Increases in population, higher demand on natural resources, and the desire to experience recreation in pristine natural environments has led to the expansion of human activity into uninhabited mountain regions. Such regions are naturally subject to elevated morphodynamic activity characterized by high rates of erosion, transport, and deposition of water, organic and inorganic matter. Owing to high relief and slope steepness, the downward movement of soil, debris, and rock materials is often the dominant erosional agent. Extremely Rapid Mass Movements are debris flows, rock avalanches, and snow avalanches. These mass movement processes pose varying degrees of risk to land use, infrastructure and personal safety in many mountainous regions and should be handled using a framework of Integral Risk Management. The EU-funded project IRASMOS (Integral Risk Management of Extremely Rapid Mass Movements) was therefore intended to develop a holistic approach to risk management based on the current state-of-the-art. This report summarises some of the findings, particularly those gained from practical application. First the integral approach is developed by integrating existing concepts and ideas for integral management into a new conceptual model called IRMAN. Then the current situation in risk management in the IRASMOS partner countries Austria, France, Italy, Norway and Switzerland is described. This is done more generally based on public documents such as regulations and general overviews; and also to glean more specific insight via workshops held with local risk managers. Subsequently several key elements of the risk management processes are addressed in more detail. The methods of risk assessment such as hazard analysis, vulnerability, risk quantification and evaluation are briefly described. The results of such an assessment are the main input for subsequent planning and the evaluation of countermeasures, and therefore form a pivotal element of risk management. The possibilities for risk management by structural as well as by non-structural countermeasures are then discussed. To illustrate land use planning, France is the primary example in combination with some comparisons with the other countries. Warning and emergency preparedness are explained based on several practical applications such as the avalanche warning centres, new approaches to debris flow warning, alert systems and preparedness and emergency plans. The structural measures are also addressed thoroughly. The alternatives for snow avalanches, debris flows as well as for rock avalanches are briefly outlined and a new procedure for the assessment of effectiveness of countermeasures is presented. In addition to the effectiveness, economic aspects play an important role when decisions have to be made between different alternative countermeasures. Hence, the main methods such as cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and multi-criteria analysis are introduced. Special emphasis is given to some problems that may appear in practical application and how to solve them. With regard to practical implementation, two case studies representing best practices for risk management are added; one for snow avalanches (Italy) and one for rock avalanches (Norway). The report concludes with some recommendations for applying, implementing and further developing risk management in practice.