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) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 948, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Christoffel Blindenmission (CBM) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

09/11/2016

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

The disability inclusive approach is centered around the meaningful contribution and leadership of persons with disabilties during the entire project management cycle, from the planning stage to the evaluation of the impact of a project. It contributes to empowering them to overcome social exclusion and recognizes their needs and priorities as persons who are disproportionally at risk of disaster.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The main charactistic and central feature of the approach is that persons with disabilties can actively and meaningfully participate in, contribute to and benefit from sustainable land management/disaster risk reduction activities. The implementing organization needs to invest sufficient time and financial ressources into the formation and strenthening of self-representation groups of persons with disabilities and support their active engagement with the local government and the wider community to address the physical and attitudinal barriers that hinder their full participation in the project and society in general.

The aim is twofold: On the one hand, the participation of persons with disabitities ensures that their needs and priorities are fully taken into account in the project design and implementation, to ensure that they can benefit equally from it. On the other hand, it contributes to reducing barriers beyond the project and empowers them to demand their rights in other areas of human development, like education, health or livelihood.

The main stages of disability inclusion in the implementation of a SLM/DRR technology are:

1) Formation of self-help groups for persons with disabilities,
2) trainings and other capacity development activities for the groups, including rights awareness sessions and organizational management trainings,
3) set up the collaboration between the groups and the local government and with other members of the community,
4) participation of persons with disabilities/group members in the planning phase to decide on the technology and adapt the technology to universal design standards, which takes into account their needs and the needs of other groups with other specific accessiblity needs, like the elderly or pregnant women,
5) persons with disabilities (together with other land users) support the introduction of the technology (including the construction activities) by providing manual labor and supervision functions
6) full handover of the technology to land users, ensuring Joint ownership includes persons with disabilities, and provision of trainings for self-maintenance,
7) participation of persons with disabilties in the evaluation of the impact of the technology, sharing of lessons and good practices and continuous advocacy for community development and for the rights of persons with disabilties.

Experience from Bangladesh shows that what the land users, including persons with disabilties, like about the approach is: The strong community engagement, the empowerment and increased status of persons with disabilities, the collaboration between persons with disabilities and persons without disability, and the adaptation of existing technology to fit the needs of persons with disability.

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 empower persons with disabilities to meaningfully participate in, contribute to and benefit from the implementation of an SLM/DRR technology.

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	interactive	Land users contributed to the initial situation analysis and joined self-help groups for persons with disabilities.
planning	interactive	Land users, and in particular those who are persons with disabilities, participated in all planning and decision making processes related to the design and introduction of the technology, including the selection of the land.
implementation	external support	Land users engaged in the construction of the technology by providing paid and unpaid labor.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	The land users monitored the implementation process and gave feedback to the implementing NGOs when changes were needed. Land users participated in the evaluation of the technology and the approach and contributed to the dissemination of good practices and learnings.

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:

• all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach

Explain:

The cluster village technology was known to the community before the implementation. The technology was suggested by the implementing NGOs to the community, which supported its implementation. The technology was adapted to fit the needs of persons with disabilities based on the decisions of land users with technical support of the implementing NGOs.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

10 males and 15 females, aged between 18 to 55. Three were persons with disabilities. Most of them were daily laborers and share croppers.

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• demonstration areas
• courses

Subjects covered:

On the job training and demonstration on the construction and maintenance of the technology. Training to self-help groups for persons with disabilities on the rights of persons with disabilities, the use and benefits of the technology for persons with disabilities and the management of self-help groups.

Comments:

Training Subjects were: 1) Group dynamics and Development, 2) Disability inclusive DRR 3) Tree plantation and Vegetable Gardening using organic fertilizer 4) Government safety nets and Rights of the persons with disabilities.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

• construction/implementation of technology

Describe/ comments:

The implementing NGOs provided detailed technical support to land users on the adaptation of the technology to the needs of persons with disabilities, following the standards of universal design.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

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

• local

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Local self-help groups and their APEX body (umbrella group) at Union level were strengthened. Their roles of the self-help groups were to establish a mutual support network, raise awareness among group members of disability rights and development issues, pool ressources and give individual persons with disabilities a greater political voice. The APEX body gave the groups contact points beyond their immediate community and gave further weight to their political voice.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

To strengthen self-help groups, they were provided with, 1) awarness- and skill development trainings, 2) financial support for climate resilient income generation through agricultural and non-agricultural activities, and 3) assistive devices.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

A participatory monitoring and evaluation system was implemented with support of the self-help groups for persons with disabilties.

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

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

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

218702.00

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 100,000-1,000,000

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

The annual budget includes the total funds used for the introduction of the technology. Funds were provided through the implementing NGOs CBM and CDD, with the support of a private donor from Germany.

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):

Land users received a daily fee for the labor provided for the introduction of the technology. The NGOs also provided most material input for the technology, including soil, sand, seeds, seedlings, grass, trees, ramp, water and sanitation facilties.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• labour

• equipment

• agricultural

• construction

• infrastructure

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

• paid in cash

Comments:

A daily fee of 300 Taka was provided for labor inputs by the land users.

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)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

The maintenance of the cluster village (including grass turfing, tree plantation, vegetable garden, solar panels, water and sanitation facilities) is currently managed by land users themselves . Long-term sustainability cannot be evaluated yet.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Land users greatly apprechiate the empowerment and social cohesion that the approach enabled. Decisions are taken together and conflicts in the village can be mitigated. The Cluster Village has become a safe space and meeting point for the whole community.
The Cluster Village is fully inclusive of persons with disabilities (inclusion in decision making processes and social activities and fully accessible infrastructure), which is something that land users are proud of because it is the first such set-up in the community and is apprechiated as a model by others.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Meaningful participation and of persons with disabilities in project implementation has a signaling effect beyond the project and fosters sensitization of the local government and wider community for more inclusive community development and principles of universal design.
Formation of self-help groups of persons with disabilities and their active engagement with the wider community on community development issues, which go beyond the rights and needs of persons with disabilites, lead to empowerment and geater social inclusion of persons with disabilities.

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Technical knowledge gap when it comes to the maintenance of the technology and the continuous dependence on external support.	Invest sufficient ressources in trainings and capacity building and emphasis and formalize the transfer of ownership of the technology to land users.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Formation and strenthening of self-help groups of persons with disabilties to the level where they are sustainable and able to make significant contributions to the projects and community development and demand their rights, takes significant ressources with regard to time and funds invested.	Strong committment of the implementing organization to inclusive programming and sufficient internal capacity building.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Disability inclusive disaster risk managment, CBM, 2013

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.cbm.org/article/downloads/54741/Disability_Inclusive_Disaster_Risk_Management.pdf