25378: Corbett: Whether Pigs Have Wings. Essay by Phillip Gaertner

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

Folks, back in 1990 when I was still publishing a hard copy magazine on 
Haiti, STRETCH, I asked Phillip Gaertner, living in Haiti (and still 
there, has left the country in at least 15 years), wrote a long 40 page 
essay on the pig situation.  I publish an edited version of the story in 
my magazine.

Below is the url for that essay.  And below that url is just my editorial 
introduction to Phillip's paper and then his own introductory material to 
give you some idea of his approach.  I've always thougth Philip's 
treatment was one of the most fair and non-idelogoical I've ever read.

Bob Corbett


http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/misctopic/pigs/gaertner.htm

WHETHER PIGS HAVE WINGS:

African Swine Fever Eradication and Pig Repopulation in Haiti.
excerpts of a report prepared for PEOPLE TO PEOPLE by Phillip Gaertner

> From STRETCH, Fall 1990

"I have myself a poetical enthusiasm for pigs, and the paradise of my fancy is
one where pigs have wings. But it is only men, especially wise men, who
discuss whether pigs can fly; we have no particular proof that pigs ever
discuss it."

K. Chesterton


editor's note:

Phillip Gaertner went to Haiti on one of PEOPLE TO PEOPLE'S work/experience/
learning trips. He became especially interested in the pig eradication and
repopulation program. He recently submitted a 40 + page report of his
research. What appears here are only some edited highlights. (Please note that
the brackets with three dots indicate that a section has been deleted, e.g..
[...]


While I applaud Phillip's research, his views should not be taken as PEOPLE TO
PEOPLE'S position.

BRIEF SETTING:

In 1978 the pigs of Haiti were diagnosed as having Asian Swine Flu (ASF), and
all the pigs were subsequently killed. This was claimed to be necessary to
protect the pork industry of both Haiti and the rest of the region, including
the United States. Shortly after the eradication took place a repopulation
program began.

Since the pig has traditionally constituted the peasant bank, the emergency
source of 'Wealth" on which the peasant would draw for such emergencies as
illness, births, weddings and the like, the eradication program caused
enormous hardship on the peasants. The pigs had been introduced by the Spanish
before 1500 and ever since have been central to the poor's economy.

As Phillip Gaertner details, this eradication and repopulation program has
been the source of much discussion and criticism. Was the project necessary
and was it worth the hardships it brought upon the Haitian peasant?

The eradication itself was criticized as unnecessary, and the repopulation
program has had to endure much criticism from charges of dishonesty and
ineptitude to various claims of plots to purposely harm the peasants in
someone else's interests.

Gaertner, while a stern critic of aspects of the program, is in general a
defender of the necessity of the eradication and a qualified supporter of the
repopulation program.

Bob Corbett, editor

BACKGROUND FROM THE APPENDIX

After it became obvious that the GOH (Government of Haiti) intended to perform
as it always had, IICA (Inter-American Institute For Cooperation on
Agriculture) and USAID/Haiti undertook a Swine Repopulation Project (SRP) that
had as its goal the replacement of those pigs (380,000) that IICA had
destroyed and paid compensation for during the eradication, not the 1.2
million hogs Haiti reportedly had prior to the outbreak of ASF. If the GOH
never undertakes a repopulation or extension program in support of pork
production, the pig's prolificacy alone will assure eventual return to former
numbers.

The GOH, which had appeared to be so cautious and concerned for the welfare of
its peasantry, and had always stressed that it was only taking action to meet
its international responsibilities, probably would not have moved at all had
the disease not attacked the commercial herds belonging to the elite. Over 95%
of Haiti's swine owners were small peasant producers who, though they comprise
80% of the population, had always suffered severe neglect.

Per capita income in Haiti is estimated at $300 annually, but in the
countryside it is closer to $50 per annum. Yet this group of people supplies
the labor, food and export crops that provide sustenance for the elite and the
200 millionaires of Port-au-Prince. While 90% of the population speaks only
Creole, until recently the official language had always been French. Resources
have always been disproportionately allocated to serve the urban areas. Port-
au-Prince alone receives 90% of the country's electrical power, 80% or more of
the educational facilities, and 90% of modern health facilities, as well as
being the primary arena of activity for the majority of NGOs. Rural conditions
steadily deteriorate, and this is not just infrastructural, but ecological as
well. Drought and erosion become more severe each year. The farms become less
productive. More and more people abandon the land to suffer and die in the
slums of Port-au-Prince. What was once lush tropical forest is now cactus and
shrub. While only 30% of the land is considered arable, more than half is
actually farmed. The remainder, due to drought or soil conditions, cannot be
farmed. Increasingly, the hillsides are cultivated without benefit of
fertilizer or fallow. The only crops that can be grown are those whose root
structure allow them depth to access moisture and a grasp on the steep slopes.
Considering the severe obstacles and lack of inputs with which Haitian farmers
must work, there can be no doubt that they are among the most highly skilled
in the world. [...]

The Interim Swine Repopulation Project was formulated in three phases. Phase I
involved the importation and breeding of pigs for distribution to the SMCs
(Secondary Multiplication Center). Phase II focused on the production of
piglets at the SMCs for distribution to the peasants. Phase III was directed
towards providing veterinary, pharmaceutical, feed and extension services to
the peasants. Training courses were held, literature distributed, and radio
extension services broadcast. [...]

The controversy surrounding the IICA project seems to be rooted in something
that at times appears to be distant from the realities of increasing food
production, and Haiti herself. The project became an ideological battle
between two sides of a philosophical issue that exists in regard to
development of resource-poor agriculture. Simply put: Whether the best
approach is farmer-participatory, low-tech, and using mainly the farmer's
indigenous knowledge with aid agencies playing a passive role, or whether the
approach should be through teaching and extension, transferring what is
considered "high" technology (including genetic material), and utilizing
surplus-generating production methods. The critics have placed themselves on
the "farmer-participatory" side of the conflict and erroneously placed the
IICA project in opposition to them. They appear to be making the same errors
which "development" has always made, that of excluding valuable knowledge
because of its source, and dismissing it without fully examining it for its
value. It usually doesn't take much time for Westerners engaged in agriculture
development projects to be humbled by their lack of knowledge or the
inappropriateness of their skills. The "experts" are always the people who
were born there. (The fact that many of the IICA pigs appear to be doing
better outside of the SMCs may be an example of the peasant's possession of
more relevant knowledge.) [ ... ]

INTRODUCTION

No program has been subjected to more criticism than the IICA disease
eradication and pig repopulation project which took place in Haiti during the
past decade. The critics, though incessant in their assault, have done a poor
job of presenting their case, giving us emotion, romance, and mythology when
hard data is what is needed. Some critics have been so seriously in error in
their description of the disease that the suspicion that they intended to
deliberately misinform becomes valid. Others have attempted to present
folklore as fact, endowing the debate with an air of foolishness resembling
that of Chesterton's wise men.

The purpose or utility of much of the controversy can be suspected to have
nothing to do with pork production or peasant welfare. As Fern's father said
in Charlotte's Web, "A pig doesn't grow fat on kisses and hugs". Neither does
it grow fat on politics. [ ... ]