ATTACHMENT J.1.13.pdf

ANNEX III

SSSA FIEld rESultS: SItE-SpEcIFIc tAblES (N = 117)

This Annex presents the main findings across all 10 sites, with analytical tables in eight sections, which are numbered as follows.

1. Earthquake effects on households

2. Earthquake effects on agricultural systems

3. Earthquake effects on agricultural systems and households by sex of household head, all sites

4. Seed volumes by source, for first and second post-earthquake seasons

5. Seed use for first post-earthquake season, compared with normal sowing rates

6. Seed use for second post-earthquake season, compared with normal sowing rates

7. New varieties: access and use

8. Fertilizer and compost use

Two seasons were closely followed as so to gauge immediate effects and resilience in farming seasons. The assessment labels them as first season post-earthquake and second season post earthquake, as the exact planting dates varied by region, crop, and farmer management strategy. Most commonly, ‘first season’ sowing fell in the period March to April, with ‘second season sowing’ starting in the months June, July, and August.

Each section has overview tables that display findings across all sites, grouped by theme (e.g. earthquake ef-fects). In some sections, site-specific tables follow.

annex III

AIII.1Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

1. EFFEctS oF thE EArthquAkE oN houSEholdS

These tables show farmers’ perceptions of how the earthquake affected key aspects of their household well-being: IDPs, food consumption, labor, livestock and other asset purchases and sales, and other economic and financial indicators such as access to credit.

earthquake effectS on houSeholdS

AIII.2Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

1.

E ff ec ts o f ea rt h q u ak e o n h o u se h o ld s iz e

F ar m er p er ce p ti o n s o f ea rt h q u ak e ef fe ct s o n h o u se h o ld s iz e

E ff ec t un it b as si n b le u b el

A ns e c ha nt al h in ch e la sc ah o b as le o ga ne M ar ig o t le p et it

G o av e

V er et te s la

V al le e de J ac m el A ll si te s pl ai ns hi lls n

Fa rm er s ci tin g ch an ge in nu m b er o r p er so ns li vi ng ho us eh o ld

A ll fa rm er s ci tin g ch an ge n

A tt ri bu te d to e ar th qu ak e

N ot a tt ri bu te d to ea rt hq ua ke

D id n ot e xp la in n p er so ns b ef o re

, a ll fa rm er s m ea n 7.

6.

6.

5.

6.

6.

6.

6.

5.

6.

5.

6.

P er so ns im m ed ia te ly a ft er al l f ar m er s m ea n

.6 7*

7.

9.

8.

7.

6.

9.

6.

9.

7.

9.

8.

P er so ns in J un e

, a ll fa rm er s m ea n 9.

7.

8.

7.

6.

8.

7.

6.

5.

6.

6.

7.

P er ce nt ag e ch an ge b ef or an af te r, al l f ar m er s m ea n

.9

.9

.0

.4

.9

7.

.4

.5

.2

.0

.1

.1

P er ce nt ag e ch an ge b ef af te r, al l f ar m er s lis tin g ch an ge s m ea n

.5

.7

.7

.8

.6

.3

.3

.4

.1

.3

.2

.2

P er ce nt ag e ch an ge b ef

Ju ne

0, a ll fa rm er s m ea n

.3

.3

7.

.7

.0

0.

7.

3.

-0 .2

5.

.1

.4

P er ce nt ag e ch an ge b ef

Ju ne

0, a ll fa rm er s lis tin g ch an ge s m ea n

.4

.4

.3

.9

.1

.6

.5

.6

-0

.6

.5

.4

.5

D iff er en ce r el at iv e to b ef or e th e ea rt hq ua ke is s ta tis tic al ly s ig ni fic an t a t < 5%

N ot e:

F or L eo ga ne a nd C ha nt al , f ew fa rm er s ga ve H

H n um be rs fo r Ju ne , s o m ea n fig ur e m ay b e af fe ct ed b y sm al l s am pl e si ze

A s w ith la bo r ef fe ct s, th e m ea ns a re c al cu la te d in tw o w ay s:

al l f ar m er s, w hi ch in cl ud es z er os

, g iv in g an in di ca tio n of c ha ng e ac ro ss a ll

H on ly fo r th os e

H H n ot in g ch an ge , t o sh ow m ea n ch an ge fo r th os e

AIII.3Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

2.

E ff ec ts o f ea rt h q u ak e o n f o o d c o n su m p ti o n

F ar m er s’ p er ce p ti o n s o n e ar th q u ak e ef fe ct s o n f o o d c o n su m p ti o

E ff ec t u n it b as u b se c h an ta l h in ch e la sc ah o b as le o g an e

M ar ig o t le p et it

G o av e

V er et te la V al le e d e Ja cm el

A ll si te s p la in s h ill s n

Fa rm er s ci ti ng fe w er m ea ls c o ns um ed s in ce e ar th qu ak e

A ll fa rm er s ci ti ng fe w er m ea ls n

A tt ri b ut ed to e ar th q

N o t a tt ri b ut ed to e ar th q

D id n o t e xp la in fe w er m ea ls n

M ea ls c o ns um ed b ef o re

, f ar m er s ci ti ng c ha ng e m ea n 2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

M ea ls c o ns um ed a ft er , f ar m er s ci ti ng c ha ng e m ea n

1.

9* 1.

1.

1.

1.

0* 1.

4*

1.

0* 1.

0*

1.

1.

1.

1.

9*

Fa rm er s ci ti ng c ha ng es in q ua nt it ie s co ns um ed p er m ea l

A ll fa rm er s ci ti ng c ha ng es in q ua nt it ie s n

A tt ri b ut ed to e ar th q

N o t a tt ri b ut ed to e ar th q

D id n o t e xp la in c ha ng es in q ua nt it ie s co ns um ed n

In cr ea se d q ua nt it ie s p er m ea l, ch an g e at tr ib ut ed hq ua ke n

D ec re as ed q ua nt it ie s p er m ea l, ch an g e at tr ib ut hq ua ke n

Fa rm er s ci ti ng c ha ng es in ty pe s o f f o o d co ns um ed

A ll fa rm er s ci ti ng c ha ng es in ty p es o f f o o d n

A tt ri b ut ed to e ar th q

N o t a tt ri b ut ed to e ar th q

D id n o t e xp la in c ha ng es in ty p es o f f o o d n

C o ns um p ti o n o f l es s p re fe rr ed fo o d s, c ha ng e at tr ib ut ar th q ua ke n

C o ns um p ti o n o f l es s fe w er ty p es o f f o o d s, c ha at tr ib ut ed to e ar th q ua ke n

D iff er en ce r el at iv e to b ef or e th e ea rt hq ua ke is s ta tis tic al ly s ig ni fic an t a t < 5%

Th er e w er e si gn ifi ca nt c ha ng es in n um be rs o f m ea ls c on su m ed d ai ly a fte r t he e ar th qu ak e, a s

8% o f h ou se ho ld s cl ai m th ey c on su m e fe w er m ea ls . T he av er ag e nu m be r o f m ea ls d ro pp ed fr om a lm os t 2 .5 p er d ay to ju st o ve r 1

.5 p er d ay a d ro p of a lm os t o ne fu ll m ea l p er d ay

A lm os t h al f o f t he fa rm er s in di ca te d th at th ey a ls o ea t l es s pr ef er re d fo od s si nc e th e ea rt hq ua ke

, a lth ou gh fe w a ttr ib ut ed th is to th e ea rt hq ua ke it se lf.

To ge th er , t he se d at a in di ca te in cr ea se d st re ss es o n al re ad y hi gh fo od in se cu rit y.

AIII.4Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

3.

E ff ec ts o f ea rt h q u ak e o n o ff

-f ar m la b o r

F ar m er s’ p er ce p ti o n s o f ea rt h q u ak e ef fe ct s o n n u m b er o f h o u se h o ld m em b er s w o rk in g o ff

-f ar m

E ff ec t u n it b as u b se c h an ta l h in ch e la sc ah o b as le o g an e

M ar ig o t le p et it

G o av e

V er et te la V al le e d e Ja cm el

A ll si te s p la in s h ill s n

Fa rm er s ci ti ng c ha nu b er o f h o us eh ld em b er s w o rk in g o ff fa rm

A ll fa rm er s ci ti ch g e n

A tt ri b ut hq

N o t a tt ri b ut hq

D id n o t e xp la g ed n um b er n d ir ec ti o n o f c ha ng e o ff

-f ar m la b o r

In cr ea se d n

D ec re as ed n

O ff

-f ar m w o rk er s b ef o re

, f ar m er s ci g n 2.

2.

2.

O ff

-f ar m w o rk er s af te r, fa rm er s ci ti ng c ha es n

3.

4.

2.

P er ce nt ag e ch an g e, a ll fa rm er s m ea n 9.

.0

3.

Th e di ffe re nc e be tw ee n of f-f ar m w or ke rs b ef or e an d af te r is n ot s ta tis tic al ly s ig ni fic an t a cr os s al l s ite s, o r fo r B as ss in B le u, a lth ou gh it is fo r

C ha nt al us in g a pa irw is e co m pa ris on

5% s ig ni fic an ce th e pe rc en ta ge c ha ng e is z er o fo r fa rm er s re po rt in g no c ha ng e an d th es e ar e in cl ud ed

N ot es : D at a w er e no t c ol le ct ed o n of f-f ar m la bo r fo r fa rm er s no t c iti ng c ha ng es

M ea ns n ot r ep or te d fo r co un ts le ss th an

AIII.5Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

4.

E ff ec ts o f ea rt h q u ak e o n li ve st o ck t ra d e

F ar m er s’ p er ce p ti o n s o f ea rt h q u ak e ef fe ct s o n li ve st o ck s al es a n d p u rc h as ec t u n it b as u b se c h an ta l h in ch e la sc ah o b as le o g an e

M ar ig o t le p et it

G av e

V er et te la V al le e d e Ja cm el

A ll si te s p la in s h ill s n

F ar m er s ci ti liv to ck s al es a p u rc h as es s ce h q u ak e

A ll fa rm e rs c it rc h a se s o r sa le s n

A tt ri b u te d t a rt h q u

N o t a tt ri b u te d rt h q u

D id n o t e xp rc h a se s a n d s a le s n

Li ve st o ck p u rc h a se d n

Li ve st o ck s o ld n

Li ve st o ck n u m b rs rc h a se d m ea n

3.

2.

2.

Li ve st o ck n u m b so ld m ea n 3.

3.

1.

3.

3.

4.

3.

3.

N ot es

Li ve st oc k in cl ud e pi gs , c at tle

, g oa ts

C ou nt s fo r pu rc ha se d an d so ld d o no t t ol d to fa rm er s ci tin g pu rc ha se s or s al es b ec au se m an y fa rm er s re po rt ed b ot h sa le s an d pu rc ha se s

, a nd s om e fa rm er s re po rt ed n o nu m be rs

M ea ns a re n ot r ep or te d fo r co un ts le ss th an

Th er e is a li ve ly li ve st oc k tr ad e, b ot h in s al es a nd p ur ch as es

It is n ot c le ar w he th er s al es a re s tr es s sa le s lin ke d to th e ea rt hq ua ke

, o r w he th er th ey a re p ar t o f t he n or m al tr ad e se as on

AIII.6Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

5.

E ff ec ts o f ea rt h q u ak e o n h o u se h o ld a ss et p u rc h as es a n d s al es

F ar m er s’ p er ce p ti o n s o n e ar th q u ak e ef fe ct s o n h o u se h o ld a ss et p u rc h as es a n d s al ec t u n it b as u b se c h an ta l h in ch e la sc ah o b as le o g an e

M ar ig o t le p et it

G o av e

V er et te la V al le e d e Ja cm el

A ll si te s p la in s h ill s n

F ar m er s ci ti n g p u rc h as r sa le s o f fa rm e q u ip m en t si n ce e ar th q u ak e

A ll fa rm e rs c it in g p u rc h a se s o r sa le s o f e q u ip m e n t n

A tt ri b u te d t o e a rt h q u

N o t a tt ri b u te d t o e a rt h q u

D id n o t e xp la in p u rc h a se s o r sa le s o f e q u ip m e n t n

E q u ip m e n t p u rc h a se d n

E q u ip m e n t so ld n

F ar m er s ci ti n g p u rc h as es o r sa le s o f h o u se h o ld g o o d s si n ce e ar th q u ak e

A ll fa rm e rs c it in g p u rc h a se s o r sa le s o f h o u se h o ld g o o d s n

A tt ri b u te d t o e a rt h q u

N o t a tt ri b u te d t o e a rt h q u

D id n o t e xp la in p u rc h a se s o r sa le s o f h o u se h o ld g o o d s n

G o o d s p u rc h a se d n

G o o d s so ld n

N ot e:

F ar m e qu ip m en t a re m os t o fte n ho es

, m ac he te s, r ak es

, s ho ve ls

. H ou se ho ld g oo ds a re m os t o fte n ki tc he n ut en si ls po ts

, a nd d is s.

In s om e ca se s fa rm er s bo th p ur ch as ed a nd s ol d eq ui pm en t o r go od s, a nd in o th er s th ey d id n ot r ep or t w he th er it em s w er e pu rc ha se d or s ol d.

O nl y p ur ch as ed o r s ol d fa rm e qu ip m en t s in ce th e ea rt hq ua ke . T hi s is n ot a d ra m at ic s ig na l o f s tr es s, e sp ec ia lly a s m or e w as p ur ch as ed th an s ol d.

S im ila rly

, o nl y 7% p ur ch as ed o r s ol d ho us eh ol d go od s in ce th e ea rth qu ak e, a nd th e va st m aj or ity w er e pu rc ha se s w ith v er y lit tle a ttr ib ut ed to th e ea rth qu e.

AIII.7Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

6.

E ff ec ts o f th e ea rt h q u ak e o n h o u se h o ld fi n an ce s m o n ey o ff er ed a n d r ec ei ve d

F ar m er s’ p er ce p ti o n s o f ea rt h q u ak e ef fe ct s o n m o n ey o ff er ed t o a n d r ec ei ve d f ro m o th er s

E ff ec t u n it b as u b se c h an ta l h in ch e la sc ah o b as le o g an e

M ar ig o t le p et it

G o av e

V er et te s la

V al le e d e

Ja cm el A ll si te s p la in s h ill s n

F ar m er s ci ti g es in m o ey er ed s h q u ak e

A ll fa rm e rs c it n g e s in m o n e y o ff e re d n

A tt ri b u te d rt h q u

N o t a tt ri b u te d rt h q u

D id n o t e xp la in n

F ar m er s ci ti g es in m o ey re iv ed s h q u ak e

A ll fa rm e rs c it n g e s in m o n e y re ce iv e d n

A tt ri b u te d rt h q u

N o t a tt ri b u te d rt h q u

D id n o t e xp la in n

Th er e w er e fe w c ha ng es in th e am ou nt o f m on ey th at fa rm er s of fe re d to o th er s or re ce iv ed fr om o th er s si nc e th e ea rt hq ua ke

. A bo ut a th ird o f t he iv in g m or e m on ey s in ce th e ea rt hq ua ke a ttr ib ut ed th is c ha ng e to th e ea rt hq ua ke it lf.

AIII.8Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

7.

E ff ec ts o f th e ea rt h q u ak e o n h o u se h o ld fi n an ce s ac ce ss t o c re d it

F ar m er s’ p er ce p ti o n s o f ch an g es in a cc es s to c re d it s in ce t h e ea rt h q u ec t u n it b as u b se c h an ta l h in ch e la sc ah o b as le o g an e

M ar ig o t le p et it

G o av e

V er et te la V al le e d e Ja cm el

A ll si te s p la in s h ill s n

F ar m er s ci ti g es in a cc es cr it

A ll fa rm e rs c it n g e s in a cc e ss cr d it n

A tt ri b u te d rt h q u

N o t a tt ri b u te d rt h q u

D id n o t e xp la in n

In cr e a se d c re d it n

D e cr e a se d c re d it n

N ot e:

In s om e ca se s fa rm er s di d no t r ep or t w he th er a cc es s to c re di t i nc re as ed o r de cr ea se d.

o f f ar m er s re po rt ed a c ha ng e in a cc es s to c re di t, an d th e m aj or ity s ai d th ey h ad d ec re as ed a cc es s to c re di t.

Th is d iff er s sl ig ht ly b as ed o n ge nd er o f th e ho us eh ol d he ad . F oc us g ro up s an d ke y in fo rm an ts in di ca te d th at s om e tr ad er s in cr ea se d th ei r c re di t b ec au se th ey n ee de d to e nc ou ra ge s al es

, s ec on om ic s tr es se s w er e co ns tr ai ni ng h ou se ho ld p ur ch as es

. S om e tr ad er s in di ca te d th at th ey w er e m or e he si ta nt to o ffe r c re di t, si nc e th ey

’d a lre ad y lo st qu ite a b it du e to n on

-r ep ay m en ts a fte r t he e ar th qu ak e, a nd th ey a re tr yi ng to m iti ga te th ei r r is k.

AIII.9Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

8.

E ff ec ts o f th e ea rt h q u ak e o n h o u se h o ld fi n an ce s in co m e ea rn in g a ct iv it ie s

F ar m er s’ p er ce p ti o n s o f ch an g es in in co m e-ea rn in g a ct iv it ie s si n ce t h e ea rt h q u ak e

E ff ec t u n it b as u b se c h an ta l h in ch e la sc ah o b as le o g an e

M ar ig o t le p av e

V er et te la V al le e d e Ja cm el

A ll si te s p la in s h ill s n

F ar m er s ci ti n g a d co m e-ea rn ac vi

A ll fa rm e rs a d d ct iv it ie s n

A tt ri b u te d rt h q u

N o t a tt ri b u te d rt h q u

D id n o t e xp la in n

F ar m er s ci ti ro p p ed in co m e-ea rn in g a ct iv it ie s

A ll fa rm e rs c it p p e d a ct iv it ie s n

A tt ri b u te d rt h q u

N o t a tt ri b u te d rt h q u

D id n o t e xp la in n

A bo ut o ne -fi fth o f f ar m er s ad de d or d ro pp ed in co m e-ea rn in g ac tiv iti es a fte r J an ua ry

2th (1

3%

A s ub st an tia l a rr ay o f a ct iv iti es w er e ad de d to h ou se ho ld p or tfo lio s si nc e th e ea rt hq ua ke to im pr ov e th e ho us eh ol d ec on om ic s itu at io n (s ee ta bl es b ow

“in m e-ea rn in g ac tiv iti es a dd ed an d

“in co m e-ea rn in g ac tiv iti es d ro pp ed

AIII.9Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

8.

E ff ec ts o f th e ea rt h q u ak e o n h o u se h o ld fi n an ce s in co m e ea rn in g a ct iv it ie s

F ar m er s’ p er ce p ti o n s o f ch an g es in in co m e-ea rn in g a ct iv it ie s si n ce t h e ea rt h q u ak e

E ff ec t u n it b as u b se c h an ta l h in ch e la sc ah o b as le o g an e

M ar ig o t le p av e

V er et te la V al le e d e Ja cm el

A ll si te s p la in s h ill s n

F ar m er s ci ti n g a d m e-ea rn ac vi

A ll fa rm e rs a d d ct iv it ie s n

A tt ri b u te d rt h q u

N o t a tt ri b u te d rt h q u

D id n o t e xp la in n

F ar m er s ci ti p p ed in co m e-ea rn in g a ct iv it ie s

A ll fa rm e rs c it p p e d a ct iv it ie s n

A tt ri b u te d rt h q u

N o t a tt ri b u te d rt h q u

D id n o t e xp la in n

A bo ut o ne -fi fth o f f ar m er s ad de d or d ro pp ed in co m e-ea rn in g ac tiv iti es a fte r J an ua ry

2th (1

3%

A s ub st an tia l a rr ay o f a ct iv iti es w er e ad de d to h ou se ho ld p or tfo lio s si nc e th e ea rt hq ua ke to im pr ov e th e ho us eh ol d ec on om ic s itu at io n (s ee ta bl es b ow

“in m e-ea rn in g ac tiv iti es a dd ed an d

“in co m e-ea rn in g ac tiv iti es d ro pp ed

AIII.10Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

9.

I n co m e-ea rn in g a ct iv it ie s ad d ed b as u b se c h an ta l h in ch e la sc ah o b as le o g an e M ar ig o t le p et it

G o av e

V er et te s la

V al le e d e

Ja cm el A ll si te s p la in s h ill s ch ar co al he rd in g m as on ry m ec ha ni c tr ad e ch ar co al tr ad e bo rle tte co ffi n sa le s m as on ry pl um bi ng re st au ra nt te le ph on e ca rd s al es ch ar co al ch ar co al tr ad e bu tc he r cl ot hi ng s al es co ns tr uc tio n da y la bo re r di gg in g w ls la tr in es dr iv in g fis hi ng m as on ry m ec ha ni c tr ad e dr iv in g tr ad e w oo d/ ch ar co al br ea d sa le s ca rp en tr y co ns tr uc tio n fu rn itu re s al es he rd in g m as on ry tr ad e cl ot hi ng s al es lo tte ry s al es br ea d sa le s co m m er ce se w in g ta xi m ot or cy cl e tr ad e sa lt sa le s tr ad e bo rle tte br ea d sa le s bu tc he r ch ar co al cl ot hi ng s al es co ffi n sa le s co ns tr uc tio n da y la bo re r di gg in g w el ls nd tr in es dr iv in g fis hi ng fu rn itu re s al es he rd in g he rd in g m as on ry m ot or cy cl e ta xi pl um bi ng sa lt sa le s se w in g te le ph on e ca rd sa s tr ad e

In co m e-ea rn in g a ct iv it ie s d ro p p ed b as u b se c h an ta l h in ch e la sc ah o b as le o g an e M ar ig o t le p et it

G o av e

V er et te la V al le e d e Ja cm el

A ll si te s p la in s h ill s se w in g tr ad e m as on ry sa le of sm et ic s ga gu er re ca r de m ol iti on ric e an d be an s sa le s se w in g tr ad e m as on ry sa le of et ic s ca r d em ol iti on ric e an d be an s sa

AIII.11Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

2. EFFEctS oF thE EArthquAkE oN AGrIculturAl SyStEMS

These tables show farmers’ perceptions of the effects of the earthquake on agricultural production and sys-tems, across all sites. Only 41% of farmers noted that the earthquake had an impact on production systems;

more farmers in Verettes, Leogane, and Bassin Bleu attributed changes in agriculture to the earthquake. This was based on an open question.

Further details on land, labor, and crop choices are based on follow-up questions that were more detailed.

earthquake effectS on agrIcultural SyStemS

AIII.12Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

E ff ec ts o f ea rt h q u ak e o n la n d

F ar m er s’ p er ce p ti o n s o f ch an g es in la n d a re a si n ce t h e ea rt h q u ak e

E ff ec t u n it b as u b se c h an ta l h in ch e la sc ah o b as le o g an e

M ar ig o t le p et it

G o av e

V er et te la V al le e d e Ja cm el

A ll si te s p la in s h ill s n

F ar m er s ci ti n g im p ac t ag ri cu lt u ra l p ro d u ct io n s ys te m

F ar m er s ci ti n g c h an g ed l ar

A ll fa rm e rs c it in g c h a n g a n

A tt ri b u te d t o e a rt h q u

N o t a tt ri b u te d t o e a rt h q u

D id n o t e xp la in n d ir ec ti o n o f ch an g e

In cr e a se d n

D e cr e a se d n

A re a b e fo re , a ll fa rm

(k ro m ea n 1.

0.

1.

1.

9*

1.

0.

1.

1.

0.

0.

0.

1.

A re a a ft e r, a ll fa rm e rs ka ro m ea n

0.

0.

1.

0.

0.

0.

0.

1.

0.

0.

0.

0.

P e rc e n ta g e c h a n g e

, a ll fa rm e rs m ea n -8

.8

-8 .4

2.

-2

.6

-1 2.

-0 .9

-1

.2

2.

-3 .4

-3

.3

0.

-3 .1

P e rc e n ta g e c h a n g e o f th w h o c h a n g e d la n d a re a m ea n -3

3.

-4 3.

.8

-1 2.

-2

4.

-2

.3

-7 .4

.9

-2 6.

-2

3.

.5

-1 4.

)s ta tis tic al te st s:

p ai re d t-t es ts c om pa rin g ar ea b ef or e an d af te r th e ea rt qu ak e in di ca te s ig ni fic an t d iff er en ce s at o re le ss u si ng a o ne -ta ile d te st

C ha ng es in a re a va rie d in fr eq ue nc y an d di re ct io n am on g si te s, b ut th es e ch an ge s ar e on ly a ttr ib ut ed to th e ea rt hq ua ke in s om e pl ac es (L eo ga ne

M ar ig ot

, V er et te

O ve ra ll, m uc h of th e ch an ge in la nd a re a

(9 of o bs er va tio ns ) i s no t a ttr ib ut ed to th e ea rt hq ua ke

O ve ra ll pe rc en ta ge c ha ng is al l (

-3 .1

3%

B el le A ns e, B as si n

B le u an d La sc ah ob as s ho w im po rt an t c ha ng es a ffe ct in g liv el ih oo ds o f s om e fa rm er s bu t w he th er th es e ca n be a ttr ib ut ed to th e ea rt hq ua ke a s op po se d to li ve lih oo d sh ift s, o r t o ge ne ra l p ov er ty

, i s an ot he r m at te r.

In

L eo ga ne

, a s w ou ld b e ex pe ct ed , 3 of th e fa rm er s ci tin g ch an ge a ttr ib ut ed th es e ch an ge s to th e ea rt hq ua

AIII.13Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

E ff ec ts o f ea rt h q u ak e o n c ro p s

F ar m er s’ p er ce p ti o n s o f ch an g es in c ro p s g ro w n s in ce t h e ea rt h q u ak e

E ff ec t u n it b as u b se c h an ta l h in ch e la sc ah o b as le o g an e

M ar ig o t le p et it

G o av e

V er et te la V al le e d e Ja cm el

A ll si te s p la in s h ill s n

Fa rm er s ci tin g im pa ct o n ag ri cu ltu ra l pr o du ct io n sy st em

.3

.4

.9

.0

8.

8.

0.

.0

.3

.0

.7

.0

Fa rm er s ci tin g cr o ps a dd

.7 3.

0.

1.

2.

.0 0.

5.

0.

.0

.0 8.

A ll fa rm er s ci tin g cr op s ad de d n

A tt ri bu te d to e ar th qu

N ot a tt ri bu te d to e ar th qu

D id n ot e xp la in n

Fa rm er s ci tin g cr o ps d ro pp

.0 na 4.

6.

.7

.0 1.

5.

2.

.0 1.

7.

A ll fa rm er s ci tin g cr op s dr op pe d n

A tt ri bu te d to e ar th qu

N ot a tt ri bu te d to e ar th qu

D id n ot e xp la in n

Fa rm er s ci tin g in cr ea se d in c ro p sh

.1

3.

.2

9.

.6

.0

7.

8.

2.

.0

.0

.7

A ll fa rm er s ci tin g ch an ge s n

A tt ri bu te d to e ar th qu

N ot a tt ri bu te d to e ar th qu

D id n ot e xp la in n

Fa rm er s ci tin g de cr ea se d cr o p

.4 2.

5.

6.

.6

.0 2.

.6 0.

.0

.0

.3

A ll fa rm er s ci tin g ch an ge s n

A tt ri bu te d to e ar th qu

N ot a tt ri bu te d to e ar th qu

D id n ot e xp la in n

N ot e:

S om e fa rm er s re po rt b ot h ad de d an d dr op pe d cr op s, in cr ea se d an d de cr ea se d la nd s ha re s

Fe w fa rm er s re po rt ed a dd in g

(9

) o r d ro pp in g

(7

) a ny c ro ps . M or e fa rm er s sh ow s hi fts in la nd s ha re s fo r g iv en c ro ps , a s in cr ea se d th e e of k ey c ro ps

, a nd

1% d ec re as ed la nd s ha re

B as si n

B le u, L as ca ho ba s, L eo ga ne , a nd V er et te s re po rt si gn ifi ca nt s hi fts in la nd s ha re s of g iv en c ro ps . I t i s in te re st in g to n ot e th at

L eo ga ne is q ui te d yn am ic

AIII.14Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

E ff ec ts o f ea rt h q u ak e o n a g ri cu lt u ra l l ab o r

F ar m er s’ p er ce p ti o n s o f ch an g es in la b o r av ai la b le f o r ag ri cu lt u re a ft er t h e ea rt h q u ak e

E ff ec t u n it b as u b se c h an ta l h in ch e la sc a-h o b as le o g an e M ar ig o t le p et it

G o av e

V er et te la V al le e d e Ja cm el

A ll si te s p la in s h ill s n

F ar m er s ci ti n g im p ac t cu lt u ra l p ro d u ct io n s ys te m

F ar m er s ci ti n g c h an g ed l ab o r av ai la b ili ty

A ll fa rm e rs c it in g c h a n g o r a va ila b ili ty n

A tt ri b u te d t o e a rt h q u

N o t a tt ri b u te d t o e a rt h q u

D id n o t e xp la in c h a n g e d la b o r a va ila b ili ty n d ir ec ti o n o f ch an g e

In cr e a se d n

D e cr e a se d n

N o e xp la n a ti o n p ro vi d e d n

P e rs o n s a va ila b le b e fo re fa rm e rs c it in g c h a n g e s m ea n

8.

.1 7*

6.

8.

7.

.8 1*

7.

6.

8.

P e rs o n s a va ila b le a ft r, fa rm e rs c it in g c h a n g e s m ea n

5.

6.

8.

4.

6.

5.

8.

6.

7.

P e rc e n ta g e c h a n g e a ll fa rm n -9

.9

-5 .1

.3

-1 5.

.2

-8 .2

.9

-1 .2

-0

.3

*S ta tis tic al te st s:

p ai re d t-t es ts c om pa rin g la bo r av ai la bi lit y be fo re a nd a fte r th e ea rt hq ua ke in di ca te s ig ni fic an t d iff er en ce s be lo w

, u si ng a o ne

-ta ile d te st

N ot e:

‘L ab or

’ r ef er s to b ot h ho us eh ol d an d hi re d la bo r

D at a w er e no t c ol le ct ed o n la bo r av ai la bi lit y fo r fa rm er s no t c iti ng c ha ng es o f f ar m er s ci te s om e ch an ge in la bo r a va ila bi lit y.

F or th e m aj or ity o f s ite s, th is c ha ng e is n eg at iv e, re fle ct in g pe rh ap s in cr ea se d la bo r p ric es pe op le

’s in ab ili ty to a ffo rd it

. C ha nt al a nd

V er et te s ar e ex ce pt io ns

, a s th ey in di ca te in cr ea se s in a va ila bl e la bo r.

AIII.15Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

E ff ec ts o f ea rt h q u ak e o n in p u t u se

F ar m er s’ p er ce p ti o n s o f ch an g es in in p u t u se s in ce t h e ea rt h q u ak e

E ff ec t u n it b as u b se c h an ta l h in ch e la sc ah o b as le o g an e

M ar ig o t le p av e

V er et te la V al le e d e Ja cm el

A ll si te s p la in s h ill s n

F ar m er s ci ti n g im p ac t cu lt u ra l p ro d u ct io sy st em

F ar m er s ci ti n g c h an u t

A ll fa rm e rs c it n g e s n

A tt ri b u te d t o e a rt h q u

N o t a tt ri b u te d rt h q u

D id n o t e xp la in c h a n g u t u se n d ir ec ti o n o f ch an u t u se

In cr e a se d n

D e cr e a se d n

N ot e:

In a ll si te s, fa rm er s ci te d fe rt ili ze r an d co m po st fo r bo th in cr ea se d an d de cr ea se d us e of in pu ts

R po ns es o n di re ct io n of c ha ng e do n ot to ta l t o ch an ge d in pu t u se n um be rs b ec au se fa rm er s re po rt ed in cr ea se s in s om e in pu ts a nd d ec re as ot rs

; o th er fa rm er s pr ov id ed n o in fo rm at io n.

C ha ng e in in pu t u se is m od es t, ex ce pt fo r L éo gâ ne a nd

V er et te s.

N or m al ly fo r t he se tw o zo ne s, in pu t u se is fa irl y hi gh ; i t s ig ni fic an tly in cr ea se d af te r t hq ua ke fa rm er s re po rt ed a n in cr ea se in s om e in pu ts a nd a d ec re as e in o th er s.

AIII.16Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

3. EArthquAkE EFFEctS oN AGrIculturAl SyStEMS ANd houSEholdS by SEX oF houSEhold hEAd, All SItES

This series of tables denotes farmer perceptions of the impacts of the earthquake on both agriculture and households, based on the sex of the head of household.

earthquake effectS, by Sex of houSehold

AIII.17Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

14. Effects of earthquake on land, by sex of household head

Farmer perceptions of effects of earthquake on land, by sex of household, all sites

Effect household head total Male Female

Sex of household head n 723 234 957

Farmers citing impact on agricultural production system n 287 104 391

% 39.7 44.4 40.9

Farmers citing changed land area n 150 48 198

All farmers citing changed area % 20.7 20.5 20.7

Attributed to earthquake % 38.8 47.9 41.9

Not attributed to earthquake % 47.3 37.5 44.9 did not explain % 14.0 14.6 14.1

100.1 100.0 101.0 direction of change – land area

Increased % 2.6 6.4 3.6 decreased % 18.3 15.5 17.6

Area before, all farmers (karo) mean 1.04 0.87 1.00*

Area after, all farmers (karo) mean 0.95 0.85 0.93

Note: Sex of household head was not reported in all cases

* Difference in mean land area before earthquake is significant with t-test at <10% assuming equal variances and <5% assuming unequal variances, but no significant difference after earthquake

While there are no significant differences in changes in land area for both female and male-headed house-holds, female-headed households on average have smaller landholdings than male-headed households – 0.84 karo as opposed to 1.04 karo for male-headed households.

AIII.18Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

15. Effects on agricultural labor

Farmer perceptions of effects of earthquake on agricultural labor by sex of household, all sites

Effect household head total Male Female

Sex of household head n 723 234 957

Farmers citing changed labor availability % 26.8 26.9 26.9

All farmers citing changed labor availability n 194 63 257

Attributed to earthquake % 16.0 33.3 20.2**

Not attributed to earthquake % 19.1 7.9 16.3** did not explain changed labor availability % 64.9 58.7 63.4**

100 100 100 direction of change – labor availability

Increased % 8.9 12.8 9.8 decreased % 14.5 11.5 13.8 person numbers not provided % 3.5 2.6 3.2 persons available before, farmers citing changes mean 1.85 1.88 1.86 persons available after, farmers citing changes mean 1.91 1.87 1.90

Note: Sex of household head was not reported in all cases

Labor availability was not reported for farmers not citing changes

** Chi-squared test indicates that distributions of male- and female-headed households are significantly dif-ferent at <5% for attributing of changes in labor availability.

Changes in labor availa.bility equally affected male and female-headed households, although male-headed households noted a more stark decrease in labor than female-headed households. Interestingly, female-head-ed households were almost twice as likely to attribute changes in labor availability to the earthquake (33.3%) than male-headed households (16.8%).

AIII.19Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

16. Effects on numbers of Idps in households

Farmer perceptions of effects of earthquake on household size, by sex of household, all sites

Effect household head total

Male Female

Sex of household head n 723 234 957

Farmers citing change in number or persons living in household % 57.4 62.0 58.5

All farmers citing change n 415 145 560

Attributed to earthquake % 30.6 26.2 29.5

Not attributed to earthquake % 5.8 1.4 4.6 did not explain % 63.6 72.4 65.9

100.0 100.0 100.0 persons before, all farmers mean 6.45 6.29 6.41 persons after, all farmers mean 8.68 8.48 8.63 persons in June 2010, all farmers mean 7.34 6.63 7.18*

* Difference in mean persons per hh in June 2010 is significant with t-test at <10% assuming equal variances and <5% assuming unequal variances, but no significant difference before or immediately after earthquake

Household sizes were about the same on average before the earthquake, and increased equally significantly immediately following the earthquake. IDPs in female-headed households have been quicker to return to Port-au-Prince or to leave for another location than IDPs in male-headed households.

AIII.20Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

17. Effects on household economics and finances

Farmer perceptions of effects of earthquake on household economy, by sex of household, all sites

Effect household head total Male Female

Sex of household head n 723 234 957

Farmers citing livestock sales and purchases since earthquake % 27.2 28.6 27.6

All farmers citing purchases or sales n 197 67 264

Attributed to earthquake % 17.8 16.4 17.4

Not attributed to earthquake % 10.2 10.4 10.2 did not explain purchases and sales % 72.1 73.1 72.3

100.0 100.0 100.0 direction of change – livestock livestock purchased % 10.0 12.0 10.4 livestock sold % 21.1 20.1 20.8 livestock numbers purchased mean 3.22 2.79 3.10 livestock numbers sold mean 3.28 3.49 3.33

Farmers citing changes in access to credit % 15.2 18.8 16.1

All farmers citing changes in access to credit n 110 44 154

Attributed to earthquake % 6.36 13.6 8.44*

Not attributed to earthquake % 4.55 0.00 3.25* did not explain % 89.1 86.4 88.3*

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 direction of change – access to credit

Increased credit % 3.7 3.5 3.6 decreased credit % 9.9 12.8 10.6

Farmers citing changes in money offered since earthquake % 14.4 11.1 13.6

All farmers citing changes in money offered n 104 26 130

Attributed to earthquake % 6.73 7.69 6.92

Not attributed to earthquake % 0.96 0.00 0.77 did not explain % 92.3 92.3 92.3

100.0 100.0 100.0

Farmers citing changes in money received since earthquake % 8.44 10.7 9.0

All farmers citing changes in money received n 61 25 86

Attributed to earthquake % 42.6 24.0 37.2*

Not attributed to earthquake % 45.9 36.0 43.0* did not explain % 11.5 40.0 19.8*

100.0 100.0 100.0

* Chi-squared test indicates that the distributions of male- and female-headed households do not differ significantly for farmers citing changes in credit or money received, but do for for attribution of change in credit or money received (<5%)

AIII.21Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

Notes: Many farmers reported both sales and purchases, and some farmers reported no numbers.

In some cases farmers did not report whether access to credit increased or decreased.

There are no significant differences in livestock sales or purchases for female-headed households and male-headed households, indicating that this is “gender-neutral” as a coping strategy.

Female-headed households were more likely to be affected by decreases in access to credit than male-head-ed households – and they were much more likely to attribute this change to the earthquake. This corroborates focus group discussions wherein women described a credit crunch that contributed to forcing them to drop some of their economic activities.

By contrast, while male and female-headed households offered and received more money post-earthquake, female-headed households were less likely to attribute this to the earthquake. This could indicate that such trade is part of their normal commercial activities.

AIII.22Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

18. Effects on household food security

Farmer perceptions of effects of earthquake on household, by sex of household, all sites

Effect household head total Male Female

Sex of household head n 723 234 957

Farmers citing changes in meal consumption since earthquake % 46.5 51.7 47.8

All farmers citing change in food consumption since earthquake n 336 121 457

Attributed to earthquake % 27.7 18.2 25.2*

Not attributed to earthquake % 12.2 8.3 11.2* did not explain change in meals % 60.1 73.6 63.7*

Meals consumed before, farmers citing change mean 2.51 2.40 2.48

Meals consumed after, farmers citing change mean 1.63 1.46 1.59

* Chi-squared test indicates that the distributions of male- and female-headed households do not differ significantly for farmers citing changes in meals, but do (at <5% significance), for attribution of changes

Since January 12th, 47.8% of all households reduced the number of meals consumed per day, at some point.

Much fewer female-headed households (18.2%) attributed this change in household meal consumption to the earthquake than male-headed households (27.7%).

This could mean a number of things: it might indicate that women, who are responsible for meal preparation, do not consider their reduction of economic means to be an outcome of the earthquake. It could mean that meal reduction is part of a natural cycle of a hungry season, as in some areas the earthquake occurred mid-way through the growing season, before any harvests.

AIII.23Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

19. Effects on labor

Farmer perceptions of effects of earthquake on off-farm labor by sex of household, all sites

Effect household head total Male Female

Sex of household head n 723 234 957

Farmers citing changed number of household members working off-farm

% 11.3 17.5 12.9

All farmers citing change n 82.0 41.0 123.0

Attributed to earthquake % 12.2 12.2 12.2

Not attributed to earthquake % 12.2 4.9 9.8 did not explain changed number % 75.6 82.9 78.0

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 direction of change – number of household members working off-farm

Increased % 5.67 9.83 6.69 decreased % 5.39 6.84 5.75 off-farm workers before, farmers citing change mean 2.22 1.90 2.11 off-farm workers after, farmers citing change mean 2.13 2.26 2.17

Note: Data were not collected on off-farm labor for farmers not citing changes

Difference in means is not statistically significant between male and female-headed households for off-farm workers before or after the earthquake

Female-headed households indicate slightly more people working off-farm than in male-headed households.

This probably indicates a coping response to a stress situation wherein households require more cash.

This indicates that there has been a slight increase in people working off-farm, yet households also report a dearth of available labor (see table “effects on agricultural labor”) in general.

AIII.24Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

4. SEEd VoluMES by SourcE, thIS SEASoN ANd NEXt SEASoN

This set of tables represents only crops whose units could be fairly consistently converted to kilograms – marmites, pots, etc. Regimes of bananas, or cuttings of sweet potato and cassava are not included here, since units were too unwieldy and difficult to standardize. These tables provide the overall quantities of seed used this past season, and the plans for the upcoming season, as well as percentage distribution of the sources of this seed.

Some observations over all sites:

Beans by far the crop produced in greatest quantity, and the majority is sourced from the local market•

Farmers source large quantities of maize and sorghum seed from their own stocks•

Rice is the only crop where there is significant sourcing from family or friends•

Many more peanuts will be stocked for next season than this season. Lascahobas is the only site where • there are significant quantities of peanut seed sourced from own stocks.

Much less seed aid is expected for next season•

In the absence of seed aid next season, farmers intend to stock more maize seed than this season, and • purchase more bean seed. Overall they will plant about half as much maize seed this coming season, which could be an indication of the staggered planting season of maize, which many farmers described. Overall bean quantities remain similar, although there is a slight decrease for the coming season.

Generally when seed aid is given, farmers buy less seed from the market. So seed aid helps farmers save • money. (Is this the most cost-effective way to get money to farmers or to increase their purchasing pow-er??? Is this the least risky method of ‘cash transfer’ )

Seed volumeS by Source, thIS SeaSon and next SeaSon

AIII.25Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

20. All sites, this season quantities of seed farmers used this season, by source and crop (%), all sites percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer

Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 8497.4 26.5 2.2 63.0 0.0 2.3 6.0 100.0 beans 19780.9 9.9 0.7 83.1 0.4 0.5 5.5 100.0 rice 3883.8 13.3 6.2 66.4 2.8 10.8 0.5 100.0

Sorghum 1155.3 53.5 0.2 45.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 100.0 peanut 4700.0 26.6 0.0 72.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 100.0 pigeonpea 1406.4 36.6 0.6 61.8 0.0 0.7 0.3 100.0 cowpea 644.2 7.5 0.6 86.8 0.0 1.9 3.2 100.0

All above crops 40068.0 17.8 1.5 74.2 0.5 1.9 4.2 100.0 n of seed sources = 3583, includes 3 priority crops per household

21. All sites, next season quantities of seed farmers used next season, by source and crop (%), all sites percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 6307.0 25.4 1.5 67.0 0.9 1.6 3.6 100.0 beans 18202.9 17.0 1.2 78.5 0.0 1.3 2.0 100.0 rice 3871.3 17.4 3.4 66.1 0.0 9.0 4.1 100.0

Sorghum 1122.2 35.2 2.5 51.7 1.8 4.0 4.9 100.0 peanut 4153.4 40.2 2.1 54.3 2.5 0.2 0.6 100.0 pigeonpea 697.1 12.4 0.0 78.1 1.1 4.1 4.3 100.0 cowpea 295.0 9.7 5.1 68.2 13.6 0.0 3.4 100.0

All above crops 34648.8 21.8 1.6 71.1 0.7 2.2 2.5 100.0 n of seed sources = 2975, includes 3 priority crops per household

AIII.26Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

22. bassin bleu, this season quantities of seed farmers used this season, by source and crop (%), bassin bleu percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 723.1 4.1 0.0 95.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 beans 958.9 0.8 0.0 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 rice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

Sorghum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na peanut 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na pigeonpea 332.9 40.6 0.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 cowpea 139.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

All above crops 2154.4 8.0 0.0 92.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 n of seed sources = 405, includes 3 priority crops per household

23. bassin bleu, next season quantities of seed farmers will use next season, by source and crop (%), bassin bleu percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 854.8 1.0 0.3 97.2 0.0 1.5 0.0 100.0 beans 2632.3 0.1 0.2 99.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 rice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

Sorghum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na peanut 49.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 pigeonpea 149.1 1.7 0.0 79.9 0.0 18.4 0.0 100.0 cowpea 25.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

All above crops 3710.9 0.4 0.2 98.3 0.0 1.1 0.0 100.0 n of seed sources = 424, includes up to 3 crops per household

Bassin Bleu relies heavily on the local market for seed. Last season, there were small amounts of pigeon-pea and maize seed that was sourced from reserves, but virtually all seed was purchased at the market this season, and the trend continues next season. The low reliance on own stocks in Bassin Bleu may be drought-related, and is worth further study.

AIII.27Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

24. belle Anse, this season quantities of seed farmers used this season, by source and crop (%), belle Anse percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 1091.3 19.8 0.0 75.9 0.0 0.0 4.3 100.0 beans 1516.3 3.3 0.0 93.2 0.0 0.0 3.5 100.0 rice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

Sorghum 231.9 33.2 0.0 66.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 peanut 697.5 1.8 0.0 98.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 pigeonpea 53.1 16.5 0.0 83.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 cowpea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

All above crops 3590.0 10.1 0.0 87.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 100.0 n of seed sources=321, includes 3 priority crops per household

Peanuts are grown, and the vast majority of seed is purchased. There has been some bean and maize aid this season. Not much bean seed was sourced from own reserves.

25. belle Anse, next season quantities of seed farmers will use next season, by source and crop (%), belle Anse percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 1018.1 25.2 0.0 62.2 0.0 0.0 12.6 100.0 beans 1481.9 6.5 0.0 85.4 0.0 0.0 8.1 100.0 rice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

Sorghum 58.8 23.4 0.0 68.1 0.0 0.0 8.5 100.0 peanut 322.5 3.9 0.0 96.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 pigeonpea 17.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 cowpea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

All above crops 2898.8 13.1 0.0 78.2 0.0 0.0 8.8 100.0 n of seed sources=302, includes up to 3 crops per household

The increase in maize seed aid corresponds with a proportionally equal decrease in market maize. Seed aid helps farmers save money.

AIII.28Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

26. chantal, this season quantities of seed farmers used this season, by source and crop (%), chantal percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 1356.3 10.0 6.2 78.5 0.0 1.8 3.5 100.0 beans 2598.3 0.5 4.0 94.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 100.0 rice 310.0 0.0 0.0 86.3 13.7 0.0 0.0 100.0

Sorghum 31.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 peanut 167.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 pigeonpea 233.8 38.5 3.2 58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 cowpea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

All above crops 4697.0 5.1 4.2 87.5 0.9 0.5 1.9 100.0 n of seed sources=371, includes 3 priority crops per household

27. chantal, next season quantities of seed farmers will use next season, by source and crop (%), chantal percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 1003.8 19.7 0.0 79.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 100.0 beans 1885.0 2.0 1.7 95.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 100.0 rice 573.8 27.5 5.2 32.5 0.0 7.0 27.9 100.0

Sorghum 163.8 0.0 12.2 87.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 peanut 42.5 0.0 29.4 70.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 pigeonpea 123.8 14.1 0.0 85.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 cowpea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

All above crops 3792.5 10.8 2.5 80.5 0.0 1.3 4.9 100.0 n of seed sources=298, includes up to 3 crops per household

Farmers are anticipating purchasing more bean seed for the next season, and less rice seed. This corresponds with an anticipation of less bean seed aid, and significantly more rice seed aid.

AIII.29Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

28. hinche, this season quantities of seed farmers used this season, by source and crop (%), hinche percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 581.8 30.1 0.9 59.2 0.0 0.0 9.9 100.0 beans 35.0 14.3 0.0 85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 rice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

Sorghum 137.3 38.2 0.0 61.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 peanut 395.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 pigeonpea 206.1 19.9 0.0 80.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 cowpea 241.9 8.8 0.0 91.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

All above crops 1597.1 18.5 0.3 77.6 0.0 0.0 3.6 100.0 n of seed sources=192 includes 3 priority crops per household

Peanuts are somewhat significant this season, and 100% are purchased on the open market.

29. hinche, next season quantities of seed farmers next season, by source and crop (%), hinche percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid Total

Maize 310.0 4.0 0.0 57.3 17.7 0.0 21.0 100.0 beans 7.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 rice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

Sorghum 112.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na peanut 783.8 2.2 0.0 84.8 8.6 1.1 3.2 100.0 pigeonpea 167.5 0.0 0.0 77.6 4.5 0.0 17.9 100.0 cowpea 121.3 10.3 0.0 54.6 33.0 0.0 2.1 100.0

All above crops 1502.5 3.0 0.0 74.1 12.6 0.6 9.7 100.0 n of seed sources=166, includes up to 3 crops per household

AIII.30Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

30. lascahobas, this season quantities of seed farmers used this season, by source and crop (%), lascahobas percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 431.9 30.7 0.0 62.1 0.0 2.0 5.2 100.0 beans 1823.8 23.4 0.0 65.3 0.0 1.1 10.3 100.0 rice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

Sorghum 3.8 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 peanut 2527.5 44.5 0.0 54.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 100.0 pigeonpea 74.8 30.1 0.0 66.6 0.0 3.3 0.0 100.0 cowpea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

All above crops 4861.7 35.2 0.0 59.2 0.0 0.6 4.9 100.0 n of seed sources=257, includes 3 priority crops per household

31. lascahobas, next season quantities of seed farmers will use next season, by source and crop (%), lascahobas percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 218.8 22.3 21.7 56.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 beans 1742.5 42.9 7.9 43.5 0.0 0.0 5.7 100.0 rice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

Sorghum 57.5 91.3 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 peanut 2875.0 57.0 2.6 39.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 pigeonpea 68.8 38.2 0.0 61.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 cowpea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

All above crops 4962.5 50.7 5.2 41.3 0.8 0.0 2.0 100.0 n of seed sources=175, includes up to 3 crops per household

There is some anticipation of purchasing maize seed at an input store. Interestingly, the majority of peanut seed – which is a large quantity – is sourced from own reserves. Are there lessons from this area that can be traded with other areas that purchase peanuts every year?

AIII.31Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

32. léogâne, this season quantities of seed farmers used this season, by source and crop (%), léogâne percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 924.88 2.57 5.01 85.23 0.00 3.54 3.65 100.00 beans 2505.00 3.29 1.00 91.02 0.00 1.20 3.49 100.00 rice 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 na

Sorghum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 na peanut 250.00 15.00 0.00 85.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 pigeonpea 80.20 42.86 0.00 56.11 0.00 1.03 0.00 100.00 cowpea 144.38 8.23 2.60 73.59 0.00 8.66 6.93 100.00

All above crops 3904.45 4.87 1.92 87.90 0.00 1.95 3.36 100.00 n of seed sources=421, includes 3 priority crops per household Only crops for which planting material can be converted to kgs are included

33. léogâne, next season quantities of seed farmers will use next season, by source and crop (%),léogâne percentage distribution total kgs Stocks

Input store Market

Farmer seed producer

Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 943.1 4.1 1.9 90.2 0.0 3.6 0.3 100.0 beans 1542.5 8.1 1.1 87.4 0.0 0.4 2.9 100.0 rice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

Sorghum 7.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 peanut 21.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 pigeonpea 17.5 42.9 0.0 57.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 cowpea 46.3 0.0 32.4 67.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

All above crops 2578.1 6.9 1.9 87.7 0.0 1.6 1.8 100.0 n of seed sources=356, includes up to 3 crops per household

Farmers intend to source approximately the same proportion of bean seed from stocks as from markets from this season to next season.

AIII.32Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

34. Marigot, this season quantities of seed farmers used this season, by source and crop (%), Marigot percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 688.9 25.8 0.0 62.8 0.0 0.0 11.5 100.0 beans 2618.8 10.9 0.0 78.9 0.0 2.1 8.1 100.0 rice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

Sorghum 65.0 15.4 0.0 84.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 peanut 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na pigeonpea 63.8 66.7 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 cowpea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

All above crops 3436.4 15.0 0.0 74.9 0.0 1.6 8.5 100.0 n of seed sources=340, includes 3 priority crops per household

35. Marigot, next season quantities of seed farmers will use next season, by source and crop (%), Marigot percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 476.1 29.1 0.0 70.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 beans 2376.3 15.9 0.8 74.3 0.0 8.9 0.0 100.0 rice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

Sorghum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na peanut 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na pigeonpea 8.9 56.0 0.0 44.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 cowpea 3.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

All above crops 2865.0 18.2 0.7 73.6 0.0 7.4 0.0 100.0 n of seed sources=310, includes up to 3 crops per household

Even though farmers received significant maize and bean seed aid for this season, they’re not anticipating any more. They have an established history of emergency aid. It’s interesting that more farmers seem to compen-sate for the lack of seed aid by planning on storing more of their own reserves; some – but fewer – plan on purchasing additional seed next season to make up the deficit.

Pigeonpea is more equally sourced from own reserves as from markets.

AIII.33Seed SyStem SecurIty aSSeSSment Haiti

36. petit Goave (plains), this season quantities of seed farmers used this season, by source and crop (%), le petit Goave (plains) percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 798.9 47.6 2.5 27.0 0.0 6.9 16.0 100.0 beans 5.2 48.3 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 44.8 100.0 rice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na

Sorghum 242.3 63.9 1.0 32.5 0.0 2.6 0.0 100.0 peanut 5.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 pigeonpea 216.0 35.8 0.0 59.4 0.0 3.1 1.7 100.0 cowpea 118.4 12.9 0.0 78.1 0.0 0.0 9.0 100.0

All above crops 1385.8 45.5 1.6 37.6 0.0 4.9 10.4 100.0 n of seed sources=301 includes 3 priority crops per household

37. petit Goave (plains), next season quantities of seed farmers will use next season, by source and crop (%), le petit Goave (plains) percentage distribution total kgs Stocks Input store Market

Farmer seed producer Family or friend Seed aid total

Maize 446.4 61.3 0.0 24.4 0.0 9.0 5.4 100.0 beans 5.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 rice 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

Sorghum 640.9 46.6 1.2 40.9 0.0 7.0 4.3 100.0 peanut 5.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 pigeonpea 77.8 30.5 0.0 67.9…