A model in which local governments set up multi-sector disaster risk reduction (DRR) platforms that assess risks together and agree action plans. It was developed in ten Bosnian and Herzegovinian local governments under a Swiss-funded joint UN programme and is being repeated in a second phase.
Map
Integrated bottom-up local risk management model
General Information
ISIG
A model that sets up multi-sector DRR platforms in local governments, where civil protection, education, health, agriculture and social and child protection bodies assess risks together and agree an action plan. Each sector completes its own risk assessment, and these are combined into one local assessment, supported by the online Disaster Risk Analysis System (DRAS). Phase I (January 2019 to June 2023) was funded by Switzerland and delivered by UNDP, UNICEF, UNESCO, UNFPA and FAO in ten local governments, and Phase II (November 2023 to October 2027) repeats the model in ten local governments, four of them new. The programme’s 2022 independent evaluation reports that 139 DRR professionals (41 of them women) worked through the platforms. It also reports, for the programme as a whole, that 632,331 people living in the ten partner localities benefited from updated risk planning, that 27,244 social protection beneficiaries (including 2,453 children) were reached, and that 522,497 people gained better access to health care in 2021.
Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) has 145 local governments. According to the UN programme page, 91 of them face very significant flood and landslide risk and 27 face high risk. The May 2014 floods affected 81 local governments, and households, businesses and farmers, including vulnerable groups, bore about 75% of the losses.
Responsibility for civil protection is divided between levels. The Ministry of Security coordinates at state level, the Federation of BiH has a federal civil protection administration and cantons with their own roles, and in Republika Srpska the Ministry of Interior is responsible. Municipalities protect people and property, according to a Council of Europe Committee of the Regions description. The evaluation reports the country has not yet adopted an approach that involves all of government in DRR and has no country-wide DRR framework, and that existing policies still focus on rescue and relief. It also notes the absence of country-level DRR leadership and unclear mandates between institutions.
The model was designed to start at the local level, build practice and evidence there, and influence higher levels later.
Hazard Type
Geographical Scope - Nuts
Population Size
Population Density
Needs Addressed
- Risk is handled by separate sectors and levels, with unclear mandates and weak coordination.
- Local governments often lack evidence-based risk assessments, and DRR is rarely part of local development strategies.
- Households, farmers and vulnerable groups carry most of the losses from floods and landslides.
- Citizens are insufficiently engaged in DRR policy design and delivery, according to the evaluation.
- Hazard and risk information is fragmented between sectors, ministries and municipalities.
Children are addressed through school disaster management teams and child protection and social protection plans. The solution documents disability-disaggregated data in the vulnerability assessments, disability-adjusted school DRR content and equipment for families of children with disabilities. Women, sexual and reproductive health and gender-based violence, and social protection beneficiaries are also covered.
The model works through local platforms hosted by municipalities, so it is decentralised in design, and it brings several sectors together, also qualifying as multistakeholder. In BiH, the state, the entities, the cantons and the municipalities share civil protection responsibilities, and the evaluation notes that the platforms had no legal recognition. The model can be hosted by a municipality or led by a wider partnership, depending on national arrangements.
The model is aimed at places where DRR is not yet part of local planning and sectors work separately. BiH has civil protection bodies at several levels, but the evaluation describes DRR as only partly mainstreamed and policy as focused on rescue and relief.
The model needs a local government with a civil protection service and sector bodies willing to take part, hazard and risk data, and some IT capacity to use DRAS. Where these exist it works at the developed end, and where they do not it can start at a basic level. Physical prevention works funded in some municipalities are not part of the core model.
To bring sector bodies and local authorities together to define risks and priorities, with attention to the most vulnerable groups.
Platforms bring civil protection, education, health, agriculture and social and child protection representatives together. They complete sectoral risk assessments, combine them into a local assessment and agree action plans, supported by workshops, and the evaluation describes the platform as a democratic space for local stakeholders to define DRR actions. How citizens and vulnerable groups themselves were consulted is not documented in the sources reviewed. The evaluation says awareness work focused on institutions and decision makers and that it should be extended to the public in Phase II.
Platform members, who are mostly local officials and sector staff, set priorities and action plans, and local government management gave letters confirming that these priorities would be taken into the next strategic development process. Delivery of these commitments needs follow-up and is uncertain without a legal basis, according to the evaluation report. Citizens’ direct influence is not documented.
Workshops for platform members, DRAS training (mostly online because of COVID-19), school disaster management teams (nine formed), training of 71 health professionals, camp management training and social protection action plans adopted in ten social welfare centres.
Vulnerable Groups
Governance
Emergency Preparedness
Engagement Level
Empowerment Level
Implementation
- Local multi-sector platforms with a shared risk assessment built from sector assessments.
- DRAS, an online system with a public hazard-map module and modules for local authorities.
- Inclusion built in: social and child protection, health, gender and disability in the assessments and plans.
- Bottom-up design that aims to influence higher levels and serve as a model for national expansion.
- Priority engineering and equipment measures funded in the partner municipalities.
Bosnian
In the cases reviewed: UNDP, UNICEF, UNESCO, UNFPA and FAO implemented Phase I with domestic authorities (the Ministry of Security, entity ministries and civil protection administrations), funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. Phase II is delivered by UNDP, FAO, UNESCO and UNICEF.
Transferable implementers: a national or international agency or NGO that can convene local authorities and sector bodies, with a funder for the start-up phase and a local government willing to host the platform.
In the cases reviewed, the UN agencies bring sector expertise (UNDP in DRR and risk data, UNICEF in child and social protection, FAO in agriculture, UNESCO in education, UNFPA in sexual and reproductive health), and earlier UNDP-led work had piloted a disaster risk system in Doboj and Tuzla. The local governments’ own experience varied, and the evaluation notes lost knowledge when local leadership or staff changed.
An implementer needs risk assessment and facilitation skills, sector experts, and a working relationship with the municipal leadership.
Ten local governments and their civil protection services; sector bodies for education, health, agriculture and social and child protection; Centres for Social Welfare; schools; the state Ministry of Security; entity ministries and civil protection administrations; the Red Cross; the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation; and the UN agencies.
- Rank and choose local governments using hazard exposure and risk indicators, and agree the approach with state and entity authorities (a weighted multi-criteria ranking of 21 shortlisted local governments was used in Phase I).
- Set up a local DRR platform with representatives of civil protection, education, health, agriculture and social and child protection.
- Train platform members and introduce DRAS.
- Complete sectoral risk assessments and combine them into a local risk assessment.
- Agree action plans and aim to mainstream priorities into local development strategies, supported by letters of commitment from local management.
- Support priority measures, such as school teams, social protection plans, equipment or engineering works.
- Test the platforms and plans in a joint simulation exercise.
- Advocate for legal recognition and funding, and repeat the model in further municipalities.
Funding came from Switzerland through the UN agencies (Phase I: USD 4,321,948; Phase II: USD 3,974,665). Other needs are platform members’ time, facilitators and training, hazard data and DRAS access. The evaluation reports that the platforms have no stable or guaranteed funding and that some local governments could not take part for lack of staff.
Phase I ran from January 2019 to June 2023 (after an extension). Phase II runs from November 2023 to October 2027. The programme envisages three phases over about six years or more: local institutions and strategies first, then country-wide governance and then phase-out. Phase I was independently evaluated in 2022.
Experience of the Implementing Organisation in DRM
Target Audience
Resources Required
Timeframe & Phases
Participation Results
Systemic local DRR governance needs several sectors working as one system, and strengthening one stakeholder alone is not enough. Some interviewees said that this kind of joint work was new for their city. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and solutions must fit each community. Starting at the local level was legitimate, but the lack of country-level leadership left gaps in coordination and policy.
The evaluation lists COVID-19, limited understanding of DRR among local stakeholders at the start, changes in city leadership, limited local resources and staff, and a complex political environment. Some stakeholders first questioned why DRR concerned their sector, and the team invested heavily in explaining its relevance. In one case a newly elected mayor did not allow municipal staff to attend a DRR training.
The programme responded with a bottom-up design, education and awareness work with stakeholders, training for platform members, letters of commitment from local management and a phase-out strategy in which government partners take over more responsibility. The evaluation also recommended a clearer targeting strategy and clearer co-funding rules before Phase II.
Risk: platforms have no legal recognition. Mitigation: ask shortlisted municipalities to commit to legal recognition and make legal instruments part of Phase II.
Risk: no guaranteed funding for the platforms. Mitigation: track municipal DRR budgets (the programme reported increases of 14%, 10% and 6% in 2020, 2021 and 2022 compared with 2017, mainly in civil protection) and push for institutional and legal arrangements for resourcing.
Risk: limited staff capacity and turnover. Mitigation: ongoing training and tools such as DRAS that keep knowledge in the institution.
Risk: priorities never reach local strategies. Mitigation: letters of commitment and draft inputs prepared for local strategies and land-use plans.
Risk & Mitigation Plan
Scalability and Sustainability
The solution offers an institutionalised governance model combined with phased external support. The programme starts platforms in local governments with donor funds, then aims to embed them in local strategies and budgets while seeking legal recognition. All ten local governments pledged to integrate the platform’s work into their local civil protection unit, in an advisory role. Phase II replicates the local models and builds governance structures at state, entity, cantonal and Brčko District levels.
Phase II repeats the model in ten municipalities (four of them new) and aims to scale up vertically to state, entity, cantonal and Brčko District levels, adding urban planning, water management, environment and climate change adaptation to the sectors. The evaluation sees a strong opportunity to scale DRAS to more cities and to engage universities. What needs local adaptation is platform composition, the sectors involved and the legal setting.
DRAS is an online system with hazard maps and risk assessment tools. The evaluation reports that 22 local governments use it, which is more than the ten partner municipalities.
No public information on the cost of setting up one platform was found. The Phase I budget was USD 4,321,948 for ten local governments plus sector and national-level activities, and the evaluation noted that about 55% had been delivered by mid-2022. Set-up costs of a platform can be inferred to include facilitation, training, risk assessments and DRAS access.
No figures for running a platform were found. Based on the available information, they can be inferred to be mainly members’ time and meeting costs, plus data and system upkeep. The evaluation says they have no guaranteed funding.
Sustainability has to be planned from the design stage, with institutional change, legal instruments and partnerships built in. Commitment varied between cities and depended on local leadership. The evaluation found no strong evidence that local institutions could carry on regular risk assessment and platform activities on their own, and it describes the model as replicable if institutional, legal and resource gaps are addressed.