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

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 revolution-

style 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 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.