-------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 10th of this year, a famous United States politician gave a surprising admission to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Can you name the speaker?
Since 1981, the United States has followed a policy, until the last year or so when we started rethinking it, that we rich countries that produce a lot of food should sell it to poor countries and relieve them of the burden of producing their own food, so, thank goodness, they can leap directly into the industrial era. It has not worked. It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. It was a mistake. It was a mistake that I was a party to. I am not pointing the finger at anybody. I did that. I have to live every day with the consequences of the lost capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people, because of what I did. Nobody else.
If you said former President Bill Clinton, you’re right. Yes, the same Bill Clinton who tirelessly championed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) until its signing in 1993 has decided that his free trade policies have actually hurt more people than they have helped. It is a stunning admission, but what does it mean for Haiti?
The numbers say it all. In the chart below (click on the image to see it more clearly in a new window), you can see that in 1988, Haiti imported 53 percent of its rice, while domestic production accounted for the other 47 percent. Twenty years later, in 2008, Haiti imported 85 percent of its rice, producing only 15 percent in country. Haiti’s domestic rice production has been steadily strangled over the past two decades, and it is only getting weaker.
Adapted from: CEPR, "Using Food Aid to Support, Not Harm, Haitian Agriculture"
In a country where over two-thirds of citizens rely on the agricultural sector and 80 percent of people live below the poverty line, it is easy just how dangerous this situation is. Despite the giant magnet that Port-au-Prince has become for impoverished rural families seeking better opportunities, the majority of Haitians still live in the countryside. In recent years, development experts and economists have accomplished little in the way of looking for alternatives for those who used to farm. While the moral debate concerning apparel factories (read: sweatshops) can be left for another time, suffice it to say that they are no substitution for agriculture. Legislation has been passed in the United States to give preference to Haitian apparel exports, but they only account for about 10% of Haiti’s GDP and factories only employ a very small percentage of Haitians. For the time being, Haiti is an agricultural country.
So, how do we reverse President Clinton’s failed experiment in free trade and begin to support Haitian agriculture? Although the earthquake was a tragedy that Haiti will be recovering from for a long time, the brief shift in international attention toward Haiti has opened some promising avenues. Moreover, the unprecedented reverse migration exodus of 600,000 people to the countryside has reinforced the importance of rural development. One of the best ideas I’ve seen comes from an article published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), "Using Food Aid to Support, Not Harm, Haitian Agriculture". Briefly summarized, it argues that
…the international community should commit immediately to purchasing Haiti’s rice crop, so as not to repeat the errors of the past. Haitian farmers would then know that they can produce at a price that will cover their costs of production…This is a very small price to pay in order to ensure that international aid actually helps Haiti feed itself, instead of hurting Haitian agriculture as in the past.
It’s a simple idea, but the positive effects it could have on Haitian agriculture and the economy in general are far reaching. It would cost only a small percentage of the total aid pledged to Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake to buy up the entire stock of Haiti’s rice crop, even at the premium price that would encourage farmers to keep farming. After it is purchased, it can be distributed at low cost in markets or at no cost to those Haitians who desperately need food aid. Delivery would rely on domestic distribution chains, giving a much needed push to another important sector of the Haitian economy.
Although the country would still need to rely heavily on imported rice, the domestic rice product would be protected and, moreover, Haitian farmers would be encouraged to keep producing food necessary for the survival of the country. For the first time in over 15 years, the international community would be sending a firm message to Haiti saying that rural agricultural and economic development will be supported. Instead of relying on the principles of free market ideology, the development framework within Haiti would be based on the fact that food is a human right, not a commodity.
While the world’s attention has rightfully focused on Port-au-Prince, the better part of Haiti’s population has continued to scrape by outside the capital with almost nothing. Now, as even more people have escaped the earthquake-affected areas for the countryside, the burden has become even heavier for rural families and the rural economy in general. Despite the difficulties of rural living, the earthquake showed the world just how devastating unchecked rural-urban migration can be. The magnitude of the quake was strong, to be certain, but the devastation was magnified by the fact that Port-au-Prince is a grossly over-populated city that has grown all too quickly as people have flooded in from the countryside in recent years.
The damage to Haitian agriculture has been severe, but it is not irreversible. Now, more than ever, we should be focusing on creating solutions aimed at giving rural families opportunities to have dignified livelihoods in the countryside. The situation can be changed, but it needs to come with a sweeping change in the way we look at development. As President Clinton himself said, "Every time we spend a dollar in Haiti from now on we have to ask ourselves, 'Does this have a long-term return? Are we helping them become more self-sufficient? ... Are we serious about working ourselves out of a job?'"
Sources:
1) CIA, The World Factbook, Haiti
2) CEPR, “Using Food Aid to Support, Not Harm, Haitian Agriculture"
1 comments:
I really enjoyed this article. Nice job on the writing; I understand the struggles of Haiti in a new light. You are quite talented Mr. Garfunkel and thank you.
Post a Comment