Document(s) 2 of 13

This chapter proposes a new way of addressing the subject of agriculture within the land management system of Havana, using the experience gained over the last years in urban agriculture and the new insights emerging from this research.

This chapter provides a brief overview of the Physical Planning System in Cuba and the involvement of different agencies in the management and control of Havana, as well as their roles in the development of urban agriculture.

This new perspective considers the links of urban agriculture with other activities in the city, since any new intervention in the urban structure would require a new accommodation of the functions already existing in the city.

* Eneyde Ponce de León Triana helped with the drafting of this Chapter.

The Physical Planning System in Cuba

The origins of what we now call land management, with all its variants, adaptations and modes can be traced far back into Cuban history and it is linked to the need for organizing the space according to different functions and economic and social aims.

Cuban history shows very early references to city planning, but the main objective at that time was the defence of towns and villages as well as the location for certain activities. From the eighteenth century onwards, several Governing Plans and Urban Projects have been designed for specific purposes or to accommodate the requirements of the governing body of the moment, without much concern for the actual social and economic conditions of the cities and, of course, giving special preference to the capital city.

The origin of physical planning as an established institution in Cuba can be traced to 1960 when the Minister of Public Works issued a By-law on May 19 establishing the Physical Planning Secretariat as part of the Ministry of Public Works.

The newly formed group of planners, motivated by the revolutionary laws and with more enthusiasm than real knowledge began the essential task of designing and planning the transformation of the land base. The starting point was to consider the requirements of the social and economic order that was just being created and whose objectives were, among others, to redress the huge imbalances in the distribution of the land, to improve the living conditions of the general population, in both urban and rural areas, and to promote agricultural and industrial development.

Years later, the physical planning functions were established as a system covering all the national land base, with representatives in each of the provinces and structured as a regional operation concerned principally with land management and secondarily with the functional and territorial organization of the social and economic activities. This structure allowed for the coordination and harmonization of the physical planning activities at the national level with the sectoral plans and programs. The basic conditions for attaining the ever-present objective of creating organic links with economic planning were thus established.

Throughout this first phase and up until 1976, the national level, represented by the Physical Planning Institute (Instituto de Planificación Física) was linked to the Ministry of Construction. From 1976 onwards, the physical planning activities were institutionally divided by the Council of Ministers into two branches as follows:

1. National level: The Instituto de Planificación Física (IPF) became a part of the Central Planning Board (Junta Central de Planificación), currently the Ministry of Economy and Planning.
2. Provincial level: The Physical Planning Provincial Directorates became part of the People’s Power governing bodies (local grassroots governmental organizations). This produced the following subdivisions:
   1. Administratively, they report to the People’s Power organizations. They constitute a level of the provincial government.
   2. Methodologically, they are guided by the Physical Planning Institute.

At the beginning of 1978, the Executive Committee of the Council of Ministers adopted By-law No 21, ‘Reglamento sobre la Planificación Física’ (Rules and Regulations concerning Physical Planning), defining the contents, scope and work levels for physical planning.

On the other hand, physical planning activities in Cuba have consistently included new planning tools and have adapted their structure to fit the new realities of the national economy.

As a result, physical planning has played a key role in putting into effect the principles of social justice, equity and development that have characterized the transformation process experienced by our society. Its specific objectives have been the following:

• Efficient use of the soil as a non-renewable resource by properly locating productive and social activities and by using the soil to its full potential.
• Balanced economic development in the national territory (among regions, human settlements, rural areas and within the cities).
• Responsible management of natural resources, as well as the protection and reconditioning of the environment in order to attain an ecologically sustainable development.
• Preservation of the social use of the public soil, and the protection and reconditioning of the cultural heritage and related property.

Structure of the Physical Planning System

Physical Planning has been methodologically structured in such a way as to be connected at all levels with the general Cuban Planning and Administration System.

Responsibilities at the National Level (Physical Planning Institute)

• Formulation of integrated land management proposals according to the Land Management National Plan and according to land base national policies ‘by assessing the sectoral plans in relation to the Human Settlement System, environmental factors and the desirable proportions of the national land base’.
• Adoption of the same approach at all the subordinate levels.
• Development of scientific and technical research programs in matters under its jurisdiction.
• Collaboration with other institutions concerning topics and programs of national interest.

Responsibilities at the Provincial Level (Physical Planning Provincial Directorate)

• Execution of the Land Management Plans according to the policies and strategies governing the planning of the land base through the formulation of principles, criteria or hypotheses. Activities are planned for the medium term.
• Development of the Land Base Plan according to a set of provisions regulating the use of the land and in line with the sectoral economic program. Activities are planned for a 3- to 5-year period.
• Formulation of Urban Regulations and monitoring compliance, according to the Land Base Management Program.
• Development of partial plans, special plans and urban projects.
• Investment location studies and urban feasibility studies.

Responsibilities at the Municipal Level (Physical Planning Municipal Directorates)

• With the promulgation of the Housing Act in 1984, the Architecture and Urban Planning Directorates were created with the special responsibility of controlling the use of the land. Within the context of the ‘special period’ and in the midst of a growing planning decentralization trend, these Municipal Directorates included in their routine tasks the execution of General Plans as part of the municipal planning, thereby becoming Physical Planning Municipal Directorates with significant participation at the local levels. They also assumed the responsibility for carrying out such additional planning tasks as the Special Plans and the Studies of Details.
• These Directorates report administratively to the municipal government and follow the general approach established by the Physical Planning Provincial Directorate.

Land Management in Havana

The history of changes and development in the Havana land base can be traced by looking at the several existing layouts and designs. During the revolutionary period (1959 to the present) five Governing Plans and Layouts have been made, refined and adjusted to suit the potentiality and restrictions of the land base and to reflect the new demands and requirements of the Cuban society and the city. These Governing Plans and Designs are made compatible with those of the other sectors (Water System, Public Health, Community Service, Environment Agency, and others), to ensure the participation of all stakeholders in the general interests of the city.

The Green Areas System is part of the land management plan of Havana. It is based on the inter-connection and continuity of the city spaces and guarantees their uses and functions according to location, and, at the same time, it integrates the different urban functions.

The Green Areas System extends from the outskirts of the city through bio-corridors up to the central region. The areas are well integrated within the urban design and they contribute greatly to the image and function of the city.

Two interventions that need to be carried out, however, are the following:

1. Activities involving large city parks with components such as common public parks, special parks, countryside parks and protected green
   areas, green areas for restricted use and woodlots, among others, with new elements already included, such as theme parks, technology parks, railroad parks, gardens or other historic areas, walking trails, etc.
2. Spaces blending with the scale of urban design: trees in beds, public, semi-public and private spaces, gardens, street-parks, etc.

The Plan known as the Havana Belt, initiated by the government in 1966, was a milestone that marked changes in the agricultural approach to be established in the immediate periphery of the city and had a great impact on the city and its people.

Apart from the negative environmental impacts that this plan could have had, it was important because it brought about massive participation by the people in Havana. This Plan involved the creation of a fruit-tree belt in lands near urban areas and, subsequently, a dairy belt. In fact, the Havana Belt can be considered the most important event marking the development of urban agriculture in Havana.

During those years, thousands of Cubans went daily, as volunteers, to cultivate seedlings, prepare the soil, sow and carry out many other associated tasks. For a while their culture as food consumers came to include habits of food producers. This was another sample of the Cuban model of community participation, whereby the people take on a government project and develop it as their own.

On the other hand, a study published in 1985 indicated the need to integrate the agricultural activities with the Green Areas System. Even as early as 1985, the problems of sectoral treatment given to agricultural peri-urban production and the need to integrate it were evident.

This study pointed out that:

the sectoral analysis used in evaluating current problems showed the need to integrate and to complement this study with the idea that the land base is only one, that the requirements are many and that, in order to satisfy those requirements, it is necessary to use the undeveloped lands in the province intensively and in a rational manner.

The Group in Charge of the Integral Development of Havana

In 1987 the Group for Integral Development of Havana (Grupo para el Desarrollo Integral de la Capital, GDIC) was created and a multidisciplinary team was formed and given the task of implementing new approaches for

the city. This group, in terms of content, did not replace the planning and monitoring activities of the Physical Planning Directorate at its different levels. Its main objectives were the following:

• Advising the government of the city on urban problems.
• Coordinating the strategic plan for the economic and social development of Havana.
• Carrying out studies and research projects on urban issues.
• Promoting urban culture through the Pabellón de la Maqueta de La Habana and develop activities on urban topics.
• Providing methodological guidance through the Neighbourhood Workshops, Talleres de Transformación Integral de Barrio (TTIB), created at the suggestion of the GDIC as part of the participatory planning at grassroots level. These workshops also carry out urban agricultural projects, among others.
• Promoting and managing different projects through international collaboration.

As the main institutions concerning land management matters in Havana, both the Physical Planning Directorate and the Group for Integral Development of Havana have been involved in one way or another with the development of Urban Agriculture in the city. The Physical Planning Directorate has been actively involved in compatibility and zoning issues connected with the different plans and interventions proposed. The role assumed by the Group for Integral Development of Havana has focused on promoting and managing community projects where a recurrent topic has been food security through TTIB and community gardens.

The Involvement of Physical Planning in the Development of Urban Agriculture During the 1990s

At the end of 1989, the government of Havana created a provincial working commission charged with developing urban agriculture. However, at that time it was not named as such. This commission had the following responsibilities, among others:

• To set out the main working lines for such development.
• To define the conditions to justify the agricultural use of urban spaces.
• To create mechanisms for transferring responsibilities to grassroots bodies (municipalities and people’s councils) through a direct operational activity.

From the very beginning this provincial committee included the Office for the Cooperative and Farmers Sectors of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Physical Planning Directorates, Water Resources and Public Health, as well as representatives from such social organizations as the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution and the Federation of Cuban Women.

The Provincial Assembly of Popular Power reached an agreement whereby the Municipal Work Committees were created with a composition similar to that of the provincial committee. These work committees were in charge of promoting and developing urban agriculture at the municipal level; the Architecture and Urban Directorates were later included in these committees.

The creation of these committees at the three government levels (Provincial, Municipal and People’s council) started to generate the institutional and social participation required as a basis for developing urban agriculture in Havana.

The first actions carried out by the Provincial Directorate of Physical Planning were:

In size, these free areas, mainly state-owned land, could be from 150m² up to more than 30 ha, depending on their location:

• Smaller plots where located in central municipalities, with a higher construction density. Medium-sized plots were usually located in residential neighbourhoods.
• The plots or lots between 0.5 ha and 2 ha in size (although it was possible to find larger ones), were located mainly in intermediate municipalities, within the city or as part of work centres, education centres and others.
• The larger areas were located mainly in the peri-urban zones and belonged to state-owned agricultural companies that were not using the land.

The study carried out by the Provincial Directorate of Physical Planning, together with the general conditions set down by the Committee in charge of handing over land in the above-mentioned areas, were submitted by the latter to all municipal Presidents of the Popular Power (mayors). Such conditions included the temporary nature of the use of these areas, in all cases; the obligation of using the space in a productive manner; the prohibition against building anything permanent (houses or other buildings): and the prohibition against cutting trees.

The Provincial Committee was directly in charge of handing over the largest lots to the work centres that applied for them and determining the locations of high-yield urban gardens, since these were a government investment. In this respect, it is important to note that the Physical Planning Directorate discussed a proposed location with several governing bodies, such as the Provincial Directorate of Water Resources, before granting its approval for any investment. This integration of the Committee was instrumental in speeding up the investment approval process in the specific case of the high-yield intensive-cultivation gardens.

The rest of the lots handed over, especially the small and medium-sized lots located in the city came under the responsibility of the municipalities (municipal committees) and People’s Councils assisted by the Provincial Committee.

During these first years of the 1990s, the Committee for the Reforestation of the City (created in 1983) was strengthened by the integration of the institutions that were part of the provincial committees for the development of urban agriculture. This was a clear instance of the aim to guide urban agricultural activities beyond the production of food.

Subsequently, new work areas were created at the provincial level, directly under the responsibility of the provincial committee. These new work areas were joined by the following institutions, according to their objectives:

• The Aquaculture Development Program of Havana, organized by the Provincial government and the Fisheries Ministry in 1994. Places for small reservoirs, dumps and small water containers for raising fresh-water fish were located, as well as areas for building water tanks.
• The location of community areas for collective pig-raising activities in 1994. Given the urban nature of the province, pig-raising activities were prohibited. The provincial committee, which was expanded with the inclusion of the Veterinarian Medicine Directorate, made a complete revision of the existing health and urban planning regulations.

These regulations stated that pig-raising was permitted only in areas at least 5 km distant from the last construction of an urban-development area and 1 km distance from any source of water supply. The former regulation was amended to 3 km from the last building, while the regulation concerning the distance from the water supply remained unchanged. These adjustments were instrumental in determining the areas in the province where small-scale pig-raising activities could be permitted.

The development reached by Urban Agriculture during the first four years of the 1990s, as well as the need to strengthen the state-owned agricultural sector of the province, necessitated the creation of a separate entity that would represent the Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI) for this purpose and a MINAGRI representative was appointed. From this structure, created in 1994, emerged the Group for Urban Agriculture Coordination, Promotion and Training. The municipalities adopted a similar structure.

The Ministry of Agriculture complemented this structure in 1995 with the Province Ciudad de la Habana Committee for agricultural extension, coordinated by the Research Institute for Tropical Agriculture (INIFAT) and included the various research institutes of the Ministry of Agriculture. The main objective was to provide support for the technical work of Urban Agriculture. This Committee was the forerunner of the National Group of Urban Agriculture.

The National Group of Urban Agriculture currently serves the whole country. It develops the technical extension activities, annual strategies and guidelines for obtaining high yields and for providing the population with different products. These guidelines have been grouped into

subprograms (fresh vegetables and cooking herbs, fruit trees, rice, and so on up to 26 categories).³

With the creation of this nation-wide group, urban agriculture has acquired the level of an institution, and until it was dissolved in 1996 the Provincial Commission provided support for the agricultural development activities in the city. From 1996 onwards, the role of the Physical Planning Office in the province was focused on investment management,⁴ as required by the local MINAGRI office, and on providing information support for inquiries concerning specific programs such as reforestation, also known as My Green Program.

As a result of all these processes, urban agriculture found its way into Havana’s land management plans and other documents regarding the insertion of Urban Agriculture into the land management system.

Evidence of the foregoing is the approval by the city, in 1991–92, of the updating of the Land Management Plan until 2010 and of the First Strategy Development Plan developed by the Physical Planning Directorate and by the Capital City Integral Development Group. None of these governing documents included urban agriculture. However, in the last land management plan (approved for the city in December 2000) urban agriculture was included on a general scale and treated as an independent activity of a permanent nature for the peri-urban zone and as a temporary measure in the urban zone and in the newly developed areas.

Insertion of Urban Agriculture into Land Management

During the research process, the topic of inserting Urban Agriculture into the land management system was addressed directly and indirectly in the research application at the regional level and also in urban agriculture as an evolving activity in the city.

This process proved the need to develop a broader proposal taking Urban Agriculture to a higher level of institutionalization and defining its place within the city’s management and control structures.

A workshop was carried out for this purpose with the following participants: the research team, Physical Planning Directorate representatives, the Capital City

Integral Development Group, the Faculty of Geography, Habitat Cuba, the Urban Agriculture Directorate of the city, a producer of the Camilo Cienfuegos region, the Faculty of Architecture’s Urban Studies Centre of the Instituto Superior Politécnico José Antonio Echevarría, and other experts.

Given the importance of the series of definitions that had to be established before arriving at the proposal for how urban agriculture could be inserted into the land management system, a summary is provided below:

1. Why insert urban agriculture into the land management system?
   • Urban agriculture is a significant activity with a strong presence in the use of the land, as well as production and consumption activities in almost all the municipalities of Havana.
   • Urban agriculture was created by the government and accepted enthusiastically by different sectors of the population.
   • The economic and environmental results of urban agricultural activities in Cuba have been positive.
   • It is important to continue with urban agricultural activities beyond the economic crisis, natural disasters or any other specific situations.
   • Cities have new needs, and it is important to integrate urban agriculture as one of them.
   • Urban agriculture should be placed at a higher institutionalization level: proper recognition of its functions and requirements for a legal framework.
   • Urban agriculture should be developed, managed and designed from a land-management point of view.
   • Urban agriculture should be linked with other urban components.
   • Urban management activities should be linked with other related institutions.
   • Urban agriculture activities should be controlled.
   • The city will always have vacant spaces.
   • Urban agriculture contributes to the achievement of other urban planning objectives (quality of life, value of urban soils).
   • Urban agriculture should be addressed as a formal activity of the city.
   • Urban agriculture would be better positioned for reaching its full potential in relation to the various urban sectors (space in urban projects, commercial relation with the tourism sector).

   There are powerful and sufficient reasons in support of inserting urban agriculture into the land management system.

2. What would be the basis for stating that urban agriculture should or must be regarded as an urban function?
   • Urban agriculture is behaving, in practice, similarly to other urban functions in the use of spaces and the actors involved.
   • Urban agriculture is a productive activity that uses space in the city and generates output. It interrelates with other spaces and functions in the city (housing, people, markets), and that is why it should be regarded as a permanent urban function.
   • Urban agriculture improves the quality of life by guaranteeing food security, enhancing the image of a city that is closer to nature, improving the health conditions of the urban environment, and including the most vulnerable sectors in Cuban society, such as elderly people.
   • The resources required by urban agriculture have an important impact on the use of urban waste.
   • Urban agriculture, as an urban function, can be developed with more objectivity, establishing criteria, policies and strategies for reaching a level of development in accordance with the main characteristics of the province.

   Urban agriculture should be considered as a permanent function. The recognized use of the space in the medium and long terms would eliminate the possibility of considering urban agriculture a temporary activity.

3. As an urban function, where does the development and enhancement of urban agriculture begin?
   • As a government activity, allowing the state to generate investments and to play the role of facilitator and of governing, monitoring and regulating body of urban agriculture activities through:
     • Local governments’ contributions and resource channeling for developing urban agriculture.
     • Local governments acting as coordinators of other government agencies, the private sector and non-governmental institutions.
   • As an individual and/or collective activity, but always having an impact on the community, urban agriculture requires participatory planning for the following reasons:
     • The community is the main actor in urban agriculture.
     • Urban agriculture generates profits at the local level.
     • Urban agriculture promotes exchanges, self-sufficiency and local development.
     • Urban agriculture saves the government money and resources.
     • Urban agriculture is instrumental in helping the community to discover and use other possibilities.
     • Urban agriculture helps to develop and improve interpersonal relations.
     • The management of the space benefits the citizens directly.
   • Urban agriculture promotes community participation.

   Urban agriculture should be treated as an activity in which the primary actors are the government and the community, both having specific roles and gaining mutual benefits.

4. As an urban function, at what work scale should urban agriculture be undertaken and on what bases?
   • The city’s diversity and the homogeneity of existing spaces should be taken into account, as determined by the potential of the land and its characteristics.
   • Ciudad de La Habana province is considered a strictly urban province, but it has a peri-urban area with characteristics similar to a rural environment. It is necessary to keep in mind that parts of Havana are developed areas, others are being developed and some are not suitable for development. It is also important to distinguish between the forms of urban agriculture in the different types of zones, from the most developed areas to the least developed spaces on the city’s outskirts.
   • Urban agricultural development requires a specific design, adapted to the urban space and environment. It is necessary to seek alternative solutions to problems such as water, which is more feasible on a local scale.
   • Urban agriculture must be addressed as a permanent urban function with different treatments according to the zones, either central, intermediate or outside the city, as well as on a general and a local scale.
   • The treatment of urban agriculture as a permanent function does not exclude the use of specific spaces set aside for other purposes (this is the difference between urban agriculture and other urban functions, and the difference between urban agriculture and rural agriculture). However, the use of these spaces allocated for other purposes should occur only in specific cases and for a set period of time.

   Urban agriculture should be treated within the land management system on a large and medium scale in the city, and also in the urban development design, taking into account its specific nature and its links with other urban sectors.

5. With what urban components might urban agriculture bring about a mutually beneficial relationship?

   When interacting with the urban structure, urban agriculture seeks to establish various links which, if well developed and enhanced, may lead to important economic, social, environmental and land-use processes.

   

   

   Both the city and the urban agriculture sector gain through a mutually beneficial relationship.

6. How can urban agriculture be included in the land management process? What elements are to be considered and how can this process be addressed?
   • It is important to visualize urban agriculture as part of the physical planning system and to find an integrating conceptual framework for a common language among the institutions directly or indirectly related to urban agriculture and to the city.
   • In this context, it is important to separate the concept of urban agricultural management. Only after knowing what we expect of urban agriculture in each place, will we be able to address the question of who will manage it and how.
   • Urban agriculture should be addressed within the land management system not only on the basis of what it is now but following the recommendations of research studies for the future, including what we have learnt from past experiences in Cuba.
   • By considering urban agriculture only as a productive activity, we run the risk of excluding all other urban agriculture potential, such as involvement in the community participatory process, environmental education, and re-use of urban waste. It is an activity generating twofold benefits – for the urban agricultural sector and for the urban environment.
   • The role of urban agriculture in the housing sector goes beyond improving the image of the areas outside the houses. It has an impact on a higher scale and occupies an important place in the local economy.
   • At the general city level, the concept of urban agriculture within the physical planning system is most valuable. At the level of project and design (neighbourhood, zone) it will be necessary to study and assess the availability of resources, infrastructure, actors involved, and other uses and linkages.
   • By including urban agriculture as part of the Green System, it would be possible in the Cuban context to use its full contribution to food security and go beyond the productive dimension to become part of the urban environment, fulfilling, at the same time, the different functions required by the economy, the people and the urban structure.
   • The Green System aims at linking zones with different functions, generating spaces with different uses; improving on problems such as air pollution, noise, access to other urban spaces, and promoting healthier production and recreational activities.

   The Cuban case shows that the best way of addressing urban agriculture within the land management system is to include it in the Green System.

Urban Agriculture as a Component of the City’s Green System

The city seeks green spaces emanating vitality and beauty for enriching existing spaces and responding to the citizens’ needs for a new distribution of urban spaces and better quality of life. That is why it is important to organize the different spaces by ensuring their individuality and their unique formal, dimensional and qualitative differences.⁵

The Green System is based on the principle of linkages and continuity of the green spaces to ensure uses and functions according to their locations. Green spaces link urban networks and have a very important meaning for the city’s image and operations.⁶

In order to address urban agriculture as part of the Green System, it is necessary to define its roles within this system in a flexible, easily implemented work plan.

As part of the Green System, urban agriculture will be able to have an integrated set of activities and reach its full potential, with the flexibility to include new elements in the system.

Addressing urban agriculture in this context requires a series of definitions, some of which were discussed during the workshop. The workshop evaluation also recommends further studies on the subject in order to establish a methodological basis for inserting urban agriculture into the Green System. This first phase of the work on definitions is summarized below.

Currently, Havana’s Green System includes three subsystems that, although linked together, have their own spatial and operational requirements, with the following main components:

The evaluation carried out showed that it was more convenient to insert urban agriculture into the existing agricultural production subsystem instead of creating a new subsystem. However, this would involve redefining the agricultural production subsystem to include the following:

• To define the concept of a green area (valid for the whole system).
• To establish its components and types of spaces.
  • Linkages among the different components.
  • Identification of local components and their linkages.
  • Economic and environmental indicators.
  • Legal framework, urban rules and regulations.
  • Characterization of spaces where, among other issues, it would be necessary to address the question of the value of the soil beyond its agricultural production potential.
  • Management (who manages it and how)
  • Land ownership issues.
  • Access to land for producers.
  • Incentives (establishing, maintaining and developing phases).
  • Others.

Of the list of elements in the Agricultural Production Subsystem that need to be re-defined, only the first two were addressed in this book.

The Concept of Green Area

The research showed that several definitions exist for ‘green area’ or related terms, such as ‘free area’ and ‘exterior spaces’. There is a need, therefore, to find a common language by reviewing the literature on this topic and broadening the scope of the research.

Free area: All those areas with no buildings and those areas belonging to schools or similar institutions, which are for their own exclusive use and for roads.

Exterior spaces: Any uncovered space that has a functional or spiritual meaning for people.

Green Area: Any space that is totally or partially covered by vegetation and has a specific function in the urban structure.

Proposal on the Components of the Agricultural Productive Subsystem and Types of spaces. Classification Criteria

A classification of the Green System’s components (urban agriculture included) can be done in different ways. This shows the multiple functions that the agricultural productive subsystem would have and the activities that it could generate. The evaluation also showed the possibility of grouping them under one classification based on the following:

1. Land ownership (state, private, cooperative, for the beneficial use of . . .).
2. Its relation to other urban functions (residential, industrial, educational . . .).
3. The main destination of the production (subsistence, consumption by producers, trade, production services, combinations . . .).
4. The actors involved (family, community, paid workers, women, young people, children, elderly, field workers . . .).
5. The primary agriculture/livestock use (nurseries, forestry, cattle-raising, several crops, medicinal plants and cooking herbs . . .).
6. The technological mode (organoponics, hydroponics, intensive-cultivation garden, community garden, backyards, gardens and roofs, conventional or extensive planting . . .).
7. The scale (large scale: designs, governing plans; medium scale: special plans and urban development plans; local scale: mini-locations . . .).

General Criteria for Inserting Urban Agriculture into the Land Management System in a Prospective Housing Development Zone: Camilo Cienfuegos

As an approach to focus on a more precise scale, the Camilo Cienfuegos study zone was chosen because of the presence of urban agriculture in this area, the way it was developed and because it was planned for housing development as set down in Havana’s land management program. That is why we need to establish the criteria for a successful insertion of urban agriculture into productive activities. A well-designed and well-planned insertion of urban agriculture will help to improve the quality of the environment in this new use of the area.

From the definition of the different types of subzones, the urban physical design restrictions and potentials in each of them were identified. The study was focused on the following:

• Analysis of the current use of the soil. It included public, semi-public and private spaces.
• A diagnostics of agricultural activities in the zone (resulting from the research project).
• Evaluation of the prospective use of the land.
• Integration of the prospective and current use of the land (including urban agriculture). Conflict evaluations

Subzone Types. Main Characteristics

Subzone 1: Declared national heritage. Buildings from 5 to 12 storeys. It has well established green spaces, constructions, infrastructure and

and other features. Any intervention in this subzone should be made in accordance with its category as a national heritage.

Subzone 2: Buildings of from 5 to 12 storeys; infrastructure and constructions are completed but not the green areas. The interventions in this subzone 2 should be studied case by case.

Subzone 3: Virtually not built. There is a proposal for new housing development. Urban agriculture is established. It is necessary to combine project, design and new uses.

General Criteria Proposed for all the Subzones

1. To make use of the urban agriculture potential in any future design:
   • Special crops with high economic and nutritional value.
   • Community gardens.
   • Recreational gardens.
   • Recovery of traditional practices.
   • Certified organic production for eco-restaurants.
   • Temporary agricultural use of spaces intended for other urban functions.
   • Cultivation of non-traditional fresh vegetables, flowers, cactuses and other ornamental plants.
   • Sightseeing areas and demonstration plots.
   • Other.
2. Include urban agriculture modes wherever possible, but considering the specific characteristics in each subzone (Parque Histórico-Militar, tourism, protected areas, and others).
3. Cultivate medicinal plants, aromatic herbs and cooking herbs in small spaces.
4. Include alternative modes for using, re-using and recycling water and organic matter.
5. Consider small-livestock production as an option, provided it is not a pollution-producing activity. This is defined not only by the animal species being raised but especially by the technology to be used in raising the animals.

More Specific Criteria by Subzone

1. For the consolidated urban area: Subzones 1 (national heritage) and 2 (with all the buildings but with the green areas not yet completed):
   1. Promote the use of space in the basements of buildings for agricultural activities using permaculture types of designs.
   2. Promote screening and domestic recycling of organic matter for the productive areas.
   3. Transform the green areas into productive green spaces in Subzone 2.
   4. Consider planting fruit trees of species appropriate to the design of public spaces in Subzone 2.
   5. Foster the cultivation of medicinal plants, aromatic herbs and cooking herbs on roofs and balconies of the subzone declared National Heritage.
   6. Make the green mass resulting from green areas maintenance available for preparation of organic compounds in the productive areas.
   7. Use no agrochemicals in the productive green areas.
   8. Consider alternative solutions for the use of rainwater, especially from the downpipes of buildings.
   9. Consider ways of passing the knowledge on to the new generations.
2. For the area of prospective housing. Subzone 3:
   1. Planning of the zone should include participatory design techniques.
   2. The design of groups of houses should include several types of communal productive spaces.
   3. Productive units should be kept consolidated: El Pedregal Intensive-Cultivation Garden and Farmers of El Paraíso.
   4. Productive plots should have a coherent design, including such components as image, organic matter recycling and water for irrigation.
   5. Productive agricultural activities and processing methods that support the development of the local economy should be given priority.
   6. The highest possible diversity of productive spaces and a high level of diversity within the productive spaces should be promoted.
   7. As a protection against cold fronts, a green area should be established and the selection of species should be suitable to the zone’s biogeographic features, giving priority to fruit trees for the protection of wildlife.
   8. The use of large spaces for agricultural activities, including grazing should be discouraged.
   9. The use of cultivation houses, greenhouses and similar facilities should be expanded beyond their production activities to include others that could benefit the population’s most vulnerable sectors, such as elderly people, and handicapped children and adolescents.

General Considerations

Urban managers and planners are focusing their attention not only on the proven possibilities of urban agriculture but also on its untapped potential. The current thinking among experts in the field is that urban agriculture is a viable function for attaining the goals of urban sustainability.⁷ The fact is that urban agriculture is growing more and more in our cities and we have the challenge of managing it as part of the solution to our needs. But the most important challenge is to include in the land management processes those who are the very essence of the city: its citizens.

Inserting urban agriculture into the land management system is not a task to be worked out on a drawing board. It depends, to a great extent, as we have already said, on the interrelation among planners and doers, the community and governments. The role of city planners and developers in this respect should not be limited to ensuring the availability of spaces for agricultural activities. They should also be involved in defining scales, activities and tools that would promote the insertion of urban agriculture into land management.

In this regard, the meaning of urban agriculture as an urban function has to be oriented as follows:

• Work on the different planning scales.
• Coherent relationship among production, location, design.
• Identification and use of linkages and work flows.
• Identification and execution of actions ensuring the evolution of urban agriculture towards sustainability.

The impact should be at the three levels:

• Nation, province and municipality. Vision: contribution to policy-making and policy-adoption.
• Municipal/urban. Land management: zoning, urban-planning design, inclusion in Strategic Plan (use of the Geographic Information System).
• Urban and local. Standards: designs, leasing contracts, environmental legislation.

Although this is an ongoing project, the results obtained thus far have been useful to let us know where we are now and where we want to be. Historical conditions in Cuba have favoured the large-scale development of urban agriculture, but there are obstacles to its development. As for the Latin-American and Caribbean region, this work opens new possibilities for expanding the promotion, research, and definition of the best and most sustainable ways of inserting urban agriculture into the urban environment. It is necessary to have a higher level of commitment from the different governments and the institutions working with the community, so that the agencies involved in developing and promoting the benefits of urban agriculture may have a more complete understanding of the enterprise.

Notes

1. Eneyde Ponce de León and María Caridad Cruz Hernández, ‘Sistema verde y producción agrícola en la capital’. Instituto de Planificación Física, November 1985. Publicación de la I Jornada Científica Internacional sobre Planificación Regional y Urbana. Havana, Cuba.

2. Ibid.

3. Ministry of Agriculture. Lineamientos para los subprogramas de la Agricultura Urbana para el año 2001 y sistema evaluativo. Havana, Agroinform, 2000.

4. Mario González Novo. ‘Institucionalización de la Agricultura Urbana en la ciudad de La Habana’. April 2000.

5. Eneyde Ponce de León. ‘Políticas territoriales para el Esquema de Ordenamiento Territorial de la Ciudad de la Habana, 1998’. Havana, Dirección Provincial de Planificación Física, 1998.

6. Ibid.

7. Jorge Peña. ‘Estructura sustentable de la Agricultura Urbana’. Havana, Centro de Estudios Urbanos del ISPJAE. January 2001; Eneyde Ponce de León. ‘El verde al rescate de la ciudad’. Paper presented at the Seminario Internacional Ecocity Ecuador. Quito, July 2001.

Document(s) 2 of 13