Successful experience in Disaster Risk Reduction with the Government, Civil Society and Private Enterprise in the valley of Sula, Honduras

Summary

This project, funded by the European Union under DIPECHO X, aimed to reduce disaster risks in vulnerable communities and build resilience in disaster risk reduction. The private sector, the government and the civil society were included, leading to an effective result through the implementation of a methodological guide of the importance of business contingency plans with social responsibility with the maquila and non-maquila textile sector in Honduras. The actors involved were CODEM, CODELES, CODECES, CODECELES, COPECO, and Red Cross. The project lasted 19 months starting on 1^stApril 2016 and ending on 30^th October 2017, and activities continue with DIPECHO XI in the southern area of Honduras with the same actors to replicate the experience of risk management.

Process

The initiative strengthened the local municipal emergency committees, workplaces, and schools by running training in disaster risk reduction with an emphasis on political advocacy and gender equity. The role of the local government was through the association of mayors from the metropolitan area of the valley of Sula, which is made up of 20 municipalities. A tripartite agreement was signed to increase resilience and reduce DR due to flooding. Activities were coordinated through forums, workshops and the organisations implementing the DIPECHO X project, including ASONOG. All the activities were coordinated with the panel that managed to coordinate the actors of the project.

Fifteen communities from three municipalities in the valley of Sula were involved, including San Pedro Sula, Choloma and Puerto Cortés, which are highly vulnerable to violence. For example, in Bordos, there was an average of 260,000 people who benefited from the project, which worked with children in school drills with the engagement of the first responders’ institutions.

A baseline was drawn up and the different actors were strengthened, including the Municipal Emergency Committees, local emergency committees, the labour centre committees, which are coordinated by CODEM and COPECO, and stated in the National Risk Management System Act.

Impact

The National Risk Management System is strengthened, mainly the first response instance with a team, trained personnel in different fields of DRR. Linking with the private sector, government and civil society began in 2014 where a mutual agreement was signed for DRR, with no end date.

The area of intervention is known as vulnerable due to flooding, because there is no territorial planning, but now the different actors are trained, advocacy plans were confirmed, a methodological guide for the implementation of the Contingency Plans was developed, a communication campaign was organised, the vulnerable areas were signalled, etc.

Other

The project resulted in: • 15 CODELES formed within three municipalities • Curricula of training of CODELES and CODEMs • Training process for Prevention Officers through a Diploma certified by COPECO and UNAH • Equipment for CODEMs and COPECO • AHM equipment • Development of Response Protocols for CODEMs and SAT • The Territorial characterisation and georeferencing of the 26 companies with database was developed. • Regional development roundtables were promoted and strengthened • Advocacy planning workshop developed • Meeting of mayors of the development sector of the valley of Sula • Land use planning forum for risk management • 26 Companies with Codeceles, certified and with PCES

Summary

Process

Tell us about the extent to which the CBDRM intervention was ‘owned’ by the community. Were local skills and knowledge used? What was the role of the local government? How were the CBDRM activities coordinated? By whom?

To what extent were the most marginalised and at-risk groups included in the CBDRM process? Focus on women, children and youth, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Are there any other marginalised groups in your society who were included in the CBDRM activities?

Were the CBDRM activities adjusted in any way to account for changing priorities and/or contexts in the community? If so, how? Think about mechanisms to monitor changes and learn from the activities, and who this monitoring and learning is coordinated by.

Impact

Please reflect on how well the initiative has been able to continue beyond the end of the programme. To what extent were local resources used for the CBDRM activities? How long since programme completion have the CBDRM practices continued?

Please describe how lives have changed since the CBDRM project. Think about different people’s levels of resilience and vulnerability.

Other

Please provide us with any other information you think will highlight the sustainability of your particular CBDRM project. Feel free to add relevant pictures, photos, graphs or anything else that may highlight the sustainability of your project.