DISCLAIMER
THIS PUBLICATION WAS PRODUCED AT THE REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. 
IT WAS PREPARED INDEPENDENTLY BY PHANOL PHILIPPE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF OTHER “CHASE CONSULTING” 
PERSONNEL. 
FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF 
THE “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT
PHOTO: A BIGCHAR PYROLYSIS RETORT AT THE “CHABON BOUL” FACTORY 
Photo: a BigChar pyrolysis retort at the “Chabon Boul” factory
USAID/HAITI
“CHABON BOUL” PROJECT 
IMPLEMENTED BY CARBON ROOTS HAITI S.A. 
Final Performance
Evaluation Report
Contract Number: AID-521-0-00-17-00039-00
Period of performance: 07/21/2017 to 12/13/2017
CHASE Consulting
10, Rue Acacia, Port-au-Prince, Haïti
November 13, 2017
DISCLAIMER
THIS PUBLICATION WAS PRODUCED AT THE REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. 
IT WAS PREPARED INDEPENDENTLY BY PHANOL PHILIPPE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF OTHER “CHASE CONSULTING” 
PERSONNEL. 
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS 1
SUMMARY 2
1 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS 7
1.1. EVALUATION PURPOSE 7
1.2. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 7
2 PROJECT BACKGROUND 7
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8
2.2 THEORY OF CHANGE 10
3 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 10
3.1. EVALUATION METHODS 10
3.1.1 OVERVIEW 10
3.1.2 DATA COLLECTION METHODS 11
A. IN-DEPTH PROJECT DOCUMENT REVIEW AND COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 11
B. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGDS) AND WORKSHOP 12
C. SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS WITH KEY INFORMANT 13
3.1.3 DATA SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS 14
3.2 LIMITATIONS 14
4 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15
4.1 FINDINGS 15
4.1.1 NET REVENUE FROM THE GREEN CHARCOAL ACTIVITY 15
4.1.2 FUNDING, TECHNOLOGY AND SKILLS 15
4.1.3 PRODUCTION 17
4.1.4 RAW MATERIALS AVAILABILITY 19
4.1.5 QUALITY AND MARKETING 20
4.2 CONCLUSIONS 21
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 21
4.4 SYNTHESIS OF LEARNING FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “CHABON BOUL” 
ACTIVITY 21
ANNEXES 1
A1. SCOPE OF WORK 1
A2. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS 10
A3. DATA SOURCES 19
A4. SUMMARY OF PROJECT HISTORY 22

I. 1 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
ACRONYMS
APS Annual Program Statement
BoP Base of the Pyramid
CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis
CHASE Collectif Haïtien pour l’Avancement du Suivi et de l’Evaluation
CRH Carbon Roots Haiti
CRI Carbon Roots International
DIV Development Innovations Ventures
FGD Focus Group Discussions
KII Key Informant Interview
NPV Net Present Value
ROI Return on Investment 
 
 
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 2 
SUMMARY
Background Context and Objectives 
In July 2017, USAID/Haiti awarded CHASE1 a contract to conduct the performance evaluation of the 
“Chabon Boul” project implemented in the Northern Department over the last two years. The purpose 
of the evaluation is to assess whether the Activity was able to achieve its intended outcome to produce 
a viable, affordable and cost-effective product (cooking briquettes) that can be used as an alternative for 
traditional charcoal in Haiti. This evaluation shall provide pertinent information to USAID and its 
partners on the overall impact of the Activity and serve as a basis for considering whether this activity 
can be replicated on a larger scale. 
The “Chabon Boul” Project hopes to achieve three major and intertwined strategic objectives: 1) 
increase briquette production, 2) expand the retail distribution network, and 3) increase sales of green 
charcoal briquettes. Green charcoal creates financial sustainability through jobs, income, and value 
throughout the local value chain while achieving a reduction in deforestation. 
The following questions were provided by USAID to be addressed during the evaluation process: 
1. To what extent the Green Charcoal for Haiti Activity was able to achieve a positive net 
revenue? If yes, what were the most important factors contributing to this achievement? If not, 
what were the main constraints leading to this non-achievement?
2. What lessons learned can be derived from the Green Charcoal for Haiti business model to 
reduce the dependency on firewood and traditional charcoal?
Evaluation Methodology 
Only qualitative methods were used for this evaluation. The evaluation team used the following 
methods:
o Secondary data review, including all available project documentation: periodic reports, project design 
document, documents on the various modifications (See appendices 1), studies carried out within the 
framework of this project, annual plans, follow-up plans, M&E plans, etc.
o 23 Key Informant Interviews (KII) with key stakeholders, including Mission staff, CRH personnel, 
beneficiaries, local rum distillers and micro-entrepreneur agricultural processors and other market 
actors;
o Interactive workshop with CRH employees to discuss lessons learned from the project 
implementation;
o Cost Benefit Analysis
Findings, Conclusion, Recommendations and Lessons Learned 
 
1 CHASE: “Collectif Haïtien pour l’Avancement du Suivi et de l’Évaluation”
I. 3 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
A. Net revenue from the green charcoal activity (Question 1)
The production of “Chabon Boul” in its present form is not a viable business. CRH has not been able to 
generate positive net revenue, despite USAID support. According to the project managers, the income 
from the sale of green charcoal, which represents the only source of revenue for the company, is always 
less than the sum of the expenses incurred by the activity. The company is now closed due to lack of 
financial means. The goals for the USAID-awarded 24-month grant period were to:
• Grow revenue to achieve positive cash flow at the north Haiti production facility
• Upgrade production equipment to commercialize all processing, from pyrolysis to briquette and 
drying. 
• Raise private sector financing for capital expenditures on production and transport equipment 
Key aspects that are considered in the analysis of the company’s operation are funding, production, key 
inputs, marketing and product quality.
REVENUE. A large part of the amount granted was used, as planned, for the acquisition of modern 
equipment. In early 2017, Carbon Roots Haiti (CRH) installed and commissioned a commercial pyrolysis 
unit that convert sugarcane bagasse to charcoal. According to the members of the production team, 
these orientation sessions gave them the necessary capacity to use the machines.
When planning the BigChar purchase, it was hoped that the machine could both convert bagasse into 
green charcoal and provide clean high heat to dry bagasse and green charcoal briquettes coming off the 
production line. This assumption was incorrect. The current process relies on solar energy over several 
days (three to five) to dry both the bagasse and the freshly released charcoal from the commercial 
briquette pressing machine. 
According to document review and various meetings in the field, the income from the sale of coal still 
decreased with the financing. According to the project managers, to reach the break-even point, the 
company must have at least five equipment units (BigChar) like the one bought with USAID funds. 
Today the company is looking for a grant of about 2.5 million USD to accomplish this benchmark. 
According to the project proposal, the project designers acknowledged that additional equipment units 
were needed for the activity to be profitable. As expected, and according to project personnel, the 
acquisition of the new equipment (the BigChar unit) was more like a demonstration of what the 
company could do with a more appropriate technology. The acquisition of the new equipment also puts 
the company in a mode of operation where it is more easily scalable.
CRH reported that increasing the price of the ‘Chabon Boul’ product to increase revenue is not a viable 
option. Currently, an equal volume of the two brands of charcoals (traditional charcoal and Chabon 
Boul) are sold at the same average price. Monthly sales prior to the current shutdown are far below the 
projection of a $60,000 monthly sale limit to achieve profitability. 
With the acquisition of the new equipment, the company has reduced its staff. Therefore, the costs of 
the operations were reduced. However, the company still operates with more than twenty employees 
in addition to other expenses such as carrying bagasse (about 350 USD / month), taxes, fuel, repairs, etc. 
It is difficult for the evaluation team to provide strong conclusions and recommendations without access 
to information about the company’s monthly expenditures. There is no way to determine how 
increasing production will affect the future profitability of CRH.
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 4 
PRODUCTION. According to CRH managers, the green charcoal production has decreased with the 
USAID grant. Prior the BigChar installation, the company produced about 5 to 6 tons of charcoal per 
day; now the charcoal production is 1 to 1.5 tons per working day. This is related to the capacity of the 
machine. As production has decreased, less green charcoal is sold with support received from USAID.
In addition to the reduction in production, the various stakeholders in the field also report lack of 
regularity in production. In fact, repeated breakdowns prevented the company from producing 
continuously with detrimental consequences on marketing and sales. Conversely, it is encouraging for 
the company that it usually sells everything it produces. Production varies with seasons as well since 
solar energy is required to dry the final products. The company tried an alternative means to dry the 
briquettes without much success. The company’s large distribution network was reduced with the 
decrease in production and sales
RAW MATERIALS. Sugarcane bagasse is used to produce the “Chabon Boul”. According to several 
informants, the bagasse available can readily support several green charcoal factories the size of CRH. 
With dozens of distilleries in the northern plain, production has suffered just one slowdown due to a 
scarcity of bagasse since the launch of the activity. 
A disadvantage in the use of bagasse lies in the fact that it must be dried for use. In the rainy season, it is 
difficult to dry bagasse collected because the drying done under the sun. 
The project has been successful in promoting bagasse as a byproduct of distilleries. As an effect of CRH 
activities, bagasse now has a price. Distillery owners complained as well that the price paid by CRH for 
the cart of bagasse is not the same everywhere. 
At the beginning of operations, kits were provided to bagasse suppliers who were engaged in preparing 
the char themselves. It was soon realized that the char prepared in the 55-gallon metal drums was of 
poor quality which would have a direct impact on the quality of the finished product. Drums of char 
were bought according to their weight and some suppliers fraudulently placed stones in the drums to 
increase the weight of the char to gain more money. The decision was then made to centralize the 
management of bagasse combustion (char production) at the company level which increased the quality 
of the product and efficacy of the resources.
Starch is another essential input in the production of green charcoal. According to information 
collected, locally produced starch made from cassava, especially in “cassaveries, 2” was used initially. 
Again, the company would face some suppliers who mixed starch with other products (flours) to 
increase their earnings. The mixture reduces the quality of the starch and consequently the quality of 
the resulting green charcoal. The decision was then made to source corn starch from major US-based 
industries, a fruitful initiative according to CRH managers. 
 
2 A place where cassava or other cassava products are made.
I. 5 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
MARKETING AND PRODUCT QUALITY. Immediately after the launch of the project, several 
types of marketing were used to reach potential consumers. Visits with potential buyers proved to be 
the most beneficial. According to stakeholders, consumers are generally satisfied with the price and the 
quality of the product. The quality of “Chabon Boul” has increased gradually with several key decisions 
made by the company's management. 
According to the consumers consulted, Chabon Boul is easy to use. They estimated that the Chabon 
Boul intensified the heat produced resulting in a shorter cooking time. Also reported was the Chabon 
Boul does not produce smoke that darkens cooking utensils. Finally, unlike traditional, bagged wood 
charcoal, the Chabon Boul briquettes remain intact in the bag. However, consumers visited also claim 
that Chabon Boul produces a lot of ash. According to the information gathered, if you do not pay 
attention, the large amount of ash produced is susceptible to blowing around, dirtying the kitchen and 
beyond. 
B. Synthesis of learning from the project implementation (Question 2)
The “Lessons Learned” workshop offered an opportunity for reflection after the completed project. It 
was valuable to reflect on what worked well with the project and what could be improved upon from 
the perspective of representatives from the project team. Project documents were consulted as well in 
this sense. The main lessons are the following: 
Leadership. One of the main lessons learned revolves around decisions made by the management team. 
One such decision was the rotation of the production team for better results and better personnel 
management. The multiple tasks performed by the production team vary with some being far more 
demanding than others. There is the handling of the machine that refines dried bagasse, the preparation 
of the starch, the mixture of char, starch and other materials needed, monitoring the temperature of the 
BigChar to make sure everything is working fine. Since the company decided to give the same salary to 
everyone, it initially created frustration. The managers chose to rotate the 14-member production team 
and better distribute the workload. This improved the dynamics of the team and reduced their 
frustration. 
Research. Consistent conversations with consumers lead to ongoing research on how to improve the 
product to meet their requirements and achieve client satisfaction. Resulting improvements in char
production include smokeless green charcoal and improved materials in its composition. 
Marketing. As mentioned above, several marketing methods have been used by the company to 
promote the "Chabon Boul." The marketing method of visiting potential consumers of the product and 
providing a sample amount to test at home yielded the best results; people like to test the product 
before making the decision to buy. After having tested it, the purchase decision followed almost 
automatically. Insufficient product supply was a barrier to marketing efforts. 
Sales strategy. Imitating the traditional charcoal marketing circuit directly in competition with the 
"Chabon Boul," sales managers sought to understand and then facilitated a rapid integration of the 
market. 
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 6 
Quality control. Performing quality control throughout the entire production chain increases the 
quality of the final product. This quality control cannot be trusted to the many actors in the production 
chain, but by a company manager with control mechanisms implemented at all stages. 
Repeated stoppages of production. Repeatedly stopping production is detrimental to the range of 
customers the industry would like to have. Stoppages were most often due to equipment breakdown or 
problems related to lack of funds. 
Conclusion and recommendations 
According to all the information shared with the evaluation team and in line with projections, the 
“Chabon Boul” business did not break even with the grant they received from USAID. Already in the 
fourth modification, it is clearly stipulated that the project did not intend to achieve profitability with this 
grant and that it would need an additional funding. It said that the funds from this second grant from 
USAID should be used to install one new pyrolysis retort, which will serve as a demonstration of 
technology and scale to investors, who would then lend and invest another $1 million to bring the 
production factory to a sufficient scale to reach financial sustainability. As a result of decreased 
production and sales, projections have been further modified or adjusted as the company now needs a 
grant of approximately $ 2.5 million to achieve profitability. According to managers, in its current status, 
the company will still need external support to survive.
Despite the repeated work stoppages, the company has a relatively faithful client base. While there is 
the chance that CRH may lose some potential customers and market share to propane, the main raw 
material, sugarcane bagasse, is available in a quantity largely sufficient to operate the current enterprise 
and after an increase in size. Two major drawbacks with bagasse are 1) in wet weather bagasse cannot 
be used due to lack of sunshine, and 2) in times of drought, there is shortage of bagasse. The quality of 
the product, according to the majority of the customers, is good and they are generally happy. The 
inconvenience of too much ash is offset by a competitive price, relatively shorter cooking time, and no 
smoke.
The evaluation team recommends that the industry:
• Has better expense appraisal to better estimate the break-even level and increase the level of 
transparency in the communication of financial information;
• Regularizes the “Chabon Boul” production in order to increase customer loyalty (repeated 
shutdowns due to energy or other problems affect the market);
• Regularizes the price of the bagasse cart to reduce frustrations;
• Continues to improve the quality of the product (specifically the complaint of ashes during the 
burning process);
Find better ways to dry bagasse and charcoals (Drying in open air is unreliable during raining seasons). 
I. 7 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
1 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
1.1.EVALUATION PURPOSE
In July 2017, USAID/Haiti awarded CHASE (Collectif Haïtien pour l’Avancement du Suivi et d’Évaluation) 
a contract to conduct the performance evaluation of the Green Charcoal for Haiti Activity (Chabon 
Boul Project). The purpose of the evaluation was to assess whether the Green Charcoal Activity was 
able to achieve its intended outcome to produce a viable, affordable and cost-effective product (cooking 
briquettes) that can be used as an alternative for traditional charcoal in Haiti. This evaluation shall 
provide pertinent information to USAID and its partners on the overall impact of the Green Charcoal 
Activity and serve as a basis for considering whether this activity can be replicated on a larger scale. The 
primary stakeholders for this evaluation include: USAID/Haiti, Carbon Roots International (CRI) and 
Carbon Roots Haiti (CRH). 
This document presents the final evaluation report including detailed methodology for the evaluation 
and describing key findings, conclusions and recommendations.
1.2.EVALUATION QUESTIONS
1. To what extent the Green Charcoal for Haiti Activity was able to achieve a positive net 
revenue? If yes, what were the most important factors contributing to this achievement? If not, 
what were the main constraints leading to this non-achievement?
2. What lessons learned can be derived from the Green Charcoal for Haiti business model to 
reduce the dependency on firewood and traditional charcoal?
2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The least well-off strata of the population, also called the communities at the Base of the Pyramid (BoP), 
are caught in a vicious circle.3 This vicious circle consists of relying on charcoal as their main source of 
energy, triggering negative health outcomes, deforestation, increased greenhouse gas emissions, erosion, 
flooding, decreased arable land, declining crop yields, and depressed incomes forcing reliance on 
polluting, tree-consuming charcoal. According to the best available data4, Charcoal is used by 90% of the 
households from Port-au-Prince and other major cities, and the charcoal chain from production to final 
consumption employs more than 150 thousand persons. Charcoal is made from trees, with a low 
conversion efficiency of about only 20% (5 kg of wood for 1 kg of charcoal) and its production 
contributes to degrade the local environment by adding pressure to the plant stand throughout the 
countryside which is already over 98% deforested. 
 
3 Information from the “Chabon Boul” project document. 
4 Bureau of Mines and Energy: Haiti Energy Sector Development Plan 2007 - 2017
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 8 
Viable alternative cooking technologies are not being adopted fast enough to stop or even slow 
deforestation, and forest decline has led to a rise in charcoal prices, in part due to the rapidly growing 
black market for illegal charcoal smuggled into Haiti from the Dominican Republic. In this broader 
context, the dependency on charcoal and firewood becomes a major factor in the environmental 
degradation of Haiti and poses a serious threat to the lives and livelihoods of Haitian citizens. 
The Green Charcoal for Haiti activity was designed partly to address this problem by demonstrating that 
cooking briquettes made from agricultural waste can be a viable, affordable, cost-effective alternative to 
the use of traditional charcoal, that will help reducing deforestation in Haiti and increasing rural incomes. 
Additionally, the use of green charcoal would reduce carbon emissions compared to the traditional 
charcoal, and it burns somewhat cleaner, lessening the adverse health effects on its users.
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
The Green Charcoal for Haiti is a 24-month, $838,000 program implemented by CRH, a Haiti-based 
for-profit social business affiliated with a U.S.-based non-profit organization, Carbon Roots International 
(CRI). Since 2013, USAID/Haiti has supported Stage 1 and 2 grants (a total of $938,000) to CRI and 
CRH through the (DIV) Annual Program Statement (APS) to support their plan to replace the use of 
charcoal fuel in Haiti with a green alternative fuel.
The overall goal of the activity is to create sustainable jobs and reduce deforestation, with an 
Intermediate Result of achieving financial sustainability at the briquette production factory. As presented 
in the project’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan, the “Chabon Boul” Project hopes to achieve 
three major and intertwined strategic objectives: 1) increase briquette production, 2) expand the retail 
distribution network, and 3) increase sales of green charcoal briquettes. Green charcoal creates financial 
sustainability through jobs, income, and value throughout the local value chain while achieving a 
reduction in deforestation. 
CRH’s business consists of four activities that comprise the green charcoal value chain:
1. Raw materials purchasing from local suppliers
The value chain begins with a network of smallholder farmers and micro‐entrepreneur agricultural 
processors who earn added income by selling their agricultural waste biomass to CRH. In northern 
Haiti, the primary biomass feedstock used is sugarcane bagasse. Carbon Roots Haiti pays the suppliers 
for their waste, then transports it from the farm or processing facility to the production site.
2. Processing
At a central production facility, CRH staff sorts and dries the feedstock, then pyrolyzes (i.e. carbonize) it 
into charcoal dust. Prior to February 2017, pyrolysis was achieved using handmade 55‐gallon batch kilns. 
Utilizing funding from USAID, CRH began upgrading the pyrolysis process to use continuous-feed 
retorts that also provide heat to streamline drying. 
After pyrolysis, CRH staff mixes the char dust with binding agents, resulting in a char slurry. The slurry 
is then pressed into dense briquettes using commercial roller briquette equipment, consisting of:
I. 9 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
• A large batch mixer, 
• A conveyor belt, and
• A commercial briquette pressing machine, which uses two opposing cylindrical molds to 
compress char slurry into pillow briquettes.
After processing by the briquetting equipment, the briquettes are transferred to portable racks and 
dried in the sun for 3‐5 days. Upon upgrading to a new pyrolysis process, CRH should be able to dry 
briquettes in a matter of hours.
After drying, the briquettes are packed in re‐useable sacks that are ready for transport and sale.
3. Marketing
Most products available at local markets in Haiti are sold under brand names. However, due to the 
decentralized nature of wood charcoal production in Haiti, there are no recognized nationwide brands.
This presents a competitive advantage for CRH by being able to produce and distribute green charcoal 
centrally, allowing the business to sell green charcoal under the “Chabon Boul” brand name. Marketing 
focuses on cost savings, and highlights that green charcoal is a locally‐produced product that benefits the 
environment. CRH engages in many marketing media, including:
• Television commercials and shows,
• Radio commercials,
• Banners and signs throughout the sales region,
• Signage on public transportation,
• Promotional events.
Due to limited income in the BoP, potential customers may be cautious to purchase new products, the 
results of which they are unsure. To combat this tendency, CRH encourages consumption through 
special offers and free samples, which has proven successful at spreading awareness and increasing sales 
at new retail locations. For example, an individual distribution point selling green charcoal will drop the 
cost of a marmite (roughly one kilogram of charcoal) 40% for several hours, doubling new customer 
purchases during the sale. CRH continues to test different marketing strategies to determine the best 
ROI5 and scaling up those effective tactics. By following up with prospective buyers, they can emphasize 
savings, appeal to widespread notions of civic duty, and tie CRH’s marketing to the Haitian 
Government’s reforestation initiatives.
4. Distribution
CRH’s distribution strategy is three‐pronged: 
 
5 ROI: Return on Investment 
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 10
• Wholesale customers: CRH targets restaurants, informal roadside cooks, schools and 
organizations, selling in 30kg sacks and providing delivery service to the customer.
• Women retailers: In Haiti, women traditionally sell charcoal at local markets. CRH’s second 
distribution strategy reinforces this inclusion of women in market activities by selling green 
charcoal briquettes to household users through a network of women retailers. These retailers 
are “based” out of one of CRH’s distribution points (depots/boutiques), where they purchase 
green charcoal in 30kg sacks, and then sell to household customers in smaller retail quantities.
• Direct Sales: Carbon Roots Haiti has launched branded brick‐and‐mortar green charcoal 
boutiques, located in high‐traffic areas, and serve the household market directly. Generally, 
household customers purchase in “marmite” units, often patronizing the boutique daily. CRH 
currently has boutiques in Port‐au‐Prince and Cap‐Haitian.
Beneficiaries of the project include: 
• Local rum distillers and micro-agricultural entrepreneurs, who will earn significantly more than 
the national minimum wage, and several times more than the national average daily income.
• Charcoal retailers, mostly women, who will sell green charcoal briquettes at a market discount 
and still earn roughly 15% profit on their sales.
• End users, who will save between 25-40% of their income by using green charcoal. 
2.2 THEORY OF CHANGE
CRH’s Theory of Change postulates that deforestation, rural poverty and unemployment, energy 
demand, and low agricultural yields can be addressed through the deployment of a profitable social 
business engaged in the production of green charcoal. This enterprise benefits a wide range of 
stakeholders: 
• Farmers monetize their agricultural waste by converting it to char dust and selling it to CRH 
• Women retailers offer a highly-competitive product, enjoy higher profit margins, develop 
business skills, and build a broad customer base 
• Institutions such as schools and restaurants, and households have access to sustainable cooking 
fuel at a price point that is cheaper than traditional charcoal
While the pathway to change is complex in a socioeconomic environment such as Haiti, a market-based 
enterprise that manufactures products locally, for local consumption, is likely the most impactful and 
sustainable solution. 
3 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
3.1. EVALUATION METHODS
3.1.1 OVERVIEW
The evaluation team had to determine whether the “Chabon Boul” Project was able to achieve its 
intended outcome, which is to produce a viable, affordable and cost-effectiveness product (cooking 
briquettes) that can be used as an alternative for traditional charcoal in Haiti. The team through analysis 
had to also help the mission to appreciate the overall impact of the project. To do this, the evaluation 
team considered using the following methods:
I. 11 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
a) Secondary data review, including all available project documentation: periodic reports, 
project design document, documents on the various modifications (See appendices 1), 
studies carried out within the framework of this project, annual plans, follow-up plans, M&E 
plans, etc.
b) Key Informant Interviews (KII) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with key stakeholders, 
including Mission staff, CRH personnel, beneficiaries, local rum distillers and micro￾entrepreneur agricultural processors and other market actors;
c) Interactive workshop with CRH employees to discuss lessons learned from the project 
implementation; 
d) Cost Benefit Analysis. 
Above methods were used separately and the findings have not been integrated until after data analysis. 
Much of the document review took place first and findings from this step were used to inform the 
design and implementation of key informant interview and focus group methods. The same evaluation 
team was then involved in implementing key informant interview and focus group methods, and the 
actual data collection and analysis happened congruently over the same period. 
CHASE met first with the Carbon Roots Haiti personnel involved in monitoring the “Chabon Boul” 
Project. It was an opportunity to 1) know how the project was doing from the implementers’ 
perspective, 2) to record long term issues regarding the project and the evaluation, and 3) to identify 
other influential key stakeholders. This meeting also helped to determine specific geographical mapping 
of activities. 
Data collection was carefully planned in collaboration with Carbon Roots Haiti personnel. 
3.1.2 DATA COLLECTION METHODS
A. IN-DEPTH PROJECT DOCUMENT REVIEW AND COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
i. Literature review
CHASE personnel conducted an extensive review of the literature. The documents review help in 
understanding both the theory of change behind the project and key project activities and results. 
The evaluation team drew on existing quantitative and qualitative data collected during the literature 
review to (1) refine sampling strategy and/or approach for collecting qualitative data, (2) design relevant 
qualitative data collection tools, and (3) seek compelling evidence to answer the evaluation questions. 
Relevant documents include, among others: the USAID/Haiti country strategy; “Chabon Boul” project 
reports such as work plans; PMP; M&E plans; quarterly progress reports and technical reports; the 
project proposal; and, documents relating to amendments. Ultimately, the literature review helped to 
gather relevant information to produce and enhance the comprehensive evaluation design. 
ii. Cost-Benefit Analysis 
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) techniques were to be used to compare the total costs of the activity with 
its revenue, using only monetary units. This would enable the calculation of the net cost or benefit 
associated with the production of green charcoal. 
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 12
As a technique, CBA evaluates the overall impact of the activity in quantifiable and monetized terms by
adding up the total costs of an activity and comparing it against its total revenue. For this evaluation, Net 
Present Value (NPV) of the project cost was to be compared with the net present value of its revenue. 
Decisions would be based on whether there was a net revenue or cost to the approach, i.e. total 
revenue less total costs. This comprehensive analysis takes a broad view of costs and benefits, including 
indirect and longer-term effects. 
This type of review typically begins with an exhaustive list of all the different costs that could arise, even 
if some will be later excluded: fixed costs included equipment partially mortgaged, rent, advertising, 
insurance, office supplies, etc. Variable costs included: personnel, training, vehicle (maintenance and
repair), fuel, product inputs, etc. 
To find the business's profit, the team, with support from accounting and leadership teams, would add 
up all of the total sales of green charcoal the Activity has made in a set period of time (one month) and 
other revenues including (but not limited to) gain or loss on disposal. The team would then subtract any 
amount of cash refunded to customers for returns or disputes to find an accurate figure for the total 
income. 
Once the team found accurate values for the Activity’s total income and expenses, calculating the profit 
would simply be to subtract expenses from the income. The data would be calculated monthly on the 
last six months and averaged to get the monthly figure.
It should be noted that the evaluation team was not provided the information necessary to achieve this 
Cost Benefit Analysis 
B. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGDS) AND WORKSHOP
i. Focus Group Discussions 
Focus Group Discussion was planned to be held during the data collection phase with relevant 
stakeholders to obtain viewpoints and evidence to answer the evaluation questions. Small groups of 
eight to 12 were set for a one-hour discussion around main topics identified in the design phase. 
Candidates for focus groups discussions were the charcoal retailers. Please note, the evaluation team 
was not able to conduct these focus groups. 
These discussions would have helped determine the status of the project implementation and assess 
whether the Green Charcoal Activity was able to achieve its intended outcome, to produce a viable, 
affordable and cost-effectiveness product (cooking briquettes) that can be used as an alternative for 
traditional charcoal in Haiti. These discussions would have highlighted the lessons learned.
ii. Workshop with CRH staff to determine lessons learned 
A two-hour workshop was organized with Carbon Roots Haiti personnel to discuss about the 
implementation and to document lessons learned. The purpose of documenting lessons learned was to 
share and use knowledge derived from experience to promote the recurrence of desirable outcomes 
and preclude the recurrence of undesirable outcomes. 
This “Lessons Learned” session documented the cause of issues and the reasoning behind any corrective 
action already taken to address those issues. For the identified ““Lessons Learned”” where no action 
I. 13 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
had yet been taken, the team determined next steps and to identified who will be responsible for 
implementing those measures. Questions discussed during the session included the following: 
• What was learned about the project in general? Did the delivered Green Charcoal meet the 
specified requirements and goals of the project? 
• What was learned about project management? Did the project management methodology work? 
If not, why not? 
• What was learned about communication? What changes would assist in speeding up in the 
future while increasing communication? 
• What was learned about budgeting? Were costs budgets met? If not, why not? 
• What was learned about procurement? Was the schedule met? If not, why not? 
• What was learned about working with sponsors?
• What was learned about working with customers? Was the customer satisfied with the green 
charcoal? If not, why not? 
• What was learned about what went well? 
• What was learned about what did not go well? 
• How will/was this incorporated into project? What could be done to improve the process? 
C. SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS WITH KEY INFORMANT
Interviews were conducted with key stakeholders and resources persons such as key CRH personnel, 
local distillers of rum, end users such as CRH targets restaurants, informal roadside cooks, schools and 
organizations, and branded brick‐and‐mortar green charcoal boutiques vendors. The main objective of 
these interviews was to assess whether the project was 1) able to achieve its intended outcome, which 
is to produce a viable, affordable and cost-effectiveness product, and 2) to discuss best practices and 
lessons learned, keeping focus on seeking evidence to answer the evaluation questions.
Key stakeholders involved in the project activities and systems in place to boost green charcoal 
production were visited during data collection.
Key Informant Interviews (KII) were conducted with:
- CRH staffs: 
o To collect qualitative data about performance, get more insight about project 
implementation, challenges and constraints on the field, and document lessons learned 
(Question 1 and 2) 
o To collect information on the functioning and achievements of the “Chabon Boul” project 
from the implementer’s perspective (Question 1)
o To have information on what facilitated achievement of performance or what prevented 
CRH from achieving the expected results (Question 1)
o To collect information on effective measures/decisions taken to reduce production costs 
and increase the viability of the project (Question 1)
- Local rum distillers and Micro-Entrepreneur agricultural processors:
o Availability of sugarcane bagasse on a continuous basis (Question 1);
o Their transformation of sugarcane bagasse into char dust (Question 1);
o Their overall learning from the project (Question 2);
o Their level of satisfaction with the production of the Green Charcoal (Questions 1 and 2)
o How they compare this activity with the traditional charcoal production (Question 1).
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 14
- Green Charcoal end users (CRH targets restaurants, informal roadside cooks, schools and 
organizations) 
o To collect information on the ease of access to the product. (Question 1)
o To get more insight about their level of satisfaction with the use of Green Charcoal 
(Question 1)
o To have information on how they compare this product with the traditional charcoal 
(Question 1)
o Collect some suggestions for improving the project in the future (Question 1)
- Branded brick‐and‐mortar green charcoal boutique vendors 
o To collect information on performance, get more insight about project implementation, 
challenges and constraints in the field, and lessons learned (Questions 1 and 2); 
o Difference in product sales prices compared to traditional charcoal and what can motivate 
people to switch from traditional charcoal to Green Charcoal (Question 1); 
o Their level of satisfaction with the sale of the Green Charcoal and the type of feedback 
they have from customers (Questions 1 and 2). 
o Above described methods and techniques were used to collect data and provide answers 
for the two (2) evaluation questions. An exhaustive list of planned KII is presented in the 
summary table of data collection.
3.1.3 DATA SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS
Parallel data analysis was conducted, weighting answers from various sources. Data from each source 
were analyzed independently using content analysis methodology, and the findings were integrated and 
triangulated into coherent statements about the evaluation questions. A synthesis framework was 
developed to coherently address the wealth of information yielded daily by the key informants’ interview 
reports. Evidence was clustered into findings that would lead to valid and relevant conclusions and 
recommendations about the evaluation questions.
Triangulation of data from a variety of sources, including both quantitative and qualitative data from 
literature review, qualitative data collected on the field, was valued such that the evaluation produced 
evidence-based findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
The contents of the discussion were examined to discover the meaning and its particular implications 
for the evaluation questions. Every effort to interpret focus group/key informant interview data
occurred through analysis of content. 
3.2 LIMITATIONS 
The focus groups scheduled with retailers could not take place because this group has been demobilized 
for several months and according to the managers contacted, it was not possible to have them for 
several semi-structured meetings as planned.
The cost-benefit analysis was not performed as planned in the design document/evaluation plan. 
According to the director and other managers contacted, the nature of the contract with the donor and 
the type of business involved meant that the director was not obliged to share cost information incurred 
during the operations and chose not to. Therefore, the analysis considers only the limited information 
available in reports of milestones or collected during field interviews. No accounting documents were 
shared with the evaluation team.
I. 15 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
4 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 FINDINGS 
4.1.1 NET REVENUE FROM THE GREEN CHARCOAL ACTIVITY 
The production of Chabon Boul in its present form is not a viable business. CRH, a small enterprise, 
producing green charcoal (the "Chabon Boul") in the northern department of Haiti, has not been 
generating positive net revenue, despite USAID support. According to the project managers, the income 
from the sale of green charcoal, which represents the only source of revenue for the company, is always 
less than the sum of the expenses incurred by the activity. The company is now closed due to lack of 
financial means. 
4.1.2 FUNDING, TECHNOLOGY AND SKILLS
The goals for the USAID-awarded 24-month grant period were to:
• Grow revenue to achieve positive cash flow at the north Haiti production facility
• Upgrade production equipment to commercialize all processing, from pyrolysis to briquette and 
drying. 
• Raise private sector financing for capital expenditures on production and transport equipment 
A large part of the amount granted was used, as planned, for the acquisition of modern equipment. In 
early 2017, Carbon Roots Haiti (CRH) installed and commissioned a commercial pyrolysis unit that 
convert sugarcane bagasse to charcoal, replacing the organization’s reliance on hand-made 55-gallon 
barrel kilns. The pyrolysis unit is a BigChar 1200 model made by Pyrocal Ltd in Australia. Several training 
sessions were organized on the use of equipment. According to the members of the production team, 
these orientation sessions gave them the necessary capacity to use the machines.
The BigChar equipment was purchased with the expectation that it could convert bagasse into green 
charcoal, and provide clean, high heat to dry both bagasse and green charcoal briquettes coming off the 
production line. Unfortunately, it was discovered that the BigChar cannot reliably dry the bagasse or 
freshly- manufactured green charcoal. The project relies on three to five days of solar power to dry 
both the bagasse and the freshly released charcoal from the commercial briquette pressing machine. 
With no assurances on weather, an alternative for drying and storage must be found. 
According to document review and various meetings in the field, CRH received all the funds allocated to the 
project but the income from the sale of coal still decreased with the financing. According to the project 
managers, to reach the break-even point, the company must have at least five equipment units (BigChar)
like the one bought with USAID funds. Today the company is looking for a grant of about 2.5 million 
USD to accomplish this benchmark. 
In the project design document, it was clearly stated that the activity would not be profitable with this 
second grant granted by USAID. The project designers acknowledged that additional equipment units 
were needed for the activity to be profitable. As expected, and according to project managers, the 
acquisition of the new equipment (the BigChar unit) was more like a demonstration of what the 
company could do with a more appropriate technology. The acquisition of the new equipment also puts 
the company in a mode of operation where it can become scalable.
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 16
Figure 1. Monthly sales for 3 months (Source: CRH Milestone reports)
The enterprise relies only on green charcoal sales for revenues. In the past, the char dust was given free 
to farmers but sold to some agricultural sector institutions as organic fertilizer.
CRH reported that increasing the price of the ‘Chabon Boul’ product to increase revenue is not a viable 
option. Currently, an equal volume of the two brands of charcoals (traditional charcoal and Chabon 
Boul) are sold at the same average price. The 30-kg bag that looks like most of traditional charcoal bags 
sells for 500 gourdes6. According to various stakeholders, any increase in the price of “Chabon Boul” 
higher than that of traditional charcoal will scare away the green charcoal potential buyers. 
As can be seen in Figure 1, monthly sales prior to the current shutdown are well below the projection 
of a $60,000 monthly sale limit to achieve profitability. 
With the acquisition of the new equipment, the company has reduced its staff. Therefore, the costs of 
the operations were reduced. However, the company still operates with more than twenty employees 
in addition to other expenses such as carrying bagasse (about 350 USD / month), taxes, fuel, repairs, etc. 
Since the company did not aim for profitability with this second grant, the numbers featured in Figure 1 
do not come as a surprise. However, it is difficult for the evaluation team to provide strong conclusions 
 
6 500 Gourdes is the equivalent of 7.91 USD (1:63.18)
209
331
508
33
1081
Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Total
Monthly sale in US Dollar
I. 17 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
and recommendations without access to information about the company’s monthly expenditures. There 
is no way to determine how increasing production will affect the future profitability of CRH.
4.1.3 PRODUCTION 
As mentioned earlier, this second grant enabled CRH to acquire new equipment and at the same time 
enabled the company to move from a traditional processing to a less labor-intensive industrial 
processing. Today, the production team is reduced from more than 34 employees’ pre-modernization to 
14 with the arrival of BigChar.
Figure 2. Sales in volume from April to July 2017
According to CRH managers, the green charcoal production has decreased with the USAID grant. Prior 
the BigChar installation, the company produced about 5 to 6 tons of charcoal per work day; now the 
charcoal production is 1 to 1.5 tons per work day. As production has decreased, less green charcoal is 
sold with support received from USAID. To restore the production levels to 6 tons, the machine would 
need to run 24 hours a day. While it has the capacity, a considerable limitation is the necessary 
manpower. This approach would require adding several eight-hour shifts and sufficient security and 
transportation; a considerable challenge in that location. 
While the company usually sells everything it produces, stakeholders in the field report unreliable 
production output. Repeated breakdowns cause interruptions in the supply for days and weeks at a 
time. Once the issues are resolved and the supply is restored, additional marketing and sales resources 
are needed to publicize that the company is operational again. 
Production varies with seasons as well since solar energy is required to dry the final products. 
Unfortunately, when briquettes are needed most during the rainy season, production decreases due to 
the lack of sunlight needed to dry bagasse and green charcoal. The company tried an alternative means 
to dry the briquettes without much success. The machine bought for this purpose burnt too much 
briquettes while charcoals inside the device failed to receive the amount of heat needed.
28
51.5
72
5 
156.5
Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Total
Monthly sale in number of 30 Kg sacks
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 18
The company’s large distribution network was reduced with the decrease in production and sales. The 
green charcoal produced by the company was sold on site or through the few kiosks located in the city 
of Cap-Haitian and its suburbs. The “Chabon Boul” is no longer sold by street vendors and motorcycles. 
More recently, a new distribution network has been established in Port-au-Prince and absorbs more 
than 50% of the production, according to the sales manager.
On the left is the char and the "BigChar" machine and on the right, the Pyrolysis hearth where refined bagasse is 
transformed into "char" 
I. 19 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
Machine used to enhance the sugarcane bagasse
4.1.4 RAW MATERIALS AVAILABILITY
Originally, during the project design, several raw materials including agricultural waste and sugar cane 
bagasse were targeted for green charcoal production. In the northern plain, agricultural waste is not as 
continuously available as cane bagasse. According to several informants, the bagasse available can readily 
support several green charcoal factories the size of CRH. For example, the head of one of the big 
distilleries visited in the area claims that it is possible to provide CRH up to 10 carts of bagasse a day 
when his business is running at full capacity (this quantity of bagasse can meet the need of CRH for the 
day). With dozens of distilleries in the northern plain, production has suffered just one slowdown due to 
a scarcity of bagasse since the launch of the activity. That time was during the prolonged drought period 
of 2015. Carriers had to travel several tens of kilometers to supply the factory with bagasse. Stocks of 
the various usual suppliers were exhausted because of low sugarcane production. 
A disadvantage in the use of bagasse lies in the fact that it must be dried for use. In the rainy season, it is 
difficult to dry bagasse collected because the drying done under the sun. Even in good weather, drying 
bagasse in open air can take several days, delaying the green charcoal production.
The project has been successful in promoting bagasse as a byproduct of distilleries. Distilleries are small 
companies that make clairin from sugar cane, an edible alcohol with a concentration of about 20o. 
Normally, 20% of the bagasse is used as energy source to boil sugarcane juice transforming it into clairin, 
and the remaining 80% goes to waste. As an effect of CRH activities, bagasse now has a price; the 
suppliers who usually burned it before to get rid of it, now recognize its value and haggle regarding the 
price. Distillery owners complained as well that the price paid by CRH for the cart of bagasse is not the 
same everywhere. A bagasse cart costs on average 500 gourdes (7.91 USD). 
At the beginning of operations, kits were provided to bagasse suppliers who were engaged in preparing 
the char themselves. It was soon realized that the char prepared in the 55-gallon metal drums was of 
poor quality which would have a direct impact on the quality of the finished product. Drums of char 
Machine to 
refine the 
sugarcane 
bagasse 
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 20
were bought according to their weight and some suppliers fraudulently placed stones in the drums to 
increase the weight of the char to gain more money. The decision was then made to centralize the 
management of bagasse combustion and char production at the company level which increased the 
quality of the product and efficacy of the resources.
Starch is another essential input in the production of green charcoal. According to information 
collected, locally produced starch made from cassava, especially in “cassaveries, 7” was used initially. 
Again, the company would face some suppliers who mixed starch with other products (flours) to 
increase their earnings. The mixture reduces the quality of the starch and consequently the quality of 
the resulting green coal. The decision was then made to source corn starch from major US-based 
industries, a fruitful initiative according to CRH managers. They reported that the cost associated with 
the acquisition of corn starch is relatively low and can be sustained by the company once the break-even 
point is reached. 
4.1.5 QUALITY AND MARKETING 
Thereafter the launch of the project, several types of marketing were used to reach potential consumers 
including radio advertising, banners, posters, and home visits, followed by distribution of small quantities 
of charcoal to sample. Visits with potential buyers proved to be the most beneficial. Unfortunately, all 
marketing activities ceased very soon as the demand outpaced the supply.
According to stakeholders, consumers are generally satisfied with the price and the quality of the 
product. The quality of “Chabon Boul” has increased gradually with several key decisions made by the 
company's management. The decision to centralize the production of the "char" has increased the 
quality of the resulting coal. The acquisition of new equipment (BigChar and others), allows for better 
control over the partial combustion of bagasse resulting in a better char dust. The briquettes are no 
longer produced by hand as they were at the beginning and the decision to change shift from flour￾tainted cassava starch to corn starch allows for tighter quality control. 
According to the consumers interviewed, Chabon Boul is easy to use. There is no need to buy a 
different, special stove. They estimated that the Chabon Boul intensified the heat produced resulting in a 
shorter cooking time. Also reported was the Chabon Boul does not produce smoke that darkens 
cooking utensils. Finally, unlike traditional, bagged wood charcoal, the Chabon Boul briquettes remain 
intact in the bag.
However, consumers visited also claim that Chabon Boul produces a lot of ash. The head of an 
education center, a very good customer of Chabon Boul, claims to have stopped using it because it 
produces too much ash. According to the information gathered, if you do not pay attention, the large 
amount of ash produced is susceptible to blowing around, dirtying the kitchen and beyond.
 
7 A place where cassava or other cassava products are made.
I. 21 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
4.2 CONCLUSIONS
According to all the information shared with the evaluation team and in line with what were planned, 
the “Chabon Boul” business did not break even with the grant they received from USAID. Already in 
the fourth modification, it is clearly stipulated that the project did not intend to achieve profitability with 
this grant and that it would need an additional funding. It said that the funds from this second grant from 
USAID should be used to install one new pyrolysis retort, which will serve as a demonstration of 
technology and scale to investors, who would then lend and invest another $1 million to bring the 
production factory to a sufficient scale to reach financial sustainability. As a result of decreased 
production and sales, projections have been further modified or adjusted as the company now needs a 
grant of approximately $ 2.5 million to achieve profitability. According to managers, in its current status, 
the company will still need external support to survive.
Despite the repeated work stoppages, the company has a relatively faithful client base. While there is 
the chance that CRH may lose some potential customers and market share to propane, the main raw 
material, sugarcane bagasse, is available in a quantity largely sufficient to operate the current enterprise 
and after an increase in size. Two major drawbacks with bagasse are 1) in wet weather bagasse cannot 
be used due to lack of sunshine, and 2) in times of drought, there is shortage of bagasse. The quality of 
the product, according to the majority of the customers, is good and they are generally happy. The 
inconvenience of too much ash is offset by a competitive price, relatively shorter cooking time, and no 
smoke.
It is important to note that green coal as produced by the project "chabon boul" has a future in the 
North region. Customers are satisfied with the quality and even without marketing activities the demand 
for the product continues to increase. Finally, even with the limited information that was communicated 
by the project, the evaluation team identified serious inadequacies in the financial projections of the 
activity. 
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 
The evaluation team recommends that the industry:
• Has better expense appraisal to better estimate the break-even level and increase the level of 
transparency in the communication of financial information;
• Regularizes the “Chabon Boul” production in order to increase customer loyalty (repeated 
shutdowns due to energy or other problems affect the market);
• Regularizes the price of the bagasse cart to reduce frustrations;
• Continues to improve the quality of the product (specifically the complaint of ashes during the 
burning process);
• Find better ways to dry bagasse and charcoals (Drying in open air is unreliable during raining 
seasons). 
4.4 SYNTHESIS OF LEARNING FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “CHABON BOUL” 
ACTIVITY
The “Lessons Learned” workshop offered an opportunity for reflection after the completed project. It 
was valuable to reflect on what worked well with the project and what could be improved upon from 
the perspective of representatives from the project team. The evaluation team worked with a reduced 
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 22
number of CRH staff due to the difficult circumstances faced by the enterprise. Project documents were 
consulted as well in this sense. 
Leadership. One of the main lessons learned revolves around decisions made by the management team. 
One such decision was the rotation of the production team for better results and better personnel 
management. The multiple tasks performed by the production team vary with some being far more 
demanding than others. There is the handling of the machine that refines dried bagasse, the preparation 
of the starch, the mixture of char, starch and other materials needed, monitoring the temperature of the 
BigChar to make sure everything is working fine. Since the company decided to give the same salary to 
everyone, it initially created frustration. The managers chose to rotate the 14-member production team 
and better distribute the workload. This improved the dynamics of the team and reduced their 
frustration. 
Research. Consistent conversations with consumers lead to ongoing research on how to improve the 
product to meet their requirements and achieve client satisfaction. Resulting improvements in char 
production include smokeless green charcoal and improved materials in its composition. 
Marketing. As mentioned above, several marketing methods have been used by the company to 
promote the "Chabon Boul." The marketing method of visiting potential consumers of the product and 
providing a sample amount to test at home yielded the best results; people like to test the product 
before making the decision to buy. After having tested it, the purchase decision followed almost 
automatically. Insufficient product supply was a barrier to marketing efforts. 
Sales strategy. Imitating the traditional charcoal marketing circuit directly in competition with the 
"Chabon Boul," sales managers sought to understand and then facilitated a rapid integration of the 
market. In general, traditional charcoal is available in depots in peri-urban areas, in the open markets 
where it is distributed in detail by retailers, through street vendors who use animal backs or their heads 
to transport them to consumers, etc. The "Chabon Boul" brought small touches of innovation, such as 
initially selling it in wheelbarrows through the streets. 
During the rainy season, the lots cannot be exposed in the open and the traditional charcoal is generally 
sold in bags during these periods - "Chabon Boul" followed the same method.
Quality control. Performing quality control throughout the entire production chain increases the 
quality of the final product. This quality control cannot be trusted to the many actors in the production 
chain, but by a company manager with control mechanisms implemented at all stages. CHR had initially 
trained distillery partners to produce the char the company would buy from them according to weight. 
55-gallon metal drums were distributed to the managers of various distilleries; the partners added other 
heavier products to the char and even stones to increase the weight of the drums. Not only did this 
reduce the quality of the coal but also damaged the machines on several occasions. Centralized 
production of char at the company has subsequently increased the quality.
Repeated stoppages of production. Repeatedly stopping production is detrimental to the range of 
customers the industry would like to have. Stoppages were most often due to equipment breakdown or 
problems related to lack of funds. Before starting operations again, the company must take some time 
to re-engage customers or even relaunch some advertising incurring additional costs. According to the 
participants in the Lessons Learned workshop, consumers who simply switched to traditional charcoal 
I. 23 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
could easily revert back to Chabon Boul unlike those who may have converted their kitchens to 
propane. Advertisements for "Chabon Boul" tout that the environment is protected by using it. But 
when motivated consumers can no longer find this "Chabon Boul" and are forced to use traditional 
charcoal again, they become disenchanted by the company. According to the participants, it would be 
good, if possible, to maintain a small production core in order to keep the customers abreast of ongoing 
activities and smooth transitions between stoppages. 

I. 1 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
ANNEXES
A1. SCOPE OF WORK
PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
The purpose of the evaluation is to assess whether the Green Charcoal Activity was able to achieve its 
intended outcome, which is to produce a viable, affordable and cost-effectiveness product (cooking 
briquettes) that can be used as an alternative for traditional charcoal in Haiti. This evaluation shall 
provide pertinent information to USAID and its partner on the overall impact of the Green Charcoal 
Activity shall serve as a basis for considering whether or not this activity can be replicated on a larger
scale. The primary stakeholders for this evaluation include: USAID/Haiti, Carbon Roots International 
(CRI), Carbon Roots Haiti (CRH). 
SUMMARY INFORMATION 
Strategy/Project/Activity Name Green Charcoal for Haiti
Implementer Carbon Root Haiti S.A (CRH)
Cooperative Agreement/Contract # AID-521-F-15-00005
Total Estimated Ceiling of the 
Evaluated Project/Activity(TEC) 
S838,000.00
Life of Activity [June 2015-May 2017]
Active Geographic Regions [North] 
Development Objective(s) (DOs) [Economic Security Increased] 
USAID Office Economic Growth and Agricultural development
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 2 
BACKGROUND 
A. Description of the Problem, Development Hypothesis (es), and Theory of Change
According to the best available data, over 90 percent of Haitian households use charcoal – produced 
from burning wood - as their primary source of energy. This dependency on charcoal and firewood 
propels destructive effects such as, negative health outcomes, deforestation, increased greenhouse gas 
emissions, erosion, flooding, decreased arable land, declining crop yields, and reduced incomes—thereby 
reinforcing reliance on polluting, tree-consuming charcoal. Viable alternative cooking technologies are 
not being adopted fast enough to stop or even slow deforestation, and forest decline has led to a rise in 
charcoal prices, in part due to the rapidly growing black market for illegal charcoal smuggled into Haiti 
from the Dominican Republic. In this broader context, the dependency on charcoal and firewood 
becomes a major factor in the environmental degradation of Haiti and poses a serious threat to the lives 
and livelihoods of Haitian citizens. 
The Green Charcoal for Haiti activity was designed to address this problem by demonstrating that 
cooking briquettes made from agricultural waste can be a viable, affordable, cost-effective alternative to 
the use of traditional charcoal, that will help reducing deforestation in Haiti and increasing rural incomes. 
Additionally, the use of green charcoal would reduce carbon emissions compared to the traditional 
charcoal, and it burns somewhat cleaner, thus providing some health benefits for its users.
B. Summary Strategy/Project/Activity/Intervention to be evaluated
The Green Charcoal for Haiti is a 24-month, $838,000 program implemented by CRH, a Haiti-based 
for-profit social business affiliated with a U.S.-based non-profit organization, Carbon Roots International 
(CRI). Since 2013, USAID/Haiti has supported Stage 1 and 2 grants (a total of $938,000) to CRI and 
CRH through the Development Innovations Ventures (DIV) Annual Program Statement (APS) to 
support their plan to replace the use of charcoal fuel in Haiti with a green alternative fuel.
Graphic 1 below summarizes the result framework of the Green Charcoal for Haiti activity as presented 
in the project’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan. As illustrated, the overall goal of the activity is to 
create sustainable jobs and reduce deforestation, with an Intermediate Result of achieving financial 
sustainability at the briquette production factory. To attend this goal, the project has three intertwined 
strategic objectives: 1) Increase briquette production, 2) Expand retail distribution network, 3) Increase 
sales of green charcoal briquettes. Every ton of green charcoal replaces destructive wood charcoal, and 
creates jobs, income, and value all along the local value chain. In this framework, achieving financial 
sustainability results in more jobs, higher incomes, and a reduction in deforestation. 
To achieve its strategic objectives, CRH has designed the project around 3 specific core activities:
1) Activity 1 consists of the procurement of agricultural waste supplied by micro-agricultural 
entrepreneurs and local rum distilleries. CRH has established sourcing agreements with the local 
distillers and the local farmers, who are paid for supplying the sugarcane bagasse to CRH. A 
group of farmers is then trained by CRH to burn and convert the bagasse into char dust, at 
CRH’s factory site in Quartier Morin. CRH currently has a network of over 100 active char dust 
suppliers in Northern Haiti.
I. 3 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
2) Activity 2 consists of the production of the green charcoal briquettes. Roughly 90% of the char 
collected is run through a grinder and crushed to dust. This char dust will then be mixed with 
starch into a slurry, and run through commercial roller briquette equipment that produces 
roughly 2,000 kilograms of green charcoal briquettes per day. The resultant green charcoal 
briquettes are dried for 3-5 days, and then packaged for transport and sale.
3) Activity 3 consists of the sales of the briquettes in the local markets, using three main channels: 
a) negotiated contracts with existing charcoal wholesalers, who have their own sophisticated 
distribution networks, b) CRH-branded distribution points and boutiques, established in Cap 
Haitian and Port-au-Prince, c) a network of individuals who are trained to become independent 
mobile street retailers. Carbon Roots Haiti also sells to individual consumers of charcoal in and 
around Cap-Haitien through several distribution points and boutiques. At local markets in Cap 
Haitien, charcoal is sold by women trained by CRH to become mobile street retailers. 
Beneficiaries of the project include: 
- Local rum distillers and micro-agricultural entrepreneurs, who will earn significantly more than 
the national minimum wage, and several times more than the national average daily income.
- Smallholder farmers who are trained as part-time producers of charcoal dust, and will earn 
additional earnings from producing the char at the CRH facility.
- Charcoal retailers, mostly women, who will sell green charcoal briquettes at a market discount 
and still earn roughly 15% profit on their sales.
- End users, who will save between 25-40% of their income by using green charcoal. 
Graphic 1: Summary of Green Charcoal for Haiti Result Framework
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 4 
C. Summary of the Project/Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Plan
It is important to underline that no baseline study had been conducted at the inception of this program. 
However, as part of the M&E Plan, the activity collected baseline data and key monitoring indicators to 
track the progress of the program towards meeting the expected results. From the award date to 
today the program has achieved the following results, as of September 2016:
• 3.95 tons of briquettes produced daily on average, from 0.5 tons at the beginning of the 
project.
• 41 direct jobs, including CRH staff, from 45 jobs at the beginning of the project.
• 5 active distribution points, from a total of 6 at the beginning of the project.
• 41 indirect jobs created, including street retailers, from 72 at the beginning of the project.
• $86,157 of sales revenue, compared to $8,815.32 at the beginning of the project.
• $3,100.8 of supplier earnings, compared to over $12,000 at the beginning of the project.
• 1,936 tons of wood saved, compared to over 104.9 tons at the beginning of the project.
Below is a list of documents which will be useful to this evaluation. Soft copies of these documents will 
be handed to the evaluation team in due time.
1. Activity program description and any modifications made to it.
2. Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plans
3. Activity work plan
4. Milestone Reports
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
1. To what extent the Green Charcoal for Haiti Project was able to achieve a positive net revenue? If 
yes, what were the most important factors contributing to this achievement? If not, what were the main 
constraints leading to this non-achievement?
2. What lessons learned can be derived from the Green Charcoal for Haiti business model to reduce 
the dependency on firewood and traditional charcoal?
EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
It is expected that the evaluation team propose a research design to address the evaluation questions 
and a plan for collecting and analyzing the data. Given the time and the nature of the evaluation 
questions, the evaluation design should be based solely on a combination of qualitative method 
techniques. Key informant interviews, focus group interviews, field observation, and in-depth review of 
project documents are among the techniques that the evaluation team should consider when addressing 
the evaluation questions. 
I. 5 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
The proposed evaluation design should:
(1) Draw on existing quantitative and qualitative data (e.g., implementing partners' quarterly reports 
and data) as well as new qualitative data collection and analyses (e.g., analysis of data collected 
through interviews, focus groups, and field observation);
(2) Describe the methodology and/or approach for collecting the data;
(3) Use an appropriate combination of mixed methods to analyze both quantitative and qualitative 
data -- e.g., triangulation of data from a variety of sources -- such that the evaluation produces 
findings, conclusions, and recommendations grounded in evidence; and 
(4) Include steps the evaluator will take to assess and describe the quality of the data used for the 
evaluation.
DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. Evaluation Work plan: Within 1 week of the award of the contract, a draft work plan for the 
evaluation shall be completed by the lead evaluator and presented to the Contracting Officer’s 
Representative (AOR/COR). The work plan will include: (1) the anticipated schedule and logistical 
arrangements; and (2) a list of the members of the evaluation team, delineated by roles and 
responsibilities. 
2. Evaluation Design: Within 1 week of approval of the work plan, the evaluation team must submit 
to the Agreement Officer’s Representative/Contracting Officer’s Representative (AOR/COR) an 
evaluation design (which will become an annex to the Evaluation report). The evaluation design will 
include: (1) a detailed evaluation design matrix that links the Evaluation Questions in the SOW to 
data sources, methods, and the data analysis plan; (2) draft questionnaires and other data collection 
instruments or their main features; (3) the list of potential interviewees and sites to be visited and 
proposed selection criteria and/or sampling plan (must include calculations and a justification of 
sample size, plans as to how the sampling frame will be developed, and the sampling methodology); 
(4) known limitations to the evaluation design; and (5) a dissemination plan.USAID/Haiti program 
and technical offices and relevant stakeholders are asked to take up to 10 business days to review 
and consolidate comments through the COR. Once the evaluation team receives the consolidated 
comments on the initial evaluation design and work plan, they are expected to return with a revised 
evaluation design and work plan within 5 days. 
3. Final Presentation: The evaluation team is expected to hold a final presentation in person to 
discuss the summary of findings and recommendations to USAID. This presentation will be 
scheduled as agreed upon after the evaluation fieldwork. 
4. Draft Evaluation Report: The draft evaluation report should be consistent with the guidance 
provided in Section IX: Final Report Format. The report will address each of the questions 
identified in the SOW and any other issues the team considers to have a bearing on the objectives 
of the evaluation. Any such issues can be included in the report only after consultation with USAID. 
The submission date for the draft evaluation report will be determined in the evaluation work plan.
Once the initial draft evaluation report is submitted, Program and EGAD offices will have 10
business days in which to review and comment on the initial draft, after which point the COR will 
submit the consolidated comments to the evaluation team. The evaluation team will then be asked 
to submit a revised final draft report 10 business days hence, and again the Program and EGAD 
offices will review and send comments on this final draft report within 5 business days of its 
submission. 
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 6 
5. Final Evaluation Report: The evaluation team will be asked to take no more than 10 business days
to respond/incorporate the final comments from the aforementioned USAID offices. The evaluation 
team leader will then submit the final report to the COR. All project data and records (including 
Focus Group and Key Informant summary reports) will be submitted in full and should be in 
electronic form in easily readable format, organized and documented for use by those not fully 
familiar with the intervention or evaluation, and owned by USAID. 
EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION 
The Evaluation Team shall comprise of an evaluation Team Leader (TL). 
The Team Leader (TL) is ultimately responsible for the overall management of the evaluation team and 
the final products, in conformity with this Scope of Work. The TL must be an experienced evaluation 
expert, with a documented track record of 10 years’ experience in the field of evaluation. The TL shall 
also have demonstrated experience in evaluating finance-related projects. The TL shall have a Master’s 
Degree in Economics, environment, or other related field and must possess excellent writing and 
interpersonal skills. The Team Leader will be responsible for planning the evaluation, coordinating the 
implementation of the evaluation, assigning evaluation responsibilities and tasks, and authoring the final 
evaluation report. He/she must be fluent in English and French. 
The Team Leader may propose additional staff (with CVs) to carry out this evaluation.
All team members will be required to provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of 
interest or describing any existing conflict of interest. The evaluation team shall demonstrate familiarity 
with USAID’s evaluation policies and guidance included in the USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) in 
Chapter 200.
EVALUATION SCHEDULE
Timing (Anticipated 
Months or Duration)
Proposed Activities
June 1 to June 16, 2017 Preparation of the work plan and evaluation design
June 19 June 30 USAID review of the work plan and evaluation design
July 3 to July 14 Data Collection
July 17 to July 21 Data Analysis
I. 7 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
FINAL REPORT FORMAT
The evaluation final report should include an abstract; executive summary; background of the local 
context and the strategies/projects/activities being evaluated; the evaluation purpose and main evaluation 
questions; the methodology or methodologies; the limitations to the evaluation; findings, conclusions, 
and recommendations. For more detail, see “How-To Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports” and ADS 
201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements. An optional evaluation report template is 
available in the Evaluation Toolkit. 
July 24 to August 4 Report writing
August 7 to August 18 USAID review of Draft Report
August 20 to August 24 Incorporate USAID comments and prepare Final Report
ESTIMATED LOE IN DAYS 
Position Preparation Travel to/from 
Northern 
region/PAP
In-Country 
Data 
Collection
Finalization 
of Report
Total 
LOE in 
days
Team Leader 10 2 15 20 47
Data collector 0 2 15 0 17
Data collector 0 2 15 0 17
Totals 10 8 60 35 113
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 8 
The executive summary should be 2–5 pages in length and summarize the purpose, background of the 
project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations and lessons learned (if applicable). 
The evaluation methodology shall be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to the evaluation shall 
be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation 
methodology (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.)
The annexes to the report shall include: 
• The Evaluation SOW;
• Any statements of difference regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, 
implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team;
• All data collection and analysis tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, 
checklists, and discussion guides;
• All sources of information, properly identified and listed; and 
• Signed disclosure of conflict of interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting 
to a lack of conflicts of interest or describing existing conflicts of.
• Any “statements of difference” regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by 
funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team.
• Summary information about evaluation team members, including qualifications, experience, and 
role on the team.
CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT
Per ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final 
evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation 
report.8 
• Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to 
objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity. 
• Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, 
and succinctly. 
• The Executive Summary of an evaluation report should present a concise and accurate 
statement of the most critical elements of the report.
• Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or 
the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement 
with USAID. 
 
8 See ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements and the Evaluation Report Review 
Checklist from the Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance.
I. 9 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
• Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information properly 
identified. 
• Limitations to the evaluation should be adequately disclosed in the report, with particular 
attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall 
bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.).
• Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on 
anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. 
• Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or 
qualitative evidence.
• If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately 
assessed for both males and females. 
If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and 
should be action-oriented, practical, and specific.
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 10
A2. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS
Focus group with Green Charcoal retailers 
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Green 
charcoal for Haiti Activity. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during the one-hour meeting has great value and we would like the opinion of each 
of you 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 the “Chabon Boul” Project. With your permission,
we will take note of everything that was said during the meeting. We strongly wish that you attend the 
meeting. You just have to raise your hand. 
1. What do you know about the “Chabon Boul” project? 
2. How did you find out this information? 
3. How were you selected as retailers? Did you sell traditional charcoal before? 
4. How do you participate in the project? Which activities were implemented?
5. For the last six months have you noticed an increase or decrease in demands of Green 
Charcoal? Why? 
6. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
7. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 
8. Why would a customer choose to buy green charcoal instead of traditional charcoal?
9. What kind of training did you receive and how useful was that training? 
10. Overall, how satisfied are you with the sale of the Green Charcoal and what type of feedback do 
you have from customers? 
11. Considering your available funds, can you buy from the project factory any amount of Green 
Charcoal that you want to buy and at any time of the year?
12. Did you use a credit program to participate in the project? How easy is it to get credit?
13. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
I. 11 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
Key Informant Interview: Local rum distillers and Micro-Entrepreneur 
agricultural processors 
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Green 
charcoal for Haiti Activity. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during the 30 to 45 minutes meeting has great value and we would like the opinion 
of each of you 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 will be shared during the meeting. 
1. What do you know about the Green Charcoal for Haiti Activity? 
2. How did you find out this information? 
3. How were you selected as sugarcane bagasse provider? 
4. How do you participate in the project? (Meetings, trainings?) / Is the relationship with the 
project done individually or through any association? Please explain. 
5. To what extent can we say that sugarcane bagasse are available throughout the year?
6. To what extent are you / were you involved in the conversion of sugarcane bagasse into char? 
Tell us a little.
7. What unit of measure used to sell the sugarcane bagasse/char to the project? How much can a 
distillers or micro-entrepreneur sell on average per week / per month?
8. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
9. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 
10. What kind of training did you receive and how useful was that training? 
11. Overall, how satisfied are you with the sale of the sugarcane bagasse? 
12. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 12
Key Informant Interview with selected end users (informal roadside 
cooks, schools, organizations) 
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Green 
charcoal for Haiti Activity. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during the 30 to 45 minutes meeting has great value and we would like the opinion 
of each of you 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 will be shared during the meeting. 
1. What do you know about the Green Charcoal for Haiti Activity? 
2. How did you find out this information? 
3. How long has your institution used Green Charcoal? What prompted you to make the decision 
to use Green Charcoal?
4. In your opinion what worked very well with this initiative and what could be done better? 
5. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 
6. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Green Charcoal? ( Ease of use, duration, cooking results)
7. How do you compare Green Charcoal with traditional charcoal or any other charcoal on the 
market? 
8. Do you think that this activity will continue in the northern department? Why? If not, what 
should be done to make the production of green charcoal viable?
9. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
10. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes in your life? 
11. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the 
intervention? 
I. 13 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
Key Informant Interview with branded brick‐and‐mortar green 
charcoal boutique vendors
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Green 
charcoal for Haiti Activity. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during the 30 to 45 minutes meeting has great value and we would like the opinion 
of each of you 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 will be shared during the meeting. 
1. What do you know about the Green Charcoal for Haiti Activity? 
2. How did you find out this information? 
3. Do you have a boutique experience before joining the project? If so, what was this activity? Did 
you sell traditional charcoal before? 
4. What do you observe in the profile of users buying Green Charcoal in the Boutique? 
5. Do you have an agreement with CRH to sell the Green Charcoal? Please explain. 
6. Any specific thoughts/suggestions regarding the market of Charcoal and the project you 
could share with us. 
7. For the last six months have you noticed an increase or decrease in demands of Green 
Charcoal? Why? 
8. Have you been able to meet the demand for Green Charcoal throughout the year? 
9. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
10. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 
11. Why would a customer choose to buy green charcoal instead of traditional charcoal?
12. What kind of training did you receive and how useful was that training? 
13. Overall, how satisfied are you with the sale of the Green Charcoal and what type of feedback do 
you have from customers? 
14. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 14
Key Informant interview with CRH key personnel
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views about the “Chabon 
Boul” project. 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 
will be shared during the meeting. We strongly wish that you accept the interview. 
1. What were your roles and responsibilities in the “Chabon Boul” project? 
2. What are the main activities implemented by the project?
3. What results did the project achieve?
4. To what extent are the inputs needed for the charcoal production available on an ongoing basis?
5. How is the implementation of the “Chabon Boul” project? Biggest challenges? Opportunities? 
6. What has been done in terms of advertising? To what extent has it really helped?
7. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
8. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? (Probe for micro-entrepreneurs, staff, 
retailers, vendors, etc.)
9. To what extent have the grants helped to increase the production, distribution network and sale 
of Green charcoal?
10. Overall, how satisfied are you with the production and sale of Green Charcoal? 
11. According to you, why a user would choose to use Green Charcoal instead of traditional charcoal.
12. What measures are taken to ensure the sustainability/viability of production?
13. Why the choice of sugarcane bagasse? Do you plan to add agricultural waste? Why?
14. To what extent has the distribution network of the product changed over the past 12 months?
15. What are the key factors driving the Green Charcoal market and how did the project act on these 
factors? (What are the results on the number of potential buyers / the average quantity 
purchased / the change in the average purchase price).
16. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
17. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the intervention? 
I. 15 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
Key Informant interview with CRH personnel involved in the briquette 
production process 
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views about the “Chabon 
Boul” project. 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 
will be shared during the meeting. We strongly wish that you accept the interview. 
1. What are the main activities implemented by the project?
2. What results did the project achieve?
3. To what extent are the inputs needed for the charcoal production available on an ongoing basis?
4. What were your roles and responsibilities in the “Chabon Boul” production team? 
5. How is the production team organized? How many people are involved? Daily production 
capacity?
6. What worked very well?
7. What could be done better? 
8. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 
9. To what extent have the grants helped to increase the production, distribution network and sale 
of Green charcoal?
10. Overall, how satisfied are you with the production and sale of Green Charcoal? 
11. According to you, why a user would choose to use Green Charcoal instead of traditional charcoal.
12. What measures are taken to ensure the sustainability/viability of production?
13. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future?
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 16
Key Informant interview – USAID key personal 
Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Green 
charcoal for Haiti Activity. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future 
programming. 
All that will be said during the 30 to 45 minutes meeting has great value and we would like the opinion 
of each of you 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 will be shared during the meeting. 
1. To what extent was the design of the CRH based on a needs assessment and a context analysis? 
2. To what extent was the design of the CRH the most appropriate to meet the needs identified? 
(Alternative objectives?)
3. What kind of support did the USAID provide to CRH to help with the implementation of the 
“Chabon Boul” project?
4. What results were achieved? How satisfied are you with performance? 
5. What worked very well and what could be done better? 
6. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 
7. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the intervention? 
8. To what extent are the project results (impact if any, and outcomes) likely to continue after the 
project?
9. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future? 
I. 17 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
CHABON BOUL LEARNING EVENT QUESTIONNAIRE
General issues and communication
1. How clearly defined were the objectives for your work?
___very ____somewhat ___not very ___not at all
2. How clear were you on your role? 
___very ____somewhat ___not very ___not at all
3. How adequately involved did you feel in CRH decisions? 
___very ____somewhat ___not very ___not at all
4. If you did not feel involved, what decisions did you feel left out of?
5. How efficient and effective were project team meetings?
___very ____somewhat ___not very ___not at all
6. What changes would assist in speeding up in the future while increasing communication? 
Project/Activity Implementation
7. What organization, structural problems in general were encountered, and how could we have 
done better in these areas?
8. What was learned about the activity in general? Did the delivered Green Charcoal meet the 
specified requirements and goals of the project? 
9. What was learned about project management? Did the project management methodology work? 
If not, why not? 
10. What was learned about budgeting? Where costs budgets met? If not, why not? 
11. What was learned about procurement? Was the schedule met? If not, why not? 
12. What was learned about working with sponsors?
13. What was learned about working with customers? Was the customer satisfied with the green 
charcoal? If not, why not? 
14. What was learned about what went well? 
15. What was learned about what did not go well? 
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 18
16. What was learned about what needs to change?
17. How will/was this incorporated into project? What could be done to improve the process?
Closing
18. What were the main bottlenecks on the process?
19. What were the main sources of frustration in the project?
20. What surprises did the team handle during the project?
21. What project events were not anticipated? 
22. What should be done over or differently?
23. As the activity will continue, what is the one thing that you would change (related to process, 
not to technical solutions)?
I. 19 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
A3. INSTITUTIONS/PERSON INTERVIEWED 
DATA SOURCES 
INSTITUTIONS/GROUP NAME POSITION 
Sugarcane Bagasse Suppliers 1. Patrick Sainsurin Distilleries owner 
2. Jean-Claude Fontil Distilleries owner
3. Hervé Antoine Distilleries owner
4. Johnson Croissy Distilleries owner
5. Eddy Laguerre Distilleries owner
6. Lesly Laguerre Distilleries owner
“Chabon Boul” Vendors 1. Loudridge Léandre
2. Nadège Valerin
3. Guerlande Celestin
Religious institution “Stella Maris” 1. Sr. Myrlène Charlemagne Director
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 20
Nutritional center “Second Mile 
Haiti” /
1. Jennifer Schenk Second Mile Haiti director
2. Hérode Jean-Pierre Secon Mile Haiti Administrator 
3. Lujie Louis Second Mile Haiti Cook 
Informal Roadside Cooks 1. Nadege Celestin 
2. Marie Osane Mompremier
3. Anne Edmond 
CRH Personnel 1. Ryan Delanay Project Director 
2. Lesly Croissy Production manager 
3. Jacques Benjamin 
4. Anderson Pierre 
5. Bengonel Ambroise
6. Merlande Ifma
I. 21 | “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID.GOV
7. Yvanne Maxi Sales coordinator 
8. Rose Daphney Antoine 
9. Alexandre Anglade Sales manager 
USAID 1. Harry François COR Chabon Boul project 
performance evaluation 
2. Christine Musset COR Chabon Boul Project 
USAID.GOV “CHABON BOUL” PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 22
A4. SUMMARY OF PROJECT HISTORY 
PROJECT HISTORY 
INITIAL AWARD AND 
MODIFICATIONS DATE OF MODIFICATION PURPOSE OF MODIFICATIONS
Initial award June 1st, 2015 N/A
Modification 1 June 23, 2015 The purpose of this modification is to change the 
Agreement Officer’s Representative and update 
Milestone 2. 
Modification 2 September 1st, 2015 The purpose of this modification is to allow 
payments in US Dollars instead of payments in 
Gourdes, the local currency. 
Modification 3 July 19, 2016 The purpose of this modification is to revise the 
milestone schedule (make a re-arrangement of 
the completion dates of milestones but still in the 
range of 18 months of the initial project)
Modification 4 November 30, 2016 The purpose of this modification is to:
• Extend the completion date from 
December 1, 2016 to May 31, 2017
• Increase the total amount by $500000 
from $338000 to $838000
• Provide obligation amount of $500000. 
Therefore, increasing the total 
obligation from $338000 to $838000;
• Revised the milestone schedule;
• Revised the program description. 
Modification 5 March 10, 2017 The purpose of this modification is to revise the 
milestone
Modification 6 August 21, 2017 The purpose of this modification is to revise the 
milestone and extend the award through 
December 01, 2017.