Friday, March 16, 2012

Cuba proves Coldstream Council wrong

Call it uncanny.
Or knowledge karma.

It happened two days after the Agricultural Open House in Coldstream at which the new RU10 and RU30 zones were unveiled.

A reprinted article from 2007 in the March/April 2012 issue of "North of 50" appeared on my desk today.
Flying in the face of our community's knee-jerk reaction to an agricultural application--also in 2007 (*more on that later) -- this 5-year old article's revelations equate to an Aha! Moment.

The late Dr. Paul Phillips wrote The Cuban Agricultural Revolution:  The Future of Agriculture?
(his profile:  Paul Phillips (1938-2008) was a long-time faculty member of the University of Manitoba community, a superb teacher, a widely-published researcher and author, a proud union member, an effective labour negotiator and arbitrator, a culture aficionado and opera singer, and a long-time board member of the Winnipeg Folk Festival).  His article is reprinted here:

Agriculture as it is now practised in North America is simply not sustainable.  The rising price of oil and gas means that farmers will not be able to afford to produce food at prices that consumers can afford to pay.  In the US, 85% of all water is absorbed by agriculture and many river systems are virtually running dry.

The most immediate threat to our food supply is the rising cost and increasingly insecure supply of oil and gas.  Industrial agriculture requires ten calories of fuel for every one calorie of food produced, not including the energy used in processing, packaging and shipping the final product.  In North America we currently consume 40% more energy than we receive from the sun, the only ultimate source of sustainable energy.  Most of that 40% comes from fossil fuels.  If the world's population is to be fed using only the sustainable part of solar energy, we can only support a fraction of the current population. 

Petroleum is not only the source of fuel for agricultural equipment, tractors, trucks and irrigation systems but also the feedstock for pesticides, herbicides and insecticides, while natural gas is the feedstock for commercial fertilizers.  In North America, industrial agriculture directly consumes over a sixth of all energy consumption.

What happens when we begin to run out of oil or when oil prices rise precipitously as demand rises faster than supply?

We do have an example:  Cuba after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.  Cuba initially adopted the industrial agricultural model:  large scale, mechanized collective farms, mono-cropping emphasizing exports of cash crops, heavy use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.  By the late 1980's Cuban agriculture had become highly reliant on Soviet supplies of cheap fuels and petrochemicals, and dependent on exports of cash crops -- sugar, coffee, tobacco and citrus fruits.  By 1989, 55% of food consumed in Cuba and 97% of animal feed grain were Soviet-subsidized imports.

By the 1980s Cuba had more tractors per hectare than California, increasing its dependence on cheap Soviet oil.  This was unsustainable with the fall of the Soviet Union.  Cuba's GDP fell 85% and food supplies collapsed.  The average Cuban lost 20 pounds, and malnutrition, especially among children, became prevalent.  Food consumption went from 3000 calories per day to 1900, the equivalent of skipping one meal.
"...50 - 80% of Havana's food is produced in the city..."
"Rooftop, urban and local organic gardens, some 200 in Havana and 100,000 country-wide, have become major producers."
"...there are 2,600 large scale organic gardens in cities, 3,600 smaller, intensive gardens, and 93,948 small urban family garden parcels."
Cuba faced a stark alternative.  It chose to revolutionize its agriculture rather than capitulate to American imperialism.  Industrial scale, energy and chemical-intensive production was converted to local, small scale, primarily organic agriculture.  Tractors were replaced by animal (oxen) power, more efficient on the smaller plots, particularly after 1993 when the large state-owned, Soviet-style farms were broken up and land distributed to the compesinos.  Some 200,000 oxen were trained to plow.

Secondly, local, renewable production, particularly in the urban areas, was promoted.  Some 50 - 80% of Havana's food is produced in the city, perhaps as much as 90% in and around Havana -- 300,000 tons of produce in 2004.  Rooftop, urban and local organic gardens, some 200 in Havana and 100,000 country-wide, have become major producers.  Officially, there are 2,600 large scale organic gardens in cities, 3,600 smaller, intensive gardens, and 93,948 small urban family garden parcels

These urban gardens also absorb greehouse gases and improve urban air quality, attract bees that produce honey, and also produce herbs to treat cancer, colds and diabetes.  Pesticides and insecticides are prohibited in urban centres.  All this drastically reduces the energy required to process and transport food to market.

The third transformatiom of Cuban agriculture was to organic, or near organic, farming.  Approximately 60% of non-sugar farmland in the country is now organic.  Given the Soviet collapse, Cuban scientists were propelled to develop biological pest control and soil fertility enhancement.  Plant fertilizers, intercropping, biological pest and weed control and vermicompost (worm castings, 10 times as effective as cow manure) have been developed, in addition to a national program of fruit tree planting.

The result -- a gradual return to an adequate and productive agricultural industry sufficient to maintain a sustainable, subsistence food supply.  Moreover, most of the food raised in Cuba is organic and therefore amongst the healthiest in the world.  The Cubans got their third meal-a-day back and have adequate calories to maintain a healthy diet, though they still want more meat and milk since the Cuban climate and soil does not support livestock."

Here's the Aha! Moment:  Coldstream Council would drool at the thought of nearly 94,000 small urban family garden parcels, especially those using rooftops!  And 3,600 smaller intensive gardens.


Oops!  Too bad, so sad.
This Coldstream Council--with RU10 and RU30--are going the other way...to larger parcels.

Re the earlier story comment:  (*more on that later):
Seems the seeds of RU10 and RU30 began here around the same time that Dr. Phillips first published his article in 2007.  A Buchanan Road application (among others) was submitted by applicants Asif Mohammed, Kashif Mohammed, Abid Mohammed, Nadeem Akhtar, and Razie Ali to subdivide the family's 100 acres into 7 family parcels for intensive agriculture.

The Agricultural Land Commission denied the request, stating intensive agriculture could more easily occur on the 100 acre parcel than on 7 parcels where housing pressures would reduce the land available for farming.

That 100-acre Buchanan Road parcel has been for sale for a number of years.
If a family with 7 adults can't make a go of it, how does this Council expect one family to farm a 74-acre parcel under the newly-imposed RU30 agriculture zone?


"So will Council have an Aha!Moment too?" asks Kia.


Maybe an  Oh No! Moment.

Thanks, North of 50! for your important reprint.

5 comments:

  1. You neglected to mention that Castro closed all of the golf courses in Cuba when he came to power. I would assume that beyond being a symbol of capitalist excess and a great waste of water, they would better serve the community as vegetable gardens!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find it curious that people won't use their names when they post comments like this. Anyone who wants to pull weeds can put vegetable gardens almost anywhere and I don't see a lot of poor high-rise apartment dwellers in Coldstream. As for the re-zoning of virtually all lands in Coldstream with no regard for private property rights, this council has effectively taken away all our ability to decide whether our families can contribute to the food base. I wonder if council has considered what might happen to farmland when the original farmers can't manage anymore? I would hazard a guess that no one can make a living on 20 acres (so I've been told by people that should know), but many people could manage small farm holdings with the help of families on smaller parcels. This is true community farming and probably more than anything, organic versus large scale monocropping. Thats what "feeds" those farm markets this council wants. Its a perfect match for that. Frankly I think the District (staff and council included) believe that they are the experts and the rest of us are all sheep. I'm very saddened to see that this "anonymous" resident is calling a family business which draws people to Coldstream to see how beautiful it is (plus a whole lot more benefits), a "symbol of capitalist excess" - how nice. I wonder what Kia has to say about that. Put your name on your comment and then make them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This and other issues contentious issues were known about before the last election. Coldstream residents still chose to re-elect most of the previous council. Are residents just not paying attention or do they only care once things actually affect them personally? This re-zoning bylaw along with the bylaw requiring off site works for doing home improvements will negatively affect many peoples property values. The current council now meets every monday and will no doubt be bringing forth an onslaught of new bylaws to infringe on personal and property rights. But as more than one of our councillors has said on more than one occasion "if you don't like it move". Maybe next election Coldstream residents will pay attention to what is going on but for the next three years we are going to get what we deserve for being uninformed and uninterested voters!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I own ALR land in Coldstream. I was informed and I was and still am interested - but at the expense of a great deal of time going through the municipal minutes and attending council meetings. When I speak to my fellow residents - many of whom own large parcels of agricultural land and are personally and financially affected by this agricultural plan - all I get is blank stares. People are not generally aware of the impact on their property values and their rights as landholders. This council has purposely left large numbers of people in the dark about what is going to happen here in Coldstream. Where is the Morning Star reporting on this issue? The wording of the information presented at the open house and in the ONE mail out so far is vague and confusing. This massive rezoning will affect property holders for years to come and there is ONE mail out? This is a massive change in the zoning and building regulations in Coldstream (farm home plate WILL affect building here - look it up). This is coming from the ALC in response to issues they have on the coast. Brought by the same government that gave us the HST. Small municipalities across the province are trying to pass the very same bylaws to restrict the rights of landholders who own land in the ALR. Pitt Meadows- Maple Ridge have rejected this agricultural plan not once - but twice. Their council and their farmers and landowners are able to work together. Why can we not achieve some level of co-operation from own own elected officials? It's hard enough to make a living here - without having to think your own council purposefully sets out to destroy what little you can create...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know your frustration. This current council is vague and frustrating. They have an agenda and will not be swayed no matter what us the taxpayer thinks. Just think of the time and effort and taxpayer monies that will be spent making right all the mistakes this council causes.

      Delete

Share YOUR thoughts here...