Haiti Earthquake Reconstruction Knowledge Notes from ... - GFDRR

22 | Haiti Earthquake Reconstruction
materials at comparative cost that would
have less environmental impact?
• Is the project likely to affect an area larger
than the site directly concerned?
• Does the project involve demolition of existing
structures? To whom do they belong?
Is the land privately or publicly owned?
• Does the project involve involuntary land
acquisition or prior acquisition of land?
The Government of Haiti already requires a
standard Environmental Assessment for major
construction, rehabilitation, and road projects.
These national guidelines have existed since
2000. In follow-up to the earthquake, the government
may want to consider the following options:
• Clarify the cutoff (project size) for which national
guidelines apply.
• Make the directives publicly available on the
internet, in English and French.
• Review and update any relevant clauses to
address the special needs of post earthquake
reconstruction.
• Refer to these guidelines, as well as to any
other relevant national legislation, in any
Environmental and Social Management
Framework prepared to support reconstruction.
Haiti is currently in the process of developing
an Environmental and Social Management
Framework with assistance from key development
partners. It should be further encouraged
in this process.
REINFORCING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY
FOR EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND
SOCIAL MONITORING
The third—and perhaps most difficult—challenge
is to reinforce institutional capacity for
effective environmental and social monitoring.
The capacity of the Ministry of Environment
was weakened by the disaster. Several options
could be considered to reinforce it:
• Contract qualified partners, such as, nongovernmental
organizations, trained individuals,
and qualified Haitian expatriates, to
monitor standard environmental or social
safeguard issues on behalf of the government.
The latter retains final clearance oversight.
In Madagascar, the Office National de
l’Environnement (until recently, a contractual
parastatal) oversees environmental assessments
while the government issues the
final permits. Projects are charged 3-5 percent
to support assessment costs.
• As an interim measure, rely on the capacity
of major existing projects funded by
development partners with strong track
records, such as the Projet de Développement
Communautaire Participatif (PRODEP)
and the Projet de Développement Communautaire
Participatif Urbain (PRODEPUR).
These projects tend to already follow the
standard safeguard procedures of international
agencies, such as, the Inter-American
Development Bank (IADB), U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), or the
World Bank; furthermore, they would be
required to ensure that sufficient capacity
is in place for effective monitoring. The major
disadvantage—as stated above—is that
safeguard monitoring would remain project-
or program-specific, causing long-term
sustainability to become less predictable.
• As part of the process of reaching a harmonized
environmental and social framework,
a capacity building program could be promoted
in skills related to safeguards—preferably
as a joint effort by key donors. Such
a program would target the phased transfer
of responsibility for safeguard oversight to
local agencies during the period of project