Comparing environmental issues in Cuba before and after the Special Period: Balancing sustainable development and survival

Abstract

Following the Earth Summit in 1992, Cuba designed and implemented a variety of programs, administrative structures, and public awareness activities to promote sound environmental management and sustainable development. This came shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union and the strengthening of the US blockade in 1990, which resulted in a 35% drop in Cuban GDP. This period, referred to as the Special Period, witnessed a decrease in many environmentally damaging activities both by choice and by necessity, but also resulted in many decisions to resuscitate the Cuban economy. The purpose of this work was to compare and rank the environmental risks Cuba faced before and during the Special Period (1990–2000) using two Comparative environmental risk assessments (CERAs). To do so, an ecosystem integrity risk assessment matrix was constructed with 42 risk end points. The matrix assessed the risk posed by 17 problem areas including air pollution, water contamination, solid waste sites, pesticides and ecosystem degradation. The risks were calculated using five criteria: area affected, vulnerability of affected population, severity of impact, irreversibility of effect and uncertainty. To construct this matrix, both literature reviews and expert interviews in Cuba were conducted in 2000. The results showed a general decrease in risk scores during the Special Period. Before the Special Period, high risks were posed by: terrestrial degradation and industrial wastewater and sludge, followed by freshwater degradation, surface water stressors, and pesticides. After the Special Period, industrial wastewater and sludge and pesticides were no longer high-risk areas, but municipal wastewater and marine coastal degradation ranked higher than previously. Also, the risk endpoints most stressed after 1990 were affected by activities controlled by the government, such as mining and tourism, and lack of infrastructure. Therefore, the claims that public environmental education is the main pathway to sustainable development in Cuba seem uninformed and other management practices should be evaluated.