HAITI REGENERATION INITIATIVE
Study of lessons learned in managing environmental
projects in Haiti
Contacts:
Country Programme Manager for UNEP: Mr. Antonio Perera, [email protected]
+509 36 99 55 40, Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Programme Coordinator: Mr. Andrew Morton, [email protected]
+41 (0)79 834 70 93, Geneva, Switzerland.
Previous Versions
V 0.1 June 2009
V 0.2 November 2009
V 1.1 January 2009
Table of contents and initial concepts
Detailed draft for consultation with the team
Draft version for consultation
V 1.2 March 2009
Last review
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5
PART 1: GENERAL TRENDS IN THE PROJECTS/PROGRAMMES STUDIED.................... 8
Geographic distribution and coverage ................................................................................... 8
1.1.
A)
B)
Toward greater geographic coherence and improved coordination.......................................................8
The difficulty with binational interventions..............................................................................................9
A)
B)
C)
Characteristics of the projects/programmes studied............................................................................10
Total aid allocated to environmental projects/programmes in Haiti .....................................................12
Variability of aid and frequent interruptions in funding .........................................................................12
A)
B)
C)
Evolution of approaches to natural resource management in Haiti .....................................................13
Toward multi-sector and integrated strategies .....................................................................................14
Protection of the marine and coastal environment: the forgotten domain ...........................................15
Timeframes and funding levels of the projects/programmes............................................. 10
1.2.
Project/programme subjects and components.................................................................... 13
1.3
PART 2: ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................. 16
The need for long-term commitments................................................................................... 16
2.1
A)
B)
Project cycles need to be extended .....................................................................................................16
A chronic lack of follow-up....................................................................................................................18
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
F)
Community participation: a key point in project ownership and in ensuring suitability to local needs .19
Developing lasting participatory structures ..........................................................................................21
Incorporating the environment into participatory Local Development Plans........................................22
Participation and land-use planning .....................................................................................................23
The benefits of a local implementation and support unit......................................................................25
Make use of existing local bodies.........................................................................................................26
A)
B)
The challenge of national project ownership........................................................................................27
National capacity building.....................................................................................................................28
A)
B)
C)
D)
Collective interest and individual interest in natural resources preservation .......................................29
The cash/food-for-work approach: conditions for success...................................................................30
Reforestation and agroforestry: revenue generators ...........................................................................32
Local economic development and production supply chains...............................................................36
A)
B)
Numerous available studies not utilized...............................................................................................39
The need for a centralized information and monitoring system ...........................................................39
A)
B)
C)
D)
The importance of communication and information for project ownership ..........................................41
Understanding mentalities and optimizing local knowledge.................................................................41
Effective awareness-raising and communication methods ..................................................................42
Continuous communications ................................................................................................................44
Community participation and local support: the paths to follow....................................... 19
2.2
Capacity building and project ownership at the national level .......................................... 27
2.3
Natural resource protection and economic interest............................................................ 29
2.4
Knowledge management and information systematization................................................ 39
2.5
Awareness-raising and communication ............................................................................... 41
2.6
PART 3: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 45
Appendix 1 – Acronyms ...................................................................................................... 49
Appendix 2 – Bibliography.................................................................................................. 51
Appendix 3 – List of contributors to this report................................................................ 54
Appendix 4 – Glossary ........................................................................................................ 57
Appendix 5 – Table of projects/programmes analyzed for this study............................. 62
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction and the purpose of the document
The Haiti Regeneration Initiative is a concept that has been created initially by the United Nations
Environment Programme but is anticipated to be led by the government of Haiti and developed and
implemented by a broad coalition of national and international partners.
It is not a conventional project but instead the proposed start of a national scale campaign with a
targeted turnover of over 3 billion dollars over a 20 year period. Hence the vision and goals are
extremely ambitious and the design and planning process is quite elaborate.
One part of that process was the collation and ongoing analysis of lessons learned from prior and
ongoing aid programmes in Haiti in the field of environment and natural resource management. This
document presents the results of a detailed analysis of 43 environmental projects/programmes – 16
finalized and 27 in progress – dating from 1990 to the present.
The analysis will be used specifically to guide the design of the HRI. However it is considered also
potentially useful for others and so is published as an independent report.
Methodology
The study was undertaken over the period June 2009 to January 2010. Initial enquiries revealed 43
relevant projects/programmes suitable for further investigation. For each such project the document
record was requested and reviewed. 40 follow up interviews were made with project personnel or
organizational focal points and several project sites were visited and inspected. Finally an analysis of
the 43 projects was conducted with an emphasis on identifying common themes and issues of interest
and the potential for improvements in approach.
National level findings and lessons learned
A number of findings were high level and national in nature:
•
Highly variable quality and lasting impact. In summary the quality and lasting impact of the
projects examined differed greatly; ranging from projects with no remaining evidence of impact or
even adequate project records through to ongoing successful locally owned initiatives. It was
important to note a plethora of approaches – many different ways of tackling environmental
challenges have already been attempted in Haiti. Recurrent features are described below.
•
Weak central coordination and support. The ad hoc nature of so many projects indicated a
chronic lack of coordination at the national level. Capacity is also lacking at the national level to
assist the many projects under development or implementation, resulting in an over-dependence
on international staff and consultants and a lack of retained knowledge.
•
Poor national scale data management. A lack of systematic national level data management
indicates that actually most lessons learned from prior projects are either lost or very difficult to
obtain. A major investment was required to find and obtain the material required for this report.
•
Continued emphasis on small scale and short duration projects. Despite the high stakes and
difficult challenges at play in the field of environmental rehabilitation, the majority of
projects/programmes reviewed had small or mid-range budgets (only 10 projects exceeded
US$10,000,000) and timelines (around 80% of the operations spanned 5 years or less). This
phenomenon of small scale and short term projects is considered problematic – it is clearly difficult
to achieve a national scale lasting impact with such an approach.
3
•
Funding gaps and instability. Virtually all projects suffered from unstable funding to some extent,
with a chronic lack of continuity in funding being an important source of failure, scope cutting or
early closure for many projects.
•
Welcome improvements in targeting and coordination Despite all the negative findings, in
recent years, it has been found that projects/programmes are becoming more geographically
concentrated and that the distribution between players on the ground is better coordinated. The
major donors now give special attention to the management/rehabilitation of watersheds, often
targeting the most vulnerable zones. In general, the projects/programmes now tend to follow a
more integrated approach than in the past.
Project level findings and key lessons learned
The analysis of individual projects revealed a number of features and issues that are quite transferable
and so should be considered key lessons learned:
•
Extended duration. Longer term (>5 years) projects/programmes were more successful than
shorter ones;
•
Local ownership Community participation in all phases of the project/programme cycle, from
identification through monitoring/evaluation greatly improved the impact of the interventions;
•
Integrating environmental concerns into a rural livelihood framework. Environmental
protection initiatives worked best when they were integrated into a larger strategy for local
development and land-use planning. Specifically it was found necessary to combine the
protection of natural resources with the generation of an economic interest for the beneficiaries,
for example via the sustainable development of profitable forestry or agroforestry product supply
chains, the development of profitable vegetative soil conservation structures, and well-defined
cash-for-work projects;
•
Capacity building. Local capacity was a major constraint to success so the more successful
projects incorporated capacity building in institutions and organizations;
•
Organizational clarity. Tied to local ownership was the need for organizational clarity. One of the
major causes of performance problems was variable commitment at the national and local levels
and a lack of clarity on the roles and responsibilities of the various institutions participating in the
project/programme;
•
Communications. Properly-conducted awareness-raising and communication activities improved
the impact of natural resource protection projects/programmes.
Recommendations
In the context of the ongoing design of the HRI, there are 2 main recommendations:
•
Substantive investments needs in project/programme design and development.
Incorporation of the noted lessons learned from this and other work into the HRI or other new
projects is considered completely possible. However the required resources to do this (time,
funds and expertise) must be included in the development process – hence seed funding and
feasibility/scoping studies are a pre-requisite to eventual success.
•
Parallel investments required at national and local level. Whilst local projects are required
to generate impacts at the community level, it is clear that national level programmes also have
a significant role to play in areas such as policy development, capacity building, coordination,
fund and data management. These two types of programme are considered fully
complementary.
4
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY:
Haiti is the ultimate example of a country where environment, poverty and instability are intrinsically
interconnected. As a result, the rehabilitation of the largely degraded environment is essential to the
development of the country and the well-being of its population. Over the past few decades in Haiti,
many projects/programmes have been conducted, and substantial investments made, toward this end.
However, the results in this domain remain relatively meager. A number of technically sound one-off
interventions in the sector of the environment have, of course, provided sporadic responses. However,
there has been little follow-through thereafter, they were only implemented on a small scale, and they
were neither replicated nor systematized. Consequently, environmental degradation continues to
worsen, and environmental governance is still largely ineffective, which further perpetuates the vicious
cycle of poverty and vulnerability to natural disasters.
Given these findings, the United Nations Environment Programme, in collaboration with the
Government of Haiti, a consortium of United Nations agencies, NGOs and technical institutes, is now
developing an integrated, long-term initiative in Haiti, the Haiti Regeneration Initiative. This programme
aims to put an end to and reverse environmental degradation, so as to reduce poverty and
vulnerability to natural hazards.
STUDY OBJECTIVES:
To meet this ambitious challenge and to maximize the Initiative's impact and ensure its sustainability, it
is necessary to undertake, starting in the design phase, a process of extensive consultations with all of
the different players interacting in the environmental sphere. An in-depth analysis of the main
obstacles, challenges, best practices and lessons learned from past interventions is crucial. This study
of lessons learned from environmental project management is part of this pre-implementation phase. It
was created to guide the design of the Haiti Regeneration Initiative and to provide recommendations
for its implementation. It may also be useful to a broader community of players who are interested in
this type of systematization of experiences.
METHODOLOGY:
This study of lessons learned and best practices is based on the analysis of 43 projects/programmes,
16 of which have been finalized and 27 of which are in progress, covering the 1990s to the present,
and pertaining to natural resource management and the environment in Haiti. A table of the different
projects/programmes, presenting their general features, is included in Appendix 5. For ease of reading,
whenever a project/programme is mentioned, it will be referenced to its corresponding number in the
table.
In this study, to cover as large a field as possible, the term “environment” is understood in a broad
sense. Thus, projects/programmes reviewed involve the management/rehabilitation of watersheds,
disaster risk management, forestry/agroforestry, sustainable agriculture, the protection of ecosystems
and protected areas, energy, etc. A glossary of the main terms used in this study can be found in
Appendix 4.
It should be mentioned that this study will address both “projects” and “programmes” relating to
environmental management. 1 These projects/programmes were chosen based on several criteria,
such as their location in the planned areas of intervention, their connection with techniques or models
1
A “project” is understood here as a series of activities with specific objectives, designed to produce specific results within
a given timeframe, and a “programme” as a series of related projects whose combined objectives contribute to the
fulfillment of a common global objective, at the sectoral, national or international level.
5
that are relevant to the Regeneration Initiative, sufficient hindsight to be able to draw lessons from
them, and the availability of information and of the project/programme (ex-)officers. A veritable
patchwork of projects/programmes was thus reviewed. The selected projects/programmes were chiefly
funded and implemented by national and international NGOs, international organizations, bilateral
donors and the Government of Haiti. With approaches that were in some cases sectoral and in others
cross-cutting, these projects/programmes are taking or took place in geographic areas of varying sizes,
from the scale of the communal section (municipalities) to the national, or even binational, scale. Their
scope in terms of funding levels and timelines were also relatively varied.
This study was conducted over 6 months, during which 4 missions, of 2 weeks each, were undertaken
in the field. One part of the team's work was to analyze the project/programme documentation and
evaluations, where these were available. More than 40 reports and other documents (listed in
Appendix 2 and available by request at the Haiti UNEP office2) were examined. Numerous discussions
with the project teams and target populations were held in Port-au-Prince and during visits to the field
(notably in Marmelade, Caracol, Terrier Rouge, Luly, Fonds-Verrettes, Gonaïves, Chauffard, Les
Cayes and Port-à-Piment). During semi-guided interviews, the project resource people and
beneficiaries were able to share their perceptions of the defining reasons and factors for the
successes and failures of these operations, with regard to organizational and institutional aspects, the
mechanisms for achieving project ownership, and the impacts and consequences of these initiatives.
Nearly 40 such interviews were conducted. Finally, in the final phase, consolidation work was
performed by the team, to compile all of the collected information and produce this document.
STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY:
Despite the significant differences in approaches taken by all of the interventions reviewed for this
study, several general trends stand out clearly regarding strategic orientation and the evolution of
projects/programmes targeting environmental rehabilitation in Haiti (Part 1). This study highlights the
lessons learned from these projects/programmes, identifying the weak points and the main obstacles
encountered, while also advancing best practices and analyzing the factors responsible for the
success of these initiatives (Part 2). We have opted for a general analysis, rather than an individual
review of each project/programme. Our analysis will examine the interventions based on 7 key points
of environmental project/programme management:
• Timeframes and funding levels;
• Geographic distribution and coverage;
• Community participation and local support;
• Capacity building and project ownership at the national level;
• Natural resource protection and economic interest;
• Knowledge management and information systematization;
• Awareness-raising and communication.
Recommendations and instructions for the strategic orientation of the Haiti Regeneration Initiative (or
any other interested party or any player that may participate in the design or implementation of
operations involving natural resource management in the country) are provided at the end of each
section.
STUDY CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS:
Several factors influenced the final result of this study: first, the lack of continuity in terms of the
organizations' personnel at times made it difficult to meet with the people in charge of managing
completed projects/programmes. In addition, the difficulty of gaining access to older
project/programme archives limited the possibility of analyzing them in detail and of including them in
this analysis. In some cases, it was also relatively difficult to obtain quality information on
projects/programmes deemed to be somewhat problematic. Furthermore, better-documented
projects/programmes are referred to more often than others in the study. Finally, several other studies
2
Subject to their non-confidentiality.
6
already exist on lessons learned in terms of the management of watersheds, soil conservation
techniques, reforestation techniques, etc. (in particular, the various baselines studies by the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID) cited in the bibliography). The purpose of this
study is not to repeat these technical considerations, which have already been systematized and
analyzed, but instead to offer a more global perspective of all of the considerations involved in
managing this type of environmental project/programme.
7
PART 1: GENERAL TRENDS IN THE PROJECTS/PROGRAMMES STUDIED
INTRODUCTION
After a long history of dispersal across the country, a recent trend in the geographic distribution of
environmental management projects/programmes can now be observed: donors and organizations are
now attempting to concentrate their efforts and investments in targeted vulnerable zones. This is due,
in particular, to the rapid expansion of integrated watershed management/development programmes.
However, most interventions are still related to short-term projects, which are unable to resolve
complex, deeply-rooted issues. In addition, the variable funding levels allotted to these
projects/programmes are, likewise, often insufficient for the challenges at hand.
1.1. Geographic distribution and coverage
A) Toward greater geographic coherence and improved coordination
Less than a decade ago, projects/programmes relating to the environment and to natural resource
management were frequently implemented in scattered zones that were isolated from one another, on
non-adjacent plots of land. However, the study of the reviewed projects/programmes does indeed
reflect a new trend in development practitioners operating in Haiti. Since several years ago, many of
these players have realized that interventions in overly dispersed and/or small-scale geographic areas
had been unable to achieve the desired impact.3 They have, therefore, decided to reduce the dispersal
of their resources and concentrate their investments in target zones.
As a result, the largest donors, like the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID), the Canadian International Development Agency
(CIDA) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), are now focusing their
environmental rehabilitation activities on larger, more vulnerable geographic areas. CIDA acts in the
middle and upper parts of the Artibonite Watershed, whereas UNDP focuses on its lower section. As
for the IDB, it intervenes across the whole of the Ennery-Quinte, Grande-Rivière-du-Nord, Léogane,
Ravine du Sud, Les Cayes and Cavaillon watersheds.4 USAID has opted to concentrate its efforts on
the Montrouis and Limbé Watersheds, under the DEED project (#39), and on the Cul-de-Sac and
Gonaïves Watersheds with the WINNER project (# 43). AECID focuses more on the South-East
Department, with its Araucaria (#6) et Pedernales (#8) projects/programmes.
This type of project/programme is tied to the objective of rehabilitating and developing watersheds in
their entirety (“ridge to reef” approach), with actions stretching from upstream to downstream. These
projects/programmes are associated with relatively large-scale investments (see below).
This distribution of resources and efforts is a strategic one: donors have prioritized their interventions
in watersheds declared as priorities based on the rankings established by MARNDR (Ministry of
Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development) and USAID.5
3
Along these lines, a USAID report (USAID, “Agriculture in a Fragile Environment: Market Incentives for Natural
Resource Management in Haiti,” Glenn R. Smucker, Gardy Fleurantin, Mike McGahuey & Ben Swartley, July 2005)
emphasizes the fact that the main obstacle to addressing all contiguous plots of land in a watershed was not so much the
uncertain nature of land ownership, but rather the fragmented nature of farmers' lands. This report recommends the
identification of solutions for bringing them together, to be able to create significant changes in entire watersheds, instead of
on isolated plots, as has been done in the past.
4
The IDB is currently giving greater attention to upper parts of the watersheds than before, when the emphasis was placed
on agricultural intensification on food crop plains. In this way, the IDB has decided to grant the majority of its land-use plan
funding to upper sections, so as to reduce vulnerability downstream. This was a decision to redirect the IDB's investments,
by devoting 2/3 to upstream and 1/3 to downstream (the opposite of its previous orientation).
5
According to the USAID report, Environmental Vulnerability in Haiti: Findings and Recommendations, 2007, MARNDR
produced a ranking of the priority watersheds, but this selection did not appear to reflect a standardized approach by the
Government of Haiti based on clearly-defined criteria. In the aforementioned report, USAID adopted a systematic approach
to comparing and ranking the relative vulnerability of watersheds in Haiti.
8
It was thus observed that, as concerns watershed management and development, the largest donors
have improved their coordination and the geographic distribution of their interventions throughout the
country. They have given greater attention to coordination and to reducing resource dispersal and
duplicated and overlapping actions. On this subject, it is important to mention the existence of
interinstitutional mechanisms, such as the newly created CIAT (Inter-Ministerial Committee for LandUse Planning), which aims to coordinate land management operations, and the Sectoral Group on
Watersheds, which includes the main donors and international cooperation agencies, like the IDB, WB,
USAID, EU, AECID, UNDP, UNEP, etc. The CIP (Interinstitutional Steering Committee) is comprised
of State and non-State institutions and is involved in combating land degradation.
As concerns the smallest organizations and smaller-budget projects, an evolution was also seen in
terms of this trend toward the geographic unification of interventions, even if these do not specifically
target the watershed rehabilitation or land-use planning. For example, the Marmelade (#2), NGO
Floresta (#18) and PADELAN (#5) project officers confirmed that they were trying to intervene on
adjacent plots and/or to expand their actions to the scale of micro-watersheds. The Lambi Fund, which
finances projects submitted at the initiative of community organizations throughout the country, now
concentrates the majority of its activities in three zones in particular (Artibonite, South and West
Departments). Within these zones, the evaluation reviewing over one hundred projects funded by
Lambi over the past ten years recommended the creation of “project concentration pockets,” to reduce
the geographic dispersal of projects, promote integrated projects with a regional approach and to
create a network of organizations to share economic and social services.
B) The difficulty with binational interventions
Of the 43 projects/programmes studied, only 6 included a cross-border aspect, despite the recognized
interdependence between the ecosystems of the two countries and their shared vulnerability when hit
by natural disasters. These 6 projects/programmes were:
-
the binational project for the rehabilitation of the Artibonite Watershed (PROBINA), funded by
CIDA (#3);
the projects funded by GTZ (#22 and 23);
the Artibonite project funded by UNDP and the Global Environment Fund (GEF) (#32);
the cross-border environmental programme (PET) (#36/37);
the UNDP and European Union (EU) early warning project (#38).
Amongst the above, although they are designated as “cross-border,” the UNDP and EU early warning
project (#38) and the GTZ disaster risk management project in the South-East Department (#23) did
not truly adopt a coordinated approach for both sides of the border, but rather simultaneously
implemented two separate projects. 6
All of the players that implemented cross-border projects/programmes stated they had greater
difficulties with their design and implementation, which is probably a deterrent for the various parties
against launching this type of ambitious initiative. It is true that cross-border projects/programmes
require much more time and effort for coordination and negotiation, and few are the players who elect
to undertake them. Consequently, the commitment of the two governments and of institutional
implementing agencies is all the more crucial to the development of cross-border projects. For
example, the negotiations between the two countries for the development of the Artibonite project
funded by UNDP and the GEF (#32) took no less than 4 years to complete.
6
The NGO Floresta also works on both sides of the border (Transborder Project) with farmers from the area close to FondsVerrettes, in activities involving reforestation, fruit tree grafting, and the construction of soil conservation structures, but
this project was not analyzed in detail during this study.
9
1.2. Timeframes and funding levels of the projects/programmes
A fairly common characteristic observed in environmental rehabilitation operations in Haiti is that these
tend to span relatively short periods and that the allocated funds are often insufficient for a lasting
solution to large-scale, deeply-rooted problems.
A) Characteristics of the projects/programmes studied
1. Duration
Of the projects/programmes analyzed, the vast majority could be described as medium-term
projects/programmes, i.e. with a cycle that does not exceed 5 years (24 out of 43
projects/programmes). 10 of the projects/programmes were short-term projects (under 2 years)7. It
should be emphasized that NGOs are not the only ones to fund short-term projects. For example, this
has also occurred with larger institutions like the World Bank, UNDP and GTZ.
Although some of the medium-short-term projects are renewed for a similar period once the initial
cycle has elapsed (e.g. the cross-border environmental programme (#36-37), the GTZ project (#22)
and the projects led by the NGO Floresta #18), in most cases, the actions come to an end after a few
years, once the targeted activities have been finalized.
However, it was also found that, compared with projects/programmes from past decades, the overall
trend today is toward longer projects/programmes. This is particularly true of projects/programmes
involving local development and watershed management and rehabilitation.
Thus, the study included 8 projects/programmes that could be qualified as medium-long-term projects
(over 5 years):
- the CIDA and FAO local development project for integrated natural resource management,
environmental protection and sustainable development in the municipality of Marmelade (#2);
- the CIDA and Oxfam Québec binational project for the rehabilitation of the Artibonite Watershed
(#3 - PROBINA);
- the support project for local development and agroforestry in Nippes, funded by CIDA and
implemented by Oxfam Québec (#5 - PADELAN);8
- the Inter-American Development Bank's Ennery-Quinte Agricultural Intensification Project (#15);
- the IDB's Natural Disaster Mitigation Program (#16);
- GTZ's Combating Poverty through Resource Conservation, Artibonito (border region project, #22)provided the two implementation phases are taken into account;
- the support for environmental management project (PAGE - #31), funded by UNDP- provided the
two implementation phases are taken into account;
- the cross-border environmental programme (PET - #36 & #37), funded by the European Unionprovided the two implementation phases are taken into account;
- the USAID-Care Substitution of Energy for Protection of the Environment (#40)- provided the two
implementation phases are taken into account.
7
8
See Diagram 1 for the distribution of the analyzed projects by duration.
This project is an extension of the Nippes agroforestry project.
10
Project distribution by duration
<2 years
>5 years
19%
N/A
2%
<2 years
23%
2<x≤5 years
>5 years
N/A
2<x≤5 years
56%
Diagram 1
2. Funding
The total of all funds allocated to the projects/programmes covered by this study amounts to US$
391'181'104.9Of these projects/programmes, the vast majority could be qualified as “small- or mediumscale” projects/programmes. 17 of the 39 projects/programmes received less than US$3 million, and 9
projects/programmes received funding between US$3 and 5 million10 . Just 3 projects/programmes
received funding between US$5 and 10 million, although 10 received more than US$10 million in
funds. 11 The largest donors (i.e. those that commonly allocate over US$10 million per
project/programme) included the IDB, USAID and the World Bank.
Watershed rehabilitation/management programmes were those which received the most funding
overall. These programmes frequently obtained over US$5 million, including for the cross-border
integrated management programme for the Artibonite Watershed (#32), funded by UNDP/GEF, the
PROBINA programme funded by CIDA in the Artibonite (#3), the Ennery-Quinte Agricultural
Intensification Project (#15) and the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program (in Grande Rivière du Nord,
Ravine du Sud, Les Cayes and Cavaillon - #16), funded by the Inter-American Development Bank,
and the DEED project (Economic Development for a Sustainable Environment - #42). It is worth noting
that WINNER (# 43), funded by USAID, secured unprecedented level of financing for such an initiative
(ie. 127 million US$).
Some local development projects (that include natural resource protection actions), such as the local
development project for integrated natural resource management, environmental protection and
sustainable development in Marmelade (#2) and the support project for local development and
agroforestry in Nippes (PADELAN - #5)12 also received relatively substantial funding.
9
This is purely an estimate, given that a portion of projects (# 8, 19, 27, 39 and 40), whose budgets were unknown, were not
included in the calculation and that monetary conversions had to be made: euro, Canadian dollar and Swiss franc
conversions were based on their nominal value against the US dollar as of the project start date. As for the Haitian gourde, it
was estimated at US$1 = HTG 40. For cross-border projects, the total budget allocated to all the countries was included. For
the Lambi Fund, one project was included in the calculation, representing an average inferred from the total annual budget
and number of projects. Finally, for IDB project #12, the initially scheduled US$5 million were counted, although it was
impossible to determine whether or not they were fully disbursed in the end.
10
Although ORE’s projects have not been included in the global sum, according to the NGO annual budget and average
duration of projects, we inferred that average cost of each project was below US$ 3 million.
11
See Diagram 2 for the distribution of the projects by cost.
12
When including the funds previously received in the first phase, for the agroforestry project in Nippes.
11
Project distribution by costs
9%
<3 Million USD
40%
m
23%
3<x<5 Million USD
5<x<10 Million USD
>10 Million USD
7%
21%
N/A
Diagram 2
B) Total aid allocated to environmental projects/programmes in Haiti
To put funding figures into perspective, the amounts expended for the various projects/programmes
studied (US $ 391'181'104 ) could be situated in relation to total aid allocated to the environment in
Haiti. However, although it is known that the official development assistance (ODA) granted to Haiti
has been continuously on the rise since 2004 (2004-2005=+93%, 2005-2006=+16%)13 and that, in
2007, official development assistance in Haiti reached US$701 million (or 11.4% of the gross national
product)14, of which US$313 million were paid over to the public sector15, it is impossible to calculate
the share of this sum allocated to environmental projects/programmes. This is due in part to the crosscutting nature of the environment and to the ambiguity of its definition16. The environment can be
targeted by a project/programme, either as its explicit objective, or in a more cross-cutting manner, i.e.
via interventions addressing agriculture, local development, land-use planning, disaster mitigation, etc.
Additionally, despite recent efforts to rationalize aid and to pursue the objectives of the Paris
Declaration, many of the external funds allocated to aid do not transit through, or are not known to, the
Government, which makes total accounting difficult to establish. The Haitian Ministry of the
Environment was allocated 0.71% of the national budget for 2010, which is obviously very little, but
does not reflect the entire budget devoted to the environment and natural resources, given that the
Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development, the Ministry of Planning and
International Cooperation, and the Ministry of Public Works have also received funds that will be
allotted to these subject areas.
C) Variability of aid and frequent interruptions in funding
Generally speaking, it can be said that international aid for Haiti, whether allocated to the environment
or other issues, is extremely unstable. According to the World Bank 17 , the massive influx of
international aid under President Aristide in 1990-1991 was followed by an embargo under the military
regime (1992-1994). During this period, total official development assistance dropped from an annual
average of US$174 million in 1991 to US$112 million in 1992-1993. Between 1995 and 2000, there
13
“2008 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration: Making Aid more Effective by 2010,” OECD, 2008.
OECD, http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=ODA_RECIPIENT, data extracted on 06-Jan-2010 from
OECD.Stat.
15
“2008 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration: Making Aid more Effective by 2010,” OECD, 2008.
16
According to the World Bank, the environment is the sum of all external conditions affecting the life, development, and
survival of an organism.
17
Haiti Interim Strategy Note for the Republic of Haiti. For the period FY07-FY08. Dec 14 2006.
14
12
was a revival of ODA, reaching an average of US$383 million. Then, after the disputed elections in
2000, aid declined again (to US$195 million or 6% of GDP during 2000-2004).
These fluctuations in funding had repercussions on project/programme financing trends:
project/programme funding was suspended fairly frequently and the non-renewal of short-term
projects/programmes was a common occurrence. Thus, of the projects/programmes studied, some,
the likes of the World Bank's Forest and Parks Protection Technical Assistance Project (ATPPF - #10)
and the entire environmental component of the Hillside Agriculture Program (HAP - #41) were broken
off mid-implementation. The local development project for integrated natural resource management,
environmental protection and sustainable development in Marmelade (#2), now often cited as an
example of a successful project, came close to joining the long list of abandoned projects/programmes.
Following the termination of funding from Holland, the FAO had difficulty locating additional funding,
prior to investment by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). Other
projects/programmes like the LICUS Disaster Risk Management Pilot (#9) and Substitution of Energy
for Protection of the Environment (SEPE - #40), implemented by Care Haiti and funded by USAID,
although carried through to the end of their terms, were not renewed, whereas the many studies
commissioned would have justified a next phase.
The lack of continuity and follow-through in project/programme funding can be explained by several
factors:
- Frequent changes in donor strategies: donors can be inconsistent, often redefining their
strategic orientations, which can lead them to suddenly cut off their funding. The actors that suffer
most from the volatility of these funds and from their dependence on inconstant donors are the
smaller organizations like Care Haiti, German Agro Action (GAA), FoProBiM and ORE
(Organization for the Rehabilitation of the Environment). These organizations have relatively low
financial capacities and are therefore obliged to develop their budgets and plan their activities for
short periods (1-3 years). The smallest organizations remain dependent on an annual budgeting
cycle, although they are aware that the targeted results can only be attained in the medium term
(6-7 years).
- The chronic instability in Haiti: in periods of crisis, many donors withdraw from the country. For
example, during the military regime in 1992-1994 and the political unrest of 2004, certain donors
stopped all of their interventions and suspended the programmes then underway.
- The failure of projects/programmes: other projects/programmes are simply suspended or not
renewed because, in mid-term or final evaluations, it is judged that they have not met their
objectives. There may be a number of reasons for such failures: projects/programmes with
unrealistic objectives given the short period scheduled for the intervention and the scope of the
problem to be resolved; projects that are not adapted to local needs; lack of ownership, etc.
- Political changes: it was found that Haitian electoral cycles disrupt the continuity of
project/programme funding. Indeed, political changes often lead to the new government making a
clean sweep of the projects/programmes supported by the previous government. For example, the
cross-border environmental programme (#36/37) suffered from, amongst other things, a lack of
continuity of vision between the old and new governments. Thus, some of the project's activities
had to be completely abandoned during the second phase.
1.3 Project/programme subjects and components
A) Evolution of approaches to natural resource management in Haiti
A USAID report18 lists, in Part II (“Interventions in Watersheds”), the different models applied over time
in Haiti, in terms of natural resource management. The new projects/programmes now in progress in
Haiti have learned from several of these models, so that a convergence in project/programme design
now appears to be emerging.
18
USAID, Environmental Vulnerability in Haiti: Findings and Recommendations, Glenn R. Smucker et al., Apr. 2007.
13
In the 1950s-1970s, “landscape engineering” (or “équipements du territoire”) projects/programmes
predominated, which followed a purely engineering approach of top-down management. Soil
conservation was considered a strictly top-down problem that could be resolved by engineers creating
mechanical structures, mainly rock walls and contour canals, with no concern for land tenure or for the
interests of the property owners and land users. Most of these projects/programmes proved to be
unsustainable and ended in failure.
Next, in the 1980s, many donors supported resource conservation and agricultural extension
projects/programmes, often using NGOs and farmers' organizations for their implementation. During
this period, the emergence of reforestation, agroforestry and plant conservation structure programmes
was witnessed, along with a broad range of interventions that went further than mechanical structures
of intervention. These programmes privileged the plot-based approach to soil conservation, rather than
the rehabilitation of the entire watershed. However, although the plot-based model was useful, it was
not designed to resolve fundamental issues in terms of the protection of watersheds from the
significant effects of flooding, sedimentation problems, and water supply to the downstream section of
the watershed.
Finally, in the late 1990s, the market opportunity approach became widespread, i.e. development
players sought to increase community income and to create economic alternatives, based on farmers'
groups and cooperatives. This approach is founded on the hypothesis that market stimulation has
positive effects on natural resource management. The majority of these attempts at revenue
generation focused on agricultural distribution and applied techniques like fruit tree grafting, the
distribution of seeds, etc.
B) Toward multi-sector and integrated strategies
The different projects/programmes reviewed for this study fall into several domains: agricultural
development/agroforestry/forestry,
watershed
management/development/rehabilitation,
local
development, disaster risk management, biodiversity/protected areas, waste management,
governance, energy, marine and coastal resource management, cross-border cooperation, and water
and sanitation.
The diagram below shows the distribution of these projects/programmes within the different domains
of intervention (NB: most of the projects/programmes are active on several fronts and so fall into
multiple categories of activities).
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Agricultural development/agroforestery/forestry
Watershed Management/ Rehabilitation
Local Development
Disaster Risk reduction/management
Biodiversity/Protected areas
Waste management
Governance
Energy
Coastal and marine resource management
Transboundary cooperation
Water and sanitation
Food Security
Diagram 3: Distribution of projects/programmes by domain of intervention
14
Contrary to prior decades, purely sectoral natural resource conservation projects/programmes, i.e.
those that only tackle a single sector (e.g. reforestation, water and sanitation, soil conservation and
combating erosion, microcredits, etc.) are now less common. In fact, most of the interventions
analyzed for this study were multi-sectoral and applied integrated strategies, meaning that they
conducted simultaneous actions on many different fronts, in an attempt to cover the entire set of
issues in a particular zone. Local development and watershed development projects/programmes act
at the same time on developing agricultural production and distribution, energy, disaster risk mitigation,
local governance, water management, capacity development, and more. The aim is to provide an
overall improvement to the natural, economic and social environment of a particular zone.
While it is clear that the larger donors now adopt a programme approach, rather than undertaking
individual projects, the smaller organizations – although often limited to the project approach – also act
almost systematically on multiple fronts. It is, therefore, virtually impossible today to find, for example,
a purely reforestation-based project/programme that is not combined with revenue-generating
possibilities, organizational reinforcement, etc.
C) Protection of the marine and coastal environment: the forgotten domain
Although integrated programmes targeting the development of watersheds in their entirety are
becoming more and more common, and the large donors promote ridge to reef actions, the marine
and coastal environment still remains completely neglected. In reality, programmes continue to
concentrate mainly on land-based activities, like the creation of structures to conserve the soil and
combat erosion, the development of sustainable agriculture, agroforestry, etc. Few directly target the
sea and the coastlines. As a result, just 5 of the projects/programmes studied directly target(ed) the
protection of marine and coastal communities and environments. These included:
- The Spanish cooperation agency (AECID) project to strengthen marine fishing in the SouthEast Department of Haiti (#7);
- The project for fishing and the protection of the Arcadins through the construction of artificial
reefs, by the NGO FoProBiM (#20);
- FoProBiM's environmental rehabilitation programme for the coastal community of the Arcadins
(#21);
- The IDB's coastal management project, which aimed to develop the fundamentals for a
national programme covering the country's coastal zones, but which had very little impact in
the end (#12);
- The DEED project (#42), which aims to support sustainable economic development in the
Montrouis and Limbé Watersheds, with the protection of marine and coastal zones as an
integral part of its strategy.
It should be noted that, with the exception of the DEED project (#39), all of these projects/programmes
relating to the marine and coastal environment are sectoral. For example, they pertain to the
development of fishing, the protection of mangroves, the construction of a reef, etc. They are also
often defined by one-off activities, rather than being associated with the development of an integrated
economic and environmental strategy.
Mangrove replanting activities
organized by Foprobim in Luly
15
PART 2: ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The analysis of the projects/programmes presented, based on various interviews with the players
involved in these projects, has allowed us to identify key lessons learned and general lines of
recommendations for the Haiti Regeneration Initiative and for future projects/programmes in the
country. These include: the need for long-term commitments; the importance of community
participation and local support; the need for capacity development, local/national ownership and
organizational clarity of interventions; the importance of the connection between natural resource
protection and the generation of economic interest; the development of knowledge management and
the systematization of information; and on emphasis on awareness-raising and communication
aspects in the design and implementation of initiatives.
2.1 The need for long-term commitments
Whereas the analyzed interventions aimed to resolve complex, deeply-rooted problems, they were
most often related to short-term project cycles, i.e. 3 to 5 years or even less. And yet, experience tells
us that, to ensure project sustainability, real ownership by the communities, and long-term
intervention and monitoring are indispensable.
A) Project cycles need to be extended
Although short interventions can have immediate positive impacts for their beneficiaries, the profound
changes that are their intention can only develop through a commitment over a longer period of time.
1) Gradual capacity building
Capacity building is a process that requires time. Community training programmes (e.g. new
agricultural/grafting techniques, financial management, disaster preparedness, local governance, etc.)
cannot be given in a merely isolated manner. For community training to achieve the desired impact, it
must be spread out over time and gradually target new or larger groups, as confidence in the
project/programme is established. The participating communities will require ongoing support for true
assimilation of the new techniques and concepts.
The Solid Waste Management Project in Carrefour Feuilles (#30), scheduled for 3 years (2006-2009),
is an example that clearly illustrates the needs for longer-term scheduling of capacity development.
The goal of this project was to contribute to the reduction of armed violence, social pacification and
poverty reduction via the institution of a sustainable management strategy for solid waste matter in
the neighborhood, combined with the creation of revenue-generating activities. Thanks to this project,
385 people are now employed. And yet, this pilot project, which will soon reach its end date, will not
be sustainable without the continued financial support of the main donor (UNDP) past its scheduled
end. The reality is that the capacities of the waste center's management committee have not yet been
consolidated, and the team will required additional support for several years in order to be able to
manage the center autonomously.
Solid Waste Recycling for briquettes production
in Carrefour Feuilles
2) Project ownership and changing mentalities
Ownership of new technologies and new approaches, and their adaptation to the local context, can
only occur with time. For example, the creation of a local participatory planning process is an
approach that requires a lengthy process of confidence-building and shifting mentalities, for which the
usual duration observed in project cycles is particularly unsuited.
Personnel from the Marmelade project (#2) also commented on the benefits of having spread the
activities out over a 10-year period. Although the population at first complained of the slowness of the
process, it was later recognized that the training in local governance and the time spent organizing
the various Local Development Committees had been extremely fruitful19. Today, the representatives
of these Committees demonstrate maturity and a high level of proficiency in the local development
approach and in the role of their members in ensuring that their Local Development Plan, created
after 4 years of consultation and planning, is put into practice.20
The PADELAN project officers (#5), who intervened in 3 locations, also noted that the community with
the greatest project ownership was the one in which activities began first, 10 years ago (PetiteRivière-de-Nippes, 1997).
3) Advance analysis and discussions
Other grounds for the extension of project cycles in Haiti include the substantial analytical work that
must be performed during the project/programme design phase, to ensure that the planned approach
is an appropriate one. Given the numerous environmental projects already performed in Haiti, this
work first involves the compilation of existing information on the target region, planned techniques, etc.
In most cases, this phase of research into pre-existing data is neglected, and projects/programmes
fail to capitalize on past experiences. In addition, advance studies (baseline, feasibility,
socioeconomic, land ownership, lessons learned etc.) are necessary prior to the beginning of
implementation of the activities. Finally, this work also involves interviewing community
representatives (local authorities, notables, heads of groups and associations, religious leaders, etc.),
19
FAO, “Rapport d’évaluation du Projet Marmelade - développement local et aménagement des terres pour un programme
national de sécurité alimentaire et de gestion des ressources naturelles,” 2005, 16 p.
20
CIDA, “Evaluation de mi-parcours du Programme de Développement Local en Haïti (PDHL),” interim version, G.
Delorme, F. Marier & E. Henrice, June 2009, 125 p.
17
setting the participatory process in motion, providing information, negotiating, etc. All of these prior
discussions and analyses also require time and need to be scheduled as part of a longer project cycle.
4) Unavoidable logistical delays: systematic obstacles to finalizing projects with short
timelines
It is common for projects to be confronted with unexpected logistical obstacles that slow their
implementation and can endanger the project, if it is too short in term.
For example, in its 3 years, the Carrefour Feuilles project (#30) was unable to build the composting
center in time, due to the lead time necessary for the tender process. The 250,000 briquettes
manufactured at the sorting center remained in inventory for months, without being able to be sold,
because of the time required to legalize the status of the semi-State company. In the final report on
the UNDP and EU early warning project (“Doppler Radar based Early Warning System for Weather
Related Natural Hazards” - #38), the short duration of the project (15 months) is mentioned over and
again as a serious obstacle that indisputably undermined the sustainability of the project. This project
relied on, amongst other points, the use of information from a Dominican radar that was to be repaired
during the project cycle. However, at the end of the project, it had yet to be fixed.
Thus, the Haitian context requires flexibility in terms of implementation, which is only possible where
there is also a degree of flexibility of timelines.
B) A chronic lack of follow-up
In most cases, no monitoring mechanism is created to ensure project continuity after completion. For
long-term development projects, the beneficiaries, with their enhanced capacities, should be able to
handle management of the project after the end of the cycle of activities. However, interventions most
often follow an emergency-based approach and are only deployed for a maximum of several years.
Under these conditions, as the populations will not have had time to fully take ownership of the project,
the lack of follow-up after the end of activities quite simply condemns the project to failure.
In certain locations where projects were closed several years earlier, no trace remains of the
implemented activities. The planted trees have disappeared, due to grazing by animals, burning or
felling, and the plots of land have been returned to cultivation by their owners and/or operators, in
search of short-term profits. Installations and equipment, like the solar panels installed in Caracol by
the UNDP project “Elimination of barriers and creations of favorable conditions for developing
renewable energies” (#29), the manual river and rainfall gauging systems attached to satellite
transmission facilities installed by the “Doppler Radar based Early Warning System for Weather
Related Natural Hazards project” (#38), or fishing boats distributed to the communities by various
projects, have been dismantled, vandalized, stolen, or used for other purposes by the population.
As mentioned by the IDB 21 , due to the lack of monitoring and maintenance, among others, the
effectiveness of the soil conservation actions undertaken for decades in Haiti is highly relative. In the
field, many contour canals are found to have been filled and not re-dug, and therefore cannot perform
their function of infiltration. In some cases, in these same canals, concentrated runoff has created a
breach causing a new gully, or the absence of plant stabilization via long-term cultivation and/or forest
or fruit trees has prevented backfill from setting and creating the expected deposits (formation of
terraces). Watershed development actions require frequent maintenance (like clearing), repairs and
additional plantations. The fact that, after closure of a project, these facilities are not maintained, limits
their long-term effectiveness and can even cause worse consequences than if they had never been
installed.
The organization ORE, which works in particular to promote and develop fruit trees in Haiti’s rural
zones, laments the fact that the funding obtained covered too short a period to provide for monitoring
of the planted species over the medium term. Some of the IOM’s projects, like the project to
21
IDB, “Rapport de Préparation du Programme national de gestion des bassins versants (HA-0033),” Sept. 2006, 87 p.
18
rehabilitate the gardens and watersheds destroyed by Hurricane Hanna in Port-à-Piment (#25), only
spanned a few months, and there was no evaluation or monitoring after completion of the operation.
In such cases, it is extremely difficult to assess the survival rate of the planted/grafted species, to
understand the factors leading to success or failure, and to adapt the approach accordingly.
The lack of follow-up is also very pronounced in those rare projects addressing the management of
marine and coastal zones and the rehabilitation of the associated ecosystems. The coastal
management project funded by the IDB (#12)aimed to establish a database of information on the
coastal and marine environment, but this never came to fruition. There is, therefore, no database and
no indicator enabling the monitoring of the evolution of this environment and the impact of past
projects. As a result, the state of the different Fish Conservation Systems (DCPs) installed in the past
by various NGOs (e.g. Fondation Verte), of the artificial coral barrier reefs (FoProBiM project, #20)
and of the replanted mangroves is unknown today.
Some projects, like Marmelade (#2) are now putting flexible monitoring mechanisms in place: the
FAO is currently preparing a strategy for gradual withdrawal from the town, with plans to continue
interventions for several years, on a one-off basis at the request of the communities.
Recommendations:
9 Plan for project durations of at least 5 years;
9 Budget for one-off follow-up activities after project closure (technical support,
additional training, facilities maintenance, impact studies, post-project evaluations
for comparison with the baseline studies conducted pre-intervention, etc.);
9 Set up – in advance – a flexible institutional mechanism for monitoring and technical
assistance at the population's request
9 Plan out a strategy for gradual withdrawal;
9 Define in advance concrete terms of engagement with the Government, especially the
decentralized authorities, and with the populations to provide for monitoring;
9 Create/reinforce a management committee integrating key community members with
an operating budget enabling follow-up of activities after the closure of the project;
9 Train the trainers: technical support, additional training, monitoring/impact studies,
facilities maintenance, etc.
2.2 Community participation and local support: the paths to follow
A) Community participation: a key point in project ownership and in ensuring suitability to local
needs
All of the institutions encountered during this study underscored the key role played by participation in
the success and ownership of the project, particularly for the environmental rehabilitation/protection,
disaster risk management and land-use planning. Although there is no single approach to the subject,
it should be emphasized that the term “participation” is often misused.
Participation goes much further than simply consulting with the populations. External organizations
often use participatory approaches in presenting a project to the populations and to mobilize them
once the problem is thought to be fully understood and the action strategy has already been defined.
Many of the people interviewed for this study confirmed that the population, when simply consulted for
19
a project and not truly involved in its definition, implementation and monitoring, would systematically
give their approval and support the project, even where it was not appropriate to the actual context.
Indeed, for want of alternatives or fear that their community would never again benefit from future
projects, communities almost systematically accept any offer of intervention.
Project teams should, therefore, work to avoid this type of situation, honestly mentioned in the final
report on the UNDP-BCPR and European Union Doppler Radar based Early Warning System for
Weather Related Natural Hazards in the Insular Caribbean Project (#38): “None of the direct
beneficiaries were involved in pre-project design of this action, but were represented by UNDP
country office disaster programme specialists. Beneficiary (and partner agency) involvement started
after commencement of the project, when some adjustments were made with intervention from
community representatives. Community members were in all cases, eventually very satisfied with
project action.”22
Thus, all players involved must ensure that a true participatory process exists to allow the project to
be perfectly adapted to local needs and sensibilities and for ownership by the populations. To achieve
this, the communities must participate in defining their problems, identifying possible solutions,
choosing the method of implementation and the organization model, etc. All of the phases in the
project cycle will therefore need to adopt the participatory approach: awareness-raising, identification,
formulation, self-assessment, implementation and monitoring/evaluation.
Participation goes hand in hand with making each of the project participants accountable for their
functions: the roles and responsibilities of each must be clearly defined, and the material and financial
contributions agreed upon in advance.
The NGO Floresta (#18) mentioned the positive effects of this approach: as the farmers had
communicated their need for a tank, they not only participated in its construction, but also undertook
to repay the construction, notably by producing seedlings. All of the farmers honored their
commitments.
Under the WINNER initiative (#43), the organizations benefiting from sanitation and irrigation activities
will enjoy three years of technical support, enabling them to develop their capacity for selfmanagement. The irrigators’ associations will then be in charge of collecting the necessary fees and
performing maintenance themselves on the irrigation canals.
Helvetas, in its high-altitude biodiversity preservation and development programme (PVB - #17),
supported the set-up of market gardening crops for approximately 600 farmers under certain
mandatory terms and conditions. The support provided by Helvetas took the form of advanced
training, input subsidies (seeds) and the possibility of receiving a bonus for those who collected at
least one-half of the quantity of fertilizer required for the land they intended to cultivate. These farmers
then had the responsibility of sharing the technique with other growers in their region, which had a
major impact on increasing regional market gardening production, in a very short period of time. One
of the other conditions was participation in reforestation activities in clearings inside the forest, using
local forest species. These activities were also accompanied by numerous awareness-raising actions
with the local population, for forest conservation in general, and against the practice of lightwood,
underbrush fires and tethered grazing within these same plantations.
To facilitate and lead the participation process, appropriate technical support is necessary.
Information must be provided to the communities, to help them to understand the challenges, define a
strategy and resolve their problems. Many of the people consulted, like the FAES (Economic and
Social Assistance Fund) and GTZ (#23) cited the importance of entrusting this role to Haitians trained
on leading community participation processes, who understand the issues, relations of power, local
sensibilities, etc.
22
UNDP, European Community Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), Terminal Report, Doppler Radar based Early Warning
System for Weather Related Natural Hazards in the Insular Caribbean (Support to DIPECHO Radar Project), Dec. 2004.
20
Recommendations:
9 Involve the communities in all phases of the project cycle: awareness-raising,
identification,
formulation,
self-assessment,
implementation
and
monitoring/evaluation;
9 Agree in advance on a concrete definition of the roles and responsibilities of each
project participant;
9 Recruit Haitians trained in rural leadership, who are familiar with local
sensibilities, to lead the participatory process.
B) Developing lasting participatory structures
Rather than initiating participatory processes for each specific environmental protection (or other)
project, a worthwhile approach could be the one adopted by local development projects, such as
PADELAN (#5), the Marmelade project (#2), the UNCDF project in the North-East Department (#4)
and DEED (#42), which supported the creation of a permanent structure for participation and dialogue,
design to continue after project closure. These structures facilitate the inclusion of the different natural
resource conservation interventions, in a coherent, integrated strategy, and at the same time
strengthen local governance.
These participatory bodies, the names of which can vary depending on the project (Local
Development Councils or Committees, Community Dialogue and Planning Committees, Watershed
Management Committees, etc.), aim to incorporate all actors representing the community (local
authorities, private sector, civil society, cooperatives, farmers/workers, women, schools, traders,
fisherfolk, members of the opposition, etc.).
Local institutions and local elected officials (CASECs - local government councils)23, ASECs (local
assemblies), municipalities, etc.), play a lead role, because they are the ones to coordinate these
participatory structures, upon which democratic legitimacy is thereby conferred.
This approach has many advantages. First, these structures can help with capacity development for
all of the local players, in terms of the exercise of local democratic governance, planning, and local
management of development projects (financial management, monitoring, etc.). For example,
involving such structures in environmental programme monitoring provides the entire community with
first-hand information on an intervention's impact on the environment and, moreover, represents an
economically attractive option for monitoring that is more efficient than creating a system of controls.
Once built up, these permanent structures can handle the transfer and management of local
development and of their environment, after the withdrawal of the supporting organizations. Project
officers who supported the development of these structures, like those working on PADELAN (#5) and
Marmelade (#2), believe that it will require approximately 10 years for these structures to be
sufficiently solid to function on their own. Thus, although the Marmelade project (#2) will soon be
coming to conclusion, and the local political cycles will have brought new elected officials to power,
the Development Committee, supported by the decentralized civil servants of the Central State (with
enhanced capacities), will continue to operate.
Furthermore, this approach, thanks to regular dialogue and the pursuit of a consensus between all of
the players representing the community, encourages social cohesion, decreased political polarization,
23
The local government council (Conseil d’Administration de la Section Communales, CASEC) is the management body
for the communal section, which is the smallest territorial administrative unit in the country, according to the Constitution
of March 29, 1987. The local assembly (Assemblée de la Section Communale, ASEC) holds a legislative function at the
communal section level.
21
the incorporation of women and the weaker members of society into the development process as well
as partnership building (particularly public-private).
Finally, these bodies represent a platform for the community to implement consensus-based master
plans for watershed development and to build a local development plan that incorporates each project
into a coherent strategy (cf. below).
Recommendations:
9 Create/strengthen permanent participatory bodies at the local level, tasked with
planning, organizing, implementing and monitoring a development strategy that
incorporates natural resource protection actions;
9 Emphasize capacity building for local players, particularly the local authorities, so as
to ensure the continuation of interventions.
C) Incorporating the environment into participatory Local Development Plans
Local development plans have proven to be useful tools in allowing natural resource protection
projects to become an entrenched part of planned, consensus-based strategies for the development
of a village or town. Players like the FAES, Oxfam Québec/CIDA and FAO/CIDA have made the
creation of these plans an integral part of their intervention strategies.
These development plans are established in a participatory manner by representatives of those
sectors that are representative of the community, often within the framework of the permanent
participatory bodies mentioned above. These plans are inter-sectoral, medium-term (approximately 5
years) plans developed in several phases. First, the local communities perform a diagnostic review of
their resources, potential, structural and economic problems, and the threats and challenges requiring
a response. Based on this review, they define their priorities and plan a consensus-based strategy for
action and for resource orientation. Finally, the implementation of activities can commence. It should
be noted that all of the players who facilitated participatory planning (CIDA, Oxfam Québec, FAO,
FAES, etc.) highlighted the slow nature of the process; at least 12 months should be scheduled for
participatory planning. As a result, this absence of immediate benefits can, at first, cause a certain
amount of discouragement or distrust by expectant populations, or even endanger the project as a
whole.
In locations where these local development plans have been supported, they have proven their
capacity for sustainability over time and a high potential of ownership by the population; for example,
in the North-East Department (UNCDF #4) and Nippes (PADELAN #5), the plans outlasted the
courses of the various electoral cycles, and the communities continued to implement them.
Furthermore, local development plans encourage the development of synergies and partnerships.
They provide a frame of reference for the various partnerships active in the zone, allowing them to
integrate and coordinate their interventions, especially in the environmental domain, as part of a longterm strategy. These plans also represent tools for the communities, for resource mobilization and for
diversification of funding sources, such as from other international donors, decentralized cooperations,
the diaspora, private investors, the State, etc. Some examples include the participation of the FAES in
funding certain components of plans conducted in the North-East, thanks to the support of the
UNCDF project (#4). In the case of Marmelade, investments from the Japanese Cooperation and the
EU were oriented toward harnessing springs and rehabilitating the local power plant – projects that
had been identified and listed in the community's development plan.
Projects involving resource management would, therefore, benefit from being incorporated into
existing plans and from promoting their implementation. First, this would guarantee that these projects
would truly come from the community and would increase the level of ownership. Second, this would
22
prevent these interventions from becoming sectoral, which would hinder their effectiveness and limit
their impact. The environment must not be perceived as a domain that is isolated from the others
(agriculture, water and sanitation, education, etc.), and these plans can serve as tools for the
inclusion of any action related to natural resource management as part of a global strategy.
Recommendations:
9 Promote participatory processes for local planning, so as to foster ownership and the
sustainability of interventions, encourage the development of synergies and
partnerships, and include all natural resource protection actions in an integrated
development strategy.
D) Participation and land-use planning
1) Participatory diagnostic reviews of watersheds
As previously noted, many watershed and micro-watershed development plans are currently being
prepared. This type of development plan is not incompatible and can certainly be reconciled with
implementation of the local development plans cited above.
As with the local development plans, implementation of a land development plan is a long-term
process that occurs in multiple stages. First, a participatory analysis of the selected micro-watershed
must take place. A multitude of variables, like erosion, land use, the river system, socioeconomic data,
and more, must then be reviewed with the population.
The involvement of the local population is of the utmost importance, as of this initial phase, because
their participation can simplify the understanding of land tenure, water resources and their
management, demographic data, etc. Not surprisingly, a number of watershed development plans
implemented without the participation of the population have ended in failure. For example, in its first
implementation phase, the cross-border environmental programme (PET - #36) had supported the
fulfillment of a watershed development plan in its area of intervention. However, during the process of
creating this plan, the populations and local authorities were only very superficially involved in the
thought process on the development of the region. The outline presented to them did not really leave
room for debate. In the end, this plan never received the population's approval.
Thanks to a complete analysis of the selected watershed – an analysis in which the local authorities
have participated – these latter can collectively define criteria for the assignment of the different zones
and for the designation of priority zones for resource conservation or for production. From this starting
point, the communities determine how best to reorient their land use in vulnerable zones and how to
increase their opportunities for revenue creation, while at the same time preserving the land and their
natural resources24.
2) The importance of clarifying land ownership
During the participatory diagnosis stage, it is also crucial to conduct a diagnostic review of land
ownership in the area. Indeed, insofar as the illegal use of State land by farmers with no other
alternatives is a widespread practice, which curbs long-term investments in environmental protection,
and given the complexity of leasing/land ownership systems, property ownership data and
demographic trends in the target zone must be analyzed prior to the implementation of any
intervention.
Any failure to settle land ownership issues in advance may lead to freezing of the project. For
example, in the second phase of PET (#37), after the project had rehabilitated a spring (Source Zabet)
24
For a participatory approach to land-use planning, see the example of the Helvetas experience, below.
23
at a recreational site serving the surrounding communities, the land was claimed by a private party,
which created disputes and delayed finalization of the activity over a period of several months. IOM
encountered the same obstacle for the implementation of a reforestation project aiming to conserve
soil and control erosion of la Ravine River (#25).
Likewise, when the time came to construct the sorting center for the Carrefour Feuilles project (#30), it
was impossible to find land that belonged to the public domain. This led to substantial delays in
project execution. A solution was found via a partnership with the private sector, with Sogebank
purchasing the land and the project funding construction of the building.
The diagnostic review of land tenure needs to be performed by Haitians who are familiar with local
land ownership customs. By organizing participatory exercises within the communities, it is possible to
identify the land owners and/or users in the target zone and, thus, to ensure the security of the
project/programme in terms of property ownership. For example, in its project Reconstruction and
Disaster Risk Management in the Border Region Haiti/Dominican Republic (#23), GTZ, with the
assistance of the population, used an informal method (ie. the observation of fruit trees location) to
gain an understanding of the property divisions in the project's area of intervention.
3) Creation of land-use planning maps
The DEED project (#42) and the Marmelade project (#2) established an interesting methodology for
the participatory creation of watershed development maps. This analytical mapping process included
several stages. First, the communities drew a map of their land by hand, including its geographic
features (forests, rivers, mountains, cultivated areas, etc.) and landmarks (schools, hospitals, etc.),
and potential zones of conflict. This approach precludes illiteracy from hindering the participation of all
strata of the population.
Next, using GPS (Global Positioning System) and GIS (Geographic Information System) technologies,
the project managers produced a map of the area, indicating all of the points mentioned by the
community. The communities could then compare these maps with the one they had drawn, thus
learning more about their land.
The “Comité de Développement Bassin”
displays their community map of Bassin, one of
DEED’s target communities in Haiti’s Limbé
watershed
4) An example of a participatory approach to land-use planning: zoning in protected areas
Foundation Seguin and Helvetas Haiti tested a pilot approach to simplified zoning for the participatory
development of La Visite National Park and the Pine Forest National Reserve.25
25
See “Haïti : programme de Préservation et de Valorisation de la Biodiversité en Haute altitude (PVB),” Capitalization
Document, DDC, Helvetas, Foundation Seguin.
24
This approach follows the tradition of previous projects related to managing protected areas, such as
the Forest and Parks Protection Technical Assistance Project (ATPPF), funded by the World Bank
from 1996 to 2001 (#10). One of the factors preventing these projects from achieving their full
potential was the fact that they encountered difficulties in space management and land-use planning,
especially in the delimitation of buffer zones.
Thus, Foundation Seguin and Helvetas have, since 2008, been working to define and validate a new
approach to participatory resource management in protected areas, in the form of zoning. This
process was set up in several phases: first, a diagnostic phase that aimed to gather specific
information on the target regions, in the form of orthophotographs, forest inventories and
socioeconomic surveys of the populations. This process enabled, firstly, an initial delimitation of the
different zones on the basis of technical criteria, and secondly, the identification of the potential for
alternative agroeconomic activities, on the basis of the field inventories and surveys. In the second
participatory phase, the zoning proposal, along with the technical criteria applied and the proposed
economic alternatives for each zone, were presented to the populations and then adapted and
validated by the local players, civil society, the local authorities and institutional players.
This meant agreement by the population on the division of protected areas into different zones with
different objectives in terms of the use/protection of natural resources and land-use planning in
connection with regulation, as well as on methods for encouraging changes in behavior, for example,
in the form of a contract.
In this way, the participatory delimitation process provided the opportunity to build a long-term
relationship of trust with the communities and the local authorities in the area, holding them
accountable and supporting them in their roles as central players in the process. This also ensured
that the delimitation was acceptable and that all participants would be working together on its
implementation. The participatory establishment of this zoning was designed to encourage the
populations to respect the new zones, via social control processes, which would also reduce the costs
associated with its application and the need to create a system for monitoring compliance with the
rules associated with each zone.
However, for this interesting approach to have a significant impact, close collaboration must be
established with the central public authorities (Ministries such as MOE and MARNDR, in particular).
The reality is that no such approach to protected areas in the public domain can be viable without
State validation and without a decision to manage these resources in a participatory manner with the
players in question and the local authorities.
Recommendations:
9 Incorporate environmental protection actions into a participatory land-use planning
process;
9 Perform a participatory diagnostic review of land ownership in the target area, prior to
implementation of any intervention;
9 Consult past interventions and environmental changes that have occurred in the
target zone.
E) The benefits of a local implementation and support unit
To facilitate the participatory process, maximize the impact of capacity building actions, and provide
for effective monitoring, the presence of a local office established on-site during the course of the
project has proven beneficial. This was the approach adopted by the Lambi Fund (#24), PADELAN
(#5), the Marmelade project (#2) and DEED (#42), among others. In reference to the ILO/WFP/UNDP
25
project in Gonaïves (#35), an employee of the WFP's Central Office felt that: “Success is dictated by
the coordinating body at the local level.”
This coordinating body can vary in nature: it may be an NGO like DAI for the DEED project (#42) or
Oxfam Québec for PADELAN (#5), a structure comprised of the donor organization's field
representatives, or a mixed support team (or mixed steering committee), like in Marmelade and
Gonaïves, bringing together Government employees (from MARNDR, MOE and MPCE) and the field
representatives of the organization managing the project (FAO, Oxfam Québec, etc.). It should be
mentioned that the latter option has many advantages, as it largely favors project ownership and
institutional capacity development (cf. below).
The fact of having a project support body on-site presents several benefits. It provides a degree of
visibility of the project at the local level, with the population in direct contact with the support staff;
information on local context and specificities is more readily accessible to the project officers;
simplification of daily monitoring and support, and of the project's participatory process; reduced
transaction costs (transport, communication, etc.), and so on.
One of the Marmelade project evaluations underscored the role played by this body in the project's
success.26 Indeed, the evaluation mentions a high level of initial mistrust on the part of the population
at the beginning of project implementation, particularly during the long diagnostic phase, prior to
implementation of more concrete activities. This initial mistrust is fairly typical in rural Haitian
communities. In Marmelade, the presence of organizers on-site was one of the factors that helped to
eliminate this initial suspicion. These organizers, by living in complete immersion in the community,
were gradually able to establish trust; they proved their level of commitment, could continuously work
to raise the population's awareness and could provide them with information on the project process.
Conversely, the evaluation of the first phase of GTZ's binational Artibonite project (#22)
recommended the creation of a project office on the Haitian side for the second phase. Because the
project was implemented in an extremely isolated location, it encountered serious difficulties with
implementation, especially in terms of logistics, owing to its lack of a local office on the Haitian side of
the border.
Recommendations:
9 Create a local project implementation and support unit composed of technicians
responsible for project management, enabling for gradual community capacitybuilding, enhancing trust and facilitating logistics.
F) Make use of existing local bodies
Existing bodies must be developed: Haitian farmers have a long history of groupwork-based
organizations, whether they be simple cooperatives, farmers' associations, or arrangements for the
division of work through konbits. For example, farmers have organized into groups, to help one
another to work their fields or to install soil conservation structures, and have cooperated to manage
micro-watersheds. Moreover, farmers' association movements promote innovation, and the adoption
and dissemination of new techniques. Much work should be devoted, at the local level, to reinforcing
these groups, rather than – as is often the case – creating new local bodies that merely function in
parallel to existing structures, and only for the duration of the project.
When local structures do not yet exist, as is still the case in some of the country's more isolated
regions, the project staff should initially try to work with as many people from each location as
possible, to organize meetings in which local leaders will gradually begin to emerge. Afterward, a
26
FAO, “Rapport d’évaluation du Projet Marmelade - développement local et aménagement des terres pour un programme
national de sécurité alimentaire et de gestion des ressources naturelles,” 2005.
26
transparent process for electing delegates can take place. These delegates will form either an
advisory committee or a mixed steering committee, at the local level.
Recommendations:
9 Capitalize on functional bodies that have proven themselves, before creating new
ones.
2.3 Capacity building and project ownership at the national level
In general, at the national level, major obstacles to the success of a project lie in the low level of
institutional capacities and the lack of project ownership and commitment on the part of the national
authorities.
A) The challenge of national project ownership
The Government and the international community frequently mention the issue of lack of ownership of
aid projects implemented in Haiti. Environmental projects are no exception.
1) Absence of involvement in project design, implementation and monitoring
The lack of ownership can, in part, be explained by the fact that the Government has little control over
the programmatic orientations, monitoring and funding of the majority of projects. In most cases, the
central Government is simply informed of progress made on the project. In extreme cases, projects
are executed directly by the NGOs, with no consultation with, or even information provided to, any
level of the State.
Due to the ministries' lack of financial and human resource capacities, government leaders are often
unable to undertake frequent visits to projects in the field. As mentioned in the PET mid-term
evaluation27, the low numbers of available human resources in Haitian public services precludes the
assignment of civil servants to projects. Consequently, the national players cannot track the evolution
of the various projects or participate in their strategic decisions.
2) Overlapping mandates: an impediment to project ownership
Another reason for the lack of national project ownership lies in the operations and mandates of
institutions. Because in Haiti, the environment is a cross-cutting discipline, responsibility for its
protection and rehabilitation is divided between multiple entities: the Ministry of the Environment, the
Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development, the Ministry of Planning and
International Cooperation, and the Ministry of the Interior. The mandates and jurisdictions of these
ministries overlap one another; the legal framework is not unified and does not always establish a
clear division of responsibilities. This generally leads to confusion in terms of roles and mandates,
which often creates a degree of rivalry between the various government bodies to take ownership of a
project or, conversely, a relative lack of interest on the part of all.
As concerns the Carrefour Feuilles project (#30), this overlapping of responsibility resulted in a lack of
concern on the part of the Ministry of the Environment and a demand for greater influence by the
Ministry of the Interior.
In the ATPPF project (#10), several leaders from the Ministry of the Environment mentioned the
institutional complexity of arrangements as a major difficulty for the project. Co-administration of this
project involved two ministries (MOE and MARNDR) and their various services (CRDA-Center for
27
European Union, “Programme Environnement Transfrontalier Haïti-République Dominicaine (PET), Evaluation à miparcours du Programme,” interim report, A. Bellande, F. Cordero & M. Sonet, August 2003, 53 p.
27
Research and Agricultural Development, DFPC-Directorate of Training and Continuing Education,
SRF-Forest Resources Service and SPNS-National Parks Service), an independent body (FAES) and
numerous NGOs and firms (Care, CECI and ASSODLO).28
Of note is the recent creation (July 2009), at the initiative of the Prime Minister Michèle Duvivier
Pierre-Louis, of the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Land-Use Planning (CIAT), whose function would
ideally be to coordinate the various projects relating to land-use planning, whereas the different
ministries would be responsible for their technical management.
3) Ensuring there is a strong desire for commitment
Experience has shown that a project's success and its ownership by the Government are heavily
correlated. For example, in projects where the Government undertook heavy commitments and
compromises, like in Marmelade, project sustainability was all the more likely. In the case of
Marmelade, MARNDR showed its support by assigning three of its agronomists to the project, via the
BAC (Bureau Agricole Communal/devolved authorities of the MARNDR). For this reason, the
Marmelade project officers preferred to wait for a similar level of commitment from the Government,
before beginning work in the neighboring town of Plaisance. As for the ILO/WFP/UNDP project in
Gonaïves (#35), the Departmental Directorate for Planning and International Cooperation (DPCE)
was an active participant in formulating and implementing the programme, by making its personnel
available to the project. This type of gesture testifies to a strong desire to engage and usually augurs
well for future ownership of the project.
In the case of PET (#36-37), however, the mid-term evaluation29, which was relatively critical of the
first phase of implementation, showed that the two governments' willingness to comprise was rather
low, whereas the study for the financial agreement indicated a substantial expectation of Government
support in all phases of the project cycle, at the property, political, technical, human and budgetary
levels. The evaluation attributes the lack of compromise by the Governments to the failure to define
concrete terms for collaboration, the absence of a written agreement, and weariness in the face of a
project whose progress was not immediately felt.
Obtaining the political support and collaboration of the Government for a project is, therefore, a factor
that will contribute to its success. To achieve this, an effort to coordinate and involve political bodies,
in parallel with capacity building work, must be undertaken.
B) National capacity building
Many of those interviewed for this study listed the lack of government capacities as a serious obstacle
to the success of interventions. This lack of capacities can be illustrated in several ways: lack of
technical skill within the various ministries, shortage of human resources, weak financial resources,
etc.
Despite this nearly universal observation of the need for institutional capacity development, only a
minority of the projects analyzed (7 in total) aim(ed) to develop government capacities at the central
level. Among those players working on central government capacity development figured UNDP,
USAID, the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.
Conversely, nearly all of the bilateral donors and international organizations placed a strong emphasis
on institutional capacity building in the state's devolved authorities. This approach has the advantage
of stimulating and providing impetus to existing structures in the field, but that are usually fairly
inactive, due to either a lack of resources or depleted motivation. Thus, in addition to capacity building,
these actions have a positive effect on project ownership by the authorities and facilitate the project's
transfer to the Haitians.
28
“Révision et synthèse des leçons apprises des interventions dans la zone d’intervention du Parc National Macaya,”
Ronald Toussaint.
29
Ibid.
28
For example, the Marmelade project (#2) and PADELAN (#5) aim to strengthen the BACs (Bureaux
Agricoles Communaux, local agricultural authorities) – the devolved technical services of the Ministry
of Agriculture – and to train their leaders. During project implementation, the BACs hold a key role, as
they are responsible for day-to-day supervision and monitoring. Thus, with the support it received
from the FAO project, the Marmelade BAC is now beginning to establish a solid base. This body,
which is very close to the farmers, is the one that will be providing the technical monitoring for the
project after the withdrawal of the FAO.
As regards the Pedernales and Araucaria projects (#6 and 8), funded by AECID, they adopted the
same approach with the decentralized services of the Ministry of the Environment, in the southeastern
peninsula. The devolved services of the Ministry of the Environment are responsible for managing the
project on a day-to-day basis. However, at present, it appears that the progress made on these two
projects is fairly slow, possibly due to a lack of outside technical support to develop the capacities of
the MOE in the field, as a first step. Furthermore, in terms of the more widespread application of this
approach, it is confronted with the reality of a very low level of representation of the Ministry of the
Environment at the local level, and with ambiguities regarding its mandate and its role (normative or
executory?).
Recommendations:
9 Create or integrate project monitoring/steering committees within government
institutions, to facilitate monitoring and ownership (with a budget that would, for
example, allow for leaders to travel to the field);
9 Pursue co-funding or another form of contribution from the Government and a concrete
definition of the terms of its engagement;
9 Clarify the roles of each ministry within each project/programme undertaken, notably by
signing a memorandum of understanding or other agreement;
9 Ensure clear institutional arrangements that are not overly complex;
9 Include a prior evaluation of the capacities available and the central level and at the level
of the decentralized services of the State, as part of the project's design;
9 Support institutional capacity development at the central and decentralized levels;
9 Accompany interventions with support for the Government in developing and updating
the necessary policies, strategies and legal frameworks (energy, protected area
management, coastal zone management, etc.).
2.4 Natural resource protection and economic interest
A) Collective interest and individual interest in natural resources preservation
The approach of linking environmental protection to economic interest for the populations was very
common among the analyzed projects.
This reflects a number of lessons learned from previous decades. First, any action aiming to
rehabilitate and protect the environment must necessarily be reconciled with a development objective
and present an economic interest/alternative for its beneficiaries. Experience has shown that
approaches based purely on natural resource conservation or environmental awareness-raising do
not work. The primary goal of farmers investing in environmental management measures is not soil
conservation and environmental protection in and of itself. However, with the initial support of the
29
project, they adopt such practices where these will help to improve their standard of living and quickly
provide them with economic benefits (for example, via increased production, improved
productivity/fertility of the land, etc.).
Furthermore, any project tied to the environment and requiring community involvement takes time
away from the farmers that would normally have been spent on a revenue-generating activity. This is
why project proposals must not entail the communities completely abandoning their previous activities
and/or must provide revenue above that obtained from their existing activities.
As has already been seen, environmental rehabilitation actions undertaken in watersheds, local
development projects, and any other action requiring planning, all typically necessitate a certain
amount of time before the communities will truly be able to take advantage of them. As a result, the
majority of players in cooperation sought a means of balancing community's need to obtain immediate
benefits from implemented projects and the need to design environmental rehabilitation and
development strategies that will benefit the entire community in the long term.
B) The cash/food-for-work approach: conditions for success
1) A widespread approach
One of the more and more common approaches that combine revenue creation with environmental
rehabilitation is to grant temporary remuneration in the form of cash or food to local labor, in exchange
for performing environmental protection activities. This approach, which appeared in the mid-1990s,
has the advantage of establishing a balance between long-term results and the necessary rapid
effects in terms of food security and increased income, especially for the most vulnerable strata of the
population.
This may involve the rehabilitation of rural tracks, sanitation (waste clean-up), the construction of
watershed management structures- anti-erosion structures (terraces, anti-gullying, windrows, etc.) or
river regulation structures (gabions, gully and canal cleaning/clearing and retention basins), etc.
This approach was notably adopted for the multi-agency project in Gonaïves, on natural disaster
prevention and environmental rehabilitation through revenue-generating activities, funded by the WFP
and UNDP and implemented by the ILO (#35). In this case, wages were paid, half in kind (one WFP
ration/workday) and half in cash.
For its part, FoProBiM adopted this approach in hiring a keeper responsible for watching over the
mangroves and caring for the tree nursery. The NGO underscored the very high profitability and
substantial return on investment yielded by this approach. With a relatively small investment, the
mangroves were protected and the communities' awareness was raised concerning the importance of
proper management of these resources.
2) Close supervision is necessary
Implementation of this type of activity is particularly dependent on the ability to identify technical
partners, and their availability, to organize both the design of the action and supervision of the
beneficiaries, for appropriate execution and promotion of the actions fulfilled.
Under the abovementioned UN inter-agency project for natural disaster prevention and environmental
rehabilitation through revenue-generating activities in Gonaïves (#35), the permanent presence of a
technical coordinator in the field was key to monitoring the project 30 . However, the human and
financial resources of the implementing body remain insufficient for supervision and adequate
monitoring of the activities31.
In the case of the WFP intervention PRRO (#28), the importance of close supervision for the success
of cash/food for work activities explains why the WFP directed a large proportion of its PRRO
30
31
Interview conducted with the Deputy Country Director from the World Food Programme.
UNEP, Haiti Regeneration Initiative, Technical Assistance Facility mission report, Oct 2009.
30
commitments to the Jean Rabel zone (North-West), where the NGO German Agro Action had been
performing high-quality road rehabilitation and surface water control work for a number of years, to
increase agricultural production. 32
Thus, supervision is a key factor in the successful completion and enhancement of fulfillments. The
choice of food-for-work activities and their geographic location will, therefore, be heavily dependent on
the possibility of the project enjoying a reliable supervisory structure. This consideration in no way
discriminates against the use of small, local associations, so long as they have proven capacities.
3)
Viability of actions completed through this approach
The matter of the viability and sustainability of actions undertaken in projects applying the food/cash for-work approach will depend on the nature of the work and the level of ownership by the
beneficiaries.
For example, the vital question of maintenance arises with regard to undertakings for the collective
good, such as road rehabilitation, anti-erosion work, drain and canal clearing, and tree planting. In a
context in which rainfall can often be extremely violent, and on particularly mountainous terrains, it is
often necessary to perform frequent clearing, repairs, filling of cracks, additional planting, etc.
Otherwise, the benefits of the activity are liable to disappear within a few months; even worse
consequences may arise than if the work had never been performed.
And yet, an evaluation of the PRRO project 33 (#28) noted that the terms and conditions of
maintenance were not truly addressed in the works contracts. However, when the populations were
paid to perform this type of task, they also expected maintenance to provide them with an additional
source of income34 or for the State to take charge of the maintenance of these developments, even
when located on private land.
To overcome this weakness, the PRRO’s evaluation recommends that, for all projects with a
food/cash-for-work component, the beneficiary organizations (municipalities, communities, etc.)
present, in advance, a long-term management and maintenance plan for the works, including specific
commitments on their part (creation of a management committee, system of dues to be paid, etc.).
In addition, to guarantee the sustainability of the facilities, their technical viability must also be
ensured. To this end, the experts at the Haiti Regeneration Initiative's Technical Assistance Facility
(TAF) deployed to provide recommendations for the Gonaïves project, noted, for example, that, to
ensure the sustainability of the facilities, the slope and depth of the soil, and the quantity of rocks
therein, should be taken into greater consideration when constructing contour canals, and that the
project would benefit from using other, more effective erosion control techniques (like dry walls for
example).
Finally, this type of food/cash-for-work rural infrastructure construction project must take account of
how the communities' other activities function, so that the activities in question do not pose a threat to
the populations' commitment to other activities that are necessary to their survival.
The Lambi Fund gave the example of a project implemented by an NGO, to construct a road in a
location where the Fund operated. The farmers who had left their fields for this lucrative activity were
then confronted with poor harvests and found themselves in an even more precarious food situation
afterwards.
32
WFP, Evaluation report of Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation (IPSR 10382.0) Oct. 2007
Ibid.
34
IDB, “Préparation du Programme National de gestion des Bassins Versants.”
33
31
UNDP/WFP/ILO Cash for work project in Gonaïves
Recommendations:
9 Ensure that all projects seeking to develop a food/cash-for-work component have a
permanent supervisory structure with sufficient human, financial and technical resources
in the field;
9 Make implementation of food/cash-for-work activities conditional upon the prior
presentation of a concrete, long-term management and maintenance plan for the works,
by the beneficiary organizations (municipalities, communities, etc.);
9 Intertwine food/cash-for-work projects
projects/programmes in the zone.
with
long-term
integrated
development
C) Reforestation and agroforestry: revenue generators
1) Agroforestry
A multitude of efforts have been made toward the reforestation of Haiti in the past fifty years. These
efforts, which enjoyed varying levels of success, targeted the production of timber, construction wood
and fuelwood. Another objective of this traditional type of reforestation was protection, in the form of
the large-scale planting of community and communal forests. These efforts, supported by rather
substantial research programs, were realized under the leadership of MARNDR, the FAO and USAID.
In response to the fact that many of these prior reforestation projects had no lasting effect (most of the
trees planted having died for lack of care, been eaten cattle, or felled but not re-planted), the 1980s
marked the beginning of the widespread application of the agroforestry approach in Haiti. The
Agroforestry Outreach Project (AOP), funded by USAID, is often considered to be the first large-scale
application of this approach.
According to the World Agroforestry Centre (formerly, the International Council for Research in
Agroforestry, ICRAF), “Agroforestry is a dynamic, ecologically-based natural resource management
system that, through the integration of trees into agricultural systems and landscapes, diversifies and
increases production, while simultaneously promoting social, economic and environmental benefits for
land users.” It should be noted that agroforestry systems are only of real benefit to developers
32
needing to make the required investments, if the amount of economic gain obtained by the
coexistence of agricultural and ligneous components is greater than the amount they would receive if
each of these components were cultivated separately on the same parcel of land.
The most striking and most common example of an agroforestry system – or rather, an agro-silvopastoral system – in Haiti is the “prékaye” garden. The main purpose of prékaye (“close to the home”)
gardens is to serve as a pantry; this is where farmers will invest the most, and sustainably, owing in
particular to land security, but also to the possibility of controls. Trees are not only used to produce
fruit and to support other crops (such as yam); they also play the role of windbreak and shade for the
home and the crops. For their safety, animals are usually brought in close to the house at night.
Furthermore, the fact that all three components (agriculture, wood and livestock) are concentrated in
a limited amount of space allows for true management of fertility.
Nearly twenty of the projects reviewed for this study share the common point of encouraging the
development of forest and fruit trees to generate revenue for the communities, thereby ensuring the
survival of the species planted and their sustainable management. The key point for consideration,
according to the farmers and organizations interviewed, is the profitability of the crop.
Projects/programmes like DEED (#42), WINNER (#43), HAP (#41), PADELAN (#5), Floresta's
projects (#18), Marmelade (#2), those of the Lambi Fund (#24), ORE (#27) and the GAA (#1) thus
promoted the dissemination of fruit trees with high added value, like mango, breadfruit, citrus and
avocado trees, by training the farmers on grafting/top-grafting techniques and by developing
communal tree nurseries.
These projects/programmes also promoted and encouraged the use of soil conservation structures as
sustainable, profitable plant development structures. The woody plants that were planted in the hills
along soil conservations works built to follow the hills' contour lines did, indeed, fulfill the very
important function of stabilizing the soil and combating erosion by slowing runoff. Beyond the
production gains obtained through the agroforestry system itself, this also helped to perpetuate and
develop these plots of land over a longer term, by slowing – or even bringing a halt to – erosion
phenomena, thanks to the creation of terraces. These plants, which will, in the end, form quickset
hedges, have important functions in terms of agricultural production, wood production, as windbreaks
(primarily on the plains) and for green manure production (legume and euphorbiaceae varieties, for
example).
Because the erected structures and completed developments introduce new competition with existing
crops, cooperation players have realized that the planned soil and water conservation measures need
to be undertaken from a perspective of short-term (or even medium-term) investments for the farmers.
For example, quickset hedges composed of pineapple, sugar cane, elephant grass, plantain, etc.,
contribute not only to soil conservation and erosion control, but also provide the farmers with plant
material that can be developed quickly. For at least three decades now, these plant-based
conservation structures have demonstrated their sustainability, their durability and their viability, while
being maintained by farmers with no outside support and then adopted by other farmers who were not
direct beneficiaries of the project.
However, the different players in the field who have been working for decades to promote
agrosilvicultural techniques in Haiti recall that the issue of the land ownership context and the scope
of investments that these structures represent for the farmers are the two major obstacles that
absolutely must be taken into account from the very beginning, when developing this type of project.
To solve the obstacle of the high level of initial investment required, many organizations, such as
ORE, decided to provide seedlings, technical assistance for grafting or tree care for free. However,
according to a USAID report,35 in contrast to hardwood trees, there is some scope for selling fruit tree
seedlings at a subsidized price to farmers. The mango cooperative of Gros Morne is given as an
example where the entire nursery production (40,000 mango plants) has been sold to local people at
35
USAID, Environmental Vulnerability in Haïti, Findings and recommendations, in interventions in watersheds, G. R.
Smucker et al., April 2007
33
10 gourdes (US$ 0.25) per mango seedling. In all instances, it is vital that strong emphasis be placed
on medium-term support and technical monitoring, in order to maximize the survival rate of the
planted species and the dissemination of the new techniques among producers.
ORE tree nursery in Camp Perrin
Jatropha, which can be grown on uncultivated and highly-eroded land, and whose grains produce oil
that serves as biofuel, could be used in agroforestry systems as a perennial, soil-fixing component, on
condition that full supply chains are developed to provide the farmers with access to a national, or
even international, market. The widespread idea that jatropha could be used in the hills of Haiti, on
the most degraded agricultural land, has not yet gained true acceptance by all, because the
temptation would be strong for small farmers to replace their food crops with jatropha, cultivating it on
fertile agricultural land, and thereby further aggravating the situation of food insecurity in the country.
2) Sustainable forestry
The Marmelade project (#2) has just launched into the development of an energy forest36. In response
to energy problems, and to reduce the pressure on wood resources, this initiative offered the
population a system for farming energy wood and timber. This pilot project aims to plant 77 hectares
of forest species with a high energy value in Savane Longue, Marmelade, in the space of 7 years. In
addition, 50 hectares of gardens around the outskirts of the energy plantation will receive forest
species that will be planted on their perimeters. These energy plantations will, therefore, have a
twofold impact, both on the environment and on the increased, diversified revenue of the local
communities.
It is still too early to evaluate this project, because many sensitive aspects remain delicate subjects,
such as: a) negotiations with the current owners and/or farmers of the land targeted for implantation of
the forest, to obtain a delimitation of the different spaces and the withdrawal of their occupation; b)
negotiations with the local commission for the transfer of these spaces; and, finally, c) those aspects
relating to the legalization of the right to develop the spaces selected for forest implantation.
However, several laudable features are worthy of note:
- This project has the advantage of planning for the means of sustainable use of the forest in the
very long term: the period of forest use is estimated at 21 years;
- The initiative is part of an integrated local development strategy; the forests will be managed by
Marmelade Local Development Committees, with the support of the BACs, providing the best
hope for the perpetuation of the initiative after project closure;
- Exhaustive financial profitability studies were conducted. According to these, the initiative should
be extremely profitable, but will require a relative long time for investment payback (10 years). It
36
FAO, “Evaluation Financière et Economique du Projet Forêt énergétique et bois d’œuvre, Développement local de la
commune de Marmelade et de Plaisance 2,” P.A. Guerrier, Sep. 2006
34
-
should be emphasized that, beyond the additional income that the participating producers will
enjoy, this project guarantees temporary revenue for a number of players typically excluded from
the benefits of natural resource protection projects/programmes, such as charcoal makers, plank
sawyers, traders and transporters;
This initiative was based on the hypothesis that charcoal production should not be banned.
Instead, the means for sustainably managing its supply chain should be identified. In particular,
this begins with a better understanding of the charcoal value chain and with specific feasibility and
financial profitability studies.
Another noteworthy example of sustainable forestry is the zoning experiment conducted by Helvetas
and Foundation Seguin in the Pine Forest National Reserve and La Visite National Park (#17 and
#19). This initiative aimed to hold the farmers present in each specific zone of the forest accountable,
via the conclusion of co-management contracts between the latter and the competent Government
authorities. Each farmer committing to comply with precise specifications for the zone(s) he exploits
will receive a subsidy calculated in relation to the area of land covered by his plot. This subsidy will be
spread over several years and will correspond to the farmer's economic loss, while at the same time
covering the risks associated with the new type of exploitation on his plot of land. For example, a
contract of this type could, for a farmer on a plot of land in a forest clearing, be the subsidization of the
creation of a “taungya” system, with the planting of local forest species and intercropping of certain
economically beneficial, non-wood forest products. In this way, the clearing will gradually return to
forest space, in which conventional food-crop agriculture is no longer possible. For the moment, no
indication of the total cost or of the cost-benefit ratio is available.
3) Choice of species
Like Haiti's climate conditions and ecosystems, the tree species and agroforestry systems used vary
across the country. Several actors, such as the FAO in Marmelade, Oxfam Québec in Nippes,
Floresta and GTZ, have stressed the importance of leaving the choice of trees to be planted, to the
population. According to these organizations, allowing the communities to determine which trees will
be planted can lead to a selection of species that are, simultaneously, viable in the target ecosystem,
economically profitable, and socially acceptable (well-known species, others like the mapou that are
respected for religious reasons, etc.). This process has a direct impact on reducing tree felling by the
communities and optimizes the inhabitants' knowledge concerning the species best suited to their
land.
However, in most of the projects analyzed, the majority of the trees planted for reforestation and
agroforestry activities, whether chosen locally or by the project management teams, were fastgrowing trees, often foreign to the area of implantation, that produced short-term income for the
communities. And yet, this approach often leads to a change in the original environment. The
Marmelade project provides a good illustration of this trend, as the municipality was populated with
fast-growing species like eucalyptus, casuarina and bamboo. Yet these species are considered to be
invasive in Haiti. Local species that fulfill the same functions, and that are better suited to the
conditions of the stations and that do not degrade soil quality could have been planted in their place
or, at the very least, combined with these fast-growing imported species, for wood and/or charcoal
production, for example.
Consequently, it would be advisable to introduce some technical expertise into the communities' tree
species selection process, to allow the latter and the project management teams to make a more
informed decision. The technicians will support the beneficiaries' choice by providing them with
information on the range of potential species for a certain site: speed of growth of each species and
its profitability over time; cost and conditions of maintenance and viability, the calorific value of wood
for energy; the qualities of the species, in terms of construction and furniture manufacturing; its soil
fixation and improvement virtues (e.g. nitrogen-fixing legumes), etc.
35
Recommendations:
9 Involve the populations (farmers, land owners and local authorities) from the beginning,
to ensure appropriate technical solutions that are economically advantageous to the
farmers;
9 Encourage prékaye gardens, orchards and wooded lots, particularly by training the
producers on planting, maintenance and grafting techniques;
9
Support local organizations in creating and managing communal tree nurseries;
9 Leave the choice of species for plantation to the populations, preferably promoting local
species and enlisting a technical forestry expert to inform the communities about the
different characteristics of the trees, alternate options and their influence on the natural
environment;
9 Ensure that soil conservation work is always accompanied by a biological component;
9 Ensure that this biological regeneration work complies with the silvo-agricultural
calendar, so that seedlings, cuttings and slips can enjoy the water supply provided by
the rainy season;
9 Systematically perform a cost-benefit study to evaluate the profitability and investment
payback period of the adopted reforestation/agroforestry activities.
D) Local economic development and production supply chains
1) Local economic development
Another way of linking natural resource conservation and revenue generation is to make the project a
part of a local economic development approach.
“Local economic development” here is meant as the development of the endogenous potential of the
location and the implementation of projects capable of creating job opportunities in the community
and of improving local competitiveness. Local economic development entails collaboration between
public and private players, and the development of competitive local supply chains (or value chains).
2) Analysis and development of value chains
The development of supply chains, or value chains, is a crucial aspect of combining revenue creation
with natural resource protection. The supply chain approach focuses on one product, crop or
technology and takes all aspects of production (through delivery to the markets and consumers) into
account.
These projects are closely related to the new opportunities afforded by markets today. They are
structured around the organized involvement of farmers/producers in the dynamics of growth markets.
They include a quality component that is of fundamental importance in this context.
The development of supply chains requires a prior, very detailed analysis of their value chains. After
examining the matter of resource production (fruit trees, forest species for timber and energy wood,
etc.), the issues of storage, processing, distribution (and, potentially, exportation) and funding must be
addressed. This was the approach adopted by the DEED project (#42), funded by USAID.
Neglecting this aspect of supply chain development and failing to plan for solutions to the problems
posed by bottlenecks can damage the effectiveness of an action intended to create revenue via
36
ecosystem services. For example, NGOs like Floresta ( #18)and Oxfam Québec under PADELAN
(#5), who promoted the development of fruit trees to community groups, mentioned the difficulties
encountered in selling off inventory during periods of abundance. Once the fruit is harvested, the
issues of its storage, transport to the markets, outlets, etc., arise.
The Marmelade project (#2) is a good example of the multiplier effect that a well-planned value chain
development approach can have on a municipality. With the support of private Taiwanese
investments, bamboo was planted as part of the Marmelade project. In addition to the positive effect
of the bamboo on soil conservation in the upper watershed, the development of a production and
marketing flow led to the creation of wealth and jobs for hundreds of people in Marmelade. Once cut
down, the bamboo is used in a local furniture plant and routed to Port-au-Prince, where it is sold.
ASPVEFS (Association of Southern Fruit Producers and Vendors), backed by ORE since 2000, also
sets an example for the successful development of a production chain. The association contributes to
the development of the mango supply chain in the region. In particular, it performs mango processing
and drying activities and exports the fruit to the international market. ORE supports the producers in
their promotional activities and provides them with the technical support to develop a quality label and
to improve product traceability.
The Substitution of Energy for Protection of the Environment project (SEPE - #37) helped to develop
another value chain: that of cooking equipment (improved homes, kerosene and propane stoves, etc.).
In certain southern zones of Haiti (e.g. Les Cayes), this project enabled the creation and long-term
strengthening of production and distribution networks for this type of equipment. These networks,
which have even been joined by people who were not direct beneficiaries of the project, continue to
exist today. Conversely, the project did not attain a sufficient level of maturity to succeed in created a
retail sales system for LPG. In order for the value chain to function at optimal levels, this project would
also have needed to facilitate the establishment of agreements with distributors (gas stations) to sell
retail LPG under guaranteed safety conditions.
In the absence of favorable market conditions, value chains with little potential for growth should not
be developed. PET (#34) had, in its first phase, conducted several pilot activities for dairy goat
farming in stalls. However, the market for goat's milk and its by-products is nonexistent in Haiti, and
the Dominican market is too distant. Without favorable market conditions, it was impossible to develop
this activity.
Bamboo furniture factory in Marmelade
37
3) Planning for the opening up of land
The opening of watersheds is essential to the success of the actions undertaken. Prior to
implementing such an activity to develop the endogenous potential of a location, while protecting the
environment, the state of the infrastructures and roads must be taken into account. USAID, in the
DEED project (#39), and GTZ, for the Artibonite project (#22), both mentioned having to reorient their
actions to rehabilitate roads, which had not been planned before and which impeded the project
process. ASPVEFS (Association of Southern Fruit Producers and Vendors), which is supported by
ORE, is confronted with reticence on the part of donors to finance picks-ups that would provide the
producers with more efficient connections between the collection centers. Consequently, in the town
of St Jean, the association is only able to market one-tenth of what it could if this problem were
resolved.
4) The connection with credit: an essential component
In this type of operation, the connection with (micro-)credit is also crucial. The beneficiaries targeted
by a project may require financing to participate in its implementation and to obtain inputs, fuel, etc.
And yet, access to credit in rural Haiti is cruelly lacking.
There are several approaches to facilitating access to credit: either the organization managing the
project/programme has a local financing fund that it provides to the community to fund individual and
group production projects, or the organization uses existing credit institutions in the community,
strengthening them and, potentially, acting as guarantor for the loans granted to the beneficiaries.
This latter option was adopted by the Marmelade project (#2), working with the KEKAM savings and
loan association, by Floresta (#18), working with credit cooperatives on-site, and by Care Haiti (#40),
working with SOFIDHES (this cooperative agreement should have enabled small and medium-sized
enterprises to produce more efficient equipment, and households and businesses to acquire said
equipment, but it was never put into practice).
All of the organizations that encouraged the creation of a system of access to credit in their project
implementation zones cited the very high rate of repayment. In addition to facilitating the development
of value chains, developing access to credit to foster natural resource protection encourages the
inclusion of financial institutions in the trend of support for environmental rehabilitation in Haiti.
Recommendations:
9 Analyze the value chains, in advance and in great detail, to identify growth chains for each
location, the key players, the partnerships to encourage (amongst others, Public-Private
Partnerships), and obstacles to development of the supply chain, and to target sources of
bottlenecks;
9 In particular, consider sustainable supply chains in connection with forestry and
agroforestry products, and especially the local charcoal value chain so as to plan for longterm sustainable reform of that production chain;
9 Create/strengthen partnerships with local (micro-) credit institutions or create a working
capital fund to facilitate financing of community-based environment-friendly activities;
9 When preparing an operation, consider the degree of isolation of the community and the
state of its infrastructures, and schedule rehabilitation work under the project/programme,
where necessary.
38
2.5 Knowledge management and information systematization
For decades, natural resource protection/rehabilitation projects have been implemented in Haiti. As a
result, the country is rich in knowledge and experience on the subject. However, at the national scale,
the lessons learned by the different players have not been recorded, systematized or disseminated.
A) Numerous available studies not utilized
Most of the projects implemented in Haiti have given rise to studies of all types (socioeconomic,
scientific, technical, feasibility studies, baseline studies, participatory diagnostic reviews/action plans,
etc.). With the exception of the marine and coastal environments, for which very little data is available,
the country contains a mine of information to be exploited. However, most of the studies conducted
remain unknown and unexploited by the different players working on the environment. Good-quality
work is commissioned, but the conclusions and recommendations frequently fail to be put into
practice.
For each project, substantial resources are assigned to the production of new studies, often without
any prior work to identify and compile previous documentation on the matter. One notable exception
was found: prior to implementing its protected areas programme in Macaya National Park, the IDB
undertook an analysis of lessons learned in the domain. 37 USAID's WINNER initiative (#43) also
conducted a major study during its first months of implementation, aiming to compile a list of
reforestation initiatives undertaken in Haiti between 2004 and 2009, and to perform an evaluation
thereof38. However, this capitalization on experience needs to be taken a step further, particularly by
studying initiatives in neighboring countries, like the Dominican Republic.
Nearly all of the projects analyzed for this study resulted (or will result) in an evaluation or at least a
final report. Thus, 18 of these projects were evaluated one or more times, and 6 gave rise to no
evaluation (mainly projects implemented and funded by small structures). As for the remaining 19
projects, it is still too soon to determine whether or not they will be evaluated, although the trend
within the different institutions seems to indicate that they will be.
Nevertheless, only a very small minority of these reports is readily available to the public: just 3
reports are available on-line: the Marmelade project (#2), the WFP project Protracted Relief and
Recovery Operation (#28) and the 101 Lambi Fund projects (#24); some of the reports (7 in total)
were transmitted on request for the purpose of this study. The others were not shared, even to
facilitate this study.
In some cases, the non-distribution of these studies and reports was due to the fact that donors
appear reticent to share these documents, which involved very high levels of funding. As concerns the
evaluations and final reports on the different projects, this could also be explained by a certain degree
of – understandable – hesitation at the thought of disclosing particularly severe reports. However, a
less confidential distribution of these reports could be considered, such as done by the Lambi Fund
on the Internet, which merely presents a summary version of its evaluation. This would allow for a
distribution of these reports that would be less compromising for the evaluated organizations, but that
would still allow other players access to lessons learned by other parties.
B) The need for a centralized information and monitoring system
At present in Haiti, there is no institutionalized system that centralizes and shares information on
baseline studies, current and past projects, results obtained, difficulties encountered, or best practices.
When one is aware of their existence, the different reports and studies can be obtained on request, on
the basis of personal relationships.
37
BID/GEF, « Révision et synthèse des leçons apprises des interventions dans la zone d’intervention du Parc National
Macaya », Nov 2008
38
USAID, WINNER, « Inventaire et évaluations des initiatives de reboisement en Haïti, période 2004-2009 », Oct 2009
39
The recently-created (1995) Ministry of the Environment has little by way of archives, and its
information center is not organized systematically. As for the other national bodies with information on
natural resources in Haiti, many of their archives were lost or destroyed during periods of political
unrest (particularly the MARNDR archives in 2004). So sometimes it is impossible to locate
documentation on projects that cost several million dollars, despite the fact that they date back fewer
than 15 years (as is the case of the IDB's coastal management project, #12).
This state of affairs prevents the various organizations from capitalizing on previous work in Haiti and
from learning from the past. It also makes any monitoring of medium- and long-term environmental
indicators impossible. Finally, it hinders coordination between the players and fosters the duplication
of actions and research.
In the past, the institution STAB, funded by USAID from 1982 to 1996, had been created to gather
and integrate information on watersheds. When the institution began to have political impacts, USAID
ceased funding the activity, due to the stoppage of bilateral aid.
Today, recent efforts have been made by the Government to coordinate actions, encourage synergies
and share information via the creation of the CIAT (Inter-Ministerial Committee for Land-Use Planning)
and of the Sectoral Group on Watersheds. These represent noteworthy progress that should be
supported.
Likewise, the National Environmental and Vulnerability Observatory (ONEV) was created with the
support of the PAGE project (#31). This primary purpose of this structure is to provide technical
expertise to all types of organizations (public, private, national and international) working in the
domain of the environment and vulnerability, in order to facilitate decision-making and the sharing and
monitoring of environmental data in the country. However, progress by the ONEV remains slow,
owing chiefly to the lack of definition of a clear strategic vision and to the shortage of resources
resulting from this situation39.
Recommendations
9 When designing a new project/programme, plan for a phase of compilation of
existing data and studies on the target subjects or regions;
9 Perform baseline studies prior to implementing an initiative, to be able to make
more realistic forecasts and to measure the impact post-intervention;
9 Support the ONEV and use this body to systematize information-sharing on
environmental projects;
9 Set up a nationwide network to facilitate the coordination between key players in
Haiti and to enable the sharing of information, expertise, experience and
innovations. The players would then be connected to one another by tools and
events, such as a website, project database, electronic library, teleconferences, an
interactive forum, frequent workshops, etc.
39
The IDB funding that was initially scheduled via the PRIGE project (Institutional Strengthening for the Management of
the Environment) and that was to facilitate the activation of the ONEV, in the end failed to materialize.
40
2.6 Awareness-raising and communication
A number of communication strategies have been successfully applied by local and international
organizations. When communication, awareness-raising and advocacy components are integrated
into the design and implementation of projects, this helps to increase their impact, ownership and
dissemination. However, it is essential to note that communication must be an integral part of a
broader programme of action and should not represent an environmental protection project unto itself:
experience has shown that purely awareness-raising activities have very little impact.
A) The importance of communication and information for project ownership
The section of this study covering community participation mentions the importance of involving the
communities in all stages of the project cycle. Communication and awareness-raising are a key part
of the participatory process. As mentioned in the evaluation of the Substitution of Energy for
Protection of the Environment project (SEPE - #40), the dissemination of research results and
information-sharing facilitate project acceptance and ownership, as well as commitment by the
communities. In the case in point, the dissemination of information through the radio, the distribution
of leaflets, the publication of a trimestrial information bulletin on energy conservation and substitution
called Synergies, greatly helped to facilitate the introduction of cooking equipment as a replacement
for the use of fuelwood in households and small businesses.
B) Understanding mentalities and optimizing local knowledge
Experience has proven that the success of communication activities is linked to the understanding of
local mentalities and to the identification of appropriate, popular local channels to ensure that
messages are transmitted.
From June 2003 to October 2004, Oxfam GB set up a project, with the support of the Disaster
Preparedness European Commission Humanitarian Office (DIPECHO), to enable the local institutions
and communities in Cap-Haitien to respond rapidly and efficiently to environmental disasters (#39). A
sub-component of this project could be qualified as a good practice with a strong potential for
replication: the information and awareness campaign for disaster preparedness40.
Within the context of this project, the local players themselves developed their own campaigns. The
approach adopted by the project allowed the newly-created Local Civil Protection Committees
(LCPCs) to design, plan and implement their own disaster risk reduction campaigns. This contributed
to making the methods of communication truly appropriate and effective.
In general, the LCPCs all decided to combine two methods of communication that are very popular in
Haiti: festive events/community assemblies and information billboards. To implement these activities,
each LCPC received US$150 from Oxfam GB, to which they were to add a minimum of another
US$150 that they had raised themselves from among the community. To further motivate the LCPCs
to develop good quality awareness campaigns, it was decided that an incentive would be awarded to
the best campaign – in the form of cash toward a community disaster fund (for disaster response kits,
training, LCPC operating expenses, etc.).
The most interesting aspect was the optimization of local knowledge and local resources by the
community itself, as well as the mobilization of the creative and innovative energy of the local players.
The project's final evaluations showed that, thanks to this approach, the project truly helped to change
attitudes toward risks and stimulated the participation of the community in disaster mitigation. For
example, after this project, the population was observed as evacuating voluntarily for the first time,
before the violent rainstorms of Hurricane Jeanne in 2004.
40
“Haiti: Community Members Design and Implement Information Campaigns for Their Communities,” in “Building
disaster resilient communities: Good practices and lessons learned, a publication of the 'Global Network of NGOs' for
disaster risk reduction, 2007,” p. 17.
41
C) Effective awareness-raising and communication methods
While fora, workshops and round tables are the most common methods of communication for the
dissemination of information on environmental projects and raising the population's awareness of the
various issues, there are other popular methods than can effectively transmit messages.
1) Radio
From 1994 to 2004, as part of the Substitution of Energy for Protection of the Environment project
(SEPE - #40), Care Haiti and the Office of Mines and Energy (Bureau des Mines et de l’Energie)
conducted activities for the promotion and use of efficient energy conservation and substitution
technologies for the home and small businesses. According to the final project evaluation in 200441 ,
since broadcast of the promotional campaign created by the project, a constant rise in the sales of
suppliers of improved equipment (Mirak) and alternative equipment (Pike, Ecogaz and Krisco) has
been observed.
One of the points in the SEPE communication strategy was the use of radio. In Haiti, radio is one of
the most effective and most popular methods of communication, more so than television and
newspapers, to which few people have access.
As a result, a media campaign was launched, with particular emphasis on radio. Informational jingles
on gas-fired equipment (kerosene and propane) were broadcast on several of the radio stations with
the largest audiences. The repetitive nature of the communication was decisive for the successful
transmission of the information. A survey conducted as part of the evaluation of SEPE revealed that
95% of the households interviewed had heard the advertisement produced by the project for Mirak
stoves. More than one-third of households stated they had decided to use a Mirak stove after having
heard the advertisements on the radio.
2)
Festive community events
The SEPE project also banked on the organization of annual fairs (patron saint festivals), during
which popular theatrical performances were staged and promotional materials (stickers, leaflets and
brochures addressing the environment and energy issues) were distributed.
In addition, during these annual patron saint festivals, to help the population get to know the stoves,
the companies provided them to the food stands, via public-private partnerships promoted through the
project or thanks to microcredits. Demonstrations were also given.
For the Oxfam GB project in Cap-Haitien, half-day community events were organized by the LCPCs,
typically beginning with a soccer game and ending with dancing. On large decorated podiums, the
committees held disaster quizzes, rescue demonstrations, short theatrical performances and and
more formal presentations on early warning and evacuation systems, the role of the committees, etc.
Some of the LCPCs also invited local singers and dance troupes for traditional shows. The festive and
interactive aspect brought together over 400 people each time.
Thus, festive community events like the dezafi or gaguere (cock fights), sports championships and
patron saint festivals have proven to be excellent settings for transmitting messages to raise
awareness about environmental issues and for disseminating information on the variety of initiatives
undertaken.
3) Information billboards and posters
Information billboards and colored posters with large illustrations are also popular and effective
methods of communication. In the Oxfam GB project (#39), the communities themselves drew the
41
CARE, “Evaluation des effets du projet Substitution d’énergie pour la protection de l’Environnement (SEPE),” G.
Charles (Intell Consult), R. Moise (Care Haiti), M.J.P. Damiscar (Care Haiti), June 2004
42
information billboards, to inform the public of the meanings of “protective measures” and “emergency
response plan,” and to explain the role and functions of the LCPCs within the community. They were
placed in strategic locations like schools, churches and community centers. Two years after the end
of the project, most of these billboards are still in place.
Awareness Raising Billboards drawn by Cap-Haïtien
communities for disaster preparedness
4) Interregional activities
Communication through demonstration has also proven its ability to transmit and gain acceptance of
environment-friendly practices. A number of projects organized interregional visits, to present best
practices in sustainable agriculture, undertaken in the rest of the country, to other farmers. The
advantage of these exchanges was to rapidly arouse interest in new crops, practices and
technologies, and to win over the targeted people. For example, these exchanges were held as part
of the LICUS project (#9), in which 35 farmers from Fonds-Verrettes travelled to Marmelade to
observe the operations of the bamboo supply chain there and the various possible uses of the plant,
especially for soil conservation and the supply of raw materials for manufacturing furniture.
5)
Awareness-raising activities in educational settings
Some projects mentioned the unquestionable impact of awareness-raising activities conducted in
schools. For example, the UNCDF project (#4) organized tree-planting activities on Environment Days.
Every year, more and more schools request to participate. The NGO IDDH (Initiative for Sustainable
Development in Haiti) and Quiskeya University involve children in planting activities in tree nurseries.
Within this setting, it is important to develop communication materials for the instructors, such as
training manuals, films, educational booklets, games, etc. These activities, like those designed for
associations working with a location's youth and college students, have demonstrated their impact on
the mindsets of adults in these same communities.
6)
Internet
While the Internet is a highly effective tool for attracting partner organizations and raising the
awareness of groups like the diaspora and the international community on Haitian issues, it is much
less effective within the country. In Haitian municipalities, the communities can be reach far more
easily by “face-to-face” involvement using the abovementioned tools.
43
D) Continuous communications
It is important to note that, in addition to being undertaken with the strong involvement of local players,
awareness-raising activities must also be conducted in a continuous manner. One-off information and
awareness campaigns have fairly little impact. It would be beneficial to combine several popular
initiatives over an extended period of time, such as: workshops and round tables, billboards, festive
events, local radio advertising, distribution of brochures, posters and calendars, operations in schools,
etc. In other words, educational programmes, awareness campaigns, and messages must be
repeated over and over again in order to be effective.
As a result, this type of initiative requires that the project teams have in-depth knowledge, not only of
the discipline targeted by the campaign (energy, risk management, etc.) and the local context
(whence the need to recruit Haitians to implement these activities), but also of communication
techniques. In addition, to ensure the effectiveness and the quality of the campaign, the project team
should expect to devote a substantial amount of time to it, particularly for supervising and ensuring
proper management of the groups tasked with organization the communication, where this task has
been delegated to a local body.
Recommendations:
9 Understand and optimize local resources and knowledge, for the successful
completion of communication/awareness activities;
9 Conduct these awareness-raising and communication activities on an ongoing basis,
to ensure successful transmission of the messages;
9 Promote innovative public-private partnerships, especially for mobilizing advertising
networks, access to credit, and sponsor mobilization;
9 Promote activities in schools and partnerships with educational institutions;
9 Use radio and festive community events to disseminate awareness-raising messages;
9 Aim for the gradual geographic extension of activities to neighboring zones, so as to
take advantage of the trust capital already created and the ease of communications
between nearby communities.
44
PART 3: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Despite the high number of natural resource management projects conducted in Haiti and the
considerable level of investments made in the area in the past decades, the negative cycle of
vulnerability and poverty still struggles to reverse itself. The analysis has identified several issues that
have limited the effectiveness of international assistance and national initiatives in the fields of
environment and natural resource management. The main issues are:
- Sectoral projects failing to adopt a comprehensive geographic and thematic approach to
addressing environmental degradation and interlinked problems (economic and social
development, disaster risk reduction, energy issues etc.);
- Poor coordination between international actors, between international actors and the
government, among government departments themselves;
- Short term interventions applied to long-term issues;
- Insufficient national and local ownership of initiatives;
- Failure to record, systematize and disseminate lessons learned leading to a repetition of errors
and the no-replication of best practices;
- Non-establishment of links between environmental rehabilitation activities and activities to
generate revenue/create economic alternatives for the targeted people.
However, the country does have the capacity and opportunity to address these challenges. Gradual
improvements can be observed in the effectiveness and sustainability of international assistance, with
a recent willingness of institutional agents to adopt integrated projects (particularly for catchment
management and local development), to better coordinate themselves and scale up efforts. The
current government is stable, progressing with a range of prop-poor reforms. Haiti has significant
human resources and a resilient grassroots social structure.
The change of approach currently on the way must be well informed by lessons of the past. This
comprehensive analysis should be a step towards the setting up and reinforcement of the knowledge
management system on environmental issues. Improving information sharing on past and ongoing
projects, on analysis and studies undertaken, on best practices and lessons learned would definitely
help actors to capitalize on the knowledge and experience acquired and improve the sustainability of
interventions.
The main recommendations standing out in the present study are enumerated below:
A.
B.
The need for more long-term commitments and follow-ups on interventions
1.
Plan for project durations of at least 5 years;
2.
Set up – in advance – a flexible institutional mechanism for monitoring and technical assistance at
the population's request;
3.
Plan out a strategy for gradual withdrawal;
4.
Budget for one-off follow-up activities after project closure (technical support, additional training,
facilities maintenance, impact studies, evaluations etc.);
Community participation
5.
Involve the communities in all phases of the project cycle: awareness-raising/communications,
identification, formulation, self-assessment, implementation and monitoring/evaluation;
6.
Promote participatory processes for local planning;
7.
Create/strengthen permanent participatory bodies at the local level, tasked with planning,
organizing, implementing and monitoring an integrated development strategy that incorporates
natural resource protection actions;
45
8.
C.
D.
E.
Recruit Haitians trained in rural leadership, who are familiar with local sensibilities, to lead the
participatory process;
Incorporation of environmental protection initiatives into integrated strategies for local
development and land-use planning
9.
Incorporate environmental protection actions into a participatory land-use planning process;
10.
Perform a participatory diagnostic review of land ownership in the target area, prior to
implementation of any intervention;
11.
Consult past interventions and environmental changes that have occurred in the target zone;
12.
Identify and analyze the growth-potential value chains for each location, the key players, the
partnerships to encourage (amongst others, Public-Private Partnerships), the obstacles to
development of the supply chain, and target sources of bottlenecks;
13.
In particular, consider sustainable supply chains in connection with forestry and agroforestry
products, and especially the charcoal value chain;
14.
When preparing an operation, consider the degree of isolation of the community and the state of its
infrastructures, and schedule rehabilitation work under the project/programme, where necessary;
15.
Create/strengthen partnerships with local (micro-) credit institutions or create a working capital fund
to facilitate financing of community-based environment-friendly activities;
Institutional/organizational capacity building and empowerment
16.
Emphasize capacity building activities both for national institutional actors and for local players,
particularly the local authorities- decentralized and devolved ;
17.
Create a local project implementation and support unit composed of technicians responsible for
project management, enabling for gradual community capacity-building, enhancing trust and
facilitating logistics;
18.
Create/reinforce a management committee integrating key community members with an operating
budget enabling follow-up of activities after the closure of the project;
19.
Capitalize on functional bodies that have proven themselves, before creating new ones;
20.
Train the trainers;
21.
Create or integrate project monitoring/steering committees within government institutions;
22.
Include a prior evaluation of the capacities available and the central level and at the level of the
decentralized services of the State, as part of the project's design;
23.
Accompany interventions with support for the Government in developing and updating the
necessary policies, strategies and legal frameworks (energy, protected area management, coastal
zone management, etc.);
Institutional commitment, clarification of roles and ownership
24.
Prior to intervention, ensure there is a strong will of commitment at the national and local level;
25.
Agree in advance on a concrete definition of the roles and responsibilities of each project participant
(modalities of participation; co-funding; material form of contribution etc.);
26.
Formalize the terms of this engagement notably by signing a memorandum of understanding or
other agreement;
46
27.
F.
Ensure clear institutional arrangements that are not overly complex;
Combination of the protection of natural resources with income generation/creation of
economic alternatives
Cash-for-work projects
28.
Ensure that all projects/programmes seeking to develop a food/cash-for-work component have a
permanent supervisory structure with sufficient human, financial and technical resources in the field;
29.
Make implementation of food/cash-for-work activities conditional upon the prior presentation of a
concrete, long-term management and maintenance plan for the works, by the beneficiary
organizations (municipalities, communities, etc.);
30.
Intertwine food/cash-for-work projects with long-term integrated development projects/programmes
in the zone;
Promotion of profitable forestry or agroforestry products and vegetative soil conservation structures
G.
H.
31.
Involve the populations (farmers, land owners and local authorities) from the beginning, to ensure
appropriate technical solutions that are economically advantageous to the farmers;
32.
Ensure that soil conservation work is always accompanied by a biological component;
33.
Ensure that this biological regeneration work complies with the silvo-agricultural calendar, so that
seedlings, cuttings and slips can enjoy the water supply provided by the rainy season;
34.
Encourage prékaye gardens, orchards and wooded lots, particularly by training the producers on
planting, maintenance and grafting techniques;
35.
Support local organizations in creating and managing communal tree nurseries;
36.
Leave the choice of species for plantation to the populations, preferably promoting local species
and enlisting a technical forestry expert to inform the communities about the different characteristics
of the trees, alternate options and their influence on the natural environment;
37.
Systematically perform a cost-benefit study to evaluate the profitability and investment payback
period of the adopted reforestation/agroforestry activities;
Knowledge management and systematization of information-sharing as concerns natural
resource issues
38.
When designing a new project/programme, plan for a phase of compilation of existing data and
studies on the target subjects or regions;
39.
Perform baseline studies prior to implementing an initiative, to be able to allow for better planning
and to make a precise impact evaluation after the intervention;
40.
Support the ONEV and use this body to systematize information-sharing on environmental projects;
41.
Set up a nationwide network to facilitate the coordination between key players in Haiti and to enable
the sharing of information, expertise, experience and innovations;
Environmental awareness-raising and communication activities
42.
43.
Understand and optimize local resources and knowledge, for the successful completion of
communication/awareness activities;
Use radio and festive community events to disseminate awareness-raising messages;
47
44.
Conduct these awareness-raising and communication activities on an ongoing basis, to ensure
successful transmission of the messages;
45.
Promote innovative public-private partnerships, especially for mobilizing advertising networks,
access to credit, and sponsor mobilization;
46.
Promote activities in schools and partnerships with educational institutions;
47.
Aim for the gradual geographic extension of activities to neighboring zones, so as to take advantage
of the trust capital already created and the ease of communications between nearby communities.
48
Appendix 1 – Acronyms
AECID: Agencia Española de Cooperacíon Internacional para el Desarrollo (Spanish Cooperation
Agency)
ASEC: Assemblée de la Section Communale (Local Assembly)
ASPVEFS: Association des Producteurs et Vendeurs de Fruits du Sud (Association of Southern Fruit
Producers and Vendors)
ATPPF: Forest and Parks Protection Technical Assistance Project
BAC: Bureau Agricole Communal
BCPR: Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (UNDP)
CASEC: Conseil Administratif de la Section Communale (Local Government Council)
CIAT: Comité Interministériel pour l’Aménagement du Territoire (Inter-Ministerial Committee for LandUse Planning)
CIDA: Canadian International Development Agency
CIP: Comité Interinstitutionnel de Pilotage (Interinstitutional Steering Committee)
DCP: Dispositif de Conservation de Poissons (Fish Conservation System)
DEED: Economic Development for a Sustainable Environment
DIPECHO: Disaster Preparedness European Community Humanitarian Aid Office
DPC: Direction de la Protection Civile (Directorate for Civil Protection)
ECHO: European Community Humanitarian Aid Office
EU: European Union
FAES: Fonds d’Assistance Economique et Sociale (Economic and Social Assistance Fund)
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization
FoProBiM: Foundation for the Protection of Marine Biodiversity
GAA: German Agro Action
GTZ: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Technical Cooperation)
GZC: Projet de Gestion des Zones Côtières (Coastal Management Project)
HAP: Hillside Agricultural Programme
IDB: Inter-American Development Bank
IDDH: Initiative pour le Développement Durable en Haïti (Initiative for Sustainable Development in
Haiti)
ILO: International Labour Organization
IOM: International Organization for Migration
JICA: Japan International Cooperation Agency
LCPC: Local Civil Protection Committee
MARNDR: Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural (Ministry
of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development)
MICT: Ministère de l’Intérieur et des Collectivités Territoriales (Ministry of the Interior and
Municipalities)
MOE: Ministry of the Environment (Ministère de l’Environnement)
MPCE: Ministère de la Planification et de la Coopération Externe (Ministry of Planning and
International Cooperation)
NGO: Non-Governmental Organization
OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
ONEV: Observatoire National de l’Environnement et de la Vulnérabilité (National Environmental and
Vulnerability Observatory)
ORE: Organization for the Rehabilitation of the Environment
PADELAN: Projet d’Appui au Développement Local et à l’Agroforesterie des Nippes (Support project
for local development and agroforestry in Nippes)
PAGE: Programme d’Appui à la Gestion de l’Environnement (Support for environmental management
project)
PET: Programme Environnemtal Transfrontalier (Cross-border environmental programme)
PNGVB: National Watershed Management Program
PROBINA: Projet Binationational pour le Réhabilitation de l’Artibonite (Binational project for the
rehabilitation of the Artibonite)
PRRO: Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation
SEPE: Substitution of Energy for Protection of the Environment
SGP: Small Grants Programme
49
UNCDF: United Nations Capital Development Fund
UNDP: United Nations Development Programme
UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme
USAID: United States Agency for International Development
WB: World Bank
WFP: World Food Programme
WINNER: Watershed Initiative for National Natural Environmental Resources
50
Appendix 2 – Bibliography
CARE, Evaluation des effets du projet Substitution d’énergie pour la protection de l’Environnement
(SEPE), G. Charles (Intell Consult), R. Moise (Care Haiti) & M.J.P. Damiscar (Care Haiti), June 2004,
57 p.
CIDA, Environnement en Haïti, Leçons apprises, G. Archange, 2008, 6 p.
CIDA, Evaluation de mi-parcours, Programme de Développement Local en Haïti (PDHL), version
provisoire, G. Delorme, F. Marier & E. Henrice, June 2009, 125 p.
CIDA/UAPC, Les nouvelles approches de développement, J-B. Lebelon, Local Development Expert,
and H. Charles, Microfinance Expert, Sep. 2007, 9 p.
ESMAP, Haiti: Strategy to alleviate the pressure of fuel demand on national woodfuel resources,
Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme, Apr. 2007, 77 p.
European Union, Programme Environnement Transfrontalier Haïti-République Dominicaine (PET),
Rapport préliminaire, La région des Lacs Azuei et Enriquillo : un zonage pour l’aménagement du
territoire, J. Eliacin, Land-Use Planning Consultant to the PET, Sep. 2003, 73 p.
European Union, Programme Environnement Transfrontalier Haïti-République Dominicaine (PET),
Evaluation à mi-parcours du Programme, Rapport Provisoire, A. Bellande, F. Cordero & M. Sonet,
Aug. 2003, 53 p.
FAO, Document de Projet, Projet de Développement Local des Communes de Marmelade et
Plaisance, ACDI-MARNDR.FAO, GCP/HAI/019/CAN.
FAO, Rapport d’évaluation du Projet Marmelade - développement local et aménagement des terres
pour un programme national de sécurité alimentaire et de gestion des ressources naturelles, 2005, 16
p.
FAO, Evaluation Financière et Economique du Projet Forêt énergétique et bois d’œuvre,
Développement local de la commune de Marmelade et de Plaisance 2, P.A. Guerrier, Sep. 2006, 23 p.
FAO, Document de Projet, Plantation Energétique avec les Collectivités Territoriales à Savane
Longue.
FAO, Rapport, Approche système de production et sécurité alimentaire en Haïti, for MARNDR, Sep.
2003, P. Matthieu, 117 p.
FoProBiM, Rapport final, Construction de récifs artificiels dans la zone des Arcadins,
Département de l’Ouest, PNUD/ECMU, 5 p.
FoProBiM, Final report, Environmental Education and Capacity Building in Arcadins Coast – Haiti,
Dec. 2007, 11 p.
FoProBiM, Final report, Coastal Community Environmental Rehabilitation Program in Arcadins Coast,
June 2007, 10 p.
GAA/EU, Rapport narratif intermédiaire, Projet d’agroforesterie et du renforcement de petits
agriculteurs des palmes et de Marigot, Apr. 2009, 26 p.
Global Network of NGOs for Disaster Risk Reduction, “Haiti Community Members Design and
Implement Information Campaigns for their Communities” in Building Disaster Resilient Communities:
Good Practices and Lessons Learned, 2007, 61 p.
51
GRAP/Centre for Excellence in Local Development Planning, Etude sur la valorisation des
expériences de développement Local en Haïti, étude de cas : expérience de la FAO dans la
commune de Marmelade, Université de Sherbrooke, May 2003, 167 p.
GTZ, Rapport Final, Projet Réduction de la pauvreté par l'utilisation sustainable des ressources
naturelles dans le bassin transfrontalier de la rivière Artibonite, Feb. 2007, 35 p.
GTZ, Rapport final de la première phase du projet Artibonite, Reducción de Pobreza por Manejo
Sostenible de los Recursos Naturales en la Cuenca Transfronteriza del Rio, Mar. 2007, 11 p.
IDB, Dernière version/Brouillon, Manuel de sensibilisation sur la gestion des Bassins Versants, outils
de communication pour la gestion des bassins versants en Haïti, Nov. 2007, Adesco, Orsa
Consultants, 53 p.
IDB, Rapport de Préparation du Programme national de gestion des bassins versants (HA-0033), Sep.
2006, 87 p.
IDB, Rapport de la mission d’évaluation Projet de Gestion des zones côtières, July 2001, 17 p.
IDB/GEF/MOE, Rapport Final, Révision et synthèse des leçons apprises des interventions dans la
zone d’intervention du Parc National Macaya, pour le Projet sur la Protection des Hauts Bassins
Versants du Sud West d’Haïti ou projet Macaya, Joseph Ronald Toussaint, Agr. Eng., MSc, Nov.
2008, 28 p.
IOM, Grant Clearance Form « Soil conservation and erosion control of La Ravine River », Jul. 2006, 4
p.
IOM, Grant Clearance Form “Rehabilitating gardens and watersheds destroyed by hurricane Hanna”,
Sept. 2008, 4 p.
Lambi Fund of Haiti, Executive summary of the first 10 years of activity evaluation, INFODEV Centre
de Documentation et de Formation Continue en Développement, Port-au-Prince, Haiti, 2004, 8 p.
MARNDR/World Bank (LCSES), Minutes of the working meeting on Natural Resource Management
and Watershed Development, Mar. 2005, 6 p.
OECD, 2008 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration: Making Aid more Effective by 2010, 2009,
160 p.
Oxfam, Report, Community Members Design and Implement Information Campaigns for Their
Communities, Sept. 2004, 3 p.
UNDP, Evaluation indépendante de fin de projet pour le Programme pilote de gestion des risques et
désastres de Fonds-Verrettes (LICUS), version finale, May 2006, 32 p.
UNDP, WFP, ILO, Rapport final de la phase 1, Programme de Prévention des désastres naturels par
la réhabilitation de l’environnement à travers la création d’emplois, Jan. 2008, 32 p.
UNDP, WFP, ILO, Rapport d’activités du projet de démonstration, Appui à la Relance Economique
Favorisant l’Emploi aux Gonaïves, Jean-Marie Vanden Wouwer, Multidisciplinary Technical Team/ILO
Consultant & Alex Ceus, Project Coordinator, Planner/Economist for the DDA/MPCE, Gonaïves, July
2006, 26 p.
UNDP, Document de projet, “Elimination des barrières et création de conditions favorables au
développement des projets d’énergies renouvelables Caracol,” Oct. 2003, 9 p.
52
UNDP, European Community Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), Terminal Report, Doppler Radar
based Early Warning System for Weather Related Natural Hazards in the Insular Caribbean (Support
to DIPECHO Radar Project), Dec. 2004, 85 p.
UNEP, Rapport de Mission du TAF (Technical Assistance Facility) de l’Initiative Régénération Haïti,
Titre du Projet visité : Programme de prévention des désastres naturels par la réhabilitation de
l’environnement à travers la création d’emplois, Patrick Nicolas, Silvana Mastropaolo, Stéphane
Sciacca & Jean Elie Thys, Oct. 26-28, 2009, 8 p.
USAID, Haiti Country Analysis of Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity, D. B. Swartley & J. R. Toussaint,
May 2006, 80 p.
USAID, Environmental Vulnerability in Haiti: Findings and Recommendations, G. R. Smucker et al.,
Apr. 2007, 141 p.
USAID, Agriculture in a Fragile Environment: Market Incentives for Natural Resource Management in
Haiti, G. R. Smucker, G. Fleurantin, M. McGahuey & B. Swartley, July 2005, 92 p.
USAID, DEED, Success Story, Rural Haitian Communities Design Land-Use planning Maps, 1 p.
USAID, DEED, Success Story, USAID/Haiti Addresses Environmental Deterioration of Coastal Areas,
1 p.
USAID, WINNER, Inventaire et évaluations des initiatives de reboisement en Haïti, période 20042009, Carmel André Béliard, Independent Consultant, Specialist in Natural Resource Management,
Oct. 2009, 98 p.
WFP, Rapport d’Evaluation de l’opération Assistance alimentaire aux personnes vulnérables en
situation de crise en Haïti (IPSR/PRRO 10382.0), Oct. 2007, 141 p.
WFP, Summary Evaluation Report of the Haiti PRRO (IPSR) Response to Food Insecure Persons in
Crisis Situations, September 2007, 20 p.
White, T. Anderson & Jickling, Jon L., “Peasants, experts and landuse in Haiti: Lessons from
indigenous and project technology,” in Journal of Soil Conservation. Ankeny: Jan. 1995, vol. 50, Iss 1;
7 p.
World Bank, Haiti Interim Strategy Note for the Republic of Haiti. For the period FY07-FY08, Dec.
2006, 79 p.
53
Appendix 3 – List of contributors to this report
UNEP MEMBERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STUDY
Main author of the report
Lucile Gingembre, Associate Programme Officer for Haiti
Advisors
Andrew Morton, Haiti Programme Coordinator
Antonio Perera, Haiti Programme Officer
Paul Judex Eduarzin, Consultant, Expert in Ecology/Biology
Patrick Nicolas, Consultant, Expert in Development Project Management
Silvana Mastropaolo, Consultant, Expert in Agronomics
Jean Elie Thys, Consultant, Expert in Natural Resource Management and Agronomics
Stéphane Scaccia, Consultant, Expert in Forestry
Jane Upperton, Consultant, Expert in Communication
Researcher/Writer:
Sophie Maisonnier, Research Assistant
Translator French to English:
Laurel Clausen
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Those in charge of this study would like to offer their sincere thanks to all of the people interviewed
during the study, for their availability, the quality of the information that they provided, and the
transparency that they demonstrated. Thanks also to all those who facilitated the communication of
the necessary documents that were key to understanding the processes behind the different initiatives.
A final thank you to the Haiti Regeneration Initiative team for their incisive comments, careful reading
and vital logistical support.
INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS ENCOUNTERED FOR THIS STUDY
Organization name
Type of
organization
Multilateral
Name of person
encountered
Gabriele lo Monaco
Multilateral
Gilles Damais
USAID
Bilateral
USAID
Bilateral
Myrlène
Chrisostome
Christopher Abrams
AFD
Bilateral
Geneviève
Javaloyes
Director
World Bank
International
Ross Gartley
FAO
International
Volny Paultre
FAO
International
Pierre Marie Brutus
AECID
Bilateral
Guillermo Aguilera
Operations Officer, Sustainable
Development Department
Assistant Representative
(Programme)
National Director of the
Marmelade Project
Interim Project Coordinator,
Delegation of the
European
Commission to Haiti
IDB
Function
Director of Food Security and the
Environment
Specialist in Natural Resources
and the Environment
Natural Resources and
Environmental Manager
Environmental Officer
54
García
Gladys Archange
Araucaria
Expert on Environment
Jean Bernard
Lebelan
Yves Duplan
Local Development Specialist
CIDA
Bilateral
CIDA
Bilateral
UNDP/MOE
International
IOM
International
UNCDF/UNDP
International
Louis Chanel
Rodine Saint Jean
Wilfrid Bien-Aimé
Ministry of the
Environment
National
Joseph Vernet
Directorate of Soil and
Ecosystems
Ministry of the
Environment
Ministry of the
Environment
National
Ronald Toussaint
National
Marie Claude
Germain
National Focal Point of the
Convention on Biological Diversity
Minister of the Environment
Ministry of the
Environment
National
Exil Lucienna
Directorate for Water and
Ecosystems, Head of Coastal and
Aquatic Ecosystems
Foundation for the
Protection of Marine
Biodiversity,
FoProBiM
Working Together for
Haiti, Konpay
Helvetas
NonGovernmental
Jean Wiener
Director
Oxfam GB
Initiative pour le
Développement
Sustainable IDDH
Oxfam Québec
Oxfam Québec
ORE (Organization
for the
Rehabilitation of the
Environment)
NonGovernmental
NonGovernmental
Specialist in Economic and
Environmental Policy, PAGE
Programme Officer
Programme Assistants (Les
Cayes Office)
National Project Director
Director
Melinda Miles
Bernard Zaugg
Programme Director
NonGovernmental
NonGovernmental
Jean Gansli
Project Manager
Bruno Renel
Director
NonGovernmental
NonGovernmental
NonGovernmental
Philippe Matthieu
Director
Fritz Vial
PADELAN Project Officer
Danielle Mousson
Finnigan
Director
Agronomist Eliacin
Agronomist Condé
Pierre Jacques
Willio
Programme Officers
Jean Bourgeais
Jean Robert Rival
and Arnoux Séverin
Michael Kuehn
Technical Advisor
PET (Cross-border environmental
programme) Officers
Regional Director
ASPVEFS
(Association of
Southern Fruit
Producers and
Vendors)
European Union
Agricultural
cooperative
German Agro Action
NonGovernmental
Multilateral
Coordinator
55
UNDP/GEF
International
Lyes Ferroukhi
UNDP
International
Eliana Nicolini
AECID
Bilateral
Henri Valles
GTZ
Bilateral
Laurent Hiriel
Floresta Haiti
Guy Paraison
UNDP
NonGovernmental
International
WFP
International
Benoit Thiry
FAES (Economic
and Social
Assistance Fund)
National
Arabela Adam
Care Haiti
GTZ
NonGovernmental
NonGovernmental
Bilateral
USAID
Bilateral
Jean Robert Estime
Lambi Fund for Haiti
Chantal Laurent
Regional Technical Advisor for
Biodiversity and Land
Degradation (ex-Project Manager
for PAGE)
Project Manager, Solid waste
collection in Carrefour Feuilles
Project Manager, Fisheries in the
South East
Project Manager for
Reconstruction and Disaster Risk
Management in the Border
Region
Executive Director
Technical Advisor in charge of
Rehabilitation/Reconstruction,
LICUS Project
Deputy Country Director
Environmental Mission Officer
Deputy Director
David Odnel
Yves Laurent Régis
Programme Manager
Josette Perard
Director
Klaus V. Berger
Project Manager for the Artibonite
project
Director of the WINNER project
56
Appendix 4 – Glossary
Agroforestry: “Agroforestry is a dynamic, ecologically-based natural resource management
system that, through the integration of trees into agricultural systems and landscapes, diversifies
and increases production, while simultaneously promoting social, economic and environmental
benefits for land users.” (World Agroforestry Centre, formerly the International Council for
Research in Agroforestry, ICRAF)
Aid effectiveness: This concept, based on the principles for application defined in the Paris
Declaration, refers to the improvement of the quality and impact of development aid via
partnership commitments organized around five major principles: ownership, alignment,
harmonization, managing for results and mutual accountability. (OECD)
Biofuel: Fuel obtained from organic matter, like wood, vegetable oil (sunflower, rapeseed, beet,
etc.), or the alcohol produced by the fermentation of plant matter or waste. Biofuels are added to
traditional fuels (gas, diesel and heating oil) and provide alternatives to the need for traditional fuel
(coal, petroleum, etc.). (Europa)
Briquette: Small mass of coal, or of peat with other agglomerated materials, molded in the form of
a brick and used as fuel. (Dictionnaire de l'Académie française)
Capacities: The skills, knowledge and resources needed to perform a function. (UNDP)
Capacity development: The process by which individuals, organizations and society acquire,
develop and maintain their abilities, individually and collectively, to perform functions, solve
problems and achieve their own development objectives. (UNDP)
Decentralization: The general term for a transfer of authority and/or responsibility for performing
a function from the top management of an organization or the central governance level of an
institution to lower level units or the private sector. The literature on decentralization frequently
distinguishes between degrees of authority effectively transferred away from central government.
(UNDP)
Deconcentration: Involves shifting the workload from a central government ministry or agency
headquarters to field staff; creating a system of field administration through which some decisionmaking discretion is transferred to field staff within the guidelines set by the center; and
developing local administration, where all subordinate levels of government within the country are
agents of the central authority. (UNDP)
Deforestation: The permanent clearing of forestland for all agricultural uses and for settlements.
It does not include other alterations such as selective logging. (UNDP-Glossary of Human
Development Report Terms)
Ecosystem: A community of plants and animals existing in an environment that supplies them
with water, air, and other elements they need for life. (World Bank)
Effectiveness: The capacity to realize organizational or individual objectives. Effectiveness
requires competence; sensitivity and responsiveness to specific, concrete, human concerns;
and the ability to articulate these concerns, formulate goals to address them and develop and
implement strategies to realize these goals. (UNDP)
Environment: The sum of all external conditions affecting the life, development, and survival of
an organism.
Environmental governance: All the processes and institutions, both formal and informal, that
encompass the standards, values, behavior and organizing mechanisms used by citizens,
organizations and social movements as a basis for linking up their interests, defending their
differences and exercising their rights and obligations in terms of accessing and using natural
57
resources. (L. Ojeda) At the international level, it is also defined as “the sum of organizations,
policy instruments, financing mechanisms, rules, procedures and norms that regulate the
processes of global environmental protection.” (A. Najam, M. Papa & N. Taiyab, Global
Environmental Governance. A Reform Agenda, IISD, 2006)
Erosion: The action by which various components of the superficial horizons of pedological cover
are removed by wind, rain, rivers or glaciers. The main factors are: vegetation, pedological cover,
geomorphology (especially slopes) and the impacts of land use by man.
Grafting/Top-grafting: Grafting consists in placing a bud or section of branch with one or more
buds (the graft) on a plant (the rootstock). Top-grafting consists in performing a second graft on a
previously grafted plant. These techniques provide for orchard improvement and the possibility of
better yields. (World Bank)
Good governance: Addresses the allocation and management of resources to respond to
collective problems; it is characterized by participation, transparency, accountability, rule of
law, effectiveness and equity. (UNDP, Governance for sustainable human development, 1997)
Governance: The World Bank Institute (WBI) defines governance as “the traditions and
institutions by which authority in a country is exercised for the common good. This includes (i) the
process by which those in authority are selected, monitored and replaced, (ii) capacity of the
government to effectively manage its resources and implement sound policies, and (iii) the respect
of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among
them.” (Hufty et al, 2007:18).
For the Commission on Global Governance, “governance is the sum of many ways individuals and
institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through
which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and co-operative action taken. It
includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal
arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest.”
(CGG, 1995, in Hufty et al., 2007:21)
Invasive species: An "invasive species" is defined as a species that is
1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and
2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to
human health. (National Invasive Species Information Center - What is an Invasive Species?.
United States Department of Agriculture: National Agriculture Library. Retrieved on September 1,
2007.)
The spread of invasive alien species (IAS) is now recognised as one of the greatest threats to the
ecological and economic well-being of the planet. These species are causing enormous damage
to biodiversity and the valuable natural agricultural systems upon which we depend. Direct and
indirect health effects are increasingly serious and the damage to nature is often irreversible. The
effects are exacerbated by global change and chemical and physical disturbance to species and
ecosystems. (Global Invasive Species Programme, http://www.gisp.org/ecology/IAS.asp)
Konbit: “Gathering” in Haitian Creole. This term describes communities that work the land,
especially gatherings of farmers and workers in organized communities.
Land degradation: Land degradation is the reduction in the capacity of the land to provide
ecosystem goods and services and assure its functions over a period of time for the beneficiaries
of these. Land degradation affects large areas and many people in dryland regions. (FAO)
Land-use planning: Land-use planning designates both an authority's actions on its territory and
the results of said actions. The objectives of land-use planning actions are the economic and
social development of the territory in question. Decision-makers may establish land-use planning
policies on a local, national or international scale. (Roger Brunet)
58
Local development: The process by which a local community participates in shaping its own
environment, with the aim of improving the overall quality of life of its residents. (Montreal Summit)
Local economic development: Local economic development is the development of the
endogenous potential of a location and the implementation of projects capable of creating job
opportunities in the community and of improving local competitiveness. Local economic
development entails collaboration between public and private players, and the development of
competitive local supply chains (or value chains).
Natural Resources: Natural resources are actual or potential sources of wealth that occur in a
natural state, such as timber, water, fertile land, wildlife, minerals, metals, stones, and
hydrocarbons. A natural resource qualifies as a renewable resource if it is replenished by natural
processes at a rate comparable to its rate of consumption by humans or other users. A natural
resource is considered non-renewable when it exists in a fixed amount, or when it cannot be
regenerated on a scale comparative to its consumption.
Official development assistance: Official development assistance (ODA) means all the resource
contributions which are provided to developing countries and multilateral institutions by public
bodies, including local authorities, or by their implementing agents, and that satisfy the following
criteria (for each operation): a) have the main aim of encouraging economic development and
improving the standard of living in developing countries; and b) are accompanied by favorable
conditions and consist of a grant element of at least 25%. (OECD)
Orthophotograph: Aerial photograph of a territory, to which a geometric correction, or
orthorectification, is applied, such that the scale is uniform (following the principle of geographic
maps). Orthophotographs are commonly used in the creation of a GIS (Geographic Information
System) and are used for geographic referencing and for the observation and analysis of
territories and environments, with a view to future interventions.
Ownership: This concept is based on the principle, which has become widespread since the
1990s, that sustainable economic, social and environmental development and progress cannot be
achieved in a location by the action of external players alone, without the participation and
ownership of the local and national players directly concerned, as regards the issues and methods
for response. A community's ownership of an issue will depend on the methods implemented by
the bodies involved: international agencies, local NGOs, Government, local institutions and
members of the community. (John Hopkins University, Global Public Policy Institute)
Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: International agreement endorsed on March 2, 2005, to
reform the delivery and management of aid. The agreement promotes cooperation between
donors and partners countries, and the transparent, responsible use of development resources.
The declaration is based on 5 mutually reinforcing principles: ownership, alignment, harmonization,
managing for results and mutual accountability. Over one hundred Ministers, Heads of Agencies
and other Senior Officials committed their countries and organizations to adhere to the principles
set out in the Declaration. (OECD)
Participation: Literally, the fact of taking part. For those concerned by governance issues, this
involves understanding whether participation is effective. Participation can be said to be effective
where the members of the group have sufficient – and equal – possibilities of adding items to the
agenda and expressing their preferences for results, as part of the decision-making process.
Participation may be direct or may be exercised via the intermediary of legitimate representatives.
Project/Programme: A “project” is understood here as a series of activities with specific
objectives, designed to produce specific results within a given timeframe; a “programme” is
defined as a series of related projects whose combined objectives contribute to the fulfillment of a
common global objective, at the sectoral, national or international level. The programme approach
is a means for governments and their partners to respond, in a coherent and integrated manner,
to a set of development problems that form a major national objective or set of objectives. A
59
national programming framework describes the articulation of these problems, the strategies for
their resolution and the goals and objectives that have been set for the subject.
Protected areas: Totally or partially protected areas (…) that are designated as national parks,
natural monuments, nature reserves or wildlife sanctuaries, protected landscapes and seascapes,
or scientific reserves with limited public access. (UNDP)
Quickset hedge: Hedge comprised of bushes and foliage, often used to delimit properties and
crop belts. It also protects livestock and shelters crops from the wind. (FAO)
Reforestation: Planting of forests on lands that have previously contained forest, but have since
been converted to some other use. (UNEP)
Runoff: Runoff is a physical phenomenon of the disorganized flow of water over a watershed after
rainfall. It continues until it reaches a river, drainage system or swamp. There are several possible
sources of runoff: natural runoff from rainfall or snowfall, or anthropogenic runoff; any one or more
of these causes may produce “Major Flood Risk” runoff. The force of the runoff will depend on a
combination of several factors: intensity of precipitation, slope, density of plant cover, etc., and
human activities in particular. (Martine Guiton, 1998)
Soil conservation structure: Methods for land management and use that prevent soil
deterioration by natural and human causes. Their purpose is to prevent erosion of the soil by
water (rainfall and runoff) and by wind. They also protect the soil against the consequences of
agriculture and machinery (compacting, acidification and salinization of the soil, etc.).
Sustainability:
- For a project: The likelihood that the positive effects of a project will persist after the external
assistance ends; (International Fund for Agricultural Development - IFAD)
-
For an organization: An organization's capacity to obtain and manage enough resources to
fulfill its mission efficiently and consistently over time, without being overly dependent on a
single funding source. Ideally, sustainable organizations should have: (a) the capacity to
review the context, adapt to it and take advantage of the prospects offered by said context, (b)
solid leadership and management, (c) the capacity to attract and retain qualified personnel, (d)
the capacity to provide benefits and services that are relevant to the communities, with
maximum impact, (e) the skills necessary to demonstrate and communicate the impact that
they have had, so as to obtain further resources, (f) the support and participation of the
community, and (g) a commitment to building sustainable (independent) communities.
(Philanthropic Foundation of Canada)
Taungya: Agroforestry system in which forest species are planted by intercropping with food
crops, first cultivating the crops with the fastest yields. The purpose of this system, developed in
the 1950s, is to give all stakeholders rights to the benefits of the plantations and to incite them to
maintain the trees in the long term. It can even generate income rapidly for the communities, and
provide for land controls and forest development.
Transparency: Sharing information and acting in an open manner. Transparency allows
stakeholders to gather information that may be critical to uncovering abuses and defending their
interests. Transparent systems have clear procedures for public decision-making and open
channels of communication between stakeholders and officials, and make a wide range of
information accessible. (UNDP)
Value chains / Supply chains: The products and processes that are essential to the production
of a good or service. For example, to produce frozen fish, the supply chain inputs will extend from
fish catching, handling, processing, and freezing to packaging, storing and distribution. The
process that adds the most value to the commodity is seen at the higher end of the value chain
(for frozen fish, these processes are packaging and distribution). Although each one occupies a
specific place on the chain, the players and processes are closely linked, and the various forms
60
for organizing chains provide a variety of possible collaborations between the players on one or
more linked chains. Ideally, such collaboration will benefit the players on the value chain. (World
Bank)
Watershed: A watershed or river basin is a portion of land delimited by crest lines, whose water
feeds into a common outlet: a waterway or lake. The line separating two adjacent watersheds is a
drainage divide. Each watershed can be subdivided into a number of sub-watersheds
corresponding to the recharge area of the tributaries flowing into the main waterway.
61
Appendix 5 – Table of projects/programmes analyzed for this study
#
AGENCIES
Donors:
BAA, EU
1
2
Implementing
agency: German
Agro Action,
ACDED, Concert
Action
Donors:
CIDA/(HOLLAND)/
FAO
Implementing
agencies:
MARNDR/FAO
NAME
Programme for
agroforestry
and and the
organizational
reinforcement
of farmers in
Les Palmes
and Marigot
Local
development
project for
integrated
natural
resource
management,
environmental
protection and
sustainable
development in
Marmelade and
Plaisance
SECTOR
LOCATION
DATES
COSTS
€973,754
Agricultural Development/
Agroforestry
Watershed Management/
Development/
Rehabilitation
Agricultural Development/
Agroforestry
Les Palmes
(Municipality of
Petit Goave),
Marigot
Municipalities
of Marmelade
and Plaisance
Jan.
2008-Dec.
2010
19982002
20032010
(US$1,460,631
with
€1=US$1.50)
US$2,806,610
(Phase 1)
C$5,000,000
(Phase 2, or
US$3,500,000
with
C$1=US$0.70)
Local Development
Total=
US$6,306,610
OBJECTIVES
STATUS
Sustainably improving the
economic situation of farms
and reducing
environmental vulnerability
in the communities of Les
Palmes and Marigot, via
the improvement of the
technical and
organizational capacities of
small growers to generate
revenue using agroforestry
systems.
In progress
Contributing to poverty
reduction and
environmental rehabilitation
in Marmelade and
Plaisance, via agroforestry,
agricultural distribution,
watershed
development/management/
rehabilitation and local
governance.
Marmelade:
Finalization
Plaisance: In
progress
Donor: CIDA
3
Implementing
agencies: Oxfam
Québec / CRC
Sogema Inc.
Donors: CIDA,
UNDP, UNCDF,
MICT, MPCE
4
Implementing
agencies: UNDP,
UNCDF, MARNDR
PROBINA
(Binational
Project for the
rehabilitation of
the middle and
upper
Artibonite
Watershed)
Local
development
and support for
governance in
the North-East
Department
Watershed Management/
Development/
Rehabilitation
Haiti/Dominica
n Republic
20052012
(US$8,000,000
with
C$1=US$0.80)
Disaster Risk Management
Cross-Border Cooperation
Watershed Management/
Development/
Rehabilitation
Agricultural Development/
Agroforestry
Local Development
C$10,000,000
8 municipalities
in the NorthEast
Department
20052010
US$5,461,250
Rehabilitating the Artibonite
Watershed in the border
region between Haiti and
the Dominican Republic, by
promoting the sustainable
use of natural resources
and by increasing land
productivity; contributing to
the initiation and
maintenance of
constructive dialogue
between communities that
need to come to agreement
on common objectives;
protecting or rehabilitating
areas to perform ecological
functions related to
biodiversity, hydrology and
wildlife habitats.
This project aims to
continue efforts to improve
living conditions within the
communes of the
department of North-East.
Project activities focus on
helping local actors
improve their skills in
participative planning,
implementing good
governance practices,
rehabilitation,
environmental
enhancements in
production zones,
economic diversification,
and improvements in minor
basic infrastructures.
In progress
In progress
63
Donor: CIDA
5
Implementing
agency: Oxfam
Québec
Donors:
AECID/Bilateral
Argentine
Cooperation
6
Implementing
agencies: MOE,
Assembly of
Cooperation for
Peace
Support project
for local
development
and
agroforestry in
Nippes –
(PADELAN)
Local Development
Agroforestry
Watershed Management/
Development/
Rehabilitation
Biodiversity/ Protected
Areas
Araucaria
Project XXIHaiti
Agroforestry
Waste Management
Governance
Food Security
Haiti (Paillant,
Anse-à-Veau,
Petite-Rivièrede-Nippes)
South-East
(Belle-Anse,
Grand-Gosier,
Thiotte, Anseà-Pitre)
C$6,150,000
20052010
(US$4,920,000
with
C$1=US$0.80
Apr.
2007Apr.
2011?
€2,000,000
(US$2,600,000
with
€1=US$1.30)
Improving the living
conditions of the rural
population in the Nippes
Department through the
promotion of agroforestry
models providing for
improved natural resource
management, assistance
with agricultural distribution
and development of the
capacity of local players to
initiate and manage local
development programmes,
in a participatory and
democratic manner.
Creating a sustainable
development strategy for
the South-East
Department, via:
- Development of a master
plan for Watershed 16;
- Development of a master
plan for the Mapou
Watershed;
- Development of a
management plan for La
Visite National Park;
- Agroforestry and
reforestation in Belle-Anse
- Management of solid
urban waste between Les
Cayes, Jacmel and
Marigot;
- Environmental education;
- Institutional reinforcement
of government
administrations (Ministry of
the Environment and local
authorities);
- Improvement of the food
security of the populations
of Belle-Anse and GrandGosier through family
production of organic foods
In progress
In progress
64
for home consumption.
(PROHUERTA)
Enhancing the quality of life
of fishing communities in
the South-East by:
Donors: AECID
Galicia
German Red Cross
7
Implementing
agency: MARNDR
Project to
reinforce
marine fishing
in the SouthEast
Marine and Coastal
Resources
Haiti (8 coastal
municipalities
in the SouthEast)
February
2007-End
2010
€1,418,000
(US$1,843,400
with
€1=US$1.30)
- strengthening social
organizations (associations
of fisherfolk and traders);
- increasing the quantity of
fish and improving the
safety conditions of fishing
activities;
In progress
- improving fish
conservation and
distribution.
Donor: AECID
8
Implementing
agency: UNDP
(Nex: MOE)
PEDERNALES
Watershed Management/
Development/
Rehabilitation
Haiti (SouthEast: BelleAnse, Jacmel,
Anse-à-Pitre)
Mar.
2007-Mar.
2011
?
Contributing to the
development of the
environmental sector
through the implementation
of several projects of
interest for the protection
and conservation of natural
resources, yielding
synergies between the
parties involved in the
domain. The activities
pertain to:
- the development of
master plans for
Hydrographic Units (HUs)
in Côte-de-Fer (Bainet) and
the Grande Rivière de
Jacmel
- the performance of pilot
microprojects in Anse-àPitre (composting center),
Thiotte (support for fruit
production, processing and
distribution) and Grand-
In progress
65
Gosier (support for
rapeseed production,
processing and distribution)
- the development of a
sustainable development
programme for the western
part of the South-East
Department.
Donors: World
Bank, UNDP
9
Implementing
agency: UNDP
LICUS Disaster
Risk
Management
Pilot
Watershed Management/
Development/
Rehabilitation
Disaster Risk Management
FondsVerrettes and
Mapou
Jan.
2005June
2006
Macaya and La
Visite National
Parks, Pine
Forest National
Reserve
19962001
US$1,100,000
Local Development
Donor: World
Bank
10
Implementing
agencies:
MOE/MARNDR
Forest and
Parks
Protection
Technical
Assistance
Project
(ATPPF)
Biodiversity/ Protected
Areas
US$21,500,000
Contributing to the
institutional reinforcement
of disaster risk
management, in terms of
both prevention and
emergency interventions,
and
incorporating the concept
of risk management into
long-term planning for
watershed and local
development, via the
support for the
establishment of a LandUse Plan and a Watershed
Development Plan,
emergency projects and
institutional capacity
development.
Protecting critical remnants
of Haiti's forest ecosystems
and slowing the pace of
degradation of its natural
resources, via capacity
development of the MOE
and MARNDR,
enhancement of the
National Forest Reserve
and National Parks, and
support for the
development of buffer
zones.
Finalized
Finalized
66
Donor: World
Bank
11
Implementing
agency: DPC
12
13
Donor: InterAmerican
Development
Bank (IDB)
Implementing
agency: MOE
Donor: IDB
Implementing
agency:
MARNDR?
Emergency
Recovery and
Disaster
Management
Project
Coastal
management
project – (GZC)
National
Watershed
Management
Program
(PNGBV)
National
Disaster Risk Management
Marine and Coastal
Resource Management
+ rehabilitation
activities in
FondsVerrettes
Port-au-Prince
Bay, eastern
part of Gonâve
Island, Bay of
Baradères,
Artibonite coast
2005Oct. 2010
US$12,000,000
US$5,000,000
(scheduled)
19982001
Disbursement;
IDB:
US$440,000
MOE:
US$45,000?)
Watershed Development/
Management/Rehabilitation
Disaster Risk Management
Governance
Haiti (national)
20062011
US$30,000,000
The objective of this project
is to provide support in (i)
the rehabilitation of areas
affected by recent adverse
natural events, (ii)
strengthening of the
country's capacity to
manage natural disaster
risks and to better respond
to emergencies resulting
from adverse natural
events; and (iii) reduction
of the vulnerability of
communities through risk
mitigation activities.
Developing the
fundamental elements to
lead to a national
programme that accounts
for the country's coastal
zone, and establishing an
order of priority, amongst
needs and future
interventions, for the
sustainable use of coastal
resources.
Support for the
Government in defining a
policy and a regulatory
framework for watershed
management.
In progress
Finalized
In progress
67
14
15
Donors: IDB/GEF
Implementing
agency: MOE
Donor: IDB
Implementing
agency: MARNDR
Donor: IDB
16
Implementing
agency: MARNDR
Protected
areas
programme (as
part of the
development of
a national
system for
protected
areas)
Ennery-Quinte
Agricultural
Intensification
Project
Natural
Disaster
Mitigation
Program
(GrandeRivière-duNord, Ravine
du Sud, Les
Cayes and
Cavaillon)
Watershed Development/
Management/
Rehabilitation
Disaster Risk Management
Macaya
National Park
20072012
US$3,400,000
Contributing to the
protection and sustainable
management of Macaya
National Park, via the
implementation of a
management plan.
In progress
US$27,400,000
The objective of this project
is to increase the income of
households in the EnneryQuinte Watershed and to
reduce the risk and severity
of damage caused by
future flooding in the
Gonaïves zones.
Intensification of annual
food and cash crops and of
perennial crops via the
improvement of postharvest practices and of
the distribution of
agricultural products from
the project zone, the
management of
watersheds and protection
from flooding, and the
rehabilitation and
management of small
irrigated perimeters.
In progress
Biodiversity/ Protected
Areas
Watershed
Development/Management/
Rehabilitation
Agricultural Development
Watershed Development/
Management/
Rehabilitation
Disaster Risk Management
Municipalities
of Gonaïves,
Marmelade,
Ennery, GrosMorne, SaintMichel-deLatalaye,
Labranle and
Bassin-Magnan
Haiti (GrandeRivière-duNord, Léogane,
Ravine du Sud,
Les Cayes,
Cavaillon)
20072015
20092015
US$13,000,000
The objective of the
program is to reduce
natural disaster
vulnerability through the
implementation of
Watershed Management
Plans, soil conservation
techniques, the
construction of protective
In progress
68
17
Donor: Swiss
Agency for
Development and
Cooperation
Implementing
agency: Helvetas
Implementing
agency: Floresta
18
Donors: Private
individuals
19
Implementing
agency:
Foundation
Seguin
Donors:
Foundation
members
Programme for
the
preservation
and promotion
of biodiversity
at high
altitudes)
Conservation
agriculture and
environment)
Biodiversity/ Protected
Areas
Local Development
Agricultural Development/
Agroforestry
Micro-Watershed
Management
Agricultural Development/
Agroforestry
Biodiversity/ Protected
Areas
Foundation
Seguin
Local Development
Agricultural Development/
Agroforestry
CHF 1.4 million
14 locations
inside or in the
immediate
vicinity of the
Pine Forest
National
Reserve
July 2005Dec. 2008
Grand Colline/
Grand Goave
July 2009July 2010
US$122,000
La Visite
National Park,
Furcy-Seguin
access, Seguin
Plateau,
Macary, Fonds
Jean Noel and
Baie d'Orange
?
?
(US$1,120,000
with
CHF
1=US$0.80)
barriers against flooding,
and the strengthening of
organizations' emergency
response capacities.
Testing the feasibility and
effectiveness of
participatory local
management of Unit II of
the Pine
Forest National Reserve
and nearby buffer zones, in
favor of the local
population.
Contributing to the
improvement of the living
conditions of communities,
through micro-watershed
management, forest
rehabilitation, soil
conservation, sustainable
agriculture and microcredit.
Promoting sustainable
development and
protecting the environment
in the La Visite National
Park zone, via
conservation, training and
revenue-generating
activities for the region
(protection against erosion,
marking of the physical
boundaries of the National
Park, creation of tree
nurseries, sheep farms,
chicken farms and
ecotourism facilities). The
project also aims to
establish a zoning system
for the Park.
Finalized
In progress
In progress
69
20
Donor:
UNDP/Japan
Implementing
agency: FoProBiM
Project for
fishing and the
protection of
the Arcadins
through the
construction of
artificial reefs
(Atlantis)
Marine and Coastal
Resource Management
Arcadin Coast
Nov.
1998-Jan.
1999
UNDP: HTG
520,000
(US$13,000
with HTG
40=US$1)
Japan:
US$14,550
FoProBiM:
HTG 64,400
(US$1,600 with
HTG 40=US$1)
Total:
US$29,100
UNEP:
US$20,000
WFN: £10,000
(US$18,000
with
£1=US$1.80
Implementing
agency: FoProBiM
21
Donors: UNEP,
United States Fish
and Wildlife
Service (USFWS),
Whitley Fund for
Nature, FoProBiM
Environmental
rehabilitation
programme for
coastal
communities
Marine and Coastal
Resource Management
Arcadin Coast
(Cabaret/
Montrouis)
20062009
USFWS:
US$25,000
FoProBiM:
US$10,000
Total:
US$73,000
The objective of this project
was to construct an
artificial reef in the
Arcadins zone, while
protecting the natural reefs
of the Arcadins Islands.
The project included two
components:
-Creation of the artificial
reef using cement blocks
on the seabed;
-Clearing one kilometer of
beach of conch shells, to
increase the size of the
artificial reef (the shells
were also used in the
artificial reef).
Finalized
Promoting better
management and
protection of coastal and
marine resources in
general and of mangroves
in particular.
The programme
components were:
- environmental education
(basic marine science,
resolution of conflicts over
the use of shared
resources)
- field activities (replanting
mangroves, reinforcing
mangrove protection
activities already
underway)
- development of the
capacities of local
organizations to manage
and protect coastal and
marine resources.
In progress
70
Donor: GTZ
22
23
Implementing
agencies:
Technical
Secretariat of the
Presidency,
Dominican
Republic and
Ministry of
Planning and
International
Cooperation,
Republic of Haiti
Donor: GTZ
Implementing
agencies:
Ministry of
Planning and
International
Cooperation
(MPCE), MARNDR
Combating
Poverty
through
Resource
Conservation,
Artibonito
(border region
project)
Reconstruction
and Disaster
Risk
Management in
the Border
Region
Haiti/Dominica
n Republic
Watershed Development/
Management/
Rehabilitation
Cross-Border Cooperation
Border zone of
the Artibonite
Watershed
Agricultural Development/
Agroforestry
Disaster Risk Management
Cross-Border Cooperation
Agricultural Development/
Agroforestry
9 South-East
municipalities
(FondsVerrettes,
Belle-Anse,
Thiotte, Anseà-Pitre, Grand
Gosier)
Oct.
20042007
20082012
€3,000,000
(US$3,900,000
with
€1=US$1.30
€2,500,000
Jan.
2006-Dec.
2008
(US$3,000,000
with
€1=US$1.30)
Rehabilitating the
ecological situation and
improving the living
conditions of the local
populations, via the
promotion of joint, crossborder actions by the local
public authorities and
grassroots groups
organized in the priority
sub-watersheds of the
Artibonite River for the
management of natural
resources.
Project to improve
livelihoods and reduce
vulnerability to natural
disasters:
- reconstruction/
rehabilitation of agricultural
and forestry production and
marketing infrastructure
- reducing the vulnerability
of villages
(defenselessness against
natural disasters) through
soil conservation measures
(ravine-filling, reforestation)
and construction of
protective barriers against
flash floods
- emergency planning and
capacity building to cope
better with natural
disasters.
Phase 1: Finalized
Phase 2: In progress
Finalized
71
Donor: Lambi
Fund for Haiti
24
Implementing
agencies:
AFKB, PEDISEG
Donor:
IOM/MINUSTAH
25
Implementing
agency: MPCE
Donor: IOM/USAID
26
Implementing
agency:
Foundation
Valentin Joseph
Analysis of the
101 projects
implemented
by Lambi in the
following
categories:
agriculture,
food
processing,
environment
and microcredit
Soil
Conservation
and Erosion
Control of La
Ravine River
Rehabilitating
gardens and
watersheds
destroyed by
hurricane
Hanna
Agricultural Development/
Agroforestry
Reforestation/Agroforestry
Nationwide:
Primarily
Artibonite
(32.67% of
funded
projects), the
Sud (29.70%)
and the West
(15.84%)
Disaster Risk Reduction
US$5,000,000
for all projects
over 10 years
(US$500,000 /
year
Average per
project:
US$50,000)
Les Cayes
JulyOctober
2006
19,528 USD
Port à Piment
Sept-Nov
2008
16,011 USD
Reforestation/Agroforestry
Disaster Risk Management
Reforestation/Agroforestry
19932003
(average
project
duration:
18
months)
Helping local organizations
working to improve the
living conditions of their
communities by focusing
on the protection of the
natural environment and on
democratic governance.
-To plant 5,400 bamboos
and 4,400 reed plants
along La Ravine River
-To train the population in
replanting and soil
protection issues
-To consolidate the soil and
decrease chances for
erosion and flooding
-To stabilize 3 volatile
communities by responding
to an urgent need by
creating several
opportunities for short term
employment.
-To rehabilitate 20 hectares
of gardens that have been
destroyed by flooding and
landslides
-To replant 50 hectares
with fruit trees
-To initiate long term
income and livelihood
development opportunities
for farmers who were flood
victims
-To create opportunities for
short-term employment for
victims
Finalized
Finalized
Finalized
72
Donor: various (eg.
USAID, UE, JICA,
BID)
27
Implementing
Agency: ORE
(Organization for
the Rehabilitation
of the
Environment)
Donor: WFP
28
Implementing
agency:
MARNDR?
Various
Projects
Agricultural
Development/Agroforestry
Food Security
Protracted
Relief and
Recovery
Operation
(IPSR)
Food Security
Disaster Risk Management
Camp Perrin
Current
average
duration
of
projects:
18
months
Average yearly
budget: 700
000USD
May
2005-Dec.
2007
US$40,000,000
Improving environmental,
agricultural and economic
conditions in rural Haiti
through the development of
high revenue tree crops,
improved seeds, cash
crops and marketing
programs - designed to
increase yields and
income, produce
nutritionally rich foods, and
to protect the environment
Food assistance for people
exposed to food insecurity
in crisis periods, via the
implementation of:
1) an Emergency
component
(15% of resources) to
respond to crisis situations
caused by
natural disasters or security
problems;
2) a Rehabilitation
component
(85% of resources)
comprised of three
sections: Asset creation
(food-for-work
activities); Support for
people living with HIV or
tuberculosis and their
families; and Nutrition for
young children, pregnant
women and nursing
mothers.
In progress
Finalized
73
Donor:UNDP
29
30
Implementing
agency: MOE
Donors:UNDP
(Track Funds)
IBSA (India-BrazilSouth Africa),
USAID, Sogebank
Elimination of
barriers and
creation of
favorable
conditions for
developing
renewable
energies
Solid Waste
Management in
Carrefour
Feuilles (Portau-Prince)
Energy
Governance
Waste Management
Energy
North-East
(Caracol)
Haiti (Port-auPrince)
Jul. 2003
-Jun.
2004
Apr.
2006-Apr.
2010
US$915,000
US$2,884,360
Implementing
agency:
July 2005July 2008
(Phase 1)
Donor:UNDP
31
Implementing
agencies:
MOE/MARNDR
Support for
environmental
management
project - PAGE
Governance
Haiti (national)
US$3,000,000
July
2008-July
2011
1) Improving the capacity
of national/sectoral
authorities to plan and
implement integrated
approaches to
environmental
management and energy
development that respond
to the needs of the poor
2) Improving the capacity
of local authorities,
community-based groups
and the private sector in
environmental
management and
sustainable energy
development.
Finalized
Instituting a sustainable
solid waste management
strategy in the
neighborhood and
contributing to the
reduction of violence in the
Carrefour Feuilles zone,
through the creation of
revenue-generating
activities.
In progress
Capacity development for
institutions in the
environmental sector
(environmental
management capacity
development, incorporation
of environmental and
natural resource
management into
development policies,
creation of the National
Environmental and
Vulnerability Observatory
(ONEV), and development
of technical and financial
cooperation agreements
In progress
74
and projects).
Donors:UNDP/GEF
32
Implementing
agencies:
MOE/MARNDR
Cross-border
integrated
management of
the Lower
Artibonite
Watershed Management/
Development/
Rehabilitation
Disaster Risk Management
US$20,000,000
Haiti/Dominica
n Republic
Oct.
2006-Apr.
2009
North-East
Department
Dec.
20082010
US$500,000
South-East
Department
Jan.
2005-Dec.
2010
US$2,000,000
(3.5
million/GEF)
Cross-Border Cooperation
Donors:UNDP/GEF
33
34
Implementing
agencies:
UNOPS/Civil
society
organizations
Donors:
UNDP/AECID
Small Grants
Programme
(SGP)
Drinking water
supply and
sanitation in
the South-East
Department
Governance
Local Development
Water and sanitation
Encouraging the
sustainable development of
the cross-border
watershed.
Immediate objectives:
promotion of the
establishment of basic
conditions for the
sustainable management
of this strategic watershed,
by applying an ecosystem
approach, with
performance of
demonstrations and
mobilization of
investments.
-Informing NGOs and
grassroots community
groups of the opportunities
provided by the SGP/GEF
and of funding
mechanisms;
-Supporting community
initiatives that work toward
the attainment of global
environmental benefits.
Contributing to the
development of the
drinking water supply
sector by improving the
rate of coverage and the
quality of drinking water
services and sanitation
services in the South-East
Department.
In progress
In progress
In progress
75
Donors: UNDP,
WFP
35
Implementing
agencies: Ministry
of Planning and
International
Cooperation
(MPCE), ILO
Donor: EU
36
Implementing
agency: ?
Natural
disaster
prevention and
environmental
rehabilitation
through
revenuegenerating
activities
Cross-border
environmental
programme PET) – Phase
1
Watershed Development/
Management/
Rehabilitation
Disaster Risk Management
Watershed Development/
Management/
Rehabilitation
Disaster Risk Management
Cross-Border Cooperation
Artibonite
Department
(Mount
Biennac, La
Quinte River,
Magnan and
Ennery
Watersheds)
Lakes Azuei
and Enriquillo
and their river
basins
June
2007-Jan.
2008
(Phase 1)
Dec.
2008-Dec.
2010
20002004
US$4,500,000
€4 million for
the 2 countries
(€1.5 million of
which for Haiti)
(US$4,400,000
with
€1=US$1.10)
Rehabilitating the
extremely degraded and
weakened environment of
the target municipalities by
means of the creation and
rehabilitation of water and
soil conservation
infrastructures and
environmental protection
work, with the goal of (i)
providing paid work to the
target population and (ii)
generating additional
revenue in the programme
zones (Employment
Intensive Investment
Programme – EIIP).
Contributing to natural
resource protection by
cross-border cooperation
through the creation of a
cross-border training center
for sustainable
development, the
establishment of a
Binational Development
Plan for the lakes region,
and the promotion of
revenue-generating
activities based on the
sustainable use of natural
resources (ecotourism,
agro-silvo-pastoral
activities, etc.).
In progress
Finalized
76
Donor: EU (EDF)
37
Implementing
agency: MOE
Cross-border
environmental
programme PET) – Phase
2
Watershed Development/
Management/
Rehabilitation
Disaster Risk Management
Lakes Azuei
and Enriquillo
and their river
basins
20072010
(US$3,250,000
with
€1=US$1.30)
Cross-Border Cooperation
38
Donors: UNDP,
EU (ECHOEuropean
Community
Humanitarian Aid
Office)
Implementing
agency: UNDP
(BCPR)
Implementing
agency: Oxfam GB
39
Donor: EU (DG
ECHO-DIPECHO)
Doppler Radar
based Early
Warning
System for
Weather
Related Natural
Hazards in the
Insular
Caribbean
Communitybased disaster
mitigation
project);
Subcomponent
analyzed:
Disaster
preparedness
information and
awareness
campaign
Disaster Risk Management
Dominican
Republic,
Jamaica, Haiti
(Camp
Perrin/Les
Cayes)
Sep.
2003-Dec.
2004
June
2003-Oct.
2004
Disaster Risk Management
€2,500,000 for
the two
countries
(€1.75 million
of which for
Haiti)
Cap-Haitien
(JuneSep. 2004
for the
campaign
)
€372,922 (for
the 3 countries)
(US$410,214
with
€1=US$1.10)
?
(<US$100,000
for the subcomponent)
Contributing to land-use
planning and to the
sustainable management
and protection of natural
resources through crossborder cooperation.
In progress
Improving the access of the
target communities to early
warning systems for
hurricanes and floods,
developing the monitoring
and warning capacities of
the national authorities,
and enabling regional
cooperation and crossborder circulation of
information for improved
disaster preparedness
(Haiti, DR, Jamaica).
Finalized
Reducing vulnerability,
improving preparedness
and raising the population's
awareness of natural
disasters in the vulnerable
areas of Cap-Haitien.
Finalized
77
Donor: USAID
40
41
Implementing
agency: Care Haiti
USAID
Donor: USAID
42
Implementing
agency: DAI
(Development
Alternatives
Incorporation)
Substitution of
Energy for
Protection of
the
Environment
(SEPE)
Hillside
Agriculture
Program (HAP)
DEED
(Economic
Development
for a
Sustainable
Environment)
Energy
Port-au-Prince,
Gonaïves,
Artibonite,
Jérémie,
Grande Anse,
Macaya buffer
zone
19941999
?
20022004
Agricultural
Development/agroforestry
20012005
Watershed Development/
Management/
Rehabilitation
Watershed Development/
Management/
Rehabilitation
Agricultural
Development/agroforestry
Natural Resource
Management
Montrouis and
Limbé
Watersheds
and 5 subwatersheds
20082011 (with
the
possibility
of a 2year
extension)
12,000,000
Reducing environmental
degradation by helping to
decrease coal and wood
consumption through the
promotion and use of
efficient conservation
technologies and substitute
sources of energy in
households and small
businesses with low to
medium revenues.
Finalized
Raising incomes and
reducing vulnerability to
natural disasters, through
market incentives to
manage natural resources.
Finalized
Promoting sustainable
economic development
through commercial
agriculture, the
development of economic
alternatives, natural
resource management and
environmental rehabilitation
in the Montrouis and Limbé
Watersheds.
18,000,000
Objectives of the
environmental section:
-Strengthen watershed
management in
collaboration with the
communities and the local
authorities;
-Reduce erosive agriculture
on slopes by introducing
perennial crops like fruit
trees, moringa, jatropha,
etc.;
-Find jobs for rural planters
on private coast land, in
partnership with the
In progress
78
owners;
-Identify and protect zones
of biological importance.
Donor: USAID
43
Implementing
agency: MARNDR,
community-based
organizations
WINNER
(Watershed
Initiative for
National
Natural
Environmental
Resources)
Watershed Development/
Management
Governance
Agricultural
Development/agroforestry
Western part of
the La Plaine
du Cul de Sac
Watershed,
Gonaïves,
Aquin
Oct.
20092014
127,000,000
Developing critical
watersheds via three main
components: creation of
sustainable economic
opportunities, infrastructure
development and
governance.
In progress
79