El Salvador case study (implemented by Swiss Red Cross)

Transcription

1 El Salvador case study (implemented by Swiss Red Cross) Context and participants Country Location Context Communities part of the project? Project name What common risks and hazards do you face in this region? Previous risk survey participation El Salvador Rural river side Fragile with conflicts YES Resilience through reduced health and climatic risks in the Lower Lempa, Usulutan. Floods, earthquakes, droughts, Criminality, Epidemics YES Area with high risk of disasters Area with high climate impacts Fragile and conflict areas The tri-national Lempa river basin covers a total area of km² of which El Salvador covers km 2, Honduras km 2 and Guatemala km² (56%). The maximum rise of the basin is meters above sea level in the mountains of Honduras. The length of the main channel is 422 km, of which 360,2 km run within Salvadoran territory. The Angel community is located in the lower part of the basin in the region of Usulután, municipality of Jiquilisco. n=28 Figure 1: Participants at the resilience workshop in El Salvador 1

2 Matrix of risks E D C F A B This matrix was filled in by the representative group of the community which was interviewed. It shows the most important risks that were identified by the community and their perceptions of risks. For each risk, they agreed together where it should be positioned accor ding to the impact they have and likelihood of occurence. Figure 2: Risk matrix of the resilience assessment in El Salvador Reported risks and impacts Highest ranked risks Flooding (A) Delinquency (B) Earthquakes (D) Economic losses (C) Droughts (F) Epidemics (E) Figure 3: Highest ranked risks Figure 3 was produced from the matrix of risks. Based on the perceptions from the representative group, it shows the main identified risks. These risks are ranked according to the combination of each risk s impact (5 ranks) and likelihood (5 ranks) of occurence it can happen, and are cumulated and measured on a scale of 10 ranks. The scale of Figure 4 is based on the risk s impact (5 ranks) divided by the number of times it was mentioned. 2

3 Highest ranked impacts Loss of land Insecurity, fear, tensions Migration Deaths and injuries Loss of livelihoods Health problems, medical costs Loss of livestock and crops Intestinal illnesses (water quality) Figure 4: Highest ranked impacts Most commonly reported actions and barriers Most commonly reported actions 1. Hard risks reduction measures 2. Early Warning Systems (EWS) 3. Community mobilisation 4. Communication with authorities 5. Soft risk reduction measures 6. Reforestation The community committees are trained continuously and are active in emergency preparedness and response (monitoring, early-warning, evacuation, management of shelters, but also small scale mitigation / risk reduction where possible). However, due to the recurrence of floods, the zone was of high interest to politicians and also to the public. This to some extent has benefited communities, since after a disaster, they have received support, allowing them to recover and even improve their living conditions. For example, before the floods in the area, the greater part of the population only had homes made of adobe (earth), these homes were very vulnerable to flooding. Now, the population has shifted to the management of mixed housing which is more resistant. With the recently growing insecurity problems, people require the presence of various governmental institutions, especially the permanent presence of the National Civil Police. 3

4 Most commonly reported barriers 1. Poor governance (lack of government management) 2. Distrust of authorities 3. Lack of community mobilisation 4. Lack of training (cultivation techniques and diversification) 5. Lack of financial and technical means 6. Lack of Early Warning Systems (EWS) The executive committee and the committees always provide assistance, promote measures to reduce risks and encourage families in the community to participate in common training activities. Despite all families being possible beneficiaries of the various projects, there is a group of 10 families in the community who show no interest. Moreover, the least participatory group are the young people, mainly because of delinquency in the area. The pressure to encourage the young people to participate should come from the families. Alterna tives to promote security are needed, such as a violence prevention program, teaching young people values and educating them on how to improve their economy, workshops on cooking, tailoring, looking for agriculture alternatives, promoting more youth and cultural activities and resident participation. Analysis of characteristics of the community Activities and resources: The community is located next to a paved secondary road. It is owned by its inhabitants, their main economic activity is agriculture. Some of its members have income from cattle and poultry, some inhabitants fish for their own consumption and nearby they have a wooded area from where they extract firewood for cooking. The land used for cultivation is rented and only very few community members have managed to buy a piece of land. They are organised neither for production, nor for marketing. At present small scale agricultural production and what is related to it are assumed individually. Infrastructure: The community has a mixed type of housing, which was built in They have electrical energy (2010), drinking water (2011), mobile telephony, a school (2002), a hostel and a community speaker (2008) and a medical dispensary. Recently, resistant storage (tanbancos) have been built to safeguard goods (basic grains, electric household appliances, belongings of value). They have composting toilets, which have been built by different organizations and their maintenance is monitored through the health committee. All infrastructures are less than 12 years old and in most cases they are in good condition. Institutions and processes: Since 2001 different organisations like Ciazo, Servicio Jesuita and Pastoral Social have supported them; during the last years they have had a closer relationship with Red Cross El Salvador, Swiss Red Cross, ACUDESBAL (local ONG), Mangle (local ONG). They also relate to the Ministry of Agriculture state institutions, the Ministry of Health, the Civil Protection and with municipalities, which through ADESCO (local government) and its leaders, manage projects for the communities. They organize the population on the basis of these projects through its committees already established: ADESCO (community board), communal commission of civil protection, health committee, women s committee, a group of young people. These different community committees have active performance throughout the year and have sought to develop inclusive processes that represent the different sectors: women, men, young people, and children. The main goal has been to give benefit to as many people as possible. 4

5 Knowledge and learning: This is a new community, organized since The population of this community is originally from three different locations which after the earthquake of 2001 were relocated as a community in El Ángel. They at first got organized for the construction of their houses. For community leaders, it was important to develop processes for motivation and awareness in the community on the identified opportunities and benefits received. This in order to use them effectively in the development of their skills, especially with the women group, since some weaknesses had been identified in regard to ensuring sustainability of some micro projects that had been implemented in this sector. Previous workshops on that topic were: community health, home gardens and risk management. After the training participants became information multipliers in their communities. Values and attitudes: Social cohesion as a means to achieve a good quality of life in the community, works as dignity of the human being, giving the security to continue with the organisational processes, to expand dialogues with families, to prepare, inform, and empower families so they can respond and overcome a situation of disaster. Survey analysis based on the three capacities Absorption capacity: The community was founded after the 2001 major earthquake. Since then 3 other earthquakes occurred, which community members remember. On the top of that, they have had repeated floods (Stan, Ida, Agatha and 12 E). Through these events, the community learnt how to better organize themselves and recover from a disaster. Thanks to the committees, they have monitored some of the greatest impact events like floods: ADESCO, health committee, women s group, civil protection committees (CCPC) and members of the Central Committee of the CCPC, local group coordinators, members who work in the emergency fund, the presence of the association of anonymous alcoholics and music groups for young people. We can say that its greatest absorption potential is based on organization and solidarity. Adaptation capacity: Living in a multi-hazard exposed area, the families had to learn to live with risks and losses. Some of the infrastructure has already been adapted to the flood zone: hostel, school, dispensary, latrines and flood resistant storage (tabancos) have already been built with a certain height and built according to standard rules with resistant materials. Losing smaller material belongings (for example in floods) is not considered as the worst event, but the loss of crops by floods or by droughts affects them very strongly economically and for the time being there is no adaptive solution available to them, except the flood resistant storages where some seeds and crops can be saved in case of floods. The community also performs agricultural practices such as: use of fertilizers for crops, seed storage in granaries, use of risk equipment (only few people have this), planning periods for seeding through the evaluation of pluvial and dry season weather behavior. This has enabled them to somehow predict the situation they would face. In addition, the granting of credits also helps some men and women in the community to mitigate the impact of yearly losses of this kind. However, not all families are eligible for credits and still many families lose crops. Moreover, the lack of technical knowledge for crop diversification resistant to floods and droughts, coupled with a lack of technology to guarantee production, increase the vulnerability of the community. Transformation capacity: The community is motivated to learn and their experience of being able to resettle and restart life after an earthquake has given them a positive attitude towards their transformative capacity. Other tools which they see would enable them to move forward are the learning processes in terms of community organisation, providing new opportunities to link up with organisations and institutions that can provide services and support (for example in school construction, health post establishment). The community has been able to create a new organization and a new story, they are totally open to learning and increasing their capabilities in order to deal with their problems. In terms of social conflicts as a result 5

6 of a high level of crime in the area (presence of maras), the organization and the whole community is currently overwhelmed and they do not know how to react and are afraid. As they have so far found no other solutions, some families have migrated and some young people do not attend school. R Figure 5: The resilience triangle The graphic shows close to absorptive, in direction to adaptive. This is mostly due to the organizational capacity and solidarity in the community. They feel that this is most important in order to overcome and cope with all the risks and disasters that frequently affect them. Through the project they have learned to make better preparations. 6