CNSA Targeting

29
To be sure, there are some differences, for example in regional migration patterns, remittances,
and slight differences in dependency on agricultural strategies. CNSA/FEWSNET (2009)
documented differences in vulnerability and infrastructure at the sub-department level. But the
same figures vary by survey, a probable consequence of sampling error; ix and they vary by year, a
probable consequence of climate variation and differential temporally idiosyncratic shocks. The
variation over time can be seen in nutritional status of children per department (see Figure 21,
below); and it can be seen in CNSA/FEWSNET Vulnerability maps (see Figure 22 below). The
variation over time, with extremes of vulnerability moving from department or commune to
another raise the question: to what degree are differences observed between households a
consequence of temporary impacts? Moreover, differences in one variable are offset by others.
For example, while in the 2007 CFSVA the department of the Artibonite had the lowest
educational level and the highest number of food insecure months, it has the greatest availability
of household water sources, irrigated land, and one of the highest rural income levels (at 6.4 in the
CNSA/CFVSA p55 and Verner 2008:18). In short, the bulk of the population is uniformly
destitute; and advantages in one respect in a particular region are consistently offset by
comparatively greater disadvantages in other respects. Even rural urban distinctions can be called
into question: the proportion of the population poor in provincial cities and towns vs. those in rural
areas are insignificant until one reaches the highest 20% of the population (Figure 23). In summary,
if we consider how small the differences in most indicators are between municipal districts and
ecological zones, and then we consider change from a longitudinal perspective, the most fantastic
thing about geographical profiles in Haiti is the overall homogeneity.
Nippes
Nord-Ouest
Grande-Anse
Sud
Centre
Artibonite
Nord-Est
Nord
Sud-Est
Ouest
AireMétropolitaine
Figure 21: Change in Chronic Child Malnutrition by
Department (EMMUS 2000, 2005,2012)
2012 2005 2000
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Figure 4: Change in Chronic Child Nutrition by Department