Participatory Watershed Management Planning_A Step-by-Step Guide_World Bank 2019.pdf

Participatory Watershed Management Planning:

A Step-by-Step Guide

October 2019

World Bank Program on Forests (PROFOR) CORE, Haiti Takes Root

Lead Author: Dr. Glenn Smucker Co-Author: Joel Timyan Contributor: Chris Ward

Authors of the Participatory Watershed Management Planning: A Step-by-Step Guide including the Gwelan and Sault du Baril pilot site management plans can be contacted by email as follows:

Glenn R. Smucker, Cultural Anthropologist, grsmucker@aol.com

Joel Timyan, Forester Ecologist, jctimyan@gmail.com

The Haiti Takes Root program of CORE is available to carry out training and participatory watershed planning services based on the Step by Step Guide for Participatory Watershed Management Plan-ning. For further information contact Haiti Takes Root as follows:

info@haititakesroot.org

Visit us on the web at haititakesroot.org i

Participatory Watershed Management Planning:

A Step-by-Step Guide

PREFACE

In 2017, the step by step methodology for participatory planning was tested at two pilot sites: the upland area of Sault du Baril waterfalls, and the wetlands and mangroves of the lowland coastal area of Gwelan (O’Rouck). The methodology was subsequently revised, taking into account lessons learned from these two pilot sites within the Rivière Froide watershed of Anse-à-Veau. Section One below presents the Step-by-Step guide, and Section Two includes the full text of participatory management plans for the two pilot sites.

Between January-April 2018, four rapid assessment teams from the Community Organized Relief Effort’s (CORE, f/k/a J/P Haitian Relief Organization) Haiti Takes Root program applied the partici-patory methodology to ten (10) additional sites of Bondeau, Petite Rivière de Nippes, Rivière Froide and Baconnois watersheds in the Nippes Department. See Annex D for a listing of all sites where the participatory planning methodology has been applied including the two pilot sites. Annex D also includes web links to the full texts of 12 participatory management plans.

The participatory methodology also played a key role in the preparatory phase of the Government of Haiti’s Resilient Produc-tive Landscape (RPL) project funded by the World Bank and CORE.

In effect, the highly participatory planning methodology described below has integrated local stakeholders from the very beginning of RPL project development and set the stage for stakeholder participation in all subsequent phases of project implementation.

Development of the participatory methodology and related field studies would not have been possible without the efforts of many people, especially the team of specialists who tested the method-ology at two pilot sites in Anse-à-Veau. This included agronomist Carl Mondé, who championed this effort at the Ministry of Agriculture and played a valuable role in site selection; agricultural economist Fresner Dorcin who facilitated workshops and edited the team’s field report; engineer-hydrologist Jean Brunet Georges, ecologist-forester Joel Timyan, community organizer Vernande

Joseph, and cultural anthropologist Glenn Smucker who served as team leader and lead author for the participatory methodology and step-by-step guide.

The entire CORE team benefited greatly from the advice, com-ments and support provided by Katie Kennedy Freeman and Caroline Plante of the World Bank. Chris Ward, the former Execu-tive Director of Haiti Takes Root, fostered the entire process from beginning to end and facilitated CORE administrative support. He also contributed significantly to discussion, editing, and formatting of the report. Ecologist Joel Timyan made indispensable contribu-tions to site analysis, thematic atlases for the two sites, biodiversity assessment, the proposed package of technical interventions, and the writing of two participatory micro-watershed management plans. See Annexes A, B and C for science-based methodologies designed by Joel Timyan to inform site selection, atlas design, and biodiversity assessment.

Jerome Lebleu served as a thoughtful reader and commentator, as did Melinda Miles, who also provided unconditional support in other ways. Tracy Kroner provided contributions to final layout and administrative support. Liam Storrings contributed a series of high-quality photographs. Numerous other photographs and visual illustrations were contributed by Joel Timyan and Glenn Smucker. Fritz-Gerald Chery provided invaluable logistical as-sistance in the field. Above all, the farmers, fishers, and market vendors of Gwelan and Sault du Baril contributed heart and soul to the participatory process. These grassroots stakeholders were indispensable contributors to the end product by virtue of their patience, enthusiasm, and lively comments.

What follows is a practical step by step guide to orient participa-tory planning. Note the listing of figures, tables and text boxes in the table of contents below. The boxes include topics of inquiry and tick lists of questions to guide field interviews and transects.

Pages with boxes can be photocopied or removed from a 3-ring binder to orient field interviews and observations in the field.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface i

Acronyms iv

Section One: Methodology for Participatory Watershed Management Planning 1

I. Guiding Elements of Participatory Watershed Management Planning 2

II. Step-by-Step Guide to Participatory Watershed Management Planning 5

Phase I. Site Selection 7

Step 1: Regional Prioritization 13

Step 2: Selection of Hydrological Zone 13

Step 3: Selection of Target Watershed(s) 13

Step 4: Selection of Target Micro-Watersheds 14

Phase II. Rapid Integrated Micro-Watershed Assessment 16

A. Rapid Expert Assessment 17

B. Stakeholder Micro-Watershed Assessment Workshop 24

Phase III. Planning Priorities for Micro-Watershed Management 30

Stakeholder workshop on priorities 30

Prepare Micro-Watershed Management Plan 31

Annex A. Criteria for Watershed & Micro-Watershed Selection 34

Annex B. Thematic Atlas Methodology 38

Annex C. Conducting a Rapid Biodiversity Assessment 39

Annex D. Writing a Watershed Management Plan 40

Other Management Plans as Reference 40

Illustrative Working Outline 41

Notes on Preparing Micro-Watershed Management Plans 42

Section Two: Pilot Site Management Plans 45

Gwelan Micro-Watershed Management Plan 46

Characteristics of the Micro-Watershed 46

Land Use Zoning Strategy 52

Agro-Ecological Zones 52

Intervention Zones 53

Micro-Watershed Interventions and Projects 54

Ravine Treatments, Agroforestry and Mangroves 55

Stakeholder Priorities for Gwelan 58

Sault du Baril Micro-Watershed Management Plan 62

Characteristics of the Micro-Watershed 62

Land Use Zoning Strategy 67

Agro-Ecological Zones 67

Intervention Zones 69

Micro-Watershed Interventions and Projects 70

Ravine Treatments, Agroforestry and Denuded Slopes 70

Stakeholder Priorities for Sault du Baril 76

Bibliography 80

List of Figures Figure 1. Guiding Elements of Participatory Watershed Management Planning 4

Figure 2. Watershed assets as targets for sustainable management: Gwelan spring, wetlands, mangrove buffer 5

Figure 3. Participatory watershed management planning methodology 6

Figure 4. Major rivers and hydrological zones of Haiti 7

Figure 5. Example of the 4-step process for targeting micro-watersheds in Nippes Department 9

Figure 6. Gwelan ridge-to-reef view of micro-watershed assets; Sault du Baril waterfall fed by artesian spring 10

Figure 7. Sault du Baril watershed assets: mountain stream, waterfalls and agroforestry landscape. 11

Figure 8. A local key informant interview with an agronomist, the parish priest in Gwelan 14

Figure 9. Field transect encounters with fishermen in the coastal area of Gwelan 15

Figure 10. Detailed Ridge-to-reef Transect by Agro-ecological Zone, Elevation & Cultigen 21

Figure 11. Example of simple hand-sketched map used to record transect observations 22

Figure 12. Field transect including chance encounters with watershed stakeholders 23

Figure 13. REA workshop facilitator, flip chart to record participant views, Sault du Baril 24

Figure 14. Stakeholder workshop participants in Sault du Baril 25

Figure 15. Participatory land use sketch produced by local farmers in Bassin (Limbé), Haiti 28

Figure 16. Sketch map of historical shifts in land use. 29

Figure 17. Participatory Micro-Watershed Planning Workshops held in schools in Gwelan and Sault du Baril 31

Annex A Figure 1. Top Down Steps in Geographic Prioritization for Watershed Interventions 34

Figure 18. PROFOR pilot sites 45

Figure 19. Administrative boundaries of Anse-à-Veau commune 46

Figure 20. Gwelan watershed boundaries 47

Figure 21. Hydrology of the Rivière Froide drainage basin 47

Figure 22. Housing and settlement patterns of Gwelan 47

Figure 23. Geological map of the Gwelan watershed 48

Figure 24. Hydrogeological formations of the Gwelan watershed 48

Figure 25. Soil erosion risk map for Gwelan micro-watershed 49

Figure 26. Soil quality map of the Gwelan watershed 49

Figure 27. Map showing 1,000–1,200 mm/year of rainfall in Gwelan 50 iii

Figure 28. Holdridge Life Zones occurring in the Gwelan watershed 50

Figure 29. Current land use zones in the Gwelan Micro- Watershed 51

Figure 30. Agro-ecology zones in the Gwelan micro-watershed 51

Figure 31. Proposed river bank and flood control structures along Grande Riviere de Nippes 53

Figure 32. Micro-Watershed Intervention Zones of Gwelan 53

Figure 33. Ravines and ravine buffer zones of Gwelan micro-watershed 54

Figure 34. Location of rock and gabion dams in two ravines of Sand Quarry 1 54

Figure 35. Rock dam in a ravine; gabion dam reinforced with concrete 55

Figure 36. Rock and gabion dams along the ravine from Sand Quarry 2 to Gwelan stream 56

Figure 37. Vetiver planted in ravine bed to halt erosion and filter storm water 57

Figure 38. Agroforestry areas of Gwelan classified as a Controlled Use Zone 58

Figure 39. Gwelan mangroves showing current extent (red) and area to be restored (orange) 58

Figure 40. Commune of Anse-à-Veau administrative boundaries 62

Figure 41. Boundaries of Sault du Baril watershed and target area 63

Figure 42. Hydrology of the Rivière Froide watershed 63

Figure 43. Settlement patterns of Sault du Baril based on housing 63

Figure 44. Geological map of the Sault du Baril target zone 64

Figure 45. Hydrogeological formations of the Sault du Baril target zone 64

Figure 46. Soil erosion risk map for Sault du Baril target zone 65

Figure 47. Soil quality map of the Sault du Baril target area 65

Figure 48. Map showing 1,400 – 2,000 mm/year rainfall in Sault du Baril 66

Figure 49. Holdridge Life Zone classification of Sault du Baril target zone 66

Figure 50. Agro-ecology zones of Sault du Baril target zone 67

Figure 51. Proposed Protected Area surrounding Sault du Baril waterfalls 69

Figure 52. Sault du Baril Intervention Zones 69

Figure 53. Location of streams and ravines in the Sault du Baril micro-watershed 70

Figure 54. Illustrations representing ravine treatments recommended for Sault du Baril 71

Figure 55. Sault du Baril ravines originating on the Rochelois Plateau 72

Figure 56. Ravine treatments for ravines SM1, SM2 & SM4 72

Figure 57. Land Cover and Land Use in Sault du Baril Micro- Watershed 74

Figure 58. Examples of contoured food bands (bann manje) on Haitian slopes 77

List of Tables Table 1. Four steps of site selection by guiding criteria 8

Table 2. Maps in Thematic Atlas grouped by category 19

Annex A Table 1. Maps in Thematic Atlas grouped by category 35

Annex A Table 2. Qualitative Criteria 35

Annex A Table 3. Factor weights for environmental index favoring agroforestry & tree investments 36

Annex A Table 4. Factor weights for environmental vulnerability index 36

Annex D Table 1. Factor weights for environmental vulnerability index 40

Annex D Table 2. Assets, risks and opportunities in Carrefour Dent sub watershed 42

Annex D Table 3. Table of technical packages tailored to local agro-ecological zones 42

Annex D Table 4. Agricultural calendar of primary cash crops at the study site 42

Annex D Table 5. Table of technical packages tailored to local agro-ecological zones 43

Table 3. Gwelan land area by agro-ecological zone, in hectares 52

Table 4. Land area of Gwelan Intervention Zones, in hectares 54

Table 5. Stakeholder Vetted Projects and Priorities for Gwelan Micro-Watershed Management Plan 59

Table 6. Sault du Baril agro-ecological zones and land area, in hectares 68

Table 7. Land area by Watershed Intervention Zones, in hectares 70

Table 8. Land area by Watershed Intervention Zones, in hectares 71

Table 9. Characteristics of 11 dry ravines in Sault du Baril micro-watershed 73

Table 10. Land use category by hectare (ha) and percent (%) 75

Table 11. Stakeholder Vetted Projects and Priorities for Sault du Baril Micro-Watershed Management Plan 78

List of Boxes Box 1. Topics of Inquiry for Qualitative Field Interviews 12

Box 2. A tick list of questions to guide overall field inquiry for Rapid Expert Assessment 17

Box 3. TORs for Rapid Expert Assessment Team 18

Box 4. Tick list of topics for semi-structured interviews with local key Informants 19

Box 5. Tick list of topics for semi-structured interviews with technical specialists in GOH ministries 19

Box 6. Tick list questions for semi-structured interviews with elected officials and local governance actors 20

Box 7. Tick list for field transect observations 21

Box 8. Workshop topics for stakeholder discussion 24

Box 9. Pre-workshop preparation checklist 26

Box 10. Illustrative agenda for stakeholder micro-watershed assessment workshop 27

Box 11. Participatory micro-watershed sketch mapping 28

Box 12. Post-workshop checklist 29

Box 13. Pre-workshop II checklist: 30

Box 14. Sample workshop II agenda 32 iv

ACRONYMS

AAN Association des Apiculteurs de Nippes

AIPC Association des Irrigants du Périmètre Charlier

AJAD Association des Jeunes Ansavelais pour le Dével-oppement

AJPO Association Jeunes Progressistes O’Rouck

AJPSDP Association des Jeunes Progressistes pour le Sault du Baril

ANAP Agence Nationale des Aires Protégées (MDE)

APDR Asosyasyon Plantè pou Devlopman O’Rouck

APO Association Pêcheurs O’Rouck

ArcGIS Arc Geographic Information System (ESRI Software)

ASEC Assemblée de la Section Communale

AUPC Association des Usagers Planteurs Chanterelle

CASEC Conseil d’Administration de la Section Communale

CIAT Comité Interministériel d’Aménagement du Territoire

CNIGS Centre National de l’Information Géo-Spatiale (GOH)

CORE Community Organized Relief Effort (formerly known as J/P Haitian Relief Organization)

DIA Direction d’Infrastructure Agricole (MARNDR)

DPC Direction de la Protection Civile (MICT)

DEED Développement Economique pour un Envi-ronnement Durable

DINEPA Direction Nationale de l’Eau Potable et de l’Assainissement (GOH)

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (USG)

EU European Union

FAAA Femmes Actives pour Avancement Anse-à-Veau

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations)

FVSB Fanm Vanyan Sault du Baril

GE Google Earth

GIS Geographic Information System

GOH Government of Haiti

Ha Hectare

HTR Haiti Takes Root

IHSI Institut Haïtien de Statistique et de l’Informatique

(GOH)

J/P HRO J/P Haitian Relief Organization (see CORE)

Km Kilometer

Kml Keyhole markup language

MARNDR Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural (GOH)

MDE Ministère de l’Environnement (GOH)

MICT Ministère de l’Intérieur et des Collectivités Territoriales

(GOH)

MPCE Ministère de la Planification et de la Coopération Externe (GOH)

NGO Non-governmental organization

OAS Organization of American States

OCHA Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (United Nations)

PADF Pan-American Development Foundation

PES Payment for ecosystem services

PROFOR Program on Forests (World Bank)

REA Rapid expert assessment

RN21 Route Nationale 21

RPL Resilient Productive Landscapes (TPR)

SIG Système d’Information Géographique

TPR Territoires Productifs Résilients (RPL)

TWMP Targeted Watershed Management Project (USAID)

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNEP United Nations Environment Program

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USG United States Government

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

WB World Bank

WGS World Geodetic System

WINNER Watershed Initiatives for Natural Environmental Resources (USAID)

SECTION ONE: METHODOLOGY

FOR PARTICIPATORY WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Overview. The following narrative describes a field-tested methodology for participatory watershed planning. The approach is science-based and also actively integrates the local population and other stakeholders into the process of watershed assessment and planning. The participatory planning methodology is based on a series of guiding principles presented below. The intended purpose of this methodology is sustainable watershed management at the local level. See Figure 1 below for a graphic summary of the guiding elements of participatory planning. This establishes the theoretical base for practical step-by-step applications summarized in Figure 3.

The participatory methodology incorporates aspects of existing toolkits and approaches; however, it also has certain unique features:

z Unlike other tools, it is devised to address the varied character of Haiti’s highly diverse ecology along with its rural economy, socio-cultural features, and local governance.

z Its scale prioritizes micro-watersheds and ravines within larger watersheds where water or other assets serve as a focus of investment and intensive community engagement.

z The participatory methodology is rooted in an inherently adaptive approach which is applicable to virtually any site anywhere, including those outside of Haiti.

The primary audiences for this methodology are:

z Field practitioners, local elected officials, and implementing organizations working with local populations to develop local land use plans using a participatory approach.

z Donors, government agencies, and decision-makers targeting investments in natural resources and local watersheds.

I. Guiding Elements of Participatory Watershed Management Planning Hydrology and Anthropology. By definition, effective watershed intervention requires careful attention to context. Haitian watersheds are not empty landscapes; they are instead characterized by a wide range of human endeavors, including small farmers scattered across the landscape.

In response, the Participatory Watershed Management Planning Methodology is firmly rooted in an anthropologically-informed approach to natural resource management. This includes careful attention to the social and cultural context of land use in Haiti’s watersheds, especially the small farm system.

Rapid. The method proposed here for prioritizing watershed interventions is rapid and cost effective.

It relies heavily on existing data (reports, maps, GIS) rather than undertaking new research. It also relies on the knowledge and experience of respected key informants1 familiar with the natural and project history of the area, which saves time. Expert input takes the form of rapid assessment rather than lengthy field studies and household surveys. Participatory workshops are focused and time limited.

Interactive. The field study process is marked overall by a highly interactive approach. Interdisciplin-ary site assessment team members conduct fieldwork jointly and discuss observations, including end-of-the-day review following field visits. The interactive approach applies equally to the process of site selection, expert assessment, key informant interviews, and workshop consultation with local stakeholders. The interactive approach stimulates reflection on land use planning and enriches the process of information gathering.

Participatory. As with other catchwords, the term participation is widely used but with a range of different meanings, or without a single clearly defined meaning. The participatory methodology described here relies on marrying the science of high-level experts with the local knowledge and experience of watershed users and stakeholders. These interactions are intended to be two-way rather than simply top-down. This integrates local knowledge and concerns together with scientific knowledge and best practices. Technical solutions build on stakeholder needs and priorities. As a result, watershed residents are full partners in the planning process even if the process includes specialists. It is their process, their watershed, and their priorities.

Concentration of Efforts. A review of watershed interventions suggests that successful resource management of whole watersheds has rarely, if ever, happened in Haiti. One reason for this is that watershed interventions have historically been widely scattered, thereby diluting the impact of watershed interventions. On the other hand, small-scale geographic concentration of effort has been successful. Therefore, a realistic strategy is to target an intermediate scale of intervention based on critical zones within watersheds, and to concentrate efforts across garden borders, rather than treat-ing scattered parcels. Accordingly, prioritize sites where seamless coverage is justified by a higher estimated return on investment, and focus on integrated land use planning at a manageable scale.

Adaptive. The Haitian landscape is highly diverse. Therefore, make a special effort to tailor watershed interventions to each site. This includes careful attention to species-site matching in relation to elevation, rainfall and soil types, as well as local patterns of land use and the flow of water. Build on positive features of the small farm system in Haiti, including agroforestry associations, tree crops, and a broad diversity of cultigens. A guiding concept is analysis of the landscape in terms of life zones or

1. Knowledgeable key informants are a valuable resource and serve to accelerate knowledge acquisition related to target sites.

This includes a sense of natural history including major meteorological events that resulted in land use and land cover changes, also an awareness of earlier projects that succeeded or failed.

agro-ecological zones. These zones should be mapped and taken into account when prioritizing interventions.

Manageable Units. Watershed assessment includes top down analysis; however, watershed interventions on the ground work best when working from the bottom up. This works best when local stakeholders live in close proximity and have economic reasons to collaborate across plot lines. Therefore, intervention sites should be of manageable size from a social organizational perspective. Try to solve local resource management issues at the smallest unit capable of handling the problem, the most local organizational unit capable of leveraging a resource-based opportunity. Identify concrete economic incentives to collaborate around local resources such as water, springs, productive ravines, and irrigation perimeters.

Livelihood Imperatives in Watershed Planning. Haiti’s watersheds are not only marked by the flow of water. Haitian watersheds are also marked by the flow of people, goods and services, i.e., “marketsheds”, “humansheds” and the struggle to make a living. Under these circumstances, livelihood imperatives must be taken into account, particularly in a rural context deeply marked by poverty.

Target Assets and Opportunities. Interventions over entire hydrological zones are prohibitively expensive. Therefore, prioritize assets and opportunities over vulnerability as the defining criterion in targeting watershed intervention sites. Focus scarce project resources on zones where prospects for success are highest. In rural Haiti, this includes water-related assets such as springs, productive ravines, wetlands and irrigation perimeters. Link economic incentives to environmental sustainability, especially high value perennial crops and agroforestry value chains. Distinguish between sites meriting more intensive versus more extensive modes of intervention, for example, the Gwelan wetlands pictured in Figure 2 below.

Critical Elements of an Anthropologically-Informed Approach to Watershed Planning and Management. An anthropologically-informed approach pays close attention to the social and cultural context of watershed planning. In rural Haiti, this includes the peasant farm system as economic enterprise and social unit including the sexual division of labor. It includes farmer deci-sion making, labor strategies, household consumption, market dynamics, the agricultural calendar and periods of peak demand for scarce cash, including spring planting and fall schooling.

A culturally informed approach takes into account the botany of the yard (lakou) and traditional agroforestry practices. This includes multilevel, polycultural production in field gardens, an agroforestry system known as a jaden kreyol (“Creole garden”). It also takes into account resource links to non-farm livelihoods including religious specialists, fishers, market traders, traditional crafts, wood markets, charcoal makers, sawyers, coffin and furniture makers, carpenters, and house builders.

An anthropologically-informed approach makes inquiry into local social arrangements outside the household including agricultural labor, rotating labor groups, rotating credit groups, and grass-roots organizations, including women’s groups. Local social dynamics include political issues, factions, special interest groups and patterns of resource governance. Accordingly, social inquiry pays special attention to sources of conflict and competition over land, water and other scarce resources, including potable water, irrigation perimeters, fisheries and other coastal resources. A culturally sensitive approach also takes into account commons such as mangroves, sacred trees and pilgrimage sites linked to natural resources such as springs, waterfalls, caves, and cliffs.

Anthropologically oriented data gathering relies on qualitative as well as quantitative information, including semi-structured interviews and group interviews in the field. This includes interviews at rural residences and garden sites, markets, and other points of sale including street vendors, and serendipitous encounters with watershed dwellers during field transects.

Watershed Lexicon. The notion of watershed is the central organizing concept for local land use planning in this guide. The narrative uses several closely related words to refer to watersheds at different scales including subwatersheds, micro-watersheds, micro-catchments and ravines. For purposes of planning, micro-watersheds are subwatershed units of intervention that implicate local populations in local water management.

Figure 1. Guiding Elements of Participatory Watershed Management Planning.

Figure 2. Watershed assets as targets for sustainable management: Gwelan spring, wetlands, mangrove buffer. Photo credits: L. Stor-rings (left), G. Smucker (right).

II. Step-by-Step Guide to Participatory Watershed Management Planning The methodology for participatory watershed management planning presented in this guide follows three successive phases (see Figure 3 below for a graphic presentation of the participatory planning process):

Phase I: Site Selection. Site selection for watershed interventions is an essential component of the participatory watershed planning process. Well-chosen sites significantly enhance prospects for project success and long-term sustainability. The process of site selection relies on a combination of expert analysis of maps and remote sensing data, key informant interviews, and on-the-ground field site visits. The goal is to identify high-priority micro-watersheds within a larger target watershed where investment in participatory planning is justified by watershed resources, assets, and opportuni-ties.

Phase II: Rapid Integrated Micro-Watershed Assessment. Phase II characterizes the high-value micro-watersheds targeted for investment. A Rapid Integrated Approach links rapid expert assess-ment with participatory assessment by local stakeholders. This includes an atlas of thematic maps preparedMi by a GIS specialist, field transects, interviews with watershed users and key informants, and a stakeholder workshop devoted to site analysis, participatory sketch mapping and needs assessment.

Phase III: Planning Priorities for Micro-Watershed Management. The third phase defines land use zones, priorities, and prospective interventions within targeted micro-watersheds. The process for doing so relies heavily on a stakeholder watershed management planning workshop. The workshop includes stakeholder review of findings from the rapid expert assessment, including a land use zoning strategy, and stakeholder vetted priorities by activity sector, agro-ecological zone, specific sites and concrete projects. Workshop findings and priorities serve as the basis for preparing a participatory management plan validated by stakeholders for each targeted micro-watershed.

The end result of this three-step process is a set of practical, sustainable management plans for targeted micro-watersheds in the intervention zone. By replicating this process in a series of micro-watersheds within the target watershed, project activities can contribute visibly to landscape-level change.

Figure 3. Participatory watershed management planning methodology.

Phase I. Site Selection

Overview. Site selection is an essential first step for participatory watershed planning. This pivotal decision has an enormous impact on prospects for success, given the sheer complexity of Haiti’s hydrology. For example, the Haitian land mass is a largely mountainous agricultural landscape (80%) divided into major hydrological zones (see Figure 4 below).2 These large-scale hydrological zones contain hundreds of watersheds and sub-watersheds, thousands of micro-catchment basins and millions of inhabitants. Furthermore, given current land use patterns, virtually all of Haiti’s watersheds are vulnerable to soil erosion on upper slopes, and severe flooding downstream.3 In this complex hydrological context, how do watershed investors and participatory planners decide where to work?

What criteria should guide site selection?

This methodology addresses these challenges by adopting a site selection process that prioritizes watersheds with natural assets that constitute opportunities for investment, for example, water and irrigable land as targets of investment in the face of climate change and seasonal shifts in rainfall. The final step of site selection targets small-scale watersheds of “manageable size” for more intensive, highly participatory modes of intervention. These small-scale watersheds are identified here as “micro-watersheds”.

z Focusing on “Assets and Opportunities”. In light of the country’s complex hydrology, interven-tions that would have a measureable impact on entire hydrological zones or large watersheds are prohibitively expensive, particularly in relation to available funding. As a result, the initial challenge is to choose sites that enhance prospects for success in watershed management.

Site selection necessarily takes into account the factor of risk, but the methodology privileges assets and opportunities over vulnerability as the critical factors in selecting a watershed or micro-watershed site for investment. In this way, assets such as water, irrigation works and high-value agroforestry offer economic leverage for stakeholder collaboration across garden borders, thereby enhancing the protection of watershed assets.

z Identifying “Manageable Units” of Intervention. In the rural Haitian context, a highly participa-tory approach works best when stakeholders live or work in relatively close proximity —for example, at the level of a micro-watershed and neighboring households—and where there is economic incentive for collaboration across garden borders. This could be an irrigation user association for collective water management, or adjoining garden owners in productive ravines with terraced plots producing high value cash crops, such as vegetables. Accordingly, to facilitate participatory planning, sites should be manageable in size from a social organizational

2. These hydrological zones are large in scale, varying from 169 square kilometers (Savanette) to 6,336 square kilometers (Artibonite). See also MDE (2012), which references CNIGS mapping drawn primarily from the earlier OAS analysis.

3. Smucker et al (2007) on watershed vulnerability.

Figure 4. Major rivers and hydrological zones of Haiti.

Source: Smucker et al., 2007.

perspective (see Step 4 below for discussion of critical methodological issues related to determining manageable size).

The overall approach to site selection entails a 4-step process to identify high priority micro-watersheds within larger target zones. Priority micro-watersheds are targeted for intensive investment and participatory land use planning.

The selection process begins with GIS review of larger geographic units prioritized by govern-ment such as regions, administrative départements, or storm-affected areas. The next step is to review component hydrological zones of the larger region, each of which is composed of several watersheds, and to target specific watersheds with high value natural assets especially water. Within targeted watersheds, the final step is to identify critical micro-watersheds for intensive, asset-oriented investments, beginning with participatory site assessment and planning with stakeholders.

See Table 1 below for a summary description of the site selection process, funneling down from larger to smaller geo-spatial units. Site selection relies in large part on GIS analysis, but also includes recourse to other available data including qualitative information, expert knowledge of the zone, key informants and field observations including transects. For further discussion of criteria and available GIS layers, see Annex A. Criteria for Watershed and Micro-Watershed Selection.

The final product is a listing of critical micro-watersheds that are manageable in scale with productive assets or ecosystem services that justify investment in participatory planning, and where concentration of efforts can have a tangible environmental impact.

Table 1. Four steps of site selection by guiding criteria.

Steps Guiding Criteria Tools Results

Step 1. Region or département priorities

Government or donor priorities Government or donor strategic plans Targeted region or département

Step 2. Selection of hydrological Zone z Rainfall & water resources z Cultivated land per capita z Tree cover

GIS analysis Targeted hydrological zone

Step 3. Selection of Target Watersheds z Watershed limits z Roads and irrigation infra-structures z Erosion risk z Flood-prone populations

GIS layers and analysis Targeted watersheds

Economic and agricultural assets Atlas Agricole d’Haiti

High-value biodiversity sites and protected areas

ANAP and other GOH maps and documents

Agroforestry & climate-smart value chains

Reports, maps, key informants interviews, preliminary site visits

Step 4. Selection of Target Micro-Watersheds z Site assets with livelihood benefits, e.g., water, small-scale irrigation and high value agroforestry z Sites providing valuable ecosystem services z Economic incentives for stakeholder collaboration across garden lines z Manageable scale z GIS analysis z Key informant interviews z Site visits and field transects z Targeted micro-watersheds z Environmentally sustainable z investment opportunities

Figure 5 below demonstrates the site selection process as it applies to targeting micro-watersheds.

A sequence of four inset maps zoom in from larger regions and hydrological basins to watersheds and micro-watersheds. This example is drawn from PROFOR micro-watershed site selection in the Rivière Froide watershed of the Nippes Department. In this case, the final step identifies three micro-watersheds as prospective targets for participatory watershed planning and implementation.

The site selection and participatory planning processes presented below can be repeated for mul-tiple micro-watersheds within larger watersheds. The result is a series of participatory, sustainable interventions at critical sites within a targeted watershed. The intended outcome is landscape level shifts at micro-watershed levels, and a positive cumulative effect on the ecology and economy of the broader watershed.

See Figures 6 and 7 below for landscapes targeted for participatory planning at pilot sites, based on the criteria of assets and manageable size. These micro-watersheds are further described in Section Two, management plans for Gwelan and Sault du Baril.

As a corollary to micro-watershed site selection, the 4-step process for targeting productive micro-catchments rules out less productive zones of the larger watershed as targets for intensive invest-ments. As a complementary activity, these areas may lend themselves to less intensive programming such as tree distribution and agroforestry extension services. High priority sites for these less intensive land interventions are adjoining lands upstream from targeted micro-watersheds.

Figure 5. Example of the 4-step process for targeting micro-watersheds in Nippes Department. Source: CNIGS (2012), J/P HRO (2017).

Step 1 — Step 2 — Regional Selection Hydrological Basin Selection

Step 4 — Step 3 — Micro-watershed Watershed Basin Selection Selection

Site Selection Steps

Preparation

Recruit a “site selection team” of at least two experts, an anthropologist, agronomist or agricultural economist. Ensure that the team has access to GIS data from public agencies such as CIAT or CNIGS, or from a GIS consultant. A highly qualified interdisciplinary team is critical to the methodology presented here. Team members should have fluent knowledge of French and Creole, capacity for inter-disciplinary collaboration, and extensive experience in rural Haiti including a watershed orienta-tion to sustainable land use. Required skills include rapid rural assessment, community outreach, and familiarity with small farm systems, irrigation, agriculture, and agroforestry.

In addition to site selection, this two or three-person team will provide continuity with the next phases of participatory planning. This includes Rapid Expert Assessment of targeted micro-water-

Figure 6. Top: Gwelan ridge-to-reef view of micro-watershed assets: sand quarry, irrigated wetlands, mangroves (6/2017).

Below: Sault du Baril waterfall fed by artesian springs (3/2017).

Photo credit: G. Smucker.

Figure 7. Sault du Baril watershed assets: mountain stream, waterfalls and agroforestry landscape. Photo credit: G. Smucker.

sheds. It also includes facilitation along with other specialists of the next two phases of participatory watershed planning, including a close partnership with stakeholders.

Terms of reference for site selection team

Select target sites for investment in participatory watershed planning and implementation.

1. Identify watersheds and micro-watersheds with underutilized or inadequately protected natural assets especially water.

2. Undertake a rapid preliminary assessment of watershed and micro-watershed assets, and identify opportunities for improved resource management, such as water for irrigation.

Site Selection Criteria for Targeting Watersheds and Micro-Watersheds z A small watershed or micro-watershed with significant natural assets, especially water.

z Micro-watersheds with the potential to leverage inherent economic incentives to collaborate across garden lines around water or other shared local resources.

z Geographically well-defined sites of manageable scale where stakeholders live in close proxim-ity and have economic incentives to collaborate.

See Box 1 below for site assessment tools and topics to guide interviews and observations related to site selection. Text box pages can be photocopied from the Step by Step Manual as a guide for key informant interviews, and to orient field observations including transects. There is some duplication of questions in the tick lists, which contributes to triangulation of data sources when using semi-structured interviews to supplement GIS analysis.

Box 1. Topics of Inquiry for Qualitative Field Interviews

Primary Topics of Team Inquiry

¾ What are the most significant natural assets of the watershed or micro-watershed?

¾ Are there underutilized assets with the potential for sustainable livelihood benefits?

¾ Are there water-related assets as opportunities for investment, such as springs, water courses, freshwater surfaces and wetlands?

¾ Are there high-risk sites (flood plains, ravines, landslide-prone areas, erosion-prone garden areas) that threaten resilient productive investments?

¾ Are there trees and other perennial crops that generate income on slopes, suggestive of investment opportunities for expanded, sustainable production?

¾ What are the primary sources of income among watershed residents and to what extent are they sustainable or unsustain-able?

Tick list for Interviews with GOH Specialists*

¾ Geographic priorities for site selection

¾ Location of protected areas, existing and planned

¾ Current and past projects in target area

¾ Current and future public funding for area infrastructures, including roads and irrigation

¾ Referral to other resource persons and key informants

¾ Referral to pertinent maps, documents, reports, and technical studies

* Especially knowledgeable areal specialists from MDE, MARNDR, CIAT and CNIGS.

Topics of Inquiry for the Anthropologist

¾ Institutional presence, grassroots organizations and their functioning, also projects and NGOs.

¾ Cultural practices, labor arrangements, sacred trees and pilgrimage sites.

¾ Land tenure arrangements, large and small holders, renters and sharecroppers

¾ Local resource governance, grazing violations, protected areas

¾ Conflict over resources, land, water, commons, state land

¾ Local leadership, elected officials, grassroots organizations, dynamic local entrepreneurs.

¾ Informal social capital including indigenous groups for labor exchange (eskwad), rotating credit (sang) and mutual aid.

Topics of Inquiry for the Agricultural Economist

¾ Cash crops, livestock

¾ Food crops primarily for household consumption

¾ Perennial crops, tree crops, Creole gardens, agroforestry, fallow cycles

¾ Crops and trees (i) in humid ravines and (ii) on slopes

¾ Non-farm employment, commerce, market networks, fishing, wood fuel, value chains

¾ Agricultural calendar, planting and harvest cycle of major crops

¾ Agricultural concerns of local farmers, plant pathologies, changing agricultural strategies

¾ Historical shifts in production strategies

¾ Natural areas providing ecological services

¾ Economic opportunities

Tick List for Local Key Informants Interviews

¾ Most significant natural assets of the watershed or micro-watershed

¾ Underutilized assets with the potential for sustainable livelihood benefits?

¾ Local project history, successes and failures

¾ Current projects and NGO services

¾ Private sector investments and value chains

¾ Historic shifts in production strategies

¾ Resource governance related to grazing, fire, trees, water, protected areas, conflicts over resources

¾ Referral to other local resource persons and key informants

Tick List for Field Transect Observations

¾ Types of ground cover

¾ Crop patterns and land use by elevation

¾ Location and characteristics of water resources, springs, water courses

¾ Location of water resources for household use

¾ Crops and trees in productive humid ravines and on slopes

¾ Wooded areas, tree, and fruit harvest

¾ Downed trees from storm damage

¾ Vegetation around houses, Creole gardens, living fences, hedgerows on slopes

¾ Soil types, erosion, bare slopes, ravine risks

¾ Wood harvest, planks, poles, fuelwood

¾ Activities observed during transects:

field gardens, house-and-yard compounds, footpaths, charcoal, sand quarries, fishing

Step 1: Regional Prioritization

Step 1 Action

This first step identifies the broad target region at the regional or departmental scale. This is a strategic imperative driven by policy and funding considerations.4

Step 1 Outputs

A list of promising hydrological zones (see Table 1 and Figure 5 above).

Step 2: Selection of Hydrological Zone

Step 2 Actions z Conduct initial top-down assessment of hydrological zones, relying primarily on available GIS data from sources such as CNIGS, CIAT and Google Earth. The existence of productive assets and opportunities within the region should be the guiding focus of site selection, even at this higher order stage of analysis. Identify hydrological zones with water resources and downstream irrigation works that require upstream protection.

z When conducting GIS analysis, review data available for rainfall (higher is better), popula-tion density in relation to cultivated land (lower agricultural pressure is better) and tree cover (more is better). These conditions are propitious for increased investment in tree cropping, i.e., productive, sustainable assets as an investment opportunity.5 See Annex A for further detail on selection criteria, “Criteria for Watershed and Micro-Watershed Selection.”

z Interview national and regional key informants with knowledge of the region, including representatives of the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment, CIAT and CNIGS. These specialists can rapidly orient the team to opportunities and constraints in the target region, thereby saving valuable time in site selection. Such sources also supply information useful in all subsequent phases of participatory planning.

Step 2 Outputs z A targeted hydrological zone z A list of promising target watershed(s) within the hydrological basin z An initial set of maps, documents and key informant information that inform subsequent phases of site selection.

Step 3: Selection of Target Watershed(s)

This step calls for more in-depth GIS analysis to develop a more detailed information base regarding watersheds within the target hydrological zone. This quantitative information is paired with qualitative data elicited from key informant interviews and preliminary field observations. See Annex A for more detail on qualitative data.

Step 3 Actions z Use available GIS data to short-list prospective watersheds. Identify natural assets, invest-ment opportunities and risks within the watershed and its component micro-watersheds.

z Identify water resources and other natural assets, irrigable land, and high value infrastruc-tures including irrigation works, also protected areas and other natural areas that provide significant ecosystem services, such as mangroves.

z Identify economic and agricultural assets including agroforestry and climate-smart value chains.

z Conduct initial site visits and field observations in selected watersheds (see Box 1 above for guidelines).

4. For a first cut on site selection of pilot sites, PROFOR researchers selected the Nippes hydrological zone (28a among the 30 major hydrological zones of Haiti according to the categorization of OAS (1972). This targeting of a hydrological zone reflected Government of Haiti prioritization of the Grand Sud in the wake of Hurricane Matthew.

5. Alternatively, these same criteria could be used to identify higher risk sites for watershed investment.

z Conduct key informant interviews with area specialists and local residents (see Box 1 above for topics of inquiry).6

See Figure 8 below which documents a local key informant interview undertaken in Gwelan.

Step 3 Outputs z Selection of a target watershed or watersheds, especially contiguous prospective water-sheds within the larger hydrological basin.

z A short list of promising micro-watersheds within the larger target watershed(s).

Step 4: Selection of Target Micro-Watersheds

Step 4 examines high priority micro-watersheds within the larger watersheds targeted in Step 3. This is the most intensive of the four-step Site Selection Process. The goal is to identify and document micro-watersheds that meet the following criteria, a final filter that is more specific than criteria cited earlier:

z Underutilized or inadequately protected natural assets that can be leveraged for stakeholder collaboration, especially water, irrigation and high-value agroforestry.

z A geographically well-defined site of manageable scale where stakeholders live in close proximity.7

Step 4 Actions z Prepare GIS based maps of short-listed micro-watersheds to facilitate site selection.

z Conduct qualitative interviews with local key informants and watershed stakeholders including local elected officials, representatives of grassroots organizations, and other local leaders (see Box 1 above for topics of inquiry).

z Conduct site visits and walking field transects in prospective micro-watersheds including upland and lowland areas; walk or drive micro-watershed perimeters, as feasible (see Box 1 above for guidelines).

{ Identify assets, risks, and investment opportunities,

6. Critical key informants include local elected officials and leaders of grassroots organizations, also religious leaders such as the parish priest. High value key informants may also include environmental and agricultural ministry specialists who have special knowledge of the area. Key informants are discussed further in the section on rapid expert assessment of the targeted watershed.

7. This is defined as roughly an hour’s walk or less from periphery to center, and a relatively small population of asset-related stakeholders. The number of such stakeholders is variable, but for local organizational purposes should not exceed roughly a thousand people per micro-watershed and may be far less.

Figure 8. A local key informant interview with an agronomist, the parish priest in Gwelan.

Photo credit: L. Storrings.

{ Note dominant features of the micro-watershed, { Ask questions when encountering residents or workers along the way, e.g., farmers, traders, fishers, quarry workers, charcoal makers, plank sawyers, and house builders.

See Figure 9 below for an illustration of field transect encounters.

Step 4 Outputs z Targeted micro-watersheds of manageable size that lend themselves to participatory approaches focused on productive natural assets, therefore candidate sites for Phases 2 and 3 of the participatory planning methodology.

z Environmentally sustainable investment opportunities, e.g., springs, wetlands, water courses,…