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.