HURRICANE GEORGES RECOVERY PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT Monitoring and Evaluation USAID/Haiti Contract No. 521-C-00-99-00069 Prepared By Harry Francois and David Dupras South-East Consortium for International Development For United States Agency for International Development Port-au-Prince, Haiti January 2002 This work was performed under USAID/Haiti Contract No. 521-C-00-99-00069. The views expressed herein are the views of the contractor and not necessarily those of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Table of Contents Page No. Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................i List of Acronyms ...............................................................................................................................ii Map of Haiti with targeted zones.......................................................................................................iii Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................iv I. Background A. Methodology ....................................................................................................................1 B. Evaluation of Project Progress.........................................................................................2 C. Lessons Learned...............................................................................................................7 D. Recommendations............................................................................................................14 II. Annexes A. Scope of Work ..........................................................................................................18 B. Resource Document List............................................................................................22 C. Persons Interviewed...................................................................................................25 D. Intervention Summary Table .....................................................................................30 E. HGRP Organizational Chart ......................................................................................34 F. Focus Group Summary ..............................................................................................35 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank a number of people who made the research and the production of this report possible in such a short time. Foremost among these are Eva Antoine, HGRP Program Assistant and Nina Minka, HGRP Program Manager of USAID/Haiti and Dan O’Neil, HGRP Director of PADF/Haiti. The majority of the documents we received came from their files and helpful hands. The team is also appreciative of the ideas and support received from Elzadia Washington, Chief, Economic Growth Office of USAID/Haiti and John Currelly, Country Representative for PADF/Haiti. January field interviews in Cayes-Jacmel with farmers from Cajeun and Lafond were greatly facilitated by Dr. Leger, PADF/PRIDE office in Jacmel. Thanks also go to contractors Jean￾Bertho Bonhomme and Marie Kethlie Thimoleon who conducted the Focus Group sessions with twelve groups of HGRP rural beneficiaries, approximately 120 people. The frank results of these discussions, combined with data collected during the final impact field survey, provided invaluable feedback which was essential in developing two sections of this report: “Lessons Learned” and “Recommendations.” HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID i List of Acronyms AASCOB Association des Agriculteurs de la Section Communale de Bois d'Orme AGPP Association des Groupements Paysans de Palmiste à Vin ART-LIM Communities of Artigue and Limé ATASE Association des Techniciens Aménagistes du Sud'Est ATRADEM Association des Travailleurs de Merceron CBO Community Based Organization CDRH Centre de Developpement des Ressources Humaines CECI Centre Canadien d'Etudes et de Coopération Int'l CHF Cooperative Housing Foundation CIAT Centro International de Agricultura Tropical CARITAS Caritas Diocesaine CODHA Conservasionistes d'Haiti COREM Comité de Relèvement de Muzac CRS Catholic Relief Services EG Economic Growth Office USAID/Haiti FAVA/CA Florida Association of VoluntaryAgencies for Carribean Action FEUCAJ Fédération des Usagers du Canal Jean David FPGD Fédération des Paysans de Gaillard pour le Développement G&P Private Construction Engineering firm GRASE Groupe de Recherche pour l'Avancement du Sud-Est HAP Hillside Agricultural Program HGRP Hurricane George Recovery Plan IAA Interagency Agreement IPDG Inite Peyizan Pou Developman Gaya IR Intermediate Results KODEL Komite de Developman de l'Environnement de Lafond KOMELAK Komite pou mete Lafond Kampe M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MACARY Community of Macary-Morill MODPA Mouvman Developman Peyizan Ansapit ORE Organization for the Rehabilitation of the Environment PADF Pan American Development Foundation PLAN Plan International PLUS Productive Land Use System PMP Performance Monitoring Plan SECID South-East Consortium for International Development TADI Techniciens Associés pour le Développement Intégré UJM Union des Jeunes de Mahotière USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA United States Department of Agriculture US FEMA United States Federal Emergency Management Agency HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID ii MAP OF HAITI – TARGETED ZONES Fondoire Road Parmiste-a-vin Dory Musa and Cyvadier Lavannea/lafon Mahotiere and Meyer Ka David Charettes and Cajeun Macary Bodarie and Thomazeau Road Despuzeau Irrigation Bel￾MapouBois Anse-a- Camp Perrin HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID iii Executive Summary Introduction The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) component of Hurricane Georges Recovery Program (HGRP) was designed to assist USAID/Haiti and implementing organizations by monitoring and evaluating HGRP activities and reporting results on the progress and impacts on beneficiaries. The South-East Consortium for International Development (SECID) was contracted by USAID/Haiti to provide independent and reliable M&E data on the progress of HGRP activities and the resulting impacts as well as to conduct a final evaluation report to USAID/Haiti and its HGRP implementing partners. SECID’s principal technical assistance activity was the collection, analysis and reporting of baseline, mid-term and final impact field survey data, collected through interviews with over 1,000 households in the HGRP target areas, to measure progress towards the achievement of HGRP objectives and targets. As a part of the evaluation process, SECID conducted Focus Group sessions with project participants obtaining and recording the views of representative beneficiaries from target communities on the impacts of HGRP activities. Due to a variety of factors, it was difficult for the team to evaluate the efforts of the U.S. Government Participating Agency Service and Interagency Agreements contractors: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Therefore, USAID/Haiti decided that the evaluation team would not include the HGRP activities of these three federal agencies in this report. Purpose This final evaluation reports on the results towards achieving HGRP objectives and targets and the impact of HGRP activities on rural residents, as ascertained through three field surveys of rural households, discussions with HGRP beneficiaries and implementing organization personnel and review of HGR Program reports. This evaluation report also presents lessons learned and recommendations for follow-up work in the Haitian rural sector. Summary of Achievements Overall, the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF), the prime grantee, and its partners overwhelming met the majority of the HGRP objectives and targets. See the Results Summary Chart in Table 1 on page 4 for a quick overview. Highlights of Lessons Learned ♦ The Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) laid out the general framework to design specific targets of program activities and to measure the impacts of these activities upon the HGRP affected population in both a qualitative and quantitative manner; HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID iv ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ USAID’s Cooperative Agreement with PADF required the submission of quarterly progress reports. PADF incorporated this concept into its own agreements with each of the grantees and contractors. This requirement reinforced accountability by each organization; Working with Community Based Organizations (CBOs) accelerated the extension of improved soil and water conservation measures to the communities as the CBO core staff already had a good degree of credibility in the community and were often already trained in most of the conservation measures; Strong and efficient Community Based Organizations have popular support and are better able to inform their communities of the benefits of improved seeds and soil and water conservation practices and can promote their adoption; and The “3-2-1 Formula” for community labor was a success in developing community spirit, teaching basic construction skills to rural men and women, adding money to CBO coffers, teaching NGO and CBO leaders principles of management, and encouraging a community spirit and self-reliance among participants. Highlights of Recommendations ™ The Performance Monitoring Plan was a useful tool for providing solid guidelines to assist HGRP implementation partners in establishing objectives and targets to quickly design their projects. The speed in which these rolling designs were begun greatly benefited from the PMP’s foundation. PMP should be used in future designs. ™ The utilization of locally based NGOs and contractors who were familiar with the Haitian rural sector and who were known to the populace encouraged a quicker start-up and a potential for longer lasting impacts. We recommend that USAID continue working with these responsive groups, building upon the human capacity already developed. ™ Through Focus Group sessions, Community Based Organizations reported misunderstandings of HGRP interventions. Evidently the information did not filter down to the communities. In future activities, NGOs should consider holding town meetings, convoked by CBO representatives, to clearly state the development activities to be undertaken and the roles to be played by both the NGO and the communities. ™ The creation of a network of non-governmental and private sector organizations, under the HGRP umbrella of contracts, each with its own specific targets to achieve, proved to be a very effective management tool. This type of arrangement should be continued. ™ Part of the popularity of this project was the integrated assistance to the HGRP beneficiaries. Where appropriate donors should continue using subsidized community labor to address the myriad needs of the rural population by using the sweat equity approach of the “3-2-1 Formula.” HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID v I. Background A. Methodology This is an unusual evaluation report as this is the first contract let by USAID, to the knowledge of the evaluation team members, to monitor and evaluate disaster relief activities by conducting field surveys of beneficiaries affected by disaster relief activities. The methodology used for this evaluation was not intended to independently verify the achievement of each program target or objective- that was done by technicians and engineers provided by USAID and the prime contractor, PADF, and was reviewed by both the RIG and GAO. This evaluation team used a combination of traditional and non-traditional activities to conduct its work, based upon a modified rapid rural appraisal approach. The team concentrated exclusively on field interviews and the review of technical and progress reporting of HGRP activities, and was not concerned with the financial drawdowns or expenditures of program funds. The evaluation team gathered quantitative and qualitative information for this report using a variety of resources. In order to obtain qualitative data on the impacts of project activities, the evaluation team used reports written by SECID personnel from two series of Focus Groups; these groups reported on direct interviews with project beneficiaries. The team also conducted a number of field visits to see the work done in Bodarie and Cayes-Jacmel, and to meet with participating NGO representatives and community beneficiaries. The questionnaires for the two series of Focus Groups were developed in conjunction with USAID/Haiti. Survey personnel completed the first Focus Group questionnaire forms in October 2000 during their field trips to conduct the mid-term impact survey. However, the information from these Focus Groups was critical of the project and is deemed by most HGRP partners as not being a reliable indicator or a representative sample of the popular sentiment towards HGRP activities by the target beneficiaries. After some discussions, the Focus Group methodology and questionnaires were changed. The second set of Focus Groups was conducted during July and August 2001, independent of any field impact surveys. Details of methodology used on these six Focus Groups are contained in the Final Focus Group Report; see the summary in Annex F. The results of these Focus Group sessions are considered by HGRP partners as being more representative. More traditionally, for quantitative information the evaluation team did a comprehensive review of project documentation to analyze information; see Annex B. Resource Documents for a comprehensive list of these documents. These documents were the technical and progress HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 1 reports written by PADF and their sub-contractors as well as the reports submitted by the three cooperating U.S. Government organizations. Additional information was obtained from a review of the SECID reports of the baseline survey and two field impact surveys. Finally, the evaluation team members interviewed officials and extension agents of NGO implementing partners to obtain their impressions on project progress and impediments, lessons learned and recommendations for future activities. B. Evaluation of Project Progress 1. Introduction After the initial stages of relief work in the aftermath of Hurricane George were underway, USAID/Haiti began designing a series of activities for Haiti’s recovery and rehabilitation that was called Operation Bounce Back and eventually Hurricane Georges Recovery Program. As a design and monitoring tool, USAID developed a Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP). The purpose of the PMP was to allow USAID/Haiti to measure the resiliency of communities to recover from the devastation and to reduce their vulnerabilities to future disasters. USAID/Haiti set forth a number of parameters by which to evaluate the resiliency. SECID’s M&E contract, including field impact surveys of rural households, and progress reports from PADF and other partners, were among these tools USAID would use to evaluate overall community resiliency. SECID relied heavily upon the PMP in the design and implementation of its monitoring and evaluation work. Through its Performance Monitoring Plan USAID/Haiti made the Special Objective: “Communities recover from Hurricane Georges.” Under this was included the Special Strategic Objective: “Number of communities more resilient to natural disaster.” To achieve these objectives would require a variety of activities ranging from the rehabilitation of physical structures damaged by Hurricane Georges to the human capacity development of rural and urban populations affected by the hurricane. There are four relevant Intermediate Results (IR) under this Strategic Objective the details of which are contained in the PMP. These I.R.s and the types of activities conducted under each I.R. are described briefly below to familiarize the reader. More details are contained in PADF’s final report. IR 2. Capacity for agricultural production is improved Improved seed production and distribution Increased in-country capacity to produce improved seeds Improved germplasm Farmer to farmer program HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 2 IR 3. Damaged infrastructure restored Schools repaired Roads rehabilitated Irrigation systems repaired Potable water systems repaired IR 4. Environmental impact of future natural disasters reduced Soil and water conservation projects IR 5. Local capacity to address mitigation & preparedness increased Public awareness Creation of local mitigation and preparedness committees Disaster management technical assistance Shelter study 2. The Roles of HGRP Partner Organizations There were five major implementing agreements issued and funded by USAID under HGRP: PADF, USACE, USDA, FEMA and SECID. Each of these agreements had a list of quantitative targets and objectives. The largest agreement was the Cooperative Agreement signed by USAID and PADF, valued at $8.48 million. PADF, in turn had over 20 agreements with local contractors and CBOs to implement more than 40 sub-projects to implement HGRP activities. [See the Intervention Summary Table in Annex D for a list of these organizations and the services they provided]. In addition, Participating Agency and Interagency Service Agreements were signed by USAID with USACE, USDA and FEMA. USAID/Haiti contracted SECID to conduct the monitoring and evaluation of HGRP activities. PADF The purpose of the Pan American Development Foundation’s Cooperative Agreement was to coordinate the majority of USAID’s Special Objective activities to assist the target population devastated by Hurricane Georges in 1998. In order to achieve the various targets and objectives, PADF negotiated agreements with international and domestic non-governmental groups as well as with private Haitian construction companies. PADF’s draft final report contains significant details of the nature of these agreements with over 40 organizations. For the sake of brevity, this evaluation will compare the overall progress made towards achievement of these quantifiable targets. Please see the information contained in Table 1. Results Chart (on the following page) to compare the levels of achievement towards these targets. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 3 USACE The purpose of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Participating Agency Service Agreement was to provide urgently needed support to HGRP implementing organizations through the preparation of various products including the development of a Geographic Information System, a series of watershed studies, road assessment reports, and a series of field manuals and training sessions to address needs for early warning emergency planning and damage assessment. In addition, USACE was to provide technical assistance to HGRP partners and to other organizations involved with watershed management and emergency response in both Haiti and the Dominican Republic. TABLE 1. SECID Final Evaluation Report Hurricane Georges Recovery Program Results Chart Monitoring and Evaluation Jan-02 Implementing Activity Goal or Achieved Percentage Organization Target PADF and Partners Production of improved commercial seeds- tons 715 708 99% Distribution of improved commercial seeds- tons 715 463 65% Stockpiling of basic seeds- tons 25 25 100% Families using improved seeds 15,000 41,000 273% Schools repaired or strengthened 24 25 104% Kilometers of road rehabilitation 12 22.2 185% Hectares of irrigated land rehabilitated 1700 3090 182% Kilometers of pipes restored￾potable water 27 36 133% Kilometers of ravine protected 80 85 106% Hectares of improved soil & water conservation land 900 1103 123% People trained in disaster preparedness 2440 >5000 >200% Communities with disaster plans in place 20 22 110% South-East Consortium for International Development Baseline Impact Field Survey￾Number of Households 1000 1079 108% Mid-term Impact Field Survey 1000 1074 107% Final Impact Field Survey 1000 1074 107% Note: Information on results was taken from each organization's final report, if available. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 4 USDA Under its Interagency Agreement (IAA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture was responsible for helping “to address immediate emergency watershed protection needs, help reclaim damaged agricultural land and increase local ability to mitigate future storm effects.” This IAA covered a number of countries in Central America and the Caribbean besides Haiti. In order to accomplish its work, USDA contracted with Catholic Relief Services, the U.S. Peace Corps and Comité de Relévement de Muzac (COREM), a local NGO. USFEMA The purpose of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Interagency Agreement was to provide “assistance for strengthening of regional and national emergency systems…to reduce their socio-economic vulnerability to future natural disasters and enhance their capabilities to respond effectively to natural disasters.” This IAA also covered a number of countries in Central America and the Caribbean besides Haiti. FEMA negotiated a Cooperative Agreement with PADF to provide services under the Project Impact initiative in Jacmel. SECID USAID/Haiti directly contracted with the South-East Consortium for International Development to provide monitoring and evaluation services to USAID and its partner organizations as a tool to measure progress towards achieving HGRP indicators. 3. Summary of Services Provided The preceding page contains the Results Chart that provides a schematic overview of quantifiable targets for all PADF/HGRP partners as a group, as well as the percentage of their levels of achievement. SECID’s field surveys and Focus Groups sessions were only conducted in the PADF Cooperative Agreement target areas; no M&E work was done in the areas serviced by the three U.S. government organizations. Therefore, this evaluation report does not include an evaluation of the activities and services provided by these USG agencies. PADF PADF provided the evaluation team with a comprehensive draft of their final report that contains details on the progress made by each of its grantees and contractors towards achieving its specific HGRP targets. It should be noted that all of the types of technical interventions in soil and water conservation measures and structures, from which targets were developed, were developed by predecessors projects funded by USAID during the past two decades most recently by the Productive Land Use Systems Project and continues through Hillside Agricultural Program. These measures include various ravine and soil conservation techniques and multiplication and planting of appropriate forage and tree seedling varieties, to mention a few. Structures include construction of rock walls, gully plugs and hedgerow, as examples. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 5 The overwhelming majority of PADF and its partners’ targets were achieved. The sole exception was in the delivery of Organization for the Rehabilitation of the Environment (ORE) produced commercial quality seeds to the target population. This is further discussed in detail in the final impact survey report and in the following sections of this report, “Lessons Learned” and “Recommendations.” SECID SECID’s field team conducted three field surveys- one baseline and two impact surveys. During each of these surveys over 1,000 heads-of-households were interviewed by 25 field agents during a one-month period. Each survey was conducted in Creole by one field agent and lasted approximately ninety minutes. Questionnaires were reviewed in the evenings by supervisors. If the data was incomplete the field agent returned to the farm to complete the questionnaire. Data was later input into computers for compilation and analysis. Efforts were made to interview the same households during the mid-term and final impact surveys. As a result over 90% of the same households were interviewed, permitting a more accurate impact measurement of HGRP activities on the rural households. More details of the methodology are contained in the final impact survey report. The data on the impacts of activities upon the targeted population obtained from these field survey reports was shared among PADF and its implementing partners allowing the organizations to make mid-course corrections, as needed. As a part of the qualitative aspect of the evaluation SECID conducted two series of Focus Groups. The first series was done in October 2000 during the second field impact survey. The resulting Focus Group report was not of the desired quality due primarily to inadequate training of the surveyors conducting the first Focus Group interviews. The second series of Focus Groups conducted in July and August 2001. The 2001 Focus Group sessions were considered to be more indicative of the views of rural residents affected by HGRP activities because of the methodology followed. Details of this methodology are contained in the Focus Group reports, but briefly, these last sessions differed in a number of ways from the early series. The sessions were held in small separate groups of men and women. Each group was composed of around ten people. Sessions were organized by community leaders and were held in a common community location, outside of the field impact surveys. Experienced, professional facilitators, not field surveyors, conducted the sessions. 4. Resiliency Evaluation USAID/Haiti is responsible for making the final determination of the resiliency of communities to recover from the devastation and to reduce vulnerabilities to future disasters, using the reports provided by the partner organizations as primary tools. Based upon the evaluation team members’ site visits, including discussions with HGRP beneficiaries during Focus Groups, and a comprehensive review of field impact survey reports and preliminary results reports presented by HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 6 HGRP partners, we conclude that nearly all of the communities in the target areas received the necessary tools to ensure that their communities can better resist future disasters. These “tools” include the implementation of an integrated package of activities such as income generation, infrastructure improvement and human capacity development, especially at the community based organizational level but also at the regional and national levels. C. Lessons Learned 1. General Program Design The critical element of the design was the incorporation of the Performance Monitoring Plan which set forth the overarching special objective of helping communities recover from the hurricane and reduce their vulnerability to future natural disasters. The PMP laid out the general framework to design specific targets against which to measure program activities. It also set forth tools to report on the impacts of these activities upon the HGRP affected population in both a qualitative and quantitative manner. The PMP design allowed flexibility as evidenced by changes made by USAID and PADF. For example, due to devaluation of the Haitian Gourde against the U.S. dollar, the resulting additional funds were used to rehabilitate the farm to market Cap Rouge road. Another important “lessons learned” of the program design was the utilization of an independent, impartial third party to monitor and evaluate disaster assistance program activities. Monitoring and evaluation of disaster assistance programs funded by USAID is traditionally done by the implementing organizations and is often done as an after thought as most NGOs are staffed with engineers and other types of technicians who are not trained in field survey techniques. Under Hurricane Georges Recovery Program, USAID/Haiti contracted with SECID to provide monitoring and evaluation services. This is the first time an independent M&E contract for field impact surveys was done on disaster rehabilitation work, to the knowledge of the evaluation team. The SECID M&E contract was an experiment whose purpose was to facilitate the work of the implementing organizations while providing USAID valuable qualitative and quantitative information. The ultimate aim, of course, was to improve project management and enhance and measure the impact of project activities upon the people whose lives were affected by the devastation caused by Hurricane Georges. Program Management The management of the HGR Program is a good “lesson learned.” HGRP’s success can largely be attributed to the creation and coordination of the umbrella program utilizing the local HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 7 expertise of multiple implementing organizations. By implementing HGRP as an umbrella program, PADF created a network of local non-governmental and private sector organizations, each of which had its own specific targets to achieve, and each of which was accountable for the impact of its activities. This type of management structure was essential, allowing PADF to oversee the administration of agreements with 22 organizations implementing over 40 sub￾projects, six series of training programs and three studies. Some contractors complained that PADF’s administration was “micro-managing” their agreements due to PADF’s insistence on regular reporting before additional funds could be disbursed. However, the evaluation team believes that as a result of this insistence, reports were submitted and projects were achieved in a timely manner. It would have been very difficult, for any one contractor to independently design and implement these activities, in such a limited time frame, within the two-year period. After the review of the results of the mid-term field impact survey, USAID/Haiti and PADF management recognized a short fall in the achievement of some targets. The managers agreed to place a greater emphasis upon seed production and distribution and emergency preparedness and passed along instructions to sub-contractors to better focus their efforts to improve project impact in these activities. Communications There were a variety of communications that allowed PADF and USAID to provide top quality project management. Some of these resulted in valuable “lessons learned:” ¾ USAID’s Cooperative Agreement with PADF required the submission of quarterly progress reports. PADF incorporated this concept into its own agreements from each of the partners, i.e., sub-grantees and sub-contractors. This requirement reinforced senses of accountability by each organization. ¾ PADF conducted regular partner’s meetings where information on each organization’s progress towards meeting its targets was freely shared, creating a sense of joint involvement in development and a spirit of competition while demonstrating the management concepts of transparency and accountability. ¾ Partner meetings also developed an espirit de corps, providing some of the indigenous organizations with an exposure to high quality project management and administration techniques. Focus Group sessions can provide reliable information on project impacts. There were a number of lessons learned after the first series of Focus Group sessions that were incorporated into the second series. SECID changed the methodology in four distinct ways for the second series: HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 8 1) Focus Group sessions were held independently from the field impact surveys; 2) all twelve sessions were conducted by an experienced, professional facilitator with a reporter taking notes; 3) male and female participants were interviewed in separate sessions in order to gather the broadest range of public opinion; and 4) the Focus Group team directed the sessions encouraging all participants to speak along the central themes of the questionnaires. The experienced female facilitator did an excellent job of encouraging reticent women to speak and was able to control the direction and flow of discussions in both male and female groups. 2. Intermediate Result 2- Capacity for Agricultural Production Improved As much of the farmers’ existing seed stock and planting materials were destroyed by the hurricane, HGRP introduced basic stock of commercial quality, higher yielding and more disease-resistant seed varieties through activities primarily overseen by ORE and Centro International de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). Improved seed production and distribution The mid-term field impact survey indicated that production of improved varieties of seeds by CIAT failed to meet demands for improved bean seeds and many HGRP participants were ignorant of ORE’s other varieties of improved seeds. This information allowed PADF and ORE to take corrective actions. PADF personnel admit that that their initial marketing program was weak as they assumed farmers already knew about the improved basic bean seed varieties. As a result of this survey data, PADF and ORE intensified their marketing information on the value of these improved commercial quality seed varieties. PADF and ORE hired staff to work with farmers and CBOs to increase knowledge of improved seeds, thereby increasing the demand for the improved varieties. PADF reports indicate that during the first year, ORE was unable to produce sufficient quantities of high quality basic bean seeds to meet farmer demands due primarily to unfavorable weather conditions that limited seed production. Therefore ORE was unable to meet its seed distribution targets for the first year. However, PADF/ORE was able to buy additional stocks of an improved bean variety for distribution to participating farmers, but still insufficient to meet demand or its target. With good weather and increased efforts, ORE was able to achieve its production target for bean seeds during the second year. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 9 Focus Group sessions revealed that the introduction of improved seeds was not readily adopted by the subsistence farming population as the small farmers have little margin for error and were not always convinced the new varieties would produce as well as their traditional seeds. Two groups of farmers in the irrigated perimeters in Cayes-Jacmel complained that the variety of corn seed made available by ORE was inappropriate for irrigated land, but was better suited for dry land agriculture. According to their reports, CIAT and ORE did conduct field trials throughout the HGRP area, but few trials were done in the irrigated zone, except for beans. The final field impact survey, indicated that the irrigated perimeter farmers preferred the improved bean varieties while corn and other improved ORE seeds were largely ignored. Based on field interviews, the evaluation team concluded that strong, demand-driven CBOs have popular support and are better able to inform their communities of the benefits of improved seeds and can promote their adoption. Also, farmers often do not use improved seeds, even with subsidized prices, because of the high costs associated with them, such as the use of pesticides, fertilizers and other inputs for optimum yield. Increased in-country capacity to produce improved seeds According to PADF and ORE reports, through HGRP support ORE purchased over $300,000 worth of agricultural equipment to improve its seed production capacity and increase overall quality of seeds produced. As a result, ORE was able to increase its production of improved commercial quality bean varieties to meet its total target by the end of the second season, even though it was under target for the first season. The seeds remaining at the end of the HGRP were turned over to ORE for sale and distribution for the 2002-planting season. CIAT provided technical assistance in training ORE staff and extension agents from a number of NGOs in a variety of ways to enhance both the human and technical capacity to conduct research and produce improved seed varieties. Improved germplasm Under HGRP, CIAT worked closely with ORE on improving germplasm for bean, corn, cassava and forage. Two new bean varieties have been developed and testing continues under HAP for new varieties for the other crops. Problems and successes were encountered with the trials on the other varieties. By the completion of HGRP, none of these varieties were deemed ready for multiplication and distribution. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 10 CIAT’s seminars and workshops in Colombia on germplasm research methodology was deemed beneficial by the attendees and will have a long lasting impact on the ORE staff who received the training. Farmer to Farmer Volunteers As Winrock International’s farmer-to-farmer volunteer program was late starting none of the field surveys or Focus Group sessions included questions on the impact made by these volunteers. A review of Winrock and PADF reports, however, indicate that the American volunteer farmers made a positive impact upon their Haitian counterparts as they were able to provide relevant, low-cost technical advice, thereby increasing incomes of the HGRP beneficiaries. 3. Intermediate Result 3- Damaged Infrastructures Restored and Intermediate Result 4- Environmental Impact of Future Natural Disasters Reduced The evaluation team combined these two IRs as the sub-project activities under them had many of the “lessons learned” in common. Chief among these common lessons learned was the employment of local labor to achieve project targets. The activities of these two IRs are grouped into the following categories: soil and water conservation measures, local employment and community service and infrastructure rehabilitation. Soil and Water Conservation Measures Fortunately the interventions utilized to stabilize the ravines, river banks and hillsides are widely known throughout Haiti thanks in large part to the rural development projects funded by USAID and a variety of other donors ranging from Agro-forestry Outreach Project in 1981 to the most recent contract, Hillside Agricultural Program. The variety of soil stabilizing species of grasses, trees and bushes were made available through existing nurseries created by these and similar projects. This existing information and existing plant varieties, produced and tested by years of applied research in Haiti, made these interventions available to HGRP partners in a timely manner. Wherever possible these soil and water conservation efforts were combined with infrastructure rehabilitation to reduce water erosion and magnify the impact upon protecting the targeted slope and nearby farms. Some poignant “lessons learned” for this category include: ¾ Working with community based organizations accelerated the extension of improved soil and water conservation measures to the beneficiaries as the CBO core staff already had a good HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 11 degree of credibility and rapport in the community and were often already trained in most of the infrastructure conservation measures; ¾ The availability of trained and experienced local technicians to demonstrate the construction of the soil and water conservation structures greatly facilitated extension to HGRP beneficiaries; ¾ The availability of adapted species of trees, forages and shrubs that have survived on Haitian slopes, protecting against erosion throughout the country, facilitated their rapid identification, multiplication, distribution and adoption by HGRP impacted residents; ¾ Through Focus Group sessions, the team learned that the inclusion of women into the construction of the soil and water conservation structures gave these women much needed cash, of which many do not normally have access. The experience also trained women in skills to protect their farms and communities, on a sustainable basis, and, enhanced their feelings of self-reliance and empowerment- that they can do things for themselves. Local employment and community service This was an experiment to promote a high level of community ownership of sub-projects dealing with both of these two IRs. It was called the “3-2-1 Formula.” Out of a six-day workweek contributed by participants, three days were paid in cash (at the Haitian minimum wage), two days were voluntary, and for one day, the cash wage was paid to the local community based organization. The results of this experiment or “lessons learned” were manifold: ¾ It put money into the pockets of some rural residents who did not otherwise have ready access to cash income- especially women; ¾ It provided income to some residents during times when no other source was available- many lost their small businesses or work opportunities due to infrastructure collapse caused by the hurricane’s devastation; ¾ By requiring voluntary work, it provided people in the rural communities a sense of pride for having provided a service for the common good; ¾ It provided cash to support and bolster the coffers of community-based organizations; ¾ The money provided prestige, and credibility to the community organization, helping to develop the leaders’ management capacities as they projected how best to use revenue; and HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 12 ¾ Local participation is enhanced when the community leaders have confidence that the CBO will use the resulting funds to address the needs of the community. Infrastructure Rehabilitation Activities in this category included rehabilitation of farm to market roads, schools, irrigation and potable water systems and ravine, riverbank and hillside protection interventions. For the most part work was done in combination with local construction contractors and community residents who worked under the “3-2-1 Formula.” For the schools, very little community labor was involved, much to the complaint of some beneficiaries, according to Focus Group sessions. Some “lessons learned from these activities include: ¾ Local communities are more likely to participate in infrastructure rehabilitation work when they are well informed about the nature of the sub-project, its strategy and the range of activities involved to achieve these results. Focus Group sessions results reported a number of misunderstandings by both CBO leaders and the community population, even though contracts were signed by the CBOs and implementing partners; ¾ Rehabilitating the schools increased civic pride and also provided a number of hurricane resistant shelters to the community; ¾ The rehabilitation of the irrigation systems permitted the farmers within their perimeters to resume or increase agricultural production, increasing their incomes; ¾ The soil and water conservation efforts downhill from the rehabilitated irrigation canals helped stabilize the slopes thereby reducing the impacts from sheet and rill erosion upon nearby farms; ¾ Repair to the potable water systems provided safer drinking water and a more central location for collection and distribution of water for drinking and washing and for watering livestock; ¾ The rehabilitation of the roads increased traffic, market access and trade, enhancing the mobility and revenue earning potentials of the beneficiaries; ¾ The construction of conservation measures and general rehabilitation of the hillsides, riverbanks and ravines reduced soil erosion, promoted soil and water conservation and increased farmer incomes by keeping or putting land back into production; and HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 13 ¾ All of the efforts that used local people taught the residents new construction related skills and gave them a sense of self-reliance and bolstered community spirit. 4. Intermediate Result 5- Local Capacity to Address Mitigation and Preparedness Increased Community Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation For a variety of reasons, activities for this intermediate result were slow in developing and reports on project achievements from USDA, USACE and FEMA are still pending. Due to the success in establishing the emergency preparedness committees and in the development of the disaster preparedness plans, USAID/Haiti designed a new project, PRIDE, to carry on with the education of disaster vulnerable communities throughout Haiti to better prepare for emergencies. Among the “lessons learned” include: ¾ The Florida Association of Voluntary Agencies for Caribbean Action (FAVA/CA) sub￾project got off to a slow start in part because the volunteers could not travel during hurricane season as their services might be needed at home in Florida. ¾ FEMA’s ability to negotiate a waiver from the U.S. Government to develop an agreement with the Government of Haiti was essential in achieving the level of local, regional and national coordination necessary to make a sustainable impact on developing contingency plans for disaster mitigation. D. Recommendations The team developed this list of recommendations based on HGRP’s successes and constraints. Many resulted from Focus Group sessions and interviews with rural household residents; some came from literature reviews and some from discussions with implementation partners. Program Design The Performance Monitoring Plan provided solid guidelines to assist HGRP implementation partners in establishing objectives and targets upon which to quickly design their projects. The speed in which HGRP activities begun reflect favorably upon the flexibility permitted by these PMP inspired rolling designs. This process should be continued in future designs where possible. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 14 The utilization of locally based NGOs and contractors who were familiar with the Haitian rural sector and who were known to the populace, encouraged a quicker start-up and a potential for longer lasting impacts. Wherever possible, USAID should continue working with and encouraging the development of these cooperating institutions. Program Management The creation of a network of non-governmental and private sector organizations, each with its own specific targets to achieve, created a sense of common commitment among NGOs, contractors and communities, magnifying the sense of purpose for HGRP activities. USAID and other donors should encourage this type of network. The requirement that each organization provide regular progress reports against specific targets was an excellent management tool as it made each organization accountable and exhibited transparency in management. This practice also developed good project management skills among NGOs, contractors and CBOs and should be encouraged as much as possible in future projects. Communications As stated above, regular progress reports from each of the partners accompanied by regular partner meetings during which information was freely shared should be encouraged on all development projects. Implementing organizations should improve their communications with communities. Focus Group session reports indicate there were occasions when local community members were not given adequate explanation of what the grantee or contractor expected to achieve in its implementation efforts, even though there were CBO signed contracts. Simple signed agreements between community leaders and implementing agencies should continue, accompanied by town hall type meetings with the communities to briefly review the objectives of the future development activities. Focus Group sessions can provide valuable qualitative measurement of the impact of activities upon the local population if a professional facilitator is used to moderate discussions and if the groups are separated by sex. It also helps to have a reporter to record highlights of the discussions. USAID should build upon the methodology and questionnaires developed through HGRP for future Focus Groups. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 15 Soil and Water Conservation Measures Good use was made of existing soil and water conservation information. Years of applied research in Haiti by numerous rural development projects funded by myriad donors made these interventions possible. This should continue under HAP, using the “3-2-1 Formula” where appropriate. HAP and other donor-funded projects would be wise to build upon the positive momentum and rejuvenated community spirits of the HGRP population by including them, in integrated rural development activities. Chief among these would be the integrated efforts to protect the slopes below soil and water conservation structures from erosion, such as planting forages, hedgerows, etc. below irrigation canals, roads, rock walls, etc. Production and dissemination of improved seeds and germplasm USAID should continue to support CIAT and ORE work to increase basic improved seed production and continue field trials for germplasm selection research. More on-farm trials should be done on varieties of seeds that would produce crops the farmers would consider worthwhile. Such local field trials, conducted after appropriate adaptive and tasting research, would better address farmer needs and better inform farmers of the benefits and risks of the new varieties. HAP and other donor-funded projects would do well to widely disseminate extension materials to subsistence farmers on the benefits of using disease-resistance, highly productive seeds and improved, low-cost cultivation techniques to increase farm revenue. Working together, ORE and HAP can increase the production and distribution of improved seed. Infrastructure Rehabilitation Part of the popularity of this project was the integrated assistance to HGRP beneficiaries. Integrated development activities addressing a range of constraints and impediments affecting the population have a compounded effect on the rural economy and should continue. For example: Farm to market road rehabilitation facilitates the marketing or rural produce and importation of inputs to increase productivity and incomes; Improved irrigation systems increases farm productivity and revenues; and, HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 16 Potable water system repair protect rural health and increase manpower productivity and revenue generation potential. Donors should continue using subsidized community labor to address the myriad needs of the rural population by using the sweat equity approach of the “3-2-1 Formula.” Other significant benefits of continuing this approach are the legitimacy and empowerment the funds give to the CBOs and the resulting management training to CBO leaders. With this recognition, the community holds the CBO leaders more accountable for their actions. Volunteer Programs Volunteer programs, such as farmer to farmer and FAVA/CA, should be continued, but with quicker start-up time, better reporting and with a wider scope. These programs have a great potential to provide leverage to development efforts for farmers, small businesses and trainees in disaster mitigation and prevention. Qualified volunteers with real world experience can at times better communicate with people in the developing world than short-term consultants. Often volunteers keep in touch with their “clients” long after consultants depart and projects terminate. Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation USAID and other donors should continue encouraging the capacity development and mobilization of CBOs using collaborative, indigenous NGOs to provide training in Creole. USAID and other donors should continue to encourage the formation, training and follow-up of local communities to design disaster contingency plans. Through PRIDE, USAID and FEMA can work together to better address the needs of the disaster vulnerable population in Haiti. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 17 II. Annexes A. Annex A: Scope of Work ANNEX A. Scope of Work FINAL EVALUATION OF HURRICANE GEORGES RECOVERY PROGRAM USAID Contract No. 521-C-00-99-00069 Introduction The Hurricane Georges Recovery Program (HGRP) is USAID/Haiti’s longer-term response to the damage caused by Hurricane Georges in Haiti. It is designed to help communities recover from the impact of the1998 hurricane and reduce their vulnerability to future natural disasters. The Pan American Development Foundation (PADF) is the lead HGRP implementing organization. Other partner organizations executing HGRP subprojects focusing on irrigation system rehabilitation, soil conservation, and the repair of potable water systems, schools and roads are Catholic Relief Service (CRS), Plan International, Winrock International, Cooperative Housing Foundation (CHF) and the Centre Canadien d’Etudes et Cooperation International (CECI). The Organization for the Rehabilitation of the Environment (ORE) with assistance provided by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) was to increase their current stock of improved basic and commercial seed, which was to be made available to HGRP participants at current market grain prices. A Haitian organization (Centre de Developpement des Ressources Humaines) specializing in community mobilization and training was to help increase local capacities to address disaster mitigation and preparedness. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Florida Association of Voluntary Agencies for Caribbean Action (FAVA/CA) was to provide technical assistance to the HGRP. SECID’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) component was designed to assist USAID/Haiti and implementing organizations with monitoring and evaluating HGRP progress and documenting results. SECID’s team was to provide valid and reliable M&E data on HGRP achievements and impacts as well as a final evaluation report to USAID/Haiti and its HGRP implementing partners. The principal technical assistance activity was the collection, analysis and reporting of baseline, mid-term and final impact field survey data to measure progress to the achievement of HGRP objectives and targets. The team also conducted twelve Focus Group sessions obtaining and recording the views of representative beneficiaries from six target communities on the impacts of HGRP activities. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 18 Purpose The final evaluation will report on the achievement of HGRP objectives and targets and short-, medium-, and long- term impacts; and, will present lessons learned and recommendations for follow-up work in the Haitian rural sector. Methodology The team will undertake the following steps in conducting the evaluation: 1. Review all design documents, agreements, reports, work plans and other documents related to HGRP. 2. Meet with representatives of all major implementing organizations and a sample of Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) helping with the delivery of HGRP assistance. 3. Visit selected HGRP target areas and consult with local groups and beneficiaries to determine if expected HGRP assistance was delivered as planned. 4. Develop a final summary report including a qualitative analysis of lessons learned and recommendations for follow-up. The report will include a table showing expected versus actual achievements. If practical, the final report will contain a section summarizing the findings of the M&E reports and collected data. Level of Effort The work will be conducted primarily in Haiti by a two-person team. The proposed level of effort is 22 person-days. Team Composition The team will be comprised of two experts in the fields of evaluation of rural development projects with in-depth familiarity with the Haitian rural sector. Both team members must be fluent in French and at least one must be fluent in Haitian Creole. One of the team members is expected to be SECID’s HGRP Coordinator. USAID will approve final selection of team members. Timing The team is expected to begin work in early January 2002 and to complete and submit the draft evaluation report to USAID before departing Haiti. USAID/Haiti will provide comments to the report within two weeks of receipt and SECID will incorporate these comments into the revision and submit the final report to USAID/Haiti before the end of January 2002. Literature Review Before arriving in Haiti, the team leader will have one workday to review a number of relevant documents, which will be provided sufficiently in advance. This literature review will include: • PADF HGRP Cooperative Agreement • SECID HGRP Monitoring and Evaluation Contract HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 19 • PADF, USACE, FEMA and USDA Proposal, workplans and Quarterly Progress Reports • PADF HGRP final report • All six SECID Focus Group Reports and Summary • All three SECID Impact Evaluation Reports • USAID/Haiti Sp09 PMP Additional documentation, including sub-agreements by implementing organizations, will be made available to the team upon arrival in Haiti. Logistical Support The team will be provided roundtrip airfare to Port-au-Prince and ground transportation in Haiti through SECID’s M&E HGRP contract. Under this contract SECID’s HGRP personnel will provide in-country office space, logistics and coordination. Illustrative Timetable The following timetable is proposed for January 2002: January 3 Flight to and arrival in Port-au-Prince January 4 Literature Review January 7 SOW discussions with USAID/Haiti; additional document review. January 8 Field visits and discussions with NGO partners January 14 Preliminary findings reported to USAID/Haiti January 15 Presentation of draft report to USAID/Haiti January 16 Team departure One additional person-day will be authorized for the team leader to respond to or incorporate USAID/Haiti comments on the draft report into the final evaluation report. Report Format The final evaluation report shall contain the following: a. Table of Contents and list of acronyms b. An executive summary, approximately two pages c. A narrative of the methodology used to conduct the evaluation d. A summary of Observations and “Lessons Learned” e. A summary of Recommendations f. A table depicting expected versus actual achievements. g. Annexes shall contain technical documents including a list of documents reviewed, a list of persons interviewed, site visits made, etc. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 20 Deliverables The final evaluation report, incorporating comments of USAID/Haiti, is due before the end of the extended contract, not later than January 31, 2002. Team Composition The two-person team provided as consultants by SECID shall be Harry Francois and David Dupras. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 21 B. Annex B: Resource Document List ANNEX B: Resource Document List FINAL EVALUATION OF HURRICANE GEORGES RECOVERY PROGRAM USAID Contract No. 521-C-00-99-00069 PADF-USAID HGRP Cooperative Agreement, September 1999 PADF HGRP Quarterly Progress Reports First Quarterly Report, January 2000 Second Quarterly Report, April 2000 Third Quarterly Report, July 2000 Fourth Quarterly Report, October 2000 Fifth Quarterly Report, February 2001 Sixth Quarterly Report, April 2001 Seventh Quarterly Report, July 2001 Eighth Quarterly Report, October 2001 PADF HGRP Second Work Plan, April 2000. PADF HGRP Partner’s Final Reports, multiple dates, 2001. PADF HGRP Draft Final Report, December 2001. Smucker, Glen R., Farm to Market: Conservation Farming In Haiti- An End of Project Report￾Productive Land Use Systems- PADF, August 2001. SECID. HGRP Impact Survey Reports August 2000. Baseline Report Mid-Term Report, December 2000 Final Report, December 2001 SECID. Evaluation Qualitative d l’Impact du Programme Cyclone Georges (Focus Group Reports), December 2001. SECID HGRP Monthly Progress Reports. SECID Final Report Productive Land Use Systems, May 2001. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 22 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Summary- Hurricanes Mitch & Georges and Colombian Earthquake Recovery Support, 23 July 1999. USACE-USAID, PASA 521-P-00-99-00078-00, September 1999 and amendment 1, June 8, 2001. USAID/Haiti HGRP Quarterly Reports First Quarter FY 2001 Second Quarter FY 2001 Third Quarter FY 2001 Fourth Quarter FY 2001 USAID Request for Applications, Hurricane Georges Recovery, Program, 1999. USAID. Operation Bounce Back. Hurricane Georges Recovery, Core Document. April, 1999. USAID/Haiti. USAID/Haiti SP09 Performance Monitoring Plan, December 2000. Results Tracking Table, January 2001. USAID. Hurricane Georges, September 22-23, 1998, Preliminary Damage Assessment. 1998. USAID/Haiti. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Action Memorandum- LAC Regional Hurricane Reconstruction (598-0865), undated. USDA- Hurricane Reconstruction Proposal, April 1999. USDA-USAID Interagency Agreement, Hurricane Reconstruction, Project Number 598-0865, September 1999. USDA Hurricane Reconstruction Work Plan for Haiti, July 2000. USDA Hurricane Reconstruction Year One Work Plan for Haiti, January 2000. USDA Hurricane Georges Recovery Program-Haiti Technical Assistant Visit Report, Roy Jemison, July 2000. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 23 USDA IAA Quarterly Reports April 2000 October 2000 July 2001 October 2001 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Operation Bounce Back Proposal, July 22, 1999. U.S. FEMA-USAID Interagency Agreement, 598-0862, Hurricane Reconstruction, September 29, 1999. U.S. FEMA Haiti Scope of Work, Second Year Work Plan, August 31, 2000. U.S. FEMA IAA Six-Month Report, April 2000 U.S. FEMA IAA Quarterly Reports December 1999 March 2000 September 2000 December 2000 March 2001 June 2001 September 2001 U.S. FEMA Republic of Haiti National Response Plan, December 2001. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 24 C. Annex C: Persons Interviewed ANNEX C. Persons Interviewed FINAL EVALUATION OF HURRICANE GEORGES RECOVERY PROGRAM USAID Contract No. 521-C-00-99-00069 Focus Group Participants Bodarie Carrefour de Beauge/Thomazeau Ka-David Lafond Meyer Palmiste-a-Vin Irrigation Water User Groups Bodarie Cajeun Lafond Gullermo Galvez, HGRP Coordinator, CIAT/Haiti John Currelly, Director, PADF/Haiti Zach Lea, HAP Marketing Coordinator, PADF/DAI/Haiti Dr. Leger, Director, PRIDE/PADF/Haiti Dan O’Neil, HGRP Program Director, PADF/Haiti Nina Minka, HGRP Project Manager, USAID/Haiti Alexander Newton, Deputy Director, USAID/Haiti Elzadia Washington, Director, Economic Growth, USAID/Haiti HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 25 HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 30 C. Annex D: Intervention Summary Table Jan-02 SECID Monitoring and Evaluation Final Report Implementing Community Based # Organization Partner Description/Location Results Unit Community Dépt. Irrigation Systems 1 PADF IPDG Cajeun 50 ha Cayes-Jacmel Sud-Est 2 CRS CARITAS Cavaillon, Bercy & Clonard 674 ha Cavaillon Sud 3 CECI ATASE Cyvadier--Meyer--Orangers 216 ha Jacmel Sud-Est 4 PADF TADI Despuzeau 1075 ha Ganthier Ouest 5 PADF MODPA La Saline (Anse-à-Pitres) 350 ha Anse-à-Pitres Sud-Est 6 CECI Sauvons Un Pays Lavaneau--Desmarathe--Blaise--Munitie 450 ha Jacmel Sud-Est 7 CECI FEUCAJ Ka David 375 ha Cayes Jacmel Sud-Est Potable Water Systems 1 CHF FPGD Charette 4.5 km Cayes Jacmel Sud-Est 2 CHF ART-LIM Artigue et Limè 9 km 3 PADF CARITAS Kakont 1.5 km Belle Anse Sud-Est 4 CHF MACARY Macary-Moril 5.3 km Marigot Sud-Est 5 CHF UJM Mahotières 5.2 km Cayes Jacmel Sud Est 6 Plan KOMELAK Lafond 5.1 km Jacmel Sud Est 7 CRS CARITAS Bodarie, Mare Mirande, Mapou 5 km Thiotte Sud-Est Road Rehabilitation 1 PADF G&P Jacmel - Cap Rouge Road 10.5 km 2 PADF ATRADEM/Nacose Carrefour Beaugé-Thomazeau Road 11.7 km Thomazeau Ouest # Implementing Organization Community Based Partner Description/Location Results Unit Community Dépt. School Rehabilitation 1 CHF Ecole Nationale de Bois d'Orme Thiotte Sud-Est 2 CHF Ecole Nationale de Bony Anse-à-Pitres Sud-Est 3 CHF Ecole Nationale de Grisgris Bainet Sud-Est 4 CHF Ecole Nationale de Cibao Belle Anse Sud-Est 5 CHF Lycée de Belle Anse Belle Anse Sud-Est 6 CHF Ecole Nationale de Nan Malgré Belle Anse Sud-Est 7 CHF Collège Notre Dame de l’Assomption Cayes Jacmel Sud-Est 8 PADF Ecole Nationale de Raymond Cayes Jacmel Sud-Est 9 Winrock Ecole de Grande Chasse Belle Fontaine Ouest 10 Winrock Ecole de Grande Savanne Belle Fontaine Ouest 11 CHF Centre Educatif de Furcy Furcy Ouest 12 CHF Ecole Nationale Exina Gilles Jacmel Sud-Est 13 CHF Nationale de Edesse Gousse Jacmel Sud-Est 14 CHF Ecole Nationale de Cabaret Jacmel Sud-Est 15 CHF Ecole nationale de Meyer Jacmel Sud-Est 16 CHF Ecole Nationale Charles Moravia Jacmel Sud-Est 17 CHF Ecole Nationale de Lafond Jacmel Sud-Est 18 PADF Ecole Celie Lamour de Jacmel Jacmel Sud-Est 19 CHF Ecole Nationale Sainte Rose de Dade La Vallée de Jacmel Sud-Est 20 CHF Ecole Nationale des Filles de Marigot Marigot Sud-Est 21 CHF Ecole Nationale de Garcons de Marigot Marigot Sud-Est 22 CHF Ecole Nationale de Thiotte Thiotte Sud-Est 23 CHF Ecole du Morne des Commissaires Thiotte Sud-Est 24 CHF Ecole Nationale de Bodarie Thiotte Sud-Est 25 CHF Ecole Communautaire Jean XXIII Thiotte Sud-Est HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 31 # Implementing Organization Community Based Partner Description/Location Results Unit Community Dépt. Soil & Water Conservation 1 PADF CARITAS Kakont 80 ha Bel-Air Sud-Est 2 CRS COREM Bahot-Musac 86 ha Musac Sud-Est 3 PADF CODHA Charettes/Cajeun 289 ha Charettes Sud-Est 4 Plan KODEL Lafond 149 ha Lafond Sud-Est 5 PADF GRASE Nan Plézi 132 ha Mapou Sud-Est 6 CRS AGPP Palmiste à Vin 114 ha Palmiste-a-vin Ouest 7 CRS AASCOB Ravine Matwala 48 ha Bodarie Sud-Est 8 CRS CARITAS Cavaillon - Bercy 204 ha Cavaillon Sud Acronyms AASCOB Association des Agriculteurs de la Section Communale de Bois d'Orme AGPP Association des Groupements Paysans de Palmiste à Vin ART-LIM Artigue and Limé Communities ATASE Association des Techniciens Aménagistes du Sud'Est ATRADEM Association des Travailleurs de Merceron CECI Centre Canadien d'Etudes et de Coopération Int'l CHF Cooperative Housing Foundation CARITAS Caritas Diocesaine CODHA Conservasionistes d'Haiti COREM Comité de Relèvement de Muzac CRS Catholic Relief Services FEUCAJ Fédération des Usagers du Canal Jean David FPGD Fédération des Paysans de Gaillard pour le Développement G&P Private Construction Engineering Firm HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 32 # Implementing Organization Community Based Partner Description/Location Results Unit Community Dépt. GRASE Groupe de Recherche pour l'Avancement du Sud￾Est IPDG Inite Peyizan Pou Devlopman Gaya KODEL Komite de Devlopman de l'Environnement de Lafond KOMELAK Komite pou mete Lafond Kampe MACARY Localité de Macary-Morill MODPA Mouvman Devlopman Peyizan Ansapit PADF Pan American Development Foundation PLAN Plan International TADI Techniciens Associés pour le Développement Intégré UJM Union des Jeunes de Mahotière HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 33 HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 34 PSC Program Manager US ACE PASA River Basn S i tudies et al Irrigation at Cajeun Soli & Water at Charettes Ir rgi ation at Anse a P tri e Road at Thomazeau Irrigation at Despuzeau Soli & Water at Ravine Bolivar Soil & Water at Belle Anse Road at Cap Rouge PADF CBOs Irrigation at Ka David Irrigation at Lavaneau Irrigaton a i t Civadier- Meyer CECI Potable W ater at LaFond S oli & W ater at LaFond Plan Potable Water at Mahotiere Potable Water at Macary Potable Water at L'Artigue Potable W ater at Charette S chools CHF Soil & Water at Musac Irrigaton at D i ory Soil & Water at Ravine Matwala Soil & Water at Palmist a Vin Potable Water in the SE Soil & Water at Dory CRS W nr i ock CDRH FAVA/CA ORE CIAT PADF Cooperative Agreement Overall Pr ogr am Management Merove & Pierre - KP MG Contr act Concurrent Au dit SECID Contr act Monitoring & Evaluation USAID E. Annex E: HGRP Organizational Chart E. Annex E: HGRP Organizational Chart F. Annex F: Focus Group Summary ANNEX F. Focus Group Summary Qualitative Impact Assessment of the Hurricane George Recovery Program (HGRP) Translation Overview The Hurricane Georges Recovery Program (HGRP) is an initiative of the United States American Agency for International Development (USAID/Haiti) which is a humanitarian response to the residents of southeastern Haiti, which were severely threatened by the effects of the Hurricane Georges in September 1998. The main objective of this program was to help the local population recover from the catastrophic effects of the hurricane and to reduce their vulnerability to future natural disasters. A series of activities were implemented to address these catastrophic effects through Hurricane Georges Recovery Program. The Pan American Development Foundation (PADF) had the major role of directing the disaster-assistance, working with partner organizations. Those activities included: 1) Making available for the farmers high quality seeds such as corn, sorghum, and beans); 2) Rehabilitation of irrigation systems and secondary roads destroyed by the hurricane; 3) Reconstruction of potable water systems; 4) Rehabilitation of school facilities; and, 5) Promotion of good agricultural practices and soil conservation techniques. While PADF was the chief implementation organization of HGRP, South East Consortium for International Development (SECID) was contracted to conduct the monitoring and evaluation of the impact of the activities. In this capacity, SECID conducted a baseline study in May 2000 in all the communities identified in the potential intervention area to measure the initial values of the indicators, which would serve as references. Then, a mid-term evaluation was carried out in November 2000, to measure the progress of this program in order to make recommendations that might help improving the program. In October 2001, the final impact evaluation was conducted in order to measure the progress achieved throughout the life of the activities by comparing the data collected in the two other previous studies. In addition, under its M&E contract, SECID will conduct the final evaluation of the HGRP program in January 2002. This final evaluation will report on the lessons learned from this program and will make recommendations that can guide future interventions of USAID. This qualitative study report on Focus Group sessions will serve as primary material for the final evaluation of the HGRP program, as a part of SECID’s monitoring and evaluation contract. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 35 Objectives This study intend to achieve multiple objectives including the following: • To evaluate the participation level of the participant communities in HGRP activities. The purpose is to determine the kind and the level to which the beneficiaries have contributed to program implementation. • To give an idea of the perception of the participants about the program and also their levels of satisfaction with HGRP activities. In other words, it is to determine the extent to which the interventions responded to the community needs or what could have been done to meet their expectations. • To determine the capacity of the participants to sustain HGRP interventions and be able to replicate when necessary. Methodology To determine the impact of the program in terms of the beneficiaries’ perception, SECID used the Focus Group methodology as the principal data collection tool. SECID created a three-person team to work with Focus Groups- a coordinator, a facilitator and a reporter. SECID conducted twelve sessions in six communities in five communes of the HGRP zone. For each site two focus group sessions were held with two groups, separated by gender-about ten women for one and about ten men for the other. Each Focus Group session lasted about two hours. The participants are all beneficiaries of the HGRP program and were members of local organizations, which were involved in the nine sub-project implementation activities. The coordinators of those local organizations with which SECID has planned the field activities implementation of this evaluation have done their selection independently. A total of 129 persons including 64 women and 65 men attended the 12 focus group sessions, which took place in the 6 selected sites. Selection of the Focus Group Sites The sites were selected in consultation with USAID and PADF from among those areas supported by the HGRP. A list of the sites selected is presented in the table on the following page. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 36 Types of intervention Sites (Localities) School facilit reconstruction Soil and water conservation Reconstruction of Potable water system Rehabilitation of irrigation system Road rehabilitation No of focus Group sessions Palmiste-à￾vin X 2 Ka David X 2 Lafond X X X 2 Meyer X 2 Bodarie X X 2 Carrefour Beaugé / Thomazeau X 2 Among the nine sub-projects, three of them have soil and water conservation interventions, two were concerned by school facilities rehabilitation, two others involved potable water system rehabilitation, one rehabilitated an irrigation system and the last provided support for a rural road rehabilitation. Principal Results Knowledge and General Perception of the Participants In its strategy to realize the HGRP project, PADF conducted preparatory meetings with the beneficiary population. The local associations were the direct representatives of PADF and its partners in designing and implementing activities. The majority of the Focus Group participants were aware of the sub-projects, the strategies and the planned activities before the project started on the field, except for the school facilities rehabilitation projects. According to the Focus Group participants, all types of interventions executed in this program were an appropriate response to the critical problems caused by Hurricane Georges. For a significant number of participants, the program had the advantage of being a job generation activity in an economical situation largely dominated by unemployment (Lafond) and an ecological context characterized by drought (Bodarie). HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 37 Community Participation In its execution strategy, PADF adopted a participation Formula known as 3-2-1. Based on this novel concept, a person who has worked during a six-day week receives cash for only three workdays. Two workdays are considered as his contribution to the community. The payment of the sixth day is dedicated to a community fund, managed by the local community-based association. Most of the Focus Group participants understood that their participation was essential to allow the community to benefit the HGRP activities. They understood that the Haitian government could not contribute financially to HGRP. Their community participation was a strategy to address this deficiency, giving the beneficiaries the opportunity to be more involved in the development activities of their communities. Therefore, the Focus Group participants saw the local support as a matter of self-respect and an expression of a kind of autonomy. When community-based associations are present and effective in achieving rehabilitation efforts, citizens are encouraged to maintain and protect the works to which they have contributed personally. However, when the associations are not known by the population and come from elsewhere to provide rehabilitation activities (as it is the case in Grase in Bodarie), the participants expressed a frustration based on their feeling of not having control of these activities. Generally, the participants felt very comfortable with the 3-2-1 participation strategy, however they suggested that the formula be modified. This modification could take the form of either a raise in the daily wage or an increase in the number of days participants are paid- an increase from three to four days (from 3-2-1 formula to 4-1-1). Satisfaction Level of the Participants Generally, the participants expressed their satisfaction with all the interventions of the program: rehabilitation of the potable water system, the farm to market road, and crop irrigation system, school reconstruction and soil and water conservation interventions. The HGRP activities and interventions allowed the communities to address some critical problems that the citizens couldn’t solve by their own means. A significant number of participants expressed their concern about the budget level, which they consider to have been too low in comparison to the large number of problems to be solved in the community. They thought that if the budget was larger the program could have addressed more critical problems and assisted a larger number of beneficiaries. Some Focus Group participants indicated that if the coordinators of the activities listened to the voice of the beneficiary population some errors that occurred in the conception and the execution of the project could have been avoided. HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 38 HGRP Final Impact Report/SECID 39 Maintenance and Replication of the Interventions The majority of the participants admit that the sustainability of the program interventions depend on the communities’ involvement in the management of the structures built through HGRP activities. The monitoring of physical structures, such as irrigation ditches and roads, must be an ongoing activity and all damages must be repaired in a timely manner. For some of the sub￾projects, some surveillance committees are already in place. Their members have already received the necessary maintenance training. Some sanctions are also in place and will be applied whenever the regulations are violated. For example, livestock raising is prohibited where the mechanical and biological structures serving as soil and water conservation practices are constructed. In violation of this regulation, an animal owner is liable to repair all damages caused by his animals. For the schools, parent participation is important to maintain the school in good condition. In the case of the irrigation system constructed, some management committees will be in place as well as an irrigation police. For the potable water systems, management and maintenance committees are formed. A significant number of Focus Group participants expressed their appreciation of the HGRP project contribution on civil protection subject in case of hurricane. In the intervention areas disaster preparedness committees have been formed and information has been disseminated. Many participants affirmed that the program allowed them to obtain simple information, which they ignored before, and which could be very useful in the event of another hurricane to protect their goods and lives. Conclusion On the basis of the discussion held in the focus group on the four subjects mentioned earlier, one can conclude that the program objectives have been generally achieved. The participants have clearly expressed their overall satisfaction with the results to the HGRP activities. The community participation component was considered a success and could be adapted either to the social and economical context, according to the nature of the project.