From the Heartland, Margot McMillen writes:
Reports of a re-birth in Haitian agriculture are premature, but the midwives are ready. Turns out, the United States “has opened several training centers that aim to instruct hundreds of farmers in rudimentary practices often taken for granted in other countries” and a couple of U.S. churches have built an “experimental farm” and transplanted urban Haitians to the countryside to learn self-sufficiency. They hope to build 4 more, each housing ten families.
These notes, published in the New York Times on Christmas day, are hopeful beginnings for the nation that 25 years ago took care of itself using farming techniques remembered from Africa. Still, there are significant problems to address, like where their water will come from and how the new, urban-born farmers will adapt to rural life.
If the problems sound familiar, it’s because they’re pretty much like the challenges to agriculture here at home. NYT quotes a transplanted Port-au-Prince grocer who lost his store in the earthquake. He “complains of the backbreaking work and misses the energy of the city, the parties, the friends.” “City dwellers have to believe that it is worth the effort to move their families to spend hours in the hot sun, hoeing and planting.”
One thing that’s different, though, is the fact that the Haitian government recognizes the danger of reliance on imported foods. They estimate that 52% of Haiti’s food comes from abroad, compared to 20% a few decades ago. Here in the U.S., it’s impossible to get real numbers on the amount of imported food we’re consuming. U.S.D.A. keeps track of agricultural products, like raw meats, fruits and vegetables, but doesn’t keep track of processed foods—canned meats, fruits and vegetables. Those are supposed to be tracked by F.D.A. but estimates vary widely. Is it 20%, as FDA graphs claim? Or is it 50%, as the right-wing Judicial Watch asserted using “information-sharing and collaboration among governments, the private sector and academia.”
U.S. agriculture has had a huge impact on Haiti. We sold them only about 7,000 metric tons of rice in 1985. Then came the first “free trade” agreement, under Ronald Reagan, requiring Haiti to lower trade restrictions and accept more US rice. In 1986, US imports rose to 24,683 tons and in 1987, to 100,177 tons. 1986 ended with the expulsion of “Baby Doc” Duvalier, and the Haitian government sought loans from the International Monetary Fund.
Their food supply now thoroughly dependent on “Miami rice,” Haitians booted out the president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1991. He was gone for three years. Then, Aristide returned to power with the help of 20,000 US Army troops. Immediately after, Haiti became part of a new agreement with the IMF. Haiti’s tariffs were lowered on rice imports from 35% to 3%. In contrast, most Caribbean countries had a tariff of 25%. Haiti’s new tariff made it the Caribbean’s least trade-restrictive country.
Thus the game is played, but farmers are not the only gamesmen. There is a world of knowledge to lose—grain is handled by cleaners, millers, warehousers, transporters and processors. In Haiti, these jobs were handled in a traditional manner remembered from Africa. The system included hard work, yes, but also included tricks to make the work interesting. Traditions, stories, festivals, special foods, fun, invention, music. Losing the knowledge, along with the farmers, means the loss of the entire culture that made life rich.
For American farmers, the impact of Haiti’s rural renaissance could be significant. Reviving their sugar mills, for example, could impact the U.S. corn growers’ ethanol market because sugar yields more energy than corn. Reviving their rice culture could impact U.S. rice growers accustomed to exporting with nearly no tariff.
