User:Smallchief/Haiti

Colonial agriculture
Prior to the voyages of Columbus beginning in 1492, a dense population of Taino people lived on the island of Hispaniola, 21st century Dominican Republic and Haiti. The Taino were farmers. Their main crop and dietary staple was Yuca. They also grew sweet potato, maize, cotton, tobacco and a large number of tropical fruits and vegetables. With the colonization of the island by the Spanish in the 16th century, most Taino died from epidemics of European diseases and exploitation. The Spanish colonists, and subsequently the French, imported African slaves to replace the Taino.

France took ownership of Haiti from Spain in the Treaty of Ryswick in 1697. In the 18th century, Haiti was the "Pearl of the Antilles." Known as Saint-Domingue by the French, Haiti was the richest colony in the world, producing 60 percent of the world's coffee and 40 percent of the sugar imported by France and Britain. Haiti was also an important producer of cotton, indigo, and cacao. Land and agricultural production was in the hands of European and mulatto planters owning about 8,000 plantations and half a million slaves. Haiti's dominance in coffee and sugar production was disrupted during the Haitian Revolution between 1791 and 1804.

The population of Haiti in 1791 is estimated at 556,000: 500,000 slaves, 24,000 free mulattos and blacks, and 32,000 Europeans. The population was reduced by almost one half during the revolution.

After independence
After Haiti gained independence in 1804 the government had the priority of maintaining a strong military to fend off French attempts to re-conquer the country. The only way of sustaining the military was the importation of military goods which could only be paid for with exports of agricultural products, but most of the plantations producing the exports were in ruins and their owners dead or departed. The initial efforts of Haiti's government was to continue the plantation system with forced labor, albeit with regulations prohibiting some of the abuses of slavery.

The attempt by the government to maintain the plantation system was unpopular with the former slaves. In 1809 President Alexandre Pétion "decided the agrarian future of Haiti" by initiating a land reform program which ended up with much of Haiti's land being owned by former slaves. By the middle of the 19th century, Haiti became "a society of peasant proprietors given over to a subsistence economy." The pattern of individual ownership of small parcels of land continued for more than 100 years despite "increasing pressure for land [due to population increases], the fragmentation of land parcels, and a slight increase in the concentration of ownership." In 1950, 85 percent of Haitian farmers owned land. In 1971, the number of farmers owning land had declined to 60 percent. In that year there were 616,700 farms in Haiti. The average farmer owned 1.4 ha of land divided into several plots. In addition to ownership, many farmers rented land or were sharecroppers. A byproduct of recognizing Haiti's independence was the obligation put upon it by France to pay annual reparations for the land and property (mostly slaves) seized from French citizens. The indemnities, and the loans the government took out to pay them, were not liquidated until 1947. They took up to 80 percent of the revenue of Haiti's government some years and severely reduced the government's capacity to invest in infrastructure and development.

Demise of sugar
The most immediate impact on agriculture of the Haitian revolution was the rapid decline of sugar, produced from sugar cane, as Haiti's most important export and most valuable agricultural product. Prior to the revolution in 1791, Haiti's exports of sugar totaled almost 100 million pounds. By 1820, sugar exports were practically nil. Haiti's biggest customer, France, banned sugar and other exports from Haiti. Some authorities have also attributed the decline of sugar to the repugnance of former slaves for the plantation economy that produced sugar. Palsson adds a third factor: the breakup of large plantations and the distribution of land to former slaves which increased transaction costs and resulted in a scarcity of capital, expertise, and labor. Large investments in sugar processing and large farms, or cooperative ventures among small farmers, were necessary for commercially-viable sugar production. Instead, former slaves worked individually on their own newly-acquired small farms. The government of Haiti also banned foreign investment in Haiti. The U.S. occupiers eliminated the ban in 1918, but the proliferation of land ownership made acquiring and aggregating sizeable acreages of land for sugar production too complicated for prospective foreign investors.

Coffee
With the demise of sugar plantations, coffee became the chief export crop of Haiti. Unlike sugar cane, coffee could be cultivated economically by families on small plots of land

Trade liberalization
The trade liberalization policies are strongly advocated and oftentimes mandated by international financial institutions. These institutions included entities like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The import tariff reduction outlined in these policies is vital contributions supported by these entities. The Haitian Government created a new agreement with the IMF in 1994, which cut the current import tax of 35% down to 3%. This lowered tariff ranked Haiti as the least restrictive country for trade. However, this has had little impact on boosting the Haitian economy. Haiti continues to be the least developed country in the western hemisphere. Particularly, it seems, because Haitian production of rice decreased exponentially. These tariffs created competition for rice that could not be met by locals. The rural population was hit the hardest by the tariff; there are few other employment opportunities for them.

Rice produced by the United States has a large range of institutions to subsidize the production of the rice, whereas in Haiti the government does not provide the rice farmers with any subsidies to support the Haitian rice economy. There are no domestic institutions in Haiti that directly give aid or support to the struggling farmers. It is because of the U.S. subsidies and the Haitian lack of subsidies that many claim that the rice competition between the two countries resembles an instance on inequality. Haiti needs time to build resources and therefore their economy in order to garner a chance at competing in the world markets. More often than not a country needs protections in place to stabilize their contributions to the world market and as of right now, Haiti has none. The United States imposes excess rice onto the Haitian community because Haiti has little stature to impose their own. The United States has monopolized the rice market in Haiti. Their economic dominance in the country has created an unstable balance between the two countries. This is precisely why there are several Haitian and international NGOs accusing the United States of using Haiti as a disposal area for the cheap implementation of rice. There are economists and development workers who claim that the imbalance between the American rice output and the Haitian rice has put Haitians out of business by forcing them to sell their crops and prices that don't even cover the price it took to produce the rice, that is if it sells at all.

Some are advocating for the investigation of US companies selling rice at unfair prices as most rice imports are handled “by a single US corporation – American Rice Inc. – which as enjoyed an almost monopolistic position in Haiti.” There was study done on agriculture and food price policy in Haiti that provides a defense for those in favor of trade liberalization. There are those supporting the notion that lowering rice tariffs has been a benefit to the Haitian community. The study showed, researched in 1999, that urban areas lived with better means when retail prices were lower resulting from lower rice tariffs. Food prices in Haiti have been seen as stable, claimed by the IMF, because of the cheap American rice swarming the coasts. In addition, the IMF firmly states their doubt that raising import tariffs would achieve improved rates of rice production in Haiti.