Preventive Resettlement of Populations at Risk of Disaster - GFDRR

■■
■■
■■
■■
■■
The lack of flexibility of the Government Procurement
Law for emergency situations, which led to
major delays;
The need to design grassroots mitigation plans
with a high level of ownership by communities
and to organize and strengthen stakeholders so
they can implement the plans in line with their
traditions and customs;
This experience also showed that it is not necessary
to create new institutions for risk management
and reconstruction. For countries with severe
financial constraints, it is better to develop
inter-agency mechanisms that help ministries and
secretariats cooperate effectively. Those mechanisms
need to have high-level political support
from the Office of the President;
Resettlement should be a prevention tool, rather
than a mechanism for responding to emergencies;
Financial resources are critical for implementing
resettlement plans on schedule. The Government’s
resources were insufficient and it was necessary to
apply for supplementary funds from international
agencies and NGOs. Given the lack of resources,
the resettlement was not completed on time. Such
delays not only affected the families, but also undermined
the trust in the government institutions
that the process had restored.
22.2 During the Resettlement
Process
Significant achievements included the following:
■■
■■
■■
Coordination of national, departmental, municipal
and local levels in the design and implementation
of the resettlement plans;
Coordination of the resettlement plans with strategic
land planning programs, to guarantee their
sustainability;
The important decision to include ethnical, social
and cultural considerations in the design and
implementation of the resettlement plans, such as
the ancestral settlement pattern, traditional forms
of social organization, the indigenous cosmic
world view, ethics, and understanding of nature
■■
■■
■■
■■
■■
and disasters. This was a major challenge but one
that benefited the entire process;
Inter-cultural dialogue, recognition and respect
for other cultures throughout the process;
Participation of the community in the design
of the new settlements and houses, which made
it possible to recover the house designs of the
Tz´utujil people population, based on the extended
family model, and including space for productive,
social, and cultural activities;
Strengthening the social fabric as a fundamental
tool for processes of reconstruction with transformation;
Strengthening community organization, which
meant stakeholders established themselves as legitimate
representatives in relation to national
and municipal public institutions, as well as international
aid agencies. It created the conditions for
channeling the community’s contribution to the
reconstruction and facilitated social audits and
the management of conflicts that might arise during
the process;
The important role of women in community organization
and during the process;
■■
The replacement of the basic or “minimum roof ”
house concept with that of an adequate, modular,
gradually built and improvable house;
■■
The transparency mechanisms agreed upon with
the communities, which helped restore confidence
in the Government.
Finally, it should be highlighted that this well planned
and implemented resettlement, based on the active
participation of all stakeholders and respectful of ethical
and cultural values, became an opportunity not just
to build houses but also to rebuild community trust in
the State, to strengthen the social fabric, forge greater
communal cohesion, improve living conditions, reinforce
cultural identity and generate opportunities for
the economic, social and cultural inclusion of historically
excluded groups. These factors not only increased
the communities’ resilience to natural hazards, but also
contributed to the process of national reconciliation.
104 Preventive Resettlement of Populations at Risk of Disaster: Experiences from Latin America