integration of environmental issues into the haiti earthquake ......integration of environmental...

Integration of Environmental issues into

The Haiti Earthquake Relief, Recovery and Reconstruction effort

Progress Report No.1 – February to March 2010

Waste pickers scavenging from dumped debris on Trutier landfill - Source: MSB

Contact Information: UNEP Haiti: Antonio Perera, Country Programme Manager: [email protected]

Haiti_Env_Progress_Rpt 1 FebMar2010_Full_Eng.doc

mailto:[email protected]

Summary

Introduction

This report is the first in a series of progress reports produced by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Ministry of Environment, Government of Haiti (MDE) and other partners on environmental issues within the Haiti earthquake relief, recovery and reconstruction process.

These reports will track both the issues and the response. Progress and performance is rated down to the cluster and sector level, with a balanced focus on both the positive (commendable efforts and good initiatives) and the negative (areas for improvement).Note the scoring ranges from 1 (Highly Negative) to 5 (Highly Positive) with a trend indicator: Stable, Improving, Worsening. Humanitarian Relief

Environmental Performance Rating

2

Negative & stable Mitigation generally absent – Awareness mixed & limited attempts at rectification of identified issues. Some very positive plans in individual clusters countered by significant planning and performance issues elsewhere and widespread shortfalls in financial resources for most major issues. Sector coordination is a major concern.

For this first progress report, 5 clusters are assessed: Camp Management and Coordination, Emergency Shelter and Non Food Items, Early Recovery, Water and Sanitation, Health. Note that individual clusters ratings are not provided in this first progress report but will be thereafter

Key issues

The key issues currently affecting the humanitarian sector as a whole are:

1. Under-investment As of end March the issue of environment within relief was substantially underfunded and /or unbalanced. Confirmed funds dedicated to environmental issues as of end March were in the order of US$11 million, with US$10 million targeted in one project on one site - the Trutier landfill. Substantive investments in debris management were noted but impossible to cost. Investments in technical assistance and coordination were in the order of US$500,000 and practical action in the order of US$500,000.

2. Coordination Coordination of the environmental issues and investments occurs via the cluster system and is overseen by UNEP. It is at present visible but very much under-resourced. Individual task teams have been established for several key issues, however many uncoordinated activities are observed in parallel. Ad hoc funding decisions are being made by international partners without reference to the priorities of the government or clusters.

3. Cluster specific issues:

Camp Management and Coordination • Ensuring environmental due diligence when decommissioning sites scheduled for evacuation. • Incorporating environmental considerations during the assessment of new shelter locations. • Planning for sound environmental management in (existing and future) camps.


Emergency Shelter and Non Food Items • Maximizing the use of sustainable, renewable and reusable materials in the construction of shelters. • Sensitizing the displaced population on the disposal of waste generated from the uses of the kits

provided (hygiene kit for instance). Early Recovery

• Improving the positive environmental impact of the cash for work programmes Water and Sanitation • Appropriate toilet facilities and management of human waste • Improving solid waste management Health

• Health Care Waste Management. Recovery and Reconstruction

Environmental Performance Rating

3

Mixed progress & improving Awareness and performance ambitions are very high in the central planning stage. Reconstruction in the private and domestic housing sectors are however progressing without any form of environmental management.

Key Issues Recovery Planning Recovery planning is highly positive to date. UNEP analysed the government plan for recovery with the following results:

Overall the plan is positive with respect to environmental impacts, risks and opportunities:

• Explicit high level policy statements on environment are missing, which is an anomaly as the document otherwise provides extensive evidence of a policy of integrating environmental concerns.

• The total investment and credit requested is $4.65 billion of which $700 million/15 % is considered highly relevant for environment investments and $1005 million/ 23 % important in terms of potential negative environmental impacts.

• The proposed implementation strategy is also considered favorable for environment.

Major challenges on implementation are noted, including fundraising for the requested US$700 million. The government will require substantial support to achieve its objectives in this area.

Two main themes are noted for the way forward:

• Safeguarding against negative environmental impacts, with a focus on building coordination, monitoring and control mechanisms into the government and fund management and master planning processes such as the MDTF and the CIRH.

• Opportunities and investments which need to be driven by a proactive strategy of communications, advocacy, partnership development, fast track design, capacity importation and building and most of all major efforts on resource mobilisation.


Recovery projects

In contrast to the planning, early practical efforts on recovery show no integration of environmental concerns. In the private and housing sector, reconstruction activities have started and continue to grow rapidly in scale. Debris generation and dumping is occurring on a large scale and is generally uncontrolled.


1. Introduction

Purpose of this report

This document is the first in a series of progress reports produced by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Ministry of Environment, Government of Haiti (MDE) and other partners on environmental issues within the Haiti earthquake relief, recovery and reconstruction process.

These progress reports track both the environmental issues and the collective and individual response of the hundreds of organisations engaged in relief, recovery and reconstruction. Progress and performance is rated and publicly reported down to the cluster and sector level, with a balanced focus on both the positive (commendable efforts and good initiatives) and the negative (areas for improvement).

This sharply focused awareness raising is however just one element of a wider approach aiming to motivate and enable improvements in performance. Other UNEP and MDE activities include the provision of technical assistance, support for sector coordination, implementation of selected projects and resource mobilisation efforts for the environment sector as a whole.

The issue and performance monitoring process

In the period January to March 2010, UNEP, USAID and others conducted a series of rapid environmental assessments to identify environmental concerns arising from the relief effort and forecast for recovery and reconstruction. To follow on from this effort, UNEP and MDE have mobilised a team that is dedicated to track, coordinate and advocate for environmental management in relief, recovery and reconstruction.

Team members engage in multiple humanitarian clusters and all of the major recovery and reconstruction planning processes. In these venues, UNEP and MDE provide technical advice and constantly gather information on performance and emerging issues. This information is collated, analysed and published on a bi-monthly basis. A 1-5 & colour coded scorecard system (Green positive, Yellow neutral, Red negative) is used to display findings and track trends between reports.

Note that whilst the reviews do focus at the level of the performance of individual clusters it is not targeted at cluster lead organisations or indeed any single organisation – sectors and clusters are composed of many organisations and it must be recognised that the performance of those clusters is closely related to the level of funding provided.


2. Humanitarian Relief Programme Review

Context and Scope of the Review

The review of the Haiti Humanitarian Relief system is based upon the UN and Partners Humanitarian Cluster system. The cluster system was activated for the response to the January 12th earthquake and has effectively superseded existing humanitarian aid coordination processes, which have been in place in Haiti for many years.

As of end March 2010, the scale of the humanitarian response to the earthquake was as follows: The latest firm budget on the programme was provided by the Revised Humanitarian Appeal of 18th February 2010, with a total call for funds of US$ 1.4 billion for the January to December 2010 period. The affected population is estimated at 3 million, with 217,000 dead or missing, 300,000 injured and 1,240,000 displaced, including 511,000 displaced outside of Port-au-Prince.

The number and location of people assisted is changing daily, however as an indication of scale, the very latest survey (6th April) indicated 1,325 settlements of displaced people across the southern part of Haiti and food aid is being delivered to well over 1 million people at present.

For this first progress report, 5 clusters are assessed: Camp Management and Coordination, Emergency Shelter and Non Food Items, Early Recovery, Water and Sanitation, Health. Note that individual cluster ratings are not provided in this first progress report but will be thereafter

Camp Management and Coordination Cluster

Context

The term Camp refers to any settlement where internally displaced persons are organized, spontaneously or collectively. The objective of the Camp Management and Camp Coordination (CCCM) Cluster is twofold: (i) Developing an overall camp/settlement response strategy involving all partners, including beneficiaries and government representatives; (ii) Identifying gaps/needs among the camps/settlements. This implies three key activities: Registration of displaced population; Site assessment and planning and; Camp management;

From an environmental point of view, activities related to site assessment and planning are of particular interests. To date, the focus has been on the identification of sites that need to be urgently evacuated before the rainy season comes and therefore where to relocate the population. In such a context, two types of site where assessed: a) sites prioritized for evacuation and b) sites selected for relocation/decongestion.

Sites prioritized for evacuation. Assessment teams conducted a flood risk survey of the 7 sites prioritized as being at high risk. The teams identified 9,000 people that are the most at risk in those sites and therefore need to be relocated immediately to prevent loss of life due to flash flooding and mudslides. In addition, 37,200 people should be evacuated if urgent engineering mitigation works (e.g. installing chain link fence along creek, stabilizing slope with barrier walls, cleaning-up canals, etc.) are not carried out.


Post-Conflict and Disasters Management Branch

IDPs living in the creek bed of the Ancient Aéroport Militaire

4,350 people located in low area of Golf Delma 48: An area subject to flash flooding

15, Ch. Des Anémones, 1219 Châtelaine (Genève), Switzerland

Tel.: +41 (0)22 917 85 30 • Fax : +41 (0)22 917 80 64 • E-mail : [email protected]

Haiti_Env_Progress_Rpt 1 FebMar2010_Full_Eng.doc 8

The work on sites selected for evacuation relates mainly to natural hazard evaluation. In many cases the hazards were self evident and witnessed as a result of early rains in March. A joint project by the World Bank, UNDP, ISDR, UNEP and others provided maps delineating other areas of natural hazards.

Sites selected for relocation/decongestion. The process of obtaining agreement on relocation land is the main impediment to a rapid response. However, as of March 29th, already 3 sites (Tabarre ISSA, Santo 17, Coarllies) have been provided by the Government and assessed for their suitability. The first displaced families from sites prioritized for decongestion are expected to move in between 12 and 15 April. There is a high probability for those temporary relocation sites to become the transitional shelter sites. Considering the emergency of the situation with the rainy season starting in one month time, those sites should be further investigated for targeted mitigation work.

N.B. It has to be noted that those relocation sites have been identified in case of last resort. Humanitarian actors encourage several other options such as: (i) Return to safe houses, (ii) Return to a safe plot or proximity site, (iii) Host Families alternative, (iv) Remain in sites with acceptable level of decongestion and considered safe from flooding and other hazards.

Key Environmental Issues

At present there are three key environmental issues that need to be considered by the CCCM cluster:

1. Ensuring environmental due diligence when decommissioning sites scheduled for evacuation. These sites when vacated are left in a damaged condition – waste materials remain on site and vegetation has been stripped. These sites will not be rehabilitated without investment- ideally at the time of decommissioning.

2. Incorporating environmental considerations during the assessment of new shelter locations. Some proposed sites are near environmentally sensitive areas – specifically in woodlands that have previously survived the urban expansion and energy needs of the local population.

3. Planning for sound environmental management in (existing and future) camps. Environmental management of camps requires both finances and physical space. If not foreseen, initiatives such as wastewater recycling for plot gardens and biogas water treatment units cannot be budgeted or located.

Other ad hoc site specific issues include spontaneous camps located on contaminated sites.

The Response - Progress and Challenges

UNEP has been participating in the CCCM cluster. It was observed that at present the urgent lifesaving needs have overwhelmed the capacity of the cluster members and so there is effectively little space for environmental considerations. In addition the site selection has been both spontaneous and in part a political process so many sites are unsuitable, not just


for environment but for a whole host of other criteria – natural hazards, security, access, sanitation etc..

Nonetheless UNEP and other environmental experts have been involved in the site selection and planning process (for the transitional settlements) and have been able to conduct rapid site assessments. In general whilst many sites are not very suitable from an environmental hazard point of view due to vulnerability to flooding, they are also generally in low sensitivity urban areas. Crowding of both existing and planned settlements also presents a challenge for environmental concerns.

Shelter and Non Food Items Cluster

Context

The core responsibilities of the Shelter/NFIs cluster are to provide support to the affected population in the following 4 main areas: Emergency Shelter, Transitional Shelter, Non food items (blankets, mats, kitchen sets, rope, toolkits, repair kits, etc) and Host families.

Emergency shelter materials have been provided to over 74% of the targeted 1.3 million people. Considering the upcoming rainy season, the provision of waterproof shelter materials is the top humanitarian priority. Emergency shelter distribution should reach a total coverage by 1 May. Over 104,500 tarpaulins, 41,000 family-size tents and 11,600 tool kits have been distributed. Approximately, 66,600 households have been supplied with ropes and fixing materials. Non food items have been provided as follows: 48,500 kitchen sets, 180,766 hygiene kits, 215,000 blankets and 69,000 mosquito nets. Despite those figures, it has been reported that insufficient tool kits being distributed, which may affect the effectiveness and life span of the emergency shelters.

While a geographical plan for transitional shelters are tentative, prototypes of transitional shelters are already being designed.

Geographic plan for transitional shelters


Example of materials used in an ad hoc shelter – clearly timber poles are a scarce or expensive resource at this location.


At present there are two key environmental issues that need to be considered by the Shelter cluster:

1. Maximizing the use of sustainable, renewable and reusable materials in the construction of shelters. A particular issue to avoiding the utilization of Haitian wood through environmentally sound procurement of shelter materials. This is needed as the majority of Haitian sourced building grade timber at present is poached from the national parks.

2. Sensitizing the displaced population on the disposal of waste generated from the uses of the kits provided (hygiene kit for instance). This needs to be done through the development of a targeted communication strategy. While this action aims only at raising the concern and promote the right behaviors at the source, it will need to be integrated into a wider waste management strategy to have an impact.


UNEP is participating in the Shelter Cluster however at present there is very little information available to make an evaluation of progress. One early indication of progress is the widespread discussion on sustainable sourcing of the timber needed for the transitional shelters.


Early Recovery Cluster

Context

In view to bridging the gap between short and medium term needs, the Early Recovery cluster is in charge to restore basic livelihoods as early as possible. In practical terms, two types of activities have been carried out: (i) Cash for Work programmes and Development of an (ii) Early Recovery Strategic Framework.

Cash-for-work programmes aim to jumpstart the local economy by providing short-term jobs to Haitians. To date, the Programme has offered jobs to 100,000 Haitians and intends to reach more than 400,000 people until December 2010, indirectly benefiting 2 million Haitians. While fulfilling basic necessities by injecting cash in the economy and hence, accelerating the resumption of small businesses and trade, the programme cash for work contributes to a certain extent to environmental recovery and enhance the hygiene conditions. Indeed, work includes removal and disposal of building debris from the streets and the removal of garbage from streets, canals and displaced settlements (formal and spontaneous camps).

Clearance of the main drainage channels in Port au Prince, particularly in low-lying areas vulnerable to flooding during heavy rains has become one of the highest priorities.

Early Recovery Strategic Framework. The cluster took the initiative to develop an early recovery plan in line with the needs highlighted in the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA). While the structure of the plan is still under preparation, it appears that environment will be considered as one of the key pillars.


At present there is only one key environmental issue in the Early Recovery Cluster:

Improving the positive environmental impact of the cash for work programmes. At present the great majority of cash-for work schemes are focused on public works in urban areas. Further plans under development are targeted at the rural catchments as well.

Prior experience in 2008-2009 and early results of the programme in 2010 indicate a need for widespread improvement in the quality and associated environmental impact and sustainability of the schemes. As a an example, waste clearance operations are actually waste generating projects unless they have fully managed the issue of secure transport and final disposal of the waste extracted from canals and drains. Secondly reforestation/ replanting exercises in the absence of expertise and local ownership commonly have a very low success rate in terms of tree seedling survival.


Canal Orphelin Source: http://oneresponse.info/Disasters/Haiti/Early%20Recovery/Pages/default.aspx


UNEP is participating in the Early Recovery cluster and observing cash for work schemes across the southern part of Haiti. Progress is very much mixed in addressing the above key issue. Early attempts at drainage clearance often left the excavated material waste piled up at the roadside and did not manage a final solution for the waste. In contrast, selected organisations have designed comprehensive solutions and recognized the need and have budgeted for expert input.

A key challenge noted is that there are now many new NGOs operating in Haiti and their lack of experience in cash for work schemes is expected to result in a range of ad hoc performance problems - including environmental concerns.


A Cash for Work team removing debris - Source: UNEP

Water and Sanitation Hygiene (WASH) Cluster

Context

The responsibility of the WASH cluster covers water, sanitation, hygiene and waste management – all environmental health issues, hence supporting this cluster is a priority for the environmental sector.

Substantive work is ongoing for the provision of clean water. In the spontaneous camps in particular, the population has no or little access to nearby water sources and supplies need to be tankered or provided in bottles. At present no real issues are reported regarding the quality of transported water.

Sanitation and hygiene in camps are the current priority for the cluster as the situation in the camps is problematic: Based on six key WASH indicators (i.e. number of toilets, presence of excreta, use of soap, garbage collection, access to water and water drainage issues), the preliminary results of a survey in 106 spontaneous sites in Port-au-Prince indicated that 51% of respondents are practicing open defecation, while others use plastic bags or sanitation facilities in their previous homes.

Due to a lack of maintenance, emergency pits are getting filled up and the need for a more permanent solution is urgent before the rain accelerate the problem. A large number of de-sludgable latrines were put in place in the IDP camps to provide sanitation facilities. Based


on figures of 1,100,000 people identified at around 400 sites and an initial standard of 1 latrine for 100 people (5 times below sphere standards), the initial requirement for emergency latrines will be a minimum quantity of 11,000.


There are many important environmental issues for the WASH Cluster, of which at present two are considered key:

1. Appropriate toilet facilities and management of human waste This is a massive issue requiring significant investment and a multi-faceted approach. A solution is required to cover all stages of the process: provision of toilets and the collection, transport and appropriate treatment and disposal of the waste.

2. Improving solid waste management The volume of solid waste generated by Port au Prince and surrounding towns has increased since the earthquake. Waste management facilities and resources were inadequate to begin with and have been damaged by the disaster.


Progress is currently mixed and limited in the face of the challenges noted.

At present the focus of the WASH cluster is on provision of toilet facilities. For the collection of excreta, WASH organizations have indicated that they are bringing around 40 sludge trucks to Port au Prince to empty the portable toilets. However, it has to be noted that there is no official disposal site for sludge trucks; hence, the small portion that is collected is currently emptied at unofficial dumpsites, wetlands, and open water courses around Port au Prince.

For this reason, DINEPA (the National Department for Sanitation and Drinking Water) recently signed an agreement with SMCRS (Governmental entity in charge of solid waste collection in the area of Port au Prince) in view to using parts of the Truitier landfill to dislodge and manage the excreta. However, while the management of the landfill was already dysfunctional before the disaster, the emergence of excreta issues in the site in such an emergency phase makes the situation more difficult and problematic for the environment.

Solid waste management is in a similar state of disorder. A large proportion of the waste generated is not reaching the landfill at Trutier or other designated sites. These sites are also in very poor condition and represent a major health and environmental hazard.

In summary, the WASH cluster is currently rated as the number one priority for further support by the environmental sector.


Health Cluster

Context

This cluster is in charge of the monitoring of health and nutrition coverage, water quality, vector control, the promotion of widespread access to health care facilities and vaccination campaign amid other health related issues. Over the period February to March the Health Cluster moved from a focus on emergency medical issues /surgical operation to a much broader set of health issues.


There is currently only one key environmental issue specific to the Health Cluster:

Health Care Waste Management The rapid increase in healthcare waste was the first negative impact of the earthquake in the weeks immediately following the disaster. A large volume of contaminated bandages and other related waste (syringes, etc.) have been produced. An estimation by MSB considers 15-20% of healthcare waste to be infectious and hazardous waste (drugs, chlorinated hydrocarbons and other chemicals and bacteria), which means that it represents huge risks for the environment and public health. Clearly the proper management of these wastes is a priority issue for the health cluster.

Health care waste at the Trutier landfill – worked over by waste pickers

The Response – Progress and challenges

Understandably this issue was not addressed well in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake given the urgent life saving priorities of the health cluster organisations. The situation has definitely improved however continued investment is required to maintain the gains delivered to date.


The massive case load (300,000 injured) would have temporarily overwhelmed even the best of systems. However in the case of Haiti deficiencies in the existing system combined with earthquake damage created a truly problematic situation in the weeks following the disaster. In particular the destruction by the earthquake of several hospitals (including ten in Port-au-Prince) responsible for incinerating healthcare waste at source significantly complicated the situation.

In some cases, infectious waste was burned in the open air creating toxic pollution. Amputated limbs have been burned or buried, often on the same sites as operational hospitals. In camps, the production of infectious waste is a source of concern. The mobile hospitals mobilized in some places to administer first aid to the many victims of the earthquake have produced a considerable volume of medical and hospital waste which has not been appropriately treated. In addition, it has been reported that parts of in-kind donations were expired medicines that now need to be eliminated in an appropriate manner.

In response to these challenges, UNEP, MSB, WHO, the US Army and the government of Haiti have all responded very positively and the situation has been improved on a temporary basis. Waste packaging and a collection service has been re-started and incinerators restarted and supplied with fuel. This issue is covered in more detail as a case study in the following sections.


3. Recovery and Reconstruction Programme Review

Context and scope of the review

As of end March 2010, the recovery and reconstruction process for Haiti could be divided into three very different themes: a) private sector, b) early government and partner works and c) recovery planning.

Recovery and reconstruction in the private sector is ill studied but is clearly visible – many businesses re-opened quickly and repair and reconstruction work on businesses and private dwellings is highly visible throughout the earthquake impacted area.

Early practical actions for recovery by the government and its partners were mainly visible in the debris clearing activities and emergency works on the electrical and water supply systems. As of end March only very limited repair work had started on other government facilities. For the government and its international partners the bulk of the recovery effort has been on financial stabilisation and recovery planning.

The scope of this review is limited in practice to the recovery planning process, specifically the Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) and the government action plan for recovery, the Plan D’Action de Relevement et Development National (PARDN).

Environmental Performance rating

3

Mixed progress & improving Awareness and performance ambitions are very high in the central planning stage. Reconstruction in the private and domestic housing sectors are however progressing without any form of environmental management.

Recovery Planning

Two documents and associated processes have been critical for integrating environmental concerns into the recovery process a) the PDNA and b) the government PARDN. UNEP participated fully in the PDNA and contributed to the PARDN. In the event, the PDNA was used as the technical basis for the PARDN, which is considered to be the master document for the recovery.

UNEP conducted a rapid review of the March 26th version of the PARDN, with the following results and concepts for the way forward:

Overall the plan is positive with respect to environmental impacts, risks and opportunities

• Explicit high level policy statements on environment are missing, which is an anomaly as the document otherwise provides extensive evidence of a policy of integrating environmental concerns.


• The total investment and credit requested is $4.65 billion of which $700 million/15 % is considered highly relevant for environment investments and $1005 million/ 23 % important in terms of potential negative environmental impacts.

• The proposed implementation strategy is also considered favorable for environment.

Major challenges on implementation are noted, including fundraising for the requested US$700 million. The government will require substantial support to achieve its objectives in this area.

Two main themes are noted for the way forward:

• Safeguarding against negative environmental impacts, with a focus on building coordination, monitoring and control mechanisms into the government and fund management and master planning processes such as the MDTF and the CIRH.

• Opportunities and investments which need to be driven by a proactive strategy of communications, advocacy, partnership development, fast track design, capacity importation and building and most of all major efforts on resource mobilisation.

The detailed PARDN review report is presented as Annex A.

Recovery projects and activities

In contrast to the planning, early practical efforts on recovery show no integration of environmental concerns. In the private and housing sector, reconstruction activities have started and continue to grow rapidly in scale. Debris generation and dumping is occurring on a large scale and is generally uncontrolled.


Annex A – UNEP Analysis of the government recovery plan - PARDN

1. Introduction

Since the Haiti earthquake of 12th January 2010, significant efforts by the Haitian government, the local population and the international community have been invested in planning for reconstruction and recovery. By the end of March 2010, these efforts will have achieved three milestones:

• Completion of a Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA); • Draft completion of a Haitian government master plan for recovery: Plan D’Action pour le

Relevement et le Development National (PARDN), which in turn drew on the PDNA for technical content;

• Launching of the PARDN and an associated donor appeal for recovery.

The PARDN will be the controlling document for the reconstruction and recovery process. It is based upon the technical needs assessment provided by the PDNA but is also a political and master planning document- setting out the vision of the government and its priorities with basic cost estimates for different sectors. Hence the direction and content of this document is anticipated to have a significant influence on the environment of Haiti in the years to come.

UNEP has been participating in the recovery planning process since its outset, aiming to ensure that environmental concerns are fully integrated. In this context, it has undertaken a rapid assessment of the PARDN to assess the foreseen environmental impacts and opportunities. The assessment was based on the working draft French version of the PARDN dated 26th March 2010.

2. Rapid review methodology

The review methodology was focused on identifying both the key potential concerns and the opportunities. The Government of Haiti in the run up to release of the PDNA repeatedly affirmed its intentions to invest in addressing the many environmental concerns of the country in the framework of the earthquake recovery process. Hence the potential impacts from reconstruction have the potential to be more than balanced by the opportunity to build back better and specifically to “ build back greener”.

The review of the document was divided into 3 sections:

Analysis of the policy statements The key policies of the government are expressed in the document, particularly in the opening sections. The statements here or lack thereof reflect the policy priorities of the government.

Analysis of the proposed scope of work/investment The PARDN divides its call for investment over the next 18 months into 19 themes, each with a narrative and budget forecast. The impacts and opportunities within each theme have been analyzed and divided into three broad groups:


A - Significant environmental impacts predicted. These are investments that need environmental safeguarding. A simple example is the proposed construction of new ports.

B – Environmental Opportunities. Planned investments in environmental management or in fields requiring extensive environmental/technical input to achieve environmentally beneficial and sustainable results. A simple example is proposed investment in waste management infrastructure and systems.

C – Low significance. Investments with a low predicted environmental impact and limited environmental investments. A simple example is the security and justice system.

Analysis of the proposed implementation strategy Many of the key elements of the proposed recovery strategy are contained in the PARDN although it acknowledges further detailing is required in many areas. Key elements assessed in terms of relevance to environmental impacts and opportunities were:

• The call for coordination and prioritization of investment of all actors under the PARDN • The need for direct Budget support • The proposed Multi-Donor Trust Fund • The assumption of continued bilateral funding and NGO funding • The promotion of a major role for the private sector • The creation of a Recovery Commisssion – Commission Interimaire pour la

Reconstruction d’Haïti (CIRH) • The proposed long term evolution of the CIRH into a Development Agency for Haiti

3. Review Results

Analysis of the policy statements The policy statements noted overall are neutral to negative due to the lack of an explicit statement on the importance of environmental protection or environmentally sustainable development. This is anomalous compared to the rest of the plan – which in fact indicates a strong policy of emphasis on environmental issues. As such this omission of an explicit statement could be corrected by editing for a later version rather than any policy change.

Analysis of the proposed scope of work/investment The detailed results of the review are presented as Table 1 at the end of this report. In summary, the review results are mixed but overall highly positive in the context of a post-earthquake reconstruction programme.

US$ 4.65 Billion is requested as investment and credit over an 18 month period. The major issue with this large figure is that it implies a highly accelerated recovery programme. This is a negative as in general, accelerated recovery programmes have higher environmental impacts due to a loss of control and missed opportunities for mitigation.

US$ 1.05 Billion or 23% (approximately) is forecast for construction activities with a potential moderate to high environmental impact. Much of the work however will take place in low sensitivity environments. Only a few projects such as the proposed new port works have the potential to cause major environmental damage.


US$0.72 Billion or 15% of the total (approximately) is forecast as environmental opportunities. Examples include major investment requests in agriculture, catchment rehabilitation and waste management. This proposed scale of investment is considered both a major opportunity and a challenge to finance and implement, particularly in the timeframe noted.

US$2.88 Billion or 62% of the total (approximately) is predicted to have a negligible impact on the environment – either neither positive or negative. The fact that less than 25% of the reconstruction budget is predicted to have a significant negative impact is actually highly positive and this reflects the commendable government strategy to invest heavily in social capital rather than just buildings.

Analysis of the proposed implementation strategy The proposed strategy for implementation is considered overall positive for environment concerns. The arguments leading to this conclusion are set out below for each key element of the strategy:

• The call for coordination and prioritization of investment of all actors under the PARDN. This is a positive element as crosscutting issues such as environment particularly benefit from coordination.

• The need for direct Budget support This is neutral, particularly since much of the budget support is directed to human resources and general operations. It does entail a risk as well as if the Environment Ministry is excluded from this support, then environmental governance will suffer badly during the recovery period.

• The proposed Multi-Donor Trust Fund This is positive as it contributes to safeguarding. The control on the release of funds provided by the normal MDTF proposal call and review systems allows for input on the environmental impacts of the proposals submitted. In addition the balancing role of the MDTF (if managed well) allows for re-allocation and direction of funds towards government priorities. As environmental opportunities are 15% of the budget, they should have equivalent space in the MDTF.

• The assumption of continued bilateral funding and NGO funding This is neutral and tackling these financing sources is one of the main challenges for funding the environmental opportunities.

• The promotion of a major role for the private sector This is a challenge but not necessarily all negative, as the private sector is generally difficult to control in Haiti but the green economy initiatives nonetheless require substantive private sector input.

• The creation of a Recovery Commisssion – Commission Interimaire pour la Reconstruction d’Haïti (CIRH) and the proposed long term evolution of the CIRH into a Development Agency for Haiti This is positive as such bodies have the potential to communicate and deliver on coherent visions better than ad hoc processes.

So in summary of the review results, it is overall positive. As such the PARDN – as represented in the current document, has the strong endorsement of UNEP and warrants the endorsement of the environmental community as a whole. As a caveat to that endorsement, it is recommended that revisions be made when possible to include more explicit policy statements on environment

4. From plan to reality

It must be noted that the positive review is based on the plan only. Major challenges and risks remain unaddressed at this stage – and the proof is in the implementation. From prior experience of UNEP in recovery programmes, a major risk is the erosion of political and


financial support as the recovery progresses and encounters the inevitable political, financial and managerial difficulties. A second major challenge is the scale of the environmental opportunities presented/requested: US$700 million is a steep target in the 2010 global economic climate.

5. The way forward

The review results indicate two main themes for follow up action by UNEP and others to ensure integration of environmental issues in the recovery and reconstruction of Haiti:

Safeguarding – this theme is focused on avoiding and mitigating negative environmental impacts from an estimated US$1.5 billion of projects proposed for the next 18 months. As such it is in part a defensive and regulatory strategy and actions should focus on building in coordination, monitoring and control mechanisms into the government and fund management and master planning processes such as the MDTF and the CIRH.

Opportunities and investment – this theme is focused on advocacy for prioritization, funding and implementing the US$700 million of proposed projects. Achieving this entails a highly proactive strategy of communications, advocacy, partnership development, fast track design, capacity importation and building and most of all major efforts on resource mobilisation.

UNEP is immediately using the results of this review to complete its own strategy for engagement in the recovery and reconstruction process. The government and all other funding and implementing partners should consider the implications of the review upon their activities as well.

23

Analysis of environmental issues and opportunities in the PARDN (Version 26 March 2010)

PARDN Section Total budget

Budget analysis for

environmental significance

and investment

Key issues

A B C D

Reconstruction of damaged areas

780 400 180 200 - Debris and associated waste management Drainage system clearing and repair. Water and sewage network and treatment projects. General construction impacts. Resettlement site selection and urban planning

National transport network

294 * inc. 114 PS

200 - 94 - New airport and port site selection and construction General road construction impacts. Blocking of drainage, erosion and quarrying.

Disaster Risk

Reduction

130 - 10 120 - Generally low impact. Some environmental –technical investment required in hydrology/ river basin/flood prediction and management.

Urban renewal and regional

75 25 25 25 Tourism projects and associated rehabilitation works. Regional construction including new manufacturing centres.

24

development centres

Territorial planning and management

30 20 10 - - National scale territorial planning with major long term (positive) impacts.

Watershed management

0 - - - - Multi-sectoral approach proposed so costs are distributed in the different sectors – specifically production national and employment.

Primary production –agriculture, animal production, fisheries

260 100 130 30 - Major investments in intensification provide both risks and opportunities. Environmental-technical investments required in hill land agriculture and marine fishing

Restarting the finance sector and recovery underwriting

400 – 400 as credit-PS

- 50 350 - Generally indirect impact through provision of credit. Potential for linked improvements in housing reconstruction and for green economy - business microcredit particularly in the alternative energy sector

Electricity 157 - 10 147 - Focus is on repair and reform of existing grid and management/billing arrangement. Some limited grid expansion. Deficiencies in no real emphasis on investment in alternatives or rural electrification ( except via agriculture section).

Housing 140* Relief

40 20 80 - Humanitarian budget for transitional setttlements. Major issues on site selection, sanitation and waste management. Opportunity for technical-environmental investments eg biogas

Short term manual employment schemes-

400 - 200 200 - Plan and major opportunity for direction of effort into environmental actions – waste management, drainage, erosion control and reforestation.

Social protection 70 - - 70 - Low environmental impact

25

Education 470 100 10 360 - Low environmental impact except for school reconstruction. Opportunities for

curriculum and higher education assistance

Health 390 170 2 218 - Low environmental impact except for hospital reconstruction. Investments

required in health care waste

Food Security and Nutrition

140 - 2 138 - Low environmental impact except need for technical assistance on environmental activities in food for work schemes

Water and Sanitation

160 - 60 100 - Major investments needed in waste management and provisional sewage solutions.

Democratic institutions

135 - - 135 - Low environmental impact

Restart civil administration

372 - 10 362 - Restart and capacity rebuilding needed for the Ministry of Environment

Justice and security

255 - - 255 - Low environmental impact except prison construction

4658 1055

719 2884

All figures in US$ millions. Budget analysis is divided into four categories based on PARDN narrative on work scope A - Significant environmental impacts predicted. Investments that need environmental safeguarding. B – Environmental Investments. Investments in environmental management or requiring extensive environmental/technical input. C – Low significance. Investments with a low predicted environmental impact and limited environmental investments D – Insufficient information for analysis (not used in first pass analysis).

26

Annex B - Feature projects

1. Excreta disposal in Trutier Landfill

Information provided by the Swedish Civil Contingency Agency (MSB), GoH and others

Access to latrines is still problematic for the population of PaP and Haiti (March 28th). This was the situation also before January 12th. Various types of pit latrines, chemical toilets and other solutions are currently provided by NGO´s and UNICEF to the IDP´s. Local adjustments are done with regards to disabled. Existing resources are not always used to its full capacity due to lack of hygiene, privacy, light (risk for rape etc), and inappropriate design (standing toilets instead of sitting toilets).

Latrines from NGO camps, RC camps, Public institutions and schools and private customers are currently desludged by the private sector, CARE and IFRC. The fleet is expected to grow from 42 trucks in March 2010 to estimated 72 in June 2010 and 97 in 2011. The normal procedure for excreta disposal was already before the earthquake direct dumping into river creeks or wetlands. This procedure has continued after the January 12th. In order to improve the health situation in PaP after Jan 12th, sewage trucks has been directed to Truitier dumpsite (see the picture below).

Source: MSB , March 2010

Trutier dumpsite east of PaP is the only official, governmental owned waste disposal site. The site is in an environmental status of great concerns not least considering the health situation for scavengers and people living at and in the near vicinity of the dumpsite. As an emergency solution after the earthquake, four smaller emergency latrine pits were dug at Truitier. The pits are expected to be full within the upcoming weeks, and two additional pits are planned to be created during the end of March. The pits are supposed to cover for the needs until three emergency excreta lagoons are constructed in April. The emergency lagoons are 120x85x2 m each and constructed directly in the waste and will be operational for 6 months.

The volume of latrine now arriving at Truitier is fast increasing, as the fleet management improves. However, even with an improved desludging process in place, only a fraction of the excreta from PaP arrives at Truitier

27

There is currently no advanced process in place to identify a new proper site for excreta disposal (March 29th 2010). The need for more sustainable solutions regarding excreta management is high. Opportunities to develop sustainable solutions at the source, such as biogas installations in camps, could be an important part of the solution to tackle the excreta management situation.

28

2. Early Management of Healthcare Wastes in the Impacted Area

Information provided by the Swedish Civil Contingency Agency (MSB), WHO, GoH and others

In the early days after the earthquake when there was an explosion of the number of patients with trauma attending medical facilities and expansion of temporary hospital, there was concerns that adequate facilities do not exist for management of healthcare waste in Haiti.

This matter was discussed between UNEP, WHO and the Government. It was agreed that a temporary facility to dispose off the medical wastes will be created within the municipal landfill in Truitier. A design for the same was provided by an NGO and was promptly constructed. Additional steps to train the staff, equip them with suitable personal protective equipment (PPE), provide suitable containers for collection of healthcare waste were undertaken too.

Concurrent to this activity, there was effort going on between other NGOs to fabricate temporary incinerators in Santo Domingo for bringing it over to

Haiti. Ideas were also emerging to construct such facilities in Haiti.

However, within the first week of putting the “system” in place, it was obvious that there is a major leakage of healthcare waste from the system. One did not see the large quantities of bloodied bandages or an occasional body part in the cells specially designed for the healthcare wastes. Though one truck was supposed to go around the town collecting healthcare waste from 17 hospitals (known at that time), after three days, there was only half of load of waste arriving on site. The material that arrived on site, included more empty cartons from hospitals than biohazardous materials.

In early February, Dr Per o Berg from Sweden, hired by MSB and seconded to UNEP arrived in Port of Prince as a dedicated resource to assist the Government in management of bio hazardous wastes. The expert established a work plan to identify the shortcomings in the system, tracked its implementation and provided training support to the team.

Part of the mystery of the missing healthcare waste was solved when investigation in the hospitals was carried out as to where they dispose off their medical wastes. It became clear that a number of these hospitals had some sort of incinerators and they have remained functional all through. The finding was a great relief.

It also became clear during such investigation that the collection system used by the hospitals to have someone to collect the biohazardous wastes was not working fully. In response to this issue, the Government,

29

supported by an expert from the US Army developed a routing plan covering various facilities which do not have its own captive incinerators.

In Mid February, a set of staff from SMCRS were provided with adequate PPE and trained by the UNEP/MSB expert in proper handling of biohazardous waste. This was supposed to improve the operation of the cells containing biohazardous substances. However, in practice, things got worse as the cells containing medical waste, which was deliberately built away from the area of the scavengers and supposed to be guarded by the trained staff (8 of them), were set on fire (for unknown reasons).

Professor Berg also visited hospitals in the interior of the country including Petit Goave and Jacmel and found that most hospitals have their own incinerators and that they are functioning. These incinerators are all basic and therefore do not break down unlike sophisticated electrical systems. The main reason why they do not function effectively is the shortage of fuel needed to run them.

In early March, the containers for segregated collection of biohazardous waste arrived in PaP. This was a major demand from hospitals requesting assistance to facilitate the collection of the biohazardous materials on site. The containers have been handed over to the Ministry of Health and will be distributed to the various hospitals in Port of Prince and in the interior. A training session for staff in the hospital was also conducted.

We now have all the required elements for a functioning biohazardous waste management system. However, we need to continue to monitor the progress of implementation of the system.

More importantly, the system is only supposed to be an emergency measure and there is a need for environmentally acceptable and locally appropriate system being put in place as soon as possible. UNEP is now working with WHO and SMCRS on that matter.

30

Annex C – The Environmental Performance Rating System

The Environmental Performance rating is a simple visually based tracking system of challenges and progress. Progress is tracked by cluster and separately for the inevitable list of issues that either cross-cut several sectors or are neglected by all.

Colour Coding & No. Rating Description

5 Highly positive Awareness high – System and actions in place and substantive positive changes in ground conditions

4

Positive Awareness high – Actions in place to rectify identified issues and positive changes in ground conditions

3 Mixed progress with

Major challenges

Awareness moderate – Real attempts ongoing to rectify identified issues but little or no change in ground conditions

2

Negative Mitigation absent – Awareness mixed, no real attempts at rectification of identified issues

1 Highly Negative Mitigation absent – No awareness, incidents of irresponsible behaviour , no attempts at rectification of identified issues

Improving

Worsening

Stable

Progress reports on each cluster or major sector consist of a scorecard rating and a description of key issues and a qualitative evaluation of the response to the issues.

The overall performance of the relief effort as a whole is calculated by a weighted average of the cluster performance. A weighting is applied to reflect the scale of environmental significance of each cluster: 0 – Not applicable/Negligible, 1 Limited, 2 Moderate, 3 High.

integration of environmental issues into the haiti earthquake ......integration of environmental...

Documents