Why is it needed?

• Research, consultation and analysis all clearly indicate that there is no current model of sustainable development in use in Haiti and the current ad hoc project approach is not delivering the changes needed.
• The 2010 earthquake exacerbated the needs for sustainable development and the associated recovery process has delivered a list of priorities and processes for fund allocation, but has yet to deliver a fully viable model for implementation.
• Research has not identified any other fully viable model on offer or under development in Haiti —a new model is needed.
• The resources and mandates required to achieve sustainable development across all of Haiti are scattered among thousands of organizations including several hundred international organizations. A significant investment of funds, time, and political credibility will therefore be required to ensure widespread adoption of any new model.
• The time frame required to achieve full adoption of the model and lasting impact on the ground on a national scale is estimated to exceed 20 years—hence a very long-term programmatic approach is required.
• The resources available to start the initiative will be limited due to its relatively low profile compared to post-earthquake short-term priorities, so the model must be designed to start small and grow gradually.

The current state of Haiti is explained by many as a result of an oppressive history stretching back over 300 years and culminating in the past 50 years of multiple contributing factors of dictatorship, instability, and steep decline, capped by frequent hurricanes and a devastating earthquake. Among the many adverse conditions, the arguably top 20 key factors and major events are listed in historical order:

• Colonization of Haiti by France, taken over from Spain in 1697
• The building of a major slaveholding economy and population, 1697–1804
• Successful independence and the world’s first free black Republic, 1804
• Subsequent oppression and isolation of Haiti by world powers
• Payment of a massive “independence charge” by Haiti to France, 1825–1947
• American occupation, 1915– 1934
• Duvalier dictatorships, 1957– 1986
• The Cold War, with a particular emphasis on the USA-Cuba confrontations
• The stability and growth of the neighboring Dominican Republic
• Explosive population growth, from 3 million in 1950 to more than 9 million in 2010
• 400 years of environmental degradation, resulting in a loss of 98% of Haiti's forest cover by 1990
• Large-scale emigration to the USA, Canada, and Europe
• The establishment of the United Nations UN peacekeeping force in 2004
• The impact of the hurricanes of 2004 and 2008 on an estimated 3.6 million people
• USA-Haiti preferential trade agreements and associated garment industry
• Price shocks caused by global market fluctuation
• Reduced safety nets of remittances during the 2008–2011 world economic crisis and recession
• The 2010 earthquake
• Introduction of cholera and the subsequent epidemic, 2010–2011
• Elections in 2010–2011 and associated violence and instability

The noted drivers and chronic contributing factors include population growth and density, under-development, very weak governance, problematic land tenure, political instability, unsuitable agricultural practices, disaster vulnerability, topography, weather patterns and extreme weather events, and climate change.

In conclusion, the root causes of Haiti’s current problems are numerous and complex; most challenges are the result a long troubled history. For the HRI, this indicates that achieving the sustainable development of Haiti will be a extended and difficult task, and success is not assured. Therefore, the design of any long-term initiative must take into account the complexity of the root causes of the observed problems.

A large number of authors and institutions have studied and developed opinions on how Haiti arrived at its current difficult situation. Each study has its own individual emphasis and viewpoint, resulting in many conclusions regarding the root causes and factors. The most useful studies that informed the HRI are included in the HRI Library. Regarding the current state of the environment, numerous organizations have conducted a range of assessments on both the rural environment of Haiti and the drivers of poverty and degradation. Two of the most recent and comprehensive such studies to date are:

• The USAID sponsored assessment: Environmental Vulnerability in Haiti 2007.
• The UNEP sponsored report: GEO Haiti.

The detailed recovery and development needs of Haiti have been extensively studied and are well presented in many documents produced by the Haitian government. The most important of the many policy and planning documents on this topic are:

• The Action Plan for Recovery and Development, 2010
• The National Plan for Investment in the Agricultural sector, 2010
• The National Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, 2008
• The Master Plan for the Southern Peninsula, 2010

The HRI scope of work is directly drawn from these government-owned documents. However, as these documents provide only limited detail on the prioritization between different sectors and regions, prioritization within the HRI is instead handled on an annual and long-term basis by the HRI partners themselves (including representatives of the Government of Haiti) in consultation with other stakeholders, particularly the local communities.

The international community has been delivering humanitarian, development, and financial assistance to Haiti for more than 30 years. Unfortunately, the results of this assistance are not always visible or lasting at the local scale, and at the national level the country has been unable to capitalize on this assistance to achieve lasting development. As a result, there is a continuous and widespread debate at both the national and international level regarding the impact and efficiency of foreign aid in Haiti.

There have been numerous studies and books on the positive and negative role of foreign aid and interventions in Haiti. In 2009-2010, UNEP conducted its own lessons learned study evaluating forty ongoing and completed environmental and natural resource management projects. Among the key findings of the study:

• Highly variable quality and lasting impact of projects. The quality and lasting impact of the 40 projects examined differed greatly, ranging from projects with no remaining evidence of impact or even adequate project records to ongoing successful locally owned initiatives. It was important to note that there exist 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 indicate 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 already in implementation, resulting in over-dependence on international staff and consultants and a lack of retained knowledge on a localized level.


• Poor national scale data management. A lack of systematic national level data management indicates that strategic decisions and policies are being created without a strong foundation of knowledge-driven considerations. There is also poor coordination of data collection programs between NGOs and the government, resulting in missed opportunities for systematic studies at larger scales and loss of lessons learned. A major investment was required to find and obtain the material required for the UNEP report.


• Continued emphasis on small scale and short duration projects. The majority of projects 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). Not a single project or program had a time span of consistent investment over 10 years.


• Project success correlated with a longer duration. Longer term (>5 years) projects/programs were overall more successful than shorter ones. Given the preponderance of short-term projects, this indicates a systemic problem.


• Funding gaps and instability. Virtually all projects suffered from unstable funding to some extent. A chronic lack of continuity in funding was 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 and programs are becoming more geographically concentrated and that the distribution between players on the ground is better coordinated. Major donors now give special attention to the management and rehabilitation of watersheds, often targeting the most vulnerable zones. In general, the projects and programs now tend to follow a more integrated approach than in the past.


• Local ownership. Community participation in all phases of the project or program cycle, from identification through monitoring and evaluation, greatly improved the impact of the interventions.


• 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 or program.


• 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. It was found necessary to combine the protection of natural resources with the generation of an economic interest for the beneficiaries. Positive examples include 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. The more successful projects incorporated capacity building in institutions and organizations.