"The real changes happens when necessity is a key motivation"

1. How does your ideal sustainable food system look like in the context of your country/region of expertise?

It would be a system in which farmers had the possibilty to participate in technological, political, and programmatic decision-making.

Cuba is an island where agriculture is an important sector. It is exposed to challenging, and extreme weather conditions. Most soils could be more productive. The farmers are facing problems with water and challenges of all kinds. They need spaces to exchange and seek joint solutions that are not too related to material resources.

Keep in mind that we are talking about a country in the midst of a major economic crisis and also facing economic sanctions for decades. These sanctions limit Cuba's access to international financial mechanisms and affect the ability of farmers and other stakeholders in the agricultural value chains to obtain funds for their development. In these conditions, the real scope for innovation lies in management, knowledge, and exchange, as well as in on-site experimentation of technological and organizational options. The key to identifying which options work is to empower farmers to participate in the selection.

2. Can you share with us your experience of supporting changes/ transitions towards sustainable food systems in a country/region? 

First, I would like to say that the transition in Cuba towards more sustainable agri-food systems has not come from the political will. It has been a response to an economic crisis and a total collapse of the high-input model of agricultural development that had embraced the country. This was a reflection of the Green Revolution model, which was characteristic of the time in the 70s, 80s. When the country ran out of Eastern Europe's supply of diesel, chemical fertilizers, machinery, and parts, the farmers had to face the challenge of producing food in totally organic conditions. This was not something that they were prepared for. Both farmers and researchers, scientists, academic institutions, decision-makers, and authorities had to learn, because all the procedures, systems, and technologies were designed for a different model. This came when necessity was a key motivation.

In 2008, the Cuban government, which owned or managed 80% of the land through its socialist state companies, made a significant decision. They distributed a large part of the idle, unused land from these inefficient enterprises to anyone willing to cultivate it. This led to a shift in the agricultural landscape, where small and medium farmers, previously a minority, now became the majority. We now have 500,000 farmers who manage 80% of the land and producing most of the food consumed in Cuba. This shift has empowered these farmers and demonstrated the potential of grassroots agricultural development.

Many of these farmers undertook agricultural activity for the first time after the opportunity to take over the land, so they are farmers or producers without experience. Some of the most eager ones might be able to receive some material help from the government. However, the government's capacity to provide this type of aid was very limited. Also, the science and innovation system was not prepared to work with so many farmers at the same time, and to provide technologies that adapt to each of them.

This led to very diverse situations. In this context certain institutions decided to change their role as researchers and start working with the farmers. The only way to define what the appropriate technology or option was in each microenvironment was to involve the farmers, give them participation. And instead of recommending the relevant technologies, they offered them access so that they could be the ones who decided, experimented and assessed in practice what worked and what did not.

These processes are quite cost-effective because when researchers offer knowledge, seeds, and things that the farmers can reproduce, these elements can spread through the networks of farmers, families, and traditions. 

3. In your view, what are the key triggers and success factors for change to happen? 

It was interesting that many of these new approaches emerged spontaneously and massively from the communities and the people in response to crises, and the government subsequently recognized, institutionalized, and incorporated them as national programs.

An exciting example of this is the organic agriculture movement that appeared when Cuba ran out of inputs and had to massively start looking for other options. It began as a movement in which people learned and engaged in exchange. I believe that this movement has been established as one of the most massive ones in the history of modern agriculture in the world. Once it emerged, the institutions and authorities regularized, and turned it into a government program. Similarly, the famous rice movement, and a series of other initiatives arose out of necessity and were established as the only practices at hand and adopted by the government.

I think that is why we sometimes expect institutions to be more rigid, slower, and more conservative and consider the ones that provoke and propose change as a little naive. It is difficult for institutions to take risks, but people are willing to create innovative solutions that work in practice, even if they have to disrupt and break the status quo a little. When these initiatives are up and running and applied on a massive scale, they can attract the attention of the authorities and contribute to the redesign of public policies for the economy and agriculture.

It might be difficult to identify the farmers who has the calling, leadership, or capacity for a specific task. There is a great temptation to put efforts and resources into a community, for example, in already identified leading farmers. But we should keep in mind that these leading farmers might have their leadership precisely in the context that we would like to change. This does not mean that we must renounce their help and collaboration, or even their mobilizing and innovative capacity. The mechanisms to involve or generate creative initiatives and tools must be participatory, massive, and give room for everything. This is where the new leaders will emerge, and also where the people who have a calling will appear.

Another thing is that you have to work in several places simultaneously. If we want to have an impact beyond one or two communities and actually move the status quo a little, we have to work in many places at the same time. This is impossible for a single project team. So, a good strategy, that also is difficult, involves giving up power and resources, and to ally with institutions or leaders and organizations in other places. 

In Cuba, we have some projects that take advantage of the universities that exist in the provinces and municipalities. These projects are decentralized, not the decisions but the funds. The funds were decentralized with the advantage of geographical scaling but with the risk of not doing what is expected, which is what the leaders of the projects and the initiatives are aware of. Even so, it ended up better than expected. So, do not expect that policies need to change to generate innovations. It could be the other way around.