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, Ireland
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
2
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 abundance
B. 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
varieties and farm methods are abandoned, they will be hard to retrieve and such
chemical-driven agriculture may not prove sustainable for small farms in competition
with industrialised and extensive maize producers, not only in central Mexico, but in the
USA. A petition of about 20 organisations and groups to the governor of Chiapas has
requested that this scheme be withdrawn, as it will add more chemicals to the
environment and is likely to affect producers’ health. They claim it is more designed to
benefit the suppliers such as Monsanto, BASF, DuPont and Dow AgroSciencies
(Henríquez, 2007). The government response, emphasising the large number of
beneficiaries, states that the claims are ill-founded. It is in fact, also open to the idea of
supporting some organic growing enterprises.
The Chiapas highlands are also one of the main Mexican coffee growing regions. Mexico
has one of the longest traditions of small-farmer cooperatives in Latin America and the
coffee-growers of Chiapas were among the first to seek organic and fair trade
certification for external markets (Mas and Dietsche, 2004). The relatively modern
country of Mexico, that aspires to first world credentials, is also host to nascent groups of
–largely urban middle-class- people who are increasingly aware that the extensive use of
chemicals damages not only the environment, but human health. In San Cristóbal and
Mexico City, a co-operative of consumers, such as ‘La Comida Sana y Cercana’ or
healthy and local food, has organised direct access to organic producers and their produce
and
belongs
to
a
national
network
of
twelve
organic
markets
(www.chapingo.mx/ciestaam/to/index.htm). In San Cristóbal, organic suppliers now sell
their produce to consumers in a weekly market. The emphasis is not only on the healthy
production and consumption of organic food, but on the globally more sustainable
alternative of supplying local food, thus reducing transport costs, ‘middle people’ (known
as coyotes in Chiapas) and wastage and providing a regular supply of fresh produce. It
also strengthens rural-urban ties and means that the consumer is more aware of the
origins of the food consumed. The benefits are mutual, as the farmers find a ready outlet
for their produce and receive the support of a local group of scientists (the CAT -Comité
de Apoyo Técnico). Emphasis is upon close contact between producers and consumers.
Concern for producers’ health is also a consideration, especially in Chiapas where
Paraquat and its derivatives are not only legal, but widely advertised and available.
Though few of the products have organic certification per se and the organisation
supports farmers who may still use some agrochemicals -but are committed to a transition
toward healthier ways of growing-, the system is aimed more towards local co-operation
for healthy food and its production as towards international recognition.
Organic growing as a way of life, a healthy choice or an act of rebellion?
The third aspect to the growing of organic produce in Chiapas is an act of rebellion. The
Zapatista rebellion that hit the headlines on January 1st, 1994, by taking over the state
buildings in San Cristóbal, coincided with the federal government’s signing of the first
part of NAFTA. The Zapatistas have formulated their own bill of rights, catering for the
needs of the indigenous peoples, so long expropriated and marginalised. Rejecting the
neoliberal capitalist agenda of the federal government (the ‘mal gobierno’ or bad
government), which the indigenous peoples see as exploiting them in the form of cheap
manual labour on farms and in cities, the Zapatista movement has set up a series of
autonomous regions. Here they have set up and are developing their own health system,
drawing as much as possible on local indigenous herbal knowledge; their own education,
in their own languages and concerning their needs and cultures; as well as developing
more
productive
chemical-free
agriculture
(dissociating
themselves
from
the
multinational agri-business). Thus the Zapatistas have espoused organic methods. They
are developing worm compost and intensive methods of multicropping, as a way of
maintaining their traditions, but also as a method of maintaining autonomy using
sustainable yet productive methods of cropping. Organisations such as foreign NGOs and
the local Desarrollo Económico Social de los Mexicanos Indígenas (DESMI –economic
and social development of Mexican indigenous peoples; www.laneta.org/desmiac/) give
technical advice and support through local workshops and visiting trainers. The Cuban
word for intensive, irrigated organic vegetable growing –organopónico- has crept into the
Zapatista parlance, possibly through viewing a documentary on organic growing in Cuba.
Lessons from Chiapas
One aspect of agriculture in Chiapas that is a clear advantage over many other countries,
is the fact that a lot of the traditional agriculture remains. Not only is there a strong
indigenous culture and a continuing reliance on traditional agricultural methods, but the
crops used and the varieties grown are very diverse and are adapted to the local
conditions. It may prove relatively easy to develop locally sustainable crop growing if
such knowledge and resources are tapped immediately, before migration, market forces
and government schemes such as Maíz Solidario eliminate them entirely. Whereas
colonial times developed cash-crop industries, and imported a variety of cultures
(Spanish, African and Asian) into most of the Caribbean and Latin America, the
indigenous cultures survived in the more remote mountains of Central and Latin America.
The strong solidarity of the Zapatista movement provides a focus for consolidating and
renewing such indigenous culture and knowledge.
The Cuban example
The Zapatista movement connects to the very different political climate of Cuba, where
the local production of organic vegetables became a necessity in order to feed Cuba’s
largely urban people (74% -Funes, 2002) after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989. After
the Cuban revolution of 1959, and following the instigation in 1960 of the US blockade
(reinforced in 1996 by the so-called Helms-Burton Act), a close alliance developed
between Cuba and the Soviet Union. The latter heavily subsidised a green revolutionstyle highly mechanised agriculture that depended on agri-chemicals (90% supplied by
the Soviet Union) and chemical- and food supplement-dependent breeds and varieties of
animals and crops (Nova, 2002). When the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba was left almost
literally destitute, since not only was the agriculture industrialised and heavily dependent
on Soviet imports, but, because it focused on cash crops such as sugar-cane and tobacco,
the food to feed the population was 55% subsidised imports (Rosset and Benjamin, 1994;
Funes, 2002; Rosset, 2002). This crisis has euphemistically been referred to in Cuba as
the Special Period.
Because the socialist Cuban system ensured immediate state involvement in all aspects of
food production following the crisis, it was able to rapidly decentralise and mobilise rural
agricultural institutes to pursue alternative methods of food production and pest control.
Some relevant research had already been initiated during the 1960s at institutes such as
INIFAT (Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Fundamentales en Agricultura Tropical –
institute for basic research in tropical agriculture) and the University of Las Villas in Villa
Clara. As a strategic tactic already in the 1980s, Raúl Castro had initiated research into
self-sustainability and organic food production for the army. But in 1989/90, the single
greatest challenge was to provide immediate food for a close to starving urban population
at a time when fuel and therefore transport was virtually non-existent. A very rapid
campaign to set up urban gardens and more extensive urban agriculture was put into
action, such that now, 15 years later, Havana itself supplies almost all its fresh vegetable
requirements (Chollett et al., 2007). Transport costs and wastage expenses have been
minimised by growing the produce in situ and selling it on-site at the gardens, as well as
at local agropecuario (vegetable and meat) markets. In this instance also, consumers have
direct access to the produce, which literally may not have to travel more than a few 100
metres from the garden to the kitchen (‘del cantero a su mesa’ or ‘from the organic bed to
your table’).
Lessons from Cuba
Researching the history of the Soviet-subsidised Cuban green revolution, it is clear that
several lessons can be learnt from Cuban agricultural history. The systematic organisation
of agrarian and agricultural reform resulted in an absolute dependence on agri-chemicals
and large-scale machinery, but Cubans themselves were beginning to realise that the very
resources such as soils and water were becoming degraded and that this intensive system
was not sustainable in the long-term (Nova, 2002). The system was artificially sustained
by Soviet support, but without this, the strong emphasis on exports was very dependent
on external market forces (Rosset and Benjamin, 1994). The lesson is a simple one; that a
heavy dependence on multinational-controlled chemicals and external market forces,
results in an economic precariousness and, without very stringent control, eventual
degradation of natural resources on which agriculture depends.
However, there are many other positive lessons to learn from the way in which Cuba
transformed the crisis into a very high self-sufficiency and sustainability in agriculture,
following intense human investment in research and deployment of natural and biological
assets. The direct benefits from the Cuban research can be passed on immediately as
technical information to various local producer groups and their support organisations
such as the CAT and DESMI in Chiapas. This does not have to be at government level,
but simply on-the-ground dissemination of information. Manuals produced within Cuba
for the Cuban system such as the technical manual on organoponics (Anon., 2000) and a
comprehensive text on pest control (Pérez, 2004), have relevance and application abroad,
especially within the tropics. However, local knowledge also needs to be developed, as
even within Chiapas, the climate varies from the cool temperate uplands down through
the warmer valleys to the hot and dry -or humid- lowlands. The pests will be different and
crop performance will vary with climate. In contrast, Cuba is an island, with its own
tropical climate and is isolated from many pests and insects of the American continent. It
is therefore as important to examine the infrastructures in Cuba and to select what might
be possible to set up in a regional situation, in countries that are likely to enjoy less state
support than in the Cuban socialist system.
The CREEs or Centros Reproductores de Entomofagos y Entomopatógenos (centres for
reproduction of entomophages –insect-eaters- and entomopathogens –insect diseases-) in
Cuba form a network of over 280 centres localised regionally and focused on local pest
problems (Chollett et al., 2007). The important point to remember is that Cuba is
resourceful, but has little access to funds. Thus the CREEs are often no more than two
tiny rooms, using simple culture mechanisms and cheap plant material substitutes for
expensive substrates such as agar. The methods are therefore very transportable to
countries or regions with low financial resources. One such CREE in urban Havana
cultures varieties of the fungus Trichoderma, some of which attack nematodes –common
soil pests in Cuba- and others can control other fungal plant diseases (Chollett et al.,
2007; Sheehy Skeffington et al. in prep.). The methodology needs to be developed locally
to isolate strains likely to counteract local pests, but with trained expertise, it is relatively
easy to apply in any region.
Cuba has also developed several types of organic fertilizers that supply both nitrogen and
phosphorus to the soil. These are based on microorganisms that fix nitrogen and release
chemically bound phosphorus respectively (Rosset and Bejamin, 1994, Treto et al., 2002;
Sheehy Skeffington et al. in prep.). These are freely available at very low cost within
Cuba, but are not marketed abroad. However, the technologies can be exported and it is
possible for local strains of bacteria to be isolated and cultured for similar functions in
soils of different climates. Research into recycling of agro-industrial waste, such as
sugar-cane stems, or waste liquid from the rum and citrus industry has shown that these
normally polluting effluents can be removed at source for use as nutritive crop fertilisers
(Treto et al., 2002).
Though Cuban traditional subsistence agriculture, forest lore, crop varieties, and food
culture gave way to colonial cash crop plantations and latterly to intensive ranch-style
farms and mono-crop agriculture (Rosset and Bejamin, 1994; Thomas, 2001; Sheehy
Skeffington, 2006) and though Cuba has never fully regained the original food variety
and traditional agricultural practices, it currently supports a highly effective system for
developing self-sufficient, low-intensity agriculture.
Factors in common to both Chiapas and Cuba
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 fossilfuel 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.
References
Anon. (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 liberalización
comercial 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.