The project took place in two provinces and four communities of Lima and Ayacucho, the first one located on the coast and the second in the highlands, each one with its own characteristics.
Coast: According to the results of the Family Risk Analysis, the community of Primero de Marzo and Valle Sagrado located in the district of San Juan de Lurigancho in the province of Lima (Peru), is a primarily adult and extended population (families made up of parents, children, daughters-in-law, grandchildren or others). Most of the population of the district comes from the High Andean communities displaced by the socio-political violence of the 80s and others who migrated in search of better employment opportunities. They settled in risk areas (hillsides), in precarious living conditions, and in houses built on crafted stone walls (pircas) with wooden walls and ceilings, with no technical assistance, water or sewage services. Such conditions increased the vulnerability of families to potential seismic events. It was also identified that education institutions at the infrastructure level and their location were at high risk.
Highlands: The communities of Vinchos and Arizona are located in the Vinchos district in the province of Huamanga, Ayacucho region. Families consist primarily of an adult population, as most youngsters went to study in big cities. The main economic activity of this population is agriculture, which generates an average income of less than the minimum vital income. Finally, their homes are built mainly with mud (raw pressed earth) and the water they consume is not chlorinated. The main dangers they face include rain, hailstorms and frost that affect their homes and production land. Students in education institutions were also identified as being exposed to hazards.
The project was developed in two stages:
Stage 1: The first stage lasted an average of 4 to 5 months.
The Risk Analysis (RA) was conducted in four communities at the family level. An average of 500 families were assessed for vulnerability and danger (through surveys) in order to identify the families that were more exposed, more fragile and less resilient to a possible disaster event. For the study, the assessment items were adapted according to the characteristics of the communities located on the coast and in the mountains. For example, the exposure of the dwellings to the dangers on the coast is of greater impact due to the fact that it is the only place where the family can live and, in the mountains their greatest concern is the loss of their agricultural land, which is the livelihood of the family.
The results of the vulnerability and hazard analysis were shared with the communities to make it clear which families were most vulnerable and what actions had to be taken at the family and community levels to help reduce risk.
The actions developed in this stage were:
- Threat analysis
- Vulnerability analysis
- Short, medium and long-term action plan (input for the second stage)
2nd Stage: This stage lasted between 8 to 9 continuous months.
In this stage, actions proposed in the first stage were carried out in the short term, at the family and community levels. These included:
- Formation of a community committee and training of response brigades in case of community emergencies.
- Formation of school brigade committees and implementation.
- Awareness-raising meetings with teachers and parents from education institutions.
- Technical assistance to families in the construction of stable community walls.
- Entitlement and implementation of the student canteen.
- Identification and signalling safe areas at community level.
- Signalling safe areas in education institutions.
- Student competition to protect the environment.
- Reforestation of areas to mitigate landslides in communities.
- Reinforcement of family living links in the communities.
- Community drills.
- Drills in education institutions.
The partners who financed the project and proposed the Risk Analysis methodology were Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe – Germany.
The actors involved were mainly the 4 communities and 4 education institutions, selected families, community leaders, governmental and non-governmental institutions, and the teachers from the education institutions.
The project lasted one year, ending in 2016.