1AC
Plan Text: The United States Executive Branch should implement preferential trade
access for sustainably produced Cuban agricultural products
Our advantage is global agricultural crisis
Subpoint A: The Cuban model is failing
Cuban agriculture is at a critical turning point – capital shortages are causing a turn
away from ecological sustainability
M. Dawn King, Professor of Environmental Studies at Brown, 3/21/12
(Cuban Sustainability: The Effects of Economic Isolation on Agriculture and Energy,
wpsa.research.pdx.edu/meet/2012/kingmdawn.pdf)
Cuba needed an alternative agricultural model when foreign oil imports were cut off significantly at the end of the 1980s, and the partial
opening of the Cuban economy, focused on creating more autonomous agricultural cooperatives, in the 1990s helped
diversify food crops and set Cuba along a path of increased food security. The Cuban model was
initiated out of necessity, not because of any sort of Cuban environmental consciousness, yet better
environmental conditions went hand in hand with the new development strategy. Cuba learned the
limits of their agricultural model under their socialist economic system and it is in need of further
transformation in both the agriculture and energy sectors. A further opening of the economy to joint
ventures could help with updating the power grid and providing more sources of renewable energy
–
potentially expanding
Cuba’s potential for a more sustainable means of energy security. Further, Cuba
needs foreign investment to update agriculture facilities and take maximum advantage of
cogeneration and biofuel potential with sugarcane waste. The strong state control of farming
practices, used to successfully jumpstart the alternative model, has hit its limit. The Cuban
government must begin loosening its grips on the domestic economy to allow for more competition in
the farming sector. Despite the potential to become more sustainable with a purposive and focused opening of the economy, the recent
surge in joint venture investment on expanding domestic oil extraction, petrochemical facilities, and oil refinery infrastructure reveals a trend
toward decreasing environmental sustainability. Once
heralded as the world’s most sustainable country by coupling
environmental performance indicators with their human development scores, Cuba is slipping further away from this goal .
Perhaps the most distressing part of this current trend is that it took Cuba decades to create a national identity that embraced sustainable
environmental practices in both the energy and agricultural sector, and it seemingly took only a couple of years to derail these efforts.
Undoubtedly, conservation
efforts and sustainable education programs can only satiate citizen’s energy
desires to a certain point. In order to further the quality of life in the country, electric production must increase to
rural areas with little energy infrastructure and to Havana in order to spur foreign investment and
domestic small business growth. Cuba’s trade agreement with Venezuela is bringing in much-needed petroleum for electricity
production, but their dependence on a relatively unstable country for crude is trapping them into the same relationship that crippled their
economy in 1990 – impairing their original goal of self-sufficiency. Cuba
is at a turning point in their path toward
environmental sustainability, and the current need for immediate foreign capital and increased
energy production seem to be trumping its desire to achieve development sustainably. Cuba still has
enough centralized control to leap-frog dirty electric production for cleaner renewable forms of energy and the potential to guide development
strategies that emphasize investments in and research on renewable energy. It can
utilize its expertise on organic farming
strategies to increase sugar production in a much more ecologically friendly manner than their
monoculture approach in the 1970s and 80s. Decisions made in the next five years will demonstrate
whether Cuba embraces their newly created national identity as a society striving for sustainable
development or rejects the goal of sustainable development to increase short-term capital and energy
needs.
US exports, trade with China, and oil exploration with Venezuela are all pushing Cuba
to abandon sustainable and organic farming
Thompson & Stephens 12
Charles D. Thompson, Jr. is the curriculum and education director at the Center for Documentary Studies
and a lecturer in cultural anthropology at Duke University. - Alexander Stephens is an associate director
at the Marian Cheek Jackson Center for Saving and Making History – Visions for Sustainable Agriculture
in Cuba and the United States: Changing Minds and Models through Exchange http://www.southernspaces.org/2012/visions-sustainable-agriculture-cuba-and-united-states-changingminds-and-models-through-exchan
In much sustainable agriculture praise of Cuba, we do not hear that the country (like the U.S.) has confinement hog
and chicken houses, that major U.S. food conglomerates are already selling vast quantities of grain and other
products there, or that the embargo on trade with Cuba does not apply to U.S. agribusiness. We are not
told that thousands work in small farming because they have no other option. Agricultural work is popular in Cuba, in part, because statesupported income is drying up for hundreds of thousands of wage earners and there is often nowhere else to turn but to small-scale farms and
gardens. Yet much of Cuba’s former sugarcane land, once a volatile but powerful economic life-force, is idle and in poor condition. Even
with its admirable innovations in sustainable and organic farming, Cuba’s domestic agricultural
producers cannot meet the food needs of the island’s population; there is a real sense of food
insecurity. Looking for food (in dollar stores, on the black market, legally), is a major pre-occupation for much of the population. Cuba
imports at least 80 percent of its food, with much of it coming from its largest trading partners—China and Venezuela. This is hardly a
sustainable scenario, and while there does not appear to be starvation in Cuba, food shortages remain a problem, even as the government’s
meager food rationing is fading.7 However, household food insecurity is also on the rise in the U.S. today. According to the U.S. Department of
With Cuba
developing closer ties to the U.S. agriculture industry, increasing its trade with China, and, with
Venezuela’s help, poised to explore oil fields off its northern coast, we cannot assume that the island
nation will adopt a model of ecological sustainability. Resistance to the onslaught of ecologically
destructive development that looms on Cuba’s horizon will come through cooperation and exchange,
not isolation.
Agriculture at least 14.5% of U.S. households were food insecure at some time during the year in 2010, up from 11% in 2005.8 –
Cuba is reverting back to industrial methods – this eliminates a critical model for
global agroecology necessary to adapt to future challenges and prevent mass
shortages
Raj Patel, Fellow at the Institute for Food and Development Policy, 2012
(April, What Cuba Can Teach Us About Food and Climate Change,
www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2012/04/agro_ecology_lessons_from_cuba_
on_agriculture_food_and_climate_change_.single.html)
The Studebakers plying up and down Havana’s boardwalk aren’t the best advertisement for dynamism and innovation. But if you want to
see what tomorrow’s fossil-fuel-free, climate-change-resilient, high-tech farming looks like, there are
few places on earth like the Republic of Cuba. Under the Warsaw Pact, Cuba sent rum and sugar to the red side of the Iron Curtai/n.
In exchange, it received food, oil, machinery, and as many petrochemicals as it could shake a stick at. From the Missile Crisis to the twilight of
the Soviet Union, Cuba was one of the largest importers of agricultural chemicals in Latin America. But when the Iron Curtain fell, the supply
lines were cut, and tractors rusted in the fields. Unable
to afford the fertilizers and pesticides that 20th-century
agriculture had taken for granted, the country faced extreme weather events and a limit to the land
and water it could use to grow food. The rest of the world will soon face many of the same problems :
In the coming decade, according to the OECD, we’ll see higher fuel and fertilizer costs, more variable climate
patterns, and limits to arable land that will drive cereal prices 20 percent higher and hike meat prices by 30 percent—
and that’s just the beginning. Policymakers can find inspirational and salutary ideas about how to confront this
crisis in Cuba, the reluctant laboratory for 21st-century agriculture . Cuban officials faced the crisis clumsily. They didn’t know how to
transform an economy geared toward sweetening Eastern Europe into one that could feed folk at home. Agronomists had been schooled in the virtues of large-scale industrial collective
agriculture. When the “industrial” part became impossible, they insisted on yet more collectivization. The dramatic decline in crop production between 1990 and 1994, during which the
average Cuban lost 20 pounds, was known as “the Special Period.” Cubans have a line in comedy as dark as their rum. Cuban peasants proved more enterprising than the government and
demanded change. First, they wanted control over land. The state had owned 79 percent of arable land, and most was run in state cooperatives. Initially the government refused to listen, but
the depth of the crisis and the demands of organized farmers created some space for change. Through reform, the government decentralized farm management. The land remains in
government hands, but now it is also available with “usufruct” rights to tenants, who can invest in the soil and pass the land onto their children. But that took the farmers only so far. So some
of the country’s agronomists, plant breeders, soil scientists, and hydrologists (Cuba has 2 percent of Latin America’s population but 11 percent of its scientists) found themselves being put to
With no
fertilizer, pesticide, or herbicide, and no means to import substitute chemicals, many in the scientific community
landed on “agro-ecology.” To understand what agro-ecology is, it helps first to understand why today’s agriculture is called
“industrial.” Modern farming turns fields into factories. Inorganic fertilizer adds nitrogen, potassium, and
phosphorous to the soil; pesticides kill anything that crawls; herbicides nuke anything green and
unwanted—all to create an assembly line that spits out a single crop. This is modern monoculture.
Agro-ecology uses nature’s far more complex systems to do the same thing more efficiently and
without the chemistry set. Nitrogen-fixing beans are grown instead of inorganic fertilizer; flowers are used to attract beneficial
insects to manage pests; weeds are crowded out with more intensive planting. The result is a sophisticated polyculture—that is, it
use by Cuban peasants in the fields. Their task: figure out how to farm without the fossil-fuel products upon which the country’s agricultural systems had become dependent.
produces many crops simultaneously, instead of just one. In Cuba, peasants encouraged scientists to adopt this approach. One of their most important ideas, borrowed from elsewhere in
Central America, was a model of knowledge diffusion called “Campesino a Campesino”—peasant to peasant. Farmers share their results and ideas with one another and with scientists, which
has helped agro-ecological systems spread. So has it worked? That’s up for debate. The Cuban vice minister of the economy and planning ministry reportedly said in February 2007 that 84
percent of the country’s food was imported—not terribly encouraging, if we are looking at Cuba to foretell our agricultural future. But a recent paper by UC-Berkeley’s Miguel A. Altieri and the
University of Matanzas’ Fernando R. Funes-Monzote suggests that while the country still imports almost all its wheat (a crop that doesn’t do well in the Caribbean), it now produces the
majority of its fresh fruit and vegetables—even much of its meat. In 2007, Cubans produced more food while using one-quarter of the chemicals as they did in 1988. Agro-ecology is
particularly valuable in years when disaster strikes the island. After Hurricane Ike flattened Cuba in 2008, a research team found that both traditional plantain monocultures and agroecological farms were devastated. But there were striking differences: Monocultures lost about 75 percent of tree cover, where agro-ecological farms lost 60 percent. On agro-ecological farms,
tall plantains—a staple of the Caribbean diet—were often righted by the families working the land. By contrast, on conventional farms, the seasonal labor force arrived on the scene too late to
save the plants. When trees were beyond salvage in the polyculture farms, crops lower down in the canopy thrived. By contrast, in the monoculture, the only things that flourished in the gaps
between trees were weeds. About four months after the storm, strongly integrated agro-ecological farms were nearly back to full production. It took conventional farms an additional two
Yet all is not well in the Cuban food system. For many, especially government officials, choosing agroecology wasn’t a red-blooded Communist decision. It was a practical one. They are quite ready for an industrial-agricultural relapse if the
months to spring back.
occasion arises. Recently, they have had an unlikely enabler: Hugo Chávez. In
exchange for the 31,000 Cuban doctors who are treating
receives 100,000 barrels of oil a day, plus a great deal of chemical fertilizer. As a result,
the parts of the country untouched by agro-ecology are starting to spray and sow like it’s the 1980s again . At
odds aren’t just two different farming systems, but two different social approaches. On one hand, in
Cuba and around the world, is industrial agriculture. In this top-down, command-and-control model, knowledge, fertilizers, seed, and
land are all fed into the black box that is the farm. Wait long enough, and food comes out the other end. On the other hand, there’s
agro-ecology, in which farmers are innovators and educators, soil can be built over generations, and
the natural environment can be bent with, rather than broken. Climate change has already reduced
global wheat harvests by 5 percent, and food prices are predicted to double by 2030. Cuba’s example
is both instructive and frustrating. Technical innovations in Cuban agriculture point to the kinds of thinking
Venezuelans, Cuba
needed to address the future: moving away from monoculture and understanding the value of
complex, integrated systems. The trouble is that this also means a change in the mindset of governments and scientists schooled in
last century’s agriculture. If that’s a lesson the rest of the world is ready for, Cuban peasant organizing could well light the
way to the future , even if their automobiles are stuck in the past.
Subpoint B: Impacts
Global food shortages risk extinction from starvation and war
Julian Cribb, Professor in Science Communication at the University of Technology Sydney, 2010
(Julian, principal of JCA, fellow of the Australian Academy
of Technological Sciences and Engineering, “The Coming Famine: The
Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do to Avoid It”, pg 10
The character of human conflict has also changed: since the early 1990s, more wars have been triggered by
disputes over food, land, and water than over mere political or ethnic differences. This should not surprise us: people
have fought over the means of survival for most of history. But in the abbreviated reports on the nightly media, and even in the rarefied realms
of government policy, the focus is almost invariably on the players—the warring national, ethnic, or religious factions—rather than on the play,
the deeper subplots building the tensions that ignite conflict. Caught up in these are groups of ordinary, desperate people fearful that there is
no longer sufficient food, land, and water to feed their children—and believing that they must fight "the others" to secure them. At the same
time, the number of refugees in the world doubled, many of them escaping from conflicts and famines precipitated by food and re- source
shortages. Governments in troubled regions tottered and fell. The
coming famine is planetary because it involves both the
immediate effects of hunger on directly affected populations in heavily populated regions of the world in the next forty years—and also the
impacts of war, government failure, refugee crises, shortages, and food price spikes that will affect
all human beings , no matter who they are or where they live. It is an emergency because unless it is solved, billions
will experience great hardship, and not only in the poorer regions. Mike Murphy, one of the world's most progressive dairy
farmers, with operations in Ireland, New Zealand, and North and South America, succinctly summed it all up: "Global warming gets all
the publicity but the real imminent threat to the human race is starvation on a massive scale . Taking a
10-30 year view, I believe that food
race has ever faced.
shortages, famine and huge social unrest are probably the greatest threat the human
I believe future food
shortages are a far bigger world threat than global warming."
Indicts of organic agriculture are flawed and biased – the most qualified and
comprehensive studies show that organic agriculture creates higher yields
Mae‐Wan Ho, Professor of Physics at Catania, 07
(Scientists Find Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World & More, www.isis.org.uk/organicagriculturefeedtheworld.php)
Two usual objections are levelled against the proposal that organic agriculture can feed the world.
Organic agriculture, opponents claim, gives low yields, and there isn’t enough organic fertilizer to
boost yields substantially. A team of scientists led by Catherine Badgley at the University of Michgan Ann Arbor in
the United States has now refuted those common misconceptions about organic agriculture. Organic agriculture gives
yields roughly comparable to conventional agriculture in developed countries and much higher yields in developing countries; and
more than enough nitrogen can be fixed in the soil by using green manure alone. The research team compared
yields of organic and conventional agriculture (including low-intensive food production) in 293 examples, and estimated the average yield ratio
(organic versus non-organic) of different food categories for the developed and the developing world. With the average yield ratios, they
modelled the global food supply that could be grown organically in the current agricultural land base. The results indicate that organic
methods could produce enough food to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even
larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base. They also estimated the amount of nitrogen
potentially available from nitrogen fixation by legumes as cover crops. Data from temperate and tropical agroecosystmes suggest that they
could fix enough nitrogen to replace all of the synthetic fertilizer currently in use. The report concluded: “These results indicate that organic
agriculture has the potential to contribute quite substantially to the global food supply, while
reducing the detrimental environmental impacts of conventional agriculture.” Price of the Green Revolution
The researchers are quick to point out that the Green Revolution has been a stunning technological achievement; for even with the doubling of
the human population in the past 50 years, more than enough food has been produced to meet the caloric requirements for all; if food were
distributed more equitably. However, there is great uncertainty about the future, given the projection of 9 to 10 billion in the human
population by 2050 and the global trends of increasing meat consumption (requiring much more grain) while grain harvests are decreasing.
They have not mentioned the additional pressure on agricultural production from the growing demand for biofuels [2] (Biofuels:
Biodevastation, Hunger & False Carbon Credits, SiS 33), which has already created “a looming food crisis” worldwide, as John Vidal reports in
detail in The Guardian [3]. The climate extremes - droughts and floods – brought on by climate change are almost certainly making matters a
great deal worse. Much of the current reduction in grain harvests is due to environmental degradation from decades of unsustainable practices
of the Green Revolution: massive soil erosion, loss of soil fertility, loss of agricultural land through salination, depletion of water tables and
increased pest resistance. Other environmental costs of the Green Revolution include surface and groundwater contamination, release of
greenhouse gases (especially through deforestation and conversion into agricultural land), and loss of biodiversity. Many have argued that
more sustainable methods of food production are essential. Notably, the
Independent Science Panel consisting of dozens
of scientists from around the world have issued a report in 2003, calling for a comprehensive shift to
sustainable, organic agriculture [4] (The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World). It is no coincidence that those most
opposed to organic agriculture are also the strongest supporters of genetically modified crops, and
they see the recent rise in demand for biofuels as yet another opportunity to promote a technology
that has failed miserably to deliver its promises in 30 years, while evidence of serious health risks continue to emerge [5] (No to
GMOs, No to GM Science, SiS 35).
Industrial agriculture is the primary cause of global warming – extinction is inevitable
without a greater diffusion of organic agricultural practices
Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, 10/7/10
(Agriculture and Human Survival: The Road Beyond 10/10/10,
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/07-9)
Despite decades of deception and mystification, a critical mass at the grassroots is waking up. A new generation of food and climate activists
understands that greenhouse gas-belching fossil fuels, industrial
food and farming, and our entire global economy pose a
mortal threat , not just to our present health and well being, but also to human survival . Given the severity of
the Crisis, we have little choice but to step up our efforts. As 35,000 climate activists at the historic global climate summit in April of 2010 in Cochabamba, Bolivia shouted, “We must change
the System, not the climate.” “Changing the System,” means defending our selves, the future generations, and the biological carrying capacity of the planet from the ravages of “profit at any
cost” capitalism. “Changing the System,” means safeguarding our delicately balanced climate, soils, oceans, and atmosphere from the fatal consequences of fossil fuel-induced climate change.
“Changing the System” means exposing, dismantling, and replacing, not just individual out-of-control corporations like Monsanto, Halliburton, and British Petroleum, and out-of-control
technologies like gene-altered crops and mountaintop removal; but our entire chemical and energy-intensive industrial economy, starting, at least for many of us, with Food Inc.’s destructive
system of industrial food and farming. “Changing the system,” means going on the offensive and dismantling the most controversial and vulnerable flanks of our suicide economy: coal plants,
gas guzzlers, the military-industrial complex, and industrial agriculture’s Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and factory farms. Frankenfoods and Industrial Agriculture Highly subsidized
GM crops - comprising 40% of U.S. cropland, and 10% of global crops - and the junk food and unhealthy processed foods and beverages derived from them, are the most profitable and
strategically important components of industrial agriculture. Taxpayer subsidized GMOs and factory farms allow Food Inc. (corporate agribusiness) to poison the public and pollute the
atmosphere and environment. Subsidized GM and monoculture crops - along with cheap soy, corn, and chemical additives - allow the McDonald’s, Cargills and Wal-Marts of the world to sell
pesticides and chemical fertilizers are
the cash cows and vanguard of a global farming and food distribution system that consumes
prodigious amounts of fossil fuels and emits tremendous amount of climate-destabilizing greenhouse
gases. GMOs provide the ideological and technological foundation for the factory farms and mono-crop plantations that are
destroying the climate, the soils, and the planet. Either we bring them down, or they will bring us
down. According to Monsanto and the global war on bugs, war on biodiversity, chemical farming lobby, patented GMO seeds, crops, biofuels, animals, and trees can miraculously kill
junk food, meat, and beverages at much lower prices than healthy, non-chemical foods. GMO crops and their companion
pests, reduce pesticide use, boost yields, alleviate world hunger, reduce petroleum use, and help farmers adapt to drought, pestilence, and global warming. As a growing "Millions Against
Monsanto" corps understand, the Biotech Bullies are dangerous liars. Industrial agriculture, GMOs, and so-called cheap food have destroyed public health and wrecked the environment.
Genetically Modified (GM) crops have neither reduced pesticide use, nor chemical fertilizer use. They kill pests, but they also give rise to superweeds and superpests. GM crops, like all
industrial monoculture crops, use vast amounts of fossil fuel and water. GMO and their companion chemicals (pesticides and chemical fertilizers) destroy the greenhouse gas sequestering
capacity of living soils and kill off non-patented plants, trees, and animals. Most GM crops, 90% of which are derived from Monsanto’s patented seeds, are genetically engineered to boost the
sales of toxic pesticides such as Roundup, and thereby increase toxic pesticide residues in foods. GM crops do not produce higher yields, nor provide more nutritious foods. GM soybeans, the
most important industrial agriculture crop, along with corn, consistently have lower yields, while chemical-intensive GM food crops contain far fewer vitamins and essential trace minerals than
organic foods. Nor has gene-splicing (unlike organic farming) produced plant or tree varieties that can adapt to global warming. Nonetheless GM crops remain Food Inc.’s propaganda “poster
child.” The unfortunate bottom line is that 65 years of chemical and GM agriculture, a literal World War Three on public health, rural communities, and the environment, have nearly killed us.
Humans and our living environment have been poisoned, not only by pesticides, nitrate fertilizers, greenhouse gas pollution, and contaminated factory-farmed food, but also by the mutant
organisms and patented chemical residues that accompany these genetically modified foods and crops. Either we make the Great Transition to a relocalized economy whose foundation is
renewable energy and solar-based (as opposed to GMO and petroleum-based) organic food and fiber production, or else we are destined to burn up the planet and destroy ourselves. Despite
mass media brainwashing (“Better living through chemistry… Monsanto can feed the world… GMO crops and trees can reduce fossil fuel use and climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases…”),
consumers and farmers are seeing through the lies. Defying the efforts of the powerful industrial agriculture/biotech lobby, a growing number of activists and concerned citizens are
connecting the dots and taking action. As a consequence Monsanto has become one of the most hated corporations on earth. A critical mass of research reveals that genetically engineered
crops, now covering almost 40% of U.S. cropland (173 million acres of GM crops) and 10% of global farm acreage (321 million acres), pollute the environment, kill essential soil microorganisms, generate superweeds and pests, decrease biodiversity, aid and abet seed monopolization, encourage massive use of toxic pesticides and chemical fertilizer, spew out massive
amounts of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases, and seriously damage animal and human health. Injecting genetically engineered hormones into dairy cows to force them to give more milk
is reckless and dangerous. Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone rBGH, now marketed by Eli Lilly, increases the risks of breast, prostate, and colon cancer for those who
consume the milk. It also severely damages the health of the cows. Residue levels of Monsanto’s toxic herbicide, Roundup, found routinely in non-organic foods, destroy animal and human
reproductive systems. Haphazardly ramming indeterminate amounts of patented foreign DNA, bacteria, and antibiotic-resistant genes into the genomes of already non-sustainable energy and
pesticide-intensive crops and foods (corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa) in order to increase the sales of Monsanto or Bayer's GMO companion herbicides or to facilitate monopoly
control over seeds by the Gene Giants is not only non-sustainable, but criminal. Rejection of this out-of-control GM technology is a major driving force in the rapid growth of organic food and
farming, as well as the growing demand for mandatory safety testing and labeling of GMOs. In the EU, where GM-tainted foods must be labeled, GMO crops are almost non-existent (although
Local and organic food production is now
growing faster than GMO/industrial food and farming; improving public health and nutrition, reducing fossil fuel use and
greenhouse gas pollution, sequestering billions of tons of CO2 in the soil (up to seven tons of CO2 per acre per
year), and providing economic survival for a growing number of the world’s 2.8 billion small farmers and rural villagers. The growth of
organic agriculture and relocalized food and farming systems are encouraging, but obviously organics
are still the alternative, rather than the norm. As we enter into the Brave New World of global warming and climate chaos,
large quantities of GM animal feed are still being imported into the EU from the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Argentina).
many organic advocates are starting to realize that we need to put more emphasis, not just on the health and pollution hazards of GMOs; but
rather we need to broaden our efforts and mobilize to abolish the entire system of industrial food and farming. As we are now learning,
industrial agriculture and factory farming are in fact a primary (if not the primary ) cause of global warming
and deforestation . Even if were able to rip up all of Monsanto’s GMO crops tomorrow, business as usual, chemical-intensive,
energy-intensive industrial agriculture is enough to kill us all. On the other hand, if we’re going to take down industrial agriculture, one of
the best ways to leverage our efforts is to target the most hated corporation in the world, Monsanto. Besides contaminating our food, destroying the environment and moving, by any means
necessary, to gain monopoly control over seeds and biodiversity, Monsanto and their Food Inc. collaborators are guilty of major “climate crimes.” These crimes include: confusing the public
about the real causes of (and solutions to) global warming; killing the soil’s ability to sequester greenhouse gases; releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane and nitrous
oxide) into the atmosphere; promoting bogus industrial corn and soy-derived biofuels (which use just as many fossil fuel, and release just as many greenhouse gases as conventional fuels);
monopolizing seed stocks and taking climate-friendly varieties off the market; promoting genetically engineered trees; and last but not least, advocating dangerous geoengineering schemes
such as massive GM plantations of trees or plants than reflect sunlight. The negotiators and heads of state at the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate negotiations abandoned the summit
with literally no binding agreement on meaningful greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and black carbon) reduction, and little or no acknowledgement of the major role
that industrial food and farming practices play in global warming. Lulled by the world’s leaders vague promises to reduce global warming, and still believing that new technological
breakthroughs can save us, the average citizen has no idea how serious the present climate crisis actually is. A close look at present (non-legally binding) pledges by the Obama Administration
and other governments to reduce GHG pollution shows that their proposed, slightly modified “business as usual” practices will still result in a disastrous global average temperature increase of
3.5 to 3.9 C by 2100, according to recent studies. This will not only burn up the Amazon, the lungs of the planet, but also transform the Arctic into a region that is 10 to 16 degrees C warmer,
releasing most of the region’s permafrost carbon and methane and unknown quantities of methane hydrates, in the process basically putting an end to human beings’ ability to live on the
planet. We are literally staring disaster in the face. In the follow up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit this year, which is to be held in Cancun, Mexico (Nov. 29-Dec. 10) we, as members of
global civil society, must raise our voices loud and clear. We must make it clear that we are years, not decades away, from detonating runaway feedback mechanisms (heating up and burning
Although transportation,
industry, and energy producers are obviously major fossil fuel users and greenhouse gas polluters, not enough people
understand that the worst U.S. and global greenhouse gas emitter is “Food Incorporated,” transnational industrial food
up the Amazon and melting the Arctic permafrost) that can doom us all. Industrial Food and Farming: A Deadly Root of Global Warming
and farming , of which Monsanto and GMOs constitute a major part. Industrial farming, including 173 million acres of GE soybeans, corn,
cotton, canola, and sugar beets, accounts for at least 35% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (EPA’s ridiculously low estimates range from 7% to
12%, while some climate scientists feel the figure could be as high as 50% or more). Industrial agriculture, biofuels, and non-sustainable
cattle grazing - including cutting down the last remaining tropical rainforests in Latin America and Asia for GMO and chemical-intensive animal
feed and biofuels - are
also the main driving forces in global deforestation and wetlands destruction, which
generate an additional 20% of all climate destabilizing GHGs. In other words the direct (food, fiber, and biofuels
production, food processing, food distribution) and indirect damage (deforestation and destruction of wetlands) of industrial
agriculture, GMOs, and the food industry are the major cause of global warming. Unless we take down Monsanto and
Food Inc. and make the Great Transition to a relocalized system of organic food and farming, we and our
children are doomed to reside in Climate Hell.
A transition to organic agriculture is necessary to prevent ocean acidification
Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, 10/7/10
(Agriculture and Human Survival: The Road Beyond 10/10/10,
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/07-9)
Because U.S farm and forest soils are so degraded from chemical-intensive, mono-crop farming practices and
over-logging they are only able to absorb and store half (or less) of the carbon matter than they would be
capable of if they were organically managed. As a result of this reckless mismanagement, the
atmosphere and the oceans are absorbing the bulk of the greenhouse gases that normally would be
absorbed by farmland, rangeland, and forests. This has led to a catastrophic excess of GHGs in both the
oceans and the atmosphere. This excess has caused changes in climate and extreme fluctuations in weather; including
droughts and torrential flooding. It also causes oceanic acidification, oceanic dead zones, and dramatic declines in
fish and crustacean populations.
Ocean acidification causes extinction
Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow at the American Progress, 2/18/10
(Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a
mass extinction of marine species occurred” http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/18/oceanacidification-study-mass-extinction-of-marine-life-nature-geoscience/#more-19529)
Today, Ridgwell and Daniela Schmidt, also of the University of Bristol, are publishing a study in the journal Nature Geoscience, comparing what happened in the oceans 55 million years ago to
The acidification of the ocean today is
bigger and faster than anything geologists can find in the fossil record over the past 65 million years .
Indeed, its speed and strength — Ridgwell estimate that current ocean acidification is taking place at ten times the rate that preceded
what the oceans are
experiencing today. Their research supports what other researchers have long suspected :
the mass extinction 55 million years ago — may
spell doom for many marine species, particularly ones that live in the deep
ocean. “This is an almost unprecedented geological event,” says Ridgwell. When we humans burn fossil fuels, we pump carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere, where the gas traps heat. But much of that carbon dioxide does not stay in the air. Instead, it gets sucked into the oceans.
If not for the oceans, climate scientists believe that the planet would be much warmer than it is today. Even with the oceans’ massive uptake of
CO2, the past decade was still the warmest since modern record-keeping began. But storing
come at a steep cost: It changes
carbon dioxide in the oceans may
the chemistry of seawater.
At the ocean’s surface, seawater typically has a pH of about 8 to 8.3 pH units. For
comparison, the pH of pure water is 7, and stomach acid is around 2. The pH level of a liquid is determined by how many positively charged hydrogen atoms are floating around in it. The more
hydrogen ions, the lower the pH. When carbon dioxide enters the ocean, it lowers the pH by reacting with water. The carbon dioxide we have put into the atmosphere since the Industrial
Revolution has lowered the ocean pH level by .1. That may seem tiny, but it’s not. The pH scale is logarithmic, meaning that there are 10 times more hydrogen ions in a pH 5 liquid than one at
pH 6, and 100 times more than pH 7. As a result, a drop of just .1 pH units means that the concentration of hydrogen ions in the ocean has gone up by about 30 percent in the past two
centuries. To see how ocean acidification is going to affect life in the ocean, scientists have run laboratory experiments in which they rear organisms at different pH levels. The results have
been worrying — particularly for species that build skeletons out of calcium carbonate, such as corals and amoeba-like organisms called foraminifera. The extra hydrogen in low-pH seawater
These results are worrisome, not just for
the particular species the scientists study, but for the ecosystems in which they live. Some of these
vulnerable species are crucial for entire ecosystems in the ocean. Small shell-building organisms are food for invertebrates, such as
reacts with calcium carbonate, turning it into other compounds that animals can’t use to build their shells.
mollusks and small fish, which in turn are food for larger predators. Coral reefs create an underwater rain forest, cradling a quarter of the ocean’s biodiversity. But on their own, lab
experiments lasting for a few days or weeks may not tell scientists how ocean acidification will affect the entire planet. “It’s not obvious what these mean in the real world,” says Ridgwell.
One way to get more information is to look at the history of the oceans themselves, which is what Ridgwell and Schmidt have done in their new study. At first glance, that history might suggest
we have nothing to worry about. A hundred million years ago, there was over five times more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the ocean was .8 pH units lower. Yet there was plenty of
calcium carbonate for foraminifera and other species. It was during this period, in fact, that shell-building marine organisms produced the limestone formations that would eventually become
the White Cliffs of Dover. But there’s a crucial difference between the Earth 100 million years ago and today. Back then, carbon dioxide concentrations changed very slowly over millions of
years. Those slow changes triggered other slow changes in the Earth’s chemistry. For example, as the planet warmed from more carbon dioxide, the increased rainfall carried more minerals
from the mountains into the ocean, where they could alter the chemistry of the sea water. Even at low pH, the ocean contains enough dissolved calcium carbonate for corals and other species
to survive. Today, however, we are flooding the atmosphere with carbon dioxide at a rate rarely seen in the history of our planet. The planet’s weathering feedbacks won’t be able to
compensate for the sudden drop in pH for hundreds of thousands of years. Scientists have been scouring the fossil record for periods of history that might offer clues to how the planet will
respond to the current carbon jolt. They’ve found that 55 million years ago, the Earth went through a similar change. Lee Kump of Penn State and his colleagues have estimated that roughly
6.8 trillion tons of carbon entered the Earth’s atmosphere over about 10,000 years. Nobody can say for sure what unleashed all that carbon, but it appeared to have had a drastic effect on
the climate. Temperatures rose between 5 and 9 degrees Celsius (9 to 16 Fahrenheit). Many deep-water species became extinct, possibly as the pH of the deep ocean became too low for them
to survive. But this ancient catastrophe (known as the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM) was not a perfect prequel to what’s happening on Earth today. The temperature was
warmer before the carbon bomb went off, and the pH of the oceans was lower. The arrangement of the continents was also different. The winds blew in different patterns as a result, driving
the oceans in different directions. All these factors make a big difference on the effect of ocean acidification. For example, the effect that low pH has on skeleton-building organisms depends
on the pressure and temperature of the ocean. Below a certain depth in the ocean, the water becomes so cold and the pressure so high that there’s no calcium carbonate left for shell-building
organisms. That threshold is known as the saturation horizon. To make a meaningful comparison between the PETM and today, Ridgwell and Schmidt built large-scale simulations of the
ocean at both points of time. They created a virtual version of the Earth 55 million years ago and let the simulation run until it reached a stable state. The pH level of their simulated ocean fell
within the range of estimates of the pH of the actual ocean 55 millions years ago. They then built a version of the modern Earth, with today’s arrangements of continents, average
temperature, and other variables. They let the modern world reach a stable state and then checked the pH of the ocean. Once again, it matched the real pH found in the oceans today.
Ridgwell and Schmidt then jolted both of these simulated oceans with massive injections of carbon dioxide. They added 6.8 trillion tons of carbon over 10,000 years to their PETM world. Using
conservative projections of future carbon emissions, they added 2.1 trillion tons of carbon over just a few centuries to their modern world. Ridgwell and Schmidt then used the model to
estimate how easily carbonate would dissolve at different depths of the ocean. The results were strikingly different. Ridgwell and Schmidt found that ocean acidification is happening about
ten times faster today than it did 55 million years ago. And while the saturation horizon rose to 1,500 meters 55 million years ago, it will lurch up to 550 meters on average by 2150, according
to the model. The PETM was powerful enough to trigger widespread extinctions in the deep oceans. Today’s faster, bigger changes to the ocean may well bring a new wave of extinctions.
Paleontologists haven’t found signs of major extinctions of corals or other carbonate-based species in surface waters around PETM. But since today’s ocean acidification is so much stronger, it
may affect life in shallow water as well. “We can’t say things for sure about impacts on ecosystems, but there is a lot of cause for concern,” says Ridgwell. Ellen Thomas, a
paleoceanographer at Yale University, says that the new paper “is highly significant to our ideas on ocean acidification.” But she points out that life in the ocean was buffeted by more than just
a falling pH. “I’m not convinced it’s the whole answer,” she says. The ocean’s temperature rose and oxygen levels dropped. Together, all these changes had complex effects on the ocean’s
biology 55 million years ago. Scientists now have to determine what sort of combined effect they will have on the ocean in the future. Our carbon-fueled civilization is affecting life
everywhere on Earth, according to the work of scientists like Ridgwell — even life that dwells thousands of feet underwater. “The reach of our actions can really be quite global,” says Ridgwell.
It’s entirely possible that the ocean sediments that form in the next few centuries will change from the white of calcium carbonate back to red clay, as ocean acidification wipes out deep-sea
ecosystems. “It will give people hundreds of millions of years from now something to identify our civilization by,” says Ridgwell. And for completeness’ sake, here’s more background on
ocean acidification (which regular CP readers can skip). You can watch NOAA administrator Lubchenco give a demonstration of the science of ocean acidification. Ocean acidification must be
a core climate message, since it is hard to deny and impervious to the delusion that geoengineering is the silver bullet. Indeed, a major 2009 study GRL study, “Sensitivity of ocean acidification
to geoengineered climate stabilization” (subs. req’d), concluded: The results of this paper support the view that climate engineering will not resolve the problem of ocean acidification, and
that therefore deep and rapid cuts in CO2 emissions are likely to be the most effective strategy to avoid environmental damage from future ocean acidification. If you want to understand
ocean acidification better, see this BBC story, which explains: Man-made pollution is raising ocean acidity at least 10 times faster than previously thought, a study says. Or see this Science
magazine study, “Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive “Acidified” Water onto the Continental Shelf” (subs. req’), which found Our results show for the first time that a large section of the
North American continental shelf is impacted by ocean acidification. Other continental shelf regions may also be impacted where anthropogenic CO2-enriched water is being upwelled onto
The world’s oceans are becoming more acid,
with potentially devastating consequences for corals and the marine organisms that build reefs and
provide much of the Earth’s breathable oxygen. The acidity is caused by the gradual buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, dissolving
the shelf. Or listen to the Australia’s ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, which warns:
into the oceans. Scientists fear it could be lethal for animals with chalky skeletons which make up more than a third of the planet’s marine life…. Corals and plankton with chalky skeletons
are at the base of the marine food web. They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form their skeletons. However, as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it
harder for the animals to form their skeletal structures (calcify). “Analysis of coral cores shows a steady drop in calcification over the last 20 years,” says Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of
CoECRS and the University of Queensland. “There’s not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the air above and it dissolves into the oceans. “When CO2 levels in the
atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you put calcification out of business in the oceans.” (Atmospheric CO2 levels are presently 385 ppm, up from 305 in 1960.) I’d like to see an
analysis of what happens when you get to 850 to 1000+ ppm because that is where we’re headed (see U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: “Recent observations
confirm … the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised” — 1000 ppm). In June, dozens of Academies of Science, including ours and China’s, issued a joint
statement on ocean acidification, warned “Marine food supplies are likely to be reduced with significant implications for food production and security in regions dependent on fish protein, and
human health and wellbeing” and “Ocean acidification is irreversible on timescales of at least tens of thousands of years.” They conclude: Ocean acidification is a direct consequence of
increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. To avoid substantial damage to ocean ecosystems, deep and rapid reductions of global CO2 emissions by at least 50% by 2050, and much more
thereafter are needed. We, the academies of science working through the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), call on world leaders to: • Acknowledge that ocean
acidification is a direct and real consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, is already having an effect at current concentrations, and is likely to cause grave harm to important
marine ecosystems as CO2 concentrations reach 450 ppm and above; • Recognise that reducing the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is the only practicable solution to mitigating ocean
acidification; • Within the context of the UNFCCC negotiations in the run up to Copenhagen 2009, recognise the direct threats posed by increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions to the oceans
and therefore society, and take action to mitigate this threat; • Implement action to reduce global CO2 emissions by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 and continue to reduce them
. If we want to save life in the oceans — and save ourselves, since we depend on that life — the
time to start slashing carbon dioxide emissions is now.
thereafter
Industrial agriculture causes global water shortages
Picone, Research Scientist at the Land Institute, 2002
(Agriculture and Biodiversity Loss: Industrial Agriculture,
www.landinstitute.org/pages/Picone%20and%20Van%20Tassel%202002.pdf)
Industrial agriculture consumes increasing amounts of freshwater (Figure 3). Humans now consume
about half of the earth's available freshwater, and 70 percent of that goes to agriculture . When
irrigation removes too much water from rivers, streams, and wetlands, habitat for fish and wildlife is
depleted or destroyed. In the eighteen U.S. states that depend most on irrigation, 70 percent of the
water flowing in streams and rivers has been depleted. Dams and the destruction of aquatic habitat
have played a part in severely reducing populations of Pacific Coast salmon as well as steelhead and
cutthroat trout in the northwestern United States.
Extinction
Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and IFG Committee on the
Globalization of Water, Spring 2001
(BLUE GOLD: The Global Water Crisis and the Commodification of the World's Water Supply,”
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BlueGold.pdf)
Perhaps the most devastating analysis of the global water crisis comes from hydrological engineer Michal Kravèík and his team of
scientists at the Slovakia non-governmental organization (NGO) People and Water. Kravèík, who has a distinguished career with the Slovak
Academy of Sciences, has studied the effect of urbanization, industrial agriculture, deforestation, dam construction, and infrastructure and
paving on water systems in Slovakia and surrounding countries and has come up with an alarming finding. Destroying water's natural habitat
creates a supply crisis for people and animals, it also dramatically diminishes the amount of
available fresh water on the planet. Kravèík describes the hydrologic cycle of a drop of water. It must first evaporate from a plant,
not only
earth surface, swamp, river, lake or the sea, then fall back down to earth as precipitation. If the drop of water falls back onto a forest, lake,
blade of grass, meadow or field, it cooperates with nature to return to the hydrologic cycle. "Right of domicile of a drop is one of the basic
rights, a more serious right than human rights," says Kravèík. However, if the earth's surface is paved over, denuded of forests and meadows,
and drained of natural springs and creeks, the drop will not form part of river basins and continental watersheds, where it is needed by people
and animals, but head out to sea, where it will be stored. It is like rain falling onto a huge roof, or umbrella; everything underneath stays dry
and the water runs off to the perimeter. The consequent reduction in continental water basins results in reduced water evaporation from the
earth's surface, and becomes a net loss, while the seas begin to rise. In Slovakia, the scientists found, for every 1 percent of roofing, paving, car
parks and highways constructed, water supplies decrease in volume by more than 100 billion meters per year. Kravèík issues a dire warning
about the growing number of what he calls the earth's "hot stains"—places already drained of water. The
"drying out" of the earth
will cause massive global warming, with the attendant extremes in weather: drought, decreased
protection from the atmosphere, increased solar radiation, decreased biodiversity, melting of the
polar icecaps, submersion of vast territories, massive continental desertification and, eventually,
"global collapse."
Water shortages will trigger global water conflicts
CSIS, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 9/30/2005
(Addressing Our Global Water Future, http://water.csis.org/050928_ogwf.pdf)
Taken together, all of these factors—from the rising imbalance of supply and demand to the devastating effects of water on human
prosperity—point toward a world in which growing
that may lead to conflict and war
water challenges could ignite the underlying economic forces
in the future. Such warnings have been voiced by leaders and scholars across the planet—from
U.N. Secretary Generals Kofi Annan and Boutros Boutros Ghali to the U.S. National Intelligence Council. These warnings should certainly be
weighed heavily, but the inevitability of conflict solely over water resources remains uncertain. Historical data on international interactions
regarding water show many more cooperative arrangements than conflicts. In fact, the last incident of full-out war over water occurred 4,500
years ago between two Mesopotamian city-states (Postel and Wolf 2001). On the other hand, from 2000-2003, 15 violent conflicts across the
world involved water either directly or indirectly. Twelve of these were related to disputes over the development of shared water resources
(Gleick 2004a). While history gives cause for comfort, increasing
water scarcity and declining water quality across the
world certainly present the threat of increased instability and conflict in the future. Defining the exact nature
of that threat is the first step to avoiding unrest or dangerous disputes. In the future, instability or conflict related to water
supplies will likely take two forms: (1) domestic unrest caused by the inability of governments to meet
the food, industrial, and municipal needs of its citizens, and (2) hostility between two or more
countries—or regions within a country—possibly leading to greater insecurity or conflict, caused by one
party disrupting the water supply of another.
Water wars go nuclear.
Jonathan Weiner, Pulitzer Prize winning author, 1990
(The Next One Hundred Years, p. 270)
If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with
the C-bomb, the Change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the
other. Already in the Middle East, from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the
Euphrates, tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many
experts describe as a flashpoint. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger
international tensions that will unleash some of the 60,000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled
since Trinity.
Industrial agriculture is the greatest threat to bees—transition to agroecology solves
Pan North America Magazine, Summer 2008
(Vanishing Bees: Victims of Industrial Agriculture,”
http://www.panna.org/mag/summer2008/news/vanishing-bees.)
Over the past 30 years, honeybee populations have plummeted 50%. Many factors are contributing to the decline— including systemic
pesticides, varroa mites and Nosema Disease—but the
greatest threat to the bee’s survival may be the industrial
agriculture model that promotes pesticides and monocropping. When we read about “colony collapse disorder,”
we’re hearing about the problems confronting commercial bee-brokers. Natural pollination by wild, resident honeybees and other beneficial
insects was the norm only 30 years ago. But natural pollination is no longer possible where traditional habitats have been replaced by weedless,
laserleveled acres planted to a single crop. In California’s Central Valley, vast
industrial spreads—artificially maintained by
synthetic nitrogen inputs, herbicides and insecticides— are no longer hospitable to native bees, wasps,
butterflies or other wildlife. In May, following the mass deaths of bees and other insects, Germany’s Office for Consumer Protection and Food
Safety (BVL) suspended use of eight pesticides after it was found that the bees were killed by clothianidin, the active ingredient in Bayer’s
Eldado and Poncho pesticides. BVL also suspended use of four of Bayer’s imidacloprid-based pesticides: Antarc, Chinook, Faibel and Gaucho.
Products containing neonicotinoids like imidacloprid and clothianidin account for much of Bayer’s annual agrochemical profits. France’s Comité
Scientifique et Technique has declared the chemical a “significant risk” to bees. As wi ld pol l ina tor s we r e increasingly forced off the land, Big
Ag turned to “domesticated” bees. When up to 90% of U.S. commercial bee colonies went into a tailspin last winter, desperate growers paid
premium prices to air-freight one billion “guest worker” bees from Australia to pollinate U.S. fields and orchards. Commercial honeybees are
the insect world’s equivalent of migrant labor. Trucked thousands of miles from one field to another, these bees are forbidden to forage on
their own. They are only released to service a particular crop—apples, peaches, oranges, melons—and when they do, they are inevitably
exposed to a range of chemical residues. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture has identified 58 pesticides that are
“highly toxic” to bees, including aldicarb, diazinon and malathion. It might be more accurate to call commercial colonies “prison
colonies.” Trucked from state to state, these captive bees are force-fed a diet of high fructose corn syrup and soy protein—a poor substitute for
pollen. This cheap, highfiber, low-protein, junk-food bee feed is derived from genetically modified corn that has been engineered to contain
Bt—a bacterial insecticide. And now more of the honeybees’ native “homeland” in the prairies of the Midwest—historic vistas of pollen-rich
asters and goldenrods— are set to be plowed under and monocropped to make corn ethanol to fuel America’s automobiles. There is an
alternative. “This country has 4,500 species of native insects that are potential pollinators,” Gina Covina writes in Terrain magazine. “On the
East Coast, where farms are much smaller, more diverse, and broken up by uncultivated land, native insects account for up to 90% of crop
pollination.” In Costa Rica, studies have shown coffee yields increase 20% when crops are grown within a kilometer of a forest. In Canada,
canola yields increased on farms that preserved 30% of the land as natural habitat.“Fortunately,” Covina notes, “insects are quick to recolonize
formerly dead areas—hedgerows, windbreaks, wetlands, woodlots.” But the
survival of Earth’s bees will require a
fundamental transition from the industrial agriculture model to the biodiverse ecological model.
Extinction
John Ingham, Environment Editor for the Express, 2/9/08
(Bee virus 'is causing a bigger world crisis than global warming,' Lexis)
THE summer sound of buzzing bees is set to become rarer due to mystery plagues hitting hives around the world. The
crisis threatens a disaster worse than global warming because bees are so vital to the food chain,
experts warned yesterday. Environment Minister Lord Rooker has already warned that, at present rates, honeybees could be
extinct in Britain within a decade. Yet ministers are refusing to pump more money into research to find cures. The looming disaster is
detailed in Silence Of The Bees, a documentary due to be aired on the National Geographic TV channel next Tuesday. John Chapple, chairman
of the London Beekeepers Association, believes the potential consequences could not be worse. He said: " Without
bees, life as we
know it will not exist ." Scientists warned that the bees' disappearance will hit a third of the world's food crops,
especially fruit and vegetables. Apples, soybeans, onions, cabbage and most berries and nuts are among 90 crops at risk if there are no
honeybees to help pollinate them. Also threatened are plants used for cloth, such as cotton and flax, and those
for animal feed, including oilseed rape and field beans. Less feed for animals would affect meat and dairy products, pushing up prices and
lowering availability. The impact would be felt up the food chain by birds which feed on fruit and by the predators which eat
the birds.
Energy intensive agriculture is the primary cause of environmental degradation
Dale Allen Pfeiffer, Geologist, science journalist, and editor of From the Wilderness, 10/3/2003
(Eating Fossil Fuels, www.organicconsumers.org/corp/fossil-fuels.cfm)
Just when agricultural output could expand no more by increasing acreage, new innovations made
possible a more thorough exploitation of the acreage already available. The process of pest
displacement and appropriation for agriculture accelerated with the industrial revolution as the
mechanization of agriculture hastened the clearing and tilling of land and augmented the amount of
farmland which could be tended by one person. With every increase in food production, the human
population grew apace. At present, nearly 40% of all land-based photosynthetic capability has been
appropriated by human beings. In the United States we divert more than half of the energy captured by
photosynthesis. We have taken over all the prime real estate on this planet. The rest of nature is forced
to make due with what is left. Plainly, this is one of the major factors in species extinctions and in
ecosystem stress .
Ecological collapse risks extinction
Anne Ehrlich & Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Biology and Senior Research Scientist at Stanford, 1/9/13
(Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?,Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences,
Proc. R. Soc. B 2013 280)
But today, for the first time, humanity’s global civilization —the worldwide, increasingly interconnected, highly
technological society in which we all are to one degree or another, embedded— is
threatened with collapse by an array of
environmental problems. Humankind finds itself engaged in what Prince Charles described as ‘an act of suicide on a
grand scale’ [4], facing what the UK’s Chief Scientific Advisor John Beddington called a ‘perfect storm’ of environmental problems [5]. The
most serious of these problems show signs of rapidly escalating severity, especially climate disruption. But other elements could potentially also
contribute to a collapse: an accelerating
extinction of animal and plant populations and species, which could
lead to a loss of ecosystem services essential for human survival; land degradation and land-use change; a pole-to-pole
spread of toxic compounds; ocean acidification and eutrophication (dead zones); worsening of some aspects of the epidemiological
environment (factors that make human populations susceptible to infectious diseases); depletion of increasingly scarce resources [6,7],
including especially groundwater, which is being overexploited in many key agricultural areas [8]; and resource wars [9]. These are not separate
problems; rather they interact in two gigantic complex adaptive systems: the biosphere system and the human socio-economic system. The
negative manifestations of these interactions are often referred to as ‘the human predicament’ [10], and determining how to prevent it from
generating a global collapse is perhaps the foremost challenge confronting humanity. The
human predicament is driven by
overpopulation, overconsumption of natural resources and the use of unnecessarily environmentally
damaging technologies and socio-economic-political arrangements to service Homo sapiens’ aggregate consumption [11–17]. How far
the human population size now is above the planet’s long-term carrying capacity is suggested (conservatively) by ecological footprint analysis
[18–20]. It shows that to support today’s population of seven billion sustainably (i.e. with business as usual, including current technologies and
standards of living) would require roughly half an additional planet; to do so, if all citizens of Earth consumed resources at the US level would
take four to five more Earths. Adding the projected 2.5 billion more people by 2050 would make the human assault on civilization’s life-support
systems disproportionately worse, because almost everywhere people face systems with nonlinear responses [11,21–23], in which
environmental damage increases at a rate that becomes faster with each additional person. Of course, the claim is often made that humanity
will expand Earth’s carrying capacity dramatically with technological innovation [24], but it is widely recognized that technologies can both add
and subtract from carrying capacity. The plough evidently first expanded it and now appears to be reducing it [3]. Overall, careful analysis of the
prospects does not provide much confidence that technology will save us [25] or that gross domestic product can be disengaged from resource
use [26]
Subpoint C - Solvency
The President has the authority to implement preferential trade access for Cuban
agricultural products facilitating exports to the US
Timothy Ashby, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 11/22/11
(HELPING CUBAN REFORMS THROUGH AGRICULTURAL TRADE, www.coha.org/helping-cuban-reformsthrough-agricultural-trade/
Cuba’s private farmers are an entrepreneurial class with growing disposable income. Cuba buys imported foreign goods, including
new automobiles (now also legal), and are eager to sell its agricultural products to the United States. Sadly,
Cuban agricultural products are still banned from import into the USA. Cuban private farmers and businessmen
think this is ironic considering that the U.S. has exported nearly USD four billion worth of food and
agricultural products to Cuba since 2001. While the U.S. will undoubtedly seek to help stabilize Cuba economically when
relations are ultimately normalized, it will be constrained by Washington’s massive budget deficit and significantly reduced foreign aid
allocations. Official U.S. policy is to encourage the growth of Cuba’s private sector as a means of developing democratic institutions. The
U.S.
government could concretely help the development of Cuba’s private sector – at no cost to the U.S.
taxpayer – by introducing legislation that would allow preferential market access for Cuban agricultural
products before the official end of the trade embargo against Havana. This most likely would require that
the U.S. implement preferential (including protected) trade access for the island’s products, which are of
agricultural origin and would not compete with products traditionally grown in the U.S. The U.S. has a history of providing
development assistance and preferential trade access to developing countries, particularly to its Latin
American and Caribbean neighbors. Several existing programs offer special access to the U.S. market
for certain agricultural and manufactured goods from developing countries. Specifically, the U.S. has developed a
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), in addition to several regional preferential trade programs, such as the Caribbean Basin
Initiative, the Andean Trade Preference program and the African Growth and Opportunity program. The President retains
ultimate decision-making authority as to which countries and products are eligible for GSP status. There
are certain mandatory criteria that countries must measure up to in order to be considered eligible for GSP treatment. Of particular interest with respect to Cuba, communist countries are not
eligible for GSP treatment “unless the country receives Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status , is a World Trade Organization (WTO) member and a member of the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), and is not dominated by international communism.”[1] In addition, a GSP beneficiary “may not have nationalized, expropriated or otherwise seized property of U.S. citizens or
corporations without providing, or taking steps to provide, prompt, adequate and effective compensation, or submitting such issues to a mutually agreed forum for arbitration.”[2] While
certain products from Cuba would certainly be eligible for GSP status, the mandatory country requirements present additional hurdles for preferential trade treatment for Havana to qualify
outside of the current political climate. However, these are not insurmountable. For example, Cuba repeatedly has offered to negotiate the settlement of claims for expropriated U.S. property,
and since the demise of the Soviet Union, could not be considered to be dominated by “international communism”. In addition to the GSP, the U.S. also has implemented several regional
preferential trade programs for certain Central American and Caribbean countries known collectively as the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI). Much like the GSP, the CBI was intended to
encourage economic development and export diversification throughout the countries of the Caribbean Basin by providing trade and tariff benefits. However, such benefits were denied to any
country deemed to be under the control of communists. President Clinton signed the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in 2000 to increase trade and investment with Sub-Sahara
Africa. In addition, the program sought to “stimulate economic growth, to promote a high-level dialogue on trade and investment-related issues, to encourage economic integration, and to
facilitate sub-Saharan Africa’s integration into the global economy.” As of now, 38 sub-Saharan African countries are eligible for preferential treatment under the AGOA. In addition to the
4,600 products already eligible for the GSP, the AGOA adds 1,800 products which may receive favorable treatment from this category of countries. Most agricultural products are included in
these lists. AGOA beneficiaries are eligible for substantial trade preferences that, in addition to the preferences provided by the GSP, permit marketable goods produced in AGOA countries to
enter the U.S. duty-free. The U.S. government, in seeking to encourage and assist AGOA countries, established four regional trade hubs through which it provides assistance to governments
and businesses seeking to export to the U.S. market. Similar to other preferential trade programs, the U.S. President determines on an annual basis whether sub-Saharan countries are eligible
for their participation based on certain criteria. Such criteria, including the demonstration of progress toward the creation of a market-based economy, the establishment of the rule of law,
and the enactment of beneficial economic policies to reduce poverty, protect internationally recognized worker rights and fight corruption. Given these criteria, Cuba could be eligible for an
AGOA-type of preferential program for its agricultural exports. Both the U.S. and Cuba were parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the predecessor of the WTO. In
1962, the Cuban government was notified that the GATT would impose economic sanctions pursuant to Article XXI of the GATT, “Security Exceptions.” The U.S. invoked this article to revoke
Cuba’s preferential sugar tariff and access to the U.S. market. As a result, the U.S. denied Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) status to Cuba. MFN is a guiding principle of the GATT. It requires that
member countries not discriminate in the way in which they treat WTO partners. Article I of the GATT states “any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted by any contracting party to
any product originating in or destined for any other country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product originating in or destined for the territories of all other
contracting parties.” The U.S. is currently exempt from having to provide the MFN status to Cuba pursuant to Article XXI. However, if the U.S. were to resume normal trade relations with Cuba,
it would be required to extend Cuba to “no less favorable” treatment than is given to every other country in the WTO, pursuant to this MFN principle. Article II of the GATT states, “Each
contracting party shall accord to the commerce of the other contracting parties treatment no less favorable than that provided for in the appropriate Part of the appropriate Schedule annexed
to this agreement.”[3] Thus, the U.S. would be required to provide Cuba with the MFN rate of duty provided in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). It follows that the granting of MFN status
to Cuba would result in Cuba having the same rights of access to the U.S. market as all other countries. In the event that Cuba requests access to the sugar trade-rate quota (TRQ), the U.S.
would be required to comply with this request pursuant to the WTO rule that all countries with a “substantial interest in supplying a product’ be allocated a portion of the TRQ.’” To date, the
WTO has used the “10% share” rule to establish a “substantial interest.”[4] This means that countries with the ability to service at least 10 percent of the import market are to be considered
for allocation. In addition, if countries that supply less than 10 percent of the import market are given a portion of the TRQ, then all countries capable of providing any portion of the import
market share are to be considered. The U.S. has historically assigned part of the TRQ to countries that provided less than 1 percent of the import share. Thus, even if Cuba is unable to provide
10 percent of the market for sugar, it would still be considered to have a “substantial interest” and thus would be granted access to the TRQ. At this point, the U.S. would have several options
to determine the TRQ for Cuban sugar and other products. As there have been no recent official trade statistics, the U.S. could argue that there was little recent history on which to base an
appropriate TRQ allocation for Cuban products. The U.S. could then open a competitive bidding process to reset country-specific quotas or it could simply reduce current TRQs and provide a
portion of the market share to Cuba. It could also increase the overall TRQ for certain products. As the U.S. has implemented several broad preferential trade programs aimed at increasing
economic development throughout the developing world, it seems likely that Cuba could be included in such a program upon the resumption of normal trade relations. The trend seems to be
to enter into such bilateral or regional free trade agreements as a means of reducing barriers to trade within the principles of the GATT and WTO. Cuba would also presumably be eligible for
membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would allow preferential access to Cuban agricultural products. The U.S. historically has been among the world’s
we freely export billions of dollars of U.S. agricultural products to
Cuba, yet ban its imports even though they are largely produced by the private sector . A strong argument
could therefore be made that the best means of assisting Cuba at minimal cost to the U.S. would be to
implement preferential (including protected) trade access for the island’s products which are of agricultural
origin and would not compete with products actually grown in the U.S.
foremost proponents of free trade. It therefore seems unjust that
Access to the US market is make or break for Cuban organic agriculture
Kost 04
William Kost is an Agricultural Economist with ERS, u.s.. Department of Agriculture
UBAN AGRICULTURE: TO BE OR NOT TO BE ORGANIC?
http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume14/pdfs/kost.pdf
EXTERNAL MARKETS MAY BE CRITICAL
FOR AN ORGANIC CUBA
In addition to the above European markets, the successful expansion and viability of Cuba’s organic production may also
depend on access to geographically-close, high-income foreign markets, namely the United States and
Canada. Currently, Cuban produce is not certified-organic in either of these markets. Only after Cuban products are certified for¶ these
countries could Cuba legally export produce labeled organic to these markets. Given
that many technical production
practices currently followed by Cuban producers are potentially compatible with U.S. certification
standards and given Cuba’s prior experience in becoming Swiss-certified, Cuba could be well
positioned to meet U.S. certification standards For the U.S. organic market, in addition to a lifting¶ of the U.S.
embargo, Cuba would have to be certified¶ by a USDA-accredited certification program that as-¶ sures U.S. markets that Cuban products
labeled or-¶ ganic meet all National Organic Program standards¶ and regulations under the U.S. Organic Foods Pro-¶ duction Act of 1990. If the
U.S. embargo on Cuba¶ were lifted, Cuban
exports, once certified, could play a significant role in the U.S. organic
market. In this¶ current U.S. niche market, production costs are high.¶ Opening the U.S. market would enable Cuba to
exploit its significant comparative advantage in this area. This market could become a quick foreign
exchange earner for Cuba. The largest barrier Cuba¶ faces in expanding into the U.S. organic market will¶ be meeting U.S.
requirements for organic certification. Tapping the U.S. market may create sufficient price incentives for Cuban
producers to take the necessary steps to meet the organic standards of other importing countries.
Cuba could then expand production of organic produce geared to these specialty export markets. With sufficiently
high prices for organic produce, urban labor may remain active in an organic urban gardening sector.
Most likely, the viability of a vibrant organic produce production and processing sector in Cuba will
depend on Cuba’s gaining access to the large, nearby U.S. market . Without such access, organicoriented production of horticultural products in Cuba will likely remain a necessity-driven way to
produce food for domestic consumption in¶ an environment where other production approaches¶ are just not available. The U.S.
market is large and diverse. The demand¶ for organic produce is only one portion of that market. How Cuba’s horticultural industry
responds to¶ restored U.S. trade will be a function of the relative¶ price and cost incentives of the organic and non-organic market segments. If
the organic price premiums are sufficient, Cuba
has the climate, land resources, low-cost labor, and history of
organic oriented production to allow it to develop and grow its horticultural sector in that direction. If
the market incentives are not sufficiently large to pursue the organic produce market, Cuba will
return to a chemical and technology-driven, yield-maximizing, and labor-minimizing commercial
production as rapidly as they can afford to do so.
Cuba will have some incentive to increase domestic food pro-¶ duction
as rapidly as possible to feed the domestic population, rather than importing food for domestic consumption. Cuba could then use a larger
share of its scarce foreign exchange to import energy, technology, and other inputs to support growth in other sectors of the Cuban economy.
The plan generates much needed capital for Cuban organic agriculture and leads to US
adoption which fuels worldwide adoption
Jacob Shkolnick, JD Candidate at Drake, Fall 2012
(SIN EMBARGO: n1 THE CUBAN AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE UNITED
STATES” 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 683, lexis)
While investment in Cuban businesses and sales or purchases of Cuban products must still move through official channels under the joint
venture law or other Cuban programs, the
time is ripe for organizations in the United States to begin laying
groundwork for closer ties with Cuban agricultural entities. Recent regulatory changes implemented by the U.S.
government provide a means for individuals and businesses to begin forming the relationships with their Cuban counterparts that will lead to
future trade opportunities. As previously mentioned, recent changes in U.S. policy now allow for any individual in the United States, not simply
relatives, to donate money to Cuban citizens, though not to exceed $ 500 for any three month consecutive period, with the only restriction
being that the recipient is not an official in the Cuban [*704] government or the Communist Party. n162 Specifically written into these new
regulations is the idea that these remittances may be spent "to support the development of private businesses." n163 A five hundred dollar
infusion of capital to support a fledging business or farm can be enormously beneficial when the average monthly salary is only 448 pesos, or
approximately twenty dollars. n164 Additional
capital will enable small Cuban farms to expand operations by
hiring additional help or perhaps purchasing additional farm animals. While purchasing a tractor may seem like an
obvious choice for a growing farm, Medardo Naranjo Valdes of the Organoponico Vivero Alamar, a UBPC just outside of Havana, indicated that
farm animals such as oxen would remain the preferred choice for the foreseeable future on the small and midsized farms that make up the
majority of the newer agricultural cooperatives. n165 Not only do farm animals not require gasoline or incur maintenance costs beyond
perhaps an occasional veterinarian charge, their waste can be used as fertilizer. Apart from additional labor, funds
provided to
agricultural cooperatives could be put to use in developing innovative pest control techniques that do
not require the use of expensive pesticides or other chemicals. The Vivero Alamar is currently experimenting with a
variety of natural pest control techniques such as introducing plants that serve as natural repellents to insects and the introduction of other
insects that feed on harmful pests without harming the crops. n166 Investment
will likely
in agricultural cooperatives done in this manner
fail to see much return on the investment for their foreseeable future, until policies in both the U nited S tates
are changed . For a relatively small sum, American investors will get not only the benefit of a
close relationship with a Cuban farm that will become a new source of both import and export
business in the future, but potentially gain access to innovative agricultural techniques that could be
and Cuba
used in the United States immediately.
Because the logistical structure needed to transport goods from large rural farms into
city markets remains underdeveloped, urban and suburban agriculture makes up a growing portion of the food produced and consumed in
Cuba. n169 As in other countries, the population trends in Cuba have continued to shift away from rural areas to more concentrated urban and
suburban areas, with about [*705] three-fourths of Cubans living in cities. n170 With this shift in population has also come a shift in the
country's agricultural system. As of 2007, about 15% of all agriculture in Cuba could be classified as urban agriculture. n171 Not only have
agricultural practices changed, but eating habits have as well. Without the Soviet Union to provide a ready source of income and the machinery
needed to engage in large-scale livestock production, vegetable consumption has increased dramatically. n172 Nearly every urban area has
direct access to a wide variety of locally grown, organic produce. n173 Many of the urban farms in Cuba, including the Vivero Alamar, make use
of organoponics, a system where crops are produced in raised beds of soil on land that would otherwise be incapable of supporting intensive
agricultural production. n174 Many of these raised beds can be constructed in a concentrated area to support a wide variety of produce, with
the typical organoponic garden covering anywhere from one half to several hectares in size. n175 The rise of the organoponic production
method was a shift away from the earlier centralized production model employed by the state. It has been supported through intensive
research and development by a variety of state agencies, such as the National Institute of Agricultural Science, and continued development has
been guided through intensive training and educational programs. n176 The
organoponic system is not limited in its application to
Cuban urban farms, but maintains potential to be applied worldwide , including in the United States. Urban
agriculture in Cuba revitalized and put to use previously abandoned and unused land. A similar
approach could be applied to the U nited S tates as a means to restore blighted areas. Applying Cubanderived organoponics in U.S. cities could potentially open up an enormous amount of land that was
previously unusable. From a business perspective, investing in an organoponic agricultural program in the United States is also a sound
decision since the demand for local produce reached $ 4.8 billion in 2008 and is only expected to grow further, potentially reaching $ 7 billion in
2012. n178 [*706] In an American city beset with high unemployment such as Detroit, Michigan, for example, investing in urban agriculture
could potentially generate as many as five thousand new jobs. By
utilizing Cuba's system of organoponics, the need to
use expensive and complex farm machinery could be significantly reduced. Already companies in the United
States, such as Farmscape Gardens in southern California, recognize what Cuba's organoponic system could achieve and have integrated it into
their business practices. n180 Rachel Bailin, a partner in the company, indicated that it was Cuba's organic farming practices that helped inspire
them to start a company devoted to urban agriculture. n181 They have already used Cuba's organoponic farming methods to produce more
than 50,000 pounds of produce since the spring of 2009. n182 The potential for future growth in this industry is huge, as Farmscape Gardens'
current levels of production make it the largest urban agriculture company in the state of California. n183 Cuba not only offers attractive
prospects for trading in the future, but methods
of agriculture pioneered out of necessity have broad prospects if
applied to agriculture in the United States. As the demand for locally grown produce continues to
increase, a cost-effective and proven agricultural model like Cuba's organoponic system may be just
what is needed to allow for urban agriculture to flourish.
Entrance into the global market won’t cause Cuban abandonment of agroecology they’ll be able to outcompete industrial models and promote global adoption
Christina Cornell, Research Associate at Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 4/17/09
(Cuba Elevates Urban Gardening to a Cause,
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11525)
Many worry whether Cuba’s budget and planning services will be able to maintain its commitment to
urban agriculture and sustainable methods, as the country enters the global economy and faces
pressures to restructure its economic and political system, especially as Washington nears a decision to lift the U.S.Cuba trade embargo. As the economy opens, the tourism industry and multinational food corporations will compete for urban land and
attempt to flood the Cuban market with cheap imported food products that could undermine the urban agricultural system. Havana must
develop policies that will protect their growing agricultural sector, but also allow for international influence and trade to flourish. Although
the opening of trade relations threatens local food production, Cuba’s success in the agriculture
industry makes it a substantial contender in the global market . Its products are competitively priced
and thus, have the ability to generate a considerable profit for the island nation. Not only will increased participation in international trade
boost revenue, but it could also promote social reform in the country. Cuba’s urban centers, once underdeveloped and filthy, are now
encouraging progressive goals, targeting rising living standards and sanitation concerns, while promoting national initiatives that will support
future improvements in the urban landscapes. Agriculture for the Future Cuba’s successful implementation of
should serve as a model
urban agriculture
for other developing countries, particularly in Latin America. By embracing more modern and effective
methods of farming, countries theoretically have the opportunity to transform their local markets, augmenting the labor force and cultivating
capital and infrastructure.
Introduction to the global market would allow a country like Cuba to become an
important economic actor , ultimately expanding its profits through competitive transactions and trade.
Cuba says yes – agricultural exports to the US will be a major source of revenue
Messina 03
William A. Messina, Jr., Coordinator of Economic Analysis, Department of Food and Resource
Economics, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, UF/IFAS, University of Florida, U.S.-Cuban Agricultural
Trade: Present Realities and Future Prospects, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe438
To put Cuba's winter vegetable production potential into perspective, in 1989, Cuba had nearly twice
as much acreage planted to tomatoes and cucumbers as Florida (VanSickle and Messina, 1993). Even though Cuba's
vegetable yields typically are only about one third of Florida's yields (Moseley, et al., 1996), it would not take much for a joint
venture partner to transfer the technology to Cuba to significantly improve those yields. In fact, several
foreign firms already have entered into joint venture arrangements with Cuban entities to produce vegetables and tropical fruits for sale to the
tourist hotels in Cuba, in some cases using capital-intensive greenhouse production systems.7 ¶ Because of the limited domestic purchasing
power of the Cuban people,
major investment along this line is not likely to occur until such time as the U.S.
market is open to Cuba . However, foreign firms presently investing in Cuba's agricultural sector, and indeed in all sectors of the
Cuban economy, clearly have a leg up on U.S. firms.¶ Significant foreign investment already has taken place in Cuba's citrus industry where
several foreign companies, most notably an Israeli group, have invested and provided important technological and marketing expertise to the
Cubans.8 It is important to consider that, until the 2001-02 season Cuba was the third largest grapefruit producer in the world after the United
States and Israel. Over 80 percent of U.S. grapefruit production is in Florida (Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, 2003), so Cuba's grapefruit
production potential is no small consideration for Florida's grapefruit growers.
Because of its climate, Cuba's citrus ripens
earlier than Florida's, and at a time when there is relatively little grapefruit available from other sources in the world. This does suggest
that there may be a market window during which opportunities for complementary fresh grapefruit
trade may exist, at least until the U.S. harvest begins, under a post-embargo scenario. ¶ Again, because of the climate,
Cuban orange juice tends to have high ratio and poor color characteristics, which make it undesirable in the U.S. market, indicating that the
demand for Cuban orange juice products in the United States post-embargo likely will be low.¶ Cuba was an important supplier of fresh winter
vegetables to the United States through the late 1950s. A
resumption of U.S.-Cuban trade may fundamentally alter
the structure of the fresh winter vegetable industry in the United States to a degree that has not been since the
implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the subsequent peso devaluation. This will not happen overnight as
there are obviously Sanitary and PhytoSanitary (SPS) regulations that will need to be met before Cuba can begin exporting into the United
States. These SPS issues are particularly important given the increasing experience with and concern over the introduction of invasive species of
plants and organisms that detrimentally impact U.S. agriculture and the natural environment.¶ And even though it is not considered
“agricultural production”, the marine fisheries industry is a natural resource-based industry where both Cuba and Florida have important
investments and production capacities. In fact, for some species, the United States and Cuba share the same fisheries resources and fishing
All of these commodities have the potential to be exported to the United States
and at a time when Cuba desperately needs to generate export revenues; it will be eager to take
advantage of these sorts of opportunities as soon as political conditions allow.
areas in international waters.
Cuban Ag Collapse Now
Cuban model threatened under the status quo
Ford, 9 (Matt, CNN Havana Bureau Chief, “Can the West cultivate ideas from Cuba's 'Special Period'?”,
April 1, http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/29/eco.cubaagriculture/, ak.)
The future is less clear. New allies are once again opening Cuba up to the outside world -- and
providing fresh oil supplies. "Hugo Chavez is supplying Cuba with increasing quantities of oil and
agrochemicals, so Cuban agriculture -- and here I'm talking about rural farms which supply 95 percent
of the nation's domestic food needs -- is becoming more industrialized, though it will not revert back to
the extreme practices of the Soviet era," says Wright.
Cuba moving away from sustainable production now
Ewing 08 (Ed Ewing, journalist for the Gaurdian. 4/3/08. "Cuba's Organic Revolution". The Gaurdian.
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/04/organics.food)
"And it has been a success in terms of meeting some of the food security needs," he says, "but it has not resolved the problem since the island
still
imports a great deal of food."¶ And change is on the horizon, which might be good for living standards, but not so
good for Cuba's commitment to pesticide-free food. The US trade embargo is losing its "symbolic
meaning" , says Julie M Bunck, assistant professor of political science at the University of Louisville and author of Fidel Castro and the Quest for a
Revolutionary Culture in Cuba, and as that happens, "Cuba will evolve, embrace the market in some way, begin to produce and buy and sell
normally." General farming will "most likely" move away from organic methods says Wilkinson. Farming on a large
scale after all, he says, has seen a reduction in pesticide and fertiliser use mainly due to "financial constraints, not choice".
Further agriculture reform is key to the success of Cuba’s industry
Cave 12 (Damien-foreign correspondent for the New York Times covering Mexico, Central America,
and the Caribbean, “Cuba’s Free-Market Farm Experiment Yields a Meager Crop,” NewYorkTimes.com,
published in the New York Times on 12/9/12,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/world/americas/changes-to-agriculture-highlight-cubasproblems.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
President Raúl Castro has made agriculture priority No. 1 in his attempt to remake the country. He used his first major
presidential address in 2007 to zero in on farming, describing weeds conquering fallow fields and the need to ensure that “anyone who wants
can drink a glass of milk.”
No other industry has seen as much liberalization, with a steady rollout of incentives for farmers.
efficiency and food production to replace imports
that cost Cuba hundreds of millions of dollars a year is a matter “of national security.”Yet at this point,
by most measures, the project has failed. Because of waste, poor management, policy constraints,
transportation limits, theft and other problems, overall efficiency has dropped: many Cubans are actually seeing
less food at private markets. That is the case despite an increase in the number of farmers and production gains for certain items. A recent
study from the University of Havana showed that market prices jumped by nearly 20 percent in 2011
alone. And food imports increased to an estimated $1.7 billion last year, up from $1.4 billion in 2006.
And Mr. Castro has been explicit about his reasoning: increasing
“It’s the first instance of Cuba’s leader not being able to get done what he said he would,” said Jorge I. Domínguez, vice provost for
international affairs at Harvard, who left Cuba as a boy. “The published statistical results are really very discouraging.”
A major cause:
poor transportation , as trucks are in short supply, and the aging ones that exist often break down. In
2009, hundreds of tons of tomatoes, part of a bumper crop that year, rotted because of a lack of
transportation by the government agency charged with bringing food to processing centers. “It’s worse when it rains,” said Javier
González, 27, a farmer in Artemisa Province who described often seeing crops wilt and rot because they were not picked up. Behind him were
the 33 fertile, rent-free acres he had been granted as part of a program Mr. Castro introduced in 2008 to encourage rural residents to work the
land. After clearing it himself and planting a variety of crops, Mr. Gonzalez said, he was doing relatively well and earned more last year than his
father, who is a doctor, did. But Cuba’s inefficiencies gnawed at him. Smart, strong, and ambitious, he had expansion plans in mind, even as in
his hand he held a wrench. He was repairing a tractor part meant to be grading land. It was broken. Again. The 1980s Soviet model tractor he
bought from another farmer was as about good as it gets in Cuba. The Cuban government maintains a monopoly on selling anything new, and
there simply is not enough of anything — fertilizer, or sometimes even machetes — to go around. Government economists are aware of the
problem. “If you give people land and no resources, it doesn’t matter what happens on the land,” said Joaquin Infante of the Havana-based
Castro has refused to allow what many farmers and experts see
as an obvious solution to the shortages of transportation and equipment: Let people import supplies
on their own. “It’s about control,” said Philip Peters, a Cuba analyst with the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based research group.
Other analysts agree, noting that though the agricultural reforms have gone farther than other
changes — like those that allow for self-employment — they remain constrained by politics. “The
Cuban National Association of Economists. But Mr.
government is not ready to let go,” said Ted Henken, a Latin American studies professor at Baruch College. “They are sending the message that
they want to let go, or are trying to let go, but what they have is still a mechanism of control.” For many farmers, that explains why land leases
last for 10 years with a chance to renew, not indefinitely or the 99 years offered to foreign developers. It is also why many
farmers say
they will not build homes on the land they lease, despite a concession this year to allow doing so.
Mistrust is widespread. To get the growth Mr. Castro wants in agriculture and the economy, people
need to trust the government, analysts say. But after half a century of strict control, many Cubans
doubt proclamations from officials, who insist that this time, despite previous crackdowns, private
enterprise will be supported. Some farmers still wonder when the government is going to swoop in
and take what they have built. “What concerns me is that in a place like this, after five or six years the state might need the land to
complete some kind of project,” said Reinaldo Berdecia, who is raising cows outside Havana. Cubans also say they worry that the
bureaucrats responsible for managing the country’s complex mix of state-run and private agriculture
lack the knowledge needed to make the system work. In the fall, there were piles of bananas rotting
all over Havana, for example. Farmers say the government guaranteed a price that was too high,
failing to recognize that because bananas require less investment and their planting season is short,
farmers would overproduce. At a recent visit to the market near the Havana airport, these
frustrations, hopes and fears were on view. From the backs of trucks as old as retirees, sunburned
farmers in black rubber boots tossed onions, lettuce and other items to colleagues who weighed them
for sale, as a crush of buyers approached. Every truck that arrived was immediately surrounded,
mostly by young men shouting and elbowing for access. It was a sign that demand still outpaces
supply, and in the middle of the rush to buy wholesale, not everyone seemed certain free markets
were the way to go. Wary government inspectors watched for sales occurring before the official start time of 6 p.m. Jose Ramón
Murgado, 40, a member of the farmers union, said the government had introduced too much chaos into the system. “Capitalism means higher
prices,” he said. “That’s the problem.” But high
prices were also leading to adaptation and efficiency. Some
farmers from eastern Cuba said they held back loads of onions, a chief ingredient in sofrito sauce, a
basis of Cuban cuisine, until after harvest season, because they could earn more per pound. Other
farmers watching nearby seemed ready to follow their lead. For Mr. Castro and his government, the
success or failure of the reforms with agriculture and other parts of the economy may come down to
these innovators who inspire others to greater productivity — people like Mr. Toledo, the owner of three small stores
that he supplies with produce from the market. He spent a decade driving trucks in Florida and Spain, and with confidence, a few extra pounds
and some money saved, he returned a year ago to take advantage of Cuba’s new opportunities. He has his own truck now, along with six
employees scouring the market for deals. Agriculture has given him a boost, as it has others who have taken a chance on private farming. But
the question many across Cuba are asking is: How far will Mr. Castro’s socialist government let them
rise?
Impacts
Food Security
Ag collapse coming
The collapse of global agriculture is inevitable – monocultures, pesticides, soil
depletion, climate change, pollinators, peak oil and declining yields all mean a new ag
model is key to sustainability
Peters, 10 – LL.M. expected 2011, University of Arkansas School of Law, Graduate Program in
Agricultural and Food Law; J.D. 2010, University of Oregon School of Law (Kathryn, “Creating a
Sustainable Urban Agriculture Revolution” J. ENVTL. LAW AND LITIGATION [Vol. 25, 203,
http://law.uoregon.edu/org/jell/docs/251/peters.pdf)
The U.S. agricultural system is becoming increasingly more concentrated, specialized, and
industrialized.10 As of this writing, ninety-eight percent of the food supply in the United States is produced by
agribusinesses running industrial farms that employ mechanically and chemically intensive farming
methods for the maximization of profit.11 These farming methods are further encouraged through government subsidies, which operate to
affect the supply and price of agricultural commodities.12 Government subsidies have tended to benefit large agribusinesses13 and have
encouraged the use of chemical inputs and unsound farming practices, which maximize short-term yields and profits at the expense of the
environment and small local farmers.14 An
additional consequence of farm subsidies is the overproduction of
commodity crops, which requires that the United States supplement its food supply with fruits and vegetables imported from other
countries.15 Industrial agriculture in the United States has only been in place since the mid-twentieth century.16 Modern agricultural practices
began with the Green Revolution, a response to world food shortages in the 1940s that sought to increase productivity of land by employing
science-based technologies in agriculture.17 The Green Revolution was born in the 1950s and continued developing new farming methods
through the 1970s; these methods include the engineering of high-yielding plants and the establishment of large, monocultural farms heavily
reliant on chemical pesticides and fertilizers, mechanization, and irrigation.18 While the Green Revolution’s techniques were successful in
increasing food production for several decades, the
long-term effects of this method of farming on the environment,
economy, and society are now evident: groundwater contamination from chemical pesticides and
fertilizers; soil erosion and depletion of soil nutrients caused by unsound cropping practices; destruction
of necessary insects, such as bees, from pollution and the indiscriminate use of pesticides; inherent
economic risks stemming from reliance on monocrops; and side effects on humans from
agrochemicals.19 Further, these agricultural methods have resulted in the loss of the family farm20 and many rural farmers have lost their
livelihoods as human labor has been replaced by machinery.21 Rapid population growth will increasingly burden the
planet’s food supply system. In 2008, United Nation’s Chief Ban Ki-moon told world leaders the following: “The world needs to
produce more food. Food production needs to rise by 50 per cent [sic] by the year 2030 to meet the rising demand.”22 Unfortunately, the
Green Revolution’s agricultural methods may have already reached their limits.23 Most fertile land is
already cultivated and urban development trends threaten existing farmland;24 furthermore, the effects
of environmental degradation are resulting in declining crop yields.25 Peak oil26 is yet another threat to
the food supply system. Current agricultural practices in the United States are highly dependent on oil. Chemical fertilizers
currently used in industrial agriculture are produced by an extremely energy-intensive process that
combines hydrogen, which comes from fossil fuels, with nitrogen.27 The current U.S. food supply is also dependent upon
fossil fuels for the processing, storage, and transportation of food.28 As the planet’s oil supply decreases,
current fossil-fueled agricultural practices will cease to be viable and sufficient. Industrial agricultural practices are
also responsible for significant environmental degradation. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency attributes more than half of the
pollution contaminating rivers and streams in the United States to farm runoff containing chemical fertilizers and pesticides as well as
manure.29 “Dead zones,” oxygen-deprived coastal areas where deadly algae bloom, are attributed to agricultural runoff and are known to
occur in the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay.30 Groundwater and
soil are also contaminated by the vast
amounts of chemicals dumped onto crops, and these chemicals ultimately destroy the soil’s natural
fertility process.31 As soil fertility declines, industrial farms use ever-increasing amounts of chemical
fertilizers to achieve consistent yields.32 Chemical pesticides are also used in ever-increasing amounts.33 As pests and insects
become resistant to chemicals, industrial farmers must use increasingly lethal chemical pesticides.34 Furthermore, chemical pesticides are
applied indiscriminately and beneficial insects are destroyed alongside harmful ones.35 Additionally, mechanized administration methods are
harmfully imprecise; much of the administered pesticides never reach the plants but do reach surrounding soil and water.36 Thus, mechanized
administration causes excessive contamination of the soil and water without providing a countervailing benefit to the crops.37 Industrial
monocultural farming focuses on large-scale production of a single crop; as a result, land is
overcultivated, crops are not rotated, and cover crops that protect topsoil between growing seasons are
not employed.38 Monocultural farming practices have many negative consequences, including soil
erosion, depletion of soil nutrients, loss of biodiversity, extinction of natural enemies, increased
agricultural waste, and increased use of chemicals.39 Monoculture practices also upset the natural balance of the planet’s
ecosystems.40 When we upset the balance of ecosystems, the long-term effects of these disturbances may not be realized for many years, and
at that point it will be too late to reverse the damage. Industrial,
monocultural agriculture systems are also threatened
by climate zone shifts brought on by greenhouse gas emissions.41 Climate change will reduce water
sources, raise sea levels resulting in flooding of coastal land, and dry the interiors of the northern
continents.42 Flooding and drought conditions will stress agricultural systems, and food shortages will likely ensue.43 Industrial
monoculture farms require intensive investment into land development, irrigation, and equipment.44 As climate change continues,
many monoculture farms will no longer be suitable for producing the single crops they were designed to
produce.45 Diverse, multidimensional agricultural systems will allow for the adaptation of crop and
farming practices in response to rapidly changing climate conditions and will help to ensure food
security.
Industrial ag is unsustainable- collapse inevitable
Wright, 9 - Deputy Director of Coventry University's Centre for Agroecology and Food Security (Julia,
Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in an Era of Oil Scarcity, p. 15-16)
Although successful in enabling the availability of a narrow range of foods to a wide range of people,
industrialized and global farming and food systems have a long way to go to be acceptably efficient and
effective. They degrade the very natural resource base upon which agriculture (and human life) depends
– from soil and water quality to plant DNA structure – and inadequately provide in terms of both
quantity and quality. Degradation of the natural resource base There is little contestation over the
degradation of the natural resource base. Industrial practices result in vast tracts of degraded land, yield
declines, loss of plant and animal species diversity, increase in susceptibility to disease, and other
serious side-effects over the medium to long term, and have led to a loss of livelihoods (Tansey and
Worsley, 1995; FAO, 1997; Conway, 1998; Pingali and Rosegrant, 1998; Oldeman, 1999; Sustain, 2003;
Hole et al, 2005). This is particularly so for marginal lands, where the poor soils cannot sustain monocultures of annual crops, and which are more vulnerable to flood and drought (Hazell and Garrett, 2001;
McNeely and Sherr, 2001). Environmental degrada- tion is also expensive: even a decade ago,
agricultural losses due to land degradation were about $550 million annually (Tansey and Worsley,
1995), and the UN estimates that global income loss due to desertification is $42 billion. Ecologically
based, organic farming practices show themselves to be more successful at supporting a broad and
adapted diversity of crop species and vari- eties, building soil fertility and plant resistance to disease and
infection, and maintaining clean water courses (Greene and Kremen, 2003; SAN, 2003; Marriot and
Wander, 2006). Strengthening the natural resource base also enables farms to better withstand external
shocks and stresses, including drought and flood (Holt-Giménez, 2002; Lotter et al, 2003; Ching, 2004).
Agriculture accounts for 70 per cent of freshwater use globally, and the UN predicts that, by 2025, 38
per cent of the population will have insufficient water supply (compared with 8 per cent in 2008) (Lang,
2008). Organic practices increase water retention capacity and efficiency by improving soil structure and
increasing soil life, by cultivating climatically adapted varieties, and by growing polycultures of
deeprooting and ground-covering crops. Evidence also indicates that organic farming approaches
produce lower greenhouse-gas emissions. The reasons for this are threefold: they avoid ammonium
nitrate fertilizer (the production of which was responsible for 10 per cent of Europe’s industrial gas
emissions in 2003), they encourage carbon seques- tration through cultivation of deeprooting plants,
and livestock’s methane emissions are lower if they are feeding on legume pasture (Hamer and Anslow,
2008).
The collapse of industrial ag is inevitable due to peak oil – a shift to organics is the
only way to make it sustainable
Wright, 9 - Deputy Director of Coventry University's Centre for Agroecology and Food Security (Julia,
Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in an Era of Oil Scarcity, p. 1-2)
Over the next few decades, nations will be experiencing fluctuations and increasing scarcity of fossil fuel
supplies, and this will affect food prices. Alternative farming and food systems are required.
Industrialized countries in particular have been over-consuming fossil fuels by two-thirds, and their
agricultural sectors have contributed this with their heavy dependence on cheap fossil energy for
mechanization and as a basis for agrochemical inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers. The
corresponding industrial food systems in which these farming systems are embedded are similarly
dependent on cheap fossil fuels for the ever-increasing processing and movement of foodstuffs. The low
fuel prices, combined with the industry’s avoidance of paying clean-up costs of environmental pollution,
have enabled the maintenance of low food prices (Vandermeer et al, 1993; Odum, 1994; Tansey and
Worsley, 1995; Desai and Riddlestone, 2002; Harrison, 2004). Alternative, organic agriculture shows to
perform better on a per hectare scale with respect to both direct energy consumption (fuel and oil) and
indirect consumption (synthetic fertilizers and pesticides) (Scialabba and Hattam, 2002; Ziesemer, 2008).
Many of the products of organic farming are processed and marketed through the industrial food
system, but their prices are higher owing to their factoring-in of their impacts on the environment
(Pretty et al, 2000). Although research has long been under way into energy alternatives, the agriculture
and food sectors make little advance in developing alternative systems as long as fuel prices remain low.
A far cry from these petroleum-dependent populations are the 90 per cent of the world’s farmers who
manage 75 per cent of global agricultural lands and who have little recourse to fossil fuels and inputs
(Conway, 1997). For many of these farmers, their low-input and organic status is by default rather than
choice. Yet others have opted out of the opportunity to embrace industrialized, Green Revolution
agriculture when offered to them.1 Should these farmers, and the food systems of their countries, be
encouraged to take the industrialized route and to also depend on fossil fuels, or might they leap-frog
into develop- ing more efficient and effective alternative food systems? Yet more localized, petroleumfree farming approaches are perceived by many as unable to deliver the yields required to feed growing
populations, especially those of agrarian-based countries. An estimated 200 million people are classified
as undernourished in Africa alone, and with forecasts predicting a shortfall in meeting the Millennium
Development Goal of halving global food insecurity by 2015, pressure remains on the agricultural sector
to increase yields (FAO, 1998; IAC, 2003; Benson, 2004). Evidence is mounting that alternative farming
approaches can outperform industrialized farming in many circum- stances (e.g. Pretty, 1998; Parrott
and Marsden, 2002; Scialabba and Hattam, 2002; IFAD, 2003). However, this evidence is piecemeal and
small-scale. No single country has made a policy commitment to, and effected, a nationwide
sustainable, organic production approach. Thus there is no example of what a post-petroleum food
system might look like, nor how to put this into place in terms of research, extension and policy support
(Röling and Jiggins, 1998).
Industrial ag collapse inevitable
Cohn et al 6 (Avery Cohn, Jonathan Cook, Margarita Fernandez, Rebecca Reider, Corrina Steward, all
of them have received a Masters of Environmental Science from the Yale School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies, “Agroecology and the Struggle for Food Sovereignty in the Americas,” IIED,
CEESP & Yale F&ES, published in 2006)
Among the results of today’s factory farming are degraded and eroded soils, depleted aquifiers,
poisoned wells and waterways, and offshore marine “dead zones” caused by the runoff of crop
fertilizers and animal excrement. Soils that have been compacted by heavy machinery and deadened
by agrochemicals retain less water and require more irrigation than living soils rich in organic matter
and microorganisms. Monocropping and confined feeding makes plants and animals more vulnerable
to disease; the application of pesticides and medicinal agrochemicals often becomes self-defeating as
insects, weeds, and microorganisms develop resistance and more chemicals or new types of chemicals
must be applied. Industrial agriculture as we know it today cannot be sustained over the long term
Try or die for the aff- shortages of crucial chemicals used for current techniques
depleted- need a switch now
Mercola 13(phd in enviormental studies, http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/02/fertilizer.aspx)
Modern fertilizer consists of varying amounts of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K).
These three are believed to be essential for plants to grow, (below, I’ll discuss why NPK may not be as necessary as we
think.), and are extracted from the soil with each harvest. This is why farmers spread fertilizer on their fields, to replace the nutrients lost. It’s
certainly not the ideal and sustainable way to farm, but it’s thought to be the most efficient for large-scale farms. Strategies like
crop
rotation and allowing large fields to rest would cut too deep into profits that are based on quantity,
opposed to quality. Unfortunately, the Earth's soil is now being depleted of nutrients at more than 13
percent the rate it can be replaced. Not only that, but according to some, we may also be facing looming shortages
of two critical fertilizer ingredients: phosphorus and potassium. A 2012 article in Mother Jones1 discussed “peak
phosphorus and potassium,” drawing lines of similarity between the diminishing reserves of these natural elements and “peak oil.” Unlike
phosphorus and potassium cannot be synthesized, and our aggressive large-scale farming
methods, which deplete soils of nutrients that then must be replaced, are quickly burning through
available phosphorus and potassium stores. According to well-known investor Jeremy Grantham, writing for Nature: “These
two elements cannot be made, cannot be substituted, are necessary to grow all life forms, and are
mined and depleted. It’s a scary set of statements. Former Soviet states and Canada have more than 70 percent of the potash.
nitrogen,
Morocco has 85 percent of all high-grade phosphates. It is the most important quasi-monopoly in economic history. What happens when these
fertilizers run out is a question I can’t get satisfactorily answered and, believe me, I have tried. There seems
to be only one
conclusion: their use must be drastically reduced in the next 20-40 years or we will begin to starve.” This
largely unknown issue may end up playing a more significant role than you can currently imagine, because it cuts to the heart of the
sustainability of modern agricultural practices, or rather the lack thereof. “[T]he next time someone facilely insists that the 'industrial farms are
the future,' ask what the plan is regarding phosphorus,” Mother Jones writes. “Developing
an agriculture that's ready for a
phosphorus shortage means a massive focus on recycling the nutrients we take from the soil back into
the soil—in other words, composting, not on a backyard level but rather on a society-wide scale. It also requires policies that give
farmers incentives to build up organic matter in soil, so it holds in nutrients instead of letting them leach away... Both of these solutions, of
course, are specialties of organic
agriculture.”
Extinction Impact
Ag collapse causes extinction
Peters, 10 – LL.M. expected 2011, University of Arkansas School of Law, Graduate Program in
Agricultural and Food Law; J.D. 2010, University of Oregon School of Law (Kathryn, “Creating a
Sustainable Urban Agriculture Revolution” J. ENVTL. LAW AND LITIGATION [Vol. 25, 203,
http://law.uoregon.edu/org/jell/docs/251/peters.pdf)
An adequate food supply is essential for the survival of the human race . Historically, the U.S. food
system has been one of abundance. However, degradation of the environment, climate change,
dependence on foreign oil and food imports, urban development trends, and increased demand due to
population growth and the emerging biofuel industry2 all threaten our food supply. In response to these
threats, local-food and sustainable agriculture movements have recently formed to raise awareness of
the need to pursue alternatives to the current system.3 In 2009, the White House acknowledged the
importance of changing the way we grow food by planting an organic garden on its grounds.4 In the
wake of the economic crisis of 2008, victory gardens, which were first made popular during the World
War II era, have reemerged and created additional awareness of the need to pursue food production
alternatives.5 Victory gardens and local sustainable agriculture reduce dependency on the established
food production system, but, because the U.S. population is clustered in densely populated
metropolitan areas,6 the majority of the population currently lacks access to land on which to grow
food. In the face of environmental, economic, and social equity challenges, it is imperative that the
government, at federal, state, and local levels, establish policies that promote sustainable urban
agriculture to ensure access to an adequate food supply produced with minimal impact on the
environment. Environmental threats stemming from climate change and the depletion and degradation
of natural resources will increasingly impact the planet’s food production system.7 The current
economic crisis has increased the burden on the government to provide relief in the forms of
unemployment compensation8 and supplemental nutrition assistance.9 An inherent consequence of the
economic crisis is a widening disparity between the rich and poor and increased social inequity between
the socioeconomic classes in America. Establishing a sustainable urban agricultural system would reduce
the environmental degradation that is caused by modern agricultural practices, reduce the financial
strain on government resources by increasing urban productivity and enabling urbanites to grow a local
food supply, and reduce socioeconomic disparities by providing less-advantaged populations in urban
areas with access to an adequate supply of fresh, nutritious food.
Adoption of polyculture is key to food security and prevents soil erosion – solves
extinction
Yadav et al. 11, (“Crop Adaptation to Climate Change”, page xxv, July 2011 - *slightly messed up in OCR)
These trends are particularly worrying when it comes to our food security, for agricultural biodiversity
is now more threatened than ever. Seventy-live percent of the food crop varieties we once grew have
disappeared from our fields in the last 100 years. Of (he 7000 species of plants that have been domesticated over the history of
agriculture. a mere 30 account for 90% of all the food that we eat every day. This loss of ge-netic diversity has potentially
devastating conse-quences. For example, widespread failure in our handful of remaining major crops
due to disease or pest outbreaks is a very real possibility: given that pest and pathogens are
constantly evolving. A diverse gene pool is essential we are to develop insect- and disease-resistant
strains in the future. Moreover, our reliance on so few crops makes human populations that much
more vulnerable to climate change: as growing conditions change, the most suitable species or
cultivars in a given region may likewise change. Agricultural biodiversity is extremely important
because it provides humans not only with food but also with raw materials for many different
goods—such as cotton for clothing, wood for shelter and fuel, plants and roots for medicines, and
materials for biofuels—and with incomes and livelihoods, including those derived from subsistence
farming. Agricultural biodiversity also performs ecosystem services such as soil and water
conservation and maintenance of soil fertility and biota, all of which are essential to human survival.
Food Wars
Sustainable yields are key to prevent food wars
Vatkiotis, 08 – Asia regional director for the Geneva-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue
(Michael, 05/28/08, New Straits Times, “A hungry world tests skills of peacemakers,” Lexis) //SP
THE food price crisis is threatening to plunge millions back into poverty and if not handled properly can blow out of proportion and spark global
problems affecting economic growth and political security, writes MICHAEL VATIKIOTIS War and
hunger are inseparable: long
experience has shown the close relationship between economic distress and the outbreak of conflict. But
the solutions the international community tends to apply are mostly political and rarely address material needs. Everyday concerns of
the population rarely reach the negotiating table, in part because the economic and social problems in
conflict-ridden societies are extremely complex, involve many actors and can only be resolved in the long term. So what
happens when people are driven to kill one another for food? It's a critical question to ask as the world
faces a sudden and unexpected food price crisis that is threatening to plunge millions back into poverty.
The sharp spike in food prices this year has already generated violence. Food riots in parts of Africa and
the Caribbean have created social and political instability. In rice-growing countries like India, Vietnam and Thailand
hoarding has begun, with export bans already in place creating inter-state friction. Myanmar's rice-growing capacity has
been devastated by cyclone Nargis, which will add to price pressures in the coming months. This is largely a crisis born of inflation and other
market factors, rather than fundamental shortages. Prices for the benchmark Thai variety of rice, a food staple across much of Asia, have
increased threefold in a year, reports the Asian Development Bank. Meat prices have risen by 60 per cent in Bangladesh in the year ending in
March, and by 45 per cent in Cambodia and 30 per cent in the Philippines. With this sharp increase in the price of basic staples people are
already hoarding, stealing and fighting over scarce supplies. The World Food Programme calls it a "Silent Tsunami". The
threat of
conflict is real, both within societies where the numbers impoverished by higher grain prices is already
high, and also between states as the trend towards commercial liberalisation and conglomeration is
suddenly reversed and replaced by subsidies, price-fixing cartels, and export curbs. In Indonesia. a retired general recently warned: "If
students demonstrate it's not a worry, but if hungry people take to the streets, now that's dangerous." Hunger
causes conflict when people feel they have nothing to lose and are willing to kill their neighbours over
scarce resources. The peasant wars of the late 20th century in Central and South America and the wars
that sprung from famine in Nigeria, Ethiopia and Sudan are grim reminders of man's most basic instinct,
which is to fight to survive. The trouble is that in terms of resolving conflict, we have come to rely less on material remedies and
more on political artifice. Many of the internal conflicts that have been peacefully resolved in recent years only superficially addressed the
material seeds of conflict. Peace agreements have been elite affairs where leaders of armed groups and governments reached an
understanding on how to share power within a common state. This approach is a sensible first step toward conflict resolution: by convincing
those inciting violence to lay down their arms, it becomes possible to start designing a wider range of policies addressing socio-economic issues.
However,
typically, the socio-economic changes and the economic reconstruction and development the
public was expecting trickled down slowly, if at all. Aceh remains one of the poorest parts of Indonesia, as does Mindanao in
the southern Philippines - two areas of Southeast Asia where peace has been negotiated. When hunger drives people into conflict, we might
presume that peacemaking will simply be a question of providing food. We would be mistaken. In fact, the experience of humanitarian aid
agencies in the 1970s and 80s in Africa was that food
aid tends to fuel conflict as the combatants seek to harness the
supply of nutrition to the goals of war. Experts tell us that farmers will eventually adjust the supply of food to cope with higher
demand so that prices stabilise. More encouragingly, there are signs that decades of improving co-operation between states is stimulating a
collective urge to resolve the crisis. The sharing of technology is key says former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan. He believes that
farmers in Africa could double food output in five to 10 years if rich countries partner them in a "Green Revolution" for a long-term solution to
the continent's food crisis. But realistically, trade agreements and technological advances are slow-moving transformations. In the meantime,
officials in India warn that the food price crisis could plunge millions of people into poverty in a country
that is already battling an internal Marxist insurgency that draws support from impoverished and landless peasants. In
Bangladesh, where the soaring cost of staples has forced the marginally poor to give up meat and rice,
there is a significantly increased risk of conflict in an already fractured polity. The immediate challenge,
therefore, is to prevent and resolve conflict arising from the food crisis. This places a significant burden on
the international community to swiftly respond to outbreaks of violence. But if people driven to war by
hunger are less inclined to compromise this makes the task of peacemaking rather more challenging. For
one thing, conflict
fuelled by hunger will be more widespread, exerting strain on international agencies involved in
security is already fragile in many African countries and protracted
conflict tends to drift across borders, as we have seen in Sudan and Congo. Peacemakers need to be more aware of the sociopeacekeeping and humanitarian work. Food
economic roots of conflict. They should incorporate in peace agreements remedies for the population's grievances and to enlist the
international community's support behind their implementation. Such remedies should include pledges by leaders to address in a meaningful
manner contentious issues such as land distribution, job creation, and racial and ethnic discrimination leading to socioeconomic inequality. The
ethnic and religious wars of the last half of the 20th century have perhaps lulled us into a false sense of security. We have grown accustomed to
resolving conflict by forging political accommodation and compromise in situations where protagonists had much to lose materially if they kept
on fighting. But in
a world where environmental and market pressures can triple the price of staple
commodities in the matter of a few months, it is harder to find the grounds for compromise. This calls for
more effective negotiating skills both domestically and internationally, bilaterally as well as multilaterally, to resolve these crises. Markets must
be kept open to assist with the flow of goods to crisis situations, and in affected countries solutions must be found that address both elite and
popular grievances.
Food crises escalate
Calvin, ‘02 – University of Washington (William H, “A Brain For All Seasons”,
http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/BrainForAllSeasons/NAcoast.htm) //SP
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields will cause some powerful
countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands – if only because their armies, unpaid and
lacking food, will go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries
will attempt to use their armies, before they fall apart entirely, to take over countries with significant
remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to
accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will be a worldwide
problem – and could easily lead to a Third World War – but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to
analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine.
Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It
could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
Warming
Extension – Organic Key
Only a transition to organic agriculture can prevent catastrophic warming
Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, 10/7/10
(Agriculture and Human Survival: The Road Beyond 10/10/10,
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/07-9)
The currently catastrophic, but largely unrecognized, GHG damage from GMO crops and industrial food
production and distribution must be reversed. This will involve wholesale changes in farming practices,
government subsidies, food processing and handling. In the U.S. it will require the conversion of a
million chemical farms and ranches to organic production. It will require the establishment of millions of
urban backyard and community gardens, and the restoration of prairielands, forests, and wetlands. If
consumer rebellion and grassroots mobilization cannot force U.S. factory farmers to change the way
they farm, process, and ship their products it will be almost impossible to deal with catastrophic U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. On a very hopeful note, however, if farmers do change,
stop planting GMOs, and make the transition to organic farming, farm and ranch land can become a
significant sink or sequestration pool for greenhouse gasses, literally sucking excess greenhouse gases
out of the atmosphere and the ozone layer and sequestering them safely in the soil, where they
belong. The overly saturated global atmosphere now contains 800 billion tons of carbon. (For climate
stability purposes it should only contain 700 billion tons or less or carbon). This is why the weather is
changing. This is why we are experiencing a climate crisis. If we are to survive, we not only need to keep
the remaining 3.2 trillion tons of carbon in the soil, where it is now (instead of allowing it to be released
into the atmosphere as collateral damage from industrial agriculture), but we must also capture and
sequester (through organic soil and land management) at least 100 billions tons of excess carbon that
are currently over-saturating the atmosphere.
East Asian Conflict
East Asian Conflict
Food shortages fuel East Asian war
Julian Cribb, Professor in Science Communication at the University of Technology Sydney, 2010
(Julian, principal of JCA, fellow of the Australian Academy
of Technological Sciences and Engineering, “The Coming Famine: The
Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do to Avoid It”, p. 20)
The threat or conflict over food, land, and water is not, however, confined to the marginal world.
Increasingly it imperils the economic powerhouses of the global economy in the early twenty-first
century. In 2001 the Australian strategic analyst Alan Dupont predicted, "Food is destined to have
greater strategic weight and import in an era of environmental scarcity. While optimists maintain that
the world is perfectly capable of meeting the anticipated increases in demand for essential foodstuffs,
there are enough imponderables to suggest that prudent governments would not want to rely on such a
felicitous outcome." Anticipating the food crisis of 2007-8 by several years, he presciently added, "East
Asia's rising demand for food and diminishing capacity to feed itself adds an unpredictable new
element to the global food equation for several reasons. The gap between production and consumption
of key foodstuffs globally is narrowing dangerously and needs to be reversed." Bearing out his words,
Singapore president Lee Ilsieng Loong told a 2008 international defense conference, "In the longer term,
the trends towards tighter supplies and higher prices will likely reassert themselves. This has serious
security implications. The impact of a chronic food shortage will be felt especially by the poor countries.
The stresses from hunger and famine can easily result in social upheaval and civil strife, exacerbating
conditions that lead to failed states. Between countries, competition for food supplies and
displacement of people across borders could deepen tensions and provoke conflict and wars."
US/China War
Food shortages cause US/China War
The Nation, 4/29/2011 [“Global food prices are on the rise. In the first two months of this year, food
prices have posted record increases. Governments worldwide are on the defensive. Millions of people in
Asia are being pushed into extreme poverty. A new report from the Asian D” Lexis]
The recent crises in Tunisia and Egypt, which have seen a change in government, were due to the rising
cost of living and high unemployment. In part, this economic crisis has spilled over into regional turmoil,
with Libya facing a full-blown war. In Asia, according to the ADB, domestic food inflation in many
regional economies averaged 10 per cent in early 2011. The ADB study finds that a 10 per cent rise in
domestic food prices in developing Asia, home to 3.3 billion people, could push an additional 64 million
people into extreme poverty based on the US 1.25 a day poverty line. "For poor families in developing
Asia, who already spend more than 60 per cent of their income on food, higher food prices further
reduce their ability to pay for medical care and their children's education," said ADB chief economist
Changyong Rhee. "Left unchecked, the food crisis will badly undermine recent gains in poverty reduction
made in Asia." Asia is now bearing the brunt of the policy mistakes and the economic crises in the
developed nations, which have resorted to extremely loose monetary policy to revive their economies
without resorting to the painful course of financial and economic restructuring. The US Federal Reserve
has been monetising government debts, printing new money to pay for the old money because the
government has been running huge deficits. With interest rates touching almost zero per cent, the
cheap dollar has driven up commodity prices and the financial markets are creating bubbles. Since
investors are worried about the future outlook of the reserve currency status of the dollar, they have
shifted their funds into hard assets, including oil. With higher oil prices and higher commodity prices in
general, inflation and a food crisis will ensue. The United States has blamed China for causing massive
global imbalances because it has kept its currency artificially low through a currency peg regime. But
China has retorted that the US should restructure its economy and financial system rather than blame
someone else. The spectre of conflict between the superpowers does not bode well for the international
community. The ADB report adds that if the global food and oil price hikes seen in early 2011 persist for
the remainder of the year, economic growth in the region could be reduced by up to 1.5 percentage
points. Already, Thai economic growth has been revised downward from 4.2 per cent to 3.7 per cent on
global inflationary pressure and the impact from supply shocks from Japan, which is still reeling after its
earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disasters. In the short term, the pattern of higher and more volatile
food prices is likely to continue the report says, noting that global grain stocks have fallen. Rice prices
are likely to continue their uptrend as the effects of the weather pattern La Nina persist, prompting
consumers to seek less costly and less nutritious substitutes.
Water Shortages
Extension – Ag Causes Water Shortages
Industrial agriculture causes global water shortages
Dale Allen Pfeiffer, Geologist, science journalist, and editor of From the Wilderness, 10/3/2003
(Eating Fossil Fuels, www.organicconsumers.org/corp/fossil-fuels.cfm)
Modern agriculture also places a strain on our water resources. Agriculture consumes fully 85% of all
U.S. freshwater resources. Overdraft is occurring from many surface water resources, especially in the
west and south. The typical example is the Colorado River, which is diverted to a trickle by the time it
reaches the Pacific. Yet surface water only supplies 60% of the water used in irrigation. The remainder,
and in some places the majority of water for irrigation, comes from ground water aquifers. Ground
water is recharged slowly by the percolation of rainwater through the earth's crust. Less than 0.1% of
the stored ground water mined annually is replaced by rainfall.27 The great Ogallala aquifer that
supplies agriculture, industry and home use in much of the southern and central plains states has an
annual overdraft up to 160% above its recharge rate. The Ogallala aquifer will become unproductive in a
matter of decades. We can illustrate the demand that modern agriculture places on water resources by
looking at a farmland producing corn. A corn crop that produces 118 bushels/acre/year requires more
than 500,000 gallons/acre of water during the growing season. The production of 1 pound of maize
requires 1,400 pounds (or 175 gallons) of water. Unless something is done to lower these
consumption rates, modern agriculture will help to propel the United States into a water crisis.
Disease
Widespread organic adoption solves warming, disease, and the economy
Wright 08, Julia Wright: Ph.D., Ecological Farming and Food Systems in Cuba, Wageningen University, The Netherlands. P.G.Dip., Land
and Water Management, Cranfield University. M.Sc., Sustainable Agriculture, University of London. B.A., Studies in the Rural Environment,
University of Wales. She is now a Deputy Director at the Centre for Agroecology and Food Security, (“Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security
in an Era of Oil Scarcity : Lessons from Cuba ”, page 1, November 2008)
Further inefficiencies in the food system comprise food losses, food wastage and the externalized
costs of environmental and human health impacts. In terms of food losses, and if chemical preservatives are
avoided, several studies show unsprayed organic produce (such as wheat, apples, potatoes) to have lower
storage losses and significantly lower disease scores than unsprayed nonorganic (Raupp, 1996; Granstedt and
Kjellenberg, 1997; Birzele et al, 2002; Pedersen and Bertelsen, 2002; Moreira et al, 2003). This is thought to be due to natural
plant toxins that suppress rots and moulds (Benbrook, 2005). In terms of wastage, industrialized nations
throw away more than half the food produced each year. In the UK this discarded amount – 20 million
tons annually – is valued at $40 billion and equivalent to half of the food import needs for the whole
of Africa. Approximately three-quarters of wastage occurs in homes, shops, restaurants, hotels and food manufacturing. The rest is lost
between the farm and the shop shelf (Mesure, 2008). In addition to the costs of cleaning up environmental damage,
the restoration of human health is also a hidden cost of the food system that is not included in the
cost of food, but instead is paid for by governments and society. In 1996, these health costs amounted to $81– 117 per
hectare in Germany and $343 per hectare in the UK (Pretty et al, 2000). The ineffectiveness of the food system
also shows up in relation to income inequities. Farming accounts for half the world’s workforce, yet is
one of the most poorly paid professions in the world, with thousands of farmers going out of business
or committing suicide annually (Lang, 2008). Rising oil prices are affecting the cost of food, but prior to
this farm gate prices tended to fall or remain fairly constant, whereas profits in the food industry
soared. In 2005, for example, the combined profit of the world’s top five food and beverage manufacturers was $33 billion (Oram, 2008).
Despite its power and influence, the food industry has remained largely unaccountable in the food security debate (Wright, 2005).
Organics solve disease and global health
Wright 08, Julia Wright: Ph.D., Ecological Farming and Food Systems in Cuba, Wageningen University, The Netherlands. P.G.Dip., Land
and Water Management, Cranfield University. M.Sc., Sustainable Agriculture, University of London. B.A., Studies in the Rural Environment,
University of Wales. She is now a Deputy Director at the Centre for Agroecology and Food Security, (“Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security
in an Era of Oil Scarcity : Lessons from Cuba ”, page 1, November 2008)
Comparing the human health impacts of foods produced under different farming regimes is challenging: the human body is complex, making
holistic and generational studies expensive and impractical, scientific paradigms and belief systems differ in terms of sets of specific health
indicators and ways of measuring them, 5 and there a few public funds available for research (Heaton, 2001; Niggli et al, 2007; IFOAM, 2008a).
Nevertheless, there
is no body of evidence to show any human health advantages of consuming
industrially produced foods. Conversely, there is a substantial and still-growing body of evidence
demonstrating the converse: that ecologically based, organic foods contain more desirable
components and fewer harmful ones. 6 The practice of industrial agriculture has led to a dramatic
decline in the macroand micro-nutrient content of foodstuffs over the last century. For example,
mineral levels of fruits and vegetables in the UK have fallen by up to 76 per cent between 1940 and
1991 (McCance and Widdowson, 1940– 1991; Mayer, 1997; Baker, 2001), and a similar trend has been seen in the USA
and Canada (Rees and Wackernagel, 1996; Bergner, 1997; Davis et al, 2005). This decline is attributed to the
unintentional selecting-out of high-nutrient crop varieties when breeding crops for high yield
potential, the use of shallow-rooting annuals that are unable to tap into soil nutrients at deeper levels, and
the failure to return a full complement of nutrients to the topsoil. Industrialized monocultures also reduce varietal and
crop diversity in produce destined for the plate. A combination of different species results in a more
balanced diet than any one species can provide, in particular if using traditional seeds and breeds (van Rensburg et al, 2004;
Johns et al, 2006). Several studies and reviews have compared the levels of nutritionally relevant compounds in food produced along organic
and industrial lines (Diver, 2000; Heaton, 2001; Worthington, 2001; Magkos et al, 2003; Rembialkowska, 2005). Although results are variable,
the trend shows organic plant foods to have higher levels of vitamin C, minerals including iron and magnesium, plantsecondary metabolites or
phytochemicals (antioxidants), essential amino acids and dry matter content. Organic foods also tend to show lower levels of nitrate and total
protein. Organic meat and milk have more fatty acids, vitamin E and beta-carotene (Adriaansen-Tennekes et al,
2005; Ellis et al, 2006; Soil Association, 2007). Other systematic differences in composition have been found, although the relevance of these
differences for human health is not yet known. What is known is that organic crops are more nutrient dense, which arguably offsets yield
reductions and rebalances the ratio of food quality to quantity. Plant-secondary
metabolites or phytonutrients require
highlighting because of their beneficial effects in the treatment of cancer and other illnesses (Plaskett,
1999). These plant compounds are produced as part of their self-defence or resistance to pests and
diseases, and levels are reduced when chemical pesticides and fertilizers are employed (Bennett and Rosa,
2006). 7 On a fresh weight basis, organic foods consistently contain at least 10– 50 per cent higher
concentrations of plant secondary metabolites than in comparable industrially produced foods (Brandt
and Mølgaard, 2001, 2006; Kumar et al, 2004; Heinäaho et al, 2006; Amodio and Kader, 2007; Mitchell et al, 2007; Rembialkowska et al, 2007;
Toor et al, 2007).
Ingested pesticide residues are found to damage both the structure and functioning of
the immune system in animals and humans, and are also implicated in neurotoxicity, the disruption
of the endocrine system and carcinogenicity (BSAEM/BSNM, 1995; Faustini, 1996; Repetto and Balinga, 1996; Colosio, 1997;
Voccia et al, 1999; Dewailly et al, 2000; Hancock et al, 2008). Tests on certified organic food show a 3– 4 times lower
risk of containing pesticide residues than industrially produced food, and following an organic diet
eliminates exposure to common insecticides (Lu et al, 2005; Winter and Davis, 2006). The handling of pesticides
results in 3 million pesticide poisonings a year and 20,000 deaths, largely in less industrialized regions (WHO, 1999).
The majority of food evaluation studies focus on the composition of individual foods and single nutrients, and very few on holistic feeding
studies. Three
epidemiological studies do indicate improvements in physical, mental and psychic wellbeing, including increased immunological activity, for humans following organic diets (Alm et al, 1999; Alfvén
et al, 2006; Leiber et al, 2006). Studies on animals are easier to undertake, and feeding trials in general indicate
significant improvements in the growth, reproductive health and recovery from illness of animals fed
organically produced feed (Heaton, 2001; Worthington, 2001; Finamore et al, 2004; Adriannsen-Tennekes et al, 2005; Lauridsen et al,
2005; Baranska et al, 2007).
Unchecked disease causes human extinction
South China Morning Post, 1-4-1996 (Dr. Ben Abraham= “called "one of the 100 greatest minds in
history" by super-IQ society Mensa” and owner of “Toronto-based biotechnology company, Structured
Biologicals Inc” according to same article)
Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a much more
pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV. If this makes Dr
Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people
in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham,
the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of
natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity
could face extinction because of a single virus,
deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can
come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person
and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a
Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history
has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have
predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the
deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread.
Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next
20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something
new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in
New York, at a recent conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said: "Nature isn't
benign. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant
sources of genetic
variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system. " He cites the 1968
Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed
in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This
raises the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the
survival of the human race," he said.
Fertility
Industrial pesticides cause extinction
WDP 97—Western Daily Press, 10/6/1997. “Diana's gone all sari-eyed,” Lexis.
For new research claims that PMT - which is supposed to be due to drops in oestrogen levels - is a myth, it's all in the mind, just an excuse used by women when
they have those perfectly normal random bouts of depression or irritability which men get too. Only men don't have a convenient hormonal syndrome they can
blame. Oestrogen is clearly tricky stuff, for elsewhere, scientists
are blaming it for the potential extinction of mankind.
Oestrogen in the atmosphere - and the industrial chemicals and pesticides which mimic it - are, they say, causing increases in
cancer and dramatic drops in fertility in males of many species, including humans. It could, indeed, wipe out the human race. We don't
dispute the way high levels of testosterone can affect males, so how come people are so eager to deny that similar changes in oestrogen levels can make us women
a bit tetchy at times? Surely if it's powerful enough to result in the destruction
oestrogen might also cause a teensy- weensy bit of disturbance in women now and again?
of planetary life, it's not unreasonable to think
Endocrine disruption causes extinction – prevents reproduction
Californians For Alternatives To Toxics, 2004, “Toxic Pesticides”,
http://www.alternatives2toxics.org/toxicpesticides.htm, accessed 9-12
Pesticides, such as oryzalin, metam sodium, simazine or oxyfluorfen, which laboratory studies show affect blood and blood-forming
tissues, may be especially dangerous for persons with inherited blood abnormalities or acquired blood diseases. Even sulfur,
which is considered relatively low in toxicity, can be threatening to an asthmatic.
* chemical interactions such as synergism and other
effects that are created as a result of mixing chemicals together. Research on chemical blends like those in pesticide formulations is limited
* endocrine disruption, or alteration to the system that regulates
hormones. Although there is evidence in nature and even in humans, damage to the endocrine system
by pesticides and other chemicals is only now beginning to be considered by the EPA for future studies and regulatory action.
Endocrine disrupting chemicals often affect reproductive organs and reproduction and they are
especially dangerous to fetuses or young children. This is of particular concern to scientists because
of the threat to future survival of humans and other species. * immune system depression. Hundreds of scientific
to lethal effects and acute eye and skin effects.
studies of humans in agricultural areas in Canada and the former Soviet Union found adverse alterations to immune systems and higher
rates of infectious disease than unexposed populations (WRI 1996). Studies in experimental animals prove that many pesticides have the
ability to disrupt immune system flinctions following acute and even low-level exposures.
Terrorism
Industrial ag dependence encourages bioterrorism, attacks on oil supply, and resource
wars
Peters, 10 – LL.M. expected 2011, University of Arkansas School of Law, Graduate Program in
Agricultural and Food Law; J.D. 2010, University of Oregon School of Law (Kathryn, “Creating a
Sustainable Urban Agriculture Revolution” J. ENVTL. LAW AND LITIGATION [Vol. 25, 203,
http://law.uoregon.edu/org/jell/docs/251/peters.pdf)
In order to be capable of sustaining itself, the United States must eliminate dependence on foreign oil and food imports. Dependence on
foreign oil and food imports makes the United States vulnerable to an attack on the existing import-reliant
system.152 Further, in order to protect U.S. interests in foreign oil, the United States funds wars and military troops overseas while many
U.S. residents struggle to survive. These funds could be employed to bolster the U.S. economy and provide additional education, healthcare,
housing, and food to U.S. residents, all of which would promote social equity. As the vast majority of Americans reside in urban areas, adequate
energy supply and transportation infrastructure are vital to our current food supply system.153 A
sustainable society capable of
providing basic necessities within each community would sharply reduce the impact of an attack on the
existing infrastructure or an energy supply shortage.154 1. National Security and Industrial Agriculture An industrial
agricultural system is inherently dependent on fuel and energy for food production, transportation, and storage. Distribution of food in such a
system is not only dependent on oil, but also transportation infrastructure. An attack on the oil supply or the transportation infrastructure
would have an immediate and drastic impact on the food supply. Industrial monocultural farming in the United States, focused on large-scale
production of only the most profitable crops, threatens national security by creating dependency on foreign imports to supplement the
domestic food supply.155 Yet
another threat to food security stems from the risk of bioterrorism;156 centralized
food production sites and complex food distribution systems increase the opportunity for bioterrorist
attacks on the food supply.157 Eventual food scarcity resulting from declining crop yields through
industrial agricultural methods may lead to resource wars, further jeopardizing national security. 2.
National Security and Urban Development Trends Urban development, like industrial agriculture, is reliant upon oil and energy to function.
Declining oil and energy supplies will lead to escalating financial costs for commuting. In the face of an oil shortage, current development trends
may cease to be viable as commuting via oil-dependent automobile transportation will become prohibitively expensive or, if oil is no longer
available, even impossible. Similarly, the cost of transporting goods such as food will become increasingly expensive. Current consumption of
land and other resources to support suburban growth patterns also creates global inequalities. To maintain suburban developments, the United
States must consume more of the planet’s resources, including land and materials for construction and oil for transportation. Suburban
development also contaminates clean air and water. If this resource consumption is not managed properly, resource wars between
socioeconomic classes within our own society as well as between the United States and other countries will likely ensue.158 3. National
Security and Urban Agriculture Urban
gardens promote both national security and food security. A local
sustainable agricultural system is not dependent upon foreign oil to produce chemical fertilizers, run
farm equipment, or transport food to market. Under this type of a system, threats to the food supply, in the form of
oil shortages or oil price increases, would be diminished. Demand for food imports also decreases as local communities provide
themselves with a constant supply of fresh food. Establishing local food production and distribution networks would
reduce food scarcity vulnerabilities in the event of an attack on U.S. transportation infrastructures. As the world population
continues to grow, food scarcity will become a reality. While the United States currently relies on food imports to supplement domestic
production, worldwide food scarcity will undoubtedly impact food supplies available for importation. Urban
agriculture fosters
national security by reducing the risk of bioterrorism and other attacks on the food supply.159 Creating a
sustainable food supply system now will strengthen our national security and ensure that an adequate
supply of fresh and healthy food is available to all U.S. residents.
Environment
Organic agriculture is net better for the environment and is future-sustainable
Wright 08, Julia Wright: Ph.D., Ecological Farming and Food Systems in Cuba, Wageningen University, The Netherlands. P.G.Dip., Land
and Water Management, Cranfield University. M.Sc., Sustainable Agriculture, University of London. B.A., Studies in the Rural Environment,
University of Wales. She is now a Deputy Director at the Centre for Agroecology and Food Security, (“Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security
in an Era of Oil Scarcity : Lessons from Cuba ”, page 1, November 2008)
Over the next few decades, nations will be experiencing fluctuations and increasing scarcity of fossil
fuel supplies, and this will affect food prices. Alternative farming and food systems are required.
Industrialized countries in particular have been over-consuming fossil fuels by two-thirds, and their
agricultural sectors have contributed this with their heavy dependence on cheap fossil energy for
mechanization and as a basis for agrochemical inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers. The corresponding
industrial food systems in which these farming systems are embedded are similarly dependent on cheap fossil fuels for the ever-increasing
processing and movement of foodstuffs. The low fuel prices, combined with the industry’s avoidance of paying clean-up costs of environmental
pollution, have enabled the maintenance of low food prices (Vandermeer et al, 1993; Odum, 1994; Tansey and Worsley, 1995; Desai and
Riddlestone, 2002; Harrison, 2004). Alternative,
organic agriculture shows to perform better on a per hectare
scale with respect to both direct energy consumption (fuel and oil) and indirect consumption
(synthetic fertilizers and pesticides) (Scialabba and Hattam, 2002; Ziesemer, 2008). Many of the products of organic farming are
processed and marketed through the industrial food system, but their prices are higher owing to their factoring-in of their impacts on the
environment (Pretty et al, 2000). Although research has long been under way into energy alternatives, the agriculture and food sectors make
little advance in developing alternative systems as long as fuel prices remain low.
Solves food security and the environment – multiple warrants
-Carbon sequestration
-Net-less methane emission from livestock
-Increases soil life
-Plant adaptation
-Increases biodiversity
-Decreases the risk of plant disease
-Saves money
-Decreases risk of farm shocks
Wright 08, Julia Wright: Ph.D., Ecological Farming and Food Systems in Cuba, Wageningen University, The Netherlands. P.G.Dip., Land
and Water Management, Cranfield University. M.Sc., Sustainable Agriculture, University of London. B.A., Studies in the Rural Environment,
University of Wales. She is now a Deputy Director at the Centre for Agroecology and Food Security, (“Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security
in an Era of Oil Scarcity : Lessons from Cuba ”, page 1, November 2008)
There is little contestation over the degradation of the natural resource base. Industrial practices
result in vast tracts of degraded land, yield declines, loss of plant and animal species diversity,
increase in susceptibility to disease, and other serious side-effects over the medium to long term, and
have led to a loss of livelihoods (Tansey and Worsley, 1995; FAO, 1997; Conway, 1998; Pingali and Rosegrant, 1998; Oldeman,
1999; Sustain, 2003; Hole et al, 2005). This is particularly so for marginal lands, where the poor soils cannot
sustain monocultures of annual crops, and which are more vulnerable to flood and drought (Hazell and
Garrett, 2001; McNeely and Sherr, 2001). Environmental degradation is also expensive: even a decade ago,
agricultural losses due to land degradation were about $550 million annually (Tansey and Worsley, 1995), and
the UN estimates that global income loss due to desertification is $42 billion. Ecologically based,
organic farming practices show themselves to be more successful at supporting a broad and adapted
diversity of crop species and varieties, building soil fertility and plant resistance to disease and
infection, and maintaining clean water courses (Greene and Kremen, 2003; SAN, 2003; Marriot and Wander, 2006).
Strengthening the natural resource base also enables farms to better withstand external shocks and
stresses, including drought and flood (Holt-Giménez, 2002; Lotter et al, 2003; Ching, 2004). Agriculture accounts for
70 per cent of freshwater use globally, and the UN predicts that, by 2025, 38 per cent of the
population will have insufficient water supply (compared with 8 per cent in 2008) (Lang, 2008). Organic practices
increase water retention capacity and efficiency by improving soil structure and increasing soil life, by
cultivating climatically adapted varieties, and by growing polycultures of deeprooting and groundcovering crops. Evidence also indicates that organic farming approaches produce lower greenhouse-gas
emissions. The reasons for this are threefold: they avoid ammonium nitrate fertilizer (the production of
which was responsible for 10 per cent of Europe’s industrial gas emissions in 2003), they encourage
carbon sequestration through cultivation of deeprooting plants, and livestock’s methane emissions
are lower if they are feeding on legume pasture (Hamer and Anslow, 2008).
The status quo is untenable – transition to agroecology solves
Bohlen and House 09, (“Advances in Agroecology, Volume 14 : Sustainable Agroecosystem Management : Integrating Ecology,
Economics, and Society ”, page 1, March 09) Agricultural
production and related activities are the foundation of
human communities (MacNeill 1992). Yet the current extractive operations and methods of industrial
agriculture, dependent on currently inexpensive and readily available energy sources (primarily oil and methane gas),
are increasingly vulnerable (Heinberg 2007). In recent years crop yields have flattened, reaching
diminishing marginal returns for each added unit of input. Indeed, industrial agriculture appears to be
approaching the peak or the downside of the classic, ecological subsidy– stress curve (Odum et al. 1979). Furthermore, on a
global scale, industrial agricultural production methods continue to exacerbate soil erosion, water
pollution (especially pernicious is hypoxia at river deltas), and negative climate change. As Kirschenmann
states in Chapter 5: “the industrialization of agriculture which enabled us to dramatically increase
production during the past half-century also is a principal cause of the ecological degradation that
now threatens our ability to maintain productivity.” A central hypothesis of agroecology is that the
incorporation of internal ecosystem control enhances agricultural production and restores degraded
soil and water resources. Restoration and incorporation of internal ecosystem control within agricultural production methods and
processes (originating from biological and social sources) provide a conceptual and practical framework for mitigating
global resource degradation. A substantial body of agroecological methodology exists, but integration
and implementation of these sustainable practices on a large scale is lacking. Although no single approach or set
of ideas can fully address the complexities of agroecosystem management, current approaches clearly are failing to achieve
desired outcomes of sustainability. This volume is an attempt to provide conceptual underpinnings and examples of integrated
approaches for more sustainable agroecosystem management.
Cheap ag will destroy genetic diversity and collapse the environment in multiple ways
POLLAN 2004 (Michael, Knight Professor of Science and Environmental Journalism at UC Berkeley,
acclaimed writer and journalist, LA Times, April 23, http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=23)
The cheap U.S. corn has also wreaked havoc on Mexico's land, according to the Carnegie report. The small farmers forced
off their land often sell out to larger farmers who grow for export, farmers who must adopt far more
industrial (and especially chemical- and water-intensive) practices to compete in the international
marketplace. Fertilizer runoff into the Sea of Cortez starves its marine life of oxygen, and Mexico's
scarce water resources are leaching north, one tomato at a time. Mexico's industrial farmers now produce fruits and vegetables for American tables yearround. It's ridiculous for a country like Mexico whose people are often hungry to use its best land to grow produce for a country where food is so abundant that its people are obese—but
Meanwhile, the small farmers struggling to hold on in Mexico are forced to grow
their corn on increasingly marginal lands, contributing to deforestation and soil erosion. Compounding
these environmental pressures is the advent of something new to Mexico: factory farming. The practice of feeding corn to
under free trade, it makes economic sense.
livestock was actively discouraged by the Mexican government until quite recently—an expression of the culture's quasi-religious
reverence for maize. But those policies were reversed in 1994, and, just as it has done in the United States, cheap corn has driven the
growth of animal feedlots, sewage concentration and water and air pollution. Cheap American corn in
Mexico threatens all corn—Zea mays itself—and by extension all of us who have come to depend on this plant.
The small Mexican farmers who grow corn in southern Mexico are responsible for maintaining the
genetic diversity of the species. While American farmers raise a small handful of genetically nearly
idenical hybrids, Mexico's small farmers still grow hundreds of different, open-pollinated varieties, commonly called
landraces. This genetic diversity, the product of 10,000 years of human-maize co-evolution, represents some of the most precious and
irreplaceable information on Earth, as we were reminded in 1970 when a fungus decimated the
American corn crop and genes for resistance were found in a landrace in southern Mexico. These
landraces will survive only as long as the farmers who cultivate them do. The cheap corn that is throwing
these farmers off their land threatens to dry up the pool of genetic diversity on which the future of the
species depends.
AT: Industrial Ag Good
Bias
We indict your authors-support for industrial farms don’t represent the full effects
Cohn et al 6 (Avery Cohn, Jonathan Cook, Margarita Fernandez, Rebecca Reider, Corrina Steward, all
of them have received a Masters of Environmental Science from the Yale School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies, “Agroecology and the Struggle for Food Sovereignty in the Americas,” IIED,
CEESP & Yale F&ES, published in 2006)
Common claims about industrial-farm superiority are based on criteria that are misleading because
they are two-dimensional. They take account of yields per unit of surface area (in hectares or acres). They don’t consider
the effects on soil, the third dimension, nor the agroecosystem’s capacity for future production-time being the
fourth dimension. Standard agroeconomic criteria are also mono-functional, considering only crop yield
prices, while neglecting the effects of industrial farming on social well being and culture, on valuable
crop genetic diversity, and on other species. Most agriculture economists consider such effects to be
“externalities” that are not relevant in measuring farm efficiency.
Their studies are flawed – they look at the yields of one crop in one tropical region –
prefer extensive empirics – only a risk organics are better
Wright 08, Julia Wright: Ph.D., Ecological Farming and Food Systems in Cuba, Wageningen University, The Netherlands. P.G.Dip., Land
and Water Management, Cranfield University. M.Sc., Sustainable Agriculture, University of London. B.A., Studies in the Rural Environment,
University of Wales. She is now a Deputy Director at the Centre for Agroecology and Food Security, (“Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security
in an Era of Oil Scarcity : Lessons from Cuba ”, page 1, November 2008)
The aim of any food system, one might suppose, would be to feed people with an adequate, or even
abundant, supply of nutritious foods. As it happens, this is a human right. As with previous agricultural
innovations throughout the centuries, industrial agriculture – and its tropical counterpart, the Green Revolution – has produced significant yield
increases. Between 1950 and 1984, world grain production increased by 250 per cent (Kindell and Pimentel, 1994). Yet the
industrial
food system has so far failed to provide everyone with an adequate diet, even where it has been
subsidized (such as in Green Revolution technology packages). In 1996, nations at the World Food Summit pledged to halve the number of
undernourished people by 2015. By 2006, the FAO’s annual report, The State of Food Insecurity in the World,
reported that ‘Ten years later, we are confronted with the sad reality that virtually no progress has
been made towards that objective’ (FAO, 2006, p6). The report continues: ‘The world is richer today than it was ten years ago.
There is more food available and still more could be produced without excessive upward pressure on prices. The knowledge and resources to
reduce hunger are there. What
is lacking is sufficient political will to mobilize those resources to the benefit
of the hungry.’ Between 2001 and 2003, the FAO estimated that there were 820 million
undernourished people in developing countries, 25 million in transition countries and 9 million in industrialized countries (FAO, 2006).
UNICEF estimates that one-third of the world’s population of more than 6 billion are affected by food-related ill health, such as primary nutrient
deficiencies and corresponding illnesses, in both industrialized and less-industrialized regions (Baker, 2001; WUR, 2002). Nonetheless, more
ecologically based, organic production approaches are sidestepped by international development agencies and national ministries of
agriculture owing to their reportedly low yield performance and, therefore, their apparent inability to meet global food needs or be appropriate
in food insecure situations (IAC, 2003). In fact, early
yield comparisons between certified organic and industrial
agriculture has indicated a yield decline of approximately 20 per cent for organic production.
However, these studies were based on the performance of certain market-oriented organic systems in
temperate climatic regions. Whereas outputs of any one specific crop may be lower on an organic
farm than an industrialized one, total farm yields are higher (Altieri et al, 1998). More recent studies show
non-certified organic farming approaches to achieve significant yield increases over both traditional
and industrial agriculture, and in particular in resource-poor regions on marginal lands and in tropical
and subtropical climates (Pretty and Shaxson, 1997; Souza, 1998; Altieri et al, 1999; McNeely and Scherr, 2001; Mäder et al, 2002;
Parrott, 2002; Parrott and Marsden, 2002; Pretty et al, 2002; Rundgren, 2002; Delate and Cambardella, 2004). An analysis by Badgley et al
(2007) indicates that organic
methods, which use leguminous cover crops to replace nitrogen fertilizer,
could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and
potentially a larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base. Overall, not only is the
common uncontextualized focus on yield performance over the short term based on outdated
evidence, but it also interferes with achieving food security goals. This focus diverts attention from equally important
goals of guaranteeing harvests, increasing community resilience to shocks and stresses, and enabling local availability of a diverse range of
quality foods (Bindraban et al, 1999; Wright, 2005). Moreover,
there is a strong case that if ecologically based,
organic systems had a fraction of the investment poured, at taxpayers’ expense, into industrial
farming, their performance would be greatly enhanced (Pretty et al, 1996). Within the food security debate generally,
issues of food quality and diversity have been overlooked. The industrial food system relies on the supply of cheap raw
materials to be transformed into added-value products. It actually offers a very narrow nutritional
diversity, being based on a core group of about 100 basic food items which consist of 75 per cent of our food intake (Lang and Heasman,
2004). In the UK, for example, 80 per cent of food is processed, and the food industry spends over $1,200 million annually on advertisements to
promote these products. In contrast, the budget for advice on health education by the UK Health Education Authority is about $4 million a year,
and excess
consumption of fat and under-consumption of fruit and vegetables are major factors in the
nation’s top two causes of premature death: coronary heart disease and cancers (Lang, 1997). Obesity in
less industrialized regions is also rising, mainly in urban areas with Western diets, and in rural areas
where new technologies reduce the need for physical activity (FAO, 2002). In industrially processed foods,
over 500 additives are permitted for use, and have been linked to allergic reactions, headaches,
asthma, growth retardation and heart disease. The organic processing sector permits around 50 additives, and also regulates
to avoid antioxidant-suppressing and high-temperature technologies (Heaton, 2001; Benbrook, 2005). Another overlooked issue of food quality
is that of food deterioration. Foods
consumed as soon after harvest as possible retain more of their nutritional
value. Additionally, beneficial components such as antioxidants do not last long once ingested and
need to be consumed at most meals in order to sustain optimal levels in the body (Benbrook, 2005). Fresh
food sources such as fruits and vegetables are superior to the consumption of equivalent vitamin and
mineral supplements in terms of nutritional factors such as antioxidant activity (Dragsted et al, 2004).
AT: Key to Increase Yields
Organic ag can outproduce industrial ag without increasing land use
Wright, 9 - Deputy Director of Coventry University's Centre for Agroecology and Food Security (Julia,
Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in an Era of Oil Scarcity, p. 19)
Nonetheless, more ecologically based, organic production approaches are sidestepped by international
development agencies and national ministries of agriculture owing to their reportedly low yield
performance and, therefore, their apparent inability to meet global food needs or be appropriate in
food insecure situations (IAC, 2003). In fact, early yield comparisons between certified organic and
industrial agriculture has indicated a yield decline of approximately 20 per cent for organic production.
However, these studies were based on the performance of certain market-oriented organic systems in
temperate climatic regions. Whereas outputs of any one specific crop may be lower on an organic farm
than an industrialized one, total farm yields are higher (Altieri et al, 1998). More recent studies show
non-certified organic farming approaches to achieve significant yield increases over both traditional and
industrial agriculture, and in particular in resource-poor regions on marginal lands and in tropical and
subtropical climates (Pretty and Shaxson, 1997; Souza, 1998; Altieri et al, 1999; McNeely and Scherr,
2001; Mäder et al, 2002; Parrott, 2002; Parrott and Marsden, 2002; Pretty et al, 2002; Rundgren, 2002;
Delate and Cambardella, 2004). An analysis by Badgley et al (2007) indicates that organic methods,
which use leguminous cover crops to replace nitrogen fertilizer, could produce enough food on a global
per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially a larger population, without
increasing the agricultural land base. Overall, not only is the common uncontextualized focus on yield
performance over the short term based on outdated evidence, but it also interferes with achieving food
security goals. This focus diverts attention from equally impor- tant goals of guaranteeing harvests,
increasing community resilience to shocks and stresses, and enabling local availability of a diverse range
of quality foods (Bindraban et al, 1999; Wright, 2005). Moreover, there is a strong case that if
ecologically based, organic systems had a fraction of the investment poured, at taxpayers’ expense, into
industrial farming, their performance would be greatly enhanced (Pretty et al, 1996).
Cuban ag is a unique model – their answers don’t apply because overall food
production is much higher
Project Censored 10 - a non-profit, media criticism and investigative journalism project within the
Sonoma State University Foundation (“Cuba Leads the World in Organic Farming,” Apr 30, 2010, pg.
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/12-cuba-leads-the-world-in-organic-farming/
Cuba has developed one of the most efficient organic agriculture systems in the world, and organic
farmers from other countries are visiting the island to learn the methods. Due to the U.S. embargo, and
the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba was unable to import chemicals or modern farming machines to
uphold a high-tech corporate farming culture. Cuba needed to find another way to feed its people. The
lost buying power for agricultural imports led to a general diversification within farming on the island.
Organic agriculture has become key to feeding the nation’s growing urban populations. Cuba’s new
revolution is founded upon the development of an organic agricultural system. Peter Rosset of the
Institute for Food and Development Policy states that this is “the largest conversion from conventional
agriculture to organic or semi-organic farming that the world has ever known.” Not only has organic
farming been prosperous, but the migration of small farms and gardens into densely populated urban
areas has also played a crucial role in feeding citizens. State food rations were not enough for Cuban
families, so farms began to spring up all over the country. Havana, home to nearly 20 percent of Cuba’s
population, is now also home to more than 8,000 officially recognized gardens, which are in turn
cultivated by more than 30,000 people and cover nearly 30 percent of the available land. The growing
number of gardens might seem to bring up the problem of space and price of land. However, “the local
governments allocate land, which is handed over at no cost as long as it is used for cultivation,” says S.
Chaplowe in the Newsletter of the World Sustainable Agriculture Association. The removal of the
“chemical crutch” has been the most important factor to come out of the Soviet collapse, trade
embargo, and subsequent organic revolution. Though Cuba is organic by default because it has no
means of acquiring pesticides and herbicides, the quality and quantity of crop yields have increased. This
increase is occurring at a lower cost and with fewer health and environmental side effects than ever .
There are 173 established ‘vermicompost’ centers across Cuba, which produce 93,000 tons of natural
compost a year. The agricultural abundance that Cuba is beginning to experience is disproving the myth
that organic farming on a grand scale is inefficient or impractical. So far Cuba has been successful with
its “transformation from conventional, high input, mono-crop intensive agriculture” to a more diverse
and localized farming system that continues to grow. The country is rapidly moving away from a
monoculture of tobacco and sugar. It now needs much more diversity of food crops as well as regular
crop rotation and soil conservation efforts to continue to properly nourish millions of Cuban citizens. In
June 2000, a group of Iowa farmers, professors, and students traveled to Cuba to view that country’s
approach to sustainable agriculture. Rather than relying on chemical fertilizers, Cuba relies on organic
farming, using compost and worms to fertilize soil. There are many differences between farming in the
United States and Cuba, but “in many ways they’re ahead of us,” say Richard Wrage, of Boone County
Iowa Extension Office. Lorna Michael Butler, Chair of Iowa State University’s sustainable agriculture
department said, “more students should study Cuba’s growing system.” (AP 6/5/00)
Cuban yields are much higher with zero reliance on industrial ag
Zunes, 2k - associate professor of politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the
University of San Francisco (Stephen, “Cuba’s New Revolution” Design/Builder, August
http://stephenzunes.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Cubas-New-Revolution.pdf)
Despite an 80 percent drop in the availability of chemical pesticides and a 50 percent drop in petroleum
for agriculture from 1989 levels, Cuban farmers have actually increased the quantity and quality of crop
yields at lower costs and with fewer health and environmental side effects. Fungi, nematodes, wasps,
and ants have all been harvested for pest control. Much of this biological pest control has been
developed in cottage industries led by scientists in this poor but highly educated society. Arnaldo Coro a
leading Cuban scientist. recalled that Cuban entomologists “threw a big party” when they learned the
government was ending the import of most pesticides and herbicides. “Finally,” he exclaimed, “our
discoveries were being implemented!" On a trip to Cuba in 1994, I visited a vermicompost production
center in Pinar del Rio where dozens of concrete troughs of manure are used for raising worms in the
shade of large mango trees. Within three months the worm-manure mixture is ready for application.
The nitrogen content is higher than chemical fertilizers and the vermicompost leaves no unhealthy
residue in the plants. There are nearly 200 such vermicompost centers in the country that produce more
than 100,000 tons of vermicompost per year. In addition, Cuba is moving away from the monoculture
model - based on exports of sugar and tobacco - and growing more food crops, particularly soybeans to
support the country's burgeoning soy industry. Crop rotation, intercropping, and soil conservation
efforts are wide- spread. Oxen are being bred to replace tractors. There are incentives for urban
dwellers to join the growing rural agricultural workforce, either permanently or on a short-term basis.
Cuban Environment Advantage/Add On
1AC/2AC Shell
Maintaining sustainable agriculture is key to Cuba’s environment and biodiversity
Peters 10 (Kathryn A. Peters, J.D. from the University of Oregon . "Creating a Sustainable Urban
Agriculture Revolution". University of Oregon Law School.
law.uoregon.edu/org/jell/docs/251/peters.pdf)
While urban agriculture was a response to a dramatic crisis in ¶ Cuba’s history, through
the development of a communitybased ¶ system of cultivation on previously vacant lots employing organic ¶ farming techniques, Cuba has created a
sustainable food production ¶ system.189 As of 2005, Havana was producing over ninety percent of ¶ the perishable produce
consumed in its city as well as a significant ¶ portion of its milk and meat.190 With government support, the urban ¶ gardens have become a
profitable economic enterprise for many ¶ Cubans.191 Local
access to fresh foods has added diversity to the ¶ Cuban diet and
reduced the carbon footprint associated with its food ¶ supply by reducing the transportation and
chemical input required to ¶ grow and transport the food.192 The development of urban farming ¶ has also
ensured food security for Cuba.193 The success of Cuba’s ¶ system has established the country as a model for the
urban ¶ production of sustainable agriculture around the world.194¶ In transitioning to a sustainable urban
agricultural system, Cuba ¶ has drastically reduced its harmful impacts on the environment . ¶ Cubans
have been able to significantly reduce their carbon footprints
¶ as their food supply
is no longer shipped across
oceans and Cuban ¶ residents can walk to local markets for fresh produce rather than drive¶ to grocery stores.195 Reduced
mechanization in food production ¶ further reduces carbon emissions. Increased urban vegetation also ¶ mitigates
the impact of climate change because vegetation has a ¶ cooling effect when air temperatures are high.196 Because
much of ¶ Cuba’s urban land is now vegetative, surface temperatures in Cuba ¶ may remain cooler due to the
thermoregulation created by the ¶ vegetation cover.197¶ According to Dr. Nelso Camponioni Concepción, the Cuban ¶
government, through its urban agricultural program, aims “to gain the ¶ most food from every square meter of available space.”198 By ¶
utilizing available urban space for sustainable food production, Cuba ¶ is reducing its impact on the
planet’s carrying capacity . The organic ¶ urban gardening techniques do not consume greenspace or harm the ¶
environment; therefore, measuring the true cost of externalities is not ¶ an issue. The growth of the urban gardens has created an
increasing ¶ food supply and a new economy for many Cubans without negatively ¶ impacting the environment or society.
The Caribbean is a biodiversity hotspot
CEPF ‘10
(quoting Mittermeier -- the same author that establishes the “hotspot” thesis and writes our impact ev. , Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a
primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct
Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. CEPF is the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – “Ecosystem Profile: THE
CARIBBEAN ISLANDS BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT” – Prepared by: BirdLife International¶ in collaboration with:¶ Durrell Wildlife Conservation¶
Trust / Bath University¶ The New York Botanical Garden¶ and with the technical support of:¶ Conservation International-Center¶ for Applied
Biodiversity Science; assistance for this report was offered by 100 international and non-profit organizations. Jan 15th –
http://www.cepf.net/Documents/Final_Caribbean_EP.pdf)
The Caribbean Islands Hotspot is one of the world’s greatest centers of biodiversity and¶ endemism, yet
its biodiversity and the natural¶ services it provides are highly threatened. Although¶ the islands have protected areas systems, most ar¶ e
inadequately managed and important areas lack¶ protection. This strategy will ensure that CEPF¶ funds are employed in the most effective
manner¶ and generate significant conservation results that¶ not only complement the actions of other¶ stakeholders but also enable significant
expansion¶ of strategic conservation for the benefit of all.¶
Everyone depends on Earth’s ecosystems and their life-
sustaining benefits , such as clean air,¶ fresh water and healthy soils. Founded in 2000,¶ the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
(CEPF)¶ has become a global leader in en¶ abling civil society to participate in and benefit from conserving¶ some of the world’s most critical
ecosystems. C¶ EPF is a joint initiative of l'Agence Française de¶ Développement, Conservation International, the Gl¶ obal Environment Facility,
the Government of¶ Japan, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the World Bank. As one of the¶ founding partners,
Conservation International ad¶ ministers the global program through a CEPF¶ Secretariat.¶ CEPF provides grants for nongovern¶ mental and
other private organizations to help protect¶ biodiversity hotspots, Earth’s most biologically¶ rich and threatened areas. The convergence of¶
critical areas for conservation with millions¶ of people who are impoverished and highly¶ dependent on healthy ecosystems is more ev¶ ident in
the hotspots than anywhere else.¶ CEPF is unique among funding mechanisms in th¶ at it focuses on biological areas rather than¶ political
boundaries and examines conservation th¶ reats on a landscape-scale basis. A fundamental¶ purpose of CEPF is to ensure that civil society is¶
engaged in efforts to conserve biodiversity in¶ the hotspots, and to this end, CEPF provides ci¶ vil society with an agile and flexible funding¶
mechanism complementing funding currently¶ available to government agencies.¶ CEPF promotes working alliances among commun¶ ity
groups, nongovernmental organizations¶ (NGOs), government, academic institutions and¶ the private sector, combining unique capacities¶ and
eliminating duplication of efforts for a¶ comprehensive approach to conservation. CEPF¶ targets trans-boundary cooperation for areas rich of¶
biological value that straddle national borders¶ or in areas where a regional approach may be more effective than a national approach.¶ A
recent, updated analysis reveals the existence of¶ 34 biodiversity hotspots, each holding at least¶ 1,500 endemic plant species, and having lost
at¶ least 70 percent of its original habitat extent¶ (Mittermeier¶
et al¶ . 2005). The Caribbean islands qualify as one
of these global biodiversity¶ hotspots by virtue of their high endemicity and high degree of threat.¶ The
Caribbean Islands Hotspot is exceptionally important for global biodiversity conservation.¶ The hotspot
includes important ecosystems, fro¶ m montane cloud forests to coral reefs, and¶ supports populations of unique species amounting to at least
2 percent of the world’s total¶ species.
Biodiversity in specific hotspots solves extinction -- key to ag, medicine, and
ecosystems
Mittermeier ‘11
(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological
Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30
years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations. He is the President of Conservation International and he is
considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book
Biodiversity Hotspots – F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. This
evidence also internally references Norman Myers, a very famous British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity. available at:
http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)
Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is ¶ irreversible. Human
activities have elevated the rate of species extinctions to a¶ thousand or more times the natural
background
rate
(Pimm et al. 1995). What are the¶ consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity¶ for
future resource use. Scientists have discovered a mere fraction of Earth’s species¶ (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the
biology of even fewer¶ (Novotny et al. 2002). As
species vanish, so too does the health security of every¶ human.
Earth’s species are a vast genetic storehouse that may harbor a cure for¶ cancer, malaria, or the next new pathogen –
cures waiting to be discovered.¶ Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all¶ commercial medicines – even
more in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein¶ 2008). Natural forms, processes, and ecosystems provide blueprints and inspiration¶ for a
growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and¶ other innovations (Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been
compared¶ to burning down the world’s libraries without knowing the content of 90% or¶ more of the books. With
loss of species, we
lose the ultimate source of our crops¶ and the genes we use to improve agricultural resilience, the inspiration
for¶ manufactured products, and the basis of the structure and function of the ecosystems¶ that support humans and all
life on Earth
(McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond¶ material welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency,¶
and freedom of choices and actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).¶ Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual,
and moral costs¶ inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake,¶ and wild plants and animals are integral to the
fabric of all the world’s cultures¶ (Wilson 1984). The road to extinction is made even more perilous to people by the loss of the broader
ecosystems that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove
forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage from tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and
Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East Asia have been directly
connected to trade in wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss, more subtle but equally
damaging, include the deterioration of Earth’s natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past decade alone is estimated to be costing
the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009). Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human communities
that depend on them. For example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer less from the diseases that plague degraded
reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earth’s climate changes, the roles of species and ecosystems will only increase in their importance
to humanity (Turner et al.2009).¶ In many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about the biodiversity in the place in
which they live. They also depend upon these ecosystems the most – and, broadly speaking, it is these areas over which they have the most
control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every region, and every community should do
Extinction is a global
phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. More practically, biodiversity, the threats to
everything possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities?
it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the global conservation budget – perhaps
90% – originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally flexible funds
available – in the hundreds of millions annually – be guided by systematic priorities if we are to move deliberately toward a global goal of
reducing biodiversity loss.¶ The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation is complex, but can be framed as a single question.
Given the choice, where
should action toward reducing the loss of biodiversity be implemented first ? The field of
conservation planning addresses this question and revolves around a framework of vulnerability and irreplaceability
(Margules and Pressey2000). Vulnerability measures the risk to the species present in a region – if the species and ecosystems that are highly
threatened are not protected now, we will not get another chance in the future. Irreplaceability measures the extent to which spatial
substitutes exist for securing biodiversity. The number of species alone is an inadequate indication of conserva-tion priority because several
areas can share the same species. In contrast, areas with high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must conserve these places because
the unique species they contain cannot be saved elsewhere. Put another way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily
concentrated in certain areas, these areas have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else, and many (but not
all) of these areas are the areas at greatest risk of disappearing because of heavy human impact.¶ Myers’ seminal paper (Myers1988) was the
first application of the principles of irreplaceability and vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale. Myers
described
ten tropical forest “hotspots” on the basis of extraordinary plant endemism and high levels of habitat loss, albeit
without quantitative criteria for the designation of “hotspot” status. A subsequent analysis added eight additional hotspots, including four from
Mediterranean-type ecosystems (Myers 1990).After adopting hotspots as an institutional blueprint in 1989, Conservation Interna-tional worked
with Myers in a first systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two strict quantitative criteria: to qualify as a hotspot, a region had to
contain at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics (¶ >¶ 0.5% of the world’s total), and it had to have 30% or less of its original vegetation
(extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These efforts culminated in an
extensive global review (Mittermeier et al.1999) and
scientific publication (Myers et al.2000) that introduced seven new hotspots on the basis of both the better-defined criteria
and new data. A second systematic update (Mittermeier et al.2004) did not change the criteria, but revisited the set of hotspots based on
new data on the distribution of species and threats, as well as genuine changes in the threat status of these regions. That update redefined
several hotspots, such as the Eastern Afromontane region, and added several others that were suspected hotspots but for which sufficient data
either did not exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists outside of those regions. Sadly, it uncovered another region – the East
Melanesian Islands – which rapid habitat destruction had in a short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region that failed to meet the
“less than 30% of original vegetation remaining” criterion to a genuine hotspot.
Sustainable Ag key to Cuban Environment
Cuba is promoting agro-diversity now- it’s key to regional biodiversity
UNEP 10 (United Nations Environment Programme. "SECURING SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH THE
CONSERVATION AND USE OF AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY".
www.unep.org/dgef/Portals/43/AgBD_publication_FINAL.pdf)
In concentrating more on conserving and using ¶ agricultural biodiversity to make production systems ¶ more adaptable
and resilient, future projects may ¶ need to address more directly the interface between ¶ wild and domestic areas. As
indicated earlier, the ¶ interactions among diverse organisms responsible for ¶ providing ecosystem services take place over a wide ¶ area. They
do not recognize distinctions between ¶ protected and unprotected lands nor political borders.¶ By working in margins between protected ¶
and agricultural lands, future
projects can support ¶ the conservation and use of both agricultural and ¶
natural biodiversity. Climate change may threaten ¶ populations of a number of species within a given ¶ protected area or a country. By
building bridges ¶ between natural and agricultural ecosystems ¶ and increasing biodiversity-rich agricultural zones ¶
adjacent to protected areas, plant and animal species ¶ are accorded a wider set of options for
adaptation ¶ to changing conditions. The most recent project in ¶ Cuba explicitly recognizes the importance of
building ¶ bridges between managed and natural landscapes.
Key to Cuban biodiversity
Scialabba et al 05 (Researcher for the FAO Environment and Natural Resources Service. "CASE STUDY
No. 4 ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AND GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE". FAO.
www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4586e/y4586e05.htm)
Working on the farm with farmers provided two important insights. First, wide genotype variability of useful traits exists and has been
documented among pumpkin landraces grown under low input conditions. Second, it is possible to increase production by selecting directly for
fruit yield under low input conditions. Under this experience, plant breeders offered a bridge between the plant genetic resources conserved in
gene banks and the farmers, and the opportunity to screen those resources. Clearly, farmers’ agricultural knowledge and skills were an
inspiration to develop a new, collaborative
approach towards a more efficient use of inputs such as energy,
production and maintenance of greater genetic diversity in situ.¶ A Participatory Plant
Breeding for Strengthening Agrobiodiversity is now on-going to investigate how such alternative practices can rebuild,
more profitable crop
improve and distribute biodiversity in Cuba . Interesting results of farmers’ experimentation are already apparent in research
for maize resistant to fallarmy worm (Spodoptera frugiperda) and beans with good productivity under low input conditions.
Sustainable Cuban agriculture solves climate shocks
Rosset and Torres 12 (Peter M. Rosset,researcher at the Centro de Estudios para el Cambio en el Campo Mexicano, and cocoordinator of the Land Research Action Network. He is also Global Alternatives Associate of the Center for the Study of the Americas and an
affiliated scholar of the University of California, both in Berkeley, California, USA. He is the former co-director of Food First/The Institute for
Food and Development Policy in Oakland, California. Maria Elena Martinez-Torres, faculty member in the Environment and Society Program of
the Center for Research and Advanced Studies in Social Anthropology-Southeast Campus (CIESAS-Sureste) in Chiapas, Mexico. She is also a
research associate at the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA) in Berkeley, California. She directs Desarrollo Alternativo (DESAL), a
Mexican nongovernmental organization devoted to research, analysis, and outreach concerning alternative development. "Rural Social
Movemets and Agroecology: Context, Theory, and Process". Ecology and Society. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss3/art17/)
Cuba is where the CAC social methodology achieved its greatest impact, when the National Association of Small Farmers (ANAP), a member of
LVC, adopted it along with a conscious and explicit goal of building a grassroots movement for agroecology inside the national organization
(extensively detailed in Machín Sosa at al. 2010 and Rosset et al. 2011). In less than ten years, the
process of transforming
systems of production into agroecological integrated and diversified farming systems had spread to
more than one-third of all peasant families in Cuba, a remarkable rate of growth. During the same time period in which peasants became
agroecological, the total contribution of peasant production to national production jumped dramatically, with other advantages in
reduced use of farm chemicals and purchased off-farm inputs (more autonomy) and greater resiliency to climate
shocks
(Machín Sosa at al. 2010, Altieri and Toledo 2011, Rosset et al. 2011).
Sustainable agriculture is key to regional biodiversity
Scialabba et al 05 (Researcher for the FAO Environment and Natural Resources Service. "CASE STUDY
No. 4 ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AND GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE". FAO.
www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4586e/y4586e05.htm)
Many of these systems have demonstrated interesting results in the selection of varieties suitable for low external input situations. The
selection systems developed by organic
farmers have restored and improved local varieties. These varieties often present a high
degree of genetic variability and as such, the systems have played an important role in the in situ conservation of
agricultural
biodiversity through cultivation and production. This has since been studied by research centres specialized in
in Cuba, such studies are being used as the basis for the refinement of methodologies for the
the selection of seeds and plants. For example,
selection of varieties for low input situations.
Local production is key to biodiversity- it’s reverse casual
Latham and Wilson 11 (Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson. 5/23/11. "How Agriculture Can Provide
Food Security Without Destroying Biodiversity". Independant Science News.
independentsciencenews.org/news/agriculture-can-provide-food-security-with-biodiversity/)
According to conventional wisdom, the Brazilian city of Belo Horizonte (pop. 2.5 million) has achieved something impossible. So, too, has the
island of Cuba. They are feeding
their hungry populations largely with local, low-input farming methods that
enhance the environment rather than degrade it . They have achieved this, moreover, at a time of rising food prices when
others have mostly retreated from their own food security goals.
Cuba is distinct from conventional methods—they articulate healthy ecosystems
Van Cleef 2000 (Lisa Van Cleef, The San Francisco Chronicle, March 15, 2000, “The Big Green
Experiment: Cuba’s Organic Revolution”, js)
The Cuban gardeners incorporate some traditional organic practices, such as the use of worm
compost-castings (worm poo) from redworms fed a diet of kitchen scraps. Worm compost is generated quickly and is higher in nitrogen
that is more quickly accessible by crops than regular compost.¶ They also rely heavily on interplanting--where diverse
crops are planted together--which discourages the pests that accompany monocrop farming. This is a
major shift from contemporary industrialized farming, with its acres of corn that provide a veritable buffet for bugs, as well as monocropping's
inherent dependency on pesticides.¶ The
gardeners are also experimenting with their soil by leaving their crop
residue (the stalks, vines, and anything else left after the harvest) on the field instead of clearing it off. A layer of worm compost is added on
top to create rich soil another old-fashioned organic idea.¶ Riew says the Cuban farmers are now very articulate about
healthy ecosystems. "When they find a problem in their garden, they'll watch closely, noticing if there
is a check in their system that might pull the problem back. For instance, if they're having aphids, they might wash their
plants off and watch for a day or two to see what happens. Does a parasitic wasp come for the aphids? Will a lady beetle show up? Will
something come and work within the system and deal with the aphids?
Working within a whole ecosystem is a given. That
was something that the conventional agricultural methods had completely obliterated."¶ The city farmers
are also tackling the lack of medicine in Cuba. A casualty of the trade embargo, Cuba can import neither medicine nor the ingredients to make
it. Even aspirin is a rarity in Cuba. Rieux says she saw a lot of people growing green medicine in their urban gardens.
Cuba is following an environmentally sustainable path
Ergas 13 (Christina Ergas, Global Research, reviewing and citing a book by Sinan Coont, the only book
devoted entirely to describing Cuba’s agriculture, “Sustainable Urban Agriculture in Cuba”, April 19,
2013, http://www.globalresearch.ca/food-sovereignty-sustainable-urban-agriculture-in-cuba/5332167,
js)
In conjunction with these movements, Cuba has made remarkable strides toward establishing a system
of food sovereignty. One of their most notable projects in this regard is their institutionalized and
organized effort to expand agroecological practices, or a system of agriculture that is based on
ecological principles and environmental concerns. Cuba has largely transformed food production in
order to pursue a more sustainable path. These practices are not limited to the countryside.
Cuba is the recognized leader of urban agriculture.5 As Koont highlights, the Cuban National Group for
Urban Agriculture defines urban agriculture as the production of food within the urban and peri-urban
perimeter, using intensive methods, paying attention to the human-crop-animal-environment
interrelationships, and taking advantage of the urban infrastructure with its stable labor force. This
results in diversified production of crops and animals throughout the year, based on sustainable
practices which allow the recycling of waste materials (29). In 2007, urban agriculture comprised
approximately 14.6 percent of agriculture in Cuba. Almost all of urban agriculture is organic.
Cuba key to Biodiversity
Cuba is an important hot spot of biodiversity
The Waitt Foundation, an initiative of the National Geographic Society and the Waitt Institute, 2013
[“CUBA’S UNIQUE MARINE RESOURCES”, Waitt Foundation, http://waittfoundation.org/cubas-uniquemarine-resources] JH
Jardines de la Reina is located 60 miles off the coast of central Cuba and spans more than 837 sq miles.
Often called the “Pearl of the Antilles,” Cuba is by far the most biologically rich and diverse island in
the Caribbean. It is home to crucial nesting sites for the critically endangered hawksbill turtle and has a
healthy fish and shark population including the endangered Nassau grouper. Resilient coral reefs, and
robust populations of sharks and other finfish have led scientists to describe the region as a “window
to the past,” conjuring comparisons to what the Caribbean may have looked like 50 to 100 years ago.
Only 90 miles from Florida, Cuba is a world apart – a step back in time with the most intact coral reefs
in the region. With 3,000 miles of coastline, the island has mountain rainforests and wetlands abundant
with rare plants and animals, some of which are found nowhere else. Isolated lagoons and coral
gardens like the famed Gardens of the Queen harbor an amazing array of shark species - Silky, Caribbean
Reef, Blacktip, Lemon, Nurse and Whale Sharks - a sign of ecosystem health and resilience.
Cuba’s marine and coastal ecosystems have global importance
The Waitt Foundation, an initiative of the National Geographic Society and the Waitt Institute, 2013
[“CUBA’S UNIQUE MARINE RESOURCES”, Waitt Foundation, http://waittfoundation.org/cubas-uniquemarine-resources] JH
Cuba’s natural marine environment is world class, but at a critical juncture. During five decades of isolation
from mass tourism and rapid economic development, Cuba’s marine and coastal resources have thrived. Its coral reefs,
seagrass beds and mangroves abound with beauty and biodiversity, providing shelter and sustenance to more than 200 species of valuable fish,
crustaceans, mollusks and sponges. As
both “the gateway” to the Gulf of Mexico and the “crown jewel” of the
Caribbean, Cuba and its natural resources provide important regional benefits to the United States
and Mexico as well as the rest of the insular Caribbean. The majority of Cuba’s commercially important fish stocks,
however, are in critical condition. About half may be fully exploited and 40% are overfished, with consistently declining catches. This decline
in productivity represents a major environmental and economic threat for both Cuba and the United
States. With Cuba just 90 miles from the Florida Keys, the health of our marine ecosystems is tightly
interconnected. Cuba’s thousands of islets, keys and reefs provide important spawning grounds for lobster and reef fish that help
populate waters along the southeast U.S. and in the Gulf of Mexico. Cuba’s southern archipelagos, especially the remotely
situated Jardines de la Reina is one of the most outstanding jewels of the Caribbean islands and has been
declared an IUCN Category II National Park. A very popular area for diving and fly fishing, Jardines de la Reina is mostly untouched and boasts
the largest and best preserved (and least studied) coral reef system of the entire insular Caribbean.
Cuba’s ecosystem vital for US fishing industry
IUCN, The International Union for Conservation of Nature is an international organization dedicated to
finding pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges, 5/1/09
[“Cuba - The Crown Jewel of the Caribbean - But for how much longer?”, IUCN,
http://www.iucn.org/news_homepage/all_news_by_region/news_from_central_america/?3116/CUBA--The-Crown-Jewel-of-the-Caribbean---But-how-much-longer] JH
Cuba's coastal waters are also vital to healthy fisheries and fishing communities along the
southeastern coast of the United States. The island's 4,200 islets and keys support important
commercial reef fish species like snapper and grouper and not to mention other marine life like sea
turtles, dolphins and manatees. Prevailing ocean currents carry fish larvae into U.S. waters, making the
protection of Cuba’s coastal ecosystems critical to replenishing our ailing fisheries. In many ways, Cuba
sets an example to its Caribbean neighbors in terms of biodiversity conservation. In 2007, Cuba helped
establish the first Caribbean Island Biological Corridor with the Dominican Republic and Haiti in order to
contribute to the reduction of biodiversity loss and to facilitate the human-nature relationship. The
corridor offers important linkages among landscapes, ecosystems, habitats and cultures to maintain
essential and evolutionary ecological processes and environmental services and to promote
sustainable development. Cuba has a centralized and well-coordinated institutional arrangements for
the management of protected areas and its academic and public research institutions are some of the
most active in conservation and natural resource management in the Caribbean. However, there has
been limited scope for community-based initiatives.
Cuba necessary for mangroves- impacts worldwide ecosystems
Dr. Rene Capote, PhD Natural Sciences (2007, Germany) Organization/ Institutional Management
(2005, Cuba) International Program Development Studies (2004, Germany). Environmental Management
(2001, Cuba), Global Product Officer Coffee. Fairtrade International FLO e.V. Germany. (since Dec. 2009),
1/24/12 [“Resilience of Mangroves on the South Coast of Havana province, Cuba”, ausdruckerei der
Universität Bonn, http://www.zef.de/module/register/experts_details.php?pk=498] JH
Mangroves are important worldwide for a wide range of ecosystem services that contribute to human
well-being (e.g., food and water consumption, recreation). However, 35% of documented mangrove
vegetation disappeared in 1980-2005 mainly due to direct and indirect human impacts. Mangrove
resilience typically manifests as regeneration of mangrove vegetation, either naturally or promoted by
restoration. The thesis addresses five study cases in Cuba, Mexico and USA. The cases are examples
illustrating mangrove resilience through natural regeneration and restoration activities. Changes in
vegetation, ground altitude and inundation as well as institutional aspects of mangrove restoration are
addressed. The study proposes a methodological approach, based on qualitative mathematical
modelling (loop analysis), for improving the assessment and management of resilience of environmental
systems. The approach is presented through empirical data obtained in Cuban mangroves.
Caribbean Key to Biodiversity
Caribbean hotspot is critical for world sustainability
United Nations Environment Progamme 11, an international institution (a programme, rather than an
agency of the UN) that coordinates United Nations environmental activities, assisting developing countries in implementing
environmentally sound policies and practices. It was founded as a result of the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment in June 1972 and has its headquarters in the Gigiri neighborhood of Nairobi, Kenya. UNEP also has six regional
offices and various country offices, 2011 [“Caribbean Biological Corridor”, UNEP,
http://www.unep.org/disastersandconflicts/CountryOperations/Haiti/Internationalcooperation/CaribbeanBiologicalCorridor/ta
bid/106585/Default.aspx] JH
The Caribbean islands are one of the most important biodiversity hotspots in the world. Studies (Myers et al,
2000) show that the exceptional diversity of ecosystems in the area make the Caribbean islands one of the
7 points with the highest concentration of biodiversity. The establishment of a Caribbean Biological Corridor in the insular
Caribbean provides an appropriate platform for collaboration among all initiatives being developed or that could be developed within the limits
of the Caribbean Biological Corridor (CBC), thereby driving long-term integration of conservation actions between island states and thus
contributing to the preservation of global biodiversity. The CBC , therefore, provides a framework for cooperation among the countries of the
insular Caribbean for protecting and reducing the loss of biodiversity, by rehabilitating the environment, developing livelihood alternatives particularly in Haiti-, and alleviating poverty as a mean to reduce the pressure on biological resources. For the Caribbean Biological Corridor,
the pressure that biological resources are suffering due to natural factors is compounded by human
action and, on occasion, their uncontrolled use of the ecosystem. The fragility of the ecosystem richness has been
aggravated in recent years due to the poverty in which the inhabitants of the area live, and due to the lack of resources made available to
provide alternative livelihoods those communities. Significantly, the Corridor area is characterized by a high density of inhabitants per square
km, compounding the destructive effect of human activity on biodiversity of the area (see the table below). For now, the area delineated as the
Caribbean Biological Corridor includes three countries: Haiti, Cuba and Dominican Republic. These countries are very vulnerable to extreme
weather such as hurricanes and tropical storms. Haiti in particular has been the most affected by a natural phenomenon: the earthquake that
caused massive destruction in 2010. On the other hand the three countries share other traits as its connectivity and its potential for regional
cooperation, both with regard to technology transfer and training tools and the methodologies transfer for the improvement of the
environmental sustainability. Finally, it should be stressed that the cooperation between Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, with respect
to the establishment of the Caribbean Biological Corridor is being advanced with the financial support from the European Commission and
UNEP. This support is contributing to
preserve the Caribbean biodiversity, which in turn contributes directly to
two of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): eradicate extreme poverty and ensure
environmental sustainability on earth.
Solvency
US Market Key/Solves
Without access to U.S. market Cuban organic agriculture will collapse
Luxner 05
Larry Luxner a well-known journalist who has had nearly 2,000 articles published in 50 newspapers and
magazines since 1995, Publisher of CubaNews
USDA: Cuba may become key U.S. source of organic foods
http://www.luxner.com/cgi-bin/view_article.cgi?articleID=1428
Bill Kost, an official at the Specialty Crops Branch of the USDA’s Economic Research Service, said Cuba
has already produced Swiss-certified organic juices; it’s also working with Switzerland for certification of
organic coffee, cocoa, mangoes and coconuts. ¶ “The organic farming movement grew out of a severe
economic crisis that generated food shortages,” said Kost, who presented his paper at a recent Miami
meeting of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy. ¶ Since the early ‘90s, he said, urban
gardens from Havana to Holguín have helped boost domestic availability of fresh vegetables, roots,
tubers, plantains and non-citrus fruits for the general Cuban population. ¶ “If the Cuban economy
improves — and if the demand for organic food continues to grow, particularly in higher-income
markets — Cuba could become an exporter of organic foods like tropical fruits,” he said. ¶ “Production
would need to be certified organic before it could enter the organic market. It’s a marketing issue, a
truth-in-labeling issue, and it is a necessary condition. By necessity, Cuba has already met many of that
production criteria. They’re not certified for the domestic market — they don’t need to be. This is for
the export market. They’ll have to provide proof and documentation that they’ve produced under
organic methods.” ¶ Last year, Cuba produced almost 500 tons of organic honey. In addition, more than
3,000 hectares of coffee plantations have been certified organic, with such coffee fetching a 45%
premium in Europe. ¶ These days, socially conscious British shoppers can find 200-ml and 1-liter tetra
cartons of “ethically produced” — though not necessarily organically produced — Fruit Passion juice
brands at Sainsbury’s and other supermarket chains throughout England (see CubaNews, September
2004, page 11). ¶ Domestically, Cuba is said to have 220 re-production centers throughout the country
making seven lines of biopesticides; last year, the island produced nearly 2.5 million tons of an organic
fertilizer called humus of worm. ¶ Made from the excrement of earthworms, the humus is an effective
and natural fertilizer, used mainly in vegetable and tobacco crops, as well as banana and fruit
plantations. ¶ “U.S. demand has increased 10% a year during the past decade,” he said. “Organic crops
bring premium prices, and more and more U.S. growers are interested in switching some or all of their
acreage to organic.” ¶ But in order to stay organic once Cuba adopts a free-market economy, said Kost,
“the market price will have to be high enough to keep Cuban producers happy.” ¶ At present, Costa
Rica is the chief supplier of fresh fruits to the United States, and Mexico is the top supplier of fresh
vegetables. ¶ On the other hand, once the embargo is lifted, Cuban food exports could play a significant
role in the American organic market. “Tapping U.S. markets may create sufficient price incentives for
Cuban producers to take the next steps to meet other organic standards,” Kost explained. “Cuba has
the climate, land resources, low-cost labor and history of organic-oriented production to allow it to
develop and grow its horticultural sector in that direction. And without U.S. access, organics will
remain a necessity-driven way to produce food when there’s no alternative.” However, he warned, “if
market incentives [for organic crops] are not sufficiently large, Cuba will return to a chemical and
technology-driven, yield-maximizing and labor-minimi-zing commercial model of production as rapidly
as it can afford to do so.” ¶ Along with that, he warned, “with higher in-come and increased availability
of foreign exchange, commercial input prices in Cuba will start dropping. If fuel, chemicals, fertilizers and
pesticides are cheaper than they were during the 1990s, it’s very likely farmers will start using them to
increase production. Higher incomes will also make it easier to import food, reducing demand for
domestically produced crops. That will mean lower prices in the farmers’ markets.” ¶ And when
production costs are high, “cheap food imports reduce the incentive to keep growing organic food in
urban gardens.” ¶ Yet Kost says Cuba is “an unlikely role model” for organic production eleswhere.
“Other countries facing resource constraints and food shortages should exploit under-utilized resources
such as surplus labor, and consider unconventional production techniques that may make them
productive,” said Kost.
U.S. can provide tech for sustainable agriculture- tech key to ensure system has
workers
Barkin 72(David, professor of economics, He is a member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences and of the National Research Council. In
1974, he was a founding member of the Ecodevelopment Center, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02810980)
Cuban development program transformed a labor surplus economy into one with a labor
shortage, it is not surprising that heavy emphasis was placed on raising the technological level of the economy .
Castro and other leaders re- peatedly stressed the importance to a developing country of being in the vanguard of technological development and of constantly applying the knowledge developed elsewhere.
Since the
Technology was but one element in the effort to raise labor productivity. The massive educational effort also con- tributed by preparing
thousands of trained technicians and other personnel. In the first years of the Revolution, the many skilled people who had emigrated had to be
replaced. Subsequently, man- power programs were drawn up, and educational programs were developed to supply needed skilled personnel
at both intermediate and advanced levels. As
increasing numbers of trained oper- ators become available, labor
productivity can also be raised by mechanizing produc- tion. The principal thrust of this effort is presently in agriculture
where traditional production methods are being used side by side with the most modern ones. One of the most striking achievements is the
almost complete mechanization of rice cultivation. The manpower needs of the develop- ment effort also make it imperative to raise the labor
participation rate and increase the length of the working day. Women are being encouraged to assume jobs formerly performed by men and to
participate actively in new productive enterprises. School children are spending a part of their time in productive work. All workers are being
asked to contribute extra hours of voluntary labor to help meet production goals.
The use of volun- tary labor is an attempt
to deal with an CUBAN AGRICULTURE 27 important short-run problem of labor scarcity. As the
mechanization program expands during the coming years fewer workers will be needed in agriculture
and the mobilization for the harvest will be less disruptive. Although these efforts have been successful in increasing
the number of man-hours worked, declining labor productivity and inefficient organ- ization have vitiated part
of their value.
Cuba Model Key
Cuban agriculture is key to future global sustainability-dettered by current system
Ford, 9 (Matt, CNN Havana Bureau Chief, “Can the West cultivate ideas from Cuba's 'Special Period'?”,
April 1, http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/29/eco.cubaagriculture/, ak.)
Since the revolution in 1959 Cuba has been many things to many people, but the collapse of the Soviet Union meant few have seen the island state as a vision of the future. But that could be
As worries grow in
developed nations about a future without plentiful supplies of oil, the communist republic is proving
to be an increasingly popular example of how to cope when the spigots run dry, for the simple reason: they've already been
there. With the loss of supplies from oil-rich Russia in 1991, and a U.S. embargo preventing imports from
elsewhere, Cuba was plunged into a severe recession in the early 1990's, referred to as "the Special Period." Suddenly society was faced with dramatically
reduced amounts of hydrocarbon energy, and the result was a fundamental reorganization of food
production, leading to a boom in urban organic agriculture, which requires fewer inputs than
conventional farming. Despite the increase in organic production, problems remain for Cuba's agricultural system and ability to feed itself with local produce. "Some
estimates of the amount of food imports in Cuba go as high as 80 percent of domestic consumption,"
says CNN's Havana Bureau Chief, Morgan Neill. "This isn't to say that small scale organic farmers
couldn't learn for isolated growers, but Cuba's overall agriculture is one of the government's biggest
problems." Cuba's organic example, however, has been a source for inspiration for many outside of
the country, such as the UK-based Cuban Organic Solidarity Group (COSG). "With the collapse of the Soviet Union Cuba was in a
changing -- at least in one aspect. Cuba experienced a reordering of its food production in the early 1990's. A boom for organic foods, but problems persist.
position where no-one thought it would survive -- they lost 80 percent of their trade overnight," says Wendy Emmett of COSG. "As a result the priority given to food changed, and it was
immediately seen as much more important." All over Havana small-scale organic gardens were started on roof-tops, backyards and in empty parking lots, spreading rapidly to other cities and
urban centers. Farmer's markets known as "Kiosks" sprang up providing city-dwellers with access to locally-grown fruit and vegetables, cutting the use of oil in transporting food in from the
countryside. In the countryside, oxen and horses replaced tractors. Manual labor replaced machines. A huge program of land re-distribution was instigated. Many of the vast collective farms
beloved by communist planners started to look inefficient, and so were broken up into units more manageable without fleets of tractors. The process is still ongoing. In February 2009 the
Cuban authorities announced that 1,827 square miles of state land would be given to Cubans with agricultural experience or other citizens.
Cuban organic agriculture key to world model
Warrick, 2K (Hugh, Cuban Organic Revolution, “Cuba leads the world in organic farming”, Spring 2000,
http://projectcensored.org/12-cuba-leads-the-world-in-organic-farming/, ak.)
Cuba has developed one of the most efficient organic agriculture systems in the world, and organic
farmers from other countries are visiting the island to learn the methods. Due to the U.S. embargo, and
the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba was unable to import chemicals or modern farming machines to uphold a
high-tech corporate farming culture. Cuba needed to find another way to feed its people. The lost buying power for agricultural
imports led to a general diversification within farming on the island. Organic agriculture has become
key to feeding the nation’s growing urban populations. Cuba’s new revolution is founded upon the
development of an organic agricultural system. Peter Rosset of the Institute for Food and Development
Policy states that this is “the largest conversion from conventional agriculture to organic or semiorganic farming that the world has ever known.” Not only has organic farming been prosperous, but
the migration of small farms and gardens into densely populated urban areas has also played a crucial
role in feeding citizens. State food rations were not enough for Cuban families, so farms began to spring up all over the country. Havana, home to nearly 20 percent of
Cuba’s population, is now also home to more than 8,000 officially recognized gardens, which are in turn cultivated by more than 30,000 people and cover nearly 30 percent of the available
land. The growing number of gardens might seem to bring up the problem of space and price of land. However, “the local governments allocate land, which is handed over at no cost as long as
The removal of the “chemical crutch” has
been the most important factor to come out of the Soviet collapse, trade embargo, and subsequent organic revolution. Though
Cuba is organic by default because it has no means of acquiring pesticides and herbicides, the quality
and quantity of crop yields have increased. This increase is occurring at a lower cost and with fewer
health and environmental side effects than ever. There are 173 established ‘vermicompost’ centers across Cuba, which produce 93,000 tons of
natural compost a year. The agricultural abundance that Cuba is beginning to experience is disproving the myth
it is used for cultivation,” says S. Chaplowe in the Newsletter of the World Sustainable Agriculture Association.
that organic farming on a grand scale is inefficient or impractical. So far Cuba has been successful with its
“transformation from conventional, high input, mono-crop intensive agriculture” to a more diverse
and localized farming system that continues to grow. The country is rapidly moving away from a monoculture of tobacco and sugar. It now
needs much more diversity of food crops as well as regular crop rotation and soil conservation efforts
to continue to properly nourish millions of Cuban citizens. In June 2000, a group of Iowa farmers, professors, and students traveled to Cuba to
view that country’s approach to sustainable agriculture. Rather than relying on chemical fertilizers, Cuba relies on organic farming, using compost and worms to fertilize soil. There are many
differences between farming in the United States and Cuba, but “in many ways they’re ahead of us,” say
Richard Wrage, of Boone County Iowa Extension Office. Lorna Michael Butler, Chair of Iowa State University’s sustainable agriculture dep
Cuba’s model of urban agriculture is a sustainable alternative
Peters, 10 – LL.M. expected 2011, University of Arkansas School of Law, Graduate Program in
Agricultural and Food Law; J.D. 2010, University of Oregon School of Law (Kathryn, “Creating a
Sustainable Urban Agriculture Revolution” J. ENVTL. LAW AND LITIGATION [Vol. 25, 203,
http://law.uoregon.edu/org/jell/docs/251/peters.pdf)
While urban agriculture was a response to a dramatic crisis in Cuba’s history, through the development
of a community-based system of cultivation on previously vacant lots employing organic farming
techniques, Cuba has created a sustainable food production system.189 As of 2005, Havana was
producing over ninety percent of the perishable produce consumed in its city as well as a significant
portion of its milk and meat.190 With government support, the urban gardens have become a profitable
economic enterprise for many Cubans.191 Local access to fresh foods has added diversity to the Cuban
diet and reduced the carbon footprint associated with its food supply by reducing the transportation
and chemical input required to grow and transport the food.192 The development of urban farming has
also ensured food security for Cuba.193 The success of Cuba’s system has established the country as a
model for the urban production of sustainable agriculture around the world .194 In transitioning to a
sustainable urban agricultural system, Cuba has drastically reduced its harmful impacts on the
environment. Cubans have been able to significantly reduce their carbon footprints as their food supply
is no longer shipped across oceans and Cuban residents can walk to local markets for fresh produce
rather than drive to grocery stores.195 Reduced mechanization in food production further reduces
carbon emissions. Increased urban vegetation also mitigates the impact of climate change because
vegetation has a cooling effect when air temperatures are high.196 Because much of Cuba’s urban land
is now vegetative, surface temperatures in Cuba may remain cooler due to the thermoregulation
created by the vegetation cover.197 According to Dr. Nelso Camponioni Concepción, the Cuban
government, through its urban agricultural program, aims “to gain the most food from every square
meter of available space.”198 By utilizing available urban space for sustainable food production, Cuba is
reducing its impact on the planet’s carrying capacity. The organic urban gardening techniques do not
consume greenspace or harm the environment; therefore, measuring the true cost of externalities is not
an issue. The growth of the urban gardens has created an increasing food supply and a new economy for
many Cubans without negatively impacting the environment or society.
The Cuban model can completely replace industrial ag globally
Gersper, 9 - associate Professor of Soil Science at the University of California, Berkeley (Paul, “The
Roots of Cuba's Agricultural Renascence,” Latin American Issues and Challenges
http://www.ecocubanetwork.net/wp-content/uploads/Roots-of-Cubas-Agicultural-Renascence-Part2.pdf)
While Cuba has long been, and still is, in many ways, a special case, there are important lessons to be
learned for the region from its current experiences. Throughout the Caribbean and Latin America the
dominant industrial model of agriculture is in a state of socio- economic and environmental crisis. The
Green Revolution seems to have run its course. as yield increases have leveled off, and in many cases
are dropping due to insect, disease and weed resistance to pesticides; soil compaction, erosion and
salinization; and water shortages. Prevailing economic prescriptions have failed to reverse the trend
toward increased rural improverishment and marginalization of small-scale farmers, or to absorb the
excess labor migrating from the countryside to overpopulated cities: which exacerbates impoverishment
of the countryside and decay of the cities. Relatedly, policies have failed to address the ever- expanding
environmental crisis by not promoting badly needed de-urbanization and widespread adoption of green
activities and sustainable farming practices. The evidence is overwhelming that industrial agriculture,
which prevails throughout most of the world, is rapidly, and unnecessarily, expending, damaging, or
poisoning our natural resources. It is justified by its promoters and practitioners as the price that must
be paid to meet the food needs of an expanding world population, and excused by society as a whole as
the price of progress; even though these attitudes cannot be logically nor morally supported. This same
scenario was being played out in Cuba prior to the advent of the Special Period; and if it had not been
for this economic crisis, it is likely that it would still be playing. Cuba is showing that it is possible to meet
food production goals promote sustainable agriculture, and provide viable economic alternatives for
rural communities. What is required is a simple set of alternative macroeconomic and sectoral policies.
Cuba has shown us that with proper encouragement, support and incentives from government policies,
resource limited, small-scale farmers are very capable of achieving high levels of productivity: higher, in
fact, than those of large-scale producers. Additionally, Cuba is demonstrating that if agrichemical inputs
are kept expensive, or are scarce, rather than subsidized, farmers, regardless of previous practices and
experiences, also are quite capable of achieving high productivity with alternative, sustainable practices.
Thus, following the Cuban example holds great promise that other Caribbean and Latin American
nations also can achieve food security, environmental recovery in rural areas, and revitalization of rural
community economies by: protecting food production and loosening price controls; removing direct and
indirect subsidies for Green Revolution technology; reforming land tenure; and redirecting research and
extension of alternative practices, using participatory and farmer-to-farmer methods. The emergent
model which defines the radical reformation of her agriculture clearly shows that Cuba is on track
toward today's most progressive and sustainable agriculture, and it should be vigorously promoted as a
model for the entire world to follow. Those who believe that land stewardship is a requirement for
sustainable agriculture realize that eventually agricultural practices worldwide must either fail or follow
the model used by Cuba, the Amish and other sagacious organic agricultural practitioners. Those who
believe that following the industrial model of agriculture not only is unsustainable, but also grossly
irresponsible with regard to obligations to future generations, realize that the sustainable model being
refined in Cuba offers hope that every country can meet its needs and also leave its natural resources in
a condition that will ensure that future generations also will have a fair opportunity to meet their needs
in a sustainable manner.
Cuba’s model is sustainable and can be exported
Price, 8 – Associated Press (Niko, USA Today, “Cuba's urban farming program a stunning success” 6/8,
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-06-08-1039175655_x.htm?csp=34)
Cuba's urban farming program has been a stunning, and surprising, success. The farms, many of them on
tiny plots like Bouza's, now supply much of Cuba's vegetables. They also provide 350,000 jobs
nationwide with relatively high pay and have transformed eating habits in a nation accustomed to a less-
than-ideal diet of rice and beans and canned goods from Eastern Europe. From 1989-93, Cubans went
from eating an average of 3,004 calories a day to only 2,323, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization, as shelves emptied of the Soviet goods that made up two-thirds of Cuba's food. Today,
they eat 3,547 calories a day -- more than what the U.S. government recommends for American citizens.
"It's a really interesting model looking at what's possible in a nation that's 80 percent urban," said
Catherine Murphy, a California sociologist who spent a decade studying farms in Havana. "It shows that
cities can produce huge amounts of their own food, and you get all kinds of social and ecological
benefits." Of course, urban farms might not be such a success in a healthy, competitive economy. As it
is, productivity is low at Cuba's large, state-run farms where workers lack incentives. Governmentsupplied rations -- mostly imported from the U.S. -- provide such staples as rice, beans and cooking oil,
but not fresh produce. Importers bring in only what central planners want, so the market doesn't correct
for gaps. And since most land is owned by the state, developers are not competing for the vacant lots
that can become plots for vegetables. Still, experts say the basic idea behind urban farming has a lot of
promise. "It's land that otherwise would be sitting idle. It requires little or no transportation to get
(produce) to market," said Bill Messina, an agricultural economist at the University of Florida in
Gainesville. "It's good anyway you look at it." And with fuel prices and food shortages causing unrest and
hunger across the world, many say the Cuban model should spread. "There are certain issues where we
think Cuba has a lot to teach the world. Urban agriculture is one of them," said Beat Schmid, coordinator
of Cuba programs for the charity Oxfam International.
Cuban Urban agriculture focuses on food security and production while being eco
friendly
Funes-Monzote (University of Havana, 1991. PhD Universitat Jaume I, Spain, 2002.. “Towards sustainable agriculture in Cuba”
2007. http://campus.usal.es/~ehe/Papers/Microsoft%20Word%20Fernando
%20Towards%20sustainable%20agriculture%20in%20Cuba%201st%20August[1].pdf)
A major new initiative for the promotion of food self-sufficiency has been urban agriculture. This form of
agriculture was almost neglected in Cuba when food was affordable. However, urban gardening was the first reaction of the
population to overcoming food shortages (Murphy, 1999). At the beginning of the crisis, people organized
themselves to cultivate vacant lots, backyards and rooftops in the cities. Even animals were reared
inside the houses in order to assure the families’ food supply. From the middle of the 1990s, urban
agriculture was transformed from subsistence production to a practice that also included commercial
activities. It was based in the use of local resources and minimum transportation costs of both inputs
and products (Cruz and Sánchez, 2001). The “Horticultural Club” formed in the Havana suburb of Santa Fe in 1992-1993 was the first to
organize urbanites for the purpose of providing them with technical assistance and creating a framework for urban production. This movement
By 1995, there were already 1,613 organoponics
(i.e. small plots of abandoned land in the cities where beds of soil and sources of organic matter are
used to produce fresh vegetables), 429 intensive gardens and 26,604 community gardens. In 1997, a
network of municipal enterprises and State institutions (the National System of Urban Agriculture)
was created to organize the people already involved in urban agriculture. The government still plays
an important promotion and support role in this massive movement towards food security . The principal
grew very fast in Havana city and subsequently around the whole country.
objective of the Cuban urban agriculture movement is to increase the daily consumption of vegetables to 300 grams per citizen, the amount
recommended by UN FAO. Spatially, it covers a radius of 10 km from the center of the capital city of each province; 5 km from the center of
municipal capitals; 2 km around population centers of more than 10,000 residents, and local production for settlements of less than 1,000
people. The following basic principles of urban agriculture in Cuba define its objectives and organization
(Companioni et al., 2002).• Uniform distribution throughout the country (i.e. in every area of the country with an urban population, urban
agriculture should be developed) • Local consumption by the urban population of local production in each region • Crop-animal integration
with maximum synergy (i.e. internal cycling of nutrients) to boost production • Intensive
use of organic matter to increase
and conserve soil fertility • Employment of biological pest controls • Use of all available land to
produce food, guaranteeing intensive but not import-dependent high yields of crops and livestock •
Multidisciplinary integration and intensive application of science and technology • A fresh supply of good quality products offered directly to
the population, guaranteeing a balanced production of not less than 300g of vegetables daily per capita and an adequate variety of animal
protein • Maximum
use of the food production potential, such as the available labor force and the
recycling of wastes and by-products for plant nutrients and animal feed The organizational and
administrative base of the urban agriculture program is the 28 sub-programs related to all aspects of
animal and plant production found in the country (GNAU, 2004). These subprograms include, for example,
management and conservation of soils, use of organic matter, seed production, vegetables and fresh
herbs and spices, fruit trees, popular production of rice, grains, animal feed, apiculture, livestock,
aquaculture, marketing, small agro-industries (Companioni et al., 2002). Taken together, Cuban urban agriculture
has the components to achieve a systems approach; however, each program is supervised separately,
responding to its specific factors and providing specialized technical assistance. 8.2. Popular production of rice:
example of a successful sub-program Rice is the basic food in Cuba. Consumed together with beans, meat, vegetables and even fruits, is the
essential plate of daily ration for Cubans. Its per capita consumption exceeds 44 kg, i.e. 265 g per day (Socorro et al., 2002). Rice production in
Cuba was developed for many years in large State farms and it was also one of the prioritized crops at the beginning of the "Special period",
when it appeared "irrefutable" that conventional, high-input methods were the only possible way to supply enough rice to meet the
populations’ needs (León, 1996). However, even during 1980s, when unlimited inputs were available, the national demand was not met and
therefore it was necessary to import 40% of rice consumed, and national high-input rice production showed to be unsustainable at the onset of
the crisis of the 1990s. The new “Popular Rice” program demonstrated that, even without high initial expectations, this form of selforganization and low-input agriculture had a positive impact on national food self-sufficiency (García, 2003). The “popular” production
of
rice (arroz popular) was originally a grassroots movement towards self-provisioning. People started to
cultivate this cereal in abandoned areas, in small plots between sugar cane fields , in road ditches, etc.
This movement grew rapidly and achieved unforeseen levels of production and efficiency . In 1997, while
the severely affected Union of Rice Enterprises (Unión de Empresas del Arroz) produced 150,000 tons, “popular rice” production achieved
140,600 tons, involving 73,500 small producers. The yields obtained by such ways were 2.82 tons per hectare as a national average, without the
use of costly inputs (Granma, 1998), while conventional rice production during 1980s achieved a national average of between 2 and 3 tons per
hectare (ANPP, 1991). In 2001, popular rice comprised more than 50% of total domestic rice production (García, 2003). 8.3. Success and the
future of urban agriculture In
the year 2000, urban agriculture produced more than 1.64 million tons of
vegetables and employed 201,000 workers (Granma, 2001). Two years later, 326,000 people were linked
with the program of urban backyard production, benefiting some 75% of the population (Granma,
2003). In 2005 the production was 4.1 million tons and employed 354,000 people (Granma, 2006). The reported
production of 20 kg per square meter achieved by urban agriculture, allowed exceeding 300 grams of vegetables per citizen per day. This
movement has also contributed to the establishment of a network of 1,270 points of sale of agricultural products in the cities and 932
agricultural markets (Granma, 2003a). The products
distributed via this network significantly contribute to food
security although the prices are still high considering the average buying capacity of the population.
The quantity of people dedicated to agricultural labor in the city periphery continues to increase.
However Cruz and Sánchez (2001) consider that this type of agriculture, emerging as a solution to food scarcity and
unemployment in the cities, ought to look for a more integrated approach that goes beyond a
temporary solution to the crisis and toward a more holistic concept than just food security. They
suggest a concept which emphasizes the preservation of urban environment and the permanent
management of resources in the urban settings, avoiding pollution of air and water as well as creating
a culture of nature conservation. Although cities became productive in terms of food, this still comprised a small part of the
country’s overall needs. Thus, the development of participatory, low-input “rural food production” was crucial at the onset of the 1990s. An
alternative model to the prevailing conventional agriculture paradigm was established at national level, not only in State Enterprises and the
UBPCs, but also in private individual and cooperative production. The
input substitution strategy was a second step for the
conversion towards a more sustainable agriculture in Cuba.
Cuban urban agriculture is a successful model
Quirk 12 (Vanessa, Architecture and Urban Planning writer for Arch Daily, ArchDaily.com, “Urban Agriculture Part I: What Cuba Can Teach
Us,” 5/24/12, http://www.archdaily.com/237526/urban-agriculture-part-i-what-cuba-can-teach-us) But what’s fascinating about Cuba, is how,
due to necessity, food once again became the guiding factor in the shaping of its capital city. What it
required, however, was the complete and forced removal of its previously entrenched food system.
While the circumstances in the United States are no where near as dire, nor extreme, there are some parallels to be
drawn. First of all, our current Economic crisis has made the need to change our outdated, inefficient, and
unsustainable food systems far more pressing. Secondly, the cultural shift in our relationship with food,
especially due to rising health problems and an obesity epidemic, has similarly resulted in citizens
taking food production into their own hands.
Urban agriculture ensures food security-empirically proven by Cuba
Altieri et al 98 (Miguel A –Professor at the College of Natural Resources Cal-Berkeley, Nelso
Companioni -urban agriculture researcher at INIFAT in Havana, Cuba, Kristina Cañizares- undergrad
student in the Department of Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management, University of California,
Berkeley, Catherine Murphy, Peter Rosset, and Martin Bourque are representatives in Cuba, executive
director and sustainable agriculture coordinator, respectively, of the Institute for Food and Development
Policy (Food First) in Oakland, California, Clara I. Nichollsis a Ph.D. student at the Department of
Entomology, University of California, Davis, “The greening of the “barrios”: Urban agriculture for food
security in Cuba,” Agriculture and Human Values 16: 131–140, 12/11/98,
http://web.nmsu.edu/~bikerac/Articles/The%20greening%20of%20the%20%20barriosUrban%20agriculture%20for%20food%20security%20in%20Cuba.pdf, AJB)
The success of urban agriculture in Cuba is based on the integration of a variety of strategies that combine social,
economic, and environmental concerns with the issues of food security, which have been afflicting
Cubans, especially in urban areas, since the early 1990s. Some of these strategies include: Locating production in
the vicinity of consumption, thus alleviating the difficulties of transportation and maintaining a supply
of fresh fruits and vegetables throughout the year, to cover for seasonal shortages. Utilizing available resources by
recycling animal and industrial residues from local sources and applying them as agricultural inputs in
urban areas. Advancing an ecologically stable system of production by integrating organic methods of
fertilization and pest control, which optimize the health and yields of crop plants. Transforming
unsanitary or unsightly areas such as garbage dumps and vacant lots into healthy, productive
environments. Contributing to the environmental and agricultural awareness of urban populations,
especially of children and young people, and utilizing the expertise of rural migrants who may have a
wealth of knowledge and experience in agriculture666666
Urban ag key to cuba's model- urban ag both employs and ensure adequate food
supplies
Hiranandani 10(Vanmala, assistant professort at metropolitan university,
http://search.proquest.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/750311618/abstract/13F98194DE63F7A6159/1
?accountid=12598)
Another remarkable Cuban achievement is the growth of urban agriculture that turned unused city plots into large
vegetable gardens for feeding urban people. The earlier food shortages and the rise in food prices
transformed urban agriculture into a very profitable activity for Cubans. With the government providing its full
support, the embryonic urban gardening movement exploded to near epic proportions (Rosset 2000). Vacant lots, rooftops, backyards and
empty spaces in all Cuban cities have been converted into organic gardens, and fresh produce is sold from private stands throughout urban
areas at prices substantially below those prevailing in the farmers markets (Saney 2004). The urban
gardening movement, that plays
a critical role in supplying vegetables and other food items to the island’s population, generates 100%
organic produce since using pesticides inside city limits has been declared illegal (Sullivan 2000). By the end of the 1990s, almost 100,000
small- to medium-sized urban gardens spanning over 30,000 hectares produced more than 3 million tons of fresh vegetables per year for 11
million people (Levins 2005). This has transformed the Cuban diet in the communities, schools and workplaces and encouraged the spread of
vegetarian restaurants. By 2001, urban agriculture accounted for almost 60% of the vegetables and a high proportion of the eggs and poultry
meat consumed in Cuba. The capital city of Havana itself has more than 8,000 gardens, with governmentowned urban gardens producing 40%
of the city’s produce (Levins 2005). It has been speculated that once
the embargo ends, urban agriculture will disappear;
however, the Cuban government has already taken adequate steps to ensure the survival of urban
agriculture. Havana’s 2002 strategic plan gives urban agriculture its own zoning category, for the first time thereby protecting this form of
farming (Rosset 2000). Urban agriculture decreases the environmental as well as economic cost of food—it
reduced energy consumption and emission of greenhouse gases as food is locally produced rather
than being transported over increasingly long distances (Lynch 2002). Urban agriculture lowers the costs of
transportation and storage by selling directly to consumers. Growing food in urban areas also reduces stresses on soil and biodiversity in nonurban areas. Secondly, many urban wastes can form valuable inputs to urban agricultural systems, thereby reducing waste management
problems of cities. Thirdly, urban agriculture makes productive use of vacant land. Fourthly, urban agriculture also provides food and jobs for
low-income urban residents. In Cuba, urban
food gardens provide employment for some 300,000 people at a
time when capital is not available to invest in more industrial employment. Furthermore, urban agriculture
increases the green area of cities, detoxifies the air and provides abundant avenues for neighborhood social interaction (Levins 2005). The
success of urban gardening has earned Cuba international accolades (Zytaruk 2003). At Havana’s 1999 International Conference on Urban
Agriculture, several other countries expressed a keen interest to apply elements of the Cuban model to their own urban centers.
The agroecology model is more resilient than monoculture
Altieri & Funes-Monzote ’12 (Miguel A-Professor of Agroecology at Cal-Berkeley & Fernando Rresearcher at University of Matanzas in Cuba, “The Paradox of Cuban Agriculture,” Monthly Review
Volume 63 Number 8, January 2012, http://monthlyreview.org/2012/01/01/the-paradox-of-cubanagriculture)
About one third of all peasant families, some 110,000 families, have joined ANAP within its Farmer to Farmer Agroecological
Movement (MACAC, Movimiento Agroecológico Campesino a Campesino). It uses participatory methods based on local
peasant needs and allows for the socialization of the rich pool of family and community agricultural
knowledge that is linked to their specific historical conditions and identities. By exchanging innovations among
themselves, peasants have been able to make dramatic strides in food production relative to the
conventional sector, while preserving agrobiodiversity and using much lower amounts of
agrochemicals. Observations of agricultural performance after extreme climatic events in the last two
decades have revealed the resiliency of peasant farms to climate disasters. Forty days after Hurricane
Ike hit Cuba in 2008, researchers conducted a farm survey in the provinces of Holguin and Las Tunas and found
that diversified farms exhibited losses of 50 percent compared to 90 to 100 percent in neighboring
farms growing monocultures . Likewise agroecologically managed farms showed a faster productive
recovery (80 to 90 percent forty days after the hurricane) than monoculture farms.14 These evaluations
emphasize the importance of enhancing plant diversity and complexity in farming systems to reduce
vulnerability to extreme climatic events, a strategy entrenched among Cuban peasants.
Cooperation Args
Agroecological engagement can improve sustainable agricultural practices in Cuba and
the U.S.
Thompson & Stephens 12
Charles D. Thompson, Jr. is the curriculum and education director at the Center for Documentary Studies
and a lecturer in cultural anthropology at Duke University. - Alexander Stephens is an associate director
at the Marian Cheek Jackson Center for Saving and Making History – Visions for Sustainable Agriculture
in Cuba and the United States: Changing Minds and Models through Exchange http://www.southernspaces.org/2012/visions-sustainable-agriculture-cuba-and-united-states-changingminds-and-models-through-exchan
Views like Menendez’s reflect an inconsistency in U.S. foreign policy when it comes to our closest
Caribbean neighbor. The United States is willing to cultivate relationships with countries with human
rights conditions that the State Department deems similarly flawed to Cuba’s in the interest of
exchanging ideas and advancing trade.4 Rather than cutting off contact, the U.S. maintains relationships
while attempting to promote progress toward civil and human rights. If the goal is to advance the rights
of Cuban citizens, an open line of communication is essential. If U.S. policy is founded on a notion that
Cuba has nothing to teach, it is profoundly near-sighted. The U.S., and particularly agricultural areas of
the U.S. South, shares with Cuba the challenge of sustainably growing food and fiber without
despoiling water and soils, and harming the people doing the work. These challenges transcend
national borders. - Between the fanciful extremes of Eden and evil empire lies a third way:
understanding Cuba as a potential interlocutor regarding sustainable agriculture. New voices call for
dialogue between U.S. and Cuban citizens engaged in a burgeoning organic farm and garden
movement in both countries. Dialogue between Cuban agriculturalists and their counterparts in the
U.S. can further collective knowledge and improve environmental conditions. -
Collaborative agriculture engagement is key to sustainablility
Thompson & Stephens 12
Charles D. Thompson, Jr. is the curriculum and education director at the Center for Documentary Studies
and a lecturer in cultural anthropology at Duke University. - Alexander Stephens is an associate director
at the Marian Cheek Jackson Center for Saving and Making History – Visions for Sustainable Agriculture
in Cuba and the United States: Changing Minds and Models through Exchange http://www.southernspaces.org/2012/visions-sustainable-agriculture-cuba-and-united-states-changingminds-and-models-through-exchan
We should invent ways to enable visitors who are prepared to listen and learn to go to Cuba, as well as
ways to bring farmers and technicians from Cuba to work in the U.S. South. The dialogue of resistance
to imperialism in Cuba can help inform the politics of the U.S. sustainable agriculture movement. And
with political and economic changes imminent in Cuba, there are lessons to be learned from U.S.
organizations confronting corporate agriculture. It would be tragic if loosened commercial restrictions in
Cuba resulted in planting an agribusiness model there that we are desperately trying to get away from in
our own country. As Fernando Funes put it, the inclusion of small farmers through redistribution of
resources "makes them critical actors in the new reconfigured economy."20 Cuban people, particularly
rural people, are the true wealth of the island. Most are literate, savvy about change, and have
developed opinions about workable solutions. The potential for exchange between Cuba and the U.S.
South offers a collective possibility for agricultural sustainability, an exchange that must overcome
boundaries between nations. -
Research collaboration would spill over to U.S. relations with Latin America
Pastrana and Clegg 8 1Sergio Jorge Pastrana is the Foreign Secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de
Cuba. 2Michael T. Clegg is the Foreign Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences “U.S.-Cuban
Scientific Relations” 17 October 2008 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5900/345.full
In a few years, the two oldest national academies of science in the world outside of Europe—those of
the United States and Cuba—will celebrate their 150th anniversaries. Yet despite the proximity of both
nations and many common scientific interests, the U.S. embargo on exchanges with Cuba, which began
in 1961 and is now based on the 1996 U.S. Helms-Burton Act and subsequent regulations, has largely
blocked scientific exchange. It's time to establish a new scientific relationship, not only to address
shared challenges in health, climate, agriculture, and energy, but also to start building a framework for
expanded cooperation.¶ Restrictions on U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation deprive both research
communities of opportunities that could benefit our societies, as well as others in the hemisphere,
particularly in the Caribbean. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and mitigation,
vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to research facilities
that are beyond the capabilities of any developing country, and the U.S. scientific community could
benefit from high-quality science being done in Cuba. For example, Cuba typically sits in the path of
hurricanes bound for the U.S. mainland that create great destruction, as was the case with Hurricane
Katrina and again last month with Hurricane Ike. Cuban scientists and engineers have learned how to
protect threatened populations and minimize damage. Despite the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike
when it struck Cuba, there was less loss of life after a 3-day pounding than that which occurred when it
later struck Texas as a category 2 hurricane. Sharing knowledge in this area would benefit everybody.¶
Another major example where scientific cooperation could save lives is Cuba's extensive research on
tropical diseases, such as dengue fever. This viral disease is epidemic throughout the tropics, notably in
the Americas, and one of the first recorded outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia in the 18th century.
Today, one of the world's most outstanding research centers dedicated to dengue fever is in Cuba, and
although it actively cooperates with Latin America and Africa, there is almost no interaction with U.S.
scientists. Dengue fever presents a threat to the U.S. mainland, and sharing knowledge resources to
counter outbreaks of the disease would be an investment in the health security of both peoples.¶ Cuba
has also made important strides in biotechnology, including the production of several important
vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, and its research interests continue to expand in diverse fields,
ranging from drug addiction treatment to the preservation of biodiversity. Cuban scientists are engaged
in research cooperation with many countries, including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, China, and
India. Yet there is no program of cooperation with any U.S. research institution.¶ The value system of
science—openness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for evidence—provides a
framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based approaches that cross from
science into the social, economic, and political arenas. Beyond allowing for the mutual leveraging of
knowledge and resources, scientific contacts could build important cultural and social links among
peoples. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report argues that the United States needs to revamp its
engagement with Latin America because it is no longer the only significant force in this hemisphere.
U.S. policies that are seen as unfairly penalizing Cuba, including the imposition of trade limitations that
extend into scientific relations, continue to undermine U.S. standing in the entire region, especially
because neither Cuba nor any other Latin American country imposes such restrictions.¶ As a start, we
urge that the present license that permits restricted travel to Cuba by scientists, as dictated by the
U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, be expanded so as to allow direct
cooperation in research. At the same time, Cuba should favor increased scientific exchanges. Allowing
scientists to fully engage will not only support progress in science, it may well favor positive
interactions elsewhere to promote human well-being. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has hindered
exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us celebrate our mutual anniversaries by starting a new era of
scientific cooperation.¶
A partnership in pursuit of sustainability would provide a global model of
environmental sustainability
Connell 09
Christina Conell, Research Associate for Council on Hemispheric Affairs, The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to
be an Environmental Duo? http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/
An environmental partnership between the U.S. and Cuba is not only possible, but could result in
development models that could serve as an example for environmental strategies throughout the
Americas. The U.S. has the economic resources necessary to aid Cuba in developing effective policy,
while the island provides the space where sustainable systems can be implemented initially instead of
being applied after the fact. Cuba’s extreme lack of development provides an unspoiled arena for the
execution of exemplary sustainable environmental protection practices.
U.S.-Cuban cooperation on sustainability would provide a global model and restore
U.S. environmental leadership
Connell 09
Christina Conell, Research Associate for Council on Hemispheric Affairs, The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to
be an Environmental Duo? http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/
Unlike the U.S., which still has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, Cuba signed the document in 1997,
which calls for the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that
would prevent dangerous interference with the global climate system. This legally binding international
agreement attempts to tackle the issue of global warming and the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions. The U.S., although a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from
the Protocol. The signature alone is merely symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United
States unless ratified. Although in 2005 the United States was the largest per capita emitter of carbon
dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, it experienced only a modest decline of 2.8 percent from 2007 to
2008. This decline demonstrates that the U.S. has the framework to reverse Cuba’s substandard
environmental track record. By aiding Havana, Washington would be able to brand itself as an active
conservationist. Such a label would enable the U.S. to create a valuable ecological public image in the
international arena. ¶ The developmental assistance and economic growth potential that might stem
from a U.S.-Cuba partnership might aid in developing enforceable implementation strategies. Even
though Cuba’s written regulations characteristically lack feasible, implementable standards. Cuban
laws, currently in effect, do provide a foundation for greater conservation activity in the future. The
Cuban government does show an interest in encouraging sustainable development initiatives in the
future, yet its laws are all based on maintaining a centralized government featuring a command
economy. For example, CITMA appears to be trying to affect change, but many aspects of Cuba’s
bureaucracy are rooted in the past and it remains difficult to update the ways of an outdated
administrative substructure. If the embargo is lifted without a robust partnership and plans for
environmental sustainability, the invasion of U.S. consumerism may seriously damage the island.
AT: Cuba says no
Cuba wants trade now- increase production to export surplus
Warwick 1(Hugh, freelance journalist and editor of Splice, the magazine of the Genetics Forum,
http://forum.ra.utk.edu/Archives/Summer2001/cuba.pdf)
While the move towards more sustainable agricultural systems was induced by crisis, it is being turned to
an advantage. In January 2001, Cuba exported its first batch of organically certified sugar cane to Europe. Cuba is very interested
in exporting organic sugar, coffee, citrus, tobacco, and other products.The primary focus of food
production remains that of domestic food security, and most of Cuban food production is still for
domestic consumption. The country, however, is working to increase production and export the surplus.
Peter Rosset, executive director of Food First and author of Small is Bountiful, highlights six key explanations for the greater productivity of
small farms, all factors that have helped avert disaster in Cuba. ■ Multiple cropping. Small farmers are more likely to plant multiple crops on the
same field. Farmers
may also plant multiple times during the year. And farmers can integrate production
of crops, livestock, and even aquaculture. This makes more intensive use of space and time . ■ Output
composition. Large farms are orientated toward landextensive enterprises, like cattle grazing or extensive
grain monocultures, while small farmers emphasize labor and resourceintensive use of land. ■ Irrigation.
Small farmers may make more efficient use of irrigation. ■ Labor quality. While small farms generally use family labor— which is personally
committed to the success of the farm—large farms use relatively alienated hired labor. Small farms often apply more labor per unit area. ■
Input use. The mix on small farms favors nonpurchased inputs like manure and compost, while large farms tend to use purchased inputs like
agrochemicals. ■ Resource use.
Large farms are less committed to managing other resources—such as forest
and aquatic resources—which combine with the land to produce a greater quantity and better quality
of production.
Cuba wants trade now- increase production to export surplus
Warwick 1(Hugh, freelance journalist and editor of Splice, the magazine of the Genetics Forum,
http://forum.ra.utk.edu/Archives/Summer2001/cuba.pdf)
But Cuba has yet to make a complete commitment to an organic future. In fact, it is taking a very pragmatic
stance. While there is an ideal of an organic system, Kristina Canizares from Food First, a nonprofit organization that seeks to find grassroots
solutions to hunger and poverty worldwide, found on her recent visit that most Cubans she talked to want to switch from chemicals to
sustainable technologies as much as possible. “Some farms in Cuba use no agrochemicals whatsoever, but there are others that use them, but
only in times of crisis—for example, during severe pest outbreaks.”14 In addition, since
organic farming is generally more
labor-intensive than chemical farming, planners have also sought to encourage urbanites to move to the countryside, as labor
demands for alternative agriculture are now a constraint on its growth. Programs are now aiming to create more attractive
housing in the countryside, supplemented with services, and to encourange urban people to work on
farms for periods of two weeks to two years.15
Cuba will say yes – it needs desperately needs new capital to aid economic reforms
Iglesias, 12 – Commander, US Navy. Paper submitted for the Master of Strategic Studies Degree at the
the US Army War College (Carlos, “United States Security Policy Implications of a Post-Fidel Cuba”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA560408) GOC = Government of Cuba, FAR = Cuban
military
For Cuba, the destitute economy can wait no longer. The Cuban Minister of Economy and Planning,
Marino Murillo, candidly admitted as much in 2010, “the gigantic paternalistic state can no longer be,
because there is no longer a way to maintain it.”75 This confession that the country is in ruins was
confirmed to be literally true by a University of Miami study which uncovered “that in Havana alone an
estimated 300 buildings collapse every year, and that about 100,000 residents there live in unsafe
structures. Highways, utilities and sewage systems, water mains, and other critical infrastructure are in
advanced stages of disrepair.”76 This national disrepair signals an immense latent demand for
infrastructure rehabilitation. The magnitude of the need for public goods developments alone is
staggering. One estimate assessed the requirements at just over $8 billion.77 FDI at these levels would
be most welcomed by U.S. capital and if invested, would help prime the Cuban economic engine. 24
Raul wants economic engagement with the US
LeoGrande, 13 - professor in the Department of Government, School of Public Affairs at American
University in Washington, D.C. (William, “The Danger of Dependence: Cuba's Foreign Policy After
Chavez” World Politics Review, 4/2, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12840/the-danger-ofdependence-cubas-foreign-policy-after-chavez)
In Cuba, Raúl Castro's historic economic reforms are moving the island toward a mixed socialist economy, and incipient political
decompression is allowing more space for open debate. These changes, undertaken in response to domestic necessity rather than U.S.
demands, are nevertheless moving Cuba
in directions long cited by Washington as necessary for better
relations. To exert any positive influence on the trajectory of Cuba's evolution, however, Washington has to engage not just with Cuban
society but with Cuba's government. Eager to put Cuba on a more solid footing before passing the torch to the next generation
of leaders, Raúl Castro seems genuinely interested in opening talks with Washington. Unlike his older
brother, Raúl did not make his political career by mobilizing nationalist sentiment against the United States.
He has a strong incentive to settle this conflict so he can focus on renovating the Cuban economy and
open it up to U.S. trade and investment.
A/T worms turn
Turn-Cuban system helps worms- worms will die without the organic system
Raj et. al 1(Dhagya ,Emeritus Scientist, Departmenty of Agricultural Microbiology,University of Agricutural Sciences, Hebbal, Bangalore,
http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp/wg_organic.pdf)
Drawing inspiration from the recent Cuban agriculture experience, it is wise to consider the production
of compost in large scale through industrial plants utilising earthworms and other biological
converters as well as by extensive adoption of green manuring of agricultural lands. Cuba produced 93,000 tonnes of worm
humus through 172 vermicompost centres, spread across the island way back in 1992. Each Indian State government could
emulate this. Similarly, Cuba has also developed several centres for production of predatory ant through
low-cost techniques for the management of various pests in sweet potato. Our country also could
invest to patronise such efforts through NABARD and other such agencies that have been already
sensitised in this regard by CICR.
AT: Disads
Politics
Executive Action Doesn’t Link
Executive orders are fast and build political capital
Krause and Cohen 97 [George + David, Professors of Political Science @ South Carolina, “Presidential Use of Executive Orders”
American Politics Quarterly, Vol 25 No 4, October 1997, Sage Journals Online]
The aim of this study is to answer the question: What causes presidents to issue executive orders with greater (or less) frequency in a given year? This is an
important topic of inquiry, not only because of the dearth of research that has been conducted to date but also because it is a valuable way to assess both the
orders are another weapon in the
arsenal that presidents have at their disposal. They both afford the chief executive the ability to make
quick and efficient policy decisions without consultation from Congress or from the public, and they are also
a tool that allows presidents to exert bargaining pressure on Congress to enact legislation more
favorable to the White House (Wigton 1996). Thus, explaining how and why executive orders are used by presidents allows scholars a better
managerial and policymaking characteristics associated with the office of the presidency. Executive
understanding of the presidency and the powers that are inherent in that office.
Executive orders attract no Congressional battles
Moe and Howell 99 (Terry M and William G., senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and Associate Professor in the Government
Department at Harvard University, “Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A theory”, Presidential Studies Quarterly 29.4, December 1999)
Our aim here is to highlight an institutional basis for presidential power that has gone largely
unappreciated to this point but that, in our view, has become so pivotal to presidential leadership, and
so central to an understanding of presidential power, that it virtually defines what is distinctively modern about the modern American
presidency. This
is the president's formal capacity for taking unilateral action and thus for making law on
his own. Often, presidents do this through executive orders. Sometimes they do it through proclamations or executive
agreements or national security directives. But whatever vehicles they may choose, the end result is that presidents can and do
make new law--and thus shift the existing status quo--without the explicit consent of Congress. The fact
is, presidents have always acted unilaterally to make law. The Louisiana Purchase, the freeing of the slaves, the internment of the Japanese, the
desegregation of the military, the initiation of affirmative action, the imposition of regulatory review--these are but a few of the most notable
presidential orders are far less dramatic, of course. But they are numerous and often important, and it appears
the strategy of unilateral action has grown increasingly more central to the modern presidency.
examples. Most
Executive orders are not perceived, means no links to politics.
LeRoy, Professor for the University of Illinois, 96 Michael LeRoy, Associate Professor for the Institute of Labor & Industrial
Relations and College of Law, University of Illinois, “Presidential Regulation of Private Employment: Constitutionality of Executive Order 12954
some orders diffused political
responsibility for controversial policy innovations. New laws and Supreme Court decisions are widely
reported, sometimes with detailed analysis and commentary. In contrast, an executive order tends to be less
visible unless a president decides to make it newsworthy. This low visibility may have checked
otherwise hostile public opinion on race discrimination orders.
Debarment of Contractors who Hire Permanent Striker Replacements” LexisNexus.com 3-02 Third,
Executive orders save capital by avoiding involvement with Congress
Fleishman 76 [Joel, Prof Law and Policy Sciences, Duke, Law & Contemporary Problems, Summer, p. 38] Several related factors, in
particular, make executive
orders especially attractive policymaking tools for a President. First is speed. Even if a
President is reasonably confident of securing desired legislation from congress, he must wait for congressional
deliberations to run their course. Invariably, he can achieve far faster, if not immediate, results by issuing an
executive order. Moreover, when a President acts through an order, he avoids having to subject his policy to
public scrutiny and debate. Second is flexibility. Executive orders have the force of law. Yet they differ from
congressional legislation in that a President can alter any executive order simply with the stroke of his pen—merely by issuing another
executive order. As noted earlier, Presidents have developed the system of classifying national security documents in precisely this manner.
Finally, executive
orders allow the President, not only to evade hardened congressional opposition, but
also to preempt potential or growing opposition—to throw Congress off balance, to reduce its ability to
formulate a powerful opposing position.
The President can use executive orders to gain political capital
Mayer ’01
(Kenneth – Prof. Political Science at University of Wisconsin –Madison, WITH THE STROKE OF A PEN:
EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND PRESIDENTIAL POWER, P 31)
At the third level, presidents use their unilateral authority as a bargaining tool in an effort to shape the
strategic context in which they operate. By taking symbolic stands, placing issues and policies on the
public agenda, and providing political benefits to important constituencies, presidents can dramatically
alter the strategic environment in which bargaining takes place. This type of authority comes closest to Neustadt’s
“persuasion” model of presidential power. Two recent examples are Clinton’s 1995 order that barred government contractors from hiring
replacement workers and a 1997 order prohibiting smoking in government buildings. In the first case Clinton was trying to mend the breach
with organized labor that arose over his support of the North American Free Trade Agreement (which unions strongly opposed).Even though
the president ultimately lost in the courts, he still gained considerable leverage by making the attempt. In the second case, the president’s
action was largely symbolic, and part of an effort to gain public credit by getting on the “right side” of an important public heath issue. My
focus is on the second and third categories of presidential action. Although presidents face limits on their ability to mandate direct change—
indeed, in a separated system the lack of such limits would be, as Montesquieu put it, the very definition of tyranny—the focus in the
presidency literature on the limits of command has obscured the president’s ability to use executive authority to gain control of institutions,
processes, and agendas. Even within this more narrow area presidents are not free to do whatever they want, and in any case Congress or the
courts may step in to reverse what the president has done. I argue, though, that the
president will win more of these battles
than he loses, as Congress fails to overcome the collective dilemma and institutional inertia that make
quick and decisive action difficult. Before I turn to the task of analyzing how presidents have used this power in particular policy
areas, though, it is necessary first to define with more precision what the law says about executive orders, and provide an accurate and
systematic account of the patterns of overall use.
AT: XO  Backlash
Executive backlash links are non-unique:
a) Chemical safety standards.
Houston Chronicle 8-1-13. ["Citing West blast, Obama signs executive order on chemical plant safety" -blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/08/citing-west-blast-obama-signs-executive-order-on-chemical-plant-safety/]
Responding to the deadly April explosion that devastated the town of West, President Barack Obama
signed an executive order
on federal agencies to improve the safety and security of hazardous chemical
manufacturing sites.¶ More three months after the devastating Central Texas blast, Obama ordered federal agencies
that oversee chemical facilities to improve safety standards at U.S. plants. The president created a White House
Thursday calling
working group comprised of officials representing the nine agencies listed in the order.
b) Climate change
Newswire13
(http://ens-newswire.com/2013/06/25/president-obama-takes-executive-action-on-climate-change/)
President Barack Obama today
will present his three-pronged plan to deal with climate change – reduce
carbon emissions, prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change, and lead global efforts to fight it. The plan is
based solely on executive actions the President can take without Congressional approval. By setting forth
this type of plan, President Obama is demonstrating that he believes it will not be possible to get climate
legislation through Congress during his second term. President Obama President Barack Obama introduces the idea of a
national climate policy in a short video (Image courtesy The White House) Many Republicans in Congress have made their denial of climate
change an article of faith. But President Obama
believes that with regard to climate change, “America stands at a
critical juncture,” the White House said today in a statement explaining the President’s climate plan.
“Climate change is no longer a distant threat – we are already feeling its impacts across the country and the world,” the White House said. “Last
year was the warmest year ever in the contiguous United States and about one-third of all Americans experienced 10 days or more of 100degree heat. The 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15 years.” “Asthma rates have doubled in the past 30 years and our
children will suffer more asthma attacks as air pollution gets worse,” said the White House. “And increasing floods, heat waves, and droughts
have put farmers out of business, which is already raising food prices dramatically.” “These changes come with far-reaching consequences and
real economic costs. Last year alone, there were 11 different weather and climate disaster events with estimated losses exceeding $1 billion
each across the United States. Taken together, these 11 events resulted in over $110 billion in estimated damages, which would make it the
second-costliest year on record,” the White House said in its statement. Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions To cut emissions of the greenhouse
gas carbon dioxide, President Obama is issuing a Presidential Memorandum that directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
“expeditiously” complete carbon emission standards for both new and existing power plants. “Power plants are the largest concentrated source
of emissions in the United States, together accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. We have already set
limits for arsenic, mercury, and lead, but there is no federal rule to prevent power plants from releasing as much carbon pollution as they
want,” the White House said. power plant Greenhouse gases rise from the Cumberland coal-fired power plant operated by the Tennessee
Valley Authority, an agency of the U.S. government. (Photo by TVA) “This work will build on the successful first-term effort to develop
greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for cars and trucks,” the plan states. In developing the standards, the President
has asked
the EPA “to build on state leadership, provide flexibility, and take advantage of a wide range of
energy sources and technologies, including many actions in this plan.” During the President’s first
term, the United States more than doubled generation of electricity from wind, solar, and geothermal
sources. Today Obama will set a goal to double renewable electricity generation again by 2020. To
achieve this goal, the plan calls for accelerating clean energy permitting, expanding and modernizing the electric grid, spurring investment in
advanced fossil energy projects, and instituting a new federal energy review every four years. President Obama believes that the federal
government must lead, so his plan establishes a new goal. The federal government will get 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources
by 2020 – more than double the current goal of 7.5 percent. During Obama’s first term, federal agencies reduced greenhouse gas emissions by
more than 15 percent – the equivalent of permanently removing 1.5 million cars from U.S. roads. To strengthen efforts to promote energy
efficiency, the Administration will initiate a partnership with the private sector to develop a standardized contract that will increase access to
capital markets to finance federal energy efficiency investments. And the Administration
will leverage the “Green Button”
standard, which aggregates energy data in a secure, easy to use format within federal facilities to
increase their ability to manage energy consumption, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and meet
sustainability goals.
Link N/U - GSP
Debates over the GSP now – takes out link uniqueness.
Jones 7-24-13. [Vivian, specialist in international trade and finance, "Generalized system of preferences: background and renewal
debate" Congressional Research Service -- www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33663.pdf]
On July 17, 2013, House Ways and Means Committee leadership introduced a “clean” GSP ¶ renewal
bill that would extend the preference until September 30, 2015, reportedly in an effort to ¶ pass the extension as quickly as
possible. Senate Finance Committee leaders also reportedly favor ¶ passage of a simple GSP renewal, but this could be more
challenging in the Senate because ¶ legislative procedures could make it easier for the bill to be
amended.2¶ Renewal of the GSP program has been somewhat controversial in recent years, and there has
been ¶ considerable discussion in Congress about GSP reform. For example, some in Congress have ¶ asserted that
certain “more advanced” developing countries (such as Brazil and India) are ¶ receiving GSP benefits to the exclusion of lesser-developed
countries. The
consideration of Vietnam as a potential GSP beneficiary has also been a matter of debate
for some in Congress, ¶ largely due to concerns over the country’s record on worker rights.
AT: Counterplans
AT: China CP
Advanced agricultural cooperation and trade between China and Cuba already exists –
the CP is the status quo
Scoop World 6/18/13
(China and Cuba to Advance Cooperation in Agriculture,
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1306/S00449/china-and-cuba-to-advance-cooperation-in-agriculture.htm)
China and Cuba expressed their interest in keeping advancing bilateral cooperation in agriculture,
innovation and scientific exchange, official sources reported on Saturday. The issue was addressed by
Cuban Agriculture minister Gustavo Rodriguez during a meeting in Beijing with his Chinese counterpart
Han Changfu. The Chinese government official recalled a recent visit to Cuba in which he met with the
historic leaders of the Cuban Revolution and he stressed the importance of implementing a
cooperation program signed by the two Agriculture ministries during the visit to China by President
Raul Castro last year. The two parties agreed that although some actions have been taken on the basis
of the accord, there is mutual interest in the advancement of that program. Minister Han Changfu also
expressed his willingness to further increase scientific and technical exchange and innovation in the
industrial and agriculture sectors. The two agriculture ministers exchanged views on the measures being
implemented by the Cuban government in the sector. The Cuban official briefed his host about the
transformations that are underway in the area as part of the update of the island’s economic sector.
AT: Russia CP
Cuba already exports agricultural products to Russia – the CP is the status quo
Havana Times 2/21/13
(Russia PM in Cuba to Boost Trade Ties, www.havanatimes.org/?p=88159)
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev arrived today in Cuba in a working visit focused on boosting trade and
strengthening economic ties between the two countries, according to the Russian government. Medvedev — who
traveled from Brazil, the first stop on his current trip to Latin America — will meet in Havana with President Raul Castro, reported DPA news.
The two leaders are expected to sign a series of agreements today, according to Cuba’s Foreign Ministry. Sources among the Russian delegation
quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency spoke of the signing of seven documents. These include an agreement for cooperation in space research, a
memorandum for nuclear cooperation in the medical field, and an agreement for hydro-meteorological and environmental control cooperation
between the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources and Cuba’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, according to Itar-Tass.
Russian trade with Cuba declined by 0.3 percent in 2012, according to figures released Wednesday by Moscow’s Ministry of Economic
Russian exports to Cuba included
mainly machinery and vehicles, which accounted for 70.3 percent of its sales to the Caribbean island. Cuba exports mainly
agricultural products (97.9 percent of its sales), according to figures from the Russian government.
Development. The trade volume in the first 11 months of 2012 was close to $195 million.
Neg
Squo Solves
AT: Cuba Moving to Industrial Ag
Cuba will never adopt industrial agriculture – they are locked in to sustainability
Zunes, 2k - associate professor of politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the
University of San Francisco (Stephen, “Cuba’s New Revolution” Design/Builder, August
http://stephenzunes.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Cubas-New-Revolution.pdf)
Most of Cuba's ecological innovations were made more out of necessity than by design. However, the
Cubans believe that many of these changes are here to stay, even if the availability of fossil fuels and
chemical agents improve . “We will never go back,” one farmer told me “I'm sorry it took us so long to
figure this out” Indeed, as a number of Cuban scientists pointed out, sooner or later all countries will
have to make the transition to a more environmentally sustainable economy. “The revolution and the
U S. embargo freed us from having to follow the U 8. model of development,“ says Raoul Guiterrez,
who works for a tour agency. “Unfortunately, we ended up following the Soviet model, which didn’t
work either. Now, we have been forced to do what we should have done from the beginning - find a
Cuban model, sensitive to our country‘s cultural, economic, and environmental needs.” Environmental
education is taught in every grade at every level of education There are prime-time radio and television
shows on environmental themes. There is a major cleanup of Havana Harbor, thanks to a grant from
Scandinavian countries. There is a major recycling program focusing on glass, aluminum, card-- board,
and paper collected from every urban neighborhood and many smaller towns as well. High school
students are recruited, with the incentive of cash donations for their schools, to collect recyclable
materials. There is a growing emphasis on natural medical practices, including homeopathy, Eastern
traditions, and traditional Cuban medicines. Green pharmacies are in most towns and neighborhoods,
and alternative medicine is a recognized specialization in Cuban medical schools.
Cuba won’t revert to industrial ag
Van Cleef 2k (Lisa Van Cleef, “The Big Green Experiment: Cuba's Organic Revolution,” San Francisco
Chronicle, “Wednesday, March 15, 2000, pg. http://yeoldeconsciousnessshoppe.com/art9.html)//HA
Cuba's advanced organic farming techniques have led to major cultural shifts as many city-dwellers have
become farmers. But what happens when the Cuban economy shifts and the embargo is lifted? Now
that they are such capable organic growers, will they revert to chemical farming? Rieux says no .
"Yes, there are people who believe some of the gardeners will revert to the old practices, but many
people will still farm organically. Even when the embargo lifts, the small farmer will make more money
organically because he spends so little. He's not going to start buying chemicals. He won't have to. He
has the knowledge now.
Cuba won’t revert – prior experience with industrial ag makes it a political nonstarter
Zepeda, 3 - Lydia Zepeda is a professor in the Department of Consumer Science and a Fellow at the
Center for World Affairs and Global Economics, University of Wisconsin (Choices: The Magazine of Food,
Farm, and Resource Issues, “Cuban Agriculture: A Green and Red Revolution”
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2003-4/2003-4-01.htm)
What will the future bring? Quien sabe. Everyone expects political changes when Castro dies, but one must be mindful that there is an immense
state communist system that permeates Cuban society. Many people benefit from this system, and Cubans are well aware of the example of
the Soviet collapse and ensuing economic and social crisis in Russia. Regardless of what happens on the political level, it
seems likely that
Cuba will continue to promote agroecological practices and to expand urban agriculture simply because
they are yielding results. The bad experiences with large agricultural operations, both before and after
communism, make it unlikely that anyone could credibly promote a return to large, high-input
operations as a matter of national policy. The positive results that farmers, university researchers, and
extension are getting from the transformation of Cuban agriculture will likely encourage them to
continue to pursue sustainable practices whatever comes next. Cuban people are eating better and healthier than
before, though things are far from perfect. However, the relevant comparison is to other Latin American countries; Cuba simply does not have
the widespread hunger, destitution, and suffering that are commonplace in countries with much higher GDP per capita. The
extent of
future success with sustainable agriculture will of course depend on what markets Cuban farmers will
have access to and what types of competition they will face from imports. Although great strides have been made, Cuba will likely always
be a food importer, and it will certainly be in Cuba's interest to buy its imported meat, rice, beans, oil, soy, and dairy products as cheaply as
possible. If the United States wants to supply these imports, it will need to negotiate a means for Cuba to earn the money to buy them.
Removing the travel ban and permitting US tourists would certainly yield more unity among US agricultural interests than allowing importation
of Cuban sugar, citrus, and tobacco. Whatever the future brings, one thing is certain: Cuba will continue to make some of the finest cigars and
music in the world.
It’s not reversible – political commitment outweighs the influx of trade
Barclay, 3 – freelance writer based in Washington, D.C. (Eliza, “Cuba's security in fresh produce” 9/12,
http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1208)
With Cuba's well-documented ability to feed itself, why would the Cuban government be interested in
spending $91.9 million on food imports? John S. Kavulich II, president of the U.S. Trade and Economic Council based in New York City, said,
"There is a strong political component to the Cubans' decision to purchase food products from us. Of the products purchased since 2001, nearly
all of them are available from other sources at better prices." Kavulich cited rice as an example. The Cubans could buy rice from Vietnam at a
significantly lower price, but they choose to purchase from purveyors like ADM instead. Food First's Rosset agrees. "I believe the
Cubans
are buying from the U.S. as a political gesture. They hope the food corporations will lobby the U.S.
government on their behalf to lift the embargo." Aside from the disruption in self-sufficiency, there is also growing
concern that if the embargo is eventually lifted, global agricultural giants will persuade farmers to drop
their organic methods in favor of high pesticide and fertilizer usage. However, Dr. Nelso Campanioni Concepción of INIFAT
responded: "We are not going back. We will increase production, but we will not degrade the
environment doing it." Speculating on the possible institutional reactions to a global market that peddles genetically engineered seeds,
pesticides, and fertilizers, Rosset said, "There is a possibility of a negative impact on the Cuban model. There may be a short term
increase in pesticide use and a stronger interest in biotechnology, but they may not last because they
may not fulfill Cuban agricultural needs."
Cuba committed to sustainable farming
ROSSET 00(peter, researcher at CECCAM, http://www.organicconsumers.org/HouseParty/cubareader.pdf)
Cuba's commitment to sustainable farming practices demonstrates how huge improvements in food
production can be achieved even under stressful economic and environmental conditions. Urban
agriculture has played an integral role in achieving food security, and Cuba is at the vanguard of the global urban agriculture movement. In
2002, Cuba
produced 3.2 million tons of food in urban farms and gardens. In 2002, more than 35,000
acres) of urban land were dedicated to the intensive production of fresh fruits,
vegetables, and spices. According to Dr. Nelso Campanioni Concepción, deputy director of the National Institute for
Fundamental18 Research on Tropical Agriculture (INIFAT), "The goal of urban agriculture is to gain the most food from
every square meter of available space. The secret to the success of urban agriculture in Cuba has been
the introduction of new technologies and varieties and an increase in areas farmed." Another factor favoring
hectares (86,450
urban agriculture is that Cuba does not have the transport infrastructure — especially since the Soviets stopped delivering fuel — to deliver
large quantities of food from rural areas to the cities on a regular basis. This means that urban residents benefit not only from feeding
themselves but also by guaranteeing the freshness of their daily sustenance. Extra food is shared in the community. Retirement home and
hospital kitchens receive anywhere from a steady supply to seasonal, fluctuating donations from neighborhood gardens. These gardens,
coupled with the comprehensive rural and suburban farms, play a critical role in completing the sense of food security that Cubans now enjoy.
Nutritious and Delicious Filberto Samora, the administrator of one of the oldest organoponicos in Havana which won recognition from
President Fidel Castro, said, "This organoponico is very much a part of the neighborhood. We give food to the school two blocks away, and all
the neighbors come to buy food from the stand." Samora's organoponico grows bok choi, lettuces, and cilantro, but farmers from outlying
areas of Havana are also allowed to sell their produce at Samora's stand. The organoponico facility has also begun to produce its own seeds and
compost for distribution to other farms in Havana. The farmstands
and neighborhood gardens have not only provided a
consistent source of fresh and affordable food, but the fact that fresh produce is now readily available has also played a
critical role in guiding the Cuban diet in a more healthy direction.
Industrial Ag Good
Industrial Ag Good - Environment
Scientific-industrial agriculture relieves pressure on ecosystems – it’s a dynamic
process
Holmen, 6
Hans, Associate Prof in Social and Economic Geography, Linkoping U-Sweden, ‘Myths about Agriculture, Obstacles to Solving the African Food
Crisis,’ The European Journal of Development Research, Sept 6, Academic Search Premier
No matter whether we choose to call it a Green Revolution or not, intensification (i.e. more production on less land) of African agriculture is
inevitable. The
Green Revolution is dynamic and today there are fast growing, drought tolerant, more
nutritious and high yielding crops available, which can be used to improve livelihoods and food
security – not only for farmers in well-endowed areas, but also for smallholders in those
peripheral and semi-arid areas that have not been reached by ‘modern’ technologies. Scientificindustrial agricultural technologies further enable us to reduce application of pesticides and,
hence, to lower the pressure on ecosystems. Enhanced productivity (higher yields) on existing
farmlands will help preserving marginal land and large areas with, perhaps, more varied or
vulnerable ecosystems and thus contribute to rescuing endangered species.
Industrial ag is not the main cause – actually uses less land and enhances wild
ecologies
Holmen, 6
Hans, Associate Prof in Social and Economic Geography, Linkoping U-Sweden, ‘Myths about Agriculture, Obstacles to Solving the African Food
Crisis,’ The European Journal of Development Research, Sept 6, Academic Search Premier
A variant of the abovementioned myth is that biodiversity is threatened by agricultural ‘modernisation’. The alleged inevitable increase in
monoculture is only one side of this factoid. Culturalised landscapes’ encroachment upon nature is often seen as disastrous in terms of their
effects on biodiversity and, in the long run, on all life supporting systems (e.g. Abramovitz, 1998; Kane, 1998). It is therefore not uncommon
that ‘with its overall emphasis on conservation, global biodiversity values focus on . . . wild rather than agricultural biodiversity [and
counterpose] . . . wilderness versus human landscapes – [with] a clear prioritisation of the former’ (Vermeulen, 2004: 6ff.). Agriculture’s
encroachment on – and elimination of – natural habitats is a consequence of population
growth and therefore of agricultural expansion as such, not only of its modern variants. It is inevitable that agriculture in some sense
reduces biodiversity. This, however, is not confined to ‘modern’ or scientific agriculture alone. Compared to a natural, ‘wild’
landscape, even a ‘traditional’ intercropped field means reduced (local) biodiversity . Careful selection
over millennia of preferred plants and plant characteristics, while gradually making it possible to feed an ever-growing human population, has,
no doubt, resulted in a loss of biodiversity. Few, I believe, would argue that this has only been for the worse. Hence, agriculture itself, through
its geographical expansion as well as by its preferential treatment of certain plants and animals at the expense of others, appears to reduce
biodiversity. That conclusion has, however, been questioned. De Gregory (2004: 15) notes: ‘it
is widely understood that the
single most important cause of species extinction is loss of habitat’. Global warming (probably not
only man-made) and urban encroachment into arable lands – i.e. extra-agricultural processes – are probably
the most important causes of species extinction. Sometimes, however, agriculture itself is to blame. Expansion of
arable lands into rainforests is a commonly used example of such agriculture-caused loss of habitat. Locally this example may have validity but
on a more general level the calculation is a bit more complicated.11 As pointed out by Borlaugh (2002) ‘the
high yields of the
Green Revolution . . . had a dramatic conservation effect: saving millions of acres of wild-lands
all over the world from being cleared for more low-yielding crops’. Hence, not even in its external relations is
agriculture’s final balance sheet obvious or even easily calculated.
Asia proves no impact – other things outweigh
Holmen, 6
Hans, Associate Prof in Social and Economic Geography, Linkoping U-Sweden, ‘Myths about Agriculture, Obstacles to Solving the African Food
Crisis,’ The European Journal of Development Research, Sept 6, Academic Search Premier
Moving into agriculture itself, it has also been questioned whether ‘modernisation’ actually leads to loss of crop diversity (FAO, 1996). In
Asia, agricultural modernisation led to a reduction of poverty and as people got wealthier they
became ‘able to grow and manage a wider range of biodiversity’ (Vermeulen, 2004: 11). Also, in Asia, rice had
an association with monoculture long before the Green Revolution (de Gregory, 2004) and, contrary to expectations, ‘rice area harvested
(hectares under rice multiplied by the number of croppings per year) has declined as a percentage of total crop harvested area in nearly all ricegrowing economies since 1970 . . . rice
is now less dominant in Asian agriculture than it was before the
Green Revolution [and] . . . farmers in most Asian countries plant a wider variety of different
crops today than was the case in 1970’ (Dawe, 2003). Our own research on smallholder agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa
(Djurfeldt et al., 2005) revealed that, in contrast to what critics of commercialisation and highyielding technologies claim, it is the small, poor
and primarily subsistence oriented farm households that have the least crop diversity whereas larger, more wealthy and market oriented
smallholder farmers using external inputs are more diverse in their agricultural practices (Holme´n, 2004). Also the
claim that
‘modern’ or scientific agriculture offers only ‘a handful of uniform varieties’ (de Grassi and Rosset, 2003:
33), or even ‘a few varieties of a few crops’ (Shiva, quoted in Pringle, 2003: 37), does not stand the test of closer scrutiny.
Transnational agri-business corporations may have an interest in limiting the number of varieties released, since this could enhance profit.
However, such restrictions do not apply to publicly owned crop research. Maredia et al. (1998) report that, in Africa alone, public maize
research programmes released nearly 300 new varieties between 1966 and 1990. This equals more than a handful of new varieties per year.
Evenson and Gollin (2003: 3) found that from public crop research programmes in Latin America, Asia and Africa, ‘by 2000, . . . more than 8000
modern varieties had been released in 11 crops studied’. They also showed that both the diversity and the rate of releases increase over time.
With more funding for public agricultural research, these figures could be substantially higher. Hence, neither externally nor within agriculture
is it inevitable that ‘modernisation’ or ‘scientisation’ of agriculture will lead to genetic erosion.12 No doubt, scientific-industrial agriculture has,
in many places, led to loss of biodiversity, sometimes even on a grand scale. In other places, such agricultural practices may have contributed to
enhanced biodiversity, in a general sense as well as within agriculture itself. Obviously, the issue of ‘modern’ agriculture’s impact on
biodiversity – no matter whether this is in its internal or external relations – is much more complicated than the post- or anti-modern
mythology likes to admit. This, of course, is not to say that all is well or that the risk of species extinction is negligible. But to claim that sciencebased agriculture automatically will lead to loss of biodiversity seems somewhat premature. Moreover, making so much noise about the
alleged evils of ‘modern’ agriculture might divert attention from more serious issues. Other
aspects of development, for
example, corporate ownership of genetic codes or excessive consumption and seemingly limitless
mobility – which consume nature e.g. in the form of roads and infrastructure expansion and are believed to cause global warming – are
probably much more detrimental to biodiversity than are yield-enhancing agricultural
technologies as such
Squo solves any impact – crops are diversifying now with better adaptability
Holmen, 6
Hans, Associate Prof in Social and Economic Geography, Linkoping U-Sweden, ‘Myths about Agriculture, Obstacles to Solving the African Food
Crisis,’ The European Journal of Development Research, Sept 6, Academic Search Premier
Among the myths is the view that the Green Revolution is an environmental threat. As shown above,
this is in many respects an exaggerated proposal. For example, Dawe (2002: 1) reports that whereas insecticide use in the
Philippines increased to harmful levels during the 1960s and 1970s, it has since declined. Presently, in investigated areas,
‘levels of insecticide use are now slightly below what they were before the Green Revolution’
(emphasis added). This is mainly due to successful educational campaigns and a price policy that discourages unnecessary applications. Also, as
shown above, crop diversity has increased in Asia since the Green Revolution was launched . Moreover,
the new seeds, which are developed and released in a steady flow, are still accused of harbouring the same shortcomings as those varieties that
were released in the mid-1960s. Compared with them – and with traditional varieties – today’s
alternatives show, as a result
of decades of crop research, both higher potential yields and better resistance against drought,
pests and insects (Larsson et al., 2002). There is today a greater choice of seeds with better
adaptability to variegated agro-ecological conditions (Akande and Kormawa, 2003; Oluoch-Kosura, 2003; see also
myth 5 above). Among contemporary Green Revolution technologies are, for example, nitrogen-fixing seeds, conservation farming, minimum
tillage, biological pest control, and improved fallow. These developments aim to reduce the need for fertilisers as well as for pesticides.17
Monoculture Good
No impact to monocultures – ag collapse more likely in polycultures
Wood, 3
Dr. Dave, worked in germplasm research and gene banks around the world, ‘Will Seedbanks be
'Obsolete and Worthless' in Future?,’ AgBioView, Jan 8,
http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=1567
Finally - a hobby-horse of mine. Don's repeated concern is 'the liability of the monocultures of our major
cereal grains'. 'Monoculture' is in danger of becoming a buzz-word used increasingly by people
who don't know what they are talking about. There is nothing whatever wrong with cereal
monocultures. Early farmers domesticated our major cereals from extensive monodominant stands of
wild relatives. There is no evidence at all that these persistent wild stands (relatives of rice, wheat,
barley, sorghum and pearl millet) were vulnerable to disease and pests, rather the opposite they
were tough. Modern monoculture cropping is a direct descendent of these stable wild
monocultures; it is as 'ecologically correct' as possible; and still provides most of our food. There is
no example of famine in modern times resulting only from the vulnerability of monocultures.
Yet there are numerous historical examples of famines from diverse landrace agriculture. The
worst case that can be found of cereal vulnerability was the Southern Corn Leaf Blight, which affected
maize in the US in 1970. This was a key stimulus to the expansion of national and global seed collections
(of which there are now far too many). Yet this disease was nothing to do with monocultures ñ it was
result of an over-reliance on limited genetic variation in a widespread crop. Always ignored was the
rapid recovery of US maize production the following season. Since the 1930s, and as a result of top
quality agricultural science, US maize yields have shown a steady and remarkable increase.
There was a tiny dip in 1970 as a result of blight, and by 1971, yield had increased beyond the trend line.
Rather than a failure, the immediate recovery from the 1970 blight was an outstanding success of
forward-looking breeding, seed production, and monoculture cropping (rather than filling genebanks
with landraces and fields with unmanageable crop mixtures). It is not possible to justify the millions of
samples stored in genebanks by claims that cereal monocultures are especially vulnerable to disease:
they are not. Monocultures are robust cropping systems based on robust natural analogues.
Biotech can make them yet more robust and ecologically correct.
Organic Farming Fails
Large scale organic farming fails- farming must be tailored to the masses
Raj et. al 1(Dhagya ,Emeritus Scientist, Departmenty of Agricultural Microbiology,University of
Agricutural Sciences, Hebbal, Bangalore,
planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp/wg_organic.pdf)
Dr. D.V.Rangnekar was very particular about the benefits of organic and biodynamic farming to small farmers. In his suggestions, he foresee an
eminent danger in commercial and large-scale farming under the organic farming umbrella which may
take away all the benefits of small farmers and those from the tribal communities. The resource-poor
farmers who neither benefited from the high external input-based green revolution could not be also
benefited from the organic and bio-dynamic farming if we make the system commercialised. In order
to ensure the above, he suggested that the certification processes should be simplified and mad accessible
to small farmers . Simultaneously there is a need to ensure marketing linkages as well as making
available improved composting methods, biofertilisers and bioagents to these small holders. This can be
achieved by encouraging the involvement of NGOs and farmers’ organisations. Its should be noted that in India, organic farming is not a new
technology. Rather, this is a traditional approach to farming. The technical and scientific persons who are involved with R & D must understand
the system, identify
areas where it is till prevalent and then develop and promote it. A cautious warning, of Dr,
Raingear is very important in organic and bio-dynamic adoption in India. We should not go for mass-production as we have
done in the case of fertilisers and pesticides, but rather we should go for production for masses of the
organic and biodynamic farming inputs such as biofertilisers, composting, bioagents etc.
Impact D
AT: Ocean Acidification
Consensus and empirical studies disprove.
Duarte et. al. 09 – (11/24/09, Carlos M. Duarte is a research professor with the Spanish Council for
Scientific Research at IMEDEA, , I.E. Hendriks, and M. Álvarez, Department of Global Change Research.
IMEDEA (CSIC-UIB), Instituto Mediterráneo de Estudios Avanzados, “Vulnerability of marine biodiversity
to ocean acidification: A meta-analysis,” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science Volume 86, Issue 2, 20
January 2010, Pages 157-164, sciencedirect DH)
In summary, our analysis shows that marine biota is more resistant to ocean acidification than suggested by
pessimistic predictions identifying ocean acidification as a major threat to marine biodiversity ( [Kleypas et
al., 1999] , [Orr et al., 2005] , [Raven, 2005] , [Sponberg, 2007] and [Zondervan et al., 2001] ), which may not be the widespread
problem conjured into the 21st century. Ocean acidification will enhance growth of marine autotrophs
and reduce fertility and metabolic rates, but effects are likely to be minor along the range of pCO2
predicted for the 21st century, and feedbacks between positive responses of autotrophs and pH may further buffer the
impacts. Particularly sensitive processes like calcification may be affected, while bivalves seem to be most vulnerable to
changes in ambient pH. Modellers and chemical oceanographers need to improve their predictions on the
impacts of ocean acidification by incorporating natural variability in pCO2 in marine waters, the smallscale physical processes that detach the organismal chemosphere from the bulk water properties and
the potential for homeostasis resulting from active processes at the cellular level. The predictions need also
consider how the gradual changes conducive to the changes in pH expected during the 21st century may depart from the impacts extrapolated
from experiments involving the sudden exposure of organisms to reduced pH. Ocean acidification needs be carefully monitored and its effects
better understood, while especially synergistic effects and complex interactions between acidification and other stressors need to be studied,
as these synergies may amplify the otherwise limited impacts of ocean acidification. Science
and society should not forget
other major threats to marine biodiversity like overfishing, habitat destruction, increased nutrient inputs
and associated oxygen depletion and warming ( [Dobson et al., 2006] , [Jackson et al., 2001] , [Kennish, 2002] , [Thomas et al.,
2004] and [Valiela, 2006] ). The attention that ocean acidification as a sole threat to marine biodiversity has drawn
recently might not be fully justified concerning the limited impact of experimental acidification on
organism processes as shown by the meta-analysis presented here.
Their evidence is biased.
Ridley 10 – (2010, Matt, PhD in zoology, former science editor of The Economist, science journalist, “
The rational optimist: how prosperity evolves,” p. 340-1 DH)
Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back up plan by the environmental pressure groups in case
the climate fails to warm: another try at condemning fossil fuels. The oceans are alkaline, with an average pH
of about 8.1, well above neutral (7). They are also extremely well buffered. Very high carbon dioxide levels
could push that number down, perhaps to about 7.95 by 2050… still highly alkaline and still much higher than it
was for most of the last 100 million years. Some may argue that this tiny downward shift in average
alkalinity could make it harder for animals and plants to deposit calcium carbonate in their skeletons to
do so. But this flies in the face of chemistry: the reason the acidity is increase is that the dissolved
bicarbonate is increasing too… and increasing the bicarbonate concentration increases the ease with
which carbonate can be precipitated out with calcium by creatures that seek to do so. Even with tripled
bicarbonate concentrations, corals show a continuing increase in both photosynthesis and calcification.
This is confirmed by a rash of empirical studies showing that increased carbonic acid either has no effect or
actually increases the growth of calcareous plankton, cuttlefish larvae, and coccolithophores.
AT: Bees Impact
No impact to bee shortage, beekeepers replace lost bees
Hargreaves 12 [Steve, B.A. in environmental studies, “Honeybee die-off shouldn’t sting”, 2/7/2012,
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/07/news/economy/honey_bees/index.htm]
Now for the good news.
Beekeepers have been able to rejuvenate their hives each year so that by summer
the population is back to previous levels.¶ There's another bit of good news, too. Agricultural yields are rising, which means
that while rejuvenating beehives is costly, the cost isn't making its way to the supermarket.¶ "It shouldn't be a significant item on
the radar screen of consumers," said Daniel Sumner, an agricultural economist at The University of California Davis and
an author of the paper "Bee-conomics." "It's not that big of a deal."¶ This isn't to minimize the severity of the bee problem here.¶ The die-off is
being mainly observed in captive honeybee hives -- the kind commercial beekeepers tote around the country on flatbed trucks, stopping for a
few weeks at time to pollinate various crops including almonds, cantaloupe, apples and blueberries.¶ But it's thought that wild bees -- which
are much more difficult to observe -- are also dying. That's raising concerns about what's going on in our environment.¶ Honeybees dying in the
winter have always been one of the challenges of beekeeping, only now it's getting worse. And part of the die-off is particularly mysterious.
About 10% of the bees are simply vanishing, disappearing without leaving any bee bodies behind.¶ Job hunt 2012: It's time to get dirty¶ "They
could just fly away," said Kim Kaplin, a spokeswoman for the Agricultural Research Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "But
that would be unusual because they aren't taking any of their honey with them."¶ And while
honeybees pollinate many fruits
and vegetables, other food crops like rice, wheat and corn are pollinated by the wind.¶ Plus, honeybees
aren't native to North America to begin with. They were brought here by European colonists. And while the die-off might raise
questions about the health of our environment, the loss of the honeybee isn't a direct threat to our
ecology.
Wild bees fill in for honey bee shortages
Green 96 [Dave, “Native Species Fill the Gap Left by Drastic Honeybee Declines”, 12/26/96,
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-lsoftdonations.exe?A2=ind9612D&L=BEE-L&O=A&P=64723]
Fortunately, Mother Nature has come to the rescue -- at least for now. According to a new report released by The
Forgotten Pollinators Campaign, pollination by wild native bees has averted shortages of fruits and vegetables that are
staples of the U.S. holiday season.¶ To compile their report, scientists from the Forgotten Pollinators Campaign sampled field crops
in Alabama, Arizona and Maine, and compiled bee and crop estimates from New York, California, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Iowa
and elsewhere. Their field census data indicated reduced visits by honey bees through the spring and summer -- in
many cases no visits at all. However, bumblebees, squash bees, gourd bees, sweat bees, leaf-cutting bees and
other wild native species were all prevalent. "Wild pollinators will be increasingly responsible for
stabilizing the U.S. food supply in an era of honey bee scarcity. While it is important to do everything we can to keep
honey bee populations healthy, it is clear that a pollination crisis can be averted only by diversifying our 'pollinator portfolio.'"
Crop yields increasing despite bee decline
Center for Agricultural Environmental Research 11 [“Pollination services in the UK: How important are
honeybees?”, August 2011, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880911001046]
Pollination services are known to provide substantial benefits to human populations and agriculture in particular.
Although many species are known to provide pollination services, honeybees (Apis mellifera) are
often assumed to provide the majority of these services to agriculture. Using data from a range of secondary
sources, this study assesses the importance of insect pollinated crops at regional and national scales and
investigates the capacity of honeybees to provide optimal pollination services to UK agriculture. The findings indicate that insect
pollinated crops have become increasingly important in UK crop agriculture and, as of 2007, accounted for 20% of UK
cropland and 19% of total farmgate crop value. Analysis of
honeybee hive numbers indicates that current UK
populations are only capable of supplying 34% of pollination service demands even under favourable assumptions,
falling from 70% in 1984. In spite of this decline, insect pollinated crop yields have risen by an average of 54 %
since 1984, casting doubt on long held beliefs that honeybees provide the majority of pollination services.
Future land use and crop production patterns may further increase the role of pollination services to UK agriculture, highlighting the
importance of measures aimed at maintaining both wild and managed species.
Bees not key, productivity increasing, other species fill in
ScienceDaily 11 [“Honeybees May Not Be as Important to Pollination Services in the UK, Study
Suggests”, 7/1/11, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110701101742.htm]
"Pollination services are vital to agricultural productivity in the UK," says lead author Tom Breeze. "As of 2007, 20% of
the UK's cropland was covered by insect pollinated crops like oilseed rape and apples. For decades now we have assumed that
honeybees have been providing the majority of pollination services to these systems but have very
limited evidence to base this assumption on."¶ But the study, which compared the number of hives
present in the UK with the numbers research suggests are required to optimise crop yields,
demonstrates that the UK has, at best, only 1/3 of the honeybees it needs. This compares to 70% of its
requirements in the 1980's. These astonishing declines in the capacity of honeybees to satisfy UK pollination
requirements have raised questions about what other species may be providing services to UK cropland.¶
"You would think that such a severe deficit in honeybees would cause massive loss of crop
productivity," adds Professor Simon Potts who led the study team. "However, examining yields of these crops since the 80's, they
have just kept going up. While some of that is down to better production systems, other species have probably stepped
in to fill the gap left by honeybees."¶ The results of the study demonstrate the need to explore what benefits UK crop growers
are gaining from the UK's 250 species of wild bees, many of which are now threatened by intensive agricultural practices. However, the study
also iterates that honeybees are still an important component in providing pollination services to UK agriculture with the authors citing
examples from Scotland and the US where a combination of species is needed to maximise yield and quality.
AT: Water Wars
Water Wars are a myth- water scarcity causes peace
Wolf et al. ‘5 (State of the World 2005 Global Security Brief #5: Water Can Be a Pathway to Peace, Not War by A. T. Wolf - A. Kramer - A.
Carius - G. ... on June 1, 2005 About the authors: Aaron T. Wolf is Associate Professor of Geography in the Department of Geosciences at
Oregon State University and Director of the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database. Annika Kramer is Research Fellow and Alexander
Carius is Director of Adelphi Research in Berlin. Geoffrey D. Dabelko is the Director of the Environmental Change and Security Project at the
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C.
“Water wars are coming!” the newspaper headlines scream. It seems obvious—rivalries over water have been the
source of disputes since humans settled down to cultivate food. Even our language reflects these ancient roots: “rivalry” comes from the Latin
rivalis, or “one using the same river as another.” Countries or provinces bordering the same river (known as “riparians”) are often rivals for the
water they share. As
the number of international river basins (and impact of water scarcity) has grown so do
the warnings that these countries will take up arms to ensure their access to water. In 1995, for
example, World Bank Vice President Ismail Serageldin claimed that “the wars of the next century will be
about water.” These apocalyptic warnings fly in the face of history: no nations have gone to war
specifically over water resources for thousands of years . International water disputes—even among
fierce enemies—are resolved peacefully, even as conflicts erupt over other issues. In fact, instances of
cooperation between riparian nations outnumbered conflicts by more than two to one between 1945
and 1999. Why? Because water is so important, nations cannot afford to fight over it. Instead, water
fuels greater interdependence. By coming together to jointly manage their shared water resources,
countries build trust and prevent conflict. Water can be a negotiating tool, too: it can offer a
communication lifeline connecting countries in the midst of crisis . Thus, by crying “water wars,”
doomsayers ignore a promising way to help prevent war: cooperative water resources management. Of
course, people compete—sometime violently—for water. Within a nation, users—farmers, hydroelectric dams, recreational users,
environmentalists—are often at odds, and the probability of a mutually acceptable solution falls as the number of stakeholders rises. Water is
never the single—and hardly ever the major—cause of conflict. But it can exacerbate existing tensions. History is littered with examples of
violent water conflicts: just as Californian farmers bombed pipelines moving water from Owens Valley to Los Angeles in the early 1900s,
Chinese farmers in Shandong clashed with police in 2000 to protest government plans to divert irrigation water to cities and industries. But
these conflicts usually break out within nations. International rivers are a different story. The world’s 263 international river basins cover 45.3
percent of Earth’s land surface, host about 40 percent of the world’s population, and account for approximately 60 percent of global river flow.
And the number is growing, largely due to the “internationalization” of basins through political changes like the breakup of the Soviet Union, as
well as improved mapping technology. Strikingly, territory in 145 nations falls within international basins, and 33 countries are located almost
entirely within these basins. As many as 17 countries share one river basin, the Danube. Contrary to received wisdom, evidence proves this
interdependence does not lead to war. Researchers at Oregon State University compiled a dataset of every reported interaction (conflictive or
cooperative) between two or more nations that was driven by water in the last half century. They found that the rate of cooperation
overwhelms the incidence of acute conflict. In the last 50 years, only 37 disputes involved violence, and 30 of those occurred between Israel
and one of its neighbors. Outside of the Middle East, researchers found only 5 violent events while 157 treaties were negotiated and signed.
The total number of water-related events between nations also favors cooperation: the 1,228 cooperative events dwarf the 507 conflict-related
events. Despite
the fiery rhetoric of politicians—aimed more often at their own constituencies than at the
enemy—most actions taken over water are mild. Of all the events, 62 percent are verbal, and more than two-thirds of these
were not official statements. Simply put, water is a greater pathway to peace than conflict in the world’s
international river basins. International cooperation around water has a long and successful history;
some of the world’s most vociferous enemies have negotiated water agreements. The institutions they
have created are resilient, even when relations are strained . The Mekong Committee, for example, established by
Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Viet Nam in 1957, exchanged data and information on the river basin throughout the Viet Nam War. Israel and
Jordan held secret “picnic table” talks to manage the Jordan River since 1953, even though they were officially at war from 1948 until the 1994
treaty. The Indus River Commission survived two major wars between India and Pakistan. And all 10 Nile Basin riparian countries are currently
involved in senior government–level negotiations to develop the basin cooperatively, despite the verbal battles conducted in the media.
Riparians will endure such tough, protracted negotiations to ensure access to this essential resource and its economic and social benefits.
Southern African countries signed a number of river basin agreements while the region was embroiled in a series of wars in the 1970s and
1980s, including the “people’s war” in South Africa and civil wars in Mozambique and Angola. These complex negotiations produced rare
moments of peaceful cooperation. Now that most of the wars and the apartheid era have ended, water management forms one of the
foundations for cooperation in the region, producing one of the first protocols signed within the Southern African Development Community
(SADC).
No water wars- best database proves
Tertrais ’11 (Senior Research Fellow at the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, Paris) 11 (Bruno,
The Climate Wars Myth, The Washington Quarterly, Volume 34, Issue 3, pages 17-29)
And water crises do not mean water wars. The issue of access to water resources is undoubtedly a major dimension of numerous
regional crises, in particular in the Greater Middle East, as testified by decades-old disputes between Turkey and Syria, or Egypt and Sudan. The
value of strategic locations such as the Golan Heights or Kashmir is not a small part of tensions between Syria and Israel, or India and Pakistan.
And water sharing can be the cause of local disputes sometimes degenerating into small-scale collective violence in Africa or Asia. However,
experts from the University of Oregon, who maintain the most complete database on this topic, state
that there has never been a “war over water” (that is, large-scale collective violence for the sake of a water resource) in
the past 4,500 years.35 The last war over water opposed two Sumerian cities in the middle of the third millennium B.C.E., about
sharing the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates. There are good reasons for such a scant record. Any country seeking
to control the upstream of a river would need to ensure complete and permanent domination over it,
which would be an ambitious goal. In the modern era, resorting to arms over water (like resorting to
arms over oil) is just not worth the cost. Especially for those whose geographical location and budget can afford to build
desalination plants—which is the case for some of the most water-stressed countries, those located on the Arabian Peninsula. One should
therefore not be surprised that access to water has always generated more cooperation than conflict.
Since antiquity, thousands of agreements and treaties have been signed for water-sharing. And
cooperation between adversaries has stood the test of wartime, as was seen during the 20th century
in the Middle East, South Asia, or Southeast Asia.
No Water Wars
Barnaby ‘9 (Wendy, editor of People & Science, the magazine published by the British Science Association, “Do nations go to war over
water?,”, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/458282a.html, March 19, 2009)
The United Nations warned as recently as last week that climate change harbours the potential for serious conflicts over water. In its World
Water Development Report1 of March 2009, it quotes UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noting the risk of water scarcity "transforming
peaceful competition into violence". It is statements such as this that gave birth to popular notions of 'water wars'. It is time we dispelled this
myth.
Countries do not go to war over water, they solve their water shortages through trade and
international agreements. Cooperation, in fact, is the dominant response to shared water resources.
There are 263 cross-boundary waterways in the world. Between 1948 and 1999, cooperation over
water, including the signing of treaties, far outweighed conflict over water and violent conflict in
particular. Of 1,831 instances of interactions over international freshwater resources tallied over that
time period (including everything from unofficial verbal exchanges to economic agreements or military action), 67% were
cooperative, only 28% were conflictive, and the remaining 5% were neutral or insignificant. In those five decades, there
were no formal declarations of war over water .
Their Ev is bad scholarship
Barnaby ‘9 (Wendy, editor of People & Science, the magazine published by the British Science Association, “Do nations go to war over
water?,”, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/458282a.html, March 19, 2009)
Yet the myth of water wars persists. Climate change, we are told, will cause water shortages. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
estimates that up to 2 billion people may be at risk from increasing water stress by the 2050s, and that this number could rise to 3.2 billion by
the 2080s7. Water management will need to adapt. But the mechanisms of trade, international agreements and economic development that
currently ease water shortages will persist. Researchers, such as Aaron Wolf at Oregon State University, Corvallis, and Nils Petter Gleditsch at
the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo, point out that predictions
of armed conflict come from the media and
from popular, non-peer-reviewed work . There is something other than water for which shortages, or even the perceived
threat of future shortages, does cause war — oil. But the strategic significance of oil is immeasurably higher than that of water. Serious
interruptions of oil supplies would stop highly developed economies in their tracks. Oil is necessary for a developed economy, and a developed
economy provides for all the needs of its citizens, including water. People in developed economies do not die of thirst. My encounter with
Allan's work killed my book. I offered to revise its thesis, but my publishers pointed out that predicting
an absence of war over
water would not sell.
Recent research proves- water scarcity is more likely to cause cooperation than war
Deen 7 (Thalif, Staff – IPS, “Water Wars A Myth”, Inter Press Service, 8-25, Lexis)
history has demonstrated that cooperation, rather than conflict, is likely in
shared basins," UNESCO concludes. The Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) says that 10- to 20-year-old
arguments about conflict over water are still being recycled. "Such arguments ignore massive
amounts of recent research which shows that water-scarce states that share a water body tend to find
cooperative solutions rather than enter into violent conflict," the institute says. SIWI says that during the entire
"Despite the potential problem,
"intifada" -- the ongoing Palestinian uprising against Israel in the occupied territories of West Bank and Gaza -- the only thing on which the
two warring parties continued to cooperate at a basic level was their shared waters. "Thus, rather than reaching for arguments for the
'water war hypotheses,' the facts seem to support the idea that water
is a uniting force and a potential source of peace
rather than violent conflict." SIWI said. Ghosh, co-author of the UNDP study, pointed out several agreements which were "models
of cooperation", including the Indus Waters Treaty, the Israel-Jordan accord, the Senegal River Development Organisation and the Mekong
River Commission. A study sponsored by the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars points that despite
newspaper headlines screaming "water wars are coming!", these apocalyptic warnings fly in the face of history. "No nations have gone to
war specifically over water resources for thousands of years. International water disputes -- even among fierce enemies -- are resolved
peacefully, even as conflicts erupt over other issues," it says. The study also points out instances of cooperation between riparian nations -countries or provinces bordering the same river -- that outnumbered conflicts by more than two to one between 1945 and 1999. Why?
"Because water is so important, nations cannot afford to fight over it. Instead, water fuels greater interdependence. By coming together to
jointly manage their shared water resources, countries can build trust and prevent conflict," argues the study, jointly co-authored by Aaron
Wolf, Annika Kramer, Alexander Carius and Geoffrey Dabelko.
No water wars – empirics, conflate conflicts, variation in variables, not all that
valuable
Katz 11
David, Feb, “Hydro-Political Hyperbole”, Global Environmental Politics, Director of the Akirov Institute
for Business and Environment at Tel Aviv University. He is also Adjunct Lecturer at Tel Aviv University’s
Recanati School of Management and Porter School of Environmental Studies where he teaches courses
in environmental and resource economics and corporate environmental strategy. His research focuses
on the links between economic growth and natural resource use, transboundary resource management,
and the economics of ecosystem restoration. Proj Muse
A number critiques have been leveled against both the theory and the empirical evidence behind
the water wars hypothesis. One critique of the environmental security literature, of which much
of the published material on water wars is guilty, is that warnings and threats of future violence
are often considered as evidence.28 Statements from the 1980s that the next war in the Middle
East will be over water have already proven false. Research has shown, however, that even the
more general predictions of imminent water wars that are based on comments by officials may
be suspect. Leng, for instance, found no correlation between the frequency of threats of war and
the onset of war.29 Examining conflict and cooperation over water resources, Yoffe and
colleagues noted over 400 incidents of water-related verbal exchanges by political figures
between 1948 and 1999 that were conflictual in nature, but only 37 instances of violent conflict
of varying levels of intensity. Thirty of these were from the Middle East, none were [End Page 15]
more recent than 1970, none were all-out wars, and in none was water the central cause of
conflict.30 Proponents of water war scenarios often premise their dire conclusions on the fact
that water is essential for life and non-substitutable.31 Yet water for basic needs represents a
small share of total water use , even in arid countries.32 Economists and others point out that
over 80 percent of world freshwater withdrawals are for the agricultural sector, a relatively lowvalue use and one in which large gains in efficiency could be made by changes in irrigation
techniques and choice of crops. Thus, economic critiques of the water war hypothesis stress
that the value of water that would be gained from military conflict is unlikely to outweigh the
economic costs of military preparation and battle, much less the loss of life.33 Some authors
have even questioned the empirical basis for the conclusion that freshwater is increasingly
scarce,34 an assumption on which the water war hypothesis relies. Such a “cornucopian” view
claims that people adapt to scarcity through improvements in technology, pricing, and
efficiency—rendering water less scarce, not more so. Perhaps the strongest case against the
likelihood of water wars is the lack of empirical evidence of precedents. Wolf found only one
documented case of war explicitly over water, and this took place over 4500 years ago .35
Moreover, he could document only seven cases of acute conflict over water. Yoffe and
colleagues also find that armed conflict over water resources has been uncommon.36 They
found that cooperation was much more common than conflict, both globally and in all world
regions except the Middle East/North Africa. This pattern may explain why only a limited number
of case studies of water conflict are presented in the water wars literature. Analysts have
criticized environmental security arguments that are based on case studies because such works
tend to have no variation in the dependent variable.37 Many large sample statistical studies
have attempted to address such shortcomings, however, in several cases these studies too have
come under fire. For instance, a number of large-sample statistical studies find correlations
between water-related variables and conflict, however, few , if any, provide convincing
support for causal relationships . Moreover, several studies found that water availability had
no impact on the likelihood of either domestic or international conflict ,38 including at least
one study that attempted to replicate earlier studies [End Page 16] that claimed to have found
such correlations.39 Moreover, the results of several studies that do find correlations between
water and conflict are either not robust or are contrasted by other findings. For instance, Raleigh
and Urdal find that the statistical significance of water scarcity variables is highly dependent on
one or two observations, leading them to conclude that actual effects of water scarcity “are
weak, negligible or insignificant.”40 Jensen and Gleditsch find that the results of Miguel and
colleagues are less robust when using a recoding of the original dataset.41 Gleditsch and
colleagues found that shared basins do predict an increased propensity for conflict, but found no
correlation between conflict and drought, the number of river crossings, or the share of the basin
upstream, leading them to state that “support for a scarcity theory of water conflict is somewhat
ambiguous.”42
No water wars- history proves and shortages lead to cooperation
Kamari-Mbote ‘7
(Patricia, chair of the Department of Private Law, University of Nairobi, and programme director for the
Interna- tional Environmental Law Research Centre, Nairobi, “Water, Conflict, and Cooperation: Lessons
from the Nile River Basin”, Navigating Peace, January 2007 No. 4)
Despite this gloomy scenario, interstate war is unlikely, according to history: no nations have gone
to war specifically over water resources for thousands of years. Instances of cooperation between
riparian nations outnumbered conflicts by more than 2-to-1 between 1945 and 1999.1 Instead of
war, water fuels greater interdependence. By coming together to jointly manage their shared
water resources, countries build trust and prevent conflict. In the face of potential conflict and
regional instability, the Nile basin countries continue to seek cooperative solutions. The political will to
develop a new legal framework for managing the Nile should continue. In principle, the countries of the Nile River basin agree that the situation should change. However, they do
not agree on how.to help reach a consensus, they developed the high-level Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) in 1999. Originally designed as a way to share scientific information,
the
NBI today brings together ministers from the basin countries “to achieve sustainable socio-economic devel- opment through
equitable utilization of, and benefit from, the common Nile basin water resources,” as stated in its shared vision.2 The NBI has served as a catalyst for
cooperation in the search for a new legal framework for the management of the Nile.
Water conflict doesn’t escalate—too many limiting factors
Jacques Leslie, Harper's Magazine, July 1, 2000
Yet such wars haven't quite happened. Aaron Wolf, an Oregon State University specialist in water conflicts,
maintains that the last war over water was fought between the Mesopotamian city states of Lagash and Umma
4,500 years ago. Wolf has found that during the twentieth century only 7 minor skirmishes were fought
over water while 145 water-related treaties were signed. He argues that one reason is strategic: in a
conflict involving river water, the aggressor would have to be both downstream (since the upstream nation
enjoys unhampered access to the river) and militarily superior. As Wolf puts it, "An upstream riparian would have no cause to
launch an attack, and a weaker state would be foolhardy to do so." And if a powerful downstream nation retaliates
against a water diversion by, say, destroying its weak upstream neighbor's dam, it still risks the consequences, in the form
of flood or pollution or poison from upstream. So, until now, water conflicts have simmered but rarely boiled, perhaps
because of the universality of the need for water. Almost two fifths of the world's people live in the 214 river basins shared by two or more
countries; the
Nile links ten countries, whose leaders are profoundly aware of one another's
hydrologic behavior. Countries usually manage to cooperate about Water, even in unlikely
circumstances. In 1957, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and South Vietnam formed the Mekong Committee, which exchanged information
throughout the Vietnam War. Through the 1980s and into the 1990s, Israeli and Jordanian officials secretly met once or twice a year at a
picnic table on the banks of the Yarmuk River to allocate the river's water supply; these so-called picnic-table summits occurred while the
two nations disavowed formal diplomatic contact. Jerome Delli Priscoli, editor of a thoughtful trade journal called Water Policy and a social
scientist at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, believes the whole notion of water conflict is overemphasized: "Water irrigation helped build
early communities and bring those communities together in larger functional arrangements. Such community networking was a primary
impetus to the growth of civilization. Indeed, water
may actually be one of humanity's great learning grounds for
building community.... The thirst for water may be more persuasive than the impulse toward
conflict."
-Empirics
Journal of Commerce March 31, 1999
So far the often-repeated prediction
that ""the next war in the Middle East will be over water' ' has yet to
come true. When disputes have arisen, the states involved have shown a willingness to reach
agreement and conclude details. The economics underlying water issues demonstrate the futility
of any military conflict that is purely over water. The victor would still not gain all the water needed
to satisfy national requirements.
Water wars unlikely: no benefit.
Wolf 97, Aaron T. Wolf: Ph.D., professor of geoscience at Oregon State University [“Conflict and Cooperation Over International Waterways,” http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/publications/conflict_coop/]
If one were to launch a war over water, what would be the goal? Presumably, the aggressor would have
to be both downstream and the regional hegemon -- an upstream riparian would have no cause to launch
an attack and a weaker state would be foolhardy to do so. (Foolhardiness apparently does not preclude such "asymmetric
conflicts." Paul (1994) describes eight such case studies from 1904-1982, but points out that in none did the
weaker power achieve its goals.) An upstream riparian, then, would have to launch a project which
decreases either quantity or quality, knowing that it will antagonize a stronger down-stream neighbor. The
down-stream power would then have to decide whether to launch an attack -- if the project were a dam, destroying it would result in a wall
of water rushing back on down-stream territory; were it a quality-related project, either industrial or waste treatment, destroying it would
probably result in even worse quality than before. Furthermore, the
hegemon would have to weigh not only an invasion,
but an occupation and depopulation of the entire watershed in order to forestall any retribution -otherwise, it would be extremely simple to pollute the water source of the invading power. Both
countries could not be democracies, since the political scientists tell us that democracies do not go to war
against each other, and the international community would have to refuse to become involved (this, of course,
is the least far-fetched aspect of the scenario). All of this effort would be expended for a resource which costs about a
US dollar per cubic meter to create from seawater. There are "only" 261 international watersheds -- there are
only a handful on which the above scenario is even feasible (the Nile, Plata, and Mekong come to mind), and many
of those either have existing treaties or ongoing negotiations towards a treaty. Finding a site for a "water
war" turns out to be as difficult as accepting the rationale for launching one.
Water wars K links
Their water wars impact is a production of ideology – we could just share the water if
we really cared. The aff is more concerned with nuclear domination.
Trottier 2004, “Water Wars: the Rise of a hegemonic Concept” World Water Assessment
Programme,
A main achievement of state power in modern times has been the persuasion of the population
concerning the legitimacy of the use of violence. In the western world, the idea according to
which the state has a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence has become hegemonic. This
legitimacy or lack of it confers the status of either murder or execution to what would otherwise
be, technically, the same act. State violence is referred to as “war” or “police operation”
whereas violence from another source is referred to as “terrorism” or “banditism.” The labeling
of identical acts as war acts or terrorist acts is often enough to categorize them as legitimate or
not, since the cognitive map of each citizen has been structured according to this hegemonic
concept.
Any group carrying out violent acts strives to label them as acts of war in order to secure that
legitimacy. In the case of a body that is not a state, this has generally implied, over the last
century, claiming to be a liberation movement that will eventually create a state. The objective of
creating a state became necessary to acquire this legitimacy, even for groups such as the Kurds,
whose form of political organization was not the territorial state (Badie, 1992).
The water war discourse started growing in a fertile soil where a very specific definition of
water development had become hegemonic and where the only legitimate violent conflicts
were believed to be wars between opposing states. Of course other hegemonic concepts
contributed to this fertile ground: the idea according to which the state is the only institution
spelling out the rules of social control and determining who will exercise this social control, for
example. Investigating this assumption, Joel Migdal demonstrated how it rarely reflects reality,
especially in the developing world. He developed his state-in-society model in order to account
for the interaction between the state and the multiple other institutions that spell out the rules
and exercise social
5control (Migdal, 1988, 2001). How western hegemonic concepts concerning the state’s role in
society have obscured the understanding of water conflicts in the non-western world has been
explored elsewhere (Trottier, 2003).
The eventual growth of the idea of water wars as a hegemonic concept must be analyzed within
the context of other pre-existing and well-entrenched hegemonic concepts that distorted and
rationalized unequal distributions of resources and specific distributions of power in various
societies. These acted as building blocks supporting the growth of new concepts, they limited
the range of options that appeared possible and they provided fences limiting the issue
definitions: states wanted water development at all cost, therefore states might wage war in
order to secure it. Such an issue definition precluded any consideration of the fact that water
development could have a different meaning for various social groups, that states may not be
the only social actors that benefit from water development, that other social groups may
actually benefit from it more than the state itself while the state may lose from it, or that states
rarely choose to go to war over one issue alone.
Water wars studies depend on denying agency by treating politics as a determinist
black box of water consumption – democratic ecology and equitable water
distribution solve their impact.
Gizelis and Woodenc ‘10
Theodora-Ismene Gizelis, Department of Government, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester,
Essex CO4 3SQ, UK b Centre for the Study of Civil War, PRIO, Norway and Amanda E. Woodenc,1 Political
Geography 29 (2010) 444e453
Existing literature on environmental scarcity and conflict has led to mixed conclusions about
whether scarce water resources are likely to generate violent conflict (De Soysa, 2002; Furlong &
Gleditsch, 2003; Gleditsch, Owen, Furlong, & Lacina, 2004; Gleick, 1993; Hauge & Ellingsen, 1998;
Hensel, Mitchell, & Sowers II, 2004; Homer-Dixon 1991, 1994, 1999; Lowi, 1995; Toset, Gleditsch,
& Hegre, 2000; Wolf, 1995). Most studies have focused on proving or disproving that a direct,
deterministic relationship exists between scarcity and conflict. Likewise, non-conflict studies
scholars studying these issues often do not recognize important patterns in conflict onset and
do not differentiate between conflicts of interest that might arise in conditions of
environmental scarcity and the actual envi- ronmentally-driven onset of a violent conflict. We
argue that political institutions and democratic governance can mitigate disputes and alleviate
grievances. Thus, our article focuses on how political and institutional responses can mediate
between resource scarcity and the risk of intrastate conflict.
The ability of governments to manage environmental grievances, and specifically water scarcity,
is an important determinant of whether violent intrastate conflict will arise. For this analysis, we
focus on water resource scarcity, although there are important distinctions between types of
scarcity, or as Gleditsch (1998), notes, between simple scarcity and degradation. Likewise, subnational level variation in scarcity and degradation and the specific decision-making influences at
those levels are important, but beyond the scope of this analysis.
Effective governance can address problems of water supply, for example by improving storage,
preservation, and water quality. Governance can also help ensure a fair and equitable
distribution of water resource, as well as limiting total demand through efforts to promote
better conservation and more efficient use. These factors all suggest that governance can play a
crucial role in whether water scarcity is likely to give rise to violent conflict . Responsive
govern- ments may be better able to deal with problems like water scarcity, and thus avert
discontent and civil strife caused by environmental factors.
Food Scarcity Impact Defense
Won’t go to war over food
Chang 2/21/11 Gordon G Chang, Graduated Cornell Law School “Global Food Wars” http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonchang/2011/02/21/global-food-wars/
In any event, food-price increases have apparently been factors in the unrest now sweeping North Africa and the Middle East. The poor spend up to half their disposable income on edibles,
humankind does not go to war over bad
harvests, Paskal may be right when she contends that climate change may end up altering the global map. This is not the first time in human history that
food shortages looked like they would be the motor of violent geopolitical change. Yet amazing agronomic
advances, especially Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution in the middle of the 20th century, have consistently
proved the pessimists wrong. In these days when capitalism is being blamed for most everything, it’s important
to remember the power of human innovation in free societies—and the efficiency of free markets.
making rapid food inflation a cause of concern for dictators, strongmen, and assorted autocrats everywhere. So even if
Tech development solves shortages
Thompson 5/13/11 – Dr. Robert L. Thompson is a senior fellow for The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. “Proving Malthus Wrong, Sustainable agriculture in 2050” http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/2011/05/proving_malthus_wrong_sustaina.php
Tools available today, including plant breeding and biotechnology, can make presently unusable soils productive and increase the
genetic potential of individual crops - enhancing drought and stress tolerance, for example - while also producing gains in yields.
Existing tools can also internalize plants' resistance to disease, and even improve a plant's nutritional content meaning consumers can get more nutritional value without increasing their consumption. Furthermore, modern high-productivity agriculture minimizes
farmers' impact on the environment. Failure to embrace these technologies will result in further destruction of remaining forests. Adoption of
technologies that produce more output from fewer resources has been hugely successful from an economic
standpoint: prior to the price spike in 2008, there was a 150-year downward trend in the real price of food. The jury is still out on whether the long-term downward trend will resume,
prices will flatten out on a new higher plateau, or they will trend upward in the future. The key is investing in research in the public and private sectors to increase agricultural productivity faster
Malthus predicted that the human population would eventually outgrow its
ability to feed itself. However, Malthus has been proven wrong for more than two centuries precisely because he
underestimated the power of agricultural research and technology to increase productivity faster than demand.
There is no more reason for Malthus to be right in the 21st century than he was in the 19th or 20th - but only if
we work to support, not impede, continued agricultural research and adoption of new technologies around the
world.
than global demand grows. Long ago, British scholar Thomas
Solvency Neg
Cuban Ag Decline Inevitable
No solvency—Multiple barriers prevent Cuban ag expansion
Kost 04
William Kost is an Agricultural Economist with ERS, u.s.. Department of Agriculture
UBAN AGRICULTURE: TO BE OR NOT TO BE ORGANIC?
http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume14/pdfs/kost.pdf
In spite of successes, Cuba’s urban agriculture program faces several problems that limit further
expansion. Seed shortages continue. Land remains in short¶ supply. Soil quality of available land is
low. Many¶ years of spilled pollutants¶ have contaminated much¶ of the available urban land.
Significant portions of¶ land are covered with litter. The major problem, and¶ the hardest to address,
continues to be a fresh water¶ shortage. This shortage is further compounded by¶ Cuba’s dilapidated
infrastructure, which constrains¶ movement of available water, and the lack of energy¶ needed to
power pumps.
Cuban Ag isn’t Sustainable
Cuban sustainable ag is a myth
Avery, 9 - Dennis T. Avery, is a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute in Washington. Dennis is the
Director for Global Food Issues cgfi.org. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State
(“Cubans Starve on Diet of Lies” Canadian Free Press, 3/23,
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9571)
The Cubans told the world they had heroically learned to feed themselves without fuel or farm
chemicals after their Soviet subsidies collapsed in the early 1990s. They bragged about their “peasant cooperatives,” their biopesticides and
organic fertilizers. They heralded their earthworm culture and the predator wasps they unleashed on destructive caterpillars. They boasted
about the heroic ox teams they had trained to replace tractors. Organic activists swooned all over the world. Now, a
senior Ministry of
Agriculture official has admitted in the Cuban press that 84 percent of Cuba’s current food consumption
is imported, according to our agricultural attaché in Havana. The organic success was all a lie—a great, gaudy, Communist-style
Big Lie of the type that dictators behind the Iron Curtain routinely used throughout the Cold War to hornswoggle the Free World. This time the
victims of the Big Lie are the Greens in the organic movement who want us to trust our future food supplies to their low-yield “natural farming”
The Greens want us to outlaw nitrogen fertilizer, biotechnology and whatever else might save room for the planet’s wildlife through higher
farm productivity. But now the Cubans have admitted sneaking rice, wheat, corn and soy oil imports into the country, bought with tourist
dollars from European and Canadian visitors—many of whom came to see Cuba’s “stunningly successful” farming-of-the-future. As the U.S.
embargos have loosened, food imports from the U.S. are also increasing. The Cuban farming deception was aided by the “useful idiots” in the
non-Communist world. The late Donnella Meadows, who wrote the stunningly-foolish book Limits to Growth in 1972, gushed over Cuban
farming: “Suddenly deprived of half its food and most of its agricultural inputs, [Cuba] has not only maintained but increased its food supply in a
way that creates jobs and improves the environment.” Right, by importing 84 percent of the food. Cuba
has lots of unused
farmland, but Castro’s system discouraged rural farmers. They couldn’t get their over-quota surplus to the cities for lack of
fuel and trucks. Much of Cuba’s rural land has now grown up to thorny marabou bushes. Instead, more than 10,000 Cuban city dwellers have
become full-time gardeners. Environmentalist Bill McKibbon wrote in Harpers of an few-acre urban garden in Havana, on a site intended for a
hospital. It grows 25 different vegetables, employing 64 people. Most of the beans and carrots have to be delivered to the government for the
“ration stores” but the gardeners can make their own deals with the neighbors for the rest. The gardeners only make about 150 pesos per
month. Still, there’s even less to buy in Cuba than in the old Soviet Union—including almost no meat and little milk. They mainly subsist on rice
and beans. Should
America force its people to spend their days’ hand-weeding vegetables in a field that
should have been a hospital? Should our food be rationed like Cuba’s? Instead, 3 percent of Americans
grow the food, on far less expensive land. As Blake Hurst concluded in his March, 23 Weekly Standard article, “Dirt Poor in the
Workers’ Paradise:” “If you are going to have a sustainable agricultural paradise, it helps to have a nearby
neighbor with a million or so industrial farmers.”
The impact is exaggerated – Cuban ag isn’t sustainable
Thompson and Stephens, 12 – * Ph.D. Curriculum and Education Director @ Duke University AND
** Marian Cheek Jackson Center (Charles D. and Alexander, “Visions for Sustainable Agriculture in Cuba
and the United States: Changing Minds and Models through Exchange”, Southern States, March 22
2013, http://www.southernspaces.org/2012/visions-sustainable-agriculture-cuba-and-united-stateschanging-minds-and-models-through-exchan)
Following the Cuban Revolution (1953–59), the Soviet Union’s (USSR) agricultural imperatives drove the
island toward state-run farms, marginalizing many family run operations. The breakup of the USSR in
1990 spelled the end of Soviet agricultural influence but intensified Cuban food shortages. Cuba began
to look within for solutions, finding indigenous knowledge and encouraging local innovation.
Exaggerated praise for developments in the country’s sustainable agriculture belies the reality that Cuba
is no utopia. Popular descriptions often oversimplify the narrative of Cuba’s sustainable agriculture. For
example, the website of the Durham, North Carolina, non-profit NEEM (Natural Environment Ecological
Management) features a narrative sketch that labels the rise of organic garden collectives in Cuban
cities "the urban agriculture miracle."5 Others have suggested that we can expect "an ecological
agriculture" in Cuba’s future.6
In much sustainable agriculture praise of Cuba, we do not hear that the country (like the U.S.) has
confinement hog and chicken houses, that major U.S. food conglomerates are already selling vast
quantities of grain and other products there, or that the embargo on trade with Cuba does not apply to
U.S. agribusiness. We are not told that thousands work in small farming because they have no other
option.
Agricultural work is popular in Cuba, in part, because state-supported income is drying up for hundreds
of thousands of wage earners and there is often nowhere else to turn but to small-scale farms and
gardens. Yet much of Cuba’s former sugarcane land, once a volatile but powerful economic life-force, is
idle and in poor condition. Even with its admirable innovations in sustainable and organic farming,
Cuba’s domestic agricultural producers cannot meet the food needs of the island’s population; there is a
real sense of food insecurity. Looking for food (in dollar stores, on the black market, legally), is a major
pre-occupation for much of the population. Cuba imports at least 80 percent of its food, with much of it
coming from its largest trading partners—China and Venezuela. This is hardly a sustainable scenario, and
while there does not appear to be starvation in Cuba, food shortages remain a problem, even as the
government’s meager food rationing is fading.7 However, household food insecurity is also on the rise in
the U.S. today. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture at least 14.5% of U.S. households were
food insecure at some time during the year in 2010, up from 11% in 2005.
Cuban urban agriculture isn’t sustainable – economic growth makes labor too
expensive
Kost, 4 – agricultural economist, Specialty Crops Branch, Economic Research. Service, US Department
of Agriculture (William, “CUBAN AGRICULTURE: TO BE OR NOT TO BE ORGANIC?”
http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume14/pdfs/kost.pdf)
Even without an organic approach to food production, is Cuba’s urban gardening system viable? In Cuba,
both were an integral part of a common development. That integration is not required. While it is
possible to have a high-tech and chemical-based production system in a small-scale gardening
environment, it is unlikely to be sustainable at levels sufficient to provide a significant portion of a city’s
food needs. Most high-tech and chemical technologies employed respond to economies of scale.
Incentives to grow into commercial operations will exist and production will shift away from central
cities to areas with less severe constraints on land. Urban gardening systems are also labor-intensive
systems. As long as labor is freely available or wages are low elsewhere, urban gardening can afford to
utilize high-labor production techniques. As the Cuban economy grows and recovers, the demand for
labor in other industries will grow and wages will rise. Because it will be more profitable to work
elsewhere, labor would likely be drawn away from the urban gardens. Replacing labor with
mechanization could also shift production away from urban locations. Mechanization also generates
benefits from economies of scale. Thus, fewer and fewer urban gardens would remain producing for the
urban markets. At the same time, economic growth in Cuba should make commercial agriculture
enterprises more profitable, more productive, and better able to supply food to urban markets.
Marketing infrastructures should improve. With higher incomes, urban workers would be more able to
purchase needed food. Commercial agricultural sources would become increasingly competitive with
food from urban gardens, and urban workers would increasingly quit growing their own food. While
there might continue to be urban gardens, it is unlikely that they will have a long-term role in providing
a substantial portion of urban consumers’ food needs.
AT: Modeling
Zero chance the US adopts the Cuban model
Pfeiffer, 3 – energy editor for From the Wilderness (Dale, “Cuba-A Hope”, From the Wilderness,
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120103_korea_2.html.
Resistance to Cuban-style agricultural reform would be particularly stiff in the United States.
Agribusiness will not allow all of its holdings and power to be expropriated. Nor is the U.S. government
interested in small farms and organic agriculture. The direction of U.S. agriculture is currently towards
more advanced technology, greater fossil fuel dependency, and less sustainability. The ability of small
farmers and urban gardens to turn a profit is effectively drowned out by the overproduction of
agribusiness.
WTO ensures no global modeling
Wallach and Woodall 4 (Lori and Patrick, writers for Citizen, “The WTO on Agriculture: Food as a
Commodity, Not a Right,” Citizen.org, 4/1/04,
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ag_wto_facts_FINAL.pdf)
This chapter examines how WTO rules have led to increased dumping of subsidized agricultural commodities resulting in steep drops in the
prices paid to farmers around the world for their crops. Farmers in rich and poor countries have only seen their incomes decline, with many
losing farms and livelihoods under the WTO regime. In the developing world, the combination of sharply lower prices and the effects of WTO
rules regarding the patenting of seeds and plants under the WTO agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs) has led
to increased hunger in many nations. In a perverse twist—which actually demonstrates how the WTO’s
Agreement on Agriculture
(AoA) rules are not about “free trade”—while prices paid farmers have plummeted, consumer food
prices have not declined and in many instances, have risen. Meanwhile, the WTO has forced the
elimination of domestic policies aimed at ensuring food sovereignty and security in developing
countries and of policies aimed at supporting small farmers in rich countries. These changes have
greatly benefited multinational commodity trading and food processing companies who, in the
absence of government price and supply management programs, have been able to manipulate the
markets to keep prices paid to farmers low at the same time as they have kept consumer prices for
food steady or rising. The key developments and findings presented in this chapter include: • Nearly nine years after the Uruguay
Round’s Agreement on Agriculture, agricultural subsidies in developed countries have remained high while
elimination of quotas and tariff cuts around the world have facilitated a dramatic increase in the
dumping of commodities by trading companies. The new market access to developing country
markets gained under WTO agreements for multinational agribusiness corporations has resulted in
dumped imports of commodities sold below the cost of production driving poor, subsistence farmers
off their lands in record numbers. This has resulted in major social crises in countries such as Mexico
and India. As China implements WTO agriculture rules, officials estimate that 200 million farmers will be
displaced. • This result conflicts with economic theory which states that displaced farmers will be “liberated” from lives of grinding rural
poverty and employed more efficiently in other economic sectors. In country after country, displaced farmers have had
little choice but to join swelling urban workforces where the oversupply of labor suppresses wages
and exacerbates the existing crisis of chronic under- and unemployment in the cities of the developing
world. • A dramatic decline in farm income in developed and developing countries alike has been the
norm under the WTO, causing indebtedness and foreclosures in rich countries and loss of livelihoods
and hunger in poor countries. The U.S. lost 38,310 small farms between 1995 and 2002, the era of the
WTO. During that period, U.S. net farm income fell 16% below the average annual net farm income of
$43 billion in the five year period before the WTO went into effect (1990-95), versus $36.2 billion in 2002. 114 Under the AoA, export
prices for key U.S. crops have crashed to levels substantially below the cost of production, while
consumer prices have increased. While the volume of food and agricultural trade has increased
dramatically over the past decade, low prices mean that the value of exports has not kept up with
increases in volume. While the U.S. volume of agricultural exports grew by 16.4% during the era of the WTO between 1994-2002, the
value of these exports only increased by 14.8%. A UN report found that the cost of food imports rose substantially in all 14 developing countries
that it studied between 1994-1999, and in Mexico, the price of the staple food corn tortillas has only risen since NAFTA, despite a flood of
cheap corn imports into Mexico that have collapsed much of Mexico’s domestic small-scale corn production. • The
market distortions
facilitated by WTO rules have restricted food access to populations in need and led to increased
malnourishment and nutrition-related illnesses. Between the pre-WTO (1990-1992) period and after (1998-2000), several
regions saw the number and percentage of malnourished people increase, including Central Africa, the Near East, Central America and Oceania.
This is not the result of a lack of food but of lack of access to food, seeds and land which has led to
increased calls among anti-hunger activists for changes in WTO rules to ensure food sovereignty—
control of food and farming (seeds, land) by those who will eat the food—in order to guarantee access to food in
these regions. • By dramatically expanding legal definitions of what can be patented under the TRIPs Agreement, the WTO has endangered
food sovereignty and security in poor countries. In most developing countries, the majority of the population lives on the land and feeds itself
by replanting saved seeds. Yet over 150 cases have already been documented of research institutions or businesses applying for patents on
naturally-occurring plants, some of which have been widely farmed for generations. After the WTO TRIPs Agreement becomes fully binding for
developing countries in 2006, governments that fail to enforce patents on seeds—by pulling up crops or by forcing subsistence farmers who can
not afford to do so to pay royalties—will face trade sanctions. • The broad scope of patent protections under the TRIPs Agreement has created
a serious biopiracy problem that further disadvantages farmers in the developing world. Biopiracy occurs when foreign corporations take
indigenous seeds, herbs or traditional medicinal or pesticidal processes from developing countries and seek to patent them as the property of
the company. To get the patent, companies claim that they have slightly altered the plant, even if the alteration does not make any meaningful
change to the plant or process. Once a plant is patented, traditional users must pay a fee and any revenue from sales of the good goes to the
patent holder, not the community from where it was stolen. Thailand has been particularly hard-hit by biopiracy, losing the rights to a
traditional plant-based ulcer cure to a Japanese company, and currently struggling to protect its right to market jasmine rice against a U.S. rice
product called “Jasmati.” In the U.S., a Colorado farmer secured a patent for the common Mexican yellow bean, claiming that he had modified
the bean he called the enola bean in some way. While the Mexican government has taken the unusual step of spending close to $250,000
appealing the patent in the U.S., the American patent holder has sued numerous importers, collected thousands of dollars in royalties and
caused a massive and abrupt decline in Mexican production of this type of common bean. • Like many WTO rules, the AoA does not conform to
logical principles of “free” trade. While developing countries are forced to eliminate the programs that safeguard their small farmers and their
population’s food security, rich countries have been able to increase support 115or large agribusiness. The 2002 U.S. farm bill, for example,
increased subsidies to big farms and commodities exporters by $82.8 billion over the next ten years. Between 1996-2000, 60% of U.S. farm
subsidy payments went to the largest ten percent of producers, and while 30% of U.S. “residence” farms received subsidies in 2001, 72% of
large-scale commercial farms received such payments. These findings are illustrated through in-depth examinations of the following key cases:
• The
U.S. has led a global campaign including in the WTO to force broader market access for
genetically modified organisms (GMOs), in spite of opposition to GMOs in many developing nations
based on the fact that the seeds are patented and thus poor farmers are forbidden to save and
replant them--meaning that those most susceptible to hunger would not be able to afford to use GM
seeds, even if they were proved to be safe. There is also emerging evidence of health and
environmental risks that has produced deep-seated popular resistance to GMOs in many other
countries. By claiming GMOs as substantially equivalent to non-GM foods, and by sabotaging
negotiations for a UN Biosafety Protocol to regulate these products, the U.S. and other major
exporters of GMOs have even argued that the labeling of GMOs would be an “unfair” barrier to trade.
While GMO crops are often touted as way to reduce world hunger, such claims are attempts to favorably recast an issue that is really about
large commercial interests. Recent research has shown that there is no significant yield increase using GM crops, only increased environmental
risks. • The U.S. WTO case that forced India to overturn its laws against the patenting of seeds and adopt the TRIPs agreement. Even though the
Indian parliament initially refused to ratify the TRIPs agreement as part of the Uruguay Round, a U.S. challenge at the WTO forced that country
to adopt TRIPs implementing legislation. • The aggressive U.S. WTO threats to Thai anti-biopiracy laws and Thailand’s pharmaceutical price
control board as violations of TRIPs rules.
Ag Turn
The aff increases economic growth in Cuba which would draw labor away and crush
sustainable urban agriculture
Kost 04
William Kost is an Agricultural Economist with ERS, u.s.. Department of Agriculture
UBAN AGRICULTURE: TO BE OR NOT TO BE ORGANIC?
http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume14/pdfs/kost.pdf
Even without an organic approach to food produc-¶ tion, is Cuba’s urban gardening system viable? In¶
Cuba, both were an integral part of a common devel-¶ opment. That integration is¶ not required. While it
is¶ possible to have a high-t¶ ech and chemical-based pro-¶ duction system in a small-scale gardening
environ-¶ ment, it is unlikely to be sustainable at levels suffi-¶ cient to provide a significant portion of a
city’s food¶ needs. Most high-tech and chemical technologies¶ employed respond to economies of scale.
Incentives¶ to grow into commercial operations will exist and production will shift away from central
cities to areas¶ with less severe constraint¶ s on land. Urban gardening¶ systems are also labor-intensive
systems. As long as¶ labor is freely available or wages are low elsewhere,¶ urban gardening can
afford to utilize high-labor pro-¶ duction techniques. As the Cuban economy grows¶ and recovers, the
demand for labor in other indus-¶ tries will grow and wages will rise. Because it will be¶ more
profitable to work elsewhere, labor would likely¶ be drawn away from the urban gardens. Replacing
la-¶ bor with mechanization could also shift production¶ away from urban locations.¶ Mechanization also
gen-¶ erates benefits from economies of scale. Thus, fewer¶ and fewer urban gardens would remain
producing¶ for the urban markets.¶ At the same time, economic growth in Cuba should¶ make
commercial agriculture enterprises more profit-¶ able, more productive, and better able to supply
food¶ to urban markets. Marketing infrastructures should¶ improve. With higher incomes, urban
workers would¶ be more able to purchase needed food. Commercial¶ agricultural sources would
become increasingly com-¶ petitive with food from urban gardens, and urban¶ workers would
increasingly quit growing their own¶ food. While there might continue to be urban gar-¶ dens, it is
unlikely that they will have a long-term¶ role in providing a substantial portion of urban con-sumers’
food needs.
Economic growth will crush Cuban organic agriculture
Kost 04
William Kost is an Agricultural Economist with ERS, u.s.. Department of Agriculture
UBAN AGRICULTURE: TO BE OR NOT TO BE ORGANIC?
http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume14/pdfs/kost.pdf
Will this organic-oriented production trend continue¶ or reverse itself as Cuba’s economy improves?
Cuba’s¶ organic-oriented agriculture and urban farming¶ movements grew out of an economic crisis
that generated severe food shortages. Market and price incen tives, coupled with large supplies of lowcost labor¶ and massive shortages of other kinds of inputs, gave¶ rise to Cuba’s organic-oriented
agricultural produc-¶ tion. Will those incentives and conditions continue¶ to exist?¶ Global demand for
organic foods continues to grow,¶ particularly in the higher income economies of¶ North America,
Western Europe, and Japan. Devel-¶ oping countries, including Cuba, are also beginning¶ to demand a
larger component of organic produce in¶ their diet. If Cuba continues increasing food produc-¶ tion to the
point where exportable surplus exists, it¶ could become an exporter of organic agricultural¶ products,
including tropical fruits, vegetables, and¶ root and tuber products. To do so, however, Cuba’s¶ production
would need to become “certified” organic¶ prior to entering these niche export organic markets.¶ Cuba
has already, by necessity, met many of the or-¶ ganic production criteria for a large part of its agri-¶
culture. It has not become, or needed to become,¶ “certified” organic for its domestic market. Most de-¶
veloped countries require organic food imports to be¶ certified as organic. To obtain certification, Cuba¶
must provide the proof and documentation of a suffi-¶ ciently long enough period in which it has
produced¶ agricultural products under organic production prac-¶ tices consistent with orga¶ niccertification standards.¶ By 2001, Cuba had produced Swiss-certified organic¶ citrus juices and sugar for
export and packaging in¶ Switzerland for European markets. In addition, Cuba¶ had started a similar
Swiss-certified evaluation pro-¶ cess for coffee and cocoa, as well as mangoes, coco-¶ nuts, and other
tropical fruits.¶ Is the market price premium high enough to create¶ incentives for Cuban producers to
continue supply-¶ ing organic products? As the country’s economy con tinues to growth, the labor¶
supply available to organ ic farming will both shrink and become more costly.¶ Bolstered by higher
incomes and the increased avail-¶ ability of foreign exchange, Cuba will likely resume¶ imports of
agricultural inputs and commercial input¶ prices will decline. If fuel, chemical fertilizer and pes-¶ ticides
again become readily available and relatively¶ cheap, will farmers again st¶ art using them to increase¶
production?¶ Higher incomes and increased availability of foreign¶ exchange will also make it easier for
Cuba to import¶ food products. Cheaper food imports could reduce¶ the demand for domestically
produced food. The re-¶ sulting lower prices could weaken incentives to ex-¶ pand domestic production,
particularly if production¶ costs remain high. Cheap food imports would then¶ reduce incentives to
continue domestic organic food¶ production.¶ Changing the relative price of organic and non-or-¶ ganic
inputs would also affect farmers’ production¶ decisions, including the choice of crops to raise.¶ Changes
in the relative prices of domestically pro-¶ duced and imported foods could have similar effects.¶ It is not
clear how these conflicting forces will bal-¶ ance. The global market for organic produce will¶ likely
continue to grow. If the input and output price¶ incentives continue, Cuba could find itself with an¶
“organic” comparative advantage in world markets. If¶ not, Cuba’s organic era may only have been the
result¶ of a unique set of circumstances brought about by¶ the extreme hardship imposed by the
combination of¶ the collapse of the Soviet Bloc economies and the¶ U.S. embargo.
Politics
AT: Executive Action Doesn’t Link
Controversial executive orders still sap capital.
Risen 4. [Clay, assistant editor @ New Republic, “The power of the pen” American Prospect -- http://prospect.org/article/power-pen]
The most effective check on executive orders has proven to be political. When
it comes to executive orders, “The president
is much more clearly responsible,” says Dellinger, who was heavily involved in crafting orders under Clinton. “Not only is there no
involvement from Congress, but the president has to personally sign the order.” Clinton's Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument executive order may have helped him win votes, but it also set off a massive congressional and public
backlash. Right-wing Internet sites bristled with comments about “dictatorial powers,” and Republicans warned of an end to civil liberties as
we know them. “President Clinton is running roughshod over our Constitution,” said then–House Majority Leader Dick Armey. Indeed, an
unpopular executive order can have immediate--and lasting--political consequences. In 2001, for example,
Bush proposed raising the acceptable number of parts per billion of arsenic in drinking water. It was a
bone he was trying to toss to the mining industry, and it would have overturned Clinton's order lowering the levels. But
the overwhelmingly negative public reaction forced Bush to quickly withdraw his proposal--and it
painted him indelibly as an anti-environmental president.
Overuse of executive action jacks Obama’s capital.
Schier 11. [Steven, professor of political science at Carleton College, specializing in American politics, “The Contemporary President: The
Presidential Authority Problem and the Political Power Trap” Presidential Studies Quarterly Vol 41 Issue 4]
This leads to a “presidential power trap.” Maintaining authority is hard and frustrating work, and in seeking to maintain it, presidents encounter
widespread constraints. Yet the modern presidency grants an incumbent many formal powers over executive branch administration, foreign,
and national security policy. The
power is there, if the authority is not. So why not use the power—via
unilateral decisions, signing statements and executive orders—while you have it, if authority is so hard to garner? The risk
is that by using such powers, a president effectively destroys his authority.
Richard Nixon's presidency, with its
constitutional violations, is the signal example of this, but one can find evidence of the authority problem and power trap among other recent
presidencies. Carter took his authority for granted, ignoring the maintenance of its elite and mass aspects, and paid the price. Reagan gradually
relied more on executive power as authority problems grew, leading to the Iran-Contra imbroglio. George H. W. Bush exerted war powers but
never found a stable basis in political authority. Clinton usually suffered
an authority shortage and found his use of
powers under steady political attack. George W. Bush's use of war powers destroyed his authority during his second term.
Empirically Obama XO’s link.
Schier 11. [Steven, professor of political science at Carleton College, specializing in American politics, “The Contemporary President: The
Presidential Authority Problem and the Political Power Trap” Presidential Studies Quarterly Vol 41 Issue 4]
It is in the context of such controversies that Obama serves as president and continues to use unilateral tools
when they prove convenient. Though he has publicly disavowed the theory of the unitary executive, like his recent predecessors he has made
unilateral policy via executive order, presidential memoranda, and signing statements (Schier 2011). Upon taking office in 2009,
Obama's executive orders reversed his predecessor's policies on U.S. government support for international family planning organizations, union
organizing, and terrorist interrogation techniques. Another executive order secured passage of his landmark health care reform in early 2010.
The order, banning the use of federal funds for abortion, secured the vital support of a group of antiabortion House Democrats. Obama
employed presidential memoranda to order his energy secretary to formulate higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and energy
efficiency standards for appliances (Schier 2011). In
2009, two of Obama's signing statements drew strong protests
from Congress. In the statements, the president indicated he would not enforce certain provisions of
the law with which he disagreed (Weisman 2009, Associated Press 2009). This stance echoed the approach of his predecessor,
George W. Bush (Schier 2008). The ensuing uproar caused the administration to declare it would no longer
issue such policy declarations in signing statements but would instead quietly disregard enforcement
of laws it found unconstitutional (Savage 2010). In May 2011, Obama ignored requirements of the War Powers Resolution
regarding his military incursion into Libya. The use of force occurred without prior consultation of Congress as required by the resolution. The
administration also ignored the resolution's provision that Congress approve the use of the military within 60 days of their initial engagement in
conflict until after the deadline had passed (Ackerman and Hathaway 2011).
AT: Link N/U - Chemical Safety Standards
Obama’s chemical safety XO is non-controversial.
Guarino 8-1-13. [Douglas, Global Security Newswire, "Lawmakers welcome Obama executive order on chemical security" National
Journal -- www.nationaljournal.com/global-security-newswire/lawmakers-welcome-obama-executive-order-on-chemical-security-20130801]
Democratic and Republican lawmakers on Thursday welcomed an executive order regarding chemical
security that President Obama signed earlier in the day, but they said it remains to be seen whether the directive will solve all
the problems highlighted by a lethal explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas, earlier this year.¶ “I’m grateful [the presidential
order] was released because it demonstrates some genuine work on the part of the administration to
address some of the concerns” that stemmed from the Texas tragedy in April, Representative Patrick Meehan (R-Penn.) told Global
Security Newswire after chairing a House Homeland Security subcommittee hearing on chemical security on Thursday. “I’m hopeful it’s a plan,
however effectively, to work toward addressing some of the problems discussed at the hearing today.”
More ev.
Houston Chronicle 8-1-13. ["Citing West blast, Obama signs executive order on chemical plant safety" -blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/08/citing-west-blast-obama-signs-executive-order-on-chemical-plant-safety/]
Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been harshly critical of the federal government’s lack of
coordination in the aftermath of the chemical plant inferno. One leading critic, Republican Rep. Bill Flores of Bryan,
responded to Obama’s action by saying the president is now “directionally pointed the right way.”¶ “I think
we need to have that way for those agencies to work together, and I think that the executive order pushes
the federal and state agencies in that direction,” said Flores, whose district includes West.¶ Obama’s order won the
approval of West Mayor Tommy Muska, who has unsuccessfully sought a “major disaster” declaration from the president to facilitate
federal aid to the hard-hit town.¶ “I think it is a positive move ,” Muska said. “As much as I don’t like government intrusion on an
industry, a lot of these plants are older and they need to have some tougher standards someone holds them to.”