Field trip

The Organization for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs(Ocha) invited us to collaborate on an evaluation of health needs for people affected by recent flooding. I attended a meeting at which it was decided that we would be part of a field trip to visit flood-affected areas along the riverbanks of Leogane. The purpose of our visit, or so I believed, was to report on whether it was necessary to provide emergency relief for the affected areas. We were working in consultation with the Haitian government office, the DPC(Civil and Public Works Department) whose remit it is to evaluate and respond to humanitarian disasters.
On arrival, two things became clear; firstly, this was not a humanitarian disaster – flooding is a chronic issue for many Haitians living in low-lying areas. It may be more precise, therefore, to call this a chronic ecological problem. Second, the CPD made it quite clear that we ought to provide more by way of aid and relief to those affected.
Flooding is apparent in the districts we visited; however, we were only able to visit three quartier due to disagreement between NGOs and the Haitian government. The situation became tense and it was felt that our presence as a convoy of 4x4s navigating through side roads was damaging. First, the DPC asked what the communities ‘needed’ and, as pointed out by a veteran with more than twenty years of experience in Haiti, this was no way to work on an independent evaluation. Second, our mere presence inferred that this first stage would lead to more support for the communities. Moreover, we had bypassed local ties, lacked sensitivity and had no planning for evaluation in each of the communities; this was a recipe for mismanagement in what turned out to be a difficult situation.
So, I made the decision to leave; we got back in the car and returned to the safety of the UN base. In an air-conditioned meeting room, we spent an hour discussing what we had seen. It was agreed that, though living conditions are unconscionably tough, the communities have learnt to cope with intermittent flooding as part of their lives. This is sad and, ideally, would change. Yet, it would take years of meticulous planning, developing the necessary skills to allow the communities to improve drainage, secure uncontaminated sources of water from wells. This would be complemented by long-term ecological projects to reduce flooding. Solutions take time and expertise; however, providing money for clean water, replacing lost possessions and cleaning pre-existing open wells which were inundated by floodwaters was not a long-term solution.
The meeting became heated as it became apparent that the NGOs would recommend no short-term action to provide aid to the affected areas. One expert commented that this would be reported as another example of NGO inaction on local radio, building mistrust of their work. It would, however achieve a political purpose – to provide the government with someone else to blame for the persistent low living standards of many Haitians.
There was a mismatch between what the NGOs wanted to achieve today and what the Haitian government wanted to secure for the communities. On the one hand, the NGOs had intended to take a scientific approach to measuring the size of communities, the number of functioning wells, toilets and living conditions to assess whether a serious catastrophe had occurred. On the other hand, our hosts, were looking for cast-iron guarantees of support for the people. This was understandable; the DPC are appointed by politicians and so wanted to demonstrate three weeks before a Presidential election that they were adept at finessing aid from the international community.