Sheehy Skeffington M 1 , Morales, H. 2 and Ferguson, B. G. 3 Lessons from two contrasting organic growing systems –Chiapas, Mexico and Cuba Chiapas –social background Chiapas is the most southerly state in Mexico and as such, is geographically marginal to the rest of the country. It borders on Guatemala and is therefore also at the frontier for migration trails northwards from Central America, through Mexico and to the U.S. The highlands of Chiapas are in the southern part of the state and supply 55% of Mexico’s hydroelectric power. Chiapas is said to produce at least 5 percent of the nation's oil, 12 percent of its natural gas and 46 percent of its coffee, but very little of the profits on these are returned to the state for infrastructure and other development and Chiapas is therefore one of the poorest states in Mexico (Howard and Homer-Dixon, 1996). After Oaxaca, the population of Chiapas has the highest percentage of indigenous people, who comprise about 30% of the population with five main ethnic groups, Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Chol, Zoque and Tojolabal and about 7 other less populous groups. As a result, traditional agriculture involving maize, coffee and mixed crop cultivation remains, but because this agriculture is at a small scale and because of a lack of credit and technical support, it has become increasingly difficult for its farmers to compete in the global market for maize, coffee or other cash crops. This has resulted in the increased poverty of small farmers and resultant migration away from rural areas. Regional rural poverty is accentuated by limited access to state services such as hospitals and education. Where this is available, there is often discrimination against indigenous peoples. Education does not deal with indigenous cultures or the specific needs of rural peoples. Bilingual teachers may be allocated to rural schools, but often they do not speak the predominant local language or respect local knowledge and traditions. 1 Department of Botany, NUI, Galway, Galway, Ireland 2 El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México 3 El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México
15
Embed
Chiapas –social background - NUI Galway€¦ · Lessons from two contrasting organic growing systems –Chiapas, Mexico and Cuba Chiapas –social background Chiapas is the most
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Sheehy Skeffington M1, Morales, H.2 and Ferguson, B. G.3
Lessons from two contrasting organic growing systems –Chiapas, Mexico and Cuba
Chiapas –social background
Chiapas is the most southerly state in Mexico and as such, is geographically marginal to
the rest of the country. It borders on Guatemala and is therefore also at the frontier for
migration trails northwards from Central America, through Mexico and to the U.S. The
highlands of Chiapas are in the southern part of the state and supply 55% of Mexico’s
hydroelectric power. Chiapas is said to produce at least 5 percent of the nation's oil, 12
percent of its natural gas and 46 percent of its coffee, but very little of the profits on these
are returned to the state for infrastructure and other development and Chiapas is therefore
one of the poorest states in Mexico (Howard and Homer-Dixon, 1996).
After Oaxaca, the population of Chiapas has the highest percentage of indigenous people,
who comprise about 30% of the population with five main ethnic groups, Tzotzil, Tzeltal,
Chol, Zoque and Tojolabal and about 7 other less populous groups. As a result, traditional
agriculture involving maize, coffee and mixed crop cultivation remains, but because this
agriculture is at a small scale and because of a lack of credit and technical support, it has
become increasingly difficult for its farmers to compete in the global market for maize,
coffee or other cash crops. This has resulted in the increased poverty of small farmers and
resultant migration away from rural areas. Regional rural poverty is accentuated by
limited access to state services such as hospitals and education. Where this is available,
there is often discrimination against indigenous peoples. Education does not deal with
indigenous cultures or the specific needs of rural peoples. Bilingual teachers may be
allocated to rural schools, but often they do not speak the predominant local language or
respect local knowledge and traditions.
1 Department of Botany, NUI, Galway, Galway, Ireland2 El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México3 El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México
Thus marginalisation is common amongst the peoples of Chiapas. In addition,
exploitation of tenant farmers and persecution of those who have rebelled and retrieved
their land from rich land-owners (the Zapatista movement) has resulted in further
marginalisation and, in extreme cases, the generation of a refugee population within the
state of Chiapas.
In San Cristóbal de Las Casas, the main town of the Chiapas highlands, there is a large
population of migrant indigenous people, some fleeing persecution, others economic
migrants and yet others expelled from their own communities for differences in politics
or even religion (Collier, 1999; Ortiz, 2001). Such migrations and marginalisation can
precipitate the erosion and loss of indigenous knowledge in relation to health (traditional
healing and herbal use for humans and animals) and especially to agriculture. Traditional
methods of agriculture, by definition, made little or no use of chemicals, either as
fertilizers or as pesticides. Such chemicals belong to the last 60 years, arriving in Chiapas
only in the 1970s, and play no role in the previous millennia of (agri)cultural traditions.
However, nowadays there is an increasing use of chemicals, even when growing
indigenous varieties of crops. Chiapas is an interesting case study, as it still has a wealth
of indigenous cultural traditions, yet is subject to a capitalist federal government, which
espouses productivity and modernisation as primary agricultural aims, typified by
Mexico’s signing of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. Full
opening of basic grain markets is due in January 2008 and already a very large increase in
grain imports into Mexico followed the initial signing (de Ita, 2003).
Recent changes in maize production
The aims of Chiapas state and the federal government are to develop and modernise
Mexican agriculture, along the lines of the Green Revolution (Borlaug, 1983). In this
drive towards modernisation, it is inevitable that multinationals such as Monsanto stand
to benefit most from this. The maize industry is dominated by as few as 3-4
multinationals (e.g. Maseca, Cargill, ADM), all of which market their own few
commercialised varieties of maize, most of which are less nutritious, e.g. Maseca tortillas
are said to contain less calcium than those made from indigenous maize varieties (de Ita,
2007). Now with Mexico consolidating NAFTA, US varieties of maize, some transgenic,
and all requiring intensive cultivation, threaten to flood the market. Before the signing of
NAFTA, only 2% of maize consumed in Mexico was imported from the U.S. (Keppinger,
2000); by 2007, imports of cheap maize had increased to 26% (de Ita, 2007). There is
also the question of Mexico growing agrifuels such as maize for the US market, creating
an even more direct threat to food sovereignty. There is local resistance to this and to
transgenic crops. The recently passed, Ley de Bioseguridad y Organismos Genéticamente
Modificados 2004 (Biosecurity and Genetically Modified organisms Law) is referred to
in Chiapas as ‘La Ley Monsanto’ or the Monsanto Law, because it does little to ensure
the regulation of either transgenic foods or crops.
Banner decrying the ‘Ley Monsanto’ outside the municipal offices of the village of San Felipe, San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas.
In contrast, Chiapas and the neighbouring state of Oaxaca host a huge variety of
indigenous maize, related to ethnic diversity (Perales et al., 2005). In one Oaxaca region
alone, 152 indigenous varieties of maize have been identified (Guénette, 2007). Maize
has been sacred to the Mayan cultures of Central America for thousands of years (Anon.
2002). The maize god Yum Kax plays an important role in scenes depicted on Mayan
temples. Indigenous varieties of maize have been bred over millennia to suit different
soils, climates and food needs. Because they are bred for traditional agriculture, some are
more resistant to pests and do not require much chemical fertilizer addition (Anon. 2002).
A. B.A. Yum Kax, Mayan god of maize cultivation, life and abundanceB. Zapatista mural, Oventic, Chiapas
But such indigenous varieties by definition are not bred for export and often satisfy very
local tastes. As in many parts of the world, modernity and sophistication are associated
with white, refined foodstuffs. Thus the purple or multicoloured maize cobs, those that
produce blue tortillas and the cobs that are knobbly, not fat and smooth-looking, are no
longer sought after. The uniform white or yellow cobs are sold and the whitest of tortillas
are marketed, such as in the Maseca tortilla outlet that boasts that its maize is ‘Blanca de
origen’ or white by origin.
There are now government-driven incentives to encourage small farmers to switch to
more commercially-oriented agriculture. The recent scheme called Maíz Solidario or
solidarity maize is advertised on hoardings along Chiapas roads, targeting small farmers
with 1ha or less of land. It promises to pay a farmer 980 pesos (ca US$100) subsidy to
buy not only (commercial-type) maize seeds but fertilizers and herbicides (COCOSO,
2007). It further commits to allocating a package of investment of 4,800 pesos (ca US$
440) per hectare to fully cover the investment needed by the producer to obtain all the
inputs the market requires. As many small farmers are struggling to make a living in the
market-driven economy, this scheme will prove very attractive. However, once traditional
Technology transfer in both the Mexican and Cuban cases relies on horizontal
relationships among farmers. In the case of Chiapas, these structures evolved in the
almost complete vacuum of government support for organic production (with the
exception of coffee), while in Cuba they are integral to the State’s survival strategy. In
both cases, the most successful extension mechanisms rely upon respectful,
multidirectional communication amongst farmers, extensionists and scientists. This
extension strategy has its roots in the campesino a campesino model that began in
Tlaxcala, Mexico (Holt-Gimenez, 2005). In Chiapas, small groups of ranchers organise
their own field days, with support from researchers, for the exchange of information
about alternative forage, silvopastoral systems, rotational grazing and other technologies
that allow them to minimise purchased inputs. The Canasta Organica organises
workshops that facilitate information exchange among local growers and researchers that
have focused upon soil fertility, pest prevention and seed saving. In Cuba, the small
farmers’ association, ANAP, with support from the agroforestry technical association,
ACTAF, organises similar workshops for exchange of information, experiences with
technology adoption as well as the physical exchange of seed varieties. The individual
workshops are conducted at the local level but can be coordinated nationally to permit the
fluid flow of information from scientists to extensionists to farmers and back.
Conclusions
The Cuban system has the great advantage that it has full governmental support, allowing
for state investment in research and infrastructure. However, since Cuba is essentially
isolated from the trading systems of the world, rejecting (and rejected by) NAFTA, it has
to draw on its own resources and therefore there are parallels between it and regions, such
as the Chiapas highlands, that may not be able, or want, to rely on government support to
develop alternative methods of sustainable agriculture.
The Zapatista autonomous regions are perhaps best suited to reinforcing sustainable
agriculture as, not only do they reject neoliberalism, capitalist trade and multinational
control, but they are developing an autonomous system of education and regional
empowerment. They seek to reinforce indigenous cultures and with them, indigenous
knowledge concerning health, education and traditional agriculture. However, the
paradoxically sophisticated and advanced alternative technologies developed in Cuba
within a system that has of necessity had to adapt its agriculture outside the realm of
multinationals and agri-business can bring much-needed experience to renewed
sustainable agricultural systems of the autonomous regions.
But it is not necessary to declare a region autonomous to learn from Cuban sustainable
agricultural methods. Organic growers in any region can develop appropriate worm
composts, recycling systems and pest management, simply by testing Cuban methods and
adapting them to local conditions and needs. In the hinterland of San Cristóbal de Las
Casas, the organic growers are receiving support from the CAT to develop worm
composts, conserve trees and prevent pests. The coffee growers further afield also receive
support and also much-needed marketing advice and publicity, such that the organic
coffee from the Chiapas highlands can reach a ready export market well beyond the
frontiers of Mexico.
One aspect that has received some debate in Cuba, but is likely to become contentious in
Mexico, is the matter of organic accreditation. Cuba during the Special Period put its
priorities in feeding its people. It was not concerned with whether methods conformed to
export criteria for organic markets and therefore in extreme cases use is made of chemical
pesticides. Cubans have adopted the Latin American agroecological, and not the
European certifiable, organic model of production. This model embraces the APM
(agroecological pest management) approach of integrated environmental health and
focuses on producing sufficient yields to feed the people (Wright, 2005). However, in
Mexico, there is a strong tendency towards a centralised organic certification that would
favour large-scale producers and remove some of the emphasis on locally grown organic
produce, since industrial-scale growers may not find large enough markets to establish or
develop in the remoter regions of Mexico such as Chiapas (R. Nigh and L. Silva pers.
comm.).
While appropriate scale is key to agricultural sustainability (Pretty, 2002) small producers
are increasingly marginal to the Mexican economy and receive little government support
or attention (except when they take to the streets or take up arms). Cuba, in contrast,
since the fall of the Soviet Bloc, has increasingly oriented its agricultural support
structures toward small growers. Cuba has recognised that ensuring that small-scale
farming is a viable livelihood strategy makes ecological, economic and cultural sense. In
the face of deepening crisis brought on by climate change and increasing costly fossil-
fuel based inputs, many other countries may look to the Cuban agroecological transition
as a survival strategy to be emulated.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to all the organic growers in Chiapas and Cuba, who generously opened their lands to visits and gave of their time. The many Cuban organisations and institutions (including ACTAF, ANAP, INIFAT, Universidad de Las Villas) gave much help and support during a tour of Cuban systems organized by Desarrollo Alternativo in May, 2006 and for which we are especially indebted to Peter Rosset. The travel for Micheline Sheehy Skeffington was subsidised by the NUI, Galway Millennium Fund.
ReferencesAnon. (2000) Manual Technico de Organopónicos y Huertos Intensivos. Grupo Nacional de Agricultura Urbana, INIFAT, La Habana.
Anon. (2002) The role of women in the conservation of the genetic resources of maize. Guatemala. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) & International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome.
Borlaug, N. E. (1983) Land Use, Food, Energy and Recreation Lanham. MD: University Press of America, 20 pp.
COCOSO (2007) Presentan programa de “Maíz Solidario” a ejidatarios de la frailesca. Coordinación de Comunicación Social (COCOSO), Chiapas. Boletín: 2156.http://www.cocoso.chiapas.gob.mx/documento.php?id=20070526082550
Chollett, D.; Ferguson, B.; Furusawa, K.; Furusawa, M; Hollis, S.; Hollis; A, Kent, A.; Sheehy Skeffington, M.; Sugai, M.; Rosset, P.; and Martinez-Torres, M.E. (2007) The Cuban Agroecological Transformation: from Necessity to a Way of Life. Report of the Organic Farming and Sustainable Agriculture Research and Fact-Finding Delegation to Cuba, May 4-12 2006 organized by Desarrollo Alternativo, AC, Mexico. http://www.desal.org.mx/IMG/informe/FinalDESALreport.pdf
Collier, G. A. (1999) Basta! Land and the Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas. Food First Books, Chicago.
Funes, F. (2002) The organic farming movement in Cuba. In: F. Funes, L. García, M. Bourque, N. Pérez, and P. Rosset, (eds) Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance (pp.1-26). Food First, Oakland, CA.
Guénette, L. (2007) Scientists and Farmers Join Forces to Conserve Mexico's Maize Diversity. International Research Development Centre (IDRC) e-Bulletin, April, 2007. http://www.idrc.ca/es/ev-5269-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Henriquez, E. (2007) Advierten sobre riesgos para el ambiente y la salud. Piden cancelar el proyecto Maíz solidario en Chiapas. La Jornada, 18 de junio, 2007.
Holt-Gimenez, E. (2005) Campesino a Campesino: Voices from Latin America's Farmer to Farmer Movement for Sustainable Agriculture. Food First, Oakland, USA.
Howard, P. and Homer-Dixon, T. (1996) Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Chiapas, Mexico. Occasional Paper Project on Environment, Population and Security Washington, D.C. American Association for the Advancement of Science and the University of Toronto. http://www.library.utoronto.ca/pcs/eps/chiapas/chiapas1.htm
de Ita A. (2003) Los impactos socioeconómicos y ambientales de la liberalizacióncomercial de los granos básicos en el contexto del TLCAN: El caso de Sinaloa. Centro de Estudios para el Cambio en el Campo Mexicano y Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental
de Ita, A. (2007) Maíz, granos básicos y agricultura campesina. Contribución de panelista. Seminario Maíz, Agricultura Campesina y Soberanía Alimentaria. Unión Nacional de Organizaciones Regionales Campesinas Autónomas (UNORCA), San Crostóbal de Las Casa, 23 de Abril, 2007.
Keppinger, K.J. (2000) NAFTA Harms Mexican Farmers and Biodiversity. Global Pesticide Campaigner Volume 10, Number 3 and http://www.panna.org/resources/gpc/gpc_200012.10.3.08.dv.html, August, 2007.
Mas A. H. and Dietsch T. V. (2004) Linking shade coffee certification to biodiversity conservation: butterflies and birds in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecological Applications, 14(3) 642–654
Nova, A. (2002) Cuban agriculture before 1990. In: F. Funes, L. García, M. Bourque, N. Pérez, and P. Rosset, (eds) Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance (pp.90-108). Food First, Oakland, CA.
Ortiz, T. (2001). Never Again a World Without Us. The Ecumenical Program on Central America and the Caribbean (EPICA), Washington DC.
Perales H. R., Benz B. F, and Brush S. B. (2005) Maize diversity and ethnolinguistic diversity in Chiapas, Mexico PNAS vol. 102, no. 3, 949–954.
Pretty, J. (2002). Agri-culture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature. Earthscan, London, UK.
Rosset, P. (2002) Lessons of Cuban resistance. In: F. Funes, L. García, M. Bourque, N. Pérez, and P. Rosset, (eds) Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance (pp.xiv-xx). Food First, Oakland, CA.
Rosset P. and Benjamín M. (1994) The Greening of the Revolution. Cuba’s Experiment with Organic Agriculture. Ocean Press, Melbourne.
Sheehy Skeffington, M. (2006) Organic fruit and vegetable growing as a national policy: the Cuban story. Energy Bulletin / FEASTA, 21 Feb 2006. http://www.energybulletin.net/13067.html
Thomas, H. (2001) Cuba, The Pursuit of Freedom. Pan Macmillan, London.
Treto, E, García, M., Martínez Viera, R. and Febles, J. M. (2002) Advances in organic sol management In: F. Funes, L. García, M. Bourque, N. Pérez, and P. Rosset, (eds) Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance (pp.164-189). Food First, Oakland, CA.