The Economics of Land Degradation: A Case Study of the Northern Part of Haiti’s Central Plateau - An assessment of the economics of agroecological farming in Haiti

THE E CONOMICS OF L AND D EGRADATION www.eld-initiative.org A case study of the Northern Part of Haiti’s Central Plateau An assessment of the economics of agroecological farming in Haiti 2 Authors: Vanja Westerberg, Toni McCann, Luis Costa (Altus Impact) Key Contributors: Ronel LeFranc (PDL), Steve Brescia (Groundswell International), William Gustave (consultant), Cantave Jean-Baptiste (PDL), Astrid Folden (consultant), Christopher Sacco (Groundswell International) Altus Impact 5 rue perdtemps, 1260 Nyon, Switzerland, Contact: Vanja Westerberg, vanja@altusimpact.com www.altusimpact.com Partenariat pour le Developpement Local (FOHMAPS/PDL) 2, Rue Louissaint, Bourdon, Port-au-Prince, Haïti, BP : 19006, Bas=Peu-de-Chose HT 6111 Contact: Cantave Jean-Baptiste, cantavejb@gmail.com , info@fohmapspdl.org , www.groundswellinternational.org Groundswell International 2101 L St. NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037 Contact: Steve Brescia, sbrescia@groundswellinternational.org www.groundswellinternational.org Acknowledgements: We are grateful for the Haitian enumerators who carried out the surveys, for the peasant families who agreed to be participate in surveys and focus groups, for the staff of PDL and Groundswell International, and for the financial support of the Casey & Family Foundation and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Visual concept: MediaCompany, Bonn Layout: Leslie Shaw Design THE E CONOMICS OF L AND D EGRADATION A N A S S E S S M E N T O F T H E E C O N O M I C S O F A G R O E C O L O G I C A L F A R M I N G I N H A I T I 3 A case study of the Northern Part of Haiti’s Central Plateau February 2023 An assessment of the economics of agroecological farming in Haiti www.eld-initiative.org 4 Table of contents List of tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 List of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.1 Agricultural productivity in Haiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.2 Principles of agro-ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.3 Objectives of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Chapter 2 Case Study area and study context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.1 Institutional structure and the roll-out of agroecological model farming . . . . . 17 2.2 Agroecology within the Peasant Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.3 Focus group insights - conventional and agroecological model farming . . . . . . . 20 2.3.1 Conventional and agroecological model farmers within the study . . . . . . 20 2.3.2 Perceived constraints to the uptake of agroecological farming . . . . . . . . 20 2.3.3 Perceived benefits from agroecological model farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Chapter 3 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.1 Data collection and questionnaire design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.2 Socio-demographic characteristics of farm household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.3 Defining agroecological model farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.4 Using land use budgets to assess the value of agroecological model farming . . 23 Chapter 4 Results -The economics of agroecological model farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.1 Description of the farming systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.2 Model farming in the study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.3 Income from farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.3.1 Main trees and crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.3.2 Income from on-farm forest resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.3.3 Production costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.3.4 Other fixed costs associated with the uptake of agroecological practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.3.5 Net crop and forest income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 THE E CONOMICS OF L AND D EGRADATION A N A S S E S S M E N T O F T H E E C O N O M I C S O F A G R O E C O L O G I C A L F A R M I N G I N H A I T I 5 4.4 Explaining the net-crop income differentials between model and agroecological farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.4.1 Production function analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.4.2 Production function modelling results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.4.3 Validating findings with earth observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Chapter 5 Success of model farming – as perceived by farmers and other repercussions . . . . 43 5.1 Other visible implications of model farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5.2 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Chapter 6 Recommendations, management, and policy implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 6.1. What can be done to scale agroecology - Survey findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 6.2 How are barriers to agroecological farming overcome – survey findings . . . . . . 50 6.3 Lessons of relevance to communities, farmers, and NGOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 6.4 Recommendations for decision makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6.4.1 Blended finance solutions to up-scaling agroecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6.4.2 Institutional and policy frameworks that create enabling environment for agroecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6.4.2.1 Local supply chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 6.4.2.2 Trade policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 6.4.2.3 PES Schemes and fiscal transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 6.4.2.4 Land transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Chapter 7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Appendix 1 Degree of intercropping as a driver of productivity amonst model agro-ecological farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 6 List of tables Table 1: Focus group details from Gustave 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 2: Household survey locations, population size and peasant associations - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 3: Socio-demographic characteristics of the survey respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 4: Farm-level characteristics of model and conventional farmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 5: How the farmers obtained the land that they cultivate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 6: Extent of land tenure among model and conventional farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 7: The number of agroecological practices adopted by model and conventional farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 8: Degree of intercropping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table 9: Share of farmers having regenerated or planted trees within the last year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 10: What percentage of your farmland is occupied by trees? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 11: Median farm gate prices per unit for common crops in 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 12: Average annual per hectare gross crop income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table 13: Income generated from the sale of on-farm forest resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table 14: The cost estimates for a given service paid for by farmers on any given day (HTG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table 15: The average per hectare farming costs for conventional and model farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 16: One-off investment costs associated with uptake of agroecological practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 17: Cost of material bought for the main agroecological model farming land plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 18: The average per hectare net income estimates for model and conventional farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 THE E CONOMICS OF L AND D EGRADATION A N A S S E S S M E N T O F T H E E C O N O M I C S O F A G R O E C O L O G I C A L F A R M I N G I N H A I T I 7 Table 19: Explanatory variables used in the final production functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Table 20a: Regression analysis results wtih agro-ecological model farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 20b: Regression analysis results with intercropping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 21: Changes in gross crop income with changing inputs levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Table 22: Responses to survey regarding model farming continuation and expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table 23: Perceived increase in agricultural production since adopting model farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table 24: Perceived success of model farms since adopting agroecological methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table 25: Losses of agricultural product and market access in conventional and model farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table 26: Food security of households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Table 27: Other sources of income, cash or in kind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Table 28: Constraints to the adoption of improved agriculture and model gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Table 29: General level of wellbeing and income security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Table 30: Constraints to the adoption of improved agriculture and model gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 8 List of figures Figure 1: 13 principles building on the 10 elements of FAO (2018) and 5 levels of agroecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 2: Case-study area, municipalities and municipal sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 3: Organisation of peasant associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 4: Distribution of farm sizes amongst the interviewed farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 5: Uptake of agroecological and selected conventional farming practices amongst model and conventional farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 6: Typical crops found on a plot of land held by a model farmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 7: Typical crops found on a plot of land held by a traditional farmer in bois neuf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 8: Degree of intercropping amongst model and conventional farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 9: 1st, 2nd and 3rd most important crops by order of importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 10: 1st , 2nd and 3rd most important tree crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 11: The composition of per hectare gross crop income in Bois Neuf and Sans Souci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 12: The composition of per hectare gross crop income in La Belle-Mère . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure13: The composition of income and costs of an average agro-ecological model farmer in La Belle-Mère . . 37 Figure 14: The composition of income and costs of an average conventional farmer in La Belle-Mère . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 15: The composition of income and costs of an average agro-ecological model farmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 16: The composition of income and costs of an average conventional farmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 17: Correlation between the degree of intercropping and hired labour days with gross crop income . . 41 Figure 18: Response to survey regarding model farming continuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 THE E CONOMICS OF L AND D EGRADATION A N A S S E S S M E N T O F T H E E C O N O M I C S O F A G R O E C O L O G I C A L F A R M I N G I N H A I T I 9 Figure 19: Perceived increase in agricultural production since adopting model farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 20: Perceived success of agroecological farming plot in terms of capacity to provide food all year round, improve soil fertility and household income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 21: Food insecurity based on FAO FIES : What does it mean? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 10 Executive summary Context Rampant poverty and food insecurity Haiti is the poorest country in the Latin America and the Caribbean region and has one of the highest lev - els of food insecurity in the world. Nearly half the population does not have enough to eat (WFP, 2023) and Haitians import approximately 60 percent of the food that they consume (IFAD, 2022a). 1 The in - creasing severity of acute food insecurity in Haiti is fueled by a rise in gang violence and worsening civil unrest, which has led to disruptions in market func - tioning and supply, exacerbated by the upward trend in international staple food prices (Famine Early Warning System Network, 2023). 2 While Haiti was once richly forested and highly biodiverse, its colo - nial, plantation economy was based on an extrac - tive model that has continued after independence in 1804 (Groundswell International, 2017). Govern - ment and international donor programs intermit - tently extend projects around the countryside, but there is limited coordination between these pro - grams, and the agricultural sector is largely char - acterized by the absence of government extension services and needed investments (Murray and Ban - nister, 2004; Bellande, 2010; Groundswell Interna - tional, 2017; IFAD, 2022b). These factors are further compounded by climate hazards, political instability and a depreciation of the Haitian gourde against the US dollar (Famine Early Warning System Network, 2022). Reversing a vicious circle with agroecology To end the vicious circle of poverty, lack of appropri - ate investments into farming and poor agricultural productivity, the NGO, Partenariat pour le Dével - oppement Local (PDL), has embraced agroecology to strengthen peasant associations across the north 1 World Food Programme (WFP) (2023). Haiti country brief. Accessed 10.02.2023 from URL. https://www.wfp.org/ countries/haiti#:~:text=Haiti%20has%20one%20of%20the,million%20are%20highly%20food%20insecure. 2 Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWS), (2023). Socio-political instability, inflation and fuel shortages contribute to Emergency (IPC Phase 4) food insecurity in Cité Soleil. Accessed 10.02.2023 from URL: https://fews.net/central- america-and-caribbean/haiti/food-security-outlook/october-2022 of Haiti’s Central Plateau basin, with the vision that enhanced rural prosperity is a key cornerstone for revitalizing the entire country . Central to agroecology is the agency of farmers and their orga - nizations to experiment, innovate, adapt, and spread agroecological principles and practices to local eco - systems. Techniques include, but are not limited to, the use of contour barriers, composting and use of manure, integration of crop residue instead of slash and burn, maintaining permanent soil cover, inter- cropping and crop rotations, agroforestry, the plant - ing of living fences to protect against free grazing and development of community seed banks. More importantly, it is the process of farmer-focused re - search and development, as much as any specific set of techniques, that is prioritized when implement - ing and upscaling agroecology. Individual farmers are witnessing the benefits of agroecological farming and showcasing their expe - rience to neighbors and their peasant association networks. Whilst funding remains a major challenge to the up-scaling of agroecological farming , policies are also needed to incentivize changes. This requires adequate governance structures, clear land tenure rights, participatory decision-making processes, and evidence that agroecology pays-off (Chazdon et al., 2015; Adams et al., 2016). Needless to say, many of the valuable ecosystem services provided by agroecological farming systems – e.g., restoration of water and carbon cycles and enhanced disaster risk resilience – remain hidden, as they are not trans - acted in markets. Even when products are sold, such as timber, fruits, nuts and agricultural produce - the economic returns that are generated are not nec - essarily known to farmers and even less, to policy makers. This situation leads to under-investment in agroecology, often coupled with counteracting poli - cies. In order to efficiently and sustainably manage agricultural landscapes therefore, it is critical to THE E CONOMICS OF L AND D EGRADATION A N A S S E S S M E N T O F T H E E C O N O M I C S O F A G R O E C O L O G I C A L F A R M I N G I N H A I T I 11 quantify and value the goods and services that are delivered by different farming systems – and ensure that resources are allocated to the systems that pro - vide the highest returns to society. Objective In the context of these challenges, the objectives of the present study are to: 1) Develop a comprehensive assessment tool – that combines qualitative and quantitative data collec - tion at the farm household level, using household survey data and focus groups; 2) Apply this tool in the northern part of Haiti’s Cen - tral Plateau to demonstrate the potential benefits of implementing agroecological farming for improved livelihoods, the regeneration of soils, and enhanced land productivity. Methods To assess the benefits that are generated from agro - ecological and conventional farming systems, as 3 Assuming there is an average of 6 members per household as revealed in the household survey- well as the drivers and constraints to the uptake of agroecological farming - a detailed valuation survey was implemented with 330 farmers between June and July 2021. The survey catered to both conven - tional and agroecological model farmers, hereafter referred to as ‘model farmers’. The population from which the sample was selected included farmers that are members of PDL supported peasant as - sociations, in the communal sections of Bois Neuf, Sans Souci and La Belle-Mère, found within the com - munes of Saint Raphael, Mombin Crochu and Pignon respectively, counting a total population of approxi - mately 30,000 people, including 5,000 households 3 and 3,000 peasant association members. Results Farmers in the study have an average of 1.6 ha of arable land, with a minimum of 0.5 ha and a maxi - mum of 4 ha. Agroecological ‘model’ farmers (those that registered within their peasant association as being a model farmer) typically have one main plot dedicated to model farming, and another two plots of similar size dedicated to conventional farming. Harvesting cassava from an agroecological farm. Photo by Ben Depp. 12 Table E1: The average per hectare net income estimates for model and conventional farmers in Le Belle-Mère, Bois Neuf and San Souci La Belle Mère Bois Neuf & Sans Souci Model farmers Conventional farmers Model farmers Conventional farmers Average gross crop income (USD/ha) $1,931 $800 $1,541 $882 Average gross forest income (USD/ha) $233 $127 $124 $35 Input costs (USD/ha) $454 $85 $298 $203 Labour costs (USD/ha) $113 $32 $110 $82 Average net crop and forest income (USD/ha) $1,596 $806 $1,231 $616 *Hired or family labour costs for ploughing, weeding, harvesting, planting and agroecological soil conservation barriers; Input costs include seeds, tree seedlings and rental of ploughs. La Belle Mère has more flat land with higher demand for ploughing. The main crops grown in the three communities are black beans, maize, pigeon peas, cassava, sugarcane, and banana. In La Belle-Mère farmers reap a large share of their income from the cultivation of sug - arcane, whilst in Bois Neuf and Sans Souci, farmers main crops are black beans and pigeon peas. Farm - ers also have a range of trees on their farms. Main forest products include coconut, cashew nuts, lem - on, orange, mango, avocado, corossol (soursop) and cachiman (custard apple). Focusing on the value of produce from their main parcel of land, gross income from crop and tree crops exceed US$1,600 per hectare (ha) for agroecological farmers, whereas conventional farmers are barely making more than US$900 per ha. Model farmers however, also have higher level of expenditures. De - ducting input and labour costs, average net crop and forest income is in the order of US$1,231 to US$1,596 for agroecological farmers, compared to US$616 to US$806 for conventional farmers (table E1). The average net income from model farm plots is almost double that which conventional farmers obtain. Understanding drivers of land productivity A regression analysis was further performed to control for potential differences between agroeco - logical and conventional farmers, that are not ob - served in simple bi-variate comparisons and to un - derstand what are the main drivers of agricultural productivity. It revealed that agroecological farm - ers in the sample are not doing better due to their 4 based on 1 Gourdes = 0.0139 USD in December 2020. underlying characteristics (education, supporting networks, distance to their plots), but because they spend more on quality seeds, agricultural labour for weeding, and adopting agroecological practices. Intercropping, was found to be the main driver of increased land productivity, showing for example that if a farmer increases multi-cropping from 2 to 6 crops for a given parcel of land, expected gross crop income rises from US$700 to US$1,680 4 per hectare per year. When holding everything else constant, a typical agroecological farmer has a gross crop in - come that is US$437 higher than an average conven - tional farmer. Conclusion and policy recommendations Empirically the findings clearly demonstrate that farmers can reap higher net-income per hectare of land dedicated to agroecological model farming, rel - ative to conventional farmers, despite their higher production costs. As for the perceived benefits, an overwhelming majority (98%) of the farmers stated that they will continue to undertake agroecological farming, and the same 98% also plan to expand the area they have dedicated to model farming. Agro - ecological model farmers were also found to have higher land productivity, as measured by satellite imagery, using the Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). In conclusion, agroecology is a promising approach to tacking poverty and food insecurity in Haiti. An THE E CONOMICS OF L AND D EGRADATION A N A S S E S S M E N T O F T H E E C O N O M I C S O F A G R O E C O L O G I C A L F A R M I N G I N H A I T I 13 agroecological transition will require innovative re - source mobilization and an enabling environment that prioritizes the agency of farmers and their or - ganizations, backed by economic and social support from the Haitian government. Issues of importance, are, but not limited to the need for: • Designing new policies and fiscal instruments, • For example, payments for environmental services and the use of fiscal transfers from central to local governments based on ecological criteria to invest in landscape restoration. • Targeted agricultural subsidies and grants, for community-led management of inputs and assets (e.g., community savings and credit cooperatives; seed banks, tree nurseries, grain reserves; composting facilities; appropriate machinery and labor saving tools for soil conservation barriers, terraces, water harvesting, storage, and small scale irrigation; rotating livestock schemes; post-harvest storage, valued added processing and local market access and linkages. • Supporting investments to strengthen the agency and capacity of farmer organizations and NGO’s to implement agroecological innovation and research, linked to farmer-to- farmer extension. • Unlocking patient capital at reasonable interest rates, through blended finance solutions that can mobilize commercial capital. • Improving land tenure for farmers so they can reap the rewards from soil and water conservation, farm diversification, agroforestry, and other on-farm investments. Finally, the adoption and scaling of agroecologi - cal production by peasant associations will require public-private-NGO partnerships at both national and local levels. Specific reforms and economic in - struments of interest should be evaluated, designed, and implemented in the context of the overall fis - cal, economic, political, and administrative systems in Haiti. The study presented here provides ample evidence to support the scaling of agroecological approaches, which would in turn create significant economic stimulus and multiplier effects through - out the northern region, lower the reliance on im - ported food, and bring a suite of co-benefits (carbon sequestration, biodiversity protection, green infra - structure and ecosystem based disaster risk resil - ience) to be analyzed in a future study. C H A P T E R 01 Introduction 14 Haiti is the poorest country in Latin America and the Caribbean, and registers some of the highest rates of income inequality worldwide. Poverty levels are higher in rural areas, with al - most 90 percent of the rural population living below the poverty line. Agriculture is the prima - ry income-generating activity for rural Haitians (World Economic Forum (WEF), 2011; Bargout and Raizada, 2013). It contributes up to 25 per - cent of the gross domestic product (Singh and Cohen, 2014) and accounts for half of the labour force. Coffee and cacao are Haiti’s principal ex - port crops and, while the broader economy has been steadily growing, agriculture’s contribu - tion to the economy has been declining since the 1980s. Food production, however, is not keeping pace with population growth (World Economic Forum (WEF), 2011) resulting in Haitians cur - rently importing approximately 60 percent of the food that they consume (IFAD, 2022a). 1.1 Agricultural productivity in Haiti Productivity is constrained by a long trajectory of historical factors and current conditions. While Haiti was once richly forested and highly biodiverse, its colonial, plantation economy was based on slavery, human exploitation, and ecological extraction. An extractive model has continued after independence in 1804, without sufficient reinvestments or regeneration into the agricultural sector (IFAD, 2022b). While re - cent government and international donor pro - grams intermittently extend projects around the countryside, there is limited coordination between these programs, and the agricultural sector is largely characterized by the absence of government extension services (Murray and Bannister, 2004; Bellande, 2010; Groundswell International, 2017). According to Cantave Jean-Baptiste, (2022), Ex - ecutive Director of Partenariat pour le Dével - oppement Local (PDL), a Haitian NGO, the lack of functioning of basic government roles and services has become more acute since the 2010 earthquake that led to some 300,000 deaths (Jean, Mary and Lei Win, 2022). Infrastructure that supports agriculture and the marketing of agricultural products is also underfunded, and road infrastructure is poor (Bellande 2010; Murray and Bannister 2004; IFAD 2022a). Moreover, post-harvest losses are considerable, often as the result of a lack of storage and pro - cessing facilities. In the absence of agricultural banks and extremely limited access to credit facilities, rural households have few means for mitigating these losses, or investing into other productive assets (such as livestock and conser - vation structures), and key production factors (such as fertilizers, seeds, and irrigation water) (Beaucejour, 2016). Isolation, inaccessible pub - lic services, and lack of production factors are major causes of vulnerability, poverty, and food insecurity in rural areas (IFAD, 2022a). These factors are compounded by climate hazards, political instability, depreciation of the Haitian gourde against the US dollar, etc. (Famine Early Warning System Network, 2022). In the light of these challenges, PDL has worked since its in - ception in 2009 - and based on the over 35 years of prior experience of the founder Cantave Jean- Baptiste with similar programs and approaches - to strengthen rural communities and peasant associations across the north of Haiti’s Central Plateau basin, with the vision that enhanced ru - ral prosperity is a key cornerstone for revital - izing the entire country. 1.2 Principles of agro-ecology PDL’s work is rooted in principles of agroecol - ogy, initially defined as t he application of eco - logical concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems, or the science of sustainable agriculture (Gliess - man, 1990, 1997, 2018). Today, the definition of agroecology has grown to become the ecol - ogy of the entire food system (Francis et al. , 2003), which integrates research, education, ac - tion and change that brings sustainability to all parts of the food system (Gliessman, 2018). As a practice, it is based on sustainable use of local renewable resources, local farmers’ knowledge and priorities, wise use of local biodiversity to pro - vide ecosystem services and strengthen resilience, and solutions that provide multiple environmental, economic, and social benefits (European Associa - tion for Agroecology, 2022). Central to agroecology is the agency of farmers and their organisations to experiment, innovate, adapt, and spread agroeco - logical principles and practices to local ecosystems. It is thus the process of agroecological, farmer-fo - cused research and development, as much as any specific set of techniques, that is prioritised. PDL is a founding partner of Groundswell Interna - tional, a network of partner organisations across ten countries in the Americas, West Africa, and South Asia, that supports action-learning and program implementation to strengthen and scale agroecol - ogy and sustainable, local food systems. In apply - ing agroecological principles, PDL and Groundswell International view farmers as the key agents of change and co-creators of knowledge. In Haiti and other contexts, based on grounded experience sup - porting smallholder farming communities, both or - ganizations affirm the 13 agroecological principles consolidated by the international High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) in July 2019, on the basis of the 10 elements pro - posed by the FAO in 2018, as well as the gradual transformation agri-food systems from farm to wider societal levels (Gliessman, 2014). The inter - relation between principles, transformation levels and their scale of integration is shown in Figure 1 below. 1 Application of these principles by PDL and 1 https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2020_en_Agroecology_SV%20Nachhaltige%20Landwirtschaft_05-2020.pdf Groundswell, in the challenging context of Haiti, is described in chapter 2. 1.3 Objectives of the study Whilst PDL is witnessing the benefits of agroecologi - cal farming on a day-to-day basis, there was a desire to assess the economic consequences of this work formally and objectively, and to understand the po - tential repercussions on livelihoods and condition - ing factors. In the light of this, the present study was conceived: • To estimate per hectare incomes of agroecological and conventional farmers, using a representative household survey with conventional and agroecological farmers, and carefully designed land use budgets to elicit quantities of production outputs and inputs, and the values of these for the main land parcel under consideration. • To analyse the main drivers of land use productivity amongst both conventional and agroecological farmers. • To assess a farmer’s own perception regarding the degree of success of their agroecological farm plots, evidence on repercussions on food security, and ability to market their produce. • To understand potential constraints to further up- scaling agroecological model farming practices. • The data and analysis aim to serve both local communities, national practitioners and decision makers, and international actors interested in Haitian development. THE E CONOMICS OF L AND D EGRADATION A N A S S E S S M E N T O F T H E E C O N O M I C S O F A G R O E C O L O G I C A L F A R M I N G I N H A I T I 15 thus the process of agroecological, farmer-focused research and development, as much as any specific set of techniques, that is prioritised. PDL is a founding partner of Groundswell International, a network of partner organisations across ten countries in the Americas, West Africa, and South Asia, that supports action-learning and program implementation to strengthen and scale agroecology and sustainable, local food systems. In applying agroecological principles, PDL and Groundswell International view farmers as the key agents of change and co-creators of knowledge. In Haiti and other contexts, based on grounded experience supporting smallholder farming communities, both organizations affirm the 13 agroecological principles consolidated by the international High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) in July 2019, on the basis of the 10 elements proposed by the FAO in 2018, as well as the gradual transformation agri-food systems from farm to wider societal levels (Gliessman, 2014). The interrelation between principles, transformation levels and their scale of integration is shown in Figure 1 below. 1 Application of these principles by PDL and Groundswell, in the challenging context of Haiti, is described in chapter 2. Figure 1: 13 principles building on the 10 elements of FAO (2018) and 5 levels of agroecology (Gliesman, 2014) 1.1 Objectives of the study Whilst PDL is witnessing the benefits of agroecological farming on a day-to-day basis, there was a desire Figure 1: 13 principles building on the 10 elements of FAO (2018) and 5 levels of agroecology (Gliesman, 2014) S E C T I O N 02 16 Haiti has a hot and humid tropical climate char - acterised by diurnal temperature variations that are greater than the annual variations; tem - peratures are modified by elevation. Average temperatures range from about 25°C in January and February to about 30°C in July and August 2 . Regarding rainfall, there is usually a dry season from December to February and a rainy season from April to October, with two pronounced rainy peaks at the start and end of the season, and a decrease in July 3 . Haiti is highly vulnerable to natural disasters and climate change. The Northern and Southern peninsulas are particularly exposed to tropical storms, hurricanes, floods, and landslides due to deforestation and lack of soil conservation. For example, the country in general and the pro - gram territory assessed in this study in particu - lar have been affected in recent years by Hurri - cane Mathew in 2016 and two extended drought periods in 2018 and 2021. In the coming years, temperatures are expected to increase, rainfall to decrease, and extreme climatic events to be - come even more frequent and intense. The com - bined impact is expected to further increase already severe soil degradation and decrease yields of irrigated crops. Storms also damage or destroy crops, plantations, livestock, and infra - structure (IFAD, 2022a). Another major prob - lem is deforestation. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural resources, and Develop - ment in Haiti (MoNARD, 2010) the removal of forest resources is three to four times higher than regeneration levels; the slopes of 25 out of 30 of the country’s water basins are bare; and less than 2% of the country’s once densely for - ested surface area, remains covered. In Northern Haiti, about 145,000 farm house - holds depend on agriculture (Molnar et al. , 2015). Weak or non-existent extension support, untimely input availability, and fragmented val - ue chains are among the many conditions that 2 https://www.weather-atlas.com/en/haiti/bois-neuf-weather-september 3 https://www.climatestotravel.com/climate/haiti impede agricultural systems in Haiti (Smucker et al. , 2005; Bayard, Jolly and Shannon, 2007; Smucker, 2007; Sperling, 2010). Fertiliser and farm chemicals are not available when needed and producers are averse to outlays that they can ill afford (Molnar et al. , 2015). According to Jean Louis Valere, a farmer and community lead - er with a peasant association that PDL supports in Bois Neuf: “ Life was really beautiful… but peo - ple left primarily because the land couldn’t pro - duce anymore, due to the lack of trees …and now we have soil erosion (Groundswell, 2017) . To create an alternative to this situation, PDL’s starting point is to strengthen the capacity and agency of family farmers and peasant as - sociations, to manage their own development processes in a way that is not dependent on external programs (Jean-Baptiste, 2021). It entails the creation and strengthening of peas - ant associations and the building of leadership among women, men, and youth. It is these peas - ant associations, then, who work to spread agro - ecological farming and build local economies, as explained further in the next chapter. This study concentrates on three of the peasant as - sociations and Communal Sections (see Figure 2) with whom PDL is working, out of 14 it has supported since 2009. These peasant associa - tions and Communal Sections were chosen to assess the role of agroecological farming across different cropping systems (communities either specialised in beans or sugar cane), whilst al - lowing for sufficient observations to compare conventional farming versus an agroecological model. In the longer-term, it is envisaged to ex - tend the current assessment to other communi - ties, where crops such as rice and maize are pri - oritized, and use earth observation and satellite imagery to further assess the consequences of agroecology on land use productivity and other land use characteristics enhancing disaster risk resilience. C H A P T E R Case-study area and study context THE E CONOMICS OF L AND D EGRADATION A N A S S E S S M E N T O F T H E E C O N O M I C S O F A G R O E C O L O G I C A L F A R M I N G I N H A I T I 17 Figure 2: Case-study area, municipalities and municipal sections. Sampled model farming plots are green, and sampled non-model farming plots are orange. Credit: Luis Costa 2.1 Institutional structure and the roll-out of agroecological model farming When initiating work in a new community, PDL fa - cilitates participatory reflection sessions and dis - cussions to form gwoupman , or solidarity groups of 8-15 women and men who organize around shared interests. As individuals begin to work together within gwoupman, and to coordinate activities be - tween gwoupman in the same village, PDL uses par - ticipatory methods to allow wider communities to identify their existing assets and diagnose and pri - oritise problems and opportunities for improving community wellbeing and regenerating soils and production. The overarching organisational unit is that of inter-village organisations, or so-called peasant organisations that link 30 to 50 gwoupman across 10-25 villages, and have approximately 800 to 2,000 members each. The three Communal Sec - tions and peasant organizations analysed in this study, Bois Neuf, Sans Souci and La Belle-Mère, rep - resent a peasant association population of 4,000 to 5,000 people. Since 2009, PDL staff have supported and strength - ened some 14-peasant associations, comprising about 15,000 members. Peasant associations hold annual assemblies to plan and assess their activities, report on community-mobilised assets (savings and credit funds, seed banks, etc.), and democratically elect leaders. The peasant associations are organ - ised as shown in figure 3. 18 At the first level, there are gwoupman, the solidarity groups of 8-15 women and men that mobilise their own resources in a small joint savings and credit fund based on trust and reciprocity. Each gwoupman works to invest this initial fund in sustainable farm - ing and economic activities that will generate more resources, such as grain storage, micro-loans, small livestock breeding, etc. At the next level, blocks are village-level committees that serve to link together 3-5 gwoupman in a community, sometimes more. They set up other committees to coordinate activities among gwoupman , such as the promotion of sustain - able agriculture, seed banks, grain reserves, savings and credit funds, and community health initiatives. Finally, Central Coordinating Committees (KKS in Creole) coordinate peasant associations and their ac - tivities across 10-25 villages within Bois Neuf, Sans Souci and La Belle-Mère. They are led by regularly elected leaders emerging from the gwoupman and village levels. The Central Coordinating Committees coordinate the spread of agroecological or sustainable farming practices, allowing for practical training and infor - mation sharing sessions across and within villages. For example, within a village the farmers come to - gether on a single farm to learn how to mark con - tour lines and build soil conservation barriers, with the simple “A-frame” apparatus. Then they return to their own farms and communities to test these same ideas. Some farmers take responsibility as vol - unteer agricultural promoters to share successful techniques with other farmers. Through this com - munity organisation, family farmers can implement and scale agroecological practices while creating a circular economy and improved social solidarity and food security (Jean-Baptiste, 2009). By working together in these inter-village peasant as - sociations, people are also better able to address needs that go beyond the capacity of individual families (e.g., preventing cholera, growing savings and credit coops, preventing soil erosion and landslides, promoting re - forestation, controlling free grazing of animals, negoti - ating productive relationships with other actors, etc.). Peasant associations are generally able to function with a high level of autonomous capacity within five to seven years. For more information on the Peasant Associa - tions, the reader is referred to “Fertile Ground: Scaling Agroecology from the Ground Up” (Groundswell, 2017). Figure 3: Organisation of peasant associations. Credit: Vanja Westerberg THE E CONOMICS OF L AND D EGRADATION A N A S S E S S M E N T O F T H E E C O N O M I C S O F A G R O E C O L O G I C A L F A R M I N G I N H A I T I 19 2.2 Agroecology within the Peasant Associations In promoting learning processes to improve agro - ecological production within the peasant associa - tions, PDL aims to create a long-term balance be - tween smallholder production systems, soil fertility, and the conservation and regeneration of natural resources. The farming strategies build on exist - ing farmer knowledge and practices (e.g., qualities of local crop varieties, diversification, seed saving) while also fostering learning and changes to existing farming practices (e.g., stopping the conventional practice of “slash and burn” and introducing soil conservation). As alternatives, farmers test and pro - mote a combination of agroecological techniques that address five major issues: control of soil ero - sion; increasing soil organic matter and fertility; im - proving access to and management of quality seed; improved on-farm crop diversity and management (inter-cropping, rotation, optimal plant spacing); and improved plot maintenance (e.g., through time - ly weeding, control of local pests and diseases, etc.). Table 1: Focus group details from Gustave 2021 Focus Groups Interval Data collection period November 2020 Years that farmers have undertaken model farming 5-6 years Participant numbers 7-16 individuals Communities Bois Neuf, La Belle-Mère and Sans Souci Focus group participants Agricultural volunteer promoters, model farmers and conventional farmers Farmers building stone soil conservation barriers. Photo by Cantave Jean-Baptiste. 20 2.3 Focus group insights - conventional and agroecological model farming To prepare for the household survey, three focus groups were implemented in November 2020, one each in Bois Neuf, Sans Souci, and La Belle-Mère, with 7-16 participants per focus group. Both mem - bers of peasant organizations supported by PDL, as well as non-members, participated. Key findings with respect to what it means to be model farmer, as well as the drivers and constraints to adopting model farming, are explained in the following dis - cussions. For full transcript of the focus groups, the reader is referred to Gustave (2021). A model farmer is defined by peasant associations as a farmer that adopts several agroecological principles and practices. As such, it was the peas - ant association that provided the list of associa - tion members that were considered as model and conventional farmers, and which subsequently in - formed the data sampling process. PDL facilitates processes with all peasant associations to define key principles, criteria and practices that are common for model farmers, but these ar