Mobilisation paysanne contre l’accaparement des terres agricoles
mercredi 22 juin 2011
Par Sylvestre Fils Dorcilus
(Read original article here)
Hinche (Haïti), 22 juin 2011 [AlterPresse] --- Des milliers de paysannes et paysans ont marché pendant plusieurs heures, le mardi 21 juin 2011, dans plusieurs rues de la ville de Hinche (chef-lieu du département géographique du Plateau central, à plus d’une centaine de kilomètres au nord-est de la capitale), a observé l’agence en ligne AlterPresse.
« L’accaparement des terres du pays, un danger pour la souveraineté agricole » : tel a été le thème retenu par les organisateurs de la marche, déroulée pacifiquement sous la protection d’une patrouille de l’unité départementale pour le maintien d’ordre (Udmo) de la police nationale d’Haïti (Pnh).
Cette initiative de plusieurs regroupements et plateformes d’organisations sociales, dont des organisations de femmes et de défense de droits humains, avait, entre autres objectifs, de promouvoir la biodiversité agricole en défendant les semences locales.
« Il faut que les autorités gouvernementales du pays puissent enfin assumer leurs responsabilités face à la dégradation notre agriculture. Il faut qu’il y ait une vraie politique agricole », ont scandé les manifestantes et manifestants.
A travers cette mobilisation, les organisateurs de la manifestation entendaient plaider en faveur de dispositions institutionnelles susceptibles d’assurer la souveraineté alimentaire, la réfection de l’environnement et la construction d’une nouvelle Haïti par une exploitation harmonieuse des terres agricoles dans le pays.
« Nous sommes tous des paysans de plusieurs départements géographiques du pays, qui sont venus participer à cette marche pour dénoncer la politique agricole du gouvernement haïtien », a indiqué le porte-parole du Mouvement des paysans de Papaye (Mpp), Chavannes Jean-Baptiste.
Les manifestantes et manifestants paysans portaient, pour la plupart, des chapeaux en paille et étaient vêtus de maillots de couleur rouge, sur lesquels étaient inscrits : « vive l’agriculture haïtienne ; vivent les semences locales ; vive la nourriture de chez nous, etc. »
Exprimant leur indignation face au mode de gestion agricole du pays, mis en place par les autorités centrales qu’ils qualifient d’« irresponsable », les milliers de manifestants, en grande partie des agricultrices et agriculteurs, ont plaidé pour l’implantation d’une politique agricole adaptée à la réalité haïtienne.
« Il faut une politique agricole adaptée à la réalité de notre pays. Il faut que les dirigeants cessent d’importer les denrées agricoles ainsi que les semences étrangères dans le pays », exigent-ils, en criant haro sur les semences et produits importés.
Le processus d’invasion des terres nationales, par des investisseurs privés partout dans le pays, constitue une menace pour les populations locales, privées de leurs moyens de vie et de subsistance, a témoigné Camille Chalmers, de la plateforme de plaidoyer pour un développement alternatif (Papda), présent à la mobilisation du 21 juin 2011.
Comme d’autres manifestants, Chalmers s’est prononcé pour une politique agricole cohérente, reflétant les réalités nationales, en vue, dit-il, de garantir la souveraineté agricole et l’indépendance du pays.
« En déstructurant les économies locales, l’afflux sur le marché local de denrées agricoles, produites dans les pays du Nord de manière intensive avec d’énormes moyens mécaniques, ruine l’agriculture vivrière respectueuse des êtres humains », a déploré Jean-Robert, agriculteur, résident à Papaye, section communale à environ une dizaine de kilomètres à l’est de Hinche.
Plusieurs milliers de fermes agricoles disparaissent chaque année dans le pays. Si cette tendance se perpétue, il n’y aura, bientôt, plus de paysans dans nos campagnes, ont souligné les agricultrices et agriculteurs ayant soutenu la mobilisation du 21 juin.
De plus, l’agriculture paysanne est progressivement remplacée par une agriculture industrialisée.
« Chaque jour, nous voyons des voisins abandonner le travail agricole, faute de revenus décents. De jeunes paysans, désireux de pratiquer l’agriculture, se retrouvent très souvent découragés par le manque de perspectives économiques, le prix prohibitif des terres et une situation de campagnes vidées de leurs agricultrices et agriculteurs », a fait remarquer Jérôme, planteur depuis 25 ans.
« Nous sommes convaincus qu’il n’y aura pas de futur viable pour nos sociétés, sans paysans vivant dignement de leur production. Par cette initiative, nous lançons donc un signal d’alarme et appelons au regroupement des forces pour sauver l’agriculture paysanne dans le pays », souhaite Chavannes Jean-Baptiste.
Il faut une réforme en profondeur dans la politique agricole en Haïti. D’autres politiques agricoles et alimentaires, plus légitimes, plus justes, plus solidaires et plus durables, sont nécessaires dans le pays pour répondre aux enjeux de souveraineté alimentaire, ont fait valoir plusieurs agricultrices et agriculteurs ayant pris part à la mobilisation du 21 juin 2011.
Mise en branle à Papaye aux environs de 10:30 am locales (15:30 gmt), la marche a pris fin sur la place Charlemagne Péralte de Hinche vers 1:00 pm (18:00 gmt), avec notamment une distribution symbolique de semences agricoles locales, de plantules fruitières et forestières aux agriculteurs en signe d’encouragement à la production nationale. [sfd rc 22/06/2011 17:40]
Showing posts with label PAPDA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PAPDA. Show all posts
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Manifestation et contre-manifestation de paysans le 16 octobre
Haïti-Souveraineté alimentaire : Manifestation et contre-manifestation de paysans le 16 octobre
lundi 19 octobre 2009
Par Karenine Francesca Théosmy
De notre envoyée spéciale
(Read the original article here)
Pont Sondé (Artibonite, Haïti), 19 oct. 09 [AlterPresse] --- Une marche, organisée par plus d’une centaine de paysannes et paysans de l’Artibonite, à l’occasion de la journée mondiale de l’alimentation, le vendredi 16 octobre 2009, a été dispersée à Pont Sondé (Artibonite, Nord) par un autre groupe de paysans armés de bâtons et de pierres, a observé l’agence en ligne AlterPresse.
Partis de Kafou Pèy pour arriver au Pont Sondé, les manifestants paysans voulaient protester contre la hausse du prix des engrais sur le marché de l’Artibonite.
Tout au long du parcours de la marche du 16 octobre dernier, les manifestants ont lancé des slogans revendicatifs, au rythme de musique rara, pour demander à l’Organisme de développement de l’Artibonite (Odva) de prendre ses responsabilités. Ils ont également réclamé des moyens pertinents de production qui leur permettent de travailler, tout en garantissant leur souveraineté alimentaire.
Lorsqu’ils sont arrivés devant le local de l’Odva, un autre groupe de paysans les a repoussés à coups de jets de pierres. Aucune victime n’a été signalée. Aucun responsable de l’Odva n’est venu discuter avec les manifestants et contre-manifestants, au moment où les journalistes étaient sur place.
« Ce sont des potentats, liés à l’Odva, qui auraient mobilisé un groupe de dealers d’engrais, qui revendent les engrais aux marchands, qui nous revendent eux à crédit et à des taux exorbitants », a expliqué Assancio Jacques de l’organisation Mouvement revendicatif des paysans de l’Artibonite (Morepla).
Il n’a pas été possible à AlterPresse de trouver le directeur de l’Odva pour avoir sa position sur la question d’augmentation des engrais dans la vallée de l’Artibonite.
Ce groupe de contre-manifestants paysans bénéficierait d’avantages commerciaux dans la revente, à prix élevé, des sacs d’engrais.
Ces engrais sont, pourtant, une donation du gouvernement du Venezuela à l’Etat haïtien dans le cadre du programme de relance agricole après les cyclones de 2008, rappellent les manifestants paysans.
Les planteurs de la vallée de l’Artibonite accusent l’Odva d’être le principal responsable de la vente du sac d’engrais à prix spéculatif.
Dans l’Artibonite, le sac d’engrais se vend actuellement à 1,200.00 gourdes (US $ 1.00 = 42.00 gourdes ; 1 euro = 64.00 gourdes aujourd’hui), alors que l’État avait fixé son prix à 500.00 gourdes.
La hausse du prix des engrais aurait déjà causé des pertes dans la production du riz en 2009 dans le département de l’Artibonite, d’après Jacques qui déplore que beaucoup de paysans ne peuvent pas produire sur la totalité de leurs surfaces cultivables, ni même suffisamment pour subvenir à leurs propres besoins alimentaires.
Après la perturbation du programme du 16 octobre 2009 par les contre-manifestants paysans, les paysans comptent redéfinir des stratégies pour continuer la lutte.
« La prochaine étape sera de mettre la communauté nationale et internationale au courant de la situation », affirme Assancio Jacques.
Mise en question du projet de culture jatropha
Pour les organisations revendicatives dans la vallée de l’Artibonite, la souveraineté alimentaire nationale serait entravée, d’une part, par la présence « des forces étrangères qui contrôlent, de plus en plus, les institutions du pays », et, d’autre part, par des projets contraires aux intérêts de la population, comme celui de la culture de jatropha (plante connue en Haïti sous le nom de gwo metsiyen).
Sur ce dernier point, « l’État ne reculera pas sans la pression des organisations », croit Adeline Augustin du Mouvement paysan de Papaye (Mpp / Papaye, localité de Hinche, dans le Plateau central, à 128 kilomètres au nord-est de Port-au-Prince), qui signale que, « dans le Nord-Est, beaucoup de terres sont déjà plantées en jatropha ».
La culture de cette plante dont les propriétés sont voisines du diesel, est considérée comme une opportunité de développement pour Haïti, mais aussi comme une menace à la souveraineté alimentaire.
Pour de nombreuses organisations, le risque est trop grand.
A l’heure de la célébration de la journée mondiale de l’alimentation, 1,9 millions de personnes se trouvent en situation d’insécurité alimentaire dans le pays.
La paysannerie haïtienne, qui garantit, en grande partie, l’alimentation de la population, est mise à mal par le mince budget alloué par l’État à l’agriculture, le prix élevé des intrants, la faiblesse des crédits agricoles, le manque de matériels et les problèmes de transport et de commercialisation.
La marche du 16 octobre 2009 et la rencontre qui l’a précédée s’inscrivent dans le cadre d’un cercle de plaidoyer pour la souveraineté alimentaire, notion liée à celle de souveraineté nationale, avance Camile Chalmers de la plateforme haïtienne de plaidoyer pour un développement alternatif (Papda).
La Papda prévoit de poursuivre d’autres activités de plaidoyer, notamment à l’occasion du sommet des chefs d’État sur la souveraineté alimentaire qui se tiendra à Rome du 15 au 17 novembre prochains.
« Le pays [Haïti] était auto-suffisant jusque dans les années 1972. Ce sont les politiques inadéquates (des gouvernements) qui ont changé la donne », fustige le secrétaire exécutif de la Papda.
lundi 19 octobre 2009
Par Karenine Francesca Théosmy
De notre envoyée spéciale
(Read the original article here)
Pont Sondé (Artibonite, Haïti), 19 oct. 09 [AlterPresse] --- Une marche, organisée par plus d’une centaine de paysannes et paysans de l’Artibonite, à l’occasion de la journée mondiale de l’alimentation, le vendredi 16 octobre 2009, a été dispersée à Pont Sondé (Artibonite, Nord) par un autre groupe de paysans armés de bâtons et de pierres, a observé l’agence en ligne AlterPresse.
Partis de Kafou Pèy pour arriver au Pont Sondé, les manifestants paysans voulaient protester contre la hausse du prix des engrais sur le marché de l’Artibonite.
Tout au long du parcours de la marche du 16 octobre dernier, les manifestants ont lancé des slogans revendicatifs, au rythme de musique rara, pour demander à l’Organisme de développement de l’Artibonite (Odva) de prendre ses responsabilités. Ils ont également réclamé des moyens pertinents de production qui leur permettent de travailler, tout en garantissant leur souveraineté alimentaire.
Lorsqu’ils sont arrivés devant le local de l’Odva, un autre groupe de paysans les a repoussés à coups de jets de pierres. Aucune victime n’a été signalée. Aucun responsable de l’Odva n’est venu discuter avec les manifestants et contre-manifestants, au moment où les journalistes étaient sur place.
« Ce sont des potentats, liés à l’Odva, qui auraient mobilisé un groupe de dealers d’engrais, qui revendent les engrais aux marchands, qui nous revendent eux à crédit et à des taux exorbitants », a expliqué Assancio Jacques de l’organisation Mouvement revendicatif des paysans de l’Artibonite (Morepla).
Il n’a pas été possible à AlterPresse de trouver le directeur de l’Odva pour avoir sa position sur la question d’augmentation des engrais dans la vallée de l’Artibonite.
Ce groupe de contre-manifestants paysans bénéficierait d’avantages commerciaux dans la revente, à prix élevé, des sacs d’engrais.
Ces engrais sont, pourtant, une donation du gouvernement du Venezuela à l’Etat haïtien dans le cadre du programme de relance agricole après les cyclones de 2008, rappellent les manifestants paysans.
Les planteurs de la vallée de l’Artibonite accusent l’Odva d’être le principal responsable de la vente du sac d’engrais à prix spéculatif.
Dans l’Artibonite, le sac d’engrais se vend actuellement à 1,200.00 gourdes (US $ 1.00 = 42.00 gourdes ; 1 euro = 64.00 gourdes aujourd’hui), alors que l’État avait fixé son prix à 500.00 gourdes.
La hausse du prix des engrais aurait déjà causé des pertes dans la production du riz en 2009 dans le département de l’Artibonite, d’après Jacques qui déplore que beaucoup de paysans ne peuvent pas produire sur la totalité de leurs surfaces cultivables, ni même suffisamment pour subvenir à leurs propres besoins alimentaires.
Après la perturbation du programme du 16 octobre 2009 par les contre-manifestants paysans, les paysans comptent redéfinir des stratégies pour continuer la lutte.
« La prochaine étape sera de mettre la communauté nationale et internationale au courant de la situation », affirme Assancio Jacques.
Mise en question du projet de culture jatropha
Pour les organisations revendicatives dans la vallée de l’Artibonite, la souveraineté alimentaire nationale serait entravée, d’une part, par la présence « des forces étrangères qui contrôlent, de plus en plus, les institutions du pays », et, d’autre part, par des projets contraires aux intérêts de la population, comme celui de la culture de jatropha (plante connue en Haïti sous le nom de gwo metsiyen).
Sur ce dernier point, « l’État ne reculera pas sans la pression des organisations », croit Adeline Augustin du Mouvement paysan de Papaye (Mpp / Papaye, localité de Hinche, dans le Plateau central, à 128 kilomètres au nord-est de Port-au-Prince), qui signale que, « dans le Nord-Est, beaucoup de terres sont déjà plantées en jatropha ».
La culture de cette plante dont les propriétés sont voisines du diesel, est considérée comme une opportunité de développement pour Haïti, mais aussi comme une menace à la souveraineté alimentaire.
Pour de nombreuses organisations, le risque est trop grand.
A l’heure de la célébration de la journée mondiale de l’alimentation, 1,9 millions de personnes se trouvent en situation d’insécurité alimentaire dans le pays.
La paysannerie haïtienne, qui garantit, en grande partie, l’alimentation de la population, est mise à mal par le mince budget alloué par l’État à l’agriculture, le prix élevé des intrants, la faiblesse des crédits agricoles, le manque de matériels et les problèmes de transport et de commercialisation.
La marche du 16 octobre 2009 et la rencontre qui l’a précédée s’inscrivent dans le cadre d’un cercle de plaidoyer pour la souveraineté alimentaire, notion liée à celle de souveraineté nationale, avance Camile Chalmers de la plateforme haïtienne de plaidoyer pour un développement alternatif (Papda).
La Papda prévoit de poursuivre d’autres activités de plaidoyer, notamment à l’occasion du sommet des chefs d’État sur la souveraineté alimentaire qui se tiendra à Rome du 15 au 17 novembre prochains.
« Le pays [Haïti] était auto-suffisant jusque dans les années 1972. Ce sont les politiques inadéquates (des gouvernements) qui ont changé la donne », fustige le secrétaire exécutif de la Papda.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Declaration of the Haitian "Block the EPA" coalition
(The following declaration of several progressive Haitian organizations speaking out against the adoption of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) agreements with Europe was forwarded to me, and it seemed of great enough general interest to repost here. For my part, I have been following the progress of the EPAs in an EU-Africa context from here in Paris, and Haitians are not the only ones voicing concern, for sure. as I have written about some of the objections that have been voiced by African nations before. Something slightly worrisome to me about the press release below, though: Nowhere can I see does it address the pervasive corruption of the Haitian state that has also played a major role in strangling development and economic growth (and pummeling the poor), regardless of the professed political ideology of whoever may be in power at any given moment. I think that that the Haitians themselves need to do a bit of soul-searching on this issue, and not be simply content to blame all of their woes on outside forces. I realize that many of the signatory organizations here have been pushing for better governance in Haiti for many years, but on a wider level in public discourse, I think there needs to be a greater acknowledgement of this problem in Haiti and not just the wink-wink tolerance of it that is often the case. MD)
Declaration of the Haitian coalition, ‘Block the EPA’
Port-au-Prince, 17 October 2007.
Translated from French by Charles Arthur for the Haiti Support Group.
The member organizations of the ‘Block the EPA coalition’ hereby state
their position on the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) by
providing the following succinct arguments justifying our approach. In
the following document we will reiterate our critiques, our demands and
our recommendations.
The ‘Block the EPA coalition’ members salute the courage, awareness,
and determination of hundreds of Haitian organizations and citizens who
have participated in the mobilizations that have taken place over
recent weeks. We also salute the involvement of numerous artists and
musical groups in the anti-EPA mobilizations, notably the Dahomey Dance
Troup, AWOZAM, the artists from the Chandel popular organization, and
the musicians of Boukman Eksperyans, who, by lending their support to
this cause, have once again shown their renewed commitment to the
struggle to defend our country’s future.
The lively interest generated by the campaign was evident during the 16
October demonstration through the streets of Port-au-Prince from the
Place Catherine Flon in Champ de Mars to the Karibe Conference Centre.
Several hundred people, representing organizations from the provinces
as well as the capital, chanted “Block the EPA”, arousing an
enthusiastic response from thousands of spectators and passers-by.
More than 7,500 people have already signed the petition against the
EPA, and thousands more attended a free concert in Place Jérémie on
Sunday, 14 October.
We are sure that the mobilization will only grow in strength in the
coming weeks.
Numerous conferences, press conferences, workshops with the media, and
information seminars for grassroots organizations from seven of the
country’s ten departments, have already taken place. This public
campaign, focused on providing information, training, and advocacy
around the issues of Economic Partnership Agreements for the Africa,
Caribbean and Pacific region (ACP) countries, in particular Haiti, is
being carried out in the context of a struggle between the superpowers
for control of the world’s markets.
1. The reality of the EPAs
The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)proposed by the European
Union do not constitute a framework of partnership, but are essentially
neo-liberal-inspired free market agreements that prolong imperialist
domination and a neo-colonial vision, and which aim to strengthen the
position of European multinationals in the context of the rivalry
between the most powerful economic trade blocs. In an October 2006
document, the European Community declared its ambition to control the
majority of the global market by the year 2010.
The EPA requires (with few exceptions) a complete trade liberalization.
Our country has already lived with, and is still living with, the
disastrous consequences of the liberalization imposed by the
International Finance Institutions (IFIs) in the 1980s and with even
greater force since the years 1994-95. Haiti has become one of the
countries most open to foreign trade, with existing import tariffs set
at an average of 2.9% and the vast majority of the imported products
coming in with a zero tariff. This situation is largely responsible for
the collapse of whole sectors of the peasant economy which currently
generates only 25% of annual GDP, and can barely produce 48% of the
food consumed in our country. Following this accelerated
liberalization, our country has entered a period of rapid economic
decline, which has plunged the vast majority of the population (76%)
into extreme poverty. We have also witnessed an explosion in
unemployment. According to available information, in the sectors
producing rice, sugar, chickens and eggs, more than 830,000 jobs have
been destroyed by the liberalization of the 1990s. We cannot accept a
continuation along the same path. Agreements like the EPA will
accelerate the destruction of our economy.
2. The consequences of the EPAs for the poor
The EPAs have been widely denounced by bodies like the International
Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Caribbean Policy Development
Center (CPDC), the Caribbean Labor Council (CCL), by hundreds of
organizations in Europe and the ACP countries, and even by governments
concerned about the negative impact of these agreements on all the
countries concerned. In general terms, it is possible to predict
massive shocks with devastating effects that will vary according to
each nation’s specific situation. A report issued in 2006 by a working
group of French members of Parliament concluded that the EPAs will
inevitably lead to four types of shocks:
- A budgetary shock. There will be a significant reduction in customs
revenue for countries which have important trade with the European
markets. (In Haiti, the loss of customs revenue as a direct consequence
of the EPA is estimated by the Ministry of Trade and Industry will be
at least US$8m. annually. Only 10% of Haitian imports currently come
from EU countries but it is anticipated that there will be an increase
of around 10% per annum over the next five years). This blow will cause
a reduction in the welfare state’s capacity in the areas of health,
education, environment, the creation of productive employment, and the
strengthening of vital sectors of the national economy;
- A balance of payments shock with a rapid deterioration in the trade
deficit, making the country more vulnerable and more dependent, and
complicating macroeconomic management. Remember that Haiti with annual
imports of about US$2bn. and exports of US$600m is experiencing a
structural trade deficit which has worsened rapidly in recent years.
The absence of policies designed to enhance the productive capacities
of the country raises fears of an exponential growth in imports that
will jeopardize the country’s productive sectors;
- A blow to agriculture by putting farmers already operating in a
hostile environment in direct competition with European agricultural
products enjoying a high level of productivity and generous subsidies.
Haiti today imports nearly US$40m of dairy products each year, even
though we have a stock of 450,000 head of cattle that, with sustained
investment and improved infrastructure, would be perfectly capable of
meeting domestic demand. We already import a large quantity of dairy
products from Europe. With the EPA, this dependency will increase,
depriving our country of the possibility of a drive to transform the
livestock industry and dairy production. All recent studies indicate
the great potential of this sector, and such a drive could have clear
positive effects in terms agriculture and industry. It is sufficient to
refer to the success of initiatives such as "Lèt Agogo” (Milk Galore)
carried out by several peasant organizations supervised by Veterimed
and other organizations;
- An industrial shock ruining the ACP countries’ embryonic
industrialization efforts by exposing them to competition from
industrial products coming from Europe. Similarly, the situation of
basic social services, from which a large part of the Haitian
population is already excluded, is likely to worsen with the
penetration of the major European multinational companies which are
among the most efficient in the service sector. There is a danger that
an existing trend of de-industrialization will be accentuated by once
again accelerating an increase in unemployment, by a regressive
specialization ruining any opportunity for diversification, and by
increased dependency on European multinational companies that are sure
to speed up the process of privatization and the deregulation of key
service sectors (e.g. education, health, telecommunications, etc.). All
this will accentuate what is already underway with the commitments
undertaken by our country in the context of GATS-driven multilateral
negotiations at the WTO. This trend will worsen the exclusion and
marginalization of entire sections of our population.
3. Ten reasons why we must reject the EPAs
Having carefully read the 154 pages of a draft agreement governing
economic relations between the 27 EU countries and 17 countries of
CARIFORUM, dated September 19, 2007; after conducting multi-sectoral
consultations and debates since May 2007; and after analyzing the
impact assessment studies conducted in several different regions -
notably in Kenya and Haiti, especially by the European Union with its
PRIMA program - the ‘Block the EPA coalition’ demands the withdrawal of
this agreement for the following reasons:
3.1 It is a neo-liberal inspired free trade agreement written in the
framework of a subordinate integration into the world market in a
context characterized by brutal asymmetries and struggles between
different regional blocs for a share of the global market. Any
agreement with these characteristics can only heavily penalize ACP
countries.
3.2 It is an agreement establishing reciprocal relationships without
regard to the concept of special and differential treatment or to the
huge disparity between, on one hand, the world’s major economic power,
with nearly 29% of global GDP, and on the other, a region with ultra
poor countries, (out of the 79 ACP countries, 39 of them are LDCs)
which have an average per capita income US$450.00 a year.
3.3 It is an agreement that purports to align itself with WTO rules,
but in many ways goes much further, particularly in the following
areas: services, agriculture, government procurement, and intellectual
property. While multilateral negotiations are at an impasse, it
attempts to impose a WTO + enabling this organization’s dominant
countries to go even further than their already stated ambitions
3.4 It is a clear regression in relation to the spirit of the Lomé
Conventions and the Cotonou Agreement, in that the issue of the
development of the ACP countries is not a priority in the current
agreement. The development of free trade cannot on its own lead to a
real development process. What a thought!
3.5 The agenda for discussions and negotiations clearly reflects the
priorities of the European Union. Issues that are vital to our region,
such as the management and protection of the Caribbean Sea, the common
heritage of our nations, mass tourism and its negative social impacts,
agricultural production and crafts, poverty, unemployment and
underemployment, migration’s effect in depriving the region of a
substantial part of its skilled human resources, trade networks between
Caribbean countries, the redistribution of wealth, and so on, have been
marginalized or ignored altogether. There are no mechanisms to
strengthen the institutional and productive capacities of the region.
The allusions to sustainable development (requested by the NGO
community in the region) are just wishful thinking and remain
statements of principle. In this sense, a special program of support
for micro-enterprises and SMEs should have been considered.
3.6 The negotiations have not permitted the creation of real spaces for
participation and discussion. In the case of Haiti, the situation is
even worse. The negotiations are conducted in an atmosphere of
quasi-confidentiality. Haiti is participating in group negotiations
concerning 1) market access, 2) investment, 3) good governance, and 4)
business institutions, but without any substantial information having
been made available to society as to the content of the negotiations or
the commitments made by Haiti. In 2003, the Haitian government mandated
CARICOM to negotiate the EPA on its behalf while taking into account
its LDC status. However, the negotiators acting on our behalf have not
been provided with any directives explaining our national economic
situation or the state of trade relations between Haiti and the
European Union. Between 2004 and 2006, there was a break in diplomatic
relations between the interim (Latortue) government and the leaders of
CARICOM. This situation requires clarification in relation to what
commitments were made by other actors in the name of our country during
the most intense period of negotiations.
3.7 The timetable for the negotiations, based as it is on the EU’s
insistence on the need to fall in line with WTO rules, is no longer
justified at the present time. Indeed, multilateral negotiations are at
an impasse at the WTO. Everything seems to indicate that no consensus
solution is on the horizon at least for the next two years. The
deadline of January 2008 should be revised accordingly by giving
countries a space to set up extensive consultations and a thorough
discussion with all sectors. We need a process of inclusive,
participatory and transparent negotiation, out of which a national
development strategy can be developed with the participation of all
sectors of national life.
3.8 The EPAs threaten to decapitalize the productive sectors of the ACP
countries, particularly Haiti. It is clear that this agreement
represents a threat to food sovereignty of ACP countries by leading to
an extension of the practice of large monoculture plantations. The
brutal proletarianization of an important part of the small peasantry
will cause social problems on a large scale. Why jeopardize the future
of more than 60% of the Haitian population to satisfy the desire of the
European powers?
3.9 We believe that the negotiators from the Caribbean region have
committed a grave error in accepting that the tariffs to be applied
will be based on the mathematical average of the rates applied by the
CARIFORUM countries. This approach is likely to be detrimental to
countries with weaker and smaller economies.
3.10 The exclusion lists, the special safeguards, the provisions for
special products, and the financial compensations and adjustments, all
seem to us to be quite inadequate. We are being asked to make
structural changes in our economies and our institutions, while the
total funding allocated under the 10th EDF only promises an envelope of
165 million Euros over the period 2008 – 2013. This represents a
ridiculous amount to the order of 1.09 Euros per person per year for
the 17 countries of CARIFORUM – and, in addition, we know that a
significant proportion of these funds will never actually be disbursed.
This level of funding is far less than the 0.7% of their GNP promised
by the rich countries for years and restated in the form of the
commitments to increase development assistance made at Monterrey in
2002 and the Paris Conference of 2005. It is especially not
commensurate with the huge social, ecological, and historical debt to
our country that Europe has accumulated over the past centuries and
which continues to accumulate through neo-colonial mechanisms based on
unfair and unbalanced trade.
4. Our demands and our recommendations to the European Union (EU):
4.1 The EU should abandon its goal of reciprocal trade liberalization
with respect to the weaker economies of the South;
4.2 In compliance with at least the principles and objectives of the
Cotonou Agreement, the EU must necessarily focus on development
cooperation, rather than on the trade aspect of the EU-ACP Partnership
Agreement;
4.3 As a matter of urgency, it is necessary to examine the
possibilities of alternative trade regimes. These must take into
account the imperatives of the development of ACP countries and their
priority needs;
4.4 The EU should change its strategy of negotiating by working with
the ACP countries to get more "WTO-flexibility" and push for a
comprehensive reform of this institution so that it is more geared to
enhance the development of international trade instead of being under
the thumb of multinationals and powerful governments.
4.5 The EU should respect and help build (rather than undermining) m
existing regional integration mechanisms, which for the most part
remain in a virtual condition. The strengthening of these integration
efforts is the first step towards an upgrade of regional economies so
that they can cope with the unfair competition that currently dominates
the global capitalist market;
4.6 As the EU is the leading economic power in the world (29% of global
GDP) it should devote additional resources to strengthen the productive
capacities of our countries, to strengthen competitiveness and to
diversify our economies. These resources should be made available more
easily and more quickly;
4.7 The EU should release more financial resources and technology for
sustainable development and the eradication of poverty by increasing
development aid, by the immediate and unconditional abolition of debts
claimed from the ACP countries, and by exploring innovative sources of
development funds (including a tax on financial transactions in
progress - several variations of the model of the Tobin Tax are quite
applicable, as shown by numerous studies);
4.8 The EU should reform the Common Agricultural Policy in such a way
that it contributes to a more sustainable family farming in Europe, and
does not interfere with agricultural and trade interests of third
countries;
4.9 The EU should establish transparent and participatory mechanisms to
more thoroughly assess the impact of existing and future trade policies
(including measuring the impact of trade policy reforms carried out
under the Structural Adjustment Policies, and putting compensation and
reparation measures in place);
4.10 In the current negotiations, the EU should refrain from putting
any pressure on the ACP states beyond the scope of the Cotonou
Agreement, with regard to issues such as those relating to the
liberalization of investment, competition policies, government
procurement, trade facilitation, data protection and services;
4.11 The EU should refrain from the use of blackmail by de-linking
access to funds from the 10th EDF and the pace of EPA negotiations;
4.12 The EU needs to improve the negotiating process by clearly
defining mechanisms for wide, real and effective consultation,
especially with community-based organizations, social movements, and
civil society in general. The EU countries should be more accountable
to their national and supranational parliaments, including the ACP-EU
Joint Parliamentary Assembly.
5. Our demands and our recommendations to the Haitian authorities.
5.1 The Haitian government should carry out a process of setting up a
national strategy for rehabilitation and development in the context of
a broad and meaningful participation of all sectors of national life.
This should take place as soon as possible. Only on the basis of this
strategy we will be able to define a path of regional integration in
the Caribbean and the coherent elements of a framework relating to our
trade with the rest of the world;
5.2 The government should give serious consideration to the potential
of our economy in relation to the needs of countries in the region. To
take advantage of these opportunities, the intelligent mobilization of
all concerned producers will be required;
5.3 The Haitian government should refuse to sign the EPA and ask for a
moratorium of at least three years in order to develop a transparent,
inclusive, and truly participatory consultative process;
5.4 The Haitian government should seek to take into account our
particular situation (a country plagued by a long systemic crisis) and
invoke the concept of special and differential treatment, both in terms
of our relations with countries in the Caribbean as well as in the
framework of their relations with other regions;
5.5 The government should intensify its relations with blocs of
countries proposing an alternative vision of integration – like the
ALBA framework - based on respect for our culture and our history and
which is built on the basis of cooperative advantage;
5.6 The Haitian government should definitively assess the past 20 years
of domination by neo-liberal policies, and implement different policies
based on a vision of eradicating poverty, and fighting the polarization
between the rich and the excluded. It must show a real will to
rehabilitate the small peasant economy and build a regime of
accumulation prioritizing the needs of the domestic market and coherent
articulation of the productive sectors;
5.7 The Haitian government should take advantage of the Common External
Tariff (CET)applied by CARICOM to selectively protect production chains
with strong potential (tubers, coffee, cocoa, fishing, arts and crafts,
cottage industries, cultural production, grains, livestock, dairy
production and the processing of fruits, télétravail, construction
materials, eco and cultural tourism, etc.);
5.8 The exclusion lists should be discussed with all sectors of the
country, and take into account our potential in the medium term. The
deadline for signing before the end of the year will not permit serious
work on the list of products excluded from the liberalization, and we
believe that we must break this doctrine of progressive liberalization
as the expiration date of 20 years does not, we believe, offer adequate
insurance coverage.;
5.9 The issue of the defense of national production and food
sovereignty must be an essential component in the process of
negotiation of any partnership agreement;
5.10 The government should refuse to liberalize government procurement
which constitutes a lever to protect and recapitalize small and
medium-sized domestic companies;
5.11 The government should protect social services by preserving any
commodification process to ensure accessibility and universality of
these public goods and services;
5.12 The Haitian government should support the reservations expressed
by several leaders of CARICOM countries who reject the inclusion of
standards of "good governance" in the context of the EPAs because this
implies a reduction in state interventions in social issues, the
environment, poverty alleviation, the creation of stable employment,
and so on;
5.13 The Haitian government should fight to retain the levers to
subsidize agricultural production and fragile niches of transformative
industries.
6. Our recommendations to our country’s social movements and
organizations.
6.1 We call on all citizens to support the petition against the EPA in
order to signal our rejection of any mechanism that jeopardizes our
chances of development and the participation of citizens in the
construction of a strong and united nation;
6.2 We call upon all organizations to contribute to the dissemination
of as much information as possible on the issue of the trade
negotiations, and to hold serious discussions on these issues;
6.3 We call on everyone to exert pressure on the Haitian authorities to
refuse to sign such a harmful agreement, and to maintain constant
vigilance of these negotiations. We need the establishment of a genuine
strategy of rehabilitation and national development. The organizations
and agencies which are coalition members have a wealth of documentation
on the EPA negotiations, which is available to everyone;
6.4 We call on the Haitian people, on all organizations and citizens
across the country, to form networks to exert strong pressure in order
to be able to influence the country’s decision-making mechanisms, to
safeguard the achievements won in 1804 and to continue to be at the
forefront of all peoples’ struggles for emancipation in a spirit of
solidarity, equity and social justice;
And the mobilization continues...
Members of ‘Block the EPA’ coalition:
PAPDA - MODEP - CHANDEL - RAJES - SOFA - RNDDH - TÈT KOLE TI PEYIZAN
AYISYEN
With the support of: OXFAM - ACTION AID - BRODERLIJK DELEN – MCC -
GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL
Declaration of the Haitian coalition, ‘Block the EPA’
Port-au-Prince, 17 October 2007.
Translated from French by Charles Arthur for the Haiti Support Group.
The member organizations of the ‘Block the EPA coalition’ hereby state
their position on the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) by
providing the following succinct arguments justifying our approach. In
the following document we will reiterate our critiques, our demands and
our recommendations.
The ‘Block the EPA coalition’ members salute the courage, awareness,
and determination of hundreds of Haitian organizations and citizens who
have participated in the mobilizations that have taken place over
recent weeks. We also salute the involvement of numerous artists and
musical groups in the anti-EPA mobilizations, notably the Dahomey Dance
Troup, AWOZAM, the artists from the Chandel popular organization, and
the musicians of Boukman Eksperyans, who, by lending their support to
this cause, have once again shown their renewed commitment to the
struggle to defend our country’s future.
The lively interest generated by the campaign was evident during the 16
October demonstration through the streets of Port-au-Prince from the
Place Catherine Flon in Champ de Mars to the Karibe Conference Centre.
Several hundred people, representing organizations from the provinces
as well as the capital, chanted “Block the EPA”, arousing an
enthusiastic response from thousands of spectators and passers-by.
More than 7,500 people have already signed the petition against the
EPA, and thousands more attended a free concert in Place Jérémie on
Sunday, 14 October.
We are sure that the mobilization will only grow in strength in the
coming weeks.
Numerous conferences, press conferences, workshops with the media, and
information seminars for grassroots organizations from seven of the
country’s ten departments, have already taken place. This public
campaign, focused on providing information, training, and advocacy
around the issues of Economic Partnership Agreements for the Africa,
Caribbean and Pacific region (ACP) countries, in particular Haiti, is
being carried out in the context of a struggle between the superpowers
for control of the world’s markets.
1. The reality of the EPAs
The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)proposed by the European
Union do not constitute a framework of partnership, but are essentially
neo-liberal-inspired free market agreements that prolong imperialist
domination and a neo-colonial vision, and which aim to strengthen the
position of European multinationals in the context of the rivalry
between the most powerful economic trade blocs. In an October 2006
document, the European Community declared its ambition to control the
majority of the global market by the year 2010.
The EPA requires (with few exceptions) a complete trade liberalization.
Our country has already lived with, and is still living with, the
disastrous consequences of the liberalization imposed by the
International Finance Institutions (IFIs) in the 1980s and with even
greater force since the years 1994-95. Haiti has become one of the
countries most open to foreign trade, with existing import tariffs set
at an average of 2.9% and the vast majority of the imported products
coming in with a zero tariff. This situation is largely responsible for
the collapse of whole sectors of the peasant economy which currently
generates only 25% of annual GDP, and can barely produce 48% of the
food consumed in our country. Following this accelerated
liberalization, our country has entered a period of rapid economic
decline, which has plunged the vast majority of the population (76%)
into extreme poverty. We have also witnessed an explosion in
unemployment. According to available information, in the sectors
producing rice, sugar, chickens and eggs, more than 830,000 jobs have
been destroyed by the liberalization of the 1990s. We cannot accept a
continuation along the same path. Agreements like the EPA will
accelerate the destruction of our economy.
2. The consequences of the EPAs for the poor
The EPAs have been widely denounced by bodies like the International
Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Caribbean Policy Development
Center (CPDC), the Caribbean Labor Council (CCL), by hundreds of
organizations in Europe and the ACP countries, and even by governments
concerned about the negative impact of these agreements on all the
countries concerned. In general terms, it is possible to predict
massive shocks with devastating effects that will vary according to
each nation’s specific situation. A report issued in 2006 by a working
group of French members of Parliament concluded that the EPAs will
inevitably lead to four types of shocks:
- A budgetary shock. There will be a significant reduction in customs
revenue for countries which have important trade with the European
markets. (In Haiti, the loss of customs revenue as a direct consequence
of the EPA is estimated by the Ministry of Trade and Industry will be
at least US$8m. annually. Only 10% of Haitian imports currently come
from EU countries but it is anticipated that there will be an increase
of around 10% per annum over the next five years). This blow will cause
a reduction in the welfare state’s capacity in the areas of health,
education, environment, the creation of productive employment, and the
strengthening of vital sectors of the national economy;
- A balance of payments shock with a rapid deterioration in the trade
deficit, making the country more vulnerable and more dependent, and
complicating macroeconomic management. Remember that Haiti with annual
imports of about US$2bn. and exports of US$600m is experiencing a
structural trade deficit which has worsened rapidly in recent years.
The absence of policies designed to enhance the productive capacities
of the country raises fears of an exponential growth in imports that
will jeopardize the country’s productive sectors;
- A blow to agriculture by putting farmers already operating in a
hostile environment in direct competition with European agricultural
products enjoying a high level of productivity and generous subsidies.
Haiti today imports nearly US$40m of dairy products each year, even
though we have a stock of 450,000 head of cattle that, with sustained
investment and improved infrastructure, would be perfectly capable of
meeting domestic demand. We already import a large quantity of dairy
products from Europe. With the EPA, this dependency will increase,
depriving our country of the possibility of a drive to transform the
livestock industry and dairy production. All recent studies indicate
the great potential of this sector, and such a drive could have clear
positive effects in terms agriculture and industry. It is sufficient to
refer to the success of initiatives such as "Lèt Agogo” (Milk Galore)
carried out by several peasant organizations supervised by Veterimed
and other organizations;
- An industrial shock ruining the ACP countries’ embryonic
industrialization efforts by exposing them to competition from
industrial products coming from Europe. Similarly, the situation of
basic social services, from which a large part of the Haitian
population is already excluded, is likely to worsen with the
penetration of the major European multinational companies which are
among the most efficient in the service sector. There is a danger that
an existing trend of de-industrialization will be accentuated by once
again accelerating an increase in unemployment, by a regressive
specialization ruining any opportunity for diversification, and by
increased dependency on European multinational companies that are sure
to speed up the process of privatization and the deregulation of key
service sectors (e.g. education, health, telecommunications, etc.). All
this will accentuate what is already underway with the commitments
undertaken by our country in the context of GATS-driven multilateral
negotiations at the WTO. This trend will worsen the exclusion and
marginalization of entire sections of our population.
3. Ten reasons why we must reject the EPAs
Having carefully read the 154 pages of a draft agreement governing
economic relations between the 27 EU countries and 17 countries of
CARIFORUM, dated September 19, 2007; after conducting multi-sectoral
consultations and debates since May 2007; and after analyzing the
impact assessment studies conducted in several different regions -
notably in Kenya and Haiti, especially by the European Union with its
PRIMA program - the ‘Block the EPA coalition’ demands the withdrawal of
this agreement for the following reasons:
3.1 It is a neo-liberal inspired free trade agreement written in the
framework of a subordinate integration into the world market in a
context characterized by brutal asymmetries and struggles between
different regional blocs for a share of the global market. Any
agreement with these characteristics can only heavily penalize ACP
countries.
3.2 It is an agreement establishing reciprocal relationships without
regard to the concept of special and differential treatment or to the
huge disparity between, on one hand, the world’s major economic power,
with nearly 29% of global GDP, and on the other, a region with ultra
poor countries, (out of the 79 ACP countries, 39 of them are LDCs)
which have an average per capita income US$450.00 a year.
3.3 It is an agreement that purports to align itself with WTO rules,
but in many ways goes much further, particularly in the following
areas: services, agriculture, government procurement, and intellectual
property. While multilateral negotiations are at an impasse, it
attempts to impose a WTO + enabling this organization’s dominant
countries to go even further than their already stated ambitions
3.4 It is a clear regression in relation to the spirit of the Lomé
Conventions and the Cotonou Agreement, in that the issue of the
development of the ACP countries is not a priority in the current
agreement. The development of free trade cannot on its own lead to a
real development process. What a thought!
3.5 The agenda for discussions and negotiations clearly reflects the
priorities of the European Union. Issues that are vital to our region,
such as the management and protection of the Caribbean Sea, the common
heritage of our nations, mass tourism and its negative social impacts,
agricultural production and crafts, poverty, unemployment and
underemployment, migration’s effect in depriving the region of a
substantial part of its skilled human resources, trade networks between
Caribbean countries, the redistribution of wealth, and so on, have been
marginalized or ignored altogether. There are no mechanisms to
strengthen the institutional and productive capacities of the region.
The allusions to sustainable development (requested by the NGO
community in the region) are just wishful thinking and remain
statements of principle. In this sense, a special program of support
for micro-enterprises and SMEs should have been considered.
3.6 The negotiations have not permitted the creation of real spaces for
participation and discussion. In the case of Haiti, the situation is
even worse. The negotiations are conducted in an atmosphere of
quasi-confidentiality. Haiti is participating in group negotiations
concerning 1) market access, 2) investment, 3) good governance, and 4)
business institutions, but without any substantial information having
been made available to society as to the content of the negotiations or
the commitments made by Haiti. In 2003, the Haitian government mandated
CARICOM to negotiate the EPA on its behalf while taking into account
its LDC status. However, the negotiators acting on our behalf have not
been provided with any directives explaining our national economic
situation or the state of trade relations between Haiti and the
European Union. Between 2004 and 2006, there was a break in diplomatic
relations between the interim (Latortue) government and the leaders of
CARICOM. This situation requires clarification in relation to what
commitments were made by other actors in the name of our country during
the most intense period of negotiations.
3.7 The timetable for the negotiations, based as it is on the EU’s
insistence on the need to fall in line with WTO rules, is no longer
justified at the present time. Indeed, multilateral negotiations are at
an impasse at the WTO. Everything seems to indicate that no consensus
solution is on the horizon at least for the next two years. The
deadline of January 2008 should be revised accordingly by giving
countries a space to set up extensive consultations and a thorough
discussion with all sectors. We need a process of inclusive,
participatory and transparent negotiation, out of which a national
development strategy can be developed with the participation of all
sectors of national life.
3.8 The EPAs threaten to decapitalize the productive sectors of the ACP
countries, particularly Haiti. It is clear that this agreement
represents a threat to food sovereignty of ACP countries by leading to
an extension of the practice of large monoculture plantations. The
brutal proletarianization of an important part of the small peasantry
will cause social problems on a large scale. Why jeopardize the future
of more than 60% of the Haitian population to satisfy the desire of the
European powers?
3.9 We believe that the negotiators from the Caribbean region have
committed a grave error in accepting that the tariffs to be applied
will be based on the mathematical average of the rates applied by the
CARIFORUM countries. This approach is likely to be detrimental to
countries with weaker and smaller economies.
3.10 The exclusion lists, the special safeguards, the provisions for
special products, and the financial compensations and adjustments, all
seem to us to be quite inadequate. We are being asked to make
structural changes in our economies and our institutions, while the
total funding allocated under the 10th EDF only promises an envelope of
165 million Euros over the period 2008 – 2013. This represents a
ridiculous amount to the order of 1.09 Euros per person per year for
the 17 countries of CARIFORUM – and, in addition, we know that a
significant proportion of these funds will never actually be disbursed.
This level of funding is far less than the 0.7% of their GNP promised
by the rich countries for years and restated in the form of the
commitments to increase development assistance made at Monterrey in
2002 and the Paris Conference of 2005. It is especially not
commensurate with the huge social, ecological, and historical debt to
our country that Europe has accumulated over the past centuries and
which continues to accumulate through neo-colonial mechanisms based on
unfair and unbalanced trade.
4. Our demands and our recommendations to the European Union (EU):
4.1 The EU should abandon its goal of reciprocal trade liberalization
with respect to the weaker economies of the South;
4.2 In compliance with at least the principles and objectives of the
Cotonou Agreement, the EU must necessarily focus on development
cooperation, rather than on the trade aspect of the EU-ACP Partnership
Agreement;
4.3 As a matter of urgency, it is necessary to examine the
possibilities of alternative trade regimes. These must take into
account the imperatives of the development of ACP countries and their
priority needs;
4.4 The EU should change its strategy of negotiating by working with
the ACP countries to get more "WTO-flexibility" and push for a
comprehensive reform of this institution so that it is more geared to
enhance the development of international trade instead of being under
the thumb of multinationals and powerful governments.
4.5 The EU should respect and help build (rather than undermining) m
existing regional integration mechanisms, which for the most part
remain in a virtual condition. The strengthening of these integration
efforts is the first step towards an upgrade of regional economies so
that they can cope with the unfair competition that currently dominates
the global capitalist market;
4.6 As the EU is the leading economic power in the world (29% of global
GDP) it should devote additional resources to strengthen the productive
capacities of our countries, to strengthen competitiveness and to
diversify our economies. These resources should be made available more
easily and more quickly;
4.7 The EU should release more financial resources and technology for
sustainable development and the eradication of poverty by increasing
development aid, by the immediate and unconditional abolition of debts
claimed from the ACP countries, and by exploring innovative sources of
development funds (including a tax on financial transactions in
progress - several variations of the model of the Tobin Tax are quite
applicable, as shown by numerous studies);
4.8 The EU should reform the Common Agricultural Policy in such a way
that it contributes to a more sustainable family farming in Europe, and
does not interfere with agricultural and trade interests of third
countries;
4.9 The EU should establish transparent and participatory mechanisms to
more thoroughly assess the impact of existing and future trade policies
(including measuring the impact of trade policy reforms carried out
under the Structural Adjustment Policies, and putting compensation and
reparation measures in place);
4.10 In the current negotiations, the EU should refrain from putting
any pressure on the ACP states beyond the scope of the Cotonou
Agreement, with regard to issues such as those relating to the
liberalization of investment, competition policies, government
procurement, trade facilitation, data protection and services;
4.11 The EU should refrain from the use of blackmail by de-linking
access to funds from the 10th EDF and the pace of EPA negotiations;
4.12 The EU needs to improve the negotiating process by clearly
defining mechanisms for wide, real and effective consultation,
especially with community-based organizations, social movements, and
civil society in general. The EU countries should be more accountable
to their national and supranational parliaments, including the ACP-EU
Joint Parliamentary Assembly.
5. Our demands and our recommendations to the Haitian authorities.
5.1 The Haitian government should carry out a process of setting up a
national strategy for rehabilitation and development in the context of
a broad and meaningful participation of all sectors of national life.
This should take place as soon as possible. Only on the basis of this
strategy we will be able to define a path of regional integration in
the Caribbean and the coherent elements of a framework relating to our
trade with the rest of the world;
5.2 The government should give serious consideration to the potential
of our economy in relation to the needs of countries in the region. To
take advantage of these opportunities, the intelligent mobilization of
all concerned producers will be required;
5.3 The Haitian government should refuse to sign the EPA and ask for a
moratorium of at least three years in order to develop a transparent,
inclusive, and truly participatory consultative process;
5.4 The Haitian government should seek to take into account our
particular situation (a country plagued by a long systemic crisis) and
invoke the concept of special and differential treatment, both in terms
of our relations with countries in the Caribbean as well as in the
framework of their relations with other regions;
5.5 The government should intensify its relations with blocs of
countries proposing an alternative vision of integration – like the
ALBA framework - based on respect for our culture and our history and
which is built on the basis of cooperative advantage;
5.6 The Haitian government should definitively assess the past 20 years
of domination by neo-liberal policies, and implement different policies
based on a vision of eradicating poverty, and fighting the polarization
between the rich and the excluded. It must show a real will to
rehabilitate the small peasant economy and build a regime of
accumulation prioritizing the needs of the domestic market and coherent
articulation of the productive sectors;
5.7 The Haitian government should take advantage of the Common External
Tariff (CET)applied by CARICOM to selectively protect production chains
with strong potential (tubers, coffee, cocoa, fishing, arts and crafts,
cottage industries, cultural production, grains, livestock, dairy
production and the processing of fruits, télétravail, construction
materials, eco and cultural tourism, etc.);
5.8 The exclusion lists should be discussed with all sectors of the
country, and take into account our potential in the medium term. The
deadline for signing before the end of the year will not permit serious
work on the list of products excluded from the liberalization, and we
believe that we must break this doctrine of progressive liberalization
as the expiration date of 20 years does not, we believe, offer adequate
insurance coverage.;
5.9 The issue of the defense of national production and food
sovereignty must be an essential component in the process of
negotiation of any partnership agreement;
5.10 The government should refuse to liberalize government procurement
which constitutes a lever to protect and recapitalize small and
medium-sized domestic companies;
5.11 The government should protect social services by preserving any
commodification process to ensure accessibility and universality of
these public goods and services;
5.12 The Haitian government should support the reservations expressed
by several leaders of CARICOM countries who reject the inclusion of
standards of "good governance" in the context of the EPAs because this
implies a reduction in state interventions in social issues, the
environment, poverty alleviation, the creation of stable employment,
and so on;
5.13 The Haitian government should fight to retain the levers to
subsidize agricultural production and fragile niches of transformative
industries.
6. Our recommendations to our country’s social movements and
organizations.
6.1 We call on all citizens to support the petition against the EPA in
order to signal our rejection of any mechanism that jeopardizes our
chances of development and the participation of citizens in the
construction of a strong and united nation;
6.2 We call upon all organizations to contribute to the dissemination
of as much information as possible on the issue of the trade
negotiations, and to hold serious discussions on these issues;
6.3 We call on everyone to exert pressure on the Haitian authorities to
refuse to sign such a harmful agreement, and to maintain constant
vigilance of these negotiations. We need the establishment of a genuine
strategy of rehabilitation and national development. The organizations
and agencies which are coalition members have a wealth of documentation
on the EPA negotiations, which is available to everyone;
6.4 We call on the Haitian people, on all organizations and citizens
across the country, to form networks to exert strong pressure in order
to be able to influence the country’s decision-making mechanisms, to
safeguard the achievements won in 1804 and to continue to be at the
forefront of all peoples’ struggles for emancipation in a spirit of
solidarity, equity and social justice;
And the mobilization continues...
Members of ‘Block the EPA’ coalition:
PAPDA - MODEP - CHANDEL - RAJES - SOFA - RNDDH - TÈT KOLE TI PEYIZAN
AYISYEN
With the support of: OXFAM - ACTION AID - BRODERLIJK DELEN – MCC -
GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Sou chimen tribinal popilè espesyal pou jije politik privatizasyon ak plan neyoliberal la
(This open letter protesting privatization plans in Haiti was recently released by 10 left-wing Haitian groups. The original can be read here. MD)
Lèt tou louvri plizyè òganizasyon voye bay minis travo piblik, Frantz Verella Dokiman sa a vin jwenn AlterPresse 21 out 2007 Soti nan : Regwoupman òganizasyon k ap lite kont politik privatizasyon antrepriz piblik yo Pou : Frantz VERELLA, Enj. Minis TPTC Nan biwo l Objè : Envitasyon Misye Minis, Nou menm sendika ak òganizasyon popilè ki siyen lèt sa a, nou konstate ou asosye w ak yon rejim ki pase nan opinyon piblik la pou patizan pèp pandan ekip la ap mare peyi a pi di nan pye tab pisans enperaylis yo. Depi 1991, nan ti pas kout, in-de, lavalas ap jwe alimba ak pouvwa leta yo pandan okenn nan revandikasyon pèp la aprè 7 fevriye 86 yo pa rive satisfè alewè pou revandikasyon fondalnatal mas popilè yo k ap soufri depi 1803. Olye lavalas kreye travay li revoke plis pase 10.000 travayè nan biwo ak antrepriz leta yo epi demantibile tout enstitisyon piblik yo. Olye lavalas remanbre pwodiksyon nasyonal la, li louvri vant peyi a bay machandiz Etazini, Dominikani ak Brezil. Diri pèpè, zagribay poul ak ze sendomeng ap simen payèt. Kap rejim nan tèlman pran van, kounye a li deside bay sektè prive a kontwòl pò yo, ayopò yo, li deside remèt pwodiksyon kouran an bay sektè prive, remèt sektè telekominikasyon an nèt bay prive, pou foure pèp la nan yon politik konsomasyon telefòn san nesesite epi detounen ti kras rezèv peyi a. Akoz ministè w ap dirije a gen gwo responsablite nan fin dechalbore ekonomi peyi a, paske li se ministè ki alatèt majorite enstitisyon piblik ki sou lis likidasyon an, sou chimen ranmase enfòmasyon pou tabli yon tribinal popilè k ap gen pou jije privatizè machann peyi yo, privatizasyon an ak plan neyoberal la, nou envite w vin pote eklèsisman nan yon konferans-deba sou bilan politik privatizasyon an, nan oditoryòm Lekòl Nòmal Siperyè, ri monseyè Giyou, mèkredi 22 out 2007 la, jou deklanchman soulèvman jeneral esklav yo, a 3zè nan aprè midi. Nou swete, Misye Minis, w ap jwenn yon ti tan pou vin ede n konprann pi byen politik detwi pèp ak kraze peyi gouvènman ou ladan l lan ap aplike a. N ap kontinye òganize n pou pouvwa kontwòl pèp la tounen yon reyalite !!! Pou òganizasyon : MODEP, UNNOH, PAPDA, SOETEL, FESTRED’H, ASOHQ BAREH, CHANDEL, MOVE, CERCLE GRAMSCI, SAJ/VEYE YO... Yves SANON Guy NUMA Jean MABOU
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
