1 
Haiti Improved Cooking 
Technology Program (ICTP)
Final Performance Evaluation 
Report
Philippe Phanol, 
Antoine Wesner
& Bétonus Pierre
November 2015
This Evaluation Report was produced for review by the
United States Agency for International Development
2 
USAID/HAITI
Haiti Improved Cooking 
Technology Program (ICTP) 
Final Performance Evaluation 
Report
Contract Number: AID-521-O-15-00026
Philippe Phanol, 
Antoine Wesner 
& Bétonus Pierre 
December 2015
 BRIDES 
35, Rue Borno, Pétion-Ville, Haïti
DISCLAIMER
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for 
International Development or the United States Government
3 
Contents
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................. 5
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................................................... 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................... 8
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 14
II. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT..................................................................................................................... 14
2.1. CHARCOAL IN HAITI........................................................................................................................................14
2.1.1. Charcoal as an energy source ..............................................................................................................14
2.1.2. Charcoal and the environment ............................................................................................................15
2.1.3. Charcoal and health.............................................................................................................................15
2.2. ALTERNATIVE COOKING SOLUTIONS ...................................................................................................................15
2.2.1. Global context: Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves..........................................................................16
2.2.2. Global context: Carbon finance............................................................................................................16
2.2.3. More efficient cookstoves....................................................................................................................16
2.2.4. Regulatory framework .........................................................................................................................16
III. THE IMPROVED COOKING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM (ICTP) ........................................................................ 17
3.1. ICTP OBJECTIVE AND ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................17
3.2. ICTP COMPONENTS AND EXPECTED RESULTS .......................................................................................................17
3.2.1. Establishing a thriving local market and industry for household improved biomass cookstoves........18
3.2.2. Reducing charcoal consumption by large users, particularly food vendors, schools and orphanages 18
3.2.3. Building a legal and regulatory framework for LPG.............................................................................18
3.2.4. Devising carbon finance and financial incentives for scale up.............................................................19
3.2.5. Strengthening capacity of biomass cookstove enterprises to scale up production and sales..............19
IV. EVALUATION PURPOSE............................................................................................................................... 19
V. EVALUATION KEY QUESTIONS .................................................................................................................... 19
VI. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 20
6.1. QUALITATIVE METHODS ..................................................................................................................................20
6.1.1. In depth review of project documentation...........................................................................................21
6.1.2. Semi-structured interview with key informants...................................................................................21
6.1.3. Focus Group (FG) Discussions ..............................................................................................................21
6.2. QUANTITATIVE METHODS................................................................................................................................21
6.2.1. Household survey................................................................................................................................. 21
4 
6.2.2. Mini-survey ..........................................................................................................................................22
6.3. DATA COLLECTION PROCESS.............................................................................................................................23
6.4. QUALITY MONITORING...................................................................................................................................23
6.5. DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................................23
6.6. LIMITATIONS.................................................................................................................................................23
7. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 24
7.1. TO WHAT EXTENT THE PROGRAM ESTABLISHED A LOCAL MARKET FOR IMPROVED HOUSEHOLD BIOMASS COOKSTOVES? ......24
7.1.1. Findings on the establishment of a local market for ICS......................................................................24
7.1.2. CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................30
7.1.3. Recommendations on the establishment of a local market for ICS .....................................................31
7.2. TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE TARGETED PROJECT BENEFICIARIES SWITCH TO LPG TECHNOLOGY AND WHAT WERE THE DRIVING 
FORCES BEHIND THIS CHOICE? .........................................................................................................................................32
7.2.1. Findings on the charcoal consumption reduction by large users.........................................................32
7.2.2. CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................39
7.2.3. RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................................39
7.3. BUILDING A LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR LPG IN HAITI......................................................................40
7.3.1. General findings on the establishment of a regulatory framework for LPG ........................................40
7.3.2. Conclusions on the establishment of a regulatory framework for LPG................................................43
7.3.3. Recommendations on the establishment of a regulatory framework for LPG.....................................43
7.4. CARBON CREDIT MARKET IN HAITI ....................................................................................................................43
7.4.1. General Findings on carbon credit.......................................................................................................43
7.4.2. Conclusions on carbon credit...............................................................................................................46
7.4.3. Recommendations on carbon credit....................................................................................................47
8. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................... 48
APPENDIX A: BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................... 48
APPENDIX B. THE MINI-SURVEYS CONDUCTED WITH LARGE USERS..................................................................... 48
APPENDIX C: ENERGY SOURCES AT SCHOOLS AND ORPHANAGES....................................................................... 49
APPENDIX D. COMPLETE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 49
APPENDIX E. LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS............................................................................................................... 57
APPENDIX F. SAMPLING CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................................... 59
APPENDIX G. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW.......................................................................................................... 61
APPENDIX H. EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK (SOW)............................................................................................ 80
APPENDIX I. EVALUATION MATRIX ...................................................................................................................... 81
5 
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 
ALRI Acute Lower Respiratory Illness
ANDH L’Autorité Nationale Désignée d’Haïti
BME Bureau des Mines et de l'Énergie 
BRIDES Bureau de Recherche en Informatique et en 
Développement Économique et Social 
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
COR Contractive Officer’s Representative 
CPA Component Project Activities
DOE Designed Operational Entity
ENEL “Ente Nazionale per l'energia Elettrica” (Italian Electric 
Company). 
FDS Faculté des Sciences 
EdM Entrepreneurs du Monde 
GDA Global Development Alliance
GoH Government of Haiti 
ICS Improved Cookstove 
ICTP Improved Cooking Technology Program 
IHSI Institut Haïtien de Statistique et d’Informatique 
KII Key Informant Interview 
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas 
MAP Metropolitan Area of Port-au-Prince 
MARNDR Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et du 
Développement Rural 
MCI Ministère du Commerce et de l'Industrie 
MFI Micro Finance Institutions 
MoU Memorandum of Understanding 
6 
NGO Non-Governmental Organization 
POA Program of Activity 
PPP Public-Private Partnership 
PSU Primary Sampling Unit
SdE Section d'Énumération 
SFV Street Food Vendors 
SONAPI Société Nationale des Parcs Industriels 
STTA Short Term Technical Assistance
TOE Ton of Oil Equivalent
UEH Université d'État d'Haiti (Haiti State University)
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
WHO World Health Organization 
7 
List of Tables
Table 1. About promoted ICS........................................................................................................ 26
Table 2 Coverage of media campaign........................................................................................... 27
Table 3. Financing improved cookstoves at household level ....................................................... 28
Table 4. The use of charcoal and ICS in households..................................................................... 29
Table 5. Coverage for LPG promotion campaign.......................................................................... 32
Table 6. Use of charcoal stove by large users............................................................................... 34
Table 7. Source of energy for large charcoal users....................................................................... 37
Table 8. Why not switching to LPG? ............................................................................................. 37
Table 9. Purchasing LPG cookstove .............................................................................................. 38
8 
Executive Summary
Background context and Objective
In June 2015, USAID awarded to BRIDES a contract to conduct the final evaluation of the 
Improved Cooking Technology Program (ICTP) implemented in the Metropolitan Area of Port￾au-Prince (MAP). The purpose of the final evaluation was to determine the impact of the ICTP 
and its main objective to set Haiti on a path towards long-term sustainable cooking solutions 
and achieve a significant reduction in charcoal consumption by large users and households.
The program planned to reduce the charcoal demand by promoting more efficient and 
substitutive products, presumably cheaper and less harmful to the environment in Haiti. The 
ICTP was sectioned into five main components with specific intermediate results, namely, 1) 
establishing a thriving local market and industry for improved biomass household cookstoves, 
2) reducing charcoal consumption by large users, particularly street food vendors, schools and 
orphanages, 3) building a legal and regulatory framework for LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas), 4) 
devising carbon finance and financial incentives for scale up, 5) strengthening the capacity of 
biomass cookstove enterprises to scale up production and sales.
The evaluation questions provided by USAID/Haiti were as follow: 
1. To what extent did the project establish a local market and industry for household improved 
biomass cookstoves? 
2. To what extent did the targeted project beneficiaries switch to LPG technology and what 
were the driving forces behind this choice? 
3. What mechanisms have been put in place to ensure sustainability of the project 
achievements and to what extent will benefits realized be replicated in the long term by 
partners? 
4. To what extent will the existence or absence of a carbon credit market in Haiti affect the 
success and sustainability of the ICTP?
Evaluation Methodology. 
Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used for this evaluation. Qualitative methods 
included focus groups with technicians working in cookstoves manufacturing plants, key 
informant interviews with various stakeholders and beneficiaries, and in depth project 
document review. Quantitative methods included a mini-survey with large users including 32 
orphanages, 31 schools and 60 street food vendors. A household survey was conducted with 
973 households in the MAP. 
Findings and Conclusions
Question 1. 
9 
Based on data collected on the field, major findings regarding the establishment of a local 
market for (ICS) are the following: 
A. The project established and strengthened local institutions and entities of the GoH to 
produce cookstoves
The evaluation team distinguishes two groups of evidence supporting that ICTP established and 
strengthened local institutions and entities of the GoH for the promotion and 
commercialization of improved biomass cookstoves: 
a) The ICTP developed a manufacturing base to expand the availability of ICS in the targeted 
area. The project supported the establishment of the national testing laboratory at the 
“Faculté des Sciences, UEH”. The program identified six improved cookstove models and their 
manufacturers receive in-kind grants including clippers, guillotine shearing machines, 
generators, spot welders, etc. In addition to grants, the manufacturers also received other kinds 
of less direct support such as advertising, orientation to credit institutions, specific support in 
the organization of an exhibit fair, etc. 
b) The ICTP has established a Distribution Network.
The ICTP reported that three new private sector partners, TOTAL Haiti SA, Micama, and 
Ticadaie, used their distribution networks to support improved charcoal cookstoves (ICS) sales, 
and about 246 new sales points have been established in the Port-au-Prince Metropolitan Area 
over the project life. Our household survey indicated that about 40.2 percent of the population 
knew where to buy an improved cookstove. 
B. Marketing and outreach campaign established by the program have reached a huge 
part of the population living in the metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince 
According to ICTP reports, 13 media campaigns covering the target area have been conducted 
with ICS partners to promote ICS. About 22 radio and TV programs have been produced and 
broadcasted, and 47 ICS demonstration events have been organized to promote ICS purchase 
and use. About 66 percent of the respondents have seen commercials on TV about improved 
cookstoves. The household survey showed that about 69 percent have heard about ICS in radio 
and only 29 percent have seen billboards about ICS. 
C. Financial incentives were not realized on a scale that would drive significant changes 
One of the major barriers to change from traditional to improved cookstoves is the cost of the 
stoves so program design included activities to promote the purchase of improved cookstoves. 
According to annual reports, the ICTP worked with two Micro Finance Institutions (MFI) — ID 
Microfinance of EdM and ACME SA — to pilot special consumer microfinance products, 
including “Kredi enèji & Kredi Enèji vèt”. According to key informants, up to the end of the 
project people didn’t have money to buy improved stoves, which tremendously slew down
product distribution. According to household survey results about 6 percent of purchased 
cookstoves were local gifts. About 43 percent of households having purchased improved 
cookstoves claim to have had credit to purchase. Among improved cookstoves users, 52 
percent argue that they would not be able to buy the cookstove without external help 
10
(remittances, credits, gifts, etc.). Among households using traditional stoves, about 70 percent 
said they would buy an improved cookstove if they had the opportunity to have credit.
D. ICS have not been adopted by households in the metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince
The end results of marketing activities were that the households living in the metropolitan area 
purchased improved biomass cookstoves and that they are using them in their households. 
In the program area, 88 percent of households still use charcoal for cooking at home, with 71 
percent of households using charcoal exclusively. About 82 percent of households still have 
traditional cookstoves. Only 6 percent purchased improved biomass cookstoves, 7.5 percent 
has LPG stoves and 2 percent have ovens. Wood is also still in use in the metropolitan area, 
reported as “Other”.
E. Cookstoves certification is strengthened but is yet to be functioning at a rate to 
protect manufacturers intellectual property
An MOU has been signed between the BME, UEH and ICTP for the transfer of the laboratory to 
UEH. Since its launch, very few stoves have been tested in the laboratory. All manufacturers 
met are very satisfied with the results of tests conducted in the laboratory of FdS they consider 
to be of international standard. 
Conversely, producers complain about the absence of legislation for the protection of 
intellectual property. As an example, the Mirak stove is being sold at 500 gourdes, while stove 
makers are counterfeiting and selling it at 100 gourdes. Producers also complain about the 
expensive cost of certification for their product. 
Q1. Conclusion. The program has established some necessary bases to institute an improved 
cookstoves market in the metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince, but the massive switch from 
traditional cookstoves to improved cookstoves is still to be achieved. 
Question 2. 
Major findings regarding LPG technology are the following: 
A. Media campaign for LPG was a success, reaching out to a high percentage of large users
Nearly 80 percent of street food vendors and over 80 percent of schools and orphanages
leaders had the opportunity to see a commercial on TV. In any case, 69 percent of orphanages, 
75 percent of heads of schools and 73 percent of street food vendors claim to have heard a 
radio spot. An identical percentage of orphanages but less schools (58 percent) and street 
vendors (57 percent) claim to have seen billboards. Targeted large users have been reached out
by the ICTP media campaign and therefore are potential LPG consumers.
B. Switch to LPG did not follow trends of media campaign coverage among large users. 
The mini-survey with schools with canteens in the metropolitan area reported that only 22.6 
percent are using LPG (12.9 percent have LPG stove and 9.7 percent have LPG ovens), while 29 
percent have traditional charcoal stoves. The mini-survey implemented with orphanages 
included in the later sample shows that only 44 percent have an LPG stove. About 31 percent 
are still dependent exclusively on charcoal for cooking and 37 percent are using charcoal 
11
complemented with other energy source. According to the information collected in different 
areas occupied by the SFV, only SONAPI vendors have been converted to LPG. Outside this area 
it is very difficult to find a SFV that uses LPG as a source of energy. LPG cookstoves production is 
strengthened but an increase in production was not significant. 
None of the randomly selected dry cleaners, bakeries or prisons were beneficiaries of the 
project. The only company manufacturing LPG ovens for bakeries stated to have so far 
produced only one oven. According to the owners met, the challenges to conversion to LPG are 
strong, including electricity, high cost of stoves, and lack of information. 
C. Production is strengthened but increased in production was not significant.
Equipment has been distributed to producers to both have better quality products and increase 
production. However, most manufacturers were not too happy because they expected to 
receive cash1 in lieu of equipment. Further, expectations were often higher than what they 
actually received. According to the manufacturers, the increase in LPG stoves production was 
not very significant, following the demand slow growing trend. Manufacturers believe that it is 
extremely difficult to obtain a change of habits in three years.
D. Driving forces associated with switches to LPG are mainly finance and safety. 
According to most of the charcoal large users, the main barriers to conversion are lack of 
money for upfront investments, and fear of fire or explosion associated with the use of LPG. 
About 44 percent of orphanages and 54 percent of SFV claimed that the price of the LPG stoves 
is the main reason preventing the switch. Driving forces to switch to LPG are mainly economics 
according to 62 percent of orphanages, 36 percent of schools and 59 percent of SFV. 
Q2. Conclusion. The major conclusion is that the conversion rate from charcoal to LPG is still 
low. Many large users are still to be converted. 
Question 3. 
In Haiti, the law on petroleum products was passed in 19492
. Some of its provisions are 
outdated given the evolution of trade-related techniques for these products, and LPG, which 
has been on the Haitian market for decades, is not addressed in the law. ICTP has provided 
substantial technical advice and assistance to the MCI in analyzing the economic environment 
of the LPG value chain in order to lay the foundation for legislation that is correctly structured 
and reflects the reality of the sector. Chemonics contracted a firm to write a bill for the group. 
The bill was presented and discussed in work sessions with the various key stakeholders. 
According to MCI, this bill needed to be contextualized and more closely adapted to the 
country's reality. 
 
1
They argue that they would get more materials for the same amount of money.
2 The law on petroleum products effective in Haiti exists since 1949. LPG have a special status, since the customs 
tax on this product has been abolished in 1987.
12
In addition to the Chemonics' bill, there was also a bill from Total Haiti, and another one from 
the Mevs Group. Finally the Ministry of Commerce and Industry sponsored a bill produced by 
the consultant Paolo Schilozzi, which intended to be a pool of the others. 
In addition to this proposed legislation, LPG quality also needs to be regularly controlled and 
tested. There are currently no quality control mechanisms in place. 
According to the submitted and approved plans, the ICTP had to draft key policy, legislation and 
regulation and provide technical assistance to the GOH to assist them in adopting these 
legislative, regulatory and policy recommendations. According to the key informants met during 
this evaluation, the project actually implemented all planned activities. However, the single 
outcome of that component aiming at the "adoption of an effective regulatory framework for 
LPG that will enable market expansion" was not achieved. External factors, outside of the 
project's control, are responsible for this situation. It was expected that the GoH fully play its 
role and that there also be a functional Parliament during this phase of the project's life.
Conclusions. Overall, the project has the merit of having achieved almost all that was planned. 
However, the outcome of this project component, which was the adoption of an efficient 
regulatory framework, was not met. 
Question 4. 
Three (3) carbon credit projects are currently in implementation or in the registration process in 
Haiti. 
• The first project is the D&E Green enterprises project registered on its own (without the 
ICTP support) since 2013 with ENEL, a European Electricity Company. 
• The second project is the Entrepreneur du Monde, a French entity involved in energy 
projects in Haiti (EdM Voluntary Gold Standard) to which ICTP provided access to its 
various studies in order to reduce the costs of the process. The project is in registration 
process. 
• The third project is the POA “Improved Cookstoves for Haiti,” registered to CDM, by 
ICTP, that presents a possibility to introduce multiple projects during the POA’s 28-year 
lifetime.
To register and implement a carbon credit project in Haiti, several constraints have been 
highlighted by key informants:
• High cost of registration. It generally costs over US$ 150.000 to fulfil all the 
requirements and get registered. 
• Registration duration process. It takes over 2 years to comply with all steps and get 
registered.
• Institutional weakness. The National Designated Authority (ANDH) is not currently fully 
functional. They need capacity building and staff reinforcement. 
Moreover, key informants reported that local partners had reported many difficulties working 
with C-Quest capital for several reasons. Some producers could not register their projects due 
mainly to complicated procedures and registration cost. These include Recho Rena and “chabon 
tout bon” of Ticadaie.
13
National Institutional scheme for CDM project
A key requirement of local authorities for the CDM project is to put in place a structure for (A) 
providing an authorization letter to promoters with specific criteria to comply with and (B) 
promoting the opportunities of CDM projects among potential investors.
To comply with this requirement, the Designated National Authority of Haiti (ANDH) was 
created within the Ministry of the Environment by a Presidential Decree on May 24, 2010 and is 
responsible for implementing the provisions of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of 
the Kyoto Protocol (KP).
In terms of progress related to the establishment of a carbon market in Haiti, ANDH has 
elaborated and made available a Guide to investors. 
International CDM price environment
The average prices of CDM carbon credits dropped significantly in 2012. But it is still valuable to 
promote POA among buyers who are willing to offer premium prices for carbon credits 
generated via technologies that have important social benefits, such as improved cookstoves. 
State and Trends of Carbon pricing
As of today3
, about 40 countries and 20 sub-regional jurisdictions are putting a price on carbon. 
Together, these carbon pricing instruments cover almost 6 gigatons of carbon dioxide 
equivalent to about 12percent of annual global Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. 
Conclusion. ICTP’s carbon component accumulated a great quantity of information by 
conducting different studies which complied with CDM and Gold Standard methodologies, 
allowing independent Haitian stove manufacturers to apply for carbon credits under the Gold 
Standard scheme in the future. 
In spite of the decline in the price on carbon credit, there is still room to implement relevant 
projects in Haiti. 
It is, however, very difficult to affirm that a well-established carbon market has been achieved 
in Haiti by the project. Whether or not the project has influenced the carbon market is not an 
easy question to answer because no carbon credit has been delivered as a result of the project 
which would provide financing for stoves and make them affordable for those less fortunate. 
At this moment it is clear that the absence or the presence of the carbon credit component of 
the ICTP project has not influenced the stove market. But one can assume that once the whole 
cycle is completed, it should have tremendous influence on the stove market.
 
3 World Bank: State and Trends of Carbon pricing, May 2015
14
I. INTRODUCTION
The Improved Cooking Technology Program (ICTP), implemented in Haiti from February 2012 to 
February 2015, was a bold intervention that planned to reduce the demand for wood and 
charcoal. The 8.2 million US dollars project was executed to promote more efficient and 
substitutive products, presumably cheaper and less harmful to Haiti’s environment. What are 
the results of such a program? Under what conditions can it be reproduced or scaled up in 
future programming? It is generally one of the intents of project evaluation to address these 
and other key questions.
Evaluation is critical to the success and sustainability of USAID’s work. Allowing time at the end 
of each program cycle to reflect together with partners and communities on what has changed, 
and to find out what worked or didn’t work, is a powerful way of improving the quality of a 
program. This evaluation intends to analyze the effectiveness of the program, increase 
accountability to all stakeholders and build the capacity of those with whom USAID works. 
This document lays out the project background context, the evaluation methodology and 
findings
II. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
This section describes the problems related to the use of charcoal as an energy source in Haiti 
and the reasons justifying the implementation of a program aiming at reducing its use. Charcoal 
is widely used in Haiti as an energy source for household cooking at the expense of the 
environment. In addition, the use of charcoal is detrimental to the health of individuals who are 
exposed to charcoal smoke. The following paragraphs detail the stakes linked to charcoal
production and use in Haiti.
2.1. Charcoal in Haiti
2.1.1. Charcoal as an energy source 
In Haiti, charcoal is the main source of energy, especially for cooking. According to an ESMAP4
study (2007), Haiti draws 72 percent of its energy consumption from local resources, including 
firewood and charcoal (66 percent), sugar cane residues (4 percent) and hydropower (2
percent). While richer households have gradually switched to cleaner sources of energy 
(kerosene and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), nearly 90 percent of households turn to charcoal
or firewood for energy. Nearly 30 percent of households’ income in the metropolitan area goes 
toward the purchase of charcoal. Charcoal is produced mainly in rural areas and sold to 
 
4
ESMAP (Energy Sector Management Assistance Program)
15
wholesalers who transport it to the metropolitan area. About 80 percent of this charcoal is 
consumed in urban areas, while rural households use more firewood. 
During the last two decades, an evolution was observed in charcoal consumption as other large
charcoal users emerged. These users included street food vendors (SFV), restaurants, hotels, 
schools and orphanages. According to some specialists, the country sacrifices 12 million trees 
each year, providing 3.4 to 4.0 million metric tons of firewood or 1.3 to 1.5 million tons of oil
equivalent (TOE) to meet the energy needs. Of this total, 37 of percent of that firewood is 
converted into charcoal, an amount oscillating between 250,000 and 280,000 tons every year.
2.1.2. Charcoal and the environment
Charcoal production has a disastrous impact on the Haitian environment. Environmental 
degradation accelerated at an alarming rate from the early 1960s to 1985 with serious 
consequences. Haitian forest cover was estimated at 60 percent in 1923, and has fallen to less 
than 2 percent according to the MARNDR (“Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Ressources 
Naturelles et du Développement Rural”: Ministry of Agriculture). Unregulated deforestation for 
this source of energy, coupled with uncontrolled urbanization, greatly increases Haiti’s 
vulnerability to climate change and reduces the production capacity of goods and food. 
Deforestation has resulted in soil erosion and degradation of natural resources. During cyclonic 
periods, rains often cause major floods with loss of human life and considerable material 
damage. Soil erosion reduces crop yields and promotes deadly landslides. Since 1975, fertile 
acreage has decreased by 70 percent, while 70 percent of the population still practices 
subsistence farming.
2.1.3. Charcoal and health
Charcoal and firewood burn inefficiently in local traditional stoves, with little means of 
controlling air quality and conserving heat (Smucker, 2007). Their use exposes Haitians, 
particularly women and children, to smoke and indoor air pollution that escalates related 
health problems, including respiratory diseases. Acute Lower Respiratory Illness (ALRI) is the
number one killer of children under five in Haiti, with ALRI mortality rates estimated to be more
than 40 percent (WHO, 2006). Both the promotion of LPG and/or the use of more efficient 
biomass cookstoves would contribute to decreasing exposure to smoke and indoor air 
pollution, therefore decreasing ALRI mortality rates. 
2.2. Alternative cooking solutions
Due to environmental and health problems related to the production and use of charcoal and 
traditional stoves in Haiti, USAID Haiti sought to finance projects that promote market 
expansion of alternative cooking solutions and to capitalize on international assets and
opportunities including the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, carbon finance, research of 
more efficient stoves, and the search for alternative fuels. 
16
2.2.1. Global context: Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves
In September 2010, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, announced the launch of the 
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. The Alliance is a public-private initiative led by the United 
Nations Foundation. It includes several donor nations and multilateral institutions such as 
USAID, the World Bank, and the United Nations. The Alliance’s vision is for universal adoption 
of clean cooking solutions. The Alliance’s goal is for 100 million homes to adopt clean and 
efficient stoves by 2020. To reach this target, the Alliance seeks to eliminate global barriers to 
large scale adoption of clean cookstoves through standards, financing, research and awareness. 
The Alliance is developing viable solutions in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. In 
Haiti, the ICTP has been designed to align with the Alliance’s goal, which is to promote clean 
cooking solutions in Haiti.
2.2.2. Global context: Carbon finance
Carbon financing offers an opportunity to find financing to promote growth in the production
and use of improved stoves under the ICTP in Haiti. As a results-based financing mechanism, 
carbon assets (such as improved cookstoves) would be translated into carbon credits with 
monetary values on the global market or through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) 
(ICTP fully executed contract, 2012). Carbon assets would be developed, monitored and 
registered (from CO2 emissions reduction through fuel efficient stoves) and manufacturers 
would benefit from the funds to better contribute toward the program’s objective 
2.2.3. More efficient cookstoves
The standard charcoal cookstove burns inefficiently with little ability to control air quality or 
conserve heat. Efforts to introduce improved cooking systems in Haiti include locally 
manufactured adobe stoves, hand-crafted and mass produced stoves constructed of metal, and 
solar cookstoves. Efforts to scale up improved cookstoves in Haiti have shown limited success. 
Among limiting barriers are: the high cost compared to traditional Haitian charcoal stoves; 
cultural resistance to changing technologies; underdeveloped supply and distribution chains; 
limited availability of raw materials; lack of quality control for stove production; lack of 
standards of what constitutes “improved” cookstove technology (ICS); and lack of awareness 
and education to both encourage the adoption of new technology and to properly implement 
and sustain positive behavior change.
Two key positive factors that could contribute to improved cookstove market expansion are the 
high price of charcoal and the ongoing principle of paying for energy in Haiti. 
2.2.4. Regulatory framework
Haiti has no legislation concerning the LPG sector, greatly weakening the sector. With 
undefined technical and commercial standards, actors, manufacturers and distributors are free 
17
to act at their own discretion motivated by profit and ignoring collective security and wellbeing.
Prices are not regulated, nor the establishment and operation of filling stations.
The problems, challenges and opportunities above have inspired the design and
implementation of the ICTP. The details on the objectives and activities that have been planned 
or conducted are presented in the following section.
III. THE IMPROVED COOKING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM (ICTP)
From January 31, 2012, to January 31, 2015, Chemonics (with subcontracts to Mercy Corps, 
Earth Matters and C-Quest Capital) implemented the Improved Cooking Technology Program 
(ICTP) under a USAID awarded contract. USAID, though the ICTP, was to provide technical 
assistance to establish a thriving market on both the supply and demand sides for clean cooking 
solutions, including Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). Activities were implemented in the greater 
Port au Prince metropolitan area; including the communes of: Delmas, Petion-ville, Kenscoff, 
Tabarre, Carrefour and Croix des Bouquets. Primary beneficiaries of the ICTP are 
manufacturers, distributors and retailers in the ICS and LPG distribution networks, as well as 
end users such as SFV, schools, orphanages and households.
3.1. ICTP Objective and assumptions
The objective of the program was to set Haiti on a path towards long term sustainable cooking 
solutions and achieve a significant reduction in charcoal consumption by large users and 
households. The objective was expected to be achieved by expanding the market for improved 
biomass cookstoves and cleaner fuels and by developing clean energy businesses. At the end of 
its implementation, the ICTP expected to reduce pressure on Haiti’s forest, encourage local and 
sustainable solutions and create cooking solutions that are clean, efficient, affordable and 
suitable to local cooking needs.
The assumptions behind the program objectives were: a) That design and availability of 
improved biomass (charcoal) cookstoves and expanded use of LPG are the best local cooking 
technologies for USAID support; b) That expansion of the adoption of improved biomass 
cookstoves and LPG will reduce demand for charcoal; c) That establishment of regulations for 
the expanded sale of LPG will attract investment, increase LPG availability and improve safety; 
and d) That educating the public on the benefits of LPG as a cooking fuel source, improved 
biomass cookstoves for efficiency, and reduced charcoal use, will lead to lasting behavioral 
change.
3.2. ICTP components and expected results
The ICTP has five main components with specific intermediate results, namely, 1) establishing a 
thriving local market and industry for improved biomass household cookstoves, 2) reducing 
charcoal consumption by large users, particularly street food vendors, schools and orphanages, 
3) building a legal and regulatory framework for LPG, 4) devising carbon finance and financial 
18
incentives for scale up, 5) strengthening the capacity of biomass cookstove enterprises to scale 
up production and sales.
3.2.1. Establishing a thriving local market and industry for household improved 
biomass cookstoves
As an intermediate result, the ICTP wished to see the local market for improved household 
biomass cookstoves expanded. To meet this result, the program intended to promote and 
commercialize the best improved biomass cookstoves; expand the marketing of cookstoves 
through various outreach activities and marketing campaigns; establish financing mechanisms 
to facilitate purchases of improved cookstoves; and strengthen the Government of Haiti’s (GoH) 
capacity to develop and manage the certification of cookstoves. 
Expected results for this component were a) provide assistance to at least 2-3 stove 
manufacturers and/or importers and 4-5 distribution/retail companies to enable the expanded 
availability of improved cookstoves in Port-au-Prince; b) to design and implement a marketing 
and outreach campaign that is expected to last the life of the project in partnership with the 
above businesses; c) create at least one financing solution for households in Port-au-Prince to 
enable their purchase of improved cookstoves; d) establish an ongoing coordination 
mechanism with GoH working group members and e) conduct at least one re-training solution 
developed for displaced charcoal workers.
3.2.2. Reducing charcoal consumption by large users, particularly food vendors, 
schools and orphanages
The ICTP wanted charcoal consumption by large users reduced as an intermediate result. To 
meet that result, the ICTP intended to increase access to and ensure the availability of LPG and 
LPG stoves through partnerships with Haitian stove and LPG distributors, increased LPG stove 
production, and the development of public-private partnerships (PPPs) for LPG stove market 
expansion.
Expected results at the end of the ICPT are that a) approximately 4139 food vendors and 800 
schools and orphanages and other energy intensive entities switched to LPG, and b) a Global 
Development Alliance (GDA) or MOU is established with LPG companies to leverage their 
resources and expertise and ensure the reliable distribution of LPG to food vendors, schools, 
orphanages and other energy intensive entities.
3.2.3. Building a legal and regulatory framework for LPG
As the third intermediate result, the ICTP proposed to have the legal and regulatory framework 
for LPG strengthened. To meet this result, the ICTP intended to: strengthen overarching 
regulations; improve the Government's capacity to monitor and enforce LPG sector regulations, 
standards, and pricing for LPG stoves; and, reinforce the institutional framework for the 
management of the LPG sector.
19
The expected result of this component is the adoption of an effective regulatory framework for 
LPG that will enable market expansion. 
3.2.4. Devising carbon finance and financial incentives for scale up
The main intermediate result of this fourth component is the establishment of a carbon finance 
program for improved cooking technology. The program intended to achieve this result by: 
collecting and analyzing emissions and market data on household energy consumption; 
supporting the development of a carbon credit program; designing an effective Program of 
Activities under the UN Clean Development Mechanism; and, increasing access to investment 
funds by improved cookstove manufacturers. 
The expected result is the development of a carbon asset encompassing a range of improved 
cooking technologies, which will provide a revenue stream for maintaining and scaling up the 
program.
3.2.5. Strengthening capacity of biomass cookstove enterprises to scale up 
production and sales.
The intermediate result under this fifth component is to increase the capacity of enterprises 
along the biomass cookstove supply chain to profitably scale up production through 
strengthened sales. To achieve this result, the program intended to focus on the micro-level 
activities that promise to improve the operations of specific actors along the improved 
cookstove supply chain. Under this component, the program will provide funds for multiple 
actors along the supply chain, to test innovative marketing and commercial strategies. This 
intermediate result was added fourteen months after the inception of the program (May 2013).
IV. EVALUATION PURPOSE
The purpose of this final evaluation was to determine the impact of the ICTP and its main 
objective to set Haiti on a path towards long-term sustainable cooking solutions and achieve a 
significant reduction in charcoal consumption by large users and households. Findings of this 
evaluation should 1) inform USAID/Haiti on the practicality of, and implications for, future 
programming in the promotion of improved cooking technology in Haiti, and 2) analyze the 
demand and scalability of improved biomass cook stoves and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) as 
the optimal choices for such promotion. The primary stakeholders for this evaluation include 
the Government of Haiti, USAID, local food vendors, stove manufacturers and retailers, LPG 
sellers, and the end-users of improved cooking technologies.
V. EVALUATION KEY QUESTIONS
The evaluation addressed the following questions: 
20
1. To what extent did the project establish a local market and industry for household improved 
biomass cookstoves? 
2. To what extent did the targeted project beneficiaries switch to LPG technology and what 
were the driving forces behind this choice? 
3. What mechanisms have been put in place to ensure sustainability of the project 
achievements and to what extent will benefits realized be replicated in the long term by 
partners? 
4. To what extent will the existence or absence of a carbon credit market in Haiti affect the 
success and sustainability of the ICTP?
VI. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 
Use of mixed-methods
Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used for this evaluation. Qualitative methods 
included focus groups, key informant interviews, and in depth project document review. 
Quantitative methods included a mini-survey and a household survey.
Qualitative and quantitative methods were conducted simultaneously, and the data were 
analyzed separately. Then, as the data from different methods are often intended to answer 
the same question, the findings were triangulated.
This evaluation was conducted from July to December 2015. 
6.1. Qualitative methods
Using qualitative data collection methods, evaluators were able to better understand the 
improved cooking stoves and LPG stove manufacturers, where are they located, what was the 
process leading to the production of improved cookstoves, etc. Qualitative methods were used 
as well to understand what the driving forces were behind households’ and large users’ switch 
to improved biomass cookstoves or LPG technology. Information gathered through qualitative 
methods allowed evaluators to analyze the replicability and the sustainability of the project, 
and finally to produce a comprehensive analysis of the carbon credit market in Haiti. Based on 
the evaluation objectives and questions, semi-structured guides were developed in order to 
conduct data collection for qualitative methods.
The team met with the COR before the evaluation was launched to ensure clarity of
expectations and the results of the evaluation. The evaluation team met as well with key ICTP 
staff in order to better understand the implementation process and to discuss the sharing of 
relevant documents. 
21
6.1.1. In depth review of project documentation
The members of the evaluation team reviewed all relevant documents of the project such as 
periodic reports produced, approved PMPs, Workplans, list of beneficiaries, etc. throughout the 
evaluation process. The intensive review not only helped the members of the evaluation team 
to better prepare the field work but also facilitated the understanding of the relationships of 
cause and effect behind the project design and the environmental factors that affect project 
beneficiaries. 
6.1.2. Semi-structured interview with key informants
Thirty eight Key Informant Interviews (KII) were conducted with members of partner 
institutions directly involved in the implementation of the project. These included: improved 
biomass cook stoves private sector partner representatives (Total Haiti, Micama, Ticadaie), 
“recho pa-w” hotline coordinator, Bureau of Mines and Energy director, laboratory for 
cookstove manager, etc. These interviews, in addition to providing answers to the project 
evaluation questions, helped to evaluate the role and level of participation of different 
stakeholders in the project’s implementation. A summary of KII implemented is presented in 
the summary table of data collection.
6.1.3. Focus Group (FG) Discussions
Specific groups considered for this data collection method include business women and 
community leaders trained in commercialization and technicians trained to repair LPG stoves. 
In accordance with the number and location of these target groups, four focus groups (FG) 
were needed. As explained in the limitation section, only one FG was conducted in this 
evaluation. A focus group guide was developed as the main tool for conducting the discussions, 
this guide included open questions revolving around relevant indicators to measure in the 
study. This technique was applied to technicians trained to repair LPG stoves in order to 
respond to the evaluation questions one and two. 
6.2. Quantitative methods
6.2.1. Household survey
A household survey was used mainly to answer the first evaluation question and shed light on 
the second question. The methodology for the quantitative survey involved two steps: the 
elaboration of a sampling frame and the design of the sampling plan.
A. Sampling frames 
The quantitative survey was limited to the Metropolitan Area of Port-au-Prince (MAP) which 
includes urban areas of the municipalities of Port-au-Prince, Delmas, Carrefour, Pétion-Ville, 
Tabarre, Croix des Bouquets and Kenscoff. For this survey the Primary Sampling Units (PSU) 
were the Sections d’Enumeration (SDE) that correspond to the project’s target area. In the last 
22
population census in 2003, the “Institut Haitien de Statistique et d’Informatique” (IHSI) 
established a list of SDE and their size (in terms of number of households and population).
B. Basis for sample size 
The calculation of the sample size is based on three precision statistical parameters, namely the 
confidence interval (set at 90 percent), the margin of error (set at 4 percent), and the variance 
of the total population of households. Such considerations lead to the calculation of the sample 
size that minimizes the margin of error and optimizes the confidence interval.
This leads to the use of a statistical formulation linking these three parameters:
 n= 𝑍𝑍2∝/2𝜎𝜎2𝑝𝑝
𝐸𝐸2𝑝𝑝
× 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 (1) 
Where 
Z²α/2: is the z-score associated with the reduced level of 90 percent of the Gaussian 
bell curve. 
 σ²p: is the variance of the population for the estimate of any proportion. It is 
determined by the equation:
 σ²p = PQ = 0.25 (2)
This is the maximum variance where P= 0.5 and Q =0.5.It is also the most unfavorable case.
Ep: is the margin of error associated with the estimation of parameters. This is the 
value to be added and subtracted to the estimated value in the sample to obtain the 
confidence interval. This margin is estimated at 4 percent. 
 Deff: is the design effect, which is round up to 2 in the case of clustered sample.
These statistical techniques, based on the use of the parameters mentioned above, have 
allowed identification of a random sample size of n =846 households for all six municipalities of 
metropolitan area. 
C. Sampling plan
The sample size was adjusted to 900 to take into account non responses. Thus, we will end up 
implementing a 30*30 clustered design, consisting of 30 SDE chosen randomly according to 
probability proportional to size in the first stage, and 30 households chosen randomly within 
SDE according to the random walk method in the second stage.
6.2.2. Mini-survey
Regarding large users such as Street Food Vendors (SFV), Orphanages and schools with a 
“school feeding” program, a mini survey was done to collect quantitative data to supplement 
qualitative information. This choice was motivated by the interest in broad patterns, trends, 
23
and tendencies rather than in precise measurements. The mini survey was done on a smaller 
scale, and concentrated on a few variables and using a small sample. 
The evaluation team chose to interview 60 SFV, 31 orphanages and 32 schools. For schools and 
orphanages, a systematic random sampling was applied to select the two samples from existing 
lists. In the case of street food vendors, the sample was chosen directly in large zones changed 
to LPG under ICTP i.e. SONAPI, in the industrial park, next to the international airport and in the 
main grouping arteries namely Fermathe, Mariani, “Rue Courte” in downtown, Delmas 31 area 
and Pétionville at the Derenancourt street.
6.3. Data Collection process
In order to ensure high-quality data, several steps were taken during data collection. 
Enumerators were selected through a competitive process, and then completed a three-day 
training on tablet use and methodology of the survey. About 20 candidate enumerators were 
trained and 15 were selected for fieldwork. After completing the household survey, the 
enumerators completed the mini-survey. 
6.4. Quality Monitoring 
BRIDES collected the data electronically using a Samsung SM-T211 7 Tablet (Android 4.1). Data 
collected were downloaded on a daily basis. For this purpose, each team was provided with a 
Portable3G/4G router with an internet plan with national coverage. This technology allowed 
our IT specialist to perform daily quality control of the data collected in order to take corrective 
measures. 
6.5. Data analysis
The evaluation report used a descriptive analytic approach. Results were tabulated with the 
descriptive variables presented. Most data are presented as column percentages, means or 
medians, and are carried out to one decimal point. The analysis and interpretation of key 
informant interviews and the focus group were conducted using the content analysis method. 
We used qualitative data to deepen explanations of findings and triangulate with quantitative 
information. Our analysis makes good use of existing data gathered through extensive literature 
review. 
6.6. Limitations
• The database and list of beneficiary institutions provided to us by ICTP personnel included
institutions that are not really beneficiaries. This is the case of some schools, orphanages and 
street food vendors. This observation was made when administering the survey resulting in
questions in the mini-surveys that were unfortunately not applicable due to the fact of the 
reduced sample size.
24
• It was especially difficult to organize focus groups with technicians and sellers who have 
benefited from training sessions organized by the project. Of four planned FG, only one took 
place. The technicians work mostly in manufacturing plants or distributers and were therefore 
not free to come to FG. In addition, after asking many times, we realized that the lists of 
persons trained were unfortunately not available.
• The opinion of the C-Quest Capital staff regarding the carbon credit component of the 
program was extremely important for this evaluation. The evaluation team tried by several 
means to reach them, but without success.
7. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1. To what extent the program established a local market for improved 
household biomass cookstoves? 
7.1.1. Findings on the establishment of a local market for ICS
Based on data collected on the field, major findings regarding the establishment of a local 
market for (ICS) are the following (A) The project established and strengthened local 
institutions and entities of the GoH to produce cookstoves, (B) Marketing and outreach 
campaign established by the program have reached a huge part of the population living in the 
metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince, (C) Financial incentives were not realized on a scale that 
would drive significant changes, (D) ICS have not been adopted by households in the 
metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince, (E) cookstove certification system is yet to be 
implemented in a way to protect manufacturers intellectual property. Evidence supporting the 
findings are presented in below sections. 
A. The project established and strengthened local institutions and entities of 
the GoH to produce cookstoves
The evaluation team distinguishes two groups of evidence supporting that ICTP established and 
strengthened local institutions and entities of the GoH for the promotion and 
commercialization of improved biomass cookstoves: a) the ICTP developed a manufacturing 
base to expand the availability of ICS in the targeted area, b) The ICTP has established a 
Distribution Network. 
a). Develop a manufacturing base to expand the availability of ICS in the targeted area
The project supported the establishment of the national testing laboratory at the “Faculté des 
Sciences, UEH”. According to the Director of the Laboratory, the laboratory strengthened the 
Government of Haiti’s capacity to regulate models of stoves on the Haitian market and ensure 
that they are safe to use and they are saving on charcoal. Once tested, they can seek 
certification to access to the carbon market. 
25
The program identified six improved cookstove models and their manufacturers were selected 
and participated in the program’s efforts to promote the fabrication, commercialization and use 
of improved charcoal cookstoves (ICS) in Port-au-Prince. The six ICTP-promoted stoves models 
were: 1) Prakti Wouj, assembled by Prakti, 2) Plop Plop produced by International Lifeline Fund 
(ILF), 3) Eco Recho produced by D&E Green Enterprise (D&E), 4) Recho Men produced by Haiti 
Metal S.A. (Haiti Metal) 5) Mirak, produced with the support of the Bureau of Mines and 
Energy, 6) Rena, produced by Ticadaie S.A.. 
According to annual reports and interviews with manufacturers, the ICTP provided technical 
assistance to these manufacturers to improve their stove design, build their business 
management structure and capacity, increase their access to capital to improve their 
production line, create stoves that meet efficiency standards, and expand their market. In April 
2013, ICTP awarded in-kind support (manufacturing equipment, training, and technical 
assistance) to produce the Plop Plop and Eco Recho, transforming these models’ production 
lines from manual to semi-industrial. ICTP assessed manufacturers’ business management and 
production capacity and provided Short Term Technical Assistance (STTA) to all manufacturers 
who meet efficiency standards. 
As mentioned, the stoves that passed the test from FdS were selected and received several 
kinds of support from the project. In fact, in-kind grants have been provided to several 
enterprises that make ICS stoves. In-kind donations include clippers, guillotine shearing 
machines, generators, spot welders, etc. It is also important to mention that, of all these 
enterprises, D&E Green is the one that received the most equipment. The manager of this 
enterprise, who is very satisfied with the project’s results, claims to have received direct 
support in equipment after its workshop was destroyed, following the January 12, 2010 
earthquake. Unlike D&E Green, most of the other producers we met wished they had received 
direct grants causing much disappointment at the end of the project. In addition to that, one of 
the producers we met confirmed that, in spite of the fact that his stove was selected, he didn’t 
receive any direct support beyond the effects of advertising, from which everyone benefited. 
D&E went from a small workshop producing 400 stoves a months to a major enterprise 
producing more than 5,000 stoves a month. We must add that the enterprise, with its installed 
capacity, can produce more. 
In addition to grants, the manufacturers also received other kinds of less direct support such as 
advertising that will be detailed in the next section, orientation to credit institutions, specific 
support in the organization of an exhibit fair, etc. 
b). Establishment of Distribution Networks in the Metropolitan Area of Port-au-Prince
The ICTP reported that three new private sector partners, TOTAL Haiti SA, Micama, and 
Ticadaie, used their distribution networks to support improved charcoal cookstoves (ICS) sales, 
and about 246 new sales points have been established in the Port-au-Prince Metropolitan Area 
over the project life. 
26
To have a sense of the spread of the distribution network and how much this network has been 
reaching the public, the evaluation team asked interviewed households some key questions on 
this matter. The information retrieved about promoted ICS is laid out in the table below.
Table 1. About promoted ICS
Citing brand names of promoted improved 
cookstoves (n=973)
Don’t have but Know where to purchase a 
promoted cookstove (n= 973) 
# % # %
Prakti-wouj 79 8.1 Yes 391 40.2
Plop-plop 283 29.1 No 582 59.8
Men recho 68 6.9
Rechomirak 448 46.0 Having the following in the 
household (n=973)
Rena 38 3.9 Oven 228 23.4
Eco-Recho 121 12.4 Refrigerator 385 39.5
Don’t know 340 34.9 TV 746 76.7
Source: ICTP final evaluation survey - 2015
The survey measured how much the population knows about the aforementioned brands of 
cookstoves promoted by the program. They were asked to name all brands of improved 
cookstoves to the best of their knowledge. The result in table 4 provides evidence of promotion 
of both offer and demand for cookstoves. 
ICTP promoted ICTP cookstoves are well known by the population living in the metropolitan 
area to some extent. 
It is worthless to have a good distribution networks if people don’t know about the existence 
and availability of the products. The program promoted six cookstoves that passed the 
appropriate tests. The Miracle cookstove is the most popular among stoves because 46 percent
of respondents could mention its name as ICS. Plop-plop comes in second position with 29
percent of respondents. The least popular among those ICS promoted by the program is Rena 
with only 4 percent of respondents and Prakti-Wouj with 8 percent of the respondents. The 
remaining 36 percent of the population cannot quote a brand name of ICS.
The survey tested the knowledge of the population about existence of sales points. As 
mentioned in the above table, about 40.2 percent of the population knew where to buy an 
improved cookstove. This information provides an idea of the distribution network that has 
been established on the field. 
27
The ICTP reported that a Recho Paw hotline was developed to promote the products as well. 
About 9069 callers were directed to available sales points through the system. The ICTP 
encouraged partners to promote and sell ICS in public events or fairs. Three distributors had the 
opportunity to sell ICS in three events, and three distributors participated in 21 public 
demonstrations organized by ICTP. 
B. Marketing and outreach campaign established by the program have 
reached a huge part of the population living in the metropolitan area of 
Port-au-Prince 
According to ICTP reports, 13 media campaigns covering the target area have been conducted 
with ICS partners to promote ICS. About 22 radio and TV programs have been produced and 
broadcasted, and 47 ICS demonstration events have been organized to promote ICS purchase 
and use. To measure the coverage of the media campaign, the survey asked respondents 
whether they had the opportunity to be reached by one of the media used during the 
campaigns.
Table 2 Coverage of media campaign 
Having seen an ad on TV about 
improved cookstoves (n=973)
Having heard about improved cookstoves on the 
radio (n=973)
#
perc
#
percent
Yes 643 66.1 Yes 673 69.2
No 330 33.6 No 300 30.5
Having seen billboard in the streets 
about improved cookstoves (n=973)
Having friends or family using improved 
cookstoves (n=973)
Yes 278 28.6 Yes 294 30.2
No 695 71.1 No 679 69.7
Source: ICTP final evaluation survey - 2015
Table No 2 indicates that about 66 percent of the respondents have seen commercials on TV 
about improved cookstoves. About 69 percent have heard about ICS in radio and only 29
percent have seen billboards about ICS. Considering that only 77 percent have TV at home and 
66 percent have seen commercials on TV, we may deduce that (1) TV is an effective way to 
reach people in the metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince, (2) the result of the coverage of the 
media campaign was excellent.
The ICTP encouraged partners to promote and sell ICS in public events or fairs. Three 
distributors had the opportunity to sell ICS in three events, and three distributors participated 
in 21 public demonstrations organized by ICTP. According to ICTP, the demonstrations 
28
highlighted as well the benefits of using LPG stoves as compared to charcoal, stressing cheaper 
prices, faster cooking times (which is especially important for women juggling multiple 
household duties), and health benefits for cooks and young children. 
C. Financial incentives were not realized on a scale that would drive significant 
changes 
One of the major barriers to change from traditional to improved cookstoves is the cost of the 
stoves so program design included activities to promote the purchase of improved cookstoves. 
According to annual reports, the ICTP worked with two Micro Finance Institutions (MFI) — ID 
Microfinance of EdM and ACME SA — to pilot special consumer microfinance products, 
including “Kredi enèji & Kredi Enèji vèt”. Marketing materials highlighted efficient use of 
charcoal and of the promoted stoves.
According to program reports, a total of 43 retailers had access to financing through MFIs or 
distributors and three consumer specific microfinance products were developed. According to 
key informants, even at the end of the project people did not have money to buy improved 
stoves subsequently tremendously slowing product distribution. Companies take risks with 
their own funds, i.e. if a retailer or a consumer decides not to pay back it's a waste and slows 
the microfinance products. Added to this, the ICTP should encourage new customers to join the 
microfinance institutions for credit energy, but to quote the leaders of ACME SA for example, 
no new clients were referred to them. They had to drive the energy credit program with their 
former clients. The institution was therefore not sufficiently solicited for these services.
Some activities related to this result were not completed notably the activities linking 
consumers to remittances services was first postponed, then discarded. 
The survey measured the results of such activities on the consumers end by asking questions 
related to financing improved stoves. Some questions were pertinent only to cookstove owners 
while another question about receiving credits was for all respondents. The results are 
presented in table below.
Table 3. Financing improved cookstoves at household level 
Where did you find money to buy ICS? 
(n=188)
Would be able to buy ICS without 
help? (n=188)
# percent # percent
Household members 122 64.8 Yes 81 43.0
Remittance 8 4.2 No 107 56.9
Gift 11 5.8 Did you receive credits to buy ICS? 
(n=973)
Other 47 25.0 Yes 98 10.1
Where did you hear about ICS? (n=188) No 875 89.1
29
Radio 87 46.2
TV 109 57.9 Would you buy if you had credits? 
(n=785)
Friends/Family 27 14.3 Yes 543 69.1
Other 19 10.1 No 84 10.7
Don’t know 158 20.1
Source: ICTP final evaluation survey- 2015
Consequently, following extensive program activities, improved cookstoves were purchased 
with money of household members or remittances from diaspora. About 6 percent of 
purchased cookstoves were local gifts. About 43 percent of households having purchased 
improved cookstoves claim to have had credit to purchase. Among improved cookstoves users, 
52 percent argue that they would not be able to buy the cookstove without external help 
(remittances, credits, gifts, etc.) 
Among households using traditional stoves, about 7 out of ten said they would buy an 
improved cookstove if they had the opportunity to have credit.
D. ICS have not been adopted by households in the metropolitan area of Port￾au-Prince
The end results of marketing activities were that the households living in the metropolitan area 
purchased improved biomass cookstoves and that they are using them in their households. 
During the survey, the evaluation team wanted to know to what extent improved cookstoves 
are being used in the targeted program area. Information about that is revealed in table below.
Table 4. The use of charcoal and ICS in households 
Do you use charcoal to cook food? (n=973) Type of stove used in the households (n=973)
# percent #
t Yes 858 88.2 Traditional charcoal stove 797 81.9
No 115 11.8 Improved charcoal stove 58 6.0
Do you use charcoal only? ( n=858) Propane stove 73 7.5
Yes 607 70.7 Oven 18 1.8
No 251 29.3 Other 27 2.8
Source: ICTP final evaluation survey - 2015
In the program area, 88 percent of households still use charcoal for cooking at home, with 71
percent of households using charcoal exclusively. About 82 percent of households still have 
traditional cookstoves. Only 6 percent purchased improved biomass cookstoves, 7.5 percent
30
has LPG stoves and 2 percent have ovens. Wood is also still in use in the metropolitan area, 
reported as “Other”. 
E. Cookstoves certification is strengthened but is yet to be functioning at a 
rate to protect manufacturers intellectual property
An MOU has been signed between the BME, UEH and ICTP for the transfer of the laboratory to 
UEH, the latter has renovated a space to host the laboratory, and equipment has been moved 
to UEH/FDS. According to the people in charge of the laboratory, it is the only one of its kind in 
the whole Caribbean. 
The laboratory for cookstoves certification has been functional at Université d’Etat d’Haiti 
(UEH), Faculté des Sciences (FDS). Since its launching, very few stoves have been tested in the 
laboratory. According to project reports, the laboratory is underutilized and there is a need to 
revitalize the industry. Because of its capacity, the laboratory can test up to three stoves in one 
day, at the rate of three tests per stove. 
All manufacturers met are very satisfied with the results of tests conducted in the laboratory of 
FdS they consider to be of international standard. The FdS laboratory has established strong 
ties with the United States University of Berkeley’s regional laboratory called “Aprovecho.” 
Aprovecho’s representatives attended the setting up of the laboratory and remained available 
to confirm the results of the tests run in Haiti when doubts arose.
Conversely, producers complain about the absence of legislation for the protection of 
intellectual property. As an example, the Mirak stove is being sold at 500 gourdes, while stove 
makers are counterfeiting and selling it at 100 gourdes. Certification thus becomes an essential 
aspect of the stove market in order to protect producers and consumers. Producers also 
complain about the cost of certification for their product, according to Dr. Cheremond Yves, 
manager of the FdS laboratory. In fact, producers pay 34,000 gourdes to test stoves made in 
Haiti and 40,000 gourdes to test the imported stoves. Then, BME requires the payment of USD 
400 or 500 respectively for the certification, depending on the said stove’s origin.
7.1.2. CONCLUSIONS
The program has established some necessary bases to institute an improved cookstoves market 
in the metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince, but the massive switch from traditional cookstoves 
to improved cookstoves is still to be achieved. 
First off, the program strived to ensure the availability of several brands of improved 
cookstoves on the market. The program has tested and supported six different brands of 
cookstoves that are very competitive with a range of price and performance. The program 
supported manufacturers to establish and grow the shops to ensure the development and 
sustainability of the supply of ICS. Selling points were established and well distributed over the 
metropolitan area for distributing ICS. A wide variation exists in the popularity of the promoted 
cookstoves brands.
31
The program has established an institutional basis to ensure sustainable ICS performance 
analysis. A laboratory is established at the FDS to conduct performance analysis, while BME 
delivers the certification. However the laboratory is little solicited because the tests are 
expensive and the manufacturers are not required to seek certification unless willing to access 
the carbon market. Manufacturers consider paying too much for certification, according to key 
informants, and fail to see there much interest in certification. They feel that their intellectual 
property is not protected, despite of expensive certification.
The program tried to reach out to the population regarding the benefits of improved stoves 
through a wide media campaign. The campaign had a wide coverage over the metropolitan 
area, encouraging households to switch from traditional cookstove to improved cookstove. 
About 66 percent of households reported have seen commercials on TV while only 76 percent
of households had TV at home. Stove brand names promoted by the program are known at 
varying degrees by the population. This information confirms the existence of these cookstoves 
on the market on one hand, and on the other hand it indicates the degree of popularity of 
these cookstoves. Brands like Miracle and Plop Plop are very well known, others like PraktiWouj 
and Rena are not well known. 
The program and its partners have established a relatively good network of distribution in the 
metropolitan area resulting in a quarter of traditional cookstove users claiming to know where 
to buy ICS. The hotline system worked very well, facilitating the availability and accessibility of 
information on improved stoves in real time.
One can hear, understand and appreciate the messages about the benefits of improved stoves 
on radio or on television and yet be slow to make the decision to change from traditional to 
improved cookstoves. In reality, a very small percentage, 6 percent of households, have 
adopted improved cookstoves at home. The vast majority of households living in the 
metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince are still using traditional stoves at home.
Because of financial burden associated with decision making within households, the ICTP 
initiated financial programs and contributed positively to the acquisition of improved 
cookstoves. However, the scope of the credit program was not large enough to satisfy the 
needs and generate impact. Two thirds of households with traditional cookstoves said they 
would buy, but financing mechanisms like credit was unavailable to them.
7.1.3. Recommendations on the establishment of a local market for ICS
The project has certainly contributed to increased use of improved cookstoves in the 
metropolitan area, but the utilization rates of ICS in the metropolitan area is not large enough 
to have the impact hoped. It is therefore recommended a second phase of the project should 
aim at increasing scale.
We specifically recommend:
• Supporting manufacturers to better promote improved stoves and be able to produce 
much more for about 400,000 households living around the metropolitan area. 
32
• Forbidding the sales of stoves without certification by helping the government of Haiti
enforce certification as a requirement to sell cookstoves on the market through an anti￾piracy system and regular testing for quality control. 
• Lowering the cost of testing and the cost of certification.
• Establishing a wider financing system which would facilitate the purchase of ICS: credit 
to purchase, subsidies, etc. 
• According to distributors, the credit granted has too much risk for the lending institution 
and is not attractive. The project should have revolving funds for the benefit of all 
stakeholders, a kind of cascade credit involving manufacturers, large distributors and 
retailers. 
• Continuing the meetings that promote synergy in the sector (now that the project
ended, the actors no longer meet; there is no longer any coordination). 
7.2. To what extent did the targeted project beneficiaries switch to LPG 
technology and what were the driving forces behind this choice?
7.2.1. Findings on the charcoal consumption reduction by large users
Major findings regarding LPG technology are the following: (A) Media campaign for LPG was a 
success, reaching out to a high percentage of large users, (B) Switch to LPG did not follow 
trends of media campaign coverage among large users, (C) LPG cookstoves production is 
strengthened but an increase in production was not significant, (D) Driving forces associated 
with switches to LPG are mainly finance and safety. Evidence supporting these findings are 
presented in below sections. 
E. Media campaign for LPG was a success, reaching out to a high percentage 
of large users
To catalyze the demand for LPG stoves and favor the use of LPG, a large promotional campaign 
was established by the ICTP in the media for LPG stoves. Eight marketing messages were 
developed and used in the ICTP promotional media campaign. A logo was selected and was 
used in all ICS promotional activities. The table No. 5 below shows to what extent the media 
campaigns have reached targeted large users.
Table 5. Coverage for LPG promotion campaign 
Orphanages 
(n=32)
Schools 
(n=31)
Street Food 
Vendors (n=44)
n % n % n %
Have seen advertisement 
on TV about LPG and LPG 
cookstoves
Yes 26 81.2 26 83.9 35 79.5
No 6 18.8 5 16.1 9 20.5
33
Have listen to 
advertisement on radio 
about LPG and LPG 
Yes 22 68.8 23 74.2 32 72.7
No 10 31.2 8 25.8 12 27.3
Have seen billboards on the 
streets about LPG and LPG 
cookstoves
Yes 22 68.8 18 58.1 25 56.8
No 10 31.2 13 41.9 19 43.2
Source: ICTP final evaluation survey - 2015 
The result of the media campaign is expressed in the precedent table in terms of coverage of 
the metropolitan area. The commercials on television reached more people than radio spots 
and billboards. Nearly 80 percent of street food vendors and over 80 percent of schools and 
orphanages leaders had the opportunity to see a commercial on TV. Considering that only 76 
percent of households have at least one television, it's pretty impressive results. One is invited 
to suppose that the percentage of people watching television is higher than that listening to the 
radio. In any case, 69 percent of orphanages, 75 percent of heads of schools and 73 percent of 
street food vendors claim to have heard a radio spot. An identical percentage of orphanages 
but less schools (58 percent) and street vendors (57 percent) claim to have seen billboards. 
People are affected by the messages of the program and therefore are potential LPG 
consumers.
As a result of the media campaign, the ICTP reported that LPG sales have tremendously 
increased from a target of 15,000 metric tons a year to a top 25,088 MT. 
F. Switch to LPG did not follow the success of the media campaign among
large users
One of the key outcomes expected is the conversion of schools, orphanages with a canteen 
program, street food vendors and other large users to LPG.
Conversion of schools to LPG
The ICTP reported that a database of all schools with canteens in the Port-au-Prince 
metropolitan area has been established. According to ICTP reports, from 1311 schools with
canteens, in addition to other schools that are already using LPG, about 212 schools were 
converted to LPG through loans or in collaboration with other agencies or organizations. The 
mini-survey with schools with canteens5 in the metropolitan area reported that only 22.6
percent are using LPG (12.9 percent have LPG stove and 9.7 percent have LPG ovens), while 29
percent have traditional charcoal stoves. Unfortunately, 35.5 percent of these schools no longer 
had a functional canteen at the time of the survey, so the question was not applicable in their 
case. Due to the conversion process, from the 29 percent of schools that have traditional 
charcoal stoves installed, 25.9 percent are still using charcoal as energy source. 
 
5 Sample of schools with canteen randomly established from database provided by ICTP. 
34
Table 6. Use of charcoal stove by large users 
Orphanages 
(n=32)
Schools 
(n=31)
Street Food Vendors 
(n=44)
Large users still 
using charcoal 
as energy 
source
n % N % n %
Charcoal only 10 31.2 6 19.4 29 66.0
Charcoal and other 12 37.5 2 6.5 3 6.7
No 10 31.2 23 74.2 12 26.7
What type of 
stoves are they 
having?
Traditional charcoal 12 37.5 9 29.0 31 70.0
Improved charcoal 3 9.4 0 0 1 2.2
LPG stove 14 43.8 4 12.9 10 22.7
LPG oven 3 9.4 3 9.7 1 2.2
Other 0 0 4 12.9 1 2.2
N/A 0 0 23 35.5 0
Source: ICTP final evaluation survey - 2015 
Conversion of orphanages to LPG
A database of the metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince orphanages has been established, 
according to ICTP reports. In total, 224 orphanages received background information and 
documentation about LPG stoves. As a result of the ICTP, 38 orphanages converted to LPG. The 
program reported that From 244 orphanages in the database, 188 or 77.0 percent are now 
using LPG. However, the mini-survey implemented with orphanages included in the later 
sample shows that only 44 percent have an LPG stove. About 31 percent are still dependent 
exclusively on charcoal for cooking and 37 percent are using charcoal complemented with other 
energy source.
Facilitate Street Food Vendors’ Conversion from Charcoal to LPG Cook stoves 
The ICTP reported that a database of about 4139 street food vendors (SFV) was maintained. A 
total of 3707 are among the SFV now using LPG. According to the information of Table 6, the 
majority of street food vendors (66 percent) are still using charcoal. According to the 
information collected in different areas occupied by the SFV, only SONAPI6 vendors have been 
converted to LPG. Outside this area it is very difficult to find a SFV that uses LPG as a source of 
energy. According to SFV themselves and the members of the project staff, it is very difficult to
work with street food vendors or those who sell along the street because they have to move 
their stoves daily. Ministry of Commerce reported in the interview that this success is 
apparently due to joint support they have provided to the SFV i.e. from ICTP and from MCI. 
Other large users targeted by ICTP
 
6 SONAPI: Société Nationale des Parcs Industriels. 
35
None of the randomly selected dry cleaners, bakeries or prisons were beneficiaries of the 
project. The only company manufacturing LPG ovens for bakeries stated to have so far 
produced only one oven. According to the owners met, the challenges to conversion are high:
• Electricity Problems: the equipment required for the conversion of dry cleaners require 
much power to operate a steam boiler, which further increases production costs.
• In the prisons visited, the estimated cost stoves were overpriced. They need external 
support for the first acquisition of necessary equipment.
• The profitability of the GPL is especially wide for dry cleaners, they think they must 
invest heavily to bring in cash. Whereas with the timber, they can buy very small 
amounts.
• The lack of information or knowledge of the system generates a great fear that keeps 
making the decision to change.
Also according to the owners, the majority of bakeries are still using wood they now mix with 
leftover fabric to increase wood endurance. They think it must have negative impacts on 
employees’ health and the health of all persons in the immediate environment, but seem to be 
helpless about the decision to change the source of energy.
G. LPG cookstoves production is strengthened but increased in production was 
not significant
Support to manufacturers
In Haiti, TOTAL, SODIGAZ and ECOGAZ are the main suppliers of LPG, with the first two 
supplying more than 90 percent of the market. According to annual reports, three MoU were 
signed with LPG suppliers and micro-filling centers or LPG cylinders distributors to facilitate the 
conversion of large charcoal users to LPG. Resources have been leveraged from three LPG 
suppliers, namely Valerio Canez, TOTAL and DINASA.
Two importers and manufacturers of LPG stoves were visited during this evaluation. One of 
them was not aware of the memorandum they have signed with the project but they 
acknowledge having received direct supports which were grants in kind in the form of 
equipment and training for the benefit of employees of these companies. They, like all 
manufacturers, moreover, largely benefited from the promotional 
campaign implemented by the project. 
It is important to note that most manufacturers were not too happy 
because they expected to receive cash7 in lieu of equipment. Further, 
expectations were often higher than what they actually received. If a 
 
7
They argue that they would get more materials for the same amount of money.
According to the 
manufacturers, 
the increase in 
LPG stoves 
production was 
not however very 
significant
36
few were satisfied with the equipment, they felt they could do better with the amount that was 
spent for them. Some of them have not received support at all (Ticadaie and Rena). Some did 
not need support at all (Haiti Metal). 
Equipment has been distributed to producers to enable them on one hand to have better 
quality products and, secondly, to increase production. According to the manufacturers, the 
increase in LPG stoves production was not, however, very significant. Offer responds to demand 
in general, and in this case, the demand for LPG stoves failed to increase significantly. Many 
LPG stoves were sold, but it is far from their targets. Manufacturers believe that it is extremely 
difficult to obtain a change of habits in three years. Typically for a normal change of this 
magnitude, it takes, according to their understanding, a lot more time of promotion and raising 
awareness. 
Trainings for technicians 
Several technicians, working mostly for stoves LPG factories, were selected and trained as part 
of this project. Technicians were chosen by their direct employers to benefit this training. They 
are technicians who, long before the training, intervened regularly with clients for 
maintenance, repair network or any other similar activities. Technicians were trained in five 
days on repairing LPG stoves. Technicians interviewed feel that the modules have been well 
developed and they also had the opportunity to do practical tests. They, among others, learned 
to maneuver and cut the copper. They have learned to better know the names and utility of 
tools, gas table fittings, etc.
Each trained technician received a tool kit and a certificate. It is important to note that there 
have been two training sessions of similar content. Technicians, part of the first cohort, in 
addition to the training, received funds to start their own factory.
According to trained technicians, training provides enough skill to embark on the labor market.
The level of satisfaction is high. The technicians especially liked the trainers’ convenience and 
patience. "My employees are better equipped technically for performing certain tasks including 
repairing burners" mentioned a manufacturer to praise the training received by its technicians. 
The concepts learned are applied to the workplace, but most technicians do not really have the 
opportunity to practice the assembly or production of cookstoves because they are working in 
distribution centers.
The Hotline
In addition to support already mentioned above, the manufacturers and distributors of LPG 
stoves have also benefited from the establishment of a hotline by the project. A unique number 
was provided to operators that match and keep track of the different calls. In general, 
according to the hotline manager, the services offered are varied, they refer people to sales 
points of LPG stoves and improved cookstoves. People call to ask for information of any kind 
like to know how to become a distributor. In terms of monitoring, a whole network of 
technicians who received training on the installation and repair of LPG stoves were connected 
to the hotline. People calling for malfunctioning stoves were given the contact information of 
37
available technicians. The call motives were recorded. On a weekly basis, a progress report was 
presented to the whole staff for appropriate action.
The hotline number was placed on all support materials developed for advertising through 
flyers, commercials, broadcasts over the radio or television in order to be sure that the number 
is known to the public. 
The Hotline has worked very well. After each TV program on stoves, operators have noted a 
significant increase in the number of received calls including calls from other cities. 
The hotline was set up towards the end of the project and lasted less than a year. The project 
staffs interviewed were quite satisfied at the beginning when there was a lot of enthusiasm. 
This has decreased a bit as curiosity has declined.
H. Driving forces associated with switches to LPG are mainly finance, safety
and environmental impact 
Between the reception of the message and the decision to adopt LPG as an energy source for 
cooking, many other factors can come into play and taint the effect of the message. The table
No 7 below shows the status of the switch to LPG in the ICTP targeted area.
Table 7. Source of energy for large charcoal users 
Orphanages 
(n=32)
Schools (n=31) Street Food 
Vendors (n=60) 
n % n % n %
Using charcoal in the last 
12 months
Yes 23 71.9 12 38.7 47 78.3
No 9 28.1 19 61.3 13 21.7
Change energy source in 
the last 12 months
Yes 13 40.6 4 12.9 11 18.3
No 19 59.4 27 87.1 49 81.7
Do you know where to 
buy LPG stoves?
Yes 18 56.2 8 25.8 20 33.3
No 14 43.8 21 74.4 40 66.6
Source: ICTP final evaluation survey - 2015 
Just hearing commercials does not mean that large users will automatically change the source 
of energy. The table 7 shows that 72 percent of orphanages, 39 percent of schools and 78
percent SFV have used charcoal in the last 12 months. However 41 percent of orphanages, 13
percent of schools and 18 percent of SFV have changed energy source in the last 12 months.
To those who are still using charcoal, the evaluation team asked to provide the reasons that 
prevent buying a LPG cookstoves. The results are indicated in the following table.
Table 8. Why not switching to LPG? 
Orphanages 
(n=18) 
Schools (n=29) Street Food 
Vendors (n=44) 
38
n % n % n %
Why not 
buying LPG 
cookstove
Too expensive 8 44.4 4 13.7 24 54.5
Too rare 2 11.1 2 6.8 3 6.8
Don’t know how 1 5.5 4 13.7 4 9.0
Not safe - - 6 13.6
Other 7 38.8 19 65.5 7 15.9
Would buy if 
credits 
program were 
Yes 11 78.5* 1 50.0** 32 72.7
No 3 21.5 1 50.0 12 27.3
*n=14, **n=2
Source: ICTP final evaluation survey - 2015 
According to most of the large users, the main barriers to conversion are lack of money for first 
investments and fear of fire or explosion associated with the use of LPG. About 44 percent of 
orphanages and 54 percent of SFV claimed that the price of the LPG stoves is the main reason 
preventing the switch. About 14 percent of SFV admit that safety is a major concern as well. 
Everyone would have liked to switch to LPG which is according to them a form of social 
ascension, but they still need to be able to afford initial expenses. 
We have seen that they agreed that LPG is cheaper than charcoal, and they evoke budget 
constraints as a major obstacle to purchase the necessary equipment. When asked about what 
could drive the switch to LPG, the main reasons and their relative weights are displayed in the 
table below.
Table 9. Purchasing LPG cookstove 
Orphanages 
(n=32)
Schools 
(n=31)
Street Food Vendors 
(n=44)
n n n percent
What could drive 
conversion to 
LPG from 
charcoal
Economics 20 62.5 11 35.5 26 59.1
Good 
information
1 3.1 3 9.7 4 9.1
The 
environment
8 25.0 12 38.7 4 9.1
Cleanliness 2 6.2 3 9.7 6 13.6
Health 0 0.0 2 6.5 0.0
Other 1 3.1 - 4 9.1
Plan to buy in 
this next 12 
months?
Yes 21 65.6 14 45.2 23 52.2
No 11 34.4 17 54.8 21 48.8
Source: ICTP final evaluation survey - 2015 
39
The majority of large users visited during the mini-survey plan to buy a LPG stove in the next 12 
months. This is the case for 65 percent of the orphanages, 45 percent of schools and 52 percent
of SFVs. However, this plan can be taken lightly to the extent that there are strong barriers to 
conversion to LPG. Among the incentives to conversion, the economy is dominant according to 
the majority of orphanages (62 percent) and SFVs (60 percent).
Driving forces to switch to LPG, with associated weights, are mainly economics, according to 62
percent of orphanages, 36 percent of schools and 59 percent of SFV. Impacts on the 
environment are a major player that could drive the switch to LPG, according to orphanages (25
percent) and schools (39 percent). 
7.2.2. CONCLUSIONS
The major conclusion is that the conversion rate from charcoal to LPG is still low. Converting to 
a new energy source is proof of the program’s success, many large users are still to be 
converted. 
A large media campaign was undertaken to show the benefits of LPG and encouraging large 
charcoal users to change source of energy for cooking. It reached the vast majority of large 
users, including orphanages (81 percent) and schools (84 percent) and FCS (80 percent). The 
majority of large users had the opportunity to see at least one spot on TV about LPG 
cookstoves. They have been reached to a lesser extent through radio spots and billboards. 
Charcoal remains a major energy source for the majority of SFV (66 percent), a good 
percentage of schools (19 percent) and orphanages (31 percent). As of now, orphanages (44
percent) and to a lesser degree the schools (13 percent) and SFV (22 percent) are using LPG. 
The distribution network of LPG stoves seems to be well established. Among the large users 
who do not have LPG stoves, the majority know where to buy them. 
Given that structures are in place for the production and distribution of stoves, the numbers 
should be on the rise in terms of use of LPG, the impact of the project is expected to increase 
with time. But such expectation may have low probability with barriers to conversion such as 
high startup cost and fear of danger associated with the use of LPG.
Project managers definitely understood that charcoal cannot be banned. Decision makers will 
have to develop more energy sources in relation to different segments of the population. 
7.2.3. RECOMMENDATIONS 
• The reasons that keep the users from changing energy sources are mainly the risks of 
explosion and funding. It is therefore recommended a second phase to build on the base
of the project. This would be the opportunity to strengthen the media campaign with 
clear messages about the security measures and benefits of LPG. The communication on 
the safety aspects must be strengthened in order to dispel the fear that usually draws its 
40
origin from the lack of information. Messages should be clear and compelling as well to 
carry people to action. 
• The dry cleaners and bakery LPG equipment and materials are expensive; a credit 
system should be established in the long term at low rates for this category.
• Flexible funding mechanisms should target not only the large users, but also 
households. Projects should focus essentially on reducing initial expenses which are a 
common barrier to conversion. 
• A similar project should be more intentional on the sharing of information about the 
benefits of other types of energy compared to charcoal, including the environmental 
and health impact. 
• The training of technicians has been highly appreciated by all key informants including 
technicians. Nevertheless, technicians think that soldering should be added to the 
already developed modules. 
• In the case of SFV, one of the major constraints identified by project staff concerns 
frequent travel and lack of security of hawkers situated along the streets. Consideration 
should be given to organize food court like that of SONAPI to support them.
7.3. Building a legal and regulatory framework for LPG in Haiti 
7.3.1. General findings on the establishment of a regulatory framework for 
LPG
In Haiti, the law on petroleum products was passed in 19498
. Some of its provisions are 
outdated given the evolution of trade-related techniques for these products, and LPG, which 
has been on the Haitian market for decades, is not addressed in the law. In order to develop a 
sustainable LPG industry and promote the long-term adoption of LPG as a cooking fuel by 
households, the GOH9 has expressed a desire for outside experts to assist them with the 
development of the necessary legal and regulatory framework for LPG. More specifically, rules 
must be developed and adopted to ensure safety, develop appropriate licensing regimes, 
discourage predatory commercial practices, and encourage investment, especially, cylinders 
and downstream distribution by the LPG industry. 
 
8 The law on petroleum products effective in Haiti exists since 1949. LPG have a special status, since the customs 
tax on this product has been abolished in 1987.
9 According to the Program proposal, the GoH has expressed a desire for outside experts to assist them with the 
development of the necessary legal and regulatory framework for LPG. 
41
According to the project members interviewed, ICTP first held several training and discussion 
sessions for the benefit of the main stakeholders involved in the LPG sector in Haiti. ICTP has 
provided substantial technical advice and assistance to the MCI in analyzing the economic 
environment of the LPG value chain in order to lay the foundation for legislation that is 
correctly structured and reflects the reality of the sector. ICTP worked with the Fire Department 
to develop and deliver a training program on the monitoring of LPG safety based on 
international standards. 
According to key informants, ICTP convened about ten meetings that included representatives 
from the Ministries of Commerce and Industry, Economics and Finance, Public Works, 
Transportation and Communication, the Office of Mining and Energy and private sector 
representatives. The topics dealt with were diverse and ranged from meetings with very 
divergent points of view of the sector to entire meetings discussing specific issues, such as gas 
cylinders ownership and maintenance. 
Chemonics contracted a firm to write a bill for the group. This bill was presented and discussed 
in work sessions with the various key stakeholders mentioned above. According to MCI, this bill 
needed to be contextualized and a more closely adapted to the country's reality. 
In addition to the Chemonics' bill, there was also a bill from Total Haiti, and another one from 
the Mevs Group. And finally there was that of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which 
intended to be a pooling together of the other bills by the consultant Paolo Schilozzi. The bill 
needed to be conformed to the Haitian legal format. Progress has been hampered by divergent
opinions supported by documentation. The situation generated a lot of debate and, at the end 
of the day, there was no consensus. 
In addition to this proposed legislation, LPG quality also needs to be regularly controlled and 
tested. The LPG sold is a mixture of propane and butane that sometimes doesn't consistently
meet the standard proportions. There are currently no quality control mechanisms in place. The 
three control points that are closest to Haiti are Trinidad, Texas (USA) and Ecuador.
In the Dominican Republic, LPG is widely used and informally serves also as vehicle fuel. It is a 
practice that is slowly spreading throughout Haiti, especially for certain public transportation 
vehicles, and presents another reason why the industry urgently requires regulation. 
According to MCI representatives, all the measures aiming at partially controlling the LPG 
industry must be linked to an approved law, unless there is an emergency. Unfortunately, this 
legislation is not yet effective. 
Discussions
MCI’s role is to work with the various key stakeholders in order to get to a legislation regulating 
the LPG industry. The right to introduce legislation, according to the current Haitian 
Constitution, articles 11 and following, is within the responsibility of the executive power. In the 
42
specific case before us, the Ministry of Commerce should write a bill on this commercial 
product while taking into account the legitimate concerns of all stakeholders and present it to 
the Parliament for ratification. 
The MCI Minister, assisted by a member of his cabinet, 
originally led all the meetings, thus playing his mediation 
role among the various stakeholders. Following the 
different proposals, MCI finally proposed a summary 
document designed by a consultant. This text did not win 
unanimous support since it didn't reflect all stakeholder
concerns, and therefore, it was not adopted by the 
working group. 
With regards to the ICTP project managers, they were 
able to gather the main stakeholders in spite of their 
differences. Among other things, their mission was, 
according to the submitted and approved plans, to draft key policy, legislation and regulation 
and technical assistance to the GOH to assist them with adopting these legislative, regulatory 
and policy recommendations. According to the key informants met during this evaluation, the 
project actually implemented all the planned activities. However, the single outcome of that 
component representing the mid-term expected impact and aiming at the "adoption of an 
effective regulatory framework for LPG that will enable market expansion" was not achieved. 
The first question that may be asked is the following: Were the activities planned in this 
component sufficient or effective? Or even, did the project express the right assumptions and 
anticipate the appropriate mitigation activities? According to results-based management 
principles, the totality of planned activities lead to the outcome only if the related risks located 
out of the project's control do not happen. In this particular case, the project carried out all the 
planned activities but had to face the limit of its actions. As mentioned, only the executive 
power has the ability to submit a bill to the Parliament. If the executive power does not fully 
play its role, the project will not meet the final expected outcome even if all the planned 
activities were carried out. We now understand that, on one hand, the goal might be too 
ambitious for an NGO and, on the other hand, the government should have received more 
support from the project in order to reach the desired consensus on legislation. 
The private sector, composed in this case of representatives from for-profit institutions, does its 
best to protect its interests. They have major interests and try, as much as possible, to influence 
the process to their own benefit. 
Finally, we are not able to test the project's approach that is related to this component since 
the goal was not met, meaning the legislation or regulatory mechanisms are not in place, and 
this doesn't allow us to draw conclusions on investments in the industry. However, we can say 
at least that, according to the various key stakeholders we met, there is a significant increase in 
The single outcome of that 
component representing 
the mid-term expected 
impact and aiming at the 
"adoption of an effective 
regulatory framework for 
LPG that will enable market 
expansion" is not achieved. 
43
LPG demand, which could explain the increase and then the multiplication of distribution 
centers often outside of minimum standards. 
7.3.2. Conclusions on the establishment of a regulatory framework for LPG
Overall, the project has the merit of having achieved almost all that was planned and, in some 
aspects, elements were exceeded. In most of the work meetings on legislation, the Ministries' 
representatives were Ministers, General Directors, sometimes assisted by cabinet members, 
which gives the appearance that discussions were politically motivated, according to key 
informants. There has been no technical team to discuss or to work together on the issue. The 
outcome of this project component, which was the adoption of an efficient regulatory 
framework, was not met. External factors, outside of the project's control, are responsible for 
this situation, meaning it was expected that the State fully play its role and that there also be a 
functional Parliament during this phase of the project's life.
7.3.3. Recommendations on the establishment of a regulatory framework 
for LPG
• A team of technicians must be set up to reconcile and contextualize the various draft 
bills written until now. The bill must cover all aspects of the industry from importation, 
storage, transportation and sale. The bill must take into account the various 
components of the industry such as fire and safety, municipalities, TPTC, MDE, MCI, 
Ministry of Finances, BME, private sector representatives, etc. 
• In the region, there are countries of our size that have already made these steps. It is 
necessary, for example, that technicians organize visits to these countries to inquire 
about their situation and build from there. 
• MCI must assume increased responsibility in this process towards regulating the 
industry. 
7.4. Carbon Credit market in Haiti
7.4.1. General Findings on carbon credit
Questions: To what extent will the existence or absence of a carbon credit market in Haiti affect 
the success and sustainability of the ICTP?
To answer this question, a situational analysis was produced on the collection and analysis of 
data related to the carbon market as part of this project. While highlighting the contribution of 
the project in this direction, the analysis also focused on recent developments achieved in the 
regulation of the carbon credit market in Haiti.
44
To establish a carbon market in Haiti, ICTP reported to have successfully submitted a Program 
of Activity (POA) under the U.N.'s Clean Development Mechanism. Known as “Improved 
Cookstoves for Haiti,” the POA is said registered with the U.N. Framework Convention for 
Climate Change with project partner C-Quest-Capital as the POA’s coordinating managing 
entity.
In support of this submission, ICTP conducted a longitudinal study and national baseline studies 
on household, street-food vendor, and school charcoal consumption.
These baseline studies complied with CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) and Gold Standard 
methodologies, allowing independent Haitian stove manufacturers to apply for carbon credits 
under the Gold Standard scheme in the future. The longitudinal study gathered important 
information, such as users’ cooking preferences and stove fuel consumption and durability 
under normal usage conditions. The first of its kind, this study can help design future improved 
cookstove interventions in Haiti. 
DISCUSSIONS
Three (3) carbon credit projects are currently in implementation or in the registration process in 
Haiti. Two of them are on a voluntary market basis and the third one is a CDM project
The first project is the D&E Green enterprises project registered personally (without the ICTP 
support) since 2013 with ENEL, an European Electricity Company, guaranteeing 5 euros per ton 
of carbon dioxide equivalent for 21 years. D&E enterprises produce two models of improved 
stoves: Echo-Recho and PlopPlop. D&E Green Enterprises reported that both are registered. 
Echo-Recho reduces 2.1 tons of carbon dioxide per year per unit while Plop Plop achieves a 
reduction of 2.5 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year per unit. Carbon credit has not yet 
been received. The next monitoring phase is scheduled on December 2015 according D&E 
Green Enterprises.
The second project is the Entrepreneur du Monde, a French entity involved in energy projects 
in Haiti (EdM Voluntary Gold Standard) to which ICTP provided access to its various studies 
(baseline, tests and monitoring/assessment reports) in order to reduce costs for these partners, 
while increasing the chances for a functioning carbon market to take shape in Haiti beyond 
ICTP’s support and lifetime. The project is in the registration process. 
The third project is the POA “Improved Cookstoves for Haiti,” registered to CDM, by ICTP, that 
presents a possibility to introduce multiple projects during the POA’s 28-year lifetime. The first 
component project activities (CPA) under this POA include Eco-Zoom Jet which is an imported 
stove from Kenya. This approach is questionable, because the Echo-Zoom Jet is not available on 
the local market according to a Key Informant Interview. The team did not find this model in 
use in the project area. A questionnaire addressed via email to C-Quest Capital was not 
returned.
C-Quest Capital is the POA’s coordinating and managing entity, who manages the incorporation 
of all component project activities (CPAs) under this POA. This includes verifying the 
45
information provided by CPA implementers and auditing their records to ensure emissions 
reductions are accurately accounted for.
C-Quest Capital reported: Lack of available auditors once the POA was ready for validation. 
Because the European Union Emissions Trading System (the main market where CDM carbon 
credits are purchased) would not accept carbon credits from CDM projects registered after 
2012, auditors were busy validating other carbon credit programs and could not begin working 
on this POA. The validation process was thus delayed until 2013. 
To register and implement a carbon credit project in Haiti, several constraints have been 
highlighted by key informants:
High cost of registration. It generally costs over US$ 150.000 to fulfil all the requirements and 
get registered. In the case of D&E Green enterprises, this cost has been covered by ENEL the 
European Electricity Company. But funding is reported to be available at CDMP to help needed 
countries. 
Registration duration process. It takes over 2 years to comply with all steps and get registered.
Institutional weakness. The National Designated Authority (ANDH) is not currently fully 
functional. They need capacity building and staff reinforcement. However, according to one key 
informant, ENEL would be interested in financing the ANDH to make them able to efficiently 
accomplish their duties.
Moreover, key informants reported that local partners had reported many difficulties working 
with C-Quest capital for several reasons.
Some producers could not register their projects due mainly to complicated procedures and 
registration cost. These include Recho Rena and “chabon tout bon” of Ticadaie.
National Institutional scheme for CDM project
A key requirement of local authorities for the CDM project is to put in place a structure for (A) 
providing an authorization letter to promoters with specific criteria to comply with and (B)
promoting the opportunities of CDM projects among potential investors.
To comply with this requirement, the Designated National Authority of Haiti (ANDH) was 
created within the Ministry of the Environment by a Presidential Decree on May 24, 2010 and is 
responsible for implementing the provisions of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of 
the Kyoto Protocol (KP).
The Designated National Authority of Haiti (ANDH) contributes nationally to achieve the criteria 
and objectives of sustainable development through the implementation of projects to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions as planned in the CDM.
To meet the commitments that countries have emerged from the third Conference of Parties 
(COP 3) at the Kyoto Protocol, policies and regional or national measures are gradually 
implemented. Complementing these efforts, three market mechanisms, known as Flexibility 
Mechanisms have been designed: the first one is the International Exchange of a share of 
emissions rights, and the other two are the Joint implementation and the Clean Development 
46
Mechanism (CDM), which both allow an investor country to obtain emission credits by investing 
in projects to reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions in a host country. ANDH focuses on the 
Clean Development Mechanism that provides multiple benefits to Non-Annex I countries like 
Haiti.
In terms of progress in the establishment of a carbon market in Haiti, ANDH has elaborated and 
made available a Guide to investors, and two projects are registered: the Eco-Recho from D&E 
Green Enterprises and a POA from USAID after an approval letter from ANDH.
But, ANDH has expressed many constraints to fulfilling their mandate, including: 
• Lack of own resources. Resources of the Climate Change Department are used for the work 
of the ANDH
• Loss of professionals due to multiple changes during the last decade at the Ministry of 
Environment
• Lack of qualified counterparts to handle the duties as a result of many Ministers changing 
• Need to strengthen the ANDH to be able to fulfil their duties.
• Lack/weakness of budget necessary to make known to local entrepreneurs the 
opportunities provided by Carbon Credit facilities
• International disengagement regarding CDM leading to a drastic reduction in the price of 
Carbon Credit. ANDH then expects to see COP 21, the next conference in Paris, reach binding 
agreements for higher prices. 
In terms of progress related to the establishment of a carbon market in Haiti, ANDH has 
elaborated and made available a Guide to investors. 
International CDM price environment
The average prices of CDM carbon credits dropped significantly in 2012. But it is still valuable to 
promote POA among buyers who are willing to offer premium prices for carbon credits 
generated via technologies that have important social benefits, such as improved cookstoves. 
State and Trends of Carbon pricing
As of today10, about 40 countries and 20 sub-regional jurisdictions are putting a price on 
carbon. Together, these carbon pricing instruments cover almost 6 gigatons of carbon dioxide 
equivalent to about 12percent of annual global Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. 
7.4.2. Conclusions on carbon credit
ICTP’s carbon component accumulated a great quantity of information and conducted a 
longitudinal study and national baseline studies on household, street-food vendor, and school 
 
47
charcoal consumption which complied with CDM and Gold Standard methodologies, allowing 
independent Haitian stove manufacturers to apply for carbon credits under the Gold Standard 
scheme in the future. 
In spite of the decline in the price on carbon credit, there is still room to implement relevant 
projects and it is expected that the next conference of parties in Paris will bring binding 
agreements regarding carbon pricing.
It is, however, very difficult to affirm that a well-established carbon market has been achieved 
in Haiti by the project. Whether or not the project has influenced the carbon market is not an 
easy question to answer because no carbon credit has been delivered as a result of the project 
which would provide financing for stoves and make them affordable for those less fortunate. 
At this moment it is clear that the absence or the presence of the carbon credit component of 
the ICTP project has not influenced the stove market. But one can assume that once the whole 
cycle is completed, it should have tremendous influence on the stove market.
Many constraints have been reported from the National Designated Authority in order to 
comply efficiently their responsibilities. The international institutional environment had also 
not facilitated the registration process as indicated by C-Quest Capital. They reported 
specifically a lack of available auditors once the POA was ready for validation. Because the 
European Union Emissions Trading System (the main market where CDM carbon credits are 
purchased) would not accept carbon credits from CDM projects registered after 2012, auditors 
were busy validating other carbon credit programs and could not begin working on this POA. 
The validation process was thus delayed until 2013.
7.4.3. Recommendations on carbon credit
Based on the above conclusions, following are recommendations to improve any next phase of 
the project:
• There is a need to include all potential partners from the beginning of any process to 
facilitate their interests through a basic consensus. This will prevent further friction 
between partners and promote transparency which is not currently at the strength of the 
ICTP. Several key informants have pointed out that this aspect is vitally important.
• Strengthening the institutional capability of ANDH is crucial to avoid delay in the 
registration process and shorten duration. D&E Green enterprises has reported that ENEL is 
willing to assist ANDH and strengthen this important structure. 
• Reduce the registration cost burden by implementing proper networking. As it is reported, 
supports in that matter are available throughout the region like in Grenada, Bogota etc.
8. APPENDICES
Appendix A: Bibliography 
1. ESMAP, April 2007, Strategy to Alleviate the Pressure of Fuel Demand on National Woodfuel 
Resources, Port-au-Prince: Ministry of Environment, Bureau of Mines/Energy. 
2. ICTP. 2012. Annual Workplan year 1
3. USAID-HAITI. 2012. Fully Executed Contract.
4. ICTP. 2013. Year 2 Annual Report
5. ICTP. 2013. Performance Monitoring Plan 2013
6. ICTP. 2013. FY 2013 Annual Workplan
7. ICTP.2013. Performance Monitoring Plan. FY2014. 
8. ICTP. 2014. ICTP Final Performance Indicators Table.
9. ICTP. 2014. Performance Monitoring FY2014
10. ICTP. 2014. FY2014 Annual Report
11. ICTP. 2014.Year 3 Annual Workplan
12. Smucker G. et al. 2007. Environmental Vulnerability in Haiti.
13. WHO, 2006, Fuel for life: household energy and health. Geneva.
14. MDE, no date: L’Autorité Natioale Désignée d’Haiti (ANDH) pour le Mécanisme de 
Développement Propre
15.World Bank, May 2015: State and Trends of Carbon pricing. 
16. FDS/BME, 2014: Manuel de Procedures – Foyers améliorés et combustibles
Appendix B. The mini-surveys conducted with large users. 
Mini-surveys provide information about charcoal consumption as energy source. Information about 
the samples is provided in table below.
Table. Number of mini-survey conducted. 
Orphanages Schools Street food vendors
Carrefour 4 6 10
Delmas 7 6 7
Petion ville 1 5 16
Port-au-Prince 1 3 15
Tabarre 7 3 12
Kenskoff 3 1 0
Croix des Bouquets 9 7 0
Total 32 31 60
49
The observation units during the mini-surveys of schools, orphanages, or SFV are very well distributed in
random manner on the geographical area of the study. 
Appendix C: Energy sources at schools and orphanages
Electricity from EDH is available in 84 percent of orphanages and 68percent of schools in the 
metropolitan area. However 94 percent of orphanages and 58 percent of schools have an alternative
source of electricity. This can be easily understood given that orphanages are often sponsored and
generally host vulnerable children. Very few orphanages (9 percent) and schools (3 percent) use 
electric energy for cooking. So with the promotion of propane, activities of the program should
reduce the consumption of coal to propane.
Table. Energy sources at schools and orphanages 
Orphanages (n=32) Schools (n=31)
Access to electricity from national firm EDH Yes 84.4 67.7
No 15.6 32.3
Other sources of electricity Yes 93.8 58.1
No 6.2 41.9
Other sources of electricity Solar cells 30.0 22.2
Inverter 43.3 44.4
Generator 70.0 61.1
Other 6.7 0.0
Electricity for cooking Yes 9.4 3.2
No 90.6 96.8
Appendix D. Complete Evaluation Methodology
Research design consideration
The collection and analysis of information about the characteristics and outcomes of the ICTP was 
applied as a post-test only design. The results are intended as a basis for judgments, to improve 
effectiveness, and/or inform decision making and future programming.
For this evaluation, a baseline study was not conducted before the intervention began. The 
evaluation team is assuming that the two comparison groups are similar and data from a baseline 
study is not essential. This post-test only design differs from the ideal design of one with two 
comparison arms, i.e. the intervention and the control arms (control arm basically receives no 
intervention at the time the project begins) and both arms would be assessed simultaneously, at least 
the two time points mentioned. 
50
Use of mix-methods
Different methods were used in parallel combinations for this evaluation. 
Qualitative methods:
• Focus Group, 
• Key Informant Interview, 
• In depth project document review.
Quantitative methods: 
• Mini-survey, 
• Household survey.
Above methods were used separately and findings were not integrated until after data analysis. The 
same evaluation team was involved in implementing multiple evaluation methods, and the actual 
data collection and analysis happened over the same period of time. The key point is that each 
method was conducted in its entirety and separately from the other methods. 
Qualitative and quantitative methods took place simultaneously, and the data were analyzed 
separately. Then, as the data from different methods are often intended to answer the same 
question, the findings were triangulated.
FIGURE 1: Parallel combinations 
Qualitative methods: data collection
The following qualitative methods were used for data collection: In-depth review of project 
documentation, key informant interviews and focus groups. Based on the evaluation objectives and 
questions, semi-structured guides were developed in order to conduct data collection. Qualitative 
data helped better understand who were the improved cooking stoves manufacturers or LPG stoves 
manufacturers, where are they located, what was the process leading to the production of improved 
cookstoves, etc. In addition, qualitative methods were used as well to understand the driving forces 
that pushed households and targeted large users to switch to improved biomass cookstoves or LPG 
technology. Information gathered through qualitative methods allowed analysis of replication and 
Triangulation
Qualitative 
methods: data 
analysis
Qualitative 
methods: data 
collection
Quantitative 
methods: data 
collection
Quantitative 
methods: data 
analysis
51
the sustainability of the project, and finally to produce a comprehensive analysis of the carbon credit 
market in Haiti. 
Preliminary meetings with project key staff
The team met with the COR to ensure clarity regarding the expectations and the results of the 
evaluation. During the meeting, discussions focused on the evaluation questions, the key aspects of 
the project context and the documents to be examined. The team leader, the assistant team leader 
and the technical expert advisor took part in this meeting for BRIDES. The evaluation team met as 
well with key ICTP staff in order to better understand the implementation process and to discuss the 
sharing of relevant documents. 
In depth review of project documentation
The members of the evaluation team reviewed all relevant documents of the project throughout the 
evaluation process. Archived material related to the whole project, and the initial material used in 
project preparation, approved project documents, project monitoring documents, beneficiary lists, 
intermediate and final reports, annual PMPs and any other available information were considered 
together with the qualitative and quantitative primary data to answer the evaluation questions. The 
intensive review not only helped the members of the evaluation team to better prepare the field 
work but also facilitated the understanding of the relationships of cause and effect behind the project 
design and the environmental factors that affect project beneficiaries. This revision also helped the 
team to assess the project's achievements relative to expectations and the level of efficiency.
Semi-structured interview with key informants
Thirty eight Key Informants Interviews (KII) were conducted with members of partner institutions 
directly involved in the implementation of the project as improved biomass cook stoves private 
sector partners representatives (Total Haiti, Micama, Ticadaie), “recho pa-w” hotline coordinator, 
Bureau of Mines and Energy director, laboratory for cookstove manager, etc. Other interviews were 
held similarly with some project management staff involved in the project. These interviews, in 
addition to providing answers to the project evaluation questions, helped to evaluate the role and 
level of participation of different stakeholders in the project’s implementation. Wherever possible, 
like at the FDS cookstoves laboratory, facilitators observe the facilities set up in the context of this 
project. 
This technique is used in all four (4) evaluation questions. 
A summary of KII implemented is presented in the summary table of data collection.
Focus Group (FG) Discussions
Specific groups considered for this data collection method include business women and community 
leaders trained in commercialization and technicians trained to repair LPG stoves. In accordance with 
the number and location of these target groups, four (4) focus groups (FG) were needed. An 
52
exhaustive list of FG conducted is presented in the summary table of data collection. A focus group 
guide was developed as the main tool for conducting the discussions, this guide included open 
questions revolving around relevant indicators to measure in the study. These indicators were 
defined using the PMP and during brainstorming with USAID Experts. 
This technique was applied mainly to technicians trained to repair LPG stoves in order to respond to 
the evaluation questions one and two. During focus groups, discussions were conducted under the 
leadership of a facilitator. A note taker was responsible for data collection. An observer assisted the 
focus groups as well to capture other significant information like group dynamics, behaviours and 
reactions. 
Quantitative methods: data collection
Household survey
A household survey was used mainly to meet the first evaluation question and bring some clarity to 
the second question as well. The methodology for the quantitative survey involves two steps: the 
elaboration of a sampling frame and the design of the sampling plan.
A. Sampling frames
The quantitative survey was limited to the Port-au-Prince Metropolitan Area (PMA) which includes 
urban areas of the municipalities of Port-au-Prince, Delmas, Carrefour, Pétion-Ville, Tabarre, croix des 
bouquets and Kenscoff. In order to draw a good sampling frame, BRIDES deemed necessary to specify 
the list of primary sampling units (PSU) in order not to lose important information for the success of 
this survey. For this survey the PSUs were the Section d’Enumeration (SDE) corresponding to the PMA 
available in the IHSI ‘Atlas Critique d’Haiti’. An Sd'E is a census unit comprising a number of 
households in a given area generally entrusted to an enumerator. In the last population census in 
2003, the “Institut Haitien de Statistique et d’Informatique” (IHSI) established a list of Sd'E and their 
size (in terms of number of households and population).
B. Sampling Plan
A two stages clustered 30*30 sampling methodology was applied as sampling plan. The first stage 
involved sampling 30 SDE in the sampling frame. Selected SDEs were the primary units of the frame, 
within which 30 households were selected in the second degree by simple random sampling.
Basis for sample size 
To calculate the sample size, BRIDES assumed that the sample size does not solely depend on the size 
of the population from which it is drawn. It is rather based on three precision statistical parameters 
namely confidence interval (set at 90percent), the margin of error, (set at 4percent), and variance of 
the total population of households. Such considerations lead researchers to calculate the minimum 
sample size that minimizes the margin of error by optimizing the confidence interval.
53
This leads to the use of statistical formulation linking these three parameters and thereby 
guaranteeing optimal accuracy results: 
 Z²α/2σ²
p
 n = ____________ * Deff (1)
 E²p
Where
Z²α/2: is the z-score associated with the reduced level of 90 percent of the Gaussian bell
 curve. The confidence level is the probability that the estimated proportion in 
 the sample population is found within the limits of the confidence interval.
σ²p: is the variance of the population for the estimate of any proportion. It is 
determined by the equation:
 σ²p = PQ = 0.25 (2)
This is the maximum variance where P= 0.5 and Q =0.5.It is also the most unfavorable case. 
 Ep: is the margin of error associated with the estimation of parameters. This is the value to 
be added and subtracted to the estimated value in the sample to obtain the confidence interval. This 
margin is estimated at 4 percent. We can afford to take a high margin of error in order to minimize 
the size of the sample because the investigation will be conducted in a densely populated area.
Deff: is the design effect, which is round up to 2 in the case of clustered sample.
These statistical techniques, based on the use of the parameters mentioned above, have allowed 
identification of a random sample size of n =846 households for all six municipalities of metropolitan 
area. 
To sample size is adjusted to 900 to take into account non responses. Thus, we will end up 
implementing a 30*30 clustered design, consisting of 30 SDE chosen in the first stage and 30 
households within SDE in the second stage.
Size distribution of the sample clusters
Given that the population of individuals and households by municipality is known (Census 2003IHSI), 
we determined the structure of the household population by commune. This structure is then applied 
to the sample size to calculate quotas or partial sizes to be allocated to each municipality. 
54
 Number of households in Municipality "i"
pi =----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (3)
 Total number of households in the six municipalities
 ni =(n* pi) (4)
During 2003 census, IHSI divided the municipalities into Sd'Es, they are here considered as clusters of 
households which is the minimum collection area for an enumerator. We needed to determine the 
number of clusters to be drawn by municipality. In order to draw a representative sample of clusters 
which is as randomly dispersed as possible within each municipality, BRIDES set a fixed number of 30 
households to be interviewed by clusters. The quota sample by commune ni or divided by this fixed 
number of households per cluster (30) gives the number of Sd'E or clusters for each commune 
(SeeTable No 1 below). 
Table. Number of households per municipality 
Population Percentage Number # SDE
Carrefour 393986 0.187762 5.63287 6
Delmas 314029 0.149657 4.489714 5
Petion Ville 280214 0.133542 4.006256 5
Port au Prince 736618 0.351051 10.53152 11
Tabarre 97027 0.04624 1.387208 2
Kenskoff 45731 0.021794 0.653822 1
Croix des 
bouqets
230718 0.109954 3.298606 3
Primary sample selection
As the number of Sd'E to be drawn by area is known, for the optimal representativeness of the 
sample and its greater dispersion within a municipality, BRIDES applied the selection method 
"probability proportional to size" where the choice of Sd'E or primary survey unit is random and 
systematic. 
This method consists of:
- Establishing a numbered list of SDE per municipality, indicating the size of each list
- Establishing the cumulative size of SDE
55
- Calculating the sampling interval (IE)i by comparing the latest cumulative value (PT)i to the number of 
SDE to be sampled in the "i" zone (IE)i = (PT)i / Ni
- Randomly selecting a number between 1 and (IE)i and comparing that number to the cumulative 
values so to locate the nearest accumulated size number. The corresponding Sd'E to the location line 
of this number is the first household cluster sampled for the area.
- Selecting the following SDE systematically adding (IE)i in randomly selected number and continuing 
until the list is completed.
The application of this method for each municipality resulted in obtaining the list of randomly 
selected SDE to be visited per municipality.
Mini-survey
Regarding Street Food Vendors (SFV), Orphanages and schools with “school feeding” program, a mini 
survey was selected by the evaluation team to collect quantitative data to supplement qualitative 
information. The reasoning for this choice was the interest in broad patterns, trends, and tendencies 
than in precise measurements. The mini survey was done in a smaller scale, and concentrated on a 
few variables and will use a small sample. Therefore, the mini survey focused on narrowly defined set 
of questions such as: what were the driving forces behind the choice of the food vendors to switch to 
LPG technology? Overall, how satisfied are they with their improved or LPG cookstove? Additional 
questions were added to help understand their rational. 
The number of questions was deliberately kept small. In this respect, the mini survey differed 
significantly from the design chosen for traditional households, whose questionnaires run into several 
pages. The mini survey questionnaires were designed to be completed within half an hour, at most. 
The sample size was also be kept small. The evaluation team chose to interview 60 SFV, 31 
orphanages and 32 schools. 
For schools and orphanages, a systematic random sampling will be applied to select two samples 
from existing lists. In the case of street food vendors, sample was chosen directly in large zones 
changed to LPG under ICTP i.e. SONAPI, in the industrial park, next to the international airport and 
(See table XXX) in the main grouping arteries namely Fermathe, Mariani, “Rue Courte” in downtown, 
“Delmas 31” – Kokoye hotel area and Pétionville at Derenancourt street.
Data Collection process
Once the design of the evaluation and identification of data needs and sources was completed, the 
next step was to carry out the data collection. In order to ensure high-quality data, several steps have 
been taken. Enumerators were selected through a competitive process, overseen at all steps by the 
BRIDES team. After the selection process, candidate enumerators were trained during three days on 
tablets use and methodology of survey. Field Teams consisted of four enumerators and one 
supervisor who will play the role of field team leader. Based on the sample size estimate and our 
experience (approximatively 6 questionnaires by day by enumerator during 13 days), 20 candidate 
enumerators were trained and 15 were selected for fieldwork. Survey teams were grouped into three 
sub-teams of four enumerators each. After completing the household survey, the enumerators 
completed the mini-survey. 
56
Quality Monitoring and Data Cleaning
BRIDES collected the data electronically using a Samsung SM-T211 7 Tablet (Android 4.1). Data 
collected were downloaded on a daily basis. For this purpose, each team was provided with a 
Portable3G / 4G router with an internet plan with national coverage. BRIDES had already tested this 
configuration providing expected results with daily submitted data. This technology allowed our IT 
specialist to perform daily quality control of the data collected in order to take corrective measures. 
The BRIDES IT specialist, also a researcher and statistician, properly ensured data quality control, 
data cleaning and data conversion on SPSS statistical software to be delivered to USAID-Haiti.
Data analysis
The evaluation report used a descriptive analytic approach. Results were tabulated with the 
descriptive variables presented. Most data are presented as column percentages, means or medians, 
and are carried out to one decimal point. The analysis and interpretation of focus groups were 
conducted with a great deal of judgement and care using content analysis methods. We used 
qualitative data to deepen explanations of the findings and triangulate with quantitative information. 
Survey findings provided answers to the first evaluation question. Our analysis makes good use of 
existing data gathered through extensive literature review. It takes into account the limitations to the 
evaluation, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology 
(selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences, etc.).
57
Appendix E. List of Key Informants
Institution/category Name Position 
Entreprise pénitentiaire de 
Pétionville
1. Dieucilhomme Jasmin Police Inspector 
Centre de Rééducation des 
Mineurs en Conflit avec la Loi
{Prison Delmas 33}
2. Molière Police Inspector
Haiti Métal S.A. 3. Jean Hector S. Guirand Executive Director 
Jean-Baptiste Entreprise (JBE) 4. Serge Jean-Baptiste Executive Director 
Tony Dry Cleaning 5. Tony Paul Owner 
Le Rocher Boulangerie 6. Bertrude Couloute Owner
ACME 7. Pierre Legrand Director 
SHAMA dry cleaning 8. Richemide Prince Owner
9. Pierre Ronel Prince
Boulangerie de Carrefour 
Feuille 
10. Dominique Sandrine 
Landrin
Owner
11. Toussaint Phalande 
Stéphanie 
Boulangerie St-Yves (Carrefour) 12. Pierre Phito Owner 
13. Tony Baptiste 
Ministère du Commerce et de 
l’Industrie 
14. Ghisler Dugas Executive Director
15. Francis Gratia Minister’s Office director 
16. Duchatelier Paul Junior Minister’s Office 
ICTP personal 17. Cécile Duchier ICS leader 
18. Esther Bonté Hotline Supervisor 
19. Daniel Charles LPG Specialist 
20. Jean Denis Lys M&E Specialist 
21. Michelet Fontaine Director 
Mercy Corps 22. Elizabeth Sipple Alternative Energy and Renewable 
Resources Program Manager
58
Technicians trained 23. John Smith Charlotin Technician 
24. Jonel Fréjuste Technician 
25. Gaus Jules Technician 
26. Undrick Céus Technician 
D&E Green 27. Fednard Duquesne Executive Director 
(products : plop plop and Echo recho)
TICADAIE 28. Philippe Villedrouin Executive Director
RENA 29. Alix Villedrouin Executive Director
Faculté des Sciences 30. Dr Cheremond Yvens Professeur à l’UEH
TOTAL Haiti 31. Aude Humbert Directr
Bureau des Mines et de 
l’Energie
32. Altidor Jean Robert Directeur des ressources 
énergétiques 
Ministère de l’Environnement 33. Moise Jean-Pierre Directeur de changement climatique
34. Pachuco jean-Baptiste Consultant in Energy and 
Environment 
USAID 35. Marcia Urquhart 
Glenn
Senior Urban Planning and Policy 
Advisor
36. Harry François Mission Monitoring and Evaluation 
Officer 
Palmis Enèji 37. Christophe Duchier PDG 
OMNIGAZ 38. Bertrand Berthomieux PDG
59
Appendix F. Sampling Characteristics 
Figure. Ages pyramid
Other characteristics
Table No. 2: Structure of household members by age and sex
Age group
(Year)
Sex of member of household 
Male Female Total
N % N % N %
< 5 373 23.9 380 20.5 753 22.0 
15-29 577 36.9 697 37.6 1274 37.3 
30-44 356 22.8 420 22.6 776 22.7 
45-59 186 11.9 250 13.5 436 12.8 
60 or + 70 4.5 109 5.9 179 5.2 
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 
60
The structure of the sample in terms of distribution of age groups by gender translates information 
already known to the Haitian population. Indeed people are very young here with almost 59 percent
below 30 years, with slightly more female than male in this age group. The population of old men and 
women, age 60 and over, represented only 5 percent of the current population. With such a structure 
of the population, it proves important to have this concern for protection of natural resources, 
including timber resources to serve the rising generation. 
More characteristic. 
Number of persons n Household (HH)
N valid 973
Missing 0
Mean 3.51
Std error of Mean 0.58
Median 3.0
Mode 3
Std Deviation 1.79
61
Appendix G. Key Informant Interview 
Private sector partners 
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on improved 
biomass and LPG stoves. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each 
question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain 
that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to 
help us understand the situation of your institution. With your permission, we will take note of 
everything that was said during the interview. 
1. What do you know about the project related to improved biomass and LPG cookstoves? 
2. How did you find out this information? 
3. How were you selected as a partner? / 
4. How were you involved in the project? / Which activities were implemented? 
5. To what extent was it easy to establish the sales points? What strategy did you use to 
establish sales points? (credit/ financial support/ remittances?)
6. What results were achieved? How satisfied are you with your performance?
7. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
8. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 
9. In your opinion, what motivates people switch and buy LPG stoves? 
10. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
11. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes in the community? 
12. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the 
intervention? 
62
Key Informant Interview
Hotline
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on improved 
biomass and LPG stoves. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each 
question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain 
that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to 
help us understand the situation of your institution. With your permission, we will take note of 
everything that was said during the interview. 
1. What do you know about the project related to improved biomass and LPG cookstoves? 
2. How did you find out this information? 
3. How do you involve in the project? / Which activities were implemented? 
4. What do you do to let people know that this hotline exists? 
5. How does it works? (Type of service available? Type of inquiries? Complaints? Information 
recorded? Follow-up?)
6. How was your experience with the technicians? 
7. What results were achieved? How satisfied are you with performance? (Average calls per 
month?)
8. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
9. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 
10. In your opinion, what motivates people switch and buy LPG stoves? 
11. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
12. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes in the community? 
13. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the 
intervention? 
63
Key Informant Interview
Bureau of Mines and Energy 
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on improved 
biomass and LPG stoves. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each 
question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain 
that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to 
help us understand the situation of your institution. With your permission, we will take note of 
everything that was said during the interview. 
1. What do you know about the project related to improved biomass and LPG cookstoves? 
How did you find out this information? 
2. How were you involved in the project? / Which activities were implemented? What can you 
tell us about the tests performed by the cookstove lab installed at the FDS? What kind of test 
that can perform in this lab? 
3. To what extent was it easy to establish a cookstove laboratory at the FDS and make it run? 
4. What are the management mechanism between BME and FDS? How works the validation 
process of a stove? In terms of international standards, what are the choices that have been 
made by the Haitian authorities? Is there any link between this laboratory and similar 
laboratories outside of the country? Are you part of networks?
5. What results were achieved? How satisfied are you with the lab performance?
6. How many carbon projects have been registered to date? How many carbon projects are 
waiting to be registered? 
7. What type of markets have been targeted, CDM, Gold Standard, voluntary market? What are 
the criteria that have guided this choice? What are the procedures until the disbursement of 
money? 
8. What is the progress in the carbon market establishment in Haiti?
9. What are the constraints to establishing a carbon market in Haiti?
10. To what extent did the existence or inexistence of carbon market influence the local market 
for improved biomass or LPG cookstoves? Or the ICTP specifically? 
64
11. What are the benefits of C-Quest Capital interventions? 
12. In your opinion, what motivates people switch and buy LPG stoves? 
13. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
14. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces considering all aspects of its 
implementation?
15. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes in the community? 
16. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the 
intervention? 
17. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future? 
65
Key Informant Interview
“Faculté des Science” Cookstove laboratory
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on improved 
biomass and LPG stoves. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each 
question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain 
that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to 
help us understand the situation of your institution. With your permission, we will take note of 
everything that was said during the interview. 
1. What do you know about the project related to improved biomass and LPG cookstoves? 
2. How did you find out this information? 
3. How were you involved in the project? / Which activities were implemented? 
4. To what extent was it easy to establish a cookstove laboratory at the FDS and make it run? 
5. What are the management mechanism between BME and FDS? How works the validation 
process of a stove? 
6. What results were achieved? How satisfied are you with the lab performance?
7. What type of analyses you preform? What level of performance is achievable? Any 
relationship with other regional lab?
8. Is there a need for double checking analysis by other labs? 
9. What is the capacity of intervention of the lab related to large demand for analysis?
10. Are you willing to sustain large demand in case of substantial carbon finance projects 
implementation?
11. What type of support did you benefit in establishing the laboratory? 
12. What mechanism is in place to ensure the sustainability of the lab? 
13. To what extent did the carbon market influence the local market for improved biomass or LPG 
cookstoves? 
14. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
15. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 
16. In your opinion, what motivates people switch and buy LPG stoves? 
17. What are some suggestions for improving the ICSP project in the future?
66
18. To what extent has the intervention (ICSP) contributed to positive changes in the community? 
19. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the 
intervention? 
67
Key Informant Interview
Improved biomass cookstoves manufacturers 
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on improved 
biomass and LPG stoves. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each 
question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain 
that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to 
help us understand the situation of your institution. With your permission, we will take note of 
everything that was said during the interview. 
1. What do you know about the project related to improved biomass and LPG cookstoves? 
2. How did you find out this information? 
3. How were you involved in the project? / Which activities were implemented? 
4. Did you have your stoves evaluated by the FDS cookstove lab?
5. What results were achieved? How satisfied are you with the lab performance?
6. What do you know about carbon finance?
7. Do you know you can get finance from carbon finance?
8. Did you or do you plan to register for carbon finance?
9. What is the progress in the carbon market establishment in Haiti?
10. To what extent did the carbon market influence the local market for improved biomass or LPG 
cookstoves? 
11. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
12. What are the biggest challenges that the ICSP project faces? 
13. In your opinion, what motivates people switch and buy LPG stoves? 
14. What are some suggestions for improving the ICSP project in the future?
15. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes in the community? 
16. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the 
intervention? 
68
Key Informant interview with LPG cookstoves manufacturers
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on improved 
biomass and LPG stoves. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during the meeting has great value and we would like your opinion on each 
question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain 
that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to 
help us understand the situation of your institution. With your permission, we will take note of 
everything that was said during the meeting. We strongly wish that you accept the interview. It will 
take about 15 minutes. 
1. What do you know about the project related to improved biomass and LPG cookstoves? 
2. How were you selected as a manufacturer? 
3. How do you participate in the project? /Which activities were implemented?
4. What results were achieved? (Size of business, price of cookstoves, market shares)
5. How satisfied are you with the program’s activities
6. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
7. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 
8. Did you benefit some form of training provided by the project?
9. How efficient was the training if any?
10. What changes would you make to improve the training aspect of the project?
11. To what extent do you have access to new investment funds (with the project or not)? 
12. To what extent the outcomes of different marketing and commercial tested were effective?
13. What aspects of the program that have most influenced promotion of your business? 
14. Overall, how are the feedbacks about your LPG cookstoves? (Ease of use, preparation time, 
cooking results)? What makes it special?
15. What measures are should be taken to ensure the sustainability in the use of ICS or LPG 
cookstoves?
16. What do you do in case of return for breakdown or malfunction?
17. Did you sell stoves through a credit program? What institution? Amount of credit? Rate used? 
In what extent did you get repaid?
69
18. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
19. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes in your business? 
20. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the 
intervention? 
70
Key Informant interview with Mercy Corps (MC)
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on improved 
biomass and LPG stoves. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during the meeting has great value and we would like your opinion on each 
question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain 
that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to 
help us understand the situation of your institution. With your permission, we will take note of 
everything that was said during the meeting. We strongly wish that you accept the interview. 
1. What do you know about the project related to improved biomass and LPG cookstoves? 
2. What were the responsibilities of Mercy Corps? Which activities did you implemented?
3. What results did you achieve? 
4. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
5. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 
6. What aspects of the program that have most influenced the choice of end users to switch 
from charcoal to LPG stoves? What other factors that could increase end users interest in 
switching to LPG?
7. What measures are taken to ensure the sustainability in the use of LPG cookstoves?
8. Was MC involved in the credit program? With what institution? Amount of credit? Rate used? 
In what extent did the beneficiaries repaid?
9. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
10. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes in the targeted 
communities? 
11. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the 
intervention? 
71
Key Informant interview with LPG suppliers partners
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on improved 
biomass and LPG stoves. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during the meeting has great value and we would like your opinion on each 
question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain 
that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to 
help us understand the situation of your institution. With your permission, we will take note of 
everything that was said during the meeting. We strongly wish that you accept the interview. It will 
take between 15 and 30 minutes. 
1. What do you know about the project related to improved biomass and LPG cookstoves? 
2. How were you selected as a partner and what were the terms of this partnership? 
3. What were your responsibilities according to the MoU? 
4. How did you participate in the project? /Which activities were implemented?
5. What results were achieved?
6. Did your imports of LPG increased with the project implementation? and roughly by how 
much? ( The project claims xxx% in general)
7. What do you think about the LPG legal framework?
8. How an appropriate legal framework could affect you business? 
9. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
10. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 
1. What aspects of the program that have most influenced your participation as LPG suppliers? 
What factors that could increase end users interest in switching to LPG?
11. Overall, how satisfied are you with your participation in this effort aiming at reducing charcoal 
use? Do you see yourself in business for long time within this partnership?
12. What measures are taken to ensure the sustainability in the use of LPG cookstoves? (Stability, 
safety, availability of LPG, etc.) 
13. Do you know what to do in case shortage of LPG?
14. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
72
15. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes in the targeted 
communities? 
16. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the 
intervention? 
73
Key Informant interview with LPG stove manufacturer
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on improved 
biomass and LPG stoves. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during the meeting has great value and we would like your opinion on each 
question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain 
that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to 
help us understand the situation of your institution. With your permission, we will take note of 
everything that was said during the meeting. We strongly wish that you accept the interview. 
2. What do you know about the project related to LPG cookstoves? 
3. How did you find out this information? 
4. How were you selected as a partner? 
5. How do you participate in the project? /Which activities were implemented?
6. What results were achieved?
7. Did your sales increased due to the project implementation? And roughly by how much?
8. Now the project is over, how this affect your business?
9. Did you benefit some sort of training provided by the project?
10. How effective were the training?
11. Do you become a more efficient and performant producer? 
12. Did the project implementation give you more (( reconnaissance))
13. Did you or do you benefit from any type of financing to support your business?
14. Are you participating in the carbon finance process that is being put in place?
15. Did the market awareness program of the project have increased your sales?
16. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
17. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 
18. What aspects of the program that have most influenced the choice of schools/ orphanages to 
switch from charcoal to LPG stoves? What other factors that could increase interest in 
switching?
74
19. What measures are taken to ensure the sustainability in the use of LPG cookstoves?
20. Do you know what to do in case of breakdown or malfunction?
21. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
22. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes in your business? 
23. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the 
intervention? 
75
Key Informant interview with other large users (prisons, bakeries, dry cleanings)
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on improved 
biomass and LPG stoves. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during the meeting has great value and we would like your opinion on each 
question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain 
that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to 
help us understand the situation of your institution. With your permission, we will take note of 
everything that was said during the meeting. We strongly wish that you accept the interview. 
1. What do you know about the project improved biomass and LPG cookstoves? 
2. How did you find out this information? 
3. How were you selected as a beneficiary? 
4. How did you participate in the project? /Which activities were implemented?
5. What results were achieved?
6. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
7. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 
8. What aspects of the program that have most influenced your choice 
9. Overall, how satisfied are you with your LPG cookstoves? ( Ease of use, preparation time, 
cooking results)
10. What measures are taken to ensure the sustainability in the use of your LPG cookstoves?
11. Do you know what to do in case of breakdown or malfunction?
12. Did you bought the stove through a credit program? What institution? Amount of credit? Rate 
used? In what extent did the beneficiaries repaid?
13. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
14. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes in your life? 
15. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the 
intervention? 
76
Key Informant interview with Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MCI) 
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on improved 
biomass and LPG stoves. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during the meeting has great value and we would like your opinion on each 
question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain 
that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to 
help us understand the situation of your institution. With your permission, we will take note of 
everything that was said during the meeting. We strongly wish that you accept the interview. 
1. What do you know about the project improved biomass and LPG cookstoves? 
2. How do you participate in the project? /Which activities were implemented? (Strategy for the 
reform of LPG sector/ Analysis of the economic environment of the LPG sector/ LPG 
legislation)
3. How is the implementation of the carbon market in Haiti? Biggest challenges? Opportunities? 
What did the MCI do regarding the carbon credit program?
4. What is the current status of the LPG legal framework? How do you plan to enforce it?
5. Do you think it is a necessary piece for the development of this sector?
6. What results were achieved?
7. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
8. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 
9. What aspects of the program that have most influenced the use of LPG in Haiti?
10. Overall, how satisfied are you with the program’s activities in LPG technology? 
11. What measures are taken to ensure sustainability in the use of LPG cookstoves?
12. What measures are taken to ensure safety in the use of LPG cookstoves?
13. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
14. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes in the energy sector? 
15. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the 
intervention? 
77
Key Informant interview with ICTP key stakeholders 
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on improved 
biomass and LPG stoves. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for programming. 
All that will be said during the meeting has great value and we would like your opinion on each 
question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain 
that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to 
help us understand the situation of your institution. With your permission, we will take note of 
everything that was said during the meeting. We strongly wish that you accept the interview. 
1. What were your roles and responsibilities in the ICTP? 
2. How is the implementation of the carbon market in Haiti? Biggest challenges? Opportunities? 
3. What did the ICTP do regarding the carbon credit program?
4. What did the program do to strengthen the LPG sector? Or the improved biomass cookstoves 
production?
5. In your opinion, what has prevented the project to introduce legislation to regulate the LPG 
sector?
6. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
7. What aspects of the program that have most influenced the choice of end users to switch 
from charcoal to LPG stoves? What other factors that could increase end users interest in 
switching to LPG?
8. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
9. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes? 
10. What is your overall appreciation of the performance of implementing partners?
 
78
Key Informant interview with C-Quest Capital
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on improved 
biomass and LPG stoves. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
Be certain that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one 
purpose: to help us understand the situation of your institution. 
1. What do you know about the project related to improved biomass and LPG cookstoves? 
2. What were the responsibilities of C-Quest Capital? Which activities did you implement?
3. What results were achieved?
4. How many projects have been registered to date?
5. What type of markets have been targeted, CDM, Gold Standard, voluntary market?
6. Where are we exactly with the carbon credit program? How many projects are waiting to 
be registered? 
7. What are the constraints to establishing a carbon market in Haiti?
8. What is the progress in the carbon market establishment in Haiti?
9. To what extent did the carbon market influence the local market for improved biomass or 
LPG cookstoves? 
10. What are the effects of the Haiti carbon credit program on the ICTP and vice versa?
11. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
12. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
13. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces considering all aspects of its 
implementation?
14. What aspects of the program that have most influenced the choice of end users to use 
more efficient biomass cookstoves or to switch from charcoal to LPG stoves? What other 
factors that could increase end users’ interest in switching to LPG?
15. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes in the community? 
16. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the 
intervention? 
79
Key Informant interview with Ministry of Environment
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on improved 
biomass and LPG stoves. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during the meeting has great value and we would like your opinion on each 
question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain 
that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to 
help us understand the situation of your institution. With your permission, we will take note of 
everything that was said during the meeting. We strongly wish that you accept the interview. 
1. What do you know about the project related to improved biomass and LPG cookstoves? 
2. How do you participate in the project? /Which activities were implemented? (Strategy for the 
reform of LPG sector/ Analysis of the economic environment of the LPG sector/ LPG 
legislation)
3. How is the implementation of the carbon market in Haiti? Biggest challenges? Opportunities? 
What did the Ministry of Environment do regarding the carbon credit program?
4. What results were achieved?
5. How many carbon projects have been registered to date?
6. What type of markets have been targeted, CDM, Gold Standard, voluntary market?
7. How many projects are waiting to be registered? 
8. What are the constraints to establishing a carbon market in Haiti?
9. What are the constraints for ANDH being fully operational?
10. What is the progress in the carbon market establishment in Haiti?
11. To what extent did the carbon market influence the local market for improved biomass or LPG 
cookstoves? 
12. Where are we exactly with the carbon credit program?
13. What are the effects of the Haiti carbon credit program on the ICTP and vice versa?
14. What are the benefits of C-Quest Capital interventions? 
80
15. In your opinion, what motivates people switch and buy LPG stoves? 
16. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
17. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
18. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces considering all aspects of its 
implementation?
19. What aspects of the program that have most influenced the use of more efficient biomass 
cook stoves of LPG in Haiti?
20. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
21. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes in the energy sector? 
22. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the 
intervention?
Appendix H. Evaluation Scope of Work (SoW) 
RFP IMPROVED 
COOKING TECHNOLO
81
Appendix I. Evaluation Matrix
Evaluation 
Questions
Primary Information 
Need
Methods Sources of Information Data analysis method
1. To what 
extent did the 
project 
establish a 
local market 
and industry 
for household 
improved 
biomass cook 
stoves? 
Changes in the 
production of 
efficient cooking 
stoves
Sales points for 
improved stoves 
before and after 
project
Changes in sales of 
improved cooking 
stoves as a result of 
the project 
To what extent did 
the profitability of 
ICS supply chain 
vary
Changes in the 
management 
systems along the 
cookstoves supply 
chain 
1. Documents 
review
2. Key 
informant 
interview 
(KII)
3. Focus group
4. Household 
Survey
Document review: 
• Project periodic reports, 
evaluation reports, design 
documents, any other 
relevant documentation. 
1. Thorough data 
analysis
2. Content analysis
3. Descriptive 
statistics 
4. Triangulation 
techniques 
KII: 
• Private sector partners 
promoting and selling 
cookstoves
• “Recho pa-w” hotline 
coordinator
• Bureau of Mines and Energy 
(BME) 
• Laboratory for cookstove 
Manager (UEH/FDS)
• Improved biomass cook 
stoves manufacturers
supported by ICTP (plus 
Observations)
• Mercy Corps 
• Micro-Finance institution 
Household Survey: 
• Household 
Focus Group: 
• Business women and 
community leaders trained in 
commercialization
2. To what 
extent the 
targeted 
project 
beneficiaries 
switched to 
1. To what extent 
can we say that 
access to and 
availability of 
LPG stoves have 
1. Documents 
Review
2. Key 
Informant 
Interview 
Document review: 
• Project periodic reports, 
evaluation reports, design 
documents, any other 
relevant documentation. 
1. Thorough data 
analysis
2. Content analysis
3. Descriptive 
statistics 
82
LPG 
technology 
and what 
were the 
driving forces 
behind this 
choice? 
improved?
2. The production 
of LPG 
cookstove 
during the 
project life.
3. In the case of 
substantial 
increase, is it 
sustainable?
(KII)
3. Focus group 
(FG)
4. Mini-survey
KII:
• LPG suppliers partners
• JBE
• LPG stove manufacturers
• Other large users (prisons, 
bakeries, dry cleanings)
4. Triangulation 
techniques 
FG:
• Technicians trained to repair 
and maintain LPG stoves
Mini-survey:
• Street food vendors 
• Schools
• Orphanages
3. What 
mechanisms 
have been put 
in place to 
ensure 
sustainability 
of the project 
achievements 
and to what 
extent will 
benefits 
realized be 
replicated in 
the long term 
by partners? 
Progress made in 
terms of: LPG 
management 
guidelines/ 
Strategy for the 
reform of the LPG 
sector/
LPG legislation. 
Replication of and 
scaling up the 
project. 
1. Document 
review
2. Key 
Informant 
Interview
(KII)
Document review: 
• Project periodic reports, 
evaluation reports, design 
documents, any other 
relevant documentation.
1. Thorough data 
analysis
2. Content analysis
3. Triangulation 
techniques 
KII: 
1. Ministry of Commerce and 
Industry (MCI)
2. ICTP key personnel
3. LPG suppliers partners
4. Department of Pompiers 
4. To what 
extent will the 
existence or 
absence of a 
carbon credit 
market in 
a) Emission and 
market data were 
analyzed, 
b) Carbon credit 
program was 
1. Document 
review
2. Key 
Informant 
Interview 
Document review: 
• Project periodic reports, 
evaluation reports, design 
documents, any other 
relevant documentation.
1. Thorough data 
analysis
2. Content analysis
3. Descriptive 
statistics 
83
Haiti affect 
the success 
and 
sustainability 
of the ICTP?
developed, 
c) Program of 
Activities was 
implemented, 
d) ICS 
manufacturers’ 
access to 
investment funds 
has increased.
(KII) KII: 
• ICTP key personnel
• C-Quest Capital
• Bureau of Mines and Energy 
(BME)
• Ministry of Environment
4. Triangulation 
techniques 
84
Final Evaluation
Improved Cooking Technology Program
Household survey- August 2015
 
 
Introduction: I am__________________________________I work for BRIDES.
• Your name was randomly selected from the list of ‘Recho Paw’ program beneficiaries to participate in this 
investigation.
• This survey allows us to get information to evaluate the ‘Recho Paw’ program. This will allow us to see what 
the program achieved and how to better scale up.
• Information that you provide will remain confidential and will be used only to make a report on the situation in 
general. We will not quote names; no one will know which one gives us information.
• This survey is voluntary and you can choose not to participate 
• Now we will ask you a few questions and it will not last the whole 10 minutes
1. Questionnaire Identification 
101. Partner ___________
102. Surveyor ID :______________
103. Supervisor 
ID :_________________
104. Départment : 
_________________________
105. Commune : 
_____________________ 
106. Communale Section
____________________ 
107. Household 
number (1-24):
/______/
108. Locality :__________________ 109. No SDE_____________________________________
110. Date of enterview _____________ /____________/_____________
2. Information about the household
201 Name of respondent
__________________________
202. Age : /____/ year 203. Sex of respondent___
1=Masculin 
2=Feminin
204. Relation with head of 
household:________
1=Chef
2=Epoux (se)
3=Enfant
4=Père/Mere
5=frere/soeur
6=employee
205. Name of household : /__________________________________________/
206. Number of employees in the household |_______|
3. Household Caracteristics 
301. Name
302. Sex 
1=male 
2=female 
303. Age (en 
years) 
304. if age < 5ans, age 
en mois
305. Si 6<age<18 ans, 
Does the child go to 
school? 
1. Yes, 2. No
85
4. Information on basic services: Water
401. Do you have drinking water from DINEPA in your household in the last 12 months? __1.Oui, 2.Non
402. Did you buy treated water in the last 12 months? /___/1.Oui, 2.Non
403. How many liters of treated water? / ___ / 
404. What is the greatest need in your household? / _____ /
 1. Money, 2. Food, 3. Apartment, 4. Water 5. Other ______________
5. Information on basic services: Sanitation
501. Do you have toilet in your household? __1.Oui, 2.Non
502. What type of toilet is it? / ___ / 1.
503. How do you treat the water in the household? 1. Purchase Water Treaty 2. Heat 3. Chemical (aquatap), 4.
504. Do you treat water using coal in the household? / ___ / 1.Yes, 2.No
6. Information on the basic services: Electricity / Energy
601. Has electricity been in your household over the last 12 months? __1.Oui, 2.No
602. Apart from EDH, is another source of electricity at your household? / ___ / 1.Yes, 2.No _____ if no 604
603. What other sources of electricity? /____/ 1. Solar Panels, 2. Inverter 3. Both 4. Other______________
604. Do you cook with electric current in the household? / ___ / 1.Yes, 2.No
605. Do you heat water to the electric current in your household? / _____ /1.Yes, 2.No
 
7. Improved cookstoves
701. Do you use charcoal in your household? __1.Yes, 2.No If no, go to 703
702. If yes, what for? /___/1.Cooking 2. Boil the water, 3. Ironing 4. Autres________________________
703. If not, why not? / ___ / 1.Have better source, 2. Too expensive, 3. Too dirty, 4. Too rare 5. Other
704. Do you heat water with charcoal to your household? / ___ / 1.Yes, 2.No 
405. What kind of rechaud do you use in the household? / __ / 1. Traditional, 2. Improved 3. Other ___ if not 3, 
go to 712
706. If improved, for how many years?
707. Where did the money to get the cookstove come from? /___/
708. Have you benefited from credit and other funds to purchase the cookstove? / ___ / 1.Yes, 2.No 
709. Do you would buy the rechaud through the credit or the remittance program?
710. Where have you heard about the improved cookstove?
711. What did push you to buy the improved cookstove? 1. Economic, 2. Environment, 3. Advertising, 4. 
Autre______
712. If not, did you hear talking about improved cookstove in the media?
86
713. Why not buy a rechaud improves? /___/ 1. Stove too expensive, LPG 2. Rarity 3. Do not know or find 4. 
Other___
714. Would you buy if you benefited a credit or transfer from abroad?
715. Can you name a 'brand' of rechaud improves? /____/ if yes what is it 
___________________________________
716. Can you name a place or buy improved stoves
717. Who in the household decides about acquisition improved cookstoves?
8. Charcoal
801. Do you use charcoal in your household over the last 12 months? __1.Oui, 2.Non
802. Where did you get this charcoal in the last 12 months? /___/1. 
803 Did you change cooking energy source in the last twelve months? / ___ / 1.Yes, 2.No
804. Are you satisfy with your cooking source of energy? / ___ / 1.Yes, 2.Non
805. How much is sold a charcoal bag _________?
806. Do you save on a bag of charcoal using propane? / ___ / 1.Yes, 2.No; If so how non ___________
807. Between charcoal and gas, which source is most economical to use? /___/ 1. Propane, 2. Charcoal. If 2, 
go to 808
808. How much should be sold propane to make it economical? 
9. Feedback on improved cookstoves 
901. Did you regret to have bought an improved cookstove? /____/1: Yes 2. No
902. What do you reproach to the use of improved stoves? 1. Too dangerous, 2. Too expensive 2. Gas 
difficult to find, 4. Other
903. Would you buy an improved cookstove in the next 12 months? (Start here if the person/household doesn’t own an improved 
cookstove?)
904. What would push you to buy one more rapidly?
905. Would advise you to a friend to buy? /_____/1: Yes 2. No
906. Have you seen a television spot on improved stoves? /_____/1: Yes 2. No
907. Have you, a radio, heard of improved stoves? /_______/1: Yes 2. No
908. Do you have a relative or friend who uses it? /______/ 1: Yes 2. No
909. Do they speak in good or in bad terms about improved cookstoves? Good_____Bad _____1: Yes 2. No 
10. Conclusion
Information on basic services: Water
Y-1001 was he drinking water from DINEPA in your household in the last 12 months? __1.Oui, 2.Non
1002. Buy you water deals in the last 12 months? /___/1.Oui, 2.Non
1003. How many liters of treated water? / ___ / 1.Yes, 2.Non
1004. What is the greatest need in your household? / _____ /
 1. Money, 2. Food, 3. Apartment, 4. Water 5. Other ______________
87
Mini Survey: Orphanage and School with canteen. 
Pawòl entwodiksyon : Mwen se__________________________________Mwen travay pou BRIDES.
• Non ou te chwazi pa chans pou patisipe nan ankèt sa. 
• Ankèt sa a pemèt nou jwenn enfomasyon pou evalye pwogram Recho Paw la. Sa ap pèmèt nou wè kisa pwogram nan rive reyalize 
epi nan ki mezi program sa ka agrandi pou touche plis moun. 
• Enfomasyon ke ou ap bay yo ap rete konfidansyèl e yap itilize selman pou fè yon rapò sou sitiyasyon general zòn nan, nou pap 
site non moun. Pap gen mwayen pou konnen ki lès ki bay nou enfomasyon sa yo. 
• Ankèt sa a volontè e ou kapab chwazi pou pa patisipe/ • Koulye a nou pral poze ou kek ti keksyon e sa ka dire 15 minit konsa.
1. Idantifikasyon 
101. Enstitisyon :
1. Òfelina 2 Lekòl
102 : Non Enstitisyon-an :
103. Anketè ID
104. Komin
_____________________ 
105. Seksyon Kominal 
____________________
106. Nimewo entèviou-a 
/______/
107. Localite/katye :
108. Dat entèviou-a _____________ /____________/_2015 
109 : Non moun kap reponn kesyon yo : 110. Seks: M F 111. Wòl moun kap reponn kesyon yo :
112. Konbyen lane enstitisyon sa genyen? 113. Konbyen moun antou kap fonksyone nan espas sa? 
(personnel/élèves/orphelins, etc.) 
2. Enèji
201. Eske te gen kouran EDH nan lekòl/òfelina nan dènye mwa sa? / __ /1.Wi , 2.Non
202. Apre EDH eske gen lòt sous kouran nan lekòl/òfelina? /_____/1Wi, 2.Non
203. Ki lòt sous kouran ki gen-yen ? /____/ 1. Pano solè, 2. Envètè, 3. Delco. 4. lòt__________________
(Plusieurs réponses sont possibles)
204. Eske nan lekòl/òfelina nou fè manje ak kouran ? /___/ 1.Wi, 2.Non
205. Eske ofelina/lekòl la chofe oswa bouyi dlo ak kouran__________1.Wi, 2.Non
206. (Pa poze kesyon sa si 101 egal 2) Ak ki sous enèji nou repase rad nan kay la ? 1. Kouran, 2. Chabon, 3. 
Lòt_________________________
3. Itilizasyon gaz propan
301. Eske nou itilize chabon nan lekòl/òfelina kounye-a? __1.Wi chabon sèlman, 2. Wi an pati 3.Non 
Si Non, ale nan 303
302. Si Wi (1 ou 2), kisa ke nou fè ak chabon? /___/1. Manje 2. Bouyi dlo pou bwè, 3. Chofe dlo pou benyen, 4. 
Repase rad 
5. Lòt: ________________________
303. Si Non, poukisa? / ___ / 1.Nou gen pi bon sous enèji, 2. Twò chè, 3. Twò sal, 4. Pa fasil pou jwenn 5. Lòt: 
304. Ki kalite recho ke nou itilize nan lekòl/1ofelina? 
1. Tradisyonèl chabon, 2. Amelyore chabon 3. Recho propann, 4. Fou propann, 5. Lòt ___ Si repons la diferan de 3 ale nan 310
305. Si se recho propann, depi konbyen tan/lane ke wap itilize-l? 
88
306. Kisa ki te pouse enstitisyon wap dirije-a soti nèt nan chabon poul vire nan sèvi ak gaz propa-n?
1.Mwayen ekonomik, 2. Bon jan enfòmasyon, 3. Pwoteje Anviwònman, 4. Pwopwete, 5. Sante, 6. Lòt.
307. Ki kote ou te jwenn kòb pour achte recho propann? /___/
1. Kredi enstitisyon, 2. Lajan enstitisyon-an 3. Don/kado de lòt enstitisyon, 4. Lajan ayisyen lòt bò dlo voye, 5. Lòt…
308. Ki kote ou te tande pale de recho propann yo? 
1. Radyo, 2. Televizyon, 3. Pankat nan lari, 4. Zanmi, 5. A travè lòt enstitisyon, 6. Lòt…
309. (Si Non poze 310-312), eske ou tande pale de recho propann yo nan media oswa nan pankat/bandwòl lari (radio, TV, etc.) 
1. Wi, 2. Non
310. Kisa ki anppeche enstitisyon-an achte recho propann? /___/ 1. Recho propann twò chè, 2. Ou pa jwenn yo fasil 3. Pa konnen 
kòman pou jwenn yo 4. Lòt___
311. Eske ou tap achte yon recho propann si-w te jwenn yon kredi oswa si-w te resevwa lajan ki sot lòt bò dlo ke 
Ayisyen voye? 1. Wi, 2. Non
Kesyon pou tout moun
312. Eske ou ka site yon mak recho chabon amelyro ki ap vann an Ayiti? 1. Wi 2.Non 
___________________________________
313. Si 313 se wi, ki mak/non recho ou konnen? 
314. Eske-w ou konnen yon kote ou ka achte recho amelyore oswa recho propann ? 1. Wi, 2. Non
315. Si 314 se wi, ki kote? 
316. Kilès nan enstitisyon an ki te pran oswa ki ka pran desizyon pou achte recho propann? 
317. Dapre ou menm kisa ki ka fè yon moun soti nèt nan chabon poul vire nan sèvi ak gaz propa-n lakay li?
1. Mwayen ekonomik, 2. Bon jan enfòmasyon, 3. Pwoteje Anviwònman, 4. Pwopwete, 5. Sante, 6. Lòt. 
____________________________
4. Chabon
401. Eske nou te itilize chabon nan òfelina/lekòl la nan 12 mwa ki sot pase la yo? __1.Wi, 2.Non
402. Si wi, ki kote nou te achte/jwenn chabon say o? 
1. Nan mache nan Pòtoprens, 2. Nan mache an deyò de Pòtoprens, 3. Don/kado, 4. Lòt. 
403 Eske nou te chanje sous enèji nou itilize pou fè manje nan dènye 12 mwa ki sot pase la yo? 
1.Wi, 2.Non
404. Eske ou satisfè de sous enèji ke wap itilize kounye-a pou fè manje? / ___ / 1.Wi, 2.Non
405. Chabon oswa Propann, kilès nan yo ki pi ekonomik pou itilize? 1. Propann 2. Chabon. 3. Pa konnen. 
406. Konbyen bonbònn 25 liv propann lan ta dwe van-n pou li ekonomik ?
5. Feedback 
Enstitisyon kap itilize propann 
501. Eske ou konn regrèt ou te vire nan/chwazi propann nan plas chabon? /____/1: Wi 2. Non
502. Kisa ou ka reproche recho propann yo? 1. Twò danjere, 2. Twò chè 2. Li difisil pou jwenn gaz, 4. Lòt 
 Enstitisyon kap itilize chabon
503. Eske ou gen plan pou achte recho propann nan 12 mwa kap vini la yo? ? /____/1: Wi 2. Non 
504. Ki sa ki ka fè-w pran desizyon sa pi vit? 
505. Eske ou wè deja yon reklam nan televizyon kap pale de recho propann? ? /_____/1: Wi 2. Non
506. Eske ou tande deja yon reklam nan radyo kap pale de recho propann? /_______/1: Wi 2. Non
507. Eske ou wè deja nan lari yon bilbòd, pankat, bandwòl, etc. kap pale de recho propann? 1: Wi 2. Non
508. An general, eske-w pale an byen ou an mal de recho propann yo?1. byen_____2. mal_____
89
Program Recho pa-w
Evalyasyon final – Septanm 2105
Street Food Vendors (SFV)
 
Pawòl entwodiksyon : Mwen se__________________________________Mwen travay pou BRIDES.
• Non ou te chwazi pa chans pou patisipe nan ankèt sa. 
• Ankèt sa a pemèt nou jwenn enfomasyon pou evalye pwogram Recho Paw la. Sa ap pèmèt nou wè kisa pwogram nan rive reyalize 
epi nan ki mezi program sa ka agrandi pou touche plis moun. 
• Enfomasyon ke ou ap bay yo ap rete konfidansyèl e yap itilize selman pou fè yon rapò sou sitiyasyon general zòn nan, nou pap 
site non moun. Pap gen mwayen pou konnen ki lès ki bay nou enfomasyon sa yo. 
• Ankèt sa a volontè e ou kapab chwazi pou pa patisipe
• Koulye a nou pral poze ou kek ti keksyon e sa ka dire 15 minit konsa.
1. Idantifikasyon 
101. No entèviou-a 102 : Non machann nan: 103. Anketè ID
104. Komin 105. Seksyon Kominal 
 
106. Localite/katye : 
107. Dat entèviou-a _____________ /____________/_2015 
108. Seks: M F 109. Konbyen lane depi wap vann manje?
1. Itilizasyon gaz propan (plis obsèvasyon)
201. Eske ou itilize chabon pou fè manje kounye-a? __1.Wi chabon sèlman, 2. Wi an pati 3.Non 
Si Non, ale nan 303
202. Si Non, poukisa? / ___ / 1.Nou gen pi bon sous enèji, 2. Twò chè, 3. Twò sal, 4. Pa fasil pou jwenn 5. Lòt: 
203. Ki kalite recho ke ou itilize? 
1. Tradisyonèl chabon, 2. Amelyore chabon 3. Recho propann, 4. Fou propann, 5. Lòt ___ Si repons la diferan de 3 ale nan 310
204. Si se recho propann, depi konbyen tan/lane ke wap itilize-l? 
205. Kisa ki te pouse-w soti nan chabon pou vire nan sèvi ak gaz propa-n?
1.Li pi ekonomik, 2. Bon jan enfòmasyon, 3. Pwoteje Anviwònman, 4. Pwopwete, 5. Sante, 6. Lòt.
206. Ki kote ou te jwenn kòb pour achte recho propann? /___/
1. Kredi enstitisyon, 2. Pwòp lajan-m 3. Don/kado de lòt enstitisyon, 4. Lajan ayisyen lòt bò dlo voye, 5. Lòt…
207. Ki kote ou te tande pale de recho propann yo? 
1. Radyo, 2. Televizyon, 3. Pankat nan lari, 4. Zanmi, 5. A travè yon enstitisyon, 6. Lòt…
208. (Si 203 se 1 ou 2 poze 208-210), eske ou tande pale de recho propann yo nan media oswa nan pankat/bandwòl nan lari 
(radio, TV, etc.) 
1. Wi, 2. Non
209. Kisa ki anppeche-w achte recho propann? /___/ 1. Recho propann twò chè, 2. Ou pa jwenn yo fasil 3. Pa konnen kòman pou 
jwenn yo 4. Lòt___
210. Eske ou tap achte yon recho propann si-w te jwenn yon kredi oswa si-w te resevwa lajan ki sot lòt bò dlo ke 
Ayisyen voye? 1. Wi, 2. Non
Kesyon pou tout moun
211. Eske ou ka site yon mak recho chabon amelyro ki ap vann an Ayiti? 1. Wi 2.Non 
___________________________________
90
212. Si 211 se wi, ki mak/non recho ou konnen? 
213. Eske-w konnen yon kote ou ka achte recho amelyore oswa recho propann ? 1. Wi, 2. Non
214. Si 213 se wi, ki kote? 
215. Dapre ou menm kisa ki ka fè yon moun soti nèt nan chabon poul vire nan sèvi ak gaz propa-n lakay li oswa nan ti komès vann 
manje?
2. Mwayen ekonomik, 2. Bon jan enfòmasyon, 3. Pwoteje Anviwònman, 4. Pwopwete, 5. Sante, 6. Lòt. 
____________________________
2. Chabon
301. Eske nou te itilize chabon nan 12 mwa ki sot pase la yo? __1.Wi, 2.Non
302 Eske ou te chanje sous enèji ou itilize pou fè manje nan dènye 12 mwa ki sot pase la yo? 
1.Wi, 2.Non
303. Eske ou satisfè de sous enèji ke wap itilize kounye-a pou fè manje? / ___ / 1.Wi, 2.Non
304. Chabon oswa Propann, kilès nan yo ki pi ekonomik pou itilize? 1. Propann 2. Chabon. 3. Pa konnen. 
305. Konbyen bonbònn 25 liv propann lan ta dwe van-n pou li ekonomik ?
3. Feedback 
Machann manje kap itilize propann 
401. Eske ou konn regrèt ou te vire nan/chwazi propann nan plas chabon? /____/1: Wi 2. Non
402. Kisa ou ka reproche recho propann yo? 1. Twò danjere, 2. Twò chè 2. Li difisil pou jwenn gaz, 4. Lòt 
 Machann kap itilize chabon
403. Eske ou gen plan pou achte recho propann nan 12 mwa kap vini la yo? ? /____/1: Wi 2. Non 
404. Ki sa ki ka fè-w pran desizyon sa pi vit? 
405. Eske ou wè deja yon reklam nan televizyon kap pale de recho propann? ? /_____/1: Wi 2. Non
406. Eske ou tande deja yon reklam nan radyo kap pale de recho propann? /_______/1: Wi 2. Non
407. Eske ou wè deja nan lari yon bilbòd, pankat, bandwòl, etc. kap pale de recho propann? 1: Wi 2. Non
408. An general, eske-w pale an byen ou an mal de recho propann yo?1. byen_____2. mal_____
4. Conclusion
91
END OF REPORT