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)

HELVETAS (Swiss Intercooperation)

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

12/06/2013

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

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

This is the result of an interinstitutional cooperation carried out thanks to the commitment of many stakeholders at different decision-making levels in order to manage disaster risks. UGRs (Risk Management Units) are created to institutionalize risk and their creation is supported by participative action, which ensures their sustainability and resilience

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The approach is based on establishing risk management institutionality and governability by creating municipal Risk Management Units with full participation of local stakeholders. The purpose is to ensure legality and legitimacy in the construction of institutionality to manage risk in rural municipalities and to provide a method of collective construction.
The steps followed for implementation were: 1) discussion and knowledge of the issue; b) participative creation of instruments such as risk maps; c) demonstrative projects; d) creation of Risk Management Units with established roles.
The process also included sensitization of mayors on the importance of creating institutionality. Training workshops were carried out for this purpose and municipal councils were involved and trained on the importance of managing these actions through the Risk Management Unit.
Users appreciate the broad participation in this process as well as the joint discussions of its scope and particularly the use of having a unit that will manage risk and influence in planning actions.

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

Creating institutionality for risk management in municipalities throughout the region by building on demonstrative experiences in Reduction of Disaster Risks and Adaptation to Climate Change, such as the creation of risk maps, capacity building and setting up an early alert system.
Set up Risk Management Units with full participation of and articulated with local and national institutions, within the established legal framework.

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	Native indigenous authorities were involved in the process together with municipal governments in the region. Full participation in the process, discussion on themes. Participation in learning processes.
planning	interactive	Municipalities played an important role because the extreme climate events in the area generate significant economic losses.
implementation	interactive	The municipalities and the Vice ministry for Civil Defense and the Vice ministry for Rural Development and agriculture were involved in the process in order to create Municipal Risk Management Units.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Municipalities and national institutions followed the process until its conclusion.

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 process was participative from the start and had a significant involvement from local institutions.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

• Participative approach in all events and processes

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

• Municipal technicians and local authorities.

Form of training:

• demonstration areas
• public meetings
• courses

Subjects covered:

Implementation of demonstrative ris management projects
Training for the participative creation of risk maps
Discussions on the importance of having early alert systems
Discussions on the importance of including risk management in municipal planning and budget
Discussion on the need to have UGRs (Risk Management Units)

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Through the Risk Management Unit, the municipality provides assessment on the issue. The assessment includes information on potential climate events, problems these can cause on production and the course of action institutions can take in case of emergencies.

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.

Municipalities were the institutions that were most strengthened as a result of the process, since they received instruments for risk management planning, such as maps and the Early Alert System. Their staff was trained on the issue and risk management institutionality was created.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Financial support served to execute demonstrative projects that served as local counterpart contribution.
Most of the support provided through workshops helped generate and develop capacities.

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?

Yes

Comments:

Disaster Risk Reduction Program had a monitoring system for effects and results. By creating legally supported institutionality, the effects were monitored and budgets were allotted to ensure the operation of risk management units to provide support to the early alert system. The system consisted of local authorities and technicians gathering on-site information through structured surveys and field visits.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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

Swiss Cooperation in Bolivia provided resources while the beneficiaries of the Association of Municipalities Aymaras sin Frontera provided counterpart contributions.

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):

A series of demonstrative works were funded, such as water harvest systems (in Spanish, atajados) and tanks for water harvest. The Disaster Risk Reduction Program and the municipalities involved funded the storage tanks together. The program provided the required funds for all the machinery required by the local water harvest systems (atajados). The counterpart contribution consisted in providing labor for simple works.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• labour

• equipment

• infrastructure

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

• voluntary

Comments:

The water collection systems (atajados) benefitted community members who raise camelids; these beneficiaries also contributed untrained labor to execute complementary construction tasks.

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?

Yes

If yes, specify:

Existing policies requiring municipalities for managing disaster risks served as the basis of the process. For this purpose, the Vice ministry for Rural Development and Agriculture and the Vice ministry for Civil Defense participated raising awareness on the existing policies. Though these entities did not provide any sort of funding, they did validate the process. As a result of these and other experiences, the Vice ministry for Civil Defense published a manual to create municipal risk management units, with the support of the Disaster Risk Reduction Program.

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:

Las UGRs municipales que pueden darles apoyo en actividades de la gestión del riesgo de desastres.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Municipal institutions have assumed their role in risk management and included Risk Management Units in their organic framework.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The approach strengthened governability of Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation through planning actions at the level of municipalities.

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?
The process is weakened when new politicians take office or municipal technicians are replaced with new ones.	Ensure the sustainability of the process through institutionality. By continuing the strengthening of capacities and involving more institutions in the process.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The economic context is important; when municipal budgets are reduced, disaster risk reduction measures rarely are addressed as they should and, as a result, the funds for these are cut.	To have incidence among different institutions, specifically those working on social control, to lobby on the importance of having resources for the issue.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Procesos participativos en la creación e implementación de UGRs municipales. Mancomunidad Aymaras sin fronteras, PRRD, 2014.

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.rrd.com.bo/wp-content/uploads/2015/publi_fases/fase_03/34ASF01.pdf

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Reducción del riesgo de desastres – Gobernanza del riesgo, colecion de documentos de capitalisacion y herramients, Helvetas, Cosude

URL:

www.rrd.com.bo

Title/ description:

Manual de Organización y Funcionamiento la Unidad de Gestión del Riesgo (UGR) , VIDECI, PRRD, 2013

URL:

http://www.rrd.com.bo/wp-content/uploads/2015/publi_fases/fase_03/10manual_iugr.pdf