The commodity selection process for the Feed the Future Haiti Resilience and Agriculture Sector Advancement (HRASA) project involved identifying commodities in the project’s resilience focus zones (RFZs) that have the highest potential to contribute to transforming agricultural market systems. The project’s objective is to make these systems more competitive, inclusive, and resilient.
The initial set of commodities proposed included fruit (cacao and banana), roots and tubers (manioc and vetiver), vegetables, cereals (rice), and poultry (meat and eggs). However, two of these (banana and vetiver) were dropped following discussion with USAID before project startup. The HRASA team then began the commodity confirmation process, which drew on the collective knowledge and experience of the project’s technical team and others, including feedback and recommendations from USAID and the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Rural Development (MARNDR).
The team reviewed a range of secondary sources of information and conducted interviews and meetings with a wide range of market actors. The commodity selection criteria were customized to reflect the objectives of the project, a market system development approach, and the Haitian reality. The four overarching criteria used to evaluate the commodities were relevance to beneficiaries, competitiveness and growth potential, development impact, and feasibility for systemic change.
The team noted that a focus on achieving significant increases in the value of sales, dollars invested, or even household assets could lead to investment in relatively “resource-rich” areas, based on a (perhaps tacit) assumption that results demonstrated in such areas will spread to other areas. However, the team observed that the risk in that approach overlooks basic differences between the Northern and Southern RFZs or, for example, the Central Plateau and the North East within the Northern RFZ.
The team used a weighted scoring system to evaluate each commodity against the selection criteria and sub-criteria. Each criterion was scored on a 1 to 4 scale, where 1 is weakest and 4 is strongest. The team identified a long list of 32 potential commodities and began the winnowing process. Four commodities were not selected for further consideration due to low scores.
The commodity selection process has ground-truthed and confirmed a manageable number of agricultural products in the required five commodity categories, with a base of relevant experience and the greatest potential to spur inclusive economic growth. The team developed significant up-to-date inside knowledge, accessed practical experience, and began productive dialogue with producers, buyers, processors, and service providers that has given them greater clarity on strategic choices and the way forward.
The team also came across products that did not rank as highly on some criteria for various reasons but may be considered on a case-by-case basis if they demonstrate strong business cases and market actor commitment. Such opportunities can provide “entry points” or leverage the commitment of “champions” or “pioneers” to move beyond that product choice and influence market system and behavior change in other product areas.
The commodity selection criteria and sub-criteria are outlined in the Annex, which provides further details on the corresponding sub-criteria and the key analytical questions used to evaluate each commodity. The team maintained equal weighting for the four overarching criteria, with sub-criteria receiving differing weights reflecting the team’s judgment of their relevance to contributing to strengthened, well-functioning, and inclusive market systems.