AGRICULTURAL RECOVERY IN THE COMMUNE OF GROS-MORNE 
ARTIBONITE DEPARTMENT, HAÏTI 
FINAL EVALUATION OF THE SYAP PROJECT 
CARE/Haiti 
FFP-A-00-09-00002 
Submitted November 2, 2009 
 
By Miranel PIERRE, Ing-Agr.- Consultant 
August 2009 
1 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................2
ACRONYMS.........................................................................................................3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................4
1. - INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................6
1.1 Project Overview.............................................................................................6
1.2 Objective of the Evaluation .............................................................................6
2.- METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................7
2.1 Approach ........................................................................................................7
2.2.1 Sample size of individual survey ..................................................................9
2.2 Survey Schedule.............................................................................................9
2.3.- Limitations of the Evaluation.......................................................................13
2.4.- Overview of the Commune of Gros Mornes................................................13
3. - PROJECTED RESULTS AND ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE....15
PROJECT ...........................................................................................................15
4.- PROJECT IMPACT .......................................................................................20
4.1. Seed distribution ..........................................................................................20
4.2.- Food-For-Work (FFW) ................................................................................21
4.3.- Rural Roads And Irrigation Systems Rehabilitation ....................................22
4.3.1. - Rural Roads............................................................................................22
4.3.2.- Irrigation Systems ...................................................................................22
4.4.- Soil Conservation Near The Rehabilitated Systems ...................................23
4.5.- Perception Of The Gros Morne Population Regarding The Impact Of The 
Systems Rehabilitated On Life Conditions Of The Population. ...........................23
4.6.- Potential efficiency of the local committees put in place within the 
communal structure and the KDSK.....................................................................23
4.7.- Environmental Impact .................................................................................24
4.8.- Issues to consider by an ONG regarding the involvement of the local and 
governmental entities during project implementation..........................................24
5.- Overall appreciation of project Relevancy, Effectiveness, and Sustainability25
5.1 Overall relevancy of the project.....................................................................25
5.2.- Effectiveness of the interventions ...............................................................26
6.- Sustainability..................................................................................................27
7.- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMANDATIONS.............................................28
7.1.- Overall appreciation of the project ..............................................................28
7.2.- Strengths ....................................................................................................28
7.3.- Weaknesses ...............................................................................................29
7.4.- Recommendations......................................................................................30
 
2 
ACRONYMS 
ADC : Agent de Développement Communautaire 
ASEC : Assemblée des Sections Communales 
BAC : Bureau Agricole Communal 
CASEC : Conseil d’Administration des Sections Communales 
DPC : Direction Protection Civile 
FFW : Food For Work 
IHSI : Institut Haïtien de Statistiques et d’Informatique 
KDSK : Komite Devlopman Seksyon Kominal 
KDK : Komite Devlopman Kominal 
MARNDR : Ministère de l’agriculture des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement 
 Rural 
MTPTC : Ministère des Travaux Publics des Transports et Communications 
OCDE :Organisation pour la Coopération et le Développement Economique 
SYAP : Single Year Activities Project 
3 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The Single Year Activity Program (SYAP) is a post-hurricane program funded by 
USAID in order to bring assistance to the populations affected by the devastating series 
of hurricanes that hit Haiti during the summer of 2008. Care-Haiti was one of the partners 
chosen by USAID to implement this activity in the commune of Gros-Morne in the 
Upper Artibonite department. The Care Haiti SYAP project started in October 2008 and 
ended in July 2009. The program aimed at reducing the food insecurity of the affected 
populations; rehabilitating the agricultural infrastructures destroyed by the hurricanes; 
supporting the creation and the training of six local committees which will ensure the 
sustainability of the program. 
The main objective of this evaluation was to collect and analyze relevant data in order to 
inform about the extent to which this SYAP program responded to the immediate needs 
of the populations affected by the hurricanes; to identify the challenges faced by the 
program in its implementation, and to develop lessons learned throughout the 
implementation that can help improving future similar emergency programs.
Overall, the evaluation analyzed the relevance of the program in addressing the needs 
created by the damages caused by the hurricanes in the commune of Gros-Morne, the 
effectiveness of the program implementation, the global impact of the program on the 
targeted population, and the sustainability of the structures rehabilitated. 
The followings are the main findings drawn upon the results of this evaluation : 
 
1. To some extent, the distribution of vegetable and beans seeds contributed to an 
increase in local production by allowing vulnerable farmers to get access to 
agricultural input who otherwise wouldn’t have any access to those inputs given 
their huge financial struggle. However, had the distribution done in a timely 
fashion, farmers would have taken better advantage of the higher productivity of 
their beans production. 
2. The food distribution through the food-for-work (FFW) interventions had a 
positive impact on the life condition of the project beneficiaries. Not only had the 
distribution reduced their food insecurity, but also the structures rehabilitated are 
very important for the community. Examples of such interventions include the 
rehabilitation of the Gros-Morne-Pilate road in the area of Boucan Richard; road 
rehabilitation and soil conservation interventions in Perou (8th section), Savanne 
Carree, Moulin, Corail, and Riviere Mancelle. In addition, through the program 6 
irrigation systems were rehabilitated in the community of Cirise (Riviere 
Mancelle) which will lead to a substantial increase in the agricultural production 
of the areas. 
4 
Interventions on the farm roads have allowed easy access of the agricultural 
production zones, and had also permitted the populations to move easily from one 
community to another. 
3. The local organizations Komite Devlopman Kominal ( KDK), and Komite 
Devlopman Seksyon Kominal( KDSK) created in 2004 are still weak and need 
more training and technical assistance. 
4. Although the representative of the central government at the local level have 
participated in the launching of the project and in the recruitment of the workers 
for the Food-for-Work activities, they complained that they weren’t sufficiently 
involved in the project and were not regularly informed about the project 
accomplishments. 
Based on the Information gathered through the interviews, the focus group discussions, 
and the sites observations, it’s fair to say that the project was very relevant and responded 
adequately to the needs of the targeted populations. The project was also effective in 
achieving to a large extent its objectives. Some impact of the project is already seen in 
the communities where was implemented. 
5 
1. - INTRODUCTION 
1.1 Project Overview 
The series of hurricanes that hit the country in the summer of 2008 had devastated many 
areas of the country and caused severe damages to the populations of the affected areas. 
In particular, hurricanes Hanna and Ike, had severely hit the Commune of Gros-Morne in 
the Artibonite department causing huge losses in materials and human lives. According to 
statistics released by the Direction de la Protection Civile (DPC) 4,202 families have 
registered losses due to the hurricanes. About 1,166 houses were destroyed and 3,036 
others were damaged. A vast majority of the agricultural infrastructure was damaged and 
crops that were ready for harvest were literally cleared away leading to an aggravation of 
the food insecurity in the area. In order to bring an appropriate response to that critical 
situation, USAID through its partner Care-Haiti has funded an emergency program that 
aimed at reducing food insecurity through the distribution of 17 metric tons of seed to 
allow farmers to get access to agricultural input that they wouldn’t be able to procure. 
Also, the program has distributed 870 metric tons of food using Food-For-Work 
interventions to clean a total of 15,000 linear meters of drainage canal, to rehabilitate 
irrigation systems damaged by the hurricanes, to rehabilitate 38 kilometers of farm roads. 
The project was also supposed to strengthen six(6) local committees which were 
supposed to take over the maintenance of the systems rehabilitated by the project after the 
end of the USAID funding. 
1.2 Objective of the Evaluation 
The primary objective of the evaluation was to investigate and inform on how well the 
SYAP project has addressed the issues mentioned above and to draw from the review of 
project related reports and other materials like field interviews, etc. “lessons learned” that 
can benefit future emergency projects. The evaluation was supposed to identify and 
analyze constraints and issues that will likely be encountered by future projects of this 
type and suggest ways in which these can be addressed. 
In general, the evaluation examine the project’s relevance in its response to the situation 
of the population of Gros Morne after the series of hurricanes that hit the area in the 
summer of 2008; the effectiveness with which the SYAP project was implemented; the 
impact of the interventions implemented on the targeted population; and the potential 
sustainability of the infrastructures rehabilitated. Specifically, the evaluation examines 
and reports on: 
• The impact of the bean and vegetable seed distributions. It was planned that 7 
tons of bean seed and 60 pounds of vegetable seed would be distributed to the 
more needy farmers in the affected areas; 
• The impact of food distributed through the FFW activities on the workers and 
their families; 
• The quantity and quality of roads and irrigation systems rehabilitated; 
6 
• The quantity and quality of soil conservation activities intended to protect the 
infrastructures rehabilitated; 
• The impact of the rehabilitation of the roads and irrigation systems on the 
population living in the surroundings of these infrastructures; 
• The impact of the rehabilitation work on the overall population of the commune 
of Gros-Morne; 
• The potential efficiency of the local repair management committees organized 
within communal structures (Marie, CASEC (Conseil d’Administration de la 
Section Communale) and KDSK (Konsey Developman Seksyon Kominal); 
• The constraints and issues that must be addressed when Non-Governmental 
Organization (NGO) must cooperatively implement a project which involves local 
and governmental authorities. 
2.- METHODOLOGY 
2.1 Approach 
The approach used in this external evaluation of the SYAP program implemented by 
Care-Haiti in Gros Morne consisted of the following steps: 
1. A three-day review of the SYAP project documents at the Care-Haiti central and 
regional offices in Port-au-Prince and in Gros-Morne. 
2. The design of survey instruments: individual survey questionnaires, and focus 
group discussion guides. 
3. Submission of survey instruments to Care-Haiti staff for approval 
4. Discussion with project stakeholders including Care-Haiti staff at central and 
regional level, project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, local authorities, local 
elected officials, civil society representatives(KSDSK), road users, non program 
beneficiaries, and representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture(MARNDR). 
5. Guided site visits of the SYAP project accomplishments with Care-Haiti staff. 
6. Recruitment and training of surveyors 
7. Eight days of field work data collection in 7 communal sections of Gros-Morne. 
(Survey covered all aspects of the SYAP projects implemented by Care-Haiti) 
8. Data cleaning and analysis 
7 
9. Summary of findings and drafting of preliminary and final reports. 
Overall, in all the communal sections of Gros Mornes the following survey activities 
were undertaken: 
- Four Care-Haiti employees were interviewed; 
- Eleven focus groups discussions were realized on topics related to road 
rehabilitation, irrigation systems rehabilitation, perception on Food-For￾Work, and Soil conservation; 
- Sixty beneficiaries of Food-For-Work activities and seed distribution were 
interviewed; 
- Six local committees (KDSK) were interviewed 
- Seven CASECs were interviewed 
- The BAC Director of Gros Morne was interviewed along with 15 
members of the civil society. 
- The Mayor of Gros Morne was interviewed. 
Table 1: Distribution of focus group discussions by communal 
Communal Number of Participants 
Section 
Focus Group 
Topic 
Meeting 
Location 
Date 
Men Women 
Rehabilitation of 
farm roads 
Boucan- Nan Fon 20-07-09 8 10 
Richard 
Beans and 
vegetables Seeds 
Boucan￾Richard 
24-07-09 8 4 
Irrigation 
Systems 
rehabilitation 
Rivière Cyrise 23-07-09 9 3 
Mancelle 
Soil 
Conservation 
Cyrise 23-07-09 7 5 
Rehabilitation of 
Farm roads 
Brutus 21-07-09 8 9 
Soil 
Conservation 
Brutus 21-07-09 7 5 
Pérou 
Food-For-Work Brutus 21-07-09 4 8 
8 
9 
Savane 
Carrée 
Rehabilitation of 
farm roads 
La Croix 
Biscaye 
22-07-09 7 7 
Moulin Rehabilitation of 
farm roads 
Nan Tach 24-07-09 10 5 
Rehabilitation of 
farm roads 
Pendu Bera 23-07-09 9 7 
Soil 
Conservation 
Pas 
Katabwa 
23-07-09 8 6 
Total 11 85 69 
2.2.1 Sample size of individual survey 
The computation of the sample size for the individual survey was based on the 
populations of beneficiaries by commune and sector of activities. Ten percent of the 
beneficiaries were randomly chosen for a total of 73 people. 15 people were added to take 
into account the non-responses and invalid questionnaires. In total 88 beneficiaries were 
interviewed. The table below gives the distribution of the number of questionnaires 
administered by communal section. 
Table 2 : Sample Distribution of Individual Survey 
Section Communale Zone Total 
Boucan-Richard Lehoux, Nan Fon, Mahotière, 
Monotte, Lon, Naza, Senak, 
Morne Sicot 
20 
Rivière Mancelle Cyrise, Bonpè, Fon Mas 14 
Savane Carrée Kayimit, Lachèn 15 
Pendu Bera 11 
Pérou Bas Pérou, Pérou 9 
Moulin Nan Tach 4 
2.2 Survey Schedule 
The evaluation took place over the period July 9 to July 28 2009. The table below gives 
the detailed schedule of the field work activities. 
 
Table 3 : Survey Schedule
Sector Description of Activities Time Date Responsible 
Arrival in Gros-Morne 
14h 19 July 2009
Evaluation team 
Guided visit of project accomplishments(Soil 
protection, drainage canals, roads 
rehabilitation) 
8h- 13h Evaluation team 
Discussion with Project staff 14h-16h Evaluation team 
 Process of SYAP Evaluation 16h15-17h 
20 July 2009 
Evaluation Team 
Leader 
AGRICULTURE 
Survey of seeds distribution beneficiaries in the 
project targeted areas. 9h-13h 
Group 1 and 2 of 
Seeds Beneficiaries evaluation team 
Focus group with seeds distribution 
beneficiaries 
14h-16h 
21 July 2009 
Evaluation team 
Survey of sample of Food-For-Work 
beneficiaries in the project targeted areas. 9h-13h 
FFW Evaluation team 
Focus group discussion with Food-For-Work 
beneficiaries 
14h-16h 22 July 2009 Evaluation team 
10 
Evaluation progress 
update 
Briefing with project staff on evaluation 
progress. 
16h45-17h Evaluation team 
Local committees and 
local authorities 
8h-13h 
Local coommittees Evaluation team 
Local authorities 
Civil society members 
local leaders 
Survey of six local committees 
Interview of Gros-Morne Mayors, CASECS, 
and ASECS. 
Key informant interview wiht local civil society 
members and local leaders. 
14h-17h 23 July 2009 Evaluation team 
INFRASTRUCTURES 
9h-14h 
Evaluation team 
- Rehabilitation of 
irrigation systems 
- Soil conservation 
- Roads rehabilitation 
Survey of each group of beneficiairies 
One Focus group discussion with all three 
groups of beneficiaries to dertermine the linkage 
between the different activities. 
15h-17h 24 July 2009 Evaluation team 
11 
12 
 MISCELLANEOUS 
- Truck drivers 
- Non bénéficiaires 
directs du projet 
Survey of truck drivers using the road network 
in the area 
Survey of a group of people who were not direct 
beneficiaries of the project 
8h-13h 
8h-15h 25 July 2009 Two groups of the 
evaluation team 
Additional interviews to complete field data as 
deem necessary by evaluation team 8h-15h 27 July 2009 
Evaluation team 
Others complementary 
information 
End of field work 
28 July 2009 
Evaluation team 
2.3.- Limitations of the Evaluation 
The methodology used in this evaluation allowed us to collect information on the main 
activities implemented by the project and to analyze the impact of those interventions. 
However, given the emergency nature of the program it’s not relevant to analyze its 
impact on the environment. Furthermore, the real impact of the project will be 
appreciated after the rainy season of September and October. 
2.4.- Overview of the Commune of Gros Mornes 
Given the topography of the commune of Gros Morne it falls under the Mountainous 
category. Its climate varies from cool to hot. 
Administratively, the commune of Gros Morne is divided into 8 communal sections. It is 
composed of 161 localities and 93 neighborhoods. The commune of Gros-morne is part 
of the Gros Morne arrondissement. It shares borders with the following communes: 1) at 
its north with the communes of Saint Louis du Nord, Borgne and Bassin Bleu; at its 
South with the communes of Gonaives, and Terre Neuve; at its east with the communes 
of Pilate, Borgne, and Gonaives; and at its West with the communes of Terre Neuve and 
Bassin bleu. 
Gros-Morne is one of the biggest communes of the country. Its population is estimated 
121,764 people of which 99 039 people live in the rural areas against 22,275 people 
living in the urban areas (cf. IHSI-2005). It is an important agricultural region. Its 
agricultural production is about 5% of the agricultural production of the country. 
Agricultural production is possible due to the presence of gravitational irrigation systems 
fed by many rivers crossing the commune that allow the production of different varieties 
of staple crops, fruits and vegetables. It is one of the important mangos producing regions 
for export purposes, and sugar-cane production and transformation. 
13 
14 
Gros Morne Map 
Table 4: Number of Communities and households in the Commune of Gros Morne 
Communal section Number of localities Number of 
Neighborhoods 
1st Section Boucan Richard 17 38 
2nd Section Rivière Mancelle 20 27 
3rd Section Rivière Blanche 15 7 
4th Section L'Acul 20 6 
5th Section Pendu 7 29 
6th Section Savane Carrée 10 15 
7th Section Moulin … … 22 
8th Section Ravine Gros-Morne 4 17 
Total 93 161 
Source : IHSI-2005 / Inventory of resources and potentialities of the communes. 
3. - PROJECTED RESULTS AND ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE 
 PROJECT 
 Table 5 summarizes the key accomplishments of the projects in comparison to the 
anticipated results. All the expected activities were implemented as planned with the 
exception of the finishing work of the road rehabilitation interventions which is not 
completed as previously planned. 
The amount of food and seeds was distributed to the beneficiaries as previously planned. 
No case of mismanagement of the distribution operations was reported to the evaluation 
team. The strategy used for the distribution was excellent and can be recommended for 
future similar activities. 
The members of the six (6) existing local committees (KDSK) created since 2004 wish to 
have more training and technical assistance. 
15 
Table 5 : Projected results versus accomplishments 
Objective Activities Projected 
results 
Actual Results Difference Explanations 
Road rehabilitation 38 km 38 km 0 Boucan-Richard, Pérou, Pendu, Savane Carrée, 
Rivière Mancelle, Corail. Although the reports 
confirm that those roads were completed, the 
beneficiaries complained about the finishing work of 
some of the roads rehabilitated by the project as of 
July 24, 2009. The evaluation team confirmed this 
fact with the field observations conducted in 
Boucan-Richard (retaining walls in Nan Fon, 
construction of rock walls and gabions in Lehoux). 
Canals drainage 15,000 linear 
meters. 
17,000 linear 
meters 
+2000 m.l. 
I) Ameliorate the impact of 
the cyclones thru the repair 
of 38 km of key farm to 
market roads and 15,000 
linear meters (lm) of 
irrigation system canals so 
that normal agricultural 
production can be restored 
Construction of 
irrigation intake in 
Fond Masse, right and 
left sides of Cyrise 
Grépin, Grand Croix 
6 6 0 As of July 24, 2009 the intakes were not 
functioning. In Rivière Mancelle, it wasn’t possible 
to verify the quality of the work undertaken. 
However, the representative of the agricultural 
bureau (BAC) of Gros-Morne, the local authorities, 
16 
members of the civil society, and project 
beneficiaries raised concerns about the technical 
quality of the structures put in place. They think that 
those structures can be easily damaged during the 
next overflow of the river. 
Conservation de sol 
Treatment of ravines 48 ravines 
. N/D 
. N/D 
. N/D 
. 
45 ravines : 
-69,486 linear 
meters of 
ravines 
-20,094.65 
cubic meters of 
gully plugs 
-22,920 linear 
meters of 
clayonnage or 
-7,073.74 
cubic meters of 
 -3 ravines Explanation given for this shortcoming are the 
followings: 
- Low level of qualification of human resources 
affected to this activity. In addition there was a 
lack of collaboration of the local authorities 
especially the CASEC of Perou with both the 
population and the SYAP project staff. 
- Tools were not available at the beginning of the 
project. 
- Bad weather conditions 
- Inefficacity of the monitoring system due to the 
unavailability of transportation means. 
In addition to those shortcomings, interventions in 
Moulin and Corail were not planned in the project 
proposal. 
17 
42,000 linear 
meters of grass 
bands 
10,767.9 linear 
meters of grass 
bands 
-31,232.1 
linear 
meters of 
Vegetable inputs were not available 
Distribution of 17 
metric tons of beans 
and vegetables 
1,753 farmers 
received in 
average 2.61 
marmites of 
beans each 
Although information is not available some farmers 
in Boucan-Richard testify that they have recieved 
tomato, green pepper, and hot pepper. Survey data 
are more certain accurate for beans. 
II) Reduce food insecurity 
thru one-time emergency 
food distributions and the 
distribution of bean and 
vegetable seeds (17 tons) 
for planting before the next 
planting season, and the use 
of Food for Work (FFW) 
{870 tons of Soy Fortified 
Bulgur (SFB). Lentils and 
cooking oil to 15,330 
workers that will repair this 
productive infrastructure 
Distribution of 866 
metric tons of fortified 
bulgur, lentils, and 
vegetable oil to 15,330 
workers. 
866 metric 
tons 
865.6 metric 
tons to 15,797 
Food-For-work 
workers. 
4.4 metric 
tons 
The expected quantity of food was distributed to the 
great satisfaction of the 78,985 beneficiaries, family 
members of the 15,797 workers who participated 
directly to the Food-for-Work activities. However, 
they hope for a variation in ration (substitution of 
lentil for pinto beans, and fortified bulgur for rice). 
III) Form and train 6 local 
committees to continue 
maintenance of the repaired 
roads and irrigation system. 
Also develop maintenance 
plans for these committees 
to follow 
Creation and training of 
six (6) local committees 
to ensure the 
maintenance of the 
irrigation systems and 
the roads rehabilitated 
by the project. 
6 The project has chosen to work with 6 existing 
committees instead of creating news ones. No 
systematic reinforcement work of the committees 
has been implemented by the project was noted 
during the project implementation. However, the 
leaders mentioned that the reinforcement took place 
through other projects implemented by CARE in the 
18 
19 
area. The KDSK of Rivière Mancelle confirmed that 
their group received training on various topics 
related to project management such as : project 
elaboration, organizational reinforcement, and book 
keeping techniques. 
4.- PROJECT IMPACT 
4.1. Seed distribution 
The bean seeds distribution didn’t have such an impact on agricultural production of the 
area. The seeds distribution satisfied only 23% of the seed needs of the farmers targeted 
by the project. 
While the beneficiaries complained about the inexistence of technical assistance in the 
monitoring of the planted lands, crops productivity remains marginal in the area (1,29 
marmite harvested for 1 marmite planted in 2008-2009 and 1,68 marmite harvested for 1 
marmite sewed in 2007-2008). 
65% of the beneficiaries expressed some sort of satisfaction regarding the quality of the 
seeds. The remaining 35% raised the following concerns: 
• Seeds distribution was too late; 
• The vegetative cycle of the new variety of seeds is longer than the local one: 105 
days for the imported one against 68 days for the local variety ; 
• The harvest period of the new variety was not uniform. 
Regarding the utilization of the harvest, one third is sold on the local market, and the 
remaining two thirds are either eaten by the farmers or kept as seeds. 
In the surveyed sample the quantity of seeds received by the beneficiaries was in average 
around 3 marmites in Savane Carrée and Rivière Mancelle, while it was 2.23 marmites in 
Boucan-Richard. 
The distribution of vegetable seed took place only in Boucan Richard through a 
partnership arrangement with a non-governmental organization entitled ‘’ Voisin 
Mondial’’(in English: world neighbor). Around 594 farmers among which 332 women 
received 60 pounds of vegetable seeds including tomato, hot pepper, spinach, and Swiss 
chard. As opposed to the beans for which farmers complained about losses of their 
harvests, the areas planted with vegetables during the farming season allowed the farmers 
to gain revenues estimated at two months of reserve. 
20 
In fact, distributions of such seeds allowed in the one hand to increase agricultural 
production in the area by exploiting hundreds unutilized plots and in the other hand to use 
the available amount for acquisition of other input and man-power. 
 4.2.- Food-For-Work (FFW) 
The food distribution component of the SYAP through the Food-for-Work strategy 
received high appreciation from the beneficiaries for the following reasons: 
• The beneficiaries were very satisfied with the payment system used by 
CARE during this difficult time. There were no discrepancies in the 
amount promised by CARE and the amount they actually received. 
However, in order to avoid the temptation to sell a portion of the food 
received, they wish that part of the payment could be done in cash. 
• There was no complaint regarding digestive troubles that was caused by 
the consumption of the food distributed. The quality of the products was 
not a matter of concern for the beneficiaries. However, according to the 
results of the survey 55% of the people interviewed wish a substitution of 
the fortified bulgur for rice and the lentils for pinto beans, two products 
imported from the US. 
• By making available on the local market 870 metric tons of fortified 
bulgur, lentils, and vegetable oil, this project helped maintaining a stability 
and played a stabilizing role in the price of the agricultural products in the 
area. 
• In addition, this intervention set the stage for a sustained improvement of 
the agricultural activities by compensating the loss of assets of the 
farmers. The out-of-Pocket resources that could be allocated to the 
acquisition of food products by households during this particular time 
were converted to investment in agricultural production. 
• Finally, this intervention contributed to the reduction of social tensions 
that could arise due to lack of food. The members of the CASEC of 
21 
Riviere Mancelle admitted that they observed a decrease in the number 
cases of conflict in the area during the intervention period. 
• Some people who didn’t participate in the project complained that in spite 
of their poor economic and social conditions they didn’t take part in the 
project because of favoritism observed during the recruitment process. 
4.3.- Rural Roads And Irrigation Systems Rehabilitation 
The focus group discussions and the individual surveys allowed the evaluation 
team to identify the following elements related to the impact of the project 
relative to each intervention: 
4.3.1. - Rural Roads 
Following the damages caused by the passage of the hurricanes on the road 
network in the area, the intervention of CARE through the SYAP project 
contributed to improve traffic on the targeted roads and the commerce of 
agricultural products in particular the “Madame Francisque” mango. Therefore, 
the first economic impact was an increase in mango revenues. 
Furthermore, the rehabilitation of the roads allowed not only commercial 
exchanges between the communes of Gros-Morne and Piltate but also, improved 
traffic conditions for other users of the road such as school children and sick 
people. 
In particular Truck drivers, and truck owners as well as motorcycle drivers, 
appreciated this work greatly and testified that their expenses in spare parts are 
significantly reduced. 
4.3.2.- Irrigation Systems 
At the moment of the field observations on July 24 2009, the intakes rehabilitated by 
the project were not yet operational. It was too early to appreciate the positive impact 
of this intervention. 
22 
4.4.- Soil Conservation Near The Rehabilitated Systems 
The rock walls put in place in the ravines crossing the road Gros Morne - Pilate (at 
Boucan Richard) contributed to the protection of the roads which were severely tested by 
the recent rains as well as the protection of the garden located in the downstream of the 
structures. This observation is also valid for the structures erected in the Perou area 
located in the 8th communal section of Gros-Morne. 
In the area of Rivière Mancelle, beneficiaries and local authorities revealed their concern 
that the protecting structure erected in the watersheds of this river will not contribute to 
the protection of the six intakes because nothing was done in the river banks. 
4.5.- Perception Of The Gros Morne Population Regarding The Impact Of The 
Systems Rehabilitated On Life Conditions Of The Population.
According to the data collected through the individual interviews and the focus group 
discussions, the rehabilitation work undertaken by the project has permitted to: 
• Improve traffic between the following communal sections: Savanne carrée, 
Boucan Richard, Ravine Gros-Morne, Pendu, Moulin, and Corail. 
• Re-establish inter-communal communication. 
• Improve commercial exchanges between neighboring communes thus allowing 
better availability of agricultural products on the local market which in turns 
induced a reduction in food prices 
4.6.- Potential efficiency of the local committees put in place within the communal 
structure and the KDSK 
Instead of creating new committees, the project chose to work with six existing 
committees created since 2004. The rationale not to create new committee corresponded 
to the urgency to reinforce the capacity of the elected local authorities in order for them 
to contribute effectively to the project implementation. However, according to some 
committee members interviewed through the focus groups their participation was limited 
only to the recruitment of the workers. They complained that they weren’t consulted in 
the design phase of the project. To some extent, they didn’t receive enough training in 
order to be prepared to play the role set forth by the project proposal which consisted of 
23 
ensuring the monitoring and the maintenance of the structures put in place(roads and 
irrigation systems) . 
The training sessions conducted by CARE which benefited 60% of the committees on 
project design, institutional reinforcement, and bookkeeping didn’t have the expected 
results. 
The strong leadership of the KDSK Coordinator allowed this structure to separate itself 
from the rest of the committees. No concrete accomplishment was mentioned. However, 
in addition to this emergency project CARE has other projects with bigger funding 
stream that can continue to work with the committees in order to give them the necessary 
organizational reinforcement capacity. 
4.7.- Environmental Impact 
The activities implemented by the project with regard to soil conservation contributed to 
the protection of the environment. In addition, the commodities distributed to the 
beneficiaries through the FFW interventions allowed a diminution of the deforestation 
that could have taken place after such disaster when people are looking for alternative 
ways to guarantee their subsistence after loosing all their assets. 
 
4.8.- Issues to consider by an ONG regarding the involvement of the local and 
governmental entities during project implementation. 
The following are elements to consider with respect to the involvement of the local 
government entities in project implementation: 
• Formal involvement of the central government representative through the 
signature of a formal contract in which the role of all project stakeholders is 
clearly defined which also indicates the nature of the contribution to be provided 
“Direction Departmentale” will provide. 
• Weakness of legal provisions regarding the management of natural resources 
which doen’t facilitate the effective coordination between the local branches of 
the central governement entities (MARNDR, MTPTC, MDE), the local elected 
offcials, (Mairie, CASEC), the community-based organizations and the non￾governmental organizations working in the same area. 
24 
• Regular coordination meeting at the field level between all the actors involved in 
the project. 
• Provide necessary transport means to the related structures to facilitate the 
monitoring of the project activities. 
• Consultation with the local authorities especially the CASECs with whom the 
community has regular interactions. 
• Permanent dialogue between the CASECs and the departmental direction. 
• Use of governmental expertise to facilitate training conducted by the NGO. 
5.- Overall appreciation of project Relevancy, Effectiveness, and Sustainability 
 
5.1 Overall relevancy of the project 
 
According to the Organization for Cooperation and Economic Development (OCDE), the 
relevancy of a development activity is defined as the extent to which the objectives of 
this activity not only respond to the expectations of the beneficiaries, but also fit in the 
overall priorities of a country or a community, and at the same time respect the policies 
of the partners and the donors involved. It has to do to with whether or not the objectives 
of this activity as designed in the project proposal document are still appropriate during 
project implementation. 
The data collected through the focus group discussions with all the project stakeholders 
allowed us to confirm that the project was relevant at different regards. 
 
The participants of the focus groups think that the project was justified by the fact that 
the populations of all the communal sections of Gros-Morne were affected by the last 
hurricanes. The activities undertaken in the context of the project such as the Food-for￾Work interventions, and the seeds distribution responded to the needs of the direct 
beneficiaries. Other activities like the farm to market roads rehabilitation benefited the 
whole population of the area. 
The project allowed the improvement of critical productive infrastructures of the area 
such as farm to market roads, and irrigation systems. It also provided the communities 
with appropriate tools that will help them to maintain the structures put in place. It’s 
important to note that some interventions on the farm to market roads connecting Gros￾Morne and Pilate in the area of Boucan-Richard were undertaken by the Coordinator of 
the CASEC even before the implementation of the SYAP project. This initiative is a good 
example of community involvement which should be used as case study to motivate other 
communities to get engaged in the maintenance of the systems put in place after the end 
25 
of the project. 
The project has reached a large number of beneficiaries. 
- All sectors of the population, workers, truck drivers, sellers benefited from the project 
in one way or another. 
 Conclusions on the project relevancy 
 Based on all the considerations made above, it’s fair to say that the project was very 
relevant because its objectives meet the needs of the populations. The populations of all 
the communal sections who benefited from the project are very appreciative of the results 
of the project. They were waiting for such an intervention and they provided their own 
contribution to its implementation. For example, in Rivière Mancelle they provided in￾kind contribution in the form of free labor in order to clean the irrigation canals. All this 
confirms the relevancy of the SYAP project implemented by CARE in the Gros-Morne 
area. 
5.2.- Effectiveness of the interventions 
Effectiveness is defined by OCDE as the measure according to which the objectives of 
project are achieved or are being achieved relative to their importance. 
According to the results of this evaluation the objectives of the project were achieved to a 
large extent. However, although the main objective of the project was achieved, the 
beneficiaries raised concerns regarding some aspects of the project that were not 
satisfactory. The followings are examples of such concerns: 
• Some beneficiaries complained about the lack of information about the project 
interventions. 
• The seeds distribution for example has had some weaknesses in the planning 
phase due to the fact that the quantity distributed didn’t correspond to the farmers 
needs. All categories of farmers received the same quantity of 2.62 marmites of 
beans seed. 
• It could be important to do a better targeting of the ravines for the soil 
conservation activities. 
• The farmers complained about the fact that no technicians were available to assist 
them with the hill side interventions. 
Furthermore, it has come to our attention that no monitoring system was put in place to 
support the coordination of the project. 
26 
Conclusions on the project effectiveness 
To the view of the evaluation team the project was effective by the fact that it achieved 
its objectives to a large extent. Based on our observations and the testimonies of the 
beneficiaries the project has a tangible impact on the community. However, we have to 
note that some structures remained uncomplet (for example in Boucan Richard the 
retaining walls are not finished. The same observation was made regarding some concrete 
paving work on the road of Pendu and Moulin). 
Overall, the evaluation showed that the activities of the project were accomplished in 
spite of some delays registered at the planning phase. These delays caused a rush during 
the last months of the project. The causes of these delays are three-fold : 
1. A limited supply market which took too long to deliver the orders; 
2. A serious logistic problem which handicapped the field visits. 
3. Admistrative procedures unadapted to an emergency project. 
In spite of these shortcomings, the project brought many positive benefits for the targeted 
populations who were very appreciative of those interventions. 
6.- Sustainability 
The sustainability analysis aims at assessing whether or not the activities implemented 
will be able to continue over time in order to estimate the probability that they will be 
maintained when the external funding ends. 
The technical viability is a challenge. In fact, the evaluation team didn’t see any evidence 
that the beneficiaries received some sort of training that would improve their way of 
doing things. Neither were they being taught new skills to improve their capacity to 
manage food distribution activities or irrigation systems. 
To some extent, in spite of the provision of iron bars in Corail to fix a portion of the road 
by the CASEC of Gros-Morne-Pilate in the area of Boucan Richard, no other convincing 
elements were found that assure that the infrastructures will be maintained after the end 
of the project. All the CASEC are complaining about the lack of resources. 
Although the interventions were effective, their replication, which is one aspect of the 
sustainability criteria, is not guaranteed. The activities implemented were routine 
activities for which no original strategy was identified. Moreover, the resources to be 
mobilized are such that those activities are isolated and not replicable. 
However, the infrastructures put in place such as irrigation intake, retaining walls, 
gabions, rock walls, are sustainable. All the members of the KDSK and the beneficiaries 
are aware that the area is vulnerable and therefore it’s necessary that permanent structures 
are put in place to maintain the infrastructures at the end of the project. In this sense the 
27 
KDSK, and the KDK are more or less permanent structures if reinforced and equipped 
are able to play that role. 
 
In addition, the fact that those structures are coordinated by representatives of permanent 
entities such Marie and CASEC is a guarantee that if they are supported they will be able 
to ensure the maintenance of those infrastructures. 
However, no exit strategy was communicated to the evaluation team by the staff of the 
project. The evaluation team visited some completed projects for which the finishing 
work is questionable. Such action plan if existed would involve the structures indicated 
above and will allow them to be immediately functional. 
7.- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMANDATIONS 
7.1.- Overall appreciation of the project 
This project, which was an emergency post-hurricane intervention aimed at reducing food 
insecurity through a series of activities such as food and seeds distribution, rehabilitation 
of farm to market roads, and the cleaning of irrigation canals. In addition, it was supposed 
to provide training and institutional capacity reinforcement to six established committees 
who should be responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructure work when the 
project ends. The targeted communal sections are highly vulnerable, and have a lot of 
urgent needs. Hence, the project was much appreciated. The beneficiaries think that the 
activities undertaken by the project were important for them and have contributed and 
will contribute to save people lives and physical assets. However, when it comes to the 
needs of the targeted localities, the targeted populations had higher expectations and feel 
that the project shouldn’t stop. 
7.2.- Strengths 
- Good targeting of the interventions, (food and seeds distribution, Food-for-Work 
and roads rehabilitation). 
- Good support of the local authorities 
- Mobilization of the KDSK and the population 
- Valorization of the commitment of elected local authorities (CASEC of Boucan 
Richard par exemple) 
- Diversity of beneficiaries 
- Solidarity with the victims of the 2008 series of hurricanes. 
- Relevancy 
- Effectiveness 
- Gender equity 
Even though the selection criteria used for workers recruitment were not well defined by 
the field staff during the interviews it was possible to observe some gender consideration 
28 
through the male/female participation ratio. For example, 56% of the beneficiaries of the 
seeds distribution were female. However, some workers opposed the presence of women 
in some difficult activities like soil conservation and roads rehabilitation. It was reported 
that the women participated courageously to the food unloading operations. Human right 
was respected in the project implementation and workers were selected without any 
discrimination. The individual interviews and the focus group discussions, revealed that 
the behavior of the project technical staff was exemplary in regards to the respect of the 
rules of conduct and mutual respect of the beneficiaries and the population as a whole. 
According to the beneficiaries of the road rehabilitation activities (in Boucan Richard, 
Pendu, Savane Carrée et Moulin), the project targeted the most critical problem which is 
the access to those localities which allowr an increase of economic activities. 
 
7.3.- Weaknesses 
 
- No formal involvement of the local branches of the central government in spite of 
the memorandum of understanding signed with the Ministry of public works 
(MTPTC). Lack of collaboration with those entities (which also include the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Environment). 
- No regular information meeting to discuss the progress of the project with all the 
actors involved. 
- Administrative and financial management (procedures not adapted to an 
emergency project, tools and cement were not available on time) 
- Lack of project visibility due to internal limitations (lack of human, material, and 
financial resources) 
- Some interventions are not completely finished even after the completion date of 
all the activities. 
- Lack of consultation of the CASECs leading to their limited participation in the 
project. 
- Unbalance of rights and taks of the workers in spite of the formal commitment 
made at the beginning of the project. 
- The road rehabilitation activities were unfortunately implemented during the rainy 
season. 
- Inadequacy between agricultural activities and bean seeds distribution. 
Although the MTPTC signed a contract with CARE to intervene with heavy equipment in 
the 8th communal section of Ravine Gros-Morne in order to enlarge the width of the road 
in Perou, they didn’t follow through with their commitment. As well, the Ministry of 
Environment could use their local arm in Gonaives to integrate their environmental 
protection policy into the project.. 
The local elected officials complain about the lack of communication observed during the 
implementation of the project. They wish they had regular information on the project 
advancement. 
No mid-term evaluation was conducted in order to adjust project interventions according 
29 
30 
to prior lessons learned. 
7.4.- Recommendations 
Based on the results of this evaluation and the conclusions drawn upon them the 
following recommendations can be made: 
• Integrate all the actors of the project since the design phase. 
• Elaborate a sensitization campaign and mobilization of the population around the 
field partners, launching workshops, project progress meetings. 
• Continue to participate in the consultation forum established in the area with all 
the development actors particularly the local branches of the central government 
and territorial collectivities (consultation round table for example). 
• Realize a mid-term assessment with all the actors and beneficiaries of the project. 
This exercise would allow the project managers to complete the information 
available in the reports in order to make necessary adjustments and to elaborate an 
educated exit strategy. 
• Finally, it could be important to develop a strategic emergency plan which could 
use the different approaches with the field actors and field partners( central 
government representatives, local authorities, the population, the development 
associations, and some leaders and influential members of the civil societies). 
• Better support to the KDSK with appropriate training activities 
• Better coordination of the seed distribution activities through a memorandum of 
understanding where responsibility of each partner is clearly defined (seed 
acquisition, technical assistance to farmers) while taking into account the planting 
seasons of the areas. 
• Continue in the future programs with the Food-for-Work activities because this 
particular activity allows reducing food insecurity and at the same time create 
social stability among the populations.