US sanctions deepen Cuba’s food insecurity: systemic collapse in agricultural heartland exposes neoliberal pressure tactics

Cuba’s agroecological cooperatives, such as those in Artemisa, embody Indigenous and peasant knowledge systems that prioritize biodiversity, soil health, and community resilience over monoculture and chemical inputs. These systems have maintained food production despite sanctions, yet are systematically undermined by globalized industrial agriculture models. The marginalization of these practices reflects a broader erasure of Indigenous epistemologies in favor of extractive economic paradigms. Indigenous Cuban farmers, particularly of African descent, face dual discrimination in land access and policy support.

The US embargo against Cuba, initiated in 1960 and intensified under the 1992 Torricelli Act and 1996 Helms-Burton Act, represents one of the longest economic blockades in modern history, designed to destabilize the Cuban Revolution. The 'Special Period' (1990s) after the Soviet collapse revealed Cuba’s vulnerability to external shocks, but also spurred the development of agroecology as a survival strategy. Similar patterns of economic warfare and structural adjustment have been used against other socialist or non-aligned states, such as Chile under Allende or Nicaragua in the 1980s. These historical precedents show how sanctions are tools of geopolitical control, not just economic pressure.

Across the Global South, food sovereignty movements have emerged as responses to neoliberal agricultural policies, from India’s Chipko movement to Brazil’s Landless Workers’ Movement (MST). In Zimbabwe, land reform programs in the 2000s, though controversial, aimed to redistribute fertile land from colonial elites to peasant farmers, echoing Cuba’s post-revolutionary agrarian reforms. In Southeast Asia, peasant organizations like La Via Campesina have linked local struggles to global trade regimes, challenging the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture. These cross-cultural movements reveal a shared resistance to corporate-controlled food systems.

Agroecological systems in Cuba have been scientifically documented to achieve higher yields per hectare with lower water and energy inputs compared to industrial monocultures, as shown by studies from the Cuban National Institute of Agricultural Sciences (INCA). Research from the University of Havana demonstrates that diversified farms in Artemisa are more resilient to drought and pest outbreaks, aligning with global findings on the benefits of polycultures. Meanwhile, sanctions have disrupted access to critical inputs like fertilizers and machinery, leading to a 20% decline in agricultural productivity since 2019, per FAO data. The scientific consensus supports agroecology as a climate-adaptive solution.

Cuban farmers often frame their work as a spiritual and communal act, rooted in Afro-Cuban traditions like Regla de Ocha, where the land is seen as a living ancestor deserving reverence. The decline of smallholder farming is not just an economic loss but a cultural erosion, as oral histories, seed-saving practices, and communal labor (e.g., 'minga') are abandoned for industrial models. Artistic expressions, from the murals of Havana’s streets to the poetry of Nicolás Guillén, have long celebrated the resilience of Cuban campesinos, framing their struggle as part of a broader anti-colonial narrative. The spiritual dimension of land stewardship is central to resistance.

Scenario modeling by the World Bank and FAO suggests that without lifting sanctions and investing in agroecology, Cuba’s food import dependency could rise to 80% by 2035, exacerbating malnutrition and rural depopulation. Alternative models, such as Cuba’s urban agriculture programs (which supply 50% of Havana’s vegetables), demonstrate that decentralized, low-input systems can feed populations even under blockade conditions. Climate projections for the Caribbean indicate increased drought and hurricane intensity, making agroecological resilience a necessity, not an option. The future of Cuban agriculture hinges on reversing neoliberal policies and scaling up traditional knowledge.

Afro-Cuban farmers, who make up a significant portion of Cuba’s agricultural workforce, face systemic discrimination in land tenure and access to credit, despite their historical role in food production. Women farmers, who comprise 40% of Cuba’s agricultural labor force, are often relegated to informal roles and lack decision-making power in cooperatives. The narrative of 'farmers bearing the brunt' obscures these intersecting oppressions, framing the crisis as universal rather than shaped by race, gender, and class hierarchies. Marginalized voices in Cuba’s agricultural sector have long advocated for land reform and agroecology as tools of liberation.