Bolivia

Participatory Disaster Risk Management and Food Security in the Río San Pedro WatershedLessons Learned

Sector Project Disaster Risk Management in Development Cooperation

On behalf of:

Sector Project Disaster RiskManagement in DevelopmentCooperation

Impressum

Published by: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbHPostfach 518065726 Eschborn, GermanyT +49 61 96 79-1621F +49 61 96 79-80 1621E disaster-reduction@gtz.deI www.gtz.de/disaster-reduction

Sector Project ”Disaster Risk Management in Development Cooperation”

Responsible: Peter Asmussen, Dr. Michael SiebertAuthor: Kerstin BrunnerEditors: Jens Etter, Susanne Gotthardt, Hanna Sabaß, Thomas Schaef, Dr. Michael SiebertContact person at the Federal Ministry for EconomicCooperation and Development: Traudel KöhlerLayout: F R E U D E ! design, Rendel Freude, ColognePrinted by: Schloemer Gruppe, DürenPhotographs: GTZPublished: Eschborn, July 2007

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

1 Introduction: Natural Disasters – a Development Challenge for Bolivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 The Context: Food Insecurity in the Río San Pedro Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 The PGRSAP Project: Preserving Livelihoods and Protecting Them Against Disaster Risks . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1 Identifying the risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1.1 Risk analysis methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1.2 Risks and their impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.1.3 Local risk reduction strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.2 Planning and implementing risk-reducing measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.2.1 Creating an enabling framework for a local disaster risk management system . . . . . . . . 15

3.2.2 Infrastructural measures to prevent and mitigate the impacts of natural events . . . . . . . 18

3.2.3 Participatory monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4 What Was Achieved? – Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5 Success Factors and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5.1 Success factors that emerged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5.2 Challenges for achieving results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

6 Beyond PGRSAP: Recommendations for Future Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

7 Further Literature and Project Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

ANNEX

Description of the infrastructural prevention and mitigation measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

List of Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

The Sector Project Disaster Risk Management in Development Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

List of Contents

4

In recent years, natural disasters worldwide haveincreased significantly in both scale and number. It isto be assumed that climate change will further exac-erbate this trend. The destructive impacts of disastersunfold not only at the moment they strike, but also asthey continue to constrain long-term development inthe affected regions. They lead to poverty, becausethey damage buildings, infrastructure and the base ofproduction. Poor people have neither the necessaryresources nor the expertise to protect themselvesadequately against extreme natural events, or recoverfrom disasters. This leaves them particularly vulnera-ble. There is a direct link between disasters andpoverty, at both the local and national levels. Theyare mutually reinforcing. In many countries naturaldisasters are jeopardising the achievement of theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs), and thuspose a challenge for international development coop-eration.

Yet disasters are not inevitable! Targeted disaster riskmanagement can help break the vicious circle ofpoverty and disaster risk. By planning and imple-menting disaster prevention and mitigation measureson the basis of risk analyses, risks are reduced and –if natural event does strike – the damage is mitigated.Disaster risk management thus helps build sustain-able development. Having said that, it is not sufficientto implement one-off measures. Rather, disaster riskmanagement must be integrated into national devel-opment strategies (e.g. for poverty reduction, regionalplanning), and as a cross-cutting theme into othersectors (e.g. agriculture, environment, education).Only then can risks be effectively reduced. Disasterrisk management measures therefore need to bemainstreamed in development cooperation projects.

On behalf of the German Government, the DeutscheGesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)GmbH implements projects and programmes thatmainstream disaster risk management in partnercountries. Yet each project means not only a furtherstep toward mainstreaming disaster risk managementin development cooperation, but also the accumula-tion of further experience. It is therefore importantnot only to integrate disaster risk management intodevelopment projects, but also to document, publishand exchange the experiences gained.

Within the scope of its knowledge management, GTZsystematically analyses its experiences and makesthem available to the public and to national authori-ties. It thus contributes to the international exchangeof experience. The ongoing conceptual developmentand effective implementation of disaster risk manage-ment both profit from this.

The present publication is one of a series in whichproject experiences are systematically analysed. Itdescribes and analyses disaster risk management andfood security measures that GTZ successfully andsustainably implemented - on behalf of the GermanGovernment - in cooperation with its national part-ners and the local population concerned in NorthPotosí, one of the poorest regions in Bolivia. It alsoidentifies the difficulties that a project can encounter.

Our thanks go to all those involved in the prepara-tion of the study, and we hope that readers will findthe information it contains useful.

Foreword

Peter Asmussen Dr. Michael SiebertProject ”Disaster Risk Management and Food Security” Sector Project ”Disaster Risk (PGRSAP) Management in Development Cooperation” (GTZ Bolivia) (GTZ Eschborn)

The Río San Pedro watershed is one of the poorestregions in Bolivia. Agriculture forms the population'smain source of income, although farming can only bepracticed on a limited scale due to the altitude. Everyyear, extreme natural events inflict significant damageon agriculture, and thus on the population's liveli-hoods. Through the project ”Disaster Risk Manage-ment and Food Security in the Río San Pedro Water-shed, Bolivia (PGRSAP)”, GTZ and two municipalassociations supported people in the region in devel-oping an appropriate strategy for disaster risk man-agement, and thus in protecting their livelihoods.As a first step in strategic development the project,the population and the municipal administrationsjointly analysed hazards, vulnerabilities and risks inthe Río San Pedro watershed. The actors identifiedthe risk of disaster induced by drought, erosion orlandslide as being especially high. These eventsprovoke food crises, cropland is lost and infrastruc-ture is destroyed. To reduce these disaster risks,PGRSAP combined disaster risk management withfood security measures.

It pursued this approach on three levels. First of allPGRSAP created an enabling framework for a func-tioning disaster risk management system. It trainedlocal actors in disaster risk management and main-streamed disaster risk management in the municipaladministrations and local planning processes. Second-ly it implemented measures for drought prevention,erosion control, river training and slope stabilisation.Finally it established a participatory monitoring system.

Certain implementation strategies were conducive tothe success of the project. For instance, the popula-tion were involved in the planning and implementa-tion of the measures right from the outset, whicharoused their interest and led them to identify strong-

ly with the project. The prospect of a reliable watersupply during the dry season motivated people tobecome actively involved. Throughout the implemen-tation process, local risk reduction practices, tradi-tional forms of mutual assistance and traditionalprevention methods were combined with innovativetechnologies. This meant that the activities wereadapted to the local context and accepted by thepopulation.

A further key success factor was the availability ofcorresponding financial resources to be able to im-plement rapidly visible risk reduction measures (e.g.micro-irrigation schemes, gabion barriers etc.). Thisenabled the population to see a direct and visiblebenefit emerging from disaster risk management.As a result of the project farmers were able to sta-bilise and increase the area of land under cultivation,and to increase their production. The municipalassociations and the municipal administrations havebeen sensitised to the importance of disaster riskmanagement in their region, and now actively sup-port preventive measures. The village population toonow actively call for disaster risk management meas-ures to be included in municipal budget plans.

PGRSAP thus made a key contribution toward easingthe food security situation, and helped build sustain-able development in the region, especially by main-streaming disaster risk management at the local level.

5

Summary

6

Bolivia is one of the poorest countries in Latin America.60 percent of the population live below the povertyline.1 Extreme natural events such as droughts, torren-tial rainfall or landslides, which hit the country everyyear and often turn into disasters, exacerbate thesituation. This has fatal consequences, particularly forthe small farmer population in rural areas. The mostlypoor subsistence farmers are unable to compensatecrop losses. Erosion makes their cropland useless. Sofor the Bolivian population disasters mean not onlyan interruption in agricultural production and damageto infrastructure, but also in many cases the loss ofthose vital resources on which their livelihoods de-pend.

The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammen-arbeit (GTZ) GmbH supported the population in theparticularly hard-hit region of the Río San Pedrowatershed in sustainably protecting their livelihoods.In the ”Disaster Risk Management and Food Securityin San Pedro Watershed, Bolivia” (PGRSAP) project,GTZ combined food security measures2 with disasterrisk management components. The project waslaunched in October 2002 and ended in December2006. It was financed through funds set aside by theGerman Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperationand Development (BMZ) for development-orientedemergency and transitional aid. Projects for develop-ment-oriented emergency and transitional aid aredesigned to build a 'bridge' between the acute situa-tion of emergency and more long-term developmentprocesses.

1 Introduction: Natural Disasters – a Development Challenge for Bolivia

1 UNDP: Bolivia Human Development Report 2005. La Economía más allá del Gas. La Paz 2005.2 In this project, the term 'food security' was used in a wider sense that went far beyond merely securing the food supply, and also included

protecting the production base and preserving people's livelihoods. This is the holistic sense in which the term is used in the present brochure.

The present publication describes how and to whatextent the project succeeded in achieving its objec-tives. It addresses the following questions: Whatplanning instruments, methods and measures did thePGRSAP project employ in response to the disasterrisks? How were the local population involved in theprocess? To what extent could food security be sta-bilised by disaster prevention measures?

First of all the context in the Río San Pedro watershedis described and explained (Section 2). The riskposed to food security in the project region made itimperative to implement measures for disaster riskmanagement and food security. Project planning wasbased on a risk analysis (Section 3.1). This analysisidentified the existing risks as well as local knowl-edge on disaster risk management. On the basis ofthe risk analysis, three areas of intervention wereidentified (Section 3.2): the creation of an enablingframework for a local disaster risk managementsystem, the implementation of measures to preventand mitigate the impacts of drought, erosion andlandslides, and the introduction of participatory moni-toring. Section 4 describes the results achievedthrough these measures. During project implementa-tion, as well as retrospectively, it emerged clearlywhich internal and external factors were positivelyinfluencing the achievement of objectives, and whatthe corresponding challenges were (Section 5). Build-ing on these lessons learned, Section 6 concludeswith recommendations for future projects.

The Río San Pedro watershed is located in the extremenorth of the North Potosí region, in south-westernBolivia. It covers an area of 2,145 km2, where some28,500 people inhabit 238 villages. The region isdivided into 13 municipalities that have joined forcesto form the association Mancomunidad de Municipiosdel Norte de Potosí (MMNP). Five of these municipal-ities participated in the project: San Pedro de BuenaVista, Toro Toro, Acasio, Sacaca and Arampampa3

(see Figure 1).

The region is part of the eastern Andean slope, as aresult of which the terrain is characterised by unevenrelief. The region can be classified into three altitudezones: valleys (2,300 m to 3,100 m above sea level),mountain slopes (3,100 m to 3,900 m above sea level)and puna (over 3,900 m above sea level). All threezones are characterised by extremely low vegetationcover that is further reduced by inappropriate formsof management. Loose soils are susceptible to ero-sion, which further reduces the already low soilfertility. Agriculture is further constrained by irregularprecipitation that often comes as torrential rain (an-nual mean: 700 mm p.a.).

7

2 The Context: Food Insecurity in the Río San Pedro Watershed

Río Chayanta

Río Chayanta

Río Chayanta

Río Moscari

Río San Pedro

Río San Pedro

Río Caine

Río Quinamara

Río Huaraca

Condor Pampa

San Pedro de Buena Vista

Kkokotaviri Carasi

Totoroma

Río Pitunisu Mayu

0 10 20km

Maßstab ca 1:450.000

Acasio

Toro Toro

Laguna Sucusuma

Taconi Yambata

Yusfaya

Unaje

Panacachi

Japo

Toracari

Micani

Sernicera

Viluyo

railway

road

river

town

project region

focal zone of project

area shown in aerial photograph

(cf. Figure 2, page 10)

N

Figure 1: The pilot regionof the PGRSAPproject

3 During the course of the project the five municipalities also joined the Mancomunidad de Municipios de la Cuenca del Río Caine (MMCC)association, as they believed this was in their best interests. In the long term they plan to withdraw from both the MMNP and the MMCC, andform their own municipal association.

8

The limited potential for agriculture is a key factorbehind the poverty experienced by families in theregion, most of whom are small farmers. 72 percentof the population live in absolute poverty, NorthPotosí being one of the poorest regions in Bolivia.Food scarcity is a chronic problem. Almost three-quarters of the children are malnourished, and 23percent are undernourished. Nearly all householdslack electricity, water and sanitation. Health services,educational institutions and communications facilitiesin the region are sparse, and inaccessible for broadsections of the population due to the poorly developedroad network and inadequate means of transport.Most of the population are forced, at least temporarily,to migrate to larger towns such as Cochabamba orChapare province4 and try to make a living as casuallabourers.

In recent decades the already fragile social situationof many rural families has worsened even further.The increase in extreme climatic events such asdroughts, heavy rain or sudden onset of cold weatherhas caused acute food crises and loss of income. Atthe same time – also as a result of at least temporarymigration by the younger generation – traditionalforms of mutual assistance are falling into oblivion.

4 Especially since the 1980s Chapare, located in the north of the Cochabamba region, has emerged as one of the major coca cultivation areas.

This loss of risk reduction strategies combined withthe further impoverishment of a large proportion ofthe population increases their vulnerability to naturaldisasters.

To break this downward spiral of development, thePGRSAP project began promoting disaster risk man-agement. Only by reducing disaster risk could thepopulation's livelihoods be sustainably protected.

The lead executing agency of PGRSAP at the nationallevel was the Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible yPlanificación (MDSP – Ministry for Sustainable Development and Planning). The municipal associa-tions Mancomunidad de Municipios del Norte dePotosí (MMNP) and Mancomunidad de Municipios dela Cuenca del Río Caine (MMCC) were the projectpartners at regional level. They coordinated the inter-national cooperation of the region. MMNP and MMCCwere also responsible for transferring the measuresimplemented by PGRSAP to other municipalities.

The key project partners at the local level were themunicipal administrations of San Pedro de BuenaVista, Toro Toro, Acasio, Sacaca and Arampampa.Together with the GTZ-supported project they plannedand implemented all the activities. They are alsoresponsible for continuing the initiated processes afterthe completion of the project. Within the municipaladministrations the Consejos de Desarrollo Municipal(Municipal Development Councils) played an impor-tant role in the planning of the disaster risk manage-

ment measures, as did the technical units in imple-menting them. Furthermore, another key actor in theproject was the local population, who were alsointensively involved in planning and implementingthe measures.

In this brochure the term ”PGRSAP” is used to referto all the institutions and partners involved in theprocess.

9

Definitions

The term disaster risk refers to the scale of the anticipated damage and losses that a natural event can cause ina region. It is calculated as the product of the factors hazard and vulnerability.

A hazard is created by an anticipated extreme natural event (e.g. flooding). The degree of hazard is determined bythe nature, scope and intensity of the extreme natural event, as well as the probability of its occurrence, itsfrequency and its duration.

Vulnerability refers to the inability of a section of the population hit by an extreme natural event to resist or avoidits impacts, or recover swiftly from them. Vulnerability may be due to politico-institutional, economic and/orsocio-cultural factors.

Disaster risk management in Technical Cooperation comprises programmes, projects, measures and/or instrumentsthat aim to reduce the risk and scale of possible disasters in regions at risk. The activity areas of disaster riskmanagement are ”risk analysis”, ”disaster prevention and mitigation” and ”disaster preparedness”.

The risk analysis identifies the existing natural hazards, as well as the vulnerability of the respective local population and the resources on which they vitally depend. On this basis potential losses can be estimated andcorresponding measures identified.

Disaster prevention and mitigation involves activities designed to prevent and protect against the occurrence ofdisasters in the medium and long term. These include political, legal, administrative and infrastructural measuresdesigned in response to the hazards, as well as measures to influence the lifestyles and behaviours of the popu-lation at risk with a view to reducing their vulnerability to disasters.

Disaster preparedness comprises all measures that can be implemented in case of disaster in order to swiftly andeffectively carry out evacuations, save human lives, reduce losses and damage, and deliver emergency aid. Com-prehensive disaster preparedness includes inter alia early warning systems, contingency and emergency plans,coordination structures, stockpiling of emergency supplies, and training.

10

The region of intervention selected by the PGRSAPproject was the Río San Pedro watershed, becausethe hazards identified are closely linked to the waterbalance in the region: water scarcity during periodsof drought, and erosion and landslides during therainy season.

Given its high population density and relatively easyaccessibility, the upper course of the Río San Pedrowas chosen as the pilot region. The region is congru-ent with the boundaries of the municipality of SanPedro de Buena Vista. The municipality comprises 51 villages located across an area of 440 km². Buildingon the results of a risk analysis, PGRSAP carried outthe first activities there jointly with the village inhabi-tants. Only in the subsequent phase (from 2004 on-ward) did the project transfer the proven instrumentsto four further municipalities – Toro Toro, Acasio,Sacaca and Arampampa –, where it implementedfurther measures.

3.1 Identifying the risksThe starting point for the following project activities wasthe risk analysis, which provided information on thehazards and vulnerabilities faced by the population. A

3 The PGRSAP Project: Preserving Livelihoods and Protecting Them Against Disaster Risks

Figure 2: Aerial photo-graph of theproject region

risk analysis is an absolutely essential basis on which toidentify, plan and implement appropriate and effectivedisaster prevention measures.

3.1.1 Risk analysis methodologyOnly limited data were available on the peripherallylocated project region, however. PGRSAP thereforegathered most of the data itself, on the basis of which itproduced maps. In order to manage this major taskmore swiftly, the cartographic materials were preparedjointly with other institutions operating in the region.For instance PGRSAP entered into cooperation with theSwiss-Belgian Integrated Watershed Management(PROMIC) programme, which digitised topographicmap sheets for the entire intervention zone and usedthese to produce an elevation model for the region.Together with the GTZ Food Security in Arque, Bolivarand Tapacari Provinces (PROSANA) programme, theproject produced a database on past extreme naturalevents from the perspective of the local population.This information provided a broad orientation withrespect to existing hazards in the project region. Thebasis for the Geographic Information System (GIS) wasprovided by a photo-mosaic of aerial images of the pilotregion (see Figure 2). This includes data on current landuse, soil degradation, infrastructure, settlement and the

reduction in watersupply:

- soil moisture- groundwater level- springs- brooks and rivers

11

hydrology of the region. Parallel to the collection oftechnical data, together with the population PGRSAPconducted participatory risk analyses at village level. Bypreparing so-called mapas parlantes (maps hand-drawnby the population; see Figure 3), results chains (seeFigure 4), agricultural calendars and precipitation cycles,the population's knowledge was recorded and madeavailable for utilisation.

On the one hand the participatory risk analyses wereused to assess the population's risk perception andidentify their strategies for minimising those risks. Onthe other hand they stimulated the population's interestin disaster risk management, thus helping ensure thatthe population would identify with the future measures(see Figure 5).

Figure 3: Risk map drawn byvillage inhabitantsthemselves

Figure 4: Results chain for the hazard ‘drought’

Cause of hazard Hazard Results

consumption of less wateror contaminated water

health problems

less water and fodderfor livestock

animals fall ill, die

dry seed crop losses

reduction of vegetation cover

soil degradation,desertification

soil compaction

reduction of soilfertility

soil micro-organismsdie

change in precipitation regime

reduction in watersupply during seeding:

drought

less water availablefor consumption

water lacking forvegetation (crops andnatural vegetation)

dry soils

famine

destruction of the base of production

food insecurity, lowincome, increased

poverty

12

3.1.2 Risks and their impacts Within the scope of the risk analysis the village in-habitants identified drought, erosion, landslides, hailand the sudden onset of cold weather as placing theirlivelihoods at risk. The extreme poverty, strong popu-lation growth, permanent food insecurity, one-sideddependency on agriculture, limited access to basicservices and the fragile ecological conditions exacer-bate the population's vulnerability to extreme naturalevents.

When a period of drought strikes, the food insecuritythat already exists is transformed into an acute foodcrisis. The probability of disease and epidemic rises,and the population is threatened to be plunged deep-er into poverty by crop and livestock losses. The

continuous advance of erosion exacerbates the lossof vegetation cover, causing further poverty. Thedestruction of infrastructure (e.g. roads, irrigationschemes, houses etc.) by landslides not only causesmajor economic losses, but also isolates the regionfrom the outside world (see Table 1).

Figure 5: Risk analysis instrumentsand degree of participationby the population

risk maps and village development plansdrawn by the population themselves

results chains

aerial photographs and risk maps preparedthrough GIS

agricultural calendar andprecipitation cycles

High

Low

degree ofparticipa-

tion/ownershippopulation

13

Naturalhazard

Drought

Erosion

Landslides

Impacts observed

- food crisis caused by crop losses

- increased susceptibility to disease caused by lack of drinking water

- loss of livestock due to lack of fodder and water

- poverty

- loss of cropland and thus of the base of production

- poverty

- economic losses of buildings and infrastructure

- supply bottlenecks due to isolation

- loss of cropland

Table 1: Natural hazards, factors causing vulnerability and impacts identified by the risk analysis

Factors causing vulnerability

- extreme dependency on agriculture

- dryland farming/dependency on precipitationwater

- lack of financial reserves

- chronic malnutrition and undernourishment

- loss of cultural values and practices (e.g.systems of mutual assistance)

- lack of access to basic services (healthservices, road network etc.)

- extreme dependency on agriculture

- crop farming and grazing of steep slopes

- vegetation cover destroyed by overutilisationand logging

- hazardous location of infrastructure andcropland

- vegetation cover destroyed by overutilisationand logging

14

Drought and erosion are most widespread in theregion (see Figure 6). Yet landslides often also occur,and can cause considerable damage. By contrast, thesudden onset of cold weather is encountered mainlyin the uplands (the puna).

The risk analysis revealed that the population of theuplands were already applying risk managementstrategies that would enable them to respond to thesudden onset of cold weather, and thus prevent croplosses.

3.1.3 Local risk reduction strategies Traditionally, various risk reduction strategies haveexisted in the project region. The population possessgood bioclimatic knowledge that enables them tointerpret meteorological signs and predict the proba-bility of a hazard. To prevent crop losses, farmers forinstance use different seed varieties for a given crop(e.g. maize and potato). This ensures that at leastsome of the seed survives, even if extreme climaticevents do occur. They also stockpile supplies bypreserving foods (dried meat etc.). Another methodtraditionally practiced in the Río San Pedro watershedis the digging of seepage ditches for storing moisturein the soil. Over the course of time, however, themigration of the younger population to urban areas

(among other factors) has meant that this method hasincreasingly fallen into obscurity.

Since society in the Río San Pedro watershed haslived from agriculture for generations, its whole liferhythm is geared to the agronomic calendar. As aresult, a broad body of knowledge has accumulatedon how to interpret wind directions, cloud forma-tions, animal behaviour etc., so that it becomeseasier to forecast looming extreme meteorologicalevents (e.g. hail or heavy rains). (See GTZ/PGRSAP:“Percepciones culturales sobre riesgo natural yrelaciones de género en comunidades del extremoNorte de Potosí”. Cochabamba 2003)

3.2 Planning and implementing risk-reducing measures

On the basis of the risk analysis, PGRSAP identifiedthe measures to be taken in order to protect people'sbase of production through appropriate disaster riskmanagement. The activities identified can be classified

Figure 6: Spatial distribu-tion of hazards inthe projectregion erosion

landslides

drought

sudden cold weather

hail

into three activity areas: creating an enabling frame-work for a local disaster risk management system,measures to prevent and mitigate drought, erosionand landslides, and the introduction of participatorymonitoring.

3.2.1 Creating an enabling framework for a localdisaster risk management system

Disaster risk management can only make a sustain-able contribution toward food security if and when itis locally integrated. This creates a need for aware-ness-raising and training measures, and also meansthat disaster risk management must be institution-alised and mainstreamed in the relevant procedures.

Training local actorsA key precondition for the joint planning process wasthe sensitisation of the municipal administrations, thetechnical personnel employed there and the membersof the Consejo de Desarrollo Municipal (CDM –Municipal Development Council) to the need fordisaster risk management. A next step involved thesensitisation of the population by representatives ofthe municipalities, as well as project staff. In plenaryassemblies the individual villages elected representa-tives for disaster risk management. PGRSAP trainedthe village and municipal representatives, technicalpersonnel and some members of the CDM in theconduct of risk analyses, disaster risk managementmeasures and the participatory preparation of villageplans.

Institutionalising disaster risk management in themunicipal administrationsIn the course of the project the municipal administra-tions established within the Municipal DevelopmentCouncil a specially-created Commission for Environ-mental Protection and Disaster Risk Management(Comisión de Medio Ambiente y Gestión de Riesgos).

At the same time they made available technical stafffor the planning and implementation of disaster pre-vention measures within the technical units of themunicipality. Interaction between the individual(operative, normative and organisational) levels with-in the municipality was formalised, and a cohereht

15

Example:

Planning and implementing afforestationmeasures

In its village development plan, a village decides toafforest two degraded sites of three hectares each.Since the funds available are only enough for onesite, the village representatives and the Commissionfor Environmental Protection and Disaster RiskManagement jointly discuss which of the two sitesshould be afforested. The Commission also consi-ders whether the afforestation measures fit into thevillage's overall disaster risk management strategy.In order that the heavily overgrazed areas locatedclose to the afforestation site are not further degra-ded and the slope not destabilised, the MunicipalCouncil passes a regulation declaring those areasout of bounds for grazing for the next two years.Implementation of the measure (e.g. selection oftree species, fencing off etc.) is being planned bythe technical unit together with the village popula-tion, who will be carrying out the afforestationunder the guidance of the technical staff.

16

disaster risk management strategy was thus developed(see Figure 7). Under this strategy the Commission forEnvironmental Protection and Disaster Risk Manage-ment is responsible in particular for the prioritisationand administration of disaster risk management projects.The Municipal Council performs the task of preparingmunicipal regulations. The technical unit is responsiblefor the planning, implementation and monitoring ofthe measures.

Integrating disaster risk management intoplanning processesTogether with the population, the village representa-tives trained as trainers for disaster risk managementheld workshops to analyse hazards and vulnerabilities.

The results were integrated by village inhabitants intovillage development plans prepared on a participatorybasis. Building on this the villagers identified disasterprevention measures, which they then prioritised andincorporated into the development plans. To createincentives the municipal administration organised thepreparation of the village development plans as acompetition, and awarded prizes of implements tothe villages with the best plans. The infrastructuraldisaster risk management measures identified asnecessary by the villages (see Table 2) were thendiscussed with the municipal administrations andincorporated into the respective annual budgets.

Figure 7:Institutionali-sing disasterrisk manage-ment at thelocal level

Level Body Roles

OPERATIVEtechnical unit fordisaster risk management

planning, implementation and follow-up

NORMATIVEmunicipal councilsub-prefecture

issue of municipal regula-tions, provisions at the level of the sub-prefecture

ORGANISATIONAL

municipal developmentcouncil: commission forenvironment and disaster riskmanagement

promotion and participation,management of coherence,prioritisation and administra-tion of projects

Hazard Disaster risk management measure identified

Drought - complementary irrigation using rainwater harvesting basins and micro-irrigation schemes

Erosion - terracing- construction of seepage ditches- soil amelioration- pasture management

Landslides - erection of gabion barriers- pasture management- afforestation of degraded sites

Table 2: Infrastructuraldisaster risk manage-ment measures identifiedby the risk analysis

Since the project was launched, this process has beenrepeated by villages and municipal administrations onan annual basis (see Figure 8). One key result of theprocess of negotiation between villages and municipal-ities is that disaster risk management measures arebeing and will be integrated into the new municipal

development plans that are prepared every five years.All five municipalities have reserved a fixed amountfor disaster risk management measures in their budgetsthat is equivalent in each case to around five percentof the total budget.

17

3risk analysis

2aself-diagnosis at

village level (localperception)

1project preparation

2btechnical studies

4village developmentplan for disaster risk management

8updating of the village

development plan and prioritisa-tion of measures

7evaluation of results 6

implementation of disaster riskmanagement measures

Figure 8: Integratingdisaster risk managementinto municipal planning

5municipal annual budget (with

disaster risk management)

Municipal development plan(with disaster risk manage-

ment)

Steps

18

3.2.2 Infrastructural measures to prevent and mitigate the impacts of natural events

Alongside the measures to institutionalise and main-stream disaster risk management, infrastructural meas-ures were implemented to help prevent and mitigatethe impacts of drought, erosion and landslides. Theresults of these measures swiftly became evident,which motivated the population to become activelyinvolved.5

Drought prevention measuresTo lower vulnerability to drought and reduce thepossibility of a food crisis, PGRSAP decided to in-

crease the area of land under irrigation. Before theproject was launched only ten percent of farmlandwas irrigated.

Until that point, the population were using divertedriver water. Rainwater collection methods were large-ly unknown to them. This limiting of irrigation toriver water meant that water was only being deliv-ered to cropland in valleys. The PGRSAP measuresaimed to help protect a major proportion of cropsthrough additional irrigation. This complementaryirrigation is now being realised through rainwaterharvesting basins (see Figure 9) and micro-irrigationschemes.

Figure 9: Rainwater harvestingbasin for complementaryirrigation

Figure 10: Terracing of steep slopes Figure 11: Protecting the riverbank slope on which San Pedro deBuena Vista is located

5 For a more detailed description of the individual measures: see annex.

Erosion control and soil amelioration High priority was attached to protecting farmlandagainst erosion. Only by protecting cropland andincreasing its productivity can food security in the RíoSan Pedro watershed be stabilised on a sustainablebasis. As the risk analysis made clear, inappropriateforms of agriculture (overgrazing, utilisation of steepslopes) exacerbate the already high vulnerability ofthis cropland to erosion. PGRSAP therefore opted fora strategy involving various training and infrastructur-al measures including terracing (see Figure 10), con-struction of seepage ditches, soil amelioration (in-volving organic fertilisers, natural pesticides), pasturemanagement and fodder storage, all of which weredesigned to make farming practices more appropriateto the fragile ecosystem.

Controlling river flows and stabilising slopes Within the scope of the risk analysis the populationidentified landslides as a key hazard for the infra-structure of the region. Overutilisation of the naturalvegetation cover and the location of infrastructureand cropland in hazardous zones make the populationvulnerable to landslides. PGRSAP therefore opted tostabilise mountain slopes and protect fields and infra -structure at risk through river training (see Figure 11)and afforestation measures.

3.2.3 Participatory monitoring To evaluate their progress in disaster risk management,the village inhabitants – together with the municipaladministration – reviewed the results achieved at theend of each year. On the basis of the village develop-ment plans drawn up on a participatory basis, as wellas the municipal plans of operations, they reviewedthe achievement of designated objectives for the

19

Figure 12: In the village tree nursery

Figures 13 and 14: Presentation of the village development plans and awards

implemented measures. Where a village fell short ofthe objectives it had set out to achieve, the actorsinvolved analysed the causes, and incorporated themeasures into the respective plan of operations onceagain. New activities were only included once theplanned activities had been successfully completed.The municipal administrations rewarded those vil-lages and families that had integrated the most disas-ter risk management measures into their agriculturalpractices (e.g. largest terracing schemes by linearmetre) with prizes of implements or materials for amicro-irrigation system.

PGRSAP succeeded in successfully implementing itsactivities, and met with a high degree of acceptanceamong the population. Yet which results did itachieve and which long-term, change processes did itinitiate with regard to risk reduction and food securi-ty? These questions are explored below, taking intoaccount the various actors involved.

Improving the nutrition situation Within the scope of the project activities the villagepopulation increased their area of land under cultiva-tion, and intensified their production. By the end of2006 they had constructed across the entire projectregion around 213 rainwater harvesting basins, thanksto which a further 319 hectares of farmland could beirrigated, and more water could be made available forhousehold use and for livestock. A total of 841 fami-lies profited from these innovations. Since the rainwa-ter harvesting basins were constructed using simpletechnology and largely with local materials, farmersare able to maintain this infrastructure self-reliantly.Using the water delivered by the total of 83 micro-irrigation schemes built by the end of 2006, an addi-tional 780 hectares of farmland are now being irrigat-ed on a year-round basis by some 900 families. Aswell as protecting their crops, many families havealso been able to diversify their production. Whereaspreviously it was mainly maize, wheat and potatoesthat were grown, the farmers now also cultivate othervarieties of vegetable such as onions, leeks, beans,beetroot, marrows, lettuce and carrots. Furthermore,production has also been raised to two harvests peryear.

Thanks to terracing, the construction of seepageditches and soil amelioration measures, almost 4,000families have been able to protect 300 acres of theircropland against erosion, and increase the productivi-ty of their fields. The terracing put in place reducesloss of the production base, and in many cases en-ables steep slopes that were previously used only aspasture to be cultivated now. Reduced pest anddisease infestation and stronger crop resistanceagainst drought already led to a higher crop yield atthe subsequent harvest.

The river training measures have proved a highlyeffective element in changing river flow behaviourand in protecting the riverbank slopes. Since a dis-tance was kept between the protective barriers, thevillage inhabitants are able to divert river water via achannel behind these barriers, where it then depositsits fertile fine sediment. Using the total of 100 gabionbarriers, around 100 hectares of farmland were pro-tected or newly claimed in the project region. In theyears of heavy rainfall (2003 and 2005) the protectivebarriers already fulfilled their purpose by preventingfurther sub-surface erosion of the slope at San Pedrode Buena Vista.

The village communities have afforested 678 hectaresof degraded land in the Río San Pedro watershed. Bythe end of 2006 eighty percent of families in Torakarihad a small afforested area of around one-and-a-halfhectares each. The population's strong interest inparticipating in the community work at the villagetree nurseries is a key factor in their sustainability.Through the afforestation measures PGRSAP pursuedtwin strategies. It linked income-generating measures

20

4 What Was Achieved? – Results

Figure 15: Contrast between cropland receiving complementaryirrigation (left) and non-irrigated fields (right)

21

with reducing the vulnerability of mountain slopes tolandslides and erosion. Around 4,000 village inhabi-tants in 245 villages profited from the afforestationmeasures.

Local actors assume responsibility The farmers' intensive involvement in the projectactivities has enabled them to apply instruments (e.g.participatory budget planning) and methods (e.g.construction of terracing appropriate to the relief ofthe land) that were new to them, and to feel respon-sible for maintenance of the infrastructure. Further-more, in around 100 villages disaster risk manage-ment organisations emerged in which the trainerstrained by the project are involved. The close cooper-ation with local authorities and the integration oftraditional social forms strengthened the local organi-sations, boosted solidarity among the village inhabi-tants and increased their identification with the proj-ect measures. More than ten percent of the entirepopulation of the Río San Pedro watershed wereactively involved in the planning and implementationof the disaster risk management measures.

One key result of the project is planning by thevillage jointly and on its own responsibility. Thepopulation's strong interest in disaster risk manage-ment and the integration of disaster risk managementinto village development plans are key factors for theproject's sustainability.

Signs of a changed risk perception among the population Although it is difficult to measure any change in riskperception after a project lasting only four years, achange in the behaviour of both the population andpolitical decision-makers in the Río San Pedro water-shed is nevertheless evident. Especially significant inthis context were the participatory risk analysis andthe swift implementation of the measures. The riskanalysis led to the population focusing on their vul-nerability and attempting to reduce it directly. Thecomplementary irrigation in particular made it clearto the population that they could and can reducetheir own vulnerability. Traditional practices thatwere at risk of falling into oblivion (e.g. seepageditches) as a result of outward migration by theyounger generation are now being applied onceagain. Behavioural changes among the population arealso evident in the context of the afforestation meas-ures and the specially-created village tree nurseries.In contrast to previous practices, farmers now makesure that their livestock do not graze on sites where

Figure 16: Afforested site on a heavily degraded slope

Figure 17: Taking payment in saplings

young and therefore vulnerable saplings are present.Many families keep the plastic covers provided by thetree nurseries in order to raise their own saplingsfrom collected seed.

Institutionalisation of disaster risk management atthe municipal levelAs a result of the joint planning and implementationthe five municipal administrations have been sensi-tised to disaster risk management and recognise itsimportance. The creation of a fixed budget of at leastfive percent of the total budget for disaster preven-tion measures in all project municipalities providesclear proof of this.6 A further indicator is the creationof the commissions for environment and disaster riskmanagement that are responsible for planning andsteering future disaster risk management measures.Furthermore, all municipalities involved in the projectnow employ at least one technical expert for disasterrisk management. The municipalities of San Pedro deBuena Vista and Arampampa have also explicitlymainstreamed disaster risk management in theirmunicipal development plans. This mainstreaming, inconjunction with the definition of concrete activitiesin the municipal plans of operations drawn up annu-ally (on the basis of the village development plans),guarantees the sustainability of the project measuresimplemented.

Developing disaster prevention measures throughmunicipal associations The municipal associations MMNP and MMCC havepledged to transfer the experience gained in SanPedro de Buena Vista to other municipalities. One

visible result of this pledge is the cooperation alreadylaunched between MMCC and the Agencia Españolade Cooperación Internacional (AECI) for micro-irrigation.7 The cooperation with municipal associa-tions also reinforced their importance in the minds ofthe population. Given the short duration of the proj-ect and the still weak structures of the associations,the change processes that have been initiated at thislevel have generated only few visible results. TheMinisterio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Planificación(Ministry for Sustainable Management and Planning)plans to continue the institutionalisation of disasterrisk management begun by PGRSAP at the level ofthe municipal associations, using loan 1121 of theInter-American Development Bank (IADB).8

22

6 In San Pedro de Buena Vista the budget for disaster risk management for 2007 is around 500,000 Bolivianos (approx. 50,000 euros). This isequivalent to six percent of the municipal budget.

7 In cooperation with AECI and the Mancomunidad de Municipios de la Cuenca del Río Caine (MMCC) 16 model sites for peach cultivation werecreated, managed such that droplet irrigation is delivered through micro-irrigation schemes. An agreement has been reached with AECI andMMCC to link a further 54 model sites to the micro-irrigation schemes put in place. Peach cultivation is an innovation in the region, fromwhich the farmers expect to generate further income.

8 Loan 1121 of IADB is designed to support the elaboration of a national framework plan for disaster risk management, as well as the main-streaming of disaster risk management in national, regional and local institutions.

Figure 18: Village planning

23

Launching mainstreaming of disaster risk management at the national levelDespite difficult circumstances at the national level –during the four years of the project there were threechanges of president – the project also established atrack record of results at that level. One milestone onthe road toward integration of disaster risk manage-ment into national planning was the granting of loan1121 by IADB in December 2005. PGRSAP advisedthe Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Planificaciónon applying for the loan, and trained ministry person-nel in disaster risk management.

Contribution to the international debate By preparing various studies and project publications,PGRSAP moved the importance of a local approachto sustainable disaster risk management onto theagenda of the international debate. Together with themunicipal administration of San Pedro de BuenaVista, PGRSAP also disseminated the project strategyand lessons learned at various international confer-ences, such as the Third International Conference onEarly Warning (EWC III) held in March 2006 in Bonn,Germany. It was the experiences of the mayor of SanPedro de Buena Vista that led to the ”Declaration ofthe Mayors' Conference on the occasion of the Inter-national Conference on Early Warning” including aclear commitment to civil society participation.

Having said that, it is still too early to be able toassess the project results in terms of the sustainableprotection of livelihoods. We will have to wait andsee how the increased crop yields and forest manage-ment affect household economics, and whether thedisaster prevention measures are also applied inremote areas of the Río San Pedro watershed.

administrations rewarded with prizes the best-de-signed village plans, village work oriented towarddisaster risk management and families who had madeparticularly intensive efforts for disaster risk manage-ment. Prizes included agricultural implements, as wellas materials for micro-irrigation schemes. Theseprovided strong incentives for both village communi-ties and families to integrate disaster risk manage-ment measures into their agricultural productionsystems.

During project implementation it became clear whichprinciples and implementation strategies were partic-ularly conducive to positive results. At the same time,it also emerged which external factors presented achallenge to the project.

5.1 Success factors that emerged

Participation by the populationKey to the success of the project was the participato-ry approach. By involving local actors in planning,implementation and evaluation, capacities werecreated at village level, and a strong sense of identifi-cation with planning processes and project measureswas achieved. As a result the village inhabitantsbecame actively involved in the individual measures,and integrated disaster risk management into theireveryday working practices. Key to this was thevisualisation of hazards, vulnerabilities and risksusing self-drawn maps, results chains, farming calen-dars etc.

Risk analysisThe heavy involvement of the population in the analysisplayed a key role in making the planning process re-sponsive to their needs. At the same time the villageinhabitants were sensitised to their own vulnerability,enabling them to identify options to reduce that vulner-ability. The combination of local perceptions (self-drawn maps, results chains etc.) and technical methods(aerial photos etc.) was of major importance, not onlyfor the precision of planning. It also simplified theprocess of sensitising both political decision-makers andthe technical units within the municipality (e.g. byvisualising the risks in GIS maps). One key lessonlearned in the process was to collect only as muchtechnical data as was really needed (e.g. to prepare theGIS). It also proved helpful to begin implementingactivities already on the basis of the first results of therisk analysis. Through the visible, positive results of theactivities (e.g. maintenance and increase of crop yieldsgenerated by irrigation), the village population wereable to see the benefit of the risk analysis, and remainedmotivated to continue their involvement in the imple-mentation of disaster risk management activities.

CompetitionsA motivating element in both the planning and imple-mentation phases were competitions. The municipal

Exchange of experienceAs the village inhabitants were unfamiliar with anumber of the methods disseminated by the project,they were initially somewhat reserved toward them.To convince the village population of the benefits ofthe activities, PGRSAP organised excursions to otherregions of Bolivia, and later within the project region.These excursions created opportunities for an ex-change of experience between village inhabitantswho had already profited from disaster risk manage-ment measures, and those who were still at the be-ginning of the planning process.

Visibility through flexibility and an adequate budget People in the Río San Pedro watershed were initiallysceptical about innovations. However, the rapidlyvisible benefits of the measures created broad interestand commitment among the local population. Givena project limited to four years and without sufficientfunds, however, visible results of this kind are almostimpossible to achieve. In the case of PGRSAP theadequate resources provided made a key contributionto its impact on public awareness.

24

5 Success Factors and Challenges

Figure 19: Prize giving in the municipal competition

25

Pilot zone for testing measures The approach of ”running through” the project meas-ures in their entirety in a pilot phase and in a smallproject region, and then transferring the tried andtested methods and instruments to the other munici-palities, proved helpful. PGRSAP was thus able tolearn from the experiences in San Pedro de BuenaVista, and further refine the project strategy. Themeasures were transferred not according to a rigidscheme, but in such a way as to harness the creativityand potentials of the participating population.

Combining tradition with technology By complementing traditional forms of survival withelements of technology the project was able to devel-op locally appropriate and accepted project activities.PGRSAP carefully promoted practices that were dyingout (e.g. the digging of seepage ditches, traditionallypracticed forms of mutual assistance), and incorporat-ed these into the implementation strategy. For theconstruction work involved in the labour-intensiveinfrastructure measures (e.g. rainwater harvestingbasins, terraces, protective barriers etc.) the projectutilised traditional community practices. This guaran-teed swift completion of the measures, and revivedtraditional community practices – also among theyounger generation. At the same time, integrating andrevitalising these traditional social forms strengthenedboth solidarity within the villages, and the identifica-tion of the inhabitants with their village. The combina-tion of tradition with technology was also an enrichingexperience for PGRSAP project staff. They were able tofamiliarise themselves with local practices and theperceptions of the local population, which enabledthem to repeatedly reflect on the implementationstrategies and adapt them to local conditions.

Mayors a good advertisement Another key element was the fact that the mayorsrecognised the importance of disaster risk managementfor the region. Political will and keen interest on thepart of the mayors, especially in San Pedro de BuenaVista, made it easier for PGRSAP to plan and imple-ment all project measures. The mayor of San Pedro deBuena Vista turned out to be a real advertisement fordisaster risk management, both within his own munici-pality and in neighbouring ones, as well as at thenational level and at international conferences.

Trust won by a dedicated team The project was able to win the trust and confidenceof the local population above all thanks to the dedica-tion of the team members. Their willingness to live inthe remote project region and work jointly with thepeople on the project measures won PGRSAP a repu-tation for being a reliable partner.

5.2 Challenges for achieving results

Location of the project regionThe extremely peripheral nature of the project regionmade cooperation with other actors difficult, as bare-ly any other organisations operate in the Río SanPedro watershed. PGRSAP was therefore able togenerate only very limited synergy effects (e.g. coop-eration with AECI). Furthermore, there were nostructures in place that the project could haveutilised. The remoteness of the region will make thetransfer of project activities by other institutionsdifficult.

Discontinuity and competency disputes at national levelThe positive results at national level were limited bytwo factors: firstly the unstable political situation,which during the life of the project included severalchanges of presidency, road blocks and unrest; sec-ondly the competency disputes between the Ministe-rio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Planificación (MDSP –Ministry for Sustainable Development and Planning)and the Ministerio de Defensa Nacional (MDN –Min-istry of Defence), to which the Defensa Civil (CivilDefence) reports. MDN is responsible for disaster riskmanagement, but must act in consultation with MDSP.A further decree meant that MDSP was assignedresponsibility for formulating national disaster riskmanagement policies, which entailed an artificialdivision of competences for the theme, and made theelaboration of a holistic national strategy more diffi-cult. The interministerial differences were compound-ed by frequent changes of personnel within theministries, which made sustainable capacity develop-ment for disaster risk management more difficult.

26

The example of PGRSAP demonstrates how evenwithin a short project duration of just four years,behavioural changes within the population can beachieved for disaster risk management. The basicprerequisite for this is the involvement of local actorsin the project activities. This is because the incorpora-tion of their perceptions, experiences and traditionalpractices to ensure their survival are key to the devel-opment of appropriate project strategies. Further-more, integration of the local population is also keyto the sustainability of a project. Where village inhab-itants do not have simple planning instruments attheir disposal, and do not feel responsible for theinfrastructure put in place, the results are unlikely tooutlast the project.

Disaster risk management measures are labour-inten-sive, and often mean economic sacrifices for thepopulation in the short term. These measures musttherefore produce rapidly visible results, especially inregions suffering from extreme poverty. In order toguarantee this, at least some measures should reducethe risk as directly as possible, as opposed to gener-ating results only in the long term.

A good example of this is provided by the irrigationschemes introduced by PGRSAP. Within one year,agricultural output was increased through comple-mentary irrigation during dry periods. This made thepopulation more interested in disaster risk manage-ment, and increased their willingness to invest timeand labour in measures of this kind.

Although there is no blueprint for the success of aproject, it is nevertheless possible to highlight a fewgenerally valid success factors on the basis of theexperiences described. Participation, transparency,flexibility and political will, for instance, are just ascrucial to project success as local institutional capaci-ty building, the incorporation of local knowledge,and a corresponding project budget for implementingrapidly visible measures. The methods and instru-ments should be easily replicable, but should be triedand tested and adapted on a context-specific basis.

Protracted processes such as the mainstreaming ofdisaster risk management at regional and nationallevel, or the marketing of food, can be initiated by aproject within four years, but not brought to comple-tion. Strategic partnerships with other organisationsare therefore of major importance. Through its al-liance with IADB, PGRSAP secured the further inte-gration of disaster risk management into national andregional planning processes. The partnership withAECI also guaranteed the diversification of agricultur-al production, and the introduction of innovativeirrigation systems (e.g. droplet irrigation). PGRSAPthus fulfilled its function as a development-orientedemergency and transitional aid project and formed a'bridge' between short-term aid and the initiation oflonger-term development processes.

PGRSAP not only made a significant contributiontoward protecting the livelihoods of the population inthe Río San Pedro watershed, but also initiated sus-tainable development processes in the region.

6 Beyond PGRSAP:Recommendations for Future Measures

Figure 20: Planting trees together

27

BMZ/Division 213: ”Development-Oriented Emergency and Transitional Aid”. Bonn 2006

GTZ: ”Development-Oriented Emergency Aid. A Working Concept.” Eschborn 1998

GTZ: ”Disaster Risk Management. A Working Concept”. Eschborn 2002

GTZ: ”Guidelines: Risk Analysis – a Basis for Disaster Risk Management”. Eschborn 2004

GTZ/PGRSAP: ”Percepciones culturales sobre riesgo natural y relaciones de género en comunidades delextremo Norte de Potosí”. Cochabamba 2003

GTZ/PGRSAP and Municipio San Pedro: ”Estudio de Ganadería en Tres Pisos Ecológicos Representativosde la Cuenca Alta del Río San Pedro”. La Paz 2004

GTZ/PGRSAP: ”Apreciación de las Condiciones de Seguridad Alimentaria en las Comunidades Campesinasde Choroma, Hank’oyu, Wenqalla y Linde de la Cuenca de San Pedro/Bolivia”. La Paz 2004

GTZ/PGRSAP: ”Contribución al Análisis de Riesgo de Desastre en la Cuenca Alta del Río San Pedro”. LaPaz 2004

GTZ/PGRSAP: ”Proyecto Gestión de Riesgo y Seguridad Alimentaria en la Cuenca del Río San Pedro (PGR-SAP)” (project video). La Paz 2004

GTZ/PGRSAP: ”Buscando el Riesgo y a la Gente”. La Paz 2005

GTZ/PGRSAP: ”Gestión y Diseño de Atajados para Cosecha de Agua. Norte-Potosí – Bolivia”. La Paz 2006

GTZ/PGRSAP: ”Cuatro Años Generando Experiencias y Vivencias, el Camino está abierto”. La Paz 2006

GTZ/PGRSAP: ”Cartillas de Capacitación”. La Paz 2006

7 Further Literature and Project Materials

Rainwater harvesting basinsOne key measure for drought prevention was theconstruction of so-called atajados – rainwater harvest-ing basins. These are used to irrigate crops during thedry season or during dry periods of the rainy season.This means that despite shortened periods of precipi-tation, crops can be protected and food securitymaintained. Technically speaking atajados are waterreservoirs with a capacity of at least 1,000 cubicmetres. They are built on gentle mountain slopes tocollect and store rainwater. To guarantee the func-tionality of the system, certain preconditions must bemet, particularly as regards soil properties. Rainwaterharvesting basins in soils with a low clay contentwere sealed using a plastic sheet to prevent seepageof the water into the ground. Depending on its size, arainwater harvesting basin is used by two to threefamilies.

Micro-irrigation schemesMicro-irrigation schemes also reduce vulnerability todrought. They consist of a rainwater harvesting basin,and receive their water from small water streams allyear round. Since their location is dependent on thewater stream, they often have to be built on groundthat is rather unsuitable (e.g. clay content too low).The basins are therefore always sealed with plasticsheeting.

TerracingTo prevent advancing cropland losses and preservethe fertility of soils, the village population learnednew methods of terrace construction. As a result,forms of terracing were introduced that were appro-priate to the relief of the respective terrain. Thismeant that steep slopes could be utilised, and thevulnerability of cropland to erosion reduced. To thisend stone walls 40 to 80 centimetres in height arebuilt, extending longitudinally along the relief of theslope. The distance between the walls is calculatedaccording to the gradient of the slope. This methodprevents the fertile soil from being washed away.Over the course of time the eroded soil forms aterrace behind the wall that can be managed. Soilproperties are also ameliorated, because water andnutrients remain in the soil. Terrace construction notonly reduces productive resource losses, but in manycases also allows farmers to cultivate crops on steepslopes hitherto used only as pasture.

Construction of seepage ditches To enable more rainwater to seep into the farmland,seepage ditches were dug in the project region. Theditches were dug parallel to the slope, each being 40to 60 centimetres in depth and breadth. They are twometres long. Seepage ditches are especially appropri-ate in very dry terrain and on pastureland. As well asstoring moisture for dry periods, seepage ditchesreduce erosion caused by rapid runoff of precipita-tion water.

Soil amelioration practices Erosion control alone does not increase soil produc-tivity. PGRSAP therefore introduced practices toimprove soils and protect against pests and disease.The farmers learned for instance to produce organicfertiliser comprised of animal dung, vegetable waste,yeast and water. They were also trained in pesticideproduction. Lime sulphur is used as an organic insec-ticide in particular because it can be produced local-ly.

Pasture management and fodder storageSince overgrazing is a major cause of erosion-inducedproductive resource losses, together with the localpopulation and the municipal administration PGRSAPdeveloped alternatives to the grazing system beingpracticed. Overgrazed sites were for instance declaredout of bounds for grazing, to allow the vegetation toregenerate. Furthermore, alternative fodder plantswith a high nutritional value were disseminated. Thisreduced pressure on the natural vegetation. A keycomponent of pasture management was alternativefodder storage practices. Traditionally the farmers drythe animal fodder in the forks of tree branches – amethod that leaves the fodder too perishable. Usingan easily replicable silage method, animal fodder cannow be made less perishable by storing it in a hole inthe ground.

Description of the infrastructural prevention and mitigation measures

ANNEX

28

River training measuresDuring the rainy season the Río San Pedro and itstributaries carry a heavy load of sediment that theydeposit on the river bed. As a result the course of theriver changes constantly, and the river erodes valleyflanks and farmland located on the fertile riverbed.To reduce the vulnerability of this cropland and toreclaim areas already washed away, together with thevillage population PGRSAP erected a series ofgabion-type barriers (gaviones). These consist of awire basket fixed to the ground and filled with stonesand loose material. The barriers have proved a highlyeffective element in changing the river flow behav-iour and in protecting the undercut banks. They havea service life of around 20 years. Since a gap was leftbetween the barriers, the village inhabitants are ableto divert river water via a channel to a point behindthe gaviones, where the river then deposits its fertilefine sediment. Thus within two to three years formercropland is reclaimed and new cropland is gained.

AfforestationDue to the heavy erosion of slopes in the Río SanPedro watershed, many sites have already becomeunsuitable for agriculture. The only option for extract-ing economic benefit out of these sites is forestry.Afforested sites can later be used to obtain construc-tion materials, firewood or animal fodder. To guaran-tee the sustainability of the afforestation measures,eleven tree nurseries were established and promotedthat produce between 40,000 and 85,000 saplings perannum. The tree nurseries are strategically distributedacross the project region such that a large number offamilies are able to participate in the work that needsto be performed in the tree nurseries. They are remu-nerated with saplings.

29

ANNEX

30

Figure 1: The pilot region of the PGRSAP project ........................................................................7Figure 2: Aerial photograph of the project region.. ....................................................................10Figure 3: Risk map drawn by village inhabitants themselves ....................................................11Figure 4: Results chain for the hazard 'drought' ........................................................................11Figure 5: Steps and instruments of the risk analysis in San Pedro de Buena Vista...................12Figure 6: Spatial distribution of hazards in the project region.. .................................................14Figure 7: Institutionalising disaster risk management at the local level.....................................16Figure 8: Integrating disaster risk management into municipal planning..................................17Figure 9: Rainwater harvesting basin for complementary irrigation.. ........................................18Figure 10: Terracing of steep slopes.. ............................................................................................18Figure 11: Protecting the riverbank slope on which San Pedro de Buena Vista is located........18Figure 12: In the village tree nursery.. ...........................................................................................19Figures 13+14: Presentation of the village development plans and awards.. .....................................19Figure 15: Contrast between cropland receiving complementary irrigation (left)

and non-irrigated fields (right) ....................................................................................20Figure 16: Afforested site on a heavily degraded slope................................................................21Figure 17: Taking payment in saplings.. ........................................................................................21Figure 18: Village planning.............................................................................................................22Figure 19: Prize giving in the municipal competition. ..................................................................24Figure 20: Planting trees together...................................................................................................26Table 1: Natural hazards, factors causing vulnerability and impacts identified

by the risk analysis .......................................................................................................13Table 2: Infrastructural disaster risk management measures identified

by the risk analysis .......................................................................................................16

List of Figures and Tables

List of Acronyms and AbbreviationsAECI Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional

(Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation)BMZ German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentCDM Consejo de Desarrollo Municipal (Municipal Development Council)EWC III Third International Conference on Early WarningGIS Geographic Information SystemIADB Inter-American Development BankGTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

(German Technical Cooperation)MDG Millennium Development GoalsMDN Ministerio de Defensa Nacional (Ministry for National Defence)MDSP Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Planificación

(Ministry for Sustainable Development and Planning)MMCC Mancomunidad de Municipios de la Cuenca del Río Caine

(Association of Municipalities of the Río Caine Watershed)MMNP Mancomunidad de Municipios del Norte de Potosí

(Association of Municipalities of North Potosí)PDR Programa de Desarrollo Rural (Rural Development Programme)PGRSAP Proyecto Gestión de Riesgo y Seguridad Alimentaria en la Cuenca del Río San Pedro

(Disaster Risk Management and Food Security in the Río San Pedro Watershed Project)PROMIC Programa Manejo Integral de Cuencas (Integrated Watershed Management Programme)PROSANA Proyecto de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional en las Provincias Arque, Bolivar y Tapacari

(Protecting Livelihoods in Arque, Bolivar and Tapacari Provinces Project)

31

Sector ProjectDisaster Risk Management in Development Cooperation(10/2003 – 12/2008)

BackgroundIn recent years, natural disasters have increasedsignificantly in both scale and number. Natural disas-ters not only bring developing countries to a halt, butalso throw them back – sometimes by years. In thesesituations, disasters and poverty are directly linked.Poor sections of the population are barely able toprotect themselves against extreme natural events,and recover from disasters only very slowly. Conver-sely, natural disasters lead to poverty because theydestroy people's houses, infrastructure and base ofproduction. In high-risk countries, disasters call intoquestion the achievement of the Millennium Develop-ment Goals (MDGs). Yet disasters are not inevitable.Through appropriate behaviour to prevent and miti-gate disasters, disaster preparedness measures andearly warning, the disaster risk can be reduced signi-ficantly, or even eliminated. This is where disasterrisk management comes into play to help build thefoundations for sustainable development. As such it isan integral component of development cooperation.The Sector Project for Disaster Risk Management iscommissioned by Germany's Federal Ministry forEconomic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) tosupport the mainstreaming of disaster risk manage-ment in German development cooperation. It is alsosupporting BMZ in its efforts to contribute towardinternational risk reduction processes.

ProjectTo achieve this objective the sector project pursuesfive lines of action.

1. It develops application-oriented strategies andmethods for disaster risk management.

2. It promotes the institutionalisation andmainstreaming of disaster risk management inGerman development cooperation.

3. It designs training measures for developmentcooperation personnel and political decision-makers.

4. It supports BMZ in defining its international positi-on on disaster risk management.

5. It administers a fund for promoting small-scalemeasures to integrate disaster risk managementinto ongoing projects.

ResultsDisaster risk management is now receiving distinctlymore attention within German development coopera-tion. The number of projects in German developmentcooperation's partner countries that are applyingdisaster risk management strategies and instrumentshas increased significantly.The experiences with disaster risk management gene-rated and communicated within the scope of Germandevelopment cooperation have won internationalacclaim, and demand for them is rising.

Deutsche Gesellschaftfür Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Governance and Democracy DivisionPostfach 518065726 Eschborn, GermanyT +49 61 96 79-1621F +49 61 96 79-80 1621E disaster-reduction@gtz.deI www.gtz.de/disaster-reduction