prices can be found in Appendix C, which lists each product and the price for each available market outlet as stated by each househol d. Data are not consistent for each of the 15 households. Not all 15 households mentioned pri ces for each of the products sold. This is primarily because the combination of production activities is unique for each household and not every household sells every product listed. A ppendix C provides the range in price for each product sold. Not all products are listed. Some farmers had difficulty remembering how much money they made from various market outlets when selling their products. Furthermore, prices tend to fluctuate from year to year. The prices provided offer a general idea of the prices of those products that are typically sold as well as illustrate the difference in prices obtained from different market outlets. In many instances, th is price appendix illustrates how much more money farmers can obtain from selling to particulares and intermediarios than to State agencies, who tend to offer very low prices fo r farmersÂ’ agricultural products. Limitations and Constraints All 15 households have limitations and constrai nts that affect their overall livelihoods. These include consumption requirements, labor availability, and annual cash needs for both agricultural production and on-farm household consumption and use. The amount of available labor and the availability of ag ricultural inputs are perhaps most constraining in terms of amount of annual production. Farmers and other household members can only work so many hours per day. There are numerous reproducti on activities that u tilize large portions of available labor, thereby making it unavailable to use for production activit ies. A lack of pesticides and or
188 integrated pest management to combat pest in festations and a lack of fertilizers to provide nutrients for plant growth hi nder agricultural production. Because these farm households are first homes and second, businesses, household goals are first and foremost centered on providing the family with food that is produced on farm. Only after these consumption requirements are met can these households sell surp lus production to the market. Farmers are forced into taking risks as independent entrepre neurs by selling surplus production to various market outlets, whether legal or illegal, in an effort to generate cash to purchase needed items that cannot be produced on farm.
189 Figure 6-1. Photo of a house located within th e Sierra del Rosario mountains surrounded by undulating terrain ( baldio ) that is impossible to cultivate. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
190 Figure 6-2. Photo of a house located in the lowla nds of the Sierra del Rosario near town and surrounded by flat land. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
191 Household CompositionHH 1 HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Total Number of Males: Hearthhold Adult: Age > 46 111111112201111 16 Adult: Age 18-45 100000010110011 6 Adolescent: Age 10-17 001000000000201 4 Child: Age 1-9 001000000000200 3 Number of Females: Hearthhold Adult: Age > 46 001011010100011 7 Adult: Age 18-45 001000020111111 9 Adolescent: Age 10-17 000000010010001 3 Child: Age 1-9 002000000000200 4 Total Number of Hearthhold Members 217122162532846Number of Males: Affiliated Adult: Age > 46 000000000000100 1 Adult: Age 18-45 020201012000001 9 Adolescent: Age 10-17 000000000000000 0 Child: Age 1-9 100001002000001 5 Number of Females: Affiliated Adult: Age > 46 110000000000100 3 Adult: Age 18-45 100010102000101 7 Adolescent: Age 10-17 000000100000000 1 Child: Age 1-9 000001001000000 2 Total Number of Affiliated Members 330213217000303TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD 547335379532114980 Figure 6-3. Household compositi on of each farm household disaggregated according to: 1) number of hearthhold members; 2) number of affiliated members; and 3) numbe r of household (i.e. hearthhold and affili ated added together). Hearthhold and household members are further disaggr egated according to sex and age.
192 T yp e of LandHH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Total House and Home g arde n 1.663.362.003.361.550.130.080.251.030.261.030.390.360.260.52 16.24 Farm*0.123.3612.4310.080.251.160.250.001.293.110.781.816.981.291.29 44.20 Forest**1.033.361.0010.080.000.130.000.525.188.030.260.391.820.000.26 32.06 Pasture3.640.000.0020.150.000.910.000.000.782.070.000.000.910.000.52 28.98 Unusable3.643.360.0010.050.000.130.000.000.000.000.000.003.360.000.00 20.54 Total Land10.0913.4415.4353.721.802.460.330.778.2813.472.072.5913.431.552.59142.02 * Excludes forest and coffee ** Includes intercro pp in g of coffee and some fruit trees Figure 6-4. Amounts (hectares) of each category of land and total land held by each household.
193 Figure 6-5. Photo of a housing structure, which occupies space within land comprising the house and homegarden. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2006).
194 Figure 6-6. Photo of the son of a farmer harvesting Ipomoea batatas ( boniato or sweet potato) on a typical plot of farmland located in a hi llside. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
195 Figure 6-7. Photo of a typical pa sture with Royal Palm Trees ( Roystonia regia .) utilized as a grazing area for livestock. Phot o by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
196 Total Amount of Land versus Total Amount of Agricultural Land per Househol d 0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15HouseholdHectares Total amount of land Total amount of agricultural land Figure 6-8. Total amount (hectares) of land versus total amount (h ectares) of ag ricultural land per household.
197 Land OwnershipProprietor 40% Usufruct 40% Both 20% Figure 6-9. Percent of all fifteen households that either hold land in usufruct, are proprietor of their land, or both.
198 Percent of Total Annual Production Consumed and Sol d 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 123456789101112131415 Household Consumed by household or by onfarm animals Sold to the Market Figure 6-10. Percent of total annual pr oduction consumed and sold per household.
199 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Pesos 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Household Amount of Pesos Spent on Additional Rice per Year Figure 6-11. Amount of pesos sp ent on additional rice per year.
200 Figure 6-12. Schematic diagram of the agricultural market system as defined by the members of the 15 farm households.
201 Figure 6-13. Photo of a typical Cuban bodega where Cubans receive State-rationed items, located in Havana, Cuba. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2006).
202 Figure 6-14. Photo of a typical Cuban comme rcial store that sells consumer goods in pesos cubanos (CUCs), located in Havana, Cuba. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
203 Figure 6-15. Photo of Lianne FernÃ¡ndez Gr anda interviewing vendor s at a typical Cuban mercado libre agropecuario (MLA), located in Havana, Cuba. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
204 Figure 6-16. Photo of a typical punto de venta (point of sale) where CCS members can sell their surplus agricultural pr oduction, located in Havana Provi nce, Cuba. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
205 Figure 6-17. Photo of a farmer holding two limas that were purchased on the black market. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper.
206 Table 6-1. Number of years each household has participat ed in their respective CCSs. Household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Years as Member 43 30 4 45 1 44 4 N/A 39 39 25 N/A 35* 1 35* *Respondent stated that length of time partic ipating in a CCS is more than 35 years. Note: Households eight and 12 do not participate in a cooperative.
207 Figure 6-18. Photo of a typica l contract between ACOPIO and a CCS farmer. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2006).
208 Table 6-2. Amount of pesos or production paid to the CCS following the sale of production. Household Amount Paid to CCS 1 Two percent in pesos every ti me production is sold to ACOPIO 2 Five to 7% in pesos every time 100 peso s worth of production is sold to ACOPIO 3 Two percent in pesos every ti me production is sold to ACOPIO 4 Two percent in pesos every time production is sold to ACOPIO and 7% in pesos every time production is sold at the punta de venta 5 Ten percent of agricult ural production every time pr oduction is sold at the punta de venta 6 Fifteen percent in pesos every time production is sold to ACOPIO 7 Fifteen percent in pesos every time production is sold to ACOPIO 9 Two percent in pesos every ti me production is sold to ACOPIO 10 Two percent in pesos every ti me production is sold to ACOPIO 11 Five percent in pesos every ti me production is sold to ACOPIO 13 Two percent in pesos every ti me production is sold to ACOPIO* 14 Two percent in pesos every ti me production is sold to ACOPIO 15 Additional milk and beef each year *Household 13 also mentioned that they pay a 5% fee in pesos to ANAP every time their surplus production is sold to ACOPIO.
209 Figure 6-19. Amount in pesos paid to CCS per y ear for emergency funds and social services. Households eight and 12 have no bars because they do not participate in cooperatives. There is no information available for household 13 A mount of Pesos Paid to CCS per Year for Emergency Funds and Social Services0 10 20 30 40 50 60 123456789101112131415 Household
210 No.GeneraS p eciesHH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Total Spanish Common Name English Common NameUses 1 Abelmoschus Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moenc h x 1 QuimbomboOkraFrui t 2 Allium Allium sativum L. ; A. chinense G. Don x 1 Ajo porro; A j o criolloGarlic Condiment; Food 3 Allium Allium cepa L.; A. cepa var. a gg re g atum G. DonxX 2 CebollaOnion Condiment; Food 4 Allo p h y lusAllo p h y lus cominia ( L. ) SW.xxx 3 Palo Ca j aUnknow n Medicina l 5 AloeAloe vera ( L. ) Burm. f.Xx 2 S Â‡ bilaAloe Medicinal; Ornamenta l 6 Alternanthera Alternanthera peploides (Willd. Ex Roem. & Schult.) Urb. X 1 Ta p Â— n Unknow n Medicina l 7 AnanasAnanas comosus ( L. ) Merr.X 1 PiÂ–aPinea pp leFrui t 8 AnnonaAnnona muricata L.XXx 3 Guanaban a Sourso p Frui t 9 AnnonaAnnona s q uamosa L. X 1 AnÂ— n Su g ar A pp l e Frui t 10 AnnonaAnnona reticulata L.XXX 3 Chirimo y aCustard A pp leFrui t 11 Artocar p us Artocarpus communis J.R. Forst. & G. Forst.XX 2 Arbol de PanBreadfrui t Frui t 12 B idens B idens p ilosa L. xx 2 RomerilloUnknow n Medicina l 13 B rassica B rassica j uncea ( L. ) Czern.x 1 Mostaza Mustard Gree n Condiment; Medicina l 14 B ursera B ursera simaruba ( L. ) Sar g .xxxxxxx 7 Almaci g o Gumbo LimboMedicina l 15 Ca p sicum Capsicum chinense Jacq. ; C. annuum L .; C. f rutescens L.XxX 3 AjÂ’ cachucha; AjÂ’ de JardÂ’n; A j Â’ g ua g uao Chili Pe pp e r Condiment; Food 16 CaricaCarica p a p a y a L.XX 2 Fruta BombaPa p a y aFrui t 17 Cecro p iaCecro p ia schreberiana Mi q .xx 2 Ya g rumaUnknow n Medicina l 18 Citrus Citrus aurantium L .; C. s inensis ( L. ) Osbec k XXXXXXXXX 9 Naranja agria; N aran j a dulc e Bitter Orange, Sweet Oran ge Condiment; Frui t 19 CitrusCitrus limetta RissoX X 2 Lima Sweet Lime; Sweet Lemon; Bitter Oran ge Condiment; Food 20 CitrusCitrus limon ( L. ) Burm. f.XXXXXX 6 LimÂ— n Lemo n Condiment; Food 21 Citrus Citrus maxima Burm. Ex Rumph.) Merr. ; C. x paradisi Macfad . X 1 Toronja criollo; Toron j a g rif u Gra p efrui t Frui t 22 CitrusCitrus reticulata BlancoXXXXXX 6 Mandarin a Mandarin Oran g eFrui t 23 CocosCocos nuci f era L.XXXXXX 6 CocoCoconut Beverage; Food 24 Co ff eaCo ff ea arabica L.XXXXXXXXXXXXx 13 Caf CoffeeBevera ge 25 CostusCostus s p icatus ( Jac q . ) Sw.x 1 CaÂ–a me j ican a Wild Gin g e r Medicina l 26 Cucurbita Cucurbita moschata Duchesn e xXXXXXX 7 CalabazaPum p kinFrui t 27 C y mbo p o g on Cymbopogon citratus (DC.) Sta p f.x 1 CaÂ–a Sant a Lemon g ras s Condiment; Medicina l 28 D ioscorea D ioscorea alata L.xX 2 N ameYamRoot & Tuber 29 E r y n g ium E r y n g ium f oetidum L.X 1 CulantroCulantroCondiment 30 Garcinia Garcinia aristata (Griseb.) Borhidix 1Mana j Cuban Man g ostee n Medicina l 31 H amelia H amelia p atens Jac q .xx 2 PonasÂ’Unknow n Medicina l 32 IlliciumIllicium verum Hook. f.XX X 3 AnisStar Anis e Condiment; Medicina l 33 I p omoeaI p omoea batatas ( L. ) Lam.X XXXXxXXx 9 BoniatoSweet PotatoRoot & Tuber 34 JusticiaJusticia p ectoralis Jac q .Xx 2 TiloUnknow n Medicina l 35 Le p idiumLe p idium vir g inicum L.xx 2 Mastuerzo Pepper Grass; Poor Man's Pe pp erMedicina l 36 Li pp iaLi pp ia alba ( Mill. ) N. E. Br.Xx 2 Flor de Es p aÂ–aUnknow n Medicina l 37 L y co p ersicon Lycopersicon esculentum Mill . ; L. esculentum var. cerasi f orme ( Dunal ) Ale f xXX 3 Tomate cimarrÂ—n; Tomate de ensalada; p lacero, g uiritoTomatoFrui t 38 Man g i f eraMan g i f era indica L.XXXXXxX 7 Man g oMan g oFrui t 39 ManihotManihot esculenta Crant z XXxXXXXXXXXXX 13 YucaCassav a Root & Tuber 40 MarantaMaranta arundinacea L.Xx 2Sa g Unknow n Medicina l 41 MenthaMentha x p i p erita L.X 1 Toronjil de Ment a Unknow n Medicina l 42 MenthaMentha s p icata L.X 1 Hierba BuenaS p earmin t Condiment; Medicina l 43 MomordicaMomordica charantia L.x 1 Cundeamo r Bitter Melo n Medicina l 44 Musa Musa acuminata Colla ; M. x p aradisiaca L. (p ro s p . ) XXXXXXXX XXXXX 13 PlÂ‡tano; Pl Â‡ tano con g oBanan a Frui t 45 OcimumOcimum g ratissimum L.Xxxx 4 Oregano CimarronUnknow n Condiment; Medicina l 46 PartheniumParthenium h y stero p horus L.x 1 Escoba amar g a Santa Maria Feverfe w Medicina l 47 PerseaPersea americana Mill. XXXXXXXXX XXXX 13 A g uacat e AvocadoFrui t 48 Phaseolus Phaseolus vulgaris L. ; P. lunatus L.XXXxXXX 7 Frijol; Frijol caballeroBea n Food 49 Pouteria Pouteria sapota (Jacq.) H. E. Moore and Stear n XXXXXXXX 8 Mame y Mame y Frui t 50 PrunusPrunus occidentalis Sw.x 1 Cua j anÂ’ Western Cherr y Laure l Medicina l 51 PrunusPrunus p ersica ( L. ) Batsch.X 1 MelocotÂ—nPeac h Frui t 52 PsidiumPsidium g ua j ava L.XXXXXXX 7 Gua y abaGuav a Frui t 53 PunicaPunica g ranatum L.XX 2 Granada Pomegranate; Chinese A pp leFrui t 54 R o y stonea Roystonea regia (Kunth) O. F. CookxxxxXxXxx 9 Palma RealRo y al Palm Animal Feed; Construction Wood 55 R uta R uta chale p ensis L.X 1 RudaUnknow n Medicina l 56 SaccharumSaccharum o ff icinarum L.Xxxxxxx 7 CaÂ–a de Azuca r Su g arcan e Juice; Sweetne r 57 SennaSenna occidentalis ( L. ) Link.x 1 Yerba hediondaSenn a Medicina l 58 Smilax Smilax domingensis Cham. & Schltd l xx 2 Raiz de ChinaUnknow n Medicina l 59 Telox y s Teloxys ambrosioides (L.) W. A. Webe r xx 2 A p osteUnknow n Medicina l 60 Tourne f ortiaTourne f ortia hirsutissima L. x 1 N i g uaUnknow n Medicina l 61 TradescantiaTradescantia s p athacea Sw. X 1 Cordov Â‡ nO y ster Plan t Medicinal; Ornamenta l 62 TurneraTurnera ulmi f olia L.XX X 3 Marilo p eYellow Alde r Medicina l 63 Urera Urera baccifera (L.) Gaudich. Ex Wedd.xx 2 Chichicat e Scratchbus h Medicina l 64 Vi g na Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. subs. sesquipedalis (L.) Verdc.x 1 Habichuel a Cowpea; Black-eyed PeaFood 65 Viti s Vitis vini f era L.X 1 UvaGra p e Beverage; Food 66 Xanthosoma Xanthosoma sagittifolium (L.) Schott XXXXx XXXXx 10 Malan ga Taro Root and Tube r 67 Z ea Z ea ma y s L.XXXXX XXXXX 10 MaÂ’zCornFood 68 Z in g iber Z in g iber o ff icinale Roscoe X 1 Gen g ibreGin g e r Medicina l Total Number of Plant Types per Household1717182624169161614101222823Note: A (X) denotes that the plant type was specifically mentioned by a respective household as important during one of four interviews. A (x) means that the plant type was not mentioned during an interview but a significant number (> 50) of the plant type was present in the farming system. This information was taken from on-farm plant suveys conducted in August 2005. Figure 6-20. Total plant t ypes considered most impor tant for all 15 households. Object 6-1. Figure 6.20 as an Excel file.
211 No.GeneraS p eciesHH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Total Spanish Common Nam e En g lish Common Nam e Uses 1 Allium Allium cepa L.; A. cepa var. a gg re g atum G. DonxX 2 CebollaOnion Condiment; Food 2 AloeAloe vera ( L. ) Burm. f.Xx 2 S Â‡ bilaAloe Medicinal; Ornamental 3 Alternanthera Alternanthera peploides (Willd. Ex Roem. & Schult.) Urb. X 1 Ta p Â—nUnknownMedicinal 4 AnanasAnanas comosus ( L. ) Merr.X 1 PiÂ–aPinea pp leFruit 5 AnnonaAnnona muricata L.XXx 3 GuanabanaSourso p Fruit 6 AnnonaAnnona s q uamosa L. X 1 AnÂ—nSu g ar A pp leFruit 7 AnnonaAnnona reticulata L.XXX 3 Chirimo y aCustard A pp leFruit 8 Artocar p us Artocarpus communis J.R. Forst. & G. Forst.XX 2 Arbol de PanBreadfruitFruit 9 Ca p sicum Capsicum chinense Jacq. ; C. annuum L .; C. f rutescens L.XxX 3 AjÂ’ cachucha; AjÂ’ de JardÂ’n; A j Â’ g ua g uao Chili Pe pp er Condiment; Food 10 CaricaCarica p a p a y a L.XX 2 Fruta BombaPa p a y aFruit 11 Citrus Citrus aurantium L .; C. s inensis ( L. ) OsbeckXXXXXXXXX 9 Naranja agria; Naran j a dulce Bitter Orange, Sweet Oran g e Condiment; Fruit 12 CitrusCitrus limetta RissoX X 2 Lim a Sweet Lime; Sweet Lemon; Bitter Oran g e Condiment; Food 13 CitrusCitrus limon ( L. ) Burm. f.XXXXXX 6 LimÂ—nLemon Condiment; Food 14 Citrus Citrus maxima Burm. Ex Rumph.) Merr. ; C. x paradisi Macfad . X 1 Toronja criollo; Toron j a g rifuGra p efruitFruit 15 CitrusCitrus reticulata BlancoXXXXXX 6 Mandarina Mandarin Oran g eFruit 16 CocosCocos nuci f era L.XXXXXX 6 CocoCoconut Beverage; Food 17 Co ff eaCo ff ea arabica L.XXXXXXXXXXXXx 13 Caf CoffeeBevera g e 18 Cucurbita Cucurbita moschata DuchesnexXXXXXX 7 CalabazaPum p kinFruit 19 D ioscorea D ioscorea alata L.xX 2 NameYa m Root & Tuber 20 E r y n g ium E r y n g ium f oetidum L.X 1 CulantroCulantroCondiment 21 I llicium I llicium verum Hook. f.XX X 3 AnisStar Anise Condiment; Medicinal 22 Ip omoea Ip omoea batatas ( L. ) Lam.XXXXXxXXx 9 BoniatoSweet PotatoRoot & Tuber 23 J usticia J usticia p ectoralis Jac q .Xx 2 TiloUnknownMedicinal 24 L i pp ia L i pp ia alba ( Mill. ) N. E. Br.Xx 2 Flor de Es p aÂ–aUnknownMedicinal 25 Ly co p ersicon Lycopersicon esculentum Mill . ; L. esculentum var. cerasi f orme ( Dunal ) AlefxXX 3 Tomate cimarrÂ—n; Tomate de ensalada; p lacero, g uiritoTomatoFruit 26 M an g i f era M an g i f era indica L.XXXXXxX 7 Man g oMan g oFruit 27 M anihot M anihot esculenta CrantzXXxXXXX XXXXXX 13 YucaCassavaRoot & Tuber 28 M aranta M aranta arundinacea L.Xx 2Sa g UnknownMedicinal 29 M entha M entha x p i p erita L.X 1 Toronjil de MentaUnknownMedicinal 30 M entha M entha s p icata L.X 1 Hierba BuenaS p earmint Condiment; Medicinal 31 M usa M usa acuminata Colla ; M. x p aradisiaca L. (p ro s p . ) XXXXXXXXXXXXX 13 PlÂ‡tano; Pl Â‡ tano con g oBananaFruit 32 OcimumOcimum g ratissimum L.Xxxx 4 Oregano CimarronUnknown Condiment; Medicinal 33 P ersea P ersea americana Mill.XXXXXXXXXXXXX 13 A g uacateAvocadoFruit 34 P haseolus P haseolus vulgaris L. ; P. lunatus L.XXXxXXX 7 Frijol; Frijol caballeroBeanFood 35 P outeria P outeria sapota (Jacq.) H. E. Moore and StearnXXXXXXXX 8 Mame y Mame y Fruit 36 P runus P runus p ersica ( L. ) Batsch.X 1 MelocotÂ—nPeachFruit 37 P sidium P sidium g ua j ava L.XXXXXXX 7 Gua y abaGuavaFruit 38 P unica P unica g ranatum L.XX 2 Granada Pomegranate; Chinese A pp leFruit 39 R o y stonea Roystonea regia (Kunth) O. F. CookxxxxXxXxx 9 Palma RealRo y al Palm Animal Feed; Construction Wood 40 R uta R uta chale p ensis L.X 1 RudaUnknownMedicinal 41 SaccharumSaccharum o ff icinarum L.Xxxxxxx 7 CaÂ–a de Azuca r Su g arcane Juice; Sweetner 42 TradescantiaTradescantia s p athacea Sw. X 1 Cordov Â‡ nO y ster Plant Medicinal; Ornamental 43 TurneraTurnera ulmi f olia L.XX X 3 Marilo p eYellow AlderMedicinal 44 VitisVitis vini f era L.X 1 UvaGra p e Beverage; Food 45 Xanthosoma Xanthosoma sagittifolium (L.) Schott XXXXx XXXXx 10 Malan g aTaro Root and Tuber 46 Z ea Z ea ma y s L.XXXXXXXXXX 10 MaÂ’zCornFood 47 Z in g iber Z in g iber o ff icinale Roscoe X 1 Gen g ibreGin g e r Medicinal Total Number of Plant Types per Household141616191916913149101120820Note: A ( X ) denotes that the p lant t yp e was s p ecificall y mentioned b y a res p ective household as im p ortant durin g one of four interviews. A ( x ) means that the p lant t yp e was not mentioned durin g an interview but a significant number (> 50) of the plant type was present in the farming system. This information was taken from on-farm plant suveys conducted in August 2005. Figure 6-21. Plant production livel ihood strategies (i.e. activities) considered most important for household consumption. Object 6-2. Figure 621 as an Excel file.
212 No.GeneraS p eciesHH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Total S p anish Common Name En g lish Common NameUses 1 Citrus Citrus aurantium L .; C. s inensis ( L. ) Osbec k XXXXXXXXX 9 Naranja agria; Naran j a dulce Bitter Orange, Sweet Oran g e Condiment; Fruit 2 Co ff eaCo ff ea arabica L.XXXXXXXXXXXXx 13 Caf CoffeeBevera g e 3 Cucurbita Cucurbita moschata DuchesnexXXXXXX 7 CalabazaPum p kinFruit 4 Ip omoea Ip omoea batatas ( L. ) Lam.XXXXXxXXx 9 BoniatoSweet PotatoRoot & Tuber 5 M an g i f era M an g i f era indica L.XXXXXxX 7 Man g oMan g oFruit 6 M anihot M anihot esculenta CrantzXXxXXXXXX XXXX 13 YucaCassavaRoot & Tuber 7 M usa M usa acuminata Colla ; M. x p aradisiaca L. (p ro s p . ) XXXXXXXXXXXXX 13 PlÂ‡tano; Pl Â‡ tano con g oBananaFruit 8 PerseaPersea americana Mill.XXXXXXXXX XXXX 13 A g uacateAvocadoFruit 9 Phaseolus Phaseolus vulgaris L. ; P. lunatus L.XXXxXXX 7 Frijol; Frijol caballeroBeanFood 10 Pouteria Pouteria sapota (Jacq.) H. E. Moore and StearnXXXXXXXX 8 Mame y Mame y Fruit 11 PsidiumPsidium g ua j ava L.XXXXXXX 7 Gua y ab a GuavaFruit 12 Ro y stonea Roystonea regia (Kunth) O. F. CookxxxxXxXxx 9 Palma RealRo y al Pal m Animal Feed; Construction Wood 13 SaccharumSaccharum o ff icinarum L.Xxxxxxx 7 CaÂ–a de Azuca r Su g arcane Juice; Sweetne r 14 Xanthosoma Xanthosoma sagittifolium (L.) Schott XXXXxXXXXx 10 Malan g aTaro Root and Tube r 15 Z ea Z ea ma y s L.XXXXXXXXXX 10 MaÂ’zCornFood Total Number of Plant Types per Household8814131011698610913710Note: A ( X ) denotes that the p lant t yp e was s p ecificall y mentioned b y a res p ective household as im p ortant durin g one of four interviews. A ( x ) means that the p lant t yp e was not mentioned durin g an interview but a significant number (> 50) of the plant type was present in the farming system. This information was taken from on-farm plant suveys conducted in August 2005. Figure 6-22. Most common plant production livelihood strategies (i.e. activities) co nsidered most important for household consumption.
213 Figure 6-23. Photo of a farmer harvesting Manihot esculenta ( yuca or cassava) from his farm for household consumption. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
214 Figure 6-24. Photo of palmiche (the fruits of Roystonea regia ( palma real or royal palm)) [left] and coffee beans (the fruits of Coffea arabica ( cafÃ© or coffee)) [right] drying on a secadero (concrete drying slab) surrounded by R . regia trees and pasture land. Brooms made from these trees lie in front of the palmiche and coffee beans and are used to sweep and turn the products as th ey dry in the sun. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
215No.GeneraS p eciesHH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Total S p anish Common Name En g lish Common NameUses 1 Allium Allium cepa L.; A. cepa var. a gg re g atum G. Don X 1 CebollaOnion Condiment; Food 2 AnanasAnanas comosus ( L. ) Merr.X 1 PiÂ–aPinea pp leFruit 3 AnnonaAnnona muricata L.X 1 GuanabanaSourso p Fruit 4 AnnonaAnnona reticulata L.XXX 3 Chirimo ya Custard A pp leFruit 5 Artocar p us Artocarpus communis J.R. Forst. & G. Forst. X 1 Arbol de PanBreadfruitFruit 6 CaricaCarica p a p a y a L. X 1 Fruta BombaPa p a ya Fruit 7 Citrus Citrus aurantium L .; C. s inensis ( L. ) Osbec k XXXX 4 Naranja agria; Naran j a dulce Bitter Orange, Sweet Oran g e Condiment; Fruit 8 CitrusCitrus limetta RissoX 1 Lim a Sweet Lime; Sweet Lemon; Bitter Oran g e Condiment; Food 9 CitrusCitrus limon ( L. ) Burm. f.X 1 LimÂ— n Lemo n Condiment; Food 10 Citrus Citrus maxima Burm. Ex Rumph.) Merr. ; C. x paradisi Macfad . X 1 Toronja criollo; Toron j a g rifuGra p efruitFruit 11 CitrusCitrus reticulata BlancoXXXX 4 Mandarina Mandarin Oran g eFruit 12 CocosCocos nuci f era L.XXXX 4 CocoCoconut Beverage; Food 13 Co ff eaCo ff ea arabica L.XXXXXXXX 8 Caf CoffeeBevera g e 14 Cucurbita Cucurbita moschata DuchesneXXXXXX 6 CalabazaPum p kinFruit 15 D ioscorea D ioscorea alata L. X 1 NameYa m Root & Tuber 16 Ip omoea Ip omoea batatas ( L. ) Lam.XXXXX 5 BoniatoSweet PotatoRoot & Tuber 17 Ly co p ersicon Lycopersicon esculentum Mill . ; L. esculentum var. cerasi f orme ( Dunal ) AlefXX 2 Tomate cimarrÂ—n; Tomate de ensalada; p lacero, g uiritoTomatoFruit 18 M an g i f era M an g i f era indica L. X 1 Man g oMan g oFruit 19 M anihot M anihot esculenta CrantzXXXXXXXXXX 10 YucaCassavaRoot & Tuber 20 M usa M usa acuminata Colla ; M. x p aradisiaca L. (p ro s p . ) XXXXXXXXXX 10 PlÂ‡tano; Pl Â‡ tano con g oBananaFruit 21 P ersea P ersea americana Mill. XXXXXXXXXXX 11 A g uacateAvocadoFruit 22 P haseolus P haseolus vulgaris L. ; P. lunatus L.XXX 3 Frijol; Frijol caballeroBeanFood 23 P outeria P outeria sapota (Jacq.) H. E. Moore and Stearn XXXXXXX 7 Mame y Mame y Fruit 24 P sidium P sidium g ua j ava L. X 1 Gua y ab a GuavaFruit 25 R o y stonea Roystonea regia (Kunth) O. F. CookXX 2 Palma RealRo y al Pal m Animal Feed; Construction Wood 26 Xanthosoma Xanthosoma sagittifolium (L.) Schott XXXXX 5 Malan g aTaro Root and Tuber 27 Z ea Z ea ma y s L.XXXXXXX 7 MaÂ’zCornFood Total Number of Plant Types per Household711885544587611310Note: A ( X ) denotes that a g iven household s p ecificall y stated that the p lant t yp e is im p ortant for g eneratin g cash from sales to various market outlets ( e. g . p articulares , intermediarios , p untos de venta , ACOPIO ) . This information was taken from on-farm plant suveys conducted in August 2005. Figure 6-25. Plant production livelihood stra tegies (i.e. activities) considered most important to households for generating c ash.
216No.GeneraS p eciesHH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Total Spanish Common Name English Common NameUses 1 Co ff eaCo ff ea arabica L.XXXXXXXX 8 Caf CoffeeBevera g e 2 M anihot M anihot esculenta CrantzXXXXX XXXXX 10 YucaCassavaRoot & Tuber 3 M usa M usa acuminata Colla ; M. x p aradisiaca L. (p ro s p . ) XXXXXXXXXX 10 PlÂ‡tano; Pl Â‡ tano con g oBananaFruit 4 PerseaPersea americana Mill.XXXXXXXXXXX 11 A g uacateAvocadoFruit 5 Pouteria Pouteria sapota (Jacq.) H. E. Moore and StearnXXXXXXX 7 Mame y Mame y Fruit 6 Z ea Z ea ma y s L.XXXXXXX 7 MaÂ’zCornFood Total Number of Plant Types per Household44553213543 2534Note: A ( X ) denotes that a g iven household s p ecificall y stated that the p lant t yp e is im p ortant for g eneratin g cash from sales to various market outlets ( e. g . p articulares , intermediarios , p untos de venta , ACOPIO ) . This information was taken from on-farm plant suveys conducted in August 2005. Figure 6-26. Most common plant production liv elihood strategies (i.e. activities) consid ered as most economically important by households.
217No.Common English NameCommon Spanish NameHH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Total 1PigPuerco XXXXXXXXXXXXX 13 2Baby Bull; Baby CowTernero, TerneraXXXX 4 3Young Bull; Young CowAÂ–ojo, AÂ–ojaXX 2 4Adult BullToro XX 2 5OxBueyXXXXXX 6 6Dairy CowVacaXXXXX 5 7Chicken; Hen; RoosterPollo; Gallina; Gallo XXXXXXXXXXXXX 13 8TurkeyGuanajoXXXXXX 6 9GoatChivo; ChivaXXXXX 5 10SheepCarnero; CarneraXXXX 4 11RabbitConejo, ConejaXXX 3 12DogPerro; Perra XXXXXXXXXXXXX 13 13CatGato; GataXXXXXXXX 8 14MuleMulaXXXXX 5 15DuckPatoXX 2 Total Amount of Animal Types per Household 8738492488925311Note: A (X) denotes that the animal type is present in a household's farming system. This information was taken from on-farm a nimal surveys conducted in August 2005. Figure 6-27. Total types of animals present in all 15 farm ing systems and presence of each type for each household.
218No.Common English NameCommon Spanish NameHH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Total 1PigPuerco XXXXXXXXXXXXX 13 2Dairy CowVaca X 1 3Chicken; Hen; RoosterPollo; Gallina; Gallo XXXXXXXXXXXXX 13 4TurkeyGuanajoXXXXXX 6 5GoatChivo; ChivaX 1 6SheepCarnero; CarneraX 1 7RabbitConejo, ConejaXX 2 Total Amount of Animal Types per Household 422432124131215Note: A (X) denotes that a household specifically stated that the animal type is important for household consumption. Figure 6-28. Types of animals most important fo r household consumption for each of the 15 households.
219 Figure 6-29. Photo of a typical turkey raised and killed for meat fo r the annual celebration el fin de aÃ±o . Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2006).
220No.Common English NameCommon Spanish NameHH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Total 1PigPuercoX XXXXXXXXX 10 2Baby Bull; Baby CowTernero, Ternera X 1 3Young Bull; Young CowAÂ–ojo, AÂ–ojaXX 2 4Dairy CowVaca XX 2 5Chicken; Hen; RoosterPollo; Gallina; GalloXXX 3 6TurkeyGuanajoX 1 7GoatChivo; Chiva X 1 10SheepCarnero; Carnera XX 2 Total Amount of Animal Types per Household 100033112220106Note: A (X) denotes that a household specifically stated that the animal type is important for generating cash. Figure 6-30. Primary types of animals considered most eco nomically important for genera ting cash for all 15 households.
221No.Type of ProductionActivity (English)Activity (Spanish)HH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Tota l 1Plant-basedSweetsDulces, Durofrio de FrutasX X 2 2Plant-basedOrchid ProductionProducciÂ—n de OrquÂ’deaX 1 3Plant-basedTomato Puree/Sauce ProductionProducciÂ—n de Salsa de TomateXX 2 4Animal-basedCheese ProductionProducciÂ—n de Queso X 1 5Forestry-basedCharcoalCarbÂ—nXXXXXXXXXXXXX 13 6Forestry-basedTool-MakingProducciÂ—n de HerramientasXXXXXXX 7 Total Amount of Value-Added Production Activities per Household221112222111314Note: A (X) denotes that a household specifically stated that household members participate in the activity and consider it a p rimary value-added livelihood strategy. Figure 6-31. Value-added production activit ies of the livelihood system and which hous eholds consider a given activity a prima ry value-added livelihood strategy. No.Type of ProductionActivity (English)Activity (Spanish)HH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Tota l 1Plant-basedSweetsDulces, Durofrio de Frutas X 1 2Plant-basedTomato Puree/Sauce ProductionProducciÂ—n de Salsa de TomateXX 2 3Animal-basedCheese ProductionProducciÂ—n de Queso X 1 4Forestry-basedCharcoalCarbÂ—nXXXXXXXXXXXXX 13 5Forestry-basedTool-MakingProducciÂ—n de HerramientasXXXXXXX 7 Total Amount of Value-Added Production Activities per Household221102222111314Note: A (X) denotes that a household specifically stated that the activity is important for houshold consumption and/or use. Figure 6-32. Value-added production live lihood strategies considered most important for household consumption and use. No.Type of ProductionActivity (English)Activity (Spanish)HH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Tota l 1Plant-basedSweetsDulces, Durofrio de FrutasX X 2 2Plant-basedOrchid ProductionProducciÂ—n de OrquÂ’deaX 1 3Plant-basedTomato Puree/Sauce ProductionProducciÂ—n de Salsa de TomateXX 2 4Animal-basedCheese ProductionProducciÂ—n de Queso X 1 5Forestry-basedCharcoalCarbÂ—nXXXXXXX 7 6Forestry-basedTool-MakingProducciÂ—n de HerramientasX 1 Total Amount of Value-Added Production Activities per Household010110221100212Note: A (X) denotes that a household specifically stated that the activity is important for generating cash. Figure 6-33. Value-added production livelihood strategies considered most important for generating cash.
222 Figure 6-34. Photo of dulce de fruta bomba ( Carica papaya ), a typical sweet food made by cooking papaya, sugar, and water. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
223 Figure 6-35. Photo of Lycopersicon spp. bottled as pure de tomate (tomato sauce), Ipomoea batatas ( boniato or sweet potato), and Oryza spp. ( arroz or rice) for sale to particulares (individuals). Photo by Va nessa K. Harper (2005).
224 Figure 6-36. Photo of value-added orquidias ornamentales (orchid ornamentals) sold on the side of the road to tourists and local particulares (individuals). The pl ant is attached to a quartered, dried coconut, which is then attached to a piece of wood and a metal wire for hanging. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
225 Figure 6-37. Photo of a man selling queso (cheese) and barra de guayaba (bar of guava jelly), illegally, along the side of the roa d. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
226 Figure 6-38. Photo of madera (wood) piled and prepared to burn to produce carbÃ³n (charcoal). Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
227 Figure 6-39. Photo of madera (wood) slowly burning over many hours to produce carbÃ³n (charcoal) for both household consumption a nd sale to the market. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
228 Figure 6-40. Photo of handcrafted herramientas (tools) made on farm for both household consumption and sale to particulares (individuals) to generate cash. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2006).
229 Figure 6-41. Photo of a handcrafted pilÃ³n (large, wooden mortar) made to sell to particulares (individuals) to generate household cash. Photo by Va nessa K. Harper (2005).
230 No.Type of ProductionActivity (English)Activity (Spanish)HH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Tota l 1Forestry-basedForest WoodMadera de BosqueXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 15 2Animal-basedMilk ProductionProducciÂ—n de Leche X 1 Total Amount of Value-Added Production Activities per Household111111111111112Figure 6-42. Other production livelihood strategies (i.e. activities) of the livelihood system and which households engage in each for household consumption or use. No.Type of ProductionActivity (English)Activity (Spanish)HH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Tota l 1Forestry-basedForest WoodMadera de BosqueXXXXX 5 2Animal-basedMilk ProductionProducciÂ—n de Leche X 1 Total Amount of Value-Added Production Activities per Household010000001100111Figure 6-43. Other production livelihood strategies (i.e. activities) of the livelihood system and which households engage in each for the purpose of generating cash.
231 Figure 6-44. Photo of a typical bohÃo ciclÃ³n used for everyday storage and shelter during hurricanes. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
232 Figure 6-45. Trees harves ted for the production of carbÃ³n (charcoal) and madera (wood) for household consumption and sale. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
233 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Pesos 123456789101112131415 HouseholdAmount of Retirement Pesos per Household per Yea r Female Male Figure 6-46. Amount of retirement pesos per hou sehold per year and disa ggregated according to sex.
234 Figure 6-47. Photo of a container hold ing pesticide that was bought from the mercado negro (black market) and sprayed on a plot of fa rmland by a farmer during an interview. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
235 Figure 6-48. Photo of a farmer holding a fruit (coffee bean) of Coffea arabica infested with la broca ( Hypothenemus hampei or coffee berry borer beetle ). This infestation makes the coffee beans unusable for household cons umption or sale to ACOPIO. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
236 Figure 6-49. Photo of harvested Pouteria sapota (mamey) that was quickly sold to an intermediario (intermediary) because of a lack of storage facilities. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2006).
237 Reproduction ActivitiesHH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Total Food Preparation, CookingXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 15 Cleaning House & HomegardenXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 15 Washing ClothesXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 15 Shopping at the MarketXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 15 Tending to Household AnimalsXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 15 Taking Care of Children & AdolescentsXXXXXXXXX 9 SchoolingXXXXXXXXX 9 Cooperative Meetings & EventsXXXXXXXXXXXXX 13 Religion X 1 Periods of RestXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 15 Total Number of Activities per Household9797799897961079Note: A (X) denotes that the household specifically stated that the reproduction activity is one in which household members eng age. Figure 6-50. Reproduction activities, including off-farm work and other activities, and which households engage in each.
238 Market OutletHH 1HH 2HH 3HH 4HH 5HH 6HH 7HH 8HH 9HH 10HH 11HH 12HH 13HH 14HH 15Total State Agencies ACOPIOXXXXXXXXXXX-XXX 14 Free Market MLAs--------------0 Puntos de ventaNo info.No info.XXXNo info.No info.No info.No info.No info.No info.No info.XNo info.X 5 Informal Economy Particulares XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 15 Intermediarios -XXX--X----XX-5 Total Number of Entities per Household2 34432322222423 Note: A (X) means that a household stated that they sell products to the market outlet. A (-) denotes that they do not. 'No i nfo.' means the household did not provide this information during one of four interviews. Figure 6-51. Market outl ets that each household sells to on a regular basis.
239 Amount of Pesos Earned from Selling at the Feria in September 20050 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 123456789101112131415 Household Figure 6-52. Amount of pesos earned per household from selling at the feria in September 2005.
240 Figure 6-53. Photo of tables set up at the feria with farmerÂ’s surplus agricultural production for sale to the public. Photo by Vanessa K. Harper (2005).
241 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000Pesos 123456789101112131415HouseholdTotal Annual Cash Income Reported by Each Household Figure 6-54. Annual cash income reported by each household.
242 Figure 6-55. Comparison of reported annual cash income earned (pesos) and total amount spent (pesos) on additional rice per year. Comparison of Total Annual Cash Income Earned and Tota l Amount Spent on Additional Rice per Year0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 123456789101112131415 Household Total annual cash income Amount spent on additional rice per year
243 Figure 6-56. Total amount of pesos spent in th e formal and informal economies per household during 2005. Total Amount of Pesos Spent in the Formal and Informal Economies pe r Household During 20050 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 123456789101112131415 Household Formal Economy Informal Economy
244 CHAPTER 7 THE ETHNOGRAPHIC LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODEL Introduction This chapter describes the process of crea ting an ethnographic linear programming (ELP) model using the ELP methodology. The ELP methodology is based on traditional linear programming and allows for minimization or maxi mization of an objective, subject to a set of constraints. Figure 7-1 is an il lustration of a preliminary matrix that comprises a model such as this. The Ethnographic Linear Programming Model Process A livelihood system is the composite of all activities available to all households in the system from which to choose to secure their livel ihoods. In turn, it is th e livelihood system that forms the basic matrix of the ELP. Therefore, th e basic matrix is comprised of 1) all available on-farm and off-farm production activities; 2) all common reproduction activities; and 3) all available resources and constraints to be met (Hildebrand et al., 2003). In a complete model, on-farm and off-far m production activities would include the 66 production activities described in Chapter 6. Thes e production activities include plant, animal, value-added, and other production activities, as well as ot her means of generating cash income (e.g. retirement pensions, remittances, off-farm wo rk). Reproduction activities would include the seven described in Chapter 6. Together thes e production and reproductio n activities, divided according to seasonality, make up the bulk of the columns of the matrix. Production activities typically utilize land and other re sources, especially labor. Am ounts of these products are often consumed by household members and at times, sold to various enti ties of the market. Reproduction activities require labor and, at times, other resources such as cash.
245 Resources are listed in the rows and are specific to the individual households. Resources include land, labor, and cash. These are divide d according to season. Also included are rows that account for product flow fo r sale or consumption. Accoun ting rows show the amount of product produced. Consumption rows indicate quantities that each household requires for subsistence. The RHS column represents the constraints and household goals, which are coefficients that must be met (minimum) or that cannot be exceeded (maximum). These constraints are seasonal and include: 1) total amount of all types of land available; 2) total amount of available labor (for each category of labor); 3) any household consum ption requirements for each production activity; 4) the total amount of availabl e beginning cash; and 5) amount of end of the year cash needed in order to meet household goals. End of the year cash is typically maximized. It is generally accurate to maximize this func tion because any surplus money can be used for discretionary purposes. Added to the basic matrix are general input and output coeffi cients for each production and reproduction activity. Coefficients include 1) amount of land for each production activity; 2) dependable yields for each produc tion activity; 3) labor (inclu ding planting, maintenance, and harvest) needed by each person for each production activity; 4) inputs required; 5) time and other resources required for reproduction activities; 6) labor disaggregated according to gender and seasonality for all production and reproduction activiti es; and 7) prices of products sold to each of the market entities, and amount of time dedi cated to selling (Hildebrand et al., 2003). To model a specific household, the composition of that household and its land availability are used in the matrix. Once this information is gathere d, it is entered and the model is run. When the model simulates a specific household, informati on for other households is entered, one by one,
246 until the model is calibrated and validated. Only then does the model simulate the livelihood system. Varying degrees of the aforementioned inform ation were collected from members of the fifteen farm households included in this study. Un fortunately, given the c onstraints in time, the coefficients gathered require more calibration (usually accomplished in direct communication with the farmers) to validate the model so it accurately simulates the liv elihood system. For the purpose of this thesis, there is not sufficient or refined enough information to accurately simulate either a household or the greater livelihood system. The basic matrix of the ELP model has been created. All pertinent data have been organize d, processed, and analyzed. This information and basic matrix provide the groundwork for future work regarding the de velopment of an ELP model that accurately simulates the livelihood system of these 15 farm households. Furthermore, the ELP methodology was useful for obtaining a great deal of information that allowed for a thorough description of the farm householdsÂ’ livelihood system (see Chapter 6). The data also proved useful to the primary co llaborating Cuban institution, the Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentals en Agricultura Tropical (Institute for Fundamental I nvestigations in Tropical Agriculture or INIFAT), as additional in formation regarding livelihood activities and microeconomics on the scale of household, both of which contribute to th eir on-going research with these 15 farm households.
247 Figure 7-1. An example of a linear programmi ng matrix and its components that serves as the basic matrix of an ELP livelihood system model.
248 CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This research presents a modified, expl oratory case study of 15 small-scale farm households located among eight communities in four municipalities and two provinces within the Sierra del Rosario region of west ern Cuba. It is a collaborative effort among the University of Florida (UF), the University of Ha vana (UH), the Cuban Institute, El Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en Agricultura Tropical (Institute for Fundamental Invest igations in Tropical Agriculture or INIFAT), and me. This coll aboration was made possi ble largely through a cooperative agreement established by and between UF and UH in 2003. The agreement was established in an effort to promote non-pol itical, academic exchange of information. These small-scale farm households have a highly complex livelihood system because it is impacted not only by biophysical conditions, but also the unique sociopolitical system. They produce a wide range of products derived from both plants and animals. Perhaps most critical are their marketing arrangements that force this into being a significantly more complex livelihood system than what is found in most developing countries. These farm households are first homes and seco nd, businesses and are be st characterized as subsistence farm households. Farm-household liv elihood strategies (i.e. the activities they choose to be involved in) are selected for this dual purpose. In order to achieve food security and meet annual cash needs, these farm households must diversify their livelihood activities in an effort to meet their primary household goa ls. They must produce enough food to meet household consumption requirements while simulta neously delivering thei r quotas to the State collector agency, ACOPIO. They must also produce enough products be yond their quota to sell for necessary, as well as some discretionary, cas h income. For all 15 households, 50% of total
249 annual production is consumed on fa rm either by household members or farm animals. Over half sell at least 40% of thei r production to the market in or der to generate needed cash. Households generate cash from sales of thei r agricultural products to various market outlets. Farmers sell both crops and animal meats and by-products. What constitutes the market varies with context. The market system of Cuba is much differen t than the market system of her Latin American neighbors, primarily because of the existence of the State-run food rationing system and CubaÂ’s unique political economy. Farmers, in gene ral have five market outlets to which they can sell products to generate cash. These include: 1) State agencies (e.g. ACOPIO); 2) particulares (individuals); 3) intermediarios (intermediaries); 4) puntos de venta (points of sale); and 5) the mercados libres agropecuarios (free agricultural markets or MLAs). State agencies, puntos de venta , and the MLAs are all market outlets that partly comprise the greater formal economy. All of these farm ers have sold products to the State agency ACOPIO and its subsidiaries (e.g. Empresa Forestal , Empresa de Frutas Selectas ). These State agencies establish contracts with farmers or their cooperatives and buy quotas of products throughout the year depending on the types and amounts of farmersÂ’ production. Although these agencies pay relatively low prices, farmers conti nue to establish contracts with them because it assures the sale of some of their production. Puntos de venta are points of sale run by farmersÂ’ respective cooperatives where cooperative memb ers can pool together their agricultural production and legally sell to the publ ic. Several households sell thei r products at these points of sale but this was not exhaustively explored dur ing interviews. The MLAs are free agricultural markets where farmers can legally sell their surplus production to the public at prices largely governed by supply and demand. However, these farmers do not sell their products at these markets because they do not generally have enough surplus production and because of a lack of
250 transportation to move the products from their rura l or semi-rural location to the towns and cities where the MLAs are located. Selling to particulares and intermediaries is common practice for these farmers. Particulares are individuals that generally buy a farmerÂ’s product for personal use. Intermediaries are third party individuals who buy products from farmers and then re-sell the same products to other individuals or at the MLAs for higher prices than for what they bought it. Intermediarios tend to buy larger quan tities of products than particulares . Farmers generally can sell their products for much higher prices to particulares and intermediarios than what they can earn from selling to State agencies. The selling of products to anyone othe r than State agencies or at the puntos de venta or the MLAs is technically illegal and therefor e the selling by farmers of products to particulares and intermediarios are considered acts of selling within the informal economy. However, State agencies do not always buy all of the surplus pr oduction that farmers possess following harvests and not all farmers have constant access, if any access at all, to the legal puntos de venta and MLAs. Therefore, selling to particulares and intermediarios is sometimes the only avenue for which these farmers have for acquiring cash fr om their surplus production. Furthermore, because these avenues tend to sell for higher prices , farmers take advantage of them in order to generate as much cash as possible. This study divides the informal economy into two distinct categor ies: 1) the underground market ( mercado subterrÃ¡neo ) and 2) the black market ( mercado negro ). Farmers are considered as participating in selling on the underground market when se lling products that are legal to sell at the puntos de venta and the MLAs. Examples of these products include most vegetables, fruits, viandas (roots and tubers), and some animal meat such as puerco (pork) and
251 pollo (chicken). Other items are considered illega l to sell at these free markets because they are typically scarce and/or are included in the stat e food rationing system and therefore, the Cuban government seeks to control their production and exchange. Some examples are beef, sugar, milk, cheese, and coffee. When farm ers sell these products illegally to particulares and intermediarios , they are considered to be participating in selling on the black market. The sale of black market items can generate relatively much higher prices and although there is an inherent risk in selling these products, some farmers choose to engage in selling on this market because of the significant amount of cash it can generate. The state food rationing system does not provide all of the necessary consumer goods that cannot be produced on the farm that these hous eholds need to meet their consumption requirements. Like selling to market outlets, buying from various market outlets is also inevitable for these farmers. During 2005, all of the households purchased needed consumer goods from the formal economy and well over half purchased goods fr om the underground and black markets. Although state-run stores ( tiendas en pesos Cubanos and tiendas en CUC ) and markets ( placitas and bodegas ) and the free agricultural markets (MLAs and puntos de venta ) provide venues from which these goods can be purchased, they ar e often high priced and/or are not adequately stocked. Buying items from th e informal economy is often inevitable and commonplace for all of the households involved in this study. This is simply because, at times, it is the only place where certain needed items can be purchased. Thirteen of the 15 households are members of seven different cooperativas de crÃ©ditos y servicios (credit and service cooperatives or CCSs). E ach of the 13 households that participate in a CCS joined to have better access to tools, inputs , and assistance from state agencies. For these farmers, these benefits have continued to decr ease since the early years of the Special Period.
252 Each household maintains a cont ract with ACOPIO to ensu re that they can sell some of their production. However, all 15 househol ds concur that ACOPIOÂ’s pric es are incredibly low, that the state agency rarely pays on time, and that material incentives received are relatively nonexistent. In the area of this study, there are a total of 66 production activities within the livelihood system from which these farmers choose in orde r to maintain their livelihoods. Of these 66 activities, 47 include plants they produce. The fifteen most important for household consumption and use by both household members and farm animals include: 1) Coffea arabica (coffee or cafÃ© ); 2) Manihot esculenta (cassava or yuca ); 3) Musa spp. (banana or plÃ¡tano ); 4) Persea americana (avocado or aguacate ); 5) Xanthosoma sagittifolium (taro or malanga ); 6) Zea mays (corn or maÃz ); 7) Citrus spp. (oranges or naranja ); 8) Mangifera indica (mango); 9) Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane or caÃ±a de azucar ); 10) Pouteria sapota (mamey); 11) Ipomoea batatas (sweet potato or boniato ); 12) Cucurbita moschata (pumpkin or calabaza ); 13) Phaseolus spp. (beans or frijoles ); 14) Psidium guajava (guava or guayaba ); and 15) Roystonea regia (royal palm tree or palma real ). The six most important for generating cash include: 1) C. arabica ; 2) M. esculenta ; 3) Musa spp.; 4) P. americana ; 5) P. sapota ; and 6) Z. mays . Of the 66 total production activ ities, seven include animal s they produce on farm. The most important animals for household consumption include pigs ( puerco ) and chickens ( pollo ) and the most important for generating cash are pigs. Six of the 66 production activities produce value-added products. Value-a dded activities are important fo r both household consumption and use and for generating cash. These activ ities include: 1) the production of dulces (sweets) such as marmalades and fruit pastes; 2) the production of orchids ( orquÃdeas ) that are attached to quartered coconut shells or piec es of wood and sold as ornament als; 3) the produc tion of tomato
253 pastes and sauces ( salsa de tomate ); 4) the production of charcoal ( carbÃ³n ) from foraged or harvested wood; and 5) th e production of tools ( herramientas ). There are two other important production activities th at do not fall into the aforementioned categories. These include the production of milk ( leche ) and the production of lumber ( madera ) from harvested trees. Some farmers also generate additional cash from retirement, remittances, or off-farm work. There are a number of factors that limit the production of these farm households. Farmers were asked which factors affect their producti on the most. Responses were similar for each household and include: 1) climate (e specially hurricanes and drought); 2) lack of inputs; 3) pest invasions; 4) lack of transporta tion; 5) lack of access to the free markets to sell their excess products for higher prices; 6) lack of discretionary f unds to hire extra labor; and 7) theft. Household labor is probably one of the most c onstraining resources par ticularly during periods of great activity (e.g. harvests) given the fact that they do not have access to inputs and/or excess cash to hire off-farm labor, both of which c ould ultimately increase their annual production and cash income. Post-harvest storage is a concern for any sm all farmer, as storage facilities for large quantities of products are generally not available. This is one of the primary reasons why these farmers continue to contract thei r production to state agencies such as ACOPIO year after year. A lack of storage facilities also justifies to th ese farmers the need to sell to intermediaries ( intermediarios ). Intermediaries typically purchase large quantities at one time to re-sell at the free agricultural markets or to other intermediari es. Although it is not monetarily beneficial, most households will also give excess production that ca nnot be consumed or sold as gifts to schools
254 and hospitals. This gift givi ng, however, does carry with it soci al recognition often provided by the State in the form of certificates. There are a total of seven primary reproduc tion activities in which these households participate. These activities in clude 1) cleaning; 2) cooking; 3) washing cl othes; 4) caring for children; 5) shopping at the mark et; 6) tending household animal s; and 7) religion. Some of these activities are more gender specific than others and largely depend on household composition. Although reproduction activities do not necessarily produce something tangible, it is significant because they do take time, which is often scarce. Data collected suggest that households are adap table and maintain a high level of resilience via diversified livelihood strategies (both agricultural and non-a griculturally based) but continue to face varying, but chronic, levels of uncertainty and food insecurity. Consequently, diversification of livelihood stra tegies is the mechanism through which households cope with a restrictive yet dynamic political economy a nd limited resource access and availability. Household members act as entrepreneurs by pe rceiving opportunities to engage in cashproducing activities and independently organizing, operating, and a ssuming any associated risk to create products in order to generate needed cash income. This entrepreneurship often enables household members to meet minimum consump tion requirements (of both food and non-food consumer goods) but continues to be constrained in the face of the complexity of CubaÂ’s political economy, a lack of access to the free agricultural mark ets, the inconsistency and/or unavailability of critical resources, and environmental factors such as geography and climate.
255 APPENDIX A PLANT SPECIES FOUND ON FARMS Object A-1. Excel file of plant species found on farms.
256 APPENDIX B TYPE AND NUMBER OF ANIMALS PER HOUSEHOLD Object B-1. Excel file of type and number of animals per household.
257 APPENDIX C RANGE OF PRICES OF PRODUCTS SOLD TO EACH MARKET OUTLET Object C-1. Excel file of range of prices of products sold to each market outlet.
258 APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS Object D-1. Excel file of summ ary of household characteristics.
259 APPENDIX E CONVERSION FACTORS FOR TRADITIONAL CUBAN MEASURES Conversion Factors for Trad itional Cuban Measures 1 hectare = 10,000 sq. meters 1 hectare = 2.47 acres 1 hectare = 3.86 benzanas 1 hectare = 24.14 cordeles 1 caballeria = 13.42 hectares 1 quintal = 100 lbs. 1 lata = 25 lbs. 1 lata of cafÃ© = 28 lbs.
260 APPENDIX F HUMAN ECOSYSTEM MODEL Object F-1. Human ecosystem model of a smallscale, agriculture system in Cuba (household scale). Key to Human Ecosystem Model. Based on H.T. Odum (1983, Systems Ecology , New York: John Wiley and Sons) and conventions estab lished by the Information Ecology Group of the Anthropology Department, University of Geor gia, as documented in Pavao-Zuckerman (2000, The Conceptual Utility of Models in Human Ecology , Journal of Ecological Anthropology, Vol. 4). energy source; outside system information source: beliefs, etc. energy producer; production consumer: transforms energy or information; inherent producer energy pathway; flow flow of materials interaction: two paths connected and producing new outflow; workgate switch storage: stores energy or informa tion to balance flows transaction: exchange of one thing for another information pathway; flow sink
261 LIST OF REFERENCES Acosta, J. 1972. Las leyes de reforma agraria en Cuba y el sector privado campesino. EconomÃa y Desarrollo. 12:99-115. Alther, C., J.C. Castella, P. Novosad, E. Rousseau, and T.T. Hieu. 2002. Impact accessibility on the range of livelihood options available to farm households in mountainous areas of northern Vietnam. p. 121-146. In J.C. Castella and D.D. Quang (ed.) Doi Moi in the mountains: Land use chan ges and farmerÂ’s livelihood strategies in Bac Kan Province, Vietnam. Agricultural Publishing House, Ha Noi, Vietnam. Alvarez, J. 1999. Independent Agricultu ral Cooperatives in Cuba?. p. 157-164. In J. PÃ©rez-LÃ³pez and J. Alonso (ed.) Cuba in tran sition. Proc. Associati on for the Study of the Cuban Economy Conf., 9th, Coral Gables, FL. 12-14 Aug. 1999. Association for the Study of the Cuban Ec onomy, Washington, DC. Alvarez, J. 2000. Differences in agricultural productivity in CubaÂ’s state and non-state sectors: Further evidence. p. 98-107. In J. PÃ©rez-LÃ³pez and J. Alonso (ed.) Cuba in transition. Proc. Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy Conf., 10th, Miami, FL. 3-5 Aug. 2000. Association for the St udy of the Cuban Economy, Washington, DC. Alvarez, J. 2004a. CubaÂ’s agri cultural sector. University Pres s of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Alvarez, J. 2004b. Overview of CubaÂ’s food rationing system. University of Florida EDIS Doc. FE482. [On-line]. Ava ilable at http://edis.ifas.uf l.edu/FE482 (verified 31 Oct. 2006). Alvarez, J., and R.A. Puerta. 1994. State inte rvention in Cuban agri culture: Impact on organization and performance. World Development 22:1663-1675. Alvarez, M.D. 2002. Social organi zation and sustainability of small farm agriculture in Cuba. p. 72-89. In F. Funes et al. (ed.) Sustainable agriculture and resistance: Transforming food production in C uba. Food First Books, Oakland, CA. Araujo, A.A. 1997. Agroforestry systems as an economic alternative for small farmers in the state of Acre, Brazil. M.S. thes is. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Arguello, H. 1996. Evaluation of some altern atives for economic development of extractive activities in Acre, Brazil. Ph.D . diss. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Babbie, E. 1990. Survey research met hods. Wadsworth Publ., Belmont, CA. Barrett, C.B., T. Reardon, and P. Webb. 2001. Nonfarm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: Concepts, dynamics, and policy implications. Food Policy 26:315-331.
262 Bastidas, E.P. 2001. Assessing poten tial responses to changes in the livelihood system of diverse, limited-resource farm households in Carchi, Ecuador: Modeling livelihood strategies using participatory methods a nd linear programming. Ph.D. diss. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Batterbury, S. 2001. Landscapes of diversity: A local political ecology of livelihood diversification in southwestern Niger. Ecumene 8:437:464. Bellow, J.G. 2004. Fruit-tree based agroforestry in the western highlands of Guatemala. Ph.D. diss. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Bernard, H.R. 2002. Research methods in an thropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Bernet, T., O. Ortiz, R.D. Estrada, R. Quiroz, and S.M. Swinton. 2001. Tailoring agricultural extension to di fferent production contexts: a user-friendly farm-household model to improve decision-making for partic ipatory research. Agricultural Systems 69:183-198. Bethell, L. 1993. Cuba: A short history. Cambridge University Press, New York. Bianchi, A. 1964. Agriculture: Post re volutionary development. p. 100-157. In D. Seers (ed.) Cuba: The economic and social revolu tion. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Borhidi, A. 1996. Phytogeography and vegeta tion ecology of Cuba. AkadÃ©miai KiadÃ³, Budapest, Hungary. Breuer, N.E. 2000. The role of medicinal plan ts in rural Paraguayan livelihoods. M.A. thesis. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Breuer, N.E. 2003. Linking sustainability, food security, and improved worker livelihoods in an Ecuadorian agrosocioeco system. Ph.D. diss. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Burchardt, H.J. 2001. CubaÂ’s agriculture afte r the new reforms: Between stagnation and sustainable development. Socialism and Democracy 15:141-153. Cabrera, V.E. 1999. Farm problems, solutions, and extension programs for small farmers in CaÃ±ete, Lima, Peru. M.S. thesis . Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Capote LÃ³pez, R. 2001. Case Study: Sierra del Rosario Biosphere Reserve, Cuba: Columbia University Center for Environmen tal Research and Conservation [Online]. 2001 Environmental Leader Forum Conf, New York. 15-25 May 2001. Available at http://www.cerc.columbia.edu/training/foru m_01cs/CapoteCS.html (verified 1 Nov. 2006).
263 Carney, J. 1993. Low input sustainable agri culture in Cuba. Agri culture and Human Values 10(3), special issue. CastiÃ±eiras, L., T. Shagarodsky, Z. Fundora, V. Fuentes, L. FernÃ¡ndez, V. Moreno, A.V. Gonzalez, J.L. Alonso, R. Orellana, R. Robaina, R. Cristobal, P. SÃ¡nchez, M. GarcÃa, A. Valiente, and C. Girandy. 1999. Contribution of home gardens to the in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming sy stems. IPGRI Annual Report. Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en Agricultura Tropical, Sa ntiago de Las Vegas, Cuba. ComitÃ© Estatal de EstadÃsticas (CEE). Vari ous years. Anuario EstadÃstico de Cuba, Havana, Cuba. Chamber, R. 1997. Whose reality counts? Pu tting the first last. ITDG Publishing, Southampton Row, London. Chambers R., and G. Conway. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practi cal concepts for the 21st century. Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, UK. Chaplowe, S.G. 1998. HavanaÂ’s popular gard ens: Sustainable prospects for urban agriculture. The Envi ronmentalist 18:47-57. Chayanov, A.V. 1926. The theory of the peasant economy, eds. D. Thorner, B. Kerblay, and R.E.F Smith. Richard Irwin, Homewood, IL. Choncol, J. 1963. AnÃ¡lisis crÃtico de la Refo rm Agraria Cubana. El Trimestre EconÃ³mico 30:69-143. Church, S.A. 2005. Impact irrigation on tec hnology adoption by smallholder households of the Santa Elena Peninsula, Ecuador. M. S. thesis. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Clapham, W.B., Jr. 1981. Human ecosystems. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York. Collinson, M. 2000. A history of farming syst ems research. CABI Publ., Wallingford, UK. Companioni, N., Y. Ojeda HernÃ¡ndez, E. PÃ¡ez, and C. Murphy. 2002. The growth of urban agriculture. In F. Funes et al. (ed.) Sustaina ble agriculture and resistance: Transforming food production in C uba. Food First Books, Oakland, CA. Costanza, R. 1991. Ecological economics: The sc ience and management of sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York.
264 Costanza, R., H. Daly, and J.A. Bartholom ew. 1991. Goals, agendas, and policy recommendations for ecological economics. p. 1-20. In R. Costanza (ed.) Ecological economics: The science and management of su stainability. Columbia University Press, New York. Costanza, R., J. Cumberland, H. Daly, R. Goodland, and R. Norgaard. 1997. Introduction to ecological economics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Creswell, J.W. 2003. Research design: Qualit ative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Cruz, M.C. 2003. Agriculture in the city: A ke y to sustainability in Havana, Cuba. International Development Center, Ottawa. Oficina Nacional de EstadÃsticas. 2006. Esta dÃsticas Nacional de Cuba [Online]. Available at http://www.one.cu (verified 1 Nov. 2006). Deere, C.D. 1984. Agrarian reform and the peasan try in the transition to socialism in the third world. Univ. of Notre Dame, Helen Kell ogg Institute for Intern ational Studies, Notre Dame, IN. Deere, C.D. 1992. Socialism on one island? CubaÂ’s national food program and its prospects for food security. Institu te for Social Studies, The Hague. Deere, C.D. 1996. The evolution of CubaÂ’s agri cultural sector: Debates, controversies, and research issues. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Food and Resource Economics Dept., Gainesville. Deere, C.D. 1998. Here come the Yankees! The ri se and decline of United States colonies in Cuba, 1898-1930. The Hispanic Amer ican Historical Review 78:729:765. Deere, C.D., E. Gonzales, and N. PÃ©rez. 1995. Household income in Cuban agriculture. Development and Change 26:209-234. Deere, C.D., and M. Meurs. 1992. Markets, markets everywhere? Understanding the Cuban anomaly. World Development 20:825-839. Deere, C.D., and N. PÃ©rez. 1999. Cuba: Su ccessful voluntary collectivization. p. 185-235. In M. Meurs (ed.) Many shades of red. Ro wan and Littlefield, Inc., Lanham, MD. Deere, C.D., N. PÃ©rez, and E. GonzÃ¡les. 1994. The view from below: Cuban agriculture in the Â‘Special Period in Peacetime.Â’ Th e Journal of Peasant Studies 21:194-234.
265 Dharmawan, A. H., and W. Manig. 2000. Livelih ood strategies and rural changes in Indonesia: Studies on small farm communitie s [Online]. A Contribution to Crisis Prevention. Proc. Int. Agri. Res. Conf., Institu te of Rural Development, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart. Available online at http://ftp2.de.freebsd.org/pub/ dtt2003/proceedings/2000/Fu ll%20Papers/Section%201/WG %20b/Dharmawan%20A.pdf (verified 14 Apr. 2006). DÃaz GonzÃ¡lez, B. 1999. Collectivization of Cuban state farms: a case study. p. 109-140. In J. Bell (ed.) Cuba in the 1990s. Editorial JosÃ© MartÃ, Havana. DomÃnquez, J.I., O.E. PÃ©rez Villanueva, and L. Barberia (ed.) 2004. The Cuban economy at the start of the twenty-first century. Harvard University David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Cambridge, MA. Dumont, R. 1970. Cuba: Socialism and de velopment. Grove Press, New York. EnrÃquez, L.J. 1994. The question of food security in Cuban socialism. Univ ersity of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Espinosa, E. 1997. La economÃa Cubana en los 1990: De la crisis a la recuperaciÃ³n. Univ ersity of Havana, Havana. Fitchen, J.M. 1990. How do you know what to as k if you havenÂ’t listened first?: Using anthropological methods to prepare for surv ey research. The Rural Sociologist 10:15-22. Francis, E. 2002. Gender, migration and multiple livelihoods: Cases from eastern and southern Africa. The Journal of Development Studies 38:167-190. Franklin, J. 1997. Cuba and the United States: A chronological history. 1st ed. Ocean Press, Melbourne. Funes, F. 2002. The organic farming movement in Cuba. p. 1-26. In F. Funes et al. (ed.) Sustainable agriculture and resistance: Tr ansforming food production in Cuba. Food First Books, Oakland, CA. Ghai, D., C. Kay, and P. Peek. 1988. Labour and deve lopment in rural Cuba. St. MartinÂ’s Press, New York. Gladwin, C.H., A.M. Thomson, J.S. Pete rson, and A.S. Anderson. 2001. Addressing food security in Africa via multiple live lihood strategies. Food Policy 26:177-207. Golley, F.B. 1993. A history of the ecosystem con cept in ecology: More than the sum of the parts. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Gum, W. 2000. Inland aquatic reso urces and livelihoods in Cambodia: A guide to the literature, legislation, institutional framework, and recommendations. Consultancy Report for Oxfam GB and the NGO Forum on Cam bodia. Oxfam, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Henderson, B. 2005. CubaÂ’s urban garden moveme nt: An initiative to strengthen urban food security. University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg. Herrera, M., G. Alfonso, and R.A. Herrera. Rese rva de la biÃ³sfera de Cuba. University of Havana, Havana.
266 Herrera, R.A., L. MenÃ©ndez, M.E. RodrÃguez, and E.E. GarcÃa. 1988. EcologÃa de los bosques siempre verdes de la Sierra del Rosario, Cuba. Instituto de EcologÃa y SistemÃ¡tica, Academia de Ciencias de Cuba. Proyecto MAB 1:1974-1985. Hildebrand. P.E. 1981. Combining disciplines in rapid appraisal: The sondeo approach. Agricultural Admi nistration 8:423-432. Hildebrand, P.E., N.E. Breuer, V.E. Cabrer a, and A.J. Sullivan. 2003. Modeling diverse livelihood strategies in rura l livelihood systems using et hnographic linear programming. Food and Resource Economics Department , Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Hildebrand, P.E., and M. Schmink. 2004. Agrofo restry for improved livelihoods and food security for diverse smallholders in La tin America and the Caribbean. First World Agroforestry Congress. Food and Resource Ec onomics Department, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Hildebrand, P.E., and A.J. Sullivan. 2002. Small farm livelihood systems and food security: Addressing diversity. Food and Resource Econo mics Department, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Hildebrand, P.E., and R.K. Waugh. 1986. Farmin g systems research and development. In P.E. Hildebrand (ed.) Perspectives on farming syst ems research and extension. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., Boulder, CO. IDS. 2006. Livelihoods connect: What are livelihoods? [Online]. Available at http://www.livelihoods.org/SLdef n.html (verified 1 Nov. 2006). Itzigsohn, J. 1995. Migrant remittances, labor market s, and household strategies: A comparative analysis of low-income household strategies in the Caribbean Basin. Social Forces 74:633-655. Izquierdo, I., F. Caravaca, M. Alguacil, and A. RoldÃ¡n. 2003. Changes in physical and biological soil quality indicators in a tropical crop system (Havana, Cuba) in response to different agroecological management practices. Environmental Management 32:639-645. Jansen, H.G.P., A. Damon, J. Pender, W. Wi elemaker, and R. Schipper. 2003. Sustainable development in the hillsides of Hondur as: A livelihoods approach. Paper for the International Workshop on Reconciling Rural Poverty Reduction and Resource Conservation: Identifying Relationships and Remedies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 2-3 May 2003. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Jenks, L.H. 1928. Our Cuban colony: A study in sugar. Vanguard Press, New York. Jick, T.D. 1979. Qualitative and quantitative met hods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly 24:602-611. Kay, C. 1988. Economic reforms and collectiviz ation in Cuban agri culture. Third World Quarterly 10:1239-1266. Kaya, B. P.E. Hildebrand, and P.K.R. Nair. 2000. Modeling changes in farming systems with the adoption of improved fallows in southe rn Mali. Agricultural Systems 66:51-68. Kost, W. 1998. CubaÂ’s agriculture: Collapse a nd economic reform. USDA Agricultural Outlook, October:26-30.
267 Litow, P.A. 2000. Food security and household liv elihood strategies in the Maya Biosphere Reserve: The importance of milpa in the community of UaxactÃºn, PetÃ©n, Guatemala. M.S. thesis. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Madrid-Aris, M. 1997. Growth and te chnological change in Cuba. p. 216-228. In J. PÃ©rez-LÃ³pez and J. Alonso (ed.) Cuba in transition. Pr oc. Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy Conf., 7th, Miami, FL. 7-9 Aug. 1997. A ssociation for the Study of the Cuban Economy, Washington, DC. MartÃn, L. 2002. Transforming the Cuban country side: property, markets, and technological change. p. 57-71. In F. Funes et al. (ed.) Sustaina ble agriculture and resistance: Transforming food production in C uba. Food First Books, Oakland, CA. McAlister, L. 1984. Spain and Portugal in the New World. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. Mcllvaines-Newsad, H.L. 2000. Tied to the land : Livelihood systems in northwestern Ecuador. Ph.D. diss. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Messina, W.A., Jr. 2004. Cuban agriculture in tr ansition: The impacts of policy changes on agricultural production, food markets, and trade. In A.R.M. Ritter (ed.) The Cuban economy. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA. Meurs, M. 1989. Participation, planning, and materi al incentives: The case of Cuban agriculture in the 1980s. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Mortimore, M.J., and W.M. Adams. 2000. Farmer ad aptation, change, and Â‘crisisÂ’ in the Sahel. Global Environmental Change 11:49:57. Mudhara, M. 2002. Assessing the livelihood system of smallholder farm households: Potential for adoption of improved fallows and green manure in Zimbabwe. Ph.D. diss. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Muraro, R.P., and T.H. Spreen. 1999. Cuba citrus industryÂ’s transition into the international free market arena. Food and Resource Economics Department Document No. 267. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Murray, G.F. 1994. Transformations in Cuba: Th e dismantling of the state farm and the emergence of alternative mode s of agrarian production. Uni v. of Florida, Gainesville. Nicholls, C.I.N., P.L. Vasquez, and M.A. Altieri. 2002. The development and status of biologically based integrated pest manageme nt in Cuba. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 7:1-17. Norman, D.W. 1982. The farming systems approach to research. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KA. Nova, A. 1994. Cuba: ModificaciÃ³n o tranformaci Ã³n agrÃcola? Distributed by author. Havana, Cuba. Nova, A. 2002. Cuban agriculture before 1990. p. 27-39. In F. Funes et al. (ed.) Sustainable agriculture and resistance : Transforming food production in Cuba. Food First Books, Oakland, CA.
268 Novo, M.G., and C. Murphy. 1999. Urban agriculture in the city of Hava na: A popular response to a crisis [Online]. Available at http ://www.trabajopopular.org.as/material/Havana.pdf (verified 1 Nov. 2006). Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA. Odum, E.P. 1997. Ecology: A bridge between sc ience and society. Sina uer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. PÃ©rez, L.A., Jr. 1995. Cuba: Between reform and revolution. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, New York. PÃ©rez Rojas, N., and D. Echeva rrÃa. 2001. The relationship between participation and managerial autonomy in CubaÂ’s basic units of cooperati ve production: six case studies. Socialism and Democracy 15:155-174. PÃ©rez-LÃ³pez, J.F. 1991. Swimming against the tide: Implications for Cuba of Soviet and Eastern European reforms in foreign economic relatio ns. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 33:81-139. PÃ©rez-LÃ³pez, J.F. 1994. Cuba at a crossroads: Politics and economics af ter the Fourth Party Congress. University of Fl orida Press, Gainesville. Peterson, M. 2001. Resources use an d livelihood strategies of two communities in the El Cielo Biosphere Reserve, Tamaulipas, Mexico. M.S. thesis. Miami Univ. Oxford, OH. Pollit, B.H. 2004. Crisis and reform in CubaÂ’s sugar economy. p. 69-105. In A.R.M. Ritter (ed.) The Cuban economy. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA. Ricardo, J.M. 2003. Family farms: The cornerstone of the agricultural sector in the Cuba of the future. p. 234-246. In J. PÃ©rez-LÃ³pez and J. Alonso (ed.) Cuba in transition. Proc. Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy Conf., 13th, Coral Gables, FL. 7-9 Aug. 2003. Washington, DC. Ritter, A.M. 1995. The dual currency bifurcati on of CubaÂ’s economy in the 1990s: Causes, consequences, and cures. Norman Peterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, Ottawa. Roca, S. G. 1994. Reflections on economic policy: Cuba's food program. p. 94-117. In J.F. PÃ©rez-LÃ³pez (ed.) Cuba at a crossroads: Politics and econom ics after the Fourth Party Congress. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. RodrÃguez, C.R. 1963. Four years of agrarian re form. Ministry of Foreign Relations, Havana, Cuba. RodrÃguez, C.R. 1965. The Cuban revolution and the peasantry. World Ma rxist Review 8:62:71. Rogozinski, J. 2000. A brief history of the Caribbean: From Arawak and Carib to the present. 1st ed. Plume, New York. Roncoli, C., K. Ingram, and P. Kirshen. 2001. The costs and risks of coping with drought: Livelihood impacts and farmersÂ’ responses in Burkina Faso. Climate Research 19:119132.
269 Ross, J. and M.A.F. Mayo. 2002. Overview of Cuba Â’s dollar food market: An exploration of the purchasing and distribution system. In J. PÃ©rez-LÃ³pez and J. Alonso (ed.) Cuba in transition. Proc. Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy Conf., 12th, Coral Gables, FL. 1-3 Aug. 2002. Washington, DC. Royce, F.S. 1996. Cooperative agricultural ope rations management on a Cuban sugarcane farm:..Â”and everything gets done anyway.Â” M. S. thesis. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Royce, F.S., W.A. Messina, Jr., and J. Alvar ez. 1997. An empirical study of income and performance incentives on a Cuban sugarcane CPA. In J. PÃ©rez-LÃ³pez and J. Alonso (ed.) Cuba in transition. Proc. A ssociation for the Study of the Cuban Economy Conf., 7th, Miami, FL. 7-9 Aug. 1997. Washington, DC. SÃ¡ez, H. 1997. Property rights, technology, a nd land degradation: A case study of Santo Domingo, Cuba. In J. PÃ©rez-LÃ³pez and J. Alonso (ed.) Cuba in transition. Proc. Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy Conf., 7th, Miami, FL. 7-9 Aug. 1997. Washington, DC. Schmink, M. 1984. Household economic strategies: re view and research agenda. Latin American Review 19:87-101. Schroeder, S. 1982. Cuba: A handbook of histor ical statistics. G.K. Hall, Boston, MA. Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable ru ral livelihoods: A framework fo r analysis. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK. Shaner, W.W., P.F. Phillip, and W.R. Schmehl. 1982. Farming systems research and development: Guidelines for developing c ountries. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Sims, B.G., R. Ventot, and A. Rivera. 1993. Cooperatives as a solution to small farm mechanization problems in Cuba. Agricultural Mechanizations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America 24:63-72. Sinclair, M., and M. Thompson. 2001. Cuba going ag ainst the grain: Agri cultural crisis and transformation. Oxfam America, Boston, MA. Sommer, B., and R. Sommer. 1997. A practical guide to beha vioral research: tools and techniques. 4th ed. Oxford Un iversity Press, New York. Staten, C.L. 2003. The history of C uba. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT. Stepp, J.R. 2002. Highland Maya me dical ethnobotany in ecologica l perspective. Ph.D. diss. Univ. of Georgia, Athens. Stepp, J.R., E.C. Jones, M. Pavao-Zucker man, D. Casagrande, and R.K. Zarger. 2003. Remarkable properties of human eco systems. Conservation Ecology 7:11. Sullivan, A.J. 2000. Decoding diversity: Strategies to mitigate household stress. M.S. thesis. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Tansley, A.G. 1935. The use and abuse of vegeta tional concepts and terms. Ecology 16:284-307. Thangata, P.H., P.E. Hildebrand, and C.H. Gl adwin. 2002. Modeling agrofo restry adoption and household decision making in Malawi. African Studies Quarterly 1 and 2.
270 Togores, V., and A. GarcÃa. 2002. Consumption, ma rkets, and monetary duality in Cuba. p. 245295. In J.I. DomÃnguez et al. (ed.) The Cuba eco nomy at the start of the twenty-first century. Harvard University Rockefeller Cent er for Latin American Studies, Cambridge, MA. Treasury Department of the United States. 2006. Cuban Assets Control Regulations [Online]. Available at http://www.ustreas.gov/offices /enforcement/ofac/programs/cuba/cuba/shtml (verified 1 Nov. 2006). UNESCO. 2006. The Man and the Biosphere Progra mme, Cuba, Sierra del Rosario [Online]. Available at http://www2.unesco.org/mab/br/brdir/direct ory/biores.asp?code=CUB+01&mode=all (verified 1 Nov. 2006). Utting, P. 1992. From orthodoxy to reform: Hist orical experiences of post-revolutionary societies. Third Worl d Quarterly 13:43-65. Vales, M. 1998. Estudio nacional sobre la diversid ad biologÃa en la RepÃºblica de Cuba. CITMA, Havana, Cuba. Wezel, A., and S. Bender. 2002. Agricultural land use in the coastal ar ea of the Alexander von Humboldt National Park, Cuba and its impli cations fro conservati on and sustainability. Geojournal 57:241-249. Wiggins, S., N. Keilbach, K. Preibisch, S. Proctor, G.R. HerrejÃ³n, and G.R. MuÃ±oz. 2002. Agricultural policy and reform and rural live lihoods in Central Mexico. The Journal of Development Studies 38:179:202. Yin, R.K. 1994. Case study research: desi gn and method. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
271 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Vanessa Kendall Harper was born in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 1977. After many years in north Florida, she returned to North Carolina where she received a Bachelor of Science degree in environmental studies from the University of North Carolin a at Asheville in 1999. In 2002, she completed a nine-month tradit ional herbal medicine apprentic eship with the North Carolina School of Natural Healing. Ms. Harper spent many years working in th e Asheville community as both an employee and a volunteer until moving b ack to Florida to pursue a graduate degree. In 2004, she enrolled at the University of Florida as a graduate student in the School of Natural Resources and Environment and received a Master of Science degree in interdisciplinary ecology in 2006. She currently works as an adjunct instru ctor at the University of North Carolina at Asheville where she teaches environmental science.