HAITI REGENERATION INITIATIVE Study of lessons learned in managing environmental projects in Haiti Contacts: Country Programme Manager for UNEP: Mr. Antonio Perera, antonio.perera@unep.org +509 36 99 55 40, Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Programme Coordinator: Mr. Andrew Morton, andrew.morton@unep.org +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% 25 years N/A 210 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) ? (