Over the years, during lectures and many talks I have given, one question that always comes up is could we actually make the transition to sustainability or is it just a pipe-dream. Obviously the question usually comes from people who think a sustainable future is some half-life of a harsh future that we will pay for our environmental sins. If we choose to become sustainable while we still have the choice, then I say it will be a much better existence of what we currently live. If we wait until there is no other choice, then the transition will be a rough one indeed. Whatever choices we make, or do not make, in the near future, I am certain that the path to sustainability will become a reality. Will we choose it or will it be forced upon us?
In 1989, Cuba was a typical country that used an ever-growing industrial farming model with lots of plantation farming of exotic crops for lucrative exports. The country used the money from exports to import cheaper crops that they had farmed locally beforehand. They were using the U.S. Butz model of grow big or get out of the business of farming. The biggest problem for the Cuban economy was that it was a communist country and had been blockaded by the USA since 1960. Cuba survived because it got nearly all of its resources from its massive ally, the USSR. After the collapse of the USSR collective in 1989, Cuba found it’s supply lines completely severed! They were literally overnight an isolated modern system that had no resources except what was on hand within the country. It was a case study of what would happen to the rest of the world should the system of fossil fuel farming that we take for granted, ends suddenly when the fossil fuels and the associated industries are no longer available.
The Cuban population was about 11 million people and the food supplies would run out quickly. The only thing that President Castro could do was to tell his people to make-do with the meagre supplies they had on hand. It is said that necessity is the mother of invention, and Cuba certainly had to become inventive to solve the crisis. Rather than look to a technological option that didn’t exist, the population chose a socio-cultural idea – enforced sustainability based on the older model of peasant subsistence farming. Like any modern country, specialization and living in larger towns and cities was the norm with fewer farmers mostly utilizing industrial techniques. Of course, since the crisis was enforced upon Cuba, the luxuries and comforts they had enjoyed from technological imports were no longer present, so life was a little more spartan than before 1989. The solution to the crisis was Sustainable agriculture. Precedence was given to local food rather than cash crops. Without fuel, older less technological techniques had to be re-learned and schools were set up to teach a new generation how to farm. Everywhere that food could be planted was utilized, and small animals were raised in backyards. The reality of life – food – became the priority for the government agencies and all academic institutions. It took about 5 years to get everything working well and within 10 years ample food was available. Education was given priority and a whole generation of medical staff was trained that then served in other countries (often South America) in exchange for material needs and resources, especially oil. Although it was a rough transition, the situation in Cuba showed how with a determined will a self-sustaining system can be achieved. One of the key pieces of this success was attributable to the Cuban women, which like many cultures worldwide, tend to be the backbone of most communities. I recommend the book ‘Women Who Dig: Farming, Feminism and the Fight to Feed the World’ by Trina Moyles for anyone wanting to know more of the details.
Another case study is the city of Detroit, in Michigan. Detroit is a city that was racked by troubles during the 1960s and as a result, the economy (mainly the Auto industry) began to fade. While the suburbs did fine, the city center continued to decline. The city quickly became more of a depressed lower income wasteland than a thriving metropolis. One article I read estimated that some 40-sq miles of the city’s 140-sq miles were vacant lots and open ground. While it was called one of the worst food deserts in the U.S. – meaning that much of the local inner city population had no easy access to freshly produced crop foods – it also had to content with economic depression that became even worse with the 2008 economic crisis. Over the years before the 2008 crisis, the local population had already begun to do small levels of urban farming and guerilla gardening. It was a simple idea – if you want fresh produce, grow it yourself. Largely ignored by the government and financial scene, neighborhoods all thought the inner city had been challenged to look after themselves and to become self-sufficient. After the 2008 crisis, innovation suddenly (?) seemed to be the name of the game, and that game was Urban Farming and localized food systems. Numerous local organizations like ‘Keep Growing Detroit’ created a city that transformed itself into a food mecca. Investors recognized the opportunities and within a decade, Detroit became a garden city! Food hubs, access to fresh food throughout the area, frequent farmers markets, and a whole slew of new style local food restaurants has begun to revitalize the city.
In both these case studies, the political situation was mostly irrelevant to the plight of the people. When people are hungry they want food, not politicians bickering in how best to address the crisis. There are many case studies where people made the move towards sustainability after they got tired of waiting for the authorities to make the first move. I think that bureaucracies are often a hinderance to progressive thinking. Bureaucrats afraid of making bad decisions often end up making the same as before or no decisions at all – old minds as Daniel Quinn would say. The great change was not waiting for others to make the decisions but that people came together and built community with each other. People started thinking more about what WE need and less about what I want. In times of stress this becomes a more natural way of doing things. And this is not about this political system or that political system in order to get what I want, but a true sharing of ourselves. It is about recognizing that despite all the wonderful differences we all have, we keep trying to make everyone fit some sort of mold about how to do things. We need to start seeing those differences as a form of strength. TBC…….
0 Comments