1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Book project: where people and their land are safer - A Compendium of Good Practices in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (where people and their land are safer)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Swiss Red Cross (Swiss Red Cross) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

22/11/2016

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Bioengineering includes a series of techniques based on the use of live vegetation to protect slopes and embankments from erosion and landslides. Bioengineering works are applied according to comprehensive risk assessment; they are multipurpose as a whole, have a low cost of consdtruction and maintenance cost,they enhance the capacities of families and communities to mitigate disaster hazards and they strengthen health and food safety and strengthen community organizations.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

To minimize the impact of hazards and, thus, to minimize risk, the Honduran/ Swiss Red Cross uses miocroprojects to implement specific mitigation measures in the communities it operates. Green Infrastructure, a series of techniques based on living vegetation to prevent erosion and landslides in slopes and embankments, play an important part in these are bioengineering works. Living aaplants are planted in the embankments to reinforce the soil with roots and/or folliage, thus facilitating draining and creating barriers to retain sediment.

As a whole, bioengineering works are multipurpose and require involve low construction and maintenance costs. Thus, low-income, vulnerable families can to adapt the Technology; these works also strengthen the capacities of families and communities to prevent or reduce disaster hazards and promote health and food safety.

Even though bioengineering techniques are implemented through technical assistance provided by the the project's team, it is not a complicated process and the plants used are generally available in the site, thus, these measures are easily replicated.

Sites considered critical and which are very vulnerable to landslides are identified through a comprehensive risk assessment involving participative process that is carried out by a multidisciplinary technical team. Community workshops and home visits are used to raise awareness among the beneficiaries on the existing hazards, and beneficiaries receive training on bioengineering works, soil conservation and climate change. Beneficiaries and technicians carry out field visits to sites deemed once in critical condition but that are now stable. This allows beneficiaries to get acquainted with the techniques used and they also benefit from the experience of the person pioneering the bioengineering work.

The techniques and materials used are identified together with each beneficiary or, when addressing issues referred to protecting community infrastructure, with Local Emergency Committies, Health Committees and Water management Boards. Beneficiaries and community organizations execute bioengineering works together with the technical support provided by the Honduran/Swiss Red Cross. In some cases, the Red Cross also provides materials or transportation for the latter. In most cases, stabilized slopes and embankments are then transformed into sustainable production areas, such as agroecological family orchards or medicinal gardens. Thus, beneficiaries can diversify their food and generate income selling their surplus.

People participate actively in identifying, developing and building bioengineering works, and the high level of adoption of the technology gives evidence of the level of interest and awareness achieved through sensitization and training. Thus, participative processes of implementation, executed under the principle of learning by doing and action-training, lead to specifically reduce local hazards and to generate sustainable learning processes enabling the replication of activities and maiontenance tasks performed by the community.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

To minimize the effects of natural hazards by implementing improved mechanisms addressing these at the community and municipal levels. The impact of hazards and risks is reduced by implementing specific mitigation measures and this empowers vulnerable populations by allowing them to replicate these activities.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	passive	Disseminate maps depicting risks, provide training to households and the community, as well as community workshops led by Honduran/ Swiss Red Cross. A model work is implemented for the community so its people can get to know the different techniques and benefits derived from bioengineering.
planning	interactive	During the planning stage, the project's contribution as well as the counterpart from the community is determined. Also, technologies and materials used for the works are stated.
implementation	interactive	Beneficiaries and local emergency committees implement bioengineering works, while Honduran/ Red Cross provides technical and material support.
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	Land users monitor and perform maintenance tasks on mitigation structures. The project provides the required technical support.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
• research findings
• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• Local Emergency Committees

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Form of training:

• Community assembly and individuals

Subjects covered:

- Bioengineering works
- Soil Conservation
- Climate Change

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Local Emergency Committees (CODEL) are part of the National System for Risk Management of Honduras. CODEL links communities with the national system through its higher level, the Municipal Emergency Committee. Candidates to CODEL must be accepted and approved by the community and included in the process to enhance local capacities for specific functions.

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

Information on the structure, role and operation of CODEL in the community. CODEL members are trained to carry out all the steps involved in risk management (prevention, preparation, response and rehabilitation).

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology

• Management of Disaster Hazards

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Indicate the annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach in US$:

38000.00

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

This amount covers costs of material and support/ transportation as well as training in bioengineering and house visits. It does not include the salaries of the technical team from Honduran/ Swiss Red Cross, since their area of work includes the full range of activities related to risk management. Local technicians are paid by Swiss Red Cross.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Material Support (plants and tools) or transpòrtation of material

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

• other

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

A cooperative process was used to implement bioengineering works. This followed the principles of learning by doing and action-training. Land users felt prepared and motivated to maintain works implemented and some have been trained to build new bioengineering works. The materials used are available on site and they regenerate easily.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Cooperative work has improved in the community.
Bioengineering works are multipurpose, in contrast to grey works; bioengineering does not only reduce risk but also recovers productive spaces and economic oportunities, lead to improved SLM understanding and help diversify nutrition and improve good health (by growing medicinal plants, reducig growth of vectors)
Cleaning the land and plots have tangible benefits: not only are they aesthetically pleasing, but bioengineering works have a positive impact on human health as well as individual and community property. Also, they reduce damages.
The safety of homes has been increased.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
These measures require little input and are easy to replicate with material found in the site and these are easy to grow back.
Bioengineering measures are adapted to local climate and extremes.

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
A waiting period is needed to be able to see the protection provided by bioengineering.
Without constant maintenance, bioengineering loses its capacity to provide protection and conservation.	Constant maintenance

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Respuestas locales y desafíos globales: Reducción de riesgos desde la comunidad. Sistematización de los proyectos desarrollados del 2005 al 2014 en seis municipios de los departamentos de Olancho, Valle y Choluteca, Honduras. Cruz Roja Suiza, 2016

Available from where? Costs?

info@redcross.ch (gratis)