USAID Haiti Reforestation Project-Resilience Baseline Study. 2020.pdf

USAID/Haiti - REFORESTATION PROJECT

Resilience Baseline Survey

Volume 1

Consultant Report

January 2020

Short-Term Resilience Specialist

Submitted by:

Thomas R. Fattori, Ph.D.

Ismaila Zorom, MEL Specialists

Chemonics International Inc.

1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Submitted to:

Michelet Fontaine, Reforestation Project Director 8, Rue Gerard Massuci

Cap Haitien, Haiti

FATTORI/ZOROM – HAITI/REFORESTRATION – BASELINE SURVEY REPORT

Chemonics International Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS

OVERVIEW AND KEY FINDINGS

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. SURVEY OBJECTIVES:

1.2. TERMINOLOGY:

1.3. REFORESTATION PROJECT - RESULTS FRAMEWORK:

1.4. SURVEY MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE:

1.5. SAMPLING STRATEGY:

1.6. SURVEY INSTRUMENTS AND DATA ANALYSIS:

SECTION 2. RESPONDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD PROFILES

2.1 RESPONDENT IDENTIFICATION:

2.2 HOUSEHOLD PROFILE – HUMAN CAPITAL

2.3 HOUSEHOLD PRIMARY ACTIVITIES

SECTION 3. SHOCKS, STRESSES, AND COPING STRATEGIES

3.1 SHOCKS AND STRESSES :

3.2 PERCEIVED PROBLEMS:

3.3 COPING STRATEGIES:

SECTION 4. LIVELIHOODS

4.1 LIVELIHOOD - PHYSICAL CAPITAL:

4.2 LIVELIHOOD – AGRICULTURAL CAPITAL:

4.3 LIVELIHOOD – FINANCIAL CAPITAL:

4.4 FINANCIAL SERVICES:

SECTION 5. WELL-BEING OUTCOMES

5.1 FOOD SECURITY OUTCOMES:

5.2 POVERTY OUTCOMES:

5.3 NUTRITION OUTCOMES:

5.4 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC OUTCOMES:

SECTION 6. RESILIENCE CAPACITIES

6.1 SOCIAL CAPITAL:

6.2 METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING BASELINE RESILIENCE SCORES

6.3 ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY:

6.4 ADAPTIVE CAPACITY:

6.5 TRANSFORMATIVE CAPACITY:

6.6 SECURITY:

SECTION 7. COMMUNITY PROFILES

7.1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS:

7.2 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES:

7.3 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS:

7.4 COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE:

SECTION 8. CLIMATE CHANGE:

8.1 WEATHER INFORMATION AWARENESS

8.2. WEATHER INFORMATION – DAILY AND SEASONAL

8.3. CLIMATE INFORMATION AND ADVISORY SERVICES

Chemonics International Page 3

SECTION 9. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING RESILIENCE:

9.1 WHERE TO FOCUS PROJECT RESOURCES

9.2 ALIGNING ACTIVITIES WITH SHOCKS AND STRESSES:

9.3 DEVELOPING SOCIAL CAPITAL:

ANNEX A. SURVEY MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE:

ANNEX B. HOUSEHOLDS SURVEYED BY WATERSHED, COMMUNE, AND

VILLAGE:

Acronyms

ASEC Assemblée des Sections Communales BAC Bureau Agricole Communal CASB Centre pour l’agriculture Saint Barnabas CASEC Conseil d’Administration de la Section Communale CBO Community Based Organization CECI Centre d’Etudes et de Coopération Internationale CFAIM Centre de Formation en Aménagement Intégré des Mornes CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture CNIGS Centre National de l’Information Géospatial COAIT Community Options Analysis and Investment Toolkit CRDD Centre Rural de Développement Durable DDA-N Directions Départementales Agricoles du Nord DDA-NE Directions Départementales Agricoles du Nord-Est DDE-N Directions Départementales de l’Environnement du Nord DDE-NE Directions Départementales de l’Environnement du Nord’Est FECCANO Fédération des Coopératives Cacaoyères du Nord FOPROBIM Fondation Pour la Protection de la Biodiversité Marine FS Food Security GIS Graphic Information System GOH Government of Haiti GPS Global Positioning System M&E Monitoring and evaluation MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning MFI Micro Finance Institution MOU Memorandum of Understanding MT Metric Ton NGO Non-Governmental Organization PMU Project Management Unit USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government

Chemonics International Page 4

Overview and key findings

Section 1

• The Project surveyed 637 households across 17 communes in the five targeted watersheds to obtain a statistically significant sample that can be disaggregated by respondent gender, watershed, elevation (highlands vs. lowlands), and received vs. not received advisory services. The survey achieved a gender balance (45% female 55% male) and elevation balance (52% highlands 48% lowlands) in the total number of respondents.

Section 2

• Highlanders are more likely to be fully engaged in agricultural work, benefit from extension services, or have a head farmer in their community. Lowlanders are more likely to be employed and earn wages for agricultural work, however the proportion is still very low (less than 0.5% of total household members earning wages).

• Highlanders are much more likely to rely on farming or livestock as their main economic activity, while lowlanders rely on various commerce activities and fishing.

• While highlanders rely more on livestock than lowlanders, lowlanders are more likely to be members of a livestock group.

• Highlanders are more likely to participate as members of groups overall.

Section 3

• Both highlanders and lowlanders reported economic shocks as being by far the most important relative to other types of shocks.

• Highlanders are more concerned about diverse environmental shocks such as landslides, hurricanes, and earthquakes, as well as agricultural-specific shocks such as crop disease and pests, increased cost of inputs, and decreases in crop prices

• Lowlanders report a much higher concern for youth unemployment, loss of youth jobs, and overpopulation.

• Respondents were more concerned about covariate events that impact their community, rather than idiosyncratic shocks/stresses that affect individuals. The shocks/stressing causing the most concern are food prices, drought, climate change, and lack of public services.

• Both land types reported that their ability to meet their food needs is worse than it was before shocks/stresses experienced in the last 12 months, and expect their food needs to remain worse than before for the next year. However, lowlanders had a higher likelihood to report their ability to meet food needs as same as before and predict it will remain so, while highlanders are more optimistic about the future.

• About a quarter of lowlanders reported they have done nothing to mitigate from future shocks/stresses, compared to 6% of highlanders. Highlanders are more likely to adopt any of the suggested mitigation strategies with the exception of relocation, placing a particular emphasis on adding additional agricultural or non-agricultural activities, diversifying away from agriculture, or switching crops.

Chemonics International Page 5

Section 4

• Across respondents there is an abysmal shortage of agricultural capital assets and farm tools.

Almost all implements identified are hand tools, with almost no mechanization.

• The most popular communications assets across respondents are mobile phones and radio.

About 18% of lowlanders reported having a television, against only 6% of highlanders.

• Cattle and goats are kept by about 23% and 24% of households. Poultry is the third most important livestock kept by households, although highlanders keep on average considerably more chickens than lowlanders.

• Highlanders reported on average twice as much land as lowlanders; land quality was not assessed but land in highlands is known to be of lesser agricultural productivity.

Highlanders are much more likely to plant trees on their plots.

• Lowlanders reported greater free use of land than highlanders (25% vs. 10%).

• On staple crops, highlanders produce, sell and consume significantly more manioc, sweet potatoes, and bananas than lowlanders. Lowlanders sell significantly more maize than highlanders, although their production and consumption of maize is about the same as the highlanders.

• On garden crops, there are significant production differences between land types.

Lowlanders produce, sell, and consume more potatoes. whereas highlanders sell more black and red beans and Congo peas than lowlanders, although production and consumption is about the same.

• About 67% of all households borrowed money to deal with shocks and stresses. Differences were that lowlanders borrowed significantly more from MFIs, while highlanders rely instead on village-based savings groups. Overall, most respondents borrow from family or friends.

• About 52% of households saved money in the last 12 months, with most decisions to save made with a spouse or partner. A significant number of lowlanders reported not having enough money to save.

• Access to insurance of any kind is not an option for most households.

Section 5

• Highlanders are significantly more likely to source food from their own gardens or reserves, while lowlanders are much more likely to buy from the local market.

• Highlanders are relatively poorer than lowlanders and females are poorer than males according to the Simple Poverty Scorecard.

• Highlanders responded significantly greater access to maize (cereal group), beans (legumes, nuts, and seeds groups), vegetable oil (oils and fats group), and sugar (sweets group) than the lowlanders. Whereas, the lowlanders reported significantly greater access to meat (flesh meat groups), milk products (milk and milk products group) than the highlanders. These findings are also consistent with agricultural production data.

• There is no household in the survey categorized as food secure.

Chemonics International Page 6

• Neary all households reported being worried about having enough food. However, lowlanders reported significant differences in limited variety of food, consume smaller meals, passed entire day and night without food, consume fewer meals, and go to sleep hungry more often than highlanders.

• Lowlanders spend significantly more on food than highlanders (who grow a larger share of their food). Highlanders reported spending significantly more on school fees and medical bills, compared to lowlanders.

Section 6

• Highlanders reported higher levels of linking, bonding, and bridging social capital than lowlanders. Highlanders provided/received significantly more help through work sharing, while lowlanders provided/received significantly more gifts.

• Highlanders had on average higher baseline resiliency scores than lowlanders, although statistical differences were not calculated on this basis.

• Highlanders reported a significant number of households were prevented from working due to insecurity, although this prevention was only characterized as partial. About 32% of lowlanders perceived insecurity prevented them from working and a significant 11.8% felt they were totally prevented from working due to insecurity.

Section 7

• Highlanders reported greater use of communal water sources for livestock. Lowlanders report greater communal grazing land.

• Highlanders have fewer market opportunities, greater distances to travel to markets, and fewer financial services available to them.

• The main source of drinking water are unprotected wells/springs for highlanders, and piped water for lowlanders.

• Very few highlander households have electricity, and if they do it is dependent on solar power.

• In the last year, 74% of highland communities experienced needing to sell/buy livestock but could not.

Section 8

• Highlanders are significantly more aware of, and have access to, daily and seasonal weather information than lowlanders.

• Both highlanders and lowlanders source their climate information from “commercial” radio, and somewhat by mobile phone. Highlanders significantly report the climate information to be useful and use the information a lot.

Chemonics International Page 7

Section 1. Introduction

The USAID Reforestation Project is a 5-year project to address environmental degradation and loss of tree cover in the Nord and Nord-Est Departments of Haiti and improve the resilience of targeted populations. Its objective is in line with the priorities of the government of Haiti to restore environmental services and support domestic and international efforts to improve food security and resilience.

1.1. Survey Objectives:

The objectives of this survey include: 1) to establish a quantitative baseline of household resilience capacities, 2) to correlate household data with community data, 3) effectiveness of project environmental services to date (volume 2), and 3) to provide evidenced-based recommendations for current and future workplans.

1.2. Terminology:

USAID defines resilience as “the ability of people, households, communities, countries and systems to mitigate, adapt to and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth.” The ability to handle adversity and change without compromising future well-being depends on a number of capacities and how they are used in the face of shocks and stresses.

Resilience is fundamentally about transformation – changing the very basis on which individuals and households can make decisions that influence their capacity to deal with stresses and shocks.

Resilience can be measured through these capacities and by relating them to well-being outcomes.

Absorptive capacity. Absorptive capacity is the ability to minimize exposure to shocks and stresses through preventative measures and appropriate coping strategies to avoid permanent, negative impacts.

Adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity is the ability to make proactive and informed choices about alternative livelihood strategies based on an understanding of changing conditions.

Transformative capacity. Transformative capacity involves the governance mechanisms, policies/ regulations, infrastructure, community networks, and formal and informal social protection mechanisms that constitute the enabling environment for systemic change.

Bonding social capital is seen in the bonds between community or group members.

Bridging social capital connects members of one community or group to members of other communities/groups

Linking social capital is often conceived of as a vertical link between a network and some form of authority.

Shocks. Sudden onset, high-impact events, usually of a limited duration. These include dangerous natural phenomena, human activities or conditions that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts; property damage; loss of livelihoods and services; social and economic disruption; or environmental damage.

Chemonics International Page 8

Stresses. Slow onset events or changes (e.g., land degradation, erratic rainfall, persistent conflict, price instability) that undermine development outcomes. Stresses are lengthier disruptions that can be high impact (similar to shocks), but generally occur over a longer period.

1.3. Reforestation Project - Results Framework:

The long-term success of this Project effort to increase tree cover in the target area rests on beneficiaries taking ownership (adoption of best agroforestry practices) of the promoted initiatives and having access to alternate sustainable sources of income, and on the ability of local authorities to understand and enforce natural resources policies in their jurisdiction.

Therefore, improving resilience to economic and natural shocks through actively engaging the communities and investments in market-driven activities and building local authorities’ capacity for improved Natural Resource Management (NRM) and governance remains a cornerstone of the Project strategy.

The development hypothesis of the USAID Reforestation project is that tree cover will increase if the threat of deforestation is reduced, the incentive to plant and maintain new trees is increased, community resilience to economic and natural shocks is improved, and environmental governance and coordination is strengthened.

The development outcomes are:

• Increased household and community resilience to economic and natural shocks.

• Environmental governance and coordination strengthened

The Capacities of individuals, households, enterprises, and communities - required to achieve these development outcomes are:

• Absorptive capacities.

• Adaptive capacities.

• Transformative capacities.

The USAID Reforestation Project Results Framework (Exhibit 1) links directly with USAID/Haiti Strategic Framework for 2018 – 2020 and Results Framework goal “Foundation for resilience, stability, and inclusive growth reinforced”. The Project directly supports USAID Haiti’s Intermediate Results (IR) 2.1 “Vulnerable households better able to weather shocks and chronic stresses” and 2.4 “Sustainable natural resources management improved” under Development Objective 2 “Economic and food security advanced”.

The Project Results Framework speaks directly to USAID/Haiti’s resilience programmatic priority by integrating resilience into all Project activities, focusing on improving landscape management, supporting farm and off-farm economic opportunities, bolstering environmental awareness and governance, and building target populations’ capacity to reduce the impacts of economic and natural shocks.

Reforestation Vision Increase forest and tree cover in targeted sub-watersheds while contributing to their residents’ resilience to economic and natural shocks and long-term stresses to improve their well-being.

Chemonics International Page 9

Survey data can be disaggregated by:

• Watershed

• Land type (elevation) - Highlands and Lowlands

• With and Without Advisory Services

• Household Demographics - Gender

Types environmental services training provided by the project:

1. Tree production techniques. Including transplanting, fruit tree maintenance, and tree trimming.

2. Home garden production (vegetables and fruit trees) techniques. Including crop diversification, multi-cropping vegetables with fruit trees, tree grafting, and branch trimming.

3. Animal forage management techniques. Including combined forage with food crops, live hedge rows with woody forage crops, harvesting, drying, and feeding hay, and making silage.

4. Bee keeping and honey production techniques. Including best tree species for honey, use of tools and equipment, planning honey harvest season, and hive management.

5. Soil water retention and stabilization techniques (for trees). Including composting, proper hole digging, mulching, and woodlot management.

6. Mangrove management techniques. Including specialized nurseries, and public awareness on importance of mangroves.

7. Forest stabilization techniques. Including woodlot management techniques.

1.4. Survey management structure:

The project employed a three-tiered management structure with: 1) Project MEL staff overseeing survey implementation, 2) technical staff supervising enumerators in the field, and 3) the survey enumerators.

Supervisors: Eight (8) supervisors will oversee all survey activities in their respective Watershed Zone.

Field Enumerators: Twenty (24), two per Watershed Zone (one will survey households with-services, and one will survey households without-services; they will conduct on average three surveys per day.

The twenty-four (24) enumerators and the eight (8) designated supervisors formed teams during the training program, as they progressed through three iterations of the survey design that ended with refined terminology in French and Creole, and a clear understanding of survey implementation procedures by the enumerators.

Enumerators were selected based on their local language abilities and that many were from the Communes where they will work. Enumerators attended a six-day training program managed by project MEL staff to ensure understanding of every question, process for asking questions, and methodology for selecting households. A trial run was implemented before the start of the survey.

Chemonics International Page 10

The project used multi-function tablets made by Lenova (Model TB-8704V) with the SurveyCTO software, Google Maps to georeferenced household locations, MyMaps with fixed survey area maps prepared by the project GIS specialist, and GPS readings with pictures of households surveyed. Data was transmitted daily from the tablets to the MEL team that captured the data in Excel and created Pivot tables for a quick review of the data, in order to ensure data quality.

Questions were asked in Creole and recorded on hardcopy of the French version ensuring a true copy was established and archived in case of problems with the e-version of the data. Data was transcribed to the tablets during the evening hours, with assistance of the Supervisors. Data was transmitted from the tablets to the project office MEL team daily. Any anomalies in data were then reviewed with the MEL team and then contacting the field supervisors the same day to make any necessary adjustments.

Enumerators and supervisors also received two hours of security training and establishment of a mobile phone tree, using WhatsApp to ensure the safety of the enumerators and establish a system of rapid response if any problem arose. Fortunately, no security problems occurred.

Commune-based Facilitators: The project arranged with Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment to provide facilitation services for the enumerators while in the field. These facilitators briefed community leaders on the objectives and importance of the survey and requested their support in each their respective communities. There were fifteen facilitators, three per Watershed.

Annex A provides a detailed list of the survey enumerators, supervisors, and village facilitators, assigned to villages.

1.5. Sampling Strategy:

Purposely select Five Watershed Zones within the project Zone of Influence:

• Watershed Zone A: Cap Haitian

• Watershed Zone B: Grande Riviere du Nord

• Watershed Zone C1: Sub-zone Trou du Nord

• Watershed Zone C2: Sub-zone Marion

• Watershed Zone C3: Sub-zone Jassa

Purposely divided each Watershed Zone into Communes representing the relative size of the watershed for a total of 20 Communes. Five in Zone A, Five in Zone B, Three in Sub-zone C1, Three in Sub-zone C2, and four in Sub-zone C3.

Randomly select Sections (villages) in each of the 20 Communes. Then, partition the randomly selected villages into roughly equal groups in areas without services and areas with services.

Randomly select agriculture-oriented households in each Section (Village).

• The 566 Household Sample Size, considered the minimum sample size, was calculated for an estimated population size of about 800,000 (Table 1.1.1.) living in the project zone of influence and reduced by the population living in the City of Cap Haitian; and at a 95% Level of Confidence, and with a Confidence Interval of 4.12.

Chemonics International Page 11

• There are 283 Households with-services in 28 sections, and 283 without-services in 21 sections, for a minimum of 566 households.

• The total number of surveys included in this report was 637 as presented in Table 1.1.3.

Table 1.1.1. Population estimates by Watershed Zone.

The survey was conducted in 17 Communes, 39 Villages; and divided 25 villages with and 14 villages without services.

Table 1.1.2. Number of Communes, Sections, and Sections with- and without services.

Sections (villages)

Watershed Communes Sections With Without Grande Riviere du Nord

6 18 11 7

Haut du Cap 4 7 5 2 Jassa 4 10 7 3 Marrion 1 1 1 0 Trou du Nord 2 3 1 2

TOTALS 17 39 25 14

Annex B. present a comprehensive survey sampling format with details for each of the five watershed zones, partitioned by with and without technical services. Thus, analysis will include disaggregation of these indicators by watershed zone; land type (highlands ad lowlands) and by villages with and without technical services for all indicators. The survey also included specific indicators on social capital that contribute to the measure on resilience.

Chemonics International Page 12

Determining land type – highlands versus lowlands. The project MEL team examined elevation data at central point in each Commune as a first step. For example, the elevation on coastal areas was calculated to be between 2 and 23 meters. Calculations for midlands was calculated to be between 9 and 281 meters. Given the variation in elevation and the examined central point, coastal elevation was combined with midland elevations and denoted as lowlands. Further, elevations over 281 meters (highest point was 724 meters) was considered highlands. As a second step, expert witnesses were queried to classify selected villages as lowlands or highlands, and finally as a third step, the survey included a question on land type to compare the survey response to expert witness.

Tables 1.1.3. and 1.1.4. summarize the number of sections by land type, with- and without services, and gender of the respondents.

Table 1.1.3. Number of Sections surveyed in the highlands and lowlands; and households surveyed with- and without services.

Section (villages) Households

Watershed Highlands Lowlands With Without Total Grande Riviere du Nord

16 2 101 95 196

Haut du Cap 3 4 134 106 240 Jassa 8 2 54 52 106 Marrion 0 1 11 9 20 Trou du Nord 0 3 38 37 75

TOTALS 27 12 338 299 637

39 637

Table 1.1.4. Number of households surveyed in the highlands and lowlands, ad by gender.

Respondent location and sex No. Percent Highland Households 331 52% Lowland Households 306 48%

Total 637

Female Respondents 287 45% Male Respondents 350 55%

Total 637

Household selection methodology was initiated by the enumerators presenting themselves to the village leaders, who then indicated the first household to be surveyed. The enumerators would ensure that the household was active in agricultural activities and then conduct the survey. The enumerator would then randomly select the next household at least two households distant from the household just surveyed, again ensuring that it was active in agricultural activities. There was no need to survey households of, for example, public servants, shop keepers, and transporters.

1.6. Survey Instruments and Data Analysis:

Survey data were hand entered onto the hard copy French-version during the day, transcribed onto cellular-based tablets during the evening, and then downloaded into pc-based Excel for data analysis by the survey program managers. From the excel master file, data was imported into SPSS for statistical.

Chemonics International Page 13

Survey questionnaire structure. The survey questionnaire consisted of thirteen modules and 252 questions, as follows:

• Module 1. Respondent identification

• Module 2. Household demographic profile

• Module 3. Shocks and chronic stresses

• Module 4. Livelihoods

• Module 5. Nutrition outcomes

• Module 6. Poverty outcomes

• Module 7. Coping strategies

• Module 8. Financial services – credit and savings

• Module 9. Environmental services - effectiveness

• Module 10. Awareness and access to climate information

• Module 11. Resilience, social capital measures

Thus, 637 households were asked 252 questions each, resulting in a potential 160,524 data points to analyze. It took enumerators about 1.25 to 1.50 hours to complete an interview.

Note on level of significance:

P-value for Pearson Chi-Square 0.000 a 1% level of significance denoted by *** P-value for Pearson Chi-Square 0.050 a 5% level of significance denoted by ** P-value for Pearson Chi-Square 0.100 a 10% level of significance denoted by *

Chemonics International Page 14

Section 2. Respondents and Household Profiles

This section provides information on key survey questions with notable and significant findings.

Additional information related to respondent and household profiles can be found in the second volume entitled Resilience Survey - Data Tables; Sections 1 and 2.

2.1 Respondent Identification:

The survey obtained gender balance in the number of respondents as a proportion of the total number of respondents (45% Female and 55% Male) and between households in the highlands and lowlands (hereafter referred as “highlanders” and “lowlanders” individually or jointly as “land type”).

There was no significant difference in the respondents average age, average years of education and average household size, by land type.

Table 2.1.1 Characteristics of respondents and average household size by land type.

Respondent location and sex Highlands Lowlands Female respondents, % 44.1 46.1 Male respondents, % 55.9 53.9

Average age of respondent, # years 46.5 47.0 Average years of education, # years 5.5 6.3 Average household size, # 6.3 6.4

2.2 Household Profile – Human capital

Graph 2.2.1. Presents household profile of members by age groups and land type. About, 24% of the household members are under 8 years of age and about 46% of household members are under 18 years of age. There is no significant difference by land type, other than a significant number of household members over 65 years of age living in the lowlands (8% vs 6%).

Graph 2.2.1 Average number of family members by age group by land type.

Chemonics International Page 15

Graph 2.2.2 presents the average number of household members by age group and disaggregated by the sex of the household member.

Graph 2.2.2 Average number of family members by age group and sex

2.3 Household Primary Activities

Highlanders reported significant differences in the number of household members fully engaged in agricultural work as producers, beneficiaries of extension services, and having a lead/head farmer in their community. Whereas, lowlanders reported significant differences in the number of household members employed in agricultural work, partially engaged as producers, and agricultural work as wage earners.

Table 2.3.1 Summary of household member participation in activities Highlands Lowlands

How many members of the household are fully engaged in agricultural work as a producer for at least part of the year?

31 1.8*** 286 1.6

How many members of the household are fully engaged in agricultural work as an employee for at least part of the year?

57 0.30 88 0.45***

How many members of the household are partially engaged in agricultural work as a producer for at least part of the year?

155 1.0 188 1.3*

How many members of the household are partially engaged in agricultural work as wage earners for at least part of the year?

97 0.4 105 0.5*

In the last 12 months, did the household benefit from agriculture extension services?

154 46.5*** 94 30.7

Is there a main/head farmer in your village? 208 62.8*** 120 39.2 Note: ***, **, * denotes significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively.

Highlanders reported significantly greater participation in farming and keeping of livestock, as compared to lowlanders. Whereas, lowlanders reported significantly more participation in commerce and fishing, as compared to highlanders.

Chemonics International Page 16

Table 2.3.2. What is the respondent’s main activity?

Highlands (n=331) Lowlands (n=306) Farming 291 87.9*** 209 68.3 Commerce 24 7.3 53 17.3*** Livestock keeper 5 1.5*** 2 0.7 Fisherfolk 0 0 14 4.6***

Note: ***, **, * denotes significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively.

Group membership is a key activity for overall development. Highlanders reported significantly greater levels of participation in farmer, women’s, cooperative, and religious groups than lowlanders. Whereas, lowlanders reported significant participation in livestock and fisherfolk groups; and nearly 53% of lowlanders don’t participate in any groups. Also, highlanders reported participation in greater diversity of groups (4) as compared to the lowlanders (2).

Table 2.3.3. Is the respondent a member of a group?

Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) No group 124 37.5 161 52.6*** Farmer group 146 44.1*** 86 28.1 Livestock group 3 0.9 11 3.6*** Fisherfolk group 0 0 10 3.3*** Women’s group 5 1.5*** 0 0 Cooperative 4 1.2*** 0 0 Religious 4 1.2*** 2 0.7

Lowlanders reported significantly greater participation in off-farm work, casual/daily hire work, and formal unskilled work than highlanders. Whereas, highlanders reported significantly greater participation in farming. Lowlanders reported greater participation in multiple sources of work than the highlanders. This lowlander finding is also consistent with significantly higher participation in commerce activities (noted above) than highlanders.

Table 2.3.4. Has anyone in the household worked on any of the following activities in the last 12 months?

Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Farming 328 99.1** 291 95.1 Livestock 246 74.3 231 75.5 Off-farm work 150 45.3 171 55.9** Casual work/daily hire 92 27.8 116 37.9** Formal unskilled work 23 6.9% 43 14.1%** Formal qualified work 38 11.5% 33 10.8%

Chemonics International Page 17

Section 3. Shocks, Stresses, and Coping Strategies

Additional information related to Shocks, Stresses and Coping Strategies can be found in the second volume entitled Resilience Survey - Data Tables; Sections 3.

3.1 Shocks and Stresses :

Highlanders reported significantly greater concern for diverse shocks: landslides, hurricanes, earthquakes, crop diseases, crop pests, increased cost of agricultural inputs, and decreased prices for agricultural products. Whereas, lowlanders reported significant concern for shocks related to flooding, loss of property, and youth unemployment.

Both highlanders and lowlanders reported economic shocks as being by far the most important relative to other types of shocks experienced during the survey timeframe (December 2019), which is associated with country-wide civil unrest that disrupted transportation and commercial activity.

Table 3.1.1. Summary of significant shocks by land type.

Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Climate Shocks # % # Flooding 88 26.6 117 38.2** Variable rain 252 76.1 221 72.2 Drought 320 96.7 299 97.7 Landslide/erosion 134 40.5*** 85 27.8 Hurricane 157 47.4** 108 35.3 Earthquake 103 31.1** 64 20.9 Biological Shocks Crop disease 258 77.9*** 197 64.4 Crop pests 291 87.9* 254 83.0 Weeds 209 63.1 190 62.1 Livestock disease 226 68.3 197 64.4 Human disease 100 30.2 112 36.6 Conflict Shocks Theft/household items 37 11.2 32 10.5 Theft/livestock 79 23.0 87 28.4 Crime/violence 10 3.0 6 2.0 Gender-based violence 9 2.7 5 1.6 Economic Shocks Increased food prices 329 99.4 303 99.0 Increased cost of Ag inputs 320 96.7*** 274 89.5 Decreased price for Ag products 153 46.2*** 96 31.4 Loss of land/real property 12 3.6 28 9.2** Youth unemployment 155 46.8 182 59.5** Death of household member 65 19.6 57 18.6

Chemonics International Page 18

Further terminology and analysis on shocks and stresses.

• Covariate events directly affect large numbers of people in a geographic area, while idiosyncratic events affect specific individuals or households within a community.

• Shocks are usually events characterized most often as acute with a rapid onset and typically of short duration; whereas chronic events are most often characterized as stresses, with slow onset with typically a protracted duration.

Table 3.1.2. Idiosyncratic and Covariate shocks and stresses.

Acute Shocks

Idiosyncratic Acute Shocks

Covariate Highlands Lowlands Highlands Lowlands

Death in family 19.6 18.6 Flooding 26.6 38.2 Loss of youth job 46.8 59.5 Earthquakes 31.1 20.9 Crime/violence 3.0 2.0 Hurricanes 47.4 35.3 Theft livestock 23.0 28.4 Market Ag price 96.7 89.5 Loss of land 3.6 9.2 Market Ag sales 46.2 31.4 Gender violence 2.7 1.6 Crop Pests 87.9 83.0 Theft HH items 11.2 10.5 Human Disease 30.2 36.6 Food prices 99.4 99.0 Livestock disease 68.3 64.4

Chronic Stresses

(sever impact) Idiosyncratic Chronic Stresses

(severe impact) Covariate

Highlands Lowlands Highlands Lowlands Gender violence 0.6 0.3 Drought 96.7 97.7 Crime/violence 0.3 0.7 Climate change 95.5 93.8 Theft livestock 11.5 17.0 Rain variability 76.1 72.2 Theft HH items 2.4 2.6 Land degradation 40.5 27.8 Loss of youth job 11.8 21.6 Pollution 34.1 31.4 Over population 2.7 11.8 No public service 94.9 94.8

3.2 Perceived Problems:

Respondents reported climate change and lack of public services as major problems facing households, with lowlanders noted over population as a significantly problem.

Table 3.2.1. Do you experience any of the following problems?

Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Climate change 316 95.5 287 93.8 Pollution 113 34.1 96 31.4 Over population 9 2.7 36 11.8*** Lack of public services 314 94.9 290 94.8

Chemonics International Page 19

3.3 Coping Strategies:

Ability to meet household food needs now and expectations for the future.

Lowlanders reported a significant ability to meet food needs as the same as before. Whereas, the highlanders reported a significant ability to meet food needs as worse than before. Both land types reported worse than before ability to meet food needs after a shocks and stresses.

Table 3.3.1. To what extent has your ability to meet food needs returned to the level it was before the shocks and stressors you experienced in the last 12 months?

Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Same as before 52 15.7 73 23.9*** Better than before 45 13.6*** 23 7.5 Worse than before 234 70.1*** 210 68.6

Note: ***, **, * denotes significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively.

Again, lowlanders reported significant expectation to meet food needs next year as the same as before; and lowlanders reported significant expectation to be better than before. Both land types reported expectations to meet food needs next year as generally worse than before.

Table 3.3.2. In light of the shocks and stresses faced in the last 12 months, to what extent do you believe you will be able to meet your food needs in the next year?

Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Same as before 58 17.5 71 23.2*** Better than before 125 37.8*** 48 15.7 Worse than before 148 44.7 187 61.1***

Note: ***, **, * denotes significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively.

Actions taken by households to cope/mitigate against shocks and stresses.

Interesting to note that a significant 23.2% of lowlanders have done nothing to cope/mitigate against shocks and stresses. Highlanders reported significant mitigating activities as switching to different crops, added additional agricultural activity, diversifying agriculture to non-agriculture activity, and changing from non-agriculture activity to agriculture. Both land types reported adding additional agriculture and non-farm activity as important coping strategies.

Table 3.3.3. What have you done to protect your household from the impact of shocks in the future?

Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Multiple responses: # % # % Nothing 22 6.6 71 23.2*** Increased savings 108 32.6 81 26.5 Put aside grains (for HH or animals) 71 21.5 51 16.7 Switched to different crop(s) 59 17.8** 29 9.5 Switched to different livestock 14 4.2 10 3.3 Added additional agricultural activity 170 51.4*** 106 34.6 Added additional non-agricultural activity

113 34.1 103 33.7

Diversified into agricultural livelihood 91 27.5 68 22.2

Chemonics International Page 20

Diversified into non-agricultural activity

91 27.5*** 46 15.0

Changed from ag to non-ag livelihood 54 16.3** 34 11.1 Changed from non-ag to ag livelihood 10 3.0* 2 0.7 Relocated temporarily 9 2.7 9 2.9 Relocated permanently 4 1.8 5 1.0

Chemonics International Page 21

Section 4. Livelihoods

Additional information related to livelihoods can be found in the second volume entitled Resilience Survey - Data Tables; Sections 4.

4.1 Livelihood - Physical capital:

Both land types reported an abysmal shortage of the most basic agriculture productive assets – farm implements. Further, the majority of which are hand tools with next to zero farm mechanization.

Table 4.1.1. Household productive assets?

Highlands (306) Lowlands (306) Average number of: # # Plough (oxen-pulled) 0 0.1 Mechanical plough 0 0 Sickle 0.1 0.1 Axe 0.4 0.4 Pruning/cutting shears 0.2 0.1 Hoe 1.1 1.1 Spade or shovel 0.6 0.6 Mechanical water pump 0 0 Motorized water pump 0 0 Motorized grain mill 0.1 0 Small tractor 0 0 Hand-held motorized tiller 0 0 Knapsack chemical sprayer 0 0.1 Machete 1.2 1.0 Louchette 0.2 0.2 Piquoir 0.2 0.3

Note: ***, **, * denotes significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively.

Interesting to note that lowlanders have significantly more televisions than highlanders, though only about 18% have them; and with all land types having similar communication assets. Nearly half of all households have a radio, about 31% have at least one mobile phone, and about 62% of households with more than one mobile phone.

Table 4.1.2. Household communication assets.

Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Radio 162 48.9 151 49.3 Television 22 6.6 56 18.3*** Mobile phone, None 21 6.3 20 6.5 Mobile phone, 1 112 33.8 89 29.1 Mobile phone, <1 198 59.8 197 64.4

Chemonics International Page 22

4.2 Livelihood – Agricultural capital:

Livestock play an important role in household livelihoods, in terms of income, consumption, savings, etc. Both land types keep an array of livestock with the only significant differences with highlanders keeping more poultry than lowlanders. Cattle and goats are kept by about 23% and 24% of households with poultry being the third most important livestock kept by households.

Table 4.2.1. Household livestock assets.

Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Per Household Yes Avg # % Yes Avg # % Cattle (dual purpose) 71 1.1 21.5 70 1.4 22.9 Goats 89 2.1 26.9 73 1.9 23.9 Sheep 2 0.1 0.6 2 0.1 0.7 Donkeys/Mules 2 0.1 0.6 4 0.1 1.3 Poultry 84 9.0*** 25.4 47 3.8 15.4 Horse 3 0.1 0.9 4 0.1 1.3 Honeybees 5 0.04 1.5 2 0.1 0.7

Note: ***, **, * denotes significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively.

Highlanders reported having nearly twice as many hectares of land than lowlanders, however the quality of land was not assessed. In general terms highlander land is steeper (harder to cultivate), poorer with less topsoil, and more subject to erosion from heavy rains. Related to these negative land attributes is the significant difference in tree planting by the highlanders.

Lowlanders reported significantly greater free use of land than the highlanders. Land usage for both land types was overwhelming for cultivating crops, with over half of households using land for livestock, and very low use of land for garden crops.

Table 4.2.2. Household land assets and land usage.

Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Average # Acres 2.3 hectares 1.4 hectares Access to land # % # % Rent 6 1.8 13 4.2 Borrow 39 11.8 59 19.3 Free use 32 9.7 76 24.8***

Land Usage # % # % Cultivate crops 322 97.3 293 95.8 Livestock 180 54.4 164 53.6 Tree planting 173 52.3*** 102 33.3 Gardening 17 5.1 11 3.6

Note: ***, **, * denotes significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively.

There are significant staple crop production differences between the land types. Highlanders produce, sell and consume significantly more manioc, sweet potatoes, and bananas than lowlanders. Lowlanders sell significantly more maize than highlanders, although their production and consumption of maize is about the same as the highlanders. The most important production of staple crops for both land types are manioc, maize, bananas, sweet potatoes, and other crops.

Chemonics International Page 23

Table 4.2.3. Staple crops produced, sold, and consumed by households Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Staple crops % Produce % Sell % Consume % produce % Sell % Consume Maize 69.8 47.4 69.5 66.3 57.2*** 65.7 Sorghum 3.3 1.2 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.9 Rice 15.4 11.5*** 15.4** 10.1 9.5 10.1 Manioc 75.5*** 58.6*** 73.4*** 61.8 56.5 61.3 Sweet potato 55.9*** 43.2*** 54.4*** 34.3 29.7 34.3 Peanuts 32.9 30.8 30.5 30.4 30.1 29.4 Bananas 63.4** 51.4** 63.4* 55.6 49.7 55.2 Plantains 16.3 13.6 16.3 19.9 18.3 19.9 Sugar cane 18.1 13.3 17.5 22.9 18.0 20.6 Other crops 26.0 21.1 24.2 25.8 20.9 21.9

Note: ***, **, * denotes significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively.

There are significant garden crop production differences between land types. Lowlanders produce, sell, and consume more potatoes than highlanders. Whereas highlanders sell more black and red beans and Congo peas than lowlanders; although production and consumption is about the same.

Table 4.2.4. Garden crops produced, sold, and consumed by households Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Garden crops

% Produce % Sell % Consume % produce % Sell % Consume

Green Vegs. 6.3 4.2 6.3 7.2 6.2 7.2 Fruits 10.0 8.2 10.0 11.8 10.1 11.8 Tomatoes 4.5 2.4 4.5 3.3 2.6 3.3 Potatoes 27.5 19.0 27.5 36.3** 33.7*** 36.3** Soya 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cow peas 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Beans B&R 51.7 42.6** 51.1 46.1 41.8 45.8 Congo peas 44.4 14.1 Black peas 1.8 3.3 Other peas 1.5 5.9 Taro 0.3 0.7

Note: ***, **, * denotes significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively.

4.3 Livelihood – Financial capital:

The resilience survey collected financial information on both household borrowing and savings.

There was no significant difference between highlanders and lowlanders on borrowing money to deal with shocks, although about 67% of all households did borrow from a variety of sources.

Lowlanders borrowed significantly more from MFIs than highlanders, and highlanders borrowed significantly more from village-based savings groups. Most households borrow from friends and family within their villages, MFIs, and village-based savings groups.

Table 4.3.1. Borrow finance during last 12 months to deal with shocks and stresses Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Cash loans for shocks, Yes % 67.4 66.0 If yes, source of loan: # % # % Friend/family within the village 85 25.7 76 24.8

Chemonics International Page 24

Friend/family outside of the village 8 2.4 5 1.6 Moneylender 25 7.6 23 7.2

MFI 49 14.8 73 23.9***

Bank 20 6.0 18 5.9 Village-based savings group 32 9.7*** 4 1.3 Religious group 1 0.3 2 0.7 Local merchant/trader 2 0.6 2 0.7

Note: ***, **, * denotes significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively.

About 52% of households reported saving money during the last 12 months. With most respondents reporting the decision to save was made jointly with their partners. A significant number of lowlanders reported not having enough money to save.

Table 4.3.2. Savings during last 12 months.

Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Savings, Yes % 52.9 51.3 Who primarily decides how savings are used? # % # % Yourself 93 28.1 92 30.1 Your spouse/partner 30 9.1 27 8.8 You and your spouse/partner jointly 135 40.8 101 33.0 Yourself and other HH member jointly 43 13.0 46 15.0 Your spouse/partner and other HH member jointly

4 1.2 3 1.0

Not enough money 1 0.3 16 5.2** Other – No Savings 6 1.8 12 3.9

Note: ***, **, * denotes significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively.

4.4 Financial Services:

About 47% of all households reported saving cash on a regular basis, and about 52% of households reported savings specifically to deal with shocks and stresses.

Table 4.4.1. Access to finance during last 12 months – Savings Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Do you or any other household member regularly save cash?

162 48.9 138 45.1

Did you or any other household member use savings specifically to deal with a shock or stress in the last 12 months?

173 52.3 157 51.3

Note: ***, **, * denotes significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively.

Access to insurance of any kind is not an option for most households in the project area.

Table 4.4.2. Access to finance during last 12 months – Insurance Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Is crop insurance available in your area? 1 0.3 6 2.0 Is livestock insurance available in your area? 3 0.9 5 1.6 Is health insurance available in your area? 14 4.2 8 2.6 Have you or does anyone in your household currently have any insurance?

8 2.4 4 1.3

Chemonics International Page 25

Section 5. Well-being outcomes

Additional information related to wellbeing-outcomes can be found in the second volume entitled Resilience Survey - Data Tables; Sections 5.

5.1 Food Security Outcomes:

Highlanders reported a significant 32.9% of households source food from their own gardens/reserves. Whereas, the lowlanders reported a significant 85% of household main source of food is buying from local markets, compared to 66.5% for highlanders.

Table 5.1.1. What is the main source of food for the household?

Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Category # % # % Own garden/reserves 109 32.9*** 46 15.0 Buy from local market 220 66.5 260 85.0*** Food aid 1 0.3 0 0.0

Note: ***, **, * denotes significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively.

Both highlanders and lowlanders reported they used several mechanisms to source food if there was not enough in the household. Most common action is to buy from local market, however buying on credit and borrowing from friends and relatives were also very important.

Table 5.1.2. In the last six months, did you or any household member not have enough food?

Highlands (331) Lowlands (306) Yes, not enough food 296 89.4 277 90.5 If yes, how did you overcome this situation?

Buy on credit 51 15.4 30 9.8 Buy from local market 134 40.5 146 47.7 Food aid 5 1.5 4 1.3 Gift from parents 5 1.5 6 2.0 Borrowed from friends/relatives 55 16.6 52 17.0

5.2 Poverty Outcomes:

The poverty status of households from this survey was derived by using the Simple Poverty Scorecard, developed for Haiti by Mark Schreiner, 2012. The Scorecard is a poverty-assessment tool that uses eleven indicators from Haiti’s 2012 Post-Earthquake Living Standards Survey to estimate the likelihood that a household has consumption below a given poverty line. The scorecard is a practical way to measure poverty rates, to track changes in poverty rates over time, and to segment clients for differentiated services.

The sum of scorecard points for a household is called the score. For Haiti, scores range from 0 (most likely below a poverty line) to 100 (least likely below a poverty line). While higher scores indicate less likelihood of being poor, the scores themselves have only relative units. The derived scores can estimate a particular household’s poverty likelihood, that is, the probability that the household has per-capita consumption below a given poverty line.

Chemonics International Page 26

To get absolute units, scores are converted to poverty likelihoods, that is, probabilities of being below a poverty line. This was done by simple look-up tables developed by Schreiner. USAID defines a household as very poor if its daily per-capita consumption is less than the highest of the $1.25/day 2005 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) line or the line that marks the poorest half of people below 100% of the national line.

The results of this survey show that highlanders are relatively poorer than lowlanders. Specifically, the poverty likelihood of 27.3% for the highlanders fall under the $1.25 per day threshold, whereas the poverty likelihood of 15.9% of the lowlanders will fall under the $1.25 per day threshold.

Similar calculations for the poverty status scores disaggregated by sex of the respondent and households receiving project services or without services – are all the same likelihoods for meeting the $1.25 threshold as determined by land type.

Table 5.2.1. Average poverty score by highlands and lowlands Average poverty score by land type Poverty score…