From 2018 to 2024 the national Red Cross society, backed by IFRC and the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance, worked with Zeta Municipality in rural villages near Skadar Lake. The programme combined first-aid and risk-awareness training with small flood-protection works that the municipality co-funded, and it fed local findings into national risk assessments.
Map
Building Flood Resilience in Montenegro
General Information
ISIG
A six-year programme in which the Red Cross of Montenegro and Zeta Municipality built flood resilience in rural communities north of Skadar Lake, pairing community training with jointly funded flood-protection works. Communities were chosen together with the municipality, and a resilience measurement (the Flood Resilience Measurement for Communities, FRMC) was carried out at the start and the end in six rural communities to identify priorities. First-aid training, risk education, school activities and awareness materials were shaped by community input. Three micro-projects were then delivered with the municipality: the repair and raising of a 380 m flood wall in Ponari, the cleaning of a drainage canal in Kurilo and Bistrice, and waste-collection “green islands” in Gostilj and Berislavci. The Red Cross also contributed local findings to Montenegro’s first National Disaster Risk Assessment and Risk Management Capacity Assessment.
The FRMC endline reports improvements in first-aid knowledge, asset protection, community participation in flood activities and awareness of future flood risk. The programme also reports that over 31,000 lives were improved and over 100,000 people were indirectly reached.
Floods are the climate hazard Montenegro faces most often. Skadar Lake, on the border with Albania, receives about 63% of its inflow from the Morača River, and its outflow through the Bojana River is limited by inflows from the Drin. In 2009 heavy rain pushed the lake to 9.86 m above sea level, and in 2010 it rose to 10.44 m, causing floods that the government described as the worst ever recorded and that affected over 5,000 people. The communities north of the lake depend on agriculture and livestock, so floods hit family incomes directly.
Montenegro’s disaster system is led by the Rescue and Protection Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior under the Law on Protection and Rescue. According to the European Commission’s 2021 country page, municipalities have protection and rescue teams headed by the municipal head, and municipal flood plans are approved by the Ministry. The Red Cross of Montenegro, set up in 1875, is recognised in law as an auxiliary to the state and sits on local and national crisis committees. Municipalities set out flood-protection needs in Local Flood Protection Plans, but funding is often the main obstacle to carrying them out. The Ponari wall, damaged in the 2010 floods, is an example: it was identified in the plan but not repaired.
Hazard Type
Geographical Scope - Nuts
Geographical Scope
Population Size
Population Density
Needs Addressed
The case describes four linked problems:
- Low household readiness. The FRMC showed that many people expect outside services to help them in a flood, although those services cannot reach everyone in a large disaster.
- Flood-protection works that stay unfunded. Needs were listed in Local Flood Protection Plans, but money and competing priorities delayed repairs, as with the Ponari wall.
- Blocked drainage and waste in canals and public places, which worsen flooding and spread contamination when water rises.
- Weak links between local experience and national policy, so community needs and capacities were not always reflected in national plans.
The programme targeted rural, flood-prone communities of farmers and livestock keepers in general. Children and young people took part through school programmes on emergency protocols, risk awareness and first aid (the report names Cetinje), and a first-aid brochure for children was produced.
The Red Cross of Montenegro led the programme with IFRC and the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance, and worked in partnership with Zeta Municipality, which co-funded and co-implemented the infrastructure work. The national system is led by the Ministry of the Interior’s Rescue and Protection Directorate, with municipal teams, so responsibility is shared between national and local government.
A national system, municipal protection and rescue teams and approved flood plans exist, and the Red Cross sits on crisis committees. The gaps identified were at community level (low household preparedness, dependence on external help) and in funding for prevention works.
Some flood protection existed, such as the Ponari wall, but it had been damaged since 2010, canals were obstructed and waste was not managed properly in some villages. The FRMC also listed early warning systems and large-scale flood protection as entry points for improvement. The programme repaired and raised the wall and cleaned canals but did not build an early warning system.
To share responsibility for flood protection between the Red Cross and Zeta Municipality, and to make sure the works answered needs that communities and the municipality had both identified.
The Red Cross and the municipality chose the target communities together through a transparent, participatory process, favouring areas with Local Flood Protection Plans. The Red Cross proposed co-financing the works that the plans had left unfunded, and the two partners agreed roles in writing. The municipality paid about half of the infrastructure costs, set up supervisory bodies for risk assessment and quality control, and handled the administration and approvals. The Red Cross and the municipality jointly led and carried out the three micro-projects. Residents’ views were gathered through the FRMC baseline and endline studies and community discussions, which shaped the training, school sessions and awareness materials.
Community input fed into the choice of activities and into the Red Cross’s case for co-financing, and the municipality asked for access to the full FRMC results to use in other initiatives. The infrastructure projects came from needs already listed in municipal plans, and the Red Cross and the municipality decided how to fund and carry them out.
First-aid and DRR training for adults and young people, evacuation simulations, a school programme, volunteer training, and the creation of a Red Cross branch in Zeta.
Vulnerable Groups
Governance
Emergency Preparedness
Infrastructure Readiness
Engagement Level
Empowerment Level
Implementation
- Three levels of change: individuals and families, communities and local authorities, and national policy.
- First aid and simulations used as an entry point to build trust before resilience work.
- Programme sites chosen where municipal flood plans already existed, and works co-funded by the municipality (about half of infrastructure costs, according to the report).
- Structural and non-structural measures combined: a repaired wall and cleaned canals alongside training and awareness.
- Baseline and endline measurement with the FRMC.
- Use of the Red Cross’s seat on national bodies to pass community findings to national policy.
Montenegrin
The Red Cross of Montenegro, with 23 local branches, implemented the programme within the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance, with IFRC support. Zeta Municipality was the main local partner.
The Red Cross of Montenegro dates from 1875, is an auxiliary to the state under law, and has a role in disaster preparedness and response, DRR and climate adaptation. It sits on local and national crisis committees and on civil protection working groups. The Alliance has worked on flood resilience for over ten years in more than 25 countries.
Red Cross of Montenegro and its new Zeta branch; IFRC; the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance and its funder, Z Zurich Foundation; Zeta Municipality; residents of Ponari, Kurilo, Bistrice, Gostilj and Berislavci; schools (for example in Cetinje); national bodies including the Rescue and Protection Directorate and the committees working on the national risk assessment; and local sanitation services for waste collection.
- Choose the target communities with the municipality through a participatory process, favouring areas with Local Flood Protection Plans.
- Run FRMC baseline studies in six rural communities to understand risks and priorities.
- Carry out community education: first-aid training, evacuation simulations, school programmes, and distribution of first-aid kits (580), emergency bags and flyers.
- Agree co-funding and roles with the municipality in writing, then deliver three micro-projects: the Ponari wall, the Kurilo and Bistrice canal, and the Gostilj and Berislavci green islands.
- Repeat the FRMC in an endline study to see how resilience changed.
- Share findings with national bodies and regional networks, including the National Disaster Risk Assessment and the Risk Management Capacity Assessment.
Funding came mainly through the Alliance from the Z Zurich Foundation, with a municipal contribution of about half of infrastructure costs. Other needs were trained Red Cross staff and volunteers, FRMC expertise, municipal technical support and administration, and a construction contractor.
2018 to 2024, with baseline measurement, community activities and micro-projects, and an endline study. The Ponari wall was completed in March 2021. The programme was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Experience of the Implementing Organisation in DRM
Target Audience
Resources Required
Timeframe & Phases
Participation Results
Put people at the centre and understand barriers such as survey fatigue.
Use first aid and simulations as a way into communities.
Choose sites where trust and past cooperation exist.
Start small with local authorities and aim to align with their existing plans.
Keep a balance between measuring and acting.
The pandemic and a complex political and administrative situation caused delays. The Red Cross relied on its long local presence and its neutrality to keep the programme moving, and an interview with the Red Cross reports changes in municipal leadership and staff as a further difficulty.
The FRMC required more expertise, time and money than the Red Cross had used before. Survey fatigue also made some people reluctant to take part. The programme addressed this by adapting and translating questions, training fieldworkers, and combining data collection with early actions that gave visible benefits.
Funding for flood protection works was the main obstacle locally. The programme responded by matching its aims to municipal plans and agreeing co-funding in writing.
Risk: measurement without action reduces trust. Mitigation: pair surveys with early, tangible benefits and balance the timeline between measurement and action.
Risk: political or administrative change at the municipality. Mitigation: start relationships early, sign written agreements with clear roles and time frames, and restate the Red Cross’s neutrality.
Risk: works that nobody maintains. Mitigation: the municipality committed to monitoring and maintaining the works.
Risk: results only reach a few people. Mitigation: awareness campaigns, social media and participation in national bodies.
Risk & Mitigation Plan
Scalability and Sustainability
Co-financing and municipal ownership model. The Red Cross and its external funder paid for the start and the training, the municipality co-funded and took on monitoring and maintenance of the works, and sanitation services collect the waste. The new Red Cross branch in Zeta can continue community work with trained volunteers.
The approach of aligning with municipal plans and co-funding small works, and using first aid as an entry point, can be applied in other flood-prone municipalities. The FRMC is more demanding and the report suggests lighter measurement where needs are already known. Zeta plans to replicate the waste stations, and the report recommends cooperation with neighbouring countries on shared water management.
The FRMC measurement tool, social media and video supported the work, but the interventions were mainly training and small-scale physical works.
The programme ran to a fixed end in 2024 with external funding. The municipality has taken on maintenance and plans to replicate the waste stations, but no standing budget line was found.
Based on the available information, set-up costs can be inferred to include the FRMC baseline and endline studies, training and awareness materials (including 580 first-aid kits), and the three micro-projects, of which Zeta Municipality paid about half according to the report.
No cost figures were found. Ongoing costs include volunteer and staff time, repeat training, municipal monitoring and maintenance of the wall and canals, and weekly waste collection by sanitation services. These are inferred from the descriptions, not reported amounts.
Alignment with existing policies and municipal plans was the key enabling factor, and co-funding gave the municipality a stake in maintaining the works. A local Red Cross branch in Zeta now has a working relationship with the municipality. Zeta Municipality now manages the waste stations and plans to replicate them in other communities, according to a 2025 Alliance blog.