The analysis was carrried out on livelihood zones. All the analyzed areas were classified in IPC Phase 2 (stress), except for 3 areas which face minimum food insecurity (IPC Phase 1), namely: HT04-irrigation areas (rice zone of Artibonite); HT05-Banana (banana production area); and HT03 Plateau area of the Artibonite (sub-humid plateau region).

“HT01 Bas Nord-Ouest &Haut Artibonite”, which is often classified in Crisis (IPC Phase 3), is classified in Stressed (IPC Phase 2) taking into account some improvements in the food security situation and contributing factors, and the various interventions that are being carried out in the area. Nevertheless, this situation is very unstable. The area is likely to switch to Phase 3 at the slightest shock.

It should be noted that this classification by main livelihood zones may however take significant disparities at the lower level, at the municipal level, for example, due to the existence of factors such as the function of irrigated systems as well as limiting factors like a strong geographical isolation or localized climatic anomaly.  

The projection period corresponds to the second rainy season. It is expected an improvement in the situation in the different areas of analysis. Improved availability will contribute to lower prices for local food products. The harvest of beans, yam, and potato will increase availability of food from November. However, the improvement will not be sufficient to induce a phase change. All analyzed areas remain classified in Phase 2 (stressed) or at the minimum phase (phase 1). However, HT07 Sud /Grand Anse/Nippes and HT08 Littorale SO are expected to move from Phase 2 (stressed) into Phase 1 (minimal).

Limits to the analysis

The IPC Technical Working group encountered the following difficulties in compiling the analysis:

• Insufficient recent data on hundreds of analysis zones and other low quality data reduced the confidence level of the analysis
• Use of nutritional data that was recent but not yet validated
• Limited time availability of the analysis team
• Insufficient time to prepare the data which caused the extension of the analysis

• Continue the effort to disaggregate areas of analysis, particularly at the level of the Western departments which are very diversified in terms of livelihoods.
• CNSA has initiated decentralized training sessions for the setting up of technical working groups. It is therefore desirable to continue this effort to decentralize IPC analyzes, which will reduce the costs of analysis and also the durability of the IPC analyses.
• Monitor the evolution of the summer and winter crop years, which account for between 40% and 50% of annual production at the national level.
• Advocate with partner institutions to ensure that livelihood zones are considered as a unit (in addition to the administrative units). This would facilitate decision-making to the extent that the units will be more restricted and more homogeneous.
• Continue to provide financial support to CNSA in the implementation of the IPC