i was going to ask you to write a diary on this subject based on your comment above.  but this discussion was very informative in and of itself, so thank you for that.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

It's called satire, OK, sarcasm, something I also share with Chomsky, cf.:

The praise came in response to ratification by the Haitian parliament of a law granting Washington's client killer and torturer Baby Doc Duvalier the authority to suspend the rights of any political party without reasons. The law passed by a majority of 99.98 percent. It therefore marked a positive step towards democracy as compared with the 99 percent approval of a 1918 law granting U.S. corporations the right to turn the country into a U.S. plantation, passed by 5 percent of the population after the Haitian Parliament was disbanded at gunpoint by Wilson's Marines when it refused to accept this "progressive measure," essential for "economic development."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Haiti/US_Haiti_Chomsky.html

You haven't explained how it was possible that:

Before 1950, Haiti produced more than 80 percent of its own food and exported coffee, cocoa, meat and sugar.

if the productive capacity of the land was supposedly ruined 200 (not 100 as you now say) years ago. The kinds of intervention by the US cited by Chomsky do explain why agriculture has declined in Haiti so disastrously - here's yet more explaining why this happened (excuse his sarcasm - entirely justified in my view):

Also efficiently suppressed were the crucial conditions that Clinton imposed for Aristide's return: that he adopt the program of the defeated U.S. candidate in the 1990 elections, a former World Bank official who had received 14 percent of the vote. We call this "restoring democracy," a prime illustration of how U.S. foreign policy has entered a "noble phase" with a "saintly glow," the national press explained. The harsh neoliberal program that Aristide was compelled to adopt was virtually guaranteed to demolish the remaining shreds of economic sovereignty, extending Wilson's progressive legislation and similar U.S.-imposed measures since

...
Matters then proceeded in their predictable course. A 1995 USAID report explained that the "export-driven trade and investment policy" that Washington imposed will "relentlessly squeeze the domestic rice farmer," who will be forced to turn to agroexport, with incidental benefits to U.S. agribusiness and investors. Despite their extreme poverty, Haitian rice farmers are quite efficient, but cannot possibly compete with U. S. agribusiness, even if it did not receive 40 percent of its profits from government subsidies, sharply increased under the Reaganites who are again in power, still producing enlightened rhetoric about the miracles of the market. We now read that Haiti cannot feed itself, another sign of a "failed state. "

A few small industries were still able to function, for example, making chicken parts. But U.S. conglomerates have a large surplus of dark meat, and therefore demanded the right to dump their excess products in Haiti. They tried to do the same in Canada and Mexico too, but there illegal dumping could be barred. Not in Haiti, compelled to submit to efficient market principles by the U.S. government and the corporations it serves.

ibid.

This isn't to deny "agency" to the Haitians, of course, nor to deny that they have caused environmental problems in more recent years - but, as I started by saying, that has to be seen in context - one Chomsky, unlike most US media, provides. Regarding the environment in recent years, from another source:

Each year, the country's 7 million inhabitants burn the equivalent of 30 million trees--20 million more than the country grows annually. Forests have shrunk from covering 80 percent of Haiti's lands several hundred years ago, to only 3 percent today.

Deforestation stepped up during the international trade embargo, between 1991-1994, as people burned trees for the fuel they could no longer import. Haiti's exploding population growth hasn't helped either. Strapped for cash and burdened by innumerable needs, the government has not placed a major emphasis on conservation. Only $300,000 has been earmarked for the environment in Haiti's 1995-1996 budget--only about .17 percent of the government's overall budget.

 "The government has a lot of priorities and the environment isn't one of them," Eyma said.

For their part, large-scale international efforts have ebbed and flowed with the tides of Haitian politics. During the trade embargo, many environmental programs ground to a halt.
...
Solidarity Forest is not the only project up and running in Buteau. The village has also set up a revolving loan fund for women's businesses, again fueled by church dollars.

The mix of income-generation and environmental conservation is critical, many experts say. It is a link, they say, that many development workers fail to make.

"Many organizations just haven't addressed poverty concerns," said Lydia Williams of Oxfam America. "Peasants know they shouldn't cut down a tree, but if they need to cook food they'll do it. They know they shouldn't farm on mountains, but if they need to eat they'll do it."

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/257.html

The Bush government has made things worse for such desperate peasants:

The punishment of Haiti became much more severe under Bush II - there are differences within the narrow spectrum of cruelty and greed. Aid was cut and international institutions were pressured to do likewise, under pretexts too outlandish to merit discussion. They are extensively reviewed in Paul Farmer's The Uses of Haiti, and in some current press commentary, notably by Jeffrey Sachs (Financial Times) and Tracy Kidder (New York Times).

Chomsky, ibid.

Re Farmer's book - it seems it has suffered from a  smear campaign, something that Chomsky has to put up with too:

EDIT - There seems to be something of a smear campaign going on against this book. The book was originaly published in 1994, and this edition came out in 2003. Therefore, the current happenings in Haiti are not mentioned in the book. One reviewer mentioned that Farmer is so rich because Aristide is lining his pockets. This reviewer is overlooking the fact that Farmer is one of the head doctors at one of the largest hospitals in the US (a post that pays a pretty penny), and teaches at Harvard (ditto), and does frequent speaking tours, is a published author, and much more. Farmer is also quite open about the fact that he lives in a tiny appartment in a very bleak area of Boston, and puts his tremendous earnings right back into Partners in Health.

http://www.amazon.com/Uses-Haiti-Updated-Paul-Farmer/dp/1567512429

 

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

You haven't understood the chronology, Marcatu was talking about the supposed effects of what happened about 200 years ago (as I made clear), not what has happened since 1950. As I pointed out it doesn't work as an explanation when, despite what happened about 200 years ago, the agriculture was relatively healthy in 1950. The destruction of it since then is clearly caused by US intervention and yes, in a desperate sitaution the Haitians themselves may have done some things which made the situation worse - the key question is why is it so bad generally - clearly explained by Chomsky.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.