Inter-American Development Bank
facebook
twitter
youtube
linkedin
instagram
Abierto al públicoBeyond BordersCaribbean Development TrendsCiudades SosteniblesEnergía para el FuturoEnfoque EducaciónFactor TrabajoGente SaludableGestión fiscalGobernarteIdeas MatterIdeas que CuentanIdeaçãoImpactoIndustrias CreativasLa Maleta AbiertaMoviliblogMás Allá de las FronterasNegocios SosteniblesPrimeros PasosPuntos sobre la iSeguridad CiudadanaSostenibilidadVolvamos a la fuente¿Y si hablamos de igualdad?Home
Citizen Security and Justice Creative Industries Development Effectiveness Early Childhood Development Education Energy Envirnment. Climate Change and Safeguards Fiscal policy and management Gender and Diversity Health Labor and pensions Open Knowledge Public management Science, Technology and Innovation  Trade and Regional Integration Urban Development and Housing Water and Sanitation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Impacto

  • HOME
  • CATEGORIES
    • Beyond development effectiveness
    • Evaluation methods and techniques
    • Measuring our performance
    • What does and doesn’t work in development
  • Authors
  • English
    • Español

Drawing on Experience to Improve Natural Disaster Risk Management in Haiti

August 29, 2017 por Jacqueline Bueso-Merriam Leave a Comment


By Sebastien Gachot, Gines Suarez, Bruno Jaquet and Carmine Paolo de Salvo

Artibonite river, Haiti. Image: IDB.
Artibonite river, Haiti. Image: IDB.

Water is the most essential element to life on earth, yet too much water all at once can have devastating effects. One country very familiar with the destructive force of water is Haiti, which has a particularly high exposure to natural disasters, but very low capacity for natural disaster risk management.

In 2008, for example, within less than a month, Haiti was hit by three hurricanes and a tropical storm. The damage caused by the resulting floods and erosion was massive: Hurricanes Gustav and Hanna alone caused an estimated US$900 million in damage that year, according to the Haitian government.

In 2009, the IDB financed the construction of key infrastructure as part of the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program I (PMDN I) with the goal of reducing the environmental and socioeconomic vulnerability to natural disasters of the population living in the Artibonite and Cavaillon watersheds.

Once the project was completed the team faced some serious challenge: How can you reliably analyze the impact of natural disaster mitigation measures when data are scarce? How can you know that the benefits are higher than the costs of the project? And how can the Bank use the findings to improve future operations?

What Did Natural Disaster Mitigation Program (PMDN I) Deliver?

PMDN I financed the construction of four downstream riverbank protection works along the Artibonite and Cavaillon Rivers. The powerful current of the Artibonite River caused erosion along the canals built alongside the river to feed the country’s largest irrigation system.

Without these canals, rice and vegetable producers working an area that spans 15,862 hectares would have to rely on rainwater to irrigate their fields – a much less reliable source of water, and a haphazard system that would eventually lead to agricultural losses.

To prevent the collapse of these canals due to erosion, PMDN I financed the construction of three concrete retaining walls that can reach up to nine meters in height, commonly known as “Berlin Walls”.

PMDN I also financed the construction of gabion walls (metal cages filled with rocks) along the downstream river-bank of the Cavaillon watershed to protect the town of Maniche.

The town had experienced significant economic losses, particularly in the agricultural sector, as a result of frequent exposure to flooding.

How Can We Know Whether the Project Was Effective?

After investing US$13.9 million in the infrastructure component of the project, the Haitian government and the IDB wanted to measure the effectiveness of the infrastructure built under PMDN I before contemplating a second phase of the project.

A rigorous evaluation would fulfill two purposes: first, to estimate the benefits of what had been done, and second, to facilitate decision-making regarding the second project phase. However, evaluating infrastructure projects poses three big challenges for evaluators.

First, it is very difficult to find a comparable population exposed to a similar event: that is, to construct a counterfactual.

Second, the infrastructure financed by PMDN I was built to mitigate the effects of natural disasters—random events that cannot be planned or replicated.

Finally, the lack of data intensifies the first two challenges and makes it difficult to establish baselines and follow-ups.

Given these challenges, the PMDN I evaluation team decided to assess the benefits of the infrastructure measures through a cost-benefit analysis in order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of each infrastructure alternative.

What Methodologies Were Used?

To assess the works to prevent erosion of the canals in the Artibonite watershed, the evaluation team conducted a technical diagnosis of the state of the canals before the project, to establish a baseline before anything new was built. The results showed that the canals would have collapsed within an average duration of five years.

To evaluate the agricultural losses that would result from the destruction of the canals, the team incorporated data in the cost-benefit analysis from a household survey conducted in 2012 for another IDB operation in the same area.

This was crucial for establishing a counterfactual scenario that demonstrated that all three Berlin Walls built by the project helped prevent agricultural losses and generated a positive net present value ranging from US$22 million to US$32 million, where the investment costs on the Berlin Walls ranged from US$1.9 million to US$3.8 million.

natural-disaster-risk-management

The cost-benefit analysis used to evaluate the impact of the gabion walls built in the area of Maniche was more challenging. The team aimed to compare expected annual economic losses caused by floods before the project (ex-ante) with projected losses after the project (ex-post).

A direct comparison of the effects of two similar climate events before and after the project was not possible because – fortunately – no significant climate event occurred in the direct aftermath of the construction work.

Instead, the team created loss curves specifically built for the Cavaillon watershed by establishing the relationship between expected annual economic losses caused by floods and the annual probability of flooding for both pre- and post-project scenarios.

The post-project scenario was created under the assumption that the new infrastructure would provide protection against flood events having a return period (or probability of occurrence) ranging from less than once every year (for small floods which, on average, occur every year or less) to once every ten years (for larger floods which, on average, occur once every ten years).

The main challenge here was the scarcity of concrete data on the effects of climate events on households. To overcome this problem, the project team conducted a survey inquiring about households’ assets, as well as the height of water levels that those surveyed had witnessed in their homes during specific historical flood events. With this information, the team was able to create a map visualizing the reported water levels and the exposed economic assets.

To estimate how often extreme rains occur in Haiti, the team used data collected by the National Water Resource Service (Service National des Ressources d’Eau – SNRE) and the National Center for Meteorology (Centre National de Météorologie – CNM).

Despite avoiding annual economic losses in the Cavaillon watershed, which were estimated to be around US$500,000, the analysis found that the flood mitigation infrastructure yielded a negative net present value of US$2.2 million.

This means that the costs of this portion of the project exceeded the benefits. The construction of the Berlin and gabion walls yielded a positive net present value.

What Did We Learn from the Evaluation?

The two methodologies that were developed and used to measure ex-post the impact of the downstream riverbank protection works built as part of PMDN I were then used ex-ante to identify and objectively prioritize the best opportunities to mitigate flooding and erosion in Haiti in the project’s second phase (PMDN II).

This marks a significant improvement in the design of natural disaster and risk management programs in Haiti, where cost-benefit analyses in the past were typically conducted only after the infrastructure in which to invest had already been selected.

The evaluation of PMDN I thus contributed to the IDB’s goal to improve policymaking in natural disaster risk management in Haiti.


This story is one of the project stories included in the Development Effectiveness Overview, an annual publication that highlights the lessons learned from IDB projects and evaluations.

About the Authors:

Sebastien Gachot is an impact evaluation consultant in the Environment, Rural Development and Disaster Risk Management Division in the IDB office in Port au Prince, Haiti.

Gines Suárez is a disaster risk specialist in the Environment, Rural Development and Disaster Risk Management Division in the IDB office in El Salvador.

Bruno Jacquet is a rural development specialist in the Environment, Rural Development and Disaster Risk Management Division in the IDB office in Port au Prince, Haiti.

Carmine Paolo De Salvo is a rural development specialist in the Environment, Rural Development and Disaster Risk Management Division in the IDB headquarters in Washington, DC.


Filed Under: What does and doesn't work in development Tagged With: Caribbean, DEO, DEO 2015, development, Haiti, impact evaluation, natural disaster mitigation, natural disasters, Public policies, risk mitigation

Jacqueline Bueso-Merriam

Jacqueline Bueso-Merriam is Evaluation Economics Specialist at the Office of Strategic Planning and Development Effectiveness at the Interamerican Development Bank.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Follow Us

Subscribe

Search

About this blog

This blog highlights effective ideas in the fight against poverty and exclusion, and analyzes the impact of development projects in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Categories

Footer

Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo
facebook
twitter
youtube
youtube
youtube

    Blog posts written by Bank employees:

    Copyright © Inter-American Development Bank ("IDB"). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons IGO 3.0 Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives. (CC-IGO 3.0 BY-NC-ND) license and may be reproduced with attribution to the IDB and for any non-commercial purpose. No derivative work is allowed. Any dispute related to the use of the works of the IDB that cannot be settled amicably shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the UNCITRAL rules. The use of the IDB's name for any purpose other than for attribution, and the use of IDB's logo shall be subject to a separate written license agreement between the IDB and the user and is not authorized as part of this CC- IGO license. Note that link provided above includes additional terms and conditions of the license.


    For blogs written by external parties:

    For questions concerning copyright for authors that are not IADB employees please complete the contact form for this blog.

    The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDB, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent.

    Attribution: in addition to giving attribution to the respective author and copyright owner, as appropriate, we would appreciate if you could include a link that remits back the IDB Blogs website.



    Privacy Policy

    Derechos de autor © 2025 · Magazine Pro en Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

    Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo

    Aviso Legal

    Las opiniones expresadas en estos blogs son las de los autores y no necesariamente reflejan las opiniones del Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, sus directivas, la Asamblea de Gobernadores o sus países miembros.

    facebook
    twitter
    youtube
    This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser.
    To learn more about cookies, click here
    X
    Manage consent

    Privacy Overview

    This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
    Necessary
    Always Enabled
    Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
    Non-necessary
    Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
    SAVE & ACCEPT