Hariyo Ban Program II End Line Assessment

Hariyo Ban Program II End line Assessment

Final Report

Submitted to

Prepared by: Nepal Development Initiative Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Shree Durbar Tole, Pulchowk, Lalitpur, Nepal

February 2021

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge a number of individuals and institutions for their immense support during the end line study. First and foremost, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to Hariyo Ban II and WWF Nepal team for trusting us to do this end line study and giving valuable comments during the review process. We are also indebted to Dr. Shant Raj Jnawali, Dr. Rajendra Lamichhane, Dr. Kanchan Thapa, Ms. Anita Adhikari, Mr. Sandesh Hamal and Ms. Manorama Sunuwar for providing valuable support during the evaluation process. The NDI team would like to acknowledge Dr. Dipesh Pyakurel who happily take the responsibility to lead the team and successfully completed the project, even in the pandemic situation. Thanks goes to Ms. Rita Khatiwada who worked as a GESI expert and did most of the coordination with Hariyo Ban II. The support provided by research assistants Ms. Sandeena Shrestha and Mr. Sujan Pradhan is also acknowledged. We would like to acknowledge all the field enumerators namely Saroj Kadel and Madan Poudel from Kaski; Salikram Kadel and Puja Khatiwada Dahal from Tanahun; Anil Khanal and Devendra Dhakal from Chitwan; Menuka Bohra and Shweta Acharya from Banke; and Samir Kumar Tharu and Arati Chaudhary from Bardiya who assisted us with quantitative data collection for this study. This acknowledgment would be incomplete without thanking all the key informants, focus group discussion participants, and individual interview participants who took part in this end line study. We would not have completed this study without their willingness to talk openly and share their insights and observations. Finally, we are thankful to everyone whose name is not mentioned here but have provided direct and indirect support during the study.

NDI Consulting Pvt. Ltd 19th Feb 2021

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BC Biodiversity Conservation BCT Brahmin, Chhetri and Thakuri BZCFUG Buffer Zone Community Forest User Groups BZUC Buffer Zone User Committee CAMC Conservation Forestry Management Committee CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CBOs Community Based Organizations CFUG Community Forest User Groups CHAL Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape CPI Consumer price index FECOFUN Federation of Community Forest Users in Nepal FGDs Focus Group Discussions GESI Gender Equality and Social Inclusion HWC Human Wildlife Conflict LFUG Leasehold Forest User Group LHF Lease Hold Forest MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning MoALD Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development MoFE Ministry of Forest and Environment NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations NPR Nepalese Rupees NRM Natural Resource Management NTNC National Trust for Nature Conservation TAL Tarai Arc Landscape ToR Terms of Reference USAID United States Agency for International Development USD US Dollar USG US Government

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... e INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Objectives ...... 1 STUDY AREA AND METHODS ...... 3 Study area ...... 3 District selection ...... 3 Method ...... 4 NRM groups selection ...... 4 Focus group discussion (FGD) ...... 5 Household selection ...... 6 Executive committee member selection ...... 6 Questionnaire ...... 7 Selection of enumerators, training, and orientation ...... 7 Data entry and data analysis ...... 7 Data quality control ...... 8 Limitations ...... 8 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ...... 9 Socio-economic information ...... 9 Demography ...... 9 Income ...... 10 Performance indicators ...... 12 Indicator BC 1.1.5 ...... 12 Indicator BC 1.1.7 ...... 14 Indicator BC 1.1.8 ...... 15 Indicator GESI 1.3 ...... 17 Indicator GESI 2.2 ...... 20 Indicator GESI 2.3 ...... 22 CONCLUSION ...... 26 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 27 Annex I- Terms of Reference ...... i Annex II- Sampled NRM Groups ...... iv Annex III- Participants of FGD ...... v Annex IV List of executive committee members interviewed ...... viii Annex V- Questionnaire ...... xv Annex V.1: Household Survey...... xv Annex V.2: Focus Group Discussion (FGDs) ...... xx Annex V.3: Executive Interview ...... xxvi

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Working areas of Hariyo Ban II ...... 3 Figure 2: Graph showing gender, age, and wellbeing. The blue and orange column respectively depicts the percentage and area of land in Kattha...... 10 Figure 3: Annual household cash income: District wise in the left and in terms of ethnicity in the right...... 11 Figure 4: Percentage composition of respondents involved in different conservation activities ...... 15 Figure 5: Respondents receiving benefits from conservation activities...... 16 Figure 6: Baseline versus end line values showing the perception of respondents about the GESI behavior of NRM members ...... 18 Figure 7: Baseline to end line values showing the proportion of respondents believing the gender roles has been changed ...... 20 Figure 8: Baseline to End line value showing the NRM leaders effectively performing their roles ...... 23

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Sample District for End line Survey ...... 4 Table 2: Sample NRM groups for the end line survey ...... 5 Table 3: NRM groups where the FGDs were conducted ...... 5 Table 4: Number of respondents per district and their ethnicity ...... 9 Table 5: Quantifying the loss as per district, ethnicity, or wellbeing...... 12

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

United States Agency for International Development funded Hariyo Ban Program-II commissioned a study to establish end line values for six indicators: three on biodiversity conservation and three on gender equity and social inclusion that help to measure the changes over the project period. The study was conducted in five working districts in two landscapes: Banke and Bardiya from Tarai Arc Landscape and Chitwan, Kaski and Tanahun from Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape. These five districts were also selected for baseline and midterm survey.

Data were collected between 29th November 2020 to 21st December 2020. Adequate COVID-19 safety measures were adopted during the field survey. The team selected local enumerators to minimize the unnecessary travel. Enumerators, respondents, and study team member used mask and sanitizers during the household survey, executive committee interview and focus group discussions. Physical distance was maintained in each meetings and interviews.

A stratified and proportionate sampling method was applied to select the Natural Resource Management (NRM) groups (including community forest user groups, buffer zone community forest user groups, buffer zone user committee, conservation area management committee and leasehold forest user groups). Fifty NRM groups were selected: 7 each from Chitwan, Banke and Bardiya; 13 from Kaski; and 16 from Tanahun. The team interviewed 509 households in 50 NRM groups using a quantitative questionnaire: 74 from Bardiya, 73 from Banke, 117 from Kaski, 172 from Tanahun, and 73 from Chitwan. Ten focus group discussions: two in each district, one with general members and another with women or disadvantaged groups was conducted. Likewise, 250 executive committee interviews in 50 NRM group (5 in each NRM group: 3 with women and two with disadvantaged groups) were also conducted using a qualitative questionnaire. The agricultural and livestock loss faced by respondents were collected during the household survey and triangulated during the FGD. The loss per household was estimated by summing all loss due to wildlife and then average was taken to estimate the total monetary loss due to HWC incidents. The 2017 prices (i.e. price during baseline) were converted to 2020 prices (price during end line) using the consumer price index adjustment factor, equaling 1.1.

The surveyed respondents include 58.0% (n = 295) female and 42.0% (n = 215) male. Almost 80% (n = 405) of respondents were more than 35 years of age. A little more than 41% (n = 209) of respondents fall in the third group "ग" out of four well-being categories. Almost two-thirds of respondents belong to Janajati (50.1%), Dalits (12.6%), Newars (1.8%) and Muslims (1.2%).

The average annual household cash income of all the respondents of five surveyed districts was USD 2,045.7/HH-year (NPR 240,925/HH-year), highest in Tanahun (USD 2,628.2) and lowest in Banke (USD 1,677.4). The baseline value of annual household cash income was USD 1,930.4 (after adjusting the price; USD 1,738 without adjustment) and thus sees increment in the income — mostly because of income from service and business, higher yield of paddy, high remittance inflow and due to local employment opportunities created by government and Hariyo Ban Program.

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

Given below are the baseline and end-line values for three biodiversity related indicators Indicator Indicators Baseline value End line value BC 1.1.5 Value of economic loss (in USD) due to incidents USD 98.51/ HH- USD 59.96/ of human-wildlife conflict recorded by USG Year (after price HH-Year supported programs adjustment) BC 1.1.7 Percentage of project supported households that 9.1% 22.7% perceive that relief amount is paid in a timely manner BC 1.1.8 Percentage of people perceiving that they receive 50.6% 68.0% benefits from conservation activities

399 out of 509 surveyed households reported the agro- and livestock loss due to wildlife. The loss was decreased from USD 98.51 in baseline to USD 59.96 in end line, a remarkable 39.1% decrease, mainly due to fencing in boundary of national parks along the settlement and construction of predator proof corrals. The loss amount in two districts of TAL was USD 60.55/household/year and in three districts of CHAL was USD 30.55/household-year.

Out of 399 HWC affected households along five surveyed districts, 66 households (16.5%) have received the relief amount, and 15 out of 66 households (22.7%) perceive that they receive the relief amount on time: a remarkable increment from 9.1% in the baseline. It indicates that the relief system, supported by Hariyo Ban is on its way to institutionalization and slowly but affected households are getting some sort of relief. At the same time, it was felt that the process to receive relief amount is lengthy and cumbersome, thus demanding simplification.

Almost 68.0% (n = 346) perceive that they have received benefits from conservation activities (plantation, silvicultural practices, fire control, water conservation, forest security and fencing). The value was 50.6% during the baseline showing that the activities providing direct benefit to communities (e.g. awareness, income generating activities, eco-tourism, homestays, professional skill enhancement trainings) initiated by Hariyo Ban and implemented by CBOs, committees, forest user groups and the government are effective.

The overall indicator values for all three indicators have been increased for GESI compared to baseline and midterm assessment as shown below Indicator Indicators Baseline Value End line value

GESI 1.3 Women and members of ethnic and 79.0% 85.3% marginalized groups perceiving that NRM members including men and decision makers exhibit gender equitable and socially inclusive behavior GESI 2.2 Proportion of women and men (members of 65.4% 79.8% NRM groups) who believe that the gender roles have been changed as a result of USG assistance GESI 2.3 Proportion of women and marginalized groups 43.0% 54.0% in NRM leadership positions perceiving they have been able to perform their roles effectively

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

The number of female respondents is slightly higher in the end line (295) compared to baseline (271) and midterm assessment (282), due to the replacement of some of the respondents with previous female respondents. Participation of female in community affairs and in the executive committees has been increased substantially due to the support provided by Hariyo Ban Program through Institutional Capacity Building process. The process contributed positively by effectively implementing major GESI provisions e.g., women leadership development, decision making capacity, building of poor, vulnerable and socially excluded group, participation, and transparent group functioning practices etc.

This shows that the Hariyo Ban Program’s support has contributed to change the attitude and behavior of executive members and NRM members to more openness and acceptance towards women and marginalized groups. Women and marginalized groups were provided with opportunities to lead and express themselves in community affairs within the executive committees. Most of the women and marginalized groups from the executive committees expressed that they have been cooperated and supported by other committee members.

Gender and caste discrimination were found to be decreasing and more women from marginalized groups who were in the key positions from the executive committees were performing well with the support and encouragement from other committee members. However, some of them also expressed their dissatisfaction towards the executive members and the NRM members on their attitudes demanding more awareness raising and capacity building activities in the future. Gender roles were found to be changing among men and women where more women participating in community affairs and activities whereas men were found to be participating in the household chores allowing their wives to work outside the house.

Almost all the executive members expressed that they practice collective decision making within the committees and all the committee members are asked to express their views during the discussions. However, it was noted that due to the lack of higher education and confidence among women and marginalized groups, they seemed to remain quiet during the discussions and agree on other decisions.

The district-wise disaggregation shows some fluctuations because of new respondents (as the study team was unable to find the same respondents) who have different perceptions towards GESI issues leading to different results compared to baseline and midterm assessment. The details of the GESI indicator analysis are shown in the findings and discussion section. Since changing traditional practices and the mindset of the people is a gradual process that demands continuous support, more awareness-raising on GESI issues and untouchability is required in the days to come.

INTRODUCTION

Background The Hariyo Ban Program-II is a USAID-funded initiative designed to benefit nature and the people of Nepal. The Program period is of five years, from 15 July 2016 to 14 July 2021. The Hariyo Ban II is being implemented by four core partners: WWF Nepal as the prime recipient, with the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC), and the Federation of Community Forestry Users in Nepal (FECOFUN). Hariyo Ban II covers the two landscapes: Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape (CHAL) and Tarai Arc Landscape (TAL). The program works on two major components: biodiversity conservation (including livelihoods) and climate change adaptation, with governance and gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) as crosscutting themes. The program will pilot, leverage, and scale up interventions to achieve the desired results in specific protected areas, critical corridors, and sub-basins. The major stakeholders for the program include (i) government institutions; (ii) natural resources management (NRM) groups, including Community Forestry User Groups (CFUG), Buffer Zone Community Forestry User Groups (BZCFUG), Buffer Zone User Committees (BZUC), Conservation Area Management Committees (CAMC) and Leasehold Forest User Groups (LFUG); (iii) Community Based Organizations (CBOs); (iv) civil society; (v) academia and research institutions; (vi) private sector; and (vii) Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan of Hariyo Ban II has 51 indicators to reflect outputs and outcomes from program interventions. Among 51, the baseline values for six indicators, biodiversity conservation (3) and GESI (3) related outcome indicators were established in 2017, while baselines for all remaining indicators were derived from the Phase I results. Furthermore, the midterm progress of three GESI indicators was measured and reported in December 2019. The MEL Plan envisages measuring end line values of the 3 GESI and 3 Biodiversity indicators in Year 5. In this regard, the program has commissioned a study to establish both qualitative and quantitative end line values for six indicators, which helps to provide a clear foundation for measuring the changes over the project period.

Objectives The overall objective of the end line study is to measure the progress of indicator against baseline and midline value of the six indicators included in the monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) Plan. As per the ToR, given in Annex I, the following are the indicators for the end line study: Biodiversity conservation (BC) ➢ 1.1.5 Value of economic loss (in USD) due to incidents of human-wildlife conflict recorded by USG supported programs ➢ 1.1.7 Percentage of project supported households that perceive that relief amount is paid in a timely manner ➢ 1.1.8 Percentage of people perceiving that they receive benefits from conservation activities

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

Gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) ➢ GESI 1.3 Women and members of ethnic and marginalized groups perceiving that NRM members including men and decision makers exhibit gender equitable and socially inclusive behavior ➢ GESI 2.2 Proportion of women and men (members of NRM groups) who believe that the gender roles have been changed as a result of USG assistance ➢ GESI 2.3 Proportion of women and marginalized groups in NRM leadership positions perceiving they have been able to perform their roles effectively

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

STUDY AREA AND METHODS

Study area In Tarai Arc Landscape (TAL), Hariyo Ban II work in four Hariyo Ban priority complexes: (i) Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve – Brahmadev Corridor (ii) Bardiya National Park – Karnali Corridor, (iii) Banke National Park – Kamdi Corridor; and (iv) Chitwan National Park – Barandabhar Corridor. Based on threats and climate vulnerabilities it will put its major focus in all or part of eight districts (Dadeldhura, Kanchanpur, Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, Dang, Nawalparasi and Chitwan). In Chitwan Annapurna Landscape (CHAL), activities will be implemented in three priority sub-basins: (i) Seti, (ii) Marshyandi, and (iii) Daraundi with major focus in Seti river basin. These areas include all or part of 15 districts in two landscapes: Dadeldhura, Kanchanpur, Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, Dang, Nawalparasi, Chitwan, Kaski, Tanahun, Syangja, Manang, Mustang, Lamjung and Gorkha (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Working areas of Hariyo Ban II (Source: https://www.wwfnepal.org/hariyobanprogram/)

District selection As per the district selection in the baseline and midterm evaluation, the same districts were selected for the final evaluation. It was agreed to select 5 districts from 15 project implemented districts for baseline study which was selected for the end line study as well. Following were the basis of selection. Same districts that were selected in the baseline and the midterm evaluation were selected for the final evaluation. As in baseline and midterm, five districts were selected for the end line study. Following were the basis of selection during the baseline.

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

1. A representative sampling of districts from two landscapes: i.e. three districts from CHAL and two from TAL. 2. Districts with a maximum number of NRM groups (CFUG, BZCFUG, BZUC, CAMC and LFUG) in each landscape. Districts with a maximum number of NRM groups were: a. CHAL- Tanahun, Kaski, Lamjung, Gorkha, Chitwan, b. TAL- Bardiya, Dadeldhura, Banke, Kailali 3. We reviewed the MEL plan to focus on districts where the Hariyo Ban II are intensively engaged in two landscapes, and come up with the following: a. CHAL- Tanahun, Kaski, Chitwan, b. TAL- Bardiya, Banke, Kailali 4. The end line values were developed for two major themes: Biodiversity conservation and GESI. Tanahun, Chitwan, Kaski and Syangja from CHAL and Banke and Bardiya from TAL were the districts where these sectors can be accessed both. The selection process, considering all the above five criteria were discussed with consortium partners during the inception report presentation of the baseline study (on 30th October 2017) and the same districts were selected for the end line study. The districts were selected as given in Table 1.

Table 1: Sample District for End line Survey S.N. Landscape of Nepal Districts NRM Groups in surveyed districts* 1 Chitwan-Annapurna Chitwan, Kaski, and 459 Landscape (CHAL) Tanahun 2 Tarai Arc Landscape (TAL) Banke, Bardiya 200 * Recent data

Method We followed same steps to (i) select NRM groups, (ii) conduct focus group discussions (FGD), household (HH) survey, and executive committee interviews, (iii) develop questionnaires, and (iv) data quality control, that were adopted during the baseline survey. These steps are mentioned in this section.

NRM groups selection The number of NRM groups (including CFUG, BZCFUG, BZUC, CAMC and LFUG) to be surveyed for the end line was similar to the baseline line. A total of 50 NRM groups were surveyed. Household surveys, FGDs and executive committee interviews were conducted in these NRM groups. A stratified random sampling technique was adopted to select the NRM groups in the district. Criteria to select 50 NRM groups were; as mentioned earlier; is similar to baseline which is listed below: 1. 243 NRM groups of 5 districts were divided into different strata according to the number of households in each NRM groups. Rationale behind the strata is the proportionate selection of NRM groups, regardless of the number of households. The strata range (number of households in strata) was discussed and finalized during the inception meeting (during the baseline). a. Up to 84 HH – Small group, b. 85 to 146 HH – Medium group, and

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

c. Greater than 146 HH – Large group d. Groups with an unspecified number of users were kept separately. While we conducted the baseline, we were unable to find the data on number of households in few NRM groups (as per the information sheet provided by consortium partners). As we must visit the same NRM groups for end line, we keep this grouping. 2. Five NRM groups from each district were selected first: one from a small group, one from the medium group, one from groups with an unspecified number of users, and two from the large group. The dominance of districts with the higher number of NRM groups was thus neutralized. 3. The remaining 25 groups were selected based on the number of groups in the district: a higher number of groups were selected from districts with a higher number of NRM groups. Again, NRM groups were selected as per the strata. 4. For fair representation every type of NRM group (CFUGs, BZCFUGs, BZUC, LFUG, CAMC) were selected proportionately, considering the number of groups in each district. 5. The selection process was agreed upon between the study team and consortium partners. Table 2 gives the number of NRM groups in districts, whereas details of selected NRM groups is given in Annex II.

Table 2: Sample NRM groups for the end line survey Districts Number of Purposive Proportionate selection Total number NRM groups selection of NRM groups Tanahun 104 5 11 16 Kaski 77 5 8 13 Chitwan 21 5 2 7 Banke 19 5 2 7 Bardiya 22 5 2 7 Total 243 25 25 50

Focus group discussion (FGD) Ten FGDs, two from each district were conducted. FGDs were carried out with the (i) general members, (ii) women and (iii) disadvantaged groups within the NRM groups (Table 3). The purpose of FGDs was to (i) locate areas that have incidents of human-wildlife conflict (HWC), (ii) validate/ and triangulate the household data acquired, and (iii) generate information on GESI issues.

Picture 1: FGD at Karmala BZCFUG (left) and FGD at Raptipidit tatha Gulari CFUG (right)

Table 3: NRM groups where the FGDs were conducted 5

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

FGD Type District NRM Group Disadvantaged General Members Women Group Kaski Lumle CAMC and Lumle CAMC Samundre Samundre Dandapari Dandapari CFUG CFUG Tanahun Raniban Raniban Bhagar Inter (Bandipur) and (Bandipur) leasehold Forest Bhagar Inter lease (Bhanjyang LFG) hold Forest (Bhanjyang LFG) Banke Gokul CFUG and Raptipidit Tatha Gokul CFUG Raptipidit Tatha Gulari CFUG Gulari CFUG Bardiya Kailashi CFUG and Karmla BZCFUG Kailashi CFUG Karmala BZCFUG Chitwan Kalikhola Deurai Panchakanya Kalikhola and Panchakanya CFUGs Deurai CFUGs The FGDs were carried out in the same forest user group as in the baseline but the list of the participants involved was different as the tenure of some executive committee members had ended and some of them migrated to another place. The list of FGD participants is given in Annex III.

Household selection Since the study team follow the same methodology for baseline and end line survey, the household selection was also the same as the baseline survey. A total of 509 households from five districts were interviewed to get the household level information. The current number of surveyed households (n = 509) is less than that of baseline (n = 518) because few were migrated, and few were COVID-19 positive at the time of survey. In few cases where the enumerators were unable to interview the same individual as that of baseline, we replaced them with the member of the same family (replacement number = 126) as the intend of this survey is to generate household-level information. A random sampling technique was used for household survey. Gender and ethnicity were considered during the survey, along with the intensity of HWC incidents (i.e., households with high, medium, and low effect of HWC). The household survey was meant to (i) generate socio-economic information, (ii) quantify the annual income and loss due to HWC, and (iii) perception of households towards conservation and GESI related indicators 1.3 and 2.2.

Executive committee member selection In the baseline survey, about 20% i.e. 50 out of 243 NRM groups were selected for executive committee interviews which were also used for the end line survey. In addition to the household survey, a total of 250 executive interviews were carried out with the executive committee member of the NRM group which included three women, one Dalit and one Janajati from each group where possible. The respondents were mostly male and female of marginalized and disadvantaged groups with very few interviews with male and female of BCT groups. Care was taken not to conduct

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II household and leadership interviews with same respondent. The executive committee interview focused on the indicator: Proportion of women and marginalized groups in NRM leadership positions perceiving they have been able to perform their roles effectively. A total of 250 interviews were conducted for this purpose. The list of executive members who participated in the interview is given in Annex IV.

Picture 2: Household and executive committee interviews at Ranikhola (left), Somari (middle) and Kalikhola (right)

Questionnaire The study team used the same questionnaire for the end line survey as used in the baseline survey. Some of the probing questions were added to the previous questions to get additional information for the end line survey. Details of the questionnaire are given in Annex V.

Selection of enumerators, training, and orientation A total of 10 enumerators (4 female, 6 male), 2 for each district were selected for data collection. Enumerators with bachelor's degrees in any discipline, having experience in data collection and within the age group of 20 − 40 years were selected for data collection. A one-day virtual orientation training for enumerators was organized on 27th November 2020. The focus of the orientation training was to familiarize the enumerators with the questionnaires. More specifically, the orientation was meant to (i) capacitate enumerators with Kobo application, and (ii) to develop a common understanding of sampling methods: household survey, FGDs and executive committee interviews.

Data entry and data analysis The data were uploaded by the enumerator on Kobo cloud and the study team downloaded it as an excel spreadsheet. Analysis of the quantitative data was conducted by using tools such as Microsoft Excel and STATA. Cleaning of data was done manually by removing the outliers (e.g. households settled in unregistered land, extremely high incomes compared to well-being ranking). The outliers in the data were removed by asking the enumerators or the respondents the question during the process of data cleaning. The qualitative data, field scripts were transcribed and translated into English manually. The findings were disaggregated as per gender, ethnicity, age, and location. Triangulation was done to compare the data obtained from the various sources from the field and through desk review.

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

When comparing the price in two case years; 2017 and 2020 in our case; the price needs to be adjusted to present value— 2020 in our case. Consumer price index (CPI) is used to adjust the prices. CPI is a measure of the aggregate price level in an economy. Inflation is measured using the CPI. The percentage change in this index over a period gives the amount of inflation over that specific period. We adjusted the 2017 price to 2020 price using the CPI published by Nepal Rastra Bank1. The CPI was 119.6 in 2017 and 132.84 in 2020, thus we have to multiply the values of 2017 by 1.11. For Indicator BC 1.1.5: The agricultural and livestock loss faced by respondents were calculated and entered in the Kobo Software during data collection phase. The data were then triangulated with the FGDs (e.g., per unit price of cereals, legumes, chicken, goat etc.) and the data were amended if necessary. Finally, the loss per household was estimated and then average was taken to estimate the total monetary loss due to HWC incidents. Human casualty was not considered during the end line survey.

Data quality control Data quality was maintained throughout the collection to the analysis of data. Even though local enumerators were hired, it was assured that the enumerators had the experience of data collection. A virtual orientation training was provided for enumerators to develop common understanding. Triangulation of data was done to cross-reference the values obtained through the household survey. Privacy and confidentiality of the discussions were maintained, and all possible measures were taken to avoid anybody’s influence on the participant’s response.

Limitations ➢ One of the major limitations of the study was the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Due to this situation, it was difficult to carry out the field visit in all the districts by the experts and research assistant. Therefore, virtual FGDs and executive committee member interview were conducted in Kaski, Tanahu and Chitwan. As a result, observations and photographs of the discussion couldn’t be collected. ➢ The same sample size and the same respondents as of baseline could not be surveyed, as (i) some of the respondents had migrated to other places due to personal reasons and (ii) few respondents suffer from COVID-19 during the survey. ➢ High altitude regions of Gorkha, Lamjung and Kaski are under the jurisdiction of NTNC. It was agreed during the baseline that the NTNC staff collect data through a questionnaire prepared by the study team. Thus, these districts were omitted in the end line survey as well.

1 https://www.nrb.org.np/red/current-macroeconomic-and-financial-situation-tables-based-on-annual-data-of-2019-20/

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS The study team collected the household information data from 29th November 2020 to 21st December 2020. The data collection time took little over than expected because (i) Consulting firm (Nepal Development Initiative- NDI) had to search for local enumerators to minimize unnecessary travel due to COVID-19, and (ii) The enumerator of Kaski have to visit Lumle-6 twice as few respondents of Lumle CAMC were found COVID positive during the first visit. Cash income and economic loss were collected for a year, starting from mid-November 2019 to mid- November 2020 (2076/08/01 to 2077/07/30). The team chooses this timeline instead of the start/end of BS or AD (as we did in the baseline) because we need the immediate data for baseline values. These data could be considered conservative because the responses are predominately based on the recalling capacity of respondents. However, care was taken to get the realistic data as far as possible by probing the questions related to income and loss again and again, allowing the respondents to think and rethink.

Socio-economic information

Demography The study team collected the household information of 509 respondents: 74 from Bardiya, 73 from Banke, 117 from Kaski, 172 from Tanahun, and 73 from Chitwan (Table 4). Out of total respondents, 295 (58%) were female and 214 (42%) were male (Figure 2). Ethnicity and age group were categorized as per the Hariyo Ban II MEL plan. Majority of respondents aged more than 35 years (n = 405, 79.6%), followed by age between 30 — 34 (n = 56, 11%), 25 — 29 years (n = 26, 5.1%), 20 — 24 years (n = 21, 4.1%), and only one respondent aged below 19 years (Figure 2). The number of respondents from different ethnic communities is given in Table 4. Half of the respondents were Janajati. More than 65% of respondents are from ethnic groups, ethnic minorities, and scheduled casts, and only 34.4% are from Brahmin, Chhetri and Thakuri (BCT).

Table 4: Number of respondents per district and their ethnicity District Janajati BCT Dalit Newar Muslim/ Number of (n) (n) (n) (n) Madhesi (n) respondents (n) Kaski 5 93 19 117 Chitwan 55 4 9 4 1 73 Tanahun 113 34 19 5 1 172 Bardiya 47 18 9 74 Banke 35 26 8 4 73 Ethnicity % 50.1 34.4 12.6 1.7 1.2 We used the well-being ranking conducted by respective NRM groups for household ranking. 2 Respondents in group "ग" were 209 (41.1%), followed by "ख" (n = 191, 37.5%), then "क" (n = 71, 13.9%) and "घ" (n = 38, 7.5%). Wellbeing status seems directly proportional to the land owned — average landholding per household for "क" have 19.7 kattha; "ख" have 14.2 kattha; "ग" have 7.1

2 Forest user groups in Nepal categorize their users based on the wellbeing from क, ख, ग and घ; with क being the well off and घ being the poorest within the group.

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

kattha and "घ" have 5.4 kattha land (Figure 2). The wellbeing is also directly proportional to the annual household cash income as expected. क (well-off households) have annual household cash 3 income of USD 4,327.6 , ख have USD 2,171.9, ग have USD 1,415.2 and घ (poorest households) have USD 704.4 per household per year.

80.0 79.6 Percentage 70.0 58.0 60.0 Kattha 42.0 50.0 37.5 41.1 40.0 30.0 20.0 11.0 13.9 5.1 7.5 10.0 4.1 0.2 0.0 Female Male >35 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 क ख ग घ Gender Age (years) Well being

Figure 2: Graph showing gender, age, and wellbeing. The blue and orange column respectively depicts the percentage and area of land in Kattha (1 Kattha equals 3645 square feet). Interpretation The study team compared the well-being of baseline and end line. There was no significant change in the landholding size of community members from baseline to end line. The percentage of "घ" i.e., poorest households have remained almost constant, from 7.3% to 7.5%. There was a significant improvement in the wellbeing of "ग", as the percentage reduced from 46.9% to 41.1%. The percentage of relatively well offs has increased — 36.9% to 37.5% for "ख", and 8.9% to 13.9% for "क". The changes in the wellbeing ranking of users showed that the cumulative effort of government and Hariyo Ban Program (e.g., income generating activities), coupled with the effort of community and individuals has paid off as they were able to raise their living standards. Income The team collected the total household annual cash income of respondents. 505 out of 509 respondents disclosed their income source and income. We used seven broad sources of income during data collection: (i) income from forest products, (ii) service (government, non-government, teaching), (iii) wage labor, (iv) business, (v) agriculture, (vi) livestock, and (vii) others (including remittance, Gorkha pension, etc.). The income from all seven sources were aggregated to estimate the annual household cash income. The average household cash income of different parameters (e.g., district wise, ethnicity, wellbeing) was then calculated, and annual household cash income was presented. The average annual household cash income of all the respondents of five surveyed districts was USD 2,045.7/HH-year (NPR 240,925/HH-year).

3 USD 1 = NPR 117.77. This is the mean conversion rate from 16th November 2019 to 15th November 2020, published by Nepal Rastra Bank (https://www.nrb.org.np/forex/#forexGraph).

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

In terms of district, the highest annual household income was recorded in Tanahun (USD 2,628.2), followed by Kaski (USD 1,815.8), Chitwan (USD 1,777.9), Bardiya (USD 1,714.5) and Banke (USD 1,677.4). In terms of Ethnicity, Newar tops the list with annual household cash income of USD 3,173.8 per household per year, followed by BCT (USD 2,338.2), Janajati (USD 2,005.2) and Muslim/Madhesi (USD 1,464.7). Lowest was recorded for Dalits with annual household cash income of USD 1,316.5 per household per year (Figure 3).

3500.0 3000.0 2500.0 2000.0

USD 1500.0 1000.0 500.0 0.0 Tanahun Kaski Chitwan Bardiya Banke Newar (9) BCT (172) Janajati Muslim Dalit (64) (168) (117) (73) (74) (73) (254) Madesi (6) District Ethnicity

Figure 3: Annual household cash income: District wise in the left and in terms of ethnicity in the right. Numbers in parentheses is the number of households Interpretation

There was a notable increment in the annual household cash income from baseline to end line. The income during baseline was USD 1,930.4 per household per year after adjusting the price using consumer price index (USD 1,738 without adjustment). In the end line it is USD 2,045.7 per household per year. There could be multiple reasons behind this increment: (i) 66 out of 509 respondents are engaged in service (government, non-government, teaching) and 84 out of 509 respondents are engaged in business – both contributing to substantial increase in household income; (ii) due to availability and use of improved and hybrid varieties of seeds, longer than average monsoon period and increment in plantation areas, the productivity of paddy results to increase of 1.27% compared to previous year (MoF 20204; MoALD, 20205) and the case might be true for Hariyo Ban II implementation districts, especially Banke and Bardiya; (iii) The effect of different income-generating activities (skill enhancement training, agricultural support, homestays) both from government and Hariyo Ban II might have increased the household income of beneficiaries, and (iv) Remittance inflow was increased by 23.4% in 2018/19 and by 1.8% in 2019/20 in the country (MoF 20196, 2020), and might also be reflected in Banke and Bardiya which have substantially increased the annual household cash income from baseline to end line.

4 MoF (2020). Economic Survey 2019/20. Kathmandu: Ministry of Finance. 5 MoALD, 2020. https://s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/prod-gov-agriculture/server-assets/notice-1609146241326- 476ef.pdf, Published 28th Dec 2020. 6 MoF (2019). Economic Survey 2018/19. Kathmandu: Ministry of Finance.

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

Performance indicators The end line values of the indicators have been computed through the analysis of data obtained from household surveys (n = 509), focus group discussions (n = 10) and executive committee interviews (n = 250).

Indicator BC 1.1.5 Baseline value Baseline value End line Description of the indicator (without (after adjusting CPI value adjusting CPI) to 2020 prices) Value of economic loss (in USD) due to 88.69 98.51 USD/HH-Year 59.96 incidents of human-wildlife conflict recorded USD/HH-Year USD/HH- by USG supported programs Year Out of 509 surveyed households, 399 reported the loss of agro-product and livestock due to wildlife. The mean average loss of surveyed households in five surveyed districts is USD 59.96 (NPR 7,062) per household per year. The incidents of loss (frequency of loss) faced by respondents was high in Tanahun (n = 118), followed by Kaski, Banke, Bardiya and Chitwan. This is corelated to the number of interviews: we took a higher number of interviews in Tanahun and least in Banke, Baridya and Chitwan. However, the loss amount in terms of monetary value was higher in Banke (USD 102.0/household/year), followed by Bardiya (USD 80.4), Chitwan, Tanahun and Kaski (Table 5). In terms of ethnicity, Muslim/Madhesi faces the maximum monetary loss (USD 109.0 per household per year), followed by Janajati (USD 65.2), BCT, Newar and Dalits. Multiple factors contribute to face higher loss for Muslims/Madhesi: the structure of house and animal shed which is much fragile; open grazing of livestock in the forest; and their settlement in the proximity of forests.

Loss as per the wellbeing is again directly proportional: respondents of group क face high loss (USD 75.0 per household per year), whereas respondents of group घ face low loss (USD 50.1). It is because respondents of group घ have less land (5.4 kattha on average). Please refer to Table 5 for the details on loss.

Table 5: Quantifying the loss as per district, ethnicity, or wellbeing. n=399, where n refers to the number of respondents who face the loss Loss Loss Well Loss District n Ethnicity n n NPR USD NPR USD being NPR USD Banke 62 12018.0 102.0 Dalit 44 4323.7 36.7 क 54 8833.3 75.0 Bardiya 60 9469.8 80.4 BCT 144 6954.3 59.0 ख 161 7166.8 60.8 Chitwan 55 7538.7 64.0 Janajati 199 7674.2 65.2 ग 158 6541.7 55.5 Kaski 104 4038.1 34.3 Muslim/ 5 12880.0 109.4 घ 26 5899.7 50.1 Madhesi Tanahun 118 5677.4 48.2 Newar 7 4942.9 42.0

The average loss in TAL districts was USD 60.55 per household per year and that of CHAL districts was USD 30.55 per household per year. The crops that are likely to be damaged in two TAL districts viz Banke and Bardiya are paddy, millet, maize, potato and mustard; and the most damaged crops in three CHAL districts viz Chitwan,

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

Tanahun and Kaski are paddy, wheat, mustard, lentil (musuro), potato and maize. The loss was incurred mostly in the monsoon and harvesting (September – October) season. Likewise, the most likely depredated livestock in TAL are chicken and goat; and chicken, goat, and calf in CHAL. The chicken was depredated throughout the year, whereas goat was mostly depredated in the winter season. Leopards, jackal, and tiger were responsible for livestock loss whereas elephants, spotted deer, blue bull, wild boar, monkeys, and porcupine were responsible for agricultural loss (outcomes of FGDs). 372 households report the agricultural loss, 159 report the livestock and poultry loss, whereas 132 households reported the loss from both agricultural and livestock/poultry: all due to wildlife. We deliberately excluded the loss from free-grazing livestock, which was prominent in Banke. The average annual loss of agricultural products and livestock per household was USD 48.1/HH and USD 38.0/HH respectively. The average loss in livestock (including poultry) was less compared to agricultural products because jackal mostly depredates chicken when they are relatively small (less than a kg). A case study of Karmala BZCFUG, Bardiya: The village is bordered by Bardiya National Park from three sides with high incidents of HWC. Elephant, monkey, spotted dear and wild boar frequently visit the village depredate the ready-to-harvest crops. There are wire fences in the edge of forest, but they could not stop monkeys and wild boars. The settlements are on the edges of forests enabling villagers to spot the wildlife early. As a result, agricultural fields near forest and settlement are highly affected, whereas the core field in the center of village remains less affected. Interpretation The value of economic loss due to human-wildlife conflict decreased over the project period: from USD 98.51/household-year (adjusting to 2020 prices) during the baseline to USD 59.96/household- year in the end line. The decrease in monetary loss was 39.1% after the intervention of the program. There are two different dimensions for this: either the number of wildlife has decreased, or the preventive measures taken by the government and partners are good enough to minimize the loss. The decrease in the number of wildlife does not seem realistic because no such reports on a drastic decrease in wildlife are published or documented in Nepal. Secondly, our respondents say that the incident of wildlife sighting, especially in Bardiya National Park has increased. As per them: "The number of wildlife, especially monkeys, spotted deer and wild boars have increased as their sighting is a normal phenomenon during the morning and evening in the fringes of the forest. In the evening they hide in the forest near village-forest boundary and come to agricultural fields in the night (Dhaniram Tharu, Chairperson, Karmala BZCFUG, Bardiya; Sanat Kumar Kandel, Treasurer, Karmala BZCFUG)" The increase in number of wildlife especially Tiger and Rhinoceros is also supported by the last census. The Tiger population in Nepal has risen by nearly 20% in just four years: from 198 in 2013 to impressive 235 wild Tigers in 2018. Recently the tiger sighting is common in Bardiya National Park. The population of Rhino is 600 in Chitwan National Park, Nepal, a rapid increase in number from less than 100 in 1973 (https://www.wwfnepal.org/what_we_do/wildlife/rhinoceros/; https://news.mongabay.com/2017/07/nepals-rhino-numbers-rise-thanks-to-national-and-local- commitment/).

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

Preventive measures such as plantation of wildlife deterrent crops in the edges of forest and biological corridors (e.g., in Khata wildlife corridor, Bardiya) and fencing the boundary of national park along the settlement (e.g., in Bhurigaun, Bardiya) restricts the entry of wildlife to villages to some extent. Construction of predator proof corrals initiated by the program helps to prevent juvenile livestock from predators. These were some of the visible activities in the surveyed districts that helped to decrease the HWC, all contributing to a decrease in economic loss. It is also worthy to mention that the settlement pattern of houses along the edge of forest and agricultural fields in the center of village (e.g. in Bhurigaun) also helps to control the crop depredation by wildlife.

Indicator BC 1.1.7 Description of the indicator Baseline value End line value Percentage of project supported households that 9.1% 22.7% perceive that relief amount is paid in a timely manner The indicator value has been calculated using following criteria: ➢ 399 out of 509 households (78.0%) were affected by HWC. Households numbers facing loss on agriculture, livestock and on both were 372, 159 and 132 households respectively. ➢ 66 out of 399 households i.e., 16.5% HWC affected households along five surveyed districts have received the relief amount. ➢ 15 out of 66 households i.e., 22.7% perceive that they receive the relief amount in timely manner i.e. within one to two months of filing an application. Out of 509 respondents, only 191 respondents (38%) know about the relief amount. Likewise, 162 respondents know from where they could get the relief amount. The affected households received relief amounts from Divisional Forest Office, National Park Office, Municipality and wards, Provincial Ministry and CAMC. Twenty-two households perceive that the relief amount they get is channeled, one way or other, through the Hariyo Ban Program. Out of 66 households who receive the relief amount, 36 households (55.0%) reported the loss (i.e., filing an application of loss) on the first week of incident; 9 respondents (13.0%) reported on second week and 21 respondents (32.0%) reported after a month. Forty-three respondents (65.0%) reported that it took more than 3 months to receive the relief amount. Likewise, 3.0%, 21.0% and 11.0% of respondents report that it respectively took 3 months, 2 months and 1 month to receive the relief amount. The survey showed that it generally takes at least three months to receive the relief amount, which is a bit longer. The relief amount ranged between USD 4.25 to USD 127.36 (NPR 500 to NPR 15,000) with a mean of USD 25.97 (NPR 3,059). Interpretation

During the baseline, only one household (9.1%) perceive that they receive the relief amount in a timely manner. There was a remarkable improvement in the perception during the end line survey as 15 households (22.7%) now perceive that they receive the relief amount timely, mainly because of the facilitation of chairpersons of NRM groups (CFUG and BZCFUG). Likewise, there was also a substantial increment in the number of households who receive the relief amount from baseline to

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II end line: from 11 households to 66 households. It indicates that the relief system, supported by Hariyo Ban II is on its way to institutionalization. Still, there are rooms for improvement to pay the relief amount. During the FGDs in Bardiya, participants say that though the procedure of reporting the loss to concerned authority takes less than a week time, the process is cumbersome and very few community members know the process. The process, as informed by a village committee chairperson in Bardiya, is as follows: ➢ Inform chairperson of village committee and BZCFUG ➢ Fill the form, available at the user committee (Shreeramnagar User Committee in the case of Karmala BZCFUG) ➢ BZCFUG chairperson inform games scout ➢ Game scout visit the incident area, assess the loss, and get it verified by the chairperson of village committee and BZCFUG ➢ Recommendation from game scout and respective wards or municipalities (either from livestock or agriculture unit of the ward) ➢ Recommendation from user committee ➢ Approval from Warden or Ranger and submit to the council The whole process might take one to three months. The participants of FGDs request both to simplify the above-mentioned process and to take steps to minimize the duration.

Indicator BC 1.1.8 Description of the indicator Baseline value End line value Percentage of people perceiving that they receive 50.6% 68.0 % benefits from conservation activities Conservation Activities

We first make six broad categories of conservation activities: (i) Plantation; (ii) Silvicultural activities including weeding, thinning, cleaning; (iii) Fire control including firefighting, fire line construction; (iv) Water conservation including spring management and conservation, water holes construction, canal management; (v) Forest security including engagement in CBAPU, forest guard, ban on grazing, controlled fuelwood and fodder collection; and (vi) Fencing. Almost 78% respondents (n = 398) are engaged in plantation. Respondents shared that they are more interested in planting economically important trees like amala, amriso, bamboo, chiuri; fodder trees like epil-epil, kabro; and horticultural plantation. 45% of respondents are engaged in forest fire control; 32% of respondents are engaged in different silvicultural practices; followed by water conservation (19%), forest security (14%) and fencing (11%) (Figure 4).

400 398

300 231 200 161 95 74

100 56

Numberof respondents 0 Plantation Fire control Silvicultural Water Forest security Fencing activities conservation

Figure 4: Percentage composition of respondents involved in different conservation activities

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

With each 509 respondents, we asked the question "Do you believe that you are receiving these benefits (relief amount, forest fire equipment, fencing, skill development trainings, etc.) due to your engagement in those conservation activities (mentioned in Figure 4)?" Then indicator value is calculated using the positive response "yes" from the respondents perceiving that they receive the benefits due to their involvement in conservation activities. Out of the 509 respondents, 68.0% (n = 346) perceive that they have received benefits from conservation activities. 11.0% (n = 56) did not think that they got the benefits from their engagement in conservation activities. The remaining 21.4% (n = 109) respondents did not respond to this question. Disaggregation of respondents, who perceive that they have received benefits from conservation activities, according to district, sex and ethnicity is shown in Figure 5.

300 Positive response

250 Total respondents 207 200 183

139 138 150 295 255 113 100 214 84 172 56 175 117 37 42 Numberrespondents of 50 31 73 74 73 64 6 9 2 6 0 Female Male Kaski Chitwan Tanahun Bardiya Banke Dalit janajati Newar BCT Muslim/ Madesi Gender District Ethnicity

Figure 5: Respondents receiving benefits from conservation activities. The blue column shows respondents number that perceives the compensatory benefits whereas the orange column is the total number of respondents Interpretation

During the baseline, 50.6% of respondents perceive that they receive benefits because of their engagement in conservation activities. The perception has considerably increased to 68.0% during the end line.

About 75% of respondents were the same during the baseline and end line and same question was probed on both surveys. It shows that the conservation activities (e.g. awareness activities, income generating activities, eco-tourism, homestays, professional skill enhancement trainings) initiated and supported by the Hariyo Ban Program and Government of Nepal; and duly implemented by village committee, forest user groups, user committee, management committee, division forest office and national park office was effective.

When looking at the district level, only 42% of respondents (31 out of 73) of Banke and 50% of respondents (37 out of 73) of Chitwan feel that the benefit they receive is because of their engagement in conservation activities — indicating the need of additional effort/ activities in those districts in the future.

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

Indicator GESI 1.3 Baseline Midterm End line value Description of the indicator value value Women and members of ethnic and marginalized 79.0% 82.4% 85.3% groups perceiving that NRM members including men and decision-makers exhibit gender-equitable and social inclusive behavior The calculation of indicator GESI 1.3 was done by using the following questions as criteria, as in the baseline and midterm assessment:

➢ NRM leaders showing friendly behavior7 ➢ NRM leaders not using derogatory words ➢ NRM Leaders responding to concerns fairly ➢ Able to express views openly in from of NRM leaders The above four questions were taken as a basis for the calculation of the indicator. When a positive response to the question related to friendly behavior, respond to concerns fairly and expressing views openly was given a positive value was noted and when the a negative response to the use of the derogatory word was given a positive value was noted. Out of the 509 respondents, 434 of them answered the four questions with a positive response which resulted to 85.3% of the respondents who perceived that NRM members including men and decision makers exhibit gender-equitable and social inclusive behavior (Figure 6).

The number of female respondents is slightly higher in the end line (295) compared to baseline (271) and midterm assessment (282). This was due to the replacement of some of the respondents with previous female respondents from baseline and midline assessment. However, the study team found that female participation in community affairs and also in the executive committee of CFUGs has been increased substantially due to the support provided by Hariyo Ban Program through the Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) process which contributed positively by effectively implementing major GESI provisions including women leadership development, decision making capacity building of Poor, Vulnerable and Socially Excluded group, application of Participatory Well Being Ranking, participation and transparent group functioning practices etc.8.

7 Friendly: Showing interest in their wellbeing, helping in need, letting them speak and listening to their concerns; shows respectful behavior; 8 Outcome study of CFUGs institutional capacity building process, Hariyo Ban Program

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

100.0 100.0 89.0 89.7 90.9 88.9 85.3 84.7 85.5 86.5 83.1 85.1 78.1 80.0 80.0 70.3

60.0

40.0 Percentage 20.0

0.0

Endline Baseline Mid-term

Figure 6: Baseline versus end line values showing the perception of respondents about the GESI behavior of NRM members (end line values is presented on top of the red column)

Out of 295 female respondents, 250 females (84.8%) reported that NRM members including men and decision-makers exhibit gender equitable and socially inclusive behavior compared to five years ago. Among the 255 Janajati respondents, 217 respondents (85.1%) feel that NRM members are more cooperative and take concerns of women and marginalized groups into account during the meeting and other occasions. Similarly, out of 64 Dalit respondents, 45 (70.3%) respondents expressed that NRM members respect them and accommodate their concerns compared to five years ago. They have been given opportunities and asked for their opinions during the meetings. One of the Dalit women expressed that

“Initially there was an argument to nominate a Dalit woman as a chairperson. Some also doubted my capabilities. Now, all are settled, and they support and respect me. There is no discrimination against Dalits and women, at least in this committee. This is due to the training and other awareness-raising activities provided by the Hariyo Ban Program. Nonetheless, there is still a prevalence of untouchability in the community. For instance, the homestay run by Dalits are only used by Dalit and other foreign customers but not by Nepalese non-Dalit customers” (Chandra Kumari B.K., Chairperson, Marga Jyoti Power Mahila, Kaski).

This kind of implicit attitude towards Dalits was observed in some of the NRM groups. Some Dalit members felt strongly about such discriminations in some of the executive committees. This means more awareness-raising on gender equality and untouchability with legal references to NRM groups is required.

Among the five surveyed districts, 89.7% respondents of Kaski felt that NRM members have become accommodative and respectful. The FGD participants clearly expressed that NRM members have become more accommodative and responsive gradually.

“In the past the NRM leaders did not take our suggestions and did not respond to our concerns. The leaders used to decide on their own. Even we were not able to express our views. Since the start of the Hariyo Ban Program, this behavior has changed and the NRM members have started taking our suggestions before making any decisions and now we feel comfortable expressing our views. Now they are friendly and respect all the people regardless of caste, gender, and ethnicity” (Kailashi CFUG, Bardiya, FGD Participant).

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

This shows that the project has been able to contribute to change the attitude and behavior of the beneficiaries through their interventions. Nonetheless, some of the executive members from marginalized groups, particularly women still face challenges while dealing with NRM members. As stated by one of the Chairperson,

“The NRM members don’t show a supportive behavior towards my decision and I have faced difficulties in maintaining a good relationship with some of the members. I have also faced different legal and financial hurdles which makes me helpless to protect the forest” (Sadabahar CFUG, Banke, Debiram Gharti, Chairperson).

Executive members from marginalized groups were challenged for their actions and decisions as the chairpersons or other key position holders. This was due to the lack of leadership skills, knowledge, and confidence. Therefore, to handle such situations, the executive committee members need leadership skills, adequate legal and financial provisions so that they can give convincing answers and arguments to the NRM members and avoid confrontations while making decisions.

Though the overall value for this indicator has been increased, district wise disaggregation shows that some districts have a lower value compared to the baseline and midterm assessment. Among the five districts, the value for NRM members showing gender-equitable and socially inclusive behavior has increased for Banke and Tanahun compared to the midterm assessment. As mentioned by one of the respondents:

“The NRM members show friendly behavior and it has been the same since the past years. They behave respectfully and respond to our concerns properly” (Bhagar Inter Leasehold Forest (Bhaledhunga), Tanahun FGD Participant).

Similarly, another executive member expressed in a similar line.

“The people in our NRM group are very sensible and helpful, as a result, I have not faced any difficulties to perform my roles” (Bhagar Inter Leasehold Forest, Tanahun, Bina Malla, Chairperson).

The value for this indicator in Bardiya, Chitwan and Kaski has decreased as compared to the midterm assessment. The reasons for this decrease were the random selection of the FGD participants whose perceptions were different than those of mid-term assessment FGD participants. Similarly, some male members still felt comfortable practicing traditional roles despite having knowledge of gender equality. This fact was supported by qualitative information gathered during the data collection.

“Although Hariyo Ban has provided us with training on bookkeeping and taking care of the forest, we could not get training on gender and social inclusion as such, due to which some of us still have to face disrespect and humiliation being women or marginalized groups” (Samundre Dandapari, Kaski, FGD Participant).

Some other women members have also felt the same.

“Sometimes we are even blamed for the theft of firewood or gravel in the community forest and are disrespected using derogatory words, I feel humiliated” (Devi Jaraya Phata CFUG, Bardiya).

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

Though majority of the NRM members show positive and responsive behavior towards women and marginalized groups and in adopting new gender roles, few FGD participants strongly expressed that some members still do not support women that are in the key executive positions. Such attitude and behavior must be changed for women to be able to perform their roles effectively.

Indicator GESI 2.2 Description of the indicator Baseline Midterm End line value value value Proportion of women and men (members of NRM groups) 65.4% 77.6% 79.8% who believe that the gender roles have been changed as a result of USG assistance The calculation of indicator GESI 2.2 was based on the following questions, as in the baseline and midterm assessment:

➢ Respondents perceiving that gender roles have changed ➢ Respondents performing new9 roles than the traditional ones10 Among the 509 respondents, 406 respondents (79.8%) feel that gender roles have changed to some extent compared to the past. This value was calculated using the above two questions, which were asked during the household survey. The respondents who responded a positive answer to both the question was considered as a positive response. Out of a total of 295 female respondents, 240 (81.4%) perceived that the gender roles have changed, and similar perceptions among the total male respondents (214) were also observed. Out of total male respondents, 76.6% perceived that traditional gender roles are slowly switching between men and women (Figure 7). Most of the female participants expressed that their husbands support them in the household chore including taking care of children. They also support their wives to attend community meetings and remain on various committees.

100.0 97.3 96.6 93.7 100.0 81.4 81.3 79.8 76.6 80.0 80.0 71.6 68.5 72.5 56.4 60.0

40.0

22.2 Percentage 20.0

0.0

Endline Baseline Midterm

Figure 7: Baseline to end line values showing the proportion of respondents believing the gender roles has been changed (end line values is presented on top of the red column)

9 New Roles: For women-involved in economic activities including going to offices, participating in user group meeting, decision making etc. For men- supporting their spouse in household chores including cooking, washing, looking after children etc. 10 Traditional Roles: For women -Household chores such as cooking food, washing cloths and dishes, looking after children, fetching water etc. For men – decision making, involved in economic activities such as going to office, earning money, working outside of house

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

“If my husband doesn’t support me to perform as the secretary, I will be unable to attend the meetings and take up this role. Unlike in the past, he does the cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the children when I have to go to the meetings. Similarly, as a secretary of this CFUG, I must take part in different meetings. I also get involved in community forest activities, attend trainings. This is possible due to the change in the perceptions of my husband and other community members” (Salbisana CFUG, Chitwan, FGD Participant).

Other participants also expressed their views on similar lines.

“The gender roles have changed compared to the past five years. While carrying out the household chores, I get help from my husband and my son as well. Due to which I can attend community meetings regularly unlike in the past” (Kalikhola CFUG, Tanahun, FGD Participant).

Most of the participants agreed that traditional gender roles are shifting, and men have become more cooperative and supportive to their wives. A total of 80.5% of respondents reported that they have been practicing new roles rather than the traditional ones. Most of the respondents expressed that they do not draw a line between husband and wives' responsibilities while doing household work. Whoever is available or free, does the chore as per the need. This is due to the orientation and sensitization activities provided by Hariyo Ban Program. However, a few participants expressed that they still follow the traditional division of work between males and females unless there is an urgent need to carry out household chores.

“I do most of the work outside home and my wife does household chores as she remains in the house all the time. I know that gender role should be changed among male and female, but I do not do much work within the house” (Raniban CFUG, Tanahun, FGD Participant).

Though NRM members are aware of gender equality, some of them do not seem to be practicing, which requires more awareness raising activities and training on GESI in the project areas. Comparison between the baseline, midterm and end line values of NRM members who believed that gender roles have changed are shown in Figure 7 with disaggregation.

Among the five districts, the percentage of respondents who believe gender roles have changed has increased in Banke, Bardiya and Kaski compared to the midterm assessment. The reason for the increase was found to be the change in perceptions of community people. The respondents were found to be embracing new roles easily as they live in a nuclear family and have attended several awareness raising activities organized by Hariyo Ban Program and other organizations. Some of them were found to be influenced by their neighbors who practice new gender roles. As a result, their mindset has been changed.

“I am happy to see my husband supporting me in cooking, cleaning, and taking care of our children. In the past it was not possible as the neighbors would gossip against him. This has changed a lot due to the training organized by Hariyo Ban program and Gaupalika (rural municipality)” (Lumle CAMC, Kaski, FGD Participant).

Some participants also shared that regardless of gender, they share the chores based on availability and compatibility.

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

“It is not necessary for my household that the women have to do all the household chores. The household work is divided as per the compatibility of the family members” (Raptipidit Tatha Gulari CFUG, Banke, FGD Participant).

This means some people do not follow strict traditional gender roles, but they perform all the work without any hesitation. This kind of openness towards all activities was due to the higher level of awareness created through training and orientation programs by Hariyo Ban Program and from Gaupalikas on gender equality. Most of the respondents expressed that both males and females have been performing new roles.

“I feel that I have been performing new roles other than traditional ones. I attend the group discussion and meetings; I am also involved in programs related to awareness-raising and I also am involved in my job. This would not be possible if my husband didn’t support me in household chores” (Karmala CFUG, Bardiya, FGD Participant).

Though the indicator value has increased in three districts the value has slightly decreased in Chitwan and Tanahun. The reason behind this was due to the perceptions of new FGD respondents who were selected randomly as it was impossible to find the same respondents as in baseline and midterm assessment. Another reason was that even if they are aware some male members felt comfortable practicing traditional roles as they were used to it.

As changing the traditional practices takes place gradually, more awareness-raising activities for all and leadership training for women would be instrumental in changing the patriarchal mindset of the people.

Indicator GESI 2.3 Description of the indicator Baseline Midterm End line value value value Proportion of women and marginalized groups in NRM 43% 52.5% 54.0% leadership positions perceiving they have been able to perform their roles effectively. 250 interviews with the executive committee members were the basis to calculate the value in the end line survey. Among the interviewees, 200 respondents were from women of all ethnicity and males from all except the BCT community. 50 male respondents from the BCT community were excluded, leading to 200 interviews for analysis. Following criteria were used while calculating the indicator value:

➢ Participants perceiving that they have not faced any difficulties while performing their roles ➢ Participants who have made an important decision in NRM groups The calculation of this indicator was done based on the response from 200 executive members. When both the questions received a positive answer, a positive response was recorded. Out of the 200 respondents, 108 respondents (54.0%) answered a positive response. Among these, 68 female respondents (55.7%) were performing their roles effectively, whereas 40 male respondents (51.3%) from Janajati, Newar and Dalit ethnicity were performing their roles effectively (Figure 8).

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

90.0 77.5 80.0 72.7 70.0 62.7 55.7 58.3 60.0 54.0 51.3 51.7 47.8 49.0 50.0 44.8 40.0

Percentage 30.0 25.8 20.0 10.0 0.0 Total Female Male Banke Bardiya Chitwan Kaski Tanahun BCT Dalit Newar Janajati

End line Baseline Mid-term

Figure 8: Baseline to End line value showing the NRM leaders effectively performing their roles (end line values is presented on top of the red column) The reasons behind the effective performances, as per the responses were (i) support from the committee members, particularly from male to female members, (ii) training and orientation provided by Hariyo Ban Program, (iii) increased level of confidence of the members, and (iv) acceptance of women and marginalized people in the key position.

Forty-eight out of 250 respondents are the chairperson, and 36 out of 48 chairpersons (75%) expressed that they did not face any difficulties in performing their roles. Again, out of 200 respondents (excluding the male BCT members), 27 are chairpersons and 19 among them (70.4%) do not face any difficulties in performing their roles.

Similarly, out of 250 respondents, 29 of them were the vice chairperson and out of those 17 did not face any difficulties i.e. 58.6%. But out of 200 respondents 19 were the vice chairperson and out of those 11 did not face any difficulties i.e. 57.9%. This was because there is good coordination and support among the committee members and the NRM members, in general, are helpful and obey the rules and regulations shared by the committees.

"I know my roles and I am also able to perform it effectively because the NRM members are very cooperative and follow the rules and regulations, which enabled the task to be completed without hassles” (Jalbire Kadampani CFUG, Tanahun, Tul Bahadur Thapa, Vice- Chairperson).

Similarly, majority of the executive committee members expressed their satisfaction with their performances and are effectively conducting their roles. Women committee members also felt that they are performing their roles easily. A female chairperson happily shared her experience as follows,

“I have received support from all the committee members for the decision I made which enables me to perform my roles effectively without any difficulties. I think the trainings provided by Hariyo Ban Program is one reason behind this” (Niru Maya Thapa, Chairperson, Kokcho CFUG, Tanahun).

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

Majority of women from executive committee revealed that support they get from other committee members enables them to fulfill their responsibilities. Otherwise, it would have been challenging for them with limited knowledge, exposure, and education. Majority of these women in the key positions Number missing before the parenthesis. clearly expressed the cooperation and support they were getting from other committee members. They also reiterated that cooperation and support have been increased compared to the past few years.

Nonetheless, 2.1% members from key positions were unaware of their specific roles, either due to inadequate education, or because of their recent appointment thereby lacking the experience and exposure.

“I am aware of my roles and I try to do it effectively, but I also faced some difficulties. I was unable to meet the expectation of the committee members due to inadequate education. Since I am a woman, I sometimes face the derogatory words from other members when I am unable to carry out my work properly” (Purnima CFUG, Banke, Til Kumari Buda Chettri, Chairperson).

This means, though the use of derogatory words has been reduced drastically compared to the baseline study, some people still use such words. This requires continuous awareness-raising activities in the days to come particularly focusing more on changing the mindset of the people. Some initiative against such behavior from CFUGs (e.g., caution, penalty) could be the point of departure. Similarly, some of the committee members from women and marginalized groups are not much aware of the legal provision related to community forestry. As a result, they face challenges while denying access to firewood to people outside of the CFUG.

“I have inadequate knowledge related to the legislation of the community forest. Besides, it is very difficult to restrict people who do not belong to our CFUG to collect firewood inside the our CFUG. Due to these reasons, I feel like I am unable to conduct my roles and responsibility completely.” (Chairperson, Bhagar Inter Leasehold Forest, Tanahun).

This confirms that more training on forestry related legislations and leadership skills is important in enabling women to perform better.

Among the five districts, the percentage of executive committee members performing their roles effectively has increased for Bardiya, Chitwan and Kaski compared to the midterm assessment. The increase in the value in these three districts occurred due to the coordination and support among the committee members, training provided by the Hariyo Ban programs, support from the family to attend the meeting among other reasons.

“The committee members, as well as family members, are very cooperative and supportive which led me to carry out my work without any difficulties.” (Vice-chairperson, Samundre Dandapari CFUG, Kaski,

It was also noticed that committee members encourage women to remain in the key position and build their capacities through ongoing coaching and other supports.

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

“In a crisis, everyone from committee discusses and figure out the solution. As a result, I have not faced difficulties performing my role” (Treasurer, Ghairibhanjyang CFUG, Kaski).

As for the other two districts Banke and Tanahun, the value is slightly lower than the midterm assessment. This was because (i) views of new committee members differ as the participants were different from baseline to end line, (ii) respondents did not have adequate legal knowledge related to community forestry, lack of accounting knowledge, and the confidence to deal with the NRM members in the time of difficulties or conflict. Further, it was also noted that rather than supporting them, committee members were found to play a blame game to save their faces. This has demotivated some women members to remain in the key positions and perform their roles effectively. Further, some women members also expressed that due to their household responsibilities and office work they face difficulties in managing their time, coordinating with other beneficiaries and committee members, collecting cash from the beneficiaries among others.

“I am aware of my roles, but I face some difficulties while performing them. Sometimes, I face non-cooperation and use of derogatory words from the committee members when I did not conduct my duties and responsibilities properly. This happens when I am unable to control hunting and illegal collection of timber. Further I also face challenges in generating funds for forest management. This causes a lot of pressure and tension on me. Committee members blame me if something goes wrong in our community forestry, and even users don’t support my decisions. As a result, I face difficulties in maintaining a good relationship with NRM members and committee members” (Chairperson, Purnima CFUG, Banke).

Though most of the committee members mentioned that they got support and cooperation from other team members while conducting their duties and responsibilities. However, some members, particularly women, still face less cooperation from NRM members while performing their roles.

Gender inequality in education and household chore is also leading ineffective performances of some of the women executive members to some extent. They are unable to manage their time for Committee’s work and meet the expectation of other committee members due to heavy workload at home.

“Even though I am the vice-chairperson of this CFUG, I still face problems in carrying out my roles. This is because I am a woman and not well educated. Besides, I also have to manage time for household work.” (Vice-Chairperson, Jumdanda CFUG, Tanahun).

It was noted that women and marginalized groups representing the executive committees have been supported and encouraged to take up various roles such as, chairpersons, vice-chairpersons, secretaries, and treasurers. They have been provided with ongoing mentoring and coaching from other committee members and through Hariyo Ban Program. However, not all the CFUGs sampled have such practices. This requires more efforts to build the confidence of the women and marginalized groups through training on community forestry legislation, accounting, bookkeeping, conducting meetings and writing minutes. Further, committee members and the NRM members need more sensitization activities on gender and social inclusion for wider acceptance of women and marginalized groups as leaders in their communities.

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

CONCLUSION This end line study was conducted to measure the changes over the period that has been made by the Hariyo Ban Program-II on six indicators: three on biodiversity conservation and three on gender equity and social inclusion.

Progress in all three indicators for biodiversity conservation from baseline to end line is impressive: economic loss due to human-wildlife conflict has been substantially decreased, more HWC affected households are receiving relief amount and in timely manner, and more communities are perceiving that they are receiving benefits in lieu of their conservation activities. It reflects that the biodiversity related activities conducted by Government of Nepal and consortium of Hariyo Ban Program through different GOs/NGOs/CBOs is getting institutionalized, communities are getting benefits and compensations, and developing positive perceptions towards conservation. As Nepal planned to increase the protected area (from 23.39% to more than 25%), such successful practice can be replicated on newly expanded protected areas. In the upcoming years and building on the experience, the Hariyo Ban Program's next phase, in coordination with government should develop a simple and easy compensatory mechanism that help the communities to receive relief amount quickly.

The overall value for GESI indicators has shown increment compared to the baseline and midterm assessments. Hariyo Ban Program support to NRM groups and committees has contributed a lot in changing the patriarchal mindset of the people. Women and marginalized groups have been provided with opportunities to assume the roles and responsibilities in key positions of the committees. Though this is a mandatory provision, Hariyo Ban Program contributed a lot in enhancing their capacities and skills; and raising awareness on gender quality and social inclusion aspect among all the NRM members which were obvious in all the discussions with CFUG members. The study team also noted that more capacity building on leadership skills, bookkeeping, writing meeting minutes, and steering discussions is a visible requirement, particularly for women and marginalized groups. As changing the mindset, attitude and behavior is a continuous long-term process, more GESI transformative approaches with targeted interventions and resources are needed in the days to come.

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Simplifying the process of receiving the relief amount As reflected from the FGDs in Karamala BZCFUG Bardiya, Kailasi CFUG Bardiya and Raptipidit tatha Gulari CFUG Banke, the process of receiving the compensation is lengthy and cumbersome. Another specific case is recorded in Kailasi CFUG. Communities living in the vicinity of forest do not have the registered land thus reside in "ailani" land, restricting them from receiving the relief amount. They however are the communities who are most affected by wildlife.

It is suggested to simplify the compensation process and develop a mechanism that enables landless communities to receive the relief amount. Simplification of compensation process is not that difficult and can be done by changing in procedural guidelines. But providing relief amount to households residing in unregistered lands needs amendments in the policy. Ministry of Forests and Environment, which is the focal ministry for Hariyo Ban II can initiate the process.

Likewise, participants of Lumle CAMC, Kaski informed that they are receiving the relief amount for livestock but not for agricultural crops which is higher (outcomes of this survey). A robust mechanism covering the loss of livestock and crops in all program working areas is recommended.

2. Fencing The national park boundary near the settlements are often fenced and the free movement of wildlife is regulated to some extent. But the fencing does not work for wild boar, spotted deer and monkeys. Need for reinforced fencing (for wild boar and spotted deer) is requested by affected communities.

3. Tourism development— Converting challenge to opportunity Member of Karmala BZCF reside adjacent to Bardiya National Park where the wildlife sighting is frequent. The village is near to East-West highway providing an easy access. Promoting and upscaling of tourism activities (e.g., homestay, village cafe) in the village focusing on domestic tourists could create local level employment and income generation opportunity and provide relief of some sort against the destruction caused by wildlife.

4. Action research Officials of Banke National Park and local communities (of Rapti Sonari Rural Municipality) mention that wildlife hit and run case is frequently encountered in the highway along Banke National Park. This opens new avenue for action research: (i) exploring the number of accidents and injuries, (ii) power fencing along the forest and road in accident prone areas, and (iii) observe the change in number of accidents and injuries. The learnings from the action research can be replicated in other areas where highway trespass the protected areas. 5. Awareness on relief funds and compensation mechanisms During the end line survey, we found that about 62% respondents do not have any idea about the relief fund. The next phase should explicitly focus on awareness and sensitization to members of NRM executive committee members, who in turn will inform the community members. Broadcasting through local media (e.g., local FMs) in local language could also be an effective means to reach to wider audience.

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

6. Awareness raising activities for both husbands and wives together for changing gender roles It was observed that when husband or wife participates in awareness raising activities separately, it did not bring much change since both of them returned to the usual practice. Awareness raising activities on gender equality should be designed in such a way that couples from the same household can participate together. As one of the FGD respondents from Raniban CFUG, Bandipur Rural Municipality, Tanahun mentioned that even though he is aware of gender equality, he doesn’t practice it at home. The awareness for couples on gender equality would be effective in reminding each other and applying it at home.

7. Leadership development and capacity building on community forestry legislation, bookkeeping, writing minutes and facilitating meetings A statement from woman chairperson of Bhagar Inter Leasehold Forest (Bhaledhunga) Tanahun: “I lack the knowledge on legislation of the forest along with other basic knowledge to perform my roles independently". This case is only representative as most of the women and marginalized executive members felt the same. Though some marginalized women are doing good in executive committee, majority of them expressed that they do not have the confidence to express themselves due to low level of education, inadequate knowledge on forestry legislation, writing meeting minutes and facilitating meetings. Thus, the executive members, particularly from women and marginalized groups need extensive support on leadership skills and confidence building.

8. Incorporating GESI transformative approaches in the project design with targeted interventions, activities, and resources. Nepal has a long history of patriarchy which is reflected in the social structures, institutions, and mindset of the people. Hence, to achieve gender equality and social inclusion in long run, GESI transformative approaches with targeted interventions, activities and resources need to be included in the project design itself: on larger scale, intensity and with high priority.

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

Annex I- Terms of Reference Terms of Reference (TOR) for End line Study Hariyo Ban Program 1. Introduction

The Hariyo Ban Program II is a USAID-funded initiative designed to benefit nature and people of Nepal. The Program period is of five years, from 15 July 2016 to 14 July 2021. The Hariyo Ban Program is being implemented by four core partners; WWF Nepal as prime recipient, with the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC), and the Federation of Community Forestry Users in Nepal (FECOFUN). Hariyo Ban II covers the two landscapes: Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape (CHAL) and Tarai Arc Landscape (TAL). The Program works on two core and interwoven thematic components: (1) biodiversity conservation and (2) Climate Change Adaptation. Market-based livelihoods, gender equality and social inclusion, and governance are crosscutting themes for the Program. The second phase of the Program is currently running in the fifthand final year. With the interventions over the nine years including Phase I, communities in the program areas have been largely benefited. The program has implemented many interventions, from field to national level, in the past nine years in order to achieve remarkable results in landscapes. The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan of Hariyo Ban II has 51 indicators to reflect outputs and outcomes from Program interventions. Among 51, the baseline values for six biodiversity conservation (3) and GESI (3) related outcome indicators were established in 2017 through an independent consulting firm, while baselines for all remaining indicators were derived from the Phase I results - Furthermore, the midterm progress of three GESI indicators were measured and reported in December 2019. The MEL Plan envisages to measure end line values of the 3 GESI and 3 Biodiversity indicators in Year 5. This Terms of reference (ToR) has been prepared seeking applications from independent consultant ((individual (s) or organization)) (hereafter referred to as the Consultant) to undertake the task in a timely manner. This will help to showcase results and changes perceived by the communities in the final report of the Hariyo Ban Program. 2. Objective

The overall objectives of the end line study is to measure the progress of indicators against baseline and or midline values of the six indicators. 3. Rationale

The program has committed in its MEL plan to deliver results on these six indicators in the final year of the program. For the same, the progress on indicators needs to be measured and reported in the final report. This assignment will help to measure progress against the baseline value established in Year 2017 as a result of Program interventions over the period. This study will be instrumental to analyze effectiveness of program strategies and approaches on biodiversity conservation and GESI. These perception related indicators need an independent consultant to ensure the integrity in field study, analysis and findings. Hence the M&E Unit plans to conduct an assessment by recruiting the consultant. 4. Scope

The end line study team will measure the performance of indicators mentioned below and also update on the critical issues and contexts around them. Biodiversity Conservation: 1.1.5 Value of economic loss (in USD) due to incidents of HWC recorded by USG supported programs 1.1.7 Percentage of project supported households that perceive that relief amount is paid in a timely manner 1.1.8 Percentage of people perceiving that they receive benefits from conservation activities GESI: GESI 1.3 Women and members of ethnic and marginalized groups perceiving that NRM members including men and decision makers exhibit gender equitable and socially inclusive behavior i

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

GESI 2.2 Proportion of women and men (members of NRM groups) who believe that the gender roles have been changed as a result of USG assistance GESI 2.3 Proportion of women and marginalized groups in NRM leadership positions perceiving they have been able to perform their roles effectively This assessment will cover the same districts and NRM groups covered during baseline and midline assessments i.e. 50 NRM groups sampled from five districts viz. Banke and Bardiya in TAL and Chitwan, Kaski and Tanahu in CHAL. 5. Methodology

The overall methodology and approach of undertaking the end line study will be similar to the baseline. The same NRM groups and its users will be contacted for the study. Collection of primary information from the same respondents belonging to 50 NRM groups will be ensured asmuch as possible to well compare the situation then and now. The baseline report of the Hariyo Ban Program II will be referred for extracting respondents information. Similarly, the same set of questionnaires will be used for data collection from respondents which were used during the baseline for three biodiversity related indicators. For GESI indicators, the questionnaire updated for the midterm study will be used. For data triangulation, 10 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with the program supported households, women and marginalized executive members from NRM groups will be planned, two at each district. The checklist for FGD will also be same as used for Baseline study for biodiversity related indicators and same as of midterm assessment in terms of GESI indicators. Overall, the methodology of this study will be same as of the baseline study conducted during 2017.

Individual Survey by contacting respondents in case of indicator 1.1.5; 1.1.7, 1.1.8, GESI 1.3 and GESI 2.2; Focus Group Discussions for all indicators and Key Informant Interview for GESI 2.3 will be the major approaches for this assessment.

After the data collection, compilation and analysis, the Consultant shall present the findings to Hariyo Ban team. Based on the inputs received, the draft end line study report shall be prepared and submitted in hard copy and an electronic copy for review on the stipulated date. The Program team shall review and provide inputs to the draft report. After addressing the inputs/comments, the Consultant shall submit the final version of the report -two hard copies and soft copy. Soft copies of all data entered in excel or any other software and photographs taken during the field study shall be submitted with the final report.

In view of the current crisis due to COVID-19, the consultant is expected to propose study execution plan under different scenarios. The plan should ensure that data collection follows acceptable methodology.

6. Team composition and responsibilities

The Consultant will provide a team of specialists to undertake this consultancy, including a team leader and members with various specializations. Qualification and Competency of Consultant and or Team Lead. • Master's degree in Natural Resource Management and or relevant field • Proven experience, skill and knowledge in baseline and end line studies, with particular reference to biodiversity conservation and gender and social inclusion (GESI) • Experience in working with local context of TAL and CHAL will be an additional advantage *The fee structure of the team leader and the other members shall be governed by the WWF's policy. 7. Specific technical deliveries and timeline

This activity is targeted to implement during November-December 2020. # of days (49 Specific tasks Timeline days) Inception report with plan 4 November 1, 2020 Field work 25 November Data Entry, analysis and preparation of Draft report 15 December 15, 2020 Final report* (digital and hard copy) in English 5 December 31, 2020

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

*The report shall clearly present the progress of indicators against the baseline/midterm values for six indicators and the list of respondents for survey and FGDs shall be appended in the report. Soft copies of all data entered in excel or SPSS shall be submitted with the final report. 8. Budget

The consultant should submit financial proposals that include detailed breakdown of the survey methodology, sampling size and budget. The proposed cost must include consultant remuneration, local travel cost, communication cost, meeting cost, field cost and all other costs if any. The maximum budget limit for this consultancy is NRs. 12,00, 000 (12 lakhs) (inclusive of 13% VAT and other applicable taxes, if any). The payment is subject to tax deduction as per prevailing government rules. 9. Coordination and communication

The consultant shall work under the guidance of M&E Specialist, Technical Advisor-Biodiversity Conservation, GESI Coordinator and ME&D Officer. Team leaders and concerned members of all Consortium Partners will be closely coordinated for completing the assignment. Frontline staff in CHAL and TAL, of all consortium partners will be engaged at various points in the process. 10. Proposal submission details

Interested VAT registered individuals and or Consulting firms are requested to submit separate technical and financial proposals along with an application letter and CV, electronically to the sender as:

WWF Nepal Hariyo Ban Program Monitoring & Evaluation Unit P.O Box 7660 | Baluwatar, Kathmandu no later than 5:00 pm NST, byOctober 15, 2020 Other documents required for submission:

1 Organization Registration and latest renewal (if applicable) 2 Registration with Social Welfare Council (for I/NGO) 3 VAT registration certificate 4 Latest FY audit report 5 Tax Exemption Certification (if applicable) 6 Latest Tax clearance certificate 7 CV of team leader and members

iii

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

Annex II- Sampled NRM Groups

S.N. Landscape District Name of NRM Group Municipality/Rural Municipality Ward No. 1. CHAL Chitwan Salbisna CFUG Bharatpur Metropolitan City 29 2. CHAL Chitwan Somari CFUG Ichhakamana Rural Municipality 7 3. CHAL Chitwan Mangaladevi CFUG Kalika Municipality 8 4. CHAL Chitwan Ranikhola CFUG Ichhakamana Rural Municipality 7 5. CHAL Chitwan KalikholaDeurali CFUG Ichhakamana Rural Municipality 7 6. CHAL Chitwan Padampur CFUG Kalika Municipality 4 7. CHAL Chitwan Panchkanya CFUG Ratnanagar Municipality 11 8. CHAL Kaski Marga Jyoti Power Pokhara Lekhnath Metropolitan 22 Mahila CFUG City 9. CHAL Kaski Salleripakha CFUG Annapurna Rural Municipality 4 10. CHAL Kaski Aatmeko Agan CFUG PokharaLekhnath Metropolitan 22 City 11. CHAL Kaski Shanti CFUG PokharaLekhnath Metropolitan 33 City 12. CHAL Kaski Gahate Pakha CFUG Annapurna Rural Municipality 1 13. CHAL Kaski Byadchaur CFUG PokharaLekhnath Metropolitan 22 City 14. CHAL Kaski Andherikhola CFUG Annapurna Rural Municipality 3 15. CHAL Kaski Bhakarjung CFUG Annapurna Rural Municipality 3 16. CHAL Kaski Chharchhare Surke Annapurna Rural Municipality 1 Khola Bhirgauda Gaudauni CFUG 17. CHAL Kaski Gairibhanjyang Kafaldan PokharaLekhnath Metropolitan 33 CFUG City 18. CHAL Kaski Mulban CFUG PokharaLekhnath Metropolitan 21 City 19. CHAL Kaski Samundre Dandapari PokharaLekhnath Metropolitan 22 CFUG City 20. CHAL Kaski Lumle CAMC Annapurna Rural Municipality 6,7 21. CHAL Tanahu Kamala Devi CFUG Devghat Rural Municipality 4 22. CHAL Tanahu Raniban CFUG Aabukhaireni Rural Municipality 6 23. CHAL Tanahu Ratmate Thakaldanda Bandipur Rural Municipality 5 CFUG 24. CHAL Tanahu Bachyangdi CFUG Vyas Munisipality 13 25. CHAL Tanahu Jumdanda CFUG Bandipur Rural Municipality 6 26. CHAL Tanahu Chakrawoti CFUG Devghat Rural Municipality 5 27. CHAL Tanahu Kokcho CFUG Vyas Municipality 14 28. CHAL Tanahu Raiapur Kotre CFUG Suklagandaki Municipality 2 29. CHAL Tanahu Jalbire Kadampani CFUG Suklagandaki Municipality 12 30 CHAL Tanahu Raniban CFUG Bandipur Rural Municipality 4 31. CHAL Tanahu Kulung CFUG Vyas unicipality 14 32. CHAL Tanahu Raniban CFUG Devghat Rural Municipality 5 33. CHAL Tanahu Bhagar Inter lease hold Bhimad Municipality 3 Forest Group (Dhuni LFG) iv

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

34. CHAL Tanahu Bhagar Inter lease hold Bhimad Municipality 3 Forest (Bhanjyang LFG) 35. CHAL Tanahu Khuidanda LFG Aabukhaireni Rural Municipality ? 36. CHAL Tanahu Pireghari LFG Devghat Rural Municipality 4 37. TAL Banke Sadabahar CFUG Raptisonari Rural Municipality 6 38. TAL Banke Janakalyan CFUG Raptisonari Rural Municipality 2 39. TAL Banke Purnima CFUG Daduwa Rural Municipality 5 40. TAL Banke Gailekh CFUG Raptisonari Rural Municipality 1 41. TAL Banke Gokul CFUG Daduwa Rural Municipality 5 42. TAL Banke Raptipidit Tatha Gulari Raptisonari Rural Municipality 6 CFUG 43. TAL Banke Bageshwory CFUG Raptisonari Rural Municipality 3 44. TAL Bardiya Bhawaniphata BZCFUG Thakurbaba Municipality 4 45. TAL Bardiya Devi Jarayiphata Thakurbaba Municipality 2 BZCFUG 46. TAL Bardiya Karmala BZCFUG Thakurbaba Municipality 2 47. TAL Bardiya Kailashi CFUG Madhuban Municipality 1 48. TAL Bardiya Dalla BZCFUG Madhuban Municipality 1 49. TAL Bardiya Buddha CFUG RajapurMunicipaality 7 50. TAL Bardiya Kalika CFUG Rajapur Municipality 1

Annex III- Participants of FGD List of FGD Participant

District NRM Group Participant Name 1. Ram Lal Tharu 2.Aayodhya Prasad Tharu 3. Rupa Tharu 4. Sarita Tharu 5.Gita Priyar 6. Krishna Prasad Tharu Raptipidit Tatha Gulari CFUG 7. Ram Bahadur Raule 8. Aalaicha Tharu 9. Chifar Tharu 10. Govinda Prasad Poudel Banke 11. Rati Ram Khatil 12. Prabir Buddhatoki 13. Chandra Bir Chaudhary 1. Siyaram Sonar 2. Arjun Yadav 3. Ram Manorwa Yadav 4. Jeledar Ansari Gokul CFUG 5. Mohan Poudel 6. Bharwa Raidas 7. Dinesh Yadav 8. Radheshyam Yadav 1. Devilal Gurung Chitwan Kalikhola CFUG 2. Singh B. Moktan 3. Kumar Thapa Magar v

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

228. Janaki Yougi F Janajati Bardiya Dalla BZCFUG Member 229. Puni Ram Tharu M Janajati Bardiya Dalla BZCFUG Chairperson 230. Chija Lal Tharu M Janajati Bardiya Dalla BZCFUG Member 231. Chandra Kala Lamsal F BCT Bardiya Buddha CFUG Vice- Chairperson 232. Pabitra Rana F BCT Bardiya Buddha CFUG Member 233. Rani Tharu F Janajati Bardiya Buddha CFUG Member 234. Jiv Kada Regmi M BCT Bardiya Buddha CFUG Member 235. Min Bahadur Gurung M Janajati Bardiya Buddha CFUG Chairperson 236. Baliram Sapkota M BCT Bardiya Devi Jaraya Phata Chairperson 237. Boli Ram Tharu M Janajati Bardiya Devi Jaraya Phata Member 238. Sukni Tharu F Janajati Bardiya Devi Jaraya Phata Member 239. Anita Chuadhary F Janajati Bardiya Devi Jaraya Phata Member 240. Deuka Devi Gautam F BCT Bardiya Devi Jaraya Phata Vice- Chairperson 241. Mina Khadka F BCT Bardiya Kailashi BZCFUG Member 242. Laxmi Khadka F BCT Bardiya Kailashi BZCFUG Vice- Chairperson 243. Hem Bahadur Chaudhary M Janajati Bardiya Kailashi BZCFUG Secretary 244. Naya Ram Sunar M Janajati Bardiya Kailashi BZCFUG Chairperson 245. Cheda Tharu M Janajati Bardiya Kailashi BZCFUG Treasurer 246. Dhurba Raj Bhatta M BCT Bardiya Kalika CFUG Treasurer 247. Purna Prasad Dhamala M BCT Bardiya Kalika CFUG Member 248. Mina Bhatta F BCT Bardiya Kalika CFUG Secretary 249. Bharati B.Ka. F Dalit Bardiya Kalika CFUG Member 250. Krishna Prasad Jaisi M BCT Bardiya Kalika CFUG Chairperson

Annex V- Questionnaire

Annex V.1: Household Survey

प�ृ ठभूमी। General background

सर्वेक्षकको नाम| Name of the Enumerator सर्वेक्षणको ममति| Date of Survey

핍यक्तिगिजानकारी

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

र्वडानं| Ward no NRMसमुहकोनाम| Name of NRM group NRMसमुहमाथान| Position in NRM group स륍पन्निािर| Well-being ranking (as per NRM क ख ग घ group) Biodiversity Conservation Perspective

1. घरधुरीकोबैशाखदेखख चैत्र (कु ि अनमु ातनि मू쥍य) स륍म कु ि र्वार्षकक नगद आय।Total annual household cash income from Baisakh to Chaitra (an approximate value). S.N Sources of income Annual income (an approx. value) in Nrs 1 Forest products -र्वन पैदार्वार 2 Service (govt., non-govt., teaching) -सेर्वा सरकार), गैर सरकारी, मशक्षण( 3 Wage labor -मजदरु श्रम 4 Business -핍यापार/핍यर्वसाय 5 Agriculture -कृ र्ष 6 Livestock -पशुपािन 7 Others: अन्य Total

2. िपाईको आफ्नो जग्गा जममन कति छ? (रोपतन, कठ्ठा, बबगा)|How much land do you own? (ropani, kattha, bigha)

3. प्रमुख कृ र्ष फसि, उ配पादन र हातन।Major agricultural crops, production and loss.

Agriculture crop -कृ षि फसल Annual production Per unit Quantity (kg) -वाषििक उ配पादन ) ककलो( price depredated (Nrs/kg) - (kg/year) - प्रति एकाइ हातनकोमात्रा ककलोग्राम( / ( मू쥍य 셁 )विि / - )ककलो

4. प्रमुख पशुधन, उ配पादन र हातन|Major livestock, production and loss.

xvi

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

Livestock- पशुधन Number- संख्या Selling Loss due to price- HWC -मानर्व बिक्रीमू쥍य र्वन्यजन्िु 饍र्वन्दबाट प्रभार्र्वि

5. र्वन्यजन्िुको कारण कु नै स륍पर्ि क्षति (िपाℂको पररर्वार मभत्र)भएको छ?|Are there any property loss (within your household) due to wildlife? a. Yes b. No (If selected skip to c. Don’t Know 8)

6. यदद छ भने तिनीह셂के के - हुन?|If् yes what are they?

7. के हामीक्षतिकोमु쥍या敍कनगनसक क्छौ |?Can we quantify the loss?

8. Do you know about the relief amount?

के िपाℂिाई राहि रकमको बारेमा थाहा छ?

a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know

9. Who pays the relief amount? राहि रकम कसिे भुक्िानी गदकछ?

10. Have you received any relief amount for your losses?

के िपाईिेबेहोरेकोक्षतिकोबापिराहिरकमपाउनुभएकोछ?

a. Yes b. No (If selected skip to c. Don’t Know 15)

11. When do you report (to concerned authority) after the loss? क्षतिपतछ िपाईिे संर्वजन्धि सँथािाई कदहिे ररपोटक गनुहक ुन्छ?

xvii

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

a. Within first week b. Within second week c. Within d. After a month third week एक मदहनापतछ दोस्रो हप्िा मभत्र पदहिो हप्िा मभत्र िेस्रो हप्िा मभत्र 12. How much did you receive last year? िपाℂिे अतघ쥍िो र्वषक कति राहि रकम पाउनुभयो?

13. How long does it take to receive the relief amount? राहि रकम प्राप्ि गनक कति िामो समय िाग्छ?

b. 2 month c. 3 month d. More than three months a. 1 month २ मदहना ३ मदहना िीन मदहना भन्दा बढी १मदहना 14. Do you perceive that you receive relief amount timely? िपाℂकोर्र्वचारमाकेिपाℂिे राहिको रकम समयमा पाउनुभएको छ?

a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know 15. Has there been any loss in human life in your family due to HWC? केिपाईकोपररर्वारमाअदहिेस륍ममानर्व र्वन्यजन्ि ु 饍र्वन्दबाट कसैको ज्यान गुमेको छ?

b. No c. Don’t Know a. Yes 16. If yes, have you received any compensation from the Government? यदद छ भने ,के िपाईिे सरकारबाट कु नै क्षतिपूतिपक ाउन ु भयो?

b. No । पाएको छैन c. Don’t Know । थाह a. Yes । पाएँ (If selected skip to 18) भएन 17. Do you perceive that you receive compensation timely? के िपाईकोर्र्वचारमाक्षतिपुतिसक मयमापाउनुभएकोछ?

b. No । पाएको छैन c. Don’t Know । थाह a. Yes । पाएँ भएन 18. Can we list any of the conservation activities (eg. a. plantation, forest fire control, CBAPUs, conservation of b. water source etc.) carried out in your group? c. िपाईकोNRM समुहमाहुनेगरेकासंरक्षणगतिर्र्वधधह셂के ?के हुन-् d. र्वनजंगि डढेिो ,जिै र्वक्षृ ारोपण)बिाउनुहोस।् तनयन्त्रण, जि स्रोि e. संरक्षणआदद( 19. Are you engaged in any of these activities?

के िपाई तय मध्ये कु न ै गतिर्र्वधधह셂मा संिग्न हुनुहुन्छ? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know 20. Do you believe that you are receiving these benefits due to your engagement in those

xviii

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

conservation activities?

िपाई को र्र्वचारमा के िपाईिे पाउन ु भएका िाभह셁 संरक्षण क्रियाकिापमा सं쥍गनिाका कारणिे हो? a. Yes b. No (If selected skip to GESI 1) c. Don’t Know 21. What benefits have you received from conservation a. works? Please list the benefits you have received b. including ‘not received any’ if so. संरक्षणक्रियाकिापमासं쥍गनिाकाकारणिपाईिेपाउनुभएकािाभह셁के -के हन?् c. d. e. GESI

1. Do the NRM members show friendly behavior towards you? के NRMसदयह셂िेिपाईिाईआज配मय핍यर्वहारदेखाउछन? ्

a. Yes b. No 2. Do the NRM members use derogatory words while talking to you? के िपाई सँग कु रागदाक NRM का सदयह셂िे कु नै अपमानजनक शब्दको प्रयोग गनुहक ुन्छ?

b. No a. Yes 3. Do you feel that the NRM leaders respond to your concerns fairly? िपाईको र्र्वचारमा के NRM का पदाधधकाररह셁िेिपाईको चासोर धचन्िाका र्र्वषयह셁िाई उधचि िररकािे स륍बोधन गनुहक ुन्छ?

a. Yes b. No 4. Can you express your views openly in front of the NRM leaders? के िपाℂ NRM का पदाधधकाररह셁कोअगाडड खु쥍िा 셂पमा आफ्नो र्र्वचार 핍यक्ि गनक सक्नुहुन्छ?

a. Yes b. No 5. Do you feel that gender roles have been changed than five years ago? िपाℂिाई िाग्छ क्रकिै敍धगक भूममकाह셂 पाँच र्वषक अगाददको भन्दापररर्विकन भएको छ?

a. Yes b. No 6. Do you feel that you have been performing new roles other that traditional ones recently? िपाईको र्र्वचारमा के िपाईिे आजकाि पर륍परागि ्काम भन्दा नयाँ काम गनक था쥍नुभएको छ?

a. Yes b. No

xix

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

Annex V.2: Focus Group Discussion (FGDs) General Members

Informed Consent

Hello. My name is ______, (the other member of the team will also introduce him/herself) and I am working for WWF Nepal. We are conducting a survey and would appreciate your participation in this survey. I would like to ask you a few questions about your experiences as NRM group members. You have been asked to participate in this study because your personal views and exercise as community member is important to us. The discussion usually takes around 45 minutes to complete. Whatever Information you provide will be kept strictly confidential.

1. What is the conventional annual cropping cycle of this area (from Baisakh to Chaitra)? यस क्षेत्रको पर륍परागि र्वार्षकक र्वािी चि के -के हो(र्वैशाख देखख चैत्र स륍म)? 2. What is the estimated annual productivity (kg/ropani or appropriate) and unit selling price of these crops in this group? यस क्षेत्रमा यी फसिह셂को अनुमातनि र्वार्षक उ配पादक配र्व क्रकिोग्राम( /रोपनी र्वा उपयुक्ि र इकाई )बबक्रि मू쥍य के हो?

3. What are the most common livestock and unit selling price of livestock of this area? यस क्षेत्रमा पाउने घरपािुर्वा जनार्वरह셁 के के हुन ् र तिन ् का ब-ज िी म쥍ू य कति छ? 4. What are the most common animals that are likely to damage the crop/livestock?

कु न ् जनार्वरह셁िे प्राय बामि पशुह셂िाई/क्षति पुराउने गरेका छन?्

5. What are the most damaged crops/livestock and on which seasons? सबै भन्दा बढी क्षति पुयाकइएका फसिपशुह셂 कु न हुन ् र कु न मौसमा बदढ क्षति हु/न्छ? 6. Can we estimate the number of households affected by HWC within your group? Which hamlet is mostly affected? िपाईह셁को समूह मभत्र मानर्व र्वन्यजन्ि ु 饍र्वन्द बाट प्रभार्र्वि भएका

पररर्वारह셂को संख्या कति छ? कु न गाउँमा धेरै असर पारेको छ? 7. Can we estimate the loss of livestock (such as number of cow/buffalo/goat etc killed or severely injured) in this area? के यस क्षेत्रमा पशुधनको क्षतिको( जिै गाई / भℂसी / बाख्ररा आदद मारेको

र्वा ग륍भीर घाइिे )अनमु ान गनक सक्रकन्छ? 8. Can we estimate the loss of crops (such as xx kg or product of xx ropani/kattha) in this

area? के यस क्षेत्रको कृ र्षमा भयको क्षतिको जिै( xx क्रकिोग्राम र्वाxx रोपनी अनमु ान )कट्ठा को उ配पादन / गनक सक्रकन्छ? 9. Are there any property loss in you group? If yes, what and where does the loss happen?

के िपाईको NRM समूहमा कु न ै स륍पर्िको हातन भयको छ? यदद छ भने, के हो र कर्िको क्षति भएको छ? 10. Has there been any human casualties? If yes then how frequent does the incidence of

human casualties occur? के यो NRM समूहमा र्वन्यजन्िुका कारण मानर्र्वय क्षति भएको छयदद छ ? ?कतिपटक भएको छ ,भने xx

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

11. Do victims in your group receive the relief/compensation amount in case of any loss (crops, livestock, property, wildlife)?

िपाईको NRM समूहमा पीडडिह셂िे कु न ै हातन फसि(, पशुधन, स륍पर्िक्षतिपूति क रकम / को अर्वथामा राहि )

प्राप्ि गन ुक भएको छ? 12. If yes, how long it takes to receive the relief amount? Is the process of getting relief easy or time consuming?

यदद प्राप्ि छ भने ,राहि रकम प्राप्िगनक कति समय िागेको धथयो? के राहि प्राप्िगनक सजजिो छ? 13. What kind of household chores do you do now? Is it any different than 5 years ago?

िपाई अदहिे किो प्रकारको घरायमस काम गनुहक ुन्छ? के यो ५ र्वषक पदहिे भन्दा फरक छ? 14. Do you feel that you have been performing new roles other than traditional ones recently?

िपाईको र्र्वचारमा के िपाईिे आजकाि पर륍परागि ् काम ,ब楍चा हेने ,पानी मिन जाने ,भाडा माझ्ने ,खाना पकाउने( )अक्रफस जाने अन्य ,खेिमा काम गने भन्दा नया ँ काम गन क था쥍नभु एको छ?

xxi

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

General Women

Informed Consent

यस क्षेत्रको पर륍परागि र्वार्षकक र्वािी चिके -के हो )र्वैशाख देखख चैत्र स륍म(? 2. What is the estimated annual productivity (kg/ropani or appropriate) and unit selling price of these crops in this group? यस क्षेत्रमा यी फसिह셂को अनुमातनि र्वार्षक उ配पादक配र्व )क्रकिोग्राम /रोपनी र्वा उपयुक्ि( र इकाई बबक्रि मू쥍य के हो? 3. What are the most common livestock and unit selling price of livestock of this area?

यस क्षेत्रमा पाउन े घरपािुर्वा जनार्वरह셁 के -के हुन ् र तिन ् का बबिी मू쥍य कति छ? 4. What are the most common animals that are likely to damage the crop/livestock?

कु न ् जनार्वरह셁िे प्राय बामि/पशुह셂िाई क्षति पुराउने गरेका छन?्

5. What are the most damaged crops/livestock and on which seasons? सबै भन्दा बढी क्षति पुयाकइएका फसि/पशुह셂 कु न हुन ् र कु न मौसमा बदढ क्षति हुन्छ? 6. Can we estimate the number of households affected by HWC within your group? Which hamlet is mostly affected? िपाईह셁को समूह मभत्र मानर्व र्वन्यजन्ि ु 饍र्वन्द बाट प्रभार्र्वि भएका

पररर्वारह셂को संख्या कति छ? कु न गाउँमा धेरै असर पारेको छ? 7. Can we estimate the loss of livestock (such as number of cow/buffalo/goat etc killed or severely injured) in this area?

के यस क्षेत्रमा पशुधनको क्षतिको )जिै गाई / भसℂ ी / बाख्ररा आदद मारेको र्वा ग륍भीर घाइिे( अनुमान गन क सक्रकन्छ? 8. Can we estimate the loss of crops (such as xx kg or product of xx ropani/kattha) in this area?

के यस क्षेत्रको कृ र्षमा भयको क्षतिको )जिै xx क्रकिोग्राम र्वा xx रोपनी / कट्ठा को उ配पादन( अनुमान गन क सक्रकन्छ? 9. Are there any property loss in you group? If yes, what and where does the loss happen?

के िपाईको NRM समूहमा कु न ै स륍पर्िको हातन भयको छ? यदद छ भने, के हो र कर्िको क्षति भएको छ?

xxii

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

10. Has there been any human casualties? If yes then how frequent does the incidence of

human casualties occur? के यो NRM समूहमा र्वन्यजन्िुका कारण मानर्र्वय क्षति भएको छ? यदद छ भने, कतिपटक भएको छ? 11. Do victims in your group receive the relief/compensation amount in case of any loss

(crops, livestock, property, wildlife)? िपाईको NRM समूहमा पीडडिह셂िे कु नै हातन )फसि, पशधु न,

स륍पर्ि( को अर्वथामा राहि / क्षतिपूति क रकम प्राप्ि गन ुक भएको छ? 12. If yes, how long it takes to receive the relief amount? Is the process of getting relief easy or time consuming? यदद प्राप्ि छ भने ,राहि रकम प्राप्िगनक कति समय िागेको धथयो? के राहि प्राप्िगनक सजजिो छ?

13. How friendly are NRM members while talking with you? NRM का सदयह셂 िपाई सँग कर्िको आज配मयिाका साथ कु रा हुनुहुन्छ?

14. Have you felt any changes in the behavior of NRM members? If yes, explain. के िपाℂिे

NRM सदयह셂को 핍यर्वहारमा कु नै पररर्विनक महसुस गनुभक यको छ? यदद छ भने, 핍याख्या गनुहक ोस।् 15. How respectful are the NRM leaders with you? Do they use any derogatory words

while talking to you? NRM का पदाधधकाररह셁िे िपाईिाई कर्िको आदर गनुहक ुन्छ? के िपाई सँग बो쥍दा कु नै अपमानजनक शब्दको प्रयोग गनुहक ुन्छ? 16. Do you feel that NRM leaders respond to your concerns fairly? If yes, give some examples.

िपाईको र्र्वचारमा के NRM का पदाधधकाररह셁िे िपाईको चासो र धचन्िाका र्र्वषयह셁िाई उधचि िररकािे स륍बोधन

गनुहक ुन्छ? यदद हुन्छभने, के दह उदाहरण ददनुहोस।्

17. Can you express your views openly in front the NRM leaders, If not why? के िपाℂ

NRM का पदाधधकाररह셁को अगाडड खु쥍िा 셂पमा आफ्नो र्र्वचार 핍यक्ि गन क सक्नुहुन्छ? यदद सक्नुहुन्न भन े क्रकन? 18. What kind of household chores do you do now? Is it any different than 5 years ago?

िपाई अदहिे किो प्रकारको घरायमस काम गनुहक ुन्छ? के यो ५ र्वष क पदहिे कु न ै फरक धथयो? 19. Do you feel that you have been performing new roles other than traditional ones recently?

िपाईको र्र्वचारमा के िपाईिे आजकाि पर륍परागि ् काम )खाना पकाउने, भाडा माझ्न,े पानी मिन जाने, ब楍चा हेने िथा अन्य( भन्दा नया ँ काम गन क था쥍नुभएको छ?

xxiii

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

Men and Women of marginalized group

Informed Consent

Participation in this meeting is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any individual question or all of the questions. You can stop the discussion at any time. However, we hope that you will participate in this discussion since your views are important. 1. What is the conventional annual cropping cycle of this area (from Baisakh to Chaitra)? यस क्षेत्रको पर륍परागि र्वार्षकक र्वािी चि के -के हो( र्वैशाख देखख चैत्र स륍म)? 2. What is the estimated annual productivity (kg/ropani or appropriate) and unit selling price of these crops in this group? यस क्षेत्रमा यी फसिह셂को अनुमातनि र्वार्षक उ配पादक配र्व क्रकिोग्राम( /रोपनी र्वा उपयुक्ि र इकाई )बबक्रि मू쥍य के हो? 3. What are the most common livestock and unit selling price of livestock of this area?

यस क्षेत्रमा पाउन े घरपािुर्वा जनार्वरह셁 के के हुन ् र तिन ् का ब-ज िी मू쥍य कति छ? 4. What are the most common animals that are likely to damage the crop/livestock?

कु न ् जनार्वरह셁िे प्राय बामि पशुह셂िाई/क्षति पुराउने गरेका छन?् 5. What are the most damaged crops/livestock and on which seasons?सबै भन्दा बढी क्षति पुयाकइएका फसि पशुह셂 कु न हुन/् र कु न मौसमा बदढ क्षति हुन्छ? 6. Can we estimate the number of households affected by HWC within your group? Which hamlet is mostly affected? िपाईह셁को समूह मभत्र मानर्व र्वन्यजन्ि ु 饍र्वन्द बाट प्रभार्र्वि भएका

पररर्वारह셂को संख्या कति छ? कु न गाउँमा धेरै असर पारेको छ? 7. Can we estimate the loss of livestock (such as number of cow/buffalo/goat etc killed or severely injured) in this area?के यस क्षेत्रमा पशुधनको क्षतिको( जिै गाई / भℂसी / बाख्ररा आदद मारेको

र्वा ग륍भीर घाइिे )अनमु ान गनक सक्रकन्छ? 8. Can we estimate the loss of crops (such as xx kg or product of xx ropani/kattha) in this

happen?के िपाईको NRM समूहमा कु नै स륍पर्िको हातन भयको छ? यदद छ भने, के हो र कर्िको क्षति भएको छ? 10. Has there been any human casualties? If yes then how frequent does the incidence of

human casualties occur? के यो NRM समूहमा र्वन्यजन्िुका कारण मानर्र्वय क्षति भएको छयदद छ ? ?कतिपटक भएको छ ,भने

xxiv

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

11. Do victims in your group receive the relief/compensation amount in case of any loss

(crops, livestock, property, wildlife)? िपाईको NRM समूहमा पीडडिह셂िे कु नै हातन फसि(, पशधु न,

स륍पर्िको अर्वथामा र ) ाहि क्षतिपूति क रकम प्राप्ि गन ुक / भएको छ? 12. If yes, how long it takes to receive the relief amount? Is the process of getting relief easy or time consuming? यदद प्राप्ि छ भने ,राहि रकम प्राप्िगनक कति समय िागेको धथयो? के राहि प्राप्िगनक सजजिो छ? 13. How friendly are NRM members while talking with you?

NRM का सदयह셂 िपाई सँग कर्िको आज配मयिाका साथ कु रा गनुहक ुन्छ? 14. Have you felt any changes in the behavior of NRM members? If yes, explain.

के िपाℂिे NRM सदयह셂को 핍यर्वहारमा कु न ै पररर्विनक महससु गनुभक यको छ? यदद छ भने, 핍याख्या गनुहक ोस।् 15. How respectful are the NRM leaders with you? Do they use any derogatory words while talking to you?

पदाधधकारीह셁िे िपाईसँग आदरभार्व देखाउनुहुन्छ अथर्वा बे쥍दा कु न ै अपमानजनक शब्दको प्रयोग गनुहक ुन्छ 16. Do you feel that NRM leaders respond to your concerns fairly? If yes, give some examples.

िपाईको र्र्वचारमा के NRM का पदाधधकाररिे िपाईको चासो र धचन्िाका र्र्वषयह셁िाई उधचि िररकािे स륍बोधन

गनुहक ुन्छ? यदद हुन्छभने, के दह उदाहरण ददनुहोस।् 17. Can you express your views openly in front of the NRM leaders? If not, why?

के िपाℂ NRM का पदाधधकाररह셁को अगाडड खु쥍िा 셂पमा आफ्नो र्र्वचार 핍यक्ि गन क सक्नुहुन्छ? यदद

सक्नुहुन्न भन े क्रकन?

xxv

End line Evaluation of Hariyo Ban II

Annex V.3: Executive Interview Interview with Executive Members of NRM group

Informed Consent

Hello. My name is ______, (the other member of the team will also introduce him/herself) and I am working for WWF Nepal. We are conducting a survey and would appreciate your participation in this survey. I would like to ask you a few questions about your experiences. You have been asked to participate in this study because your personal views and exercise as executive member is important to us. The discussion usually takes around 15 minutes to complete. Whatever Information you provide will be kept strictly confidential.

Do you know your roles as a NRM leader? If yes, please explain. NRM पदाधधकाररको 셁पमा

िपाईिाई आफ्नो भुममका के हो भन्ने थाहा छ? यदद थाहा छ भने 핍याख्या गनुहक ोस।्

1. Have you ever faced any difficulty performing your roles effectively? If yes, explain. के

िपाईिे कदह쥍यै आफ्नो भूममका प्रभार्वकारी ढंगिे तनर्वाकह गनक कु न ै पतन कदठनाइको सामना गनभुक एको छ? यदद छ

भने, 핍याख्या गनुहक ोस।्

2. What kind of major decisions have you taken as a NRM leader?

NRM पदाधधकाररको हइमसयििे िपाईिे अदहिे स륍म किा – किा मुख्य तनणयक ह셁 मिनु भएको छ?

xxvi

Nepal Development Initiative Consulting Pvt. Ltd.

Shree Durbar Tole, Pulchowk, Lalitpur, Nepal

Disclaimer: This assessment is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the Nepal Development Initiative Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.