Baseline Study for GRD II (2016-2020), Léogâne

BASELINE STUDY For GRD II (2016-2020) Leogane November 2016  Acronynms AAA Agro Action Allemande ASEC Assemblée de Section Communale BAC Bureau Agricole Communal CASEC Conseil des Assemblées de Sections Communales CCPC Comité Communal de Protection Civile CdB Chaîne du Bonheur CLPC Comité Local de Protection Civile CNSA Coordination Nationale de Sécurité Alimentaire CODEP Coopérative de Développement de Cormier COU Centre d’Opération d’Urgence COUD Centre d’Opération d’Urgence Départemental COUN Centre d’Opération d’Urgence National CRH Croix Rouge Haïtienne CRS Croix Rouge Suisse DIPECHO Disaster Preparedness ECHO DPC Direction de la Protection Civile ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Office EIC Equipe d’Intervention Communautaire GRD Gestion des Risques et Désastres NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OCB Organisation Communautaire de Base ODK Open Data Kit ONG Organisation Non Gouvernementale QGIS Quantum GIS SAP Système d’Alerte Précoce SIMEX Simulation d’Exercice SNGRD Stratégie Nationale de Gestion des Risques et Désastres WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene  Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 1 Sample Size, Gender and Section ............................................................................................................. 2 3. POPULATION STRUCTURE AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE................................................................................ 3 Household Structure ................................................................................................................................. 4 Vulnerable Household Members .............................................................................................................. 4 Occupation ................................................................................................................................................ 5 4. RISK MANAGEMENT.............................................................................................................................. 5 Natural Threats ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Warning Systems ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Knowledge about Disaster and Preparedness .......................................................................................... 9 Organizations .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Shelters ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Disaster and the Environment ................................................................................................................ 13 5. AGRICULTURE...................................................................................................................................... 14 Most Important Crops............................................................................................................................. 14 Pesticides ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Frequency of Use ................................................................................................................................ 14 Disposition to Use ............................................................................................................................... 15 Natural Pesticide ................................................................................................................................. 15 Biggest Problems in Gardens .............................................................................................................. 16 Most Important Needs............................................................................................................................ 17 Conservation Strategies .......................................................................................................................... 18 Perceptions of Changing Agricultural Productivity ................................................................................. 18 6. LIVESTOCK ........................................................................................................................................... 19 7. TREES................................................................................................................................................... 20 Planting and Preferences ........................................................................................................................ 20 Charcoal .................................................................................................................................................. 22 Frequency of Making Charcoal ........................................................................................................... 22 Reasons for Making Charcoal.............................................................................................................. 23 Types of Trees Used to Make Charcoal............................................................................................... 23 Land Tenure for Charcoal Making, Planting for Charcoal, and Cutting Strategies ............................. 24 Reason Trees Are Important ................................................................................................................... 25 Organizations that Have Tree Nurseries ............................................................................................. 25 8. HERBAL REMEDIES .............................................................................................................................. 27 Knowledge .............................................................................................................................................. 27  1. INTRODUCTION The survey upon which this report is based is both and Endline Survey for the Suisse Red Cross 2012-2016 GRDI risk management project and a baseline for the 2016-2020 GRDII project elaborating on disaster preparedness and introducing ecological components, including reforestation, seed provision and selection, and agricultural cultivation strategies. This report focuses on the Baseline for the new 2016-2020 survey. The target area is five Sections in the Commune of Leogane: Cormier, Fond Doie. Fonds-de-Boudin, Palmis-a-Vin, and Petit-Harpon. 2. METHODOLOGY The survey design involved taking four points Table 2.1: Sample by Sex and Section per commune and then interviewing forty Section Female Male Total household members at each point. Because Cormier 89 94 183 there were 5 communes in the total survey, the Fond_doie 29 28 57 total possible surveys was 800. Note that this Fonds_de_Boudin 48 51 99 was considerably more than the originally Palmis-a-Vin 76 85 161 planned 350 surveys but was deemed Petit_Harpon 155 142 297 important to get a representative understanding of the impact of the project. In Total 397 400 797 the case of Fonds-de-Boudin, there were significantly fewer surveys, this was a consequence of the scarcity of households at the points and permitted because of the three communes, Fond-Boudin has the fewest 2012-2016 interventions: 3 in Fond Boudin versus 5 to Cormier and 8 in Palmiste à Vin. Figure 2.1: Maps of Selected Sample Points and Interview Sites  2 Sample Size, Gender and Section Below is a description of the sample size, age and gender Table 2.2: Relationship of Respondent to Household Head structure of respondents (Figures 2.1-2.2 and Tables 2.1). The selected respondents were very closely 50% female Sex of Respondent and 50% males., something that was held constant in all Relationship Female Male Total five Sections. Beginning at age 21 -25 years, the age Hd hshld 33% 37% 70% Spouse 10% 5% 16% structure of respondents closely reflects the age Child 6% 7% 13% structure of the population seen in Figure 3.1 on page 3. Other 1% 1% 2% Eight-six percent of respondents self-identified as Total 50% 50% 100% household head or spouse of household Figure 2.2: Respondents by Sex and Age (N=797) Male Female 4% 2% 3% 3% 4% 3% 5% 4% 6% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 6% 5% 5% 4% 6% 4% 5% 2% 2% 6% 4% 2% 0% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% Figure 2.3: Relation of Respondent to Household Head 80% 70% 60% 40% 33% 37% 16% 20% 10% 5% 6% 7% 13% 1% 2% 1% 0% Head of household Spouse of head Child Other Sex of Respondent Female Sex of Respondent Male Sex of Respondent Total  3 3. POPULATION STRUCTURE AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE The Population pyramid for the project region is typical of Haiti (Figure 3.1). The Household size is a mean 4.7 with a median of 5.0 (see Figure 3.2) Figure 3.1 Population Structure derived from Household Members (females = 1,887; males = 1,934) 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Male 2% Female 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 7% 6% 5% 6% 6% 5% 6% 7% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% Figure 3.2: Household Size 20% 18% 17% 18% 16% 14% 14% 14% 12% 11% 10% 8% 6% 7% 6% 6% 4% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  4 Household Structure In the below figures, ‘de facto household head’ refers to whether or not there is a man and Figure 3.3: De Facto Household woman couple in the house as primary Headship (based on presence of male producers or if there is only a single man or and female in Union one of which is single woman, i.e. not who people say is the identified as Hshld Hd; N=797) household leader but who present (Figure 3.3). The reason that this method of categorizing household headship is preferable is because Couple 64% “household head” is a subjective category. One member of the household may say the father is head while another household member cites the mother. It is know from surveys elsewhere that when the question is posed to adults in the house males identify themselves as head of Single household twice as frequently as women in Female union cite their husbands. Single 21% Male 15% Vulnerable Household Members Eleven percent of respondents reported someone is their house falling in a category of vulnerable person (Figure 3.4). About half of those people were elderly people (over 70 years) or pregnant women. The remainder were physically handicapped, mentally ill, blind of chronically ill (see Figure 3.5). Figure 3.5: Proportion of All Figure 3.4: Vulnerable Person in the Households by Type of Vulnerable House (N=797) Person (N=797) No 89% 6.00% 4.27% 3.39% 4.00% 1.88% 2.00% 0.75% 0.63% 0.50% Yes 0.00% 11%  5 Occupation Table 3.1: Main Occupation/Source of Income The main income generating activities for men Male Female Source of Income Work Work was farming (78%) following by skilled labor (9%). Farmer 78% 34% For women it was trade (46%) following by Farming (Table 3.1). Skilled worked 9% 1% Trader 3% 46% School Teacher 2% 1% Artisan 1% 0% Employed 1% 1% Civil Servant 0% 0% No work 4% 16% Other 3% 2% 4. RISK MANAGEMENT Natural Threats The main threats identified by respondents are by far storms (68%) followed by drought (14%). However, it should be born in mind that this question was asked in the context of the a survey for the Red Cross, an institution that typically responds to acute disaster such as storms and earthquake-- something of which the respondents were aware. It may be that drought and other calamities are more costly to respondents (Table 4.1). Table 4.1: Main Respondent Identified Natural Threats Biggest Natural Threat Second Biggest Threat Third Biggest Threat Storms 68% Drought 19% Other 8% Drought 14% Storms 8% Blight & Pestilence 5% Livestock epidemic 3% Blight & Pestilence 5% Drought 3% Blight & Pestilence 3% Livestock epidemic 5% Storms 2% Cholera 3% Other 4% Livestock epidemic 1% None 2% Cholera 3% Subsidence 1% Subsidence 2% Subsidence 2% Floods 1% Floods 2% Floods 1% Epidemics 1% Accidents on highway 2% Accidents on highway 1% Accidents on highway 1% Other 1% Epidemics 1% Cholera 1% Epidemics 1% Earthquake 0% None 0% Earthquake 1% Nothing 0% Earthquake 0% Do not know 0%  6 Warning Systems Radio and telephone were the most important sources of obtaining information on impending disaster (Figure 4.1). Only 18% of respondents reported knowing about alert flag colors (Figure 4.2). The known colors were Red (18%), Green (14%), Yellow (10%), Orange (10%) and other (2%). For the category “other”, 9 respondents cited blue, 1 white, 3 black, and 1 pink (Figure 4.3). When asked specifically what color red and green Figure 4.1: Most Important represent, a portion of the 18% of respondents who Figure 4.2: Respondents claimed they knew,Warning Systems in fact, did not know. For Red, 27% Who Claim to Know Colors admitted they did not really know what a red flag Radio signified and 9% were wrong (Figure 4.4). For 71.6%Green, Yes, 35% admitted they did not really know what a green 18% Telephone 53.7% No, flag signified and 36% were wrong (Figure 4.4). When 82% Neighbors asked about 35.9% Orange alert, 80% did not know what it meant and rest of the responses were randomly Lanati_chanje Weather 30.5% distributed (Figure 4.5). In short, it appears that no EIC/EEK one knew what an Orange6.6%Alert signifies. Figure 4.3: Colors that Authorities 4.1% Respondents Claim to Know Church 3.8% (N=797) Other 1.0% 18% 20% 14% School 0.4% 15% 10% 10% Television 0.4% 10% 5% 2% Do not know 0.9% 0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%  7 Figure 4.4: Respondent Explanations for What Red Means (n=146) 100% 64% 50% 27% 9% 0% Can go home Do not really know High risk Figure 4.5: Respondent Explanations for What Green Means (n=111 ) 32% 35% 40% 28% 30% 20% 4% 10% 1% 0% Other High risk Can go Low risk Do not home really know Figure 4.6: Respondent Selected Definitions for an "Orange Alert" (N=797) 100% 80% 50% 0% 3% 4% 4% 5% 6% 8% 0%  8 When asked where they learned about colors, 45% cited the radio and 45% cited the Red Cross. Another 19% mentioned Community meetings-- but were likely sponsored by the Red Cross or Civil Protection (Figure 4.7). Figure 4.7: How Respondents Learned About Colors (n=146) 50% 45% 45% 40% 30% 19% 20% 9% 10% 4% 2% 1% 0% Table 4.2: Other Category for Where Learned about Colors Neighbor, friends, Family 6 Training 4 Reading 1 Internet 1 School 1  9 Knowledge about Disaster and Preparedness When asked specifically about respondent knowledge in preparing for disaster, most respondents cited a generic ‘know how to react’ (51%) and ‘plan roles.’ (39%); 20% said they did not know, 16% cited prepare an emergency bag, a Red Cross recommendation (Figure 4.8). Less than 5% cited the remaining, Red Cross recommended preparation measures: Know location of a refuge (4%), Cur branches over house (4%), Know first aid (4%), Know emergency telephone numbers, perform simulation exercises (1%) and fortify house (1%). Figure 4.8: Respondent Knowedge on How to Prepare for Disaster (N=797) Know how to react 51% Plan roles 39% Do not know 20% Prepare an emergency bag 16% Know Refuge 4% Cut Branches near house 4% Know First aid 4% Know Emergency Telelphone numbers 3% SIMEX 1% Fortify house 1% Other 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Regarding what should be done when a disaster does strike, 67% said listen to the radio, 21% said stay home, and 18% said wait for help; 12% mentioned working with EIC teams (Figure 4.9). Figure 4.9: Respondent Knowedge on What should be Done when Disaster Hits (N=797) Listen to radio and follow instructions 67% Stay in home 21% Wait for Help 18% EIC/EEK 12% Do not know 10% Other 4% Nothing 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%  10 The most commonly cited source for learning about disaster was Disasters from Community Meetings at 35%, 29% from radio spots/advertisements, 21% directly from a Red Cross or Civil Protection workers, another 17% from training conducted by the Red Cross; 10% learned it from an EIC team (Figure 4.10). Figure 4.10: Media Respondents Cite for Information they Have about Disasters (n=181) Meeting Group 35% Spot 29% Vizit RC DPC 21% Training RC 17% EIC EEK 10% Kazek 9% Other 7% Sign 5% Big Community meeting 4% Do not know 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% The most common exposure to a medium of information was to radio spots, something that 20 respondents (2%) cited as hearing more than once per week (Table 4.3). However, more people cited group meetings as a source of information on disasters. The most common frequency for the meetings was once per month. Table 4.3: Respondent Reported Frequency of Exposure to Different Media for Disaster Information Group RC Training CASEC/ meetings Spot visit GRD EIC/EEK ASEC Sign Work More than once per week 1 20 3 1 1 0 1 0 Once per week 5 12 4 1 3 0 1 0 Once per month 30 10 6 6 7 2 2 1 Every three months 10 4 4 5 0 3 3 1 Less than once per year 3 4 2 4 2 3 1 1 Once per year 15 3 19 13 6 7 1 5 Total 64 53 38 30 19 15 9 8  11 Organizations When asked about knowledge of disaster relief organizations working in the community, 72% said there were none. The most cited organization were Red Cross and Civil Protection created and training EIC/EEK teams (Table 4.11) Figure 4.11: Respondent Knowledge of Organizations or Groups in Community that Respond to Emergencies (N=797) None 72% EIC/EEK 13% CBO 8% Do not know 7% Other 4% Scouts 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%  12 Shelters Figure 4.12: Respondent Fully 77% of respondents were not aware of an emergency Knows of a Refuge Shelter in shelter in their community. Another 2% said they did not know; 21% reported knowing of a shelter (Figure 4.12). the Community The most common types of emergency shelters identified were Churches (53%), Red Cross Shelters (41%), Schools No, (34%) and other (34%)—(see Figure 4.13). Of the shelters 77% that respondents did identify, 64% were accessible by vehicle, 85% had a latrine availability of water ranged from Yes, 36% in the case of Red Cross Shelters to 82% for the School 21% Shelters and 63% for the Churches. Do not know, 2% Figure 4.13: Types of Shelter Table 4.5: School Shelter Infrastructure Respondents Report (n=167) (n=56) Condition of road Water source at 53% Good 21% Cistern refuge 71% 60% 41% Not so good 43% None 18% 34% 34% Terrible 2% Spigot 9% 40% Well 2% 20% Table 4.6: Church Shelter Infrastructure 0% Good (n=89) Cistern 49% 39% Church RC School Other Not so good 47% None 37% Terrible 4% Spigot 20% Shelter Well 3% Table 4.7: Red Cross Shelter Good 5% Cistern Infrastructure (69) 25% Table 4.4: Number of Refuges Respondents Not so good 86% None 64% Identify in their Community by Type Terrible 9% Spigot 6% Well 6% Type Number Count School Refuges (n=56) 1 37 2 14 Table 4.8: Shelter Vehicle Access 3 5 Vehicle Church Refuges (n=89) 1 51 can reach 2 23 closest 3 9 Type of school Water 4 2 Building refuge Latrine Source 6 2 School 66% 96% 82% 7 2 Church 64% 92% 63% Red Cross Refuges (n=69) 1 54 RC 64% 78% 36% 2 15 Shelter Buildings Generic (n=2) 1 1 2 1 Other (n=3) 1 3  13 Disaster and the Environment When asked what can be done to better limit the occurrence and impact of disaster, the most commonly cited response was reforest (61%) followed distantly by Inform (34%). Figure 4.14: What People Should do to Limit Impact on Environment and Prepare for Disaster (N=797) Nothing 0% CRH Prezans 1% DPC 1% EIC EEK 5% Other 5% Educate 8% Do not know 11% Strengthen local authority 19% Protect springs 21% Implement ag programs 23% Refuge zones 23% Knowledge/Training 23% Designate and/or build evacuation routes 30% Conservation of soil and water sources 33% Inform 34% Reforest 61% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%  14 5. AGRICULTURE Most Important Crops Table 5.1: Top 10 Crops The four most important crops grown Crops Total Intercropped Mono in the area, as defined by the question, Corn 24% 72% 28% ‘what is the most important crop you Pigeon peas 21% 76% 24% plant’ are Corn (24%), Pigeon Peas Black beans 20% 51% 49% (21%), Black Beans and Peanuts (14%). Peanuts 14% 53% 47% Note that the preceding percentages Bananas and plantains 7% 43% 57% are not whether the respondent plants Manioc 5% 67% 33% the crops, but individuals citing these Sweet potatoes 4% 45% 55% crops as most important. Black-eyed peas 1% 50% 50% Millet 1% 25% 75% Yam 1% 67% 33% Pesticides Frequency of Use Pesticides are rarely used. Only 4% of respondents reported using them on any crop. Of the 30 respondents who reported using them the most common crops they used pesticides on were Cabbage, Black beans and Tomatoes, all cash crops destined for the market—versus viv which can be thought of as in large part survival or hunger crops that guarantee the household enough food to eat—such as Manioc, and Yam. Figure 5.1: Uses Insecticide on At Least Table 5.2: One Plant (N=797) Uses Chemical Pesticide (n=30) Crop Count Tree Count Cabbage 8 Avocado 4 Black beans 7 Orange 2 Tomatoes 6 Mango 3 No, 96% Corn 4 Lime 2 Cherries 4 Papaya 3 Okra 2 Grapefruit 3 White beans 2 Corosol 2 Peanuts 2 Coconut 2 Hot pepper 2 Cherries 3 Yes, 4% Eggplant 1  15 Figure 5.2: Availability of Disposition to Use Pesticide and Disposition to The most important factor determining whether Use It respondent uses pesticides, is not health or environmental issues, but cost. When asked if they 71% 80% would use pesticide if it were free, 71% of respondents 60% said yes. 40% 2% 20% 0% Pesticide If pesticide readily were free available would use it Figure 5.3: Knows how to make Natural Pesticide natural pesticide Only 6% of respondents reported knowing how to make natural No, 93% pesticides. Of those 53 people, 19% (20) make it often. Only 1% of respondents reported sometimes purchasing natural pesticide. In short, there is no significant production nor marketing of Yes, 7% natural pesticides in the area. Figure 5.4: Frequency makes Figure 5.5: Frequency purchases natural pesticide (n=53) natural pesticide (N=797) 45% 97% 50% 100% 40% 80% 30% 23% 19% 60% 20% 13% 40% 10% 20% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0%  16 Biggest Problems in Gardens The biggest problems respondents reported with agriculture was lack of rain (44%) followed by insects and blight (33%). Those that did not chose these as the biggest problems chose them as the second biggest problems (see Table 5.3 and Figures 5.6 and 5.7). Table 5.3: Biggest Problems in Garden Biggest Problem in Garden Second Biggest Problem in Garden Lack rain 44% Lack rain 34% Insects blight 33% Insects blight 26% Decline fertility 10% Decline fertility 19% Foraging livestock 8% Foraging livestock 12% Erosion 5% Erosion 9% Figure 5.6: Biggest Problem in Garden 44% 50% 33% 40% 30% 20% 10% 8% 5% 10% 0% Lack rain Insects Decline Foraging Erosion blight fertility livestock Figure 5.7: Second Biggest Problem in Garden 40% 34% 26% 30% 19% 20% 12% 9% 10% 0% Lack rain Insects Decline Foraging Erosion blight fertility livestock  17 Most Important Needs Respondents reported the most important agricultural need as money (31%), followed by seeds (28%), tools (28%), and fertilizers (15%). Consistent with responses regarding pesticides, only 6% cited pesticides as the most important input (Figures 5.8). When asked about second most important agricultural need, respondents cited seeds (37%) and Tools (29%), suggesting that these are the two most critical ingredients for which farmers perceive a shortage, rather than money per se. Figure 5.8: Most Important Agricultural Need (N=767) 35% 31% 28% 30% 25% 20% 20% 15% 15% 6% 10% 5% 0% 0% Figure 5.9: Second Most Important Agricultural Need (N=797) 37% 40% 29% 30% 20% 15% 12% 7% 10% 0% Seeds Tools Fertilizers Money Pesticides  18 Conservation Strategies Fully 49% of respondents reported having Living Plant Barriers in their gardens, 39% reported having contoured the land to prevent erosion; 35% have both and 39% have neither (Figure 5.10). Figure 5.10: Living Barriers and Terraching on Property (N=797) 49% 50% 39% 39% 35% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Ramp Vivan Vegetation walls Contours Both Neither Perceptions of Changing Agricultural Productivity Fully 75% of respondents perceived harvests as dwindling over the course of recent years (Figure 5.11). The most common explanations were weather (46%), bad agricultural practices that exhaust the soil and that lead to erosion (28%), and insects and disease (25%)—(Figure 5.12) Figure 5.11: Respondent Perception of Changing Production (N=797) 75% 80% 60% 40% 20% 5% 20% 0% Less every year Stays same More every year  19 Figure 5.12: Respondent Reasons for Declining Agricultural Productivity (N=797) 46% 50% 40% 28% 25% 30% 20% 10% 7% 8% 5% 10% 0% 6. LIVESTOCK Only 12% of respondents have no livestock (Figure 6.1). The most common animals are livestock destined to be sold for meat: goats (68%), cow (60%) and chicken (60%), and pig (33%). Far less common are pack animals--Donkey (11%), Mule (9%) and Horses (9%). The vast majority of respondents tether their livestock versus corralling it (Figure 6.2). Figure 6.1: Livestock Respondents Own (per household: N = 797) 68% 70% 60% 60% 60% 50% 40% 33% 30% 20% 12% 11% 9% 9% 10% 2% 0%  20 Figure 6.2: Free Ranging vs. Tethering Livestock (n= 714) 86% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 7% 2% 5% 0% Both Seasonal Do not rear Free range Tie Livestock 7. TREES Planting and Preferences Contrary to expectations, the most common tree respondents report having planted is not a fruit tree but one planted for high quality hardwood timber, specifically oak (30%). Mango is the second most common tree planted (17.4%), with Fransik and Blan mangos being far and away the most popular types of mango tree planted (Figure 7.1). The third most planted tree is Eucalyptis, also a tree planted for timber (Table 7.1). A full list of preferred tree types (‘trees the respondent would most like to plant’) divided by Fruit vs. Lumber is presented in Table 7.2. Development practitioners interested in providing trees should take note that lime and sour oranges are considered critical as a disinfectant and have a consistent market demand (Figure 7.2). Table 7.1: Type of Tree Planted (N=797) Oak 30.0% Orange 3.8% Kenep 0.6% Mahogany (local) 0.7% Mango 17.4% Bread Fruit 1.8% Abricot 0.4% Mangrove 0.3% Eucalyptus 9.5% Acacia 1.3% Leucaena 0.5% Pea Tree 0.1% Avocado 8.6% Papaya 1.3% Mesquite 0.3% Neem 0.1% Coconut 5.9% Lime 1.0% Mahogany (Imp) 0.3% Almond 0.1% Grapefruit 4.7% Ash 0.8% Cacao 0.3% Other 5.2% Cedar 3.9% Coffee 0.7% Carousel 0.3%  21 Table 7.2: Preferred Fruit and Timber Types Fruit Lumber Mango 69.1% Oak 94.2% Avocado 55.3% Cedar 59.5% Orange 47.8% Mahogany (local) 22.5% Grapefruit 40.0% Ash 19.7% Coconut 33.0% Mangrove 13.9% Lime 26.0% Mahogany (foreign) 11.8% Papaya 16.9% Eucalyptus 8.4% Breadfruit 16.7% Other 5.1% Cherry 11.3% Taveno 4.3% Abricot 9.8% Nago Wood 3.1% Coffee 8.2% Acacia 2.8% Carousel 8.0% Neem 2.5% Kenep 6.9% Leucaena 2.2% Cacao 6.1% Palm 0.9% Mandarin 5.1% None 0.9% Tamarin 2.6% Cuban Pine 0.9% Almond 1.9% Mesquite 0.3% Pistachio 1.6% Turpentine tree 0.1% Sapotille 1.1% Guava 1.0% Carambola 0.8% Kayemite 0.4% Figure 7.1: Preferred Figure 7.2: Preferred Types of Types of Mango (n=551) Orange Trees (n=481) Kawot Both 2% 37% Other 8% Sweet Pennsik 10% 40% Jean Marie 14% Konn 15% Batis 21% Blan 75% Sour 6% Fransik 92% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%  22 Despite that far more respondents report having most recently planted a non-fruit bearing almost tree twice as frequently as mangos, respondents overwhelming indicated a preference for fruit trees. Fully 51% of respondents said they preferred fruit trees vs. 3% that preferred timber: 45% appreciated both equally (Figure 7.3). Figure 7.3: Preference for Tree Type (N=797) 100% 51% 45% 50% 3% 1% 0% Fruit Lumber Both the Other same It should be noted that many respondents do not actively plant trees, but they do encourage and care for saplings that sprout on their own. While 46% of respondents said they typically plant trees, 17% said the simply tend volunteers (trees that sprout on their own) and 36% reported doing both planting and selectively tending volunteers (Figure 7.2) Figure 7.2: Planting Trees vs. Caring for Volunteers (N=797) 46% 36% 50% 17% 0% 0% Plant Care for Both Neither volunteers Charcoal Figure 7.3: Last Time Respondent Made Charcoal (N = 797) Frequency of Making Charcoal 80% Fully 65% of respondents report 65% never having made charcoal; 2% 60% are fulltime charcoal makers; and 40% the rest of respondents fall 15% 8% 20% 2% 2% 7% somewhere in between (Figure 0% 7.3). All the This Last Two More Never time year year years than two past years past  23 Reasons for Making Charcoal An assumption in drawing up the questionnaire was that, based on studies elsewhere, many people in rural Haiti make charcoal during times of crisis. It has been called the social security net of rural Haiti. Consistent with this assumption, of the 277 individuals who reported making charcoal, explained that the last time they did so was because of Hunger; 4% for drought; 4% to obtain money deal with shortfalls brought on by a storm. Notable is that the second most import reason--albeit at 15% far behind ‘Hunger’- - was to pay school tuition for children. Another 10% explained that it was for family in Port-au-Prince, something that often means to help children in school who need supplies, not least of all cooking fuel. Also notable is that in 6% of cases, the tree was considered old and/or might fall. Figure 7.4: Reason Respondent Last Made Charcoal (n=277) 64% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 15% 10% 10% 18% 20% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 10% 1% 0% Types of Trees Used to Make Charcoal The most common type of trees used to make charcoal the last time the respondent did so closely approximate those most frequently planted (Table 7.3: note that respondents could have used more than one type of tree last time they made charcoal resulting in the percentages in Table 7.3 adding up to greater than 100%) Figure 7.3: Types of Trees that Respondents Use Last Time they Made Charcoal Eucalyptus 47% Mahogany 4% Coconut 1% Mango 43% Ash(Foreign) 3% Cacao 1% Acacia 17% Cedar 3% Campech 4% Neem 13% Abricot 2% Sapotaceae 4% Mesquite 7% Grapefruit 2% Monben 3% Kenep 6% Mangrove 1% Inga vera W 3% Oak 6% Almond 1% Mapou 1% Luceana 5% Cayemite 1% Other 7% Avocado 4% Guava 1% Mahogany (local) 4% Orange 1%  24 Land Tenure for Charcoal Making, Planting for Charcoal, and Cutting Strategies Fully 96% of respondents reported that the last time they cut trees to make charcoal it was on their own land (Figure 7.5). Only 10% reported ever having planted trees with the intention of making charcoal (Figure 7.6); 13% report having a stand of trees that they manage for making charcoal, a significant finding given that charcoal is a renewable and highly marketable resource (see Figure 7.7); also highly significant in this regard is that 91% of respondents report that when making charcoal they leave the main truck of the tree, suggesting that rather than simply destroying the tree most farmers are in fact attempting to manage the trees (7.8). Figure 7.5: Land Tenure of Figure 7.6: Has planted trees Trees for Charcoal (n=103) with intention of making charcoal (N=797) Own land No, 96% 90% Yes, Other 10% person Other, land, 1% 3% Figure 7.7: Has a stand of trees Figure 7.8: Cutting Strategy that manages for charcoal (N = (n=103) 797) No 87% Leave main trunk 91% Yes 13% Cut to base Other 4% 5%  25 Reason Trees Are Important When asked what Is the main importance of trees, 91% of respondents cited soil conservation, 75% that they ‘attract rain’, 70% that they protect springs, 63% that they are a good source of money, and 55% mentioned trees purify the air (Figure 7.8). Figure 7.8: Respondent Selected Choices for Importance of Trees (N=797) 91% 100% 75% 70% 80% 63% 58% 60% 40% 20% 1% 0% Organizations that Have Tree Nurseries When asked about locally operant organizations that have tree nurseries, 42% respondents said they knew of at least one (Figure 7.9). Those 335 respondents mentioned 52 different organizations (Table 7.4). Figure 7.9: Respondent Identification of Organizations with Tree Nursery in their Community (N = 797) Name Organization, None, Do not 42% remember, or Do not know, 58%  26 Table 7.4: Organizations Respondents Identify as Managing Tree Nurseries in their Community CODEP 93 Amkpl 2 Kay fre tanis 1 Croix rouge 63 Kay fre 2 MOKAVE 1 Otab 23 Kodette 2 Mon calves 1 Apf 18 Odep 2 Ogigret 1 Caritas 16 OJDREP 2 Oganizasyon michel 1 Floresta 14 Ojicpc 2 ogsnizasyon Kodek 1 APMKL 8 Oganizasyon posib 2 Ommbl 1 Eic 5 Ojidrep 2 Opelade 1 Rekochal 5 Afv 1 Pdf 1 Fao 5 Agonom odne 1 Ppk 1 Refe late avek 5 etwal 5 Agpp 1 Recrocharles 1 APDF 3 APEF 1 Saint antoine 1 Apdms 3 APLKM 1 Samartaine 1 Otak 3 Cadel 1 Ti foun 1 SEV 3 FVB 1 WolWinyo 1 OPA 3 Gpfb 1 Ekos 1 Ipak 1 Free sent terez 1 Kadel 1  27 8. HERBAL REMEDIES Knowledge A final category investigated was practice and source of knowledge regarding of herbal remedies. Of the 797 respondents, 313 (39%) reported that someone in their home is proficient at making herbal remedies (Figure 8.1). Of those people, 84% reported having learned of the remedies from another person 4% reported learning from the Red Cross, and 2% from another NGO or CBO. Figure 8.1: Respondent with Figure 8.2: Source of Knowledge Someone on their Home (n = 313) Proficient at Making Herbal Home Remedies (N=797) 100% 84% 80% Yes, 60% 39% 40% 4% 11% 20% 1% 1% 0% No, 61%