Located on the western side of the Hispaniola Island – which it shares with the Dominican
Republic – Haiti is a mostly mountainous country. The country has lost most of its forest cover
and is thus prone to erosion processes. It has also been increasingly affected by natural disasters
such as hurricanes and tropical storms and also by floods and droughts, the impacts of which are
aggravated by unsound urbanization practices, the use of natural resources and waste management. The
population, two thirds of which depend on the agricultural sector, is highly vulnerable to climate
variations. Haiti is still recovering from its most severe earthquake in 200 years, which hit the
country in January 2010. The most vulnerable sectors to climate change are: agriculture and land
degradation; coastal zones; and water management.
Timelines of the NAPA preparation process in Haiti
|
Funding for the preparation of the NAPA approved by the GEF
|
January 2003
|
|
GEF agency approval date
|
April 2003
|
|
NAPA preparation start
|
March/April 2003
|
|
Submission of the NAPA to the UNFCCC
|
December 2006
|
NAPA projects under implementation
Haiti defined eight priority activities. A project addressing the adaptive capacities
of coastal communities was developed as Haiti’s first project under the LDCF. This project
consists of four components:
1. Systemic, institutional and individual capacity development;
2. A sustainable financial framework for Climate Risk Management (CRM) in coastal areas;
3. Piloting of on-the-ground coastal adaptation measures;
4. Knowledge management, codification of best practices and dissemination.
Project title: Strengthening adaptive capacities to address climate change threats on
sustainable development strategies for coastal communities in Haiti
|
|
Implementing agency
|
UNDP
|
|
National executing agency
|
Ministry of Environment
|
|
Cost in USD million (LDCF component/total cost)
|
3.960/11.060
|
In addition, a second project aimed at reducing disaster risk in agriculture to improve food
security was developed in February 2010. The intention was to grant expeditious processing following
the January 2010 earthquake. The latest information available seems to indicate that this project is
finally following the normal LDCF project cycle after the PIF was resubmitted in February 2011.
Project title: Strengthening climate resilience and reducing disaster risk in
agriculture to improve food security in Haiti post-earthquake
|
|
Implementing agency
|
FAO
|
|
National executing agency
|
Ministry of Agriculture
|
|
Cost in USD million (LDCF component/total cost)
|
2.999/8.230
|
|
First submission of the concept note (PIF) under the LDCF
|
February 2010
|
|
Re-submission of the concept note (PIF) under the LDCF
|
February 2011
|
|
GEF CEO endorsement of the project
|
Not CEO endorsed yet
|
NAPA PROCESS
Preparation and implementation strategy: The NAPA preparation process took place in an
unstable political context and, due to increased security threats, public consultations were
difficult to organize. Despite this difficult context, the NAPA team carried out the consultations
and succeeded in organizing all of them, but this resulted in a longer NAPA preparation time frame
than initially expected.
Consultation with communities and local authorities was considered a very important step, as this
provided complementary and additional information, as well as an opportunity to discover which
adaptation measures the communities had already adopted. The NAPA team also worked in cooperation
with the national communication team to share information on the country’s vulnerabilities to
climate change, which made for consistent reporting.
|
Institutional arrangements in the country: Soon after preparing the NAPA,
Haiti experienced many institutional changes, which resulted in the activities of the NAPA team
being interrupted between 2006 and 2008. Today, Haiti’s objective is for all ministries
to fully integrate climate change issues into their respective sectoral national plans.
Experience with project implementation: As the NAPA was moving from the
preparation phase to the implementation phase, UNEP – which had helped the NAPA team to
prepare the document – was replaced by UNDP. To facilitate the working relationship with
UNDP, a platform was created to share technical information, but the national team felt that
the agency could have shared more information on finance, particularly on strategies to
mobilize co-financing partners. The NAPA team also thought that the procedures for CEO
endorsement of the full project proposal were lengthy, as the process took almost two and a
half years (August 2008–December 2011).
Similarly, since the second project was initially developed and processed in an expeditious
manner on account of the impact of the earthquake, the GEF agency (FAO) took the lead in
elaborating the document and, as a result, the national team felt excluded from the process. A
lack of meeting spaces, owing to the fact that a number of government buildings had been
damaged, may have hampered communication even further. For both projects, the GEF agencies
coordinated all financial issues, including the mobilization of LDCF resources and other
sources of funding as part of co-financing.
Revision and update: Haiti did not initially consider revising or updating its
NAPA, but after a string of natural disasters (one hurricane in 2007, three in 2008 and a major
earthquake in 2010), a lot of information and data are no longer considered accurate. It is now
felt that a revision/update of the NAPA could provide an opportunity to re-assess the
country’s priorities regarding its adaptation to the most adverse effects of climate
change and, as such, the process would be supported by the institutional framework which was
established for the preparation of the NAPA. However, Haiti would consider revising and
updating its NAPA only if it is an expedited process that does not take more than six to eight
months to complete and does not impede progress in implementing NAPA projects that are
currently underway.
|
|
Haiti’s experience shows that continuous engagement of the NAPA team during the
design of the implementation phase is critical to avoid any delays in implementation and
nurture the capacity that has been built during the preparation phase.
|
|