United States Department of Agriculture

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate 

Change: Shared Challenges 

in Agriculture, Forestry, and 

Opportunities for Collaboration

Stephen J. Fain, Kathleen McGinley, William A. Gould, Isabel K. Parés, 

and Grizelle González

Forest 

Service

International Institute 

of Tropical Forestry

General Technical Report

IITF-GTR-49

February

2020
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and 

institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating 

based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income 

derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior 

civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases 

apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should 

contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, 

program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html 

and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the 

information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. 

Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Authors 

Stephen J. Fain is a strategic analyst, Kathleen McGinley is a social scientist, 

William A. Gould is a research ecologist, Isabel K. Parés is an environmental 

scientist, and Grizelle González is a project leader and research ecologist, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, 1201 Calle Ceiba, Jardín Botaníco Sur, Río 

Piedras, PR 00926-1119.
Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: 

Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, 

and Opportunities for Collaboration

Stephen J. Fain, Kathleen McGinley, William A. Gould, Isabel K. 

Parés, and Grizelle González

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

International Institute of Tropical Forestry

San Juan, Puerto Rico 

General Technical Report IITF-GTR-49

February 2020

Abstract 

Fain, Stephen J.; McGinley, Kathleen; Gould, William A.; Parés, Isabel K.; 

González, Grizelle. 2020. Cuba, Puerto Rico, and climate change: shared 

challenges in agriculture, forestry, and opportunities for collaboration. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. IITF-GTR-49. San Juan, PR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry. 39 p.

Cuba and Puerto Rico have much in common and have been referred to in a poem 

by Lola Rodríguez de Tío as “...son de un pájaro las dos alas” (two wings of one 

bird). Throughout their histories, they have faced similar challenges in maintaining food security and ecosystem health. Global climate change now threatens both 

islands with parallel challenges to their similar cropping systems, forests, and 

producer demographics. Rising temperatures and resultant shifts in climate patterns 

have led to an increased occurrence of drought, punctuated by tropical storms and 

hurricanes of increasing intensity. Both Puerto Rico and Cuba have historically 

found innovative ways to harness the ingenuity and resilience of their people. Building new partnerships and frameworks for technology transfer, knowledge sharing, 

and innovation across the Caribbean islands has the potential to enhance adaptive 

capacity, food security, and ecosystem services, and to ensure that the islands are 

prepared for climatic changes in coming decades. This report provides a brief historical overview of the agricultural and forestry sectors in Cuba, outlines regional 

climate projections and their expected effects on working lands in both Cuba and 

Puerto Rico, and broadly assesses adaptive capacity and vulnerability, making suggestions for building adaptive and resilient working lands systems. 

Keywords: Cuba, Puerto Rico, climate change, agriculture, forestry, adaptive 

management. 

Executive Summary

Climate change is challenging farmers, ranchers, and foresters throughout the 

world, and particularly those in the working lands systems of the Caribbean. The 

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has long 

recognized the unique vulnerability of what are known as Small Island Developing 

Nations because of their exposure to extreme weather events and sea level rise, as 

well as their limited geographic and economic scale. Cuba and the U.S. Caribbean 

(Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) have experienced the damaging effects 

of increasing climate variability in recent years, with modeling efforts projecting 

an intensification of these trends in coming decades. High temperatures, drought, 

extreme rainfall, and damaging storm events are stressing many small-scale producers, which are often limited in their capacity to respond and adapt. In the U.S. 

Caribbean, the high costs of imported energy, feed, fuel, fertilizer, and machinery 

often disadvantage local producers operating on small margins and struggling to 

compete with large mainland-based agribusinesses. Navigating assistance programs 

and credit applications can be a significant barrier for many of these producers, 

resulting in underuse of some federal and local programs aimed at helping farmers 

recover from and prepare for climatic variability and change. 

To help address climate change vulnerability within working lands in the 

Caribbean, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Caribbean Climate Hub (CCH) 

was established in Puerto Rico with the mission of developing effective networks, 

techniques, and tools for the translation and dissemination of climate science information related to agriculture and forestry as well as corresponding best management practices. The CCH is working with its partners to refine and improve climate 

projections for the region and better understand what types of information and tools 

are effective in facilitating resilient working lands. Its staff believes that working 

with farmers, ranchers, and foresters at every stage to incorporate critical local 

knowledge is vital to developing climate science and support tools that are context 

specific, relevant, and timely. 

Cuba and Puerto Rico have much in common in terms of history, culture, 

geographic location, and climate, and now face similar challenges associated with 

climate change. Achieving food security in the Caribbean in an era of increasing 

droughts, rising temperatures, and market volatility will likely require creative solutions that work to bolster local production in sustainable and climate-resilient ways, 

as well as open new terms for equitable trade within the region. Opening avenues of 

information sharing and collaboration between these two islands will enhance their 

ability to successfully plan, adapt, and respond to the challenges of climate change. 
Climate Change: Effects, Projections, and Impacts on Agriculture 

and Forestry 

Many countries throughout Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region are 

facing comparable climate challenges to similar crop assemblages and producer 

demographics and have much to gain from building collaborative partnerships. 

From 2014 to 2016, a prolonged drought across Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands led to a reduction in crop yields, losses of livestock, and water rationing for 

hundreds of thousands of people, highlighting vulnerabilities within the region’s 

water management systems and the concomitant effects on the adaptive capacity 

of producers. Hurricanes Irma and María in September 2017 had significant effects 

on the communications, power supply, forests, and agriculture in Puerto Rico and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands. In Cuba, there is evidence that climate change effects are 

stressing the nation’s water supply, increasing erosion rates, decreasing crop yields, 

and amplifying the proliferation of vectors that cause disease, as well as contributing to a reduction in forest coverage. 

Current Regional Climate Change Effects 

The following is a list of regional climate change effects occuring in Puerto Rico, 

Cuba, and the U.S. Virgin Islands:

Increasing temperatures—

• Proliferation of pests and disease 

• Heat stress in livestock

• Increased rates of potential and real evapotranspiration 

• Increasing human health risks

Rising sea level—

• Salinization of coastal soils and aquifers 

• Loss of arable land

• Impacts on critical infrastructure

Shifting rainfall patterns—

• Increasing frequency of prolonged and severe droughts 

• Extreme rainfall events and intense storms 

• Increasing variability
Regional Projections1

Both Puerto Rico and Cuba are projected to experience increasing mean annual 

temperatures over the course of the 21st century. The projected range of increase 

varies according to the emission scenario and particular climate model used. 

Surface Air Temperatures—

Surface air temperatures are expected to rise between 2 to 9 °C (3.6 to 16.2 °F). 

Karmalkar et al. (2013) projected a 2 to 5 °C (3.6 to 9 °F) increase for the Latin 

American and Caribbean region based on the SRES A2 emission scenario. Interpolation of downscaled climate data for Puerto Rico has resulted in a much higher 

set of projections (7.5 to 9 °C [13.5 to 16.2 °F]) (see fig. 5 on p. 14). Either scenario 

presents acute challenges to the agricultural sectors of Puerto Rico and Cuba. 

Precipitation—

Significant drying trends with regional and seasonal variability is expected. 

Regional climate models show a drying trend characterized by a decrease in wet 

season precipitation. The decrease is generally higher for the early wet season (May 

through July) than the late wet season (August through November) and for the 

western Caribbean (Cuba) than the eastern Caribbean (Puerto Rico). 

Impacts to Agriculture and Forestry 

Projected impacts to agriculture and forestry include the following:

• Reduced water availability (heat stress, desiccation, reduced yields and 

productivity, reduced availability and nutrient content of forage)

• Proliferation of pests and disease 

• Increasing losses resulting from storm damage 

• Soil loss/degradation

• Increased production costs (energy, water, supplemental feed) 

• Reduction in arable land 

• Global market volatility

1 See appendix for more indepth discussion of regional projections.
Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerabilities 

The Cuba and Puerto Rico, along with other Caribbean island territories and 

nations, recognize the threat that climate change poses to food security and forest 

productivity, both globally and nationally, and have begun analyzing and addressing 

various vulnerabilities in their respective agricultural and forestry systems. In 2015, 

the Cuban government released its Segunda Comunicación Nacional a la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático (Second National 

Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) 

(Republic of Cuba 2015). The report inventories climate projections for the country, 

highlights current impacts and vulnerabilities, inventories greenhouse gas sinks and 

sources, and discusses impacts and vulnerabilities as well as adaptation and mitigation efforts and strategies. 

In Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth government convened the Puerto Rican 

Council on Climate Change in 2010 to assess the territory’s vulnerabilities and 

recommend strategies to respond to expected changes. The council published the 

first Puerto Rico State of the Climate report in 2013, assessing social and ecological 

vulnerabilities within the island at large. This report was followed by the CCH’s 

2015 assessment of vulnerabilities within the U.S. Caribbean’s agricultural and 

forestry sectors. These and other reports conducted by Oxfam International, the 

IPCC, and other groups highlight some common issues and vulnerabilities that 

may be more effectively addressed by expanding collaboration and strengthening 

regional ties (Gould et al. 2018). 

Shared vulnerabilities within Cuba and the U.S. Caribbean—

Shared vulnerabilities within Cuba and the U.S. Caribbean include the following:

• Limited water resources

• Soil conditions (degraded, prone to erosion) 

• Import dependency 

• High production costs 

• Limited adaptive capacity 

• Geographic and economic scale 

• Exposure to tropical storms/hurricanes 

• Climate-sensitive crops 
Adaptive Capacity— 

Cuba, the U.S. Caribbean territories, and other countries throughout the LAC 

region may be able to alleviate the most severe effects of climate change on working 

lands by effectively addressing vulnerabilities within water management systems 

and increasing adaptive capacity among producers. Water resources in both Cuba 

and the U.S. Caribbean are limited, and improving best practices in water management is an increasingly important strategy for improving adaptation to climate 

variability and change and reducing risks associated with water shortages. 

The ability of individual producers to adapt to climatic challenges depends 

largely on their ability to access accurate and region-specific information regarding 

climate projections and adaptive cultivation techniques, as well as access to the 

capital needed to implement changes. As such, addressing vulnerabilities to build 

adaptive capacity in working lands systems in the region will likely succeed only 

as part of more comprehensive, integrated effort that works to address the political, 

social, and economic environment in which these vulnerabilities have developed. 

Next Steps: Strategies for Moving Climate Science to the Field 

Responding to the myriad challenges that climate change poses to agriculture and 

forestry in Cuba and the U.S. Caribbean can be improved by a better understanding of climate processes to improve forecasting accuracy, as well as improved 

communication strategies to ensure that the right science gets to the right end 

user at the right time. Recent studies have found that, although improvements in 

forecast accuracy and specificity are still needed, current climate change support 

tools can be useful in building adaptive capacity but remain largely underutilized. 

To improve these tools and increase their usage, information is best when useful, 

relevant, and context specific. These objectives can be accomplished using collaborative approaches that engage farmers, ranches, and foresters in the planning 

and development stages, thus ensuring that the end product is tailored to the needs 

of the end-user group and that they are made aware that such products exist. 

Once climate projections and correlating support tools have been developed for a 

region, they are more effective when disseminated in a way that encourages usage 

among trusted advisers and producers. Caribbean island territories and nations 

have much to gain from sharing expertise in the realms of climate science development and dissemination. 
Contents

1 Introduction

1 Historical Context

6 Current Situation: Progress and Challenges

8 Climate Change: Projections and Effects on Agriculture and Forestry 

9	 Regional Effects

11 Regional Projections

15 Vulnerabilities and Adaptive Capacity

17 Vulnerabilities

19 Adaptive Capacity

21 Next Steps in Adaptive Management: Strategies for Moving Climate 

Science to the Field 

22 Communication and Knowledge Sharing

24 Conclusion

24 Acknowledgments

24 References

32 Appendix
1

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

Introduction1

The Cuban archipelago is formed by the island of Cuba, the Isle of Youth, and more 

than 1,600 islands, islets, and cays that have a total surface area of 110 860 square 

kilometers (42,803 square miles), making Cuba the largest country in the Caribbean 

(fig. 1). The country is divided into 15 provinces and 168 municipalities, including 

the special municipality of the Isle of Youth. As of 2016, 31 percent of Cuba was 

forested and 60 percent was in agricultural uses (FAO 2018). 

Most of the territory of Cuba has a tropical climate with a summer rainy 

season. Many parts of the country experience a mid-summer drought similar to 

that experienced in much of the Caribbean region. The average annual temperature 

ranges from 24 to 26 °C (74.2 to 78.8 °F), with the country’s two seasons being 

defined by a slightly warmer rainy season lasting from May to October and a less 

rainy, slightly cooler “winter” season from November to April. Average rainfall is 

1335 millimeters (52.6 inches); however, drought events are not uncommon, and 

some droughts may last several years (Republic of Cuba 2015).

In 2017, the Cuban population reached 11,484,636 inhabitants (FAO 2018), with a 

population density of more than 100 inhabitants per square kilometer (~265 inhabitants per square mile), 77 percent of whom lived in urban areas. Although the population grew steadily through much of the 20th century, population growth had slowed 

significantly by the early 2000s, dropping to near zero in recent years and projected 

to remain steady over the 2020s (World Factbook 2019). This shift is due in large 

part to declining birth rates, increasing life expectancy, and increasing emigration. 

Cuba and Puerto Rico are two of the few Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) 

countries or commonwealths with aging populations (Republic of Cuba 2015).

Historical Context

The histories of Puerto Rico and Cuba are intertwined with Spanish and American 

policies and influence, and have much in common. As the Spanish Empire expanded 

in the 16th century, both islands were colonized largely to serve as strategic naval 

outposts to help protect exports of precious metals from Central and South America. 

Both islands remained largely undeveloped and forested prior to the rise of sugarcane 

and other export crops in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (Dietz 1986, Rosset 

and Benjamin 1994). Both remained under Spanish rule for nearly 400 years until 

1 The historical and demographic sections of this report are focused primarily on Cuba. 

For a discussion of the history of agriculture and forestry within the U.S. territories in the 

Caribbean, refer to the U.S. Caribbean Climate Hub Regional Vulnerability Assessment at 

http://www.climatehubs.oce.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Caribbean%20Region%20Vulnerability%20Assessment%20Final.pdf.
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

the Cuban War of Independence (1895–1898), which culminated with the SpanishAmerican War in 1898, after which the United States took possession of both islands. 

In 1902, Cuba gained limited independence under President Tomas Estrada Palma, but 

the Platt Amendment kept the island under U.S. protection and gave the United States 

the right to intervene in Cuban affairs. In the early 1900s, U.S. corporate interests (primarily sugar companies) gained large land holdings and favorable trade agreements in 

both Cuba and Puerto Rico. As a result, much of the arable land base of both islands 

was converted to large sugarcane plantations (Dietz 1986). By the middle of the 20th

century, sugarcane accounted for half of the total land under cultivation in Cuba and 

produced around 6 million tons (5.4 million tonnes) of sugar per year, nearly 75 percent 

of Cuba’s total export at the time (Álvarez et al. 2006, Rosset and Benjamin 1994). 

Figure 1—The Caribbean region.

In the early 1900s, U.S. 

corporate interests 

converted much of 

the arable land base 

of both Cuba and 

Puerto Rico to large 

sugarcane plantations.
3

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

By the late 1950s, about 25 percent of the arable land in Cuba was under foreign 

control. In addition, large Cuban landholders and sugarcane plantations controlled 

more than 21 percent of the total land area (1.8 million hectares [4.4 million acres]). 

The rural middle class, lower-middle class, and land-holding peasant farmers owned 

only about 2.5 million hectares (~6.2 million acres). Consequently, 9 percent of the 

landowners in Cuba held more than 73 percent of the land (Álvarez et al. 2006). 

These inequalities in ownership and wealth distribution, along with other political 

and socioeconomic factors, led to the Cuban Revolution, which culminated in Prime 

Minister Fidel Castro’s rise to power in 1959. Land ownership and agricultural 

reforms were some of the Castro government’s first priorities. A series of reforms 

began with most of the large, privately held cattle ranches and sugarcane plantations 

being converted to state-administered farms in 1959 (Rosset and Benjamin 1994). 

As these reforms were enacted and the socialist movement strengthened, U.S. and 

other foreign-owned companies were nationalized, eventually prompting the initial 

U.S. embargo on exports to Cuba (with the exception of food and medicine) in 1960. 

A second agrarian reform in 1962 led to state control of approximately 68 percent of 

the arable land base (Álvarez et al. 2006). As tensions mounted between the United 

States and Cuba in the early 1960s, the United States banned imports of Cuban 

sugar, and Cuba deliberately began to diversify its agricultural sector to increase 

domestic food crops and supply. Preferential sugar prices and easing of trade with 

the Soviet Union diverted this process of diversification, as Cuba found it beneficial 

to continue exporting sugar and raw materials to the Soviet Union in exchange for 

petroleum, agricultural machinery, and chemical inputs (Rosset 1997). 

The Castro government also instituted a major reforestation initiative in the 

early 1960s that was intended to increase employment and economic opportunities 

in rural areas as well as address increasing soil and water concerns after decades of 

deforestation and intensive agricultural activity (Gebelein 2012). Between 1960 and 

1966, nearly 300 tree nurseries were constructed and about 348 million trees were 

planted, primarily Eucalyptus, Pinus, and Casuarina species (Díaz-Briquets 1996). 

Later, native species, particularly precious woods like mahogany (Swietenia spp.) 

and Spanish cedar (Cedrela odorata), were increasingly incorporated into reforestation efforts. Nevertheless, early reforestation efforts in Cuba had high failure rates, 

attributed largely to poor seed quality, inadequate species-site selection, and limited 

post-planting care and management (Álvarez Brito 1999).

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, trade agreements with the Soviet Union and 

other communist states in Central and Eastern Europe (the Eastern Bloc) enabled 

Cuba to pursue a “modern” agricultural system characterized by intensive, industrial production technologies driven largely by external inputs (Funes-Monzote 
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

2008). By the late 1980s, agricultural production in Cuba more closely resembled 

that of the central valley of California than other countries in the LAC region. 

Although this production model temporarily boosted yields, it also had profound 

environmental, political, and socioeconomic ramifications. As soils degraded, 

yields began to decrease. Mechanization of farm labor contributed to an increasing urban migration of the population (69 percent of Cubans were living in urban 

areas by 1989) (Funes-Monzote 2008), and Cuban leaders became increasingly 

disillusioned with the growing level of import dependency (Rosset and Benjamin 

1994). To address the situation, the government adopted the National Food Program 

in 1989 (prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union) with the main goal of increasing 

production of various fruits and vegetables (Rosset and Benjamin 1994). 

In 1989, increasing food insecurity was amplified dramatically by the collapse of 

the Soviet Union and East Germany and the tightening of trade restrictions by the 

United States.2 Prior to dissolution of the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc states had 

comprised as much as 85 percent of Cuba’s total trade. Cuba had depended on trade 

with these countries for everything from fuel and food to machinery and spare parts. 

Subsequently, agricultural activities as well as food imports were severely disrupted. 

Cuba’s gross domestic product fell by almost 50 percent, and total imports were 

reduced by 75 percent (Rosset 1997). Because the inputs and machinery on which 

the agricultural sector had come to depend became increasingly scarce, crop production significantly declined, and forests became increasingly important sources of 

fuel, food, medicine, and building materials, as well as significant for recreation and 

respite (Álvarez Brito 1999). In 1991, the Cuban government declared a “Special 

Period in Peacetime” that effectively enacted wartime austerity measures. Food 

shortages during what became known as simply the “Special Period” from 1991 to 

1994 resulted in a sharp drop in the caloric intake of the average Cuban (Franco et 

al. 2007). Increasing pressures on forests for fuel and wood products during this 

time ultimately led to a reversal in the island’s post-sugar-boom forest recovery. 

The substantial reduction in import capabilities compelled Cuba to accelerate 

an agricultural reinvention process that had already begun in the mid to late 1980s. 

Likewise, as forests and other environmental conditions declined and global norms 

on conservation and sustainable development increased, awareness of the need for 

greater environmental protections grew within Cuba. In comments made to the 5th

Congress of the National System of Agriculture and Forestry Technicians in 1991, 

Fidel Castro said, “We must produce more food without feedstock and without 

2 In 1992, the U.S. Congress passed the Torricelli Bill, which barred shipments to Cuba of 

food and medical supplies by overseas subsidiaries of U.S. companies. Later, the HelmsBurton Act (1996) restricted foreign investment in Cuba.
5

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

fertilizers. We must plan 1992 as if we had none available. The little fertilizer that 

has been available has been dedicated to rice, plantains, viandas (roots and tubers), 

and vegetables: those foodstuffs that are produced directly in the countryside” 

(Rosset and Benjamin 1994: 33). Policies and laws shifted to promote diversified 

food production and environmental protections. These included the comprehensive 

“Law of the Environment,” which contained chapters on air, water, forests, biodiversity, parks, planning, research, and technology, among other topics, as well as 

the comprehensive 1998 Forestry Act, which addressed forest use and management, 

funding and fiscal instruments, and reinvigoration of the reforestation initiative 

created in the early 1960s (Houck 2000). 

The dilemma that Cuba faced after the fall of the Soviet Union was very similar 

to that which now faces Puerto Rico and much of the Caribbean in light of environmental and economic vulnerabilities posed by climate change and import dependency. That is, how can they reinvent a resilient local food system without relying 

on costly imported synthetic fertilizers and petroleum? 

Cuba’s strategy for transitioning the country’s food system away from import 

dependency has been varied, but has resulted in many large state-held farms being 

returned to various forms of farmer cooperatives (fig. 2), in large part through the 

creation of the Basic Units of Cooperative Production in 1993 (Funes et al. 2002). 

Throughout the 1980s, Cuba invested significantly in human resources and 

was thus equipped with a robust agricultural research sector when food shortages 

began to intensify in the latter part of the decade (Rosset and Benjamin 1994). 

STATE SECTOR

MIXED SECTOR

NON-STATE 

SECTOR

• State farms

• New-type state farms (GENT)

• Revolution Armed Forces (FAR) farms,

including farms of the Young Workers’ Army

(EJT) and the Ministry of the Interior (MININT)

• Self-provisioning farms at workplaces and 

public institutions

Non-state

sector

collective

Individual

production

• Basic Units of Cooperative Production (UBPC)

• Agricultural Production Cooperatives (CPA)

• Joint ventures betwee the state and

foreign capital

• Credit and Service Cooperatives (CCS)

• Individual farmers, in usufruct

• Individual farmers, private property

Figure 2—Post-1993 forms of agricultural organization in Cuba. Adapted from Funes et al. (2002).

The dilemma Cuba 

faced after the fall of 

the Soviet Union was 

similar to that now 

facing much of the 

Caribbean in light of 

vulnerabilities posed 

by climate change and 

import dependency: 

to reinvent a resilient 

local food system.
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

Researchers and farmers worked together to implement a number of “new” agricultural technologies such as biofertilizers, as well as reverting to more traditional 

agroecological techniques such as the use of earthworms, intercropping (which 

previously had been prohibited), composting, and silvopasture (Álvarez et al. 2006). 

These strategies were accompanied by new methods of agricultural extension that 

enhanced the flow of information using new and existing cooperatives as a platform 

for farmers to share information with each other as well as researchers (Rosset et al. 

2011). By 1999, Cuba had become one of the top food producers in Latin America 

and the Caribbean. The country boasted an annual production growth rate of 4.2 

percent per capita from 1996 through 2005, a period in which the regional average was zero percent (Altieri and Funes-Monzote 2012). By 2006, small farmers 

forming the ranks of the National Association of Small Farmers (ANAP acronym 

in Spanish), working through various cooperatives, were producing 65 percent of 

the country’s food supply from only 25 percent of its agricultural land base. These 

production increases came despite a 72 percent reduction in agrochemical use from 

1988 levels (Altieri and Funes-Monzote 2012).

Current Situation: Progress and Challenges

As in Puerto Rico, Cuba’s forests also have been recovering in the post-sugar-boom 

era, increasing from about 14 percent of total area in 1959 to 28 percent in 2013. 

This is due in part to natural regeneration of abandoned agricultural areas as well 

as extensive, long-term reforestation initiatives. More than 30 percent of Cuba’s forest area is reserved as productive forest (70.5 percent natural, 29.5 percent planted), 

and 69 percent is reserved as “protected forest” for natural reserves, recreation, 

watershed protection, and other ecosystem services (MINAG 2013). Cuba has the 

highest proportion of its forest cover designated for protective functions in the 

LAC region (FAO 2011). Moreover, forest area has continued to increase in the past 

decade or so, while cultivated agricultural areas are increasing as well (MINAG 

2013). Restoration of land affected by open mining in northern Cuba, mangrove 

reforestation and restoration along the coast, and restoration of endangered native 

forest species are among the top priorities in the current national reforestation 

system (MINAG 2013). Forestry programs also promote agroforestry practices 

that intermix fruit and fast-growth timber species, community tree planting, and 

urban forestry. Yet, also in a way similar to Puerto Rico, some issues persist in the 

Cuban forest sector, particularly in terms of limited use of silvicultural treatments 

in productive forests, low productivity in some areas and forest types, poor speciessite selection, and inadequate or insufficient seed sources. Many of these issues are 

likely to be compounded in the context of climate change (Republic of Cuba 2014). 
7

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

Urban agriculture in Cuba also has expanded rapidly since the late 1980s, a great 

learning opportunity for Puerto Rico and other territories and countries in the 

region. An estimated 383,000 urban farms in Cuba cover roughly 50000 hectares 

(124,000 acres) and produce more than 1.5 million metric tons (1.7 million tons) of 

vegetables. The highest producing urban farms reach a yield of 20 kilograms per 

square meter (4.1 pounds per square foot) per year of edible plant material using 

little to no synthetic chemicals, yields equivalent to 100 metric tons per hectare (112 

tons per hectare). Some sources attribute up to 70 percent or more of the fresh 

vegetable supply in cities such as Havana and Villa Clara to urban sources (Altieri 

and Funes-Monzote 2012). Cornelius Blanding, executive director of the Federation 

of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund in the United States, has been working with Cuban cooperatives since 1999 and has said that urban agriculture is the 

Cuban model that holds the most promise for the United States and other countries.3

The successes associated with Cuba’s agroecological research and productivity, 

along with innovative farmer organizational schemes, are of increasing interest in 

the LAC region and around the world. Cuba has achieved a high level of productivity 

and resilience with various forms of agriculture that harness and enhance ecosystem 

services like biodiversity, reduce food miles and energy use, and effectively close 

local production and consumption cycles (Funes-Monzote 2008). By securing these 

achievements in response to an economic and political crisis, Cuba may have provided 

Puerto Rico and other nations and territories with a valuable “road map” for transitioning agricultural systems toward models that simultaneously address climate change 

concerns, while working to improve socioeconomic issues such as food security and 

import dependency, unemployment, high production costs, and poor public health, as 

well as addressing many ecological problems like soil degradation and erosion, water 

pollution, and loss of biodiversity. These issues collectively represent much of what 

contributes to elevated levels of climate change vulnerability in the socioecological 

systems of Puerto Rico and throughout the LAC region (Gould et al. 2015). 

However, despite Cuba’s considerable advances in organic agriculture, challenges remain. Some sources cite high food import statistics as evidence that a 

lack of access to modern farming technology has led to relatively low productivity 

in many areas of the country and high postharvest losses resulting from problems 

with storage, inefficient supply chains, and other issues (WFP 2015). The World 

Food Programme reports the presence of persistent anemia and other micronutrient 

deficiencies—particularly in the country’s five eastern provinces, where adverse 

3 Blanding’s comments were made during a 2016 panel discussion entitled “Cultivating 

Dialogue: U.S. and Cuban Agricultural Cooperatives,” hosted by American University in 

Washington, DC. 

Urban agriculture in 

Cuba has expanded 

rapidly since the 

late 1980s, a great 

learning opportunity 

for other territories and 

countries in the region.
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

climate conditions can make agricultural production particularly challenging (WFP 

2015). Although sources disagree on the total level of Cuban food import dependency, some statistics place the number as high as 70 to 80 percent, while others 

contend that these statistics apply only to certain staple foods such as rice and oil 

that the country struggles to produce in sufficient quantity (Altieri and Funes-Monzote 2012). Since resuming restricted agricultural trade with Cuba in 2002, the U.S. 

share of food imports has grown to around 30 percent. Puerto Rico imports about 

80 percent of its food, largely from the U.S. mainland. Because of their proximity 

(Cuba) and open trade status (Puerto Rico), it can be difficult for local farmers to 

compete with subsidized and mass-produced agricultural goods imported from the 

U.S. mainland. Because of their limited geographic and economic scale, both Cuba 

and Puerto Rico have found it difficult to build and maintain a semiautonomous 

food system without reliance on imported inputs, machinery, fuel, and processing 

equipment. Cuba is increasingly becoming part of a highly integrated global food 

system in which climate change is projected to result in more frequent disruptions 

of food production and distribution that will lead to increased overall food prices 

(Brown et al. 2015, Reidmiller et al. 2018). Improving methods of postharvest food 

storage, transportation, and distribution are likely to be key intervention points in 

improving food security in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and throughout the world in the face 

of climate change (Brown et al. 2015). For island nations and territories like Cuba 

and Puerto Rico, achieving food security is a difficult challenge that requires balancing access to imported food and technology, while empowering optimal levels of 

local production, innovation, and self-reliance. 

Climate Change: Projections and Effects on Agriculture 

and Forestry 

Many countries throughout the LAC region face comparable climate challenges to 

similar crop assemblages and producer demographics, and have much to learn from the 

other’s successes and failures. The effects of climate change are presenting a myriad of 

new challenges as well as exacerbating issues that farmers have long dealt with, such 

as extreme weather events, water shortages, and insect outbreaks (Gould et al. 2015). 

These challenges are accelerating even as concerns over environmental degradation, 

import dependency, and food security are increasing the need for more locally based 

and ecologically aligned food production and distribution systems (FAO, IFAD, and 

WFP 2014). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has joined the United 

Nations and other international nongovernmental organizations in pursuing strategies 

that simultaneously mitigate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) that are accelerating 

global climate change, while improving food security worldwide (USDA 2016).
9

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

Regional Effects 

As in many areas of the world, Cuba and Puerto Rico have already begun experiencing the local effects of global climate change (Gould et al. 2018, Nurse et al. 

2014). These trends and events are having an effect on agriculture and forestry in 

a variety of ways (Gould et al. 2015, Jennings et al. 2014). In Puerto Rico, heavy 

rainfall events are becoming more common, leading to increases in soil erosion 

and flooding (Jennings et al. 2014). Average temperatures throughout the Caribbean have increased over the past 40 years, with Puerto Rico experiencing the 

same number of days at or above 32.2 °C (90 °F) in 2010–2011 as it had per decade 

from 1900 to 1949 (PRCCC 2013). Higher temperatures, changes in precipitation 

patterns, and any alteration in cloud cover will begin to increasingly affect the 

distribution and health of plant communities and ecosystem processes in critical 

agricultural and forest communities, with increasing nighttime temperatures having 

the potential to affect tropical tree growth and induce mortality (Gould et al. 2015, 

Jennings et al. 2014). Intensified extreme weather events and progressively drier 

summer months in the Caribbean are expected to alter the distribution of tropical 

forest life zones (Jennings et al. 2014).

In Cuba, there is evidence that the effects of climate change are already 

stressing the nation’s water supply, increasing erosion rates, decreasing crop 

yields, amplifying the proliferation of vectors that cause disease, and contributing 

to changes in forest coverage (Oxfam Canada 2011). Both Cuba and Puerto Rico 

have experienced severe and prolonged droughts in recent years, with profound 

effects on livestock, crop production, and water availability. Between 1960 and 

2000, average precipitation in Cuba decreased between 10 and 20 percent (Oxfam 

Canada 2011). 

A prolonged drought across Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands from 2014 

to 2016 led to a reduction in crop yields, losses of livestock, and water rationing for 

hundreds of thousands of residences, highlighting vulnerabilities within the region’s 

water management systems and how they affect the adaptive capacity of producers 

(Álvarez-Berríos et al. 2018, Gould et al. 2015). Dairy is a very important agroindustry in Puerto Rico and St. Croix in particular, generating millions of dollars in 

revenue and more than 25,000 direct and indirect jobs (Ortiz-Colón et al. 2018). As 

intense heat and lack of rain withered grasses in the summer of 2015, producers 

in the U.S. Virgin Islands were forced to take measures ranging from collecting 

tree limbs and branches for fodder to relying on imported feed and culling herds. 

Pastures were so overtaxed that many needed to be resown completely at great cost 
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

to farmers. In Puerto Rico, ranchers saw their production costs rise as they were 

forced to rely ever more heavily on expensive imported feed. On the heels of this 

devastating drought, Puerto Rico and many other vulnerable island territories or 

nations in the region experienced a series of damaging storms, culminating in the 

historic hurricane season of 2017. A preliminary assessment report from the Puerto 

Rico Department of Agriculture estimated agricultural losses from hurricanes 

Irma and María to exceed $230 million (PRDA 2018). Particularly hard hit were the 

economically important but wind-damage-prone coffee and plantain crops. Unfortunately, regional climate models project more of these boom-and-bust rainfall 

cycles in which prolonged periods of drought are punctuated by intense storm and 

rainfall events. 

Eastern Cuba likewise suffered a prolonged drought from 2003 to 2007 that 

resulted in extensive livestock mortality, crop yield losses, and the 300,000 inhabitants of Holguín being forced to rely on water trucked in from outside sources 

(Oxfam Canada 2011). On the heels of this devastating drought, Cuba experienced 

the most destructive hurricane season in its recorded history. In less than a month 

in 2008, three major hurricanes and a tropical storm affected the country, wreaking havoc on many of Cuba’s primary crops and growing regions and leading to 

an increase in food imports (Messina 2009). This cycle of extremes has continued 

into recent years with a damaging drought in 2014–2015, followed by heavy rains 

associated with a strong El Niño oscillation in 2016 (WFP 2015) and widespread 

damage from Hurricane Irma in 2017 (Van Beusekom et al. 2018). From 2007 to 

2015, climate hazards caused more than $20 billion in damages in Cuba, increasing 

its import dependency and negatively affecting food security and its ability to build 

more resilient working land systems (WFP 2015). Estimated damages for Hurricane 

Maria alone totaled between $27 and $48 billion for the Caribbean region, with 

estimates in Puerto Rico ranging from $25 to $43 billion (in 2017 dollars) (Gould et 

al. 2018).

This trend of prolonged droughts punctuated by intense rainfall and storm 

events is aligned with climate model projections for the region and highlights the 

vulnerability of water supplies and management systems. Important aquifers on 

both islands are increasingly exposed to salt water intrusion from rising sea levels, 

thus compounding threats to water supplies (Gould et al. 2018). Studies conducted 

by the Cuban government found that, even under a favorable climate scenario 

regarding water, its potential availability in 2100 could be reduced by 37 percent 

compared to a 1961 to 1990 baseline (Republic of Cuba 2015).
11

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

Regional Projections

In 2015, the Cuban government released the Segunda Comunicación Nacional a 

la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático (Second 

National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change) (Republic of Cuba 2015). The report inventoried climate projections for the 

country and GHG sinks and sources, highlighted current effects and vulnerabilities, 

and discussed the effects of and vulnerabilities to climate change as well as adaptation 

and mitigation efforts and strategies. The report reached the following conclusions:

Based on different climate models including regional models, the results 

were consistent with the trends and climatic features already described; showing 

a warmer, dryer and extreme climate at the end of the 21st century. The future 

climate of the country may be characterized by the following changes: a mean 

air temperature rise of up to 4 °C (72 °F), with a decrease in annual rainfall that, 

depending on the scenario, would range between 15 and 63 percent, accompanied 

by an increase in the potential of evapotranspiration and real evaporation. This 

would lead to a progressive decline in both net primary productivity of terrestrial 

and agricultural ecosystems as well as potential biomass density. Dry subhumid 

climates will embrace a wider area from the eastern to the western portion of 

the island; massifs in the eastern mountainous area of the country will have dry 

subhumid climates, susceptible to desertification. Under current climate trends 

and scenarios considered for the next 100 years, there will be a deterioration of 

the overall environment quality. As a result, there will be a reduction of the water 

potential on a regional scale, loss of land in low-lying coastal areas, land degradation, a decrease of the agricultural yield in key crops of the national diet, loss of 

biodiversity mainly in coastal areas, a negative effect on coastal human settlements, an increase in communicable diseases, and the consequent negative impact 

on all economic activities in general. In a favorable climate scenario regarding 

water, its potential availability in 2100 could be reduced to 24 km3

 (5.6 mi3), 37 

percent less compared to the 1961–1990 baseline. In any of the climate scenarios, 

the water balance shows a significant reduction in water potential. (Republic of 

Cuba 2015: 9).

The report goes on to emphasize that Cuba’s “...water resources sector will 

be one of the most severely affected, which will have major implications on other 

resources and sectors. In the future, the competition between the availability of 

water and the increasing human demand will expand” (Republic of Cuba 2015: 10).
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

These projections are generally aligned with expected changes throughout 

the Caribbean, where warming and drying trends are expected to be prominent 

throughout the next century (fig. 3)

In Puerto Rico, recent downscaling of global climate models has revealed steep 

rates of warming (fig. 4) and drying beyond those of expected global averages 

and the potential for shifting life zones (fig. 5) and species distributions (Henareh 

Khalyani et al. 2016, 2019) (see appendix).

2.9 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7

2.8 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6

2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4

2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4

2.9 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4

3.5 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4

3.3 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.2 3 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6

2.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.3 4 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7

2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2 2

2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7

2.1 1.9 1.9 2 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5

2.4 2 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

2.1 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.8 2 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.8

 2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.1

3.2 3.5 3.6 3.2 3.1 3 3.1 3.1 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3

 3 3.2 3.6 4 3.4 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 3 3 3 3.1

 3 3 3.5 4.1 4 3.7 3.4 2.9 3 3 2.9 2.9 3

2.9 3 3.1 3 3.2 3.3 3.1 3 3 3 3 3 3.1

4.2 3.8 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3 3 3.1 3.1 3.1

 5 4.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2

4.4 4.1 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.7 4 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.3 3.2

3.5 4.1 4.2 3.8 4.8 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.3 5.2 4.7 3.7 3.3

2

2.25

2.5

2.75

3

3.25

3.5

3.75

4

A

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

B C 6

[2080−89(SRES A2) − 1970−89], SAT (°C), ANN

[2080−89(SRES A2) − 1970−89], RCM−H SAT (°C), ANN [2080−89(SRES A2) − 1970−89], RCM−E SAT (°C), ANN

24° N

24° N

20° N

16° N

12° N

8° N

24° N

20° N

16° N

12° N

8° N

20° N

16° N

12° N

8° N

84° W

84° W 78° W 72° W 66° W 60° W 84° W 78° W 72° W 66° W 60° W

84° W 84° W 84° W 60° W

[°C]

[oC] [oC]

Figure 3—Projected change in mean annual surface air temperature (°C) by the 2080s under the SRES A2 scenario in (A) 

CMIP3 multimodel ensemble, (B) RCM-H, and (C) RCM-E. Projected change by the 2080s is relative to the mean climate 

of 1970–1989. In (A), for every grid box, the color indicates ensemble mean projection, the value at the center indicates 

ensemble median projection, and values at the bottom-left and top-right corners indicate ensemble minimum and maximum 

projections, respectively. From Karmalkar (2013).

In Puerto Rico, recent 

downscaling of global 

climate models has 

revealed steep rates 

of warming and 

drying beyond those 

of expected global 

averages.
13

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

Figure 4—Projected increase in mean temperature for Puerto Rico. From Henareh Khalyani et al. (2016).
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

Figure 5—Projected migration of life zones in Puerto Rico. From Henareh Khalyani et al. (2016).
15

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

Vulnerabilities and Adaptive Capacity

Much of the Caribbean region is especially vulnerable to the effects of climate 

change (table 1) because of its exposure to extreme weather events, its geographic 

and economic scale, and its reliance on tourism and imported goods (Gould et al. 

2018, Nurse et al. 2014). The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) has deemed climate change to be a serious threat to agriculture 

and food security worldwide and has identified the food systems of small island 

nations within the Caribbean as being particularly vulnerable to its effects (Barker 

2012, Nurse et al. 2014). The USDA acknowledges that climate change has the 

potential to affect the advancement of its mission and core obligation “to provide 

leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, 

and related issues...” (USDA 2014). Likewise, the Cuban government anticipates 

future agriculture to develop in an “adverse climate environment,” negatively 

affecting the phenology of plants, availability of arable land, water availability, and 

overall yield (Republic of Cuba 2015). Both governments have released reports in 

recent years recognizing the need for increased innovation and adaptation both to 

mitigate GHG emissions from agricultural operations and build resiliency into 

systems that will be increasingly stressed in years to come (Gowda et al. 2018, 

Republic of Cuba 2015).4

 Over the next 25 years, a diverse range of effects of 

climate change on agriculture and forestry in North America are expected, 

depending on location and cropping systems (Walthall et al. 2013), to result in an 

overall drop in productivity to pre-1980 levels by 2050 (Gowda et al. 2018). Emerging regional climate models and downscaling of the resultant data are highlighting 

a decidedly challenging outlook for agriculture in the Caribbean (Henareh 

Khalyani et al. 2016, Karmalkar et al. 2013). The overall effects, particularly over 

the long term, may depend largely on the severity of overall warming and the 

adaptive actions taken by land managers and producers in the near term (Gowda et 

al. 2018, Walthall et al. 2013). The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has documented how climate change is expected to adversely affect 

global food security (FAO 2008, IPCC 2014). Likewise, the USDA holds that 

“Climate change is very likely to affect global, regional, and local food security by 

disrupting food availability, decreasing access to food, and making utilization 

more difficult” (Brown et al. 2015). There is widespread agreement that effective 

adaptation and mitigation efforts will be necessary at all levels of food production 

and supply chains to alleviate the most potentially detrimental effects of climate 

change in the 21st century. 

4 Cuba’s Third National Report to the United Nations is slated to be published in 2020.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

Table 1—Summary of climate projections and effects on agriculture and forestry for Cuba and Puerto RicoClimate projection Temperature Precipitation Sea level 

Sea-surface temperatures 

Climatic disturbances/ extreme events 

Effects on agriculture andforestry 

Cuba +2 to +5 °C 

(projected by 

2100—see fig. 2)a

-15 to -63 percentb

(see appendix for 

seasonal projections) 

+9 to +15 cm 

(0.3 to 0.49 ft) by 2030;

+17 to +27 cm 

(0.56 to 0.89 ft) by 2050c;

+85 cm 

(2.79 ft) by 2100 

+1.5 °C over 

20th centuryd

More coral bleaching 

events; more drought and extreme rainfall events (>3 inches of rain in 24 hours); greater intensity of hurricanes 

Higher cost of production 

and more heat stress in livestock, crops, and trees; more pests and disease; more exposure to weather extremes 

Puerto Rico +0.8 °C by 2050; 

+2 to +5 °C by 

2100d +4.9 to +9 

°C by 2100e

General drying 

trend with regional 

variationf

+.07 to +.57 m 

(.2 to 1.87 ft) by 2060; 

0.14 to +1.7 m 

(.4 to 5.59 ft) by 2110f

+1.5 °C over 20th

century; +1.17 °C by 2050d

More drought and extreme 

rainfall events; greater intensity of hurricanes; more extreme heat days (>32.2 °C); more coral bleaching events

Less water availability; 

lower yields per unit of input; less crop suitability; less arable land; less available forage

a Campbell (2011). b Decrease in annual average by 2100 relative to 1961–1990 baseline (Republic of Cuba 2015).c Centella et al. (2008).d Puerto Rico Climate Change Council (2013). e Henareh Khalyani et al. (2016).f See Henareh Khalyani et al. (2016) for projections and discussion of uncertainty.
17

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

Vulnerabilities

Vulnerability to the effects of climate change and other systemic disturbances has 

been conceptualized as being composed of a given system’s exposure and sensitivity to disturbance, as well as its adaptive capacity (see fig. 6) (Adger 2006). In this 

way, vulnerability to climate change encompasses biophysical interactions (i.e., 

how a reduction in rainfall may affect a certain crop), as well as the human dimensions that dictate the will and capacity to adapt (i.e., whether producers possess 

the resources and information needed to plan for changes and adjust practices). 

In both Cuba and Puerto Rico, shifting rainfall patterns have affected many 

important crops and growing regions with periods of persistent drought being followed by heavy rains, tropical storms, and hurricanes. Adaptation to these changes 

is particularly challenging given that many areas of the islands have long relied 

on rainfall, as opposed to river diversions or irrigation from groundwater sources, 

because of a lack of existing storage and distribution infrastructure. These areas 

may also be susceptible to damage from extreme weather. A series of destructive 

hurricanes in 2008 complicated Cuba’s efforts to recover from a prolonged drought 

(2003–2007) and led to an increase in food imports (Altieri and Funes-Monzote 

2012, Oxfam Canada 2011). The Puerto Rican agriculture sector suffered a similar 

chain of events in 2015 when severe drought was followed by years of extreme hurricane and tropical storm activity that culminated with Hurricanes Irma and Maria 

in 2017. These examples illustrate how the various effects of climate change can 

exacerbate existing vulnerabilities within a system—creating a negative feedback 

loop in which each sequential drought, storm, or insect outbreak weakens a producer or sector’s ability to adapt and respond to future challenges. 

These climatic events have compounding effects on agricultural production, with 

strong social, cultural, and economic implications that reverberate throughout all 

Exposure Sensitivity Operating

context

Knowledge

and options

Individual

capability

Potential impact Adaptive capacity

Vulnerability

Figure 6—Components of vulnerability (adapted from Marshal 2010).
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

aspects of life in the region. If alternative employment opportunities are not available 

to displaced agricultural workers, fluxes in emigration can be the result (Feng et al. 

2010). The patterns of emigration being experienced by some Central American countries are similar to those being experienced by Puerto Rico, which has been losing 

vital portions of its population for several years. Although immigration and emigration are an integral part of the shifting cultural landscape of any country or territory, 

large emigrations resulting from crisis or loss of economic opportunity can have 

profound and lasting effects on internal political and economic realities, as well as on 

the political stability of an entire geopolitical region. The loss of significant portions 

of the labor force of any country affects what types of activities may be possible in 

the future, and also disperses families, which form the fabric of a society. Situations 

such as this illustrate how of the challenges of climate change transcend traditional 

disciplinary and geopolitical boundaries to affect every aspect of human life. 

Table 2 represents a qualitatively based evaluation regarding levels of exposure, 

sensitivity, and adaptive capacity to various effects of climate change in Cuba and 

Puerto Rico. Cuba, Puerto Rico, and other countries and territories throughout 

Table 2—Summary of climate change effects and agricultural vulnerability in Puerto Rico and Cuba 

Climate effect Exposure Sensitivity Adaptive capacity

Increasing 

temperatures

High—equal or above global 

average warming, potentially 

as high as +9 °C in Puerto 

Rico

Moderate to high—many 

tropical crops exhibit a high 

level of temperature sensitivity 

Moderate at lower projected 

increases

Very low at highest projections 

(+9 °C)

Decreasing 

precipitation

High—increasing instances of 

severe drought observed

High—tropical crops are more 

susceptible to desiccation 

Moderate—Cuba is investing 

heavily in water management

Changing 

precipitation 

patterns

Moderate—projected decrease 

in early wet-season; greater 

percentage of annual average 

delivered in extreme events

Moderate to high—can affect 

phenology of crops as well as 

pests and disease

Moderate—may be able to invest 

in infrastructure to collect, store, 

and distribute rainwater

Seal level rise Moderate to high—both Cuba 

and Puerto Rico have key 

agricultural lands in low-lying 

coastal areas

High—coastal aquifers and 

agricultural soils susceptible 

to salinization

Low—extent of sea level rise 

largely dependent on global 

greenhouse gas mitigation efforts 

Extreme events Moderate to high—projected 

increase in extreme drought, 

precipitation, and heat 

events; projected decrease in 

hurricane frequency; increase 

in intensity 

High—key crops such as 

coffee and plantains are very 

susceptible to wind damage; 

severe drought and heat events 

have compounding affect

Moderate—certain cultivation 

practices (agroforestry, 

contouring, etc.) and 

infrastructure modifications have 

the potential to alleviate effects

Note: Ratings are qualitative and based on author analysis of relevant literature. Levels (very low to high) are determined by comparing Puerto Rico and 

Cuba to other regions such as North America and the European Union.
19

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

the LAC region may be able to alleviate the most severe effects of climate change 

by working to increase the adaptive capacity of producers in the region. Adaptive 

capacity encompasses all the environmental and socioeconomic factors that enable 

an individual or organization to effectively plan, adapt, and respond to changing 

conditions. These factors include the political and cultural context within which an 

agricultural system is embedded as well as the knowledge, options, and individual 

capabilities of the producers, advisors, distributors/suppliers, and policymakers who 

comprise a given food system (Adger 2006, Marshall 2010). 

Adaptive Capacity

Both Cuba and Puerto Rico have considerable institutional capacity dedicated to 

helping build the adaptive capacity of their forestry and agricultural sectors. The 

USDA Caribbean Climate Hub (CCH) has conducted a vulnerability assessment 

specific to agriculture and forestry in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, but 

perhaps applicable throughout much of the LAC region (Gould et al. 2015). The 

assessment draws attention to how climatic vulnerabilities within agricultural and 

forest systems are connected to the broader socioeconomic environment in which 

they are embedded. As such, addressing vulnerabilities to build adaptive capacity 

in working lands systems in the region will likely only succeed as part of more 

comprehensive, integrated efforts that address the political, social, and economic 

environment in which they arose. 

A large group of national sectoral programs in Cuba have a mission to contribute to climate change adaptation. Most prominent are the National Forestry 

Program (Programa Forestal Nacional); Program for the Rational Use and Saving 

of Water (Programa de Uso Racional y Ahorro del Agua); Soil Improvement and 

Conservation Program (Programa de Mejoramiento y Conservación de los Suelos); Program to Combat Desertification and Drought Based on Sustainable Land 

Management (Programa de Lucha Contra la Desertificación y la Sequía Basado en 

el Manejo Sostenible de Tierras); and Disease-Transmitting Vector Control Program (Programa de Lucha contra Vectores Trasmisores de Enfermedades), which 

includes controlling invasive and other species (Republic of Cuba 2015).

In Puerto Rico, the commonwealth government convened the Puerto Rican 

Council on Climate Change (PRCCC) in 2010 to assess the territory’s vulnerabilities and recommend strategies to respond to expected changes. The council 

published the first Puerto Rico’s State of the Climate report in 2013 assessing 

the socioecological vulnerabilities within the island at large (PRCCC 2015). In 

2014, the USDA established a network of “climate hubs” to deliver science-based 

knowledge and practical information to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners to 

assist their efforts to adapt to climate change. The CCH was established at the U.S. 

Forest Service’s research facility, the International Institute for Tropical Forestry 

Adaptive capacity 

encompasses all 

the environmental 

and socioeconomic 

factors that enable 

an individual or 

organization to 

effectively plan, 

adapt, and respond to 

changing conditions.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

(IITF) in Río Piedras, Puerto Rico, to serve working lands in Puerto Rico, the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and the LAC region at large.5 In addition, IITF’s research program 

on climate change consists of experiments, monitoring, and modeling of tropical 

forests and cities.

Experiments include the following:

• Canopy trimming experiment: anticipating the effects of increased hurricane frequency on tropical forests6

• Tropical Responses to Altered Climate Experiment (TRACE),7 the first 

warming experiment for tropical forests 

• Drought experiments anticipating the effects of drought on tropical forests

• Fire experiments: the effects of fires on pasture dynamics

Monitoring:

• Climate change effects on elevational gradients in the Luquillo Mountains8

• More than 50,000 trees tagged and monitored in many types of environments to assess their response to climate change

• Urban plots to assess social and ecological responses to climate change 

conditions

Modeling:

• Developing future climate scenarios for the Caribbean based on global models

• Modeling tropical forests under the effects of climate change

• Modeling urban systems to integrate green and grey solutions to city resilience

Established in 1939, IITF has a tradition of research and technology transfer 

with national and international applications based on a platform in Puerto Rico and 

throughout tropical America. The institute develops and disseminates scientific 

knowledge that contributes to the conservation of forests, wildlife, and watersheds 

of the American tropics. The institute strives to be a center for excellence where 

creativity and accomplishments result in timely products and services that anticipate the needs of society as it is forced to mitigate and adapt to environmental 

change. Effectively managing tropical ecosystems in the face of multifaceted environmental change requires the understanding of ecological and social mechanisms 

that drive the function and use of forest systems from wildlands to inner cities. 

5 Caribbean Climate Hub website: http://caribbeanclimatehub.org/.

6 http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/47466, http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/49302, 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/47467.

7 http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/49346.

8 http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/47285.
21

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

Research within IITF is focused on understanding ecosystem dynamics in the 

face of environmental change across a gradient from wildlands to working lands 

to cities. The institute also focuses on understanding societal and institutional 

interactions within the landscape to help inform management, develop effective 

management options and practices, and predict future states of tropical forests. 

The IITF and CCH could assist with Cuba’s natural resource conservation goals by 

facilitating technology transfer, training, and two-way knowledge sharing. The goal 

of these efforts would be to open channels of communication between institutions 

in Puerto Rico and Cuba tasked with assessing and ameliorating challenges that 

climate change presents to the continued provision of vital ecosystem services. 

In addition to the work of the CCH and IITF, the adaptive capacity of agriculture and forestry in U.S. territories in the Caribbean benefits from a myriad 

of territorial and federal organizations, including the USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, USDA Agricultural Research Service, other branches within 

the U.S. Forest Service, the University of Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico Department 

of Natural and Environmental Resources, the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of 

Planning and Natural Resources, and the Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

agriculture departments, among other important partners. 

Next Steps in Adaptive Management: Strategies for 

Moving Climate Science to the Field 

Responding to the challenges that climate change poses to the resilience of socialecological systems in Cuba and Puerto Rico in a timely and effective manner may 

require new organizational strategies to more efficiently adapt, plan, communicate, 

and respond. All these actions require an effective information management chain 

that encompasses how an organization creates or receives knowledge, as well as 

how they assimilate that knowledge into their policies, programs, and personnel.

Environmental management decisions increasingly require the most up-to-date 

and comprehensive science available. However, significant gaps among science, 

policy, and practice persist. This disconnect is increasingly problematic as dramatic 

GHG emission reductions are needed within the coming decade(s) to stave off the 

most extreme climate model projections (IPCC 2018). 

Changes of the magnitude and pace now being projected for the future demand 

a new level of effectiveness in planning and implementation in the present. 

According to USDA Climate Change Program Office Leader William Hohenstein, 

simply reacting to changes “as they come” is becoming an increasingly insufficient 
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

strategy in addressing global climate change.9 Strategies for accomplishing this 

elevated level of system functioning are the subject of much research, discussion, 

and experimentation in the realm of policymaking and governance (Brunner and 

Lynch 2013, Clark and Clark 2002, Lasswell 1971) as well as business and information management (Easterby-Smith et al. 2008, Osterloh and Frey 2000, Van 

Wijk et al. 2008). Much of the conversation centers on how knowledge is created, 

managed, and shared. These are functional aspects that organizations must manage 

internally as well as externally with the express goal of affecting the attitudes and 

behaviors of personnel within the organization as well as the various stakeholders 

interacting with it. The issue posed to managers and policymakers is how to 

effectively manage and transfer information in a way that prompts and facilitates 

timely and informed decisions at every organizational level. Although this issue is 

challenging to organizations on the scale of a single business with a fairly focused 

mission and goals, it can be profoundly challenging for governmental organizations seeking to promote a range of outcomes over large geographic scales. The 

ever-increasing pace and complexity of knowledge creation and modification 

compounds these difficulties. 

Communication and Knowledge Sharing

Developing effective networks, techniques, and tools for the translation and 

dissemination of climate science related to agriculture, forestry, and corresponding best management practices is central to the mission and goals of the USDA 

climate hubs. This mission is seen as critical in building adaptive capacity in 

the agriculture and forestry sectors of the United States to ensure adequate and 

timely adaptations to the effects of global climate change. During Cuba’s Special 

Period food crisis of the early 1990s, the country faced a similar challenge of 

adapting its food system to rapid change and disruptions as imports of food supplies and agricultural inputs were effectively cut off. As Cuban farmers recovered 

traditional cultivation methods and augmented them with innovative techniques 

developed by Cuban researchers, the potential of agroecological methods began 

to emerge (Rosset et al. 2011). What also became clear was that widespread, 

systematic transformation would likely not take root without building a social 

process to accelerate the dissemination and implementation of desirable practices. 

This need helped drive the adoption of the Campesinoto Campesino (CAC) Movimiento (Farmer to Farmer Movement) strategy of information co-production and 

9 Comments made during a greenhouse gas mitigation workshop hosted by the USDA 

Caribbean Climate Hub in September 2015.
23

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

sharing from Central America (Rosset et al. 2011). The CAC Movement is “based 

on the horizontal transmission and collective construction of knowledge, practices, and methods. It blends traditional peasant knowledge and farmer innovation 

together with the science of agroecology. This process has stimulated the rapid 

generation, diffusion, and adoption of agroecological practices at the farm level” 

(Rosset et al. 2011). 

Recent research in the United States has demonstrated that, while potentially 

helpful climate science and decision support tools are available, they remain 

largely underused (Mase and Prokopy 2014). To improve climate support tools 

and increase their usage, information is most effective when it is useful, relevant, and context specific. These objectives may best be accomplished using 

collaborative approaches that engage farmers and other end users in the planning 

and development of decision support tools, making the tools themselves more 

relevant and giving users a better understanding and sense of ownership (Mase 

and Prokopy 2014). Facilitating the flow of scientific information to the realm 

of planning and practice via decision support tools and other methods requires 

conscious effort, formal institutionalized processes, as well as informal social 

networks (Folke et al. 2005). These processes represent adaptive organizational 

practices for agencies in the same way that terracing or cover-cropping represent 

adaptive cultivation practices for farmers. Advocates contend that this method 

of knowledge creation and extension is preferable to conventional top-down 

approaches for a variety of reasons, including the incorporation of local, traditional knowledge and demonstrating respect for farmers’ ability to constantly 

innovate and experiment (Folke et al. 2005). 

Experience and research by CCH staff have also demonstrated the increased 

effectiveness of peer-to-peer educational strategies such as on-farm demonstrations 

and farmer-led workshops (Gould et al. 2015).10 Within this paradigm, researchers 

and extension agents play a supportive role by providing arenas for information 

sharing that foster an open dialogue between local scientists and producers rather 

than a one-way conveyance of generalized knowledge and recommendations. 

Comparing the effectiveness of communication and knowledge-sharing strategies 

in Puerto Rico and Cuba could expand the knowledge base of both and represent an 

area of important collaboration. 

10 Caribbean Climate Hub ADAPTA project: https://caribbeanclimatehub.org/projects/. 

Experience has 

demonstrated 

the increased 

effectiveness of peerto-peer educational 

strategies such as onfarm demonstrations 

and farmer-led 

workshops.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

Conclusion

Effectively addressing the challenges climate change presents to working lands 

throughout the Caribbean will likely require new levels of international coordination and cooperation, particularly in the realm of science and technology development and delivery. Connecting Cuba’s strategies to combat food shortages in the 

early 1990s and climate change in the 21st century with CCH, IITF, and other 

organizations’ efforts to build adaptive capacity in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands has great potential to open avenues of collaboration in the region, offer new 

perspectives, and bolster resilience to the effects of climate change. The challenges 

of climate change are global, and while projected effects on local food systems 

in the Caribbean may seem daunting, they also present an opportunity and the 

impetus to unite the collective creativity and innovative spirit of the people of Cuba 

and Puerto Rico.

Acknowledgments

We thank Maya Quiñones for assistance with editing and graphics, and International Institute of Tropical Forestry scientists and USDA Foreign Agricultural 

Service Latin American attachés for their reviews and comments.

References

Adger, W.N. 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 16(3): 268–281.

Alonso, G.; Clark, I. 2015. Cuba confronts climate change. MEDICC Review. 

17(2): 10–13.

Altieri, M.A.; Funes-Monzote, F.R. 2012. The paradox of Cuban agriculture. 

Monthly Review. 63(8). http://monthlyreview.org/2012/01/01/the-paradox-ofcuban-agriculture. (3 July 2019).

Álvarez-Berríos, N.L.; Soto-Bayó, S.; Holupchinski, E.; Fain, S.J.; Gould, 

W.A. 2018. Correlating drought conservation practices and drought vulnerability 

in a tropical agricultural system. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 

33(3): 279–291.

Álvarez Brito, A. 1999. Forest genetics in Cuba: progress in the 20th century and 

challenges in the 21st century. Forest Genetic Resources. Bulletin 27. Rome: Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: 16–25. http://www.fao.

org/3/x4133e/X4133E04.htm#top. (3 July 2019).
25

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

Álvarez, M.; Bourque, M.; Funes, F.; Martin, L.; Nova, A.; Rosset, P. 2006.

Surviving crisis in Cuba: the second agrarian reform and sustainable agriculture. 

In: Rosset, P.; Patel, R.; Courville, M., eds. Promised land: competing visions of 

agrarian reform. Oakland, CA: Food First Books: 225–248. Chapter 12.

Barker, D. 2012. Caribbean agriculture in a period of global change: vulnerabilities 

and opportunities. Caribbean Studies. 40(2): 41–61.

Brown, M.E.; Antle, J.M.; Backlund, P.; Carr, E.R.; Easterling, W.E.; Walsh, 

M.K.; Ammann, C.; Attavanich, W.; Barrett, C.B.; Bellemare, M.F.; 

Dancheck, V.; Funk, C.; Grace, K.; Ingram, J.S.I.; Jiang, H.; Maletta, H.; 

Mata, T.; Murray, A.; Ngugi, M.; Ojima, D.; O’Neill, B.; Tebaldi, C. 2015.

Climate change, global food security, and the U.S. food system. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Global Change Research Program. 278 p. https://www.globalchange.gov/

browse/reports/climate-change-global-food-and-security-and-us-food-system. (1 

July 2019).

Brunner, R.D.; Lynch, A.H. 2013. Adaptive governance and climate change. 

Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society. 424 p.

Campbell, J.D.; Taylor, M.A.; Stephenson, T.S.; Watson, R.A.; Whyte, 

F.S. 2011. Future climate of the Caribbean from a regional climate model. 

International Journal of Climatology. 31(12): 1866–1878. 

Centella, A.; Bezanilla, A.; Leslie, K. 2008. A study of the uncertainty in future 

Caribbean climate using the PRECIS regional climate model. Tech. Report. 

Belmopan, Belize: Community Caribbean Climate Change Centre. 16 p.

Clark, T.W.; Clark, S.G. 2002. The policy process: a practical guide for natural 

resources professionals. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 224 p.

Díaz-Briquets, S. 1996. Forestry policies of Cuba’s socialist government: an 

appraisal. In: Cuba in transition—volume 6. Papers and proceedings of the 

sixth annual meeting of the association for the study of the Cuban economy. 

Washington, DC: Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy: 425–437.

Dietz, J.L. 1986. Economic history of Puerto Rico: institutional change and 

capitalist development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 363 p.

Easterby-Smith, M.; Lyles, M.A.; Tsang, E.W. 2008. Inter-organizational 

knowledge transfer: current themes and future prospects. Journal of Management 

Studies. 45(4): 677–690.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

Feng, S.; Krueger, A.B.; Oppenheimer, M. 2010. Linkages among climate change, 

crop yields and Mexico-U.S. cross-border migration. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 107(32): 14257–14262.

Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. 2005. Adaptive governance of socialecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 30: 441–473.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO]. 2008. Climate 

change and food security: a framework document. Rome: Interdepartmental 

Working Group on Climate Change. 93 p. http://www.fao.org/3/k2595e/

k2595e00.pdf. (10 July 2019).

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO]. 2011. State of 

the world’s forests: 2011. Rome. 164 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO]. 2018.

FAOSTAT: database of annual population statistics by nation. http://www.fao.

org/faostat/en/#data/OA. (12 December 2018).

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Fund 

for Agricultural Development, and World Food Programme [FAO, IFAD, 

and WFP]. 2014. The state of food insecurity in the world 2014: strengthening 

the enabling environment for food security and nutrition. Rome. 53 p. http://

www.fao.org/3/a-i4030e.pdf. (8 July 2019).

Franco, M.; Orduñez, P.; Caballero, B.; Granados, J.A.T.; Lazo, M.; Bernal, 

J.L.; Guallar, E.; Cooper, R.S. 2007. Impact of energy intake, physical activity, 

and population-wide weight loss on cardiovascular disease and diabetes mortality 

in Cuba, 1980–2005. American Journal of Epidemiology. 166(12): 1374–1380.

Funes, F.; García, L.; Bourque, M.; Pérez, N.; Rosset, P. 2002. Sustainable 

agriculture and resistance: transforming food production in Cuba. Appropriate 

Technology. 29(2): 34.

Funes-Monzote, F.R. 2008. Farming like we’re here to stay: the mixed farming 

alternative for Cuba. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen University and 

Research. 211 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Gebelein, J. 2012. A geographic perspective of Cuban landscapes. Dordrecht, 

Netherlands: Springer. 97 p.

Gómez, A.R. 2015. Estiman en $16 millones los daños que causó Erika a la 

agricultura. Primera Hora. August 8. http://www.primerahora.com/noticias/

puerto-rico/nota/estimanen16milloneslosdanosquecausoerikaalaagricultura

-1105250/. (2 November 2016).
27

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

Gould, W.A.; Díaz, E.L.; Álvarez-Berríos, N.L.; Aponte-González, F.; 

Archibald, W.; Bowden, J.H.; Carrubba, L.; Crespo, W.; Fain, S.J.; 

González, G.; Goulbourne, A.; Harmsen, E.; Holupchinski, E.; Khalyani, 

A.H.; Kossin, J.; Leinberger, A.J.; Marrero-Santiago, V.I.; MartínezSánchez, O.; McGinley, K.; Méndez-Lázaro, P.; Morell, J.; Oyola, M.M.; 

Parés-Ramos, I.K.; Pulwarty, R.; Sweet, W.V.; Terando, A.; TorresGonzález, S. 2018. U.S. Caribbean. In: Reidmiller, D.R.; Avery, C.W.; 

Easterling, D.R.; Kunkel, K.E.; Lewis, K.L.M.; Maycock, T.K.; Stewart, B.C., 

eds. Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: fourth national climate 

assessment, Vol. II. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program: 

809–879. Chapter 20. doi:10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH20.

Gould, W.A.; Fain, S.J.; Pares, I.K.; McGinley, K.; Perry, A.; Steele, R.F. 2015.

Caribbean Regional Climate Sub Hub assessment of climate change vulnerability 

and adaptation and mitigation strategies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 67 p.

Gowda, P.; Steiner, J.L.; Olson, C.; Boggess, M.; Farrigan, T.; Grusak, M.A. 

2018. Agriculture and rural communities. In: Reidmiller, D.R.; Avery, C.W.; 

Easterling, D.R.; Kunkel, K.E.; Lewis, K.L.M.; Maycock, T.K.; Stewart, B.C., 

eds. Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: fourth national climate 

assessment, Vol. II. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program: 

391–437. Chapter 10. doi:10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH10.

Harmsen, E.W.; Miller, N.L.; Schlegel, N.J.; González, J.E. 2009. Seasonal 

climate change effects on evapotranspiration, precipitation deficit and crop yield 

in Puerto Rico. Agricultural Water Management. 96(7): 1085–1095.

Hayhoe, K. 2013. Quantifying key drivers of climate variability and change for 

Puerto Rico and the Caribbean. Final report. Raleigh, NC: Southeast Climate 

Science Center. 241.

Henareh Khalyani, A.; Gould, W.A.; Falkowski, M.J.; Muscarella, R.; Uriarte, 

M.; Yousef, F. 2019. Climate change increases potential plant species richness 

on Puerto Rican uplands. Climatic Change. 16(2): 587-. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s10584-019-02491-w.

Henareh Khalyani, A.; Gould, W.A.; Harmsen, E.; Terando, A.; Quinones, 

M.; Collazo, J.A. 2016. Climate change implications for tropical islands: 

interpolating and interpreting statistically downscaled GCM projections for 

management and planning. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. 

55(2): 265–282.
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

Houck, O.A. 2000. Environmental law in Cuba. Journal of Land Use and 

Environmental Law. 16(1): 1–82.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2000. Emission scenarios: 

a special report of Working Group III of the International Panel on Climate 

Change. Nakićenović, N.; Swart, R., eds. New York: Cambridge University 

Press. 599 p. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/emissions_

scenarios-1.pdf. (3 July 2019).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2014. Climate change 

2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth 

assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core 

Writing Team; Pachauri, R.K.; Meyer, L.A., eds. Geneva, Switzerland. 151 p. 

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf. (3 

July 2019).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2018. Summary for 

policymakers. In: Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai, P.; Pörtner, H.O.; Roberts, D.; 

Skea, J.; Shukla, P.R.; Pirani, A.; Moufouma-Okia, W.; Péan, C.; Pidcock, R.; 

Connors, S.; Matthews, J.B.R.; Chen, Y.; Zhou, X.; Gomis, M.I.; Lonnoy, E.; 

Maycock, T.; Tignor, M.; Waterfield, T., eds. Global warming of 1.5 °C: an IPCC 

special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above preindustrial 

levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of 

strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable 

development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Geneva, Switzerland. 32 p.

Jennings, L.N.; Douglas, J.; Treasure, E.; González, G. 2014. Climate change 

effects in El Yunque National Forest, Puerto Rico, and the Caribbean region. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-193. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 47 p.

Karmalkar, A.V.; Taylor, M.A.; Campbell, J.; Stephenson, T.; New, M.; 

Centella, A.; Benzanilla, A.; Charlery, J. 2013. A review of observed and 

projected changes in climate for the islands in the Caribbean. Atmósfera. 26(2): 

283–309.

Lasswell, H.D. 1971. A pre-view of policy sciences. New York: American Elsevier 

Publishing Company. 173 p.

Marshall, N.S. 2010. Understanding social resilience to climate variability in 

primary enterprises and industries. Global Environmental Change. 20(1): 36–43.
29

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

Mase, A.S.; Prokopy, L.S. 2014. Unrealized potential: a review of perceptions and 

use of weather and climate information in agricultural decision making. Weather, 

Climate, and Society. 6(1): 47–61.

Messina, W.A., Jr. 2009. The 2008 hurricane season and its impact on Cuban 

agriculture and trade. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami, College of 

Engineering, Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy. https://www.

ascecuba.org/asce_proceedings/the-2008-hurricane-season-and-its-impact-oncuban-agriculture-and-trade/. (3 July 2019).

Ministerio de Agricultura [MINAG]. 2013. Cierre de dinámica forestal 2013.

Nurse, L.A.; McLean, R.F.; Agard, J.; Briguglio, L.P.; Duvat-Magnan, V.; 

Pelesikoti, N.; Tompkins, E.; Webb, A. 2014. Small islands. In: Barros, V.R.; 

Field, C.B.; Dokken, D.J.; Mastrandrea, M.D.; Mach, K.J.; Bilir, T.E.; Chatterjee, 

M.; Ebi, K.L.; Estrada, Y.O.; Genova, R.C.; Girma, B.; Kissel, E.S.; Levy, A.N.; 

MacCracken, S.; Mastrandrea, P.R.; White, L.L., eds. Climate change 2014: 

impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: regional aspects. Working group 

II contribution to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press: 1613–1654. Chapter 29.

Ortíz-Colón, G.; Fain, S.J.; Parés, I.K.; Curbelo-Rodríguez, J.; JiménezCabán, E.; Pagán-Morales, M.; Gould, W.A. 2018. Assessing climate 

vulnerabilities and adaptive strategies for resilient beef and dairy operations in 

the tropics. Climatic Change. 146(1–2): 47–58.

Osterloh, M.; Frey, B.S. 2000. Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational 

forms. Organization Science. 11(5): 538–550.

Oxfam Canada. 2011. The climate changes, threatens and demands adaptation: a 

look at the Cuban experience of protection against climate change. https://www.

oxfam.ca/publication/the-climate-changes-threatens-and-demands-adaptation/. 

(3 July 2019).

Planos, E.; Rivero, R.; Guevara, V. 2013. “Variaciones y cambios del clima. 

Temperatura superficial del aire”, en Impacto del Cambio Climático y Medidas 

de Adaptación en Cuba. Instituto de Meteorología, Agencia de Medio Ambiente. 

CITMA: AMA. 430 p.
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

Puerto Rico Climate Change Council [PRCCC] 2013. Puerto Rico’s state of the 

climate 2010–2013: assessing Puerto Rico’s social-ecological vulnerabilities in 

a changing climate. Executive summary. San Juan, PR: Department of Natural 

and Environmental Resources, NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management. 27 p.

Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture [PRDA] 2018. Estimados de perdidas 

por producto. http://caribbeanclimatehub.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/

Perdidas-3-28-2018-003.pdf. (26 November 2018).

Reidmiller, D.R.; Avery, C.W.; Easterling, D.R.; Kunkel, K.E.; Lewis, K.L.M.; 

Maycock, T.K.; Stewart, B.C., eds. 2018. Volume II: impacts, risks, and 

adaptation in the United States. fourth national climate assessment. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program. doi:10.7930/NCA4.2018.

Republic of Cuba. 2014. V informe nacional al convenio sobre la diversidad 

biológica. Havana, Cuba. 271 p. https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/cu/cu-nr-05-es.

pdf. (3 July 2019).

Republic of Cuba. 2015. Segunda comunicación nacional a la convención marco 

de las naciones unidas sobre cambio climático. Havana, Cuba. 228 p. https://

www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUK

Ewjem8CYvOHeAhWCAHwKHcREAu8QFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F

%2Feuroclimaplus.org%2Fintranet%2F_documentos%2Frepositorio%2F02Comu

nicaci%25C3%25B3n%2520ONUCambio%2520Climatico_Cuba.pdf&usg=AOv

Vaw3WzvZWVoDYImzaRnkMT5FK. (3 July 2019).

Rosset, P.B. 1997. Alternative agriculture and crisis in Cuba. IEEE Technology and 

Society Magazine. 16(2): 19–25.

Rosset, P.B.; Benjamin, M., eds. 1994. The greening of the revolution: Cuba’s 

experiment with organic agriculture. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Ocean 

Press. 85 p.

Rosset, P.M.; Machín Sosa, B.; Roque Jaime, A.M.R.; Ávila Lozano, D.R. 2011.

The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: social 

process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and 

food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies. 38(1): 161–191.

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 2014. Climate change adaptation plan. 

Washington, DC. 162 p. https://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/adaptation/

USDA_Climate_Change_Adaptation_Plan_FULL.pdf. (3 July 2019).
31

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 2016. USDA building blocks for 

climate smart agriculture and forestry: implementation plan and progress report. 

Washington, DC. 58 p. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/

building-blocks-implementation-plan-progress-report.pdf. (3 July 2019).

Van Beusekom, A.E.; Álvarez-Berríos, N.L.; Gould, W.A.; Quiñones, M.; 

González, G. 2018. Hurricane Maria in the U.S. Caribbean: disturbance forces, 

variation of effects, and implications for future storms. Remote Sensing. 10(9): 

1386. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10091386.

Van Beusekom, A.E.; Hay, L.E.; Viger, R.J.; Gould, W.A.; Collazo, J.A.; 

Henareh Khalyani, A. 2014. The effects of changing land cover on streamflow 

simulation in Puerto Rico. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association. Paper No. JAWRA-13-0139-P.

Van Wijk, R.; Jansen, J.J.; Lyles, M.A. 2008. Inter-and intra-organizational 

knowledge transfer: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and 

consequences. Journal of Management Studies. 45(4): 830–853.

Walthall, C.L.; Hateld, J.; Backlund, P.; Lengnick, L.; Marshall, E.; Walsh, 

M.; Adkins, S.; Aillery, M.; Ainsworth, E.A.; Ammann, C.; Anderson, C.J.; 

Bartomeus, I.; Baumgard, L.H.; Booker, F.; Bradley, B.; Blumenthal, D.M.; 

Bunce, J.; Burkey, K.; Dabney, S. M.; Delgado, J.A.; Dukes, J.; Funk, A.; 

Garrett, K.; Glenn, M.; Grantz, D.A.; Goodrich, D.; Hu, S.; Izaurralde, 

R.C.; Jones, R.A.C.; Kim, S-H.; Leaky, A.D.B.; Lewers, K.; Mader, T.L.; 

McClung, A.; Morgan, J.; Muth, D.J.; Nearing, M.; Oosterhuis, D.M.; 

Ort, D.; Parmesan, C.; Pettigrew, W.T.; Polley, W.; Rader, R.; Rice, C.; 

Rivington, M.; Rosskopf, E.; Salas, W.A.; Sollenberger, L.E.; Srygley, R.; 

Stöckle, C.; Takle, E.S.; Timlin, D.; White, J.W.; Winfree, R.; WrightMorton, L.; Ziska, L.H. 2013. Climate change and agriculture in the United 

States: effects and adaptation. Tech. Bull. 1935. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 186 p. https://www.

usda.gov/oce/climate_change/effects_2012/CC%20and%20Agriculture%20

Report%20(02-04-2013)b.pdf. (3 July 2019).

World Factbook. 2019. Central America: Cuba. Langley, VA: Central Intelligence 

Agency. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/

cu.html. (2 July 2019). 

World Food Programme [WFP]. 2015. Country profile: Cuba. https://www.wfp.

org/countries/cuba. (3 July 2019).
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

Appendix

Climate Projections for Cuba and Puerto Rico

Both Puerto Rico and Cuba are projected to experience increasing mean annual 

temperatures over the course of the 21st century (fig. 7). The range of increase projected varies according to the emission scenario and particular climate model used. 

Emission scenarios are built on a range of assumptions regarding global economic 

and technological development, the continued use of fossil fuels, and greenhouse 

gas (GHG) mitigation policies (IPCC 2000). The scenarios do not take into account 

implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC) or the emissions targets of the Kyoto Protocol. In 2000, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a Special Report on Emission Scenarios 

(SRES) that resulted in four narratives based on scientific literature. These narratives 

consistently describe the relationships between emission driving forces and their evolution and add context for the scenario quantification (IPCC 2000). For each narrative, 

several different scenarios were developed by using different modeling approaches 

to examine the range of outcomes arising from a range of models that use similar 

assumptions about driving forces. The 40 resulting SRES scenarios together encompassed the best understanding of future GHG emission uncertainties as of 2000. 

The range of temperature projections for Puerto Rico are the result of recent modeling efforts by scientists at the U.S. Forest Service International Institute of Tropical 

Forestry based on the SRES A1B, A2, and B1 emissions scenarios (Henareh Khalyani 

et al. 2016, 2019). The A2 scenario is representative of a heterogeneous world in which 

economic development is primarily regionally oriented, and per capita economic 

growth and technological change are more fragmented and slower, which results in 

greater temperature increases compared to other scenarios modeled for the region.

Karmalkar et al. (2013) used general circulation model (GCM) data included 

in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3), and the UK 

Hadley Centre regional climate model (RCM) data, to provide both present-day and 

scenario-based future information on precipitation and temperature for individual 

island states within the Caribbean (figs. 7 and 8). They found that models used in 

the Caribbean to date have struggled to accurately reproduce observed rainfall 

patterns because of the complex interactions between sea surface temperatures, sea 

level pressure, and predominant wind patterns. These difficulties have resulted in 

a generally dry bias when comparing observed and modeled precipitation, which 

should be noted when studying precipitation projections. Modeled temperature 

patterns are more closely aligned with observations, thus projections are considered 

more certain although some uncertainty still exists. The end-of-century picture of 

Caribbean climate, as deduced from the CMIP3 models, is one characterized by a 
33

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

−22 −21 −29 −30 −25 −24 −21 −18 −19 −20 −20 −21 −18

−22 −28 −30 −32 −34 −24 −25 −24 −24 −24 −24 −22 −17

−25 −26 −30 −37 −37 −33 −33 −37 −33 −30 −30 −27 −18

−34 −27 −33 −39 −37 −48 −41 −42 −33 −24 −22 −21 −18

−45 −32 −30 −37 −45 −44 −40 −36 −32 −26 −23 −23 −17

−47 −36 −27 −30 −36 −38 −31 −26 −29 −28 −30 −26 −24

−37 −23 −25 −30 −30 −32 −30 −32 −31 −29 −26 −20 −20

−18 −14 −13 −8 −14 −18 −21 −24 −25 −28 −26 −18 −16

−66 −73 −81 −76 −69 −61 −60 −56 −55 −50 −50 −57 −60

−73 −67 −66 −70 −64 −60 −63 −57 −57 −59 −62 −66 −63

−82 −68 −74 −82 −78 −76 −80 −65 −57 −67 −75 −77 −78

−85 −75 −78 −76 −81 −85 −85 −75 −70 −71 −80 −84 −86

−86 −87 −88 −90 −90 −87 −85 −80 −78 −78 −76 −77 −79

−92 −85 −83 −88 −89 −75 −75 −73 −78 −79 −78 −77 −75

−93 −82 −83 −85 −79 −74 −75 −66 −76 −81 −76 −73 −71

−70 −66 −58 −44 −41 −45 −58 −65 −69 −69 −69 −66 −65

 43 19 16 13 9 12 26 31 34 46 44 31 17

 23 1 3 3 3 12 18 22 20 11 8 7 4

 −9 −11 −5 −9 −5 6 1 2 9 2 −9 −4 −5

−10 −6 −11 −19 −22 −21 −13 −9 −10 −5 −7 −4 3

 −5 −3 −8 −15 −22 −21 −15 −6 −4 −3 −2 3 12

 0 0 25 21 11 −4 −9 −8 −5 5 5 7 9

 12 11 8 11 −2 −4 −6 −5 −5 −7 6 18 26

 19 24 19 16 17 17 17 9 5 2 1 3 13

[2080−89(SRES A2) − 1970−89], PRCP (%), MJJ

[%]

0

[%]

−50

−40

−30

−20

−10

10

20

30

40

50

24 °C

20 °C

16 °C

12 °C

8 °C

84 °C 78 °C 72 °C 66 °C 60 °C

0

−50

−40

−30

−20

−10

10

20

30

40

50

A

24 °C

20 °C

16 °C

12 °C

8 °C

84 °C 78 °C 72 °C 66 °C 60 °C

B

 8 6 6 0 2 4 4 1 −2 −2 −4 −6 −7

 0 0 −2 −1 1 0 −3 −4 −8 −11 −10 −9 −11

 −1 −4 −6 −7 −5 −3 −8 −13 −12 −11 −19 −13 −9

 −3 −6 −8 −10 −8 −13 −22 −24 −18 −13 −20 −14 −13

−16 −13 −17 −15 −18 −22 −26 −22 −17 −14 −16 −16 −15

−28 −9 −14 −18 −19 −19 −25 −27 −26 −24 −19 −13 −20

 −6 −16 −9 −25 −27 −29 −30 −35 −40 −34 −21 −20 −20

 −3 −8 −7 −1 −1 −3 −14 −22 −28 −39 −30 −22 −18

−22 −21 −13 −8 −14 −22 −25 −27 −28 −29 −29 −28 −29

−30 −19 −15 −24 −36 −49 −52 −49 −46 −45 −43 −38 −30

−35 −25 −35 −51 −54 −73 −77 −64 −59 −56 −53 −47 −43

−50 −51 −48 −54 −62 −77 −81 −75 −72 −69 −67 −64 −69

−66 −58 −59 −65 −72 −79 −82 −78 −76 −76 −75 −74 −71

−71 −66 −69 −76 −77 −78 −71 −70 −76 −76 −68 −66 −67

−62 −75 −80 −82 −73 −60 −61 −68 −82 −82 −65 −56 −50

−54 −58 −50 −42 −45 −51 −57 −70 −82 −83 −73 −59 −48

28 32 22 16 26 38 36 35 42 44 44 45 44

22 25 22 29 32 31 25 17 12 12 16 17 13

32 32 32 41 38 29 21 13 6 9 11 13 8

39 37 30 26 26 28 23 22 29 30 25 22 19

20 19 13 12 9 13 17 23 32 36 37 41 43

20 21 11 5 3 −1 −1 0 12 16 21 33 43

23 21 24 24 14 12 10 2 1 1 5 6 13

20 19 31 36 29 25 29 23 11 7 6 33 35

[2080−89(SRES A2) − 1970−89], PRCP (%), ASON

Figure 7—Projected change in precipitation (percent) by the 2080s under the SRES A2 scenario based on the CMIP3 multimodel ensemble for the following seasons: (A) MJJ (early wet season) and (B) ASON (late wet season). Projected change 

is relative to the mean from 1970 to 1989. From Karmalkar (2013). MJJ = May, June, July. ASON = August, September, 

October, November.
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

decrease in wet season precipitation. The dry season is largely unaltered except for 

a small increase in precipitation in November in the Bahamas. The RCM simulations similarly project a drying trend (though more intense) for the wet season, but 

the agreement between the two RCM projections is generally poor with respect to 

which portion (early or late) will be driest. Both the GCMs and the RCMs project 

higher warming of surface air temperatures over the northwestern Caribbean and 

relatively lower warming in the southeastern Caribbean. The RCMs, however, have 

higher warming values in general, especially over the eastern Caribbean where the 

landmasses are better resolved. 

2.9 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7

2.8 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6

2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4

2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4

2.9 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4

3.5 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4

3.3 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.2 3 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6

2.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.3 4 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7

2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2 2

2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7

2.1 1.9 1.9 2 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5

2.4 2 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

2.1 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.8 2 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.8

 2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.1

3.2 3.5 3.6 3.2 3.1 3 3.1 3.1 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3

 3 3.2 3.6 4 3.4 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 3 3 3 3.1

 3 3 3.5 4.1 4 3.7 3.4 2.9 3 3 2.9 2.9 3

2.9 3 3.1 3 3.2 3.3 3.1 3 3 3 3 3 3.1

4.2 3.8 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3 3 3.1 3.1 3.1

 5 4.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2

4.4 4.1 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.7 4 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.3 3.2

3.5 4.1 4.2 3.8 4.8 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.3 5.2 4.7 3.7 3.3

2

2.25

2.5

2.75

3

3.25

3.5

3.75

4

A

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

B C 6

[2080−89(SRES A2) − 1970−89], SAT (°C), ANN

[2080−89(SRES A2) − 1970−89], RCM−H SAT (°C), ANN [2080−89(SRES A2) − 1970−89], RCM−E SAT (°C), ANN

24° N

24° N

20° N

16° N

12° N

8° N

24° N

20° N

16° N

12° N

8° N

20° N

16° N

12° N

8° N

84° W

84° W 78° W 72° W 66° W 60° W 84° W 78° W 72° W 66° W 60° W

84° W 84° W 84° W 60° W

[°C]

[°C] [°C]

Figure 8—Projected change in mean annual surface air temperature (°C) by the 2080s under the SRES A2 scenario in (A) CMIP3 multimodel ensemble, (B) RCM-H, and (C) RCM-E. Projected change by the 2080s is relative to the mean climate of 1970–1989. In (A), for 

every grid box, the color indicates ensemble mean projection, the value at the center indicates ensemble median projection, and values at 

the bottom left and top right corners indicate ensemble minimum and maximum projections, respectively. From Karmalkar (2013).
35

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

Surface Air Temperatures

Both Puerto Rico and Cuba are projected to experience increasing mean annual 

temperatures over the course of the 21st century. The range of increase projected 

varies according to the emission scenario and climate model. Karmalkar et al. 

(2013) projected a 2 to 5 °C (3.6 to 9 °F) increase11 for the Latin American and 

Caribbean (LAC) based on the SRES A2 emission scenario (see fig. 7). Interpolation of downscaled climate data for Puerto Rico has resulted in a much higher set of 

projections (7.5 to 9 °C [13.5 to 16.2 °F]) (see fig. 9) (Henareh Khalyani et al. 

2016).12 Either scenario presents acute challenges to the agricultural sectors of 

Puerto Rico and Cuba. Under “worst case scenario” projections, climate-controlled 

environments would almost assuredly be required for any viable agricultural 

operation. Such operations would necessitate massive investments in energy and 

water management infrastructure. If global efforts are successful in limiting average 

global warming to 1.5 °C, as was ratified at the Paris UNFCCC Conference of the 

Parties, downscaled models indicate that Puerto Rico may still experience a dramatic increase in total dry days and in days that exceed historical temperature maximums (particularly in the wet season) (Hayhoe 2013). Prolonged dry periods are 

expected to become more frequent with even 1 °C of average global warming 

(Hayhoe 2013). Modeling indicates that much of the mean temperature increase 

projected for Puerto Rico and Cuba will be the result of increases in mean minimum 

temperatures, indicating a narrower range of temperature variation (both annual and 

diurnal) and sustained higher temperatures (Hayhoe 2013, Karmalkar et al. 2013). 

Increasing temperature trends can affect crops in a variety of ways. An important aspect of increasing minimum temperatures is the affect that such increases 

have on the pollination stage of crops and other plants. The pollination stage is a 

critical period in which exposure to high temperatures can be particularly damaging to crops. Pollen release is related to development of fruit, grain, or fiber. Exposure to high temperatures during this period can greatly reduce crop yields and 

increase the risk of total crop failure. Plants exposed to high nighttime temperatures 

during the grain, fiber, or fruit production periods experience lower productivity 

and reduced overall quality (Walthall et al. 2013).

Rising temperatures will also likely lead to increasing pressure from pests and 

disease, heat stress in animals, and unpredictable changes in the phenology of many 

11 Increase for years 2080–2089 vs. 1970–1989. Puerto Rico and Cuba are projected to 

increase by <3 °C.

12 2071–2099 vs. 1960–1990. Source: Henareh Khalyani et al. (2016) using data from 

Hayhoe (2013).
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

Figure 9—Projected increase in mean temperature for Puerto Rico. From Henareh Khalyani et al. (2016).
37

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

plants. Water shortages and heat stress among livestock have already been cited 

as a growing concern among many farmers in the U.S. Caribbean and throughout 

the LAC region (Gould et al. 2015). Higher temperatures can result in increased 

respiration rates in plants that in turn will require greater soil moisture to maintain 

vitality and yields. Maintaining necessary moisture levels in light of increased 

temperatures and evapotranspiration rates will likely require a range of adaptation 

strategies, including investment in water management infrastructure (irrigation, 

water storage, etc.) as well as a shift toward agroforestry and other agroecological 

practices that work to maintain soil moisture by increasing shade and decreasing 

ambient air temperatures. Rising temperatures are also likely to affect forest ecosystems throughout the Caribbean. In Cuba, expected effects include modifications 

to phenological patterns in mountain and coastal tree species; losses to biodiversity 

in high-altitude systems; accelerated reproductive cycles of forest pests, and altered 

phenology among forest diseases (Planos et al. 2013). Rising temperatures and other 

changes in climate are also expected to alter the distribution, population, and effects 

of existing forest pests and diseases and may lead to additional vulnerabilities to 

new insects and diseases or introduced invasive species.

Precipitation

Increasing mean surface air and sea-surface temperatures are tied to changes 

in larger global circulation patterns that correlate to rainfall patterns within the 

Caribbean (Karmalkar et al. 2013). As discussed previously, models exhibit greater 

uncertainty in projecting future precipitation trends than temperature. That aside, 

regional models show a drying trend characterized by a decrease in wet season 

precipitation (fig. 6). The decrease is generally higher for the early wet season (May 

through July) than the late wet season (August through November) and for the 

western Caribbean (Cuba) than the eastern Caribbean (Puerto Rico) (Karmalkar 

et al. 2013). Those trends stand in contrast to study findings published in 2009 for 

Puerto Rico that show a decrease in dry season precipitation but an increase during 

the wet season (Harmsen et al. 2009). Recent efforts to interpolate downscaled climate data for Puerto Rico show greater variability in precipitation trends over time, 

but a linear increase in important indicators such as total dry days and maximum 

consecutive dry days (an important drought indicator) over the next century (fig. 10) 

(Henareh Khalyani et al. 2016).

The impact of drying trends and reduced water availability on agricultural 

systems in Cuba and Puerto Rico could be profound (Van Beusekom et al. 2014). 

Both islands have experienced critical water shortages in recent years associated 

with prolonged droughts. A 2011 report by Oxfam listed water availability as a 
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT IITF-GTR-49

Figure 10—Projected changes in annual precipitation for Puerto Rico. From Henareh Khalyani et al. (2015).
39

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Climate Change: Shared Challenges in Agriculture, Forestry, and Opportunities for Collaboration

major challenge facing Cuban agriculture in coming years (Oxfam Canada 2011). 

Increasing temperatures and reduced rainfall could require significant investments 

in irrigation and water management infrastructure to ensure ample future agricultural water supply (Harmsen et al. 2009). 

Cuba has already begun this investment process by increasing public spending on environmental protection from 390.8 million Cuban pesos in 2009 to 517.3 

million Cuban pesos in 2013, 230.4 million of which were allocated to water 

management (the exchange rate with U.S. dollars is 1 to 1) (Alonso and Clark 2015). 

Further investments by either country will need to be secured in an environment 

of increased competition for fiscal resources and stressed water supplies. Even if 

water supplies remain available in sufficient quantity, constructing needed storage 

and distribution infrastructure will likely be a challenge for local governments and 

many small-scale, limited-resource farmers. 




International Institute of 

Tropical Forestry

1201 Calle Ceiba,

Jardin Botanico Sur,

Rio Piedras,

PR 00926-1119.

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300