I would agree with that. I just want to reiterate what Francine Lalonde has said. In terms of what we've done, we did poorly in the past. CIDA applied what I would call strict conditionality to Haiti in 2000, trying to alter its good governance policies and so on, and its macroeconomic policies. What CIDA found in the 2004 studies is that this strict conditionality, i.e., pulling aid away in order to change Haiti's behaviour, actually contributed to the intense political instability we saw in 2004. As Andrew pointed out, it didn't produce the desired reforms that we were trying to advance--police reform, judicial reform, and so on. Money dried up. So I think pulling out and using that kind of conditionality was not effective.
I think CIDA has learned from that. Its most recent strategy paper also outlines that it plans to be much more patient in terms of the way it looks at its work in Haiti, in expecting a little less and so on in terms of how things are going to shape up.
Once again, I would like to be able to respond to Mr. Goldring. I think we don't spend enough on the rural sector. My contention is not that we should abandon export processing zones, but I think to focus on that as the engine of development for Haiti is as erroneous as focusing on the agricultural sector as the engine of growth. What we have done as donors is completely abandon the agricultural sector. We're hoping that this export sector is going to be enough to take in the other eight million people who are left and that they will somehow jump on board with this plan.
I certainly want to say that I'm not advocating abandoning it. I'm saying it will not be successful as a development strategy for an island where most of the people are still in agriculture and where food security is the problem and so on.