In recent weeks, Caribbean governments, and indeed governments in many developing countries, must have been dreading what has happened in Haiti. For the apparently spontaneous resort to the streets by the Haitian population has brought into clear relief the inability of many of these countries to cope with what seems to be the relatively sudden and dramatic increases in the prices of food commodities. Governments have been caught on the backfoot, so to speak, and have even found difficulty in explaining to their citizens the causes of what has happened.
Governments have been loathe to do what people are calling for – to introduce price controls – since almost all states now subscribe to the notion that free market relations, in these days of liberalized open economies, prevent recourse to such measures. If price controls have been introduced, these have been in a limited range of commodities; governments preferring instead to take the hit on the revenue side by reducing the tariffs which they have had on certain critical food items.
The popular uprising in Haiti has taken place just as the United Nations was congratulating itself on the positive results of efforts to restore and maintain order and ensure the stabilization of civil society relations. The emphasis on the control of the availability of weapons and inter-group conflict in the interest of restoring civic security has, however, hidden the rising dangers of threats to the food security of the citizens and the nation. The bias has been in favour of national security as against human security.
Haiti, with its still marginal economy and consequently limited government revenue, has really not been able to push on with the development agenda that we are sure President Preval would like to pursue. The President is well aware of the fragility of a society in which unemployment is extremely high and the security of families still quite tenuous. That the President is himself an agronomist must increase his sense of personal disappointment that he has not been able to successfully introduce policies in an area in which he is supposed to be an expert. In addition from the point of view of his accountability to the Haitian nation and their positive reception of his assurances, he will also have been disappointed that the rioting crowds paid very little heed to his entreaties to stop their activities of looting, killing and general destruction. He will be well aware that this raises the issue of his government’s legitimacy.
The Caribbean Community, of which Haiti is a member, and which has devoted substantial material and psychological resources towards the task of restoration of the Haitian civic order, finds itself standing by with not much to do or say in regard to current events in the country. Instead, Caricom Governments, without exception, find themselves at their wit’s end in trying to cope with rising prices at home, and the rapidity with which this has occurred. Even in Trinidad and Tobago, where there is no shortage of financial resources for subsidizing commodities, Government, committed to the free market, is unwilling to use this method, even as its Minister of Legal Affairs has complained about inexplicable rapid increases in supermarkets. The response of the supermarket owners has not been appreciative of such remarks.
In many Caribbean countries the escalation in food prices has in fact been preceded by steep increases in the cost of agricultural inputs. In the banana-producing countries of the Windward Islands of the OECS for example, there has been a dramatic increase in the last year in the price of fertilizer, a key input into banana production; and this, coupled with the increase in the price of petroleum and its effect on transportation costs has put pressure on both producer and consumer. These governments must be at their wit’s end.
Naturally, there has been a renewed discussion of the extent to which Government’s agricultural policies have contributed to the present situation. In recent times it has often been argued that Caricom governments, in their anxiety to move into the new economic activities favoured in the liberalized international economic environment, have limited their allocations of resources to, and their focus on, the agriculture sector, in favour of concentration of resources in new activities like tourism and related service activities. The old adage of the 1960’s and 1970’s of seeking to concentrate on “producing what we need to consume” has given way to an emphasis on devoting investment resources to areas in which countries have a comparative advantage. This is in accordance with the emphasis in the 1980’s and after on letting free market relations determine the investment and production emphasis in a country – a policy line generally favoured by the international financial and aid institutions.
In countries like Guyana and Jamaica, for example, this had induced a policy line of not devoting sufficient attention to the avoidable impediments to efficient agricultural production, in the context also of a concentration on focusing on commodities which can bring in foreign exchange.
Unfortunately Guyana, for example, now finds itself in the paradoxical situation, as far as other Caricom countries are concerned, of limiting or even stopping its exports of rice to the Caribbean Single Market countries, in favour of exports to countries which can provide so-called “hard currency”.
Good, no doubt, for Guyana, but what do regional commitments now mean?
While we hesitate to suggest the need for more “talk shops”, we would support the recent calls, including from the Prime Minister of Trinidad, for Governments and their Ministers of Agriculture to take another look at our regional area as a common agricultural space, and examine the possibilities for a division of labour in agriculture, with special reference to the resources of Guyana.
This recommendation should be carried further with a deliberate effort to seek resources from the international institutions involved in economic assistance and technical assistance in the sphere of agriculture. Belatedly, it seems to us, the World Bank and the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) are proposing steps to be taken with speed. But better late always being better than never, it is Caricom’s responsibility to press hard for assistance for elaboration and implementation of long-term plans and resources, even though in the first round we will be told that most Caricom countries have middle income economies and should not be in the priority line for assistance.
The rapid dismissal of the Haitian Prime Minister and his Cabinet, in response to the protests in that country – a partly panic reaction of the Parliament intended to appease the rioters, is a signal to other Caribbean countries as to where these situations can go. Even though it is doubtful that we are there yet, given the nature of our political systems.
Haiti, however, is now acknowledged as a special case, deserving of special attention relating not only to its immediate needs, but to the long term requirements for restoring its denuded land space. We must support their case in the international institutions too. National security and human security go together.
