Nature-Based Solutions to Protect Transport Infrastructure Assets in Haiti: Guidance Note

[page 1] NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS F É. he me tif sb . UE L MI TO PROTECT TRANSPORT EMA ST NN © û | ’ KL L . INFRASTRUCTURE SR g a . à | | a sy. € RE ARE Fr ce 200 TE LEE ve TR BR A AN AS e #3 " , A a {2 ER BA 23 Fée [A7 AU CN NME AN D Et 2 ER as Ha 7 20, ‘A DA " S'ARMESE RE Lu PUS CR PADEERES AR EPA KR RE F CPE 7 di SE NA le RS De F5 ga 1 VASTES a Es SM? 7” Le 4. 753 Dee s D 2 TS AIRE: à NS D CR | LE, er GE Ca FAURE 2 404 H F. à \ HA MES LP A HOUR à MS NE x 4 À k; . . " x VOA CON OR HE AA DE Ho JM OUR NES CMOS VMS 4) RAR RS LEA te | CRMEU, à 5, FLE re D FAX RURPE ; PERS HA D'AUERRE TA AQU UR A RUES PRE ; HA ares: x air TE 4 er 2 ; NET DATES a AE ? RCE + 29 Lis Hi SN" Ù = Je GE y TR à ne "Ra \ É DR ‘ir PUR Ji bal 2 MCE. A7 OÙ HE “re à Fe r\B x À Lu À & à RON ‘4 KE: RURAL. a Pris te QU OAI LÉ Aa ee es LE 2e 0 PRES: | nn + pe 4 te (0e, “A h. 4%? ee ASE aaT, (4) = Aa ° el. D ee \ # : LR A D LR Cote, P NOTE — mc + Æ GE nd + SA le RE TR D sp nee a sé NE | NEA a... FRE LD RÉ OMIANOR ANECTECEEE LES | 2 , ÿ V8 À SE TAITRREES THE WORLD BANK. @ GFDRR 4 \\ PR” L | WORLD BANK GROUP ns ges | KE ( fi Q U A PE SO NES AN [page 2] TO PROTECT TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS IN Grevovsn @ ©\GFDRR [page 3] © 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development /The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@ worldbank.org. Cover photo: Lorgensky Pelicier/UNOPS [page 4] = : È On Saturday August 14, 2021, a 7.2 magnitude the Grand’Anse and the Sud Department losing Ê earthquake struck the southern and southwestern access to critical services for days. ü part of Haiti. The U.S. Geological survey locat- This guidance note was finalized few weeks (e) ed the epicenter of this earthquake 8 kms from prior to the disaster and hence its content does not C the town of Petit Trou de Nippes, about 150 kms reflect the impacts and damages described above. from the capital of Port-au-Prince, and the same this note focusses extensively in the affected ar- region devastated by Hurricane Matthew 5 years ea, as the motivation for this work came as result ago this month. Three departments in Haiti, the from the reconstruction efforts after Hurricane South, the Nippes and Grand’Anse were severely Matthew. The three same departments affected by impacted. Although being less catastrophic than the recent earthquake were part of the pilot areas the January 2010 earthquake, according to official and were visited by the team in 2019 and 2020. data, an estimated 800,000 people were affected, For example, it provides National Road 7 (RN7) of which 2,207 have died, 12,268 were wounded, and Departmental Road 25 (RD25) as case studies and 650,000 need humanitarian response. from application of NBS solutions and both roads The earthquake severely impacted the in- were severely impacted by the earthquake. frastructure sector specially the transport assets. We hope that this guidance note can support Estimates indicated that 147 km of national and the recovery efforts by providing and strengthen- departmental roads and about 510 km of no pri- ing the knowledge and framework to incorporate mary roads were damages in those three depart- nature-based solutions in road transport projects ments. The total effects to the transport sector and by ensuring that the infrastructure sector fol- summed up to 150 million dollars including dam- lows a Build Back Better Approach for a Stronger ages and economic losses. Due to road damage and Resilience Haiti. many communities lost all access to the rest ofthe island that resulted in 407,000 additional people in October 2021 - Malaika and Xavier VII [page 5] = = Acknowledgments E This guidance note is a joint effort between by Brenden Jongman, DRM specialist, Borja < the Transport Global Practice and the Urban, Gonzalez Reguero, Steven Alberto Carrion El Disaster Risk Management, Resilience, and and Boris Ton Van Zanten, Kevin McCall, 3 Land Global Practice under the umbrella of the senior environmental specialist and Andrew = Resilient Transport Community of Practice. The Drumm, environmental consultant. = note was developed by Malaika Becoulet, trans- Most importantly, the report was elabo- Ë port specialist, Xavier Espinet Alegre, Transport rated with the support of, and in consultation É economist, Jordy Chan, transport consultant, with, the Government of Haiti, and notably ä and Beatriz Pozueta, DRM consultant with its Ministry of Public Works, Transport, and É support from Roland Alexander Bradshaw, se- Communications.'The team would like to ac- É nior disaster risk management specialist, Juliana knowledge the contributions of Robenson a Castano Isaza, natural resources management Jonas Léger, Frantz Duroseau, Georges, Yves- É specialist, Aminata Nguitone Dia, Ibrahima Fritz, Saint-Victor, Judith, Frantz, Loubens ë Sekou Fakourou Kante and Claudia Ann-Sylvia Jovin, Audibert Michel, Ramon Adrien, Frantz 5 Tassy. This note builds on the report elaborat- Elie Desormes, Luc Clervil, Marie Eveline e ed by the consortium of firms TYPSA-AAE- Larrieux, Arnold Africot, Brismé Jean Claudy, ° AGREER' under the leadership of Patricia Edzer Lesperance, and Alfred Times. Rullan de la Mata and in collaboration with The team would also like to acknowledge Laura Abram, Guido Fernandez de Velasco, the collaboration of the Inter-American Kyoshi Yasuo Ochoa Kato, Carmen Cabrera, Development Bank, and specifically Albaret Mauricio de los Santos, and Lilli Ilieva. Géraud and Nastasia Keurmeur, who pro- This report was made possible with the fi- vided valuable advice in the preparation of nancial support from a the Global Facility for this report. Disaster Reduction and Recovery Multi-Donor The team would like to acknowledge the Trust Fund and the Japan-Bank Program for timely and valuable support, guidance, and Mainstreaming DRM in Developing Countries, advice received from Anabela Abreu, country which is financed by the Government of Japan director for Haiti, Nicolas Peltier-Thiberge, and receives technical support from the World practice manager for Latin America and the Bank Tokyo Disaster Risk Management Hub. Caribbean, Shomik Raj Mehndiratta, prac- The guidance note benefitted from the tice manager for the South Asia region, Denis peer-review comments from Van Anh Vu Jordy, program leader for Haiti and Pierre Hong, senior urban development specialist, Xavier Bonneau, program leader for IAWT4. Oceane Keou, transport specialist, Nicolas The team also received logistics support from Desramaut, senior environmental engineer, the Licette Moncayo, program assistant, and Kelly Nature-Based Solutions CoP team composed Amanda Jules, CO program assistant. 1 [page 6] ( pe Page 5 2777 Page 17 Page 29 = (6) . Page 53 1. INTRODUCTION 2. HAITI'S COUNTRY 3. NATURE BASED 4.THE ECONOMICS __. CONTEXT - ROAD SOLUTIONS (NBS): OF NBS FOR ROAD TT pazards and climats change NETWORK CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES INFRASTRUCTURE 1.2 Nature-based solutions for AND DISASTERS » resilient road infrastructure _—_——. 3.1 Nature-based solutions for 4.1 Tools for the selection of risk infrastructure resilience : reduction and adpatation strategies 1.3 Purpose and scope of the guide 2.1 Haitis key geographical features 3.2 Nature-based solutions 4.2 Assessing benefits and 1.4 Audi 2.2 es mel berzact and : and hybrid interventions : co-benefits of NBS udience : : climate change context Principles for implementing : 1.5 Structure of the guide 2.3 Road infrastructure in Haiti 3.3 nature based solutions 4,3 Assessing costs of NBS Impacts of natural hazards and climate The role of nbs in climate Key summary factors to consider when 2.4 34 44 Es 1.6 Tools and resources for NBS L change on haiti’s road infrastructure ü proofing road infrastructure : assessing benefits and costs of NBS Page 75 [EN A Page 129 ----- Page 145 Page 193 5. GUIDELINES FOR 6. STAKEHOLDER 7. SOLUTIONS ANNEXES PLANNING AND ENGAGEMENT CATALOGUE arr IMPLEMENTING NBS ne ANNEX 1 Useful resources FOR STRENGTHENING 6.1 Stakcholder engagement and NBS ZA NBS Factsheets ROAD RESILIENCE ANNEX 2 Glossary Te 6.2 Stages for stakeholder engagement 5,1 Step 1. Situation analysis to Methodology for producing " ” define scope and problem 6.3 Identification of relevant stakeholders ANNEX 3 vulnerability maps for Haiti d results Step 2. Climate vulnerabilit on 5.2 and risk assessment u 6.4 Recommendations . . . ANNEX 4 List of species suitable 5.3 Step 3. Identification and for NBS in Haiti "Ÿ _prioritization of NBS options . . . Step 1 to 4: Identifying 5.4 Step 4. Design and implementation ANNEX 5 mature-based solutions for road ” of NBS interventions infrastructure resilience in Haiti Step 5. Monitoring, evaluation and 9.5 maintenance of NBS interventions [page 7] NU | ANTTZ F ù 5 7 e f SS N dd ro AL, NS ER © | | D OR oh ee es nn NI [TIM Æ A MU E" At PA: : 44 VAL 74 Que. é _ = } PURES. 2 EL >, (V4 29 ù 2/20 À Le PS à tr | 1h fl | : Dés. 5 PRES Fr VU) En li] l'attts {18 l es A | — is 7 2 (EH = | nn. Fr à mr fi SLA | 4 ES 7° dd ete at A } SE SAT . to a À LT = E-.2." 8 CRE IECT pt LL . U re. & EEE El PT 2 , 22 “PA x € ft AE 4 [page 8] 4 Ne UNE >) SNL "2 & Le 1.1 Haiti’s vulnerability to natural à: 122. | *" hazards and climate change PSE" Ve AE Lo 1.2 Nature-based solutions for Lu lite Vr ne Là. 5 resilient road infrastructure Hé 7 -RtA 1.3 Purpose and scope of the guide ar. N SE 1.4 Audience 1.5 Structure of the guide 8 1.6 Tools and resources for NBS fs — [page 9] £ 1 1 (e] = = LE EL °o Haiti's vulnerability to natural hazards and climate change Located in the Caribbean Sea Haïti is approxi- 96 percent of its population at risk of two or mately 28,000 square kilometers. Haiti occupies more hazards?. Due to its geographical location, the western third of the island of Hispaniola on the fault line between two tectonic plates, (La Isla Española); and the Dominican the Caribbean Plate and the North American Republic which occupies the eastern two-thirds Plate, Haïti is highly prone to earthquakes and of the island. Northwest ofthe northern penin- tsunamis. As a mountainous country, landslides sula is the Windward Passage, a strip of water are very common along all river valleys, where that separates Haiti from Cuba, which is about years of deforestation has left the upper reaches ninety kilometers. The eastern edge ofthe coun- of the western basins bare. Furthermore, be- try borders the Dominican Republic. cause Haïti is in the path of the Atlantic re- The mainland of Haiti has three regions: the gional hurricane belt, every year Haiti is sub- northern region, which includes the northern jected to the impact of severe storms during the peninsula; the central region; and the southern regular hurricane season between June 1st and region, which includes the southern peninsu- November 30°. This usually results in signif- la. In addition, numerous small nearby islands cant inland and coastal flooding. Also, during make up a part of Haiti’s total territory, the that time the country is exposed to other natu- most notable of which are Gonâve, Tortue — ral hazards such as increased coastal erosion or Tortuga -, Grande Caye, and Vache. drought (usually within a period of five years, The rugged topography of central and west- coinciding with El Niño conditions). ern Hispaniola is reflected in Haitis name, Climate change has been forecast to in- which derives from the indigenous Arawak crease the frequency and severity of extreme place-name Ayti (“Mountainous Land”); about hydro-meteorological events in Haiti, there- two-thirds of the total land area is above 1,600 fore exacerbating the impact of these hazards. feet (490 meters) in elevation. Haïti irregular ‘This will result in higher temperatures and coastline forms a long, slender peninsula inthe prolonged the duration and intensify trop- south and a shorter one in the north, separat- ical storms and hurricanes. Extreme rainfall ed by the triangular-shaped Gulf of Gonâve. events are also expected to worsen, while Within the gulf lies Gonâve Island, which has the dry season will add to the effects of cli- an area of approximately 290 square miles (750 mate change, with changes in the periodicity square km). and frequency of drought. Sea level rise will Haïti is one of the countries to be most ex- increase the impact of coastal erosion and posed to hazards in the world, with more than flooding for coastal areas. 6 [page 10] e Q Figure 1: Geographical and topographical map of Haiti (Source: https:// , Ë commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haiti_topographic_map-fr.svg) £ e Due to its geographical location right \E on the fault line between two tectonic | plates, the Caribbean Plate and the : . North American Plate, Haïti is highly . prone to earthquakes and tsunamis. s The impact of climate change on road which has resulted in the loss of most of its for- infrastructure has already been observed in est cover, making the country prone to increased many areas such as in the deterioration of erosion processes and landslide events. 'The im- pavements, on road foundations, in eroding pact of hurricanes, tropical storms, floods, and road bases, the incapability of the capacity of droughts has aggravated other anthropogenic drainage and overflow systems to deal with factors such as inappropriate urbanization prac- stronger or faster velocity of water flows, and tices, the unsustainable use of natural resourc- impacted bridge foundations. es, and inadequate waste management practices. The countrys vulnerability, in particular the Additionally, decades of poverty, political in- road infrastructure to natural hazards and climate stability, and violence has left its infrastructure change has increased by development trends. For severely compromised, and its inability to cope instance, the deforestation process in the country, with climate impacts and natural hazards. 7 [page 11] S : £ £ e e 1.2 Nature-Based solutions for resilient road infrastructure Conventional hard engineering/grey infra- stabilize sediments, mitigating landslides (%*). structure interventions are not able to adapt The ecosystem can prolong the sustainability and compensate for the various effects of cli- and life spans of infrastructures such as roads, mate change (e.g., sea level rise), and thus need protecting investments in engineered defenses to be regularly maintained and reinforced, with and restoring salt marshes adjacent to sea walls. significant cost implications. In addition, these Strengthening the resilience of natural structures often use unwanted negative im- hazards and adapting to climate change is a pacts (e.g., coastal erosion) in other locations process that should be incorporated in road of the surrounding environment, significantly authority planning cycle and risk manage- altering the function of the specific physical ment procedures. Nature-based solutions environment (e.g., shorelines) because of the (NBS) are an attractive alternative to hard interaction of the protection strategies with engineering solutions, very often recognized natural processes, as well as the corresponding as cost-effective interventions, which when ecosystems. In the coastal environment, hard feasible within a specific context, can enhance engineered structures such as seawalls, break- the sustainability and resilience of road infra- waters, or revetments, often result in reductions structure against the impact of natural hazards of sediment transport and the loss ofintertidal and climate change effects. habitats of wetlands and beaches. There is a need to integrate disaster risk re- Biodiversity and ecosystems provide im- duction and climate change adaptation inter- portant benefits to society, specially to adapt ventions NBS, into existing and future designs to the adverse effects of climate change and of road infrastructure to build its resilience. reducing disaster risk. For example, coastal One condition would be to provide the tools vegetation, like mangroves can dissipate wave to ensure that Haitian stakeholders can plan, action, protect shorelines, accommodate flood manage, and initiate interventions that would flows, and forested mountains and slopes can consider the landscape in a holistic manner. 8 [page 12] FT YART 7 + AS SLT) ons Le re , RC Er e eo : j PASSE 7, OR TL PT QE RS ASS SAT Terre PASSE SNS CUS SZ ne 2 es RE Re RE PE PET ES Eine HA SE TT er on D De 1 - ES ee + RTE Ts De ETS 47m À TRES Er SR Le PET li Cat re Dr AC, SERRE na Das ET UP TR LS, “0e Re : ds ” = D ge LE Pr let Ter. M 7 » = à PUR CNE d NDS CR SERRES RTS - 2 RDS CE PR HET ' ÿ TR NE EN RE EN SN EERRE RTE | ag L'air 1 DC: ne, Ar A -: ART PSY Re NE œ RSS Ce RATES Œ RTE Rp SERRE Le FRE LL se Se Se ALLIE PRE x RÉ A, SE er, die De QU e Le GA # xt UE ES % + en. 4 Por) de st * # ci VO Te à L , x Z de STE 4 Lier Ge ASTRA » CES mn DATA = ne : Sn : RE RSS 4 "1 : - … 2 tube. À pt ’ = ex ? re FA 5 o . id Re . Don RAT T RTS PE ee EP rx jeae | : r CA Ms “ - 2 th 24 PR) Er D sn + 2 .( « » + : ” dat M à - DA PC; ALT TH EP TE ee, re Dee {5 CHUTES po . 4 ++. ER RE x en ARR LE STE TR EU 4 4 à rh: ME PP AT. SDL BE EAN d - A À RSU ane := Wn Y. TVR y: 4, . à nn 2 L er” Er À Mrs an D. St . 2, re Lt Cor # dr 4 de : + ie; Le sÉ AE LA LE R LE TRE QE re 4 ee: SIT D EE k + HA M TS 44 SVLLIC LA T7 "eu 7% 448$ SCI 1 2 SEA Pr a 4 CPR: RTL L'émR pire D » + \ à re tps | J 2 (2 . ar TRE \ » [page 13] Le PR EN OS D": 7 EMUeL CUT En D, 2 ei SR 5 NS je DR | N "à ne à T4 Sen ER Ne + < ce ? FDA É £ Val Ke AS GT 7 DA, Lx >) b N. NY\û?r ME NA SY XË, NA À NL? Ps ot % 14 D es ” U s 4 RL 1 2PTRR AY: ae) LE LE À \ "M2. AN N'auci ' Er, QU te IN ep es V1 4 L'QET 4 04 QT en \ ZE x F-. RO" « LS CN NES "CMS LS, ! NAT, R Le L Ù # 4 ND Ki he f er 4 dl : REZ + Melanie, 4 ANAL HN QUE GENS = 4 \ ï Ps | | à + D - CN Sen ST «al À Ton nee Da A a à 8 FR “Fe 1° 2-5 | JesZ : ESRI SSS = SRENCEES fs ossi on F RP MN A RE Res) SECRET ES Pa" es ÿ es PORT Ce rie Se + D iranien EE RU A À < L w'. - + AL NT 5 Kai) CPE Co LE un Es D LEZ. Ex RE LC Ds. F7 LP NÉ £r LD dc Be ju Re - # Smet de TT EN NEREr = RE Nr [page 14] S É £ £ e e 1.3 Purpose and scope of the guide This Guide builds on the continuous growing a tool for identifying/selecting, funding, design- work of NBS, including existing guidelines, ing, and implementing NBS for the protection frameworks, and principles relevant to climate of road infrastructure in the specific context of change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, Haiti. The document highlights sustainable ev- conservation, and development. An overview idence-based approaches to ensure that current of existing guidelines, on which this Guide is and future road infrastructure investments, as well based, is provided in Annex 1. as wider land use developments, can be made re- This Guide aims to promote the use of na- silient against natural hazards and climate change ture-based interventions as part of a broad- effects in a more cost-effective, environmentally er portfolio of structural (risk reduction and responsible, and socially beneficial way. adaptation) measures to enhance the sustain- The NBS approaches highlighted in this ability and the resilience of road infrastructure Guide have multiple use and can be applied in in Haiti, as an alternative or with similar con- different contexts, often overlapping across sec- ventional hard engineered solutions, providing tors, with the understanding that the site-spe- unambiguous evidence to why NBS should be cific context often determines the design, ma- considered by national and local transporta- terials, and construction methods needed to tion/road management agencies. be used. Ideally, NBS should be promoted and Through the provision of a step-by-step meth- built into sector policies and design standards, odological approach to assist practitioners in the taking into consideration that in some contexts integration of NBS into transport sector invest- they work best when used in combination with ment projects, this Guide presents a resource and conventional engineering solutions. 1 [page 15] e e 1 = À Audience « —_ LL The Guide is meant to be used as a strategic | : - ä. tool to support local and national government, | the private sector, practitioners, donors, NGOSs, : ei and civil society organizations in the planning, — Luc ie = design, implementation, and management of 6 #75 D > ‘ . PA . À Ver ms + SPENTRRE NBS enhancing resilience of road infrastruc- s KRETTEPSS — ture. The Guide is therefore intended for: S— 1 Le A. Public sector and Civil Society Organization Le F mm V À { Le Stakeholders from public organizations and L " governments responsible for the planning, de- signing, or monitoring maintenance of trans- ; SZ port infrastructure projects. Such users include LE | < professionals involved in infrastructure asset £ à . management, emergency and civil contingency - Ë | SQE E- planning and response, appraisal and design of ; = Fe Re LE 4 road networks, shoreline management, as well EEE ARTS ETS as local community groups. FE Æ ; En B. Private sector => z Œ | = f —— = ni Engineers, developers, designers, and contractors ED PE : ge . . . . - … _ ce F (and other organizations) involved in the plan- : æ” Œ . : = ning, development and/or construction of infra- < Eee TES SRE LE structure and infrastructure management systems. DE Nu Seb AT ET Lee : Ce CU pese sure . re ee PAT TES g- LE E L ss” ss de Le 7 é Fe Ÿ / + Er = = [page 16] O ) n : Le SS REA ne PR E_— ER, ga ns Rose. # x > a. ne "|: Structure of the guide : >. | S = »- PES Re Se ca ‘The Guide consists of seven sections: Section 1 . PASSÉE RRERSS which introduces the scope and target audience E = SR LScE of the Guide, Section 2 outlines the context of LE ‘ pe EME, PA Haiti and its road infrastructure at risk from Dé Ded VE # SET ES disaster, Section 3 introduces the concept of STRESS rec = s > NBS, Section 4 presents a brief introduction EF TES DIRES NS - to the economics of NBS Section 5 provides ÈS RENE a stepwise approach to the planning and im- à = SR RSR UT PR ETS plementation of NBS, Section 6 demonstrates RER RIRE LS ESS dl es the importance of stakeholder engagement in LS ILES ANSE RE NBS, Section 7 provides a catalogue of NBS NES. ET RER LEE for enhancing the resilience of road infra- Ne es OLA es = structure suitable for Haiti context, and fi- EE ES SLT ES ET ne nally Section 8 presents designs prepared to LS éTs CE TE Sa strengthen Haïitis road infrastructure for two EE rs pn Ve Ra MTS ac Le pilot sites in Haiti. SD LES &E nr PR ER [page 17] S £ £ £ e e 1.6 Tools and resources for NBS Over the last decade, there has been a growing ditional hard engineered solutions, which has a awareness, interest and momentum from com- long history of development of protocols and munities, donors, policy, and decision-makers standards, these solutions are still emerging for the application of Nature-based solutions approaches that have yet to be fully evaluat- (NBS) as part of disaster risk reduction, cli- ed and standardized, and further guidance and mate change adaptation, mitigation, and sus- standards need to be developed to support all tainable development strategies. In addition, professionals involved in project development by increasing resilience to natural hazards and (e.g., designers, implementers, funders, evalu- climate change, NBS interventions have pro- ators, and others). vided multiple other socio-economic and en- The progress of guidelines and lessons vironmental co-beneñits. learnt from case studies helps to achieve a The NBS concept has received immense in- mutual understanding of the effectiveness, terest in the scientific community in the last risk reduction and adaptation outcomes of few years. À growing body of knowledge and these approaches. As a result, there is a need experience continues to support the application to continue building the body of knowledge of NBS in a diversity of settings, accompanied and experiences on the application of NBS by an increasing number of tools and resources for disaster risk reduction and climate change for their design and implementation for disas- adaptation of other sectors, such as the trans- ter risk reduction and climate change adapta- port sector. By building on existing literature, tion. Protocols, guidelines, and lessons learnt this document aims to be one step closer to from the application of these approaches on the standardization of guidelines for the use several case studies exist, for the use of coastal of NBS for the protection of road infrastruc- areas and urban areas, as well as for agriculture ture, describing how these solutions can be and landscape management. In contrast to tra- conceptualized and applied in practice. 14 [page 18] = S EU Initiatives for the promotion of NBS Ë O NBS have been identified by the European and knowledge base, developing a repository of ® Commission as a strategic frame to support best practices, creating an NBS Community of sustainability. “The vision of the European Innovators, and improving communication and Commission is to position the EU as aleaderin NBS awareness. The following table lists the EU nature-based innovation for sustainable and resil- funding programs, NBS projects, platforms, and ient societies”, and in order to achieve this, ithas networks that have been or are being funded by been very active in establishing an NBS evidence the European Commission since 2011. Research and innovation | Actions and partnerships Biodiversa (http:/vwww.biodiversa.org/) OpeNESS (http://www.openness-project.eu/) Clever Cities (http://clevercities.eu/) OPERA (http://operas-project.eu/) Connecting Nature (https://connectingnature.eu/) OPERANDUM (https:/www.operandum-project.eu/) EdiCitNET (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/ren/216082_de.html) PHUSICOS (https://phusicos.eu/) Eklipse (http:/www.eklipse-mechanism.eu/) proGlreg (http://vww.progireg.eu/) GRaBS (http://www.ppgis.manchester.ac.uk/grabs/) Reconnect (https://reconnect-europe.eu/) Green surge (https://greensurge.eu/) TURAS (http://r1.zotoi.com/) Grow Green (http://growgreenproject.eu/) Unalab (https:/{vww.unalab.eu/) Inspiration (http://vww.inspiration-h2020.eu/) Urban GreenUp (http:/www.urbangreenup.eu/) NaturedCities (https:/www.nature4cities.eu/) URBINAT (http://urbinat.eu/) Naturvation (https://naturvation.eu/) ReNAture (http://renature-project.eu/) NAIAD (http://www.naiad2020.eu/) Dialogue platforms to promote innovation with NBS ThinkNature (https:/Avww.think-nature.eu/) EU Climate Adaptation Platform CLIMATE-ADAPT (https://cli- Oppla (https:www.oppla.eu/) mate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/) EU Smart Cities Information System (SCIS) (https:/Avww.smartci- Sustainable Cities Platform (http://vww.sustainablecities.eu/) tiesinfosystem.eu/) Source: 15 [page 19] BASS LÉ URRR De SR RER SSRNERCE. PANETR ; CRE TR Ve > te AE At, ÉRINE RERSEM CR RTE RNA 7 | | à RE SN RS Sn AS : UE Tips es nr. D érpn ne AN 4 he «4 pate PR 1e 404 2 NONNENT le” Vo MR ME embase Ne nn CS PER Re A Tnt LE 0 lÉLRRT n : “y Gil dt D OEM ë RS as tt L PR - ; : : £ [page 20] ms. 2. HAITIS COUNTRY — = CONTEXT -ROAD | NETWORK AND - DISASTERS | Pa Eu us j 2.1 Haitis key geographical features er ES Er —_ Haiti’s natural hazards and U 2.2 climate change context 2.3 Roadinfrastructure in Haiti [page 21] : 21 £ Haiti's key geographical features 2 & The mainland of Haiti has three regions: the north- most northwestern part of this mountain range © ern region, which includes the northern peninsula; merges with the Massif du Nord. The Southwest ë the central region; and the southern region, which of Montagnes Noires is near the Artibonite River, 8 also includes the southern peninsula. The country Plaine de l’Artibonite, which has a surface of É has approximately 1,771 km of coastline, which are about 800 square kilometers. South of this plain 2 rocky and rimmed with cliffs, and the island's shelf lies the Chaîne des Matheux and the Chaîne du Ë extension totals around 5,000 square kilometers. Trou d'Eau, which is an extension of the Sierra de ! The country is distinguished by its narrow coastal Neïba range of the Dominican Republic. plains lying between steep mountain ranges and The southern region consists of the Plaine the coastline, and is also characterized by several du Cul-de-Sac and the mountainous southern major mountain ranges that extend from East to peninsula. The Plaine du Cul-de-Sac is bound- West (see Figure 1). About two-thirds ofthe total ed in the north by the Chaîne des Matheux land area has an elevation above 490 meters. and the Chaîne du Trou d'Eau, is twelve kilo- Located in northern region is the Massif du meters wide and extends thirty-two kilometers Nord (Northern Massif), an extension of the from the border of the Dominican Republic to central mountain range (Cordillera Central) the coast of the Baie de Port-au-Prince (Bay of of the Dominican Republic, which begins at Port-au-Prince). The mountains of the southern Haïti eastern border, north ofthe Guayamouc peninsula, an extension of the southern moun- River, and extends to the northwest through the tain chain of the Dominican Republic (the northern peninsula. The Massif du Nord ranges Sierra de Baoruco), extends from the Chaîne in elevation from 600 to 1,100 meters. It is ad- de la Selle in the east to the Massif de la Hotte jacent to the Plaine du Nord (Northern Plain), in the west. The highest peak in this range is which lies along the northern border of the Pic la Selle, the highest point in Haïti, rising Dominican Republic, between the Massif du to an altitude of 2,680 meters, and located at a Nord and the North Atlantic Ocean. This low- distance of 18 km from the coastline, with an land area of 2,000 square kilometers, is about average slope of 18.5°.'The Massif de la Hotte 150 kilometers long and 30 kilometers wide. varies in elevation from 1,270 to 2,255 meters. The central region consists of two plains and Rivers are numerous but short, and most are three sets of mountain ranges. The Plateau Central not navigable. In total, Haiti has approximately (Central Plateau) extends along both sides of 3,300 km of major (perennial) rivers, located in the Guayamouc River, south of the Massif du the Southwest and Central North. Although, over Nord. It runs eighty-five kilometers from south- a hundred streams flow through Haïti, the largest east to northwest and is thirty kilometers wide. river is the Artibonite river, which has a length The Plateau has an average elevation of about of 245 kilometers (145 miles). It is shallow and 300 meters. It is located on the southwest side long, and its flow averages ten times that. Second by Montagnes Noires (Black Mountains), with in length is Les Trois Rivières, which spills into an elevation of approximately 600 meters. The the Atlantic in the town of Port-de-Paix. 18 [page 22] ‘ 1 el à sÉ à *, À a 1 ; \ » _ % \ > ? . Le 17 D S > d D « n + art 7; 71 24 "è >. * A r. Ÿ LS Pi sx dt : : * a à AR “dé LAN PUR # Ÿ | ne et < mt A AD 8 PA à“ 4 n, ty 9e < ASTA RER, je ” RL LE Ca MP er 3 Fa * 2 4 FAI 4 » F ad } ; P + a : PS ».: ( L , “sh ‘ s ie. Dre - ee dn af _ < » . , SE 4 Ne LS s D CS = Es ; # 7 F dé né Ne dd + À 1 ‘à ls { ‘ L?, " Li 4 CAEN 2 - M? ) FA A7 ) Je ARE, HER ns | ATEN Le L! re ns AK AE J + TT À } 5 LE. NY " es be à al Vtt” De | y ÿ » ne4 LEA : Pace sat : 4 sh nr Le, TT L : | Dr € se sl + Le. ‘ A ne % Vas L \ 29 Ter, VE R ] TRI AN” + " - HS VAS ee Ta RC re à Ke à, né À À $s Er * CR . Ve De: J Le. - : C . D 4 r + RS 5 « Le : . : . ‘ 4 [page 23] o o 5 ë 3 = 3 5 5 Ë É & & £ £ o a ë Ë $ Ë m G S S ï According to data collected by the Haitian climate variability, especially during the rainy seasonal rainfall, storm surges in the coastal round of flooding, leading to the destruction T Ë Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, season and the frequency and intensity of hur- zones, deforested and eroded landscape, and of crops, farmland, and agricultural infrastruc- ë a and Rural Development (Ministère de l'Ag- ricanes and tropical storms, which has led to sediment-laden river channels. During trop- ture, as well as the loss of livestock and human a = riculture, des Ressources Naturelles, et de flooding and erosions. The impacts which are ical storms and hurricane season an average lives. Climate change is expected to exacerbate 5 à à 2 Développement Rural, MARNDR), the av- magnified by severe environmental degrada- of 200 millimeter of rain may fall in a month* these problems. 2 T erage observed temperatures rose by more tion and is highly likely attributed to climate . This leads to rapid runoff from deforested The low-lying plains of the Ouest and T than 1 degree centigrade between 1973 and change.'The changes in variability and extreme and eroded mornes (small mountains) and Artibonite departments and the narrow 2003. Extreme and variable weather condi- weather noted by Haïtian citizens are in line hills (ash floods), as well as the overflowing coastal zones of the Sud, Sud-Est, Grande tions alternate between drought in the dry sea- with the Fourth Assessment Report of the of rivers. Anse, and Nippes departments are especial- son (December to April) and intense storms Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Flooding washes away fertile soil, depos- ly vulnerable to flooding. On the Cul de Sac and hurricanes in the wet season (May to (IPCC). For example, the report indicates that iting it on riverbeds of the Artibonite, the Plain of the Ouest department, the Rivière November). Haïti lies in the hurricane belt of in the 1990%, 35 percent of tropical cyclones Grande Rivière de Jacmel, and the Rivière Blanche and Rivière Grise basins are par- tropical storms that originate in the Atlantic were classified as Category 4 or 5, in compari- de Grande Anse). Massive sedimentation has ticularly subject to severe flooding. Heavily Ocean and strike Caribbean islands every hur- son to only 20 percent in the 1970. raised the beds of many waterways and have populated coastal towns, such as Jacmel, Les ricane season. According to Haitian natives, Flooding is a major problem in almost all created a complete absence of embankments Cayes, and Gonaïves, lie in the direct path the country has experienced radical changes in of Haiti‘s 30 major watersheds, due to intense and levees. These factors intensify the next of the storms. Recent disasters © à © . sus7 L LÉ L in Haïti 2004 2010 2016 Tropical cyclones Jeanne and Ivan killed The deadliest earthquake in 200 years, which marked history by its Hurricane Matthew caused flooding of ar more than 2500 and affected more than devastating capacity and its tragic impact on the population. More approximately 1 meter and storm surge of dea events . s, L] , : eo CES 300,000 people in the northern city of Cap- than 300,000 people lost their lives, hundreds of thousands were levels of up to 3 meters. At least 580 more than eople e ne . . . peop'e Ki Haïtien, Artibonite, and Central Region. injured, and 2 million people were displaced. Nearly, all of Haïti's people were killed and more than 35,000 # of severe events © major infrastructure were damaged or destroyed. people were left homeless by the storm. {more than 5,000 people affected) © © 2008 © Four storms killed more than 600 people 2020 and destroyed three-quarters of the Latest storm, hurricane Laura killed country's agricultural land. 39 people and affected an estimated 40,000 people. L] [] [| [] [] [| [] [] [] a S S ss PS RS PS ns es ss es es es ns os es es es es ns 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 20 21 [page 24] 2 l : 23 e = Road infrastructure in Haïti Haiti has a road network length of approxi- + Limited number of roads are bounded by mately 3,400 km. It is degraded, having lost bridges at river crossings and gullies. about 30% of its extension during the last 15 years. The road network national, departmental, In the past, Haiti has witnessed severe damage to and municipal scales, has the following classi- its main roads and bridges as a result of the impacts fication (see Figure 2): of various natural hazards. Such impacts still limit the access and usage of functioning roads, with * The national network (primary) covers 978 severe implications (e.g. connectivity) for people. km and connects main cities of socioeco- Damaged roads prevent the passage of goods and nomic or political importance. services between the different regions of the coun- + ‘The departmental network (secondary) has try and hinder fast access to impacted communi- a length of about 1,615 km and connects ties in times of crisis and quick post-emergency urban areas with the national network. recovery. These challenges, limit the transportation * ‘The municipal network (tertiary) covers ap- offood and primary goods, have perpetuated hun- proximately 873 km and ensures connectiv- ger and poverty throughout the country. ity with the rest of the municipalities. The most vulnerable configurations commonly The road network is characterized by: identified in Haiti are mountain roads, coast- al roads, and crossings (bridges and culverts). * À small portion of paved roadk (less than 20%) ‘These configurations are presented schemati- is concentrated along the primary network. cally in Figure 3. 22 [page 25] In the past, Haïti has witnessed serious damage to its main roads and bridges as a result of the impact of various natural hazards. Q _ Haitÿs Road Network Classification (Source: https:// commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haiti_road_map-fr.svg) —— International Border __ Department Border — Primary Road En, Secondary Road — Water Body Cap-Haitien : l Gonaives = fe | EN, à | S S CT ET SN © Port-au-Prince —2%2 œ | | » =: Note LS OS EE à 23 [page 26] 5 1. Mountain roads: 2. Coastal roads: 3. Crossings/bridges: 5 = Haitis mountainous ecosystems have been A large part of the country’s road network is One of the most common problems in Haïti is 3 È significantly altered by the severe deforestation located close to the coast and is therefore ex- related to the impact of river flows on crossing È Ë process which has resulted in high levels of soil posed to the impact of storm surges and coastal infrastructures. In addition, to the increasing Ë = erosion, consequently increasing the risk of erosion. To reduce these impacts, NBS mea- and more intense floods, riverbank degradation = î slope failure and landslides. To mitigate impacts sures can be used to restore and promote the and the consequent excess sediment that accu- ‘ ë on mountain roads, NBS aims at providing marine-coastal environment and combined hy- mulates at the base of crossing infrastructure É a greater stability to uphill and downhill slopes brid measures for stabilization and protection. undermine its stability. At this point, the sed ———————— 3 È of roads and redesigning drainage systems. In Haïti, roads often have configurations iments cause the water speed to increase and É 5 (A) and (B). In these cases, there are no one- thus flow rates end up modifying the structure. One of the most common problems in = o fits-all solutions that can provide protection In such configurations, NBS can operate both Haiti is related to the impact of river o : against the hazards typically impacting both at the specific site of the infrastructure (C),and flows on crossing infrastructure. : types of configurations. As such, in this con- at the basin level, with actions upstream of the text, the implementation of a combination of infrastructure (D) (see Figure 4). appropriate solutions responding to configura- tions (A) and (B) should be considered. © Road Configurations A and B: mountain and coastal roads Road © Road management unit C (crossing infrastructure) and road SK Mountain road (A) management unit D (actions on De crossings’ surrounding ecosystems) © © Mountain + Coastal road PA Coastal road (B) Q River ® 24 25 [page 27] e 5 5 3 É I o È ë 2 S nu ë 2 5 8 È 5 8 = ° = e Impacts of natural hazards and climate 7 = change on haïti's road infrastructure Haïtis road infrastructure is significantly ex- ed in Table 1. Some examples of NBS measures posed to the impacts of natural hazards and that are considered relevant to counteract these sensitive to the increased frequency and sever- impacts in the context of Haiti are presented in ity of hydro-meteorological hazards associated Section 6 “Solutions catalogue”. with climate change. Similarly, projected climate change is ex- Among relevant climate change those af- pected to have a significant impact on the fecting the transport sector include increase planning, design, construction, operation, and frequency and intensity of extreme events that maintenance of road infrastructure. Overall, cli- trigger more intense precipitation events, storm mate change presents a significant risk for road surges, increased temperatures, increased land- authorities, requiring the adaptation principles slide frequency and increases in drought condi- and strategies to address potential impacts. tions, among other things. Sea level rise increase Although road infrastructure tends to be de- coastal erosion rates and long-term coastal signed to withstand local weather and climate, flooding. There is already evidence of climate designers and engineers typically rely on histor- change having an impact on road infrastructure: ical records of climate when designing road in- deteriorating pavement integrity, impacting frastructure. However, in the context of climate road foundations, eroding road bases, affecting change, using historical climate data alone is no the capacity of drainage and overflow systems longer a reliable predictor of future impacts. Most to deal with stronger or faster velocity of wa- paved roads are usually built to last for 50 years ter flows, and impactingbridge foundations.. À or longer; Understanding how future changes in non-exhaustive list of potential impacts of cli- climate may affect this infrastructure is import- mate change on road infrastructure are present- ant for protecting long-term investments. 2 [page 28] ee b #3 m7 RE 27 = Le ee — rs ARE RER ne L s MED > etes |" de a. ae SEù ce DS EL pas Per > » F be | < RS ARE ET Er ET pre Re PS # PT “ KE S Re. SAN Se FAR f ” ze s yet ee ice Er AE LS ST ET AE fé hf. ex = «! * D F À J e é >. on, LÀ À Fu FT enEUe N1 : DS c Lx 8pude ETES PR USE Li z ; re ct ER: = te È en RDS > ET 2 ÉCE ef œ he . 2: LS PT nTS DES Se = j + . LE "+. SR + REA , « FREE EP F - r # À , AS RÉGIE NE , ASIA DE % $ . CE Loop 2) AUS Se se a AE NE Dre 2 DUSAGES PRE 7 EEE { RE ETS Es Fer RARE : æ RUES Er re AE D PRTERSS res SN PS2 Es REG SE ARE Lg dj © re a LÉ, PERRET L D Ne er DR ES = NE ee 5 à De. RNCS IN SER » " PRES = AUS TS PP el TS rne Lo D ENTER RE 3 - Ts LL FER OS E 5 FT LS IS RER Le CR ES D . D RTE RÉ CTS PS PSE LEE =: PRES 1 rt AE CRE LS re PP EE, EE SA LR RTE TRE se A LUE LR ARsSS LHÉRERRESS ARTE LE TR Nes LIRE MERS RE , A Sr OS 1 RAR Re EE TE 2 Er L : = he + 2 EPS PRE PR PT RTS ge LOL ITS RE. RP in > + ETES RARE ro SAMQILE ge. ; di, Be Es Le + _«f M: + " S fr PS RRS 7e PRIE RAS SES LES RE CRE 0 3 + MARS ESS Ex ÉTÉ SR TS SEPT EEE RE Le À RIT LE TE LEE REF TEE PPT RSS LES PRÉ TR TNS RS SN PE PS RTL PRE Pr TEE oh. DATE re ER DRE RSR SERA TE RL PRICE LPS TE are RE > 3 RTE PSE SA TERRE An Ree PR D pe, PRIT ul PA AE RSR Ts PTE CPR RITES. Re RSR ET Se De ë La ri LTÉE RL ER PIS PR PR Re LEA VEESSS PR LE n ee: [page 29] £ Table 1: Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Road Infrastructure (?, 1°). $ É ë 3 3 T T Ë Potenti É ; PET __. otential natural hazard ; _. S È Climate Change Projection in Haïti : Impacts on Road Infrastructure in Haïti à S and climate change £ É É Ë Ë E E 2 . + More frequent bucking experienced by roads £ L Temperatures are expected to increase by 0.5 to CUT ser ur L # ° Increased temperatures + Deterioration of pavement integrity E ë 2.3°C by 2060 + Thermal expansion on brid ion joints and paved surf Ë 5 ermal expansion on bridge expansion joints and paved surfaces 5 = É É S : : Increase temperatures and decreased + Corrosion of steel reinforcements in concrete structures due to increase in surface salt levels in 2 S Projected increases in temperature, coupled with precipitation some locations £ e decreases in rainfall during the critical summer e ° months (June- August) are likely to intensify : : bi : ed wild ° drought conditions Increase in drought conditions * Damage to road infrastructure due to increased susceptibi ity to wider uncontrolled wild res *_ Damage to infrastructure due to increased susceptibility to mudslides in areas deforested by wildfires *_Inundation of roads in coastal areas *_ More frequent or severe flooding of low-lying infrastructure *_ Damage to roads, and bridges due to flooding, inundation in coastal areas, and coastal erosion Sea level is projected to rise between 0.05 and . *_ Damage to infrastructure from land subsidence and landslides . . Sea Level Rise added to storm surges . . 0.22 m at 2030 in the Caribbean *_ Erosion of road base and bridge supports * Bridge scour + Reduced clearance under bridges *_ Loss of coastal wetlands and barrier shoreline More frequent washouts of unpaved surfaces *_ Increase of flooding and damage to roads and drainage systems due to flooding + Overloading of drainage systems, causing backups and street flooding Increase in intense precipitation events *_ Increase in scouring of roads, bridges, and support structures * Damage to road infrastructure due to landslides and flash floods Hurricane rainfall may increase by 6-17% and Deterioration of structural integrity of roads and bridges due to increase in soil moisture levels . : + Adverse impacts of standing water on the road base surface wind speeds of the strongest hurricanes will increase between 1-8%, with associated in- creases in storm surge levels. + Damage to road infrastructure and increased probability of infrastructure failures Increase of storm intensity (more fre- *_Increased threat to stability of bridge decks quent strong hurricanes, Category 4-5) *_ Increased damage to signs, lighting fixtures, and supports + Decrease expected lifetime of roads exposed to storm surge Increase in wind speed | *_ Signs, and tall structures at risk from increasing wind speeds 28 29 [page 30] Woress ECG JE ‘ MONS PE SSSR SN ue PL AN 8 à = ARTE + s ; ra « Te + "AGE X * Adsl “ : « x fe * eg * LEE Re à à, e É À , à y PS «S > < "CAT A We ee RAT LA De #4 446) “ PR ER 1 PNZ AT NE Br 5 VIS SL ERNEST +4 ù - 3 dl SF, - BND AU" Do. EU ce Fr ñ ] Œ RSR 7 Re De ANR PR T EEE | 4 . S'È NS » . re MP, RS SEE, by FIRE, GG Pr, CN TN CONS ee ne F É 20 à LS ET De NOV MER DETENTE T0 EE . + = ‘ we 7 : RUSSE CB ARMES RAC ô : « : ? L LE HAT 22 INR 1 LE SA LYUTR 2 ‘ x L'ART DES r®. . j : 3 + CRC PI ë ' 4 WIRE > L ST + | 2? 1 $ Ya + TN “ Ml TA 1 4 ÿ ? L à 2 7 / et Lo y, £ LS : 21 .ê2 F SA" : as d L y k RS / p = d \ Pa f " f]. : as. ÿ : - “S | / L'N/ € / ) 4 | / Le. RS D » À LAPA : \ , 4 + \Ù om [page 31] hr e. "PRES AAA On OUR SRE I d nr) A4 2% N&® 3. NATURE BASED VAT AT? à. SOLUTIONS (NBS): RENE A PC ’, | CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES VATINS 3.1 Nature-based solutions for - 5. ef . infrastructure résilience "JS lets HA EP r. ) Rte Gi: 32 Nature-based solutions and | AZI SM “= hybrid interventions ARTS 4 HOUR CC 4 = M | é 33 Principles for implementing v KA s Si k . nature based solutions J CRUE a an ñ ER \ 2 A} The role of nbs in climate AE N 3.4 proofing road infrastructure PAPE [page 32] £ : Nature-based solutions Zz = LE EL + __ for infrastructure resilience Nature-based solutions (NBS) are defined by NBS can be considered an umbrella concept the International Union for Conservation of (2) covering a range of ecosystem-based ap- Nature (IUCN) as “actions to protect, sustain- proach that address specific or multiple societal ably manage, and restore natural or modified challenges while simultaneously providing hu- ecosystems that address societal challenges ef- man well-being and socio-economic and bio- fectively and adaptively, simultaneously provid- diversity benefits. Approaches under NBS can ing human well-being and biodiversity bene- be classified into five categories, as described in fits” (2).The NBS framework emerged from Table 2 and Figure 6: (1) Restorative, (2) Issue- the ecosystem approach, which underpins the specific, (3) Infrastructure, (4) Management Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and (5) Protection. and considers biodiversity conservation and human well-being to be dependent on func- + Related Terminology!: tioning and resilient natural ecosystems!!. NBS aim to conserve or restore nature to * Coastal green infrastructure support conventionally built infrastructure sys- tems and can reduce disaster risk and produce + Natural infrastructure more resilient and lower-cost services in de- veloping countries. In the disaster risk man- + Living shoreline agement and water security sectors, NBS can be applied as a green infrastructure strategy * Natural and nature-based features (NNBF) that can work in harmony with gray infrastruc- ture systems. NBS can also support commu- * Engineering With Nature® (EWN) nity well-being, generate benefits for the en- vironment, and advance progress toward the * Building with Nature (BwN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in ways that gray infrastructure systems cannot. * Working with Nature (WwN) 30 [page 33] 0 d'A È j \ L A | ’ à FX | ». À : 4 PAS NL . GLS Y APN des Le 7 \ Vel h à F5 L ce w/ | 4 [page 34] a a 8 8 = Table 2: Description and examples of NBS categories ES £ É Es Es T T = = 5 5 2 2 S Category S 2 _ 2 8 of NBS Description Types Examples'? 8 É approach & Zz Zz e m1 £ : 5 5 Restorative Technical process that + Ecological restoration (ER) is the process of + Revegetation: Vegetated buffers that protect water quality in riparian ecosystems from urban 5 = aims to recreate, ini- assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has or agricultural runoff = 2 S tiate, or accelerate the been degraded, damaged or destroyed. (SER *_ Habitat enhancement: É ® ® Ë recovery of an eco- 2004) + _Remediation: Tidal wetlands restoration; Ë ‘ system that has been + Ecological Engineering (EI) focuses on the + Mitigation: legally mandated remediation for loss of protected species or ecosystems. : . disturbed - degraded, design of sustainable ecosystems that inte- + Design of tidal creeks ° damaged, or destroyed. grate human society with its natural environ- * Introduction of particular plant species for salt marsh restoration k . ment for the benefit of both'#. . . . Restoration activities . . Use of species that trap sediment for coastal protection of a sandy shore | *_ Forest landscape restoration (FLR) is the may not be a primary Le : . long-term process of regaining ecological goal for transportation te . à . functionality and enhancing human well-be- infrastructure projects, . . ing across deforested or degraded forest land- but it can be used as 15 scapes!°. part of compensatory mitigation efforts. ! Issue-specific | Ecosystem-related + Ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation + Coastal habitat restoration in ecosystems such as coral reefs, mangrove forests, and marshes to approaches that vary (EbA) use of biodiversity and ecosystem ser- protect communities and infrastructure from storm surges based on their ob- vices to help people adapt to the adverse ef- + Coastal realignment jective, including fects of climate change. *_ Agroforestry to increase resilience of crops to droughts or excessive rainfall (crop diversification Ecosystem-based + Ecosystem-based approaches to mitigation to include drought-tolerant varieties) adaptation (EbA), (EbM) use of ecosystems for their carbon *_ Integrated water resource management to cope with consecutive dry days and change in rainfall Ecosystem-based storage and sequestration service to aid cli- patterns mitigation (EbM), mate change mitigation. *_ Sustainable forest management interventions to stabilize slopes, prevent landslides, and regulate Ecosystem-based * Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction water flow to prevent flash flooding disaster risk reduc- (Eco-DRR) reduces disaster risk by mitigat- *_ Restoration of terrestrial forests (degraded or deforested landscapes) and vegetated coastal eco- tion (Eco-DRR) and ing hazards and by increasing livelihood re- systems (seagrass meadows, tidal marshes and mangrove forests) for carbon sequestration Climate adaptation silience. ! + Coastal roads protection: Restoration of mangroves of salt marshes for coastal protection; arti- services (CAS). * Climate Adaptation Services (CAS) are ben- ficial reinforced dunes; efits to people from increased social ability to + Roadside slope protection: Protection of forests that stabilize slopes; use of brush mattresses for respond to change, provided by the capacity of slope protection and stabilization; log terracing for erosion protection of road embankments. ecosystems to moderate and adapt to climate change and variability 1 32 33 [page 35] 8 8 £ = 5 5 £ £ Es Es T T = = = & 2 2 & à 8 8 3 3 2 2 Oo Oo 2 2 a a [re] [re] Zz Zz e m1 2 2 2 S 3 3 a a T T a a s& 5 ® ® 3 3 = 5 Z Category Z ! of NBS Description Types Examples'? ! approach These approaches rely ° Natural Infrastructure (NI) manages natu- + Oyster reefs for wave attenuation on services produced by ral lands, such as forests and wetlands that * Marsh and dune plantings to prevent erosion ecosystems, often utiliz- conserves or enhances ecosystem values and + Tide flap on the stormwater outfall to prevent backflow ing natural landscapes functions and provides associated cobeneñits !* + Bioswales or grassed swales: grassy areas on the side of the road that convey drainage; they can to minimize flood dam- * Green Infrastructure (GI) is natural and be designed to promote pollutant removal and infiltration of runoff. ages, purify and store semi-natural areas with other environmen- + Rain gardens: landscaping features planted with vegetation that collect, infiltrate, evaporate, and water, and reduce urban tal features designed and managed to deliver transpirate runoff. stormwater runoff. a wide range of ecosystem services. GI rep- *_ Wetlands (whether natural or engineered) for water storage and filtering of pollutants Incorporating green i licates or mimics the natural functions of a ncorporating green in- . . ne P sg landscape by integrating functions like stor- frastructure into road Le . . . . age, detention, infiltration, evaporation, and and highway design LU transpiration, or uptake by plants, and are cre- can protect from the . . . 19 ated by human design and engineering. () brunt of storm surges and waves and avoid- ing erosion and sedi- mentation. Some can adapt to sea level rise by accreting sediment or migrating inland. They can also provide bene- fits such as recreation opportunities, habitat needed for commercial fisheries, and a healthier environment. 34 35 [page 36] 8 8 S S 8 8 £ É Es Es T T = = 5 5 £ Category & È of NBS Description Types Examples'? È 8 8 = approach 2 [re] [re] Z Z 3 3 £ Management Integrated management + Ecosystem-based Management is an inte- * Integrated coastal zone management 5 5 5 E approach that recog- grated, science-based approach to the man- * Integrated water resources management E E nizes the full array of agement of natural resources that aims to E & interactions within an sustain the health, resilience and diversity of & 5 ecosystem, including ecosystems while allowing for sustainable use 5 e humans, rather than by humans of the goods and services they pro- e e considering single is- vide. 1? ° sues, species, Or ECOSys- tem services in isola- tion. It is an approach that works across sec- tors to manage species and habitats, economic activities, conflicting us- es, and the sustainability of resources, and allows for consideration of re- source tradeoffs that help protect and sustain diverse and productive ecosystems and the ser- vices they provide?? Protection ‘These approaches cover many management or governance approaches that are *_ Protected Area (PA) management applied to specific geographic areas and have objectives and/or outcomes rel- + Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMSs). evant to conservation and sustainable use. They are basically Area-based con- servation (AbC) approaches, and include approaches such as Protected Area (PA) management and Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMSs), but may also apply to areas beyond Pas and OECM . These approaches need to be assessed on a case-by case basis. Governance of these approaches can be under governments, private actors, indigenous peoples and local communities, or combinations of actors. 36 37 [page 37] à © Conceptual representation of the NBS umbrella concept for five categories of ecosystem-based approaches?* £ £ £ É Restoration Issue-specific Infrastructure Management Protection É e : : >” sf ; , ” Le < à. D. 4 AW a”! : 2== #7 lon LS aus à * . == TT LH | E | NÉ À C4 à SS an L_} an Pa. on | sun PR == E YA 8% , . 1 DIN == 3 De à ss : ass == : a mi He 6 a 7 é sé SN 4 ÿ 6 AN ÿ Ô L 2 — 2 Je E_Et —2 Human well-being Biodiversity benefits 38 39 [page 38] ë E : Nature-based solutions 5 3 and hybrid interventions # É There is a broad range of potential suitable = solutions across the spectrum from green/na- Key elements of Hybrid É ture-based to hard engineered/gray infrastruc- Interventions Ë ture. The combination of these solutions allows 2 drawing from the expertise and solutions from 1. Ecosystems are conserved and/ ! both ends of this spectrum. or restored to provide measurable Hybrid interventions consist of a combina- social, environmental, and economic tion of nature-based/green, hard/gray, and benefits; non-structural interventions that may be used to protect infrastructure, while providing oth- These interventions include selective er ecosystem service benefits. It is often the integration of a conventional case that the combination of ecosystem-based engineering approach; and measures (e.g. restoration of mangrove forests, salt-marshes inter-tidal lats, seagrasses or coral They provide a climate resilience reefs for coastal protection) with hard engi- and/or risk reduction benefit. neered structures (e.g. breakwaters, revetments, etc.) can extend the lifespan of gray infrastruc- ture, while at the same time supporting fisher- ies, regulating water quality, and sequestering revegetation interventions often insuffcient, carbon. “The combined solution can therefore and thus other strategies must be undertaken. be more comprehensive, robust and cost-effec- The type of solution to be selected depends tive that of either solution alone”. on some or all of the following factors: i) the Given Haitis vulnerability and the severity and project objective, ii) land use considerations in frequency of events affecting the country, most the surrounding environment, iii) ecosystems NBS applicable are likely to be integrated with native to the site, iv) project costs (including hard/grey infrastructure solutions into hybrid monitoring, maintenance and adaptive man- interventions. agement), v) desired performance, and vi) local Similarly, the implementation of hybrid policy and regulations. solutions is very appropriate for Haitÿs moun- ‘The table 3 below lists the strengths and weak- tain ecosystems (e.g. for., slope stabilization nesses of hard, nature-based and hybrid inter- purposes), where the steep slopes and the high ventions. exposure to erosion and landslide hazards make 40 [page 39] #0 MES us à sh * des u VHS aux SX » Ten Ra FES Tee Te nn PME FRRAMATENS LÉO PO ENST RAR Fo ER à Ne ONCE DER A4 ; RARE CS LE mon EP. + DST LR RE NC 2740 ALES "2 fus h , F7 MSN + FR te Len X4 4 cu PATES Le 1 Es LS 27 sr Es PR SITE RÉ EN D ANSE 2, D SDS DES, OS CP eu DENT PIE) “Æ NY CS ED Th ee EN CES PR : 4 27) PR LE LS A TUTO EU APPLE ETES APT D à Tai FER LI:4 LR DE Per À ER PE AE F. re VAN eg) mere CURE : # Ro \ EE ; MR Moièr, i PAGE À à FPE) “ ITR RS Ge | En ne 8} be" ' - “ju : ge # RSR à # SËt É FAN, f à Fs ar : a DE CURE PET © RE GN Lo Te nr » ? F at Fe: à LCR ARE ie REX RPG DU: ets 2] 244 RD A Fe open LPO MERE MURS LA See 7 À Put 5 É ut: à Là LE DRE LE à + Ja ARE ON SET 112 i SES % L'ART " SEX, e ART OR AR M: 4 a t% 7 5e Gé BTS ù FE Z RS 2? (A EE PA © ; Fa #r « Fu ts 07 r an ù «4 * ASIN «cri RES "ee VEN É 4 ; 1° i À 2 R FAN 10e - f | [page 40] 2 2 4 Table 3: Comparison between hard interventions, nature-based interventions, and hybrid interventionsf? a s = 5 = 2 2 8 : & 5 hé shid Strengths Weaknesses 5 ä options ä É Hard interven- There is a lot of experience in undertaking these interventions. New structures required or structures must be modified to adapt to environmental change. É Ë tions (such + Expertise and guidance already exist. Has a residual life which weakens over time. Ë 3 as sea walls, + Will provide protection as soon as they are built. + Can have negative impacts on coastal ecosystems and cause reduction in ecosystem services provided 3 É breakwaters) + Detaïled understanding regarding the design standards and protection that the by the coastal zone. É 5 intervention will offer. + Generally, have limited wider benefits apart from storm/ erosion protection. 5 e + Can experience more damage from ongoing small storm events compared to nature- based interven- e ° tions. ° + Can provide a wide range of benefits as well as shoreline protection including There is less guidance and best practice available fishery habitat, water quality, carbon sequestration, tourism enhancement, and * Hard to predict the level of protection that will be provided recreation. *_ Can provide varying levels of protection geographically Natu re-based + Ifecosystems are restored or replanted, they often get stronger and more resil- *_ Can take longer for the ecosystem to establish. solutions ient over time. *_ Generally, require more space for implementation compared to hard interventions. *_ Have the potential to self- recover or repair after both small and larger storm *_ Limited data to allow quantification of benefits and comparison of benefit-cost ratios. events. *_ Can be more difficult to gain planning approvals for these projects. Has the potential to naturally adapt and keep pace with environmental change and sea level rise. + Can be cheaper compared to hard interventions. *_ Has the potential to engage the local community and stakeholders in protecting, restoring, and enhancing coastal ecosystems that support their livelihood. In the long-term, this builds the adaptive capacity and resilience of coastal com- munities and ecosystems. Hybrid *_ Capitalizes on the strengths of both hard and nature-based solutions. *_ Does not provide as many wider benefits as a nature- based intervention. intervention *_ Provides opportunities for innovation. * _ Requires more research for best practice examples. options + Can be used to provide wider benefits but where there is little space or there + Can still have some negative environmental impact. is a requirement for immediate protection. *_ Has the potential to engage the local community and stakeholders in pro- tecting, restoring, and enhancing coastal ecosystems that support their live- lihood. In the long-term, this builds the adaptive capacity and resilience of coastal communities and ecosystems. 42 43 [page 41] 8 8 = = 8 8 = = Es Es T T = = 5 5 2 2 Es . . . . . Ée 8 Examples of hybrid intervention to protect structure assets in the context of mountain roads 8 5 transport assets that combine typical hard and and coastal areas. Detailed examples can be found 5 8 nature-based solutions are shown in table 4 and in section 6 the Factsheet catalogue. The two pi- 3 A schematize in Figure 7, with a list of examples lot sites prioritized under this project feature the 2 2 . . . . . ee 2 É of potential management strategies (NBS/green, types of hybrid solutions suitable to the Haiti = _ hard engineering/grey)) applicable to road infra- context (see Section 8. for a case study). & É É ® ® 3 3 5 5 z z e Table 4: Examples of hybrid interventions for mountain and coastal areas e e e Mountain Areas Costal Areas Hybrid Intervention | Objective Hybrid Intervention | Objective Slope drainage and reveg- Combined with Gabion Slope protection for erosion and Restoration of combined with rock re- Protection from coastal erosion and etation (e.g. restoration of baskets or check dams landslide prevention; manage mangrove forests, vetments or dykes coastal flooding grasslands and/or forests) runoff salt-marshes or in- ter-tidal flats Planting of local With a structured element Roadside stabilization and ero- Dune restoration combined with detached Protection from coastal erosion and deep-rooted species such as bamboo dams and sion and flood protection; income and beach nourish- (offshore) breakwaters or coastal flooding; facilitate sediment fences or wall structures generation through the selling of ment groyns system accumulation the planted grasses (co-benefñit) Upper slope: Complemented by a system Slope protection for erosion and Marsh/Mangroves Combined with Road Protection of road and bridges from horizontal, vertical, and com- of protective barriers along landslide prevention and miti- forest restoration elevation impact of waves plementary drainage system, the road gation against the impact of rock and Coral Reefs res- : modification of the slope so falls toration Breakwaters construction that vegetation can grow. Lower slope: compact- Protected with geotextile Slope protection for erosion con- ed embankment forming trol and road base scouring green terraces. 44 45 [page 42] a É S £ O©O Theoretical example of NBS for road protection in Haiti (developed by authors) Es D = G £ Es œ o 8 2 Revetments [221 Le) = 2 Restoration of S 5 beaches sand oO : = Revegetation banks and dunes 8 with resilent æ & local crop Slope È varieties stabilization and Z revegetation © IN \ L È APTE ". QT AL à ù : Ne Rockfill and E mè Es NESsENEN D, . Fe à for protecting =. birdges A Revegetation With native forest species .: Natural wetland Living management breakwaters Seagrass . Mangroves restoration . restoration and conservation Coral reef conservation and restoration 46 [page 43] À 3 y $ NE d _ : re PA > $” ne . q A + ) - : pe ” F e fes PT ct ds à M < j se # " + $ | - _ > er” LC = > É a “ Pc DA ; < 2 RE ‘ F Se . mit 4 : Tr - 7” 4 = « S" _ - Ne — CT. EE ABLE x TT + e + — RON 2Yrautre UET EAN Jr PSS | eh * AN Re RE te DR & : & (ur 7 : Les AT à : L È É e D. + - ‘ J 5 ue. = : AAA Lg + . Ÿ Fe « * tire : ‘ E “ + . Sr = NE © Figure 7: Gravel coastal road highly exposed to coastal erosion and flooding, where vegetated berm provides partial protection [page 44] E 5 Pnnciples for implementing nature based solutions Oo 8 While the term NBS is a relatively recent concept, ‘These experiences have generated lessons learned A its application is not; there is already significant evi- and guidance principles. Table 5 summarizes five É dence ofthe benefits that these approaches provide basic principles that may guide the development = in reducing climate risks and contributing to the of future nature-based interventions during their £ achievement of the sustainable development goals. design, implementation, and maintenance. = Table 5: Summary of the five key principles for NBS* e e Principle Description Principle 1: Addressing nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation (ELA) System-scale per- and disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR) should start with a systemwide spective analysis of the local socioeconomic, environmental, and institutional con- ditions. Consider the spatial scale, time scale, and local socioeconomic and institutional context. Principle 2: À thorough assessment of the risks and benefits of the full range of pos- Risk and benefit sible measures should be conducted, covering risk reduction benefits as assessment of full well as social and environmental effects. range of solutions Principle 3: Nature-based solutions for disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR) need to be Standardized per- tested, designed, and evaluated using quantitative criteria. formance evaluation Principle 4: Nature-based solutions for disaster risk reduction should make use of Integration with existing ecosystems, native species, and comply with basic principles of Ecosystem conserva- ecological restoration and conservation. tion and restoration Principle 5: Nature-based solutions for disaster risk reduction need adaptive man- Adaptive agement based on long-term monitoring. This ensures their sustainable management performance. 48 [page 45] y ; pes ; », Ÿ % eh # RNBURE EU 0 Le OR a a ER SR ri NL À 24 De, /° HS À As FRANS AN AU? VIVARSAE. 28: YA STE vw 0 g Ne DS @. 4 14 er» Vie Lk , F6 PNR Ho 2 LAN CAE r + 1e) UN ds Le SR TR EC RE ER E a Y Wie #, ES [Sn « 27 Ja NA 4 P. D. / ARTS A SA vs. ; CT: # ARE AM TRES ie PR RP do EE À De ; TRE age Aa, LATE C o? bd CN PU à € SE j 0 \-_ METRE DENTS Zi à CT ? Je D ve. ” fau UE, "€: 7e Se STAY PRES ER) CC TER VI ARRET LT D RSS 1 020 NEA | > SR É ES IN SL. MC. (A: 78E RP NT Avi 8 ATP NN | LA HE. a” LRU NE ; N- 0) RE -- LEZ MOREL À HD 7 CS OS À D ACNTS RR "1 IE ALL AIO ee. et CR ANA < LC NE SR Fe Lg DE ENS AE GLATT De ve 7 - à 4. aŸ | SR Gil R'LLS D sim Si AC AVE. LS | LS A Vi > En) =, ÈS RTE ISERE t-pga 8; Sri) Ge à 17 PERLE ES: ét RL EN à D'or tt > } Lt A2 CRE UN 4” LES AE sl FES = ee Les. 2 ee + 4 MS M FRS NET / CHAPAE D'AA\ Rte = AS sb x RS GE FR es É Vas à RTS SR ee 4 Se. |; A K LE KT TZ ET 4 SPONE * — An = TS Pr! Fa ' NUE SAN LA a 4 TA) 7 PAUL & \. AR EN cars = LT AT PT. = 1273 Y * ? VAL ù SÉ OT À, 124 ’ ne 4 CS - mé EE — | RS - LEZ de =. F St = ere. = re JA . - 2 mn. ne Fe pe nm Fee à [page 46] & : _Benefits and co-benefits of nbs and 5 4 ‘climate proofing” road infrastructure Z El É NBS offers a major opportunity for innovation In the transport sector, NBS demonstrates = with possibilities to deliver multiple long-last- multiple direct benefits and co-beneñits for É ing and tangible benefits to a wide array of climate proofing road infrastructure, including: Ë societal challenges in a broad range of envi- Z ronmental, socio-economic, and cultural con- A. Ensuring the sustainability of the infra- ! texts (e.g. river basins - reforestation and green structure embankments; coastal zones - mangroves and wetlands; and cities - urban parks). These ben- NBS can contribute to minimizing offsite efits depend on the specific project and setting. sediment delivery from upland areas and thus In comparison to purely hard engineered/ protect the infrastructure and prolong its life- gray infrastructure solutions, NBS often pro- time, minimizing operational and maintenance vide cost and resource-efficiency benefits, and costs. Downstream, sediment loads lead to op- when combined with these structural measures, erational costs for desilting infrastructure such they often reduce operational and maintenance as irrigation canals, hydroelectric power dams costs for hard infrastructure, and increase the and road infrastructure. Vegetative filter strips life-span of such structures resulting in a lon- and reforestation are two NBS approaches used ger lasting alternative, compared to a purely to address this problem. Reforestation practic- gray infrastructure. In addition, the conserva- es can also contribute to the reduction of road tion and/or restoration of ecosystems offer key surface temperatures, therefore reducing the co-beneñits to infrastructure projects, such as degradation of roads due to high temperatures. potential of carbon sequestration, biodiversity protection, recreation and tourism or mainte- B. Protecting from hazards and climate nance of soil fertility. change effects In the context of increased frequency and intensity of hydro-meteorological hazards and When appropriately designed, NBS has high climate change, NBS represents an attractive potential to protect infrastructure from hazards ecological approach for disaster risk reduction such as floods, landslides, and storms. In moun- and climate change adaptation, while also en- tainous areas NBS can reduce the impacts from hancing the resilience of natural and managed landslides and rock falls on road infrastructure ecosystems and the human settlements nextto through the stabilization of degraded slopes. them.'They can also contribute to improving ‘This, in turn, will also help mitigate ongoing the adaptive capacity of a community by pro- sedimentation of streams and prevent addi- viding community organization training and tional landslides and mudflows, and further supplemental support for livelihoods87. secure the road infrastructure. Revegetation 50 [page 47] É of slopes with deep-rooted native species and crease the lifespan of such structures resulting É forest restoration interventions are some ofthe in a longer lasting and more cost-effective al- = NBS practices used in mountain areas for slope ternative, compared to a purely gray infrastruc- stabilization. ture. More details on the economic appraisal of Q Additionally, NBS reduces flooding by NBS are provided in Section 4. increasing infiltration, evapotranspiration, Asitis widely recognized and has been previ- and water storage where precipitation falls. ously shown, in addition to enhancing resilience Increasing infiltration also recharges ground to natural hazards and climate change effects, water reserves and can benefit aquatic habi- ensuring the sustainability ofinfrastructure, and tats. Another environmental benefit of NBS providing cost efficiency benefits, NBS simul- for stormwater management is that itimproves taneously facilitate natural ecosystem function, water quality by reducing runoff and allowing with benefits such as improved water quality, runoff to be treated by soils and vegetation. habitat, and fisheries. Specifically, the applica- Reducing runoff can provide benefits for mit- tion of NBS for road infrastructure interven- igating soil erosion, which causes upstream and tions provides a number of environmental and downstream problems. socio-economic co-benefits, including: In coastal environments, NBS contributes do eo dote tete 0 D.Improving water quality and securing ac- POP AN AT ET TM ess to water fornearby communities Restoration and conservation of coral reefs, salt marshes or mangrove forests are some of the By reducing runoff and increasing infiltration, NBS approaches being used in coastal areas for NBS strategies help to minimize water pollu- coastal risk reduction. tion. This improves water quality and can reduce water treatment costs by 25 percent or more. C. Cost efficiency Planting native plants can help reduce the usage of chemical fertilizers, further improving water NBS are often equal to or less than the initial quality. This provides public health benefits be- cost of traditional engineering solutions (e.g. cause people are less exposed to polluted water shoreline armoring). In addition, in comparison and drinking water contaminants. to conventional hard engineering/grey infra- pod etes tte 00e 0045 E. Contribute to job creation and support to and compensate for the various effects of climate change (e.g. sea level rise), one significant advan- tage of NBS is that some can naturally adaptto In addition to roadside stabilization and ero- parts of these effects. Traditional structural fea- sion and flood protection; revegetation of tures need to be regularly maintained, after the slopes with deep-rooted native species can impact of a disaster and require replacement or contribute to income generation through the retrofitting to achieve similar goals. selling of the planted grasses. The restoration When combined with hard engineered in- of mangrove forests will contribute to coastal frastructure, NBS often reduce operational and habitat restoration (e.g. nursery for fisheries), maintenance costs of this infrastructure and in- and thus support local livelihoods. 51 [page 48] Er 4 LÉÈTESR, é R Ms". = LT + L RU . , > & È @ a, te: ZOb re bre \ RS S " D : a, S: Lie LUE gl > " Ed‘ 4 +, hi de ” . T4 Fa né s $ x ME ; Le * on à RS US ARR pti des À é - ‘ : “à PE L «< »: pi ; à LE PE ” 7 Le « UN at LE [page 49] + See 4. THE ECONOMICS "4 +, OF NBS FOR ROAD “… INFRASTRUCTURE ‘à + es = à | 41 Tools for the selection of risk reduction LM Ê ba Es... Se * © and adpatation strategies NI Le ê Ne” & 4.2 Assessing benefits and co-benefits of NBS S SA + k Sr S 4,3 Assessing costs of NBS * LEE ASE 4.4 Key summary factors to consider when Sax. RSR assessing benefits and costs of NBS [page 50] = The use of conventional road infrastructure ‘There is currently very limited literature on È protection, such as seawalls, revetments and the use of NBS to enhance the resilience of 3 breakwaters in coastal areas, has often resulted road infrastructure and the potential for us- 2 in significant alteration of the function ofmany ing NBS for road infrastructure resilience. 2 shorelines worldwide because of the interac- Some examples where NBS has been used 5 tion of these protective structures with natural to protect coastal road infrastructure exist. ë processes (e.g. reduction in sediment transport, Certainly, there may be numerous examples ÈË loss of habitats of wetlands and beaches, etc.). spread across regions, where roads and bridg- : More recently, road infrastructure projects of- es benefit from additional protection or resil- ten combine NBS with engineered structures ience afforded by natural systems, which could into hybrid measures (see Section 3.2). be documented. Some other roads and bridges Selecting NBS rather than hard infrastruc- may be potential candidates for the applica- ture requires being comfortable with a range of tion of NBS. However, better documentation effectiveness and the dynamic nature of NBS, and tracking of NBS applications to address and depends on several factors, including their a transportation-related need are needed. The performance over time and an economic justi- extent to which NBS can be used to protect fication, at least in terms of risk reduction over vulnerable road infrastructure in Haïti (as well the life of the project”. as in many other countries) is currently un- Over the past couple of decades, NBS have known and represents a knowledge gap at this increasingly been applied for adaptation and/or time. A suitable methodology for addressing disaster risk reduction purposes worldwide, ad- this knowledge gap, that takes into consider- dressing in particular the linked challenges ofcli- ation all associated costs and benefits is there- mate change and poverty in poor countries where fore needed. dependence on natural resources and livelihoods This section aims at providing a brief sum- is high. These experiences present growing evi- mary of key economic aspects that underpin dence that NBS often provide low-cost solutions the characterization of NBS (based on exist- to various climate change challenges. Similarly,it ing knowledge) to be considered in the assess- is widely recognized that NBS provides a diversi- ment and prioritization of disaster risk reduc- ty of other gains (see Section 3.4), which would tion and climate change adaptation strategies, often place them in an advantageous position in an attempt to frame the conversation on compared to other structural measures in the the use of NBS to strengthen the resilience process of prioritization of alternatives. of road infrastructure. Feedback from transportation professionals during the regional peer exchanges underscored the importance of being able to communicate to stakeholders that nature-based solutions offer some risk-reduction potential, provide multiple benefits, and have reasonable costs?? 54 [page 51] Goes * ee), 7." « L 2: , A. KT RUE Se US PET Em o FSs VAR De EL À PS : à "= Le 7e4 " DR RE à mt Re 2 Eat hf D | LS eu » à >| : He ac à . RES, FORT ARS * ; D DE {À ‘ PRESS No | SE ER Ch Ve 4 Ds + mm è 6 ? Mrs! ”. À & d 4 PAT a ne DEA y PERL PR Ce # dE e LE FR on Dr 2 ’ . re s. UT L'ART E Z 3 < \ ‘5 2 Hi nl CCE + 2 y EP ue La TA En, Ar: M ASE E de . , ' : PR SEE EN 3 Ep bé - y L ; : Fe Mn #0 SE mi ile) Ne 7 CS Er vd ARE ES | F'iàst r ARE as re ‘ "Re 3 Pt AIT ph vs Fe en re 0 FANS DER SR : à L L Le je 4 A Fa PA, D. fps forte 1 > PS Le ÿ C %; d PACE CE Lt « * 4 EN Sr AL” < Ta ne . ° à 4 DS ER TE PAC A Be he * { |, L'AEERES SRE ‘ s - e % NE PR AS e - 7 SUR Le - LL) PEN ” RE + ARTS CRM EX 2 A TE NT. des AN e à L ©" Ps CON S * = he | LIBERTE LEA CE AA CAT A * cer + be y 1 ALT . ds; Oui : LR LA Een ML n PAM 1 FRET à AAAPINTE F 9% ta FE SNS 17 <V BE LE 5) \ » : DES TT, AC LAS d PRE sn D CE Le: NS CN la y LS 4 : da gi TOUS # PO EE GS RÉEL 2e SE ON A2 M de | 4. “À $ F \v# w L (Re AAA T À QE" EN 4 l æ en RARE ZE BRAS àÿ y ce TA NNRCAE. /# 1, Vue, de LS LIRE TT se EX 1 iQ Fr À Ne STAR 4 RE n E TO MAD Wa 4. LE PRE NT | “rs ue” TN ] Vs ? D PE EUR MR ex. La - AL CRES WP Ir 00, PME \ # vire LUE ee 4 LA GES fou F4 “ 5 1 À 2 A DE HDTE: ”{ es EE NAUONE PENSE + 87 ù LSTRE À à "EE DR ( ñ AL Ÿ Ce AN D 7e WNSPE, CS SE plie f Fe 44] V =: [page 52] s 5 Ë 3 È 5 L’2] om Zz 5 8 E 5 2 5 8 2 F e = Tools for the selection of risk reduction and adpatation strategies Traditionally, the selection of disaster risk and ecological co-benefits provided by NBS. reduction interventions has been based on ‘This often prevents NBS from being widely cost-benefit analyses, where benefits were es- and consistently implemented and sufficiently timated in terms of reduced impacts or risks mainstreamed into national and international avoided. While these analyses continue to be policy processes?” To continue informing pol- an important tool for assessing the efficiency icy and practice, and improve adaptation, fur- of disaster risk reduction interventions, with a ther work is required. shifting emphasis from hard engineered mea- In general, all tools considered for the eco- sures to NBS, other tools such as cost-effec- nomic appraisal of risk reduction strategies tiveness analysis, multi-criteria analysis and will require an assessment of benefits and robust decision-making approaches deserve costs of each of the strategies that may be more attention, in order to ensure that in- potentially used to meet the climate change vestments made to reduce disaster risks are adaptation or risk reduction target. Box 4.1 not only cost-effective, but that their benefits provides the typical steps to be followed in an reach all members of the population, includ- economic analysis of NBS. ing the poor an vulnerable, who are often af- In general terms, for a risk reduction or fected disproportionally. climate change adaptation strategy to be pri- There remains a lack of scientific synthe- oritized above others, and therefore selected, sis and there are several knowledge gaps”* that overall benefits (quantitative and qualitative) make it challenging to comprehensively un- should be “bigger” than overall costs. À sum- derstand the effectiveness of NBS measures mary of aspects related to the estimation of for the specific local contexts, or to appropri- benefits and costs of NBS is presented in the ately quantify the multiple socio-economic following sub-sections. 56 [page 53] © 3 ë E TT É <T> È L=] = $ L°21 [ee] z 5 S& Box 4.1. 5 . . . . . ao Typical steps to be included in an economic analysis of NBS 8 Ê © (e) 1. Estimate benefits and co-benefits of NBS strategy: *_ Assess primary benefits by estimating the difference in damages/losses with and without NBS over an extended period of time; + _Identify all co-benefits (e.g. habitat, open space, aesthetics, increased property values, improved water quality, etc.), and estimate their value; 2. Estimate NBS unit costs and overall strategy costs: * Research and obtain relevant up-to-date cost information on NBS (e.g. from past projects); network with other communities for cost information; * Estimate the costs of the overall NBS strategy over the complete life cycle of the NBS (e.g. 20 to 50 years) by summing all associated costs; consider the following costs: i) planning, design and permitting costs, ii) costs of land required for the implementation of NBS, in- cluding opportunity costs, iii) capital costs (costs of creation, protection, or restoration), and iv) operation, maintenance and monitoring costs; 3. Estimate annualize costs and benefits over a specific time frame: *_ Discount the calculated benefits and costs to obtain present values, in order to make a fair comparison of costs (paid in the early years of a project) and benefits (realized year by year over a number of decades); *_ Distribute the present value across the years of analysis in order to produce the average benefit or cost in each year (ï.e. annualized benefit or annualized cost). *__ Estimate annualized net benefits by subtracting annualized costs from annualized benefits; (Adapted from?) 57 [page 54] © M ae. ‘ 4 s à 154 4 4 2; L : ,. > Me te ge, LE FPS, GS , CD 7 5 Dh # ; 7 3 Lo er HER D ns | aie LD he D #82 Qi LC, did 275 1 6 14% C'EST A de d Se? = : & : ” 2 rs ! / rs É & ; & PT ec ES Dr “ y Jen Re", ca ; pe f UE enr. us = 2 D. di LE: ñ LE : ne PAPE w, . 4 î Payer Fe CL: dan 4, + Lai e dt ki: à Re MDN ANIC LE ANE AE a 2 /à «3 Ve PR CAT 0 "SA ARRAP TM LS, A dre LAS LT 1 a der LR pl EN AE 7 QUE Alt y RAS NRA CAE Les a. va à 7 HAS ok Re CU Vo enr à PR . ra: : RSS vla 57 À 5 VOS SRE pere F 7 “ME se À Las < Fe 4 “i + Lt Sée, & m.. STE Ÿ Lui EN EPTERTENES TUE A gi 4 r 1 =“ | L L 4 FA € TIR RSR: 1 ou r / ©; NET fi fs. : ° à. RTE CRE Se di 4 PP M ; ” Né NAT c *, 2 SEA 2 à = # ke 04 FÉst k * SE L'ILE MEUTR. $ Lg. SA $ DS + EE RE DA: 3 _ € = te = + À fl 4 » } " £ $ à er 14 d LES "2 = AL y — NS) 2 sh #3 Dr Le HS 0e > Pa 4 F. abs & CR, 2 # en Ro HE Dm 2 SJ A : > - = CT RU SENTE À M Le + Pré N—. TPE : + ext [page 55] Assessing benefits and co-benefits of NBS É À first step in the economic analysis is the ‘The assessment of the risk reduction and cli- 3 estimation of the total benefit of a climate mate change adaptation benefits of various 2 change adaptation or risk reduction strategy. NBS has been the object of numerous re- 2 This should ideally be comprised of the sum search initiatives, particularly over the last de- 5 of all benefits and co-benefits. The distinction cade. Today, there is reasonable consensus on ë between benefits and co-benefits of project al- coastal protection services (flood and erosion ÈË ternatives (e.g. NBS) depends first on the pri- risk reduction) provided by coastal habitats, ! mary objective of the project, and secondly on and can often-reduce the costs of coastal NBS other aspects such as the strategic priorities of compared to alternative coastal structures (e.g., the agency developing the project and those submerged breakwaters) for the same level of of the communities located in the vicinity or protection (similar risk reduction benefits)”. adjacent to the project area. In addition, these NBS have been reported This Guide is focused on interventions that to be able to keep pace with SLR, on shel- can strengthen the resilience of road infra- tered coastlines. À recent study undertaken on structure to the impact of natural hazards and the flood risk reduction benefits of coral reefs climate change. Therefore, the benefits to be across 3,100 km of US coastline estimates the considered are those related to the efficacy of hazard risk reduction benefits of US coral reefs the intervention to reduce the risk of natural to exceed US$1.8 billion annually*!. hazards, and/or improve adaptation to climate For NBS located in coastal environments, change effects (e.g., protecting services pro- there is, however, a key technical gap on the vided by NBS estimated as damages avoided relationship between the benefits of NBS and from reduced flooding); whereas co-benefits time27. On one hand, there is limited litera- are any other relevant benefits that results ture that describes the ability of NBS to re- from the implementation of the specific in- duce storm hazards as a function of storm du- tervention (e.g., other ecosystem services pro- ration. On the other, the longiterm reliability vided by NBS). and performance of NBS are, like all coastal “On average, coastal habitats reduce wave heights between 35% and 71%. Coral reefs reduce wave heights by 70%, salt-marshes by 72%, mangroves by 31% and seagrass/kelp beds by 36%; with coral reefs having the greatest potential for coastal protection (highly effective at reducing wave heights and are also exposed to higher, more powerful waves), followed by salt-marshes, which are almost as effective in terms of wave reduction, but occur in more sheltered environments. Mangroves and seagrass/ kelp beds are about half as effective, with mangroves occurring in the most sheltered environments""$ 59 [page 56] © £ infrastructure, subject to the effects of sea level & rise, and therefore, t these NBS will continue = to provide equivalent risk reduction benefits È and depend on the magnitude of future rates Ë of sea level rise. 2 As previously noted, NBS provide nu- 8 merous additional benefits or co-benefits, Ë in the form of water quality improvements, 3 sediment management, resource production, Ê carbon sequestration, job creation and tour- : ism and recreational services, to name a few. However, while the wide-reaching and po- tentially long-lasting risk reduction and ad- - . aptation-related benefits of NBS, of coastal | + NBS, have been quantified in terms of mon- ne Æ . 4: etary values, many of the socio-economic and Rs ecological co-benefits provided by NBS are à non-monetary, and therefore not accounted for in traditional CBA. Quantifying the to- tal ecosystem services of NBS is critical for demonstrating the advantage position of NBS in comparison with traditional engineering measures; however, the following consider- ations should be noted: *_ While co-benefits may be difficult to mon- = 5 = etized, there is currently a growing body RE of literature related to quantifying ecosys- = a — a tem services (%, #, %*); although, few uni- == LES = = = fied studies that draw on wide sets of data LEE RE — and characteristics. To try to place a value FES EEE on ecosystem services, the benefit transfer 3 method may be used*. This method uses economic values for ecosystem services in one location to approximate the value in a different location. °_ There is also a lack of information con- cerning the role of ecosystem services and how they might best be leveraged as part of transportation planning or impact mit- igation (3). 60 [page 57] ® Table 6 provides a (non-exhaustive) list of £ risk reduction benefits provided by some É NBS that may be integrated as part of road ë infrastructure projects in coastal and inland/ È mountainous environments, as well as a list 3 of socio-economic and ecological co-benefits 2 of these measures. All these benefits should 2 therefore be fully assessed as part of the pri- É oritization of appropriate risk reduction strat- 8 egies for the reduction of risk to road infra- Ê structure as part of Step 3 specifically. Step : 3.2 (see Section 5); the economic assessment methodology should ideally consider the an- nual benefits related to all these aspects over » an extended period of time. bre bte 2 À couple of considerations regarding the KR ce. x benefits associated to NBS should be noted: : Table 6 shows the benefits of each of the in- . dividual NBS. However, it should be noted that according to recent studies, the com- : bination of NBS is shown to yield benefits HR. - beyond those achieved individually (e.g., LT oyster reef in combination with marsh veg- a etation had a greater impact on reducing BE Rare a wave height than each of these measures in- RE dividually*, and the combination of corals, en ess seagrasses and mangroves achieved more — : — protective services than any individual hab- Es pese £ itat or combination of two habitats??. ENTER. ' : SE pee * In addition, given that some NBS seem 6 = —— more effective at reducing the risk of some hazards under low to moderate intensity events, combining NBS with traditional engineered structures may address some of these shortcomings and address the factors that may have contributed to their deg- radation over time, while simultaneously enhancing the resilience of both the infra- structure and the ecosystem, thus yielding the greatest benefits over time. 6! [page 58] e Table 6: Risk-reduction and climate change adaptation benefits and socio-economic and ecological co-benefñits of NBS 8 È É £ Type of NBS Benefits for DRR & CCA Strengths & weaknesses Co-benefits Ê pre) pre) £ £ 8 Coral Reef/Oyster Reef | + Coastal flood risk reduction => wave attenuation through transmis- Oyster reefs are more effective in low wave en- | + Habitat conservation/restoration and biodiver- 8 5 Restoration sion, breaking and energy dissipation, thus protecting from wave and ergy environments. sity enhancement. 5 É storm surge impact, in particular under extreme event conditions; pro- *_ Resource production $ Ë tection from tsunamis and SLR; + Tourism and recreation; = ° + Coastal erosion risk reduction => protection from waves and tides; ° e e due to the reduction of wave height, reefs can also modify sediment erosion and deposition patterns. Mangrove Forest + Coastal and riverine flood risk reduction => wave attenuation and The benefits of mangroves change as water levels | * Improvement of water quality and sediment Restoration reduction of wave run-up and storm surge, as well as reduction of increase. When water levels are within the root management; tsunami run-up, thus reducing coastal and riverine flooding. structure, mangroves are effective at reducing | * Mitigation of salt intrusion; + Coastal erosion risk reduction; wave action and wave runXup, but as water levels | + Habitat conservation/restoration and biodiver- * SLR mitigation; increase, mangroves are more effective at reducing sity enhancement. storm surge than they are at reducing wave action. | + Carbon storage & sequestration; *_ Resource production; + Tourism and recreation; Coastal Wetland (Salt *_ Coastal and riverine flood risk reduction => wave height and water The capacity of marsh vegetation to provide these | + Improvement of water quality and sediment man- Marshes) Restoration velocity attenuation, and reduction of flood depths in the marsh, re- benefits changes with the water level. When agement => natural filters that remove pollutants sulting in increased protection against waves and storm surges; marshes are completely submerged, and water for water purification; sediment nutrient storage; + Coastal erosion risk reduction => minimization of net sediment loss and levels are above the tops of the marsh plants, they | * Habitat conservation/ restoration and biodiver- increased sediment stabilization; enhance flood depth reduction but are less effec- sity enhancement. tive at attenuating waves. *_ Carbon storage & sequestration; *_ Resource production; + Tourism and recreation; Beach nourishment *_ Coastal flood risk reduction => protection from wave and storm surge W'ider beaches, beaches with higher berm eleva- | + Improvement of water quality and sediment & Dune Restoration/ impact, in particular under extreme event conditions; protection from tions, and beaches with larger volumes, provide management => water infiltration, cleaning and Revegetation tsunamis and SLR; more protection to upland infrastructure. storage; protection of inland resources from salt- & Pocket Beaches (beach *_ Coastal erosion risk reduction => protection from strong winds, waves water intrusion. de and tides; sand retention and stabilization by vegetation. *_ Habitat conservation/ restoration and biodiver- stabilization along shel- . . . . . tered shorelines) *_ Reduction of wind and salt spray on adjacent infrastructure sity enhancement. | + Tourism and recreation; 62 63 [page 59] e e É Type of NBS Benefits for DRR & CCA Strengths & weaknesses Co-benefits È É É 2 2 2 River Floodplain *_ Riverine flood risk reduction => peak water flow and downstream *_Improvement of water quality and sediment management => Reduction of surface flow velocity 2 £ Restoration flood risk reduction through increased flood capacity: water stor- and sediment management; reduction of environmental pollution, increase of sediment storage and £ 8 . . . age and slow release of water and sediment; facilitates seasonal reduction of soil erosion; 8 É Dike modification] river dynamics. *_ Habitat restoration and biodiversity enhancement. 5 8 removal along rivers . 8 5 *_ Carbon sequestration; ® = Re-meandering *_ Resource production; Ê ! of watercourse + Tourism and Recreation; ! Forest Conservation / + Riverine and pluvial flood risk reduction => Rainwater interception and Air and soil pollution mitigation; Forest Restoration infiltration, reducing the impact on banks along drainage lines, reduc- *_ Habitat restoration and biodiversity enhancement. ing peak flows, and reducing the impact of riverine floods downstream; *_ Carbon sequestration; *_Soilerosion and landslide risk reduction => Soil stabilization and re- duction of erosion in riparian zones and steep slopes; + _ Reduction of soil subsidence; Terracing *_ Pluvial flood risk reduction => Runoff reduction and soil *_ Increase of stormwater storage capacity; erosion control; + Improvement of soil and water quality (reduce groundwater and river pollution) and sediment management; *_ Habitat creation/restoration and biodiversity enhancement. *_ Resource production; + Tourism and recreation; Bio-Retention areas: Pluvial flood risk reduction => Increase stormwater collection, infiltra- *_ Improvement of water quality and sediment management => Removal of water and soil pullutants. Detention Ponds, tion and storage capacities, resulting in reduction of peak water flow and *_ Habitat creation/restoration and biodiversity enhancement; Infiltration trenches, storm flooding reduction; *_ Carbon sequestration; Bio-retention basins Increase of soil stabilization and prevention of soil subsidence; (Inland) Wetland Reverine and pluvial flood risk reduction => Stormwater flow attenua- *_Improvement of water quality and sediment management => removal of water pollutants, reduc- Restoration tion, water infiltration, sediment and pollution removal and water table tion of stream erosion. stabilization; *_ Increase storm water storage capacity => groundwater recharge, stormwater storage; *_ Habitat creation/restoration and biodiversity enhancement; *_ Carbon sequestration; *_ Resource creation, local economy stimulation and job creation; * Tourism and recreation; 64 65 [page 60] © Ë É È É 5 om z = £ é _Assessing costs of NBS 5 8 2 F e The next step in the economic analysis is the always necessary to keep in mind that the fea- estimation of the costs associated with each sibility of each option will strongly depend on option. The costs of NBS strategies should be the local circumstances. Estimating the costs estimated over the complete cycle of the NBS ofimplementation of NBS remains a technical (e.g. 20 to 50 years) to do à fair assessment gap, as costs can vary across regions based on of costs with respect to benefits. The majority geographical location, setting, implementation of NBS costs occur in the early years of the method, site accessibility, availability of expe- project; however, benefits take time to emerge, rienced contractors, and the nature of the per- and it is therefore important to take a long- mitting requirements”. A better understanding term perspective (e.g., 20 to 50 years) in deci- of the costs of NBS in transportation settings sion-making. Because the value of NBS ben- is needed. efits adds up over time, it may take years to Another technical gap relates to the cost of recover the initial cost. long-term maintenance of NBS. Some mainte- It is important to consider all costs associ- nance costs for several types of NBS have been ated to NBS. These should include i) planning, reported. For beach nourishment projects, the design and permitting costs, ii) costs ofland re- United Kingdom (UK) environment suggests quired for the implementation of NBS,includ- that the maintenance costs could be close to ing opportunity costs, iii) capital costs (costs nothing*”. Some authors argue that with an of creation, protection, or restoration), and iv) appropriate design, NBS should be able to operation, maintenance, and monitoring costs. adapt to changing conditions over time (e.g. While limited, some general references for growing to keep pace with SLR), thus reducing unitary costs of NBS can be found in existing the maintenance costs. However, the existing literature (see Table 7%). Therefore, researching literature presents conflicting information re- relevant up-to-date cost information on NBS garding whether the maintenance costs of NBS (e.g. from past projects) is particularly useful. are more or less than those of traditional en- Networking with communities that have ex- gineered approaches’. What seems certain is perience implementing NBS measures could that NBS should be regularly monitored to en- be another key source of cost information. sure the long-term reliability and performance While general information may be available of the intervention in achieving the intended on effectiveness and unit costs of NBS, it is outcomes and desired co-beneñits. 66 [page 61] Table 7: Capital and Maintenance costs and moderate Benefit-Cost ratios of several types of NBS £ : Reported . Reported annual Empirical É Type of NBS implementation : evidence of £ a maintenance cost . 8 (capital) cost estimates of b/c 2 : Coral Reef $165,000/ha (median)*# | For MPAs, $12 M/ 13.6 — 15.5 É Restoration (also $542,500/ha*?) year for the Great È Barrier Reef e e Oyster Reef $66,800/ha 7.345 Restoration Mangrove Forest $9,000/ha (median) Globally: $7-85/ha/yr | 416 Restoration [Range: $1,413-42,801/ |($5,000*-11,000*/ha/ ha] yrin Florida, 10% of ini- tial investment ($85/ha) in Indonesia“? Coastal Wetland (Salt | $85,000-230,000/ha* $25/m/yr in NLS° 626 — 8.72% Marshes) Restoration | ($67,000/ha%) Beach nourishment $3-21%/m' (also $2-58/ | Vary from almost noth- | 0.28 — 1.68“ m'globally”,$4.7-17.6/ |ing to several million min the USA#, $3-8/m° | dollars per km, although in NL°?,$15.5-37.5/m° | costs are usually at the in THAÏS) lower end of this range. Dune Restoration/ $7,636-13,888/ha* For dune restoration, Revegetation the following figures are reported: $333- 2,526/ha/yr° 67 [page 62] ë Reported Reported annual Embpirical & Type of NBS implementation hate cost evidence of = (capital) cost estimates of b/c 2 5 River Floodplain $27,200/ha [$130- 0.5 — 1.5% of total É Restoration 360,000/ha]°° investment costs”? É Dike modification/ | $1-100/m° « removal along rivers $18-1,200/m or river e Re-meandering section recovered of watercourse Watershed $2,207/ha [$189- Vary widely depending reforestation $5,665/ha ft on location and type of trees. Forest Conservation | $3,450/ha° Vary widely depending / Forest Restoration on location and (Tropical Forests) type of trees. Bio-Retention areas: | For various types”: 0.5 — 10% of Detention Ponds $60/m? Sonstruction costs Infiltration trenches $74/m° Bio-retention basins | $534/m? (Inland) Wetland $33,000/ha%7 $785/ha/yr (over a . 40- . Restoration $1,000/ha/yr ° . perog over Wetland Connection | (median) [Range: $6- k F$10 ) Jha to watercourse 70,000/ha/yr]°° ? $2,400-300,000/ connection” 68 [page 63] For comparison purposes, Table 8 provides damages during storm events, reductions in £ some references of capital and maintenance erosion), and not the additional co-beneñits & costs of hard engineered structures tradition- that these ecosystems offer. Therefore, it is = ally used for the protection of coastal areas. expected that when some of these addition- ë In general, the present low-cost alternatives al co-benefits are quantified and included in 2 to traditional hard engineered structures for the assessment, the benefit-cost ratios may be £ coastal areas, for reference purposes, and ex- even higher. 8 amples of benefit-cost ratios have also been The costs of the overall NBS strategy would É included in Table 7 based on some recent then need to be estimated by summing all as- É studies undertaken for distinct types of coast- sociated costs, based on the unitary costs iden- É al adaptation strategies in the United States tified. In order to make a fair comparison of ° (US). For instance, , except for some beach costs (which are paid in the early years of a nourishment interventions undertakeninthe project) and benefits (which are realized year Western Gulf of Mexico, all the other NBS by year over a number of decades), the overall were reported to have positive benefit-cost ra- costs would need to be discounted and con- tios compared to hard engineered structures. verted to “present value” terms. Finally, to ob- It should be noted that the NBS benefits tain the average benefit or cost in each year considered in these, and other studies tend (i.e. annualized benefit or annualized cost), the to refer exclusively to the protection services present value should be distributed across the offered by coastal ecosystems (e.g., savings in years of analysis. Table 8: Capital and Maintenance costs and moderate Benefit-Cost ratios of hard engineered structures for the protection of coastal areas Type of hard : Reported Reported annual : implementation : infrastructure A maintenance cost (capital) cost km per 1 m height km per 1 m height 69 [page 64] ë Z . 4.4 ° = e Key summary factors to consider when assessing benefits and costs of NBS In summary, the following factors should be sessing the ability of NBS to reduce storm considered when assessing benefits and costs hazards as a function of storm duration, and of NBS for the selection of adaptation or risk the longXterm reliability and performance reduction strategies: of NBS in relation to future sea level rise. * In medium-to-high energy environments, °._NBS, coastal habitats such as coastal wet- hybrid approaches combining NBS with lands, reefs, and mangrove forests near some form of structure are often used to at- coastal roads, but also beach nourishment tenuate waves and/or stabilize shorelines?’. and dune restoration projects, can protect * Itis important to understand how effective an road infrastructure from wave and storm NBS is in reducing risk (e.g. reducing wave surge impacts on sheltered shorelines. heights in coastal environments). SiteXspecific Similarly, forest restoration, slope revegeta- design of NBS is, therefore, critical to achieve tion or wetland restoration approaches, can the intended outcomes and desired coXbene- also protect road infrastructure from runoff fits. For this purpose, learning from previous and peak water flows or soil erosion. mistakes of projects is the key to achieving *_ Some of these NBS have been successful outcomes and benefits. Common mistakes in in providing protection services for decades the design and implementation of NBS and while at the same time providing other eco- hybrid measures are presented in Box 4.2. logical benefits more typical of these natural + NBS can provide a variety of important ecosystems than of engineered structures’. wide-reaching and potentially long-last- However, for NBS located in coastal areas, ing adaptation-related benefits, as well as more research is needed on the relationship socio-economic and ecosystem-related between the benefits of NBS and time, as- co-benefits, despite the various trade-offs 70 [page 65] ë Z È NBS, coastal habitats such as coastal wetlands, reefs, and mangrove ! forests near coastal roads, but also beach nourishment and dune restoration projects, can protect road infrastructure from wave and storm surge impacts on sheltered shorelines. and associated challenges, such as the time * In general, a lack of quantitative informa- taken for benefits to emerge. tion on the relative costs and benefits of °_ The true value of NBS is typically greater NBS is one principal factor limiting their than what can be monetized because the use. À better understanding of the costs of value of co-benefits is hard to express in NBS transportation settings is needed. monetary terms. While the estimation of + Most case studies emphasize the challenges the value of co-beneñits is an active line of of fully measuring financial and economic research, co-benefits that cannot be mone- costs and benefits and highlight the need to tized should be described and included in go beyond monetary values to better reflect the decision-making process. the benefits of NBS. *__ Current literature provides some references of * Because the majority of NBS costs occur in costs associated with the implementation and the early years of the project, while benefits maintenance of NBS in diverse settings. Many make take time to emerge, it is important of the references available are associted with to take a long-term perspective (e.g., 20 to road infrastructure projects related to NBS in 50 years) in decision-making. "The value of coastal areas. It should be noted, however, that NBS benefits adds up over time, thus it may these costs may vary significantly based on the take years to recover the initial cost. specific context and setting, site accessibility, * Monitoring NBS interventions is the key implementation methods and nature of the to planning for adaptive management, but permitting requirements. also for assessing the performance of the *__Non-economic factors such as legal challeng- interventions over time. The lifespan and ef- es or public outreach needs can increase the fectiveness of any intervention will depend resources needed to implement à strategy. on the severity of future events. 71 [page 66] cet En 2 TE D" ne " SES DE NT nee pale S PE ES 4 : é L ” SU SR «te SR... D Re Pre ea ti x . bé : ee. # = FOUR ES DS JEU : ei sé ra Pr APR NU EN ER Po Sn LA Ve D. DR re RE VEN ARE RS UE ir PARC ET 0 SEE GER ds EE IPRIE ES #4 °° D SEP es Ne PEL ARS LS me cr 2 Leo pen UN EE US + RS de Ut Anne « he ARENA RE TT ER : M TE Ra Re >22 Re 4 RTE n “Sr ie ES » RS ET Se 2 RS ES LL TENTSS à = = Se SE LR TERS NS 1. Re, : " Re : e | Er Se RTE ; = 5 : D ' mg ee LE x FN FE, = e” CÉURR 2. « trs nn rw LM «= EE a à te. “se + â | 4, ne # £ 2 ‘ d £, w, . : x «< F z Ne e é L D OI LE MR — E a 2 3 à AU, : + Al us SR — F i EZ. : QT … ‘À X FRT rs ses à 4 FE > + s TR Le de Ÿ É = S Let. = ‘ F F F | +22 à. : ” —— e — . ETS + # 4 4 F is LT | ___ Æ y No Fe E æ "4 & [page 67] I ë = Box 4.2. É Common mistakes in the design and implementation Ê of NBS and hybrid measures for the protection of road = infrastructure (with emphasis on coastal roads)? 1. With regards to the engineered structure: *_ Under or overXdesigning structures for their intended application; *_ Using nonKtraditional structures (e.g., alternatives to rock breakwaters) whose performance is not well understood; *_ Placing structures in locations that may actually exacerbate shoreline erosion or storm flood- ing, or impact adjacent ecosystems (e.g. by restricting tidal circulation and therefore impairing the movement of fish); * Using loose or undersized materials that may shift under typical wave conditions in coastal environments; *__Improper timing of construction relative to growing or spawning seasons of the target hab- itats (e.g. constructing an oyster reef one month too late may delay recruitment by an entire year); and *_ Unintended or anticipated adverse effects. 2. With regards to NBS: + Selecting and using inappropriate vegetation (eg. non-native species or invasive species), in particular with respect to the ecological setting and elevation; *_ Using inappropriate fill material for marsh, beach, or dune establishment in coastal environ- ments, leading to poor ecological function and reduced physical performance; *_ Placing vegetation at inappropriate tidal elevations; * Planting vegetation outside the local growing seasons, which may not coincide with a par- ticular phase of the project schedule; * Failing to address the siteXspecific physical coastal processes (e.g. understanding water levels and waves, local geomorphology, sediment characteristics, SLR projections, etc.) 73 [page 68] . LOL LL : FA = ms . - TA rt en. = ee + Se PER RP, + ne = 5 ER Age 2 : : ER. Fes 3 SRE RE RE ae En os» % 04,28 LMP EE en. FyÉe SRE: Rene Ne =: jghie se Re D D ne Re RE J Pt Faber PS + 1 Nr ie … ae PR SR EU FR RES Se ire Mo F "1 JTE Ft RS RE Sr SE tte US ECS 1 es Ÿ ER Se DE se CE ORSEU SP. _ D ee. aéats se ST +5 É VIT “dns DS De a. 5e à CA? ES par e. FS Ve % DEP 2 pr" DE. Te "2 - a D Le À .- + “md « Fos. 2 re RS » 0 , 4 Sur ne" > 4 DST ONE =; ee. ra FRE : , # Ts Vas Nr NOT 2 & es 2 Re À Re SR NT or fig ET Dares TE POS, Se. — Le iu Le", LE s Fois HAURHENLS Le PR AS LR" : ; SA He | à LC # Fe TR dé EE Re Me Sida : és Z GTR OS « mec 00 de - 24 LR R TERME RS “a RS Ne à" Lee UE RE are 5 # KES nt TEL ST AT | ee” s PAC. 0 Le D 4 Ex: ere D 4 Dee CR. | 4 x FC ra ÿ Gad RON Er 5° 1, Pi AR FE Te, à DS 2 Mo Ti te LE PS SE CRT Où 2. À CLR | SR DR: Fr [page 69] > 5. GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING AND en IMPLEMENTING NBS z FOR STRENGTHENING ; ROAD RESILIENCE es RO sl ae Le 5.4 Step 4. Design and implementation me F4 É pl eu of NBS interventions [page 70] œ @ e © = e È The methodology for designing and implementing should be noted that the process may need to be strategies) is vital to the successful selection È 5 NBS for the protection of road infrastructure pre- adapted to the specific project taking into con- of a sustainable solution which provides wider 5 æ & © sented in this Guide is the result of a comprehen- sideration the site conditions, size ofthe project, benefits to the population and the surround- 2 = . . . Je . . . = Ê sive review of several guiding documents available etc. Furthermore, for emergency projects, for ing ecosystems. Stakeholder Engagement Plan E É in the literature, applied to the specific context of which a solution may need to be determined should be developed at the start of a project É œ . . . . . . ————————— vo È the transport sector. It is comprised of a series of very quickly, some steps of the process may have and updated throughout the project imple- È £ hases and steps, which guide the experts in the to be taken at a prominent level while usin: mentation process. To enhance the understanding of the £ 2 É 2 = decision making process towards using NBS to proxy data rather than gathering new data. ‘The methodology for the planning and im- methodology, a practical example of = È strengthen the resilience of road infrastructure. Including the local community in the de- plementation of NBS applied to the context {he application of this methodology E 5 Th all described b lied cision-maki i i fth ises five i i : : 5 e over: rocess described may be applie cision-makin rocess (using appropriate of the transport sector comprises five iterative È 2 P AY 9e appie raxins P (using approp P P is presented in ANNEX 5. È £ to several different contexts or sites; however, it communication and stakeholder engagement steps (Figure 9): £ TZ T 8 & 5 D & & e e S E a a É 2 5 © Summary of the steps for planning and implementation of NBS 5 Z Z 5 5 o o L] e STEP 1. STEP 3. Situation analysis to STEP 2. Identification and prioritization define problem and Climate hazard vulnerability of NBS options scope of intervention and risk assessment STEP 4. This step focuses on the identification of Design and implementation This first step focusses on assessing the This step focuses on the development of suitable NBS measures with the potential to of the NBS options STEP 5. ecological and social system and relevant the climate change and climate hazards reduce climate risks and impacts. Towards Monitoring, evaluation, and processes at the project site, specifically risk assessment, and the identification of this end, the methodology proposes a se- The methodology for this step provides the maintenance of the NBS options in terms of the characteristics of the eco- potential impacts and vulnerabilities of peo- ries of considerations for the identification necessary considerations to design and system, economic assets, population, and ple, ecosystems, and infrastructure, and of NBS measures and presents an overview implement the selected NBS measures, Lastly, for this final phase, a description of infrastructure, and defining the scope and comprises a series of sub-steps involving of different approaches that can be used taking into consideration the stakeholder the monitoring process of NBS is provided, problem to be addressed with the adapta- the development of climate hazard, expo- for their prioritization, such as Cost-Benefit engagement, detailed activities, geographi- including examples of performance indicators tion interventions. sure, and vulnerability analyses. Analysis and Multi-Criteria Analysis. cal scope, and available resources. and guidelines on the maintenance of NBS. Define the site and scope Hazard and Exposure Identify potential NBS or Undertake detail design of Identify performance of the intervention Assessment hybrid interventions options selected interventions evaluation indicators Screen intervention options with Prepare implementation Assess the current state of . Vulnerability Assessment technical, social, environmental management plan and pre- Selection of monitoring methods the road infrastructure . . and economic criteria implementation surveys Assess the current status Assess climate and hazard Operations and of the ecosystems risk and potential impacts maintenance of NBS 76 77 [page 71] : Step 1. Situation analysis to : define scope and problem S PSN _ © = Objective L = È To identify what the specific problem is and de- Information needed É termine the scope of the intervention. To make à a rapid analysis of the current state ofthe road To conduct this baseline analysis and deter- £ infrastructure and conditions of the environ- mine the scope of the intervention, site-specif- Ë mental, economic, and socio-cultural elements. ic information is needed. Resources like maps, È reports, plans, and aerial photographs are gen- © A erally available through key stakeholders/ac- O LA tors, such as government agencies; in the case of Haiti, the National Geo-spatial Information Stakeholder engagement Center, CNGIS (Centre National de l'Infor- mation Géo-Spatiale), the National Buildings Stakeholder engagement is a key element in the and Public Works Laboratory (Laboratoire overall process and should be considered from the Nafional du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics), early planning stages." This engagement will con- #he Interministerial Committee for Territory tribute to strengthening the development of as- Development (Comité Interministériel d'Aménage- sessment aim, scope, and delivery at the beginning ent du Territoire), are three key agencies from of any assessment, and will also increase the likeli- which relevant information could be collected. hood of successful delivery. Stakeholder consulta- Table 9 shows a list of common types ofinforma- tions can ensure that the needs of diverse groups tion that may need to be gathered for the project, are acknowledged and taken into consideration. and where this information may be found. Effective methods of early engagement include the delivery ofstakeholder workshops and briefing sessions with key decision-makers and groups or CF individuals who are likely to provide input to the assessment and take ownership of the outcomes. The most effective forms of communication vary Outcome between groups. For example, government depart- ments may have formal, pro-active mechanisms Selected site for intervention and an identified for consultation, whereas engaging with local set ofobjectives which are tailored to the specific communities may take a more informal approach. baseline conditions. 78 [page 72] Table 9: Example of type of information to be collected in Phase 1 8 5 È Type of : Where it could = . YPe 0 Relevant information E information be found 5 É £ + Climatological/weather data from weather . Ë . : . . + Met services 5 Climate stations: rainfall, temperature, wind; , 3 . ne *_ Disaster Preparedness and 5 and hazard * Climate change projections. . £ Let Let . . Emergency Agencies and 2 susceptibility *_ Susceptibility of area to flooding, hurricanes, . 5 | . related agencies/actors Ê information storm surge, and earthquakes. .. . . E ne . . . + Civil protection services & *_ Historical events and impacts in the project area. 5 FE Ê É *_ Geology and geomorphology, soils, vegeta- E E tion cover and land use (agriculture, urban, 5 à others): Types of rocks and geologic faults; 5 Direct and indirect surveys for soil and / or . . É ne Y + National Land Agencies £ rock characterization Ministries of È . . * Ministries o + Detailed Geological Survey. . ? . . Environment and Natural . + Data on waves, currents, tides, sea level, rain- fall, wind patterns Resources ° Physical ? P ? . . + National Spatial Data . * Hydraulic and hydrological information, . environment Agencies such as watercourses and watersheds; sur- . . . * Water Resources face hydrology, estuarine/marine receiving . : Agencies water quality; ue . . *_ Geology divisions/de- + Digital terrain models: topography, bathym- rtment . . artments etry; and drainage (from LiDAR or other P surveys); + Regional maps: Forest Cover Map, Terrestrial Ecosystem Map Soils and Geology Map. *_ Vegetation information *_Inventory, attribute information and evalu- ation of *_ Forestry Departments *_Terrestrial and marine ecosystems, such as | * Ministries of Bio-ecological forests, wetlands, salt marshes, mangrove Environment and Natural environment forests, beaches, coral reefs, and other sen- Resources sitive habitats; * National Environment *_ Rare or endangered species, species of com- Protection Agencies mercial importance, and species with the potential to become nuisances or vectors. 79 [page 73] œ e 5 : à Type of ; . Where it could 8 . Ype © Relevant information 5 information be found Oo o £ E 5 £ E S& * _Inventory, attribute information (e.g. height, | * Ministries of 5 length, location georeferenced, etc.) and Infrastructure and Public 2 . evaluation of the condition of coastal assets, Works Es Physical . . . . : : E including roads, drains (gullies and canals), | + National Works Agencies È Infrastructure . . 2 dat rivers, dyke system, coastal infrastructure, | + Water Resources E transportation infrastructure, utility infra- Authorities z structure, water resources infrastructure, tele- | * Coastal Management 2 communications networks, etc. Divisions/Departments E E Fe 5 8 Ê 3 8 5 o e + Economic base activities and extent e + Livelihoods such as fisheries, aquaculture, tourism and recreation, economic resources, economic threats and opportunities, growth projections, etc. * Mapping of social infrastructure in targeted areas, population (past, present and future Le » POP (past, p a. ), * Ministries of Economy land use, planned development activities, Lu . . * Ministries of Local employment, recreation and public health, . . Government , , community perception of the development, . Socio-economic . k + Social Development vulnerable occupants. Identification of pres- data . Departments sures from natural and anthropogenic sourc- . . . : + Statistical Offices es, and consideration of ecological, cultural . . + Disaster Preparedness and economic values where relevant. d Emer Agenci and Emergency Agencies + Critical facilities: (a) Emergency Shelters, (b) Bey Emergency Services such as police stations, hospitals, and fire stations, (c) other criti- cal facilities such as schools, banks, public buildings, aged homes, infant homes, nation- al monuments, (d) bridges, coastal roads and properties; and (e) populations at risk. 80 [page 74] da : > > . DETTE ee 6 e-Serx _ - — PET ef D > - ee Lg er T Er QT MR = red Let: L LS 7e À LOS ea D. TC sas MURS 74 ER Le À ME D > ST x : SES RUE FR PA & s e* LA Me NF < Ce J - Fete: PR PR JE: e 4 LABS ETAT Sr KA OS +, à Ÿ ‘ À} RE + A - "4 . .. es’ SS À j: è É or, : Re d LE; "4 ROSE - ae CE: pn. bn DR RS A = A ne 7 RSR NY RAP ARC RENE INR OR a Le LANCE 4 J(. < TEÉS VU SR LS AR NS A : les à Ÿ a? ni av ? TRE: RES Rx ETES MEN DE 7" à À LR CN MUERS EE. RS SR SL PSS Cl RD A ar AN : $ NE A ot TE TR TEA JUS, CPR LÉ ee à: Eu FEU Are S ë : 44 (LA | Ÿ FT PENTAA) LS CPV QE TRES +: 28 8 ni 2: RP RETZ Ve CE... MD \ ss F LUS } At An Êr . + re Se. ei #0. nu Ne Vue FRET L ERP FRE GREEN ‘ SERRE: à PSE. Loue ETS RE Dane 6 0 TR S SSRE Ne SEE ee 1 \ IS SS D RE ue A | dent do re , ; an x - 4 et | SU Ne AN rec TS NS & PSE RP re vis 1 Sa Dee L Fe Le EE er Se L SE RS FA Br LRR ES = #5 : 428 30 à DR date, > Ne Di ï HU CNE Dr ER 2 RE FR RS Per a V Mig” . " "a F x k dr ESS PES Le KR LS ROSE iii pole A Regex & ER, Le. 7 LUS Re à LA AOL Lt PET D A" 2 © F ss % A Le Time #F > Ps UT, or [2 TA x Fe TNA ne. Sa. boat ne DT, x, Ex s * Le [page 75] o Ë Key activities 8 8 Define the site and scope of the intervention É & In order to define any intervention options, road £ authorities should decide which roads and/ or S locations should be included in the assessment. FA ; E Road authorities should prioritize the sites to FE Me ' È be assessed by focusing on critical roads and fs Be 5 sites located in hazard prone areas that are of * à È the greatest value to the transportation network LA ane “ag 8 and the public. The assessment could even focus Ag É on a particular geographic location if that area LR e is of high importance to the economy of the é æ : ° n country. Identifying the relevant roads and sites a Ë ri RE T Fe a ’ £ to be assessed can also help to narrow the scope LAS 0 A ii È of the assessment. Stakeholder’s input should be NS Re ROSES SARL used to inform and/or validate the list of priori- 4: FAST FÉ, F vi e tized sites. Some of the key hazard related crite- TRUE 4 de & 74 ria proposed for site selection include: SUN S $ “| °_ Slope stability £ : N. , *_ Sedimentation risk | & D'ee ef * Erosion | Co ne °_ Hill slope gradien : | *_ Topography D. ° Terrain ° . } A LE *_ Geomorphic process Ke *_ Risk to resources of interest *_ Undermining in areas adjacent to the roads *_ Undercutting in transversal and comple- mentary drainage structures In addition to these hazard susceptibility criteria, ap ; other criteria such as socio-economic importance EN. DS = (ie. in relation to connectivity), physical vulnera- PE dé LT SR bility (e.g. status of the road), or operational im- ee DT à J portance (1e. in relation the usage of the specific 25 road) could also be considered. It should be noted ù that the prioritization exercise is often a challeng- ing task in data scarce contexts. S & 82 D. L L.4 [page 76] 8 5 E 8 5 a 3 £ L E 5 È S ES Æ L+ 3 s £ e f … 2. Assess current state of the road infrastructure e = ? This step seeks to conduct an overview assess- M | v ment for road infrastructure. For this, each road Fe. LES : may be subdivided into sections of similar haz- 1 ard exposure based on a series of recognizable Î attributes. These may include but not limited to: F2 : : ; *_a unique identifier for the road segment or +. road system *_ length of road segment or road system *_ estimated or year the road was built : x *__ road condition or known construction meth- PSE rs od used to build road (e.g. bulldozer, backhoe) Te Lex Robe : ; ie J *_ traffic volume * "M: à À LArc. PTE ” j 1 à PS SE *_ degree of revegetation occurring on the road SR CRT PR Sn HEAR A *_ location if different from base maps *__any observed instability indicators *_ any anticipated erosion problems (hazards) *_interpreted slope stability (hazards) > £ *__ materials used for the road construction + : *_ Weakening of the road embankment and . # road foundation by standing water ; 83 [page 77] o É ê 3 5 5 E This step aims to analyze if there are eco- È systems that currently play a role in climate 5 change and hazard protection (e.g. flooding, È landslides), and understand how these ecosys- 8 tems can further contribute to reducing the risk É from such hazards. Ecosystem health should e * Which are the ecosystems iden- be measured by indicators such as species di- n tified in the intervention site and versity, abundance, and connectivity. Historical £ what is their current status? changes and trends in the ecosystem should be È *_ What are the characteristics of these assessed to obtain a first impression of the eco- e ecosystems? What are the ecosystem systems stability and resilience, and to gain un- services they provide? derstanding of its original regulatory and pro- * _ Whatis the importance ofthese eco- visioning services. The potential for expanding systems (for example, do they gener- the risk reduction services of these ecosystems ate benefits that another ecosystem through conservation or restoration efforts cannot generate)? should then be qualitatively articulated. It is ° _ What current uses and benefits do also important to assess the socio-economic the actors at the intervention site context of the area, to better understand the perceive from the ecosystems and relationship between the socio-economic ele- what economic activities are gener- ments and the ecosystems in the area. The fol- ated there? lowing activities are required for this step: °_ What economic activities are carried out by the population in the area/ *__Identify the key ecosystems and their pro- around the area? (e.g. agricultural ac- cesses in the selected site tivities, sowing and harvesting of water, °_ Assess the current state and processes of recovery of pastures, forestry activities) the main ecosystems at the intervention * Is there any difference in the level of site, taking into account the size, type of access to these resources by different the ecosystem, key plant and animal species groups (men/women, youth/elderly)? of importance (endemic, threatened, under * Are there activities of special impor- pressure, under management, among others) tance for women/men/youth? and endangered species. * Are there plants or animals of special + _ Define the socio-economic elements rele- importance for women/men/youth? vant to the intervention site to better un- derstand the link with the ecosystems. [page 78] 1€ a. an. LL - . y ÿ F7. Æ # F4 es 248 ai” + _“GAQNRESSRES 22 boipuk..… :650886 SESSRRNENI (ET sISa8SEEZSSSEESE RE TE el he > mn On mme EE —————— ——— DE LS [page 79] @ : Case Study È Prioritizing Climate Resilient Transport Investments in a . Data-Scarce Environment: À Practitioners’ Guide e This Practitioners Guidef* aims to provide guid- c. Collation of data, focusing on identifying ance for the prioritization of climate resilient in- and bringing together existing data, and vestments in road infrastructure by presenting a collection of data, focusing on the creation general methodology, a conceptual framework, of new data to fill the data gaps and a case study of the process that was conducted d. Evaluation of criticality in Belize. It specifically addresses environments e. Assessment of risk/exposure from cli- where data is scarce, but there exists institution- mate-related hazards; al memory that can be harnessed. It makes use f. Informed decision making of existing data, draws on expert knowledge, and actively engages with key stakeholders, to identify The process in Belize involved determining and prioritize key national investments using a (a) socioeconomic importance of road sections participatory and data-informed process. and (b) flood susceptibility of the primary and The conceptual framework presented in the secondary road network. Road stretches crit- Guide consists of six modules, which may be ical for access to public services such as hos- implemented both in parallel and iteratively: pitals and schools, movement of economic products and services, and use in evacuation a. Definition of objectives and scope of the routes as well as those that provide access to prioritization process the socially vulnerable were assessed through b. Understanding of the governance context a participatory Multi-Criteria Evaluation and establishing the institutional arrange- (MCE) process. Representatives from over ments for the process 35 ministries, municipalities, private sector 86 [page 80] The process in Belize involved determining (a) socioeconomic importance of road sections and (b) flood susceptibility of the primary and secondary road network. organizations, civil society, nongovernmental the World Bank. This process was successful organizations (NGOSs), and academicinstitu- in Belize because the ministry responsible tions determined the most important criteria for national development planning provid- for assessing the critical road stretches. Once ed strong leadership throughout the process. these were established, the participants de- This is essential if the results of such a prior- veloped indicators to evaluate the criteria and itization processes are to be integrated into scored each indicator, which enabled quan- national processes. titative analysis of the road network. Flood Through this process, four key areas were susceptibility was analyzed using a combined identified and the most critical were highly approach of field inspections and collection of susceptible to flooding. The results of this information on past events. Incorporating the process were adopted by the Government outputs from these processes, a cutting-edge of Belize as a strategic plan and was used geospatial model was then developed based to coordinate investments that were imple- on network analysis. mented with various donors, including the Through this process, four key areas were World Bank. This process was successful in identified that were the most critical and Belize because the ministry responsible for were highly susceptible to flooding.'The re- national development planning provided sults of this process were adopted by the strong leadership throughout the process. Government of Belize as a strategic plan and This is essential if the results of such a pri- was used to coordinate investments that were oritization processes are to be integrated in- implemented with various donors, including to national processes. [page 81] È = £ Step 2. Climate vulnerability £ and risk assessment (e) O PSN ©, Objective > TT This phase seeks to guide the identification of climate change and natural hazards and assess- Information needed ment of the risks they present to resources and road infrastructure. The choice ofinterventions Information regarding past disasters and their im- partly depends on the risks that are prevalent pacts in the selected site, information on climate within the selected site. change projections for various climate change sce- narios, topographical and geological maps. A LA CY Stakeholder engagement Outcome The engagement of stakeholders should already be undertaken from the data gathering stage, to A vulnerability and risk profile in current and ensure that the most up-to-date and best data future climate scenarios covering hazards, ex- available for the selected site is used. posure, and vulnerabilities. 88 [page 82] _— L ] Le, > Po CuBP Lee 13 Ja‘? (A D vel: 2 GORE h EAN: * À >. F + 1 Es A j a ENT. à DT DEAR UT À + BA De ELLES pue PS PPT dt . , “ z re 6 ER | FX . De NEA A D 4 x fe x 4 ) ARE A CT FF, ea Là ah “a M A 1e 4 me 575 ty à Gr Le ; # L adé pi RP 2,39 rÉ 2 sd PTE . rl É s 1 AN : x Hi 7 34 D] Dé LITTLE Te PE Pa AE N 2 2 ? D AU à 7 1 NCA T MR SUR ei die r : D e. ai FR / + PET, DE: RTL UC Lu le oct ir Lao € 4 (2 QE * d va 24 1 L Aya 4 ’ W s, Ke D LA "À a LU SEAT , Der, à, nr NE SE F5 ALE A # Na PAU on et } ais, C2 | LU PE k « à + < NY Ar ” . Rae à 4% F, :1 p) AS W Ç. D. | 4 S 4 - 4 \ sé EUR Fi © SO la CA LP e : | 4 2 4 | s M le : # LÆ AE à if ? FR, + [49e Le ET ve a rt 4 y PE WAWA - VE AA ‘ / a GUESS . «8 Le Ÿ \ 4 LA AR A7 « [NI GhHAD À ee" Cd. 4 | Bu | &. M gg" . ” f' Ô À “n CU 2,7 4 à X * ler) 7 CR v 4 fist \ f L4 >», 2° : f. … [page 83] u É ë Ê 5 £ Key activities 5 Ê 1. Hazard and Exposure Assessment É Once a road authority has taken the first step to scenarios and qualitative analyses (e.g. ex- ÊË define the assets and/or locations for inclusion pertise) of hazard impacts and exposure. 5 in the assessment (for example, critical assets + Section scale is conducted prior to the É only, all assets located in a specific region etc.), network scale consolidated approach when È the intensity and extent of the hazards as well critical sections are already known (high n as the exposure to the impacts of the various levels of traffic, no alternative route, sensi- £ natural hazards can be evaluated. This exercise tive ecosystems), or after having identified È may be developed by road authorities in col- the vulnerable sections through the network e laboration with the Disaster/Emergency man- approach to refine the analysis. e agement agencies or related actors. Exposure + Structure scale orientation is considered may be categorized through the assessment of when the focus lays on analyzing critical existing exposure levels — based on historical points of a section, such as a viaduct, a tunnel, and recent events and observations, local and a node (interchange), etc. These critical points technical knowledge, and existing research. The may have been identified through a prior as- choice of scale of analysis and the most perti- sessment at the network and/or section scales. nent level of accuracy is important: As the analysis focuses on a single asset, a comprehensive and technical (quantitative) *__ Regional scale (region serviced by the road approach may be feasible. The following ma- network) is considered when the hazard trix (Table 10) can be used to identify the may affect most or all the territory. It is al- exposure of specific assets and/ or locations. so the only scale of analysis where all the + Assess impact probability. Impact probability regional stakes related to the road network relates to the likelihood of a climate hazard are integrated in the assessment. Authorities occurring within a given timeframe. Due to responsible for various sectors co-operate to the uncertain nature of climate change, assess- reduce the risk. ing probability of occurrence of climate haz- °__ Network scale is necessary to identify the ards can be difficult. However, approximations main vulnerabilities of a road network before can be made using climate change projections, focusing on critical sections, nodes, or struc- evidence of past events and vulnerability lev- tures. Both regional and network scales tend els. À process for assessing and scoring the to be considered as part of the development probability of climate change/hazard risks fac- of strategic and systems planning, taking ing highway networks, assets, locations, and into consideration various climate change operations is set out in Table 11. 90 [page 84] S 8 2 Table 10: Matrix for assessment of exposure to roads. 5 É : Sea Level 5 Extreme Storms/ High . 5 Mean : . Rise and/ © Tempera- Drought : Extreme climatic 5 Rainfall : nn. or Storm œ ture Rainfall variability Ê Surge E 5 Asset/ £ Location/ 5 Operation À £ S Asset/ 8 Location/ È Operation B S e e Asset/ Location/ Operation C Asset/ Location/ Operation D Note: Exposure can be scored as followed: X = No or negligible exposure now and/or in the future; 1 = Low exposure now and/or in the future; 2 = Medium exposure now and/or in the future; 3 = High exposure now and/or in the future. Table 11: Description and scales of probability of impact. Probability of impact Definition Score Likely / Almost Certain Fairly likely to occur (probability greater than 50%) Unlikely Possibly occurring (probability less than 50%) Low, but not impossible (low, but noticeably greater Rare / Highly Unlikely P (low, V8 e: than zero) g1 [page 85] u É ë Ê 5 £ 2. Vulnerability Assessment 5 Ê Vulnerability to climate change and natural levels of sensitivity. The level of sensitivity È hazards is the propensity or predisposition of to be assigned to a specific asset should be É an area/ecosystem/population/asset to be neg- informed by current levels of sensitivity. ÊË atively affected by their impact. Vulnerability is + Assess the level of adaptive capacity. 5 explained by two factors: 1) sensitivity, and 2) Adaptive capacity can be a difficult concept É adaptive capacity. Sensitivity is the degree to to quantify and evaluate due to a range of È which a system is affected, by climate or haz- internal and external factors. For instance, n ard-related stimuli. whilst an asset, location or operation may £ be highly exposed and sensitive to hazards È + Assess the level of sensitivity using: (thus, having a high vulnerability level), it e a. Experience of recent and historical may have an enhanced capacity for adjusting e events — for example, road flooding in a to impacts and therefore its overall vulnera- certain location may have led to greater bility is considered to be lower when adap- widespread environmental and economic tive capacity is considered. Table 13 provides damage than similar flooding levels in an example to help assign the high, medi- another similar area. um, and low adaptive capacity levels. "The b. Geographical location — for example, road level of adaptive capacity assigned should assets located on slopes are likely to be be informed by current levels of sensitivity. more sensitive/susceptible to landslide + Determine overall level of vulnerability. and scour. In comparison to those locat- Through the combination of the adaptive ed in flat regions, and areas of a network capacity and sensitivity ratings, it is possible that act as major links between large ur- to identify whether the road is vulnerable, to ban areas that will suffer a higher level of what degree, and to which climate/hazard disruption during extreme weather events variables. Assets having high sensitivity and than areas of the network in lesser popu- low adaptive capacity will have a higher vul- lated and urbanized areas; and/ or, nerability to the climate/hazard variable than c. Asset condition and design life — for ex- those with a low sensitivity and high adaptive ample, poorly maintained and poor con- capacity. Those with low vulnerability to the dition sections/segments of the network climate variable are less likely to require ad- are likely to be more sensitive to the im- aptation strategies to be put in place to pro- pacts of extreme weather than recently tect them. The Vulnerability Matrix shown in constructed or well-maintained areas or table 14 provides an example of how sensi- assets. Table 12 provides an example to tivity and adaptive capacity can be combined help assign the high, medium, and low to determine the overall vulnerability level. 92 [page 86] Table 12: Description of sensitivity level of road infrastructure. 8 Level of Description of Sensitivity Level to = CPE © Sensitivity Infrastructure (example) = @ High Permanent or extensive damage requiring extensive repair È . Widespread infrastructure damage and service disruption requiring mod- 2 2 | @ Medium . . . £ erate repairs. Partial damage to local infrastructure. 2 op Localized infrastructure service disruption. No permanent damage. Some minor Ê 1 | @Low . . E restoration work required. 5 È oo. @ Nccligible No infrastructure service disruption or damage. Ë L=2 Table 13: Description of level of adaptive capacity. à o Level of adaptive Description of adaptive capacity of # capacity Infrastructure (example) a 3 Qu There is an operational contingency plan for emergency, which is adopted : L to avoid infrastructure damage and related disruption of road traffic. . There is a contingency plan for emergency, it is operational but needs to be 2 | @ Medium updated. Stakeholders 1 @L There is no contingency plan for emergency but there is awareness and plans °w to prepare a plan. ESS There is no contingency plan for emergency nor plans to be prepared. SEEN Awareness of stakeholders are also limited. Table 14: Assessing overall level of vulnerability for road infrastructure based on adaptive capacity and sensitivity assessment. Adaptive _— . Sensitivity capacity EE Gun @stu — @éturns 93 [page 87] 8 E É T Ë E Ë Ê 5 5 = È È E Ë T 5 = É - Is the asset, location or operation able to accommodate changes _ £ in climate? For example, has the asset been designed with climate È hange in mind? Is the network/ asset i d condition? RES —> a CHERE ENCRES ONE EOCO ONG EE —* © * Are there any barriers to an asset’s, location’, or operation's D A n © ability to accommodate for, and adapt to, a changing climate? = = > For example, constrained resources; political will; ownership nn — uncertainties/disputes; a lack of defined roles and responsi- ne bilities; a lack of community integration and education? EE RE * Is the road network already facing (non-climatic) challenges that will limit the ability of highway networks to accommo- EL —— date changes in climate? For example, there may be a strong EE — requirement to upgrade existing roads to meet growing traf- RÉ — Ee— fic levels and resources are focused on this. —— =. *__Isthe rate of projected climate change likely to be faster than E= = - the adaptability of the system? For example, will the assets D 2 design life be reduced as a result of the increasing pressures _ | osed by climate risks? Will assets, locations, and operations, s P ÿ P which have an inbuilt ability to adapt to a changing climate, Re be able to do so prior to the asset, location or operation r reaching threshold limits? EE * Are there already efforts and processes underway which aim 2 to address climate change impacts related to the network? For example, are there plans, programs or strategies in place to enhance adaptive capacity? Are there contingency plans in place for the temporary/ permanent failure and/or loss of an asset/location or operation? 94 [page 88] 4 f BL. : A 27 "=> à SRE 277 = ee ue 7 * 3 APE _— # lt SE F À 5 © D r dé Al … :Æ PP 20 EL | | « - 2 Ai « #2 ." se ” j 44: ps vmZ, -\ ff , Fr AIS # s… 1Q & . Ag # à 11 p F “+ “ r' ais, CIO 'Îl AT id : | fé Î \ 1 — e— ES … T “ Fa. _ . 2 E = He = en — PE _. RE . E Re 2 pen Ex S EEE a LT es Er ser 7 St EE = Re 2 7 | _4E ; = ER Re A nt © 3 nm RL. ne LS RSR Er D 2 Ar - = EE ler GE RE der ÈS RE — = ET > Re = = — == = ee — a ee EE ne : : = : SR sexe Xe SÆ —£ < M - a RS RS Te, dé pe ts f. = ne Re ap > AE _— —. = = Rs ds Re 2 re = RE . PT + z =. LL = . nn —— se É : ° ; = = A 2 se D 7 _ = : Yi _ z LE “#8 Es 2 ——— CA: = _ » ER . Pr LS LE x org [page 89] Ë 3. Assess climate risks and potential impacts E Ë This step seeks to enable experts to understand ty of occurrence. Severity is assessed by the É where to quantify the risks posed to road net- user based on knowledge, estimation, and È works and assets in a simple, accessible, itera- evidence of past similar events (at a similar £ tive, and yet robust and holistic way following scale, at the same or similar asset, or at the É risk assessment principles. Experts will be able same or similar location) and can be scored È to rank their assets, locations, and operations using a Severity Scale. Criteria and the as- e according to the level of risk probability and/or sociated metrics within the Severity Scale e severity. This approach will identify where the should be tailored according to local needs most significant risks are expected to occur and and priorities. Defining scoring criteria and shall prepare the experts for the identification metrics is ideally done in a workshop setting of the adaptation responses. Section 2.3 de- with key stakeholders to identify important scribes in detail the list of potential impacts on criteria to be used to assess consequences. road infrastructure due to increased tempera- Table 15 presents an example showing the ture, prolonged and heavy rains, and sea level severity scale for different criteria. rise. These impacts should be further assessed + Determine level ofrisks. Considering the for their level of severity and probability. results of the level of exposure, vulnerability and potential climate/hazard impacts, the *_ Assess the impacts severity. Severity re- level of risk can be estimated to be either lates to a judgement of severity (Aooding low, medium, or high. The Scale of Risk lev- of a road, heat damage to a bridge, a land- els in Table 16 shows how the combination slide in a particular location etc.) if it were of the risk components can lead to various to be realized, regardless of the probabili- levels of risk. Defining scoring criteria and metrics is ideally done in a workshop setting with key stakeholders to identify important criteria to be used to assess consequences. 96 [page 90] Table 15: Severity scale for assessing impacts. 8 Score 1 (Low) 2 (Medium) 3 (High) : Criteria œ Population and | Between 1-2% of the Between 2-5% of the Between 5-10% of the È communities population affected population affected population affected £ Economic Less than US $1m Between US $1m and More than US $5m £ impact $5m = Ë People and Employees within a Employees within a Employees within a Ê employees major office affected function affected (e.g. Business Unit affected 8 within maintenance) 2 Society Regional disruption of | Regional disruption of National disruption of Ë essential services, social | essential services, social essential services, social É practices and events practices and events practices and events È o Stakeholders More than one stake- One group of More than one group of e and Supply holder or element of stakeholders or elements | stakeholders or element of ° Chain supply chain affected of supply chain affected supply chain affected Table 16: Severity scale for risk based on exposure, vulnerability, and climate hazard impacts Climate hazard Level of . : Exposure we Risk impacts vulnerability @ High @ High @ High @ High 97 [page 91] QE Box 5.5 Geographical factors to consider when identifying future climate change risk types include but are not limited to: BR RE. NS SEEN TR UT À OUT à LOS ae HS RS 0 2 2 NE = AE et Le EDEN TR ES A, RP _ 7 à PR ar le HS SR < _& Dress [page 92] Er Case Study . Development of a " vulnerability map of the road FR . _ 2 infrastructure in Haiti __— SN + R Vulnerability maps of the road network in ne terre FR ! Haiti were developed in the framework of RE ue ne de à Mi the project “Development of Design and D OR Æ ss : Guidelines, and Capacity-Building for the = Dee “3 Lt nas à Adoption of Ecosystem-Based Solutions to 7° EM SES RE Protect Infrastructure Assets in Haiti as a de- ENEPRE : M 2 MS = LR, cision-making tool to identify such areas where Le : : PERTE ee SR sf the road infrastructure is more exposed to cli- LR AE TX 0 mate/hazard threats and where a Nature-Based De ES £ ee S D or Hybrid solution may be needed. Et de re A ÉS ES LES Eine à Steps in the analysis = : LS = VS Cr ae 2 Hé “ 4 Spatial information à ù es 8 4 : PARC To produce the vulnerability maps, it is nec- se DEE + LE À BE es essary to obtain and process geospatial infor- D AR À TIRE LE RP AMEN, HUE Lt mation from various sources and at different AS RE Si PRE Ne scales. More information on the methodology TE SJÉPREREPA D SEA LÉ is presented in Annex 3 “Methodology for pro- s RER RE ÉRRRENS ducing vulnerability maps in Haïti and results”. [page 93] É E Ê E ë 5 Ë ÈË Step 2. Analysis of the information FE The analysis was performed for each road clas- + (Crossings. The vulnerability is due to £ sification (communal, departmental, and na- the exposure of the roads due to an in- Ë tional). For each one, an affectation buffer (area crease in the water flow and potential as- : of influence) of 200 m was generated. sociated floods. The increase in the flow e of rivers and bodies of water is due to Three analysis products (indicators) were ob- rains, storms, hurricanes, among others. tained, including the level of exposure to cli- Road damage is reflected in bank ero- mate threats and the indirect effects that could sion, flooding and obstruction of roads, affect the infrastructure assets in Haïti. and damage to bridges. For the crossing indicator, the intersection between the °_ Coastal proximity. The vulnerability is due roads and the 150 m hydrology buffer to the exposure of the roads and change in was taken into account. the sea level (1.e. storm surge) caused by trop- ical storms and hurricanes. The impactonthe It is important to mention that for a more roads is reflected in floods and the under- specific analysis, it is necessary to know other mining of the embankment. For the coast- factors and conditions of the site. For exam- al proximity indicator, the following values ple, the type of soil and rock, on which the were taken into consideration (Table 17). stability of the slopes depend, the existence of *_ Slope grade. The vulnerabilityis due tothe functional drainage works, and the existence exposure of the roads to landslides and ero- of works in slopes. However, in the absence sion of the slopes. The material can slide due of more detailed data, through the indicators to meteorological events, saturation of the previously mentioned, a first assessment of the material and sliding due to gravity, earth- vulnerability of Haiti’ road infrastructure may quakes, among others. "The impact on the be determined. roads is the obstruction of material. For the The three indicators were integrated to ob- slope grade indicator, the following values tain vulnerability indices. These values range were taken into consideration (Table 18). from null, low, medium to high risk (Table 19). 100 [page 94] Values of the coastal proximity indicator. 8 Level Index Description = Nul © | Areas with an altitude greater than 30 m.a.s.1.5 Ê Low vulnerability road Areas with an altitude between 20 and 30 m.a.s.. É Medium vulnerability road Areas with an altitude between 10 and 20 m.a.s.. Ë High vulnerability road Areas with an altitude between 0 and 10 m.a.s.l. Ë E Values of the slope grade indicator. 5 Level Index Description à Low vulnerability road Areas with a slope between 5 and 25°. ä e Medium vulnerability road Areas with a slope between 25 and 40°. e High vulnerability road Areas with a slope greater than 40°. Vulnerability indices for infrastructure assets. Level Index Description Null *_ Roads exposed to hills with slopes between 0 and 5°. *_ Roads far from crossings and water bodies. *_ Roads far from the shoreline or with an altitude above 30 m.a.s.l. Low vulnerability *_ Roads exposed to hills with slopes between 5 and 25°. of the road &1 | - Roads near crossings and water bodies (less than 150 m). *_ Roads near the shoreline with an altitude between 20 and 30 m.a.5.1. Medium *_ Roads exposed to hills with slopes between 25 and 40°. vulnerability @2 |: Roads near crossings and water bodies (less than 150 m). of the road *_ Roads near the shoreline with an altitude between 10 and 20 m.a.5.1. High + Roads exposed to hills with slopes greater than 40°. vulnerability of @3 : Roads near crossings and water bodies (less than 150 m). the road *_ Roads near the shoreline with an altitude between 0 and 10 m.a.s.l. 101 [page 95] œ œ © © = E œ œ = Decision tree for the identification of intervention options depending on the level of risk to the road. = a Pi Pi 8 a rs ri D D œ œ 2 2 g : e = Results from the analysis for Asset/ Location/ Operation E = 7 = = Grand'Anse department 5 œ œ ri A S S 8 8 = The Grand’Anse department has approxi- National Routes. The resulting map is shown re = È mately 225 km of main roads of which 43 below. Figure 10 shows a decision tree which MERS, GENE HEENE = œ œ 5 km are Community/Tertiary Routes, 121 km aims to support the process of the assessment No E , S. S. £ are Secondary/Parrish Routes, and 59 km are of risk to the road infrastructure. E TD D = = G & 2 The road has transverse drainage The road L = Q Grand’Anse department works, but without proper operation? is near hills = à à S No No = 8 8 E = x] œ Ë Roads without transverse The road is near The road is near hills with slopes 5 drainage works? the shoreline up to 10° or properly coated? e e e La No . No e . , Road with pavement in The road is near hills with slopes between HE EL (RE 10° and 40°, without coating or poorly coated D 1 D The road is near shoreline , . The road is near hills with slopes Medium Risk Road Low Risk Road meta em 40e, rien COST D ( © D The road is near shoreline without High Risk Road : protection or poorly protected g — Nul . —— Low (es PEVEMENE ie Medium Risk Road — Medium good condition — High \ no (res) SN — worn pavement 102 103 [page 96] 5 Step 3. Identification : and prioritization cp - 5 . LÉ è : of nbs options en : : Se De M "0" AN Th 1222 * EULER, 1 e LE » a Pr su 2e. Wii! > | cs 104 EP. ns XL S ut A" INTEL [page 97] x 2 F Pare ®» Te ét GS te Pa Per Pa ADS F2 te Le ERA. DRE 3 £ S Re Re nn” < , F <E Le Gt 70 1: suite 1 e = un Fr én res Key activities - 124 Le El SRE T7 « 6, ar 4 qe 2 act LA 7 À LAS de” 1. Li ’ FUL2 £ © ti as . 4 à L' ni: vas 77 : æ à ste ed on the risk assessm ge ‘4 L £ Fes ; p aims to identify po Dies taken, this î > : d : F : S | CC AT HE . poré solutions n NF le nature-based * LE ñ - It should be noted dues the specific Re F. DT | al measures (su h that non-struct ; \ SE > and . ch as early warni ur # vi + 1! spatial plannin y warning systems es D ss nations of g) and variou ee, LR L js + non- nature-based, con 1 combi- : sé << ps dd structural measure ventional, and re | < M me * address th : s may be need à V + È TA) . e specific ri eeded to "TE Fi se 2 pan risk. Co . le EE CA pa sion of an existi nservatio Me mr T ; “ut rati existing ec De «A pr , AT E ion of a destroyed osystem, or resto- Le ge J a: th considered yed ecosystem s |" TE EX , d to see how th hould be D, FR cu reduce oods or landslide risk contribute to à, a rt ct: previous : ide risk. In additi | Ci a CNE ; projects and possi addition : . 4e LR \ be lo nd possibl ? ROCHE" n = TE $ in oked at for lessons le e NBS should " æ 5 Fa, ary cost estim arnt and prelim- pi: L = “= the stabili ates. Factors : nu £ Ps pis ) a ility and f, may influenc 4 Mr :, °Æ— " à systems that sho Fe ormance of vital e ° . é AMC u so 2.4 NS , NBS can be — assessed, Finally Le , | 4 FA Lé € : . | et - : management should b into the wider system ; CR : «auf RE feasible NBS/hybrid 0 assessed, and a li Ÿ ; . ybrid Oo st of ae LE a. rl nying mea ptions and a æ - + A, sures should be d ccompa- ne i L d example of an exerci eveloped. 5) vu U lertaken with stakehold cise that could be un- MIS LE tion of NBS for : ers for the identifi , PUS in Haiti is i road infrastructur e a k ha. 7 s j included in Annex 5 e resilience [page 98] = Ë Ê Depending on the level of risk of the selected + Accommodate: The intent of this is to £ site, NBS measures may deliver different man- modify or retrofit existing or adjacent inter- £ agement approaches to climate risk. In coastal ventions that are already in situ to improve 5 areas, coastal management approaches as part overall scheme performance; and È of which NBS may be consideredf: °__ Retreat: The intent of this to review and/ 5 or adopt new planning tools to enable the = *_ Build: The intent of this is to maintain the coast to accommodate sea level rise and 5 current position of the coast and maintain storm surge inundation events. É or increase the level of protection using na- à ture-based, hybrid or hard interventions. Examples of the application of these coastal e °_ Protect: The intent of this is that existing management approaches to road infrastructure 2 interventions are used to provide the nec- are presented in Table 20. m . . . ë essary protection, rather than building or e implementing new interventions. e Table 20: Examples of coastal management approaches applied to road infrastructure Coastal Management ; ; g Example applied to road infrastructure Approach Planning beach nourishment interventions, groyns systems, detached Build breakwaters, wooden piles, in order to build a coastal barrier for coastal assets (e.g. coastal roads) against wave action and coastal erosion Retrofitting a revetment that is protecting a coastal road from wave Protect action; restoring coral reefs, mangrove forests, wetlands or dune sys- tems that serve as a buffer for a coastal road; Raising the level of a road to accommodate for projected sea level rise Planning a new climate-resilient further inland taking into consid- Retreat . . Le eration the required set-back limits. 106 [page 99] cire x. ; y te æ c : ' le” ASS RTE, ES RTS + ES RC Mr". Li pm à ] FM kG: MS, Ps ni niet ne Le FA | ESS me = A ne | 4n} ÉE ee: nr. + Le. , 4 SR HE | Bit LA LL ere di [page 100] œ É E ê É & 2. Prioritize the identified options with technical, £ social, environmental, and economic criteria 5 Ê After a number of NBS/hybrid options has ‘The two methodologies are differentiated by È been identified, each option will be screened their complexity, type of analysis (qualitative or É on the basis of technical, social, environmental quantitative) and by the resources and inputs ÊË and economic criteria to prioritize the most required to use them. 5 feasible and cost-effective options. This screen- É ing process should be conducted through a par- + Multi-Criteria Analysis - the analysis is È ticipatory process with stakeholders. Two main made on the basis of qualitative informa- n methodologies can be used to prioritize be- tion that allows to classify a range of NBS/ 2 tween intervention options: a) Multi-Criteria hybrid options according to pre-selected È Analysis and b) Cost-Benefit Analysis. Key criteria. This analysis allows prioritization e steps include: to be performed with a limited amount of e quantitative information. Selection criteria *_ Consider multiple values and benefits, in- should be defined with the participation of cluding non-monetary, in the selection of all stakeholders participating in the plan- criteria to capture the full value of differ- ning process. ent NBS and hybrid options. Stakeholders + Cost-Benefit Analysis - the analysis is could already be engaged in the criteria se- based on quantitative information to esti- lection process. mate and compare all the costs and benefits *__Identify a scoring and weighting system, of the various NBS/hybrid measures con- assign scores and weights to the proposed sidered, to provide information on which of criteria and use the criteria to rank NBS the identified measures generate the great- and hybrid options. est direct, indirect and positive externali- *_ Prioritize and short-list NBS and hybrid ties/benefits associated with the reduction measures based on the agreed-upon criteria. of risks associated with the impact of natu- °_ Make use of the multi-stakeholder group ral hazards and climate change. The benefits and consult other rights holders to validate perceived by the population using ecosys- the best options and develop a business case. tem services will be related to the ecosys- * Analyze the costs, benefits, impacts and tems where NBS will be implemented. trade-offs of different risk management sce- narios, and the costs of inaction, to capture At the end ofthe prioritization process, a short gains or losses in ecosystem functions and list of selected NBS and/or hybrid options suit- services provisioning that have an impact on able for the specific site will be available. A list adaptation and disaster risk reduction and of examples of NBS and hybrid solutions is in- resilience (e.g. consideration for wetlands). cluded in the Solutions Catalogue (Section 7). 108 [page 101] 2e # 2 A FLE À 2 D. 2.7 A SE EE D. NN EN NORT À D, 4 LT : RMS LCR RSS 4 tint RE Te Gr RE hs LAS CE a WE. PAU Fa NE LEFRE 74 Ms A2 æ “ec dl Et * PRET ET LE Sac) VER US FT : HS de) FA CN <ÿ s BNC SARA > : Pe AE Te AA LPS, Bet 1.2 cal - v- CMS FRUPAT + 47 Ft) ETC TR GTV Vo 43 - ÉENTELCE id < LUE 2 Sie PRICE | de Wr s Fe Ag, 6e % SA | : dk TE Te Je LIRE QT PE À RAA | RO : ARE, SR à "is ei: RL 1 RE + PÉ re SRI DPPRET CR Fa 1 MT _—. pere” : e D SANTO MÈA EX NES es La SE Tr on He Der La cr “a ALU, PSS. S PETANT AVS D: ÿ EC EPÉRIRUA, LL ET ail IT 4 + ar: È As ER LE FR 2e AR ee %, El à Pre - ‘4 # NAS Ka se MX FÉTRP < ES Fe. Nas.» PK RS Aa L ES»: cu FE > NP ME à + Ce RE AA : : + PR Re à ee % mes 7 PE | GET PS" su 1 Je ; LE V". a : - 4 SET 235 * Kk' A7 E PÉRSAET À DS aie LE > : " = TR À LE ‘1 Æ Lt 2. > UN EC y Ke Re NC Toaeih PET ee 08 NES GR" RTTEIEE S ME 7 Re E ee: Fr +: HR St "ES Le 4 COS BP nN : PT di: ) ou. VS ST en 4 F Se: IE; Ds D 0 Eee M LCA 2 >. er? ee Es FN FT ' Réf AN A TA USE CS Pa" cn FES Rs #e À DÉS RE ME PERS ER 08 GE "2: dés €, D er dl ie TE EN 2 Ve. RO IASS À F n 2 Cebve “ ES | re? L Ex LA "4 EC RP TOR du AU OR à Te AR PRET GR T7 PAR h SAS PL | Fe ‘sr: er LAN 7 - ce RC Eu ES + ue | LD és "+ 1 er a MN TE At à LM Y . CT 1 RACE CE LU 7 - Pr é LRU: ‘le 4 OE DE “Apr EN Ve «= ra PR ; Ne ve LAS ee L 4 ERA S nd NS en nr Re LA da JÈ RAeE Ex Der # VAE del“: 2100 EE CA re ee £ “+ ABC SRE UN a NL PROPRES hé & PR‘: 7 ke © MORT... À MP M À +4 F5 NPA), En | à LR. : 3 FE BRAS à VF DR: er Le. m7 à Le 01 [page 102] = Case Study = = Selection of Pilot Sites in The Grand South Haiti È The Grand South of Haiti, the Tiburon the Haitian Highway System. The principal £ Peninsula or the Southern Peninsula is home cities that RN-2 connects to includes (from 5 to the Grand’Anse, Nippes, Sud, and Sud-Est west to east) Les Cayes, Aquin, Miragoâne, Ë and part of the Ouest Departments of Haiti. Léogâne, Petit-Goûâve, Gressier, Carrefour, and 0 The main economic activity of this region is Port-au-Prince. It is 186 km (118 miles) long e agriculture, and it accounts for 85% of nation- from Port-au-Prince to Les Cayes. al corn production, 37% of national fruit pro- The RN 2 connects with the Route duction, 34% of the countrys cattle, pigs and Departmental 25 (RD 25) and reaches the west goats, and 30% of chickens, ducks, turkeys, s end of the Tiburon peninsula. and guinea fowl. Each year, the exports of the This road system is a two-lane road in both peninsula, just for the sector ‘essential oïls’,rep- ways that connects approximately 3.5 million resent at least USD $25 million. people (30% of total population in Haïti), ma- Despite the importance of this, there is only ny of which live in sub-urbanized or rural ar- one form of terrestrial communication between eas, without access to other means of commu- the peninsula and its main cities with the cap- nication and exchange of food, materials, or ital of the country, Port-au-Prince. services. Since it is the only communication Route Nationale 2 (RN 2) is the southern route in the south of the peninsula with the cross-country interdepartmental highway in capital of Haïti, many efforts and maintenance Route Nationale 2 (RN 2) is the southern cross-country interdepartmental highway in the Haitian Highway System. The principal cities that RN-2 connects to includes (from west to east) Les Cayes, Aquin, Miragoûâne, Léogâne, Petit-Goâve, Gressier, Carrefour, and Port-au-Prince. It is 186 km (118 miles) long from Port-au-Prince to Les Cayes. 110 [page 103] = have been carried out over the years. However, tive of the field visits was to prioritize the top # these efforts have not been sufficient since the two sites for NBS implementation. Details of È vulnerability of these infrastructures to mete- each sites can be found below. = orological risks is extremely high. Out of those, 2 sites (site 1 and 4) were se- 5 During the visit to the sites on the south lected after a field visit inspection and based Oo coast of the southern peninsula, we were able on several criteria: e to observe series of engineering works for the maintenance and protection of these infra- + ‘There were places where different measures structures. À large part of the work is collapsed could be proposed, so that when extrapo- or unfinished due to poor planning and lack of lating such actions, they would be applied financial resources. in a greater variety of sites In total, eight sites were visited during field + Measures could be executable and applica- missions, as potential sites for NBS solutions, ble in time, cost, and result selected by the World Bank Team and the the * ‘The execution of the measures could be do- Unité Centrale d'Exécution (UCE) of the ne using endemic vegetation and materials Ministère des Travaux Publics, Transport et easily found in Haiti Communications of the Government of Haiti + Public administrations of Haiti agree and for its criticality and vulnerability. The objec- find it necessary actions in these locations During the visit to the sites on the south coast of the southern peninsula, we were able to observe series of engineering works for the maintenance and protection of these infrastructures. A large part of the work is collapsed or unfinished due to poor planning and lack of financial resources. ol [page 104] a Identification of Pilot Sites in Haiti 8 a E 3 Sites Initial Diagnostic Proposed Solutions 3 8 8 E No transverse drainage works are observed in this E 5 Site 1 is located on RN 2 in the section of Des . . 8 . Hydrological evaluation, determination of slope protection structures and their complementary drain- 5 £ . . . . section. The main problem observed is to the un- . . . & E Zanglais, Saint-Louis-du-Sud commune, Aquin . . age works and the need for cross-sectional works. Definition of coastal protection structures and a æ S . dercutting slope and to the erosion in the upper S ñ Arrondissement, Sud Department of Haiti. k . . compact embankment ü 5 slope, which causes risks of block landslides. 5 2 2 = Site 2 is located on RN 2 in the section of Possible landslide, lack of drainage work, obser- … E Solon, Saint-Louis-du-Sud commune, Aquin | vation of cracks on the road and intercalations of Hydrological evaluation, determination of the need for cross-sectional road works and laundry on the slope E 5 Arrondissement, Sud Department of Haiti. limestone and fractured and altered marls. 5 = Ê 8 The lack of an appropriate resource management 8 2 Site 3 is located on RN 2 in the section of | program causes contamination of soil, air and water. E Ë Solon, Saint-Louis-du-Sud commune, Aquin ‘The accumulation of waste also causes the gener- Hydrological evaluation, Definition of a gutter maintenance program = S. S. 5 Arrondissement, Sud Department of Haiti ation of flood risks, the lack of maintenance and 5 É therefore the capacity for the flow to be discharged. É 3 3 = The probability of eroding and sliding down the = Site 4 is located on RD 25 in the section of | slope to the road, generating impacts on mobili . . …. . . 0 . … P . E s'mP ty Hydrological evaluation, definition of the need of cross-sectional works, of coastal protection structures and O0 e Blactote, Tiburon commune, Chardonnières | and road infrastructure, lack of transversal addi- e . nn . . . a compacted embankment Arrondissement, Sud Department of Haiti. tional drainage work, the undercutting slope and the upper slope erosion, generation of erosion. The soil is not fixed (mainly by plant roots), so it is susceptible to eroding and sliding down the Site 5 is located on RD 25 in the section of Pi 8 8 . . . . . . . nu slope , erosion of the coast caused by waves , high Hydrological evaluation, Definition of slope protection structures, coastal protection structures and Blactote, Tiburon commune, Chardonnières . | . . . . . nu deforestation level , There are no transversal drain- the need of cross-sectional works on the road. Possible modification of the slope Arrondissement, Sud Department of Haiti. . . age works or laundries that discharge the runoff partially ,block detachment great speed of runoff and erosion of the drainage Site 6 is located on RD 25 in the section of ira . . . | . . . . un . … and slope stabilization systems Hydrological evaluation, Restoring the gabion wall, Hydraulic review of existing drainage works, Definition Cosse, Les Anglais commune, Chardonnières Éthe existing ditches al h £the existing drai kand dissipati Arron dissement, Sud Departnent of Haitt. implemented, emerging Of fracturedand'altered of the existing ditches along the way of the existing drainage work and energy dissipating structures sedimentary Vulcan origin, Site 7 is located on RD 25 in the section of | Lack of appropriate drainage systems, ditches are ob- . . . . . . . . . . n . PPrOP . 8e sy ? Hydrological evaluation, Restoring the gabion wall, Definition of Hydraulic review of existing drain- Cosse, Les Anglais commune, Chardonnières served in both margins, range, and damages of the ke and dissivating structures, Lavi £ t . D . . . age works and energy dissipating structures, Laying of pavement. Arrondissement, Sud Department of Haiti. structure at the discharge site, lack of maintenance. 5 By panne » AYPBE AP . . . . deforestation of the basin above generation of . . . . . . . . Site 8 is located on RD 25 in the section of Boury, , B , Hydrological evaluation of the river basin, Hydraulic review of the bridge, rectify (dredge) the . large runoffs and erosion of the banks of the riv- 7 . . . Torbeck commune, Cayes Arrondissement, Sud . . . cross-section upstream and downstream of the bridge will be defined, Define the works of protection …. erbanks, reduction of the hydraulic capacity of the . Department of Haiti. k of the margins of the channel cross section of the channel. 112 113 [page 105] È £ Step 4. Design and implementation *_ of nbs interventions O PN ©, Objective This phase seeks to guide the detailed design and implementation of the selected NBS/hy- brid measures. A LA CF Stakeholder engagement Atthe design stage process, it is important that Outcome the stakeholders are engaged in the selection of criteria for the prioritization ofinterventions,as À short list of detailed interventions which well as in the validation of the selected interven- are technically, economically, socially, and en- tions. For this process, their roles, and responsi- vironmentally feasible, with approximate costs bilities, need to be clearly identified. for comparison. 114 [page 106] o Key activities 2 É 1. *_ Geotechnical issues such as depth and type à of founding material, and its susceptibility £ to erosion. Ë The design variables necessary for this step will + Environmental status of the site and its sur- £ be taken from the results of the hazard assess- roundings; and 5 mentsto Step 2. Using these variables, the de- + The availability of material supply. E tails ofthe different measures (length, size, type Ë of materials to be used, etc.) will be identified. 2. 5 It is important to consider the principles and Ë safeguards for the selected NBS and hybrid op- à tions throughout the design and implementa- ‘The implementation management plan will be É tion stages. À list of potential solutions can be based on the type of material to be used for the È found in section 3 and in the NBS Solutions specific intervention site. If purely NBS solu- 2 Catalogue in section 7.'The selection ofthe in- tions are considered, then restoration or conser- = tervention should be based upon a revision of: vation management plans will be developed. Ifa É combination of NBS and hard engineered struc- e * The exposure of the site to environmental loads tures is envisioned, then construction manage- such as wind, waves, currents, water levels. ment plans will be required. As part of this step, °_ Land use (current and future). additional surveys that may be required prior to *_ Type and condition of the foreshore. the start of implementation will be undertaken. * Ministère des Travaux Publics, Transports * Ministère de Tourisme et Communications (MTPTC) * Réseau d’agents/volon- * Ministère de l'Environnement (MDE) taires de la protection civile * Ministère De L'agriculture, Des *_ Conseil d'Administration de la Section Ressources Naturelles Et Du Communale (CASEC) Développement Rural (MARNDR) + Collectivités territoriales * Ministère de la Planification *_ Organisations d'agriculteurs et riverains * Ministère de l'Intérieur *_ Organisations de pêcheurs et riverains 15 [page 107] d N A É PSE 8 ? : C tr ST É 5 Case Study Fe ë € œ . z \ = Design Packages for Two ; N ER 5 Pilot Sites in Haïti E © É Two sites in the South of the country were se- É lected as pilot sites for the design of NBS as PT. : ; à FE described in case studies of Step 2 and 3. « = S la DD æ IT F É — V4 ; = & *_ Site 1: RN2 in the section of Des Zangjlais, e \Ck au LD \. 0 community of Saint-Louis-du-Sud. À . e + Site 4: RD25 in the section of Blactote, e community of Tiburon. Repraeil SE . Site 4. Site 1. . From the initial diagnostics it was clear that both sites presented similar problems. The Site 2 is located is at approximately 4.1 Site 1 is located on the coastline of the solutions proposed are the same for both sites: km from Tiburon, on the coastline of the Baie Anglaise, 20-23 meters from the Tiburon Peninsula. The probability of erod- beach front to the south and 2-3 meters + _ Hydrological evaluation of the site to ana- ing and sliding down the slope toithe road HI ND ES GED MEUNIER lyze the effects of runoff from inland basins Sen rs En EE D Hapoelee HHaInage MOINS are 0 . a finiti £ the sl toé G : infrastructure, lack of transversal addition- served in this section. The main problem CRC © k CE SIOPE POECIHON à RUE al drainage work , the undercutting slope observed is the undercutting slope and to tures, and their complementary drainage and the upper slope erosion , generation the erosion in the upper slope, which caus- works such as gutters and ditches. arcs es risks of blocked landslides. Co) *_ Determination of the need for cross-sec- tional works on the road. = î , —— sine *_ Definition of coastal protection structures ” 1 # © Sites points to prevent erosion. RE De hu *_ Definition of a compacted embankment + à FÈ== —_ (which could be reinforced with geo- 2»... H ER textile) in the lower slope, according to D | = : From the initial diagnostics it was “Specifications Pour Couche”, compacted to = : : + À clear that both sites presented similar 100% of its PVSM forming green terraces, RES L 3 EE à problems. The solutions proposed which should be protected with geotextile RATE ns | - _ + @ Fey are the same for both sites to prevent erosion. HER) PR x à, 116 117 [page 108] ® È Final solutions adopted E a According to what has been observed in the field + To install a protection system against ero- Ê and engineering analysis, the upper slope (moun- sion and promotion of vegetation growth E tain side) is considered stable under static drained based on willow spilling revetments. £ conditions, even under the effects of erosion. 2 Under saturated static conditions, the slope is atan Similarly, the lower or coastal slope is stable E incipient state of fault. Under seismic conditions, under static and dynamic conditions, as well as Ë the slope shows unstable behavior. The slope fault saturated and drained. However, it is exposed 5 in the two previous conditions willoccur atitstop. to the effect of erosion from the waves. The à. £ As such, with a view to protect the upper slope following measures were therefore proposed to 5 in the most critical situation (saturated condi- protect the seaward side of the road: É tions), the following measures were proposed: à °*_ Construction of an embankment with the ” °_ To cut and profile the slope to an inclina- material that results from the actions devel- 8 £ tion of 38 * (1.28: 1 - H: V) for site 1 and oped in the upper slope ë 30 ° (1: 0.6 - H: V)) for site 2. °_ Construction of a revetment with a slope - *_ To include complementary drainage works 2:1(H: V). 0 (gutters, canals) to reduce pore pressure *_ Mangrove revegetation Q Final design in Site 1, Des Zanglais NE %. = 27 ee. \ 118 [page 109] Figure 17 and figure 18 depict the É plan views of the final designs É envisioned for both sites. 3 Q Tllustration of costal slope protection È É Fill protection E CPR NAT Ou Rockfill dam ? | SENTE RAR 27 Mangrove 5 RER. di di léT 0 5 Ground level TETE : Q Final design in Site 2, Blactote S Z tQ Le ZE A ‘ ( RÉ > 2 = _ = = = = NNS . ; à = SN D, NS SÉRSS CINÉ — Road axis NN dl RK N \ : ù NX — Gutter EX < PEN \ = NS { Rockfill dam A NE x El Vegetation \ à NT Love Fill protection à LIKQ MM) | 119 [page 110] ë Step 5. Monitoring, evaluation and 5 maintenance of nbs interventions Ê PSN __ Objective = Monitoring activities during and after the È implementation of NBS are needed to assess o the achievement and effectiveness of foreseen O outcomes. Monitoring and evaluation are also needed to record lessons learned for future use and replication of successful practices. A LA Stakeholder engagement Stakeholder engagement for the monitoring, evaluation, and maintenance of NBS is cru- cial. Local communities can be involved in the monitoring processes by using simple and af- CF fordable methods and equipment. Furthermore, stakeholders can also be involved in the co-management of NBS measures through Outcome conservation approaches (e.g. Payment for Ecosystem Services, PES‘). Awareness rais- À monitoring and evaluation framework that ing will be needed to increase the capacity and is realistic, operative, and iterative, including a understanding of local communities oftheim- standardized protocol for data collection and portance of NBS and their maintenance and evaluation, and information generated on out- management benefits. comes and impacts of interventions. 120 [page 111] | LL Key activities: 1. Identify performance evaluation indicators After the implementation of NBS, it is import- ant to be able to monitor its effectiveness. This will inform the kind of maintenance required to improve the performance of the solution to meet expected outcomes for road resilience. Therefore, key performance factors and evalu- ation indicators should be defined and agreed at design stage and should be monitored fol- lowing the implementation of the NBS. For the evaluation of solutions, three types of indicators are recommended to accurately measure their performance: 1) process (how to do it?), 2) the output (are measurable products achieved?), and 3) the outcome (are the goals achieved?). It is important that the indicators reflect the measure implemented and the level of reduction of the hazard it aims to mitigate. Table 22 shows a list of example indicators for measures for coastal protection. The identifica- tion of performance indicators depends on the type of solution implemented and the site-spe- cific context. After the implementation of NES, it is important to be able to monitor its effectiveness. This will inform the kind of maintenance required to improve the performance of the solution to meet expected outcomes for road resilience. [page 112] 8 Table 22: Example of indicators related to measures for coastal protection. 5 È É & Objective of e : Type of : D adaptation Measure or Indicator É indicator É measure Ë S 2 *_ Volume of sand gained/lost on 5 2 beach and in dunes El Beach + % of road disruption (e.g.in É nourishment Output number of days that the road is a not operational) Ê É = 5 op £ É + _ Recession/accretion of shore in = Process m/year £ Ê È + % of areas affected by soil 5 : Dune : erosion / soil quality degradation : restoration + _% of road disruption (e.g. in Protection ofbeach and Outcome number of days that the road is dunes from erosion as- not operational) sociated with sea level rise and storm surge, and protection of the | Mangrove Où *_% of land exposed to wave . utcome : . coastal road infrastruc- | restoration action and flood risk ture assets located in the hinterland + % of road disruption (e.g. in number of days that the road is Managed not operational) coastal Outcome *__ Number of people directly realignment affected (evacuated, relocated, injured or ill) by floods per 100 000 population *_% of road network protected from extreme weather Coastal slope conditions/events stabilization Outcome + % of road disruption (e.g. in number of days that the road is not operational) 122 [page 113] æ S S FA > 2 Ë E 5 = Box 5.7 È Mangrove restoration monitoring = £ Ë Ë Mangrove restoration areas can be located across the nearshore/shoreline /hinterland zones E Es and therefore monitoring of mangroves must be considered on an integrated coastal zone £ management scale and within spatial coastal zone planning. Mangrove afforestation areas are 5 often located in Protected Areas, and therefore it is also critical that the monitoring plan É is integrated into the management plan for the area. The following performance factors and à evaluation metrics need to be considered: £ 8 # 8 O o Vegetation width, height, density, structure, age, stiffness, orientation to storm direction, continuity, health of root system, length. Forest width and density of exposed root systems — this is most important for effectiveness in terms of wave attenuation PPT PPT VV Water depth PPT Sediment composition — need continued source of sediment - Predation of seedlings/transplants of young trees 123 [page 114] 8 2. Selection of monitoring methods = Monitoring of NBS for road infrastructure re- or slopes in mountainous areas, and to un- 8 quires using methods for ecological, social and derstand long-term and seasonal changes. É infrastructure monitoring. Many of the methods In parallel, it is important to observe the Ê that are currently used for monitoring are quite road infrastructure that the NBS protects £ complex and require expensive equipment and and document any changes in its status. 5 specialist scientific skills. However, there are com- + Beach profile surveys in coastal areas: The 5 munity-based monitoring methods, which are af- key aim of this method is to quantitatively es- È fordable and easy to use. In addition to monitoring, tablish beach response to storm events, beach É Payment for ecosystem services (PES), are inter- recovery rates, long-term volume changes and ÊË esting co-management approaches (where moni- areas of potential erosion. It can be under- 5 toring is embedded) that have the added value of taken using a range of technology including É generating economic benefits for local populations. traditional levelling. Ideally, it should be geo- È The role of communities in monitoring pro- referenced using appropriate GPS. e cesses is particularly important. Therefore, spe- + Photographs: the key aim of this method £ cial emphasis is provided in this Guide regard- is to document the change and state of eco- È ing suitable methods for monitoring, which systems and infrastructure. Photography is a e engage community groups and require simple useful monitoring technique that is based on e techniques and affordable equipment. Some of the establishment of a series of locations from this monitoring methods include: which to take repeatable photographs approxi- mately at the same time of the year and similar *_ Visual inspection of ecosystems and infra- conditions (e.g. tidal conditions), in the case of structure: This method aims to observe the coastal areas, preferably close to low tide. state of the ecosystem (e.g. growth of vege- tation, survival of mangrove seedlings), the Table 23 shows à recommended monitor- natural fluctuation of the beach morphology ing program for ecosystem and infrastructure in coastal areas (e.g. level of coastal erosion) monitoring in coastal areas. Table 23: Proposed monitoring program for monitoring of ecosystems and infrastructure in coastal areas Monitoring Visual Inspection onu Lies Photography surveys During the first two years following | Twice per year Twice per year Twice per year construction to be redefined Following As soon as possible storm events following a storm event 124 [page 115] Table 24: Examples of the key elements included in à management plan for mangrove restauration. 8 5 È 2 . T Results Restauration of mangroves ë E = £ nn Raise awareness among local residents on the e Activities 8 5 need to conserve mangrove remnants. & o 2 Project É ; During all phases of the intervention 2 phase É Ê 5 Performance Ê . No extraction activity is recorded in the natural formations of mangroves. = indicators s 2 É & Calendar From the beginning of the implementation of the restoration plan s o Ë Estimated 3 STI USD 10,000 5 cost o e e Table 25: Description of routine maintenance requirements for different interventions in coastal areas. NBS option Maintenance requirements Beach Nourishment Recharge with additional material to replace material lost through erosion and sediment transport. Recharge of material needs to be in line with the material that was originally used as part of the design and to the design slope and crest heights that were defined in the design. Mangrove restoration | Removal of loose fouling materials (e.g. fishing nets, garbage, loose sea- weed fronds). Breakwater Replace missing rock armor and reposition rock that has been moved out of place to maintain 3 contact points. Beach vegetation planting | Weeding and removal of any invasive species. Depending on the species planted, some may need cutting back or trimming more regularly. Beach vegetation can often also trap rubbish, either left by beach users or brought in by the tide. Regular maintenance to tidy the beach is therefore likely. 125 [page 116] È 3. Operations and maintenance of NBS = ÊË Following the implementation of the NBS, it + Regular maintenance involves the reg- 5 is important to prepare a management plan to ular maintenance and monitoring of the É provide guidelines for the operation and main- completed project, which should include È tenance of NBS. It is recommended that the pro-active measures to prevent deteriora- £ management plan covers the following sections: tion by providing maintenance on a rou- É tine basis. Regular maintenance should È *_ Introduction to the NBS andits characteristics be included in the project budget and e *__ Baseline information for the ecosystem in- should be considered in the selection of e cluding, for example, water levels, beach suitable interventions, as certain inter- morphology, sediment properties (grain ventions have much costlier maintenance size etc.), sediment transport and ecosys- requirements and therefore can alter the tem sensitivities for coastal areas. economic assessment of the option. Table °_ A table including the project results, expect- 25 presents the routine maintenance re- ed activities, project stage, when the activity quired for a list of NBS interventions in will be performed, performance indicator, coastal areas. timeframe, and estimated cost. An example + After event maintenance: This involves of such table is provided in table 24 for the maintenance or repair following storm case of a mangrove restauration intervention. events. For example, in coastal areas this could entail the replacement of dislodged The management plan for NBS needs to consid- rocks from a breakwater or, in some instanc- er two types of maintenance: (i) regular mainte- es, or a repetition of a beach nourishment nance and (ii) after event maintenance of NBS. exercise following a storm. Regular maintenance should be included in the project budget and should be considered in the selection of suitable interventions, as certain interventions have much costlier maintenance requirements and therefore can alter the economic assessment of the option. 126 [page 117] MES À cs . LA NE : ee es, NES + z ÉRTENE R #4. di ÿ s c #E e \ ns TR Sale ÿ 5 : ï = = 5 PE Pt at TR |. ES, re F ci e 2 nn: $ ER RE sd + . . ÉTAT TRE on 7 PT - ADS. mé >7188 3% ; RS p— s | LEA MP r “ L DS FE pe, à “pe RP) % EE RES + Ps. FER A En SE EE Ce Es Pr. RE Ed (2 FOORE EL ET - % > 4 ET és RE = = - ee DO SF ACTE De CRE RE 2 | ee de ; 2 = = à LR NS, EU Li € 2 = "etes ss © LS ut Se ee + pe ME. TS pe PES î f, P ÿ E* _. ee Ps — EL nu € on, a } fat Emme æ — dan pi Lys CT pl ” er Es 4 é a da à Eu * R'/7- PS: AL [page 118] —- 2Æ a. tif LI SR 7 EP Re EE D ea REA QE | Cu Lt see à 3 57 1e NP RTS Rs, ; 2 ET re 2 NES LOT, : JR ame À TOUT net RE ” : ; CRE ee LS | D ct reel # Pt Ta Ps aa , PACE c: : A ; => RE TAT RE + — SR * LS dtretduée à Rs = > Le PR PORT a c : bi NOM es “1 ee ae Res = Es de "OMC" ST a — rs 12 RO TE Te + ds - ES ir Me : RTE C re Ze hi £. Berre CI nr RARE TS Re UE , ÉTÉ SR) me. AL à [page 119] 2. : 6. STAKEHOLDER | ENGAGEMENT LE PRE ne 6.1 Stakecholder engagement and NBS Æ = = = =. 6.2 Stages for stakeholder engagement e = : $< = 6.3 Identification of relevant stakeholders | 6.4 Recommendations [page 120] = 5 Ê 8 e : 5 5 5 2 _Stakeholder engagement and NBS a [e) Stakeholder engagement is the practice of the occurrence of negative impacts (e.g. sand/ ® interacting with, consulting, involving, and rock extraction for construction practices, cut- collaborating with project stakeholders to the ting of mangrove trees for fuel, etc.) overall benefit of the project, the communities, In the context of NBS, best practice in stake- and the ecosystems. It is essential to include à holder engagement involves the implementation variety of approaches including consultation, of NBS interventions through participatory pro- communication, negotiation, compromise,and cesses at community and landscape level. These relationship building to ensure the full en- processes will only be successful if raising aware- gagement of the different types of stakehold- ness and capacity building activities are held, and ers to capitalize on their support towards sus- communication strategies are developed properly. tainable and efficient solutions, or to prevent ‘These approaches are explained in table 26. 7 Approaches for stakeholder engagement Key element to meaningful consultation and participation. These processes must 000 begin earlyinthe project identification and planning process to gather initial views. 0000 They must encourage stakeholder feedback and engagement in the project design and implementation, ensure transparency, and respond to feedback. Aimed to increase sensitivity over the importance of implementing and maintaining NBS over time and the protection of infrastructure and how it benefits local com- Awareness . : : . : raisin munities and ecosystems. This can be done through campaigns, publications, media g products, volunteering activities, among others, considering the whole community: businesses, local authorities, schools, NGOSs, academia, civil society. Aimed to increase technical knowledge related to NBS, understanding that sen- Capacit sitivity and engagement need to have a technically solid basis. Local authorities, P : Y technical staff and communities, need to know how the NBS work, how they are building : : Ne : nn designed, what are the risks they entail, including environmental and social issues, what are the O&M requirements and how to respond to unexpected contingencies. Closely related to the three aspects above, these strategies should take the form of - a plan that determines the best moment and the best way to reach consensus on Communica- n . .. . . . decisions with stakeholders. À communication strategy should consider aspects tion strategies . : such as dialogue modalities, target groups, language, culturally appropriate mes- sages, identification of sensitive subjects at the local level, transparency. 130 [page 121] Ÿ AP g : SAN NA Gi } SZ. “ d RS rod = Po ES / DIRE dE > A # “ A a ps — * = A LE i né F 7 D. sn Va | n ka persesenreremenens A 1 AMEL (I re = f \ ‘ RE ET =. UE RDA ER | : g dé [page 122] 5 5 8 8 2 Stages for stakeholder engagement É ë à e e ° The coordination of NBS activities, from plan- thorities (“départements”, “arrondissements,” with more than 75% of slopes greater than 20% Additional tools that may be used for stake- ° ning through to implementation and moni- “communes,” “sections communales”), local and highly affected by deforestation and con- holder engagement include social media, ad toring, across different levels of government, academic institutions, local technical staff, sequent erosion -, except for the agro-pastoral virtual tools, focus groups, questionnaires, and and with different sectors and actors, will be and national-level policy and decision mak- activities that take place in the Plateau Central. surveys, learning alliances, and living labs. needed to achieve their objectives. Stages for ers. In the context of Haiti, these could be Some of the stakeholders are organized in as- stakeholder engagement are schematized in the the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of sociations such as e.g. fishers’ associations and diagram below (Figure 0). Tourism, and the Ministry of Planning. cooperatives of vetiver producers. It is funda- The first step is the Identification of stake- Within the economic actors, it is essential mental to incentivize the private sector to be Some of the stakeholders are holders. The quality of this identification can to consider that numerous economic activities involved in NBS. organized in associations such affect the scope and scale of the NBS strat- take place in Haïti. The coastlines of the coun- ‘The above diagram indicates the kind of 38 e.g. fishers’ associations and egy, as well as help determine which options try host activities such as fishing, local trade, tools that can be used for promoting partic- cooperatives of vetiver producers. It will be the most appropriate. In the context tourism, harvesting of mangrove forests. In the ipation in every stage: participatory rural ap- : : : = . . . . . 2. . . . is fundamental to incentivize the of NBS, the stakeholders will typically include hinterland, agriculture activities face the con- praisal, mapping, workshops. The toolkit at : ù . local communities, local economic actors, im- straints related to the mountainous environ- the end of this section, provides some resourc- private sector to be involved in NBS. plementing partners of the project, local au- ment - 80% of the territory being mountainous es for exploring the different methodologies. 2" © Stages for stakeholder engagement 2. 3. Understanding livelihoods Design 4. and ecosystems Implementation 5. 1 " Participatory processes during hte desing Monitoring and evaluation Identification of stakeholders Discussions, participatory rural appraisal stage for the selection of criteria to prioritize Continuous information sharing and consulta- exercises, livelihood and resource map- measures and validation of interventions. tions, agreement on lifetime of intervention, Flexibility to changes during works, based NBS stakeholders include multipe group: ping, participatory hazard mapping, stake- Periodic workshops that include capacity capacity building. Involvement of stakehold- on stakeholder needs an emerging infor- communities, economic actors, governments. holder interviews. building and analysis of E&S issues. ers in the implementation of measures. mation. Involvement in O&M. Qu 0 EN EN ONE ù K KÈ- / a 132 133 [page 123] 2 Identification of relevant stakeholders à e Stakeholders, at various levels and stages, are the specific stakeholders involved: consultation, ° crucial to the success of an adaptation proj- management, coordination, implementation, ect, and as previously described, they should be monitoring and evaluation. involved from the planning stages throughout An in-depth stakeholder analysis and develop- the overall process. Stakeholders can include ment of multi-stakeholder processes and partic- national and local government institutions, ipatory mechanisms are key to achieving owner- communities, non-governmental organiza- ship and sustainability of the NBS interventions. tions, research institutes or the private sector. Table 27 shows an example of potential The level of participation of the stakeholders stakeholders and their roles for the implemen- will depend on the phase of the process and tation of NES interventions. Table 27: Stakeholders and their roles in the implementation of NbS interventions. Stakeholders Roles National government and .. Lu . *_Implement sectoral policies, programs and plans ministries (e.g., agriculture, . . . . . *_ Build capacity and develop effective mechanisms to solve local problems health, environment, . . ? . *_ Ensure technical capacity education); early warning . . . . *_ Provide budget for interventions systems and disaster : . . . Lou ne *_ Oversee the implementation of the interventions prevention institutions *_ Develop local capacity Local governments . . . . *_ Finance local plans and programs promoting NBS interventions + Address knowledge and information gaps needed for the design and implementation of NBS interventions Research centers ee Le + Develop protocols and guidelines for the and universities . : : : implementation of the NBS interventions *_ Participate in the monitoring and evaluation of NBS measures *_ Facilitate the organization and the participation of local people and Local environmental/ "E . PEUR PE + Develop capacity (e.g., technical, financial, human, institutional) development NGOSs ue de . *_ Strengthen local institutions such as community groups . *_ Participate in the implementation, management and monitoring of Local communities . the NBS measures to be implemented 134 [page 124] . % + Lt En 1 ÿ ” : : r +. Dies Ag 14 _ * e f £e Lo De," 2 VUS Eu LCA Î 43 o ” # - # art * ff" ju PER t s 2) es ” rt “< RS LES s# 2 A ghre £ PR — HN ul Tv OCT à ARR 46: OT NT RE MN EUX Se RM ET re Dr S ES ENT ES ec > # ETS TE) t-S- + LR D DT mn à: ' FPE z à $ ER À SEE. 2. A, 2 #. ” if em - pu He GE RE pe ’ EE — = FT [page 125] . É oo e a oo 5 2 £ El [2] [e] [e] 6 = il Recommendations Experiences of engaging stakeholders in NBS + Itis important that the project team should in Haïti and in other parts of the world have be ready to question assumptions about shown that this process will be more successful livelihood strategies through an inclusive if the following aspects were integrated in the discussion with members of all parts of the stakeholder engagement process: community, including women, youth, and minority groups. *_ Identify, inform, and involve local inter- + Obtaining and showing results in the short vention structures in the implementation term (months) is of great importance for of NBS. maintaining the motivation of the commu- *__ Involve all neighboring communities up- nity and the decisive factors of the NBS. stream and downstream mountain ecosys- + Communities are motivated by the ex- tems and all communities living in or de- change of best practices with communities pending on coastal ecosystems. from other parts of the country or other °_ Work with local organizations trusted by the countries. It is therefore important to iden- communities can help to build social cohesion. tify best practices and organize activities in * Assign resources to cope with logistical which stakeholders can show examples to challenges if communities are dispersed and follow, can learn from others, and can create served by poor infrastructure. networks for collaboration. It is important that the project team should be ready to question assumptions about livelihood strategies through an inclusive discussion with members of all parts of the community, including women, youth, and minority groups. 136 [page 126] D 8 £ e To achieve active involvement of both men and women, it is essential to: *_ Use of inclusive language in all in- stances of calls and outreach, to ex- plicitly address men and women. *_ Establish meeting schedules consider- Technically, planting vetiver is one of ing the possibilities of participation of the best options for slope stabilization men and women. in Haïti. However, vetiver is, at the same *_ Establish specific schedules for meet- time, one of the most exported products ings with women as targets. of Haiti because of its interest for the *__Impulse to give women a voice in par- perfume industry and a very important ticipatory processes, so that they can source of income for a large number of make their needs visible. small farmers. Many of them depend on * Organize ad hoc care spaces so that vetiver for their livelihood. It is there- women can participate in meetings fore important to work with communi- and activities (considering the struc- ties on the relevance of selecting vetiver ture of the sexual division of labor). for revegetation of slopes, to ensure the * Always extract data and results disag- sustainability of the protection measure. gregated by sex. À possible intermediate solution could * Identify employment opportunities be the promotion of sustainable vetiver for women within the framework of cultivation. There are several initiatives the project activities and in the long in the country that help make the vet- term. It is important to remember iver sector more sustainable: preserving that the 1987 Constitution, amended resources (soil, water, etc.), improving in 2011, establishes the principle of a and diversifying producers incomes, and quota of at least 30% of women in all strengthening the capacities of stake- activities of national life, particularly holders in watershed management. in the public services. 137 [page 127] = © O0 Case study NBS and stakeholder engagement in the context of Works on the Les Cayes - Jérémie road 1. Context As part of the road infrastructure rehabilita- plementation of some NBS measures for slope tion program for the integration of the terri- protection. These aspects are described below. tory, implemented by the Haitian Government The location of the road on the mountain and financed by the Inter-American side means that there are several very steep Development Bank (IDB) and the Canadian slopes.Therefore, erosion control is an extreme- International Development Agency (CIDA), ly important measure. Although Nature-Based the Departments of the South and Grande- Solutions were only applied to a small portion Anse benefited from the project to rehabilitate of the slope section, their application a few National Road 7 (RN7) linking the towns of years later was confirmed to be satisfactory. Les Cayes and Jérémie. In this project, the slope protection work con- Within the Haitian government, the Ministry sidered the planting of trees and shrubs, vetiver, of Public Works, Transport and Communications and the construction of dry walls with stones. (MTPTO) is responsible for transport infra- These walls make it possible to retain sediments structure and was the project owner through the and strongly limit erosion, as well as limiting the Central Execution Unit (UCE). impact of potential landslides. Especially in cases The Les Cayes / Jérémie road project ex- where erosion processes are evident, instead of tends over a length of approximately 79 km. planting, the walls should be built first. These will There are many valuable protected areas; and begin to capture sediment and then trees, shrubs agriculture and agroforestry are the main activi- and vetiver can be planted. ties along the stretch. The project includes some Within the framework of plantation and em- good examples of interventions related to the bankment protection actions, there were several participation of local communities and the im- successful actions to engage local communities: [page 128] @. Jérémie Roseau mn ©. : Ë 5 @ Beaumont S Carrefour Zbo a @ Duchity e sd Marcelihe \ e . Camp Perrin @ . : > © Les Cayes Q Les Cayes / Jérémie Project location. Source: SMi — BID, March 2013 — Loti — Lot2 *_ Consultations, awareness-raising:in addi- + Involved population: in addition to local tion to formal and informal public consulta- representatives, the population affected tion sessions with local communities before by the embankment works at the various initiating the works, during and after the localities along the section has actively construction phase, training sessions on tree participated in the project, thus ensuring planting techniques and awareness-raising better long-term care on the part of the sessions on environmental protection were entire community. held for the community. * Generation of employment at the local *_ Those responsible forthe actions: the grass- level: employment of the inhabitants of roots organizations were responsible for the the communities on the construction site implementation of the planting project. was promoted. + _ Consideration of community opinion * Employment of women: special effort was for species selection: surveys were con- made to identify employment opportuni- ducted in each locality. They showed peo- ties for women from the communities in ple’s interest in fruit trees, in addition to the project and to achieve the target of 30% forest trees. women defined by law in Haiti. For exam- °_ Purchases in the community: producers ple, they worked in the catering of all the who own nurseries and many others have staff, as the project managers decided to benefited from purchases of species for the promote their employment instead of con- planting project. In the same way, the proj- tracting a large company. To a lesser extent, ect aimed to integrate all small businesses they worked carrying stones, water, and in the area to carry out the work. driving trucks and bulldozers. 139 [page 129] Nature-Based Solutions, 7 years later Thanks to the continuous/regular monitor- Not only have the communities preserved the ing undertaken by the UCE in the field, it is spaces with the afforestation done, but also the possible to affirm that the revegetation works, works continue to guarantee protection against ® and the dry-stone installations carried out in erosion. The pictures below show the state of 2012 are still in good conditions, 7 years later. the various developments as of February 2020. O Nature-Based Solutions along Les Cayes-Jeremie road (source: UCE) 3 = . . SS M - - CCE tas ÿ F2 kr: Le 18 PE È : à ee D ve À < à « PE: ae CA. n a & À [a 4 Lt NS CE é-sene dé #54 Les + E7rà ‘th N . " € PR È ni SI LA! Le 2 LPS Cure + ST WEL / a Re PA = 2 SANT D a : È re — 1 Co Sa ° x 3 % EN ny ‘À x 18 Mt: SRE: El PTE \s 41 PROS PS CR NC Me". où PT - LPS NN 7 + se re pong PES x a F te TS L [page 130] _ . à 1 ? ETS è CR Pre, 7e nd “an $ RME, = : RCE on > . ss PQ PION NETES ” ET F0 Re eÈ D RUE a ET, PEU S | CE = RÉ SR ER | RAR RS PET RES Ter à Le Xe" : LS VAN ECS DESERT =. ne le À ” RE EN lun hr cie, SES RS , La ÈS L L'r PEt F RS MERE 7 CR AE ; EAN es RS es SR AS RS PRE RO Ma 1 ls « "a VE A : petri , *£ LE LA + ÿ . mé Le : A RE LE FR ” DRE DÉS LR TR pa - | ré HE cs We" à x 2 + FA 2 N mL, 2m SEE où Le ù Re. À , S " f S 2 à LR A Li 2 A MR É avis % £. A AA à. 5 PARTS 4 = 3 » 24 LE ie r L sé À > té a æ Pr alé je PT 2 [page 131] 5 2 £ B © Q 3. Lessons learned: the importance of being able to adapt the consultation methodology in restrictive situations Communication with project stakeholders must that could be used effectively in the context of be maintained and nurtured, even in crisis con- the project. Options included the use of the texts where circumstances may prevent consul- Internet (videoconferencing, instant commu- tations from taking place in the usual way. nication applications, e-mail) and telephone This has happened, for example, in the case calls. In the case of BCA project stakeholders, of the consultation process of the Regional the working group determined that Internet Development Project of the Boucle Centre- exchanges with local authorities could be con- Artibonite, BCA*. This process was affected sidered, but with interruptions; with local com- by the coronavirus (COVID-19) health crisis, munities, the telephone would be the only vi- during which mobility was limited and face-to- able option. The table below (table 28) shows face contact with the different actors was not the analysis of alternatives that was carried out possible during that period. to allow the process to continue. Restrictions on mobility were applied after Communications were carried out satisfacto- initial contact with local actors. The next step rily with all local stakeholders. It should be not- required a second visit to present the action ed that the flexibility of the consultation meth- plans developed with the inputs of the first one, ods made it possible to continue the process and but this could not be carried out. maintain an open telephone channel, the poten- The World Bank, in its technical note pre- tial of which was used by both the management pared specifically for this exceptional situa- team and the stakeholders consulted. tion‘, indicated that, given the growing con- However, one of the lessons learned is that cerns about the risk of spread of the virus, there a first face-to-face contact was still necessary was an urgent need to adapt the approach and to generate trust. For the population con- methodology for stakeholder consultation and sulted, it would not have been the same to participation. Several options for process devel- receive telephone calls without first meeting opment were proposed by the WB. the project team in person. The project team In the case of the BCA project process, it also committed to organize a public consulta- was necessary to assess the level of ICT pen- tion once the state of emergency was lifted, to etration among key stakeholder groups to de- compensate for the lack of direct connection termine the type of communication channels during this period. 142 [page 132] Stakeholders and their roles in the implementation of NbS interventions. = = Approach/ : . 5 Analysis Applicabilit 5 Tools Le . LL É Public meetings Prohibited by the Haitian Government and the UTE | Not applicable e Q Stakeholders lack PPES against COVID-19. Small Small meetings meetings and field missions prohibited since the dec- | Not applicable laration of the state of health emergency. line Meeti On ne setngs Technologies are not accessible for the Town Hall, the . and discussion . Not applicable management committee, or the stakeholders. groups Traditional Not suitable for stakeholder consultations. On the one communication hand, stakeholders are scattered throughout the terri- channels (TV, tory and local radio stations have limited coverage. On | Not applicable newspapers, radio | the other hand, such communications may jeopardize and others) the security of the stakeholders. Instant messaging is used to communicate with certain Applicable for ex- stakeholders who have this technology (e.g. MDOD, change of documents Email and Instant | Town Hall, Management Committee). However, some | ,nq images. Messaging stakeholders only have internet data available very ; rarely and in limited quantity. This technology is not (Durée for long accessible to all the impacted parties concerned. discussions. They make it difficult to confront different ideas and | ‘The most used meth- do not allow for group interaction. Nevertheless, they | od of consultation Telephone calls do allow for an in-depth discussion with each specific | during the health PAP‘. They also guarantee the confidentiality of data | emergency generated and do not compromise the security of the PAPs. by COVID-19. 143 [page 133] LA AËÿ VAR 4 D, "PER y EL à XX UE 7, vs. ef MDN AL RER" LEET Lo à FPE > ET CL ANNE CRE OR 7. LT TEE QU > à PTT PS RTL ARE EZ LE ES 4: ve JR SLT, es PS ee. 7” = 2 _Æ st ÿ e (r4 À . # Fée ; y 4 A . PARCS SU US " Se /® RS TP K à. p # ù \ OR, 7 PA LE : - [ + hs a + ee ” TR » >; A SE PA ANSE TS PAS Sd à Li , g” fl œ ï à Le à , = | "DE 4 (D PAT : - - _ Lu, € — 3 _— ë ü F … 5 | F 2 15 NSET LB RE » £ _— 2 "2 … A rt] > 2: _— - |. ” ou 1 ñ . + . + = à . ÆSL FR Here © + ue “UE: ue dé. À © à FA és 4 RE À " Æ 4 £. 2% DEN El Le A pat L ee — ” \ 4 € es <4 ELA … * Êi MN re RPC SCENE Æ 3 nn. 7 6 ? x ES Ce “à VA ie ty N x £. 2. 7 7 2h - RE AS ‘À - CR, à, 5e) LOL, SA PV æ Le > MA “hd st ns ÿ COS d Le ” 2, FE Fr EX ï % 7 À NE. 802 LS ec Ÿ} 4 F: M 4 à Ph 123 LA (Rs À 4 CA à à . En #7 PE j # H U so. 1 #4 LR ” - S Es re N À 1 EN Los l ce 4 ré g 4 — 5 Le, «PE ? RE on à* “ 9 f fs +) PRE. % [page 134] 6) Pa, es UT à SA < ? ne Ja - ñ À 4 Cnil AU DES r er De à AA 4 # À 1 EL PP, + 142, A : «4% : 7 SOLUTIONS HS Æ! Fo Ÿ ::* À” CATALOGUE DS EURT "À | FR 71 NBSFactsheets * mn A é ‘4 A \ D ; 14 [page 135] 8 E 8 É e © È 5 8 2 S £ 1 8 : SOLUTIONS CATALOG = S E l & É This section provides a description of tested NBS ë that may be used for the protection ofroadinfra- INBS4. e structure. While interventions need to be tailored Revegetation with native forest species ° to the specific local context, and despite the wide range of contexts in terms of exposure to hazards, INBS5. ecosystem health and human systems that exist, Restoration with resilient local crop varieties these NBS have been found relevant for Haitïs context. NBS6. A list of 16 Solutions are identified and sum- Mangroves conservation and restoration marized in the following table including infor- mation on its most relevant road configurations, INBS7Z objective, type, scale, material, implementation Coral reef conservation and restoration cost, co-benefits, and risks. Additional informa- tion on economic cost of NBS can be found in NBS8. section 4. Subsection 7.2 provides fact sheets with Living Breakwaters the description of the solutions that are consid- ered the most relevant for Haiti in terms ofhigh- INBS9. est risks, local ecosystems, and local capacity and Oysterbreak systems and resources for implementing the solutions. shoreline protection units NBS10. NBS1. Restoration of beaches, sand banks and dunes Slope stabilization: general principle NBS11. NBS2. Seagrass restoration and conservation Slope stabilization with natural materials NBS12. NBS3. Natural wetland management Slope stabilization with hybrid materials (morass, swamps, and wetlands) 146 [page 136] 5 ê. É 5 Comprehensive approach È ë NBS13. Although different NBS solutions could be cit- E Coastal slope stabilization ed separately, it should be noted that the best Ë with hybrid materials solution is likely to be a combination of sev- a eral NBS, hard engineered and non-structural E NBS14. measures, which would in turn result from an 5 Managed coastal realignment intensive territorial/land use planning process. ë Thus, it is recommended to adopt, in all cas- & NBS15. es, a comprehensive perspective. For this, it is e Rockfill and vegetation for protecting necessary to consider the following two types ° bridges’ piles and abutments of approaches, valid for the 4 vulnerable con- figurations or Road Management Units identi- NBS16. fied: Multiple Lines of Defense and Upstream Riverbank works for bridge protection Management. These are described below. Multiple lines of defense: Involves using en- Although the different categorizations are vironmental features (barrier islands, marshes) presented in a certain order, it is important to to complement hard infrastructure (levees and keep in mind that all ecosystems are linked. flood gates) as well as non-structural measures Everything that happens in one ofthe systems (raised homes and evacuation routes). The in- has a direct influence on the others. For ex- creased number of interventions which are used ample, poor management of upper watershed within a scheme is likely to increase the overall areas (for example, poorly planned drainage), resiliency to extreme events. The figure 24 below can generate significant negative consequenc- presents a representation of how some of the es on the coastline or directly in the marine interventions can be aligned and complement ecosystem. In summary, “recognizing the inter- each other (Go] 2017) as part of a multiple lines connectivity of systems is fundamental to the of defense approach. design and effectiveness of the NBS”72. Upstream management: Management from In each of the solutions of the catalogue, the upper watershed areas and hinterland to the guidance is provided on whether they are fully nearshore is critical. Given the close inter-con- based on the use of biodiversity and ecosystem nections between land, water and coastal sys- services (ecosystem-based adaptation, EDA, or tems in Haïti, the integration of upstream activ- Ecosystem disaster risk reduction, Eco-DRR), ities with coastal area management is essential or if they are hybrid options that seek to cap- to foster effective cross-sectoral coordination in italize on the characteristics of both hard and the planning and management of land, water, natural approaches. and coastal uses. 147 [page 137] # : : # Road nn Intervention : : Risks for £ NBS \ . Objective Type Materials Cost Co-benefits nn. E a Configuration Scale sustainability 2 à NBS1 A: Mountain Protect infrastructure | Ecosystem- landscape / road’s Biodiversity (if species | Lack of attention to soil 2 © DE . . . . . . . © È Slope stabili- from landslides and | based / hy- right-of-way are native), environmen- | quality in the revegetation È £ zation: gener- erosion by slowing | brid tal conditions process. Selection of variet- £ 3 3 Es al principle water velocity and fa- ies that are attractive to ani- 5 S à ë cilitatingwater infil- mals (livestock or wildlife) or ë o tration. for an economic activity (e.g. o 2 . . . x 8 vetiver). Selection of variet- 8 5 ies that are not adapted to the 5 3 3 3 specific site conditions. È 3 & 5 5 5 NBS2 A: Mountain Protect infrastruc- | Ecosystem- landscape / road’s Coconut, jute, or oth- biodiversity,environmen- | Lack of maintenance, espe- 5 ë Slope stabi- . . ture from landslides | based right-of-wa er organic fiber grids; tal conditions cially in the first stage after & P 8 y 8 8 y 8 Le . D: Crossing (riv- . ” ‘ | e lization with rbanks) and erosion. The nat- Straw rolls; Fascines; installation. e erban . . ° natural mate- ural method that is Logs / wattles (timber ° rials mostly used for an- logs or logs made of choring the different organic fibers such as structures are the live coconut fiber or straw or dead hardwood —“straw wattles”). stakes. NBS3 A: Mountain Protect infrastruc- | Hybrid landscape / road’s Synthetic anti-ero- | $1,080/ha/ biodiversity, environmen- | Extreme events Slope stabi- . . ture from landslides right-of-wa sion geomats or 65 tal conditions P . D: Crossing (riv- . ë Y 5 lization with rbanks) and erosion. The grey geogrids; Terraces; . erban . . hybrid mate- method that is most- Geocells; Gabions; rials ly used for anchoring Riprap; Stone revet- the different struc- ment; Riprap. tures are wires and hooks. NBS4 A: Mountain Helps stabilize slopes. | Ecosystem- landscape / road’s $3,450/ha*7 biodiversity, environmen- | Lack of attention to soil Revegetation Native plants are | based right-of-way tal conditions quality in the revegetation with native adapted to native soils, process. Selection of vari- forest species provide wildlife habi- eties that are attractive to tat, can adapt better to (livestock or wildlife) or for climate disruptions/ an economic activity (e.g. vetiver). Selection of variet- ies that are not adapted to the specific site conditions. 148 149 [page 138] £ £ 8 8 ë NBS Dose : Objective Type DIENENNON Materials Cost Co-benefits ao ù Lis É É Configuration Scale sustainability : 5 NBS5 A: Mountain Restoration ofecosys- | Ecosystem- landscape / road’s economic value Lack of attention to soil qual- 5 É Restoration tems adjacent to roads | based right-of-way ity for the development of É & with resilient that can provide pro- vegetation. Selection of vari- & > local crop tection against ero- eties that are not adapted to > ë varieties sion, while also, hav- the specific site conditions. ë E ing the advantage of Selection of varieties that have E ë being economically no market conditions. ë È valued by local com- È 5 munities. 5 S S ° NBS6 B: Coastal Coastal protection. | Ecosystem- landscape $9,000/ Provides numerous goods | Exposure to plastic pollu- ° ° Mangroves Mangroves reduce | based ha (medi- and services to the marine | tion and other human waste; ° conservation wave energy, reduce an) [Range: environment and to hu- | conversion to unsustainable and resto- storm surge and flood $1,413- man communities: fisher- | aquaculture. Overharvesting ration depth . 42,801/ha°°] ies, firewood, timber and | for charcoal and firewood plant products; sequestra- | for sale in urban markets. tion of greenhouse gases; | Unprotected mangrove seed- sinks for inorganic nitro- | ing vulnerable to predation gen and phosphorus; bio- | by goats. diversity; tourism. NBS7 B: Coastal Protection from wave | Ecosystem- landscape $165,000/ Biodiversity, provision | Pollution, invasive species, Coral reef damage to other hab- | based ha (medi- of essential ecosystem | overfishing, eutrophication, conservation itats, coastal commu- an)®%%6 (also | services and habitat for | damage from shipping and and resto- nities, and infrastruc- $542,500/ valuable fish species and | tourism activities, climate ration ture. Coral reefs can ha”) other marine organisms. | change and natural hazards. supply and trap sed- Ecotourism. iments and attenuate waves. NBS8 B: Coastal Reduce wave energy | Ecosystem- landscape Intentionally designed Biodiversity, provision | Pollution, invasive species, Living by creating a barrier, | based to incorporate natural of essential ecosystem | eutrophication, damage from Breakwaters most often underwa- habitat components services and habitat for | shipping and tourism activi- ter, between open wa- while still provid- valuable fish species and | ties, climate change ter and the shoreline. ing protection to the other marine organisms. coastline (e.g. harvest- Fishery production. ed oyster shells). Tourism. 150 151 [page 139] £ £ 8 8 È ë Es : i Es È NBS nos : Objective Type DENON Materials Cost | Co-benefits as ù Lis È 5 Configuration Scale sustainability É 8 E 5 NBS9 B: Coastal Reduce wave energy, | Ecosystem- landscape Important to check | $66,800/haf | Stimulate oyster growth | Depend on design consider- 5 & Oysterbreak thus reducing damage | based / hy- characteristics such and thereby increase the | ations (e.g. area of frontages ë É systems and from wave action,and | brid as strength and per- biodiversity in the imme- | to be protected, current, tide É S shoreline reduce erosion. meability. diate area. and surge water levels and S E protection obstructions on seabed. E ë units ui & & : NBS10 B: Coastal Protection from | Ecosystem- landscape $7,636- Biodiversity: Beaches | To achieve a successful resto- : S Restoration storm surge and | based / hy- 13,888/ha“* provide value for the resi- | ration, it is essential to elim- S ° of beaches, waves and sea level | brid: com- dents and help to support | inate the influx of public to ° ° sand banks rise. bined with the local tourism econo- | the area where the action is ° and dunes groynes, off- my. carried out. It is necessary to shore break- carry out a series of works to water, artifi- protect the dune line, includ- cial coral reef ing fencing, adapting access- creation es, building walkways and in- formation signs. NBS11 B: Coastal Attenuate waves and | Ecosystem- landscape Biodiversity, refuge for | Pollution brought by rains, Seagrass res- stabilize sediments | based calcifying organisms, key | sedimentary erosion creat- toration and (most reliably in shal- habitat (spawning, nurs- | ed by cyclonic swells affects conservation low waters and low ery and feeding grounds). | certain species of seagrasses, wave energy environ- Carbon sinks: as biomass | exposition due to low baro- ments). increases with ocean | metric tides. Impact from acidification, carbon se- | anthropogenic pressures questration is increased. | (e.g. use of fishing gear; an- Fishing. chorages and boat propel- lers; removal of meadows from bathing areas for the "well-being" of tourists; im- pact from the extraction of coral or sand; development of infrastructure, indirect pollu- tion from domestic, agricul- ture and industrial activities). 152 153 [page 140] = : : = = NBS Le . Objective Type DIENENON Materials Cost | Co-benefits a ù Lu £ 8 Configuration Scale sustainability 8 a a à NBS12 B: Coastal Act as “buffers” and | Ecosystem- landscape $85,000- Recreation, water quality, | Pollution. Impacts from di- à Ë Natural wet- thus perform import- | based 230,000/ha* | nutrient transformation, | rect human activity on the Ë 5 land manage- ant functions related ($67,000/ and removal; reduction | ecosystem. L 5 ment (mo- to the protection of haÿ) of human impacts by 5 & rass, SWamps, communities, ecosys- limiting easy access; bio- & É and wetlands) tems, and assets (sed- diversity, and a barrier to É S iment and erosion invasion of exotic species. S E control; storm wa- Reduction of water tem- E ë ter runoff reduction perature, pollution reduc- ë 5 through infiltration). tion, enhanced access to 5 É water for local commu- 5 & nities. 5 e e ° NBS13 B: Coastal Protect infrastructure | Hybrid landscape Revetments; Groynes; Biodiversity, fishery hab- | Revetments can disrupt nat- ° Coastal slope from coastal erosion Adjustable timber itat. ural shoreline processes by stabilization by waves, currents, groynes; Gabions; cutting-off inshore supply of with hybrid and wind. Sandbag structures; materials and can also destroy materials Sediment-filled geo- shoreline habitats and re- textile material tubes duce the width of inter-tidal beaches. Climate events can affect short-term structures such as gabions and sand- bags. NBS14 B: Coastal Flood risk manage- | Ecosystem- landscape / road’s Biodiversity, fishery hab- | Option that is often of high Managed ment. Face sea level | based / hy- right- of- way itat, mitigation of loss of | political and social contro- coastal re- rise, storm surge. brid intertidal habitat, carbon | versy. The schemes frequently alignment sequestration and storage, | suffer from a lack of public ac- recreational use. ceptance. It is also likely to be highly disruptive and expen- sive if relocation of coastal in- frastructure is required. Care should be taken to ensure that if infrastructure is abandoned rather than relocated, nearby areas do not become isolat- ed, thus leading to increased poverty. 154 155 [page 141] £ £ = = 8 8 È È a C: Crossings Protection against lo- | Ecosystem- Road's right- of- Biodiversity. Extreme events can damage a e e Ë Rockfill and cal scour of piles and | based / hy- Way the implemented solution. Ë 2 vegetation abutments due to | brid £ 8 8 5 for protecting water and sediment 5 & bridges’ piles erosion. & ® ® El and abut- © S ments & = = ë C: Crossings Protection against lo- | Ecosystem- Road's right- of- Channeling dikes Biodiversity, in the case of | Extreme events can damage ë 5 Riverbank cal scour of piles and | based / hy- Way (built with a soil or revegetation. the implemented solution. d 2 works for abutments due to | brid sand embankment E 8 3 S bridge pro- water and sediment that should prefera- Sä Le tection erosion. bly be protected with bd rock and at least with grass or vegetation. Filters may be re- quired or the gran- ulometry may need to be varied to avoid loss of fine materi- al); Spurs (built with rocks, gabions, wood, or bamboo). == RE: | A T mor” : - = . ns : fit ( re = = ES — = Care En PRE ne mes KA aies ht il = nn CCS ut = Reyes Ne LE = - RÉ : =, - s ré F are + M ANR à — = TS ET = LEE : Wie Diese SELS LES % RE EN — | KES + =" 2 TRACE, , 7 LR à > . 2 k RE Se TE 2 LOTS EE UT = = ER PCR ESES RE SPES [page 142] LL D ee LR g SLR à Craie 4 4 ER # « 2 A , “9 tee : É Æ US d APR UT dÈe CLR Là * A A ARTS PR 2 FA BAR pt 5 ; Mc Lyr e Lu dus x y h ; ? mu ; ALL ni V5 901 4 My sg 9 Ÿ 7 OU TOM] | [page 143] e 5 . È & S e 1.1 In this section, a series of fact sheets have been developed for each of the NBSs that have been considered relevant to the Haitian context. They are intended to provide a quick overview of the basic principle of the protection that - ts Fr ecosystems can provide to the road network ie à - in each case. 159 [page 144] 7. < # Lack of attention to soil quality in the revegeta- LE . tion process. Selection of varieties that are attracti- Slope stabilization through revegetation during : " % Les ra 7 ve to goats and other livestock or for an economic das rehabilitation works of the route Cayes : = — > æ “. ses activity (e.g. vetiver). Selection of varieties that are Jérémie (see case study on p.63). Also, solutions : D PR PT AU ES Lee. a ; not adapted to the specific site conditions. have been proposed by TYPSA for two pilot si- LS 50 Fe . FORT = AE # Ent pd 4 V €. tes in the South, in the ETS of de Pr0w RSR 1 J 27 147 ES ” ject “Development of Design and Guidelines, > = LL PT: Cf Z 2P AF : | 48 : 7 LT nef ar: È and Capacity-Building for the Adoption : CA PR. Cd / À Éd À AE" /È FE É : CAS Qt of Ecosystem-Based Solutions to Protect LAC LE AGE A N PAS CAGE fl CE “ LT 4 + ST apr À Ua OL Infrastructure Assets in Haiti” (see case study TR A LA DEL APP LERE) AE LE à De D ne EX s D se Stabilization and revegetation of exposed slopes in Section 7). jé ne A Jones” CÉ/ 2. 2 CL. Lcd -2 mt à 2 SE ï must be carried out as work on the roads progres- Several options can be considered for slope stabi- ses. AIl protection and/or stabilization works must lization. In the selection of the suitable options, be subject to periodic visits and detailed inspec- the first aspect to consider is the quality of the tions followed by corrections in the event of ano- soil. Then, depending on the slope and type of l E S 1 malies detected, whether these are due to normal soil, among other factors, revegetation may or ageing or to stresses related to the type of pheno- may not need à stabilization support. On the menon that justifies the presence of the protection vulnerable Haitian roads, it is highly likely that work. It should be noted that projects are not f- a combination of the following three types of nished with germination of the plants, but with at measures will be needed. least 70% cover of long-term vegetation. Protect infrastructure from landslides and erosion. This consists of revegetating the slopes to slow water velocity and facilitate water infiltration. In general, a combination of measures is desirable. Especially in areas with steep slopes, it is important to reduce the slope and, if this is not possible, install stabilization General principle Gants Synthetic grids Cie structures such as gabions, riprap, retaining walls, which can be combined with grids or rockfill geotextile without a good soil quality and a ganic fiber grids __— UGeneral principle: Use plant sheets. Then, revegetation is promoted to bring further stability. Slope drainage is also an important consi- good CRE) the rest gén Straw rolls STRESS stakes or plant native species deration in this context. See different combination of options in the table below and subsequent factsheets. EEE creuniitesy to dite | Geocells with strong roots to stabilize Includes fertilization, making Fascines or Rolls of the slope. ofholes, installation ofwatering plant residues Gabions | | systems. Native plants foster biodiversi- Logs / wattles Stone revetment ty and need less inputs. . . . stakes Anchorage: wires Methods: Ecosystem-based / hybrid Combination of measures in table 29 below and hooks * Manual * Hydrosceding Landscape / road’ right-of-way Biodiversity, environmental conditions [page 145] PAT F6 ds de F e ' 7 s ché 2 rs # # AE à 4 ; + _ À “À 6 4 . L + $ N- r É L] POS | - D ef D POS 3 NBS objective En né RSS LE RC ee Û En PL £ AE ch "7 2 Fascines: or rolls of plant residues from deforested areas on slopes susceptible to erosion. Used with plant si MER EE PESTE EE er FF Hs stakes or native species with strong roots will help to stabilize the slope. Le , Logs / wattles: can be timber logs or logs made of organic fibers such à | Se as coconut fiber or straw (“straw wattles”). Effective and economical VOLER © S > alternative to silt fence and straw bales for sediment control and storm x K À SX water runoff. Can be placed and staked along the contour of newly cons- SAS > tructed or disturbed slopes. Fertile topsoil, organic matter, and native SX k seeds are trapped behind logs/ wattles and provide a stable medium for * DU + MA germination. Straw wattles also retain moisture from rainfall. Type of NBS (nd) Co-benefits se NBS objective (® YP Ecosystem-based / hybrid Biodiversity, environmental conditions Protect infrastructure from landslides and erosion. Solutions that provide erosion protection, during the : period it takes for the roots and shoots of native plants to colonize and stabilize soils, based on natural (g) Intervention scale @ Risks for sustainability of NBS materials. The natural method that is mostly used for anchoring the different structures are the live or dead hardwood stakes. Landscape / road right-of-way Lack of maintenance, especially in the first stage after installation. NRA OI PURE Coconut, jute, or other organic fiber grids: They control erosion in LU DRE UN furrows and gullies on slopes, helping germination and root formation. : ; LIRE PANNE y They are commonly adjusted with live stakes or plant establishment © increases potential with other NBS 22 Ge MM systems to establish long term live barriers. Their high resistance allows O O&M considerations + RL LIEN them to be used in some cases to replace rockfills. The coconut fiber rolls Hydraulic and erosion control products. BIRT PE # M can be mixed with other products or erosion control systems. as te x P Y All protection and/or stabilization works must be 1$ Implementation cost: subject to periodic visits and detailed inspections . . . . . . followed by corrections in the event of anomalies Straw rolls: rolls of straw packed in synthetic nets. Their purpose is to capture and maintain the sediments . . He & . detected, whether these are due to normal ageing on the slope, being useful for temporary stabilization. $1,080/ha/yr'° and $242/ha/yr for annual maintenan- . . or to stresses related to the type of phenomenon ce cost (these costs are for illustration based on cost . . . that justifies the presence of the protection work. for Terracing) [page 146] PER — au 0 oies P Er . Les = + Dee SE 5 f 2 , > ee a £ 2 5 RSS \ - # s NBS objective SA RSC US t f T 1 HT DS de: Æ ASC SAP RRE L à + DT À Geocells: three-dimensional structures that allow confining granular materials and soils. They are sheets of ces Rés. sf ? KNE-0 Fe 2% high-density polyethylene, welded by ultrasound, with the purpose of improving the foundation of a road, : 2... 2. ER #4 D: ee. ‘ COR 4 À confining fertile soil to vegetate a slope or a layer of gravel to cover an erodible channel or even creating a > Fr a di à bd _- M = 2 ÿ Li ai stable mass of soil to work as a retaining wall under gravity. Good performance for erosion control on steep Û 3 AS sc 2 LA s : CARE slopes and as a lining for high-flow channels. ; DA aa et PR: Fe BE PE LAS, PES Gabions: Stone filled wire mesh racks. Placed at the foot of the slide, they help to stop its evolution 2 EE LR Re DAT. Sd L Ce 7 PE Ci LM PR PROS he ue SAS PE E : towards the road. Riprap: This technique involves placing rough, angular natural stone on the slope surface. The stones are placed so that they interlock and form a tight, dense barrier that will protect the slope from erosion. This type of Riprap should only be used for slopes less than 66% (34 degrees). Steeper slopes require larger an- chored stones or different techniques. Stone revetment: consider dry stone revetment. Riprap: Drainage spurs and riprap at the foot of the slide to counter the advance of materials nm on the roadway. NBS objective Type of NBS @ Risks for sustainability of NBS Protect infrastructure from landslides and erosion. Solutions that provide erosion protection, during the (®) YP y period it takes for the roots and shoots of native plants to colonize and stabilize soils, with the incorpora- Ecosystem-based / hybrid tion of non-natural materials. The grey method that is mostly used for anchoring the different structures ” ” Extreme events are wires and hooks. . Intervention scale ji ji LA px a = Synthetic anti-erosion geomats or geogrids: Flexible and permea- (g1) O&M considerations E NON men 4 . ES RS « ble blankets, made of synthetic fibers held together by flat meshes or Land Jrad rioht-of. k RS» S # jn "4 three-dimensional wefts. With the same functionality of the organic andscape / roads rigAt-ot way | F 6e geogrids, they act as soil protection, facilitating the development and lu ‘52 ST. reinforcement of vegetation. À good option for steep slopes is the com- » Mc (RE . . 8 B P PS op à :. AI protection and/or stabilization works must be NÉE ue ? M posite turf reinforcement matting. Increases potential with other NBS £ Lu us. . Ve OR Sn subject to periodic visits and detailed inspections Pr ER è» followed by corrections in the event of anomalies AE A ùe pa CS A Terraces: to slow the speed of the water and promote plant growth. hydraulic and erosion control products. à . De ok Den e . . . . ° detected, whether these are due to normal ageing see % s Terraces prevent erosion by shortening a long slope into a series of shor- 2 e D. fe : or to stresses related to the type of phenomenon à 72 & ter, more leveled slopes which allow water to move more slowly and soak . d . PE d . . | : that justifies the presence of the protection work. Ù A ra X into the soil. Terraces can be constructed from pressure treated lumber, Co-benefits NT. MON natural stone, or masonry products such as modular blocks. Building e+ AR UE techniques will vary depending on the material used. Biodiversity, environmental conditions [page 147] à — O © O a ” = Ecosystem-based / hybrid : fre Stabilization and revegetation of exposed slopes RE * must be carried out as work on the roads pro- Ces 5 Re . gresses. All protection and/or stabilization works £ S L - must be subjected to periodic visits and detailed és. : inspections followed by corrections in the event Landscape / road right-of-way of anomalies detected, whether these are due to normal ageing or to stresses related to the type l E S il of phenomenon that justifies the presence of the : protection work. It should be noted that pro- jects are not finished with the germination of the plants, but with at least 70% cover of long-term $2,207/ha [$189-$5,665/ha ft or $3,450/ha°7 vegetation. In most cases, it is recommended that (Tropical Forest) with annual maintenance var- seeding be done prior to installation of blankets. ÿ ying widely by location and type of trees. Straw or hay mulch may be added after seeding. se NBS objective All check slots and other areas disturbed during installation process should be re-seeded. Where JL LL JL conventional seeding techniques cannot be used LI due to the difficulty of access or the steep slopes, ee en se hydroseeding of herbaceous and woody species Native plants adapt to native soils, provided 4 où Biodiversity, environmental conditions. ane conéee that wildlife habitat can adapt better to clima- ; ñ TN te disruptions and interact with each other in . | ways hybrid/exotic plant communities cannot. = 1 At each site, it is necessary to analyze the spe- = cific characteristics of the vegetation (volume u Hydraulic and erosion control products and density of foliage, size, height of vegetation Slope stabilization through revegetation du- cover, presence of different layers of vegetation ring the rehabilitation works of the route Cayes cover, type, depth, diameter, density, cover and - Jérémie (see case study in Section 6.3). Also, resistance of the root system, among others). solutions have been proposed by TYPSA for Please refer to Annexes 4, for consulting the : : Lo: so pilot “es U peer framework . . . Do. . Lack of attention to soil quality in the revegeta- of the project “Development of Design and list of species suitable for NBS in Haiti. % tion process. Selection of varieties that are attracti- Guidelines, and Capacity-Building for the . ua. as ie ve to goats and other livestock or for an economic Adoption of Ecosystem-Based Solutions to Schematically Le dravnthe effects ofege, FF e3 L activity (e.g. vetiver). Selection of varieties that are Protect Infrastructure Assets in Haiti” (see case tation on the stability of a slope: —— d° not adapted to the specific site conditions. study in Section 8). R.: e [page 148] ” - Le * nn. À 9 " dd " | , A4 ve "1 . à d ; | .— L) * ns | » L dn ! ‘+ oi | CNE ln a ns | ns 4 _ e h * es CRT AET ET - > 2 x 4" MS Q L dE" «+ * . 21 D À ES, À,” + de sd &- F SAR + à " : ui à : e- MS. < A0 de e CRE VA d' - ++ De F 7” , Ni Stabilization and revegetation of exposed slopes EE. FA = ” Val L : À" */ ” . É 1:11 ., must be carried out as work on the roads progres- Cu ÉR TAN . LD 1, LS JS Le + + . EU ue à ? es Ecosystem-based / hybrid ses. AI protection and/or stabilization works must be subject to periodic visits and detailed inspec- tions followed by corrections in the event of ano- malies detected, whether these are due to normal l E S h ageing or to stresses related to the type of pheno- Landscape / road's right-of-way menon that justifies the presence of the protection work. Planting distances will depend on the needs of each species (e.g. citrus fruits will need between 5.5 and 7.5 m distance, while mangoes will need 8 to 10 m), different geographical and agro-ecolo- Economic value. gical areas. On the plain, the trees will be planted closer together depending on the slope. The stee- per the slope, the shorter the distance between the mm trees. These factors, together with the definition of NBS objective planting periods and care needs, must be endorsed Hydraulic and erosion control products by a specialized technician. Straw or hay mulch may be added after seeding Productive species should also be considered for the restoration of ecosystems adjacent to roads. While : : .1 they do not Recessarily possess the benefits of native plants in terms of es there are many that may be well adapted to the environment and can provide protection against erosion, while also, having the advantage of being economically valued by local communities. These communities can obtain resources Lack of attention to soil quality for the develop- from them and therefore will be more likely to maintain them over time. ment ofvegetation. Selection ofvarieties that are not Slope stabilization through revegetation during adapted to the specific site conditions. Selection of the rehabilitation works of the route Cayes - Please refer to Annex 4 for consulting the list of species suitable for NBS in Haiti. varieties that have no market conditions. Jérémie (see case study in Section 6). [page 149] # (e) # O productive ecosystem that provides numerous goods l E S 6 and services to the marine environment and to hu- man communities: fisheries, timber, firewood, char- coal, and plant products; sequestration of greenhouse gases; sinks for inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus; biodiversity; tourism. & NBS objective during the first 1-2 years, the plants are vulnera- ble to various man-made and natural stressors. Coastal protection. Mangroves reduce wave energy, reduce storm surge and flood depth”. The roots of exposure to plastic pollution and other human Monitoring of growth, survival, and maintenance, mangroves limit coastal erosion and protect communities and infrastructure from tropical storms. waste; conversion to unsustainable aquacultu- by removing algae or other pests, are two major re. Reductions in mangrove cover are observed activities of rehabilitation. Then, regular patrolling globally, with evidence of severe trends in so- should be undertaken by the community or an as- ss me countries of the so. Mangrove loss in signed caretaker. If there is intense wave action that PRET £ Barbados has been drastic, including local ex- may affect the new trees, consider installing barriers Ecosystem-based / hybrid SR SET EMCLON ci two species. LG factors for success- made of rocks or bamboo. These barriers also help : | BEN ful sustainability and maintenance are commu- to trap sediment and increase the substrate level, 7 N nity organization mcludine the establishment of further enhancing plant growth. The O&M will NA formal community decision-making structures; include typically: visual inspection, assessment of Red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) deveropnene of usines plans for the sustaina- rater quality, assessment of cover, extent and den- Ent Clones, . e use of resources from mangrove ecosystems, sity and impact from high energy events. , uy-in of local governments. Landscape / road right of way are the most suitable species for restoration in Haiti. Mangrove forests are (8) _ “ found along major estuaries, especially along the north coast, east of Cap Haïtien, . . and on the east coast south of Gonaïves. $9,000/ha (median) [Range: $1,413-42,801/ha°°] cenaphanmion SE SEUoU FE mn nm : : the communes of St Jean du Sud an: aCOU in seagrass beds and coral reefs’ health and preser- Populations are also found at Fort Liberté, ere te À O00E I : Re or 2017 thanks to nn 2019 Global Environment vation. Revetments can be cffective when used in in the north-east of the Gus E Please 10% rl ee (885/ha) . Indonesia” Facility-fanded project implemented by the front of the mangroves to facilitate growth of new refer to Annex 4 — List of species suitable Empincalemidences sugpest a benefit cost ratio UNEP, Ministry of Environment, Agriculture, plants. for NBS in Haiti: dune, beach and coastal of A1. and other partners. [page 150] © œ 8 ’ | 8 o t ; . à o le) SOLS a = À : RAI à Se -# . - O © + FPS FR y où (e} Re LE >= TE “CES à n * F < ve * 4 * * PM Y'a ff) Increases potential with other NBS FA Risks for sustainability of NBS L à > Fhissé Lu £s _ = | NE PE « CYR e w . x + L x u 1 Pollu 1, in ] f 1 u ) 3 FE ; 4 rs : e T7 A 1 ] 1 | f pin 1 u 4 : 1 1 1 ) 1 id natu 1 1 à u f eratu f 1 1 1 1 : : 1 1 1 1 u 1 Ï If Coral reef conservation creasin su stalling art |) O&M considerations and restoration | | *P | al to ensu | 1 Ï 1 1 1 C Ï U 1 SD 1 uan u 1 of 1 U 1 Î : 1 I un 1 If uctu f 1 SUPP 1 ] its/° an au f 1 U ] f ÈS 1 1 U Ï 1 1 1 [ fun 1 172 173 [page 151] DUR | LL (@) (@) | . Se ET Don nr. le SC js _—_#, - © re ones = = _— = Ecosystem-based / hybrid (g)] Intervention scale . . ” @ Risks for sustainability of NBS Landscape / road right of way l E S 8 Pollution, invasive species, eutrophication, damage . . from shipping and tourism activities, climate chan- © Increases potential with other NBS = "PPT he ge (increasing sea temperatures, acidification, sea le- vel rise, more intense storms and hurricanes, varia- Such as coral reef restoration. bility of rainfall). Coral reefs are degraded naturally by storm events as well as coral bleaching events. | NBS objective @ Opportunity for hybrid solution O O&M considerations Utilization of porous concrete and reef substra- te designs that te structural lexity and Reduce wave energy by creating a barrier, most often underwater, between open water and the shoreli- ie SIENS Ca . TEE S SOUCI comp exty : à . ue ge . . increases the likelihood of successful coloniza- . . ne. While traditional breakwaters may be made from stone, concrete or other building materials, a living . . k . . In sub-tropical waters, it may take as many as five . . . . . 7. ne tion by desired species. Materials can involve reef . . breakwater is intentionally designed to incorporate natural habitat components while still providing pro- k : . years to establish a healthy, stable benthic commu- . . . balls, sinking retired boats, pieces of infrastruc- . . . tection to the coastline . An example of natural material could be harvested oyster shells (clutch). nity. Once they are established, they will be most- ture, among others. . . . ly self-sustaining. Occasional maintenance on the physical structure may be necessary. Given that li- . ving breakwaters can create a recreational attraction, © (nd) Co-benefits care needs to be taken to make sure that oyster beds Living breakwaters incorporate natural habitat by providing are not being harvested illegally or are being dis- 0 opportunities Branlemeradeaozrison by oysters, cor on by Biodiversity, provision of essential ecosystem ser- turbed. With regards to impacts from navigation, . . . . : : vices and habitat for valuable fish species and it is recommended to perform regular monitoring creating shelter and habitat for various marine and aquatic species : ; : ; other marine organisms, fishery production and to ensure there have been no impacts from boats. tourism. [page 152] 3 EE —— u RE ; gs Be 2 250 : "a D + Tr = ue LL te ; PR = É. g ER. Q Type of NBS 1] Implementation cost Ecosystem-based / hybrid $66,800/haf with a benefit cost ratio of 7 .34%° N B S Q () Intervention scale @ Risks for sustainability of NBS Landscape / road right of way Risk will depend highly on design considerations such as area of frontages to be protected, current, tide and surge water levels and obstructions on : : seabed. With regards to materials, it is impor- © increases potential with other NBS tant to check characteristics such as strength and permeability. NBS objective Planting of seagrasses and submerged aquatic vegetation. It can be combined with other living . . breakwaters O O&M considerations Oysterbreak systems are designed to reduce wave energy, thus reducing damage from wave action, and . . . . . . . Consider monitoring the longshore transport rate reduce erosion. This type of technology is designed to use the oyster’s inherent nature of clustering to ; : : . . . . that will be modified by the breakwater. Consider enhance a strategic coastal protection structure for coastal and estuary shorelines.' They may be applied to Co-benefits . . . . . . . ‘ Le performing surveys of sections above the water any shoreline project that calls for any combination of wave attenuation, and shoreline erosion mitigation. Jevel (visual . . hy) They are designed to serve dual functions by creating a reef structure for habitat and robust structure for . . GEL GRAUNEEERION, COMENT (POSE apny” . nf stimulate oyster growth and thereby increase the profile surveys, as well as underwater visual inspec- shoreline protection®?. op ee . . . . De biodiversity in the immediate area. tions, to detect irregularities. [page 153] "ul PAL ITE D RSS ME. + EE DS M PEUT me 7 Eootetea be d/ bre combined with jon, it is essenti ra LE à ÊEA D / D os Fi : SA EE ES Ses L f CSSEEMIRES WA : : Com AEG NON Broynes, To achieve a successful restoration, it is essential Ke S “ON DES TT £Æ Re tr offshore breakwater, artificial coral reef creation. to eliminate the influx of public to the area where + D LA Ds WA £ PTE pe 4 à # p = S 5 ee Res é the action is carried out. To do this, it is necessary — t … VAE À 7 2 sn 4 ; to carry out a series of works to protect the dune line, including fencing, adapting accesses, building walkways and information signs. l E S 1 0 Landscape / road right of way When selecting beach nourishment, the design Combination with beach nourishment / recharge, should consider offshore and land-based sources beach re-profiling, beach recycling. Combination available locally. In general, maintenance will be with hard interventions such as offshore breakwa- further required if combined with hard structu- NBS objective ters that may be used E reduce En loss. re. With regards to dune vegetation, it is key to Revetments can be quite effective if positioned select the appropriate locations and time of plan- behind the beach, so the toe is protected. ting, provide protection mechanisms for letting the root systems to establish, and select the suita- Protection from storm surge and waves and sea level + In the case of beach nourishment/recharge, ble species depending on site-specific conditions. rise. Beaches act as a natural buffer as they efficiently beach material is added to an existing beach or new : The maintenance work consists of controlling dissipate wave energy. This reduces damages to hard beaches are created artificially. and promoting the appropriate evolution and de- landforms at the back of the beach, and assets in the * Beach recycling consists of redistributing mate- velopment of the plantings and checking that they hinterland due to overtopping, flooding, erosion,or rial from where it has naturally accumulated and to $3-21%/m° with benefit-cost ratio between 0.28 acquire the desirable coverage and size over time, direct wave action. Encouraging dune vegetation the updrift end of a beach frontage. — 1.68%. Dune restoration/Revegetation from maintaining adequate conditions of conservation practices and promoting dunes as physical buffers + Beach vegetation planting has the objective of $7,636-13,888/ha% with annual maintenance for and dynamics. to waves and providing barriers to wave inundation promoting that plant roots hold sediment in place dune restoration between $333-2,526/ha/yr It will also be necessary to carry out a conti- and sea level rise. Planting vegetation will not only and help stabilize the area. They also reduce runoff nuous monitoring of the state of the sand and of help to prevent erosion, but also will accelerate na- erosion and reinforce dunes. the general state of conservation of the facilities tural recovery following storm damage. such as walkways, enclosure, signs, etc., repairing * In natural beach protection, backshore stabili- Please refer to Annex 4 for consulting the list of the damages as they may arise. zation measures such as picket fencing, vegetation species suitable for restoration of dunes and beaches O&M will include visual inspections, beach planting or footpath management can be used to in Haiti. LL . . profile surveys, fixed aspect photos and aerial pho- protect the existing beach alongside other measures. Biodiversity. Beaches provide value fontherceklents tographs. and help to support the local tourism economy. [page 154] (@) (@) k 7 l E S 1 1 Ecosystem-based / hybrid Pollution brought by rains, sedimentary erosion created by cyclonic swells affects certain species of seagrasses, exposition due to low barometric tides. Impact from anthropogenic pressures: the feet of marine phanerogams can be mechanically dama- ged by the use of fishing gear such as towed gear, traps and tools used when fishing on foot; im- NBS objective Landscape / road right of way pact of anchorages and boat propellers on seagrass beds; removal of meadows from bathing areas for the “well-being” of tourists; impact from the ex- . . traction of coral or sand construction materials; Attenuate waves and stabilize sédiments (most reliably in shallow waters and low wave energy environ- development of infrastructure such as defense ments) Reduce current velocity. Reducing the height of waves reaching the shore can decrease floods. walls, indirect pollution from domestic, agricul- Seagrasses are flowering plants that grow in marine, fully saline environments. Seagrass beds start ture and industrial activities. close to the shore and extend below the water surface to maximum depths of 30 m, depending on the Functional interactions with mangroves and coral clarity of the water. ecosystems. The use of the three habitats together have been shown to provide more protection than a single habitat or combinations of two habitats. The most common shallow habitats (up to a depth of 15 m) consist of : Qc transplantation 1 complete, sites should . . . . (6) Co-benefits be monitored to determine survival rates, sprout sandy seabeds with or without sea turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) au . : : . k . ensity, and graft coverage. Sufficient information or expanses of sea turtle grass mixed with manatee grass (Syringodium and signposting must be maintained, as well as filiforme) and various types of seaweed. This vegetation is an important Biodiversity, refuge for calcifying organisms, key surveillance systems to prevent entry into pro- source of primary productivity, releasing oxygen and nutrients to marine habitat (spawning, nursery and feeding grounds), tected areas and areas under restoration, and to species and serving to stabilize soft substrates. Seagrass meadows seagrasses play an important role as carbon sinks: as avoid fishing gear that could cause damage. It is | provide food for many species of herbivores, including fish and the biomass increases with ocean acidification, carbon recommended to organize and maintain a good [ West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) (Haitis CBD Fifth sequestration is increased. Fishing. organization of the mooring of the boats, [page 155] ——— —. — certes he 4 7 + = S PR Te AR, À “li œ É: d-1 L 1 Fe Se ES “1h ES 2 sé RE ET TT RS RES De AeE RES - Recreation, water quality, nutrient transformation, and removal; reduction of human impacts by limi- ting easy access; biodiversity, and a barrier to inva- l E 1 2 Ecosystem-based / hybrid sion of exotic species. Reduction of water tempera- ture, pollution reduction, enhanced access to water for local communities. Restoration or construction of vegetation that improves water quality can be a cost-effective way of mitigating road impacts and ensuring road project compliance with regulatory Landscape / road right of way requirements”. NBS objective Gabions and other erosion control systems. Pollution. Impacts from direct human activity on the ecosystem. Act as “buffers” and thus perform important functions with regards to the protection of communities, ecosystems, and assets. These functions are sediment and erosion control, storm water runoff reduction through infiltration. Protecting wetlands adjacent to and upstream of the road might be a vital component of an ecosystem services-based strategy for flood regulation. Conversely, if the wetlands were degraded or paved over, this could severely compromise the flood regulation service. Wetland management addresses morass, swamps, and wetlands. Two major aspects of managing For coastal wetland can range from $85,000- Core activities usually consist of removal of alien wetlands for protection include buffering wetlands from direct human pressures and maintaining natural 230,000/ha ($67,000/ha%) with annual mainte- vegetation, re-vegetation of cleared areas with processes in surrounding lands. nance around $25/m/yr* and a benefit-cost ratio native wetland vegetation, and conservation legal between 6 — 8.72% framework. [page 156] 14 , À : &f or SAN Cr nr RS D ÉD pe NBS objective 2 CA HAUT J AA ER 4 Le ES dé où SP jt ax NS A ER TS RE ER - " ù< = ln hi - he CR ee. 7 Ee Li , SK LS TA LS + L/ NS 4 L KPRPRT 73% LE ù ARTS PAGE Gabions: mesh baskets that are compactly filled with crushed rocks, DR LC” KES 0 % Tasti eh S KA Le CET Fe ee, rene Pr cobbles or stones. They are commonly used to prevent erosion and to x pe +, à < A7 2 LA CE J'ERZ ad nv, 7e PAR RE ra een f stabilize banks, cliffs and dune slopes. Gabions are suited to low energy k. / ; É NE Ru Be) ve = D MDN beaches and are usually best placed above the tidal zone as they are not $ dE: È ASE | Ne . Ÿ 4 À FE 3-1 Vi RDS TEE AL SS durable enough to withstand regular, direct wave action . A à 15 sut æ. 7 - No ER À 7 2 ECTA 4 ESS Sandbag structures: temporarily stops or slows the effects of coastal Sd crosion. Generally placed in front of and parallel to development to = es prevent the destructive forces of the sea reaching coastal structures. They (GEL . = should be used only as short term or temporary interventions. Sediment-filled geotextile material tubes: placed parallel to shore to dissipate high-energy waves. The tubes create new avenues for dredge material disposal and produce a hard surface on which reefs can be constructed. | NBS objective Q Type of NBS @ Risks for sustainability of NBS erspaianensel/ be Revetments can disrupt natural shoreline proces- Protect infrastructure from coastal erosion by waves, currents, and wind. ses by cutting-off inshore supply of materials and can also destroy shoreline habitats and reduce the () Intervention scale width of inter-tidal beaches. Climate events can FE TRE Revetments: placed on sloping structures or against a vertical wall to affect short-term structures such as gabions and LA protect against erosion on the coast by environmental loads such as Land J road richt of sandbags F* : F: NEA waves, currents and wind and geotechnical loads and to reduce wave ANCSCAPE/ TOACS PBA OÙ WAY es ne 5 overtopping and consequential damage/Aooding of land behind. They Cr £ Let Où are typically permeable surfaces such as rock, steel wire mesh, open : : + A rte * 1 À nu stone/sand asphalt. They are flexible and allow for some degree of mo- © increases potential with other NBS O O&M considerations ga +6 £ * 24 QE Lie vement or deformation due to settlement. Drainage from overtopping a —— should be considered case by case. Beach protection, beach vegetation planting Although a design life can be predicted, structures Groynes: narrow structures of varying height and length (generally long) typically constructed perpendicu- can be damaged earlier or later. Extreme events lar to the shoreline. Used to control and manage the natural movement of beach material. À groyne system : such as hurricanes can cause damage as well as can detain or slow down the longshore drift of material by building up the material in bays. Groynes also Co-benefits ongoing developments and activities in the area. A deflect tidal currents away from the shoreline. Adjustable timber groynes can be considered. They consist of visual inspection should be carried out on a yearly removable planks between piles. Gabions are not durable, and therefore considered a short-term solution. Biodiversity fishery habitat basis and after any extreme events or large storms [page 157] ur == es ; : - - ZE Re SR ce : : Le au Pme LAURE RTE > x : o ni 2e ; - ) Le À St O Type of NBS @ Risks for sustainability of NBS l E S 1 il Ecosystem-based / hybrid Option that is often of high political and social controversy. The schemes frequently suffer from a lack of public acceptance. Managed realignment is also likely to be highly disruptive and expensi- (g)] Intervention scale ve if relocation of coastal infrastructure is requi- NBS objective red. Care should be taken to ensure that if infras- tructure is abandoned rather than relocated, that Landscape / road right of way nearby areas do not become isolated, thus leading to increased poverty Flood risk management, face sea level rise, storm surge. This management strategy aims to “create space for coastal ecosystems to persist in the face of rising sea levels by removing coastal defense structures to © increases potential with other NBS allow the rising waters to intrude. The benefits of this approach are that it allows coastal zones to retain their natural ecosystems and associated ecosystem services as well as providing certainty to local human | | O O&M considerations settlements. It also allows redirection of resources from costly hard defenses”. Once salt marshes develop, Natural infrastructure can be used to protect built large scale erosion is unlikely to occur, since salt marsh vegetation will enhance sedimentation and creation infrastructure in order to help the built infrastructu- of the area that will reduce waves and improve safety. re have a longer lifetime and to provide more storm Periodic inspections should attend the evolution protection and benefits. Wider beach profiles gai- of accretion / erosion on site and off site, physi- ned through retreating will absorb a greater propor- co-chemical parameters of sediments, vegetation, The pocess of managed realignment. CoastAdapt. Adapted from ComCoast 2006. tion of the incident way energy. Watershed mana- fauna, water quality, among others. gement and habitat rehabilitation can be adopted in = A SN conjunction with an embankment re-design. Te SN ASE | NG : : 'URNES NQ , > RS ee OQ Regional experience x | To date, the managed realignment approach has e e> © Co-benefits only been applied in North-West Europe and North America, where saltmarshes are the do- V2 minant intertidal habitat. There appears to be no Biodiversity, fishery habitat, mitigation of loss of reason creation of other wetland habitats, such as Ë. + intertidal habitat, carbon sequestration and storage, mangroves, should not be possible through realig- recreational use. nment, although such an approach has not been undertaken to date. Prior to realignment Managed realignment Coast defences present Coast defences breached Little intertidal habitat Creation of intertidal habitat [page 158] LE. O kr 1 1 O L. ( sf - I ain " tam | (11 ra ! : GE Tee > N B S1 D ©) vpe of nBs © co-benctits Ecosystem-based / hybrid Biodiversity (p)] Intervention scale @ Risks for sustainability of NBS nm , Extreme events can damage the implemented NBS objective Landscape / road right of way solution. © Increases potential with other NBS O O&M considerations Protection against local scour of piles and abutments due to water and sediment erosion. It should be noted that the erosion processes suffered by the bridge piles and abutments are part ofan intrinsic system that involves both the river course and the vegetation in and around it. There are various For a real protection ofbridges, all applicable NBS It is important to carry out technical inspections solutions to reduce the speed of deterioration of the structures. The use of rockfill and vegetation is one such as riverbank slope protection and ecosystem on the bridge structures that pay special attention the most economically and technically viable. restoration need to be put in place upstream. It to signs of incipient pathologies that indicate da- Consists of placing rocks around the piles and abutments, and the planting of aquatic plants. As an is necessary to think about protection on a larger mage or defects. The state of the enrockment and emergency measure, installation of sandbags can be considered around the piles or abutments for further scale, to ensure that upstream there is a porous soil vegetation should be monitored to replace dama- protection. that infiltrates water and carries it to the aquifers ged parts or correct any flaws it may have suffered. Revetments can also be placed in the slopes next to the abutments, to protect them from landslides. arlitio ente enr. [page 159] De - | » + ET Le, 27 À ee, --Z .: « 2 mm re "4 as - — * ” # D QE 24. : Pa er . - _ e = _ O Es D, € Ts +? : N LA € O ER ” Ds; 7219 ? P.—. PA 3 . 2 » — : 4 r sic 2 - Ep LD ‘ = er k : A - À à." Lé ee Cu — > « 8 ps ca - Re À 77 2 =. an Te rm, - mL O Type of NBS © Co-benefits Ecosystem-based / hybrid Biodiversity, in the case of revegetation. NBS objective @ Intervention scale @ Risks for sustainability of NBS Protection against local scour of piles and abutments due to water and sediment erosion. Riverbank works can be effective for the area to protect, but they can also change the natural flow Landscape / road right of way Extreme events can damage the implemented regime and have undesirable effects on downstream areas. It is essential to know the behavior of the solution flow, the erosion processes and the forces that can act on the structures. Inadequate knowledge of these can lead to the failure of the proposed protection system. Although these measures are usually partially,destroyed or washed away, it is more economical and : : , , easier to repair them than to repair the bridge. © Increases potential with other NBS O O&M considerations *_ Channeling dikes: structures that are built from the abutments of a bridge and extend upstream. They must be located parallel to the abutments and the distance between them must be equal to the distance For a real protection ofbridges, all applicable NBS It is important to carry out technical inspections between the abutment walls. They are built with a soil or sand embankment that should preferably be such as riverbank slope protection and ecosystem on the bridge structures that pay special attention protected with rock and at least with grass or vegetation. Filters may be required or the granulometry restoration need to be put in place upstream. It is to signs of incipient pathologies that indicate da- may need to be varied to avoid the loss of fine material. necessary to think about protection on a larger scale, mage or defects. The state of the riverbank structu- °_ Spurs: Their purpose is to gently deflect the current and hold objects that may drag the course. They to ensure that upstream there is a porous soil that res should be monitored to replace damaged parts, require monitoring and possible partial cleaning or reconstruction. The spurs or breakwaters can be built infiltrates water and carries it to the aquifers and correct any flaws it may have suffered, or detect with rocks, gabions, wood, or bamboo. not to the surface courses. potential negative effects on downstream areas, due to changes in flow regime. [page 160] Pr tios Der SR STARS She be RS AR Res & Prices ©. Ve END ec. ARR CUT : LR AE REP 0x 28 SE PAT T2 yalri ANSE ENS ; DAT 2: NRA “is ot: D NN RUE Le av A 0 70, FR NON © Hat Ne et Dee RS PR Re re 5,6, ane ee De M Te TR TO. MMS PR UE à ee nn ee Un HA TAN PE nm À LOU = = 7 à Hg) À , ” RAT æ- Lis DU LE PT ES mn), RD cn Eee à 4 = a; re SERA pa r è DT PET Em 7 ’ SE TE ; RSS AR CR um = : LR Sos 7 =" Er ES Le LE Se ce PR nd see RE RE nn Se = Re LE Re -— — ae RSS RÉ 2 LE SERRES = D D tee Re == > - EE maps 2 mg RE OR RS D RP | ue = = - EE ee = S RE SE PE Re | SE — RL + = = 2 ÉE PRÉ — - TE Re ne, EE — TTL FE ee RS - D , — . LE = ee —« 254 = EE. = EE e - ——— RE Te SE pe A 1 Et, RE s SR SE = | = ue D | == RS [page 161] 7 se ss Es a | ANNEX 1 Useful resources io TETE R ÿ re, 33 ANNEX 2 Glossary . e : LS Methodology for producing fr. PE TS à “| ANNEX 3 vulnerability maps for Haiti DS NE "8-6: and results = | ANNEX 4 LÉ gEspee suitable for Step 1 to 4: Identifying nature-based solutions = ANNEX ) for road infrastructure resilience in Haiti [page 162] £ 1 £ e e * Useful ° serul resources The existing literature for the application of Table 30 provides a list of some of the recent NBS to strengthen the resilience of transpor- guidelines and other documents for the use of tation infrastructure is scarce, and related to NBS, including some of the existing literature the use of NBS for the protection of transport on the application of these approaches for the infrastructure in coastal areas. protection of transport infrastructure. Table 30: List of existing guidelines and reports for application of NBS in the transport sector for the general use of NBS Year of QE EE AE Resource D Description - Objectives Application publication NBS & TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Nature-based solutions for 2019 The guide aims to provide transportation professionals transportation professionals with relevant, timely, and science-based Overall process for the Coastal Highway Resilience: An information regarding the complete project implementation process for nature-based solutions that will enable them to implementation of NBS Implementation Guide (US Department consider nature-based solutions for protecting coastal highways® as part of a broader portfolio, or system, of resilience for the protection of of Transportation. Federal Highway measures, under conditions ranging from typical to extreme weather events and sea level rise. transportation infrastructure Administration, August 2019 Le in coastal areas Use ) The guide addresses various examples of nature-based solutions applicable for coastal areas (1.e. tidal marshes, mangroves, maritime forests, reefs, beaches, and dunes), to mitigate storm surge flooding, wave-related damage, erosion, shoreline re- treat, and the potential impacts of sea level rise, which pose threats to coastal infrastructure. Green Infrastructure Design for 2019 The report aims to provide an overview of considerations for the proactive integration of ecological protection measures. Enhancing biodiversity Transport Projects. À Road Map to These measures include management, planning, and design activities in road and raïlway projects to balance construction through green infrastructure Protecting Asias Wildlife Biodiversity with the conservation of Asia remaining biodiversity. The considerations are applicable to both new and existing transport designs for Transport (ADB, December, 2019) projects, and even standalone “retrofit” applications to address existing impacts on biodiversity. Infrastructure Green Rural Infrastructure Guide 2019 The MRD Green Rural Infrastructure Guide (an adaptation guide for the rural infrastructure sector) was developed to support Adaptation technologies/ (Ministry of Rural Development, effective, on-the-ground implementation of Cambodia’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan (CCAP 2014-2018). The Guide measures for rural Cambodia, March 2019) provides guiding principles and insights for policy makers, planners and practitioners on how to apply climate resilience to infrastructure development their planning and project implementation. The guide is divided into three parts and comprises of 30 adaption technologies/ (incl. road, canal, reservoir, measures and 12 case studies. It presents a matrix table of adaptation technologies/measures for rural infrastructure devel- embankments slope etc.) opment, describes some appropriate adaptation technologies/measures for sustainable development of road, canal, reservoir, embankments slopes and stream banks, and sustainable rural water supply and management systems, and capacity building and showcases case studies of where the respective adaptation technologies have been applied in Cambodia and other countries. 194 195 [page 163] £ Year of — Dr CE £ Resource D Description - Objectives Application e publication e 0 e Community-based Bui-Engineering for The manual provides guidance to communities and local government agencies on the occurrence, assessment and mitigation Using low-cost bio- Eco-safe Roadsides in Nepal (Devkota of road construction-induced landslides and erosion. It is an important contribution to explaining low cost bio-engineering engineering practices for et al., 2014) practices for communities, roads committees and citizen groups which was used to support Nepals road extension work to rural earthen roads improve the safety and quality of rural earthen roads in the country. White Paper: Nature - Based Solutions 2018 While natureXbased solutions have been used extensively across a diverse array of coastal settings, they are not commonly Examples of NBS applied for for Coastal Highway Resilience (US deployed within the transportation sector. In some cases, understanding of the engineering tools and methods for designing coastal highway’s resilience. Department of Transportation. Federal natureXbased solutions to achieve a specific outcome is lacking. This white paper addresses these issues by providing exam- Highway Administration, February ples of natureXbased solutions and highlighting the best available science that describes their performance as solutions for 2018) coastal highways’ resilience. This white paper serves as input to an upcoming round of regional peer exchanges on natureN based solutions, and constitutes an incremental step toward developing an implementation guide for using natureXbased solutions to improve the resilience of coastal highways to extreme events and sea level rise. Engineering with Nature: an Atlas, 2021 Engineering With Nature: An Atlas, Volume 2 showcases EWN principles and practices “in action” through 62 proj- Diverse portfolio of case Volume 2 (Bridges et al. 2018) ects from around the world. These exemplary projects demonstrate what it means to partner with nature to deliver studies where the EWN engineering solutions with triple-win benefits. The collection of projects included were developed and constructed by approach has been applied many governments, private sector, non-governmental organizations, and other organizations. By photographs and nar- rative descriptions, the EWN Atlas was developed to inspire interested readers and practitioners with the potential to engineer with nature. Practical Guide to Implementing 2020 The guide outlines a set of tools, experiences (case studies), and techniques that may be applied to leverage near-term invest- Overall process to Green-Gray Infrastructure (Green-Gray ments to fundamentally shift the practice of civil engineering and construction towards designing and building with nature, be followed in the Community of Practice, 2020). using a hybrid green-gray infrastructure approach, that provides benefits of biodiversity and community climate adaptation. implementation of Hybrid interventions Integrating Green and Grey. Creating 2019 This joint report by the World Bank and the World Resources Institute seeks to guide developing country service providers Approach to integrating Next Generation Infrastructure and their partners on how to integrate natural systems into their infrastructure programs in ways that better protect their green and grey (Browder et al. 2019) populations and achieve service delivery goals. It provides insights, solutions, and examples that will guide the World Banks infrastructure solutions thinking on how “putting nature to work” can help meet its core mandates related to reducing extreme poverty, promoting shared prosperity, and meeting the challenges of climate adaptation and resiliency. The report is intended for a broad audience of stakeholders that are key to advancing the integration of green and gray infrastructure solutions on the ground. 196 197 [page 164] x ä Ê Resource ou où Description - Objectives Application £ publication e e 0 e Thinknature Nature-based Solutions 2019 Developed in the framework of the ThinkNature project, this Handbook aims to gather and promote state-of-the-art Overall process for the Handbook (EU, 2019) knowledge regarding Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), comprising a comprehensive guide to all relevant actors. To this implementation of NBS end, each aspect of NBS is investigated, from project development to financing and policy making, and is presented in a concise and comprehensive way. This Handbook contributes to expanding the knowledge base about the effectiveness of NBS, supporting the implementation of NBS through enhancing their replicability and upscaling, utilising the knowledge and experience of stakeholders, and proposing a comprehensive methodological approach for innovation. Engineering with Nature: an Atlas 2018 This atlas aims to highlight and share examples of the Engineering with Nature® practice—and efforts to simultaneously Diverse portfolio of case (Bridges et al. 2018) achieve engineering, environmental, and social benefits —from around the world. These projects are presented and con- studies where the EWN sidered in this atlas using an Engineering with Nature® lens as a means of revealing the use of nature-based approaches approach has been applied and the range of benefits that can be achieved. This atlas is a collection of 56 projects that illustrate a diverse portfolio of contexts, motivations, and successful outcomes. The projects were developed collaboratively to integrate natural processes into engineering strategies that support navigation, flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, or other purposes. Implementing 2017 The document aims to present five principles (describing key considerations to consider when planning NBS), and imple- Overall process for imple- . _. mentation guidance (describing the timeline and activities needed for the planning, assessment, design, implementation, mentation NBS for flood risk nature-based flood protection: Principles . . . . . . monitoring, management, and evaluation of NBS) for flood risk management, as an alternative to or complementary to con- management and implementation guidance (World . . Le . Lo . . Bank 2017) ventional engineering measures. It is intended for professionals in risk management and climate adaptation, NGOSs, donors, and international organizations. Nature-based Solutions to address 2016 This report aims to provide conservation and development practitioners, policy makers and researchers, as well as civil NBS framework and case global societal challenges (International society organizations, with a useful basis for understanding what Nature-based Solutions involve and what they offer in studies Union for Conservation of Nature.2) terms of benefits for human and nature, by contributing to resolving societal challenges. The report proposes a definitional framework for NES, including a set of general principles for any NBS intervention. The report also defines the scope of NES as an umbrella concept embracing a number of different ecosystem-based approaches. The report considers several potential parameters that can be used to build an operational framework, on the basis of which the efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of NDS interventions can be systematically assessed. The report outlines how the Ecosystem Approach offers a solid foundation for the NES concept. Finally, the report presents ten case studies of NDS applications from around the world, which represent the range of ecosystem services and societal challenges that can be addressed by NbS interventions, looks at some of the lessons learned from these cases and discusses the importance of building an evidence base for NDS to support future replication and upscaling. 198 199 [page 165] £ Year of 39 Bye DE £ | Resource Description - Objectives Application h e publication e 0 e Reports, Articles & Papers Economics of Nature-based Solutions: 2020 The document is devoted to the economic analysis of NBS based on the benefits that they provide, looking to three Lie categories of objectives: mitigation of climate change, adaptation to the effects of climate change and provision of other Current Status and Future Priorities Êl 7] Es Li. 8% k P ’ . 8 P | (UNEP 2020) ecosystem services, as a result of maintaining or restoring natural systems. It provides a review of a number of applica- ? tions of such analyses as well as examples to illustrate common topics of application and important conceptual points. Understanding the value and limits of 2020 This article highlights the rise of NES in climate policy—focusing on their potential for climate change adaptation as well nature-based solutions to climate change as mitigation—and discusses barriers to their evidence-based implementation. It outlines the major financial and gover- and other global challenges (Seddon et nance challenges to implementing NBS at scale, highlighting avenues for further research, and stresses the urgent need for al., 2020) natural and social scientists to engage with policy makers to ensure that NDS can achieve their potential to tackle both the climate and biodiversity crisis while also contributing to sustainable development. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions’. Nature-based Solutions for Disaster 2019 This booklet aims to support the understanding of how NBS can enhance DRM, and how to begin integrating these Risk Management (World Bank, 2019) approaches into projects. It is intended for staff at governments, development finance institutions (DFIs), and other development institutions. The booklet illustrates NBS through 14 real-world examples, covering the World Banks Nature-based Solutions Program and World Bank projects already investing in NBS components, examples of NBS for three types of hazards (coastal flooding and erosion, urban stormwater flooding, and river flooding), and guidance to support implementation of NBS in DRM, including a high-level review of emerging policies and financing ap- proaches that encourage the use of NBS Comparing the cost effectiveness of 2018 This articles applies a quantitative risk assessment framework to assess coastal flood risk (from climate change and economic nature-based and coastal adaptation: exposure growth) across the United States Gulf of Mexico coast to compare the cost effectiveness of different adaptation À case study from the Gulf Coast of measures, including nature-based (e.g. oyster reef restoration), structural or grey (e.g., seawalls) and policy measures (e.g. the United States (Reguero et al. April home elevation). The study demonstrates that the cost effectiveness of nature-based, grey and policy measures can be com- 2018)40 pared quantitatively with one another, and that the cost effectiveness of adaptation becomes more attractive as climate change and coastal development intensifies in the future. It also shows that investments in nature-based adaptation could meet multiple objectives for environmental restoration, adaptation, and flood risk reduction. 200 201 [page 166] 8 2 ! ANNEX ? e * Glossary Biodiversity: Biological diversity means the resources that provides sustainable delivery of variability among living organisms from all ecosystem services in an equitable way (CBD sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine Secretariat 2000). and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecolog- ical complexes of which they are part; this in- Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA): The use cludes diversity within species, between species of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of and of ecosystems (article 2, Convention on an overall adaptation strategy to help people to Biological Diversity). adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. Ecosystem-based adaptation uses the range of op- Capacity building: In the context of climate portunities for the sustainable management, con- change, the process of developing the technical servation, and restoration of ecosystems to provide skills and institutional capability in developing services that enable people to adapt to the impacts countries and economies in transition to enable of climate change. It aims to maintain and in- them to effectively address the causes and re- crease the resilience and reduce the vulnerability sults of climate change. of ecosystems and people in the face of the ad- verse effects of climate change. Ecosystem-based Climate change resilience: Climate resilience adaptation is most appropriately integrated into is the capacity of a system to “anticipate, ab- broader adaptation and development strategies”. sorb, accommodate, or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient Ecosystem services: The benefits people ob- manner, including through ensuring the pres- tain from ecosystems. These include provision- ervation, restoration, or improvement ofits es- ing services such as food and water; regulating sential basic structures and functions. services such as flood and disease control; cul- tural services such as spiritual, recreational, and Co-benefits: The positive effects that a policy cultural benefits; and supporting services such or measure aimed at one objective might have as nutrient cycling that maintain the condi- on other objectives, irrespective of the net effect tions for life on Earth. Some of the ecosystem on overall social welfare. Co-beneñits are of- services can enhance people” adaptive capacity ten subject to uncertainty and depend on local towards climate change (MEA 2005). circumstances and implementation practices, among other factors. Co-beneñits are also re- Extreme weather event: An extreme weather ferred to as ancillary benefits. event is an event that is rare at a particular place and time of year. Definitions of rare vary, but Ecosystem approach: Strategy for the inte- an extreme weather event would normally be as grated management of land, water and living rare as or rarer than the 10th or 90th percentile 202 [page 167] 2 of a probability density function estimated from ridge to reef profile. They are cost-effective and ë observations. By definition, the characteristics of simultaneously provide environmental, social, and : what is called extreme weather may vary from economic benefits and help build resilience. : place to place in an absolute sense. When a pat- tern of extreme weather persists for some time, Ocean acidification: Ocean acidification refers such as a season, it may be classed as an extreme to a reduction in the pH of the ocean over an climate event, especially if it yields an average or extended period, typically decades or longer, total that is itself extreme (e.g., drought or heavy which is caused primarily by uptake of carbon rainfall over a season). dioxide from the atmosphere but can also be caused by other chemical additions or subtrac- Exposure: The presence of people, livelihoods, tions from the ocean. Anthropogenic ocean species or ecosystems, environmental functions, acidification refers to the component of pH services, and resources, infrastructure, or eco- reduction that is caused by human activity”. nomic, social, or cultural assets in places and settings that could be adversely affected Participatory approaches: A range of approach- es involving communities in project planning Hard intervention: Typically used historically and implementation, from passive participation as coastal defenses, hard interventions refer to (where people are informed or provide infor- engineered designed and built structures. mation) to consultation (where the information provided is used for decision making by others), Hybrid intervention: Combination of na- to collaborative or active participation (where ture-based, hard, and non-structural interven- decisions are made with or by local people). tions that may be used to protect infrastructure by providing protection, while also providing Risk: The potential for consequences where other ecosystem service benefits. something of value is at stake and where the outcome is uncertain, recognizing the diversity Indigenous knowledge or local knowledge: of values. Risk is often represented as probabil- Knowledge that is unique to a given culture ity of occurrence of hazardous events or trends or society. It is the basis for local-level deci- multiplied by the impacts if these events or sion making in agriculture, healthcare, food trends occur. Risk results from the interaction preparation, education, natural resource man- of vulnerability, exposure, and hazard. In this agement, and a host of other activities in rural report, the term risk is used primarily to refer communities. Ît contrasts with the internation- to the risks of climate-change impacts. al knowledge system generated by universities, research institutions and private firms. Vulnerability: The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, ad- Nature-based intervention: Intervention proj- verse effects of climate change, including cli- ects that are inspired and supported by nature. mate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is They provide habitat for plants and animals a function of the character, magnitude, and rate through careful consideration of the site and stra- of climate variation to which a system is ex- tegic placement of components along the entire posed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity. 203 [page 168] 8 8 a £ 2 Ê e e This annex describes the process followed for (Centre National de l'Information Géo- In relation to the vector-type layers, the follow- Regarding the raster data, 3,515 LiDAR im- the development of vulnerability maps in Haiti. Spatiale, CNIGS), and included vector in- ing information was obtained: ages were processed, with which the following formation (hydrography, roads, and adminis- information was obtained: trative limits) and raster information (Digital *_ Principal and Secondary rivers and water bodies To obtain the vulnerability maps, it is necessary Elevation Model acquired through high reso- °_ Classification of the main roads (communal, + Digital Elevation Model at country and to obtain and process geospatial information lution LiDAR).This information was compiled departmental and national) departmental level from various sources and at different scales. and processed in a Geographic Information ° 200 m buffer as area of influence of roads * Analysis of the degree of slope The information used was provided by the System (ArcGIS, ESRI). ° 150 m buffer as area of influence ofhydrology * Contour lines at 50 m National Geo-spatial Information Center °_ Crossings and bridges °_ Coastline and areas susceptible to flooding O Vector data processing © LiDAR processing Le X re EE EG AS € PES Roads Hydrography Coastline Classification Classification Col à = 2 RE / Ce 4 National Road Departmental Road Principale Secondaire LiDAR Mosaics Full Mosaic - Haïti Digital Elevation Model Contours 8.515 images Crossing Haiti BE + NS) \ Depañtmeñts 2 Buffer { p se 4 RTS , Analysis Units Slopes National Road Buffer Departmental Road Buffer Crossing / Bridges Crossing / Bridges 204 205 [page 169] 8 =j= = 8 5 Results from the vulnerability analysis ë < < e e e , e Grand'anse department The Grand’Anse department has approxi- The following figures provide an overview mately 225 km of main roads of which 43 km of the distribution of slope grade, coastal are Community/Tertiary Roads, 121 km are proximity and crossings of the different Departement/Secondary Roads, and 59 km are types of roads (community, department and National Roads. national roads). Grand'Anse Departemental Routes © Slope grade © Coastal proximity © Crossings © Slope grade © Coastal proximity © Crossings 3.05 ox 10.22 0.89 14.12 1.08 H\o Mlow Med High Ho Mlow Med High M\o BMPrincip Secund H\o Mlow Med High H\o Mlow Med High H\o MPrincip Secund Communal Routes National Routes O Slope grade © Coastal proximity © Crossings © Slope grade O Coastal proximity © Crossings 2.78 710 3.96 4.46 4.31 0.60 5.03 0.77 84.99 H\o Milow Med High H\o Milow Med High M\o MPrincip Secund H\o Mlow Med High Ho Mlow Med High M\o BMPrincip Secund 206 207 [page 170] £ e e List of species suitable for NBS in Haïti As described in Section 2.1, Haiti has a di- In all cases, it will be necessary to assure that versity of ecosystems, each with its own char- plants are procured from sustainable sources and acteristic flora and fauna. When considering not, for example, taken from the wild. To achieve which species is appropriate in any given lo- this, in anticipation of the need for revegetating or cation it will be important to receive guidance restoring impacted areas, a project might include from experienced ecologists with knowledge of funds for the establishment early in the project the impacted habitats. life-cycle of one or more native plant nurseries to NBS approaches might include a two- produce the required volume of the appropriate phased objective, the first, to protect exposed species. These might also potentially create new soil on hillsides from the impact of heavy rain- income generating opportunities for local people. fall to reduce erosion and the second, to re-es- Below is a provisional list of a selection of tablish native habitat (dry forest, humid forest, plant species that might be considered (assum- wetland, dune etc.). To achieve the first ob- ing a sustainable source is available) for habi- jective a rapidly growing, native, ‘weedy” her- tat restoration and ground cover. More infor- baceous ground cover would be more effective mation can be found in here”. Additionally, than planting slow growing trees. For restoring The Jardin Botanique de Cayes and The National habitat, a diversity of native herbaceous plants, Botanical Garden of Haïti (JBNH) at Source shrubs and trees appropriate for the particular Zabeth (Ganthier, West Dept.) might be able to habitat impacted will be required. provide the needed expertise 208 [page 171] * , ps … _ », Ce PA Ê ate7 2 ES MAIN mr Ce è 4 - æ- - TELE CIRE ES Por a v 2 AR SCENE O7 7e ve AE RER ENDRRse 7 NET AT A RS ee D Et < DRE ES TE A Le £, : de NT RE ee ee ue PART RAT ' Fr” =: E Ver TEE ; È RS Ge PEL NES = en D 4 ae 4 n æ S ms 7 JL car ; À N gs. Er # É LE a 1, LOU AURAS A TES + ES CR, * k Mere PEER ne RS TE SE. as Rat ms * rs Lv = CEE Se 3 = ST: Fe LUE SET ES CT ee dr ES 50 x TRE SE 4 “ TS D en n: S RSA ME TR, ) te = NE . s À f à" " D ee + PART _" = 14} # = un) \4 hi | Ls ) = à “ > Fr +1 Le #- er" À Ÿ . 7 = > ed = ” 6 + e En ù (24 & ÿ 1 : Y [page 172] a 8 x 0 0 è Mountain Habitats < e av 1 Mr” ANUT Va w Vie, NE: LATIN SI un Er. #7 CE # SECRET. AU A Cr ne" : FE 5 PONLI ER Le ER PR ne FR tee 7 | ns ka 4 e er Res ; ET LR TU EE) es SEE Pilosocereu polygonus Melocactus intortus / Melon de costa, Opuntia tayllorii Cactus / Cactus siège de belle-mère / Cactus Nopal, Cactus / Cactus or | ‘Par 17 ee AO 5 JA HT ERTAN EN 4 } 778 ÿ ASS W } » a L l AD) (Ai APE D) min Gute *] A JAY - f | Tee NU PE OUT 60 A) C2 l \ "OR : FT pr AN Ÿ la | È A / La . ETS 4 « ve AP) 4 A À : 1# | FE J Rd 7 LA 4 £ n y 4 ” AN RE NE A Melocactus Lemairei Opuntia tuna Selenicereus boeckmannii Cactus / Cactus Nopal, Cactus / Cactus Pitayita Nocturna Organillo / Cactus 210 [page 173] a 8 x s 2 E < e CR CMIRR L. ù nu ï + K | » +. » + és SUEDE b #tre Mie se F Pal | de Ur , .: La C4 F I | ” | > ” * : Es : 7, e 3 ‘ $ a? V jnÏ© x hr o Le à LN à r, LS 170 : At à Fr 4 / p* | \ je : 2) MT PP. | » V4 : - NO .. » B { ÿ + + f : Melochia manducata -/ Herbaceous Melochia a rapidly growing “weedy" native Salvia Shrub Samuelssonia verrucosa plant - good for ground cover is a species of concern Fax A EXO TR ER RS 1 7 Ze \r ed - ;, 17500 * PAUUES nd da te ! PAT A) /, à La ! ÿ 8 > DÉCOR EU « gta as as PAT: W#, RE | Ds. NAN > h Re) NE AN D NE OT — /,- Pc Pa VV S « RÉF À ù À 2/9 e V, 7? \. F NN L- RS D LATE ANA TUE QU) HOT F À /) À Lun ME s | CHENE SA TU NA VUE EUX AN NI ESS À “AW NY BEST \ | IN) FRS XIE $ ÿ A , ARE à \ / 4] De ET CES & ‘ Ta è SA x - 4 | SP ie», LA RAT 6 LL 6" 0 À : Les EHARIZ - — LR an is 2 ke v 2 Où EPA { MA " we À k Fe , , Chrysopogon zizanioides AVetiver /herba- eh = Fr: 6 RAT: i \W J ci ceous - Vertiver exotic (though not invasive) ns F7 PES Se vs ‘à à € commonly used for slope stabilization, but —— nn potentially problematic for soil erosion if pulled up for its deeps roots used in lucra- Calyptronoma plumeriana Calyptronoma rivalis tive perfume trade. Manaca, / Palm Tree Palm tree / Palm tree 211 [page 174] a 8 x d < e FRANS 3 n Le l DS S LME nt PV © ms» tt LCR" an ui er A en j NL IR RENE , en ES ed 7 og Se » pi « ce (| EE / ; À | À $ ENS À ÿ \ La # >" 1 nn © Le Le. "24 L œù QUE À EE pa ë ù > s 13 14 4 15 Coccothrinax boschiva Coccothrinaz boschiana Cascabela thevetia Guano de Barreras / Palm tree Guano de Barreras / Palm tree Cabalonga / Shrub sn NT AIRE SR. F à > s = se” ‘ 2 A : = à \» Z “ A e - \ = SG es RELAX Va re Es | NRA ER Dee dE er NS ; > | \ 1 \ SE es * ol. « N PA. | | — es EP AS S v 4 : ER EE Es À Ne à - Ÿ ? : —. = : « d — = EE "RS Re de ee 4 À LE] LR 0 CRE "SR, \ sr V7. Ÿ FRS MISE 4 d AL sis æ ‘ SELS HAE Ts À us Na à VO 18 Cascabela thevetia / Cabalonga / Shrub - Croton eluteria Phyllanthus acuminatus / Grosella de Non native and very invasive Cascarilla, cascarilla / Shrub Jamaica / Jamaican gooseberry tree / shrub 212 [page 175] a 8 x d < 2 - HR 4 =. DR RER 5 | 1 ’} Le LP SE SE SEP, & fra Lu | DRE. > © = ARS 1 QE FE : El «| FA . & > L dy, = . | 2 V2 CHER os F #7, S à : Se — # PR SM Le ue Sn Li ss RU # à 4 Fe Er. ë v “ LA NT. = D 20 } 21 Senna domingensis / Senna / Shrub - Vulnerable Adelia ricinella Albizia berteriana / Coreano blanco, Abey native (a good choice if it can be sourced) Jia blanca (white Jia) /Tree blanco, moruno de costa /tree D” : … 2‘ 4 We SAR # . L: A F De cd L TA, à J à É ) LAS ER ANS : Lee . A 4 EX ‘ma » IR AN LCR 15 pe É",2 rees ee DATE Lie } PT 44 # L D FRE ë. Y Apr 7 — #5 <Y FR CUS à . { Lo ER LEURS # RS TE TS | 2: DRE "7 x < À UT Da: 1 r : 22 Mi: POST 2 | 24 Coccoloba diversifolia Erythrina corallodendron Uvero /Tree Dry and Coastal habitats Coral tree /Tree 213 [page 176] 8 x s 2 E < Te RAR FES r 4 F FA 5 Ly# des, FETE Tir 2 * ST Q AE SAS x 4% À AN Pr à dB“ 2) A els: si RUE TT Duo Po < 27 é ds ? US 7 CA RE 4 pa Guaiacum santum Juniperus gracilior Pinus occidentalis American guayacan /Tree - Endangered Sabina, cedre /Tree - Critically endangered Créole fine, pin créole /Tree 2 : \2/ ASE # V0 V7 , AUS ." Re Le «. 2 " nm 18 | 3 A ra 6 2 : o ML AR. a}'4 A L VA 4 » t HN %n A 7 4 A « ? A 4 A PASS RS XL AY Lo LE MD HR, "2 2 FF ) La à VA (> "1 # | Ke | vd ; ‘ L RS: « if 4} re FES AUEON LE MONS ANA Nf D 171 KA RE ANS Pt, UE TUNRSE- FA Posocarpus aristulatus /Palo de Cruz (wood of the cross) / tree - vulnerable 214 [page 177] 8 Productive land . e The selection of these species was made taking otic invasive which have a high risk of escape into consideration their market value, their rel- into and negative impacts in natural habitats atively fast growth, their potential use as tim- and therefore should be excluded even though ber, and their current presence in different parts all are likely already established in Haiti. It is of the country. However, some of them are ex- recommended to not use the invasive species. = Fodder and : Frut Species 10 Forest Species medicinal plants Mango Tree Elephant grass (Pennisetum Cedar (Juniperus gracilior, (Mangifera indica), purpureum) - Invasive Cedrela odorata, L.) *; Avocado Tree (Persea Guinea grass (Panicum Frene (Simaruba glauca), americana); maximum Jacq.) - Invasive Acacia (Racosperma Sweet Orange Tree Citronella (Cymbopogon mangium, Acacia scleroxyla, (Citrus sinensis) ; citratus Stapf.) - Invasive L.)) - Invasive; Chadèque Citrus maxima Cassia (Cassia siamea L. (aussi Citrus grandis où & Cassia spectabilis, L.) itrus de ; Citrus decumana) ; Mahogany (Khaya Lemon Tree (Citrus senegalensis); li . imonum) ; Oak (Quercus Pedonculata, Carambolier (Averrhoa Catalpa longissima Jacq.); bola). carambola) Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - Invasive; Casuarina (Casuarina equisetifolia, L.) - Invasive; Capable (Colubrina ferruginosa, L.) Cashew (Anacardium occidentale). * Note : These are two species of cedar, Juniperus gracilior is a species endemic to the island of Hispaniola; however in Haiti, Cedrela odorata is used for reforestation activities. 215 [page 178] È Dune, beach, coastal restoration < Coastal species are almost all by definition, species that may be suitable for the implemen- P Y P y P pan-tropical, due to their natural marine dis- tation of Nature-based Solutions in Haitrs tribution and therefore widespread. The main coastal areas are: Dunes K, , 1 y n à n A — M AUNL RE. e. | ES * y | À »- » à “4 | 9 sÆ : her — - RE À Ur SR FT > |; tite LE - æe * M re ÿ au > g »= { M ” = je: Re LRQ a : . ne RE A RU de LORS PU MES …»…,, 4 ln QUE F2," ue : # Le L L] /] S | { : | < “ * LA . > » x £ À ù CS , 1 DETTE n F4 Ÿ Ve Sesuvium portulacastrum Ipomoea pes-caprae ‘ » nn 74 w 4 j mr sas 7 er LEE \ UN TA RS Mare * RES Lu 77 é Fe à : = LE N= us KE S RU : : ie 1 Di À à ».” : en — DL PORT OS - A7 «CR SUN Er eme SD Vo TR Canavalia rosea Galium arenarium: gaillet des sables 216 [page 179] a 8 x s 2 E < e COLLE INSEE. SAT: ÿ = DES NENRr dal. + TE SES Phbié Ai È te TES 1: Lee RU, / LÉ L A LP 7. PE + DIS LCL 7e 4 £ 5 SE + Te m2 / AR 74 Dr ER \ PT SR ñ ? = Le 10E ers Fr 72 7-2 IIS HS, £ | be Ts Type Pr, À + NEA Be an” | FPS ZA ICE: (OR Ar Sur i à 4f42 d É ee ef) Fa h ie 25 D étèes mn 7 LAN | ; y LÉ [4 | ACT 2 ( 7 A7 Le à DA LA f | CE s pe fs L Murs OR Pourpier de mer: Honckenya peploides Rizophorae mangle / Red mangrove, Palétuvier rouge /Tree ; MP. LV : ” - : . s” u - Re, VELAV PPS #4 ù Er ut sa NE LE Ÿ Nr 5 28: 4 14 Poe, à de à \ es." 60 0. D qd + » nf L : € 7 | ni 4 Le \ 1° | ts Le : ; A A PRE @' DA : V } . : é { %: D 6 a à É LP NV it . > 2 pe sit F- | , : ws i L | Conocarpues Erectus / Button mangrove, Button Wood /Tree* = É | vu f d \ Note: The use of this species is not common due to lack of knowl- LL 1 1! \ | ie CUIII fl edge and research on its development. It is recommended that an S \ La TR evaluation be carried out prior to its selection for restoration. The IN { D. 7 White mangle (Palétuvier blanc, Lagunularia racemes) is not includ- ed in this list because it does not resist to salinity and pollution Avicennia germinan / Black mangrove, ManglierJaune /Tree conditions which are common at present. 217 [page 180] L ANNEX © e e Step 1 to 4: Identifying nature-based solutions for road infrastructure resilience in Haïti This annex presents an example of a pos- Guidelines: The exercise consists of 4 con- sible exercise that could be carried out with secutive steps that include guiding questions stakeholders for the identification of NBS to to advice participants on what information is strengthen the resilience of road infrastructure needed to complete each step. These steps are in Haiti. It follows Steps 1 to 4 as presented interdependent, which means that the infor- previously in Section 5. mation from each step is needed to inform the next step. Please use the tables provided as Objective ofthe exercise: This exercise is based a format and provide summary information. on the phased approach to planning and imple- Attached is a map showing the vulnerability of menting the NBS for road resilience that was a section of the South Department. This map carried out in Haiti. The objective of this exer- will be used throughout the exercise. Before the cise is to provide participants with an opportu- exercise, please explore the map and in partic- nity to explore the practical steps needed to plan ular the highlighted area to better understand and implement solutions based on nature. the context. Q Road infrastructure in the South Department à \ A LE | >. — Nul _— Low = Medium — High 218 [page 181] Step 1: Situation analysis to define the scope and the problem È < 1.1 Ecosystem definition . Identify the type of ecosystems that exist where ed portion of the map. Please answer the fol- the road infrastructure is built in the highlight- lowing questions: + _Identify the ecosystem (mountain, coast, etc.) where the road infrastructure is located. * Whatis the state of the ecosystem? (For example, degraded / fragile / healthy)? *_ Whatare the factors that have affected / are affecting the ecosystem and degrading it? Table: Example of answers: Ecosystem _ State of the Description type ecosystem It is a fragile ecosystem with very little vege- tation. The risk of accelerated erosion due to deforestation coupled with steep slopes is very M i D out high. Indeed, their level of vulnerability is very egraded high compared to the hazards to which the southern department is exposed. For coastal ecosystems, levels of vulnerability range from high to mostly medium. In addi- tion to being degraded, these ecosystems are also very fragile because of their exposure to several anthropogenic and climatic hazards. Coast These include coastal erosion by tides, which is | Degraded and fragile often accelerated by the uncontrolled extraction of sand, weed farming, deforestation, flooding and sedimentation from rivers. Anarchic coast- al construction, blocking the natural outlets for run-off water, is also a significant fragility factor. 219 [page 182] 8 ES = = OT È Step 2: Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment < e . 2.1 Risk analysis Identify the threats posed by natural hazards temperatures, sea level rise, landslides). Please and climate change (heavy rains, droughts, rising use the map and answer the following questions: *_ What hazards have you observed in the road structure in the past? , *_ Which of these hazards had the greatest impact on the road structure? Table: Example of answers: Danger Description * In Haiti we generally have thunderstorms/heavy rains which increase runoff from adjacent lands, contributing to flooding Heavy rains, landslides, from surface water and overloading of drainage systems. droughts, rising *_ Compared to the topographical situation, the risks of increased temperatures slope instability and landslides are remarkably high. + Therefore, on mountain ecosystems and based on the map, these risks are very high. * In the coastal zone, there may be an increased probability of . . infrastructure failure due to sea level rise and coastal erosion. Sea level rise, landslide . . . . * These risks are identified for road infrastructure at the level of coastal ecosystems. 2.2 Hazard impact and Exposure analysis Describe the main impacts of the hazards iden- of the road infrastructure. Please use the map tified in 1A and identify the level of exposure and answer the following questions: *_ What are the impacts of the identified hazards on road infrastructure and ecosystems? *_ What is the area of potential impact? 220 [page 183] £ Table: Example of answers: È < e Threats Impacts on road infrastructure Impacts on ecosystems e *_ Increased water and sludge runoff that can cause pavement destruction and overloading . . . . * Erosion. Heavy rains, landslides, of drainage works. . . . *_ Destruction of droughts, rising ° Traffic obstruction is a . landscape structure. temperatures major safety concern. . °_ Loss of vegetation. *_ Increased frequency of fog episodes, which reduce visibility and road access. *_ This could cause coastal erosion . . . *_ Destruction of . and an increase in groundwater Sea level rise mangroves and levels that could cause enormous wetlands damage to the base of the road. + Destruction of the route °_ Coastal and soil erosion * Running surface *_ Soil Erosion and Heavy rains degradation (destruction, Habitat Degradation sedimentation, and others) in Fragile Ecosystems . + Destruction or obstruction . . Landslides *_ Soil and habitat loss of the road 2.3 Vulnerability analysis Identify the level of vulnerability in the area presented in the case study map. Please use the map and answer the following question: °* _ Whatis the level of vulnerability of the road in the area highlighted on the map? (Low, medium, high) 221 [page 184] £ Table: Example of answers: < e e The level of vulnerability of the road in the area highlighted on the map is medium with a few sec- tions where the level of vulnerability is high. Step 3: Identification and prioritization of nature-based solution options 3.1 Identification of nature-based measures Identify a maximum of 2 solutions based the impacts identified in 2.2 and reduce on nature from the Solutions Catalogue the vulnerability of the road infrastructure. (Section 7 of the Guide) to avoid/mitigate Please answer the questions: * What nature-based measures (from the Solutions Catalogue) can reduce the identified impacts on the road infrastructure and the surrounding ecosystem? * How exactly does the measure proposed reduce the identified impacts? °__Which actors should be involved in the planning and implementation of the measure? Table: Example of answers: NBS Impacts treated Key actors M 1: NBS1 - sante . ù . Landslide and erosion MTPTC,MDE, Stabilization of mountain . . . protection territorial community slopes: general principle MTPTC,MDE, Measure 2: NBS6 — MARNDR, Town Mangroves conservation Coastal erosion Hall, CASEC, NGOSs, and restauration community, and riverside organizations M 3: NBS15 castre Local scouring of piles and MTPTC, City Hall, — Embankment and . . . abutments due to water CASEC, community and vegetation to protect bridge . . ne ue . and sediment erosion. riverside organizations piers and abutments 222 [page 185] £ NBS Impacts treated Key actors £ e e M 4 NBS1 Su ation M 5 Protection of infrastructure MTPTC,MDE, sn 111 7 . from coastal erosion by MARNDR, territorial coastal slopes with : ue . , waves, currents, and wind. communities hybrid materials Measure 5: NBS11 MTPTC,MDE, — Stabilization of Destruction or obstruction Town Hall, CASEC, coastal slopes with of the road fishermen’s and residents’ hybrid materials organizations M : NB 7 . Soil and habitat loss farmers’ and residents’ mountain slopes with organizations hybrid materials 5 Step 4: Protection of infrastructure from coastal erosion by waves, currents and wind. 3.1 Identification of nature-based measures * In the design of nature-based solutions it is chosen solution must be implemented to be important to consider the specific charac- most effective, the materials required, tree teristics of the project site and surrounding species, among others. Identify the key con- ecosystems. Therefore, consideration should siderations for the design of the solutions be given to the specific location where the selected in step 3.1: * What specific biophysical information (e.8. slope, soil erosion, vegetation condition, etc.) is needed to design the identified measures? *_ What materials are needed? *_ What additional expertise/analysis is required? *_ What are the appropriate tree species? 23 [page 186] É Table: Example of answers: < e and restauration slopes with hybrid materials + Slope of the land overlooking the coast and the road. + Coastal occupation + Depth of coastline and tidal force *_ Shoreline depth and tidal strength | * Existing vegetation Biophysical + State of existing vegetation * Anthropogenic activities COCOON + Anthropogenic activities at the coastal level at the coastal level + Level of coastal erosion *_ Pollution level of runoff outlets + Level of sedimentation by alluvium from the slopes *__Runoff strength and frequency *_ Plant species adapted *_ Plant species adapted to local ecosystems Material to local ecosystems *_ Native and/or favorably *_ Native and/or favorably endemic plants endemic plants + Mechanical materials (stone, sand, gravel, and others) *_ Specialist in phytotechnics + Civil Engineer Expertise *_ Native Plant Botanist + Native Plant Botanist * Environmentalist *_ Planner or environmentalist + See the list of plants that have been the subject of previous discussions (Annexes 4). Tree species + Adapted mangroves * Avoid invasive alien plants as much as possible. *_ Use native plants such as Panicum maximum, Leucaena leucocephala. 224 [page 187] 8 4.2 Describe the main activities required É to implement the chosen option = : Once we have information on the design of tion. Enabling conditions refer to the need to the solution based on the option selected in see if there are relevant regulations for the im- step 3.1, it is important to list the activities and plementation of the solutions, land ownership. enabling conditions necessary for implementa- Please answer the questions: *_ What are the key activities for the implementation of the solution based on the na- ture chosen? *_ Whatare the enabling conditions (laws, regulations, land tenure) relevant for the im- plementation of the solutions? *_ What are the key activities that will be necessary for the maintenance of the NBS? Table: Example of answers: NBS Main activities Enabling conditions (laws, regulations) NBS6 — A.1.1 - Survey and field visits Verify the standards and procedures Mangroves | A.1.2 - Stakeholder Engagement of the financing partner. E.g. National conservation | A.1.3 - Preparation of restoration Legal Framework and World Bank and and management plans Procedures for Environmental restauration | A.1.4 - Implementation and monitoring | Assessment and Habitat Management A.1.1 - Mobilization of stakeholders (Contractor, Engineer, Authorities concerned, community organizations, local residents and workers) * Land status of the intervention area NBS11- . . … … . |A:12 - Prepare the appropriate plans and areas of influence of the work. Stabilization . . . . . of coastal (technical, environmental, and social plan) |*+ National regulations and World . / Technical and socio-environmental study | Bank requirements for expropriation slopes with . LV hybrid A.12- Preparation and validation and resettlement; and materials of backup tools”? including the * Haitian Coastal Management Laws complaint management mechanism * Others À.1.2 - Mobilization of biological and mechanical materials À.1.3 - Execution and supervision of work 225 [page 188] : REFERENCES e e 1 Tecnica y Proyectos S.A. (TYPSA), Asesoramiento 9 GFDRR, 2011. Vulnerability, Risk Reduction, and Ambiental Estrategico (AAE), AGRER (Groupe Adaptation to Climate Change: Haiti. Climate Risk TYPSA)). and Adaptation Country Profile 2 GFDRR, 2016, Haiti Country Profile, (https://wwuw. 10 Asian Development Bank (ADB),2011Guidelines gfdrr.org/en/publication/country-profile-haiti) for climate proofing investment in the transport 3 Hale, L. Z., I. Meliane, S. Davidson, T Sandwith, sector: Road infrastructure projects. Mandaluyong M. Beck, J. Hoekstra, M. Spalding, S. Murawski, K. City, Philippines Osgood, M. Hatziolos, P. van Eïjk, W. Eichbaum, 11 CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2004. C. Dreus, D. Obura, J. Tamelander, D. Herr, C. The Ecosystem Approach: CBD Guidelines. McClennen, and P. Marshall. 2009. “Ecosystem- Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Based Adaptation in Marine and Coastal Ecosystems.” Biological Diversity. Renewable Resources Journal 25 (4): 21-28. 12 Adapted from E. Cohen-Shacham, G. Walters, 4 Renaud, FE G., U. Nehren, K. Sudmeier-Rieux, and C.Janzen, S. Maginnis, 2016. Nature-Based M. Estrella. 2016. Chapter 1: “Developments and Solutions to Address Societal Challenges. Gland, Opportunities for Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk Switzerland: International Union for Conservation Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation.” In of Nature Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk Reduction and 13 Vaughn, K. J., Porensky, L. M., Wilkerson, M. L., Adaptation in Practice, Advances in Natural and Balachowski, J., Peffer, E., Riginos, C. & Young, T. Technological Hazards Research, Vol. 42, 1-20. P. (2010) Restoration Ecology. Nature Education DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-43633-3_1. Knowledge 3(10):66 5 Somarakis, G., Stagakis, S., & Chrysoulakis, N. 14 Mitsch, WI]. (2012). What is ecological engineering? (Eds.). 2019. Thinknature Nature-Based Solutions Ecological Engineering, 45 (October): 5-12 Handbook. ThinkNature project funded by the EU 15 Maginnis, S., Laestadius, L., Verdone, M., DeWitt, Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme S., Saint-Laurent, C., Rietbergen-McCracken, J. 6 World Bank 2012. - Climate Change Knowledge and Shaw, D.M.P.(2014). Assessing forest landscape Portal (accessed on April 2021) https://climate- restoration opportunities at the national level: À knowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/haiti/cli- guide to the Restoration Opportunities Assessment mate-data-historical Methodology (ROAM), Gland, Switzerland: 7 EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium International Union for the Conservation of Nature. www.emdat.be (D.Guha-Sapir) (accessed April 2021) 16 Pedrr (2010). Demonstrating the Role of 8 Defra (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Ecosystems-based Management for Disaster Risk Affairs). 2010. “Adapting Energy, Transport, and Water Reduction. Partnership for Environment and Infrastructure to the Long-Term Impacts of Climate Disaster Risk Reduction. Change.” Policy paper, Defra, Government ofthe United 17 Lavorel, S., Colloff, M.J., Mclntyre, S., Doherty, Kingdom. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ M.D., Murphy, HT, Metcalfe, DJ. Dunlop, M. adapting-energy-transport-and-water-infrastructure-to- Williams, R.J., Wise, R.M. and Williams, K. (2015). the-long-term-impacts-of-climate-change. Ecological mechanisms underpinning climate ad- 226 [page 189] aptation services. Global Change Biology 21(1): 27 Webb B., Douglas S., Dix B., Asam S., 2018. White Ê 12-31. Paper: NatureXBased Solutions for Coastal Highway 18 Benedict, M.A. and McMahon, E.T. (2006). Green Resilience. US Department of Transportation. : Infrastructure: linking landscapes and communities. Federal Highway Administration Report No. Washington DC: Island Press FHWARHEPX18X037, February 2018. 19 EC 2013 28 Reid H, Bourne À, Muller H, Podvin K, ScorgieS, 20 NOAA 2021 Ecosystem-based Management. (ac- Orindi V. 2018 A framework for assessing the ef- cessed on April 2021) https://ecosystems.noaa.gov/ fectiveness of ecosystem-based approaches to adap- EBM101/WhatisEcosystem-BasedManagement.as- tation. In Resilience (eds Z Zommers, K Alverson), px#:-:text-Ecosystem%2Dbased%20management”20 pp- 207-216. London, UK: Elsevier. (EBM,or%20ecosystem20services%20in%20isolation 29 Reid H, Hou Jones X, Porras I, Hicks C, Wicander 21 Kappel, C., Martone, R.G. & Duffy, J.E., 2006. S, Seddon N, Kapos V, Rizvi A R, Roe D (2019) Is Ecosystem-based management. Encyclopedia of Earth, ecosystem-based adaptation effective? Perceptions pp.1-4. http/{wmw.eoearth.org/view/article/152249 and lessons learned from 13 project sites. IIED 22 Garcia, S.M., Zerbi, A., Aliaume, C., Do Chi,T. Research Report. ED, London. and Lasserre, G. (2003).The Ecosystem Approach 30 Narayan, S., Beck, M.W., Reguero, B.G., Losada, to Fisheries: Issues, Terminology, Principles, L.J., Van Wesenbeeck, B., Pontee, N., Sanchirico, Institutional Foundations, Implementation and J-N., Ingram, J.C., Lange, G.M. and Burks-Copes, Outlook. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 443, K.A., 2016. The effectiveness, costs and coastal pro- Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization. tection benefits of natural and nature-based defenc- 23 UNEP, REGATTA, Spanish Cooperation, and es. PloS one, 11(5), p.e0154735 Practical ACTION. 2019. “Demonstrating Evidence 31 Reguero, B.G., Storlazzi, C. D., Gibbs, A. E., Shope, on Ecosystem-d Adaptation in Latin America and J.B., Cole, A. D., Cumming, K. A., & Beck, M. W. the Caribbean.” Climate Change Division and the (2021). The value of US coral reefs for flood risk Department of Coastal and Marine Management of reduction. Nature Sustainability, 1-11. the Uruguayan Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning 32 Barbier, E. B., Koch, E. W, Silliman, B. R., Hacker, S. and Environment. https://practicalaction.org.pe/ D., Wolanski, E., Primavera, J., Granek, E. F, Polasky, demonstrating-evidence-on-ecosystem-based-ad- S., Aswani, S., and Cramer, L. A. (2008). “Coastal eco- aptation-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean/. systemXibased management with nonlinear ecological 24 E. Cohen-Shacham, G. Walters, C.Janzen, S. functions and values.” Science, 319(5861), 321-323. Maginnis, 2016. Nature-Based Solutions to 33 Barbier, E. B., Hacker, S. D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E. Address Societal Challenges. Gland, Switzerland: W., Stier, A. C., and Silliman, B. R. (2011). “The International Union for Conservation of Nature value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services.” 25 World Bank. 2017. “Implementing Nature-Based Ecological monographs, 81(2), 169-193. Flood Protection: Principles and Implementation 34 Barbier, E. B. (2015). “Valuing the storm protec- Guidance.” World Bank, Washington, DC tion service of estuarine and coastal ecosystems.” 26 Webb [1]B., Dix B., Douglass S., Asam S., Cherry Ecosystem Services, 11, 32-38. C., Buhring B., 2019. Nature-Based Solutions for 35 NOAA, 2015. À Guide to Assessing Green Coastal Highway Resilience: An Implementation Infrastructure Costs and Benefits for Flood Reduction. Guide. Federal Highway Administration Report No. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. FHWA-HEP-19-042. August, 2019 Office for Coastal Management, April, 2015 227 [page 190] ë 36 Manis, J.E., Garvis, S.K., Jachec, S. M., & Walters, 45 Reguero BG, Beck MW, Bresch DN, Calil J, : L.J. (2015). “Wave attenuation experiments over liv- Meliane I (2018) Comparing the cost effectiveness ! ing shorelines over time: a wave tank study to assess of nature-based and coastal adaptation: À case study recreational boating pressures.” Journal of Coastal from the Gulf Coast of the United States. PLoS Conservation, 19(1), 1%11. ONE 13(4): e0192132. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour- 37 Guannel, G., Arkema, K., Ruggiero, P., & Verutes, nal.pone.0192132 G. (2016). “The power of three: Coral reefs, sea- 46 Aerts, J.C., Barnard, PL., Botzen, W., Grifman, P, grasses and mangroves protect coastal regions and Hart, JF, De Moel, H., Mann, AN, de Ruig, LT. increase their resilience.” PLoS ONE, 11(7). https:// and Sadrpour, N., 2018a. Pathways to resilience: doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158094 adapting to sea level rise in Los Angeles. Annals of 38 Please note that Table 2 presents the costs as suggest- the New York Academy of Sciences, 1427(1), pp.1-90. ed by the authors at the time if their study; they have 47 Lewis, R. R.,2001: Mangrove restoration-Costs and ben- not been adjusted for inflation or discounted. efits of successful ecological restoration. In: Proceedings 40 Bayraktarov, E., Saunders, M.I., Abdullah, S., Mills, of the Mangrove Valuation Workshop, Universiti Sains M., Beher, J., Possingham, H.P., Mumby, PJ. and Malaysia, Penang, Penang, Malaysia, Beïjer International Lovelock, C.E., 2016. The cost and feasibility of Institute of Ecological Economics, 4-8. marine coastal restoration. Ecological Applications, 48 Aerts, J., 2018: A review of cost estimates for flood 26(4), pp.1055-1074. adaptation. Water, 10 (11), 1646. 41 Oppenheimer, M. B. Glavovic, J. Hinkel, R.van de 49 Hakim, L.L., 2016. Cost and Benefit Analysis for Wal, A. K. Magnan, A. Abd-Elgawad, R. Cai, et al. Coastal Management. À Case Study of Improving 2019.“Chapter 4: Sea level rise and implications for Aquaculture and Mangrove Restoration Management low lying islands, coasts and communities.” Special in Tambakbulusan Village Demak Indonesia. Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing 50 Vuik, V., B. W. Borsje, P. W. Willemsen and S. N. Climate. Pôrtner, H., D. C. Roberts, V. Masson- Jonkman, 2019: Salt marshes for flood risk reduction: Delmotte, et al., eds. Monaco: Intergovernmental Quantifying long-term effectiveness and life-cycle Panel on Climate Change. https//report.ipcc.ch/ costs. Ocean & coastal management, 171, 96-110. srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_Chapter4.pdf. 51 Appelquist L.R. & Halsnæs K., 2015.The Coastal 42 Strassburg, B.B. and Latawiec, A.E., 2014, March. Hazard Wheel system for coastal multi-hazard as- The economics of restoration: costs, benefits, scale sessment & management in a changing climate. and spatial aspects. In CDB Meeting-Linhares: Journal of Coastal Conservation 19:157-179 DOI International Institute for Sustainability. 10.1007/511852-015-0379-7 43 Balmford, A. et al., 2004: The worldwide costs of 52 Jonkman, S.N., Hillen, M.M., Nicholls, RJ., marine protected areas. Proceedings of the National Kanning, W. and van Ledden, M., 2013. Costs of Academy of Sciences, 101 (26), 9694-9697. adapting coastal defences to sea-level rise—new es- 44 Sultan R and Sobhee S K (2016) Training Manual timates and their implications. Journal of Coastal on Cost-Benefit Analysis for Coastal Management Research, 29(5), pp.1212-1226. and Adaptation Options to Climate Change in 53 Somphong C., Udo K., Ritphring S. and Shirakawa Mauritius. Ministry of Environment, Sustainable H., 2020. Beach Nourishment as an Adaptation Development, and Disaster and Beach Management, to Future Sandy Beach Loss Owing to Sea-Level Government of Mauritius. University of Mauritius Rise in Thailand. Journal of Marine Science and Press, Réduit, Mauritius. Engineering, 2020, 8, 659; doi:10.3390/imse8090659 228 [page 191] 54 Environment Agency, 2015: Cost estimation 62 R.J. D. Lincke, J. Hinkel and T. van der Pol, 2019: É for coastal protection — summary of evidence. Global Investment Costs for Coastal Defence . Environment Agency, Bristol, UK. Through the 21st Century. World Bank, Group, . 55 Verburg, R.W., Hennen, W.H.G.J., Puister, W.B. G.S. D. P. [Available at: http://documents. L.F,, Michels, R. and van Duiïjvendijk, K., 2017. worldbank.org/curated/en/433981550240622188/pdf/ Estimating costs of nature management in the WPS8745.pdf]. European Union: Exploration modelling for PBLs 63 Tamura, M., N. Kumano, M. Yotsukuri and H. Nature Outlook (No. 97). Wageningen University & Yokoki, 2019: Global assessment of the effective- Research, Statutory Research Tasks Unit for Nature ness of adaptation in coastal areas based on RCP/ & the Environment. SSP scenarios. Climatic Change, 1-15. 56 Ayres, A., Gerdes, H., Goeller, B., Lago, M., 64 Kappes, Melanie Simone; Pozueta Mayo,Beatriz; Catalinas, M., Garcia Cantén, À., Brouwer, R., Charles,Keren Carla; Cayetano, Marion; Rogelis Sheremet, O., Vermaat, J., Angelopoulos, N. and Prada,Maria Carolina.2017. Prioritizing climate Cowx, L., 2014. Inventory of river restoration resilient transport investments in a data-scarce measures: effects, costs and benefits. Restoring environment : a practicioners’ guide (English). rivers FOR effective catchment management Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group. (REFORM), Deliverable. 65 m.a.5.1.: meters above sea level 57 Dige, G., Eichler, L., Vermeulen, J., Ferreira, A, 66 Government of Jamaica, 2017. National Coastal Rademaekers, K., Adriaenssens, V. and Kolaszewska, Management and Beach Restoration Guidelines D., 2017. Green Infrastructure and Flood for Jamaica Management: Promoting Cost-Efficient Flood 67 Payment for Ecosystem Services are a type of con- Risk Reduction via Green Infrastructure Solutions. servation approach that entails the use of economic European Environment Agency (EEA) Report, mechanisms and incentives. Under a PES scheme, (14). https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/ those people whose lands provide environmental publication/2cdad1c8-e6d5-11e7-9749-01aa75e- services may accept voluntary limitation or diversi- d71al/language-en fication of their activities in return for an econom- 58 Kuhlman, T., Reinhard, S. and Gaaff, A., 2010. ic benefit that is provided by the beneficiaries of Estimating the costs and benefits of soil conserva- the services. In this way, both “sellers” and “buy- tion in Europe. Land Use Policy, 27(1), pp.22-32. ers” of ecosystem services can profit while help- 59 European Commission. (2020c, April). Nature- ing to protect ecosystems. https://www.iucn.org/ Based Solutions for Flood Mitigation and Coastal theme/environmental-law/our-work/other-areas/ Resilience (No. 978-92-76-18198-9). Publications payments-ecosystem-services#:-:text=Under%20 Office of the European Union. https://doi. a%20PES%20scheme%2C%20those,the%20benefi- org/10.2777/374113 ciaries%200f%20the%20services. 60 Streever, W.J., 1997. Trends in Australian wetland 68 The BCA project is implemented by the Technical rehabilitation. Wetlands Ecology and Management, Implementation Unit (UTE) of the Ministry of 5(1), pp.5-18. Economy and Finance (MEF) and the Central 61 Linham, M., C. Green and R. Nicholls, 2010: Implementation Unit of the Ministry of Public AVOID Report on the Costs of adaptation to the Works, Transport and Communications (UCE), with effects of climate change in the world’s large port technical support from the Technical Secretariat of the cities. AV/WS2. Interministerial Committee for Land Management 229 [page 192] ë (ST-CIATT) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural and Adaptation Options to Climate Change in < Resources and Rural Development (MARNDR). Mauritius. Ministry of Environment, Sustainable ! This project is financed by the World Bank, the Development, and Disaster and Beach Management, International Development Association (IDA) and Government of Mauritius. University of Mauritius the Climate Investment Fund (CIF). Press, Réduit, Mauritius. 69 Technical Note: “Public Consultations and 78 UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). Stakeholder Engagement in WB-supported oper- 2016a. Options for Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in ations where there are constraints on the conduct Coastal Environments: À Guide for Environmental of public meetings”. World Bank, 20 March 2020. Managers and Planners. Nairobi: UNEP. This note refers to the World Health Organization's 79 Naturally Resilient Communities: nresolutions.org. guidelines, which are publicly available at this link: Last visit: 29 January 2020. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/nov- 80 Source: Wayfarer environmental. el-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance 81 Verburg, R.W., Hennen, W.H.G.J. Puister, LE, 70 PPE: Personal Protective Equipment Michels, R. and van Duijvendik, K., 2017. Estimating 71 PAP: Project Affected Persons costs of nature management in the European Union: 72 Options for Ecosystem-based Adaptation in Coastal Exploration modelling for PBLS Nature Outlook (No. Environments. 97). Wageningen University & Research, Statutory 73 See Chapter 2 (Coastal Defense Services Provided Research Tasks Unit for Nature & the Environment. by Mangroves). World Bank. Managing Coasts 82 Koch, E. W., J. D. Ackerman, J. Verduin, and M. with Natural Solutions: Guidelines for Measuring Keulen. “Fluid Dynamics in Seagrass Ecology— and Valuing the Coastal Protection Services of from Molecules to Ecosystems.” In Seagrasses: Mangroves and Coral Reefs. Edited by M.W. Biology, Ecology and Conservation, 193-225. Beck and G-M. Lange. Washington, D.C.: Wealth Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2006. Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services 83 Natural Capital & Roads: Managing dependencies Partnership, World Bank, 2016. and impacts on ecosystem services for sustainable 74 Spalding, M., M. Kainuma, and L. Collins. World road investments. Lisa Mandle, Rob Griffin, Josh Atlas of Mangroves. London, UK: Washington, DC: Goldstein, Rafael Acevedo-Daunas, Ashley Camhi, Earthscan, 2010. Michele Lemay, Elizabeth Rauer, Victoria Peterson. 75 See Chapter 3 (Coastal Defense Services Provided p. cm. — (IDB Monograph; 476) by Coral Reefs). World Bank. Managing Coasts 84 Government of Jamaica, ACP-EU Natural Disaster with Natural Solutions: Guidelines for Measuring Risk Reduction Program (2017). National Coastal and Valuing the Coastal Protection Services of Management and Beach Restoration Guidelines Mangroves and Coral Reefs. Edited by M.W. for Jamaica. Beck and G-M. Lange. Washington, D.C.: Wealth 85 CTCN, Managed Realignment: https://wwuw.cte-n. Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services org/technologies/managed-realignment Partnership, WB, 2016. 86 Coastal highways includes roads, bridges, and other 76 NRC (Naturally Resilient Communities). 2017. infrastructure that make up transportation systems Solutions: Coral Reefs. http///nrcsolutions.org/wp-con- exposed to, or occasionally exposed to, tides, storm tent/uploads/2017/03/NRC_Solutions_Coral_Reefs.pdf surge, waves, and sea level rise 77 Sultan R and Sobhee S K (2016) Training Manual 87 Green-Gray Community of Practice. (2020). on Cost-Benefit Analysis for Coastal Management Practical Guide to Implementing Green-Gray 230 [page 193] Infrastructure. https://www.conservation.org/docs/ NRC. N.d. “Using Nature To Address Flooding.” ë default-source/publication-pdfs/ci-green-gray-prac- Accessed January 29, 2020. http://nresolutions.org. h tical-guide-v07.pdf?sfvrsn=3cc5cf18_. National Research Council 2008. Potential Impacts of : 88 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Climate Change on U.S. Transportation: Special Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Annex II - Report 290. Washington, DC: The National Glossary. John Agard, and E. Lisa F. Schipper. Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12179.. Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.Koch, E. W.,J. SMi-IDB. 2013. “Appui au Plan de Gestion D. Ackerman, J. Verduin, M. Keulen, A. W. D Environnementale et Sociale du Projet Routier Larkum, R.J. Orth, and C.M. Duarte. 2006. “Fluid Cayes/Jérémie, Haïti. Diagnostic et actualisation Dynamics in Seagrass Ecology—From Molecules de l'Étude d’Impact sur l'Environnement.” [[ Please to Ecosystems.” In Seagrasses: Biology, Ecology provide publication details or URL]] and Conservation, edited by C. M. Duarte, R.J. Society for Ecological Restoration (2004). Ecological Orth, and A. W. D. Larkum, 193-225. Dordrecht: Restoration Primer [online document] www.ser. Springer Netherlands. org/resources/resources-detail-view/ser-interna- 89 CBD. 2009. Ecosystem-based Adaptation tional-primer-on-ecological-restoration (EbA). Position Paper. International Union for World Bank. 2016a. “Chapter 2: Coastal Defense Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Services Provided by Mangroves.” In Managing 90 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Coasts with Natural Solutions: Guidelines for Change). 2011. IPCC Workshop on Impacts Measuring and Valuing the Coastal Protection of Ocean Acidification on Marian Biology and Services of Mangroves and Coral Reefs, edited by Ecosystems — Workshop Report. Working Group Il. M. W. Beck and G-M. Lange. Washington, DC: 91 https://sfylifas.ufl.edu/media/sfylifasufledu/mi- Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem ami-dade/documents/landscapes-amp-gardening/ Services Partnership, World Bank. Woody-and-Herbaceous-Plants-Native-to-Haïti.pdf World Bank. 2016b. “Chapter 3: Coastal Defense 92 RAP: Resettlement action Plan Services Provided by Coral Reefs.” In Managing Coasts with Natural Solutions: Guidelines for Additional Resources Measuring and Valuing the Coastal Protection Services of Mangroves and Coral Reefs, edited by European Commission (2013). Green Infrastructure M. W. Beck and G-M. Lange. Washington, DC: (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Communication from the Commission to the Services Partnership, World Bank. European Parliament, the Council, the European World Bank. 2020. “Technical Note: Public Economic and Social Committee and the Consultations and Stakeholder Engagement in Committee of the Regions, Brussels, Belgium. WB-Supported Operations Where There Are GLOBAL CLIMATE RISK INDEX 2021. Who Constraints on the Conduct of Public Meetings.” Suffers Most from Extreme Weather Events? World Bank, Washington, DC, March 20, 2020. Weather-Related Loss Events in 2019 and 2000- Rodriguez Zubiate, E.“Casing Design with Casing.” 2019. David Eckstein, Vera Künzel, Laura Schäfer National University of Engineering, Faculty of Millennium ecosystem assessment, M. E. A. (2005). Civil Engineering, Institute for the Mitigation Ecosystems and human well-being (Vol. 5). of the Effects of the El Niño Phenomenon, May Washington, DC: Island Press. 2003, p. 39. 231 [page 194] É Schueler, K. 2017.“Nature-Based Solutions to Enhance Hily, C.,J. Duchêne, C. Bouchon, Y. Bouchon-Navaro, h Coastal Resilience.” Policy brief, Inter-American A. Gigou, C. Payri, and F Védie. 2010. Les herbiers . Development Bank, Washington, DC. de phanérogames marines de l'outre-mer français. Pendle, M. 2013. “Estuarine and Coastal Managed France: Initiative FRançaise pour les RÉcifs Realignment Sites in the UK: À Comparison of CORalliens ((FRECOR), Conservatoire du littoral. Predictions with Monitoring Results for Selected GIZ. 2019. Emerging Lessons for Mainstreaming Case Studies.” Conference paper presented Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: Strategic Entry at the 2nd ABPmer Conference on Managed Points and Processes. Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft Realignment, November. für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.